HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.02.21 City Council AgendaCITYOFUNIVERSITYPARK
REGULARCITYCOUNCILMEETING
LOCATION:CITYHALLCOUNCILCHAMBER
AGENDA#2830
FEBRUARY21,2012
CALLTOORDER:5:00P.M.
3:00-4:00P.M.DISCUSS:CityManagerBobLivingstonwillprovideinformationtotheCity
Councilonresponsiveactionstocommunitysurveyresultsandupdatesonthestatus
ofpreviouslyidentifiedStrategicGoals.CouncilConferenceRoom,2ndFloor,City
Hall.
4:00-5:00P.M.WORKSESSIONFORAGENDAREVIEW:CouncilConferenceRoom,2ndFloor,
CityHall.
TOSPEAKONANAGENDAITEM
AnyonewishingtoaddresstheCouncilonanyitemmustfilloutagreen“RequesttoSpeak”formand
returnittotheCitySecretary.WhencalledforwardbytheMayor,beforebeginning theirremarks,speakers
areaskedtogotothepodiumandstatetheirnameandaddressfortherecord.
I.CALLTOORDER
A.INVOCATION:CityCouncilmemberRobertClark
B.PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE:CityCouncilmemberRobertClark/BoyScouts
C.INTRODUCTIONOFCOUNCIL:MayorW.RichardDavis
D.INTRODUCTIONOFSTAFF:CityManagerBobLivingston
II.CONSENTAGENDA
A.REPORT:onUniversityParkPoliceDepartmentAnnualTrafficStopAnalysis - Adams Pg 3
B.CONSIDERANDACT:onSniderPlazaseasonalbannerprogram - Bradley Pg 34
C.CONSIDERANDACT:ontheHGACpurchaseofa2012ChevroletEquinoxfor
Policeparkingenforcement - Green Pg 36
D.CONSIDERANDACT:onChangeOrderNo.1totheCity'scontractwithKen-Do
Contracting -Smallwood Pg 41
E.CONSIDERANDACT:ontwoordinancesdesignatingNOPARKINGANYTIMEat
severallocationintheCityandamendingresidentialparkingdistricts - Smallwood Pg 42
F.CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheFebruary7,2012CityCouncil
Meeting - Spector Pg 57
III.MAINAGENDA
A.CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceorderingtheMay12,2012General
MunicipalElectionandgivingauthoritytoenterintoanelectionservicescontractwith
theDallasCountyElectionsAdministrator(DCEA) - Spector Pg 61
B.CONSIDERANDACT:onordinancedecreasingtheOver-65andDisabled
HomesteadExemptionfrom$280,000to$275,000 - Austin Pg 84
Page 1 of 93
C.CONSIDERANDACT:onaresolutionsuspendingtheeffectivedateofAtmos
Energyrateincreaserequest - Austin Pg 89
IV.PUBLICCOMMENTS
AnyonewishingtoaddressanitemnotontheAgendashoulddosoatthistime.Pleasebe
advisedthatundertheTexasOpenMeetingsAct,theCouncilcannotdiscussoractatthis
meetingonamatterthatisnotlistedontheAgenda.However,inresponsetoaninquiry,a
Councilmembermayrespondwithastatementofspecificfactualinformationora
recitationofexistingpolicy.ItistheCouncil’spolicytorequestthatcitizensnotaddress
itemsthatarecurrentlyscheduledforafutureagendaorpublichearing.Instead,theCouncil
requeststhatcitizensattendthatspecificmeetingtoexpresstheiropinions,orcommentto
theCouncilbye-mailatCity-Council@uptexas.orgorletteraddressedtotheMayorand
Councilat3800UniversityBlvd.,UniversityPark,Texas75205.Otherquestionsorprivate
commentsfortheCityCouncilorStaffshouldbedirectedtothatindividualimmediately
followingthemeeting.
AsauthorizedbySection551.071(2)oftheTexasGovernmentCode,thismeetingmaybeconvened
intoClosedExecutiveSessionforthepurposeofseekingconfidentiallegaladvicefromtheCity
AttorneyonanyAgendaitemslistedherein.
Page 2 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GaryW.Adams,ChiefofPolice
SUBJECT:REPORT:onUniversityParkPoliceDepartmentAnnual TrafficStopAnalysis
BACKGROUND:
TheTexasCodeofCriminalProcedure,Article2.134 CompilationandAnalysisofInformation
Collected,requiresthepolicechieftoreporttothegovern ingbodyoftheCitythefindingsofthe
compilationandanalysisoftrafficstopsandrelat edsearches.Thisanalysisisconductedtodetermi ne
ifracialprofilingisbeingpracticedbytheagenc yintrafficstopsandsubsequentsearchesduring
thosestops.
ThisyeartheUniversityParkPoliceDepartmentaga insubmittedallrequireddataontrafficstopsand
searchestotheUniversityofNorthTexasforanaly sis.Thisanalysiswasconductedbythe
ProfessionalDevelopmentInstitute(PDI)attheUni versityofNorthTexas.Copiesofthefinalreport
havebeenprovidedtoallelectedcityofficials,t hecitymanager,thecityattorneyandothersas
requested.
PDI'sfindingscanbefoundonpage7ofthereport .ThereportshowsthattheUniversityParkPolice
Departmentisinfullcompliancewiththelawasit relatestoracialprofiling;thataformalpolicy
prohibitingracialprofilingisinplace;thatoffi cersreceivemandatedtrainingandthattheagency has
establishedprogramstoeducatethepubicaboutrac ialprofilingandhowtofileacomplaint;thata
formalizedcomplaintprocessisinplaceandthatt hecollectionofdataiscarriedoutincompliance
withthelaw.
Thereportwillalsoshowthatduring2011thedepa rtmentdidnotreceiveanyracialprofiling
complaints.
Asrecommendedbythereport,theUniversityParkP oliceDepartmentwillcontinueitseducational
andtrainingeffortswithinthedepartmentonracia lprofiling,andwillcontinuetoconductperiodic
evaluationsofindividualsofficerstoassesswheth erornotanofficerisengaginginracialprofilin g.
RECOMMENDATION:
Itisrecommendedthateachmemberreviewthefinal report.Shouldtherebeanyquestionsor
concernsitisrequestedthattheChiefofPoliceb einformedforresponse.
ATTACHMENTS:
2011CoverLetter-RacialProfilingReport
2011RacialProfilingReport
Page 3 of 93
Page 4 of 93
BI
Unive
P
IAS-B
ersity of
UN
POLIC
BASE
North Tex
NIVER
CE D
2
D PR
PREP
Eric J. F
Chad R.
xas
RSITY
DEPAR
2011
ROFIL
PARED BY
Fritsch, P
Trulson,
Y PAR
RTME
LING A
Y:
Ph.D.
Ph.D.
RK
ENT
ANALLYSIS
S
Page 5 of 93
Executive Summary
Article 2.132 (7) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires the annual reporting to the
local governing body of data collected on the race or ethnicity of individuals stopped and issued
citations or arrested for traffic violations and whether or not those individuals were searched.
Since the law provides no clear instruction to a governing body on how to review such data, the
University Park Police Department requested this analysis and review to assist the City Council
in reviewing the data.
The analysis of material and data from the University Park Police Department revealed the
following:
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY BIASED BASED PROFILING 01-001 OUTLINING THE
DEPARTMENT’S POLICY CONCERNING RACIAL PROFILING, SHOWS THAT THE
UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE
2.132 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
A REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
REVEALS THAT THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH TEXAS LAW ON TRAINING AND EDUCATION REGARDING RACIAL PROFILING.
A REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN BOTH PRINT
AND ELECTRONIC FORM REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW ON THE RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT PROCESS AND
PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE COMPLAINT PROCESS.
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW ON THE COLLECTION OF RACIAL PROFILING DATA.
THE ANALYSIS OF STATISTICAL INFORMATION FROM UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE
DEPARTMENT REVEALS THAT THERE ARE NO METHODOLOGICALLY CONCLUSIVE
INDICATIONS OF SYSTEMIC RACIAL PROFILING BY THE DEPARTMENT.
THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW CONCERNING THE PROHIBITION OF RACIAL PROFILING.
THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH
APPLICABLE TEXAS LAW CONCERNING THE REPORTING OF INFORMATION TO
TCLEOSE.
Page 6 of 93
Introduction
This report details an analysis of the University Park Police Department’s policies, training, and
statistical information on racial profiling for the year 2011. This report has been prepared to
specifically comply with Article 2.132 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP)
regarding the compilation and analysis of racial profiling data. Specifically, the analysis will
address Articles 2.131 – 2.135 of the CCP and make a determination of the level of compliance
with those articles by the University Park Police Department in 2011. The full copies of the
applicable laws and regulations pertaining to this report are contained in Appendix A.
This report is divided into six analytical sections: University Park Police Department’s policy on
racial profiling; University Park Police Department’s training and education on racial profiling;
University Park Police Department’s complaint process and public education on racial profiling;
analysis of statistical data on racial profiling; analysis of University Park Police Department’s
compliance with applicable laws on racial profiling; and a final section which includes
completed data and information reporting forms required to be sent to TCLEOSE beginning in
2011.
For the purposes of this report and analysis, the following definition of racial profiling is used:
racial profiling means a law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual's race, ethnicity,
or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information identifying the
individual as having engaged in criminal activity (Texas CCP Article 3.05).
University Park Police Department Policy on Racial Profiling
A review of University Park Police Department regulation Biased Based Profiling 01-001
revealed that the department has adopted policies to be in compliance with Article 2.132 of the
Texas CCP (see Appendix B). There are seven specific requirements mandated by Article 2.132
that a law enforcement agency must address. All seven are clearly covered in regulation Biased
Based Profiling 01-001. University Park Police Department regulations provide clear direction
that any form of racial profiling is prohibited and that officers found engaging in inappropriate
profiling may be disciplined up to and including termination. The regulations also provide a
very clear statement of the agency’s philosophy regarding equal treatment of all persons
regardless of race or ethnicity. Appendix C lists the applicable statute and corresponding
University Park Police Department regulation.
