HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09-05-06 Names Tabs (3.1)
5. Representations and Warranties.
5.1. Redflex Representations and Warranties.
5.1.1. Authority. Redflex hereby warrants and represents that it has all right,
power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and perform its
obligations hereunder.
5.1.2. Professional Services. Redflex hereby warrants and represents that any
and all services provided by Redflex pursuant to this Agreement shall be
performed in a professional and workmanlike manner and, with respect to
the installation of the Redflex System, subject to applicable law, in
compliance with all specifications provided to Redflex by the Customer.
5.2. Customer Representations and Warranties.
5.2.1. Authority. The Customer hereby warrants and represents that it has all
right, power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and
perform its obligations hereunder.
5.2.2. Professional Services. The Customer hereby warrants and represents that
any and all services provided by the Customer pursuant to this Agreement
shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner.
5.3. LIMITED WARRANTIES. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS
AGREEMENT, REDFLEX MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE REDFLEX SYSTEM OR
ANY RELATED EQUIPMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO THE RESULTS OF
THE CUSTOMER'S USE OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY SET FORTH
HEREIN, REDFLEX DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ANY OF THE
DESIGNATED INTERSECTION APPROACHES OR THE REDFLEX
SYSTEM WILL OPERATE IN THE WAY THE CUSTOMER SELECTS FOR
USE, OR THAT THE OPERATION OR USE THEREOF WILL BE
UNINTERRUPTED. THE CUSTOMER HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT
THE REDFLEX SYSTEM MAY MALFUNCTION FROM TIME TO TIME,
AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, RED FLEX SHALL
DILIGENTLY ENDEAVOR TO CORRECT ANY SUCH MALFUNCTION IN
A TIMELY MANNER.
6. Termination.
6.1. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: Either party shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement immediately by written notice to the other if (i) state statutes are
amended to prohibit or substantially change the operation of photo red light
enforcement systems; (ii) any court having jurisdiction over the City rules, or a
state or federal statute or judicial decision declares, that results from the Redflex
System of photo red light enforcement are inadmissible in evidence; or (iii) the
other party commits any material breach of any of the provisions of this
Agreement. In the event of a termination due to Section 6.l(i) or 6.l(ii) above,
Customer shall be relieved of any further obligations for payment to Redflex
other than as specified in Exhibit "D". Either party shall have the right to
remedy the cause for termination (Sec 6.1) within forty-five (45) calendar days
10
(or within such other time period as the Customer and Redflex shall mutually
agree, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) after
written notice from the non-causing party setting forth in reasonable detail the
events of the cause for termination.
6.2. The rights to terminate this Agreement given in this Section 6.1 shall be without
prejudice to any other right or remedy of either party in respect of the breach
concerned ( if any) or any other breach of this Agreement.
6.3. PROCEDURES UPON TERMINATION. The termination of this Agreement
shall not relive either party of any liability that accrued prior to such termination.
Except as set forth in Section 6.3, upon the termination of this Agreement, all of
the provisions of this Agreement shall terminate and:
6.3.1. Redflex shall (i) immediately cease to provide services, including but not
limited to work in connection with the construction or installation activities
and services in connection with the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program,
(ii) promptly deliver to the Customer any and all Proprietary Property of the
Customer provided to Redflex pursuant to this Agreement, (iii) promptly
deliver to the Customer a final repOlt to the Customer regarding the
collection of data and the issuance of Notice of Violations in such format
and for such periods as the Customer may reasonably request, and which
final report Redflex shall update or supplement from time to time when and
if additional data or information becomes available, (iv) promptly deliver to
Customer a final invoice stating all fees and charges properly owed by
Customer to Redflex for work performed and Notice of Violations issued by
Redflex prior to the termination, and (v) provide such assistance as the
Customer may reasonably request from time to time in connection with
prosecuting and enforcing Notice of Violations issued prior to the
termination of this Agreement.
6.3.2. The Customer shall (i) immediately cease using the Photo Red Light
Enforcement Program, accessing the Redflex System and using any other
Intellectual Property of Redflex, (ii) promptly deliver to Redflex any and all
Proprietary Property of Redflex provided to the Customer pursuant to this
Agreement, and (iii) promptly pay any and all fees, charges and amounts
properly owed by Customer to Redflex for work performed and Notice of
Violations issued by Redflex prior to the termination.
6.3.3. Unless the Customer and Redflex have agreed to enter into a new
agreement relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program or have
agreed to extend the Term of this Agreement, Redflex shall remove any and
all Equipment or other materials of Redflex installed in connection with
Redflex's performance of its obligations under this Agreement, including but
not limited to housings, poles and camera systems, and Redflex shall restore
the Designated City Vehicles and Designated Intersection Approaches to
substantially the same condition such Designated Intersection Approaches
were in immediately prior to this Agreement.
11
6.4. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE. The Customer may terminate this
Agreement without cause ("Termination for Convenience") at any time by giving
thirty (30) days' written notice thereof to Redflex. In the event the Customer
exercises its right to Termination for Convenience, the Customer shall reimburse
Redflex an amount equal to the Unamortized Value, as hereinafter defined, of the
direct labor costs and direct material costs (not including Equipment costs and
salvageable material costs) solely associated with the installation of the Redflex
Photo Red Light System at all Intersection Approaches where such system(s)
have been installed prior to the effective date of Termination for Convenience
(the "Reimbursable Costs"). Redflex shall provide an itemization of the
Reimbursable Costs, with supporting invoices and labor expense documentation,
to the Customer within thirty (30) days of the completion of installation of the
Redflex Photo Red Light System at each designated Intersection Approach. Said
Reimbursable Costs are currently estimated to equal approximately $25,000 to
$40,000 per Intersection Approach but, in no event, shall said amount exceed
$40,000 per Intersection Approach. For the purpose of this section, the
Unamortized Value for each Intersection Approach shall be derived as follows:
first, by multiplying the Reimbursable Costs by the number of complete months
remaining between the effective Termination for Convenience date and the date
that is 36 month after the Effective Date, and, then, by dividing said product by
the number of complete months between the date of the completion of
installation of the Redflex Photo Red Light System at said Intersection Approach
and the date that is 36 months after the Effective Date.
6.5. SURVIVAL. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the definitions and each of the
following shall survive the termination of this Agreement: (x) Sections 4.2
(Reservation of Rights), 5.1 (Redflex Representations and Warranties), 5.2
(Customer Representations and Warranties), 5.3 (Limited Warranty), 7
(Confidentiality), 8 (Indemnification and Liability), 9 (Notices), 10 (Dispute
Resolution), 11.1 (Assignment), 11.17 (Applicable Law), 11.16 (Injunctive
Relief; Specific Performance) and 11.18 (Jurisdiction and Venue), and (y) those
provisions, and the rights and obligations therein, set forth in this Agreement
which either by their terms state, or evidence the intent of the parties, that the
provisions survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement, or must
survive to give effect to the provisions of this Agreement.
7. CONFIDENTIALITY. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of three
(3) years thereafter, neither party shall disclose to any third person, or use for itself in
any way for pecuniary gain, any Confidential Information learned from the other
party during the course of the negotiations for this Agreement or during the Term of
this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall return to the
other all tangible Confidential Information of such party. Each party shall retain in
confidence and not disclose to any third party any Confidential Information without
the other patty's express written consent, except (a) to its employees who are
reasonably required to have the Confidential Information, (b) to its agents,
representatives, attorneys and other professional advisors that have a need to know
such Confidential Information, provided that such parties undertake in writing (or are
otherwise bound by rules of professional conduct) to keep such information strictly
12
confidential, and (c) pursuant to, and to the extent of, a request or order by any
Governmental Authority, including laws relating to public records.
8. Indemnification and Liabilitv.
8.1. Indemnification by Redflex. Subject to Section 8.3, Redflex hereby agrees to
defend and indemnify the Customer and its affiliates, shareholders or other
interest holders, managers, officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives
and successors, permitted assignees and each of their affiliates, and all persons
acting by, through, under or in concert with them, or any of them (individually a
"Customer Party" and collectively, the "Customer Parties") against, and to
protect, save and keep harmless the Customer Parties from, and to pay on behalf
of or reimburse the Customer Parties as and when incurred for, any and all
liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, demands, claims, actions, suits,
judgments, settlements, costs, expenses and disbursements (including reasonable
attorneys', accountants' and expert witnesses' fees) of whatever kind and nature
(collectively, "Losses"), which may be imposed on or incurred by any Customer
Party arising out of or related to (a) any material misrepresentation, inaccuracy or
breach of any covenant, warranty or representation of Redflex contained in this
Agreement, or (b) the willful misconduct of Redflex, its employees or agents
which result in death or bodily injury to any natural person (including third
parties) or any damage to any real or tangible personal property (including the
personal property of third parties), except to the extent caused by the willful
misconduct of any Customer Party.
