HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012.08.28 City Council AgendaCITYOFUNIVERSITYPARK
SPECIALCITYCOUNCILMEETING
LOCATION:CITYHALLCOUNCILCHAMBER
AGENDA#2844
AUGUST28,2012
CALLTOORDER:5:00P.M.
4:00-5:00P.M.WORKSESSIONFORAGENDAREVIEW:TheCouncilwillmeetinopenwork
sessiontoreceiveagendaitembriefingsfromstaff.Nobusinesswillbeconducted.
2ndFloorConferenceRoom,CityHall.
TOSPEAKONANAGENDAITEM
AnyonewishingtoaddresstheCouncilonanyitemmustfilloutagreen“RequesttoSpeak”formand
returnittotheCitySecretary.WhencalledforwardbytheMayor,beforebeginningtheirremarks,speakers
areaskedtogotothepodiumandstatetheirnameandaddressfortherecord.
I.CALLTOORDER
A.INVOCATION:AssistanttotheCityManagerGeorgeErtle
B.PLEDGEOFALLEGIANCE:AssistanttotheCityManagerGeorgeErtle/Boy
Scouts
C.INTRODUCTIONOFCOUNCIL:MayorW.RichardDavis
D.INTRODUCTIONOFSTAFF:CityManagerBobLivingston
II.CONSENTAGENDA
A.CONSIDERANDACT:onminutesoftheAugust21,2012CityCouncilMeeting - Spector Pg 3
III.MAINAGENDA
A.REPORT:receiveapeerreviewreportoftheYMCATrafficImpactAnalysis - Smallwood Pg 10
B.PUBLICHEARING:Continueapublichearingandprovidedirectiontostaffona
requestbytheParkCitiesYMCAtoamendPlannedDevelopmentDistrictPD-12,to
demolishtheexistingstructureandredevelopa3.72acretractmoreorless,with
a65,000sq.ft.facilityandbelow-gradeparkinggarage. - Persaud Pg 38
C.PUBLICHEARING:onproposedFY2013budgetandtaxrate - Austin Pg 130
IV.PUBLICCOMMENTS
AnyonewishingtoaddressanitemnotontheAgendashoulddosoatthistime.Pleasebe
advisedthatundertheTexasOpenMeetingsAct,theCouncilcannotdiscussoractatthis
meetingonamatterthatisnotlistedontheAgenda.However,inresponsetoaninquiry,a
Councilmembermayrespondwithastatementofspecificfactualinformationora
recitationofexistingpolicy.ItistheCouncil’spolicytorequestthatcitizensnotaddress
itemsthatarecurrentlyscheduledforafutureagendaorpublichearing.Instead,theCouncil
requeststhatcitizensattendthatspecificmeetingtoexpresstheiropinions,orcommentto
theCouncilbye-mailatCity-Council@uptexas.orgorletteraddressedtotheMayorand
Page 1 of 186
Councilat3800UniversityBlvd.,UniversityPark,Texas75205.Otherquestionsorprivate
commentsfortheCityCouncilorStaffshouldbedirectedtothatindividualimmediately
followingthemeeting.
AsauthorizedbySection551.071(2)oftheTexasGovernmentCode,thismeetingmaybeconvened
intoClosedExecutiveSessionforthepurposeofseekingconfidentiallegaladvicefromtheCity
AttorneyonanyAgendaitemslistedherein.
Page 2 of 186
AGENDAMEMO
(8/28/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM: Liz Spector, City Secretary
SUBJECT:CONSIDERANDACT:onminutesoftheAugust21,2012CityCouncilMeeting
BACKGROUND:
MinutesareincludedfortheCouncil'sreview.
ATTACHMENTS:
August21,2012CityCouncilMtgMin.
Page 3 of 186
0,187(6
$*(1'$
&,7<&281&,/0((7,1*
&,7<2)81,9(56,7<3$5.7(;$6
&281&,/&+$0%(5±&,7<+$//
78(6'$<$8*867 30
4:00 - 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW: THE COUNCIL MET IN OPEN
WORK SESSION TO RECEIVE AGENDA ITEM BRIEFINGS FROM STAFF. COUNCIL
CONFERENCE ROOM, 2ND FLOOR CITY HALL.
'LUHFWRURI3XEOLF:RUNV%XG6PDOOZRRGDGGUHVVHGWKH&LW\&RXQFLOUHJDUGLQJDUHTXHVWWR
HVWDEOLVKDPLQXWHSDUNLQJVSDFHIRUWKH3DUN&LWLHV$QLPDO+RVSLWDO+HVWDWHGWKLVVSDFH
ZRXOGEHORFDWHGDORQJWKHIURQWDJHDW/RYHUV/DQH
'LUHFWRURI)LQDQFH.HQW$XVWLQGLVFXVVHGWKHUHVROXWLRQWRDGRSWWKH&HUWLILHG
3URSHUW\$SSUDLVDO5ROODVVXEPLWWHGE\WKH'DOODV&RXQW\$SSUDLVDO'LVWULFW+HVDLGDSSURYDO
RIWKLVUHVROXWLRQZLOODFFHSWWKHDSSUDLVHGYDOXHVRISURSHUWLHVLQ8QLYHUVLW\3DUNDVSURYLGHGE\
'&$'0U$XVWLQPHQWLRQHGWKDWWKHRYHUDOOWD[EDVHLVXSDSSUR[LPDWHO\
&KLHI3ODQQLQJ2IILFLDO+DUU\3HUVDXGDGGUHVVHGWKH&RXQFLOUHJDUGLQJDQ608UHTXHVWWRDPHQG
WKHLU6SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWRUGLQDQFH+HVDLGSURSRVHGFKDQJHVLQFOXGHWKHDGGLWLRQ
RIPRQXPHQWVLJQVIRUWZRHGXFDWLRQDOEXLOGLQJVDQGIRUWKH608HQWU\ZD\DW608%OYGDQG1
&HQWUDO([SUHVVZD\
0U3HUVDXGDOVRGLVFXVVHGDUHTXHVWIURPWKHGHYHORSHUVRIWKH3OD]DDW3UHVWRQ&HQWHUWRDPHQG
WKHLU6SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWRUGLQDQFH0U3HUVDXGVDLGWKHUHTXHVWZDVWRDGGDQDGGLWLRQDO
EXLOGLQJLGHQWLILFDWLRQVLJQIDFLQJ1RUWKZHVW+LJKZD\DQGDQDGGLWLRQDOVLJQIDFLQJ3UHVWRQ
5RDG+HVDLGQRQHRIWKHSURSRVHGFKDQJHVZLOOEHYLVLEOHIURPWKHUHVLGHQWLDOQHLJKERUKRRGVWR
WKHVRXWKDQGHDVW
0U6PDOOZRRGGLVFXVVHGDUHTXHVWIURPDWLWOHFRPSDQ\WRDEDQGRQULJKWVWRDQHDVHPHQW
ORFDWHGDW:HVWPLQVWHU0U6PDOOZRRGVDLGWKHHDVHPHQWZDVQRORQJHULQXVHDQGWKHFLW\
KDGQRIXWXUHSXUSRVHIRUWKHHDVHPHQW+HVDLGWKHWLWOHFRPSDQ\ZDVUHTXHVWLQJDUHGXFHGFRVW
IRUWKHHDVHPHQWEHFDXVHRIWKHDEDQGRQPHQW0U6PDOOZRRGWROGWKH&RXQFLOFLW\VWDIIKDGQR
DXWKRULW\WRQHJRWLDWHDEDQGRQPHQWSULFHVDQGKHDVNHGWKH&RXQFLOWRSURYLGHGLUHFWLRQGXULQJ
WKH&RXQFLOPHHWLQJ
'LUHFWRURI)LQDQFH.HQW$XVWLQDGGUHVVHGWKH&RXQFLOUHJDUGLQJWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJRYHUWKH
SURSRVHG)<%XGJHWDQGWD[UDWH+HVWDWHGQRWD[UDWHLQFUHDVHLVSURSRVHGDQGWKH
RYHUDOOEXGJHWZLOOLQFUHDVHVOLJKWO\E\ 0U$XVWLQVWDWHGWKHDYHUDJHKRPHRZQHULQ
8QLYHUVLW\3DUNZLOOSD\OHVVLQFLW\SURSHUW\WD[HVWKLV\HDU+HSURYLGHGFRSLHVRIWKHEXGJHW
IRUWKH&RXQFLO¶VUHYLHZ
7KH&LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJZDVFDOOHGLQWRVHVVLRQDW SPLQWKH&RXQFLO&KDPEHUDW&LW\
+DOO3UHVHQWZHUH&RXQFLOPHPEHU6WHZDUW&RXQFLOPHPEHU&ODUN0D\RU'DYLV&RXQFLOPHPEHU
I.CALL TO ORDER
Page 4 of 186
0RRUHDQG&RXQFLOPHPEHU%HJHUW$OVRLQDWWHQGDQFHZHUH&LW\0DQDJHU/LYLQJVWRQDQG&LW\
$WWRUQH\5HS'RGG
0D\RU'DYLVDVNHGWKH%R\6FRXWVWRFRPHWRWKHIURQWDQGDVVLVWZLWKWKH3OHGJHRI
$OOHJLDQFHDQGWRLQWURGXFHWKHPVHOYHVDIWHUZDUGV7KHVFRXWVLQFOXGHG :LOO+DUGDJH
7URRSZRUNLQJRQWKH&LWL]HQVKLSLQWKH&RPPXQLW\PHULWEDGJH 7KRPDV+XUVW
7URRS&LWL]HQVKLSDQGWKH1DWLRQ 3UHVWRQ1HZKRXVH7URRS&LWL]HQVKLSDQGWKH
1DWLRQ 7LP6LQJHO7URRS&LWL]HQVKLSLQWKH&RPPXQLW\ DQG0LFKDHO*HLVOHU7URRS
&RPPXQLFDWLRQ0D\RU'DYLVWKDQNHGWKHVFRXWVIRUFRPLQJWRWKHPHHWLQJ
6WDIILQDWWHQGDQFHLQFOXGHG 'LUHFWRURI&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW5REELH&RUGHU&KLHI
3ODQQLQJ2IILFLDO+DUU\3HUVDXG'LUHFWRURI)LQDQFH.HQW$XVWLQ$VVLVWDQWWRWKH&LW\
0DQDJHU*HRUJH(UWOH'LUHFWRURI+XPDQ5HVRXUFHV/XDQQH+DQIRUG$VVLVWDQW'LUHFWRU
RI3XEOLF:RUNV-DFRE6SHHU'LUHFWRURI3DUNV*HUU\%UDGOH\)LUH&KLHI5DQG\+RZHOO
&LW\6HFUHWDU\/L]6SHFWRU'LUHFWRURI3XEOLF:RUNV%XG6PDOOZRRG3ROLFH&KLHI*DU\
$GDPV'LUHFWRURI,QIRUPDWLRQ6HUYLFHV-LP&ULVZHOODQG&RPPXQLW\,QIRUPDWLRQ2IILFHU
6WHYH0DFH
ORDINANCE NO. 12/20
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS,
PROHIBITING PARKING IN EXCESS OF THIRTY MINUTES ON THE SPACE
ADJACENT TO ADJACENT TO 4365 LOVERS LANE AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT
A; 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.
The 2012 Certified Property Appraisal Roll submitted to the City by the Dallas County
Appraisal District is $8,241,068,310 market value, $5,587,424,812 taxable value, and
$69,332,692 new construction value.
RESOLUTION NO. 12-11
$,192&$7,21 &RXQFLOPHPEHU%RE%HJHUW
%3/('*(2)$//(*,$1&( &RXQFLOPHPEHU%RE%HJHUW%R\6FRXWV
&,1752'8&7,212)&281&,/ 0D\RU:5LFKDUG'DYLV
',1752'8&7,212)67$)) &LW\0DQDJHU%RE/LYLQJVWRQ
II.CONSENT AGENDA
$&216,'(5$1'$&7 RQDQRUGLQDQFHHVWDEOLVKLQJDPLQXWHOLPLWRQDSDUNLQJVSDFH
DGMDFHQWWRWKH3DUN&LWLHV$QLPDO+RVSLWDO
%&216,'(5$1'$&7 WRDGRSWWKH&HUWLILHG3URSHUW\$SSUDLVDO5ROO
Page 5 of 186
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE 2012 APPRAISAL ROLL OF THE DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT FOR THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
&RXQFLOPHPEHU0RRUHPDGHDPRWLRQWRDSSURYHWKH&RQVHQW$JHQGD&RXQFLOPHPEHU&ODUN
VHFRQGHGDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHGXQDQLPRXVO\
&KLHI3ODQQLQJ2IILFLDO+DUU\3HUVDXGDGGUHVVHGWKH&RXQFLOUHJDUGLQJSURSRVHG
DPHQGPHQWVWRWKH6086SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWRUGLQDQFH+HVDLGWKHSURSRVHG
DPHQGPHQWVZLOOSURYLGHIRUPRQXPHQWHQWU\ZD\VLJQVORFDWHGDW608%RXOHYDUGDQG
&HQWUDO([SUHVVZD\DQGEXLOGLQJLGHQWLILFDWLRQPRQXPHQWVLJQVIRUWKH6FKRRORI
(GXFDWLRQDQGWKH6FKRRORI(QJLQHHULQJ0U3HUVDXGVDLGWKHPRQXPHQWVLJQVKDYHEHHQ
LQVWDOOHGDQGDUHDZDLWLQJ&LW\DSSURYDOEHIRUHLQVWDOODWLRQRIWKHFDVWVWRQHPDUNHUV+H
VDLGWKHH[DFWZRUGLQJIRUWKHHQWU\ZD\VLJQVLVVWLOOXQGHUGLVFXVVLRQE\608+HDOVR
VWDWHG8'$'$&KDGYRWHGXQDQLPRXVO\WRUHFRPPHQGWKHDPHQGPHQW
0U3HUVDXGPHQWLRQHGWKDW3DXO:DUG608¶VOHJDOFRXQVHOLVDYDLODEOHIRUTXHVWLRQV
+HVDLG0U3KLOOLS-DERXUDQG0V7ULVK0D\HVDUHDOVRDWWKHPHHWLQJ
0D\RU'DYLVDVNHG3DXO:DUGWRDGGUHVVWKH&RXQFLO0D\RU'DYLVPHQWLRQHGWKDWGXULQJ
WKHZRUNVHVVLRQ&RXQFLOPHPEHU0RRUHVDLGWKHPRQXPHQWVLJQVZHUHDOUHDG\LQVWDOOHG
+HDVNHG0U:DUGWRH[SODLQ0U:DUGVDLGWKHUHKDGEHHQPLVFRPPXQLFDWLRQEHWZHHQ
WKHVFKRRO
VFRQVWUXFWLRQGHSDUWPHQWDQGWKHOHJDOGHSDUWPHQW
7KHUHZHUHQRUHTXHVWVWRVSHDNDQG0D\RU'DYLVFORVHGWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJ
&RXQFLOPHPEHU0RRUHPDGHDPRWLRQWRDSSURYHDQRUGLQDQFHDPHQGLQJWKH6SHFLDO6LJQ
'LVWULFWIRU608&RXQFLOPHPEHU%HJHUWVHFRQGHGDQGWKHPRWLRQFDUULHGXQDQLPRXVO\
ORDINANCE NO. 12/21
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 94/40, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR SOUTHERN
METHODIST UNIVERSITY, BY AUTHORIZING ADDITIONAL MONUMENT
SIGNS FOR THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
&&216,'(5$1'$&7 RQDSSURYDORIPLQXWHVRIWKH$XJXVW&LW\&RXQFLO
0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV
'&216,'(5$1'$&7 RQDSSURYDORIPLQXWHVRIWKH$XJXVW(PHUJHQF\&LW\
&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ0LQXWHV
III.MAIN AGENDA
$38%/,&+($5,1* RQDUHTXHVWWRDPHQGWKH6SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWIRU6RXWKHUQ
0HWKRGLVW8QLYHUVLW\
%&216,'(5$1'$&7 RQDQRUGLQDQFHDPHQGLQJWKH6SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWIRU608
Page 6 of 186
AND THE SMU ENTRYWAYS; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS ATTACHED AS
EXHIBITS; APPROVING LOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL SIGNS AND SIGN
DETAILS AS SHOWN IN THE EXHIBITS ATTACHED HERETO; 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 FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH
OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
&KLHI3ODQQLQJ2IILFLDO3HUVDXGDGGUHVVWKH&RXQFLOUHJDUGLQJDUHTXHVWWRDPHQGWKH
6SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWLQ3UHVWRQ&HQWHU3OD]D+HVDLGWKHSURSRVHGDPHQGPHQWSURYLGHV
IRUWZRDGGLWLRQDOEXVLQHVVLGHQWLILFDWLRQZDOOVLJQV+HVDLGRQHZLOOEHORFDWHGRQWKH
EXLOGLQJ
VQRUWKIDoDGHIDFLQJ1RUWKZHVW+LJKZD\DQGZLOOQRWQRWH[FHHGVTIWLQDUHD
ZLWKLQFKUHYHUVHFKDQQHOOHWWHUVZLWKKDORLOOXPLQDWLRQ+HVDLGWKHVHFRQGDGGLWLRQDO
ZDOOVLJQZLOOEHORFDWHGRQWKHZHVWHOHYDWLRQIDFLQJ3UHVWRQ5RDGDQGZLOOQRWH[FHHG
VTIWZLWKLQFKUHYHUVHFKDQQHOOHWWHUVZLWKKDORLOOXPLQDWLRQ
0U3HUVDXGVDLGWKHVLJQVZLOOEHLGHQWLILFDWLRQVLJQVIRUWHQDQWVRIWKHEXLOGLQJDQGKH
PHQWLRQHGWKDW0U0LNH*HLVOHULVSUHVHQWWRDQVZHUDQ\TXHVWLRQV
7KHUHZHUHQRTXHVWLRQVIRU0U*HLVOHURUWKH&RXQFLODQG0D\RU'DYLVFORVHGWKHSXEOLF
KHDULQJ
&RXQFLOPHPEHU%HJHUWPDGHDPRWLRQWRDSSURYHDQRUGLQDQFHDPHQGLQJWKH6SHFLDO6LJQ
'LVWULFWIRUWKH3OD]DDW3UHVWRQ&HQWHU&RXQFLOPHPEHU&ODUNVHFRQGHGDQGWKHPRWLRQ
FDUULHGXQDQLPRXVO\
ORDINANCE NO. 12/22
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
ORDINANCE NO. 90/6, A SPECIAL SIGN DISTRICT FOR THE PLAZA AT
PRESTON CENTER, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION
WALL SIGNS ON OFFICE BUILDING J; ADOPTING SIGN STANDARDS;
APPROVING SIGN DETAILS AND LOCATIONS ATTACHED HERETO AS
EXHIBITS; 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 FIVE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($500.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
0D\RU'DYLVVDLGEDVHGRQGLVFXVVLRQZLWKVWDIIGXULQJWKHZRUNVHVVLRQWKH&RXQFLOZLOO
&38%/,&+($5,1* RQDUHTXHVWWRDPHQGWKH6SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWIRUWKH3OD]DDW
3UHVWRQ&HQWHU
'&216,'(5$1'$&7 RQDQRUGLQDQFHDPHQGLQJWKH6SHFLDO6LJQ'LVWULFWIRUWKH3OD]D
DW3UHVWRQ&HQWHU
(&216,'(5$1'$&7 RQDUHTXHVWWRDEDQGRQDXWLOLW\HDVHPHQWDW:HVWPLQVWHU
DQGSURYLGHGLUHFWLRQWRVWDII
Page 7 of 186
QRWWDNHDFWLRQRQWKHDEDQGRQPHQWUHTXHVWWRQLJKW+HDVNHG3XEOLF:RUNV'LUHFWRU%XG
6PDOOZRRGWRWDONZLWKWLWOHFRPSDQ\UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVDQGGLVFXVVQHJRWLDWLQJDUHDVRQDEOH
SULFHIRUWKHDEDQGRQPHQWRIWKHHDVHPHQW+HVDLGVWDIIZLOOEULQJWKHLQIRUPDWLRQDQG
DEDQGRQPHQWUHTXHVWWRWKH&RXQFLODWDIXWXUHPHHWLQJ
'LUHFWRURI)LQDQFH.HQW$XVWLQDGGUHVVHGWKH&RXQFLOUHJDUGLQJWKHSURSRVHG)<
EXGJHW+HVWDWHGWKLVZDVDUHTXLUHGSXEOLFKHDULQJRQWKHSURSRVHGEXGJHWDQGSURYLGHG
GHWDLOVIRUDXGLHQFHPHPEHUV+HVDLGWKHEXGJHWZDV KLJKHUWKDQWKHSUHYLRXV\HDU¶V
EXGJHWDQGSURYLGHGGHWDLOHGLQIRUPDWLRQ+HVWDWHGWKHEXGJHWFDQEHVXSSRUWHGZLWKQR
LQFUHDVHLQSURSHUW\WD[UDWHDQGKHVDLGWKHDYHUDJHKRPHRZQHUZLOODFWXDOO\UHDOL]HD
UHGXFWLRQLQWKHLUFLW\SURSHUW\WD[HV+HVDLGSHUVRQQHOFRVWVZDWHUWUHDWPHQWFKDUJHV
FDSLWDOSURMHFWH[SHQGLWXUHVDQGWKHSXEOLFOLEUDU\FRPSULVHWKHODUJHVWSHUFHQWDJHRI
H[SHQGLWXUHVLQWKHEXGJHW
0U$XVWLQVDLGDFRVWRIOLYLQJUDLVHLVSURSRVHGIRUVWDII+HPHQWLRQHGWKHUHKDYH
EHHQQRUDLVHVVLQFH2FWREHU+HDOVRPHQWLRQHGZDWHUWUHDWPHQWFRVWVZLOOEHKLJKHU
GXHWRUDWHLQFUHDVHVIURPWKH&LW\RI'DOODVDQGWKH'DOODV&RXQW\3DUN&LWLHV08'+H
VDLGWKHWUHDWPHQWFRVWVZHUHDSKDVHGLQVHULHVRIUDWHLQFUHDVHVDQGZHUHDFWXDOO\OHVVWKDQ
RULJLQDOO\IRUHFDVW
0U$XVWLQDOVRVWDWHGWKDWWKH8QLYHUVLW\3DUN3XEOLF/LEUDU\ZLOOEHFRPHDFLW\
GHSDUWPHQWDVRI2FWREHU+HVDLGWKDWZLOOLQFUHDVHWKHEXGJHWE\DQG
ZLOODGGWKUHHIXOOWLPHHPSOR\HHV0U$XVWLQPHQWLRQHGWKDWWKH)ULHQGVRIWKH/LEUDU\
ZLOOFRQWULEXWHRIWKDWDPRXQWWRWKH&LW\IRUOLEUDU\RSHUDWLRQV0U$XVWLQ
UHPLQGHGWKH&RXQFLOWKDWWKH&LW\FXUUHQWO\PDNHVDQQXDOFRQWULEXWLRQVRI WRWKH
)ULHQGVRIWKH/LEUDU\IRURSHUDWLRQVVRWKHDFWXDOLPSDFWRILQFRUSRUDWLQJWKHOLEUDU\
LQWRWKHEXGJHWZLOOEHMXVWRYHU
0U$XVWLQPHQWLRQHGWKDWEXLOGLQJSHUPLWUHYHQXHVDQGVDOHVWD[UHYHQXHVFRQWLQXHWR
LPSURYH
+HDOVRVWDWHGWKHEXGJHWSUHVXPHVEXWGRHVQRWSUHFLVHO\LGHQWLI\PLG\HDUZDWHUDQG
VHZHUUDWHVLQFUHDVHV+HVDLGWKHFLW\KDVKLUHGDFRQVXOWDQWWRLGHQWLI\DQGFUDIWQHZ
XWLOLW\UDWHVWUXFWXUHV
0D\RU'DYLVWKDQNHG0U$XVWLQ+HVDLGWKLVZDVDIRUXPWRDOORZSXEOLFLQSXWRQWKH
EXGJHWDQGLWVDGRSWLRQ+HDVNHGLIDQ\RQHSUHVHQWZLVKHGWRDGGUHVVWKHEXGJHWRUWD[
UDWHDQGILQGLQJQRQHKHFORVHGWKHSXEOLFKHDULQJ0D\RU'DYLVVDLGWKHUHZLOOEHD
VHFRQGSXEOLFKHDULQJDWWKH$XJXVW&LW\&RXQFLO0HHWLQJ
7KHUHZHUHQRUHTXHVWVWRDGGUHVVWKH&RXQFLOIURPWKHIORRUDQG0D\RU'DYLVDGMRXUQHGWKH
PHHWLQJ
)38%/,&+($5,1* RQSURSRVHG)<EXGJHWDQGWD[UDWH
IV.ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
Page 8 of 186
&RQVLGHUHGDQGDSSURYHGWKLVWKGD\RI$XJXVW
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
:5LFKDUG'DYLV0D\RU
$77(67
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
(OL]DEHWK6SHFWRU&LW\6HFUHWDU\
Page 9 of 186
AGENDAMEMO
(8/28/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:GeneR.Smallwood,P.E.;DirectorofPublicWorks
SUBJECT:REPORT:receiveapeerreviewreportoftheYMCATrafficImpactAnalysis
BACKGROUND:
PlannedDevelopmentNo.12,detailingproposedimprovementstotheParkCitiesYMCA,was
presentedtotheCityCouncilatapublichearingonAugust7,2012.Oneofthekeyelementsofthe
zoningapplicationwasaTrafficImpactAnalysispreparedbytheDeShazoGroup.Thatdocument
addressedtrafficissuesandparkingdemandsacssociatedwiththeproposedfacility.
Becauseoftheimportanceoftheparkingandtrafficissues,CityCouncildirectedstafftocontract
withanindependenttrafficconsultanttoperformapeerreviewoftheDeShazoreport.Tothatend,
theCityenteredintoacontractwithFreeseandNichols,Incforthatwork.
TheYMCAandtheirconsultantwereverycooperativeinprovidinginformationrequestedbythe
City'strafficengineer.ThecompletedFreeseandNicholsreporthasbeenreviewedbystaffand
providedtoCouncil.
KevinSt.Jacques,P.E.,PTOE,PTPwillattendtheCityCouncilmeetingandwilladdressquestions
regardingthereport.
RECOMMENDATION:
NoCityCouncilactionisnecessaryotherthantoreceivethereport.
ATTACHMENTS:
FNTechRpt-RvwofYMCATIA
Page 10 of 186
Review of the Parking and Traffic Study for
Park Cities YMCA Redevelopment
Prepared for:
University Park, Texas
August 23, 2012
Prepared by:
KEVIN ST. JACQUES, P.E., PTOE, PTP
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
1701 N Market St, #500, LB51
Dallas, Texas 75202
214-217-2200
CUP12336
Page 11 of 186
i
CONTENTS
Page
Executive Summary 1
1. Assessing the Study Methodology 4
2. Assessing the Existing Conditions Baseline and Its Analysis 5
3. Assessing the Future Conditions Estimate and Its Analysis 14
4. Assessing the Identified Impacts, Issues and Recommended Mitigation 19
5. Other Considerations 22
Page 12 of 186
1
Executive Summary
Freese and Nichols, Inc. was retained by the City of University Park to review the Parking and
Traffic Study for Park Cities YMCA (PC YMCA) Redevelopment in University Park and its
associated Memoranda prepared by DeShazo Group, Inc. (DeShazo). The following is a
summary of our findings.
1. Assessing the Study Methodology.
a.The DeShazo extrapolation of the existing usage, traffic and parking patterns onto that
of the future building uses is a very strong methodology for estimating future parking
needs and traffic activity.
b.Careful documentation of existing parking and traffic conditions and correlation to the
existing facility activities is essential to the methodology and DeShazo has done this
reasonably well.
2. Assessing the Existing Conditions Baseline and Its Analysis.
a.Numerous assumptions were made to identify the proper baseline of traffic and parking
characteristics for projection onto the proposed expanded facility, introducing a margin
of error with each assumption.
b.The 1.26 factor increases the parking and traffic observations on a typical day to
represent a comparatively high estimate of a busy day at the PC YMCA.
c.Collection of data on a Thursday rather than either a Monday or Wednesday appears to
have under estimated the average PM peak weekday activity of the PC YMCA in the
baseline data by as much as 20%, and the duration of the AM peak period is a bit longer
on Monday/Wednesday than on Tuesday/Thursday.
d.Reassessment of the baseline PM peak hour traffic does not change the roadway traffic
operations Level of Service. However, the demand for the parking during the weekday
morning would stay at peak level for at least one hour longer and the weekday
afternoon parking demand would be greater by about 18 spaces.
e.The parking counts were taken on both sides of the streets immediately adjacent to the
PC YMCA and attempted to count PC YMCA parking activity on Shenandoah and
Normandy west of Preston Road and Normandy east of Connerly. But, due to the
significant under-supply of parking at the PC YMCA, it is expected that PC YMCA parking
occurs beyond the data collection area at time of peak usage. So, a 5% increase in the
baseline parking demand (8 spaces in the AM, 6 spaces in the PM) is recommended.
3. Assessing the Future Conditions Estimate and Its Analysis.
a.The DeShazo Study assumes that the new gym, Rise School and therapy pool are the
only new traffic and parking that will be generated at the PC YMCA.
b.Closer examination of future uses over those considered in the baseline parking and
traffic formulation suggests the following additional elements of the PC YMCA space
programming:
Page 13 of 186
2
o No additional spaces are in the programming for additional parking for the
increased Office space. It is recommended that this be increased by 3 spaces.
o 22 spaces are in the programming for additional parking for the Rise School. It is
recommended that this be increased by 5 spaces to account for closer spacing
and longer duration of drop-off and pick-up parking activity.
o 95 spaces are in the programming for additional parking for the Gymnasium. It is
recommended that this be increased by 36 spaces due to a higher vehicle to
team member ratio.
o No additional spaces are in the programming for additional parking for the
increased Multipurpose space. It is recommended that this be increased by 10
spaces due to the increase in the number and size of spaces and potential
classes.
o No additional spaces are in the programming for additional parking for the
increased Adult Fitness and Spin Area space. It is recommended that this be
increased by 5 spaces due to the increase in the size of the space and potential
densification.
c.The resulting parking assessment increases the peak parking demand on a very busy day
at the PC YMCA to about 330 spaces, 71 more than the 259 in the DeShazo report.
d.The resulting increase in traffic activity still results in nearly free flow (Level of Service A
or B) traffic operations on Preston Road, while the side streets of Normandy and
Shenandoah operate at acceptable (LOS C, D or E) peak period traffic operations. The
impact on the nearby arterial street system is negligible due to the relatively low volume
of PC YMCA traffic compared to that on Preston, Mockingbird and University.
4. Assessing the Identified Impacts, Issues and Recommended Mitigation. These include:
a.The existing offset intersection of Normandy at Preston should be addressed to
eliminate the offset, since increased focus of activity at this intersection will increase the
potential for crashes in its offset configuration. The safety of the existing offset
intersection, if retained, can be enhanced by separating the green time for the
westbound and eastbound Normandy movements (splitting the phases). Alternatively,
the realignment to eliminate the offset could be done, which may facilitate
configuration to eliminate the through traffic movement on Normandy. In either
condition, the pedestrian crossing at the intersection should be enhanced.
b.Queue lengths at exiting the parking garage during the peak hours are anticipated to be
typically about 100 feet in length to as much as 129 feet. This length of queue would
interfere with the efficient operation of the exit ramp from the garage, which is
programmed at 75 feet from the intersection. The exit driveway from the garage should
be positioned 125 to 200 feet from the intersection.
c.Parking accommodations on Shenandoah and Connerly east of Preston should be
restricted to neighborhood parking only, to force utilization of the parking garage and
mitigate the need to circulate through the neighborhood looking for parking. The 15
spaces on Normandy at the church should be restricted to non-PC YMCA usage except
for handicap and certain designees.
Page 14 of 186
3
d.Parking and traffic impacts on Shenandoah and Normandy west of Preston should be
minimized by the provision of the PC YMCA parking garage. However, being immediately
across Preston Road from the front door of the facility, with an enhanced pedestrian
crossing of Preston, this one block of Normandy west of Preston Road should be
monitored for the need for parking restrictions as needed after the completion of the PC
YMCA redevelopment.
5. Other Considerations. Several other issues were brought forward by citizens for this review
of the Parking and Traffic Study for Park Cities YMCA Redevelopment, many of which were
already under review, but some that were additional elements of consideration. The following
are several of these other considerations:
a.Sensitivity test of the traffic model parameters find that Preston Road would operate at
acceptable level of service with PC YMCA traffic at over 100% of that estimated. So,
traffic operations of Preston Road are not seen as a limiting factor for the facility.
b.Conditions under which traffic police control might be needed would be special events
that would have a distinct beginning and end and concentrate the arrivals and
departures of traffic, such as a triathlon or a celebration of some type. These types of
activities are not currently proposed by PC YMCA leadership, but they have occurred in
the past and conceivably could happen in the future.
c.Drivers will seek alternate routes to and from the PC YMCA under a variety of possible
conditions of traffic congestion. Most notably, eastbound traffic on Mockingbird may
choose to avoid congestion near the Highland Park Village shopping center and bypass
the Preston Road intersection by turning onto Douglas and using San Carlos, Normandy
or Shenandoah to access the PC YMCA. Conditions at the Mockingbird/Preston
intersection were determined by DeShazo to operate at good (LOS C) levels of service on
a typical weekday.
d.The parking garage will be the critical element of the redevelopment project that will
relieve much of the neighborhood issues with the parking and traffic circulation for the
current PC YMCA operations. The garage needs to house all of the parking for the PC
YMCA activities and thus must be very functional, convenient and safe for users. Garage
access up to the field at the edge of the building would be needed to deter parking
along the street.
e.Increased PC YMCA usage by affiliated groups is anticipated due to the increased size of
the facility. PC YMCA has control over when these groups may use its facility and
encourages these outside uses during non-peak YMCA activities. Thus, these outside
uses do not impact the critical parking or traffic operations at the PC YMCA.
f.A modest increase in overall PC YMCA membership and activity is anticipated as a
general outcome of the facility improvements. This increase may just maintain the 2010
levels of activity, but may slightly exceed that 2010 baseline, though more likely spread
throughout the day than during AM or PM peak periods. The traffic operations on the
roadway network appear to be able to accommodate 100% more additional PC YMCA
traffic than programmed without degrading level of service. PC YMCA programming of
activities will determine how an increase in membership would impact parking demand
and traffic generation.
Page 15 of 186
4
Introduction
Freese and Nichols was retained by the City of University Park to review the Parking and Traffic
Study for the Park Cities YMCA Redevelopment in University Park and its associated
Memoranda, developed by DeShazo Group, Inc. (DeShazo) for the Park Cities YMCA (PC YMCA).