In addition, the University Park Police Department is accredited by the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies and is in compliance with standards prohibiting
bias based profiling which exceed the requirements of the State of Texas.
A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT REGULATION BIASED
BASED PROFILING 01-001 SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN
COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 2.132 OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.
Page 7 of 93
University Park Police Department Training and Education on Racial
Profiling
Texas Occupation Code § 1701.253 and § 1701.402 require that curriculum be established and
training certificates issued on racial profiling for all Texas Peace officers. Documentation
provided by University Park Police Department reveals that racial profiling training and
certification did occur in 2011 and was provided to all officers requiring such training.
A REVIEW OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION REVEALS THAT
THE UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS LAW ON
TRAINING AND EDUCATION REGARDING RACIAL PROFILING.
University Park Police Department Complaint Process and Public Education
on Racial Profiling
Article 2.132 §(b)3-4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure requires that law enforcement
agencies implement a complaint process on racial profiling and that the agency provide public
education on the complaint process. University Park Police Department regulation Biased Based
Profiling 01-001 Section III Parts B and C covers this requirement. Specifically, the department
has information regarding racial profiling on its website and posted inside the police department
in the lobby and at the records desk. In addition, the department has information regarding racial
profiling published annually in the local newspaper. Moreover, the online Park Cities iReporter
website (http://parkcities.bubblelife.com/community/parkcities_reporter) has information on how
to file a complaint with University Park Police Department in their article “Racially Profiled in
UP? Submit a Complaint to the Police Department.”
A REVIEW OF THE DOCUMENTATION PRODUCED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN BOTH PRINT AND
ELECTRONIC FORM REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
TEXAS LAW ON THE RACIAL PROFILING COMPLAINT PROCESS AND PUBLIC EDUCATION ABOUT THE
COMPLAINT PROCESS.
University Park Police Department Statistical Data on Racial Profiling
Article 2.132(b) 6 requires that law enforcement agencies collect statistical information on traffic
stops in which a citation is issued and arrests with specific information on the race of the person
cited. In addition, information concerning searches of persons and whether or not the search was
based on consent is also required to be collected. University Park Police Department submitted
statistical information on all citations in 2011 and accompanying information on the race of the
person cited. Accompanying this data was the relevant information on searches.
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA REVEALS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE
TEXAS LAW ON THE COLLECTION OF RACIAL PROFILING DATA.
Page 8 of 93
Analysis of the Data
The first chart depicts the percentages of people cited by race among the total 2,458 citations
given in 2011.1 White drivers constituted 82.67 percent of all drivers cited, whereas Whites
constituted 91.00 percent of the city population, 33.10 percent of the county population, and
50.90 percent of the region population.2 African-American drivers constituted 6.55 percent of all
drivers cited, whereas African-Americans constituted 1.00 percent of the city population, 22.30
percent of the county population, and 14.50 percent of the region population. Hispanic drivers
constituted 6.39 percent of all drivers cited, whereas Hispanics constituted 4.00 percent of the
city population, 38.30 percent of the county population, and 27.30 percent of the region
population.
The chart shows that White drivers are cited at rates lower than the percentage of Whites found
in the city population, but higher than their percentage in the county and regional population.
African-Americans are cited at rates higher than the percentage of African-Americans in the city
1 There were 4 citations given where the race/ethnicity of the individual was Native American, 19 “other”, and 11
citations of motorists classified as Middle Eastern. The total number of vehicle stops (2,458) is indicative of
motorists who received a citation, were arrested, or both.
2 City and County population figures were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau utilizing the 2010 Census.
Regional population figures are derived from 2010 Census data compiled and published by the North Central Texas
Council of Governments. “Regional” population figures are defined as the 16 county Dallas-Ft. Worth Area
including the following counties: Collin, Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Erath, Hood, Hunt, Johnson, Kaufman, Navarro,
Palo Pinto, Parker, Rockwall, Somervell, Tarrant, and Wise.
White Asian HispanicAfrican-American
% City Population 91.00%2.70%4.00%1.00%
% County Population 33.10%5.00%38.30%22.30%
% Region Population 50.90%5.20%27.30%14.50%
% of Total Stops 82.67%3.01%6.39%6.55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Page 9 of 93
population, but lower than their percentage in the county and regional population. The same
finding holds for Hispanic drivers.
Easy determinations regarding whether or not University Park officers have “racially profiled" a
given motorist are impossible given the nature of the data that has been collected and presented
for this report. The law dictates that police agencies compile aggregate-level data regarding the
rates at which agencies collectively stop motorists in terms of their race/ethnicity. These
aggregated data are to be subsequently analyzed in order to determine whether or not individual
officers are “racially profiling" motorists.
This methodological error, commonly referred to as the "ecological fallacy," defines the dangers
involved in making assertions about individual officer decisions based on the examination of
aggregate incident level data. In short, one cannot "prove" that an individual officer has “racially
profiled" any individual motorist based on the rate at which a department stops any given group
of motorists. This kind of determination necessarily requires an examination of data at the
individual officer level for a more detailed analysis of individual officer decision-making.
Unfortunately, the law does not currently require the collection of this type of data, resulting in a
considerable amount of conjecture as to the substantive meaning of aggregate level disparities.
That is, who or what is driving the disproportionate rates at which minorities seem to be stopped
and searched? We cannot know or even begin to examine this issue with analyses that end with
aggregate level comparisons of rates.
Additional interpretation problems remain in regards to the specific measurement of racial
"profiling" as defined by Texas state code. For example, officers are currently forced to make
subjective determinations regarding an individual's race based on his or her personal
observations because the Texas Department of Public Safety does not provide an objectively-
based determination of an individual's race/ethnicity on the Texas driver's license. The absence
of any verifiable race/ethnicity data on the driver's license is especially troubling given the racial
diversity within the North Texas region as a whole, and the large numbers of citizens who are of
Hispanic and/or mixed racial decent. The validity of any racial/ethnic disparities discovered in
the aggregate level data becomes threatened in direct proportion to the number of subjective
"guesses" officers are forced to make when trying to determine an individual's racial/ethnic
background.
In addition, the data collected for the current report does not allow for an analysis that separates
(or disaggregates) the discretionary decisions of officers to stop a motorist from those that are
largely non-discretionary. For example, non-discretionary stops of motorists based on the
discovery of outstanding warrants should not be analyzed in terms of whether or not "profiling"
has occurred simply because the officer who has stopped a motorist as a result of the discovery
of an outstanding warrant does not independently make the decision to stop, but rather, is
required to stop that individual regardless of any determination of race. An officer cannot be
determined to be “racially profiling" when organizational rules and state codes compel them to
stop regardless of an individual's race/ethnicity. Straightforward aggregate comparisons of stop
rates ignore these realities, and fail to distinguish between discretionary and non-discretionary
law enforcement actions. In the future, this validity issue could be lessened by the collection of
data indicating the initial reason for the traffic stop, whether it be an observed traffic violation,
other criminal activity, the existence of an outstanding warrant, or some other reason.
Page 10 of 93
Finally, there has been considerable debate as to what the most appropriate population "base-
rate" is in determining whether or not racial/ethnic disparities exist. Questions concerning the
most appropriate base-rate are most problematic in the case of traffic stops, because there are
problems associated with using any number of different population measures to determine
whether or not aggregate level racial disparities exist. As the current analysis shows in regards
to the use of city, county, and regional base-rates, the outcome of analyses designed to determine
whether or not disparities exist is obviously dependent on which base-rate is used. Changes in
the demographic character of North Texas have made the base-rate issue especially problematic
because measures derived from the U.S. Census can become quickly outdated. Although the
more recent 2010 Census population figures are utilized in this report, these base rates will too
become quickly outdated due to the rapid changes experienced in North Texas. Related, the
determination of valid stop base-rates becomes multiplied if analyses fail to distinguish between
residents and non-residents who are stopped, because the existence of significant proportions of
non-resident stops will lead to invalid conclusions if racial/ethnic comparisons are made
exclusively to resident population figures.
In short, the methodological problems outlined above point to the limited utility of using
aggregate level comparisons of the rates at which different racial/ethnic groups are stopped in
order to determine whether or not racial profiling exists within a given jurisdiction.
The table below reports the summaries for the total number of persons cited and searched
subsequent to being stopped by the University Park Police Department for traffic offenses. In
addition, the table shows the number of stopped individuals who granted consent to search and
those stopped drivers who were arrested pursuant to the stop. Specific to citations, the table
shows that roughly 83 percent of all citations were given to White drivers (2,032/2,458), roughly
7 percent (161) of all citations were given to African-American drivers, and roughly 6 percent
(157) of all citations were given to Hispanic drivers. Of the 2,458 persons cited by the University
Park Police Department in 2011, only 4 motorists were searched3, and of those, only one
involved a consent search. Moreover, roughly 1 percent of all motorists cited were arrested
(30/2,458).
Action
White African-
American
Hispanic Asian Other Total
Vehicle Stops 2,032 161 157 74 34 2,458
Searches 3 0 0 0 0 3
Consent Searches 1 0 0 0 0 1
Arrests 19 5 4 0 2 30
Note: Vehicle Stops includes those where citation issued, arrested occurred, or both.
3 This figure includes both consent and non-consent searches.
Page 11 of 93
Analysis of Racial Profiling Compliance by University Park Police
Department
The foregoing analysis shows that the University Park Police Department is fully in compliance
with all relevant Texas laws concerning racial profiling, including the existence of a formal
policy prohibiting racial profiling by its officers, officer training and educational programs, a
formalized complaint process, and the collection of data in compliance with the law. Finally,
internal records indicate that during 2011 the department did not receive any bias-based/racial
profiling complaints.
