Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09-07-04 Names Tabs.doc AGENDA
#2421
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 AT 5:00 P.M.
4:00- 5:00 P.M.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
WORK SESSION FOR AGENDA REVIEW
INVOCATION Councilmember Kelly Walker
INTRODUCTION OF STAFF City Manager Bob Livingston
AWARDS & RECOGNITION:
A. PRESENTATION: D Magazine Mayor Holmes
ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR
A. RECOMMENDATION: From Cable TV Franchise Review Advisory
Group Austin Tab I
Anyone wishing to address an item not on the Agenda or having questions about
items on the Consent Agenda should do so at this time. Questions and comments
regarding Main Agenda items may be made when that item is addressed by the
City Council.
Vo
CONSENT AGENDA
A. CONSIDER: Contract FY '05 for Health Services with Dallas County
Department of Health and Human Services Wilson Tab II
B. CONSIDER: Approval of minutes for city council meeting on August 18,
2004 Wilson Tab III
VI.
MAIN AGENDA
A. PUBLIC HEARING: To discuss ordinance amendment for PD-2-R, Park
Cities Bank, 4300 Lovers Lane McLaurin Tab IV
B. CONSIDER: Ordinance amending PD-2-R, Park Cities Bank, 4300
Lovers Lane McLaurin Tab IV
C. PUBLIC HEARING: For proposed 2004 Property Tax Rate Austin
Tab V
D. CONSIDER: Approval of modifications to plans for City Hall and Goar
Park improvements Livingston Tab VI
E. REVIEW: Smith Park playground concept plans Bradley Tab VII
F. CONSIDER: Ordinance ordering change of certain street address numbers
Smallwood Tab VIII
CONSIDER: Request for city council to refer residential requirements in
zoning ordinance to Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee for further
discussion McLaurin Tab IX
DISCUSS: Feasibility of reconstructing Lovers Lane, Hillcrest west to
Dickens Smallwood Tab X
CONSIDER: Resolution for escrow agreement for dedication of Easement
Deeds for Northwest Parkway Wall Smith Tab XI
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.
VII.
ho
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
INFORMATION AGENDA TabXII
REPORTS, BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes for July 26, 2004
EMPLOYEE BENFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE for August 19, 2004
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for August 12, 2004
PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes for August 27, 2004
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Minutes for June 21, 2004.
PROPERTY CASUALTY & LIABILITY iNSURANCE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
PUBLIC SAFETY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Minutes
for July 12, 2004
ZONING ORDINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CAPITAL PROJECTS REVIEW COMMITTEE
CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE for Week of September 1, 2004
AGENDA MEMO
(09/07/2004AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 2, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Kent R. Austin, Director of Finance
Recommendation from Cable TV FRAG
ITEM:
The Cable TV Franchise Review Advisory Group (FRAG) appointed by the City Council
August 3 has met three times. The group, which also includes representatives from
Highland Park, has drafted a recommendation to the City Council regarding initial steps in
the franchise review process. This action is not the completion of FRAG's work but
rather an early step in that effort.
Much of FRAG's discussion to date has related to cable TV and internet customer service
problems experienced by group members and reported to City and Town staff members.
FRAG members decided to recommend that the City and Town undertake a more formal
review of the existing situation in regard to franchise fee payments, compliance with the
current franchise agreement, and the technical condition of the existing cable system. The
precise wording of this recommendation is included in the attached minutes from FRAG's
August 31, 2004 meeting.
FRAG member Beth Blankenship of University Park will attend the September 7 UP City
Council meeting to deliver FRAG's recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the recommendation from FRAG and consider directing staff to act upon it.
ATTACHMENT:
FRAG meeting minutes of August 31, 2004
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\FRAG CC AGENDA MEMO
09072004.doc 3:09 PM 09/02/04
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS/
TOWN OF HIGHLAND PARK, TEXAS
CABLE TV FRANCHISE REVIEW ADVISORY GROUP (FRAG)
UNIVERSITY PARK CITY HALL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2004 at 5:00 P.M.
MINUTES
Committee members attending:
Barnes, Joanna
Blankenship, Beth
Cervin, Ben
Comett, Tony
McConnell, Tom
Morrison, Louis
Muncey, Terry
Scott, Charles
Others present:
Austin, Kent Direct of Finance, UP
Livingston, Bob City Manager, UP
Patterson, George - Town Manager, HP
Smith, Kate Hays Admin. Intern, UP
Absent:
Fisher, James Director of Public Works, HP
Seay, Bill
]. Call to order.
Kent Austin called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
2. Review/approve minutes of August 26, 2004 FRAG meeting.
The group reviewed the draft minutes of the August 26 FRAG meeting. Discussion about
various issued ensued, but no action was taken on the minutes.
Consider recommendation to UP and H? City Councils.
Kent Austin directed the group's attention to an email message containing possible wording
for a recommendation to the City Council of each city. Extensive discussion ensued. Ben
Cervin moved approval of the following recommendation:
The Cable TV Franchise Review Advisory Group recommends that the City of
University Park and the Town of Highland Park perform the following:
· A franchise fee audit of Charter Communications for the Park Cities system;
· A compliance audit of Charter relative to the existing University Park and
Highland Park franchise agreements; and
· A technical assessment of the Charter Park Cities system.
Extensive discussion followed. The group considered the basis for recommending each bullet
point. The franchise fee audit will help determine whether Charter has been paying the proper
amount in franchise fees to the City and Town. The compliance audit will help determine, in
a formal mannger, whether Charter has fulfilled its obligations per the existing franchise
agreement. The technical assessment will identify the condition and capability of the existing
Charter infrastructure. The group agreed that these items provided a baseline of information
that would be useful in determining the future direction of FRAG's work. The group
C: [Documents and Settings[nwilson. LCVIVPARJ~[Local Settings[Temporary Internet Files[OLK3[FRAG minutes 0831200& DOC 09/09/04
acknowledged that any consulting charges for these items would require separate City Council
review and approval.
Lou Morrison seconded the motion, and the motion was approved 8-0. The group discussed
the means of transmitting their recommendation to the City Councils. The group decided that
spokespersons should appear at each of the next City Council meetings to deliver the
recommendation. Lou Morrison and Ben Cervin will attend the September 13 HP Town
Council meeting, and Beth Blankenship will attend the September 7 UP City Council meeting.
4. Other business.
There was no other business.
5. Set next meeting date/Adjourn
The group agreed to meet Tuesday, September 14, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. By this time each of the
Councils will have received FRAG's recommendation, and staff may be able to provide some
consultant proposals for the recommended audits and assessment. The meeting adjourned at
6:09 p.m.
Submitted by Kent R. Austin
C': [Documents crud Settings[nwilson. UNIVP/d~[Local Settings[Temporary Internet Files[OLK3[FRAG minutes 08312004. DOC 09/09/04
AGENDA MEMO
(09/07/04 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 7, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Nina Wilson
City Secretary
CONTRACT FOR HEALTH SERVICES FY '05 FROM DALLAS
COUNTY HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT
ITEM:
Each year we receive a renewal for the above-mentioned contract. The City
agrees to pay the County the sum of $48.00 for the fiscal year October 1,
2004 through September 30, 2005, which is the agreed upon City's share
of the total cost less federal and state funding. Health services include
tuberculosis control, sexually transmitted disease control, communicable
disease control, and laboratory services.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this contract.
ATTACHMENTS: Contract with Exhibits A-D.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
U:\Docs\Dallas County Health\Health Services Contract Memo.doc 11:44AM 08/21
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN DALLAS
COUNTY, ON BEHALF OF DALLAS
COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
AND "CITY"
1. PARTIES
Whereas, Dallas County ("County") has offered to provide certain health services to the various
cities throughout Dallas County on a contract for services basis; and
Whereas, the City of University Park ("City") desires to participate with County in establishing
coordinated health services for City and all of Dallas County; and
Whereas, County will operate certain health services for the residents of City in order to promote
the effectiveness of local public health programs; and
Whereas, the cooperative effort will allow all cities in Dallas County to participate in providing
public health services for their residents under the terms of this Agreement.
Now therefore, County, on behalf of Dallas County Health and Human Services ("DCHHS"), enters
into an Agreement with City, pursuant to the authority of the Texas Government Code Chapter 771,
the Interagency Cooperation Act, for and in consideration of the foregoing and the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth, and for other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
2. HEALTH SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
County agrees to operate the Dallas County Health Services Program ("Program"),
which will include the following health services:
1)
Tuberculosis Control Services: providing preventive, diagnostic treatment, and
epidemiologic services;
2)
Sexually Transmitted Disease Control Services: consisting of education to motivate
people to use preventive measures and to seek early treatment, prophylaxis,
epidemiologic investigation, and counseling in accordance with County policy;
3)
Communicable Disease Control Services: providing information concerning
immunization and communicable diseases and coordinating with the Texas
Department of Health in monitoring communicable diseases;
4)
Laboratory Services: performing chemical, biological, and bacteriological analysis
and tests on which are based diagnosis of disease, effectiveness of treatment, the
quality of the environment, the safety of substance for human consumption, and the
control of communicable disease;
County agrees to provide to City, as mandated by state and federal law, the following
public health services:
1) Immunizations;
2) Child health care;
3) High risk infant case management; and
4) Home visits.
County also agrees to work with City in order to decentralize clinics and to plan and provide
for desired services by City; however, any other services that City requires, in addition to
the above mentioned services, may result in additional fees to City.
County agrees to charge a sliding fee based on ability to pay to all residents of every City
in Dallas County. The fees charged by County for the services listed in Paragraph 2A
Sections 1 through 4 above will be used to offset the contracting City's Program costs in
the upcoming fiscal year. A schedule of fees to be charged by County is set out in "Exhibit
A" attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes.
County agrees that the level of service provided in the Program for City will not be
diminished below the level of service provided to City for the same services in the prior
fiscal year except as indicated in Paragraph 2E of this Agreement. For purposes of
Paragraph 2E, level of service is measured by the number of patient visits and number of
specimens examined. County will submit to City a monthly statement which will also include
the number of patient visits and number of specimens examined during the preceding
month.
Eo
The possibility exists of reductions in state and federal funding to the Program that could
result in curtailment of services if not subsidized at the local level. County will notify City
in writing of the amount of reduction and the extent to which services will be curtailed as a
result. The notice will also include an amount which City may elect to pay to maintain the
original level of services. City will notify County in writing no later than fourteen (14) days
of the date of the notice of funding reduction as to City's decision to pay the requested
amount or to accept the curtailment of service. If City elects to pay the requested amount,
payment is due no later than forty five (45) days after the date of the notice of funding
reduction.
3. BUDGET
County agrees to submit to City by July of each year a proposed budget describing the
proposed level of services for the next fiscal year;
Bo
For the term of this Agreement (fiscal year) County agrees to operate the services listed
in Paragraph 2 at the level of services and for the amount stated on Exhibit D; which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein for all purposes;
City shall pay to County for the term of this Agreement (fiscal year) the amount stated in
Exhibit D, $48, which is the agreed upon amount of City's share of the total cost less
federal and state funding.
Do
In lieu of paying the actual dollar amount stated in this Agreement, City has the option of
making a request to negotiate for in-kind services that are equal in value to the total
amount.
This Agreement is contingent upon City's appropriation of funds for the services set forth
herein. In the event City fails to appropriate such funds, neither City nor County shall incur
any obligations under this Agreement.
4. ASSURANCES
A. County shall operate and supervise the Program.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to restrict the authority of City over its health
programs or environmental health programs or to limit the operations or services of those
programs.
Co
City agrees to provide to County or assist County in procuring adequate facilities to be used
for public health programs. These facilities must have adequate space, waiting areas,
heating, air conditioning, lighting, and telephones. None of the costs and maintenance
expenses associated with these facilities shall be the responsibility of County and County
shall not be liable to City or any third party for the condition of the facilities, including any
premises defects.
Do
City and County agree that other cities may join the Program by entering into an agreement
with County that contains the same basic terms and conditions as this Agreement.
5. FINANCING OF SERVICES
A. The health services provided under this Agreement will be financed as follows:
1)
City and County will make available to the Program all federal and state funds,
personnel, and equipment previously used by City or County to provide the health
services included under this Agreement and will use best efforts to cause these
funds to continue to increase.
2)
City shall pay to County, or provide in-kind services, its share of budgeted costs that
are in excess of the federal and state funding for providing the health services under
this Agreement. Budgeted costs are those reflected in Exhibit D for the appropriate
fiscal year.
County shall bill City each month an amount equal to one-twelfth (1/12) of its share of
annual budgeted costs that exceed federal and state funding for the expenses of the
preceding month.
Any payment not made within thirty (30) days of its due date shall bear interest in
accordance with Chapter 2251 of the Texas Government Code.
3
City and County agree that no more than ten percent (10%) of the City's cost of
participating in the Program will be used for administration of the Program.
All payments for the performance of services under this Agreement shall be paid from
current revenues available to the City.
6. TERM
This Agreement shall be effective from October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005, unless
otherwise stated in this Agreement.
7. TERMINATION
Ao
Without Cause: This Agreement may be terminated in writing, without cause, by either
party upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party.
With Cause: The County reserves the right to terminate the Agreement immediately, in
whole or in part, at its sole discretion, for the following reasons:
1) Lack of, or reduction in, funding or resources;
2) Non-performance;
3) City's improper, misuse or inept use of funds or resources;
4) City's failure to comply with the terms and provisions of this Agreement; and/or
5)
City's submission of data, statements and/or reports that are incorrect,
incomplete and/or false in any way.
8. INDEMNIFICATION
County and City agree that each shall be responsible for its own negligent acts or omissions or
other tortious conduct in the course of performance of this Agreement, without waiving any
sovereign immunity available to County or City under Texas law and without waiving any available
defenses under Texas law. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to create or grant any
rights, contractual or otherwise, in or to any third persons or entities.
9. INSURANCE
City agrees that it will at all times during the term of this Agreement maintain in full force and effect
self-insurance to the extent permitted by applicable law under a plan of self-insurance that is also
maintained in accordance with sound accounting practices. It is expressly agreed that City will be
solely responsible for all cost of such insurance; any and all deductible amounts in any policy; and
in the event that the insurance company should deny coverage.
It is the intent of these provisions that insurance cover all cost allowed by Texas law so that County
will not sustain any expense, cost, liability or financial risk as a result of the performance of services
under this Agreement. Minimum insurance is a condition precedent to any work performed under
this Agreement and for the entire term of this Agreement, including any renewals or extensions.
10. ACCESS TO RECORDS RELEVANT TO PROGRAM
City and County agree to provide to the other upon request, copies of the books and records
relating to the Program. City and County further agree to give City and County health officials
access to all Program activities.
11. NOTICE
Any notice to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given if reduced to
writing and delivered in person or mailed by overnight or Registered Mail, postage pre-paid, to the
party who is to receive such notice, demand or request at the addresses set forth below. Such
notice, demand or request shall be deemed to have been given three (3) days subsequent to the
date it was so delivered or mailed.
