Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-06-1995 • • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET 6-6-95 • 0 c~ 0 AQ MpNo -UoZp f Apadal AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL June G, 1995 Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June j 6, 1995 at 5:15 p.m, in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas, at which the following items will be considered: 5:15 p.m. NOTE: THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO ; CLOSED MEETING AT ANY TIME REGARDING ANY ITEM FOR WHICH IT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. 1. Closed Meeting: i A. Legal Matt rs Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551,071 1. Consider action ii; Frances Rodgers v Ci Denton. of 2. Cone;l,der action in -isheron v._ Scottet.al. B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 1. Discuss the appointment process for part-time Municipal Judge. Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June G, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the fallowing items will be considered: G:00 P.M. NOTE: A Work 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 th,e Council for citizen input, City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a .!ork 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 0 E input. Although Work 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 o • + not . City of Denton City Council Agenda June 6, 1995 Page 2 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 regarding the city's request for proposals for delinquent tax collection services and give staff direction. r 2. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the proposed 1996-2000 Capital Improvements Program. 3. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding possible purchase of Denton's cable television system. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, June 6, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall. 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 7:00 P.M. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Consider approval of the minutes of May 9 and May 16, 1995. 3. Resolutions of Appreciation A. Consider a resolution of appreciation for Virginia Bruce. B. Consider a resolution of appreciation for Eldon Lew f • Hawes. 4. Citizen Reports A. Receive a report from Wilbert Bryant regarding the lighting for the basketball courts at the North Lakes Recreation Center. , 6 B. Receive a report from Nell Lights regarding the flood • • plain and her property located at 514/516 E, Prairie and 509 Maddox, i 4gAr)dalfmn . City of Denton City Council Agenda ate June 6, 1995 Page 3 5. Citizen Requests A. Consider a request from Julia LaSoya for an exception to the noise ordinance for a band concert at the North Texas Fairgrounds until 12:00 midnight on Friday, June 30, 1995. 6. Public Hearings A. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning .6148 acres to a General Retail (GR) zoning district, from an Agriculture (A) district. The site, contiguous with an existing GR district, fronts on the southbound I-35E service road, approximately 280 feet northwest of Teasley Lane. (The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval, 7-0.) 8. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning 38.429 acres from the Planned Development (PD-70) and Agriculture (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Conditioned (C(c)] zoning district on property located on the southeast corner of Loop 288 and Spencer Road. (The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval 7-0.) + C. Hold a public hearing and consider adoption of an ordinance rezoning 2.004 acres to a Single-Family Seven (SF-7) zoning district, from an Agriculture (A) district. The site is located on the northwest corner of Hinkle Drive and Haggard Lane. (The Planning and Zoning commission recommends approval, 7-0.) Vari2 ces 1 A. Consider a variance to Section 34-124 (f) 3 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning drainage for the proposed Diamond H Ranch. The 41.241 acre tract is located on the south side of Jim Christal Road, at Egan Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0 with the condition that adequate easements be dedicated on the associated plat.) ® S. Consider a variance to Section 34-114 (5) and (17) of the • A Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning perimeter paving and sidewalks for the proposed Diamond H Ranch. The 41.241 acre tract is located on the south side of Jim C.'ristal Road, at Egan Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 7-0.) 0 0 vor4 No ome-„6_ __6_-~g~ City of Denton city council Agenda 14 q7 June 6, 1995 Page 4 C. Consider a variance to Section 34-124 (f) 3 of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning underground drainage improvements for the proposed Hal.py Valley Addition. The addition is located on the IH-35E frontage road, between Teasley and Sam Bass Roads, (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended a partial variance 6-0,) D. Consider a variance to Section 34-114 (17) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning sidewalks for the proposed Happy Valley Addition. The I addition is located on the southbound IH-35E frontage Road, between Teasley Lane and Sam Bass Roads. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial 7-0.) E. consider a variance to Section 34-114 (17) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations concerning sidewalks for the proposed Milam Creek Ranch, Phase One. The 26,1 acre site is located on the south side of Milam Roac' (F,M. 3163) east of Interstate 35. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval 6-1.) a, Consent Agenda Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations, The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. List?d below are bids and purchase orders to be approved for payment ur,dur the ordinance section of the agenda. Detailed back- up information is attached to the ordinances (Agenda items 9.A, 9,B„ 9,C). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the consent Agenda, Upon the receipt of a "request to speak" form from a citizen regarding an item on the Consent Agenda, the item shall be removed and be considered before approval of the Consent Agenda, e A. Bids and Purchase orders: 1. Bid ,#`1736 - Annual Solid Waste Analytical Testing 2. Interlocal Agreement - Houston-Galveston Area Council of Governments 3. Contract - Alan Plummer and Associates J ~ A , • Ape~tel R - City of Denton City Council Agenda S q? June 6, 1995 Page 5 9. Consent Agenda Ordinances A. Consider adoption of an ordinance aiccepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies or nervices. (7.A.1. - Bid #1736) B. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the Mayor to extend an interlocal agreement with the Houston- Galveston Area Council to authori?e participation in various Houston-Galveston Area Council contracts for the purchase of various goods and services. (7,A.2. - interlocal Agreement) C. Consider adoption of an ore..inance approving a contract between the City of Donton and Alan Plummer and Associates to provide professional engineering services relating to the planning, design and construction of a compost facility at the city's Pecan Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. (The Public Utilities Board recommends approval,) (7.A.3.) 10. Ordinances A. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and providing for the award of contracts for public works or improvements, (Bid #'1706) B, Consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of North Elm Street. (The Traffic Safety commission recommends approval.) C. Consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of Londonderry Lane. (The Traffic Safety commission recommends approval,) • D. Consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of West Oak street. (The Traffic Safety Commission recommends approval.) E. Consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the parking of vehicles on certain portions of Avenue B. (The ® Traffic Safety Commission recommends approval.) 11. Resolutions A. Consider approval of a resolution adopting Policy No. 106.06 "Response Time and On-Call Duty". 0 • a+ • ova - City of Denton City Council Agenda 6 c 7 June 6, 1995 Page 6 B. Consider approval of a resolution approving an ordinance format to be used in granting to persons responsible for annual events which have demonstrated a history of past responsible compliance with the City's noise ordinance, exceptions :.o the limitations imposed by Section 20-1 (c) (2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, with respect to hours of operation of an amplified loudspeaker system, pursuant the provisions of that section. 12. Consider adoption of an ordinance canvassing the results of the run-off election held for District one on June 3, 1995. 13. Oath of Office for District One Council Member. 14. Election of a Mayor Pro Tempore. 15. Vision Update 16. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. 17. Official Action on Closed Meeting Items: A. Legal Matters B. Real Estate C. Personnel D. Board Appointments 18. New Business This item provides a section for Council Members to suggest items for future agendas. I 19. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting: e A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071 B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 e o 0 m • aQ1~No. ~5~0~~ Apra AMA City of Denton City Council Agenda 7, c9s June 6, 1995 OO Page 7 C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City (fall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the day of , 1995 at o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 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 OP' THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-8309 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. ACC00285 i 0 • c• • a E DENTON oaQOO6700 O~~aan 01, c ~ n o o a 0 v0 ~ p 0000000 ODOj) No DO°° ~ VV~aaa~aoo~ • ITS' • COUNCIL ~ • • I ca • Apefrda(te1n~-, CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BURRING 215 E WKINNEY • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 (817) 566.8200 # OFW METRO 434.2529 MEMORANDUM T0: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer DATE: June 2, 1995 SUBJECT: DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTION ATTORNEY Fi The City's current contract with McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C. to collect delinquent ad valorem taxes will expire June 30, 1995. Typically when the delinquent tax collection attorney contract expires it is standard procedure to request new bids for delinquent tax collection services. In keeping with past practices, this year the City made requests for proposals and six law firms responded. They are listed below. I. Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L,P. 2. Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks 3. McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C. 4. Calame, Linbarger, Graham & Pena, L.L.P. 5. Sawko & Burroughs, L.L.P. 6. Perdue. Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott, L.L.P. I have reviewed each proposal and have prepared a succinct description of each law firm. (see attachmentl. In addition, I have included a copy of the proposal cover letters i • and the RFP sent to each firm. A copy of each proposal is located in my office in the Finance Department and the City Secretary's office for your rev;aw. At Council's direction, selected firms will be asked to appear during a worksession on June 13 to make presentations regarding their firm's services, Final selection of a firm is scheduled for June 13, and contract approval is scheduled for June 20. If I may be of any assistance please advise. Thank you. JP. of AFromtc Allachmenq "Dedicated to Quatih, Senice" • G) • • AMA No a5 --<:gQ Page 1 of 2 COMPARISON OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR DELINQUENT TAX CO TIONS - - I coo Z Nichols, Jackson, Pardue, Brandon, Dillard, Hogan & Blair, Gopgan, 'McCreary, Veselks, Bragg & Celame, Llnebarper, Flakier, Collins Smith, L.L.P. Simpson & Meeks Allen, P.C. Graham & Pane, L.L.P. Sswkc & Burroughs, L.L.P Mott, L.L.P. Meet general requirements of NFP No Yes Yes Yes yen yes Agreeable to a 6046 performance goal No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes { Statewide firm No (North Texas Yes Yes Yee No (Denton & Cooke Yes (E only) County Only) { Closest office Dallas Denton Denton ''Fort Worth Denton "Arlington I location Adequate cothmflon Yes Yea Yes Yes Yea Yes software & hardware Number of Staff 25 76 88 200+ 6 102 Number of staff 7 9 8 12 8 13 associated to Demon's collections EEO Employer Yes Yes Yee Not specified in Yes Yes proposal • Affiliated with local No Law firm of Curtis Hayes, Coffey, and Berry No Sawko It Burroughs, No counsel Loveless & Mike L.L.P. Gregory f Extent of practice Specialty is Principally Exclusively engaged In the Practice limited to ad Concentrate practice In SpecleUies In ad delinquent tax engaged In practice of Property lax law valorem tax law for delinquent property tax valorem tax collection delinquent tax since 1960 with emphasis on past 18 years collections as well as collections end collection delinquent property tax government law, related matters. ® collections administrative law, • i contract disputes, liability 1 and collections issues, L I personal Injury and real estate. Total number of 14 1!:4 426 860 13 800 currant clients 1 • 0 J ~ f I AgM~~IN0. ~ Apendalteln 2 of 2 COMPARISON OF PROPOSALS SUBMITTED FOR DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTION - b- p jc6 Nichols, Jackson, Pardue, Brandon, J E Dillard, Hogan & Slefr, 6,iggan, 'McCreary, Vaelke, Celams, Unabarger, Fielder, Collins & Smith, L.L.P. Simpson & Masks Draw & Allen, P.C. Graham & Pena, L.L,P. Sawko No Surrougtls, L.L.P Mott, L.L.P. Clients in Denton County Town of Corinth City of Carrollton City of Denton N(Ps City of Lake Dallas Northhwest ISD Denton Road Denton County Lake Dallas ISD Highland Village t'•'lity District NI Argyle ISD Lake Cities Municipal Justin DuSD City of Argyle utility Authority Town of Trophy Aubrey ISD City of Little Elm Club City of Aubrey Denton County Pilot Point ISD MUD M2 and N3 City of Pilot Point Ponder ISO j Krum ISD Sanger ISD City of Sanger City of Ponder Corinth MUD 01 'The City'S Current delinquent tax collection firm. ' • Willing to locate an office in Denton: u rax:e CE0,95 . ftf I . O r I it AWW4 1 ost Lq a 9 A cover letter was not provided by: Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P. ii i q • • Ago* BLAIR, GOGGAN, SAMPSON & MEEKS e~ Nt)~ - - ATTORNEYS~AT-LAW A Wal A vAgT4LN9.1V 111CLVOINd PRUrLSHONAL CUPBUXATIONY Iup --]r'P. F oI: " NE.v SIREEI p ~4411VV Fn nO 152) Cf NTON TEnAi TG202152~ Vi1) InJ n460 I AA 101!1 3n.-I I .`9 May 16, 1995 The Honorable Bob Castleberry Mayor, City of Denton and Members of the Denton City Council 901-B Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 Dear Mayor Castleberry and Members of the City Council: Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks (BGSM) is very pleased to submit our proposal to resume delinquent tax collection services for the City of Denton. Our previous representation of the City, together with our continued representation of the Denton Independent School District, uniquely positions our law firm to commit substantial resources to the collection effort and resume our operation for the City in a manner to ensure maximum collections. We are fortunate to continue our affiliation with the fine Denton law firms of Curtis M. Loveless and Mike Gregory for submission of this proposal. These firms will serve as AGSM's local counsel if we are engaged by the City. Mr: Loveless and Mr. Gregory have practiced la v in Denton since 1969 and 19741 respectively, and b, maintain their own law office in Denton. They assist BGSM in monitoring and implemental, if our program by serving as liaisons with the local bar, press, judicial and other courthouse c :vials: Both are active members of the community and their assistance in our collection effort significantly enhances our program. Collection Experl -q for the City of Nn ion BGSM, along with local Denton attorneys Mike Gregory and Curtis Loveless, represented the City of Denton, from July 1986 through June 1993. During that time, we collected $5,446,106 in delinquent taxes, penalties, interest and attorney fees for the City, filed 1,324 lawsuits and mailed over 19,000 demand letters. In spite of a current year "turnover" that decreased 43% over our last four years of representation, we were still able to consistently increase delinquent collection effectiveness. The City also recognized an increase in the current year tar, levy collection percentage from 95.86% in 1986, when we were first retained, to 97,95% in 1992- 1993. In 1992, 13GSM was successful in also being hired by the Denton 1SD, who had been previously e represented by McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen. During the first 12 months of our • • representation or Denton ISD, we achieved an 18%X increase in collections, which resulted in an 11 "1 11111 11. AUSTM $NC PMAN + GXE(NVIU !1''<1 FgIPE 01 A "A5NLD SNTC 4in PIS OTILEFIELO BLO mz0N TNAVI59T. SVITE O STO EI+AN 11f C 10914 111. A RUt CWACL $T UT 11,701 /GI SNC PNAP TLXAS 5090NEEIIVIIAC.TC kA5 1040n 111A 152L' IpN[ WpNTN. iC RA510U: lS 12n)410 0-)7)027 ) 00,003 4940t, YbS)ASd;059 . I!NO'0009 IBI 7) 01, 45AX IAX V2)4100150 FAX 9U3I 0000000 FAX 49031454905E F e, I£.e1 v, n. q. • A1101110 "C1111 • • • to >p ~CendaNo, Agendall S Date additional .$222,159 in revenue for the Denton iSll. We arc proud of our success at both the City of Denton and Denton ISD, however in July 1993 the City chose to change law firms to McCreary, Vcselka, Bragg & Allen, and their newly formed joint venture with the local, politically active firm of Hayes, Coffee & Berry. We want to emphasize to the City of Denton that we have always valued our relationship with the City of Denton and the opportunity to effectively represent the City. We greatly regret that in spite of our performance, the City chose to change law firms. At this time, we appreciate the opportunity to submit our proposal and would welcome the chance to once again represent the City of Demon. BGSNI's established presence In the Denton community will Immediately be put to use for the benefit of our City of Denton collection program, We once again pledge to the City of Denton to provide the highest level of performance and conduct our program with the highest degree of professionalism. Collection Performance Collection performance is the single most important issue when choosing a delinquent tax collection law firm. BGSM is the most successful delinquent tax collection law firm In North Texas. It is critical that the City of Denton hire the law firm that can collect the most delinquent revenue, and this proposal offers the strongest and most effective program available to the City. Beginning in 1986, when the City contracted with Heard, Goggan, Blair & Williams (IIGRW) for delinquent tax collections, the revenue collected on behalf of the City consislently increased each year. In 1993, IIGBW reorganized in North 'T'exas and began operating locally under the name Blair, Goggan, Sampson & Meeks (BGSM). BGSiN4's ability to collect delinquent taxes more effectively than other law firms Is well documented throughout North Texas, Included at the end of [his letter are two charts that compare our delinquent tax collections for Denton ISD to that of the Ci'v's current law firm for the period 1993-1994 and for the most recent nine months o' 1994-1995, using verifiable statistical performance data, BGSM can demonstrate that if we had collected the City of Denton at the same level that we are achieving for the Denton ISD, the City would have recognized an additional $62,172 over the last 21 months, which includes the Iasi full collection cycle (July 1993 - June 1994) and most recent nine months of the current collection cycle (July 1994 - March 1995). • 13GSM's collection program has also proven to he effective for both Dallas and Tarrant Counties. We have successfully represented Dallas County since 1984 an,i have collected over $123 million in delinquent taxes during this time. Also, we have represented Tarrant County since 1982 and have collected over $84 million. For more than a decade, BGSM has successfully collected delinquent taxes for counties in North Texas. We are confident that we can Increase the level of collections for the City of Denton from that currently being • recognized. • • • m • 1Pronosal Overview aad nllation AnA 2r Clete 9 The enclosed proposal tells our story in detail. We have attempted to provide a proposal which fully, yet briefly, responds to the information requests of the RFP and completely describes our delinquent tax collection services. Section I provides an introduction to our law firms and performance charts which demonstrate BGSM's exceptional effectiveness for our clients. Included in this section is a letter from the Denton ISD Tax Assessor which affirms the effectiveness of our program. Section II provides information about our Denton and No-th Texas (Dallas) Regional offices and includes resumes of the project team who will work with the City. Our comprehensive scope of services is included in Section fII. Section IV provides an overview of our state-0f-the-art data pnxessing capabilities. BGSM's affhMative action and equal opportunity progm ss are outlined Section V. In Section VI we offer performance criteria by which the City can effectively judge the suxtss of a delinquent tax collection arrangement. To address the City's expectations of the law firm's activities, Section VII affirms BGSM's willingness to abide by the duties listed in the RFP. The last section, Section VIII, provides a method of payment for our services, C=Idw Blair, Goggan, Sampson dt Mocks, along with Curtis Loveless and Mike Gregory, are proud of our past record of collection performance for the City of Denton and our current efforts on behalf of Denwn ISD. We once again offer the City an exceptional collection program which, as evidenced in direct comparisons with the efforts of your current law firm, will increase the City's delinquent revenue collections. We would consider it a privilege to renresent the City of Denton and look forward to discussing this proposal with you and addressin,I any questions you may have. If the City should reAse its criteria at any time during the selection process, we would welcome the opportunity to negotiate any additional desired services or enhancements with the City. We appreciate your j consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, D~_ DeMetris A. Sampson Partner cc; Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent • i. • ~ tip, I Y e~ Ovfklii No .-..w . geada!ICIr. ~Ns.4k 6-b -95 Delinquent rt'ax Collection Comparisongc Qc-i AGSM vs. MVBA Collection Shortfall: $34,762 1 Denton ISD Due to Lower Performance by 126.39% McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen City of Denton I2o~/r 116.96x/( 1 115! i AIVBA BGSM ' • I I W/( 6 , . Percent Collected or Current Year Turrover 7193 •6194 `urrrc: ('h} ut 1)c111nn "'Pna Allnriivc I'ullk-olim Rejwrl" Ucnlnn tab "~luulhly '1':I~ !'nllecliun Rcpnrl e) F) Delinque>tit Tax Collection Cornparis -v qq-s Oc) BGSM vs, M"A. Nine Month Collection Shortfall, I $2741.0 lle>iton ISD I ~ Due to Lower Performance by t 05.2411c ~ McCreaq, Veselka, Bragg & Allen 10.514 City of j Denton 1001/( 96.7211( 1 9;,,, I 1 91111 AfN'R:1 BGSAt rA J Percent Collected of Current Year 't'urnover 7194 •3195 `llu rR-: its of Ue ntnn "'I'a% AttnrncN C'ul loci fun Rcpu rt" Ilcu'irn ISU 'k1ori(h[.k Tug 0,I It'd io-1 Repnrt" • • MCCREARY, VESELKA, BRAGG & ALLEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW AgmtsNo. J~O AUSY IN, AAS M56990sOM Apndai eft' May 16, 1995 ate Mr. Tom D, Shaw, C.P,M, Purchasing Agent City of Denton Purchasing Department 901-H Texas Street Denton, 'texas 76201 Re: Request for Proposal For Services of Delinquent Tax Attorney: RFSP Number 1759 Dear Mr. Shaw: Thank you for your Request for PropoFil For Services of Delinquent Tax Attorney, Pursuant to your request, McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C., is pleased to submit this Proposal and Proposed Con tract to the City of[anion,jointlywith the Denton Firm of Hayes, Coffey, and Berry,P.C. Webelieve that thejoining of the Iwo law firms for the purpose of representing the City of Denton has provided the highest quality of service to your City. The strong local presence of the Hayes firm coupled with the delinquent tax collection experience ofthe McCreary firm has enabled the city to collect taxes in an efficient and productive manner. The information following this letter is a detailed description of our delinquent property tax collection program. the McCreary Firm has represented taxing jurisdictions in Denton County since 1979. The McCreary Firm and the Hayes Finn havejointly represented the City of Denton since 1993, ; he program ! presented in this Proposal is fu Ilyimplcmentedand has proven to be very successful. Accord i ngly, we are in the position of being able to continue our delinquent tax collection program with the City of Denton I immediately upon recoipt of notification of acceptance. Your ietteroutlined the criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals, An index follows which shows the pages where each selection criterion is discussed. Our proposal affirmatively addresses all selection criteria. It is our intention to affirnia0vely respond to all requirements in the RFSP, in the event there is any question about any aspect of this proposal it shall be construed to agree with the RFSP. We consider it a privilege to represent the City of Denton and look forward to the continuation of this successful program. • Sincerely, 49: Richars, President 0 LKA, B AGG & ALLEN, P.C. HAYES, COFFEY & BERRY, P.C. , • • Denton Branch Office 1710 Westminster Denton, Texas 76206 Yulir /p~ »ti w•,. ' iIw I tw.r,w .D"W lapYlI___. Mr kyrlQ. Dpl41rA_ M, ~i M.._.. : W c ii,11.,ti k ,a 1«r11~'Y• ~Mi n'laii~pyj rot 'W Jr oft ~I•,nw ~1•NI V'r; i ..xWRi'!~ 14 11 riMM~IMsu, rWHe W. rlan,tip0 r~~ntnltwnn , t11W1 Iw rexlM>i110111, 1MM3 ' rig ~Jrig .--.rs-.~•.. • • .~yrrary~_~Yy{~j'-.":ice W:Y Dt, I r~~ • LAW 0PTICLS aw IDIO+MII 1 q nasxnx i.y IIIU611lOWVl1 )'Nft ru14 Pw+ CALAt61F, LINF.nARGF.R GRAHAM 3c Pe.NA, L.L.F. A WN,t ""N " (M AU UlplJ unas.O M.^11PIIM F.O. BOX 17428 o'n'61n uAw P„yo„0. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78760 t~ns,H„O0."L~w.TUa„ RNS10+4.X[9 PALL OV as l1W+ M.PO IGY. FVITY OFAx MAWtUtaf e MrnXw FIRM ~u<1+aLI.IIRA2F 512.447.6675 onw ~louexw an Awo FAX.112447.7494 user m~+ ."A MARWMOVt tNALLR1 .5 IL W ~ M HN[ Nnek'A Y 440Y IAVI l MOllll IW AY6 alGwlrt 111D uVtA c.P.U(1ptN1 ttn« 1 MBM n JA W11 rLtM Ivrx ,.e P+M"G.d A,p9r l. May 16, 1995 of ~ laa t,u MJIyJ f,~,Ylup 0111MU11 [.411nUHf "rdONe~(5.1 T,W lint m.d d IqJ 7,~lJrw~ The Honorable Bob Castleberry, Mayor If q City Council Member Mark Chew City Council Member Jerry Cori Q118 City Council Member Jack Miller ap+ City Council Member Harold Perry ~D City Council Member Margaret Smith Tom D. Shaw, C. PM, Purchasing Agent 901-B Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Purchasing Agent; i I Thank you for inviting our law firm to submit a proposal for delinquent tax collection to the City of Denton. In the body of this proposal, we have made a diligent effort to conform to the order of the request for proposal itself. In general, we understand the scope of work and terms outlined in the request for proposal and we are unequivocally prepared to undertake each task outlined therein. In addition, we agree unconditionally to all requirements of the request for proposal, and at no cost to the City, we are prepared to offer substantially more services than you are presently receiving from your delinquent tax attorneys, Every request for proposal we receive is unique and each new taxing jurisdiction presents us with unique opportunities that have not been previously explored. As you review thls proposal, please make a note of those factors that, if you choose to contract with our firm, will provide you with the opportunity to improve collections and consequently, allows you to provide more services to your constituents of the City of Denton. First and foremost, we can prove to you with historical date from other similar o jurisdictions that we have historically increased collections in our first or second year under contract, Although we can provide you with historical data from hundreds of jurisdictions across the State who have chosen to improve their collections by contracting with our firm, the following jurisdictions were chosen because they are accounts presently collected by the same 81 +n11111ie Cu9m CMta Cerlrw 1 1X77&, a 1.Tn1. SmM In, P0. BoP 7991 P.0 LM 1916 1IOSoFN 1215.1 .PM Bn,rNnik. T.... 28521 Coq•v C6mu. r,.ITWJ Culkw. Tel" 15 1) I Fdln68r ht" 1{559 B461! Tb1xon5L ND 5461216 512 ISIF(A9B 9n) 172 YAb 71617}1500 91 W~I FAX 211)516.1621 F.;Y.. 112.!80-14,5 FAX 910-07 4.51812 FAX11PJAI-TIN PAX 915.U2.11M1 Fn WoM Hanlon him W Aaun 1 7y 6.111 A,ry 7rte.11, Sm1e 214 P0. am, 120147 1301 EwM SWIL Suite 2110 P. 611" IW gob HM11 Fm Wo46, Tt w 7611, II.WV. Tew 77262 (W" T". W61 P.0 alWl @17bn630 811.51.0158 t1 Y5561U)5 915 IU 9<47 ~'MBSim Tta" 1690) T7W Ttxa 73110 Wna, T"78^01 FAX 112.1162 P 1a PAX 7135$%lg62 FAX "M J 3)) 913-0SS P412 90149-71191 117.7566477 FAX 91$65 5-aW FAX W3.591A W2 PAX II7.7366608 O 0 w • r May 16, 1995 ~Qeftd>i No Ia_ _5r~ ~r _ PAGE TWO 4~Af1i1211etn'yct~~`7-~ Date- Fort Worth staff that would be responsible for implementing our collection program at the city 9 of Denton. Two years ai • reflected for Birdville ISD because, although collections were improved during the first year by 5 significant improvement was not realized until the second year because almost one-third of the roll was in bankruptcy when we first acquired the account, The substantial improvement in the second year is attributable to a commitment by our staff to clean up the tax roll, to reduce the number of bankruptcies and to establish an overall, consistent collection program. All of this data, together with additional Information regarding the number of suits filed for each jurisdiction, is graphically illustrated in bar charts that follow this letter. Amount Collected 1st Year Increase 2nd Year Increase City of Rockwall Year Before CLGP $ 84,661.25 First Year CLOP $ 206,391.95 59% City of Mansfield Year Before CLOP $ 91,666.30 First Year CLGP $ 141,706.59 35% Birdvilie ISD Year Before CLOP $1,208,618.85 " First Year CLGP $1,266,219,38 $1,470,726.12 18% Although the above referenced numbers are impressive, don't simply take our word for this performance. Our proposal includes recommendation letters from all of the above mentioned clients in Section II, Not only do we encourage you to contact these references, the jurisdictions themselves have asked that we invite you to contact them directly. By contacting these references directly, they may provide you with more details regarding their personal experience with our firm and more importantly, they can tell you how we improved theh collections during our first years under contractr. If you do not contact any other references, • we would encourage you to contact the references for the jurisdictions noted above. The tax collector for each of these jurisdictions can describe for you the level of professional services provided by our Fort Worth staff and the amount of personal attention devoted to each of these accounts. If we have not learned anything else during two decades of providing delinquent tax collection services to our clients, we have learned that there is no substitute for personal attention to details. • ca s' May 16, 1995 PAGE THREE AgendaNO Q ° Agendalt `9 oa,e C) We know that our delinquent tax collection program is going to increase collections, and consequently, will increase collection activity in the Tax Office. Therefore, it only stands to reason that our law firm should help the Tax Office deal with this increase in activity and more specifically, we should help to offset or eliminate any additional burden realized from the increase in collections we anticipate. My law firm will employ a person local'--, train dt m as a paralegal and with the permission of the Tax Office, we will have them working in the City of Denton Tax Office during regular business hours to assist in delinquent tax collections, answer taxpayer inquiries and serve as our liaison with the Tax Office. If it is not convenient for our paralegal to be located in the Tax Office, quick access wPI still be provided from a local office that will be established immediately upon notice that thf City has chosen to improve collections through a contract with our firm. In either case, our local staff will always be available to assist the City staff with any task. Although other law firms may discount the significance of local ties to the community, primarily because they do not have enough personnel, our law firm encourages our staff to reside and become involved in the communities we represent. Our commitment to become involved in the local communities is reflected in the enormous amount of overhead we have devoted to twelve fully staffed offices across the State. Said offices are in addition to numerous one or two person staffs we have in dozens of jurisdictions like Lufkin, Nacogdoches, Rockwall, Decatur and others scattered across the State, too numerous to mention. j Another important factor to consider is the amount of resources we devote to designing it work and colic,. (ion programs to meet the unique needs of a particular client. Our first job contract is to thoroughly analyze the delinquent tax roll of a new cl'.nt, target those areas I s, require immediate attention and then we design a collection program hurt best suits the needs h that particular client, Unlike other firms, we recognized years ago that what may work in une community is not always appropriate in mother. In response, we have designed our own software to analyze a delinquent tax roll and software that tells us where our resources are most needed or required. The expense of this software and the accompanying work to design site specific collection programs has paid off in the collection results realized by our clients. An example of how we desigma collection program for a specific jurisdiction is included as a part of Section VIII entitled "Computer Activities", The increase in collections realized by our individual clients as a result of the hours invested to design a unique collection program, is • reflected In the collection histories set forth in Section VI. If you choose to improve your collections by contracting with our law firm, we will immediately analyze your delinquent tax roll and devote whatever hours are necessary to work directly with your Tax Office staff and the City Council to design a work plan that will maximize collections for the City of Denton, For the first time, the City Council may be provided with information regarding previously unimown portions of your delinquent tax roll that • • ® have either been neglected or sufficient resources have not been devoted to particular areas to enhance collections. • w • May 16, 1995 PAGE FOUR ApOlNt),.. olsae I C 9 After you have considered the above mentioned factors and the merits of each proposal, I hope you will decide In the fungi analysis that there is no other firm in this business that has invested as much in personal service as our firm. We are not only dedicated to providing personal service, our substantial investment in providing more completely staffed offices state- wide than any other rum proves that we intend to provide that personal service at any coat, No other law firm under consideration can make this assertion because of 8mitations on their staff and resources. Together with the City Council, we understand your commitment to provide the citizens of Denton with the services for which they have bo,ome accustome;l and with your support, we intend to make every effort to help you fulftll your obligations to the "yers of Denton. Again, thank you for allowing us to present this proposal and should any questions arise regarding the information that follows or any other matters regarding collections for the City of Denton, please do not hesitate to give we a call at (800) 262.7229 or Glenn Smith at (800) 262- 9268. Glenn Is the attorney in our Fort Worth office who will be responsible for day-today collection activities for the City of Denton. We will be more than happy to meet with members of the City Council, the Tax Office staff or anyone else recommended by the Council with a view towards Improving collections for the City of Denton. After all, that's our only purpose and your goal, Wily Y i D. Wylie Partner SDW/rad • • c, 0 • City of Mansfield (Base Tax Collections) $150K $141,706.69 3i0OK $91,666.30 1• $50K year prior to 1st year CLG&P CLG&P (Perdue) to • City of Mansfield of suits filed) 30 29 2s 22 20 Is A EO 5 m' O z3 year prior to 1st year CLG&P CLG&P o i (Perdue) • rn~ • • k Birdville I.S.D. (Base Tax Collections) $1,500,OOr - $1947,j,726 $I,208160 2669214 $110001000 1 i $500,000 • year prior to CLG&P (Rohn) lot year CLGAP 2nd yosr CLGG&P a' 0 o • a • • 1S l ~f Birdvilie I.S.D. of suits filed) i 161 150 125 R 100 i i 75 d • SD 25 • 10 year prior to 1 at year CLGBP CLG&P (Rolene) u e c~ 0 City of Rockwall (Bm" '%x C01164 ons) $206 : x'f.95 i '1OK l ~ i '100K $p 1,661.25 0 $50K n ; 6 f~ year prior to tat year CLG&P CLG&P D (Perdue) Cp , I p a} w o 0 0 . WWI "-VF-T-Wwww City 4 r~ )f suits 50 i 40 - 1 i q 30 25 e 20 s j year prior to lot year ti CLG&P CLG&P (Perdue) 1J C1T • ea • AWdalte SAWKO & BURROucil[S, L.L.P. oat Attorneys at Law a f ( 49 Gregory J, Sa%do 1100 Dallas Drive, Suite 100 106 W. Main Street ; Mark A. Burroughs Denton, Texas 76205 Gainesville, "Texas 76240 (ny Appointment Only) Telephone (817) 382.4357 Facsimile (817) 591-0991 May 16, 1995 City of Denton Purchasing Department 901-B Texas Street Denton, Texas 76201 Attention: Torn Shaw, Purchasing Agent Dear Mr. Shaw and Council Members: I am Mark Burroughs, Tax Attorney for Sawko & Burroughs, L.L.P. of Denton, "fexus. I am a Property Tax Collections "specialist", and have devoted the greatest portion of my legal career to perfecting and performing tax collections work (since 1982). I very much wish to become the City of Denton's Property Tar Attorney. Although our accompanying Proposal goes into great detail as to our experience and collections program, there are two major points that I believe set us apart from arr other law firm bidding on the contract, and which I sincerely hope position my firm as the logical and clearly best choice for this community. First, I and my staff have great statewide tax collections experience together with a long history of superior collections rates in Denton County. No other property tax attorney(s) provide more services or perform in a better fashion than do we, Even more, we concentrate on services solely in Denton and Cooke County. No law firm has channelled and specialized its collection procedures to cater to Denton, its people, courts, appraisal and tax offices, • research facilities, etc., more than we. We simply offer the best overall collections legal service available, bar none. Our client references can help bear this out. Second, I am the only competing Denton attorney who is frilly capable, competent and experienced in property tax collections practice. The lens of thousands of dollars paid annually by the taxpayers of the City for your Delinquent Tax Attorneys would stay here in Denton if B we were to become Denton's 'Fax Attorneys, This would follow through on the City Council's publicly stated policy as reflected on numerous occasions as well as the Vision 2000 project which the City has strongly supported. All ol'the other competing law firms That off -r a local presence actually direct the great majority of attorneys fees out of Denton County, including those under the current expiring City contract. • O • • If competent, capable source(s) of products and services are available locally, at an equally competitive price, I would hope that you will agree that such should be obtained locally. It is simply good business for Denton to "shop Denton". Since the cost of our legal services to the City is zero, I ask that you verify our competence, then support this local business by selecting Sawko & Burroughs, L.L.P. as your Delinquent Property 'fax Attorneys. I look forward to this opportunity to further serve the Denton community, and all of us at Sawko & Burroughs would take great pride if chosen to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, SAWKO & BURROUGHS, L..-P. Mark A. Burroughs, Property Tax Attorney Enclosure Aw d,NO 5 ~ CC: City Council Members A"I W/out Enclosure pg~ L-6-9 Mr. Lloyd Harrell City Manager W/out Enclosure i I ii i • • d. y } '~5 Cto~,l~ ~.k ~L`,r ;V4yrE{~'y[~-9 r S . r • • PERDUE, BRANDON, FIELDER, COLLINS & MOTT, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW HO'AA RD PERDUE KEVIN BHCNN FN LARRY BRANDON 4025 WOODLAND PARK BLVD., SUITE 300 GEORGEDOWLEN C DAV D rrFrDER P.O. BOX 13430 TERRY ANN WHITE JAMES 0 COL c s ARLINGTON, TEXAS 760940430 DAMD A ELUSON HOBFNT 410rr LAURAJ. MONRO° GREGGM McLAUGHUN METRO 817.461.3344 HAROLDL61Ew R BRUCE MEDLEY FAX 817.860.6509 JEANMAR1L BAER JOHNJ HORN. III B LYNN STAVINORA OSCAR L SOARERS MICHAEL J DARLOW S STEVEN A E01d-STON JOSEPH P LONGORIA ~ 1AB BEALL DIANA KING SMITH May 16, 1995 AQ911daNo. 5'~2 r. ` flonorabte Bob Castleberry tote Qo, Mayor, City of Denton 215 E. McKinney Street Demon, Texas 76201 RE: Proposal 10 Collect Delinquent Property Taxes Dear Mayor Castleberry: Thank you for your City's request for proposal. Following this letter is our proposal to you and the City of Denton for the collection of delinquent ad valorem taxes and legal representation in related ad valorem tax masters. First, permit me to introduce you to our law firm and its Arlington office. Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott, L.L.P was founded in Amarillo, Texas in 1970, as a firm exclusively devoted to representing taxing authorities in mailers regarding property taxation, "rho firm has grown to six fully staffed law offices in different cities around the State. The firm represents over 600 taxing units in the collection of delinquent taxes in the State of Texas and collected over $ 64 million in taxes, penalties and interest state-wide last year. The Arlington office was created in 1973 to service several contracts in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area. Our Arlington office is staffed with six attorneys and twenty-five support personnel, This is the largest legal staff in the ad valorem tax field in North Central Texas. Mr. John • Horn, a partner in our Arlington office is the attorney who will represent your city should you decide to hire our firm. Mr. Horn has prior experience in representing your City when he worked with a different tax collection law firm. State-wide, our firm includes 22 attorneys and over SO support staff. We will also open a fully staffed law office in Denton to service your contract should you decide to retain our firm. ® The advantages that we have over other law firms submitting proposals are: • • • We are proposing complete, computer nssisted delinquent tax collections We have no conflicts of interest because we do not represent taxpayers AMARILLO ARLINGTON - HOUSTON - LUBBOCK , TYLER • WICHITA FALLS • • ~endaMo - AgeRdalt [ate • • We a. a strongly recommended by each of our cliel a. • We provide our clients the very best in collections and ad valorem tax representa -lion, Please feel free to call upon any of them as r reference to our capabilities and professionalism. We offer highly personalized servi each of our clients which inchtdes: • Notification of taxpayers ?c ugh mass mailings. • Individual correspondence with taxpayers and Iienholders. • Ac'.ive litigation of property tax collections and seizures, • We perform all necessary ownership and address research. • Our attorneys are available to personally assist you in all legal matters pertaining to the administration of property tax. • We are also available at any time to assist the county resolving any type of ad valorem tax problem which may arise, • We have toll free telephone service to all o ur offices which will allow both ,on and your taxpayers accesp :o our offices. { Your City's request for proposal a ked for suggested guidelines for the City to r,tilrze snouid { our firm's collections not equal sixty (6 j1A) percent of the delinquent tax base am,,unt Our firm would respectfully suggest that should uur firn ail to meet the City's collection acria, u,. City reserve the right to terminate the coat, et upon thirty (30) da. s written notic unless the firm can show justification. Thank you for considering ou• pr osal in this matter. ase feel fre, ,nil fnr any further clarification, or for any mattes: rrely, c' John J. Horn III Partrer 1 • 9 ii? A 0 • c. • la No, ` n. , adnu o~te * ,f 5c~ 2 g D C00V CITY of DENTON, TEXAS PURCHASING DIVISION / 901.8 TEXAS STREET l DENTON, TEXAS 76201 April 26, 1995 RFF:RFSP N 1759 - DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTION SERVICE Dear The City of Denton, Texns will r, - )lve sealed proposal , consisting et oples until 1 2:00 P. M., May 16, 1995 for Dol.nqueut Tax Collectic Service. Q This request for proposal iE not a kid and will : r J opened publi The proposals will he received by .,te Purr asing Agent P) no part of this r test fur { proposal will be made public e• ept r, required by ~ Statute after a ~d. ha City of Denton Staff anc With 2AU11011 will revlow walunte ` posals. Selo 'lon will be made by tWA -rocs as es stated Further h. ft ,oposal. All; ,rmatlon, clarJficati,. ,o- chttngas in content or instructions of s request fu! y ~posal must be sul:f ed in writing to the Purchasing Agent a' i- 1 Texas 7t. ,llenton, 'T'exas' il, ' hone Number (817) 383-7100• Nonal proposal do entj may be requested by mail or picket , at tke City of ,ito i Purchasing DP •tment, 901-A Texas Street, Dontnr texas 76201. We fire soliciting apt .sal from your firm because of your capabilities In delinquent tax collection. Pro, als should be as brief as possible and include the following: 1. A statement of firm's experience In delinquent : _ ..ollection; Including years In the business, number of staff, office, location, clients serviced (a list of clients with addresses, phone ber and contact person • should be provided). 2. Resumes of key managerial staff to be assigned as the City'a representatives. 3. Proposed scope of servh:es to be offered based on the Jntarmr tion etischod. ® d. Suggested performance criteria for the City to i± tllze • In evaluating the success of the contract and non-performance guidelines if collections do not oqunl sixty (60%) percent of the delinquent tax base amount, 817/383.7100 DFW METRO 817.287.0042 FAX 817.382.4692 e I_ tm • • 4getldaNoApel>tfaitar►t. . Date April 26, 1995 2 6~~f Page 2 Propusals will be evaluated bared upon the attached criteria and interviews with solected firms. If your firm Is lnterosted In making a proposal to the City of Denton for these services, three (3) copies of the proposal, in sealed envelopes marked on the outside RFS? #1759 - Delinquent Tax Collection Service, should be submitted no later than May 18, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. to: City of Denton Purchasing Department ! 901-B Texas Street i Denton, Texas 78201 Attention: Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent We look forward to receiving a proposal from your firm for this very important service. f Sincerely, Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. Purchasing Agent 2013. DW Attachments E 1 • J • a t~ tr~`'~~t c i ~ t~~,~4rs i M~x;'~._ftl~, • • r THE LAW FIRM WILL Agl*No q5°O~ 1, Receive the delinquent tax rolls, qa 2. Substitute as attorney of record on all existing suits and intervention; pay all court costs and filing fees. 3. Provide all research and paperwork necessary to provide taxpayers and Tax Collector with correct or corrected information to update the City files, including forwarding addresses as located. 4. Submit monthly reports of suits filed on accounts and duplicate letters sent to taxpayors. 5. Provide a quarterly report to staff that could be submitted to the City Council for review. Provide monthly reports on pending suits, judgments and foreclosures. 6. File suits on delinquent taxpayers that do not respond in accordance with the directions nrovidod by the City of Denton. 7. ar, r in delinquent tax suits filed by Denton County and Denton nd t School District, if applicable, pursuant to Sec. 33.44, Property Tex U. Firm had be responsible for filing of delinquent tax claims in bankruptcy procooings including claims and actions required to be filed with Federal agency's such as FDIC, FSHC, end RTC; and consult with City of Denton attornoy's on such matters. 9. File suits for collection of delinquent taxes pursuant to Secs. 33.41 and 33.42, Property Tax Code, or file on judicial foreclosures. 10. Follow through on all suits and provide reports to the City of Denton. a. Provide recommendations, for qualified individuals pursuant to Sea, 33.02, Property Tax Code, that an installment agreement be entered into between City and taxpayer. • 11. Provide legal support and research as needed. a. Provide recommendations to not pursue a case if a case is weak or the likelihood of collections low or unlikely. 0 h. Provide City of Denton's Assessor/Collector legal advice and written • opinions upon request, 12. Only collect those groups or individual accounts which the City of Denton determines in its discretion are to be collected by firm. • Q1 • The Law Firm Will VendeNtl. Q '6 Page 2 Ageodallem,1~44 Date_ 13, Provide all supplies and postage necessary to handle billing. X4C6,/~ C? 14. Obtain the ownership records of all property on which a suit is filed at firm's expense. 15. Provide total and complete delinquent tax collection, including court filing fees and all other costs, pursuant to Socs. 33.48 and 33.07, Property Tax Code, ,grid indemnify and hold the City harmless in any suits or liability that may result from the delinquent tai, collection. 16. Propose a method of assuring that the amount of delirquent taxes collected by the Low Firm will be at lease equivalent to the amount projected to be collected by in-house staff for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 fiscal year. 17. Propose a method of payment 18. Be entitled to fees on amounts actually collected while contract is in effect, pursuant to Sec. 33.07 of Property Tax Code. 19. Provide information concerning minority involvement. Indicate the ethnic makeup and the sex of your staff, presently and projected, if not presently fully staffed. Also, indicate if you would consider subcontracting parts of this contract to minority contractors and, if so, plese describe. Also indicate your compliance with EEOC guidelines. 20. Coordinate the filing of all tax suits with the City Attorney and all tax collection efforts with the City of Denton Tax Department, 21. Provide for copies of all tax files to be turned over to the City Attorney when the Contract is terminatr:d. 22. Make recommendations to Tax Department accounts to be collected {I.e., mobile homes, aircraft and business personal property} by summary seizure (Tax Warrants) and perform all legal work necessary to reduce those accounts to payment of taxes pursuant to. Secs. 33.21, 33.22 and 33.23, Property Tax • Code. i 23. Maintain collection rate of sixty (60%) percent of delinquent tax base, wit?t penalty clause initiated on the collection agency if this is not adhered to. I 24. Provide concentrated effort toward the collection, within the statute of ® limitation period, of delinquent mobile home business personal property ~ • • accounts. AFFOODDO • O , 0 0 THE CITY OF DEiV1N_WILL AgendaNo~ q-5"62 Agertdalte~~.~~ Date- J`n 1. Provide a roll of delinquent accounts to be collected. 2gL:~d 9 2. Provide for updated information (i.e., adjustments, payments, errors, double assessments, or other discrepancies) on delinquent accounts to be forwarded to the law firm. 3. Be able to terminate contract with thirty (30) days' notice. 4. Pay the law firms fifteen (15%) percent of the amount of ull delinquent taxes, pursuant to _jc. 33.07, Property Tax Code, penalty and interest actually collected and paid the collector of taxes during the term of this contract. The collector shall pay said funds monthly by check. 5. Notify the law firm of any taxpayer that has filed bankruptcy and the City has been notified of such. 6. The City will allow an additional six (6) months to reduce to judgment all suits filed prior to the last data of the contract. 7. Prepare and mail tax statements at least thirty (30) days [no more than sixty (60) days] prior to delinquency date, giving notice to the delinquent taxpayers of the potential add-on cost of collection. CITY OF DENTON CRITE I FOR SELECTING FIRM In order for all proposals to be reviewed in a consistent manner in your proposal, please reference the following criteria by its reference number. 1. An established law firm whose principal business Is the collection of delinquent taxes. 2. Firm must Nava an established history of expertise in the delinquent tax collection field and provide a complete list of past and current Texas clients. 0 3. Law firm has to show capability to staff an operatirns sufficient to process up to 215,000 delinquent accounts annually, 4. Firm will have, or will establish, a Denton office by date delinquent accounts are turned over and will provide a 1-800 number, or other toll-free service, to main office if necessary, f O ~ O 0 Gs DENTON o~~aohoaDpp00 00 OD O~ oD °v D OOD r ~ 000 OO~O~N .~~OG~O ~aQ00oaaoo 0 CITY COUNCIL r 0 a o I -IL-a~ Agenda Na. Agenda Item.k CM COUNCIL, AGENDA ITEM c j TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1i FRONL: Lloyd V. "A ie'l, City' Manager 1 SlJB,1ECL': RECEIVE A RF,POR'1'. HOLD A DISCUSSION AND GIVE. STAFF DIREC'I'1ON REGARDING POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF DENTON'S CABLE, TV SYSTEM REC'OMJIIENDATION: None at this time, SUMMARY: In accordance with City's Cable TV Ordinance (Exhibit 11) Sammons Communications, Inc., has offer. d the city the opportunity to purchase that part of their cable TV system which serves the City of Denton. We received a letter from Sammons to that effect (Exhibit 1) on May 30, 1995, and have 90 days in which to respond. BACKGROUND: Sammons Communications, Inc., has agreed to sell Its North Texas cable TV systems to Marcus Cable Company, L.P, On or about May 5, 1995, Sammons submitted to the city FCC Form 394 which requests the city's consent to transfer the Denton cable TV franchise from Sammons to Marcus. The city has 120 days from the receipt of the request to grant or deny the request. If no action is taken within the 120-day period, the transfer of the franchise automatically becomes effective. The city is joining a consortium with most of the other North Texas cities which are • served by Sammons to hire a consultant and evaluate the request, t Denton', Cable TV Ordinance Section 8.62 ( states that in of the franchise, "the City Council reserves the right of first refusal to purchase a cable system at or above u bona fide offering price being made by a third party when the system Is placed on the market for sale. The city shall exercise such right within ninety days of notification by the grantee of peuding sale, or such right shalt , • 0 O he forfeited." The letter from Sammons fulfills their obligation to offer the system to the city. In their letter, Sammons indicates that the purchase price to Marcus for the Denton system is $27,931,160. • t9 • • agtlltda No 9 .