In addition to providing summary reports and analysis of the data collected by the University
Park Police Department in 2011, this report also included an extensive presentation of some of
the limitations involved in the level of data collection currently required by law and the
methodological problems associated with analyzing such data for the University Park Police
Department as well as police agencies across Texas. The University Park Police Department
should continue its educational and training efforts within the department on racial profiling.
Finally, the department should conduct periodic evaluations of individual officers to assess
whether or not an officer is engaging in racial profiling. The final section of this report includes
newly required TCLEOSE reporting information by Texas law enforcement organizations.
Page 12 of 93
University Park Police Department TCLEOSE
Reporting Forms
Page 13 of 93
Page 14 of 93
Page 15 of 93
Page 16 of 93
Page 17 of 93
Appendix A
Racial Profiling Statutes and Laws
Art. 3.05. RACIAL PROFILING.
In this code, "racial profiling" means a law enforcement-initiated action based on an individual's
race, ethnicity, or national origin rather than on the individual's behavior or on information
identifying the individual as having engaged in criminal activity.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.131. RACIAL PROFILING PROHIBITED.
A peace officer may not engage in racial profiling.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.132. LAW ENFORCEMENT POLICY ON RACIAL PROFILING.
(a) In this article:
(1) "Law enforcement agency" means an agency of the state, or of a county, municipality, or
other political subdivision of the state, that employs peace officers who make motor vehicle
stops in the routine performance of the officers' official duties.
(2) "Motor vehicle stop" means an occasion in which a peace officer stops a motor vehicle for
an alleged violation of a law or ordinance.
(3) "Race or ethnicity" means of a particular descent, including Caucasian, African, Hispanic,
Asian, Native American, or Middle Eastern descent.
(b) Each law enforcement agency in this state shall adopt a detailed written policy on racial
profiling. The policy must:
(1) clearly define acts constituting racial profiling;
Page 18 of 93
(2) strictly prohibit peace officers employed by the agency from engaging in racial profiling;
(3) implement a process by which an individual may file a complaint with the agency if the
individual believes that a peace officer employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling
with respect to the individual;
(4) provide public education relating to the agency's complaint process;
(5) require appropriate corrective action to be taken against a peace officer employed by the
agency who, after an investigation, is shown to have engaged in racial profiling in violation of
the agency's policy adopted under this article;
(6) require collection of information relating to motor vehicle stops in which a citation is issued
and to arrests made as a result of those stops, including information relating to:
(A) the race or ethnicity of the individual detained;
(B) whether a search was conducted and, if so, whether the individual detained
consented to the search; and
(C) whether the peace officer knew the race or ethnicity of the individual detained before
detaining that individual; and
(7) require the chief administrator of the agency, regardless of whether the administrator is
elected, employed, or appointed, to submit an annual report of the information collected under
Subdivision (6) to:
(A) the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education; and
(B) the governing body of each county or municipality served by the agency, if the
agency is an agency of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.
(c) The data collected as a result of the reporting requirements of this article shall not constitute
prima facie evidence of racial profiling.
(d) On adoption of a policy under Subsection (b), a law enforcement agency shall examine the
feasibility of installing video camera and transmitter-activated equipment in each agency law
enforcement motor vehicle regularly used to make motor vehicle stops and transmitter-activated
equipment in each agency law enforcement motorcycle regularly used to make motor vehicle
stops. If a law enforcement agency installs video or audio equipment as provided by this
Page 19 of 93
subsection, the policy adopted by the agency under Subsection (b) must include standards for
reviewing video and audio documentation.
(e) A report required under Subsection (b)(7) may not include identifying information about a
peace officer who makes a motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is stopped or arrested
by a peace officer. This subsection does not affect the collection of information as required by a
policy under Subsection (b)(6).
(f) On the commencement of an investigation by a law enforcement agency of a complaint
described by Subsection (b)(3) in which a video or audio recording of the occurrence on which
the complaint is based was made, the agency shall promptly provide a copy of the recording to
the peace officer who is the subject of the complaint on written request by the officer.
(g) On a finding by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education that
the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency intentionally failed to submit a report
required under Subsection (b)(7), the commission shall begin disciplinary procedures against the
chief administrator.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 25, eff. September 1, 2009.
Art. 2.133. REPORTS REQUIRED FOR MOTOR VEHICLE STOPS.
(a) In this article, "race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
(b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for an alleged violation of a law or ordinance
shall report to the law enforcement agency that employs the officer information relating to the
stop, including:
(1) a physical description of any person operating the motor vehicle who is detained as a result
of the stop, including:
(A) the person's gender; and
(B) the person's race or ethnicity, as stated by the person or, if the person does not state
the person's race or ethnicity, as determined by the officer to the best of the officer's
ability;
(2) the initial reason for the stop;
Page 20 of 93
(3) whether the officer conducted a search as a result of the stop and, if so, whether the person
detained consented to the search;
(4) whether any contraband or other evidence was discovered in the course of the search and a
description of the contraband or evidence;
(5) the reason for the search, including whether:
(A) any contraband or other evidence was in plain view;
(B) any probable cause or reasonable suspicion existed to perform the search; or
(C) the search was performed as a result of the towing of the motor vehicle or the arrest
of any person in the motor vehicle;
(6) whether the officer made an arrest as a result of the stop or the search, including a statement
of whether the arrest was based on a violation of the Penal Code, a violation of a traffic law or
ordinance, or an outstanding warrant and a statement of the offense charged;
(7) the street address or approximate location of the stop; and
(8) whether the officer issued a written warning or a citation as a result of the stop.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 26, eff. September 1, 2009.
Art. 2.134. COMPILATION AND ANALYSIS OF INFORMATION COLLECTED.
(a) In this article:
(1) "Motor vehicle stop" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
(2) "Race or ethnicity" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
(b) A law enforcement agency shall compile and analyze the information contained in each
report received by the agency under Article 2.133. Not later than March 1 of each year, each law
enforcement agency shall submit a report containing the incident-based data compiled during the
previous calendar year to the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
Page 21 of 93
and, if the law enforcement agency is a local law enforcement agency, to the governing body of
each county or municipality served by the agency.
(c) A report required under Subsection (b) must be submitted by the chief administrator of the
law enforcement agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected, employed, or
appointed, and must include:
(1) a comparative analysis of the information compiled under Article 2.133 to:
(A) evaluate and compare the number of motor vehicle stops, within the applicable
jurisdiction, of persons who are recognized as racial or ethnic minorities and persons who
are not recognized as racial or ethnic minorities; and
(B) examine the disposition of motor vehicle stops made by officers employed by the
agency, categorized according to the race or ethnicity of the affected persons, as
appropriate, including any searches resulting from stops within the applicable
jurisdiction; and
(2) information relating to each complaint filed with the agency alleging that a peace officer
employed by the agency has engaged in racial profiling.
(d) A report required under Subsection (b) may not include identifying information about a
peace officer who makes a motor vehicle stop or about an individual who is stopped or arrested
by a peace officer. This subsection does not affect the reporting of information required under
Article 2.133(b)(1).
(e) The Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education, in accordance with
Section 1701.162, Occupations Code, shall develop guidelines for compiling and reporting
information as required by this article.
(f) The data collected as a result of the reporting requirements of this article shall not constitute
prima facie evidence of racial profiling.
(g) On a finding by the Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education that
the chief administrator of a law enforcement agency intentionally failed to submit a report
required under Subsection (b), the commission shall begin disciplinary procedures against the
chief administrator.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Page 22 of 93
Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 27, eff. September 1, 2009.
Art. 2.135. PARTIAL EXEMPTION FOR AGENCIES USING VIDEO AND AUDIO
EQUIPMENT.
(a) A peace officer is exempt from the reporting requirement under Article 2.133 and the chief
administrator of a law enforcement agency, regardless of whether the administrator is elected,
employed, or appointed, is exempt from the compilation, analysis, and reporting requirements
under Article 2.134 if:
(1) during the calendar year preceding the date that a report under Article 2.134 is required to be
submitted:
(A) each law enforcement motor vehicle regularly used by an officer employed by the
agency to make motor vehicle stops is equipped with video camera and transmitter-
activated equipment and each law enforcement motorcycle regularly used to make motor
vehicle stops is equipped with transmitter-activated equipment; and
(B) each motor vehicle stop made by an officer employed by the agency that is capable
of being recorded by video and audio or audio equipment, as appropriate, is recorded by
using the equipment; or
(2) the governing body of the county or municipality served by the law enforcement agency, in
conjunction with the law enforcement agency, certifies to the Department of Public Safety, not
later than the date specified by rule by the department, that the law enforcement agency needs
funds or video and audio equipment for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment as
described by Subsection (a)(1)(A) and the agency does not receive from the state funds or video
and audio equipment sufficient, as determined by the department, for the agency to accomplish
that purpose.
(b) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, a law enforcement agency that is exempt
from the requirements under Article 2.134 shall retain the video and audio or audio
documentation of each motor vehicle stop for at least 90 days after the date of the stop. If a
complaint is filed with the law enforcement agency alleging that a peace officer employed by the
agency has engaged in racial profiling with respect to a motor vehicle stop, the agency shall
retain the video and audio or audio record of the stop until final disposition of the complaint.
(c) This article does not affect the collection or reporting requirements under Article 2.132.
Page 23 of 93
(d) In this article, "motor vehicle stop" has the meaning assigned by Article 2.132(a).
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Amended by: Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 28, eff. September 1, 2009.
Art. 2.136. LIABILITY.
A peace officer is not liable for damages arising from an act relating to the collection or
reporting of information as required by Article 2.133 or under a policy adopted under Article
2.132.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.137. PROVISION OF FUNDING OR EQUIPMENT.
(a) The Department of Public Safety shall adopt rules for providing funds or video and audio
equipment to law enforcement agencies for the purpose of installing video and audio equipment
as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), including specifying criteria to prioritize funding or
equipment provided to law enforcement agencies. The criteria may include consideration of tax
effort, financial hardship, available revenue, and budget surpluses. The criteria must give priority
to:
(1) law enforcement agencies that employ peace officers whose primary duty is traffic
enforcement;
(2) smaller jurisdictions; and
(3) municipal and county law enforcement agencies.