Zachary Thompson, Director
Dallas County Health & Human Services
2377 N. Stemmons Freeway, LB 12
Dallas, TX 75207-2710
City of University Park
3800 University Boulevard
Dallas, TX 75205
12. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
This Agreement is expressly made subject to County's and City's Sovereign Immunity, Title
5 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code, and all applicable federal and state law.
The parties expressly agree that no provision of this Agreement is in any way intended to
constitute a waiver or any immunities from suit or from liability that the parties or the
County has by operation of law. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to benefit any third
party beneficiary.
13. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND VENUE
In providing services required by this Agreement, City must observe and comply with all licenses,
legal certifications, or inspections required for the services, facilities, equipment, or materials, and
all applicable federal, State, and local statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. This Agreement
shall be governed by Texas law and exclusive venue shall lie in Dallas County, Texas.
'14. AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES IN THE LAW
No modification, amendment, novation, renewal or other alteration of this Agreement shall be
effective unless mutually agreed upon in writing and executed by the parties hereto. Any alteration,
addition or deletion to the terms of this Agreement which are required by changes in federal or
State law are automatically incorporated herein without written amendment to this Agreement and
shall be effective on the date designated by said law.
'15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement, including all Exhibits and attachments, constitutes the entire agreement between
the parties hereto and supersedes any other agreement concerning the subject matter of this
transaction, whether oral or written.
16. BINDING EFFECT
This Agreement and the respective rights and obligations of the parties hereto shall inure to the
benefit and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, as well as the parties
themselves.
17. GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROJECT
If Agreement is funded in part by either the State of Texas or the federal government, the City
agrees to timely comply without additional cost or expense to County, unless otherwise specified
herein, to any statute, rule, regulation, grant, contract provision or other State or federal law, rule,
regulation, or other similar restriction that imposes additional or greater requirements than stated
herein and that is directly applicable to the services rendered under the terms of this Agreement.
18. DEFAULT/CUMULATIVE RIGHTS/MITIGATION
It is not a waiver of default if the non-defaulting party fails to immediately declare a default or delays
in taking any action. The rights and remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative, and
either party's use of any right or remedy will not preclude or waive its right to use any other remedy.
These rights and remedies are in addition to any other rights the parties may have by law, statute,
ordinance or otherwise. City has a duty to mitigate damages.
19. FISCAL FUNDING CLAUSE
Notwithstanding any provisions contained herein, the obligations of the County under this
Agreement is expressly contingent upon the availability of funding for each item and obligation
contained herein for the term of the Agreement and any extensions thereto. City shall have no right
of action against County in the event County is unable to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement
as a result of lack of sufficient funding for any item or obligation from any source utilized to fund
this Agreement or failure to budget or authorize funding for this Agreement during the current or
future fiscal years. In the event that County is unable to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement
as a result of lack of sufficient funding, or if funds become unavailable, County, at its sole
discretion, may provide funds from a separate source or may terminate this Agreement by written
notice to City at the earliest possible time prior to the end of its fiscal year.
20. COUNTERPARTS, NUMBER/GENDER AND HEADINGS
This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Words of any gender used
in this Agreement shall be held and construed to include any other gender any words in the singular
shall include the plural and vice versa, unless the context clearly requires otherwise. Headings
herein are for the convenience of reference only and shall not be considered in any interpretation
of this Agreement.
21. PREVENTION OF FRAUD AND ABUSE
City shall establish, maintain and utilize internal management procedures sufficient to provide for
the proper, effective management of all activities funded under this Agreement. Any known or
suspected incident of fraud or program abuse involving City's employees or agents shall be
reported immediately by the County to the Office of the Inspector General for appropriate action.
Moreover, City warrants to be not listed on a local, county, State or federal consolidated list of
debarred, suspended and ineligible contractors and grantees. City and County agree that every
person who, as part of their employment, receives, disburses, handles or has access to funds
collected pursuant to this Agreement does not participate in accounting or operating functions that
would permit them to conceal accounting records and the misuse of said funds. City shall, upon
notice by County, refund expenditures of the City that are contrary to this Agreement and deemed
inappropriate by the County.
22. AGENCY I INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
City, including its agent(s), Student(s) or employee(s), is an independent contractor and not an
agent, servant, joint enterprise or employee of the County, and is responsible for its own acts,
forbearance, negligence and deeds, and for those of its agents or employees in conjunction with
the performance of work covered under this Agreement.
23. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Agreement is construed to be illegal or invalid, this will not affect the legality
or validity of any of the other provisions in this Agreement. The illegal or invalid provision will be
deemed stricken and deleted, but all other provisions shall continue and be given effect as if the
illegal or invalid provisions had never been incorporated.
24. SIGNATORY WARRANTY
The person or persons signing and executing this Agreement on behalf of City, or representing
themselves as signing and executing this Agreement on behalf of City, do hereby warrant and
guarantee that he, she or they have been duly authorized by City to execute this Agreement on
behalf of City and to validly and legally bind City to all terms, performances and provisions herein
set forth.
The City of has executed this Agreement pursuant to
duly authorized City Council Resolution No. , dated
,200__ The County of Dallas has executed this
Agreement pursuant to Commissioners Court Order No. 2004 1333, on this 3r~ day of Au.qust
2004.
Executed this
day of
200
COUNTY:
CITY:
By:
Margaret Keliher
Dallas County Judge
By:
RECOMMENDED:
By:
Zachary Thompson
Director, DCHHS
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Bob Schell
Chief, Civil Division
Assistant District Attorney
By:
FY'2005 FEE SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT A
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED
Treatment
Blood Drawing
Cryosurgery (F)
Cryosurgery (M)
Chen~cal Lesion Reduction
Medical Records Copies
TUBERCULOSIS
Clinic Treatment
Chest X-Rays
LABORATORY
Wet Prep
Gram Stain
GC Culture
RPR
GEN Probe GC Screen
GEN Probe CT Screen
HIV Test
HIV Test - Rapid
Salmonella/Shigella
TB Culture & Concentration
TB Identification
TB Susceptibility
TB Acid Fast Stain
NURSING SERVICE
Hepatitis A Havrix
Hepatitis B Vaccine
Twinrix
Hepatitis C Screening
Hepatitis C Vaccine
HDCV (IM) Rabies
HDCV (ID) Rabies
Japanese Encephalitis
Menegococcal Vaccine
Typhoid (Polysaccharide)
Varivax
Yellow Fever Vaccine
Lyme Disease Vaccine
Rabies Administrate Fee/
Serves State Vaccine
Foreign Travel Office Visit Fee
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Septic Tank Inspection
Septic Tank Re-inspection
Food Establishment Inspection
Half-Way Houses & Boarding
Homes, Residential
Mosquito Spraying for Non-
contracting cities
Water Sample
Mosquito Testing
Food Managers Certification Program
$20 - $45 (Sliding Scale)
'$5
$60
$50
$45
$5 each
CRIMINAL TESTING
Blood Draws
Buccal Swabs
Sliding Fee Scale -Minimum $40
$50
Skin Test
Chest X-Ray Copies
$6 each
$6 each
$14 each
$11 each
$23 each
$23 each
$15 each
$20 each
$16 each
$25 each
$15 each
$31 each
$ 8 each
Pregnancy Test
Urinalysis
Dark Field
Chancroid Culture
Herpes Culture
Herpes Type 1 Serology
Herpes Type 2 Serology
Group A Strep
Urine Screen:
Neisseria Gonorrhoeae
Chlamydia Trachomatis
Lead Screen
$40/Injection
$15 O/series
$60/Injection
$35/Test
$15 O/series
$390/series
$270/series
$255/series
$85/Injection
$60/Injection
$70/Injection
$85/Injection
$240/Series
$25
$25
Immunization/VFC Program:
DPT,DT, Hib,
Diabetic Testing
Pneumococcal
Influenza Vaccine
MMR
IPV
EPSDT
Well Baby
Records:
Immunization Record
Foreign Travel Yellow Card
*$260/Commercial/Business
*$21 O/Residential
$25/Residential
$75/Commercial
$150/yr./establishment
$75/plus $25 for each
additional unit on site
$185/per hour
$35
$35
$85/per person
Day Care Center Inspections
Temporary Food Permit
Funeral Home Inspection
FHA, VA, Conventional Loans
Annual Group Home Inspection
Food Handler Class
Sub-division Plat Approval
Animal Control/Quarantine
Animal ControWicious Animal
$38
$38
$20
$5
$15 each
$15 each
$16 each
$10 each
$38 each
$35 each
$35 each
$14 each
$47 each
$47 each
$ I 0 each
$5/Per child
$5/Test
$30/Injection
$15/Injection
$50/Injection
$25/Injection
$40/Injecfion
$40/Screen
$5/Visit
$5 each
$3 each
$2/per authorized child
$50/plus $5 per day
$150
$100/Licensed
$125/Unlicensed
$50
$1 O/per person
$200/Residenfial
$15 O/Commercial
$7/per day
$12/per day
* $10 of the charge is for State fee Revised 07/16/04
EXHIBIT B
January, 2003 thru December, 2003
Municipality
Tuberculosis
Sexually
Transmitted
Diseases
Laboratory
Communicable
Disease
Addison
Balch Springs
Carrollton
Cedar Hill
Cockrell Hill
Coppell
Dallas
Desoto
Duncanville
Farmers Branch
Garland
Glenn Heights
Grand Prairie
Highland Park
Hutchins
Irving
Lancaster
Mesquite
Richardson
Rowlett
Sachse
Seagoviile
Sunnyvale
University Park
Wilmer
Out of County
Total
102
5O5
1247
168
312
327
41220
175
342
566
2367
52
1404
0
17
3134
86
1218
1241
106
42
17
5
0
10
326
54989
56
73
188
135
0
17
11500
151
114
7O
533
27
317
0
26
751
233
338
157
51
14
36
0
0
24
877
15688
367
207
1632
301
4
33
61872
238
5O0
288
4300
11
2502
0
139
5279
615
2415
838
147
15
193
3
0
2221
3608
87728
97
165
8OO
196
141
185
16524
253
277
199
1580
6O
994
35
11
1806
258
1208
975
341
91
92
42
10
56
5207
31603
April 8, 2004
0
"r
x
IJ.I
LU
Z
0
0
0
t'N cZ>
I'-.. 00 v-O'~ 0
MUNICIPALITIES
FY'05 CONTRACT COSTS
EXHIBIT D
CONTRACT COST
ADDISON
BALCH SPRINGS
CARROLLTON
CEDAR HILL
COCKRELL HILL
COPPELL
* DALLAS
* DESOTO
* DUNCANVILLE
FARMERS BRANCH
* GARLAND
GLENN HEIGHTS
GRAND PRAIRIE
HIGHLAND PARK
HUTCHINS
IRVING
LANCASTER
* MESQUITE
* RICHARDSON
ROWLETT
SACHSE
* SEAGOVILLE
SUNNYVALE
UNIVERSITY PARK
* WlLMER
* UNINCORPORATED
TOTAL
$5,751
$9,377
$23,823
$2,498
$2,301
$3,131
$1,754,252
$17,620
$11,273
$14,853
$80,156
$574
$38,854
$132
$3,149
$81,906
$12,106
$31,608
$23,756
$4,925
$362
$6,440
$99
$48
$2,597
$77,142
$2,208,733
*NON-CONTRACTING CITIES
MINUTES
#2420
CITY COUNCIL MEETING/WORK SESSION
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2004, 7:30 A.M.
Mayor Blackie Holmes opened the meeting of the City Council. Present were Councilmembers
Harry Shawver, Kelly Walker and Syd Carter. Also in attendance were City Attorney Rob
Dillard, City Manager Bob Livingston and City Secretary Nina Wilson. Mayor Pro Tempore Jim
Roberts was absent and excused.
Councilmember Walker moved acceptance of the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Carter
seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve the following:
CONSENT AGENDA
CONSIDER RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2004 CERTIFIED TAX ROLL: Each year, taxing
jurisdictions must officially adopt the tax roll upon which they will assess property taxes. The
Dallas Central Appraisal District (DCAD) performs the property appraisal function for
University Park.
RESOLUTION NO. 04-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, ADOPTING THE 2004 APPRAISAL ROLL OF THE DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT FOR THE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION REPLACING ONE MEMBER OF CABLE TV FRANCHISE
RENEWAL ADVISORY GROUP (FRAG): Six residents were appointed to FRAG on August 3,
2004. Ms. Angela Kackley is unable to serve due to scheduling conflicts. Ms. Joanna J. Barnes
was appointed to replace Ms. Kackley. This group will be active until a new franchise
agreement is complete.
RESOLUTION NO. 04-11
REPLACING ONE MEMBER OF THE CABLE TV FRANCHISE RENEWAL ADVISORY
GROUP (FRAG) FOR THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS.
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: For August 3, 2004.
MAIN AGENDA
PUBLIC HEAR1NG FOR PROPOSED FY2005 BUDGET: Mayor Holmes opened the pubic
hearing. Finance Director Kent Austin stated that the State Property Tax Code (Section
26.05(d)) requires that a taxing unit hold a public hearing and publish newspaper ads before
adopting a tax rate of 3% or more. The proposed FY2005 budget includes a property tax rate of
32.539 cents, a 2.37% increase. Even though the proposed tax rate does not exceed the 3%
threshold, Mr. Austin recommended holding the additional public hearing and placing the
newspaper ads. At the conclusion of the public hearing September 7, the City Council will vote
to set a date for adoption of the budget and tax rate. Mayor Holmes closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Shawver moved to hold the public hearing regarding the tax rate be held on
September 7, 2004. Councilmember Carter seconded, and the vote was unanimous to approve a
public hearing on September 7, 2004.
CONSIDER REQUEST TO RESERVE CURTIS PARK FOR "WALK FROM OBESITY": A
request was made from the American Society of Bariatric Surgery (ASBS) Foundation to use
Curtis Park as the starting point for a "Walk from Obesity" Saturday, September 18, 2004.
Between 200 and 300 participants are expected for this event with registration beginning at 7:30
a.m., the walk beginning at 9:00.a.m. and ending at the park at approximately 11:00 a.m. ASBS
will rent at least three additional porta-cans for walk users at the park site; shall refrain from
using any P.A. system prior to 9:00 a.m. and will supply a Certificate of Insurance with the city
named as additional insured. City Attorney Rob Dillard suggested the Director of Parks write a
letter of agreement for both the ASB S Foundation and the city's signatures.
DISCUSS ARCHITECTURAL CONCEPT FOR NORTHWEST HIGHWAY WALL: A
conceptual architectural drawing for the proposed screening wall along Northwest Highway,
Airline to Turtle Creek Boulevard, had been presented to the previous council. However, prior to
developing a scope of work for the architect and the engineer, staff wished the current council to
provide comment on the preliminary design in order to address any issues about the conceptual
layout prior to entering into architectural and engineering contracts. Council agreed with the
previous architectural concept.