-0 Q5 5 Agendalte Page 2 Date _-r ZGt1) PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR CROUPS AF" .,MD: City Council, Public Utilities Board, Fiectric Utility Department, Citizens of Denton. FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $27,9 million. Respectf Ily submitted, Lloyd V. Harrell, City Ma ager Prepared by: Richard Foster, Public Information Officer i Approved I:y: f oscph rrtugal Assistant to the City Manager • J Exhibit I: Letter dated 5126195 from Sammons Communicatimis, Inc. , It: Ordinance • G9 • SAMMONS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ,J l} ci7 r f N May 26, 1995 IgsndaNo, ~5 46:Zo~. Mr. Richard Foster Administrative Assistant) City of Denton 215 E. McKinney Denton, TX 76201 Dear Mr. Foster: I As you are aware, Marcus Cable Company, L.P. ("Marcus") has recently reached an agreement with Sammons Communications, Inc. ("Sammons") to purchase certain cable television systems currently owned by Sammons. Consistent with the requirements of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") and under separate cover, we have recently forwarded to you by certified mail a completed FCC Form 394 package under which we have requested your consent to transfer the franchise to an affiliate of Marcus. In addition, under the terms of cable ordinance 5 1/2 - 26, we are required to offer to you the option to purchase the cable television system which serves your community on terms and conditions which are consistent with those being offered to Sammons by Marcus. This letter would seek to meet the conditions and terms of that ordinance by presenting those terms and conditions to you. You will have up to 90 days from the receipt of this letter to determine if you would like to purchase this cable television system, based upon rights granted to you under the cable ordinance. The purchase agreement between Sammons and Marcus provides for an aggregate cash purchase price for cable television systems which, at closing, will serve approximately 670,000 basic customers and 220 municipalities and does not allocate a value specifically to your system. The parties to the agreement have allocated approximately $27,931,160 to the cable television system which is • located in and serves the franchise of Denton, based upon an agreed upon strategic value. If you do not choose to purchase your cable television system under these terms, we would kindly request that f you pass a simple resolution to that effect and forward it to me at Sammons. EXHIBIT I 3010 LBJ Freeway, Suite 800 • Da11ee, Taxae 75234 • 214484.8888 214-919•L (FAX) • • Y ag811d8N0 Ageatleit X-11 c Mr. Richard Foster May 26, 1995 Page Two If I can answer any questions or provide additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me dirsotly at (214) 484-8888. Thank you for your assistance with this matter. sincerely, SAMMONS CO TIONS, INC. Mar S. Weber President • i • • c, Nara ^'i . ~ hlti 1 1 0 Agenda No a_~--fly' Agendeltem~ [ 4 8•62 DENTON CODE ry,, 6 See. 8.62. Transfers and assignments, 5~ 4 (a) A cable television franchise shall not be sold, assigned or transferred, either In whole or in part, or leased, sublet or mortgaged in any manner, nor shall title 4hereto, either legal or equitable, or any right, interest or property therein pass to or vest in any person without the prior written consent of the city. Such consent shall not be withheld unreasonably. No such consent shall be required for a transfer of the franchise or the system in trust, mortgage or other hypothecation as a whole or in part to secure an indebtedness. (b) The proposed assignee must above technical ability, financlal capability, legal quali• fications and general character qualifications as determined by the city and must agree to comply with all provisions of the franchise and such conditions as may be prescribed by the city council and expressed by resolution. The city shall be deemed to have consented to a proposed transferor assignment In the event its refusal to consent is not communicated in writing to the grantee within one hundred twenty (120) days following receipt of written notice of the pro• posed transfer or assignment. id The grantee shall promptly notify the city of any actual or proposed change in or transfer of or acquisition by any other party of control of the grantee. The word "control" as used in this subsection is not limited to major stockholders but includes actual workingcontrol f in whatever manner exercised. Every change, transfer or a.,quisition of control of the grantee j shall make the franchise subject to cancellation unless and until the city shall have consented thernto, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. For the purpose of determining whether it shall consent to such change, transfer or acquisition of control, the city may inquire into the qualifications of the prospective controlling party and the grantee shall assist the city in any such inquiry. (d) A rebuttable presumption that a transfer of control has occurred shall arise upon the acquisition or accumulation by any person or group of persons of ton (10) percent of the voting interest of the grantee. (e) The consent or approval of the city council to any transfer of the franchise shall not constitute n waiver or release of the rights of the city in and to the streets, and any transfer shall by its terms, be expressly subordinate to the terms and conditions of any applicable franchise, if) In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, the city shall not approve any transfer or assignment of a franchise prior to substantial completion of construction of the proposed system or completion of a commitment to reconstruct, rebuild or upgrade an existing system, gl The city council reserves the right of first refusal to purchase a cable system at or Li ve a bona fide altering price being made by a third party whop the system is placed on the rket for sale. The city shall exercise such right within ninety (90) days of notification by the ntee of pending sale, or such right shall be forfeited, . Oil In no event shall a transfer of ownership or control be approved without any successor in interest accepting in writing the terms and conditions of tho franchise agreement as amended. 574 EXHIBIT II ~ o • c, • Val-mart Ord u0 O' 2~ AQendafte~Lr~. Date---- ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 70 (PD-70) AND AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS AND USE DESIGNATIONS TO COMMERCIAL-CONDITIONED (C(c)) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 38.429 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTER- SECTION OF LOOP 288 AND SPENCER ROAD; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Norman Brinker, on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has applied for a change in zoning for 38.429 acres of land from Planned Development No. 70 (PD-70) and Agricultural (A) zoning district classifications and use designations to a Commercial- conditioned (C(c)) zoning district classification and use designa- tion; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of ;.he requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, Wal-Mart Stors, Inc., has given its written consent to each of the conditions imposed by this rezoning as set forth in Exhibit 8, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, as evidenced by the letter dated May 30, 1995, attached hereto as Exhibit C; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS; SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 38.429 acres of land described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated into this ordinance by reference, is changed from its Planned Development No. 70 (PD-70) and Agricul- tural (A) zoning district classifications and use designations to a Commercial - conditioned (C(c)) zoning district classification and • use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, with additional conditions imposed as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SE =1ON ICI, That the City'u official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. • • SECTION III. That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a uum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. SECTION IV, That this ordinance shall become effective four- teen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be 0 0 i r ~Aen<faNo►L~-4~ . 4pendal ~ Date roe N Published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official news- paper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the - day of 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY B. 5 9- - PAGE 2 • f r • Gel PROPOSED ZONING LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~tys,aIB 6~ "C(e)" COht\ ERCIAL CONDITIONFD^ 38 429 ACRES 965 BENG all that certain lot, tract or parcel oflard situated in the J N' Cheek Survey, Abstract No 324, Denton County, Texas, and being a part of that same 65 63-acre tract of land conveyed to Olen I. Spencer by the V'eteran's Land Board of Texas as recorded in Volume 382, Page 204 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas and being more particularly described as follows BFGlN'NTNG at an iron rod at the intersection of the southeast line of SH 288 with the west lint of the J R' Check Survey, THENCE N 60'14'05° E a distance of 2988 feel with the southeast litre of SH 288 to the beginning or a rune to the left, having a cenar,l angle of 4°21, a radius of 2,939 76 feet; THENCE around said curve to the left and with the southeast line of SH 288 a distance of 223 29 feet to a point for comer, THENCE fi 49'55'36' E a distance or 204 09 feet with the southeast line of SH 288 to :'-,e beginning of a cure to the left, haying a central angle of 10°59'3: a radius of 2,924 76 (eet, THENCE around said cure to the ltil and with the southeast line of SH 288a distance of 561 i2 feet to an iron rod for comer, said point being the southwest comer of the Brinker I D C , ) V tract as recorded in Volume 3389, Page 348 of the Deed Records of Demon County, Texas, and being the beginning of a curve to the left haling a central angle of 5'29', a radius of 2,924 76 feel, THENCE around said curt to the IcR and with the southeast line of SH 288 a distance of _"9 96 feet to a point for comer, said point being the southeast line of Spencer Road. THENCE N 72'17' E a distance of 80 64 feet with the southeast line of Spencer Road to a porn: for comer, said point being a nght•a-way post on the south boundary line of Spencer Road, THENCE N 17'33' E a distance or-13 49 feel to a steel pin in Spencer Road for comer, THENCE S 70'29' E a distance of 119 36 feet to a point for comer in asphalt, THENCE S 00'26E a distance of 245 25 feet to a point for corner, said point being the northeast corner of Brinker tract as recorded in 91-R0022415 of the Deed Records of Denton County, Texas, • THENCE S 00'26'19' E a distance of 1,62048 feet with the east line of the Brinker tract to a point for comer, THENCE S 89'33'41 ' %A a distance of I, 160 41 feet to a point for corner, said point being the east line of the Karxounws tract as recorded in ,fume 3405, ; age !D of the Dee.' Records of Denton County, Texas, THENCE N 00'28'21' N' a distance of 9792; feel to the POINT Or BEGINNING a^d ~ • • • containing approximately 38 429 acres ~f land 1 G 0 e c~ e M Benda ivu .Q•5 ' O Qendalle S ate _ - - CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR "C(a)" COMMERCIAL CONDITIONED DISTRICT REQUEST BY WAL-MART STORES, INC. PROHIBITED US 'S The following uses, otherwise permitted in this district, or otherwise permitted with approved specific use permit, shall be prohibited in this conditioned district; 1. Primary Beg Utial uses, (a) Community Unit Development (b) Trailer camp or Mobile Home Park 2• >ducational, Institutional ^nd pecia]. Uses (a} Cemetary or Mausoleum (b) Halfway House 3. tltil_ity Ac .Pesory a_.nd Incidental ass (a) Home occupation (b) Radio and Television or Microwave Tower 4. F.fumation-l and BnLgrtainme t UsQ& (a) Dance Hall or Night Club (b) Drag strip II (c) Fairground (d) Go Cart Track (e) Rodeo Grounds (f.} Sexually oriented Business (g) Stable, Private Club (h) stable, commercial Rental (i) Stable, Boarding (j) Theater, Drive-in 5. AutQm-Qbile~S=vice UBCa (a) New or Used Car Sales Got (in open) 6. A-.ctricult u a1 Tyne Use (a) Animal Pound (public or private) (b) Animal Clinic, Animal Hospital or Kennel with outside Runs or Pens e (c) Hatchery, Poultry 7. Commercial Type Us2_g (a} Flea Market (outdoor) (b) Storage of furniture or appliances outside a building i 8. Natural Reaou xtrac-ion Ic@ .orage_ _ or g • O (a) Extraction and Storage of Sand, Cali•,he, Stone, Clay, or Gravel (except for site improvements.) t e 6 ` • • Agential(ORL. . Pout.V Wand lax transmIllal mam07671 ealnw " DUNAWAY ASSOCIATES, INC. e, tSGVq Q$ 0 NANNFal • 4Y'M%'Jae eN~ DAI No. 9410500 0l. May 30, 1993 Mr. Frank Robbins, AICP Executive Di actor Planning city or Denton 213 E. McKinney Donlon, Texas 76201 Re: Proposed "C(c)" Zoning Request Dear Mr. Robbins: WAI•Mart Stores, Inc. has held discussions with Miss Dorothy Myers concerning her ktter dated May 18, 1995 to tl3o City of Denton Planning and Development Department. As a result of those discusslons, WAI•Mnrt his agreed to restrict three more uses. Additional restricted uses include: 1, Used car lots sales which do not maimair in enclosed showroom, 2. Dance hall and nightclub when the prim y business is sales of alcohol and dmiciog. This does not include "ling establishments which nave incidental bar or dancing activities. 2. Auto salvage yards with outdoor storage ofjunk vehicles. ' some of u>c uses Miss Myers wanted restricted were already restricted by Wal-Mart, they are: pawn shop, sexually. oriented business, drag strip, and go-cart track. Wal-Mart and Mr. Brinker desire to maintain the following permitted uses', L 'lire retreading or copping. 2. Both on. and off-premise sale orbccr and/or wino 3. Lktt%, d private club which does not oonflict with the restricted used of dance hall and night chlb Enclosed is a revised restriction list that would arnend our original zooing change request. I have noted the amendment and date in the title for clarification orthe current list. Should you have any questions, please call i Sincerely, i I DUNAIYAY A SQC! TES, C, - '9 1 N~ e Thomas S. Galbreath, A S L.A. • r Vice President TO u taws WW" 6SWC0330911 1.140 4e. !lots, WA-Marl limn, Ina Mmn,.n nrln3 er, 7; a~>rA I.unAwah „ r , r • r e :-ir r1•S•ec^iln'n4"'2 • 'S"I 1'151121 0 AEEInn(P17)42021:16 0 FAX (II7):t'1M174d, 0 c0 i DENTON f oooooaaoooooQO 41 00 ~ o0 00 o D C7 d cz] C~~ r ~ 000 0000 N , ooo° 1 ~a~oooao~o CITY COUNCIL ~ r • ca • ~g1NdaMo..~= d CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES aQb~idalt a MAY 9, 1995 fklte The Council convened into a Special Call Session on Tuesday, May 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Mayor Pro Tem Brock; Council Members Cott, Perry, Miller and Smith. ABSENT: Council Member Chew 1. The Council considered nominations/ appointments to the 1996 City of Denton Denton County Sesquicentennial Celebration Committee. City Manager Harrell indicated that the agenda back-up materials listed nominations suggested by council Members at the last Council meeting. Mayor Castleberry asked if there were any further nominations. Council Member Miller asked if the item could be placed on the next agenda for additional nominations if needed. Mayor Castleberry nominated Dr. and Mrs. Derrell Bulls, Derrell Bulls, Jr., and Priscella Sanders. t Perry motioned, Brock seconded to approve the nominations from the last meeting and the nominations made at this meeting. on roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. Miller motioned, Perry seconded to place the item on the next agenda for additional nominations. on roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 2. The Council considered an appointment of a Chair for the City of Denton Denton County Sesquicentennial Celebration Committee. Council Member Cott withdrew his nomination of Frank Martino. Perry motioned to approve Margaret Smith as Chair of the Committee. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Miller "aye" Smith "aye", i Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry I'aye'f. Motion carried I • unanimously. Mayor Castleberry presented a proclamation for Drinking Water Week in Denton. Council Member Chew arrived at the meeting. i • 3. The council considered adoption of an ordinance canvassing the • • returns and declaring the results of the regular municipal election held in the City of Denton on May 6, 1995. Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, read the returns of the election. • e • w • ~endoNo City of Denton City Council Minutes agendeltemrl.S. May 9, 1995 ~y Page 2 OAtB b'6g-~q 1~ ~ 1 The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-099 AN ORDINANCE CANVASSING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON ON MAY 6, 1995; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Perry motioned, Smith seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Smith "aye", Chew "aye", Perry "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. Oath of office administered to newly elected Council Members. Jennifer Walters, City Secretary, administered the oath of office to Jeff Kruger - District 2; David Biles - District 3; and Jerry Cott - District. 4. 5. The Council considered the election of a Mayor Pro Tempore. Mayor Castleberry indicated that as there would be a runoff election on June 3, 1995 for District 1, the election of a Mayor Pro Tempore would be held until after that election. 6. The council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Margaret Smith. The following resolution was considered: NO. RA95-012 RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR MARGARET SMITH Biles motioned, Chew seconded to approva the resolution. On roll vote, Brock "aye", Cott Faye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew j "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. With no further busine;as, the meeting was adjourned at 7:20 p.m. E BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR • CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS JENNIFER WALTERS r• • J CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ACCO0278 • GI • jeodaNo _ CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Agaedalle n,~ May 16, 1995 on1e y V r The Council convened into a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, May lb, 1995 C4 at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Council Members Biles, Chew, Cott, Krueger, and Miller.. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock. 1. The following items were considered in Closed Meeting: A. Legal Matters Under TEX. GOVT CODs? Sen. 551.071 1. Discussed responsibility of council Members and staff to keep information discussed in Closed Session confidential.. B. Real Estate Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.072 1. Discussed the acquisition of property for expansion of the City's landfill. C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.074 The Council convened into the work Session on Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Council Members Biles, Chew, Cott, Krueger, and Miller. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding amendments to the current Investment Policy. t Harlan Jefferson, Director for Fiscal operations, stated that this item was the agenda in order to apply for the Investment Policy Certification of Excellence offered by the Municipal Treasurers Association. He reviewed the changes to the policy which were included in the agenda back-up materials. He asked Council to approve the amendments in order to submit the application for I 3 certification by June 1, 1995. Council Member Biles asked if the reporting period under Item 5D was a monthly reporting period. Jefferson stated that 5D dealt with quarterly reports to the City Council. Item 5C addressed the monthly reports and Item 5A dealt 0 with the monthly review provided by the Internal Auditor. r Council Member Biles asked why there was not a concern with the J procedure to increase the portfolio from one broker from 20% - 40%. 1 i Jefferson stated that the City was required to obtain competitive bids when securities were obtained. A problem with this procedure was that many brokers were more successful than others with certain • 0 • w • r Benda No _ City of Denton City Council Minutes Axda~terz, ~ May 16, 1995 Page 2 2 lbfB L1.+1 u ab ~ 9 types of securities. Currently once the 25% was reached, the city had to stop calling that broker or stop accepting a bid from that broker. Council Member Biles stated that one of the net effects of the change would be a cost savings to the City due to more competitive bids. Jefferson stated that it would provide more interest income. Cott motioned, Chew seconded to proceed with the amendments. On roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. j 2. The Council. received a report and held a discussion regarding the Quarterly Financial Reports. Kathy DuBose, Executive: Director for Finance, stated that the six month comparisons were in the agenda packets. Council received such reports at 6 months, 9 months and an annual financial report and audit. The comparisons were actual. revenues and expenditures year to date compared to budget and to the prior year for the same period. The utility reports were presented to the Public Utilities Board on a monthly basis. The current year of ad valorem taxes reflected the 25% reduction in property taxes based on imp_ementation of the half cent sales tax to reduce property taxes effective October 1, 1994. Council Member Cott stated that there was $2,700,000 worth of sales tax reduction in the ad valorem tax but that that percentage would not hold. DuBose stated that the amount was $3,224,000 over all which was estimated what the half cent represented. The sales tax was divided into two sections - the one cent base and the half cent for property tax reduction. Overall there was a 44% increase over the prior year. Collections began in October and were not received until December. • Council Member Bil.es stated that the 31.91% of the sales tax collected was a timing situation and what was the timing from the State. City Manager Harrell stated that it was received monthly with a 2% collection charge and a two month lag time. O • 0 Council Member Biles stated that with that lag time considered, the city would not be behind on that projection. DuBose replied correct. council Member Miller asked what the six month figure would be for j the sales tax based on the budget. • O • p • City of Denton City Council Minutos Agoidaite May Page l,, 1995 DaIB-. DuBose stated that it would be close to what was projected. Council Member Krueger stated that it would be helpful to have a sales tax projection versus what was collected. DuBose stated that that was given to Council on a monthly basis and had been done for several years. Council Member Krueger asked for the same information regarding ad valorem taxes. DuBose stated that that report was also presented to Council on a monthly basis plus a report regarding the percentage of collections. Regarding the franchise taxes, Lone Star Gas was down due to a mild winter, GTE had a reduction in revenues and Sammons had increased slightly. The Texas Utilities Electric payment was an annual payment scheduled to be paid in August. The hotel occupancy tax had increased over the prior year. The increase in the bingo tax was due to the increase in the percentage from 1% to 1 1/4%. The recreational fees were seasonal and would increase during sprint; and summer. The annual service fees had increased over the prior year. Fines and fees for municipal court reflected the implementation of the Court of Record. UNT police fines and fire fines were increased duo to the full staffing of those departments. Licenses and permits were down as building was down in the last F months. Miscellaneous revenues for Alectric and plumbing inspection were now included in the building permit fees. The interest income reflected an investment in a higher beginning fund balance and increases for the current year than over this time in the last fiscal year. The total revenue was within 2% of the prior year at this same point in time. With 50% of the year gone, the figures were almost 60% of revenue collected. Council Member Cott stated that the State collected the sales tax and charged a fee for that collection. Fie asked if anyone else charged such a fee. DuBose replied no. • Council Member Cott asked if there was any way to reduce the State fee. DuBose stated that she had served on a committee which had been meeting with the State Comptrollers Office. The State had asked for suggestions to enhance their customer service and that was one of the items considered. DuBose then reviewed the individual • accounts in the expenditures of revenue which were on target for E • • the budget allotments. Council Mer~-ar Miller asked why it appeared that the expenditures were behind thus far. E DuBose stated that there were several vacant positions which resulted in a reduction plus some one time capital expenditures • 0 • c~ • VrpdaNo ' City of Denton City Council Minutes 4yeidaltI_e 05 May 16, 1995 ~it8 Page 4 6C6 1~ which had not been made at this time. overall it should come in under budget for expenditures. In the Electric Utility area, the mild winter resulted in lower revenue than what was projected. Dubose reviewed the total budget percent remaining for the various accounts. There was 56% of the budget remaining in regard to expenditures. III Council Member B.iles stated that the operating loss was coming from I the winter months and should reverse during the summer months. DuBose replied correct. Last year, during the same time period, there was a $550,000 loss but ended with a positive figure. The water operating fund reflected a slight increase in revenues and expenditures. The revenues should increase during the summer months. Council Member Cott asked about the Corps of Engineering costs. DuBose replied that those figures were reflected in the non- operating revenues and expenses category and were annualized during the year. At this point in time, 42% of the annual budget had been expended at 509.1 of the year and was within budget. In the wastewater fund, the revenues had increased substantially as well as operating income. There was also an increase in retained earnings. Council Member Cott asked if funds were being set aside for new above ground water tanks which might be needed. DuBose stated that amounts had been set aside during the last few fiscal years. City Manager Harrell stated that the reserve amounts were fur repairing and maintenance of the tanks. Bob Nelson, Executive Director for utilities, stated that the funds were for the operation and maintenance of the current tanks and that the funds for new tanks would come from bond funds. • DuBose stated that 38$ of the annual budget for the wastewater fund had been expended and should be under budget. In the sanitation fund, the operating revenues and expenditures were increased slightly over the last year. Compared to the budget, 42% of budget had been expended for the current year. U City Manager. Harrell stated +,hat the budget should be over in revenue and under in expenditures for the fiscal year. There was • a concern for the water area and it would be closely watched. 3. The Council discussed and considered issues for the council annual planning session including facilitator, place and date and gave staff direction. Due to a time constraint, this item was discussed during • n O • G~ • r Benda No._ City of Denton City Council Minutes ►gendaOrR May 16, 1995 L _ Page 5 We _..SL Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager during the Regular session. 4. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding a proposed amendment to the TMPA Power Sales Contract. Due to a time constraint, this item was discussed during Miscellaneous Matters from the City Manager during the Regular session. 5. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding a timeline for board/ co mmissio appointments. n City Manager Harrell presented the tentative time line for appointments which was included in the agenda back-up materials, The time line tracked what was done last year for board/ commission appointments, Staff needed direction regarding the date of May 30 for the informational meeting. Consensus of the Council was `o proceed with the schedule and the E meeting date of May 30, 1995. The council convened into the Regular Meeting on Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Mayor Castleberry; Council. Members Biles, Chew, Cott, Krueger, and Miller. ABSENT: Mayor Pro Tem Brock 1. Pledge of Allegiance 1 f The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance, Mayor Castleberry presented a proclamation for Safe Boating Week. • 2. The Council considered approval of the minutes of March 11, March 18, March 25, and May 5, 1995. Miller motioned, Chew seconded to approve the minutes as presented. on roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Chew "aye", and Mayor Castleberry did Motion of v to as they were not onCCouncil Matbthe • • 0 time of the meetings. 3, The Council considered approval of a resolution of appreciation for Harold Perry, The following resolution was considered: • • ~ge~daNo -Cy2C~ City of Denton city council Minutes Q May 16, 1995 {~dildallerr) Page 6 Sri' ! 9 NO. RA95-013 RESOLUTI014 OF APPRECIATION FOR HAROLD T. PERRY Chew motioned, Hiles seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. 4. Citizen Report A. The Council received a presentation on a "Kid's Guide to North Lakes Park" comp eted by Str ckland Middle School Team 8-3. Zan Austin, Strickland Middle School, stated that the Guide was written by students from Strickland Middle School for use by children at the North Lakes Park. The project had received second place in State competition for junior/middle schools. 5. Citizen Requests A. The Council considered an extension to the noise ordinance exception granted to Brown and Root to conduct construction work to occur at Teasley Lane and 135E until. 12;00 midnight from May 30, 1995 - December 31, 1995. Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, atated that on October 4, 1994 the City Council approved a special permit to Brown and Root for construction activity which included the pouring and sawing of concrete in conjunction with the Teasley Lane construction project. The permit expired on May 30, 1995 and the work was not completed. Brown and Root was requesting an extension of the permit until the end of the year. Krueger motioned, Chew seconded to approve the extension. On roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered an exception to the noise ordinance on June 16th and 17th until 12;00 midnight for the • Juneteenth celebration at Fred Moore Park. i Veronica Rolen, Administrative Assistant, stated that the Juneteenth Celebration Committee had requested the exception. In recent years the festivities had been successful. The staff at the MLK Center had worked with the Committee and anticipated another successful celebration. Events were scheduled until 11;00 p.m, but O O ® the Committee was requesting the exception until midnight to remove equipment and supplies. The Parks Department had extended the park hours until midnight to accommodate the activities. Chew motioned, Biles seconded to approve the exception. On roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. • O • e ~gendaNa Q City of Denton City G .moil Minutes AQEOdBI1B1A May 16, 1995 Page 7 90$ 19 6. Public Hearings A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinarce to rezone 3.753 acres from the Single Family 7 (SF-7) zoning district to the Commercial (C) zoning district on property located on the south side of 1-35F, approximately 250 feet south of Lindsey Street. (The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend approval with a 2-3 vote on a motion to approve.) Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that this was a request to rezone the property from Single Family-7 to Commercial. Council had received a written request from the applicant to postpone consideration in order to amend the petition and consult the neighborhood with those amendments, Chew motioned, Biles seconded to postpone consideration. Biles indicated that his second included the fact that the full council was not present to hear the case plus consideration of the request of the applicant. Council Member Cott felt that this was another in a long list of attempts oy the applicant to get his way to put a building in a 4 location where it did not belong. This neighborhood had not been treated fairly. There was inconsistent record keeping with this zoning from the early 19601s. Council member Miller stated that delays were often frustrating. It had been the Council's practice to honor requec;ts of postponement from petitioners. This was done to hear all the facts before a decision was made on a difficult zoning case. The request for postponement was asked in order to have more discussion with the neighborhood. He felt the request was appropriate and was in favor of the request. I On roll vote to postpone consideration, Cott "nay", Miller llaye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption e of an ordinance to rezone 4.508 acres from the Single Family 7 (SF- 7) zoning district to the Multi-Family 1 Conditioned (MF-1(C)) zoning district on property located on the east side of Ruddell Street, approximately 1,000 feet south of University Drive East, (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5-0). Frank Robbins, Director for Planning and Development, stated that O the zoning was for multifamily - 1 in which there was existing • • apartments built on it. The applicant had proposed to build a parking lot first and then later construct additional apartment buildings. one condition of the proposed zoning was that the total number of units south of the existing buildings would not house more than 24 multifamily units. The Mayor opened the public hearing. e O • c.+ • ~ aNo City of Denton City Council Minutes 4pE~ddlt0m May 16, 1995 1 Page 8 02fe /4q J 9 No one spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Council Member Biles asked about the proposed parking lot. Robbins stated that the first development south of the existing f complex would be a parking lot for the existing complex. At a later date, additional apartments would be constructed. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 95-100 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A C")%NGE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO THE MULTI-FAMILY CONDITIONED (MF-1(C)) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4.508 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RUDDELL STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF UNIVERSITY DRIVE EAST, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT t, ATTACHED HERETO AND INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE HEREIN; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Miller motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Mution carried unanimously. C. The Council held a public hearing to consider rezoning 4.2721 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial Conditional (LI(C)) zoning district on property located on the south side of I-35E, approximately 3,200 feet north of State School Road. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 5-0). • Mayor Castleberry stated that the applicant requested that this item be pulled from consideration. This would apply to Item 6C., 6C1. and 6C2. 1. The Council considered approval of a resolution amenaing Appendix A of the Denton Development Plan by changing the • boundaries for Intensity Areas 77 and 78 defined therein in • • conformity with the map attached hereto and incorporated herein as I Exhibit 1, by extending the boundary of intensity area 78 along the south side of I-35E to State School Road, and reducing Intensity Area 77 correspondingly to accommodate the expansion; and amending { the concept map of the Denton Development Plan to conform therewit?i. (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval. 5-0). A A A tl City of Denton city council minutes 4090d9Mo May 16, ] 995 AgB11d8ltOfh(r Page 9 ate SS This item was not considered as tLe applicant requested that it be pulled from consideration. 2. The Council considered adoption or an ordinance rezoning 4,2721 acres from the Agricultural (A) zoning district to the Light Industrial Condl.tional (LI(C)) zoning district on property located on the south side of 1-35E, approximately 3,200 feet north of State School Road. This item was not considered as the applicant requested that it be pulled from consideration. 7. Tax Refunds City Manager Harrell. stated that these items were normally on the Consent Agenda but as there were no bids to consider, they were placed as a regular agenda item. Item 7A was a refund of a double payment and Item 7B was a refund based on a lower assessed value established by the Appraisal District. A. The. Council considered approval of a tax refund to Texas Commerce Bank for $1,792.95, B. The Council considered approval of a tax refund to IBM Credit Corporation for $649.54. Cott motioned, Krueger seconded to approve Items 7A and 7B. Oil roll vote, Cott "aye", M.ller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. a. Ordinances i A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the city Manager to execute all documents and agreements, as required, to obtain funding for the 1995 Summer Food Service Program. Janet Simpson, ouperintendent of Leisure services, stated that this A would be the fourth year for this program. This program was an extension of the free lunch program which was offered through the DISD. Council Member Biies asked if there were to be funding cuts in the program, would the City be responsible for fundin an program. g any part of the A ~ e o Simpson replied no that the program had been approved for this current year and the funds were available. The following ordinance was considered: { • c~ • ~genoaNo.As City of Denton city council minutes AggAdelSem May 16, 1995 ! Page 10 We /2 NO. 95•-101 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS AND AGREEMENTS, AS REQUIRED, TO OBTAIN FUNDING FOR THE 1995 SUMMER FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING AN EFFEc,riVE DATE. Chew motioned, Krueger seconded to adopt the ordinance, on roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered adcption of an ordinance i, authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment Number Two to the agreement with the city of Denton and HDR Engineering, Inc. for professional engineering services for the sanitary landfill initial site development. (The Public Utilities Board recommended approval.) Howard Martin, Director for Environmental Services, stated that on June 15, 1993 the City entered into an agreement with HDR for engineering services for Subtitle D modifications and for design and engineering of the new landfill site. The original contract was scheduled for six phases with only Phase Two and Three identified with funding. Since that time, Phases One and Two were completed and Phase Three was in progress. The Subtitle D modifications had been completed and in doing so, there were a number of activities which were required per regulatory review which were outside the original scope of services. In addition to that, the solid waste master plan was completed. As a result of those activities, there was an additional $12,000 in Phase One which was not originally in the HDR scope of services. In Phase Two, there was $8,185 over the original contract estimates for the various services and tasks identified and $32,485 for services outside the scope of the original contract. In Phase Three, $27,500 worth of geotechnical services was moved to a consultant for Emcon Baker-Shiflett and out of the HDR contract. The original contract was for 12 months of services for Phase Three. Another • $19,150 was needed for project administration and management. The total amendment was for $44,320 which would increase the contract to $628,345. City Manager Harrell stated that in dealing with the permitting process for the new landfill, city governments were traditionally very involved with State regulators. The State had asked for O additional information as it went through the permitting process and was a factor which the City had to comply with. If the City wanted to received the permit, it had to provide the additional information. Martin stated that another complicating factor was that this project was started prior to the implementation of the Subtitle D regulations. It was not known at that time exactly how the Subtitle D regulations would be interpreted. There were extensive • O 4 8 ~geadatwo SO 0 City of Denton City Council Minutes 4gendallam May 16, 1995 Page 11 )alp requirements which the City was forced to comply with. As the City continued to work through the process, he would expect to see additional services required by the regulatory agency. The City Council had approved the submission of an application and staff was working though issues with TNRCC regarding the boring plan. Onca those were worked out, the permit would be submitted. Mike Bucek stated that the ordinance indicated the contract figure would be $632,695 but the staff report indicated $628,343. Martin replied that there was an error in figures in the ordinance and that the figure should be $628,345. Council Member Cott felt that one of the keys to the situation was to market some of the refuse such as paper and plastic. Martin replied that as it related to the Master Plan in this contract, the purpose of the $12,000 expenditure was to develop costs associated with the various alternatives which the Committee looked at. Council Member Cott asked if the City was at a point where it could interphase sales and marketing in order to receive the money from the general public rather than from the citizens. If the City was going to market cardboard, it probably needed an expert in that area to market those products. He recommended thet the City look externally for such expertise. Council Member Krueger asked if the City was overloading the contract for HDR or did the contractor make a bad deal. Wets the amount of increase due to items the City asked HDR to do which were noc in the original contract. Martin replied that they were items which the City asked HDR to do for the City based on the input from the TNRCC. The TNRCC continued to request more and more information regarding the permit. The regulatory agency needed more information and the City had to ask the consultant to do the work for that information. Council Member Krueger asked if that were true for each phase. This was work which was not part of the original contract. I I artin replied correct. The only part of the amendment which was cost overrun of tasks identified in the contract was $8,185. incil Member Krueger stated that the A $8,000 was not in the J Iinal contract. fi Martin replied that the cost of man hours to provide those activities were not accurately identified in the original contract. Council Member Krueger asked who incorrectly identified those hours. s w 0 i City of Denton City Council Minutes May 16, 1995 A9endaltem 6.. S Page 12 ~ . Martin replied that this was a contract which was bid by several engineering firms and was awarded to HDR. The man hours for each task was negotiated with the firm but were underestimated. Council Member Krueger stated that staff estimated that there would be "x" number of man hours for the project and in reality it took "x+" man hours. The Company bid on "x" hours. Martin stated that, staff recognized in the contract that these were estimated man hours and could be more or less depending on the requirements of the regulatory agency. Council Member Krueger stated that this was a bid project in which the company bid "x" man hours. They went over that amount of hours. If the company had gone under the estimate, would the City have received any money back. Martin stated that if the City had been forced to bid under those circumstances, the contract would have been much larger. The intent was to minimize the cost but if the company had been forced to bid on a project with no clear scope on the parameters of the project, the City would pay a penalty in the end for those services. The contract was negotiated from the standpoint of estimated hours. Council Member Krueger asked if that was worded such in the contract. If not, it needed to be so in the future. He asked if HRD was the low bid for the project. Martin stated that a professional services contract was not bid by cost. A company was chosen on qualifications for professional services and then the price for the various activities was negotiated. City Manager Harrell stated that in regards to professional services, State law indicated that the city had to solicit 1 expressions of interest from firms for a task. Based on the qualifications for doing the work, a tentative decision was made on 0 which firm to recommend. Once that decision was made, discussion centered on the fee for services described. If during those negotiations, a fair fee schedule was negotiated, the contract would be awarded. If the negotiations did not work out, the City would then proceed to the second most qualified firm. Martin stated that the original contract categories and fees were preliminary estimates and the contract was clearly negotiated that this was an estimate of costs and fees. Council Member Biles asked if the scope of work was not clearly defined because the City did not go far enough in determining the scope or was this an after the fact occurrence resulting from the TNRCC needing more information. s ca 0 s s- r gendaNo City of Denton City Council Minutes 4geadaltem May 16, 1.995 S Page 13 Orate .--,.b - Martin replied that it was a result of the TNRCC needing more information. The contract was negotiated before Subtitle D rules and regulation were in place. The City had to start on the proposal and after almost a year, the regulations were presented. The final regulations, in some cases, did not resemble the proposed regulations, There was also the issue of how the regulations would be interpreted by the State agency. All of those si'uations affected the scope of work. The following ordinance was considered; I NO. 95-102 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DENT014 AND HDR ENGINEERING, INC. FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE SANITARY LANDFILL INITIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Miller motioned, Biles seconded to adopt the ordinance with the corrected figures. On roll vote, Cott "aye", Miller "aye", Krueger "aye", Chew "aye", Biles "aye", and Mayor Castleberry "aye". Motion carried unanimously. !I 9. Vision Update No report was given. 10. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager. The Council returned to the Work Session Items. 3. The council discussed and considered issues for the council annual planning session including facilitator, place and date and gave staff direction. City Manager Harrell stated that this meeting usually took place on a Friday and Saturday during early June. Because of the runoff election, the session this year would have to wait until mid-June. • In order for staff to make arrangements for a location and a facilitator, staff needed suggestions from the Council. Each year the Council decided to hold the event outside the City to limit the number of interruptions during the meeting. This was an opportunity for Council to get better acquainted and form a working group which would be needed to conduct city business. The Friday session generally had staff presenting major issues which might O need general direction. The Saturday session worked with an • O outside facilitator who worked with the council, City Manager, and City Attorney to discuss council goals and priorities and a basic direction for the next year. After discussion, the consensus of the Council was to hold the sessions on July 21-22. • O 0 c~ nn 'gendeNo 75~~_ City of Denton city council minutes May 16, 1995 AAeedaltem Page 14 15oll 9 Mayor Castleberry asked about Council preference for a location. Council Member Chow suggested a location outside the City, council Member Biles stated that he would prefer to spend the dollars in the city and to include a night at a local hotel, Mayor Castleberry indicated that staff would explore all hotels for dates including room rates for the next agenda. city Manager Harrell indicated that the City had used Bob Saunders in the past as a facilitator, Consensus of the Council was to proceed with Bob Saunders. 4, The council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction regarding a proposed amendment to the TMPA Power Sales Contract, City Manager Harrell stated that the City was a member of the Texas Municipal Power Authority which was an Authority formed by Denton, Garland, Bryan and Greenville. The Authority was to provide power for each of those four cities, The context in which the Agency was formed was set in the early 1980's with Federal regulations indicating that no additional power could be produced by using natural gas. All four cities were relying on natural gas and were thus faced with having to go with on alternative fuel. The cities joined together to build a power plant using lignite coal on the site. TMPA was formed, debt issued and a lignite power plant built near Bryan. It came on line in 1986 and generated 651 of Denton's power. In that arrangement, a power sales contact was negotiated and entered into among the four citie:a. That contract stated the obligations of the four parties to the contract and gave assurance to the bond buyers that the four cities stood behind the bonds. one provision in the contract which was to gain favorable review of bond rating agencies dealt with a full requirements provision. In its present form, the power sales contract, with very limited exceptions, required the four cities to look to TMPA to provide any additional power needs and were prevented from taking any i • independent action to provide for additional power. The only place to go for additional power was through TMPA. In order for the cities to be released from that provision TMPA had to offer a project and the cities decline the project. Once the cities declined a project, they would be free to look for other options. Since 1986, no project had been offered. The four cities talked with TMPA regarding an amendment to the contract to allow flexibility for the cities to take action which, would be in their • best interest. The Agency was riot responsive to such a proposal. A year ago, the TMPA cities listed major expiactations for TMPA including major decline in production costs which would result in a move away from lignite and towards western coal. Another demand was to amend the contract to allow flexibility for the cities. The TMPA staff, bond counr3el and the city manageria went to the bond rating agencies and insurance companies to explain what the cities J • 0 r c, e Agenda No q,5 _ City of Denton city council minutes Ago ndaltom May 16, 1995 f" Page 15 r4711 9 were planning to do. One problem area from that meeting dealt with two specific articles of the power sales contract. Article 7 was the procedure used in setting the yearly costs the cities had to pay to retire the debt and pay the operations from the power plant. f Article 9 provided if something happened to the plant, the four cities were still responsible to pay off the debt in accordance with a net energy for load formula. Article 9 could not be amended while Article 7 was set by Board action and over the years had been adjusted from time to time. The bond holders indicated that the cities had to indicate how Gibbons Creek one would be paid for. The cities had been trying to determine a percentage to put in the contract. The Planning and Operating Committee recommended to the Board and the Board adopted a percentage of allocation of costs for each city. Greenville - 9%, Bryan - 22%, Denton - 22% and Garland - 47%. At the time that was done, Greenville was in a difficult financial situation. This figure was adopted knowing that the figure could be reviewed each year and changed each year if needed. The bond holders indicated that the cities had to lock into a percentage and not change the percentage until the bonds were paid off. if the net energy for load formula was used, Greenville would pay 11.05%, Bryan would pay 20.74%, Denton would pay 21.22%, and Garland would pay 46.991, on two occasions it was thought that a compromise had been worked out with Greenville. Following the !I first compromise agreement, there was a decision by Greenville not to accept the agreement which was a compromise between the current percentage and the net energy for load formula and required Greenville to pay 9.9%. At that point, the other cities indicated that if Greenville insisted not coming up from 9.5%, the cities would be forced to have the Planning and Operating committee recommend to the TMPA Board at the next meeting that the annual percentage for the cities be amended to reflect the net energy for load formula. Greenville would then be paying 11.05%. The Planning and Operating Committee voted 3-1 to recommend to the Board to go to the net energy to load formula. At that point, the Mayor of Greenville wanted another meeting with the other cities regarding the percentage. The cities negotiated another agreement 1 but within the last few days Greenville exprese•ed concerns about the amendment. Specifically Greenville felt that the city managers should not be selecting the outside consulting Eirm but that it ! jJ should be done by TMPA. At the June 8th TMPA board meeting, the Planning and Operating Committee would present the recommendation that Article 7 be amended to the net energy for load formula. There was a provision in the power sales contract that if any city felt that this was an unfair allocation, an outside third party would review the recommended rates before final action. Greenville A had indicated that they would do that option. That meant the issue o= flexibility of the power sales agreement would have to wait until this issue was resolved. The difference to Denton in the formula meant approximately $1.5 million per year. The three other cities were together with Greenville standing alone in its proposal. Council Member Cott asked if an investment banker had looked at the business. w 0 • cis 0 s AgendaNo. City of Denton City Council Minutes Agendalteq, May 16, 1995 Page 16 rydt0 City Manager Harrell stated that a number of investment bankers such as First Southwest were involved In the process. Council Member Cott as).ed if more citJ,es could be brought into the process. City Manager Harrell stated that State law would have to be amended to do that and no one would buy into the project as it would not make sense. Council Member Biles stated that Greenville was looking at $3 million plus in costs. City Manager Harrell replied correct. There had been much sympathy for. Greenville's situation and was a reaoon why the other cities were willing to mAke compromises along the way. Greenville had forced the other cities to press ahead due to their position on the issue. If the four city utility directors were asked what was a fair allocation, they would indicate a net energy to load formula. Council Member Bites asked for a timetable for these events. City Manger Harrell stated that at the June TMPA Board meeting, it was expected that Greenville would object to the allocation. There would be nothing done for another six months. 11. There was no official action taken on Closed Meeting items discussed during the Work Session Closed Meeting. 12. New Business The following items of New Business were suggested by Council Members for future agendas: A. Council Member Miller requested a summary regarding the road and highway projects in the area which would be funded by Texas and the Federal government. • B. Council Member Miller stated that the new road signs an Corbin Road were very good. C. Council Member Miller asked for the Airport to be included in the planning session discussions. D. Council Member Biles asked for information regarding the • Lalrr tax and contracts with the various organizations. 0 0 13. The Council did not meet in Closed Meeting during the Regular Session. • 0 • • Agoods 0-9 City or Denton City Council Minutes May 16, 1995 al~AAtIAI .G Page 17 11ate With no further business, the meeting was adjourned 8:55 JENNIFER WWALTERS BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON CITY OF DENTON AC00027A i I i • J • r A c. O r DENTON ~apa~aaCpp00 I 000 o p D 0 ~°°00 '00 00 O . o Q D G ~Q CID D D ~ Q 00~ T o N Its ADO noN A I I I CITY • COUNCIL r • c~ • &ZLIfi ilon 3n a~aredattan of , "VIRGINIA BRUC$• WHEREAS, on May 31, 1995, Virginia Bruce retired, after serving with the City of Denton since February 11, 1985 and WHEREAS, during the past 10 years, Virginia has represented our City as an example of a quality service employees and WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been fortunate in having enjoyed the dedicated and outstanding service of Virginia and wish to recognize samel and / WHEREAS, Virginia has always served above and beyond the efficient discharge of her duties In promoting the welfare and prosperity of the City, and has earned the full respect of her fallow employees, colleagues and citizens of Denton NOW, THERE- FORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVE'S: That the sincere and warm appreciation of Virginia felt by the citizens, staff and officers of the City of Denton, be formally conveyed to her in a permanent manner by reco:d.ing this Resolution upon the off'^ial minutes of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, and forwarding to her a true copy thereof as a token of our appreciation. PASSED AND APPROVED this _ day of 1995, 808 CAS rLEBERRy, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SL'CRETARY • Byi A EL AS TO LEGAL FORM; N: - EL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY • BYE /.i,t2~_1 !ZT f.i~ • ca • ~p II'~•• ag9rfdaNo.-2, ""w~~+++~~n4~e~~dalfe , inp~precintiattaf f3,ira. ~(e_-.~~~j "rLDOH LEW HA19Rs• Cr WHEREAS, on May 31, 1995, Eldon Lew Hawes retired, after serving with the City of Denton since September 12, 1R'77; and WHEREAS, during the past 17 years, Eldon has represented our City as an example of a quality service employee; and REA enjoy dht e9dadicat dtand outDestnton recognize same; and of Eldon and wish ito WHEREAS, Eldon has always served above and beyond the efficient discharge of his duties in promoting the welfare and prosperity of the City, and has earned the full ruapect of his frilow employees, Co1l.eaguea and cit FORE, izens of bentonr NOW, THERE- THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: Citizens, staffiand=officerarof the City appreciation ofoDentonn felt b the Upon t official minutes of conveyed to him in a permanent manner by recording this Resolution Denton hTexas, and forwarding to him aitrue copy thereofhas a token of our appreciation,. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1495, BOB CASTLFJ3ERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CI-,Y SECRETARY BYr _ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM, • MICHAEL, A. RUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY AY! / • 0 • c, • r a DENTON oQaaaaoaaaoo ~ OF D O°O O~ ~ 0~ ti Ox Q d G Q d DOO~~ ,`~~ODO O~O° r ~ rr T ~ 0~0 °°aoaaaanoo°° 1 CITY O COUNCIL • W • '4g OR No -°--U,aO. . Ag"dalt 2 _ Date I cgs CITY of DENTON, TEXAS_ MUNICIPAL 6UILDING o DENTON, TEXAS 76201 TELEPHONE (817) 566.8307 Office of the City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO, Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM. Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager DATE: June 6, 1995 SUBJECT: R Ordinance equest from Julia LoSoya for an Exception to the Noise Fairgrounds fo on a FriBand day, Concert rt 30, at the North Teas 1995 until 12x00 midnight. BACKGROUND Julia Lo5oya has requested that the City Council grant an exception to the noise ordinance for the use of amplifiers and loudspeakers at the North Texas Fairgrounds on Friday, June 30, 1995, until 12:00 midnight (Attachment 1). As you know, the noise ordinance declares loudspeakers, amplifiers, and musical instruments a noise nuisance, particularly after 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and anytime on Sunday (Attachment 2), The ordinance does, however, provide that the City Council may make exceptions when the public interest is served, The City Council granted one prior exception to Ms. LoSoya's band calNlorevember disturbance rate the records indicate received before 8:00 p.m, that evening. Since that time Ms. LoSoya has held other concerts at the fairgrounds, on February 11, May 19, and June 31 1995, where exceptions to the noise ordinance were not obtained. The Police Department received 2 disturbance related calls prior to 10:00 p.m, on February 11, and three additional noise disturbance calls after 10:00 p.m. However, no calls were received during the May 19 event, PROGRAMS, DEPARTMEXTS, OR GROUPS AFFECTED: • • Area Residents, "Dedicarnd ro {hallo, Semler" • O I • ~gendaNo S'~P2~ Fiscal Impact, iota _Q_ Q''/_•? None ZC65 Please advise if I can provide additional Information. RE5PECTFULLY SUBMITTEDI K Llop V. Harrell City Manager Prepared By: r" Veronica 3. Rolen Administrative Assistant II Approved By: A ose Portugal Assistant tc the City onager Attachments) I. Letter from Julia LoSoya 2. Noise Ordinance • l .r..~..~.._....e.w.~rr... . . rrrrr_...Wi.44'n 1. r.n_ • 0 r' i . eery ~Jla • • ~jende No.~~ d 4gendaltom.~.~ s May 31, 1995 Date 3qS To Whom It May Concern; My name Is Julia LoSoya and I am a representative of the Capracho Show (an Hispanic band). We rent the exhibft hall at the Fair grounds In Denton for our functions which are usually on Friday nights from 8:00 pm to 12:00 am. Sergeant George always signs our rental form from the Fair Grounds. We also call Officer Bums to hire two to four police officers to patrol Inside and outside the b!allding for every show. One officer suggested that we get a Noise Nuisance Ordinance form for the next Hme so that If there are any complaints we would be covered, Our next function Is on June 30, 1995, We would like to receive the Noise Nuisance Ordinance form. Please advise me on the procedure. Thank you for your help, Sincerely, Julia LoSoye. { • j I ~gondalJo g5' 0.2g Agoadaltprrl,,[ -5 Chapter 20 NUISANCES' Art. 1. In General, 04 Z0.1-2030 Art. 11. Abandoned Property, 44 2031-20.70 Div. 1. Genersily, if 20.31-20.40 j Div. 2. Motor Vehicles, if 20.41-20.70 Art. 117. Grass and Weeds, 90 2071-2073 ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL Sec. 20.1, Noise. w It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any unreasonably loud, dis• curbing, unnecessary noise which causes or may cause material distress, discomfort or injury to persons of ordinary senaibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof. ~b1 It shall be unlawful for any person to make or cause any noise of such character, intensity and continued duration as to substantially interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities. a The following acts, among others, are declared to be noise nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shall rot be deemed to be exclusive: 1) The playing of any phonograph, television, radio or any musical instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m, and 7 00 a.m., as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort or repose of persons of ordinary sen• sibilities in any dwelling, hotel or other type or residence; i21 The use ofany stationary loudspeaker, amplifieror musical instrument in ouch manner or with such volume as to annoy or disturb persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof, particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m, and 7 00 a.m., or the operation of such loudspeaker, amplifier or musical Instrument at any time on Sunday; provided, however, that the city council may make exceptions upon application when the public interest will-be served thereby; • i31 Tba blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler or the blowing of say other loud or far-reaching steam whielle within the city limits, except to give notlos of the time to begin or stop work or u a warning of danger, (4) The erection, excavation, demolition, alteration or repair work on any building at any time other than between the hours of 7:00 a.m, and 8;30 p.m., Monday through p 'Cross refervacos-Protectsd migrowry bird roots declared nuisance, 16.87; lnspr.tion ' and abatement warrants, 1 19.86 at seq.; insect and rodent control in mobile home and rec• reational vehicle parka, 132-91. i I Stapp, No ,1 1380 • G? .oz6 ~J 4 20,1 DENTON CODE fkile. Saturday; provided, however, that the city council me)- issue special permits for such work at other hours in cage of urgent necessity and In the interest of public safety and convenience; (5) The creation of any loud and excessive noise in connection with the loading or un• loading of any vehicle or the opening or destruction of bales, boxes, crates or con• tainers; , (0) The use of any drum, loudspeaker or other instrument or device for the purpose of attracting attention by the creation of noises to any performance, show, theatre, motion picture house, sale of merchandise or display which causes crowds or people to block or congregate upon the sidewalks or streets near or adjacent thereto, (Code 1900, 3fr 14.20, 1421) Cross reference-Animal noise, 1 B-20. Sec. 20.2, Odors, !al It shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any unreasonably noxious, unpleasant or strong odor which causes material distress, discomfort or Wury to persons of ordinary sensibilities in the Immediate vicinity thereof. (b) It shall be unlawful for any person to create or cause any odor, stench or smell of such character, strength or continued duration u to substantially interfere with the comfortable / enjoyment of private homes by persons of ordinary sensibilities, (c) The following acts or conditions, among others, are declared to be odor nuisances in violation of this Code, but such enumeration shLU not be deemed to be, exchtsivr 117 Offensive odors from cow lots, hog pens, fowl coops and other similar places where animals are kept or fad which disturb the comfort and repose of persons of ordinary sensibilities; (2) Offensive odors from privies and other simile.- plaoa; (3) Offensive odors from the tw or possession of chemicals or from industrial promm or activities which disturb the comfort and rtpoas of persons of ordinary senslbiilties; (4) Offensive odors hom smoke from the bursting of trash, rubbish, rubber, chemicals or other things or subiwass; • tb) Offensive odors from stagnant pools allowed to remain on any premlaes or from rotting gsJbW. refuse, offal or dead animals on any promises, (Code 1906, If 1422, 14423) Sec, 2a3. Carbalie, trash mW rubbish nnleaness-0#nerstUy, (a) Storing or haling /arba•e, trash and rubbish, The storing or kasping of any and sdl • stacks, heaps or pile of old lumber, refuse, junk, old can or maehlnary or parts thereof, • • garbage, trash, rubbish, scrap material, ruins, demolished or partly demolished structures r buildings, piles of storm, bricks or broken rocks on any premises bordering any public Supp No 1 1390 e c, 0 1 i DENTON j ~VNODOpp000 00~~ 4~ 000 00 r 00 oD r dd q 00es X40 ~'Op0 000 ~ o ~ N V, 0000 00000 oaaaoao 1 e e IC TY Co UNCIL • • DATE: June 6, 1995 CITY COUNCIL REPORT Age~~lait Date I TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM; Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Rezone .6148 acre to a General Retail (GR) zoning district from an Agriculture (A) district, RIKOMMENDATION: See attached back-up. ^zU~Q,BY~ See attached back-up. IIACKQRQIIND: See attached back-up PROGRAMS. DEPAR'T'MENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED; Property owner, adjacent owners. FISCAL IMPACT; None. Respectful) submitted: Prepared by; Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager 0. Owen Yost, Urban Planner Approved; Prank H. AI4 Director of Planning and Development AXXOOMP • ra • panda tVo 6'6S 20 ~~atltlalttxrt.,.R ~ REPORT ~t 2 I °=1 If To: Mayor and members of the City Council Case No.: Z-95-012 Nfeeting Dale: June 6, 1995 GENERAIJNFORMATION Applicant: Supertel Hospitality, Inc. Super 8 Motels i 309 N. Fifth St. Norfolk, NE 68702 (represented by Dewey & Assoc.) Current Owner: W.B. Rummell 120 Friar Tuck C. Denton, TX 76201 i Requested Action: Rezone subject site from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a j General Retail (GR) district. i Location and Size: 0.6148-acre, contiguous with an existing General Retail district, Fronts on the eastbound I-35E service road approximately 280 ft. nwlhweat of Teasley Lane, Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: • North - The right-of-way of Interstate 35-H and its frontage road South - MP-1 zoning; an apartment building and day care center East - GR zoning; a Shell gasoline station West - Undeveloped land in A zoning, • Denton Development Plant Moderate Intensity (area No. 80); 104% allocated. • d • • AgeMaNo__y5- 0 Ayendalrom,,_[r Case No, Z-95-012 Page 2 JC4 4' f SPF,CIAi7NFORMATION e Engineering & Transportation: With platting, the applicant will build a concrete sidewalk along the frontage road. The proposed driveway on the service road will eventually be shared with the property-user to the west. Drainage: Drainage from the Super-8 site is to be taken directly to the State drainage system in Teasley Lane. Landscaping: Since the site is proposed as a portion of a parking lot, at least 4% of the vehicular area will be landscaped islands, medians or peninsulas. The applicant has agreed to plant trees in such places, The Council should he aware that almost all existing trees on the site will have to be removed when the site is developed according to a preliminary site plan of the motel. A permit will be required prior to removing any protected (10"+) tree, but staff anticipates issuing such a permit. Utilities: There H a 10" sanitary sewer line, and a two water lines (8" and 16") at 1-35, that will { provide service. HISTORY The site, and abutting property to the west, has been zoned A since the city was zoned by map, in 1969, Property to the east is zoned GR by Ord, 69.8, and Ord. 78.18, NOTIFICATION All six property owners within 200 ft. were notified of tonight's public hearing. As of this writing, two responses have been received in favor of the project. ANALYSIS According to past practice, hotels/motels are assigned an "office" classification, for • intensity purposes, of 350 intensity trips per acre. Thus, the subject site requires 215.18 intensity trips (350 x .6148). • A r • t Q • AgewaNo _ E9E AgoodaltefC 4 Case No. Z-9S 7ale___Z-95-012 Page 3 The subject site is in a Moderate Activity Area, which can have up to 350 intensity trips per acre, according to the Denton Development Plan. So the intensity allocation, and the requirement of the proposal are equal; 215.18 intensity trips, Other policies of the Denton Development Plan (DDP) are also to be considered. It is the intent of the DDP to discourage strin commercial development by; limiting curb cuts, requiring site plan review, discouraging unsightly and hazardous strip commercial development through sign restrictions and landscaping. The site will feature one curb cut off the I-35 service road, to be shared with the abutting user, and reducing any traffic hazard, A site plan will be submitted in the building plan review, which must meet or exceed all city requirements. Signs and landscaping will also follow city regulations, plus the applicant has agreed to plant trees, beyond the standard requirement. RECOMMENDATION_ _ In light of the intensity being equivalent to what's allowable, the site's proximity to 1.35 and nearby retail/commercial zoning, and the proposed use as a portion of a hotel parking lot the Commission recommends approval. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve application, 2. Approve application with conditions, 3. Deny application, 4. Postpone. • ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location map, 2. Zoning map (portion). 3. Intensity area No, 80, 4. a Minutes. • 5. Draft ordinance. • • AXX0094D 0 • ca • A'."TACHMENT 1 4g9ndalte ! 5 NORTH r SITE r~ • 0 hg9dE~h?o.- ~ _ e ATTACHMENT 2 3 `I i ;n RUIN ' D-10 ,K -1 1 An 57- 1 `./AI ~ a ~ ~ .•r. 7 D-36 6mm Al fGRE VISTA Y 5 OR. PD-30 C N 1 ' 1 ( 35 % I 1 6..r..~.. ` 1 U~j Q -I F M w i. • S-4 Ie gl 0 k':.- M F 1 PD-103 1 i • a • AT ACHME;NT INTS?ISITT Ai SA • ®o SISS 437.55 Aoa IS SOUNDASL DSSOSIPTION 40640, East: Dallas Drive AgWal S Nest: MKT h TP Railroad South: I-356, Sam Bass, Londonderry, Teasley Lane. -7 ot MILL LL- rx nt Q ~ sw TM ALEGRE VISTA A S OR. i J n J Js a F' OL VIf m Lo ONOEAAT i5" lose I I ~ G" 00 l11Nf0a IfxAS i 0 i' r • P ~ • r ACYO No AW,dslte 9. _ Dte__..L--L:~_. LAND USE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 94 ILA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF DENTON Intensity area N: 8o Type: Moderate Intensity Trips/ac - - 350 Traffic survey zones; 6583 6588 6593A Boundary Description: S outh: I-35E, Sam Base, Londonderry, Teasley L.n. East: Da Ia . Date: 11/28/89 West: MKT 16sTPrRailroad LAND USE -EXISTING LAND USE - CURRENT ZONING- - PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ORY UNITS ACRES INTENSITY ACRES INTENSITY ACRES UNITS INTENSIT SF-10>16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SF-7>10 0 0 0 0 0 p 55 18.27 550 0 0 0 0 LESS SF-7 MOB.HOMES 16 7,09 0 0 0 0 0 0 DUPLEX 0 0 160 0 0 0 0 0 MF-R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MF-162 1461 126.81 11688 7.94 796 8 p COM/RET 0 130.51 84631.5 90.07 58519.5 0 0 OFFICE 0 3.01 1053.5 0 0 p INDUSTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 INSTI'NAL 0 1.38 117.3 0 0 0 0 0 PARKS 0 0.39 11.7 0 0 0 0 0 R/0/SPACE 0 2.21 0 TRANSPORT 0 60.11 0 0 0 0 0 0 AGRIC. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VACANT 0 3'~0 0 0 0 0 ___0_ 97.61 0 0 0 p TOTAL 1572 437.55 98412 97 81 59318 INTENSITY CALCULATIONS (1) Intensity area total tripe 437.55 times 350 153142 J {7.) Trips allocated to existing land uses (built) (3) Trips allocated to current zoning incl. P Ds (nat built} 51327 (4111 Trips allocated to Vacant lands not zoned plus Agric. zoning 1327 (6) Percentage unallocated intensityntripstallocated L si nus2)+(3)+(4} -5914 } ( 104 ONE THIRD RULE CALCULATIONS-' 1} Allocations for com\ratall davslo - Acres Trips pment 145.85 94803 (3) Currentgzoningaforlcom\retail land uses 130.51 • 90.03 84832 3351 (4 Total trips\acres allocated (2) + (3) 220.50 458520 48549 (5) Unallocated trips\acres -74.69 -148549 i I r 0 l e,, 0 1 +gelVaNo q5- AT^:ACHMENT 4 I' 1f n MINUTES rl~ J PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1995 Regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Denton, Texas was held on Wednesday, May 24, 1995, and began at 5:00 p,m. in the City Council Chambers, 215 E. McKinney. Present: Mike Cochran, Richard Cooper, Katie Flemming, Mary Evelyn Huey, Richard Norton, Barbara Russell, Ellen Schertz. Absent: Present from Staff: Frank Robbins, Director Planning and Development; Jerry Drake, Assistant City Attorney; Owen Yost, Urban Planner; Walter Reeves, Urban Planner; David Salmon, Senior Civil Engineer; Gerald Cosgrove, Engineering Administrator; and Chris Rodriguez, Secretary. Meeting called to order at 5:03 p.m. L Approve the minutes of the April 26, 1995 meeting, Ms. Russell: Are there any corrections? t Dr. Huey: ( move for approval of the April 26th minutes. Mr. Norton I'll second. EE Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign, Approved, (5.0) Mr. Cochran And Mr. Cooper not present yet. II. Hold a public hearing to consider the rezoning of a .6148 acre tract fr)m an Agricultural district to a General Retail (GR) district. The tract, a portion of a proposed Super 8 Motel site, fronts on the southbound I-35E frontage road, approximately 280 feet northwest of Teasley Lane, Ms. Russell read the rules of procedure for the public hearing and opened the public hearing. A Mr. Cochran and Mr. Cooper arrived at 5:09 P.M. Mr. Yost: This is a very small site adjacent to and contiguous to an existing retail center. It has frontage on the 1-35 service road and is next to the Lassiter Shell on the comer of Teasley and 1-35. The petition is to rezone the are form agricultural to general retail • ti • l ca • Aq(md.aIt P&Z Minutes May 24, 1995 Page 2 district. The site is in a moderate intensity area which is a hundred and four percent allocated. There were two replies in favor out of a total of six notices sent out. There were none opposed. This site is within the intensity cap, This is proposed to be used as a Super 8 Motel and staff does recommend approval. The proposed access for this site is a shared driveway with the property owner to the west. Ms. Russell: Are there any questions? Would the petitioner like to speak? Mr. Jim Dewey: My name is Jim Dewey with Dewey and Associates. I am representing the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Rummel and the applicant for the property which is Supertel Hospitality. They are purchasing approximately two acres from the Rummels. Only this .6148 acre tract on the west is zoned A which would not allow the motel use. The majority of the tract is currently zoned GR and we are simply requesting the GR zoning to have all of the tract under the same zoning to allow the construction of the motel. In ternis of the access they are going to have a driveway out onto the service road if approved and we are currently negotiating a shared driveway onto Teasley through the Shell Station ou the corner of Teasley and I-35. The southernmost driveway on the Shell station is the one ti:at we are going to pave up to for access. We will be submitting site plans, engineering plans, and a plat within the next week to ten days. Dr. Huey: Would you clarify the access onto Teasley for me. Mr. Dewey; The tract that they are purchasing is L shaped and is going to have a leg that goes out onto Teasley also, We are going to have a driveway access off of the service road and then one access through an existing driveway on the Shell Station, The Shell Station has two driveways onto Teasley now. We are going to pave up to the southernmost driveway so that the motel will have access through that driveway. It lines up fairly well, Ms. Russell: Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor of the petition? Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition'? We will close the public hearing, Are • there any closing comments from staff. Mr. Yost: I would just like to point out that when ibis site is developed the hill will be leveled and almost every tree on the lot will be lost. That may be a consideration later on. Dr. Huey: Does this represent a zoning cleanup for the area that was maybe left out? e • • Mr. Yost: 11 wasn't really left out consciously. II enables the Super 8 to utilize their configuration, their site plan that we see on page 31, by rezoning that half an acre. This would actually be about one quarter or less of their parking lot. • 0 0 L ~ 0 P&Z Minutes May 24, 1995 Q~ IL Page 3 U Mr. Cochran: How much elevation will they loose when owe r level the hill? Mr. Yost: About eight feet. Dr. Huey: Can you tell us about the trees that are there and the sizes. Mr. Yosc It is a wide range. There is everything there from seedlings to mature protected trees, When the applicant does come in with a site plan he will have to apply for a permit to remove those trees. We see no problem with granting that permit right now. Ms. Russell Any comments? Mr. Norton: I move that we approve the rezoning of the .6148 acre tract to general retail from agricultural as stated in case Z-95-012. Mr, Cooper: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign, Approved, (7-0) Ill, Wal-Mart/Hrinker. A 55.6 acre tract at the southwest corner of Spencer Road and Loop 288. a, 11old a public hearing and consider changing the zoning from PD 70 and Agriculture (A) to Commercial (conditioned) on a 38.4 acre tract. Ms. Russell: The public hearing is open. Mr. Reeves: This is a rezoning from PD 70 and agricultural to commercial conditioned P zoning. This property is located on the southeast corner of Spencer Road and Loop 288. This is an urban center and none of our normal intensity analysis is done for this. Urban Centers exist to concentrate commercial and retail uses. We sent out twelve notices and we received two back. I will cover the public improvements when we go over the preliminary plat. The staff is recommending approval of this request. e Mr. Norton: In reading the letter that we have received tonight, are any of these a 0 problem in the rezoning that we are doing here tonight? Mr, Reeves: I am going to defer that question to Cite Wal-Mart representative who is here • A • s eupertl,ura gendan~ 2 ATTACHMENT 5 ORDINANCE NO. } AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO GENERAL RETAIL (GR) ZONING DISTRICT CLAS- SIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR A 0,6184 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 35E, APPROXI- MATELY 300 FEET NORTHWEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH TEASLEY LANE (FM 2181); PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Supertel, Inc. has applied for a change in zoning for j a 0.6184 acre tract of land from Agricultural (A) to General Retail (GR); and WHEREAS, on May 24, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the Denton Dcvelopment Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 0.6184 acre tract of land described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated into this ordinance by refer- ence, is changed from Agricultural (A) to General Retail (GR) zoning district classification and use designation under the com- prehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, SECTION II, That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION III, That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000,00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. j ~jMION JY, That this ordinance shall become effective four- I teen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official news- paper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this ehe day of _ 199F. • • BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR • a • gendaNn.~l rd ~ ~C~,~,(~~' b1P _ „Q:.IZ...~._ J3 opq ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY i r BY: v Ii I I i j 1 • p i 1 QetldiiND ~ ~aenilaltttl Ef z LEGAL DESCRIPTION I! f-t f BEING a tract of land situated in the ALEXANDER HILL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 623, and S. C. HIRAM SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 616, In the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas, and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows; BEGINNING at a point in the South line of Interstate Highway No. 35E (formerly U. S. Highway No. 77), (200.0 feet from centerline), same point being North 74 degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds West a distance of 280.00 feet from the North end of a flare for intersection of the said South line of Interstate Highway No. 35E and the West Une of Teasley Lanes THENCE South 01 degrees 33 minutes 51 seconds West for a distance of 351.62 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 87 degrees 52 minutes 10 seconds West for a distance of 99.87 feet to a point for corner; THENCE North 09 degrees 23 minutes 41 seconds Mast for a distance of 366.80 to a point for corner In the South line of Interstate Highway No. 35E; THENCE South 74 degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds East along the said South line of interstate Highway No. 35E for a distance of 51.49 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 26,939 square feet or 0.6184 acres of land, more or less. PREPARED BY; D PR SIONAL AND £SURVEYOR NO. 1641 ~ i r { 4. 10 W, 4 • o . c> r DENTON 0000oooo~QOa ~ 0000 0 D s o00" o 000 All o c~ L 0 0 czi 1 OOC T ~ 00 c~~o 0 N, ~ X0000 , ~oaoaoa~o~ CITY COUNCIL r e • t ~ • r 4glliMaNe ° agelldali _ DATENiiiie ~09 ~17 CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: }told a public hearing and consider an ordinance to rezone 38,429 acres from the planned Development (PD-70) and Agricultural (A) zoning districts to the Commercial Conditioned (C(c)) zoning district on property located on the southeast corner of i oop 288 and Spencer Road, RECOMMEND ION: The Planting and Zoning Corninksion voted 7.0 to recommend approval of the petition. SUMMARY: See Planning and Zoning Commission Report, BACKGROUND, See Planning and Zoning Commission Report. 'ROCRAAIS, D!'Al;TMENTS QKCROU~'S AFH'TQ1 Not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT: Applicant has indicated an interest in applying for extension of a water line along Loop 288 under economic development incentive policy, whereby the city would fund this extension. • Respectfully submitted; a ee Ll yd ar-~ City Manager ..r...... W P`r~Lt1 • • VeoftNo ' 4geodal We S Prepared by: alter E. eeves, Jr. Urban Planner Approved: Frank H. Rob ins, AICP Director Planning and Development Attachment #L• Planning and Zoning Commission Report. Attachment #2: Draft Planning and Zoning Commission minnues. Attachment #3: Ordinance, • 1 0 • _ 1. 1 r ~ if rll fn ! IIF ~.lY.~ I~i • l ca e ~sndaNa'~. 5 Agetltialt~ Date Denton Planning and Zoning Commission Report J~ Case #Z-95-013 June S, 1995 GENERAL jNFOR MATL Applicant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 701 S. Walton Boulev,-:d Bentonville, Arkansas 72716 Owner: Norman Brinker 9410 Alva Court Dallas, Texas 75220 Action: Requesting rezoning from the Agricultural (A) zoning Ostrict and Planned Development (PD-70) zoning district to Commercial (Conditioned)(List of prohibited uses Attachment 4). Location: Southeast corner of Loop 288 and Spencer (Attachment 1). Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant land, commercial, light indur:trial, planned development, and agriculturally zoned land. Spencer Road and Loop 288. South: Vacant land, PD-70, East: Vacant, agriculturally zoned land. West: Loop 288, a house on light industrial zoned land. Denton Development Plan(DDP) Urban Center, Study area 1160. SPECIAL !INFORMATION Water/Wastewater At least a 12" water line will be extended along the Loop 288 frontage. ' Fire hydrant locations to be shown on prellminary plat. i • Traffic, One access to Loop 288 Driveway accoss to Spencer Road Proposed road on western property line will be constructFC as four lanes with a median to the driveway into Lot 1, where it will crossover to • two lanes to the southern end of the plat. • • Widor,ng of Loop 288 along 3/4 of frontage. Right turn lanes on the northbound side of Loop 288. ' Left turn lanes in both directions of Loop 288. 1" ~ ...r-r'w~:~iL11Yfw `In "45Y••. 1 • O ` I' f Q ~gertdaNo._ d 4gentlalte Traffic signal at intersection of unnamed 7 I~ western road and Loop 288. Drainage Two detention basins to aer;ommodate drainage. Electric Twenty fool easement along western proposed road. Twenty fool easement along Spencer Road. BACKGROUND This property is part of PD-70. PD-70 was approved by Ordinance 84-28 (3113/84), which established the property for Light Industrial uses, minus those specifically excluded by the Ordinance (Attachment 2). Wal-Mart is now proposing to rezone 36.829 acres from PD-70, and 1.6 acres from the Agricultural zoning district (38.429 total) to the Commercial (Conditioned) zoning district (Attachment 3). NOTICE Twelve (12) notifications were mailed on May 12, 1995, As of the time of this report, no replies had been received. ANALYSIS Intensity The subject property is located in an area defined as an Urban Center by the DDP. Urban centers are described as, "..,the largest centers strategically located to encourage the concentration of commercial, retail, office, light industrial and multi-family housing, These centers are intended to serve as the hub for economic activity and employment..." Chapter 3 of the DDP further identifies the purpose and intent of Urban Centers (major activity centers). The purpose of designing major activity centers is to provide a policy commilment to a specific location in order to; u 1) Ensure a commitment to the business community that activities In these areas will be supported by City Government while making a commitment to other residents that their neighborhoods and focal streets and facilities will not be disrupted by an unplanned major activity center in their neighborhood. , 2) Ensure that adequate public infrastructure to support these centers is available. Major roads, utilities and other public expenditures should be buill and encouraged in this area either • O • Q • ~gt~ldaf~o Ageadal (ale ~_,S`1~4'.. _ through Capital Improvement Programs or private funding. 3) Ensure that the long-range plan achieves balanced growth within the City. For properties located in an urban center there is no intensity analysis associated with a rezoning request, as would be involved with a rezoning in a low or moderate intensity area, Thus, urban centers can be considered as "intensity free zones." However, just because intensity and proportionate share are not factors in this request, it does not mean that other policies in the plan should not be considered. Disproportionate Share Criteria These criteria are required to be applied if a specific request is inconsistent with the general policy of proportionate allocation. As previously noted, the proportionate share allocation policy is not applicable in areas designated as urban centers. Disproportionate share analysis Involves the application of sound planning principles, and analysis of this proposal on the basis of those criteria would not be inappropriate, just not required. 1. Public Facilities. The proposal has access to water and sewer along Loop 288. Additionally, the site will have access to Loop 288, and to Spencer Road. 2. Topography, The subject property has no major topographic features that would affect development. Two drainage detention areas are shown on the general development plan, One is behind the store out to the proposed road, and the other is to the east of the proposed building. 3. Surrounding Land Use. The surrounding lane' to the south and east is vacant. To the north, across Loop 286 is a iight industrial site, a single family residence, and Denton Golf Center. To the west is vacant land • and a single family residence, in light industrial zoning, 4. Other Policies. This proposal would seem to support Policies 4, 7, 8, & 9. Policy 4. Promote the development of a stable and diversified economic base to generate increasing job • ® opportunities and a broader tax base. Policy 7. Encourage a spatial pattern of land use development which reduces the cost of public services and • Q , • • r Agenda No ...d AgendalteL oate._ ~i. Infrastructure, l7 Policy 8. Promote In-fill development within the Loop 288 corridor to secure maximum utilization of existing services and Infrastructure. Policy 9. Protection of residential neighborhoods from the Intrusion of incompatible land uses, traffic, noise, and pollution (see list of prohibited uses, Attachment 4). Summary The proposed use Is consistent with DDP urban center policy. While the disproportionate share analysis Is not required, It does support this request. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of this rezoning request ALTERNATIVES 1 Recommend another zoning district or combination of zoning districts. 2. Recommend application with additional conditions, 3. Remain with PD-70 and amend the list of uses. 4. Recommend approval 5. Postpone consideration. ATTACHMENTS 1. Location Map. 2, PD-70 list of uses. 3. Wal-Mart general development plan, 4. Proposed list of prohibited uses. • I H f • as • ndal fort 6 w.w ow y r i~ J "~I SITE I i 'Oar • YII IA ~ ~ Location xap ~E _ _,....--=s:;w err...: ~ • e ~gendaNov q.S- 2G LL Arn"megT gende al _ .s- T~_. is hereby changed from 5ingle•FamLly "SF-I" District Classifica• Lion Uce to Planned Development "FD" District Classification for Light Industrial "LI" Use under the Comprehensive Lonin66 Ordinance j of the City of Denton, Texas with the following conditlons and specifications: 1 1. The following land uses shall not be permitted in the apprrred PD: Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House Trailer Camp or Mobile Home Park Cemetery or Mausoleum Fairgrounds or Exhibit Area Half-Way House Nome for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic, or Psychlitric Patierts Private Utility Shop or Storage Yard Amusement, Commercial (outdoor) Drag Strip or Commercial Rac:.g Go-Cart Track Rodeo Gro"..nds Stable, Private Club Stable, Ccmmercial Rental Staole, Boarding ,heater, Drive-in Hauling or Storage Company ",ire Re•Treading or Capping Used Auto Parts Sales (in building) Tool or Trailer Rental Hatchery, Poultry Livestock Auction LLvestock feeding Plant, Pens or Yards Heavy '•facninery Sales and Storage Sand, Gravel or Earth Sales or Storage Storage and Sales of Furniture or Appliances Outside a Bu i; .t:.g Trailer Rental or Sales Extraction and Sale of Sand, Calithe, Stone, Clay or Gravel Petroleum Collecting or Storage Facilities Mining or Storage of Mining Wastes Asphalt or Concrete Batching Plant (permanent) Brick. Kiln or Tile Plant Dump or Sanitary fill Area Open Salvage Yard for Rags or Machinery, etc. 2. All applicable City of Denton subdLvLsion regulations arid rani development codes, building codes, and other zoning ordir.ar...i requirecents shall be observed. The ZonLng Ma? of the City of Denton, Texas, adopted the F. day of laauarv, .969, as an Appendix to the Code of Ordinances the City of Centon, Texas, under Crdinance No, 69.1, as, and t-.e j same is hereby amended to show such cnange in District CIA aa.fi- E cation and Cie subject to the above condttLons and sFaclEicati:r.5. SEC 71ON-_J I e -net the "Council , . the City of Denton, Texas, r.a f.nds that s_cr.change is in accordance with a camprer.ensiee - - for t'ne ;ur::se ~f promoting the general welfare of tte tit: ~ -enton, Texas, aid with reasonable consideration, axcng tr.'1195 ':r .r.e c.naracter of t;^,e cistr Lct and for its pecu:-ar sJitabiLLty :r P.rt LC.:Lar uses, and 'with a view co conserving -,e value of c.-.e bc.ldings, protecting !,_man Lives, and encoura;:-.i the acst apt..Pr.ate :ses of lend for tae 3axtmum `eneilt .ra e - Ce n'1.:, .exes, aid Lts cit.tens, e . r/ ~-...-^"'~........a•r"..,w... , • ~ a•"r mow. " . ~ M.... /a s 2v 2v II`E"1' " hk ai tat peer aDss . of OAK attr MANNA NIP.►l11 wrr+F1 ~9~^ ,._...~~~sa'~~o-....r-..._... ~y~ryy, to--{{v.t "Calm NAP ' 4:w (Y .l • '.1C'.i'S" ~ Il M OII} IYfhr °LI, a M I I ~ f q • .AML .Y... ` ~ ~ ~"~~_~Gi~ Jp ~NRt~ 1 \ tONp ti't.i' 1 dh'tIAPRiNT + 1~ \ ~~jt~'1y,, \ \VIP CDN~pMptNtU 'I . j twice I0 \~'IfIf17T \ 5 . ~ IYMY/Y M 411.1 1t 4QL971 10 . Di I 1~OB1 BBO B _ ~ A eK~irviuu ~ , Dae eR {NtT.PROP. N k.O.R.I 4WIRS ARM o: ie " 1 AITk 1iR.3,I k Fit It Irj~ 1 1.1 ii ~ i 130~P0 ActtB ' w~_ ~_L~ !r~ • iillfST 1 . f r _ L Yw\ r7 `r 60 II ~ K iSlTi76 I ~ ItlW0q~0k AP~~tlylylkAttD ►.Ak {.."20 in LOT I i i Pp r LULTI'm &I. o it M tERNVL 1}}1M1. w I I M GENERAL "EVECOFMENT NAN OE SNCIMELA^.-.1iRtYElA111~ BRNRP LOTS 1-4, RI.OCk t MAL-MART ADDITION YjS• "r, ,l, Yt' 1 1f1 >,n1. Hlw iB6.688 ACRES l3~tP=I' 1 F.\ Jill t\N.~'~; ,•11 r~,I 11ENTONr TEXAS h%tjpj \ r1n •''i' 1.. u/ It. IOM ' t1.: 1'.1a :~':(..y. is J~ ±•..i'. 7^"" j7 • o ! ! +gendeNO ~ 5'~.~ 4genIalteml ~ ~ ATTACHMENT 4 DISTRICT USES CASE Z-95-13 Permitted Uses; Dormitory, Boarding or Rooming House Hotel or Motel Art Gallery or Museum Church or Rectory College or University or Private School Community Center (Public) Day Camp Day Nursery or Kindergarten. School Fairground or Exhibition Area Group {-tomes Home for Care of Alcoholic, Narcotic or Psychiatric Patients Hospital (General Acute Care) Hospital (Chronic Care) Institutions of Religious or Philanthropic Nature Public Library Monastery or Convent Nursing Home or Residence Home for Aged Occasional Sales Park, Playground or Public Community Center School, Private Primary or Secondary School, Public or Denominational School, Business or Trade Accessory Building 1 Community Center (Private) j Electrical Substation j Electrical Transmission Line Temporary Field or Construction Office (approval & control by Building inspector) Fire Station or Similar Public Safety Building Gas Transmission Line and Metering Station Off Street Parking Incidental to Main Use ! Off Street Remote Parking Sewage Pumping Station Private Swimming Pool Telephone, Business Office Telephone Line and Exchange Switching or Relay Station Water Reservoir, Water Pumping Station or Well 6 Water Treatment Plant ! 0' Amusement, Commercial (Outdoor) Amusement, Commercial (Indoor) Country Club (Private) with Golf Course Dance Hall or Night Club s • sgrdaNo, 020 Ag~ndalt Public Golf Course ) t Commercial Golf Course Public Park or Playground Public Playfiefd or Stadium Rodeo Grounds Roller or Ice Skating Rink Swim or Tennis Club Theater, Other than Drive-in 'type Airport Landing Field or Heliport Bus Station or Terminal Hauling for Storage Company Motor Frdight Terminal Railroad Freight Terminal Railroad Passenger Station Railroad Track or Right-of-Way Railroad Team Track Truck Parkin,) Lot I Commercial Parking Lot or Structure Auto Laundry Auto Painting and Body Repair Auto Sale, and Repair (In Building) Gasolinr; Service Station New Auto Parts Sales Stores New or Used Car Sales Lot (In Open) Seat Cover and Muffler Installation Shop Tire Retreading or Capping Used Auto Parts Sales (In Building) Antique Shop Bakery or Confectionery Shop (Retail) Cafeteria Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pickup Custom Personal Service Shop Drapery, Needlework or Weaving Shop Florist or Garden Shop Greenhouse or Plant Nursery (Retail) • Handicraft Shop Household Appliance Service and Repair Laundry or Cleaning Self Service Mimeograph, Stationery or Letter Shop Mortuary or Funeral Parlor Offices, Professional and Administrative , Off Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wine + On Premise Sale of Boar and/or Wine Licensed Private Club Pawn Shop Restaurant • O _ • a~ • Venda No loridalt T Retail Stores and Shops-4,000 square feet or less f 2~ 17 Retail Stores and Shops-over 4,000 square feet Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist or Health Secondhand Store, Used Furniture or Rummage Sale Tool or Trailer Rental Animal Clinic or Hospital (no outside runs or pens) Farm or Ranch Greenhouse or Plant Nursery Bakery (Wholesale) Building Material Sales Cabinet and Upholstery Sales Cleaning and Dyeing Plant (Commercial) Cleaning Plant, Bags or Carpets (Special Equipment) Clothing Manufacture or Light Compounding or Fabrication Contractors Shop and Storage Yard Engine and Motor Repairing Feed Store Heavy Machinery Sales and Storage Job Printing or Newspaper Printing Laundry Plant (Commercial) Milk Depot, Dairy, or Ice Cream Plant Paint Shop Plumbing Shop Scientific or Research Laboratories Sales of Furniture or Appliance (Outside a Building) Storage or Sales Warehouse Trailer Rental or Sales Transfer, Storage and Baggage Terminal Wholesale Office and Sample Room Permitted Uses With Approved Specific Use Permit: Fraternity, Sorority, Lodge or Civic Club J Electrical Generating Plant Private Utility Shop or Storage Yard f Public Building, Shop, Yard of Local, State or Federal Government • &ewage Treatment Plant Animal Pound (Public or Private) Temporary Asphalt or Concrete Batching Plant i Mixing and Sale of Concrete b j • 0 • / i 0 O c~ 0 gendaft, {yendal leq i-j- P&Z . Minutes I)/ 7 May 24, 1995-~~ Page 3 Mr. Cochran: How much elevation will they loose when they level the hill? Mr. Yost About eight feet. l Dr. Huey: Can you tell us about the trees that are there and the sizes, Mr. Yost: It is a wide range. There is everything there from seedlings to mature protected trees. When the applicant does come in with a site plan he will have to apply for a permit to remove those trees. We see no problem with granting that permit right now. Ms. Russell: Any comments? Mr. Norton: I move that we approve the rezoning of the .6148 acre tract to general retail from agricultural as stated in case Z-95-012. Mr. Cooper: I'll second. Ms, Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign. Approved. (7-0) III. Wal-Mart/1lrinker. A 55.6 acre tract at the southwest comer of Spencer Road and Loop 288. I a. Hold a public hearing and consider changing the zoning from PD 70 and Agriculture (A) to Commercial (conditioned) on a 38.4 acre tract. Ms. Russell: The public hearing is open. Mr. Reeves: This is a rezoning from PD 70 and agricultural to commercial conditioned zoning. This property is locate, on the southeast comer of Spencer Road and Loop 288. This is an urban center and none ok our normal intensity analysis is done for this. Urban Centers exist to concentrate commercial and retail uses, We sent out twelve notices and we received two back, l will cover the public improvements when we go over the preliminary plat, The staff is recommending approval of this request. 0 Mr. Norton: In reading the letter that we have received tonight, are any of these a r problem in the rezoning that we are doing here tonight? Mr. Reeves: I am going to defer that question to the Wal-Mart representative who is here i • e ~ganQaNo 5-O 4nan /al~l~ P&Z Minutes !r I Ij CHC4 l7 May 24, 1995 Page 4 tonight. Ms, Russell: Any questions of Mr. Reeves! Dr. Huey: Who will pay for the improvements that need to he added? Mr. Reeves: Wal-Mart will be paying for most of them. There are still some details being worked out in regard to the water line, The staff recommendation is including the conditions that are in your backup as attachweni four. It is a list of uses that will not be permitted in the commercial zoning. Ms. Russell: Would the petitioner like to speak? Mr, Tom Galbraith: My name is Toni Galbraith, with Dunaway Associates, 1501 Merrimac Circle. I represent the present owner, Mr. Norman Brinker, and the proposed partial owner of the property Wal-Mart. I would like to go through the whole presentation, what the super center is, how we are laying out, why we are laying out the way we are, traffic issues, and what type of improvements will be made. Ms. Russell: That is fine but we will he voting on them separately. Mr. Galbraith: I would like to tell you what a Wal-Mart super center is, what are activities are, what is inside a store, and how we function. Basically we are proposing to construct a two hundred thousand square foot retail center. The distinction between a Wal- Mart and a Wal-Mart Super Center is simply that we the additional feature of grocery food sales within the building. In terms of percentage of how the building breaks out, roughly a hundred and foray-six thousand square feet is allocated to general merchandise which represents the type or sales that you have in your existing store. This is roughly seventy-three percent of the building area. The other plus or minus fifty-three thousand square feet, tweiity-seven percent, is the grocery area, Each one of these activities is on one side of the store across from each other. The present store has approximately ninety ' thousand square feet. What we are essentially doing is doubling the size of your existing Wal-Mail. It is not a Hypermait. Externally on the building there will be two truck docks, two compactors for refuse, and doors on either side. Once inside you can go any direction that you like. There will also be an automotive center, a garden center, and possibly a McDonalds inside. 'T'owards the entry vestibule and out in front of the check t Q out stands we can have a variety of three to four other users such as an optical facility , • • branch of a bank, photographer, hair salon. The building is basically constructed out of concrete masonry units. It is not tilt wall construction. The basic color scheme is a field of gray with blue and red tands, The building height is thirty feet in the front and twenty- ; • - 0 • c~ 0 kpldaNo Sf ~ - 4~f3ndalte lS ; P&Z Minutes May 24, 1995 Page 5 two feet in the rear. In terms of the number of parking spaces that we like to provide, for our own comfort level it is a ratio of six spaces per every thousand square feet. 'that translates to one space for every hundred and sixty-seven square feet, Most cities require a one for every two hundred square feet for general retail, We don't have any intense adjacent neighborhoods but for the record the lighting is typically a four hundred watt metal hay light Fixture that sits on a thirty-nine foot pole. The total height is forty-two feet. The hours of operation is twenty-four hours a day. The activity at night is usually minimal, Employment varies from store to store. We will probably be doubling the number of employees that you currently have. That is a brief overview of the store and how it actions. I would like to discuss the site issues now. Wal-Mart will be. purchasing Lot I, 2, 3, and 4 as noted on the GDP and the preliminary plat. The balance of this j property at Spencer and loot 288 which is about 5 acres and another 1.4 acres will be retained by Mr. Brinker. We will get some cross access through that to have access to Spencer Road The property at the back of the Wal-Mart store which consists of about 16 acres will be maintained by Mr. Brinker. In terms of traffic we do a traffic impact analysis. We recognize that we do generate a lot of traffic so we have to deal with that issue. Loop 288 is a two lane road and during the peak hours it functions at a level of service F which basically means that it is failing. The rest of the day it gets by okay but in your peak period you have a lot of commute activity that takes place to the north. We realize that it is an issue that we will have to deal with and what we have basically decided to do is to create a public road on our western side. )ssential'y what we are looking at is a bou;cvard type road that would have two lanes of traffic, basically a four lane divided, twenty-five foot back to back with a thirteen foot median. That would allow us to signalize a portion of Loop 288 which is going to be critical to the functioning of this store. We are workini) with the city and with Texas Department of Transportation in getting that signal light approved fr.r the store, The other thing that we teed to recognize that we have people that come in and out of this store and we don't want to put those activities right at the road that they are coming in and out of. We have created a long stacking or keeling drives out of the main body of the parking lot as you can see. This allows people to slack out and not have the conflicts with people coming immediately out of the parking lot while 0 people are coming off of your arterial or the collector street that we will be constructing. The depth that we need for the traffic purposes is about the same depth as for a good out lot. Also a feature that has come out of this is that the trees that are on the property we will leave alone and we not grade the area. The improvements on Loop 288 we will have a deceleration lane to the public street on the west and an acceleration lane for merging to the east, The center drive is a right in and right out only. This was done to eliminate 0 0 A conflicting left turn movements at th; center of the oroperty and allow thore to occur at the signal light. Our traffic analysis does not show a lot of activity or a desire for people to come in and out of Spencer Road. It is an existing road and we want to capitalize on it, We look for the bulk of our traffic to happen : t the public street and the center drive. • ' a • ,1+~enQal - P&Z Minutes 7 May 24, 1995 Page 6 i I would like to now talk about utilities and storm drainage, The two basics are water and sewer, Water exists on the opposite side of Loop 288 on Spencer so we would have to have water brought into the site. For future development water would he extended across the frontage of Loop 288 as well as down the public road. This provides stub outs for the remainder of Brinker's property, creates a loop system on the Wal-Mart for our fire protection, and enhances future development of the water infrastructure for the city. Sanitary sewer is brought in from the existing line on Spencer Road brought up through our property, services the building, and then picks up and runs across the face of the building and then stubs out to the two out lots there. These lots along the front will be able to sewer in to the existing sewer on the frontage of Loop 288. We haven't worked the details out to see which makes the most sense, but most likely this main that is coming into our northeast corner of the building would extend on back and stub out to the lowest point on the balance of Brinker's property so that they would have sewer service. In terms of storm drainage there is not a lot out there and we can't develop and turn the water loose. We are going to create detention ponds in the two areas in the back, The detention ponds will take the run off from the area and the water will be released at a rate that is no greater than the existing conditions for the five through the hundred year storm. The point where we would release the water is where the water naturally congregates to at this point. We are not changing the point on the adjacent property owner and we would maintain the same runoff rate. in terms of restricted uses and the letter that was received. If you will ' took some of the things on the letter we have restricted ourselves. We obviously don't want sexually oriented businesses and we restricted that along with the go cart track, drag striil. What has taken place since May 18th is that Mrs. Meyers has spoken directly the ! representative that I deal with at Wal-Mart. My understanding is [hat they have come to an agreement as to adding some of these uses with the exception of a coulit them. I What I would like to do is to make sure that [hey have an agreement and then amend my uses between P&Z and City Council. Ms. Russell: We are concerned with the zoning right now and if anyone would like to speak in favor of the petition please move to the mike. Is there anyone that would like to • speak in opposition to the petition'? Would the petitioner care to make any comments that + pertain to the zoning? We will close the public hearing. Does staff have any comments? Mr. Cochran: I move that we approve the zoning from PD 70 and agricultural to commercial with the conditions listed in Attachment 4. ® Ms. Schertz: I'll second. • Mr. Norton: Are the conditions that are attached subject to change before we vote on the , final? Are those the only conditions? 0 0 • W • agenda l0 5 agendalte f 'lly 2~ !77 P&"Z Minutes May 24, 1995 Page 7 Mr. Robbins: As I understand it from the appliccant we believe that sortie of the uses that are on this list will be deleted. Thf.re will be a couple of uses deleted after you vote on this. Mr, Reeves: The list that you ha,,e in front of you is a list of uses that are prohibited and what Mr. Galbraith is saying is that there will be a few more additions to that list of prohibited uses. You can approve this as it is and then the City Council can i!pp:ove something that is more restrictive than that. They can not approve something that is less restrictive. If they were to del -te uses from that prohibited list then It would have to come back to P&Z. Mr. Reeves: Pawn shops should not be on the prohibited list. State law prohibits the exclusion of pawn shops in a district that would allow other kinds of financial institutions. It should be removed from the prohibited use list. Mr. Norton: The applicant has indicated his willingness to work with Ms. Meyers and based on that I am ready to vote on the motion. Mr. Cochran; 1 would like to amend my motion not to include pawn shops in the list of prohibited uses. Mr. Norton: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion'? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign. Approved. (7-0) 0 • • r DENTON i ~ OF D ooo`~ o°o ~ o~ xa 1 0 c1 ~d D 00 000~~ o0 000 o N ~ ti pp~ °~aQOaoaoo°° • CITY COUNCIL No 0 • a • DATE: June G, 1995 ~AAddNG AgendaII CITY COUNCIL REPORT Q?le - lab I F, TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager j SUBJECT: Rezone 2,01)4 acres from an Agricultural zoning district to a Single-Family (SF- 7) district. I RECOMMENDATION: See attached back-up, SUMMARY: See attached back-up. BACK O ND: See attached back-up. PROOGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTCQ: Property owner, adjacent owner, I FISCAL IMPACT: None. Respectfu y submitted; / Prepared by: Lloy V, arrell, City Manager G. Owen Yost, SLA Urban Planner i • Approved: • • y , Frank H. Robbins AICP Director of Planning and Development AM04F • 0 • • i1 AAnndaNo a5 AgdoaI r REPORT data To: Mayor and members of the City Council Case No.: 7-95-009 Meeting Date: June 6, 1995 I GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Jerry and Linda Riley 812 Westway Denton, TX 76201 Current Owner; Same Requested ! ction; Rezone from an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Single-Family (SF-7) district. F Location and Size: The 2.004-acre tract is located on the northwest corner of Haggard Lane and Hinkle Drive. Surrounding Land Use and 7A7ningt North - A planned residential community of "garden homes" in PD-78. South - The right-of-way of Haggard Lane, across from which is Agricultural zoning. (However, rezoning to mixed SF and 2F is underway) Gast - The right-of-way of Hinkle Drive, across from which is PD-21; Denton Good Samaritan Village. West - Undeveloped Agricultural zoning. • Denton Development Flan: Low Intensity area No. 23 (82% allocated) ® • h i i i A • • Q • r Uganda NO . ce -4 60 Case No. Z-95'009 Date_..b _ 5 June 6, 1995 3~ } Page 2 SPECIAL INFORMATION _ Engineering & Transportation: With the plat, the applicant is dedicating right-of-way for Haggard Lane. A variance has been granted by the Commission concerning the alley having only one access point. Drainage: Negligible impact only on existing drainage patterns. Landscaping: No landscaping is required on lots with one-family homes. Utilities: There is an existing 16" water line, and 10" sanitary sewer line in Hinkle Driva. Plus, water and sewer lines are planned to be in Haggard Dr. The nearest fire hydrant is on the northwest corner of Hinkle and Haggard. I Public electric service will be underground. HISTORY The site has been zoned Agriculture since 1969, when Denton was zoned by map. However abutting land to the north was rezoned from A to PD in 1984, and land to the south (across Haggard Lane) is in the process of being rezoned from .4 to SF and 2F, NOTIFICATION, Twenty notices were mailed concerning the proposed rezoning. At this writing, four a replies have been returned in favor of the request. i ANALYSIS 0 • The Denton Development Plan pegs SF-7 intensity at 10 intensity trips per structure (only one home being allowed per lot), Given that 8 residential lots are being created, a total • 40 AgeMaiVo.. Ageatlalt#r L Case No. Z-95-009 Date June b, 1995 Page 3 of 80 intensity trips; 8 x 10, are required by this proposal. Currently, the 2.004-acre site is in a low intensity area, which is allocated 60 intensity trips per acre. That's a total of 120.24 intensity trips; 2.004 x 60. Therefore, the proposed rezoning represents a reductio of 40.24 intensity trips; 120.24 - 80. RECOMMENDATION In view of the reduction in intensity trips, the Commission recommends approval of die zoning ch ,age. ALTERNATIVES 1. Approve application, 2. Approve application with conditions. 3, Deny application. 4. Postpone. ATTACHMENTS L Location map, 2. Draft ordinance. 3. Intensity area No. 23, (2 pages) 4, P&Z minutes. A Axx00B5( 1 • • O' F 0 0 • • pgenMaNo.q -D20 ATTACHMENT i ggeodalterr~ G wto_._ b--k-3-5 gcb 1c' NORTH LL~ Q Jl iariwt it- P4140 ra r,. > T 1 M M r) AO SITE n~ ~J F1 ~I~- ~i(NJ\ n L!