HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 02-06-07 WebA G E N D A
#2703
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2007 AT 5:00 P.M.
3:00-4:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION: UNDER SECTION 551.072, GOVERNMENT CODE,
DELIBERATION REGARDING PURCHASE/SALE OF WORCOLA AND
FONDREN PROPERTY
4:00-5:00 PM WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW
I.INVOCATION
– Community Information Officer Steve Mace
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
– Community Information Officer Steve Mace/Boy Scouts
III.INTRODUCTION OF COUNCIL –
Mayor James H. Holmes, III
IV.INTRODUCTION OF STAFF
– City Manager Bob Livingston
V.AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
PROMOTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT CAPTAIN AND SERGEANT
DEPARTMENT PIN: PAT BRIGNON, MAINTENANCE TECH II, UTILITIES
DEPARTMENT, 15 YEARS
VI. CONSENT AGENDA
A.CONSIDER: Request to abandon street right-of-way adjacent to 7304 Turtle Creek
Boulevard
B.CONSIDER: Approval of City Council Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2007
VII.MAIN AGENDA
A.PUBLIC HEARING: To hear request from Southern Methodist University to purchase
Potomac Park
B.CONSIDER: Retaining services of consultant to review specific building issues in
single- and multi-family districts and the need for minimum land development
standards to regulate future redevelopment of existing building sites
C.CONSIDER: Ordinance for driveway standards and off-street parking requirements in
Multi-Family Districts
D.CONSIDER: Approval of Engagement Letter with Brown McCarroll, L.L.P., to
represent city in connection with TXU’s appeal of city’s ordinance requiring removal
and relocation of 138kV transmission line
E.CONSIDER: Award of bids for windows for City Hall project, relocated Facilities
Maintenance Shop at Peek Service Center and miscellaneous project change orders
F.CONSIDER: Transfer of library account money to University Park Friends of the
Library
th
G.CONSIDER: Changing date of March 20 city council meeting
VIII.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 were made when that item was addressed by the City Council.
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 September 25, 2006
B.CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
C.COFFEE PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for January 11, 2007
D.EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
E.FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
F.PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for January 9, 2007
G.PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
H.PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY INSURANCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
I.PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for January 18, 2007
J.PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
K.URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
L.ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AGENDA MEMO
(2/06/07 AGENDA)
DATE:
January 30, 2007
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM:
Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Consider Request to Abandon Street Right-of-Way Adjacent to 7304
Turtle Creek Blvd.
ITEM:
The owners of the property at 7304 Turtle Creek Blvd., Mr. & Mrs. Guy Marcus, are
interested in the purchase of certain right-of-way (ROW) along their Stanford frontage.
The south property line adjacent to the Stanford ROW is approximately ten feet (10’)
north of the sidewalk. Mr. & Mrs. Marcus request the City abandon a strip four and one
half feet (4.5’) wide along the Stanford frontage for sixty-eight and nine-tenths feet (68.9’)
for a total of 310.05 square feet.
No utilities will be impacted by the proposed sale of ROW, and it is staff’s opinion the
City has no current or future use of the subject parcel.
If Council directs staff to proceed with the ROW sale, staff will proceed with an appraisal
of the property and draft an abandonment ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the ROW sale.
ATTACHMENTS:
Survey
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AGENDAMEMO (11) (2).doc 11:15 AM 01/30/07
MINUTES
#2702
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 2007, 5:00 P.M.
Mayor Blackie Holmes convened the city council into an executive session in the conference
room at 3:59 p.m. for a discussion regarding a possible real estate purchase under Section
551.072 of the Government Code. The executive session was closed at 4:22 p.m. No action was
voted on or taken during the meeting.
Mayor Blackie Holmes opened the regular city council meeting at 5:00 p.m. Present were
Mayor Pro Tempore Harry Shawver and Councilmembers Syd Carter, Kelly Walker and Jerry
Grable. Also in attendance were City Manager Bob Livingston, City Attorney Rob Dillard and
City Secretary Nina Wilson.
AWARDS AND RECOGNITION
DEPARTMENT PIN: City Manager Bob Livingston presented Forestry Technician Jose Munoz
of the Park Department with his 25-year service pin and thanked him for his years of service to
the City of University Park. Maintenance Technician II Pat Brignon was unable to attend and is
scheduled for a future meeting.
PRESENTATION OF LAKE GRAPEVINE WATER AUDIT: Larry McDaniel, General
Manager of the Dallas County Park Cities Municipal Utilities District (PC MUD), contracted
with Nationwide Water Resources to develop an audit of Lake Grapevine with respect to the
water rights held by the MUD, the City of Dallas, and the City of Grapevine. Mr. McDaniel
detailed the status of water rights versus lake levels for each community, as it relates to current
drought conditions, and stated that the status is very good.
Councilmember Walker moved approval of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Carter
seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following:
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO REMOVE TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS FROM
3200 BLOCK OF RANKIN: A petition was received from a majority of the property owners in
the 3200 block of Rankin, who are in favor of removing the two-hour parking restriction from
the north and south sides of the street (8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except holidays).
CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO REMOVE TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS FROM
7000 HILLCREST: A request from Tom Thumb requesting the removal of the two-hour parking
restriction along the west side of the 7000 block of Hillcrest (8 a.m.-4 p.m., Monday-Friday,
except holidays). Tom Thumb owns the property abutting all of the head-in parking spaces and
would be the only one impacted by the change.
ORDINANCE NO. 07/01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, REPEALING A
TIME LIMIT PARKING ORDINANCE DATED JANUARY 7, 1963 AND ORDINANCE NO.
78/354 WHICH ESTABLISHED TWO HOUR PARKING LIMITS ON THE WEST SIDE OF
THE 7000 BLOCK OF HILLCREST AND IN THE 3200 BLOCK OF RANKIN,
RESPECTIVELY; REQUIRING THE REMOVAL OF SIGNS AND MARKINGS BY THE
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER FINAL PAYMENT TO CUTLER REPAVING, INC. FOR IN-PLACE RECYCLING
OF ASPHALT PAVEMENT AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, PROJECT NO. 42695: The payment
was approved in the amount of $27,683.74 for work performed and materials furnished.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING CLEAN FLEET POLICY: The resolution is an effort
towards reducing vehicle pollution and covers ways fleets can positively impact air quality
through vehicle acquisitions, maintenance, operations, and compliance verification.
RESOLUTION NO. 07/01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN FLEET VEHICLE POLICY TO
IMPROVE AIR QUALITY WITHIN THE CITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
UPDATE FOURTH QUARTER STRATEGIC GOALS: On December 14, 2004 the City
Council adopted 6 strategic goals and objectives. A responsibility chart was created to track the
progress of goal and objective achievement. The objectives completed include: Develop a plan
to recognize model citizens in our community; Install attractive uniform signs in each park that
give park history, regulations, and hours; Evaluate the need for a specific position on City staff to
manage website and cable channel content, handle media contacts, community relations, and
produce publications; Consider citywide program for sidewalk maintenance, and Implement
customer service/work order system (3-1-1 project). Objectives in progress/ongoing are:
Develop traffic and parking improvements; Communicate traffic realities; Develop a Master Plan
for Snider Plaza and Miracle Mile areas; Develop a New Resident Orientation program; Identify
initiatives based on recommendations from the Park Advisory Committee; Develop a unified
design and standards for entrances to the City; Assess the effectiveness of current
communication methods and make recommendations for improvements, and Conduct study of
improving restrooms in the parks. Objectives not started: Study feasibility of undergrounding
Lovers Lane in Miracle Mile.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For January 2, 2007.
MAIN AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND ORDINANCE ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
NO. 27 (PD 27), ST. CHRISTOPHER’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Planned Development District
No. 27 was established in June 2000, for St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church, 2600 Westminster.
The applicant has submitted an application requesting an amendment to PD-27 to allow for a 22-
foot by 42-foot canopy to be installed over the existing playground equipment. Mayor Holmes
opened the public hearing. As there was no discussion on the item, he closed the public hearing.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27,
ST. CHRISTOPHER’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH: Councilmember Grable moved approval of the
amendment to PD 27. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve
an ordinance amending PD 27 for St. Christopher’s Episcopal Church.
ORDINANCE NO. 07/02
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 AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT NO. 27 (PD-27) FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A TRACT OF LAND OF
183.5 FEET BY 177 FEET AND 172.8 FEET BY 171 FEET IN THE JEFFERSON TILLEY
SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1480, CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, DALLAS COUNTY,
TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 2600 WESTMINSTER, UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS; APPROVING AN AMENDED SITE PLAN; PROVIDING 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.
CONSIDER ORDINANCE ORDERING CHANGE OF CERTAIN STREET ADDRESS
NUMBER: A request was filed with the city to subdivide (replat) the existing lot at 3533 Asbury
into two Single Family Attached (SFA) lots in accordance with the PD-6 zoning classification.
However, the current addresses for the adjacent properties, 3535 and 3537 Asbury, will need to
be changed to allow for the proper sequence and consistent numbering of properties in that
block. Mr. Jim Mills, 3537 Asbury, and Ms. Marge Graves, 3535 Asbury, spoke before the
council opposing the change. Ms. Tyler Mosher, 10415 Pagewood, and Ms. Wendi Kaplan,
10505 Barrywood Dr., members of the two families who are planning to build on the site at 3533
Asbury, spoke in favor of the change. No action was taken on the pending ordinance.
Councilmember Grable moved that the address for 3533 be retained for the west ½ of the lot and
3531, a new number not already assigned, be used for the east ½ of the lot and that the
numbering for the lot east of 3533 Asbury known as 3529 Asbury be addressed at such time it is
split, if that should occur. Mayor Holmes seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve
changing the street address numbers. Note: After another viewing of the area by staff, it was
determined that the lot could not be assigned as moved by the council’s motion; therefore, 3533
Unit A and 3533 Unit B were assigned as the new house numbers.
REPORT REGARDING HIGHER DENSITY AND LOSS OF ON-STREET PARKING
SPACES IN MULTI-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION: In 2006, the building department permitted
five multi-family projects which included 27 units and with 81 bedrooms and 54 off-street
parking spaces. All of the projects were permitted for three-bedroom units, which provided two
off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. In most cases, these multi-family projects were built
on sites where duplexes had existed. The result is higher densities in an existing neighborhood
creating problems for parking, traffic circulation, sanitation and noise. It appears that current
development regulations are either inadequate or have not been designed to deal with these
specific issues. The current development trend points to two major issues impacting the
neighborhood: the proliferation of driveway approaches with direct access to the street resulting
in the loss of on-street parking spaces, and, secondly, multi-family construction is designed and
built for three-bedroom units, providing two parking spaces per dwelling unit. The city proposed
the following specific alternatives for addressing these issues: Regulate the number and spacing
of driveways for multi-family construction; Increase on-site parking requirements in the multi-
family districts; Establish overlay district standards for a specific area; Promote design standards
in multi-family construction to accommodate on-site parking below grade. Matt Dixon, 3448
Rosedale, presented a power point presentation showing properties at risk for redevelopment.
