The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJuly 17, 2001 con't. 2AGENDA DATE: February 20, 2001 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department CM/DCM/ACM: Dawd Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - Z-01-0014 (1414 North Elm StreeO Hold a pubhe heanng and consider adoption of an ordinance rezomng 0 41 acres, commonly known as 1414 Elm Street, from an Office (O) zomng d~stnct to a General Retail conditioned (GRIt]) zoning district General retml uses are proposed The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval (6-0) with contht~ons BACKGROUND The City of Denton, as the applicant, ~s requesting the rezonlng of 1414 North Elm Street from Office (O) zomng dastnct to General Retatl conditioned (GR[c]) zoning district The antm~pated use of the existing 2,700 square feet braiding is a hair stylmg salon All adjacent properties are zoned for office uses (see Attachment 1) However, the proposed general retail zomng ~s in comphance with The Denton Plan This apphcat~on ~s the latest m a series of mty-lmt~ated zomng changes (Z-99-0083, Z-99-0084, and Z-01,0002) m the vlmmty of the subject site Th~s area ~s characterized by a m~xture of uses, while the,ex~st~ng zomng does not allow flexlblhty for the use of such property ~ The subject property is located in an Office (O) zoning d~stnct ~' According to The Denton Plan, the subject s~te ~s within a Downtown Umvers~ty Core District, w~ch allows for a mixture of uses Staff finds thru development to be consistent w~th The Denton Plan ~' Fifteen (15) property owners were notffied of the zomng request Seven (7) responses have been received, s~x (6) ~n favor, and one (1) in opposition of the request, representing 4 1% of the land area within 200 feet of the subJeCt property (see Attachment 1) PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following ~s a chronology of Z-01-0014, commonly known as 1414 North Elm Street Apphcataon Date - May 11, 2001 P&Z Date - June 13, 2001 ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Th~s site ~s final platted A certificate of occupancy can be issued after the approval of the zoning request 1 FISCAL iINFORMATION Development of tbas property wall increase the assessed value of the c~ty, and county As a form ofinfill development, no extension ofpubhc infrastructure is necessary to service this site P&Z SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATION The Planmng and Zomng Commission recommends approval (6-0) of this zomng request w~th the following eondmon 1 Any new hghtmg shall be designed and mamtaaned so as not to sh~ne on or otherwise disturb, surrounding resadentlal property or to shine and project upward to prevent diffusion in to the mght sky OPTIONS 1 Approve as submitted 2 Approve with conditions 3 Deny 4 Postpone consideration 5 Table item ATTACHMENTS 1 Planmng and Zomng Commission Report, June 13, 2001, Z-01-0014 2 Planmng and Zoning Commlssaon minutes ~om June 13,2001 3 Draft Orduranee Darector of Planmng and Development Pr~d by p~rah iVtera er I 2 ATTAC[']I,'d~NT 1 A~enda Number - I~- {~017 Agenda Ite~ - ~10 Date - C~-13-O1 1414,N. ELM ST, (Z-01-0014) ~ PLANNING & ZONING STAFF REPORT PURPOSE: Hold a public heanng and consider making a recommendation to C~ty Council regarding the rezonlng of approximately 0 41 acre from an Office (O) zoning d~stnct to General Retad (GR) zomng d~stnct Retail/neighborhood services are proposed TWU Grampus ! LOCATION MAP APPLICANT INFORMATION: Apphcant Cmty of Denton 216 E McKinney Street Denton, TX 76201 Z-01 0014 (1414 N Elm St) ~ l~ ~ Prepared By' Deborah Viera 3. SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUEST: A zomng change has been requested for approx,mately 0 41 acre located 150 feet north of the ~ntersect~on of Elm Street and Third Street, and commonly known as 1414 Elm Street, from Office (O) zoning d~stnct to General Retail (GR) zomng d~stnct The ex~st~ng use of the 2,700 square feet bu~ld,ng ,s a doctor office (See Enclosure 1) The anticipated use of the building ,s a hair styhst salon The proposed use w~ll require a m~mmum of 14 parking spaces, the s~te prowdes 20 parktng spaces All adjacent propedles are zoned office (See Enclosure 2), however, the proposed use is compabble w~th The Denton Plan, which [denbfies this site as a Downtown University Core Distnct area and encourages the m~x of res~denbal, office, and servmes uses In the past 18 months the C~ty of Denton has ~n~bated and approved three zomng cases (Z-99-0083, Z-99-084 and Z-01-0002) ~n the wc~mty of the subject s~te The three zoning cases have provided m~xed uses allowing residential, office, and retail uses COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS: The subJect site ~s located ~n the "Downtown Umversity Core Distr~ct" futu~re land use area Th~s area ~s intended to have a m~x of educational, res~denbal, retail, office, service, government, cultural and entertainment development It ~s a place where residents can live, work, learn, and play in the same neighborhood Staff finds the proposed zomng consistent w~th the ~ntent of the Comprehensive Plan SPECIAL INFORMATION: 1. Transportation A Trip generation The proposed retail uses would generate approximately 110 tnps per day Th~s ~s 70 more trips per day than the traffic that would be generated ~f the ex~stmg 2,700 square feet office building were used as an office building B Access The development will have access from Elm Street C Road Capacity Elm Street is idenbfied as a primary major artenal road by the Mob~lrty Plan Th~s road ~s designed to be a 3 lane one-way street w~thout parking, prowd~ng three lanes of through traffic As such, ~ts designed traffic capacity allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 13,900 trips per day Elm Street ~s currently constructed w~h 2 lanes w,thout parking There ~s not a traffic count available for th~s secbon of the road It ~s anticipated that the ex~stmg road capacity is sufficient to accommodate the proposed development D Pedestnan L~nkages Ex~sting s~dewalks along Elm Street are prowded Z-01-0014 (1414 N Elm St) ~I~ /~ Prepared By Deborah Vlera 4 2 Utilities Both samtary sewers and water are available and adequate capacity to service the proposed development exists 3 Signs As per the s~gn ordinance 4 Landscaping If the square footage of the ex~stmg building ~s ~ncreased 25 pement or more, the property w~ll have to comply w~th the Landscape Code 5 Lighting All new lighting on the property should be designed and maintained so as not to shine on or otherwise d~sturb surrounding res~denbal property or to sh~ne and proJect.upward to prevent the d~ffus~on ~nto the n~ght sky This rrequ~mment can be wnt[~'n ~nto the ordinance as a conditIon of approval 6 Environmental Quality Impacts No negabve environmental ~mpacts have been ~dentlfied PROPERTY HISTORY: January t4, 1969 - The subject property was placed ~n the Office (O) zomng d~strmt and land use classIfication by Ordinance 69-01 (see Enclosure 1) The subject property ~s platted PUBLIC NOTICE: Nobce of the zomng request was pubhshed ~n the Denton Record-Chronicle on June 2, 2001 F~fteen (15) property owners w~thin two hundred feet were ma~led legal notmes and e~ghty-flve (85) residents w~th~n five hundred feet were sent courtesy nobces ~nform~ng them of the request (see Enclosure 3) As of th~s wnt~ng, there have been s~x (6) responses m favor, and one (1) response ~n opposition of the zoning change request, representing 4 1% of the land area w~th~n 200 feet of the subject property (see Enclosure 4) No neighborhood meebng was held Z010014 (1414N ElmSt) Prepared By Del~orah Vlera ANALYSIS & RECCOMENDATION: The proposed retail uses of the ex~sttng bu~ldtng are consistent w~th The Denton Plan and w~ll prowde services to the nearby residents, therefore Staff recommends approval of Z-01-0014 w~ the following cond~bon 1 Any new hght~ng on the property should be designed and maintain so as not to sh~ne on or otherwise disturb, surrounding residential property or to sh~ne and project upward to prevent d~ffus~on ~nto the mght sky MOTION: l move to,recommend approval of Z-01-0014 with the following cond~bon 1 Any new hghbng on the property should be designed and maintain so as not to shine on or otherwise d~sturb, surrounding residential property or to sh~ne and project upward to prevent d~ffus~on ~nto the mght sky ALTERNATIVES: 1 Recommend approval as submitted 2 Recommend approval w~th condit~ons 3 Recommend demal 4 Postpone cons~derabon 5 Table item ENCLOSURES: 1 S~te Plan 2 Zomng Map 3 200' Property Owner Notification Map 4 Property Owner Responses Z-01-0014 (1414 N Elm St) ~ t ~ Prepared By~ DeBorah Vlera 6 Enclosure 2 I · = .. · ,;m !m. I1'---- ".~1'I I No Scale ZONING MAP Z-01-0014 (1414N EImSt) ~ ~ Prepared By' Deborah Vlera 8 Enclosure 3 mm · imll ,< 60~.i. LE{}E-eT---- ~. l ~ ? -.-.t~l~--'ql[~---!l[~,~~ .,~' I~ ' ~lltt ~ \\' IL m m ~ I ~, m , , No Scale NOTIFICATION MAP 200' Legal Notices sent via Certified Mall '15 500' Courtesy Notices sent wa 1st Class Mall 85 Number of responses to 200' Legal Not~ce · In Opposmbon · In Favor 6 · Neutral 0 · % In Opposition 4 1 Z-01-0014 (1414N Elm St) ~I~ ~,~ Prepared By Deborah Viera ENCLOSURE 4 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAR'rN Z-01-0014 The Planning and Zoning Commlsslon of the City of Denton will hold a public heanng on Wednesday. June 13, 2001, to consider rezonlng approximately 0 41 acre site located approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Elm Street and Third Street, commonly known as 1414 N Elm Street, from Office (O) zomng dls~t to General Retail (GR) zoning district (see map on backside) The purpose of the zonmg change Islfor retail/neighborhood sewtces The pubhc hearing will start at 6'00 p.m ~n the C~(y Councd Chambers of C~ty Hall located at 215 E Mc?nney Streef~ Denton, Texas Beca. use you own,pmperb/ wxth~n two hundred (200) feet of the suDsect property,, the Planning and Zon. rng Commission would like to hear how you feel about thrs zonlng change request and invttes you to attend the public headng Please, In order Sot your opinion to be taken Into account, return this form with your comments pdor to the date of the public heanng (This in no way prohibits you from attending and pa~cipating in the publtc hearing ) You may fax.it to the number located at the bottom, mall It to the address below, or drop E, off In-person Planning and Development Department 221 N. Elm s'r Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Deborah Vlera, Planner I The zoning process Includes two publ~o headngs designed to provide opportunit~es for ctl]zen involvement and comment. Prior to the public hesnngs, landowners wtthln two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commtsslon The Commission Is Informed of the percent of responses tn support and In opposition Second, the zoning petition is fomvarded to the C4ty Council for final acbon providing the Commission recommends approval Should the Commmslon recommend denial, the pet~boner may then appeal the request to the C~ty Councd If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then slx out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition ......--='""5~ Please circle one: (' In favor of request ~,) Neutral to request Opposed to request _ Co~menta. S,gnature PrintedName ~ /---. Mailing Address /'/I ~L6=~4J'- ,~- ~/~/; f_~-- City, State'ZIp ~AJ'7-Ow~J, 7"'~'- :2~ ~.o ~ Telephone Number- ~¢3 -~ ;~ Z.O - PhyslcalAddressofPropertywlthln 200 foet /~0 ~- I'~0~,'-- /9Z4~ '- lq-ti CITY OF DENTON, TP-J(AS crrY HALL WE~r - DENTON TEXAS 7620~ - 940 349 8350 · (F) 940 349 7707 NOTICE OF UBL]::C HEAR]::KI Z-01-0014 The Plannlng and Zoning Comr;nlsslon of the City of Denton will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, June 13, 2001, to conslder rezonlng approxlmately 0 41 acre site located approximately 150 feet north of the Intersection of Elm Street and Third Street, commonly known as 1414 N Elm Street, from Office (O) zoning district to General Retail (GR) zon. l~g~dlstrlct (see map on backside) The purpose of the zonln change is_for retail/neighborhood services ~.5~ The oublic hearid~ will start at 6'00 m In the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E McKinne Street;-Denton, Texas PB~cause you own property w~thin two hundred (200) feet of the Y subject property,, the Planning and Zon. l~g Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning change retluest and invites you to attend the ppbl/c hearing Please, In order$or your opinion to be taken Into account, return this form with your comments prior to the date of the public hearing (This In no way prohibits you from attending and participating In the public hearing ) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mall It to the address below, or drop It off In-person Planning and Developm~lt Department 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 7620'i Attn: Deborah Vlera, Planner I The zonlng process Includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunities for citizen Involvement and icomment Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zonlng request by way of this notice The first pubhc hearing Is held before the planning and Zoning Coromlsslon The Commlsslon is Informed of the percent of responses in support and In opposition Second, the zoning petition Is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval Should the Commission recommend denlal, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of t~e land area wlthln two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition Pleas~ circle one: Neutral to request C / In favor of request /) F~~] Physical Address of Property ~thln 200 fee; ~<:::~-~z ? ~ ~.,~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ~ C~TY HALL WEST~ · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940 349 8350 · (F) 940 349 7707 NOT'rCE OF PUBL:I:C HEAR:]:N6 Z-01-0014 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a pubhc hearing on Wednesday, June 13, 2001, to consider rezonlng apprexlmately 0 41 acre site located approximately 150 feet north of the Intersection of Elm Street and Thlrd Street. commonly known as 1414 N Elm Street, from Office (O) zonlng d~strlct to General Retail (GR) zonlng district (see map on backside) The purpose-of the zonlng change is for retall/rielghborhood services The public hearing will start at 6.00 p m In the C~ty Council Chambers of C~ty Hall located at 215 E McKInney Street, Denton, Texas BeceFse you own property within two hundred (200) feel of the subject property, the Planning and Zon)ng Commission would tike to hear how you feel about this zoning change request and Invites you to attend the public heanng Please, In order ;for your oplnlon to be taken Into account, return thls form with your comments prior to the date of the pubhc hearing (This in no way prohibits you from attending and participating In the public heanng ) You may fax It to the number located at the bottom, mall it to the address below, or drop it off In-person Planning and Development Department 22'1 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 7620'1 Attn: Deborah Viera, Planner I The zoning process Includes two public hearings designed to provide opportunlbes for citizen involvement and comment Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notified of the zoning request by way of this not~ce The first pubhc hearing Is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission The Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and In oppos;tlon Second, the zoning petit;on Is forwarded to the City Co~uncil for final action provld~ng the Commlsslon recommends approval Should the Commlsslon recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the C~ty Council If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition Please circle one. CornIn~v°r ~f reques~ments"" - -- - Neutral to request Opposed to request SP~nature ~/~ & ~ Matlmg Address ~,./~'~ /~ ...-)?~'~.../~,_u~,,?.' - Physical Address of Property within 200 feet / // "'t' CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS C~TY HALL WEST · DENTON, TEXAS 76201 · 940 349 8350 · (F) 940 349 7707 t2 NOT'J:¢E OF PUBL]:¢ HEAR3:NG, Z-01-0014 The Planning ~nd Zoning Commlselon of the Olty of Denton will hold a publlo hesring on Wednesday, ,June 13, 2001~ to conelder rezonlng approximately 0 41 ac~e site located approximately 150 feet north of the Intersection of Elm Street and Third Street, commonly known as 1414 N Elm Street, from Office (O) zoning district to General Retail (GR) zoning district (see map on backside) The purpose_of the zoning changelis for retail/neighborhood services _ The public hearing will start at 6 00 p m In the City Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E McKInney Street, Denton, Texas Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zon, ing Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zoning chsngelrequesf and invites you to attend the public heanng Please, In order Sot your opinion to be taken into account, return this form with your comments pnor to the date of the public hearing (This In no way prohibits you from attending and participating In the public hearing ) You may fax It to the number Iocate~] at the bottom, mall It to the address below, or drop It off In-person Planning and evelopment Department ~- -~r~ ' 221 N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 76201 Attn: Deborah Viers, Planner I The zoning process Includes two public heanngs designed to provide opportunities for clitzen Involvement and comment. Prior to the public hearings, landowners with.n two hundred (200) feet of the subject properly are notified of the zoning request by way of this notice The first publtc hearing held before the Planning and Zonlng Commlselon The Commission Is informed of the percent of responses in support and in opposition, Second, the zoning pe~on is forwarded to the City CounCil for final action providing the commission recommends approval Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the City Council If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then slx out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner oppo~ition. Please circle one: favor cf requ Neutral to request Opposed to request Comments: Printed Name: Mal,ng Address City, State Zip Telephone Number Physical Address of Property within 200 feet .i CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CiTY HALL WEST · DENTON. TEXAS 76201 · 940 349 8350 - (F) 940 349 7707 13 NOT'J:¢E OF PUBLTC HEAR :I G, Z-01-0014 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton will hold a public heanng on Wednesday, June 13, 2001, to consider rezoning approximately 0 41 acre site located approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Elm Street and Third Street, commonly known as 1414 N Elm Street, from Office (O) zoning district to General Retail (GR) zoning distn~ (see map on backside) The purpose'of the zoning change is for retail/neighborhood serylces . The public hearing will start at 6 00 p m In the City Councd Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E McKInney Street, Denton, Texas Because you own property within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zoqlng Commission would like to hear how you feel about this zonlng change request end lnwtes you to ettend the public l~eanng Please, ,n order,for your opinion to be taken Into account, return this form with your comments pnor to the date of the public hearing (This m no way prohibits you from attending and partlolpabng m the public hearing ) You may fax it to the number located at the bottom, mall it to the address below, or drop it off In-person Planning and Development Department ' 22t N. Elm ST Denton, Texas 78201 Attn: Deborah Vlera, Planner I The zoning process Includes two public hearings designed to prowde opportunities for-c~tizen involvement and comment. Prior to the public heatings, ta~:lownere w~thln two hundred (200) feet of the subject property ara notified of the zoning request by way of this notice The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Commission 'me Commission is informed of the percent of responses in support and in oppo..iitlon Second, the zc~mg pebtlon is forwarded to the City Council for final action providing the Commission recommends approval Should the Commission recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the C~y Counc41 If owners of more than twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the site submit written opposition, then six out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner opposition. Please circle one: ~'~n ~avo~ of request Opposed to request ~ , , e~ Neutral to request Comments: Printed Name: ' ~/~ <~¢~'~ f- C/'~' ~' ~C.-~ ~ /~ Mailing Address ~0 / ~),'~,~.~_~.t'e.~ ~L City, Stata Zip Oc~., I ~ Telephone Number ? ~ "-~ ~'r7 - ,2~ ~ ~ Physical Address of Property within 200 feet 1 Y I ~ ~.3 ~/~ ~ CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS crrY HALL WEST o DENTON. TEXAS 782Ol · 940 349 8350 · (F) 940 349 7707 14. NOT ¢E OF PUBLIC HEARING Z-01-0014 The Plannlng and Zoning CommLss~on of the C~ of Denton w~ll hold a public he~ng on Wedne~y, June 13, 2001. to ~ns~der rezonlng eppro~mately 0 41 a~e site Io~t~ approximately 150 feet no~ of ~e interse~on of Elm S~eet and ~l~ S~t, ~moniy known as 1414 N Elm Street, from ~ (O) zoning d~d~ ~ General Re~tl (QR) zon~ d~s~ct (s~ ~P on backside) ~e purpo~ of zom~ ~ange ~s f~ m~iF~igh~°°d The pubic h~dng will ~ et 6 00 p.m In ~ CI~ Counml Chambem of C~ Hall lo.ted at 215 McKInney S~eeL Denton, Te~s Be~u~ you own pmpe~ ~n ~o hund~d (2~) feet of subject pmpe~. ~e Planning and Zoqmg ~mml~ion would I~ke to hear how you ~el ab~ th~s ue~ ~d inv~ ~u to a~nd ~e public healing Please. m o~er,~ your oplnlon zoning change mq ........... ~. ...... ~n~ odor ~ ~e date of t~ pubhc ~anng (~ls m no ~ ~hlbfls you ~m ~endmg and pa~dpaang m ~e publm hea.ng ) You may f~ ~ ~ ' Y P ...... , ~.- .~ ~m~ below, or drop it off sn-pemon number I~teo at the DO.Om, ma. ,L LU u,~ .~-- ...... ~lan~ng ~Deve~ent DepaKment ~1 H. Elm ~ Denton. Te~s 7~01 A~= Deborah Vler~ Planner I ~e zomng pm~ss in~ud~ ~o public h~ngs d~igned ~ pro.de op~n~ for ~lvement and ~mmen[ Pdor to ~e pubic h~nngs, lando~em ~hin ~o hundred (200) ~et of ~e subject pm~ am not~ of ~e ~nlng r~ue~ by way of ~ nofl~ The flint pubh¢ heating held before ~e Planning and Zon~g ~m~on ~e ~mm~ss~on ~ t~o~ed of ~e pe~nt of responses In sup~ and in opposition ~, the ~mng ~t~ Is fo~rd~ to the C~ ~u~l final a~on pm~ding ~e ~mm~lon m~m~nds approval Sh~ld the Commission re~mmend denial, ~e pe~fioner ~Y ~en ap~al ~e request to ~e ~ Cou~l If ~nem of mom t~n ~en~ (20) per~nt of,~e ~nd a~ wi~in ~o hu~ (200) f~t of ~e site submit ~n opposEIon, ~en ~t of seven votes of ~e C~ Council are required to approve ~e zoning ~ange Thee fo~s a~ used to calculate ~e per~n~ge of ~ndo~ opposi~on C~ Ple~e circle one: Neural ~ ~u~t Oppos~ to requ~t ~OPDE~ON, T~S c~~ ' D~ON T~ 76201 - 9~ - [5. NOTT. CE OF PUBLIC HEARiN Z-01-0014 The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton wTII hold a publTc hearing on Wednesday, June 13, 2001, to c~ne~der rezoning approximately 0 41 acre site located ao;)m)amatelv 160 feet north .cf the ~nters~m_ Stree_t a~_~lrd~tre?_~.~ common~, known as~14_14 N Elm Sl]~ef~from omc~ (O)-zoning ~ ct tr~'~eral Retail (GR)Zonlng'~Tstrict (se~ J~ap bn back~lde~)-' =l~'-purpose of the zoning change is for retail/neighborhood serwces The public heating will start at 6'00 p m In the CRY Council Chambers of City Hall located at 215 E McKinney Street, Denton, Texas Because you own property ~thln ~vo hundred (200) feet of the subject property, the Planning and Zon~g Comrot$$1on would Ilks to hear how you fcc~ about th~s zonlng change request and lnvrtes you t~ attend the publlc heanng Please, m order for you~ opinion to be taken Into account, return this form wllh your comments prior to the date of the public heanng (Th~s In no way prohlbfts you froro attaltd#;g and partlcipatl~lg ~n the public headng ) You may lax it to the number located,at the bottom, mall It to the address below, or drop ~t off In-person Planning and Development Department 221 N Elm ST Denton, Texas 7'6201 Attn. Deborah Viera, Planner I The zoning process includes two public hearings designed to pmvlde opportunir~s for cttrzen involvement and comment Prior to the public hearings, landowners within two hundred (200) feet of the subject property are notrfied of the zoning request by way of this noflca The first public hearing is held before the Planning and Zoning Comm~esmn The Commission is informed of the percent of responses m support and In opposition Second, the zoning petition Is forwarded to the C~ty Council for final action provldlr~g the Commission recommends approval Should the Comm~skx~ recommend denial, the petitioner may then appeal the request to the CRy Council If owners of moee lhan twenty (20) percent of the land area within two hundred (200) feet of the s~te submit written opposE]on, then slx out of seven votes of the City Council are required to approve the zoning change These forms are used to calculate the percentage of landowner oppositmn PleaSe circle one: In favor of request Neutral to request ~__~_plx~sed to reques~ Comments: Mailing Address Telephone Number' Phys~l Address of ClTY OF DENTON, TEXAS ClTY HALL WEST - DENTON TEXAS 7e20~ · 9403498350 - ~)g403497707 ATTAC~E~IENT 2 ~e ul.d, mo~ Page 111 nts earh~r and the recommendataon, I we I Crouch 'rushing ~o Slxm.k m ~ppon of ~e ~amn Do 2 wc ~ ~s ~a~ 1~ ~tll o~ next ~, 2 yo~ 3 J~c~ ~ 3 ~Y v~ Myqu~Uon~swhy~s~s 4 ~ M~O~y It's b~ ~t.~ 4 smff-~n~ by ~ ~ ~ ~n ~e prop~ 5 ~nuz ~s I~ a~~ n~t ~ 5 o~ 6 ~ung ~ I ~ a S~ 6 MS ~ O~ ~cil ms~c~ s~ff 7 ~ ~LL~OnO ~ ? ~ ml~ ~s c~ ~ a ~t of ~o pro~ o~ 8 ~ ~oas~o~~ 8 ~ov okay ~dwhatwo~do~no~al 9 pr~ ~ J~ f~ my ~catmn? 19 ~ ~ ~ 10 Ms ~ ~y, a prop~ o~ or ~~~:~:~n ~~11 d~el~ ' I~~ h~ a p~bhc ~nd tr 13 ~ ~ I s~d ~w a hale 14 consld~ m~g a ~o~ndatlon to Ci~ Council 14 backed 15 con~mg ~ ~oning of approx~ma~ly 41 ac~ from 15 ~ in ~t a n~ ~ ~ pro~l~ s~ out as 16 Office zoning ~s~ot ~ ~1 R~ll ~nmg &s~t 16 smgl~f~ly ~ ~d ~ ~ eff~nzOn~ Office, 17 ~ pm~ COUrtly ~o~ as 1414 E~ S~ Is l~a~ 17 m so~ ca~ ~ ~ ~ Re~d._. $ d at ~t t~e, 18 approx~a~ly 150 f~t no~ of ~ in~llon of B~ 18 m 1969 w~ ~ ~ ~ ~t way, ~ ~ able to 19 S~t and ~d S~ R~fl and nm~borh~ ~ 19 mam~ ~0 ~ propos~ Ms V~ You're not ~ Vl~a 20 was ~a~ 21 MS ~TCLIF~ MS Vt~aisin~co 21 prop~d~for~officcandoncof~ 22 S~ didn't ~nt ~ make ~ ~p back ~m~t so I'm 22 wan~ ~ conv~ back ~ ~dcntml and ~ couldn't do 23 s~n&ng m ~ s~d ~s ~gnlng B~fo~ you ~s 23 ~at ~4 ~mg w~ ~w a pubhc h~ng to consld~ a ~onmg 24 o~ 25 ~at was lmUa~ by ~ CI~ of ~n ~ ~n~ 25 conv~ ~ an off~ ~ co~dn't do ~at ~auso ~ Page 110 Page 112 I approx~a~ly 0,41 acres from Offi~ to ~eral Re~ll I Md 1o~ ~e OfE~ ~s ~cau~ they were rcmd~tml 2 Rctad and ncl~borhood ~ ~ propo~ 2 And ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c~l Re~l, ~aln, tha waned 3 ~eg ts ~ exmtmg building on ~e subj~t 3 to corn ~ back m ~d~aal And b~au~ ~oy w~re 4 prope~y ~ exmtmg bufi&ng con.ms approx~a~ly 4 mn~ ~e ~n~ clmmfi~t~on, you couldn't do that and 5 2,700 squ~ fret and ts c~tly ugd ~ a doctor's 5 ~e o~y ~mng cI~on ~s a Plann~ ~velopm~t 6 offi~ ~o pro~ o~er des~os to haw ~11 u~s 6 ~at would allen to ~ able to ~ltch be~n ~o two 7 allow~ ~ th6 prope~, and under ~ c~t ~nmg of 7 ~at mz~t~ ~c ~r c~, wh~ ~oy 8 orris, ~tatl ~l~s ~ not allo~ ~ apphcant ~s 8 s~tc~ back ~ a ~d~ual ~ or want~ to sw~tch 9 tnt~ms~d -- or ~ propo~ o~er ~s m~d m 9 back ~ a ~ld~a~ ~, ~a ~[ly ca~t ~c~ 10 Mwng a h~ ~lon s~hst ug th~ buff&ag ~ ~ 10 a~tl~ ~s ~ ~cy '~ paying co~emml rates on 11 c~tly20p~g~a~6slt~ Remtlu~son 11 th~ut~Res ~well, Iw~tto~ltfor 12 ~s st~ wo~ld approx~a~ly n~ 14 spas 12 a ~t~ I ~'t ~t ~ pay ~og ~t~s And tha's 13 In ~ l~t 18 mon~, ~o Ct~ of ~ h~ 13 what ~ ~ &~ going to Cl~ Council and 14 tmtmted ~ sml~ ~mng ~gs m ~s p~tcul~ 14 Ct~ ~cfi lmRat~ ~c zoning changes And it was 15 ~ and ~1 ~ cags hav~ ~ approved W~ haw 15 ~lly, I ~, ~ on ~ Comp~mw PI~ that that 16 ~lved ~ le~ers m favor of t~s ~qu~st ~eY~ 16 ~ ~s ~ppo~ to ~ a ~ed-u~ ~ and it's intended 17 mclud~dmyo~pack~t I'll be happy to ad~ any 17 to allow for a vme~ of ~s And ~at ts what ~t tM 18 questtons ~at you ~t have 18 on~n~ ~ ~ ~H ~ ~o~cr on~ co~ng fo~d 19 MR MO~NO 5~st a hou~pmg cho~, If I 19 ~ ~d I ~h~ ~ aRiSe now ts ~at ~ pre~d~t 20 dt~'t a~dy do so, ~ pubhc h~ng Is op~ 20 h~ ~ gt m ~t ~ ~ would allow th~ u~s to 21 Co~ssion~, ~y q~sttons? I ~ no q~st~ons on ~e 21 v~ ~ o~ ~d ~d~tml and ~tch back and 22 qu~ Is -- 22 fo~, md ~at 23 MS ~TCUFF ~ Crouch ts h~ mp~nRng 24 ~ pro~ o~ ~s eyeing 24 MS ~ ~, ~Ron 35 Of ~g Cod~ of 25 Mg M~O O~y I do have a ~d from ~ 25 ~m~, w~ m ~ ~mg or~n~, ~lows C~ PLA~GA~ZO~GCO~SSION I 17 ,2001 Page 109 -Pag~ 112 CondenseltTM Page 113 Page 1 ! $ I CouocdtomsUtutozonmgcases Tbeydon'thav~to I MR CROUCH Vcrygood Thankyou 2 just,be appbed for by the propaiy owner or developer 2 MR. MOP, ENO Is there anyone else to speak m 3 Tho City Council can msh'uct staff to initiate a case 3 favor of this petRren9 Anyone else to speak m favor'~ 4 MB, MULROY And under what conditions would 4 Is there anyone here to speak In opposition to the $ they use that prere~aUve? 5 petition9 Anyone to spark m opposition? Seeing none, 6 MS aa'rcu~F ?bere's no conthUons hsted 6 ~buttal ~s waived Pubhc heanng is closed Staff, any 7 MR. MULROY NO conditions Well, it's just ~ f'mal ~marks? 8 unusualandthcre'snothmgagamsttheprejcctitsclfand $ MS RATCLIFF Yes, su' Iwouldhketonotc 9 it's pretty mutioo business I just hack to our process 0 and our procedure, m discretion, mthscnminata usc of 10 m comphancc with thc Denton Plan '!Clus proposed -- this 1 that discretion may be problematic in some other case and 11 area IS m the downtown university core district which 2 that's why I wanted a clarification And I'll talk more 12 e~our~es mixed-use Staff reconuncnds approval of this 13 latcrwlthtl~cattomcysaedLan'Y Thankyou /' 13 requcstvathtbeconthtlonofhghtlng As noted m your 14 MS aATCUFF YOU're welcome 14 packet oo page 4, any new lighting on thc property should 15 ~ Mom~o' comnussloncrs, any more questtous 1 $ be des~ ed and maintained so as not to slunc or otherwise 16 for staff? Mr Crouch, would you come forward and ~vc us 16 disturb surrounding residential property-or to shine and 17 your name and a basmess address for the record 17 project upward to prevent diffumo~gnto the night sky 18 MR. CROUCH Yes Mr Chairman and 18 MR. MOR£NO Thank you Mr Mu]roy },9 Comnusslonem, I'm Bob Crouch My business address is ~01 19 MR. MULROY Yeah I move to approve as 20 North Locust~ Denton, Texas, 76201 I am m tho real 20 subuntI~d ')1 cstalcbusiacss, as most of you know Havebccnthercfor 21 ',iS HOLT 'tecond 22 35 years I'm hc~ this eveamg repr~seatiog Dr 22 ~ MOR£NO we have a motion and a second on 23 Crolsant, the owner and Terry Ca'cea, tho prospective buyer 23 t~ floor to approve as subnutted Any discussion° Mr 24 of the propv-'rty located at 1414 North l~lm 24 25 Tbe buyer wtshes to convert the preseat 2,?00 21; ¥.R WILLIAMS Yes Prevlously, we'vctalkcd Page 114 Page 116 square foot office bmlding to a beauty shop, as has been 1 about n~-k~as these conditions more measurable Have wc 2 explained by staff The property is some 18,000 square 2 still co~ up with a hghting plan that's more measurable 3 feet ~ bmlding is some 2,700 square feet and In 3 than wl~t wc continue to usc and continue to bc unhappy 4 excellent condition Landscaping ts in place 'l~ie 4 1; spnnklar system is In place Has 20 parking places in 5 ~s RATCLIFF We're not anticipating any 6 place, marked It has an exit and an entry lane so that 6 ackhuonaI hghtmg to be added to the property because 7 the traffic situation is very, very good 7 there's aI~mdy hffhtmg in tho parking lot 8 I know most of you am probably aware of the 8 ~. s,',rYO~U~ NO, I think he means -- 9 different uses on North Elm, but I'll lust run through a 9 ~m. miICRHART We have not developed a 10 few of them to let you know they consist of, sturtmg at 10 hghung conchtion that says 'X' number of foot candles 11 Un,varsity Dave and going south, we have restaurants and 11 and wr a~ still lrymg to develop that standard 12 carpet shops and b~cycle shops and post offices and bock ' 12 ~m. W~LLtAStS ~hank you 13 stores We also have a dentist office, exlstm§ beauty 13 ~m. ~oa~o commissioners, any further 14 shops, pnntmg shops and cabinet shops, automotive r~ ~r 14 qu~suons~ Seeing none, vote on the hoard, please 15 and skating nnks and two churches, three churches, I 15 Motion l~SSes 6 0 1176 believe,from thereandtoS°thethere'SsquareqUlte a mixed-use of the prop~ Y 17 ~ubhc heanng and consider making a reco~on 18 The buyer Is quite prepared to make any 18 to City__on an amended ccoccpt plan f~aP~nned 19 necessary changes or alterations to the btulding as it 19 D~elopmtmt l'~g district ~ acre property ~o exists now to take care of the needs of the beauty shol :0 ~emny~oca~d no ~-'~,~aoch, ro~n_~ Il And, therefore, we arc respectfully subnuttmg the req~ ~'t 21 C~~ ~.