HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 13, 2005 Agenda
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
September 13, 2005
After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will
convene in a 2nd Tuesday Session on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the
following items will be considered:
NOTE: A 2nd Tuesday Session is used to explore matters of interest to one or more City Council
Members or the City Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such
matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input,
City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a 2nd Tuesday Session, the City Council
generally receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City staff, officials,
members of City committees, and the individual or organization proposing council action, if
invited by City Council or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by
individuals and members of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the
session is being closed to public input. Although 2nd Tuesday Sessions are public meetings, and
citizens have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearings, so citizens are not allowed to
participate in the session unless invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the
City Council, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen's
opinion on the matter being explored. Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a
regular meeting agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed
action, which will be made available to all citizens prior to the regular meeting at which citizen
input is sought. The purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meeting
the opportunity to hear the views of their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings.
1. Receive a report, discuss, and provide guidance on dumpsters infringing on pedestrian
access of sidewalks.
2. Receive a report, discuss, and provide guidance on current and proposed recycling
services for multi-family residents.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding Request for Sealed
Proposal (RFSP) #3355, Benefit Consultant Services.
NOTE: The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its
Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code, as amended,
including without limitation, Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Special Called Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, September 13,
2005 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas
at which the following items will be considered:
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. U.S. Flag
B. Texas Flag
"Honor the Texas Flag - I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one and indivisible."
City of Denton City Council Agenda
September 13, 2005
Page 2
2. PUBLIC HEARING
A. Hold a public hearing on a proposal to adopt a tax rate of .60815 per $100
valuation, which will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or the effective tax
rate.
3. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION
A. Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton,
Texas announcing that it will vote on a tax rate at its regularly scheduled meeting
of September 20, 2005; providing for publication of notice of such vote on the tax
rate; and providing an effective date.
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance establishing a Disaster Relief Program for
Victims of Hurricane Katrina which provides temporary housing including rental,
utility, and security deposit assistance and related assistance; authorizing overtime
for exempt employees assisting in the disaster relief effort; authorizing the
expenditure of funds therefor; and declaring an effective date.
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the
City of Denton, Texas, on the day of ,2005 at o'clock
(a.m.) (p.m.)
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT.
THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING
IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED
MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-
RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED
THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
September 13, 2005
DEPARTMENT:
Solid Waste
Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232 ..
ACM:
SUBJECT
Receive a report, discuss, and provide guidance on dumpsters infringing on the pedestrian access
of city sidewalks.
BACKGROUND
A verbal concern was voiced to a Police officer that sidewalk access was partially obstructed
between her residence and UNT on Hickory Street and that access didn't meet the requirements
of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In various locations around town
dumpsters, fire hydrants, service enclosures and utility poles partially obstruct sidewalks.
The Solid Waste Department currently provides two types of dumpster service, side-load service,
and front-load service. The customer generally determines the location of the dumpster, subject
to our ability to safely access the dumpster to collect the solid waste. We have approximately
2,300 dumpsters serving the community and of these 437 dumpsters set on the curb. 50 of these
dumpsters infringe on sidewalks and of those 50, 21 could obstruct the passage of a wheelchair
bound individual.
Staff representatives from the Police, City Attorney's office, Planning and Solid Waste reviewed
the issue and looked at possible solutions. A city is not required to have sidewalks. Where
sidewalks exist, a city is not required to build ADA sidewalk ramps until major street
improvements are made. The Development Code requires new construction to place dumpsters
behind the front building line.
For existing buildings that are not required to meet the new Development Code several options
were considered to promote sidewalk access for the disabled. Where adequate parking space is
available for dumpsters and collection truck access, we could move dumpsters onto the parking
lot and provide a variance to the required number of parking spaces. Where feasible, we could
move dumpsters into the street, next to the curb and charge the property owner a loading zone
fee. For quadra-plex residential units and homes converted into boarding houses, conversion to
cart service may be a viable alternative to dumpsters. For side-load dumpster service accounts,
where possible, convert to front-load dumpsters in locations off the curb.
To support the relocation of all commercial containers off of the city's sidewalks the staff
recommends a proposed addition to the City of Denton Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Solid
Waste to include text stating that commercial containers shall not be located on the city's
sidewalks.
OPTIONS
The City Council may recommend the department relocate the dumpsters off of the pedestrian
sidewalks where the dumpster interferes with disabled residents, using a variety of options, or the
City Council may recommend the department continue the existing service.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends using all options discussed above to relocate dumpsters that interfere with
pedestrian traffic.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
None.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Recommendations on container locations can be accomplished within the departments existing
budget funding.
EXHIBITS
1. The ADA and City Governments.
2. Table - Containers on Sidewalk
Respectfully submitted:
a-(-l~
A. Vance Kemler
Director of Solid Waste
u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
I)
The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems
Introduction
Access to civic life by people with disabilities is a fundamental goal of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA). To ensure that this goal is met, Title II of the ADA requires State and
local governments to make their programs and services accessible to persons with disabilities.
This requirement extends not only to physical access at government facilities, programs, and
events -- but also to policy changes that governmental entities must make to ensure that all
people with disabilities can take part in, and benefit from, the programs and services of State and
local governments. In addition, governmental entities must ensure effective communication --
including the provision of necessary auxiliary aids and services -- so that individuals with
disabilities can participate in civic life.
Curb ramps providing access to streets and sidewalks are a basic
city service.
One important way to ensure that Title II's requirements are being met in cities of all sizes is
through self-evaluation, which is required by the ADA regulations. Self-evaluation enables local
governments to pinpoint the facilities, programs and services that must be modified or relocated
to ensure that local governments are complying with the ADA.
This document contains a sampling of common problems shared by city governments of all sizes
that have been identified through the Department of Justice's ongoing enforcement efforts. The
document provides examples of common deficiencies and explains how these problems affect
persons with disabilities. The document is not intended to be comprehensive or exhaustive.
EXHIBIT 1
City programs held in this municipal gazebo are
covered by the ADA.
For additional information about the Americans with Disabilities Act's Title II requirements,
please contact the Department of Justice ADA Information Line. This free service provides
answers to general and technical questions about ADA requirements and free ADA documents,
such as Commonly Asked Questions about Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), Commonly Asked Questions about the Americans with Disabilities Act and Law
Enforcement, Title II Highlights, Access for 9-1-1 and Telephone Emergency Services, the ADA
Guide for Small Towns, and the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. You may reach the
ADA Information Line at:
800-514-0301 (voice) or 800-514-0383 (TTY)
ADA information is also available on the Department's ADA Home Page on the World Wide
Web at:
www.usdoi.2ov/crt/ada/adahoml.htm.
Issue: "Grandfather" Clause or Small Entity Exemption
Common Problem:
City governments may believe that their existing programs and facilities are
protected by a "grandfather" clause from having to comply with the
requirements of Title II of the ADA. Small municipalities may also believe
that are exempt from complying with Title II because of their size.
Result:
Because city governments wrongly believe that a "grandfather" clause or a small
entity exemption shields them from complying with Title II of the ADA, they fail
to take steps to provide program access or to make modifications to policies,
practices, and procedures that are required by law. People with disabilities are
unable to gain access to city facilities, programs, services, or activities because of
a public entity's reliance on these common misconceptions.
Requirement:
There is no "grandfather" clause in the ADA. However, the law is flexible. City
governments must comply with Title II of the ADA, and must provide program
access for people with disabilities to the whole range of city services and
programs. In providing program access city governments are not required to take
any action that would result in a fundamental alteration to the nature of the
service, program, or activity in question or that would result in undue financial
and administrative burdens. This determination can only be made by the head of
the public entity or a designee and must be accompanied by a written statement of
the reasons for reaching that conclusion. The determination that undue burden
would result must be based on all resources available for use in a program. If an
action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a city government must
take any other action that it can to ensure that people with disabilities receive the
benefits and services of the program or activity. 28 C.F.R. S 35.150(a)(3).
Cities must remove barriers to provide alternative
access to programs and services in existing facilities.
Similarly, there is no exemption from Title II requirements for small
municipalities. While public entities that have less than 50 employees are not
required to comply with limited sections of the Department of Justice's
regulations, such as maintaining self- evaluations on file for three years and
designating a grievance procedure for ADA complaints, no general exemption
applies. All public entities, regardless of size, must comply with Title II's
requirements. 28 C.F.R. S 35.104.
Issue: Program Accessibility
Common Problem:
City governments often have failed to ensure that the whole range of the
city's services, municipal buildings, and programs meet Title II's program
access requirements.
Result:
People with disabilities are unable to participate in the activities of city
government, such as public meetings, unable to attend city functions, and unable
to gain access to the city's various programs and services. If a municipal building
such as a courthouse is inaccessible, people with disabilities who use wheelchairs
are unable to participate injury duty, attend hearings, and gain access to other
services, because doorways are too narrow, restroom facilities are inaccessible,
and steps are the only way to get to all or portions of a facility.
A ramp was installed to provide access to the city activities conducted in this
facility.
Requirement:
Title II requires city governments to ensure that all of their programs, services,
and activities, when viewed in their entirety, are accessible to people with
disabilities. Program access is intended to remove physical barriers to city
services, programs, and activities, but it generally does not require that a city
government make each facility, or each part of a facility, accessible. For example,
each restroom in a facility need not be made accessible. However, signage
directing people with disabilities to the accessible features and spaces in a facility
should be provided. Program accessibility may be achieved in a variety of ways.