He recommended a delay until a comprehensive street parking plan could be devised and
suggested that an advisory committee be created of residents, landlords and developers
specifically for the Snider Plaza MF2 area. Ms. Mary Graves, 6716 Hursey, representing eight
homeowners, agreed with Mr. Dixon on establishing a parking plan. Donald H. Gale, 3712
Binkley, owner of 11 properties in the MF2 area spoke before the council in regard to his
concern about too many restrictions in the city, noting that building heights don’t work, the rules
do not permit quality buildings and there is no place for older residents to live in the city after
selling their homes. He suggested a committee of citizens, builders and consultants to address
the rules. Mayor Holmes agreed and appointed an MF2 Building Advisory Committee
consisting of Messrs. Gale and Dixon, Ms. Graves and two builders of Mr. Gale’s choosing to
work with Community Development Manager Harry Persaud and return to council with a status
th
report to the March 20 city council meeting. Council also directed staff to amend the
comprehensive zoning ordinance establishing standards for regulating the number and spacing of
driveways and to increase on-site parking requirements for multi-family construction and to
th
present it at the February 6 city council meeting. Council also forwarded this item to the
Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC) for further review and recommendation.
REPORT REGARDING RENTAL REGISTRATION PROGRAM: On December 19, 2006, the
city council received a report from staff regarding violations of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance specifically relating to dwelling unit occupancy. Council directed staff to hold off on
enforcement actions until June 1, 2007 and to notify property owners accordingly. Staff will do a
large mail out of notices next week and a utility bill insert for February. However, many cities
have established a Rental Registration Program to monitor the condition and occupancy of rental
properties, which requires all owners of residential dwelling units to register with the city.
Property owners will be required to provide their name, address, phone number, address of rental
units, number of units, available parking spaces, etc. At the time of registration, each landlord
will be given copies of the city’s Minimum Building and Occupancy Standards. Registration is
valid for 12 months and must be renewed annually. There is no fee for registration which may
be done on line. The program will provide a penalty for failure to register a rental property and
for providing false information. Enforcement will be done on a complaint basis. Mayor Holmes
moved to table this item until a future meeting. Councilmember Grable seconded, and the vote
was unanimous to delay action at this time.
REVIEW STATUS OF PILOT STUDY FOR 25 MPH SPEED LIMITS FOR RESIDENTIAL
STREETS: Staff contracted with C&P Engineering for the initial collection of speed data along
residential streets in the Pilot Study area. Regulatory signs were placed along the subject streets
in conformance with the plan developed by the city’s traffic consultant. Approximately 60 days
following the installation of the signs, the city received a few calls suggesting that there were too
many signs and requested that we remove some or all of them. After a conversation with our
traffic consult, we removed 27 of the 66 signs, all of which were “interior” to the Pilot Study
area. The consultant felt that the signs had been up for a couple of months, and the majority of
the traffic along the streets is familiar with the new speed limit. The consultant will collect
follow-up speed data during late March, and C&P Engineering will compile the results and
recommendations into a report for council review in April 2007.
CONSIDER ADDENDUM TO CONTRACT WITH ALAN PLUMMER & ASSOCIATES FOR
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF BOOSTER PUMPING STATION IN GERMANY PARK:
The addendum to the contract is in the amount $343,056 for design of the proposed booster
pumping station in Germany Park. Staff was directed to meet with a neighborhood committee to
formalize the exterior appearance of the pumping station. The proposal details the extra services
at a cost of $16,930, which relates directly to the time anticipated in designing the exterior
elevations of the building. Mayor Holmes moved approval of the addendum to the engineering
contract with Alan Plummer Associates. Councilmember Walker seconded, and the vote was
unanimous to approve the addendum in the amount of $343,056.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF BID FOR UPGRADE TO THE ALL HAZARD EMERGENCY
WARNING SYSTEM: Bids were taken for an upgrade to the city’s outdoor warning siren
system, but there are still many parts of the city that fall into dead zones where citizens cannot
hear the outdoor warning system. The upgrade consists of replacing the current rotating type
sirens with omni-directional sirens that sound 360 degrees in all directions. This system still
maintains the ability to utilize voice commands; but, the new system has the ability to store
fifty pre-recorded messages for use over the system as well. The siren located on the Southern
Methodist University Campus is owned by Southern Methodist University. Their siren will be
upgraded also and is included in the bid price. They will pay approximately $25,000 to the
city. American Communications won the bid in the amount of $148,341.25. Councilmember
Carter moved acceptance of the bid proposal for the All Hazard Public Warning System in the
amount of $148,341.25 less $25,000 from Southern Methodist University. Councilmember
Graber seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the bid to American
Communications.
There being no further business, Mayor Holmes adjourned the meeting.
nd
PASSED AND APPROVED this 2 day of February 2007.
James H. Holmes, III, Mayor
ATTEST:
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
AGENDA MEMO
(02/06/2007 AGENDA)
DATE: February 6, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Receive a report regarding specific building issues in the single family and multi
family districts and the need for minimum land development standards to
regulate the future redevelopment of existing building sites.
Background/Analysis:
On October 5, 2006, City Council held a public discussion on the subject of “Regulating the
size of single family homes” to which residents and builders in the community participated.
At that meeting staff reviewed the current regulations in place for single family construction
and explored alternative building standards used by similar communities to further regulate the
size of single family homes.
On January 16, 2007 City Council received a report and discussed specific issues affecting
new construction in the multi family districts. Some residents and builders also participated in
that discussion. At that meeting staff reviewed current standards in place for regulating
driveways and off-street parking in the multi family districts and proposed amending those
standards to resolve specific issues impacting the neighborhoods.
Developing minimum standards to improve the quality of development in the multi family
districts and regulating the building envelope for single family construction requires specific
knowledge, expertise and time to work through the process with builders and residents. Staff
is proposing that the City retain the services of a consultant with the appropriate experience to
generate customized development standards which are to be adopted and used to regulate the
future redevelopment of existing building sites.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City retain the services of a consultant to review current building
issues and develop appropriate development standards.
Attachments:
Summary of Issues
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Summary of issues for Consultant.doc
3:59 PM 02/01/07
AGENDA MEMO
(01/16/2007 AGENDA)
DATE: February 6, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Harry Persaud, MRTPI, AICP, Community Development Manager
SUBJECT: Discuss a draft ordinance providing for driveway standards and off-street
parking requirements in the Multi Family Districts and provide directions to staff.
Background/Analysis:
The current development trends in the multi family districts point to two major issues
impacting the neighborhoods. Firstly, the proliferation of driveway approaches with direct
access to the street result in the loss of on-street parking spaces. Secondly, multi family
construction is designed and built for three bedroom units and provide two parking spaces per
dwelling unit, meeting the minimum requirements of the comprehensive zoning ordinance.
The proposed ordinance will regulate the number and location of driveways as follows:
The aggregate of driveway approaches shall not exceed:
(i)One driveway per street frontage per platted lot, provided
that additional driveways with a minimum of 100 feet of
street frontage, measured from center line to center line,
separating them, shall be permitted;
(ii)Multiple driveways that provide direct access only to an
alley shall be permitted.
In addition the proposed ordinance provides for an increase in off-street parking
spaces to one space per bedroom plus one additional space per ten bedrooms or
fractions thereof, for visitors parking.
Recommendation:
Since this is an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and
Zoning Commission must hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to City
Council before the ordinance is adopted.
Attachments:
Copy of Draft Ordinance
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc
10:58 AM 01/31/07
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
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
27-100 (1) GENERAL DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS TO REGULATE
PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 26-100 OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN IN UC-1 AND UC-2 DISTRICTS TO
REQUIRE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; 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 have forwarded a full
and fair hearing to all property owners generally, and City Council of the City of University
Park is of the opinion and finds that said zoning changes should be granted and that the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance should be amended; Now, Therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1.
That the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University
Section 27-100 Driveways
Park, Texas, is hereby amended by amending , in part, as follows:
“
Section 27-100 Driveways
(2)General driveway requirements:
(a)….
(b)The aggregate of driveway approaches shall not exceed:
(i)One driveway per street frontage per platted lot, provided
that additional driveways with a minimum of 100 feet of
street frontage, measured from center line to center line,
separating them, shall be permitted;
(ii)Multiple driveways that provide direct access only to an
alley shall be permitted.
….”
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc
10:58 AM 01/31/07
SECTION 2. Section 26-100Off-street Parking Requirements Other Than
That
in UC-1 and UC-2 Districts
is amended by amending the chart showing the uses and spaces
required for off-street parking, in part, as follows:
Section 26-100Off-street Parking Requirements Other Than in UC-1 and UC-2
“
Districts
Use Spaces Required
….
SF, SF-A, D Minimum of two off-street paved parking
spaces per dwelling unit
MF Minimum of two off-street parking spaces
per dwelling unit or one off-street parking
space per bedroom, whichever is greater,
plus one off-street parking space for each
ten bedrooms or fraction thereof, of the
multi-family project for visitors parking.
….”
SECTION 3.
All ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 4.
Should any word, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or
section of this ordinance, or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, 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, 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 to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc
10:58 AM 01/31/07
($2,000.00) for each offense, and each and every day such violation shall continue shall be
deemed to constitute a separate offense.
SECTION 6.
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.
th
DULY PASSED
by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 6
day of February 2007.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/01/25/07)(13249)
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc
10:58 AM 01/31/07
ORDINANCE NO. ___________
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
27-100 (1) GENERAL DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENTS TO REGULATE
PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAYS; AMENDING SECTION 26-100 OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN IN UC-1 AND UC-2 DISTRICTS TO
REQUIRE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES FOR MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS; 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.
th
Duly passedby the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 6 day
of February 2007.
APPROVED:
____________________________________
JAMES H. HOLMES III, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Parking Standards Ordinance.doc
10:58 AM 01/31/07
AGENDA MEMO
(2/06/07 AGENDA)
DATE:
January 31, 2007
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Council
FROM:
Robbie Corder, Assistant to the Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Engagement Letter with Brown McCarroll, L.L.P.
ITEM:
On December 19, 2006, the City Council passed Ordinance 06/35 requiring TXU Electric
Delivery to remove and relocate the 138 kV transmission line from its current route connecting
the Lomo Alto and Greenville substations outside of the city limits of University Park.
Subsequently, TXU filed an appeal with the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC)
claiming the City enacted the ordinance “in excess of its statutory authority.”
The appeal requests the PUC grant interim relief, so that relocation activities as specified in
Section 2 of Ordinance 06/35 do not have to begin by April 1, 2007. Additionally, the appeal
asks the PUC to determine whether the City had property authority to enact Ordinance 06/35
and to hold the provisions of the ordinance void.