~l~ and eastof Florence 22 to choose from the existing Office to Cranerel Retail ~.ny 22 Road, a~d~sco~lg~y known as ~ Ranch 25 Crouch? I don't believe we have any Thank you, s~ PLANNING A~D ZONING COMlVIISSION 18 ,, 2001 Page 113 - Page I 1 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENq'ON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FROM OFFICE (O) ZONING DLSTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO GENERAL RETAIL WITH CONDITIONS ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR APPKOXIMATELY 0 41 ACRE OF LAND COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1414 ELM STREET GENERALLY LOCATED 150 FEET NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF ELM STREET AND THIKD STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, OF THE NORTHSIDE ADDITION, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE A_ND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-01-0014) WHEREAS, the City of Denton lmtlated a change m zoning for 0 41 acre of land from Office (O) zomng district classification and use designanon to General Retail (GR) with conditions zomng district classification and use designation, and WHEREAS, on June 13, 2001, the pl.nnmg and Zoning Comnussmn concluded a public heanng as reqmred by law, after winch a motion to recommend approval of the requested change in zomng was passed, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 The zoning dlsmct classlficaUon and use designation ofthe 0 41 acre property descnbec1 as Lot 3, Block 1, of the Northslde Addition is changed from Office (O) zoning district classlfict~tlon and use designation to General Retail (GR) conchtloned zoning district classification and i~se designation subject to the following condmons Any new hghtlng shall be designed and maintained so as not to sinne on or disturb surrounding residential property or to shoe and project upward to prevent diffusion m to the night sky SECTION 2 The City's official zomng map is amended to show the change m zomng district classification SECTION 3 If any provision of tins ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court, such mvahchty shall not affect the validity of other provisions or applications, and to tlus end the prov~suons of fins ordinance are severable SECTION 4 Any person violating any prowslon oftla~s ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceechng $2,000 00 Each day that a prowslon of tins ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and dmtmct offense Page 1 of 2 19. ~ That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of ~ts passage, and the Caty Secretary ~s hereby darected to cause the capUon ofttus ordinance to be pubhshed twice m the Denton Record-Chromele, a daffy newspaper pubhshed m the C~ty of Denton, Texas, w~tban ten (10) days of the date of~ts passage PASSED AND APPROVED thas the day of ,2001 EULINEBROC~MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFERWALTEKS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBERT L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY Page2of2 21 AGENDA DATE' July 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT' Planning & Development 1 CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314 '~/"~ /.-4 SUBJECT Z-01-0023 - City of Denton Hold a public heanng and consider adoption of an ordinance amending Subsection 35-7(b)(3)b 1 of the Denton Code of Ordinances to ehmmate the mandatory period for refemng a zomng case from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council after a planning and zomng commmslon recommendation The Planning and Zomng Commission recommends approval (5-0) BACKGROUND Consideration of an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 35-7(b)(3)b 1 to eliminate the mandatory period for refemng a zoning case to City Council Currently, the Code requires that if the Plarmlng and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a zone change request, that such request is referred to City Council at their next available meeting, with the exception that it not be less than 20 days and not more than 60 days after the recommendation The subject language reqmnng a minimum and maximum number of days between an 1tern being heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission and being considered by City Council was added by Ordinance 99-029, which also added the 500' courtesy notices Removal of the time limits will allow staff more flexibility in moving cntmal or time sensitive items through the process This ability however should be used judiciously due to the time constrmnts for staff and the applicant in prepanng an agenda item for City Council that is acceptable and complete Notice was placed in the Denton Record Chronicle on June 30, 2001 No (0) responses have been received as of the writing of this staff report OPTIONS 1 Approve as submitted 2 Approve with conditions 3 Deny 4 Postpone consideration 5 Table item RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zomng Commxsslon recommends approval (5-0) of th~s zoning amendment ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE N/A PRIOR ACIIONfREVIEW The followxr~g 15 a chronology of Z-01-0023, commonly known as City of Denton Appheatlon Date - June 27, 2001 DRC Date(s) - N/A P&Z Date- July 11, 2001 FISCAL IN,FORMATION N/A ATTACHMENTS 1 Planmng and Zomng Comm~ssmn Report, July 11, 2001, Z-01-0023 Prepared By Development ReView IVl~ager ~Respectfully sub~, ~tt~d D~rector of Planning and Development Attachment 1 Agenda Number- Q1 0020 Agenda Item ~07 Date --07-11 01 CITY OF DENTON (Z-01-0023) PLANNING & ZONING STAFF REPORT Hold a public heanng and consider whether the Planning and Zoning Commission w;ll on its own motlo~ recommend to the C;ty Council that an ordinance be approved amending Subsecbonl$§-7(b)(3)b 1 of the Denton Code of Ordinances to ehmlnate the mandatory penod for mfemng a zoning case from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the C~ty Council after a planning and zoning ¢omm~ss;on recommendabon APPLICANT INFORMATION: Apphcant C~ty of Denton 221 North Elm Street Denton, Texas 76201 SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUEST: Cons;der a~endmg Subsection 3§-7(b)(3)b 1 (see enclosure #1) to ehmmate the mandatory penod for referring a zoning case to C~ty Council Currently, the Code requires that ~f the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of a zone change request, that such request ~s referred to C~ty Council at their next available meebng, w~th the exception that ~t not be less that~ 20 days and not more than 60 days after the recommendation COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS: One of thelpubhc ~nvolvement strategIes hsted in The Denton Plan states Provide t~mely and accurate ~nformatlon to members of boards and commissions to ~mpiove the quality of pubhc dec,sion-making (page 9 of The Denton Plan) Revising the Code as proposed w~ll not hinder staff from prowd~ng bmely and accurate informabon to C~ty Council SPECIAL INFORMATION: N/A PROPERTY HISTORY: February 2, 1999 - The subject language requ~nng a mlmmum and maximum number of days between an ~tem being heard by the Planmng and Zoning Commission and being considered by C;ty Councd was added by Ordinance 99-029 PUBLIC NOTICE: Notice of the zoning request was pubhshed m the Denton Record-Chronmle on Saturday, June 30, 2001 As of th;s writing, there have been no (0) responses ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: The Zomng Regulations, Chapter 3§, include a prows~on that requires a minimum and maximum number of days between an ~tem being heard by the Planmng and Zomng Commission and being considered by C~ty Councd Th~s provision ~s not required by state statutes, but ~s unique to our local regulations The removal of the time hm~ts wdl allow staff more flexibility in moving critical or time sensitive items through the process This ab~hty however should be used judiciously, as normally more time ~s necessary to place an ~tem on the City Council agenda, have an ordinance prepared by Legal, and receive the Planning and Zoning Commission m~nutes to place ~nto the backup There ~s also a requirement to advertise pubhc heanng ~tems before C~ty Council fifteen days pnor to the~meet~ng Therefore, the notice for such ~tems would have to placed ~n the paper prior to their rece~wng a recommendation at the Planmng and Zomng Commission In those ~nstances that ~tems are held over by the Planmng and Zoning Commission, the reduction of the normal ~process would lead to additional expense and duphcat~on of effort MOTION: I move to recommend approval of Z-01-0023 amending Subsection 35-7(b)(3)b 1 of the Denton Code of Ordinances to ehminate the mandatory per~od for referring a zoning case from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Councd after a planmng and zomng commission recommendation ALTERNATIVES: 6 Recommend approval as submitted 7 Recommend approval w;th conditions 8 Recommend demal 9 Postpone cons;derat~on 10 Table ~tem ENCLOSURES: 1 Current and Proposed Zomng Ordinance Language 2 Draft Ordinance 4 Enclosure1 Ex~st~ng Language Subsection 35-7(b)(3)b 1 - Action by the planning and zoning commission Recommendation of approval If the commission recommends approval of the requested zomng change, such request shall be referred to the council at their next available regular meebng, except that ~t shall be not less than twenty (20) days but not more than sixty (60) days after the commission meeting at which the recommendation was made Proposed Language Subsection 35-7(b)(3)b 1 - Action by the planmng and zoning commission Recommendatlon of approval If the commission recommends approval of the requested zomng change, such request shall be referred to the council ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION B$-TOo)(B)b 1 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, TO ELIMINATE THE MANDATORY TIME PERIOD FOR REFERRING A ZONING CASE FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL AFTER A PLANNING AND ZON-~G COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION, PROVIDING A SBVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-01-0023) WHEREAS, on July 11,2001, the Planmng and Zomng Comnnsmon on its own motlon~ffier concluding a public heanng as reqmred by law, recommended that Subsection 35-7Co)(3)b 1 of the Code of Ordinances be amended as hereinafter proxaded, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that all notices and public heanngs for ttus amendment have been conducted m the time and manner required by law, and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds this amendment to the City of Denton Comprehensive Zomg Ordinance is consistent vath the Comprehensive Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 Subsection 35-7(b)(3)b 1 of the Code of Ordinances of the City IS hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows 1 Recommendation of approval If the commission recommends approval of the requested zomng change, such request shall be referred to the council SECTION 2 If kny prowslon of this ordinance or the apphcation thereof to any person or clrcumstanco is held mvahd by any court, such invalidity shall not affect the vahdlty of other prowmons or apphcatlons, and to thru end the provmons of this ordinance are severable SECTION 3 Tbas ordinance shall become effective immediately from and after its passage and shall apply to all zoning cases pending w~th the City of Denton at the time of its passage PASSED AND APPROVED tbas the day of ,2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR Page 1 of 2 ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERBE~~~Y~ATTORNEYBY ~,,"7 Page 2 of 2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET l~at~ '7// AGENDA DATE: July 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT: Planmng & Development ~/ CM/DCM/ACM: Dave Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT (Z-01-0018) (2400 East Untverstty) Hold a public heanng and eonmder adoption of an ordmance rezonmg approximately 0 54 acres, commonly known as 2400 E Umverslty, from a Planned Development (PD-14) zomng d~stnct to a Commercml (C) zomng d~stnct Retail and commercml uses are proposed The Planning and Zomng Comm~smon recommends approval (5-0) BACKGROUND The apphcant has requested to rezone the property because the ex~stlng Planned Development (PD-14) zomng, hmlts the use to only a "drive-in grocery" The one use allowed ~n PD-14 is so restnctave, that it does not porm~t for other uses on the property Th~s Planned Development has created a hardship for the property owner ~n that other customary retml uses are not allowed } The apphcant is proposing to remodel the existing bmldlng by adding lease spaces for other retml and service uses not currently allowed The property ~s not platted > Eleven (11) property owners were notified of the zoning request No responses have been received OPTIONS 1 Approve as submitted 2 Approve w~th conditions 3 Deny 4 Postponel consideration 5 Table ~tem RECOMMENDATION The Planmng and Zomng Commiss~on recommends approval (5-0) of th~s zomng request ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE If approved by C~ty Council, the apphcant may fimsh all ~ntenor renovations PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology o£Z-01-0018, commonly known as 2400 East University Application Date - June 19, 2001 DRC Date(s) - June 28, 2001 P&Z Date - July 11, 2001 FISCAL INFORMATION Development ofth~s property will increase the assessed value of the city, county, and school d~smct It will require no short-term public ~mprovements that are the respons~bthty of the c~ty ATTACHMENTS 1 Planmng and Zoning Staff Report- July 11, 2001 2 Draft Ordinance Prepared By Mike Grace ' - - Planner I D~rector of Planning and Development 2 Attachment 1 Agenda Number- 01 0020 Agenda Item - ~ Date -07-11 01 24130 EAST UNIVERSITY (Z-131-131318) PLANNING & ZONING STAFF REPORT PURPOSE~ Hold a pubhc hearing and consider making a recommendation to City Council concerning the rezomng of approximately 0 54 acres commonly known as 2400 E University, from a Planned Development (PD-14) for a drive-in grocery only zomng dlsmct to a Commercial (C) zoning dlstrmt It is located on the south side of Umverslty, east of Nottingham Drive and west of Old North Road Retail and commercial uses are proposed LOCATION MAP APPLICANT INFORMATION: Applicant Mohammad Youms PO Box 830177 Richardson, Texas 75083 SUMMARY OF ZONING REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a Commercial (C) zoning district classification for 2400 East University This site is currently zoned Planned Development (PD-14), which only allows for a drive-thru grocery store The applicant as proposmg to incorporate addmonal retail and commercial uses into the existing square footage of the building No addatlonal changes or expansion to the exastlng building is proposed at this t~me The apphcant as not proposing to add any landscaping at this tame COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS The subject site is located m an "Existing Neighborhoods/Infili Compatabfl~ty" future land use area New development m this district should respond to existang development with compatible land uses, patterns and design standards The plan recommends that exastang neighborhoods within the city be wgorously protected and preserved The intent of existing zoning was to prowde retail services for the adjacent multa-famfly zomng However, the ordinance d~d not g~ve allowances for other retail uses The proposed additional retml servmes will prowde compatible land uses and patterns in the East Umverslty Drive area Staff finds the proposed zomng consistent with the intent of The Denton Plan SPECIAL. INFORMATION 1 Transportat,on A Trip generation No slgmficant trip generataon ~ncreases are expected B Access The development has access from Umvermy Drive C Road Capamty Unaversaty Drive is adentffied as a primary major arterial road by the 1998 Denton Moblhty Plan Thas road ~s designed to be a six (6) lane d~vided street without parking, provad~ng s~x (6) lanes of through traffic As such, its desagned traffic capamty allows for a tolerable traffic flow of up to 27,900 trips per day Umversaty Drive is currently constructed with two (2) lanes w~thout parking A traffic count on University Drive just west of Nottingham indicates a traffic flow of 8093 trips per day westbound and 8201 raps per day eastbound D Pedestrian Linkages Sidewalks along all public streets are reqmred at the t~me of platting 2 Utihtles Both sanitary sewers and water are available and adequate capacity to service the proposed development exists 3 Drainage and Topography 4 Any new development would be reqmred to design and construct a drainage system to c~ty standards 4. Signs As per the s~gn ordinance 5 Landscaping Th~s property will not have to comply w~th the Landscape Code, because the apphcant ~s not proposing to expand the gross floor area of the building, the parking lot area or the vehicular surface area and ~s therefore exempt 6 Open Space No open space ~s proposed 7 Lighting Light~ng is already in existence No additional hghtlng is proposed Any new hghbng on the property would be reqmred to be designed and maintained so as not to sh~ne on or otherwise d~sturb surrounding res~denbal property or to sh~ne and project upward to prevent the ddfus~on ~nto the mght sky Th~s requirement can be written ~nto the ordinance as a condition of approval 8 Environmental Quality Impacts No negattve environmental ~mpacts have been identified PROPERTY HISTORY: February 6, 1973 - The subject property was placed ~n the Planned Development (PD-14) zomng d~stnct and land use classfficatlon by Ordinance 73-1 (see Enclosure 3) The subject property ~s not platted and would only need to be platted ff ex~stmg structures are expanded or new structures built PUBLIC NOTICE: Notme of the zomng request was pubhshed ~n the Denton Record-Chromcle on June 30, 2001 Three (3) property owners w~thm two hundred feet were mmled legal not,ecs and eleven (11) residents w~th~n five hundred feet were sent courtesy not,ecs mform~ng them of the request As of this writing, there have been no responses ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION: As indicated above, the s~te IS located ~n an "Ex~st~ng Ne~ghborhoods/Infill Compat~bihty" area The proposed zonmg and land uses are compattble w~th the surrounding area and The Denton Plan The existing zoning, Planned Development (PD-14), only allows a drive-in grocery In order for the apphcant to incorporate addmonal retail and commercml uses, a zoning change is reqmred MOTION I move to recommend approval of Z-01-0018 ALTERNATIVES: 6 Recommend approval as submitted 7 Recommend approval w~th conditions 8 Recommend demal 9 Postpone conmdoratxon 10 Table item ENCLOSURES: 1 Zoning Map 2 200' & 500' Property Owner Notfficatlon Map 3 S~te photos 4 Ordinance 73-1 Enclosure1 ZONING MAP Enclosure 2 200' Legal Notices sent wa Certified Marl 03 500' Courtesy Notices sent via l~t Class Marl 11 Number of responses to 200' Legal Nohce · In Opposition 0 · In Favor 0 · Neutral 0 Percent of land w~thm 200' ~n opposition 0.00 % Enclosure 3 Adjacent property to the east (Village East Apmts ) 2400 East University Drive (Site) AdJacent property to the west (Vacant) 9 ENCLOSURE 4 NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OP T~E CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AS SAME WAS ADOPTED AS AN APPENDIX TO T}LECODE OF ORDINANCES OF / T~E CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BY ORDINANCE NO 69-1, AND AS SAID MAP APPLIES TO 23,940 SQUARE FEET OF LAND, AS SHOWN THIS DATE ON THE OFFICIAL TAX MAp OF T~E CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND MORE PARTICU- LARLY D~SCRIBED THE~IN; AND DECLARING AN EFPECTIVH DATE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,' HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION I. That the Zoning Map of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted January 14, 1969, as an Appendix to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, under provisions of Ordinance 69-1, be, ard the same is hereby amended as follows All the hereinafter described property is hereby removed from the "SF-7" Single Family District as shown on said Zoning Map, and all provisions of Ordinance No 69-1, adopted the 14th day of January, 1969, as amended, shall hereafter apply to said property as "PD" Planned. Development District in the same manner as other property locate4 in the "PD" Planned Development District accord- ing to and subject to the condition and requirement that said pro- perty hereinafter shall be restricted in its use to the operation of a drive-in grocery, and es applicable to the plat attached hereto, which plat is made e part hereof for all purposes, and which pro- perty is described as follows, to-wit All that certain lot, tract or parcel of land situated in the W Lloyd Survey, Abstract No. 773, Denton County, Texas, and being part of a certain 19.839 acre tract conveyed by William J Miller to Charles D. Adams on October 13, 1972 as recorded in Volume 651, Page 509 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described as follows. , BEGINNING at the most easterly northeast corner of said 19.839 acre tract at a steel pin said point also being in the south right of way line Of State Highway 380, THENCE south 1" 35" west 140.0 feet to a steel pin set for corner, THENCE north 78" 44' west 181 8 feet to a steel pin set for corner said point being in the east right of way line of proposed North- crest Street; TRANCE north 10° 48' east with the east right of way line of pro- ~osed Northcrest Street 140.0 feet to a steel pin set for corner said point being in the north line of said 19.839 acre tract and also being in the south right of way line of State Highway 380, THENCE southeasterly with a 1 526° curve to the right and also with the south right of way line of State Highway 380 160 2 feet to the place of beginning and containing 23,940 square feet of land, more or less. and being the same property shown on the attached plat. T',a m~ors of th~ land described in eonslderatlon of the grantlng by the City Council of thLs zonlng classifloation on the said property, do he~eb% b~nd themselves, their successors, h~irs, e sourers, administrators and assigns to fully comply with all of the above described terms and condit%ons for the usc of said land as long as thl~ ordinance shall rcmaln in select SECTION II.. That the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby finds that such Planned Development District is in accordance with a comprehensive plan for the purpose of promoting the general wel- fare of the City of Denton, Texas, and with reasonable consideration among other th~ngs, for the charaoter of the land and for its pecu- liar suitability and uses. SECTION III. That this ordinanoe shall be in full force and effect immedi- ately after its passage and approval, the required public hearings having heretofore been held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Clty CoUncil of the City of Denton, Texas, after giving due notice thereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this the 6th day of February, A. D. 1973 BILL NEU, MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ATTEST. BROOKS HOLT, CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM W. RALPH MANN, 'CITY 'ATTOP~NEY CITY OF DENTON, T~XAS ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A ZONING CHANGE FOR 2400 E UNIVERSITY DRIVE LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD-14) ZONING DISTRICT, TO CHANGE TO A COMMERCIAL (C) DISTRICT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BEING LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LrN1VERSITY, EAST OF NOTTINGHAM DRIVE AND WEST OF OLD NORTH ROAD, PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (Z-01-0018) WHEREAS, Mohammad Youms lmtlated a change in zomng for 2400 E Umvers~ty from Planned Development (PD-14) zoning chstnct classification and use demgnaUon to a Cornrn~t~cial (C) zomng district clasmficat~on and use demgnatlon, and WHEREAS, on July 1 I, 2001, the Planning and Zoning Comrmsmon concluded a pubhc heanng as requnred by law and recommended approval of the requested change m zoning, and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning is consistent w~th the Comprehenmve Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SECTION 1 The zoning dmtnct classification and use demgnatlon of 2400 E Urffverslty Drive described m the legal description attached hereto and incorporated hereto as Extubit A m changed from Planned Development (PD-14) zoning chstnct classification and use demgnamon to Commercml (C) zomng ~hstnct clasmficatlon and use designation under the comprehermve zoning ordinance of the C~ty of Denton, Texas SECTION 2 The City's offimal zomng map is amended to show the change m zoning district clasmficat~on SECTION 3 If any prommon oftbas ordinance or the appheaUon thereof to an3 person or circumstance as held mvahd by any court, such mvahdlty shall not affect the vahd~y of other provisions or appheat~ons, and to this end the prowmons of this ordinance are severable SECTION 4 Any person violating any prowmon oftbas ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000 00 Each day that a provision ofth~s ordmance is vmlated shall constitute a separate and distract offense SECTION 5 That tins ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of Page 1 of 2 ~ts passage, and the Clty Secretary ~s hereby d~reeted to cause the capUon oft}us ordinance to be pubhshed twice m the Denton Record-Chromcle, a dmly newspaper pubhdaed m the C~ty of Denton, Texas, w~than ten (10) days of the date of~ts passage PASSED AND APPROVED th~s the day of ,2000 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM HERB~Y, CITY ATTORNEY BY "~ Page 2 of 2 3 EXHIBIT A [ 311 02830 BSZNG a 0.5466 acre tract of lend eL~uated /n the W ~ ~st~act NO 773, D~n~on cowry, T~s, ~d ~ng par~ of a called · w 8~9 ac~e ~ract o~ l~d conveyed ~ W~ll~= ~ Miller to Charles D ~o~1~ Den on Co~y, Texas, ~d ~Lng ~ par~i~lar~y described BEgZ~ING a~ a 1/2e iron ~d found ~or cormer ~ the sou~h right-of-way l~ne of U S H~g~way No. 380 {Ecs= U~rs~=y Dr~ve, ~ Vari~Ie W~dth conveyed to Denton V~Llage East ~art~nts ~ deed taco=dad in Count Clerk~s F~le No 9~-068469~ T~CB 8 Ol deg 35 ~n 00 sec W, along ~ westerly line of ~aid Denton Village Ecs= ~artmen=e =~ct of l~d, a distance of 140 O0 feet ~n Volume 2695, 9age 465, Deed R~or~s, ~nt~ County, Texas; ~ N ~8 de~ 44 ~ 00 eec W, ~on~ a ~herly &~ne of ~aid a 1/2" iron rod ~ound ~or Ranch Vista Developmen= ~ , a dis=ance of 140 00 fee~ to a 1/2" ~ron rod found for co=net ~n the souuh r~ght of ~y line o~ said U S H~ghwa~ 380, and,~in8 =he mos~ northerly no~wes~ ocher o~ sa~d ~oh vista Deve~men~ Co., ~d also ~ o= a non-~gen~ cu~e ~o o~ 3042 25 feet and a chord w~ioh bea=s S 78 deg Ol m~n 05 aec dish.ce Of 1S9,40 ~S~ sou=heas=erly, along ~he sou~h rl~h~-of-wa~ 1Lne of ~gnwa~ 380 and &long GeLd cu~e, an ~c ~e=~ce of 159 42 fee= E~hibit "A' ' ~age 1 G F No 9902724gP Form No 020 I I~ I I tl~lll lift .... AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE July 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT Legal Department CM/DCM/ACM Herbert L Pronty, City Attorney SUBJECT: Hold a public hcanng and consider and adopt an ordinance establishing maximum permitted rates and charges that TXU Gas Dmtnbutlon may assess residential and commemlal customers in the City of Denton, approving rates for industrial customers in the City of Denton established by contract between TXU Gas Distribution and such industrial customers, adopting declarations and tindmgs related to rates and charges assessed to residential, commercial and industrial customers in the City of Denton, repealing Ordinance No 99-059, providing a severabthty clause, and providing an effective date PREVIOUS ACTIONS. On February 26, 2001, TXU Gas Distribution (TXU) filed an appllcatmn to change rates m the Northwest Metro Mid-Cities Distribution System (System) composed of 40 North Central Texas cities including the City of Denton TXU sought rates to be effective beginning March 23, 2001 The initial filing proposed an overall annual revenue increase of $10 16 mllhon or a 5 1% annual increase with the average residential increase being about $1 50 per month The increase for Denton was greater Under the lmtlal filing, Denton would have received an annual increase or $1,054,474 or a 7 52% annual increase The increase would have fallen heawly on residential customers with about $691,591 being allocated to residential customers There was also a substantial percentage increase for industrial customers On March 6, 2001, the City Council passed Resolution No 2001-010 suspending the effective date of the rate increase for 90 days to June 21, 2001, authonmng the C~ty to join the Steenng Committee of the Northwest Metro Mid-Cities Distribution System (Steenng Committee) and authorizing the Steenng Committee to hire rate case consultants and legal counsel to review TXU's rate change apphcatlon The City Council also authorized the City Manager to hire Diversified Utlhty Consultants, Inc (DUCI) to review the Steenng Committee's consultants' findings with respect to the City of Denton service area The hmng of DUCI almost immediately prod dlwdends since they quickly uncovered a major error in TXU's calculation of federal income tax expense which reduced TXU's annual revenue requirement from $10,156,809 to $7,538,605 and reduced the annual increase from 5 09% to 3 69% system wide The error also reduced the annual revenue requirements in the Denton service area by nearly $200,000 from an additional annual revenue reqmrement of $1,054,474 to $858,466 It also reduced the projected annual increase from 7 52% to 6 12% As a result of this error, TXU refiled 1ts rate change application on April 3, 2001 A copy of that filing is attached as Exhibit A On May 16, 2001, the Steenng Committee's rate consultants' report on TXU's application to change rates was submitted It was subsequently discussed at a meeting of the Steenng Committee on May 24 in the C~ty Attorney's office ~n Arhngton A copy of the Steenng Committee's consultants' report ~s attached as Exhibit B The consultants recommended reducing TXU's ~ncreased annual revenues from $7 4 mflhon to $3 6 mflhon Under the consultants' recommendation, the residential increase went from about $4 mflhon to $1 3 mflhon The commercial increase from $1 7 to $400,000 and the industnal actually increased from $1 7 million to $1 9 mflhon in annual revenues The effect of the increase vaned greatly among the 40 c~t~es Some of the cities received decreases while other received increases The C~ty of Denton and the City of Carrollton and some other c~tles received larger increases Denton's increase was actually about 6 98% or about 2 95 times the System average of 2 37% Under the Steenng Committee's consultants' recommendation, Denton citizens' gas rates would increase by $625,089 annually for an overall 6 98% annual Increase The ~nerease is allocated among the customer classes as follows residential ($439,706 or 8 34% annual increase), commercial ($47,928 or 1 52% annual increase), and ~ndustnal ($164,875 or 43 49% annual ~nerease) Service charges would decrease by $27,420 The reason for th~s d~spanty was explmned by the Steenng Committee's consultants Many of the smaller c~tles in the System had generally accepted TXU's previous rate increases w~thout hmng consultants As a result, they had higher rates to begin w~th whereas c~t~es like Denton--who had w~sely hired rate consultants---were able to get the company to agree to lower rates Another factor is that, generally speakmg, in System-w~de filings, the larger, more rapidly growing c~ties may end up subs~dlzlng smaller eommumt~es Rate factors may also differ from c~ty to c~ty Due to what we considered a substantial increase of approximately 43% ~n Denton's gas rates for industrial customers, Dan Lawtnn of DUCI, in reviewing the Steenng Committee's report and recommendation, suggested that the C~ty--slnce it only has regulatory jurisdiction m the gas rate case over TXU's operational costs--remove the gas cost from the rate case and the industrial rates The mdustnal rates would be set through contractual negotiations between TXU and tts industrial customers At your June 26, 2001 work session, you gave staff d~rectlon to (1) accept the settlement that TXU and the System have negotiated, which ~s approximately 70% of their requested refiled rate increase and (2) remove the industrial rates and the gas cost from your rate approval This is cons~stant wtth Dan's recommendation of remowng the industrial customer annual increase from the rate request and letting TXU negotiate this d~rectly w~th the mdustnal customers A copy of Dan's recommendation is attached as Exhibit C RATE ORDINANCE. We have prepared a Gas Rate Ordinance for your conslderat~on that comphes with the directions g~ven to us in your June 26 work session The ordinance is patterned after a similar ordinance the C~ty of Fort Worth passed m the fall of last year which granted TXU a rate increase but removed the andustnal rates from the rate request The ordinance does the following things 1 It grants an overall merease of approximately 70% of what TXTI asked for m its refiled gas rates Th~s would amount system wide to a $2,511,718 annual increase of the residential- class customers and a $1,034,950 lnerease for the commercial-class customers, leawng the industrial-class customer out of any rate approval In Denton, it would mean an annual increase Page 2 on the residential side of approximately $372,939 or 18 89% and on the commemlal side, $21,370 or 2 43% These figures in the Denton system do not include gas costs They include only operational costs which magnifies the impact of the increase, especially on the residential