■ ll nr ~ 1 1 1 boeatiea Mai s • ar, • 111eyOrd 4QtnM1a Mo Agend2N , ATTACHMENT 2 icy ORDINANCE NO, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL (A) TO SINGLE FAMILY - 7 (SF-7) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION FOR A 2.004 ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HINKLE DRIVE AND HAGGARD LANE; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Jerry and Linda Riley have applied fox a change in zoning for a 2.004 acre tract of land from Agricultural (A) to Single Family - 7 (SF-7); and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the requested change in zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the change in zoning will be in compliance with the Denton Development Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HERESY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. That the zoning district classification and use designation of the 2.004 acre tract of land described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated into this ordinance by reference, is changed from Agricultural (A) to Single Family - 7 (SF-7) zoning district classification and use designation under the comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas. ULTION II. That the City's official zoning map is amended to show the change in zoning district classification. SECTION L_X.L, That any person violating any provision of this 1 ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding $2,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense. =ION I • That this ordinance shall become effective four- teen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary • is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official news- paper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1995, 9O CASTLE9ERRY, MAYOR y 0 0 • • ag$l* No q 95 ,Q Z Ap rdel _-67: ` . . lc~ j ; ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY -T lx~ i { • .M • 4tl • i 4ut d r>. ~gendaNo Q 5-C~Zo 4Qe1111a1 ~ ` J DESCRIPTION OF TRACT: All that certain tract or parcel of land situated In the R. Beaumont Survey, Ah. 31, Denton County, Texas, and being part of a certain 40.0 acre tract of land conveyed by E. 0. Gasperson at ux to Ernest Pierce by deed dated May 15, 1946 and recorded In Vol. 325, Page 355, Deed Records of said County, being the samo tract deeded by D. B. Latimore to W. Roy Haggard on Dec. 2, 1949, and recorded in Vol. 383, Page 495, Deed Records of said County and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a steel pin at the existing Southeast corner on the West line of Hinkle Drive at a point 33.9 feet West of the original Southeast comer of said 40.0 acre tract; THENCE along the said South boundary line of the Pierce 40.0 acre tract N. 88° 30' W., 402.0 feet to steel pin for comer; THENCE North I ° 30.0'E. parallel with the Eastern boundary line of said Pierce tract, 207.9 feet to a corner; THENCE South 88° 30' E. parallel with the most Northem South boundary line of said Pierce tract, 402.0 feu to the most Eastern East boundary line; THENCE South l° 30' W. 207.9 feu to the place of beginning and containing in all 2.004 acres of land. • s AAA0326H i .1 • c~ • ATTACHMENT 3 TNT/MITT ARIA 0 23 618.35 AcRRI ROUNDAAY DYSCRIPTION I I 1 ~ Ecst Highway 77, Bolivar, Headlee Street, and Carroll Boulevard f Nest: Bonnie Brae No It n; Windsor Drive searh: North property line of commercial and retail uses on the north side of University Drive r 3(I Oil \ i ~ I Ili-~I f • I~ / IJ111~14J ~ i s' ~111d. I Wit:: =1 + I~ N • • f _ _ ~ 0 1000 2000 = ► JL~ y ~ lr 1 f ~Il~w I I f ~ _ . NTY MWNYpM• tfRAS -8. Benda o. ;gendal CT? • o • 4a • "*NO agel)da1 `s` LAND USE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION S We YSTEM fQ c)f PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF DENTON Intensity area 11: 23 ow Intensity Trips/ea 60 Traffic survey survey zones: 6680: L66020 6684 Boundary Description: North: Windsor Drive Southi Oats: 02 15 95 / / East: Hwy of co. Blvd. West: Bonnie Brae LAND USE EXISTING LAND USE CATEGORY UNITS ACRES INTENSITY ACRES CURRENT ACREUNITS LINTTENSIT SF-16 < 34 21.46 340 SF-10>16 616 216.19 6160 5994 17892 0 0 - 0 SF-7>10 117 25.57 1170 0 0 0 0 0 LESS SF-7 4 0.1 0 0 0 MOB. NOW S 0 0 40 0 0 2.17 16 160 :~PLEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 7.43 470 6,86 548.8 0 MF-R 6 0.66 48 11.64 1164 0 0 MP-1&2 0 0 0 0 0 CON/RL'T 0 0 0 7.5 1500 0 0 0 8.79 5713.5 0 OFFICE INDUSTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TI'NAL 0 0 0 0 5 0 41.16 J498.6 6 U O 9.99 ['AAXS 0 129.19 3875.7 0 819.15 R/0/SPACE 0 18.3 0 0 0 PRANSPORT 0 0 0 0 0 0 11.12 p AGRIC, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VACANT 0 0 73.57 0 0 0 0 -0_ 148.32 0 0 - ----------------o-TOTAL 824 620.3 15602 134.1 ""1009 - 9501 12.16 16 1005 INTENSITY CALCULATIONS (1) Intensity area total trips 620.3 times (2) Trips allocated to existing land uses (built) 60 37218 (3) Trips allocated to current zoning incl. P Ds 15602 (4) Trips allocated to vacant lands not zoned plusnAgric. zoning 14414 (5) Estimated unallocated Intensity trips 1)minus 2 + 3 + (6) Percentage of intensity trips allocated ( ) ( ) 6692 - --------"82 • i I 1V. c~ 0 VsWaNo 1~1e ; , S P&Z Minutes ATTACHMENT 4 f, b May 10, 1995 Page 15 1 r b. Variances. 1. Variance to allow a one entrance alley. 2. Variance to downgrade Haggard Lane from a collector street to a local street. Mr, Salmon: Jerry and Linda Riley are the owners of 2.004 acres of property at Hinkle and Haggard Lane. They have requested variances of Section 34-114, paragraph 12, concerning alleys or the code of ordinances and also Section 34-114, Appendix A of the pavement and right-of-way widths. Both of these variances are based on the topography of the property and so they have to meet the five criteria that are in our Subdivision Regulations in Section 34-6. Basically granting the variance would not be detrimental to public safety or health, the conditions upon which the request is based are unique to the property and not generally applicable to other properties. Because of the particular surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions there would be a particular hardship if the ordinance was followed. The variance will not in any manner vary a provision of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, or any of the city's master plans and that if there is an unusual topographical situation that it is not something that was created by the owner. We will cover variance number one first concerning alleys. The subject section of the subdivision ordinance requires that all alleys have at least two entrances. In this case the applicant has laid out the subdivision with an alley on the lots that face Hinkle Drive and there will he only one entrance to the alley off of Haggard Lane. In this instance staff is recommending approval of this variance because we do feel that it meets all five criteria, Number one we feel that it will not be detrimental to public safety, health, or welfare :vainly because the alley is really only capable of serving six lots and will probably only serve three of the lots. The applicant has told me that this is solely for the three houses facing Hinkle Drive. With only three houses being served 1 off of this alley we don't feel that one entrance is going to be a severe detriment. The variance is based on conditions that are unique to the property. The property is narrow and long. It has a narrow frontage along Hinkle Drive. Also bath Haggard Lane and Hinkle Drive are collector streets. Our subdivision ordinances require that single family residential lots on a collector street have an alternate type of access, either some type of frontage road or possibly an alley. The shape of this property was not created by the owner, it has been in this particular configuration for many years. The owners have no control over the street classifications. On variance number two this is the street classification variance, currently on the city's collector street mop. o r ~ Mr. Robbins: David just a minute. Madam Chair would like us to move on to that variance or do you want to consider them separately? 0 w • A~enctaHo. G5-0,W t I►e , P&Z Minutes II J! 1 ~Ob 1 May 10, 1995 Page 16 Ms. Russell: Let's vote on the first variance. Mr. Cochran: The only problem though is that number one is contingent upon what happens on number two. As far as making a decision there is information in number two that will help us make a decision on number one. Ms. Schertz: You indicated that the public utility and the alley would probably serve Lot 1-3. My question is that if I bought Lot 4 and I didn't want to put a long driveway to (laggard Lane I would put my garage facing the alley to save money. Is that possible? Mr. Salmon: 11 depends on whether the homes on Haggard Lane are going to be front entry or rear entry homes. i Ms, Schertz: But we are told that he is not going to tell people what to do, f It Mr. Salmon: You are right, It is conceivable that someone could come in on Lot 4 and build a rear entry home and use the alley, Ms. Schertz: So we have another lot that could possibly use the alley, I would also like to know what the purpose behind the purchase of Lot 611 is, because I am seeing the same thing here in that they could also access the alley, I just want to point out to the Commission that the alley could be used by more than just lots 1-3. Mr. Salmon: Right, in actuality there are two more lots that could possibly use it. If you really wanted to stretch it you could also say that Lot 7 could use the alley because it has some frontage on the alley. It is pretty reasonable that five lots could be using this alley. Mr. Cooper: Are there some construction standards that have to be adhered to on that'? • Mr. Salmon: Yes the city doe:, have minimum standards for alleys. The developer builds the alley. Sixteen feet is the minimum easement requirement for an alley. The pavement width can be as narrow as twelve feet wide which is basically wide enough for one car. Mr. Norton: Are Lies 6 & 7 already constructed with front driveways? o • • Mr. Salmon: Right, Lots 6 and 7 in Meadow Ridge have houses already. The owner of Lot 6 is purchasing that back piece that is being replatted for some purpose. Lot 7 already has a house on it with a driveway that goes to the front so it is not very likely 4I) • M ~endaNo_ lgeniialtem P&Z Minutes l I tj _;t-_,I7~1 S May 10, 1995 J ! Page 17 1 1 that they would want a driveway in their backyard. J Mr. Cochran: We require alleys with two entries. What is the rationale for asking us to waive that requirement? i Mr. Salmon: When we think of alleys we think of large subdivisions where you have a lot of lots feeding off of an alley. These alleys can be as narrow as twelve feet wide, and if you had an accident or someone blocked the alley there would be another way out. Mr, Drake: Also along those fines do you happen to know what the fire lane standards are? Would it be possible to have a fire lane in the alley to prevent people from J parking? i Mr. Salmon: Typically alleys are not striped as fire lanes, Obviously all of these will he single family homes and would be served from the street like any other single family home would be in the event of a fire. 1 Dr. Huey: Is the primary reason for this alley to provide a driveway access from the back for Lols 1-3? f i Mr. Salmon: Thal is correct. Our ordinance will not allow them to have driveways on Hinkle Drive without having a variance and so the applicant has chosen to use an alley instead of applying for driveway variances. Mr. Salmon: The alley will be about one hundred and eighty feet long. Ms. Russell: Arc there any other questions on this variance? Shall we proceed to the next variance? Mr. Salmon: city's next variance is concerning the street classification of Haggard Lane. Currently the city's collector street map shows Haggard Lane to be a collector street. fi • Haggard Lane does not currently meet up with Auburn Lane because Cooper Creek cuts through the middle and there is no bridge. If it remains a collector street than at some point in time either a developer or the city would install some sort of crossing there and then it would be a through street, The applicant has asked that we downgrade Haggard Lane to a focal street. Currently it is an unpaved lane approximately twenty feet wide. It dead ends at its west end at Cooper Creek. This variance needs to meet the five criteria that we have been talking about, Staff is recommending approval of this variance. We feel that it does meet the five criteria. Downgrading Haggard Lane to a local street will have no effect on public safety. As a matter of fact as you can see by • c • We P&Z Minutes May 10, 1995 vb f Page 18 some of the letters that we received most of the residents that have responded have indicated that they do not want it to connect through especially on the Auburn side because of the increased traffic. So actually by not having this be a collector street you would probably be providing more safety to residents that actually live right on Haggard f and Auburn. Again the conditions upon which the variance is based is due to the unique physical circumstances. Extending Haggard lane involves crossing Cooper Creek with a bridge. 'T'hat bridge due to Federal Regulations would have to be large enough to span the one hundred year floodway, so whoever ends up building that bridge is going to have a fairly large expense, I am guessing that the bridge would have to be in the range of fifty to a hundred feet long. The fact that this is a federally regulated floodway makes it a little more expensive because we have to make sure that we don't cause any water blockage during a hundred year storm. Ms. Schertz: On what you are discussing then in order to get to the property that would be against this bridge should one be built. If there is not a bridge built then the area that we are talking about is easily accessible from University Drive, is that what a developer would do? Mr. Salmon: If you look at page sixty-eight in your backup you can see that the area is really well accessed from University Drive. The neighborhood on th; other side is pretty well established, the atmosphere is already there, most of the people that live on Auburn have been there awhile. By putting in a bridge and extending the street all the way through you would be significantly changing the atmosphere of an area where people are happy, This tract is long and narrow and if this street remains a collector street the applicant is required to dedicate thirty feet of right of way from the center line as 1 opposed to twenty-five feet. That has a significant effect on how he would lay out his lots because currently the property is just wido enough for three single family lots facing Hinkle Drive, If we reduce the width of his property by another five feet he would only 1 be able to have two lots facing Hinkle Drive because the Zoning Ordinance requires that he have at least sixty foot lot width on SF-7 zoning. Granting this variance is contrary • to the city's collector street map. However, unlike our thoroughfare plan the collector street map was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission and not the City Council. So the Planning and Zoning Commission does have the authority to change the collector street map. It does not have to go to City Council. Because staff is recommending this variance, staff would also recommend that the Planning and Zoning Commission change the status of Haggard and Auburn Lane to a local status as oppo,t;d ® to a collector street status. The size and shape of this property and the street classific- • ations that we have in place currently are not the results of anything that the current owner has done. ca 0 s "WaNo ' nAendaltenZ_ P&Z Minutes !$C4 May 10, 1995 _ Page 19 Dr, Huey: What you are recommending is to change Haggard to a local street and Auburn too? Mr. Salmon: Yes we believe that makes tense. Collector streets are normally streets that lead from a neighborhood out to a major street. If we just downgraded Haggard then Auburn which is a collector street wouldn't go anywhere. It would just run inbetween local streets. There would be no need to have a collector street there. There will be no reason for Auburn to be a collector street if we downgrade Haggard. Ms. Flemming: The notices that you sent out, they were all in agreement to downgrade Haggard and Auburn? You didn't receive any objections? Mr. Salmon: That is correct. Three different people sent out notices and I know that for the ones that I sent 1 received positive responses about downgrading the street. I believe that the applicant polled all of the people who own property on Haggard Lane and they were all in agreement. The Planning Department sent out several notices to the surrounding neighborhood and we received no replies from that mailing. Mr. Cochran: Did you send them to people on Greenbriar and Tulane? They will ultimately he the ones that will be more affected by this decision than anybody else. I would suspect that they did not have any idea of the implications of this. Mr. Salmon: They were sent notices. Mr. Cochran: 1 would be curious to see how that was worded because that is a fairly big deal. EEj Ms. Schertz: At the bottom of Haggard Lane, you make a note on page fifty-three that says south right of way of Haggard Lane across from which is agricultural zoning. (However, rezoning to mixed SF and 2F is underway.) Could you please tell us what is underway for the development, Also Haggard Lane is a dirt road right now, does staff foresee it remaining a dirt road, or because we have development now on both sides of the street does the city en in and pave it? flow is that handled? Mr. Salmon: Currently Haggard lane is not a public street but in order to have lots fronting on it Haggard will have to be dedicated as a public street, Which means that ® the developer will have to pave it. In this case Mr. Riley would be required to pave his o • half of Haggard Lane. The developer on the south side would pave their half. Under normal circumstances you have to pave a minimum of twenty-four feet because that is what you need for two cars, In this instance I believe that Mr. Riley and the Mr. I o O s c~ • tgtlrrdaNo 9' '62a 4gendaltem - R-W A:2, P&'L Minutes May 10, 1995 Page 20 Muenks are working out an agreement where they will split the cost of the street. The street will either be forty-one feet wide if it remains a collector street or it will be thirty- one feet wide if it is a local street. Mr. Cochran: May 1 suggest that we do this in reverse order. As I look at the map and I look at Haggard Lane, the idea of providing outlets for this very densely packed neighborl'ood onto arterioles seems like a reasonable proposal to me, By closing off Haggard l-.as , I feel like we would be doing a couple of things. The first is that there is a lot of tratfic that goes on Greenbriar and Tulane to get over to that same area. It seems to me that the only advantage that we can come up with for downgrading Haggard J I,zne is to allow the applicant to have another lot on his property. I feel that Haggard Lane is a good place for a collector street to be because you have so many people in this area traveling back and forth. By having Greenbriar take over the burden for what Haggard Lane would have relieved, we are doing a disservice to the neighborhood by no! following our plan. I am opposed to doing this for reasons that it will only benefit one individual versus an entire neighborhood. I am sure that the people on Auburn and Haggard have gotten comfortable with the idea of not having; through traffic there but having more places to exit their r^ighborhood would essentially loosen up some of the strain that is on the other streets. Dr. Huey; I would have a problem of voting it favor of the proposal for different reasons. LLaggard Lane is not a through street now and I don't think that changing it will make significant traffic differences but I seriously question whether this meets criteria number five. The shape of these lots and the relationship of the streets are certainly caused by this or some other owner's action. i don't think that it meets that criteria, I think that legally we cannot vote for it. Mr. Norton: We have collector streets for specific reasons. The traftle flow in this neighborhood is not east to west, it is north to south, That collector street closing will not affect the north to south traffic. Therefore, I do not agree with the conclusion that you have come to, 1 think that it has been established that this street is not a collector street even though it is designated that way and it is not likely to become one. Ms. Schell Will the bridge ever be put up and will there be a need for it? If the bridge goes up then I am leaning toward Haggard Lane staying a collector street. Realistically the bridge is probably not going to be put up and if the property to the west g is already developed and everyone is happy then these new developments may not make i ! a need for a collector street. Mr. Salmon: Because of the expense for installing a bridge there and the small amount t wr3trdaNo / S'tV tgendaltotn- C?. ~M P&Z Minutes May 10, 1995 Page 21 of undeveloped property that is not city owned it is not very likely that a developer would build a bridge because it would not be a reasonable requirement for them to do. The city at some point in time through its capital improvements process could put a bridge there if the neighborhood wanted it. Ms. Russell: Mr. Salmon was North University Place developed about 1955 to 19607 With the number of people that the development impacted then and there was never a need to put that bridge across, with what is being proposed on Haggard Lane it is unlikely that it would warrant a bridge being put in now. Mr. Salmon: To look at the development that we are looking at this evening, those people that have frontage on or use Haggard Lane, even if the street went through, the greatest percentage of them would go out onto Hinkle as opposed to going back through f the neighborhood. I don't think that you are going to generate a lot of traffic with this development and certainly not enough in a westward dirrction to require them to build a bridge to go across the creek, .I Ms. Flemming: I don't see how seven additional residents in an already established area can cr ate that much more traffic, f Mr. Cooper: If this were to be reclassified what happens at the point where it ends at the creek? Would there have to he a turnaround? Mr. Salmon: Whoever develops the parcel at the end would have a turnaround requirement. Mr. Robbins: It seems to me that part of the decision is whether the road will ever he built and the decision before the Commission is how wide the road should be and not whether the road should go across the creek or not, The issue is width end so collector streets have a required width and that is the issue from which the variance is requested. • 1vlr. Salmon: That is correct except that if you build it at thirty-one feet then it can't be a collector and you have effectively changed it to a local street which means that it probably won't cross the creek. You might keep in mind that if variance two is not approved then the applicant's layout for the subdivision will not meet the subdivision regulations because he would be required to have an alternate access for the lots on 0 I~ Haggard Lane. Mr, Cochran: 1 would be prepared to make a motion to deny this request for a variance on item number two to downgrade Haggard Lane from a collector street to a local street, O ,I • ACeNSNO.a5 C AgOldall 9~ Hate___= r ;g- P&Z Minutes Q(j! May 10, 1995 Page 22 Dr. Huey: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign. Denied. (2.5) Ms. Flemming, Mr. Norton, Ms. Russell, Ms. Schertz, Mr. Cooper opposed. Mr. Norton: I move for approval of both variances as recommended by staff. Ms. Flemming: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Does everyone "eel comfortable combining those? Hearing no objections is there any discussion? All n favor please raise your right hand, All opposed same sign. Approved. (5-2) Mr. C -)chran and Dr. Huey opposed. I Dr. Huey: Before we proceed I would like to request staff to look at and to report to us the meaning and the significance of criteria number five. We have repeatedly taken actions that I perceive to be absolute violations of that requirement. If it is no meaning then I think we need to consider recommending its deletion. If it is to have meaning then I think we need to follow it. Mr. Salmon: We can certainly follow up with something more formal but my understanding of that criteria is for example say someone applied for a variance of a sidewalk and they said that it would not be reasonable for them to build a sidewalk because of a big been in the way, The applicant is the one that built the berm and this is the type of situation that I think this criteria addresses. If you take that criteria literally and go back in time then you are probably going to find somebody that put that street in way back when. Obviously it has something to do with the previous owner but l don't think that criteria was meant to mean that because some person inadvertently did something that ~,~as in accordance with the regulations fifty years ago that it would cause us to deny something today. We are just trying to use a little bit of reasonableness in • interpreting that. Obviously someone at sometime determined the shape of this property but it wasn't this owner, it wasn't the previous owner, it probably wasn't even the owner before that was probably someone thirty to forty years ago. c. Hold a public hearing to consider the preliminary replat of Lot 6, Block 1 of the Meadow Ridge Addition, and unplatted land into Lot 6R. Ms. Russell opened the pubic hearing. Mr. Yost: The total acreage of Lot 611 is around .18 acres, The reason for the I m ca e r a i DENTON ~~,Voouu 00 o L) 00 O 0 0 Q G . a o I O 655 000 r < o~QO°N ~spoo 060 w E CITY COUNCIL r c a AgondaIIetTL 7t DATE: June 6, 1995 We al) (2) CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council PROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Variance to Section 34-124, subsection f, paragraph 3 (drainage) for the proposed Diamond H Ranch. RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends approval, with the condition that an adequate easement he dedicated for surface drainage. 'F SUMMARY: Roger and Connie Renner, owners of 4l+ acres of land on the south side of Jim Christal Road across from the intersection of Egan Road have applied for a variance of section 34-124, subsection f, paragraph 3 of the Code of Ordinances concerning drainage design standards. The Hennens propose to construct a home on the lot and raise cattle, The lot has approximately 1,100 feet of frontage on Jim Christal Road which is inside the city limits and is maintained by the City. All of the Hermen's property is within the city limits. The flermen's purcha;•ed their property approxim, tely one year ago from Mr. John Porter who divided this property from the remainder of his property without the benefit of platting. : in(,e that time, Mr. Porter has processed a general development plan for the remainder of his property. BACKGROUND: Section 34-124 (f) (3) requires underground pipe systems for drainage systems that carry an amount of water that would fit into a 48 inch pipe or less at natural ground slope. The applicants have a shallow undefincd drainage swale near the southeast corner of their property flowing from e? t to west. The applicants feel that Installing a pipe system in this area at an estimated cost of $16,600 Is not a proportion to the need for drainage improvements created by this development, The applicants instead w propose to dedicate a drainage casement in this area wide enough to carry a 100 year storm. i r 0 • • ~txtdanu C~ 4gtlttdalt tote The Commission recommends a variance of the requirement for underground storm lQ drainage be approved with the condition that the above mentioned easement be dedicated. The construction of a home and possibly some out buildings on 41 + acres will have a negligible effect on drainage. The proposed casement will ensure that no structures are placed in that area needed for drainage and will provide a location to install improvements when needed in the future. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Property owner, drainage regulations. i FISCAL IMPACT: None. Respectfully submitted; i Prepared by; 1,10 d V. Harrell, City Manager G. Owen Yos , SLA Urban Plattner Approved: • rank H, Robbi s AICP Director of Planning and Development Axxooa}3 r • r 49MND s'd Ageedal 5 oats _-q Q1=tACI1MENTS• f Q 1. Location map. 2, Preliminary plat. 3. Variance request. 4. P&Z minutes, AXXOOM3 i I 0 . 1 a .e ,o+A ,}gal • • ADeN,a No COLE P. ATTACBMFNT 1 b b _a bate_ 4 1 u ~d NORTH i SITE l y F \ r t ,tr I ' ~ \ r ~ ~I I 1"atiea Iwo •,~n nC; vt: • ca • • Vol 3071, A Ne 4 Pr.a a aylnnlly ACLt1D-i IIPN'{fY m Vol 4 / INI~ AV p / / - f a ell Awl i Il 1M /Andrrw Slrlrklnnd I~-A ELAN ROAD l' P H A S E\ 1 sf"rose H FFF I I P A'S'E i" ! 1 lw.l'>"io""' I~I A NMN p„ INI~ \ to - Drainage Easement 11 !1 Ll/ ~ . Mark Cardmor 9,140064m $1110kit ~p *WW"V p AS bnJ Aw auMen Morris t!} M* Mrnsy lbleA pf.y _ (1 Of -fe1T! L • PRt;LIMlNARY N1,A7 alr11e7s 011 0 ~/v / AN r.nA As N~ t n r 1. a t o f. R A 1 DIAMOND H RANCItHIB 11EM NEDkIEEO 41 n Gibson Af~rrss Sufr*vY,~Abstract Ho. 8431w7IIM + 0 R R t R S MY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, nVOW. ROGER D. and CONNIE L. NENNEN EM3+ArRR/arnrvrrnt 0403 Cborry J&m CNYn1A rofn re003 TIPTON IINOWtk MANU. me f.OLAr10N YAd 72 Is* aN lM Ow . fwN C p,yy. 7w» 77"1 _..........-~r.., • • w.... rte. r.v - i { { • ca • i ATTACHMENT 3 ApeNdaNO, r Ap*111 CITY OF DENTON ulre hll-_ y APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE C~ ~tQ OF SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REQDLATIONs Name of proposed plat ~tRrv_ p~Nn _,,II From what article of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations are you requesting a variance? Petitioner ROQ(r Awb Oonn, e ~(nna , I Tel74pbona 7 3at 68 y Address a~l0,3 h e.rry cn City/State/zip ~pr ]-K 76 O S' / Land Ovner _ h n~ e Address City/state/zip Date ~~-"~~----,.__Fee Paid v Petitioner must provide the rationale for the variance using the following five criteria, (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- perty; • (2) The conditions upon which the re are unique to the property for which the varian eCeis ssought and are not applicable generally to other property; (3) Because of the particular topographical conditions of the specificrproperty$invo ved,oa 0 particular hardship to the owner would result, as • • distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations is carried out; Z, 3 r • sgenda No Variance Application Continued Agendal Page 2 ID (4) The variance will not Zoning ordinance, in any manner vary the provisions of the Studies, Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the owneros or any prior owner0s action or omission, or, Tf the variance is of-way dedi ation,fdrainage a imirovementroad construction, right- and/or dedication to the public), the impositionpof any development exaction pursuant to these regulations l benefit to the property owner or ( ) exceeds any reasonable constitute confiscation of the tract bein is so excessive as to g platted. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered after recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city 1 council. ROTef ReV49gt must include the following; I. Completed application (one per variance), II, $175.00 fee. III. Copy of proposed plat and location map, f i Si~na ure of Applicant ~11 SJ Date 1 • e , • • ~y • • ~5 ~;11,°~}t.~r~~4Rr,r;r~,~rr~~'~}.1ti:.i°•~.X ~'~~"i~3jl ~?i~r,~v . • AgendaNo 5''-Q~-C'~ Ageedal [ate- 0 GlA Qu a- r~u~,c~►.c~ -Q CA~a ez i OAol_ Ou~ r. ~ ~ 1 ti' t I l r tl i • • r P&Z Minutes May 24, 1995 veptlaNo Page 18 Agantlaltem [;ale V. Consider the revised Diamond H Ranch and the Porter addition GDP. The 140.2 acre tract is located on the south side of Jim Christal Road, immediately east of Hickory Creek. a. Consider a perimeter street and sidewalk variance. b. Consider a drainage variance. Mr. Salmon: You have reviewed these variances at April 26th meeting and you did approve full variances on all three items. The plat that you looked at before was one lot on forty-one acres. Lverything seemed like it was going to be okay and then the applicant discovered through his title company that he was not going to he able to get title insurance for his loan with the property being put together in one lot this way. As we explained last time the applicant purchased this forty-one acres at three separate times in three separate pieces. One piece they bought outright, the second piece they bought is owner financed, and the tKrd piece that they bought is financed with the bank. They have three different financing scenarios and three different pieces of property. Our first thought was to plat it in three lots again. Unfortunately one of the tracts that was purchased does not have any street frontage and our ordinances will not allow a lot to be platted without any street frontage. Therefore, we suggested that he plat it as one lot but to divide the lot into three different phases, The phase lines will coincide with the way that he purchased the property so that it will satisfy his title company. Because we have a different plat we have to reconsider the variances. Last time the variances were granted. We are going to recommend that the applicant put in fifty-four hundred dollars for improvements in lieu of perimeter street paving and sidewalks. We do recommend that they receive a complete variance for the underground drainage requirement, These are based on reasonable need of the development, Mr. Norton; Actually we have a little more protection in case something does develop on this property with it being platted in phases. Don't we? • Mr. Salmon: Yes, because if the applicant or any future buyer decides that they want to build anything on any of the other pieces of property that are not going to be final platted they are going to have to conic back and visit with us again. Mr. Cochran; What did we do with the fifty-four hundred dollars last time? 8 Mr. Salmon; You recommend to Council that they receive a complete variance on all three • • items. Ms. Russell: So if it wasn't for the title company we would not even be talking about it I O 0 1 • • P&Z Minutes 11~ lli'1 TAI May 24, 1995 s. Page 19 VOWO No. 4gendal Date _-I " ry now? lCf Mr. Salmon: That is correct. I Ms. Russell So we can reaffirm what we have already done? Mr. Salmon: That is correct, you can certainly do that. Mr, Norton: I move that we reaffirm the three variances that we have already granted in the prior meeting. Mr. Cochran: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise right hand. All opposed same sign, Approved. (7-0) i i I I; { , 0 1r _ tp ;Y i; DENTON a ooVooo oapappo O~0 o D ppp 00 Op O00 o p° ~ d p 000 `OD 0ppoo'~ pT pa o N ~ ~ ~OOp f 00 o o6000 00 X IC TS COUNCIL 0 0 r • • DATE: June 6, 1195 VWQ N0. r S 8 CITY COUNCIL_ REPORT 1111P. TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Variances to Section 34-114, paragraph 5 (perimeter paving) and paragraph 17 (sidewalks) for the proposed Diamond H Ranch. I RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommends a total variance of paving and sidewalk costs. SUMMARY: Roger and Connie Hennen, owners of 41 + acres of land on the south side of Jim Christal Road across from the intersection of Egan Road have appli:d for a variance of section 34-114, paragraph 5 and 17 of the Code of Ordinances concerning perimeter paving and sidewalks. The Jlennens propose to construct a home on the lot and raise cattle. The lot has approximately 1,100 feel of frontage on Jim Christal Road which is inside the city limits and is maintained by the City. All of the Hennen's property is within the city limits. The Hennen's purchased their property approximately one year ago from Mr. John Porter who divided this property from the remainder of his property without the benefit of platting. Since that time, Mr. Porter has processed a general development plan for the remainder of his property. 13ACKGROUND: Section 34-114 requires that any development on the perimeter of an unimproved street shall dedicate right-of-way and improve or reconstruct the street to City standards, • With approximately 1,100 feet of frontage, the cost of these improvements would be approximately $66,000. Section 34-114 also requires that the development shall install sidewalks along the frontage of the property. This cost would be approximately $11,000, The Commission feels that these costs are excessive considering the type of development being proposed, Staff recommended that $5,400 • • d worth of street improvements be installed to offset the traffic generated by tI,k lot. T his is approximately what it costs to provide paving and sidewalks for an average lot with 60 feet of frontage. A d • ger+daivo wdaltK >Nif ~-Gt--6 b P&Z amended the General Development Plan (attachment 4) to require that later _s developers be responsible for perimeter paving and sidewalks along the Hennen's Jim Christal frontage. 1 PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFF QTED; Property owners, seller, sidewalk and paving regulations, FISCAL IMPACT: None. Respectfully submitted: Prepared by: Lloyd V, Harrell, City Manager V G. Owen Yost, ASLA Urban Planner 1 f Approved: Frank H. Robbins AICP • Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENTS; • 1. Location map, ' • O' 2, Preliminary plat. 3, Variance request. 4. GDP. AXXW854 O 0 • a, • ~gertdaNo. -4 ~genda~ S ATTACHMENT 1 L13i8„ F 3ad1b NORTH SITE _ IM CIM!_S t~ ~ / I ~ I s! ~ I ~ I 7 l ~ e . r 1 Y ~eoattea Ky 5 i~ • 0 7 e • 7oAn M Portrr Vol. J071, y. i<1~ ' Phcs W g,ylnnlnj AK ACLVl1-D •:l HlPt 17' wtrwt "In 00 O~/ ~1•'s IMI~MNWMMI ~ l// / i / q`_...-_ q~_ 650.._ - 640 /1100 ' p RA5E ! .f K / / , rap' ~ ~ 14 C141 . ►M„ '""a % ; " ~ l „rte..--T I f 1 J f1 / 1 A~ AnArrr ~frlrklend ,-J 1lOAN Ro , j~ P X A S K\ III I D4-41162 yH yzt } I I' P q- A "S E AN Mnd o FA z Drelnege Easement a~ l i " `\A+ Illrr DJ NOW44e,1 a~~r ~~.••qtA•• ~ir* z~.. 7;W] AA land for Burton Nrrrlr , . wN / 8rrnq rulaA 94-461I?6 ( I $Y 1-' c\r moo' i r, rl At l od f'Rf;LIMINARY MAT MAY I I IM AI lend L O T I , P L O C K A r, `,';i 0 [yet YYY p _ DIAMOND H RANCftocouI;io n BNnA 0.841 Arno oul o! Ihr Gibson Myers Surrey, Abstract Na 849+t►r I I6+~ 0 w N K N s CITY OF DENTON, MINTON COUNTY, - ROGER D. and CONNIE L. NRNNEN mmmeeel~~~ KIMfN"I'l(ollwyAR 240J Chomp Una Corlnlh. form MM 777 TIPTON CNolmrsNINU, 1N1;. LM'A"ON YAP (2 6W MI lM b . Wr C . byu. lr.rr y047 lMAr uq IMUMMUM • ra • agerMaN._o_. ~5 r ATTACHMENT 3 Date.- ip CITY OF DENTON 50O +0 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Name of proposed plat ~f~mII~in g b D 'I 4. r w i From what article of the subdivision and Land Development Regulations are you requesting a variance? Petitioner D 2 L1D.~.-S_9Lp1 O S 1i Ty ENN£A) Telephone ~l• ~a1.36~r{ Address . 03 C'- ecrV !n City/state/Zip Land owner Address City/State/zip Date Fee Paid Petitioner must provide the rationale for the variance using the following five criteria. (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- perty; (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; (3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or t particular opographical conditions of the specific property involved, a e • distinquished from apwere o incothe owner would result, as nvenience, if the strict letter • • r of these regulations is carried out; 0.. a . e cv F 5 ' Q Agenda No L) Variance Application Continued Ageadal Page 2 (4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master P•.an, or Studies. (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the owner's or any prior owner's action or omission, or, If the variance is from an exaction (eg, road construction, right- of-way dedication, drainage improvement - a public improvement and/or dedication to the public), the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations (1) exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or (2) is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract being platted. I waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city council. NOTE: Request must include the following: C. I. Completed application (one per variance). II. $175,00 fee, III. Copy of proposed plat and location map. 1 ` 9 5 na re of Applicant orate 0 0 ' 0 0 • • r +genda No S agendalt CSR aA C /W Q 1&vQ2 K CA ! 4~' 4.0o..ol eve awl ~Qa o< Ju C~k 00- rio w 01 x0o no t CktA e wR • • • • • • I r, O~C~4~~ .Ib I~ I,••n `plR'aY 08', / f lr -~-e--- , LL o - ~ •tY ~ ADWC•P' , .1 b+•'e1.lN ' 1t leel' ETJ AC U -f ~ \ elelo' ~ + 0 ° 1 Ian. IU ~ all b,a( Myer; Svy c f`°ow~ v' i~ir n Ir / I ,riia°' - - Mt,, d63/ ,i II I I nt+ j c cor A f r 11. I+MW / Ir.•r1ee Ml ff 1 I 1 GN dn.b Swvey. ~kei 1!I I / / I pvlr Iw««i Ehel Ibd f it, 1* w er1, I ~ ~ f I ~ / ~ I I Ib' j DD I7g~ ey "•r n.. f F PRR. GO Sur, • rrer+F. / J7.N., NYd. IP.J 6.R Sk y I I / T ' 1/j/ bIL, IG ~ I I ~ f ~ ACLUD; F, 1 ~i7':~'t1,r He lean !I i i t ♦ / i 4~ ' Nr bM,r ;e~Y M H / II e rr .Ie 11n r!• Iq_ r 'y rn I • u!AO .•Ilw»M WM+ •~F• f % - ~ . ll .y~ _ _ _ _ _ 1 .119 04 °rN' d14. Fi{ ' I , ! II MM f7syle SaveY /I + i R / e f Ab.t. 377 /l,,.e "ti .~lo'e!Y'ln r,' p ACL UD•2 WK Wlbwn ey f 7 e!'u •eua '•~aei'in el ~nf ~ I v' I I ACLUD•I LI `I I f f t ETJ e eye, Sv,vEy b l.ll / ACebft del 1 two k e ~I I , ® .•......+~w.~ ETJ 6Lew' Al IMI goo j . I 4 uaw'oe•. o Ioo ee ao LI Porter Addition 64. a pIV U flit! belt 0 ipq 41 7 ~I 0+ Nw~fMe eeN F vial I lip' 11 u I _ - r 1"»e4lJ'.f~!'~MIF' r!#6 • w • r Asgerfda No ,06-n AQetidall _ P&Z Minutes [kat0-..'May 24, 1995 Page 18 V. Consider the revised Diamond H Ranch and the Porter addition GDP. The 140.2 acre tract is located on the south side of Jim Christal Road, immediately east of Hickory Creek. a, Consider a perimeter sireel and sidewalk variance. b. Consider a drainage variance, Mr. Salmon; You have reviewed these variances at April 26th meeting and you did approve full variances on all three items. The plat that you looked at before was one lot on forty-one acres. Everything seemed like it was going to be okay and then the applicant discovered through his title company that he was not going to be able to get title insurance for his loan with the property being put together in one lot this way. As we explained last time the applicant purchased this forty-one acres at three separate times in three separate pieces. One piece they bought outright, the second piece they bought is owner financed, and the third piece that they bought is financed with the bank. They have three different I financing scenarios and three different pieces of property. Our first thought was to plat it in three lots again. Unfortunately one of the tracts that was purchased does not have any street frontage and our ordinances will not allow a lot to be platted without any street frontage. Therefore, we suggested that he plat it as one lot but to divide the lot into three different phases. The phase lines will coincide with the way that he purchased the property so that it will satisfy his title company, Because we have a different plat we have to reconsider the variances. Last time the variances were granted. We are going to recommend that the applicant put in fifty-four hundred dollars for improvements in lieu of perimeter street paving and sidewalks. We do recommend that they receive a complete variance for the underground drainage requirement. These are based on reasonable need of the development. Mr. Norton: Actually we have a little more protection in case something does develop on this property with it being platted in phases, Don't we? Ni. Salmon: Yes, because if the applicant or any future buyer decides that they want to 7 • build anything on any of the other pieces of property that are not going to be final platted they are going to have to come back and visit with us again. r tr Cochran: What did we do with the fifty-four hundred dollars last time? Mr. Salmon: You recommend to Council that they receive a complete variance on all three @ items. r Ms. Russell: So if it wasn't for the title company we would not even be talking about it f e Ir~, L'j V U P&Z Minutes 1 r May 24, 1995 sQ~ Nb Page 19 Agandalt Oat,_ 4 now? Mr. Salmon: That is correct. Ms, Russell: So we can reaffirm what we have already done'? Mr. Salmon: That is c_rrect, you can certainly do that. Mr, Norton: I move that we reaffirm the three variances that we have already granted in the prior meeting, Mr, Cochran: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise right hand. All opposed samc sign. Approved. (7.0) 7 i a I c> 0 3 DENTON 00oo0 ooaoaaooo ooo~ ~ ,~oao 4v o I o ~ ~ ora ~ ca o G 4 d ~o Vol 00r DO O N ti o0°O a~aaoa~noa CJTY COUNCIL 0 0 • to&No~ 4Wdal;~,'A.iq' . DATE; May 16, 1995 DFtte y~/ ti CITY COUNC TL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Variance to Article 34-124(f) 3 - (Pipe System Requirements) for the proposed Happy Valley addition, RECOMMENDATION: P&Z recommends a partial variance with conditions. The conditions are that a grass lined drainage Swale be built and (hat two drainage easements be granted. SUMMARY: Allows above ground rather than underground drainage improvements. BACKGROUND: See attached back-up. PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Property owner, drainage regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: None currently. 4opeotfu submitted: • W1 _ Prepared by: rrell, City M anager Owen Yost, ASLA, 4PIa i A ApemaNO - Agendal 7 Date ~ Approved: f I Frank . Robbins P full` Director of 4 Planning and Development f 3r i i 1 • AXX"2C • , rrw,~ki~shlzS ~ ~ r;j • 47 • i I ~bendaNo q1s~~ 7C AgO~tlalfet~i- DATE: June 6, 1995 RatF ---S, REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Proposed variance to Article 34-124(f) 3, (Pipe System Requirements) of the Subdivision & Land Development Regulations Greg Edwards of Metroplex Engineering has applied for a variance to the Code of Ordinances in behalf of his client, R. J. Hutchinson, owner of approximately 4 acres of C, commercial zoned property on I-35 Fast just cast of Sam Bass Road. Mr. Hutchinson proposes to use a small rortahle office, install five parkin; spaces and sell construction equipment. In order to install the parking and building, a development plat has been submitted that limits the developer to the paving and building improvements shown on the plat document. A developer who would propose to install more building or paving would be required to have another plat approved. Article 34-124 (1) 3 requires the developer to install an underground pipe system capable of carrying a It) year storm underground through the property. The developer proposes to construct a grass lined channel with a culvert under the proposed driveway along the west side of the property. On the east side of the property, the developer proposes to dedicate a drainage casement, but build no improvements, There is a natural drainage swale in place along the east side o1' the property capable of handling existtog flows. As the variance is based on need created by the development and the proportionally of the improvemc:.ts, it is an exaction variance. The criteria for granting an exaction varian, is as follows: Where the commission finds that the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these r.;gulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner • or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted, it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exactions, so as to prevent such excess the City Council. Waiver of development exactions shall be approved by the City Council. The Commission is recommending a partial variance. Due to the very small amount of • impervious surface proposed as shown on the development plat document. The grass lined • • channel designed for the west side of the property and existing on the east side of the properly should be adequate to convey drairage runoff from adjacent properties, The proposed casements are wide enough to provide ample space for maintenance vehicles. OWN • • ~er+daNo Ageltdalt 7C _ QttR . - -4 s Attachments: 1. Location map. 2. Development plat. 3. Application material (4 pages). 4. P&?. minutes. i AXX0182D I 0 • e AoeMaNo g Agenda o 7C Data ATTACHMENT 1 r d`+ ti ~J ALECK VISr~ C J W I V1II\ 1S W MY I~ h L fMY h n ~ R. • e • Y1L ✓i~ 1A~i~. al . • • mss. ANT t Os LEAS ATTACHMENT 2 4g8ntIENo fRS T s i,D6" AgentfalSem - ,9 n'S2• - ~ ao a T S 71, CALIEO) ~~rr 4 S 02'ir1EAS) Date PROPOSED so' CALLEaEE P OACH EXISTING WATERLMlE~ , EXISTING 6-0jo. E DRi IkA6C ASM'T 4' (.ONG, FR >3 TO SIDEWALK I 2d' f4S) STATE OF TEXAS 429. PC 2 S 210E +2" E ---T 7136 53 E 30,65'(CALLED) w Ile pn PROPOS e ED _ ww BLDG LINE ~yG+ ~za%S, nl ry an'~ EJf~ "'off uG FHi~. l\ DRANACE ~ a'~PNbPOSED PIPE } ~0. ~ / °~jz J n y EKiSTrJGE l1 ` ` wLn PROPOSED , w lop V) SPARKING JJ! 1 0 S I \ , s SPA CES E 9, 15' I I E ~TRI I. ET r EL C. LA SM'T I Y ( DENTON / 3 w ZONED C 454. PC 438 LARRY WILSON G H VOL 2669 PG $0' 042 ZONED C R,PRG.C.T. o ss'+2 • w 50.12' r~ BLOCK A o r) LOT I, 41 WW ZONED ~y..11 QN ELEC. EASM'T • gF DENTON M~';54, PG 429 s. pp P. S U. 9-36' W S* r( ALL ) F i • • ~ t~gMft+No. --y ATTACHMENT 3 Agenda IIanl CITY OF DENTON Ik11f;. r f APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE of 8UDDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Name of proposed plat From what article of the Subdivision and Land Development Reulations are you requesting a variance? oy 4" Petitioner ~G1 ~ f_•c,_r_% ,N r r _r. Telephone Address u/ City/State/zip Land Owner Address yui City/State/zip Date Fee paid L7) ac Petitioner must provide 1us c o Jo%/ the rationale for the variance using the following five criteria, (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro. perty; (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; (3) Socause of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involked, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a more inconvenience, if '.'he strict letter 0 of these regulations is carried out, • I APR 21 1,495 1 as • Variance Application Continued 4gendal1w,J5 -7. Page 2 (4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development plan, Master Plan, or Studies. (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from ;.r were not created b the owner's or any prior owner's action or omission, by or, If the variance is from an exaction (eq. road construction, right- of-way dedication, drainage impr(-vement - a public improvement and/or dedication to the public), the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to thase regulations (1) exc--eds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or (2) is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract being platted. waiver of de-elopmental exactions shall be considered after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city council. NOTEi Request must include the following; 1. Completed application (one per variance). II. $L75.00 fee. III, Copy of proposed plat and location map. - igna of Applicant to E J I 0 ca r ` ML CROPLEX ENOINEEgINIL CONSULTANTd, INC. ENGINEERING ■ LAND PLANNING ■ SURVEYING 501 South Carroll Blvd., Suite D ■ Denton, Texas 76201 (817) 383.1416 Fax: (817) 383.1417 0 Dallas Metro: (214) 219.7948 Ft. Worth Metro: (817) 329.3834 xg _gffp~ 4gendaliel S ~C April 27, 1995 Owen Yost City of Denton 215 E. McKinney Street Denton, Texas 76201 Re: Happy Valley Addition Variance from Underground Drainage Improvements Dear Mr, Yost: As we have discussed on several occasions, the use of the property by Mr. Hutchinson is an interim use. The primary goal of the current owner is to market the property to an end commercial user. To facilitate Mr. Hutchinson's interim use of the property, we have proceeded with a development plat for the proposed 4.2 acre development. As disc ..rsse d, it is our understanding that the earthwork operations which have continued on the property to add value and marketability are allowable without platting. Also, storage of the heavy equipment on the site does not require platting. Mr. Hutchinson's use of the 14' x 40' portable office building is the only item that requires platting. We feel that the installation of underground drainage facilities to meet City of Denton requirements exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner. The proposed drainage facilities will drain the adjacent properties without ponding or restricting flows, and are sufficient for the owner access and office uses. Because this is a development plat, before anything other than the very limited use shown is approved, either another N development plat or a final plat to full City of Denton standards will be required. Allowirtg the approximately 500 lineal feet of open channel should not adversely impact the adjacent owner, should significantly reduce initial construction costs, should allow flexibility of planning of drainage facilities by an ultimate user and will not prohibit installatiun of ultimate drainage facilities to meet City of Denton standards. 0 O We plan to be at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and will try to address • e ~ ( 4gene~No 41S Agendallc "1C Dale We plan to be at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting aria will try to address } any questions you may have. Sincerely, ev, mil, GrWEdwa red s, P. E. • i IT e~ ATTACHMENT 4 F&Z Minutes 11 i May 10, 1995 No. a Page 25 4c;AndallAttt~~~ C Il~ti consideration and that it would be brought back when a plat is submitted for any land within the GDP. Dr, Huey: I move to approve the request to postpone until such time as any owner of t property comes to us with a platting proposal. ;t Mr. Norton: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign, Approved. (7-0) IX. Consider the proposed Happy Valley Addition. The 4.199 acre site is located on the southwest side of Interstate 35F., between Teasley Lane and Sam Bass Road, a. Variances. { 1, Variance to sidewalk requirements. 