CONSIDER RESOLUTION FOR MUTUAL USE AGREEMENT WITH TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (TX DOT) FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY ON
NORTHWEST HIGHWAY: All residents of Northwest Parkway have now signed the Right-Of-
Way Dedication Deed to donate approximately 14 feet of their property for the construction of a
screening wall between Northwest Parkway and Northwest Highway. A Multiple Use
Agreement between the city and TX DOT must be executed in order to construct the wall. This
agreement allows the City of University Park to use the right-of-way along the south side of
Northwest Highway, between Airline and Pickwick for the screening wall. Councilmember
Walker moved to approve the resolution. Councilmember Shawver seconded, and the vote was
unanimous to approve the resolution for the Mutual Use Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. 04-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
TEXAS, APPROVING A MULTIPLE USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A
SCREENING WALL FOR NORTHWEST PARKWAY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Mayor Holmes then called the meeting into Executive Session at 8:10 a.m. for a consultation
with the city attorney regarding a personnel matter under Sections 551.071 & 551.074 of the
Texas Government Code. The Executive Session ended at 9:34 a.m. No action was taken during
the meeting.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 7th day of September 2004.
ATTEST:
James H. Holmes iii, Mayor
Nina Wilson, City Secretary
AGENDA MEMO
(9/7/04 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 2, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator
Request to amend PD-2-R- 4300 Lovers Lane
BACKGROUND:
Park Cities Bank has requested approval of an amendment to Planned Development
District 2 - Retail (PD-2-R) (Miracle Mile), specifically for the property at 4300 Lovers
Lane, in order to locate a bank facility with two drive-thru lanes on the property. The
proposed site and landscape plan received approval from the Planning & Zoning
Commission in August. According to the submitted plans, the proposal will reduce the
actual enclosed square footage of the current space by approximately 1,000 s.f. in order to
provide for two drive-thru lanes on the east side of the building. The new enclosed area
square footage of 2,783 will require that nine (9) parking spaces be provided on site (1
space/300 s.f.). The proposed site plan provides for 13 parking spaces. A traffic and
parking study was performed by DeShazo, Tang, & Associates which concludes that the
new drive thru facility will not have an adverse affect on Lovers Lane or the intersection at
Douglas & Lovers Lane. The city asked Dannie Cummings, of C&P Engineering, to
review the DeShazo study and he supported their findings with two recommendations
regarding the layout of the parking area and routing of traffic on the property.
PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice for Public Hearing was advertised in the Park Cities News on
the following dates:
· For P&Z - 7/29/04
· For Council- 8/19/04
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the adopting ordinance amending Planned Development
District 2 - Retail (PD-2-R), to allow for a two lane motor bank at 4300 Lovers Lane.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
August 16, 2004
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, August 16,
2004 at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park,
Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Attending
Staff Members Attending
Robert West - Chairman
Doug Roach
H. Reed Shawver III
Bill Foose
Randy Biddle
Wade McLaurin - Building & Zoning Administrator
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Mr. West opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members. He then read the specifics
of the first case.
PZ 04-17 - Consider staff recommendation to amend Sec. 24-500 of the University Park
Zoning Ordinance to update the parking requirements for Southern Methodist University.
Proposed amendment replaces the outdated Ownby Stadium requirements with those for
Ford Stadium, and updates the provided parking count as a result of the on campus
parking structures now in existence. CONTINUED FROM June 21, 2004 meeting.
Mr. McLaurin addressed the need for the parking revisions. Proposed amendment 14-206 will
have to be advertised and brought back before the commission, at the next meeting in September.
Mr. Leon Bennett, General Counsel and VP for Legal Affairs and Government Relations for
SMU, responded to questions about shuttle usage in the 75206 zip code, and stated there are quite
a few who do take the SMU Express.
Mr. Roach advised Mr. Bennett to bring the actual numbers to the next meeting in September.
Mr. West closed the public hearing.
Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Biddle moved to continue the parking requirement updates to
the September 20, 2004 Planning and Zoning meeting, with a second from Mr. Roach. The
motion was approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. West opened the public hearing and read the specifics of the next three cases.
PZ 04-18 - Consider staff recommendation to amend the height regulations found in
Section 18-800 of the University Park Zoning for the General Retail (GR) zoning district.
CONTINUED FROM June 21, 2004 meeting.
Planning & Zoning Minutes
08/16/2004
Page 2 of 3
PZ 04-19 - Consider staff recommendation to amend the height regulations for Planned
Development District 1R (PD-1-R) - Snider Plaza. Proposed amendment would set
maximum wall and roof heights in feet, rather than the current maximum of four (4)
stories. CONTINUED FROM June 21, 2004 meeting.
PZ 04-20 - Consider staff recommendation to amend the height regulations for Planned
Development District 2-R (PD-2-R) - Miracle Mile. Proposed amendment would set a
maximum building height in feet, rather than the current maximum of two (2) stories.
CONTINUED FROM June 21, 2004 meeting.
Mr. McLaurin gave the history of the height issues and stated that at this point staff would
recommend that the items be tabled indefinitely until a more definitive plan or need is made
known.
Mr. West closed the public hearing.
Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Foose moved to table the staff recommendations to allow staff
to gather information from property owners and architects and to bring back before the Planning
& Zoning commission as needed, with a second from Mr. Shawver. The motion was approved
unanimously 5-0.
Mr. West opened the public hearing and read the specifics of the final case.
PZ 04-21 - Park Cities Bank, representing the owner of the property, requesting an
amendment of Planned Development District 2-R (PD-2-R), specifically for Lot 1R
Block A, of Idlewild 2 Addition of the City of University Park, more commonly known
as 4300 Lovers Lane. The applicant is proposing to convert the existing space into a
bank facility with two drive-thru lanes on the east end of the building.
Mr. Steve Metzger, resident of 2940 Daniel and legal counsel for Park Cities Bank, was
introduced and described the bank's intentions.
Mr. Tom Youngblood, President of Park Cities Bank, presented the elevations and the renderings
of the proposed building. Mr. Youngblood stated it was possible for a car to come out of the drive
thru and mm back to Lovers Lane.
Mr. Roach inquired if the drive thru was open for business on Saturdays.
Mr. McLaurin described the concern of requiring an additional approach onto Douglas.
Mr. Jerry Grable, resident of 4000 Normandy, was introduced and came forward to address issues
regarding the alley to the north of the proposed project. It was noted that trucks traveling in the
alley, had apparently caused damage to both comers of the approach. The commission asked Mr.
McLaurin to bring this issue to the attention of the Public Works Director.
Mr. Roach asked how many customers the bank saw in one (1) day.
Planning & Zoning Minutes
08/16/2004
Page 3 of 3
Ms. Elizabeth Crowe, of DeShazo, Tang & Associates, Inc., was introduced and came forward to
address the numbers presented in the traffic study. The numbers were derived from the total
amount of transactions processed during the peak period of 11:00 am to 1:00 pm.
A representative from the current tenant, Wild Birds Unlimited, voiced his opinion, that he was
quite certain that the business created more traffic or trips, than a proposed drive thru bank.
Mr. John True, resident/owner of 4301 Amherst, was introduced and inquired about the
possibility of having a right turn only lane on to Douglas Ave.
A discussion ensued regarding the need to have the recommendations of C & P Engineering Ltd.
included in the ordinance.
Mr. West closed the public hearing.
Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Biddle moved to approve the request, with the condition of C &
P Engineering, Ltd. recommendations being fulfilled, with a second from Mr. Shawver. The
motion was approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. West asked for a motion on the minutes from the June 21, 2004 Planning & Zoning meeting.
Mr. Roach moved to approve the minutes, with a second from Mr. Shawver. The motion was
approved unanimously 5-0.
There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. West adjourned the meeting.
Robert West, Chairman
Planning & Zoning Commission
Date
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO AMEND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 (PD-2-R) FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT
IR OF BLOCK A, IDLEWILD NO. 2, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4300
LOVERS LANE, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS; APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND
LANDSCAPE 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.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park and the City
Council of the City of University Park, in compliance with the laws of the State of Texas with reference
to the granting of zoning classifications and changes, have given the requisite notices by publication and
otherwise, and have held due hearings and afforded a full and fair hearing to all property owners
generally and to all persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, and
the City Council of the City of University Park is of the opinion and finds that a zoning change should
be granted and that the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map 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 and Map of the City of University
Park, Texas, be, and the same are hereby, amended so as to grant an amendment to Planned
Development District No. 2 (PD-2-R) so as to allow a branch banking facility with two lane motor
bank to the East side of the building on the property described as Lot 1R of Block A, Idlewild No. 2,
an addition to the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, and more commonly known as 4300
Lovers Lane, University Park, Texas.
SECTION 2. That the site plan depicting the improvements on said lot is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and made part hereof for all purposes the same as if fully copied herein. That such site
66866
plan contains the data required by Sections 22-300 and 22-500 of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance, and the requirement for filing a Detailed Site Plan is hereby waived.
SECTION 3. That this Planned Development District is granted subject to the following
special conditions:
(a) That the property will be developed only in conformance with the requirements of this
ordinance and the approved site plan, and in accordance with the approved landscape plan, attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and made part hereof for all purposes the same as if fully copied herein;
(b) That the property will be used only for the purposes authorized by the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance and PD-2-R, as amended hereby.
SECTION 4. That all ordinances of the City of University Park in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as amended hereby be, and the same are
hereby, repealed.
SECTION 5. That should any 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 or the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof, other than the part
decided to be invalid, illegal or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms
of this ordinance or the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as amended hereby, shall be subject to the
same penalty as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of University Park,
Texas, and upon conviction in the municipal court of the City of University Park, Texas, shall be
punished by a fine not to exceed the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense, and
each and every day such violation is continued shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense.
66866
SECTION 7. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and
the publication of the caption, as the law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 7th day
of September 2004.
APPROVED:
JAMES H. HOLMES m, MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/8-17-04)
66866
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE CITY OF
UNIVERSITY PARK, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO AMEND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 (PD-2-R) FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT
IR OF BLOCK A, IDLEWILD NO. 2, AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4300
LOVERS LANE, UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS; APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND
LANDSCAPE 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.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 7th day of
September 2004.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
66866
AGENDA MEMO
(09/07/2004 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 2, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Director of Finance
Budget and tax rate public hearings at 9/7/2004 meeting
ITEM
Texas statutes require that cities provide notice and hold public hearings before adopting an
annual budget and property tax rate.
Proposed FY2005 budget
State law requires that a budget hearing be held no sooner than 15 days after the proposed budget
is filed with the municipal clerk. Using August 3 as the filing date, a hearing September 2 easily
meets this requirement. A second budget hearing will take place at the September 22 Council
meeting; at the conclusion of that hearing, the Council acts upon the proposed budget and tax rate.
The proposed FY05 budget of $34.061 million is 6.61% larger than the adopted FY04 budget of
$32.053 million. The proposed budget includes a tax rate decrease; no rate increases for water,
sewer, and garbage service; and $4.743 million in capital project funding. The Finance Advisory
Committee met August 12 to review the proposed budget and recommended approval. Budget
details are included in the attached August 3 memo from the City Manager and line item detail.
Proposed property tax rate
The property tax is the General Fund's primary source of revenue. The proposed FY05 rate of
$0.32539 is a 0.2% reduction from last year's adopted rate of $0.32601. The certified taxable
property base rose 4.2%. The proposed budget would collect $491,644 more in current property
taxes than last year, a 4.0% increase. Thus it is correct to say that the City is both cutting the tax
rate and raising taxes.
Due to the intricacies of the official effective tax rate (ETR) calculation, the proposed $0.32539
rate that will raise 4% more tax revenue represents an effective tax increase of only 2.37%. The
ETR is significant because it drives the notice and hearing requirements a city must meet per the
C:kDoc~tments and Settingsknwilson. UNIVPARKkLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3kBudget Hearing 090704 memo (3).doc
09/02/04 3:53 PM 1
Texas Truth-in-Taxation law. Cities proposing an effective tax increase greater than 3% must
hold a separate public hearing about the tax rate. The Dallas County Tax Assessor-Collector
performs the effective tax rate calculation.
The ETR's purpose is to identify the tax rate that produces the same revenue dollars this year as
last year. Instead of using the new 2004 certified tax roll ($3.927 billion) as the base, the ETR
calculation considers only those properties that were on the tax roll one year ago, after adjustment
for changes in exemptions, values under protest, and court-ordered reductions. The resulting tax
base number ($3.842 billion) is known as the "2004 Adjusted Taxable Value" and omits the $91
million added by new construction in University Park this year. This new construction makes up
57% of the $158 million increase in the certified taxable value.
At the same time, the taxes levied one year ago are also adjusted for refunds and are known as the
"Adjusted 2004 Taxes." Dividing this adjusted tax figure ($12.2 million) plus refunds by the
adjusted tax base ($3.927 billion) produces an effective tax rate of $0.317854/$100. Comparing
the new proposed tax rate of $0.32539 against the ETR yields an effective tax increase of 2.37%.
While the City is not required to hold a separate tax rate hearing, staff recommends that a hearing
be conducted at the September 7 Council meeting. This is consistent with the practice of other
cities and provides another opportunity for resident comments.
RECOMMENDATION
Holding public hearings regarding the proposed budget and property tax rates will allow
opportunity for input from the community and coverage by the local press. Formal action by
Council on the budget, tax rate, and salary ordinance is scheduled for Wednesday, September 22,
2004.
ATTACHMENTS:
· City Manager's budget memo of 8/3/2004
· Finance Advisory Committee meeting minutes of 8/12/2004
C:kDoc~tments mhd Settingsknwilson. UNIVPARKkLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3kBudget Hearing 090704 memo (3).doc
09/02/04 3:53 PM 2
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY 2005 PROPOSED BUDGET
AUGUST 4, 2004
INTRODUCTION
This memo presents the City Manager's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2005 (FY05, or October 1,2004
- September 30, 2005). Highlights of the proposed $34.061 million budget include:
· A reduction in the City's property tax rate for the 10th consecutive year. The proposed tax rate of
32.539 cents is 0.2% lower than last year's 32.601 cents per $100 taxable value.
· Over $4.743 million in pay-as-you-go capital project funding, up 4.3% from last year.
· A balanced General Fund budget.
· No proposed utility or sanitation rate increases. The proposed FY05 Utility and Sanitation Funds are
out of balance -- it is likely that rate increases will need to be considered sometime during FY 2005
to keep the Funds from operating at a loss.
The table below provides a comparison of total expenditures for the City's three budgeted funds -
General, Utility, and Sanitation. Three other funds - Capital Projects, Equipment Services, and Self-
Insurance - are not included in the formal budget, although they each receive contributions from the
budgeted funds. A summary page showing the proposed budget by fund and department is attached, as
is a worksheet detailing the property tax impact of the proposed FY05 budget.
Total Budgeted Expenditures
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005
Fund Adopted Adopted Proposed Dollar Percent
Budget Budget Budget Change Change
General $18,957,713 $19,923,714 $21,067,545 $1,143,831 5.74%
Utility 9,288,817 9,632,850 10,442,317 809,467 8.71%
Sanitatio 2,376,790 2,496,972 2,663,410 166,438 6.67%
n
Total $30,623,320 $32,053,536 $34,173,272 $2,119,736 6.61%
ClTYWIDE ISSUES
Several cost issues impact all three City funds for FY 2005.and deserve special attention: personnel
costs, external treatment costs, capital projects contributions, and fuel/equipment costs.