City governments may choose to make structural changes to existing facilities to
achieve access. But city governments can also pursue alternatives to structural
changes to achieve program accessibility. For example, city governments can
move public meetings to accessible buildings and can relocate services for
individuals with disabilities to accessible levels or parts of buildings. When
choosing between possible methods of program accessibility, however, city
governments must give priority to the choices that offer services, programs, and
activities in the most integrated setting appropriate. In addition, all newly
constructed city facilities must be fully accessible to people with disabilities. 28
C.F.R. SS 35.149, 35.150, 35.151, 35.163.
Issue: Historically Significant Facilities
Common Problem:
City governments may believe that they have no duty to make changes to
historically significant buildings and facilities to improve accessibility for
people with disabilities.
Result:
Many city programs, services, and activities are conducted in buildings that are
historically significant. In addition, many cities operate historic preservation
programs at historic sites for educational and cultural purposes. If no accessibility
changes are made at these facilities and locations, individuals with disabilities are
unable to visit and participate in the programs offered. For example, people who
use wheelchairs would not be able to reach the courtroom or clerk's office located
in a historic nineteenth century courthouse if no physical changes are made to
achieve access.
Requirement:
Historically significant facilities are those facilities or properties that are listed or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or properties
designated as historic under State or local law. Structural changes to these
facilities that would threaten or destroy the historical significance of the property
or would fundamentally change the program being offered at the historic facility
need not be undertaken. Nevertheless, a city must consider alternatives to
structural changes in these instances -- including using audio-visual materials to
depict the inaccessible portions of the facility and other innovative solutions.
An accessible side entrance was added to this
historic facility.
If alterations are being made to a historically significant property, however, these changes must
be made in conformance with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, ("the Standards"), 28
C.F.R. Part 36, S 4.1.7, or the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards, ("UFAS") S 4.1.7, to the
maximum extent feasible. If following either set of standards would threaten or destroy the
historical significance of the property, alternative standards, which provide a minimal level of
access, may be used. This decision must be made in consultation with the appropriate historic
advisory board designated in the Standards or UP AS, and interested persons should be invited to
participate in the decision-making process. 28 C.F.R. SS 35. 150(b)(2); 35.151(d); Standards S
4.1.7; UP AS S 4.1.7. If these lesser standards would threaten or destroy historically significant
features, then the programs or services conducted in the facility must be offered in an alternative
accessible manner or location.
Issue: Curb Ramps
Common Problem:
City governments often do not provide necessary curb ramps to ensure that
people with disabilities can travel throughout the city in a safe and
convenient manner.
Result:
Without the required curb ramps, sidewalk travel in urban areas is dangerous,
difficult, and in some cases impossible for people who use wheelchairs, scooters,
and other mobility aids. Curb ramps allow people with mobility impairments to
gain access to the sidewalks and to pass through center islands in streets.
Otherwise, these individuals are forced to travel in streets and roadways and are
put in danger or are prevented from reaching their destination.
Requirement:
When streets and roads are newly built or altered, they must have ramps wherever
there are curbs or other barriers to entry from a pedestrian walkway. Likewise,
when new sidewalks or walkways are built or altered, they must contain curb
ramps or sloped areas wherever they intersect with streets or roads. While
resurfacing a street or sidewalk is considered an alteration for these purposes,
filling in potholes alone will not trigger the alterations requirements. At existing
roads and sidewalks that have not been altered, however, city governments may
choose to construct curb ramps at every point where a pedestrian walkway
intersects a curb, but they are not necessarily required to do so. Under program
access, alternative routes to buildings that make use of existing curb ramps may
be acceptable where people with disabilities must only travel a marginally longer
route.
Curb ramps provide basic access at intersections and pedestrian crossings.
One way to ensure the proper integration of curb ramps throughout a city is to set
a series of milestones for curb ramp compliance in the city's transition plan.
Milestones are progress dates for meeting curb ramp compliance throughout the
municipality. Milestones should occur on a regular basis throughout the course of
the transition plan and must reflect a priority to walkways serving government
buildings and facilities, bus stops and other transportation services, places of
public accommodation, and business districts, followed by walkways serving
residential areas. It also may be appropriate for a city government to establish an
ongoing procedure for installing curb ramps upon request in both residential and
nonresidential areas frequented by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. SS
35 .150( d)(2); 35.151 (e). In setting milestones and in implementing a curb cut
transition plan for existing sidewalks, the actual number of curb cuts installed in
any given year may be limited by the fundamental alteration and undue burden
limitations.
Issue: Effective Communication
Common Problem:
City governments often fail to provide qualified interpreters or assistive
listening devices for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing at public
events or meetings. In addition, city governments often fail to provide
materials in alternate formats (Braille, large print, or audio cassettes) to
individuals who are blind or have low vision.
Result:
Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing are unable to participate in
government- sponsored events or public meetings and unable to benefit from city
programs and services when they are not provided with appropriate auxiliary aids
and services. Likewise, people who are blind or have low vision are unable to
benefit from city government services when printed materials are the only means
of communication available.
Requirement:
Title II requires that city governments ensure that communications with
individuals with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. Thus,
city governments must provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services for people
with disabilities (e.g., qualified interpreters, notetakers, computer-aided
transcription services, assistive listening systems, written materials, audio
recordings, computer disks, large print, and Brailled materials) to ensure that
individuals with disabilities will be able to participate in the range of city services
and programs. City governments must give primary consideration to the type of
auxiliary aid or service that an individual with a disability requests. The final
decision is the government's.
A sign language interpreter at a public meeting may be needed
to provide effective communication for people who are deaf.
The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective communication
will vary in accordance with the length and complexity of the communication
involved and the needs of the individual. For example, sign language interpreters
are not required for all interactions with people who are deaf or hard of hearing.
Employees can often communicate effectively with individuals who are deaf or
hard of hearing through standard written materials and exchange of written notes.
For simple transactions like paying bills or filing applications, these methods may
be sufficient. For more complex or extensive communications, however, such as
court hearings, public meetings, and interrogation by police officers, interpreters
or assistive listening systems are likely to be necessary.
City governments should ensure that auxiliary aids and services are also provided
for individuals who are blind or have low vision. Alternate formats, such as
Brailled or large print materials, qualified readers, computer disks, or audio
recordings are examples of appropriate auxiliary aids.
City governments are not required to take any actions that will result in a
fundamental alteration or in undue financial and administrative burdens. 28
C.F.R. SS 35.160-35.164.
Issue: Local Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations
Common Problem:
City governments may fail to consider reasonable modifications in local laws,
ordinances, and regulations that would avoid discrimination against
individuals with disabilities.
Result:
Laws, ordinances, and regulations that appear to be neutral often adversely impact
individuals with disabilities. For example, where a municipal zoning ordinance
requires a set-back of 12 feet from the curb in the central business district,
installing a ramp to ensure access for people who use wheelchairs may be
impermissible without a variance from the city. People with disabilities are
therefore unable to gain access to businesses in the city.
City zoning policies were changed to permit this
business to install a ramp at its entrance.
Requirement:
City governments are required to make reasonable modifications to policies,
practices, or procedures to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability.
Reasonable modifications can include modifications to local laws, ordinances,
and regulations that adversely impact people with disabilities. For example, it
may be a reasonable modification to grant a variance for zoning requirements and
setbacks. In addition, city governments may consider granting exceptions to the
enforcement of certain laws as a form of reasonable modification. For example, a
municipal ordinance banning animals from city health clinics may need to be
modified to allow a blind individual who uses a service animal to bring the animal
to a mental health counseling session. 28 C.F.R. S 35. 130(b)(7).
Issue: 9-1-1 Systems
Common Problem:
City governments do not provide direct and equal access to 9-1-1 systems, or
similar emergency response systems, for individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing and use TTY's (TDD's or text telephones) or computer modems.
Result:
People who are deaf or hard of hearing, or those who have speech impairments,
and use TTY's or computer modems for telephone communication are unable to
access emergency services (police, fire and ambulance) that are necessary for
health and safety. When direct emergency services are not available, emergency
calls for individuals with disabilities are not responded to appropriately, or in a
timely manner, and in some instances, not at all.
Requirement:
City governments that provide emergency telephone services must provide direct
access to TTY calls. This means that emergency telephone services can directly
receive calls from TTY's and computer modem users without relying on state
relay services or third parties. A TTY must be located at each individual operator
station. City governments must ensure that emergency operators are trained to use
the TTY not only when they recognize the tones of a TTY at the other end of the
line, but also when they receive a "silent call." 28 C.F.R. SS 35.161, 35.162. (See
Access for 9-1-1 and Telephone Emergency Services)
Issue: Law Enforcement Policies, Practices, and Procedures
Common Problem:
When dealing with persons with disabilities, law enforcement agencies often
fail to modify policies, practices, or procedures in a variety of law
enforcement settings -- including citizen interaction, detention, and arrest
procedures.
Result:
When interacting with police and other law enforcement officers, people with
disabilities are often placed in unsafe situations or are unable to communicate
with officers because standard police practices and policies are not appropriately
modified. For example, individuals who are deaf or have hearing impairments and
use sign language may be unable to communicate with law enforcement officers if
they are taken into custody and handcuffed behind their backs. Similarly,
individuals with epilepsy or diabetes may be placed at great risk if they are not
permitted access to their medications.
