The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda 09-20-05 Names Tabs.doc AGENDA #2519 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 AT 5:00 P.M. 3:30-4:00 P.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION WITH CITY ATTORNEY TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE UNDER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 4:00-5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW DISCUSS: Projeoted sohedule for exoavation and box wlvert 0Onstruotion adjaoent to City Hall - Smallwood PRESENTATION: Evawation Plan for City - Ledbetter I. INVOCA TION - Counoilmember Harry Shawver II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Counoilmember Harry Shawver III. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL - Mayor James H. Holmes, III IV. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF - City Manager Bob Livingston V. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION RETIREMENT PLAQUE: Pat Roberts, Payroll Speoialist, Finanoe Department, 18 years of servioe to the oity PRESENTATION: Offioer James Savage, Polioe Offioer of the First Quarter 2005 - Adams Tab I DEPARTMENT PINS: Sanitation Driver Hennen Akoser, 20 years and Gardener Jose Arevalo, 15 years for 35 years ofservioe to the oity PRESENTATION: Certifioates of Appreoiation to Kathy Rogers of the Rogers Wildlife Rehabilitation Center, Beth Hook and Karen Outland - Tab II PROCLAMATION: Establish Arbor Day Observation November 18, 2005 - Bradley Tab III VI. RECOGNITION OF BOY SCOUTS VII. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions about items on the Consent Agenda should do so at this time, Questions and 00mments regarding Main Agenda items may be made when that item is addressed by the City CounoiL VIII. CONSENT AGENDA A. CONSIDER: Seleotion of external auditor - Austin Tab IV R CONSIDER: Budget amendment for oapital projeot fund balanoe transfer - Austin Tab V C. CONSIDER: Resolution renewing City Investment Polioy - Austin Tab VI D, CONSIDER: Right-of-Way Lioense Agreement for 3557 Centenary - Corder Tab VII E. CONSIDER: Designation oflooal rabies 0Ontrol authority - Adams Tab VIII F. CONSIDER: Approval of City Counoil Meeting Minutes for September 6, 2005 - Wilson Tab IX IX. MAIN AGENDA A. PUBLIC HEARING: Struoture at 3624 MoFarlin - Corder Tab X R CONSIDER: Change Order No, 2, Turtle Creek Box Culvert for City Hall Expansion - Smallwood Tab XI C. CONSIDER: Approval of bid and award of 0Ontraot for in-plaoe reoyding of asphalt pavement at various looations - Smallwood Tab XII D, CONSIDER: Emergenoy 0Onstruotion of sanitary sewer along Turtle Creek Boulevard, south from Lovers Lane to Vassar and Baltimore, south from Lovers Lane to Turtle Creek Boulevard - Smallwood XIII E. CONSIDER: Future re00nstruotion of Preston Road from University Boulevard south to St Andrews - Smallwood XIV F. CONSIDER: Report regarding building 00verage in single family zoning distriots - Persaud XV G, CONSIDER: Conoept design along parkway at Lovers Lane @ Snider Plaza and park sites at Hilkrest and Lovers Lane - Bradley XVI H. CONSIDER: City Hall improvements: evaluation of bridge and oreek wall railing system along University Boulevard Bridge and City Hall Culvert- Bradley XVII L CONSIDER: Interlooal Agreement with City ofCoppell for assistanoe to Hurrioane Katrina evawees - Livingston XVIII As authorized by Seotion 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be 00nvened into Closed Exewtive Session for the purpose of seeking 00nfidential legal advioe from the City Attorney on any agenda items listed herein, x. INFORMA nON AGENDA Tab XIX REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT R EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE C. FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for September 13, 2005 D. PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE E. PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION F. PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE G, PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE R PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE L URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1. ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE K. CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/05 AGENDA) DATE: September 7, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Officer of the First Quarter 2005 ITEM: Be advised that Offioer James Savage has been named Polioe Offioer of the Quarter for the first quarter of 2005, RECOMMENDA nON: A wards Committee met with unanimous approvaL A TT ACHMENTS: Memo from Awards Committee Chairperson, Sgt Robert Flood and Awards Nomination Form, 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:IDocuments and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK3110fficer of the 1st Quarter (2),doc 9:47 AM 09/08 TO' ChiefGaryW, Adams From, Sergeant Robert E Flood; Awards Committee Chairman !late, 91612005 Re: Officer of the Ouarter (Jan-April 2005) Dear Chief, The Awards Committee met today and selected Officer James Savage as Officer of the Quarter for the period January thru April 2005, Voling Members of the Committee were: Officer Spillman Officer Ardanowski (substitute) Officer Mutchler I concur with the commitlee's findings, Sgt. Robert E. Flood AWARD RECOMMENDATION/NOMINATION FORM MMENDEDINOMINATED SH1FTIDiVISiON Day Shift OMiNATED FoR SUBMiTTED BY r of the Quarter Lita J. Snellgrove DATE A ril 14, 2005 Givc tilt! reason tor your recommendaUonlnominatton, Jnr;1Ude;)ll1 relevant dff-t~Us: attach aU relevatH reports: I would like to nominate Officer Jim Savage for Officer of the Quarter Officer Savage works tirelessly as a dedicated officer lor the department During the month of March he trained Officer Escobar, His knowledge of lhe penal code and traHic laws make him Invaluabie as a field training ofticer I have seen other veteran oflicers refer to him regarding questions pertaining to the law, He works many hours off<duly bul never leIs that interfere with his job He always gives 100% Officer Savage is a member of the Honor Guard and comes in when he is oft duty to practice, As a member of the Honor Guard, he has represented the police department af foolball games, graduations and the Police Memorial Parade in Austin Whenever there is a problem with the computers, Officer Savage is there to help, When there is information needed or a problem with the Crimes Software and Field Reporting, Jim is always available to h,elp He is a mentor to new officers and has a good attitude which is refreshing, When Officer Savage gels a late call, he does not complain or try to avoid the call, He stays as iate as needed without hesitation I think Officer Savage is a good candidate for Officer of the Quarter AGREE D DiSAGREE D AGREE D DiSAGREE D (Aflach any commenl,o;;/paperwor{( necessary fo suppO!l your deci$ion) CAPTAIN . II Pate Reeehlcdl __'!.J!... ,_~ AGRE~ DiSAGREED (ATtach any commer 's/pap,'}:v'!Q/k necessary 10 SlJpp'rI yo SERG EANT Dati!,'! Received _^,' LIEUTENANT [);ate Aeceived (AfI'ach ,any comments/paperwork nocI;JSS8IY 10 SUPPOH yom dOCiSJOn) OF PoLlC E AWARDS COMMfTTEE Signature Forwarded to Aw~rdis Committee Returned to Submltting fmpliOyee Approved ~s submitted oS: D~te Reviewed Date Revlewed Amt'mded to: (At/lICf? ilny cDmmenls/pJperwork necc-'l$$@f)' to support ihe amended decision) ,/';) "/',, [;/ /J ,"" >' ",/ r;,.' C, /f." """ ~ii:.:t."C--.:"~,"""""f:'~,,,,,, Chf!ji!l'm~n's' SigltHillUfe FJNAL REViEW BY CHiEF OF POLICE Dute Reviewed Approved as :SLlPl1litted [=:J Approv~d (:IS amendedCl of 01 !\ttachment 27" I Presented to ~~ eJ LD~~ For her invaluable assistance in relocating wildlife from Williams and Goar Parks. ) ~ 4 ~ ---J lyor ~CO\<-) UV ppr eciat · loll Presented to ffidft 5G ~ For her invaluable assistance in relocating wildlife from Williams and Goar Parks erti · erti · Presented to ML ~W For her invaluable assistance in relocating wildlife from Williams and Goar Parks. ~ ---- -- ~ - lyor ~~~. U . 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/2005 AGENDA) DATE: September 14, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks SUBJECT: Proclamation - Arbor Day BACKGROUND: Since 1982, the City of University Park has planted over 3000 trees within our community as part of the very successful "Trees for Town" Program. In an effort to continue to demonstrate our city's commitment to the health, well being and aesthetics of our community, staff is requesting City Council consider the approval of a proclamation establishing November 18, 2005 as "Arbor Day" in the City of University Park. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting City Council approve the proclamation establishing Arbor Day in the City of University Park on November 18, 2005. Staff believes that this will be an excellent opportunity to remind residents the importance of planting trees during this time of year. Staff also plans to develop an annual tree planting event to mark the annual observance of "Arbor Day" in University Park. ATTACHMENTS: Proclamation 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:IDocuments and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\ARBOR DAY (2),doc 10:20 AM 09/1 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK OFFICE OF THE MAYOR "ARBOR DAY" WHEREAS, the City of University Park encourages and supports the conservation of its parks and public properties; and WHEREAS, the beautification of University Park through the planting of trees is important to the community; and WHEREAS, the City of University Park has planted an estimated 3000+ trees since 1982 when the "Trees for Town" program was first established; and WHEREAS, Arbor Day serves as a symbol to encourage University Park residents to plant a tree as a reminder of our nation's forests and natural resources; NOW, THEREFORE, I, James H. "Blackie" Holmes, III, Mayor of the City of University Park, Texas, do hereby proclaim November 18, 2005, as "ARBOR DAY" in the City of University Park, Texas. In witness whereof I here unto set my hand and cause the seal of the city to be a x d. Mayor Date 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/05 AGENDA) DATE: September 14, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: External auditor selection BACKGROUND Deloitte & Touche LLP has served as the City's external auditor for the past five fiscal years. The City's unwritten policy has been to seek competitive proposals every five years. In August, the City published a Request For Proposals (RFP) for audit services The attached memo from City Controller Tom Tvardzik describes the RFP process and the proposed selection of Weaver & Tidwell LLP. RECOMMENDA nON Both the Finance Advisory Committee and City staff recommend selecting Weaver & Tidwell as the City's auditor for FY2005, 2006, and 2007. ATTACHMENTS: . Memo from Tom Tvardzik, 9/7/2005 . Finance Advisory Committee draft meeting minutes, 9/13/2005 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Agenda Memo Auditor Selection 09- 20-05,doc 7:09 AM 09/15/05 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 at 7:30 A.M. MINUTES Committee members attending: Atwood, John Coleman, Russ Harralson, Howell Noble, Julie Reeder, Dotti Others present: Austin, Kent - Director of Finance Livingston, Bob - City Manager Tvardzik, Tom - Controller Absent: Kelley, Terry Olmsted, Bob - Chair Stuart, John Wilson, Claude Carter, Syd - Council member 1. Call to order. John Atwood suggested the meeting be called to order at 7:41 a.m. 2. Review/approve minutes of August 23, 2005, meeting. Russ Coleman moved approval of the August 23, 2005, meeting minutes. John Atwood seconded, and the motion was approved 5-0. 3. Review April-June 2005 City investment report. Kent Austin directed the Committee's attention to the April-June 2005 investment report. The City's average portfolio yield rose from 2.42% to 2.89%; the invested balance market value fell from $53.1 million to $48.9 million. The Committee discussed the report briefly and had no questions. 4. Review/recommend City investment policy renewal, investment broker-dealer approval, and City investment officer authorization. Austin reminded the Committee that review and renewal of the investment policy is required each year and that the Finance Committee makes a recommendation to the City Council. He noted that the proposed policy has just one change from the current policy, so that sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 regarding Certificates of Deposit replace the words "state or national bank domiciled in this state" with the phrase "depository institution that has a main office or branch office in Texas." Austin reported that a recent change in state law permits cities to invest in CDARS (Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service), a spread-CD product that allows investors to make purchase CD's above $100,000 and still have FDIC protection. He said that at a future meeting the Committee could discuss the product in more detail and consider adding it to the City's policy. After some additional Committee discussion, John Atwood C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05. doc 09/15/05 moved approval of the proposed investment policy. Julie Noble seconded, the motion was approved 5-0. The Committee then discussed the list of investment officers and broker-dealers. Austin proposed substituting Deutsche Bank Alex.Brown for Salomon Smith Barney. The City's representative at Smith Barney switched to DB Alex.Brown. Service from the representative has been good, and the new firm is a primary dealer and qualified to handle City investment transactions. The list of proposed investment officers remains unchanged - Kent Austin, Tom Tvardzik, and Bob Livingston. John Atwood moved approval of the investment officers and brokers-dealers. Julie Noble recused herself from the vote. Howell Harralson seconded, the motion was approved 4-0. 5. Review/recommend selection of external auditor for FY2005. Controller Tom Tvardzik described the selection process, in which the City advertised and invited nine firms to propose for the FY2005 audit. Of those nine, only Deloitte & Touche and Weaver & Tidwell responded. Staff recommends selecting Weaver & Tidwell, whose proposed fee is $55,500, versus Deloitte & Touche, whose proposed fee is $67, 200. Austin and Tvardzik noted that Weaver & Tidwell was a close second during the auditor selection process in 2000. Julie Noble moved approval of the selection of Weaver & Tidwell as external auditors for FY2005, 2006, and 2007. John Atwood seconded, the motion was approved 5-0. 6. Review July 2005 monthly financial report. The Committee had no comments. 7. Follow-up items: a. City Hall project Bob Livingston updated the Committee on the progress of the creekwork, which began in July and is scheduled to be completed by September 2006. He reported that cost estimates for the building project are being updated and include a large contingency amount because construction plans are not yet complete. Livingston noted that relocation of the public safety dispatch operation to the Peek Center during building renovation would be a major challenge. b. Sales tax review - newspaper story Austin reported he had received numerous calls about the 9/9/2005 newspaper story on the City's sales tax recovery effort. The Committee suggested that a flyer informing merchants of the correct jurisdiction identification could accompany building Certificates of Occupancy. 8. New business. There was no new business. 9. Set next Committee meeting date. The Committee set the next meeting for Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 7:30 a.m. C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05. doc 09/15/05 2 10. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 a.m. Submitted by Kent Austin, Director of Finance Bob Olmsted, Chair C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05. doc 09/15/05 3 19 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2005 TO: Kent Austin FROM: Tom Tvardzik SUBJECT: Audit Services RFP On August 8,2005, the City of University Park issued a Request for Proposals to provide audit services for the next three years, with a two-year extension option. In addition to the required public notice published in the newspaper of record, we sent personal invitations to the top nine firms in the DFW area, based upon staff size and areas of practice. There were no inquiries (or requests for further information) resulting from the published notice. Of the nine firms to whom packages were mailed, three responded (via letter) they would not be bidding, two indicated "no bid" when contacted by phone, two failed to respond after being contacted and two submitted bids. The two firms that submitted bids were Deloitte & Touche LLP (D&T) and Weaver & Tidwell LLP (Weaver). As you may recall, each of these bidders was also a finalist during this process five years ago. Additionally, each firm was interviewed at that time, and found to be acceptable by the Finance Advisory Committee. The submitted bids are similar in audit approach and deliverables. The primary differences are found in the timing of fieldwork and price. Weaver proposes to perform the bulk of their work in January, while D&T favors February. This difference is really of no consequence, as we will be prepared in either case. The firms differ most in their pricing, with Weaver bidding $55,500 for FY05, which is $11,700 less than D&T. Weaver also consistently underbid D&T by at least $12,000 during each of the following four years. The cumulative bid difference over the five-year period will be almost $68,000 - based on maximum and projected prices. In the interest of auditor rotation and mindful of the cost savings, I recommend we award Weaver and Tidwell the contract for our audit services. I have attached their bid documents for your review. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 987-5326 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Audit services memo1.doc 7:10 AM 09/151 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/05 AGENDA) DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 14, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance Budget amendment Background Included on the September 20, 2005, City Council agenda is an ordinance amending the FY2005 (current year) budget. The primary purpose ofthis amendment is to authorize the transfer of fund balance from the General and Utility Funds to the Capital Projects Fund for the City Hall project. This authorization implements the transfers proposed in the City Hall financing plan reviewed by the City Council in June 2005. Other specific expenditures are also included in the amendment. The specific items requested are listed below: I Amount I $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Dept. I Account description n/a General Fund - Other Revenue General Fund revenue total I Account no. I Item description 01-11-3999 Banner donations $ 100,000 Exec Professional Services $ 100,000 Executive Dept subtotal 01-02-3060 Disaster relief commitment $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 43,800 43,800 Fire Firefighting Equipment -- Light Fire Dept subtotal 01-40-9355 Chevrolet Tahoe for new Deputy Fire Chief 1,500 1,500 Parks Supplies and Materials Parks Dept subtotal 01-70-2350 Banners for Snider Plaza 35,000 7,000 42,000 Streets Other Expense Streets Other Expense streets Dept subtotal 01-80-7221 Sidewalk program reimbursement - additional 01-80-9960 Newspaper racks -- additional $ 2,226,000 Transfers Capital Project Transfers $ 2,226,000 Transfers Dept subtotal 01-85-8500 Transfer of fund balance for City Hall project $ 2,413,300 General Fund expenditure total $ 2,000,000 Transfers Capital Project Transfers 02-85-8500 Transfer of fund balance for City Hall project Recommendation 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 Budget Amendment memo 09-20-05 Staff recommends approval ofthe proposed ordinance. This is the fourth and final budget amendment to impact the FY2005 budget, as displayed in the attached budget amendments worksheet. The net effect ofthe amendment will reduce unreserved fund balance in the General Fund by $2,411,800 and the Utility Fund unreserved fund balance by $2,000,000. Fund balances for year-end are forecast as follows: 9/30/05 balance before transfers (est.) Less: capital project transfers 9/30/05 fund balance (est.) General Fund $ 9,199,441 $ (2,226,000) $ 6,973,441 Utility Fund $ 6,486,022 $ (2,000,000) $ 4,486,022 Both ofthese projected balances compare favorably to the fiscal year-end balances forecast in the City Hall financing plan ($6,061,860 and $3,599,000). Attachments: . FY2005 budget amendments worksheet . Ordinance amending FY2005 budget 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 Budget Amendment memo 09-20-05 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY 2005 BUDGET WITH AMENDMENTS SUMMARY BY FUND AND DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND 01-11 REVENUES 21,083,215 1,000 2,500 1,500 21,088,215 TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $21,083,215 $0 $1,000 $2,500 $1,500 $21,088,215 EXPENDITURES 01-02 EXECUTIVE 750,884 101,000 100,000 951,884 01-03 FINANCE 955,847 18,500 974,347 01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES 329,554 329,554 01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES 520,191 220,068 740,259 01-10 COURT 262,831 262,831 01-19 BUILDING 623,731 4,100 627,831 01-20 ENGINEERING 884,966 (67,933) 817,033 01-25 TRAFFIC 778,387 9,917 788,304 01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE 613,693 34,706 5,800 654,199 01-40 FIRE 3,837,102 36,178 64,340 15,000 43,800 3,996,420 01-50 POLICE 4,854,780 60,687 1,000 4,916,467 01-70 PARKS 2,102,110 29,869 15,250 2,500 1,500 2,151,229 01-75 SWIMMING POOL 147,969 147,969 01-80 STREETS 1,612,334 35,000 30,000 17,500 42,000 1,736,834 01-85 TRANSFERS 2,793,166 2,226,000 5,019,166 TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDS. $21,067,545 $362,591 $110,590 $160,300 $2,413,300 $24,114,326 $0 DIFFERENCE $15,670 ($362,591) ($109,590) ($157,800) ($2,411,800) ($3,026,111) UTILITY FUND 02-11 REVENUES 10,222,831 10,222,831 TOTAL UTILITY FUND REVENUES $10,222,831 $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,222,831 EXPENDITURES 02-21 UTILITY OFFICE 5,760,061 5,760,061 02-22 UTILITIES 2,731,658 181,307 40,000 2,952,965 02-85 TRANSFERS 1,950,598 2,000,000 3,950,598 TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDS. $10,442,317 $181,307 $0 $40,000 $2,000,000 12,663,624 DIFFERENCE ($219,486) ($181,307) $0 ($40,000) ($2,000,000) ($2,440,793) SANITATION FUND 04-11 REVENUES 2,231,450 2,231,450 TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES $2,231,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,231,450 EXPENDITURES 04-60 SANITATION 2,663,410 1,396 2,664,806 TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDS. $2,663,410 $1,396 $0 $0 $0 $2,664,806 DIFFERENCE ($431,960) ($1,396) $0 $0 $0 ($433,356) TOTAL REVENUES $33,537,496 $0 $1,000 $2,500 $1,500 $33,542,496 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $34,173,272 $545,294 $110,590 $200,300 $4,413,300 $39,442,756 DIFFERENCE C$6357761 C$5452941 C$1095901 C$1978001 C$44118001 C$59002601 AMENDMENT NO.1 (111212004): INCLUDES ENCUMBRANCES (PURCHASE ORDERS) OPEN AT FY2004 YEAR-END THAT ARE CARRIED FORWARD INTO THE NEW YEAR (FY2005) ALSO INCLUDES TRANSFER OF ONE FULL-TIME POSITION (GIS COORDINATOR) FROM ENG INEERING DEPT. TO INFO SERVICES DEPT AMENDMENT NO.2 (0111912005): AUTHORIZES SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES FOR UPPD, UPFD, PARKS, AND NEWSPAPER RACKS AMENDMENT NO.3 (0610712005): AUTHORIZES SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES LIKE SNIDER PLAZA MASTER PLAN, SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, AND FIREFIGHTER TESTING AMENDMENT NO.4 (0912012005): AUTHORIZES SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES, ESPECIALLY TRANSFERS TO CITY HALL PROJECT AND DISASTER RELIEF 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 Budget Amendment memo 09-20-05 ORDINANCE NO. 05/ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE 2004-2005 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET, ORDINANCE NO. OS/20, TO APPROPRIATE $2,411,800 FROM THE GENERAL FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE BY INCREASING EXPENDITURES $2,413,300 AND INCREASING REVENUES $1,500; AND TO APPROPRIATE $2,000,000 FROM THE UTILITY FUND UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE BY INCREASING EXPENDITURES $2,000,000; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of University Park has determined that it is in the public interest to amend Ordinance No. OS/20 to transfer funds from unreserved fund balances of the general fund and utility fund into specific accounts; Now, Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. OS/20, the 2004-2005 fiscal year budget ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, be, and the same is hereby, amended to appropriate unreserved fund balances of $2,411,800 from the general fund and $2,000,000 from the utility fund to the specific accounts as listed on Exhibit" A" attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes, and such expenditures are hereby authorized and made a part of the 2004-2005 fiscal year budget of the City. SECTION 2. That Ordinance No. OS/20 be, and the same is hereby, further amended so as to give effect to such appropriations and the City Manager is directed to take such administrative steps as are necessary to give effect to such amendment. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DUL Y PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 20th day of September 2005. APPROVED: JAMES H. HOLMES, III, MAYOR ATTEST: NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FY2005 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO.4 09/20/2005 I Amount I $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Dept. I Account description nfa General Fund - other Revenue General Fund revenue total $ 100,000 Exec Professional Services $ 100,000 Executive Dept subtotal $ 43,800 Fire Firefighting Equipment -- Light $ 43,800 Fire Dept subtotal $ 1,500 Parks Supplies and Materials $ 1,500 Parks Dept subtotal $ 35,000 Streets Other Expense $ 7,000 Streets Other Expense $ 42,000 Streets Dept subtotal $ 2,226,000 Transfers Capital Project Transfers $ 2,226,000 Transfers Dept subtotal $ 2,413,300 General Fund expenditure total $ 2,000,000 Transfers Capital ProjectTransfers I Account no. 1 Item description 01-11-3999 Banner donations 01-02-3060 Disaster relief commitment 01-40-9355 ChevroletTahoe for new Deputy Fire Chief 01-70-2350 Banners for Snider Plaza 01-80-7221 Sidewalk program reimbursement- additional 01-80-9960 Newspaper racks -- additional 01-85-8500 Transfer of fund balance for City Hall project 02-85-8500 Transfer of fund balance for City Hall project 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/05 AGENDA) DATE: September 14, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance SUBJECT: Resolution renewing City Investment Policy BACKGROUND The Texas Public Funds Investment Act (PFIA, also Chapter 2256 ofthe Texas Govemment Code) requires that a city's governing body "review its investment policy and investment strategies not less than annually" and that the policy be adopted by rule, order, ordinance, or resolution. The City Council last approved University Park's Investment Policy via resolution in June 2004. Staff proposes only one slight change from the current policy - sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 regarding Certificates of Deposit replace the words "state or national bank domiciled in this state" with the phrase "depository institution that has a main office or branch office in Texas." This change aligns the City's policy with a 2005 amendment to PFIA. Other features ofthe City's investment policy include: . Emphasis on safety of principal first, liquidity second, and yield third; . Listing of eligible investments, including U.S. Treasury and agency securities and specific local govemment investment pools, but excluding commercial paper and collateralized mortgage obligations; . Requirements for quarterly investment reporting and 'marking to market' to reflect fair market value of securities held by the City; . Use of delivery versus payment for settlement of investment transactions; . Establishment of asset allocation limits (for example, maximum 60% for U.S. agencies and 50% for local govemment investment pools); . Limitation of maximum portfolio weighted average maturity to 548 days (1.5 years) and no final stated maturities longer than five years for individual securities; and . Designation ofthe Finance Advisory Committee as the City's investment committee. In the interest of brevity, I have omitted the appendices from the attached l8-page investment policy. These appendices consist of boilerplate langnage regarding State investment legislation, master repurchase agreement, broker/dealer certification, and broker/dealer questionnaire. They remain unchanged from last year. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:IDocuments and Settings\nwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK31\AGENDA MEMO Invest Pol Adopt 09-20- 05,doc 12:56 PM 09/15/05 RECOMMENDATION City staff and the Finance Advisory Committee recommend approval ofthe attached resolution renewing the Investment Policy. The resolution names the Finance Director, City Manager, and Controller as investment officers. ATTACHMENTS: . Finance Advisory Committee draft meeting minutes, September 13, 2005 . Resolution adopting City investment policy . City investment policy sans appendices 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:IDocuments and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\AGENDA MEMO Invest Pol Adopt 09-20- 05,doc 12:56 PM 09/15/05 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 at 7:30 A.M. MINUTES Committee members attending: Atwood, John Coleman, Russ Harralson, Howell Noble, Julie Reeder, Dotti Others present: Austin, Kent - Director of Finance Livingston, Bob - City Manager Tvardzik, Tom - Controller Absent: Kelley, Terry Olmsted, Bob - Chair Stuart, John Wilson, Claude Carter, Syd - Council member 1. Call to order. John Atwood suggested the meeting be called to order at 7:41 a.m. 2. Review/approve minutes of August 23, 2005, meeting. Russ Coleman moved approval of the August 23, 2005, meeting minutes. John Atwood seconded, and the motion was approved 5-0. 3. Review April-June 2005 City investment report. Kent Austin directed the Committee's attention to the April-June 2005 investment report. The City's average portfolio yield rose from 2.42% to 2.89%; the invested balance market value fell from $53.1 million to $48.9 million. The Committee discussed the report briefly and had no questions. 4. Review/recommend City investment policy renewal, investment broker-dealer approval, and City investment officer authorization. Austin reminded the Committee that review and renewal of the investment policy is required each year and that the Finance Committee makes a recommendation to the City Council. He noted that the proposed policy has just one change from the current policy, so that sections 4.1.6 and 4.1.7 regarding Certificates of Deposit replace the words "state or national bank domiciled in this state" with the phrase "depository institution that has a main office or branch office in Texas." Austin reported that a recent change in state law permits cities to invest in CDARS (Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service), a spread-CD product that allows investors to make purchase CD's above $100,000 and still have FDIC protection. He said that at a future meeting the Committee could discuss the product in more detail and consider adding it to the City's policy. After some additional Committee discussion, John Atwood C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05. doc 09/15/05 moved approval of the proposed investment policy. Julie Noble seconded, the motion was approved 5-0. The Committee then discussed the list of investment officers and broker-dealers. Austin proposed substituting Deutsche Bank Alex.Brown for Salomon Smith Barney. The City's representative at Smith Barney switched to DB Alex.Brown. Service from the representative has been good, and the new firm is a primary dealer and qualified to handle City investment transactions. The list of proposed investment officers remains unchanged - Kent Austin, Tom Tvardzik, and Bob Livingston. John Atwood moved approval of the investment officers and brokers-dealers. Julie Noble recused herself from the vote. Howell Harralson seconded, the motion was approved 4-0. 5. Review/recommend selection of external auditor for FY2005. Controller Tom Tvardzik described the selection process, in which the City advertised and invited nine firms to propose for the FY2005 audit. Of those nine, only Deloitte & Touche and Weaver & Tidwell responded. Staff recommends selecting Weaver & Tidwell, whose proposed fee is $55,500, versus Deloitte & Touche, whose proposed fee is $67, 200. Austin and Tvardzik noted that Weaver & Tidwell was a close second during the auditor selection process in 2000. Julie Noble moved approval of the selection of Weaver & Tidwell as external auditors for FY2005, 2006, and 2007. John Atwood seconded, the motion was approved 5-0. 6. Review July 2005 monthly financial report. The Committee had no comments. 7. Follow-up items: a. City Hall project Bob Livingston updated the Committee on the progress of the creekwork, which began in July and is scheduled to be completed by September 2006. He reported that cost estimates for the building project are being updated and include a large contingency amount because construction plans are not yet complete. Livingston noted that relocation of the public safety dispatch operation to the Peek Center during building renovation would be a major challenge. b. Sales tax review - newspaper story Austin reported he had received numerous calls about the 9/9/2005 newspaper story on the City's sales tax recovery effort. The Committee suggested that a flyer informing merchants of the correct jurisdiction identification could accompany building Certificates of Occupancy. 8. New business. There was no new business. 9. Set next Committee meeting date. The Committee set the next meeting for Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 7:30 a.m. C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05. doc 09/15/05 2 10. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 a.m. Submitted by Kent Austin, Director of Finance Bob Olmsted, Chair C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05. doc 09/15/05 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE INVESTMENT POLICY OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK HERETOFORE ADOPTED BY RESOLUTION NO. 04-06; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Public Funds Investment Act, as amended, requires the City to adopt an investment policy by rule, order, ordinance or resolution, and to review such policy not less than annually; and WHEREAS, the Public Funds Investment Act, as amended, requires the Treasurer, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Investment Officers of the City to attend investment training; and WHEREAS, the City of University Park approves of the investment training courses sponsored by the Texas Municipal League and other independent sources; and WHEREAS, the Treasurer, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Investment Officers of the City have attended investment training courses as required by the Public Funds Investment Act; and WHEREAS, the attached investment policy complies with the Public Funds Investment Act, as amended, and authorizes the investment of City funds in safe and prudent investments; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the City of University Park has complied with the requirements of the Public Funds Investment Act, and the Investment Policy, as amended, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted as the Investment Policy of the City of University Park, effective September 20,2005. SECTION 2. That the following individuals are hereby designated as Investment Officers for the City of University Park: Kent Austin, Director of Finance; Bob Livingston, City Manager; and, Thomas Tvardzik, Controller. SECTION 3. This resolution shall take effect from and after its passage, and it is accordingly so resolved. DUL Y PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 20th day of September, 2005. APPROVED: JAMES H. HOLMES, III, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: CITY ATTORNEY NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY Investment Policy Effective September 20, 2005 City of University Park, Texas City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv CONTENTS Preface....................................................................................................................... iv 1. PURPOSE 1. Authorization...................................................................................................l 2. Goal................................................................................................................l 3. Scope..............................................................................................................l 4. Review and Amendment...................................................................................l 2. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES 1. Preservation and Safety of Principal..................................................................2 2. Maintenance of Adequate Liquidity..................................................................2 3. Return on Investments......................................................................................2 4. Prudence and Ethical Standards........................................................................3 3. INVESTMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT 1. Operating Funds...............................................................................................4 2. Bond Debt Service Funds.................................................................................4 3. Bond Reserve Funds........................................................................................4 4. Capital Projects Funds......................................................................................5 4. SPECIFIC INVESTMENT POLICIES 1. Eligible Investments.........................................................................................6 1. Obligations of the United States ...............................................................6 2. Obligations of the State of Texas..............................................................6 3. Agencies of the United States and State ofTexas......................................6 4. Obligations of other States, Counties, Cities.............................................6 5. Direct Repurchase Agreements................................................................6 6. Certificates of Deposit.............................................................................6 7. Share Certificates of state and federal Credit Unions................................. 7 8. Money Market Mutual Funds...................................................................7 9. Local Government Investment Pools.........................................................7 2. Ensuring Safety of Principal...............................................................................8 1. Protection of Principal.............................................................................8 1. Approved Broker/Dealers/Financial Institutions/Depositories............... 