(b) The Department of Public Safety shall collaborate with an institution of higher education to
identify law enforcement agencies that need funds or video and audio equipment for the purpose
of installing video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A). The
collaboration may include the use of a survey to assist in developing criteria to prioritize funding
or equipment provided to law enforcement agencies.
Page 24 of 93
(c) To receive funds or video and audio equipment from the state for the purpose of installing
video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), the governing body of a
county or municipality, in conjunction with the law enforcement agency serving the county or
municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public Safety that the law enforcement agency
needs funds or video and audio equipment for that purpose.
(d) On receipt of funds or video and audio equipment from the state for the purpose of installing
video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A), the governing body of a
county or municipality, in conjunction with the law enforcement agency serving the county or
municipality, shall certify to the Department of Public Safety that the law enforcement agency
has installed video and audio equipment as described by Article 2.135(a)(1)(A) and is using the
equipment as required by Article 2.135(a)(1).
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.138. RULES.
The Department of Public Safety may adopt rules to implement Articles 2.131-2.137.
Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 947, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.
Art. 2.1385. CIVIL PENALTY.
(a) If the chief administrator of a local law enforcement agency intentionally fails to submit the
incident-based data as required by Article 2.134, the agency is liable to the state for a civil
penalty in the amount of $1,000 for each violation. The attorney general may sue to collect a
civil penalty under this subsection.
(b) From money appropriated to the agency for the administration of the agency, the executive
director of a state law enforcement agency that intentionally fails to submit the incident-based
data as required by Article 2.134 shall remit to the comptroller the amount of $1,000 for each
violation.
(c) Money collected under this article shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the
general revenue fund.
Added by Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1172, Sec. 29, eff. September 1, 2009.
Page 25 of 93
Appendix B
Page 26 of 93
Page 27 of 93
Page 28 of 93
Page 29 of 93
Page 30 of 93
Page 31 of 93
Page 32 of 93
Appendix C
Racial Profiling Laws and Corresponding
General Orders and Standard Operating
Procedures
Texas CCP Article UNIVERSITY PARK POLICE DEPARTMENT
Bias Based Profiling Policy 01-001
2.132(b)1 Section II Part A
2.132(b)2 Section I
2.132(b)3 Section III Part B
2.132(b)4 Section III Part C
2.132(b)5 Section III Part B
2.132(b)6 Section III Part D
2.132(b)7 Section III Part F
Page 33 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GerryBradley,ParksDirector
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onSniderPlazaseasonalbannerp rogram
BACKGROUND:
In2005,theCityCouncilapprovedthedesignofth eSniderPlazalightpolebanners.
Thesebannersweredevelopedtocreateadditionalc olorandseasonalappealforthe
plaza.Unfortunately,timeandweatherhaveleftt hesebannersinastateofdisrepairand
fadingimages.
Staffhasbeenworkingwithacommitteetodevelop newdesignsforthelightpole
bannersatSniderPlaza.Oncethedesignsareappr ovedbytheCityCouncil,thebanner
programbidspecificationswillbefinalized.Fund ingfortheprogramwillbesupported
bytheCityandtheSniderPlazaMerchantsAssociat ion.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovaloftheSnide rPlazaseasonalbannerdesigns.
FUNDINGSOURCE:
GeneralFund/SniderPlazaMerchantsAssociation
ATTACHMENTS:
SPBannerDesigns
Page 34 of 93
Page 35 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:ChristineGreen,PurchasingAgent
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:ontheHGACpurchaseofa2012ChevroletEquinoxfo r
Policeparkingenforcement
BACKGROUND:
AttachedisamemofromJimGau,Jr.,FleetManager ,aboutthepurchaseofa2012Chevrolet
EquinoxforthePoliceparkingenforcementofficer.Thispurchaseisareplacementofthe2006GO-4
three-wheeledvehicleforwhichrepairpartsareno longeravailable.
TheEquinoxisavailableonanHGACcontractthroug hCaldwellCountryChevroletforatotalcostof
$21,650.PurchasesmadethroughHGACsatisfyallco mpetitivebiddingrequirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommendspurchaseofthe2012ChevroletEqu inoxfromCaldwellCountryChevroletviathe
HGACpurchasingcooperativeintheamountof$21,65 0.
ATTACHMENTS:
MemofromJimGau,FleetManager,VPRForm,Contrac tPricingWorksheet
Page 36 of 93
Page 37 of 93
Page 38 of 93
Page 39 of 93
Page 40 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onChangeOrderNo.1totheCity 'scontractwithKen-Do
Contracting
BACKGROUND:
AttheFebruary6,2008meeting,theCityCouncila pprovedacontractwithKen-DoContractingin
theamountof$3,335,672.45forreplacementofcurb andgutter(C&G)alongstreetsthroughoutthe
community.Thatcontractisnearingcompletion.T hecontractorhascompletedabout75blocksof
newC&G,includingdriveapproaches,handicapramps ,newstormdraininlets,andsomedefective
sidewalk.TheCity'sapprovedCapitalImprovements Projects5-yearplanincludes$650,000
budgetedforC&GreplacementinFY2012.Staffaske dKen-Doiftheywereamenable,withCity
Councilapproval,toextendtheunitpricingandin creasetheircontractintheamountof$650,000.
Thecontractorhasdoneanexcellentjobinanexpe ditiousmanner.Hisstaffhavehadgreatrapport
withabuttingpropertyowners,evidencedbythefac tthatwe'vereceivedvirtuallynocomplaints
duringhis4-yeartenure.
Statelawallowsforpubliccontractstobeextende dtoamaximumoftwenty-five(25%)percentof
theoriginalcontract.TheproposedChangeOrderN o.1of$650,000representsanincreaseof
16.3%.Theadditionalworkrepresentsapproximatel y15blocksofC&Greplacement.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovalofChangeOr derNo.1totheCity'scontractwithKen-Do
Contractingforreplacementofcurbandgutter.
FUNDINGSOURCE:
CAPITALIMPROVEMENTSFUND
AcctNo.44.44.4410
ProjectNo.42996.2300
Page 41 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:ontwoordinancesdesignatingNOPARKINGANYTIMEat
severallocationintheCityandamendingresidenti alparkingdistricts.
BACKGROUND:
FollowingdiscussionswiththePoliceChief,staff isrequestingCityCouncilactiontodesignateNO
PARKINGANYTIMEatthefollowinglocationstoaddre sstrafficandparkingconcerns:
*SouthcurblineofNormandy,westfromHillcres tadistanceof215feet.Thisareawasinitially
designatedpartofthe"HillcrestWest"residential parkingdistrict(RPD),however,severecongestion
resultedwithaconflictbetweenparkedvehiclesan dingress/egressforMMSandMIStraffic.
*Giventheresultsoftheattachedneighborhood petition,thePoliceDepartmentrecommendsthe
additionofthe3500blockofMcFarlin(northcurb)tothe"HillcrestWest"residentialparkingdistri ct.
*East/westcurblinesofDublinandAirline,sou thfromSMUBlvdtoMockingbird.SMUasked
thattheCityimposeparkingrestrictionsalongthe corridoradjacenttofootball,basketball,andten nis
venuesaswellastheGeorgeWBushPresidentialce nter.
*ThealleyboundedbyRosedale,Airline,Milton,andDurham.Parkingalongalleyrights-of-way
isnottypicallyaproblem,becauseoflackofspac e.Wehaveencountereda"widespot"inthealley
betweenRosedaleandMilton,whereoneortwosmall vehicleshavestartedtopark.Theparked
vehiclesarenotblockingthealley,however,Sanit ationDivisionstaffcannotaccessthe3-yard
containerfordisposalofrefuse.TheCodeofOrdi nancescurrentlystatesthat "apersoncommitsan
offenseifheparks,orleavesunattended,avehicl ewithinanalleyinsuchamannerorundersuch
conditionsastohaveavailablelessthanten(10')feetofthewidthofthealleyforthefreemoveme nt
ofvehiculartraffic".Theproposedordinancewillsimplyprohibitpark ingwithinalleyrights-of-way.
TheCityAttorneydevelopedtwoordinancestoaddre sstheaforementionedissues.Oneordinance
removesthesectionofNormandyfromtheRPD,adds the3500block(northcurbline)totheRPD,
andrevisestheCodeofOrdinanceonprohibitionof parkinginalleys.TheotherdesignatesNO
PARKINGANYTIMEalongNormandyandalongDublin-Air line.
RECOMMENDATION:
StaffrecommendsCityCouncilapprovaloftheordin ancesrevisingtheresidentialparkingdistrict,
amendingthesectionoftheCodeofOrdinancesrega rdingparkinginalleys,anddesignatingNO
PARKINGANYTIMEattheabove-referencedlocations.
ATTACHMENTS:
ORD-NPDublin-AirlineandNormandy
MAP-NPNORMANDY-AIRLINE.DUBLIN
MAP-Normandy-McFarlin
Page 42 of 93
PETITION-McFARLIN
MAP-Alley
ORD-RPDNORMANDY-McFARLIN
Page 43 of 93
53985
ORDINANCE NO. _________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, CHAPTER 12, TRAFFIC CONTROL, BY AMENDING SECTION 12.05.042
(a) TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGNATION OF A RESIDENT-PARKING-ONLY ZONE
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 3500 BLOCK OF MC FARLIN BOULEVARD;
AMENDING SECTION 12.05.042 (a) (20) TO REMOVE THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE 3400 BLOCK OF NORMANDY FROM HILLCREST WEST A DISTANCE OF
215 FEET; AMENDING SECTION 12.05.003 (c) TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN
ALLEYS OR ALLEY RIGHTS-OF-WAY; 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 AND FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 12, Article 12.05 “Parking”, Section 12.05.042 (a), of
the Code of Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended in part to
designate an additional resident-parking-only zone and to delete a portion of an existing
zone, as follows:
"Sec. 12.05.042 Zones Designated; issuance of permits
(a) The following are designated as resident-parking-only zones, to wit:
…
(18) The 2800-3000 blocks, 3400 block, and the north side of the 3500 block of
McFarlin Blvd.;
…
(20) The 3400 block of Normandy, except the south side west from Hillcrest a
distance of 215 feet.