2. Variance to underground drainage requirements. Mr. Salmon: Greg Edwards of Metroplex Engineering hcs applied for two variances of the Code of Ordinances on behalf of his client R. J. Hutchinson who owns approximately four acres of commercially zoned property on 1-35E just east of Sam Bass Road, The two variances requested involve Article 34-114, paragraph 17 concerning sidewalks and Article 44-124 F3 concerning pipe system requirements. Mr Hutchinson proposes to install a small portable office building with five parking spaces in order to sell large construction equipment. He is proposing a development plat as opposed to a 1 conventional plat, A development plat limits him to what he can do on the property and that is shown on the plat. Article 34-114, paragraph 17 requires the developer to install sidewalks along one side of any perimeter street, which in this case includes the 1-35 service road. The applicant is proposing a sidewalk easement along the frontage but does not want to install the sidewalk. Article 44-124 F3 requires the developer to install an rnderground pipe system capable of carrying a ten year storm through the property. Instead the developer proposes to construct a grass lined channel with a culvert under the driveway along the west side of the property. He proposes to use an existing grass lined swale to run drainage through on the east side of the property, lie proposes to grant casements large enough to encompass the existing drainage swales. These are exaction • • variance and they do not have to meet the five criteria but they are based on the type of use proposed for the property, and the type and extent of infrastructure improvement being considered. Basically the public improvements need to have some sort reasonable 1 ~ 4 r • 1 Ga • P&Z Minutes 1 May 10, 1995 A0ordalld. Page 26 Agt)ndtt!t8a_ r~tlt:.._._~ 3S benefit to the property and cannot be so excessive as to constitute a confiscation of the tract. Staff is recommending denial of the sidewalk variance, There is approximately three hundred feet of sidewalk required at a cost of three thousand dollars and staff does not feet that is excessive. Even though Mr. Hutchinson proposes only to have the small office building and the five parking spaces and to sell large equipment this plat combined with the current zoning would allow a variety of other uses. There are some relatively intense uses for this property other than what the applicant plans to do with the property. I think that what we need to be looking at is what can be done with the property and not just what Mr. Hutchinson proposes to do with it. Directly west of Mr. Hutchinson's property is the new A-1 Rental facility that does have a sidewalk along the frontage and Mr. N Anson's sidewalk would be required to tie in with existing sidewalks, Cunr. ..ty in the Development Review Committee process we are looking at a plat for an Outback Steakhouse at the corner of I-35 and Sam Hass which is adjacent to the A-1 and they are proposing to build sidewalk on Sam Hass and I-35. We have also had a predesign conference for a motel on I-35 service road closer to Teasley Lane on the other side of Action Imports and they will be required to install a sidewalk. So we do have other sidewalks in the area and some that are proposed. We know that the applicant is concerned about installing a sidewalk given that his use is temporary in nature and that at some point in time it will be developed into something else. There is a concern about installing a sidewalk and that the next person would have to tear it out to do their project. The sidewalk at A-t Rental was installed by the previous owner who sold mobile homes f and A-1 used the existing sidewalks. I think that it is reasonably possible to expect that j someone could redevelop the property and leave the sidewalk intact. There is only one driveway entrance allowed for this property so any future owners will probably have to use the same driveway unless they try to get a variance. There is a three hundred foot driveway spacing criteria along the service road and the driveway is approximately in the j center of the property, There is a good sized bar ditch across the front of the property i and anyone else that uses this property is not going to be able to just cross the ditch anywhere, they will probably use the existing driveway and so the sidewalk will probably remain intact when the next owner builds. On the second variance staff is recommending • a partial variance of the drainage because Mr. Hutchinson is proposing a small building with a small parking lot on four acres of property. He is not going to have a significant impact on the drainage. We feel that the grass lined swales that the engineer has designed are adequate for the drainage for the time being and that when the property is fully developed at a later date and when more runoff is created it would be more reasonable to expect the developer at that time to build a full underground concrete pipe d system. The proposed easements and drainage swales are wide enough to provide space ' • for the drainage runoff and room to maintain them. Mr, Drake: Do you know when Mr. Hutchinson acquired this property? • L W • P&Z Minutes May 10, 1996 tgetfd9No.._q~ Page "'I Mr. Salmon: A year to two years ago. Mr. Drake: So it would have been after these requirements were placed into the Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Salmon: We have had the sidewalks and pipe system requirements since 19FrO and 1990 respectively. Ms, Russell: You are saying that the proposed drainage and easements is acceptable? Mr. Salmon Correct, with the small amount of pavement and building the amount of runoff coming off the property will be insignificantly increased. Dr. Huey: Would the drainage at the property line impact the adjacent property? Mr. Salmon: The drainage of the grass lined swales have been designed so that the adjoining properties can drain into them and still drain adequately, Dr. H,,-y: So rather than draining onto other properties this would be taking the drainage from other propenies? Mr. Salmon: Right, this property is sort of in a valley in that the property on either side of it is higher than this property. So we want to make sure that those properties can continue to drain the same way and that Mr. Hutchinson's property won't impede that in sny matter. Ms. Russell: There is a lot of activity out there and it appears that we could within a j year's time have construction going all along there, Is that a reasonable thing to think about? • Mr, Salmon I believe that it is and the Owback Steakhouse plat will probably be approved within a week or so and they seem to be in a fast mode to get it done. I don't know about the Super S Mctel. They had a predesign conference a couple of weeks ago. Ms. Russell: The word temporary is being used on Mr. Hutchinson's property, do we have a time limit on temporary? Are we thinking a couple of years cr until it sells? Mr. Salmon: My understanding is that Mr. Hutchinson has the property for sale right now. • 0 , • GJ • vaowt,No_g5 -C)Zn Lgendaltem, P&'L Minutes I Ll May 10, 1995 Page 28 Mr. Greg Edwards; My name is Greg Edwards with Metroplex Engineering, As far as a couple of the concerns that were addressed by staff, basically this is an interim use and Mr. Hutchinson doesn't anticipate being on the property for any great length of time. The major purpose of purchasing the property is for the purpose of selling it to a commercial user. We don't anticipate being on the property for very long. If you could legally limit the time that the variance is good for and you would allow us two years we would be in agreement with that, Also as far as the limitation of the use, the idea is not to sell it to some other temporary or interim use. The idea is to sell the property to some final user, so you could lie the use for the variance to CPI, Consolidated Products International only which is the company owned by the Hutchinsons. If you could limit that just to their use ;o that some other user can not come in and occupy the building or some other building in that same location. Those types of things would be fine with the owners. In the particular variance request we are not going to argue the "sidewalks to nowhere" issue. We don't want to argue whether or not sidewalks should he along 1-35. Basically based on your ordinances we feel that we have a justifiable variance request. Number one we are coming in with a development plat. You make provisions in your platting process so that if we are not using the property to the full extent of what the zoning ordinance would allow then you can make some reductions in the standards. On this particular property for the interim office use that we are requesting we are using less than one percent of the allowable FAR on the property. That is why we have gone with the development plat and not proposing to build one hundred percent of the required m7astructure for full development of the property. For somebody else to come in and do this they will have to come back thrrugh the platting process. If the ordinances a year from now or two years from now are the same then you can get it put in at that time. The variance that we are requesting is based on the sidewalk being of value to the property owner. We don't feel that the sidewalk is of value to the property owner. The type of business that Mr. Hutchinson is proposing does not anticipate any pedestrian access. On A-I Rental the sidewalk was there when they bought the property and it just happened that they left it in the same place but there were portions of that s dewaik that were damaged during construction. The contractor had to pay to have it removed and 0 then had to replace it. That wasn't a hundred percent value. When we sell the property if the ultimate user wants to change the grade, push parking closer to the interstate, or do some kind of retaining, the sidewalk would be gone and we have wasted money for the sidewalk. We feel that the need for the sidewalk for our proposed development in accordance with the development plat procedures are not there and we feel that this is a very reasonable variance request for you to approve. If you could put time limits on D there and allow us two years we would be glad to abide by that and basically either N remove the use or build a sidewalk at that time. Also if you want to restrict it to just the Hutchinson's use that would be fine also. 0 0 • 0 • I P&Z Minutes F May 10, 1995 ApalldaNo_ Page 29 Agondaltern l;L r>~t~.... AN: I-: Ms. Schertz: What year was the property acquired? Mr. Ed-xards: It was acquired last year. Ms. Russell: If we have some questions of Mr. Edwards then lets ask those now and then if we would 'ike to talk to Mrs. Hutchinson so she can get on the record. Mr. Drake: Madam Chair if I can address a few questions to Greg and perhaps on behalf of the Hutchinsons. Is there any suggestion that the requirement of the sidewalks renders the land unmarketable? j Mr. Edwards: It doesn't render it unmarketable but it doesn't necessarily render it more valuable. Mr. Drake: I understand that. I am just trying to make sure that w: understand what the standards are for this variance in that it has to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted. Is there in any way that you can advise this Commission that the requirement of building sidewalks constitutes a confiscation of the tract for the owners? Mr. Edwards: Do you have a copy of the regulations because when I read them I recall that there is an "or." We meet the value or we meet the confiscation. Mr. Drake: It says "it exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted," ii Mr, Edwards: We have prepared our request on reasonable benefit to thL, property I owner. There is no reasonable benefit to the property. Mr. Drake: Okay, but before we get there I want to clarify whether there is any argument that there is confiscation of the tract to be platted by the requirement cf the • sidewalks'? Mr. Edwards: We haven't prepared it based on that, basically we have prepared our request based on the reasonable benefit to the property owner. Mr. Cochran: Point of order. I hate to interject at this point but Mr. Drake you need ® to direct your questions to the chairman or the other members of the Conunission rather • than to the petitioner. It is ourjob to interpret your interpretations and to direct it to the petitioner instead of it being your job. G~ P&'L Minutes May 10, 1995 N~Ot'1tlNa. Page 30 Q~Entla1[t)m C l lkffa.__...~-- 0z Mr. Drake: I will be happy to comply with whatever the Commission directs, I did ask pemtissEnn of the Chair to ask some questions and if the Commission sees fit I will defer to the Commission to ask the questions. Mr. Cochran: It just seems to me that we are charged with the responsibility for it establishing facts and you are charged with the responsibility of making sure that we are in legal good standing. I feel that you have over stepped that just slightly here and I apologize for bringing it up in public but we are all just friends h..re. Mr. Drake: If I could respond to that. I am sitting here wearing three hats anc r am wearing the hat of parliamentarian to the Commission and legal advisor to the Commission and I am wearing the hat of advisor to the staff and representing the city as an entity. I don't think that it is necessarily inappropriate for me to be wearing all three hats and I think that there aro some legal issues here that need to be addressed either through me or through the Commission. If the Commission sees fit I will be happy to address my questions through the Commission. Mir. Cochran: That is my request. Dr. Huey: t fend to agree with Mr. Cochran's point. 1 think that our standard procedure has always been that we are the ones responsible for dealing with petitioners. I am certainly in sympathy with the points that are being raised and I do think we should raise them. Ms. Russell: Mr. Drake if you want to propose to us what we should have concerns about. Mr. Drake: I would like to establish whether this request for variance is claimed to be a confiscation of the tract to be platted and if so how? I would like to have it explained how the imposition of the sidewalk or the drainage requirements is so unreasonable as i to exceed any reasonable b nefit to the property owner. I believe that the question is it unreasonable to expect th it the owners are going to get their value out of the land if there is a requirement that ti.e sidewalk goes through. I don't know that I agree that the confiscation of the tract to be platted do, s not modify the issue of reasonable venelit to the property. This is my reason for wanting to get down to that issue of whether it is claimed to be a confiscation of the tract to be platted, D 0 ~ Ms. Russell: Whether the owner is saying that we are confiscating the properly if we make these requirements? I believe that is the question. • t w • Ap6ndaNa S'•O~. Apdalle `Date- b P&Z Minutes May 10, 1995 Page 31 Dr, Huey: Isn't the key word here "or"? Mr. Drake: First of all you could grant the variance that the regulations exceed the reasonable benefit to the property owner or that it is so excessive to constitute imnftscation of the tract to be platted. Dr, Huey: So his burden would to prove either one or two. Mr. Drake: I believe that Mr. Edwards is suggesting that the constitution of confiscation of the tract to be planed is not applied to the reasonable benefit prong of that and I take issue with that. Mr. Norton: If it said "and" I would agree with you but it says "or." Mr. Drake: I certainly respect the wishes of the Commission members to dissect but on behalf of the city as an entity I would like it addressed as to whether or not it is argued in requesting this variance that it constitutes confiscation of the tract, Irrespective of the interpretation to be a idressed. Mr, Edwards: In respect to Mr. Drake's concerns we looked at it as either condition one or condition two, We felt like we met condition one and we really have not studied or felt like it was required in order to grant the variance to address condition number two. We are not prepared to about that and if we are required to address both this is the first € time we have heard that. Ms. Russell: I would yield to our authority Dr. Huey concerning the English and not the legal matter. j Dr. Huey: To me he has to convince us that either of these two requirements would cost them more than any benefit to the property that they would get from complying with the • requirement. If he can't prove that then he would have to prove that it is excessive. That is what the "or" means to me. Mr. FAwards: We looked at the reasonable benefit to the property. If it is going to cost three thousand dollars to build a sidewalk, is the client going to be able to market the property for three thousand dollars more? No, Does the sidewalk benefit his operations? ~ No. , • r Mr. Cochran: Does it benefit the City of Denton is the question that we really have to look at. • G+ • AgettdaNo._ 9S-~~ Age~dalt 7-~- t So~ 2j P&Z Minutes - May 10, 1995 Page 32 Mr, Edwards: We are coming with a develc^ment plat which means that if you don't get it now then you get it later. We have agreed that this would only be two years of this particular use and then we would be gone, If we were coming in with an ultimate user and a more permanent use then I don't think we .vould he having this discussion. We are coming in with a development plat where we are developing less than one percent of the developable building site and we don't see the benefit to us. We see that it will most likely be in the way of future construction and it is a detriment to the value of the property, I think that you can waive that requirement and we would really appreciate your consideration. Mr. Cochran: You have answered a lot of my questions and I would be willing to support the staff recommendation with the stipulations that you gave. Ms. Schertr.: Can we do that? Mr. Drake: I don't know if we can. It may hinge upon how uP have done things in the past. To my knowledge it hasn't been done and I would be hesitant about setting a precedent for the future, Mr. Robbins: There have already been citations issued on this property for a building on the lot without a permit or a certifit tte of occupancy and for erosion control. Erosion control has been abated but the others have not. The problem with setting a tine limit is how do you effectively monitor that? Wh; t do you do at the end of two years? Either the business is gone or the sidewalk isn't built and that becomes another problem. The regulations essentially say that when you do the development is when you are required to put the public improvements in place and if you don't think that the public improvements are needed with that development then you grant a variance, My recommendation would be not to du the two year deal and to grant the variance based on whether you think the development requires it or not. I think that what the intent of the regulations are is that when the development occurs that is when you determine • whether or not the sidewalks are needed. Ms. Schertz: What is the purpose of sidewalks on 1-35? Is your interpretation of it being a safety issue'? Mr. Salmon: Sidewalks are of course to transport pedestrians from one piece of property to another. It is a safety issue. The business that Mr. Hutchinson is proposing does not • • lend ith.lf to walk in traffic and neither did the mobile home sales. However, what we are proposing to do here is to consider a plat that would allow a certain amount of building and parking lot and we need to realize that we have existing commercial zoning r i • p • AGerdiNo._qf L~2 - Agendalln ante P&'I. Minutes U May 10, 1995 Page 33 which if you look in the Zoning Ordinance there is about three pages of different uses for commercial zoning. Some of them could use exactly what Is shown on this development plat. If we look m the individual owner getting use out of. the sidewalk then I could argue that I don't use the sidewalk in front of my house .xcept to edge it, f Someone that buys my house might have kids and they would get a lot of use out of the ! sidewalk. My only concern is that whatever you choose to do on the variance I would ! hope that you would consider what could be here considering the proposed plat and the proposed zoning instead of looking specifically at what Mr. Hutchinson is proposing to do. Ms, Schettz: I have no reason not to believe the applicant but it is speculative and since it is recommended that we not put a time limit, or that we limit the use I am relying on staff to give me input concerning the situation. I already knew the answer but I wanted to go on the record about why we need a sidewalk. I am a vary big fan of sidewalks. I have small children and I have seen people walking along 1-35 and I have seen the grave marker along 1.35. 1 am not going to paint a bad picture but highways are busy places and people do walk along them and it is something that I 1+t.;e to think about. Ms. Russell: 't'here is a motel looking at going there and there is a motel down across Teasley. If I were going to stay at a motel down there and I wanted to go to the restaurant I would not get into my car and try to figure a way to get to the restaurant. I would walk up the sidewalk. Obviously this is a very hot area right now. I am aware of stveral entities looking in that area, I think that there ought to be a sidewalk there. 1 wouldn't want to give any more than Iwo years because I think that property will sell within that period of time. If it doesn't sell in two years and it is time to build a sidewalk then how would we enforce that? Mr, Salmon: Basically when two years comes up and we haven't heard anything then we call them or -lend them a letter. Hopefully they will build the sidewalk at that lime and if they don't then it is a matter of issuing citations. s Mr. Cochran: h is not a clean way to deal with it but it is enforceable. Mr. Robbins: I am indicating that it is messy and it is not clean. If you think the sidewalks are supposed to be in now. My problem is conceptually how the regulations work. When the development occurs is when you get the exactions. If the exactions are not necessary that is when you put in, or not. Why delay it for two years? If the same ♦ development is still there then it didn't have the earlier need for sidewalks. If it is a different develupmetu then their are going to have to come back for platting and then the sidewal!; standards vlould be applicable at that point. • Q j W e c~ v n{;pRdRNo.~~-• P&Z Minutes ?Z I May 10, 1995 Page 34 Mr. Cochran: We all agree that there should be sidewalks there. The issue is if a sidewalk is put in there is a possibility that the future owner of this property may want it in a different place. I don't want to grant a blanket variance for sidewalks but I would rather do a conditional variance. Ms. Flemming: I would be against voting for a variance for the sidewalks and I think setting a condition would only set a precedent for future developers. Mr. Norton: I am very familiar with this property having owned a portion of it at one time. This land as it is developed it will probably change shape. I can see the developers argument about the sidewalk but I feel that 1-35 needs a sidewalk. 1 do agree with Mike and that we should grant the variance with the two year condition. Dr. Huey: I have concerns because I go by the golf place where we granted a variance for sidewalks and I am sorry that we ever did that, 1 for one have no intention of ever voting for a variance for a sidewalk. 1 think we need to hold firm to our development of sidewalks. The safety issue is our primary concern. The issue is the benefit to the community, that is what a sidewalk is for. I think that it is an essential thing. We have talked about the two year limit on sidewalks. I want to look at it in another way. The staff is recommending a partial variance for the drainage. The recommendation is based upon "the very small amount of impervious surface proposed as shown on the development plat document." Is that impervious surface amount permanently limited with that plat document? Mr. Salmon: Yes, The variance will only apply to this particular development plat. Concerning the sidewalk it will have to tie in with the existing elevations on both sides of the property because +bey ate developed pieces of property. In the center of the property before it is all over with they are going to have a thirty foot wide concrete drive approach with culverts under it. You certainly can't raise the property very easily in the middle unless you want to completely reconstruct the driveway. In fact from what I e understand the reason that ?sir. Hutchinson has put so much fill on the property now is to make the property more marketable so someone won't have to do so much dirt work when they buy it. Also the sidewalk is up close to the road, normally where you would have your required landscaping and parking lot screening. In fact it is not even allowable to build a parking lot up against the right of way line, Ms. Schertz: I agree with Mr. Norton but I am looking at it from the standpoint that we • • are offering safety to pedestrians along a very busy highway for two years. I feel like we are dealing with property that is exposed and it is going to develop and we are speculating about when that is going to happen. i • m • 45~.. AWaNo P&Z Minutes Date_._~ 'ZA May W, 1995 Page 35 i Mr. Norton: I move that we support the staff's recommendation and deny the variance for the sidewalks. Ms. Flemming: I'll second, Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved the motion to deny the variance, (7.0) Mr. Cochran left at 9:27 p,m. Ms. Russell: Lets discuss drainage now. Mr. Salmon: Staff is recommending a partial variance of the drainage. The ordinance requires that they install underground concrete piping through the site to carry drainage for a ten year storm. The developer is proposing to build a grass lined drainage channel instead of installing an underground drainage system. They are not asking for a full variance and staff is recommending that partial vr:rianc,. be granted because we feel that what they are proposing will adequately handle Ute drainage considering what they are going to build on that property, Mr. Cooper: In this case I agree with staff on this recommendation. I think that the drainage improvements on that site are going to be heavily dependent on what type of development takes place there. Ms. Schertz: I am in agreement also. Mr. Cooper: I move that w~, approve the partial variance for drainage improvements as recommended by the staff. Ms. Flemming: I'll second. • Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign. Approved, (6.0) b. The Development Plat of the proposed Lot 1, Alock A, e Mr. Greg Edwards: Because the variances were not approved we would like to withdraw • r the development plat since it does not conform and we will submit it at a later date, Dr. Huey: I move approval of this request. I i i h . c+ . DENTON OVVDUO p P D ~ O°OO 1 O d L7 4 00 -61 > 00 0000 O N t o00 °oaaaa~aoo°o CITY COUNCIL ~ . • • r DATE: June 6, 1995 dQe daNO, -z7o20 pgeotfaN ..L.,. CITY COUNCIL REPORT I)tle.. _(o 1 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Mcnager SUBJECT: Consider a variance to Sec. 34-114, paragraph 17 (Sidewalks) for the proposed Happy Valley addition. RECOMMENDATION: P&Z recommends denial. SUMMARY: The variance is to the requirement to build sidewalks, in this case along IH35. BACKGROUND: See attached back-up. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Property owner, sidewalk regulations. FISCAL IMPACT: None currently. Respectfully submitted: Premed by: 4oydY.ll, City Manager _c._. G. Owen Yost, A LA Urban Planner Approved: r i Frank I . obbins Al P Executive Director Planning and Development j i Axxaoe2c • e D _ WridaNON-b- a~nadatte ~ DATE: May l6, 1995 skate ~ RE"ORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council PROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Proposed variance to Sec. 34-114, paragraph 17 (Sidewalks) of the Subdivision and Land Development Regulations Greg Edwards of Metroplex Engineering has applied for a variance to the Code of Ordinances on behalf of hi, client, R.J. Hutchins n, owner of approximately four (4) acres of C, commercial, zoned property on I-35E, just cast of Sam Bass Road. Mr. Hutchinson proposes to set up a small portable office, install five parking spaces and sell construction equipment. In order to install the parking and building, a development plat is being processed. A development plat is different from a standard plat as it limits 'he developer to the paving and building improvements shown on the plat document. A developer who would propose to install more building or paving wculd be required to have another plat approved. I Section 34-114 (17) requires the developer to install sidewalks along one side of any perimeter street, in this case the I-35 service road, The applicant is proposing a sidewalk easement, but does not wish to install a sidewalk. As the variance is based on need created by the development and the proportionally of the improvement, it is an exaction variance. 'me criteria for granting an exaction variance is as follows: Where the Commission finds that tote imposition of any developments ion pursuant to these regulations exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owns or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be plattcdl it may recommend approval of variances to waive such exactions. so as to prevent such • excess, to the City Council_ Waiver of developmental exactions shall] t1VXoved the i Council. The Commission recommended denial, The approximate[), 300 feet of sidewalk required will cost about $3,000. Thi ;s a relatively small cost and would not be considered confiscatory, Ahhough Mr. Hutchinson plans to sell construction equipment, his plat will allow anyone else Q to use this building and parking lot for a number of uses in the commercial zoning district such • • as a used car lot or other outdoor sales which could generate more pedestrian traffic. This is also not a "sidewalk to nowhere" issue as there is a sidewalk in front of A-1 Rental that would tic into this one. There are also two other developments in the review process along this service road and near Mr. Hutchinson's property, • • The applicant is concerned that when this property is redeveloped that this sidewalk would require remoi .l. This is unlikely as there is an existing drive approach in place and the sidewalk would be directly behind the property line where no building can be built. This is the same situation as the sidewalk next door at A-l Rental. It was originally constructed when the property was platted for Love Mobile Home Sales. When A-1 bought the property and redeveloped, they did not have to disturb the sidewalk, Attachments: Agepda No 1, Location map. Ageiltlei! 2. Development plat. (kite ' 3. Application materials (4 pages). OQj 4. P&Z minutes, AXXOW6 • • a • ~gendaWo C Agentlalle t rJnto _ - . sS ATTACHMF~NT I ~ ~ auais m~~ d _ Sife r r 1 i • i JJ _i i .n i • • w ! S La0°iYq~ASE) a -Ve 10 2n(IiEASR~FRO~OrRST~rt7~0( LED) ATTACHMENT NT 2 $ARO8~N0 S 70' 7`'32 t ~ l` I PROPOSED ~1e S 10.50'(CALLED 30' DRIVE r EXIST NG \ APPROACH 8' WATERLINC~ ' EXISTING S 7 4' CONC. f,H. I \ J N .95 Q t DR TO ASM'T SIDEWALK II _ i` ,3) °TATE OF TEXAS I !P' V0429, PG 2 5 77'08'42 HIS onr I 8"~F I M //1 _ J T ~J0.6SUALLCD) m buy Fk )POSED 6' BLDG LINE aj fed, $ v EXI o° FHA rn AINAME of ~ $'?PRbpm'D ORPIPE ~ W ' ICE 24' DRIVE 4 } as J~o PR a 4 12' CRAV& P 5 DRIVE T DY< IIO r` / t_I ~a W O PROPOSED J I 1 SPACES ING 1J 1 i`j I n 1 1 '4 9'v18' III E%I F E NI~k 1 No 1 q ti f YS ~I I f*(D CL C. ".+SM' I I Y t' LIE ON ( t. ~''1 u ZONED C 454, PG 4,78 i 7 ~ ( 2 .7 1 I to LkRRY {ICO"JS _ VOL 2669, PGS 0 ' 42' ' W ZONED C R.P.R.D.C.T. 50 12, BLOCK A p9 LOT I r s' o m LL a W f TONED in ♦ f C N i~ in 1 • , ELEC. EASM'T • gGF DENTON YOq.--'454, PG 429 pip ESQ 5 58'09'36' W 319.e1( ALLC ) • c. r AgerldeNo, - ATTACHMENT 3 Age~dalt CITY OF DENTON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE X119.-.M "'"g` SUBDIVI8ION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT "GULATIONS N"s of proposes' plat -7TT ~L . From what article of the Subdivision and Land Development Re ulations are p u requesting a variance? ill sec JY 4/ ar. /7 S.~ew~/K~ r Petitioner Telephone address s-U/ S„o//- City/fltate/zip Land Owner Address Yu/, zx~La _ city/vtate/zip bate "7 L~ _ v Yee Paid 'ya - Petitioner eiust provide the rationale for the variance Jusin following five criteria, g the (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- perty; (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property; (1) Because of the particular physical surroundin;s, shape, or topographical conditions t,f the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulatioos in carried out; • • i APR 2 ~ lgg~ I Qa • < )urt0anu,~~i - Variance Application Continued Page 2 4B~id811@Ili (4) The variance will not In any manner vary the provisions of tc Zoning Ordinance, Denton Development Plait, Master Plan, o or Studies. (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the owrer's or any prior owner's action or omission, or, If the variance is of-way d dication,fdrainage aimprov(emencrond construction, right- and/or dedication to the public), the impositionpof any development exaction pursuant to these regulations benefit to the property owner or (1) exceeds any reasonable (2) o constitute confiscation of the tract beingis st excessive as to platted, Waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission by the city council, NOTE, Request must include the followingi I. Completed application (one per variance), II, $175,00 fee, III. Copy of proposed plat and location map, r Ra of Applicant • • • ~ ,,i; i ~,.!'rl 1. ~NI l,.~~~t~. 1 a; r~ s ML CROPLEX KNOIN®ERINL CONDULTANTMa INC. ENGINEERING r LAND PLANNING ■ SURVEYING 501 South Carroll BIVd., Sulte D ■ .'~enton, Texas 76201 (817) 383.1416 Fax: (817) 383.1417 Dallas Metro: (214) 219.7948 Ft. Worth Metro: 17)3 9-3834 :CJ 'CJ lJ~-~ Ae11dallem ~ M C}ale._ April 27, 1995 $Cf~22) Owen Yost City of Denton 215 E. McKinney Denton, Texas 76201 Re: Happy Valley Addition Variance from Sidewalk Improveme-,s Dear Mr. Yost: As we have discussed on several occasions, the use of the properly by Mr. Hutchinson Is an Interim us(i. The primary goal of the current owner is to market the property to an end commercial user. To facilitate Mr. Hutchinson's Interim use of the property, we have proceeded with a development plat for the proposed 4.2 acre development. As discussed, it is our understanding that the earthwork operations which have continued on the property to add value and marketability are allowable without platting. Also, storage of the heavy equipment on the site does not require platting. Mr, Hutchinson's use of the 14'x 40' portable office building is the only item that requires platting, We feel that the requirement to install sidewalks along I.H. 35 exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner. Mr. Hutchinson does not believe that the sidewalk will ald in the Interim use of the property. Because this Is a development plat, before anything other than the very limited use shown Is approved, either another development plat or a final plat to full City of Denton standards will be required. • Delaying construction of the sidewalks allows sidewalk construction In conjunction with a more permanent development. If the sidewalk construction Is delayed until later, the additional cost of removing existing sidewalk to facilitate construction of ultimate drainage facilities, utilities or landscaping will not be required. e Granting of the variance will significantly reduce Mr Hutchinson's Initial cost and will not 0 0 prohibit in any way a future extension of the sidewalk by a more permanent and Intensive user of the land. e o w m • AAe~de Mo q ~C~ Agendeit Uote_ _q5 We plan to attend the Planning and Zoning Comm!sslon meeting and will be availableq to address any concerns the Commission may have. Sincerely, Greg Edwards, PS J 0 ~a 0 w ~Voma No A opj.@~fa ",=7A- 2P. ATTACnrtr.Nr a 1 1 -A5 P&Z Minutes lfdr.,._ May 10, 1996 Page 25 3 consideration and that it would be brought back when a plat is submitted for any land within the GDP. Dr. Huey: 1 move to approve the request to postpone until such time as any owner of ) Property comes to us with a platting proposal, Mr, Norton: I'll second. Ms, Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign. Approved. (7.0) IX. Consider the proposed Happy Valley Addition. The 4.199 acre site is located on the southwest side of lnterstale 35F, between Teasley Lane and Sam Bass Road. a. Variances. 1. Variance to sidewalk requirements. 2, Variance to underground drainage requirements. Mr, Salmon: Greg Edwards of Metroplex Engineering has applied for two variances of the Code of Ordinances on behalf of his client R. J. Hutchinson who owns approximately four acres of commercially zoned property on 1-35E just east of Sam Bass Road. The two variances requested involve Article 34.114, paragraph 17 concerning sidewalks and Article 44-04 F3 concerning pipe system requiregienis. Mir Hutchinson proposes to install a small portable office building with five parking spaces in order to sell large construction equipment. fie is proposing a development plat as opposed to a conventional plat. A development plat limits him to what he can do on the property and that is shown on the plat, Article 34.114, paragraph 17 requires the developer to install sidewalks along one side of any perimeter street, which in this case includes the 1.35 • service road. The applicant is proposing a sidewalk easement along the frontage but does not want to install the sidewalk. Article 44.124 F3 requires the developer to install an underground pipe system capable of carrying a ten year storm through the property. Instead the developer proposes to construct a grass lined channel with a culvert under the driveway along the west side of the property. tie proposes to use an existing grass lined swale to run drainage through on the east side of the property. He proposes to grant p easentents large enough to encompass the existing drainage swales, These are exaction r variances and they do not have to meet the five criteria but they are based on the type ref use proposed for the property, and the type and extent of infrastructure Improvement being considered, Basically the public improvements need to have some sort reasonable o A • so w delglaivu L 'G2t~_ . P&Z Minutes May 10, 1995 Page 26 1'll~ a benefit to the property and cannot be so excessive as to constitute a confiscation of the tracthree. hundStaffredisfeetrecomof mesidndinewalk g denrequiialred a of tthea side costof walk variance. There is approximately three thousand dollars and staff does tnot feel that is excessive. Even though Mr. Hutchinson proposes only to have 'he small office building and (lie five parking spaces and to sell large equipment this plat combined with the current zoning would allow a variety of other uses, There intense uses for this property other than what the applicant plans todo with he property. I think that what we need to be looking at is what can be done with the property and not ;ust what Mr. Hutchinson proposes to do with It, Directly west of Mr. Hutchinson's property is the new A-I Rental facility that does have a sidewc+lk along the frontage and Mr. Hutchinson's sidewalk would be required to tie in with existing sidewalks. Currently in the Development Review Committee process we are looking at a plat for an Outback Steakhouse at the corner of I-35 and Sam Bass which is adjacent io the A-1 and they are proposing to build sidewalk on Sam Bass and 1-35 We have also had a predesign conference for a motel on I-35 service road closer to Teasley Lane on the other side of Action Imports and they will be required to install a sidewalk. So we do have other sidewalks in the area and some that are proposed, We know that the applicant is concerned about installing a sidewalk given that his use Is temporary in nature and that at some point in time it will be developed into something else, There Is a concern about installing a sidewalk and that hz next person would have to tear it out to do their project. The sidewalk at A-i Rental was installed by the previous owner who sold mobile homes and A•1 used the existing sidewalks. I think that it 1s reasonably possible to expect that someone could redevelop the property and leave the sidewalk intact, There is only one driveway entrance allowed for this property so any future owners will probably have to use the same driveway unless they try to get a variance. There is a three hundred foot driveway spacing criteria along the service road and the driveway is approximately In the center of the property. There is a good sized bar ditch across the front of the property and anyone else that uses this property is not going to be able to just cross the ditch anywhere, they will probably use the existing driveway and so the sidewalk will probably remain intact when the next owner builds. On the second variance staff is recommending a partial variance of the drainage because Mr. Iutchinson is proposing a small building with a small parking lot on four acres of property, lie Is not going to have a significant impact on the drainage. We feel that the grass lined swales that the engineer has designed are adequate for the drainage for the time being and that wh^n the property is fully developed at a later date and when more runoff is created It would be more the develo er a( hat to buil full dergwund concrete system. the prposed casemenlts andtdrai age swalesdare wide en ugh to p ovide space for the drainage runoff and room to maintain them. • Mr. Drake: Do you know when lvfr Hutchinson acquired this property? s o • _ ~gtltldaNo. ~ d l.. dbn~alt k: Y P&Z Minutes ` May 10, 1995 ~.2 c; ze) Page 27 Mr, Salmon: A year to two years ago. Mr. Drake: So it would have been after these requirements were placed into the Subdivision Regulations. Mr, Salmon: We have had the sidewalks and pipe system requirements since 1988 and 1990 respectively. Ms, Russell: You are saying that the proposed drainage and easements is acceptable? Mr. Salmon: Correct, with the small amount of pavement and building the amount of runoff coming off the property will be insignificantly increased. Dr. Nuey: Would the drainage at the property line impact the adjacent property? Mr, Salmon: The drainage of the grass lined swales have been designed so that the adjoining properties can drain into them and still drain adequately, Dr. Huey; So rather than draining onto other properties this would be iaklag the drainage from other properties? Mr. Salmon: Right, this property is sort of in a valley In that the property on either side of it is higher than this property. So we want to make sure that those properties can continue to drain the same way and that Mr, Huichinson's property won't impede that in any mailer, I Ms. Russell: There Is a lot of activity out there and it appears year's time have construction going all along there, Is thatt a reasonable thing of think about? • Mr, Salmon: I believe that it Is and the Outback Steakhouse plat will probably be approved within a week or so and they seem to be in a fast mode to get it done, I don't know about the Super 8 Motel. They had a predesign conference a couple of weeks ago, Ms. Russell: The word temporary is being used on Mr. Hutchinson's property, do we have a time limit on temporary? Are we thinking a couple of years or until it sells? Mr, Salmon: My understanding is that Mr. Hutchinson has the property for sale right now, • 4 • c> u AQgndaNo....:1 '9zo_ Ageedalte P&Z Minutes lts._ b- `l ? May 10, 1995 L Page 28 Mr. Greg Edwards; My name is Greg Edwards with Metroplex Engineering, As far as a couple of the concerns that were addressed by staff, basically this ij an interim use and Mr. Hutchinson doesn't anticipate being on the property for any great length of time. The major purpose of purchasing; the property is for the purpose of selling it to a commercial user, We don't anticipate being on the property for very long. If you could legally limit the time that the variance is good for and you would allow us two years we would be in agreement with that. Also as far as the limitation of the use, the idea is not to sell it to some other temporary or interim use. The idea is to sell the property to sorne final user, so you could tie the use for the variance to CPI, Consolidated Products International only which is the company owned by the Hulchinsons, If you could limit that just to their use so that some other user can not come in and occupy the building or some other building in that same location, 'those types of things would be fine with the owners. In the particular variance request we are not going to argue the "sidewalks to nowhere" issue, We don't want to argue whether or not sidewalks should be along 1.15. Basically based on your ordinances we feel that we have a justifiable variance request. Number one we are coming in with a development piat, You make provisions in your platting process so that if we are not using the property to the full extent of what the zoning ordinance would allow then you can make some reductions in the standards. On this particular property for the interim office use that we arc requesting we are using less than one percent of the allowable FAR on the property, That is why we have gone with the development plat and not proposing to build one hundred percent of the required infrastructure for full development of the property, For somebody else to come in and do this they will have to come back through the platting process. If the ordinances a year from now or two years from now are the same then you can get it put in at that time, The variance that we are requesting is based on the sidewalk being of value to the property owner. We don't feel that the sidewalk is of value to the property owner. The type of business that Mr. Hutchinson is proposing does not anticipate any pedestrian access. On A-1 Rental the sidewalk was there when they bought the property and it just happened that they left it in the same place but there were portions of that sidewalk that were damaged during construction. The contractor had to pay to have it removed and • then had to replace it. That wasn't a hundred percent value, When we sell the property if the ultimate user wants to change the grade, push parking closer to the interstate, or do some kind of retaining, the sidewalk would be gone and we have wasted money for the sidewalk. We feel that the need for the sidewalk for our proposed development in accordance with the development plat procedures are not there and we feel that this is a very reasonable variance request for you to approve. If you could put time limits on there and allow us two years we would he glad to abide by that and basically either 0 • remove the use or build a sidewalk at that time, Also if you want to restrict it to just the Hutchinson's use that would be fine also. • 0 • t~> • ~gendaNo Agandaltej ~.-~r-..s..~.. P&Z Minutes May 10, 1995 Page 29 Ms. Schertz: What year was the property acquired? Mr. Edwards: It was acquired last year. Ms. Russell: If we have some questions of Mr. Edwards then lets ask those now and then if we would like to talk to Mrs, Hutchinson so she can get on the record, Mr, Drake: Madam Chair if I can address a few questions to Greg and perhaps on behalf of the Eiutchinsons, Is there any suggestion that the requirement o' the sidewalks renders the land unmarketable? Mr. Edwards: It doesn't render it unmarketable but it doesn't necessar , render it more valuahlc, Mr. Drake: I understand that. I am Just trying to make sure that we understand what the standards are for this variance in that it has to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted. Is there in any way that you can advise this Commission that the requirement of building sidewalks constitutes a confiscation of the tract for the owners? Mr. Edwards: Do you have a copy of the regulations because when I read them I recall that there is an "or." We meet the value or we meet the confiscation. Mr. Drake: It says "it exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract to be planed." Mr. Edwards: We have prepared our request on reasonable benefit to the property owner, There is no reasonable benefit to the property. Mr. Drake: Okay, but before we get there 1 want to clarify whether there Is any argument that there is confiscation of the tract to be platted by the requirement of the • sidewalks? Mr. Edwards: We haven't prepared It based on that, basically we have rrepared our request based on the reasonable benefit to the property owner, Mr. Cochran: Point of order. I hate to interject at this point but Mr. Drake you need to direct your questions to the chairman or the other members of the Commission rather • • ® than to the petitioner. It is our job to interpret your Interpretations and to direct It to the petitioner instead of it being your job. i • O s c~ • AgendltNo..___g5 ggundalfo P&Z Minutes fk~fe _ .._~Q` May 10, 1995np7 Page 30 C~ Mr. Drake: 1 will be happy to comply with whatever the Commission directs, I did ask permission of the Chair to ask some questions and if the Commission sees fit I will defer to the Commission to ask the questions. M;. Cochran: It just seems to me that we are charged with the responsibility for estavlishing facts and you are charged with the responsibility of making sure that we are in legal good standing. I feel that you have over stepped that just slightly here and 1 apologize for bringing it up in public but we are all just friends here, Mr. Drake: If 1 could respond to that I am sitting here wearing three hats and i am wearing the hat of parliamentarian to the Commission aixi legal advisor to the Commission and I am wearing the hat of advisor to the staff and representing the city as an entity. I don't think that it is necessarily inappropriate for me to be wearing all three hats and I think that there are some legal issues here that need to be addressed either through me or through the Commission. If the Commission sees fit I will be happy to address my questions through the Commission. Mr. Cochran: That is my request. Dr, Duey; I tend to agree with Mr. Cochran's point. I think that our standard procedure has always been that we are the ones responsible for dealing with petitioners, 1 am certainly in sympathy with the points that are being raised and I do think we should raise them. Ms. Russell Mr. Drake if you want to propose to us what we should have concerns ghoul. Mr, Drake: I would like to establish whether this request for variance is claimed to be a confiscation of the tract to be platted and if so how? 1 would like to have It explained how the imposition of the sidewalk or the drainage requirements Is so unreasonable as to exceed any reasonable benefit to the property owner, I believe that the question is • it unreasonable to expect that the owners are going to get their value out of the land if there is a requirement that the sidewalk goes through, I don't know that I agree that the confiscation of the tract to he platted does not modify the issue of reasonable benefit to j the progeny, This is my reason for wanting to get down to that issue of whether It Is claimed to be a confiscation of the tract to be platted. O Ms. Russell: Whether the owner is saying that we are confiscating the property if we r make these requirements? I believe that is the question • 0 e e ~8atttlnNu_ ~5 ' ggond~l~e 7x ~ P&Z Minutes 6,l. May 10, 1995 ? <<~j Page 31 Dr. Huey: Isn't the key word here "or"? Mr. Drake: First of all you could grant the variance that the regulations exceed the reasonable benefit to the property owner or that it is so excessive to constitute confiscation of the tract to be platted. Dr. Huey: So his burden would to prove either one or two. Mr. Drake: I believe that Mr. Edwards Is suggesting that the constitution of confiscation of the tract to be platted is not applied to the reasonable benefit prong of that and I take issue with (hat. Mr. Norton: If it said "and" I would agree with you but it says "or." Mr. Drake: I certainly respect the wishes of the Commission members to dissect but on behalf of the city as an entity I would like it addressed as to whether or not it is argued in requesting this variance that it constitutes confiscation of the tract. Irrespective of the interpretation to be addressed. Mr. Edwards: In respect to Mr, Drake's concerns we looked at it as either condition one or condition two. We felt like we met condition one and we really have not studied or felt like it was required in order to grant the variance to address condition number two. We are not prepared to about that and if we are required to address both this is the first time we have heard that. Ms. Russell: I would yield to our authority Dr. Huey concerning the English and not the legal matter, Dr. Huey: To me he has to convince us that either of these two requirements would cost them more than any benefit to the property that t4ey would get from complying with the requirement. If he can't prove that then he would have to prove that it is excessive. That is what the "or" means to me Mr. Edwards: We looked at the reasonablc benefit to the property, If it is going to cost three thousand dollars to build a sidewalk, is the client going to be able to market the property for three thousand dollars more? No. Does the sidewalk benefit his operations'? 0 No. e e Mr. Cochran: Does it benefit the City of Denton is the question that we really have to look at. 0 • G~ • errtla No. 'A.gand~lt ~~~7~ P&Z Minutes rytfo ' May 14, 1995 1? Page 32 Mr, Edwards: We are coming with a development plat which means that if you dolt get it now then you get it later, We have agreed that this would only be two years of this particular use and then we would be gone. If we were coming in with an ultimate user and a more permanent use then I don't think we would be having this diwusslon We are curving in with a development plat where we are developing less than one percent of the developable building site and we don't see the benefit to us, We rte that it will most likely be in the way of future construction and it is a detriment to the value of the property. I think that you can waive that requirement and we would really appreciate your consideration, Mr. Cochran: You have answered a lot of my questions and I would be w ding to support the staff recommendation with the stipulations that you gave. Ms. Schertz: Can we do that? Mr. Brake: I don't know if we can, It may hinge upon how we have done things in the past. To my knowledge it hasn't been done and I would be hesitant about setting a precedent for the future. Mr. Robbins: There have already been citations issued on this property fur a building on the lot without a permit or a certificate of occupancy and for erosion control. Erosion control has been abated but the others have not. The problem with setting a time limit is how do you effectively monitor that? What do you do at the end of two years? Eitker the business is gone or the sidewalk isn't built and that becomes anodier problem. 1 ne regulations essentially say that when you do the development is when you are required to put the public lmprovcment; m place and if you don't think that the public improvements are needed with that development then you grant a variance. My recommendation would be not to do the two year deal and to grant the variance based on whether you drink the development requires it or not. I think that what the Intent of 1 the regulations are is that when the development occurs that Is when you determine • whether or not the sidewalks are needed, Ms, Schertz What is the purpose of sidewalks on 1.35? Is your interpretation of it being a safety Issue'? Mr. Salmon; Sid walks are of course to transport pedestrians from one piece of property • to another. It is a safety issue. The lousiness that Mr. Hutchinson Is proposing does not t • lend itself to walk in traffic and neither did the mobile home sales. However, what we are proposing to do here is to consider a plat that would allow a certain amount of building and parking lot and we need to realize that we have existing commercial zonli,g • O • r; • ApeVaNn,___ 5'- Agerldai III P&Z Minutes Iktlt~_. i May 10, 1995 t ~,,J 2 Page 33 which if yr. look in the Zxming Ordinance there is about three pages of different uses for commercial zoning. Some of them could use exactly what is shown on this development plat. If we look at the individual owner getting use out of the sidewalk then I could argue that I don't use the sidewalk iii front of my house except to edge it. Someone that buys my house might have kids and they would get a lot of use out of the sidewalk. My only concern is that whatever you choose to do on the variance I would hope that you would consider what could be here considering the proposed plat and the proposed zoning instead of looking specifically at what Mr. Hutchinson is proposing to do. Ms. Schertz: I have no reason not to believe the applicant but it is speculative, and since it is recommended that we not put a time limit, or that we limit the use 1 am relying on staff to give me input concerning the situation, I already knew the answer but I wanted to go on the record about way we need a sidewalk, 1 am a very big fan of sidewalks. I have small children and I have seen people walking along 1.35 and I have seen the grave marker along 1-35. 1 am not going to paint a bad picture but highways are busy places and people do walk along then and it is something that I have to think about. Ms. Russell; There is a motel looking at going there and there is a motel down across Teasley. If i were going to stay at a motel down there and I wanted to go to the restaurant I would not get into my car and try to figure a way to get to the restaurant. I would walk up the sidewalk. Obviously this is a very hot area right now. I am aware of several entities looking in that area. I think that there ought to be a sidewalk there, I wouldn't avant to give any more than two years because I think that property will sell within that period of time. If it doesn't sell in two years and II Is time to build a sidewalk then how would we enforce that? Mr. Salmon: Basically when two years comes up and we haven't heard anything then we call them or send them a letter. Hopefully they will build the sidewalk at that time and if they don't then it is a matter of Issuing citations. • Mr. Cochran: It is not a clean way to deal with it but it is enforceable, Mr. Robbins: 1 am indicating that it Is messy and It is not clean, If you think the sidewalks are supposed to he in now. My problem is conceptually how the regulations work. When the development occurs is when you get the exactions, If the exactions are • not necessary that is when you put In, or not. Why delay it for two years? If the same • G development is still there then it didn't have the earlier need for sidewalks. If it is a different development then their are going to have to come back for platting and then the sidewalk standards would be applicable at that point. • • ApWa No Agondaltot w P&Z Minutes 13h' 6 ~9 May 10, 1995 ' r9°~ Page 34 Mr. Cochran: We all agree that there should be sidewalks there, The issue is if a sidewalk is put in there is a possibility that the future owner of this property may want it in a different place, I don't want to grant a Nanket variance for sidewalks but I would rather do a conditional variance. Ms. Flemming: I would he against voting for a variance for the sidewalks and I think setting a condition would only set a precedent for future developers. Mr. Norton: I am very familiar with this property having owned a portion of it at one time. This land as it is developed it will probably change shape, I can see the developers argument about the sidewalk but I feel that 1.35 needs a sidewalk. I do agree with Mike and that we should grant the variance with the two year condition. Dr. Huey: I have concerns because I go by the golf place where we granted a variance for sidewalks and I am sorry that we ever did that. I for one have no intention of ever voting for a variance for a sidewalK, I think we need to hold firm to our development of sidewalks, The safety issue Is our primary concern. The issue is the benefit to the community, that is what a sidewalk is for. I think that it is an essential thing. We have talked about the two year limit on sidewalks. I want to look at it in another way. The staff is recommending a partial variance for the drainage. The recommendation is based upon "the very small amount of impervious surface proposed as shown on the development plat document" Is that impervious surface amount permanently limited with that plat document? Mr. Salmon: Yes. The variance will only apply to this particular development plat. Concerning the sidewalk it will have to tie in with the existing elevations on both sides of the property because they are developed pieces of property. In the center of the property before it Is all over with they are going to have a thirty foot wide concrete drive approach with culverts under it. You certainly can't raise the property very easily in the middle unless you want to completely reconstruct the driveway. In fact from what I • understand the reason that Mr, Autchinson has put so much fill on the property now is to make the property more marketable so someone won't have to do so much din work when they buy it. Also the sidewalk is up close to the road, normally where you would have your required landscaping and parking lot screening, In fact It is not even allowable a build a parking lot up against the right of way line, tb Ms, Schertz: I agree with Mr. Norton but I am looking at it from the standpoint that we ~ • • are offering safety to pedestrians along a very busy highway for two years. I feel like j we arc dealing with property that is exposed and it is going 1:) develop and we are speculating about when that is going to happen, • O • p • ~emlaNo. 