8 2. Master Repurchase Agreement ...........................................................9 3. Collateralization................................................................................. 9 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 1. Allowable Collatera1.................................................................1 0 1. Certificates of Deposit.......................................................1 0 2. Repurchase Agreements.....................................................1 0 2. Collateral Leve1s.......................................................................1 0 1. Certificates of Deposit.......................................................1 0 2. Repurchase Agreements.................................................... .11 3. Monitoring Collateral Adequacy................................................ 11 1. Certificates of Deposit...................................................... .11 2. Repurchase Agreements.................................................... .11 4. Margin Calls............................................................................ .11 1. Certificates of Deposit...................................................... .11 2. Repurchase Agreements.................................................... .11 5. Collateral Substitution .............................................................12 6. Collateral Reductions .............................................................12 4. Portfolio Diversification.................................................................. .12 1. Bond Proceeds......................................................................... .13 5. Limiting Maturity........................................................................... .13 1. Operating Funds .......................................................................13 2. Bond Proceeds, Bond Reserves, Debt Service Funds.................. 13 2. Safekeeping........................................................................................... .14 1. Safekeeping Agreement.................................................................. .14 2. Safekeeping of Certificate of Deposit Collateral............................... .14 3. Safekeeping of Repurchase Agreement Collateral............................ .14 3. Ensuring Liquidity........................................................................................ .14 4. Achieving Investment Return Objectives........................................................ .15 1. Securities Swaps.................................................................................... .15 2. Competitive Bidding.............................................................................. .15 3. Methods of Monitoring Market Price...................................................... .15 4. Benchmark Rate of Return..................................................................... .16 5. Responsibility and Controls........................................................................... .16 1. Authority to Invest................................................................................. .16 2. Bonding requirements/Standard of care................................................... .16 3. Establishment of Internal Controls.......................................................... .17 4. Standard of Ethics.................................................................................. .17 5. Training and Education.......................................................................... .17 6. Investment Committee............................................................................ .18 6. Reporting...................................................................................................... .18 7. Compliance Audit......................................................................................... .19 8. Certification.................................................................................................. .19 5. ADOPTING CLAUSE.......................................................................................... .20 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv APPENDICES A. INVESTMENT LEGISLATION............................................................... .21 B. MASTER REPURCHASE AGREEMENT ..............................................48 C. BROKER/DEALER CERTIFICATION ...................................................56 ATTACHMENTS 1. BROKER/DEALER QUESTIONNAIRE................................................... 58 iii City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv PREFACE The purpose of this document is to establish specific investment policy and strategy guidelines for the City of University Park, Texas ("City") in order to achieve the goals of safety, liquidity and yield for all investment activity. The City shall review its investment strategies and policy not less than annually. This policy serves to satisfY the statutory requirement, specifically the Public Funds Investment Act, Chapter 2256 of the Texas Government Code (the "Act"), to define, adopt and review a formal investment strategy and policy. It is the policy of the City that all available funds shall be invested in conformance with these legal and administrative guidelines. Effective cash management is recognized as essential to good fiscal management. An aggressive cash management and investment policy will be pursued to take advantage of investment interest as viable and material revenue to all operating and capital funds. The City's portfolio shall be designed and managed in a manner responsive to the public trust and consistent with state and federal law. Investments shall be made with the primary considerations of: . Preservation of capital and protection of principal . Maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet operating needs . Security of City funds and investments . Diversification of investments to avoid unreasonable or foreseeable risks . Maximization of return on the portfolio iv SECTION 1 PURPOSE City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 1. Purpose 1. Authorization This Policy is to be authorized by the City Council in accordance with Section 5 of the Public Funds Investment Act (Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code), which requires the adoption of a formal written Investment Policy. 2. Goal The primary goal of the City of University Park's Investment Policy shall be to ensure the safety of all funds entrusted to the City; to maintain the availability of those funds for the payment of all necessary obligations of the City; and to provide for the investment of all funds, not immediately required, in interest-bearing securities or pooled investment products. The safety of the principal invested shall always be the primary concern. 3. Scope This Investment Policy of the City of University Park shall include all investment activities of any fund of the City, except for the Firemen's Relief and Retirement Fund, which is covered by a separate policy. In addition to this Policy, bond funds, including debt service and reserve funds, shall be managed by their governing resolution and federal law, including the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and subsequent legislation. City funds will be pooled for investment purposes. 4. Review and Amendment This Policy may be amended from time to time as the City Council may so desire, or as State Law may require. This Policy, which includes strategies for each fund or pooled fund group, shall be adopted by resolution, rule, or ordinance by the City Council and shall be reviewed annually by the City Council. The fact that the Investment Policy has been reviewed and that any amendments have been made must be recorded by resolution, rule or ordinance. SECTION 2 INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 2. INVESTMENT OBJECTIVES The City shall manage and invest its cash with four objectives, listed in order of priority: Preservation and Safety of Principal; Liquidity; Yield; and Prudence. All investments shall be designed and managed in a manner responsive to the public trust and consistent with State and Local Law. The City shall maintain a comprehensive cash management program that includes the prudent investment of available cash. Cash management is defined as the process of managing monies in order to increase cash availability and interest earnings on short- term investment of idle cash. 1. Preservation and Safety of Principal The primary objective of City investment activity is the preservation of principal in the overall portfolio. Each investment transaction shall be conducted in a manner designed to avoid principal losses, whether they are from securities defaults or erosion of market value. The manner in which the City ensures safety of principal is presented in Section 4.2, "Ensuring Safety of Principal." 2. Maintenance of Adequate Liquidity The City investment portfolio shall be structured such that the City is able to meet all obligations in a timely manner. Maintenance of adequate liquidity is described in Section 4.3, "Ensuring Liquidity." 3. Return on Investments Consistent with State law, the City shall seek to optimize return on investments within the constraints of safety and liquidity. Investments (excluding assets managed under separate investment programs, such as in arbitrage restrictive programs) shall be made in permitted obligations at yields equal to or greater than the bond equivalent yield on United States Treasury obligations of comparable maturity. Other appropriate performance measures will be established by the Investment Committee. Specific policies regarding investment rate of return are presented in Section 4.4, "Achieving Investment Return Objectives." For bond issues to which Federal yield or arbitrage restrictions apply, the primary objectives shall be to obtain satisfactory market yields and to minimize the costs associated with investment of such funds. 2 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 4. Prudence and Ethical Standards The standard of prudence used by the City shall be the "prudent person rule" and shall be applied in the context of managing the overall portfolio within the applicable legal constraints. The prudent person rule is restated below: "Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, discretion and intelligence would exercise in the management of their own affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived." In determining whether the Investment Officer( s) or Investment Advisor under contract has exercised prudence with respect to an investment decision, the determination shall be made taking into consideration the investment of all funds over which the Officer/Advisor had responsibility rather than a consideration as to the prudence of a single investment, and whether the investment decision was consistent with the written Investment Policy of the City. The Investment Officers, acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence, shall not be held personally responsible for a specific security's credit risk or market price changes, provided that these deviations are reported immediately. Specific policies describing the City's prudence and ethical standards are found in Section 4.5, "Responsibility and Controls." 3 SECTION 3 INVESTMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 3. INVESTMENT STRATEGY STATEMENT The City maintains portfolios that utilize four specific investment strategy considerations designed to address the unique characteristics of the fund groups represented in the portfolios. 1. The Operating Funds The investment strategy for operating funds has as its primary objective the assurance that anticipated cash flows are matched with adequate investment liquidity. The secondary objective is to create a portfolio structure which will experience minimal volatility during economic cycles. This may be accomplished by purchasing quality, short- to medium-term securities. The dollar weighted average maturity shall be calculated in accordance with GASB requirements. The weighted average maturity of operating funds shall not exceed 548 days. Securities may not be purchased that have a final stated maturity date that exceeds five (5) years. 2. The Bond Debt Service Funds The investment strategy for bond debt service fund( s) has as its primary objective the assurance of investment liquidity adequate to cover the debt service obligation on the required payment date. Securities purchased shall not have a stated final maturity date that exceeds the next unfunded bond debt service payment date. 3. Bond Reserve Funds The investment strategy for bond reserve fund( s) has as its primary objective the ability to generate a dependable revenue stream to the appropriate debt service fund from securities with a low degree of volatility. Securities should be of high quality and, except as may be required by the Bond Ordinance specific to an individual issue, of short-to- intermediate-term maturities. The stated final maturity dates of securities held shall not exceed five (5) years. 4 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 4. Capital Projects Funds The investment strategy for capital projects funds portfolios has as its primary objective the assurance that anticipated cash flows are matched with adequate investment liquidity. These portfolios should include at least 10% in highly liquid securities to allow for flexibility and unanticipated project outlays. The stated final maturity dates of securities held should not exceed the estimated project completion date. To maximize the effective investment of assets, all funds needed for general obligations may be pooled into one account for investment purposes. The income derived from this account will be distributed to the various funds based on their average balances on a periodic basis. Proceeds of bond issues shall not be pooled with other assets of the City, but shall be maintained in the fund issuing the bonds with interest earnings on these invested proceeds recorded directly to that fund. 5 SECTION 4 SPECIFIC INVESTMENT POLICIES City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 4. SPECIFIC INVESTMENT POLICIES 1. Eligible Investments Investments described below are those authorized by the Public Funds Investment Act (Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code), as amended, which is included and made a part of this Policy as Appendix A. The following list may not contain all of those securities that are authorized by state statutes, but only those that the City Council wishes to include in their portfolios. The purchase of specific issues may at times be further restricted or prohibited because of current market conditions. City funds governed by this Policy may be invested in: 1. obligations of the United States or its agencies and instrumentalities; 2. direct obligations of the State of Texas or its agencies; 3. other obligations, the principal and interest on which are unconditionally guaranteed or insured by the State of Texas or the United States or its agencies and instrumentalities. 4. obligations of states, agencies, counties, cities and other political subdivisions of any state having been rated as to investment quality by a nationally recognized investment rating firm and having received a rating of not less than A or its equivalent. 5. fully collateralized direct repurchase agreements having a defined termination date, secured by obligations described by subdivision I of this subsection, pledged to the City, held in the City's name and deposited at the time the investment is made with the City with a third party selected and approved by the City, and placed through a primary government securities dealer, as defined by the Federal Reserve, or a financial institution doing business in Texas, and having a market value (including accrued interest) of no less than the principal amount of the funds disbursed; 6. certificates of deposit issued by a depository institution with a main office or branch in Texas that are: 1. guaranteed or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or its successor; or, 2. secured by obligations that are described by I - 4 above, which are intended to include all direct federal agency or instrumentality issues that have a market value of not less than the principal amount of the certificates or in any other manner and amount provided by law for deposits of the City. 6 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 7. share certificates issued by state and federal credit unions with a main office or branch in Texas that are: 1. guaranteed or insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund, or its successor; or, 2. secured by obligations that are described by 1 - 4 above, which are intended to include all direct federal agency or instrumentality issues that have a market value of not less than the principal amount of the certificates or in any other manner and amount provided by law for deposits of the City. 8. SEC-regulated, no-load money market mutual funds with a dollar- weighted average stated portfolio maturity of 90 days or less and whose investment objectives include seeking to maintain a stable net asset value of $1 per share. No more than 15% of the City's average fund balance may be invested in money market mutual funds, and the City may not invest funds under its control in an amount that exceeds 10% of the total assets of any individual money market mutual fund. 9. Local government investment pools organized in accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act (Chapter 791, Texas Government Act) as amended, whose assets consist exclusively of the obligations that are allowed as a direct investment for funds subject to the Public Funds Investment Act (Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code). A public funds investment pool must be continuously rated no lower than AAA, AAA-m or at an equivalent rating by at least one nationally recognized rating service. Eligible investment pools must be authorized by the City Council, by rule, order, ordinance, or resolution, as appropriate. The City Council has approved the Texas Local Government Investment Pool ("TexPool"), administered by the Texas State Comptroller; the Texas Short Term Asset Reserve ("TexSTAR"); administered by lPMorgan Chase and First Southwest Asset Management; and TexasTERM, administered by PFM Asset Management LLC. Investments in collateralized mortgage obligations are strictly prohibited. These securities are also disallowed for collateral positions. The City will not be required to liquidate investments that were authorized investments at the time of purchase. 2. Ensuring Safety of Principal 7 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv Ensuring safety IS accomplished through protection of principal and safekeeping. 1. Protection of Principal The City shall seek to control the risk ofloss due to the failure of a security issuer or guarantor. Such risk shall be controlled by: 1. investing only in the safest types of securities as defined in the Policy, 2. qualifYing the broker/dealer and financial institution with whom the City will transact, 3. collateralization as required by law, 4. portfolio diversification, and 5. limiting maturity. Settlement of all investment transactions, except those transactions involving investments in mutual funds or local government investment pools, must be made on a delivery versus payment basis. The purchase of individual securities shall be executed "delivery versus payment" (DVP) through the Federal Reserve System delivered to an authorized safekeeping agent or "Trustee." By so doing, City funds are not released until the City has received, through the Federal Reserve wire, the securities purchased. The security shall be held in the name of the City by the Trustee. The Trustee's records shall assure the notation of the City ownership of or explicit claim on the securities. The original copy of the safekeeping receipts shall be delivered to the City within twenty-four (24) hours of the security's receipt by the Trustee. 