Personnel Costs
Salaries and benefits make up 51.5% of the total budget, and they comprise 35.5% of the budget's
overall increase. The proposed FY05 budget includes a reduction of one full-time position, an open
Gardener position in the Parks Department. This reduces the total full-time headcount to 237. Two other
position changes that do not increase headcount are included: the open Streets Superintendent position
(General Fund) is being replaced by the new Assistant Public Works Director position (Utility Fund), and
the open Utilities Supervisor position is being replaced with the new Asset Management Technician
(Utility Fund). This latter position will be responsible for coordinating and maintaining the City's new
CarteGraph asset management software, which is an essential move toward a coordinated "3-1-1"
1
C: ~)ocuments and Settingslnwilson. UN]~-PAP~ocal SettingslTernporary ]nternet ~'ileslC)LK31C~ Bud~et £etter ~0.~ ~CA.doc
09/02/04 1.'43 P~
system of customer service response.
No cost of living or market-based raises are proposed for non-public safety employees. The budget
proposes a 3% salary increase for most Police and Fire positions.
Employee health insurance costs for the City again present a challenge. As is the case with most
employers, City expenditures for medical claims and prescription drugs continue to climb. To offset this
rise, the FY05 budget includes a health insurance increase of $244,922, or 20.4%.
The employer contribution for the City's retirement plan is also proposed to increase sharply, from
14.01% to 15.23%, resulting in a $168,008 (9.3%) increase over FY04. The employer contribution rate is
set by TMRS (Texas Municipal Retirement System) and is driven by factors like employee turnover and
tenure. This higher contribution rate includes an optional cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for current
TMRS retirees. The City last approved a COLA in 2000. Without the cost-of-living component, the
TMRS contribution rate would be 14.87%.
External treatment costs
The City relies upon two outside agencies to perform water treatment (Dallas County/Park Cities
Municipal Utilities District, or MUD) and wastewater treatment (City of Dallas Water Utilities). This year
both providers are increasing their wholesale rates to the City. The MUD is raising its rate per 1,000
gallons from $1.00 to $1.121; their notice to the City cites depreciation of new facilities added this year
and increases in electrical rates, chemical costs, and personnel expenses. This will result in an
additional $209,507 in the Utilities Fund water treatment line item.
At the same time, Dallas Water Utilities is decreasing its wastewater rate, from $1.722 to $1.680/1,000
gallons, but this reduction is offset by a 6.15% increase in University Park's winter quarter water
consumption and a 6.4% increase in the infiltration/inflow (I/I) factor Dallas uses. The winter quarter
consumption and I/I factor form the base upon which Dallas sets its sewer rate. These changes result in
an additional $274,905 for wastewater treatment. At this time the FY05 budget does not include a rate
increase for water or wastewater service, but these increases are likely needed mid-year to balance the
Utility Fund. Staff proposes to review the first six months of actual expenditures, then discuss rate
changes with the City Council.
Capital project contributions
The FY05 budget continues the City's successful practice of funding its capital projects on a pay-as-you-
go basis, rather than a debt-funded basis. Details of the budget's capital project contributions from the
General Fund and Utility Fund are provided below.
Contribution description FY04 FY05
General Fund contribution -gen. govtl, projects $ 944,510 $1,010,993
Curb and gutter replacement (General Fund) 877,224 894,496
Asphalt overlay program (General Fund) 541,059 565,389
Mile-per-year (water/sewer/alley) replacement - 318,270 322,288
General Fund
Mile-per-year (water/sewer/alley) replacement - 1,644,395 1,794,319
Utility Fund
Fire hydrant installation (Utility Fund) 143,222 156,279
Utility Fund contribution - undesignated 80,628 0
Total $4,549,308 $4,743,764
The first item, General Fund contribution - general governmental projects, will be used in FY05 to help
fund the City Hall reconstruction project. In addition to these budgeted operating contributions, the City
occasionally transfers additional funds to the Capital Projects Fund each year. These transfers are made
2
C: ~Documents and Settingslnwilson. UNIVPARK~Local SettingslTernporary [nternet FileslOLK31CM Budget Letter FT05 KA.doc
09/02/04 1:43 PM
from unreserved fund balances in the General and Utility Funds by Council ordinance.
Fuel/equipment costs
The cost of purchasing and fueling the City's fleet of motorized vehicles is budgeted to increase
$102,019 in FY05. The City budgets for equipment replacement by purchasing vehicles in the
Equipment Services Fund and then charging an annual contribution back to the operating departments.
This levels the impact on the annual budget. Even so, equipment replacement costs are budgeted to
rise $54,431 next year, up 11.6% over FY04's $466,694. The rapid rise in gasoline and other fuels,
resulting from soaring oil prices, is well known. Although the City has three underground tanks for
gasoline and diesel, as well as a propane tank, even bulk purchases cannot offset the sharp increases.
For FY05 the budget includes an additional $47,588 for fuel, a full 33% above last year's $145,791.
GENERALFUND
The proposed FY05 General Fund budget totals $21.1 million, an increase of $1.2 million (5.74%), from
FY04's total $19.9 million. As in past years, personnel-related costs are the primary reason for the
increase ($747,579), followed by capital project transfers ($142,788), equipment/fuel ($40,783) and
supplies/other ($227,615). The proposed budget includes no new major equipment or programs.
By comparison, over the past year, the Consumer Price Index (CPI)-AII Urban Consumers for Dallas-Fort
Worth increased 1.5%. The City's FY05 General Fund budget is up 5.74%, and the proposed total
budget is up 6.6%. The more rapid increase in City expenditures compared to the CPI is due to the
difference in the goods and services whose prices are measured. Simply put, the CPI's collection of
consumer goods does not align with the items purchased by the City. The City cannot absorb increases
of 32% for fuel, 20% for health insurance, 10% and 12% for treatment, and so on without passing on the
costs via the budget.
Revenue considerations
This year's proposed budget includes a major adjustment to several of the City's key non-property tax
revenues. In past years, City staff deliberately underbudgeted building permit revenue while allowing the
interest revenue projection to remain closer to its former high levels. This year, in contrast, non-property
tax revenues like building permits, interest earnings, and franchise revenues have been budgeted at
levels more consistent with what staff expects to happen. This should make for a clearer and simpler
budget. Every dollar budgeted for non-property tax revenue means one dollar less in property tax that
must be levied. Overall, non-property tax General Fund revenues are budgeted to increase 7.82%,
Tax rate decrease
The city's total certified taxable value increased 4.2%, reflecting the continued release of property
parcels whose taxable value was capped in prior years. The FY05 budget proposes to reduce the tax rate
from $0.32601 to $0.32539 per $100 taxable value. While the City is now debt-free and has no debt
service portion of its property tax rate, it is helpful to think of Operations and Maintenance (O&M) as
having an operations piece and a capital piece. The table below compares this year with the past three.
Property tax rate comparison, FY02 - FY05
Adopted Adopted Adopted Proposed
Tax purpose FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
O&M
Operations $0.25948 $0.25789 $0.25488 $0.25427
Capital 0.07377 0.07142 0.07113 0.07112
Total O&M 0.33325 0.32932 0.32601 0.32539
Debt Service 0.00675 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000
3
C: ~Documents and Settingslnwilson. UNIVPARK~Local SettingslTernporary [nternet FileslOLK31CM Budget Letter FT05 KA.doc
09/02/04 1:43 PM
I Total Tax Rate I $0.33999 I $0.32932 I $0.32601 I $0.32539 I
For FY05 the average single-family home in University Park's market value is $737,035, a 2.7% increase
from last year's $717,626. The owner of an average home with a homestead exemption whose value did
not increase in assessed value this year would pay $3.58 less in City taxes compared to FY04. The
owner of a home whose value increased by the citywide average would pay $46.94 more in City property
taxes - less than $4 a month. The comparison with the prior three years is shown below.
Property tax levy comparison, FY02 - FY05
Adopted Adopted Adopted Proposed
FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
Assessed Value (Market) $637,009 $705,739 $717,626 $737,035
Less 20% Hmstd Exmp (127,402) (141,148) (143,525) (147,407)
Taxable Value $509,607 $564,592 $574,101 $589,628
Tax Rate per $100 $0.33999 $0.32932 $0.32601 $0.32539
City Tax Levy $1,732.61 $1,859.30 $1,871.65 $1,918.59
Over the period FY02 to FY05, while the average single-family home in University Park increased 15.7
% in market value, the City tax levy increased 10.73%. Of the three taxing jurisdictions within the city's
boundaries - the City, Dallas County, and HPISD -- the City portion comprises only 14% of a resident's
total tax bill.
UTILITY FUND
The proposed Utility Fund budget includes no rate increases for water or sewer charges. As noted
earlier, the increase in cost for water and wastewater treatment is pushing the Utility Fund into a negative
balance for the year. Because Utility Fund water revenues are so volatile, however, the projected deficit
may not be fully realized. Staff recommends reviewing the status of the Utility Fund after six months and
considering water and wastewater increases at that time.
The City's new storm water utility fee is included in the FY05 Utility Fund budget for the first time. These
fees, approved in December 2003, are projected to produce $501,130. These monies will be used for a
variety of projects, including electronic mapping of the city's storm sewers and drainage patterns.
SANITATION FUND
The proposed Sanitation Fund budget is out of balance, which is consistent with the FY04 budget. Unlike
the General Fund, Sanitation Fund revenues only increase if rates are raised or the number of serviced
locations increases. In prior years, the Fund routinely expended less than its budget, which allowed it to
finish the year with a positive balance. At the end of the third quarter of FY2004 however, Sanitation
Fund revenues and expenditures are essentially equal. Consistent with past years, the Sanitation Budget
contains a $100,000 placeholder, which is intended to allow accumulation of reserves toward future
landfill needs. At the end of FY03, the Sanitation Fund unrestricted net assets balance totaled $646,000.
To maintain a continued positive fund balance, a mid-year rate increase is likely. As with the water and
wastewater rates, staff recommends reviewing the status of the Fund after six months and considering a
rate change then.
CONCLUSION
As in the past, the proposed budget will be sent to the Employee Benefits, Finance, and Insurance
4
C: ~Documents and Zettin2~slnwilson. UN~FPAP~E~ocal Zettin2~sl2~ernporary ~nternet ~'ileslOL~31C~ Bud2~et £etter F%0.¢ ~CA.doc
0~/02/04 1:43 P~
Advisory Committees for review. Staff has begun scheduling those meetings. To comply with the State
Truth in Taxation law, staff proposes the following schedule for the FY2005 budget's adoption.
Date Day
August 3 Tuesday
August 18 Wednesday
August 26 Thursday
September 7 Tuesday
September 16 Thursday
September 22 Wednesday
Oct. 1 Friday
Description
Submit proposed budget to City Council
Receive staff briefing on proposed budget
Vote to hold public hearing re. proposed tax rate
Notice of hearing on tax rate and budget appears
in Park Cities People
Conduct first public hearing on proposed tax rate and budget
Notice of vote to adopt tax rate appears in Park Cities People
Conduct second public hearing on budget and tax rate
Approve ordinances adopting budget, tax rate, salary plan
New budget takes effect
Staff looks forward to meeting with the City Council and advisory committees to discuss the budget in
more detail.
5
C: ~Documents and Settingslnwilson. UNIVPARK~Local SettingslTernporary [nternet FileslOLK31CM Budget Letter FT05 KA.doc
09/02/04 1:43 PM
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY 2005 PROPOSED BUDGET
SUMMARY BY FUND AND DEPARTMENT
GENERAL FUND
01-11 REVENUES
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
01-02 EXECUTIVE
01-03 FINANCE
01-04 HUMAN RESOURCES
01-05 INFORMATION SERVICES
01-10 COURT
01-19 BUILDING
01-20 ENGINEERING
01-25 TRAFFIC
01-35 FACILITY MAINTENANCE
01-40 FIRE
01-50 POLICE
01-70 PARKS
01-75 SWIMMING POOL
01-80 STREETS
01-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPENDS.
DIFFERENCE
UTILITY FUND
02-11 REVENUES
TOTAL UTILITY FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
02-21 UTILITY OFFICE
02-22 UTILITIES
02-85 TRANSFERS
TOTAL UTILITY FUND EXPENDS.
DIFFERENCE
SANITATION FUND
04-11 REVENUES
TOTAL SANITATION FUND REVENUES
EXPENDITURES
04-60 SANITATION
TOTAL SANITATION FUND EXPENDS.
DIFFERENCE
TOTAL REVENUES
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
DIFFERENCE
ADOPTED i ADOPTED i PROPOSED i DOEEAR PERCENT
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET CHANGE CHANGE
$18,957,713 $19,924,227 $21,083,215 $1,158,988 5.82%
$18,957,713 $19,924,227 $21,083,215 $1,158,988 5.82%
$605 755
$892 781
$304 568
$462 172
$234 353
$552 889
$8O8 789
$694 104
$572 835
$3,328,761
$4,307,531
$1,958,841
$171,450
$1,524,609
$2,538,275
$618,054
$918,432
$303,261
$485 068
$249 235
$580,616
$872 773
$74O 7O9
$611 O69
$3,5O2,65O
$4,523,224
$2,O64,482
$166,950
$1,606,128
$2,681 ,O63
$750,884
$955 847
$329 554
$520,191
$262,831
$623,731
$884 966
$778 387
$613,693
$3,837,102
$4,854,780
$2,102,110
$147,969
$1,612,334
$2,793,166
$132,830
$37,415
$26 293
$35 123
$13,596
$43 115
$12,193
$37 678
$2,624
$334 452
$331 556
$37 628
($18,981)
$6,206
$112,103
21.49%
4.07%
8.67%
7.24%
5.46%
7.43%
1.40%
5.09%
0.43%
9.55%
7.33%
1.82%
-11.37%
0.39%
4.18%
$18,957,713 $19,923,714 $21,067,545 $1,143,831 5.74%
$0 $513 $15,670 $15,157
$9,451,675 $9,451,675 $10,222,831 $ 771,156 8.16%
$9,451,675 $9,451,675 $10,222,831 $ 771,156 8.16%
$5,018,501 $5,140,536 $5,760,061 $619,525 12.05%
$2,509,316 $2,624,069 $2,731,658 $107,589 4.10%
$1,761,000 $1,868,245 $1,950,598 $ 82,353 4.41%
$9,288,817 $9,632,850 $10,442,317 $ 809,467 8.71%
$162,858 ($181,175) ($219,486) $ (38,311)
$2,231,450 $2,231,450 $2,231,450 $0 O. 00%
$ 2,231,450 $ 2,231,450 $ 2,231,450 $0 0.00%
$2,376,790 $2,496,972 $2,663,410 $166,438 6.67%
$2,376,790 $2,496,972 $2,663,410 $166,438 6.67%
($145,340) ($265,522) ($431,960) ($166,438)
$30,640,838 $31,607,352 $33,537,496 $1,930,144 6.11%
$30,623,320 $32,053,536 $34,173,272 $2,119,736 6.61%
$17,518 ($446,184) ($635,776) ($189,592)
FILENAME: FY05 Proposed Budget Summary Excerpt.xls Summary
LAST PRINTED: 9/2/2004 3:56 PM
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FY2005 PROPOSED BUDGET
PROPERTY TAX IMPACT
TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE (CERTIFIED)
$ 3,553,903,488 3,769,405,331 3,927,730,289 $ 158,324,958 4.20%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Sales tax
Franchise fees
Building permits
Traffic/parking fines
Service charges
Direct alarm monitoring fees
Miscellaneous
TOTAL NON PROPERTY TAX REV.