The DeShazo study report is dated March 15, 2012. Supplementary information was developed
in various Memoranda: (3/20/12) commentary on review of Normandy Lane Traffic Diverter
prepared by Lee Engineering on behalf of a resident group, (3/20/12) commentary on the
addition of a Rise School to the PC YMCA Redevelopment, and (4/25/12, updated 5/1/12)
supplement to the Traffic Impact Analysis to encompass additional intersections.
1. Assessing the Study Methodology
The goal of a traffic impact study is to assess potential impacts of traffic changes caused by
proposed development on municipal roads and to identify any infrastructure improvements or
mitigation measures needed to ensure the road network will operate acceptably and safely
upon completion of the proposed development. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
publishes a Recommended Practice for Traffic Impact Studies, which DeShazo will have
followed. The steps to conducting a traffic impact study include the following:
a.Identify the specific development plan under study and any existing development on
and/or approved plans for the site as well as any known changes on property abutting
the proposed development site, including property across public streets.
b.Identify the ultimate arterial and collector street network in the vicinity of the site.
c.Document current public street characteristics adjacent to the site, including the
nearest arterial and collector streets.
d.Estimate the number of trips generated by existing and proposed development on the
site for a typical weekday and weekday peak hours using the latest edition of Trip
Generation published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Local trip generation
characteristics may be used, and are preferred, if deemed to be properly collected and
consistent with the proposed development.
e.Document current peak hour traffic volumes on a typical weekday (Tuesday,
Wednesday, and/or Thursday). The time periods in which existing traffic is counted
should generally coincide with the highest combination of existing traffic plus traffic
expected to be generated by the proposed development.
f.Estimate future PM peak hour traffic volumes for the intersections included in the study
area using either ITE Trip Generation values for similar development types or,
preferably, the trip generation characteristics of the existing or a nearby similar site.
g.Distribute and assign the net development trips through the site driveway(s) plus the
nearest collector/arterial street intersections in each direction along streets bordering
the development site.
h.Conduct volume/capacity analyses for the peak hours at site driveway(s) and other
intersections using methodologies outlined in the latest edition of the Highway Capacity
Manual published by the Transportation Research Board. The analyses should be
Page 16 of 186
5
conducted for 1) existing conditions, 2) existing plus development conditions, and 3)
future conditions.
i.Identify geometric and traffic control improvements needed to mitigate deficiencies
and/or comply with established guidelines/policies.
Similarly for assessment of parking needs, standardized parking ratios, such as those in the
City’s Ordinances, can be used to determine the parking requirement. However, a more
accurate estimate of the parking needs of the proposed facility would utilize parking
observations at an existing or nearby similar site to project.
The methodology chosen by DeShazo was to use the characteristics of the existing PC YMCA to
estimate the parking and traffic conditions for the proposed PC YMCA redevelopment. This
approach is the most appropriate among the options available. The re-developed PC YMCA will
most closely compare to the characteristics of the existing PC YMCA operations, with select
additional activities.
2. Assessing the Existing Conditions Baseline and Its Analysis
Using the existing conditions to predict future parking and traffic operations requires careful
documentation of the existing parking and traffic characteristics and correlating them to the
activities in the existing facility. Additionally, numerous assumptions needed to be made to
identify the proper baseline of traffic and parking characteristics for projection onto the
proposed expanded facility.
Existing Parking Counts
DeShazo conducted parking accumulation counts along both sides of Preston,
Shenandoah, Connerly, and Normandy adjacent to the PC YMCA, and
attempted to count PC YMCA patrons that parked on Normandy and
Shenandoah Avenues west of Preston Road and on Normandy Avenue east of
Connerly. It is likely that there were other PC YMCA parking activities beyond
their data collection zone, though would not be expected to be more than a
few cars, so a 5 percent adjustment factor should be added to the peak
values concluded from the data. The baseline AM and PM peak parking
demand should be increased by about 8 spaces and 6 spaces, respectively.
Card Swipe Historical Usage Data
The PC YMCA requires members to swipe their membership card past their card reader upon
entry to the facility each time they arrive. Historical “card swipe” usage data was made
available to DeShazo for use in the study. Notably, the youth members do not swipe cards, only
the adults, so the “card swipes” are a good indicator of automobiles parking at the site.
However, for the field sports as well as the Pre-K, the comings and goings of those cars parking
at the site are not included in the card swipe data. They would, however have been counted in
the traffic volumes and parking data.
Due to limited
capture area of the
parking counts, a 5%
adjustment factor
should be added to
the baseline
conditions total.
Page 17 of 186
6
Selection of 2010 as Base Year
A review of the annual summaries of the “card swipes” beginning in 2003 (see Figure 1) shows
that the data for 2010 was a good data set for use as it represents the second highest activity
level for the PC YMCA for the last 10 years. (Surrogate data was used to complete missing
months in the 2011 and 2012 data.)
Monthly Variation of PC YMCA Activity
Likewise, the “card swipe” data varies by month of year, as shown in Figure 2. The general
trend of the data indicates that facility usage gradually decreases throughout the year. This
trend was verified by PC YMCA. Notably, the 2010 data shows the highest January in 10 years.
2010
Figure 1. Annual Variation in Card Swipes at PC YMCA
Page 18 of 186
7
Seasonal Adjustment Factor
The DeShazo study developed a factor to adjust the data collected in October and November to
represent an activity level to use as the baseline for analysis. They chose to grow the parking
and site traffic of the actual data collected to approximately represent the highest card swipe
activity day of the year. This adjustment factor is a ratio of the weekly card swipes for the first
week in November to the highest week of card swipes of the year, as graphically represented in
Figure 3. The 1.26 factor multiplies the parking and traffic observations on a typical day to
represent an estimate of a very busy day at the PC YMCA.
The 1.26 adjustment factor is a comparatively high estimate for growing the activities
represented by the card swipes to determine the baseline condition. The factor 1.26 is a ratio of
daily activity levels, but much of the increase in the higher activity days in January through
March may be due to middle of the day activities, whereas the 1.26 growth factor will be
applied to the entire day and most notably to the peak hour activities. The adjustment factor
would also be an overestimate of the growth in Pre-K activity as well as staffing. The DeShazo
report identified that the 1.26 factor is not applied to the field sports activity but rather is
considered the field sports activity separately from the rest, which is appropriate and facilitates
comparisons.
Figure 3. Weekly Variation in Card Swipes at PC YMCA and Adjustment Factor
Page 19 of 186
8
Day of Week Variation
The parking occupancy counts and the traffic counts were both collected on Thursdays.
Collection of data on a Thursday rather than either a Monday or Wednesday results in an
average weekday inconsistent with the conservative approach used for the site traffic and
parking. Specifically, as depicted in Figure 4, the afternoon peak period appears to be under
represented in the baseline data by about 20%. The morning peak, though not much higher on
Monday/Wednesday than Tuesday/Thursday, appears to last longer and thus could be
expected to impact parking occupancy.
Figure 4. Hourly Variation in Card Swipes for Monday vs Thursday
Page 20 of 186
9
Baseline Parking
DeShazo physically counted the occupied parking spaces on both sides of Preston, Shenandoah,
Connerly and Normandy adjacent to the site on Thursday, November 4, 2010. The DeShazo
study assumed that all parking on these four street segments is attributed to the PC YMCA. The
study attempts to draw inferences from parking activity in selected areas within one block from
the site, but indicates that the results are estimates at best. Parking for the PC YMCA that may
occur beyond this parking study zone are not considered.
Parking Attributed to Youth Field Sports
The PC YMCA has confirmed that on the parking data collection date, November 4, there were
scheduled soccer games in the soccer field at 4:30 and 5:30 p.m. The DeShazo report estimated
a portion of the observed afternoon parking to be from the soccer games. During the period
between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. that day, sports parking demand reached the full amount needed
for both games, and was estimated at 40 parking spaces. Thus, an estimate of the parking
demand for one game is about 20 spaces. Using the YMCA-provided average youth soccer team
size of 8 youth, the average parking demand rate for youth soccer can be estimated at 1.25
spaces per team member. However, it is likely that the parking occupancy counts did not
include some of the shorter duration parking activity or did not capture the full extent of where
parking occurs for the sports field activities. There also may have been more or less than 8
youth in attendance at the games on the day of data collection. A factor of 1.5 parked cars per
team member would be appropriate for assessment of the redevelopment.
Figure 5. DeShazo Parking Occupancy Observations at PC YMCA on November 4, 2010
Page 21 of 186
10
Adjustment of Parking Count Data
In the DeShazo report, the parking occupancy counts made in early November were grown by
the seasonal factor of 1.26, but with the field sports parking separated out and handled
separately. This approach to growing the youth sports program parking separately is logical.
Consideration of the daily variation that was depicted in Figure 4, the parking data could be
further grown to reflect the busier Monday/Wednesday schedule. The resulting modified
baseline parking demand would be as depicted in Figure 7. An increase of 18 additional parking
spaces in the PM peak period are recommended in the baseline.
Figure 6. DeShazo Baseline Parking Demand at PC YMCA, without field sports
Figure 7. Modified Baseline Parking Demand at PC YMCA, without field sports
Page 22 of 186
11
The baseline plus field sports parking would then be depicted as shown in Figure 8. As shown in
the figure, the evening peak parking demand approaches that of the morning peak parking
demand. The DeShazo report indicated that the baseline AM peak parking demand is
approximately 196 spaces and the PM peak is approximately 135 spaces, without the youth
sports added. With consideration of a Day-of-Week adjustment, the PM peak baseline parking
needs would increase by about 18 spaces, for a total of 153 in the PM peak period, again
without the youth sports. Adding in the 5% adjustment factor for the limited parking data
capture area, described previously, the new baseline total for parking demand becomes 204 in
the AM peak and 159 plus youth sports in the PM peak.
Baseline Traffic Operations
The influence area of the PC YMCA on traffic operations is considered to extend:
a.Southward along Preston Road to the Mockingbird intersection and encompassing the
signalized intersections with Normandy Avenue and St. Andrews Drive and the un-
signalized intersection of San Carlos (Potomac is one-way eastbound so would have
limited use as an accessway and is not considered for impact analysis);
b.Northward along Preston Road to the University Boulevard
intersection and encompassing the un-signalized intersection
of Shenandoah. Notably, the signalized intersection of McFarlin
Boulevard and the un-signalized intersections of Stanhope
Street, Windsor Park and Windsor Avenue;
c.Due to the configuration of the PC YMCA site, the local street
intersections of Connerly Drive at Normandy and Shenandoah
Figure 8. Suggested Modified Baseline Parking Demand at PC YMCA, with field sports
Page 23 of 186
12
Avenues are involved in the circulation pattern at the site and are included in the
analysis.
d.The analysis considers the traffic impacts of site traffic on the intersections of
Shenandoah, Normandy and San Carlos with Douglas Avenue, a collector roadway 800
feet west of Preston Road.
The existing conditions traffic operations were modeled by DeShazo using Synchro, a traffic
analysis software commonly used in traffic impact studies. Traffic volumes and signal attributes
were properly input into Synchro. Notable findings of the DeShazo analysis include:
a.The existing intersection of Preston at Normandy operates at Level of
Service A, an overall very good traffic flow. The signal operation is
actuated with the resting green indication set for Preston Road
creating a free flow condition for Preston Road until a side street call
for green is detected. The Preston Road movements are the
predominant movement (1,227 in AM and 1,659 in PM) and operate at
LOS A, heavily weighting the average for the intersection. The
Normandy side street is the minor street (either the west or east
approach is about 5% that of Preston Road) and operates at LOS D/E as
it rarely justifies more than the minimum green time. The existing cycle length of the
traffic signal is 120 seconds, consistent with TxDOT potential coordination of the
Preston Road signals. The DeShazo study indicates that the signal could be operated
with shorter cycle lengths, allowing the side street green to occur more frequently
though still at minimum duration, and retain the LOS A for the intersection while
improving the operations for Normandy to LOS B.
b.The existing un-signalized intersection of Preston at Shenandoah
operates at Level of Service A, an overall very good traffic flow, again
predominantly due to the free flow conditions for the much larger
traffic volumes on Preston Road. The westbound traffic on
Shenandoah operates at LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hours.
c.The intersections of Preston Road at Mockingbird Lane and University
Boulevard both operate at LOS C. Notably, the southbound Preston
Road queue lengths are over 200 feet in length, potentially
encouraging traffic wanting to continue to the west on Mockingbird to
divert through the neighborhood west of Preston Road.
d.Notably, only one soccer game, at 4:30 p.m., was held on October 28, 2010, the day of
the traffic data collection, rather than the two back-to-back games as was held during
data collection for the parking occupancy counts. Thus, another 20 cars should be
distributed to ingress and egress the site during the PM peak hour.
Traffic Variations
The baseline traffic counts were gathered on Thursday, October 28, 2010. As noted previously,
the year 2010 is a relatively high base year to use for projecting existing traffic operations onto
the future facility traffic operations. Within the year, traffic volumes tend to vary seasonally, by
month and even from one week to the next.
Page 24 of 186
13
Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts (AADT) are collected by Texas Department of
Transportation (TxDOT) on major highways and regionally significant arterials. The counts are
done during the non-summer weeks; excluding Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. The
AADT counts are what could be expected during a normal workday of a given week. Monthly
variation factors compiled by TxDOT indicate that data collected during October are at or
slightly above the average workweek for the year. Traffic counts taken on a Tuesday,
Wednesday or Thursday are generally considered to be typical for the local weekday traffic.
However, as the PC YMCA schedule of programs is busier on Monday/Wednesday
than on Tuesday/Thursday, an increase in the site generated PM Peak Hour in
and out traffic of approximately 20% plus an additional 20 cars arriving and
departing during the PM peak hour for a second soccer game, is recommended to
be considered for the baseline traffic volumes. The Synchro models developed by
DeShazo were received for use in reassessing the traffic operations, and were
reviewed for accuracy of representation. Increasing the PM peak hour site volumes has little
impact on intersection performance on Preston Road. The new level of service performance
measures, after reallocation of a few seconds of green time to the Normandy approach, are the
same as before the volumes increase, as shown in Figure 9. The reason that the network
absorbs these minor increases in traffic is due to the current very low delay incurred by the
Preston Road through traffic at the Normandy intersection. Beyond the Normandy intersection,
the PC YMCA site traffic is a very minor component of the total traffic volume that adding
another 20% YMCA traffic is hardly noticeable in the intersection performance measures.
The Baseline PM
Peak Hour site
traffic volumes
should be
increased by 20%
Figure 9. Modified Baseline Traffic Operations, with field sports
PC YMCA
Page 25 of 186
14
3. Assessing the Future Conditions Estimate and Its Analysis
The DeShazo Study assumes that the new gym, Rise School and therapy pool are the only new
traffic and parking that will be generated at the PC YMCA. Closer examination of future uses
over those considered in the baseline parking and traffic formulation suggests the following
additional considerations of the proposed 61,768 square-foot PC YMCA.
Additional Non-Activity Space
The space programming indicates that about 8,500 square feet of additional space will be
added to the building that is considered non-activity space.
a.Lobby, restrooms and circulation hallways, stairways and elevators are programmed to
increase by just over 7,500 s.f. This space type will be needed to allow access to the
various uses provided in the building. While it will make the building more functional
and feel roomier, in and of itself it is not expected to generate new traffic or parking
needs.
b.Men’s and women’s locker rooms increase only slightly in size and is not expected to
generate new traffic or parking needs.
c.Office and administrative space, not including that for the Rise
School, increases by about 1,500 s.f. This increased space
addresses existing overcrowding but can be expected to generate
up to 3 additional parking spaces for additional administrative
and maintenance staff, with the vehicles for these additional staff
expected to arrive/depart during or near AM/PM peak hours.
Additional Activity Space
The space programming indicates that about 11,500 square feet of additional programmable
space will be added to the building. Notably, the new programmable space also includes about
9,500 square feet of space that was formerly outdoors but will now have year-round utility as
enclosed conditioned space.
An additional 3 spaces
more than in the Study
are suggested during the
AM and PM peaks due to
the additional office
space
Page 26 of 186
15
a.Child Watch (30 max) for parents while using the facility is assumed in the DeShazo
Study to retain the same baseline parking demand and generate the safe traffic, even
though the existing 1,180 s.f. is replaced by the proposed approximately 875 s.f.
b.The existing Pre-K (approximately 945 s.f., 2 teachers, 4 aids, 20 youth) will be absorbed
into the Rise School (5,955 s.f., 5 teachers, 10 aides, 60 students) and will add a net new
parking demand for 9 staff plus shared parking for up to 60 parents to park for 15 to 30
minutes intermittently in the morning and early afternoon.
The Study Memorandum, dated 3-20-12, includes
consideration for an increase of 22 parking spaces, plus
associated in/out traffic in the morning and afternoon for 40
additional parents delivering youth to and from the Rise
School. The net provision of 13 additional spaces to support
the up to 60 parents bringing in and walking out their students
at the Rise School appears to be less than adequate. An amount of 5 more spaces is
suggested. The morning arrivals at the Rise School at somewhere around 9:00 a.m. will
coincide with the peak parking demand period for the PC YMCA.
c.The existing outside sport (basketball) court will be replaced with a new gymnasium. As
with the pool, the sport court would not have seen much use in the late October/early
November data collection time frame. Thus, all of the new parking and traffic for the
gymnasium will be considered as additional needs for the site. Since the gym can hold
two concurrent basketball games side by side, the critical
events in the gym would be weekday afternoon basketball
games. The programming considers two concurrent games,
two teams on the floor and two teams waiting with a peak of 95
additional parked vehicles plus associated arriving and
departing traffic. These vehicular estimates were estimated at a
rate of 1.0 vehicles per player and support staff. Using a 1.5 vehicle-to-player ratio, as
determined previously in this report, would result in the need to park 36 more vehicles
than in the Study.
d.The existing outdoor pool will be reconfigured as a therapy pool and placed indoor
adjacent to an improved lap pool. Though the overall space in the pool area is about
the same as existing indoor plus outdoor pools, the therapy pool will be available to be
used year round. The DeShazo Study includes additional parking and traffic for 20
members in the therapy pool. This is appropriate since the outdoor pool that would
have been used as the therapy pool was not in operation during the October/November
traffic and parking data collection. The current therapy activities, when provided during
the cooler months, would take up room in the lap pool.
e.The adult fitness and spin rooms space is being enlarged by
1,350 square feet, or about a 24% increase in size. The
existing space is reportedly very crowded and will expand
into the new space with not much room for new exercise
positions. However, the existing facility usage is indicative of
what could evolve over time, so some additional usage is
An additional 5 spaces
more than in the Study
are suggested due to the
Rise School during the
AM peak
An additional 36 spaces
more than in the Study
are suggested due to the
gymnasium for the PM
peak
An additional 5 vehicles
more than in the Study
are suggested during the
AM and PM peak due to
the adult fitness and spin
area
Page 27 of 186
16
expected beyond existing, especially during the peak hours. An additional 5 parking
spaces and associated peak hour traffic are recommended for consideration.
f.Multipurpose Rooms will house the various exercise and conditioning classes that are
conducted in Hodges Hall, the racquetball court and the courtyard. Again, the existing
programs are reportedly very crowded and will expand into the new space with not
much room for new classes and programs. Some additional
usage is expected beyond the existing baseline, especially
during the peak hours, due to potentially larger spaces and
more designated spaces. An additional 10 parking spaces
and associated peak hour traffic are recommended for
consideration.
Background Traffic Growth
The DeShazo Study assumes a 1% growth in
background traffic on Preston Road. This
assumption is made despite the fact that the
traffic on Preston Road has been decreasing by
about 1% per year for the last 10 years. The
North Central Texas Council of Governments in
its 2035 Mobility Plan has forecast traffic
volumes of 18,160, essentially no increase from
the volumes measured in 2009.
An additional 10 vehicles
more than in the Study
are suggested during the
AM and PM peak due to
the multipurpose rooms
NCTCOG
Page 28 of 186
17
Trip Distribution onto Roadway Network
The distribution of inbound and outbound trips to the PC YMCA were estimated in the DeShazo
report using the existing peak period turning movement counts as an indicator of current
patterns that may apply in the future. Existing traffic counts are very low (<5 per hour) for the
Normandy through movement across Preston Road, despite the notable concentration of PC
YMCA members living west of Preston from the YMCA. In the Study, DeShazo included a 5%
distribution of traffic along Normandy Avenue to the west of Preston, which is an appropriate
mid-range estimate of something that did not show up in their counts but is expected.
An amount of 15% of the site traffic was assumed to ingress to and egress from the PC YMCA
using the local streets northeast of the Shenandoah/Connerly intersection. This percentage
seems high compared to the count data and narrowness of the local roadway network. This trip
distribution element could be reduced to 10% with the remaining 5% added to the distribution
to and from the north along Preston Road. But, such a minor change would result in less than
1.0 second of delay to movements in the resulting traffic performance measures.
Figure 10. Park Cities YMCA Membership Locations, 2012
Page 29 of 186
18
Modification to the Parking and Traffic Impact Study Findings
Parking Demand
The results of this review of the parking and traffic study calls for an increase in the parking
supply needed at the PC YMCA above that identified in the DeShazo Study. The Baseline parking
demand is recommended to be increased by 8 spaces in the AM peak period and by 24 spaces
in the PM peak period. In addition, for the redevelopment, the parking demand is
recommended to be increased by 23 spaces in the AM peak period and by 54 spaces in the PM
peak period. Thus, the parking spaces identified as needed in the DeShazo Study report and
Memoranda would be adjusted from 259 in the AM peak and 252 in the PM peak to a
recommended parking demand of 290 spaces in the AM peak and 330 spaces in the PM peak.
This modified estimate of the PC YMCA redevelopment at near peak operation would be
accommodated, at a high confidence level, within a 330 space underground parking garage. The
expected high confidence level peak demand exceeds that of the currently programmed
parking garage of 300 spaces. Notably, the peak parking demand was estimated for the highest
activity day of the year, with the remainder of the year’s activities gradually declining, and is
greatly influenced by the youth sports activities. Also, the PC YMCA will have control over the
programming of its facility and could adjust its gymnasium, class and meeting room
programming to keep activities within the confines of its parking supply.
Traffic Operations
The resulting increase in traffic activity still results in Level of Service A or B (nearly free flow)
traffic operations on Preston and acceptable Level of Service (LOS C, D or E) on the side streets
of Normandy and Shenandoah during peak hours. The impacts of the additional 78 vehicles
during the PM peak hour on the nearby arterial street system is very small – less than 1.0
second of delay per vehicle. The minimal impact of the additional PC YMCA traffic on the traffic
operations of Preston Road is due to the very good existing traffic operations (very low delays)
on Preston Road at Normandy Avenue. The dissipation of the PC YMCA traffic as it approaches
the Mockingbird and University intersections results in less than 1.0 second of delay per vehicle
change in traffic performance at those intersections.
The Synchro model of the traffic operations on Preston Road was used to assess the relative
sensitivity of the model for increases in traffic volumes to and from the PC YMCA. The
Normandy side street traffic from the PC YMCA would need to increase by over 100 more than
the redevelopment traffic during the AM or PM peak hour to begin to lower the traffic
operations on Preston Road to Level of Service D. Thus, the facility expansion, if operated in
the manner prescribed, will not pose operational issues for Preston Road.
There are various operational considerations that need to be considered on the adjacent city
streets to facilitate the intended traffic operations, which are discussed in the following section.
Page 30 of 186
19
4. Assessing the Identified Impacts, Issues and Recommended Mitigation
The DeShazo Parking and Traffic Study and Memoranda identified minimal impacts to the local
area roadway traffic operations. A few operational configurations regarding the roadways
adjacent to the site were proposed by the PC YMCA design team and by the residential
neighborhoods.
Intersection of Normandy at Preston
The offset intersection of Normandy Avenue at Preston Road currently operates both of the
offset legs of Normandy on the same signal phase, exposing vehicles and pedestrians to many
conflicting movements and allowing the opportunity for vehicle crashes and personal injury.
Notably, any of the options for improvement would require changes to the signal installation.
Realigned Intersection with No Offset -
The PC YMCA site development concepts,
developed by Good Fulton Ferrell, included
an option to realign Normandy Avenue to
get rid of the offset (GFF Exhibit A) shown
at right). The realignment creates a more
typical four-legged intersection with typical
pedestrian crossings. The departures from
the PC YMCA will predominantly turn left or
right onto Preston Road. Though not a
currently well used movement, the
straightened intersection may attract more
traffic to arrive and depart the PC YMCA via
Normandy Avenue west of Preston Road,
which is a fear of many residents of the neighborhood west of Preston Road. The right and left
turn channelization from the Lee Engineering concept (see Exhibit 1 on the following page)
could be applied to the aligned intersection concept to eliminate the westbound through
movement at the intersection, making this an acceptable solution.
The neighborhood surrounding the PC YMCA
east of Preston Road retained Lee Engineering
to prepare alternative concepts for PC YMCA
site access directly from Preston Road that
would serve to eliminate the need for PC YMCA
traffic to circulate through the neighborhood.
The configuration (shown at right) would not be
acceptable to the residents west of Preston
Road for the same reasons cited above. This
configuration would leave the on-street parking
along Normandy and not discourage the local
street YMCA traffic circulation.
Page 31 of 186
20
Retain Existing Offset Intersection – The
current configuration proposed for the site
retains the existing offset intersection. The
Normandy Avenue westbound approach to
Preston Road is widened by one lane width
toward the center of the offset intersection,
somewhat lessening the offset distance
between the movements.
The configuration as proposed would not allay
the fears of the residents west of Preston that
PC YMCA traffic would increase on Normandy through their neighborhood. The PC YMCA design
team has proposed a traffic diverter that would push the westbound Normandy right turns past
the intersection not allowing the turn to Normandy west of Preston Road.
The safety of the retained offset configuration can be enhanced by splitting the eastbound and
westbound movements into two separate phases. The pedestrian crossing indications could be
incorporated with either or both of the Normandy approach movements. Actuated separately,
either westbound or eastbound phases would only interrupt the Preston Road traffic flow when
demanded and would eliminate many of the offset intersection conflicts.
Preston Road Southbound Left Turn Lane at Normandy – The
residents’ consultant, Lee Engineering, also saw the potential need
to provide a left turn lane on Preston Road at Normandy Avenue,
particularly for access to the garage. The concept included
realigning the Normandy intersection to eliminate the offset, and
channelizing the westbound Normandy to only left and right turns,
with the right turn movement channelized to a point beyond the
intersection. This channelization treatment could be added to
either of the Good Fulton Ferrell site concepts to address the
concerns of the residents west of Preston Road.
The left turn lane could be added to either GFF site configuration,
but the configuration shown at right in the Lee Engineering
concept creates a confusing traffic flow just east of the
intersection that may create unanticipated slower turning
movements from Preston Road and constrained turning radii and
thus would not be acceptable.
While this need for a left turn lane appears logical, the traffic
operations on Preston Road are at such good level of service that
there would be sufficient gaps in opposing northbound traffic to
allow the 60+ per hour southbound left turns into the site to not
incur much delay waiting for an acceptable gap to cross the northbound traffic.
Page 32 of 186
21
Normandy Queue Lengths Interference with Exiting of the Parking Garage
Noteworthy in the DeShazo report analysis were the results of the Sychro modeling that
indicated the length of the queues that would form on the westbound Normandy approach at
Preston Road. The queue lengths are expressed in terms of the length to the back of the queue
of cars, and is computed for the 50th percentile occurrence (typical condition) and the 95th
percentile occurrence (generally the longest back of queue that would reasonably be expected).
From the Synchro analysis of the redevelopment including the proposed signal timing
improvements, the PM peak hour is the more critical of the two peak periods, with a 50th
percentile queue length of 98 feet and a 95th percentile queue length of 129 feet. Thus, to
avoid blockage of the exit of the garage, the garage driveway opening on Normandy Avenue
should be at least 129 feet from the stop line at Preston Road. The current site plan measures
only about 75 feet from the stop bar to a point at which the Normandy queue would block the
next car exiting the garage from entering either of the two lanes at the approach.
Parking Accommodations on Shenandoah, Connerly and Normandy East of Preston
If the proposed 300 space parking garage under the PC YMCA is made attractive and convenient
to the drivers attending the youth field sports, with direct access from the garage to the field
level, these drivers can be attracted away from on-street parking on the local streets. The users
of the PC YMCA building facilities are not expected to be attracted to use the curbside parking
along Shenandoah Street or Connerly Drive adjacent to the PC YMCA if the parking garage
provides ample, well secured parking spaces and all-weather access directly from the garage to
the facility activities. To encourage use of the parking garage by all PC YMCA activities including
the field sports, special restrictions on parking along Shenandoah Street and Connerly Drive
should be put in place before the redevelopment is completed. Parking accommodations on
Shenandoah and Connerly east of Preston should be restricted to neighborhood parking only,
to force utilization of the parking garage and mitigate the need to circulate through the
neighborhood looking for parking. The 15 spaces on Normandy at the church should be
restricted to non-PC YMCA usage except for handicap and certain designees.
Parking and traffic impacts on Shenandoah, Normandy and San Carlos West of Preston Road
Considering the attractiveness and convenience of the proposed 300 space parking garage
under the PC YMCA with direct access up to the facility, the users of the PC YMCA are not
expected to be attracted to use the already crowded curbside parking along Normandy Avenue
west of Preston Road. No special restrictions on parking along Normandy Avenue or
Shenandoah Street are anticipated to be needed nor are they expected to be desired.
Notably, in the DeShazo analysis of the extended impact area, no site traffic was distributed to
and from the local streets west of Preston Road - Shenandoah Street, Normandy Avenue and
San Carlos Drive. With design refinement, Normandy Avenue was considered to have a diverter
at Preston Road that would not allow east-west cross traffic to access the PC YMCA. However,
with a sizable portion of the PC YMCA membership residing in the area west of Preston Road
north of Mockingbird, it is expected that the traffic assumed to use Normandy in the Parking
and Traffic Study would utilize either Shenandoah or San Carlos as an alternative route. It may
be that the members who live west of Preston prefer to walk to and from the YMCA, and would
Page 33 of 186
22
be well served by enhancing the safety of the pedestrian crossing of Preston Road. The 5%
distribution of traffic to and from the site should be assigned proportionately to San Carlos and
Shenandoah. These volumes are less than 10 during the peak hour, so their impact on the
intersections of Shenandoah and San Carlos at Preston Road are approximately 1.0 second of
delay or less per vehicle.
5. Other Considerations.
Several other issues were brought forward by citizens and requested to be included as
considerations for this review of the Parking and Traffic Study for Park Cities YMCA
Redevelopment. Many of these considerations were already under review, but some were
additional elements of consideration. The following are several of these other considerations.
The level of intensity of arrivals and departures at PC YMCA that would make LOS
unacceptable (sensitivity testing of the traffic model).
The Synchro model of the traffic operations on Preston Road, prepared by DeShazo and
checked for accuracy by Freese and Nichols, was used to assess the relative sensitivity of the
model for increases in traffic volumes to and from the PC YMCA. Several conditions of increased
traffic volumes and configurations of signal operation were assessed.
x The site-related traffic movements (WB LT, WB Thru, WB RT, SB LT, NB RT and EB Thru)
were increased by 50%, 100%, and 150% to examine the sensitivity of the modeled
street network to increased levels of activity at the PC YMCA. At each level, the green
time allocations to each approach were optimized to give the best overall delay value
for the intersection, giving preference to the through movements on Preston Road. The
following observations resulted:
o 50% more than the peak PC YMCA traffic – operations slightly degrades from the
LOS A, as found in the DeShazo Study for the proposed redevelopment, to LOS B
on southbound Preston Road, while keeping WB left turn at not worse than LOS
E during the PM peak hour. The degradation is due to increased interference of
the southbound left turn movement with the southbound through movement,
due to the absence of a dedicated left turn bay.
o 100% more than the peak PC YMCA traffic – operations further degrades to LOS
C on southbound Preston Road, LOS B northbound, while keeping WB left turn at
not worse than LOS E during the PM peak hour, due to southbound left turn
interference.
o 150% more than the peak PC YMCA traffic – operations further degrades to LOS
E on southbound Preston Road, still LOS B northbound, while keeping WB left
turn at not worse than LOS E during the PM peak hour. The absence of the
southbound left turn lane on Preston Road would be a severe limitation at this
level of operation.
x If the background traffic on Preston Road was to increase by 25% over that in the model
(recall that historical trends indicate that a 1% per year growth is a generous growth
Page 34 of 186
23
rate), then the point at which the Preston Road traffic degrades would be lowered to
about 100% more than PC YMCA peak traffic.
x With provision of a southbound/northbound left turn lane at Normandy, southbound
and northbound Preston Road would continue to operate at LOS B even beyond the
level of 150% more PC YMCA peak traffic.
Conditions under which Traffic Police Control Might be Needed.
Given the ability of the existing roadway network to absorb the proposed PC YMCA
redevelopment after completion, there may still be some instances of concentrated traffic
conditions that may require supplemental police traffic control. The traffic patterns considered
at the YMCA are generally a steady inflow and outflow of members using the facility for a
period of one to two hours throughout the day. There are peak times of day when the usage is
heavier than others, but the arrivals are spread out even within the peak period. Even the Rise
School has a less stringent time of arrival and departure that distributes the traffic over greater
time than a normal school. If a special event that caused participants and observers to arrive
and depart in large numbers over a short period of time were to be held at the PC YMCA, then
the associated traffic might overwhelm the roadway network and intersection controls such
that uniformed police should be retained to manually control traffic at the Preston Road
intersections with Normandy and Shenandoah. Such events might include the previously held
triathlon, a combination of sporting events in both the gymnasium and on the field, or special
events with specific beginning and ending times, such as concerts, with high traffic over short
duration should be avoided.
Conditions under which drivers will seek alternate routes to and from the PC YMCA.
The DeShazo study assumed that 85% of the traffic would enter the PC YMCA parking garage
from north and south on Preston Road, with the other 15% of traffic using the local streets
northeast of the intersection of Connerly at Shenandoah. All traffic was assumed to go into and
come out of the underground parking garage. There may be a tendency for traffic coming from
the north on Preston to avoid the signal controlled intersection at Normandy and make their
left turn at Shenandoah to mix with the 15% traffic on Connerly. This tendency would be
particularly attractive if any on-street parking is made available on Shenandoah or Connerly
Streets.
Additionally, the placement of restrictions on traffic to and/or from the YMCA to use Normandy
Avenue west of Preston Road would tend to push this traffic onto Shenandoah and San Carlos
Streets. However, this existing traffic movement had very low traffic counts (5 vehicles per hour
or less) during the AM and PM peak hours, so the impact of splitting this movement among two
streets is considered to be negligible.
Parking Garage Operations Issues.
As noted previously in this report, with the proposed redevelopment, the queue lengths on
westbound Normandy Avenue at Preston Road is expected to have a back of queue length of 98
feet during the typical PM peak hour and potentially may reach up to a length of 129 feet.