…”
SECTION 2. That Chapter 12, Article 12.05 “Parking”, Section 12.05.003 (c), of
Page 44 of 93
53985
the Code of Ordinances, City of University Park, Texas, is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“Sec. 12.05.003 Prohibited Parking
…
(c) Parking in Alleys or Alley Rights-of-way. A person commits an offense
if he parks, or leaves unattended, a vehicle within an alley or alley right-of-way at any
time.
…”
SECTION 3. That all provisions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
University Park, Texas, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4. That should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause,
phrase or section of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, be
adjudged or held to be void or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of said ordinance or the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, which
shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this
ordinance shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal
court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed the sum
of two hundred dollars ($200.00) for each offense.
SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after the
publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide, subject to the
erection of appropriate signs giving notice of the resident-parking-only zone provided for
herein.
Page 45 of 93
53985
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the
21st day of February 2012.
APPROVED:
______________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________ _________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
(RLD/2-13-12/53985)
Page 46 of 93
53985
ORDINANCE NO. _________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, CHAPTER 12, TRAFFIC CONTROL, BY AMENDING SECTION 12.05.042
(a) TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGNATION OF A RESIDENT-PARKING-ONLY ZONE
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE 3500 BLOCK OF MC FARLIN BOULEVARD;
AMENDING SECTION 12.05.042 (a) (20) TO REMOVE THE SOUTH SIDE OF
THE 3400 BLOCK OF NORMANDY FROM HILLCREST WEST A DISTANCE OF
215 FEET; AMENDING SECTION 12.05.003 (c) TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN
ALLEYS OR ALLEY RIGHTS-OF-WAY; 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 AND FOR THE ERECTION OF SIGNS.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the
21st day of February 2012.
APPROVED:
______________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY SECRETARY
Page 47 of 93
Page 48 of 93
Page 49 of 93
Page 50 of 93
Page 51 of 93
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 3400 BLOCK OF
NORMANDY FOR A DISTANCE OF 215 FEET WEST OF HILLCREST, AND ON
DUBLIN STREET OR AIRLINE ROAD FROM SMU BOULEVARD TO MOCKINGBIRD
LANE AT ANY TIME; 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.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That it shall be unlawful and an offense for any person to leave, stand or
park any motor vehicle on the south side of the 3400 block of Normandy for a distance of 215 feet
west of Hillcrest and on Dublin Street or Airline Road between SMU Boulevard and Mockingbird
Lane at any time.
SECTION 2. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 3. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section
of this ordinance be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, the same shall not
affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. That any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be
deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of
University Park, Texas, shall be subject to a fine not to exceed the sum of two hundred dollars
($200.00) for each offense.
Page 52 of 93
SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage
and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. The parking
restrictions set out herein shall not be effective until appropriate signs giving notice thereof shall
have been erected as provided by the Code of Ordinances.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day
of February 2012.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/2-15-12/54027)
Page 53 of 93
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
PROHIBITING PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE 3400 BLOCK OF
NORMANDY FOR A DISTANCE OF 215 FEET WEST OF HILLCREST, AND ON
DUBLIN STREET OR AIRLINE ROAD FROM SMU BOULEVARD TO MOCKINGBIRD
LANE AT ANY TIME; 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.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day
of February 2012.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
CITY SECRETARY
Page 54 of 93
Page 55 of 93
Page 56 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:LizSpector
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onapprovalofminutesoftheFebruary7,2012City Council
Meeting
BACKGROUND:
MeetingminutesareattachedfortheCouncil'srevi ew.
ATTACHMENTS:
Feb7,2012CityCouncilMtgMin
Page 57 of 93
MINUTES
AGENDA #2829
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
COUNCIL CHAMBER – CITY HALL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2012, 5:00 P.M.
4:00 - 4:30 P.M.: THE COUNCIL CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION UNDER
TGC SECTION 551.072 TO DELIBERATE A POSSIBLE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7305 TURTLE CREEK BLVD. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.
EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM, FIRST FLOOR, CITY HALL.
The Executive Session began at 4:00 and was attended by Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Jerry
Grable, Councilmembers Begert, Clark and Stewart, and City Attorney Dillard. Staff present
included City Manager Bob Livingston, Parks Director Gerry Bradley, Assistant Director of Public
Works Jacob Speer and City Secretary Liz Spector. No action was taken. The meeting adjourned
at 4:30.
4:30 - 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW COUNCIL CONFERENCE ROOM,
SECOND FLOOR, CITY HALL.
The Council met in an open work session for staff briefings of agenda items. No actions were
taken.
The Regular City Council Meeting was called into session at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at
City Hall. Present were Councilmember Begert, Councilmember Clark, Mayor Pro Tem Grable,
Mayor Davis, and Councilmember Stewart. Also in attendance were City Attorney Dillard, and
City Manager Livingston.
Mayor Davis asked the Boy Scouts in attendance to assist George Ertle lead the Pledge of
Allegiance. After the pledge the scouts introduced themselves. They were William Hunt,
Trevor Burke, Eric Martin, and Wilson Jacobson from Troop 730 and James Flegu from
Troop 82. All of the scouts were attending the meeting as part of the requirement to obtain
their Citizenship in the Community merit badges.
City Manager Livingston introduced staff in attendance as: Community Information Officer
Steve Mace, Director of Information Services Jim Criswell, Chief of Police Gary Adams,
Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood, City Secretary Liz Spector, Assistant to the City
Manager George Ertle, Director of Finance Kent Austin, Assistant Director of Public Works
Jacob Speer, Director of Community Development Robbie Corder, Director of Parks Gerry
Bradley, Purchasing Agent Christine Green, Emergency Dispatcher Wilford Davis, and Fire
I. CALL TO ORDER
A. INVOCATION: Assistant to the City Manager George Ertle
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Asst. to the City Manager George Ertle / Boy Scouts
C. INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL: Mayor W. Richard Davis
D. INTRODUCTION OF STAFF: City Manager Bob Livingston
Page 58 of 93
Chief Randy Howell.
Chief Howell introduced several of his staff who were attending the meeting. They
were Devin Penny, Phil Tanner, Marty Corn, Jason Salisbury, Dustin Lewis, Cecil Barton,
Rusty Massey, Paul Falkenhagen, Brad Zwaska and Jim Stroope.
Fire Chief Howell introduced recently retired Battalion Chief Jim Stroope and
Driver/Engineer Phil Tanner. Mr. Stroope was hired October 28, 1974 and retired January
13, 2012 with over 37 years of service to the City. Mr. Tanner was hired December 15, 1980
and retired January 11, 2012 with 31 years of service to the City. Mayor Davis presented
each of the men with a framed plaque and a check in honor of their retirement.
The Highland Park High School Student Council will conduct a 5k run and after party at
Goar Park to raise funds for the Tree of Life Children’s Academy in Zambia. The event is
approved for Saturday, April 14, 2012, starting at 7:00 a.m. and concluding in Goar Park at
approximately noon. During the work session the Council requested staff waive the $500
park reservation fee for this event.
This vehicle purchase, a 2012 John Deere 315SJ Backhoe for the Infrastructure Maintenance
Division, is an early replacement (by one year) of a 1998 John Deere Backhoe and will be
purchased via a BuyBoard contract through RDO Equipment for a total cost of $109,425.11.
Councilmember Stewart made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda pursuant to waiver of the
$500 park rental fee for the Highland Park High School student council. Councilmember Clark
seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Director of Parks Gerry Bradley addressed the Council. He stated that in 2009 the Capital
Projects Review Committee along with the Council approved the expenditure of funds to
renovate the Curtis Park bridge which had fallen into disrepair. Mr. Bradley said that the
approved budget in 2009 was $50,000. Mr. Bradley said work has begun on that project and
the actual costs will exceed the budgeted amount by $4,650. He said the renovations to the
II. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
A. RETIREMENT: Recognition of Battalion Chief Jim Stroope with 37 years of service and
Driver/Engineer Phil Tanner with 31 years of service
III. CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDER AND ACT: on a request by Highland Park High School Student Council to
conduct a 5K benefit run
B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on the BuyBoard Cooperative Purchase of a 2012 John Deere 315SJ
Backhoe for the Infrastructure Maintenance Division
C. CONSIDER AND ACT: on approval of minutes of the January 17, 2012 City Council
Meeting
IV. MAIN AGENDA
A. CONSIDER AND ACT: on funding request for renovations to the Curtis Park Bridge
Page 59 of 93
bridge are needed for safety and aesthetic reasons and asked the Council to approve the
additional funds to complete the project.
Mr. Bradley said that staff identified savings in other capital projects in the 2011/12 budget
which will make up the cost difference and he asked the City Council to utilize those savings
to support the bridge renovation.
Councilmember Clark asked if the ponding problem on the bridge walking surface will be
resolved with this renovation. Mr. Bradley said a portion of the cap was removed to create a
center point grade which will allow water to run off the surface to alleviate surface ponding.
Mr. Bradley mentioned that to his knowledge, the bridge has not been renovated in its 75
years of existence.
Councilmember Clark made a motion to approve the request for additional funds for
renovations to the Curtis Park Bridge in the amount of $4,650. Councilmember Begert
seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
City Manager Livingston introduced the final item on the agenda. He stated it is a license
agreement with George Bush Presidential Foundation to allow their use of specific City
rights-of-way for service items such as electrical conduit, irrigation lines, and drainage lines
to transport harvested rainwater to the planned cistern. Mr. Livingston said this is a routine
item and staff recommends approval.
Councilmember Stewart made a motion to approve a license agreement with the George W.
Bush Presidential Foundation for placement of certain private facilities within the City’s
rights-of-way. Mayor Pro Tem Grable seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
There were no requests to address the Council under Items from the Floor and Mayor Davis
adjourned the meeting.