1. Approved BrokerlDealers/Financial Institutions and Depositories Investments shall only be made with those firms and institutions who have acknowledged receipt and understanding of the City's Investment Policy. The "qualified representative" of the business as defined in Chapter 2256 of the Texas Government Code shall execute a written certification to acknowledge receipt of the City's Investment Policy and to acknowledge that the organization has implemented reasonable procedures and controls to preclude imprudent investment activities arising out of the investment transactions conducted between the entity and the City. Should the City contract with an external investment advisor to execute the investment strategy, including the negotiation and execution of investment transactions, a managing officer of the investment advisory firm may sign the written certification in lieu of the broker/dealer firms. This certification must be included as part of the investment advisory contract. 8 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv Securities and certificates of deposit shall only be purchased from those institutions included on the City's list of broker/dealers and financial institutions as approved by the Investment Committee. All securities dealers shall provide the City with references from other public entities that they are currently serving. This list of approved investment providers must be reviewed at least annually by the City's Investment Committee and shall be recorded in the Committee's meeting minutes. The City's Finance Advisory Committee shall comprise the Investment Committee. All state and national banks located in the State of Texas, which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are to be considered as eligible depositories. The financial condition of the bank shall be considered prior to establishing any accounts with that bank. The Finance Advisory Committee shall review the bids submitted by depository candidates and make a recommendation to the City Council for final approval. 2. Master Repurchase Agreement It is the policy of the City to require each issuer of repurchase agreements to sign a copy of the City's Master Repurchase Agreement. An executed copy of this agreement must be on file before the City will enter into any repurchase agreement with an issuer. (See Appendix B, "Master Repurchase Agreement".) 3. CollateraIization Consistent with the requirements of State law, the City requires all bank deposits (including time deposits) to be federally insured or collateralized with eligible securities. Financial institutions serving as City Depositories will be required to sign an Agreement with the City and its safekeeping agent for the collateral, perfecting the City's rights to the collateral in case of default, bankruptcy or closure. The City shall not accept, as depository collateral, any security that is not specifically allowed to be held as a direct investment by the City portfolio (see 4.1). Repurchase agreements must also be collateralized in accordance with State law. Each issuer of repurchase agreements is required to sign a copy of the City's Master Repurchase Agreement. An executed copy of this agreement must be on file before the City will enter into any repurchase agreements with an issuer. (See Appendix B, "Master Repurchase Agreement".) The City considers repurchase agreements to be simultaneous purchases and sales of securities as outlined in the Master Repurchase Agreement and not as collateralizedd 9 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv loans. However, the underlying securities may be referred to as "collateral." Evidence of the pledged collateral shall be maintained by the Finance Director or a third party financial institution. All collateral shall be subject to inspection and audit by the Finance Director or the City independent auditors. (1) Allowable Collateral 1. Certificates of Deposit Eligible securities for collateralization of certificates of deposit are u.s. Treasury obligations and government agency securities. The eligibility of specific issues may at times be restricted or prohibited because of current market conditions. 2. Repurchase Agreements Collateral underlying repurchase agreements is limited to u.s. government and agency obligations, which are eligible for wire transfer (i.e. book entry) to the City's designated safekeeping agent through the Federal Reserve System. (2) Collateral Levels Collateral is valued at current market plus interest accrued through the date of valuation. 1. Certificates of Deposit The market value of collateral pledged for certificates of deposit must at all times be equal to or greater than 102% of the par value of the certificate of deposit plus accrued interest, less the amount insured by the FDIC or its successors. Investment in eligible pooled Certificate of Deposit programs is authorized under this section. 2. Repurchase Agreements The market value of collateral required to be pledged for repurchase agreements shall be a percentage of the par value of the agreement plus accrued interest and shall be maintained at the following levels: 10 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv Collateral Maturity u.s. Treasury Securities U.S. Government Agency I year or less I year to 5 years Over 5 years 102 % 102 % 103 % 102 % 103 % 104 % (3) Monitoring Collateral Adequacy 1. Certificates of Deposit The City requires monthly reports with market values of pledged securities from all financial institutions with which the City has certificates of deposit. The City's Investment Officer will at least weekly monitor the adequacy of collateral. 2. Repurchase Agreements Weekly monitoring by the City's Investment Officer of all collateral underlying repurchase agreements is required. More frequent monitoring may be necessary during periods of market volatility. (4) Margin Calls 1. Certificates of Deposit If the collateral pledged for a certificate of deposit falls below the 102% of the deposit, plus accrued interest less FDIC insurance, the institution will be notified by the City and will be required to pledge additional securities no later than the end of the next succeeding business day. 2. Repurchase Agreements If the value of the collateral underlying a repurchase agreement falls below the margin maintenance levels specified above, the City will make a margin call unless the repurchase agreement is scheduled to mature within five business days and the amount is deemed to be immaterial. (5) Collateral Substitution 11 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv Collateralized investments and certificates of deposit often require substitution of collateral. Any broker or financial institution requesting substitution must contact the Investment Officer( s) for approval and settlement. The substituted collateral's value will be calculated and substitution approved if its value is equal to or greater than the required value (See 4.2.1.3.2.2). The Investment Officer or must give immediate notification of the decision to the bank or the safekeeping agent holding the collateral. Substitution is allowable for all transactions, but should be limited, if possible, to minimize potential administrative problems and transfer expense. The Investment Officer may limit substitution and assess appropriate fees if substitution becomes excessive or abusive. Collateral may be substituted only with the oral authorization of the Investment Officer, followed by written confirmations within 24 hours. (6) Collateral Reductions Should the collateral's market value exceed the required amount, any broker or financial institution may request approval from the Investment Officer to reduce collateral. Collateral reductions may be permitted only if the City's records indicate that the collateral's market value exceeds the required amount. Written confirmations of the collateral reduction should be received within 24 hours of the Investment Officer's approval. 4. Portfolio Diversification Risk of principal loss in the portfolio as a whole shall be minimized by diversifYing investment types according to the following limitations. 12 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv As discussed below, these limitations do not apply to bond proceeds. Investment Type: % of Portfolio . u.s. Treasury Notes/Bonds/Bills . U.S. Agencies . Local Government Investment Pools . Repurchase Agreements . Certificates of Deposit . Money Market Mutual Funds 100% 60% 50% 30% 30% 15% It is the policy of the City to diversifY its investment portfolio so that reliance on anyone issuer or broker will not place an undue financial burden on the City. Generally, the City should limit its repurchase agreement exposure with a single firm to no more than 15% of the value of the City's overall portfolio. To allow efficient and effective placement of proceeds from any bond sales, these limits may be exceeded for a maximum of five business days following the receipt of bond proceeds. (1) Bond Proceeds Proceeds of a single bond issue may be invested in a single security or investment if the Investment Committee determines that such an investment is necessary to comply with Federal arbitrage restrictions or to facilitate arbitrage record keeping and calculation. 5. Limiting Maturity In order to minimize risk of loss due to interest rate fluctuations, investment matuntJes will not exceed the anticipated cash flow requirements of the funds. Maturity guidelines by funds are as follows: (1) Operating Funds The dollar weighted average days to final stated maturity shall be 548 days or less. The Investment Officer will monitor the maturity level and make changes as appropriate. (2) Bond Proceeds, Bond Reserves, Debt Service Funds The investment maturity of bond proceeds (including reserves and debt service funds) shall be determined considering: 1. the anticipated cash flow requirements of the funds, and; 13 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 2. the "temporary period" as defined by Federal tax law during which time bond proceeds may be invested at an unrestricted yield. After the expiration of the temporary period, bond proceeds subject to yield restriction shall be invested considering the anticipated cash flow requirements of the funds. 3. Safekeeping 1. Safekeeping Agreement The City shall contract with a bank or banks for the safekeeping of securities either owned by the City as a part of its investment portfolio or held as collateral to secure certificates of deposits or repurchase agreements. The Safekeeping Agreement shall clearly define the procedural steps for gaining access to the collateral should the City determine that the City funds are in jeopardy. The safekeeping institution, or Trustee, shall hold all aforementioned securities in an account at the Federal Reserve Bank that specifies City ownership of the account. The Safekeeping Agreement shall include the signatures of authorized representatives of the City, the firm pledging the collateral and the Trustee. 2. Safekeeping of Certificate of Deposit Collateral All collateral securing certificates of deposit must be held by a third party banking institution approved by the City, or collateral may be held at the Federal Reserve Bank. The City's ownership in collateral positions must be fully perfected. 3. Safekeeping of Repurchase Agreement Collateral The securities that serve as collateral for repurchase agreements with dealers must be delivered to a third-party custodian with whom the City has established a third-party safekeeping agreement. The City's ownership of all securities that serve as collateral for repurchase agreements must be fully perfected. 3. Ensuring Liquidity Liquidity shall be achieved by matching investment maturities with forecasted cash flow requirements, by investing in securities with active secondary markets, and by investing in eligible money market mutual funds (MMMF's) and local government investment pools (LGlP's). 14 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv A security may be liquidated to meet unanticipated cash requirements, to re- deploy cash into other investments expected to outperform current holdings, or to otherwise adjust the portfolio. 4. Achieving Investment Return Objectives Investment selection for all funds shall be based on legality, appropriateness, liquidity, and risk/return considerations. The portfolios may be actively managed to enhance overall interest income. Active management will take place within the context of the "Prudent Person Rule." (see Section 2.4). 1. Securities Swaps The City may take advantage of security swap opportunities to improve portfolio yield. A swap which improves portfolio yield may be selected even if the transaction results in an accounting loss. 2. Competitive Bidding It is the policy of the City to require competitive bidding for all individual security purchases except for those transactions with money market mutual funds (MMMFs) and local government investment pools (LGIP's) which are deemed to be made at prevailing market rates, and for government securities purchased at issue through a primary dealer at auction price. Rather than relying solely on yield, investment in MMMFs and LGIP's shall be based on criteria determined by the Investment Committee, including adherence to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidelines for MMMFs when appropriate. At least three bidders must be contacted in all transactions involving individual securities. Competitive bidding for security swaps is also required. Bids may be solicited in any manner provided by law. For those situations where it may be impractical or unreasonable to receive three bids for a transaction due to a rapidly changing market environment or to secondary market availability, documentation of a competitive market survey of comparable securities or an explanation of the specific circumstance must be included with the transaction bid sheet. All bids received must be documented and filed for auditing purposes. 3. Methods of Monitoring Market Price The methods/sources to be used to monitor the price of investments that have been acquired with public funds shall be from sources deemed reliable by the Investment Officer, including primary or regional broker/dealers, established financial institutions providing portfolio managemenVaccounting services, financial publications, such as the Wall 15 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv Street Journal, market information vendors such as Bloomberg or Telerate and market pricing services. 4. Benchmark Rate of Return As a general guideline, the City's cash management portfolio shall be designed with the objective of regularly meeting the average return on three-month u.s. Treasury Bills, or the average rate of 90-day Certificates of Deposit. These indices are considered benchmarks for risk-free investment transactions and therefore comprise a standard for the portfolio's rate of return. Additional benchmarks may be developed and recommended by the Investment Committee and used as a comparative performance measures for the portfolio. Additional benchmarks that may be considered for targeting by the Investment Committee include the Constant Maturity Treasury Bill with the maturity that most closely matches the weighted average maturity of the portfolio or a more customized index made up of blended Merrill Lynch Treasury/Agency indices. The investment program shall seek to augment rates of return above this threshold, consistent with legal restrictions and prudent investment principles. In a diversified portfolio, measured losses are inevitable and must be considered within the context of the overall portfolio. 5. Responsibility and Control 1. Authority to Invest Authority to manage the City investment program is derived from a resolution of the City. Those authorized by said resolution are designated as Investment Officers of the City, and, in conjunction with the Investment Committee, are responsible for investment decisions and activities. The City reserves the right to contract with an external investment advisory firm to manage the investment assets, and the resulting resolution will grant investment authorization to the contracted firm. The Finance Director shall establish written procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this Investment Policy. 2. Bonding requirements/Standard of care Each of the authorized investment officers shall be a bonded employee. All participants in the investment process shall act responsibly as custodians of the public trust and shall exercise the judgment and care, under prevailing circumstances, that a prudent person would exercise in the management of the person's own affairs. 16 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 3. Establishment of Internal Controls The Finance Director is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the entity are protected from loss, theft or misuse. The internal control structure shall be designed to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived, and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. 4. Standard of Ethics City staff involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program, or which could impair the ability to make impartial investment decisions. City staff shall disclose to the City any material interests in financial institutions that conduct business with the City, and they shall further disclose positions that could be related to the performance of the City portfolio. City staff shall subordinate their personal financial transactions to those of the City, particularly with regard to the timing of purchases and sales. An investment officer of the City who has a personal business relationship with an organization seeking to sell an investment to the City shall file a statement disclosing that personal business interest. An investment officer who is related within the second degree by affinity or consanguinity to an individual seeking to sell an investment to the City shall file a statement disclosing that relationship. A statement required under this subsection must be filed with the Texas Ethics Commission and the governing body of the City. 5. Training and Education In accordance with the Public Funds Investment Act (Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code), the designated Investment Officers, or those personnel authorized to execute investment transactions, must attend periodic investment training. State law requires that training relating to investment responsibilities must be provided by an independent source as approved by the Investment Committee. Personnel authorized to execute or approve investment transactions must receive at least 10 hours of investment training within each two-year period. Newly appointed investment officers must attain at least 10 hours of instruction relating to the officer's responsibility under the Act within 12 months after assuming investment duties. 17 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 6. Investment Committee An Investment Committee that is comprised of the membership of the Finance Advisory Committee shall be established to determine investment guidelines, general strategies, and monitor performance. The Committee shall meet quarterly to review performance, strategy and procedures. The Investment Committee shall include in its deliberation such topics as: performance reports, economic outlook, portfolio diversification, maturity structure, potential risk to the City funds, authorized brokers and dealers, and the target rate of return on the investment portfolio. 