Thus, to avoid blockage of the exit of the garage, the garage driveway opening on Normandy
Page 35 of 186
24
Avenue should be at least 129 feet from the stop line at Preston Road. The current site plan
measures only about 75 feet from the stop bar to a point at which the queue would block the
next car from entering either of the two lanes at the approach. Notably, the residential
frontage on the south side of Normandy Avenue begins at about 200 feet east of Preston Road,
so the entry to the underground garage should be placed somewhere between 129 feet and
200 feet from Preston Road.
The one ingress/egress for the garage should be adequate to serve the facility. The pattern of
arrivals suggests a very spread out loading and unloading of the garage. The PM peak hour
loading at the westbound Normandy approach to Preston indicates a need to process at least
10 vehicles every 2 minutes out of the garage. The unmetered ramps should be able to process
one vehicle every 6 to 8 seconds, or a rate of 15 to 20 vehicles every 2 minutes. Thus, there
should not be queuing on the one exit ramp under typical peak operating conditions, unless
blocked by queuing on Normandy Avenue.
Also in the garage, the access to and from the majority of the parking stalls is indirect, requiring
enter/exit traffic circulation around the base of the pool to traverse to and from the parking
areas. The joint usage agreement with the church will complicate access from the garage to the
PC YMCA interior and exterior doorways to accommodate church usage without going through
the PC YMCA.
The circulation for parking for the field activities appears to be such that it would be very
circuitous for youth and adults to park in the garage and walk to the field, potentially causing
field sports attendees to prefer to park along neighborhood streets. This condition would
encourage parents to park along the streets nearby the field. The popular usage of the parking
garage for activities on the field would be facilitated by providing an elevator from the middle
of the garage to the north edge of the building at the south edge of the field.
The impacts of these usage changes over time will be most noticed in the parking patterns at
the PC YMCA. When facility usage increases, the parking garage will begin to approach its
capacity. If members experience congestion in the parking garage or difficulty finding a space,
they will tend to find a more convenient place for them to park, turning to the on-street parking
available in the neighborhood streets.
Increased PC YMCA usage by affiliated groups.
As shown in the parking baseline information, there are extended periods throughout the day
every day of the year that parking demand exceeds the parking supply at the existing PC YMCA.
So, for non-YMCA activities to request to use the PC YMCA facility would seem to be
unthinkable. However, with the provision of the 300-space parking garage, there will be times
of the day between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. and after 7:00 p.m. that the PC YMCA will have
available capacity in their building space and parking garage to consider hosting these outside
group meetings.
Page 36 of 186
25
Increase in PC YMCA membership and activity as general outcome of improvements.
It is an anticipated secondary impact of the PC YMCA redevelopment that the newer, slightly larger
facility with more event accommodations will increase the membership at PC YMCA. With increased
membership will come increased facility usage, not just in the additional programmed space as noted in
this report, but a general surge in usage overall. It is also possible that the pattern of monthly, weekly
and daily variation may change with the new facility, as new programs evolve to respond to changes in
membership. Thus the importance of the traffic operations sensitivity analysis and peak parking
demand estimates.
The addition of a Gymnasium at the PC YMCA will allow them to host basketball and volleyball games,
which PC YMCA youth currently have to play at other locations. Given the current schedule of the sports
seasons, depicted on the timeline in Figure 11, the PC YMCA will need to schedule games in the
gymnasium when there are not games on the field. Otherwise, parking demand would be expected to
exceed supply. Alternatively, the PC YMCA could reorganize PM peak classes and other activities in the
facility to offset the need for PM peak parking if a field and Gymnasium game were both scheduled.
Figure 11. Youth Sports Seasons (2011 dates noted)
Page 37 of 186
AGENDAMEMO
(8/28/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:HarryPersaud,MRTPI,AICP,ChiefPlanningOfficial
SUBJECT:PUBLICHEARING:Continueapublichearingandprovidedirectiontostaffona
requestbytheParkCitiesYMCAtoamendPlannedDevelopmentDistrictPD-12,to
demolishtheexistingstructureandredevelopa3.72acretractmoreorless,with
a65,000sq.ft.facilityandbelow-gradeparkinggarage.
BACKGROUND:
TheParkCitiesYMCA(PCY)isrequestinganamendmenttotheconceptualsiteplanfor
PlannedDevelopmentDistrictPD-12.Theproposedimprovementstothesiteinclude
demolishingtheexistingbuildingandconstructinga65,000sq.ft.facility,which
representsa55%increasefromthe41,801sq.ft.(including11,760sq.ft.ofoutdoor
activities)currentlyinuse.Theproposeddevelopmentwillprovideforapartnership
withtheRiseSchoolofDallasforclassroomsforabout60students,agymnasium,25-
meterswimmingpool,atherapypool,acardioandweighttrainingfitnessarea,multi-
purposerooms,administrativeofficesandoutdoorplayground.Inaddition,the
proposedzoningrequestwilleliminatealloftheperimetersurfaceparkingonPreston,
Normandy,ConnerlyandShenandoah.
Theexistingtwo-storybuildingcontainsapproximately30,041sq.ft.andprovidesan
additional11,760sq.ft.ofoutdooractivitiesincludingsportscourt/gymnasium(2,344
sq.ft.)outdoorpools(6,996sq.ft.),outdoorracquetball/courtyard(2,420sq.ft.)anda
surfaceballfield.Therearecurrently109parkingspaceslocatedonpublicstreets
abuttingthefacilityonPreston,Shenandoah,ConnerlyandNormandy.Theexisting
preschoolprogramhasanenrollmentofabout25children.Theexistingandproposed
floorareaforeachuseandactivityofferedbythePCYissummarizedonattachedchart
(See"ExistingandProposedUsesbyFloorArea").
ThePlanningandZoningCommission(P&Z)convenedapublichearingonthisitemat
itsregularmeetingonApril10,2012,andclosedthepublichearingonMay8,2012.At
theJune12meeting,P&Zdeliberatedandvotedonthefindingsandrecommendationsto
beforwardedtotheCityCouncil.Thefollowingitemswerereviewedanddiscussed:
1.AlternativeDesignfortheNormandy/PrestonIntersection :
Theoriginalproposalsubmittedwiththezoningrequestprovidedforthe
realignmentoftheexistingNormandy/Prestonintersectionwherethetravel
lanesontheeastsideofPrestonarecloselylinedupwiththetravellaneson
thewestsideofPreston.PCYmadeitclearintheirpresentationthatthis
Page 38 of 186
alignmentisnotcriticaltotheirdesign,astheproposednewdevelopment
canbedonewiththeexistingintersectionoffset.
Analternativedesign(recommendedbyP&Z)istoleavetheintersectionin
itscurrentlocationandprovidethreelanes.Oneforrightturneastbound
trafficonNormandy,oneforleftturnsouthboundtrafficonPrestonanda
rightturnlanefornorthboundtrafficonPreston.Thisalternativeprovides
additionalbenefitstothePCYinthatthebuildingismoved10feettothe
southallowingforalargerplaygroundonthenorthside.Inadditionthis
alternativeprovidesforbetterdesignattheentrywaytothebuildingand
eliminatespropertylinechangesonNormandy.
AthirdalternativedesignforthatintersectionwasprovidedbyClyde
JacksonandGilBrownrepresentingtheneighborhoodontheeastsideof
Preston.ThedesignwaspreparedbyLeeEngineeringacopyofwhichis
attached.
2.AppropriateSizefortheProposedDevelopment:
ThePCYisproposinganewbuildingwith65,000sq.ft.andabelow-grade
parkinggaragewith300parkingspaces.PubliccommentsprovidedattheP&Z
publichearingonApril10,2012focusedontheproposedsizeandtheneedto
reducetheintensityoftheproposeddevelopmentinviewoftheimpactstothe
surroundingsingle-familyneighborhood.
3.BuildingHeight :
PCYisproposingamaximumbuildingheightof44feet.Theallowablebuilding
heightforallresidentialstructuresandtheFirstUnitarianChurchtothesouthis
cappedat35feet.TheheightoftheexistingPCYbuildingfacingNormandyis
about40feet.P&Zrecommendedthatthemaximumbuildingheightof44feetbe
restrictedtothegymwiththeremainderofthebuildingnottoexceed35feet.
4.ExistingSurfaceParkingonConnerlyandShenandoah :
Theexistinghead-inparkingspaceslocatedonConnerlyandShenandoahstraddle
thepropertyline.PCYhasindicatedtostafftheneedforthemtousealloftheir
propertyfortheproposeddevelopmentandtolocaterequiredparkingbelow
grade.Itisproposedtoeliminateallofthehead-inon-streetparkingspaces.
Manyresidentsatthehearingsuggestedtheneedtoretainon-streetparkingspaces
onConnerlyandShenandoah.FollowingdiscussionsatP&Z,PCYhasprovided
analternativedesigntoshowthat8parallelon-streetspacesonShenandoahand10
parallelon-streetspacesonConnerlyarepossiblewiththeproposeddevelopment.
OntheP&Zrecommendedsiteplan,wherethePreston/Normandyintersectionis
retainedinitscurrentlocation,itisalsopossibletokeepallofthehead-inspaces
onShenandoah(SeeAttachment:PerimeterParallelPkg).
5.PetitionforResidentialParkingDistrict:
TheresidentsontheeastsideofPrestonsubmittedapetitionrequestingthe
designationofaresidentialparkingdistrictinthatneighborhood.P&Z
recommendedthattheparkingdistrictbegrantedforboththeeastandthewest
neighborhoodsMondaythroughFriday.Followingstandardpractice,thisitem
willneedtobeconsideredbyCouncilonaseparateagendaattheappropriatetime.
6.RiseSchool:
AspartoftheproposeddevelopmentthePCYwouldexpandtheschooluseinthe
newfacilitytoincludetheRiseSchoolofDallas.CurrentzoningallowsforaPre-
KanddaycareclassroomswithinthePD;however,theproposedRiseSchoolwill
expandthatuse.Thecurrentpre-schoolhasatotalstudentenrollmentof
approximately26students,splitbetweena.m.andp.m.sessions.TheRiseSchool
wouldexpandthestudentenrollmenttoamaximumof60students.
Page 39 of 186
7.TrafficImpactAnalysis :
ThePCYhiredtheDeShazoGrouptoperformatrafficimpactanalysis(TIA)for
theproposedimprovements.TheCitythenhiredFreeseandNichols,aconsulting
engineeringgrouptoconductanindependentreviewoftheTIAandreporton
theirfindingsandrecommendations.ThefinalreportfromFreeseandNicholsis
beingsenttoCouncilunderseparatecover.
UpdatesfromJuly17,2012:
-CouncilreceivedareportfromstaffattheworksessiononJuly17.Since
thattime,PCYhassubmittedadditionalinformationrelatingtothegeographical
distributionandprimarymarketareaforitsmembers.ThreemapsdatedMarch
2012areattached.
-StaffreceivedadditionalcorrespondencesinceJuly17,includingpetitionsand
emailsfromresidentsopposedtoandinfavoroftheproposedzoningchange.
ThefinalnumberswerepresentedtoCouncilonAugust7,2012.
NoticesforpublichearingsonthisitemwerepublishedintheParkCitiesNewson
March29,2012andJune28,2012.Staffalsomailednoticestopropertyowners
within200feetofthesubjectsite.Sincemorethan20%ofthepropertieswithin
200feetofthesubjectsiteareopposedtotheproposedzoning,approvalofthis
requestwillrequireavoteofatleast4membersoftheCouncil.
RECOMMENDATION:
ThePlanningandZoningCommissionconsideredthisitematitsregularmeetingonJune
12,2012andvoted4-1torecommendapprovalsubjecttospecialconditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Draft PD Conditions
ExistingandProposedUsesbyFloorArea
ExistingBldg.&Overlay
PerimeterParallelPkg
ConceptualSitePlan04.03
Alt.IntersectionDesign
PZRecommendedsiteplan06.08
ParkingGarage
1stFloorLayout
2ndFloorLayout
EastandNorthElevation
WestandSouthElevation
200ft.PropertyOwnerResponses
200ft.PropertyOwnerResponses(2)
TIAFindingsandRecommendations
PZDraftMin06.12.2012
PZMinutes05.08.2012
PZminutes04.10.12
ZoningHistory
DistributionofMembers-PCY03.12
PrimaryMarketArea-PCY03.12
ExistingHouseholdPenetration-PCY03.12
Page 40 of 186
1
DRAFT PD CONDITIONS: (07-17-12)
Items in bold text represent details which have been agreed upon between some
residents and the YMCA.
A. Permitted Land Use: PC YMCA
Primary and accessory uses associated with the functions and activities of the
YMCA to include, but not limited to the following:
a. Pre-K and daycare classrooms -7,189 sq. ft.
limited to a maximum enrollment of 60
b. Gymnasium -10,481 sq. ft.
c. Indoor pools -13,049 sq. ft.
d. Adult fitness - 7,087 sq. ft.
e. Multi purpose, racquetball etc. - 7,571 sq. ft.
f. Administration offices - 4,609 sq. ft.
g. Locker rooms, restrooms, Lobby - 15,014 sq. ft.
h. Outdoor playground located on the north
side of the subject site.
B. Maximum Building Size:
The maximum gross floor area of the proposed development shall not exceed
65,000 sq. ft.
C. Building Setbacks:
All building setbacks measured from the property line and shown on the
conceptual site plan as follows:
a. Minimum front yard setback along Preston Road: 45 ft
b. Side yard setback on north side along Shenandoah: 147 ft
c. Side yard setback on south side along Normandy: 49 ft
d. Rear yard setback along the Connerly frontage: 18 ft
e. A screened service area for dumpsters and outdoor storage is shown
attached to the southeast corner of the building. The primary building is
setback 34 feet at that location.
f. Permanent foundation structural supports at underground garage may not
extend past property line and any temporary supports shall comply with all
City codes and policies in effect at the time of construction. Drawings
prepared by a State of Texas licensed professional engineer, providing all
design calculations being employed to resist lateral soil loads as specified
in Section 1610 of the 2009 IBC shall be submitted with the plans for
permit.
Page 41 of 186
2
D. Building Standards:
a. Two stories above grade with parking garage below grade providing for a
minimum of 300 parking spaces
b. Maximum building height of 35 feet except that the Gymnasium may be
constructed with a maximum height not to exceed 44 feet
c. Maximum plate line height 31 feet
d. Building materials: Insulated glass with dark annodized aluminum frame;
prefinished wood siding; natural stone veneer, stucco veneer and standing
seam metal roof.
e. FAR: 0.443
f. The parking garage shall be located as shown on the conceptual site plan.
E. Parking:
a. An underground garage with a minimum of 300 parking spaces shall be
provided for the proposed development. Carbon monoxide or like
sensor(s) will be installed and will regulate the operation of the
exhaust fans for the Parking Garage. Noise levels from exhaust fans
shall not exceeded 71dB at any property line. At grade spaces serving
the drop off lane on Preston shall be a minimum of 23 feet in length.
b. Details for the parking garage to include design of parking layout, drive
aisle width, parking space dimension, turning radii, access ramps and
number of spaces shall be provided with the detailed site plan. Driveway
ramp shall comply with Article 3.12 of the City Code of Ordinances.
F. Landscape Development Plan:
a. Perimeter trees shown on the conceptual site plan shall be evergreen with
a minimum of 5” caliper and 9 feet in height at the time of installation.
b. Trees along the Normandy frontage in full view of the single family
homes shall be installed and maintained prior to the opening and use of the
parking garage.
c. A perimeter fence will be installed around the playground with limited
access through gates located in close proximity to the drop off lane on
Preston Road and at the midpoint of the playground on Connerly Drive.
d. The detailed landscape development plan will provide details for shrubs
and groundcover and include specie, caliper, height and location of all
trees.
e. All landscaping shall be irrigated and must be in place prior to the issue of
a certificate of occupancy.
G. Signage:
All new signs on the site must be in compliance with the City of University Park
sign regulations in effect at the time of the sign permit application.
Page 42 of 186
3
H. Dumpsters:
Refuse or trash containers will be located in the Service Area and all trash
and recyclable pickups from the containers will be conducted by the City of
University Park. The specific location of dumpsters for the proposed
development shall be shown on the detailed site plan. The final design and
placement of dumpsters is subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works.
I. Utilities:
The size and location of all water and sewer taps for the proposed development
shall be shown on the detailed site plan and shall be reviewed and approved by
the Director of Public Works prior to the issue of a building permit.
J. External Walls:
Detailed specs including color and texture of all materials used for external
cladding of the building shall be provided with the detailed site plan.
K. Sidewalks:
A continuous side walk is required around the perimeter of the building. Details
to be shown on the detailed site plan.
L. External Lighting:
Location, mounting height and photometric details for all external light fixtures
on the site shall be provided on the detailed site plan. Exterior lighting
overflow/spillage shall not exceed five (5) foot candles at the mid-point of any
surrounding city street.
M. Exhaust Fans:
Noise from exhaust fans installed in the parking garage may not exceed current
ambient levels of 71 dB at the property line. Noise in excess of this level shall
be attenuated. Fans shall be programmed to shut off at the close of business.
N. Traffic Study:
PC YMCA is required to pay the full cost for a comprehensive traffic study to be
conducted approximately 12 months after a certificate of occupancy has been
issued for the new facility. The traffic study shall be performed by a consultant
selected by the City Council and the YMCA shall pay the cost for any future
traffic control measures or studies deemed necessary by the City Council.
O. Hours of Operation:
Maximum hours of operation of the Facility shall be as follows:
Monday through Friday 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Sunday 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Page 43 of 186
4
P. Interior Lighting:
Interior lights visible from the exterior will be turned off no later than thirty
minutes of operation closing, except in the areas being cleaned, provided
that, with the exception of emergency and code-required lighting, interior
lighting will be turned off no later than 11:30 p.m and lock-ins held in spaces
with blackout shades fully extended.
Q. Vehicles Parked in the Service Area:
No vehicles taller than the screening wall in the Service Area shown on
Exhibit “A”, will be parked overnight. No structures or storage items will
erected or placed in the Service Area that are taller than the screening wall.
R. Construction standard:
The Facility will be constructed in substantial compliance with the
conceptual site plan, building elevations and renderings approved by the City
Council and referenced Exhibit “A” and Representative Facility Images
and Materials (Exhibit “B”) attached hereto, as determined by the Director
of Community Development for the City of University Park and shall further
comply with all applicable City codes then in effect.
S. Service Area:
The Service Area will be gated, and the gate will be a metal-framed gate with
an exterior face using wood similar to, or the same as, the wood on the
Facility, and will have an automatic opener and closer to keep the service
gate closed when the Service Area is not in use.
T. Parking and Delivery During Construction:
Construction activities within the PD will be conducted under City of
University Park building and city codes. Parking for construction workers’
vehicles will be located off-site and workers will be transported to and from
the construction site, provided that, when the Parking Garage is available for
use, it can be used for parking construction workers’ vehicles. All deliveries
of construction materials to the construction site will begin no earlier than
9:00 am and will end by 4:00 pm Monday through Saturday. Construction
contractor(s) will make reasonable efforts to receive deliveries through the
Normandy Avenue/Preston Road intersection entrance, understanding that
this might not be possible at varying time during construction.
U. Staging and Screening:
No residential streets will be used for continuous staging of construction
work and or materials. Any significant exterior construction areas shall be
fenced to screen the site including a green screening material placed on the
fence, maintenance or landscaping work excluded, all in accordance with the
city codes.
Page 44 of 186
5
V. Full Time Liaison:
The YMCA shall provide a full-time liaison that has authority during to
respond to questions and complaints from the nearby citizens during the
construction period. A phone number for this contact will be provided to all
property owners from the St. Andrews Neighborhood Association (“SANA”)
and the West of Preston Neighbors (“WPN”) and posted on the job site
where it can be readily found by interested parties.
Additional Boilerplate Conditions:
Construction Vehicles: No parking of construction vehicles or equipment will
be permitted on City streets. If space is available, all parking shall be
accommodated on the site. If available space is inadequate, the developer shall
provide off-site parking and shuttle workers to the site. Parking of
construction vehicles on City streets which are closed for construction must be
approved by the Director of Public Works.
Construction Hours: Unless written permission is granted by the Director of
Public Works, construction work on the site is restricted to Monday through
Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Background Checks: Background checks will be performed by the contractors
for all construction workers prior to them working on the site. Information
relating to background checks will be kept on file by the contractors. A
convicted felon or pedophile will be barred from working on the site.
Screening Fence: The construction site will be screened with a temporary
eight foot (8') screening fence of dark green or black windscreen fabric, or
other material approved by the Community Development Director, and
installed on a chain link fence.
Explosives: No explosives shall be used in the construction operations.
Security: The developer shall provide and pay the costs for adequate security
and traffic control around the campus for all functions.
Page 45 of 186
PA
R
K
C
I
T
I
E
S
Y
M
C
A
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
Sq
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
04
.
0
2
.
1
2
Fu
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
Pr
e
s
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
r
e
a
(
S
F
)
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
N
e
t
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
In
d
o
o
r
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
To
t
a
l
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
(S
q
u
a
r
e
F
e
e
t
)
Sq
u
a
r
e
F
e
e
t
(a
s
o
f
D
a
t
e
Li
s
t
e
d
)
@ 65,000 SF
NO
N
-
A
C
T
I
V
I
T
Y
S
P
A
C
E
Lo
b
b
y
,
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
s
a
n
d
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
4
,
6
0
4
4
,
6
0
4
1
1
,
1
8
8
6
,
5
8
4
1
1
,
7
7
3
Me
n
/
W
o
m
e
n
s
L
o
c
k
e
r
r
o
o
m
s
2,
7
0
3
2,
7
0
3
3,
0
8
0
37
7
3,241
Of
f
i
c
e
/
a
d
m
i
n
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
2,
8
3
3
2,
8
3
3
4,
3
8
0
1,
5
4
7
4,609
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
10
,
1
4
0
-
1
0
,
1
4
0
18
,
6
4
8
8,
5
0
8
19,624
AC
T
I
V
I
T
Y
S
P
A
C
E
Pr
e
K
/
C
h
i
l
d
w
a
t
c
h
a
r
e
a
2,
2
4
4
2,
2
4
4
6,
8
3
0
4,
5
8
6
7,187
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
S
p
o
r
t
c
o
u
r
t
/
g
y
m
n
a
s
i
u
m
2,
3
4
4
2
,
3
4
4
9,
9
6
0
7,
6
1
6
10,481
In
d
o
o
r
a
n
d
o
u
t
d
o
o
r
p
o
o
l
s
5,
8
0
0
6,
9
9
6
1
2
,
7
9
6
12
,
4
0
0
(3
9
6
)
13,049
Ad
u
l
t
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
s
p
i
n
r
o
o
m
s
5,
3
8
5
5,
3
8
5
6,
7
3
5
1,
3
5
0
7,087
Ho
d
g
e
s
H
a
l
l
/
R
a
c
q
u
e
t
b
a
l
l
/
C
o
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
/
m
u
l
t
i
p
u
6,
4
7
2
2,
4
2
0
8
,
8
9
2
7,
1
9
5
(1
,
6
9
7
)
7,571
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
19
,
9
0
1
1
1
,
7
6
0
3
1
,
6
6
1
43
,
1
2
0
1
1
,
4
5
9
4
5
,
3
7
6
To
t
a
l
30
,
0
4
1
11
,
7
6
0
41
,
8
0
1
61
,
7
6
8
19
,
9
6
7
65,000
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
a
s
a
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
A
r
e
a
48
%
55%
P:
\
2
0
1
0
\
1
0
0
8
8
\
g
-
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
\
[
P
D
-
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
U
s
e
s
P
C
Y
M
C
A
-
I
n
d
o
o
r
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
.
x
l
s
x
]
S
h
e
e
t
1
Page 46 of 186
Page 47 of 186
GA
R
A
G
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
A
M
P
DO
W
N
NO
R
M
A
N
D
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
SH
E
N
A
N
D
O
A
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
CONNERLY
D
R
I
V
E
PRESTON ROAD
16
SO
C
C
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
40
Y
D
S
X
8
0
Y
D
S
5'
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
FE
N
C
E
RI
G
H
T
O
U
T
O
N
L
Y
LE
F
T
O
U
T
O
N
L
Y
IN
F
R
O
M
E
I
T
H
E
R
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
EN
T
R
Y
SC
R
E
E
N
E
D
SE
R
V
I
C
E
A
R
E
A
AL
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
A
B
O
V
E
G
R
A
D
E
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
W
I
T
H
MA
X
I
M
U
M
6
5
,
0
0
0
S
F
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
E
D
A
R
E
A
AL
L
O
W
E
D
,
E
X
C
L
U
S
I
V
E
O
F
GA
R
A
G
E
.
PE
R
I
M
E
T
E
R
P
A
R
A
L
L
E
L
S
I
T
E
P
L
A
N
CO
V
E
R
E
D
G
A
R
A
G
E
EX
I
T
&
V
E
N
T
PA
T
I
O
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
EN
T
R
Y
4
3
AP
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
E
X
T
E
N
T
O
F
BE
L
O
W
G
R
A
D
E
G
A
R
A
G
E
.
MI
N
2
8
2
C
A
R
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
.
2
S
T
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
MA
X
I
M
U
M
6
5
,
0
0
0
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
E
D
S
F
AB
O
V
E
G
R
A
D
E
N
O
T
T
O
E
X
C
E
E
D
44
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
R
I
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
A
N
D
31
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
E
A
V
E
S
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
10
'
S
C
R
E
E
N
W
A
L
L
10
8
AD
D
O
N
E
N
E
W
D
E
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
TU
R
N
L
A
N
E
.
N
O
R
M
A
N
D
Y
LI
G
H
T
T
O
B
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
N
L
Y
&
LE
F
T
O
N
L
Y
.
N
O
S
T
R
A
I
G
H
T
TH
R
O
U
G
H
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
.
Page 48 of 186
GA
R
A
G
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
A
M
P
DO
W
N
NO
R
M
A
N
D
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
SH
E
N
A
N
D
O
A
H
ST
R
E
E
T
CONNERLY
D
R
I
V
E
PRESTON ROAD
SO
C
C
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
40
Y
D
S
X
8
0
Y
D
S
5'
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
FE
N
C
E
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
EN
T
R
Y
SC
R
E
E
N
E
D
SE
R
V
I
C
E
A
R
E
A
2
S
T
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
MA
X
I
M
U
M
6
5
,
0
0
0
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
E
D
S
F
AB
O
V
E
G
R
A
D
E
N
O
T
T
O
E
X
C
E
E
D
44
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
R
I
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
A
N
D
31
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
E
A
V
E
S
AL
L
O
W
A
B
L
E
A
B
O
V
E
G
R
A
D
E
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
R
E
A
W
I
T
H
MA
X
I
M
U
M
6
5
,
0
0
0
S
F
CO
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
E
D
A
R
E
A
AL
L
O
W
E
D
,
E
X
C
L
U
S
I
V
E
O
F
GA
R
A
G
E
.
CO
V
E
R
E
D
G
A
R
A
G
E
EX
I
T
&
V
E
N
T
PA
T
I
O
4
3
Landscaping Requirements 1.Perimeter trees shall be non-deciduous in type with a minimum caliper of five inches (5”) and a minimum height of nine feet (9').2.Landscaping along Normandy across from the single-family homes shall be planted and maintained prior to the usage of the Parking Garage and no later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the City of University Park.3.A fence shall be installed around the playing field with limited access through gates located close to the circular drive along Preston Road and at the midpoint of the playing field on Connerly Drive.
10
'
S
C
R
E
E
N
W
A
L
L
AP
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
E
X
T
E
N
T
O
F
BE
L
O
W
G
R
A
D
E
G
A
R
A
G
E
,
MI
N
3
0
0
C
A
R
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
5'
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
NO
R
M
A
N
D
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
RE
A
L
I
G
N
M
E
N
T
B
A
S
E
D
U
P
O
N
30
M
P
H
D
E
S
I
G
N
S
P
E
E
D
S
:
CE
N
T
E
R
L
I
N
E
R
A
D
I
U
S
=
3
0
0
'
SU
P
E
R
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
=
N
O
N
E
AN
G
L
E
O
F
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
A
T
PR
E
S
T
O
N
R
O
A
D
=
1
5
DE
G
R
E
E
S
EXHIBIT A
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
Page 49 of 186
YMCA ACCESS (1" = 40')
EXHIBIT 1
Page 50 of 186
Page 51 of 186
GA
R
A
G
E
A
C
C
E
S
S
R
A
M
P
DO
W
N
NO
R
M
A
N
D
Y
A
V
E
N
U
E
SH
E
N
A
N
D
O
A
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
CONNERLY
D
R
I
V
E
PRESTON ROAD
16
SO
C
C
E
R
F
I
E
L
D
40
Y
D
S
X
8
0
Y
D
S
5'
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
PL
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
FE
N
C
E
RI
G
H
T
O
U
T
O
N
L
Y
LE
F
T
O
U
T
O
N
L
Y
IN
F
R
O
M
E
I
T
H
E
R
D
I
R
E
C
T
I
O
N
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
EN
T
R
Y
SC
R
E
E
N
E
D
SE
R
V
I
C
E
A
R
E
A
CO
V
E
R
E
D
G
A
R
A
G
E
EX
I
T
&
V
E
N
T
PA
T
I
O
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
EN
T
R
Y
4
3
AP
P
R
O
X
I
M
A
T
E
E
X
T
E
N
T
O
F
BE
L
O
W
G
R
A
D
E
G
A
R
A
G
E
.
MI
N
I
M
U
M
3
0
0
C
A
R
S
R
E
Q
U
I
R
E
D
.
2
S
T
O
R
Y
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
MA
X
I
M
U
M
6
5
,
0
0
0
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
E
D
S
F
A
B
O
V
E
G
R
A
D
E
MA
X
I
M
U
M
H
E
I
G
H
T
N
O
T
T
O
E
X
C
E
E
D
4
4
F
E
E
T
T
O
T
H
E
RI
D
G
E
L
I
N
E
.
PR
O
P
E
R
T
Y
LI
N
E
10
'
S
C
R
E
E
N
W
A
L
L
AD
D
O
N
E
N
E
W
D
E
D
I
C
A
T
E
D
TU
R
N
L
A
N
E
.
N
O
R
M
A
N
D
Y
LI
G
H
T
T
O
B
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
N
L
Y
&
LE
F
T
O
N
L
Y
.
N
O
S
T
R
A
I
G
H
T
TH
R
O
U
G
H
A
L
L
O
W
E
D
.
AS
R
E
C
O
M
M
E
N
D
E
D
B
Y
P
&
Z
Page 52 of 186
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
G
a
r
a
g
e
PA
R
K
C
I
T
I
E
S
Y
M
C
A
30
0
Ͳ
32
5
PA
R
K
I
N
G
SP
A
C
E
S
February28,2012 Page 53 of 186
Fi
t
n
e
s
s
Po
o
l
Service Area
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
En
t
r
y
/
L
o
b
b
y
Pr
e
-
S
c
h
o
o
l
Pl
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
Gy
m
Lo
c
k
e
r
s
Fi
r
s
t
F
l
o
o
r
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
l
a
n
PA
R
K
C
I
T
I
E
S
Y
M
C
A
February28,2012 Page 54 of 186
Ci
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Mu
l
t
i
-
P
u
r
p
o
s
e
&
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
R
o
o
m
s
Of
f
i
c
e
s
Gy
m
B
e
l
o
w
Po
o
l
B
e
l
o
w
Se
c
o
n
d
F
l
o
o
r
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
l
a
n
PA
R
K
C
I
T
I
E
S
Y
M
C
A
February28,2012 Page 55 of 186
Page 56 of 186
Page 57 of 186
Page 58 of 186
Page 59 of 186
Page 60 of 186
Page 61 of 186
Page 62 of 186
Page 63 of 186
Page 64 of 186
Page 65 of 186
Page 66 of 186
Page 67 of 186
Page 68 of 186
Page 69 of 186
Page 70 of 186
Page 71 of 186
Page 72 of 186
Page 73 of 186
Page 74 of 186
Page 75 of 186
Page 76 of 186
Page 77 of 186
Page 78 of 186
Page 79 of 186
Page 80 of 186
Page 81 of 186
Page 82 of 186
Page 83 of 186
Page 84 of 186
Page 85 of 186
Page 86 of 186
Page 87 of 186
Page 88 of 186
Page 89 of 186
Page 90 of 186
Page 91 of 186
Page 92 of 186
Page 93 of 186
Page 94 of 186
Page 95 of 186
Page 96 of 186
Page 97 of 186
Page 98 of 186
Page 99 of 186
Page 100 of 186
Page 101 of 186
Page 102 of 186
Page 103 of 186
Page 104 of 186
Page 105 of 186
1
`PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
MINUTES
June 12, 2012
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, May 8,
2012 at 5:00 pm in the City of University Park Council Chambers, located at 3800 University
Boulevard, University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Seated Staff Members Attending
Robert H. West, Chairman Robbie Corder, Community Development Director
Randy Biddle Bud Smallwood, Public Works Director
Jerry Jordan Harry Persaud, Chief Planning Official
Kim Kohler Jennifer Deaver, Administrative Assistant
Mark Aldredge Rob Dillard – City Attorney
Absent
Liz Farley
Present and Seated
Doug Roach
Mr. West opened the public hearing at 5:00 PM. He introduced everyone in attendance then read the
case before the commission:
PZ 12-003: George O’Reilly, representing the University Park United Methodist Church
requesting approval to amend the detailed site plan for Planned Development District, “PD 20”,
to develop an infant and toddlers playground at 4024 Caruth and located North of Caruth and
east of Preston Road. The proposed playground is approx. 60 feet by 54 feet and situated north
of and adjacent to the existing building. The subject site is zoned Planned Development
District, “PD 20” in accordance with the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of
University Park.
Harry Persaud briefed the commission, via power point, reviewing the site plan and buffer area
showing property owners that were notified. He gave details on the size of the play area, the
fence, landscaping and the equipment. He then introduced representatives from the churches that
were in attendance.
Mr. West asked if there was someone from the church that wanted to speak in favor of the
proposal.
George O’reilly, administrator from UPUMC came forward. He thanked the commission and
stated that there were approximately 330 children enrolled in weekday school recently received
accreditation from (NAEYC) The National Association for the Education of Young Children. He
stated that part of the accreditation requires them to have a separate play area.
Mr. West the asked if there was anyone else that wished to speak in opposition or in favor of the
Page 106 of 186
2
proposal. None came forward. He then closed public hearing.
Kim Kohler made a motion to approve the proposal with any staff recommendations. Randy
Biddle seconded the motion and by 5-0 vote the motion carried.
Mr. West then read the specifics of the next case.