8.2. Indemnification by Customer. Subject to Section 8.3, the Customer, to the extent
allowed by law and without waiving any rights, defenses or immunities provided
to it by the Texas TOlt Claims Act, hereby agrees to defend and indemnify
Redflex and its affiliates, shareholders or other interest holders, managers,
officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives and successors, permitted
assignees and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them, or
any of them (individually a "Redflex Party" and collectively, the "Redflex
Parties") against, and to protect, save and keep harmless the Redflex Parties
from, and to pay on behalf of or reimburse the Redflex Parties as and when
incurred for, any and all Losses which may be imposed on or incurred by any
Redflex Party arising out of or in any way related to (a) any material
misrepresentation, inaccuracy or breach of any covenant, warranty or
representation of the Customer contained in this Agreement, or (b) the
negligence of the Customer, its employees, contractors or agents which result in
death or bodily injury to any natural person (including third parties) or any
damage to any real or tangible personal property (including the personal property
of third parties), except to the extent caused by the willful misconduct of any
Redflex Party.
8.3. Indemnification Procedures. In the event any claim, action or demand (a
"Claim") in respect of which any party hereto seeks indemnification from the
other, the party seeking indemnification (the "Indemnified Party") shall give the
party from whom indemnification is sought (the "Indemnifying Party") written
notice of such Claim promptly after the Indemnified Party first becomes aware
thereof; provided, however, that failure so to give such notice shall not preclude
13
indemnification with respect to such Claim except to the extent of any additional
or increased Losses or other actual prejudice directly caused by such failure. The
Indemnifying Party shall have the right to choose counsel to defend such Claim
(subject to the approval of such counsel by the Indemnified Party, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed), and to
control, compromise and settle such Claim, and the Indemnified Party shall have
the right to participate in the defense at its sole expense; provided, however, the
Indemnified Party shall have the right to take over the control of the defense or
settlement of such Claim at any time if the Indemnified Party irrevocably waives
all rights to indemnification from and by the Indemnifying Party. The
Indemnifying Party and the Indemnified Party shall cooperate in the defense or
settlement of any Claim, and no party shall have the right enter into any
settlement agreement that materially affects the other party's material rights or
material interests without such party's prior written consent, which consent will
not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
8.4. LIMITED LIABILITY. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, neither party shall be liable to the other, by reason of any
representation or express or implied warranty, condition or other term or any duty
at common or civil law, for any indirect, incidental, special, lost profits or
consequential damages, however caused and on any theory of liability arising out
of or relating to this Agreement.
9. NOTICES. Any notices to be given hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be
deemed to have been given (a) upon delivery, if delivered by hand, (b) three (3) days
after being mailed first class, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage and
registry fees prepaid, or (c) one Business Day after being delivered to a reputable
overnight courier service, excluding the U.S. Postal Service, prepaid, marked for next
day delivery, if the courier service obtains a signature acknowledging receipt, in each
case addressed or sent to such party as follows:
9.1. Notices to Redflex:
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
15020 North 74th Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
Attention: Ms. Karen Finley
Facsimile: (480) 607-5552
9.2. Notices to the Customer:
City of University Park
Attention: Chief of Police
3800 University Blvd.
University Park, Texas 75205
(214) 363-1644
Facsimile: (214) 987-5399
10. DISPUTE RES'OLUTION. Upon the occurrence of any dispute or disagreement
between the parties hereto arising out of or in connection with any term or provision
of this Agreement, the subject matter hereof, or the interpretation or enforcement
hereof (the "Dispute"), the patties shall engage in informal, good faith discussions
14
and attempt to resolve the Dispute. In connection therewith, upon written notice of
either party, each of the parties will appoint a designated officer whose task it shall be
to meet for the purpose of attempting to resolve such Dispute. The designated
officers shall meet as often as the parties shall deem to be reasonably necessary. Such
officers will discuss the Dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the Dispute in
accordance with this Section 10, and in the event that either of the parties concludes
in good faith that amicable resolution through continued negotiation with respect to
the Dispute is not reasonably likely, then the parties may mutually agree to submit to
binding or nonbinding arbitration or mediation.
11. Miscellaneous.
11.1. ASSIGNMENT. Neither party may assign all or any portion of this
Agreement without the prior written consent of the other. However, the
Customer hereby acknowledges and agrees that the execution (as outlined in
Exhibit "F"), delivery and performance of Redflex's rights pursuant to this
Agreement shall require a significant investment by Redflex, and that in order to
finance such investment, Redflex may be required to enter into certain
agreements or arrangements ("Financing Transactions") with equipment lessors,
banks, financial institutions or other similar persons or entities (each, a
"Financial Institution" and collectively, "Financial Institutions"). The Customer
hereby agrees that Redflex shall have the right to assign, pledge, hypothecate or
otherwise transfer ("Transfer") its rights, or any of them, under this Agreement to
any Financial Institution in connection with any Financing Transaction between
Redflex and any such Financial Institution, subject to the Customer's prior
written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed.
The Customer further acknowledges and agrees that in the event that Redflex
provides written notice to the Customer that it intends to Transfer all or any of
Redflex's rights pursuant to this Agreement, and in the event that the Customer
fails to provide such approval or fails to object to such Transfer within forty-five
(45) business days after its receipt of such notice from Redflex, for the purposes
of this Agreement, the Customer shall be deemed to have consented to and
approved such Transfer by Redflex. Notwithstanding the above, this Agreement
shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties hereto, and their
respective successors or assigns.
11.2. "SPEED ENFORCEMENT" The Customer and Redflex agree that should
legislation or local ordinance be enacted to enable the photo enforcement of
speed within the city, and the city requires this capability for public safety then
the city will have the option to extend this contract to include additional terms for
photo enforcement of speed within the city.
11.3. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REDFLEX AND THE CUSTOMER.
Nothing in this Agreement shall create, or be deemed to create, a partnership,
joint venture or the relationship of principal and agent or employer and employee
between the parties. The relationship between the parties shall be that of
independent contractors, and nothing contained in this Agreement shall create the
relationship of principal and agent or otherwise permit either party to incur any
debts or liabilities or obligations on behalf of the other party (except as specifically
provided herein).
15
11.4. AUDIT RIGHTS. Each of parties hereto shall have the right to audit to
audit the books and records of the other party hereto (the "Audited Party") solely
for the purpose of verifying the payments, if any, payable pursuant to this
Agreement. Any such audit shall be conducted upon not less than forty-eight
(48) hours' prior notice to the Audited Party, at mutually convenient times and
during the Audited Party's normal business hours. Except as otherwise provided
in this Agreement, the cost of any such audit shall be borne by the non-Audited
Party. In the event any such audit establishes any underpayment of any payment
payable by the Audited Party to the non-Audited Party pursuant to this
Agreement, the Audited Party shall promptly pay the amount of the shortfall, and
in the event that any such audit establishes that the Audited Party has underpaid
any payment by more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount of actually
owing, the cost of such audit shall be borne by the Audited Party. In the event
any such audit establishes any overpayment by the Audited Party of any payment
made pursuant to this Agreement, non-Audited Party shall promptly refund to the
Audited Party the amount of the excess.
11.5. FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party will be liable to the other or be
deemed to be in breach of this Agreement for any failure or delay in rendering
performance arising out of causes beyond its reasonable control and without its
fault or negligence. Such causes may include but are not limited to, acts of God
or the public enemy, terrorism, significant fires, floods, earthquakes, epidemics,
quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, or Governmental Authorities
approval delays which are not caused by any act or omission by Redflex, and
unusually severe weather. The party whose performance is affected agrees to
notify the other promptly of the existence and nature of any delay.
11.6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire
Agreement between the parties, and there are no other agreements (other than
invoices and purchase orders), whether written or oral, which affect its terms.
This Agreement may be amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed
by both parties.
11.7. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held by any court
or other competent authority to be void or unenforceable in whole or part, this
Agreement shall continue to be valid as to the other provisions thereof and the
remainder of the affected provision.
11.8. WAIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this
Agreement shall not be considered as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the
same or any other provision thereof.
11.9. CONSTRUCTION Except as expressly otherwise provided in this
Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as having been fully and
completely negotiated and neither the Agreement nor any provision thereof shall
be construed more strictly against either party.
11.10. HEADINGS. The headings of the sections contained in this Agreement
are included herein for reference purposes only, solely for the convenience of the
parties hereto, and shall not in any way be deemed to affect the meaning,
interpretation or applicability of this Agreement or any term, condition or
provision hereof.
16
11.11. EXECUTION AND COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be
executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and
delivered shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall
constitute only one instrument. Anyone of such counterparts shall be sufficient
for the purpose of proving the existence and terms of this Agreement and no
party shall be required to produce an original or all of such counterparts in
making such proof.