6. Reporting Investment performance is continually monitored and evaluated by the Finance Director. The Investment Officer( s) will provide detailed reports, as required by the Public Funds Investment Act (Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code, Section 2256.023) for the City on a quarterly basis. The Finance Director shall submit a quarterly investment report signed by the investment officers that summarizes current market conditions, economic developments and anticipated investment conditions. The report shall summarize investment strategies employed in the most recent quarter, and describe the portfolio in terms of investment securities, maturities, risk characteristics and shall explain the total investment return for the quarter. The report will outline conformance to the restrictions of the Policy in the area of diversification and term of maturity. The report will also compare the performance of City's portfolio to appropriate benchmarks as determined by the Investment Committee. The report shall summarize current market conditions, economic developments and anticipated investment conditions. The report shall also summarize investment strategies employed in the most recent quarter, and describe the portfolio in terms of investment securities, maturities and risk characteristics. Within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year, the Finance Director or the Investment Advisory firm shall present an annual report on the investment program and investment activity. The report may be presented as a component of the fourth quarter report to the City. The quarterly investment report shall include a succinct management summary that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investment portfolio and transactions made over the last quarter. This management summary will be prepared in a manner which will allow the City to ascertain whether investment activities during the reporting period have conformed to the Investment Policy. The report will include the following: 18 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 1. A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period. 2. Unrealized gains or losses resulting from appreciation or depreciation by listing the beginning and ending book and market value of securities for the period. 3. Additions and changes to the market value during the period. 4. Average weighted yield to maturity or total return performance of the portfolio on entity investments as compared to applicable benchmarks. 5. Listing of investments by maturity date. 6. The percentage of the total portfolio which each type of investment represents. 7. Statement of compliance of the City investment portfolio with State Law and the investment strategy and policy approved by the City. 7. Compliance Audit In conjunction with its annual financial audit, the City shall perform a compliance audit of management controls on investments and adherence to the City's established Investment Policies. The results of the audit shall be reported to the Investment Committee and the governing body of the City. 8. Certification A copy of this Investment Policy will be provided to the senior management of any bank, dealer, broker or investment advisor wishing to transact investment business directly with the City in order that it is apprised of the investment goals of the City. Before business is transacted with the firm, a certification (Appendix C) must be signed by a senior member of a firm. Should the City contract with an external investment advisor to execute the entity's investment strategy, including the negotiation and execution of investment transactions, a managing officer of the investment advisory firm may sign the written certification in lieu of the broker/dealer firms. This certification must be included as part of the investment advisory contract. 19 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv SECTION 5 ADOPTING CLAUSE 48 City ofUniversitv Park, Texas - Investment Policv 5. ADOPTING CLAUSE This Investment Policy for the City of University Park, Texas is hereby adopted as of the 20th day of September, 2005. Mayor Director of Finance ATTEST: City Secretary 49 19 AGENDA MEMO (8/2/05 AGENDA) DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works SUBJECT: ROW License Agreement: 3557 Centenary ITEM: The property owner of3557 Centenary has begun construction of single family home designed with a basement. Section 3.103, Amendments to the Building Code, contains language in Section 1803.3.1, Drainage requirements, that requires all basements or below grade construction in residential units to contain drainage systems that must be drained through enclosed pipe into the City's storm water drainage system. The closest storm sewer inlet for this property to use is at the intersection of Centenary and Turtle Creek Boulevard, approximately 1,000 feet to the east. Rather than open a trench to bury the drainage line, the builder has proposed a directional bore in the City's ROW. The bore will go under all driveways, trees, and irrigations systems in the parkway. Due to the distance involved in the bore, the city has required the builder to abide by the following additional requirements: . Drainage line must remain 3 feet deep along all points of the bore; . Builder must test all sprinkler systems along south side of Centenary; . Tracer wire must be attached to drainage pipe to allow for future locates; and . Builder must provide specific drawings indicating where the line is in relation to the back of curb along Centenary. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff recommends approval ofthis ROW license agreement. ATTACHMENTS: License Agreement and Addendum Letter 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Lic Agreement 3557 Centenary. doc 12:13 PM 09/1 LICENSE AGREEMENT CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK ****************************************************************************** This License Agreement (the "Agreement") effective as provided herein (the "Effective Date"), is between the City of University Park, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and E- ~ V~O"\ R.~ ~.-..-l~+-:_.\ , (the "Licensee"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Licensee des,ires to place, install, and maintain <..t II ~/~l '\ ~ I. "' l.. ("the Improvements") in a City right-of-way, easement or property (" the Property") at t- "'-e. ~o .... \.-~ ..\ .\1-e.- 01- c ~ t- ~ ~r 0..... \ ~ G-LC.. (~~ ,/-0 I v r t \ {. (II:. c..t . in Dallas County, Texas, as more specifically designated on Exhibit "A" attachea hereto, for thev, "J..<e../ ~.e., purpose of <-.....'j ~t. J-r.....~,e......'7{J tp,..-\ ~ ~~~+ by the Licensee; and WHEREAS, the City desires to grant Licensee the privilege to place, install, remove and maintain the Improvements on the Property upon the terms set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the City and Licensee agree as follows: I. GRANT OF LICENSE 1,1 License to Maintain Certain Articles on Property. The City hereby licenses and authorizes the Licensee at all times during the term of this Agreement to place, install, remove, and maintain the Improvements on the Property described in Exhibit "A" attached, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. 1.2 Exclusive Use. The Licensee may place, install, and maintain on the Property the Improvements described in Exhibit "A" to be used exclusively for the purposes of the Licenseeis residence. II. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT AND EFFECTIVE DATE 2.1 Prior Plan. With this Agreement, the Licensee hereby submits to the Building and Zoning Administrator and the Director of Public Works of the City plans for the placement, 1 arrangement, and installation of the Improvements. 2.2 Review by City. The Building and Zoning Administrator or his representative and the Director of Public Works or his representative shall review the plans and make modifications to the plans as they, in their sole discretion, consider reasonably necessary or appropriate for the preservation of the public health, safety, and welfare of the City.. 2.3 Approval and Effective Date. This Agreement and the rights and obligations hereunder shall become effective when the last one of either the Building and Zoning Administrator or his representative or the Director of Public Works or his representative has approved the plans. The Licensee agrees to place, arrange, or install the Improvements on the Property according to the approved plans. The Licensee shall not place, arrange, or install any articles on the Property before the plans have been approved, The City retains the right to remove any article or all articles placed onto the right-of-way, easement or Property at any time and retains the right to modify or amend the plans at any time after the Effective Date of this Agreement, upon reasonable notice to the Licensee, such notice informing the Licensee of the purpose and reasonableness of the modification(s) or amendment(s). ID. INDEMNIFICA TION AND INSURANCE 3,1 Liabilities. Losses. or Damages. Licensee agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City from any liability or damages the City may suffer as a result of claims, demands, suits, judgments, costs or expenses, including expenses of litigation and attorneys' fees, arising out of the use, maintenance, placement, installation, operation, or removal of the Improvements, 3.2 Period Covered. The indemnity provided by this Agreement will extend from the date of this Agreement to the Termination of this Agreement. 3,3 Expenses. Attorneys' Fees. and Costs. If the City, in the enforcement of Paragraph 2.3 of this Agreement, shall incur necessary expenses, or become obligated to pay attorneys' fees or court costs, the Licensee agrees to reimburse the City promptly for such expenses, attorneys' fees, or costs after receiving notice from the City of the incurring of such expenses, costs, or obligations. 3.4 Interest. The Licensee agrees to pay the City interest at the rate of Ten Percent (10%) per annum on any necessary expenses or costs incurred by the City in the enforcement of Paragraph 2.3 of this agreement, or on any sum that the City is obligated to pay with respect to the matters for which indemnity is given in this Agreement, from the date such expenses or costs are incurred, or such sums are paid. 3.5 Notice of Claim Against. The City agrees to give the Licensee prompt written notice of any claim made against the City on the obligations indemnified by the Licensee hereunder. 2 3.6 Limitation on Liability. The City and the Licensee agree that the provisions of Article II of this Agreement shall not in any way limit the liability of the Licensee. 3.7 Insurance. The Licensee agrees to carry and maintain insurance during the entire term of this Agreement as follows: A Public Liability Insurance in amounts not less than those established as maximum recovery limits recoverable against the City under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as amended. B. Broad Form Blanket Contractual (including Licensee's obligation hereunder) insurance in amounts not less than those required under B. above. Such policies of insurance shall be issued by companies authorized to conduct business in the State of Texas and shall name the City as additional insured. Certificates evidencing such insurance contracts shall be deposited with the Risk Manager for the City. The, policy limits provided in the Agreement shall change in accordance with the provisions for maximum liability under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Such certificates shall require thirty (30) days written notice to the City in the event of default by Licensee or termination of any coverage, IV. ASSIGNMENT 4.1 Nonassignable. This License is personal to the Licensee. It is nonassignable and any attempt to assign this License will terminate the License privileges granted to Licensee under this Agreement. V. TERMINA TION 5.1 Terminable at Will. This Agreement is terminable by either party at will by the giving of thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. VI. GENERAL PROVISIONS 6.1 Governing Law. The validity of this Agreement, the construction and enforcement of its terms, and the interpretation of the rights and duties of the parties shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Exclusive venue of any action hereon shall lie in Dallas County, Texas 6.2 Amendment. No amendment, supplement, or waiver of this Agreement or any of its 3 provisions shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless made in writing and duly signed by all parties. 6.3 Waiver. A failure or delay of the City to enforce at any time any of the provisions of this Agreement, or to exercise any option that is provided in this Agreement, or to require at any time performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement, shall in no way be construed to be a waiver of such provision of this Agreement. 6.4 Entirety of Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the City and the Licensee and supersedes all previous agreements, promises, representations, whether written or oral, between the City and the Licensee with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. 6.5 Heading. The article and section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not constitute part of this Agreement. 6.6 Sole Benefit. Nothing expressed or referred to in this Agreement is intended or shall be construed to give any person, firm, or entity, other than the City or the Licensee, any legal or equitable right, remedy, or claim under or in respect to this Agreement or any provisions in this Agreement. It is the intention of the City and the Licensee that this Agreement, the assumption of obligations and statements of responsibilities herein, and all conditions and provisions of this Agreement are for the sole benefit of the City and the Licensee, and for the benefit of no other person, firm, or entity. 6.7 Notice. Any notices or other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically provided, shall be deemed given, if sent by first -class mail, postage prepaid, to such party at its address set forth below and shall be effective as of the date of actual delivery of the notice. Either party may change its notice address by a written notice as provided herein. If to the City: City Manager If to Licensee: City of University Park 3800 University Blvd. Box 8005 University Park, IX 75205-0005 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and the Licensee, each acting through its respective duly authorized representative has caused this Agreement to be signed in their names and delivered as of the date first above written. This Agreement shall be effective on the last date signed below. CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK 3800 University Blvd. University Park, TX 75205 By: Printed Name: James H. Holmes III Title: Mayor Date: Title: J-~ C-/'~+ &..-~W P~-e~ ('J~ i E~.vs~ k-e ~ .;J,","-~" 1 By: Printed Name: Date: 5 From: Linda Stalder At Hotchkiss Insurance Agency FaxlD: 972-512-7799 To: Grant Date: 9/1412005 04'01 PM Page: , of 1 ACORD. CERTIFICA TE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OP 10 L~ DATE (MMIDDIYYYY) EMERS-2 09/14/05 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE Hotchkiss Insurance Agency,Inc HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR 4120 International Pkwy. #2000 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Carroll ton TX 75007 Phone: 972-512-7700 Fax: 972-512-7799 INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURED INSURER A Mid-Continent Casualty CO INSURER B Oklahoma Surety Co Emerson Residential, LP INSURER C 3415 Westminster, Suite 206 INSURER D: Dallas TX 75205 INSURER E: COVERAGES THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LlSTEO BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERiOD INDICATED, N01WITHSTANDING ANY REOUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFiCATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES, AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS ,,,,1< ~R[ POLICY NUMBER DATE (MMiOONYr LIMITS LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE DATE (MMlDDNY) GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1000000 - A X ~ COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 04GLOO0601825 04/29/05 04/29/06 PREMISES (Ea occurence) $ 100000 tJ CLAIMS MADE [!] OCCUR MED EXP (Anyone person) $ Excl uded ~ PERSONAL & fillV INJURY $ 1000000 ~ ~ EIFS/Lead/Mold Ex GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2000000 GENt AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER PRODUCTS - COMPIOP AGG $ 2000000 I n PRO. nLOC POLlC'( JECT AUTOMOBILE LIABiliTY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT ~ $ 1000000 B ANY AUTO 04CA002735684 04/29/05 04/29/06 (Ea aCCident) ~ ALL OWNED AUTOS BODIL Y INJURY ~ (Per person) $ SCHEDULED AUTOS ~ ~ HIRED AUTOS BODIL Y INJURY (Per accident) $ ~ NON. OWNED AUTOS - PROPERTY DAMAGE $ (Per accident) GARAGE LiABiliTY AUTO ONL Y . EA ACCIDENT $ ~ NoiY AUTO OTHER THAN EA ACC $ AUTO ONL Y AGG $ EXCESSIUMBRELLA LIABiLiTY EACH OCCURRENCE $ ~ OCCUR D CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE $ $ ~ DEDUCTIBLE $ RETENTION $ $ WORKERS COMPENSATiON AND I T~R'y t:~I'TuS I jUER' EMPLOYERS' LIABiliTY ANY PROPRIETORlPARTNERlEX.ECUTIVE EL EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICERlMEMBER EXCLUDED? E L, DISEASE. EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes, describe under E L, DISEASE. POLICY LIMIT $ SPECIAL PROVISIONS below OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERA110NS J LOCATIONS I VEHiCLES I EXCLUSiONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT J SPECIAL PROViSIONS 214-692-7073 Grant. CERTIFICATE HOLDER IS NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECTS TO GENERAL LIABILITY. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION CITYUNl SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRiBED POliCIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPiRA110N DATE THEREOF, THE iSSUiNG INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 10 DAYS WRiTTEN City of University Park - NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL Bud Smallwood iMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR liABiLITY OF ANY KiND UPON THE INSURER, ITS AGENTS OR 4420 Worcola Dallas TX 75206 REPRESENTATiVES, Aur;zl2ilCE ACORD 25 (2001/08) @)ACORDCORPORATION 1988 Emerson RESIDENTIAL September 14, 2005 City of University Park 3800 University Blvd University Park, Texas 75205-1711 Re: 3557 Centenary Dear Robbie Corder: Please be advised that Emerson Residential, LP agrees to do the following on the above referenced property. . The drain line will be 3 feet below the sidewalk. . A tracer wire will be added to the drain line. · A licensed irrigation company will test the irrigation system on the block and will repair any damage to the irrigation system that may occur after the installation of the drain line. . Emerson Residential, LP will provide an as built boring plan. If you should have any questions regarding this matter please do not hesitate to call me at 214-460-0473. Thank you for your attention to this matter. rant mster Emerson Residential, LP Specialists in Design and Craftsmanship of Distinctive Custom Homes 3415 Westminster, Suite 206. Dallas, TX 75205 . 214.692.7070. Fax 214.692.7073. emersonresidcntiaLcom --.- - -- - - AJ'<,V?t'vd- ) L SSE - I 11 :c J I-- ~ -" 1 \I -1 . ,. V'} 7' ~ ~ /f"" ( o o z ~ l 'i) ., 1 j ~ 0 -' .-i- V) J) ....