PZ 12-002: Duncan Fulton, representing the YMCA of Metropolitan Dallas, requesting approval
of a conceptual site plan to amend Planned Development District PD-12, to demolish the existing
structure and redevelop a 3.72 acre tract more or less, with a new 65,000 sq. ft. facility, a below
grade parking garage and realignment of Normandy at Preston Road. The new Park Cities
YMCA will accommodate Pre-K and daycare classrooms, an outdoor playground, a gymnasium,
25 meter swimming pool, therapy pool, multi purpose rooms and administrative offices. The
subject site is located on the north east corner of Normandy and Preston Road, the same being
Lots 1-8 Block D, St. Andrews Place Addition, City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas.
Mr. West asked if there were any questions to the staff or to any representatives
Mr. Kohler reminded the staff of a comment that was made in the last meeting regarding the
merits of having full size versus a half size of the gymnasium. He recalled that there was a
comment that they wanted either a full gym or no gym. He then pointed out to the YMCA
representative that made the comment and asked if this was an accurate statement.
Greg Pappas came forward. He confirmed that this was what was said and went on to say that the
there were other centers that have half gyms and they do not usually work as well. He stated that
they do not have a gym currently and that the volleyball and basketball programs are farmed out
to the school district or other venues and the center pays a fee to do this. He said that having to
do this really impacts the budget, there would still be an outside need but it would help and that a
half gym would not be adequate for what the Y needs.
Mr. Bruce Clingman, former board member of the Park Cities YMCA came forward. He
discussed some meetings recently held with YMCA staff in regard to the facility and functions
that could not take place because of the numerous size limitations and how Hodges Hall was
being utilized to facilitate some of those programs. Mr. West then inquired if the new gym was a
replacement for Hodges Hall. Bruce asked Mr. Bunten, also a former board member to come and
answer. Mr. Bunten said it was a replacement, he also confirmed that the gym would be used for
other meetings for sports, coaches and other gatherings which require high attendance,
eliminating the need to rent hourly from HPISD. Mr. Kohler asked for clarification as which part
of the structure was at the highest point. Mr. Bunten said it was and that everything else was at
the 35 ft high limit. Mr. Jordan asked if there was no problem keeping that part of the height at
the back. Mr. Fulton said yes and that is why the PD was written that way. Mr. West inquired
why it needed to be 44’ high and not 35’ and still have a gym, Mr. Fulton answered it can be 35’
if it is flat. He mentioned that meetings were held with some stake holders and they asked that it
be pulled down to allow them to go to a residential form. Mr. Jordan inquired about the roofing
material and there being any reflection problems and Mr. Fulton stated that the material was
coated such that it would not be a problem.
Page 107 of 186
3
Mr. Jordan then asked about the use of the elevator and to church patrons on weekend and how
much access they would have to the facility. Mr. Fulton said it was on the south side of the bldg
compartmentalizing the lobby area, much like what was happening at the new library.
Mr. West then asked about the therapy pool, its shared use and if there had been any studies
showing the increased memberships with specific interest in the new pool. Mr. Bunten stated that
it was and that the new pool would be indoor and much cooler for use for lessons with the
toddlers in the hot weather. He said that there had been no study on that but he expressed the
importance of its better temperature conditions for existing members. Mr. Kohler asked about the
comment that had been made before about it not being economically viable to do a plan less that
62-65K SF and if that was accurate. Mr. Bunten said that it does not make sense to make the
necessary increase in square footage and not provide adequate parking to accommodate such an
increase. He discussed the programmable space and what is needed, he discussed the space also
being used to help with parking for the church and pulling some of the cars off of the street. Mr.
West asked about related discussions with the church. Mr. Bunten stated that there was an
agreement written up but waiting for signatures pending the results of the hearing and the terms
were to provide parking for all weekend services and special events such as weddings and
funerals. Mr. Jordan asked about the RISE school and the anticipated attendance. He asked about
the classrooms being utilized by the church. Mr. Bunten examined some of the outlines within
PD-24, specifically the staff report that detailed the terms of section 11 & 14 not allowing the
church to lease space to anyone. He also detailed the church’s need for the space they have for
their own programs and then pointed out the dangers involved in trafficking students to and from
each facility. Mr. Jordan questioned the relationship with the church and use of the facility for
the school and how the parking could be improved. Mr. Fulton stated that he felt that the below
grade drop off for the RISE students was a far better situation and how the size of the garage
provides the ability to upsize the garage accommodating and additional 20 parking spaces that
the parking study identified attributed to the RISE. He also said that when the Y preschool
program partnered with The RISE they began reprogramming some of the multipurpose spaces.
Mr. West then asked if the preschool was programmed for 7100 SF and if part of that space
included some office space. Mr. Fulton said that it included an extra 5% allocation encompassing
five classrooms, one work room, child watch, 8 offices and its pro-rata share of corridors and
circulation. Mr. Kohler asked if there was ever any consideration to building some of the square
footage below grade. Mr. Fulton said that there were discussions and they felt that the most
needed item in the area is parking and the site was already maxed out for parking, stressing that
the parking was the most relevant for operational issues. Mr. West asked John about the
operation hours for the preschool. Mr. Bunten said there are two sessions and they are split up
throughout the week. He said there is also a child watch program for parents that want to come in
to the center and work out as was pointed out is within the 7200 SF total.
There were discussions by the commission members about the parking and had some of the
residents briefly clarify where they stood on such issues.
Mr. Biddle made a motion to accept the PD application with a maximum of 65KSF and do away
with the parking on Shenandoah and Connerly Dr. and make the plan the existing alignment that
is currently in place and move for approval according to the proposed PD conditions set forth by
staff. Mr. Kohler seconded the motion. Mr. West then said the he feels if important to keep some
of the parking on Normandy. Mark Alderidge stated that he feels that the underground parking is
Page 108 of 186
4
key and he thinks there should be a concession to the east side property owners by moving some
of the surface parking underground. Mr. Biddle said he is concerned that leaving the existing
alignment on Normandy will still pose problems. Mr. Dillard asked Mr. Biddle to confirm a
number for the parking spaces, Randy then inquired of the staff report reflected a total of 286.
Mr. Persaud came forward and summarized the report confirming that 62k SF would require 286
spaces, and if raised to 65K SF an additional 300 parking spaces for every 217 SF totaling 65K
SF. Mr. West said even if the proposal is 65K SF, 300 parking spaces could still be required. Mr.
Dillard asked Mr. Biddle to clarify his recommendation regarding the Council’s approval of the
precise location of street parking. Mr. Biddle confirmed and then recommended there be a
residential parking district on the 5 days per week 7a.m.-7p.m. M-F. on the east side and the west
side could be formally requested to the city by residents at Shenandoah and Normandy with a
follow up traffic study twelve months after completion
Mr. Biddle then moved that the application be approved subject to staff recommendations
included within the staff report and parking spaces on the south side and west of Connerly be
removed, that the area east of the Y be designated as a parking district and first block Normandy
and Shenandoah and have a traffic study 12 after completion, the parking garage include a
minimum of 300 parking spaces and maximum height of 44 feet for gymnasium only and the
residual remain according to plan, maximum 65K SF. With the current alignment remaining as
exists, Mark seconded. Mr. Jordan moved to amend to motion to change the structure from
65K SF to 55K SF, no one seconded. . With a vote of 4-0, the motion carried.
Minutes of the May 8, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting were reviewed. Mr.
Jordan made a motion to approve the minutes, and Mr. Kohler seconded the motion. With a vote
of 5-0, the minutes were approved.
With there being no further business before the board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting.
________________________________
Robert H. West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Date____________________________
Page 109 of 186
1
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
MINUTES
May 8, 2012
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, May 8,
2012 at 5:00 pm in the City of University Park Council Chambers, located at 3800 University
Boulevard, University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Seated Staff Members Attending
Robert H. West, Chairman Robbie Corder, Community Development Director
Randy Biddle Bud Smallwood, Public Works Director
Dawn Moore Harry Persaud, Chief Planning Official
Liz Farley Lorna Balser, Planning Assistant
Mark Aldredge Rob Dillard – City Attorney
Present and Seated
Kim Kohler
Jerry Jordan
Doug Roach
Mr. West opened the public hearing at 5:00 PM. He introduced everyone in attendance then read the
case before the commission:
PZ 12-002: Duncan Fulton, representing the YMCA of Metropolitan Dallas, requesting approval
of a conceptual site plan to amend Planned Development District PD-12, to demolish the existing
structure and redevelop a 3.72 acre tract more or less, with a new 65,000 sq. ft. facility, a below
grade parking garage and realignment of Normandy at Preston Road. The new Park Cities
YMCA will accommodate Pre-K and daycare classrooms, an outdoor playground, a gymnasium,
25 meter swimming pool, therapy pool, multi purpose rooms and administrative offices. The
subject site is located on the north east corner of Normandy and Preston Road, the same being
Lots 1-8 Block D, St. Andrews Place Addition, City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas.
Mr. West advised those in attendance that the meeting was a continuation of the last meeting on
4/10/12, where many people spoke. At this meeting, he stated that they would further hear from
staff, the applicant and attendees. Mr. West asked that everyone refrain from voicing their
opinions of how wonderful the YMCA is, but instead provide helpful information and questions
pertaining to the conceptual site plan. Mr. Persaud approached the podium and stated that staff
had received new information over the last month. He added that several representatives for
different groups were present as well as representatives for the Park Cities YMCA. Mr. Persaud
advised the commission on support and opposition numbers stating that the YMCA’s analysis
was for 934 signed letters and petition signatures in support. Out of this number, he added that
414 of those were from within the City of University Park. Mr. Persaud stated that within the
200’ boundary area, 23 notices were returned in opposition, 1 in favor and 2 undecided. Again,
he noted that this item may later require a ¾ vote of the city council.
Page 110 of 186
2
Mr. Persaud introduced the YMCA’s representative, Mr. Duncan Fulton, Good Fulton & Farrell
Architects. Mr. Fulton approached the podium and provided a summary of the studies completed
to date. He noted the current uses, the history of the Normandy realignment and traffic flows into
the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Fulton provided realignment scenarios and concerns. He
noted the parking recommendations of the TIA, perimeter spaces and the cost of replacing those
spaces. Mr. Fulton then reviewed the existing vs. proposed traffic improvements. With the use
of a PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Fulton provided the timeline for the project. He stated that the
requested 65,000 square feet had not just been grabbed out of the air, but provided a timeline for
the studies done in choosing the programs proposed to be offered in the spaces and that they
wanted a clear idea of the programs. Over time, he stated that they found appropriate spaces for
each use and narrowed them down. In November, 2011, they joined with the RISE school.
Mr. Fulton provided a comparison of the existing vs. proposed square footage for the facility,
while showing the distribution of space, non activity vs. activity areas. Overall, Mr. Fulton
stated that there would be 19,967 square foot of new programs, 300-325 new on site parking
spaces, at a cost of $20-25 million. Comparing to relevant sites within the City of University
Park, Mr. Fulton provided precedents within the city such as the First Unitarian Church of Dallas
with a FAR of .5 vs. the YMCA with a FAR of .443. He reviewed the zoning requirements for
parking. He discussed coverage areas and openness and stated that the church currently has an
impervious coverage of 63% and the YMCA concept is only at 47% making it 25% more open.
He talked about the square footage per person and the overwhelming support for this new
building. Mr. Duncan then invited two other staff members from the Y to address issues from
their perspective.
Ms. Erin Dowdy approached the podium and introduced herself as the Membership Director of
the Park Cities YMCA. She explained that the non activities areas are in great need of the
proposed increase. She said that the residents and members deserve an inviting welcoming center
where there is adequate space to provide privacy for the upwards of 8000 members to date,
rather than the congested space with only enough space for three terminals. She predicted that
the over-crowded conditions have forced staff to place people on wait lists or even turn them
away. She then addressed locker room and rest room conditions, giving details about how unfair
it is for the father that may have to send his daughters to change alone because there is no family
locker room. She described the challenges with only six toilets in the men’s room and five in the
women’s rest room.
Ms. Kendra Yanchak, Senior Program Director for the Park Cities YMCA then came forward.
She described the conditions of the program areas and how it affects evening schedules. She said
that inadequate space means that students are using office space, conference rooms, racquet ball
courts and sometimes even hallways for overflow. She said that sometimes classes are cut down
in size or have to only observe activities that are happening because of space limitations. She
closed stating that the current facility does not meet the current needs of participants.
Mr. West asked if anyone else wished to speak on behalf of the Y specifically regarding size
issues, none came forward. He then opened the podium to any of those in opposition.
Page 111 of 186
3
Matt Leyrer of 4121 San Carlos came forward. He provided a power point of Section 1 of The
Guiding Principals of The City of University Park Zoning Ordinance, being established for the
purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City. They have been
designed to lessen the congestion in the streets; to secure safety from fire, panic and other
dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land. He then
addressed the traffic study and the increase in round trips that were not discussed for the therapy
pool and field games. He said that 70 or more trips were not accounted for in regard to the RISE
School. He said that the study assumes no new traffic as a result of increased members. He said
that the study also did not address cut thru traffic. He stated that the unintended consequences
were poor planned development and what The City required of the developer on the SMU library
is not the same as what has been required of this project.
Mr. Ken Raggio of 4125 San Carlos came forward. He stated that he emailed 1000 copies of
supporting letters to Harry Persaud but that they were in “general” support of the The YMCA as
opposed to the concept that was submitted to The City. He said he also submitted a study by
some opposing neighbors, being a drawing of the Y’s plan to retain about 90 existing street level
spaces for parking. He closed stating that because the street level parking is to the west of
Preston, the realignment of Normandy is the residents best bet to avoid cut thru traffic.
Mr. Gill Brown of 4007 Normandy came forward. He suggested a route that seems better for
Preston Rd. allowing access directly on /off of Preston instead of the neighborhood cut thru. He
asked the question that if the size of The Y was approved, what responsibility would The City
take on for the increase in traffic.
Mr. Jodie Short of Lee Engineering came forward. He stated that he was asked by the
neighborhood association to evaluate the traffic issues around the development. He said over the
course of doing so, he presents a concept of the realignment of Normandy. An additional concept
presented was to add left turn lanes on Preston Rd because having no turn lane backs up traffic
and causes the cut thru crowding. He said he feels underground parking will cause more conflicts
He said the concept presented has the east leg feeding into the garage, deemphasizing the traffic
flow into the neighborhood to the east and that left turn lanes will facilitate traffic flow at that
intersection.
Mr. Peter Rogers of 6200 St. Andrews came forward. He stated that if the opposed and proposed
were 6:1, where were they.
Mr. Bill Boldng of 4101 Stanhope came forward. He stated that he had not seen any studies as of
yet, to address the issues of pollution into the neighborhood with the increase in traffic. He also
expressed concerns of the property values, especially those closest to the project.
Mr. Martin Posner of 4116 Shenandoah came forward. He said he has lived in University Park
for 21 years but feels he will have to sell soon if this hurts his property value. He then referenced
The Y’s approach to the new facility being “for” the people when most of the members are from
outside of The Park Cities.
Page 112 of 186
4
Carol Colino of 4152 Emerson came forward. She stated that her son is involved in the Camp on
the Lake program and that those children spend seven hours per day in the heat outside but when
they return to the center they are forced to wait outside because of the overcrowding.
Gail Schoellhopf of 4006 Shenandoah came forward representing her neighbors, John and Paula
Mosley who could not be there due to a family illness. She read a letter that asked about the
previous P&Z meeting request to have the YMCA provide a study showing the number of
members that use the facility actually live in The Park Cities and how many are from outside of
the area. She read that when this was requested from The Y they refused to provide it. They did
however, provide a number showing that almost all of those using the facility were from a 5 mile
radius from areas such as Oak Cliff, White Rock and LBJ North..
Mr. West then closed the public hearing. He asked committee members if there were any
questions.
Mr. Aldredge asked Mr. Fulton if the latest site plan proposed had parking spaces added back to
Normandy and was it shifted. He then asked if the building had to shift to the south or would
there be a way to accommodate both. Mr. Fulton said no, and in order to preserve the field they
pushed the realignment as far as possible.
Liz Farley asked Mr. Fulton if it was his opinion that there was no way to keep the parallel
parking on Shenandoah and realign Normandy also. Mr. Fulton said no, again the building has
been pushed as far as possible to accommodate that alignment. He added that the city said the
alignment was acceptable but not really what they wanted, so it is at an acceptable level as far
North as possible and that a 12’ minimum margin is required between the field and the fence.
Dawn Moore asked for clarification on the number of parallel spaces she also pointed Connerly
as a route. Duncan confirmed there were 19 parallel spaces.
Randy Biddle stated that the plan was to essentially either move Normandy up to create an
intersection and lose the parking spaces on the north side of Shenandoah and Connerly, or leave
Normandy as is and keep those spaces. Mr. Fulton said yes, while maintaining the integrity of
the field.
Dawn Moore asked Mr. Fulton to talk about the ventilation in the parking garage. Mr. Fulton
explained that the best way to vent the garage was to have regulated exhaust corner to corner and
that the plan was best for the flow of CO2. Dawn asked if it would be best to have two vents in
each corner and Duncan stated that it could be done and wouldn’t be opposed to at all. He said
that putting vents on the Preston Rd. side of the garage was decided to be the best location as
opposed to the side where cars would be parked.
Mr. West asked the Duncan to confirm the location of the stair case in the garage, Mr. Fulton
pointed them out.
Dawn Moore inquired what the 62K SF for The RISE School was replacing. Mr. Fulton
confirmed that most of it was multi use space he said that deck space at the therapy pool and the
gymnasium was reduced, he also said that existing functions were looked at and utilization of
Page 113 of 186
5
new space. He said the gym was one of those areas. Dawn asked about game schedules. John
Bunten said that years ago schedules were changed to accommodate parking in the area. There
are now two games per day, two days per week. He said there are more games on Saturdays but
there are no overlapping of event seasons.
Mr. West asked what time of day was the heaviest use of the gym and John stated that it was
typically 4:30-7:30 p.m. or 9:00pm when there were practices but practice times have less cars.
Dawn Moore asked about the capacity per area and what the increase in memberships would
bring. John stated that statistically the total number of memberships within a 5 mile radius is
98% and within a three mile radius is more than 80%. He said most new members added would
likely be family members because they just don’t really see new members come from other
areas. Then Duncan stated that the expansion is existing spaces and pattern of use and stacked on
top of that is the new spaces and the expected pattern of use.
Dawn Moore inquired that if the 2ft per person needs to be expanded then will that mean there
will be 2ft per person of more memberships. She said studies show that they are already maxed
out but what if there are another 15% who are willing to come because now there are better
facilities. Mr. Fulton stated that was built into the study, Mr. Bunten stated that memberships at
The Park Cities YMCA are comparable to The Park Cities YMCA center. Dawn Moore inquired
about those percentages.
Mr. Greg Pappas, Director of Park Cities YMCA came forward. He stated that one thing to be
aware of is that every center loses members every month and gains new ones. He stated that the
trend is declining, on the wellness floor in particular. He stated the goal is to have larger more
space and more comfortable areas, not more members or equipment. Mr. West stated that it
seemed like a substantial increase in common areas, lobbies, hallways, etc. approximately 65k to
be exact. Mr. Fulton confirmed and added that there was a greater need there and that he didn’t
foresee more members because the halls are larger, however when members are forced to leave
their valuables in their cars because there is not adequate space in the locker rooms that making
that change may keep the existing members.
Mr. West asked about the increase in the pre-school area and if other centers have preschool
programs. Mr. Fulton stated that the current enrollment is 28 with a seating capacity of 14. He
said that staff has to double shift. The expansion will provide 5 classrooms serving 55 kids.
Ms. Moore inquired about the schedule of the school. John Bunten stated that the maximum trips
for the school would be 110 trips generated per day with a schedule of 55 children in at various
times, leaving in the 3:00 hour. He stated that the RISE approached them due to the therapy pool
and The Y liked the RISE program for the many special needs families in the area.
There was a short recess, when Mr. West reconvened the meeting he asked about any staffing
changes with the new programs and how that may affect the parking. Mr. Pappas stated that they
currently have 12 full time exempt employees, 3-4 full time non-exempts and depending on the
season, 50-100 part time staff that only report to gyms or camps.
Page 114 of 186
6
Dawn Moore asked if RISE students were dropped off and Mr. Fulton stated that they are walked
in to the Center, signed in and it is a very structured process. Ms. Moore then asked about
helping Unitarian Church with parking and how those church members would get from the stairs,
outside. Duncan stated that they would use the entry on the church side. Dawn asked what the
age of the preschoolers would be and John stated that they were 3-5 years of age. Mr. Fulton then
stated that the RISE School would benefit from The Y’s aquatic center.
John Reneger, a Highland Park resident came forward. He stated that he works with The RISE
program and that HPISD has more than 500 special needs kids. He said that the water therapy
was not available at the church where they were previously located and it was needed.
Mr. West asked if cutting the gym space in half would be practical. Mr. Pappas said that would
not work for the Park Cities Y because they also utilize that space for coaches meetings and staff
meetings. John added that studies predict an increase in HPISD enrollment and those are the kids
using this gym. Mr. West then asked what the hours of operation were and Mr. Pappas stated
M-F 5:30-9:00, Saturdays 7:00-6:00 and Sundays 2:00-5:00.
Randy Biddle asked Mr. Stoner which plan shows the most efficient way to move traffic to
alleviate congestion. Mr. Stoner said that there was not a big difference.
Liz Farley asked if the concept was closing the access to Normandy then does it really matter if it
is aligned or not. Mr. Stoner said no.
Mr. Fulton stated that they were not advocating closing off Normandy any longer, that was
simply an initial theory and meetings with The City had changed that consideration.
Mr. West stated that there were several moving parts to this project including a strange
intersection and a parking garage that benefits some people but requiring people to only use
underground parking was unrealistic and he had not heard how neighbors feel about that. Gill
Brown came forward. He stated that he doesn’t understand subsurface parking benefits; he
understands that the church wanted it and if they don’t have it they have a reduction in visitors
and limited handicap spaces. He said that Jodie Short’s version does have subsurface parking in
front of the church. It is close but surface parking around Shenandoah and Connerly won’t be
accessible. The Y patrons will use it. He stated that the field is gated and patrons will have to
walk all the way around the field. He stated there is no benefit, people will use it but it will add
to the congestion. He also added that there would be more crime. Mr. Biddle inquired about
getting rid of the spaces and asked if it would adversely affect him when having a party or a
function and asked if he was limited to one side of the street? Mr. Brown said we have nothing
now. He asked that the PD be changed.
Carol McEvoy and Gail Schoellhopf came forward. They stated desperate concerns of the
parking in front of their driveways, in front of their houses and talked about how they can never
have parties, functions, visitors or even repair men come to their house without having the stress
of no parking signs and actual confrontations with people blocking their parking. They stated
that it is this way all day everyday until as late as 9:00pm. They urged the committee to consider
their concerns.
Page 115 of 186
7
Mr. West inquired of the parallel parking and the alignment problem. He asked what the
alternatives were to shrink the footprint down and allow parallel parking and the street to be
shortened also. Mr. Fulton said that they could do a better job of addressing that once they know
how large they are allowed to be. He said that they are over parking the current building to help
solve some long standing issues and they elected to provide more parking below grade. He said
the size of the garage is large enough to address the issue of residential parking.
Mr. West then stated that the public hearing was closed and the meeting would continue next
month to hopefully come to an agreement.
Minutes of the March 13, 2012 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting were reviewed. Ms.
Farley made a motion to approve the minutes, and Mr. Biddle seconded the motion. With a vote
of 5-0, the minutes were approved.
With there being no further business before the board, Mr. West adjourned the meeting.
________________________________
Robert H. West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Date____________________________
Page 116 of 186
Page 117 of 186
Page 118 of 186
Page 119 of 186
Page 120 of 186
Page 121 of 186
Page 122 of 186
Page 123 of 186
Page 124 of 186
ZONING HISTORY - YMCA SITE LOCATED AT 6000 PRESTON ROAD
5-23-1947 Early city records show that a City Water Account was issued or existed
on that date indicating possible ownership of the site about that time.
6-27-1950 A building permit was issued to the YMCA. Details of the work
permitted are not clear but presumably related to the construction of the
existing building.
03-16-53 Zoning map dated March 16, 1953, amended and attached to the 1965
zoning ordinance shows the site to contain 8 lots. The four lots facing
Preston Road were zoned District “C” for residential two family dwelling
units and the four lots facing Connerly were zoned District “B” for single
family use. Building height was limited to 35 feet except that a building
may not exceed 50 feet in height if an additional setback of 2 feet was
provided for every additional foot of vertical height.
11-29-1983 Ordinance adopted establishing PD-12 with the following PD conditions:
The property described as Lots 1 through 8, Block D, St. Andrews Place
Addition, known as 6000 Preston Road, is hereby zoned as Planned
Development District under the following requirements:
(1) That the new lights planned for the Omni Court have shades to
confine the illumination to the court proper; and
(2) That the lights be automatically turned off when the YMCA is
closed; and
(3) That the landscaping between the swimming pool fence and the
sidewalk be appropriate enough to screen off the pool area.
08-01-1989 Ordinance amended PD-12 to provide the following:
That playground equipment and wrought iron fence be located adjacent to
Preston Road, as shown on revised site plan attached to Ordinance No.
88/7 (Amendment No. 5) adopted August 1, 1989.
07-22-2008 Ordinance amended PD-12 to provide for the following:
a. All permanent improvements and portable buildings in this Planned
Development District will be constructed or placed and maintained in
accordance with the amended detailed site plan attached hereto as Exhibit
“A” (maintained on file in the office of the city secretary);
Page 125 of 186
b. The gates and fence on Connerly Drive shall be nine (9') feet in
height;
c. The area north of the area shown on the site plan for temporary
storage units shall be screened from view from the north by planting of
evergreen shrubs that are at least 8' high at the time of planting and
capable of reaching a mature height of 20', on 6' centers, behind the
existing Bradford pears and live oaks, in a manner approved by the
Community Development Manager. This required landscape screening
shall be irrigated and kept in good condition at all times;
d. The trash dumpsters on the east end of the building shall be screened
so that they cannot be seen from Connerly Drive;
e. The swimming pool equipment on the east end of the building shall
be screened so that it cannot be seen from Connerly Drive;
f. The gates to the storage area at the east end of the building shall be
equipped with automatic gate openers and kept closed when not in use,
provided that the YMCA shall provide access to the City’s personnel and
equipment for garbage pickup;
g. Obscured screening shall be added to the fence and gates to preclude
direct views into the storage area on the east side of the site;
h. Buses, when not in use, shall be parked inside the screened area;
i. The existing storage buildings and any replacement buildings or
containers placed in the storage area shall not exceed the dimensions
shown on the site plan as 16' x 73' and 10'3" in height and shall be painted
the same color as the adjacent main building; and
j. Except as amended hereby, the special conditions of the ordinance
creating, and those of any ordinance amending, PD 12 shall remain in full
force and effect.
Page 126 of 186
Page 127 of 186
primary market
area
March 2012
Park Cities Family
YMCA
^ Park Cities
n 80% of Members
• Members
Road Classification
= Limited Access Freeway
- Highway
Secondary Roads
Local Roads
m Netherlands
*Cherrvwood Park
La Vista Dr
f Ross Ave ,7
*!'" tE*..a Park
7^ w
Ul
Page 128 of 186
Page 129 of 186
AGENDAMEMO
(8/28/2012AGENDA)
TO:HonorableMayorandCityCouncil
FROM:KentR.Austin,DirectorofFinance
SUBJECT:PUBLICHEARING:onproposedFY2013budgetandtaxrate
BACKGROUND:
Texasstatutesrequirethatcitiesprovidenoticeandholdpublichearingsbeforeadopting
anannualbudgetandpropertytaxrate.
ProposedFY2013budget
TheTexasLocalGovernmentCode(Section102)requiresthatabudgethearingbeheld
nosoonerthan15daysaftertheproposedbudgetisfiledwiththemunicipalclerk.Using
August6asthefilingdate,ahearingAugust21meetsthisrequirement.
AsecondbudgethearingisscheduledfortheAugust28Councilmeeting.Thefirst
hearingwasheldasplannedattheAugust21Councilmeeting.
TheproposedFY2013budgetof$44,275,593is2.9%largerthantheadoptedFY2012
budgetof$43,027,730.Thebudgetmaintainsthecurrent27.845propertytaxrateand
presumesrateincreasesforwaterandsewerservice.
TheUniversityParkPublicLibraryisincludedasaCitydepartmentforthefirsttime,
withaninitialbudgetof$600,000andthreefull-timepositions.
A3%payraiseisincludedforallfull-timeCityemployees.Detailsontheproposed
budget'sexpendituresandrevenuesareprovidedintheattachedCityManager'sbudget
memoandline-itemdetail.
TheFinanceAdvisoryCommitteemetAugust9,2012,toreviewtheproposedbudget
andrecommendeditsadoptionasproposed.Twootheradvisorycommitteesaremeeting
--EmployeeBenefits(August28)andProperty,Casualty,andLiabilityInsurance
(August21)--toreviewthebudgetandmakearecommendationtotheCouncil.
Proposedpropertytaxrate
ThepropertytaxistheGeneralFund'sprimarysourceofrevenue.InthecurrentFY2012
budget,$15,504,342ofthe$26,758,000GeneralFundrevenueisderivedfromcurrent
yearpropertytaxes.
Page 130 of 186
The2012certifiedtaxrollrose1.12%inmarketvalueand0.35%intaxablevalue
comparedtolastyear.Thisisthefirstyearsince2009thatpropertyvalueshaverisenin
thecity.
Thedistinctionbetweenatax revenueincreaseandatax rateincreasecanbeconfusing,
especiallyinthepresentcase–eventhoughtheCityisnotincreasingitstaxrate(by
maintainingthe27.845centrate),taxrevenueswillrise,by$53,842,becauseoftherise
intheoveralltaxbase.
Atthesametime,themarketvalueoftheaveragesingle-familyhomeinUniversityPark
fellslightly,sothattheaveragesinglefamilyhomeownerwouldpay$1lessinCity
propertytaxes($2,434in2012vs.$2,435in2011),asthetablebelowdemonstrates:
TruthinTaxationimpact
TheTexasTaxCode(Section26,TruthinTaxation)requiresthecalculationand
publicationoftheeffectivetaxrate(ETR),anumberintendedto“enablethepublicto
evaluatetherelationshipbetweentaxesfortheprecedingyearandforthecurrentyear,
basedonataxratethatwouldproducethesameamountoftaxesifappliedtothesame
propertiestaxedinbothyears”(2012Truth-in-TaxationGuide ,TexasStateComptroller).
TheDallasCountyTaxAssessor-Collectorperformstheeffectivetaxratecalculation.
TheETRformulais:
Prioryeartaxesminustaxesonpropertylostthisyear:$15,405,122
dividedby
Currentvalueofpropertytaxedlastyear:$5,518,092
times$100
equalsEffectiveTaxRate:$0.279174
Ascanbeseen,theETRformulausesdifferentnumbersforlastyear’staxesandtaxbase
thantheproposedbudgetuses.Consequently,eventhoughtheproposed$0.27845rate
willraisemorerevenuethanlastyear,theETRcalculationsaysitactuallyrepresentsan
effectivetax decrease.
TheETRissignificantbecauseitdrivesthenoticeandhearingrequirementsacitymust
Comparisonoftaxbase,taxrate,andtaxlevy
2011(FY2012)2012(FY2013)
Citywidecertifiedtaxbase $5,568,088,524 $5,587,424,812
Citytaxrateper$100 $0.27845 $0.27845
Totaltaxlevy $15,504,342 $15,558,184
Avgsingle -familyhome(market)$1,093,015 $1,092,539
Avgsinglefamilyhome(taxable)$874,412 $874032
Avgsingle -familyhometaxbill $2,435 $2,434
Page 131 of 186
meetpertheTexasTruth-in-Taxationlaw.Citiesproposinganeffectivetaxincreaseover
theprioryearmustholdtwoseparatepublichearingsaboutthetaxrate.
ForFY2013,eventhoughtheproposed$0.27845rateislowerthantheETRof
$0.279174,sothatnoticesandhearingsare notrequired,Citystaffhaschosentopublish
noticesandschedulehearingsoutofanabundanceofcaution.Thiswillprovidean
opportunityforresidentstogiveinputbeforetheCityCouncilapprovesafinaltaxrate.
RECOMMENDATION:
CitystaffrecommendsthattheCouncilholdahearingontheproposedFY
2013budgetandtaxrate.Oncethehearingisclosed,thebudgetandrelated
itemswillbereadyforadoptionattheSeptember4CityCouncilmeeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
CityManager'sproposedFY2013budgetmemo
Line-itemdetail--FY2013proposedbudget
Page 132 of 186
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013
August 7, 2012
This budget will raise total property taxes versus last year’s
budget by $65,334 or 0.42%, and of that amount, $193,057 is
tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll
this year.
This statement is required by HB 3195 of the 80th Texas Legislature.
Page 133 of 186
1
M E M O
DATE: August 7, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Livingston, City Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed FY2013 budget
INTRODUCTION
This memo presents the City Manager’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2013 (FY2013, the period
October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013). The proposed FY2013 expenditure budget totals $44,275,593, a
2.90% increase from FY2012.
The budget maintains the same City property tax rate as the past two years: 27.845 cents per $100 taxable
value. While the overall tax base rose just 0.35%, single-family home values stayed level. The average
single-family homeowner will pay one dollar less in City property taxes under the proposed budget.
FY2013 marks the first year of the University Park Public Library as a City department, with an initial
budget of $600,000. Of this amount, $300,000 will be funded by the UP Friends of the Library. Prior
City budgets included library expenditures of $196,555, so the net budget increase is only $103,445.
The proposed budget includes a 3% pay raise for City employees, the first in two years. This increase is
partly offset by a reduction in the City’s TMRS contribution rate, from 10% to 8.26%. The number of
full-time positions totals 243, reflecting the addition of three new Library employees.
The table below compares total expenditures for the City’s three budgeted funds--General, Utility, and
Sanitation. Three other funds--Capital Projects, Equipment Services, and Self-Insurance--are not
included in the formal budget, because their revenues originate from the three budgeted funds. A
summary page showing the proposed budget by fund and department follows this memo.
.
FUND
FY2011
ACTUAL
EXPENDS
FY2012
ADOPTED
BUDGET
FY2013
PROPOSED
BUDGET $ CHANGE % CHANGE
GENERAL$27,003,169$26,724,086 $27,261,321 $537,235 2.01%
UTILITY$13,716,254$13,435,168 $14,242,469 $807,301 6.01%
SANITATION$2,686,568$2,868,476 $2,771,803 ($96,673) ‐3.37%
TOTAL$43,405,991$43,027,730 $44,275,593 $1,247,8632.90%
Page 134 of 186
2
As can be seen, the most dramatic change is in the Utility Fund. Water and wastewater rate increases will
be needed to keep pace with the 13% higher rate for treated water from the Dallas County Park Cities
Municipal Utility District (MUD) and reduced wastewater revenues.