Considered and approved this 21st day of February, 2012.
___________________________________
W. Richard Davis, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Elizabeth Spector, City Secretary
B. CONSIDER AND ACT: on a license agreement with the George W. Bush Presidential
Foundation for placement of private facilities within the City’s rights-of-way
V. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Page 60 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:LizSpector,CitySecretary
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onanordinanceorderingtheMay12,2012General
MunicipalElectionandgivingauthoritytoenterin toanelectionservicescontract
withtheDallasCountyElectionsAdministrator(DCE A)
BACKGROUND:
AGeneralElectionisbeingorderedforSaturday,M ay12,2012toelectaMayorandfour
Councilmembersfortwo-yearterms.TheElectionDaypollingplacewillbe atHighlandParkMiddle
School,3555Granada,inUniversityParkfrom7:00 a.m.to7:00p.m.
ThisordinancealsoauthorizestheMayorandCityS ecretarytoexecuteajointelectionagreement
andelectionservicescontractwithDallasCountyE lectionsAdministrator(DCEA).Pursuantto
TexasElectionCode,Section271,weareconducting theelectionjointlywiththeHighlandPark
IndependentSchoolDistrict,theTownofHighlandP ark,andtheDallasCountyParkCities
MunicipalUtilityDistrict.Attherequestofthe DCEA,allParkCitiesentitieswillbeonthecount y-
widejointelectioncontractwithotherDallasCoun tycities,townsandschooldistricts.
ThiscontractauthorizestheDCEAtocoordinate,su perviseandhandleallaspectsofthejointelectio n
includingbutnotlimitedtoequipment(andallman datoryequipmenttesting),supplies,services
(includingappointmentofelectionworkers)andadm inistrativecosts.TheCityisresponsiblefor
preparation,adoptionandpublicationofallrequir edelectionorders,resolutionsornotices.TheCi ty
Secretarywillrequestpre-clearancefromtheDepar tmentofJusticeonceanyprecinctchangesare
finalizedbythestate.
AsdesignatedinthecontractwithDCEA,thecosts oftheelectionwillbesharedbyallparticipating
entitiesbasedonpopulation.Anamountequaltoo ne-halfoftheestimatedcostisrequiredtobe
depositedwiththeDallasCountyTreasurernolater thanMarch23,2012.Atthistime,Dallas
Countycannotprovideacostestimatebecauseofun certaintyofprecinctinformationduetolitigated
redistricting.ThepreviousGeneralElectionofMa y8,2010,wascontractedwithDallasCountyfora
totalcostof$7,734.24.Ianticipatethecostfor theupcomingelectiontobecomparable.Anemail
fromToniPippins-Pools,theDCEA,discussingthese issuesisattachedforyourreview.Asagreed
inanAugust2011jointmeetingwiththeDCEA,all participatingentitieswillberesponsiblefor
additionalequipmentrentalcostsduetoSB100whet hertheyareabletocanceltheirelectionsor
not.Assoonasupdatedcostinformationbecomesa vailable,IwillinformtheCouncil.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffrecommendsadoptingthisordinanceandgiving theMayorandCitySecretaryauthorityto
acceptthetermsofthecontractgenerallyinthef ormattachedandapproveanyminorchangesthat
mayoccurwiththeDallasCountyElectionsAdminist ratorforassistanceinconductingthejoint
election.
Page 61 of 93
FUNDINGSOURCE:
01-02-7432ExecutiveDepartment
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinanceordering2012Election
DraftDCEAContract2012.02.06
Pippins-Pooleemail2012.02.17
Page 62 of 93
ORDINANCE NO. 12/ ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ORDERING A
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON SATURDAY, MAY 12, 2012, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF ELECTING A MAYOR AND FOUR (4) CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS;
CREATING A SINGLE ELECTION PRECINCT; PROVIDING FOR THE
PUBLICATION AND POSTING OF NOTICE; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY SECRETARY TO EXECUTE AN ELECTION SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
DALLAS COUNTY ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, under the provisions of the City’s Charter, it is necessary that the City Council of
the City of University Park, Texas call a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing a
Mayor and four (4) City Council Members;
WHEREAS, Section 41.001(a) of the Texas Election Code, as amended, provides for a general
election of City Officials to be held on uniform election dates; the second Saturday in May or the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November;
WHEREAS, Section 11.0581(a) of the Texas Education Code requires independent school
districts (ISDs) to conduct their general election for trustees on the same date as the election for
the members of the governing body of a municipality located in the school district; the general
election for state and county officers, or the election for the members of the governing body of a
hospital district; and,
WHEREAS, Section 271 of the Texas Election Code authorizes the elections ordered by the
authorities of two or more political subdivisions that are to be held on the same day in all or part
of the same county to be held jointly in the election precincts that can be served by common
polling places.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS;
SECTION 1. That a General Municipal Election be and the same is hereby ordered to be held
on the second Saturday in May 2012, the same being May 12, 2012, for the purpose of electing,
at large, a Mayor and four (4) Council Members for the City of University Park, Texas, for a
two-year term as heretofore established by the City Charter.
SECTION 2. That said election shall be held in accordance with the Election Code of the State
of Texas, the statutes of the State of Texas, and the Charter and ordinances of the City of
University Park, Texas, and shall be in conformity with the procedures set forth herein.
SECTION 3. That the election shall be held jointly with the Highland Park Independent School
District, the Town of Highland Park, and the Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utility
District, and other Dallas County governmental entities on May 12, 2012, pursuant to Section 11
of the Texas Education Code and Section 271 of the Texas Election Code. The costs of said
election shall be shared by the governmental entities as set forth in the Election Services
Contract attached hereto as Exhibit A and made part hereof for all purposes. The Contract is
hereby approved subject to non-substantive changes approved by the Mayor and/or City
Secretary.
Page 63 of 93
SECTION 4. That a single election precinct is hereby created, which shall consist of the
territory located within the corporate limits of the City of University Park, Texas, including all or
part of Dallas County precincts 1206, 1207, 1208, 1215, 1216, 1217, and 1218. Redistricting is
under legal review at the state level, therefore, the precinct numbers may change. The proposed
change will be a numerical change from the current numbering structure, to 2220, 2221, 2222,
2223, 2224, 2225 and 2226 and will have no impact on the voters of the City. The official
polling place for voting on Election Day shall be the Highland Park Middle School, 3555
Granada Avenue, University Park, Texas. All resident, qualified voters of the City of University
Park, Texas shall be permitted to vote in said election. In addition, the election materials as
outlined in Section 272.005, Texas Election Code, shall be printed in both English and Spanish
for use at the polling places during Early Voting and on Election Day.
SECTION 5. That the polling place for said election shall be open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
on Election Day.
SECTION 6. That Toni Pippins-Poole, Dallas County Elections Administrator, is appointed the
Early Voting Clerk for all of the participating political subdivisions in compliance with Sections
271.006 of the Texas Elections Code.
SECTION 7. That in compliance with Section 85.004 of the Texas Election Code, early voting
by personal appearance shall be conducted at various Dallas County polling locations, including
a branch location at University Park City Hall. Said branch polling place shall be open from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. beginning Monday, April 30, 2012, and continuing through Friday, May
4, 2012; and from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. beginning on Monday, May 7, and ending Tuesday,
May 8, 2012.
SECTION 8. The Mayor and City Secretary are authorized to sign the Election Services
Contract on behalf of the City. The City Secretary is authorized to prepare a Notice of Election
as prescribed by the Texas Election Code, to be posted not later than April 20, 2012, and
published in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the Charter one time no earlier than
April 12 and no later than May 2, 2012.
SECTION 9. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, as the
law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of University Park
on this the 21st day of February 2012.
APPROVED:
____________________________
W. Richard Davis
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTEST:
____________________________ _____________________________
Robert L. Dillard, III Elizabeth Spector
City Attorney City Secretary
Page 64 of 93
Page 65 of 93
Page 66 of 93
Page 67 of 93
Page 68 of 93
Page 69 of 93
Page 70 of 93
Page 71 of 93
Page 72 of 93
Page 73 of 93
Page 74 of 93
Page 75 of 93
Page 76 of 93
Page 77 of 93
Page 78 of 93
Page 79 of 93
Page 80 of 93
Page 81 of 93
Page 82 of 93
From: Toni Pippins-Poole [mailto:Toni.Pippins-Poole@dallascounty.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:07 PM
Subject: May 12 Joint Elections-
Dear All,
I have received many questions as to how the new scheduled Primary date of May 29th will affect the Joint elections. So
far it will not affect our administration of your May 12th election. However, with the delay in the receiving the maps
until March 3rd, there will be a delay in providing you with your precinct numbers. Several cities and school districts did
provide us with their new redistricting plans and we will continue to work on making those updates. Those entities that
have not received their DOJ approval for their redistricting plans must contact us with a decision on the correct lines to
use for the May Joint by March 3rd. If we receive the maps as planned, we will provide you with precinct numbers, maps
and polling locations by March 26th. Before this date, you will have to rely on your map to assist any candidate or
voters with district questions. Regarding your election cost and the contract, you should be receiving your contract
during the week of February 20th with all changes requested and the estimated election cost. Current precincts will not
be listed, however your cost will be base upon last year precincts so that we may stay on track. You may send your
deposits in by March 23rd. Any adjustment needed to the election cost will be determined when we finalize the
contract. As you recall, we discussed in our August meeting that we would be limited to 39 early voting locations and
participants would be limited to that number of locations due to limited available DCED equipment and the rentals. For
those entities that are asking for additional early voting locations that were not on the original list in August, I will have
to review that list to determine which ones can be replaced, if possible, to accommodate your request.