Staff has received an engagement letter from Marianne Carroll with Brown McCarroll, L.L.P.
to represent the City in connection with the TXU appeal. Marianne Carroll would serve as the
primary lawyer, and has prior experience representing clients before the PUC. Ms. Carroll’s
hourly rate as specified in the engagement letter is $425, with additional fees for associates and
legal assistants. The total cost of representation shall not exceed $50,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Council approval of the engagement letter with Brown McCarroll to
represent the City in connection with TXU’s appeal of the City’s ordinance requiring removal
and relocation of the 138 kV transmission line.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appeal of TXU Electric Delivery.
Letter of engagement.
Background information for Marianne Carroll.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Brown McCarroll Engagement Agenda
Item.doc 10:24 AM 01/31/07
Brown McCarroll - Attorney DetailPage 1of 2
Marianne Carroll
Partner
Austin • (512) 479-1156
Email:mcarroll@mailbmc.com
Legal Experience
Ms. Carroll provides regulatory advice and counsel to equity investors, lending
institutions and project developers in connection with the development,
construction financing, acquisition and sales of electric generating plants in
Texas. She represents other clients in the electric power industry, such as
generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, and commercial and
industrial customers in connection with the review, negotiation, and drafting of
legislation, regulations, agreements and protocols affecting participants in the
Texas wholesale and retail electric power markets. Ms. Carroll also represents
clients before the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) in rulemaking
proceedings and contested cases, including transmission line certification
applications, and at the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT).
Ms. Carroll has been active on behalf of the independent power industry in the
numerous proceedings undertaken by the PUC to implement retail customer
choice and to restructure the wholesale market in the Electric Reliability
Council of Texas. Ms. Carroll is currently the Executive Director of the Texas
Competitive Power Advocates.
Significant Engagements
• Acquisition of 632 megawatt coal fired electric generating facility in Victoria
and Goliad counties, Texas (2006)
• Equity investment in 124.2 megawatt wind power project in Sterling, Glascock
and Howard counties, Texas (2006)
• Acquisition of 11,100 megawatts of nuclear, coal, lignite, and natural gas
electric generating facilities in Harris, Matagorda, and Limestone counties,
Texas (2005)
• Financing of 324 megawatt wind power projects in Taylor County, Texas
(2005)
• Development and financing of 845 megawatt combined cycle electric
generating facility in Rusk County, Texas (1999)
• Development and financing of 830 megawatt combined cycle electric
generating facility in Grimes County, Texas (1997)
• Representation of group of 12 electric generation owners and power
marketers in numerous PUC rulemaking and contested case proceedings in
http://www.brownmccarroll.com/attorneys_detail_form.asp1/31/2007
Brown McCarroll - Attorney DetailPage 2of 2
which fundamental changes to the ERCOT wholesale market structure were
examined and debated, and a nodal market approved (2002-2005)
Education
•Doctor of Jurisprudence, University of Texas at Austin, 1981
•Bachelor of Arts, summa cum laude, University of Texas at Austin, 1968
Professional Licenses
•Attorney at Law, Texas, 1981
Professional Memberships and Activities
•State Bar of Texas
Administrative Law section
Public Utility Law section
•Gulf Coast Power Association, Past Vice President
•Austin Bar Association
Practice Areas
•Utility Law
•Administrative Law
http://www.brownmccarroll.com/attorneys_detail_form.asp1/31/2007
Brown McCarroll
1. 1. P.
III Congress Avenue, Suite 1400, Austin, Texas 78701-4043
512-472-5456 fax 512-479-1101
January 26,2007
Robert Livingston
City Manager
3800 University Blvd.
University Park, TX 75205
Dear Mr. Livingston:
Thank you for selecting Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. to represent you. We appreciate the
confidence you have shown in our Firm, and we look forward to the opportunity to represent
you.
We believe that a successful professional relationship begins with a mutual understanding
of expectations about the services we will provide, legal fees, and other important aspects of our
representation. With this in mind, it is our practice to specify our engagement arrangements with
our clients, and that is the purpose of this letter and the attached Standard Terms of Engagement.
Our Firm encourages open and candid communications with clients. Please let me know as soon
as possible if you have questions about this letter, the Standard Terms of Engagement, or if you
are concerned about any aspect of the representation.
Description and Scope of the Representation: Identification of Client
Brown McCarroll is being retained to represent the City of University Park, Texas in
connection with PUC Docket No. 33742, the Appeal of TXU Electric Delivery Company from
an Ordinance of the City of University Park and Request for Interim Relief, and the City of
University Park is our only client in this matter. We want to clarify that Brown McCarroll does
not represent any other person or entity other than as set forth above.
Our representation is limited to this matter, and the Firm has not been retained to
represent you generally or in connection with any other matter unless we modify this
engagement letter by a subsequent letter agreement. The Firm understands that we are to
perform all reasonable services and take all such action as may be appropriate and necessary in
our professional judgment to further your interests in this matter.
It is understood that the Firm is being retained to provide legal services and that we are
not responsible for providing business or financial advice to you.
Attorneys Handling Your Representation
I will be the primary attorney handling this matter. We also anticipate that there may be
other attorneys who will assist in the representation from time to time. The Firm also uses legal
Austin. Dallas. Houston. Longview . EI Paso
Updated 8-22-06
assistants in providing professional services when we believe that their use will reduce legal
costs and improve efficiency.
Legal Fees
Brown McCarroll generally charges for our services based upon the time and effort
devoted to the matter and the hourly rates of the lawyers and legal assistants that work on the
representation. My current hourly rate is $425; Chris Reeder's is $350; Cindy Tom's is $200,
and our legal assistant's rate is $100. We review our billing rates annually and will let you know
in advance if our hourly rates are modified.
Costs and Expenses
In addition to legal fees, the Firm charges for out-of-pocket costs and expenses incurred
in representing you. Please refer to the Standard Terms of Engagement for examples of such
costs and expenses and how these will be handled and billed to you.
Payment of Fees and Expenses
Brown McCarroll's statements for fees and expenses are due upon receipt, and we expect
that our monthly statements will be paid no later than 30 days after receipt. By entering into this
representation agreement, you agree to timely payment of the Firm's invoices for fees and
expenses related to the representation.
Conclusion
Once again, Brown McCarroll is pleased to have this opportunity to represent you in this
matter. If you have any questions or concerns about any of the above or the Standard Terms of
Engagement, please contact me as soon as possible. If this letter and the Standard Terms of
Engagement accurately reflect our agreement, please sign the enclosed copy of this letter and
return it to me.
Very truly yours,
~~._~J~
,
Enc!.
AGREED AND ACCEPTED
AS OF
,2007
2
Updated 8-22-06
3
Updated 8-22-06
STANDARD TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT
These are the Standard Terms of Engagement referred to in our engagement letter. Because they
are an integral part of our agreement to provide legal services, we ask that you review this
document carefully and retain it for your files. If you have any questions after reading it, please
contact us promptly.
Who Will Provide the Legal Services?
In most cases, one attorney will be your principal contact. From time to time, that attorney may
delegate parts of your work to other lawyers or to legal assistants or nonlegal professionals in the
firm. For example, we do this in order to involve those with special knowledge or experience in
an area and to provide service to you in a timely and efficient manner.
The Scope of the Representation
As lawyers, we undertake to provide representation and advice on the legal matters for which we
are engaged, and it is important that we both have a clear understanding of the legal services that
the firm has agreed to provide. In our engagement letter with you, we specify the matter in which
we will provide representation and the scope of the services we will provide. If there are any
questions about the terms of engagement, including the scope of the representation that we are to
provide in the matter, please raise those questions promptly with your principal contact at the
firm.
We cannot guarantee the outcome of any matter. Any expression of our professional judgment
regarding your matter or the potential outcome is, of course, limited by our knowledge of the
facts and based on the law at the time of expression. It is also subject to any unknown or
uncertain factors or conditions beyond our control.
Who Is Our Client?
It is our policy to represent only the person or entity identified in our engagement letter and not
any affiliates. For example, unless otherwise specifically stated in our engagement letter, if you
are a corporation or partnership, our representation does not include any parents, subsidiaries,
employees, officers, directors, shareholders, or partners of the corporation or partnership, or
commonly owned corporations or partnerships; if you are a trade association, our representation
excludes members of the trade association; if you are an individual, our representation does not
include your employer, partners, spouse, siblings, or other family members.
Your Cooperation
To enable us to provide effective representation, you agree to: (1) disclose to us, fully and
accurately and on a timely basis, all facts and documents that are or might be material or that we
may request, (2) keep us apprised on a timely basis of all developments relating to the
representation that are or might be material, (3) attend meetings, conferences, and other
proceedings when it is reasonable to do so, and (4) otherwise cooperate fully with us.
4
Updated 8-22-06
Our Relationships With Others
Our law firm represents many companies and individuals. In some instances, the applicable rules
of professional conduct may limit our ability to represent clients with conflicting or potentially
conflicting interests. Those rules of conduct often allow us to exercise our independent judgment
in determining whether our relationship with one client prevents us from representing another. In
other situations, we may be permitted to represent a client only if the other clients consent to that
representation.
If a controversy unrelated to the subject matter of the representation develops between you and
any other client of the firm, we will follow the applicable rules of professional responsibility to
determine whether we may represent either you or the other client in the unrelated controversy.
In making this determination, we will consider your agreement to the Conflicts of Interest
provisions in these Standard Terms of Engagement.
In addition to our representation of other companies and individuals, we also regularly represent
lawyers and law firms. As a result, opposing counsel in the matter may be a lawyer or law firm
that we may represent now or in the future. Likewise, opposing counsel in the matter may
represent our firm now or in the future. Further, we have professional and personal relationships
with many other attorneys, often because of our participation in bar associations and other
professional organizations. We believe that these relationships with other attorneys do not
adversely affect our ability to represent any client and, in some circumstances, may enhance our
representation. Your acceptance of our engagement letter means you consent to any such
relationships between our firm and other lawyers or law firms, even counsel who is representing
a party that is adverse to you in the matter that is the subject of this engagement or in some other
matter.
Conflicts of Interest
Increasingly, conflict of interest is a concern for lawyers and their clients today. We attempt to
identify actual and potential conflicts at the outset of any engagement, and may request that you
sign a conflict waiver before we accept an engagement from you. Occasionally, other clients or
prospective clients may ask us to seek a conflict waiver from you so that we can accept an
engagement on their behalf. Please do not take such a request to mean that we will represent you
less zealously; we make such requests because we take our professional responsibilities to all
clients and prospective clients very seriously.
Unfortunately, conflicts sometimes arise or become apparent after work begins on an
engagement. When that happens, we will do our best to address and resolve the situation in the
manner that best serves the interests of all of our affected clients.
