Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 05-09-06 Web
A G E N D A #2609 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2006 AT 5:00 P.M. 4:00-5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW I.INVOCATION – Councilmember Kelly Walker II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Kelly Walker/Boy Scouts III.INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL – Mayor James H. Holmes, III IV.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF – City Manager Bob Livingston V.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT PINS: Code Enforcement Officer Mike Brackin, Building Department, 30 years and Construction Inspector Gary Bouchillon, Public Works, 15 years for a total of 45 years of service to the City of University Park. VI.ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions about items on the Consent Agenda should do so at this time. Questions and comments regarding Main Agenda items may be made when that item is addressed by the City Council. VII.CONSENT AGENDA A.CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2006 VIII.MAIN AGENDA A.CONSIDER: Ordinance for Planned Development Amendment for Preston Road Church of Christ Expansion B.CONSIDER: Request from Highland Park Independent School District for Joint Use Agreement and Facility Improvements at Germany Park C.CONSIDER: Recommendations from Public Facility Naming Committee D.DISCUSS: Request for Abandonment of Street Right-of-Way along Turtle Creek Frontage at 3501 Southwestern E.CONSIDER: Resolution Adopting Fire Department Strategic Plan F.CONSIDER: Additional Fees for Leo A. Daly and R.L. Goodson for Changes to Design of City Hall G.CONSIDER: Change Order with SYB Construction for Pavement Reconstruction of Turtle Creek Boulevard from Lovers Lane to Baltimore and Baltimore from Lovers Lane to Turtle Creek Boulevard, Project No 47100 H.CONSIDER: Request for Applications for City Boards and Committees I.CONSIDER: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with City of Southlake for Cooperative Purchasing As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this meeting may be convened into Closed Executive Session for the purpose of seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda items listed herein. IX. INFORMATION AGENDA REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A.BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes for March 27, 2006 B.EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE C.FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE D.PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of April 11, 2006 E.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for March 20, 2006 F.PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE G.PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes of January 31, 2006 H.PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE I.URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE J.ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE K.CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES #2609 CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 2006, 5:00 P.M. Mayor Blackie Holmes opened the meeting of the city council at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Present were Mayor Pro Tempore Jim Roberts and Councilmembers Syd Carter, Kelly Walker and Harry Shawver. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Attorney Rob Dillard and Deputy City Secretary Kate Smith. City Secretary Nina Wilson was absent and excused. AWARDS AND RECOGNITION DEPARTMENT PINS: City Manager Bob Livingston presented a 15-year pin to Driver/Engineer Cecil Barton in the Fire Department, and a 2-year pin to Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Public Works Director for a total of 17 years of service to the City. GRADUATION LEADERSHIP UNIVERSITY PARK: Mayor Holmes and Mayor Pro Tempore Roberts presented graduation certificates to the 33 graduating members of Leadership University Park Class IV. RECOGNITION OF BOY SCOUTS: Four boy scouts introduced themselves and announced the badges upon which they were working: Walker Brown, 3421 University; Matt Easley, 4233 Bryn Mawr; Harrison Stokes Smith, 4417 Caruth, and William Mills, 5119 Tremont. ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR Mr. Steve Dawson, 8440 Tulane, wished to speak in opposition to the Hillcrest Legacy Development. Mayor Holmes informed Mr. Dawson that the item had been addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and written input was welcome. Mr. Matt Dixon, 3448 Rosedale, spoke in favor of inset parking on Rosedale and Hursey and presented a PowerPoint presentation of the Rosedale/Hursey vicinity to demonstrate that, with the elimination of inset parking, the flow of traffic is impeded by a narrowing of the street. Mayor Holmes stated the issue had been referred to the Public Works Advisory Committee and Urban Design And Development Advisory Committee and would be brought before the City Council again in approximately one month. Ms. Kitty Ritchie Holleman, 3939 Marquette, spoke in opposition to McMansions stating that the character of the City is being destroyed by the building of huge houses. She stated that there is too much stone surface area and that this has caused a drainage problem in the City. Mayor Holmes said the density issue had been studied by the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee and the Zoning Ordinance was amended in the mid-90s to deal with some of these issues. He stated there was an item on the agenda this evening to deal with side yard setbacks which my help address some of her concerns. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Walker seconded and the vote was unanimous to approve the following: CONSENT AGENDA CONSIDER REQUEST TO ABANDON TURTLE CREEK RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) ADJACENT TO 3501 SOUTHWESTERN: The property owner of 3501 Southwestern requested the City abandon approximately 16’ of ROW along the east frontage. Assuming the requested abandonment, there is sufficient space within the remaining ROW to address utility issues and, from a traffic perspective, there is no need to consider future widening of the existing street. The City Attorney will draft an ordinance for Council consideration. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PICNIC AT WILLIAMS PARK BY COVENANT SCHOOL: The school requested Williams Park for a picnic on Thursday, May 25, 2006, 5:30 -8:30 p.m. They anticipate 550 participants. Staff recommended a Park Usage Fee of $500.00 plus a refundable $250.00 security deposit with all trash being consolidated at an agreed location. CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PICNIC AT CURTIS PARK BY WATERMARK CHURCH: Watermark Community Church requested Curtis Park for a picnic on Sunday, May 21, 2006, 9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. with approximately 700 participants. Staff recommended a $500.00 Rental Fee, a refundable $250.00 security deposit, rental of two additional port-a-potties, refrain from using a P.A. system or amplified music prior to 10:00 a.m., all trash carried off the park site. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For April 4, 2006. MAIN AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) AMENDMENT, PRESTON ROAD CHURCH OF CHRIST EXPANSION: This would include Lots 2, 3, and 4 of the Rhea Millers Subdivision University Boulevard. The tract on University Boulevard is currently zoned Multi family, and the Church is requesting a rezoning of this tract to PD-28. The concept plan and detailed site plan was reviewed by staff and considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing on February 20, 2006. The Church made changes to the detailed site plan following comments at the public hearing and directions from P&Z. The amended concept plan and detailed site plan was considered by P&Z on March 6, 2006. The Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with specific conditions. Community Development Manager Harry Persaud gave a short PowerPoint presentation with a brief update. Mr. Bob Shaw, architect for the project with F&S Partners, who lives at 3700 Lovers Lane, then presented a PowerPoint presentation showing the site plans and the provisions made. Mayor Holmes asked if there were any adverse traffic impacts. Mr. Shaw replied that the traffic consultants of DeShazo, Tang & Associates believed that there were no adverse impacts on traffic. A representative from DeShazo, Tang & Associates confirmed the statement. Mayor Holmes asked if the church planned to lease out the facility to other groups stating that this was a stipulation that had been placed on other recent church expansions. Mr. Shaw stated he believed the church could agree to that. Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing and announced that each person would be allowed three minutes to speak. Those speaking in favor of the expansion were: Preston Road Church of Christ Senior Minister W. Scott Sager, who spoke in favor of the expansion. Mayor Holmes then opened the floor to the opposition. Mr. Glen Martin, 4034 University, spoke against the expansion as did Maureen Freeman, 4019 University, and Brian Egan, 4128 McFarlin, who gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining his concerns. Nancy Sommerman, 4124 University, Richard K. Berger, 4130 University, Sally Davison, 4023 University, Lorene M. Busby, 4126 University, and R.B. Murray also spoke against the expansion. Mr. Egan brought a list of proposed restrictions, and Mayor Holmes stated that he and the Council would like to study Mr. Egan’s list and the restrictions that were placed on the other two recent church expansions before taking any action. Mayor Holmes closed the th public hearing and moved that a decision be tabled until the May 9 meeting so that the City Council could have a chance to review the proposed restrictions. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous. PUBLIC HEARING AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE BY REPEALING SECTION 21- 100(4)(C)III TO ELIMINATE 20-FOOT AND 10-FOOT LIMITATIONS ON CUMULATIVE SIDE YARDS IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS: City Council received a report from staff on October 17, 2005, and discussed specific alternatives for regulating large single family homes in established neighborhoods. At that time, Council directed staff to work with the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) to: (1) Amend the side yard setback regulations to repeal the maximum required setback of 10 feet and the sum of the two side yards not to exceed 20 feet, and (2) Review the building/plate line height on lots less than 60 feet wide and make recommendations to reduce the volume or mass of the single family home. ZOAC unanimously recommended the amendment of the side yard setback regulations. However, with regard to item (2), ZOAC felt that the City’s Zoning Ordinance provides enough restrictions and design limitations for lots which are less than 60 feet in width. Community Development Manager Harry Persaud gave a PowerPoint presentation regarding the ordinance and the effect that it would have if passed. Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing and seeing that there was no one wishing to speak, Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing. CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE BY REPEALING SECTION 21-100(4)(C)III TO ELIMINATE 20-FOOT AND 10-FOOT LIMITATIONS ON CUMULATIVE SIDE YARDS IN SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS: Councilmember Walker moved approval of the ordinance. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was unanimous to repeal section 21-100(4)(c)III eliminating 20-foot and 10-foot limitations on cumulative side yards in single family dwelling districts. ORDINANCE NO. 06/06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY REPEALING SECTION 21-100 (4) (c) iii TO ELIMINATE THE TWENTY FEET AND TEN FEET LIMITATIONS ON CUMULATIVE SIDE YARDS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER SPEED LIMITS ON RESIDENTIAL STREETS: In response to the discussion at the April 4th City Council meeting, traffic engineer Dannie Cummings identified the th following residential streets that have 85 percentile speeds in excess of 30 mph: 7300 block Dickens, 37.0 mph; 3600 block Marquette, 36.9 mph; 3600 block Wentwood, 35.7 mph; 3900 block Wentwood, 34.8 mph and 5900 block Lomo Alto, 34.2 mph. Mr. Cummings th reaffirmed to City Staff that both average and 85 percentile speeds along most of the residential streets in University Park are between 25 and 30 mph. Mr. Rick Barrett, 2817 Purdue, spoke on the item, and, although in favor of the 25 mph speed limit, spoke in opposition to action on the item at this time. Mr. Barrett asked the City Council to delay the decision so that more information could be researched on the topic and urged the City to also conduct a safety study. Mr. Dan L. Wyde, 4405 Grassmere, spoke in favor of reducing the speed limit on most residential streets to 25 mph. Mr. Wyde stated that the area around the high school is a problem and that he was in favor of a “test” area. Mayor Holmes said that the Public Works and Police staff reviewed the information provided by Mr. Cummings and that staff had jointly concluded the following recommendations: 1) Conduct a series of new speed studies along these streets to verify that speeding is a problem; 2) Identify time periods for a concentrated enforcement effort and conduct enforcement for a one week period; 3) One week following the enforcement period, conduct speed studies to quantify the impact of the enforcement; 4) Have Mr. Cummings prepare a report of the conclusions and recommendations for Council consideration and action. Mayor Holmes asked the council if it was acceptable to proceed per these recommendations, and they agreed. Mayor Holmes stated that an ordinance would not be considered at this council meeting and that they would welcome any additional input or information from Mr. Barrett. Staff indicated that it would take several weeks to complete the recommendations read by Mayor Holmes and, because of this timeline, Mayor Pro Tempore Roberts moved that a decision considering residential speed limits on residential streets be tabled until the second meeting in June. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to table the decision. PRESENTATION BY CHARTER CABLE TV IN RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY SURVEY: Due to time constraints, Charter Cable was asked by City Manager Bob Livingston to come back and present at a City Council Meeting in May. CONSIDER TXU TRANSMISSION LINE FEASIBILITY STUDY REQUEST FOR EXTENSION AND RESIDENT STEERING COMMITTEE RESIGNATION: The City’s consulting engineer, Sega, hired to perform an underground utility feasibility study, has thth requested a deadline extension for a final report from April 20 to June 6. Representatives th from Sega propose returning to University Park to present the final report during the June 6 City Council meeting. In addition, the City was notified by Joyce Hanson that she is moving out of University Park and needs to resign her position as Co-Chair of the TXU Transmission Line Steering Committee. In her resignation letter, Ms. Hanson recommended Ms. Sandra Cude to fill her vacancy on the Committee. Mayor Holmes moved approval of moving the thth final report presentation from April 20 to June 6 and appointing Sandra Cude to the TXU Transmission Line Steering Committee. Mayor Pro Tempore Roberts seconded, and the vote was unanimous to move Sega’s final report and appoint Ms. Cude to the Committee. CONSIDER REQUEST BY CHRIST THE KING SCHOOL TO USE CITY STREETS FOR 5K RUN: Christ the King School, 4100 Colgate, has requested permission to use City streets for a 5K run on Saturday, April 29, 2006, 9:00-10:00 a.m. to raise funds for their athletic association. There will be an estimated 200 runners. Christ the King will hire one off-duty police officer to direct traffic at Preston and Marquette. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of the request by Christ the King School to use City Streets for a 5K run, pending approval of the route by Police Chief Adams. Councilmember Carter seconded, and that vote was unanimous to approve the request with the pending approval. CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND DEFINITION OF APPROVED TRASH CONTAINER: There are 293 properties in University Park that have garbage picked up from the parkway because they do not have alley access. City ordinances require that all trash cans have tight-fitting lids and be attached to a permanent structure. The homes without alley access do not typically have a permanent structure on which to attach their trash can lids. They also lack the convenience of a trash can inset or similar structure to house their cans on non-collection days. The current ordinance also states that trash cans cannot exceed a capacity of 30 gallons. Standard trash can sizes are 20 gallons and 32 gallons. Since 30 gallon cans are not produced, residents would have to purchase 20 gallon cans in order to comply with the current ordinance. Mayor Pro Tempore Roberts moved approval of the ordinance to amend the definition of an approved trash container. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to amend the trash container ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 06/07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, BY AMENDING CHAPTER 11, ARTICLE 11.100 REFUSE COLLECTION POLICIES TO DEFINE APPROVED CONTAINERS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING FIRE DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN: Due to time constraints, Fire Chief David Ledbetter was asked by City Manager Bob Livingston to th present this item at the May 9 City Council Meeting. CONSIDER ACCEPTANCE OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FOR REGIONAL RADIO INTEROPERABILITY: Last year, Chief Ledbetter made a presentation to the Mayor and City Council regarding a study that was commissioned by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) regarding regional interoperability. The study was administered by the RCC Consulting Company to determine capabilities of not only the University Park public safety communication system but all cities in the NCTCOG region to ensure communications could be conducted by agencies that normally operate in our City under emergency conditions. RCC determined that our communication system needed upgrading and wrote a Request for Quotes (RFQ) for eligible companies to bid on the upgrades. The study was driven by a Homeland Security Grant that would be available for the upgrades. The grant money has been made available to proceed with the upgrades. The Homeland Security Grant money allotted to the City of University Park is in the amount of $29,000.00 and will be administered by the Texas Governors Division of Emergency Management. To be eligible for the grant money a Sub-recipient Award must be signed and forwarded to the Governors Division of Emergency Management by April 31, 2006. Councilmember Shawver moved approval of acceptance of the Homeland Security Grant for Regional Radio Interoperability. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was unanimous to accept the grant. PUBLIC HEARING SETTING NATURAL GAS RATES: Finance Director Kent Austin stated there were two separate items up for consideration. The first, an ordinance setting natural gas rates and a follow-up to last November’s “show cause” resolution, was approved by the City along with other Atmos gas customer cities. Consultants and attorneys for the Atmos Cities’ Steering Committee have reviewed the information and concluded that Atmos should reduce its rates in alignment with $73.4 million in recommended adjustments. The second, a resolution suspending the 2005 Atmos gas GRIP (Gas Rate Infrastructure Program) rate request is in response to the latest Atmos GRIP filing. The City rejected the two earlier GRIP filings, first in January 2005 for 2003, then in November 2005 for 2004. On March 31, 2006, Atmos filed its latest GRIP request, this one for the year 2005. If the City takes no action before May 30, 2006, the GRIP changes take effect. The suspension resolution would provide an additional 45 days for study of the GRIP request. Mayor Holmes opened the public hearing on setting natural gas rates. Mr. Mike Greenwood, Manager, Public Affairs with Atmos Energy, spoke and expressed his regret at the expensive process that both parties must go through. Seeing that there were no others wishing to speak on the issue, Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing. CONSIDER ORDINANCE SETTING NATURAL GAS RATES AND CONSIDER RESOLUTION SUSPENDING 2005 ATMOS GAS GRIP RATE REQUEST: After the close of the public hearing, Mayor Pro Tempore Roberts moved approval of the ordinance setting natural gas rates and the resolution suspending the 2005 Atmos Gas GRIP rates request. Mayor Holmes seconded, and the vote was to approve both the ordinance and the resolution unanimous. ORDINANCE NO. 06/08 AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT THE EXISTING NATURAL GAS DISTRIBUTION RATES OF ATMOS MID-TEX SHOULD BE REDUCED; ORDERING ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION, TO REDUCE ITS EXISTING RATES WITHIN THE CITY; ADOPTING SPECIFIC NEW RATES R, T & C AND ORDERING ALL RATES, SERVICE CHARGES AND TARIFF LANGUAGE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH ATTACHMENT 1 TO REMAIN OPERATIVE EXCEPT THAT ALL GRIP SURCHARGES SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE; ORDERING ATMOS MID-TEX TO REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR ITS REASONABLE COSTS INCURRED IN THIS SHOW CAUSE AND ANY RELATED RATEMAKING PROCEEDINGS OR APPEALS OF SAID PROCEEDINGS; AUTHORIZING THE ATMOS CITIES STEERING COMMITTEE TO ACT ON BEHALF OF CITY AND INTERVENE IN ANY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE OR JUDICIAL BODIES; REQUIRING DELIVERY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE COMPANY AND LEGAL COUNSEL; AND ORDAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF. RESOLUTION NO. 06-06 A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS SUSPENDING THE MAY 30, 2006, EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROPOSAL BY ATMOS ENERGY CORP., MID-TEX DIVISION TO IMPLEMENT INTERIM GRIP RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR GAS UTILITY INVESTMENT IN 2005; AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION WITH THE GAS STANDING STEERING COMMITTEE IN A REVIEW AND INQUIRY INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE FILING AND THE BASIS AND REASONABLENESS OF THE PROPOSED RATE ADJUSTMENTS; AUTHORIZING INTERVENTION IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND COURT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE PROPOSED GRIP RATE ADJUSTMENTS; REQUIRING REIMBURSEMENT OF REASONABLE LEGAL AND CONSULTANT EXPENSES; AND REQUIRING DELIVERY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE COMPANY AND LEGAL COUNSEL. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. th PASSED AND APPROVED this 9 day of May 2006. James H. Holmes III, Mayor ATTEST: ____ Kate Smith, Deputy City Secretary AGENDA MEMO (05/09/2006 AGENDA) DATE: May 9, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager SUBJECT: Consideration of an Ordinance granting a zoning change from MF-2 to PD- 28 zoning district classification for a tract of land situated on the South West Corner of University Blvd and Preston Road, and described as lots 2, 3 and 4 located in the Rhea Miller’s Subdivision, in the City of University Park; and approving a detailed site plan for the amended PD-28 zoning district. Background/Analysis: Following the public hearing on the zoning change and site plan amendment for the Preston Road Church of Christ, City Council tabled this item for further consideration on May 9, 2006. Brian Egan, who lives west of and abutting the subject tract, presented to Council a list of proposed restrictions for PD-28 (Attached). Staff has reviewed the PD conditions which were approved for City Hall and the Park Cities Baptist Church and worked with representatives of the Preston Road Church of Christ to compile a list of conditions which my apply to PD-28. (Attached) Recommendation Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval with specific conditions attached. Attachments: 1. Additional PD conditions (New) 2. PD Restrictions as provided by Brian Egan 3. P& Z Report 4. PD Ordinance Additional PD Conditions 1. The property shall be developed only in conformance with the requirements of this Planned Development Ordinance and the approved detailed site plan. 2. The 7 foot masonry wall located on the west property line between the existing parking lot and the existing single family home as shown on the approved site plan shall be installed prior to demolition of any structure on the site. 3. An 8 foot solid plywood screening fence shall be installed around the construction site during construction and remain in place while construction is ongoing. 4. All activities that utilize buses and other large vehicles, including, but not limited to church trips, medical screening vehicles and bloodmobile vans, will be conducted on Church property and in no case such activity will be conducted on City Streets abutting the Church. 5. Trash receptacles shall be located as shown on the approved site plan and be screened from view of adjacent properties. 6. During construction, the church will provide a liaison to respond to questions and complaints from residents. The Church will provide information to residents for contacting the liaison 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 7. The Planned Development will expire if construction permits are not issued by June 1, 2008 or if construction has not commenced by December 31, 2008. 8. No parking of construction vehicles or equipment will be permitted on City Streets. All construction related parking shall be provided by the Church on site. If additional parking is required, the contractor shall provide off-premises parking and shuttle workers to the site. 9. Background checks will be performed by the contractors for all construction workers prior to their working on the site. Information relating to background checks will be kept on file by the Contractor. A convicted felon or pedophile will be barred from working on the site. BRIAN EGAN Proposed Restrictions to PD-28, Preston Road Church of Christ 20 Apr 2006 1) Some limit on the footprint of the combined parking and structure development. 2) A seven (7’) foot masonry wall described in the Landscape Site Plan approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission will be erected to screen the residents to the west prior to the demolition of any structures on the site. An eight (8’) foot screening fence shall be erected around the remainder of the construction site and remain in place while construction is ongoing. The fence will be of wood painted in a color approved by the Director of Public Works. The fence will block the site of passerby onto the site. 3) All activities that utilize buses or other large vehicles, to include but not limited to bloodmobile vans, medical screening vehicles, and church buses will be conducted on church premises with the vehicles stationed no closer than fifty (50’) feet to the residential neighborhood to the west or within fifty (50’) feet of McFarlin and University Boulevards. In no case will any of these activities be conducted on the city streets near or adjacent to the church. 4) In the event an entrance to a parking lot is approved on University Boulevard that ingress and egress be made with a right turn only. 5) All trash receptacles will be totally screened from the view of adjacent properties in their own enclosure and located as close to the building as possible. 6) All construction vehicles or contractor’s employees will park on the jobsite. PRCC will require that any additional parking required by construction personnel will be accommodated off site to include a method of transferring construction personnel to and from that location. No construction related parking will be permitted on city streets. 7) Background checks will be performed by the construction worker prior to their working on the site. The information will be provided to the church and the church will keep a file of all background checks. A convicted felon or pedophile will be barred from working on the project. Construction workers will wear badges with photo ID’s at all times. 8) A full tome PRCC church employee or church member shall provide liaison during the construction to respond to questions and complaints form citizens on a twenty-four (24) hour basis. A phone number for this contact will be provided to all adjacent property owners. 9) The Planned Development will expire if construction permits are not issued by June 1, 2008 or construction has not started by December 31, 2008. Thank you for your consideration, Brian Egan 4128 McFarlin Boulevard Planning & Zoning Commission Report DATE: , March 6 2006 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager RE: PZ -06-001 GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: F & S Partners Inc. representing the Preston Road Church of Christ LOCATION: 6409 Preston Road REQUEST: Requesting a zoning change from MF-2 to PD-28 zoning district classification for a tract of land situated on the South West Corner of University Blvd and Preston Road, and described as lots 2, 3 and 4 located in the Rhea Miller’s Subdivision, in the City of University Park; and consideration of a detailed site plan for the amended PD-28 zoning district. EXISTING ZONING: PD-28 and MF-2 SURROUNDING LAND USE: Residential STAFF COMMENTS: The applicant has submitted a request for a zoning change and consideration of a concept and detailed site plan for PD-28. Preston Road Church of Christ proposes to rezone a portion of land situated south of and abutting University Boulevard and described as lots 2, 3, and 4 located in the Rhea Miller’s Subdivision currently zoned MF-2 to PD-28. Section 20 “Use Table” of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires a Specific Use Permit for a church in the MF-2 zoning district. The maximum building height in the MF-2 district is 35 feet. The existing church building located in PD-28 on the northwest corner of McFarlin Blvd and Preston Road is approx. 26,000 sq. ft with a building height of 35’ 7”. The church proposes to add approx. 35,000 sq. ft. with a maximum building height of 35’on the adjacent tract abutting University Blvd.In addition to a traffic study, the applicants submitted a detailed site plan showing the existing and proposed building sites, building elevations, landscape plan, parking analysis and on site traffic circulation. The parking analysis shows the need for 246 parking spaces for an estimated 738 seats. The site plan shows 72 spaces on site and 12 additional spaces located in the public Right-of-Way on University Boulevard. Overall the proposed development is 162 parking spaces short of meeting requirements. The applicant will present the plans at the public hearing and respond to questions and comments. A public notice was published in the Park Cities News on February 2, 2006 and March 30, 2006. Property owner notices were mailed to owners within 200 feet of the subject tract. Based on verified DCAD information 36% of the properties within 200 feet of the subject tract opposes the zoning change request. Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered this item at its regular meeting on February 20, 2006. The item was tabled for further consideration on March 6, 2006. P& Z directed the church to review the parking lot design on the north west corner of the site with the objective of possibly eliminating one row of parking spaces abutting the west property line and adding a screen wall or landscape buffer between the existing residential use and the parking lot. The screening wall and/ or landscaping should extend south so as to provide a buffer between the existing single family home and the existing parking lot. PD CONDITIONS: (1) The Church will install a wrought iron sliding gate at the University Boulevard driveway to restrict through traffic to McFarlin at peak hours; (2) A 7 foot masonry wall will be installed on the northwest corner of the site to align with the front building line as shown on the approved site plan; (3) An evergreen hedge of Nellie R. Stevens Holly will be planted along the west property line between the Church and the existing duplex. Plants shall be installed so that there is no space between them, and they shall be at least 7 feet in height when planted, measured from grade; (4) A 7 foot masonry wall to match the materials and architectural character of the Church shall be installed between the Church parking lot on McFarlin and the single family residence to the west of the parking lot, such wall terminating at the front building line of the home; (5) New light fixtures to be installed on the site shall be the same height as the existing light poles and shall a cut off luminaire; (6) All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved site plan; (7) Further review of the detailed site plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission is hereby waived. ATTACHMENTS: (1) PD Concept and Detailed Site Plan (2) Building Elevations ORDINANCE NO. ___________________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 21, RHEA MILLER’S SUBDIVISION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28; APPROVING A DETAILED SITE PLAN AS EXHIBIT “B” SUBJECT TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and have held due hearings and afforded a full and fair hearing to all property owners generally and to all persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, and the City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that said zoning change should be granted and NOW, that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map should be amended; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map are hereby amended to include the property described as Lots 2, 3, and 4, Rhea Miller’s Subdivision, Block 21, an addition to the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, in Planned Development District No. 28 for the Preston Road Church of Christ, said property being more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made part hereof for all purposes. SECTION 2 . That the amended detailed site plan for PD No. 28 for the Preston Road Church of Christ, attached hereto collectively as Exhibit “B”, is hereby approved as the detailed site plan for said Planned Development District as required by Section 22-500 of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, subject to the following special conditions: a.The Church will install a wrought iron sliding gate at the University Boulevard driveway to restrict through traffic to McFarlin at peak hours; b.A 7 foot masonry wall will be installed on the northwest corner of the site to align with the front building line as shown on the approved site plan; c.An evergreen hedge of Nellie R. Stevens Holly will be planted along the west property line between the Church and the existing duplex. Plants shall be installed so that there is no space between them, and they shall be at least 7 feet in height when planted, measured from grade; d.A 7 foot masonry wall to match the materials and architectural character of the Church shall be installed between the Church parking lot on McFarlin and the single family residence to the west of the parking lot, such wall terminating at the front building line of the home; e. New light fixtures to be installed on the site shall be the same height as the existing light poles and shall a cut off luminaire; and, f.All landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved site plan; g.Further review of the detailed site plan by the Planning and Zoning Commission is hereby waived. SECTION 3 . That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. SECTION 4. That should any sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or section of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map, as amended hereby, be adjudged or held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any part or provision thereof, other than the part so declared to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional, and shall not affect the validity of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole. SECTION 5. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map, as amended hereby, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and each and every day any such violation shall continue shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the _______ day of ______________________ 2006. APPROVED: ____________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ______________________________ _______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY (RLD/3/24/06) ORDINANCE NO. ___________________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO INCLUDE THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 21, RHEA MILLER’S SUBDIVISION, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED, IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 28; APPROVING A DETAILED SITE PLAN AS EXHIBIT “B” SUBJECT TO SPECIAL CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the _________ day of ________________ 2006. APPROVED: ____________________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: ____________________________________ CITY SECRETARY AGENDA MEMO (05/09/2006 AGENDA) DATE: May 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks SUBJECT: Joint Use Agreement and Facility Improvements at Germany Park BACKGROUND: Staff has been approached by the HPISD to discuss two items regarding Germany Park. The items include amendments to the Joint Use Agreement of Germany Park (which is due for renewal in August 2006) and potential improvements/upgrades to the track and restroom facilities. HPISD Contract Amendments: 1. That paragraph 2 of the Agreement is changed to reflect an extension of 20 years. 2. That paragraph 3 of the Agreement is changed to reflect that “all 6 lanes” of the track are the exclusive use of the HPISD during the time period specified in the Agreement. 3. A paragraph should be added to allow for the construction of new improvements (track and restrooms) as represented in the attached “Exhibit A-1, A-2, A-3”. RECOMMENDATION: A representative of the HPISD will be making the presentation to City Council and will be available to answer questions. Staff is requesting direction from City Council on how to proceed with the HPISD request. ATTACHMENTS: Letter of Request from HPISD Existing Joint Use Agreement Proposed Facility Improvements – Exhibits A 1, A 2, A3. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 8:48 AM 05/04/06 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 8:48 AM 05/04/06 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 8:48 AM 05/04/06 :.:c . t- a:i s: >< u..J ~~I:~)~:ti:J-If. '. 'OO. ~;.pf!il '" ~..;,4lI'.MOjtu. 11:..Jj ;"I~~,,;;=."''''':"'''P.4~ ...tr. Df....M"t lr.1; i~ioot-. m ~ , . ~. ,"\ I l!\'~ ! ~ ik ~ 1 /~ ~ --b~ 1"1 _4~~s:. ~ ~~ ~tL ~ V"~i.~,\ ';J ~. r~ ~. _"'~ .. r- ~..! .~ Highland Park Men's & Women's Track & Field Facili F&S P..tMrs Inc.1ltId Jared Fllbeck, RA, NCARB Program of Spaces 639 sf Gin's Locker Room - (94 1/2 height ~ 15" x 24") (4 toilets. 1 shower. 3 sinks and counter space) Boy's Locker Room . 449 51 (20 fill helgl'1t @ 1 e" x 24") (2 toilets, 2 l.onals, 1 shower, 3 sinks and counter space) Office - 270 sf Male Coaches Locker Room 218 sf (4 full height lockern @15" x 24", 1 toilet, 1 shower, 1 sink) Female Coaches Locker Room 218 sf (4 full height lockers @15" x 24", 1 toilet, 1 shOWer, 1 sink) Fitness Room Taping Alcow Ice and Concession Room Circulation TOTAL Existing Storage to Remain Existing Public ToUets to Remain (Plumbing Chases & Walls Induded In 1I1e areas above +/- 10%) 668 sf 58 sf 5451 137sf 2713 sf 570 sf 401 sf AprU 10, 200& ~ EXHIBIT 'A' ~ I ~ Q. <( ~ .- - .u :. ~ Qi il: olJ ~ CJ l! F ..fA t: CI) E ~ olJ ~ ..0 ~ t: ~ CI) ~ :E ~ ~ iL ftS 1 0.. :;; c ~ ~ t: ~ ca .. _ a; .r:. ~ 0):' .- (/) :r: ~ EDUCATION/INSTITUTIONAL FITNESS CENTER YMCA PARKS & RECS SUPER X PERFORMANCE BEST RETURN ON INVESTMENT ON THE MARKET OUTDOOR TRACK INDOOR TRACK JOGGING TRACK MOLDED AND VULCANIZED TOP 8< BOTTOM LAVER PLAYING FIELDS FOR THE DISABLED ATHLETES . no resurfacing or recoating required no top coating to wear through or granules to wear off . extremely maintenance friendly on a regular basis, normal rainfall carries away the surface dirt . drains & dries very quickly . climate neutral consistent performance in warm & cold climates . easy to repair not the difficulty of a poured surface . unrivaled point load recovery bleachers, benches, vans & equipment areas . withstands heavy traffic MULTIPURPOSE INDOOR & OUTDOOR LACROSSE FOOTBALL BASKETBALL BASEBALL OTHER RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES HEALTHCARE RUNNING TRACK FOR PHYSICAL THERAPY PROJECTED LIFE-CYCLE COSTS FOR OUTDOOR TRACK SURFACES $110 $90 $70 $50 $30 $10 $ 0 INITIAL 6-VEAR 12~VEAR PURCHASE MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE Price per SQ.YD. US$ $110 $90 $70 . RESURFACING . RECOAT . TEAR OUT AND REPLACE $50 _ POLYURETHANE FULL POUR $30 _ POLYURETHANE 5BR FILLER _ POLYURETHANE SANDWICH $10 $ 0 _ STRUCTURAL SPRAY Price per SQ. YD. US$ _ SUPER X PERFORMANCE ........ P 10 P 85 P 18 P 86 P 89 P 25 P 06 P 30 TEXTURE: Track embossing~: ROLL WIDTHS: 3' (,92 m), 31/2' (1,07 m), 4' (1,22 m), 5' (1,52 m), 6' (1,83 m) ROLL LENGTH: 20' to 40' (6 to 12 m) THICKNESSES: 1/4" (6 mm), 5/16" (8 mm), 3/6" (10 mm), 1/2" (13 mm), 9/16" (14 mm) Custom colors available on order. Minimum quantity required. ~~J :' ;"M,~\.~ ~,' (~7J(il.~IDI In . t' ! 7 > !II! LU. \.:..- u... \.:..- . " 0 @ 0.. .\'iW Ij7 Ii. f.~. O'.uG. E N GIN E ERE D FOR ~-~ CEFPJR4- 8 "'-~e.-.,- ~ CEFPI MEMBER ....11 .6" HUMAN VITALITV I sales office: 800 441 6645 email: mondo@mondousa.com website: www.mondousa.com AGENDA MEMO (05/09/2006 AGENDA) DATE: May 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks SUBJECT: Public Facility Naming Committee - Recommendations BACKGROUND: Since January 2006, the Public Facilities Naming Committee (PFNC) has been in the process of evaluating applicants being considered for public facility naming. The following are individuals which have been recommended by the Committee for City Council consideration and approval: Barbara Hitzelberger – Hillcrest @ Lovers Lane Parks Buddy C. Porter – Snider Plaza Fountain RECOMMENDATION: Staff has attached a copy of the Committee’s meeting minutes to serve as the Public Facility Naming Committee’s recommendation to City Council. During the Council meeting, staff will request of City Council to approve the Committee’s recommendation. If approved by City Council, staff will work with architects to design appropriate identification signage for each individual and location. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes from 4-16-06 Public Facility Naming Committee 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 PFNC – City Council meeting – 5-9-06 M I N U T E S PUBLIC FACILITY NAMING COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, April 19, 2006, 4:30 P.M. CITY HALL, LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM Attendees: Committee members: Staff: Trevor Rees-Jones, Chair Park Director Gerry Bradley Brad Bradley City Manager Bob Livingston Diane Galloway Administrative Assistant Kate Smith Bill Pardoe Absent: Irwin Gordon and Kirk Dooley The meeting was called to order by Chair Rees-Jones at 4:40 p.m. The committee reviewed the minutes of the March 14, 2006 meeting. Bill Pardoe moved approval of the minutes. Brad Bradley seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Gerry Bradley provided copies of the April edition of the City newsletter, The Arbor, which included an article about the Facility Naming Program. The committee brought up the concern at the March meeting that there had been limited publicity on the program. This article was included in the April Arbor to address this issue. At the last meeting, the Committee requested more information on applicant Buddy Porter and his contributions to the fountain in Snider Plaza. City Manager Bob Livingston stated that he spoke to the former City Manager, Leland Nelson, and former Mayor, Barbara Hitzelberger, and that neither of them remembered any specific details regarding the fountain. Gerry Bradley said that he called Marc Hall and that Mr. Hall remembered that Mr. Porter donated $30,000 toward fountain restoration, that the Snider Plaza business donated $5,000, and that the City of University Park contributed as well. Mr. Hall said that he thought Mr. Porter was a major contributor to Snider Plaza and that the fountain would be a good choice. The Committee discussed that although Roger Fullington’s application requested that the linear park be named for Mr. Porter, they felt that the fountain would be a more fitting focal point in the community. The Committee directed Mr. Bradley to contact Roger Fullington and discuss with him naming the fountain 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 PFNC – City Council meeting – 5-9-06 after Mr. Porter, instead of the linear park. After this conversation, Mr. Bradley will contact the committee members by phone to let them know if Mr. Fullington agreed with this change. Diane Galloway moved that the Snider Plaza Fountain be named for Rufus C. “Buddy” Porter, subject to Gerry Bradley speaking with Roger Fullington to approve the location change. Brad Bradley seconded, and the vote was unanimous. The Committee then reviewed the location that was decided upon to be named for Barbara Hitzelberger. The two parks located at Lovers Lane and Hillcrest were chosen, and Gerry Bradley noted that an architect would be looking at design options for those two parks in the very near future. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 PFNC – City Council meeting – 5-9-06 AGENDA MEMO (04-20-06 AGENDA) DATE: May 2, 2006 TO: Bob Livingston City Manager FROM: Gene R. Smallwood, P.E. Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Discuss a request for abandonment of street right-of-way along the Turtle Creek frontage of 3501 Southwestern. Background. Staff received a request from the owner of the property at 3501 Southwestern for the City to abandon approximately sixteen feet of the right-of-way (r-o-w) along his east (Turtle Creek Blvd) frontage. This is exactly like the request the City granted to his neighbor to the north (3500 Southwestern) in 2002. Staff reviewed the site conditions, utilities, and adjacent r-o-w widths. Even assuming the requested abandonment, there is sufficient width in the remaining r-o-w to address utility issues. Additionally, from a traffic perspective, we do not see a need to consider any future widening of the existing street. If the Council is amenable to the request, staff will determine the "fair market value" of the subject street r-o-w. The City Attorney would then draft the enabling ordinance for City Council consideration at a subsequent meeting. Discussion. Staff requests Council consideration of the request prior to any further discussion with the property owner. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM R-O-W Aband 3501 Southwestern 04 20 06.doc 8:35 AM 05/02/06 ORDINANCE NO. _________________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ABANDONING A PORTION OF THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OF TURTLE CREEK BOULEVARD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBITS “A” AND “B”, TO THE ABUTTING OWNERS, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PAYMENT OF $117,831.10 TO THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE FURNISHING OF A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR RECORDING IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AS A QUITCLAIM DEED OF THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, has determined that certain street right-of-way, described and depicted in Exhibits “A” and “B”, is no longer needed or necessary for public purposes by the City; and WHEREAS , the abutting property owners have agreed to pay the City the market value of the interests being abandoned, as determined by an appraisal obtained by the City; Now, Therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That for and in consideration of the payment to the City of University Park of $117,831.10, the City of University Park hereby abandons and quitclaims in favor of the abutting owners, Mark A. Trieb and Shauna J. Trieb, the street right-of-way rights over all that certain tract or parcel of land more particularly described and depicted in Exhibits “A” and “B” respectively, which are attached hereto and made a part hereof for all purposes, the same as if fully copied herein, consisting of 2,553.22 square feet (0.0586 acre), more or less, being a portion of the street right-of-way of Turtle Creek Boulevard, in the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas. SECTION 2. That the rights being abandoned in the property described in Exhibit “A” consist of street right-of-way as shown in said Exhibit. SECTION 3. That the City of University Park does not abandon any other interest other than described in Exhibit “A”, but does hereby abandon all of its right, title, or interest in the described street right-of-way, together with any and all improvements thereon. 66015 SECTION 4 . That upon delivery of the amount stated above in section 1, the City Secretary is directed to prepare a certified copy of this ordinance and furnish the same to Mark A. Trieb and Shauna J. Trieb, and the recording of this abandonment ordinance in the real property records of Dallas County, Texas, shall serve as a quitclaim deed of the City of University Park of such right, title or interest of the City of University Park in and to such street right-of-way described in Exhibit “A”. SECTION 5 . This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, as the law and Charter in such cases provide. th DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 9 day of May 2006. APPROVED: ________________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: _________________________ _________________________________ CITY ATTORNEY NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY (RLD/05-2-06) 66015 EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION 66015 EXHIBIT “B” 66015 AGENDA MEMO (05/09/06 AGENDA) DATE: March 31, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: David Ledbetter Fire Chief SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting F.D. Strategic Plan In January 2006, the Fire Department began developing a departmental strategic plan by inviting and utilizing the input of citizens from the various advisory committee groups, Fire Department members and City staff members. In February 2006 the strategic plan was completed and clearly defined who the organization is; what the departmental values are; and the direction the University Park Fire Department will pursue for the next three to five years. The development of the Fire Department Strategic Plan assists in establishing one of the first processes the department must undergo for accreditation. In order to comply with the Commission of Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) the plan must be published and formally recognized. The benefits of adopting the Strategic Plan by the City Council include: ? Validation of the planning process by the governing body, ? Clearer communication between staff and governing body towards strategic direction of the department, ? Budget requests become more performance based. By adopting the Strategic Plan it should not appear the City Council is approving the contents of the plan; rather it is a formal action that recognizes and accepts the plan as the basis for short range goals and direction. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the University Park Fire Department Strategic Plan be adopted by Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: UPFD Strategic Plan and Resolution 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDA MEMO Strategic Plan Adoption.doc 3:14 PM 05/04/06 ˲·ª»®·¬§ п®µ Ú·®» Ü»°¿®¬³»²¬ Facilitated by Deputy Chief Rick Black 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas 75205 (214) 987-5388 (office) (214) 987-5384 (fax) www.uptexas.org TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................3 THE CUSTOMER CENTERED STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS.............................7 ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND................................................................................9 THE MISSION STATEMENT..........................................................................................10 THE VISION STATEMENTS...........................................................................................11 VALUES..........................................................................................................................12 STRENGTHS..................................................................................................................13 WEAKNESSES...............................................................................................................14 OPPORTUNITIES...........................................................................................................15 THREATS.......................................................................................................................15 CRITICAL ISSUES AND SERVICE GAPS.....................................................................16 SERVICES PROVIDED..................................................................................................17 CUSTOMER PRIORITIES..............................................................................................18 CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS.......................................................................................19 AREAS OF CUSTOMER CONCERN.............................................................................20 POSITIVE CUSTOMER FEEDBACK..............................................................................21 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................22 COMMUNITY FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS...............................................................................................................36 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This author acknowledges the Strategic Planning Group for their participation and input into the Customer Centered Strategic Planning Process. Special thanks go to Fire Chief David Ledbetter for his leadership and commitment to the process. My particular thanks goes out to members of University Park Fire Department for the assistance and resources made available to me in order to complete this strategic plan. I would also like to thank the citizens who contributed to the creation of this strategic plan. The development of this plan was truly a “team effort”. University Park Fire Department Strategic Planning Group: Kent Austin Scott Green Bob Poynter Director of Finance Fire Lieutenant Fire Lieutenant Cecil Barton Max Raney John Gillette Fire Engineer Fire Captain Fire Marshal Shane LeCroy Jacob Speer Terry Fowler Fire Section Chief Assistant Dir. of Public Works Firefighter/Paramedic David Ledbetter Jim Stroope Monte Gibson Fire Chief Fire Section Chief Fire Section Chief 2 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Customer Centered Strategic Planning process accomplished more than just the development of a document. It challenged the membership of University Park Fire Department to look critically at paradigms, values, philosophies, beliefs, and desires. It challenged individuals to work in the best interest of the “team.” In addition, it provided the membership with an opportunity to participate in the development of their organization’s long-term direction and focus. The members of the University Park Fire Department Strategic Planning Group and the Citizen’s Advisory Group did an outstanding job in committing to this important project and seeing it to final form. Mission, Vision and Values University Park Fire Department Mission Clearly stated and intentionally simplistic, accurately describes the organization’s general purpose. “We exist to deliver outstanding fire and life safety solutions.” Vision Building on this mission, the membership was asked to identify statements, thus establishing targets of excellence for the future. The following were among the identified vision statements: Recognized as a progressive, well-trained and customer-centered fire organization… Places a high premium on effective service delivery… Provide the most effective and efficient service possible… Greater emphasis on Prevention… Provide an effective response force through adequate staffing levels and effective aid contracts… Our equipment will be dependable, capable and consistent with needs of community… Expand our information initiatives for customer feedback… Remain in line with expectations of community… Family atmosphere nurtured by fair practices, open communication processes and up-to-date procedures… A physically fit, healthy, and increasingly diverse work force…. Maintaining or exceeding market value compensation… 3 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Recognizing that its collective personality and the values of its members enhance the Values organization, the University Park Fire Department staff declared a set of that included such core words as: Ю±º»·±²¿´·³ô ·²¬»¹®·¬§ô ¬»¿³©±®µô º¿³·´§ô ¸±²»¬§ô ¬®«¬©±®¬¸·²»ô ±°»²²»ô ®»°»½¬ô ½±³°¿·±²ô »³°±©»®³»²¬ô µ²±©´»¼¹»ô ¸·¹¸»® »¼«½¿¬·±² ¿²¼ ½«¬±³»® »®ª·½»ò Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) Analysis The SWOT Analysis required University Park Fire Department to look candidly at its strengths and weaknesses and to identify opportunities and threats facing the University Park Fire Department. strengths Some of the organizational identified include: Apparatus, proximity to hospitals, external relationships, excellent service to citizens, inter-department relationships, strong codes and ordinances, rapport with citizens, ISO rating, depth of employee experience, limited bureaucracy, employee work ethic and character, stable land mass, paramedic-staffed apparatus, low violent crime rate, fire prevention program, diverse tenure, low citizen abuse rate for EMS, camaraderie among employees, better trained recruits, reduced areas requiring high demand of emergency services, supportive city council, aggressive firefighting tactics and high percentage of new construction that comply with codes. weaknesses Some of the areas identified as or needing enhancement include: Ineffective staffing levels, fire ground safety and accountability practices, lack of recognition program, employee retention, lack of advancement opportunities, lack of effective internal training plan, paramedic for life policy, ineffective inspector program, lack of arson investigators, Uniform/equipment replacement policy, low utilization of loss data, decentralized fire station, implementation of homeland security equipment/training, lack of public education, increasing responsibilities with no change in resources and lack of accreditation. opportunities Many exist for University Park Fire Department, some of which include: Resource sharing, more involved with community, increased finance resource capacity, federal funding, greater emphasis on public policy, new fire station, meeting recognized standards, enhancing mutual aid/automatic aid with Highland Park, Improved relationships with neighboring agencies, greater relationship with city council, UTSW grant studies and limited agency size allowing for easier adoption to change. 4 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan threats Fundamental to the success of any strategic plan is the understanding that are not completely and/or directly controlled by the organization. Some of the current and future threats to the University Park Fire Department include: Needs overshadowed by Dallas/SMU, privatization/outsourcing, greater dependency on mutual aid, greater life safety issues, greater competition for qualified personnel, unfunded mandates, inconsistent procedures between inter/intra-departments, changes in government body, changes in Dallas leadership, Presidential library, liability conflicts with community, employee generation gaps/work ethic, changing technology, resistance to change and larger homes/zero lot lines. Customer Priority of Services, Customer Concerns, Expectations and Feedback The Citizens Advisory Group was asked to prioritize the services provided by University Park Fire Department. The following are those services in priority order: 1. Fire Suppression 2. Basic Rescue 3. Advanced Life Support EMS 4. Advanced Rescue 5. Fire Inspections 6. Hazardous Materials Mitigation 7. Community Fire/EMS Safety Education 8. Arson Investigation 9. Response to Weapons of Mass Destruction 10. Blood Pressure Checks A key element of the University Park Fire Department organizational philosophy is a high level of commitment to customers. The agency recognizes the importance of customer satisfaction. Critical customer expectations, concerns and other feedback were gathered from the Citizens Advisory Group and are included in this report. Goals, Objectives, Performance Measures and Targets Armed with the mission, vision, values, SWOT analysis, and customer priorities, expectations and concerns; the membership of University Park Fire Department focused on developing realistic strategic goals and objectives designed to guide the Department into the future. The following organizational goals were identified: 5 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 1 Secure mutual and automatic aid agreements to meet the needs of the department. Goal 2 Implement a physical fitness program focused on the health and wellness of the firefighter. Goal 3 Provide for an adequate number of firefighters to arrive at all emergencies within a credible and effective timeframe. Goal 4 Improve response times to northeast portion of city. Goal 5 Improve the analysis and use of data. Goal 6 Improve the records management system (RMS) and field computerization in the department. Goal 7 Improve the personnel retention by improving the step-in-grade system. Goal 8 Develop a personnel recognition program that highlights value and accomplishment. Goal 9 Develop a comprehensive training program/plan that includes career development. This strategic plan provides a detailed roadmap into the future. It is a living, working document, and a “tool” to be used at all levels of the organization. Constant evaluation of outcomes is critical to determine the success of the organization’s efforts and performance objectives direction. A set of sample has been developed to provide a quantitative method to monitor performance. 6 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan THE CUSTOMER CENTERED STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS The fire service has entered into a very competitive evolutionary cycle. Public demands continue to increase while dollars, and other resources, continue to shrink. These trends place increased pressure on the modern fire service manager, policy makers, and full- time staff, to come up with ways to be more efficient and more effective. In many cases, the public is demanding the accomplishment of specific goals, objectives, and services, with fewer resources. To do a more efficient job with the available resources organizations must set objectives based on constructive efforts, while eliminating programs that do not serve the customer. To ensure that customer needs were incorporated, the Customer Centered Strategic Planning (CCSP) process was used to develop the University Park Fire Department’s strategic plan. The CCSP process is a product of Emergency Services Consulting Inc of Wilsonville, Oregon. Businesses employ this type of process to identify market niches, allowing the service provider to focus efforts while reducing risk and wasted effort. This process was adapted to meet University Park Fire Department’s specific needs. This methodology has been adopted and utilized by the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the Western Fire Chiefs Association, the Oregon Fire District Directors Association, the Florida Fire Chiefs Association the Washington State Firefighters Council and the Commission on Fire Accreditation, International. The CCSP process has proven very effective in all types and sizes of organizations and should serve as a model for emergency service providers for many years. This document is the result of several strategic planning sessions and includes valuable citizen input. The participants of University Park Fire Department provided excellent input into this process. Their insights were invaluable in putting together the strategic plan. The participants took their work very seriously and accepted the challenge to develop a quality product. 