11.12. COVENANT OF FURTHER ASSURANCES. All parties to this
Agreement shall, upon request, perform any and all acts and execute and deliver
any and all certificates, instruments and other documents that may be necessary
or appropriate to carry out any of the terms, conditions and provisions hereof or
to carry out the intent of this Agreement.
11.13. REMEDIES CUMULATIVE. Each and all of the several rights and
remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be construed as being cumulative
and no one of them shall be deemed to be exclusive of the others or of any right
or remedy allowed by law or equity, and pursuit of anyone remedy shall not be
deemed to be an election of such remedy, or a waiver of any other remedy.
11.14. BINDING EFFECT. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be
binding upon all of the parties hereto and their respective executors,
administrators, successors and permitted assigns.
11.15. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. Nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be construed to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and
whenever there is a conflict between any term, condition or provision of this
Agreement and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation
contrary to which the parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall
prevail, but in such event the term, condition or provision of this Agreement
affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the extent necessary to bring it
within the requirement of the law, provided that such construction is consistent
with the intent of the Parties as expressed in this Agreement.
11.16. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFIT. Nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be deemed to confer any right or benefit on any Person who is not a party to
this Agreement.
11.17. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. The parties
hereby agree and acknowledge that a breach of Sections 4.1 (License), 4.3
(Restricted Use) or 7 (Confidentiality) of this Agreement would result in severe
and irreparable injury to the other party, which injury could not be adequately
compensated by an award of money damages, and the parties therefore agree and
acknowledge that they shall be entitled to injunctive relief in the event of any
breach of any material term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or to
enjoin or prevent such a breach, including without limitation an action for
specific performance hereof.
11.18. APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and
construed in all respects solely in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas
and of the United States.
11.19. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Any dispute arising out of or in
connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction
17
and venue of the courts located in the County of Dallas, Texas, and both parties
specifically agree to be bound by the jurisdiction and venue thereof.
11.20. MOST FAVORED NATION CLAUSE. If Contractor, at any time during
this Contract, routinely enters into agreements with other governmental
customers within the greater Dallas metropolitan area, and offers the same or
substantially the same products/services offered to the City on a basis that
provides terms and conditions (including but not limited to, prices, warranties,
indemnification, terms relating to posting of a bond, etc.), that are, in the
aggregate and when considered as a whole, more favorable than those collective
terms and conditions provided to the City, Contractor shall notify the City in
writing within ten (10) business days thereafter of that offering and this Contract
shall be deemed to be automatically amended effective on the date of such
written notice from Contractor, wherein Contractor shall provide the same terms
and conditions to the City unless the City notifies Contractor in writing within 10
business days of Contractor's written notice that the City declines to accept such
change(s), in which case such amendment shall be deemed null and void. The
determination of whether this Article 11.20 should apply shall be subject to the
reasonable discretion of Contractor.
(The remainder of this page is left intentionally blank)
18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first set forth above.
"Customer"
"Redflex"
CITY OF University Park
REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.,
CITY MANAGER
By:
Name:
Title:
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
19
EXHIBIT "A"
Designated Intersection Approaches
The contract is for the implementation of up to 20 intersections. Identification of enforced
intersection will be based on mutual agreement between Redflex and the City as
warranted by community safety and traffic needs. The following intersections are
designated:
20
EXHIBIT "B"
Construction and Installation Obligations
Timeframe for Installation: Fixed Photo Red Light System
Redflex will have each specified intersection installed and activated in phases in
accordance with an implementation plan to be mutually agreed to by Redflex Traffic
Systems and the Municipality.
Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts to install the system in accordance with
the schedule set forth in the implementation plan that will be formalized upon project
commencement.
Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts to install and activate the first four
specified intersection within the first ninety (90) days subsequent to formal project kick-
off. Any additional intersections will be added within thirty (30) days of receipt of a
notice to proceed. The Municipality agrees that the estimated timeframe for installation
and activation are subject to conditions beyond the control of Redflex and are not
guaranteed.
In order to provide the client with timely completion of the photo enforcement project
Redflex Traffic Systems requires that the City assist with providing timely approval of
City permit requests. The City acknowledges the impOltance of the safety program and
undertakes that in order to keep the project on schedule the customer is to provide city
engineers review of Redflex permit requests and all documentation within a two business
days. Redflex will also review and correct if necessary any redlines with in two business
days. Permits need to be received within five business days of first submittal in order to
implement the program in a timely manner.
1. Redflex Obligations. Redflex shall do or cause to be done each of the following (in
each case, unless otherwise stated below, at Redflex's sole expense):
1.1. Appoint the Redflex Project Manager and a project implementation team
consisting of between one (1) and four (4) people to assist the Redflex Project
Manager;
1.2. Request current "as-built" electronic engineering drawings for the Designated
Intersection Approaches (the "Drawings") from the city traffic engineer, if
available;
1.3. Develop and submit to the Customer for approval construction and installation
specifications in reasonable detail for the Designated Intersection Approaches,
including but not limited to specifications for all radar sensors, pavement loops,
electrical connections and traffic controller connections, as required; and
1.4. Seek approval from the relevant Governmental Authorities having authority or
jurisdiction over the construction and installation specifications for the
Designated Intersection Approaches (collectively, the "Approvals"), which will
include compliance with City permit applications.
1.5. Finalize the acquisition of the Approvals;
21
1.6. Submit to the Customer a public awareness strategy for the Customer's
consideration and approval, which strategy shall include media and educational
materials for the Customer's approval or amendment (the "Awareness Strategy");
1. 7. Develop the Redlight Violation Criteria in consultation with the Customer;
1.8. Develop the Enforcement Documentation for approval by the Customer, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld;
1.9. Complete the installation and testing of all necessary Equipment, including
hardware and software, at the Designated Intersection Approaches (under the
supervision of the Customer);
1.10. Cause an electrical sub-contractor to complete all reasonably necessary
electrical work at the Designated Intersection Approaches, including but not
limited to the installation of all related Equipment and other detection sensors,
poles, cabling, telecommunications equipment and wiring, which work shall be
performed in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and
regulations;
1.11. Install and test the functionality of the Designated Intersection Approaches
with the Redflex System and establish fully operational Violation processing
capability with the Redflex System;
1.12. Implement the use of the Redflex System at each of the Designated
Intersection Approaches;
1.13. Deliver the Materials to the Customer; and
1.14. Issue Notice of Violation notices for Authorized Violations;
1.15. Redflex shall provide training (i) for up to fifteen (15) personnel of the
Customer, including but not limited to the persons who Customer shall appoint as
Authorized Officers and other persons involved in the administration of the
Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, (ii) for at least sixteen (16) hours in the
aggregate, (iii) regarding the operation of the Redflex System and the Redlight
Photo Enforcement Program, which training shall include training with respect to
the Redflex System and its operations, strategies for presenting Violations Data
in administrative adjudication hearing proceedings and a review of the
Enforcement Documentation;
1.16. Interact with administrative adjudication hearing personnel to address
issues regarding the implementation of the Redflex System, the development of a
subpoena processing timeline that will permit the offering of Violations Data in
adjudication proceedings, and coordination between Redflex, the Customer and
adjudication personnel; and
1.17. Redflex will work with the Customer to develop a comprehensive Public
Awareness/Education Campaign that will be based on research and public
polling to ensure tailored messaging for the community. Redflex will organize a
press conference at the project's commencement and coordinate all logistics,
including preparing a media packet which will include: a news release; an
overview of the Customer's photo enforcement program; a project fact sheet; a
project question and answer sheet; a photo enforcement "Facts & Myths"
handout; a map showing photo enforcement intersections and thoroughfares;
background on similar successful projects elsewhere; an explanation of photo
enforcement technology; an explanation of how the program will be
22
administered; and a spokesperson contact list. The Police Department's Public
Information Officer will be their primary point of contact, and will have final
approval on all media materials
1.18. Notice of Violation processing and Notice of Violation re-issuance
1.19. Employ a collection agency to collect delinquent accounts. To offset the
cost of collecting each delinquent account, Redflex will receive reimbursement
for the cost of delinquent collection up to the amount of the late fee penalty of
$25 associated with that account, for each account and associated late fee
successfully collected.
2. CUSTOMER OBLIGATIONS. The Customer shall do or cause to be done each of
the following (in each case, unless otherwise stated below, at Customer's sole
expense) :
2.1.1. Appoint the Police Project Manager; Provide an Administrative Hearing
Officer to preside over Appeals Hearing for the City.