Because we are a large firm, we may be asked to represent someone whose interests may be
adverse to yours. We are accepting this engagement on the understanding that our representation
of you will not preclude us from accepting any other engagement from any existing or new
client, including litigation adverse to you, provided that (i) such engagement is not substantially
related to the subject matter of any services we are providing to you and (ii) in accepting such
5
Updated 8-22-06
other engagement we would not impair the confidentiality of proprietary, sensitive or otherwise
confidential information you have provided to us.
Rules concerning conflicts of interest vary with the jurisdiction. In order to avoid any
uncertainty, our policy is that the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct will be
applicable to the representation. Your acceptance of our engagement letter means you agree with
that policy, unless the engagement letter specifically states that some other rules of professional
responsibility will govern our attorney-client relationship.
How We Set Our Fees
The basis for determining our fee for legal services is set forth in the engagement letter itself. If
you are unclear about the basis for determining your fee, please raise any questions you may
have with your principal contact at the firm.
Clients frequently ask us to estimate the fees and other charges they are likely to incur in
connection with a particular matter. We are pleased to respond to such requests, whenever
possible, with an estimate based on our professional judgment. This estimate always carries the
understanding that, unless we agree otherwise in writing, it does not represent a maximum,
minimum, or fixed-fee quotation. The ultimate cost frequently is more or less than the amount
estimated.
Charges For Other Expenses And Services
As an adjunct to providing legal services, we may incur and pay a variety of charges on your
behalf or charge for certain ancillary support services. Whenever we incur such charges on your
behalf or charge for such ancillary support services, we will bill them to you as part of your
monthly invoice. Accordingly, our invoices usually will include amounts, not only for legal
services rendered, but also for other expenses and services. Examples include charges for filing
fees, document reproduction, postage, travel and conference expenses, delivery charges,
computerized research, and facsimile and other electronic transmissions. Outside expenses will
generally be billed at cost, while some in-house expenses (e.g., document reproduction,
facsimile, computer services and electronic research) will include a reasonable allocation of
overhead. In appropriate cases, reimbursable expenses may also include overtime charges for
secretaries and other staff.
You authorize us to retain third-parties, such as consultants, experts and investigators, as may be
necessary to the representation. Although we advance third-party disbursements in reasonable
amounts, we will ask you to pay larger third-party invoices (usually those over $200.00) directly
to the third party providing the services. Because we often have ongoing professional
relationships with the persons who render such services, we also ask that you pay such bills
promptly and send us notice of your payment.
Billing Arrangements and Terms of Payment
We will bill you on a regular basis, normally each month, for both fees and other charges. You
agree to make payment within thirty (30) days of the date of our invoice.
6
Updated 8-22-06
Should your account become delinquent and in the event satisfactory payment terms are not
arranged as permitted under the rules regulating our profession, we will be required to withdraw
from the representation. In most cases, and except as prohibited by ethical considerations, if your
account becomes more than sixty (60) days delinquent, we will cease representation until we can
arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement for payment of the delinquent account and the
resumption of services.
If the representation will require a concentrated period of activity, such as a trial, arbitration, or
hearing, we reserve the right to require the payment of all amounts then owing to us and the
prepayment to us of the fees and expenses we estimate will be incurred in preparing for and
completing the trial, arbitration, or hearing, as well as arbitration fees likely to be assessed. If
you fail to timely pay any additional deposit requested, we will have the right to cease
performing further work and the right to withdraw from the representation.
Payment of our fees and costs is not contingent on the ultimate outcome of our representation.
We look to you, the client, for payment regardless of whether you are insured to cover the
particular risk. From time-to-time, we assist clients in pursuing third parties for recovery of
attorneys' fees and other charges resulting from our services. These situations include payments
under contracts, statutes or insurance policies. However, it remains your obligation to pay all
amounts due to us within thirty (30) days of the date of our statement.
Termination
Because our firm has been engaged to provide legal services in connection with the
representation specifically defined in our engagement letter, the attorney-client relationship
terminates upon our completion of our services related to the representation in the matter. After
completion of the representation, however, changes may occur in the applicable laws or
regulations that could affect your future rights and liabilities in regard to the matter. Unless we
are actually engaged after the completion of the representation to provide additional advice on
such issues, the firm has no continuing obligation to give advice with respect to any future legal
developments that may relate to the matter.
If you later retain us to perform further or additional services, our attorney-client relationship
will be subject to the terms of engagement agreed to at that time; in the absence of any specific
agreement, these Standard Terms of Engagement shall apply to the further or additional
representation.
We look forward to the opportunity to complete our representation of you in the specified matter.
You may, however, terminate our representation at any time, with or without cause, by notifying
us in writing. We will return your papers and other property to you promptly upon receipt of
your request for those materials unless they are appropriately subject to a lien. You agree that we
will own and retain our own files pertaining to the matter or case, including, for example, firm
administrative records, time and expense reports, personnel and staffing materials, credit and
accounting records, and internal lawyers' work product such as drafts, notes, internal
memoranda, and legal and factual research including investigative reports, prepared by or for the
internal use of lawyers.
7
Updated 8-22-06
The termination of our services will not affect your responsibility for payment of legal services
rendered and other charges incurred before termination and in connection with an orderly
transition of the matter.
Document Retention
While we try to retain closed files for an extended period of time, we do reserve the right to
destroy or otherwise dispose of all files, without further notice to you and in a manner which
preserves the confidential and secret nature of their contents. You are to receive, along with the
final bill or documents concluding the case, a notice that the file will be retired and stored for a
designated retention period. I or the attorney immediately responsible for handling this case will
advise you to obtain any papers from the file not previously furnished to you. The file may
thereafter, without additional notice to you, be destroyed by the Firm following the designated
retention period in which the file is retained. Only upon my written authorization will the file be
partially destroyed, destroyed in its entirety, retained for an additional period of time, or returned
to you for safekeeping. If you or your company has a Records Retention Policy in place with
which outside counsel will need to comply, please let me know so that I may inform our Records
Department. In the event you instruct us to return your file to you at the end of the retention
period, we will use the last known address in the file to return your file (excluding the work
product subfiles); our Firm will not retain a copy.
Disclaimer
By signing the engagement letter or otherwise indicating your acceptance of the engagement
letter, you acknowledge that Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. has made no promises or guarantees to
you about the outcome of the representation, and nothing in these terms of engagement shall be
construed as such a promise or guarantee. Either at the commencement or during the course of
the representation, we may express opinions or beliefs about the matter or various courses of
action and the results that might be anticipated. Any expressions on our part concerning the
outcome of the representation, or any other legal matters, are based on our professional judgment
and are not guarantees.
Our Professional Responsibility
The code of professional responsibility to which we are subject lists several types of conduct or
circumstances that require or allow us to withdraw from representing a client. These include, for
example, nonpayment of fees or charges, misrepresentation or failure to disclose material facts,
action contrary to our advice, and conflict of interest with another client.
We try to identify in advance and discuss with our clients any situation that may lead to our
withdrawal. If withdrawal ever becomes necessary, we give our client written notice as soon as
practicable.
Under rules of the Texas Supreme Court and the State Bar of Texas, we advise our clients of the
contents of the Texas Lawyer's Creed, a copy of which is enclosed. In addition, we advise clients
that the State Bar of Texas investigates and prosecutes complaints of professional misconduct
against attorneys licensed in Texas. A brochure entitled Attorney Complaint Information is
available at all of our offices and is likewise available upon request. A client that has any
8
Updated 8-22-06
questions about the State Bar's disciplinary process should call the Office of the General Counsel
of the State Bar of Texas at 1-800-932-1900 (toll free).
Modification Of Our Agreement
The engagement letter and these Standard Terms of Engagement reflect our entire agreement on
the terms of this engagement. These written terms of engagement are not subject to any oral
agreements or understandings, and any change in those terms can only be made in writing signed
by both Brown McCarroll, L.L.P. and you.
In Conclusion
We look forward to a long and mutually satisfying relationship with you. Again, if at any time
you have a question or concern, please feel free to bring it to the attention of your principal
contact at our firm.
Enclosure: THE TEXAS LA WYER'S CREED
9
Updated 8-22-06
THE TEXAS LAWYER'S CREED -- A Mandate for Professionalism
The Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals adopted this
Creed, with the requirement that lawyers advise their clients of its contents when
undertaking representation.
I am a lawyer; I am entrusted by the People of
Texas to preserve and improve our legal system.
I am licensed by the Supreme Court of Texas. I
must therefore abide by the Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct, but I know that
Professionalism requires more than merely
avoiding the violation of laws and rules. I am
committed to this Creed for no other reason that
it is right.
1. OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. A lawyer owes
to the administration of justice personal dignity,
integrity, and independence. A lawyer should
always adhere to the highest principles of
professionalism. I am passionately proud of my
profession. Therefore, "My word is my bond." I
am responsible to assure that all persons have
access to competent representation regardless of
wealth or position in life. I commit myself to an
adequate and effective pro bono program. I am
obligated to educate my clients, the public, and
other lawyers regarding the spirit and letter of
this Creed. I will always be conscious of my
duty to the judicial system.
II. LAWYER TO CLIENT. A lawyer owes
to a client allegiance, learning, skill, and
industry. A lawyer shall employ all appropriate
means to protect and advance the client's
legitimate rights, claims, and objectives. A
lawyer shall not be deterred by any real or
imagined fear of judicial disfavor or public
unpopularity, nor be influenced by mere self-
interest. I will advise my client of the contents of
this Creed when undertaking representation. I
will endeavor to achieve my client's lawful
objectives in legal transactions and in litigation
as quickly and economically as possible. I will
be loyal and committed to my client's lawful
objectives, but I will not permit that loyalty and
commitment to interfere with my duty to provide
objective and independent advice. I will advise
my client that civility and courtesy are expected
and are not a sign of weakness. I will advise my
client of proper and expected behavior. I will
Texas Lawyers Creed - Page 1
Updated 8-22-06
treat adverse parties and witnesses with fairness
and due consideration. A client has no right to
demand that I abuse anyone or indulge in any
offensive conduct. I will advise my client that
we will not pursue conduct which is intended
primarily to harass or drain the financial
resources of the opposing party. I will advise my
client that we will not pursue tactics which are
intended primarily for delay. I will advise my
client that we will not pursue any course of
action which is without merit. I will advise my
client that I reserve the right to determine
whether to grant accommodations to opposing
counsel in all matters that do not adversely
affect my client's lawful objectives. A client has
no right to instruct me to refuse reasonable
requests made by other counsel. I will advise my
client regarding the availability of mediation,
arbitration, and other alternative methods of
resolving and settling disputes.
III. LAWYER TO LAWYER. A lawyer
owes to opposing counsel, in the conduct of
legal transactions and the pursuit of litigation,
courtesy, candor, cooperation, and scrupulous
observance of all agreements and mutual
understandings. III feelings between clients shall
not influence a lawyer's conduct, attitude, or
demeanor toward opposing counsel. A lawyer
shall not engage in unprofessional conduct in
retaliation against other unprofessional conduct.