customers Including gas costs would reduce the overall residential and commercial increase to less than 5% The overall rates authonzed by the ordinance do not include gas costs We have taken gas costs out of the ordinance because of the City's lack of control over these costs Much are estabhshed by market condmons This is all controlled through a gas adjustment clause which will vary with gas costs on a month-to-month bas~s according to the cost of natural gas 2 The ordinance also prowdes for a gas adjustment clause, a weather normahzat~on adjustment for the months of October through May, a tax adjustment clause and vinous miscellaneous provmwns including reconnect and disconnect charges and other miscellaneous revenues These clauses are uncontroverslal They are included within our current rates and I believe they have been accepted by both the consultants for the Northwest Metro Mid-Cities Distribution System and DUCI 3 The ordinance reqmres--m accordance with the Public Utility Code~for TXU to reimburse both the System and the City of Denton's rate case expenses The reasonable cost of these expenses are reimbursable to the cities an accordance w~th Section 103 022(a) of the Texas Utility Code In the City of Denton's case, the cost of DUCI's services will be $12,500 Also, an accordance with state laws and regulations, TXU Gas may recover the cost of this reimbursement to the System and the City of Denton through a surcharge to TXU's gas IfTXU decides to recover these costs fi.om its customers, the ordinance requires TXU Gas to spread the surcharge over a six-month nominal recovery period 4 The new rates will be effective beginning with consumption on and after July 21st of this year OPTIONS: 1 Approve the rate Increase as refiled by TXU (Tlus is not recommended ) 2 Approve an ~ncrease m rates as negotiated by the System consultants and as recommended by DUCI (Th~s ~s the recommended option ) 3 Disapprove any increase requested by TXU 4 Approve the mcrease per paragraph 2 above with any changes required by the City Council Staff recommends approval of Option 2 wluch is a combination of the increase in rates as negotiated by the System consultants w~th TXU and with the changes as recommended by DUCI We believe this is probably the best option for the City Council It will probably not result m an appeal by TXU Gas to the Rmlroad Commission By removing the gas costs and the ~ndustnal rates from your ordinance approval, you have taken out of your rate approval the Page 3 ~ndustnal rates fi.om your ordinance approval, you have taken out of your rate approval the s~gmficant increase ~n tndustnal rates and the gas or commodity costs which you have no control over and which is regulated by the Rmkoad Commission Additional lnformatmn concermng the appllcatmn for change m rates w~ll be presented ~n the status report Your optmns not only include approval or denial of the negotiated settlement by the Steenng Committee consultants with the changes as recommended by DUCI, but any changes m the rate design you may deem proper FISCAL IMPACT: Th~s rate ~ncrease w~ll have a fiscal impact on all residential and commercial gas customers within the City of Denton The ~mpact on ~ndustnal customers w~ll depend on rates negotiated d~rectly with TXU The C~ty wall derive some small benefit fi.om the rate ~ncrease since any such rate increase wall tend to increase the TXU Gas fi'anch~se fee base and result in an overall higher franchise fee payments to the City Respectfully submitted, Herb Prouty / C~ty Attorney Page 4 TXU TXU Business Services Autry L Warren Dallas TX 75201 3471 Tel 214 812 3863 APR - 4 20O: Apnl 2, 2001 CITY OF DENTON LEGAL DEPT Honorable Mayor Euhne Brock City of Denton 215 E McKanney Denton, Texas 76201 Re Northwest Metro/Mid C~tles Distribution System Rate Case Fdlng - Correctton of Error in Proposed Rates Dear Mayor Brock Enclosed are revtsed pages for TXU Gas Dmtnbunon's Northwest MetrofM~d Cities Rate Fdmg Package Tanffs and Cost of Sernce Schedules, winch reflect the correctmn of an error m the calculation of Federal Income Tax expense at proposed rates The error can be found on Schedule G-7, page 1 line 4 column d, of the filing package Tlus error was caused by a component of the spreadsheet that Ed not update correctly The ongmal filing overstated the FIT expenses by $2,647,590 and the proposed revenue reqmrement by $2,798,210 Tl'ns correctmn lowers the requested increase m the Northwest Metrof!Vhd Crees Dmtnbulaon System to $7,358,598, winch represents a total system increase of 3 69% The attached revised schedules and tariffs only reflect tins change and do not reflect any change m TXU Gas Dmtnbutmn's methodology If your city has accepted the Favored Natron offer, your respecnve city rates will be adjusted accordingly In adchtlon, TXU Gas Dlstnbutlon has enclosed a report showing the proposed increase/decrease by e~ty reflecting the rewsed numbers Smcerely, Enclosures Receipt Acknowledged by Date - -~'~--~ i ~O(~ / ~/ 6 Page I of 1 4/2/01 NORTHWEST METRO / MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Revenue Increase / (Decrease) by C~ty Increase / (Decrease) Line C~[~ Name Residential Commercial Industrial Serv Chr,~ Amount Percent I Addison $54331 $115358 $9645 ($1 978) $177357 389% 2 Argyle (782) 233 $0 498 (50) 0 02% 3 Arhngton 607 548 171 451 $210 916 (36 097) 953 818 2 77% 4 Aubrey (12 497) (149) $0 (1050) (13697) 544% 5 Bedford 103 330 19 291 $15 854 (3 948) 134 527 2 61% 6 Carrolllon 783 498 251 355 $298 867 (17 849) I 315 871 7 05% 7 Colleyv~lle 4 426 3 085 $0 (3 743) 3 768 0 07% 8 Coppall (15,266) (4 076) $0 (8 359) (25 701) 0 37% g Copper Canyon 31 0 $0 (24) 7 0 06% 10 Connth (142677) (7736) $10807 (996) (140601) 699% 11 Cross Roads (274) 181 $0 (2) (95) 1 78% 12 Dalworthlngton Gardens 2 656 1 036 $0 (361) 3 530 0 55% 13 Denton 575 214 89 187 $221 457 (27 392) 858 466 6 12% 14 Double Oak 866 28 $0 (206} 687 0 51% 15 Euless 109 101 19 179 $37 508 (4 242) 161 546 3 63% 16 Farmers Branch 262 568 104 498 $I 70 769 (5 612) 532 322 6 85% 17 Flower Mound 110663 3597 $42199 (12813) 143645 I 45% 18 Grapevine 155 979 63 861 $65 145 (7 055) 277 930 3 21% 19 H~¢l~ory Creek 1,784 247 $0 (482) 1 550 0 60% 20 Highland V~llago 27 325 385 $0 (2 827) 25 084 0 91% 21 Hurst 147 777 18 596 $21 647 1 997 190 316 3 43% 22 I rwng 908 387 707 006 $321 678 11 359 I 946 430 6 27% 23 Justin (12,136) 3,023 $0 (286) (9 399) 3 10% 24 Kaller 99,384 3 309 $9 859 (6 968) 105 884 2 15% 25 Krum 11,475 2 214 $0 1 079 14,769 4 92% 26 Lake Dallas 10 098 (1 0g0) $0 391 9 398 1 28% 27 Law~sville 32775 (9,321) $141,808 (14088) 151 172 1 42% 28 Lincoln Perk (11 666) (487} $0 83 (12,000) 25 95% 29 Mansfield 85 549 13 875 $59,784 (4 580) 154,628 4 86% 30 Marahall Creek 6,464 225 $0 162 6 852 22 53% 31 Northlake 0 0 $0 2 2 8 67% 32 Pantego 9,540 3 000 $4,057 (615) 15 982 2 87% 33 Pilot Point (29,282} 2 536 $0 165 (26 581) 4 16% 34 Ponder 4,278 3 503 $3,411 239 11,431 7 97% 35 Roanoke 32 082 14 238 $0 809 47,129 17 05% 36 $anger (23,257) (6 706) $0 1 757 (28 206) -4 31% 37 Shady Shores (18,858) (156) $0 (186) (17,200) 7 63% 38 $outhla~e (11,343) 4 998 $6,741 (5 602) (5,206) -0 08% 39 Trophy Club 9,787 1 $0 (756) g,032 1 80% 40 Westlake 1 635 I 147 $0 (119) 2664 I 18% 41 Other 194 181 87 829 $103 202 (3 367) 391~845 4 96% 42 Total Revenue $4 074 9g0 $1,679 052 $1 755 353 ($150 790) $7,358 605 3 69% Page 1 of 1 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 4/2/01 REVISION INDEX TARIFF FOR GAS SERVICE Rate Schedule No 4101 Residential Service 4102 Commercial Service 4103 Industrial Sales 4104 Industrial Transportation COST OF SERVICE SCHEDULES SECTION I OVERALL COST OF SERVICE SUMMARY A Cost of Service Study A-1 Overall Cost of Service A-2 Net Operating Income SECTION I1' HISTORIC TEST YEAR DATA Schedule B Rate Base B Total Rate Base Schedule E Other Rate Base Itama E Summary of Other Rate Base Items E-8 Cash Working Capital Schedule G Dmtribut,on System Expense Data G-7 Test Year FIT and Requested FIT G-8 Taxes Other than Income Taxes Schedule I Return on Invested Capital I-1 Summary of Return SECTION III RATE DESIGN Schedule K Class Cost of Service Analys,s K-1 Rate of Return K-2 AI]ocatlon of Rate Base to Proposed Rate Classes K-4 Allocation of Revenue Deductions to Proposed Rate Classes K-6 Umt Cost Analys~s K-7 AI]ocat;on Factors Schedule L Rate Design L-1 Revenue Summary L-2 Revenue Summary by City L-4 Summary Proof of Revenue at Proposed Rates L-5 Proposed Rate Calculation 8 Tariff for Gas Service TXU Gas D~str~but~on RATE SCHEDULE NO 4101 APPLICABLE TO NW Metro/M~d Clbes D~str~butmn ISSUE DATE 04/02/01 System EARLIEST EFFECTIVE DATE 03/23/01 PAGE I OF 1 RESIDENTIAL SERVICE Monthly Rate Subject to applicable adjustments, the following rates are the maximum applicable to residential consumers per meter per month or for any part of a month for which gas service ~s available at the same location Customer Charge $ 8 0000 All Consumption @ 5 9430 Per Mcf If the service penod ~s less than 25 days in a month the customer charge is $ 2857 times the number of days service If the consumption contains a port,on of an Mcr, a prorata portion of the per Mcr charge will be made Bills are due and payable when rendered and must be pa~d w~thm fifteen days from monthly bdlmg date APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES/RIDER~ Rata Adjustment Provlalone 4108-1 Gas Cost Adjustment 4108-2 Tax Adjustment 4108-3 Weather Normalization Adjustment Miscellaneous/Service Charges 9001 Connection Charge 9002 Read for Change Charge 9003 Returned Check Charges 9004 Delinquent Nctihcat~on Charge 9005 Main Line Extension Rate 9006 Excess Flow Valve Charge Surcharges 4106 Sumharge Rider NW Metro/Mid Cities Distribution System - Page 4 9 Tariff for Gas Servme TXU Gas D~str~butmn RATE SCHEDULE NO 4102 APPLICABLE TO NW Metro/Mfd Cfhes D~str~but~on ISSUE DATE 04/02/01 System EARLIEST EFFECTIVE DATE 03/23/01 PAGE 1 OF 1 COMMERCIAL SERVICE Monthly Rate Customer Charge $ 14 0000 First 20 Mcf @ 6 3340 Per Mcf Next 30 Mcr @ 6 0340 Per Mcf Over 50 Mcr @ 5 8840 Per Mcf If the service per~od ~s less than 28 days ~n a month the customer charge ~s $ 5000 t~mes the number of days service If the consumphon contains a portion of an Mcr, a prorata pod~on of the per Mcr charge w~ll be made B~lls are due and payable when rendered and must be paid within fifteen days from monthly b~llmg date APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES/RIDERS Rate AdJuatment Provisions 4108-1 Gas Cost Adjustment 4108-2 Tax Adjustment 4108-3 Weather Normalization Adjustment Miscellaneous/Service Charges 9001 Connection Charge 9002 Read for Change Charge 9003 Returned Check Charges 9004 Delinquent Not~flcatlon Charge 9005 Ma~n Line Extension Rate 9006 Excess Flow Valve Charge 9007 Certain Stand-By Gas Generators Surcharges 4106 Surcharge Rider NW Metro/Mid Cities Distribution System - Page 5 I() Tariff for Gas Service TXU Gas D~str~butmn RATE SCHEDULE NO 4103 APPLICABLE TO NW Metro/M~d C~hes Distribution ISSUE DATE 04/02/01 System EARLIEST EFFECTIVE DATE 03/23/01 PAGE I OF 1 INDUSTRIAL SALES Monthly Rates Industrial Rates-N ~s hereby amended and revised as follows Subject to Company's I~mltat~ons on the ava~lab~hty of each rate, Customer shall receive servme under ~ts choice of one of the following rates ~n accordance with the rate selected by Customer as prowded ~n the contract RATE 1 F~rst 125 Mcf or less t $ 470 870 All over 125 Mcf @ I $ 3 676 per Mcr RATE 2 First 600 Mcf or less I $ 2,106 140 All over 600 Mcf @ I $ 3 336 per Mcf RATE 3 F~rst I 1,250 Mcf or less $ 4,067 100 All over I 1,250 Mcf @ $ 3 197 per Mcf In all other respects, Industrial Rates-N shall remain ~n effect as hied w~th the Cities ~n the NW Metro/M~d Cities DIstnbut~on System 100% of the ~ncrease in ~ndustnal margin ~s to accrue to the benefit of TXU Gas Distnbubon APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES/RIDERS Rate Adjustment Provisions 4108-2 Tax Adjustment Miscellaneous Service Charges 9005 Ma~n L~ne Extension Rate Surcharges 4106 Surcharge Rider NW Metro/Mid Cities Distribution System - Page 6 Tariff for Gas Service TXU Gas D~str~buhon RATE S~HEDULE NO 4104 APPLICABLE TO NW Metro/Mid Cihes D~str~but~on ISSUE DATE 04/02/01 System EARLIEST EFFECTIVE DATE 03/23/01 PAGE 1 OF 1 INDUSTRIAL TRANSPORTATION Monthly Rates The maximum fee for mdustnal transportation service on the NW Metro/Mrd C~tles D~str~butlon System ~s $1 2551 per MMBTU dehvered plus applicable taxes exclusive of the backup fee The above transportation fees ~nclude both the fees incurred to move the gas from the receipt point on the transmission system to the c~ty gate and the fee incurred to move the gas from the city gate to the customers facility If the fees for transportabon service on the transmms~on system change, the rewsed fees wdl be ~ncluded ~n the overall transportabon rate charged to customers 100% of the increase m transportation fees ~ncurred to move the gas from the c~ty gate to the customer's facd~ty ~s to accrue to the benefit of TXU Gas D~stnbubon APPLICABLE RATE SCHEDULES/RIDERS Rate Adjustment Provisions 4108-2 Tax Adjustment Surcharges 4106 Surcharge Rider NW Metro/Mid Cities Distribution System - Page 7 Schedule A Page 1 cf 1 Rewsed 4-02-01 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CreES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM COST OF SERVICE STUDY FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR B W MYERS Northwest Metro/Mid Clhes Distribution Systerfl No Description Rates Rates Increase Increase (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) 1 Operating revenues 2 Rse~dent~al $ 120223703 $ 124 298 810 $ 4075106 339 3 Commercial (1) 73 292 124 74 971 268 1 679 14~ 2 29 4 In(Justrial (2) 4 948 919 6 704 057 1 755 138 35 47 5 Total Gas Sales Revenue 198 464 747 205 974 135 7 509 389 3 78 6 Other Rev Sew~ce Charges e{c I 080 812 930 021 {150 790) {13 95) 7 Total Operating Revenues $ 199 545 558 $ 206 904 157 $ 7 358 598 3 69 8 9 14 Total Revenue Requirement 15 Operating Expenses 18 For Cornmemial Sale; (1) 56 716 371 1 g For ]nduetnal Sales (2) 2 755 085 21 Other O & M Expenses 22 079 234 22 25 Prowslon for Depreciation 7 901 643 29 30 Fepeml Income Taxes 5 195 051 33 35 36 (1) Commercialclassindudseschoolsaepmposedlnthlsratefllmg ].4 Rewsed 4-02~1 TXU GAS DISTRI8 UT]ON NORTHWEST ME'~O/}41D cri3ES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM NET OPERATING INCOME (a) (b) (c} {~) (e} {I) lb Scheaule TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AS OF SEPTEMBER 30 2000 SPONSOR D A WATSON Line Schedule Per Scolds Total Total 1 (al (b) (al + (b) = (c) 2 Nat Plant in Service S D~stnbutlon Plant in Send,ce J t $ 164 949 14z. $ 164 949 t44 4 General Plant I S 1 I 9 620 218 9 620 218 5 Ne[ Gas D~stribuhon Plant ~n Se~lce $ 174 569 362 $ $ 174 569 362 7 Investment Additions 8 Regulator/Asset Poly 1 Safe~y Compliance Program I E 1 $ 2 078 997 $ 2 078 997 g Working Capital 10 Working Cash Allowance (7 365 129) (7 365 129) 11 Matada[s & Supplies E 484 877 484 877 12 Prepayments 717 692 717 692 13 Total Investment A~dlflons $ (40835631 $ $ (4083563) 15 Investment Deductions 17 Customer Deposits ~ $ 3 618 273 $ 3 618 273 18 Customer Advances for Construction r 1518 lO8 1518 lO8 19 In]unas and Damages Resale E 223 007 223 007 20 Income Tax Adjustments 15 547 589 15 547 589 21 TXU LSP Industrial Meter & Regulator Adjustment 38 365 36 365 22 2S Total Investment Deductions $ 20~943 342 $ S 20 943 342 24 25 Tota[RateBasa $ 149542457 $ $ 149542457 Schedule E Page 1 of 1 Rewsed 4-02~1 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SUMMARY OF OTHER RATE BASE ITEMS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSORS D A WATSON, B W MYERS, J K BAKER Line Schedule No Description Reference Amount 1 Current Assets (13 month average) 2 Matenals & Supplies E-1 $ 484 877 3 Prepayments E-2 717,692 4 5 Current L~ablhtles (Year-end Balance) 6 Customer Deposits E-3 3,618 273 7 Customer Advances E-4 1,518 108 8 Injuries & Damages Reserve E 5 223,007 9 Income T~x Adjustments E-7 15,547,589 10 11 Plant Adjustments 12 Poly 1 Safety Compliance Program Costs E-6 2,078,997 13 TXU LSP Industnal Meter & Regulator Adjustment E-9 36,365 14 15 Cash Working Capital E-8 (7,365,129) 17 18 Sche(~uie G 7 Page 1 of 4 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Rewsed 4~2~1 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TEST YEAR FIT AND REQUESTED FIT FOR THE TEST YE. AR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR J K BAKER Test Year Test Year Line Teat Year As Adjusted As Adlusted Schedule (a) (b) {c) (d) 1 Return $ 8505090 $ 11060719 $ 14483965 G7p3 3 Deduct 5 Amo~llzatlon of Investment Tax Credits 0 0 0 6 Amor~zatlon of Excess DFIT (955) (955) (955) 7 Non Deductible Legal Expense (3 109) (3 109) (3 109) 8 Dlvedend Paid Credit (35,~ 497) (352 497) (352 497) 9 Other (30 587) (30 587) (30 587) 11 Add 12 Depreciation Adjustment 0 0 0 13 Business Meals not Deductible 0 0 0 14 Pnor Year Adjustments (225) (225) (225) 15 Prowsion for Conangenc~ss 0 0 0 17 Taxable Component of Return 4957005 6223346 9648593 19 Tax Factor (1/ 65) (35) 5384615% 53~4615% 5384819% 20 22 23 Tax crad~ 24 Deduct, 26 Amortization of Excess DFIT (955) (955) (E55) 27 Add 28 PHor Year Adjustmsnt~ (225) (225) (225) 29 Prowslon for Contingencies 0 0 0 00 31 Federal Income Taxes $ 2 869 888 $ 3 351 764 $ 5 195 051 2O Schedule G 7 Page 4 ot 4 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION COMPANY NORTHWEST METRO/MID CreES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM DETAIL OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS FOR 12 MONTHS ENDEDBEPTEMBER 3(~ 2000 (a) (b) (¢) (d) 1 Non DeduChble Profession;ti Fees (5 981 ) 16 2935% Administrative & General Expense (975) 2 5 Social Club Dues (7 010) 13 7515% Tolal [.abor per Books (964) 7 Penalties (548) 16 2935% Admln~strahve & General Expense (89) 8 11 Tesl Ye;ir Actual (221 871) (30 677) Schedule I Page 1 of 1 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Revised 4q}2-01 NORTHWEET METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SUMMARY OF RETURN FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR A L WARREN Total System With W~th Llrle Present Proposed Schedule No Rates Rates Reference ~ Summary of Net Operatln,q Income/Return 2 Cost of Debt 7 27% 5 077 101 5 077 101 3 Cost of Preferred Stock 5 79% 147 195 147 195 4 Available or Required Return on 5 Book Value of Common Equity 5 836 423 9 259 669 6 Total Retum on Invested Capital 11,060,719 14 483,965 A I 7 Summary of Rate Base by Kind of Invested Capital 8 Debt 46 70% 69,836,327 69,636 327 9 Preferred Stock I 70% 2 542 222 2 542 222 10 Common Equity at Book Value 51 60% 77~163~608 77 163 908 11 Total Invested Capital 149,542,457 149 542,457 B 12 Pement Return 19 Cost/Rata on Debt 7 27% 7 27% 14 Coat/Rata on Preferred Stock 5 79% 5 79% 15 Cost/Rata on Book Value of Common Equity 7 56% 12 00% 16 Total Cast/Rata on Invested Capital 7 40% 9 69% o ~o~o 36 45 .... ~oo~ ....... ~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~o~ 49 5O 52 54 5? TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 2 NORTHWEBT METRO/MID CITieS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Psge ~0 ol 11 RATE DESIGN REVENUE SUMMARY BY CFF'Y Rewsed 4-O2-01 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMSER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G t_ GOBLE Lane Description 1 TRANSPORTATION 2 3 Adjusted Transportation Volume-MCF 4 Adjusted Per BooksTransportatlon Volume 8187654 6 Transportation Volume Per Books 8093821 6 Adlustment ~o Transportation Volume 93 833 7 In~{~tnal Trans~3~3~latlon Revenue 8 Trsnsportatton Fee 19148 1 025 $1 00 05000 9813 9 Transportation Fee 124079 1 025 0 65 0 5000 41 493 10 Transportation Fee 107558 1 025 0 64 0 5000 35 279 11 Transportation Fee 1482326 I 025 0 53 0 5000 478 606 12 Trsnsportat~on Fee 857302 1 025 0 82 0 5000 272 408 13 Transportation Fee 315798 1 025 0 61 0 5000 98,726 14 Transportation Fee 188062 1 025 0 60 0 5000 57,829 15 Transportation Fee 107209 1 025 0 59 0 5000 32 417 16 Transportation Fee 94299 1 025 0 58 0 5000 28 030 17 Transportation FEE 55958 1 025 0 48 0 5000 13,622 18 Transportation Fee 481399 1 025 0 46 0 5000 112 258 19 Transportation Fee 1655616 1 025 0 44 0 5000 369 099 20 Transportation Fee 226358 1 025 0 39 0 5000 43 503 21 Transportation Fee 369837 1 025 0 32 0 5000 60~653 22 Tote{ Industrial Transportation Revenue $1 653 736 23 ~lectr~c Generahon Transooffatlon Revenue 24 Transpo~ation Fee 1848808 1 025 $0 02 1 0000 33 807 25 Total Etsctnc Generation Transportation Revenue $33 807 28 Commercial Transportation Revenue 27 Transportation Fee 29571 1 025 $0 50 1 0000 15 155 28 Transportation FEE 63951 I 025 0 37 1 0000 24 122 29 Trsnspor~ation Fee 39211 1 025 0 29 1 0000 11 855 30 Transportation Fee 9437 1 025 0 30 1 0000 2 902 31 Transportation Fee 111727 1 025 0 29 1 0000 33 211 32 Commercial Customer Charge (1 customers) 1 12 000 20 00 1 0000 240 33 Commercial Customer Charge (2 customers) 18 12 000 12 00 1 0000 2 592 34 Commercial Customer Charge (3 customers) 53 12 000 10 00 1 0000 6 360 35 Total Commercial Transportation Revenue 96 237 36 Total Trane Only Revenue 1,783 750 37 Total Revenue Taxes 0 05860 104~523 38 Oistnbution Trane Only Rev Adlusted 1,888 303 39 Less Trane Only Rev Per Books 1~911f345, 40 Transpoilation Only Rev Adjustment 123 0421, 'rxu GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 2 NORTHWEST METRO/MID ClTIEE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page t 1 ot 11 RATE DESIGN REVENUE SUMMARY BY crrY Rewse(14-o2-01 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR GLGOBLE L~ne Description AdI Mcf Rate Amount 1 TRANSPORTATION 2 3 Adjusted Transportation Volume-MCF 4 Adjusted Per BooksTraneportat[on Volume 0 5 Transpoilat~on Volume Per Books 0 6 Adlustment to Transportation Volume O 7 8 Rate 1 0 0 O 9 Rate 2 0 O O 10 Rate 3 0 O 0 11 Rate4 0 O 0 12 Rate 5 0 0 O 13 Rate 6 O 0 O 14 Rate 7 0 0 O 15 Rate 8 O 0 O 16 R~tte 9 0 O O 17 Rate 10 0 0 0 18 Rate 11 0 O 0 19 Rate 12 0 0 0 20 Rats 13 0 0 0 21 Rate 14 0 0 0 22 Rate 15 0 0 O 23 Rate 16 0 O O 24 Rate 17 0 O 0 25 Rate 18 * 0 O O 26 Rate 19 0 O O 27 Rate 20 0 0 0 28 Rate 21 0 0 0 29 Rate 22 O O 0 30 Rate 23 0 0 0 31 Rate 24 0 O 0 32 Total Trans W/Corn Revenue 0 33 Total Revenue Taxes 0 05860 0 34 Distribution Trans W/Com Rev Adjusted 0 35 Less Trane W/Corn Rev Per Books O 36 Transportation W/Corn Rev Adjustment 0 TXU GAS DIS'/'RIBUTiON Schedule L 4 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 1 of 7 SUMMARY PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES Revised 4-02-01 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Deaoription W~nter Summer Total 1 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 2 3 Rata_9999 4 5 F~ate Chamctenst~cs 6 Customer Charge $8 0000 $8 0000 7 Block 1 $5 9430 $5 9430 8 Off Peak Discount per MCF $0 0000 $0 0000 9 10 Plus Gas Cost Adjustment Above $0 0000 $0 0000 11 Gas Cost ACllustment 0 0000 0 0000 12 Volume Factor $1 0234 $1 0234 13 Tax Factor 0 0586 0 0586 14 Plus Franchise Fee Reimbursement $0 0000 $0 0000 15 16 Consumption Characteristics. 17 Zero 0 0000 0 0000 18 Block 1 1 0000 I 0000 19 Off*Peak Discount 0 0000 0 0658 20 21 ~lllina Units. 22 Bllts 1,309,506 1,313,538 2,623,044 23 Block 1 13,578,298 2.648,191 16,226,489 24 Total MCF 13,578.298 2,648,191 16,226,489 25 Off-Peak Discount Block 0 174,304 174.304 26 27 ~ 25 Customer Charge Revenue $10,476,048 $10,508,304 $20,984,352 29 Block 1 80,695.826 15,738,199 96,434,025 30 Less Off-Peak Discount 0 0 0 31 Total Base Rate Revenue $91,171,874 $26 246,503 $117,418.377 32 33 Gas Cost Adlustment $0 $0 $0 34 Subtotal (Base Rate + GCA) 91,171,874 26,246,503 117,418,377 35 Franchrse Fee Re~mbursernent 0 0 0 36 Revenue Related Taxes 5~342 361 1 ~537~956 6~880~316. 37 Subtotal $96,514,234 71 $27,784,458 74 $124,298,693 38 Ratio Gross to Net 1 00000 1 00000 39 Total Annual Gross Revenue $96 514 235 $27 784~459 $124~298~693~.~ "rxu GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 4 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 2 of 7 SUMMARY PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES Rev~se~ 4-02-01 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Description Winter Summer Total I TOTAL COMMERCIAL 2 3 Rate_9999C 4 5 Rate Characteristics 6 Customer Charg$ $14 0000 $14 0000 7 Block 1 $6 3340 $6 3340 8 Block 2 $6 0340 $6 0340 9 Block 3 $5 8840 $5 8840 10 11 Plus Gas Cost Adjustment Above $0 0000 $0 0000 12 Gas Cost Adjustment $0 0000 $0 0000 13 Volume Factor 0 0000 0 0000 14 Tax Factor 0 0586 0 0586 15 Plus Franchise Fee Reimbursement $0 0000 $0 0000 16 17 Consumoflon Characteristics, 18 Zero 0 0000 0 0000 19 Block 1 0 1933 0 1953 20 Block 2 0 1515 0 1635 21 Block 3 0 6552 0 6412 22 1 0000 1 0000 23 BIIllno Units. 24 Bills 121,541 118,081 239,622 25 Block 1 1,510,626 658,275 2,168,901 26 Block 2 1,183,634 550,907 1,734,540 27 Block 3 5~119~649 2~161~041 7~280~690 28 Total MCF 7,813,908 3,370,223 11,184,131 29 30 Base Rate Revenue. 31 Customer Charge Revenue $1,701,574 $1,653,134 $3,354,708 32 Block 1 9,568,304 67 4,169,515 65 13,737,820 32 33 Block 2 7,142,045 05 3,324,169 90 10,466,214 95 34 Block 3 30 124~014 30 12~715~565 87 42~839~580 17 35 Total Base Rate Revenue $48,535,938 $21,862 385 $70,398,323 36 37 Gas Cost Adjustment $0 $0 $0 38 Subtotal (Base Rate + GCA) 48,535,938 21,862,385 70,398,323 39 Franchise Fee Reimbursement 0 0 0 40 Revenue Related Taxes 2~844~040 1~281~061 4~125~101 49 41 Subtotal $51 379,978 $23,143 447 $74,523,425 42 Ratio Gross to Net 1 00000 1 00000 43 Total Annual Gross Revenue $51 I379 978 $23 1431447 $74~523 425 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Scheciule L 4 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 3 of 7 SUMMARY PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES Rewsed 402~1 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Description W~nter Summer Total 1 TOTAL SCHOOL 2 3 4 5 Rate Charactenst~cs 6 Minimum Charge $14 0000 $14 0000 7 Block 1 $6 3340 $6 3340 8 Block 2 $6 0340 $6 0340 9 Block 3 $5 8840 $5 8840 10 Adjustment Factor 1 0000 1 0000 11 Plus Gas Cost Adjustment Above $0 0000 $0 0000 12 Cost of Gas $0 0000 $0 0000 13 C~ty Street & Alley Rental 0 0000 0 0000 14 State Occupation Tax 0 0586 0 0586 15 16 BIIlina Units. 17 Bills 246 246 492 18 Block 1 11,379 2 061 13,441 19 Block 2 8 918 1,725 10,641 20 Block 3 38~568 6~767 45~333 21 Total MCF 58,862 10,553 69,414 22 23 Base Rate Revenue 24 Customer Charge Revenue $3,444 $3,444 $6 888 25 Block 1 72 077 32 13 055 50 85,132 82 26 Block 2 53,800 49 10,408 57 64,209 06 27 Block 3 ~ 226 921 93 39 814 71 266~736 63 28 Total Base Rate Revenue $356,244 $66,723 $422,967 29 30 Gas Cost Adjustment $0 $0 $0 31 Subtotal (Base Rate + GCA) 356 244 66,723 422,967 32 City Street & Alley Rental 0 0 0 33 State Occupation Tax 20 875 3~910 24~784 34 Subtotal $377,118 $70 633 $447,751 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 4 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 4 of 7 SUMMARY PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES Rewsed 4 0201 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Description Wrater Summer Total 1 TOTAL MILITARY 2 3 4 5 Rate Characterrst~cs 6 Minimum Charge $0 0000 ~0 0000 7 Block 1 $0 0000 ;0 0000 8 Block 2 $0 0000 ~0 0000 9 Block 3 $0 0000 ;0 0000 10 Adlustment Factor 0 0000 ~0 0000 11 Plus Gas Cost Adlustment Above $0 0000 ~0 0000 12 Cost of Gas $0 0000 ;0 0000 13 City Street & Alley Rental 0 0000 ;0 0000 14 State Occupatmn Tax 0 0000 ;0 0000 15 16 B~llino Units 17 Bills 0 0 0 18 Block 1 0 0 0 19 Block 2 0 0 0 20 Block 3 0 o 0 21 Total MCF 0 0 0 22 23 Base Rate Revenue. 24 Customer Charge Revenue $0 $0 $0 25 Block 1 0 0 0 26 Block 2 0 0 0 27 Block 3 ~ 0 0 0 28 Total Base Rate Revenue $0 $0 $0 29 30 Gas Cost Adjustment $0 $0 $0 31 Subtotal (Base Rate + GCA) 0 0 0 32 City Street & Alley Rental 0 0 0 33 State Occupation Tax 0 0 0 34 Subtotal $0 $0 $0 35 36 Gas Cost 37 Cost of Gas $0 $0 $0 38 Plus 1/2 of Markup 0 0 0 39 Total Gas Cost $0 $0 $0 63 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Scheeule L 4 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 5 of 7 SUMMARY PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES Rev,sed 4 02 01 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Description Total 1 TOTAL INDUSTRIAL 2 3 Adrustment To Industnal Sales Volume - MCF 4 Adiusted Industnal Sales Volume - MCF 610 888 5 Less Per Books Industrial Sales Volume - MCF 649~795 6 Adlustment To Industnal Sales Volume - MCF 7 8 Adlustment to Industnal Sales Rev~q~e 9 1st 125 MCF Or Less 1,824 470 870 $858,867 10 Over 125 MCF 160,841 3 676 591~252 11 Subtotal 1~450~118 12 1st 600 MCF Or Less 72 2,106 140 151,642 13 Over 600 MCF 68,765 3 336 229~421 14 Subtotal 381 ~063 15 1 st 1250 MCF Or Less 36 4,067 100 146 416 16 Over 1250 MCF 42 706 3 197 136~518 17 Sui3total 282,934 18 GCA Revenue 610,888 3245 1~982~515 19 Subtotal 4,096,630 20 City Street & Alley Rental 4,096,630 0 0000 0 21 Stste Occupation Tax 4,096,630 0 0586 240~049 22 Total Adiusted Revenue 4,336,678 23 Less Pein'Books Revenue 2~585~665 24 Adjustment To industrial Revenue TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 4 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 0 of 7 SUMMARY PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES Rev,s~d 4 O2 o~ FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Description Ad) Mcr Rate Amount 1 TRANSPORTATION 2 3 Adjusted Transportation Volume-MCF 4 Adjusted Per BooksTransportatlon Volume 0 5 Transportation Volume Per Books 0 6 Adjustment to Transportation Volume 0 7 8 Rate I 0 0 0000 0 9 Rate 2 0 0 0000 0 10 Rate 3 0 0 0000 0 11 Rate 4 0 0 0000 0 12 Rate 5 0 0 0000 0 13 Rate 6 0 0 0000 0 14 Rate 7 0 0 0000 0 15 Rate 8 0 0 0000 0 16 Rate 9 0 0 0000 0 17 Rate 10 0 O 0000 O 18 Rate 11 0 0 0000 0 19 Rate 12 0 0 0000 0 20 Rate 13 0 0 0000 0 21 Rate 14 0 0 0000 0 22 Rate 15 0 0 0000 0 23 Rate 16 0 0 0000 0 24 Rate 17 0 0 0000 0 25 Rate 18 ~ 0 0 0000 0 26 Rate 19 0 0 0000 0 27 Rate 20 0 0 0000 0 28 Rate 21 0 0 0000 0 29 Rate 22 0 0 0000 0 30 Rate 23 0 0 0000 0 31 Rate 24 0 0 0000 0 32 Total Trans Revenue 0 33 Total Revenue Taxes 0 0586 0 34 D~stnbutlon Trans Rev Adjusted 0 35 Less Trans Rev Per Books 0 36 Transportation Rev Adjustment 0 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 4 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 7 of 7 SUMMARY PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES Rewsed 4 0241 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Description 1 TRANSPORTATION 2 3 Adjusted Transportation Velums-MCF 4 Adjusted Per BooksTransportatlon Volume 8 187 654 5 Transportation Volume Per Books 8 093 821 6 Adjustment to Transportation Volume 93 833 7 Industrial Trans~3ortat~cn Rev~r~e 8 Trane )ortat~on Fee 19 148 1 025 $I 26 0 5000 12 317 9 Trane ~orlat~on Fee 124 079 1 025 0 82 0 5000 52 074 10 Trane ~ortat~on Fee 107,558 1 025 0 80 0 5000 44 281 11 Trane ~ollatlon Fee 1 482 326 1 025 0 79 0 5000 600 689 12 Trane ~ortat~on Fee 857,302 1 025 0 78 0 5000 341 916 13 Trane ~ortat~on Fee 315 798 1 025 0 77 0 5000 123 910 14 Trane )ortation Fee 188,062 1 025 0 75 0 5000 72 585 15 Trane ~ortation Fee 107 209 1 025 0 74 0 5000 40,686 16 Trane )ortatlon Fee 94 299 1 025 0 73 0 5000 35,183 17 Trane )ortat~on Fee 55,958 1 025 0 60 0 6000 17 098 18 Trane 3ortation Fee 481,399 I 025 0 57 0 5000 140,900 19 Trane ~ort~tion Fee 1,655,616 1 025 0 55 0 5000 463,283 20 Trane )ortation Fee 226,368 1 025 0 47 0 6000 54,605 21 Trane )ortatlon Fee 369,837 1 025 0 40 0 5000 76~120 22 Total Industrial Transportation Revenue $2 075 646 28 Electric Generation Traneoortation Revenue 24 Transportation Fee 1,848 808 I 025 $0 02 I 0000 42~449 25 Total E[ectnc Generation Transportation Revenue $42,449 28 Commero?l Transportation Revenue 27 Transportation Fee 29 571 1 025 $0 63 1 0000 19 020 28 Transportation Fee 63,951 1 025 0 46 I 0000 30 277 29 Transportation Fee 39 211 1 025 0 36 1 0000 14 630 30 Transportation Fee 9 437 1 025 0 38 1 0000 3 642 31 Transportat~onFee 111,727 1 025 036 I 0000 41 685 32 Commem~al Customer Charge (1 customers} 1 12000 20 00 I 0000 240 33 Commem~a[Customer Charge (2 customers) 18 12 000 12 00 I 0000 2 592 34 Commem~al Customer Charge (3 customers) 53 12 000 10 00 1 0000 6 360 35 Total Commercial Transportation Revenue 118 446 36 Total Trane Only Revenue 2 236 541 37 Total Revenue Taxes 0 0586 131 ~054 38 DIstribut~on Trans Only Rev Adjusted 2 367,594 39 Less Trans Only Rev Per Books 1,911 345 40 Transportation Only Rev Adjustment 456 249 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 5 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 1 of 3 PROPOSED RATE CALCULATION RESIDENTIAL FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 Rewsed 4-02-01 SPONSOR G L GOBLE Line Description Total 1 Residential Revenue Requirement $124 298 810 2 Less Revenue From Customer Charge $2 623 044 x $8 00 20 984 352 3 Less Revenue Related Taxes @ 5 5353% 6 880 323 4 Lees Gas Cost $16 226 489 x $0 0000 0 5 6 Revenue Required Prom Commodity Rate $96 434 135 7 8 Reeidential Peak Period MCF 13 578 298 9 Residential Off Peak Penod MCF 2 648 191 10 11 Total Residential MCF 16 226 489 12 13 Residential Peak Period MCF 13 578 298 14 Reeldential Off Peak Period MCF Block 1 2 473 887 15 Residential Off Peak Period MCF - Block 2 174 304 16 17 Total Residential MCF 16 226 489 18 19 Revenue Required From Commodity Rate $96 434 135 20 Plus (Off Peak Pertod Block 2 MCF * 