City staff is working to select a consultant to perform a comprehensive water and wastewater rate study,
with input from the City Council and City advisory committees. The study is expected to be completed
by November so that rates can be considered by the City Council before December 31. Consequently, the
proposed FY2013 budget shows the likely effect of a rate increase in Utility Fund revenues but does not
yet recommend specific rate changes.
ADDITIONAL BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
• Sales tax revenues continue upward, from $3,121,443 in FY2010 to a projected $3,399,321in
FY2012. Some of the increase in FY2012 comes from lump-sum sales tax recoveries. The
FY2013 budget proposes sales tax revenue of $3,338,000.
• Single family home starts continue to increase—for the seven months ended July 31, new SF
home permits total 40, versus 34 during the same time last year. Building permit revenue
continues to benefit from large SMU and commercial projects. Permit revenues were boosted in
FY2011 by the George W. Bush Presidential Center ($1,670,697) and in FY2012 by the Plaza at
Preston Center office building and the SMU sophomore commons projects. Permit revenue for
the first ten months of FY2012 totaled $2,305,344, compared with a budget of $1,400,000 and
last year’s total of $2,846,125. While FY2013 is expected to include revenues from projects like
the renovation of SMU’s Moody Coliseum, the proposed revenue budget remains at $1,400,000.
• The General, Utility, and Sanitation Fund budgets are balanced, so that proposed expenditures are
matched by projected revenues. Again, however, this presumes increases in water and
wastewater rates, which are not yet specified in the proposed FY2013 budget.
• Direct Alarm monitoring continues to be a bright spot. Actual alarm monitoring revenue has
increased from $652,999 in FY2008 to a projected $823,000 in FY2012. The FY2013 budget
proposes Direct Alarm revenue of $866,989.
• Pay-as-you-go capital project funding of $5.2 million is maintained. Of this amount, $3,032,187
is budgeted in the General Fund (Department 01-85, Transfers) and $2,195,415 in the Utility
Fund (Department 02-85, Transfers). These amounts are moved to the Capital Projects Fund in
12 level installments during the fiscal year. A separate FY2013 capital budget will be reviewed
by the Capital Projects Review Committee on August 20 and forwarded to the City Council for
adoption in September.
As I have said in the past three budgets, I want to commend our department heads and employees for
preparing budgets that balance the current economic climate with continued delivery of quality services.
Over the last three years, the General Fund budget has increased just 1.71%, compared to a 6.48% rise in
the Consumer Price Index for Dallas-Fort Worth and a 9.3% increase in the Municipal Cost Index (MCI).
[The MCI is a statistic developed by American City & County magazine that is designed to show the
specific effects of inflation on the cost of providing city services. It differs from the Consumer Price
Index by including elements common to cities, like health care, fuel, and construction materials.]
Page 135 of 186
3
CITYWIDE EXPENDITURE ISSUES
Seven categories account for 85% of the total budget’s expenditures. Of these, four are level or
decreasing for FY2013:
PERSONNEL
Salaries and benefits comprise 53% ($23.3 million) of the $44 million total budget. Three full-time
Library positions are being added; with other changes, total full-time positions rise from 241 to 243.
Salary changes
A 3% market raise is included in the FY2013 budget, amounting to an increase of about $507,400
citywide. No raise was included in the FY2012 budget; the FY2011 budget included a 3% raise. Under
the City’s pay plan, about 15% of employees remain eligible for 3% merit-based pay raises.
The City continues to enjoy a very low employee turnover rate, which is an indicator that our salaries and
benefits are competitive with other area cities and private employers. Maintaining a competitive salary
and benefits plan is essential for retaining and recruiting quality employees.
Within the departmental budgets, the following changes are included:
• Relocation of Sanitation Department’s Neighborhood Integrity Officer to Community
Development Department.
• Addition of one new Sanitation worker position in Sanitation Department.
• Deletion of one position in Facilities Maintenance.
• Relocation of one Utility position from the Utility Billing Office to the Utilities Division.
• Conversion of full-time Purchasing Assistant in Finance to part-time position.
Benefit changes
Employee health insurance
No change is proposed for employee health insurance benefits or employee contributions. In calendar
2007-2011 and so far in 2012, the plan has operated at a surplus, and the Self-Insurance Fund’s balance
CategoryFY2012FY2013Change $Change %
Personnel costs$22,677,265$23,329,230$651,9652.87%
Treatment charges$6,737,339$7,242,506$505,1677.50%
Library$196,555$600,000$403,445205.26%
Capital projects$5,227,602$5,227,602 $00.00%
Electricity costs $627,253$626,000 ($1,253)‐0.20%
Equip. replacement$540,061$507,772 ($32,289)‐5.98%
Fuel costs $436,840$426,840 ($10,000)‐2.29%
Subtotal $36,442,915$37,959,950$1,517,0354.16%
Total budget $43,027,730$44,275,593$1,247,8632.90%
Percent of budget 84.70%85.74%
Major expenditure categories comparison
Page 136 of 186
4
has grown. Maintaining the contributions to the fund seems to be a prudent and appropriate course.
Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) costs
The proposed FY2013 budget includes a contribution rate of 8.26%, down from 10.5% in FY2012. Last
year the rate declined from 13.87% to 10.5%. The FY2013 rate includes a cost of living adjustment
(COLA) for retirees and service credit update for current employees; without these the required rate
would be 6.8%. For many years the City has followed a policy of intermittently granting cost of living
adjustments for retired employees. This policy has helped keep the City’s TMRS rate low while
providing relief to its retirees from constant cost increases resulting from inflation. The City last adjusted
retiree benefits in FY2008.
Firefighters’ Relief and Retirement Fund (FRRF) costs
University Park Fire Department personnel belong to a separate retirement system that is governed by a
local board made up of three firefighters, two local residents, and two City representatives. The FRRF is
structured as a defined benefit plan and is currently underfunded on an actuarial basis, although its status
has improved due to changes in the plan.
In 2008 the firefighters voted to increase their own contribution rate from 10% of gross pay to 15% over a
three year period, beginning in FY2010. This move was designed to restore the plan to actuarial
soundness and ultimately match the City’s contribution rate of 15.54%.
In FY2011 and FY2012 the firefighters paid in 14% of gross salary, up from 12%. Since the 2008 plan
amendments, the FRRF plan has been changed so that employee contribution increases will only occur in
years when there is an overall pay increase. Consequently the firefighter contribution rate is expected to
rise to 15% for 2013.
TREATMENT CHARGES
University Park relies on two outside providers for treatment of water (DCPCMUD) and wastewater (City
of Dallas Water Utilities). Treatment charges comprise about half the cost of University Park’s water and
wastewater operation. The amount budgeted and expended for outside treatment can vary dramatically
from year to year, depending on volume and rate, and sometimes in different directions. For FY2013, the
cost of purchased water is projected to rise 12.7%, while wastewater costs are dropping 1.8%.
Water treatment
The MUD’s plan to finance the construction of their new membrane filter plant relies on a multi-year
series of rate increases. Fortunately, the rates proposed and adopted to date have been lower than initial
forecasts. For example, the rate for FY2013 is $2.2935 per 1,000 gallons, while the previous projection
was $2.4878. Similarly, the FY2012 rate of $2.0281 was originally projected to be $2.1709.
Although the projected volume of water to be purchased is decreasing for FY2013, the 13% rate increase
results in a $549,209 increase in budgeted water purchases:
FY2010FY2011FY2012 FY2013 Change $Change %
Rate per 1,000
gallons $1.783 $2.014$2.028 $2.294 $0.2713.09%
Forecast gallons
(000) 2,138,238 2,162,3372,135,813 2,128,216 (7,597) ‐0.36%
Budgeted
purchases $3,812,051$4,355,379$4,331,642 $4,881,063 $549,42112.68%
Page 137 of 186
5
The chart on the next page depicts the impact of the MUD plant conversion on wholesale water rates.
As noted earlier, City staff is working currently to select a rate consultant.
Wastewater treatment
The other major treatment cost item is wastewater treatment, which is provided by the City of Dallas
Water Utilities. For FY2013, University Park will pay $2,361,443, down 1.84% from $2,405,697 in
FY2012. Compared with one year ago, consumption (monthly winter household water use) fell by 4.2%,
from 79,294,000 gallons to 75,960,000. This is multiplied against the proposed rate per 1,000 gallons (up
11.37%) and infiltration/inflow factor (down 7.99%).
LIBRARY
As mentioned, effective October 1, 2012 the University Park Library will become a full City operation.
Recruitment for a Library Director is currently underway, and a new Director should be appointed and in
place by early October. The current Director will remain until shortly after the first of the year, as a City
employee.
Retaining the outgoing Director is expected to aid in the move to the Library’s new space in Preston
Center. Construction on that location, which is on the second floor of a new office building, is on
schedule. Current plans are for the Library to relocate near the end of the year and open at Preston Center
in early January 2013.
The UP Public Library has been operated since 2001 by the not-for-profit University Park Friends of the
Library. The City supported the library financially; in recent years the Executive Department budget
included $196,555 for library support.
Now the library has been established as a new City department, and the FY2013 budget proposes a first-
year budget of $600,000. The Friends have agreed to fund $300,000 for the first year; ultimately the
Friends have agreed to provide $500,000 annually, if their capital campaign is successful. Consequently,
the net budget impact to the City for FY2013 is an expenditure increase of $103,445:
$1.207 $1.205 $1.316
$1.783
$2.014 $2.028
$2.294 $2.373 $2.347 $2.321
$0.000
$0.500
$1.000
$1.500
$2.000
$2.500
FY07FY08FY09FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14FY15FY16
MUD water rate per 1,000 gallons
Page 138 of 186
6
CAPITAL PROJECT CONTRIBUTIONS
The FY2013 budget continues the City’s successful practice of funding its capital projects on a pay-as-
you-go rather than debt. As with the prior three years, no increases are proposed for the Utility Fund
contribution of $2,195,415 or the General Fund contribution of $3,032,187. These amounts are included
in the Transfers Departments in the General and Utility Funds.
The budgeted transfers and other sources help fund the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP), so
that in a given year the amount of project expenditure may be sharply higher or lower than the annual
budgeted contribution. The Capital Projects Review Committee will meet with City staff to consider the
capital budget for FY2013 and projections for FY2014-2017. Once approved by the City Council by
resolution, any subsequent changes to the FY2013 capital budget and five-year CIP must first be reviewed
by the Committee before being considered by the City Council.
ELECTRICITY, EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT, AND FUEL
Projected expenditures for these three categories are level or down slightly, reflecting a leveling off in
prices. The City purchases electricity via its membership in TCAP, the Texas Coalition for Affordable
Power. For FY2013 the budget includes $626,000 for electricity, compared with $627,253 in FY2012.
Budgeted contributions for replacement of motorized equipment total $507,772, versus $540,061 last
year. This is an internal charge that appears as expenditure in the user departments and revenue in the
Equipment Services Fund.
Fuel costs are projected to remain nearly the same for FY2013. The City is budgeting for $3.25 per
gallon for gasoline and $3.45 for diesel, compared with $3.00 and $3.40 in FY2011. Citywide FY2013
fuel purchases are projected to total $426,840 for FY2013, versus the FY2012 budget of $436,840.
FY2011FY2012FY2013 $ Change
Revenues$0$0$300,000 $300,000
Expenditures$196,555$196,555$600,000 $403,445
Net budget impact:($196,555)($196,555)($300,000)($103,445)
Library impact on City budget
Page 139 of 186
7
DISCUSSION OF TAXES AND UTILITY RATES
GENERAL FUND
Revenue considerations
Non-property tax revenues comprise $11,484,621 of the City’s $27,286,305 General Fund revenue budget
and include everything from sales tax to franchise fees to swimming pool passes.
Sales tax
City sales tax revenues have improved consistently since FY2009 and are expected to exceed budget in
FY2012. The City’s sales tax consultants have continued to work at submitting requests for retroactive
recoveries of taxes distributed to other jurisdictions. The chart below displays recent sales tax history.
Building permits
Permit revenue in FY2012 has nearly matched FY2011’s extraordinary spike:
$3.46
$3.03 $3.03 $3.18 $3.34
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
$4.00
FY09FY10FY11FY12FY13
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
City Sales Tax Revenue FY2009‐FY2013
Budget Actual
$-
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
$3.00
$3.50
FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013
Mi
l
l
i
o
n
s
Building Permit Revenue FY2008‐FY2013
Budget Actual
Page 140 of 186
8
The building permit revenue budget for the last five years has remained at $1,400,000 and is proposed to
stay there for FY2013. This practice prevents future year budgets from being dependent on an uncertain
or unstable level of permit revenue.
Property tax impact
The 2012 overall tax base of $5,587,424,812 is up for the first time since 2009. Interestingly, the 0.35%,
or $19,336,288, rise is solely due to $69,332,692 in new construction. Existing property declined very
slightly. Of the total tax base, residential property comprises 87% of the parcels and 93% of the value.
The FY2013 budget proposes to maintain the property tax rate at its current level, 27.845 cents per $100
taxable value. This will result in a budgeted property tax revenue increase of $53,842. The table below
compares this year with the past three:
The owner of a home whose value decreased by the citywide average would pay $1 less in City property
taxes, from $2,435 to $2,434. The owner of an average home with a homestead exemption whose value
did not change in assessed value this year would pay $2,435, the same as last year.
The proposed $0.27845 rate is below the effective tax rate (ETR) of $0.279174, just barely. The ETR is
the tax rate that would raise the same dollar amount of revenue as last year, on properties that were on the
tax roll in both years. The value of new construction is excluded from the ETR calculation. From an
ETR standpoint, total tax revenues are actually decreasing 0.26%.
Because the City’s proposed rate is lower than the ETR, the City is not required legally to hold the
additional public hearings required by State Truth in Taxation law. Even so, a second hearing has been
scheduled to provide the fullest opportunity for public review and comment.
UTILITY FUND
As described earlier in this memo, while the FY2013 budget does not propose increases to City retail
water or wastewater rates, these rates changes will be required in the near future. The comprehensive rate
Property tax rate comparison, FY2009 – FY2012
AdoptedAdoptedAdopted Proposed
Tax purposeFY2010FY2011FY2012 FY2013
Op. & Maint.0.26548 0.27845 0.27845 0.27845
Debt Service0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
Total Tax Rate0.26548 0.27845 0.27845 0.27845
Property tax levy comparison, FY2009 – FY2012
Assessed Value
(Market)
$1,189,311 $1,120,199 $1,093,015 $1,092,539
Less 20% Hmstd
Exmp
($237,862)($224,040)($218,603)($218,508)
Taxable Value $951,449 $896,159 $874,412 $874,032
Tax Rate per $100$0.26548 $0.27845 $0.27845 $0.27845
City Tax Levy $2,526 $2,495 $2,435 $2,434
Proposed
FY2013
Adopted
FY2010
Adopted
FY2011
Adopted
FY2012
Page 141 of 186
9
study will provide a chance to factor in issues like conservation incentives and allocation of costs between
base and consumption elements of the rate.
Non-treatment related expenditures are proposed to increase to accommodate recent increased activity.
Actual expenditures for the Backfill Materials and Utility Main Maintenance accounts have averaged
$464,113 over the past three years; the proposed FY2013 budget for these accounts is $413,000, up from
$380,000 in FY2012.
SANITATION FUND
No change is proposed for City sanitation (solid waste and recycling collection) fees. Rates were last
increased in FY2009. The proposed FY2013 expenditure budget of $2,771,803 is down 3.37% from
$2,868,476 in FY2012. Reasons include lower personnel costs, reduced landfill budget, and lower
equipment replacement charges.
The Neighborhood Integrity Officer position is being moved from the Sanitation Department to the
Community Development Department. This reduction is offset by the addition of one new sanitation
worker position.
The revenue budget has been reduced 4.32% to reflect revenues more realistically. The FY2013 total is
$2,937,660, versus $3,070,451 last year. The Fund has a budgeted gain of $165,857, the result of
subtracting budgeted expenditures from revenues.
Consistent with past years, the Sanitation Budget contains a $100,000 placeholder (labeled “Disposal
Fees Contingency” in the line-item budget), which is intended to promote accumulation of reserves
toward future landfill needs.
CONCLUSION
The proposed budget is now ready for review by the Employee Benefits, Finance, and Insurance Advisory
Committees. Staff proposes the following schedule to satisfy the public hearing and notice requirements
for the FY2013 budget’s adoption:
Date Day Description
August 6/7 Tuesday Submit proposed budget to City Council and file with City
Secretary
August 21 Tuesday Receive staff briefing on budget and hold public hearing
August 28 Tuesday Hold second public hearing
September 4 Tuesday Adopt budget and related ordinances
October 1 Monday New budget takes effect
Staff looks forward to meeting with the City Council and advisory committees to discuss the budget in
more detail. We will be happy to provide any additional information that will be helpful during your
consideration.
Page 142 of 186
10
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2013 PROPOSED BUDGET BY FUND AND DEPARTMENT
8/7/2012
Fund / Org Unit / Department
FY2011 Actual FY2012 Adopted
Budget
FY2013 Proposed
Budget $ Change% Change
GENERAL FUND
Revenues
01‐11 REVENUES$29,720,043$26,758,000$27,286,305$528,3051.97%
Total Revenues $29,720,043$26,758,000$27,286,305$528,3051.97%
Expenditures
01‐02 EXECUTIVE $1,166,906$1,187,135$947,218 ($239,917)‐20.21%
01‐03 FINANCE $1,192,3861,059,604$1,023,093 ($36,511)‐3.45%
01‐04 HUMAN RESOURCES $351,049363,849$354,043 ($9,806)‐2.70%
01‐05 INFORMATION SERVICES $918,087996,662$980,320 ($16,342)‐1.64%
01‐06 LIBRARY $0 0$600,000 $600,000#DIV/0!
01‐10 COURT $310,298331,720$341,706 $9,9863.01%
01‐19 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT $1,023,2811,016,899$1,155,595 $138,69613.64%
01‐20 ENGINEERING $777,939744,212$750,505 $6,2930.85%
01‐25 TRAFFIC $810,201848,934$862,322 $13,3881.58%
01‐35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE $748,700755,293$581,232 ($174,061)‐23.05%
01‐40 FIRE $4,957,7414,860,342$5,040,718 $180,3763.71%
01‐50 POLICE $6,509,9826,666,922$6,795,268 $128,3461.93%
01‐70 PARKS $2,819,7702,834,510$2,745,922 ($88,588)‐3.13%
01‐75 SWIMMING POOL $272,103269,583$275,869 $6,2862.33%
01‐80 STREETS $1,737,5301,756,234$1,775,323 $19,0891.09%
01‐85 TRANSFERS $3,407,1963,032,187$3,032,187 $00.00%
Total Expenditures $27,003,169$26,724,086$27,261,321$537,2352.01%
General Fund Surplus/(Deficit)$2,716,874$33,914$24,984 ($8,930)‐26.33%
UTILITY FUND
Revenues
02‐11 REVENUES 14,386,443$ $13,445,004$14,250,997$805,9935.99%
Total Revenues $14,386,44313,445,004$ 14,250,997$ $805,9935.99%
Expenditures
02‐21 UTILITY OFFICE $7,942,476$7,882,997$8,428,704 $545,7076.92%
02‐22 UTILITIES 3,505,3983,266,3063,365,480 $99,1743.04%
02‐23 STORM WATER 72,965 90,450252,870 $162,420179.57%
02‐85 TRANSFERS 2,195,4152,195,4152,195,415 $00.00%
Total Expenditures $13,716,254$13,435,168$14,242,469$807,3016.01%
Utility Fund Surplus/(Deficit)$670,189 $9,836 $8,528 ($1,308)‐13.30%
SANITATION FUND
Revenues
04‐11 REVENUES $2,953,835$3,070,451$2,937,660 ($132,791)‐4.32%
Total Revenues $2,953,835$3,070,451$2,937,660 ($132,791)‐4.32%
Expenditures
04‐60 SANITATION $2,686,568$2,868,476$2,771,803 ($96,673)‐3.37%
Total Expenditures $2,686,568$2,868,476$2,771,803 ($96,673)‐3.37%
Sanitation Fund Surplus/(Deficit)$267,267$201,975$165,857 ($36,118)‐17.88%
TOTAL REVENUES $47,060,321$43,273,455$44,474,962$1,201,5072.78%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 43,405,99143,027,73044,275,593$1,247,8632.90%
TOTAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)$3,654,330$245,725$199,369 ($46,356)
Page 143 of 186
11
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2013 PROPOSED BUDGET
PROPERTY TAX IMPACT
8/7/2012
FY2012 FY2013
FY2011 ADOPTEDPROPOSEDDOLLARPERCENT
ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGETCHANGECHANGE
TOTAL CERTIFIED TAXABLE VALUE 5,707,112,954$ 5,568,088,524$ 5,587,424,812$ 19,336,288$ 0.34%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES NEEDED:27,003,169$ 26,758,000$ 27,286,305$ 528,305$ 1.96%
NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Sales tax 3,479,629$ 3,178,851$ 3,338,000$ 159,149$ 4.57%
Franchise fees 2,207,303 1,910,000 2,050,000 140,000$ 6.34%
Building permits 2,846,125 1,400,000 1,400,000 ‐$ 0.00%
Traffic/parking fines 458,721 531,000 556,000 25,000$ 5.45%
Service charges 790,735 1,042,730 865,055 (177,675)$ ‐22.47%
Direct alarm monitoring fees 799,884 819,000 866,989 47,989$ 6.00%
Interest income 202,120 265,000 265,000 ‐$ 0.00%
Utility Fund contribution 600,000 600,000 600,000 ‐$ 0.00%
Miscellaneous 2,370,927 1,263,077 1,543,077 280,000$ 11.81%
TOTAL NON PROPERTY TAX REV.13,755,444$ 11,009,658$ 11,484,121$ 474,463$ 3.45%
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) need 15,786,241$ 15,504,342$ 15,558,184$ 53,842$ 0.34%
Penalty/interest & attorney's fees 119,527 145,000 145,000 ‐$ 0.00%
Delinquent (prior years) taxes 58,835 99,000 99,000 ‐$ 0.00%
TOTAL PROP TAX OP REQUEST 15,964,603$ 15,748,342$ 15,802,184$ 53,842$ 0.34%
‐$
REVENUES LESS EXPENDITURES 2,716,878 ‐ ‐ ‐
‐$
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ #DIV/0!
‐$
PROPERTY TAX RATE ‐$
Operations & Maintenance (O&M)0.27661$ 0.27845$ 0.27845$ 0$ 0.00%
Debt Service ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$ #DIV/0!
Total Property Tax Rate per $100 0.27661$ 0.27845$ 0.27845$ 0.00000$ 0.00%
IMPACT ON HOMEOWNER
Average single‐family market value $1,120,199$1,093,015$1,092,539 ‐$476 ‐0.04%
Less: 20% homestead exemption $224,040$218,603$218,508 ‐$95 ‐0.04%
Average single‐family taxable value $896,159$874,412$874,032 ‐$381 ‐0.04%
Tax levy $2,479 $2,435$2,433.74 ‐$1 ‐0.04%
Increase in levy over prior year ‐$47 ‐$44 ‐$1
Page 144 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐02
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$4
5
0
,
3
3
4
$
4
5
7
,
6
6
7
$
4
7
7
,
2
1
0
$
1
9
,
5
4
3
4.27%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$2
,
2
2
7
$
2
,
8
4
8
$
3
,
1
3
4
$2
8
6
10
.
0
4
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.00%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$2
9
,
1
2
5
$
3
0
,
5
3
6
$
3
1
,
8
7
1
$
1
,
3
3
5
4.37%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$6
3
,
0
7
0
$
4
8
,
1
9
8
$
3
9
,
5
3
5
(
$
8
,
6
6
3
)
‐17
.
9
7
%
11
2
7
RE
T
I
R
E
M
E
N
T
SU
P
P
L
E
M
E
N
T
A
L
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.00%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$2
,
9
9
2
$
2
,
9
7
9
$
3
,
1
2
7
$1
4
8
4.97%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$6
1
6
$6
0
8
$5
3
6
($
7
2
)
‐11
.
8
4
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$5
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.00%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$6
4
9
,
5
6
4
$6
3
5
,
0
3
6
$6
4
7
,
6
1
3
$
1
2
,
5
7
7
1.98%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
,
9
9
9
$
3
,
3
2
1
$
3
,
3
2
1
$0
0.00%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.00%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
,
9
9
9
$
4
,
3
2
1
$
4
,
3
2
1
$0
0.00%
30
0
3
BO
A
R
D
ME
E
T
I
N
G
S
$9
,
6
3
6
$
1
3
,
5
6
0
$
1
0
,
5
6
0
(
$
3
,
0
0
0
)
‐22
.
1
2
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$2
,
1
1
8
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
0
0
$1
0
0
5.00%
30
1
4
PU
B
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
3
6
,
4
6
9
$
3
8
6
,
0
5
0
$
1
3
9
,
2
9
5
(
$
2
4
6
,
7
5
5
)
‐63
.
9
2
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$3
1
,
8
0
9
$
3
1
,
6
7
4
$
3
3
,
4
8
8
$
1
,
8
1
4
5.73%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$2
0
,
2
9
2
$
2
0
,
8
2
6
$
2
0
,
8
2
6
$0
0.00%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$4
0
0
,
3
2
4
$
4
5
4
,
1
1
0
$
2
0
6
,
2
6
9
(
$
2
4
7
,
8
4
1
)
‐54
.
5
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$1
1
,
2
9
1
$
1
2
,
3
2
0
$
1
0
,
6
0
0
(
$
1
,
7
2
0
)
‐13
.
9
6
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$5
,
6
9
4
$
5
,
7
9
4
$
6
,
4
5
6
$6
6
2
11
.
4
3
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
6
,
9
8
5
$
1
8
,
1
1
4
$
1
7
,
0
5
6
(
$
1
,
0
5
8
)
‐5.84%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$9
1
5
$3
2
9
$3
2
9
$0
0.00%
55
1
4
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐PU
B
L
.
O
F
F
L
LI
A
B
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
8
,
0
0
0
$0
0.00%
55
1
6
BO
N
D
S
‐OF
F
I
C
A
L
S
& EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
$2
0
0
$2
0
0
$2
0
0
$0
0.00%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$4
6
,
1
1
5
$
2
8
,
5
2
9
$
2
8
,
5
2
9
$0
0.00%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$0
$6
0
0
$6
0
0
$0
0.00%
01
-
0
2
E
X
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
1 OF 42 Page 145 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐02
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$0
$6
0
0
$6
0
0
$0
0.00%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$1
4
,
7
0
4
$
1
4
,
1
7
0
$
1
4
,
2
7
5
$1
0
5
0.74%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$3
,
9
5
4
$
9
,
2
6
0
$
7
,
2
6
0
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐21
.
6
0
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$5
,
7
8
5
$5
0
0
$
1
,
8
0
0
$
1
,
3
0
0
26
0
.
0
0
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$1
4
8
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
,
8
5
9
$
4
,
6
5
0
$
4
,
6
5
0
$0
0.00%
72
3
5
YO
U
T
H
AD
V
I
S
O
R
Y
CO
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
$1
,
1
9
4
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$0
0.00%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$1
,
8
2
2
$
4
,
8
4
5
$
2
,
8
4
5
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐41
.
2
8
%
74
3
2
EL
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
$2
0
,
4
5
3
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.00%
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐‐
UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
OT
H
E
R
$5
0
,
9
1
9
$
4
5
,
9
2
5
$
4
2
,
3
3
0
(
$
3
,
5
9
5
)
‐7.83%
91
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.00%
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
99
1
0
OF
F
I
C
E
FU
R
N
I
T
U
R
E
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.00%
TO
T
A
L
EX
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
$1
,
1
6
6
,
9
0
6
$
1
,
1
8
7
,
1
3
5
$
9
4
7
,
2
1
8
(
$
2
3
9
,
9
1
7
)
‐20
.
2
1
%
01
-
0
2
E
X
E
C
U
T
I
V
E
2 OF 42 Page 146 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐03
FI
N
A
N
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$5
6
8
,
7
6
4
$
5
6
9
,
6
7
2
$
5
7
2
,
0
8
1
$
2
,
4
0
9
0.
4
2
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
6
8
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$5
,
2
5
4
$
5
,
5
8
1
$
5
,
3
0
1
(
$
2
8
0
)
‐5.
0
2
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$4
0
,
4
3
2
$
4
1
,
6
5
9
$
4
1
,
6
9
7
$3
8
0.
0
9
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$8
0
,
7
2
1
$
6
1
,
1
5
6
$
4
8
,
2
8
7
(
$
1
2
,
8
6
9
)
‐21
.
0
4
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$3
,
8
6
7
$
3
,
8
4
5
$
3
,
6
3
1
(
$
2
1
4
)
‐5.
5
7
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$7
2
5
$7
5
7
$6
4
3
(
$
1
1
4
)
‐15
.
0
6
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$5
4
,
0
0
0
$4
9
,
5
0
0
(
$
4
,
5
0
0
)
‐8.
3
3
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$7
7
0
,
2
3
1
$
7
4
3
,
8
7
0
$
7
2
8
,
3
4
0
(
$
1
5
,
5
3
0
)
‐2.
0
9
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$4
,
6
2
6
$
5
,
5
5
0
$
5
,
5
6
0
$1
0
0.
1
8
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$4
,
6
2
6
$
5
,
5
5
0
$
5
,
5
6
0
$1
0
0.
1
8
%
30
0
7
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
AT
T
O
R
N
E
Y
$2
1
,
0
5
0
$
2
9
,
0
0
0
$
2
9
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$2
,
0
3
7
$
2
,
1
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
(
$
1
0
0
)
‐4.
7
6
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
9
5
,
5
8
9
$
8
6
,
5
8
0
$
7
1
,
9
0
0
(
$
1
4
,
6
8
0
)
‐16
.
9
6
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$4
7
,
2
2
0
$
3
8
,
3
9
6
$
3
9
,
1
6
1
$7
6
5
1.
9
9
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$5
,
5
3
9
$
6
,
3
5
0
$
6
,
3
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
4
1
DA
L
L
A
S
CO
TA
X
CO
L
L
SE
R
V
$1
1
,
2
5
8
$
1
1
,
4
2
0
$
1
1
,
4
2
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
4
5
CE
N
T
R
A
L
AP
P
R
A
I
S
A
L
DI
S
T
R
I
C
$7
5
,
7
1
6
$
7
7
,
7
4
5
$
7
5
,
9
5
7
(
$
1
,
7
8
8
)
‐2.
3
0
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
5
8
,
4
0
9
$
2
5
1
,
5
9
1
$
2
3
5
,
7
8
8
(
$
1
5
,
8
0
3
)
‐6.
2
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$8
,
3
5
1
$
9
,
1
4
4
$
7
,
5
0
0
(
$
1
,
6
4
4
)
‐17
.
9
8
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$5
,
3
4
0
$
5
,
2
8
8
$
5
,
5
0
1
$2
1
3
4.
0
3
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
3
,
6
9
1
$
1
4
,
4
3
2
$
1
3
,
0
0
1
(
$
1
,
4
3
1
)
‐9.
9
2
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
,
2
6
5
$4
5
6
$4
5
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
,
2
6
5
$4
5
6
$4
5
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$1
,
2
5
0
$
1
,
0
1
0
$
1
,
0
1
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
,
2
5
0
$
1
,
0
1
0
$
1
,
0
1
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$1
4
,
4
6
3
$
8
,
5
3
5
$
1
5
,
1
0
0
$
6
,
5
6
5
76
.
9
2
%
01
-
0
3
F
I
N
A
N
C
E
3 OF 42 Page 147 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐03
FI
N
A
N
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$8
,
4
0
1
$
1
1
,
2
5
5
$
1
0
,
0
9
5
(
$
1
,
1
6
0
)
‐10
.
3
1
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$7
,
2
9
2
$
8
,
0
9
7
$
1
,
0
0
0
($7
,
0
9
7
)
‐87
.
6
5
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$
4
,
1
7
8
$
2
,
7
9
8
(
$
1
,
3
8
0
)
‐33
.
0
3
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$5
,
0
4
7
$
5
,
9
1
5
$
5
,
9
1
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$7
,
7
1
3
$
4
,
7
1
5
$
4
,
0
3
0
(
$
6
8
5
)
‐14
.
5
3
%
OT
H
E
R
$4
2
,
9
1
6
$
4
2
,
6
9
5
$
3
8
,
9
3
8
(
$
3
,
7
5
7
)
‐8.
8
0
%
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
TO
T
A
L
FI
N
A
N
C
E
$1
,
1
9
2
,
3
8
8
$
1
,
0
5
9
,
6
0
4
$
1
,
0
2
3
,
0
9
3
(
$
3
6
,
5
1
1
)
‐3.
4
5
%
01
-
0
3
F
I
N
A
N
C
E
4 OF 42 Page 148 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐04
HU
M
A
N
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
8
2
,
0
2
5
$
1
8
3
,
3
8
8
$
1
9
1
,
2
0
9
$
7
,
8
2
1
4.
2
6
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$1
,
7
8
2
$
1
,
8
7
4
$
1
,
9
5
3
$7
9
4.
2
2
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$1
2
,
6
0
0
$
1
2
,
8
2
4
$
1
3
,
3
5
9
$5
3
5
4.
1
7
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$2
6
,
4
6
9
$
2
0
,
2
0
8
$
1
6
,
5
5
0
(
$
3
,
6
5
8
)
‐18
.
1
0
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$1
,
2
2
9
$
1
,
2
1
5
$
1
,
2
7
6
$6
1
5.
0
2
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$2
3
3
$2
5
1
$2
2
0
($
3
1
)
‐12
.
3
5
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$2
4
9
,
5
3
8
$
2
4
4
,
9
6
0
$
2
4
9
,
7
6
7
$
4
,
8
0
7
1.
9
6
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$9
0
5
$1
,
4
5
0
$1
,
4
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$7
1
$7
5
0
$
1
,
3
0
0
$5
5
0
73
.
3
3
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$9
7
6
$
2
,
2
0
0
$
2
,
7
5
0
$5
5
0
25
.
0
0
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$2
0
4
$3
4
8
$2
7
5
($
7
3
)
‐20
.
9
8
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
9
,
2
7
7
$
3
0
,
4
6
0
$
2
3
,
1
9
0
(
$
7
,
2
7
0
)
‐23
.
8
7
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
0
,
1
1
2
$
9
,
1
7
4
$
9
,
4
6
9
$2
9
5
3.
2
2
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$1
3
7
$1
0
0
$1
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
9
,
7
3
0
$
4
0
,
0
8
2
$
3
3
,
0
3
4
(
$
7
,
0
4
8
)
‐17
.
5
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$4
,
8
3
9
$
5
,
2
8
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
(
$
2
8
0
)
‐5.
3
0
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$2
,
9
3
3
$
3
,
0
8
2
$
3
,
4
2
5
$3
4
3
11
.