2.1.2. Assist Redflex in obtaining the Drawings from the relevant Governmental
Authorities;
2.1.3. Notify Redflex of any specific requirements relating to the construction
and installation of any Intersection Approaches or the implementation of the
Redlight Photo Enforcement Program;
2.1.4. Provide assistance to Redflex in obtaining access to the records data of the
Texas Department of Transportation in Redflex's capacity as an independent
contractor to the Customer; and
2.1.5. Assist Redflex in seeking the Approvals
2.1.6. Provide reasonable access to the Customer's properties and facilities in
order to permit Redflex to install and test the functionality of the Designated
Intersection Approaches and the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program;
2.1.7. Provide reasonable access to the personnel of the Customer and reasonable
information about the specific operational requirements of such personnel
for the purposes of performing training;
2.1.8. Seek approval or amendment of Awareness Strategy, as described in
Section 1.17 above, and provide written notice to Redflex with respect to the
quantity of media and program materials (the "Materials") that the
Customer will require in order to implement the Awareness Strategy during
the period commencing on the date on which Redflex begins the installation
of any of the Designated Intersection Approaches and ending one (1) month
after the Installation Date;
2.1.9. Assist Redflex in developing the Redlight Violation Criteria; and
2.1.10. Seek approval of the Enforcement Documentation.
23
EXHIBIT "C"
Maintenance
1. All repair and maintenance of Photo Red Light Enforcement systems and related
equipment will be the sole responsibility of Redflex, including but not limited to
maintaining the casings of the cameras included in the Redflex System and all other
Equipment in reasonably clean and graffiti-free condition.
2. Redflex shall not open the Traffic Signal Controller Boxes without a representative of
city Traffic Engineering present.
3. The provision of all necessary communication, broadband and telephone services to
the Designated Intersection Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the Redflex
4. The provision of all necessary electrical services to the Designated Intersection
Approaches will be the sole responsibility of Redflex.
5. In the event that images of a quality suitable for the Authorized Officer to identify
Violations cannot be reasonably obtained without the use of flash units, Redflex shall
provide and install such flash units.
6. The Redflex Project Manager (or a reasonable alternate) shall be available to the
Police Project Manager each day, on a reasonable best efforts basis.
24
EXHIBIT "D"
COMPENSA TION & PRICING
Commencing on the expiration of the Warning Period for each Designated Intersection
Approach, Customer shall be obligated to pay Redflex a fixed fee of $4,870 per month
for each Designated Intersection Approach ("Fixed Fee") as full remuneration for
performing all of the services contemplated in this Agreement.
As a beta-testing and feasibility study, Redflex will provide a mobile photo red light
system unit for a period of 90 days at no charge to the Customer; upon completion of
feasibility study; Redflex and the Customer will have the option to extend this contract
and negotiate terms for mobile photo enforcement.
Cost Neutralitv
Cost neutrality is assured to Customer. The maximum compensation that Customer shall
be obligated to pay to Redflex each month is the Fixed Fee. Each month, Customer and
Redflex shall compare the aggregate revenue received from all Notice of Violations
("Revenue") to the total amount invoiced by Redflex for the Fixed Fee ("Amount
Invoiced") during the previous month ("Cost Neutrality Review"). If the Amount
Invoiced exceeds the Revenue, then City shall only be obligated to pay the Revenue to
Redflex and the difference between the Revenue and the Amount Invoiced for that month
will carryover to the next month as a deficit ("Deficit Amount"). If, in the next
following month, the Revenue exceeds the Amount Invoiced, Customer shall pay the
Amount Invoiced plus all or any portion of the accumulated Deficit Amount to the extent
that there is sufficient Revenue to pay all or any portion of the Deficit Amount. Upon
contract expiration any such outstanding deficits will be forfeited by Redflex.
BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL PRICING OPTIONS:
1. Redflex construction will be able to utilize existing conduit for installation where
space is available.
2. The Customer agrees to pay Redflex within thirty (30) days after the invoice is
received. A monthly late fee of 1.5% is payable for amounts remaining unpaid 60
days from date of invoice.
3. Each year, beginning with the second year of the Initial Term, the pricing will be
adjusted by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the Dallas Metroplex as published by
the U.S. Department of Labor.
25
Exhibit "E"
Additional Rights and Obligations
Redflex and the Customer shall respectively have the additional rights and obligations set
forth below:
1. Redflex shall assist the Customer in public information and education efforts,
including but not limited to the development of artwork for utility bill inserts, press
releases and schedules for any public launch of the Redlight Photo Enforcement
Program (actual print and production costs are the sole responsibility of the
Customer).
2. Redflex shall be solely responsible for installing such Signage. The Customer shall be
solely responsible for the fabrication of any signage, notices or other po stings
required pursuant to any law, rule or regulation of any Governmental Authority
("Signage"), including but not limited to the Vehicle Code, and shall assist in
determining the placement of such Signage.
3. The Redflex Project Manager and the Police Project Manager shall meet on a weekly
basis during the period commencing as of the date of execution hereof and ending on
the Installation Date, and on a monthly basis for the remainder of the Term, at such
times and places as the Redflex Manager and the Customer Manager shall mutually
agree.
4. The Customer shall not access the Redflex System or use the Redlight Photo
Enforcement Program in any manner other than prescribe by law and which restricts
or inhibits any other Person from using the Redflex System or the Redflex Photo
Enforcement Program with respect to any Intersection Approaches constructed or
maintained by Redflex for such Person, or which could damage, disable, impair or
overburden the Redflex System or the Redflex Photo Enforcement Program, and the
Customer shall not attempt to gain unauthorized access to (i) any account of any other
Person, (ii) any computer systems or networks connected to the Redflex System, or
(iii) any materials or information not intentionally made available by Redflex to the
Customer by means of hacking, password mining or any other method whatsoever,
nor shall the Customer cause any other Person to do any of the foregoing.
5. The Customer shall maintain the confidentiality of any username, password or other
process or device for accessing the Redflex System or using the Redlight Photo
Enforcement Program.
6. Each of Redflex and the Customer shall advise each other in writing with respect to
any applicable rules or regulations governing the conduct of the other on or with
respect to the property of such other party, including but not limited to rules and
regulations relating to the safeguarding of confidential or proprietary information, and
when so advised, each of Redflex and the Customer shall obey any and all such rules
and regulations.
7. The Customer shall promptly reimburse Redflex for the cost of repairing or replacing
any portion of the Redflex System, or any property or equipment related thereto,
damaged directly or indirectly by the Customer, or any of its employees, contractors
or agents.
26
Insurance
1. During the Term, Redflex shall procure and maintain and Redflex's sole cost and
expense the following insurance coverage with respect to claims for injuries to
persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of work or services pursuant to this Agreement by Redflex, and each
of Red flex's subcontractors, agents, representatives and employees:
2. Commercial General Liability Insurance. Commercial General Liability
Insurance with coverage of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage;
3. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Automobile Liability
Insurance with coverage of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury or property damage,
including but not limited to coverage for all automobiles owned by Redflex, hired
by Redflex, and owned by third parties;
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance. Redflex will use its
commercial best efforts to procure and maintain Professional Liability (Errors and
Omissions) Insurance with coverage of not less than One Million Dollars
($1,000,000) per occurrence and in the aggregate.
5. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance. Workers'
Compensation Insurance with coverage of not less than the limits required by the
Labor Code of the State of Texas, Employer's Liability Insurance with coverage
of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence.
6. With respect to the insurance described in the foregoing Section of this Exhibit
"E", any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved
by the Customer and any changes to such deductibles or self-insured retentions
during the Term must be approved in advance in writing by the Customer.
7. With respect to the Commercial General Liability Insurance the following
additional provisions shall apply:
8. The Customer Parties shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to any
liability arising from any act or omission of any Redflex Parties on the premises
upon which any such Redflex Parties may perform services pursuant to this
Agreement, and such coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of
protection afforded to such additional insureds.
9. The insurance coverage procured by Redflex and described above shall be the
primary insurance with respect to the Customer in connection with this
Agreement, and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Customer shall
be in excess of, and not in contribution to, such insurance.
10. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the various insurance
policies described above shall not affect the coverage provided to the Customer,
and such insurance policies shall state that such insurance coverage shall apply
separately with respect to each additional insured against whom any claim is
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits set forth in such
insurance policies.
11. With respect to the insurance described in the foregoing Section of this Exhibit
"E", each such insurance policy shall be endorsed to state that the coverage
provided thereby shall not be cancelled except after thirty (30) calendar days'
27
prior written notice to the Customer. If any of the Redflex Parties are notified by
any insurer that any insurance coverage will be cancelled, Redflex shall
immediately provide written notice thereof to the Customer and shall take all
necessary actions to correct such cancellation in coverage limits, and shall provide
written notice to the Customer of the date and nature of such correction. If
Redflex, for any reason, fails to maintain the insurance coverage required
pursuant to this Agreement, such failure shall be deemed a material breach of this
Agreement, and the Customer shall have the right, but not the obligation and
exercisable in its sole discretion, to either (i) terminate this Agreement and seek
damages from Redflex for such breach, or (ii) purchase such required insurance,
and without further notice to Redflex, deduct from any amounts due to Redflex
pursuant to this Agreement, any premium costs advance by the Customer for such
insurance. If the premium costs advanced by the Customer for such insurance
exceed any amounts due to Redflex pursuant to this Agreement, Redflex shall
promptly remit such excess amount to the Customer upon receipt of written notice
thereof.