Requirement:
Title II of the ADA requires law enforcement agencies to make reasonable
modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures that are necessary to
ensure accessibility for individuals with disabilities, unless making such
modifications would fundamentally alter the program or service involved. Law
enforcement officers should be prepared to make reasonable modifications, for
example, by allowing, in appropriate circumstances, arrestees who are deaf to be
handcuffed in front of their bodies so that they can communicate with others and
by allowing detainees access to their medication. 28 C.F.R. S 35. 150(b)(7). (See
Commonly Asked Questions about the Americans with Disabilities Act and Law
Enforcement)
Issue: Self-Evaluation and Transition Plans
Common Problem:
City governments often have not conducted thorough self-evaluations of their current
facilities, programs, policies, and practices to determine what changes are necessary to
meet the ADA's requirements, and have not developed transition plans to implement these
changes.
Result:
When self-evaluations are not conducted and transition plans not developed, city
governments are ill-equipped to implement accessibility changes required by the
ADA. Without a complete assessment of a city's various facilities, services, and
programs, it is difficult to plan or budget for necessary changes, and the city can
only react to problems rather than anticipate and correct them in advance. As a
result, people with disabilities cannot participate in or benefit from the city's
services, programs, and activities.
Requirement:
All city governments were required to complete a self-evaluation of their
facilities, programs, policies, and practices by January 26, 1993. The self-
evaluation identifies and corrects those policies and practices that are inconsistent
with Title II's requirements. Self-evaluations should consider all of a city's
programs, activities, and services, as well as the policies and practices that a city
has put in place to implement its various programs and services. Remedial
measures necessary to bring the programs, policies, and services into compliance
with Title II should be specified -- including, but not limited to: (1) relocation of
programs to accessible facilities; (2) offering programs in an alternative accessible
manner; (3) structural changes to provide program access; (4) policy
modifications to ensure nondiscrimination; and (5) auxiliary aids needed to
provide effective communication.
City policies, including those affecting service animals,
should be reviewed during the self-evaluation.
If a city that employs 50 or more persons decides to make structural changes to
achieve program access, it must develop a transition plan that identifies those
changes and sets a schedule for implementing them. Both the self-evaluation and
transition plans must be available to the public. 28 C.F.R. SS 35.105, 35.150(d).
Adobe Acrobat Version (pdt) of this Document
ADA Home Page
last update: May 9, 2000
0
...J Z
u..
.s
CIl
Cl
c:
l'Cl
.c: III
() CIl
>-
>< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
--' --' --'
u.. u.. u..
>- >- >-
0 0 0
<( >< <( <(
UJ UJ UJ
0::: 0::: 0:::
--' --' --'
<( <( <(
>< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
>< >< >< >< ><
>< >< >< >< >< ><
>< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
>< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
>< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
(V) (V) (V) (V) "<t "<t (V) (V) (V) (V) (V) (V) "<t "<t (V) "<t CO "<t (V) (V) (V) "<t (V) "<t "<t (V)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
N
E--
.....
~
.....
==
~
~
0
Z
CIl
1li
C.J
0
~
III
CIl
>-
.c:
Cllll
::::J III
0 l'Cl
... ...
.c:Cl
I-
~ III 0
III Z
CIl
C'Cl C.J
~ C.J
<(
Q) <(
"C III
C CIl
en <( >-
l:
0 .;0:
~ ili
:=
Q) CIl
"C
l: Cii
C'Cl c:
- 0
l:
0 UJ
U N
Cii
>-
I-
a
0:::
UJ
CI) l- I- OJ
0 0 CI) :J :J :2:
I- --' 0::: 0::: UJ Z z i= >-
--' 0::: 0:::
UJ <( :; l- I- CI) UJ UJ 0
UJ 0::: --' --' --' --' --' z e:> CI) CI) CI) :2: :2: ::.::
c::: <( --' --' --' --' --' 0::: ::::; Z UJ UJ 0 :2: :2: :2: :2: :2: :2: :2: :2: :2: :2: :2: <( <( U
I- :2: UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ 0 0 I I 0::: --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' --' 0::: 0:::
III <( OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ U U U U UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ UJ u.. u.. I
III Z Z Z Z Z S S S z z z z z z z CI) CI) CI) CI) S
III Ci 0 N N <0 <0 co "<t 0 L[) r- L[) Ci ~ N co co N <0 Ci 0 "<t "<t 0 "<t (V)
UJ 0 0 ~ ~ N ~ ~ N cry N 0 0 ~ 0 N N 0 ~
c::: (V) 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ Ol Ol co (V) L[) r- r- Ol ~ N "<t <0 <0 ~ ~ <0
C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C
<(
V) > 0:::
I- 0:::
0::: 0 UJ UJ 0
--' >- 0 U CI) CI) 0
UJ --' 0::: 0... 0::: :J 0::: 0 CI)
<( UJ 0::: CI) UJ 0 CI) UJ
e:> I I CI) >- UJ z !::: CI) <( 0 I- i=
UJ OJ --' I- 0 I U >- <(
Z 0... CI) 0::: --' <( 0 :2: 0...
Z 0 Z 0 >- 0::: UJ >- <( 0:::
CI) <( UJ 0::: 0 :J u.. Z CI) 0::: Z UJ I UJ UJ
I- CI) <( u.. OJ UJ UJ I e:> I-
>- I CI) CI) Z 0 U UJ !::: I- 0::: --' 0...
OJ 0... CI) U 0 :2: :J o<l --' I- 0... CI) --' UJ 0
OJ <( I --, 0::: CI) 0::: Z UJ :2: e:> CI) --' I 0 UJ UJ :J UJ
I- :2: <( 0::: 0::: 0::: I- 0 0::: --' > 0:::
c::: 0 !::: I I UJ CI) 0 S 0::: 0:::
UJ 0... 0 ~ 0 0 0 CI) Z 0::: U U 0 0 0 e:> 0...
UJ OJ UJ <( UJ UJ 0::: Z 0... UJ <( <( l- I I-
:2: >- UJ :2: --, 0 --' Z u.. >< ::;!; CI) Z
CI) 0::: <( ::.:: ;2 --' Z 0::: Z Z 0...
0 l- e:> >- 0::: :J >- u :2: :J 0... 0 e:> UJ 0 I 0 CI) :J UJ U UJ 0
0::: e:> UJ
I- 0::: I- Z U --' :2: e:> OJ z 0 u CI) I- 0 OJ I- 0 I- UJ I- 0::: :2: ~
UJ Z CI)
III 0::: Z ~ UJ 0 I ?;: OJ I UJ 0::: >- Z I- ::::; Z --, Z > >- 0::: I- <(
::::l 0 UJ ~ I I- CI) o<l 0 0 0::: UJ ;2 UJ :J <( UJ 0::: UJ <( <( 0 <( 0::: <(
() :2: OJ 0::: U CI) <( U CI) OJ --, u.. I 0 <( U 0 0 0 0 --, Z 0... u.. 0
l- N N N N N r- r- r- N r- N
c:::
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
...J Z '<t
u..
.s
CIl
Cl --' --'
c: u.. u..
l'Cl >- >-
.c:
() III 0 0
CIl <( >< >< <( >< It)
>- UJ UJ
0::: 0:::
--' --'
<( <(
0 >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< 0
Z '<t
CIl
1li
C.J
0
~
III 0
CIl >< >< >< ><
>- ....
.c:
Cllll
::::J III >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
o l'Cl
... ...
.c:Cl
I-
III 0 ....
III >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
CIl Z N
C.J
C.J
<(
<( III
C CIl >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< '"
<( >- N
.;0:
ili
:=
CIl >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< >< ><
"C
Cii
c:
0
UJ
N (V) (V) "<t "<t (V) (V) (V) (V) "<t (V) "<t (V) "<t "<t <0 "<t "<t (V) "<t (V) (V)
Cii
>- 0
I- ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~
a It)
OJ
CI)
--' <(
::;!; >- >- ><
0::: 0::: UJ 0 0 0
>- >- >- >- 0::: l-
I- 0::: 0::: 0::: 0::: l- I- l- I- I- 0::: 0::: Z Z Z 0:::
UJ 0 0 0 0 CI) CI) CI) CI) CI) UJ UJ I <( <( <( UJ
UJ ::.:: ::.:: ::.:: ::.:: :J :J :J :J :J OJ OJ I- --' --' --' 0
c::: u u u u --' --' 0::: ::.:: ::.:: ::.:: ::.:: ::.:: ::.:: ::.:: z UJ
I- U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 :J :J 0 <( <( <( <( <( <( <( 0 Z
III I I I I Z --' --' --' --' :2: :2: z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0... '>
III S S S S z z z CI) S S UJ S S S
III r- L[) N Ci N 0 N r- N 0 <0 "<t (V) Ci Ci L[) co Ci r- Ol (V)
UJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "<t 0 0 ~
c::: r- r- Ol 0 N L[) (V) r- Ol Ol N <0 r- N Ol 0 0 "<t ~
C N N ~
C
<(
0 <( I 0
CI) 0::: U CI) 0::: CI)
UJ 0 Z CI) 0::: UJ ;2 I-
Z U 0 UJ :J 0 0 0...
UJ CI) U I 0 I- CI) U <(
CI) I 0::: CI) '> u z ::;!; I- 0 I-
UJ CI) U UJ 0::: 0 CI) 0... U I- 0:::
i= <( CI) u.. UJ U 0::: <( --' CI) CI)
I- ::.:: UJ u CI) UJ :J
0::: CI) :2: 0 --' 0 --' l-
I- 0... 0 CI) OJ I- CI) I- i= CI) CI) >- 0 0...
