Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011.06.07 City Council AgendaCITYOFUNIVERSITYPARK REGULARCITYCOUNCILMEETING LOCATION:CITYHALLCOUNCILCHAMBER AGENDA#2815 JUNE7,2011 CALLTOORDER:5:00P.M. 2:00-3:00P.M.EXECUTIVESESSION:TheCouncilwillconveneintoclosedExecutiveSession underTexasGovernmentCode551.071toreceiveconfidentiallegaladvicefromthe cityattorneyregardingzoningissues.Noactionwillbetaken.ExecutiveConference Room,CityHall. 3:00-4:00P.M.DISCUSS:PublicWorksDirectorBudSmallwoodwilldiscussthestatusoffuture infrastructureimprovementstotheMiracleMileretailarea.CouncilConference Room,SecondFloor,CityHall. 4:00-5:00P.M.WORKSESSIONFORAGENDAREVIEW:CityCouncilConferenceRoom, SecondFloor,CityHall. TOSPEAKONANAGENDAITEM AnyonewishingtoaddresstheCouncilonanyitemmustfilloutagreen“RequesttoSpeak”formand returnittotheCitySecretary.Whencalledforwardby theMayor,beforebeginningtheirremarks,speakers areaskedtogotothepodiumandstatetheirnameandaddressfortherecord. I.CALLTOORDER A.INVOCATION:CityAttorneyRobertL.Dillard,III B.PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE:CityAttorneyRobertL.Dillard,III/BoyScouts C.INTRODUCTIONOFCOUNCIL:MayorW.RichardDavis D.INTRODUCTIONOFSTAFF:CityManagerBobLivingston II.AWARDSANDRECOGNITION A.RECOGNITION:ofFireChiefRandyHowellforrecentdesignationof"ChiefFire Officer"fromtheCenterforPublicSafetyExcellence - Livingston Pg 3 III.CONSENTAGENDA A.CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofanInterlocalCooperationAgreementforJoint ProvisionofaD.A.R.E.OfficerforFY2011 - Adams Pg 4 B.CONSIDERANDACT:onanInterlocalCooperationAgreementforJoint ProvisionofaStudentResourceOfficer(SRO)forFY2011 - Adams Pg 11 C.CONSIDERANDACT:onacontractwithFreese&Nicholstoprovideengineering servicesassociatedwithconductingawaterdistributionsystemevaluation,updatingthe hydraulicmodel,andcorrectingadeficiencyinpumpingoperationsattheGermany Parkboosterpumpingstation - Smallwood Pg 18 D.CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofsettlementinMoorev.CityofDallas regardingMICUbilling - Livingston Pg 28 Page 1 of 154 E.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceapprovingOncorElectricsettlement agreement - Austin Pg 47 F.CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheMay17,2011CityCouncil Meeting - Spector Pg 121 IV.MAINAGENDA A.CONSIDERANDACT:onarequestfromtheRotaryClubofParkCitiesforastatic displayofanArmyApacheHelicopterduringtheJuly4thParadeandPicnic - Bradley Pg 127 B.PUBLICHEARING:onanordinanceamendingSection28-106oftheUniversityPark ComprehensiveZoningOrdinancetopermitgatesandcolumnsuptoeightfeet(8')in heightintheSF-1District - Corder Pg 136 C.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceamendingSection28-106oftheUniversity ParkComprehensiveZoningOrdinancetopermitgatesandcolumnsuptoeightfeet (8')inheightintheSF-1District - Corder Pg 149 D.DISCUSS:arequesttoamendArticle4.800UniversityParkCodeofOrdinances regardingspecialevents - Corder Pg 150 E.CONSIDERANDACT:onproposedscheduleforLegacyHillcrestplanned developmentdistrictzoningapplication - Corder Pg 154 V.PUBLICCOMMENTS AnyonewishingtoaddressanitemnotontheAgendashoulddosoatthistime.Pleasebe advisedthatundertheTexasOpenMeetingsAct,theCouncilcannotdiscussoractatthis meetingonamatterthatisnotlistedontheAgenda.However,inresponsetoaninquiry,a Councilmembermayrespondwithastatementofspecificfactualinformationora recitationofexistingpolicy.ItistheCouncil’spolicytorequestthatcitizens notaddress itemsthatarecurrentlyscheduledforafutureagendaorpublichearing.Instead,theCouncil requeststhatcitizensattendthatspecificmeetingtoexpresstheiropinions,orcommentto theCouncilbye-mailatCity-Council@uptexas.orgorletteraddressedtotheMayorand Councilat3800UniversityBlvd.,UniversityPark,Texas75205.Otherquestionsorprivate commentsfortheCityCouncilorStaffshouldbedirectedtothatindividualimmediately followingthemeeting. AsauthorizedbySection551.071(2)oftheTexasGovernmentCode,thismeetingmaybeconvened intoClosedExecutiveSessionforthepurposeofseekingconfidentiallegaladvicefromtheCity AttorneyonanyAgendaitemslistedherein. Page 2 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM: Bob Livingston, City Manager SUBJECT:RECOGNITION:ofFireChiefRandyHowellforrecentdesignationof"ChiefFire Officer"fromtheCenterforPublicSafetyExcellence BACKGROUND: InMay,FireChiefRandyHowellwasnotifiedthatt heCommissiononProfessionalCredentialing hadvotedunanimouslytoawardhimthedesignation of"ChiefFireOfficer."Grantedthroughthe CenterforPublicSafetyExcellence,ChiefHowelli soneofonly761 CFOdesigneesworldwide.The designationmeansthatChiefHowellhasdemonstrate dthroughhiseducation,leadershipand managementskillsthathepossessestherequisitek nowledge,skills,andabilitiesrequiredforthefi re andemergencyprofession.Focusingonfireandemer gencyserviceagencies,theCenterforPublic SafetyExcellencemirrorstheCommissiononAccredi tationforLawEnforcementAgenciesthathas namedtheUniversityParkPoliceDepartmentafully -accredited"flagshipagency." Page 3 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:GaryW.Adams,ChiefofPolice SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofanInterlocalCooperationAgreement for JointProvisionofaD.A.R.E.OfficerforFY2011 BACKGROUND: UnderthetermsandconditionsofthecurrentInter localCooperationAgreementforJointProvisionof aD.A.R.E.officerintheHighlandParkIndependent SchoolDistrictbetweentheCityofUniversity ParkandtheTownofHighlandPark,bothpartiesar etoreviewtheagreementannuallyforrenewal. Undertheagreement,theestimatedcostsofthepro gram,includingsalaryandbenefitsforthe D.A.R.E.officer,andexcludingmaterials,areshar edbytheCityofUniversityParkandtheTownof HighlandPark,withtheCityofUniversityParkpro vidingfor75%ofsuchestimatedcostsand theTownofHighlandParkprovidingfor25%ofsuch estimatedcosts.TheCitywilladvance andpayallcostsastheyaccrueandtheTownwill reimbursetheCityforits25%shareuponreceipt ofastatementfromtheCityasoutlinedintheInt erlocalCooperationAgreement. RECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendstheCityofUniversityParkenter intoanInterlocalCooperationAgreementwith theTownofHighlandParkinordertocontinuetop rovideaD.A.R.E.officerfortheHighlandPark IndependentSchoolDistrict'smiddleschool. ATTACHMENTS: InterlocalCooperationAgreementforD.A.R.E.Offic er2011/2012 Page 4 of 154 49279 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PROVISION OF POLICE SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 7th day of June 2011, by and between the City of University Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to DV³&,7<´ DFWLQJE\DQGWKURXJKLWV0D\RURUKLVGHVLJQHHDQGWKH7 RZQRI+LJKODQG3DUN 7H[DV KHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³72:1´ and acting by and through its Mayor or his designee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Texas State Legislature has authorized the use of interlocal cooperation agreements between and among governmental entities for the provision of governmental services and functions; and WHEREAS, this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is made under the authority granted by and pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, and as otherwise provided herein, relative to the joint authorization by CITY and TOWN to provide certain police services. WHEREAS, the governing bodies find that the performance of this agreement is in the common public interest of both parties, and that the services provided pursuant hereto benefit the citizens of the CITY and the TOWN; and WHEREAS, the parties, in expending funds in the performance of the governmental functions or in performing such governmental functions under this Agreement, shall make payments therefore only from current revenues legally available to such party; NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: I AGREEMENT A. The CITY and TOWN agree, under the terms and conditions provided herein, and with consent of the Highland Park Independent School District, to share the cost of provision of the police personnel, salary and benefits, equipment and supplies, necessary for presentation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program at the Highland Park Intermediate School/McCulloch Middle School for the 2011-2012 school year. Page 5 of 154 49279 B. The CITY will employ and furnish an appropriately trained and experienced police officer of its Department to conduct the D.A.R.E. program during the term hereof. The total estimated cost for provision of the program during the term of the 2011-2012 school year is $103,553.00. The parties agree that the CITY will pay 75% of the total cost for provision of the program and the TOWN will pay 25% of such cost for the term hereof. The CITY will advance and pay all such cost as it accrues and the TOWN will reimburse the CITY for its 25 % share upon receipt of a statement from the CITY therefor, which statement will be rendered on or before June 30, 2012 and be payable in full on or before August 15, 2012. II GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOWN AND CITY The following subparagraphs shall apply to this Agreement: A. (1) IMMUNITY: Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to affect, alter, or modify the sovereign immunity of either party under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§101.001 et seq. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of its governmental powers and functions. (2) INSURANCE: During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to obtain and maintain, as part of the cost of providing the services described herein, general liability insurance naming TOWN as an additional insured to SURWHFWDJDLQVWSRWHQWLDOFODLPVDULVLQJRXWRIWKH&,7<¶VSURYLVLRQRIWKHVHUYLFH7KH CITY shall furnish TOWN with a certificate of insurance in accordance with this paragraph within sixty (60) days from the date of execution of this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant any third party rights or waive the governmental and/or public purpose of the provision of the police service described in this Agreement. TOWN may also have its own insurance, at its own expense, for any liability for such services, if it so chooses. B. THIRD PARTIES: This Agreement does not create any third-party beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, expand or form a basis for liability to any third party under any theory of law against either the CITY or TOWN unless such a basis exists independent of this Agreement under State or federal law. C. NOTICE: Each notice or other communication which may be or is required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given when delivered personally during the normal business hours of the party to whom such communication is directed, or upon receipt when sent by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the appropriate one of the following addresses as may be designated by the appropriate party; however, each party Page 6 of 154 49279 has a right to designate a different address by giving the other party fifteen (15) days prior written notice of such designation: If to TOWN: Mayor Town of Highland Park If to CITY: Mayor City of University Park D. MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to provide adequate supervision and training of the police officer assigned to provide the DARE program. The CITY shall perform and exercise all rights, duties and functions and services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. E. ACCOUNTABILITY: CITY agrees to furnish upon the request of TOWN copies of reports of daily activity submitted by the police officer assigned as the D.A.R.E. officer. CITY also agrees to furnish upon the request of TOWN any and all aggregate or statistical information created by CITY to document, track, or report activities of the police officer assigned as the D.A.R.E. officer. F. CLAIMS AGAINST PARTIES: Each party shall be responsible for defending and/or disposing of all causes arising against the respective party as a result of this program. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this contract, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of governmental powers and functions. G. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall be for the 2011-2012 school year commencing on the first day of the Fall school term, 2011. H. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and no other oral or written commitments shall have any force or effect if not contained herein. I. SEVERABILITY: In case any one (1) or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision thereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalidity, illegality or unenforceable provision had never been contain herein. Page 7 of 154 49279 J. AUTHORITY: The undersigned officers and/or agents are authorized to execute this contract on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereto certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. III TERMINATION Either party, or the Highland Park Independent School District, may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, by giving prior written notice of the date of termination to the other party, as provided herein. IV REMEDIES No right or remedy granted or reserved to the parties is exclusive of any other right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted; but each shall be cumulative of every other right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without written consent of the parties. Forbearance or indulgence by either party shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. V APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Texas and venue of any action brought to enforce the terms hereof shall lie exclusively in Dallas County, Texas. VI RECITALS The recitals to this Agreement are incorporated herein for all purposes. VII EXECUTION This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. Duplicate originals executed by the parties to be effective on the date first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS Page 8 of 154 49279 By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ City Secretary W. Richard Davis, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK, TEXAS By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ Town Secretary William H. Seay, Town Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ Town Attorney Page 9 of 154 49279 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § City Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared W. Richard Davis known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the City of University Park, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ____ day of __________ 2011. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ 1RWDU\¶V3ULQWHG1DPH THE STATE OF TEXAS § § Town Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared William H. Seay known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the Town of Highland Park, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ____ day of __________ 2011. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ 1RWDU\¶V3ULQWHG1DPH Page 10 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:GaryW.Adams,ChiefofPolice SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanInterlocalCooperationAgreementforJoint ProvisionofaStudentResourceOfficer(SRO)forF Y2011 BACKGROUND: UnderthetermsandconditionsofthecurrentInter localCooperationAgreementforJointProvisionof aSROofficerintheHighlandParkIndependentScho olDistrictbetweentheCityofUniversityPark andtheTownofHighlandPark,bothpartiesareto reviewtheagreementannuallyforrenewal. Undertheagreement,theestimatedcostsofthepro gram,includingsalaryandbenefitsfortheSRO officer,andexcludingmaterials,aresharedbythe CityofUniversityParkandtheTownofHighland Park,withtheCityofUniversityParkprovidingfo r75%ofsuchestimatedcostsandtheTownof HighlandParkprovidingfor25%ofsuchestimatedc osts.TheCitywilladvanceandpayallcostsas theyaccrueandtheTownwillreimbursetheCityfo rits25%shareuponreceiptofastatementfrom theCityasoutlinedintheInterlocalCooperation Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendstheCityofUniversityParkenter intoanInterlocalCooperationAgreementwith theTownofHighlandParkinordertocontinuetop rovideaSROofficerfortheHighlandPark IndependentSchoolDistrict'shighschool. ATTACHMENTS: InterlocalCooperationAgreementforSROOfficer20 11/2012 Page 11 of 154 49280 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PROVISION OF POLICE SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this 7th day of June 2011, by and between the City of University Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), acting by and through its Mayor or his designee, and the Town of Highland Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to as “TOWN”), and acting by and through its Mayor or his designee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Texas State Legislature has authorized the use of interlocal cooperation agreements between and among governmental entities for the provision of governmental services and functions; and WHEREAS, this Interlocal Cooperation Agreement is made under the authority granted by and pursuant to the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 791, and as otherwise provided herein, relative to the joint authorization by CITY and TOWN to provide certain police services. WHEREAS, the governing bodies find that the performance of this agreement is in the common public interest of both parties, and that the services provided pursuant hereto benefit the citizens of the CITY and the TOWN; and WHEREAS, the parties, in expending funds in the performance of the governmental functions or in performing such governmental functions under this Agreement, shall make payments therefore only from current revenues legally available to such party; NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: I AGREEMENT A. The CITY and TOWN agree, under the terms and conditions provided herein, and with consent of the Highland Park Independent School District, to share the cost of provision of the police personnel, salary and benefits, equipment and supplies, necessary for implementation of the School Resource Officer (SRO) program at the Highland Park High School for the 2011-2012 school year. Page 12 of 154 49280 B. The CITY will employ and furnish an appropriately trained and experienced police officer of its Department for the SRO position during the term hereof. The total estimated cost for provision of the program during the current term of this Agreement is $83,019.00, plus incidental expenses such as travel expenses, promotional items, and materials. The parties agree that the CITY will pay 75% of the cost of provision of the program, and the TOWN will pay 25% of such cost for the term hereof. The CITY will advance and pay all such costs as they accrue and the TOWN will reimburse the CITY for its 25 % share upon receipt of a statement from the CITY therefor, which statement will be rendered on or before June 30, 2012 and be payable in full on or before August 15, 2012. II GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO TOWN AND CITY The following subparagraphs shall apply to this Agreement: A. (1) IMMUNITY: Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to affect, alter, or modify the sovereign immunity of either party under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §§101.001 et seq. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of its governmental powers and functions. (2) INSURANCE: During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to obtain and maintain, as part of the cost of providing the services described herein, general liability insurance naming TOWN as an additional insured to protect against potential claims arising out of the CITY’s provision of the service. The CITY shall furnish TOWN with a certificate of insurance in accordance with this paragraph within sixty (60) days from the date of execution of this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to grant any third party rights or waive the governmental and/or public purpose of the provision of the police service described in this Agreement. TOWN may also have its own insurance, at its own expense, for any liability for such services, if it so chooses. B. THIRD PARTIES: This Agreement does not create any third-party beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, expand or form a basis for liability to any third party under any theory of law against either the CITY or TOWN unless such a basis exists independent of this Agreement under State or federal law. C. NOTICE: Each notice or other communication which may be or is required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given when delivered personally during the normal business hours of the party to whom such communication is directed, or upon receipt when sent by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the appropriate one of the Page 13 of 154 49280 following addresses as may be designated by the appropriate party; however, each party has a right to designate a different address by giving the other party fifteen (15) days prior written notice of such designation: If to TOWN: Mayor Town of Highland Park If to CITY: Mayor City of University Park C. MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, CITY agrees to provide adequate supervision and training of the police officer assigned to be the SRO. The CITY shall perform and exercise all rights, duties and functions and services in compliance with all applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations. E. CLAIMS AGAINST PARTIES: Each party shall be responsible for defending and/or disposing of all causes arising against the respective party as a result of this program. It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this contract, neither CITY nor TOWN waives, nor shall be deemed to waive, any immunity or defense that would otherwise be available to each against claims arising in the exercise of governmental powers and functions. F. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall be for the school year commencing on the first day of the fall school term, 2011. G. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto, and no other oral or written commitments shall have any force or effect if not contained herein. H. SEVERABILITY: In case any one (1) or more of the provisions contained herein shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision thereof, and this Agreement shall be construed as if such invalidity, illegality or unenforceable provision had never been contain herein. I. AUTHORITY: The undersigned officers and/or agents are authorized to execute this contract on behalf of the parties hereto, and each party hereto certifies to the other that any necessary resolutions extending such authority have been duly passed and are now in full force and effect. Page 14 of 154 49280 III TERMINATION Either party, or the Highland Park Independent School District, may terminate this Agreement with or without cause, by giving prior written notice of the date of termination to the other party, as provided herein. IV REMEDIES No right or remedy granted or reserved to the parties is exclusive of any other right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted; but each shall be cumulative of every other right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without written consent of the parties. Forbearance or indulgence by either party shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. V APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement is governed by the laws of the State of Texas and venue of any action brought to enforce the terms hereof shall lie exclusively in Dallas County, Texas. VI RECITALS The recitals to this Agreement are incorporated herein for all purposes. VII EXECUTION This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. Duplicate originals executed by the parties to be effective on the date first written above. Page 15 of 154 49280 ATTEST: CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ City Secretary W. Richard Davis, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ City Attorney ATTEST: TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK, TEXAS By: ____________________________________ By: ________________________________ Town Secretary William H. Seay, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _______________________________________ Town Attorney Page 16 of 154 49280 THE STATE OF TEXAS § § City Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared W. Richard Davis known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the City of University Park, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ________ day of _______________ 2011. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ Notary’s Printed Name THE STATE OF TEXAS § § Town Acknowledgment COUNTY OF DALLAS § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared William H. Seay, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of the Town of Highland, a municipal corporation of Dallas County, Texas, and as the Mayor thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein stated. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this the ________ day of ____________ 2011. ____________________________ ____________________________ My Commission Expires: Notary Public In and For The State of Texas ____________________________ Notary’s Printed Name Page 17 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onacontractwithFreese&Nicholstoprovideengi neering servicesassociatedwithconductingawaterdistrib utionsystemevaluation,updating thehydraulicmodel,andcorrectingadeficiencyin pumpingoperationsatthe GermanyParkboosterpumpingstation BACKGROUND: FollowingcompletionoftheGermanyParkboosterpu mpingstation,itisnecessarytoupdatethe hydraulicmodelforthewaterdistributionsystem.Suchmodelsarefrequentlyusedfortheplanning andoperationalmanagementofhydraulicconditions inthenetwork.Theycanbeusedfor determinationofpressures,flows,velocities,and waterqualitychanges.Itispossibletodesignan d evaluatedifferentvariantsandsolutionsandtoop timizetheoperationofthenetwork.Tobe effectivelyused,theCity'smodelneedstobecali bratedwiththenewpumpstoaccuratelyreflect systemconditions.TheFreese&Nicholsfirmhasa nexcellenttrackrecordindevelopingand calibratingwatersystemmodelsforcommunitiesthr oughoutthestate. Staffhasalsoaskedtheconsultanttoreviewtheo perationofthenewpumpingstationutilizingthe recently-completedemergencyconnectiontotheDall asWaterUtilities36"maininMockingbird. Duringthedesignofthepumpingstation,theCity'sconsultantusedinformationprovidedbyDWU thatwasrecentlyproventobeincorrect.Inother words,thedesignerusedaDWUsystemof46psi, whichwenowfindisabout10psilower.Theresul tisaninabilitytooperatethepumpingstation duringemergencysituation(whenDCPCMUDcannotsup plywater)otherthaninamanualmode. Withthiscontract,Freese&Nicholswillevaluate theconditionsandmakerecommendationstoallow automaticoperationduringemergencyconditions. RECOMMENDATION: StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovalofthepropo salintheamountof$46,500fromFreese& NicholsandauthorizetheCityManagertoexecutea contractforthework. FUNDINGSOURCE: AcctNo01.20.3060$25,120 AcctNo01.20.7202$21,380 ATTACHMENTS: F-NPROPOSAL