12. Redflex shall provide certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance required
pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, which certificates shall be executed by
an authorized representative of the applicable insurer, and which certificates shall
be delivered to the Customer prior to Redflex commencing any work pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement.
28
Exhibit F
FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT
This Acknowledgement and Consent, dated as of , 2006, is
entered into by and between the City of University Park, Texas (the "City") and Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc., ("Redflex"), with reference to the Agreement for Photo Red Light
Enforcement Program, dated as of , by and between the City and
Redflex (the "Agreement").
1. Redflex has entered into a Credit Agreement, dated as of August 3, 2004
(the "Harris- Redflex Credit Agreement"), with Harris Trust and Savings Bank (the
"Bank"), pursuant to which the Bank has provided certain working capital credit facilities
to Redflex. Such credit facilities will provide Redflex the working capital that it needs to
perform its obligations to the City under the Agreement.
2. Pursuant to the Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement, Redflex has granted
Harris a security interest in all of Redflex's personal property as collateral for the
payment and performance of Redflex's obligations to the Bank under the Harris-Redflex
Credit Agreement. Such security interest applies to and covers all of Redflex's contract
rights, including, without limitation, all of Redflex's rights and interests under the
Agreement.
3. Redflex will not, by virtue of the Harris- Redflex Credit Agreement, be
relieved of any liability or obligation under the Agreement, and the Bank has not
assumed any liability or obligation of Redflex under the Agreement.
4. The City hereby acknowledges notice of, and consents to, Redflex's grant
of such security interest in favor of the Bank in all of Redflex's rights and interests under
the Agreement pursuant to the Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement.
5. The City further acknowledges and agrees that this Acknowledgement and
Consent shall be binding upon the City and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and
assigns of the Bank and to any replacement lender which refinances Redflex's obligations
to the Bank under the Harris-Redflex Credit Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Redflex have caused this
Acknowledgement and Consent to be executed by their respective duly authorized and
elected officers as of the date first above written.
The City of University Park, Texas:
Redflex:
By:
Name:
Title:
RED FLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
29
Exhibit "G"
Redflex Traffic Systems USA Bid Proposal for Automated Traffic Signal Enforcement System
30
Exhibit "H"
City of University Park's Proposal Number For Automated Traffic Signal Enforcement System
31
19
AGENDA MEMO
(09/05/06 AGENDA)
DATE: August 31,2006
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nina Wilson
City Secretary
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF DA TE CHANGE FOR CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
As we will have two councilmembers absent on October 17th, I propose we move the city
council meeting for that date to Tuesday, October 24 at 4:00 p.m.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
July 24, 2006
The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, July 24, 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
Lon Houseman, Chairman
Steve Metzger
William Hitze1berger, III
Bob Clark
Norma Coldwell
Harry Persaud - Community Development Mgr.
Mark Hardin - Plan Reviewer
Rob Dillard City ASttomey
Jennifer Deaver - Administrative Assistant
Absent & Excused
Roy Kull
Present & Seated
Mike Maberry
Mr. Houseman opened the public hearing and introduced the board members and then read the charge of
the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Houseman asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the April 17, 2006 Board
of Adjustment meeting. Mr. Metzger made a motion to approve the minutes. With a
second from Mr. Lake the motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Metzger then read the specifics of the first case.
1. B.O.A. 06-005 - James Shaw, representing the owners of the property situated at 3601
Marquette, requesting a variance to Section 21-100 (4) (c) ii, City of University Park
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for a total of 20 feet for both side yards where
24% oflot width or 25.82 feet is required. The subject tract is zoned SF-2 zoning district
classification in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Jim Shaw, representing the owner of the property situated at 3601 Marquette, came forward.
He stated that he had been contracted by the property owner last fall, therefore prepared plans for
the design of the structure according to the city's zoning ordinance. At that time the maximum
setback was 20' and is now 10' from Marquette and Thackery. He stated that the ordinance
changed and he wasn't aware of the changes having been out of town, therefore, his plans no
longer complied due to these changes. He then urged the board to approve his variance.
Mr. Dillard inquired of Mr. Shaw as to when he applied for the permit.
Mr. Shaw stated that he did not formally apply for:the permit in November because, due to the
property being occupied he could not drill to have a soil report completed. He did, however,
speak to Mark about his plans.
Mr. Dillard inquired when the ordinance went into effect.
Mr. Houseman stated April 20, 2006.
Mr. Metzger inquired of Mr. Shaw if had yet drilled for the soil test.
Mr. Shaw stated that he would be drilling in the next week when the residents move out of the
house.
Mr. Hitzelberger stated that there was a builders meeting held in February and the change was
then announced. He inquired if Mr. Shaw had attended that meeting.
Mr. stated that he had not attended that meeting.
Mr. Houseman inquired if there were any opposing parties that wished to speak.
Ms. Cyndi Abbate, owner / resident of the property situated at 3616 Marquette came forward. She
introduced herself and stated that since the ordinance had changed, she feels that the city does not
want the large houses going up. She then stated that Mr. Shaw did not get his plan turned in to the
city in time and that should not be acceptable considered a hardship. She likes living in a
neighborhood that has yard space and she does not want to see this variance granted. She
expressed concerns of drainage issues and then urged the board to deny the request as written.
Ms. Peggy Mims, resident / owner of the property located at 3701 Marquette, came forward. She
expressed concerns of the amount of traffic through the alleyways, drainage concerns, the
daylight does not reach her garden until 11 :30 in the morning, noise from the air conditioner
units, the amount of heat generated from the concrete of such large homes, and that she felt a
7000 sq. ft. house on a 70 ft. lot was entirely too much. She then urged the board to deny the
vanance.
Ms. Jenny James, resident / owner at 3625 Marquette came forward and spoke in opposition. She
stated that some time ago a builder was putting up a spec house and there was tree in the way of
the second level of that structure. The case was taken to the city council and it was approved. She
then stated that the only reason a builder builds the house so large is that they are paid by the
square foot. She then urged the board to deny the request.
Ms. Lindy Stone, resident / owner of the property situated at 3600 Marquette, came forward. She
stated that she was in opposition of the variance due to the diminutive yard size not being in
character with the neighborhood and that the neighborhood should not have to pay for the mistake
the builder made of not getting his plans turned in before the ordinance was changed.
Mr. Mack Mims, resident / owner of the property situated at 3701 Marquette, came forward. He
stated that he could not think of any way that Mr. Shaw's plans would benefit the neighborhood.
He stated that if the variance was granted it would only set precedence for other builders. He ,.
expressed concerns of very little rain causing water to rise to curb level in that neighborhood. He
then urged the board to deny the variance.
Ms. Ann Harrison, resident / owner of the property situated at 3620 Marquette, came forward to
speak in opposition. She states that her understanding of the change in the ordinance was
researched and addressed because of problems with flooding in the city. She stated that the
neighborhood does not want to have zero lot lines and that the city's first concern should be to the
existing homeowners. She then urged the board to deny the request.
Mr. Houseman inquired ifthere was anyone else that wished to speak; none came forward, Mr.
Houseman then closed the public hearing.
Mr. Metzger inquired of Mr. Persaud to get with Bud Smallwood on the flooding issues.
Mr. Persaud stated yes.
Mr. Houseman explained that the City Council passes ordinances and the variances are passed by
the Board of Adjustment only as a result of a property hardship. He then stated that he has yet to
hear any mention of a property hardship and that the reason that this was a hardship was due to
timing issues and that the board would not be authorized to grant the variance based on timing
Issues.
Mr. Clark agreed that there was no mention of a property hardship.
Mr. Shaw refuted that there was in fact a hardship based pie shaped lot.
Mr. Houseman addressed Mr. Shaw and reviewed that he bought the lot, delayed his submittal,
the ordinance was then passed and the application came in too late, therefore, the board has no
authority to grant a variance based on these facts.
Mr. Metzger made a motion to deny the request as written. With a second from Mr. Hitzelberger;
the motion was denied unanimously 5-0.
There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Houseman adjourned the meeting.
Approved by:
Date:
~LMA l\l--
~Zooh
Lon Houseman, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
MINUTES
July 17, 2006
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday,
July l7, 2006 at 5:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 3800 University Blvd.