Although the Primary date will not affect the May 12th election date, it will affect the runoff date that was listed in your
materials. DCED will have to change the runoff date to June 23rd. This is the earliest date that we can administer the
Joint Runoff Elections. From our discussion in August regarding conducting your elections, to keep the cost low, we
agreed to rent a limited amount of equipment with the understanding that some of Dallas County election equipment
would be used to supplement the total equipment needed for the Joint Elections. For this reason, retrieving the
equipment used on May 29th will be difficult, in such a short time period, to be prepared for the runoff elections if we
maintained a June 16th date.
I would like to apologize for the delay and uncertainty of details for your election that has been caused from the
redistricting process. We thank you for your understanding and patience.
These are not ordinary times, but we are not ordinary people.
Should you have additional questions that were not addressed, do not hesitate to contact me.
Thanks
Toni
Toni Pippins‐Poole,CERA,CCPA
Elections Administrator
Dallas County Elections Department
2377 N. Stemmons Frwy., Suite 820
Dallas, Texas 75207
214.819.6335
¬ 214.819.6382
Voter Registration. The "IN" thing.
"COUNT ME IN"
Page 83 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:KentAustin,DirectorofFinance
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onordinancedecreasingtheOver-65andDisabled
HomesteadExemptionfrom$280,000to$275,000
BACKGROUND:
Eachyearsince2008,theUPCityCouncilhasmodif iedtheCity’sover-65anddisabledhomestead
exemptiontomaintainanamountbasedon25%ofthe averagesingle-familyhomevalue.After
risingfrom$50,000to$250,000initially,andthen to$297,000in2010,theexemptionwaslowered
to$280,000in2011.Thiswasadirectreflection ofthedecreaseintheaverageSFhomevaluein
2010.
In2011,homevaluesagainfell,althoughonlyby2 %.Theattachedmemodiscussesfurtherthebasis
forreducingtheexemptionfrom$280,000to$275,00 0.TheFinanceAdvisoryCommitteediscussed
thechangeattheirFebruary9,2012,meetingandv otedinfavorofthechange.
RECOMMENDATION:
ToremainconsistentwiththeCity’spoliciesandp astpractices,CitystaffandtheFinanceAdvisory
Committeerecommendreducingtheover-65anddisabl edhomesteadexemptionfrom$280,000to
$275,000.IftheCityCouncilapprovestheordinan ceestablishingthisamount,staffwill
communicatethechangetotheDallasCentralApprai salDistrictforinclusionincomputationofthe
2012certifiedtaxroll.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinanceamendingover-65anddisabledhomesteade xemption
MemotoFinanceAdvisoryCommitteere.over-65exem ption
Page 84 of 93
ORDINANCE NO. _________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, TO PROVIDE
AN EXEMPTION ON THE RESIDENCE HOMESTEAD OF AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS
DISABLED OR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS SIXTY-FIVE YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER IN
THE AMOUNT OF TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS
($275,000.00) ON THE ASSESSED VALUE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to set the exemption from taxation of a portion of the
appraised value of a residence homestead of an individual who is sixty-five years of age or older or
an individual who is disabled, as authorized by the Tax Code, NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That there is hereby established for the tax year 2012 an exemption from
taxation of two hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($275,000.00) of the appraised value of the
residence homestead of an individual who is sixty-five years of age or older or an individual who is
disabled. “Disabled” means a person having a disability for purposes of payment of disability
insurance benefits under the Federal Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Act.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, as the
law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 21st day
of February, 2012.
APPROVED:
________________________________
W. RICHARD DAVIS, MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_________________________ _________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY ELIZABETH SPECTOR, CITY SECRETARY
Page 85 of 93
S:\FINANCE\AUSTIN\Finance Adv Cmte\2012\FAC memo over-65 exemption 02-06-2012.docx
9:08 AM 02/07/12 1
DATE: February 6, 2012
TO: Finance Advisory Committee
FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Updating of Over-65 property tax homestead exemption
Introduction
Beginning in 2008, the UP City Council modified the City’s over-65 and disabled
homestead exemption annually to maintain an amount based on 25% of the average single-
family home value. This practice is consistent with the policy described in section 4-2-2 of the
City’s Financial Management Policies:
4-2-2 Property tax policies
The City will levy the lowest tax rate on the broadest tax base. Exemptions will be provided
to home owners, senior citizens (age 65 years and over), and disabled citizens. The
homestead exemption shall be equal to 20% of a property value. Additionally, the City
Council will review the senior citizen and disabled persons homestead exemptions with a
goal to maintain a tax benefit of approximately 25% of the average single-family home
value.
For the past four years, the exemption has been changed as follows::
Tax Year/Fiscal Year
Date
modified
Prior year average
SF home value
Exemption
amount
2008 / FY2009 2/26/2008$1,064,621$250,000
2009 / FY2010 3/3/2009 $1,183,170$295,000
2010 / FY2011 3/2/2010 $1,189,311$297,000
2011 / FY2012 3/1/2011 $1,120,199$280,000
Page 86 of 93
S:\FINANCE\AUSTIN\Finance Adv Cmte\2012\FAC memo over-65 exemption 02-06-2012.docx
9:08 AM 02/07/12 2
Updating of over-65 and disabled homestead exemption
Action is needed now to update the exemption for 2012. The average SF home value in
UP fell last year for the second time since the early 1990s. Multiplying last year’s average SF
home value of $1,093,015 by 25% yields $273,254, or $275,000 rounded, as displayed in the
table below. The impact of this 1.7% reduction on the average over-65 taxpayer depends on
what happens with the overall tax base. If the total tax base and tax rate remain unchanged, then
decreasing the over-65 and disabled homestead exemption from $280,000 to $275,000 will
actually shift $15,593 in property taxes from under-65 taxpayers to over-65 taxpayers. This
means an additional $14 in City taxes for the average over-65 taxpayer.
2010 2011 2012
ActualActualProposedChange $Change %
Total taxable base 5,707,112,954$ 5,568,088,524$ 5,568,088,524$ -$ 0.0%
Total Residential A11 market value6,134,207,860$ 5,971,142,920$ 5,971,142,920$ -$ 0.0%
Total Residential A11 parcels5,476 5,463 5,463 - 0.0%
Average SF home market value$1,120,199$1,093,015$1,093,015-$ 0.0%
Over-65 & disabled computationFY2011FY2012FY2013
Prior year avg. SF home value $1,189,311$1,120,199$1,093,015($27,183)-2.3%
Over-65 exemption (25% of avg SF)$297,000$280,000 $275,000 ($5,000)-1.7%
Tax impact
Avg SF home market value $1,120,199$1,093,015$1,093,015 $00.0%
Less 20% homestead exemption($224,040)($218,603)($218,603)$00.0%
Less over-65 homestead exemption($297,000)($280,000)($275,000)$5,000-1.7%
Avg SF home taxable value $599,159$594,412$599,412$5,0000.8%
Average SF over-65 tax bill $1,668 $1,655 $1,669 $140.8%
Change in Avg SF over-65 tax bill ($74)($13)$14
Tax loss & impact on under-65
No. of eligible parcels 1,160 1,120 1,120 - 0.0%
Tax base loss$344,520,000$313,600,000$308,000,000($5,600,000)-1.6%
Tax rate per $100 0.278450.278450.278450.000000.0%
Tax revenue loss $959,316$873,219$857,626($15,593)-1.6%
Total parcels 8,339 8,339 8,339 - 0.0%
No. of under-65 parcels7,179 7,219 7,219 - 0.0%
Tax impact per under-65 parcel $133.63$120.96$118.80 ($2.16)-1.6%
Page 87 of 93
S:\FINANCE\AUSTIN\Finance Adv Cmte\2012\FAC memo over-65 exemption 02-06-2012.docx
9:08 AM 02/07/12 3
If property values overall fall 1% or 3%, the impact of the reduced over-65 exemption will be as
follows:
1% Decrease3% Decrease
in Taxable Basein Taxable Base
Total taxable base5,512,407,639$ 5,401,045,868$
Total Residential A11 market value5,911,431,491$ 5,792,008,632$
Total Residential A11 parcels 5,463 5,463
Average SF home market value 1,082,085$ 1,060,225$
Over-65 & disabled computationFY2013 FY2013
Prior year avg. SF home value$1,093,015$1,093,015
Over-65 exemption (25% of avg SF)$275,000$275,000
Tax impact
Avg SF home market value$1,082,085$1,060,225
Less 20% homestead exemption ($216,417)($212,045)
Less over-65 homestead exemption($275,000)($275,000)
Avg SF home taxable value $590,668$573,180
Average SF over-65 tax bill$1,661$1,644
Change in Avg SF over-65 tax bill $6 ($11)
Tax loss & impact on under-65
No. of eligible parcels1,120 1,120
Tax base loss $308,000,000$308,000,000
Tax rate per $100 0.28123 0.28680
Tax revenue loss $866,202$883,355
Total parcels 8,339 8,339
No. of under-65 parcels7,219 7,219
Tax impact per under-65 parcel$119.99 $122.37
Conclusion
To remain consistent with the City’s policies and past practices, the over-65 and disabled
homestead exemption should be decreased from $280,000 to $275,000. This change requires
City Council action by ordinance. If approved, the change will be communicated to the Dallas
Central Appraisal District for inclusion in computation of the 2012 certified tax roll.
Page 88 of 93
AGENDAMEMO
(2/21/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:KentR.Austin,DirectorofFinance
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onaresolutionsuspendingtheeffectivedateofAt mos
Energyrateincreaserequest
BACKGROUND:
IncludedontheFebruary21CityCouncilmeetingag endaisaresolutionsuspendingtheeffective
dateofarateincreaserequestbyAtmosEnergyMid -TexDivision.Thisactionisrecommendedby
theAtmosCitiesSteeringCommittee(ACSC),whichn ownumbers154cities.
Astheattacheddocumentsexplain,thislatestfili ngbyAtmosseeksasystem-wideincreaseof$49
million(11.94%excludinggascosts),whichwouldr aiseratesforaverageresidentialcustomersby
13.6%.Thestructureoftherateswouldalsochange :
Approvaloftheattachedresolutionwouldsuspendt heeffectivedateoftheAtmosrequestbyupto90
days.Asalways,thistimeprovidesACSCattorneys andconsultantstostudytherequest.Themodel
staffreportfromthelawfirmofLloydGosselinkp rovidesmoredetailsonthecontentandreasoning
oftheresolution.