1
3
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$7
,
7
7
2
$
8
,
3
6
2
$
8
,
4
2
5
$6
3
0.
7
5
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$4
6
7
$1
6
8
$1
6
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$4
6
7
$1
6
8
$1
6
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$0
$1
5
0
$1
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$0
$1
5
0
$1
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
RE
C
O
G
N
I
T
I
O
N
$1
1
,
8
6
7
$
1
3
,
1
5
0
$
1
5
,
6
2
0
$
2
,
4
7
0
18
.
7
8
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$1
,
9
3
5
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
6
4
$1
6
4
8.
2
0
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
,
4
2
2
$
1
,
9
6
0
$
1
,
8
5
0
(
$
1
1
0
)
‐5.
6
1
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$1
,
4
4
4
$8
6
2
$5
0
0
(
$
3
6
2
)
‐42
.
0
0
%
01
-
0
4
H
U
M
A
N
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
5 OF 42 Page 149 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐04
HU
M
A
N
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$6
,
7
5
4
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
0
5
0
(
$
4
5
0
)
‐6.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$1
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
4
5
5
$
2
,
5
6
5
$1
1
0
4.
4
8
%
72
4
5
TU
I
T
I
O
N
RE
I
M
B
U
R
S
E
M
E
N
T
$3
7
,
6
4
5
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
0
,
0
0
0
(
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
)
‐25
.
0
0
%
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
OT
H
E
R
$6
2
,
5
6
7
$
6
7
,
9
2
7
$
5
9
,
7
4
9
(
$
8
,
1
7
8
)
‐12
.
0
4
%
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
TO
T
A
L
HU
M
A
N
RE
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
$3
5
1
,
0
5
0
$
3
6
3
,
8
4
9
$
3
5
4
,
0
4
3
(
$
9
,
8
0
6
)
‐2.
7
0
%
01
-
0
4
H
U
M
A
N
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
6 OF 42 Page 150 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐05
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$4
4
6
,
6
0
5
$
4
5
1
,
3
8
1
$
4
6
6
,
5
3
0
$
1
5
,
1
4
9
3.
3
6
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$1
,
8
7
1
$
2
,
1
0
9
$
2
,
3
4
5
$2
3
6
11
.
1
9
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
10
0
9
CE
L
L
PH
O
N
E
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
8
5
$
1
,
2
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$3
2
,
2
5
5
$
3
4
,
2
0
9
$
3
5
,
3
4
1
$
1
,
1
3
2
3.
3
1
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$6
3
,
4
1
8
$
4
8
,
4
9
9
$
3
9
,
4
2
3
(
$
9
,
0
7
6
)
‐18
.
7
1
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$2
,
9
0
6
$
2
,
4
3
8
$
3
,
1
1
5
$6
7
7
27
.
7
7
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$5
3
2
$6
0
1
$5
2
5
($
7
6
)
‐12
.
6
5
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$6
0
0
,
5
7
2
$5
9
2
,
6
3
7
$6
0
0
,
6
7
9
$8
,
0
4
2
1.
3
6
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$6
4
8
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
,
9
2
6
$
1
2
,
8
4
2
$
1
2
,
0
2
9
(
$
8
1
3
)
‐6.
3
3
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
,
5
7
4
$
1
4
,
3
4
2
$
1
3
,
5
2
9
($
8
1
3
)
‐5.
6
7
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$1
1
7
$1
3
9
$1
2
0
($
1
9
)
‐13
.
6
7
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
4
,
9
4
6
$
4
1
,
9
1
0
$
3
6
,
4
0
0
(
$
5
,
5
1
0
)
‐13
.
1
5
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
0
9
,
3
8
4
$
1
1
7
,
8
7
3
$
1
1
2
,
2
8
5
(
$
5
,
5
8
8
)
‐4.
7
4
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
4
4
,
4
4
7
$
1
5
9
,
9
2
2
$
1
4
8
,
8
0
5
($
1
1
,
1
1
7
)
‐6.
9
5
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$7
,
7
2
3
$
8
,
5
1
4
$
7
,
3
0
0
(
$
1
,
2
1
4
)
‐14
.
2
6
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$8
1
,
8
9
2
$
1
0
3
,
0
2
4
$
1
0
0
,
5
5
8
(
$
2
,
4
6
6
)
‐2.
3
9
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$8
9
,
6
1
5
$
1
1
1
,
5
3
8
$
1
0
7
,
8
5
8
($
3
,
6
8
0
)
‐3.
3
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$5
5
2
$1
9
9
$1
9
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$5
5
2
$1
9
9
$1
9
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$3
3
,
0
3
8
$
4
3
,
3
1
5
$
3
4
,
9
9
3
(
$
8
,
3
2
2
)
‐19
.
2
1
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
3
,
0
3
8
$
4
3
,
3
1
5
$
3
4
,
9
9
3
($
8
,
3
2
2
)
‐19
.
2
1
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$3
4
7
$3
3
5
$6
3
5
$3
0
0
89
.
5
5
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$3
,
1
9
4
$
1
4
,
8
3
0
$
1
5
,
4
4
5
$6
1
5
4.
1
5
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$8
,
2
7
8
$
2
3
,
2
9
4
$
2
7
,
4
7
0
$
4
,
1
7
6
17
.
9
3
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$1
,
0
2
8
$
1
,
6
2
0
$
1
,
6
2
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
0
5
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
7 OF 42 Page 151 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐05
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
1
1
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
,
8
3
5
$
1
5
,
6
3
0
$
1
9
,
0
8
7
$
3
,
4
5
7
22
.
1
2
%
OT
H
E
R
$1
5
,
8
9
3
$
5
5
,
7
0
9
$
6
4
,
2
5
7
$8
,
5
4
8
15
.
3
4
%
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$3
1
,
3
9
5
$
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
(
$
9
,
0
0
0
)
‐47
.
3
7
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$3
1
,
3
9
5
$
1
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
($
9
,
0
0
0
)
‐47
.
3
7
%
TO
T
A
L
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$9
1
8
,
0
8
6
$
9
9
6
,
6
6
2
$
9
8
0
,
3
2
0
($
1
6
,
3
4
2
)
‐1.
6
4
%
01
-
0
5
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
R
V
I
C
E
S
8 OF 42 Page 152 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐06
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$0
$0
$
2
7
8
,
1
8
3
$
2
7
8
,
1
8
3
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$0
$0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$0
$0
$
2
1
,
8
3
3
$
2
1
,
8
3
3
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$0
$0
$
1
6
,
8
1
7
$
1
6
,
8
1
7
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$0
$0
$
1
,
3
1
2
$
1
,
3
1
2
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
E
R
S
CO
M
P
$0
$0
$3
1
2
$3
1
2
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$0
$0
$
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
,
0
0
0
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$0
$0
$
3
5
2
,
6
5
7
$
3
5
2
,
6
5
7
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$0
$
4
,
5
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$0
$0
$
2
2
2
,
8
4
3
$
2
2
2
,
8
4
3
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$0
$
2
2
7
,
3
4
3
$
2
2
7
,
3
4
3
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$0
$0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$0
$0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
TO
T
A
L
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
$0
$0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
#
D
I
V
/
0
!
01
-
0
6
L
I
B
R
A
R
Y
9 OF 42 Page 153 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐10
CO
U
R
T
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
8
9
,
8
8
3
$
1
9
1
,
0
0
6
$
1
9
8
,
6
5
3
$
7
,
6
4
7
4.
0
0
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$4
,
3
3
0
$
4
,
5
3
8
$
8
,
6
6
5
$
4
,
1
2
7
90
.
9
4
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$5
4
2
$6
3
4
$
3
,
0
5
4
$
2
,
4
2
0
38
1
.
7
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$1
3
,
4
8
4
$
1
5
,
0
0
8
$
1
6
,
0
9
3
$
1
,
0
8
5
7.
2
3
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$1
5
,
7
7
8
$
1
2
,
4
5
5
$
1
0
,
2
6
3
(
$
2
,
1
9
2
)
‐17
.
6
0
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$7
3
4
$7
5
2
$7
9
3
$4
1
5.
4
5
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$2
3
2
$2
5
5
$2
2
6
($
2
9
)
‐11
.
3
7
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$3
6
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$2
6
0
,
9
8
3
$
2
6
0
,
6
4
8
$
2
7
3
,
7
4
7
$
1
3
,
0
9
9
5.
0
3
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$6
1
2
$
1
,
3
0
0
$
1
,
3
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$1
,
4
0
0
$0
($
1
,
4
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$3
6
2
$4
0
0
$4
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$9
7
4
$
3
,
1
0
0
$
1
,
7
0
0
(
$
1
,
4
0
0
)
‐45
.
1
6
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$3
,
1
8
8
$
2
,
1
1
8
$
4
,
4
0
0
$
2
,
2
8
2
10
7
.
7
4
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
2
,
0
5
3
$
2
5
,
7
9
0
$
2
5
,
7
9
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$2
,
3
7
3
$
1
8
,
5
4
3
$
1
8
,
5
4
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$3
,
0
8
7
$
2
,
5
7
0
$
3
,
1
7
0
$6
0
0
23
.
3
5
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
0
,
7
0
1
$
4
9
,
0
2
1
$
5
1
,
9
0
3
$
2
,
8
8
2
5.
8
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$3
,
2
2
6
$
3
,
5
2
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
(
$
5
2
0
)
‐14
.
7
7
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$4
,
0
9
8
$
4
,
6
5
6
$
4
,
4
0
1
(
$
2
5
5
)
‐5.
4
8
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$7
,
3
2
4
$
8
,
1
7
6
$
7
,
4
0
1
(
$
7
7
5
)
‐9.
4
8
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$5
1
4
$1
8
5
$1
8
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$5
1
4
$1
8
5
$1
8
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$2
9
7
$5
0
0
$8
5
0
$3
5
0
70
.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
9
7
$5
0
0
$8
5
0
$3
5
0
70
.
0
0
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$1
4
0
$1
4
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$3
,
5
5
8
$
6
,
7
5
0
$
3
,
5
0
0
(
$
3
,
2
5
0
)
‐48
.
1
5
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$4
,
2
8
2
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
1
0
C
O
U
R
T
10 OF 42 Page 154 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐10
CO
U
R
T
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
0
4
$2
0
0
$2
8
0
$8
0
40
.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$1
,
5
6
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
)
‐40
.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$9
,
5
0
4
$
1
0
,
0
9
0
$
5
,
9
2
0
(
$
4
,
1
7
0
)
‐41
.
3
3
%
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
TO
T
A
L
CO
U
R
T
$3
1
0
,
2
9
7
$
3
3
1
,
7
2
0
$
3
4
1
,
7
0
6
$
9
,
9
8
6
3.
0
1
%
01
-
1
0
C
O
U
R
T
11 OF 42 Page 155 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐11
GE
N
E
R
A
L
FU
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
30
0
0
TA
X
E
S
‐CU
R
R
E
N
T
YE
A
R
$1
5
,
7
8
6
,
2
4
1
$1
5
,
5
0
4
,
3
4
2
$1
5
,
5
5
8
,
1
8
4
$5
3
,
8
4
2
0.
3
5
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
CU
R
R
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
$1
5
,
7
8
6
,
2
4
1
$1
5
,
5
0
4
,
3
4
2
$1
5
,
5
5
8
,
1
8
4
$5
3
,
8
4
2
0.
3
5
%
30
4
7
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐19
9
7
$9
8
3
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
30
4
8
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐19
9
8
$1
,
2
3
4
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
30
4
9
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐19
9
9
$9
7
6
$5
0
0
$0
($
5
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
30
5
0
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
5
1
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
1
$1
,
0
2
1
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
5
2
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
2
$1
,
1
0
8
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
5
3
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
3
$1
,
1
6
0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
5
4
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
4
$1
,
0
5
5
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
5
5
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
5
$1
,
8
3
4
$1
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
($
5
0
0
)
‐50
.
0
0
%
30
5
6
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
6
$4
,
2
9
1
$2
,
5
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
($
1
,
5
0
0
)
‐60
.
0
0
%
30
5
7
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
7
$7
,
1
5
3
$2
,
5
0
0
$2
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
5
8
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
8
$1
2
,
3
7
2
$5
,
0
0
0
$2
,
5
0
0
($
2
,
5
0
0
)
‐50
.
0
0
%
30
5
9
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
0
9
$2
4
,
1
3
1
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
($
5
,
0
0
0
)
‐50
.
0
0
%
30
4
5
.
2
0
1
0
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
1
0
$0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
($
6
5
,
0
0
0
)
‐86
.
6
7
%
30
4
5
.
2
0
1
1
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐20
1
1
$0
$0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
$7
5
,
0
0
0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
30
9
3
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐19
9
3
$4
0
2
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
30
9
4
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐19
9
4
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
30
9
5
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐19
9
5
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
30
9
6
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
‐19
9
6
$1
1
5
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
DE
L
I
N
Q
U
E
N
T
TA
X
E
S
$5
8
,
8
3
5
$9
9
,
0
0
0
$9
9
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
9
8
PE
N
A
L
T
Y
/
I
N
T
E
R
E
S
T
ON
TA
X
E
S
$9
7
,
6
5
5
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
9
9
AT
T
O
R
N
E
Y
FE
E
S
‐TA
X
E
S
$2
1
,
8
7
2
$3
5
,
0
0
0
$3
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
PE
N
A
L
T
Y
AN
D
IN
T
E
R
E
S
T
$1
1
9
,
5
2
7
$1
4
5
,
0
0
0
$1
4
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
0
9
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
FU
N
D
CO
N
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
UF
CO
N
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
5
0
CI
T
Y
SA
L
E
S
TA
X
$3
,
4
7
9
,
6
2
9
$3
,
1
7
8
,
8
5
1
$3
,
3
3
8
,
0
0
0
$1
5
9
,
1
4
9
5.
0
1
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
SA
L
E
S
TA
X
$3
,
4
7
9
,
6
2
9
$3
,
1
7
8
,
8
5
1
$3
,
3
3
8
,
0
0
0
$1
5
9
,
1
4
9
5.
0
1
%
01
-
1
1
G
F
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
12 OF 42 Page 156 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐11
GE
N
E
R
A
L
FU
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
33
0
0
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
PE
R
M
I
T
S
$2
,
8
4
6
,
1
2
5
$1
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
PE
R
M
I
T
S
$2
,
8
4
6
,
1
2
5
$1
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
9
9
DI
R
E
C
T
AL
A
R
M
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$7
9
9
,
8
8
4
$8
1
9
,
0
0
0
$8
6
6
,
9
8
9
$4
7
,
9
8
9
5.
8
6
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
DI
R
E
C
T
AL
A
R
M
$7
9
9
,
8
8
4
$8
1
9
,
0
0
0
$8
6
6
,
9
8
9
$4
7
,
9
8
9
5.
8
6
%
32
0
0
T U EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
$1
,
1
6
3
,
3
8
3
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
32
0
2
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
FR
A
N
C
H
I
S
E
$2
1
1
,
0
3
1
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
32
0
3
LO
N
E
ST
A
R
GA
S
$4
6
9
,
9
1
6
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
32
0
4
CA
B
L
E
FR
A
N
C
H
I
S
E
$3
6
2
,
9
7
3
$2
1
0
,
0
0
0
$3
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
66
.
6
7
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
FR
A
N
C
H
I
S
E
FE
E
S
$2
,
2
0
7
,
3
0
3
$1
,
9
1
0
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
0
,
0
0
0
7.
3
3
%
34
0
0
TR
A
F
F
I
C
FI
N
E
S
$3
0
4
,
3
5
9
$3
4
6
,
0
0
0
$3
4
6
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
0
3
CR
O
S
S
'
G
GU
A
R
D
(
C
H
I
L
D
SF
T
Y
)
$1
6
,
2
2
7
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
0
4
PA
R
K
I
N
G
TI
C
K
E
T
S
$1
3
8
,
1
3
5
$1
7
0
,
0
0
0
$1
9
5
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
14
.
7
1
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
FI
N
E
S
$4
5
8
,
7
2
1
$5
3
1
,
0
0
0
$5
5
6
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
4.
7
1
%
33
0
2
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
S
LI
C
N
S
E
/
P
E
R
M
I
T
$2
4
,
7
3
5
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
33
0
3
AN
I
M
A
L
CO
N
T
R
O
L
TA
G
S
/
F
E
E
S
$1
6
,
1
7
3
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$1
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
33
0
4
HE
A
L
T
H
/
F
O
O
D
PE
R
M
I
T
$3
4
,
2
1
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
33
0
5
FI
L
M
I
N
G
PE
R
M
I
T
S
$2
,
2
8
2
$2
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
33
0
6
FI
R
E
PE
R
M
I
T
S
/
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
$2
8
,
3
8
9
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
33
0
8
PO
L
I
C
E
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$8
7
,
0
9
8
$9
7
,
9
1
1
$4
4
,
9
1
1
($
5
3
,
0
0
0
)
‐54
.
1
3
%
34
0
1
WR
E
C
K
E
R
FE
E
S
$1
,
6
0
8
$2
,
1
6
0
$2
,
1
6
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
0
5
AL
A
R
M
BI
L
L
I
N
G
$7
7
,
6
8
0
$1
3
5
,
9
8
4
$1
3
5
,
9
8
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
0
6
FA
L
S
E
AL
A
R
M
FE
E
S
$8
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
0
8
AM
B
U
L
A
N
C
E
FE
E
S
$2
9
6
,
3
0
2
$4
4
4
,
6
7
5
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
($
1
4
4
,
6
7
5
)
‐32
.
5
3
%
34
0
9
91
1
SE
R
V
I
C
E
FE
E
S
$8
8
,
3
2
2
$1
0
9
,
0
0
0
$1
0
9
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
1
0
91
1
SE
R
V
I
C
E
FE
E
S
‐WI
R
E
L
E
S
S
$1
1
6
,
6
2
8
$1
1
1
,
0
0
0
$1
1
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
34
1
1
CA
P
I
A
S
WA
R
R
A
N
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$1
,
6
0
8
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
34
1
2
RE
D
LI
G
H
T
CA
M
E
R
A
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$0
$0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
,
0
0
0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
35
3
5
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
CA
P
OF
F
$1
4
,
9
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
CH
A
R
G
E
S
$7
9
0
,
7
3
5
$1
,
0
4
2
,
7
3
0
$8
6
5
,
0
5
5
($
1
7
7
,
6
7
5
)
‐17
.
0
4
%
01
-
1
1
G
F
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
13 OF 42 Page 157 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐11
GE
N
E
R
A
L
FU
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
39
0
0
IN
T
E
R
E
S
T
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
0
2
,
1
2
0
$2
6
5
,
0
0
0
$2
6
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
IN
T
E
R
E
S
T
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
0
2
,
1
2
0
$2
6
5
,
0
0
0
$2
6
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
5
5
MI
X
E
D
BE
V
E
R
A
G
E
TA
X
$1
0
5
,
1
7
5
$1
0
8
,
0
0
0
$8
8
,
0
0
0
($
2
0
,
0
0
0
)
‐18
.
5
2
%
35
1
0
TE
N
N
I
S
PE
R
M
I
T
S
$5
0
,
0
4
8
$2
4
,
0
0
0
$2
4
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
35
1
1
SW
I
M
PO
O
L
PE
R
M
I
T
‐RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
$1
7
7
,
6
8
5
$1
6
5
,
0
0
0
$1
6
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
35
1
2
SW
I
M
PO
O
L
PE
R
M
I
T
‐NO
N
R
E
S
$9
,
7
8
0
$7
,
0
0
0
$7
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
35
1
3
SW
I
M
PO
O
L
PR
M
T
S
GA
T
E
RC
P
T
$1
1
7
,
3
9
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
35
1
4
SW
I
M
M
I
N
G
PO
O
L
CO
N
C
E
S
S
I
O
N
S
$8
,
0
0
0
$6
,
0
0
0
$6
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
35
1
5
SW
I
M
LE
S
S
O
N
S
$1
,
5
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
$2
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
37
3
0
PU
B
L
I
C
SA
F
E
T
Y
GR
A
N
T
S
/
R
E
V
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
37
4
0
PO
L
I
C
E
GR
A
N
T
S
/
D
O
N
A
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
37
4
5
FI
R
E
GR
A
N
T
S
/
D
O
N
A
T
I
O
N
S
$1
2
,
8
9
4
$5
,
0
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
38
5
0
AU
C
T
I
O
N
/
S
A
L
E
OF
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$2
4
,
7
5
1
$2
1
,
0
0
0
$2
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
39
0
1
RE
N
T
$4
5
,
8
7
5
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
39
1
1
CO
P
I
E
S
$1
,
3
9
2
$4
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
39
2
0
PA
Y
M
E
N
T
IN
LI
E
U
OF
TA
X
E
S
$3
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
39
9
9
OT
H
E
R
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$1
,
4
4
1
,
4
3
7
$7
7
1
,
0
7
7
$7
7
1
,
0
7
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
OT
H
E
R
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$2
,
3
7
0
,
9
2
7
$1
,
2
6
3
,
0
7
7
$1
,
5
4
3
,
0
7
7
$2
8
0
,
0
0
0
22
.
1
7
%
TO
T
A
L
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
‐
GE
N
E
R
A
L
FU
N
D
$2
9
,
7
2
0
,
0
4
7
$2
6
,
7
5
8
,
0
0
0
$2
7
,
2
8
6
,
3
0
5
$5
2
8
,
3
0
5
1.
9
7
%
01
-
1
1
G
F
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
14 OF 42 Page 158 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐19
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$7
0
2
,
8
8
2
$
7
1
0
,
6
2
9
$
7
9
9
,
0
7
4
$
8
8
,
4
4
5
12
.
4
5
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
($
8
6
)
$5
2
7
$0
(
$
5
2
7
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$4
,
4
9
9
$
4
,
8
5
9
$
4
,
8
3
9
($
2
0
)
‐0.
4
1
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
10
0
9
CE
L
L
PH
O
N
E
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$3
6
0
$3
6
0
$9
6
0
$6
0
0
16
6
.
6
7
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$5
3
,
2
8
4
$
5
4
,
4
2
3
$
6
1
,
0
0
6
$
6
,
5
8
3
12
.
1
0
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$9
8
,
4
9
5
$
7
5
,
9
7
6
$
6
5
,
0
7
6
(
$
1
0
,
9
0
0
)
‐14
.
3
5
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$4
,
4
9
0
$
4
,
7
0
9
$
4
,
9
2
8
$2
1
9
4.
6
5
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$1
,
4
1
6
$
1
,
4
4
9
$
1
,
3
9
4
($
5
5
)
‐3.
8
0
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$8
1
,
0
0
0
$7
2
,
0
0
0
$9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
25
.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$9
5
3
,
5
4
0
$
9
3
2
,
1
3
2
$
1
,
0
3
4
,
4
7
7
$
1
0
2
,
3
4
5
10
.
9
8
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
,
1
8
7
$
1
,
3
2
0
$
1
,
5
0
5
$1
8
5
14
.
0
2
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
,
7
4
9
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$4
,
0
8
1
$
4
,
9
9
2
$
4
,
9
9
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$1
,
2
3
7
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
2
5
0
$7
5
0
50
.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$9
,
2
5
4
$
1
2
,
8
1
2
$
1
3
,
7
4
7
$9
3
5
7.
3
0
%
30
0
3
BO
A
R
D
ME
E
T
I
N
G
S
$1
,
0
3
4
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$1
,
3
8
3
$
1
,
3
3
4
$
4
,
8
0
0
$
3
,
4
6
6
25
9
.
8
2
%
30
1
4
PU
B
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
$3
9
7
$5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
20
0
.
0
0
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
,
0
5
4
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
8
,
9
8
6
$
1
2
,
9
8
7
$
3
4
,
0
3
2
$
2
1
,
0
4
5
16
2
.
0
5
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$4
0
0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
3
,
2
5
4
$
1
7
,
8
2
1
$
4
3
,
3
3
2
$
2
5
,
5
1
1
14
3
.
1
5
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$4
,
9
2
7
$
5
,
3
1
2
$
4
,
8
0
0
(
$
5
1
2
)
‐9.
6
4
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$9
,
8
1
8
$
7
,
1
2
2
$
1
0
,
8
4
7
$
3
,
7
2
5
52
.
3
0
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
4
,
7
4
5
$
1
2
,
4
3
4
$
1
5
,
6
4
7
$
3
,
2
1
3
25
.
8
4
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
3
2
$1
2
2
$1
2
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$8
7
1
$3
1
4
$3
1
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
,
0
0
3
$4
3
6
$4
3
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
1
9
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
15 OF 42 Page 159 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐19
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$1
,
0
3
7
$
2
,
0
6
0
$
2
,
0
6
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$6
,
7
1
9
$
1
5
,
8
9
9
$
1
5
,
8
9
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$0
$3
0
0
$3
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$7
,
7
5
6
$
1
8
,
2
5
9
$
1
8
,
2
5
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$3
,
5
0
3
$
3
,
0
9
5
$
2
,
6
6
5
(
$
4
3
0
)
‐13
.
8
9
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
,
2
1
0
$
4
,
9
8
5
$
4
,
9
1
0
($
7
5
)
‐1.
5
0
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$1
3
4
$
2
,
2
2
7
$
5
,
5
0
0
$
3
,
2
7
3
14
6
.
9
7
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
,
8
3
8
$
3
,
5
0
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
28
.
5
7
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
,
9
6
6
$
5
,
5
3
1
$
6
,
4
1
3
$8
8
2
15
.
9
5
%
72
4
5
TU
I
T
I
O
N
RE
I
M
B
U
R
S
E
M
E
N
T
$9
4
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
OT
H
E
R
$1
0
,
7
4
5
$
2
0
,
8
3
8
$
2
5
,
4
8
8
$
4
,
6
5
0
22
.
3
2
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$2
,
9
8
1
$
2
,
1
6
7
$
4
,
2
0
9
$
2
,
0
4
2
94
.
2
3
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$2
,
9
8
1
$
2
,
1
6
7
$
4
,
2
0
9
$
2
,
0
4
2
94
.
2
3
%
TO
T
A
L
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
DE
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
$1
,
0
2
3
,
2
7
8
$
1
,
0
1
6
,
8
9
9
$
1
,
1
5
5
,
5
9
5
$
1
3
8
,
6
9
6
13
.
6
4
%
01
-
1
9
C
O
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
16 OF 42 Page 160 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐20
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$4
9
6
,
9
4
3
$
4
9
5
,
2
7
6
$
5
1
2
,
0
5
7
$
1
6
,
7
8
1
3.
3
9
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
($
1
,
4
1
8
)
$
2
,
1
4
6
$
1
,
6
9
8
(
$
4
4
8
)
‐20
.
8
8
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$4
,
4
6
5
$
4
,
6
8
3
$
4
,
9
1
9
$2
3
6
5.
0
4
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
4
,
4
0
0
$
1
4
,
4
0
0
$
1
4
,
4
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
10
0
9
CE
L
L
PH
O
N
E
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$0
$0
$3
6
0
$3
6
0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$3
3
,
9
6
2
$
3
4
,
3
6
2
$
3
5
,
4
6
3
$
1
,
1
0
1
3.
2
0
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$7
1
,
7
3
1
$
5
4
,
2
3
3
$
4
4
,
0
6
2
(
$
1
0
,
1
7
1
)
‐18
.
7
5
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$3
,
3
6
1
$
3
,
8
4
7
$
3
,
4
1
6
(
$
4
3
1
)
‐11
.
2
0
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$1
,
1
8
1
$9
4
5
$7
9
1
(
$
1
5
4
)
‐16
.
3
0
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$6
6
9
,
6
2
5
$
6
5
4
,
8
9
2
$
6
6
2
,
1
6
6
$
7
,
2
7
4
1.
1
1
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
,
5
4
4
$
1
,
3
5
0
$
1
,
3
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
,
2
4
7
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
,
5
0
1
$
3
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐57
.
1
4
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$2
,
7
7
9
$
3
,
4
7
4
$
3
,
4
7
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$2
,
7
5
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$9
,
8
2
1
$
1
1
,
8
2
4
$
9
,
8
2
4
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐16
.
9
1
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$6
7
$9
7
$9
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
4
,
4
1
2
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
9
,
6
4
3
$
1
9
,
7
7
6
$
2
0
,
9
5
0
$
1
,
1
7
4
5.
9
4
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$3
3
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$4
4
,
1
5
5
$
3
5
,
8
7
3
$
3
7
,
0
4
7
$
1
,
1
7
4
3.
2
7
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$4
,
3
8
1
$
4
,
8
3
5
$
4
,
3
0
0
(
$
5
3
5
)
‐11
.
0
7
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$1
1
,
6
4
2
$
1
3
,
1
0
5
$
1
0
,
8
3
4
(
$
2
,
2
7
1
)
‐17
.
3
3
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
6
,
0
2
3
$
1
7
,
9
4
0
$
1
5
,
1
3
4
(
$
2
,
8
0
6
)
‐15
.
6
4
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$2
9
8
$2
7
5
$2
7
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
,
0
9
1
$3
9
3
$3
9
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
,
3
8
9
$6
6
8
$6
6
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$1
,
6
9
3
$
1
,
9
6
8
$
1
,
9
6
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
2
0
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
17 OF 42 Page 161 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐20
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$7
,
0
3
3
$
8
,
3
8
4
$
8
,
3
8
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$5
6
7
$
1
,
5
0
0
$5
0
0
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
)
‐66
.
6
7
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$9
,
2
9
3
$
1
1
,
8
5
2
$
1
0
,
8
5
2
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
)
‐8.
4
4
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$1
,
2
2
8
$9
9
0
$9
9
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
,
2
5
2
$
1
,
7
8
0
$
1
,
7
8
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$2
,
7
4
0
$5
0
0
$
6
,
3
0
0
$
5
,
8
0
0
11
6
0
.
0
0
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$1
7
,
1
3
9
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$9
4
4
$
3
,
7
1
0
$
1
,
7
1
0
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐53
.
9
1
%
OT
H
E
R
$2
3
,
3
0
3
$
7
,
4
8
0
$
1
1
,
2
8
0
$
3
,
8
0
0
50
.
8
0
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$4
,
3
2
9
$
3
,
6
8
3
$
3
,
5
3
4
(
$
1
4
9
)
‐4.
0
5
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$4
,
3
2
9
$
3
,
6
8
3
$
3
,
5
3
4
(
$
1
4
9
)
‐4.
0
5
%
TO
T
A
L
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
$7
7
7
,
9
3
8
$
7
4
4
,
2
1
2
$
7
5
0
,
5
0
5
$
6
,
2
9
3
0.
8
5
%
01
-
2
0
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
18 OF 42 Page 162 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐25
TR
A
F
F
I
C
CO
N
T
R
O
L
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$3
7
6
,
7
6
5
$
3
8
6
,
2
1
3
$
4
0
1
,
8
1
0
$
1
5
,
5
9
7
4.
0
4
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
,
6
9
7
$
3
,
2
8
6
$
3
,
7
5
7
$4
7
1
14
.
3
3
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$4
,
0
1
1
$
4
,
1
5
2
$
4
,
4
8
8
$3
3
6
8.
0
9
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$2
8
,
3
2
9
$
3
0
,
1
1
5
$
3
1
,
3
6
8
$
1
,
2
5
3
4.
1
6
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$5
3
,
0
9
4
$
4
1
,
3
3
4
$
3
3
,
8
7
2
(
$
7
,
4
6
2
)
‐18
.
0
5
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$2
,
2
2
4
$
2
,
5
6
2
$
2
,
6
8
1
$1
1
9
4.
6
4
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$6
,
3
8
5
$
7
,
0
1
2
$
5
,
7
8
0
(
$
1
,
2
3
2
)
‐17
.
5
7
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
6
3
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$5
3
6
,
5
0
5
$
5
3
7
,
6
7
4
$
5
4
6
,
7
5
6
$
9
,
0
8
2
1.
6
9
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$3
,
2
0
6
$
3
,
4
2
0
$
3
,
4
2
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$4
2
7
$1
,
0
0
0
$1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$8
,
3
9
0
$
7
,
7
8
5
$
7
,
7
8
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$5
7
,
8
9
5
$
9
4
,
9
0
0
$
9
3
,
3
2
0
(
$
1
,
5
8
0
)
‐1.
6
6
%
23
6
0
SM
A
L
L
TO
O
L
S
$0
$2
5
0
$2
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$6
9
,
9
1
8
$
1
0
7
,
3
5
5
$
1
0
5
,
7
7
5
(
$
1
,
5
8
0
)
‐1.
4
7
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$1
$8
$5
($
3
)
‐37
.
5
0
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
0
,
3
4
0
$
2
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
2
,
0
0
0
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐8.
3
3
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$0
$
2
,
0
3
5
$
2
,
0
3
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$5
,
4
1
8
$
8
,
1
8
2
$
6
,
2
2
3
(
$
1
,
9
5
9
)
‐23
.
9
4
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
5
,
7
5
9
$
3
4
,
2
2
5
$
3
0
,
2
6
3
(
$
3
,
9
6
2
)
‐11
.
5
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$3
7
,
8
4
5
$
4
1
,
4
6
9
$
5
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
5
3
1
25
.
3
9
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$3
,
0
0
5
$
3
,
0
6
4
$
3
,
1
3
6
$7
2
2.
3
5
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$4
0
,
8
5
0
$
4
4
,
5
3
3
$
5
5
,
1
3
6
$
1
0
,
6
0
3
23
.
8
1
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
,
4
9
3
$
1
,
3
7
8
$
1
,
3
7
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$9
6
3
$3
4
7
$3
4
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
,
4
5
6
$
1
,
7
2
5
$
1
,
7
2
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$7
,
1
2
5
$
5
,
0
8
4
$
5
,
0
8
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$3
4
,
6
4
1
$
2
8
,
4
1
3
$
2
8
,
4
1
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
63
5
0
SI
G
N
A
L
MA
I
N
T
.
&
RE
P
$7
1
,
8
5
0
$
6
7
,
0
0
0
$
6
7
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
2
5
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
19 OF 42 Page 163 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐25
TR
A
F
F
I
C
CO
N
T
R
O
L
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
1
3
,
6
1
6
$
1
0
0
,
4
9
7
$
1
0
0
,
4
9
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$4
8
0
$4
8
0
$5
6
0
$8
0
16
.
6
7
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$0
$
1
,
3
6
5
$
4
,
3
0
0
$
2
,
9
3
5
21
5
.
0
2
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
,
3
8
5
$3
0
0
$3
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
,
3
2
5
$5
0
0
$0
(
$
5
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$5
,
1
9
0
$
3
,
1
4
5
$
5
,
6
6
0
$
2
,
5
1
5
79
.
9
7
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$1
5
,
9
0
6
$
1
9
,
7
8
0
$
1
6
,
5
1
0
(
$
3
,
2
7
0
)
‐16
.
5
3
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$1
5
,
9
0
6
$
1
9
,
7
8
0
$
1
6
,
5
1
0
(
$
3
,
2
7
0
)
‐16
.