-W 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/2005 AGENDA) DATE: 09/13/2005 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Gary W. Adams, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Designation of Local Rabies Control Authority Back2round Article 826.017 of the Texas Health and Safety Code requires the governing body of each municipality to designate an officer to act as the local rabies control authority for the purpose of Chapter 826 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. Said rabies control officer may be the city's Animal Control Officer. Among the duties, the Local Rabies Control Officer shall enforce Chapter 826 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, as it relates to animal control and the minimum standards for rabies control, the ordinances or rules of the municipality, and the rules adopted by provisions of Chapter 826, Section 826.045, as they relate to rabies quarantine provisions. Recommendation It is staff's recommendation that the City Council appoint any person acting as the Police Department's Animal Control Officer as the City's Rabies Control Authority. Attachments: Copy of Section 826.017 Texas Health and Safety Code. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\City Rabies Officer. doc 11:18AM 09/1 A9 826.017. DESIGNATION OF LOCAL RABIES CONTROL AUTHORITY. (a) The commissioners court of each county and the governing body of each municipality shall designate an officer to act as the local rabies control authority for the purposes of this chapter. (b) Except as restricted by board rule, the officer designated as the local rabies control authority may be the county health officer, municipal health officer, animal control officer, peace officer, or any entity that the commissioners court or governing body considers appropriate. (c) Among other duties, the local rabies control authority shall enforce: (1) this chapter and the board rules that comprise the minimum standards for rabies control; (2) the ordinances or rules of the municipality or county that the local rabies control authority serves; and (3) the rules adopted by the board under the area rabies quarantine provisions of Section 826.045. Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 678, A9 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1989. Amended by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 44, A9 2, eff. May 5, 1995. MINUTES #2518 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6,2005, 5:00 P.M. Mayor Blackie Holmes opened the meeting. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Roberts and Councilmembers Syd Carter, Kelly Walker and Harry Shawver. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Attorney Rob Dillard and City Secretary Nina Wilson. PRE-MEETING Mayor Holmes announced that the council had decided that, since the City of University Park did not have the facilities available to provide relief to the evacuees of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, the city would make available $100,000 for assistance. Administrative Assistant Kate Smith introduced Mr. Michael Egan of Dallas Marketing Group, who reviewed the citizen survey with the council. The surveys can be filled out either on paper or online. The city will receive a full report with an analysis of the questions and a statistical analysis containing citizens' satisfaction with city services. The surveys will be mailed October 1 st in the water bills. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION RETIREMENT PLAQUE FOR PAT ROBERTS, PAYROLL SPECIALIST, FINANCE DEPARTMENT: Pat Roberts was unable to attend. This item was rescheduled to September 20, 2005. DEPARTMENT PIN FOR POLICE OFFICER JIM SAVAGE: City Manager Bob Livingston presented Police Officer Jim Savage with a 15-year pin and thanked him for his service to the city. PRESENTATION OF INCENTIVE CHECK TO REBCON, INC.: Mayor Holmes presented a $30,000 incentive check for early completion on the Lovers Lane Project. RECOGNITION OF BOYS SCOUTS: Three boy scouts introduced themselves and announced the badges upon which they were working. Mayor Pro Tempore Roberts moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER INCENTIVE PAYMENT FOR EARLY COMPLETION OF STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION ALONG LOVERS LANE FROM THACKERY TO DICKENS, PROJECT 42730: The $30,000 check was presented to Rick Burgett and Chuy Vasquez, representatives of Rebcon, Inc. for work substantially completed before August 10, 2005. On May 19, 2004, the city council approved Rebcon, Inc. for the above-referenced project. A Change Order for additional storm sewer improvements and pavement reconstruction along Lovers Lane from Thackery to Dickens was approved by the city council on December 14, 2004. At the December 14, 2004 council meting, staff was directed to offer an incentive pay in the amount of $30,000 to Rebcon, Inc. if the project was completed at least 20 calendar days before August 10, 2005. In addition, the contractor worked with University Park Elementary School on several occasions to stop work for specific testing days and special events. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE FIRE AND BUILDING CODE: The International Building and Fire Code, 2000 was amended. The amendment adopted separate fire line taps on the city's potable water supply for residential structures being built in the city that have more than two units and adoption of the National Fire Protection Association Standard 24. This will include town homes, condominiums and sorority and fraternity houses built on the Southern Methodist Campus. ORDINANCE NO. OS/28 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 3.103, AND CHAPTER 5, SECTION 5.107, TO PROVIDE FOR CONNECTIONS FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For August 30,2005. MAIN AGENDA DISCUSS WATER TASTE AND ODOR WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM DALLAS COUNTY PARK CITIES MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT: Due to the recent odor and taste of the water supply for the city, President of the Board of Directors Mark Connell and General Manager Larry McDaniel of the Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utilities District discussed the situation and plans for remedying it. Mr. Connell stated that in a fire a few weeks ago, a fire retardant foam was used. As a result, there was a sudsing action in the treated water, but it was safe to drink. During that time, the plant was shut down and the system was flushed as well as the current equipment. The plant was turned back on and that is when the city experienced the taste and odor in the water, which was caused by low oxygen in the water. As the plant is now 50 years old and the limits of what can be done with equipment are reached, the board is looking at several options and, in the next fiscal year, a pilot study will be set up to deal with such problems. Mr. McDaniel also stated that this problem could also have been a result of lake turnover and that will be considered when the pilot study is done. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED FY2006 BUDGET AND PROPERTY TAX RATE: Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing. This was the final hearing on the FY06 budget. The only change from the initial proposed budget of August 2nd was the addition of $51,622, fuel costs for city vehicles. The total budget of $34,801,128 is 1.84% higher that last year's $34,173,272 adopted budget. The property tax rate for the tax year 2005 is $0.30958 per $100 taxable value. There is no debt service portion of the tax rate. The proposed new rate represents a 4.86% nominal tax rate decrease and a 3.93% effective tax increase. The plan includes a 4% market-based increase for city employees. Employees who are eligible for merit increases on their anniversary date may receive a 3% raise. Total full-time headcount will be 238 employees, up one from last year's adopted budget. There will be an increase in sanitation rates. The monthly charge for a single-family home will rise about 20%, from $14.60 to $17.50. Commercial and other charges will be similarly raised. As the answer to the ten questions asked previously over the last two weeks, and since there were no questions from anyone in attendance, Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING FOR PORTABLE ON DEMAND STORAGE UNITS (PODS) ORDINANCE: Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing. The ordinance allows certain accessory structures, objects or appurtenances in the front yard of a residence for a period not exceeding one week in order to provide temporary storage for personal property from the residence and to facilitate relocation and moving of household items to or from the residence. As there were no questions regarding this ordinance, Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve limiting the amount of time PODS could be in the front yard of a residence. ORDINANCE NO. 05/29 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING ARTICLE 12.300 "THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO AMEND SECTION 8-608 (3) TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, OBJECTS, OR APPURTENANCES IN A REQUIRED FRONT YARD; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PUBLIC HEARING FOR ORDINANCE TO ADOPT REVISED ZONING ORDINANCE: Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing. The ordinance amends the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, together with all amendments thereto and enacts a revised zoning ordinance establishing zoning regulations and districts in the City of University Park in accordance with this Comprehensive Plan. The city contracted with Duncan Associates in 2001 to rewrite the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance with a view to making it more user friendly and easier to read. The new ordinance has been restructured and reformatted to include illustrations of residential lot development, parking and driveway configurations. There have been no substantive changes to the established zoning district classifications or the development standards contained in the current zoning ordinance. All Planned Development Districts and Specific Use Permits have been incorporated in the final draft. This draft also includes all amendments made since 2001 and up to the time of consideration. As there were no questions, Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve adopting the revised zoning ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 05/30 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, ATTACHED HERETO AND REFERRED TO HEREIN AS EXHIBIT "A", REPLACING THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE (NO. 88/7), AS PASSED AND APPROVED THE 16th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1988, TOGETHER WITH ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO; ESTABLISHING ZONING REGULATIONS AND DISTRICTS IN THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; REGULATING WITHIN SUCH DISTRICTS THE HEIGHT AND BULK OF BUILDINGS; THE SIZE OF YARDS, COURTS AND OPEN SPACES; REGULATING THE DENSITY OF DWELLINGS AND OTHER STRUCTURES AND THE PERCENTAGE OF A LOT THAT MAY BE OCCUPIED BY BUILDINGS; PROVIDING FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE INCLUSION OF NEW AND UNLISTED USES; ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; PROVIDING FOR NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES; CREATING A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND SPECIFYING ITS JURISDICTION; ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR A BUILDING SITE; PROVIDING FOR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND COMPLIANCE; DEFINING CERTAIN TERMS; ESTABISHING A PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE ORDINANCE, GRANTING VARIANCES, PROVIDING INTERPRETATIONS, AND PERMITTING SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE PRESERVATION OF PREVIOUS VALID ACTIONS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; PRESERVING RIGHTS IN PENDING LITIGATION AND VIOLATIONS UNDER EXISTING ORDINANCES AND PRESCRIBING A PENALTY OF FINE FOR EACH OFFENSE NOT TO EXCEED TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) AND EACH DAY ANY VIOLATION OR NON-COMPLIANCE CONTINUES CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE OFFENSE; AND CONTAINING A REPEALING CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY PROVISION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER ORDINANCE ADOPTING FY2006 BUDGET: Councilmember Carter moved approval of the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve adopting the FY2006 Budget. ORDINANCE NO. 05/31 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER I, 2005, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006; APPROPRIATING THE VARIOUS AMOUNTS REQUIRED FOR SUCH BUDGET; PROVIDING FOR RECORDING OF THE ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER ORDINANCE ADOPTING 2005 (FY2006) PROPERTY TAX RATE: Councilmember Walker moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the adoption of the 2005 (FY2006) property tax rate. ORDINANCE NO. 05/32 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, LEVYING THE AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006 ON ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK AS OF JANUARY I, 2005, TO PROVIDE REVENUES FOR THE PAYMENT OF CURRENT EXPENDITURES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER ORDINANCE ADOPTING FY2006 SALARY PLAN: Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve adopting the FY 2006 Salary Plan. ORDINANCE NO. 05/33 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING A PAY PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK FOR FY2005-2006, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER RESOLUTION AMENDING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE: The resolution approves a 20% increase in sanitation rates. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved approval of the resolution. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve amending the Master Fee Schedule. RESOLUTION NO. 05-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING RESOLUTION OS-IS, EXHIBIT "A", SECTION V "SANITATION", BY AMENDING FEES FOR THE COLLECTION OF REFUSE AND RECYCLABLE MATERIALS AS AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE 11.100 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER ORDINANCE FOR NO PARKING, EAST SIDE 6700 BLOCK DURHAM: The residents along the 6700 block of Durham have requested a no parking ordinance for the east side of Durham Street from Rosedale to Milton. Mr. Mark Kohler, 3101 Milton, spoke in favor of using permits for parking. The area has been very congested during the day since the six unit SMU condos were built with fewer parking spaces than needed. Mayor Holmes suggested that permitting be investigated in the future ifthere is a problem after the passing ofthe ordinance. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve no parking on the east side ofthe 6700 block of Durham. ORDINANCE NO. 05/34 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 6700 BLOCK OF DURHAM STREET FROM THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH MILTON AVENUE TO THE POINT OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH ROSEDALE A VENUE, SAID AREA BEING DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS; 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 HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO ALLOW TEMPORARY USE OF CITY OF DALLAS TRANSFER STATION: The city's sanitation transfer station at 2525 University is a critical component in the successful operation of sanitation services. Events as simple as a power outage or mechanical failure of city compactors would render the transfer station inoperable and significantly hinder ability to collect garbage. In an effort to provide a contingency plan for such a problem, the staff worked for several months to obtain an agreement with the City of Dallas which would allow utilization of their Fair Oaks Transfer Station in the event the city facility is out of commission. The agreement states the city can use either the Fair Oaks or Bachman Transfer Stations in exchange for payment of the prevailing gate rate at the time of usage. The current gate rate is $40 per load. This price also covers the landfill fees associated with each load. The agreement does not contain any reciprocity provision that would require the City of University Park to grant Dallas access to our transfer station. Mayor Holmes moved approval of the interlocal agreement. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve temporary use of the City of Dallas Transfer Stations. CONSIDER FINAL PAYMENT FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS AND PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION ON LOVERS LANE, PROJECT NO. 42730: Payment was made to Rebcon, Inc. in the amount of $295,843.05 for work performed and materials furnished for the construction of Project No. 42730. The project included the 2600-3300 and 3500 blocks of Lovers Lane, and the 7000 block of Athens. Mayor Pro Tern Roberts moved approval of the payment. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the final payment to Rebcon, Inc. for Project No. 42730. CONSIDER CHANGING CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES FROM TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005 TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005 AND TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005 TO WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2,2005: Since Councilmember Walker will be out of the city on the regular meeting dates of Tuesday, October 18th and Tuesday, the 1 st of November, it was suggested that those meeting dates be changed. It was suggested that the council meet only once in the month of November. Councilmember Shawver moved that the October meeting date be changed to Monday, October 17th and that the November meeting be changed to Tuesday, November 8th. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve changing the October and November meeting dates. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. PASSED AND APPROVED this 20th day of September 2005. James H. Holmes III, Mayor ATTEST: Nina Wilson, City Secretary 19 AGENDA MEMO (6/21/05 AGENDA) DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Public Hearing - 3624 McFarlin ITEM: Building Inspection staff have determined that the structure located at 3624 McFarlin constitutes a public nuisance as defined in Article 3.200 of the City of University Park Code of Ordinances. The main structure and two rear structures need maintenance attention, and there is a large amount of debris near the rear of the property. The property is consistently overgrown with weeds, and very little maintenance to the structure or the property has occurred. Building Inspection staff have determined that the residence is a hazard to safety, health and public welfare, by reason of inadequate maintenance or dilapidation and is therefore in violation of 93.201 (b)(5). Written notification regarding the violations was first mailed in November, 2004. Numerous telephone conversations were also attempted to notifY the resident of the violations. Subsequently, written notifications were mailed on February 1, 2005 and March 11, 2005 listing the specific violations. Since the necessary action to address the violations was not taken, a citation was issued on March 29, 2005 with a plea date set for April 13, 2005. A warrant was issued on May 10, 2005 for failing to appear before the court. In recent weeks, staff has been in contact with the property owner, Ms. Phyllis McDonald. Ms. McDonald indicated that she is working on the property and is trying to address all violations. Ms. McDonald also indicated that she would attend the meeting to discuss with the Council the progress she has made. RECOMMENDA nON: Staff requests direction from Council regarding the abatement of this property. ATTACHMENTS: 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:IDocuments and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK3113624 McFarling Public Hearing (2),doc 12:10 PM 09/15/05 19 AGENDA MEMO (09-20-05 AGENDA) DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Bob Whaling, P.E. City Engineer SUBJECT: Consider Change Order No.2 for the Turtle Creek Box Culvert for City Hall Expansion, Project 43710 Background. In March, 1995 the City Council approved a Park Department's project for the silt removal in Williams Park, Turtle Creek, and Curtis Park in the amount of $422,750.00. The project was bid as a lump sum based on the engineer's estimate of 13,345 CY of silt removal or $31.68 per CY. The project required University Park to submit plans for approval to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The USACE approved the project in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In July 2005, the contractor working on the box culvert at city hall was required to drain the lake within Williams Park. As a result of draining the lake, staff was able to determine the extent of silt deposits since 1995 and the need for the silt removal. Staff has met with our box culvert consultant's Integrated Environmental Solutions (IES) and R. L. Goodson (RLG) to discuss the silt removal outside the limits of this project. IES stated the additional silt removal in accordance with the Nation Wide Permits would be considered as a continuing maintenance item and no other approvals from the USACE would be necessary. Staff has requested the contractor to provide a change order to accomplish the additional silt removal. I have attached contractor's response for review and approval. The contractor's price is $18.40 per CY and based on the estimated 6,000 CY, the change order would be in the amount of $1 10,400.00. The original contract sum The amount of previously authorized change orders The contract sum will be increased by The net contract sum including this change order The contract time will not be increased The total cumulative value of the contract in percent of original contract $ 3,242,610.90 $ 9,257.00 $ 110,400.00 $ 3,362,267.90 +103.69 % Discussion. Staff recommends City Council approval of the change Order in the amount of $1 10,400.00. Attachments: Jeske CO 2.pdf 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:IDocuments and Settings\nwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK31\AM 43710_C02 09 20 05,doc 12:48 PM 09/1 Aug-31-05 10:OSA Jeske Construct;on Co. 214 620-9S52 P.02 .. Jeske Construction Co. August 29, 2005 Mr. Bob Whaling, r,E. City of University Park 3800 University Blvd, University Park, Texas 75205 Re: Turtle Creek Box Culvert Dear Mr. Whaling: Pricing for additional work required fo remove and haul offsilt from the area soufh of University will be $] 8.40 per cubic yard (the same as our price for unclassificd channel excavation), Measurement based upon 20 CY tractor trailer load of male rial hauled off. Invoices will be provided. Access will be from University Blvd. through the existing rubble walls. This price is based upon the City of Dallas McCommas Bluff Landfill continuing to take the material at no cost (as fhey have afeepled all the material hauled to date af no cost), If the City of Dallas starts charging dump fees, we will stop work and get Universify Park approval before continuing. Rock excavated tram the North Channel will be used as fill in the deep holes as directed by the City of University Park af no additional cost. Material will be placed per Texas D.O.T. compaction requirements tor ordinary compaction, This price stays the same because the cost of processing the rock fill will be the same as the savings from the reduced length 1hauJ. , Assuming the area of the lake is 54,000 sf and the average silt depth is 3 ft. the silt removal would be 6000cy @ $18.40 = $110,400.00, This is only a guess we will stop removal at anytime you request If you have any questions please call Ed Jeske at (972) 620-2248, Sincerely, e Preside ~ P.O. Box 59025 . Dallas, Texas 75229 . 972/620.2248 . Fax 972/620.9852 19 AGENDA MEMO (9/20/05 AGENDA) DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Jennifer Shell, P.E. Civil Engineer SUBJECT: In-Place Recycling of Asphalt Pavements at Various Locations, Project No. 42693 Main Miscellaneous CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BID AND AWARD OF A CONTRACT for the labor and materials furnished for the In-Place Recycling of Asphalt Pavements at Various Locations Project, No. 42693. Bids will be opened Friday, September 16 at 10:00 A.M. The bid results will be presented at the September 20, 2005, Council Meeting. This project will include the reconstruction of existing asphalt streets using in- place recycling of asphalt, as well as, two existing concrete streets which will be overlaid with 2 inches of asphalt. The streets involved are listed below. A map of the streets is also attached. STREET NAME BLOCK(S) FROM TO Airline 6900-7200 Rankin Stanford Amherst 3700-4000 Preston Turtle Creek Blvd Armstronq 5700-6100 Mockinqbird Pkwy Stanhope Armstronq 6700-7000 Glenwick alley south of Lovers Baltimore 81 00-8400 Marquette Northwest Pkwy Boedeker 6200-6300 SMU Blvd McFarlin Boedeker 7100-7400 Hanover Lovers Caruth 3200-3300 Hillcrest Airline Colqate 3200-3300 Hillcrest Airline Dickens 7100 Lovers Amherst Durham 6600-7000 Daniel Lovers Emerson 4400 Loma Alto Armstrong Glenwick 4400 Loma Alto Armstrona Grassmere 4300 Armstronq Douqlas Greenbrier 4300-4400 Loma Alto Douqlas Hillcrest 7000 Westminster Lovers Hillcrest 8400 Villanova Northwest Pkwy Hillcrest 7900-8100 Caruth Centenary Marquette 3200-3300 Hillcrest Airline Pickwick 7600-7700 Greenbrier Bryn Mawr Potomac 4400-4500 Roland Armstronq Preston 5800-6400 City Limit North of McFarlin/University Alley Shannon 3900-4000 St Andrews Shannon St Andrews 5900-6000 Normandy Westwick Stanford 4300-4400 Loma Alto Douqlas Stanhope 4100 Douglas Preston Thackery 6700 Rosedale Milton Villanova 3800 Tulane Baltimore Wentwood 3900 Pickwick Tulane Westwick 6200 Shannon Windsor The budgeted account number is 44-44-4410, Project No. 42693-2300. IN-PLACE RECYCLING OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, PROJECT NO. 42693 Bids will be taken in the Conference Room at 4420 Worcola, Dallas, Texas 75206 at 10:00 A.M. on Friday, September 16, 2005. We currently have one planholder, Cutler Repaving, Inc. Bid results will be presented at the September 20, 2005 Council Meeting. [ r U arr 01 \WQJIff"" 2005 OVERLAY LOCATIONS .J .., ~ ~~I I I I - I I I II I 7- i5'- . -- I I T r>: ~ :/ v ~ il ~ B T 7 i6Jbilr [Q! -(~r 11 --- - - rp. IE " ;~ _&1:111::: iiiii '- .... Ir ! j I i I I I i i ; i i i - 19 AGENDA MEMO (09-20-05 AGENDA) DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM:Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider emergency sanitary sewer construction along Turtle Creek Blvd., south from Lovers Lane to Vassar, and Baltimore, south from Lovers Lane to Turtle Creek Blvd. Background. The Utilities Division recently responded to a call from the building contractor construction the new home of Turtle Creek Blvd. (TCB), just south of Lovers Lane. The contractor was drilling piers for the new home and discovered that he had drilled through the City's sanitary sewer main along the rear of the property. That sanitary sewer serves residences along the west side of TCB and along the east side of Baltimore. Utilities Division staff repaired the damaged from the pier drilling (in six locations) and returned the sewer main to service. The issue turned out to be that the sewer was NOT within the City's easement, but to the east on private property. Apparently the sewer was located onto private property (probably in the 30's or 40's) because of aerial utilities and trees in the subject easement. As a result of the discovery, the sewer was televised and found to be in deteriorated condition. As previously stated, we were able to effect the repairs, because the home was under construction and there was access for equipment. The problem for any maintenance is no ingress for excavation equipment. Staff had this project planned during the construction of the Lovers Lane sewer, however, the need to proceed was not anticipated so soon. Engineering Division staff has developed the necessary design, plans, and specifications, and they reviewed the situation with the Public Works Advisory Committee (PWAC). After discussing the matter, the PWAC voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with the solicitation of bids for construction of the project. Funds are available in the Utility Fund for the proposed construction. Discussion. The PWAC and staff recommend that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with the project. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM Emerg San Sewer reB 09 20 05,doc 12:45 PM 09/15/05 19 AGENDA MEMO (09-20-05 AGENDA) DATE: September 15, 2005 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM:Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Consider authorization for staff to proceed with planning for the future reconstruction of Preston Road, from University Blvd. south the SI. Andrews. Background. The current Curb & Gutter (C&G) reconstruction project includes the replacement of C&G along the west side of Preston from University Blvd. south to SI. Andrews. However, since the project was initiated a couple of years ago, the remainder of the street has deteriorated to a point, in staff's opinion, that the reconstruction of the entire street would be more cost effective than to continue with the replacement of the C&G. As an interim measure, the in-place recycling of the street pavement should provide three to five years to design the reconstruction of the street and plan a funding strategy. Staff reviewed this approach with the Public Works Advisory Committee, who voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council authorize staff to delete Preston Road from the current C&G project, include Preston Road on the In-Place Pavement Recycling project, and proceed with planning and design efforts for reconstruction of that section of Preston Road south of University Blvd to SI. Andrews. Discussion. The PWAC and staff recommend that the City Council authorize staff to delete Preston Road from the current C&G project, include Preston Road on the In-Place Pavement Recycling project, and proceed with planning and design efforts for reconstruction of that section of Preston Road south of University Blvd to SI. Andrews. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM Preston University to St Andrews 092005,doc 12:47 PM 09/15/05 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/2005 AGENDA) DATE: September 20, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Com. Dev. Manager SUBJECT: Receive a report regarding Building Coverage in the Single Family Zoning Districts and provide directions to staff Background/Analysis The City of University Park has no requirement for building coverage in the single family zoning districts. The current impermeable surface regulations however, by definition include all building footprints and solid surface paved areas on a lot or building site. Staff has conducted a review and analysis of building permits for new single family construction issued for the period June 1 thru July 31,2005. The analyses show that on the average 8 - 9% of a lot area is used for impervious surface paving such as driveways, pool decks and lead walks. The high cost of a single family lot added to the current trend and strong desire for larger homes has created a situation where existing regulations are pushed to the limits as builders look for ways to construct the largest home on an existing lot. Staff will initially present this information for discussion and seek directions from City Council as to how to proceed. Recommendation The report attached shows how the side yard setback and building coverage may be used as tools to further restrict the size of new single family construction and additions. Options to consider include: (a) Consider possible changes to the existing side yard setback requirements so as to reduce the size of the building footprint. (b) Consider adopting new regulations to address building coverage as a percentage oflot area in the single family zoning districts. Attachments: Building Coverage Analysis CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK BUILDING COVERAGE ANALYSIS 1. DEFINITION Impermeable surface is defined as any material which prevents the absorption of storm water into the ground. In some cases permeability is measured by the percolation rate in minutes/inch. The State of New Jersey defines an impermeable surface as having a percolation rate slower than 120 minutes/inch. Gravelled areas which allow for the percolation of water are not considered impermeable. In single family residential development, the impermeable surface is calculated as a percentage ofthe lot area and comprise of building footprints plus all other areas with impervious paving such as driveways, lead walks, pool decks and patios. The maximum impermeable surface is used as a tool to regulate the amount of building coverage and all other solid surface paving on a lot or building site.. Typically, large estate lots allow for less coverage (20 - 30 %) and smaller lots as in the single family attached districts allow for a larger coverage (35 - 45%). 2. CURRENT UP REGS Table I: MAXIMUM IMPERMEABLE SURF ACE BY LOT SIZE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS MAXIMUM IMPERMEABLE SURFACE Single Family Attached & 63% Two family 0 - 6000 Sq. fl. 60% (3,600 SQ. FT.) 6001 - 7,500 Sq.fl 60% 7,500 - 10,000 Sq. ft. 52% (4,500 SQ. FT) 10,001 - 12,000 Sq. ft. 48% (5,200 SQ. FT.) 12,001 - 35,000 Sq. ft. 40% (5,760 SQ. FT.) 35,001 Sq. fl. and greater 35% (14,000 SQ. FT) 1 Many cities use the maximum building coverage (the total of all building footprints as a percentage of lot size) in the same way as the maximum impermeable surface to limit the size of buildings to be constructed on a lot. Maximum building coverage excludes the other impervious areas such driveways, lead walks, pool decks and patios. In general the maximum building coverage is a direct function of the required setbacks in a given zoning district. Maximum building coverage when used with maximum building height impacts the "building bulk" or building volume on a 101. 3. SURVEY OF CITIES TABLE II: BUILDING COVERAGE IN THE SINGLE F AMIL Y DISTRICTS CITIES SINGLE F AMIL Y COMMENTS BUILDING COVERAGE Highland Park 20 - 40 % Varies from 20 % in the Estate lots to 40% in the 7,000 sq. ft. lots. 50% of required front yards must be permeable (no pavestone or gravel) No limit to paving in the side or rear yard i\ddison 30 - 40 % Building setbacks are used to imit building coverage. Example R-l with 12,000 sq. ft. ot -Side yard setback is 20% of ot width, front yard is 30 feet nd rear yard is 20% oflot depth. Richardson 30 - 50 % Varies from 30% in large lots to 50 % in patio homes :::oppell 20 - 40 % Varies from 20 % in the Estate ots to 40 % in SF-7 Dallas ~O - 45 % Varies from 40 % in the large lots R-l) to 45 % in the smaller SF ots carmers 25 - 40 % Varies from 25 % in the large Branch estate type lots to 40 % on lots with 8,700 sq. ft. Piano 25 % plus 10% - 35% Piano allows 10% coverage for plus 10% Accessory buildings. Primary buildings vary from 25% for large lots to 35% in the 7,000 sq. ft. lots. 2 The relationship between building coverage and impermeable surface on a specific lot is shown in Table III. The numbers have been calculated from new single family construction permitted for the period June 1- July 31,2005. Building coverage as a percentage oflot area is typically higher (45%) on smaller lots and lower (25%) on larger lots. Building coverage averages 32% across all lot sizes and the other impervious areas which includes hard surface paving such as driveways, lead walks, pool decks and patios ranges from 5% to 16 % and averages 9% oflot area. The highest building coverage for lots over 20,000 sq. ft. is 30%. 4. BUILDING COVERAGE AND IMPERMEABLE SURFACE IN CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION TABLE III: BUILDING COVERAGE AND IMPERMEABLE SURFACE AS A PERCENTAGE OF LOT AREA Item Lot Bldg. Add. Imperm. # Cov. Cov. Percent Imperm Percent Area Percent 1 39,813 6281 16% 3424 9% 9705 24% 2 21750 4982 23% 2560 12% 7542 35% 3 21,000 6379 30% 1259 6% 7638 36% 4 13,500 4914 36% 1054 8% 5968 44% 5 12,154 3700 30% 827 7% 4527 37% 6 12,000 3907 33% 659 5% 4566 38% 7 11,936 4313 36% 700 6% 5013 42% 8 10,500 3337 32% 656 6% 3993 38% 9 9,600 4597 48% 604 6% 5201 54% 10 8,598 3195 37% 993 12% 4188 49% 11 8,400 3192 38% 502 6% 3694 44% 12 8,400 2527 30% 574 7% 3101 37% 13 8,400 3356 40% 526 6% 3882 46% 14 8,250 2666 32% 732 9% 3398 41% 15 6,925 2416 35% 1670 24% 4086 59% 16 7,800 3020 39% 605 8% 3625 46% 17 7,500 4000 53% 766 10% 4767 64% 18 7,000 3302 47% 927 13% 4229 60% 19 7,125 3366 47% 1163 16% 4529 64% 20 7,000 2856 41% 546 8% 3402 49% 21 5,000 2195 44% 466 9% 2661 53% Total 242,651 78501 32% 21213 9% 99714 41% 3 5. SINGLE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION ON COMBINED LOTS TABLE IV: BUILDING COVERAGE AND IMPERMEABLE SURFACE FOR COMBINED LOTS Lot Bldg. Add. Imperm. Item # Area Cov. Percent Imperv Percent Area Percent 1 21,000 6194 29% 1286 6% 7480 36% 2 21,000 6379 30% 1259 6% 7638 36% 3 19,353 4872 25% 1363 7% 6235 32% 4 16,800 4378 26% 1322 8% 5700 34% 5 9,111 1997 22% 1040 11% 3037 33% 6 7,500 3688 49% 988 13% 4676 62% Total 94,764 27508 29% 7258 8% 34766 37% * List of single family lots which were combined into one large lot over the past five years, Over the past five years, 10 large lots were created through the platting process by combining two or more existing lots into one. Four of those combined lots were developed for multifamily and nonresidential uses and six (listed in Table IV) were used for single family construction. In most cases a combined lot is twice the size ofthe average size lot on the block and potentially allows for the construction of a substantially larger home than the average size home in the neighborhood. The figures in Table IV shows that the average building coverage on combined lots larger than 16,000 sq. ft. is 30% and less which is comparable to the building coverage typically allowed in the most cities. In fact the average impermeable surface of37 % for combined lots is less than the 41 % for average size lots as shown in Table III. 6. SUMMARY AND FINDINGS (a) The attractiveness of UP single family residential neighborhoods continues to push high land values much higher. An affluent life style added to the current trend and desire for larger homes has created a housing market in which new single family construction and additions are pushed to the limits allowed by current development regulations. (b) UP's maximum impermeable surface requirements are comparable to the maximum building coverage as used by other cities. The maximum impermeable surface includes an element for storm water management and is far more restrictive than the maximum building coverage without the impervious surface limitations. The City of Highland Park for example, enforces a maximum building coverage but allows unlimited impervious coverage in the side and rear yards in the single family districts. 4 (c) The high value of single family lots has kept the replatting of two lots into one to a minimum. Between 1992 and 2004, 24 larger lots were created through the platting process by combining two or more lots into one. About 40 % of those lots have been developed for multi family and non residential uses. The analysis show that single family construction on combined lots are no different from those on average size lots except that homes can be much larger than the average size homes on that block. (d) Building coverage as a percent oflot area and building setbacks can be used as tools to reduce the size of the single family building footprint. The minimum side yard setback of 10 feet regardless of lot width in the single family zoning districts allows for a proportionally larger building footprint with the increase in lot size. When two average size single family lots are combined into one large lot, the potential exist for the construction of a new single family home which is much larger and possibly out of character with the average size home on the block. 7. OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL (a) Consider possible changes to the existing side yard setback requirements so as reduce the size ofthe building footprint. (b) Consider adopting new regulations to address building coverage as a percentage oflot area in the single family zoning districts. A TT ACHMENTS: The following illustrations are intended to show how the side yard setback and building coverage requirements may be used to limit the size ofthe building foot print in the various single family districts. The examples used in these illustrations have been taken from new single family homes permitted in the period June 1 thru July 31, 2005. Staff will present these for discussion at the Council meeting on September 20,2005. 5 "OOL SIDE YARD SET B.ACK DRIVEWAY BUILDING COVERAGE STR IMPERMEABLE SURFACE - BUILDING COVERAGE '" ALL OTHER IMPE.RVIOUS AREAS 6 o L[) ,,- ~ :l "j "1 >,j ""I ,J CENTENARY 7 REDUCED 850 SF 140' IE~piD9 ~f~~Q I ..'_n""'~ -1 ~'<~""'''1 L~~~,7,~,~e(~ I SlAma 5,524 B/CoV""'WA w26-(j}~---- -~~~_~~:::1- ~~~6.. __.J CENTENARY 8 o 11) ,- REDUCED 2,179 SF 140' 1[~;'in9 I Slyard : BIArea- , BICav r~mperv_, U'!' errn S1'-2 21,000 10-24% 4,200, 20% 6% 26'%) CENTENARY 9 112 '.;"j "I 'I " , " "~I ". ! 180 CENTENARY 10 o LO ~ REDUCED 300 S.F. 8' C NTENARY 11.2' IZOninJL:Is.F"2...........1 !~/;;ard i~3~~~k. _,~~..L_ ~lAI~'~5!_L.;!&~Q",,"",j Ji~;~ -ii~j 11 8' REDUCED 900 SF o l() ~ ~,,_ """-,',"'1.7"=='_=="_'_'"'>>'. ....~,,"'"'~___ C NTENARY 112' ...s2Di.1iJL S F,2 Lol ....J2,QOL ,JiI~ard L10::?~'(' I BIArea I 3,000 i ~"'B.j'C'ov'~1 25% , ~''''''''''''I''''''''-----' lJmperv 6% .) Ilmperm I 31'(~j ""'.~"'"='",~= 12 84' 60' ,'.""'" "-= """"'.===' ",",.. --.= 'n'"-',",=.w~. HANOVER rz;-r--- J;~nir1~lSF-3 ...J I. Lot ........ 8,4qq_i ,__,tlouse__",...! 5,32.4.,,,,.J ~~;~~:~~~~% ,[I r B/Cov r 40"/0 r:~~~:f~-'l :_~~~,._'N I 13 REDUCED 400 SF o '<t ~ 84' i ZOFlinaj-SF:3 Lot 8,400 ""_~7Y~r~___ -I(E?~f~.~- B/Area 2,940 ,J?lf,2:Ywwm ",,,~,,~,:rL -t~~~~' .m~t~l~w WWM I HANOVER 14 McFARLIN 12,'1 15 ,",' .' '.-:' 'n""___"_'.==.'''''''''''''''''''''''''',__,~_",--=,=,-""~,,,,,,,,,~~=,-_._....___.____n''''';~.,,'''_, McFARLIN t2.T 16 o "i" ""'r""'" Zonin(L SF.4.1 Lot 7,000! House 5)23 -I SI ard 10..22%! S,fArea 3,032 ! l~~~~ -----;~Z"I 1m erm 50% I STANFORD 17 50 STANFORD ~~~i~~lr~60~i ! S/ya_r(L___LJ_P~?_:?_~~QJ l-~fs~:a f ~o~~o_""""'1 t ~~~:-~J1f~~",,_] 18 co C") ~ " < " ,_, ."_ 0-' ,- ,. , ,., . . ,. ., 0' ~ ". , . ,. -.'. .. .. . . . ~. .". , ,~.. -, . ~ ,_ ^ . ~". ,~~ ,,~. " ',." ~"'-."h ,~', . . , . . . . , , .' .' :::.: .t;0VE:RS :t:,ANE::'": _.t'.,', .._-.v......,.......-..,_ .~- ..'""',.',' .-,'.. ,..~t<<;'"....._m;...:._^~. .. , , . ~ " " ~,~"'".~,-~"."_._--,,--,,.~""~~.~----~ 19 REDUCED 415 SF rZoni~g ..TSF.4........ =1 , Lot 17,728 ,.-j -~~. ~:d.a. .~~7g:'(~l' eTcov - '35% ",","' . r"1_eerv 15o/~"~_M.,.._~ llmp. rm _?O % . _I .t'O" V' 'E' 'R S' .' 'LA" 'N'E'"'' ... ' .. . '. ~.. . -'... , -,. . ..._, . . .. ... , . . , _:_n;,. '_. . _, , .' '. , _; ., . ; .. . _..' . .... .,. .', ~ ' 20 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/2005 AGENDA) DATE: September 14, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: Hillcrest @ Lovers Park Concept Design BACKGROUND: In June 2005, City Council approved a design contract with the architectural firm of Dunkin, Sims and Stoffels to develop concept landscape plans along the parkway at Lovers Lane @ Snider Plaza (completed in August 2005) and the two (2) park sites located just to the north of Hillcrest Avenue and Lovers Lane, Staff is requesting City Council afford staff the opportunity to present landscape concept drawings and cost estimates of the two (2) park sites, Staff has reviewed the concept plans with members of the Park Advisory Board and has documented/incorporated their design comments into the concept plans, RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting City Council provide direction to staff regarding the parks design and consider the approval of the park design and project budget Due to comments made by Park Advisory Board members, staff is adjusting cost estimates with the architect and will provide a revised detailed cost analysis of the project and associated architectural fees for construction drawing and bid documents during the 9/20/05 City Council meeting, ATTACHMENTS: Hillcrest @ Lovers Lane Park(s) Concept Plans 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 CIDocuments and Settings\nwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK31\hillcrest@loversplan(2),doc 1021 AM 09/1 J ___ .1: L .... li"" -- Lovers Lane if!' L_ "" -1----- . __ _ __ -.-.Ill - ----:y-- / ,';=i't":..:'", ~ J! .,) j , , \ '-" f ~ ~ I_J _... ....-. - ---- SCALE 1"=10'.0' TWI I I I I I I I I' I II I 1 CltArt roc\llTU ~ l'l1)lAN IIA\\"IOIl~----: / 1)\\'''11 B~\IIlfORD -v IIlOUY , ;/- \ t IWCX fA~I'-G.J/ PIA"" lR UlOl. \ I \ I' I I \- rBB.2. . J \ \ <U S <U ~ ~ rn <U ~ o :::::1 . .-l ::c: I I I I I I I II I I I II I I II I I t~ II \~ I '\ ~I ~ I . , 1 ----..... I _I . SCRr:r:SING WALL furnishings to be provided by Parks Department . ------ TURf ! I I CRAPf. MYRTI / II:-IOIAN l)WARf !lOLLY I / I / l' I I I / / I I I I : I / . ~~1-S66 t"/ V L ~-- - 28 w > <( r- (f) w cr:: u ~ ~ I Q.) ::s = Q.) ~ ~ 00 Q.) $-c o .--4 .--4 . ..-l :r: ., I ""f- ra~ :~ ~ r,o,:: Lane Lovers -ljf' A ~ 1l ,ja ~ ~ f ---------~-- I . 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/2005 AGENDA) DATE: September 14, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks and Recreation SUBJECT: City Hall Improvements - Evaluation of Bridge and Creek Wall Railing System BACKGROUND: During the City Hall Improvement Project plan evaluation process, several City Council, City Hall Review Committee, Park Advisory Board and City staff members have expressed concerns regarding the proposed railing system associated with the project The railing system will be used along the University Blvd, Bridge and City Hall culvert, as well as on top of the newly constructed channel retaining walls located along the Turtle Creek corridor just south of Vassar Road, The primary concern with the proposed railing system is cost and aesthetics, Based on these concerns, staff has been directed to work directly with the project's landscape architect to develop alternatives to address the above mentioned concerns, Attached, please find examples of both the proposed and alternate version of the railing design, Staff is requesting City Council consider the alternative design in an effort to reduce the overall cost of the project and retain the aesthetic values of the site, RECOMMENDATION: Staff is requesting City Council to approve the alternative design for the bridge and creek channel railing system, If approved, staff will continue to meet with railing manufactures to finalize a cost for the project ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Railing System Alternative Railing System 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 CIDocuments and Settings\nwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK311City Hall Railing System,doc 2,16 PM 09/14 ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~. ~ ~'t ~\ ~j )t. . ~'. .. -:',~ ~ '~ej"" r ,,'~ ~',. ~ .- ,;,. I ~' II! ~ e f k/ ~Wire Mesh 'Frame ~ $,,- = !;l .. /' J ,c / 71' 19 AGENDA MEMO (09/20/05 AGENDA) DATE: September 13, 2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Bob Livingston SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement with the City of Coppell Providing Assistance to Hurricane Katrina Evacuees Since University Park has few facilities which could be used for long term housing of evacuees, the Mayor and Council have previously discussed providing up to $100,000 in assistance to an area city that has facilities, Last week, we were contacted by the City of Coppell who was in the process of renting approximately 10 to 15 apartments for this purpose, If we were willing to provide funds to them, they felt the number of apartments could be increased to 20 to 25, This arrangement will have several advantages including: . Coppell has many more multifamily units than University Park. . The increased number results in more immediate apartment availability versus a somewhat limited and tight market in University Park. . Rental costs in Coppell are approximately one-half of those here thus allowing the money to go much further. . We share the same City Attorney firm making coordination of the Inter-Local Agreement easier to develop, Funds that University Park and Coppell contribute will be earmarked for rent and utilities, Leases are being signed for six months, Families are being screened through MetroCrest Social Services for eligibility and background, Coppell began moving families into apartments they had rented last week. This is an excellent way for the City of University Park to assist The families being helped are ones who only need transitional assistance getting established in this area, Because of the size of our two cities, our efforts will be easy to track and visible to us as opposed to the much more complicated efforts oflarger area cities that are dealing with 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 CIDocuments and Settings\nwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK311COPPELLKATRINA091305,doc U2 PM 09/13 hundreds and thousands of evacuees, While accurate records will be kept, the chances of receiving any reimbursement from FEMA or other agencies are remote at best Hopefully, this will not be the case in the much larger efforts of cities like Dallas and Richardson, RECOMMENDA nON: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached interlocal agreement If you have questions, please let me know, ATTACHMENTS: Inter-Local Agreement 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 CIDocuments and Settings\nwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK311COPPELLKATRINA091305,doc U2 PM 09/13 THE STATE OF TEXAS ~ ~ COUNTY OF DALLAS ~ INTERLOCAL COOPERA nON AGREEMENT FOR JOINT PROVISION OF SERVICES THIS INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into on this day of 2005, by and between the City of University Park, Texas (hereinafter referred to as "UP"), acting by and through its Mayor or his designee, and the City of Coppell, Texas (hereinafter referred to as "COPPELL"), 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 UP and COPPELL 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 UP and COPPELL; WHEREAS, the people of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama have suffered tremendous personal and financial loss and hardship due to Hurricane Katrina, and many of them have relocated to Coppell without any immediately available assets or means of support; WHEREAS, the evacuees are in need of assistance from UP and COPPELL in the form of police protection, fire protection, public health and welfare, housing and other public services on an interim, emergency basis, and UP and COPPELL are willing to participate in the cost of such assistance; 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; and WHEREAS, Coppell has a stock of affordable housing that will accommodate the immediate relocation of the evacuees directed to the respective parties to this Agreement; NOW THEREFORE, FOR AND IN CONSIDERA nON of the mutual agreements contained herein, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 77384 I. AGREEMENT A. UP and COPPELL agree, under the terms and conditions provided herein, to share the cost of provision of housing in COPPELL for some of the evacuees, UP will provide funds for twelve (12) two (2) and three (3) bedroom apartments, necessary utilities, furnishings and related expenditures, will assist in ongoing support efforts for individuals relocating to COPPELL from the hurricane area, assist in providing police protection, fire protection, and social services administered through the Metrocrest Social Services (inclusively, the "services"). B. COPPELL will administer the services provided under this agreement and provide UP with a monthly report on the expenditures and efforts made pursuant hereto, UP will furnish its share of such expenditures in advance by payment of $100,000 upon execution of this Agreement to COPPELL to be used only for the provision of the above-described services to the evacuees, COPPELL will be responsible for all expenditures in excess of such amount In the event the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or any other Federal or state agency provides funds for or reimbursement to either party for any of such expenditures for the services provided, such reimbursement funds will be shared equally between the parties, not to exceed the total amount of funds provided by each, II. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO UP AND COPPELL The following subparagraphs shall apply to this Agreement: A. 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 99101. 001 et seq, It is expressly understood and agreed that in the execution of this Agreement, neither party 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, 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 party 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 77384 has a right to designate a different address by giving the other party fifteen (15) days prior written notice of such designation: If to COPPELL: Mayor City of Coppell If to UP: Mayor City of University Park D, MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY During the term of this Agreement, and any extensions thereof, COPPELL agrees to provide adequate supervision and training of the personnel assigned to provide the services, COPPELL 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 party 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 initial term of this Agreement shall be for on the _ day of 2005, commencmg 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 anyone (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, L 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. TERMINA nON 77384 Either party 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 By: By: City Secretary Mayor James H. Holmes III, APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTEST: CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS 77384 By: By: City Secretary Douglas N, Stover, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney THE STATE OF TEXAS ~ ~ COUNTY OF DALLAS ~ City Acknowledgment BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared James H. Holmes III 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 2005, My Commission Expires Notary Public In and For: The State of Texas Notary's Printed Name 77384 THE STATE OF TEXAS ~ ~ COUNTY OF DALLAS ~ City Acknowledgment BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Douglas N, Stover 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 ofCoppell, 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 2005, My Commission Expires Notary Public In and For The State of Texas Notary's Printed Name 77384 CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 at 7:30 A.M. MINUTES Committee members attending: Atwood, John Coleman, Russ Harralson, Howell Noble, Julie Reeder, Dotti Others present: Austin, Kent - Director of Finance Livingston, Bob - City Manager Tvardzik, Tom - Controller Absent: Kelley, Terry Olmsted, Bob - Chair Stuart, John Wilson, Claude Carter, Syd - Council member ], Call to order, John Atwood suggested the meeting be called to order at 7:41 a,m, 2. Review/approve minutes of August 23, 2005, meeting Russ Coleman moved approval of the August 23, 2005, meeting minutes, John Atwood seconded, and the motion was approved 5-0, 3, Review April-June 2005 City investment report. Kent Austin directed the Committee's attention to the April-June 2005 investment report, The City's average portfolio yield rose from 2.42% to 2,89%; the invested balance market value fell from $53,1 million to $48,9 million, The Committee discussed the report briefly and had no questions, 4, Review/recommend City investment policy renewal, investment broker-dealer approval, and City investment officer authorization. Austin reminded the Committee that review and renewal of the investment policy is required each year and that the Finance Committee makes a recommendation to the City CounciL He noted that the proposed policy has just one change from the current policy, so that sections 4,1,6 and 4,1,7 regarding Certificates of Deposit replace the words "state or national bank domiciled in this state" with the phrase "depository institution that has a main office or branch office in Texas," Austin reported that a recent change in state law permits cities to invest in CDARS (Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service), a spread-CD product that allows investors to make purchase CD's above $100,000 and still have FDIC protection, He said that at a future meeting the Committee could discuss the product in more detail and consider adding it to the City's policy, After some additional Committee discussion, John Atwood C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05 (2).doc 09/15/05 moved approval of the proposed investment policy, Julie Noble seconded, the motion was approved 5-0, The Committee then discussed the list of investment officers and broker-dealers, Austin proposed substituting Deutsche Bank Alex.Brown for Salomon Smith Barney, The City's representative at Smith Barney switched to DB Alex.Brown, Service from the representative has been good, and the new firm is a primary dealer and qualified to handle City investment transactions, The list of proposed investment officers remains unchanged - Kent Austin, Tom Tvardzik, and Bob Livingston, John Atwood moved approval of the investment officers and brokers-dealers, Julie Noble recused herself from the vote, Howell Harralson seconded, the motion was approved 4-0, 5, Review/recommend selection of external auditor for FY2005, Controller Tom Tvardzik described the selection process, in which the City advertised and invited nine firms to propose for the FY2005 audit Of those nine, only Deloitte & Touche and Weaver & Tidwell responded, Staff recommends selecting Weaver & Tidwell, whose proposed fee is $55,500, versus Deloitte & Touche, whose proposed fee is $67, 200, Austin and Tvardzik noted that Weaver & Tidwell was a close second during the auditor selection process in 2000, Julie Noble moved approval of the selection of Weaver & Tidwell as external auditors for FY2005, 2006, and 2007, John Atwood seconded, the motion was approved 5-0, 6. Review July 2005 monthly financial report. The Committee had no comments, 7. Follow-up items: a, City Hall project Bob Livingston updated the Committee on the progress of the creekwork, which began in July and is scheduled to be completed by September 2006, He reported that cost estimates for the building project are being updated and include a large contingency amount because construction plans are not yet complete, Livingston noted that relocation of the public safety dispatch operation to the Peek Center during building renovation would be a major challenge, b, Sales tax review - newspaper story Austin reported he had received numerous calls about the 9/9/2005 newspaper story on the City's sales tax recovery effort, The Committee suggested that a flyer informing merchants of the correct jurisdiction identification could accompany building Certificates of Occupancy, 8. New business, There was no new business, 9, Set next Committee meeting date, The Committee set the next meeting for Tuesday, December 13, 2005 at 7:30 a,m, C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05 (2).doc 09/15/05 2 10. Adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:20 a,m, Submitted by Kent Austin, Director of Finance Bob Olmsted, Chair C:\Documents and SettingslnwilsonlLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FileslOLK31\Minutes FAC 09-13-05 (2).doc 09/15/05 3