5 '~~-7j Agotldalt0l~,~,~„~, P&Z Minutes We_ May 10, 1995 2©Zp Page 35 Mr. Norton: I move that we support the staff's recommendation and deny the variance for the sidewalks. Ms. Flemming: I'll second, Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. Opposed same sign. Approved the motion to deny the variance. (7-0) Mr. Cochran left at 9:27 p.m. Ms. Russell; Lets discuss drainage now. Mr. Salmon: Staff is recommending a partial variance of the drainage, The ordinance requires that they install underground concrete piping through the site to carry drainage for a ten year storm. The developer is proposing to build a grass lined drainage channel instead of installing an underground drainage system. They are not asking for a full variance and staff is recommending that partial variance be granted because we feel that what they are proposing will adequately handle the drainage considering what they are going to build on that property. Mr. Cooper: In this case I agree with staff on this recommendation. I think that the drainage improvements on that site are going to be heavily dependent on what type of development takes place there. Ms. Schertz: I am in agreement also, Mr. Cooper: I move that we approve the partial variance for drainage Improvements as recommended by the staff, Ms. Flemming: I'll second. a 1 Ms, Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign, Approved. (6.0) b. The Development Plat of the proposed Lot 1, Block A. • Mr. Greg Edwards; Because the variances were not approved we would like to withdraw • the development plat since it does not conform and we will submit it at a later data Dr. Huey: I move approval of this request. • 0 • i • DENTON ODaogao QDpp00O oo°~ ~ °ao G ,y o Q C~ p 0 O O 000 N T ~'QQO ooaoa 0000 oaaaooo CITY OUNCIL C • • Awn ua A00nda1lernAEe.2-A DATE: June 6, 1995 IWA 1cg16 REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council 1 FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: Variance to Sec. 34-114, paragraph 17 (sidewalk requirements) of the Code of Ordinances, for the proposed Milam Creek Ranch, phase one. RECOMMEND OBI; The Planning &c Zoning Commission, at its meeting of 5/24/95, recommended approval of the complete variance in the case of Milam Creek Ranch, phase one, SUMMARY Powelson, Fulten & Stockard are owners of approximately 160 acres on the south side of Milam Road (F.M. 3I63). Phase 1 of the development encompasses just over 26 acres, which is being subdivided into eight residential lots of slightly over 3 acres each, At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of May 24, 1995, the Commission approved a General Development Plan of the entire 160 acres, and approved, conditionally, the preliminary plat of the first phase, The Commission also recommended approvnl of the subject variance, which must be ultimately considered by the City Council. Since the property is In excess of 8,000 ft. from a City of Denton water line, sidewalks along the p r't te of the site are not required to be built, However, the cited section of the Code of Ordinances requires the developer to build sidewalks along both sides o1' public, interior streets. The applicant does not propose to build sidewalks, or an other type of pedestrian system, within the developme-7, and requests that this requirement be vaed The request is based on there not being a reasonable benefit to the property owner, and on the disproportionahty between the cost of the required sidewalks and the benefit to the development. , • • e • 0 e w e gertdaNo._ Agendalt 9 BACKGROUND: klte._- ^2 The Commission agreed that there is no reasonable benefit to the owner, Such a determination satisfies a criteria for an "exaction" variance, which must ultimately be approved by the City Council in order to become valid. In so doing, the Commission rejected the stares recommendation far a partial variance; having the developer construct a pedestrian system that would cost approximately $1,000 per lot (the same as any subdivision in Denton). The Commission also received fiom the applicant a commitment to place in all deeds of 1 contract, words that would place the cost of future sidewalks, if desired, on the lot owners • not the City of Denton. 1 The Commission also Instructed the staff to explore methodology for not requiring sidewalks on large, residential lots with a great deal of street frontage, which are also in a rural environment. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR QROUPS AFFECTED: Property owner, sidewalk regulations, FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time. Respectfully submitted, Lloyd V. Harrell, C*Manager i Prepared by, 1 e - q,-a, G, Owen Yosl, ASLA e Urban Planner • e I • CA • r r Cps -c2O ~gendaNo, Apendait Approved by, L~~-s+~---- Frank H. Robbins, AIC~ Director of Planning & Development ATTACHMENTS: Location map. • Preliminary plat, • Application materials (4 pages). • Commission minutes. Aaxa,as1 • i C • w • ~entl~Mo._ 1 • 1 ~(~6flf)aI1B111 ATTACHMENT 1 fkaI(' .n14N 4 ff11 1''- I • S~NrtF ''f l~l ~ ~ ~ . ~ I - QB77 . . y. CIE DENTON y►r Y-- . I : •~Illllr~ Y h I,lll~ 1 1 A l.JY • Il r VICInlt Map crti` • O • s • AMIN' AgenONo 4gmal E r 1 1 Oate l,10 Mf. _ Iw bww fwwlWl '411~YrIf~1AM1~r .I 1, y.,1 1 ~ IM IIYMI I.,MxMN I ) { 1 ' u. M.xIwIwW 1~1 fIP i) ~ 1 i 1 I~NIM fMw MMM11l 1,M, r . 1 , t r l .1 / 4 1a r' y 1,1 Pi•y JV 111 torn) lr~lln N11 I P.4r/IK ~ r ~ ' ~ 7 T /r+.fr 1~) n1l'I In m J Ayers Survey , J .Mill 1 AU4L, R2 { )'f IIf f t I i to, ,5~.~~' ~M '1 f fff I - r,I, IJf ~.y p 1 v) i~tt S ) Ayres `.rl~ll nrl 112' fun,W .7f A U ~II~ f umjl 1 n 4 i, JIJ 1 / rYYW111..1~Ir Y14M1 f yln, I I 1fr~,Ar -IM ~ ~ 1~~~~ I 111rf~rF 4% 111T ` + u rNr in4_r, .J -'twRwrlrrw ' _ - I ~lr.a Ah0 flJ 14G yt ~tEl ~ . r• eta ~ Y rf l ~t1 • I+ f tI ~ , II ~ / 4 I ~ "1'r~.Y.Li~,..ri.+"1C>t"r 1"1 ~I ~ ~ 11 1 I~~~rI1r1YIlYl ` Ab~,1 a II'u, r ~ f 1 I ,rr J ti'' I I f Op~ GENERAL QEVE~LOPM@NT PLAN J J~ -la~ Milam Creek Ranch • f Bemq 160 Ac in 160 J Ayers 9ufvey A•2 1) OA#1 founly, Pesos and In'4,01'0 ),III, .11MI PRELIMINARY PLAT 01 PHASE I '°GM1rorrt' ) r Uelnq H I ols in r 9)nciis on 2f, f Act III y 1..1, 1.1 o,.nnn nr14-11 nl ~t I 1`I,I411011. RWU4 A 611114d PLAN( f40MCRIMQ }u/ r 1M.,IJ J1 bur Lo 'IM 440. 0".1 Irlnbq I 141UI pMfM~.1~1 4+11, li All) IN /IM 111r~RR,(~I. la.. r.w14 %%%frt4o 11 -.....,,..~.w.-.1,..... ^1.w`-.,._ 1 • .r~wrxM.aSOW1RIW'; rrw r-1r.. ~~1111 4 yl r • - '•i 1 y ~d I, nrv~ Sri 1 t 1' ' a • w • t Agentlalt ATTACHMENT 3. CITY OF DENTON q~16 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCs of BUBDIVI8ION AND LAND bEVELO MENT REGULATIONS Name of proposed plat From what article of the subdivision and Land Development Regulations are you requesting a variance? _ 5~,~~t do .34-114- l ? Petitioner ~ ~.Yrr1A " Tesephoae3 Address aff f t+I yrn DYr V- city/state/sip f-1 liA~ , 7(p Land Owner F r f~, d ~S/L~L D Address LJJ City/state/si 3?~L -731 ~I Date 5 Fee Paid _~75, QO Petitioner must provide the rationale for the variance using the following five criteria. (1) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare or injurious to other pro- perty+ • (2) The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought arA ari not applicable generally to other propertyi (3) Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a ® particular hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a more inconvenience, if the strict letter of these regulations is carried outs REC ,IVED MAY 4 3 1995 • d . • apartdaNo"~D AgendalteE~~~~7..~- variance Application Continued Date J. ~ • li -q$ Page 2 7d !b (4) The variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of the Zoning ordinance, Denton Development Plan, Master Plan, or Studies. (5) The special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the owner's or any prior owner's action or omission. or, If the variance is from an exaction (eq. road construction, right- of-way dedication, drainage improvement - a public improvement and/or dedication to the public), the imposition of any development exaction pursuant to these regulations (1) exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner or (2) is so excessive as to constitute confiscation of the tract being platted. Waiver of developmental exactions shall be considered after a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning commission by the city council. MOT1E1 Request must include the followings 1. Completed application (one per variance). II. $175.00 fee, III, Copy of proposed plat and location map. iSignature of Applii Date L-- • i F ' 1 `I \ 4 1 t yy_ 9a, t t~ 1 }C f b Ill s ca entlaNo, <?5.OW ~gealtlaEte3n 06 April 1996 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION City of Denton, Texas; 215 E. McKinney St, Denton, Texas 76201 Re! SIDEWALK VARIANCE REQUEST Milam Creek Ranch, Phase I Ladies & Gentlemen: The developers of Milam Creek Ranch, Phase 1 request a variance of the sidewalk requirement described in Sec 34-114 (17) of the City SUBDIVISION AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, We do not think It is reasonable to construct public sidewalks along West Milam Creek Road, the Phase I interior street, { We are developing estate lots approximately three acres in minimum area, We anticipate that some customers will purchase much larger lots. The addition is located on Milam Road (FM 3163) within the City Division I extra territorial jurisdiction. We believe that granting the variance will not Le detrimental to the public safety, health, or welfare of anyone within the new addition or anyplace else. The variance would not be Injurious to other property. To the best we can determine, the variance would not vary the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Development Plan, Master Plan or any "studies." It is likely that our property is not unique in terms of the reasons for this request, o It is physically possible to construct new sidewalks along West Milam Creek Road, However, doing so would create an unwarranted financial hardship on the lot purchasers. Our cost to design, stake and build sidewalk would be at least $2,000 per lot, It would produce no significant benefit, The neatest public sidewalks (that cover more than one lot) are along the east side 0 of Fallmeadow Drive and in the Cooper Glen subdivision. Each is 3.75 miles r away tneaaurcd_itt a_skli&W- im JJI I 07 s 0 4ge Ma No Agentlal late.~ 06 April 1995 Planning & Zoning Commission, Sidewalk Variance, page 2 - We have much experience selling estate lots and acreage tracts to individuals for single family homes and ranchettes. We know our market well. They move away from town for space. They do not seek sidewalks, which would be seen more as a liability than an asset. For the same reason we are not suggesting an alternate pedestrian access plan. There are no community facilities for pedestriams to use. The nearest possible destination is the outlet nail, which is nearly four miles away by road. Residents of Milam Creek Ranch wiil use personal vehicles to reach their destinations. This is not a unique situation, and It will not create a burden for them. We will makt sure purchasers do not expect a public sidewalk along West Milam Creek Road. Milam Creek Ranch is beyond the Denton city limits. Consequently, the Denton County Public Works Department must maintain public improvements we construct. A County representative has acknowledged their obligation to maintain public sidewalk if it is constructed at Milam Creek Ranch, but they do not welcome the idea. Constricting sidewalks at Milam Creek Ranch would return so little benefit that it would be a waste of money. The benetit is not reasonable in comparison to the expense. Please grant the variance. Feel free to contact us if you have any gwmticx>.s or suggestions, j Sincerely, i David Fulton Partner Powelson, Fulton & Stockard 1204 W. University Drive Suite 310 Denton, Texas 76201 (817) 382-7319 • ca e ~}enda ivn ►C> P&Z Minuses May 24, 1995 Page 10 IV. Consider the proposed Milani Creek Ranch. The 160 acre site to be developed in phases is located on the south side of Milam Road at Canyon Road. a. Consider a sidewalk variance. Mr. Salmon: Burke Engineering is representing Powelson, Fulton and Slockard, owners of the hundred and sixty acres on Milani Creek Road has requested a variance of Section 34.114, paragraph 17, of the Code of Ordinances which is concerning sidewalks. The cited section slates that all developments are to install sidewalks along both sides of all interior streets of'the subdivision. This will be a subdivision with anywhere from three to five acre lots. Because of the lot size they will be installing estate section streets which is basically a twenty-four foot wide asphalt or concrete street with no curb or gutter and bar ditches on either side. This variance is associated with the preliminary plat of the first phase of this project and [hat is the area in the northwest corner of the document where the f individual lots are marked out, This variance is only for one section. The applicant is requesting full variance of the sidewalk requirement. He does not propose to Install any sort of pedestrian system inside the subdivision. Although this development does fall outside of the eight thousand fool limit from a City of Denton water line they are still required to install interior sidewalks. The eight thousand foot rule applies only to sidewalks along the perimeter of the development. There would he no sidewalks proposed along Milani Creek Road but we are addressing sidewalks that would be interior to the development. This is an exaction variance, it is a variance based on reasonable need of the development or an issue of being confiscation of the property. Staff does not believe that installing sidewalks in this subdivision would be confiscatory to the property. We are talking about a two thousand dollar expense per lot and probably is not confiscatory, although it may he above what would he considered beneficial to the lots. Sidewalks inside the development would cost about two thousand dollars per lot. An average lot in the City of Denton the cost would be about a thousand dollars for sidewalk improvements. Staff is proposing that the developer install some sort of pedestrian system that would cost 0 approximately one thousand dollars per lot so that it would be proportional with other developments. If a full variance is granted it might indicate to staff that maybe the Commission has a concern with the standard and that maybe we should look at the standard. historically we have conic to the Commission in the past with a proposal to not require sidewalks for estate type subdivisions and that was not voted on favorably by the Commission at that time, Considering the history and what the ordinance says staff feels ® comfortable that they ought to install some sort of pedestrian system in this subdivision and so we would propose that [hey would spend the same amount of money here per lot that 0 0 any normal subdivision would spend for pedestrian improvements. Mr. Cochran: How far outside of the city limits are they'? s O sir 6, 9-5- _ P&7. Minutes May 24, 1995 ly it Page 11 i I Mr, Salmon: I don't know how far outside of the city limits they are. I do know that they are in division I of the GTJ which means that they are well inside of the li,.nits, Mr. Cooper: What do you mean by a pedestrian access'? Mr. Salmon: There are several alternatives. It has been suggested that the developer install sidewalks on one side of the street as opposed to both sides of the streets because that would work out to be one thousand dollars per lot, They might propose to put a walk system on both sides of the street but maybe build it out of sonic other type of material that is less expensive. Or they might choose to do something between the lots instead of along the streets. 3 i Ms. Schertz: Now many lots are there? E Mr. Salmon; The plat that we are looking at tonight has eight lots. I don't recall how many lots total will he in the development. 't'onight we are only considering the variance and the plat for the eight lots, Ms. Russell: Any other questions? Would the petitioner like to speak? f Mr. Brian Burke; My name is Brian Burke and 1 live at 1318 Auburn Drive. This is a long way away from existing sidewalks. I looked around the northwest part of town and found a couple sidewalks, Cooper Glen has sidewalks, and there are some off Fall Meadow Drive. It is about 3.75 miles straight line distance from those sidewalks to this development. Phase 1 we want to see how things are going to work out. Fulton, Stockard and Powelson have a lot of experience doing estate type subdivisions in Cooke County, Denton County, Dallas County, etc. That have had a lot of response already out here and 1 don't think that they have been biasing the question when they asked it. The people that they have been talking to as potential land owners are not interested in sidewalks, We have thought about cinder block paths, cinder block paths with railroad tie borders, but really they seem to accomplish the opportunity to present a alternate pedestrian access plan but nothing else, We are not proposing that to you tonight. What we are requesting is a straight exaction variance for the whole thing. They have a lot of interest in larger tracts in future phases, ten acres and more than that. The two thousand dollars a lot for constructing the sidewalk and designing it attd staking it, that is my estimate. The frontage j is two hundred and twenty-eight feet average, We are a long way away from other 1 ® sidewalks. The County has acknowledged that they will maintain sidewalks out there if • they are built, but they don't want to. We just don't think it makes any sense to build sidewalks out there and the people who have been talking to the developers about buying out there are not interested in it. Many of them are planning on fencing right up to the • • 4gendallem~.. s I P&'I, Minutes n May 24, 1995 - Page 12 I I right of way and having horses. We thought about combination equestrian paths/pedestrian paths but we didn't come up with anything that we thought made sense. Ms. Schertz: If it is common sense then talk me into it. I have small children and I always think of safety. You are telling me that these sites are large enough that people walking in the neighborhood, people riding bicycles in the neighborhood, that's probably just not going to happen. Is that what 1 hear you say? Mr. Burke: 1 think that there is going to be enough private driveway for the children to play on and I think that people will go front door to front door and not walk down the street. Safety is the most important factor. Sidewalks out there will probably ba deteriorate before there is any adjoining sidewalks for them to tie into. There is enough room to put sidewalks in the right of way at a later date if it was obvious that they are I needed. Mr. Cochran: What would happen down the line if it was annexed into the city and how could the taxpayer be protected from having to assume the liability for these improvements twenty years down the road? Can it be assessed? Mr. Robbins: We have just spent an hour or two on how the process works. I would think that a fume P&Z Commission would probably put sidewalks that are relatively expensive in a subdivision pretty far down on the list in terms of where we would build sidewalks. For the same kinds of reasons that we are discussing about whether we should grant a variance or not, right now. Technically and legally there are assessment laws on the books but we had them and we got rid of them because they were hard to effect and they became very unpopular. They are other options but I don't know exactly how you would tie down this subdivision. Mr. Cochran: 1 have a real problem with the policy and with subdivisions that are this far out and (his size. That might be something that we might want to look at in the future • because it is a real question for me. This is a lifestyle choice as much as anything else. We all agree that sidewalks in the city are valuable and in front of commercial property, Mr, Salmon: They are not required to put sidewalks along the perimeter of the subdivision and I think that is sort of the reasoning behind that similar to what Brian said earlier. Sidewalks inside the subdivision facilitate movement within the subdivision as well as B Provide a safe way for children to play and neighbors to visit, Sidewalks Inside a subdivision serve a different purpose as opposed to perimeter sidewalks, Mr Cochran: Do you have an estimate of how many lots will be out there eventually? i • A • t7 • 7.11 lh '1 , ~I P&Z Minutes ~ No rlanda ! May 24, 19(95 tgtndailetn Page }r QQ 13 /~G~1cv Mr. Burke: Approximately fifty to seventy-five lots out of the hundred and sixty acres. Ms. Schertz: What is the reasoning for not wanting sidewalks? Mr. Burke: It is a combination of reasons. There are people who are not interested in sidewalks and two thousand dollars isn't a lot of money but it is two thousand dollars. Ms. Russell: I think that this is a lifestyle choice. I think we saw the same thing out on Jim Christai Road, Frankly I was surprised since I have been here I don't remember the Commission voting against a proposal for one acre or more and I would like to see that looked into. Safety is important but 1 don't think people get out and race up and down a rural subdivision like that as though they would in the city. I feel that it is quite a I legitimate request. { Mr. Cooper: I agree with that. I think that there need to be some guidelines. When you are out in the FTJ and you have a ranchette I don't know that it is reasonable to ask people to do that unless there is a benefit. Dr. Huey: Let me dire,;[ you to Ranch Fstates. They now want the city to provide the infrastructure. Mr, Cooper: I have heard about the drainage problems but I haven't heard them ask for sidewalks out there. 'vii. Flemming: Maybe five or ten years from they may be sitting in the audience requesting sidewalks that would be added to the CIP budget. I feel like if they lay the sidewalks now then that will be one item that we won't have to deal with. Mr. Cochran: Is there something that is legally binding that the developer or the property • owners might be able to come up with that would cover the city's responsibility in the f i to re? Mr. Burke: Mr. Fulton is here and he just instructed me to suggest that a way that he can handle it on his end is to have a clause in each sales contract that if sidewalks are every desired by a majority of the homeowners then they would all be required to chip in ® proportionately. tie is willing to take that approach, • 0 Mr, Norton: You can put that in the deed restrictions can't you? Mr. Burke: I believe so. I guess we are asking for a conditional variance? 11 O • P&Z Minutes aNpljc AS~ May 24, 1995 Page 14 4981daltem~~e c Mr. Drake: That may be one possibility. 1 do know from my research that it needs to be a negative reciprocal easement running with the land in order to make sure that it binds all future owners. i Mr. David Fulton: My name is David Fulton and I live in Krum. Everybody that we showed this project to is against sidewalks. Most of them are going to have horses. They are moving to the country to be away from the kids tiding up and down the streets on bicycles. We could put it in the deed restrictions and if a majority wanted it at a later date then (hey could pay for it. These will be heavily restricted. They will have underground utilities, two thousand square foot new construction and that kind of thing. They can have horses, one per acre, If you have five acres or more you can have cows. Dr. Iiuey: I understand your proposal and the significance of the deed restrictions. The city cannot enforce deed restrictions. They can only be enforced by a lawsuit by one of the other property owners. I am not comfortable in turning over to a deed restriction the business of enforcing a city policy. i Mr. Cochran: You are correct that the city cannot enforce but it is a way of sending a message of our intentions. It is a way of imbedding our intentions so that twenty years from now there will be a record. We would make our approval conditional that it would be in the deed restrictions. Ms. Russell: Could we grant the variance with the stipulation that you review the deed restrictions to see if our intent is in the deed restrictions? Mr. Drake: This is a very new concept. I would suggest that because we really don't have any mechanism in place that the Commission either grant the variance or not grant the variance without attaching any additional requirements or restrictions, Perhaps if this is going to be subject to a plat then the developer could bring a plat showing it on that, • There have been some ideas concerning maximum lot s4es and we could look at the Subdivision Regulations. 1 am reluctant to put the city in a position of requiring anything that is not set out in our Subdivision Regulations, Mr, Burke: Is a possible way of handling this dilei"ma to show it on the preliminary plat and address it specifically on the preliminary plat in that manner, that it would be a deed restriction item? • • d Mr. Drake: Right, they can incorporate it by reference within the plat document with the actual deed restriction language. I don't remember the actual mechanism that we used with Trendmaker, I know that we did review a,td approve a plat and one of the conditions of • 0 • c> • v P&`l. Minutes May 24, 1995 a Page 15 99lydaNo 4gendalte ~ Da If I ~ the plat approval was that they would prepare a set of deed restrictions governing se o£ what they call private streets. It was conditioned upon review and acceptance by the city k attorney's office. I1 Mr. Robbins: There may be another way of doing this by amending the ordinance to exclude lots of one acre minimum and a hundred and fifty feet of frontage minimum. I thought I saw a majority of the Commission earlier thinking that amending the ordinance would be the appropriate way of doing this and that it would probably pass if the brought something forward. We could bring that ordinance forward at your next meeting, or bring the recommendation forward and we can hold a public hearing to amend the Subdivision Regulations on that single issue. Mr. Cooper: I am not sure that I would go along with that because there are a lot of city residential lots that are that large or larger. I would be more inclined to go along with something maybe that is outside the city limits in the ETJ or something more than that hundred and fifty. Mr. Robbins: Our research of what most cities do in the country is that for lots that are one acre in size, most cities don't require sidewalks, That was just a thought and I don't think that's a doable deal so we probably ought to think about the deed restrictions. Mr. Cochran: Can you differentiate between outside and inside the city limits? Mr, Salmon: When we rewrote the standards we were under the impression that we could not legally differential between the city limits and the ETJ. The way I understand it is that if you put some kind of regulation together then it has to be equally applicable inside the city limits as well as in the ETJ. That is what we were lead to believe in 1988 when we rewrote the standards, Mr. Cochran: I would propose that we would look at it on a future agenda. • Mr. Rohbim: To try to get us back on track, my thought on what you are trying to do is to get a level of comfort about people having informatton that the city is not going to build a sidewalk if you want it. Is there someway that we can absolutely with the regulations make that happen? I think the answer is probably not, but if you are asking for a level of comfort that the people that own the land in the future won't come down and ask us to • build a sidewalk, The owner has proposed a way to give you that level of comfort and we • • would review his deed restrictions and he will tell us, we will record them, and we will take his word for it. 4 • ¢x P&Z Minutes May 24, 1995 +QgrrdaNo Page 16 4gendall _ We. / 4q Ms. Schertz: So can we make a motion at this time to approve the sidewalk variance and encourage the developer to include in his deed restrictions this information about sidewalks? Mr. Drake: I am looking at the regulations and in Section 34.6, paragraph C, it says conditions, "in approving a variance the Commission may require such conditions as will in its judgement secure substantially the purposes described in Section 34-2" Section 34-2 is the purpose section. 11 seems to me from the language of the ordinance that you can impose a condition on the granting of a variance. Perhaps the condition can be as you stated. Ms. Russell; It is not unusual that when you are buying property In a subdivision that you would get the deed restrictions because then are certain areas of the city where you run into that. You can file a lien on the property and if they ever hope to sell it that is going to be satisfied. This would achieve, based on my experiences, that goal. Mr, Cochran, I move that we grant the exaction vacance for the sidewalks for Milani Creek Ranch on the basis that It exceeds any reasonable benefit to the property owner and that we would encourage and expect the applicant to do what he has suggested. And that Is that he would put It in the deed restrictions saying that if at any point In the future a majority of the property owners in the subdivision wish to have sidewalks in place then it would be the responsibility of the owners to pay for their own sidewalks and that the City of Denton would not have any obligation to provide them, Mr. Cooper I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign. Approved, (6-1) Dr, Huey opposed. 0 s ~ • s. i.~,~ -11 v a s I DENTON i °Vgo °aaoo oo° a p D z OOp~ ~ N'' 4p1~ I o a I c~ o t. o ©p0°~, p0 000 ~ ° ~ ~ ~ pp0 oop N , 00000 oaaoan~ v CITY COUNCIL 0 r • • A No gs' -G610 ApBndalt ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment:, suppltes or services in accordance with the procedures of state law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINSt SECTION I, That the numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" attached hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such itemst BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 1736 ALL TALEM LABORATORIES $ 15,500.00 SECTION II, That by the acceptance and approval of the above • numbered Items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to pur- chase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents, • 0 • m • ~,g8sidaNo. . &-0 Agendaltem5 SECTION III. That shr-1 1 the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items ana of the submitted bids wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract which shall be attached hereto; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained it the Bid Proposal and related documents herein approved and accepted. SECTION IV. That by the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids or pursuant to a written contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTESTi JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: s APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMS MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BYr • C gsnda No ' ~ 4gendalt~- (late DATE. JUNE 8, 1995'5~ CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: BID # 1736 - ANNUAL SOLID WASTE ANALYTICAL TESTING RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder, Talem Laboratories, In the annual estimated amount of $150500.00. SUMMARY: This bid is for the seloction of a qualified outside laboratory to perform the analysis of ground water monitoring well samples from the City of Denton Municipal Landfill. These samples are required as part of otir TNRCC Municipal Solid Waste Permit. This contract also includes analytical testing of sludge samples in compliance with EPA and TNRCC discharge permit requirements. (For complete list of tests to be performer] see the attached tabulation sheet). Individual test will be made on an as needed basis. The quantities liatad are estimates only. BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheot PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Municipal Laboratory, SoUd Waste Division. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for the needed testing will be taken from 1884-qb budget funds Account #820-081-0980-8502 and 625-082- 183-8502. Rasp. fully sub,,111it d: 0 arre City Manager Approved: Name: Tom Shaw C.P.M. Title: Purchasing Agent 600.AO9NDA I I Ii ~ 1 • c) 0 0 NIU_M _ )III) NAME ANA1.YlICAL•I'HWI]NO '1'LSI'ING FOKI-NSIC; OPEN UA7'3S FEBRUARY 23, 1995 YACi R 1 OF 2 - N OTY f)E3CRfPTfON -VENDOR VENDOR .T i VENDOR tt_ VENOOf1 -1 I. 10 (AUMIUN VENDOR ^VBNDOF3 =8._7O 58.00 i7 20 $6,50 2. 10 C:EIKOMIUM $6.50 $7.60 _ $18.40, 9 IO =18.40 _ 59.1tl ;8 00 $7 20 q 4. 10 LFAD S. 10 $7.50 $iB 40 _ _ 59.10 56.00 $7,26 MI K<alKY 516 00 522.60 $24.80 $18.80 - - - 6. ID NI(:KF1, 1 $16.00. 7. IU 37_60 S18 40 49._10 _ 8 00 Sll VEK 0.60 $7.b0 _ 7 20 ' R. 30 /INt:.. -----4 .._.._$18.40---- $9.101_ 5800_ $720 9. 10 58.60 $7.601 =18 40 $9.10 $8.0 lU... 10 S1U E+NII1M $ T 11. t $8.50 $27.20 5:~-001 8 0.. b0 40 $.10 $0 00 10 NI BORON $8 ;7 $f8 .60_, $9.101 $8.00 1 57 20 - _BARIUM 1 $8.60 _L_ 57.20 r MIS(;I7JA lYEbUS 10 1 $16 DO ;22 601 80 $9.10 $0.00, 7 so_ _ Ste 40 _ 14 AKA N - .00 I5. lo I'm])( YYll lw ll rlm I.IMI'I) 516.00 $24 00 - $ 8 oa $7.80 $1840 00 8 tG. 4 YANII)i 520.00 10ooTTT ;38.00 I } 37 10 F31OC }[!•MICAf OXY<}E+N DI!MAIJU 514 00' 531.60 31.5 - $21.00, 12 00 - C' - -18 20 I8.. ID (:1II:MF(:AI, OXY[IF+N I)1!MAND. } _538 00 - 52 } 00 _ 516 00 $31 b0_~ 521 OD $12 BO -$12 001- $15.00 ~ 19. to 011.-AMU OKF+A,SF? _ $26 00 ` 538 00 ! =34 50 } $24.50 f ._$1 fi b0 $24 00 20. 2 '1C71ALSl1SYkTFU1+.l7501.IUS $12.00 - 11800 _;1676 ;7.70 $600-t_-_- - ?t. S AMkft*IA NII7tWIJV _ ----woo $17 00 $27 00 9 80 51 I .90 i9 00 - - 1, 2. 5 OR 01%% MY) ]A $2b.00-.. $37 b0 - 20 23. 5 (1ROSSHI'I'A 548 00.1 $40.001 _..._..~.$19.60.~_ _ $65.00 ; OR of JF C()M' 126 00 $37.60 548.00 ;40.00 $18.50 $86.00 :r1. 32 '1 ABM I VO( (70NS1'PI'UI+N'l;ti 3U 7A( 970241 $164.00 ;108 60 $167_60 $100.00 $128.60 25. 1 YIJHU/hRIJ! IIAL(XAKIX)NS-1!f'A Mtril E Q 3I-VA00 6(11 $70.00 2)1 YUK(rlgF3LISROMA'!'IC:i.!!YA $90-00 $157.50 ~ - $5700 $Bb.00 $143.60 T~ MhI 1101) G02 27 $64 001 $90.00 ;58.00 - =60.00 $30.00 _ I'IIINOIS-I'1'AMIa7100U1f... -,=100.00_- - - 2N. 1(1K(iANCX]II,OKINI! PIi41'ICIU1!S - $46_ -00 1 _ $B7 60 f__ -,.---:89 00 :72.00 - 00 29. AND 1'( H'S I:YA MI[ITIOU 608 $120.00 ;90.00 -,__$12S.00 188 00 _ _ -:122.601 - $85.0 _$93.00 _ $75.0 0 IIYllKlX-A2[ 'A MI [710D612 $120.00 XJ. 180.001- =188_0000 _ -=86,00 se3_00; F GF[l()RINA'l'I?0F1Y[)R()(AK13S()N 1 $96UD EPA MfIM I7I0D 612 5180.00 9 1 gnroa Np { ~gentlaltem~. ~l c~, 5 • c) • 0 HIDNAMI? ANNOA1. 501.1(1 WAMM INCIIAPE? t AR?wLWRON(i ANACaIL~I FIUN'C[NOLXIN TAIXM ('LOCTI:S ANALYFRAI. KSTIN(i l'k S]TN(i FOR NSW OPEN DATE OTY ~ FEBRUARY S VENDOR VENDOR ~ VE~;pOR [ VENDOR t VENDOR YENgC)R 31 t Pl1H(31AIHL7AOF 7 H PA 0F MI' ~ -,I7 101) 611 $ 6.00 $90.00 -----.00 $38.00 . 8 $188 00 $245 ;116 00 32. 4 HASI+/N1+ITIRAI., ACIS AND - Pl-Si IDIsS LrPA ML1710D 625 ;300 00 $868 00 5_167 SO $332 60 :260 00 33. 2 IWA126 PRIOR P(k.I.1T1AN'1 'SCAN 5495 00 ;184 00 $727.20 ;812 60 $600 00 _ 745.65 H47C ANALYSIS "36 $282'00 IIYI)RCXARMNS t36^00 _ _538_ _ 534.60 _ a3b.00 $28 00 _ $36.00 J 34 I 4 (71 Al PL LtOI Jf UM $38.00 I J . $45.00 $6600 $30.00 _ 560.00 35. 1 - .00 36. 1 `+OIAfT1ITAMCIANICCXM4F'Ol1NDS I_.._.._.._-- r_._______._____. 1 . _ _ ~ . $138.00 P. ' --1 -5F'Mi Vb1AI I[J?C>MOANIC - 86.00 - _ 5184.00 -5108.60 $167.60 126.00, f CCM(POUNM IPA MI 171OD 625 ;300.00 $184.00 $300.00 $332.60 ;260.00 $282.00 3E7.. _.I roxi ny C4lAMAC.1. r 1JAdHNCi PMOCJJll1Rl _ f 5800.00 _ $13.50 I $650.00 _ $841.40$600.00 $588.00 E 40 MR PAN7 122 AE'P Nbtx D f 37. TABLE 11 $495,00 $656.00 _$468.00 $812.60 $400.00 _ $613.00 40- 8 -IAHI.}? 11I WAS '1'WAI'F:R? _ _5160 00 41. 4 7 5288 30- $178 00 $179.90 - $128 00 - $175 20 ANl.k. I❑ (SL 111XsL) _ r 51 60 Op 43. 1 _ I[AHf FIi V - 1:300.00 $304.40 $179.00 $100.40 120 00 _;176 20 5483.80 570.00 $331.90 $240.00 240.00 NMI ENDl(ATT+.D 0272 00 088.70 _;88(0.00l9 INDE(~1TF.D 44, I - ltl.'A< ([Vfll - !520.00 t48 20. =64 00 $42.00 $38.00 $42 00 GROUP (X)6'7 r 45. 6 46 4 1 MOIJP If $245,00 y -_5373 0 $240.20 _ $27®.80 -f 62-00 i $224.40, , 47. 8 OROUI C - $116.0 - 0 i 5118 910 5101 20~ 588,20 ;83 00 580 40 W. k - OROUP 1) $136.00. _-$192 TO $183.20 -5175.:0- 0110 00_1;149 40 49. -6 SOIL ANALYSIS FOR PC IVS 535.00__; - 540.$O f ,-,..,.088A0_E. - ;140.00 _ 532 00 66 YIN OR NO QUMMIONS 50. 20 HIDDERMUS-HE?AH1I+10_. • PROVIDE PICKUP SERVICE I'OR SAMPI IN NO -0 NO y _ 560 UO l NC NC - - - - 51. _ 5 1 !'ASI OIJUI'F AOI7ITIONAi c (1,Sf 3 FOR AF I7R IIOURS ANA3 YSIS k 100% $76 00 i NO + 60% + 20% + 100% 52 5 PI FASF+ OIJUI ADDITIONAL C OSI' FOR E MI12[i1NC'YANN YSIS____ f +_100% 0.00_E YE 8_ 100%%-~ +100%_-_,,. ' 1 • • Pg84daNo Age~daiF° Dati. i • 0 • I , • • DENTON ppaooooaogoooo 41. . ~o 0D ~ 00° o~ xo c o 0 0 0 ~ 000~~ ~ o0o f OO ~'r DO F ~Oao ° N It pOp° • ® CITY CC) ~ . • UNCIL • w • r AgWelie . We ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXTEND AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE HOUSTON -GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL TO AUTHORIZE PARTICIPATION IN VARIOUS HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF VARIOUS GOODS AND SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAT.NS: SECTION I. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute the attached agreement, a copy of which in attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION II. That the Mayor is authorized to expend funds pursuant to the agreement for the purchase of radio communication equipment.. SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AVO APPROVED this the day of _ , 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR P:PTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MIKE A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY • BY:~A • 0 r • _ o> ~gerMaNo. 4geadalt DATE: JUNE 6, 1995 ~ 6 y CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN HOUSTON-GALVFSTON AREA COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF DENTON RECOMMENDATION: We recommend the attached Interlocal Agreement between Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC) and the City of Denton be approved as well as in approximate $24,000.00 expenditure for radio communication equipment. SUMMARY: This proposed contract Ia intended to allow the H-GAC to serve as the purchasing authority for the City of Denton for specified Items. The H-GAC purchasing procedures meet or exceed the requirements of the :hate of Texas and the City of Denton. The cooperative purchasing agreement allows the City to take advantage of volume discounts offered by suppliers frr high dollar, normally one time purchase itsms. At this time we are intending to purchase a transmittar and controller manufactured by Motorola Communications. This equipment will germlt the expansion of our 800 mhz Radio Communication System. Currently our system does not allow for the expansion to fully utilize an additional frequency assigned to the City of Denton. Failure to utilize the frequency will lead to forfeiture of the frequency. BACKGROUND: Interlocal Contract/ Agreement for Cooperadva Purchasing. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Communications Division, Utility Department. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this acquisition will come from 1994/95 budget funds Account #810-108-1081-4171-9110 Fixed Assets Radio Communications. Ry submitted: rrel Appreved: r _ r Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. • Title: Purchasing Agent 604 .ALMA • GIN • vrtda No, INTERLOCAL CONTRACMAGREEMENT Agana~tem FOR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING I~ilO Nom _...._-_..._._Q'S. Ilounno-Gel~uran Ate. Cmnal q.m.au Nom,. r.ped y H,OA'e 2-1 TI US INTERLOCAL CONTRACT ("Agreement"), made and entered into pursuant to the Texas Intergovernmental Cooperation Act lGovernmeru Code, Title 7, Chapters 741 d 791 /by and between the Housion•Galveston Area Council, hereinafter referred to as "I I GAC," laving its principal place of business at 3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 500, Houston, Texas 77027, and ___vc_rnmc_ _ hereinafter referred to as the "local gont" having its principal place of business al WITNESSETH WHEREAS. H•GAC is a regional planning commission created under Acts of the 59th Legislature, Regular Session, 1965, recodified as Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 391; and WHEREAS, 11-GAC has entered into this contract with the local goverrunenl on the _ day of 19 : and WHEREAS, the local govcrnmcnt registers its desire to purchase certain governmental administrative functions, goods, or services: and WIiEREAS, H GAC hereby agrees to perform the scope of services outhnod in ARTICLE 5, as hereinafter specified in accordance with this contract/agreement; and NO"', 'FtWREF'ORE, H-GAC and the local goverment do hereby agree as follows: ARTICLE 1: LEGAL AUTHORITY The local government warrants and assures H-GAC that it possesses adequate legal authority to enter into this contract. The local go-: ^rnment's governing body has authorized its signatoryofficial(s) to enter into this contract and to bind the local government to the terms of this contract and any subsequent amendments herein. ARTCCLI 2: APPLICABLE i.AWS 11-CAC and the kcal government agree w conduct all activities under this contract in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and laws in effect or promulgated during the term of this contract ARTICLE 3: li'HOLE AGREEMEN' 'fhc fnterlocal Contract and any attachments, as provided herein, constitute the complete contract between the parties hereto, utd supersede any and all oral and written agreements between the parties relating to matters herein. Except as otherwise provided herein, this contract cannot be modified without written consent of the parties, itA TICLF 4: PERFORMANCE PERIOD The period of this contract shall be for the balance of the fiscal year of the local goven mml which began 19 and ends 19__`, This contract shall thereafter automatically be renewed annually for each succcccling fiscal year, provided that such renewal shall not have the effect of extending the period in which the local government • may make any payment due H-GAC beyond the fiscal year in which such obligation was incurred under this contract. H•GAC or the local government may . -ice] this contract at any Lime upon 30 days written notice to the other party to this contract The obligationso f the local government, including its obligation to pay H-GAC for all costs incurred under this contract prior io such notice shall survive such cancellation, as well as any other obligation incurred under this oontrtul, until performed or discharged by the local government. _ARTICLE 5: SCOPE OFSkiRVlCES A 'fhc local government appoints fl-GAC its trite and lawful purchasing agent for the purchase of certain products and services • • through the It-GAC Cooperative Purchasing Program, as entimetated through submission of any duly executed purchase order, order form or resolution. All products purchased hereunder stall be in wAvdance with specifications established by HAAC. { A l l producLs and services shall be procured by H-GAC in accordance with procedures governing competitive bids and competitive proposals, and at prices and administrative fees listed in current Contractor/Vendor Price Lists and H•OAC Fomu. (CouGtued m revere tide) • ter. • AaertdaNeAX206-A; ARTICLES: SCOPE OFSERVICES (continued) Ag00daltetrL 6-qS Ownership (tide) of products purchased shall transfer directly from the contractorlvendor to the geven~ lecal government agrees to provide H-GAC with documentation of receipt and acceptance of products and services within five (5) days of accepts nce of same. 4.4M ARTICLE 6: PAYMENTS In accordance with rite terms of this contract, the local government agrees that, upon presentation by H-GAC of a properly documented, verified proof of performance and a statement of costs H•GAC has incurred, it shat] upon delivery and acceptance of products and services, promptly pay H-GAC, from current revenues available to the local government during the currcn(flscw year. ARTICLE 7: CHANGES AND +MENDMENTS Any altemaiinns, additions, or deletions to the arms of this contract which are required by changes in Federal and Stale law of regulations are automatically incorporated into this contract without written amendment hereto, and shall become effective on the date designated by such law or regulation. H•GAC reset • the right to make changes in the scope of services and products offered through the H•GAC Cooperative Purchasing Program to be lrccformed hereunder. ARTICLE 8: TFVbr!NATION PROCEDURES Either H-GAC or the local govemment may cancel or laminate this contract upon thirty (30) days written notice by cerdfled mail to the other party. In the event of such lamination prior to compledon of any purchase provided for herein, the local government agrees to pay for services on a prorated basis for matalals and services actually provided ead invoiced in accordance with the terms of this contract, including penalties. less payment of any compensadna previously paid, ARTICLE 9i SEVERAIIH, CY All panics agmt mat should any provision of this contract be determined to be Invalid or tmenforcuble, such determination shall not effect any other term of this contract, which shall continue in full force and effect. ARTICLE 10: FORCE MAJEURE To the extent That either party to this contract shall be wholly or pardolly prevented froe► the pWo mane within the tam specified of any obligation or duty placed on such party by reason of or through strikes, sloppage of labor, riot, fire, flood, acts of war, insurrection, accident, Judgtnc..t, act of God, or specific cause reasonably beyond the party's control and not attributable to its neglect or nonfeasance, In such event, the time for due performance of such obligation or duty shill be suspended until inch disability to perform is removed. Determination of force m4 urre dhall rest solely with H-0AC. ARTICLE 11: VENUE Venue and Jurisdiction of any suit, or cause of anion arising under, or In connection with, this contract shill he "elusively in Harris County, Texas. THIS I NSTRUMF,NT, IN TWO (2) ORIGINALS, HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE PARTIES HERETO AS FOLLOWS: • 144nv of Lout O*Ytrto eet HOUSTON•GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL 3555 Tirnmoar lice, We 500, Hautoa, TX 11027 I I hta,hng Addre„ I, By. leek Seeete, Fiux+eave Directs - Cot) Suu ZIP Code • _ Date: BY, Signuore or chtef elected official AIDa De4re Pick, Public Servim Dept. Meager Tytxd Neme a T,tle of .S,geaiory Derc~ Due: NOTE: bacsimflg copes of & durpment aie nrlr acemlabfe a, ORIGINALS, Prtated 7x95: 1K P I _ i DENTON i I °°apogo oopp°°° o OF DF~ 000 ` " pp ~ ° p G ~ oa o ~ pp0 r o N 4 C °°°ao~~aooo°°° ® ITY COUNCIL • e Aget~lehto~. 95'-Q June 6, 1995 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM T03 MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM3 Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager of Utilities SUHJECTt CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH ALAN PLUMMER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SIOSOLIDS COMPOSTING FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $41,650. RECONMENDATIONi The Public Utilities Board recommends approval of a contract with Alan Plummer Associates, Inc, in the amount not to exceed $41,650 for engineering services related to the development of a biosolids composting facility. SUMMARYI The proposed contract provides engineering services related to the planning, design and construction of a compost facility at the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation Plant. The project is based on a "fast track" implementation and the completion of the facility by November, 1995. The project engineering services are proposed in three phases; Phase I - Site Master Plan A composting facility will be planned to ultimately handle 100 percent of all the biosolids (sludge) produced at the wastewater treatment; plant at a future capacity of 21 million gallons per day (MGD), The plant currently has a design capacity of 15 MGD and the composting operation handles approximately 40%- of the total biosolids produced at the plant, with the remainder of the biosolids land applied on • City owned property. Phase II - Detail Design, Site Work. Detailed design for the site work will include coordination with all project participants, design of a covered composting facility surrounded by an impervious surface, necessary storm • water containment and regulatory submittals to TNRCC. • • • 0 ea • Nte_-__-(v_ Phase III - Construction Representation 2 ~-7 This phase will include shop drawing review and construction site visits, Staff will be responsible for biding, recommendation of bid award and inspection, BACaGROUNDi The City of Denton currently operates a 15 MGD wastewater treatment facility that produces approximately 2,000 dry tons of biosolids per year. Prior to recent regulations governing biosolids disposal, all biosolids that were generated were land applied for final disposal. As a result of these regulations, approximately half of the biosolids generated require further processing to satisfy the new disposal criteria and/or disposal in the City's landfill, PROGRAM/DEPAR7XM OR GROUPS AFFECTEDs City of Denton Solid Waste and Wastewater Customers, Solid Waste and Wastewater Departments. FISCAL 1XPACTs Compensation for the proposed contract services in an amount not to exceed are indicated by Phase; Phase I - Site Master Plan $ 81950 Phase II - Detail Design, Site Worts $25,950 Phase III - Construction Activities Ll.= Total $41,650 Total contract amount for the proposed services is $41,650. Respec ully submi ted, dG%iGz~~ Lloyd . Harrell City Manager • Prepared by, Howard Mar in, Director of Environmental operations Exhibit I: Contract • • • Exhibit II: Project Implementation Schedule Exhibit III: Conceptual Project Design Exhibit IV: PUB Minutes C:\WP51\PUBAaeam\APA95 • a 4 e agerrdaNa. q~ or^ • May 12, 1995 Legal Request for Contract 3d~7 Review and Ordinance Preparation. • May 12, 1995 Letter Agreements Executed for Site Master Plan. • May 15, 1995 PUB Considers Contract for Design. • May 24, 1995 Staff Completes Site Survey for Delivery to Alan Plummer. • June 6, 1995 City Council Considers Contract for Design. • July 7, 1995 Alan Plummer Completes Detailed Design. • July 10, 1995 Begin Advertisement for Bid. • July 27, 1995 Open Bids. • August 8, 1995 City Council Considers Bid Award. • August 14, 1995 Report to PUB on Bid Award. • August 14, 1995 Contractor Begins ® Construction. , • • • November 3, 1995 Construction Complete. 6 0 • ra 0 • 1 v' ~f Planner 1996 Me Tu W Th Fn Sat Su Mo Ty W Th Fri Sal Su Mo Tu W Th Fri Sat Su Mo Tu W Th Fri Sat Su Mo Ty W Th Fri Sat Su Me Tu - 1 i -i- r- - - - - - - - - Jan - - - - Feb I E Mar f Apr k - r ;f Il May 4 i } I Jun ! i -f- - - r , i Jul i 1- - - - Aug - i i . Sep i - ~ Oct r Nov Deck II ff ff 1 Jra~ ~ Site Master Plan L', ,agn construction to PUB Design PUB .Advertise for Bb ■Construction Design CC ContrucUon to cc . . r u 1 H f ~1a e e n P R O P O S E D IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERED - -r- i - - LL__ T'\ - 771 - q - if - UUAREAINDFR DRAINAGE IMPRUV~i,NI AREA CARDBOARD AREA f BAILING FOSTER R_ 04"ERATION e LEGEND COVERED CONCRETE AREA 4 OPEN CONCRETE AREA 9 IMPERVIOUS APEA e d , I w • J :\NPQ0CS\0t0\PLNNER. 0110 .vjendaNo. S" 04, 4~endaltom 6og~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON# TEXAS, APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEIT THE CITY OF DENTON AND ALAN PLUMMER AND ASSOCIATES TO PROVIDz PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED RELATING TO THE PLANNING, DESIGII AND CONSTRUCTION OF A COMPOST FACILITY AT THE CITY'S PECAN CREEK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT; PROVIDING OF THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a contract between the City of Denton and Alan Plummer and Associ- ates, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein, to provide professional services required relating to the planning, design and construction of a compost facility at the City's wastewater treatment plant. SECTION II. That the City expend Forty-one Thousand, Six Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($41,650) as provided in the contract. SECTION ZII. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the _T day of , 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: • APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMS MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY % i i • ar • AgendaNo A90nda1S0 Dale- PUBLIC UTILITY BOARD EXCERPT May 16, 1995 6. CONSIDER APoROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH ALAN PLUMMER ASSOCIATES, XNC. FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BIOSOLIDS COMPOSTING FACILITY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $56,800. Marti presented the item saying the proposed contact provided engineering services related to the planning, design and construction of a compost facility at the Pecan Creek Water Reclamation plant. The composting facility is essentially a 40,000 sq. ft. concrete (or other impervious surface) slab with approximately 18' high roof (no sides) structure to be used to keep the compost dry while it is bacteriologically active. The project is based on a "East tract" implementation and the completion of the facility by November 1995. The engineering services are proposed in three phases; Phase I - Site Master Plan at a cost of $8,950, Phase II - Detail Design and Site Work $27,200, Phase III Advertisement, Award and Construction Representation $20,650. artiri presented a Letter of Agreement from APAI, a Project Implementation Schedule and a Conceptual Project Design as exhibits in the Board material. Martin closed saying staff recommends approval of the contract I as presented in an amount not to exceed $56,800. General discussion included QyIen's question of whether staff needed to re-research the process outlined in Phase I; Site Master Plan and he recommended that this phaae should possibly be eliminated. Thompso expressed concerns for the life of the facility, Giese expressed concern for the contracts' total construction percentage of (9.5U Covlen asked if M&rt n could renegotiate with APAI for 7!k of the construction cost for a total construction cost cap of $42,000. Martin informed the Board that he would meet with APAI and work towards decreasing the percentage/construction cost and recommended cost. The Board agreed unanimously upon contract acceptance based on the terms recommended by the Board. 0 4 t 0 O DENTON oooooono if 00°° a P s°a c o 0 Lz~ D°D F ~ ~ pov 5000 00~ T 0 N aoaa r CITY COUNCIL 0 0 r v~ • AMdoNo Y Adendalle E?l}f! _ II lj 1 y ORDINANCE N0. _ FN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE 1"ARD OF CONTRACTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS UR IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of state law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINSt SECTION I. That the following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: 131D_ NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 1706 OWC CONSTRUCTION $375,745.00 SECTION 11. That the acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such • person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION III. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to r 0 8 execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. • • AgWft1 i / D* J SECTION IV. That upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution o° contracts for the public works and improvements as authorJzr;d herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the. day of ,1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY. APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMi MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY i BY: I • I wW W ~YIILr1aI/II(AN 1 . r • I p e 0 ~endana.~.