University Park, Texas. The following are minutes ofthat meeting.
Commission Members Attending
Staff Members Attending
Robert H. West - Chairman
Randy Biddle
Bill Foose
Reed Shawver, III
Doug Roach
Harry Persaud - Community Dev. Mgr
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Jennifer Deaver- Administrative Assistant
Bud Smallwood- Director of Public Works
Present & Seated
Ed Freeman
Absent and Excused
Bea Humann
Jerry Jordan
Mr. West opened the public hearing and then read the specifics of the first case.
PZ 06-004 - Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Winstead, Sechrest &
Minick, representing Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP, fora change of zoning from
Multi family "MF-2", Parking "P" and Office "0-2" zoning district classification to
Planned Development District and approval of a PD concept plan. The subject tract is
approx. 2.0696 acres more or less, situated between Daniel and Haynie Avenues and
West of Hillcrest Ave., and described as lots 5 thru l2, Block 3, University Park
Addition, City of University Park. The said tract is zoned MF-2, P and 0-2 and owned
by Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP.
Mr. Persaud gave a brief over view of the specifics via a power point presentation.
Mr. West inquired if there was any favoring I opposing parties that wished to speak.
Mr.Art Anderson representing Legacy Hillcrest Investments, LP came forward
He briefed the audience and commission members on the history of the case, stating that
there was a neighborhood meeting reviewing the site plan the proposed changes. He
stated that the neighbors were in favor of the changes at the time and were not focused on
the square footage but primarily on the adverse effects of the traffic. He stated that the
traffic studies decided that there was not degradation in the level of service. He stated that
after the April meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission he sent Jeremy Windam
of Jacobs Engineering, back for additional studies of the access at Haynie. He then stated
1
the leasable space would be 147,500 square feet, excluding hallways and elevators, etc.,
l75,000 square feet oflibrary, retail, and restaurant space. He reminded the commission
that Danny Cummings had suggested a 25% reduction of square footage of restaurant
space and that there was already a reduction of 63,000 square feet in the 2001 conceptual
plan. Town houses were added at the request of the neighborhood and another change in
the reduction of height and putting in a penthouse suite that would be setback. He stated
that they wanted to make this a community based project. He stated that an advisory
committee was made up of residents in the neighborhood to fashion the design standards.
He expressed concerns of an increase in density and that the intersection was still at a
LOS of a C. He then urged the commission to approve his request.
Mr. West inquired if there were any opposing parties that wished to speak.
Mr. Wayne Johnson, resident / owner of the property situated at 360l Haynie introduced
himself and stated that the traffic study performed seems vague and that most cars would
cut through at Haynie. He then stated that with the five to eight (MF) Multi Family units
being included in the proposed plan, there would be an increase in the trips per day that
were estimated in the traffic study. He stated that this plan is too large and then urged the
commission to deny the planas requested.
Mr. Jim Tubb, resident / owner of the property situated at 3407 Haynie, came forward.
He stated that his property is located across the street from the parking lot of the bank
building. He then stated that the dumpsters and the loading docks were moved due to the
obvious traffic issues, and that the trips per day calculated in the traffic study allow very
little time for crossing the street. He then expressed concerns of the size of this building
and read parts of the letter from Mr. Huddleston and stated that the design was just a
giant and uncharacteristic of the residential area. He then urged the commission to deny
the request.
Ms. Mary Neil, resident / owner of the property situated at 3421 Haynie, came forward.
She introduced herself and stated that there was no need to again list the reasons as to
why this plan should be denied but wanted to be able to turn to the city for health and
protection. She expressed concerns of property values plummeting and that she can not
depend on the city for this protection and she then urged the commission to deny the
request.
Mr. Anderson introduced Jeremy Windham of Jacobs Engineering. Mr. Windham
reviewed the changed results of the traffic study preformed with the development being
at2l7,000 square feet.
Mr. Roach inquired if, with these changes, were the trips per day were increased by 6200
total trips per day.
Mr. Windham stated yes.
2
Mr. Craig Melde, architect representing Legacy Hillcrest, LP, and resident / owner of
3415 University, came forward. He stated that the main building stands at applicable
height with the penthouse level being a leasable space.
Mr. Biddle inquired as to why the decorative columns were so tall.
Mr. Melde stated that it was an architectural element.
Mr. Melde stated that it could be looked into, adding that there would be two floors of
office space, one floor of retail space and some multi-family use space in order to provide
a buffer to the neighborhood.
Mr. Foose inquired how many floors there were total.
Mr. Melde stated three.
Mr. West stated that the city does not recommend parallel parking because of the
problems that would result from cars waiting in the street to pull in.
Mr. Melde assured him that it could be worked out.
Mr. Biddle inquired if the education uses listed were pertaining to the library.
Mr. Melde stated yes.
Mr. Roach expressed concerns of the traffic study predicting 6200 trips per day.
Mr. Wilson explained that improvements would have to be inclusive oflooking at the
previous square footage. He stated that the cuing was looked at on a peak hour and that
the biggest bottle neck was at Daniel and Haynie and the conditions should improve with
timing and with the change in square footage.
Mr. Anderson stated that most people employed in this building would not be driving out
to eat and that with the 8-5 people the traffic will work even better than what the study
shows.
A discussion ensued regarding the possibility of widening the road and creating a left turn
lane on the east bound side of Haynie and a right yield for the east bound side of Daniel.
Mr. West inquired ifthere was anyone else who wished to speak. When no one came
forward he closed the public hearing.
Mr. West suggested that someone make a motion to table the item for a future meeting
until the square footage could be revised.
3
Mr. Roach stated that he would not like to see that happen as it has already come before
the Planning and Zoning Commission four times, he then suggested approval with a limit
on the amount of square footage and a limit to the number of spaces dedicated for each
use.
Mr. Shawver made a motion to deny the request.
The motion was not seconded.
Mr. Biddle made a motion to table the item until the August 2l st meeting of the Planning
and Zoning Commission proposing a work shop to meet with the developer.
The motion was not seconded.
At this point Mr. Roach stated that he would not support any building larger than
135,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Foose made a motion to approve the PD Concept Plan with a total of 135,000 sq. ft.
gross floor area, excluding the 8 units of town homes, subject to the following conditions:
(l) Height of the proposed building on the 0-2 site shall be limited to the height of the
existing building (2) A maximum of22,000 square feet for restaurant /retail space and
(3) Building height west of the common area shall not exceed 35 feet.
Mr. Roach move to amend the motion as follows: (1) Parking to be provided at the rate of
1 :200 square feet for retail and restaurant, and 1 :300 square feet for office space and (2)
with 19 staff conditions. Mr. Foose agreed to the changes made by Mr. Roach and
further amended the original motion to allow for Restaurant/retail space not to exceed
25,000 square feet.
Mr. Roach then seconded the motion as amended.
The motion was approved 3-2.
Mr. West then read the specifics of the second case.
PZ 06-0 II - Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Frank Blanchard
representing the property owner, for approval of a replat for Lot lA, Block B, University
Annex, 2nd Installment, being an Addition ofthe City of University Park, Dallas County,
Texas, and more commonly known as 3501 Asbury. The replat will subdivide the lot
into two single family attached.lots located in Planned Development District PD-6 zoned
for Single Family Attached housing development. A variance is not required for the
approval of this replat.
Mr. Persaud gave a brief over view of the specifics and confirmed that this replat met all
of the city requirements.
4
Mr. West inquired if there was any favoring / opposing parties that wished to speak, none
came forward.
Mr. Foose made a motion to approve the replat, with a second from Mr. Shawver the
motion was approved unanimously 5~0.
Mr. West then read the specifics ofthe third case.
PZ 06-0l2: Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Agnich Ventures LP, for
approval of a site plan for a tract of land being part of Lot 2, Block C of IDLEWILD NO.
2 Addition and located at 4520 West Lovers lane. The subject tract is zoned Planned
Development PD-2-R for uses permitted in the General Retail District. The site plan
proposes to add approx. l110 sq. ft. to the existing building.
Mr. Persaud gave a brief overview of the case.
Mr. West inquired if there was any favoring / opposing parties that wished to speak.
Mr. Taylor Armstrong, resident / owner of the property situated at 3801 Centenary, also
representing Agnich Venture, LP. came forward. He stated that this building was
originally an animal clinic with chain link kennels in the rear and the plan was to extend
the building at Lovers Lane, closer to Chips. He stated that it is currently 1530 square feet
with 485 square feet of second floor space and he proposes to add 1110 square feet to
bring it to the line of the adjacent properties, in addition adding two parking spaces to the
rear (alley) of the property. Currently no tenants are leasing this facility but the money
involved in the project should definitely bring an upper end, high quality tenant.
Construction would begin at the time of approval. He then urged the commission to
approve the request as written.