UJ 0... <( UJ 0 0::: --' OJ CI) CI) 0... 0::: UJ ::.:: CI) 0::: U <(
0... Z <( UJ U 0... <( UJ <( <( UJ :2: <( ::.:: <(
0 OJ 0::: Z 0 <( 0 z
c::: UJ OJ u.. e:> 0::: z 0... <( :2:
0::: CI) 0 I- 0 o<l --, 0 0::: 0
UJ > ::.:: 0 u.. Z 0 Z 0 --' o<l CI)
0... 0 UJ Z l- e:> --' ::;!; >- 0::: i= I-
:2: UJ <( I- i= u.. UJ 0:::
Z I- --' UJ Z Z --' --' 0::: I I UJ <( 0...
0 CI) 0 UJ CI) U 0::: U UJ Z e:> 0... UJ Z 0 0... U u.. I- <(
I- 0 Z u :2: >- 0 0 0 <( 0 0 CI) 0 ::.:: UJ 6 ::;!; Z
III 0::: 0::: <( <( U 0... U --' ::.:: CI) --' CI) <( UJ
~ S e:> u --'
::::l <( --' --' 0 UJ UJ CI) UJ ~ <( :J 0 0 <( ~ --' z
() I ::.:: 0... <( 0::: 0::: 0 0::: 0... 0 OJ 0::: U I --, 0 0... '>
l- N r- N r- <0 N N N
c:::
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
September 13, 2005
DEPARTMENT:
Solid Waste
Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232"
ACM:
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction on current and proposed fiscal
year 2006 recycling services for Denton's multi-family residents.
BACKGROUND
Denton's proposed fiscal year 2006 recycling budget is $1,472,285. The recycling services
that Denton's residents are budgeted to receive during the fiscal year are:
. Curbside recycling
. Drop-off recycling sites
. Commercial Recycling
. City of Denton Office Recycling
. DISD School Program I Recycling
. Used Oil Collections *
. Appliance Collections *
. Special Event Recycling *
. Electronics Recycling *
. Household Hazardous Waste Recycling *
*
Of these recycling services, the items indicated with an asterisk (*) are multi-family
recycling services.
The drop-off recycling sites primarily support Denton's multi-family residents. Additionally,
these residents utilize the used oil collection sites, are provided appliance collections, and
special event recycling services. New recycling services proposed for fiscal year 2006, which
will be utilized by multi-family residents, include the electronics recycling and household
hazardous waste recycling programs.
Beginning in fiscal year 2006, the Solid Waste Department recommends the City bill multi-
family customers $1.75 per month for the City's recycling services provided. The $1.75 will
be added to each multi-family customers individual utility bill. For those utility accounts that
are master metered, the master metered account will be billed for these services based on the
number of living units under the master meter.
Further, a public education campaign targeting multi-family residents to inform them of their
available recycling services will be developed and implemented.
OPTIONS
The City Council may recommend to bill, or not bill Denton's multi-family residents for the
recycling services provided.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends that Denton's multi-family residents be billed $1.75 per month for
recycling services provided.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
None.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Approximate number of multi -family living units
Proj ected occupancy percentage
Billable multi-family units
Proj ected annual revenue
17,000
85%
14,450
$303,450
EXHIBITS
None.
Respectfully submitted:
a-(-l~
A. Vance Kemler
Director of Solid Waste
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE:
September 13, 2005
Questions concerning this
report may be directed to
Scott Payne, 349-7836
DEPARTMENT:
Fiscal Operations
ACM:
Kathy DuBose
..
SUBJECT
Hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding Request For Sealed Proposal (RFSP) #3355,
Benefit Consultant Services.
BACKGROUND
The City of Denton has utilized the services of a consultant for our various employee and retiree
benefits since the early 1990's. These benefits include health, dental, vision, life, supplemental
life, accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) as well as short and long term disability.
The City initially contracted with Foster Higgins Insurance, Actuary and Consulting Services
who later merged with Mercer in FY 97/98. Our cost with Mercer was $5.00 per employee per
month not to exceed $70,000 per year. We began working with our current consultant, McGriff,
Seibels and Williams in July of 2002 at an annual cost of $48,500.
As directed by Council, the City of Denton submitted RFSP #3355 to the market place on June
14, 2005, with a due date of July 15, 2005. The following firms provided responses to RFSP
#3355:
Grizzaffi Darby
Holmes Murphy
McGriff, Seibels and Williams
Rael & Letson - Disqualified (did not supply Addendum #1 Acknowledgement Form)
RWL Group
Segal- Disqualified (did not supply Addendum #1 Acknowledgement Form)
Smith & Associates
The attached report provides greater details regarding the respondents, the overall RFSP review
process, and staff s recommendation.
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions)
The Council received a report on this topic during the September 6, 2005, Work Session. The
Council stated they wanted an additional week to review the information and requested that the
topic be brought back during the September 13, 2005, meeting.
FISCAL INFORMATION
Funds for the Benefits Consultant are budgeted in the FY 05/06 budget in 911001.7854.
EXHIBITS
Attachment 1 - Evaluation of Benefits Consultant RFSP #3355
Attachment 2 - Letter from Employee Insurance Committee (EIC)
Attachment 3 - Copy ofRFSP #3355
Attachment 4 - Evaluation Grid
Diana G. Ortiz
Director of Fiscal Operations
Attachment 1 - Evaluation of Benefits Consultant RFSP #3355
Review Team
The qualified responses were evaluated by a Review Team approved by the City
Manager. The Review Team consisted of:
. Amanda Green, Parks Program Area Manager and Chairperson of the Employee
Insurance Committee (EIC)
. Katherine Barnett, Utility Communications & Special Projects Coordinator and a
member of the EIC
. Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent
. Carol Plant, Health Benefits Administrator
. Scott Payne, Risk Manager
. Diana Ortiz, Director of Fiscal Operations
Evaluation
The Evaluation Team evaluated the five responsive respondents and eliminated RWL
Group and Smith & Associates. The remaining three respondents were evaluated based
on the following weights, as set forth in the RFSP:
40% - Capability of Proposer to provide the services outlined in Section III
20% - Experience (Municipal Preferred and/or 1200+ Employees)
10% - References for Clients (Municipal Preferred)
20% - Cost of Services
10% - Response to Supplemental Questionnaire and Miscellaneous Provisions
Additionally, the Review Team conducted in-person interviews with the remaining three
respondents. The interview was limited to 30 minutes for each group.
The below table illustrates the total points and average points assigned by the Review
Team to each respondent based on their responses to the RFSP and their interview:
ResDondent Total Points A vera2:e Points
McGriff, Seibels & Williams 518 86.33
Holmes Murphy 474 79.00
Grizzaffi Darby 394 65.67
RWL Group NR NR
Smith & Assoc. NR NR
Rael & Letson DQ DQ
Segal DQ DQ
NR = Not Reviewed
DQ = Disqualified
1
Pros and Cons of Top Three
The below information details the pros and the cons of the top three respondents:
McGriff. Seibels and Williams (MSW)
Pros:
. As the incumbent, MSW has a proven track record of successful performance for
the City of Denton:
o For the plan year beginning January 2004, MSW successfully transitioned
the City's health plan from Cigna to United Healthcare, resulting in
greater benefits for employees, retirees and dependents and saving the
City approximately $700,000.
o For the plan year beginning January 2005, MSW successfully negotiated a
renewal with United Healthcare saving the City approximately $600,000.
o Worked with the City and the EIC to develop the plan design changes that
will go into effect January 2006. The plan design changes and MSW's
negotiations could save the City approximately $1,670,000 in 2006.
. MSW is the 6th largest consulting/brokerage firm in the US and the ih largest in
the world.
. 100 year history of insurance service as a company
. Approximately 18 public entity clients representing 32,000 employees, including
Bexar County, City of Garland, City of Grand Prairie, City of Harlingen, City of
Mesquite, City of San Marcos, City ofLewisville, and Collin County.
. Represent approximately 8,500 covered lives placed with United Healthcare, the
City's current health insurance company.
. Gold level status with United Healthcare.
. Currently participates in various professional organizations for public entItles
including Texas Chapter Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA), State
and Local Government Benefits Association (SALGBA) and Texas Municipal
Human Resources Association (TMHRA).
. Account representative holds Life and Health Counselor License.
Cons:
. Current account team has only been involved with the City's account since March
of2005.
. Fee ($48,500) slightly higher than Grizzaffi Darby's proposed fee, but still not an
. .
Increase over prIor years.
. Less lives placed with United Healthcare than Holmes Murphy.
. Does not serve on the National Advisory Board of any insurance companies.
2
Holmes Murphv (HM)
Pros:
. One account executive (Preston Pomykal) was the City's account executive with
MSW prior to March of 2005.
. 70+ year history of insurance service as a company.
. Provides in-house actuarial, legal and benefit communication teams.
. Represents approximately 110,000 covered lives placed with United Healthcare.
. 80% of total annual revenue comes from clients with 500 or more employees.
. Currently participates in various professional organizations for public entities
including Texas Chapter Public Risk Management Association (PRIMA), State
and Local Government Benefits Association (SALGBA) and Texas Municipal
Human Resources Association (TMHRA) as well as the Society for Human
Resource Management (SHRM).
. Platinum Level status with United Healthcare.
. The President of the Dallas office was an inaugural member of and continues to
serve on the National Advisory Council for United Healthcare. Additionally, HM
personnel also serve on the National Advisory Councils for Aetna and Cigna.
