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[DVKHUHLQDIWHUUHIHUUHGWRDV³72:1´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