A discussion ensued regarding the parking spaces in the right of way
Mr. West inquired ofMr. Persaud, the ratio for parking spaces required.
Mr. Persaud stated that there must be one space for every 3,000 square foot of added
space.
Mr. Armstrong stated that with the addition of the square footage there will not be
adequate room for additional parking and that it is common of most all of the other
merchants to use the alleyway for employee parking.
Mr. West inquired if there was any favoring / opposing parties that wished to speak.
None came forward.
Mr. West then closed the public hearing.
5
Mr. Dillard stated that even though other merchants are using the alley ways to park, the
city has been making efforts to clean up those alley ways.
Mr. Foose inquired if the plan could be cut back 10 feet by shaving off 300 square feet of
the plan.
Mr. Armstrong stated that he was not asking for anymore than the neighboring spaces.
Mr. Robert Agnich, owner / applicant of the property in question, came forward and
introduced himself. He referred to the power point presentation and stated that if the city
did not want to allow the employee parking in the rear that was okay but that his thoughts
were that the city would benefit from this more so than the tenants
.Mr. stated that the deal was tight, and that if the dumpster is shared and could be moved
in order to provide more parking spaces.
Mr. West inquired if the city could provide staff direction.
Mr. Persaud stated that there must be one parking space for every 300 square foot and the
stepping the building back and using the rear for parking would be middle ground.
Mr. Biddle made a motion to table the item to come back for the August 21 st meeting of
the Planning and Zoning Commission with the site plan showing three spaces in the rear
of the structure and a revision of shaving 110 square feet of the addition.
Mr. Roach arnended the motion requiring that the approval be subject to a revised site
plan showing three on-site parking spaces in the rear within the property line and a net
increase of 900 square feet or less. He then seconded the motion.
The motion was approved 5-0.
Mr. West then read the specifics of the fourth case.
PZ 06-013: Hold a public hearing and consider a request by Intercity Investments, Inc.
for a zoning change on a tract of approx. 2.98 acres more or less including certain
alleyway right of ways, from Multi family MF-2 to Planned Development District and
approval of a PD concept ar1d detailed site plan to allow for multi family development.
The subject tract include Lots 4113 Lovers Lane, 4112 and 4113 Hyer Street and 4102
Grassmere and being lots 9-1l and 18 -20, Block 1, Troth and Boswell Subdivision and
lots 7-11 and 18-22, Block 2, Troth and Boswell Subdivision located in the City of
University Park.
Mr. Persaud gave a brief overview of the proposed project, via a power point
presentation. He showed the site plan from all angles and a map of the notification area.
Mr. Bill Blackburn, representing Intercity Investments, Inc. came forward and introduced
6
himself. He gave a run down of the history behind the existing building, specifically that
it was constructed in 1940, owned and operated by family, and that there are 9l
antiquated units each approximately 500 square feet in size. The proposed plan includes
lOft ceilings, larger living space and below grade parking. He then elucidated that the
relocation of utility meters has been approved by the utility companies.
Mr. Matt Mooney of Corgan & Associates, architectural firm contracted for the proposed
plan, came forward and introduced himself. He stated that currently there are 109 parking
spaces to accommodate 91 units on the existing property; he proposes to have 212
parking spaces, 85% at below grade level, for 88 units, where 176 are required. He stated
that the setback requirements would be met or exceeded and that the access for parking
would be away from Grassmere and Lovers. He then stressed that the development is
tasteful for the neighborhood and urged the commission to approve the request as written.
Mr. West inquired ifthere were any opposing parties that wished to speak.
Mr. Bryan Sargent, resident / owner of 4145 Hyer came forward. He stated that the traffic
is significantly concentrated at Hyer and that he is pleases with all aspects of the
proposed plan but would like to see the traffic issues better addressed.
Mary Lehner, owner / resident of 4137-39 Grassmere came forward. She stated that she is
very pleased with the plan but the turn around area at the end of the alley at Grassmere
and expressed concerns of parking on Grassmere would be lost due to this development.
Mr. Smallwood stated that emergency vehicles do not access the alleyways.
Mr. John Gillett, Fire Marshall for the City of University Park came forward. He stated
that in the event that there was a fire, it would be approached from the street. He then
stated that the plans can still be worked on but there are minimum requirements that must
be met.
Mr. West then closed the public hearing.
Mr. West stated that the existing building is old and therefore non-conforming. He then
raised questions regarding the density.
Mr. Mooney stated that MF-2 requires 1800 square feet of living space and should be a
PD in order to make sense. He then explained that the property would have a grand
entrance and be a beautiful addition to the area and the city.
Mr. Foose inquired ifthese were condo units and how many were allowed.
Mr. Persaud stated yes and added that the MF-2 and MF-3 allows 69 units total.
Mr. Smallwood introduced Mr. Danny Cummings and invited him to share some of the
findings of the traffic study preformed.
7
Mr. Cummings came forward. He stated that his findings do not reveal a great impact on
traffic, West on Hyer with 39 trips per day at a.m. peak hours.
Mr. Sargent suggested that the traffic study should have been preformed during football
games and it show a substantial amount of traffic issues at Hyer.
Mr. Mooney stated that those issues are being addressed and the underground parking
should be effective in resolving the problem at Hyer.
Mr. Shawver added that this development is attractive but it will add approximately 100
kids to the area and the traffic issued indeed needed to be addressed, specifically at
Grassmere.
Mr. Foose stated that with retail to the east and the school to the west the improvement
would set precedence for other MF property owners to bring their units to code, He stated
that the traffic issues definitely need attention. He then made. a motion to approve the
request for a zoning change with the understanding that the ingress and egress at
Grassmere would be addressed.
With a second from Mr. Biddle the motion was approved 5-0.
Mr. Biddle made a motion to approve the minutes of the May l5th meeting, 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:
:::f~# ~
Robert H. West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
?h'f-hl
Date / I
8
19
PARK ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
July 25, 2006
The Park Advisory Board of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, July 25, 2006
at 4:00pm at City Hall, 3800 University Blvd., University Park, Texas. The following are
the minutes of that meeting.
Committee Members Attending:
William Pardoe - Chairman
Jerry Grable - Council Liaison
Julia Baltser
Bruce Collins
Liz Farley
Mac Fuller
Darrell Lane
Carol Seay
Jacky Spears
Stan Tucker
Alan Wasserman
Absent & Excused:
Jeff Turpin
Staff Members Attending:
Bob Livingston - City Manager
Bud Smallwood - Public Works Director
Bob Whaling - City Engineer
Gerry Bradley - Parks Director
Brent Jones - Urban Forester
Amber Lively - Administrative Secretary
Mr. Coy Talley of Talley Associates was also on hand to discuss development plans for
Barbara Hitzelberger Park.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe. Mr. Pardoe began by welcoming the
new Park Board Members. With this, he asked that all Board Members introduce
themselves and give a brief description of why they are on the Board.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Pardoe asked for any comments on or changes to the May meeting minutes. There
being no changes, Mrs. Spears moved to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Mrs. Baltser and approved unanimously by the board.
Reports
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
1. Germanv Park - Water Pump Station
Director of Public Works Bud Smallwood attended the meeting to discuss
with the Board about the relocation and renovation of the water pumping
station at Germany Park and hopefully gain the Board's approval on the
proposed location. He began by giving the Board some background
information on the pump station and how it is necessary to the City's
water supply. It was decided by the Council that the station should be
renovated due to its age and the condition of the structure. It was
suggested to the Council that the renovation project would also allow for
the station to be moved therefore creating more open space for the park.
Mr. Smallwood displayed an aerial picture of the park which detailed the
proposed location for the new station along with two alternate locations
within the park. There are advantages and disadvantages to all three
locations. The proposed location is situated at the Southwest corner of
the park. Board members were also shown a concept of what the new
station could potentially look like.
After giving his presentation to the Board about the plans for the station,
Mr. Smallwood opened the floor to questions and concerns. The biggest
concern that Board Members had was regarding the amount of noise
that the station would produce. There was brief discussion among the
Board regarding other issues such as security and emergency plans, and
other potential locations within the park for the station.
After the Board's discussion, all members were in agreement that the
proposed location is the best area for the new pumping station. With this,
Mr. Lane moved that the Board approve the proposed location for the
movement of the Germany Park Pumping Station. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wasserman and approved unanimously by the Board.
2. Barbara Hitzelberqer Park
Mr. Bradley began by giving the new Board members a brief background
on the two park locations located at Lovers Lane and Hillcrest. Staff had
been working with the firm Dunkin, Sims and Stoffels on a design concept
for both locations. The City has since moved away from this firm and is
currently working with Mr. Coy Talley of Talley Associates on a new
design. The two park locations have also been named in honor of former
Mayor Barbara Hitzelberger for her services to the City both past and
present.