Page 18 of 154 Page 19 of 154 Page 20 of 154 Page 21 of 154 Page 22 of 154 Page 23 of 154 Page 24 of 154 Page 25 of 154 Page 26 of 154 Page 27 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:BobLivingston,CityManager SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofsettlementinMoorev.CityofDalla s regardingMICUbilling BACKGROUND: AnumberofcitiesinnorthTexashavebeeninclude dina"whistleblower"lawsuitfiledbythe UnitedStatesGovernment.Atissuewasthemanner inwhichMICUcallswerebilledtoMedicare andMedicaid.Becauseofthecomplexityofbilling forMICUservices,allofthecitiesinvolvedwere usinganindependentcontractor,SouthwestGeneral Services(SGS),toprovidebillingtovarious insurancecompanies,includingMedicareandMedicai d.Itismyunderstandingthat11ofthe12 citiesnamedinthecomplaintplantosettleinam annersimilartothatproposedfortheCityof UniversityPark.The12thcityisstillevaluating itsoptions.Inourcaseitwillrequireustopa y thegovernment$37,784.99indamages.Thispayment includes$3,100inattorney'sfeesforMr. DouglasMoorewhofiledtheoriginalcomplaintagai nsttheCityofDallas. Thebillingpracticethatwasindisputehasbeenm odifiedbySGS.Additionally,theCityof UniversityParkplanstoemployanoutsideauditor toreviewastatisticallyvalidsampleoftheMICU billseachyearandreportanyerrors.Iftheyocc ur,amoreextensiveauditmaybeperformed. RECOMMENDATION: IrecommendthattheCouncilauthorizeexecutionof theagreementandthepayment. FUNDINGSOURCE: FundingwillbeprovidedbytheCity'sselfinsuran cefund. ATTACHMENTS: MICUAgreement Page 28 of 154 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT I. PARTIES This Settlement Agreement (Agreement) is entered into among the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and on behalf of the Office of Inspector General of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (OIG-HHS) (collectively the “United States”); the Texas Attorney General’s Office and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) (collectively “Texas”); Douglas Moore (Relator); and the City of University Park (University Park) (hereafter referred to as “the Parties”), through their authorized representatives. II. RECITALS As a preamble to this Agreement, the Parties agree to the following: A.University Park is a home-rule Texas municipal corporation with principal offices located in Dallas County, Texas. At all times relevant to this Agreement, University Park offered a 911-dispatch service for emergency ambulance transportation to persons within the city-limits. At all times relevant to this Agreement, 911 transports were staffed by paramedics within its fire department. At all times relevant to this Agreement, University Park contracted with Southwest General Services of Dallas L.L.C. (SWGS) to appropriately code ambulance services and submit bill claims for reimbursement to various payors, including federal health care programs in compliance with the law. At all times relevant to this Agreement, SWGS coded certain 911- dispatched ambulance transports at the advance life support (ALS) level, regardless of Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 1 Page 29 of 154 patient condition at the time of transport or whether any ALS-type service was rendered. At all times relevant to this Agreement, University Park’s Medicare fiscal intermediary was Trailblazer Health Enterprises, LLC, and its Medicare provider number was 50-****. At all relevant times, University Park’s Texas Medicaid contractor was Texas Medicaid Healthcare Partnership, and its Medicaid provider number was *******-01. At all times relevant to this Agreement, University Park participated in and caused SWGS to submit claims on behalf of University Park to the Medicare Program (Medicare), Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395-1395kkk-1, and Texas Medicaid Program (Medicaid), Chapter 32 of the Texas Human Resources Code. B.Relator Douglas Moore is a resident of Texas. On April 7, 2011, Relator filed an amended qui tam suit against numerous municipalities, including University Park, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas captioned United States ex rel. Moore v. City of Addison, et al.; No. 3:10-cv-0233-O (Civil Action). The Civil Action alleges that since at least January 1, 2006, until present, University Park and SWGS knowingly defrauded the Medicare and Texas Medicaid programs by billing for ALS ambulance services for city-dispatched 911 calls, regardless of whether the patient’s medical condition justified the ALS claim, or whether an ALS service was furnished. Relator alleges that in certain cases the service should have been appropriately coded at the basic life support (BLS) level, which is reimbursed at a lower rate by both Medicare and Medicaid. The Civil Action alleges that both University Park Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 2 Page 30 of 154 and SWGS defrauded those programs by systematically seeking and being paid for upcoded ambulance transports. C. The United States and Texas contend that they have certain civil claims against University Park for knowingly defrauding the Medicare and Texas Medicaid programs by causing the submission of false claims for certain ambulance transports between January 1, 2008, and May 31, 2010. The United States and Texas contend University Park failed to adequately supervise SWGS’ coding and submission of ALS claims to the Medicare and Texas Medicaid programs. The United States and Texas contend that University Park, as a result, caused fraudulent claims submitted to both programs to be improperly coded as ALS, which indicate that an ALS-type service was furnished by the paramedics, and/or that the patient’s condition necessitated an ALS intervention. The United States and Texas thus believe that University Park between January 1, 2008, and May 31, 2010, caused to be submitted for payment claims falsely representing to Medicare and Texas Medicaid that ALS services were appropriate and furnished by University Park personnel when in fact no ALS-service was rendered and/or the patient did not require an ALS transport. All of the conduct described in this Paragraph II.C. is hereinafter referred to as the “Covered Conduct.” D.This Agreement is neither an admission of liability by University Park nor a concession by the United States and Texas that their claims are not well founded. Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 3 Page 31 of 154 E.Relator claims entitlement under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) to a share of the proceeds of this Settlement Agreement and to Relator’s reasonable expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs. To avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation of the above claims, and in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties reach a full and final settlement pursuant to the Terms and Conditions below. III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1.University Park agrees to pay to the United States and Texas $34,684.99 (Settlement Amount) by electronic funds transfer pursuant to written instructions to be provided by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas no later than the Effective Date of this Agreement. 2.Conditioned upon the United States receiving the Settlement Amount from University Park and as soon as feasible after receipt, the United States and Texas agree to pay a share to Relator by electronic funds transfer pursuant to written instructions to be provided by Relator. 3.University Park further agrees to pay Relator $3,100.00 for attorneys fees, expenses, and other costs (Relator’s Costs) no later than three days after the effective date. University Park agrees to pay the Relator’s Costs by electronic funds transfer pursuant to written instructions to be provided by Relator. Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 4 Page 32 of 154 4.Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning excluded claims) below, and conditioned upon University Park’s full payment of the Settlement Amount, the United States (on behalf of itself, its officers, agents, agencies, and departments) agrees to release University Park from any civil or administrative monetary claim the United States has or may have under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733; the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3812; the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a, or the common law theories of payment by mistake, unjust enrichment, and fraud, for the Covered Conduct only. 5.Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning excluded claims) below, and conditioned upon University Park’s full payment of the Settlement Amount, Texas (on behalf of itself, its officers, agents, agencies, and departments) releases University Park from any civil or administrative claim, monetary or otherwise, including, but not limited to, claims for suspension or revocation of University Park’s provider agreement, recovery of fees, expenses, or attorney’s fees incurred by the Texas Attorney General or the HHSC in investigating the Covered Conduct, or other administrative remedies Texas may have for the Covered Conduct under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.001 et seq.; or common law theories of payment by mistake, unjust enrichment, fraud, or in equity, for the Covered Conduct only. 6.Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 below, and conditioned upon University Park’s full payment of the Settlement Amount and Relator’s Costs, Relator, Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 5 Page 33 of 154 for himself and for his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns, agrees to release University Park from any civil monetary claim the Relator has on behalf of the United States and Texas for the Covered Conduct under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.001 et seq. 7.OIG-HHS expressly reserves all rights to institute, direct, or to maintain any administrative action seeking exclusion against University Park from Medicare, Medicaid, and all other Federal health care programs (as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1320a- 7b(f)) under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a) (mandatory exclusion), or 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b) or 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b (permissive exclusion). 8.HHSC expressly reserves all rights to comply with any statutory obligations to exclude University Park from Medicaid, under Chapter 32 and/or Chapter 36 of the Texas Human Resources Code and Chapter 531 of the Texas Government Code, based upon the Covered Conduct. Nothing in this Paragraph precludes the HHSC from taking action against entities or persons, or for conduct and practices, for which claims have been reserved in Paragraph 9 below. 9.Notwithstanding the releases given in Paragraphs III.4 - 6. of this Agreement, or any other term of this Agreement, the following claims of the United States and Texas are specifically reserved and are not released: a.Any liability arising under Title 26, U.S. Code (Internal Revenue Code); Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 6 Page 34 of 154 b.Any criminal liability; c.Except as explicitly stated in this Agreement, any administrative liability, including mandatory exclusion from Federal health care programs or debarment; d. Any liability to the United States, Texas, (or their agencies) for any conduct other than the Covered Conduct; e. Any liability based upon such obligations as are created by this Agreement; f. Any liability for express or implied warranty claims or other claims for defective or deficient products or services, including quality of goods and services; g. Any liability for failure to deliver goods or services due; h. Any liability for personal injury or property damage or for other consequential damages arising from the Covered Conduct; and i.Except as explicitly stated in this Agreement, any liability of individuals, including officers and employees. 10.Relator and his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns agree not to object to this Agreement and agree and confirm that this Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all circumstances, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(B). Conditioned upon Relator’s receipt of the payment described in Paragraph 2, Relator, for himself individually, and for his heirs, successors, agents and assigns, fully and finally releases, Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 7 Page 35 of 154 waives, and forever discharges the United States and Texas, their officers, agents, and employees, from any claims arising from or relating to 31 U.S.C. § 3730, and from any claims to a share of the proceeds of this Agreement and/or Civil Action as to University Park only. 11. Conditioned upon University Park’s full payment of the Settlement Amount and Relator’s Costs, Relator, for himself, and for his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns, releases University Park and its officials, officers, agents, and employees, from any liability to Relator arising from the filing of the Civil Action, or under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) for Relator’s Costs or the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.001 et seq. Nothing contained herein shall release SWGS or any other defendant from any claims Relator, his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns, or the United States or Texas have or may have against SWGS and/or any other defendant under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733, and the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act, Tex. Hum. Res. Code Ann. § 36.001 et seq. 12.University Park waives and shall not assert any defense University Park may have to any criminal prosecution or administrative action relating to the Covered Conduct, that may be based in whole or in part on a contention that, under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, or under the Excessive Fines Clause in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, this Agreement bars a remedy sought in such criminal prosecution or administrative action. University Park reserves all other defenses regarding such a criminal prosecution or administrative action. Nothing in Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 8 Page 36 of 154 this Paragraph or any other provision of this Agreement constitutes an agreement by the United States or Texas concerning the characterization of the Settlement Amount for purposes of the Internal Revenue laws, Title 26 of the United States Code. 13. University Park fully and finally releases the United States, Texas, and their agencies, employees, servants, and agents from any claims (including attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of every kind and however denominated) which they have asserted, could have asserted, or may assert in the future against the United States, Texas, or their agencies, employees, servants, and agents, related to the Covered Conduct and the United States’ or Texas’ investigation and prosecution thereof. 