No preview available
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