I will be courteous, civil, and prompt in oral and
written communications. I will not quarrel over
matters of form or style, but I will concentrate
on matters of substance. I will identify for other
counselor parties all changes I have made in
documents submitted for review. I will attempt
to prepare documents which correctly reflect the
agreement of the parties. I will not include
provisions which have not been agreed upon or
omit provisions which are necessary to reflect
the agreement of the parties. I will notify
opposing counsel, and, if appropriate, the Court
or other persons, as soon as practicable, when
hearings, depositions, meetings, conferences or
closings are canceled. I will agree to reasonable
requests for extensions of time and for waiver of
procedural formalities, provided legitimate
objectives of my client will not be adversely
affected. I will not serve motions or pleadings in
any manner that unfairly limits another party's
opportunity to respond. I will attempt to resolve
by agreement my objections to matters
contained in pleadings and discovery requests
and responses. I can disagree without being
disagreeable. I recognize that effective
representation does not require antagonistic or
obnoxious behavior. I will neither encourage nor
knowingly permit my client or anyone under my
control to do anything which would be unethical
or improper if done by me. I will not, without
good cause, attribute bad motives or unethical
conduct to opposing counsel nor bring the
profession into disrepute by unfounded
accusations of impropriety. I will avoid
disparaging personal remarks or acrimony
towards opposing counsel, parties and witnesses.
I will not be influenced by any ill feeling
between clients. I will abstain from any allusion
to personal peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of
opposing counsel. I will not take advantage, by
causing any default or dismissal to be rendered,
when I know the identity of an opposing
counsel, without first inquiring about that
counsel's intention to proceed. I will promptly
submit orders to the Court. I will deliver copies
to opposing counsel before or
contemporaneously with submission to the
court. I will promptly approve the form of orders
which accurately reflect the substance of the
rulings of the Court. I will not attempt to gain an
unfair advantage by sending the Court or its staff
correspondence or copies of correspondence. I
will not arbitrarily schedule a deposition, Court
appearance, or hearing until a good faith effort
has been made to schedule it by agreement. I
will readily stipulate to undisputed facts in order
to avoid needless costs or inconvenience for any
party. I will refrain from excessive and abusive
discovery. I will comply with all reasonable
discovery requests. I will not resist discovery
requests which are not objectionable. I will not
make objections nor give instructions to a
witness for the purpose of delaying or
obstructing the discovery process. I will
encourage witnesses to respond to all deposition
Texas Lawyers Creed - Page 2
questions which are reasonably understandable.
I will neither encourage nor permit my witness
to quibble about words where their meaning is
reasonably clear. I will not seek Court
intervention to obtain discovery which is clearly
improper and not discoverable. I will not seek
sanctions or disqualification unless it is
necessary for protection of my client's lawful
objectives or is fully justified by the
circumstances.
IV. LAWYER AND JUDGE. Lawyers and
judges owe each other respect, diligence, candor,
punctuality, and protection against unjust and
improper criticism and attack. Lawyers and
judges are equally responsible to protect the
dignity and independence of the Court and the
profession. I will always recognize that the
position of judge is the symbol of both the
judicial system and administration of justice. I
will refrain from conduct that degrades this
symbol. I will conduct myself in court in a
professional manner and demonstrate my respect
for the Court and the law. I will treat counsel,
opposing parties, the Court, and members of the
Court staff with courtesy and civility. I will be
punctual. I will not engage in any conduct which
offends the dignity and decorum of proceedings.
I will not knowingly misrepresent,
mischaracterize, misquote or miscite facts or
authorities to gain an advantage. I will respect
the rulings of the Court. I will give the issues in
controversy deliberate, impartial and studiedyanalysis and consideration. I will be considerate
of the time constraints and pressures imposed
upon the Court, Court staff and counsel in
efforts to administer justice and resolve disputes.
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES FOR NON-LEGAL SERVICES
ITEM RATE
CD Copying $5.00 per CD.
Computer Assisted Legal Research (includes but is
not limited to): Lexis, Courtlink, PACER, Westlaw Actual cost.
Courier Deliveries/Pick-Ups Actual cost.
Document Reproduction - Copies, prints and scans $.12 per page copy/print/scan
$.90 per page color copy/print
DVD Copying $10.00 per DVD.
Express Courier: Lone Star Overnight, FedEx, UPS Actual cost.
Facsimiles $.20 per page for outgoing transmissions. No
charge for incoming facsimiles.
File Conversion (pdfto tiff, etc.) $0.03 per page.
FinishinglBinding:
Deposition $1.00 per item.
GBC/Spiral, Velo $2.50 per item.
Imaging
Black & white $0.15 per page.
Color $0.80 per page.
Mileage $0.445 per mile.
OCR (optical character recognition) $0.03 per page.
Office Supplies: Actual cost when quantity is beyond the amount
3-Ring Binders, Boxes or Other Supplies required in the normal course of business.
Postage Actual cost for large mailings, certified or
express mail.
Prints from image $0.06 per page.
Retrieving Retired Records $46.00 ASAP trip charge (Austin).
$66.00 ASAP trip charge (Dallas).
$52.00 ASAP trip charge (Houston).
Telephone - Long Distance Actual cost.
Trial Exhibits (Copy Center) $20 large.
$10 small.
Video Digitizing $50.00 per video hour.
Video Editing Actual cost.
Video Tapes $5.00 per tape.
Video Synchronization $65.00 per video hour.
Updated 8-22-06
AGENDA MEMO
(02-06-07 AGENDA)
DATE:
February 1, 2007
TO:
Bob Livingston
City Manager
FROM:
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
SUBJECT:
Consider award of bids for windows for the City Hall project,
relocated Facilities maintenance Shop at Peek Service Center, and
miscellaneous project change orders.
Background.
I have several items that need Council action for both the
City Hall and Peek Service Center projects. The following details of each
proposed change should provide background:
City Hall Roof.
First and foremost is the roof bid for City Hall. If you will
recall, the original bid was rejected primarily because of the issue surrounding
the inability to match the existing clay tile roofing material. Gallagher solicited
new bids with several alternative materials. He was successful in finding
materials that would work, BUT, with only one bidder, Creative Roof Systems,
and an increase in material pricing, the bid was higher than the original bid. Staff
and Gallagher reviewed the details of the roof bid with the Council’s oversight
committee, who unanimously recommended approval of the contractor’s bid with
an alternative material supplier, US Tile rather than Ludiowici. The bid for the US
Tile Roof and appurtenances is $889,850.
Chill Water Pump Relocation.
The City Hall mechanical contractor made us
aware that the chill water pumps could not be installed in the location shown on
the plans and keep the existing building in operation – the chill water equipment
was proposed to be located where the 9-1-1 room and one of the air handlers
currently reside. An alternative location had to be designed, both structurally and
mechanically, that would allow the existing mechanical equipment to operate
until the old building is vacated for renovation. The redesign and relocation cost
are $15,330 and $28,578 respectively.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM City Hall-Peek Roof Re-Bid FM Shop-
Misc CO 02 06 07.doc 3:15 PM 02/01/07
Facilities maintenance Shop Relocation.
Council took previous action to
reject bids for a stand-alone building to house our Facilities Maintenance
operation, which had to be relocated to make room for the new Dispatch Facility
at the Peek Service Center. Staff suggested to Council at that time that the
$200,000+ cost of that new building could be reduced significantly if the FM
shop could be constructed within one of the parking areas on the first floor of
this building. Bids were received from existing subcontractors who are
constructing the Dispatch facility for a change order costs of $26,925.
Miscellaneous Electrical Changes.
Several changes were necessary to the
Peek Center electrical contractor’s contract to accommodate new Security-AV-
Computer contracts at a change order cost of $4,477.
Change Carpet Tiles to Non-Static.
Pursuant to a recommendation from our
IT staff, the carpet tiles in the Dispatch / Emergency Operation Center project
need to be changed to “non-static” materials to alleviate problems with computer
operations. The change order will net an increase of $12,199.
Solid Surface Countertops.
Staff initiated this change order from a
long-term maintenance perspective. It has been our experience that laminate
countertops (as specified on the plans) do not wear in this type of application.
We missed that in the review of the plans prior to receiving bids. The change
order is in the amount of $3,812.
The following spreadsheet and supporting attachments will provide additional
details.
Discussion.
Please see Attachment 1 for a list of recommended actions for the
above-referenced bids and change orders.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\AM City Hall-Peek Roof Re-Bid FM Shop-
Misc CO 02 06 07.doc 3:15 PM 02/01/07
CITY HALL - PEEK CENTER CHANGE ORDERS
Attachment 1
CONTRACTCONTRACT
LOCATION INCREASEDECREASEPROPOSED COUNCIL ACTION
CITY HALL
1Roof BidsBP-07-A$889,850.00Award contract to Creative Roof Systems - $889,850
2Chill Water PumpsRFP-7$28,578.00Award change order to SkiHi Mech-Elec - $21,915
Award change order to Tru-Grid - $3,135
Award change order to Piper-Weatherford - $2,678
Award change order to Groves Electric - $850
3Leo A Daly (Design) Chill Water Pumps$15,330.00Discuss addendum to LAD contract - $15,330
PEEK SERVICE CENTER
New FM ShopRFP-1$26,925.00Award change order to Piper Weatherford - $3,442
Award change order to Morris Drywall - $12,072
Award change order to Liberty Park Painting - $6,036
Award change order to Firetrol - $3,875
Award change order to Salve Door - $1,500
Misc Electric ChangesRFP-2$4,477.00Award change order to Abel Electric - $4,477
Non-Static CarpetRFP-4/5$23,650.00Award change order to Prestige Interiors - $23,650
($11,451.00)Award change order to Spectra Flooring - ($11,451)
Solid Surface CountertopsRFP-6$3,812.00Award change order to Medco - $3,812
SUBTOTALS$992,622.00($11,451.00)
TOTAL
$981,171.00
2/1/2007
PO Box 941209
Plano, TX 75094-1209
2600 Technology Dr., Suite 400
Plano, TX 75074
972.633.0564
972.633.0164 Fax
www.gallaghertx.com
February 6, 2007
Mr. Bob Livingston, City Manager
City Of University Park
3800 University Drive
University Park, TX 75205
Re: University Park City Hall Additions and Renovations – 2006
Recommendation to Award – Roofing Package
Mr. Livingston:
The City of University Park received competitive bids for the City Hall Additions and Renovations, Roofing Package on
Thursday, January 18, 2007. Please refer to the following bid tabulation for results.
After evaluating the bid, Gallagher Construction Services recommends that the City of University Park extend a
contract award to the following company in the specified amount:
Alternate #3
BP# Scope Contractor Base Bid US Tile Total Contract
BP 07-A Roofing and Sheetmetal CREATIVE ROOF SYSTEMS $ 961,100($ 71,250) $ 889,850
We recommend that the City award this contract contingent upon further negotiations with the City’s Representative
and receipt of the required insurance and bonds.