5
3
%
TO
T
A
L
TR
A
F
F
I
C
$8
1
0
,
2
0
0
$
8
4
8
,
9
3
4
$
8
6
2
,
3
2
2
$
1
3
,
3
8
8
1.
5
8
%
01
-
2
5
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
20 OF 42 Page 164 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐35
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
9
8
,
2
5
9
$
1
9
8
,
8
6
4
$
1
0
9
,
0
2
8
(
$
8
9
,
8
3
6
)
‐45
.
1
7
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$2
,
3
1
1
$
2
,
4
1
5
$
1
,
2
9
8
(
$
1
,
1
1
7
)
‐46
.
2
5
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
(
$
7
,
2
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$1
5
,
5
0
1
$
1
5
,
9
4
8
$
8
,
4
4
0
(
$
7
,
5
0
8
)
‐47
.
0
8
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$2
8
,
7
4
7
$
2
1
,
8
9
0
$
9
,
1
1
3
(
$
1
2
,
7
7
7
)
‐58
.
3
7
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$1
,
6
6
9
$
1
,
3
1
7
$7
2
7
(
$
5
9
0
)
‐44
.
8
0
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$1
,
0
1
3
$
1
,
0
3
0
$7
3
3
(
$
2
9
7
)
‐28
.
8
3
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
7
,
0
0
0
$
2
7
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
(
$
9
,
0
0
0
)
‐33
.
3
3
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$2
8
1
,
7
0
0
$
2
7
5
,
6
6
4
$
1
4
7
,
3
3
9
(
$
1
2
8
,
3
2
5
)
‐46
.
5
5
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$3
6
6
$6
7
0
$6
7
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$3
9
0
$4
8
2
$3
9
0
($
9
2
)
‐19
.
0
9
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$2
6
1
$2
2
5
($
3
6
)
‐13
.
7
9
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$2
,
8
5
6
$
8
,
4
2
7
$
3
,
4
2
7
(
$
5
,
0
0
0
)
‐59
.
3
3
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$5
,
1
4
5
$
7
,
1
8
8
$
4
,
6
5
1
(
$
2
,
5
3
7
)
‐35
.
2
9
%
23
6
0
SM
A
L
L
TO
O
L
S
$0
$
1
,
0
9
8
$
1
,
0
9
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$8
,
7
5
7
$
1
8
,
1
2
6
$
1
0
,
4
6
1
(
$
7
,
6
6
5
)
‐42
.
2
9
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$1
$3
0
$5
($
2
5
)
‐83
.
3
3
%
30
1
4
PU
B
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$3
7
8
$3
7
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
$0
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$0
$2
0
0
$0
(
$
2
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$7
5
,
5
9
9
$
1
6
1
,
0
0
4
$
1
3
7
,
6
4
2
(
$
2
3
,
3
6
2
)
‐14
.
5
1
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$8
5
,
6
0
0
$
1
6
3
,
6
1
2
$
1
3
8
,
0
2
5
(
$
2
5
,
5
8
7
)
‐15
.
6
4
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$1
1
8
,
9
0
0
$
1
2
8
,
7
5
6
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
(
$
8
,
7
5
6
)
‐6.
8
0
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$3
,
9
7
3
$
4
,
3
2
6
$
4
,
1
5
9
(
$
1
6
7
)
‐3.
8
6
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
2
2
,
8
7
3
$
1
3
3
,
0
8
2
$
1
2
4
,
1
5
9
(
$
8
,
9
2
3
)
‐6.
7
0
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
,
8
8
7
$
1
,
7
4
2
$
1
,
7
4
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
,
0
8
5
$3
9
1
$3
9
1
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
1
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐BL
D
G
& CO
N
T
E
N
T
S
$2
6
,
6
7
2
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
9
,
6
4
4
$
4
2
,
1
3
3
$
4
2
,
1
3
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
3
5
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
21 OF 42 Page 165 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐35
FA
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
61
8
4
SE
C
U
R
I
T
Y
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$3
,
0
9
0
$
1
4
,
0
8
3
$
1
2
,
0
8
3
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐14
.
2
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$8
9
0
$
2
,
1
1
0
$
2
,
1
1
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$3
3
,
7
3
4
$
1
7
,
3
1
5
$
1
7
,
3
1
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$1
,
9
7
3
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
4
0
0
$4
0
0
40
.
0
0
%
62
5
0
FA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
MA
I
N
T
& RE
P
$6
3
,
7
2
1
$
5
0
,
0
4
9
$
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
,
9
5
1
29
.
8
7
%
63
3
0
RA
D
I
O
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
(
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
0
3
,
4
0
8
$
9
4
,
5
5
7
$
9
7
,
9
0
8
$
3
,
3
5
1
3.
5
4
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$1
2
0
$1
2
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
4
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$0
$
5
,
1
8
3
$5
0
0
(
$
4
,
6
8
3
)
‐90
.
3
5
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$0
$2
5
0
$2
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
1
9
$3
2
5
$3
2
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
6
0
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
N
T
A
L
$0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐‐
UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$3
,
3
8
6
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$3
,
6
1
9
$
1
2
,
3
7
8
$
7
,
6
9
5
(
$
4
,
6
8
3
)
‐37
.
8
3
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$1
3
,
6
7
7
$
1
5
,
2
0
1
$
1
3
,
5
1
2
(
$
1
,
6
8
9
)
‐11
.
1
1
%
91
1
5
SM
A
L
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$5
4
0
$0
(
$
5
4
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
99
5
0
RE
M
O
D
E
L
I
N
G
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
$9
9
,
4
2
2
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$1
1
3
,
0
9
9
$
1
5
,
7
4
1
$
1
3
,
5
1
2
(
$
2
,
2
2
9
)
‐14
.
1
6
%
TO
T
A
L
FA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$7
4
8
,
7
0
0
$
7
5
5
,
2
9
3
$
5
8
1
,
2
3
2
(
$
1
7
4
,
0
6
1
)
‐23
.
0
5
%
01
-
3
5
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
22 OF 42 Page 166 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐40
FI
R
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
,
7
8
9
,
2
6
9
$
2
,
7
1
1
,
2
2
3
$
2
,
8
1
1
,
9
7
5
$
1
0
0
,
7
5
2
3.
7
2
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$3
4
1
,
5
5
3
$
3
4
3
,
8
2
6
$
3
5
2
,
8
0
0
$
8
,
9
7
4
2.
6
1
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$1
9
,
5
9
0
$
2
1
,
0
2
9
$
1
9
,
2
2
9
(
$
1
,
8
0
0
)
‐8.
5
6
%
10
0
6
ED
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
PA
Y
$3
9
,
9
9
8
$
4
0
,
5
6
0
$
4
8
,
3
6
0
$
7
,
8
0
0
19
.
2
3
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$2
3
2
,
5
3
4
$
2
3
5
,
5
2
5
$
2
2
9
,
2
0
4
(
$
6
,
3
2
1
)
‐2.
6
8
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$2
0
,
0
0
3
$
1
5
,
0
9
5
$
1
2
,
2
7
5
(
$
2
,
8
2
0
)
‐18
.
6
8
%
11
2
1
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
R
.
&
R
.
$4
6
9
,
2
6
6
$
4
6
3
,
1
0
7
$
4
7
6
,
2
8
2
$
1
3
,
1
7
5
2.
8
4
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$1
7
,
9
9
1
$
1
7
,
2
4
6
$
1
7
,
2
5
1
$5
0.
0
3
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$2
3
,
2
9
0
$2
7
,
8
6
6
$2
3
,
0
1
9
(
$
4
,
8
4
7
)
‐17
.
3
9
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$3
3
3
,
7
5
0
$
3
0
6
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
5
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
2.
9
4
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$4
,
2
9
4
,
4
4
4
$
4
,
1
8
8
,
6
7
7
$
4
,
3
1
2
,
5
9
5
$
1
2
3
,
9
1
8
2.
9
6
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
9
,
3
6
5
$
3
5
,
4
0
0
$
2
3
,
8
0
0
(
$
1
1
,
6
0
0
)
‐32
.
7
7
%
20
6
0
PR
O
T
E
C
T
I
V
E
CL
O
T
H
G
& SU
P
P
$6
,
3
3
1
$
4
,
1
0
0
$
4
2
,
8
0
0
$
3
8
,
7
0
0
94
3
.
9
0
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$3
,
3
5
4
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$1
9
,
0
9
7
$
2
1
,
5
7
4
$
2
1
,
5
7
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
4
5
MI
C
U
DR
U
G
S
& SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$3
8
,
0
4
0
$
3
0
,
9
0
0
$
4
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
1
0
0
32
.
6
9
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$1
6
,
3
2
8
$
1
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
14
.
2
9
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
0
2
,
5
1
5
$
1
1
0
,
4
7
4
$
1
4
9
,
6
7
4
$
3
9
,
2
0
0
35
.
4
8
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$2
6
1
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
8
,
8
0
0
$
1
0
3
,
1
0
0
$
6
9
,
4
0
0
(
$
3
3
,
7
0
0
)
‐32
.
6
9
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$3
6
,
8
4
0
$
3
9
,
9
7
0
$
4
4
,
0
1
0
$
4
,
0
4
0
10
.
1
1
%
30
6
4
EM
E
R
G
E
N
C
Y
MA
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
$6
,
0
2
5
$7
,
0
0
0
$1
6
,
4
1
2
$
9
,
4
1
2
13
4
.
4
6
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$1
,
7
7
5
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
(
$
5
0
0
)
‐33
.
3
3
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$5
4
,
1
0
3
$
5
5
,
9
9
8
$
6
7
,
2
8
1
$
1
1
,
2
8
3
20
.
1
5
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
3
7
,
8
0
4
$
2
0
8
,
0
6
8
$
1
9
8
,
6
0
3
(
$
9
,
4
6
5
)
‐4.
5
5
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$5
7
,
3
9
3
$
6
2
,
6
2
1
$
5
5
,
0
0
0
(
$
7
,
6
2
1
)
‐12
.
1
7
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$1
5
,
8
6
7
$
1
2
,
9
1
6
$
1
2
,
6
1
7
(
$
2
9
9
)
‐2.
3
1
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$7
3
,
2
6
0
$
7
5
,
5
3
7
$
6
7
,
6
1
7
(
$
7
,
9
2
0
)
‐10
.
4
8
%
01
-
4
0
F
I
R
E
23 OF 42 Page 167 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐40
FI
R
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$3
,
0
2
1
$
2
,
7
8
9
$
2
,
7
8
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$5
,
1
5
0
$
1
,
8
5
5
$
1
,
8
5
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$8
,
1
7
1
$
4
,
6
4
4
$
4
,
6
4
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$4
5
,
3
1
9
$
2
1
,
5
6
0
$
2
1
,
5
6
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$7
1
,
6
4
4
$
6
5
,
5
3
3
$
6
5
,
5
3
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$7
,
8
8
0
$
4
,
5
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
$
5
0
0
)
‐11
.
1
1
%
63
3
0
RA
D
I
O
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$0
$
4
,
0
0
0
$
4
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
2
4
,
8
4
3
$
9
5
,
5
9
3
$
9
5
,
0
9
3
(
$
5
0
0
)
‐0.
5
2
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$5
,
6
7
5
$
7
,
2
3
0
$
7
,
8
8
0
$6
5
0
8.
9
9
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
,
8
6
4
$
1
4
,
8
2
0
$
1
4
,
8
2
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$5
,
1
1
2
$
1
3
,
1
0
1
$
7
,
9
5
0
(
$
5
,
1
5
1
)
‐39
.
3
2
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
7
4
$
3
,
0
0
0
$0
(
$
3
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
5
,
4
2
8
$
2
6
,
8
4
0
$
3
1
,
1
4
0
$
4
,
3
0
0
16
.
0
2
%
72
4
1
EM
S
CO
N
T
I
N
U
I
N
G
ED
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
$1
6
,
3
8
7
$
1
7
,
0
7
6
$
1
7
,
8
6
7
$7
9
1
4.
6
3
%
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐‐
UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$4
4
,
2
5
3
$
5
,
8
5
0
$
1
7
,
4
0
0
$
1
1
,
5
5
0
19
7
.
4
4
%
77
2
5
FI
R
E
PR
E
V
E
N
T
I
O
N
$1
2
,
4
9
8
$
1
1
,
8
0
0
$
1
3
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
7
0
0
14
.
4
1
%
OT
H
E
R
$1
1
2
,
3
9
1
$
1
0
0
,
2
1
7
$
1
1
1
,
0
5
7
$
1
0
,
8
4
0
10
.
8
2
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$7
1
,
1
1
8
$
7
7
,
1
3
3
$
8
3
,
4
3
5
$
6
,
3
0
2
8.
1
7
%
92
0
5
CA
M
E
R
A
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
93
5
7
FI
R
E
FI
G
H
T
I
N
G
EQ
U
I
P
‐MA
J
O
R
$3
3
,
1
9
6
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$1
0
4
,
3
1
4
$
7
7
,
1
3
3
$
1
0
1
,
4
3
5
$
2
4
,
3
0
2
31
.
5
1
%
TO
T
A
L
FI
R
E
$4
,
9
5
7
,
7
4
2
$
4
,
8
6
0
,
3
4
2
$
5
,
0
4
0
,
7
1
8
$
1
8
0
,
3
7
6
3.
7
1
%
01
-
4
0
F
I
R
E
24 OF 42 Page 168 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐50
PO
L
I
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$3
,
6
1
5
,
4
4
0
$
3
,
6
7
2
,
1
9
2
$
3
,
8
2
5
,
5
0
3
$
1
5
3
,
3
1
1
4.
1
7
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
9
6
,
5
8
7
$
3
0
6
,
5
9
0
$
3
4
2
,
7
0
2
$
3
6
,
1
1
2
11
.
7
8
%
10
0
4
MI
S
C
E
L
L
A
N
E
O
U
S
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
S
$8
,
6
2
7
$
7
,
8
0
0
$
6
,
6
0
0
(
$
1
,
2
0
0
)
‐15
.
3
8
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$2
2
,
6
9
5
$
2
2
,
8
6
1
$
2
5
,
1
5
2
$
2
,
2
9
1
10
.
0
2
%
10
0
6
ED
U
C
A
T
I
O
N
PA
Y
$5
6
,
4
1
1
$
5
8
,
5
0
0
$
5
3
,
7
0
0
(
$
4
,
8
0
0
)
‐8.
2
1
%
10
0
9
CE
L
L
PH
O
N
E
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
,
1
6
3
$
1
,
0
8
0
$
1
,
0
8
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$2
9
1
,
5
4
6
$
3
1
0
,
0
6
7
$
3
0
9
,
5
1
0
(
$
5
5
7
)
‐0.
1
8
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$5
4
5
,
9
1
6
$
4
1
7
,
2
8
9
$
3
4
0
,
3
8
5
(
$
7
6
,
9
0
4
)
‐18
.
4
3
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$2
2
,
5
0
9
$
2
3
,
0
2
5
$2
4
,
1
3
7
$
1
,
1
1
2
4.
8
3
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$3
5
,
6
4
2
$
3
9
,
5
0
1
$
3
3
,
2
9
5
(
$
6
,
2
0
6
)
‐15
.
7
1
%
11
3
2
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐UN
E
M
P
L
O
Y
M
E
N
T
$1
4
,
9
4
4
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$4
5
9
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
9
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
2.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$5
,
3
7
0
,
4
8
0
$
5
,
3
0
8
,
9
0
5
$
5
,
4
2
1
,
0
6
4
$
1
1
2
,
1
5
9
2.
1
1
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$2
9
,
8
2
2
$
3
6
,
2
0
5
$
4
0
,
0
0
5
$
3
,
8
0
0
10
.
5
0
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
0
,
1
3
8
$
9
,
5
0
0
$
9
,
7
5
0
$2
5
0
2.
6
3
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$7
5
9
$
3
,
1
0
0
$
3
,
6
0
0
$5
0
0
16
.
1
3
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$8
2
,
3
3
2
$
9
2
,
7
1
4
$
9
2
,
7
1
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$1
0
,
9
1
7
$
1
6
,
1
7
5
$
1
6
,
4
7
5
$3
0
0
1.
8
5
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
3
3
,
9
6
8
$
1
5
7
,
6
9
4
$
1
6
2
,
5
4
4
$
4
,
8
5
0
3.
0
8
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$1
,
8
8
9
$
3
,
6
5
0
$
1
,
6
0
0
(
$
2
,
0
5
0
)
‐56
.
1
6
%
30
1
1
DE
T
E
N
T
I
O
N
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
,
2
6
0
$
8
,
1
0
0
$
8
,
1
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
1
4
PU
B
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
$1
9
7
$
4
,
1
1
0
$
4
,
1
1
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
3
3
,
6
1
0
$
2
3
3
,
7
0
3
$
2
4
1
,
0
4
2
$
7
,
3
3
9
3.
1
4
%
30
6
2
AN
I
M
A
L
CO
N
T
R
O
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$8
,
6
7
3
$
1
2
,
8
7
5
$1
2
,
9
7
5
$1
0
0
0.
7
8
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
2
1
,
7
4
4
$
1
2
7
,
4
2
8
$
1
3
1
,
4
5
2
$
4
,
0
2
4
3.
1
6
%
30
7
0
SP
E
C
I
A
L
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
7
2
AC
C
R
E
D
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
EX
P
E
N
S
E
S
$6
,
9
8
5
$
1
6
,
4
5
0
$
2
2
,
5
0
0
$
6
,
0
5
0
36
.
7
8
%
30
7
5
DI
R
E
C
T
AL
A
R
M
MO
N
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
$5
3
,
2
8
8
$
4
7
,
9
8
9
$
7
5
,
7
6
5
$
2
7
,
7
7
6
57
.
8
8
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$8
,
1
8
9
$
1
1
,
1
0
0
$
1
3
,
8
0
0
$
2
,
7
0
0
24
.
3
2
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$3
1
,
5
7
4
$
3
4
,
5
0
4
$
3
6
,
2
7
8
$
1
,
7
7
4
5.
1
4
%
32
6
1
WR
E
C
K
E
R
FE
E
S
$1
4
0
$5
0
0
$6
0
0
$1
0
0
20
.
0
0
%
32
9
1
GU
N
S
/
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$4
5
,
5
9
6
$
2
3
,
5
3
5
$
3
5
,
5
3
5
$
1
2
,
0
0
0
50
.
9
9
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$5
1
3
,
1
4
5
$
5
2
4
,
9
4
4
$
5
8
4
,
7
5
7
$
5
9
,
8
1
3
11
.
3
9
%
01
-
5
0
P
O
L
I
C
E
25 OF 42 Page 169 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐50
PO
L
I
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$6
3
,
2
1
5
$
7
0
,
8
9
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
(
$
1
0
,
8
9
0
)
‐15
.
3
6
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$4
8
,
5
3
8
$
5
1
,
9
3
8
$
5
7
,
1
4
2
$
5
,
2
0
4
10
.
0
2
%
41
2
1
91
1
SE
R
V
I
C
E
FE
E
S
$5
4
,
3
6
3
$
1
4
8
,
9
6
0
$
1
4
8
,
9
6
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
6
6
,
1
1
6
$
2
7
1
,
7
8
8
$
2
6
6
,
1
0
2
(
$
5
,
6
8
6
)
‐2.
0
9
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$6
,
9
3
1
$
6
,
3
9
8
$
6
,
3
9
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$6
,
2
3
8
$
2
,
2
4
7
$
2
,
2
4
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
8
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐PO
L
I
C
E
PR
O
F
LI
A
$1
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
5
,
1
6
9
$
2
2
,
6
4
5
$
2
2
,
6
4
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$3
7
,
4
4
2
$
3
9
,
7
0
7
$
3
9
,
7
0
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$9
6
,
8
7
3
$
1
4
7
,
9
2
9
$
1
4
7
,
9
2
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$4
,
6
3
3
$
4
,
2
0
0
$
4
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
63
3
0
RA
D
I
O
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$4
5
2
$
2
,
4
0
0
$
2
,
4
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
3
9
,
4
0
0
$
1
9
4
,
2
3
6
$
1
9
4
,
2
3
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$3
,
0
6
9
$
6
,
0
5
4
$
5
,
6
9
4
(
$
3
6
0
)
‐5.
9
5
%
71
6
2
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
PH
Y
S
I
C
A
L
S
$4
6
4
$
4
,
0
0
0
$4
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
0
,
2
3
6
$
2
2
,
0
8
0
$
2
3
,
3
8
0
$
1
,
3
0
0
5.
8
9
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$8
,
2
1
0
$
1
6
,
9
0
9
$
2
,
0
0
0
(
$
1
4
,
9
0
9
)
‐88
.
1
7
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$2
,
2
7
7
$
1
0
,
3
5
0
$
1
0
,
3
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
5
,
1
2
3
$
7
,
5
0
0
$
7
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
2
3
CR
I
M
E
PR
E
V
/
Y
O
U
T
H
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
,
3
7
3
$
2
,
8
0
0
$
2
,
8
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
1
,
6
8
5
$
2
6
,
9
1
0
$
2
6
,
9
1
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐‐
UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$1
5
,
7
6
7
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
OT
H
E
R
$8
8
,
2
0
4
$
9
6
,
6
0
3
$
8
2
,
6
3
4
(
$
1
3
,
9
6
9
)
‐14
.
4
6
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$6
6
,
4
5
9
$
7
5
,
1
0
7
$
6
1
,
2
8
6
(
$
1
3
,
8
2
1
)
‐18
.
4
0
%
91
1
5
SM
A
L
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$7
,
0
4
0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
$0
(
$
1
5
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$7
3
,
4
9
9
$
9
0
,
1
0
7
$
6
1
,
2
8
6
(
$
2
8
,
8
2
1
)
‐31
.
9
9
%
TO
T
A
L
PO
L
I
C
E
$6
,
5
0
9
,
9
8
1
$
6
,
6
6
6
,
9
2
2
$
6
,
7
9
5
,
2
6
8
$
1
2
8
,
3
4
6
1.
9
3
%
01
-
5
0
P
O
L
I
C
E
26 OF 42 Page 170 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐70
PA
R
K
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
,
3
2
5
,
4
5
6
$
1
,
3
2
7
,
4
0
1
$
1
,
3
2
1
,
2
1
5
(
$
6
,
1
8
6
)
‐0.
4
7
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$7
3
,
6
7
1
$
7
8
,
8
2
5
$
7
8
,
4
7
0
(
$
3
5
5
)
‐0.
4
5
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$1
6
,
0
3
2
$
1
6
,
8
2
7
$
1
6
,
1
8
5
(
$
6
4
2
)
‐3.
8
2
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
4
,
4
0
0
$
1
4
,
4
0
0
$
1
4
,
4
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
10
0
9
CE
L
L
PH
O
N
E
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$9
6
0
$9
6
0
$9
6
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$1
0
5
,
5
7
3
$
1
0
7
,
9
2
1
$
1
0
7
,
9
3
0
$9
0.
0
1
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$1
9
8
,
5
9
0
$
1
5
0
,
1
8
9
$
1
1
8
,
2
2
4
(
$
3
1
,
9
6
5
)
‐21
.
2
8
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$9
,
0
4
1
$
8
,
8
0
2
$
8
,
8
3
0
$2
8
0.
3
2
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$1
1
,
2
1
4
$
1
6
,
1
5
3
$
1
2
,
6
0
4
(
$
3
,
5
4
9
)
‐21
.
9
7
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
1
6
,
0
0
0
$1
8
9
,
0
0
0
$1
8
0
,
0
0
0
(
$
9
,
0
0
0
)
‐4.
7
6
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$1
,
9
7
0
,
9
3
7
$
1
,
9
1
0
,
4
7
8
$
1
,
8
5
8
,
8
1
8
(
$
5
1
,
6
6
0
)
‐2.
7
0
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
4
,
8
2
1
$
1
4
,
2
2
2
$
1
4
,
2
2
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$5
,
6
4
7
$
2
,
5
5
0
$
2
,
5
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
6
6
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$2
9
,
0
8
8
$
2
9
,
3
8
0
$
2
9
,
3
8
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$5
2
,
9
3
7
$
4
8
,
2
0
0
$
4
8
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
6
0
SM
A
L
L
TO
O
L
S
$5
,
1
3
8
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
8
1
FE
R
T
I
L
I
Z
E
R
,
C
H
E
M
I
C
A
L
S
&S
U
P
$4
8
,
2
4
1
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
5
6
,
1
3
8
$
1
6
5
,
8
5
2
$
1
6
5
,
8
5
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$1
,
6
3
2
$6
0
0
$
1
,
6
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
16
6
.
6
7
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$9
,
2
6
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$
8
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$5
,
4
9
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$5
4
5
$8
0
0
$8
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
9
2
,
5
5
9
$
2
4
4
,
8
1
0
$
2
4
4
,
8
1
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
0
9
,
4
8
6
$
2
6
0
,
2
1
0
$
2
6
1
,
2
1
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
0.
3
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$1
1
8
,
6
4
3
$
1
3
0
,
4
3
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
(
$
2
0
,
4
3
0
)
‐15
.
6
6
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$7
,
9
5
8
$
6
,
5
0
3
$
8
,
3
9
7
$
1
,
8
9
4
29
.
1
3
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
2
6
,
6
0
1
$
1
3
6
,
9
3
3
$
1
1
8
,
3
9
7
(
$
1
8
,
5
3
6
)
‐13
.
5
4
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$7
,
3
7
6
$
6
,
8
0
9
$
6
,
8
0
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$3
,
1
4
6
$
1
,
1
3
3
$
1
,
1
3
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
7
0
P
A
R
K
S
27 OF 42 Page 171 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐70
PA
R
K
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
0
,
5
2
2
$
7
,
9
4
2
$
7
,
9
4
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$9
,
4
8
7
$
1
7
,
8
6
1
$
1
5
,
8
5
0
(
$
2
,
0
1
1
)
‐11
.
2
6
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
0
1
,
0
7
1
$
1
0
8
,
6
7
5
$
1
0
8
,
6
7
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$1
0
,
0
1
1
$
6
,
2
5
0
$
6
,
2
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
5
PA
R
K
FA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
RE
P
A
I
R
$2
2
,
7
2
6
$
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
8
PA
R
K
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
A
I
R
$2
3
,
0
0
2
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
63
8
0
FL
O
W
E
R
S
,
T
R
E
E
S
& SH
R
U
B
S
$4
2
,
4
2
7
$
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
5
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$2
0
8
,
7
2
4
$
2
3
4
,
7
8
6
$
2
3
2
,
7
7
5
(
$
2
,
0
1
1
)
‐0.
8
6
%
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$1
,
2
7
9
$
2
,
1
8
0
$
2
,
1
8
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
,
5
2
5
$
3
,
0
1
0
$
3
,
0
1
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$2
,
0
2
8
$
3
,
1
9
9
$5
0
0
(
$
2
,
6
9
9
)
‐84
.
3
7
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$
6
,
0
5
0
$
4
,
0
5
0
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐33
.
0
6
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
,
6
4
9
$
3
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$1
,
3
4
3
$
3
,
3
9
5
$
3
,
3
9
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
6
0
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
N
T
A
L
$8
9
2
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐‐
UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$8
6
,
1
5
8
$
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
3
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$9
6
,
8
7
4
$
5
2
,
8
3
4
$
4
8
,
1
3
5
(
$
4
,
6
9
9
)
‐8.
8
9
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$3
3
,
6
1
3
$
3
9
,
9
7
5
$
3
3
,
7
9
3
(
$
6
,
1
8
2
)
‐15
.
4
6
%
99
0
0
PA
R
K
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
$6
,
8
7
8
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
9
,
0
0
0
(
$
6
,
0
0
0
)
‐24
.
0
0
%
99
1
0
OF
F
I
C
E
FU
R
N
I
T
U
R
E
$0
$5
0
0
$0
(
$
5
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$4
0
,
4
9
1
$
6
5
,
4
7
5
$
5
2
,
7
9
3
(
$
1
2
,
6
8
2
)
‐19
.
3
7
%
TO
T
A
L
PA
R
K
S
$2
,
8
1
9
,
7
7
3
$
2
,
8
3
4
,
5
1
0
$
2
,
7
4
5
,
9
2
2
(
$
8
8
,
5
8
8
)
‐3.
1
3
%
01
-
7
0
P
A
R
K
S
28 OF 42 Page 172 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐75
SW
I
M
M
I
N
G
PO
O
L
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
6
2
,
7
6
5
$
1
6
9
,
4
7
6
$
1
7
2
,
4
1
1
$
2
,
9
3
5
1.
7
3
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
0
,
1
1
7
$
7
,
6
5
2
$
1
0
,
1
0
8
$
2
,
4
5
6
32
.
1
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$1
3
,
2
2
5
$
1
3
,
3
1
4
$
1
2
,
2
8
0
(
$
1
,
0
3
4
)
‐7.
7
7
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$0
$
2
,
2
6
2
$
1
,
6
3
0
(
$
6
3
2
)
‐27
.
9
4
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$1
8
6
,
1
0
7
$
1
9
2
,
7
0
4
$
1
9
6
,
4
2
9
$
3
,
7
2
5
1.
9
3
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$4
2
$9
8
2
$5
0
(
$
9
3
2
)
‐94
.
9
1
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$4
2
$9
8
2
$5
0
(
$
9
3
2
)
‐94
.
9
1
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$0
$
1
,
5
0
7
$0
(
$
1
,
5
0
7
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$0
$
1
,
5
0
7
$0
(
$
1
,
5
0
7
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
61
8
9
SW
I
M
M
I
N
G
PO
O
L
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$3
4
,
8
6
5
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
27
.
7
8
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
4
,
8
6
5
$
1
8
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
27
.
7
8
%
73
9
0
SW
I
M
M
I
N
G
PO
O
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$5
1
,
0
8
9
$
5
6
,
3
9
0
$
5
6
,
3
9
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$5
1
,
0
8
9
$
5
6
,
3
9
0
$
5
6
,
3
9
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
95
6
5
SW
I
M
M
I
N
G
PO
O
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
TO
T
A
L
SW
I
M
M
I
N
G
PO
O
L
$2
7
2
,
1
0
3
$
2
6
9
,
5
8
3
$
2
7
5
,
8
6
9
$
6
,
2
8
6
2.
3
3
%
01
-
7
5
S
W
I
M
M
I
N
G
P
O
O
L
29 OF 42 Page 173 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐80
ST
R
E
E
T
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
C
H
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$7
7
0
,
6
3
1
$
7
8
4
,
8
9
8
$
8
1
5
,
9
8
1
$
3
1
,
0
8
3
3.
9
6
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
3
,
6
9
0
$
1
9
,
2
7
9
$
2
5
,
6
4
3
$
6
,
3
6
4
33
.
0
1
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$1
1
,
4
9
9
$
1
1
,
9
9
0
$
1
2
,
8
2
6
$8
3
6
6.
9
7
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$6
0
,
1
3
1
$
6
2
,
4
3
9
$
6
5
,
3
6
7
$
2
,
9
2
8
4.
6
9
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$1
1
1
,
8
7
1
$
8
5
,
6
9
7
$
7
0
,
5
7
8
(
$
1
5
,
1
1
9
)
‐17
.
6
4
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$5
,
8
5
5
$
5
,
2
0
4
$
5
,
4
4
7
$2
4
3
4.
6
7
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$2
4
,
1
8
1
$
2
6
,
1
1
8
$
2
0
,
4
2
0
(
$
5
,
6
9
8
)
‐21
.
8
2
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
4
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
4
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
5
,
0
0
0
(
$
9
,
0
0
0
)
‐6.
2
5
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$1
,
1
5
1
,
8
5
8
$
1
,
1
3
9
,
6
2
5
$
1
,
1
5
1
,
2
6
2
$
1
1
,
6
3
7
1.
0
2
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
1
,
2
7
1
$
1
1
,
9
2
1
$
1
1
,
6
6
5
(
$
2
5
6
)
‐2.
1
5
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$6
8
0
$9
0
0
$9
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$4
3
,
9
9
3
$
5
0
,
3
8
7
$4
5
,
3
8
7
(
$
5
,
0
0
0
)
‐9.
9
2
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$1
2
,
4
8
3
$
9
,
6
0
0
$
9
,
6
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
6
0
SM
A
L
L
TO
O
L
S
$1
0
,
8
8
0
$
6
,
3
0
0
$
6
,
3
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$7
9
,
3
0
7
$
7
9
,
1
0
8
$
7
3
,
8
5
2
(
$
5
,
2
5
6
)
‐6.
6
4
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$2
8
$5
3
$3
0
($
2
3
)
‐43
.
4
0
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$0
(
$
1
,
5
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$6
9
4
$
1
,
7
3
4
$
1
,
0
0
0
(
$
7
3
4
)
‐42
.
3
3
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$0
$2
0
0
$2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$3
,
9
0
4
$
2
,
8
2
4
$
2
,
9
0
6
$8
2
2.
9
0
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$4
,
6
2
6
$
6
,
3
1
1
$
4
,
1
3
6
(
$
2
,
1
7
5
)
‐34
.
4
6
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$4
,
0
9
3
$
4
,
3
2
2
$
4
,
3
0
0
($
2
2
)
‐0.
5
1
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$2
,
6
3
9
$
2
,
4
5
1
$
2
,
6
5
6
$2
0
5
8.
3
6
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$6
,
7
3
2
$
6
,
7
7
3
$
6
,
9
5
6
$1
8
3
2.
7
0
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
0
,
1
3
0
$
9
,
3
5
1
$
9
,
3
5
1
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$2
,
5
8
2
$9
3
0
$9
3
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
2
,
7
1
2
$
1
0
,
2
8
1
$
1
0
,
2
8
1
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$3
4
,
1
0
3
$
5
3
,
8
9
7
$
5
3
,
8
9
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
6
7
,
1
2
0
$
1
5
1
,
1
1
7
$
1
5
1
,
1
1
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
8
0
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
30 OF 42 Page 174 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐80
ST
R
E
E
T
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
C
H
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$3
1
3
$6
7
5
$
1
,
0
7
5
$4
0
0
59
.
2
6
%
63
7
0
ST
R
E
E
T
RE
P
A
I
R
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
$2
0
0
,
2
6
1
$
1
7
9
,
5
7
5
$
2
0
0
,
9
1
0
$
2
1
,
3
3
5
11
.
8
8
%
63
7
5
SI
D
E
W
A
L
K
RE
P
A
I
R
RE
I
M
B
U
R
S
E
M
E
N
T
$1
3
,
6
5
2
$
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$4
1
5
,
4
4
9
$
4
5
0
,
2
6
4
$
4
7
1
,
9
9
9
$
2
1
,
7
3
5
4.
8
3
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
8
6
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$0
$
1
,
3
6
5
$
1
,
3
0
0
($
6
5
)
‐4.