RateR —ResidentialSales
TypeofCharge Existing Proposed
Monthlycustomercharge $7.50 $18.00
ConsumptionperCcfcharge $0.25116 $0.07091
RECOMMENDATION:
Citystaffrecommendsapprovaloftheresolutionsu spendingtheeffectivedateofthegasrate
increase.Atmosisawareoftheproposedactionand issupportive.IfnoactionistakenbytheCity
CouncilbeforeMarch6,2012,therateincreasewil ltakeeffectasoriginallyproposed.
ATTACHMENTS:
ResolutionsuspendingeffectivedateofAtmosrate increase
Modelstaffreport,Atmosrateincreaserequest
Page 89 of 93
1790958 1
RESOLUTION NO. ____________________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
SUSPENDING THE MARCH 6, 2012, EFFECTIVE DATE
OF ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION
(“ATMOS MID-TEX”) REQUESTED RATE CHANGE TO
PERMIT THE CITY TIME TO STUDY THE REQUEST
AND TO ESTABLISH REASONABLE RATES;
APPROVING COOPERATION WITH ATMOS CITIES
STEERING COMMITTEE (“ACSC”) AND OTHER CITIES
IN THE ATMOS MID-TEX SERVICE AREA TO HIRE
LEGAL AND CONSULTING SERVICES AND TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE COMPANY AND DIRECT ANY
NECESSARY LITIGATION AND APPEALS; REQUIRING
REIMBURSEMENT OF CITIES’ RATE CASE EXPENSES;
FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS
RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS
REQUIRED BY LAW; REQUIRING NOTICE OF THIS
RESOLUTION TO THE COMPANY AND ACSC’S LEGAL
COUNSEL
WHEREAS, on or about January 31, 2012, Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division
(“Atmos Mid-Tex” or “Company”), pursuant to Gas Utility Regulatory Act § 104.102 filed with
the City of University Park, Texas (“City”), a Statement of Intent to change gas rates in all
municipalities exercising original jurisdiction within its Mid-Tex Division service area, effective
March 6, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the City is a regulatory authority under the Gas Utility Regulatory Act
(“GURA”) and under Chapter 104, §104.001 et seq. of GURA has exclusive original jurisdiction
over Atmos Mid-Tex’s rates, operations, and services within the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to maximize the efficient use of resources and expertise, it is
reasonable for the City to maintain its involvement in the Atmos Cities Steering Committee
(“ACSC”) and to cooperate with the more than 150 similarly situated city members of ACSC
and other city participants in conducting a review of the Company’s application and to hire and
direct legal counsel and consultants and to prepare a common response and to negotiate with the
Company and direct any necessary litigation; and
WHEREAS, Atmos Mid-Tex proposed March 6, 2012, as the effective date for its
requested increase in rates; and
WHEREAS, it is not possible for the City to complete its review of Atmos Mid-Tex’s
filing by March 6, 2012; and
Page 90 of 93
1790958 2
WHEREAS, the City will need an adequate amount of time to review and evaluate
Atmos Mid-Tex’s rate application to enable the City to adopt a final decision as a local
regulatory authority with regard to Atmos Mid-Tex’s requested rate increase; and
WHEREAS, the Gas Utility Regulatory Act § 104.107 grants local regulatory authorities
the right to suspend the effective date of proposed rate changes for ninety (90) days; and
WHEREAS, the Gas Utility Regulatory Act § 103.022 provides that costs incurred by
Cities in ratemaking activities are to be reimbursed by the regulated utility.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
1. That the March 6, 2012, effective date of the rate request submitted by Atmos
Mid-Tex on January 31, 2012, be suspended for the maximum period allowed by law to permit
adequate time to review the proposed changes and to establish reasonable rates.
2. That the City is authorized to cooperate with ACSC and its member cities in the
Mid-Tex service area and under the direction of the ACSC Executive Committee to hire and
direct legal counsel and consultants, negotiate with the Company, make recommendations to the
City regarding reasonable rates, and to direct any necessary administrative proceedings or court
litigation associated with an appeal of a rate ordinance and the rate case filed with the City or
Railroad Commission.
3. That the City’s reasonable rate case expenses shall be reimbursed by Atmos.
4. That it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this
Resolution is passed is open to the public as required by law and the public notice of the time,
place, and purpose of said meeting was given as required.
5. A copy of this Resolution shall be sent to Atmos, care of David Park, Vice
President Rates & Regulatory Affairs, at Atmos Energy Corporation, Mid-Tex Division, 5420
LBJ Freeway, Suite 1862, Dallas, Texas 75240, and to Geoffrey Gay, General Counsel to ACSC,
at Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., P.O. Box 1725, Austin, Texas 78767-1725.
PASSED AND APPROVED this __________ day of ___________________, 2012.
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________________
City Attorney
Page 91 of 93
1790994.1
MODEL STAFF REPORT SUPPORTING RESOLUTION SUSPENDING ATMOS
MID-TEX’S PROPOSED MARCH 6, 2012 EFFECTIVE DATE
FOR A RATE INCREASE
The City, along with approximately 153 other cities served by Atmos Energy Corp., Mid-
Tex Division (“Atmos Mid-Tex” or “Company”), is a member of the Atmos Cities Steering
Committee (“ACSC” or “Steering Committee”). On or about January 31, 2012, Atmos Mid-Tex
filed with the City a Statement of Intent to increase rates within the City.
Background
In 2003, TXU Gas filed a statewide rate case which became known at the Railroad
Commission of Texas (“RRC”) as Gas Utilities Docket (“GUD”) No. 9400. That same year the
Texas Legislature passed legislation referred to as the Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program
(“GRIP”) which authorized annual piecemeal rate reviews that Texas courts have concluded
significantly restrict city jurisdiction, participation, and input. Shortly after GUD No. 9400 was
decided in 2004, Atmos Energy purchased TXU Gas and created what is known as Atmos
Energy Corp., Mid-Tex Division. The City is within the Atmos Mid-Tex Division.
Atmos Mid-Tex filed four GRIP cases before filing a traditional rate case in September,
2007. As part of Cities’ Settlement Agreement with Atmos of the 2007 rate case, ACSC and
Atmos created a substitute process for annual piecemeal GRIP cases. That substitute process
was called a Rate Review Mechanism (“RRM”) and was intended as an expedited but
comprehensive rate review that included a number of fixed values and constraints. The RRM
was intended as a three-year experiment. Last year, it was extended for a fourth year with some
slight modifications to the original formulas. ACSC negotiated with Atmos in the final quarter
of last year to further extend the RRM process, but no agreement was reached. Atmos has
expressed a desire to reach a settlement of the January 31, 2012 filing that includes a revised
RRM process.
Enclosed are frequently asked questions (“FAQ”) on ACSC and the RRM ratemaking
process.
Discussion and Purpose
Atmos Mid-Tex filed a Statement of Intent on January 31, 2012, seeking to increase
system-wide base rates (which exclude the cost of gas) by approximately $49 million or 11.94%.
However, the Company is requesting an increase of 13.6%, excluding gas costs, for its
residential customers. Additionally, the application would change the way that rates are
collected, by increasing the residential fixed-monthly (or customer) charge from $7.50 to $18.00
and decreasing the consumption charge from $0.25 per 100 cubic feet (“ccf”) to $0.07 per ccf.
The law provides that a rate request made by a gas utility cannot become effective until at
least 35 days following the filing of the application to change rates. Atmos has proposed an
effective date of March 6, 2012. The law permits the City to suspend the rate change for 90 days
after the date the rate change would otherwise be effective. If the City fails to take some action
Page 92 of 93
1790994.1
regarding the filing before the effective date, Atmos’ rate request is deemed administratively
approved.
The purpose of the resolution is to extend the effective date of Atmos Mid-Tex’s
proposed rate increase to give the City time to review the rate-filing package. The resolution
suspends the March 6, 2012 effective date of the Company’s rate increase for the maximum
period permitted by law to allow the City, working in conjunction with the other ACSC cities, to
evaluate the filing, determine whether the filing complies with law, and if lawful, to determine
what further strategy to pursue, including settlement and ultimately to approve reasonable rates.
Explanation of “Be It Resolved Paragraphs”
Section 1. The City is authorized to suspend the rate change for 90 days after the date
that the rate change would otherwise be effective so long as the City has a legitimate purpose.
Time to study and investigate the application is always a legitimate purpose. Please note that the
resolution refers to the suspension period as the “maximum period allowed by law” rather than
ending by a specific date. This is because the Company controls the effective date and can
extend its effective date and, therefore, extend the deadline for final city action to increase the
time that the City retains jurisdiction (for example, if necessary to reach settlement on the case).
If the suspension period is not otherwise extended by the Company, the City must take final
action on Atmos Mid-Tex’s request to raise rates by June 4, 2012.
Section 2. This provision recognizes the City’s membership in ACSC and authorizes
the City to participate with other similarly situated cities served by Atmos Mid-Tex in order to
more efficiently represent the interests of the City and its citizens.
Section 3. By law, the Company must reimburse the cities for their reasonable rate
case expenses. Legal counsel and consultants approved by ACSC will present their invoices to
the City of Arlington which will then seek reimbursement from Atmos Mid-Tex. The City will
not incur liability for payment of rate case expenses by adopting a suspension resolution.
Section 4. This section merely recites that the resolution was passed at a meeting that
was open to the public and that the consideration of the resolution was properly noticed.
Section 5. This section provides that both Atmos Mid-Tex’s designated
representative and counsel for ACSC will be notified of the City’s action by sending a copy of
the approved and signed resolution to certain designated individuals.
Recommendation
The City Staff recommends adoption of the resolution suspending the effective date of
Atmos Mid-Tex’s proposed rate increase.
Page 93 of 93