Gallagher Construction Services is honored for the continued opportunity to work with the City of University Park on
this project.
Sincerely,
GALLAGHER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Von Gallagher, Vice President
cc:
Bud Smallwood – City of University Park
University Park City Hall
Roofing Re-Bid Options
Base Bid$ 961,100
Alternate R1
Base Bid$ 961,100
Alternate R1 - Aftermarket Ludowici Tile$ (48,250)
$ 912,850Total with Alternate R1
Alternate R2
Base Bid$ 961,100
Alternate 2 - Complete New Ludowici XL Tile$ 16,513
$ 977,613Total with Alternate R2
Alternate R3
Base Bid$ 961,100
Alternate 3 - New US Tile - Clay $ (71,250)
$ 889,850Total with Alternate R3
Alternate R4
Base Bid$ 961,100
Alternate 4 - New Gladding, McBean Tile - Clay$ (13,250)
$ 947,850Total with Alternate R4
Alternate R5
Base Bid$ 961,100
Alternate 5 - New MCA Tile - Clay$ (33,050)
$ 928,050Total with Alternate R5
Alternate R6
Base Bid$ 961,100
Alternate 6 - New Monier LifeTile Concrete Tile$ (141,250)
Redesign Fees for Structural Modifications$ 20,000Estimate
Structural Modifications to support Concrete Tile$ 75,000Estimate
$ 914,850Total with Alternate R6
Page 1 of 11/30/2007
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Gallagher Construction Management Services
No. 00007
P. O. Box 941209
Telephone: (972) 633-0564
Plano, TX 75094-1209Fax: (972) 633-0164
TITLE:Chilled Water Pump RelocateDATE:1/2/2007
PROJECT:University Pk-City Hall Add/Renov.JOB:
TO:CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARKCONTRACT NO:
3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
ATTN:BUD SMALLWOOD
RE:To:From:Number:
RFPALLTRADEGCS00001
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Please provide pricing to relocate the chilled water pumps per the ASI drawings issued during our progress meeting on 12/28/06. The
documents include the following:
8 1/2"x11" Descriptions (pages 1 thru 4) Dated 12/20/06-ASI No. 2
Full Size Sheets (33 pages) include the following sheet numbers:
A1.11, A1.13, A1.14, A1.23, A2.12, A2.13, A2.21, A3.11, A4.06, A4.15, A5.11,
S1.03, S1.11, S1.12, S1.13, S3.01, S3.13B, S3.13T, S4.01, S4.03, S5.03,
M1.13, M2.11, M2.12,
P1.10, P1.11, P1.12, P1.13,
E1.13, E1.23, E1.33, E2.11, E2.12
NOTE:
These documents also include several other changes. Only include pricing for those changes asscoiated with the chilled water pump
relocation.
ItemDescriptionStock#QuantityUnitsUnit PriceTax RateTax AmountNet Amount
SkiHi
8501.000LS$21,915.000.00%$0.00$21,915.00
True-Grid
000021.000LS$3,135.000.00%$0.00$3,135.00
Piper Weatherford
000031.000LS$2,678.000.00%$0.00$2,678.00
Groves Electric
000041.000LS$850.000.00%$0.00$850.00
Unit Cost:$28,578.00
Unit Tax:$0.00
Lump Sum:$0.00
Lump Tax:$0.00
Total:$28,578.00
APPROVAL:
By:By:
BUD SMALLWOOD
RANDALL EDGAR
Date:Date:
®
Expedition
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Gallagher Construction Management Services
No. 00001
P. O. Box 941209
Telephone: (972) 633-0564
Plano, TX 75094-1209Fax: (972) 633-0164
TITLE:Wood & AC Shop AdditionDATE:1/16/2007
PROJECT:University Pk-Dispatch/Temp PoliceJOB:
TO:CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARKCONTRACT NO:
3800 UNIVERSITY BLVD
UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205
ATTN:BUD SMALLWOOD
RE:To:From:Number:
RFPALLGCS00001
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
Please provide pricing for the additional scope of work as detailed on the attached sheets. The scope of added work is for the finish-out of
the Wood Shop, A/C Repair Shop, and Storage on the south side of the demising wall.
ATTACHED SHEETS: Dated 1/8/07
CS-1, CS-2
A1.0, A2.1-A2.6, A3.1- A3.4, A4.1, A5.1,
E1.1-E1.6, M1.1-M1.3,
P1.1, P1.2
ItemDescriptionStock#QuantityUnitsUnit PriceTax RateTax AmountNet Amount
Piper Weatherford-Allowance-CO
000011.000LS$3,442.000.00%$0.00$3,442.00
Morris Drywall-CO
000021.000LS$12,072.000.00%$0.00$12,072.00
Liberty Park Painting-CO
000031.000LS$6,036.000.00%$0.00$6,036.00
SkiHi
000041.000LS$0.000.00%$0.00$0.00
Mechanical-Allowance-$19,356
Able Electric-Allowance-$19,953
000051.000LS$0.000.00%$0.00$0.00
Firetrol-CO
000061.000LS$3,875.000.00%$0.00$3,875.00
Allowance-Install Salvaged OH
000071.000LS$1,500.000.00%$0.00$1,500.00
Door
Unit Cost:$26,925.00
Unit Tax:$0.00
AbleElectric&SkiHiMechanical
Lump Sum:$0.00
MetalBuildingAllowanceisbeing
utilized.
Lump Tax:$0.00
Total:$26,925.00
APPROVAL:
By:By:
BUD SMALLWOOD
RANDALL EDGAR
Date:Date:
®
Expedition
AGENDA MEMO
(02/06/2007 AGENDA)
DATE: January 31, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Transfer of library account money to UP Friends of the Library
Background
Since the mid-1980’s, the City has held donated money intended for a University Park library.
The donations originally came from a Cub Scout fund raising effort. The money has been
accounted for separately and is credited with interest earnings once a year; the current balance
is $28,819.60.
Recently the City received a letter from David Ellis, President of Friends of the University
Park Public Library (UPFOL). The Friends request that the City’s library account money be
transferred to the UPFOL. This will consolidate their assets and relieve the City of the
responsibility to hold the funds. A copy of the letter from Dr. Ellis is attached.
Recommendation
There is no compelling reason for the City to retain the library funds. Staff recommends
approving transfer of the money to the UPFOL. A partial year interest credit will be made
before sending the funds.
Attachments:
Letter dated January 17, 2007, from David W. Ellis, MD
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK31\Library money agenda memo 02-06-07.doc
3:50 PM 02/01/07
AGENDA MEMO
(02/02/06 AGENDA)
DATE: February 2, 2007
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Livingston
City Manager
SUBJECT: CHANGE MEETING DATES
The mayor will be unavailable for a city council meeting on March 20 and would like to
change the meeting for that date.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss a date for the second meeting in March.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
U:\Docs\Livingston\2007\Memo to change March 20 date for city council.doc 9:25 AM 02/02/07
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
September 25, 2006
The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, September 25,2006 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 Hitzelberger, III
Bob Clark
John Jackson
Roy Kull
Present & Seated
Mike Maberry
Norma Coldwell
Bud Smallwood - Director of Public Works
Harry Persaud - Community Development Mgr.
Mark Hardin - Plan Reviewer
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Jennifer Deaver - Building & Zoning Asst.
Mr. Houseman called the hearing to order, introduced the board members and staff in attendance,
and read the charge of the Board of Adjustment.
Mr. Houseman asked for a motion to approve the minutes from the August 28, 2006 Board of
Adjustment meeting. Mr. Metzger made a motion to approve the minutes. With a second from
Mr. Hitzelberger, the motion was approved unanimously.
Mr. Kull then read the specifics of the first case.
B.O.A. 06-007 - James Doster, owner of the property situated at 3201 Northwest
Hwy, City of University Park, requesting a variance to Section 28-105 (3) of the
City of University Park Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for a 4 feet high
wrought iron fence in the required front yard. The subject tract is zoned single
family "SF -2" zoning district classification in accordance with the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Houseman opened the public hearing and inquired if anyone wished to speak.
Mr. James Doster, owner / resident of3201 Northwest Hwy. came forward and introduced
himself. He stated that he and his family have resided there for ten years and his house faces
north. In that time there have been several instances on the property, all of which are logged on
the police reports that were submitted with his application. Included in that report were instances
of domestic violence, and armed man, a case in which a man spit in his face, among other
matters within the report. He then stated that this report contained a summary of the matters
involving the locational property hardship and then urged the board to grant his request.
Mr. Houseman inquired if the bushes would be placed inside or outside of the proposed fence.
Mr. Doster stated that the landscaping would be placed on the outside of the proposed fence.
Mr. Houseman inquired if this was a four foot wrought iron fence and Mr. Doster stated yes.
Mr. Houseman inquired if it would be a problem if the fire department required a knox box
would that pose a problem? Mr. Doster stated no, and that he is currently utilizing the city's
Direct Alarm Program.
Mr. Clark inquired if Mr. Doster was planning on leaving the Airline Dr. Side of the property
open. Mr. Doster stated that he was not.
Mr. Metzger questioned why he chose to use the stone landscaping and Mr. Doster stated that
Mr. Persaud had suggested it would be appealing to the board.
Mr. Metzger inquired when the construction of the Northwest Hwy wall would be completed and
Mr. Smallwood stated that completion would be sometime in 2007.
Mr. Houseman then inquired if all of the neighbors were in favor of the fence and Mr. Doster
stated yes, they all approve of the fence.
He then inquired if the city staff had any recommendations, Mr. Smallwood stated no.
Mr. Houseman inquired if any of the board members had any further comments.
Mr. Clark stated that he does see the property hardship being that of safety and security but
expressed concerns of setting precedence for the entire neighborhood.
Mr. Houseman stated that he agreed with Mr. Clark but also sees this case as unique and then
police records prove that.
Mr. Dillard stated that he sees the police record proves there is a security issue, being evidential
of a legitimate, locational hardship.
Mr. Metzger made a motion to grant the request to allow the applicant to construct and maintain
a 4' wrought iron fence in the required front yard encased with landscaping and with the
appropriate gate having due regard for police and fire safety to Northwest Drive. With a second
from Mr. Kull the motion was approved 6-0.
There being no further business before the Board, Mr. Houseman adjourned the meeting.
Approved by:
Date:
-ti}M,~
-,-I "t~/?p" 7
Lon Houseman, Chairman
Board of Adjustment
Coffee Park Advisory Committee
MEETING MINUTES
January 11, 2007
The Coffee Park Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Thursday,
January 11, 2007 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
Roy Coffee, Jr.
Diane Galloway
Gary Olp
Lyssa Young
Alan Wasserman
Staff Members Attending:
James "Blackie" Holmes - Mayor
Bob Livingston - City Manager
Gerry Bradley - Parks Director
Amber Lively - Administrative Secretary
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe.