14.University Park fully and finally releases the Relator and his heirs successors, attorneys, assigns, and agents from any claims (including attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses of every kind and however denominated) which they have asserted, could have asserted, or may assert in the future against Relator related to the Covered Conduct and his investigation and prosecution thereof, or the filing of the Civil Action. 15.Relator, for himself, and his heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns, releases University Park from any liability to Relator arising from the filing of the Civil Action, or under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), for expenses or attorney’s fees and costs, conditioned upon receipt of the payments describe in Paragraph 3. 16.The Settlement Amount shall not be decreased as a result of the denial of claims for payment now being withheld from payment by any Medicare carrier or intermediary, or any state payer, related to the Covered Conduct; and University Park Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 9 Page 37 of 154 agrees not to resubmit to any Medicare carrier or intermediary or contractor or any state payer any previously denied claims related to the Covered Conduct, and agrees not to appeal any such denials of claims. 17.University Park agrees to the following: a. Unallowable Costs Defined: that all costs (as defined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47, and in Titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395-1395kkk and 1396-1396w-5, and the regulations and official program directives promulgated thereunder) incurred by or on behalf of University Park in connection with the following shall be “unallowable costs” on government contracts and under the Medicare Program, Medicaid Program, Tricare Program, and FEHBP: (1) the matters covered by this Agreement, (2) the United States’ or Texas’ audit(s) and civil investigation(s) of the matters covered by this Agreement, (3) University Park’s investigation, defense, and corrective actions undertaken in response to the United States’ audit(s) and civil investigation(s) in connection with the matters covered by this Agreement (including attorney's fees), (4) the negotiation and performance of this Agreement, and (5) the payments University Park makes to the United States, Texas or Relator pursuant to this Agreement. Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 10 Page 38 of 154 All costs described or set forth in this Paragraph 17.a. are hereafter, “unallowable costs.” b.Future Treatment of Unallowable Costs: These unallowable costs shall be separately determined and accounted for in non-reimbursable cost centers by University Park and University Park shall not charge such unallowable costs directly or indirectly to any contracts with the United States, Texas or any state Medicaid program, or seek payment for such unallowable costs through any cost report, cost statement, information statement, or payment request submitted by University Park to the Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, or FEHBP Programs. c.Treatment of Unallowable Costs Previously Submitted for Payment: If applicable, University Park further agrees that within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, University Park shall identify to applicable Medicare and Tricare fiscal intermediaries, carriers, and/or contractors, and Medicaid, VA, and FEHBP fiscal agents, any unallowable costs (as defined in this Paragraph) included in payments previously sought from the United States, Texas or any state Medicaid Program, including, but not limited to, payments sought in any cost reports, cost statements, information reports, or payment requests already submitted by University Park and shall request, and agree, that such cost reports, cost statements, information reports, or payment requests, even if already settled, be adjusted to account for the effect of the inclusion of the unallowable costs. University Park agrees that the United States and Texas, at a minimum, shall be entitled to recoup from University Park any overpayment plus applicable interest and penalties as a result of the inclusion of such unallowable costs on previously-submitted Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 11 Page 39 of 154 cost reports, information reports, cost statements, or requests for payment. Any payments due after the adjustments have been made shall be paid to the United States and Texas pursuant to the direction of the Department of Justice, and/or the affected agencies. The United States and Texas reserve their right to disagree with any calculations submitted by University Park on the effect of inclusion of unallowable costs (as defined in this Paragraph) on University Park’s cost reports, cost statements, or information reports. d. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the rights of the United States or Texas to audit, examine, or re-examine University Park’s books and records to determine that no unallowable costs have been claimed in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph. 18.This Agreement is intended to be for the benefit of the Parties, only. The Parties do not release any claims against any other person or entity, except to the extent provided for in Paragraph 19 (waiver of beneficiaries paragraph) below. 19.University Park waives and shall not seek payment for any of the health care billings covered by this Agreement from any health care beneficiaries or their parents, sponsors, legally responsible individuals, or third party payors based upon the claims defined as Covered Conduct. 20.University Park warrants that it has reviewed its financial situation and that it is currently solvent within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. §§ 547(b)(3) and 548(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I), and shall remain solvent following payment to the United States and Texas of the Settlement Amount. Further, the Parties warrant that, in evaluating whether Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 12 Page 40 of 154 to execute this Agreement, they: (a) have intended that the mutual promises, covenants, and obligations set forth constitute a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to University Park within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(1); and (b) conclude that these mutual promises, covenants, and obligations do, in fact, constitute such a contemporaneous exchange. Further, the Parties warrant that the mutual promises, covenants, and obligations set forth herein are intended to and do, in fact, represent a reasonably equivalent exchange of value which is not intended to hinder, delay, or defraud any entity to which University Park was or became indebted to on or after the date of this transfer, within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1). 21.Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this Agreement, each Party shall bear its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this matter, including the preparation and performance of this Agreement. 22. Each party and signatory to this Agreement represents that this Agreement is freely and voluntarily entered into without any degree of duress or compulsion whatsoever. 23. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States. The Parties agree that the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any dispute arising between and among the Parties under this Agreement shall be the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. 24.This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties. This Agreement may not be amended except by written consent of the Parties. Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 13 Page 41 of 154 25.Upon receipt of the payment described in Paragraphs III.1. and .3, above, the United States, Texas, and Relator shall promptly sign and file in the Civil Action a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with prejudice of the Civil Action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). 26.The individuals signing this Agreement on behalf of University Park represent and warrant that they are authorized by University Park to execute this Agreement in their official capacities. The individuals signing this Agreement on behalf of Relator represent and warrant that they are authorized by Relator to execute this Agreement. The United States and Texas signatories represent that they are signing this Agreement in their official capacities and that they are authorized to execute this Agreement. 27.This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which constitutes an original and all of which constitute one and the same Agreement. 28.This Agreement is binding on University Park’s successors, transferees, and assigns. 29.This Agreement is binding on Relator’s successors, transferees, heirs, and assigns 30. All Parties consent to the United States’, Texas’, Relator’s and University Park’s disclosure of this Agreement, and information about this Agreement, to the public. Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 14 Page 42 of 154 31. This Agreement is effective on the date of signature of the last signatory to the Agreement (“Effective Date” of this Agreement). Facsimiles of signatures shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this Agreement. ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DATED: BY:_____________________________ Sean R. McKenna Assistant United States Attorney Northern District of Texas DATED: BY:______________________________ Gregory E. Demske Assistant Inspector General for Legal Affairs Office of Counsel to the Inspector General Office of Inspector General U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 15 Page 43 of 154 ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF TEXAS DATED: BY: _____________________________ Ray Winter Office of the Attorney General of Texas DATED: BY: _____________________________ Thomas Suehs Executive Commissioner Health and Human Services Commission Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 16 Page 44 of 154 ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK DATED: BY: ______________________________ DATED: BY: _____________________________________ Robert L. Dillard, Esq. (as to form only) Attorney for the City of University Park Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 17 Page 45 of 154 DOUGLAS MOORE - RELATOR DATED: BY:____________________________ Douglas Moore Relator DATED: BY:_____________________________ Dave Haron, Esq. (as to form only) Frank, Haron, Weiner & Navarro Counsel for Relator Settlement Agreement Between the United States of America, State of Texas, Douglas Moore, and the City of University Park - Page 18 Page 46 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:KentAustin,DirectorofFinance SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceapprovingOncorElectricsettlement agreement BACKGROUND: AtitsJanuary18,2011meeting,theCityCouncila pprovedaresolutionsuspendinga$353million rateincreaserequestfromOncorElectricDelivery.ThisallowedUniversityParktojoin159other citiesintheSteeringCommitteeofCitiesServedb yOncortoreviewandchallengetherequest. TheExecutiveCommitteeoftheSteeringCommittee,withtheadviceandinputoftheSteering Committeeconsultantsandlawyers,hasworkedtore solveOncor’spendingrequestwithouttheneed foraprotractedandcostlycontestedcaseproceedi ng.Approvalofthenegotiatedagreementoccurs throughCityCouncilpassageofarateordinance,w hichinturndescribestheresultingratesintarif f format. Theattachedtariffsreflectratesthatwillincrea seOncor’srevenuesby$136.7million.Thenegotiated resultreducesOncor’srequestedrateincreasebym orethan60%.Themonthlybillimpactforan averageresidentialcustomerwillbe$2.35.Thera tetariffswillbeimplementedintwophases, presentedasAttachmentAforthetariffseffective 7/1/2011andAttachmentBforthetariffseffectiv e 1/1/2012. TheSteeringCommitteerecommendsapprovalofthen egotiatedresolutionbecauseitrepresentsan outcomethatisequaltoorbetterthantheoutcome