0) 0 21 22 Total S96,434 135 23 Divided by Total MCF 16,226,489 24 Commodity Rate $5 94301 25 Off Peak Penod Commodity Rate Discount 0 0000 26 27 Customer Charge Revenue $20,984 352 28 Commodity Rate Revenue g6,434 135 29 Off Peak Period Commodity Rate Discount Revenue 0 30 Revenue Related Taxes Revenue 6,880 323 31 32 Total $124 298 810 33 34 Bill Analysis Adjusted 35 /1/ Residential MCF MC~F 36 Off Peak Penod 2 648,191 0 16320 2,648,191 37 Peak Period 13~578~298 0 83680 13~578~298 38 Total 16 226 489 I 00000 16 226 489 39 40 41 /2/ Off Peak Bill Analysis Off Peak 42 Block MCF Block MCF R~'~9 MCF 43 0toa0 2473887 093418 2473887 44 Over 8 0 174 304 0 06582 174 304 45 Total 2 648 191 1 00000 2 6481191 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Schectuie L 5 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 2 of 3 PROPOSED RATE CALCULATION RESIDENTIAL Rewsed 4 02 01 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOBLE [.ine Description Total 1 Commercial Revenue Requirement $74 971 268 2 Less Revenue From Customer Charge 240 114 x $14 00 3 361 596 3 Less Revenue Re~ated Taxes @ 5 5353% 4 149 891 4 Less Gas Cost 11 253 645 x $0 00 0 5 6 Revenue Required From Commodity Rate $67 459 781 7 8 Commercial Block 1 MCF 2 182 342 9 Commercial Block2 MCF 1 745 181 10 Commemlel Block 3 MCF 7~326 023 11 12 TotaJ Commemlal MCF 11 253 546 13 14 Revenue Required From Commodity Rate $67,459 781 15 Plus (Block 2 MCF" 0 3) 523,554 16 Plus (Block 3 MCF ' 0 45} 3~296t710 17 18 Total $71,280 046 19 Divided By Total Commemlsl MCF 11,253 546 20 Block 1 Commodity Rate 8 334 21 Block 2 Commodity Rate 8 0340 22 Block 3 Commodity Rate 5 8840 23 24 Customer Charge Revenue $3,361 595 25 Block 1 Commodity Rate Revenue 13,822 953 25 Block 2 C0mmod;ty Rate Revenue 10,530,424 27 Block 3 Commodity Rate Revenue 43,106,317 28 Revenue Related Taxes Revenue 4~149~891 29 30 Total Revenue $74t971 181 31 32 Rrst Next Over 33 I1/ Bill Analysis Volumes 20 MCF ~(~ M~F ~q M~F Total 34 Commerc~alBummer 1,510626 1,183634 5,119649 7,813908 35 Commem~al Winter 658 275 550 907 2 161 041 3,370 223 38 Schools 13 441 10~641 45~333 69 414 37 Total 2,182342 1,745,181 7,328,023 11,253546 38 Ratio 0 19392 0 15508 0 65100 1 00000 39 Adjusted MCF 2 182 342 1 745 181 7 326 023 11,253 546 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Schedule L 5 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM Page 3 of 3 PROPOSED RATE CALCULATION - RESIDENTIAL Rewsed 4 02~1 FOR THE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SPONSOR G L GOELE industrial Revenue Reqmrement $4 146 066 Less Revenue Related Taxes 5 5353% 229 498 Less DCA 610 888 $3 2453 1 982 515 Less $0 00 Gas Cost In Base Rate 610 888 I 0000 0 0000 0 Pmpoeeci Base Rate Revenue $1 934 053 Industrial Revenue From Present Rates $3 060 616 Less Revenue Related Taxes O 5 5353% 169 415 Less GCA 610,888 $3 2453 1,982 515 Less $0 00 Gas Cost In Ease Rate 610,688 1 0000 0 0000 0 li Prasant Base Rate Revenue $908686 Proposed Ease Rate Revenue $1,934,053 Present Base Rate Revenue 908 686 Multiplier For Change in Ease Rate Revenue $2 13 Equals Present T~mes Proposed Rate Multiplier Rate First 125 Mcf or less $202 39 2 1 $470 87 Over 125 Mcf 1 580 2 1 3 676 Rate 2 ~3 F~ret 600 Mcf or lass S905 26 21 $210614 Over 600 Mcf 1 434 2 1 3 3363 Rste 3 F~ret 1250 Mcr or less $1 748 12 2 1 $4 067 10 Over 1250 Mcf 1 374 2 1 3 1967 JLTING SERVICES, INC. 7801 Pancross Ln Dallas, Texas 75248 Tel (g72) 725-7216 Fax (972) 726.021 May 14, 2001 Mr Geoffrey Oay Lloyd, Oosselmk, Blevms, Baldwin & Townsend, ? C i 11 Congress Avenue, State 1800 Ausnn, Texas 75701 Dear Mr Gay C2 Consulting Services, [nc ("C2"), BLIi R McMomes, P E, and Hill Associatest have completed the evaluataon of TXU Gas' ( 'TXU" or the "Company") Statement of Intent to change natural gas burner tip rates for the resldentm[, commemal, industrial, and transportatmn customers served wtthm the Northwest Metro/Mid Cmos D~stnbutmn System 2 The follov~ng d~scuasmn provides an overvtew of the Company's fihng, the analyses performed and preliminary recorm-nendanons w~th regard, to potannal regulato~ actions Th~a report ~s orgamzed to provide an overvtew of the ~mpact of the combined Consultants' a.nalyses, v~th detailed dlscuasmns fi.om each fro= orga.mzed as follows Tab A - Consultants' Summary Recommendations, C2's Recommended AdJustments and. Summary Schedules Tab B - Testimony and E.,d'abtts ofB~ll R. McMomes Tab C - Cost of Eqmry Analys~s of HIll Aasoc~ates This study does not constitute an examma~.on of the financial condttmn of TX'U' or tts parent company As such, C2 cannot and does not express any positron with regard to the accuracy or vahd~ty of the financml mformatmn promded by TXTj dunng the course ot the analyses Addmonall7, any lack of d~scuss~on w~th regard to TXU's regulator~ treatment of investment/costs does not necessanly red,cate acqmescence by C2 ~ Heretn referred to a~ "Consultants" unless otherwise related to specific adjustments recommended by eech f'trm. : The fihng includes proposed changes In rates tn fortyjumdlctmns ("Cmos") The schoots that were charged the public schools contract rates dunng the test year (Carrollton, Farmers Branch and Add~son) have been placed by Tx'Lr tn the commerc,al customer class along w~th the schools located tn the other 71 Mr Geoffrey Gay May 14, 2001 Page 2 BACKGROUND On or about February i6, 2001 TX-U filed a Statement of Intent w~th the Crees Due to an error m the tax computation, TX-U "re-fried" its proposed changes on or about ApnI 2, 2001 that includes the following proposed burner t~p rates Customer Commodity Charge $ per MCF Residential: (I) TXU Proposed Rates $8 00 $5 9430 Customer First 20 Next 30 Over 50 Charge $ per MCF $ per MC1 $ per MCF Commercial (1) TXU Proposed Rates $14 00 $6 3340 $6 0340 $5 8840 Cnrrent Proposed Industrial (2) Charge Rate (I) Fa'st 125MCF $202 39 $470 87 (I) Over 125 MCI* $I 580 $3 676 -- (2) Fzrst 600 MCF $905.26 $2106 14 (2) Over 600 MCF $1 434 $3 3360 (3) Fu-st 1250 MCF $1748 12 $4067 10 (3) Over 1250 MCF $1 374 $3 197 Current Proposed Industrial Trans Charge Rate Per IvlM]3TU Vanom $1 2551 (I) Current rotes for residential and com~ercaal vary comlderably as m..y of the junsdlcttom had separate m~: ~ql,-gs m the past The average increase m noted below -,ruth specffic increases by ju.mdacl~on included m the fih.$ (2) The mdu~mal rates have remained unchanged since October 1989 (3) The proposed rate for tramporta~aon of natural ga~ m a not-to-exceed per M/vlBTU amount plus apphcable taxes TXU proposes an average increase to each of the customer classes as follows ~ · Res~dentml Rates - 55 0% increase These percentage increases are based on the average for the enttre system and include TXU's proposed inclusion of total gas costs m the base rates (rather than the Railroad Cornm,~slan approved $2 7535 per MCF) VamP. om ex,st among Crees However only shght vanaaons :mt for those Crees that were included m the pnor IVhd Czt~es Dlsm%utaon System filing m 1997 Most of the Clues ruth a Cost of Semce ~.djustment ("COSA") show declines m the rates and many of the Crees that have not had a rote increase since 1995 or before show increases that ere greater than the proposed average increase 72 Mr Geoffrey Qay May 14, 2001 Page 3 · Commer¢~aI Races - 65 1% increase , Industrial Rates - 35 4% increase In add~ffon to the proposed changes m the monthI~ rates, TXU proposes to increase/decrease vanons semce charges and to include an automatuc adjustment for weather normahzatlon~ SI. rMMA. RY OF CONSULTANTS' Flhq)INGS Based on the analysis of the filing, subsequent mformat~on provided by the Company, and a cost al]coarsen methodology that more closely asagns costs based on a cost/causal relat~omhxp, the Consultants conclude the following 1 The current annual revenues received from all customers served vothm the Cltaes are not sufficient m prowdmg a reasonable return on the total investment m the Northwest Metro/Mad Clues D~stnbutmn System As shown on Schedule 2, cun'ent revenues are deficient by approx, rnately $3,640,000 for the total system ~ Tl~s compares to the Company's proposed increase for the dastnbulaon system of $75,775,000 s 2 The current anmlltl revellues recelved from residential customers located v~thm the Cities are not sufficient to prowde the Compauy wtth a reasonable remm on the investment reqmred to provide sermce to tins customer cla~s As shown on Schedule 2, the current rates for res~dent~a/ customers generate revenues that are msuffiment by approxnnately $1,343,000 3 The current annual revenues received from the commercial customers located w~thm the Cmos are not sufficient to provide the Company wath a panty return on the investment reqmred to provide sermce to thas customer class As shown on Schedule 2, current revenues from the commercml cl~s should be increased by approxmxately $385,000 ~ The weather nonmahzanon adjustment ~s currently authorized m most of the ]unsdact~ons included m tlns filing It would continue to allow for adjus~aent to the amount of MCFs for wlnch customers are btlled to reflect normal weather patterns Currently, and under TXU's proposal, the weather normahzattnn adjustment would be performed w~thout the Company having to file for a requested change m rates ~ Tlm amount is prior to the deduction of the proposed decreases m semce charges Including the semce charge dearea~es the reqmred increase m burner Up rates for the system m appro~rmately $3,791,000 ~ The total revenue requ.trements proposed by TXU mcludas an uscrease of approximately $68,417,000 us revenue due to "rolling tn" the total cost of gas at test year-end of $5 0514 per MCF Tlns increase tn gas cost ~s normally provided for m the Gas Cost Adjustment Clause The re~,~,,,mg increase m other operaUng expense, customer changes, retom on mvesunent otc amount to approx,mately $7,359,000 as requested in the amended filing C2 also notes that the Consultants' recommended revenue reqmrements for the total system do not adckess Mr McMomas' recommendauan that some of the system mvastment and expensas be allocated to use for dehvery of backup/standby MCF A.s of the wnUng of th~s report, there ts msu.ffiC~ent data to estimate the smoant of investment and expense that should be deducted Rom the system ~lmg (and thereby reduce the revenue reqm.rements) 73 Mr O~of~ey Gay May 14, 2001 Page ~. 4 The current annual revenues received from both mdusmal and transpo~ customers located w~thin the Cities are not sufficient to provide the Company vath a panty return on the investment required to provide services to these customers As shown on Schedule 2, the cur;em revenues from both industrial and transport customers should be increased by approx, tmately $1,910,000 $ The current annual revenue received from the pubhc schools not included in the commercial class (Addmon, Farmers Branch and Carrollton) are not sufiieient to prowde the Company w~th a panty retura on the mveslanent requ~ed to provide services to these customers As shown on Schedule 2, the current revenues from these schools should be increased by approxnmately $2,000 ? 6 The Company's proposed increases/decreases m selected service charges appear reasonable 7 The proposed weather normahza~on clause appcar~ reasonable wuth the reqmrement that regular reporting oflts use and effecUvencss m provided - A. Analysis of Investmemt tn the Northwest l~etro/l~/Ild Cities Distribution System Prior to the allocation of investment and expense to each of the customer cla~ses served w~thm thc Northwest Metro/iVhd C~tms D~stnbuUon System, both C2 and Mr McMornes evaluated the appropnateneas of various components of TXU's proposed total investment m the system As shown on Schedule 3, TX'U proposes a net ongmal cost of investment m the system of $149,542,457 C2 and Mr McMornes are recommending a ne.t original coz of investment of $147,760,165, a reducUon of $1,782,292. TNs summary reducUon is compnsed of two major issues w~th re,peet to TX-O's proposal 1 As shown on Schedule 3, the first recommended adjustment ~s to ntt plant in service The f~rst component of tins recommended adjustment ~s to dmtnbutmn plant and is related to a chsallowance of certmn CCNC as completed plant m serwce dascussed in Mr McMornes tes~mony Based on the fihng, $30,589 of thc proposed CCNC for dmtnbutlon plant had not been placed rotc service at test yeaz-end In Mr McMornes' opnnon, these amounts should not be considered plant m serwce, but rather should continue to be evaluated as Constructmn Work m Progress ("CWIP") Although placed into senqce subsequent to the test year-end, the Company has fmled 7 Due to the Company's mab~hty to provide certain data vath respect to the schools (e g pe~k demand), the revenue rec!mren'~nt h~ been estmmtad In the event the these schools ~re moved to the commercml class, the total revenue requ.tremenm for the system would not be ct:ranged, but the commercial chss revenue over~ge would be increased to approximately $386,600 74 M_r Geoffrey Gay May 14, 2001 Page 5 to match any addlhonal revenue/expense related to tl:us mvestment as prowdmg SCi"VICe tO cus/or/~ers 8 The second component of the adjustment to net plant m semac¢ rela~es to the CCNC that Is recommended for m¢lumon as plant m set. ce In C2's opm~on, durmg the first year m which tSe new rates v~ll be m effect, there v~Ll be depmcmtmn on th~s adchtmnal amount ofmvcstment Tins deprec~auon should be reflected as a reductmn to the mvestment (and as an additional operatmg expense) Because mvestment m a "snap shot" of a pont mtmae, only one-half of the adchtmnal expense is appropriately reflected as an adlustment to mvestment Th~s provides for an average investment durmg a year that concludes v~th a full year's deprecmtmn expense ~ The thtrd component of the adjustment to net plant m service relates to TX'U's proposed level of meter shop mventory m genial plant TXU proposes to mclude a level of $13,358,430 at the total Company, $2,340,899 when allocated to the Northwest Metro/Mhd C~ttes Dtstnbutmn System To beg-m v~th, the Company was unable to provide an esUmate of the cur:ant mvestment for whtch these meters would serve as replacement ~0 To mctude both the current meters and this exccsmve level of mventory potentmlly would provide the Company w~th an excesmve return on mvestmcnt In addition, based on reformation provided by the Company, the level of meter shop mventory fluctuates substantmlly from year to year O~vcn th~s fact, and that a more accurate understandmg of the mvestmcnt for w/tach these meters are planned replacement Is not avatlable, ~t is C2's opmmn that a more representative level of meter shop mventory is an average of the last five-year p~nod T~us computation results m meter shop mventory of $4,386,338 When allocated to the Northwest Metro/Mid Cgms Dm~mbut~on Systmn, the meter shop mvcatory m $766,929 or approx, zmately 5 85% of the total net mvestment m meters for the system The recor~mcndcd adjustment to TXU's proposed level of mvestmcnt is ($1,573,971) for the Distmbut~on Syatmn 2 The second adjustment was prowded by TXU m response to RFI 2-15 Supplemmat Due to adjusted computatmns, TXU corrected ~ts proposed materials and supphes mvcntory from $484,877 to $321,136, a reductmn of $163,741 C2 has mcorporated th~s ad.~ustment a Se~ Tab B for a complete d~scusmon of thts msu¢ ~ Th= Company has mcluded th~ annual dc, pr~cm'O, on ~xp~ns¢ on xts proposed CCNC ~0 S~ r~sponse to ~I No 2-23 75 Mr Geoffrey Gay May 14, 2001 Page 6 B, Analysis of Operating Income for the Northwest Metro//Vhd Crees Distribution System As shown on Schedule 4, TXU ~s proposing an adjusted net operating mcoine for the Northwest Metro/Mid Cmos D~stnbution System of $9,965,186 Based on C2's evaluation, the total systein adjusted net operating mcoine for the test year should be $9,802,635, or $I62,551 less than represented by the Company The difference ~s comprised often recommended adjustments 1 The first recommended adjustment concerns TXU's proposed inclusion of total gas cost-~ as of the test year end m base rates In prior cases, the cost of gas included m the burner l~p commodity rates has been based on the c~ty gate rate approved by the Ralroad Comm,ssmn This rate ~s adjusted each month v~a the Cas Cost Adjustment Clame ("GCA") to take rotc account the fluctuauons m the well head cost of natural gas In tins filing, TXU proposes to mcinde a base cost of gas of $5 05 I,~ per MCF and has mmuahzed test year revenue and gas costs to include th~s rate lm C2's oprman, test year revenue and gas costs should be annua~ed by using the estabhshed mty gate rate of $2 7535 per MCF, and allow any over/under recovery of gas cost to continue to be taken into account in the monthly CtCA The ~mpact of reducing the gas cost is to r~duce annuahzed revenue by apprommately $68,400,000, to reduce armuahzed gas cost by approx,mately $63,400,000, and to reduce revenue related taxes by approx~mately $3,800,000 m 2 The second recommended adjustment u related to revenue received for the transportation of gas to mdustnal/commercml transport customers According to Mr McMomes, an addilaonal $129,298 should be included as "Other Revenue" for a commodity payment concerning transported gas Please refer to Tab B for a detaded discussion oftlms recommended adjustment C2's recommended adjustment to the lost and unaccounted for gas ("LUG") proposed by the Company ~s comprised of two somewhat offsetting calculations F~rst, TXU provided a correcUon to ~ts proposed calculatmn m response to R_FI 6-14 This correction increased the Company's ongmally proposed LUG by approximately $323;600 However, the second component ts to reduce the per MCF gas cost proposed by the Coinpany ($5 0514) to the mt7 gate rate of $2 7535 TNs reduces the u TXU's remsed filing actually shows a test year adjusted mount of $11,060,719 This amount does not include TXU's proposed increases m depreclaUon rates or texas other than income 1: The net Impact of this adJustment m to m~rease opm'atmg mconz before FIT by approxlva.tely $2,500,000 These adjtutmeuts have been calculated based on the eunuahzanon data included m the workpaper$ The Company Ms been requested to reeta:e the revenue and gas costs based on the $2 7535 p~ MCF base aost of gas However, aa o£the waling of thls report, TXU Ms not pro,nded this to verify tl~se mounts 76 Mr Geoffrey Gay May 14, 2001 Page 7 adjustment by $758,000, for a net recommended decrease of approxrmately $434,400 4 The fourth recommended change to the adjusted net operating raceme concerns the operanons and maintenance ("O&M") expenses proposed by the Company TXU proposes O&M expenses for labor and supphes and expense of $21,774,562 C2 recommends O&M for labor and supphes and expense be set at $21,324,104, or a reductmn of $450,458 The adjustment is prermsed on Iusufficmnt jusUficataon for allocating costs from the tom/dlstnbutaon level rather than actual costs recorded for each of thejunsdactmns included Insufficient justification for increasing O&M costs based on customer growth In prior local d~stnbutlon cases, TXTJ has reported the "per books" amounts of O&M based on the operaung statements maintained at esther the actual town level or at the &stnbutmn system level (a summauon of ali towns mcluded m a parUcular d~stnbtraon system) In the m~tant filing, TXU begins w~th the "per books" amounts reported on the trml balance of the en~e TX'U Gas Dsstnbutmn and apparently allocates to the Northwest Metro, Mad Citrus Dsstnbutuon System These amounts are then adjusted for a vauety of tota/company costs (as allocated to the system level) and for mcrea~es/decreases m cu, tomers per the armuahzatmn of customers -- In a review of ali jmusdactaous included m the Northwest Metro/M~d Cst~as Dlstnbutmn System, C2 noted that the sum of O&M reported m each of the junsdaclaons d~d not comcsde w~th the mounts TXIJ reported as "System AllocaUon Per Books "~ Adcht~onally, a review of the O&M per customers over the last several years dad not show a steady cost per customer to mdacate that such expenses clearly increase wath au increase m the number of customers 14 Therefore, C2 reqommends that the O&M expense be adjusted to reflect the actual "per books" reported for each of the junsdactJons included mttus filing Although many of the accoautmg adjustments made by TXTj appear reasonable, it ss not certain as to whether the amounts on which the adjustments are based were ever reported at the system level Addatmnally, g~ven the trend m O&M per customer for the last several years, C2 does not behave that TX!J has supported sts contentson that O&M should be increased for proj acted customer growth 5 The fifda recommended adjustment to operating expense ~s to reduce uncollectable accounts by $58,628, Please refer to Mr McMomes under Tab B for a detailed dascussmn of tbas adjustment u I~ re,pome to It.FI No 4-03, TXU stated that tt had not clmuged ~ts accou.utmg for costs at the system level Therefore, accumulaUon of costs reported at the each oft. he tom mcluded should be equal to the "~er books" for the total d~stnbut~on system t Iu fact, for the 7ears 1998 a.ud 1999, the O&M per customer for the junsd~cuon~ included m ttns fihng were stgm~icanfly elevated over those shown m the prior years Additionally, although customers continued to grow m the test year, the costs per customer dechned 77 Mr Geoffrey Gay May 14, 2001 Page 8 6 The s~xth recommended adjustment ~s related to taxes other than raceme TX-[J ~s requesting Increases m both the ad valorem taxes and state francluse taxes over the test year mounts ~z C2 ha~ incorporated the adjustment for ad valorem, but has re,nsed the requested increase m state franck~se taxes to come,de w~th the Consultants' recommended capltahzatmn 7 Due to the recommended adjustment to the labor pomon of O&M, C2 recommends that the payroll taxes be adjusted accordingly As a result, payroll taxes have been reduced by $5,103 8 As wuth payroll taxes, the revenue related taxes have been adjusted to reflect the downward adjustment to revenue for gas costs As shown on Schedule 4, revenue related taxes for the test year have been reduced by $3,779,915 9 As ~scussed w~th regard to the invested capital, deprematmn expense has been reduced to exclude annual deprecmUon on those mounts of "completed eonstrucuon not classified" that have not been mctuded as plant m sermce The total recommended adjustment to deprecmlaon expense ~s ($954) 10 The resulting recommended changes to net operaUng raceme before FIT necessarily change the amount of federal raceme taxes computed for rate-making purposes _ Because the cumulative unpact of ali recommended operating raceme adjustments ~s a decrease to operating raceme before FIT of $508,321, the raceme taxes on tlms decrease must aisc be reflected Therefore, federal raceme taxes, computed at TXU's proposed rate of 35% are decreased by $345,769 as shown on Schedule 4 ~o C A~ualysls of the Cost of Capital The cost of capital gsed m estabhshmg natural gas rates typ~cally m determm.ed by evaluating the capital structure of the entity that ~s acqumng the capital and the ongoing costs to that entity for such capital Capital structures typ~cally include some combination of debt, preferred equity and common eqmty and may include other components depending on the corporate structures u.uder review Analysxs of cost of capital focuses on an assessment of the weighted average costs of these components based on the percentage that a paracular component m of the total capital structure tunes ~ts respecUve on-going costs (~ e interest rate, eqmty return) ~s TXU did not include these mcreasss mtts test year adjusted amounts, but rather included the roquasted increases only m the proposed revenue requn:ements ~ Tlm oomputsUon follows the tradmonal approach taken m prior distnbuuon case~ whach synchromzes mtsrest and apphes a 35% tax rate In tlm filing, however, TXU has provided a esUmated tax computauon that pur~om to reflec~ addataunal tax deducUom and adchUons C2 recommends that the C~taes continue to compute FIT m the tradittonai ma~,,er un~I such me that the proposed calculataon can be shown to reprasen~ a mor~ accurate approach 78 Mr Geoffrey Gay May 14, 2001 Page 9 Because TX'U Is not an entlty that issues its own debt and equity mstru.ments, there ~s not a capital structure par se for ttus enUty However, ~ts parent company, TX-U Gas Company (formerly known as Enserch), does issue debt and preferred equity instruments that are used to prowde capital for the TXU operations In addmon, TAU Gas Company receives advances and other paid m cap,tat from Texas Unhtaes Come,any that are recorded as components of TXU Oas Company's overall cap~ml structure Pnor to the late 1980% TXU used the actual eap~taI structure of Enserch m deterr~ng the cost of capital for its dastmbutmn rate filings However, a_~er that tans, TXU began to empIoy a hypothetaeal capital structure based on a composite capital structure from other natural gas chstnbunon ¢ompames In the instant ~hng, TXU is proposing a hypotheneal cap~tal structure that ~s based on ¢ompmsons w~th natural gas chstnbunon ¢ompsmes throughout the country addmon, TXU Is using these ¢ompames' costs as they relate to the debt and preferred eqmty eompomen:s TXLr's proposed cost of common eqtuty ~s based on an analyms conducted by Dr Bruce Fazr¢tnld m December 2000 ~ TXU proposes the following cap,tat structure and oost of eapml % OF WEIGIi'rlil) CO.OriENT ~ COST -- Debt t6 70% 7 27% 3 ~0% Pref~i EqmU 1 70% $ 79% 10% Common EqtuU 51.60% 12 00% I00 00% 9 69% However, the actual cap,tat structure of TXU Gas Company is slgmicantly d~fferent than th~ above Based on m~onnab, on provided by TX'U, (: e December, 2000), the actual cap,tat structure of TX~ Gas Company and related costs are more closely represented as follows ¢OMPOI~T ~ COST~O Debt 50 2'/% ~ 87% 2 08% Advances fi:om TUC 22 96% 6 61% 1 $2% Preferred Equity 8 87% 6 18 55% Cornmou Eqmty 37 90% 10 75% 4, 0'7~4 100 00% 8 22% ~? TXU does report ~ts actual capnal sm.refute tn its SEC filings ts C2 notes ~t ~e ~oad Co~m,~smn approved ~e use of a h~o~enc~ cap,tM s~c~e m ~e most recent c~ gate cass ~d ~e tnost recent appeal of a ~mbuuon t~ Respo~e to ~I 2-04 ~o ~ Assoctates pro,dod ~e cost of co--on eqm~ Please refer to Tab C for a detailed ~c~s:on of ~ cost 79 Mr GeofFrey Gay May 14, 200I Page 10 As shown, the hypothetical capital structure does not reflect TX-U' Gas Coinpany's new source of capital, its parent TUC =~ Because TUC advances TXU Gas Company capital at lower costs than the debt or equity shown on e:ther the hypothencal or the actual capita/, structure, the unpact of recograzmg these advances is to reduce the overall weighted cost of capital proposed by TX'U Add~t~onally, by mcludmg tkts actual source of capita/, the percentage shown as common eqmty is reduced, further lowenng the weighted cost of capital Based on thc above analysis, C2, along w~th I-hll Associates recommends that the Citrus consider a wesghted average cost of capital of 8 22% to be apphed to the adjusted test year net original cost of invested capital Thc resulting co~nputatnon is the after tax return that thc total Northwest Mctro/Mtd Cities Distribution System requires m order to pay interest expenses and provide a reasonable return to cqmty holders D. Analysis of Cost of Service by Customer Class TXU's overall allocation methodology is prennsed, in large part, on an a/locatmn of investment/costs that was used in the inost recent dasm~buuon system case heard before thc Rmltoad Com~smon ~: The allocatmn inethodology approved m that ca~c was based on thc following - · An assignment of the lowest posssble cost per customer necessary to connect a customer ("zero mtercepf' cost) · An allocat, on of the remainder of thc investment based on a ccinbinat~on of volume related and peak deinand related factors Generally, C2 has taken the approach that there should be no "zero intercepf' assignment of cost by customer class , but that a $0/50 spht between the amount of investment (inams) that ss allocated on the bas~s of volume and peak day demand (Seaboard methodology) ~s reasonable However, in the instant filing, C2 recommends thc followmg · Accept TXU's proposed zero intercept computatmn · Allocate the remainder of the inams on the basis of 75/25 volume and peak demand, respecttvely C2 recommends tkns wesghting duc to the fact that TXU has been unable to support its reported peak demand by customer class Please refer to Mr McMomes testnnony m :~ The source of capital from TUC ~s shown as both advances fi.om TUC ~ as common ~qutt7 TXU Gas Company nO longer ~ssues common stock, but rather TUC ~ssues cormmon stock and pro'ades pa~d m capital to TX-0' Gas Company aa Appeal of TXTJ Gas D~strtbunon from the Action of the City of Dallas et al, GLrD Nos 9145-91~.8 80 Mr Geoffrey Gay May 14, 2001 Page 11 Tab B for a detailed d~seusmon of the difficulties noted vath TXU's proposed pe~ As sho~ on ScheduI~ 2, ~¢ foHo~g revenue req~ements result ~om ~e use of modified Seabogd me.od . Remden~al $82,078,55I , Co~¢rccal $45,471,793 ~ ~dusm~Tr~spo~ $6,989,632 . Schools2a $358,045 ~ese revenue requ~ents ~s~e ~at each emtomer cl~s ~]1 pronde ~e re~ on ~ts respectively ~oeated mves~ent m ~e re~ reeo~ended for ~e system (~ e 8 22%) Breed on ~ese revenue requests ~ pmU re~, ~e ~dousted test ye~ reven~es by cl~s shoed be metered ~ follows · Remden~ $1,343,¢09 · ~us~r~po~ $1,909,781 · Schools $1,776 E. ~al7ms of Proposed AutomafleAdjustment C~uses ~ ad~on to ~e O~ Cost AdjaCent C'~A") clause esmbh~ed by ~e ~koad Com~mo~ ~ h~ requested ~at ~e Crees au~o~e ~e WeaVe Clause ~e adjus~ent elate m dem~ed to ~oo~ out m~fiemt ~ees be~een acm~ hea~g load md m~ezpated hea~g load ~der no~al w~a~¢ eon~o~ (30- ye~ horns) ~ app~ve~ ~ would be ~ployed d~g ~e mon~ of Octob¢ May (~e hea~g scion) md wo~d be subject to vmatao~ ~at exceed fi~ percent of ~e wea~er no~ C2 md ~ MeMomes recommend ~at ~e Crees ~ow ~e ~ ~e req~em~t ~at ~ pronde re~ r~o~g to ~e C~es of ~ts ~e md c~c~a~o: F Over~ ~te Dem~ T~ m proposing to mcre~e ~e remde:U~ ~fl eo~m~e~ c~tomer ch~ger~ m ~s&cUo:s ~at have ~ot ~eady r~sed ~em to ~e level of $8 00 ~d $14 00, n As noted m Mr McMomes testzmonv, the peak der~nd for the industrial class should be adjured or ~e we~gh~g be~een vol~e ~d peak d~d shoed be ~dJ~:ed ~om ~e ~*c~ 50/50 ~ht For p~oses of~ r~om, C2 ~s chosen to a~j~t ~e we~gh~g to 75/2~ ~d allow ~e pe~ de.ad ~ repomed by ~ ~e reveaue req~e~ts for ~o~e schools not c~e~fly on ~e commercml ~te ~ve be~ esau.ted As sta~ed above, ~e actual pe~ de~=d for ~ese ~ehoo~ w~ not pro~ded by suck pe~ b~ed om ~e propo~o~ pe~ de~ of ~e o~er ~tom~ c~sses Mr Geoffrey C-ay May 14, 2001 Page 12 respeetavely TX-W_T is also proposing to increase the industrial s~.les r~es as well ss to esmbhsh a not-to-exceed rote per MMBTU for transportaUon contract rates In order to dcter~,~e the appropriateness of the customer charge increase, C2 and Mr McMorries recommend that, at a m.t~,mum, the Qt~es consider the followang' Should the revenue stream to TXU be more stable ~roagho~ the year? Should there be ~,a effort to promote more commodny usage through lower co,,,,~ochty rates? · Should the overall monthly charges to the customers be less sensmve to fluctuation as a result of usage7 Increases m the customer charges necessarily reduce the commodity rates m order to aclneVe the approved revenue requn~nen~. Therefore, the moresse proposed does not mean additional revenue to TXTff, bu~ flo~e~poteamally result m a chfferent montMy revcnu~ stream ~ currently experienced. As of the wn~ng of tkts report, Mr ~cMornes recommends that the Cmos conslder a res~dentml eustome~ clmrge of $7 00 and a oo~,~rcm/customer ehar~ of $12 00 ~ ~m*n~r-y- ra~f~ d~.~3, by C~ty ~s mclucled in Tab B W~th respect to the TXU's proposed c~,,ge m/ndustnal ges sales ram destgn, C2's opm/on ~s that the mdusmal rates do ~ppear to requtre adjustment. However, because C2 cannot separate the tra~portaUon eomputaUon from the mdusmal sales computanon m the overall cost of service, C2 does not 1rove any recommended increase to be cor. s~dered just for the mdostnal rate cT~velopmcnt. The overall rate design ,-~ chscussecl m more detml m Mr McMomes tesumony and be updated to reflect the final dec~ons m~,~e by the Cmos C2 greatly apprec~es hawng th~s oppo, t,~uzty to work wrth the C~t~es served by the Northwest Metm/M~d Cmos Distribu~on Systen~ If you have any que~ons regarding the proseot ac~v~t~es, project analy.