PROPERTY TAX REVENUE
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) need
Penalty/interest & attorney's fees
Delinquent (prior years) taxes
TOTAL PROP TAX OP REQUEST
DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT
PROPERTY TAX RATE
Operations & Maintenance (O&M)
Debt Service
Total Property Tax Rate per $100
$ 18,957,713 $ 19,924,227 $ 21,083,215 $ 1,158,988 5.82%
2,160,220
1,650 000
7OO 000
355 000
400 160
285 000
1,533 228
$ 2,160,220 $ 2,210,220 $ 50,000 2.31%
1,805,000 2,060,000 $ 255,000 14.13%
700,000 1,100,000 $ 400,000 57.14%
355,000 360,000 $ 5,000 1.41%
452,160 414,160 $ (38,000) -8.40%
350,000 450,000 $ 100,000 28.57%
1,621,562 1,496,906 $ (124,656) -7.69%
7,083 608 $ 7,443,942 $ 8,091,286 $ 647,344
8.7O%
11,703,605 $ 12,288,785 $ 12,780,429 $ 491,644 4.00%
110,000 115,000 120,000 $ 5,000 4.35%
60,500 76,500 91,500 $ 15,000 19.61%
$ 11,874,105 $ 12,480,285 $ 12,991,929 $ 511,644 4.10%
$ - $ - $ - $ - 0.00%
$ 0.32932 $ 0.32601 $ 0.32539 $ (0.0006) -0.2%
- - - $ - 0.0%
$ 0.32932 $ 0.32601 $ 0.32539 $ (0.0006) -0.2%
IMPACT ON HOMEOWNER
Average single-family market value
Less: 20% homestead exemption
Average single-family taxable value
Tax levy
705,739 $ 717,626 $ 737,035 $ 19,409 2.7%
(141,148) (143,525) (147,407) $ (3,882) 2.7%
564,592 574,101 589,628 $ 15,528 2.7%
$ 1,859.30 $ 1,871.65 $ 1,918.59 $ 46.94 2.5%
FILENAME: FY05 Proposed Budget Summary Excerpt.xls Prop Tax Impact
LAST PRINTED: 9/2/2004 3:56 PM
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 2004 AT 7:30 A.M.
MINUTES
Committee members attending:
Atwood, John
Edwards, Richard
Noble, Julie
Reeder, Dottie
Stuart, John
Wilson, Claude
Others present:
Austin, Kent
Livingston, Bob
Tvardzik, Tom
Guest:
Samra, Reem - Deloitte & Touche
Absent:
Harralson, Howell
Kelley, Terry
Olmsted, Bob
Call to order.
Chairman Bob Olmsted was unable to attend. John Stuart called the meeting to order at
7:32 a.m.
Introduce new members/Review Committee roster.
Kent Austin noted that the Committee has four new members. The attendees each
introduced themselves and were welcomed to the Committee by John Stuart.
Review/approve minutes of May 18, 2004 meeting.
Richard Edwards moved approval of the May 18, 2004 meeting minutes. John Stuart
seconded, and the motion was approved 6-0.
Meet with Deloitte & Touche regarding FY2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) and Management Letter Comment; (MLC)
Kent Austin introduced Reem Samra of Deloitte and Touche. Ms. Samra noted that this
was the first CAFR to be produced in the new GASB Statement No. 34 format and that City
staff had performed the work themselves. She said the City's financial statements received
an unqualified opinion and that the MLC was very brief compared with past years. The
Committee discussed D&T's recommendation to establish an internal audit function. The
attendees agreed a new full-time position did not make sense for the City, but that the
recommendation's concept had merit. John Stuart suggested that an outside consultant be
engaged to perform a risk assessment, and the Committee and City staff agreed.
5. Review/recommend City Manager 's proposed FY2005 budget.
Kent Austin demonstrated the web-based mBudget software that the City uses to assemble
C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal SettingsWemporary Internet Files\OLK3\FACminutes 8122004.doc
7.
its annual proposed budget. The FY2005 budget includes a tax rate decrease, an increase in
pay-as-you-go capital projects funding, and no utility or sanitation rate increases. Austin
cautioned that mid-year rate increases would likely be need for water, sewer, and sanitation
fees to keep the Utility Fund and Sanitation Fund in the black for the year. John Atwood
moved to approve the proposed FY2005 budget. John Stuart seconded, and the motion was
approved 6-0.
Follow-up items.
a. FY2OO4 year-endpreparation Tom Tvardzik
Tom Tvardzik reported to the Committee that all reconciliations are up to date.
John Stuart again suggested an outside firm perform a risk assessment.
b. Depository bank contract
Kent Austin informed the Committee that a draft RFP will be circulated among
potential bidders soon. He suggested a subcommittee of the Finance Committee be
appointed to help with bank RFP. John Stuart suggested Bob Olmsted appoint the
subcommittee.
New Business.
Bob Livingston provided the Committee with an update on the City Hall reconstruction
project, which has been revised to include a fountain and improvements along an uncovered
part of the creek..
Set next Committee meeting date.
The Committee will meet again in mid-November.
zId~journ.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
Submitted by Kent Austin, Director of Finance
Bob Olmsted, Chair
C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\FACminutes 8122004.doc
AGENDA MEMO
(09/06/04 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
September 2, 2004
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Bob Livingston
SUBJECT: Approval of Modifications to Plans for City Hall and Goat
Park Improvements
During the past weeks, we have been working with Rowland Jackson of Newman,
Jackson, Bieberstein, Landscape Architecture (NJB) to develop improvements to Goar
Park as well as modifications to the City Hall renovation plans approved in February. At
Tuesday's meeting, Mr. Jackson will review with the Council conceptual plans, which are
intended to improve the appearance and usability of Goar Park while mitigating any
impacts of the City Hall renovation. At the conclusion of his presentation, Council will
need to provide direction as to proceeding with the modifications and creation of plans for
those improvements.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the City Council approve, in concept, as outlined by Mr. Jackson in his
presentation.
That the City Council authorize staff to proceed with developing a contract
with NJB for design of the concept as outlined in his presentation. The
contract to be returned for City Council approval at the September 22nd City
Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\GOARPK090704.doc 12:28 PM 09~0:
HARRY R. SHAWVER, JR.
A TTORNEY A T LAW
17480 DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE 205
DALLAS, TEXAS 75287
August 23, 2004
Mayor James H. (Blackie) Holmes, III
City of University Park
3800 University Blvd.
University Park, Texas 75205
Re: City Council Meeting
September 7, 2004
Dear Blackie,
Due to a previous commitment to speak at a business ethics conference in Kiev,
Ukraine, ! will be unable to attend the September 7th City Council meeting.
I have had the opportunity to review the revised plans
remodeling project and I believe it to be a very good compromise.
would vote in favor of the revision.
for the City Hall
If I were present, I
I have no doubt that the improved City Hall will be in the best interest of the City
and I hope that whatever the decision of the council is, that it will be greeted
enthusiastically by our citizens.
Sincerely,
Harry R. Shawver, Jr.
HRS/bf
AGENDA MEMO
(09~07~2004AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
August 27, 2004
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Gerry Bradley, Director of Parks
Smith Park Playground Replacement Program
BACKGROUND:
For the past few months, staff has been working with UP residents to develop conceptual
drawings for the replacement of older playground components at Smith Park. The
playground committee has been working with representatives of Southwest Parks and
Playgrounds, which the city has contracted with in the past to replace playground
components at Burleson Park, Caruth Park, Coffee Park and Caruth Park.
The new playground design will provide activities for both toddlers (ages 2 5 year olds)
and older children (ages 5-12 year olds). The design layout of the playground has also
incorporated all recommendations regarding the American's with Disability Act (ADA)
and guidelines provided from the Consumer Product Safety Council (CPSC).
Play structure components include: A Swing Set, Rock Climber, Log Roll, Merry-Go-
Round, Slides, Tic-Tack-Toe Board, A Children's Backhoe, Tot Slide and Climbers,
Vertical Climbing Features and Resilient Shredded Wood Surfacing. Support features will
include: additional concrete containment curbs, concrete walkways, seating benches and a
playground drainage system.
The total project cost for the Smith Park playground upgrade is estimated at $65,874.25.
Funding for the Smith Park playground project has been identified in the UP Civic
Foundation Budget, the Parks Department General Operating Budget and Capital Project
Account Budget. The Project is estimated to be completed approximately 3 to 4 months
after contracts are signed. The Park Advisory Board unanimously supported the project
based on their review during the August 26, 2004 board meeting.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings~nwilson. UNIVPARK~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\Smithparkplayground.doc 2:25 PM 09/03
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is requesting that City Council approve the concept design of the Smith Park
playground and give staff the authority to purchase the playground components and
installation portion of the project as listed on the cooperative purchasing agreement listed
on the Buy Board.
ATTACHMENTS:
Smith Park Playground Concept Plan.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings~nwilson. UNIVPARK~Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\Smithparkplayground.doc 2:25 PM 09/03
AGENDA MEMO
(09-07-04 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
September 2, 2004
Bob Livingston
City Manager
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Consider ordinance No.
address numbers.
ordering the change of certain street
Background. In an effort to improve service to the community, a staff committee has
been meeting for the past few months to discuss addressing issues. We have three
"address" data bases: emergency services (police, fire, & dispatch), building inspection,
and utility billing. Although the data bases match pretty well (ninety-five to ninety-eight
percent), our primary concern regarding the accuracy is the impact on emergency
response time. One issue that creates a problem is the use of "half" address (35351/2
Binkley) or "alpha-numeric" addresses (3535 A Binkley).
We have identified five locations, identified in the attached ordinance, which we are
proposing to change. The Asbury addresses are the result of a prior error in the
application for a building permit. That error did not cause a problem until recently when
a new single family attached (SFA) structure was built immediately to the east. The
issue is there is not an "open" address available. Staff met with the affected property
owners (currently at 3666/68 Asbury) and explained the situation. Although it will create
a major inconvenience for them, they understood why the change is necessary.
The other location is the 6200 block of Golf Drive. There are three "out-of-sequence"
addresses, which have caused slow responses in the past. In fact, the current address
are in the wrong block (i.e., 6316/20/24 are in the "6200" block of Golf).
Staff will bring additional ordinances to correct other identified addressing issues in the
near future.
Discussion. Staff recommends City Council approval of Ordinance No. __
change of certain street address numbers on Golf and Asbury.
order the
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson. UNIVPARK\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3~M Address Change Order 09
07 04.doc 10:44 AM 09/02/04
LEGEND
Neighboring Addresses
ASBURY
3687 685
I I
6324 62
6320 62
316 62
¥
2O
16
3674
ST
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ORDERING
THE CHANGE OF CERTAIN STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the City Council that certain street numbers have
been incorrectly assigned or used, with the result that public safety and other services are delayed,
impeded or jeopardized; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to require changes of certain
street address numbers and to bear the incidental costs to the property owner of such change;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the premises hereof are found to be true and correct. The City Council
further finds that it is in the public interest in the preservation of the public health, safety, and general
welfare that the following street address numbers be required to be changed to fit the numbering
scheme of the public streets of the City, to-wit:
Current Street Address Number
A. 6316 Golf Drive
B. 6320 Golf Drive
C. 6324 Golf Drive
D. 3666 Asbury
E. 3668 Asbury
SECTION 2.
Required New Street Address Number
A. 6216 Golf Drive
B. 6220 Golf Drive
C. 6224 Golf Drive
D. 3668 Asbury
E. 3670 Asbury
That the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to change all City
records to reflect the street address number changes and to inform the property owners of such
changes. The Director is further authorized to assist all property owners concerned with the posting of
the correct numbers in the front and rear of such properties and to provide such other administrative
assistance as may be necessary to effect the change in the street address numbers as may be advisable
or requested by each property owner. The Director will inform the United States Postal Service and all
66949
other relevant public service entities and utilities of such changes, and provide copies of such
notifications to each property owner.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage, as the
law and Charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 7th day of
September 2004.
APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JAMES H. HOLMES, m, MAYOR
TEST:
CITY ATTORNEY
(RLD/8-20-04)(66949)
NINA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
66949
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS, ORDERING
THE CHANGE OF CERTAIN STREET ADDRESS NUMBERS; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of University Park, Texas, on the 7th day of
September 2004.
APPROVED:
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
66949
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA MEMO
(9/7/04 AGENDA)
September 2, 2004
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Wade McLaurin, Building & Zoning Administrator
Zoning Ordinance Residential Requirements
BACKGROUND:
As a result of recent issues involving single family attached construction, it has come to my
attention that certain sections of our Zoning Ordinance are in need of clarification, and/or
amendment. The Zoning Ordinance contains an allowance for certain projections into the required
side yard, such as window sills, belt cornices, eaves, chimneys, and windows, along with the
maximum distance that each may encroach into the side yard. There is also an allowance for
"other architectural features" to project into the required side yard. Since there is no definition
found in the Zoning Ordinance for "architectural feature", the term has been interpreted in various
ways over time. Either a true definition of what can be considered an architectural feature must be
created, or the term should be eliminated in order for proper enforcement to take place. I would
recommend that these allowable projections be reviewed for all residential districts to determine
their merit.
Another item of concern regarding driveway lengths and location has arisen that will necessitate an
amendment to the ordinances dealing with where these points of measurement are referenced. The
Zoning Ordinance specifies that garages or carports constructed to be entered directly from an
alley or side street "shall be set back from the respective property line a minimum distance of
twenty (20') feet". While this does not create a problem in the vast majority of cases, there have
been situations where the rear property line of a lot is located into the alley paving. Even in most
of these cases we have been successful in obtaining a twenty (20) foot setback from the alley
paving, but in reality need wording that makes it much clearer to all parties where the distance
should be taken from.
PUBLIC NOTICE: N/A
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that this issue be referred to the Zoning Ordinance Advisory Committee (ZOAC)
for any further discussion. The results of that discussion will be brought back to the Council at a
future meeting.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
AGENDA MEMO
(09-07-04 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
September 2, 2004
Bob Livingston
City Manager
Gene R. Smallwood, P.E.
Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Discussion regarding the feasibility of reconstructing Lovers Lane,
Hillcrest west to Dickens.
Background. SYB Construction is nearing completion of water and sanitary sewer
utility replacement along Lovers Lane from Hillcrest to Thackery. Engineering Division
staff has had some preliminary discussions with the contractor regarding the possibility
of revising his contract to include the reconstruction of Lovers (Hillcrest to Dickens) in
lieu of simply completing the permanent pavement repairs in the areas damaged by the
utility construction. That work would be done this fall, and we would suggest
reconstruction of the remaining section (Dickens to Thackery) during the summer of
2005, while school is in recess.