expectedfromacontestedcaseproceeding,and maintainscities’rolesasregulatorsofelectricr ates.Theattachedmodelstaffreport,preparedby the SteeringCommittee'slegalcounsel(LloydGosselink Rochelle&Townsend,P.C.)providesmore detail. RECOMMENDATION: Citystaffrecommendsapprovaloftheordinanceapp rovingthesettlementagreementbetweenOncor andtheSteeringCommitteeofCitiesServedbyOnco r. ATTACHMENTS: Modelstaffreport--Oncorsettlementagreement Ordinanceapprovingsettlementagreement AttachmentA--TariffeffectiveJuly1,2011 AttachmentB--TariffeffectiveJanuary1,2012 AttachmentC--SettlementAgreement Page 47 of 154 Oncor Settlement Ordinance Staff Report 1 MODEL STAFF REPORT The City, along with approximately 160 other cities served by Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (“Oncor” or “Company”), is a member of the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor (“Steering Committee”). On or about January 7, 2011, Oncor filed with the City an application to increase electric rates. The Oncor filing sought a $353 million rate increase. The City worked with the Steering Committee to analyze the schedules and evidence offered by Oncor to support its request to increase rates. The Ordinance and attached rate and tariffs are the result of negotiations between the Steering Committee and the Company to resolve issues raised by the Steering Committee and other intervenors during the review and evaluation of the filing. The Ordinance resolves the Company’s filing by authorizing an increase in the Company’s base rate of $136.7 million. The monthly bill impact for the average residential customer will be a $2.35 increase (as opposed to the $5.00 per bill increase as proposed in the Company’s filing). The Executive Committee of the Steering Committee and the Steering Committee’s legal counsel recommend that all city members of the Steering Committee adopt the Ordinance implementing the rate change. Background: The tariff was approved by the Executive Committee of the Steering Committee as part of the settlement agreement to resolve the Oncor rate filing at the Public Utility Commission of Texas. As stated above, the agreement reduces Oncor’s request for a $353 million increase to $136.7 million. The agreement does not change the current authorized capitalization of 60% debt and 40% equity and return on equity of 10.25% from Oncor’s last rate proceeding. Also, the settlement results in a system-wide rate increase of 6.1%. Residential customers will see an increase of 6.2%, much lower than Oncor’s requested 14.6% increase. Street lighting rates will increase 13.8%, which is also lower than Oncor’s requested increase of 25.9%. Oncor has agreed that it will not file another general base rate case prior to July 1, 2013. However, as cities are regulatory authorities, cities may still initiate a rate case prior to that date. Additionally, consistent with the District Court’s reversal of the Commission’s decision relating to municipal franchise fees in Docket No. 35717, Oncor will increase franchise fees to the contractually agreed to amounts within 60 days of the final order, or July 1, 2011, whichever is later. Additionally, Oncor will pay cities retroactive franchise fees from the date the rates approved in Oncor’s prior rate case, Docket No. 35717, went into effect. Oncor will also pay cities’ rate case expenses and recover those amounts over three years with no carrying charges. Finally, at its own expense, the Company will reinstate Rider SCUD, which provides for a 20% discount for institutions of higher learning. Page 48 of 154 Oncor Settlement Ordinance Staff Report 2 Purpose of the Ordinance: Rates cannot change and the Settlement Agreement with Oncor cannot be implemented without passage of rate ordinances by cities. The purpose of the Ordinance is to approve rate tariffs (“Attachment A” and “Attachment B”) that reflect the negotiated rate changes pursuant to the process and to ratify a Settlement Agreement recommended by the Steering Committee. As a result of the negotiations, the Steering Committee was able to reduce the Company’s requested $353 million increase to $13.6 million (a decrease of over 60% of the Company’s request). Approval of the Ordinance will result in the implementation of new rates that increase Oncor’s revenues in two phases: by $93.7 million effective July 1, 2011 (i.e. “Attachment A”) and by $43 million effective January 1, 2012 (“Attachment B”). Reasons Justifying Approval of the Negotiated Resolution: During the time that the City has retained original jurisdiction in this case, consultants working on behalf of the Steering Committee have investigated the support for the Company’s requested rate increase. While the evidence does not support the $353 million increase requested by the Company, the Steering Committee consultants agree that the Company can justify an increase in revenues of $136.7 million. The agreement on $136.7 million is a compromise between the positions of the parties. The alternative to a settlement of the filing would be a contested case proceeding before the Public Utility Commission of Texas on the Company’s current application, would take several months and cost ratepayers millions of dollars in rate case expenses, and would not likely produce a result more favorable than that to be produced by the settlement. The Executive Committee and counsel for the Steering Committee recommend that Steering Committee member cities take action to approve the Ordinance authorizing new rate tariffs. Explanation of “Be It Ordained” Paragraphs: 1. This paragraph approves all findings in the Ordinance. 2. This section adopts the attached tariffs (“Attachment A”) in all respects and finds the rates set pursuant to the attached tariffs to be just, reasonable and in the public interest. 3. This section requires the Company to reimburse the Steering Committee for reasonable rate making costs associated with reviewing and processing the application. 4. This section repeals any resolution or ordinance that is inconsistent with this Ordinance. 6. This section finds that the meeting was conducted in compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. 7. This section is a savings clause, which provides that if any section(s) is later found to be unconstitutional or invalid, that finding shall not affect, impair or invalidate the Page 49 of 154 Oncor Settlement Ordinance Staff Report 3 remaining provisions of this Ordinance. This section further directs that the remaining provisions of the Ordinance are to be interpreted as if the offending section or clause never existed. 8. This section is a “Most Favored Nations” clause, which protects the City by mandating that if the City determines any rates, revenues, terms and conditions, or benefits resulting from a Final Order or subsequent negotiated settlement approved in any proceeding addressing the issues raised in the Company’s filing would be more beneficial to the City than the terms of the attached tariffs, then the more favorable rates, revenues, terms and conditions, or benefits shall additionally accrue to the City. 9. This section provides for an effective dates upon passage. Approval of the Ordinance will result in the implementation of new rates that increase Oncor’s revenues in two phases: by $93.7 million effective July 1, 2011 (i.e. “Attachment A”) and by $43 million effective January 1, 2012 (“Attachment B”). 10. This paragraph directs that a copy of the signed Ordinance be sent to a representative of the Company and legal counsel for the Steering Committee. Page 50 of 154 Oncor 2011 Rate Increase Ordinance 1 ORDINANCE NO. ______________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, (“CITY”) APPROVING A NEGOTIATED RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF CITIES SERVED BY ONCOR (“STEERING COMMITTEE”) AND ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC (“ONCOR” OR “COMPANY”) REGARDING THE COMPANY’S APPLICATION TO INCREASE ELECTRIC RATES IN ALL CITIES EXERCISING ORIGINAL JURISDICTION; DECLARING EXISTING RATES TO BE UNREASONABLE; REQUIRING THE COMPANY TO REIMBURSE CITIES’ REASONABLE RATEMAKING EXPENSES; ADOPTING TARIFFS THAT REFLECT RATE ADJUSTMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT AND FINDING THE RATES TO BE SET BY THE ATTACHED TARIFFS TO BE JUST AND REASONABLE; APPROVING ONCOR’S PROOF OF REVENUES; ADOPTING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; DETERMINING THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT; DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND REQUIRING DELIVERY OF THIS ORDINANCE TO THE COMPANY AND THE STEERING COMMITTEE’S LEGAL COUNSEL. WHEREAS, the City of University Park, Texas (“City”) is an electric utility customer of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC (“Oncor” or “ Company”), and a regulatory authority with an interest in the rates and charges of Oncor; and WHEREAS, the City is a member of the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor (“Steering Committee”), a coalition of approximately 160 similarly situated cities served by Oncor that have joined together to facilitate the review of and response to electric issues affecting rates charged in the Oncor service area; and WHEREAS, on or about January 7, 2011, Oncor filed with the City its application to increase electric base rates by approximately $353 million, such increase to be effective in every municipality within Oncor’s service territory; and Page 51 of 154 Oncor 2011 Rate Increase Ordinance 2 WHEREAS, the Steering Committee coordinated their review of Oncor’s filing by designating an Executive Committee made up of Steering Committee representatives, assisted by Steering Committee attorneys and consultants, to resolve issues identified by the Steering Committee in the Company’s filing; and WHEREAS, the Company has filed evidence that existing rates are unreasonable and should be changed; and WHEREAS, independent analysis by the Steering Committee’s rate experts concluded that Oncor is able to justify an increase over current rates of $136.7 million; and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee has entered a Settlement Agreement with Oncor to increase base rate revenues by $136.7 million; and WHEREAS, the Executive Committee of the Steering Committee, and the Steering Committee’s lawyers and consultants recommend that Steering Committee members approve the attached rate tariffs (“Attachment A” to this Ordinance), which will increase the Company’s revenue requirement by $136.7 million; and WHEREAS, the attached tariffs implementing new rates are consistent with the negotiated resolution reached by the Steering Committee and are just, reasonable, and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the parties that if the City determines any rates, revenues, terms and conditions, or benefits resulting from a Final Order or subsequent negotiated settlement approved in any proceeding addressing the issues raised in the Company’s filing would be more beneficial to the City than the terms of the attached tariff, then the more favorable rates, revenues, terms and conditions, or benefits shall additionally accrue to the City; and Page 52 of 154 Oncor 2011 Rate Increase Ordinance 3 WHEREAS, the negotiated resolution of the Company’s filing and the resulting rates are, as a whole, in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: Section 1. That the findings set forth in this Ordinance are hereby in all things approved. Section 2. That the City Council finds the existing rates for electric service provided by Oncor are unreasonable and new tariffs, which are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Attachment A, are just and reasonable and are hereby adopted. Section 3. That Oncor shall reimburse the reasonable ratemaking expenses of the Steering Committee in processing the Company’s rate application. Section 4. That to the extent any resolution or ordinance previously adopted by the Council is inconsistent with this Ordinance, it is hereby repealed. Section 5. That the meeting at which this Ordinance was approved was in all things conducted in strict compliance with the Texas Open Meetings Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 551. Section 7. That if any one or more sections or clauses of this Ordinance is adjudged to be unconstitutional or invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remaining provisions of this Ordinance and the remaining provisions of the Ordinance shall be interpreted as if the offending section or clause never existed. Section 8. That if the City determines any rates, revenues, terms and conditions, or benefits resulting from a Final Order or subsequent negotiated settlement approved in any proceeding addressing the issues raised in the Company’s filing would be more beneficial to the Page 53 of 154 Oncor 2011 Rate Increase Ordinance 4 City than the terms of the attached tariff, then the more favorable rates, revenues, terms and conditions, or benefits shall additionally accrue to the City. Section 9. That this Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage with rates authorized by attached Tariffs to be effective in two phases. Phase one tariffs (attached to this Ordinance as “Attachment A”), increasing Oncor’s revenues by $93.7 million, are effective for bills rendered on or after July 1, 2011. Phase two tariffs (attached to this Ordinance as “Attachment B”), increasing Oncor’s revenues by $43 million, are effective for bills rendered on or after January 1, 2012. Section 10. That a copy of this Ordinance shall be sent to Oncor, care of Autry