7 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan The CCSP Process Outline The specific steps of the CCSP process are as follows: Develop the Mission Statement, giving careful attention to the services currently provided and which logically can be provided in the future. Develop a Vision of the future. Establish the Values of the members of the organization. Identify the Strengths of the organization. Identify any Weaknesses of the organization. Identify areas of Opportunity for the organization. Identify potential Threats to the organization. Define the Services provided to the community. Establish the community’s service priorities. Establish the community’s expectations of the organization. Identify any concerns the community may have about the organization and its services. Identify those aspects of the organization and its services the community views positively. Establish realistic goals and objectives for the future. Identify implementation tasks for each objective. Define service outcomes in the form of measurable performance objectives and targets. Develop organizational and community commitment to the plan. 8 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND The University Park Fire Department is a department of the City of University Park. The department’s jurisdiction encompasses all areas within the city limits and provides automatic aid and mutual aid with both Fire and Emergency Medical Services to the City of Dallas and the Town of Highland Park. The response area is primarily a suburban residential community complimented with six shopping districts with small retail shops, the Highland Park Independent School District and provides full service response to Southern Methodist University. The University Park Fire Department provides services to a census population of approximately 23,000 in a 3.5 square mile area. The department’s jurisdiction is located in Central Dallas County and surrounded by the City of Dallas to the north, east and west and the Town of Highland Park to the south. The topography of the City is relatively flat with Turtle Creek dissecting the City. Central Expressway bounds the City to the east and the Dallas North Toll Way bounds the City to the West. No other major highways intersect the City however a light rail serving commuter traffic intersects the southeast portions of the city. The department’s services are provided from one fire station located within the jurisdiction. The department maintains a fleet of staffed emergency response apparatus which includes two quints with 75’ ladders, one fire engine, two MICUs, Command vehicle and Fire Marshal and Deputy Chief vehicles. The department has an authorized strength of 33 personnel involved in delivering emergency services to the community. The department currently has three additional fire fighters assigned to the department for emergency services due to impending retirements. The department is managed by a Fire Chief and Deputy Fire Chief. Additionally, the department provides Fire/Arson Investigation and Inspection Services provided by the departmental Fire Marshal. On duty shift personnel are managed by three Section Chiefs and three Fire Captains with a minimum staffing level of 8 personnel per shift. 9 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan THE MISSION STATEMENT The mission statement of an organization is intended to describe, in succinct terms, the purpose for the organization’s existence. It articulates the principal reason for the organization’s presence within the community. The University Park Fire Department, through a consensus process, developed the mission statement below. University Park Fire Department Mission Statement We exist to deliver outstanding fire and life safety solutions. 10 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan THE VISION STATEMENTS In addition to knowing who they are and understanding their beliefs, all successful organizations need to define where they expect to be in the future. After having established the organization’s mission, the next logical step is to establish a vision of what University Park Fire Department should be in the future. Vision statements provide targets of excellence that the organization will strive towards and provide a basis for their goals and objectives. The following vision statements were developed for University Park Fire Department. Five years from now, the University Park Fire Department will continue to be recognized by residents, local businesses, and regional fire agencies as a progressive, well-trained and customer-centered fire organization that places a high premium on effective service delivery to our customers. We will strive to providethe most effective and efficient service possible to all population . groups, with growing emphasis on prevention By improving our resource distribution, all areas of the community will receive the expected level of service. We will match the risk within our community by providing an effective response force through adequate staffing levels and effective aid contracts with neighboring agencies. Our equipment will be dependable, capable and consistent with the needs of the community, embracing cutting- edge technology and emphasizing firefighter safety. We will reach out into the community to expand our information initiatives for customer feedback so that our organizational priorities, philosophy and operations remain in line with the expectations of the community. Our organization will reflect a family atmosphere, internally and externally, that is nurtured by fair practices, open communication processes and up-to-date procedures that guide the decisions of our personnel. Our mission will be accomplished by a physically fit, healthy, and increasingly diverse work force, well trained in a multitude of specialized skills and empowered with a high level of involvement in our success. We will strive for high retention by maintaining or exceeding competitive market value compensation, providing opportunities for growth, development, and higher education, valuing individual input and providing for the well-being of the employee. We will endeavor to meet or exceed all national best practices thereby ensuring that the University Park Fire Department is a high-caliber and professional organization. 11 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan VALUES Establishing values embraced by all members of an organization is extremely important. They recognize those features and considerations that make up the personality of the organization. Those assembled for the University Park Fire Department strategic planning process felt it absolutely necessary to declare the following statements of values for the organization. University Park Fire Department Values We value professionalism and integrity in our dealings with each other and those we serve, always adhering to a sound code of moral and ethical conduct, and always maintaining compassion and respect for our customer. We value teamwork within our workforce as this will foster greater levels of solidarity, collaboration and an overall sense of family within our organization. We value honesty in both our leadership and our employees, leading to the highest level of trustworthiness and openness in both spoken and written word. We value respect for each person as an individual, an attitude that recognizes the worth of others and exhibits compassion for those in need. We value empowerment of others leading to an improved sense of confidence, self esteem and organizational involvement. We value knowledge and higher education, as it forms the foundation for effective decisions, intelligent actions and increased safety. We value effective customer service, making every attempt to restore balance back into the lives of others. The mission, vision, and values are the foundation of any successful organization. Every effort should be made to keep these current and meaningful so that the individuals who make up the organization are well-guided by them in the accomplishment of the goals, objectives, and day-to-day tasks. 12 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan STRENGTHS It is important for any organization to identify their strengths in order to assure they are capable of providing the services requested by customers and to ensure that strengths are consistent with the issues facing the organization. Often, identification of organizational strengths leads to the channeling of efforts toward primary community needs that match those strengths. Programs that do not match organizational strengths or the primary function of the business should be seriously review to evaluate the rate of return on precious staff time. Through a consensus process, the strengths of University Park Fire Department were identified. Strengths of University Park Fire Department ApparatusProximity to hospitals External relationships with neighboring Excellent service to citizens public safety agencies Inter-department relationships Strong codes and ordinances for reducing loss Rapport with citizens Effective ISO rating Depth of employee experience and trainingLimited bureaucracy Employee work ethic and overall character Stable land mass Paramedic-staffed apparatus Low violent crime rate Fire prevention program Diverse tenure Low citizen abuse rate for EMS Camaraderieamong employees Better trained recruits Reduced areas requiring high demand of emergency services Supportive City Council Aggressive firefighting tactics High percentage of new construction complying with up-to-date codes 13 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan WEAKNESSES Performance, or lack of performance within an organization depends greatly on the identification of weaknesses and how they are confronted. While it is not unusual for these issues to be at the heart of the organization’s overall problems, it is unusual for organizations to be able to identify and deal with these issues effectively on their own. For any organization to either begin or to continue to move progressively forward, it must not only be able to identify its strengths, but also those areas where it does not function well or not at all. These areas of needed enhancements are not the same as threats to be identified later in this document, but rather those day-to-day issues and concerns that may slow or inhibit progress. Weaknesses of University Park Fire Department Ineffective staffing levels (related to Inconsistencies between shifts minimum staffing & ability to meet its mission to community) Fire ground safety & accountability Lack of physical fitness program practices Lack of recognition program for high or Information gaps (everyone not in the outstanding employee performance communication loop) Employee retention Record management system Lack of advancement opportunity Field computerization (MDB) Lack of effective internal training plan MICU calls to Dallas Paramedic for life policy Step wages for all positions Ineffective inspector program Lack of appraisal or review of certification/education compensation programs Lack of licensed arson investigators Uniform/equipment replacement policy Low utilization of loss data Fixed facility not centrally located – affects response times to north and northeast area of response district Implementation of homeland security Lack of public education equipment and training Increasing responsibilities with no change Lack of accreditation in resources 14 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan OPPORTUNITIES The opportunities for an organization depend on the identification of strengths and weaknesses and how they can be enhanced. The focus of opportunities is not solely on existing service, but on expanding and developing new possibilities both inside and beyond the traditional service area. Many opportunities exist for University Park Fire Department. Opportunities for University Park Fire Department Highly educated public (greater availability Striving to meet all recognized national of resources) standards Become more transparent/involved with Enhance mutual/automatic aid agreements communitywith Highland Park Increased financial resource capacity Improved relationship with neighboring fire agencies Federal funding Greater relationship with City Council Greater public policy emphasis on UTSW grant studies emergency services New fire station – City Hall renovation Limited agency size allows easier change implementation THREATS To draw strength and gain full benefit of any opportunity, the threats to the organization, with their new risks and challenges, must also be identified. By recognizing possible threats, an organization can greatly reduce the potential for loss. Threats to University Park Fire Department Needs overshadowed by Dallas/SMU Changes in Dallas leadership Privatization/outsourcing Presidential library Greater dependency on mutual aid Liability conflicts with community Greater life safety issues Employee generation gaps/work ethic Greater competition for qualified personnel Changing technology Unfunded mandates (Federal or State) Resistance to change Inconsistent procedures between inter and Larger homes/zero lot lines intra-departments Changes in government body 15 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan CRITICAL ISSUES AND SERVICE GAPS After reviewing the department’s core services, the organizational strengths and weaknesses, and the opportunities and threats posed by the industry and community environment in which it operates, the planning team identified the primary critical issues that face the department. These reflect the issues that the team feels pose the greatest risk of impact on its services and organizational health. In addition, the team also identified any gaps in the department’s activities that need to be filled in order to provide the levels of service it has pledged itself to. CRITICAL ISSUES: 1. Ineffective staffing levels (related to minimum staffing & ability to meet its mission to community) 2. Physical fitness program 3. Relationship with DFD and HP 4. Response times to north area of city – station location 5. Prevention of loss to public via loss data and ordinances 6. Communicating the direction/vision of the organization SERVICE GAPS: 1. Personnel retention due to step in grade system 2. Records management system and field computerization 3. Employee recognition program 4. Training plan 16 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan SERVICES PROVIDED The University Park Fire Department was asked to identify the most important functions and services it provides and offers. It is important to identify these in order to assure they are consistent with the critical needs of its customers. Services Provided by University Park Fire Department Core Services Fire Suppression EMS Rescue Prevention Hazardous Materials Emergency Management Supporting Programs Inspections/pre-plans Public Education Code Enforcement Engineering Training Public Relations Budgeting/Purchasing Inspections Human Resources 17 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan CUSTOMER PRIORITIES In order to dedicate time, energy and resources on services most desired by its customers, University Park Fire Department needs to understand what the customers consider to be their priorities. The citizens group was asked to prioritize the services offered by University Park Fire Department through a process of direct comparison. Service Priorities of the Customers of University Park Fire Department SERVICES RANKING SCORE Fire Suppression 148 Basic Rescue 245 Advanced Life Support Emergency Medical Services 342 Advanced Rescue 431 Fire Inspections 521 Hazardous Materials Mitigation 617 Community Fire/EMS Safety Education 716 Arson Investigation 716 Response to Weapons of Mass Destruction/Bioterrorism 88 Blood Pressure Checks 95 18 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS Understanding what the community expects of its fire and emergency services organization is critically important to developing a long-range perspective. With this knowledge, internal emphasis may need to be changed or bolstered to fulfill the customer needs. In certain areas, education on the level of service that is already available may be all that is needed. The following are the expectations of the citizens group and the number of participants who listed them. Customer Expectations of University Park Fire Department Quick and timely emergency response IIII Ability to treat patients properly II Highly trained personnel II Ability to quickly extinguish a fire and minimize damage I Improving our community safety through inspections program I Safeguard life (of family) in emergencies I Safeguard of property in community I Community education I Proper equipment I Follow up with victims I AccountabilityI Gain support of community leadership to gain resources I Better publicity on programs offered I Reduce insurance costs I Leadership of Department and community working together I Note: A number in the right-hand column indicates the number of customer responses that addressed this expectation. 