Discussion. Staff will provide additional details and an estimate of probable cost at
Tuesday's City Council meeting.
3800 UNIVERSITY BOULEVARD UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS 75205 TELEPHONE (214) 363-1644
C:\Documents and Settings\nwilson. UNIVPARK\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK3~AM Lovers Pavmt Hillcrest to
Dickens 09 07 04.doc 10:35 AM 09/02/04
AGENDA MEMO
(09/07/04 AGENDA)
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
September 7, 2004
Honorable Mayor and Council
Kate Smith
Administrative Intern
SUBJECT: Escrow Agreement between the City of University Park and
Republic Title of Texas, Inc.
BACKGROUND:
All residents in the 3200-3000 block of Northwest Parkway have signed the Right-Of-
Way Dedication Deed to donate approximately 14 feet of their property for the
construction of a screening wall, street construction, and water line improvements along
their frontage. As a protection to property owners, the City of University Park has agreed
to hold the deeds in escrow pending approval of a construction contract for the screening
wall. This agreement provides that Republic Title of Texas, Inc. will hold all deeds in
escrow until December 31, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. In the event that authorization and approval
for the project are not obtained, escrow documents shall terminate and become null and
void, and the Title Company will return documents to the respective homeowners.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends City Council approval of the resolution approving the Escrow
Agreement between the City of University Park and Republic Title of Texas, Inc.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution and Escrow Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS, APPROVING AN ESCROW AGREEMENT WITH REPUBLIC TITLE
COMPANY OF TEXAS AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION BY THE CITY
MANAGER; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, in connection with the construction of a screening wall along Northwest
Parkway, it is necessary to secure right of way deeds from adjacent homeowners; and
WHEREAS, the City has agreed with the homeowners to hold the necessary deeds in
escrow pending approval of a construction contract for the screening wall;
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the escrow agreement, by and between the City of University Park
and Republic Title Company of Texas, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
made part hereof for all purposes, is hereby approved in all respects.
SECTION 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the
escrow agreement on behalf of the City and to perform such other administrative steps as are
necessary to give effect to the agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION 3. This resolution shall take effect immediately from and after its passage,
and it is accordingly so resolved.
DULY PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY
PARK, TEXAS, on the 7th day of September 2004.
APPROVED:
JAMES HOLMES, iii, MAYOR
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
NiNA WILSON, CITY SECRETARY
CITY ATTORNEY (RLDmeh090104)
Page 1 67323
I, Nina Wilson, City Secretary of the City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, proposed by Council Member
, was duly passed and adopted in the City Council Meeting of the
City of University Park, Dallas County, Texas at a regular meeting thereof assembled this
__ day of ,2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
CITY SECRETARY
OF THE CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
(Seal)
Page 2 67323
ESCROW AGREEMENT
THIS ESCROW AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is made and entered by and between
the City of University Park, Texas ("City") and Republic Title of Texas, Inc. ("Title Company")
on this 7 day of September 2004.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof, the City has received commitments from
various property owners for the conveyance of property, for public street right-of-way in the
3200 and 3300 blocks of Northwest Parkway, University Park, Dallas County, Texas, to the City
for use in furtherance of the Northwest Parkway screening wall project and related
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to close such conveyances with the property owners but
withhold recording of the deeds until the project is approved by the Texas Department of
Transportation and funded by the University Park City Council.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:
1. The City, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, will deliver or cause to be
delivered by Sellers to Title Company, in escrow, at the Closings, the Right-of-Way Dedication
Deeds (the "Escrow Documents"), to be held and disposed of by Title Company in accordance
with this Agreement.
2. In the event that on or before 5:00 p.m. on the 31 day of December, 2005, the
project for which the right-of-way is being obtained, i. e. the construction of a screening wall in
the right-of-way of Northwest Parkway and related improvements, is authorized by the Texas
Department of Transportation and construction funding approved by the City Council of
University Park, Title Company shall, immediately upon receipt of written notice from the City
of such authorization and funding approval, record the Right-of-Way Dedication Deeds in the
Real Property Records of Dallas County, Texas, and forward written notice thereof to all Sellers,
deliver to the City a Texas Owner's Policy of Title Insurance in the pro rata amount of the tax
appraisal value determined by the Dallas Central Appraisal District. In the event such
authorization and approval are not obtained prior to such date, this Escrow Agreement shall be
null and void, and this escrow and the transactions contemplated by the Escrow Documents shall
immediately terminate and become null and void, and Title Company shall return the Escrow
Documents to the respective Sellers.
3. Title Company is not a party to, or bound by, any Escrow Document except as
expressly provided in this Agreement. Title Company acts hereunder as a depository only and is
57091
not responsible or liable in any manner whatever for the sufficiency, correctness, genuineness, or
validity of any instrument deposited with it hereunder, or with respect to the form or execution of
the same, or the identity, authority, or rights of any person executing or depositing the same.
Title Company shall not be required to take or be bound by notice of any default of any person,
or to take any action with respect to such default involving any expense or liability, unless notice
in writing is given to an officer of Title Company of such default and unless it is indemnified in a
manner reasonably satisfactory to it against any such expense or liability. These instructions
shall not be subject to rescission or modification except upon receipt by Title Company of
written instructions of all the parties hereto or their successors in interest. Title Company shall
be protected upon receipt of any notice, request, waiver, consent, receipt, or other paper or
document believed by Title Company to be genuine and to be signed by the proper party or
parties. Title Company shall not be liable for any error or judgment or for any act done or step
taken or omitted by it in good faith, or for any mistake of fact or law, or for anything which it
may do or refrain from doing in connection herewith, except its own gross negligence or willful
misconduct, and Title Company shall have no duties to anyone except as provided herein. Title
Company may consult with legal counsel in the event of any dispute or questions as to the
construction of the foregoing instructions, or Title Company's duties hereunder, and Title
Company shall incur no liability and shall be fully protected in acting in accordance with the
opinion and instructions of such counsel.
4. Contemporaneously with execution hereof, Seller and Purchaser have each paid to
Title Company the total closing costs due to Title Company for its services in closing the
conveyances, including the recording of the Deeds and for its services to be rendered hereunder.
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
By:
Name:
Title:
REPUBLIC TITLE OF TEXAS, INC.
By:
Name:
Title:
57091
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
July 26 2004
The Board of Adjustment of the City of University Park met on Monday, July 26, 2004 at 5:00
P.M. in the Council Conference Room of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park, Texas.
The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Attending
Staff Members Attending
Jerry Grable - Chairman
Roy Kull - Secretary
Steve Metzger
William Hitzelberger, lll.
Bill Lang **non-voting member**
Beth Dargene
Wade McLaurin - Bldg. & Zoning Administrator
Jennifer Patrick - Administrative Secretary
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Mr. Grable opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members.
Mr. Grable read the charge of the Board of Adjustment and asked that all those that would be
speaking to please stand to be sworn in.
Mr. Grable asked for a motion on the minutes from the June 28, 2004 and July 7, 2004 Board of
Adjustment meetings. Mr. Kull moved to approve the minutes, with a second from Mr. Metzger.
The motion was approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. Kull read the specifics of the first case.
B.O.A. 04-07 - Gage A. Prichard, owner of the property at 2829 Stanford, requesting a
variance to Section 8-806(2) of the University Park Zoning Ordinance to allow a two (2)
foot variance to the eight (8) foot maximum height of a fence in the side yard along a
street. Due to the topography of the lot, the applicant wishes to construct a three (3) foot
tall retaining wall at the property line, with a seven (7) foot tall fence above.
Mr. Gage A. Prichard, resident/owner of 3809 Southwestern, was introduced and made a brief
statement. Mr. Prichard stated he had thirty-years (30) experience in the homebuilding business
and has been building in University Park since 1973. The lot in question is a rare and unusual lot
in regards to the slope and hill. The topography creates a hardship due to the lack of privacy,
which could infringe upon installation of a swimming pool.
Mr. Grable thanked the applicant and inquired if the members had any questions.
Mr. Metzger asked if the property sloped front to back.
Mr. Prichard stated yes, it is tapered in the back, with four feet seven inches (4'7") east to west.
A discussion ensued regarding the overall fence height. It was determined the height of the fence
Board of Adjustment Minutes
07/26/2004
Page 2 of 3
including the retaining wall, along the side street would be ten feet (10'), with the allowable
height of eight feet (8') along the alley.
Mr. Grable inquired if there were any favoring/opposing parties present or if the board members
had any questions or comments. No one came forward.
Mr. Grable closed the public hearing.
Mr. Grable asked for a motion.
Mr. Hitzelberger moved to approve the variance, with a second from Mr. Kull. The motion was
approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. Grable opened the public hearing, and Mr. Kull read the specifics of the second case.
B.O.A. 04-06 - P. Bryant Griffith III, representing the owner of the property at 6700
Turtle Creek Blvd., requesting a special exception as provided for in Section 806(3)(f)
of the University Park Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a five foot - six inch
(5'6") tall iron fence in the front yard of the property. The submitted plan complies with
the stipulations found in this section for fences located in the front yard of properties
located in the Single Family District 1 (SF-1) zoning district.
Mr. Derek Hanks, landscape architect and resident of 900 N. Pottery Shop, Aubrey, Texas, was
introduced and made a brief statement. The property is adjacent to a public park, a comer lot, and
the fence as outlined per the plans includes the thirty-five (35) foot sight triangle requirements.
The installation of the fence would create a safe-haven for the property owners two (2) children.
The fence would be screened with the installation of Holly shrubs, planted between the sidewalk
and the proposed fence. Mr. Hanks noted he had met with, Carl McMurphy, fire marshal for the
City of University Park, and all applicable codes regarding the Knox-box padlock would be met.
Mr. Dillard noted a covenant would have to be furnished prior to permit issuance.
Mr. Grable stated the color of the fence must be per the ordinance, either black or dark green.
Mr. Hanks noted the color of the fence would comply.
Mr. Dillard inquired if electronic gates would be utilized, with the Knox-box padlock with cable
release.
Mr. Hanks stated yes, there would be a keypad as well as the noted locks and electronic gates.
Mr. Dillard stated the covenant could not just be a letter from the owner, but would have to be an
actual deed restriction filed with Dallas County. As well as, Mr. Dillard added the color currently
noted on the plan, would have to be changed to one of the specified colors allowed under the
ordinance.
Mr. Grable closed the public hearing and asked for a motion on the special exception requested.
Mr. Hitzelberger moved to approve the special exception, with a second from Mr. Metzger. The
motion was approved unanimously 5-0.
Board of Adjustment Minutes
07/26/2004
Page 3 of 3
There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. Grable adjourned the meeting.
Approved by:
Jerry Grable, Chairman,
Board of Adjustment
08/23/2004
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE
MINUTES
August 19, 2004
A meeting of the Employee Benefits Committee was held on Thursday, August 19, 2004.
Present at the meeting were Chairman Bill Clifton, Lee Roever, Clair Crossland, Steve
Herod, Roger Lambourn, David Burgher, and Jim Klancnik. Also present at the meeting
were City Manager Bob Livingston and Director of Human Resources Luanne Hanford.
Chairman Clifton called the meeting to order at 7:40 am.
The first item on the agenda was the proposed employee pay plan for FY 2004-05. Since
the committee had received a packet of information in advance of the meeting, Ms.
Hanford referred the committee members to the compensation study that had been
conducted by The Hay Group. Based on the results of the compensation study, the
consultant at The Hay Group did not recommend a market increase for employees
included in the non-public-safety pay plan. Ms. Hanford told the committee that staff
concurred with the recommendation and that no market increase for those employees had
been included in the proposed FY 2004-05 budget. She told the committee that
approximately 60% of the employees in this pay plan would still be eligible for merit
increases when they received their performance evaluations during the year. Ms.
Hanford then referred the committee to the salary survey she had conducted for
employees in the Police and Fire pay plans. She told the committee that, based on the
results of the salary survey, staff recommended a 3 % market increase for public safety
employees. After discussion of the Hay compensation study, the public safety salary
survey, and recruitment issues, Clair Crossland moved that the committee recommend the
proposed pay plan for adoption by the City Council. Lee Roever seconded the motion,
and the vote was unanimous.
The next item on the agenda was a proposal by staff to adopt updated service credits in
the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) at 100% and a Cost of Living Annuity
Increase for Retirees equal to 70% of the CPI since the last increase. Ms. Hanford told
the committee that the city had not updated service credits or adopted a retiree COLA
since 2000. According to the TMRS Benefits Guide that was provided to the committee
members prior to the meeting, Updated Service Credit (USC) is designed to help career
members' benefits maintain their value. Generally, USC protects an employee's benefit
by including increases in salary and assuming those increases and changes have been in
effect throughout the employee's career. In most cases, an employee's salary should
increase over their career, due to inflation and to promotions and raises. The monthly
deposits to TMRS during their early career may be substantially lower than they are in
later years. Although USC usually will increase the value of an employee's retirement
benefit, USC does not affect the amount of money in a Member Account, or the amount
an employee will if a refund of members deposits is taken. USC will only be part of the
benefit if an employee retires and receives a monthly retirement payment. Ms. Hanford
told the committee that a Retiree COLA could be adopted only if Updated Service
Credits were adopted for current employees at the same time.
The committee had a lengthy discussion regarding the city's retirement system as
compared to private sector plans. Chairman Bill Clifton told the committee that he had
checked the TMRS web site and found that almost every city in Texas belonged to
TMRS and that most cities, including very small cities, updated service credits and
adopted retiree COLAs every year automatically. Although he did not recommend
adopting USC and retiree COLAs automatically, he felt that University Park was actually
providing a lesser retirement benefit than most other cities in Texas by only updating
service credits and retiree COLAs every three to five years. Steven Herod and Roger
Lambourn talked about the city's unfunded liability for the retirement plan and wanted to
know what the city's total liability was. Ms. Hanford said she would obtain that
information from TMRS and forward it to the committee members. The committee
discussed the fact that the Fire Department was in a separate pension plan. Mr.
Livingston told the committee that the City makes the same contribution to the Fire
Department's pension plan as it does to TMRS; therefore, the increase in the contribution
rate would also benefit the Fire Department's pension plan, as well. After additional
discussion, Steve Herod moved that the committee recommend adopting TMRS Updated
Service Credits at 100% and a Cost-of-Living Annuity Increase for retirees at 70% of the
CPI. Clair Crossland seconded the motion. All members voted in favor of the
recommended except Roger Lambourn, who abstained.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 am.
Respectfully submitted:
Bill Clifton, Chairman Luanne Hanford, Dir. of Human Resources
CITY OF UNIVERSITY PARK, TEXAS
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, AUGUST 12, 2004 AT 7:30 A.M.
MINUTES
Committee members attending:
Atwood, John
Edwards, Richard
Noble, Julie
Reeder, Dottie
Stuart, John
Wilson, Claude
Others present:
Austin, Kent
Livingston, Bob
Tvardzik, Tom
Guest:
Samra, Reem - Deloitte & Touche
Absent:
Coleman, Russ
Harralson, Howell
Kelley, Terry
Olmsted, Bob
Call to order.