. Aggressively growing their public entity book of business with current clients of
City of North Richland Hills, City of Round Rock, City of Waco, Jefferson
County, City of Pampa, and the City of Brenham.
Cons:
. No proven track record with proposed account team.
. Former MSW employee, Preston Pomykal, is prohibited from working with the
City of Denton until February of 2007 due to a non-compete clause.
. Proposed account team to be assigned to the City of Denton does not have as
much public entity experience as MSW team.
. HM is involved in a legal dispute with MSW over two former employees now
working with HM.
. Fee ($48,500) slightly higher than Grizzaffi Darby's proposed fee, but still not an
. .
Increase over prIor years.
GrizzatJi Darbv (GD)
Pros:
. Locally owned and operated company since 1996.
. Voted one of the Top 15 Places to Work in DFW.
. Named as one of the Top 100 Fastest Growing Businesses in DFW.
. Currently serves on the National Advisory Boards for BlueCross BlueShield of
Texas, GE (Genworth), Great West, Guardian, Humana, PacifiCare, United
Healthcare and UnumProvident.
. Lower annual fee ($45,000) than MSW and HM.
. Gold level status with United Healthcare.
. Represent approximately 8,300 covered lives placed with United Healthcare.
3
. Relationships and interaction with local healthcare providers.
. Account representatives hold Life and Health Counselor License.
Cons:
. No proven track record with the City of Denton.
. Limited public entity experience with only the City of Corinth (127 employees)
and Lamar County (185 employees) as public entity clients.
. Limited experience with large employer groups (500 or greater employees).
. Less lives placed with United Healthcare than Holmes Murphy or MSW.
. Does not participate in professional organizations for public entities such as
PRIMA, SALGBA or TMHRA.
. 9-year history of insurance service as a company.
Recommendation
Based on the evaluation of the Review Team, the proposal of McGriff, Seibels and
Williams ranked the highest in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFSP.
4
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
321 E. McKINNEY, DENTON. TEXAS 76201
Memorandum
To: Mike Conduff, City Manager
From: Amanda Green, Employee Insurance Committee Chair ~
Date: August 19, 2005
Re: Employee Insurance Committee (EIC) Recommendation for Benefit Consultant Services
The purpose of the City's RSFP was to select a firm that can provide the City with innovative options
and cost analysis as we further expand our efforts to reduce the ever increasing cost of insurance.
The City received five responses to RSFP 3355 - Benefit Consultant Services for the City's insurance
plan. The proposals were carefully evaluated by a City team that included representatives from the
following departments: Risk Management (2), Purchasing (1), Utilities AdministrationlElC member (1),
Finance (1), and Parks and RecreationlEIC Chair (1). The proposals were evaluated on the following
criterion and weighted percentages:
Capability of Proposer to provide services as outlined - 400,/0
Experience (Municipal Preferred and/or 1200+ Employees) - 20%
References from Clients (Municipal Preferred) - 10%
Cost of Services - 20%
Response to Supplemental Questionnaire and Miscellaneous Provisions - 10%
After an initial review of the proposals the top three candidates were asked to make a brief presentation
to the panel. Each candidate was given 25 minutes to discuss the following topics:
Why they should be selected (10 min)
Top two trends in insurance industry (10 min)
Questions and answers (5 min)
www.citvofdenton.com
ADA I EOE I ADEA TDD: (800) 735-2989
Based on this extensive screening process McGriff Seibels and Williams (MSW) was the unanimous
first ranked candidate. MSW has a proven track record of providing innovative options and cost
reduction analysis to the City of Denton. Their market presence and ability to negotiate insurance costs
far outweighed that of the other candidates. MSW brings a wider breadth of experience representing
large client groups and municipalities as compared to the other two candidates. They currently represent
13 municipalities in Texas and many more nationally; the other two candidates represent five
municipalities and one municipality, respectively.
During our last meeting, I shared the results of the screening process with the EIC and the Committee
asked that I make a formal recommendation to you. Changes in the insurance industry and the need for
significant changes in the employee health insurance program demand a partnership with a firm that is
capable of providing the best service. The Employee Insurance Committee recommends that the City of
Denton select McGriff Seibels and Williams as the City's Benefit Consultant.
If you have any questions please contact my office at 349-8382.
www.citvofdenton.com
ADA I EOE I ADEA TDD: (800) 735-2989
CITY OF DENTON
Request for Sealed Proposal
RFSP # 3355
Benefit Consultant Services
RFP Opening Date: July 14, 2005
Prepared by: Risk Management
RFSP 3355
&l
CITY OF DENTON
REQUEST FOR SEALED PROPOSAL FOR BENEFIT CONSULTANT SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background and General Information
Section I
Special Instructions
Section II
Proposal Guidelines
Section III
Supplemental Questionnaire
Section IV
Miscellaneous Provisions
Section V
City of Denton Schedule of Benefits
Section VI
RFSP 3355
&l
Background & General Information
SECTION I
Background
The City of Denton (the City) is requesting your proposal to provide Benefit Consultant Services for the
City's total insurance plan. The effective date will be October 1, 2005
The City currently provides or offers employees the following insurance coverage: a fully insured PPO
medical plan, a PPO dental plan, a PPO vision plan, Life/ AD&D insurance, supplemental life insurance,
and short-term and long-term disability. The City currently pays the cost of PPO employee only
coverage on all eligible employees, basic Life/ AD&D, and long-term disability.
The City of Denton is a city of 90,167 (based on 2000 census data and assuming a 5% annual rate of
growth) residents and was incorporated in 1866. Denton is located approximately 40 miles north of
Dallas and Fort Worth. It sits at the apex of a triangle that encompasses the Dallas-Fort Worth
metropolitan area. Although it benefits from the forward thrust and continuous expansion of the largest
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area in the state, Denton and its economy stand proudly
independent.
The City of Denton has a work force of approximately 1120 employees. The City has had an effective
safety and risk management program since 1970, an active Wellness Program since 1990, and an insured
employee assistance program (EAP) since 1998. Additionally, the City has an Employee Insurance
Committee (EIC) representing all departments, providing education and feedback as well as
recommendations to City Management and City Council.
In general, Denton is a full-service city that provides law enforcement, fire safety, paramedics/rescue,
refuse collection, sanitary landfill, electric distribution and transmission, water, wastewater, storm sewer,
animal control, parks/recreation, library and airport services. The City has two full-service, private
hospitals and several private rest homes.
Two major universities-University of North Texas and Texas Woman's University-along with a fully
accredited public school system, allow local citizens every educational advantage possible and a rich
blend of cultures.
The City runs its insurance program on a January 1 plan year. However, the City is in the process of
changing to an October 1 plan year to coincide with the City's fiscal year. This transition should be
complete October 1, 2006.
RFSP 3355
1
&l
General Information
1. All proposals are required to be signed by an authorized representative of the entity
submitting the proposal. Proposals received unsigned will not be considered.
2. The proposer shall not sell, assign, transfer or convey any contract resulting from this proposal,
in whole or part, without the prior written consent from the City. Such consent shall not relieve
the assigned of liability in the event of default by the assignee.
3. Any ambiguity in the proposal as a result of omission, error, lack of clarity or non-compliance
by the proposer with specifications, instructions and all conditions shall be construed in the
favor of the city.
4. No oral statement of any person shall modify or otherwise change, or affect the terms,
conditions or specifications stated in the resulting contract. All change orders to the contract
will be made in writing and shall not be effective unless signed by an authorized representative
of the City.
5. The City shall have the right to modify this order subject to an adjustment in the price in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the purchase order, if any, or pursuant to mutual
agreements. No agreement or understanding to modify this order shall be binding on the City
unless it is in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the City.
6. The City reserves the right to require additional technical and pricing information and negotiate
all elements, which comprise the Vendor's proposal to ensure that the best possible
consideration is afforded to all concerned. The City reserves the right to accept all or part of
any proposal, to reject any or all proposals, and to re-solicit for proposals.
7. The City reserves the right to schedule interviews, as well as on-site visits, as deemed necessary
to make a final selection.
8. All prices quoted by the proposer will remain firm for a minimum of ninety (90) days from the
date of the proposal unless otherwise specified by the City or proposer.
9. Although every effort has been made to provide accurate and up-to-date information,
companies supplying quotations should contact the Purchasing Agent for any questions that you
might have.
RFSP 3355
2
&l
Special Instructions
SECTION II
Instructions: These instructions apply to all proposals and become a part of the terms and conditions
of any proposal submitted unless a vendor takes specific exception in writing when submitting
proposals.
The City shall mean the City of Denton, Texas.
Format: Proposals should be submitted in an easily understandable format with sections clearly
defined.
Proposal Returns: One original and three copies of proposals must be sealed in an envelope clearly
marked on the outside with RFSP 3355 and addressed to:
City of Denton
ATTN: Tom Shaw
Purchasing Department
901-B Texas Street
Denton, Texas 76209
Late Proposals: Proposals must be in the purchasing office prior to the closing date and time, which
is 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 14,2005. Proposals received after the specified time and date will
not be considered. The City is not responsible for unmarked or improperly marked proposals. The
City is not responsible for proposals delivered after the scheduled deadline due to the external or
internal mail system. The time and date recorded in the Purchasing Office shall be the official time
of recei pt.
Facsimile Proposals: The City will not accept fax proposals.
Acceptance: The right is reserved to accept or reject any or all of the proposals submitted, waive
minor technicalities, and accept the offer most advantageous to the City. The City accepts no
financial responsibility for any costs incurred by any proposer in the course of responding to these
specifications.