7
6
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$6
,
3
9
5
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$7
3
2
$
1
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
6
0
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
N
T
A
L
$0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$7
,
3
1
3
$
5
,
3
6
5
$
4
,
3
0
0
(
$
1
,
0
6
5
)
‐19
.
8
5
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$5
9
,
5
3
4
$
5
8
,
5
0
7
$
5
2
,
5
3
7
(
$
5
,
9
7
0
)
‐10
.
2
0
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$5
9
,
5
3
4
$
5
8
,
5
0
7
$
5
2
,
5
3
7
(
$
5
,
9
7
0
)
‐10
.
2
0
%
TO
T
A
L
ST
R
E
E
T
S
$1
,
7
3
7
,
5
3
1
$
1
,
7
5
6
,
2
3
4
$
1
,
7
7
5
,
3
2
3
$
1
9
,
0
8
9
1.
0
9
%
01
-
8
0
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
31 OF 42 Page 175 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
01
‐85
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
63
7
1
RE
P
A
V
I
N
G
OU
T
S
I
D
E
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
$6
1
7
,
8
2
0
$
6
1
7
,
8
1
6
$
6
1
7
,
8
1
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$6
1
7
,
8
2
0
$
6
1
7
,
8
1
6
$
6
1
7
,
8
1
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
5
3
CA
P
I
T
A
L
PR
O
J
E
C
T
S
CO
N
T
R
I
B
$1
,
0
8
4
,
7
6
4
$
1
,
0
8
4
,
7
5
8
$
1
,
0
8
4
,
7
5
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$1
,
0
8
4
,
7
6
4
$
1
,
0
8
4
,
7
5
8
$
1
,
0
8
4
,
7
5
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
85
0
0
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
$3
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
$3
7
5
,
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
95
8
2
CU
R
B
& GU
T
T
E
R
$9
7
7
,
4
3
6
$
9
7
7
,
4
4
0
$
9
7
7
,
4
4
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
98
0
0
AL
L
E
Y
RE
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
PR
O
J
E
C
T
$3
5
2
,
1
7
6
$
3
5
2
,
1
7
3
$
3
5
2
,
1
7
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$1
,
3
2
9
,
6
1
2
$
1
,
3
2
9
,
6
1
3
$
1
,
3
2
9
,
6
1
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
TO
T
A
L
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
$3
,
4
0
7
,
1
9
6
$
3
,
0
3
2
,
1
8
7
$
3
,
0
3
2
,
1
8
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
01
-
8
5
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
32OF 42 Page 176 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
02
‐11
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
FU
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
34
5
0
WA
T
E
R
SA
L
E
S
‐RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
$7
,
6
2
9
,
4
6
7
$6
,
6
7
0
,
9
3
0
$7
,
1
9
8
,
2
3
1
$5
2
7
,
3
0
1
7.
9
0
%
34
5
1
WA
T
E
R
SA
L
E
S
‐CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
$3
2
0
,
3
7
8
$2
6
7
,
0
3
9
$2
9
7
,
2
2
1
$3
0
,
1
8
2
11
.
3
0
%
34
5
2
WA
T
E
R
SA
L
E
S
‐CH
U
R
C
H
/
S
C
H
O
O
L
$4
0
6
,
0
7
1
$3
3
8
,
2
2
0
$3
6
8
,
3
7
8
$3
0
,
1
5
8
8.
9
2
%
35
2
1
WA
T
E
R
SA
L
E
S
‐SM
U
$9
9
6
,
4
0
4
$7
9
3
,
1
7
0
$9
1
9
,
0
0
8
$1
2
5
,
8
3
8
15
.
8
7
%
35
2
3
ME
T
E
R
IN
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
$1
1
6
,
9
0
0
$9
5
,
6
0
0
$1
1
5
,
0
0
0
$1
9
,
4
0
0
20
.
2
9
%
35
2
4
WA
T
E
R
RE
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
($
2
0
)
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
35
2
5
TE
S
T
I
N
G
FE
E
S
$4
8
8
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
WA
T
E
R
$9
,
4
6
9
,
6
8
8
$8
,
1
6
4
,
9
5
9
$8
,
8
9
7
,
8
3
8
$7
3
2
,
8
7
9
8.
9
8
%
35
3
2
SE
W
E
R
CH
R
G
‐SM
U
$3
2
7
,
3
2
0
$3
7
5
,
8
4
1
$3
6
8
,
4
5
4
($
7
,
3
8
7
)
‐1.
9
7
%
35
3
3
SE
W
E
R
PE
R
M
I
T
S
$2
0
3
,
8
1
5
$3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$2
2
5
,
0
0
0
($
7
5
,
0
0
0
)
‐25
.
0
0
%
35
5
0
SE
W
E
R
CH
R
G
‐RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
$3
,
6
4
7
,
4
4
4
$3
,
8
1
2
,
4
3
2
$3
,
9
5
8
,
7
6
1
$1
4
6
,
3
2
9
3.
8
4
%
35
5
1
SE
W
E
R
CH
R
G
‐CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
$1
5
8
,
2
9
1
$1
5
7
,
9
2
0
$1
7
5
,
8
3
0
$1
7
,
9
1
0
11
.
3
4
%
35
5
2
SE
W
E
R
CH
R
G
‐CH
U
R
C
H
/
S
C
H
O
O
L
$1
1
9
,
6
6
5
$1
5
8
,
5
5
2
$1
5
4
,
4
1
4
($
4
,
1
3
8
)
‐2.
6
1
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
$4
,
4
5
6
,
5
3
5
$4
,
8
0
4
,
7
4
5
$4
,
8
8
2
,
4
5
9
$7
7
,
7
1
4
1.
6
2
%
39
0
3
ST
O
R
M
FE
E
‐CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
$1
8
,
1
2
8
$1
8
,
5
0
0
$1
8
,
5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
9
4
ST
O
R
M
FE
E
‐RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
$4
1
1
,
3
4
3
$4
1
6
,
0
0
0
$4
1
2
,
0
0
0
($
4
,
0
0
0
)
‐0.
9
6
%
39
0
6
ST
O
R
M
FE
E
‐CH
U
R
C
H
/
S
C
H
O
O
L
$1
0
,
9
4
8
$1
0
,
2
0
0
$1
0
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
ST
O
R
M
WA
T
E
R
$4
4
0
,
4
1
9
$4
4
4
,
7
0
0
$4
4
0
,
7
0
0
($
4
,
0
0
0
)
‐0.
9
0
%
38
5
0
AU
C
T
I
O
N
/
S
A
L
E
OF
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$2
,
0
0
0
$0
($
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
39
0
0
IN
T
E
R
E
S
T
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
,
0
7
8
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
39
9
9
OT
H
E
R
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$1
7
,
7
2
4
$3
,
6
0
0
$5
,
0
0
0
$1
,
4
0
0
38
.
8
9
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
OT
H
E
R
$1
9
,
8
0
2
$3
0
,
6
0
0
$3
0
,
0
0
0
($
6
0
0
)
‐1.
9
6
%
TO
T
A
L
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
‐
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
FU
N
D
$1
4
,
3
8
6
,
4
4
4
$1
3
,
4
4
5
,
0
0
4
$1
4
,
2
5
0
,
9
9
7
$8
0
5
,
9
9
3
5.
9
9
%
02
-
1
1
U
F
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
33 OF 42 Page 177 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
02
‐21
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
OF
F
I
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
4
0
,
5
2
2
$
2
4
5
,
0
7
2
$
2
1
6
,
3
6
6
(
$
2
8
,
7
0
6
)
‐11
.
7
1
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$3
,
0
7
5
$7
1
6
$
1
,
9
7
2
$
1
,
2
5
6
17
5
.
4
2
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$2
,
7
6
4
$
2
,
9
9
0
$
2
,
0
0
3
(
$
9
8
7
)
‐33
.
0
1
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$1
8
,
2
3
8
$
1
9
,
0
3
2
$
1
6
,
8
5
7
(
$
2
,
1
7
5
)
‐11
.
4
3
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$3
5
,
0
8
0
$
2
6
,
1
2
2
$
1
8
,
5
1
8
(
$
7
,
6
0
4
)
‐29
.
1
1
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$1
,
6
8
9
$
1
,
6
8
0
$
1
,
3
4
1
(
$
3
3
9
)
‐20
.
1
8
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$3
2
0
$3
2
4
$2
4
8
($
7
6
)
‐23
.
4
6
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$4
5
,
0
0
0
$
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
,
0
0
0
(
$
9
,
0
0
0
)
‐20
.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$3
4
6
,
6
8
8
$
3
4
0
,
9
3
6
$
2
9
3
,
3
0
5
(
$
4
7
,
6
3
1
)
‐13
.
9
7
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
,
3
1
6
$7
,
8
7
6
$7
,
5
7
0
(
$
3
0
6
)
‐3.
8
9
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$2
5
0
$2
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$7
2
8
$7
9
3
$7
9
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
,
0
4
4
$
8
,
9
1
9
$
8
,
6
1
3
(
$
3
0
6
)
‐3.
4
3
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$4
2
,
7
2
4
$
6
8
,
6
9
1
$
5
2
,
5
0
0
(
$
1
6
,
1
9
1
)
‐23
.
5
7
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
9
,
6
7
3
$
4
1
,
9
0
0
$
4
5
,
1
0
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
7.
6
4
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$2
2
,
2
2
1
$
1
7
,
7
9
1
$
1
8
,
1
9
5
$4
0
4
2.
2
7
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$8
7
1
$
7
,
1
0
5
$
5
,
9
0
5
(
$
1
,
2
0
0
)
‐16
.
8
9
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
0
5
,
4
8
9
$
1
3
5
,
4
8
7
$
1
2
1
,
7
0
0
(
$
1
3
,
7
8
7
)
‐10
.
1
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$1
1
2
,
4
7
5
$
7
2
,
8
1
4
$
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
7
,
1
8
6
64
.
8
0
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$2
,
1
6
5
$
2
,
7
8
2
$
2
,
7
6
8
($
1
4
)
‐0.
5
0
%
42
7
0
SE
W
E
R
PA
Y
M
E
N
T
S
$2
,
0
9
3
,
2
0
3
$
2
,
4
0
5
,
6
9
7
$
2
,
3
6
1
,
4
4
3
(
$
4
4
,
2
5
4
)
‐1.
8
4
%
42
8
0
WA
T
E
R
PU
R
C
H
A
S
E
S
$4
,
6
5
5
,
7
2
0
$
4
,
3
3
1
,
6
4
2
$
4
,
8
8
1
,
0
6
3
$
5
4
9
,
4
2
1
12
.
6
8
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$6
,
8
6
3
,
5
6
3
$
6
,
8
1
2
,
9
3
5
$
7
,
3
6
5
,
2
7
4
$
5
5
2
,
3
3
9
8.
1
1
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
0
8
$1
0
0
$1
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$8
,
0
2
2
$
2
,
8
8
9
$
2
,
8
8
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$8
,
1
3
0
$
2
,
9
8
9
$
2
,
9
8
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$0
$1
4
$1
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$1
,
2
6
5
$
1
,
2
6
7
$
1
,
2
6
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$8
,
2
5
9
$
1
1
,
0
5
0
$
1
1
,
0
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
02
-
2
1
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
O
F
F
I
C
E
34 OF 42 Page 178 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
02
‐21
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
OF
F
I
C
E
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$9
,
5
2
4
$
1
2
,
3
3
1
$
1
2
,
3
3
1
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$7
0
0
$7
2
5
$2
5
3.
5
7
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
,
3
5
6
$
5
,
4
6
0
$
6
,
1
2
0
$6
6
0
12
.
0
9
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$1
,
6
6
3
$5
0
0
$
5
,
7
0
0
$
5
,
2
0
0
10
4
0
.
0
0
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$5
4
8
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$1
,
9
2
4
$
2
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
9
0
0
(
$
6
0
0
)
‐24
.
0
0
%
72
4
5
TU
I
T
I
O
N
RE
I
M
B
U
R
S
E
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
72
6
0
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
N
T
A
L
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐‐
UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$5
,
4
9
1
$
1
6
,
1
6
0
$
2
1
,
4
4
5
$
5
,
2
8
5
32
.
7
0
%
80
1
0
CO
N
T
R
I
B
U
T
I
O
N
TO
GE
N
.
FU
N
D
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
9.
0
9
%
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
$6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
0
,
0
0
0
9.
0
9
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$1
,
5
4
7
$
1
,
7
4
0
$
1
,
5
4
7
(
$
1
9
3
)
‐11
.
0
9
%
91
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
99
1
0
OF
F
I
C
E
FU
R
N
I
T
U
R
E
$0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$1
,
5
4
7
$
3
,
2
4
0
$
3
,
0
4
7
(
$
1
9
3
)
‐5.
9
6
%
TO
T
A
L
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
OF
F
I
C
E
$7
,
9
4
2
,
4
7
6
$
7
,
8
8
2
,
9
9
7
$
8
,
4
2
8
,
7
0
4
$
5
4
5
,
7
0
7
6.
9
2
%
02
-
2
1
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
O
F
F
I
C
E
35 OF 42 Page 179 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
02
‐22
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
,
4
7
8
,
2
2
3
$
1
,
4
6
2
,
7
3
1
$
1
,
5
6
1
,
0
7
6
$
9
8
,
3
4
5
6.
7
2
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$4
8
,
3
3
8
$
4
5
,
5
4
7
$
5
4
,
9
1
9
$
9
,
3
7
2
20
.
5
8
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$1
6
,
6
1
5
$
1
7
,
5
1
1
$
1
8
,
6
7
2
$
1
,
1
6
1
6.
6
3
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$1
1
2
,
0
2
8
$
1
1
6
,
4
7
6
$
1
2
4
,
7
7
2
$
8
,
2
9
6
7.
1
2
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$2
1
1
,
1
4
6
$
1
6
0
,
9
6
4
$
1
3
5
,
6
2
4
(
$
2
5
,
3
4
0
)
‐15
.
7
4
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$8
,
7
8
8
$
9
,
6
8
7
$
1
0
,
4
1
7
$7
3
0
7.
5
4
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$1
9
,
9
6
1
$
1
9
,
8
5
0
$
1
6
,
6
3
4
(
$
3
,
2
1
6
)
‐16
.
2
0
%
11
3
2
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐UN
E
M
P
L
O
Y
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
4
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
3
,
0
0
0
$
9
,
0
0
0
3.
8
5
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$2
,
1
3
6
,
2
9
9
$2
,
0
7
3
,
9
6
6
$2
,
1
7
2
,
3
1
4
$
9
8
,
3
4
8
4.
7
4
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
4
,
5
8
6
$
1
3
,
9
5
5
$
1
3
,
6
5
5
(
$
3
0
0
)
‐2.
1
5
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
,
0
5
4
$
2
,
5
5
0
$
2
,
5
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$6
8
,
8
2
3
$
8
1
,
1
6
6
$
8
1
,
1
6
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$8
2
,
3
6
1
$
8
2
,
5
0
0
$
6
3
,
1
6
0
(
$
1
9
,
3
4
0
)
‐23
.
4
4
%
23
7
0
BA
C
K
F
I
L
L
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$1
3
0
,
6
1
9
$
1
4
5
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
9
,
0
8
0
$
1
4
,
0
8
0
9.
7
1
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
9
7
,
4
4
3
$
3
2
5
,
6
7
1
$
3
2
0
,
1
1
1
(
$
5
,
5
6
0
)
‐1.
7
1
%
30
0
3
BO
A
R
D
ME
E
T
I
N
G
S
$5
4
3
$4
5
0
$4
5
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$4
2
$2
0
0
$2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
30
1
4
PU
B
L
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
$0
$
2
,
0
9
5
$3
0
0
(
$
1
,
7
9
5
)
‐85
.
6
8
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
1
3
,
2
0
7
$
9
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
10
.
1
0
%
30
6
3
PR
O
G
R
A
M
M
I
N
G
/
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$6
0
,
6
8
1
$
6
0
,
7
2
4
$
6
9
,
0
2
4
$
8
,
3
0
0
13
.
6
7
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$1
4
5
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$6
,
3
6
9
$
4
,
6
0
7
$
4
,
7
4
1
$1
3
4
2.
9
1
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
8
0
,
9
8
7
$
1
6
7
,
5
7
6
$
1
8
4
,
2
1
5
$
1
6
,
6
3
9
9.
9
3
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$9
,
8
6
8
$
1
1
,
6
8
6
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
(
$
1
,
6
8
6
)
‐14
.
4
3
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$6
,
3
5
8
$
4
,
0
4
7
$
7
,
7
2
3
$
3
,
6
7
6
90
.
8
3
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
6
,
2
2
6
$
1
5
,
7
3
3
$
1
7
,
7
2
3
$
1
,
9
9
0
12
.
6
5
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
9
,
5
0
1
$
1
8
,
0
0
1
$
1
8
,
0
0
1
$0
0.
0
0
%
02
-
2
2
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
36 OF 42 Page 180 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
02
‐22
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$4
,
0
8
5
$
1
,
4
7
1
$
1
,
4
7
1
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
3
,
5
8
6
$
1
9
,
4
7
2
$
1
9
,
4
7
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$4
5
,
2
2
9
$
4
0
,
3
6
7
$
4
0
,
3
6
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$2
2
9
,
7
8
9
$
2
2
6
,
3
5
7
$
2
2
6
,
3
5
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$3
,
4
9
1
$
1
,
7
5
0
$
2
,
1
5
0
$4
0
0
22
.
8
6
%
63
5
5
UT
I
L
I
T
Y
MA
I
N
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$3
6
2
,
3
3
0
$
2
3
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
3
,
9
2
0
$
1
8
,
9
2
0
8.
0
5
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$6
4
0
,
8
3
9
$
5
0
3
,
4
7
4
$
5
2
2
,
7
9
4
$
1
9
,
3
2
0
3.
8
4
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$1
,
9
5
7
$
2
,
4
9
6
$
2
,
5
9
6
$1
0
0
4.
0
1
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$2
,
7
5
0
$
1
3
,
2
6
5
$
7
,
9
4
5
(
$
5
,
3
2
0
)
‐40
.
1
1
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$7
8
$
4
,
7
1
5
$
4
,
0
0
0
(
$
7
1
5
)
‐15
.
1
6
%
72
0
2
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SO
F
T
W
A
R
E
$0
$
1
2
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
2
0
0
(
$
1
1
,
3
0
0
)
‐90
.
4
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
,
9
0
1
$
2
,
9
0
0
$
2
,
9
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$7
,
2
4
1
$
8
,
2
1
5
$
7
,
8
7
0
(
$
3
4
5
)
‐4.
2
0
%
72
6
0
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
N
T
A
L
$0
$
3
,
0
0
0
$
3
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
73
3
1
PO
W
E
R
TO
O
L
S
$1
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
5
0
0
30
.
0
0
%
74
7
5
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
‐‐
UN
D
E
R
$5
0
0
0
$0
$
2
,
5
0
0
$0
(
$
2
,
5
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
75
0
0
DE
P
R
E
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$1
0
1
,
2
0
3
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
OT
H
E
R
$1
1
5
,
2
3
0
$
5
4
,
5
9
1
$
3
6
,
0
1
1
(
$
1
8
,
5
8
0
)
‐34
.
0
3
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$8
6
,
0
3
4
$
9
6
,
8
2
3
$
9
2
,
8
4
0
(
$
3
,
9
8
3
)
‐4.
1
1
%
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$9
,
0
0
0
$0
($
9
,
0
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
95
2
0
WA
T
E
R
SE
R
V
I
C
E
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$8
,
7
5
6
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$9
4
,
7
9
0
$
1
0
5
,
8
2
3
$
9
2
,
8
4
0
(
$
1
2
,
9
8
3
)
‐12
.
2
7
%
TO
T
A
L
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$3
,
5
0
5
,
4
0
0
$
3
,
2
6
6
,
3
0
6
$
3
,
3
6
5
,
4
8
0
$
9
9
,
1
7
4
3.
0
4
%
02
-
2
2
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
37 OF 42 Page 181 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
02
‐23
ST
O
R
M
WA
T
E
R
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$3
5
9
$
1
,
5
0
0
$5
0
0
(
$
1
,
0
0
0
)
‐66
.
6
7
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$4
8
0
$
8
,
5
0
0
$
6
,
5
0
0
(
$
2
,
0
0
0
)
‐23
.
5
3
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$8
3
9
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
7
,
0
0
0
(
$
3
,
0
0
0
)
‐30
.
0
0
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$5
6
9
$
1
,
1
5
0
$5
7
0
(
$
5
8
0
)
‐50
.
4
3
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$6
0
,
8
2
7
$
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
6
6
,
0
0
0
25
5
.
3
8
%
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$1
8
6
$
2
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$6
1
,
5
8
2
$
6
8
,
1
5
0
$
2
3
3
,
5
7
0
$
1
6
5
,
4
2
0
24
2
.
7
3
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$6
,
7
5
8
$
7
,
1
0
0
$
7
,
1
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$8
6
2
$2
0
0
$2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
,
9
2
4
$
5
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$1
0
,
5
4
4
$
1
2
,
3
0
0
$
1
2
,
3
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
92
0
1
MI
C
R
O
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
TO
T
A
L
ST
O
R
M
WA
T
E
R
$7
2
,
9
6
5
$
9
0
,
4
5
0
$
2
5
2
,
8
7
0
$
1
6
2
,
4
2
0
17
9
.
5
7
%
02
-
2
3
S
T
O
R
M
W
A
T
E
R
38 OF 42 Page 182 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
02
‐85
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
63
6
5
FI
R
E
HY
D
R
A
N
T
/
L
I
N
E
IN
S
T
A
L
L
$1
7
5
,
8
9
6
$
1
7
5
,
8
9
3
$
1
7
5
,
8
9
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
7
5
,
8
9
6
$
1
7
5
,
8
9
3
$
1
7
5
,
8
9
3
$0
0.
0
0
%
85
0
0
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
$0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
98
0
1
LI
N
E
RE
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
PR
O
J
E
C
T
$2
,
0
1
9
,
5
2
8
$
2
,
0
1
9
,
5
2
2
$
2
,
0
1
9
,
5
2
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$2
,
0
1
9
,
5
2
8
$
2
,
0
1
9
,
5
2
2
$
2
,
0
1
9
,
5
2
2
$0
0.
0
0
%
TO
T
A
L
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
$2
,
1
9
5
,
4
2
4
$
2
,
1
9
5
,
4
1
5
$
2
,
1
9
5
,
4
1
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
02
-
8
5
T
R
A
N
S
F
E
R
S
39 OF 42 Page 183 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
04
‐11
SA
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
35
4
0
RE
F
U
S
E
CO
L
L
‐
RE
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L
$1
,
8
6
0
,
8
9
7
$1
,
9
0
3
,
4
4
0
$1
,
7
5
0
,
3
0
0
($
1
5
3
,
1
4
0
)
‐8.
0
5
%
35
4
1
RE
F
U
S
E
CO
L
L
‐
CO
M
M
E
R
C
I
A
L
$3
1
6
,
0
2
7
$3
2
9
,
1
7
5
$4
3
8
,
6
0
0
$1
0
9
,
4
2
5
33
.
2
4
%
35
4
2
RE
F
U
S
E
CO
L
L
‐CH
U
R
C
H
/
S
C
H
O
O
L
$1
5
7
,
0
1
6
$1
9
0
,
5
7
5
$1
6
2
,
0
0
0
($
2
8
,
5
7
5
)
‐14
.
9
9
%
35
0
1
RE
F
U
S
E
CO
L
L
‐SM
U
$6
5
,
4
7
2
$1
6
1
,
1
2
3
$7
3
,
7
0
0
($
8
7
,
4
2
3
)
‐54
.
2
6
%
35
0
4
RE
C
Y
C
L
I
N
G
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$4
1
7
,
1
8
9
$2
9
1
,
0
6
0
$3
8
1
,
0
6
0
$9
0
,
0
0
0
30
.
9
2
%
35
4
3
BR
U
S
H
/
S
P
E
C
I
A
L
PI
C
K
U
P
CH
R
G
$7
6
,
3
9
1
$8
2
,
5
0
0
$7
0
,
0
0
0
($
1
2
,
5
0
0
)
‐15
.
1
5
%
35
0
3
YA
R
D
WA
S
T
E
BA
G
S
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$6
0
,
3
5
4
$8
4
,
7
0
0
$6
1
,
5
0
0
($
2
3
,
2
0
0
)
‐27
.
3
9
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
$2
,
9
5
3
,
3
4
6
$3
,
0
4
2
,
5
7
3
$2
,
9
3
7
,
1
6
0
($
1
0
5
,
4
1
3
)
‐3.
4
6
%
39
0
0
IN
T
E
R
E
S
T
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$4
9
1
$3
,
0
0
0
$5
0
0
($
2
,
5
0
0
)
‐83
.
3
3
%
39
9
9
OT
H
E
R
RE
V
E
N
U
E
$0
$2
4
,
8
7
8
$0
($
2
4
,
8
7
8
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
SU
B
T
O
T
A
L
OT
H
E
R
$4
9
1
$2
7
,
8
7
8
$5
0
0
($
2
7
,
3
7
8
)
‐98
.
2
1
%
TO
T
A
L
RE
V
E
N
U
E
S
‐
SA
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
FU
N
D
$
2
,
9
5
3
,
8
3
7
$3
,
0
7
0
,
4
5
1
$2
,
9
3
7
,
6
6
0
($
1
3
2
,
7
9
1
)
‐4.
3
2
%
04
-
1
1
S
F
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
40 OF 42 Page 184 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
04
‐60
SA
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
10
0
1
RE
G
U
L
A
R
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$1
,
2
4
8
,
1
5
9
$
1
,
2
2
7
,
4
3
8
$
1
,
2
1
9
,
8
9
4
(
$
7
,
5
4
4
)
‐0.
6
1
%
10
0
2
OV
E
R
T
I
M
E
EA
R
N
I
N
G
S
$2
7
,
6
0
6
$
3
8
,
7
0
6
$
4
4
,
0
0
7
$
5
,
3
0
1
13
.
7
0
%
10
0
5
LO
N
G
E
V
I
T
Y
PA
Y
$1
7
,
5
3
8
$
1
8
,
4
8
8
$
1
7
,
8
5
5
(
$
6
3
3
)
‐3.
4
2
%
10
0
7
CA
R
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$
7
,
2
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
11
1
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
F.
I
.
C
.
A
.
$9
5
,
6
1
9
$
9
8
,
8
2
5
$
9
8
,
6
0
6
(
$
2
1
9
)
‐0.
2
2
%
11
2
0
EM
P
L
O
Y
E
R
S
SH
A
R
E
T.
M
.
R
.
S
.
$1
7
8
,
1
0
3
$
1
3
5
,
6
4
1
$
1
0
6
,
4
6
7
(
$
2
9
,
1
7
4
)
‐21
.
5
1
%
11
3
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐EM
P
L
O
Y
E
E
LI
F
E
$8
,
0
6
2
$
8
,
1
2
7
$
8
,
1
3
0
$3
0.
0
4
%
11
3
1
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐WO
R
K
M
E
N
S
CO
M
P
$3
0
,
0
4
1
$
4
0
,
5
1
0
$
3
3
,
5
3
8
(
$
6
,
9
7
2
)
‐17
.
2
1
%
11
3
5
HE
A
L
T
H
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$2
4
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
4
3
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
SA
L
A
R
I
E
S
& BE
N
E
F
I
T
S
$1
,
8
5
5
,
3
2
8
$
1
,
8
1
7
,
9
3
5
$
1
,
7
7
8
,
6
9
7
(
$
3
9
,
2
3
8
)
‐2.
1
6
%
20
2
9
CL
O
T
H
I
N
G
AL
L
O
W
A
N
C
E
$1
4
,
0
4
1
$1
3
,
2
3
2
$1
7
,
9
7
8
$
4
,
7
4
6
35
.
8
7
%
21
0
0
OF
F
I
C
E
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$2
,
2
1
3
$
3
,
0
6
6
$
3
,
0
6
6
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
1
8
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$0
$5
0
0
$5
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
2
0
GA
S
,
OI
L
& GR
E
A
S
E
$1
2
5
,
9
4
9
$
1
3
2
,
9
2
5
$
1
3
2
,
9
2
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
23
5
0
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
& MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
$1
2
,
4
5
7
$
1
8
,
1
8
2
$
1
3
,
2
3
6
(
$
4
,
9
4
6
)
‐27
.
2
0
%
SU
P
P
L
I
E
S
$1
5
4
,
6
6
0
$
1
6
7
,
9
0
5
$
1
6
7
,
7
0
5
(
$
2
0
0
)
‐0.
1
2
%
30
1
0
PO
S
T
A
G
E
$2
,
4
0
7
$
4
,
1
0
4
$2
5
0
(
$
3
,
8
5
4
)
‐93
.
9
1
%
30
6
0
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$5
0
0
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
31
1
3
PR
I
N
T
I
N
G
$2
,
7
6
3
$
1
,
7
9
0
$
1
,
7
9
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
31
1
5
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$5
,
1
3
7
$
3
,
7
1
6
$
3
,
8
2
4
$1
0
8
2.
9
1
%
PR
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$1
0
,
8
0
7
$
9
,
6
1
0
$
5
,
8
6
4
(
$
3
,
7
4
6
)
‐38
.
9
8
%
41
1
0
HE
A
T
,
L
I
G
H
T
,
W
A
T
E
R
UT
I
L
$1
1
,
5
9
0
$
1
1
,
3
3
6
$
1
3
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
6
6
4
14
.
6
8
%
41
2
0
TE
L
E
P
H
O
N
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$5
,
4
5
4
$
4
,
4
7
4
$
5
,
2
1
9
$7
4
5
16
.
6
5
%
43
9
0
LA
N
D
FI
L
L
$8
6
,
9
8
8
$
1
4
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
1
,
5
0
0
(
$
3
8
,
5
0
0
)
‐27
.
5
0
%
43
9
2
DI
S
P
O
S
A
L
FE
E
S
CO
N
T
I
N
G
E
N
C
Y
$0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
UT
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
$1
0
4
,
0
3
2
$
2
5
5
,
8
1
0
$
2
1
9
,
7
1
9
(
$
3
6
,
0
9
1
)
‐14
.
1
1
%
55
0
0
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐AU
T
O
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$1
3
,
7
2
3
$
1
2
,
6
6
8
$
1
2
,
6
6
8
$0
0.
0
0
%
55
0
6
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
‐GE
N
E
R
A
L
LI
A
B
I
L
I
T
Y
$3
,
4
1
3
$
1
,
2
2
9
$
1
,
2
2
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
IN
S
U
R
A
N
C
E
$1
7
,
1
3
6
$
1
3
,
8
9
7
$
1
3
,
8
9
7
$0
0.
0
0
%
04
-
6
0
S
A
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
41 OF 42 Page 185 of 186
CI
T
Y
OF
UN
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
PA
R
K
FY
2
0
1
3
BU
D
G
E
T
04
‐60
SA
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
LI
N
E
IT
E
M
S
AC
T
U
A
L
20
1
0
‐20
1
1
BU
D
G
E
T
20
1
1
‐20
1
2
PR
O
P
O
S
E
D
20
1
2
‐20
1
3
CH
A
N
G
E
$
C
H
A
N
G
E
%
61
8
6
TR
A
N
S
F
E
R
ST
A
T
I
O
N
RE
P
A
I
R
$1
2
,
7
5
7
$
1
4
,
6
0
0
$
1
1
,
4
0
0
(
$
3
,
2
0
0
)
‐21
.
9
2
%
61
9
0
AU
T
O
RE
P
A
I
R
S
$7
2
,
2
1
3
$
1
5
5
,
8
5
4
$
1
5
5
,
8
5
4
$0
0.
0
0
%
61
9
5
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$2
2
3
,
9
7
0
$
2
0
0
,
4
4
9
$
2
0
0
,
4
4
9
$0
0.
0
0
%
62
0
0
EQ
U
I
P
RE
P
A
I
R
S
/
N
O
N
VE
H
I
C
L
E
$7
7
9
$
1
,
6
2
5
$
1
,
8
2
5
$2
0
0
12
.
3
1
%
63
1
8
CO
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
$4
8
7
$
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OU
T
S
I
D
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
S
$3
1
0
,
2
0
6
$
3
7
3
,
5
2
8
$
3
7
0
,
5
2
8
(
$
3
,
0
0
0
)
‐0.
8
0
%
71
5
0
DU
E
S
& SU
B
S
C
R
I
P
T
I
O
N
S
$2
8
4
$
1
,
0
7
5
$
1
,
0
7
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
71
7
0
TR
A
V
E
L
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$3
6
$4
0
0
$4
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
0
1
CO
M
P
U
T
E
R
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
BE
L
O
W
$5
0
0
0
$1
,
5
8
6
$
1
,
9
6
5
$
1
,
9
0
0
($
6
5
)
‐3.
3
1
%
72
2
1
OT
H
E
R
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$3
,
0
1
5
$
6
,
4
6
5
$
6
,
4
6
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
72
4
0
TU
I
T
I
O
N
& TR
A
I
N
I
N
G
$2
,
0
0
8
$
1
,
3
6
5
$
1
,
3
6
5
$0
0.
0
0
%
73
5
0
YA
R
D
WA
S
T
E
PR
O
G
R
A
M
$2
4
,
9
0
8
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
2
5
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
73
9
2
CO
N
T
A
I
N
E
R
S
$3
7
,
5
0
1
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
0
0
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
75
0
0
DE
P
R
E
C
I
A
T
I
O
N
EX
P
E
N
S
E
$6
,
1
7
2
$0
$0
$0
#D
I
V
/
0
!
76
0
1
HA
Z
A
R
D
O
U
S
WA
S
T
E
SE
R
V
I
C
E
$2
4
,
1
7
3
$
3
1
,
4
8
0
$
3
1
,
4
8
0
$0
0.
0
0
%
OT
H
E
R
$9
9
,
6
8
3
$
7
7
,
7
5
0
$
7
7
,
6
8
5
($
6
5
)
‐0.
0
8
%
90
0
0
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
RE
P
L
A
C
E
$1
3
4
,
7
1
5
$
1
5
1
,
5
4
1
$
1
3
7
,
7
0
8
(
$
1
3
,
8
3
3
)
‐9.
1
3
%
99
1
0
OF
F
I
C
E
FU
R
N
I
T
U
R
E
$0
$5
0
0
$0
(
$
5
0
0
)
‐10
0
.
0
0
%
CA
P
I
T
A
L
EX
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
$1
3
4
,
7
1
5
$
1
5
2
,
0
4
1
$
1
3
7
,
7
0
8
(
$
1
4
,
3
3
3
)
‐9.
4
3
%
TO
T
A
L
SA
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
$2
,
6
8
6
,
5
6
7
$
2
,
8
6
8
,
4
7
6
$
2
,
7
7
1
,
8
0
3
(
$
9
6
,
6
7
3
)
‐3.
3
7
%
04
-
6
0
S
A
N
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
42 OF 42 Page 186 of 186