~es and/or the pre~rmnm-y recomm~nda~ons, please contact Ms Conn, e C~n,,~dy at (972) 72~5-721~5 Very truly yours, C2 Consulting Serwces, Inc 82 SCHEDULE TXU OAS NORTHWEST ME"~'~OR, IID CITIES D~TRIBUTION SYSTEM SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED REVENUE REQUIREMENT~ TEiT YEAR ENDED 3EPTEMBER ,la, 2000 CONSULTANT COMPANY PROPOSED CONSULTANT PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS RECOMMENDED Curmllt Residential Claes Revenue $8n,735 142 (1) $0 $80,7:tS,14Z {2) Required RealclelltJal Cia,s Revenue 125.149,531 (1) (43.070.g80~ 82.078.551 (2) Proposed Increaee/(Decmaua) $44,414,369 ($,43,nT0,Sa0) $1,34:3,405 Currant Commercial Cles~ Re~nae ~45,443,218 (1) ($3~t,268) $45,088,g48 (2) Required Commer~l~ Class Revenue 75.04g.161 (1) /~g.E?7.368~ 45.471.793 CZ} Proposed lncm~e/(Decre~se) $29,1~06,54.8 ($26,Z2'1,100) $384,846 Currant Induatrlal/'l'ransport Revenue ~4,g50,55~ (1) 129,296 $5,076,651 (2) Required Indu~tllel/Tmnnport Revenue 6.705.466 (1) 284.169 ~ (2) Proposed Incmaee/(Daorease) $t ,7E4,510 $194J71 $1,gOg,?al Curt'met Public $c110cl REvenue $355,268 (~) 60 $356,268 (2) Required Public School Rewnue N/A N/A 358.045 (2) PrODDed Inc~asel(Decr~a~e} NIA N/A $1,776 83 SCHEDULE 2 TXU GAS NORTHWEST METRO/MID ClTIE"~ DISTRISUTIO~ SYSTEM CUSTOMER CLA~S REVENUE REQUIREMENTS INDUSTRIALJ RESIDENT]AL COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT SCHOOLS TOTAL Operating Exp~nees {1 ) $23,160,548 $7 225,982 $2 111 201 $25 733 $32, S23 464 Unaccounted Far Gas (2) 405 984 279 059 221,E'/9 1 753 908,275 Federal thceme Taxes (3) 2~ 185,089 1,100 055 378,124 4 310 3 677,578 Cost of Gas (2) 44,572 SSs 30 721 665 2 754,875 292 200 78 341,E06 Return an investment {3) 7~248 630 3 632T808 1 248~843 14 232 12 144~112 Subtotal $2T,882,817 S42,95E,367 98,714,5~2 S338,228 S127 ~84,93:5 Revenue Related Taxes (5} 4~495 T34 2 512~428 275 110 19~817 $7T303 086 Total Revenue Requirements [ $82,078~SI SdS 471 793 $8 gSgr932 S3.R~045 s13.4~88a~021 Current Gas Sales Revenues (4} $78,746,488 $44 gee 428 $3,06~,916 $356 2SS 5128,159 797 Other Revenue {5) 998~5S'/ 80T~'20 2T019T2=8 0 8r088~412 Total Revenues I $80~738 142 $45 08&,M8 S5~O79T951 $'~56T268 $131~258 208 Revenue Oeflclenuy (surplus] $1 ,~L1,~'009 8=s4,84~ $1,g09,791 $1,TT9 S3,939,812 Other Revenue Increaxe (5) (137T938) {12~627] (2.28~ [180r780) Gax ~alt Rat~ Oe~lr, Jency (Surplus) { $1~4at9144 $397~472 $it.qlo~OOg $17778 $3~7g0~909 84 SCHEDULE 'TXU GAS NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 ORIGINAL COST OF INVESTED CAPITAL COMPANY CONSULTANT PROPOSED CONSULTA~IT RECOMMENDED CAPITAL (1) ADJUSTMENTS CAPITAL Plant in Service Net Distnbu~an PI-nt $164 ~49,144 (.~,4,481) (1) $154,g04,603 Net General Plant g~fi2D 210 ,, (l~574rOgl) (2) 8~046T127 Nal P~ant In Service $174,~8S,382 Other R~te Baas Items Regulatory Asset 2,078.g97 0 2 078,gg7 Wodang Capital Cash Wort~ing Capital (7,355,129) 0 (7,~85,120} Materials and Supplies 484,377 (1~'~,741) (8~ ~21.1:~ Prepayments 717,'~1t2 0 717,6E2 Customer Depeatt~ (3,8~ 8,273) 0 (8,618,27~) Cust,,mer Advance~ fc~r Con.truman (1,515,108) 0 (1,518,108] - Injunas and D~maga. Reserve (223,007) 0 (223,007) Unmstor~ Inves~nlsnt Tax Credits (2,054,~84) (2.084,~84) Ma~nllne Ind Metal' 8nd Rog AdJ (35,365) Ac~umuia[ad Deferred Fed. Inc Taxes Nat Original Cna! of Inverted Capital $140,-~42,457 ($1,782,292} $147,?$D,165 (2)Cak:~tod ~ Rata Fillr~l/~ ami I~ 10 RFI 2~2~ $$ SCHEDULE TXU GAS AJOETHEAST METE{:) DISTRIBUTION SY-qTEM CONSULTANT EECOMMENDED TE~T YF-.AE ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME COMPANY CONSULTANT CONSULTANT ADJUSTED RECOMMENDED ADJUSTED TEST YEAR (1) ADJUSTMENTS TEST YEAR Operating Revenues RcoldenUal $120,223,704 ($40,4T7,219) (2) S78 746 488 Industrial 3,080,818 33,060 816 Public Authority 388.288 835~288 Total Gas 5alas Revenue $1gG,578,44,1 ($88,4'16,647) $'12~,158,797 Se~vico Chc0ge Revenue 1,0S0,al 2 fl $1 080 812 Tmnspertehon Revenue I 888 303 129 298 (3) S2 017 601 Total Operating Revenue $189,546,$58 ($gS,287,349) $131,288,210 Ope~tJng Expenses Gas Pumflesee Residential 91 852,752 (37,280,088) (2) 44 872.858 Oemmar~al 55,718,:371 (25,894,708) (2) 30,721,E65 Industrial 2 755,088 (110) (2) 2,754075 Public Autheflty 0 292,200 (2) 292 200 Unaceauntec] For Gas I 342 E3O (434,355) (4) g08 278 {O~er O&M Expenses O&M Labor 7,417,204 (85,092) (S) 7,382,112 {:)8~t Suppllec end Expenses 14,387,358 (385,366) (5) 13 971,892 Uncol]a,~lble Acocun~ 894 872 (5S,628) (8) 248 044 Taxes Other Titan Income Taxon PmF;er[y Related 2,28~ DO8 (88,813) (7) 2,212,098 Payroll Relate'~ 581,670 (,5,103) (8) 575 567 Revenue Releled 11,D45 462 (3,778,81b') (9) 7,2,85 5~.7 Provision for Depreciation 7,901,~k~ ~6.,;4)(10) 7 80Q,Bag Interest on Customer Deposits 215,134 0 218 134 Interest on Customer Advances 487831 O 48~831 Total OpsmUng Expcrls. Before Federal Income Taxes .,, $186~817r920 (897~'7'78,028'I $1't9,038T792 Nat Operating Income Before Federal Income Taxes $12'727.738 ($808,321) $17.,215,4't8 Federal Income Taxes 27782 582 ~45,79~ (11) 2~416;788 NET OPERATING INCOME $8,98~i,188 ($162,55~) S9,807,,635 86 SCHEDUUE ~ '~XU GAS NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYS'I'~M CONSULTANT RECOMMENDED COST OF CAPITAL (2) (1) (1) COI~ULTANT CQNSULTANT TXU PROPOSED ~U PROP0~ED P~OPOSED PROPOSED C~IT~ COST 0F CAPITAL COST OF S~RE ~PITAL S~UCTU~ C~ITAL ~bt 46 70% 3 ~% 30 27% 2 08% Advents ~m Parent 0 00% 0 ~% ~ 96% I 52% ~mmon Equ~(3) ~1 ~% O 19% 37 90% 4 07% Wa~ghtad Cost of Capital ~ 6e% 8.22% $CHEDUcE NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBI-rT~QN SYSTEM INVESTED CAPITAL. AND ADJUSTED VALUE RATE BASE TEST YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 3°, 2000 (1) TOTAl. (2l (2) INDUSTRLAtJ (2) SYSTEM RESIDENTAL COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT SCHOOLS Net Original Coat of Plant:in Service D;atnbutio~ Plant Meters $13,109 532 S7 5g0,791 $5,143 724 $384 486 $10 561 House ReguJator end Install Mats, 3 264 031 1,889,DSO 1,280 692 gO 750 2 Sen'Ices 43 825,'~g7 26 646 690 16,815 490 328 592 34 525 Customer'Assignment 3't,325,845 25,541 S4'1 2,718,205 604;37 5382 Total Mains $103,02B,072 $63,021,041 $24,463,702 S15,388,54B ;3136 780 Torsi rslat~lbution Plant $164,904.683 $100,174,860 S4~,1=a~8 $1a,421,022 $188,723 Total Plmlt In aefvtae S172,9~a,$11 SI05,062,431 $~0,470,299 $17,222,246 $195,834. WorXing Ca ;;ItaJ Caen WerYdng Capital (7,385,129) (4 474,0gS) (2,149,2B3) [733,4';1) (8 340) LJnarnortizecl R~e, Cass 1E~ 0 0 0 0 -- Total AddlSarm (S4,247 304) ($2.5B0,110} ($1,23g,443) (~422 942} (S4 809) Customer Depes~ and Customer ,,M~atl;aa ($5,138,361) ($4,?0,5,,426) (342%955) Mainline Meter and Rog ActJ ($~1365) SO $0 Injuries. arlcl Dsmslg~ Rseews (223 007) (I 35 470) (85 078) (22 [Jnr~tore~ ITC~ (2,084,3B4) (1,268,189) (808,257) Total Odgtnal Coat invsetec[ Capital $147,7En 165 $S8 195,731 S44 198 744 S15 192,521 $173 168 Total Rata Base Aa Allo~,ata~ i $¶471760~166 SSBi1gSTTtl S44119B1744 $1 88 SCHEDULE 7 NORTHWEST METRO/MID CreES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OPERAT~Nf= EXPENSES F~CLUDING GAS COST ~D R~UE ~ST Y~R ENDED SEFTE~BE~ ~a, 2000 SYSTEM ~SIOE~L COMMERC~ T~SPORT SCHOOLS Di~butlen Custo~r Ac~, ~fe & Sails ~r 3~0,547 2,050,762 306,317 2,~19 Supplie~ & ~n~s 3 482 588 3~151 706 327 1~ 3 1 ~ubto~J 5uppli~ & ~nses ~,S~,l~O ~,~6,S~ 1,261,465 321,93g 4,212 Adm/nlst~ve and Genaral Le~r ~31,549 $172,204 ~6,5g0 &12,5~ $160 Suppii~ & ~na~ 7~87,802 5,S55,828 1 ,~75,380 351 Sum~ nf O~mflng To~{ O&M ~nses S21~0,1~ S16,346,670 ~,1~e,774 S1,072,~21 $13,883 Prowslon for Da;~ra,';atfon $7,~00,SS9 ~ 796 431 Inter~ ~n C~msr DeRo~ 215,1~ 197,125 18,008 Intem~ on C~mer ~n=~ 4B,831 44,743 4,088 O 0 Pr=~ Re[at~ T~ea 2~12 ~95 I ,~3 781 645,531 ~G 276 2 505 Payroll ~ela~ T~s 576 ~7 428~767 116 012 31 T360 368 To~I Opening ~pgn~ Gas C~ a~ ~venue Reiat~ 1 ~2,523,46~ ~,160,548 57,~5,982 S2 111 ~01 ~ 733 Revenue Requl~nt For ~pen~. ~=luding 6aa ~st and Rev Taxes [ $32~23~4~ S23 160~ $7722S~g82 S~111~201 S2~,733 r SOURCES SCHEDULE NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUtiON SYSTEM CALCULATION OF FEDERAL INCOME TAXES BY CUSTOMER TEST YEaR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, TOTAL [NDUSTRJALJ SYSTEM RESIDENTIAL COMMERC~L De~ 3~ 27% 544 729 31S S28 69B,~9 S13,379 6S2 54 599 014 ~52 421 A~n;e~ ~m Parent ~9~ ~,930,~g 20,2S2,614 10 140,472 3,488,~8 39,765 Cerumen Equl[y 37 ~% 56 OOO 158 33 425 Slg 16 751 (042 5 757,859 65 829 Tu~llnvla~ Cap]~l {2) S147,7~,165 S~,~g~,731 S~,lgEeT~ StS,192,~t ~173,1~ R~rn ~ulram~t ~) PO TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES /~~ 1rILED February 16, 2001 .~£IVE DATE: mrcn 23, SUSPENDED TO: Sane 21, 2001 JUNE2001 C2 CONSULTANTS BHJL R. MCMORRIES, P.E. 91 TA_BLg OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary ................................................ Beginning Purpose of Testimony .................................................. M-1 Explanation and Exlubits: Construction Work in Progress M-2 Exhibit 1, Pages 1 & 2 Transportation/Industrial Customers M-5 to M-7 Calculation of Peak Demand for Transportatmn/Industnal M-8 to M-10 Exhibit 2 M-11 Depreciation Expense M-12 Un¢ollect~ble Expense M-13 to M-14 Exhibit 3 M-15 -- Donations M-16 Exhibit 4 M-17 Rate Design M=I$ to M-19 g, Thib~ts $, pages 1, 2, 3, 4,5, & 6 Misc~aneous Comparison of ~penses Per Cnstomer A-1 Peak Day Comparison 1-2 Vital Statistics A-~ Most Recent Approved Rate~ by Cities A-4 Montlfly City Gate Rate A-5 Qualifications -Bill It. McMornes, P.E. B Table~on,n~n BILL R. MCMORRIES, P.E. 93 EX]~CUTIVE SUNIMARY Bd] R. Mc~ornes, P E 1 Fdmg- TXU Gas D~stnbut~on flied on February 16, 2001 to mcrease annual revenue in the Northwest MetrofMad Cities D~trlbut~on System by $10,156,808 or 5 09% The C~t~es who suspended rates for 90 days from the effective date would have unU] June 21, 2001 to study and take achon on thrs request. On April 2, 2001, TXU FLied rewsed pages to correct a major error m ~ts original flhng The reused flhug reduced their requested increase to $7258,598 or 3 69% There are 45 separate c~t~es and segments included in this flhng The date of approval for the e~stmg rates (last rate case or adjustmemt) are shown by o,ty and segment under AppendLx A-4 and vary from Aprd 10, 1982 for Roanoke to May 10, 1999 for Mansfield 2 CWIp. Recommend remora] of $30,~80 from Plant ~n Service, because the construction project relating to these costs were not yet completed and placed ~nto service untd after the end of the test year Adding an]y the mvestmant to the rate base on these new customer projects creates a mismatch between investment, expenses, and reve,,ue. Company fa~led to preyed the need to induda the costs for uncompleted projects as necessary for financial integrity 3 Iodustr~alflndustnal Customers. TX'U proposes remowng ~37,401 of re~anue for Backup a~d Standby fees because of the Rmlroad Commissions ruhng ixl GUD 8976 It would appear that fmrness then reqmres that s~nee the revenue ~s to be credited to TXU LSP's transpor~a~en cost of ser~nce then the cost of serwee for these customer be allocated sway from TXU D~t~ibu~on. IfLS1~ is to get the revenue the~ LSP aesds to be assigned the expenses. 4 ]~enk Demand Calculations for Industrv/Tr_n~ortn~o~ Customers. We recommend - that either the des~g~ peak for these customers to be a minimum of 87,O81 MC~ per day m heu of the Company's culculat~ons of ~4,~?3MCF or the demand component of the Senbottrd Allocation Method he reduced materlnlly. TX'U failed to use its normal method m determining these es~mnted peaks for the ~ndustry/Transports~on class. 5 ~ The company proposes ~ncrease m deprecia~on expense~ of $1,102,739 (from $6~798,904 to $?,901~643, Schedule ])-4). While th~s In~ren-~e tn depren~ntlan expense seems anvarrn~nted, the Texas Rmlrosd Commission has recently approved such depreciation rates in a case. We are hesntant, w~thout further detmled study, to recommend d~sapprovnL 6 ~. Recommend nn adjustment downwm-d of $56,628 to correspond experien¢~i bad debt loss. ? ~The Compnny has requested that a ver~ small amount of donat~om ($1,765) be ~ncluded an the cost of senoce. The C~ty has a chmce whether to include donntmns. 8 ~ The monthly Customer Settee Charges vn~ greatly by ci~es The average (nnthmet~c) of the Resldentml and Commercial Customer Charge is estimated st $5 77 and $10 79 per month respectrvely We recommend these customer serwce charges be estnbhshed nt not more thnn $? 00 and $12 00 for Res~dent~ul and Commerc~ul respect~eiy 9 M~sce~ Under Appendt~ A are the foilow~ng mformnt~on data. Comparison of E~penses Per Customer, ?eck Day Comparison, V~tnl Statist~cs on usage by class and number of customers, dates by Cl~es of most recent rate cnse~ & gas cost (gste rateJ by months 10 weether ]~ormallznt~on Adjustment Clause- we have no obJect, on (at th~s t~me) to use as at as mtesded to be revenue neutral ,~.ecSu~ ~ 94 Ball R. McMorr~e~, P E Gas Rate Consultant PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY Q What Is the purpose of your teslitnony~ A The purpose of thts tesiatnony is to present recommendations to officials and staffs ofthe Cities tn the Northwest Metro/]VI*d-Cities Distnbt~tloa Systetn of TXT.7 Gas Distribution in regard to Construclqon Work tn Protffress included as Plantin Serwce, calculation for peak detnand of Industries and Transportation Customers, Depreciation Expense, Uncollectible Expenses, Douaiaom, and Rate Design. Q Would you describe the nature and scope of work performed by you tn these proceeding? A We were retained by the Northwest MetroflHid-Cit~es to review, evaluate, and to prepare recotnmendations in regard to TXU's ~ing and supporting data, and to assist the City staffs in making recommendattnns to the City Coune,is in the matter of a request to increase rates to these Cities. Q Have you prepared any exhibits supporting your recotnmendations? A Yes. McIVI Exhibits 1 through 4 were prepared by me or under my supe~lsion. 95 B~ll R. McMornes, P.E. Gas l~te Consultant Construction Work in Progress Q OD Mc_~I Exhibit 1, page 1, please explain why you recommend an adjustment downward of $30,580 to the Company's Net Plant A A.n adjustment is recommended because the Company has reclassified some C-TVv'IP projec~ as Plant in Service even though the projects were e~ther projects t~at added new services or projects stall not complete at end of the Test Year. GURA requires uncompleted CWIP projects to be omitted from the rate base unless It ~s necessary to maintain the financaal integrity of the company The Company has offered no reasonable proofthat it ~ necessary to include CWIP m the rate base m order to mamtmn financial integrity of the Company. If the Company can show that certain projects were completed and placed into service before the end of the test year, these projects might be considered as plant in service. Fan-aess requires a corresponding adjustment for added revenue and expenses so a mismatch between rate base, revenue, and expenses does not occur. The Company has faded to ~dent~y and quantify the expected revenue and expenses from these added customers. In response to RFI 3-29, Attachment 2, the Company shows that 530,580 of CWIP was completed and placed in service after the test year. See Mc.M Exhibit l, page 2 for a list of these projects. Also all of these add ADL)TO nwm Page 3U-2 96 Bill R. McMornes, P E Gas Rate Consultant McM Exhibit Page TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Northwest Metro/M~d Cities D~stnbution System TYE 9/30/00 RATE BASE AdJust- Company ments Consultant Ong,nal Cost $ $ $ Net Plant '1/ 174,569,362 -30,580 ~, 174,538,782 Construction Work In Progress 0 u 0 O Retirement Work in Progress 0 0 O Work, ng Capital: Working Cash Allowance -6,205,161 0 -6,206,161 Poly 1-Safety Compliance 2,078,997 0 a/ 2,078,997 - Customer Deposits & Advances -5,136,381 -5,136,381 Injury and Damage Reserve -223,007 -223,007 Ind. Mainline Mtr & Reg Adjust -37,846 0 -37,846 Deferred Income Tax -15,547,589 -15,647,589 TOTAL INVESTED CAPITAL 149,498,375 -30,580 149,467,795 8outce. Sehed~lle K.1, page .I of 3 f/ i-'lA & MoM Exl#blt 'l, p.2 2/McM Exhibit f, p 2 97 .Page M-$ Bdl R. McMornes, P.E. Gas P~te Consultant - MciV[ ]~xh~b~t 1 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION Northwest Metrof/Vhd Cities D~stnbut~on System TYE September 30, 2000 DISALLOWED CONSTRUCTION WORK IN' PROGRESS TOTAL SYSTEM Comple~on ER Number Date Amount DISTRFrIUTION: Uncompleted at end of Test Year // Also project~ identified as adding customers or increasing volumes 1216367G Not Corn flete at end of Te~t Year .~ 2,~°~ 1217670G Not Corn )lets at end of Test Year 1246022G Not Corn flete atend of Test Year 12;~4642G Not Corn flete at end of Test Year 161 2/ 1175733G Not Cam flete at end of Test Year 31,183 2/ -- 1224069G Not Corn flete at end of Test Year 1235493G Not Corn ~iete at end of Test Year 12~052G Not Corn dete at md of Test Year 1241284G Not Corn dete at end of Test Year 1246434G Not Corn dete at end of Test Year 1188595G Not Corn ~iete at end of Test Year 1209416(} Not Corn ~]ete at end of Test Year 1250165G Not Corn ~iete at end of Tes~ Year 317 2/ 1268118~G Not Col ~ple~e ~ e~d of Test Year (1~072) 2/ Total c-~rip-Total System $30,580 Summary: Disallowed all ~ claimed = $ 0 Plus disallow balance to Plant in Service = 30.580 Disallowed CWIP, Plant in Service = $ 30,580 Source: workpapers 1/yew Cn.~orn~ Re. spoase 3-29, Attachme~ 2 g2~gg)- S~'~c ~hough~s ar~ net included m ~hc $915,792 of CWIP, Schedule C- 1, page I 98 Page M-4 Ball R. McMornes, P E Gas Rate Consultant T1RANSPORTATION & INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS Q I$ TXLw requesting the crees determ:ne the rates to be charged the Trarisportat~on and Industrml Customers~ A Yes, i~ the Statement of Intent filed m this case TXU has requested tariffs be estabhshed for Industrial Sales (Rate Schedule 4103) and for laadustnal Transportation (Rate Schedule 4104) Q What are the increases proposed by TXU for the Industrml Customers? A A 42.99% increase is proposed for the Industrial Sales customers. The revenue under erdsting rates :s $3,060,617 whde the proposed new rates would prowde $4,376,237 per year. (Schedule L-2, page 7) A 26.93% increase is proposed for the Industnul Transportation customers. The revenue under existing rates la $1,888,303 (Schedule L-2, page 10) whale the proposed new rates would provade $2,396,739 per year. (Schedule L-2, page 9 & Schedule L-4, page 7). Schedule L-4, page 7 of 7 shows the proposed new rates for Transportataon customers as follows. 14 Industrinl Traasportat~on customers 1 Electric C~meration Customer ~ $0.02 per MCI* - 5 Commercial Trausporta/aon customers (~ $0.37 to $0,64 per MCF All the revenue generated/'rom the rates above xs proposed to be ered:ted to th:s Distribution System except the 14 Industrial Transportation customers revenue is divided $0% to this Distrlbutmn System and 50% to Transmission System. Q To what system does TXU propose the increase in the margin for the Industrial Sales accrue? A In Tariff 4105, it states" 100% of the increase m indust~al margin ~s to accrue to the benefit of TX-U Gas Dlstnbutmn'. Q What is the erastmg and proposed margin m the Industrml sales rate~ A Exisnng Rate Schedule 48-N and proposed rates pro,nde margins as follows: (Rate less $1.00 for gas)' ~ 1 Emstmg- $0 58 per MCF over 125 MCF ($202 39 Proposed $2 741 per MCF over 125 MCI: ($479 21) Ra~e 2 Emstmg- $0 434 per MCI: over 600 MCI: ($905 26 mmmmm) Proposed $2 395 per MCF over 600 MCF ($2,143 43 m,mmum) t~at¢ 3 Eya~ang- $0 374 l~r MCF ov~ 1,250 MCF ($1,748 12 mm~mum) Proposed $2 253 p~r MCF over 1,250 MCI: ($4,139 10) Page 99 Bdl R. McMorne~, P.E. Gas Rate Consultant To what system does TXU propose the increase m the transpor'tat~on fees In Tariff 4104, it states "100% of the increase in transportation fees incurred to move the gas from the e~ty gate to the customer's fac~hty is to accrue to the benefit of TXU Gas Distribution". How does TXU propose the revenues from standby and backup fees be credited? The Standby and Backup fees are not included m th~s Distribution System revenues, Schedule L-4, page 7 of 7 shows the revenue at proposed rates at $2,396,739 and there are no standby or backup fees included On TTCU's workpapers FIYL-i.1/1 (page 196) adjustment to test years expenses are shown as follows: 11 Adjt~t R~veaue to rdle~t ~m~moa of Iach~nal/Elecmc Gena-aUon Backup Fees ($30,150) 12 Adjust Oth~ Gas l~v~me to rdl~'t ~h~n~on of Backup/Standby Fees ($$37.401) In TXU's response to Question 1-02a of C~t~es RFI Set No. 1, TXU states ~ac. knV f~ aa/~anc~y ~ were r~nov~l ~ th~ sl~-g beca~s~ they a~ to a pa-~ of the TXU Gna D~n'but~on-Tr~,~n Cost of Se~-wce proc~shng . ' How do you recommend these backup end standby fees be handled? According to Response to 6-03, the backup fee~ are for set. ce that vail no longer be offered so ~t appears the Generaaon backup fees of $30,1~0 should be removed The Back-up/Standby fees of $.~?,401 are quesaonable. TX'U contends that these fees were removed to comply with The Texas l~ulroad Comnnss~en's order m GUD 8976. The Final Order in that case On Finding of Fact 100 & 101) stipulated ~.00 The stand-by $¢r~c~ r~venues are not attributable to 2717f Gas-Dtsrnbutlon 101 Sta~d-by ~ervlce revenue of $2,481.911_ should be credited to 2'XU ~'s transportation cost of serwce as other revenue It would appear that tithe stand-by set. ce revenues are not ath~utable to the DIstribut~on System that must provide that serwce when culled upon, then neither should the expenses to serve be attributable to the D~stn'but/oa System Since TX-U has failed to prove (response (>-03a) that gas, when reqmred, would not flow through the D~stnbut~on System, then ~t has also failed to justify why some investment and operating expenses should not be allocated away from the other customers that use the system It appears this is a instant where one system (LSP) gets the revenue and another system (Northwest Metro/Mid Crees) gets the expenses The indirect benefit (credit TXU's LSP's transporta~on cost of semce) to this Dsstnbut~on System is diluted to such an extent that renders such method as meqmtable. M-6 100 Bill R. McMornes, P E. Gas Rate Consultant Since the company has failed to justify tins revenue removal, have failed so far to demonStrate that tins D~stnbut~on System would not be revolved m transpomng gas to these customers, and has fated to demonstrate the fairness of tins concept, then some allocation of expenses s_nd rate base needs to be assigned LSP transportataon cost of serwce Q Are there any other revenues reining to Transportalaon customers that needs to be adjusted? A Yes, In addition to fees charged for transportation, TXU requires a commodity payment of generally 1 to 1 5% of the gas transported. I~ response to Crees RFI Set No. 3, Quesuon 3-78 this was ~dent~fled as a credited amount of $129,298 (39,$27 MCF ~ $3.2878 per MCF) which was credited to Account 8050800, retention &stnbution credit This should be included as Other Revenue. Tra~s2~ortatton n~wm Page 3~r-7 101 Bill R. McMortaez, P E. Gas Rate Consultant CALCULATION OF PEAK DEMAND FOR INDUSTRY AND TRANSPORTATION CUSTOMERS Q Please explain the purpose of Mcl~I Exhibit 2. A This exhibit shows the calculation by the Company and also our recommendation of the peak demand expected for the Industrial and Transportation Customers. Q What ~s the amount of the desig~ peak you recommend in this case? A We recommend a design peak of 87,081 MCIr per day be assigned to the Indusmal and Transportation Customers. Q Why are the design peak~ necessary? A. It is necessary to determine the relaUve peak demand of each customer claes to assist m the determination of class cost. Allocations and assignment of cost are reqmred in th~ case since the industrial and transportation rntes are not apnrt of the rates to be determined tn this case. Therefore there needs to be n far method of estimating the cost to be nss~gned to the various classes. Allocations are not an exact science but are based upon judgements as to what method would be fmr to assign cost. The Company has no load studies to asset in this endeavor or to support their theory of allocations. Also the Company does not have measured peaks for ~ts customers so some form of Page M-8 102 Bill R. McMornes, P E Gas Rate Consultant - estimating must be employed to calculate these peaks. Q Explain why your recommended peak design for Industrial and Trarasportat~on customers are 87,081 IHCF per day whge the Company only shows a recommended peak of 54,373 MCF per day A Look at McM Exhibit 2. In response to RFI set no 3-14 the Company presents Its calculation of the estimated peak day for Industnal/Traaspertatmn. Their calculation were as follows: Bes~ Load was sele. etaxi as the month of August 2000 The usage that month was r~port~ias$91,396MCF(exclu&n~DeatanPow~Plam) So for the month of Augu~th~av~.g~cl~,~yu~wa~ 19,077MCF Bas~iuponaHonl2ngFactor of 111 3 line Company ~ta~anexl ns l~ak day al 24,641MCF munb~r the Campany added the peak day mensurexl at the Denton Power Plum 0£29,732 MCF on Sept~nber 20, 2000 So the Canpany assum~ ns peak ~ peak day of all odin' Induamal/Transpon Customers = 24,641 Actual eeak day of'the D~ton Pow~l' Plant on 9/20/00 = 29,73? Total o£ C~any's ~'~rnnt~i P~k Day m MCF/Day = 54,373 The method used la this case by the Company is not the nornaal method the Company uses in determiulug peak day for Industrial/Transport. Normally the Company calculates each indbadual customer's contnbuUon to peak and then sum the mdreidual pcak~. In it response the Company said (3-14) that due to the large number of Industrial/Transportation in this distribution system it did not calculate the mdivadual peak for each customer, hi response 2-37 there appears ofl~t of some 27~ Industrial/Transportatian customers. In request 3-14, we asked for the raw information so that we could make these mdmduai peak calcala~ons but the Company failed to prowde such data. Therefore we recommend either: a. The peak day demand percentage (50%) be lowered in the Seaboard Allocation Method and the Volume Component be increased or b. Aa esilmatlon of the peak day determined If each individual customers peak was calculated. Page M-9 103 Bdl IR. McMornes, P E Gas Rate Consultant - If "b' above ~s utilized then we would recommend the followqng as the peak day for the Industri:al/Transportation Customers. Total .Annual Usage for Tes~ Year for these customers 6,949,734 MCF Aver-a~e Daxly Usage 19,040 MCF Usc Lo~:l Factor m the Cua~ut 1-511 Country Case 33 2% So pe. sk Day ,-~ es.m.*~i at 57,349 MCF for all exc.~pt the D~ton Power Plaut Add .t. he D~n P0wr Plant's m~asur~l p~mk 29,732 Estarn~t~d Peak Day for Indu~al;rrm~'portauon 87,081 MCF/Day S~ McM ExlffoX 2 .Page M-.l 0 104 Bill R. McMorn~, P E. Gas Rate Consultant - MoM Exhibit 2 ESTIMATION OF PEAK DAY NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TXU's METHOD OF ESTIMATING PEAK DAY- INDUSTRIAL/TRANSPORTATiON CUSTOMERS est Monthly Average Ave Daily ear Usage Days Daily use Months w~h Zero HDD Usage Oct-99 564798 31 18,219 May-00 557075 31 17970 Nov-g9 511104 30 17,037 Jun-00 559147 30 18838 Dec-99 711250 31 22,944 Jul-00 512589 31 16535 Jan-00 641139 3'1 20,682 Aug-00 591396 31 19077 Feb-00 661352 28 23,820 Mar-00 6313234 31 20,330 Base Load' 1 9,077 MCF/Day Apr-00 509713 30 16,990 Heating Factor 111 3 May-00 587075 31 17,970 Design Day Demand 24,641 MCF/Dey Jun-00 559147 30 18,638 Plus Denton PP Peak 29,732 Jul-00 512589 31 16,535 Total 54,373 MCF/Day Aug-00 59139~ 31 19,077 Sop-00 499937 30 16665 *E~clud/ng Denton Power Plant 894973,4. 365 19040367 Desfgn Day 24,641 365 8949734 8993985 0 772710812 Load Factor CONSULTANT'S ESTIMATION OF PEAK DAY USING THE HILL COUNTRY LOAD FACTOR. Average DaY* 19,040 MCF Load FactOr 33 20% Peak Estimated 57,349 MCF/Day Plus Denton Power P' 29,732 MCF/Day Total' Peak Day 87,081 MCF/Day Response 3-f4 Peekdayf nwm Page M-11 105 Bill R. McMornea, P.E. Gas Rate Consultant DEPRECIATION EXPENSE Q Have you rewewed the Company's proposed change m depreciat~on rates and proposed deprecmtion expense? A Yes. Q Please explain the change in deprecmaon rate and expenses. A TXU proposes to use the Equal Life Group (ELG) method of depreciatmn for its properties. TXUproposes a increase in depreemtion expenses of $i,102,739 (from $6,798,904 to $7,901,643, Schedule 13-4). These new proposed rates of deprecmfion are based upon a study at December 31, 1999 that the Compaay obtmned. Q Has the Railroad Commission approved the ELG method for deprec~ataon on any of TXU's Dtstrlbutmn Systems? A Yes, the Equal Life Group ('ELG) method of depreciataon was approved by the Texas Railroad Comm~asion in the recent Dallas C~ty Case (GUD Nos. 9145-9148 ~n November of 2000). Q Is TXU proposing the same survivor curves, In, es, and salvage values approved m this City of Dallas case? A Yes, The proposed new rates m th~s case are based oa ELG method with the same Iowa Surv~vor Curves, hves, and salvage values approved by the Railroad Commission m the Dallas case. Q Are you recommending approval of TXU's proposed new depreciaaon rates? A While thru increase in deprecmt~on expense seems unwarranted, the Texas Radroad Commxssion has already approved such rates We are hesitant, until there is further study, to recommend that thru increase not be allowed. The examiner for the Railroad Commissmn recommended that the Average Life Group (ALG) method be used m the Dallas case aad that would have materially decreased the rates for depreraation but the Commission over ruled it~ own examiner on thru issue. Until the Radroad Commlssmn becomes convinced that there is a better method to determine depreciataon expense then we may be wasting our efforts. depreaationeXpense nwrn 106 .Page M-J2 B~II R. McMorries, P E Gas Rate Consultant IYNCOLLECTI~BL~ EXPENSES Q In uncollectthle expenses, the Company proposes $304,672 for the test year Do you agree w~th th~s amount? A Please refer to Mc.M Exhibit 3. In response to C~t~es RFI 3-07 TXU indicates that beginning w~th October 1999 they have changed thesr pohcy m determining the amount of charge off for uncoilecUbles. The bad debt expexise is accrued based on the historical percentage of bad debt wrdecoff. The percentage is derived by applying the 12-month average write-off percentage for each aging category to the total account~ receivable balance by aging category. Prior to October 1999, bad debt expense was based on actual customer net-chargenffs. Therehas been very in'fie tame since the new policy was placed in effect so it Is difficult to Imow whether the new method will mcrcase or decrease the bad debt expense so I recommend the last available data be used for this expense which ~s calendar year 2000 of $246,044.35. This is slightly more than calendar year 1999 of $232,618.37 (Response 3-07). The net Charge-offAmount for the Test Year was $231,187 so e~ther the calendar year 2000 or the Test Year amount would be reasonable. .Page 3.~-j 3 107 Bdl IL McMornes, P.E. Ga~ lL~te Consultant Q I~ the charge-offof uncollectible accounts a fairly uniform amount dunng the year? A No. The charge-offs during the test year vanes but are often high in the months when the need for gas (heaang) seems ummportaat and when the high gas cost of January and February were becoming 90 days past due. The monthly charges to the uncollectable account (unallocated) for the test year are as follows: October 1999 4,028 November 12,599 December 1997 (2,688) January 1997 (11,654) February 15,763 M~rch ~,117 April 9,9O0 - May 31~20 June 65,297 July 37,246 August 46,935 Seotember 18~25 Total Te.~t Year $2~1,158 Q Do you propose any adjustment to the Uncollectible Expenses? A. Yes. I propose a downward adjustment of $58,628 (McM Exhibit 3) Uncollec~b le nv.,m Page M-14 108 Bdl R. McMorr]e~, P.E Ga~ Rata Can]ultan~ - McM Exhibit 3 Lone Star G~s Company Northwest MetrofM~d Cities D~stnbut~on System TYE September 30, 2000 UNCOT ~CTIBLE EXPENSES Account 904-Customer Account Expense Northwest Metro/ Year Mid-Crees Total ~Endmg Per Percent Texas 12/31 Books Sales D~tribution 1996 N.A. N.A. 0.46% 1997 N.4~. N~x. 0.51% - 1998 319,597 0.27% 0.50% 1999 2~2,618 0.21.% 0.4.3% 2000 246,044 0.16% 0.43% Five Year Average N.A. N.A. 0.45% Three Year Average 0.21% ~/ Three Year Average of Percentages 0.2,~7% Last Year (And trending downward) 0.16% Five Year Average of Total Dmnbut~on System 0.4~% Uncollectibles based upon calendar year 2000, Response 3-07 0.16% x $152,678,189 = 246,044 2/ ~n Test Year Expenses R & C -- 304,672 ~/ D~sallowed Uncollect~bles = $ 58,628 1/ Changed methods of accounting for bad de. bt o:£e'nze to htstoncal perc~ntage ~vrrleo. ff-Response 07 2/Responseto 3-07 $/Lme $8, Schedule G,-2, page 2 ~7~fCOLEXP~OOO. M'ut 109 Page M-15 Bill R. McMornes. P.E Gas Rate Cannnitant Ola~iRATION' AND B,L4IN'IZNC-~ F_.X~EiN'S~ :S DONATIONS Q Please explain your MoM Exhibit 4. A This is a summary of the TXU's donataons m the Northwest 1VEetro/Mad Cities D~stnbut~on System that are included m the cost of service D~stnbution System. These donaiaons only were m the amount of $1,765. Q Should this donation expense be allowed in the cost of service? A The Gas Utility Regulatory Act (GURA) allows th~s item to be the City's choice as to whether to include or exclude these expenses in the cost of serwces. So th~s ~s a decinon to be rendered by the City Councils. M-16 Dona~l ~ 110 Bdl R. McMornes, P E. Gas Pate ,McM Exhibit 4 ["i N°rthw.est Metro/Mid Cities Distribution System Charitable Contrlbut, ons _ Organization Dl~.rfbuflon ~L To~l Customem & Donations ~pense ~en~ ~,,c~r S~e~ $ 16000 165918% $ 2489 ~hgton lSD EdumUon 20 O0 16 ~16% 3 A~re Foundation 10 00 16 5918% 1 66 C~ of ~n~lew ~0 00 15 5916% 155 96 Custom~ ~ls~n~ 2aS B2 16 5916% 47 42 Faa W~ Businea. Press 200 00 16 5918% ~ 18 Fo~ W~ Public ~m~ 180 0o 16 5918% Grater Oaaa8 ~ 4.125 00 16 5916% S~ 40 H~ Heigh~ Ch~ber ~ Co~ar~ 25 00 16 5918% 4 HewlE ~a~er of C~me~ 24 ~ 16 5916% 3 H~me au~dBm ~a~an ~a ~ 18 5916% 1 Hep~n~ Ce~ D~ Fe~l 14 00 16 ~18% ~32 ~nne~e Ch~aa Club 5 00 16 ~916% 0 ~ad~hlp 8o~ T~nt C~n~ 60 ~ 16 ~18% ~n Ceun~ Pmg~ 10 ~ 16 5918% 1 ~ ~S 91 16 5916% ~ Jr C~mflon Co~e lac 15 00 18 50t8% ~49 Ne~ Tm~ C~n~ 7 O0 16 5916% 1 16 No~h~t T~nt ~ber 70 ~ 16 5916% 11 61 P~A 8~ F~Is 200 00 16 5916% j P~ot Po~t Edu~fl~ 60 0O 16 5916% 8 3D PmHe ~ ~M Un~eml~ 12S 00 16 5~18% 20 ~ Renaimn~ Cu~ Cen~r 6000 16 S916% ~ Sage~e~ C~ Cent~ 280 00 18 5916% 8~ ~9~o ~b~ ~ Comme~ 680 00 16 5916% 112 S~ ~mlo Col~ 200 00 16 5916% 33 18 8~ ~g~o 8~ Sh~ & Rodoo 894 80 16 5916% ~ TeJas 8~llng~s~aflon 20 ~ 18 5916% ~ T~s H~h 8~1Foo~all Hall 20 00 16 5916% 3 I Unlt~ Hl. pan~ Coun~ of 100 00 16 5918% 18 59 ~ Wa~ Senior League' Golf 20 00 18 591~% 3 ~awflght High ~J 50 ~ 16 5916% 8 ~te~ Coun~ Club 150 00 16 5916% 24 ~CA Mln~ ~levem 300 O0 16 5918% 40 $ 10.636 53 $ 1 Page M-17 111 , Bdl R. McMornes, P E Gas Rate Consultant RATE DESIGN Q The Company proposes to mcrease the customer charges to customers to $8.00 on Residential customers and from to $14.00 on Commercial customers (3iansfield & some of the segments have higher current rates). Do you cancur with these proposed charges? A No. One may justify the charge of $8,00 for Residential and $14.00 for Commercial for customer charges based upon TXTJ's analysis of its costs but due to rate impact to some Iow volume customers we suggest a more modest increase. A residenlaal increase from $2.81 to $8.00 on a - minimum use customer could provide a 2~$% increase- Also the monthly Customer Serwce charges vary greatly by cities and someilmes varies between winter orsummer The Resident~al Customer Charge currcufly varlea from a low of $2.81 per month in Marshall Creek & Ronoaketo a high of $8.44 per month m ~Iusan. The average (arithmeiac) Residential Costumer Charge in the 45 Cities & segments m this Distribution group is estimated at $5.77 per month. The Commercaal Customer Charge currently vanes from a Iow of $6 06 per month in Marshall Creek & Ronoake to a high of $14.44 per month m ~Iust~n. The average (arithmetic) Commercial Customer Charge in this Distribution group ~ estimated at $10.79 per mouth. Page l~I-13 112 Bdl R. McMornes, P.E Gas Rate Consultant We recommend these customer ser'v~ce charges be estabhshed at at no more than $7.00 and $12.00 for lles~dentml and Commercial respectively. 