Introduction
As this was the first meeting of the Coffee Park Advisory Committee, Chairman Bill
Pardoe began by giving a brief introduction of the goals for the committee. He explained
that the majority of the City's parks are highly used by both University Park and
Highland Park residents. Coffee Park however, is under utilized. The City now has a
great opportunity to renovate the park due to the Northwest Parkway wall project. Mr.
Gary Olp of the firm GGOArchitects has been hired by the City to complete the master
plan for Coffee park. There are two main goals that the master plan should achieve.
First, to provide a barrier free playground that is accessible for all children. Second, to
create an area that could serve as a historical timeline of University Park. The agenda
for this first meeting is to make everyone familiar with the project and then to briefly
discuss any ideas.
Mr. Bradley also offered a brief introduction of all the present committee members.
Background
Mr. Bradley began by giving the committee some background information on the Coffee
Park project. Members were shown the existing park conditions. The master plan for the
park was developed by first starting with new ideas of what the Park Board wanted to
see installed into the location. The main goals were to install fencing along the Hillcrest
side for added safety for children, add additional beds for planting, a trail system, new
amenities and additional lighting. Mr. alp's contract also includes the development of
Artha Garza Park which is across Hillcrest from Coffee Park. The goal here is to tie the
design of this area in with Coffee Park and perhaps use it as an entryway into the City.
After his background information, Mr. alp was introduced to the committee to go over
the concept plan for the park.
Concept Plan - Gary DIp
Mr. alp began by showing the committee the concept plan for Coffee Park. In creating
the concept, several major functions were reworked to create a more open and inviting
park area. One major change to the park will be the reorientation of the baseball
diamond to the northwest corner of the park. This will open the south side of the park
and also help with some drainage issues on the field. Also, the field reorientation would
create a buffer between homeowners and active park usage. There will be two
entryways along the south end of the park. Both will have park identification and will tie
into the trail system that runs throughout the park. Additional parking will also be
created along the south side of the facility. A fencing system will be installed along
Hillcrest to provide safety for children at the play area. Additional beds will be made to
allow for seasonal as well as perennial color planting. The trail system will incorporate
berms to allow for some different levels throughout the park. The new play area will
have a shade structure which will help separate the playground from the rest of the
park. A meditation garden will be installed as a quiet resting place for park patrons.
Throughout the park as well as in the entryways, large boulders will be installed. These
could possibly offer a place for City history and or artwork if desired.
The overall goal of the concept plan was to keep an organic feeling space within a City
that is highly developed.
Goals for Master Plan - Gerry Bradley
In creating a master plan for Coffee Park, Mr. Bradley has been approached by two
individuals who would like to incorporate some new features into the park. Mr. Roy
Coffee, Jr. approached Mr. Bradley with the idea of incorporating some of the City's
history into the park through a timeline or other fashion. Mr. Bradley was also
approached by Mr. Chris Murzin about the possibility of creating a "barrier free"
playground. For this first meeting, Mr. Bradley would like to discuss the historical
aspect. Potential playground structures will be discussed in the February meeting.
Mr. Bradley displayed several photos that were taken at Irving's Centennial Park. One
of the major features of this facility is a large circular area which serves as a timeline of
Irving's history. The timeline is constructed of stone and bronze plaques with the historic
detail. Mr. Bradley emphasized the fact that there are numerous materials from which a
timeline could be constructed. With this he opened the floor for committee member
discussion.
Committee Discussion
Mr. Coffee began by explaining why he feels that there needs to be some history
incorporated in to the park area. Mr. Coffee's father, whom the park was named for, was
an instrumental part in the development of University Park. Mr. Coffee himself grew up
and still resides within the City. He feels that it is important for the young people of our
City to know its history. Also, the park area should tell enough about that history so that
a teacher could bring his/her class to the area and give a history lesson. He explained
that there have been many important factors that have influenced how the City came to
be and it would be ashame to let those factors go to waste and not be shared with the
residents.
After Mr. Coffee spoke, it was suggested that he as well as Mrs. Galloway begin
working on a group of historic events that might be good to use in the park. These major
events could serve as a guideline for the other smaller events to be included. All
committee members present felt that this was a good starting point and that a historical
component was needed in one of the City parks. Members also emphasized the fact
that the history should be displayed in a warm, inviting manner. Most felt that the
timeline used in Irving seemed to be informative, but uninviting.
Mr. Coffee also mentioned that his brother is a sculptor and is interested in creating an
art piece for the park. Committee members raised a few more questions in regards to
the schedule for completing the plan and the construction.
Adjournment
Mr. Bradley asked committee members about a possible meeting schedule. All
committee members present were in agreement to meet again in a month to look at a
potential layout for the playground area. Mr. Bradley will schedule for a representative to
be on hand at the February meeting to discuss playground equipment.
There being no further business of the Coffee Park Advisory Committee, the meeting
was adjourned by Mr. Pardoe.
The next meeting of the Coffee Park Advisory Committee is scheduled for Thursday,
February 15, 007, at 4:00 p.m. at City Hall.
-' ,1:6'07
Date
William Pardoe, Chairman
PARK ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
January 9, 2007
The Park Advisory Board of the City of University Park met on Tuesday, January 9,
2007 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
Carol Seay
Jacky Spears
Jeff Turpin
Alan Wasserman
Absent & Excused:
Darrell Lane
Stan Tucker
Call to Order
Staff Members Attending:
Gerry Bradley - Parks Director
Brent Jones - Urban Forester
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 October meeting minutes.
There being no changes, Mr. Wasserman moved to approve the minutes. The motion
was seconded by Mrs. Baltser and approved unanimously by the Board.
Reports
1. Overview of Proiect Timeline
The main objective for the January meeting of the Park Board was to brief
members on the status of current and upcoming projects. Board members were
given a revised copy of the Park Department's Capital Improvement Plan that
covers the next five (5) years. The grand total for all projects is approximately $6
million. A large portion of this total includes the funding for the Northwest
Parkway wall project. After Board members had a chance to look over the project
list, Mr. Bradley briefly gave a description of the projects and their current status.
2. City Hall & Goar Landscape Improvements
Bids were received in November 2006 for the landscape portion of Goar Park
and the City Hall renovation. The lowest bid received was for $1.3 million which
was over the original budget estimate. Staff plans to re-bid the project in late
January 2007. Board members had several questions about the components of
the project and also whether or not the project could be done in house. Mr.
Bradley will bring the concept drawings to the next meeting of the Board. It is
Staff's recommendation that the work be completed by the contractor rather than
in house. Current construction photos were shown to the Board.
3. Barbara Hitzelberqer Park
Mr. Bradley presented members the concept drawing that was approved by both
the Park Board and City Council. Staff has received an estimate for the
completion of the project which is a little higher than what has been budgeted.
The fountain is the most expensive portion of the project. In addition, there are
still items included in the plan which could be changed or placed as a bid
alternate to lower the overall cost of the project. Mr. Talley should have the plans
completed by the end of January. Board members raised the idea of
incorporating donation items such as benches and stones into the park to help
with the cost.
4. Caruth Park Landscapinq
The entry bed on the southeast end of the park has been completed. Mr. Bradley
showed Board members the before and after pictures of the area. All work was
completed in house by park staff. Lighting will be installed in January 2007 to
illuminate the park name. Work will begin soon on the botanical bed that will be
placed in the center of the park. Staff will continue to work on a concept plan for
a bed to be placed on the northeast corner.
5. Sis Germany Landscape Proiect
Sis Germany Park is a small parcel of land owned by the City at Preston and
Greenbrier. It is the recommendation of Staff that all plant material be removed to
make a fresh start on the park's landscaping. Lettering will be installed on the
curved brick wall that is already in place at the site. Mr. Bradley has met with a
member of the Germany family, Joan Germany, about possibly installing a
sculpture or water feature. Mr. Pardoe worked on Sis Germany when it was first
developed in 1973. Since that time there have been no significant changes to
the park or its features.
6. Curtis Park Bridqe
Mr. Bradley displayed several pictures of the existing conditions on the bridge.
The railing and some of the stone work is in much need of repair. The overall
structural aspect of the bridge, including the walkway, need to be addressed.
Currently there are drainage issues, the railing is deteriorated and does not meet
code, and the stone work has started to come loose in certain areas. Staff is
going to obtain a quote from a mason for possible repairs to the stonework.
Some cedar railing has been purchased by the Parks Department in hopes of
repairing the railing. Mr. Bradley emphasized the fact that the total impact of
repairs will not be known until the project has begun.
7. Burleson Basketball Court
The court has been completed and is open for use. The court is smaller than a
regulation size court. The first event held at the court was a basketball clinic
hosted by the SMU basketball team. The turnout for the clinic was good. The
only portion left to complete on the court is the acrylic coating which will be
applied in better weather. Staff is contemplating the idea of installing lighting for
the court so that it will be available for evening use.
8. Germany Track
Mr. Bradley briefed members on the conditions of the track before it was
replaced. The City took on the responsibility of replacing the track surface from
the school district. HPISD as well as the Town of Highland Park are expected to
contribute some funding for the project. The track surface has been installed.
Currently, Staff is waiting for the track lanes to be painted. The goal is to have
the facility open by January 15, 2007. Once the track itself is complete, the Parks
Department will repair disturbed turf areas and install additional landscape at the
two (2) entrance sign beds.
9. Holiday Decorations
Mr. Bradley informed Board members that he would like to expand the holiday
decoration program over the next five (5) years. Currently he is looking for a
large artificial tree for Elena's Park. The artificial tree would be used instead of
purchasing a live tree each year. He would also like to purchase a large artificial
tree for Goar Park. Staff feels that a tree li~hting ceremony held at Goar Park
could be a community event similar to the 4 of July festivities. Board members
felt that this would be a good idea since Goar Park is a key point within the City.
Mrs. Baltser asked whether or not an actual live evergreen tree could be grown
at either Elena's or Goar for future use in tree lighting ceremonies. Unfortunately
it is very hard to grow an evergreen tree of this size in our area. Mr. Bradley will
bring some examples of possible artificial trees that could be purchased after
visiting with vendors in February 2007.
10. City Marker Proqram
Mr. Bradley displayed the marker that has been approved by the City Council to
be located at key entrances into the City. Board members were shown the
potential locations for the first five (5) markers to be installed. A University Park
resident is actually in the cast stone business and has agreed to make the first
five (5) markers for free. Staff will take pictures of the finished markers before
they are installed to get final approval. Board members had several questions
regarding landscaping around the markers. Mr. Bradley explained that many
locations were small and could not accommodate extensive landscaping. The
intent of the program was to provide markers in areas that could not
accommodate large landscape beds.
11. Coffee Park Master Plan
Mr. Bradley reviewed the concept plan which was approved by the Board and
Council. He has been approached by Roy Coffee Jr. about the possibility of
incorporating a timeline into the park detailing the history of the City. Mr. Bradley
has also been approached by a parent of a special needs child in regards to
creating a play area that will be "barrier free" and could be utilized by all children.