Warren, Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC, 1601 Bryan St., 23rd Floor, Dallas, Texas 75201 and to Thomas Brocato, at Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., P.O. Box 1725, Austin, Texas 78767-1725. PASSED AND APPROVED this 7th day of June, 2011. _________________________________ W. Richard Davis, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________ Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________________ Robert L. Dillard, III, City Attorney Page 54 of 154 Page 55 of 154 Page 56 of 154 Page 57 of 154 Page 58 of 154 Page 59 of 154 Page 60 of 154 Page 61 of 154 Page 62 of 154 Page 63 of 154 Page 64 of 154 Page 65 of 154 Page 66 of 154 Page 67 of 154 Page 68 of 154 Page 69 of 154 Page 70 of 154 Page 71 of 154 Page 72 of 154 Page 73 of 154 Page 74 of 154 Page 75 of 154 Page 76 of 154 Page 77 of 154 Page 78 of 154 Page 79 of 154 Page 80 of 154 Page 81 of 154 Page 82 of 154 Page 83 of 154 Page 84 of 154 Page 85 of 154 Page 86 of 154 Page 87 of 154 Page 88 of 154 Page 89 of 154 Page 90 of 154 Page 91 of 154 Page 92 of 154 Page 93 of 154 Page 94 of 154 Page 95 of 154 Page 96 of 154 Page 97 of 154 Page 98 of 154 Page 99 of 154 Page 100 of 154 Page 101 of 154 Page 102 of 154 Page 103 of 154 Page 104 of 154 Page 105 of 154 Page 106 of 154 Page 107 of 154 Page 108 of 154 Page 109 of 154 Page 110 of 154 Page 111 of 154 Page 112 of 154 Page 113 of 154 Page 114 of 154 Page 115 of 154 Page 116 of 154 Page 117 of 154 Page 118 of 154 Page 119 of 154 Page 120 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:LizSpector SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheMay17,2011CityCou ncil Meeting BACKGROUND: MinutesoftheMay17,2011CityCouncilMeetingar eattachedfortheCouncil'sreview. ATTACHMENTS: 2011.05.17MeetingMinutes Page 121 of 154 MINUTES AGENDA #2814 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2011, 5:00 P.M. 3:00 - 3:36 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION THE COUNCIL CONVENED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER TGC 551.071 TO RECEIVE ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING AN OFFER TO SETTLE IN THE CASE OF MOORE V. CITY OF DALLAS, ET AL. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL. 3:45 - 4:00 P.M. DISCUSS PRESTON CENTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ALLOWANCE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE A WAIVER FOR EXTENDED CONSTRUCTION HOURS. COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, SECOND FLOOR, CITY HALL 4:00 - 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW. COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM, SECOND FLOOR, CITY HALL The Regular City Council Meeting was called into session at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall. Present were Councilmember Stewart, Mayor Pro Tem Grable, Mayor Davis, Councilmember Clark, and Councilmember Begert. Also in attendance were City Manager Livingston, and City Attorney Dillard. City Manager Livingston introduced staff in attendance as Information Services Director Jim Criswell, Police Chief Gary Adams, Public Works Director Bud Smallwood, City Secretary Liz Spector, Finance Director Kent Austin, Administrative Assistant George Ertle, Community Development Director Robbie Corder, Human Resources Director Luanne Hanford, Assistant Public Works Director Jacob Speer, Fire Chief Randy Howell and Community Information Officer Steve Mace. Mayor Davis asked the Boy Scout in attendance to come to the lectern. He introduced himself as Casey Evans, from Troop 68. Casey stated he was working on his Citizenship in the Community merit badge. Mayor Davis thanked him for attending the meeting. I. CALL TO ORDER A. INVOCATION: Director of Community Development Robbie Corder B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Director of Community Development Robbie Corder / Boy Scouts C. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL: Mayor W. Richard Davis D. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: City Manager Bob Livingston II. CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDER AND ACT: on approval of an interlocal agreement with the City of Dallas Page 122 of 154 This item approves an interlocal agreement with the City of Dallas which authorizes the City of University Park to utilize the Dallas transfer stations and landfill as necessary at the prevailing rates. City Manager Livingston summarized the Consent Agenda items. He stated that any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda for individual consideration if requested. There were no requests to remove any of the items and Mayor Davis asked for a motion. Councilmember Clark made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Stewart seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Community Information Officer Steve Mace addressed the council. He briefly summarized the Youth Advisory Commission and its activities and asked the Chairman of the group to provide specifics for the Council. The outgoing chair, Highland Park High School senior Kelly Brooks came to the lectern. Ms. Brooks detailed some of the past year’s activities. Ms. Brooks said she became a member of the commission as a freshman in its inaugural year, 2008/09. She stated this year the group assisted in making repairs to an elderly widow’s home that had fallen into disrepair. She said several members of the commission scraped and repainted the home’s exterior. She also mentioned the Public Service Announcement they filmed to promote the document shredding event held by the city. Ms. Brooks said she and other YAC members also participated in a library focus group conducted by the designers of the city’s new library. She said they were asked to come up with ideas to help plan a teen-friendly public library. She also mentioned the group’s assistance with annual events such as the holiday tree lighting, the fishing derby, eggstravaganza egg-stuffing, and the July 4 Fun Run. Ms. Brooks said the group hoped to continue working on sustainability issues and other code sweep assistance needs. She thanked the Council for encouraging the Youth Advisory Commission's activities and said they would be happy to help with any other duties the Council may assign. Mayor Davis thanked Ms. Brooks and all the members of the Youth Advisory Commission for their service to the city. No action was taken on this item and it will be continued to the next meeting. for the temporary use of Dallas’transfer stations and landfill in the case of emergencies B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on approval of minutes of the May 3, 2011 City Council Meeting III. MAIN AGENDA A. PRESENTATION: of Youth Advisory Council Report on 2010/2011 Activities B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on request from the Rotary Club of Park Cities for a static display of an Army Apache Helicopter at Goar Park during the July 4 parade / picnic Page 123 of 154 Mr. Art Anderson, representing the applicant, addressed the Council. He asked the Council to arrive at a mutually agreeable plan for redevelopment that will reflect both parties’ interests. Mayor Davis reminded Mr. Anderson that the issue on the table was to decide if city staff should proceed with obtaining an appraisal of certain rights-of-way. He said the decision on the abandonment would come at a later time. Mayor Pro Tem Grable made a motion to authorize the public works director to obtain an appraisal of the alley between the two Legacy Hillcrest properties between Daniel and Hillcrest with said appraisal to be paid for by Legacy Hillcrest. He withdrew his motion before the vote because Mayor Davis stated that since the item was tabled at the previous meeting, a motion should be made to put the item back on the table prior to making a motion for the appraisal. Mayor Pro Tem Grable made a motion to place consideration of the request back on the table and to provide authorization for the public works director to obtain an appraisal of the alley between the two Legacy Hillcrest properties between Daniel and Hillcrest with said appraisal to be paid for by the applicant. Councilmember Stewart seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. City Manager Livingston summarized the item. He said that during the work session, staff discussed how several owners of properties with significant grade changes requiring retaining walls have applied for variances with the Board of Adjustment to allow additional fence height. Staff said in most or all of these applications the BOA did grant the extra fence height. Mr. Livingston said BOA members have subsequently proposed modifications to the zoning code to address this issue which would allow staff to make individual determinations. Mr. Livingston said staff recommends the Council forward this request to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee and ask them to report their recommendations to the Council. Councilmember Clark made a motion to approve to refer the request for changes to the section of the Zoning Ordinance addressing fence heights in rear yards to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee for further study. Councilmember Begert seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. City Manager Livingston introduced the item. He said staff had been approached with a request to institute a rental property registration and inspection program. He said if the Council wished to institute such a rental registration program, they should refer the item to ZOAC for their recommendation. Councilmember Begert made a motion to not refer the request for a rental property C. CONSIDER AND ACT: on a request to abandon the Hillcrest-Dickens alley right-of- way between Daniel and Haynie D. DISCUSS: fence heights in rear yards E. DISCUSS: rental registration and inspection program for residential units Page 124 of 154 registration and inspection program to ZOAC for further study. Mayor Pro Tem Grable seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. City Manager Livingston stated that during the work session, staff discussed an issue that has generated a number of complaints related to standing water in gutters or alleys. He said staff recommended referring the issue to the Public Works Advisory Committee to discuss potential remedies. Mr. Livingston said during the work session, Bud Smallwood discussed how other municipalities deal with this runoff. He said Mr. Smallwood advised referring the item to PWAC for their study and recommendations to the Council. Councilmember Clark made a motion to refer the issue of drainage from residential building sites to the Public Works Advisory Committee and, if staff sees fit, to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee for their review and recommendation. Mayor Pro Tem Grable seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. City Manager Livingston discussed the item. He said the contractor for the renovations at Preston Center Plaza requested the city allow construction activites to continue through the overnight hours. The contractor stated this would benefit the city because it would allow the hauling out of excavated rock, concrete, and dirt to proceed during off- traffic hours at the center. He also said this would allow the first phase of construction to be completed approximately two months sooner. The contractor stated they would construct a 20-foot sound attenuation wall around the area to minimize noise. He said they conducted sound studies at the site to determine how the sound wall would control the excavation noise. Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood stated while he did have authority to grant waivers for construction hours, that authority was intended to be for occasional or periodic work. He asked the Council to permit him to grant this waiver to the construction company under a longer-term agreement. Mayor Davis said the Council is disposed to give authorization for this permit with the understanding that if problems associated with noise levels arise, the permission to work overnights will be rescinded by the director of public works. Mayor Pro Tem Grable made a motion to give the Director of Public Works authorization to provide a waiver to allow overnight work for certain construction activities at the Plaza at Preston Center. Councilmember Stewart seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. City Manager Livingston said during the closed session the Council was informed of their options regarding the city’s involvement in the case of Moore v. City of Dallas, et al. During the closed session, the Council gave the City Manager authority to move forward with a settlement offer for the city’s liability in the case. Mr. Livingston said F. DISCUSS: drainage from residential building sites H. CONSIDER AND ACT: to provide direction to staff to regulate contractor working hours for Plaza at Preston Center I. CONSIDER AND ACT: on approval of offer to settle in Moore v. City of Dallas, et al Page 125 of 154 the final offer will be presented to Council for their approval once the agreement has been drafted. Mayor Pro Tem Grable made a motion to approve an offer to settle in Moore v. City of Dallas, et al. Councilmember Begert seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. City Manager Livingston said due to planned absences by Councilmembers, the July 5 and the August 2 Council meetings will be cancelled. He also said the Council agreed to move the regularly scheduled August 16 meeting to August 23. Mr. Livingston said the budget will be transmitted to the Council on August 2, however, this does not need to occur during a Council meeting. Mayor Davis said if a cancelled meeting date needs to be reinstated, the Council will be able to reschedule it. City Manager Livingston read through the rules that describe how the Council is allowed to respond to comments from the floor. He reminded the audience that the Council could not respond to questions on any issue not on the current agenda. Resident Carolyn Loy addressed the Council. Mrs. Loy asked the Council to allow the helicopter to be present at the July 4 parade. Mayor Davis said the Council was informed this afternoon by a representative of the FAA that it is unlikely the FAA will approve the helicopter to land due to clearance concerns. Mrs. Loy also asked if the Arbor Newslwetter could be delivered sooner. Mr. Livingston explained that water bills were sent out in two cycles. He stated that residents could also register on website to receive the newsletter electronically on the first of each month. Community Information Officer Steve Mace mentioned the newsletter is posted on the website’s homepage on the first of every month. As there were no more requests to address the Council, Mayor Davis adjourned the meeting. Considered and approved this 7th day of June, 2011. _______________________________ W. Richard Davis, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________ Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary J. CONSIDER AND ACT: on approval to cancel or reschedule specific City Council Meetings during June, July and/or August 2011 V. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Page 126 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:GerryBradley.ParksDirector SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onarequestfromtheRotaryClubofParkCitiesfo rastatic displayofanArmyApacheHelicopterduringtheJul y4thParadeandPicnic BACKGROUND: Staffhasrecentlybeenapproachedwitharequestf romtheParkCitiesRotarytohaveanArmy ApachehelicopterpresentatGoarParkaspartoft he2011FourthofJulycelebration. StaffhasattachedamapofGoarParkshowingthea pproximatelocationforthehelicopter(Fire StationEntrance)duringtheeventandtherequest fromtheParkCitiesRotary.Aletterofsupport fromtheFAAisalsoattachedfortheCouncil'srev iew.RepresentativesfromtheRotarywillbe presentattheCityCouncilmeetingtodiscussthe logisticsinvolvinghavingthehelicopterpresenta t theevent. ATTACHMENTS: RCPCRequest FAALetter LocationMap Page 127 of 154 Rotary Club of Park Cities Request for Static Display for U.S. Army Apache Helicopter University Park City Council May 3, 2011 The Rotary Club of Park Cities in conjunction with the Fourth of July Parade on Monday, July 4, 2011 would like the opportunity to provide the general public a static display of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter. The Apache helicopter in question is tasked to the 1-158 Aviation Battalion of the U.S. Army stationed in Conroe, TX. Thomas Fitch, a 1999 Highland Park High School graduate and Troop 82 Eagle Scout, is a captain in the U.S. Army and flies Apache helicopters. Captain Fitch would pilot an Apache helicopter along with a U.S. Army co-pilot on Sunday, July 3, 2011 from Conroe, TX to Love Field. The helicopter would be secured and placed under guard at that time. On July 4, 2011, no later than 7:30 am, Captain Fitch would pilot the Apache helicopter to University Park where it would land on the front apron entrance to the Fire Department of University Park. The helicopter would be secured by Captain Fitch and his co-pilot. The Apache helicopter would be available on July 4, 2011 for viewing by the general public. Captain Fitch and his co-pilot wou ld be there to answer questions about the aircraft and to allow people to view the inside of the helicopter. On July 4, 2011 after the crowds are gone and no later than 1:00 pm, Captain Fitch would fly the helicopter back to Conroe, TX. This request for a static display is certainly with precedent in University Park. There have been instances where medevac helicopters have been allowed to land in the same area that the Rotary Club of Park Cities is requesting for the Apache helicopter to be placed. In addition, SMU in the Armed Forces Bowl allowed two Cobra helicopters to fly into the stadium and to be placed for inspection by the general public. Steps will be taken to add the City of University Park as an additional named insured on the general liability insurance policy secured by the Rotary Club of Park Cities for the Fourth of July Parade. The Rotary Club of Park Cities respectfully request the Council’s permission for this static display. It would certainly be a great addition to the patriotic theme of the Fourth of July Parade and a way of presenting public support for our men and women in uniform. With the approval of the University Park City Council, the Rotary Club of Park Cities would file with the U.S. Army a request for military aerial support for the static display. Pending their event site approval, we would then be able to provide the Apache helicopter for display. Page 128 of 154 Page 129 of 154 Page 130 of 154 Page 131 of 154 Page 132 of 154 Page 133 of 154 Page 134 of 154 Page 135 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:RobbieCorder,DirectorofCommunityDevelopment SUBJECT:PUBLICHEARING:onanordinanceamendingSection28 -106oftheUniversity ParkComprehensiveZoningOrdinancetopermitgates andcolumnsuptoeightfeet (8')inheightintheSF-1District BACKGROUND: RichardandTracyCheatham,propertyownersof6601 HuntersGlen(SF-1zoningdistrict),applied foraspecialexceptionunderSection28-106ofthe zoningordinancetoinstallasixfoot(6')fence in therequiredfrontyard.WithintheSF-1zoningdis trict,thezoningordinanceallowspropertyowners toappearbeforetheBoardofAdjustment(BOA)tore questaspecialexceptionforafenceinthe requiredfrontyard.Inaddition,theapplicantsre questedthefollowingtwovarianceswiththespecia l exception: 1.Installeightnewcolumns,eightfeetteninches (8'10")inheightintherequiredfrontyard whereonlysixfeet(6')columnsareallowed,and 2.Installtwosetsofgateseightfeet(8')inheig htintherequiredfrontyardwhereonlysixfeet (6')gatesareallowed. TheBOAdeterminedthattheapplicantsmettherequ irementsunderSection28-106ofthezoning ordinanceforaspecialexceptiontoinstallasix foot(6')fenceintherequiredfrontyard.Howeve r, theBOAdeniedthetwovariancerequestsregarding thecolumnsandgates,sinceitdeterminedthe requestswerenotwithintheBoard'sjurisdiction. ThecontractorforRichardandTracyCheatham,Will iamManning,hasrequestedtheCityCouncil consideranamendmenttothezoningordinancewithi ntheSF-1zoningdistrictthatwouldallow columnsandgatesuptoamaximumheightofeightf eet(8').AfterreceivingdirectionfromtheCity Council,staffpresentedtheproposedamendmentto boththeZoningOrdinanceAdvisoryCommittee (ZOAC)andPlanning&ZoningCommission. RECOMMENDATION: DuringapublichearingconductedonMay10th,the Planning&ZoningCommissionunanimously recommendedapprovalofanamendmenttothezoning ordinancetoallowgatesandcolumnsinthe frontyardwithintheSF-1zoningdistrictuptoa maximumheightofeightfeet(8')whenlocatedat adriveway.Theproposedamendmentwasalsounanim ouslyapprovedbyZOAC. ATTACHMENTS: OrdinanceAmendingSection28-106oftheComprehens iveZoningOrdinance P&ZMin5.10.11 ZOACMin3.29.11 Page 136 of 154 LetterfromWilliamManning Page 137 of 154 ORDINANCE NO. _____________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING SECTION 28-106 IN PART TO PERMIT GATES AND COLUMNS UP TO EIGHT FEET (8’) IN HEIGHT IN AN SF-1 DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have held due hearings and have forwarded a full and fair hearing to all property owners generally, and City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that said zoning changes should be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance should be amended; Now, Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended by amending Section 28-106 in part as follows: “Section 28-106 Special Exception for a Front Yard Fence in an SF-1 District … (2) … (b) The fence shall not exceed six feet (6’) in height above grade at any point; … (3) … (e) The fence shall not exceed six feet (6’) in height above grade at any point; … Page 138 of 154 (4) Gates and columns located at driveways as provided for in this Section shall not exceed eight feet (8’) in height above grade, including any light, lamp fixture, capstone, or other ornamentation mounted on the top thereof.” SECTION 2. All ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 3. Should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance, or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole. SECTION 4. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be punished by a fine to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and each and every day such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the _______ day of _______________________ 2011. Page 139 of 154 APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY (RLD/04/20/11)(49182) Page 140 of 154 ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY ADDING SECTION 28-106 IN PART TO PERMIT GATES AND COLUMNS UP TO EIGHT FEET (8’) IN HEIGHT IN AN SF-1 DISTRICT; 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 Coty of University Park, Texas, on the ____ day of ________________ 2011. APPROVED: ____________________________________ W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ LIZ SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY Page 141 of 154 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS MINUTES May 10, 2011 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm in the City of University Park Council Chambers, located at 3800 University Boulevard, University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Seated Staff Members Attending Robert H. West, Chairman Robbie Corder, Community Development Director Mark Aldredge Jennifer Deaver, Administrative Assistant Doug Roach Rob Dillard – City Attorney Kim Kohler Liz Farley Absent Jerry Jordan Dawn Moore Randy Biddle Mr. West opened the public hearing at 5:00 PM. Mr. West then read the first case before the commission: PZ 11-004: Hold a public hearing and consider an amendment to Section 28-106 “Special Exception for a Front Yard Fence in the SF-1 District” of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance to allow for gates and columns located at driveways, not to exceed eight feet (8’) in height including any light, lamp fixture, capstone, or other ornamentation mounted on top thereof. Mr. West inquired if there were any responses for or against the case. Mr. Corder responded that there were none. He then asked for a motion to forward the case to the City Council. Liz Farley motioned to approve the request and Mark Aldredge seconded the motion. With a unanimous vote of 5-0, the motion was approved. Minutes of the April Planning & Zoning Commission meeting were reviewed. Mr. Roach made a motion to approve the minutes, as edited. Mr. Aldredge seconded the motion. Dawn Moore abstained, as she was not in attendance. With a vote of 4-0, the minutes were approved. With there being no further business before the board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting at 5:15 PM. ________________________________ Robert H. West, Chairman Page 142 of 154 Planning & Zoning Commission Date____________________________ Page 143 of 154 1 ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES March 29, 2011 The Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Tuesday March 29, 2011 at 12:00 Noon in the Peek Service Center Conference Room #243, 4420 Worcola, Dallas, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Committee Members Attending: Staff Members Attending: Robert F. Spies, Chairman Robbie Corder-- Director of Community Development Phillip Philbin Harry Persaud – Chief Planning Official Syd Carter Lorna Balser -- Planning Assistant Kitty Holleman Keith Schmidt – Chief Building Official Stuart Mcilyar Corbin Crews Clay Snelling Jim Mills Terry Skartsiaris Gretchen Henry Bob Clark (Council Liaison) Absent: Robert Rhoads Mr. Spies advised the committee that two guests had been invited to the meeting to answer any questions they might have. The two guests were Taylor Armstrong, architect and Bill Manning, builder-6601 Hunters Glen. The meeting was opened by Mr. Robert Spies who read the agenda item: ZOAC - 11-001: Discuss masonry requirement for Single Family construction. Mr. Persaud reviewed the history of the issue before the committee again stating that there had been 1-2 permits issued in the past few years which were of concern to the city staff. He stated that in previous review by ZOAC, there had been no recommendation to council. Mr. Persaud advised the committee members that staff had taken the issue back before the City Council this year and that City Council had referred them back to ZOAC in order to look at the issue further. Mr. Persaud then reviewed photos of various masonry products and wooden products both in University Park, Highland Park and other areas. One example was of 3809 Mockingbird which he stated looked like a commercial structure in a residential neighborhood. Bob Spies advised the committee members about paying too much attention to architecture and not on the materials beings used. Mr. Snelling concurred and added to be careful about judging homes. Page 144 of 154 2 The committee then looked at a picture of 4904 Abbott in Highland Park. Mr. Mills asked how to separate materials and architecture. Mr. Mcilyar stated that you really can’t. Mr. Persaud then reviewed the various building materials with the committee which included: ƒ IPE siding ƒ Cumaru ƒ Garapa wood ƒ Tiger wood ƒ Jatoba-Brazilian Cherry wood Mr. Snelling then reviewed some wood siding home examples via Power Point. Mr. Mills asked about the purpose of using wood and whether or not it was aesthetics, cost, or both? Mr. Spies replied that it is usually both. Mr. Spies then asked for further questions. Mr. Persaud reminded the committee that they were to discuss materials for single family structures. Mr. Spies added that it would be for certain building materials the city may or may not want to exclude or eliminate. Mr. Persaud added that the central issue is what percentage of masonry materials should be required. Mr. Skartsiaris asked if the committee should be concerned with3809 Mockingbird or let the market dictate. He then asked Mr Snelling what would be the cost of the lot. Mr. Snelling replied, “About $500,000”. Mr. Skartsiaris asked the committee, “what’s to keep someone from buying the lot and building something like 3809 Mockingbird just to get into the school system?”