2. M~scellaneous Service Charges- Allow the proposed increases as follows: Coan~-mon ~ $35 O0 Read for Ch~-ge Charge $12 00 Retttm Check Chzrges fxom $16 25 Delinquent Not~ca~on C]~rge $4 75 3. Weather Normal',?.at~on Adjustment Clause-While thas m a fmrly new concept here in Texas, and while we ere ~ watching the effect of th~s elosely~ we have no objec~on (at thas t~me) to ~t~ use a~ ~t ~ intended to be revenue neutr~ If the weather is colder than normal then eastomer ~s charged less and if weather warmer than usual then the customer ~s charged more. The Texas Commissmn has approved th~ clause m recent eases before 4. Other A~nual AdJustment Clauses Requested. In the past, when Lone Star owned this System two other annual adjustment clauses were aomally requesled-Cost of Seradee Adjustment and l'lant Investment Cost Adju~tmeat. TXU has not requested these two clauses in th~s ease. If such clauses shoulcl be requested, we would recommend not allowing these two type of clauses. The Texas Railroad Commasmon d~d not approve of these two clauses m recent cases before Pa~e M-I. 9 113 Bill R. McMomez, P E Gas Rate Consultant McM Exhibit 5 Page TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 CONSULTANT'S RECOMMENDATION RESIDENTIAL Revenue Requirement $82,078,563 wlt~ base cost cf gas ~ $2 7535 Less Service Charges 988,657 $ch K-3, page 1 Revenue Required from rates 81,089,906 Customer Charge $ 7 00 Block 1 3 5892 Off-Peak D~scount 0 Plus GCA Adjust Gas Cost Adjust 0 00000 Volume Factor 1 02340 Tax Factor 0 05860 Franchise Fee Relmb 0 00000 Consumption Charactedstlcs _ 7crc 0 0000 Block 1 1 0000 Off-Peak Discount 0 0858 Billing Units Bills 2,623,044 Block 1, MCF 16,225,489 Off-Peak Discount MCF 174,304 Base Rate Revenue Customer charge Rev $ 18,381,308 Block 1 58,240,114 Less 'Off-Peak Discount 0 Total Base Rate Rev $ 76,601,422 Gas Cost Ad)ustment 0 Subtotal (Base + GCA) $ 76,601,422 Franchise Fee Relmbu 0 Revenue Related Taxes 4,488,843 Total annual gross rev $ 81,0g0,266 RateDe$1gn2,~ nwm Schedule 114 Revised 5/15/01 McM Exhibit 6 Page 2A TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION / NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DiSTRIBUTiON SYSTEM PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED PATES TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 COMMERCIAL (With Schools included m this Commercml Rate) Revenue Requirement $45,829,838 with base cost ofgas ~__~$27535 Less Service Chaises 90,520 Revenue Required from rates 45,739,318 Customer Charge $ 12 00 Block 1 3 9229 Block 2 3 6229 Block 3 3 4729 Plus GCA Adjust 0 00000 Gas Cost Adjust 0 00000 Volume Factor 1 00000 Tax Factor 0 058597 Franchise Fee Reimb 0 00000 consumption Characteristics Winter Summer Zero 0 0000 Block 1 0 1933 0 1953 Block 2 0 1514 0 1635 Block 3 0 8552 0 6412 BiIIln~ Units Bills 240,114 Block 1, MCF 2,182,342 Block 2, MCF 1,745,181 Block 3, MCF 7,326,023 Total MCF 11,253,546 Base Rate Revenue Customer Charge Rev $ 2,881,368 Block 1 8,561,109 Block 2 6,322,616 Block 3 25,442,545 Total Base Rate Rev $ 43,207,639 Gas Cost Adlus~ment 0 Subtotal (Base'+ GCA) $ 43,207,639 Franchise Fee Reimbu 0 Revenue Related Taxes 2,531,838 Total annual gross rev $ 45,739,477 F~ateDes~gn£CS nwm Schedule L-4, page 2 115 Revised 5/15/01 McM Exhibit S Page .?.A TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED P~TES TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 COMMERCIAL (Schools with Separate Rates) Revenue Reqmrement $45,471,793 Less Servme Charges 90,520 Revenue Required from rates 45,381,273 Customer Charge $ 12 00 Block 1 3 9154 Block 2 3 6154 Block 3 3 4854 Plus GCA Adjust 0 00000 Gas Cost Adjust 0 00000 Volume Factor I 00000 Tax Factor 0 058597 Franchise Fee Re,mb 0 00000 Consumption Characteristics Winter Bummer Zero 0 0000 - Block 1 0 1933 0 1953 Block 2 0 1514 0 1635 Block 3 0 6552 0 6412 Billing Units Bills 239,822 Block 1, MCF 2,168,901 Block 2, MCF 1,734,540 Block 3, MCF 7,280~890 Total MCF 11.184,131 Base Rate Revenue Customer Charge Rev $ 2,875,464 Block 1 8,492,115 Block 2 6,271,058 Block 3 25,230,503 Total Base Rate Rev $ 42,869,138 Gas Cost Adjustment 0 Subtotal (Base + GCA) $ 42,8S9,138 Franchise Fee Reimbu 0 Revenue Rela~ed Taxes 2,512,003 Total annual gross rev $ 45,381,141 RateDeslgn2C nwm Schedule L-4, page 2 116 McM Exh,blt 5 Page 3 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED RATES TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SCHOOL Revenue Requirement $358,045 w~h gas cost ~ $2 7535 Customer Charge $ 12 00 Block 1 5 12751 Block 2 4 82751 Block 3 4 57751 Adjustment Factor 1 00000 Plus GCAAdJust 0 00000 Cost of Gas 0 00000 City Street & Alley 0 00000 State Occupational 0 058597 Consumption Characteristics Zero Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Blllln~ Units Bills 492 Block 1, MCF 13,441 Block 2, MCF 10,841 Block 3, MCF 45,333 Total MCF 69,415 Base Rate Revenue Customer Cha~ge Rev $ 5,904 Block 1 68,919 Block 2 51,370 Block 3 212,046 Total Base Rate Rev $ 338,238 Gas Cost Adjustment 0 ,Subtotal (Base + GCA) $ 338,238 City Street & Alley & State Occupatlon JTax 19,820 Total annual gross rev $ 358,058 Gas Cost Cost of Gas O Plus 1/2 of markup 0 Total Gas CoSt RateDes/gn2D nwm Schedule L-4, page 3 117 Revised 5/lB/01 McM Exhibit 8 Page 3A TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED PATES TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 SCHOOL (If pa,rt of the Commercml Rats Class) Revenue Requirement $358,045 32 8% h~gher Revenue Recovered under this rate $ 269,540 Customer Charge $ 12 00 Block 1 3 9229 Block 2 3 6229 Block 3 3 4729 Adjustment Factor I 00000 Plus GCA Adjust 0 00000 Cost of Gas 0 00000 C~ Street & Alley 0 00000 State Occupational 0 058597 Consumption Characteristics Zero Block 1 Block 2 - Block 3 Billing Units Bills 492 Block 1, MCF 13,441 Block 2, MCF 10,641 Block 3, MCF 45,333 Total MCF 89,415 Base Rate Revenue Customer Charge Rev $ 5,904 Block 1 52,728 Block 2 38,551 Block 3 157,437 Total Base Rate Rsv $ 254,620 Gas Cost Adjustment 0 Subtotal (Base + GCA) $ 254,620 City Street & Alley $ State Occupatlon ITax 14,920 Total annual gross rev $ 269,540 Gas Cost Cost of Gas 0 Plus 1/2 of markup 0 Total Gas Cost RateDes~gn2DA nwm Schedule L-4, page 3 118 McM Exhibit Page 4 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PROOF OF REVENUE AT PROPOSED PATES TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 TRANSPORTATION MCF Convert MCF Fee per Percent to to MMBTU MMBTU D~stnbut~on Fee Industnal Transportatmn Revenue Transportation Fee 19,148 1 025 $1 27 0 50 $12,462 95 Transportation Fee 124,079 1 025 0 83 0 50 52,780 Transportation Fee 107,558 1 025 0 81 0 50 44,850 Transportation Fee 1,482,328 1 025 0 8 0 50 807,754 Transportation Fee 857,302 1 025 0 79 0 50 347,100 Transportation Fee 315,798 1 025 0 78 0 50 128,240 Transportation Fee 188,062 1 025 0 76 0 50 73,250 Transportation Fee 107,209 1 025 0 75 0 50 41,208 Transportation Fee 94,299 1 025 0 74 0 50 35,763 Transportation Fee 55,958 1 025 0 6 0 50 17,207 Transportation Fee 481,399 1 025 0 58 0 50 143,096 Transportation Fee 1,555,618 1 025 0 55 0 50 466,677 Transportation Fee 228,358 1 028 0 48 0 50 55,684 Transportation Fee 369,837 1 025 0 41 0 50 77,712 Total Ind Transp Rev 5,084,949 $2,101,584 Electric Gert Tranp Rev Transportation Fee 1,848,805 1 025 0 02 1 00 37,901 Corem Transp Revenue Transportation Fee 29571 1 025 0 64 1 00 19,399 Transportation Fee 63,951 1 025 0 47 1 00 30,808 Transportation Fee 39,211 1 025 0 37 1 00 14,871 Transportation Fee 9,437 1 025 0 38 1 00 3,676 Transportation Fee 111,727 I 025 0 37 1 00 42,372 Customer Charge (1) 1 12 00 20 00 1 00 240 Customer Charge (2) 18 12 00 12 00 1 00 2,592 Customer Char~e (3~) 53 12 00 10 00 1 00 6,360 Corem Transp~ Rev 253,897 120,318 Total Transp Revenue 2,259,803 Total Revenue Taxes 0 0586 $ 132,424 D~stnbut[on Transp Rev 2,392,227 No Backup or Standy Fees Included /~ateDes~gn2E nwm Schedule L-4, page 7 119 120 125 Bill P.- Mcl~lornes, P.E. Gas Rate Consultant Bill 1L McMorr~{, p E Gas Rate Consultant 126 LnVl c.M Exhibit Page VITAL STATISICS CUSTOMI!IR I]~'FOR3~TION Northwest ~etrofMJd Cities D~stnbutlon System Res~dentml Customers Number MCF Sales 12131/98 197,551 12,678,900 12/31/99 204,898 11,800,471 12/31/00 214,821 13;395,176 Commercial Customers Number MCI? Sales 12/31/98 21,751 10,138,927 12/31/99 21,500 9,629,223 12/31100 20,657 10,159,895 Public Authority Number MCF Sales 12131198 56 62,763 12/31/99 59 58,775 12/31/00 41 53,701 Industrial Customers Number MC-'F Sales 12/31/98 184 444,915 12/31199 209 400,219 12/31/00 209 723,903 Transportation Cpstomers Number MC]F Volumes 12/31198 131l 10,8~1,601 12/31/99 138 9,771,278 111/31/00 174 8,614,753 Total Din'rlimtion Svstum Namber MCI~ Volumes 12/31/98 219,674 34,177,106 12/31D9 226~804 31,659,966 12/31/00 235,903 32,956,428 127 A, dMENT , /' TXU NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES DISTRIB[JTION SYSTEM TEST YEAR 9/00 TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID.CreES DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MOST RECENT RATES APPROVED Date City Approved Addison 11/24/98 Argyle 10/12/82 Arlington 04/20/99 Aubrey 09/16/97 Bedford 04/13/99 Carmllton 11/10/98 Colleyvllle 04/20/99 !Coppell 11/10/98 I Copper Canyon 11/29/98 Connth 01/05/93 Crose 'Roads 04/30190 Dalworthington Gardens 04115/99 Denton 02/23/99 Double Oak 11/17/98 Euleea 04/13199 Farmers Branch 12/07/98 Flower Mound 11/16/98 Grapevine 04/20/99 Hickory Creek 08/04/8ti Highland Village 11/24/98 Hurst 05/11/99 Irving 02/0.~87 Justin 09/14/92 Keller 04/20199 Krum 11/06/84 I.aka [~allas 06/12/88 Lewtsvllle 11/16/98 Lmcoln park , 11/20/90 Man.eld 06/10/99 Marshall Creek Ill Northleke /2/ 04112/99 12/09/91 10128/82 Roaneke 04/10/82 Sanger 06/03185 Shady Shores 01/04193 South!eke 04/20/99 Trophy Club 04/06199 iwestlake o4/12/99 /1/ Marshall Creek mcorporated September 8, 1983 and approved the eame rate that was In effect in Roanoke December 12, 1983 /2/ NorthJake, which was then recent¥ incorporated, approved a rate September 12, 1991 128 ATTACHMEN'T ~ TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION TO CITIES R~I SET NO ~'~ QN ~ TXU NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES TEXAS CITY GATE RATE PER MCF D~STRIBUTION SYSTEM JANUARY 1998 . APRIL 2001 TESTYF_A~ 9/00 ~r 998 1999 2000 2001 JAN 3 7097 3 3187 3 2464 7 2220 FEB ;~ 0610 2 8015 3 3221 7 2220 MAR 2 9987 2 4450 2 9838 7 2220 APR 2 8315 3 5628 3 7093 5 861 3 MAY 3 4550 2 4123 2 8679 JUN 3 2073 2 7668 4 6158 JUL 3 1663 3 1469 5 0495 AUG 3 2220 3 2733 5 0368 SEP 3 1862 3 9234 5 0667 OCT 3 2841 3 6858 6 2346 NOV 3 1893 3 5497 5 8072 DEC 3 3527 3 1493 5 8404 129 A-5 d i~'~cM ~xhib~t Page TX-U Gas Dmtmbut~on NORTHWEST i~ETR0fMID CTIIE$ D~stribuUon System ~ 9~0/00 ~D~ ~CO~ T~ C~~ON Company ~ Cons~t At Prese at ~t~: $ $ T~ble ~t ~ 2/ 6,224,347 At ~rop, ,sed N~ ~ mg ~ ~ ~fr $14,176,622 I~ $19,702,451 R~ 14,479,695 14,479,69~ t ~, 63 T~ C~ ~ ~on ~D~I' + 9~5 4/ + 955 F~ ~c T~' 7,842,641 5,19~,094 I D~ce 2,649~47 A-6 130 McM Exhmbit TXU Gas Distribution Northwest Metro/Mid Cities Distr~butlon System RATE OF RETURN SCHEDULE September 30, 2000 s0 7O% ~.c/u~ty Debt 46.70% 7 27% = ~ 40% ~=efer=~c! I 70% 5 79% = 0 10% Coq=mort 51 60% 10 70% = 5 52% 9 01% Debt 46 TO% 7 27% = 3 40% prefe==~I I 70% 5 79% ~ 0 10% C~n 2/ ~1.$0% 10 90% = 5.62% 9 12% 46, 70% 7 27% = 3 40% 1.70% 5.79% = 0.10% 51 60% 11 10% = 5 73% 9.22% RofR nwm 131 Bdl R. McMomes, P.E Gas Rate Consultant HILL ASSOCIATES Regulatory Finance & Economscs Bus (304) 562-3645 Fax (304) 562-3645 PO Box 587, Benedict Rd Hurricane, WV 25526 May 5, 2001 Geoffrey Gay, esq Lloyd, Goesehnk, Blewns, et al 111 Congress Ave Suite 1800 Austin TX 78701 ., Re TXU Gas Dmtrlbuf~on Northwest Metro/M~d CIfJes Cost of Equity Analysm Dear Mr Gay As per your request, and under the terns of our contractual agreement, I have performed a cost of equity cap,al analysm for the Northwest Meb'o/MId C~t~es po~on of the TXU gas distrlbuaon utility system My analysm, which is descnbed bnefly below, indmatas that an appropnate range of the cost of equ~t7 cap~tal for gas dlstnbu~on u~l~ty companies currenlJy ranges from 10 00% to 10 75% Aisc, given the cap~tal structure employed by the TXU gas dlstdbution utihtias and utshzed by Ms Canady n her overall cost of capital analysm, the company carries somewhat more leverage than the sample group of gas distributors wrth which I esamated the cost of equity Because of that caprtal structure dlfferenca an appropdatepo nt-astimate of the cost of equity capital for this company would be at the upper endof the range of equity capital costs, or 10 75% Be.cause .the ~uity ca. pdal of T~.U's gas divimone Is not publicly traded it was necass .ary to analyze me ,marKet. data of a sample group of publicly traded firms whose pnmary numness ragas a stnbuaon I selected e group of seven firms which had bond ratings of "A" or below and which denved a substantml port,on of their revenues from gas dmtnbutmn operations Using the market data of those companies I performed a Dmcounted Cash Row (DCF) analysis of the cost of equrty capital n order to calculate the DCF d~v dend yield I u~l zed the next quarter dlv dend, annualized, d~v~ded by the most recent mx-week dady clomng average stock prce for each gas dlstribuaon company ~n the sample group In calculating the DCF.grow~ rate, I analyze the underlying fundamentals of growth for each company, studying mat parameter over the past fiveyears as well as projections five years into the future and the growth rate trends ~mphedtherem In add,con to that ~vn~ea~n~.ntal ~r,owt~. I re. vle.w 5oth ,historical and projected growth rates in earalngs, u~nas aha DOCK vaua mr eacn company which are publ shed by Investor asrv~ces and available to Investors. Through that analysis I determ ne an appropriate long-term sustainable growth rate (the growth rate called for m DCF theory) for each firm m the sample group Finally, I adjust the growth rate to account for investors' expectations w~th regard to add~onal growth, if any, attributable to the msuance (or repurchase) of shares cf stock for each company In addibon to the DCF analysm, I ut~hzed Capita Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), Modified Earnings-Price Ratio (MEPR), and Market-to-Book RaeJo (MTBR} analyses as checks of the DCF The results of my cost of equity analyses are shown ~n the table below METHOD COST OF EQUITY DCF 10 46% CAPM 8 54% MEPR 10 25%-10 89% MTBR 10 26%-10 11% 132 COST OF EQUI"D( ANALYSIS TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION NORTHWEST METRO/MID CITIES STEPHEN G HILL These results indicate a current cost of equity range for gas d s~' butors of 10 0% to 10 75%, with a mid-point of 10 378% With regard to capital structure, am informed by Ms Canady that the company Is ?~r~r,e~ntl_~capltallz. ed .wl~ appr. oxlma, tel~/3,8% common equity, 9% preferred equity and a,~o ue[~[, compnse(3 or long-term cebt, snort-term debt and advances from the parent company While that capital structure is similar to that utilized, on average, by the gas dlstdbudon industry (40% common, 60% debt and preferred), ~t Is slightly more leveraged that the average caprtaJ structure of the sample companies I ~hzed [n my analysis (43 8% common, 56 2% debt and preferred) Because of that difference In leverage between the Company and the sample group, an upward adjustment to the recom..mended retu. rn on equ~ is .warranted My anal~.s~s Ind,cates that an equity return near me upper eno of the range of current equrty capital cost for gas d~stnbutors would ~ovlde an adequate adjustment to offset the Com~3anv's shohtlv hloher financial I nerefo, r.e, my. recommended equity return for this ~:or{~pany"m '[0 ~% ........ s.___~f _yo~ nave a~. y..que~ons re. gard!n.g this analysis, or if you requ~ra additional . uppu.r[.~ng eocumemaaon, please oo no~ hesitate to contact me As always, I look forward [o worrang with you Smcerely, Stephen G Hill 133 06/21/2001 10 ii 5122572243 DUCI PAGE 82 D U DIVERSI1MI!ID UTrr~TY CONSL1LTANTS, INC. Yune 21, 2001 Herbert L Prouty Sent Vta Fax (940) 382-7923 C~ty Attorney City of Denton 215 Ea~t McKamcy Street Denton, T~xas 76201 TXU-G~ Die~rlbation's Application to Increase Ra~..es tn the Nortllwest Metro/Mid CRies~ Northwest Metro/~ld Cities May 16, 200! Consulta,~L, Dear Mr Prouty pursuant to your re4uest, we have remewed the TXU-Ga~ Dmtnbutaon apphcatmn for a rote increase in the City of D~nton, Texas We have also remcwed the Cities' consultant r~ort l~spollslve to the Company's rale r~tue~ In addltton, we provtde some adchttomd analy~es and r~comra~adatiotu which may be help~l in se~ng the ultimate rates in ttns ease TXU-G~a, l~te Request On or ,,bout February 16, 2001 TXU-Ga~ filed for amte increase m the 40 o~t~es designated ~ the Northwest Metro/M~d-ClUcs Dum'ibnuon System D,nton m one ofthe cltles included m the Northwest Metro/Mad-Cities Dm'nbubon System The following table shows the dlstn~u~on system and the City of Denton's increase by class TABLE 1 ~ TXU-Gas Rate Request Northwest Metro System And CIE' of Denton by Castemer Cla~s The rate increase reflected m Table I ts based on th~ TXU.Gas Apnl 2, 2001 revxsed rate ~cqucst correct, nS the Federal Income Tax e:rors m the February 16, 2001 oullmal rate request 135 06/2~/2B01 10 1~ ~122~7~24q DUCI PA~E 03 The Company's rate increase includes a ret~m on shareholder eqmty of 12% and also mchides an aasumedpnce of gas of$~ 0~14 The Company, throul~h theproposed rate design, has increased monthly gx~d ~ustomer charses to Sg O0 and $14,00 for ras~dential and commercial class customers, respectively L-~cluded m At~hrnsnt 1 is a cost ofserwce analysis that duphcatcs the Company's filed rate request and residential and commercial class rate design m this case Each seneral area of cost clmmed by,TXU-Oas ts shown on a total system and customer class bas~s m Attachraent 1 Base Cost of Service The Cities m~ulatory]unsdmtlon in gas rate cases addresses only operati°ns c°sts In other words, the reSnlstory authority of the cities extends to setting rates for the dehvery of gas through the distribution system to the ultimate customer The commochty or gas costs (assumed at $5 0514 per Mcfln the Company's rate request) is regulated by the P.a~Iroad Commission of Texas Included in At~achrnant 2 ts a recalculation of thc Company's rate request, which includes only the distribution system operations oosts in other words, thc Sas or cornmodtty costs, which are rcl~ulated by the l~ailroad Cornmtsslon of Texas, have been removed from the Company's request Again, thc 0nly change is to remove the $5 0514 per Mcr gas cost and assoomted reve~me related tax on thc gas Cost, It should be noted that m a recent TXU-C-as ease, thc Company stated that gas cost should be removed from cost of service to ~,uve consumers a clear picture of what actual costs for gas serwcc and comm0dity (gas) cost are for the consumer Thc Company also stated that such ~mbtmah~ of costs would be easier for consumers to understand Moreover, m recant heanngs befor~ the 1~ .~road Comm~ss~0n of Texas mvastlgstmg gas cost price spikes m recent months, the Commission encouraged separating the commodity cost from the operations costs Attachment 2, which shows the Company's operations costs (gas cost is removed) and includes the Company's entire oost request (except gas costs), shows the follov~ug increase TABLE 2 TXU-Gas Operations Cost Rate Increase by Castemer Class ~ommercial Total In other wo~ds, the Company's full rate request before the Cities ~s $3,02~,78~ increase reflects only the operations costs claimed by the Company, and excludes gas costs regulated by the Railroad Commission of Texas :l Iacluded ~ Attachment 3 is the residential end commercial cla~s operations (~xcludin~ Sas) mcrea~e for the City el'Denton c~stome~s when I~as cost ~s ~emov~, 136 06/21/2001 10 11 $12257~2~ DUCI PAGE 04 Northwest MetrofMid-Cities Consultants Report On or about May 16, 2001 the consultant hired by the Northwest Mctrof!Vhd-Cmes group ~ssuecl a report showmg its findmgs and conclusions rcgardmg the TXU-Oas rate request Tho report concluded that the following rate request by class and for the system werejustffied TABLE 3 Northwest ]V~¢tro/~Itd-Clties May 16, 2001 Consultant Report Rate Increase By Class Rcsldcntlal $~39,70 Commerela/~" $399,248 $~,928 Indu~t~al $1.9_'10,009 $164,875 Total $3~602 I~65~f0~ i It should b~ noted that the consultant report did not remove gas cost fxom the Company's request The Northwest Melro/Mid-Cllies ¢onsultant reduced gas costs ~m $$ 0514perMo£toth¢ $2 7535 per Mc£1~vel ordered by the Railroad Commission of T~xas in a pr~vlous case Whether gas cost ts included at $5,0~14 per Mcfor $2 7~35 per Mcfmakes no chff~x-~uce The City has no jurisdiction to regulate the cost of Sas TXU Set-Q me~ Offer On or about ~une 18, 2001 the Attorney for the Northwest MetroflVhd-Cltms group outlmed an offer of setllem~t of this case fi-om TXU-Gas The follovang table outlmes file TXU-Gas proposed r~solutmn o£tlus case TABLE 4 TXU-Gas Proposed Settlement R. eslde~ltlal $2,511,718 Commercial $1,034,951 --~.ndustrlal "$1,75~,138 Service Charggs <$150 790> Total t~,lSL0~9 Thus, under the Company's proposed resolutmn, TXU-Gas would settle for a $5,151,019 increase rotates Tbasmcreaserepresents70%($$,151,019/$7,358,598)oftheC°mpany's°ng~al (remsed) r~quest Northwest Metro/Mtd-Cmes Consulm.nt Report of May 16, 2001, Schedule 2 Id at MCM F_,x~bit 6, pa§c 5 Commercip,1 l~cludes schools 137 OG/2%/2B01 10 1% ~122~72243 DUCI ~GE 0~ The CI~y has before it a Company rate increase request of$7.3~8,598, ofw~lch $8~8,~66 wo~d be ~e increase for D~on c~tome~ ~e No~hwest Me~o~d-C~es ~oup c~sul~t has ~alyz~d the Comp~y,~ mques~ md conclu&d ~at ~ mcre~e of$3,790,602 ~s ]~t~fi'~d T~-~ offered to r~olve ~ ma~er at ~ ~ual mcre~e of $5,151,019 L~tly~ ~fth~ City con~d~s only the Comp~y's request on costs ~c C~ ~as ~lato~ ]~sdmtmn over, t e. operauons costs, ~en the Company'~ ~quest m ~s c~e (A~c~en~ 2, ~e 33). Moreover, ~fthc Comply ~s ~ng to se~le for 70% of ~e requested ~ount, then the se~t v~ne wo~d be a $2,118,048 (70% x $3,025,783) ~ual DUCI would recomm~d that ~e ClV o~y core,der operations co~s ~s outlined ~n Aaac~t 2 ~en o~y op~atlo~ costs are consld~ed (which T~-G~s has s~sted m o~cr proceedings ~s appropriate), the mstd~fi~ cl~s ~u~ tn~e bcfom adjus~ ~s $1,043,0~3 If T~-G~ studs by ~m 70% s~l~ment off~, the resldenU~ ~ncre~e is $730,1~0 ~en o~y opera, om costs .r~ ~n.~dered, ~e co~l~ cl~s cu~om~s ~cmve a rate decre~e of <$~0~32~ ~d~r ~e Company's on~ request W~ have included m A~t 3 the ~psct ofr~o~n~ $~ cost on D~n's re~d~h~ md co~erc~ c~m~ ~e mc~ases c~be reduced to 70% ~f~c Comp~ ts wflhn~ to ~d behind its s~l~m~t ~ you have ~y q~es~o~, plebe feel ~ee to ~l We look fo~d to ~w~ ~es~O~ you, ~e ~ayo~ or Council M~b~s may ~ve at ~ workshop next week 138 0G/2~/2001 10 i1 §122G72243 DUCI P~GE 08 TXU GAS NORTHWEST METRO MID CITIES RATE INCREASE REQUEST TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 2 m~£ R~TE R~VENUE $135 1t8 ~01 $7,509 763 ~142,~25,5~ $~ 29B~ ~h128,~ ~,B~ 466 3 G~CO~A~ ~V~N~ ~8,991,742 ~ ~B 991,742 ~,410,233 $[~ ~ $1,9~,5t5 4 ~E~; ~T~ ~ 357 203 SO ~,357,~ $2,518 2~ ~ 1,565,001 5 ~EOU8 ~NUB P~ENT $1,080,812 (S150 790) ~930,~ $g88,65~ ~0520 6 ~T~ ~NUE P~ $t99 ~ 588 ~,35~,973 ~08,g04,~t $121 212 360 ~),382,~ ~,9~0 ~3 8 ~C~ $141,513,~5 $0 $141,513305 ~1,~,~8 $~,788,241 ~2,758,~ 13 ~~Y~ $142~6637 ~ $142,6~,~7 ~82,~742 ~7131,474 ~,~,621 ~4 op~& ~ff ~ ~,~9,2~1 ~ ~,079 ~t S16,751,078 ~;,~,3~2 ~g,~l 17 i~ ON ~ ~AHCBB ~,831 ~ ~,~1 ~0,~7 $18,~4 16 p~R~ ~ T~8 $1,667,0~ ;5~005 ~2,259,~8 $1 ,~9,~7 ~91,7~ ~g pA~O~ ~ T~a ~1,670 $0 ~8~,~0 ~821 ;116,95g ~7,~ 20 ~us Re~D T~. S11,~,~ ~ $11,~8,~5 ~ 6g0,983 ~t,~9,~ ~75,429 21 ~~ $t86,133,0~ $1,6~,7~ $186,~17,799 $111785,869 ~9,~ ~,~7,~ 26 ~a ~1~ ~,4~,4~ ~ ~,~3~77 $t,~,6~ ~8 ~I,~,4~ ~ ~ ~ c~ $1,~,7~ $0 $1,~,7~ $1t~12 ~1,1~ St~ 297 ~ ~ R~ ~e ~,~9,7~ ~.S~,~ ~,078,3~ ~1 6~,2~ ~1,756,1~ ~ C~P~Q~ ~,509,~g ~,60g,389 ~,076,108 $t 6~ 1~ ~1,7~0,138 36 ~ ~ o~g 39 ~NUO RB~ ~05.974.~9 $1~9,039 ~4.971,~ 40 CU~ 2,~3,~ 2~ 114 0 1,7~,181 46 ~ ~T~R Q~GR ~0 9~,362 ~,~1,5~ ~ ~ ~g ~ T~ ~ ~0,32g ~t 1~ 8~ 47 ~UE R~D P~M M~P~ ~6,~ 362 ~7 ~9 918 49 TOTALO~~ ~1,2~ t82 ~t ~F ~K 2 ~0 0000 ~0~ 62 ~P ~ B~K 3 ~0000 ~ CUSTO~R C~a R~NUB $20,8~,352 ~5,361,50B ~ e~eK t ~.NU~ $98,~,362 $1 59 ~ ~O T~ ~uE ~ 880,325 ~t,149,892 60 ~T~ ;~Ug ~124,299 039 ~ t,971,406 139 06/21/2001 lB 11 51225727'~ DUCI PAGE 87 TXU GAS NORTHWEST METRO MID CITIES RATE INCREASE REQUEST REMOVING GAS COST TEST YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 ~OMPANY ~OMPANY 2 S~ ~11~ REVENUE ~36,1~,80t $~,~09,763 $t42,~5 5~4 ~83,295,20~ ~ e~ ~SNU~ (~9,820.9~ ~ (~9,820,~7) (~7,~8,2~) (~1247168) $1,9~,515 5 ~EOUS ~aNue ~BN~ $1080812 ~1~,790) $9~0,0~ ~88,G~ ~0,520 $1,~ ~ ~T~ ~NUE RREaENT $56,849 ~ $7,308,97~ $64,0D~ 617 $36 727 60g $~,i,971,481 $4,950,~3 9 U~D FOR ~ $8a0,8~ S0 ~80 8~ ~27,~ $~,2~ ~7,5~ 10 ~ER ~S PU~EB ($129. t17) $0 ($129,11~ (~4 7~) (~1,814) (~,51~ 11 e~ US~ ~ ~,8~ $0 ~B05 ~,879 ~,687 ~39 13 ~ e~ ~Y ~a~ $3,4~,~ $0 ~,~,~2 ~20,~2 $152.160 ~,082 ~ t4 ~&~B~P $2~0~,231 $0 ~0~,231 $16751 078 ~I,~,312 $979,~t 18 ~ a~ T~ $1,687.0~ S582,005 ~269,008 $1,~9,717 ~1,~ iG pAY~ ~O T~ $~1,670 ~ ~81,~0 ~6.821 ~116,959 ~,~0 ~ ~ R~U~ S7,~,~ $7,509,3~ ~,078,106 $1.879.1~ $1,7~,1~ ~ ~P~H (~,~3.~) (~ ~3,~) (~,~.~3) (~Z.I1g,~) ~7.926 ~ ~S ~Ul~ ~,5~,615 ~,781,9~ $1,t,~,6~ ~,371,~ 41 ~Xl 16,226.489 0 1,7~,t81 43 ~ ~p 16,22e,~9 I 1,2~,~ 45 ~ ~ST~R ~B $20,~,352 ~,36t ~ ~ ~B ~D T~ ~2,03~,g~ ~99,3~ · 7 ~UBR~ ~M ~P ~ Sl 2,78~,~0 S10,279,710 48 C~D~ ~],~0,2~ Sl,t 0~,975 49 ~AL ~ R~ $0 ~1 $1 2529 62 ~P ~ ~ ~ $0 0~0 ~ 8029 ~ ~BNU~ PR~ ~0,9~,352 ~,361,596 $13,761,6~ ~[,7~.335 ~ ~K ~ RMNU~ $0 $ I,B63,~ 57 ~K; R~NUB ~0 ~B,~2,32g 68 ~K = R~UB S2,035,994 S~9,~3 59 ~ENUB Rn~O ~ ~BN~ ~,781,906 62 DELTA $0 $0 140 05/21/2001 18 11 51225722~ DUCI PAGE 08 141 ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES AND CHARGES THAT TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION MAY ASSESS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY OF DENTON, APPROVING RATES FOR INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY OF DENTON ESTABLISHED BY CONTRACT BETWEEN TXU GAS DISTRIBUTION AND SUCH INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS, ADOPTING DECLARATIONS AND FINDINGS RELATED TO RATES AND CHARGES ASSESSED TO RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY OF DENTON, PROVIDING FOR RECOVERY OF RATE CASE EXPENSES, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO 99-059, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, on or about February 26, 2001, TXU Gas Distribution ("TXU Gas"), a division of TXU Gas Company (formerly Lone Star Gas Company), filed with the City Secretary a "Statement of Intent to Change Rates" under which higher rates charged by TXU Gas would go into effect ~n the City of Denton (Denton) effective March 23, 2001, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 104 107 of the Texas Utilities Code, on March 6, 2001, the City Council passed Resolution No 2001-010 suspending implementation of TXU Gas's proposed rate schedule from March 23, 2001 until June 21, 2001, and WHEREAS, the City Council anthonzed Denton to join the Northwest Metro Mid-Cities Distribution System Coalfnon of Cities (Cities) and authorized the hmng of rate consultants and an attorney and further authorized the retentaon of Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc to assist Denton m ~ts review of the TXU Gas's proposed rate schedule, and WHEREAS, on April 3, 2001, TXU Gas filed an updated rate filing ("Rate Filing') with the Cities and Denton, incorporated hereto by reference for all purposes, and WHEREAS, TXU Gas agreed to extend the date for implementation of TXU Gas's updated rate schedule from June 21, 2001 to July 21, 2001, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapters 103 and 104 of the Texas Utilities Code, the Cities and Denton are reqmred to 0) analyze TXU Gas's Rate Filing, as updated, (n) conduct a public heanng m order to determine the propriety of the proposed rate increase (the "Public Heanng"), and (iii) make a reasonable determination of TXU Gas's rate base, expenses, investment and rate of return m Denton, and WHEREAS, the Public Heanng was conducted on July 17, 2001 before the enactment of this ordinance at whtch all interested parties were g~ven a full opportunity to corrmaent on the Rate Filing, NOW, THEREFORE, 142 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAiNS SECTION 1 FINDINGS That the City Council, pursuant to its exclusive original jurisdictional authority over the rates, operations and service of TXU Gas within Denton and in the exercise of its sound legislative discretion, after reasonable notice and heanng, makes the following findings of fact 1 1 TXU Gas filed with Denton's City Council a Statement of Intent to change residential, commercial and industrial rates charged to consumers within Denton and also filed the Tariff for Gas Service in the Northwest Metro Mid-Cities Distribution System ("Tariff for Gas Service") and the supporting cost of Service Schedules ("Schedules") TXU Gas has agreed to an overall Northwest Metro Mid-Cities Distribution System Rate Settlement The agreed residential customer class annual increase is $2,511,718 and the commemlal customer class annual increase of $1,034,951 throughout the System That TXU Gas has agreed that the maximum general service revenues for sales of natural gas rendered to residential customers (without the cost of gas included) will be $2,327,483 and for commercial customers will be $902,589 (without the cost of gas included) within the city limits of Denton, Texas, in annual revenue for service charges to customers The Gas Cost Adjustment clause, Weather Normalization Adjustment Clause, Tax Adjustment Clause, Miscellaneous Service Charges Clause required by TXU Gas as more fully set forth in Section 2 of tbas Ordinance are found to be just and reasonable 1 2 Denton does not have evidence of any unfmr advantage by either TXU Gas or its industrial customers in Denton w, th regard to contract negotiations for industrial gas rates, and therefore, in accordance with Section 104 003(b) of the Texas Utilities Code, contractual industrial gas rates are considered to belust and reasonable 1 3 Based on the above facts, the City Council finds that rates for residential customers in Denton, as requested by TXU Gas in its Rate Filing, are unreasonable and shall be changed as hereafter ordered 1 4 Based on the above facts, the City Council finds that rates for commercial customers in Denton, as requested by TXU Gas in its Rate Filing, are unreasonable and shall be changed as hereafter ordered 1 5 Based on the above facts and in accordance with the mandates of Section 104 003(b) of the Texas Utilities Code, the City Council approves rates for industrial customers in Denton established by contract between TXU Gas and such industrial customers Therefore, Denton declines to establish rates for industrial customers in the City as requested by TXU Gas in its Rate Filing 1 6 Based on the above facts, the City Council finds that the changed rates for residential and commemlal customers determined as a result of TXU Gas and the Cities' Settlement are just and reasonable 143 Page 2 of 9 SECTION 2 RATES AND CHARGES ORDERED That based on the finds of fact set forth m Section 1 of this Ordinance and m accordance with the schedules set forth in this Section 2, TXU Gas is hereby authonzed to assess the following maximum permitted rates and charges for customers in Denton, which rates and charges