19 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan AREAS OF CUSTOMER CONCERN The Customer Centered Strategic Planning process would fall short and be incomplete without an expression from the customer of their concerns about the organization. Some areas of concern may in fact be a weakness within the delivery system. However, they may also be perceptions of the customers based on lack of information or incorrect information. Areas of Customer Concern of University Park Fire Department The ability to respond effectively due to traffic and parking issues. Small tax base supporting full fire service. Potential of George Bush Library at SMU. Discipline of fire personnel in station. Firefighters being physically fit. Effective communication between the fire department and its citizens about the services that are provided. 20 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan POSITIVE CUSTOMER FEEDBACK In order for a strategic plan to be valid, the customer views on the strengths and image of the emergency services organization must be established. Needless efforts are often put forth in over-developing areas that are already successful. However, proper utilization and promotion of the customer-identified strengths may often help the organization overcome or offset some of the identified weaknesses. Positive Customer Comments about University Park Fire Department Great service delivery to the disabled. High respect for the professionalism of the Department. Good at meeting community expectations. The city has a history of providing good equipment to its employees. Firefighters do a great job and respond quickly. The Department has reduced our home insurance costs. 21 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The Customer Centered Strategic Planning process, to this point, has dealt with establishing the mission, vision, and values of the organization. In addition, identification of strengths, weaknesses and needs of both the organization and customer was accomplished. In order to achieve the mission of University Park Fire Department, realistic goals and objectives must be established. Goals and objective’s are imperative to provide the individual members with clear direction. In order to establish the goals and objectives the strategic planning group met a number of times to complete this critical process. As goals and objectives are management tools, they should be updated on an ongoing basis to identify what has been accomplished and to note changes within the organization and the community. The attainment of a performance target should be recognized and celebrated to provide a sense of organizational accomplishment. The goals and objectives (as well as the performance objectives included later in this document) should now become the focus of the efforts of University Park Fire Department. Great care was taken by the staff of Emergency Services Consulting Inc to ensure that the critical needs and areas of needed enhancement previously identified were addressed within the goals and objectives. By following these goals and objectives carefully, the organization will be redirected and guided into the future. They should also greatly reduce the number of obstacles and distractions for the organization and its members. The strategic planning group set priorities for the accomplishment of specific objectives. Those that carried higher priorities are scheduled for completion first and lower priority objectives scheduled later. Overall these goals and objectives provide specific timelines for the next 2 – 4 years. The leadership of University Park Fire Department should meet periodically to review progress towards these goals and objectives and adjust timelines and specific targets as needs and the environment change. 22 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 1 – Secure mutual and automatic aid agreements to meet the needs of the department. Objective 1-A: Evaluate mutual aid agreements. Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Assign team to review all current mutual aid agreements. Outline deficiencies in existing mutual aid agreements. Objective 1-B: Determine necessary mutual aid agreements. Timelines 3 months Critical Tasks: Develop standards for automatic vs. mutual aid. Analyze current resource levels. Determine difference between standards and current departmental resources. Objective 1-C: Draft proposed mutual aid agreements. Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Determine appropriate agency to fill gaps between standards and current resources. Draft agreements with various agencies to cover identified gaps. Present drafts to management. Objective 1-D: Negotiate final version of agreements. Timelines 6 months Critical Tasks: Finalize agreements with involved agencies. Legal review. Submit for approval. 23 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Objective 1-E: Implementation. Timelines 6-12 months Critical Tasks: Review and modify SOPs to comply with new agreements. Purchase equipment/secure resources as required. Train personnel. Objective 1-F: Evaluation. Timelines 2 weeks Critical Tasks: Annual review of mutual aid performance. 24 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 2 – Implement a physical fitness program focused on the health and wellness of the firefighter. Objective 2-A: Identify need. Timelines 3 months Critical Tasks: Evaluate job description/position. Identify age, health, and fitness levels of individuals. Determine physical baseline test. Analyze results with national standards (compare). Objective 2-B: Compare fitness programs. Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Research fitness programs (fire and non-fire). Select program. Objective 2-C: Identify facilities/equipment Timelines 3 months Critical Tasks: Research facilities/equipment. Select top facility choices. Analyze/compare facilities. Make selections. Budget projections (seek funding). 25 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Objective 2-D: Implement program. Timelines 4 months Critical Tasks: Baseline. Create fitness/workout policy. Fitness SOPs. Introductory training. Fitness coordinator. Evaluation of individual progress. Objective 2-E: Evaluation of program (results) Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Establish time to retest participants. Do retest. Evaluate. 26 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 3 – Provide for an adequate number of firefighters to arrive at all emergencies within a credible and effective timeframe. Objective 3-A: Risk analysis. Timelines 9 months Critical Tasks: Identify level of risk as compared to demographics. Comparison of risk identified to core functions. Evaluate empirical data. Objective 3-B: Departmental expectations. Timelines 10 months Critical Tasks: Define critical task in relation to core functions. Define acceptable response times to core functions to include assistance from other agencies. Develop performance standards based on best practices and industry standards. Evaluate empirical data. Objective 3-C: Civilian expectations. Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Development of a committee of citizens (random sample). Committee to evaluate completed objectives. Committee feedback. Objective 3-D: Develop a proposal on empirical data. Timelines 5 months Critical Tasks: Combine risk analysis, departmental expectations and committee feedback. Meet with civilian committee for formation of final draft. Submit final acceptance proposal. 27 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Objective 3-E: Evaluate effectiveness. Timelines 12 months Critical Tasks: Define policies pertaining to accepted plan. Purchase recommended resources. Train personnel. Evaluate outcome. 28 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 4 – Improve the response times to northeast portion of the city. Objective 4-A: Identify need for improvement. Timelines 2 weeks Critical Tasks: Research and compile data. Compare to national standards. Compare to other parts of the city. Evaluate/make decision. Objective 4-B: Create options for improvement. Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Create mapping of response routes. Identify specific problem areas. Identify different solutions to the problem areas. Identify the most effective solution. Present solution. Objective 4-C: Determine new action plan. Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Based on solution, create departmental policies and procedures. Objective 4-D: Evaluate. Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Determine effectiveness by reviewing new response time. 29 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 5 – Improve the analysis and use of data. Objective 5-A: Create reports. Timelines 6 months Critical Tasks: Identify relevant report data. Identify current record management capabilities. Determine if the technology required is adequate for data needed. Format the needed reports from the data. Objective 5-B: Evaluate the data gathered and provide recommendations. Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Separate relevant information to identify programs needed. Provide recommendations on empirical data. Objective 5-C: Implement programs. Timelines 6 months Critical Tasks: Create programs based on need in community. Purchase needed resources. Evaluate effectiveness of programs. Implement the programs within the city limits. Modify. 30 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 6 – Improve the records management system (RMS) and field computerization in the department. Objective 6-A: Determine needs Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Evaluate current RMS and field computers. Determine needs for analysis. Objective 6-B: Explore options Timelines 6 months Critical Tasks: Develop RFP. Work with IS department. Execute RFP. Objective 6-C: Procure best option Timelines 12 months Critical Tasks: Review RFP. Conduct cost benefit analysis. Explore funding. Make recommendations. Objective 6-D: Implement Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Develop training plan. Conduct training. Develop appraisal process. 31 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 7 – Improve the personnel retention by improving step-in-grade system. Objective 7-A: Review Current System Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Review History of current system Determine strengths/weaknesses/opportunities Objective 7-B: Explore Best Practices Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Review ICMA, IAFC, IAFF and any other credible instruction resources Compare to benchmark cities Objective 7-C: Develop Options Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Develop a minimum of three options Include a cost analysis of each option Explore funding mechanisms Prepare Document Objective 7-D: Present and Follow Up Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Present to Fire Chief and/or HR Director Follow through with any requests by Chief/HR 32 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 8 – Develop a personnel recognition program that highlights value and accomplishment Objective 8-A: Determine Baseline Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Review current policies (city and department) Review history of such practice throughout city Objective 8-B: Develop program parameters Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Conduct review of other programs Determine goal of program Develop who or what falls within the program and who or what does not Objective 8-C: Write program and policy Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Write the program and develop any associated policies or SOPs Objective 8-D: Implement program Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Present program to Chief for approval Train employees Implement 33 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Goal 9 – Develop a comprehensive training program/plan that includes career development. Objective 9-A: Develop training and education requirements Timelines 3 months Critical Tasks: Develop a process to identify training needs Develop minimum training standards by position. Develop a Command and Staff program to prepare firefighters for promotional opportunities. Determine budget impact Update SOPs and policy/procedures as necessary. Objective 9-B: Improve the performance of the training program Timelines 6 months Critical Tasks: Develop a process to ensure that personnel are appropriately trained. Develop short and long range training schedules Develop performance based measurements. Create a requirement for individual and company performance based measurements. Create a requirement for individual and company performance based measurements. Update SOPs as necessary Objective 9-C: Improve fire department training and education resources. Timelines 2 months Critical Tasks: Inventory training facility and equipment resources. Inventory instructional personnel. Ensure that instructional materials are current and accessible. Determine budget impact Update SOPs to reflect Instruction and use of equipment. 34 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan Objective 9-D: Provide for a process to select training materials Timelines 1 month Critical Tasks: Develop a process for the selection of resource materials. Develop a process to evaluate training materials. Update SOPs as necessary 35 University Park Fire Department - Strategic Plan COMMUNITY FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES AND TARGETS The ability to define “great service’ requires a set of tools that can be used to measure the performance of an organization. These tools allow an organization to evaluate its performance over time through observation of changes in key performance indicators. They also allow an organization to compare itself with other similar organizations to identify opportunities for improvement. The University Park Fire Department discussed concepts and styles of performance measurement and selected the following sample Performance Objectives as the type that may be employed by the organization in the future. It was understood that additional effort in developing performance measures and the methodology for tracking data necessary to conduct the measures would be necessary in the future. 