. Mr. Mills asked, “do we want that type of structure with stucco?” Mr. Spies asked for Taylor Armstrong’s opinion. Mr. Armstrong stated that the market will dictate and that his opinion is that the masonry questions should not be a big deal. He added that nice sensible architecture can be seen in the property located at Southwestern and Turtle Creek. He also stated that there are older frame homes in University Park which are historically nice if maintained, as well as traditional and contemporary homes if maintained. Discussion ensued concerning potential problems enforcing maintenance of structures which are not built of a masonry product. Mr. Armstrong stated that in some cities, they require 70-85% masonry, but added that some products may not be aesthetically appealing. Mr. Skartsiaris stated that the committee should not regulate this. Mr. Mcilyar and Ms. Henry concurred. Mr. Snelling motioned to not have a limitation on masonry. Mr. Skartsiaris seconded the motion. All committee members present approved of the motion except for Mr. Mills. Mr. Crews and Ms. Holleman abstained from voting. Mr. Spies thanked the staff for bringing the issue forward and cited the issue as a concern for the city. He stated that in some ways the committee had tried to meld two issues together but they couldn’t. Discussion further ensued in regard to a city architectural review committee. Mr. Spies encouraged everyone to view the upcoming Tour of Park Cities Homes. Page 145 of 154 3 He then asked for opinions on the architectural review board. Mr. Skartsiaris asked that staff research architectural review boards. Mr. Snelling asked if there had been any feedback from Highland Park concerning the homes shown. Mr. Skartsiaris asked if Highland Park has a ZOAC group. Mr. Persaud responded to both questions by stating that Highland Park has some design regulations but does not regulate masonry content of single family homes. He added that an Architectural Review Board (ARB) will add another step to the permitting process and it can be time consuming. Mr. Persaud then reminded the committee that this item has come before the committee 3 times and that the property on Larchmont (4317) has been the only big problem. Mr. Spies then read the second agenda item. ZOAC – 11-002: Discuss Columns attached to Fences and Gates on SF-1 lots larger than one acre. Mr. Persaud reviewed the columns allowanced by the codes. More than 4 freestanding columns are allowed within the front yard, not to exceed 8’ in height. He outlined the special exception requirements for fences in the front yard within the SF-1 Zoning District. Fences and gates in the front yard are limited to a maximum height of 6’ as part of the special exception. In order to accommodate the request, he is proposing to change the Special Exception requirements to add gates and columns located at driveways. Bill Manning addressed the committee stating that with a recent Board of Adjustment case, Eddy Moore and John Jackson thought this issue was worth looking at closer specifically for the Volk Estates. Mr. Persaud advised the committee that this change for the special exception would only impact the actual lots in SF-1 district which are 1 acre or more. It was made clear that the proposed change would be for gates of 8’ instead of 6’. Mr. Philbin summarized the proposed changes for the property at 6601 Hunters Glen: 8’ fencing across the front, 8’ gate, 8’ columns and a 6’ fence. Mr. Snelling stated that the wording should be changed to reflect, “Columns 8’ at the driveway gate”. Mr. Snelling then motioned to allow the 8’ columns and gate at the driveway on the properties larger than 1 acre in the SF-1 district. Mr. Skartsiaris seconded the motion. The committee unanimously agreed. Bob Spies then asked for approval of the minutes from January 25, 2011. With a motion by Phillip Philbin and a second by Jim Mills, the minutes were approved unanimously. With there being no further business before the Committee, Mr. Spies adjourned the meeting at 1:15 PM. _______________________ ____________________ Robert F. Spies, Chairman Date Page 146 of 154 4 Z.O.A.C. Page 147 of 154 Page 148 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:RobbieCorder,DirectorofCommunityDevelopment SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceamendingSection 28-106oftheUniversity ParkComprehensiveZoningOrdinancetopermitgates andcolumnsuptoeightfeet (8')inheightintheSF-1District BACKGROUND: Pleaseseememowithattachmentssubmittedforpubl ichearingonthisitem. RECOMMENDATION: DuringapublichearingconductedonMay10th,the Planning&ZoningCommissionunanimously recommendedapprovalofanamendmenttothezoning ordinancetoallowgatesandcolumnsinthe frontyardwithintheSF-1zoningdistrictuptoa maximumheightofeightfeet(8')whenlocatedat adriveway.Theproposedamendmentwasalsounanim ouslyapprovedbyZOAC. Page 149 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:RobbieCorder,DirectorofCommunityDevelopment SUBJECT:DISCUSS:arequesttoamendArticle4.800UniversityParkCo deofOrdinances regardingspecialevents BACKGROUND: TheFriendsoftheLibraryrecentlytalkedtostaff aboutconductingafleamarketonthe surfaceparkinglotthatservestheChaseBankloca tedat6517Hillcrest.Theeventwouldserveas afundraiserfortheUniversityParkLibrary.Howe ver,giventhelocationandzoningdistrictofthe parkinglot,staffcouldnotissueaspecialevent permittotheFriendsoftheLibraryunderArticle 4.800oftheCodeofOrdinances. Article4.800oftheUniversityParkCodeofOrdina ncesprohibitstheoutdoordisplay,storage,orsal e ofmerchandise,unlessauthorizedasaspecialeven t.Thereareseveralrequirementsthatmustbemet toreceiveaspecialeventpermit.Onesuchrequir ementlimitstheissuanceofaspecialeventpermit totheGeneralRetail,RetailCenter,ShoppingCent er,Commercial,andretailPlannedDevelopment districts. ThesurfaceparkinglotthattheFriendsoftheLib rarywouldliketouseforafleamarketiszonedP - Parking.ElinGreenbergwiththeFriendsoftheLi braryhasrequestedtheCityCouncilconsider amendingArticle4.800oftheCodeofOrdinancesto includeParkingdistrictsinthespecialevent category.IftheCityCouncilwouldliketoprocee dwiththisamendment,staffwillbringan ordinancebacktotheCityCouncilattheJune21C ityCouncilmeeting. ATTACHMENTS: ElinGreenbergLetter Article4.800DisplayandSaleofGoodsOutsideaB uilding Page 150 of 154 May 31, 2011 Dear Bob, I am writing to you at the suggestion of Robbie Corder. I spoke to Robbie about the hope of tbe Friends of the Library, to sponsor a Flea Market/Garage Sale/Collectibles/Book Sale event. This would be a community activity, as well as an awareness opportunity and fundraiser for the library. The plan is to hold it on a Sunday, on the Chase Bank parking lot. That property is not currently one of the enumerated properties in ARTICLE 4.800 which regulates this type of event. Robbie didn’t think this was a specific exclusion, just not an inclusion, and he suggested I bring the matter to you. After considering ARTICLE 4.800 DISPLAY AND SALE OF GOODS OUTSIDE A BUILDING, Robbie informed me that our location, the parking at the Chase Bank Building, was not specifically listed in the Article, and a n inclusion or modification of the ARTICLE would be required. He then suggested that I write to you in hopes that you will bring this before the Council for approval. Our plan involves holding the event on the parking lot which is generally considered to be part of Snider Plaza based on the location and the fact that it is contiguous to the Plaza and serves the retail shopping center, as well as the Chase Bank which is a commercial building. We have asked the property owner, Albert Huddleston, for his permission to hold the event on the property, and it was given. He is also aware that we are writing to you to request inclusion of the property on the permitted list and, since the activity benefits the library, he has no objection. After reading ARTICLE 4.800, it seems there are at least three ways to permit us to have the event within the ordinance: 1. Amend (A) to include P1 zoned property. 2. Amend (B) (i) to read Snider Plaza and Hillcrest Avenue from Lovers Lane to Haynie. 3. Add (B) (vii) – The P 1 zoned parking lot at the Chase Bank Building, Daniel to Haynie. In any of these cases, only this piece of property would be affected. Please call me (214-533-9684) with any questions or other suggestions. As always, we rely on your guidance, assistance, and support. Sincerely, Elin Greenberg cc: Robbie Corder Susan Hall Preston Phillips Page 151 of 154 ARTICLE 4.800 DISPLAY AND SALE OF GOODS OUTSIDE A BUILDING The display, storage, and sale of goods, wares, and merchandise on private and public property outside of a building shall be prohibited, except as permitted in this article. (1) Special Event Permit. The building official may issue a temporary special event permit (SEP) for the outside display, storage, and sale of goods, wares, and merchandise on private property on the following conditions. (A) A temporary SEP may only be permitted in the General Retail, Retail Center, Shopping Center, Commercial, and retail Planned Development districts. (B) The SEP may be granted only for an entire shopping center or strip from the following list: (i) Snider Plaza and Hillcrest Avenue from Lovers Lane to Daniel. (ii) Hillcrest Avenue from Haynie Avenue to Granada Avenue. (iii) Lovers Lane from Douglas to Lomo Alto Drive (Miracle Mile). (iv) Preston Road from Lovers Lane to Glenwick Lane. (v) The Plaza at University Park. (vi) Park Cities Plaza. (C) The SEP may be granted for any one area not more than four (4) times per calendar year, not exceeding four (4) days per event, and with a minimum of sixty (60) days between events for any one area. (D) The SEP may only be granted in connection with the celebration of a specific holiday, civic event or community function. (2) Temporary License Agreement for Public Property. The outside display, storage, and sale of goods, wares, or merchandise on public property shall be prohibited except as may be permitted by the city council by granting a temporary license agreement under the provisions of this article: (A) Such license agreement shall not permit the obstruction of a minimum of four (4) foot pedestrian sidewalk, whether such sidewalk is wholly or partially on public or private property. (B) The license agreement may specifically authorize the temporary obstruction of parking areas and other city rights-of-way. Page 152 of 154 (3) Special Conditions. Other special conditions, as deemed necessary by the city council or the building official to increase the compatibility of the temporary use with the adjoining neighborhood, may be required in the granting of a special event permit or license agreement under this article. (Ordinance 94/12 adopted 4/5/94) (4) Seasonal Display. The display, storage, and sale of live plants, cut flowers, and traditional seasonal decorations outside of a building shall be permitted under the following conditions: (A) Such outside display, storage, and sale may be conducted only as an accessory and incidental use to the main use. (B) If the building official determines that the outside display, storage, and sale falls within this subsection, he may permit the same without the necessity of the issuance of an SEP. (C) Seasonal display shall be permitted under this subsection only on private property. (Ordinance 95/12, adopted 5/2/95, Section 1)  Page 153 of 154 AGENDAMEMO (6/7/2011AGENDA) TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil FROM:RobbieCorder,DirectorofCommunityDevelopment SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onproposedscheduleforLegacyHillcrestplanned developmentdistrictzoningapplication BACKGROUND: ThePlanning&ZoningCommissionforwardedarecomm endationregardingtheLegacyHillcrest zoningapplicationonApril12;however,staffhas notbeenabletosetadatewiththeapplicantfor a publichearingwithCityCouncil.Staffwouldlike toestablishaschedulewiththeCityCouncilfor theLegacyHillcrestzoningapplicationforaplann eddevelopmentdistrict.Belowisaproposed timelineforthezoningcase. TheSeptember6worksessionwillgivetheCityCou ncilanopportunitytoprovidestaffwith feedbackonspecificdetailsconcerningalloweduse swithinthePD,setbacks,maximumheight,gross floorarea,andothercriticaldetailsofthePD.Unlessthedeveloperchoosestowithdrawthecase,the feedbackreceivedduringtheworksessionwillbei ncorporatedintoadraftordinanceforCityCouncil considerationattheOctober4CityCouncilmeeting . DATEACTION 7/19/11PublicHearingforLegacyHillcrestPDAppli cation 9/06/11WorksessionwithCityCouncilandLegacyHi llcrest 10/04/11ConsiderationofPDOrdinance Page 154 of 154