Mr. Bradley explained that the park locations could allow for many
features such as a wall, water features, park signage, seasonal planting,
decorative lighting and hardscape. With this, Mr. Bradley introduced Mr.
Talley who was in attendance at the meeting to try and gain a better
understanding of what the Board is looking for in terms of design for the
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
two park locations. He sees the park as a gateway for the City and feels
that it is a very visual location.
Board members voiced many opinions of what they would like to see at
the location. For the wall around the park, most members felt that the
design should stick with "red brick" for the materials since this a
reoccurring material used throughout the city in places such as City Hall
and SMU. Almost all Board Members would like to see a water feature of
some sort be used in the design. Other items that the Board felt might be
nice were tree lighting, a seating area and some form of sculpture. Mrs.
Baltser also brought up the idea of completing the project in a phase plan
which would run over several years. Mrs. Farley felt that it may also be a
good idea to include a low wall on the Hillcrest side so that the parks
would be more desirable for parents with young children.
After hearing the Board's comments, Mr. Talley will begin developing a
concept plan for the Board's approval.
3. Open Discussion
After all report items had been covered, Mr. Bradley opened the floor for
any discussion or questions that the Board, especially new members, may
have. Mrs. Baltser inquired about the status of the Caruth Park project.
Mr. Bradley estimates that this could be completed as soon as late Fall.
Mrs. Baltser also had questions about why recycling is not done within the
pool facility, especially at the concession stand. Mr. Bradley will look into
this to see if the concession vendor uses enough products for a recycling
program to be beneficial.
The only other question came from Mr. Wasserman who was curious
about water restrictions and how they will affect irrigation in the parks. Mr.
Bradley explained that Staff has already dropped the department's
watering schedule back by twenty (20) percent. If a stricter water
restriction is approved, the department would then do an evaluation on all
plant materials to determine what is priority. Mr. Livingston also offered
Board Members some information on any potential water restrictions. The
only plan he foresees would be a voluntary schedule which would apply to
homeowners between certain hours of the day only.
Work in Progress
Mr. Bradley included a brief outline of current projects being completed by the
Parks Department. This information was included in the agenda packet mailed to
Board members.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
Adjournment
There being no further business of the Park Board, the meeting was adjourned
by Mr. Pardoe.
Due to the changing of several Council meeting dates, some Park Board
meetings have been rescheduled. Board Members were given a revised
schedule of the meetings between August and December 2006. With this, the
next scheduled meeting of the Park Board will be held on Tuesday, August 15,
2006.
lJo~~
William Pardoe, Chairman
Park Advisory Board
~.lb.~
Date
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
19
PARK ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
August 15, 2006
The Park Advisory Board of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, August 15,
2006 at 4:00pm at City Hall, 3800 University Blvd., University Park, Texas. The
following are the minutes of that meeting.
Committee Members Attending:
William Pardoe - Chairman
Jerry Grable - Council Liaison
Julia Baltser
Mac Fuller
Darrell Lane
Stan Tucker
Jeff Turpin
Alan Wasserman
Staff Members Attending:
Gerry Bradley - Parks Director
Amber Lively - Administrative Secretary
Absent & Excused:
Bruce Collins
Liz Farley
Carol Seay
Jacky Spears
Mr. Gary Olp of GGO Architects was also on hand to discuss the master plan for Coffee
Park.
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Pardoe asked for any comments on or changes to the July meeting minutes. There
being no changes, Mrs. Baltser moved to approve the minutes. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wasserman and approved unanimously by the Board.
Reports
1. Caruth Park Landscape Plan
The Caruth Park landscape plan and several concept drawings have
been brought to the Board during previous meetings. Mr. Bradley began
by giving all new members background information on the project and the
existing conditions.
The main focus of the project was to create a botanical bed and
surrounding landscape system to be located at the south east corner of
the park that will serve as an entrance. The name of the park itself will be
installed in the same fashion as those at Curtis and Williams Parks with
raised metal lettering attached to the stone wall of the large botanical bed.
The surrounding landscape will provide more plant material and color for
the park and will also serve as a screen between neighboring residents
and the park. In addition to the botanical bed, the concept drawing also
outlines the bus stop which is located near the potential sight. The plan is
to incorporate the same stonework and provide a bench for this area. In
addition to the south east corner entryway, Mr. Bradley also displayed a
potential plan to introduce some new botanical beds to be constructed
towards the center of the park area. These beds would create a sort of
corridor for patrons that are accessing the soccer fields.
After seeing the concept plans for the park, there was brief discussion
among the Board members. Some of the items discussed were the types
of plant materials to be used, lighting for the park sign, and concerns
about the location serving as a hangout for kids. Mr. Bradley responded by
saying that the plant material has notbeen decided on at this point and
there will be lighting for the sign as well as tree lighting. As far as the area
being a hang out for kids or others, it has not been a problem in any other
location, so it is not anticipated to be a problem at Caruth.
With this, Mr. Pardoe asked if the Board was comfortable giving Staff the
go ahead to begin the project. All Board members present were in
agreement that the project should be started as soon as possible. Staff
anticipates the project will begin as early as October.
2. Coffee Park Master Plan
Mr. Gary Olp of GGO Architects was on hand to go over the concept
drawing for the Coffee Park Master Plan. Before Mr. Olp began his
presentation, Mr. Bradley gave members a brief overview of the existing
conditions at the park. Currently there is overgrowth that needs to be
removed, there is a lack of color beds, and there is very little parking.
The concept drawing outlined by Mr. Olp offers the chance for a new play
area for smaller children, new botanical plantings, park signage, fencing
along Hillcrest and parking along Villanova. Due to the construction of the
Northwest Highway wall, there may also be additional land that will be
added to the park. With the addition of new land, a walking trail could also
be added to the location.
In addition to the re-development of Coffee Park, there is also potential for
some landscaping of Artha Garza Park which is directly across Hillcrest
and currently serves as the City's "Tree Farm". Members were shown an
example of a potential entry way sign that could be positioned at Artha
Garza and would serve as a gateway into the City. Staff was directed to
proceed with developing a brick entrance bed at both intersections of
Hillcrest and Northwest Highway. The brick portal structure with botanical
plantings will act as an entryway into the community.
"
Staff would like to gain some feedback from the Board on what they feel
should be done with Coffee Park as well as Artha Garza. Mr. Pardoe
emphasized that Coffee is an under-utilized park location that has the
potential to be developed into something better. Mrs. Baltser
recommended that fitness stations in addition to the walking trail might be
something to look into. Several Board members also raised the idea of
removing the baseball diamond from the park all together. Mr. Bradley
informed members that the removal of the ball field from the YMCA's
schedule would meet with a strong opposition from the YMCA as well as
other park patrons. (Staff has attached the current schedule of the
YMCA's usage of the Park for the Boards review).
The Board's approval is needed for Mr. Dip to continue on with further
concept drawings. Staff was directed to continue with the concept plans
and determine how much additional property was to be gained with the
installation of the Northwest Highway Wall.
Work in Progress
Mr. Bradley included a brief outline of current projects being completed by the
Parks Department. This information was included in the agenda packet mailed to
Board members.
Adjournment
There being no further business of the Park Board, the meeting was adjourned
by Mr. Pardoe.
The next meeting of the Park Board is scheduled for Tuesday, September 12th.
l"-~,,;,, ~.J).e, 8.74.c6
William Pardoe, Chairman Date
Park Advisory Board
YMCA Field Usage 2006-07
Fields
FALL FOOTBALL I SOCCER 2006
Dates
Times
Caruth Park August 25th-November 18th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Caruth August 25th-November 18th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
(Area next to the Tennis
Courts) SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Williams Park August 25th-November 18th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Goar Park (North & South
Fields) August 25th-November 18th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Germany Park August 25th-November 18th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SA TURDA YS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Coffee August 25th-November 18th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SA TURDA YS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
PAGE 1 OF 3
Spring Soccer -2007
Fields
Dates
Times
Caruth Park
February 5th -April 28th
MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
. .
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Caruth MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
(Area next to the Tennis
Courts) February 5th -April 28th SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Williams Park February 5th -April 28th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Goar Park (North & South
Fields) February 5th -April 28th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 9AM-2:00 PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
PAGE 2 OF 3
Baseball / SoftbalU T-Ball-
2007
Fields
Dates
Times
Caruth Park April 9th - June 30th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 8:30AM-4:00
PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
Coffee Park MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 8:30AM-4:00
April 9th - June 30th PM
- -- - ..-- - - - - - - -- - - - _S.1J~Q..AY 2:00 PM -7:0Q..EM-.
Curtis Park April 9th - June 30th MON-FRI 4:30 -DARK
SATURDAYS 8:30AM-4:00
PM
SUNDAY 2:00 PM -7:00 PM
PAGE 3 OF 3