the City Council hereby determines to be fmr, just and reasonable on all consumption of gas on and after July 21, 2001 2 I Residential Gas Rates The following rates are the maximum permitted rates and charges applicable to residential customers per meter per month or for any part of a month for which gas service is available to the same location Customer Charge $7 00 All Consumption @ $0 8335 If the service period is less than twenty-eight (28) days m a given month, the customer charge shall be $0 25 times the number of days' service 2 2 Commercial Gas Rates The following rates are the maximum permitted rates and charges applicable to commercial customers per meter per month or for any part of a month for which gas service is avmlable at the same location Customer Charge $12 00 First 20 Mef~ $ 1 1371 perMcf Next 30 Mcf~ $ 8371 per Mcf Over 50 Mcf~ $ 6871 per Mcf If the service period is ]ess than twenty-eight (28) days ~n a given month, the customer charge shall be $0 4286 tmaes the number of days' service 2 3 Gas Cost Admstment Each monthly bill at the rates and charges set forth in Sections 2 1 and 2 2 shall be adjusted for gas cost as follows 2 3 1 The City gate rate increase or decrease applicable to current billing month residential and commercial sales shall be estimated to the nearest $0 0001 per Mcr based upon (a) The City gate rate estimated to be applicable to volumes purchased dunng the current calendar month, expressed to the nearest $0 0001 per Mcf ("Re' in the summary below), less 144 Page 3 of 9 (b) The base C~ty gate rate of $0 O0 per Mcf, mult~phed by (c) A volume factor of 1 0117 deterrmned ~n estabhsh~ng the above rates for the distribution system 2 3 2 Correct~on of the estimated adjustment determined by Section 2 3 I shall be included as part of the adjustment for the second following bdhng month The correcting factor ("C" ~n the summary below) shall be expressed to the nearest $0 0001 per Mcf based upon (a) The corrected adjustment mount based on the actual C~ty gate rate, less (b) The estimated adjustment amount balled under Sectmn 2 3 1, &wded by (c) D~stnbut~on system res~dentml and commercml sales Mcf recorded on TXU Gas's books dunng the prior year for the month that the correct~on ~s ~ncluded as part of the adjustment In summary, the gas cost adjustment ("GCA" ~n the summary below) shall be determined to the nearest $0 0001 per Mcfby Section 2 3 1 plus Sectmn 2 3 2 as follows GCA = [(1 0117) (Re - $0 00) + C] 2 4 Weather Normahzatlon Adlustment Effective w~th balls rendered dunng the October 2001 through May 2002 bflhng months, and annually thereafter for the October through May bflhng months, the residential and commercml consumption rates for gas servme, as adjusted, shall be subject to a weather normahzatmn adjustment each bllhng cycle to reflect the ~mpact of variations m the actual heating degree days dunng the period included m the bdhng cycle from the normal level of heanng degree days dunng the penod included m the bllhng cycle The weather normahzat~on adjustment wall be ~mplemented on a per Mcf basis and will be apphcable to the heating load of each customer dunng the penod included ~n the b~ll~ng cycle It will be determined separately for residential and com_mermal customers based on the heating degree data recorded by the DFW A~rport weather station The adjustment to be made for each b~lhng cycle wall be calculated accor&ng to the following formula NDD - ADD WNA = ADD x M x Al-IL Where WNA = Weather nonnahzat~on adjustment NDD = Normal heating degree days during the period covered by the bdhng cycle ADD = Actual heanng degree days dunng the period covered by the b~lhng cycle 145 Page 4 of 9 M= Weighted average margin per Mcf included ~n the commodity portion AHL = Actual hearing load per customer The heatmg load to which the weather normal~zatmn adjustment ~s to be apphed for residential and commemlal customers is detennmed by subtracting the base load for the customer from the total volume being billed to the customer The base load of a customer is the average level of non-heating consumption The weather nonnahzat~on adjustment ~s subject to a 50% hm~tatlon factor based on temperatures being fifty pement warmer or colder than normal The weather normahzat~on adjustment will be calculated to the nearest $0 0001 per Mcf 2 5 Tax Adlustment Each monthly bill, as adjusted above, shall be adjusted for municipal franchise fees (street and alley rental taxes) and the state gross receipts taxes ~mposed by Section 182 021 - 182 025 of the Texas Tax Code Mumc~pal franchise fees are determined by each city's franchise ordinance Each monthly bill, as adjusted above shall also be adjusted by an amount eqmvalent to the proportionate part of any new tax, or an tax increase or decrease, or any Increase or decrease of any other governmental imposition, rental fee, or charge (except state, county, c~ty and special dmtnct ad valorem taxes and taxes on net income) levied, assessed or ~mposed subsequent to September 30, 2001, upon or allocated to the Company's d~stnbutlon operations, by any new or amended law ordinance or contract Mumc~pal francbase fees (street and alley rental taxes) and the state gross receipts taxes tmposed by Sections 182 021 - 182 025 of the Texas Tax Code shall continue to be collected pursuant to individual industrial contracts 2 6 Rate Case Expenses TXU Gas's ~mtlal "Statement of Intent to Change Rates", filed w~th Denton on February 26, 2001, and the subsequent Rate Filing, constitute a ratemaklng proceeding Pursuant to Section 103 002(a) of the Texas Utilities Code, the Northwest Metro Mid-Cities D~stnbutlon System was authorized to tnre rate case consultants and an experienced utility attorney and Denton was authonzed to engage Dlverslfied Utility Consultants, Inc to assmt Denton in its analysm of flus ratemakmg proceechng Pursuant to Section 103 022(b) of the Texas Utflmes Code, the C~t~es rate case expenses are found to be reasonable and TXU Gas shall reimburse the Cities the reasonable cost of services of the rate case consultants and utility attorney (Geoffrey Gay) and Denton's rate case expenses are found to be reasonable and TXU Gas shall reimburse Denton the additional sm of $12,500 00, which is the actual and reasonable cost of servmes rendered by D~versffied Utility Consultants, Inc on behalf of Denton dunng the course of th~s ratemaklng proceeding ("Rate Case Expenses") TXU Gas shall make such reimbursement ~n full to the 146 Page 5 of 9 Cities and Denton w~thln thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of an itemized statement from the Cnaes and Denton TXU Gas is authorized to recover rate case expenses reimbursed to Denton and the C~tles and may recover TXU's rate case expenses (at an amount not to exceed $85,000 for all the Cities including Denton) through a per MCF surcharge based upon total system sales as set forth in Rider 4106 as a part of their revised Tariff for Gas Service to be attached and made a part of this ordinance It ~s hereby ordered that if TXU Gas elects to recover, m whole or in part, the costs of this reimbursement 0ncludlng Diversified Utility Consultants, Inc's rate case expenses, Denton's port~on of the Cities and TXU's rate case expenses as set forth above) through a surcharge to ~ts customers in Denton, it shall do so through a surcharge designed for a s~x (6) month nominal recovery period The surcharge per Mcf shall be calculated by dlwdlng the Rate Case Expenses to be recovered by one-half of the adjusted annual sales volume to residential and commercml customers When a surcharge ~s apphcable, monthly status reports will be provided to Denton to account for the collections TXU Gas shall refund to ~ts customers any over collection of rate case expenses that may occur 2 7 Miscellaneous Service Charges 2 7 1 Connection Charge (Residential & Commercml) The followang connection charges apply ~chedule Charge Business Hours $35 00 Alter Hours $52 50 For each reconnectlon of gas service where service has been discontinued at the same premises for any reason, for the initial mauguratlon of service, and for each inauguration of service when the billable party has changed, with the following exceptions (a) For a builder who uses gas temporarily dunng construction or for display purposes (b) Whenever gas service has been temporanly anterrupted because of system outage or service work done by Company, or (c) For any reason deemed necessary for company operations 2,7 2 Read For Change Charge (Residential & Commercial) 147 Page 6 of 9 A read for change charge of $12 00 is made when it is necessary for a company employee to read the meter at a currently served location because cfa change in the billable party 2 7 3 Returned Check Charges (Residential & Commercial) A returned check handling charge of $16 25 is made for each check returned to the Company for any reason 2 7 4 Delanquent Notlficataon Charge (Residential, Commercial, & Industrial) A charge of $4 75 shall be made for each trip by a Company employee to a customer's residence or place of business when there is an amount owed to the Company that is past due Tlus charge shall not be made when the trip is required for safety investigations or when gas servme has been temporarily interrupted because of system outage or service work done by Company 2 7 5 Main Lane Extension Rate The charge for extending mains beyond the free hmit established by Franchise for remdentlal, commercmI, and industrial customers shall be based on the actual costs per foot of the extension 2 7 6 Charge for Installing and Malntalmng and Excess Flow Valve (Residential) A customer may request the installation of an excess flow valve on a new service line or on a service hne being replaced provided that the service hne will serve a single residence and operate continuously throughout the year at a pressure of not less than 10 psig The customer will pay the actual costs incurred to install the excess flow valve That cost will mclude the costs of the excess flow valve, the labor costs required to install the excess flow valve and other associated costs The estimated total costs to install an excess flow valve is $50 00 This cost is based on lnstalhng the excess flow valve at the same time a service line is anstalled or replaced The excess flow valve will be installed on the service hne upstream of the customer's meter and as near as practical to the main A customer requmng maintenance, repair, or replacement of an excess flow valve will be required to pay the actual cost of locating and repalnng or replacing the excess flow valve The cost to perform this service will normally range from $200 00 to $2,000 00, depending on the amount of work reqmred Thru cost will be determined on an individual project basis This tariff is being filed in accordance with the U S Department of Transportation rule requlnng the installation of an excess flow valve, if requested by a customer, on new or replaced service lines that operate contanuously throughout the year at a pressure of not less than 10 pslg and that service a single residence The rule further states that the customer will bear all costs of installing and maintaining the excess flow valve 148 Page 7 of 9 2 7 7 Recovery of Connection Costs Associated with Certain Stand-By Gas Genera~ ors (Commercial) Cormnerelal customers lnstallmg stand-by gas generators to prowde service m the e~ ent of an interruption in electric service m facilities where gas service ~s not otherv ~se prowded will reimburse TXU Gas Distribution for the actual cost of acqumng md ~nstallmg the regulator, sermee lane, and meter required to prowde gas service for the stand-by generators Gas service provided for the stand-by generators will be bflle~ at the applicable eommercml rate 2 8 Fflm~, of Rates TXU Gas shall file w~th Denton w~thm ten days of the effective dat~ of this ordinance tariffs consistent with the rates authorized by th~s ordinance, wbach tariffs shal', be attached to and made a part of this ordinance for all purposes The rates established thereby sl tall be these under which TXU Gas shall be authonzed to render gas services and collect chat ~,es from ~ts customers on and after July 21, 2001 All other rate rehefrequested by the Compan ~s hereby demed SECTION 3 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS In order to ensure that rates and chat ;es assessed by TXU Gas m Denton are just and reasonable to both TXU Gas and ~ts custom ,~rs, Denton reserves the nght and pnvflege at any time to increase, decrease, alter change or am ;nd this Ordinance or the rates established herein or to enact any ordinance or adopt any rates md charges wlueh would effectuate that purpose In th~s connection, Denton further reserves the right andl privilege to exercise any authority and power granted to ~t under any applicable ordinance or admmlstratlve rule or regulation SECTION 4 REHEARING BY CITY COUNCIL If TXU Gas d~sputes all or my port,on of this Ordinance, prior to filing an appeal with the Railroad Counnlsslon of Texas, T CtJ Gas shall file w~th the C~ty Secretary a request for reheanng on the merits by the C~ty Cot~ tcfl and shallleomply w~th the procedures estabhshed for such a reheanng as set forth tan this Sec~ ton 4 Upor~ receipt of a request for reheanng, the City Council will promptly provide a fo~ am dunng a public hearing on an open meeting ~n order for TXU Gas to set forth the aspects of has Ordinance which TXU dasputes The C~ty Council shall have sixty (60) calendar days follow tng the date of such reheanng to render a final decxs~on Action of the C~ty Council shall no~ be consadered final for purposes of appeal to the R~ulroad Commission of Texas until a nal decision on nay motion for reheanng has been rendered The provisions of ti'ns Ordmance ~all remain m full force and effect from and after its adoption unless modified by a subset ent ordmanc¢ adopted by the C~ty Council as a result of a final decision following a reheanng SECTION 5 SEVERABILITY If any portion, section or part of a section oi has Ordinance as subsequently declared invalid, ~noperat~ve or void for any reason by aeour of competent jurisdiction, the rematnmg pomons, sections or parts of sections of this ordms ace shall be and remain in full force and effect and shall not m any way be ~mpaired or affectei by such decls~on, opm~on or judgment 149 Page 8~ If 9 SECTION 6 REPEALER That all eonfuet~ng sentences, clauses, paragraphs and sections of Ordinance No 99-059 passed and approved by the City Council on February 23, 1999, and lany other conflicting ordinances and resolutions are hereby repealed to the extent of that eonflxet SECTION 7 Unless otherwise noted heretn, other than TXU Gas (a named party), no person or entity has been admitted as a party to this rate proceeding SECTION 8 It IS hereby found and determined that the meeting at which this ordinance was passed was open to the public, as required by Texas law, and that advance public notice of the t~me, place and purpose of the meeting was given SECTION 9 EFFECTIVE DATE Th~s ordinance shall take effect and be ~n full force and effectl from and ailer the date of ~ts adoption The Caty Secretary ~s hereby d~rected to dehver a certified copy of fins Ordinance to TXU Gas by sending the ordinance by U S Marl to the Company's anthonzed representative, Autrey Warren, Regulatory Financial Manager, TXU Business Serwees, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-3411 PAaSSED AND APPROVED fins the day of ,2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM I-IERBER'r L PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY 150 Page 9 of 9 l- AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: July 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT' Planning & Development Department CM/DCM/ACM. Dave Hill, 349-8314..~ SUBJECT - RR-01-0007 (Bonme Brae) Consider and take action on a request for rehef from the Residential Interim Zoning Regulations, Or&nance 2000-046 for a 95 6 acre property generally located east of Bonme Brae and west of Highway 377 The property is ~n an Agricultural (A) zomng dtsmct A s~ngle-famfly subdlwsmn ~s proposed (RR-01-0007) BACKGROUND ~. The appheant ~s proposing a single-family subdivision on the subject property (Attachment 1) } The subject site is located ~n the Existing Ne~ghborhoods/Infill Compatibility dlsmct New development m this &smct should respond to ex~stlng development w~th compatible land uses, patterns and design standards The property also has 100 year floodplan on the property Any issues related to the floodplan will be resolved dunng the Zomng Plan process ~f the rehef is demed or during the plattmg process If the rehef ~s approved Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent w~th the comprehensive plan ~' The property ~s not platted The approval or demal of the waver request will only affect the zoning process as ln&cated below The plattmg and building permitted processes will not be affected · Land Use Concept Plan · ESA Analysis Zonmg Plan · Drainage Study Interim Regulations (Public Hearings at P&Z and Process City Council) · Density Calculations (Required lfrehefrequest · Traffic Impact Analysis is denied) · Adequate Public Utility Verification Project Plan · Subdivision Design Icl7 Coancll) Prewous Zoning Re-Zoning Process (Public Hearings at P&Z and · Legal Description (Required if rehef request City Council) is approved) 1 OPTIONS Council may elther 1 Deny the request for relief, or 2 Grant the request for relief, or 3 Grant the request for rehef, subject to conditions consistent with the evaluanon criteria set forth m the orchnance RECOMMENDATION N/A ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE Unknown PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW None FISCAL INFORMATION N/A ATTACHMENTS 1 Zomng Map 2 Apphcatlon for relief Respectfully submitted Douglas S Powell, AICP Director of Planmng and Development 2 ATTACHMENT 1 SITE ZONING MAP 3 ATTACHMENT 2 INTERIM ORDINANCE RELIEF APPLICATION FORM APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM Residential Interim Ordinance / Non-Residential Interim Ordinance ProjectName 95.559 Acres Vacant Land, Denton, Texas ProlcctAddress(Locatlon) F, nnt nf Bnnn4e Rrna: went of H~ q77 Ex~sting Use Agriculture Proposed Use Single Family Existing Comprehenstve Plan Designation Existing Zoning Agricultural Proposed Zoning SlnKle Family Dross Acres 95 559 acres SEE ATTACHED RELIEF PROCEDURES APPLICANT INFORMATION Apphcant Ted R. Ezzell, Jr. Compan) Joab Partners, L P Address 1501 W. Randol Mill Rd. Te1~17_461_5121 Fax 817-860-7775 C,ty Arlington State TX ZIP 76012 Emad rezzell~qwest net Properq Owner Joab Partners, L.P. Compan} Joab Partners, L P Address 1501 W. Randol Mill Rd. Tel 817-461-5121 Fax ~17-860-7775 Cln Ar14~tnn State TX ZIP 76012 gmall Contact Charles Jowell Compan~ Vintage Development Addr~ ~812 WoodridRe Tel 817-429-1041 Fax 817-429-7727 C,ty Arli~.~. State TX ZIP 76013 Emad cjowell210~aol eom SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER OR APPLICANT Fo~DepactmentM Use Only SIGN ATU ~__-~- - ....... Print or Type Name ~ ~P_ ~: _ ~3-~! .............................. TotaJ kce(t) ........................ Sub,embed and ~worn before me th~ ~__~ oc ~F~ ..... 2o_P3__ ~ ......~ APPLICATION DEADLINEIS MONDAYS AT 1000AM 4 Any ~nderlit~ed text applies only to the Non-Residential Interim Ordinance All other text applies to both Residential and Non-Residential Interim Ordinances Application Requlremen ts The applicant may peutlon the Ctty Council for rebec from these interim development regulauons hv requesting such rehefln wfttlllg The ren. uest for relief ~hall be con.~ltiered by the City Councd In con]uncr~on w~th action on the pro!cci plan and t~evelnpment apphcat~on. The City Council shall not relieve the applicant from these requirements, unless the apphcant first pre,eats cred;ble e~idence fro= ~vhtch the C~ty Councd can reasonably conclude that the imposition of the residential density hmltatlons, non residential standard,or other development standards deprives the apphcant of a vested property r;ght or depr~ves the apphcant of the economically ~lab~: use of their land The applicant is requested to submit sufficient Information addressing the following criteria The applicant will also he responsible in making their case before City Council / In dec,ding whether to grant relief to the appbcant, the C~ty Councd xhall take ~nto the cons~derauon the follovtmg W eh ther ranting rebec from the re~tdentlalden~ ty hmltatmn~ non residential standard~ or other developmellt,~ standards that implement the prow~lon~ of the comprehensive plan leopardize~ the ('lt~'~best mteresrxln preventing such effects, The ~u~tablhty of the proposed res~dennal or non re~tdenual uses It3 hght of land uses allowed tn the zoning d~str~cts on prop:':~ adlacent to the proposed site, [] The Im pact of the proposed res:dent:al or non residential use on the transportation and other pubhc facfllues s,, ~tem s affected S~ the development, [] The measures proposed to be taken by the applicant to prevent negative impact~ of the proposed u~e on the neighborhood The hkehhood thatsufflclent rehef wlllbe provided to the applicant following adoption of the ('lty's DexelopmentCode Any fee~ reasonably pa~d in connection w~th the proposed use, Any representauonsmade by the City concerning the pro}cci and reasonably rehed upon to the detriment of the apphcant The C~ty Council may take the follow:ag acuons (a) deny the relief request, (b) grant the rehef request, or (c) grant the relief request SUbleCt to condmons consistent '~ :th the cr:ter~a get forth ~n the ~ntenm development regulatmns Any rehef granted by the etty Council shall be the m~n~mum deviation from ordinance requirements necessarx to prevent depr~at~n of a ve~ted property r~ght glGNATURE certify:ag that these regulations have been read and understood b) the apphcant TRIARCH INVESTMENTS, L. L.C. Real Estate Investment and Development June 29, 2001 City Councd Caty Hall 215 E MoKmney Denton, Texas 76201 Re 95 559 acres situated in the ~,V'dham Roark Survey, Abst No 1087, Denton County. Texas, conveyed to Denton County Joint Venture, by deed recorded m Volume 2399, Page 108, Deed Records, Denton County, Texas Gentlemen Joab Partners, L P owns 95 559 acres of vacant land fronting the east s~de of Bonme Brae. west of Hwy 377 The property was recently annexed by the caty of Denton It as adjacent to and east of The Vintage, a new, 400-acre planned development commumty The property as presently zoned for agricultural use We are requesting that the current Agricultural Zomng be changed to Sangle Famdy so that the property can be developed for resadentlal use Development plans anclude 7,200-square-foot lots (60'x 120') Our Interlm Ordinance Rebel Appheatlon is attached Please adwse when th~s matter vail go before the C~ty Council, so that we may be prepared to attend the meeting to address any questions or concerns the Council may have Sancerely, _ (~ Ted R Ezzell, Jr, Presmen~ j ~/ / Triarch Investments, LLC - - General Partner of Joab Partners, L P TRE ma attachments 1501 W~:sr I/.~OL MILL ROAD . A~IINGTON, TEXAS 76012 · Ol~'IC£ (817)461-5121 · F~X (817)860-7775 6 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE. July 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT Planmng Department CM/DCM/ACM: David Hill, 349-8314 SUBJECT - SP-01-0010 (KwtkAddttton) Consider approval of a resolution approving a Non-residential Project Plan request for a 1 32 acre property located on the north side of Colorado east of San Jacmto A car wash and car service center is proposed BACKGROUND Development of the site will be subject to the requirements of the interim regulations for nonresidential development (Ordinance No 2000-069) As such, a Project Plan is required to be submitted for review and approval by City Council ~ The subject property is located in a Light Industrial (LI) zoning district )* Comprehensive Plan analysis The proposed development is located within an Regional Mixed Use Center future land use area of The Denton Plan Staff finds the proposed land use to be consistent w~th the Comprehensive Plan ~ All of the teehmcal requirements of a project plan are addressed on the Project Plan for Kwik Addition, and the plan meets all City Codes OPTIONS 1 Approve as submitted 2 Approvelwlth conditions 3 Deny 4 Postpone consideration 5 Table item RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SP-01-0010 ESTIMATED PROJECT SCHEDULE This property is not platted and needs to be platted before any development can occur A preliminary plat has been submitted to DRC for review PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The following is a chronology of SP-00-0010, commonly known as Kwik Addition Application Date - June 4, 2001 DRC Date - June 14, 2001 FISCAL INFORMATION None ATTACHMENTS 1 Location Map 2 Site Plans and Elevation Drawings 3 Draft Resolution Prepared by Planner I Respectfully submitted Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT 1 NORTH SP-01-0010 (Kwik Addition) LOCATION MAP Agenda Date July 17, 2001 Scale None 3. 4 ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPROVING A NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECT PLAN FOR A CAR WASH AND VEHICLE SERVICE CENTER, BEING AN APPROXIMATELY 1 32 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COLORADO BOULEVARD EAST OF SAN JACINTO, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE (SP-00-0010) WHEREAS, on March 2, 2000, the C~ty Counml adopted Ordinance No 2000-069 whmh estabhshed certmn nonremdentml ~ntenm regulatmns (the "Nonremdentml Interim Regulatmns"), WHEREAS, the Noaremdentml Interim Regulatmns establ,shed, among other tlungs, a project plan reqmrement, and WHEREAS, the owners of an approximately 1 32 acre tract ofland zoned L~ght Indusmal (LI) and descnbed as 1 3226 acres ofunplatted land m the J S Taft Survey, Abstract No 1256, ~n the city of Denton, Denton County, Texas, have made apphcat~on for approval of a project plan under the nonremdentml Interim Regulations, a copy of which ~s attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof by reference (the "ProJect Plan"), and WHEREAS, the City Counml finds that the ProJect Plan, w, th the condmons ~mposed here~n, ~f any, meets the reqmrements of the Nonremdent, al Interim Regulations NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES SECTION 1 The ProJect Plan m hereby approved SECTION 2 Th~s resolution shall become effective ~mmed~ately from and after ~ts approval PASSED AND APPROVED thru the day of ,2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS q LE SL Fomu HERB~~IT~Y ATTORNEY BY ~'~'~z''~ / ~ ~// Page 1 of 1 8. lO AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE July 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT Legal Department CM/DCM/ACM Herbert L Prouty, City Attorney SUBJECT: Announcement of Councllmember Raymond Redmon's conflict of ~nterest in the Commumty Development Block Grant Program through participation ~n the Rental Rehablhtat~on Program m accordance with the requirements of 24 CFR 570 611 BACKGROUND. Long before Councllmember Redmon was elected to the C~ty Council, he was a parttmpant m the Rental Rehabilitation Program of the C~ty of Denton He remtuns a participant m that program The Rehabilitation Program is funded by the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) On March 7, 2000, Carlos R Rentena, the acting d~rector for HUD m the Southwest area, wrote a letter to Barbara Ross mdmatmg that If Mr Redmon Was elected to the City Council that his continued financial ~nvolvement ~n the assisted activity--the Rental Rehablhtat~on Program--after election to the Council through loan or payments' and other owner obligations would result in a prohibited conflict of interest under federal re~ulatlons 24 CFR 570 611 A copy of the March 7 letter from Mr Rentena is attached Councflmember Redmon was ranmng for Council in the May 2000 Elect~on but was not successful m Ins bid for the Councd seat Shortly aRer Councflmember Redmon was successfully elected to the D~stnct 1 seat, we were in contact with HUD concerning this potential conflmt of interest Their Office of Counsel, remmns donvmced that Counmlmember Redmon's continued partmlpat~on ~n the program is a conflict under the HUD regulations But HUD had ~ndmated that Counmlmember Redmon can probably obt~un an exception from HUD Working with the Barbara Ross, Community Services Adrmmstrator, we are prepanng an exception application In order to apply for the exception, Councdmember Redmon must meet two threshold requirements The first threshold requirement is that Denton must submit an opinion from its attorney that the interest for which the exception ~s sought would not violate state or local law That threshold requirement has been satisfied because ~ have submitted an opinion to HUD to that effect HLTD has accepted tlus opinion as satisfying flus threshold reqmrement The second threshold reqmrement mandates that the conflict Of interest must be pubhcly disclosed Th~s threshold requirement will be satisfied by Councllrnember Redmon reading into the record the attached statement whmh detmls his conflict of ~nterest and has been approved by HUD's Office of Counsel After Counmlmember Redmon has read ti'us statement into the record, Jennifer Walters will ~ncorporate the statement as a part of the minutes and certify this portion of the minutes We will submit the cemfied minutes with the exception application which addresses seven other factors which HUD will consider in granting ~he exception We remtun optimistic that the exception will be granted by HUD Agenda Information Request July 17, 2001 Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend that Councdmember Redmon read this statement at the meeting and that this statement be included as part of the minutes of June 19, 2001 PRIOR REVIEW: The conflict of interest statement which will be read into the record has been reviewed and approved both by our office and by Ken McDonald, HUD Attorney, Office of Counsel FISCAL IMPACT: Them will be no fiscal impact as a result of this action Respectfully submitted, Attachments Exhibit 1 Letter of March 7, 2000 from Carlos Rd Rentena from HUD Exhibit 2 Pubhc Disclosure Statement Office ofCommumty Planmng and Development Post Office Box 290~ Fo~ Womb, Texas 76113-2905 Ms Barbara Ross Commumty Development D~rector C~ty of Denton 100 West Oak, State 208 Denton, TX 76201 Dear Ms Ross SUBJECT CDBO Conflmt of Interest C~ty of Denton We have reviewed the cny's letter dated January 10, 2000, regard,ng a potentml CDBG conflmt of interest as outlined ~n the requirements found in 24 CFR 570 611 It is this office's oplmon that, should Mr Redmond be elected to an at-large seat on the Denton City Councd, the councilman would then find himself ~n a conflict of interest sttuatton proh,b,ted by Federal regulations The provision of loan assistance to Mr Redmond prior to h,s election was clearly permissible, however, his contlnutng financml involvement in the assisted act~wty after election to the council through loan repayments and other owner obhgatlons would result in a proNbtted conflict unless an exception is obtained The CDBG confltct of interest regulations at 24 CFR 570 611 pmh~Nt an elected c~ty officml who exermses any functtons or responsibilities with respect to the CDBG activities assisted under 24 CFR Part 570, or who is m a position to participate in the dec~smn-maMng process or gain ~nslde lnformatmn w~th regard to such acuvmes, from obtalmng a finanmal interest or benefit from a CDBG-asslsted activity These regulatmns also proNNt an elected c~ty officml from having a financml interest ~n any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect to the proceeds of a CDBG-ass,sted act~wty, e~ther for themselves or those with whom they have business ties, dunng their tenure or for one year thereafter Assuming Mr Redmond ~s successful m his b~d for a seat on the Denton Ctty Council, we have been advised by our Office of Counsel that HUD may consider granung an exceptmn to the conflict of ~nterest provisions contained ~n 570 611 (b) and (c) prowded the Cny of Denton satisfies two threshold reqmrements The city must submit an opinion from ~ts attorney that the interest for which the exception ~s sought would not wolate State or local law and the other threshold reqmrement ~s that the confl,ct must be publicly d,sclosed HUD must be legally satisfied that the C~ty of Denton has met both of these threshold reqmrements before HUD can 2 proceed with the c~ty's request for an exception to the conflict of ~nterest reqmrements Any request for exception would also need to address all of the factors xvhlch HUD would need to consider in granting the exceptmn as described in 24 CFR 570 61 l(d)(2) If you have any questions or require additional ~nformatlon, please contact L~nda Clark, Commumty Planning and Development Representative, at (817) 978-5944 Sincerely, Carlos R Renterla Acting Director Exhibit 2 PUBLIC DISCLOSURE STATEMENT The Umted States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has notffied the C~ty of Denton that ~t has been awarded Commumty Development Block Grant Funds, a port~on of winch are used to assist owners and remp~ents to rehainhtate bmld~ngs to be rented to low to moderate ~ncome persons I, Raymond Redmon, prior to becoming a City Councflmember was and am presently a partm~pant in the Rental Rehabilitation Program and am the owner of the