Chairman Bob Olmsted was unable to attend. John Stuart called the meeting to order at
7:32 a.m.
Introduce new members/Review Committee roster.
Kent Austin noted that the Committee has four new members. The attendees each
introduced themselves and were welcomed to the Committee by John Stuart.
Review/approve minutes of May 18, 2004 meeting.
Richard Edwards moved approval of the May 18, 2004 meeting minutes. John Stuart
seconded, and the motion was approved 6-0.
Meet with Deloitte & Touche regarding FY2003 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
(CAFR) and Management Letter Comment; (MLC)
Kent Austin introduced Reem Samra of Deloitte and Touche. Ms. Samra noted that this
was the first CAFR to be produced in the new GASB Statement No. 34 format and that City
staff had performed the work themselves. She said the City's financial statements received
an unqualified opinion and that the MLC was very brief compared with past years. The
Committee discussed D&T's recommendation to establish an internal audit function. The
attendees agreed a new full-time position did not make sense for the City, but that the
recommendation's concept had merit. John Stuart suggested that an outside consultant be
engaged to perform a risk assessment, and the Committee and City staff agreed.
C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal SettingsWemporary Internet Files\OLK3\FACminutes 8122004.doc
Review/recommend City Manager's proposed FY2005 budget.
Kent Austin demonstrated the web-based mBudget software that the City uses to assemble
its annual proposed budget. The FY2005 budget includes a tax rate decrease, an increase in
pay-as-you-go capital projects funding, and no utility or sanitation rate increases. Austin
cautioned that mid-year rate increases would likely be need for water, sewer, and sanitation
fees to keep the Utility Fund and Sanitation Fund in the black for the year. John Atwood
moved to approve the proposed FY2005 budget. John Stuart seconded, and the motion was
approved 6-0.
Follow-up items.
a. FY2OO4 year-endpreparation Tom Tvardzik
Tom Tvardzik reported to the Committee that all reconciliations are up to date.
John Stuart again suggested an outside firm perform a risk assessment.
b. Depository bank contract
Kent Austin informed the Committee that a draft RFP will be circulated among
potential bidders soon. He suggested a subcommittee of the Finance Committee be
appointed to help with bank RFP. John Stuart suggested Bob Olmsted appoint the
subcommittee.
New Business.
Bob Livingston provided the Committee with an update on the City Hall reconstruction
project, which has been revised to include a fountain and improvements along an uncovered
part of the creek..
Set next Committee meeting date.
The Committee will meet again in mid-November.
Adjourn.
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 a.m.
Submitted by Kent Austin, Director of Finance
Bob Olmsted, Chair
C:\Documents and Settings\nwils°n'UNIVPARK\L°cal Settings~Temporary Internet Files\OLK3\FACminutes 8122004.doc
PARK ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
August 27, 2004
The Park Advisory Board of the City of University Park met on Thursday, August
27, 2004 at 5:00pm at the Peek Service Center, 4420 Worcola St. Dallas, Texas.
The following are the minutes of that meeting.
Committee Members Attending:
William Pardoe - Chairman
Darrell Lane
Bruce Collins
Council Member Attending:
Blackie Holmes - Mayor
Jim Roberts - Mayor Pro-Tern
Staff Member Attending:
Bob Livingston - City Manager
Gerry Bradley- Park Director
Amber Johnson - Administrative Secretary
Residents Attending:
Lynley McAnalley
Absent & Excused:
J. Mac Fuller
Liz Farley
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Pardoe. Mr. Bradley began the meeting
with a brief introduction of those attending the meeting.
RepoNs
Smith Park Renovation
Mr. Bradley briefed the Board on current amenities and inadequacies of
the Smith Park playground. The Board was presented with the proposed
design for the new playground, a list of project goals, and a breakdown of
the funding for the project. Mrs. McAnalley emphasized the importance of
continuing the stone and bench donation program. She is of the opinion
that more stones and benches will be purchased once the project is under
way. Mr. Livingston gave a brief summary of the funding breakdown for
past and present park projects. After discussion among the members
regarding design, funding, and anticipated installation date, Mr. Lane
moved to approve the Smith Park Renovation Project. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Collins and was approved unanimously by the Board.
Park Reservation Policy
Mr. Bradley gave an overview of the current park reservation policy and
issues which have occurred because of present system. The committee
was presented with the current fee schedule for park rentals, pictures of
the picnic areas available, and a breakdown of fees received by the city
for park rentals. Mr. Bradley's proposal includes improving picnic areas to
make more defined rental areas, improving guidelines and restrictions on
park rentals, and setting a fee schedule. Discussion from committee
members ensued about costs for improving picnic areas and the pros and
cons of having a reservation policy. After much discussion, the board
would like for several parks to be outfitted with the improved picnic rental
areas as a test before completing all park areas and before implementing
a policy.
City Hall Renovation and Goar Park Landscape Improvements
Mr. Bradley presented the Board with images of the proposed design for
Gear Park in conjunction with the City Hall renovation. Mr. Pardee
commented on the desire to develop Gear Park as a civic area for the
residents of University Park. Mayor Holmes briefed the committee on the
responses received from concerned residents regarding proposed
designs. Residents appear to be pleased with the new plans. Committee
engaged in a brief discussion about possible design and how soon project
would begin.
YMCA Facility Utilization Aqreement
Mr. Bradley briefed board members on current standing with the YMCA.
The Board was presented with a calendar charting the YMCA's current
field schedule as well as a report outlining the fees charged by other cities.
Mr. Bradley gave Board members a proposed facility utilization
agreement. Discussion ensued among members regarding fairness of
charging fees due to the fact that many YMCA players are UP residents.
Further discussion involved topics such as field damage, field
maintenance, and availability of park space for other patrons. Mr. Bradley
indicated that it would be in the best interest of the YMCA to enter into an
agreement with the City in an effort to secure field locations on an annual
basis. After a discussion, it was decided by the Board that further
research should be conducted by staff to determine what, if any fees
should be placed upon the YMCA for field usage. The topic will again be
discussed at the September Park Advisory Board meeting.
Works In Progress/Informational Items
Tree Trimmin,q/Li,qhtin,q Pro,qram
The Board was briefed on project to trim back overgrown trees and install
or repair tree lighting in all parks. To date, this project has been completed
at Burleson Park. Removal of Iow hanging tree limbs has promoted new
turf growth and has created a much brighter park area.
Williams Pier
The Board was briefed on the project to rebuild the fishing pier at Williams
Park. The project will be completed in house by the Park Department. Mr.
Bradley presented the Board with pictures of the work in progress.
SBC Utility Box- McFarlin and Golf
Mr. Bradley presented the Board with a picture of the SBC utility box
located in the median at McFarlin and Golf and offered possible
suggestions for a cover up. Examples of possible landscaping were
presented. Mr. Bradley indicated that the Parks Department would
complete landscape improvements to the Burleson Park SBC Box as an
example of what could be done at other locations.
Requests
Dallas Mustanq Soccer Club
The Board reviewed the request made by the Dallas Mustang Soccer
Club. The organization is requesting a field exclusively for their team
practices Mondays through Thursdays for the months August through
November. Due to limited field space, it is the opinion of the Board that the
city can not accommodate the request of the organization.
Establishment of Meeting Time
Mr. Collins requested that all future meetings of the Park Advisory Board
begin at 4:00pm. All members in attendance were in agreement.
Adjournment
Mr. Pardoe moved that all further business be continued on the next
meeting of the Park Board. All members present agreed and the meeting
was adjourned.
William Pardoe, Chairman
Park Advisory Board
Date
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES
June 21, 2004
The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of University Park met on Monday, June 21,
2004 at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 3800 University Blvd. University Park,
Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Commission Members Attending
Staff Members Attending
Robert West - Chairman
Doug Roach
H. Reed Shawver III
Bill Foose
Bea Humann
Bud Smallwood - Public Works Director
Wade McLaurin - Building & Zoning Administrator
Jennifer Patrick - Administrative Secretary
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Mr. West opened the public hearing and introduced the commission members. He then read the specifics
of the first case.
PZ 04-15 - Analytical Surveys, representing the owner of the property, requesting a
replat of Lot 3 Block 5, of Walker's Addition of the City of University Park, more
commonly known as 3449-51 Normandy into two (2) Single Family Attached lots. The
property is zoned Single Family ~ Attached (SF-A).
Mr. West inquired if the replat conformed to city regulations.
Mr. McLaurin stated yes.
Mr. West inquired if there were any favoring/opposing parties in the audience. None came
forward.
Mr. West asked for a motion. Mrs. Humann moved to approve the replat, with a second from Mr.
Foose. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. West, then read the specifics of the second case.
PZ 04-16 - St. Alban's Collegiate Chapel, requesting a Specific Use Permit (S.U.P.) for
Lot 4 Block A, of SMU Heights Addition of the City Of University Park, more
commonly known as 3308 Daniel. The request is to allow the reconstruction of the
existing structure that has been damaged by fire, along with the continuation of the
current use as a student center & chapel. The property is zoned Multi-Family District 3
(MF-3).
Mr. West inquired if there were any favoring parties present.
Mr. John Wright, President of JCW Inc., was introduced and made a brief statement in support of
Planning & Zoning Minutes
06/21/2004
Page 2 of 7
the project. The Canterbury House and St. Alban's Collegiate Chapel were severely damaged by
a fire, and the owner would like to redevelop and expand with a new similar structure. Mr.
Wright stated there were three (3) parking spaces, accessible via the alley, and one (1) handicap
space via Daniel Ave. As well as, Southern Methodist University (SMU) agreed to allow the
Chapel use of parking spaces during non-permit-parking times. The function of the facility would
remain as it was, serving the same community as before.
Mr. West asked if the footprint remained the same.
Mr. Wright stated yes.
Mr. West noted three (3) parking spaces were added to the site plan.
Mrs. Humann inquired if there was a SMU parking garage agreement.
Mr. Wright stated yes, the same students would be utilizing the parking garage, and an agreement
was executed three (3) to four (4) weeks ago.
Ms. Barbara Kelton, Episcopalian Chaplain, was introduced and voiced her support of the
project. Ms. Kelton noted she has been St. Albans chaplain for the past eight (8) years. The
chapel has been an ongoing, viable asset to the community for over fifty (50) years. Ms. Kelton
noted the students did have parking areas, and inquired if there were any questions. Ms. Kelton
expressed her support of the redevelopment of the chapel and thanked the board.
Mr. West closed the public hearing.
Mr. Foose stated he had personally been in the immediate area, and did not observe any parking
issues.
Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Roach moved to approve the request, with a second from Mrs.
Humann. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. West, then read the specifics of the third case.
PZ 04-17 - Consider staff recommendation to amend Sec. 24-500 of the University Park
Zoning Ordinance to update the parking requirements for Southern Methodist University.
Proposed amendment replaces the outdated Ownby Stadium requirements with those for
Ford Stadium, and updates the provided parking count as a result of the on campus
parking structures now in existence.
Mr. West inquired if there were any favoring parties from SMU present.
Mr. McLaurin noted he would brief the board on the specifics of the staffrecommendation.
Mr. McLaurin stated the parking requirements/ordinance needed to be updated for the University
Districts. Staff had prepared current wording, versus the proposed wording, with SMU providing
the numbers and counts. The residential wording had been eliminated. As well as the parking
space credit numbers and percentages had been adjusted to reflect credit for mass transit. Mr.
Planning & Zoning Minutes
06/21/2004
Page 3 of 7
McLaurin stated the Planning & Zoning Commission would need to review and forward a
recommendation to the City Council.
Mr. West asked Mr. Dillard if this was just staff recommendation.
Mr. Dillard noted this was an advertised public hearing, not in ordinance form.
Mr. Leon Bennett, General Counsel and VP for Legal Affairs and Government Relations for
SMU, was introduced and made a brief statement.
Mr. Bennett stated SMU wanted to get the best utility out of the parking for the campus, the goal
being to get the parking up to serve the numbers on campus.
Mr. Dillard asked Mr. Bennett if the total parking spaces allocated (5,723) included parking for
the University Campus 3 (UC3) and University Campus 4 (UC4) districts.
Mr. Bennett stated no, the 5,723 encompassed east of the campus (Central Expressway), north
(Rosedale) to south of the campus (SMU Blvd.)
Mr. Dillard stated UC3 and UC4 districts, had been included in previous submittals and had their
own separate requirements. He added this was comparing apples to oranges by not including all
UC districts into the total parking count. The Dyer parking lot was not included as well.
Mr. Bennett stated the total parking number could be adjusted to reflect all University Campus
District parking.
Mr. Foose noted he wanted to ensure he was following the discussion properly; the parking total
did not include all university districts.
Mr. Dillard noted the number indicated as the total (5,723) misrepresents by three hundred (300)
spaces.
Mr. Foose referenced to the current wording on page six (6), noting there was not any proposed
information/changes.
Mr. Bennett stated the area indicates SMU would have to add more parking, if adding more
students per the proposed agreement. He added SMU was moving away from new construction,
therefore eliminating the reference to such.
Mr. Dillard inquired if the total population count of 9,770 included all students, staff, and
facility. He referenced to the ordinance, every two (2) beds requires one (1) parking space. Mr.
Dillard added he observes more parking on the streets, than students walking to class.
Mr. Roach asked where the percentages were derived from on page six (6), section two (2) in
regards to the parking credit for mass transit.
Mr. Bennett noted he would assume the information came from DART authorities.
Planning & Zoning Minutes
06/21/2004
Page 4 of 7
Mr. West noted this proposed addendum was not a part of the old ordinance.
Mr. Bennett stated Mr. West was correct, the information was added due to an opportunity from
the ozone criteria, move employees to Dart serviced areas to help enable credit for the parking
requirements.
Mr. Foose asked if the students, facility and staff of SMU would utilize the mass transit system.
Mr. Bennett informed the board a relationship was established with Dart (numbers were not)
enabling students to ride at no charge.
Mr. Foose asked if the parking number was locked in.
Mr. Bennett stated yes, if the campus were to expand, the parking must increase accordingly.
Mr. Foose stated in the zip code, 75206, thousands of people would fall in the credit area
(assuming they would ride Dart), therefore SMU would ask for the credit.
Mr. West inquired if there were any more questions for Mr. Bennett from the board, there were
none.
Mr. West closed the public hearing.
Mr. West stated he would recommend the complex issue be continued to the next meeting of the
Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Foose moved to continue the SMU parking requirements to the
August 16, 2004 Planning & Zoning meeting, with a second from Mr. Roach. The motion was
approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. West read the specifics of the final three (3) cases.
PZ 04-18 - Consider staff recommendation to amend the height regulations found in
Section 18-800 of the University Park Zoning for the General Retail (GR) zoning
district.
PZ 04-19 - Consider staff recommendation to amend the height regulations for Planned
Development District 1-R (PD-1-R) - Snider Plaza. Proposed amendment would set
maximum wall and roof heights in feet, rather than the current maximum of four (4)
stories.