1. On all moderate risk, a full effective response team will arrive 8 minutes or less, 90% of the time and perform all critical tasks within five minutes of arrival. 2. On all working structure fires, the UPFD will contain the fire to the room of origin 80% of the time. 3. Every EMS call will be answered with a minimum of 1 MICU staffed with two Paramedics, 100% of the time. 4. All businesses will receive pre-fire planning at a minimum of once each year. 36 RESOLUTION NO.__________ RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN DEVELOPED IN JANUARY 2006 WHEREAS , effective and efficient management begin with a plan; and WHEREAS , the fire department conducted an external (citizens) and internal (employees) retreat to develop a three to five year strategic plan; and WHEREAS, the planning process resulted in a new Mission, Vision, Values and Goals of the Fire Department; and WHEREAS , the Commission on Fire Accreditation, International recommends that a fire department strategic plan become adopted by the Governing body; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS: THAT, it applauds the planning effort by the Fire Department and formally recognizes the January 2006 Strategic Plan as the benchmark document for fire department direction and priorities. PASSED AND APROVED by the City Council of the City of University, Texas on the th 9 day of May 2006. APPROVED: _____________________________ JAMES H. HOLMES, III, MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: ___________________________ ______________________________ CITY ATTORNEY NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY 06 AGENDA MEMO (05/09/06 AGENDA) DATE: May 4, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Bob Livingston SUBJECT: Additional Fees for Leo A. Daly, Architect, and RL Goodson, Engineer, as the Result of Changes to the Design of City Hall These fee increases are the result of two changes to the design of City Hall. Detailed explanations of the architectural fee changes are shown on the attachments. Modification of Police Locker Rooms Leo A. Daly $ 3,000 The Police Department has requested that a toilet be provided in two of the third floor locker rooms that will be used for police personnel. The change will require the loss of a few lockers, but an adequate number will still be provided for current and future needs. Cost of the additional design work is $3,000. The additional cost has been reviewed and approved by the City Hall Oversight Committee. Design of Facilities to Accommodate Cell Phone Providers Leo A. Daly $54,500 RL Goodson $ 3,000 A substantial amount of work will be necessary to provide equipment and power locations for the providers currently located on the tower. The revised plans call for all equipment to be located so that the companies can access it without entering City Hall. Additional engineering work will also be required on the site plan. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\LADFEES050406.doc 2:14 PM 05/04/ 06 In order for the City to maintain control, the cost of this work will be added to our existing contracts with the architect and engineer. However, all fees for this portion of the work are to be paid in total by the cell companies. Toward that end, we have requested an advance check in the amount of $66,500. This amount will cover the additional work by the architect and engineer plus a $9,000 administrative fee for the City to coordinate the effort. No work will commence until the funds are received. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approved the following additions: Leo A. Daly (Current Contract Amount $703,883) Cell Tower $54,500 Locker Rooms $ 3,000 Total $57,500 RL Goodson Cell Tower $ 3,000 Total $ 3,000 ATTACHMENTS: Leo A Daly Additional Service Request # 4 Leo A Daly Additional Service Request # 5 Cc: Finance Director Public Works Director Administrative Assistant 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\LADFEES050406.doc 2:14 PM 05/04/ AGENDA MEMO (05/09/2006 AGENDA) DATE: May 4, 2006 TO: Bob Livingston FROM: Jennifer Shell SUBJECT: Change Order for Pavement Reconstruction of Turtle Creek Blvd. from Lovers Lane to Baltimore Dr. and Baltimore Dr. from Lovers Lane to Turtle Creek Blvd., Project No. 47100 Background. On December 13, 2005, the City Council approved SYB Construction to reconstruct the existing water lines and construct sanitary sewer lines within the pavement for Turtle Creek Blvd. and Baltimore Dr. The exact project locations are listed below: ? Turtle Creek Blvd. from Lovers Lane to 150’ south along Vassar Dr. ? Baltimore Dr. from Lovers Lane to Turtle Creek Blvd. Change Order No. 1 Staff has looked at the possibility of complete pavement reconstruction along Turtle Creek Blvd. and Baltimore Dr. in lieu of permanent pavement repairs. There are several reasons for including this work in the existing contract. First, the contract calls for $348,575 for permanent pavement repairs. This amount is approximately half of what it would cost to reconstruct the entire street. Second, the existing streets are in very poor condition. Third, the Contractor anticipates the project will only take 1½ - 2 months longer with complete pavement reconstruction. The existing contract amount, as well as, the estimated pavement reconstruction costs, are outlined below. Original Contract $ 1,394,103.00 25% of Original Contract $ 348,525.75 Estimate for Complete Pavement $ 338,729.50 Reconstruction* * Estimate for Complete Pavement Reconstruction includes complete cost for reconstruction minus all costs for permanent pavement repairs. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Pvmt Reconstruction AGENDA MEMO.doc 9:59 AM 05/04/06 Staff is aware of the proximity of the estimate to reaching the 25% limit. If this change order is approved, staff would ensure that the Contractor does not exceed the 25% limit. As the project reaches completion, certain items (such as sod and sidewalks) can be removed from the contract (if the 25% limit is reached). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the SYB proceed with complete pavement reconstruction in lieu of permanent pavement repairs. Attachments: Paving Limits Map and Photo SYB Cost Estimate 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Pvmt Reconstruction AGENDA MEMO.doc 9:59 AM 05/04/06 Paving Limits for Turtle Creek Blvd. and Baltimore Dr. Lovers Lane Brick sidewalk that will be removed 6701 Turtle Creek Blvd, Billingsley – Paving will stop south of the driveway (on Turtle Creek Blvd.) at the brick sidewalk to incorporate the valley gutter into the new pavement. The brick sidewalk to the north of the driveway will be replaced with a concrete sidewalk (per City standards). SYB Construction Co., Inc. FROM:DATE: SYB Construction Co., Inc.April 27, 2006 421 Compton Avenue Irving, TX 75061 Phone: 972-399-1066 Fax: 972-399-1586 TO:PROJECT: Jennifer Shell, P.E. #48500 Turtle Creek & Baltimore Utility Improvements City of University Park, Texas We hereby propose the following changes and/or additions to the original contract. ITEMDESCRIPTIONUNIT OFCONTRACT ADD/DEDUCTREVISEDUNITNET COST MEASUREQUANTITYQUANTITYQUANTITYPRICECHANGE RemoveExisting30"Reinforced Concrete Curb and Gutter130.00 P3LF(130.00)0.00$6.00($780.00) RemoveandReplaceExisting4"+/- 30.00 P4SY(30.00)0.00$40.00($1,200.00) Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk RemoveandReplaceExisting Asph.ConcretePvmt.w/Reinf. ConcreteBase(4"HMACAverage 2450.00 P6SY(2450.00)0.00$75.00($183,750.00) and 6" Concrete Base) 30"ReinforcedConcrete6"Curb& GutterClass"C",6Sack,3600 130.00 P7LF(130.00)0.00$24.00($3,120.00) PSI@28 Days Remove Existing 30" Reinforced Concrete Curb and Gutter90.00 ALT 19LF(90.00)0.00$6.00($540.00) Remove and Replace Existing 4" +/- Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk15.00 ALT 20SY(15.00)0.00$40.00($600.00) Remove and Replace Existing Asph. Concrete Pvmt. w/Reinf. Concrete Base (4" HMAC Average and 6" Concrete Base)1280.00 ALT 22SY(1280.00)0.00$75.00($96,000.00) 30" Reinforced Concrete 6" Curb & Gutter Class "C", 6 Sack, 3600 PSI@28 Days 90.00 ALT 23LF(90.00)0.00$24.00($2,160.00) RemoveExisting30"Reinforced Concrete Curb and Gutter50.00 ALT 41LF(50.00)0.00$6.00($300.00) RemoveandReplaceExisting4"+/- 20.00 ALT 42SY(20.00)0.00$40.00($800.00) Reinforced Concrete Sidewalk RemoveandReplaceExisting Asph.ConcretePvmt.w/Reinf. ConcreteBase(4"HMACAverage 775.00 ALT 44SY(775.00)0.00$75.00($58,125.00) and 6" Concrete Base) 30"ReinforcedConcrete6"Curb& GutterClass"C",6Sack,3600 50.00 ALT 45LF(50.00)0.00$24.00($1,200.00) PSI@28 Days RemovePavement,Concrete Flatwork0.00 SY11350.0011350.00$13.60$154,360.00 6" Concrete Pavement0.00 SY9800.009800.00$38.00$372,400.00 Cement Stabilized Subgrade0.00 SY10437.0010437.00$3.50$36,529.50 Cement for Subgrade0.00 TN271.00271.00$165.00$44,715.00 Concrete Sidewalk0.00 SY800.00800.00$36.00$28,800.00 Concrete Driveways0.00 SY750.00750.00$62.00$46,500.00 6" Integral Curb0.00 LF4000.004000.00$1.00$4,000.00 TOTAL NET CHANGE$338,729.50 Notes: There should be approximately 13,200 LF of Sawcut remaining on the original contract to cover added costs for survey, sod, & miscellaneous Page 1 of 1 AGENDA MEMO (05/09/06 AGENDA) DATE: May 3, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council FROM: Nina Wilson City Secretary SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS FOR CITY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES The City's statutory boards and advisory committees are comprised of over 100 volunteer residents appointed by the Mayor and Council. The two-year term of appointment corresponds with the bi-annual Council elections, which this year will be May 13. The Committee system is intended to provide an avenue for direct input from citizens, as well as, an opportunity for the City to benefit from the considerable expertise represented by University Park residents. It is with that in mind that the City requests any residents who wish to be considered for one of the boards or committees submit an application to City Secretary Nina Wilson by Monday, May 22, 2006. A pplications can be downloaded from the City Web site, www.uptexas.org, by clicking on “City Council and Administration”, ”Citizen Committees”, “Board Committee Membership Application”. A description of the responsibilities of the boards and committees can also be viewed at that same Web site location. Applications can also be picked up at City Hall from the Receptionist or City Secretary. Completed applications can be faxed to Attention: City Secretary at 214/987-5399 or sent through the U.S. mail or delivered in person. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 U:\Docs\City Council\2006\Memo Application for City Committees.doc 05/03/06 3:37:40 PM AGENDA MEMO (5/9/06 AGENDA) DATE: May 3, 2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Christine Green, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with the City of Southlake for Cooperative Purchasing The City of Southlake has asked to piggyback on our contract with Consolidated Traffic Controls for the purchase of a UniTrak Video Vehicle Detection/Radio Interconnect System. This will allow Southlake to purchase and install the same equipment at the same prices established in our Bid #05-22, approved December 13, 2005. This type of cooperative purchasing is allowed through the Interlocal Cooperation Act (VTCA Government Code, Chapter 791). We have participated in similar arrangements with Tarrant County, the City of Richardson, the City of Waco, and several other purchasing cooperatives. Attached is the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement prepared by our City Attorney to authorize Southlake’s use of our contract. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends authorizing the City Manager to execute the attached Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with the City of Southlake for cooperative purchasing. 3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644 C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Southlake Interlocal Memo.doc 4:08 PM 05/03/06 STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF DALLAS § INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Interlocal Cooperation Agreement (“Agreement”) is by and between the City of Southlake, Texas (“Southlake”), and the City of University Park, Texas (“University Park”), acting by and through their authorized officers. RECITALS: WHEREAS, this Agreement is authorized by Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code and Subchapter F, Chapter 271, Texas Local Government Code; and WHEREAS , Section 271.102 of the TexasLocalGovernmentCode authorizes a local government to participate in a Cooperative Purchasing Program with another local government or a local cooperative organization; and WHEREAS , a local government that purchases goods and services pursuant to a Cooperative Purchasing Program with another local government satisfies the requirement of the local government to seek competitive bids for the purchase of the goods and materials; and WHEREAS, each party has and will on an annual basis obtain competitive bids for the purchase of goods and services; and WHEREAS , the parties desire to enter into a cooperative purchasing program which will allow each party to purchase goods and services under each other’s competitively bid contracts pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 271 of the TexasLocal Government Code; NOW THEREFORE , in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a cooperative purchasing program between the parties, which will allow each party to purchase goods and services under each other’s competitively bid contracts pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code. 65600 ARTICLE II TERM The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing on the last date of execution hereof (“Effective Date”). Thereafter this Agreement shall automatically renew for successive periods of one (1) year each under the terms and conditions stated herein, unless sooner terminated as provided herein. ARTICLE III TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party. ARTICLE IV PURCHASING The City Manager or designee for each party is authorized to act on behalf of the respective party in all matters relating to this cooperative purchasing program. Each party shall make payments out of current revenues available to it to the other party or directly to the vendor under a contract made pursuant to Subchapter F, Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code. Each party shall be responsible for its respective vendor’s compliance with provisions relating to the quality of items and terms of delivery. ARTICLE V MISCELLANEOUS Relationship of Parties 5.1 : This Agreement is not intended to create, nor should it be construed as creating, a partnership, association, joint venture or trust. Notice 5.2 : Any notice required or permitted to be delivered hereunder shall be deemed received when sent in the United States Mail, Postage Prepaid, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, or by hand-delivery or facsimile transmission addressed to the respective party at the address set forth below the signature of the party. Amendment 5.3 : This Agreement may be amended by the mutual written agreement of both parties hereto. Severability 5.4 : In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect the other provisions, and the Agreement shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this Agreement. 