bmldmgs to be rehablhtated HUD has determined tins to be a conflict of ~nterest The C~ty of Denton is ~n the process of asking HUD for an exception to tins conflmt One of the threshold reqmremants for an exception to the conflmt is that the conflict be pubhcly d~sclosed ~n accordance w~th 24 CFR Sectmn 570 611 (d)(1) In order to meet this pubhc d~sclosure reqmrement I, Raymond Redmon, am hereby makang tins pubhc d~sclosure as a part of the C~ty's request for an exception from these conflict of ~nterest provisions I request that the C~ty Secretary record tins statement ~n the minutes ofth~s meeting AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE July 17, 2001 DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office CM Mike Conduff SUBJECT Consider nominations and appmntments to thc C~ty's Boards and Commissions BACKGROUND Each C~ty Councd Member ~s responsible for making nominations for board and commission places assigned to him or her Individual C~ty Counml Members w~11 make nounnat~ons to the full C~ty Counml for the Council's approval or disapproval at the next regular scheduled meeting Darrel Wright has resigned from the Ammal Shelter Adwsory Committee Th~s ~s a nomination for Council Member Redmon Lt Langford has prowded a memo on this vacancy as well as a suggested nomination Steve Bocdeker has resigned from the H~stor~c Landmark Commission This ~s a nomination for Councd Member Redmon At the June 26 Work Session, the Council directed staff to have the chmrs of all boards w~th more than seven members [Community Development Adwsory Committee, Human Services Adwsory Committee, H~stonc Landmark Commission, and Traffic Safety Comunss~on] poll their committees regarding the number of members that would be most beneficial to the effective functioning of that committee The four boards that were polled felt that 14 members would be too many and the even number m~ght pose a problem m the event of a t~e vote On the Commumty Development Advisory Committee, one member thought seven would be best, three members thought seven or rune would be best, and five members felt that rune was the best The Human Servmes Advisory Committee would hke to remmn an 11-member committee The H~stonc Landmark Commission felt seven would be an effective comunttee The Traffic Safety Commission would hke to remmn a rune-member committee PRIOR ACTION Council members made nominations to the various boards/commissions at the June 19th meeting and approved those nominations on June 26th Additional nominations were made at the June 26th meeting for consideration at th~s meeting A hst of the nominations made and vacancies stdl ex~st~ng is attached ers C~ty Secretary DEPARTMENT OF POLICE 601 E HICKORY STREET, SUITE E o DENTON TEXAS 76205 · 940 349 8181 · FAX 940 349 7966 MEMORANDUM To Jennifer Walters From Lt Scott Langford Date July 06, 2001 Ref Animal Control Adwsory Board Poslt~on Darrel Wright is no longer employed w~th the C~ty of Denton We have made requests for his letter of resignation from the board He has not comphed w~th our requests As he was the staff member appointed to the board, he ~s no longer ehg~ble to serve Please remove him from the board The pos~t~on ~s appointed by Council Member Redmond Our recommendation Is to appoint Tr~sha Bamngton to take his place as the person revolved ~n the da~ly operabons of the center Please forward her name to Mr Redmond for approval at the earhest date Scott A Langford Denton Pohce Department 2 To Barbara Ross, Commumty Development Administrator From,Edward Toura~ne, Community Development Adwsory Committee Subject Size of committee survey Dunng the week of July 2 through July 6, 2001 at the request of Barbara Ross I surveyed the committee as to what the s~ze of the committee should be Of the n~ne members on the committee I contacted e~ght One was out of town on vacation The following ~s a compilation of the various responses Committee member Response A Seven would be best B N~ne has worked fine, no need to change C Nine works fine No problem with at large council members appointing two people We are representing the entire city not any g~ven area D N~ne okay, more ~nput E Seven or rune, ours was the right s~ze F N~ne was good G Seven or n~ne make up ~s f~ne H Vacation I Seven or nine An odd number ~s better N~ne has worked well and ~s okay Most ,of the committee members d~d not th~nk a larger (14) committee was very good W~th ~ large Committee ~t is hard to get a consensus on ~tems Also f~nd~ng the c~t~zens to fill the places could be a problem From Barbara Ross on 7/10/01 - Barbara St~nnett was the one person Ed Tourame (CDAC) was not able to speak w~th ~ she was out of town She called me today and said that she felt that rune members had served the committee well and that some type of rotation system where the council place that chooses two members changes each year would be a fair way of choosing committee members 3 From Juice Glover, Ma~n street Re Committee Survey Response from the Historic Landmark Commission was as follows 14 members -- too many 9 members -- d~fflcult to get quorum to hold meeting 7 members -- would be the best 4 Human ServIces Advisory CommIttee Community Services Division 100 W Oak, Suite 208 * Denton, TX 76201 (940)349.7726 · Fax (940)383.2445 MEMORANDUM To Jane RJchardson, C~ty Manager's Office From Dr Wallace Duvall, Human Servmes Advisory Committee Chair cc Dan Leal, Human Services Coordinator Date: July 9, 2001 Re: H S A C Poll As requested by C~ty Council, each member of the Human Services Advisory Committee (H S A C ) has been polled regarding the number of members that would be most beneficial to the effective functlomng of the committee Committee members were surveyed about whether seven, eleven or fourteen members would be most appropriate Currently, the H S A C consists of eleven members w~th four council members (places 4-7) having two appointments each and the rest of the cotmcfl (places 1-3) hawng one appmntment each All eleven members of the Human Services Advisory Committee felt that the current number of eleven members was most conducive to hawng an effective committee Members agreed that seven members would be too few to make good decisions especially when one or more members could not attend a meeting The H S A C felt that a fourteen-member committee would be a rather large group, and the even number might pose a problem in case of a tie vote Several members of the H S A C have seen the appointment method devised by committee member Ehnor Hughes The committee members felt the rotation system invented by Ms Hughes would be a fair way of making the appointments If you have any questions, please call me at (940) 383-1769 WD/dl Fair Housing * Homebuyer Assistance * Home Improvement * Emergency Repa~ From Patnc~a K~llebrew To R~chardson, Jane Date 7/12/01 4 40PM Sublect Traffic Safety Commission The TrafficlSafety Commission dec~ded to keep the number of commissioners at 9 They d~dn't want to move to 14 because of the posslb~hty of a tie vote They have tried hawng 7 commissioners ~n the past, but ~t was sometimes hard to meet the quorum Thanks, Pat BOARDS/COMMISSION NOMINATIONS AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Councd 1 Hal Jackson Richard Franco 1999-01 Redmon Larry Luce 1999-01 Fulton 2 Rick Woolfolk approved 6/26 6 Don Smith 1999-01 Burroughs 4 Joe Roy 2000-02 McNefll ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Councd Susan Welnke~n 1999-01 Brock 7 Bob Rohr approved 6/26 1 VACANT** 2000-02 Redmon 3 Lynn Stucky 1999-01 Plulhps Jennifer Walters 1999-01 McNefll 4 Jennifer Walters approved 6/26 **(person who works in dally operation of ammalshelter) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Dtst Current Member Nommatton Term Counctl 1 Harry Bell Harry Bell 1999-01 Redmon approved 6/26 2 Pat Colonna 1999-01 Fulton Hank Dlckenson 1999-01 McNefll 4 Diane Crew approved 6/26 6 Peggy Fox 1999-01 Burroughs CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY & APPEALS BOARD Dtst Spectalty Current Member Nomtnatton Term Council 1 General Contractor Bill Redmon 1999-01 Redmon 3 General Contractor Jay Thomas 1999-01 Phllhps 5 General Contractor Scott Richter Scott Richter 1999-01 Beasley 6 Rep from electrical industry Doug Grantham 1999-01 Burroughs Rep from 7 plumbing mduslxy Frank Cunnmgham FrankapprovedCunmngham6/26 1999-01 Brock 7 DENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY Seat Current Member Nomtnatton Term Councd 7 Rosemary Rodnguez 1999-01 Brock 7 Katie Flemmmg 1999-01 Brock 7 Mark Chew 1999-01 Brock HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Counctl 2 Lanelle Blanton 1999-01 Fulton 4 Barry Venmlhon 1999-01 McNefll 5 Peggy Capps 1999-01 Beasley 6 John Bmnes 1999-01 Burroughs 1 Vacant 1999-01 Redmon 3 Steve Johansson 1999-01 Pbalhps HUMAN, SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE D~st Current Member Nomtnatton Term Council 4 Audrey Bryant 1999-01 McNefll 5 James McDade 1999-01 Beasley Mae Nell Shephard 1999-01 Redmon 1 Mae Nell Shephard approved 6/26 3 Betty Tombouhan 1999-01 Plullaps 5 Peggy Kelly 1999-01 Beasley 6 Kent Miller 1999-01 Burroughs 7 Ehnor Hughes 1999-01 Brock LIBRARY BOARD Dlst Current Member Nomlnatton Term Councd 5 Ken Ferstl Ken Ferstl 1999-01 Beasley 6 Adrienne Noms 1999-01 Burroughs Judy Deek 1999-01 Fulton 2 Carroll Trail approved 6/26 PARKS, RECREATION AND BEAUTIFICATION BOARD Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Council 5 Don Edwards Don Edwards 1999-01 Beasley 6 Teresa Andress 1999-01 Burroughs Dalton Gregory 1999-01 Brock 7 Dalton Gregory approved 6/26 Shalaura Logan 1999-01 Redmon 1 Gwendolyn Carter approved 6/26 4 Vacant Gem Aschenbrenner 2000-02 McNedl PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION D~st Current Member Nomtnatton Term Counctl 4 Elizabeth Gourdle Susan Apple 1999-01 McNe~ll Joe Roy 1999-01 Brock 7 Susan Apple approved 6/26 1 Carl Wdhams 1999-01 Redmon Bill Ke~th 1999-01 Fulton 2 Rudy Moreno approved 6/26 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Counctl 6 Charldean Newell 1997-01 Burroughs Bill Cheek, Jr 1999-03 Fulton 2 VACANT approved 6/26 TMPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS S t CurrentMember Nomtnatton ] Term Council ~a Sandy Knstoferson Perry McNe~ll 1999-01 ALL I TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION Dtst Current Member Nomtnatton Term Counctl 3 Marshall Srmth 1999-01 Pbalhps 4 Michael Montaclno 1999-01 McNedl Pat Cheek 1999-01 Brock 7 Pat Cheek approved 6/26 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Dtst Current Member Nomtnat~on Term Counctl 3 Greg Mturhead 1999-01 Pbalhps 6 ByronWoods 1999-01 Burroughs James K~rkpatrlck 1999-01 Brock 7 John Johnson approved 6/26 Tom Reece 1999-01 Redmon 1 Tom Reece approved 6/26 Grant Jaeobson 1999-01 McNe~ll 4 Jori Bergstrom approved 6/26 0 Grant Jaeobson (Alt 1) 1999-01 ALL David Gumfory 1999-01 ALL 0 James Klrkpatr~ck (Alt 2) approved 6/26 0 Dawd Gumfory (Alt 3) 1999-01 ALL l0 1 AGENDA ITEM 6 Consider approval of an Agreement w~th Lloyd, Gossehnk, 2 Blevlns, Rochelle, Baldwin & Townsend, PC for legal 3 representation before the Pubbc Utd~tles Commission of Texas 4 (PUCT) on various matters 5 6 7 Sharon Mays, Electric Utility Director Presented tbas ~tem Mays informed the Board that for s~x 8 years it has been the practice of Denton Mtm~c~pal Electric (Denton Mumc~pal Electric) to 9 maintain a contract wxth the Lloyd, Gossehnk firm for general representation on ~ssues of 10 amportance to DME that come before the PUCT The Gossehnk firm ~s located ~n Austin, have 11 ready access to the PUCT and are fanuhar w~th the process Mays also ~ndacated that staff has 12 been pleased w~th the representation the Gossehnk firm has prowded 13 14 White asked Mays what the difference was between thas legal serwce agreement and the next 15 item on the agenda Mays responded to the Board that stafftnes to estimate the dollar amounts 16 associated w~th the act~wt~es that have to be handled lmmed~ately A blanket P O is assued for 17 this reason Mays reported that when a particular docket number has been assigned for case 18 rewew, these services fees are presented to the Pubhc Utaht~es Board for mdlwdual approval 19 20 White moved to approve the ~tem Hopkans seconded Motion earned unanimously 21 22 DENTON, TEXAS ~, CATEGORY 7 50,O01-t00,000 The Keep DentOn Beautiful (KDB) mission is "to empower the commumty to create a cleaner, more beautiful Denton through volunteensm and education" A mtlzens' board d~rects the non-profit organization [501(C)(3)] w~th support from the C~ty of Denton Parks & Recreabon Department KDB's community partnerships are the foundation of our program Our partnem include 7 C~ty departments, 45 title and contnbuting sponsors, and numerous c~t~zens who work w~th KDB to ~mplement our Proud Commul~ity programs Adopt~a-Spot and Adopt-a-Park, 3 annual commumty clean-ups, annual tree g~veaways, landscaping projects, a Recycling Task Force, 'Clean Bus~ness' tralmngs, Environmental Projects Grants and Excellence Awards Programs, a 'TXDOTIKDB 'Memorandum of Understanding,' an innovative DISD in-house 'Waste in Place' training program, NCTCOG qllegal Dumping and Litter Abatement' grant, and eetablish~ng the Environmental Crimes Office Committees develop an annual acbon plan, determine annual projects, and make funding requests to the board Once annual a=bon plans and funding have been approved, ~t ~s up to each committee, w~th support from members, special events volunteers and staff, to ~mplement the plan Staff support, prowded by Parks, consists of a full-t~me Program Manager, a newly-added part-time Volunteer Coordinator, and a full-t~me Secretary KDB's annual training allocation allowed 5 members to ~ttend outside trainings Training also comes tn the form of speakers at meetings, ~e D~rector of Sohd Waste, Topic Upcoming Changes m the Sohd Waste Code and Procedures, and Recychng Services Update Funding--operating budget $65,0([i0=$10,000 from the Recychng D~ws~on, and $55,000 from sponsorships, memberships, grants, and · ndralsers KDB holds three major fundralsers each year the Redbud Festival (Denton's Arbor Day event), the Safety- Kleen/KDB G~lf Tournament, and the Sponsors' Luncheon ~ revolve the development of a new anti.litter campaign targeting 16.24 year olds, a 'Bottle Bill' pet~bon and resolution, and the 'Clean Business' and 'Clean and Green Campus' trainings KDB, tn collaboret~on w~th a TWU Vtsual Arts and Design class, created the CAN ITl Campaign Thff 'Bottle B/Ii' petition was signed by partimpants at the GAC/Trash Off and UNT's Earth Day event and ma~led to state legislators Our ~ involves 9 programs/events Adopt-a-Spot, Adopt-a-Park, GAC/Tresh Off, Tnmty RiverI Awareness Day, Denton Ali-City Clean Up, OPERATION Clean Sweep, 'Campus Clean Day,' probat~oner/cqmmun~ty service assignments, and special clean-up events Adopt-a-Park ~s a new program that allows adopters to pick up litter, paint park furniture, remove greif/th and plantJmamta~n landscape beds Adopt-a-Spot ~ncludes 73 adoptions w~t~ p~ck-ups ~ncreased to 6 t~mes per year Adopt. a. Spot and Adopt-a-Park groups worked 3,908 hours to remove 1,908 bags ofltresh KDB brokered a prlvata property adoption between The Rayzor Company and Juvemle Divers~onary DENTON, TEXAS , CATEGORY 7 50,001-100,000 Services for the monthly lifter clean-up of the undeveloped Rayzor acreage on University Dnve OPERATION Clean Sweep, a c~ty employee clean-up, had 194 parbc~pants that worked 648 hours and collected 1,022 bags of trash totaling 4 3 tons 852 volunteers p~cked up I~fter dunng the 12th Annual GAC/Trash Off 371 cars drove through the household hazardous waste/racycl~ng drop-off s~te 25,120 lbs of HHW was recycled by Safety-Kleen - value $20,000 80 lbs of aluminum, 140 lbs of steel, 300 lbs of glass, 40 lbs of plasbc, and 1100 lbs of newspaper were collected 900+ bras were collected by Bnscoe Alignment and T~ra, and 23,000 lbs of appliances and electronics were collected by B J and A P Salvage Containers were placed m targeted neighborhoods for special cleanups A total of 30 39 tons of waste was collected A frae landfill day collected 34 35 tons of waste The spring 'Campus Clean Day' ~ncluded 3,220 parbc~pants remowng 590 bags of trash On Tnn~ty R~ver Awareness Day, 220 volunteers p~cked up 314 bags of trash and 71 tires weighing 13,625 lbs On Make a D~fference Day, KDB hosted the 1st Annual Denton AII-Cdy Clean Up Cleanup stats 439 volunteers p~cked up 26 14 tons of trash, 3 65 tons of recyclables and 300+ t~ras Targeted cleanups occurred, and a fall 'Clean Campus Day' was held w~th 3,830 participants remowng 625 bags of trash The County and Mumc~pal Probation Programs prowde ~nd~vlduals needing commundy service 1,047 hours of cleanup were completed for a total of 647 bags of trash collected Volunteers contnbutsd 438 hours and p~cked up 299 bags of trash ~n special cleanups A cross secbon of the community ~s revolved ~n clean-ups ~nclud~ng youth and c~wc groups, TWU and UNT students, businesses and bus~ness o~gamzabons, neighborhoods, schools, churches, and the C~ty Council Volunteers donated 10,681 hours cleamng 668 91 miles of highway, 277 08 miles of streets, 1,655 acres of parks, and 6 mdes of creeks In 448 clean-ups The 9 sources of litter (we added boaters and illegal dumps~tes) and racommendabons to dry them up were presented to 32 businesses at our 'Clean Bus,ness' traln~ngs, and to 2 schools at our 'Clean and Green Campus' trainings TXDOT does not place Adopt-a-H~ghway groups ~ns~de the Denton c~ty I~m~ts, but only on FM roads ,n the county Interested adopters ara referred to our Adopt-a-Spot and Adopt-a-Park programs Since the 'TXDOT/KDB Memorandum of Understanding' went into effect, TXDOT has modified the annual contract to add 2 additional I~tter p~ck-ups for 1-35E, w~th more I~tter cycles to be added ~ 2 cable telews~on bulletin boards broadcasted 35,461 m~nutes The Recycling D~ws~on donated s~x ads ragard~ng the HHW and recycling actlwbes at the GAG/Trash Off The Denton-Record Chronicle (DRC) sponsors the Redbud Festival, the GAC/Trash Off, and the Denton AII-C~ty Clean Up Sponsorship consisted of 20 ads totaling 386 column roches at a value of $7,699 and a c~rculat~on ranging from 17,500 to 42,000 households The DRC also runs a full-page color advertonal of all 6 DENTON, TEXAS ~ CATEGORY 7 50,001-100,000 yards of the month--value--S33,480, c~roulat~on.22,000 The DRC has wntten news stones about cleanups, recycling, beautification, property ~mprovement, and ~llegal dumping for a total of 5,735 column ~nches The UNT Da#y, the TWU Lasso, the Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, KNTU, KRLD, WBAP and KAAM covered the Redbud Fesbval and the GAC/Trash Off Speech and workshop top~cs ranged from KDB Program Overview, 'Texas Water W~se Gardening,' 'Clean and Green Campus' Program, 'Clean Bus~ness' training, Starbng a Neighborhood Assoc~abon, and Yard of the Month program Printed materials ~nclude the KDB newsletter, 'Beaut~facts ' 'Beaut~facts ~s d~stnbuted quarterly In October and March, it was distributed to 17,300 households as an ~nsert ~n the DRC Other materials include KDB membership, golf and Redbud Fesbval brochures KDB has a 1/3 page promotion ~n the Parks 'Play' magazine d~stnbuted quarterly to 42,000 households KDB has a full-page advertisement in the Chamber of Commeroe's 'D~sbnctly Denton' Magazine (c~rculat~on 40,000) Informabon about Make a D~fference Day, the Annual Redbud Festival, and the GAC/Trash Off was placed~ on utility b~lls and sent to 37,000 Denton households A message promoting KDB's Tree Conservation Fund check-off ~tem was placed on the Mamh utility bill The ut~hty b~ll check-off ~tem ~s a .nArm~n~.nf promotion The Traffic Control D~v~s~on donated an electronic s~gn for one week pnor to the Redbud Festival and the GAC/Trash Off events The C~wc Center marquee also promoted ~ of our events The Chamber of Commerce b~llboard on 1-35E promoted our Redbud Festival to 74,000 motonsts daly E-ma~ls were sent to 270 c~ty employees and placed on 1,300 c~ty employee paychecks advertising ~ of our events KDB Spnng and Fall Calendars were e-ma~led at the beg~nmng of each semester to the UNT and TWU volunteer centers, and placed ~n 320 o~gamzat~on mailboxes Promotional items ~ncluded KDB w~ldflower seed packets, magnets, 'Buy Recycled' p~ns, "Don't Mess with Texas" key chains and bumper sbckers, KDB htter bags, Redbud trees, and KDB t-sh~rts Members receive KDB w~ndow decals Community trash cans have KDB sbckers 8 bus stop benches declare "L~tter ~s unlAWFUL" 981,658 "KDB" rss~denbal garbage bags were d~stnbuted Banners promote the Redbud and GAC events, and thank the sponsors of the golf tournament A Franchy's Lawn and Tree Service truck proclaims "Keep DentonI Beautiful" KDB has a new three megabyte webs~te (~a~v..kdlz.ar.g) rece~wng 1800 h~ts per month Our 'Clean Bus,ness' and 'Clean and Green Campus' programs are PowerPoint presentabons Bulletin boards at c~ty offices, rscreat~on cer~tsrs, stores and schools d~splay event posters and brochures Local awards and recognition programs ~nclude the E~wronmental Excellence Awards Program, Yard of the Month, Volunteer and Sponsor Appreciation Reception, Sponsors' Luncheon, and the Bus~ness Membership M~xer 44 businesses attended our 1 ~ Annual Bus~ness M~xer 82 people DENTON, TEXAS , CATEGORY 7' 60,001-100,000 attended the Volunteer and Sponsor Appreciation Reception w~th 17 sponsors and 10 ~nd~v~duals, businesses, city departments, and organizations being honored for 'Outstanding' efforts 59 bus~ness representatives attended our 2nd Annual Sponsors' Luncheon The KDB logo ~s on all of our matenals and the KTB logo is on all of our cleanup event matenals KTB and FAB ~nformat~on are a part of our 'Clean Bus~ness' and 'Clean and Green Campus' trainings ~ ~ ~nclude the 2nd Annual Community Tree G~veAway (1600 trees, partner--Water Reolamat~on Plant), Children's Arbor Day (1,300 Redbud trees to every third grader, partner-Master Gardeners), 1-35 W~ldflower Project (n~ne acres at 1-35E and 1-35W, partners--TXDOT, Parks Dept ), 8000 sf Xenscape Project (comer of Bell and Robertson, partners-Parks Dept, Water Ut~htles and SE Denton residents), funding of 3 Parks Dept landscaping projects (Hercules medians-S2500, Carroll Boulevard medians-S3000, Dallas Drive medians-S3000), Yard of the Month program, partners-DRC, S~gn-a-Rama, plan for a permanent C~ty Tree Nursery ~rrigated w~th effluent water, partners-Tree Rescue, Water Reclamation Plant, and Parks Dept, $40,000 per year designated ~n the CIP for pubhc land beautification, partners- City Council and Parks Dept, Adopt-a-Park Program, partners-Parks Dept and Traffic Control D~ws~on, new Volunteer Cleannghouse that assists elderly and d~sabled c~t~zens w~th yard work, partner--Code Enforcement, TXDOT/KDB 'Memorandum of Understanding' that ~ncreased contract mowings from 3 to 5, and hirer cycles from 7 to 9 on 1-35E, partner- TXDOT, campus enwronmental and beautification projects, partners-DISD, private schools, United Copper, Inc, Recycling Diws~on, Bell and Sherman Mural Project, partners-Greater Denton Arts Council and Denton B~ble Chumh, $2500 grant received to xenscape the Den~a bus stop and add trash receptacles to 10 bus stops, partners-Denton Benefit League, Parks Dept and LINK, KDB Board labor to landscape the 'Welcome to Denton' s~gns, partner-Parks Dept, continued South Lakes Nature tra~l development, ~ncludlng ADA funding to upgrade the surface, controlled bums, and wlldflower/natlve grass plantings, partners-Master Gardeners, Master Naturahsts and Reprograph~cs Dept, $800 allocated for the refurbishing of the 8 benches that read 'Litter ~s unlAWFUL,' partners-Rose Costumes, LINK, current collaboret~on on a TXDOT apphcat~on for matching funds to subsidize the 'Downtown Square Renovation Project,' partners-Main Street and Parks Dept, and the Tree Conservation Fund (to be used by KDB for public land reforestation m support of our Tree City USA designation) on local ut~hty b~lls, partner-Water Ut~ht~es Our many programs, projects, and events, numerous partnerships and volunteer opportunities, and ~ncreased community outreach to promote KDB's ws~on and mission work da~ly to ~mprove the quality of hfe for the c~t~zens of Denton ~ KDB submitted an 'Illegal Dumping and Litter DENTON, TEXAS ~ CATEGORY 7:50,001-100,000 Abatement' funding request ~n the amount of $104,983 to the NCTCOG Grant funding was approved ~n full The 'Illegal Dumping and L~tter Abatement' program began in September The new Environmental Crimes Unrt ~s tocated ~n the KDB office KDB, in cooperabon w~th Officer M~ke Sweet, developed the program's educational and marketing matenals Educational materials ~nclude a Tenant's Information Letter ~n English and Spanish regarding proper d~sposal of trash and bulky ~tems at multi-family dwellings, a Spamsh vem~on (English existed) of a Res;dent~al Sol~d Waste brochure, 'Env~mnmental~ Ordinances for Concerned C~t~zens' brochure, and a 'Clean Bus~ness' manual A TNRCC stuffer about 'Environmental Crimes Week' was placed ~n the utility b~ll and sent to 37,000 households t30 officers have been briefed at squad meetings regarding local litter laws and needed enforcement S~xteen officers have attended a mom comprehensive one.day training Informabon about the Enwronmental Cnmes Unit ~s on the C~ty of Denton's webs~ta and KDB's webs~tal To report a wolat~on, c~t~zens may call the newly-created Illegal Dumping and Lifter Hothne at 484 JUNK KDB added t;re mcycl;ng, and collechon of large appliances (~ncl those w~th fmon), computem and electron;cs Containers were placed ~n,two target neighborhoods and the C~wc Center for trash, construction debris, furniture, etc KDB participated ~n a community task force dealing w~th the problem of ovedlow, theft of service, and ;llegal dumping at commem~al dumpstem Currently, recommendations are being cons~derad to add Section 24.14 "Illegal Dumping and L~fter~ng" to the Code of Ordinances To ~ncmaee enforcement, a Code Enfomement Officer shams KDB office space w~th the Enwronmental Chines Officer S~nce the ~ncept~on of the Enwmnmental Cnmes Un~t, 83 c~tat~ons have been wntten, $18,450 ~n fines lewed, four arrests made, five outstanding warrants filed, and 24 ~llegal dumps~tes cleared Graffit~ removal ~s a coopembve effort between the Police Department and KDB ~ KDB ~s ~nvolved w~th source reduction, recycling, reuse, and compoatlng KDB volunteers took an ~nformat~onal recycling survey at local events and feshvals The results overwhelmingly ;nd~cated that Denton ras~dents want curbs~de recycling KDB presented a 'Recychng Resolution' to the City Council on January 2 Based on KDB recommendations, the C~ty Council d~mctad Sol~d Waste to proceed w~th a Request for Proposal (RFP) for contracted mcycl;ng services, and to look at developing an Intermed;ate Processing Facility (IPC) to handle the commem~al recycling product KDB's 'Bottle B~II' petition and resolution supports recycling efforts KDS's spnng 'Beautlfacta' newsletter had almost 3 full pages dedicated to recycling and reuse Two 'ReUee' I~sts am on our webs;ta and were d~stnbuted at community events To reduce, KDB communicates w~th membem, volunteers and sponsom predominantly through e-ma~l--cutt~ng back substantially on mal~ngs, and has eliminated 'g~mm~es'-- DENTON, TEXAS , CATEGORY 7 $0,00t-100,000 we no longer solicit 'stuff' to g~ve away Compoetlng was promoted by g~wng five private and public schools compost b~ns Compost ~s produced at the Water Reclamation plant and 50 bags of 'Dyno Product' were g~ven away at the Redbud Festival and the GAC/Trash Off The 'Clean Bus,ness' and 'Clean and Green Campus' tre~nings address these ~ssues Measurable results are 61,080 lbs of materials (HHW, electromcs, appliances, tools, t~res, aluminum, steel, glass, plastics, newspaper) that have been recycled The residential waste stream was decreased by 30 54 tons KDB ~s a partner in the Integrated solid waste plan by participating ~n recycling, I~tter abatement, and sol~d waste task fomes, C~ty ordinance rews~ons, the 'Enwronmentel Crimes Un~t,' and by promoting 'Waste ~n Place' ~n the DISD and offenng HHW services at our GAC/Tresh Off Two ~ trainers from KAB conducted a workshop to certify 5 DIeD employees and '1 KDB representative as trainere of the 'Waste In Place' cumculum 'WlP'curr~culum was fully integrated into the DISD Scope and Sequence cumculum guide for use by K-8 teachere to meet Texas Essential Knowledge and Sk~lls The next 'WlP' tre~n~ng ~s slated for 6/8 The Environmental Projects Grants and Excellence Awards Programs help both DISD and private schools (K-12) fund hands-on enwronmental programs and proJects S~x schools shared $2000 ~n _nr~nt funds The awards program ~s to acknowledge exemplary enwrenmental programs, w~nn~ng schools w~ll share $1000 m funds KDB ~nvited local schools to participate m a 'Clean Campus Day' Two DISD campuses received $100 each for participation ~n hnth the GAC/'rrash Off and the 'Clean Campus Day' All grant, award and cleanup mon~es are presented to each school at telewsed School Board meetings Each school has a I~a~son to KDB KDB has addressed the Pnnc~pal's Council twice and the School Board three bmes Through the Education Committee, KDB fac~htated the Donohue Recycling Program in the DISD Recycling mon~es go back to the schools To receive an Excellence award, schools must show that a pementage of recycling mon~es fund enwronmental programming Schools w~th 'WIP' trained teachere receive bonus points on the Projects grant apphcat~on The KDB webs~te I~sts enwronmental books and wdeos available from the KDB Resource L~brary Each year, KDB g~ves enwronmental books and bookstore g~ff certificates to parents and children ~nvolved ~n R~vere Elementary's 'Reading Read~ness Program' KDB ~s a d~stnct-wlde Adopt-a-School sponsor, and was awarded a 'Campus Beautification Award' KDB participates ~n the annual 'New Teacher Onentat~on' by placing mformat~onal materials ~n 300 odentet~on packets Student and faculty groups at both UNT and Ryan H~gh School have been through our 'Clean and Green Campus' Progrem and are working on ~mplement~ng program ~deas and ~mt~atwes Lastly, KDB has 34 elementary, secondary, umvers~ty and chumh youth Adopt-a-Spot and Adopt-a-Park groups July 17, 2001 Mayor and Members of the City Council Good evemng, my name is Gene Tress, and I live in the neighborhood east of the fatrgrounds My neighborhood values the continuing good neighbor relationship w~th the fmrgrounds We are grateful to the Fmr Association for replacing the old, intrusive rodeo arena pubhc address system with a modem one hamng speakers that are smaller, more numerous, and posmoned so they can be heard in the bleachers while not being intrusive to the adjacent residential neighborhood The neighborhood would apprecmte ~t if a similar th~ng could be done with live bands Placing the bands so that they are not close to the residential netghborhood to the east, and the bands use of smaller, more numerous speakers to the west, will allow the crowd to be entertained and the music to be less intrusive to the residential neighborhood Traffic and parking associated w~th the Annual Fair and Rodeo remam a problem to the neighborhood east of the fmrgrounds Temporary 'no parking' signs on one s~de of the street are largely ~gnored when there are no police officers in the neighborhood to enforce this Hundred of parktng spaces In the west part of Denton Center go unused while the public seeks parking ~n our residential neighborhood These unused parking spaces in Denton Center are very near the northwest entrance to the fmrgrounds, which Is located between Drug Empormm and Russell's Department Store If the public could be encouraged to also use th~s entrance and these parking spaces, it would be helpful to the pubhc and serve to allewate vehicle problems m the residential neighborhood I appr¢cmte the opportunity to be heard and thank you for your consideration Gene Tress 2300 Denmson Denton, TX 76201 (Statement prowded to Betty Wflhams wa the telephone on 7/17/01 ) ORDINANCB NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON NAMING THE AVONDALE TENNIS COURTS AFTER MABEL CRAVEN, AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the chmr for the Park and Recreation Board appointed a cormmttee to develop a recommendatmn for a name for the tennis courts at Avondale Park, and WHEREAS, the naming committee proposed that the tenms courts at Avondale Park be named after Mabel Craven, and WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Board recommends that the tenms courts at Avondale Park be named after Mabel Craven, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the recommendation comphes w~th the pohcy and gmdehnes regarding the naming of parks and park famht~es and has also determined that ~t would be proper and fitting to name the tenn, s courts at Avondale Park be named in honor and memory of Mabel Craven and wmhes to recogmze tins commumty leader for her generous conmbuttons of service, NOW THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS SgCTION 1 The tenms courts at Avondale Park shall now and hereafter be known and des,gnatod as the Mabel Craven Terns Courts SECTION 2 Thru ordinance shall become effective ,mmedlately upon ~ts passage and approval PASSED AND APPROVED tlns the __ day of ., 2001 EULINE BROCK, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM S \Our Documents\Ordmances\OlXNammg Craven terrain courts doc