~-Qs2,~d Age9da►tar(~:Sy~, DATE,: d 2 CITY COUNCIL REPORT , TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: BID 170E - CITY HALL WEST RENOVATION RECOMMMI)ATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest bidder meetin iPlcrtttons, OWC Construction, In the amount of $303,110.00 for the base bid plus $72,635 for alternate #1 Fire Sprinkler System. Total bid award is $375,745.OJ. SUMMARY; This bid Is for the renovation of the building at 221 N. Elm. This facllity lhas been known as the Old City Hall and/or Police Station and is soon to be known as City Mali west. The project includes (A) selective demolition, (B) excavation backfilling and compacting for utilities, (C) floor underlayment over concrete slab, (D) metal framing, stairs and railings, (E) rough carpentry, (F) finish carpentry, (G) wood doors, (11) gypsum board, (I) suspended callings, (J) resilient tile flooring, (K) sheet carpeting, (L) painting, (M) signage, (N) cleaning, (0) fire sprinkler system and other related activities. Estimated completion seiiedule Is late August of 1995. OWC Construction holds a Disadvantaged/Minority/Woman-Owned Buslnese Certification from the State of Texas and the North Texas Regional Certification Agency. They are highly recommended by the financial agencies contacted, references for similar projects, and Corgan Associates, the project architect. The lower offer submitted by Krysiol Construction failed to meet the bid bond requirements and is considered a non responsive bid, We recommend alternate 2 and 3 not be awarded. BACKGROUND: Tabulation aheet, letter of recommendation from Corgan Associates dated May 1`0, 1995, drawings of proposed building renovations, memorandum from Kathy Dullose, [executive Director of Finance. d .PROGRAMS, DE D PARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Facilities Management, opertments relocating to CHW and Deartrnenty housed t the Municipal Building. FISCAL IMPACT: The original estimate for this • X317,000.00 { project 282,000.00 base bid and $55,000.00 for fire sprinklerpprHowev r, • O after researching the Industry, Cor n Assoc fools that the of p However, $375,795.00 is a good competitive bid, Some saviingssare anticipation Intthe form of change orders as work progresses, Funding will come from the following accountu: • O ~ • • 4~pWaNo gentlal A CITY COUNCIL REPORT late JUNE 6, 1995 09 Z PAGE 2 OF 2 FISCAL IMPACT (CON'T): ACCOUNT AMOUNT 449-032-DMC1-9304-9101 $100,000.00 Bond 245-032-DMC1-9323-9101 $100,000.00 Bond 445-032-CHW1-9504-9101 $ 85,839.00 Bond 100-032-0002-9101 $ 67,085.00 Budget 450-032-CHW1 9504-9101 25 811.00 Allocated Interest 'T'OTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS $378,735,00 TOTAL REQUIRED FUNDS 5375,745.00 espeFtfu ubmjttjpd: Jp1loy arrCl City Manager Approved: Name: Tom D. Shaw, C,P.M, 'Title: Purchasing Agent 602.AU6NDA i I • I. d • • faro _r_ - l 7os - - - BID NAME AENOVAYION OF CITY HALL O.O. C 8 G KRYSTAL I OWC THE WEST PUGSL£Y, GROUP CONST. CONST. RIDOEMONT j {OPEN DATE APRIL 10,1995 INC. f CO. .F-_- I QUANTITY DESCRIPTION YENDOH Y£NDOf1 YEkDOR VENDOR VENDOR U BASE BID PRICE $305,574.00 •437,000.00 $255,197.00 $303,110.00 $308,700.00 1 f ALTERNATE t1 $104,861.00 $78,594.00 $92,500.00 $72,935.00 $89,620.00 ALTERNATE 02 $8,379.00 $8,313.00 $3,073.00 $3,839.0-0 $8,375.00 ALTERNATE I3 $11,285,00 $10,736.00 $2,940.00 $18,090,00 41119,360.00 ADDENDUM 1 &2 YES YES YES YES YES BID BOND YES YES NO YES YES NON RNSAONSME DID ALTERNATE 01 - Install the fire sprinkler system as Indioated In the Fire Sprinkler System Drawings FBI through F96 I ~p and Specifications. 11 ALTERNATE /2 - Install the two skylights In roof above Area OF* as Indicated on the oonstruction drawings. • 1 ALTERNATE /3 - Install wood windows (live total) on the North ■nd West Elevation* as Indlvatiod on Sheets Al and AS, A~ONo,,.gs •(~c%^ 12 Q • 4gertdalt8m r>Hte b d~ ~2 10 May 1995 CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATION INQUIRY Cuntractor: OWC Cmtnrction, Inc. 2550 Manse Drive Dallas, Texas 75220 (214)352-9200 Bonding: $4,000,000 - United Pacific Insurance Company Local Bonding Agent: Consolidated Surety Co. 5050 Quorum. Dallas, Texas Agent: Jim Fulton (214)720.0800 INQUIRIES ABOUT FINANCIAL STATUS Consolidated Surety Co. Contact: Jim Fulton Comments: Currently bonding for this job 18 within their boneInS capacity. They have never been any problems. They are a clean, sound company and have a "AV treasury rating. Banker Merril Lynch Contact: T. Devin Pt;c Comments: Deposit accounts subsWa .u to allow financial stability, no problems. Good wild shape. PROFESSIONAL INQUIRIES • 'I XU Industries Inc. contact: Dan McAuliffe Conmeiiw Recently completed a $1,308,000 tenant relocation project in a 9 weep period. The work included finish out of shell space for approx. 78,000 s.f. They were the most wraprebeWye response twat n they have ever worked • with. OWC did a fabulous job in the tight time frame glvem They have used them over the last ten years and OWC has always performed and got • • the work done. >wwroucs~,uai • • 10 May 1995 0.genda1hM,1nZA Date _ ]C Southem Mo-thodist University 1 Contact: Nuke Perez t Comments: Satisfactorily completed several projects. OWC is a reputable firm and will use again in the future. Compass MaWement and Leasing Co. Contact Rick Tav~.m Comments: They have completed approx. 20.25 jobs in the past two yetun for us. Jobs range from $30,000 tc 5400,000. they have worked very well for us and all employees are easy to work with and are interchangeable on projects. We would highly recommend OWC Construction. Texas Commerce Bank Contact: Gayle M. Earle Comments: The recent project they completed for us Involved wing two and half floors approx. 30,000 s.f, and constructing now office layouts. They did quality work. Fixed all items which were wrong and ate out tbo peat day if we have a warranty problem. Overall very satisfied and pleased with their work. Artesia Data Sys'.: ms Contact: Janie Orr Comments: They are the best that we have worked with in the past. Any minor problems were worked out; work well in value enneering the project, to ways of saving money. Roceat project was.space p for 23,000 s.f. We would highly recommend them for your pro*1, • j 0 0 • u+ • 5YM130L.OGY LU*VNP gendaNO ~5....,.~ ~pardalten{,,..~~ .S 5YfWL r~cSCRII°rloN la,t ~2~~" `a.~ W.A KAU GONOT146TION go~ 12 Gc19TIN6 WAIT 60M671RIA%TION HA"f? To Da vem"lopm .+&ADM Any/ r' y,, ' Wtxb( „ II tE,as~z , W J r__ rrt~ara R s, 10 1 III' .I y ~ II ~ , 11 Z Y „ , MEMO tt;PAOE „ ~d31ff, t lu '1 S7LCf WAL U = ma- { I Gi;y Hall West - 1=1oor Levcls ~ / 8 -4. 1 r w • I y AgendeNo. " SYMWLCICPY LE6ENC) Agendalt 6YMOOL, PUSACKIPTION Date-- raw IV" c,Ow"WCTICA oxieTINO MON" CON©TRUGTIOM w.LLS TO 8Q C4MOLIaWv K Dm k r esnu S~ dd rYW' :N t'T~ ~ ~ o1t• rn.rse•; lUSl4~! 1~ r++ ~ mm ri.tL..w. I r ~6ri ~ r • J.LL l J.l.ll J. .\J1{{ r -rrtt- rt'-r t va- t. ~r ~rr1 •t , . O am M M fm imam • ® INS= raa~ Gitt Hall 1n1c5t - floor Levels G / ~I v ~ • • 5YMHOLOF~Y LC-OENV ~pendaN0. 5 d sYm5m ~tiCSGItIrTION Aguodalt , NT3V wk i cowTieucna~ Late M" commwnoN 1006 Iz _ ' _ WIJ14 TO an pBMOLw4!p 'T r ~ Lr ~r n SIa L~ 7F ' I I j I I t I I I I I I I II I I f` I.: f J 4 tue~c to ffak" e • 0 Clty Ha I I Aest - Floor eve I C e o A A A 5YMf30L.OC57Y LEC-~-ENP ~genda+ro S 5YMBOL M5CRIPrlON 4gondalt~ M"WAM~ Nv-pv rw s_ row crio►i C'------7 Lxl$, 1 WAY1- WWJTWIXTIM ~ ' - - - J Y'Uld.6 70 H6 DY1•fOLIEF~D _ 921. 1@L £ >;ks 7 iti7l, ti:,,y{: 3, rrrrrltj~f~VNN.~{1PM55M1M1~~l1lq~ /I/////////N~ L.. Jam. 1~ r . CLL. 1 J a < u/uunuuenu+ua u/q~.... \ L~ -w: Elam F71 A k~j Git~ Hall West - door Level r- o • • A -4 ff.. o LA Agenda [t Date 1212 CITY of DFNTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL RUILDIN3 215 E. MCKINNEY DENTON, TEXAS 76201 (817) 566.8200 DEW METRO 434.2529 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 1995 TO: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance ,f y SUBJECT: ALLOCATION OF BOND INTEREST EARNINGS In 1991 and 1993, the City issued Certificates of Obligation for building improvements to City facilities, including roof, air conditioning system and building repairs. Although the associated projects are complete, Interest on the Certiflcates was earned during construction and is available for allocation to other building improvement projects, As you are aware, bids received for the renovotlon of City Hall West exceeded the original budget by approximately 471,650. Interest earnings, not subject to IRS arbitrage rebate, total $73,595 and are sufficient so allocate for this project. If you have questions, please advise, i K b;aI • AFFOOE13 "Dedicated to Qualh), Service" 0 c> e s .DENTON oaa°Q° °Q°ooo 000 g 0000 Q c~ E=3 r D q oo~a N , ~ooooo oooc o 00 i ~ p ® CITY COUNCIL 0 • a • CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT A1M'~S / DATE: May 12, 1995 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: No parking request at 1515 N. Elm RECOW914DAT ION : Traffic Safety Commission and Staff recommend approval SUMMARY/BACXOROUND: This request was submitted from Veronica Oglesby, Administrative Assistant, at the request of Larry Harbeson. Mr. Harbeson owns a business at 1515 N. Elm, People park on North Elm in front of his business in a peculiar offset. These offsets occur along North Elm in various locations. Posting the "no parking" signs with an ordinance to provide enforcement should eliminate care who park along the Elm Street frontage. This designation would promote safety on a busy primary arterial that carries almost 10,000 vehicles per day. Improving the line of sight for the western leg of North Elm at College would be positive. PROGRAMS. DEPARTMENTS, OR 9ROUP3 AFFECTED: Streets and Traffic Division, TXDOT, Police Department, and Traveling Public FIGCCAL IMPACT: Approximately $200 for eignage RESPEC LY SUBMIT E : L oy V. Harrs v City Manager Prepared by: .Ter y C r.<~~L Dirr c r Engineering • Approved: _r~ag~~ Je ~y Cla neeeeriring ng Director o engi & Transportation AEE004DB • • agenda Na ^4 . ageradalt , )ate leg CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 E, MCKINNEY DENTON, TEXAS 76201 (817) 566.8200 DFW METRO 044529 MEMOR/15L'UM I DATE: May 12, 1995 TO: Rick SvWh , Deputy city ; FROM: Jerry Clark, Director of Eayineering & Transportation SUBJECT: No Parking Request at 1515 N,Elm Mr. Harbeson, at 1515 N. Elm, made a reques': for 50' of curb and gutter along his 77' business frontage to eliminate a parking offset. This would be a positive step but is not necessary since Elm will eventually be widened by TXDOT. A much more cost effective and positive solution would be to post this area "no parking" with an ordinance to provide enforcement. This will eliminate hazards of cars opening doors into traffic and provide a better line-of-sight. Traffic Safety recommends approval, L O. G. Jerr lar~E • i "Dedicated to Quality Service" • i w ! F'.„ i ti 8 ~l'~ rCt~ b ~ l+~.l"v~N+~, X~ i2~!3 • • fgelldaNo. S3 ~gendalt , bIF TSC Memo February 27, 1995 page 3 I'PEM H2 REQUEST FOR NO PARKING NEAR 1515 _ELM: The enclosed meme from Veronica Olesby details the request for curb work and no parking on Elm Street, Larry Harbeson who operates the business on Elm street haq stated that he has adequate on site parking for his customers. Mr. Harbenon'a request for the 50' of curb and gutter along his 77' of frontage to eliminate the 31-5' parking offset would k•:- a positive step but is not really necessary. Posting the ,no parking" signs with an ordinance to provide enforcement should eliminate the care who park along the Elm Street frontage. The various peculiar offsets could be removed or corrected later if North Elm is ever rebuilt from US 380 to McKinney street by the Texas Department of Transportation in a capital improvement project. North Elm is a very busy primary arterial that carries almost 10,000 vehicles per day. Improving the line of eight for the western leg of North Elm at r,.,1ege would be positive. This proposed prohibition of parking w-.ild accomplish that goal even though Elm is one way south. The primary chance for accidents would occur if a parked vehicle pulled out just when a vehicle t from College street pulled out, Staff reconmenda approval. • AEE004F3 e wRd8N0. Jr~01 ar~eadaIle ~tP 4S ITEMRLQUET FOR NO PARKI?TG NEAR 1515 N. HIM: Salmon presented the request. fie said the owner of the insurance office located at IS15 N. Elm originally requested that the City install about 50 feet of curbing in front of him business. Currently, there is about a J' to 5' wide area along the frontage that was originally intended for parking when Elm street was constructed. There are several of those type areas up and down the street. He wants to keep people from parking there because it's a dangerous location, cars travel quickly and the traffic count is over 10,^00 vpd. The area for parking is not wide enough. Staff took a look at this and felt Llnnt it was efficient to simply sign the area as "no parking Then sometime in the future when the street might he rebuilt„ try to take care of these little concrete areas up and down the street all at one time. Staff recommends that this 77 foot frontage area be designated no parking, Singleton asked if there was no parking on the rest of the street. Salmon said there is parking, for the most part, on that aide of Elm. Anywhere those little aide areas are located, they can be used for parking. There are several up and down the street. Singleton said she is confused an to why this one is more of a problem and why staff is just talking about one of them. Salmon said thin one is right at an intersection, Veronica Oglesby ham spoken directly with the rroperty owner. She might have some other points that would be helpful. Y' Veronica Oglesby, Adminintrative Assistant to the City Manager's office, came forward to address the eommianion. she said they originally receivsd a request from a person who visited the insurance company, rhere was a problem with the curb. It had a jagged edge. Staff was requested to repair it and did so. The owner of the property, Mr. Harbereon, wanted the Citv to put in a curb to prevent parking as Mr. Salmon said. It was determined to be more cost effective to designate it no parking. The area is too narrow for parking, it's just a side where cars pull off, Mr. Harherson said he had adequate parking behind his building. When earn pull off they open their doors into the street. The area isn't designated as parking on Elm atroet there but when you pull off it's deceiving, People think you can park there, so inatead of leveling the curb out to the street, the owner to requesting no parking. Oglesby said she doesn't know why none of the others have been a problem. The insurance owner has had several complainto from people who try to park there, core asked if the owner i:ad parking In the front. Luce said this is him insurance agent and there is a drive on the south side of his • building that goes to his paved parking in the back. There is plenty of parking in the back. He once pulled into that little indentation and before he got out thought beat to park in the back, it is dangerous, Bacon asked if a sign should be placed there saying "Parking in Rear" Instead of making this no parking? Luce said it's quick and easy to park in the front., it's also dangerous. Bacon asked if you can men the parking lot? Luce said there is a paved drive that goes to the parking lot in the rear of the building that leads out to College street. 'rho. parking lot can be accessed from college or by the drive going dowry the mouth side of the building. This is a good idea. AEH00501) i • L. c> • -~gondaNo S ~ Agendalte TSC Minutes March 6, 1995 page 3 Gore said staff is talking about installing signs, What about striping the area with mno parking" instead of cluttering up the area with more signs? Devine said Lhere is no curb to stripe. Dore asked if there are plane to redo these areas? Salmon said not at present, but staff would like to do all of them sometime in the future. There in no specific time frame. Sometime in the future, Elm street will be reconstructed. At that point and time, all those side areas will be taken out. This particular one is being addressed as requested by the property owner. STAFF RECOMMENDED: Approval COMMISSIONERS: Luce made a motion to [approve staff's request, Devine seconded the motion. Mnlion passed unanimously to approve no parking. x: • • r AEB0050D . • x 'NO PARING 1515 NORTH ELM ❑ w ❑ - C~~ W ❑ Cl ❑ o 0 QEl NO PARICII' O W N. ELM _ LLEGE - FF ~s N. ELM . ❑ OF ❑ r~ ❑ ❑ N. • a • 8:\NPD(XMQRDAEL4 PRK Uganda ND q - G ~gentlalterr+ - 7ob ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROHIBITING THE PArWING OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF NORTH ELM STREET; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: ' N _ZLQ B_Q That when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall stop, stand, or park a vehicle or cause a vehicle to be stopped or parked Rt any time upon the following street or portion thereof, in the City of Denton, to-wit: The west side of. North Elm Street from the south curbline of College Street south for seventy-seven (77) feet. SECTION II. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sen- tence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstance to held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shell not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Dentin, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. a_1,L?N III. That any person who shall violate a provision of this ordir +nce, or !:ails to comply therewith or with any of the requiremeui.u thereof, or of a permit or certificate issued there- under, shall he deemed guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00). Each such person; shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of this ordinance is committed, or continued, and rnpon conviction of any such violations such person shall by puniuhed within the limits above. SECTION ly, That this ordinance shall become effective four- teen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary • is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official news- paper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of. , 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR • d e ~a goNaNo. 9S"~ rgr,ndalte ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BQCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY: • PAGE 2 A i ~ tt e V a z rt yN,~l i~t stY{1. ~r rty ',r f i i DENT ®N O~Zzooo appp00 Op v o F Opo ~O~ oQ a G ~ a © o n f 00 ~ r ~ 000 oooooN, rt~OO~O °aQQa a aoo~ . COUNCIL 0 r CITY • CITY COUNCTr, pEpOgT Fo %T DATE; May 26, 1995 /(737 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: No parking request on the north aide of Londonderry between Teasley and Hollyhill HCOMMENDATION• Traffic Safety Commission and Staff recommend approval S12QARY/BACR9ROUND♦ ' This is an existing policy zone that needs an ordinance for enforcement. Line- of-eight issues and other traffic maneuvers along the street are addressed through implementation of this ordinance. Adequate onsite parking is provided for residents and visitors who reside in apartments, etc. PROGEAI•L.c: ngpAR ~ ~l OR dROLPB AFFECTED Streets and Traffic Division, TXDOT, Police Department, and Traveling Public FISCAL TMOnCT; Approximately $200 for aignage RESPE LY SUBMITT oy V. arrel Prepared by: City Manager F Je Y;Cl Direotor off Engineering • Approved: Je r C1 Di for Engineering G Transportation • r AEE004DE I • • N, Q ~ AgeadaIt . 9 NO-; 2db ? MEd'ORANDUM DATN: May 25, 1995 TO: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager FROM: Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering & Transportation SUBJECT: No parking ordinance on the north side of Londonderry between Teasley and Hollyhill This request was designated no parking many years ago by policy, Londonderry is wide enough to permit parking but the high activity that previously occurred without no parking signs adversely effected safety. Line-of-sight and traffic maneuvers are addressed with implementation of this ordinance promoting a safer driving 1 environment, Traffic Safety Commission and staff recommend approval, Je r CZ rk • AEP00549 • w • AgendaNo, Agendalt •q {ate _ - IV. NO PARKI~i(j ON THE NORTH SIDE OF I.ONDOPERRY BBTWE_F,N TEAfiLEY AND FIOLLYNILL~ This is an existing policy zone that rung between Teasley and Hollyhill. Its primary function is to keep the care from the apartments including visitors parking in the parking lots and not the ntreets, Londonderry is wida enough to permit parking but the high activity that had previously occurred without no parking signs adversely effected safety. That occurred from line-of-sight issues at the convenience store and the maneuvers in and out of traffic near the intersection of Londonderry and Teasley. Staff recommends the policy zone be maintained and made enforceable with an ordinance. • AEE0053A • m s S -CM agenda Mn AgendaNmh TSC Minutes Date- May 1995 pa5e 12 7 ITEM ka NO PARUN4 - LrJNDO~IpgRRY BgTWgE1~xEASLBY AND H LL1'HILL - NQRTH 3inF; Clark presented the request, fie said this is on the north side of Londonderry. There is actually going to be a request for no parking across the street, But, due to a large number of apartments, staff wanted to do these one at a time because of the notification involved. This is an old policy zone that wasi.'t on the list. Staff is trying clear up all of these. The reason it's there are that all of these apartment dwellers would park on the street versus in their parking lot. Londonderry and Teasley intersection are very busy. In fact, Londonderry is going to be signalized as Teasley is completed. It justifies protection of the capacity at the intersection. It also feeds a large part of Southridge. There is room to get two lanes coming through here and still have some parking but there are some conflicts with people getting in and out of their cars. The apartments are to have onsite parking and most of these apartments are Joe Bensick's which are well run, There is adequate parking onsite, There isn't any problem with this. All apartment owners were invited to attend and no objections have been received. Staff recommends that this policy zone be enforced with an ordinance. There will be another one on the other side coming back to the commission. STAFF RECOMMENDS; Approval of no parking between Teasley and Hollyhill on the north side COMMISSIONERS: Devine made a motion to approve the no parking request. Singleton second the motion. Motion passed unanimously, I i • AEE0054B I • a • 4gVdaltem, Gale ~ ~ E~D U S c a KINGSW OD O r0 O Z .+1 sM IA Q `~-r ❑ r~ E o U 10 D CAMDON CT 13 r ~ t m ~ U WESTMINISTER + I ~a U ~U CEFLf • • ~ Q HOLLYNILL <,q S 0 • s E:\ WPDOCS ORD1L4NaoN. er y ~ agenda a 4gendall 6~7 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VFHICLES ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF LONDONDERRY LANE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINS NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I, That when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall park a vehicle at any time upon the following portions of the following streets in the City of Denton, to-wit: The north side of Londonderry Lane from the east curbline of Teasley Lane to the west curbline of Hollyhill Lane, SECTION 11. That an individual adjudged guilty of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor., and punished by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars (200.00). SECTION III. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sen- tence, clause, phrase or word in thie ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions deupite any such invalidity, SECTION Iu, That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in force when the provisions of this ordinance become effective which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict. aECTIQN , That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the city secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be pub- lished twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR • • gemiaNo 5 Apendaltr~ q5 Wlr _~l~'~ -7 07 ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY A 1 I B r k: a DENTON Q0000 0ogooo 00°~ o D ~ Oppp 00 00 QOM op © ~ ~ `emu i o o 0 ADO ~ ~ ~O Opppro N e~QO~ °°aoQOOOOOO°° s i iTiOPP C . IL CO UNC r • • AQendaNo 5 =0a0 SIT CY OUNCIL REPORT FORMAT_ ^N°"da G;i1A DATF: May 25, 1995 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: No parking request at 1023 W. Oak RECOMMENDATION: Traffic Safety Commission and Staff recommend approval a i r MRY / BACK 1R0LWn . This is an extension of a corner clearance no parking area. The intersection of Welch at Oak has a hill back to the east that limita the line-of-sight. This is a rout! to UNT lot9 on Welch and many young drivers hurry through this area. PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AF MUTD: Streets and Traffic Division, TXDOT, Police Department, and Traveling Public FISCAL IMPACT: f Approximately $200 for signage RFSPEC LYR(S UBMITT D L y V. 4 arra Prepared by: City Manager Di rytor of Engineering Approved; i -C.~ f der C a Director Engineering & Transportation i ARE004DB r ~pendaNn. a ' agendalt ate 2~7 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 1995 TO: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager FROM: Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering & Transportation SUBJECT: No parking ordinance for the south side of West Oak Street from the east curb line of Welch Street east two I hundred twelve (212) feet I This is an extension of a no parking area need for line-of-sight, Welch at Oak has a hill back to the east that limits sight distances. This is a route taken by many young drivers who attend UNT. Traffic Safety Commission and staff recommend approval, J e r Cla ] i AER00549 'r ..rr~~f ....-r1.+~_. ~ r r rbr.r rr~.wiY~.➢V.i,. 4h,.. • . w • . 4gandeh~3. Agerdaltem Date 0-4 7 CONSIpRR PRO}iIBI1'X2 OF PAtJSIN0 AT 1023 W. OAK: l This is an extension of corner clearance. The intersaction of Welch at Oak has a hill i,ack to the east that limits the line.of- sight. As care ap,)roacl Welch (Oak is one way westbound), their speed is critical. 9incr: this is a route to the UNr lot-.,c on Welch, there are many younger crivers who are in a hurry to gee. to class, etc. Both property owners (Lieves and Boyd) are in favor of the zone as it exists. Staff recommends approval. i l f 1 7 • • r • AEE00510 .._..^..--ram-. ,..~...,...uayr... _ u ~ is a F 3': f ~ • • 4peWaNor.AS~ Agendalte TSC Minutes Date April 3, 1995 4f44 -7 page 9 T 7 CONSIDER PROUITION OF P RKLNo n Clark said this is another policy zone that staff recommends be extended to Welch. The request is actually from 1023 to 1035 W. Oak. Thic allows people on Welch to Bee over the hill. If tl•e commission feels this should be tabled, staff can do that:. Devine asked if the residents at 1035 had been notified. Clark said yes and they are in favor of the request. Martin said the backup is clear that it's from 1023 W. Oak to Welch. Clark said Oak is one-way westbound. At 1015 there in a crest of a hill. Traffic travels in excess of 30 mph. It also allows people to safely come out. Staff strongly recommends approval. The corner clearance issue actually starts at 1023 W. Oak. Singleton said the memo doesn't state that. Clark said the owners requested that the ordinance reflect the way it is currently, Bacon said this is really a line-of-sight problem. STAFF RECOMMENDED: Approval COMMISSIONERS: Devine made a motion to approve no parking at 1023 W, Oak to the corner of Welch op the sough side. Martin seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously, • AEE00528 r • ca • Agendaltpq Late h N ED S 010 010 010 410 014 WI OAK u NO PARKING J 1075 1023 -1 k015 L - W I - 1023 WEST OAK PRUHIBITIIN CIF PARKING • 0 s bench No Apentla)t 6 0b ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN PORTIONS OF WEST OAK STREET; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.00); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIP,4G FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That when signa are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall park a vehicle at any time upon the following portions of the following streets in the City of Denton, to-wit,: The south side of West Oak Street from the east curbline of Welch Street east two hundred twelve (212) feet. SECT_ ION 11. That an individual adjudged guilty of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars (200.00). SECTION III. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity. SECTION IV. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in force when the provisions of this ordinance become effective which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisi,^-a contained in this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict. ~&CTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be pub- j lished twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1995. • BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR • O • w • AQeildflNo gS'07-0 AgeAdAltont.~ 4+ Date ~ nt?.'~-~ . -14- ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY: 1 I • PAGE 2 t: r . 0 r DENTON si 4. r, ~21300000 p000 mod` E CITY 00 QOO 00~ ~ r o N ~ ~ ~`pp0 ao~oa Qooo oaooaoo . COUNCIL r • sa • AQeflda ~Vo~ dot b My COUNCIL RBPORT FORmam Agertdalttf~~d DATE: May 25, 1995 • 6 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROMr Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager SUBJECT: No parking request on both sides of the 900 Block of Avenue B RECOMMENDATION: Traffic Safety Commission and Staff recommend approval SUMMARY/BACKORO ID: , This is an older no parking zone for the entire block (east and west) of Avenue B in the 900 Block. It is located south of Eagle Drive and is necessary to provide adequate turn lanes, site distances, and maneuvering room at the intersection. The signs have been up many years and were placed there by policy, 1!ROORAM3 DEPARTM rare OR UROUPS.AFFECTED: Streets and Traffic Division, TXDOT, Police Department, and Traveling Public FISCAL IMPACT, Approximately $200 for signage RESPE LY OUBM D; L yd Harre _ City Manager Prepared bq: C Qc.. .I rr'~.C Var Di ecto:. N-ot Engineering Approved: • Je I C3 Tr Dire tor Engineering & Transportation AEE009DB e e ~ga~da+vo. q 5 4gentlaitb`r1 , MEMORANDUM DATE: May 25, 1995 TO: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager FROM: Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering & Transportation SUBJECT: No parking ordinance for both sides of the 900 Plock of Avenue B This request was designated no parking many years ago by policy. The need is still prevalent and an ordinance is necessary for enforcement. Traffic Safety Commission and staff recommend approval. i Jer C1 r I • s ~ e e A9200549 .."^IM'~/'V... a. , • k rwr.w YYw.. Y1YLL.1fF'14 .~W M,.. S e r is • s► • ~ S AgeWaNo.~~ r~ AgaRdalte Date ~TSM k6 ONSIDER P.'jQHIBITION OF PARKING ON BOTH SIDES IN THE 900 BL CA OF l AVENUE B' This is an older no parking zone for an entire block on both sides (east and west) of Avenue B in the 900 Block, This is located south of Eagle Drive and is necessary to provide adequate turn lanes, site distances, and maneuvering room at the intersection, The signs have been up many years and were placed there by policy. Staff does recommend approval based on field observations ani the need to upgrade policy zones to ordinances. 1 • 4 ARE00510 • • geoaNo q'S- J sgantlalterll i TSC Minutes 4.~,ptb April 3, 1995 page 8 ITEM 6 CONSIDER PROHIBITION OF PARKIDIO IN THE 200 BLOCK OF AVEMB B .(EAST AND WEST SIDES): Clark said this has been a policy zone and has no ordinance, Staff received one response (Kathy Jordon) in favor of no parking. This would protect the capacity of the block and enhance line of eight. Staff recommends approval. Devine said she checked the signs and they are not clear. Clark said he will get the exact measurements and make sure they are correct. STAFF RECOMMENDED: Approval I` COMMISSIONERS; Martin made a motion to approve the request. Jackson f seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. i r I' r • i 1 ARE00528 i • ra • ~gerrdaNo. x020 ~ A9andaltom . - - Date . b; ? I N 4lE El El S L~ NO PARKING I I t I ~ f I ❑ D i C1 LL- J I ❑ a J • { D ~ 4 ED U I I ~ ~ I 900 BLOCK - AVE B PR❑HIBITION OF- PARKING • ca • R:\MPDXS\ORD\AVEB, PRK ~Q 4QeodatJo. 15 Agnndalte - ~o 06 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE PARKING OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN POR- TIONS OF AVENUE B; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF A FINE NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS ($200.40); PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING ALL OiDINANCES IN ^ONFLICT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. That when signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall park a vehicle at any time upon the following portions of the following streets in the City of Denton to-wit: Both sides of the 900 block of Avenue B. SECTION II. That an individual adjudged guilty of any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by a fine not to exceed Two Hundred Dollars ($200.0D). $MION III. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, hereby declares it would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity, SECTION IV. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in force when the provisions of thin ordinance become effective which are inconsistent or in conflict with the terms or provisions contained in this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of any such conflict. SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective • fourteen (14) days from the date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-Chronicle, the official newspaper of the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date of its passage. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR i • 4 , • • AgetMaNo G Agendali ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY: _ S Ott-~tC~. Zfl, t • a f • O PAGE 2 0 O ti it i DENT ON i ~zzooo 0oppa0 0 o D 0 00 oA,, p G ~ Dooo° i 000 000, ~ 000, o } IC TS COUNCIL r J • u~ .r agendaNn...~S: ~o ~t~ A~eodallem~~~~.!/f~ 's CITY COUNCIL REPORT J QQ s` RE92LsR SESSION c~ TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: t,loyd V. Harrell, City Manager DATE: June 6, 1995 SUBJECT: Resolution for City of Denton Policy - "Response Time and On-Call Duty " (106.06) Et=jXENDATION it is the staff's recommendation to adopt s resolution to implement a policy, "Response Time and On-Call Duty" (106,06), effective July 1, 1995, r SUMMARY; This policy provides for City guidance and procedures in establishing reasonable response times and on-call duty by departments. The policy and procedures are designed to ensure fairness and consistency in the application of employees who are required to respond to emergencies and service requests i)y citizens, and to ensure equity in the application of on-call duty for employees required to work after normally scheduled %;ork time. @ACKGROUND: The city provides a diverse range of services for the citizens and rate payers of Denton including police and fire protection, electric service, water and wastewater services, solid waste collection, etc. In times of emergencies, such as an interruption of electric, power, storms, water main back-up, or other disruption of a service to the citizens, it is important that employees with the proper knowledge and expertise be available to assist the • citizen or restore the service, This necessitates that departments establish a reasonable response time for those employees. Because of the diversity of services, the executive management group, through in-depth discussion and research, have recommended that a reasonable response time be established between 15 and 60 minutes, Within these parameters, each Department Director is responsible for setting the response time for their operation based on the type A of ~3ervice provided, critical nature of the service, and importance of re-establishing the service in an emergency. APPOO887 • f w gendaNo 4gandallemt City Council Report- June 6, 1995 IMF 6i .9L-5 Response Time and On-Call Duty Policy Page 2 In addition, employees in these critical jois are required to serve "on-call duty". This is necessary so that those individuals with the knowledge avid skills to respond to a situation are available to do so. The policy znd procedures address the overall city requirements, and it Ls the responsibility of the Department Director to set written departmental practices based on individual departmental operations. The overall city policy establishes criteria that ensure fairness and consistency across departmental lines and compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLEA) with regard to any overtime pay for which the "on-call" employee may be eligible. PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS UR GROUPS AFFECTFn: All employees are covered by this policy, including regular full- time, regular part-time, seasonal, temporary and Civil Service. Civil Service employeea are also covered by the provisions of Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code. FISCAL IMPACT: Each department has budgeted for overtime compensation that may be necessary to cover response time and on-call service needs. The current city budget sufficiently covers implementation of this policy. Thus, no direct budgetary impact is anticipated with implementing the policy. Res tfully su itt Lloyd V. Harrell City Manager Prepared by: Thomas W. linck Human Resources Director Ao d by:ea Executive Director al vices and Economic Development APPOO887 0 ' ra • +goixla~o CITY OF DENTON iyondatom~~/ POLICY 11D1SLNISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ADMINIBTRATIp DIRECTIpE PAGE_LOP_2 SECTION: REFLUNCE NUMBER: S U1lEC7 PERSONNEL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS 106,06 EF TZnVE DATE: WAGE AND 9ALARY PLAN TITLE: 07 01 96 S` REPLACES: } RESPONSE TIME AND ON-CALL DUTY POLICY STATEMENT' Although residency within the city limits is not a condition of employment per City policy and state law, there are certain positions that require a reasonable response time to calls outside normally scheduled work hours. This policy defines and establishes the City's pay practices and administrative procedures for response time and on-call duty. Departmmnt Directors shall •atabiish standards, written procedures, and schedules for reasonable response times and on-call duty based on departmental operations. DEPINITIONSs 1. On-Call A An on-call period her shall be a period of time during which an employee is Y / supervisor to be accessible for return to work for on a that may hours. iremontands u schedul de meet ngs outside normally ocnsidered scheduled on-call requests. Meetings are considered time worked ae straight time unless the employee has worked over 40 hours in the same week, where the overtime policy would be applicable,) D. If an employee can use his/her time effectively for personal purposes during the on-call period, even though ■/he must carry a beeper or leave a telephone number where a/he can be reached, the time will not be compensated or credited as time worked. II. Res QUJ Time A. Response time is the length of time required for a reasonable response to ■n on-call request. B. Departmental response times may vary between fifteen (15) and sixty (60) minutos, depending on business necessity, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCBDURESI 1. Department Directors shall establish reasonable, minimum response times (between 15 and 60 minvtes) for their departments, II. Department Directors shall develop on-call schedules with no preferential bas employees are to be schedoladyon a rot tiondbasismtotprev nt f tia Qualified hazards trom too many long hours. gue and safety III, Employees who are on-call shall be paid only for time worked or a minimum of two Q is)greator.f calInltacdcobackrdato work outside the d Fair his/her Labor normal StandardsaActdfTLSA~, ifya employee is called out , paid time will include travel time as time ►rorked. AAA02E9r • c4 • r r 5 LQ~,,~ gendaNo ~QvdaltoR,IZWA....,.4 POLICY AMMISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Or 11DIIIlfIETR1ITU RECTIVE (Continue1d TT~3.8: : RZSPONSR TINL Aft ON-CALL DUTY REFEftaNC8N1JM~FJI: Iv. Tlme tix 106,06 s Payl ° Ir l on-call will be calculated at the apployss,s regular rats of ~ ~mpenmation wi■ applieable only when total hours worked exceeds re~'1~ .,..a-tom work eek (i.e., generally forty 160) hours Per weak for t!!ty CLr, ervice Firs Fighters, where the exception is -.l, 1~6) hours per except week). Civil s see Overtime, Policy ;106.06. V- tmployeem who are on-call must adhere to all City policies including the Anti- substance Abuse and Rehabilitation Policy (;108.14). Any variance from such Policies may result in disciplinary actions, including termination. • i r AAA02 M t' • • 9 :\"PWCS\US\04ALLd. +gettdaN1D G 5 -b2O 4gondallem ~+~SAS RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING POLICY NO. 106.06 "RESPONSE TIME AND ON-CALL DUTY"; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Director of the Human Resources Department for the City of Denton has presented a proposed policy regarding employee rules and regulations for the council's consideration; and WHEREAS, the City Manager recommends adoption of the policy and the City Council desires to adopt such policy as an official policy regarding employment with the City; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: g=ION T. That the following policy, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby aiopted as an official policy of the City of Denton, Texas: 106.06 Response Time and On-Call Duty SECTION 11, That the foregoing policy is attached hereto and made a part hereof and shall be filed in the official records with the City Secretary. SECTION III. That this resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST : JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: • • MICHAEL A. BUCER, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY : A . 0 r 5 !R i9 C DENTON oo,Vooaooao0 ~~00 0 P D F 000 Q ~ 0 0 p ~ ~ 4 d co d 000 ~ ~ ODO OODG o N J00 Do~oaoaao~ CITY COUNCIL 0 r • • age~IdaNo, 5'-O~o,~ . AgeAdal~ (kyle 4 13 city of AENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING # DENTON, TEXAS 76701 o TELEPHONE (817) 566.8307 Office of the City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager DATE: June 6, 1995 SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Policy To Grant Annual Events Exception To The Noise Ordinance (For Use Of Amplified Sound) For Multiple Years. BACKGROUND: At the March 28, 1995, Work Session, Staff presented a draft ordinance that world grant multiple year exceptions to the noise ordinance to organizations consistently serving the public interest and demonstrating responsible use of amplified sound (Attachment II). Because the ordinance must be adopted for each organization requesting this special exception, a resolution adopting a policy to allow these multiple year exceptions is attached for your consideration (Attachment I). PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS AFFECTEDs None FISCAL IMPACT: • None I Please advise if I can provide additional information, C RESPE LILLY SUB TED, , Lloyd V, Harrell City Manager "Dedicated to Quallry Semice" ~rrr • • r AQenda No, Q S r AQendalterr~,,.. Annual Events Resolution Date_ June 6, 1995 7 Is Page 2 W~ Prepared By; l ~lR_I RYt~,c. \ 0 veronica S. Rolen - Administrative Assistant II f t Approved By, ose or ugathl Assistant to e Cit Manager ATTACHMENTc I. Resolution II, March 28, 1995 City Council Report i I i i • 1 a • w • nnmeven.ree )ORdd IVO ~ ~ ~~~aidaltam ~ 3~F - 6 - - _3 J . RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION OF' THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS APPROVING AN ORDINANCE FORMAT TO BE USED IN GRANTING TO PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANNUAL EVENTS WHICH HAVE DEMONSTRATED A HISTORY OF PAST RESPONSIBLE, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S NOISE ORDINANCE, EXCEPTIONS TO THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY SECTION 20-1(c)(2) OF THE CODE 01' ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, WITH RESPECT TO HOURS OF OPERATION OF AN AMPLIFIED LOUDSPEAKER SYSTEM, PURSUANT THE PROVISIONS OF THAT SECTION. WHEREAS, a number of annual events taking place in the City of Denton utilize amplified loudspeaker systems in connection with their festivities; and WHEREAS, many of these events contribute to an increased quality of life for many of Denton's citizens, and help to promote tourism and commerce; and WHEP,EAS, many of these events seek authorization from the City Council to utilize such loudspeaker systems after the houro normally approved by the Code of Ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to recognize and reward those organizations sponsoring annual events which have demonstrated a past history of responsible operation of such amplified loudspeaker systems by eliminating the need to seek authorization for the same event each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council hopes that such a program will provide an incentive for other annual events to operate amplified loudspeaker systems in a responsible fashion; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY RESOLVES: SECTION I. That the ordinance format attached hereto as Exhibit A is hereby approved for granting ongoing exceptions to Section 20-1(c)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, with respect to hours of operation of amplified loudspeaker • systems, pursuant the provisions of than section. SECTION II. That, in order to qualify for consideration of an ordinance of the type attached hereto, the City Council intends that such annual. events shall have demonstrated a minimum of three consecutive years of responsible activity in connection with the use of such amplified loudspeakers pursuant to prior ordinances • granting exceptions to Section 20-1(c) (2) of the Code of ordinances • • of the City of Denton, Texas. i SECTION III That the duration of ordinances of the format attached hereto should not ordinarily exceed three to five years. • d • • k}endaNo, 4geritlalte bite =T39II_LY,. That this resolution shall become effective imme- diately upon its passage and approval, 1995PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of . , - BOB rCASTLEHERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY a ~ • W PAGE 2 • ca • nunucven.o al 7errdaNo AgndaItotm S . 11l1f.' _.~.Qy " ~ i S~ t3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF "HE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, GRANTING, PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-1(c)(2! OF THE CODE OF ORDJNANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THAT SECTION WITH RESPECT TO HOURS OF OPERATION OF AF AMPLIFIED LOUDSPEAKER SYSTEM; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant. to §20-1(c)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, {name of per°on or entity reeooneit,t.L has made application to the City Council for an exception to the provision of that same section restricting the operation of ampli- fied loudspeakers after 10:00 p.m., in connection with the _ (name _gf_AA ga1_Vyent) annual evens held at (location of event) , and in connf~ct.ion with said request, has requested the exception to be granted on an ongoing basis for said annual event at said location (atate time of event, R,g,. on t_he_third weekend of each October) and ; WHEREAS, upon prior application and approval by the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, name Of person Qr~ntity remponeibl4L has consistently demonstrated over the past ( of , yearn) years an ability to responsibly operate amplified loud- speakers in connection with the (name of annual.,-typatL event held at (location of event) - annual , at times defined in F20-1(c) (2) of the Code of ordinances afstthehCity uof Denton, Texas, within the public interest and without materially disturbing persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof; and WHEREAS, based upon this past, history, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas finds that granting an exception for this an:;ual event on an ongoing basis, subject to the restrictions contai.ned herein, would serve the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF TFIE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION_!_ That, pursuant to §20-1 (c) (2) of the Code of e ordinances, _ (nee o.E eeraon or_entitv_reeDQgeible) is hereby granted an exception said section's 10:00 p.m, limitation upon the operation of ampiif:ied loudspeakers, subject to the conditions listed below: (list condit.ioh.-j here, which could include, awong other things, the eollowingl) ~ • e 1. This exception is granted only in connection with the ti operation of the (name of #P&MAL_.Vyent) f (locatign_of agent) , or, _ (state t annual. event at t it weekend of each Octoberl , ® d • ~a • +~endaNo. ' 4~entlalie IqS~. o~t3 2. -(name of person or entity responsibly agrees to take full responsibility for ensuring that the conditions of this exception are met, and to take all. reasonable measures necessary to avoid disturbing persons of ordinary sensibili- ties in the immediate vicinity of the event. 3. Under no circumstances shall the annual event employ the use of amplified loudspeakers between the hours of 12:OD mid- night and 7:00 a.m. 9. This ordinance ron£ers no personal or property rights, and may be amended, modified, superseded or revoked in whole or in part at the will of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, without any advance warning, hearing or compen- sation, for any reason at all, or for no reason, 5. This ordinance shall be strictly construed as an excep- tion granted pursuant to §20-1(c) (2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas. The City of Denton, Texas expressly reserves unto itself and all other persons any and all legal remedies, civil or criminal, relating to excessive noise in connection with this annual event, and hereby dis- claims any promissory or equitable estoppel which might in any way impede the pursuit of such remedies by any person. (add other provisions as desired, e.g., not within 300, of a church, school or hospitals not within 100' of residentially zoned property, etc.I SECTION II. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval, and expire E3_51 years hence, unless sooner repealed, modified or rescinded. PASSED AND APPROVED this the _ day of _ , 19_-. • BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR - ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY 0 , • • BY: PAGE 2 • W • ~ertdaNo a A~cr~d:~Item 7 c~ 13 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY'. • e a A' PAGE 3 • 0 randaNo4endaNc Attondallflm~ ~ q~lnoakt Date gag CITY of DENT04, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 # TELEPHONE (817) 566.8307 Office of the Oily Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager DATE: March 28, 1995 SUBJECT: Proposed Ordinance Granting Exception To The Noise Ordinance (For Use Of Amplified Sound) For Anrr,:al Events BACKGROUND: The City of Denton Code of Ordinances Section 20-1 (2) prohibits the use of any stationary loudspeaker, amplifier or musical instrument with such volume as to annoy or disturb persona In the immediate vicinity. Such use is prohibited particularly between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m, or at any time on Sunday. However, the ordinance also provides that the Council may make exceptions when the public Interest Is served, Since April 19920 twenty-six requests for such exception have been presented to the Council. A number of those were presented to the Council each year around the same time and have consistently served the public interest. Due to the success of those organizations, Staff was asked to develop an ordinance that would no longer require those annual events consistently serving the public interest to come before the Council each year to request the exception. The information contained in this report addresses this issue. A draft ordinance is also attached for your review, 01 SUMMARY: I Several cities throughout the metr.oplex as well as the Innovations Group (a Research Inquiry Service) were contacted to see if they were aware of an ordinance of this nature but none existed. Our p Legal Staff advises that a number of issues arise when drafting an 0 0 ordinance making exception to select organizations or annual events. J First, the council would need to outline the qualifications to determine what is an 'annual event'. Even when applying logical " Ded%carcd to Quah(q, Scnrhr" Li ~ NNW No • c~ • gendaNo daNo6' LL ~t~oodaltem delta 3- Annual ~S 1~y! Annual Events Ordinance Ester fatty March 28, 1995 "1 7 Page 2 and objective criteria, these types of distinctions have been held unconstitutional in sor..e cities, often on First Amendment grounds. Thus, the Legal Staff advises that it would be dangerous to differentiate between qualifying and non-qualifying annual events in a general ordinance. In order to keep those organizations that have proven to consistently serve the public i,ntetest from having to appear before the council each year, two options are presented for your review. Option 1: Amend the existing ordinance to provide a permitting process for use of amplified sound. This option could be accomplished by initially granting the permit based on the applicant or organizations assurance to comply with a set of adopted conditions. The request for an exception would not require Council approval unless the request for such permit was denied and the organization appealed the decision to the Council. If the permit was granted and the applicant violates the permit conditions, the applicant could be ticketed and the permit revoked. Option 2: Adopt an uncodified 'exception granting' ordinance with a duration longer than one year. Such an ordinance would indicate that a particular organization has consistently demonstrated responsible operation of loudspeakers in connection with the event over the past X number of years. The ordinance could be withdrawn by a superseding ordinance if problems were to arise or if a subsequent council deems the extended exception to be inappropriate. The ordinance could also contain a clause such that the exception would automatically expire after a specified number of years unless renewed by ordinance. Legal Staff suggests that it would even be possible to integrat6 all of the annual events of interest into one ordinance, with the understanding that permission could be revoked for any one event/organization without affecting the others. ® Staff and the Legal Department feel that option 2 most appropriately addresses council's request without unnecessarily exposing the City to undue risks. The attached ordinance has been prepared with the guidelines of option 2 in mind. With this option, Council has more flexibility to approve requests for exceptions to the existing ordinance, and the discretion to revoke an ongoing exception. This option could also prove very motivating to sponsors of annual ovents by encouraging them to act responsibly and may encourage those who have not yet earned a good 'credit • 0 rating' to demonstrate that they deserve such a privilege. O p f • • 4geodaft b S aaodaNo Annual Events Ordinance We lewda lem March 28, 1995 Page 3 PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS AFFECTED: If Council agrees with Staff's recommendation, option 2, no programs will be affected, however, Council may prefer option 1 or may even suggest another alternative. In such case, the Department responsible for issuing the permit will be affected. FISCAL. IMPACT: None Please advise if I can provide additional information. RESPE LLY SUBMITTED, Llo V Harrell City Manacjor, i I Prepared By: Veronica S. Rolen Administrative Assistant II Approved By: S aph ortugal esistant to the City anager ® ATTACHMENT: 1. Draft Ordinance • 0 • p • annueven.ord ]ZO ~gendaNn __q S ;F n, 4gvdaltem QgendaNo~ ~ 1A 1'~~341- We L_~2 AnAndlItOM a ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, GRANTING, PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-1(c)(2) OF T,iE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THAT SECTION WITH RESPECT TO HOURS OF O?FRATION OF AN AMPLIFIED LOUDSPEAKER SYSTEM; AND SETTING AN EFFECTIVE DA':d. WHEREAS, pursuant to 520-1(c)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, _(14me_of person or entity responsible) has made application to the City Council for an exception to the provision of that same section restricting the operation of ampli- fied loudspeakers after 10:00 p.m., in connection with the (game 52f annual event) annual event held at (location of event} and in connection with said request, has requested the exception to be granted on an ongoing basis for said annual event at said location (state time of event e a on the third weekend of each October) and WHEREAS, upon prior application and approval by the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, (name of peon or entity responsible) has consistently demonstrated over the past of years) years an ability to responsibly operate amplified loud- speakers in connection with the (.game of annual event) annual event held at (location of even, at times past the hours defined in §20-1(c; (2) of the code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas, within the public interest and without materially disturbing persons of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate vicinity thereof; and WHEREAS, based upon this past history, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas finds that granting an exception for this fff annual event on an ongoing basis, subject to the restrictions contained herein, would serve the public interest; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: • SECTION I. That, pursuant to 520-1(c) (2) of the Code of Ordinances, _(name of person or enter is hereby granted an exception said,iection's 10:00 p.m. limitation upon the operation of amplified loudspeakers, subject to the conditions listed below: [list conditions here, which could include, among other , 6 things, the following:) • • 1. This exception 1s granted only in connection with the operation of the _Uiwe_ of annual event) annual event at (location of eventL_, on .