PZ 04-20 - Consider staff recommendation to amend the height regulations for Planned
Development District 2-R (PD-2-R) - Miracle Mile. Proposed amendment would set
a maximum building height in feet, rather than the current maximum of two (2) stories.
Mr. West then asked Mr. Dillard if it was appropriate to combine the three (3) cases.
Mr. Dillard stated case PZ 04-20 Planned Development District 2-R (PD-2-R) - Miracle Mile
Planning & Zoning Minutes
06/21/2004
Page 5 of 7
had not been an issue.
Mr. McLaurin then briefed the commission on the history of PZ 04-19 and PZ 04-20. In March
2003, the commission took up discussion regarding height restrictions in the following districts:
General Retail (GR), Planned Development District 1-R (PD-1-R) - Snider Plaza and Planned
Development District 2-R (PD-2-R) - Miracle Mile. Mr. McLaurin quoted the draft ordinance
pertaining to the General Retail (GR) District and the Planned Development District 1-R (PD-1-
R) - Snider Plaza outlining the details of the proposed height changes.
Mr. McLaurin noted after the Planning & Zoning Commission completed discussion, many
property owners (within the GR District and PD-1-R - Snider Plaza District) came forward with
the concern of the proposed ordinance affecting; reconstruction of the current structures and
parking concerns. He noted the proposed ordinance under discussion, has almost identical
wording when compared to the ordinance for the Planned Development District 2-R (PD-2-R) -
Miracle Mile.
Mr. McLaurin read the wall height and roof slope section of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. McLaurin stated the ordinance was worded to encourage pleasing aesthetics, and to
discourage flat roofs. He concluded there would not be a generic recommendation.
Mr. McLaurin noted Taylor Armstrong, Chairman of the Urban Design and Development
Committee, had drawn/designed the proposed design to maintain the ecliptic type architecture
found in the districts. Mr. Dillard and Mr. McLaurin came up with the proposed wording of the
proposed ordinance, which would be somewhat easy to enforce.
Mr. West asked if there any favoring/opposing parties in the audience.
Mr. Chris Jordan, representing Intercity Investments Inc. owner of the property from 6700-6900
Preston Rd., was introduced and stated his opposition to the proposed height reduction in the GR
District. He noted he felt it would be impractical, damage the company asset and it would not
adversely affect the Multi-Family District to the west.
Mr. West inquired if there was anyone else in the audience who opposed the GR District height
change. None came forward.
Mr. West asked Mr. Dillard if the two cases should be voted separately.
Mr. Dillard stated yes.
Mr. Peter Smith, representative of 7000 Snider Plaza, Tom Thumb, was introduced and stated his
opposition. Tom Thumb is the largest property in Snider Plaza, and the current allowable height
of four (4) stories should remain intact. Mr. Smith noted 7000 Snider Plaza is the best
opportunity for redevelopment. Over the past year, Mr. Smith has had discussion with Mayor
Peek, City Council Member Blackie Holmes, and Planning & Zoning Commission member,
Randy Biddle. Other issues were addressed such as: parking, the fact the site is not contiguous to
residential property, decrease in tax revenues (25%) and dislike of the verbiage used in the
proposed ordinance. Mr. Smith noted Mr. Armstrong's drawings were arbitrary and more time
Planning & Zoning Minutes
06/21/2004
Page 6 of 7
was needed to discuss any changes.
A discussion ensued regarding the proposed drawings (staff's attempt to use the drawing as a
directive for architectural design), the added economics of using "stories" versus "feet", strict
verbiage in the ordinance and the purpose of utilizing a sloping roof in the ordinance.
Mr. Roach asked how tall was the medical building located in Snider Plaza.
Mr. McLaurin noted it was forty-one feet (41 ').
Mr. Bob Teeter, owner/resident of 3309 Colgate, was introduced and stated his opposition. Mr.
Teeter referenced to a diagram of Snider Plaza, pointing out his support to Mr. Smith's dialog.
He added he wanted what was best for the City of University Park and its residents/building
owners. Mr. Teeter noted there should not be any rush to come to a decision. The parking issue
could be addressed concurrent with the height issue. The Chase Bank building could possibly be
utilized to help solve the parking issue, and hopefully this idea will be entertained.
Mr. Teeter added that Tom Thumb is an excellent site for future expansion.
Mr. Teeter stated he believed the city would regret changing the height regulations, and
encouraged the commission to let Mr. Armstrong design any drawings.
Mr. Teeter asked to approach the commission, referencing to a plat map of Snider Plaza. He
noted he had meet with Mr. Biddle previously, and pointed out the medical building was
compliant with the zoning ordinance in regard to height and required setbacks.
He added that city staff should meet with the building owners and come up with an agreeable
solution and requested further discussion before the commission approached Council with a
decision.
Mr. Karl Kuby, owner of 6601 & 6605 Snider Plaza, was introduced and made a brief statement
Mr. Kuby stated he had moved to Dallas in 1961. He noted the business owners needed to meet
and work together to encourage growth and success. Mr. Kuby added if this was not the case,
many businesses could close their doors.
Mr. Roger Fullington, owner of 6817 Snider Plaza, was introduced and noted his opposition to
the proposed height change. Mr. Fullington stated Snider Plaza was developed over time, which
had its advantages and disadvantages. He noted this had enabled multiple owners in Snider Plaza,
with no one necessarily to look out for the future of the area. In regards to the parking issue, Mr.
Fullington referenced to Highland Park Village and its underground parking. He added he
supported Mr. Smith, and he would recommend to Council, not to adopt the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Fullington referred to projects within the city such as: the Dubow building, seventy feet (70')
along Preston Rd. and Lovers Ln., and the SMU Daniel parking garage, noting the pleasing
aesthetics of the tall structures. Other cities were noted, Chicago and New York, and the use of
creative architecture used to work with the density and the population. Mr. Fullington stated he
was representing the majority of the property owners with his statements. He urged the board to
place these cases on hold, noting this was the first time property owners were working together
to find a solution.
Planning & Zoning Minutes
06/21/2004
Page 7 of 7
Mr. Wayne Thompson, representing the JP Morgan Chase Bank of 6615 & 6617 Snider Plaza,
was introduced and made a brief statement in regards to his opposition. He noted after discussion
with other property owners, it was determined there were not any favoring parties to the height
change. The property values of the area would diminish due to the change. He added there
various meetings with an architect he was unaware of, and desired more time to discuss, plan and
give/receive input.
Mr. West closed the public hearing.
Mr. Roach stated he was unable to make a ruling or vote on these issues. He added there were
many valid points made tonight and more discussion with interested parties was needed. Mr.
Roach added he would propose to continue the proposed height amendments to the next meeting
of the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mr. Dillard inquired if the SMU parking issue and the height issue discussion would continue to
the July 19, 2004 meeting or the August 16, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission.
Mr. West stated both cases would defer to the August 16, 2004 meeting.
Mr. Foose stated more definition was needed when using the word "story" when referring to a
building height. He noted this could be discussed as the property owners and city staff convenes.
Mr. Dillard stated the definition of a "story" has been established at eleven and one-half feet (11
6") "story", and that the purpose of the exercise was to get away from this terminology. There
are competing interests, some want the verbiage to remain and others want it to change. Mr.
Dillard stated people had no directive, just objections. He added the City Council could leave the
height regulations as is.
Mr. West stated something pleasing could be created, and architectural issues could be
addressed.
Mr. Dillard noted if the property owners could assist with the verbiage, this would be helpful.
Mr. West asked for a motion. Mr. Foose moved to continue the proposed height changes
allowing additional discussion to the August 16, 2004 Planning & Zoning meeting, with a second
from Mr. Roach. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0.
Mr. West asked for a motion on the minutes from the May 17, 2004 Planning & Zoning meeting.
Mrs. Humann moved to approve the minutes, with a second from Mr. Roach. The motion was
approved unanimously 5-0.
There being no further business before the Commission, Mr. West adjourned the meeting.
Robert West, Chairman Date
Planning & Zoning Commission
URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
July 12, 2004
The Urban Design & Development Advisory Committee of the City of University Park
met on Monday, July 12, 2004 at 4:30 P.M. at the Peek Service Center, 4420 Worcola St.
Dallas, Texas. The following are minutes of that meeting.
Committee Members Attending:
E. Taylor Armstrong - Chairman
Michael Culwell
Marc Hall
John Jackson
Robert Clark
Jim Doster
Staff Members Attending:
Bob Livingston - City Manager
Wade McLaurin - Bldg. & Zoning Administrator
Jennifer Patrick - Administrative Secretary
Rob Dillard - City Attorney
Absent & Excused:
Kelly Walker - Council Member
Scott Thompson
Lou Lebowitz
°
o
Call to Order.
Mr. McLaurin called the meeting to order
Establish future meeting times.
Mr. McLaurin had previously polled members of the committee to establish if a
meeting time of 12:00 pm on the 2na Monday of the month would be permissible.
The members had agreed tO this new time for all future meetings.
Discuss/Consider request by RGLA, Inc. to amend the existing Special Sign
District at Preston Center to allow additional business identification signs for the
new "Orvis" lease space at 8300 Preston Rd. Suite 300.
Mr. McLaurin briefed the committee members on the request, and introduced the
Senior Property Manager, Mike Geisler, with Venture Properties. Mr. Geisler
noted the lease space was approximately sixteen thousand square feet (16, 000
sq.ft.), with the main purpose of the space as a retail fishing/sporting goods store.
The former tenant at the site was Neiman Marcus. The adjacent tenants will not
be relocating due to the new retail store. The second floor footprint for Orvis,
totals eight thousand to nine
URBAN DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
07/12/2004
Page 2 of 2
thousand square feet (8,000 - 9,000 sq. fl.). A large live oak tree is planted
nearby, possibly blocking exterior signage. After discussion, it was determined all
proposed signage is on the Orvis lease space, proposed signage maintains balance
for the lease space and does not exceed the appropriate amount of square footage
per the sign ordinance. The committee then addressed Mr. Geisler, inquiring if
approval of the Orvis signage would create issues for the property management
company (in regards to requests on other tenants behalf). Mr. Geisler stated
approval of the Orris signage would not adversely affect the other tenants or
property management. It was noted, as well, the sign regulations were well
planned, creating individuality for the tenants and property management can give
input regarding requests. A discussion ensued regarding the specifics of the
special sign district, the abandoned alley nearby, previous signage approved for
the SMU bookstore and the creation of the sign ordinance.
Mr. Armstrong asked for a motion.
Mr. Culwell moved to approve the request, with a second from Mr. Clark. The
motion was approved unanimously 6-0.
Follow-up items.
Mr. Dillard inquired on the status of news rack discussion, per the City Council's
request. The committee will resume discussion at its next meeting in August, and
forward a recommendation to Council.
Adjourn.
There being no further business before the Committee, Mr. Armstrong adjourned
the meeting.
E. Ta~
U.D.A.'
CAPITAL PROJECTS UPDATE
Week of September 1, 2004
Project
No. Description
Cost
Major Tasks Uncompleted
Target
Date
42450 Fondren Tower- Fire Station No. 2
$30,000.00 (E)
In-house construction (FD & FM)
RLG completion of structural design
TBD
Complete
42730
Lovers Lane Reconstruction II - Hillcrest to NCE
(1) Water & sanitary sewer construction
(2) Pavement & Drainage Improvements
$4,000,000.00 (E)
Utility (Water - Hillcrest to Thackery)
Utility (Sanitary Sewer - Hillcrest to Thackery)
Utility (Water / San Sewer - Hillcrest S to alley)
Drainage (Baedeker E to Cleburne)
Pavmt (Baedeker to Willard)
Complete
Oct-04
Oct-04
Complete
Dec-04
42903 NCE Wall - Streets - Landscaping
Tree / Street Lighting - Sidewalks
$150,000.00 (E)
Street light equipment installed
"Entry Plaza" construction
Complete
Sum-04
42980
42980
C& G Replacement FY00-01
C& G Replacement FY00-01
Change No 1 (**)
(continued)
$2,223,254.65 (A)
$351,523.50 (A)
Amherst, Durham to Airline
Amherst, TC Blvd to Preston
Asbury, Golf to High School
Baltimore, Lovers Lane to Hanover
Bryn Mawr, Baedeker to Airline
Baedeker, Hanover to Southwestern
Complete
TBD
TBD
Complete
Complete
Complete
Page 1
42980
C& G Replacement FYO0-01
(continued)
Page 2
Caruth, Turtle Creek Blvd to Thackeray
Centenary, Thackeray to Baltimore
Glenwick, Preston to Westwick
Glenwick, Preston to HPHS parking garage
Grassmere, Preston to Westchester
Granada, HJllcrest to Key
Glenwick, Preston to HS Garage
Greenbrier, Preston to Douglas
Hanover, Preston to Baltimore
Hyer, Preston to Westchester
Larchmont, Armstrong to Lomo Alto
Marquette, Baltimore to Pickwick
Marquette, Turtle Creek Blvd to Thackeray
McFarlin, Preston to Westchester
Normandy, Armstrong to Lomo Alto
Preston, San Carlos to McFarlin
Purdue, Durham to Dickens
Rosedale, Thackery to Golf
San Carlos, Preston to Armstrong + Lomo Alto
Shenandoah, Douglas to Armstrong
Shenandoah, Roland to Armstrong
Shenandoah, Hillcrest to Auburndale
Stanford, Airline to Hillcrest
Stanford, TC Blvd to Prteston
Stanhope, Douglas to Lomo Alto
Stanhope, Preston to Douglas
Complete
Complete
Delete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Delete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Sept-04\
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
TBD
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
Corn ~lete
TBD
46310
43700
43710
43710
48100
48200
48300
MPY-Caruth Park Area
Water / San Sewer / Stm Sewer
City Hall - Renovation and Expansion
City Hall II - Drainage Improvements
City Hall III - 24" Water main Installation
Paint Fondren Elevated Tank
MPY-Auburndale-Key / Water / Sanitary Sewer / Storm S~
Automated Meter Reading
$2,135,000.00 (E)
............. (E)
$3,000,000.00 (E)
$630,000.00 (E)
$300,000.00 (E)
$555,000.00 (E)
$1,200,000.00 (E)
Page 3
Thackeray, Rosedale to Milton
University Blvd, Golf to alley east of Haynie
Wentwood, Tulane to Pickwick
Williams Pkwy, University to McFarlin (partial)
Windsor Pkwy, Douglas to Preston Pkwy
Windsor Pkwy, Douglas to Lomo Alto
Design
Bids
Conceptual Design
Construction Plans & Specs
Design
Corps of Engineers 404 Permit
Wetlands Mitigation Credits
Bids
Water main construction
Pavement Repairs
Specification / Bid Documents
Bids
Design
Bids
* AMR installation - Cycle 1 (N of Lovers Lane)
* AMR installation - Cycle 2 (S of Lovers Lane)
* AMR installation - Cycle 3 (Parks, large meters,
Complete
Complete
TBD
Complete
Complete
Complete
Complete
Sep-04
Complete
Sp-05
Fall-04
Complete
Complete
Winter-04
Complete
Complete
Complete
TBD
Spt-04
TBD
Complete
Complete
Complete
Training of City staff (Mobile Unit) Complete
Page 4