Authorized Signature: By signing and executing this proposal, the vendor certifies and represents to
the City that the vendor has not offered, conferred, or agreed to confer any pecuniary benefit or other
thing of value for the receipt of special treatment, advantage, information, recipient's decision,
opinion, recommendation, vote, or any other exercise of discretion concerning this proposal.
Proposals must show vendor name and address and be manually signed. Failure to do so will
disqualify proposal. The person signing the proposal must show title or authority to bind his firm in
a contract.
Negotiation: The City reserves the right to negotiate once proposals are received.
Taxes: The City is exempt from federal excise, state sales, and transportation taxes. Taxes must
RFSP 3355
3
&l
not be included in the proposal. Tax exemption certificates will be executed by the Purchasing
Agent upon request.
Proposal Evaluation: The proposals will be evaluated on the factors outlined below which shall be
applied to all eligible, responsive proposals in selecting the successful offeror. Award of such a
contract may be made without discussion with proposers after responses are received. Proposals
should, therefore, be submitted on the most favorable terms. The City reserves the right to void the
contract if the successful proposer cannot perform services specified by the proposer's response.
Proposal Evaluation Criteria will be grouped into percentage factors as follows:
. 40% - Capability of Proposer to provide services outlined in Section III
. 20% - Experience (Municipal Preferred and/or 1200 + Employees)
. 10% - References from Clients (Municipal Preferred)
. 20% - Cost of Services
. 10% - Response to Supplemental Questionnaire and Miscellaneous Provisions
A2ent of Record: No commissions or other forms of compensation of any type may be included
in your pricing. The City will not recognize or name any Agent of Record.
Length of Contract: All responses to this RFP shall be for a two-year (2) agreement between the
City and the provider. Please provide a two-year (2) initial rate guarantee, with the option to
renew for two successive twelve-month agreements. Any changes to the scope of services provided
under this contract that may result in changes to the terms, conditions, and fees can be redefined and
negotiated after the first year. In that event, any negotiated items must be placed in writing and
provided as an amendment to the contract. All proposers must agree to fully warrant and guarantee
all information in its response.
Termination For Default: The City of Denton reserves the right to enforce the performance of this
contract in any manner prescribed by law or deemed to be in the best interest of the City in the event
of breach or default of this contract. The City reserves the right to terminate the contract
immediately in the event the successful proposer fails to:
. provide services specified
. otherwise perform in accordance with the accepted proposal
Breach of contract or default authorizes the City to award to another proposer and charge the full
increase in cost to the defaulting proposer.
Confidentiality: All information contained in the proposal is available to the public, if requested.
Any information considered confidential by the propsoer should be submitted with the proposal in a
separate envelope clearly marked "Confidential." Note: Proposer should provide an explanation for
all items considered confidential, giving as much information as possible.
RFSP 3355
4
&l
Contact
Questions about this Request for Proposal and the selection process must be directed in writing to:
Carol L. Plant, PHR
City of Denton Risk Management
215 E. McKinney
Denton, TX 76201
Telephone: (940) 349-8388
Fax: (940) 349-7803
With copies to:
Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Purchasing Department
901-B Texas Street
Denton, TX 76209
Telephone: (940) 349-7100
Fax: (940) 349-7302
All questions received and the corresponding answers will be distributed to all proposers. No
information will be given over the vhone.
Timetable
Release RFSP 3355
Receive and open proposals
Interview Finalists, if necessary
City Council Presentation
Effective Date
06/14/2005
07/14/2005
week of 08/01/2005
09/06/2005
10/01/2005
Deadline for Ouestions
The deadline for questions about this proposal will be 5:00 pm, Friday, July 1, 2005.
The City will not respond to questions after this time and date. Responses to questions will be
mailed to all proposers no later than, Thursday, July 7, 2005.
Deadline
We must receive your responses to this Request for Sealed Proposal by 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July
14,2005. Proposals received after this time and date will not be considered.
RFSP 3355
5
&l
Proposal Guidelines for Insurance Consultant Services
SECTION III
Outline of Expected Services
I. Evaluate the current programs and provide Written Analysis within 30 days of receipt of
necessary data.
A. Assist the City in creating and maintaining a competitive (cost & plan design) benefit
program, and in doing so, provide benchmark data from like entities
B. Review of Benefit Design
C. Review of Benefit Utilization
D. Claims analysis including review of large claims
E. Review of benefits cost for employees, retirees and the City
F. Provide funding analysis, financial underwriting, including renewal analysis and
negotiation, budget projections, and quarterly reporting of plan's financial performance
G. Evaluate plan design annually, or as required, in light of labor market conditions, cost
trends, delivery systems and legal requirements
H. Annually analyze, compare and review fully insured vs. self insured plans/ options
I. Develop a strategy to transition to a self-funded plan, if required
J. Review of current carriers' performance
K. Assist in developing long-term strategies and future or proposed benefit plans
L. Assist in developing long-term strategies and future for City's Retiree benefits
M. Obtain necessary monthly, quarterly and annual reports and data from carriers in a
timely manner
N. Assist in the monitoring of vendors' quality of service and institute quality standards
with penalties for poor performance
O. Provide information/ education/ training to City staff related to benefit implementation
and administration when requested
II. Develop Renewal Strategy
A. Conduct annual strategic planning meetings to establish goals, priorities, and identify
areas of concern.
B. Provide plan design recommendation, with estimated cost implications, for benefit
modifications
C. Develop a strategy and assist in the transition to an October 1 plan year
D. Projected Funding requirements and funding level analysis/ development
E. Negotiate with carriers to obtain favorable renewals
III. Coordinate Proposal Process
A. Collect and organize the information required to obtain competitive bids
B. Respond to questions, clarification and requests for additional information of the bid
specifications
C. Review, evaluate and summarize various benefit options of the competitive proposals
D. Review the policies to make sure they are consistent with the bid response
E. Meet with proposed carriers regarding contract negotiations, implementation, and other
bid requirements
IV.
RFSP 3355
Assist in the implementation of the Benefit Program
6
&l
A. Develop transition plan
B. Assist in establishing administrative procedures
C. Prepare communication plan and City Benefit Booklet
D. Work with carrier/administrators coordinating the enrollment process of all related
plans
E. Advise and make recommendations regarding on-line open enrollment and electronic
communication capabilities
V. Administration of Employee Benefits Program
A. Keep City advised on new developments involving employee benefit plans
B. Act as liaison between City and carriers
C. Assist in the timely resolution of claims problems
D. Assist in the timely resolution of billing issues
E. Assist City Staff in development of multi-media educational programs and
presentations, as well as provide support in the preparation of reports and presentations
to City Management and Council
F. Meet monthly with City Employee Insurance Committee (EIC) regarding current issues
G. Appear at City Council Meetings and other necessary meetings as required
H. Assist the City with compliance in the areas of COBRA/HIP AA and other benefits
related legislation and legal requirements, as well as act as a technical resource to include
timely periodic updates on legislative developments, emerging trends, and insurers'
status
1. Provide COBRA administration services and/or access to contractual services for
COBRA administration and/ or similar programs
J. Monitor the prospective markets and changes, which may affect the City of Denton
benefit plans.
K. Provide research materials on various topics, as requested
NOTE: By responding to this RFSP, the Proposer agrees to comply with the above Scope of
Services. If you are unable to provide/perform any service, please list that service and
provide and explanation. In section C (following), you will have the opportunity to
give details of your firm's performance of the Scope of Services.
The information submitted shall be divided into tabbed, marked sections and shall include, but
not limited to, information for each of the following:
A. FIRM OVERVIEW: Proposer is requested to define the overall structure of the Firm to
include the following:
1. A descriptive background of Proposer's history
2. State its principal business location and any other service locations, including the
primary office servicing the City
3. State its primary line of business
4. State how long it has been providing services as described herein
5. State how many states other than Texas, where services are in use
RFSP 3355
7
&l
B. PROPOSED PROJECT TEAM, STAFF QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE, AND
CREDENTIALS: Proposer is requested to address services offered by their company to
include, but not necessarily limited to, those required services as stated above.
1. Proposer is requested to state the organization's experience, experience of the
staff, and technical experience in providing these types of services
2. State level of organizational responsibility of key project staff members
3. Proposer is requested to include certifications held by Proposer's personnel
4. As the City assigns individual projects, successful Proposer shall identify
personnel assigned to each specific project requirement
5. Please describe what sets your company apart from other consulting firms
C. SCOPE OF SERVICES: As indicated above, please include a detailed explanation of
services offered, as they relate to the City's "Outline of Expected Services" provided herein,
and your recommended approach to addressing the City's needs. Please provide reasonable
estimates of the cost to the City on a monthly and/or annual basis. Please include any
services offered that may be above and beyond the Outline of Expected Services indicated
by the City.
D. REFERENCES: Proposer is requested to provide with the Request for Proposals a list of at
least five (5) references where like services or their firm has performed similar projects.
Include name of the client, address, telephone number and name of representative. In
addition, please include all municipalities or other public entities (and number of employees)
served by your firm.
E. FEE SCHEDULE: Proposer is requested to provide (1) the cost of services, (2) explain the
basis for the above fee and any subsequent annual fees, and (3) identify ad hoc services your
company provides and the cost for these services. The City will not recognize or name an
Agent of Record. No commissions or other forms of compensation of any type may be
included in your pricing. Pricing must be on a flat fee basis, with full disclosure of all
fees, including any which may deviate from the flat fee schedule.