Staff is currently researching possibilities for both the timeline and components
for special needs children. In addition, a committee has been formed to review
staff recommendations.
12. Goar Park Entry Bed
Mr. Bradley displayed current images of the completed Goar Park Entry bed. The
entire project was completed in house by the Parks Department.
13. Tree Ordinance and TFUP Proqram
Mr. Bradley informed the Board that the City's tree ordinance has been passed.
After construction, a minimum of two (2) designated, six (6) inch caliper trees,
whether existing or planted, must be located on the homeowner's property or
adjacent parkway. Homeowners will have three (3) options to comply with
ordinance. The TFUP program is going well for the year. To date, forty-six (46)
trees have been ordered. Planting will begin this week.
14. Equipment Replacement Proqram
Mr. Bradley briefed the Board on the current replacement plan for park
department equipment. The goal is to replace old and unused equipment with
more efficient items. To date Staff has purchased a fertilizer spreader, turf
dresser, chemical sprayer, and field maintenance equipment.
15. Plans for Summer Activities
Staff is still researching a slide to replace the three (3) meter diving board. Dive
In Movies will be held again at the pool during the summer. This year, the movies
will be offered for free so that the department will not have to pay rental fees for
the movies. Staff is also planning on having a movie night in the park that will be
free of charge. A fishing derby is also in the works for Saturday, June 9, 2007.
The derby will be held at Caruth Park with the pond being stocked with fish from
a local fishery. The event will be open for children from five (5) to twelve (12)
years of age.
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, February 13th.
~R~ I.~-~
William Pardoe, Chairman Date
Park Advisory Board
Public Safety Advisory Committee
MINUTES
January 18, 2007
The Public Safety Advisory Committee of the City of University Park met on Thursday,
January 18, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the Court Room of City Hall at 3800 University Blvd.,
Dallas, TX 75205. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Committee Members Attending:Staff Members Attending:
Robert, Boyd, Chair Gary W Adams, Chief of Police
Kirk Dooley David Ledbetter, Fire Chief
Dr. Doug Turgeon Syd Carter, Council Liaison
Ed Crissey Jerry Grable, Council Member
Doug Bruton Jacob Speer, Asst. Public Works Director
Jackie Brewer Robert Brown, Administrative Captain
Francie Johnsen Dorris Certain, Accreditation Manager
Charles Terrell, Jr. Officer A.J. Sherrill
Doug Woodward Donna Wilkerson, Administrative Assistatant
Amara Durham
James Garner
Robert Boyd, Chair, opened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Committee members introduced themselves.
Chief Adams introduced staff members present including new School Resource Officer A.J.
Sherrill. Officer Sherrill is a five year veteran of the University Park Police Department. He
was an officer in Abilene for 10 years prior to coming to University Park. An outside consultant
was hired to perform an assessment center. The process included two high school students.
When the results of the assessment were presented to Chief Adams, Officer Sherrill had the
highest score. Chief Adams also stated that he spoke with Mr. Williams, the Asst. Principal from
the high school, and asked for his input. He stated that he felt Officer Sherrill was the better fit
for the position. Also, the two high school students involved felt Officer Sherrill would be able
to relate to the students better. Officer Sherrill has been in the high school for two weeks and is
already building a great report with the students.
Capt. Robert Brown has recently accepted the position as Chief of Police in Duncanville.
The city council has asked the Public Safety Advisory Committee to discuss Halloween night
block parties and send a committee recommendation back to the council.
Jacob Speer, Asst. Public Works Director, explained the policy and history of block parties in
University Park. In the past, residents would go to Dispatch, inform the dispatcher that they
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007
Page 1 of 5
would like to have a block party and were told to go to the Friendship lot to pick up signs/cones.
The signs/cones were not always returned. Over time, residents became too comfortable with
this policy and would help themselves to the signs/cones. The police department had no way of
knowing where block parties were taking place. A few years ago, the city began asking for a
Block Party form to be filled out. City staff began delivering and picking up the signs/cones.
On Halloween night 2006, the city had requests for 46 block parties. This took city crews a total
of 3 working days to deliver and pick up the signs/cones. The crews that transported the signs
were pulled off of other city work during this time. Some of the requests came in as late at thirty
minutes before the start time of the block party. This request was the highest number of block
th
parties that the city has seen. Historically, July 4, the weekends before school starts and after
school is dismissed, and Texas/OU weekend are busiest times for block party requests.
Typically, these weekends bring in 15-20 requests. As long as the request is submitted with three
days’ notice, city crews have ample time to prepare signs and distribute them.
The problem with the high number of party requests this year was that it caused gridlock in the
city. Several streets were shut down for blocks. The majority of these block party requests were
not for legitimate block parties. They were just to shut down the street to keep traffic off while
kids were trick or treating. City staff estimates that 90% of the requests were not for actual block
parties.
There were three EMS calls on Halloween night between the hours of 6 to 10 p.m. One of these
calls was in the northwest part of the city were numerous streets were blocked off. EMS
personnel had to get out of the ambulance and move the barricades at each end of the block
before continuing on to the call. This resulted in a much longer response time. Fortunately, this
time, this did not cause any severe health problems to the patient. The block party instruction
packet clearly states to that emergency vehicles must be allowed access to the block and
someone must be available at all times to remove the traffic cones and signs if necessary. No
one was near the signs to move them for EMS personnel.
City staff realizes that there are greater issues at hand. Some UP residents request block party
signs in an attempt to keep non-residents from driving the streets on Halloween night.
Committee members had many suggestions/recommendations with city staff responding:
1.Have residents pick up/drop off the signage on Halloween to cut down on city
expense/time. City staff stated that the problem this would pose would be that no one
would know which streets would be blocked off all around town.
2.Require a fee for block parties on this night and use the money to offset the cost of putting
more police officers on the street to run radar. Chief Adams stated that the police
department usually has more officers working on Halloween, but the call volume also
increases on this night. UP does not have the manpower to do nothing but write tickets
all night.
3.If EMS has a call, and no one is there to move the barricades, then deny the block the
request to have another block party. Staff stated that keeping track of denials and the
process of denying someone a block party would be difficult.
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007
Page 2 of 5
4.Can the city enact a curfew on Halloween? Chief Adams stated that the crime rate in UP
does not justify a curfew.
5.Enforce the three-day time frame on the application. If it is not turned in three days in
advance, then simply deny the request. Jacob stated that by enforcing this, it still does
not help the logistic problem that the city is having on Halloween.
6.A suggestion was made to ask for a deposit to accompany all block party requests. Jacob
stated that in the past, the city required a deposit from construction companies to ensure
that the lots stayed clean during construction. The $100 deposit was such a small
amount, that no one came back to claim the deposit once the job was completed. An
audit was conducted and tens of thousands of dollars in deposit fees were found to not be
claimed. The record keeping/finance aspect of a refundable deposit is very time
consuming.
7.A suggestion was made for EMS crews just to drive over the barricades in the event of an
emergency. Chief Ledbetter stated that he would not allow his crews to do this. This can
damage the ambulance/fire equipment.
8.A suggestion was made to limit the number of block parties a block can have to two a
year. Jacob questioned the logistics behind this idea. Who wants to be the city employee
who has to tell a resident no you can’t have a block party? He states that typically blocks
that have parties have the same ones year after year: Halloween and the weekends
surrounding the start/dismissal of the school year.
9.No two contiguous blocks should be allowed to have the streets blocked off at the same
time. This would pose a zig-zag problem for EMS.
10.The suggestion was made to simply do away with Block Parties on Halloween.
11. A suggestion was made to only allow a certain number of Block Parties on Halloween
night. Jacob stated that since a majority of these requests were not real block parties, we
would have residents upset that they were denied a request for a legitimate party when
the next block asked for their street to be blocked off and they were not having a party.
They just simply wanted the street closed.
12.A suggestion was made to require the requestor to provide a number for the dispatch
center to call if, in the event of an emergency, some one needed to move the barricades.
Staff stated that if it is not a block party, then there might not be anyone around to move
the barricades. This might be an instance that where Code Red could be activated for a
particular block to give notification to move the barricades.
13.The question was raised about changing the speed limits in the city on Halloween to20
m.p.h. Chief Adams stated that this could not be done.
14.A suggestion was made that a Block Party Committee be formed to discuss this issue.
One committee member reiterated that the Council had asked this committee to come up
with recommendations, not form another committee to make the decision.
The question arose on what consequences the city could impose on those who do not follow the
rules. Also, who would enforce the rules?
Chief Adams suggested that if the committee recommends that block parties/street closures are
allowed on Halloween, then the police department will set up a command post in the
communications center with a large map of the city. Each street closure would be marked on the
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007
Page 3 of 5
map and police/ems would be notified of any block closures along the route of their call. This
would speed up the arrival times.
Councilmember Grable stated that this many street closures pose a problem with our mutual aid
requests with Highland Park and Dallas. If HP or Dallas is responding to an emergency in our
city, they may not be able to find the fastest alternate route. Also, street closures give a false
sense of security to parents. Children are out in the streets after dark and it is simply not safe.
Mr. Boyd raised the following question to the committee: Can we all agree that block parties are
not stopping non-residents from coming in the city on Halloween? The committee agreed.
Committee members discussed that it is not right for residents to look for a way to keep others
out of their city. Some are in favor of allowing everyone who wants to come in, to be able to
come in.
Dr. Turgeon stated that the problems during street closures do not always come from non-
residents. He has seen an instance where an angry resident drove around the barricades and over
a lawn just to get to his residence.
Mr. Boyd then asked the members, by show of hands, to vote on the recommendation from
the committee. He asked which members were in favor of denying any street closures on
Halloween night, October 31, 2007 as a one time trial, only. All committee members were in
agreement.
In closing, Mr. Boyd told the committee that Chief Adams was staying on with the city as the
Chief of Police. He asked the Chief about the new Captain opening. Chief Adams stated that it
would be filled internally and had excellent candidates that had applied.
It was also recommended that at some point, the committee discuss the Bush Library and School
Safety.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The next Public Safety Advisory Committee meeting is scheduled for
at 6:00 p.m. in the Large Conference Room of City Hall.
Recommendation to the City Council from the Public Safety Advisory Committee in
regards to Block Party requests on Halloween:
The committee recommends, as a one time trial on October 31, 2007, that the
city allow block parties to continue on Halloween. These block parties would
have no assistance from the city. This meaning that no cones and/or
barricades would be provided by the city. The committee recommends that
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007
Page 4 of 5
the city not allow any street closures on this particular night due to EMS
crews’ slower response time to emergencies. No streets may be barricaded or
blocked off at any time on Halloween. This poses a safety issue. The
committee recommends that no cones/barricades be provided by city crews
for block parties on this one day/night only. The committee agrees, should
the council direct, to review this policy again next year with an eye toward
making the recommendation permanent.
_________________________
Robert Boyd, Chair
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES JANUARY 18, 2007
Page 5 of 5