65600 Governing Law 5.5 : The validity of this Agreement and any of its terms and provisions, as well as the rights and duties of the parties, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas; and venue for any action concerning this Agreement shall be in the State District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Entire Agreement 5.6 : This Agreement represents the entire agreement among the parties with respect to the subject matter covered by this Agreement. There is no other collateral, oral or written agreement between the parties that in any manner relates to the subject matter of this Agreement. Recitals 5.7 : The recitals to this Agreement are incorporated herein. Counterparts 5.8 : This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of whom shall be deemed an original and constitute one and the same instrument. EXECUTED this _____ day of __________________ 2006. CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS By: ___________________________________ SHANA K. YELVERTON, CITY MANAGER 1400 Main Street, Suite 440 Southlake, Texas 76092 ATTEST: By: CITY SECRETARY th EXECUTED this 9 day of May 2006. CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS By: _________________________________ T. ROBERT LIVINGSTON, CITY MANAGER 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas 75205 ATTEST: By: CITY SECRETARY 65600 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES March 27,2006 The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, March 27,2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Jerry Grable - Chairman Steve Metzger Lon Houseman William Hitzelberger, III Roy Kull Mark Hardin - Plan Reviewer Rob Dillard - City Attorney Jennifer Deaver - Building & Zoning Assistant Absent & Excused: Beth Dargene Jim Lake, JI. Bill Lang Mr. Grable opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members and then read the charge of the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Grable read the specifics of the first case. 1. RO.A. 06-01 - Chris and Brooke Wilbratte, owners of the property situated at 4120 Amherst Street, requesting a variance to allow a detached garage to be located 2 feet 7 Y2 inches from the main building. Section 25-107 (5) (a) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum separation of 6 feet between a detached garage and the main building. The subject tract is zoned SF-3 zoning district classification in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance. This item was tabled at the last meeting for further consideration on March 27,2006. MI. Grable inquired of MI. Hardin if the applicants had submitted new plans for approval of this variance and MI. Hardin stated no. MI. Grable closed the public hearing. Mr. Metzger moved to deny the request as written suggesting that city staff inform the applicant as to how the proposed project could be completed without requesting a variance. Mr. Houseman made a motion, with a second from Mr. Metzger, the request was denied 4-1. There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. Grable adjourned the meeting. Approved by: Date: q{L Jim Lake, Acting Chairman Board of Adjustment Lf / ,7 Iv , 19 PARK ADVISORY BOARD MEETING MINUTES April 11, 2006 The Park Advisory Board of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, April 11 r 2006 at 4:00pm at the Peek Service Center, 4420 Worcola Street, Dallas, Texas. The following are the minutes of that meeting. Committee Members Attending: William Pardoe - Chairman Jim Roberts - Council Liaison Bruce Collins Darrell Lane Mac Fuller Liz Farley Lucy McRae Julia Baltser Jacky Spears Call to Order Staff Members Attending: Blackie Holmes - Mayor Bob Livingston - City Manager Gerry Bradley - Parks Director Tammy Watson - Parks Superintendent Brent Jones - Parks Supervisor Amber Lively - Administrative Secretary The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe. Approval of Minutes Mr. Pardoe asked for any comments on or changes to the March meeting minutes. There being no changes, Mrs. Spears moved to approve the minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fuller and approved unanimously by the board. Reports For the April meeting of the Park Board, there was not an agenda of items to be discussed. Instead, Mr. Bradley had scheduled five (5) architectural firms to come in and give a brief presentation on their firm's philosophy, background and projects that the firm has completed. Staffs goal is to work with the Board on developing a five (5) year plan for park improvements. Hopefully, by seeing the presentations given by the different firms, Staff as well as Board Members will have obtained direction regarding which firm they would like to see working on each separate project. The following is a list of the firms and their representatives: Johnette Taylor Roundtree Landscaping, Inc. Coy Talley TalleyAssociates Gary Olp GGOArchitects Francois de Kock Halff Associates Stan Cowan Mesa Design Group After each presentation, the floor was open for Board Member questions and discussion. Questions from the Board focused on each firm's experience in water features, registered staff, number of employees, as well as average price range and average job size completed by the firm. After all presentations were complete, Mr. Bradley and the Board thanked all the firms for their attendance. Adjournment There being no further business of the Park Board, the meeting was adjourned by Mr. Pardoe. The next scheduled meeting of the Park Board will be held on Tuesday, May 9, . 200~ ~ Hall. ~~ ~.?~.t:Yn William Pardoe, Chairman Date Park Advisory Board PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS MINUTES March 20, 2006 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, March 20, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting. Commission Members Attending Staff Members Attending Robert H. West - Chairman Randy Biddle H. Reed Shawver III Ed Freeman Bill Foose Doug Roach Bea Humann Harry Persaud - Community Dev. Mgr Rob Dillard - City Attorney Jennifer Deaver- Administrative Assistant Absent and Excused H. Reed Shawver Randy Biddle Mr. West opened the public hearing and then read the specifics of the first case. PZ 06-002 - Lincoln Property Company, representing Highland Park lSD, requesting approval of an amendment to Planned Development District PD-17 to allow for a batting cage facility to be located on Douglas Avenue, North of and abutting the existing Seay Center. The subject tract is zoned PD-17 and owned by the Highland Park Independent School District. A public hearing was held on February 20, 2006 and this item was tabled for further consideration on March 20, 2006. Mr. West stated that the Lincoln Property Company, representing Highland Park ISD has submitted written request to postpone this item for a later meeting. He then read the specifics of the next case. PZ 06-005: Hold a public hearing and consider an Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, amending the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park, as heretofore amended, by amending Section 13-100 (1) to require a permit for a fence; amending Section 28-105 (1)(d) to provide fence requirements in residential districts; amending section 11.106 (a) regulating waste collection; providing for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict; providing a severability clause; providing for a penalty of fine not to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense; and providing an effective date. Mr. Persaud briefed the commission and audience members via a power point presentation. Mr. West inquired if there were any opposing parties that wished to speak, none came forward. He then closed the public hearing. Mr. West inquired of Mr. Persaud if the ordinance currently requires 6 feet and how many receptacles will fit into the 6 foot space. Mr. Persaud stated that per the sanitation department manager, the 6 foot requirement is no longer working. Mr. Foose inquired if this was in the fencing section of the ordinance. Mr. Dillard stated that it is a right of way issue not a fence issue. Mr. Bill Mead, owner / resident of 4301 Ryer and builder came forward and suggested that the ordinance be approved by the percentage of lot sizes. A discussion ensued regarding rear entry garages using a portion of the drive for extra receptacles. Sliding gates would be the only situation that would not allow use of the concrete on the end of a drive. Mr. Freeman stated that he feels the ordinance is too vague leaving open room for interpretation. Mr. West made a motion to table the item until the April 17th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, with a second from Mr. Freeman the motion was approved unanimously 7-0. Mr. West then read the specifics of the next case. PZ 06-006: Hold a public hearing and consider an Ordinance of the City of University Park, Texas, amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance, as heretofore amended, by repealing Section 21-100 (4) (c) iii to eliminate the twenty feet and ten feet limitations on cumulative side yards in the single family dwelling districts; and providing an effective date. Mr. Persaud briefed the commISSIOn and audience members via a power point presentation showing the requirements of different size lots; he then explained the benefit of changing the ordinance. He showed examples of other lots including ones on Centenary, Hanover and Mcfarlin. Mr. West inquired if other cities were currently complying with this, and Mr. Persaud stated yes. Mr. West then inquired if there were any favoring or opposing parties who wished to speak. Mr. James T. Bradley resident / owner of 3529 Centenary, came forward to speak in favor of the change. He expressed concerns of large homes causing increased taxes. Mr. West then closed the public hearing Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Freeman made a motion and with a second from Ms. Humann the motion was approved unanimously 5-0. Mr. Roach made a motion to approve the request as written, with a second from Mr. Freeman the motion carried. Mr. Freeman made a motion to approve the minutes with a second from Mr. Roach, the minutes were approved unanimously 5-0 There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. West adjourned the meeting. Approved by: ~~J! teA- Planning & Zoning Commission If /; 7//)6 Date / Public Safety Advisory Committee MINUTES January 31, 2006 The Public Safety Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, January 31, 2006 at 6:00 P.M. in the large conference room of City Hall at 3800 University Blvd., Dallas, TX 75205. The following are minutes of that meeting. Committee Members Attending:Staff Members Attending: Judge James Kerr David Ledbetter, Fire Chief Ed Crissey Captain Robert Brown Chris Shumate Donna Wilkerson, Administrative Assistant Doug Bruton Syd Carter, City Council Member Mike Maberry Doug Bruton Dr. Doug Turgeon Kirk Dooley Jackie Brewer Each committee member was mailed a copy of an On-Street Parking Study prepared by C & P Engineering for discussion at this meeting. Judge Kerr opened the meting and greeted all members present. Councilmember Carter began the discussion by informing all members that the council is considering lowering the speed limit on all interior streets to 25 m.p.h. Studies have shown that the average speed on interior streets is 27 m.p.h. Capt. Brown had members look at the recommendations of the study on page 5. Mr. Maberry believes that streets less than 28 ft are too narrow for parking on both sides. Judge Kerr stated that his biggest concern is kids darting out from between park cars. Mr. Maberry was concerned about Fire Department equipment accessibility through the narrow streets. Chief Ledbetter stated that that the Fire Department is continually checking the streets to make sure there is enough room for the fire apparatus to maneuver. Mr. Bruton suggested to Chief Ledbetter that the committee meet with Fire Department/Police Department personnel to hear first hand what it is like to drive through the crowded streets under stress. Judge Kerr stated that in order for residents to stop parking on the streets it would require a behavioral modification on the behalf of the residents. Mr. Crissey stated that the problem lies in the hands of the residents. When Chief Adams had the police officers enforce the parking on the wrong side of the street laws, there was not much support from the residents. Many complaints were received. PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEEMINUTES 01/31/06 Page 2 of 3 Chief Ledbetter stated that the real problem exists with construction parking. What historically has been looked at is if there is too much parking on a street, then parking on one side has been eliminated. This has seemed to work in the past. Mr. Dooley brought up the idea/possibility of every other street being a one-way street. Syd Carter thought this was an interesting idea. Mr. Brewer stated that in New York, street parking is allowed on certain sides of the streets depending on the day, MWF. Mr. Maberry made a recommendation that the committee listen to the drivers to see what they need. The recommendation was agreed upon by all committee members. Mr. Maberry stated that he believes there are solutions to the construction parking issues. Mr. Bruton made the suggestion that when the builder is given a construction permit, then he be given a certain number of parking permits for the site. This would allow on-site yard parking during construction. Chief Ledbetter stated that builders are required a dumpster and a fence around the site so parking would be limited. This would also require a change in the city ordinance to allow parking on an unimproved surface. Mr. Maberry thinks that if the construction companies kept the sites cleaner, then there would be more room for parking in the yard. Mr. Crissey stated that the builders would to have room for deliveries and the vehicles in the yard would be in the way. Capt. Brown stated that from the Police Dept. standpoint, enforcement would be an issue. Chief Ledbetter stated that there would be a problem if all the trucks were parking in front of the construction site and there was a fire. His firefighters would have a problem accessing the fire. Chie Ledbetter stated that he will get with his firefighters/drivers and take a look at the issue and see what they recommend. Capt. Brown stated that the Police Department would need laws/ordinances that can be enforced. Pages 5 and 6 of the study have the recommendations of the Engineering firm. Mr. Maberry thinks the builder should be off-street parking on the site plan when it is turned it and then pass an ordinance that states the site must be kept clean enough to park X number of vehicles on the lot. Chief Ledbetter stated that if you can eliminate the non-essential vehicles then you can eliminate many of the extra trucks. Judge Kerr made the recommendation and all members agreed to have the Fire Department and the Police Department personnel give their recommendation on 1.) Contractor Parking and 2.) Residential Parking. PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEEMINUTES 01/31/06 Page 3 of 3 Judge Kerr inquired if there had been enough discussion from the committee on the issue for Councilmember Carter to discuss this with the city council. He stated yes and that there will be some citizens upset with whatever it is they decide, but there will always be some citizens that are not happy with everything the council decides on. Mr. Dooley asked if there should be a difference in the parking for new construction and remodels. Judge Kerr stated that this is something the City Council will have to discuss. Councilmember Carter and Capt. Brown reiterated that the small no parking signs seen in front of houses are not enforceable and are loaned to the homeowner by the city. Mr. Bruton suggested that the Building Department may need to be involved when soliciting suggestions from city employees. Judge Kerr asked Councilmember Carter if this was workable. Councilmember Carter suggested that Code Enforcement be included in the discussions. Judge Kerr asked that all recommendations from employees be given to the committee members 2 weeks prior to the next quarterly meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. The next Public Safety Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 25, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room of City Hall.