F. SUPPORTING MATERIALS : Various questions included in this Request for Proposals will
be used in making a selection and should be addressed by section and number. Proposer is
requested to submit information requested, one (1) original and two (2) copies of descriptive
literature sufficient in detail to enable an intelligent comparison of services.
G. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS: Proposer is requested to submit recent financial statements
with this Request for Proposal. Audited financial statements are not mandatory. Unaudited
financial statements will be accepted. If Proposer's firm does, however, have audited
financial statements, please include a copy with the response to the RFP. Financial
statements must show the name and address of the firm preparing the financial statements
and the date thereof.
RFSP 3355
Supplemental Questionnaire
8
&l
SECTION IV
1. Describe how your firm establishes and monitors performance criteria for all vendors,
carriers and contracts.
2. Describe your firm's marketplace leverage in negotiating with carriers in regard to rates,
policy terms and plan design.
3. Provide information on litigation pertaining to your role as a benefit consultant over the
last three (3) years.
4. Provide information on client turnover for your firm's benefit consulting division over
the past three (3) years.
5. Provide information on any National, State or local associations to which your company
belongs.
6. Discuss your technological abilities to provide communication in various forms (i.e.,
web sites, printed materials, enrollment, etc.).
7. Are there any restrictions or pending reviews by Federal or State authorities for non-
compliance with Federal or State regulations? If yes, please explain.
8. Has any party brought legal action against the organization during the past three (3)
years? If yes, please explain.
9. Have you made any claims against the City in the past three (3) years? If yes, what was
the outcome/status?
RFSP 3355
Miscellaneous Provisions
9
&l
SECTION V
1. Contract Performance: Please confirm that no termination of engagements for
insurance consultant services have occurred due to the non-performance, poor
performance or other misfeasance in the last 10 years.
2. Conflict ofInterest Statement: Please provide a statement that there is no and will
be no conflict of interest in your serving as Benefits Consultant to the City of
Denton.
3. Ethics and Interest in a Public Contract: Please confirm that there is no
relationship of consanguinity between the principals of your firm and any City
Council Member or City official or employee that would result in that member or
employee having an interest in a public contract or otherwise violate the states
ethics or public contracting laws.
4. EEO Statement: Please provide a statement describing your firm's equal
employment opportunity policy.
RFSP 3355
10
&l
rJ)
(!)
u
'E
(!)
Vl
......
:::
cd
......
"3'"0
gS
U :::
...... 0
tg .~
::: ;::l
(!)"a
o:l >
I~
If)
If)
M
M
::t:I::
p.,
Vl
~
...s::
~ ~I
rJ)
(!)
a ~I
<3
~
~I
~
o
'T
o
('.l
'D
.........
o
.........
'D
llll
~
~
..
~
o ..
t"- ~
o
o
00\
oot::::
'"
......
=
...
('.l 0
'D
('.l
M
('.l
.........
('.l
.........
'D
00
'D
M
'T
.........
'D
.........
'D
00
('.l
M
t"-
t"-
00
00
I'll
~
-
~
......
M 0
00......
"'1'
t"-
"'1'
'D
M
'T
.........
'D
.........
00
0'\
"I
~
o
'T
'D
.........
'D
.........
00
t"-
oo
t"-
1-1-
..... .....
(!) (!)
rJ) i$
o (!)
o 'S;
..... (!)
p.,~
~ ~oo
& ~ :g ~
o () ~ 0 r:n
d:: .~ S 0.. 8
'0 1A ",;;,!j " .~
.g~ ~ g + ~~ ~
:-;:::";; 0 1) 0 1) 0 ~
..0 0 <:I.C 0 t:: <:I 0
~a~&~~~~
82~~0(3 a~8
00
:::
.~ ~
u ~
a~
o v
~~ a~ 0 '3.~ ~
N~~~"""':::~~
.. () 0.... ~ 1) ::: ..
o iJ'u 0 ::: a.s 0
<:I ~.- <:I 0 ~ +-' <:I
~1)S~o..o..~~~
O~aO~o..;::$Ob
~~'-'~~~O~~
"a
......
o
......
(!)
...s::
......
(!)
>
'50
o
......
,.-..
~
'T
II
~
o
'T
'-"'
......
...s::
bJ)
'v
i$
(!)
oS
:>-.
.D
'"0
(!)
......
~
......
"3
a
rJ)
cd
i$
(!)
.....
o
u
rJ)
~
...s::
r--
(!)
>
o
{l
:::
.9
......
u
(!)
rJ)
...s::
u
cd
(!)
.....
<E
o
.........
'"0
:::
cd
.........
.....
(!)
i$
(!)
'S;
(!)
~
II
~
:::
(!)
(!)
Z
(!)
.D
(!)
.....
o
u
rJ)
cd
:::
~ C
'50 51
rJ) (!)
cd ~
i$ u
........s::
(!) u
rJ) cd
o (!)
0-......
8<E
p., rJ)
...s::......
u :::
cd '0
~ 0-.
This page left blank intentionally.
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: September 13, 2005
DEPARTMENT: Fiscal Operations
ACM:
Kathy DuBose
..
SUBJECT
Hold a Public Hearing on a proposal to adopt a tax rate of .60815 per $100 valuation, which
will exceed the lower of the rollback rate or the effective tax rate.
BACKGROUND
In the Friday, August 5, 2005, Reading File, staff provided Council with a copy of the
required notice of effective tax rate calculation that would be published in the Sunday, August
7, Denton Record-Chronicle. Municipalities are required to publish their rollback tax rates in
the newspaper, along with the effective tax rate and other required schedules. The rollback
tax rate divides the overall property taxes into two categories-maintenance and operations
(M&O) taxes and debt service taxes. By law, the rollback rate for taxing units is set at an
eight percent (8%) increase in operating (M&O) taxes. The effective tax rate is generally the
property taxes divided by the current year's taxable value of properties that were on the tax
roll in both years. This rate excludes taxes on properties no longer in the taxing unit and also
excludes the current taxable value of new properties (growth). The City of Denton's effective
rate is $.57809/$100 valuation and the rollback rate is $.62375/$100 valuation.
The Texas Property Tax Code mandates specific publications to be provided by the City. The
code specifies that "When a proposed rate exceeds the lower of the rollback rate or the
effective rate, the taxing unit's governing body must vote to place a proposal to adopt the rate
on the agenda of a future meeting as an action item." Senate Bill 18 was passed during the
79th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. One of the new requirements of this bill is that
two public hearings must be held on proposed tax increases, with the second hearing
occurring at least three days after the first. The proposed 2005-06 budget includes a .60815
tax rate and exceeds the effective tax rate; therefore, it requires two public hearings.
ESTIMA TED SCHEDULE
8/16/05
9/06/05
9/13/05
9/20/05
Vote to Place Proposal on Future Agenda
Hold First Public Hearing
Hold Second Public Hearing
Adopt Tax Rate
Agenda Information Sheet
September 13, 2005
Page 2
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
On August 8 and August 16, 2005, Council met and discussed the tax rate. On Tuesday,
September 6,2005, a public hearing was held on the proposed tax rate.
FISCAL INFORMATION
The proposed property tax rate is $.60815/$100 valuation for the 2005-06 proposed budget.
EXHIBITS
Notice of Public Hearings
Respectfully submitted:
r,~
Diana G. Ortiz
Director of Fiscal Operations
Notice of Public Hearing
on Tax Increase
Last year, the City of Denton property tax rate was $.59815 per
$100 valuation. That rate raised $26,168,727, a portion of
which was used to fund operations such as:
- Police Services
- Fire/EMS Services
- Street Maintenance
- Parks and Recreation
- Library Services
- Payment of Debt Obligations
- Permitting/Inspection
- Animal Control
This year, the City of Denton is proposing a property tax rate of
$.60815 per $100 valuation. That rate would raise
$29,126,595, which is $2,957,868 more than taxes imposed
last year.
There will be two public hearings to consider that increase.
The first public hearing will be held on September 6, 2005, 6:30
p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 215 E. McKinney St.,
Denton TX. The second hearing will be held on September 13,
2005, 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, Council Chambers, 215 E.
McKinney St., Denton TX.
You have a right to attend the hearings and make comments.
You are encouraged to attend and make comments if you wish.
This page left blank intentionally.
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: September 13, 2005
DEPARTMENT: Fiscal Operations
ACM:
Kathy DuBose
--
SUBJECT
Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas
announcing that it will vote on a tax rate at its regularly scheduled meeting of September 20,
2005; providing for publication of notice of such vote on the tax rate; and providing an
effective date.
BACKGROUND
In the Friday, August 5, 2005, Reading File, staff provided Council with a copy of the
required notice of effective tax rate calculation that would be published in the Sunday,
August 7 newspaper. Municipalities are required to publish their rollback tax rates in the
Denton Record-Chronicle, along with the effective tax rate and other required schedules.
The rollback tax rate divides the overall property taxes into two categories-maintenance and
operations (M&O) taxes and debt service taxes. By law, the rollback rate for taxing units are
set at an eight percent (8%) increase in operating (M&O) taxes. The effective tax rate is
generally the property taxes divided by the current year's taxable value of properties that
were on the tax roll in both years. This rate excludes taxes on properties no longer in the
taxing unit and also excludes the current taxable value of new properties (growth). The City
of Denton's effective rate is $.57809/$100 valuation and the rollback rate is $.62375/$100
valuation.
The Texas Property Tax Code mandates specific publications to be provided by the City.
The code specifies that "When a proposed rate exceeds the lower of the rollback rate or the
effective rate, the taxing unit's governing body must vote to place a proposal to adopt the rate
on the agenda of a future meeting as an action item." Senate Bill 18 was passed during the
79th Regular Session of the Texas Legislature. One of the new requirements of this bill is
that two public hearings must be held on the on the proposed tax increase, with the second
hearing occurring at least three (3) days after the first. The proposed 2005-06 budget
includes a .60815 tax rate, and exceeds the effective tax rate; therefore, it requires two public
hearings.
ESTIMA TED SCHEDULE
8/16/05
9/06/05
9/13/05
9/20/05
Vote to Place Proposal on Future Agenda
Hold First Public Hearing
Hold Second Public Hearing
Adopt Tax Rate
Agenda Information Sheet
September 13, 2005
Page 2
PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW
On August 16, 2005, Council voted to place a proposal on a future agenda. On Tuesday,
September 6,2005, a public hearing was held on the proposed tax rate.
FISCAL INFORMATION
The proposed property tax rate is included in the 2005-06 proposed budget.
Diana G. Ortiz
Director of Fiscal Operations
s:\Out Doeum.c:mS\llcs1a.ti.oo.s'D5\vote on tax md.doc::
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
ANNOUNCING THAT IT WILL VOTE ON A TAX RATE AT ITS REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2005; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF
NOTICE OF SUCH VOTE ON THE TAX RATE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, at its regularly scheduled meeting of August 16, 2005, the City Council
voted to place a proposal on the September 20, 2005 City Council regular meeting to adopt a
proposed tax rate of $0.60815 per $100 valuation, which will exceed the lower of the rollback
rate or the effective tax rate; and
WHEREAS, the City Secretary duly recorded the vote of the City Council on that matter;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council also called two public hearings, the first for its regular
meeting of September 6, 2005 and a special called hearing on September 13, 2005, on the tax
increase; and
WHEREAS, publication of notice of two public hearings on the tax increase were made
in accordance with the law, and said public hearings were held on September 6, 2005 and
September 13, 2005, and all proponents and opponents of the tax increase were given an
adequate opportunity to present their views at the public hearings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to finally set the date, time, and place of the
meeting at which it will vote on the tax rate; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1. The City Council will vote on the proposed tax rate at its regularly
scheduled meeting of September 20, 2005, which will commence at 6:30 p.m. and will be held in
the City Council Chambers at City Hall at 215 East McKinney, Denton, Texas 76201.
SECTION 2. THIS TAX RATE WILL RAISE MORE TAXES FOR
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS THAN LAST YEAR'S TAX RATE. THE
TAX RATE WILL RAISE TAXES FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS ON A
$100,000 HOME BY APPROXIMATELY $30.
SECTION 3. Prior to the vote on the tax rate, the City Manager and the Assistant City
Manager are directed to publish in the Denton Record-Chronicle, a newspaper having general
circulation in the City, the attached Notice of Vote on the Tax Rate, which is made a part ohms
resolution for aU purposes, such publication to be in compliance with the requirements of the
Texas Tax Code.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas on this the 13th
S:\011r lJoc.umen!s\aesolutions\05\VQle l;Hl tarate2.doc-
day of September, 2005, at which meeting a quorum was present and the meeting was held in
accordance with the provisions of Tex. Gov't Code ~551.001, et seq. The City Secretary is
hereby advised to record this resolution and the vote on the proposal to place the item for a tax
increase on the September 20, 2005 City Council agenda.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the
day of
,2005.
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
EDWIN M. SNYDER, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: q~:f!4
Councilmember
Voted For
Voted Against
Euline Brock, Mayor
Pete Kamp
Perry McNeill, Mayor Pro Tern
Bob Montgomery
Joe Mulroy
Jack Thomson
Charlye Beggins
Page 2
~'='=' So-19B
~ '=' (RllV. 07-lI5I4)
Notice
of Vote on Tax Rate
The City of Denton, Texas conducted public
hearings on a proposal to increase the total tax
revenues of the City of Denton Texas from
properties on the tax roll in the preceding
year by 5.20/0 percent on .
Sgptember 6, 2005 and September 13, 2005.
The City Council of Denton, Texas is scheduled
to vote on the tax rate that wi II resu It in that tax
increase at a public meeting to be held
on ~tember 20, 2005, 6:30 p.m.,
City Council Chambers, City Hall,
215 E. McKinney St., Denton, Texas 79601
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: September 13, 2005
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
p
CM/DCM/ACM: Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT
Consider adoption of an ordinance establishing a disaster relief program for victims of Hurricane
Katrina which provides temporary housing including rental, utility, and security deposit
assistance and related assistance; authorizing over time for exempt employees assisting n the
disaster relief effort; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefore; and declaring an effective
date.
BACKGROUND
The City has developed a disaster relief program to assist families sheltered in Denton as a result
of hurricane Katrina. As you are aware, several hundred hurricane Katrina evacuees are living at
the Camp Coppas Shelter. The administrators at Camp Coppas are doing everything in their
power to ensure that evacuees have everything they need (bed, food, showers, access to social
services and etc.) while there and to provide as much stability as possible. Yet, Camp Coppas is a
temporary solution to house evacuees. In an effort to provide a more long-term housing
alternative and to assist evacuees to get back on their feet, the City has developed a plan to
provide a more stable housing environment for evacuees.
Most agree that the preferred solution for evacuee housing is to provide transportation for
evacuees to reach family or friends in other parts of the country. In fact, a large number of
evacuees have already received assistance from Camp Coppas, churches, service organizations,
FEMA and through monetary donations to travel to a more stable environment with loved ones.
As an alternative to traveling, a number of evacuees have expressed a desire to find more
permanent accommodations here in Denton. To assist them, the City has developed a plan to
provide immediate assistance. Over the past week a number of meetings have been conducted
with apartment owners, service organizations, churches, FEMA and etc. The City is working
with all these agencies to allow an evacuee to enter into a lease agreement with an apartment.
The lease agreement will have an addendum between the City and apartment owner that
indicates that the City will pay the deposit, rent and utilities on behalf of the tenant for up to 90
days. FEMA indicates that this expense is 100% reimbursable. The City is not the tenant, nor is
the City responsible for the apartment. The City will then be able to submit expenses paid on
behalf of evacuees to FEMA for reimbursement. At the end of 90 days, an evacuee should have
had ample time to have begun receiving FEMA allotments and/or have found a job (Texas
Workforce Commission is assisting) and should be capable of meeting their own needs.
A critical step in the success of this process is the efforts of volunteer assistance from local
churches. Once an evacuee has rented an apartment, local churches have volunteered to "adopt"
evacuees. The desire is for a church to help the evacuee get established. The church will be the
primary source of contact so that furniture and food can be provided from the many donations
provided by the community. The United Way has made necessary arrangements to make
donations offood, clothes, furniture and other essentials available to evacuees.
The attached ordinance provides the City Council's authorization to proceed with the assistance
plan as detailed in the ordinance.
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recommends the adoption of this ordinance.
Respectfully su~mitted:
Jon Fortune
Assistant City Manager
Prepared by:
~ ~-&shli
Pamela Rambo-Estill
Assistant to the City Manager
S:\OUf Documents\Ordinances\05\emergency program. doc
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A DISASTER RELIEF PROGRAM FOR VICTIM:S OF
HURRICANE KATRINA WHICH PROVIDES TEMPORARY HOUSING INCLUDING
RENTAL, UTILITY, AND SECURITY DEPOSIT ASSISTANCE AND RELATED
ASSISTANCE; AUTHORIZING OVERTIME FOR EXEMPT EMPLOYEES ASSISTING IN
THE DISASTER RELIEF EFFORT; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS
THEREFOR; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated areas in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama, resulting in thousands of displaced people being relocated io the north
Texas area for food, shelter, and medical needs; and
WHEREAS, the entire State of Texas including Denton County has been declared by the
President to be a national disaster area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been involved in an ongoing effort to provide temporary
shelter and other relief efforts for hurricane victims relocated to Denton County; and
WHEREAS, as a result of this disaster, there will likely be a long-term need to provide
assistance to these individuals and families who have no other means of food, shelter, and medical
care; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide the necessary health, shelter, and medical assistance to
those affected by the hurricane, there will be a tremendous demand on City services, personnel,
equipment and other resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that extraordinary measures must be taken to
alleviate the suffering of people who will be in the Denton area as a result of this disaster, and to
provide protection to property and the health, welfare and safety to all persons in our community
who are affected by this disaster, including but not limited to those who have arrived here as a
result ofthe disaster; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. The findings and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby establishes a program to provide for rent, utilities, and
security deposits, and related relief for housing for evacuees affected by Hurricane Katrina
relocating in the Denton area (the "Program"). The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby
authorized to execute any documents necessary to provide the Program assistance. The expenditure
of funds in an amount not to exceed $100,000 for the Program is hereby authorized.
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the overall disaster relief effort by City staff is an
emergency situation resulting in a disruption of essential health and safety services. Therefore, in
accordance with City Administrative Directive 106.4 the City Manager is hereby authorized to pay
S:\OUT Documents\Ordinances\05\emergency program. doc
exempt employees overtime at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
disaster relief services performed beyond the nonnal 40 hour week, payable only upon receipt of
state or federal reimbursement.
SECTION 4. The City Manager, or his designee is authorized and directed to make
application to the Federal Emergency Management Administration and the State of Texas for
reimbursement of City expenditures for the disaster relief effort.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the
day of
,2005.
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
BY:
BY:
PAGE 2
,.