-(state time of event e.g.. on the third weeken~Lof ea,Qh October) • A • • ~endaRor. '420 AgWalfs !)ate __5 ,b'y 5 'Rendalterr~ S 2. (name of ggr@on_or entity responsible) agrees to take full responsibility for ensuring that the conditions of this exception are met, and to take all reasonable measures necessary to avoid disturbing persons of ordinary sensibili- ties in the immediate vicinity of the event. 3. Under no circumstances shall the annual event employ the use of amplified loudspeakers between the hours of 12:00 mid- night and 7:00 a.m. 9. This ordinance confers no personal or property rights, and may be amended, modified, superseded or revoked in whole or in part at, the will of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, without any advance warning, hearing or compen- sation, for any reason at all, or for no reason. 5. This ordinance shall be strictly construed as an excep- tion granted pursuant to §20-1(c) (2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas. The City of Denton, Texas expressly reserves unto itself and all other persons any and all legal remedies, civil or criminal, relating to excessive noise in connection with this annual event, and hereby dis- claims any promissory or equitable estoppel which might- in any way impede the pursuit of such remedies by any person. [add other provisions as desired, e,g., not within 300' of a church, school or hospital; not within 100' of residentially zoned property; volume not more than 80 dB measured either within 100 feet of any amplified loudspeaker or at any prop- erty line, between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight, etc.) SECTION, That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1995. - - BOa CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY:~ PAGE 2 ~ 4 • a • +gemlaNo. 5-a?o Agendalt _ BNdtlhltl q f5 ~2ate _ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BLICEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY. PAGE 3 R . l Y u C DENTON ozVoo Qopp00 00 ~ ~ o0 O~ 00 N G ~ Q ( C! Cl r ~ ~ Op0 I OOO ° N , ~ ~ °OO ~ °~aaaaaaao°° CITY COUNCIL r • ca • E:ANP000SV0RDARU140FF,WD "AND~ iC ABE7tla~tp/R~, ~Z,... Late ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE CANVASSING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE RUNOFF MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF DENTON ON JUNE 3, 1995. THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HERESY ORDAINS: SECTION I. The City Council finds and declares that the June III 3,1995 runoff municipal election was duly ordered for the purpose of electing one Councilperson to Place 1; that proper notice of said election was duly given and election officials appointed; that said election was duly held and the returns of the election officials have been delivered to the Council, all in accordance l with the laws of the State of Texas and the Charter and ordinances of the City of Denton. SECTION IL,. The official returns of the election officials having been opened, examined and canvassed, the Council hereby finds and declares that ballots were cast at said election, and that the votes cast for each place on the council were as follows: EARLY VOTING: FOR PLACE 1: l Mark R. Chew _ votes Carl Gene Young, Sr, votes REGULAR VOTING: FOR PLACE 1: Mark R. Chew _ votes Carl Gene Young, Sr. votes TOTAL VOTES CAST : Mark R. Chew votes Carl Gene Young, Sr, votes SECTION III. The Council finds and declares that the candidate listed below received a majority of the votes cast for • Place 1 on the Council and that the candidate listed below is hereby declared to be elected to the City Council of the City of • • Denton: FOR PLACE 1: • 0 • • genda,vu q ~ ^O age~dali f Z 5 _q 2 and such candidate shall assume the duties of his office on the date that he takes the official oath of office. PASSED AND APPROVED this the - day of 1995. BOB CASTLEBERRY, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: MICHAEL A. BUCEK, ACTING CITY ATTORNEY BY: - e e ' J e 0 t9 r DENTON ooooa aanoo . ooo° O F D 6 Oo/ I o o 0 C5 © 0 © cz] Q p o d a° o° ~ o0 ~DOO T O N ~ o00 °°ooaoo~ao°o CITY COUNCIL a • ea • CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING # 2;5F MCKINNEY r DENTON, TEXAS 76201 MEMORANDUM (817)566.8200#0FWMETR0434.2529 TO: Lloyd Harrell, City Manger FROM: Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer DATE: June 2, 1995 V SUBJECT: THE PROPOSED 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Attached is the Proposed 1996-2000 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for your review. City Charter requires that the proposed CIP, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, be presented to the City Manager at least ninety (90) days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Council must receive the proposed CIP at least sixty (60) days prior to the beginning of the fiscal year. Please recall that each year the City Council is responsible for approving the first year of the five year CIP, Typically, as each year advances, new projects are recommended for the fifth year only, while projects fur the first four years remain unchanged. However, the 1996-2000 Clp contains a few changes in the first four years that should be noted. These changes do not affect the overall funding requirements for each year, and are recommended to simply place them In the proper order of construction. EXISTING YEAR DIV NUMBER NAME AMOUNT 97.98 ENO 001 607 Myrtle Street Paving & Drainage $649,000 97.98 ENO 001068 Collins Street Paving & Drainage Phase II $690,000 PROPOSED 98.98 ENO 031067 Myrtle Street Paving & Drainage Phase 1 $394,000 97-98 DRAIN 081080 Eagle Drive Drainage 0946,000 EXfBTINO ~ j • 98.99 DRAIN 081080 Eagle Drive Drainage OP46,000 • • 1 PROPOSED 98.99 ENG 001068 Collins Street Paving & Drainage Phase II $990,000 98.99 ENO 001067 Myrtle Street Paving & Drainage Phase 11 $266,000 'YJrdAwled to Quality Stn-Ire" • O • I- ~ • Memo to Lloyd V. Harrell June 2, 1996 Page 2 In addition, a new project to purchase the right-of-way for a Loop 288 bypass was added to the first and second years of the CIP (1996-96 and 1996.97)• Staff was able to allocate the required additional funding facilitated by the increase in property values realized this year, coupled with improving the debt repayment structure. Included for the first time this year in the Proposed CIP is a section labeled Community Development. This section addresses projects, which include capital improvement projects, that were recommended by the Community Development Advisory Board and approved by Council on May 2, 1995. On May 24, the Planning and Zoning Commission held their second of two public hearings regarding the CIP, At the conclusion of the public hearing, P&Z docided to hold a special meeting on May 31 to discuss a recommendation for Council. After extensive analysis of each project and Input from both citizen and staff, P&Z formulated a recommendation. Rather than propose specific changes to the CIP, a motion was made to approve the CIP as recommended by the Executive Team and the Public Utilities Board and Include each individual commissioner's comments made regarding the Proposed CIP, Attached is a copy of the minutes from the May 31 P&Z meeting that Includes the comments made by each Commissioner. Also, please see memo from Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance, to members of Planning & Zoning regarding the attached minutes. City Council will f ormally adopt the first Veer of the 1996.2000 CIP on September 12, 1996. Please advise if you hive any questions. Thank you. 070 AFFOOM Atw"ante e i • i • CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL. BUILDING ~ 215 E MCKINNEY ~ DENTON, TEXAS 76201 (8 17) 5668200 ~ DFW METRO 434.2529 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 1, 1995 TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN I wanted to clarify several points discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting last night: 1) No previously approved projects were eliminated to accommodato the Inclusion of Loop 288 right-of-way acquisition in the Capital Improvement Plan. Although Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering and Transportation, stated that several previously approved projects were reduced to free funding for the Loop 288 project, this was not the case. Staff was able to allocate the required additional funding for this project facilitated by the increase in property values realized this year coupled with a change in the debt repayment structure. j 2) The inciasion of the Loop 288 right-of-way acquisition was formulated by the City's executive staff during Capital Improvement Program deliberatlnns 'laid in March and finalized April 7" of this year. 3) The only changes in the previously approved Capital Improvement Plan were the phasing of Myrtle Street, Collins Street, and Eagle Drive as outlined in the attached memo, Again, I just wanted to correct Mr, Clark's misstatement concerning the elimination e of some projects and get that information to you as quickly as possible. Vedica red to Qualit). Svnke" • t++ • Memo to Planning and Zoning Commission June 1, 1995 Page 2 Also, I would like to thank each commissioner for the time and effort you have committed during this process and look forward to the formulation of the bond election propositions in the coming months. If you have any questions, or need further information, please call me. Mal AFFOOOF AtUch Mnl • I • o , • w • r %:D CITY of DIENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING ~ 215E. McKINNEY# DENrON, TEXAS 76201 MEMORANDUM (8171566.8200 a DFW METRO 434.2629 DATE': March 13, 1995 Tol John Fortune, Chief Finance officer FROM: Jerry Clark, Director of Enyineeriog & Transportation SUBJECT: Capital Improvements Program Modifications 1995 The projects shown below are proposed to be exchanged to place them in the proper order of construction, The Eagle Drive Drainage project needs to be in place to carry Collins Street Phase Ii drainage offaite, This exchange is necnsaary because of the sharp increase in funding last year for drainage which allowed us to fund Eagle Drive at almost $1,000,000. Since we are allowed to go out for bond election, please consider the following exchanges, EXISTING YEAR DIV NUMBER NAME AMOUNT 97-98 ENG 001057 MYRTLE STREET PAVING AND DRAINAGE $649,000 97-98 ENO 001058 COLLINS ST PAVING AND DRAINAGE PH II $690,000 PROPOSED 97-98 ENO 001057 MYRTLE ST PAVING AND DRAINAGE PH 1 $394,000 97-96 DRAIN 081060 EAGLE DRIVE DRAINAGE $945,000 EXISTING 98-99 DRAIN 081060 EAGLE DRIVE DRAINAGE $945,000 PROPOSED 98-99 ENO 001050 COLLINS ST PAVING AND DRAINAGE PH IT $690,000 • 90-99 ENG 001057 MYRTLE ST PAVING AND DRAINAGE PH 1I $255,000 Please advise if you need further information. • - rr C r ~ r • e AEE004F9 "Dedicated to Quallty 5ernlce" ~ O e ca • AA ~11' ilk- P&Z Minutes May M, 1995 Page 9 PLANNING AND ZONLN 'COMMISSION RCQMMENDATIONS. Ms. Russell: Commissioners do we just want to go around and make our recommendations to the Council? Mr. Cochran: Obviously this is a very big issue. We have heard a lot of different opinions. We got a lot of different interests in the community, pretty fairly represented here on this list. We have a lot of different views on what is going on. As I read it, twelve percent of this budget is for Loop 288. There are a lot of safety issues irtvolvW and some beautification and some amenities of life enhancements in here as well, On the issue of moving up the rest of the funding for Loop 288 to this year, I would have some real difficulty doing that just from the percentage of the budget that it would represent. It is so speculative at this point that it would be difficult to tie that much money up in it. My recommendation would be that we follow what we have been given. We have given it a closer scrutiny than I have ever given one of these in my time up here before. We have looked at it and picked it apart. It is not perfect, there are some adjustments that could be made. I think we know more about the process and we will be better able to look at it down the line in subsequent years. I think we have givers staff some direction about what we may require in the future. For the purposes of this proposal I would recommend that we approve or recommend the proposal in our book here for the 1995/1996 year. Ms. DuBose: I would just like to tell you that the Loop 288 right of way has not been in the plan until now. Staff came in and put the Loop 288 right of way into the plan for 95/96 year and the 96/97 year. Mr. Cochran: What got bumped? Mr. Clark: Street improvement and street construction for about three hundred thousand is what got bumped. Also there were some general categories that got reduced. Thal was based on the input that we got from the first public hearing and that was why it was • inserted. i. Mr. Norton: We sit up here and make decisions and we sometimes feel like ducks in a shooting gallery because we are getting input from everywhere and we have got to make a recommendation, There is one thing that 1 would like to put into the process. I think when we get down to the point of saying 95/96 and we are sitting here In the middle of 95, p 1 think we reed to be. much more specific about the money we are spending. I do not feel e comfortable saying thirty thousand dollars here when somebody is looking at me saying thirty thousand dollars could take a lot of water out of my house. As far as the recommendation 1 am ready to go forward as it stands. I realize that the four hundred, • • P&Z Minutes May 31, 1995 Page 10 thirty-three thousand dollars is in there. 11 bothers me that we are told today that the four hundred and thirty-three thousand dollars was pulled out of our recommendations for last year without us knowing about it. We are sitting here tonight saying that we are approving a capital improvement plan and we did the same thing last year and all of a sudden four hundred and thirty-three thousand dollars is not going where we recommended. I am not too comfortable with that point; however, I agree with where it's going. Ms. Schertz: I would like to thank staff and I certainly feel more educated than I did a couple of months ago. I also want to acknowledge the data that the citizens have provided for this because they also have given me an education that I needed in order to make these decisions. I would like to confirm and agree with Mr. Norton's continent that when we are looking at the current year more detail would be good. I would like to go on record as indicating that until I have more data as to whether Loop 288 I need to know the critical facts as to whether Loop 288 does or does not need both portions to be on next year's budget. If I could he shown that the way that is recommended now is perfectly acceptable and does not hinder the growth and the production of the City of Denton then I am comfortable with that. If in fact 1 am shown that it does hinder the growth and does jeopardize some visioning ideas and the Fantus Report and some direction that a lot of citizens in the community would like to see taken then r would want to recommend that it be included this year. I am not going to go down line item by line item, I did before I came to this meeting, on how to justify putting that expense in but at this time I have complete confidence in the Blue Ribbon Committee and wish them well and look forward to hearing from them soon. Mr. Cooper: It is my understanding that this Blue Ribbon Committee will be comprised of approximately fifty people. In this process for the Capital Improvement Plan obviously there is going to have to be some bonds approved to proceed forward with this five year plan and I think we may be a little premature here tonight in considering individual line items if indeed there is going to be a Blue Ribbon Committee that will review these in more detail and make recommendations. Is it true that after those recommendations are made they will come back before P&Z prior to going to Council? Or is this the last time that we will see it? Ms. Russell: We will not hear this again unless we want to extend the process. Our recommendations tonight will go to City Council, The Blue Ribbon Committee comes into el' :ct after the Council. Ms. DuBose: The only way that we can go forward with these is with a bond election. The timing in the past has been that in July the Council appoints that committee, and the committee works for it number of months pulling together propositions and formulating the • rA • P&Z Minutes May 31, 1995 Page II recommendations. All of the entities are represenled and please understand that your visioning group the input that you have had so far has not gone through the Visioning Cabinet. You will have a formal recommendation that will come through the cabinet and not only will infrastructure be looked at, but your entranceways, your play group will be Mr. Cooper: I understand but we are still saying chat the Capital Improvement Plan is a guideline that will be given to this committee. They won't be opening it up completely again for all new input will they? Ms. DuBose: Absolutely, this will be one piece of information that they will look at and I am sure that they will look at it very hard and take it for what it is. And that is a recommendation that has come through the years formulated from the citizens, through the Council, through staff, the public utility board Mr. Cooper: My point is then that nearly every item on here is going to be reviewed again by this Blue Ribbon Committee and may or may not end up in this budget when it is finalized. Ms. DuBose, Right. Mr. Cooper: The only thing that I would like to re-emphasize is that I am still concerned about the issue on the many drainage requests and problems ghat we are confronted with every time I hear a group from the public come forward to this Commission, I would like to see in future years at least some amount allocated in this budget that the city staff can move forward with .some of those projects. I think Jerry indicated that you need somewhere between three hundred to five hundred thousand dollars to make any kind of dent at all in these many requests that are presented. Also I share the .same view of other Commissioners here about the Loop 288 extension. I think that we should push that as • hard as we can as a city to at least get that route finalized as soon as possible so that it can move forward with the acquisition of the right of way. Ms. DuBose: That was the same feeling staff had when they moved it up into the next two years. I did want to make sure that everyone did realize that In 95/96 there is eight hundred and forty-one thousand dollars for paving and drainage projects, There is 0 Westway paving and drainage and Collins Street paving and drainage. The following year • • there are two projects; Cooper Creek channel and Ave 0 that are strictly urainage. That is seven hundred thousand dollars, i Mr. Cooper: I understand in general terms there is a lot of money for drainage in there. 0 0 p c> • ,a {t x J P&Z Minutes May 31, 19951 Page 12 I am talking about the more specific terms where individuals come before us and say that they have flooding problems every time we get a heavy rain. I am talking in terms of a fund for those types of projects. Usually there are a hundred thousand dollars or less as individual projects. They don't effect a large group. I am saying that there needs to be some priority placed on those where property damage is being sustained because of the drainage problems. I would like to see a high emphasis placed on that. I think that is all we can do in general terms as far as our recommendation to the Council. I am sure that they have the option of adding specific projects if they want to Ms. DuBose: We would be more than happy, as we have in the past, to articulate those interests to the Council and I would encourage you to also be very active with your input to your Blue Ribbon Committee. Ms. Russell I don'; think there is any doubt that we will take every opportunity we get. I too would like to reiterate about the Loop 288 bypass. Our priorities change and obviously you realize that because you put it in this year and if there is a chance I do believe when things have to go to Austin we know it is politics played and we are already eager to move forward with this. The priorities being the Fantus Report, the visioning process we are going through. Our awareness has been heightened on so many issues, this is important. When we leave here people don't forget we are on Planning and Zoning and they call us and express concerns and interests and this is one that several of us have heard about. I would say that you be as responsive as you have been in putting it up there this year and if there is any way that we can push this forward lets do it. Because of a comment made I did not know where the money was going to come from but if Ave B paving was put in to complete a lillle niche, it is a hundred and forty-four thousand dollars. We have heard two groups, we have heard people in Montecito talk to us about problems that they are having and I understand that there is a private system that has been proposed 1 but it isn't as good as what the city could do. They haven't caused their problem. When areas build up and when we become more knowledgeable about drainage we can handle it better, I would like to see that and Ranch Instates. These two things to the limit of ® whatever funds are available and I would suggest that you look at Ave B paging, Not only do we have staff saying that it was put in to take care of thai clock of money but it also is a small street and not a busy street. We have gotten so much good Information and I am so appreciative. I know that wasn't easy for you to gel it together for us and gel it to us. You did it without a word of complaint and I appreciate that. Could we have it earlier next year? I really would be educated on this but time just did not permit me to go O through all of it. The last thing that I would make a comment about is can the Blue Ribbon Committee address utility funds also? Ms. DuE~se: I am sure if Council so desires it could. That has been historically the 0 ra c> • P&Z Minutes May 31, 1995 Page 13 Purpose of your Public Utility Board. The citizen representation that you have is your Public Utility Board that works on all of the issues with utilities and looks at the rate slruclures and makes recommendation on the rates that are driven by the projects that you have in operations and the ones that you would do on capital improvements. That has been the board in the past that represents the citizens as far as utilities. Ms. Russell: Why are we asked to look at this the,i? Ms. DuBose: The charter requires that the Public Utility Board formulate a recommen- dation that you review and recommend to the Council. That is a charter requirement. Mr. Cooper; If we have no authority over making any recommendations on it why should we even review it? Ms. DuBose: Your public hearings are a joint hearing with the Public Utility Board. Ms. Russell: One was. Mr, Robbins: That is not what Kathy said. What she said is that you do have the authority to make recommendations. Mr. Cooper: I also heard that is why the Public Utility Board formulates this. Thai it is not subject to review by the Blue Ribbon Committee. Mr. Robbins: I thought that she was explaining the difference between the Blue Ribbon Committee and the Public Utility Board, Mr. Cooper: Just like we are asked to have oversigh, over the general government plan, 1 the Public Utility Board is asked to have oversight over the utility budget, a Ms. DuBose: Let me back up and say that in the general government process staff prepares their recommendation and it goes through their process to present to the executive staff. That executive staff formulates the plan for the general government side that comes to the Planning and Zoning Commis: ion. The Public Utility Board takes the recommendation from its staff and it goes through the same process, as our executive staff does on the general government side, and makes that recommendation to the Planning and 0 Zoning Commission. Now the Planning and Zoning Commission can change that or recommend a change to the utilities that will then go forward to the City Council. Mr. Cooper: I guess my recommendation, if we have Input, is that this budget here should • • P&Z Minutes May 31, 1995 Page 14 } maybe be subject to the same review if we are asking for bond funding to help support it. I know that not all of it is because utility revenues help fund some of this. Ms. DuBose: Utilities is somewhat different from your general government. It is self supporting and it is supported by rates. You not only have revenues that cover your "pay as you go" capital improvements but you also have some debt issuance. There is not a requirement that it go before your voters for a bond election, Revenue bonds are not subject to voter approval. That is the difference, Revenue bonds are issued to repay the debt and the electric customers are the ones that pay for those operations and for [hat debt. Taxpayers are a little bit different. Taxes are what pay for your general government side and so you have rate payers and you have taxpayers. You have water rates that cover your water projects and you have sewer rates to cover sewer projects. You have drainage and you have str, cis but you do not have water or sewer on your generai government. You have elLctr:, bonds, sewer bonds, water bonds and each different rate payer pays for that bond issue. Mr. Cochran: On these street projects that were taken out of this years plan was there any drainage proponents involved? Mr. Clark: Those funds are used [o construct a new street or to reconstruct an existing street. Because we have not selected them yet we have not pushed ar y specific ones back yet. Mr. Cochran: I would like to make a comment. In the future when there is A. situation in which money from previous recommended capital improvement plans has been replaced with something from staff it would be really helpful to know what those are before we go into the process rather than find out about it when we are making our decisions. That is a piece of information that would have been helpfu: in this whole process because we have got a group of people up here that have already gotten four hundred and thirty-five thousand dollars this year for a project that they have recommended and now they wanted • another four hundred and thirty-seven thousand dollars. That would have been helpful information to lime. I just assumed that it had been in the process all along, Please think i about that too when we are formulating how to approach capital expenditures, r i Ms. DuBose: What we would hopefully have is like what we have had in the past where [he proposition would say how many bonds, how many streets in a particular project, which makes it much easier. • • 0 Ms. Schertz: I would like to make a motion that we present to City Council each individual commissioner's comments and that be our recommendation for this eveniV4 ~ O • 4s • P&,Z Minutes May 31, 1995 Page 15 regarding the capital improvement plan as so stated by each individual member. Mr. Cooper: I'll second. Ms. Russell: Any discussion? All in favor please raise your right hand. All opposed same sign. Approved. (5-0) Adjourned 8:35 p.m. • I 1 CITY OF DENTON PROPOSED 1990.200a CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM i i "DEDICArkD TO QUALITY SERVICE" f I f~ I~ • r,; • • I 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Table of Contents General Government Capital Budgeting Calendar 1 1996-96 Project Summary . 3 1996-97 Project Summary 4 1997-96 Project Summary 6 ' 1996-99 Project Summary a 1999-2000 Project Summary 7 1999.2000 Project Sheets 8 Other Projeots Submitted Other Projects Submitted Summary 27 ' Community Development Community Development Project Summary 31 Utilities • Executive Summary 33 Electric 46 ' Water 67 Wastewater „ . . „ . .67 • Solid Waste . 77 Fleet Services B6 e • r CAPITAL BUDGETING CALENDAR 1996-2000 January 17 - Tuesday Discussion of Priorities Questionnaire with City Council. City Council briefing on Capita Improvement Program, January 20 - Friday Priority Questionnaire distributed to city Council. January 27 • F6* City Council Mums Budget Priority Questionnaire, February 7 - Tuesday Review and discussion of Budget Priority Quesdonnaire results with City Council. February 8 - Wednesday Public Utilities Board and Planning and Zoning Commission hold a public hearing to receive input firm the community regarding Capital Improvement Program. February 22 - Wednesday Staff Capital Improvement Program 8 udget kickoff, hl inch 10 - Friday Capital Improvement Program requests due in Bud analysis. Be Office for review and March 15 - Wednesday General Government AM year Capita improvement mqueests Executive Committee for consideration, are presented to March 20 • Monday Executive Committee rankings of capital improvement projects due to Budget Office. March 23 - Thursday Executive committee discussion of capita improvement project priority rankings April 5 • Wednesday Public Utilities Board receives preli miruuydraftofIJUlitiesCepiW improvement program April 7 - Friday Executive Committee reviews General Government requests formulating maxnmendalion to be forwarded to Planning and Zoning Commission, April 26 - Wednesday Public Utilities Board holds a work session to review Utilities Capital Improvement Program. May 3 - Wednesday Public Utilities Board final Utility CaPhal Improvement Program reconnrncrxlation. May 10 - Wednesday Planning and Zoning Commission discusses the Capital Improvement Program, May 24 - Wednesday Planning tud Zoning Commission holds a public hearing hi it considers recommendation. B special tet:n.g, and June 6- Tuesday Itecornmended five-year Capital It. end Program presented to City Council for considerati on. • September 12 • Tuesday City Council BAPis Capital Improvement Program bud • O get (first year of Capital improvement Program). i i l • • GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Capital Improvement budgeting process began with a joint public hearing held by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Public Utilities Eoerd to solicit input from the community, In addition to the public hearing, the City Council completed a budget priority questionnaire. The public hearing, the results of the budget priority questionnaire, and actual need oil served as a basis for staff to prepare capital Improvement program requests. Once requests were prepared, they were presented to the City's Executive Committee for consideration. Each project was evaluated based on its Impact on; 1 . Public Safety, Health and Life; (i 2. Legal Requirement, Liability or Mandate;] 3. Quality and Reliability of Current Service Level; 4. Economic Growth and Development; If 5. Recreational, Cultural and Aesthetic Value; and S. Funding Ability. d The Executive Committee recommendations were then sent to the Planning and Zoning Commission for approval. Once the Planning and Zoning Commission approved staff's recommendation, the CIP was submitted to the City Council for consideration and approval, The recommended 1998.2000, Flve•Year General Government Capital improvement Plan Is summarized in the following pages. New guidelines were implemented during the 1991.92 planning process incorporating projected annual Inflation rates for each project requested for the plan's fifth year. This approach allows a more comprehensive identification of operation and maintenance costs related to each project and a more accurate estimate of future project costs. Those projects recommended for fifth year funding are proposed for 1999.2000. Other projects submitted though not recommended are included for informational purposes, fl f~ I~ t . 1 ' i 2 ~ • 0 % wild& • - T~ • • X -,z 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL (MEMO) e PROJECT REQUIRED AID TOTAL OPERAT. YFJIR D!V/pEPT NUMBER PROJECT NAME EXISTING AUTN' UNAUTH. OTHER a" IN PROJECT AND BONDS UNISSUED UNI88UED • FUNDING COSTT, COSTA MAINT; 95-98 PLANNING 001608 LANDSCAPE FORT WORTH DANE-(PHASE 1). 95-96 PLANNING D01503 LANDSCAPE TEASLEYLN 035TOL MILLER) 86,000 1b'000 46,COD 45,000 11,000 95-98 ENO 001013 ARTEAIµ, TURN LANES 88,000 86,000 30,000 ' 95-96 ENO 001016 81DEWALKS)BIKEWAYS 181,000 181,000 '81,000 95-96 ENO 001018 AVENUE S PAY1NO 125,000 120,000 128.000 i' 95-98 ENO 001017 TRAFFIC&GWLS 144,000 144,000 144,000 95-98 ENO 001022 ffMEET CONSTRUCTION 297,000 297,000 297,000 21000 95-98 ENO 001023 WESTVAY PAVNG AND DAAINAATE 389,000 338,000 338,000 318,000 95-06 ENO 001068 COLLIN 3T PAVING 6 DRAIN (PHASE 9 316,000 315,000 ' 85-98 PLANNMq 001601 CnY PARK WATER FACIL RY STUDY 526,000 625,000 626,000 95-98 PARKPPEC 006301 UPGRADE E)08TIN0 PARK SYSTEM 50.000 50,000 50,000 95-H8 ENO 0010120A LOOP 21s BYPAse-AIUHT-OF-WAY 3OO,OD0 300.000 300,000 431,000 434,000 TOTAL 431,000 8b.000 18,000 2,64000 0 2.840W 0 2,023,000 13,000 • • 'This revenue source includescertNicmes of obligoWn, fund balance, andgenerel fund resoum", w • i 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL (MEMO) REOUIRED AID> TOTAL OPERAY, PROJECT EJUSTINO AUTH. UNAUTN. OTHER CITY IN PROXCT AND YEAR DIVlf1EPT NUMBER PROJECT NAME BONOS UNISSUED UNISSUED FUNDING CONSTI CpgTg' MAINE 96-97 PWJNINO 001610 LANDSCAPE FORT WORTH OR (PHASE II) 44,000 61,000 44,000 44,000 96-97 ENO 001050 MISCSTREET CONSIRUCTIMi"ECONSTRUCTION 338,000 336,000 338,000 96 -97 ENO 001051 INTERSEC 1 ON CONTROL SIGNAL 317,000 21000 319,000 319,000 96-97 ENO 001062 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION 134,ODO 1,000 135,000 136,000 96-97 ENO 001053 TURN LANES FOR ARTUTALS 237,000 237.000 231,000 D6-97 ENO 001080 MNOOROAD SHOULDER 176.030 176,000 176,000 96-97DRAINA43E DSID02 COOPER CREEK CHANNEL (PHASE 9 600,000 21000 501,000 5021000 96-97 DRAINAGE OB 1004 AYENUE0 200,000 200,OD0 200,000 96-97 FIRE 005101 REPLACE SNORKEL 6761000 6761000 575,000 96-97 PARKMEC 006301 UPOR/J EMBINO PARK, V.'VEM 300,000 300,000 300,000 96-97 ENO 001003 FLAT NORTH OR'/AV1N0 E MAIN {PHASE 0 699,000 569.000 690.000 96-97 ENO DOIC28 FORT WrPTN OR PAVING A DRAIN M140F In 6150,000 650,000 6501000 96-97 ENO 00101208 LOOP 218 BYPASS -I'!~HT-OF-WAY 433,000 433,000 434,000 _ TOTAL 0 1,433,000 3,210,030 61000 4,548,000 0 4104000 64,000 ~ JI I I "This revenue source includes cen8beles of obllQatbn, fund be lance, and Verwal fund resources. R ■ f t ! A 1 1 i I 1 11 t! 1t it iN iR if 0 p 0 r s ® • N ■ t a' • . • w IR f• qt « IR! CI[ Z w zz WAV m 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT; TOTAL (MEMO) REQUIRED; Alp TOTAL OPERAT, PROJECT EXISTING AUTH. UNAUTH, OTHER env IN PROJECT AND YEAR DIWDEPT NUMBER PROJECT NAME BONDS UNISSUED UNISSUED • FUNDING CONOT. COSTS MAINT. 07 -98 PLANNING 001502 LANDSCAPE LOOP 284, 274,000 274,000 274,000 648,000 40,000 97-9e PARKgEC 006301 UPGRADEXSTi,VG PARK SYSTEM 480,000 450,000 450,000 40,000 97-98 ENO 001007 DOWNTOWN DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN 80,000 80,000 60,000 97-98 ENO 001057A MYRTLE STREET PAVING AND DRAINAGE (PHASE 0 394,000 394,ODO 394,000 97-98 PARKMEC 00639802 DENTON BRANCH RAILSTOTRAKS 325,000 326,000 325,000 16.000 97-98 ENG 001065 MISC. STREET RECONSTRUCTION 580,000 WOOD 680000 07-98 DRAINAGE 081025 PECAN CREEK-RUD DELL TO WOODROW 725,000 726.000 726,000 97-98 ENO 001009 PAYNE DRIVE PAVING AND DRAINAGE 240,000 240,000 240,000 07-98 DRAINAGE 0a$050 FLETCHER BRANCH AT INDIAN RIDGE 00,000 00,000 90,000 97-98 DRAINAGE 061034 COOPER BRANCH DRAINAGE 1010DO 106,000 106,000 97-98 FAC MGWr 000202 ENERGY MANAGEMENT 278,000 274,000 270,000 97-98 ENG 001098 KINGS ROW SIDEWALi 45,000 46,000 46,000 97-98 ENO 001009 EAGLE DRIVE SIDEWALK 46,000 46,000 46,000 i 97-90 DRAINAGE 0810708 GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE DRAINAGE 266,000 266,000 1.68,0)0 07-95 DRAINAGE 81082 COOPER CREEK WINDSOR DRIVE TO BELL AVE. 150,000 t80,000 1bJ000 07-9a DRAINAGE 0191019 COIT STREET DRAINAGE 180,000 400,000 480,000 • 97-98 PLANNING 001515 LILLIAN MILLER--LANDSCAPING IIa,ODO 110,000 22,000 138,000 '1,000 97-9a ENO 001083 RINEY ROAD PAVING 100,000 100,000 100,000 j 97-08 PLANNING 001612 TRAIL PLAN 371,000 371,000 311,000 17,000 97-05 ENO 081060 EAGLE DRIVE DRAINAGE 946,000 015,000 946,000 0 TOTAL 0 274,000 5,756,000 0 8,020,000 200.000 8,326,000 123,000 'This revenue source Includes oe1lMlicales of obligation, fund balance, and general fund resources, k O 0 r • I 47 • • i~ 1998-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT p - TOTAL (MEMO) 3$ REOWRED AID ' TOTAL OPERAT. PROJECT EXISTING AUTH. UNAUTH, OTHER CITY IN PROJECT AND YEARDIVIDEPI NUMBER PROJECT NAME - BONDS UNISSUED UNISSUED FUNDING COSTT, COST'S MAINT. 98-99 DRAINAGE 061042 PECAN CREEK BRADSHAW TO MAIN CHANNEL 266,000 266,000 286,000 98-99 DRAINAGE 081037 PECAN CREEK DRAINAGE NEAR ROBERTSON 734,000 734,000 734,000 98-99 DRAINAGE 08$661 DALLAS DRIVE DRAINAGE 86,000 66,000 88,000 98-99 PARKS 006316 UNIVERSITY DRIVE LANDSCAPING 249,000 240,000 249,000 496,000 24,000 98-99 PMKS 000307 MASTER MAILS PLAN PHASE I COMPLETION 619,000 619,000 819,000 13,000 98-99 PARKS 906308 SGUTH LAKES PARK PHASE II DEVELOPMENT 1,004,000 1,004,000 369,000 1,363,000 53,000 90-99 PARKIREC 006301 UPGRADE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM 450,000 480,000 460,000 40,000 98-99 PARKS 0063DS ATHLEnC F IEL D RENOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 16,000 98--99 ENO 0010107 MISCELLANEOUS STREET CONSTRUCTION 660,000 660,000 860,000 98-99 ENO 001068 WSCELLANEOUSSIDEWALK REPAIR 106,0D0 106,000 108,000 98-99 ENO ()0$076 SOUTHEAST DENTON SIDEWALKS 201,000 201,000 201,000 98-99 ENO W1Wt AVENUE A PAVING 118,000 116,000 11a,000 96-99 ENO 0010108 WILLOWWOOD PAVING AND DRAINAGE (OPTION 10 74600 746,000 745,000 98- 0 ENO 001090 MOCKINGBIRD LANE CONNECTION 166,600 186,000 16a,000 88-99 INFO SVCS OOSW1 COMPUIERSYSTEM UPGRADE 3,000,000 3,000,000 3.000,000 98-99 AIRPORT 0019003 CONSTRUCT 1600' RUNWAY EXTENSION TO THE NORM 663,900 663,000 6,096,000 51649,000 • 98--99 AIRPORT 00 19002 TA)K.ANES AND LAND ACOUI$MON 1600' NORTH 207,000 207,000 1,063,000 2,070,000 98-99 AIRPORT 001POOl CON STRUCT O. A, APRON 116,000 116,000 1,042,000 1,167,000 98-99 ENO 00 1068 COLLINS ST PAVING AND DRAINAGE PHASE It 690.000 690,000 0 d90,000 98-99 ENO 0010578 MYRTLE 8T PAVING AND DRAINAGE PHASE II 266,000 2661000_ 0_266,000 _ TARGET 249,000 0 ' 174,000 3,000,000 11,129,000 0,600,000 19,732,000 146,000 "This revenue source Includes ced[ficales of obligatlon, fund balance, and general fund rewumas. I I I ! I I I I l l I I l i i l l l i l l f • ra • • E I 1 1 1 E I 1 t II . Y U ZI a I II$" :z 1 m m 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT TOTAL IMEMIO) REQUIRED AID TOTAL OPERAY. PROJECT E%1STINQ AUTH, UNAUTH. OTHQR CITY 114 PWACT AND YEAR DIV/DEPT NUMBER PROJECT NAME BONDS UNISSUED UNISSUED • FUNDING COt8T, COWM MAINT, 99-00 ENG 001013 MASCH BRANCH ROAD PHASE 1 617,000 647,000 647,000 99-00 ENG 0010116 MISCELLANEOUS STREET RE:;ONSTRUGTION 150,000 150,000 180,000 99-00 ENG 0010132 MAYHI.LA.OOP 266 CONNECTOR ROAD 775,000 776,000 776,000 ~ 99-00 DRAINAGE 061062 REPAIR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE DRAINAGE CHANNELS 125,000 126,000 126,000 99-00 PARKS 0069.7 PARK PARKING LOT PAYING 600,000 800,000 600,000 2,000 99-00 ENG 001067 MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS 210.000 219,000 219,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 081069 PACE DRIVE DRAINAGE 963,000 963,000 9631000 99-00 PARKS 006326 EVERS PARK SALLFIELOLKINTING 76,000 76,000 76,000 4,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 081038 PECAN CREEK KERLEY TO MORSE 498,000 498,000 496,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061068 KERLEY STREET CLLVERT 130,000 130,000 130,000 99-00 ENG 0010134 OPTICOM SYSTEM 50,000 50,000 50,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 0310.11 SHADY OAKS DRAINAGE 939,000 9391000 930,000 r 99-00 ENO 0010121 WELCH AT HKIHLANDMOHT-TL.RN LANE 23,000 23,000 23,000 99-00 ENO 0010136 ROSELAWN PAYING 864,000 664,000 864,000 99-00 ENG 001066 WEST WINDSOR DRIVE PAVING (OPTION N) 439,000 439,000 439,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 081016 RANCH ESTATES DRAINAGE - PHASE I 617,000 517,000 6171000 • 99-00 PARKS 000329 NORTH LAKES EXPANSION 1,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 1WOOD 106,000 99-00 AIRPORT 0019004 CONSTRUCT VUEL STORAGE FACILITY 468`000 486,000 _468.0w 0 0 7,903.000 466,000 6,301,000 500,000 6,691,000 112,000 i This revenue source lnoIudes certHicales of obligation, fund balance, and general fund resouroe6. , • to • 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Prof" Title MASCH BRANCH ROAD PHASE I Task Sche" Project: / 0010.73 (A$ontNYerr/ 08aiPt sm Conthtict ComPt►fed flequating Dept. Engineering & Trans. Begin Oct-99 Mar-00 May-00 Eatlmatsd Coat 8847,000 End Feb-00 Apr-00 Mar-O1 is this an update or revision of a currant CIP Project? Yee X No Project Dacrlptlonflocatlon 7 Provide 27 foot road between Hwy, 380 and Jim Christal Road Inclucmg drainage and curb and gutter. Project PunmoQusdfkaNon Provide improved access to 380 from Industrial area around the Airport. COMIturElae fu~dip SCAedralr ($11000199898 1898.87 1991.88 1998.99 1898.00 Total Existing Bonds - Issue: 0 AuthorizedlUnissued Bonds 0 UnauthorizedfUnissued Bonds 847 847 Aid in Construction 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 847 847 Coatrochw? FWO&W ■ Cosh ($7,000 a) 1996.96 1999.97 1997.98 1999.99 1999-10 Total ■ Services 75 76 i Land (Right-of-wway) 64 84 Construction 708 708 Other 0 Tote! 0 0 0 0 847 847 OWratMW SWS*t Cats ($1,000's) 1998.96 1898.97 1887.98 1890.99 199900 Tat- 1 Personal Services 0 llj Supplies • Maintenance 0 Services 0 0 Debi Service Insurance 0 0 fixed Assets 0 • Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • Pleats Bit expected source of operating funds, WIN this project result In any savings? Yes, approximate amount annually _ No - AAA03OA9 - 8 _.w..~....w... ~ ~ .._,.,...r. gyn. , • w • 1996.2000 CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Proleat Title MISCELIANEOUS STREET RECONSTRUCTION Tetk Soheadalr hoiam 0010.119 (h$ordh/yerl fTrs/8n AAW comovut carrobfed Reg "*Ig Dept, Engineering & Trans. Begin Oct-99 Eatlmated Cost 8160,000 End Sep-00 rM this an update of rwlalan of a current Cta Project? yas No 11"faect Descefptlan/Location Use City forces to reconstruct existing s•reots. Reconstruction would include new asphalt pavement by bomagging and overlaying. Concrete curbs and driveways will be repaired as needed. Staff would recommend streets and deciding body would choose. Project Purpose/Juso icatlon Many streets In Denton have sections that are In poor repair but not the whole street, Also, some streets have poor asphalt conditions, but curb and gutter are acceptable. Enables selection of specific major street repairs the actual year of the program. I ~n Soheeialr I$f,000S1 1998.98 1890.87 1887.98 1888.88 IN800 Total Existing Bonds - Itsue: 0 AuthorizedlUnissued Bonds 0 UnauthorizedWrilssued Bonds ISO 150 Aid in Construction 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 160 160 Comity eon Fwh*v cosrt;I7,000'a) 1996-96 1994.97 1997-08 1998.88 1089-00 Total Services 9 8 ' Land (Right-of-way) 142 142 Construction 0 Other 0 r Total 0 0 0 0 160 160 0wofkzy loudpef costs ($1,000',R) _ 1996.98 1990.97 1897.90 1998.90 1000-011 Toth Personal Services 0 • Supplies 0 Maintenance 0 Services 0 Debt Service 0 Insurance 0 Fixed Assets Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 Please Hsi expected source of operating funds. 14 ■ WIN We project result in any swings Yes, approximate amount annually X No ■ AAA03078 ~■f 9 • IatJU-[UUU UAVIItAL 1Ml'HUVtMtN! NHUUHAM Project Tjtle MAYHILULOOP 288 CONNECTOR ROAD Prgect i 0010.132 M1attNYar1 O*slirr AV coinaro ct Con-Maid Requesting Dept. Enpineetinp & 7rens. Begin Oct-99 Fab 00 Apr-00 Estimated Coat $776,000 End Jan-00 Mar-00 Aug-00 Is ws an update or fev)slon of a current CIP Project? _ yes JL No tt ProJoct DescriptlontLocatlon f Consuuct a 46'-wide road wiIh curb and putter linking Mayhill Road with Loop 288 Just south of Russelt-Newman plant Project includes traffic signal at Loon 288 for 0100,000. Project Purpose/Justification Provide alternative access to Billy Ryan High School, and potentially, the Denton County Government Center located on Market Street. Would also provide potential access to FEMA, Would reduce congestion at McKinney and l )op 288 and could 1 eliminate some dangerous driveway maneuvers. Constrixii Funchal Soho" (1 1, 000'8! 1998.96 1996.97 1997-J8 1998.99 1999.00 Total ~ Existing Bonds - Issuer-. 0 Authori:ed[Unissued Bonds 0 Unauthor'r:ediUnissued Bonds 776 776 I Aid in Construction 0 Other 0 f _ Total 0 0 0 0 776 776 constroctlon rwwkv Casts 01,000'x) 1996.96 1996.97 1997.98 1998.99 1999-00 Toth Services 131 131 I Land ?Right-of•way) 0 Construction 646 645 Other 100 100 Total 0 0 0 0 778 776 Operating dodger Costs /11,000'8/ 1998.90 1996.07 1997.98 1898.98 199900 TOM ~ Personal Servicos 0 Supplies 0 Maintenance 0 Services 0 Debt Service 0 Insurance 0 Fixed Assets 0 Total 0 0 0 0 b 0 • Please list expected source of opuoYng tmtds. I W11E this prefect reudt In any savings? Yes, approximate amount annually _ No AAA030Aa 10 w • CA w 1996-2000 CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Title REPAIR MISCELLANEOUS CONCRETE DRAINAGE CHANNELS ?'ask SabMde Prajeot d 0910-e2 WONW40 Oea/yn ad CanLttot CMW*W ' Regopting Dept, Engineering d Trans. Begin Oct-99 Jan-00 Mor•00 Estimated Colt 4125,000 End Dee-99 Feb-00 May-00 Is this on update or revision of a current CIP Project? Yes No Project Descriptlon/Location Various locations in Denton. Make major repairs to existing concrete channels, Selection of specific locations to be made prior to design7bldding process, Staff to provide input and recommendations to selecting body. Project Purpose0ustiffcatlon Many existing concrete channels are broken up or severely cr !cked. Amounts required to make these repairs Is above what ' operating budget will support. Plan is to mike repairs in order to avoid having to completely rebuild later, Cortaf wdw Fwo*W $0/0" (1110003/ 1995-96 1996.97 1997.907 1998.98 1998-00 Total Existing Bonds - issue:- 0 Authorized/Unissued Bonds 0 UnauthorizedtUnissued Bonds 126 126 Aid in Construction 0 Other 0 Toth 0 0 0 0 125 125 Cantbuctkn FRIWAO Costs (11,000s) 1996,96 1996.97 1997.98 1998.99 toe"o Total Services 12 12 Land IRiolil-of-way) 0 Construction 113 113 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 126 126 it 050" IV eudpet Coats 01,000'rl 1996.96 1990.97 1997.98 1998.89 1999-00 Total I Personal Services 0 O Supplies 0 Maintenance Services 0 Debt Service 0 Insurance 0 Fixed Assets t, ® Totes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' Please flat expected source of operating funds., as Will this project result in any savings? _ Yes. approximate amount annually No ~AA0307t 11 ~s a r r 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVX"VT PR03RAK Project Title Perk Perking Lot Pavfng 006327 Took khodit "a act/ loclumatire Parke and Aecrestion fn 10/96 12/" 02199 Eatlmsted Cost 6500 000,00 End 12196 02199 06/99 06/99 la tNla ti updats or revision of a current C1P Project? Tae N Ito Project DeserlptionAoration E We project will provide for the asphalt paving or resurfacing of perking tote located at f Mack, Oenle, and North lakes parka. ~I Project Purpose/Justification 1 This project wfll provide a higher quality of perking surface for the users as well so enhance` the aesthetics of the perks, F, 01 W11 1993•% 1996.97 f IM-98 1999-90 199O.= Total Existing Gorda - Issue: 0 0 Authorlted/Onissued Bonds 0 0 JI Unauthorleed/Unissued Bonds 500 Soo Aid In Construction 0 0~ Other 0 a Total 0 0 0 0 Soo Soo I~ 1995•% 1996.9T 1997•% 1948-99 11999•2000 Total Services 40 40 Lord (Alpht•of•way) 0 0 tuietructf0n 460 460 Other 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 900 $00 c to) msratlro Budget ~4 1995•% 1996-97 11997.99 1998•99 19992000 Total Personal Services 0 0 Supplfes 0 0 rif Maintenance 2 2 YC Services 0 0 Debt Service 0 0 j 1 rtsur ante fixed Aesete 0 0 --0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 2 2 Ploaae list aApected source of operating furls. City of Denton General Fund Operating Budget Y tvill this protect result in cry savings? Yes, approximate amount annually r No r AAADIFU/Blank 12 •~.~--.r ..tiw. . , F ~r.wr rrw-. wiili.iK:•. - u:F. . • m • 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PIo*1 TidB MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNALS 7wk SohecirA Project I 0010-87 M00rifh/Ywr1 011141/9" AW Construef Completed Retiose rq Dept. Engineering 6 Trans, Begin Oct-99 Feb-00 Apr-00 Estknatsd Cost $219,000 End Jan-00 Mar-00 Jun-00 Is this an update or revision of a current CIP Project? _ Yes J_ No Pfojeot DeacriptlonfLocation Project traffic control signals at two intersections to be determined in the project year. Project PurposelJustlflcation , Provide signali.~Ilon at intersections on an as-needed basis, Constar ition hoof ry Schock* 1f1,000'S) 1996.96 1998.97 1997.98 1998.99 1999-00 Total Existing Bonds - issue: 0 Authorized/Unissued Bonds 0 Unauthorized/Unissued Bonds 219 219 Aid in Construction 0 Other _ 0 Total 0 0 0 0 219 219 Comenzctlon Aw ang Costs l/1,000s1 1996-96 1996-97 1997.98 1998.98 198900 Total Services 37 37 Land IRight-of-wayl 2 2 Construction 160 180 Other 0 Total i 0 0 0 0 219 219 OOWa9*V Audoet Costs /I f,000's! 1086-96 1996-97 1997.98 1968199 1999-00 Total Personal Sorvices 0 • plies 0 Maintenance 0 ' Services 0 Debt Service 0 Insurance 0 Fixed Assets 0 • Total 0 0 V 0 0 0 ~ . . ■ Please list expected source of operating funds. Will this project result In any swings? - Yes, approximate amount annually JL No 1AA02EBE 13 -,.Lr...e,..~~.w--lr~-.. ~ • revw,.rr~_rtJW:4'l'.'G .a Y... • • 1996-2000 CAPITAL iMPR JIVEMENT PROGRAM Pro*-t TMer PACE DRIVE DRAINAGE Protect d 081069 Tisk SoMatuN j ziVorrthrYeerl a+lyrr ltd CorMrbtrcif confiffe l ! E Requsating Dept. Engineering & Trans. Begin Oct-99 Feb-00 Apr-00-- stimated Coot $963,000 End Jan-00 Mar-00 Sep-00 ~is title en update or revWw of a current CIP Prolw? yes No Projsct DesaiptionlLocatlcn Construct a lined channel from the south end of Pace Drive south to McKinney Street. New box culverts under McKEnney Street and grass channel south of McKinney Street. Project Purpose/justlNoatlon This entire area has exceptionally flat topography and floods during heavy rains. Several homes have reported flooding. Severe water damage to one home on the south side of McKinney Street. Construction rr lift schit" (111000 B! 1996.98 1996.97 1997.99 1998.99 189900 TOW Existing Bands - issue: 0 Authorized/Unissued Bonds 0 UnauthorizedAlnissued Bonds 963 963 ` Aid in Construction 0 Other Total 0 0 0 0 963 963` construction rW"V costs 1*1100o2) 19813.96 1998.97 tW4$ 1999.99 1999.00 Toth Services 163 163 Land (Right-of-way} 60 60 Construction 760 760 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 963 963 y $woot F, 000,81 1996.98 1996.97 1997.98 1998-99 1999-00 Toth Services 0 FSuppli,ence 0 Services 0 0 Debt Service Insurance 0 0 Fixed Assets 0 7olN 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! • Please Hit expected source of operating funds. Will tins pt*ct result In any savings? _ Yes, approximate amount annually - L. No MU0307a 14 e e s 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ■i Pro dot Titl• Evers Park Ballfleld lighting Project s 006325 T•ak Bdr"• -"*mtlre Dept. Perks a Recreation Begin 10/90 02/99 05/99 Htlmmsted Cast 475,000.00 End 02/99 04/99 00/99 00/99 Is Mls an mpslato or revision of a arrant ciP Project? Tea so Project DeseriptlevLocatfon This PrOJect will allow for the lighting of the 3 tee•batl fields located at Evers Park. Project Purpo•e/Justlffeet fan Provide a higher quality service for youth athletic users. Wit 1995.96 t996.97 199796 19911•99 1999.2000 Total Existing Bonds - Inue: 0 0 Authorized/Unfssued Bolls 0 0 Un#uthorlted!Unissued Bonds 75 75 Afd in Construction 0 U Other - 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 75 75 1995-96 19%-97 15M7-96 1991-49 1999-2000 total services 0 0 Land (Right-of-way) 0 0 Construction 67 67 Other a G Total 0 0 0 0 75 75 n. rwa..t 1995-96 1906-97 (99796 1996-99 1999.2000 Total Personal services 0 0 Suppifes 0 0 Melntenance 1 1 services Debt Servtca 3 3 insurance 0 0 0 0 e fixed Assets 0 0 total 0 0 0 0 4 4 Fusee list expected source of operatlno funds. i City of Oenton General Fund Operating Budget e ` e r" Witt this project rewlt In arty aM1lttga7 Yee, approximate astotant amwlly NO AAAOiFBF/Blank o 0 • +:a s a 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Pro*1 TWe PECAN CREEK KERLEY TO MORSE r4wk sale" Project 0 0810.98 (4lax W) 0400" 8W Cwwkvt ROWW*p Dept. Engineerino & Trans. Begin Oct-99 Mar-00 May-00 Estimated Cool 4498,000 End Feb-00 Apr-00 Dec-00 N this an update or rsvlebn of a current CtP Project? _ yes No Project Dacrlptlon(LoWon Pecan Creek between Kerley Street and the Woodrow Lane bridge will be Improved utilizing appropriate channel lining and culvert improvements. Project Pu 10justMosdon The existing channel has severe capacity problems including all crossings and is not maintainable which restricts flow rates. CaubtrcAOn fieealny Schedeb 111,00010 199846 199997 1997.98 1998.99 1899-00 Total Existing Bonds .issue; 0 Authorized/Unissued Bonds 0 Una uthorizedlUnissued Bonds 496 496 Aid in Construction 0 Other o Total 0 0 0 0 498 496 Caabucdon fulwail con N 1,000'x! 1988.96 1996.97 1997.98 1998-99 189900 Total Services 84 84 Land iRlght•of•wayl 2 Y Construction 410 410 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 498 498? Awithrg Budget Coats /11,000'8/ 1996.96 1999.97 1997.98 1',498.99 1999-00 Total Personal Services 0 • Supplies 0 Maintenance ° Services 0 Debt Service Insurance 0 • Fixed Assets 0 Total 0 0 0 • • 0 0 0 _ ° r Pfasse list expected source of operating funds. Will this project result In any savings? _ Yes, approximate amount annually _ No 1AA02E 7s 11..1 1 • I ~ • 199$-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Tme KERLEY STREET CULVERT rook $chockele haleot! OBto•8fi 1Natal✓Yaarl 004" AV CoraRAS+rf Coook*10d MgaNNn9 Dept. Engineering & Trans. Begin Oct-99 Feb-00 Apr-00 LE.thntltad Cat $130,000 End Jan-00 Mar-00 Jul-00 h tNS an w7data r revision of a currant CIP Project? yes X No P+ojact Descrlptim/Locaelon _ Install new multiple box culverts under Kerley Street just west of Minor Court. Project Pwpoae6JustFHcmdon Existing multiple 30-Inch pipes are i radequate to carry storm water runoff. House at the corner of Kerley and Minor has flooded on several occasions, Casrbsaaabn fsaROW Sekaatub frill 11woS) 1996.96 199647 1997-99 1999.99 1999-00 Toted Existing Bonds • Issue:_ 0 AuthoriredlUnfssued Bonds 0 Unauthorized/Unissued Bonds 130 130 Aid in Conatructlon 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 130 130 Contbacnen f4radlrr9 Corn (101,00010) 199646 199647 1997.99 199••99 1999-00 Total services 22 22 ■ Land (Right-of-way) 2 2 i■ Construction 106 108 Other Total 0 0 0 0 130 130 nva.•tu,.o sadpal Coro 01,000101 1996.96 1996.97 1997.99 11M M M" Total Personal Services 0 • Supplies 0 Maintenance 0 j Services 0 Debt Service 0 Insurance 0 Fixed Assets • Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • Please list expected source of oporsting funds. VA We projsct result In any savings? _ Yes, approximate amount annually _ X No Fo307a 17 A c© • 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM • PfoJect Tide OPTICOM SYSTEM Task SaAD" Project / 0010.134 (MareNYw! 00910" AW Conor t CaepAsfad Mpuaatlnp Oapt. Enginearinq 3 7rona. d"In Oct-99 Jan-00 Mar-00 Eotlrnat id Coot 060,000 End _ Dec-99 Feb-00 May-00 11 this an update or rwlsicn of o raunnt cM PreIiii _ yet JL No ~i Pre(act OaaiptFon/LOCatfon 11 Equip up to 10 signalired intersections with an opticom system. i Pro}ect Purpose/Juot kotion Allows emergency vehicles to control traffic signets by remote control. Reduce response times and provides safety to other motorists. comorw on fu2aflly Sche" (0111, WOW 1998.91111 1999.97 1997.98 1999.99 1999-00 ToW Existing Bonds • issue: 0 AuthoozedNnissued Bonds 0 UnauthoriradilJnissued Bonds 60 60 Aid in Construction 0 Other 0 + 1 Total 0 0 0 0 60 60 i CorntruerAoa fwk*v Costs (11,0(r0's) 1999.96 1990.97 1997.99 1999.99 1999-00 Tool Services 6 6 Land fRighbol•way} 0 I Construction 46 46 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 60 60 f 0p.rfMy early., I , Costa 0 1,000's) 1999.96 1990-97 1997.99 1999.99 1999-00 Tout Personal Services 0 • Supplies 0 I , Maintenance 0 Services t) Debt Service 0 I Insurance 0 Fixed Assets 0 t A Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 • • Plesse list expected sowce of operating funds. WIN this prolaw" fesult in any savings? Yes, approximate amount annually ,,,2„ No AAA03ON 1e • m • 1956.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Proloct TWO SHADY OAKS DRAINAGE Task Sobs" Projeot I 0810.31 tAlorrNVYerI 0"40" AW Cone w e Compbasd R*4u tdrtg Dept. Engineering & Trans, Begin Dec-99 Apr-00 Jun-00 6stYnated Cat 0939,000 End Mar-00 May.00 Oct-00 Is this an update a revision of a current GIP Project? Yes -2L No Project Desrxiptlonflocation Construct underground drainage and lined channel from Dallas Drive to Duncan Street with pipes to Hill and Smith Streets with Inlets. Project PurposelJustiflca rion Reduce drainage problems and enhance Willow Springs drainage project completed In 1991 and Chambers Street Drainage constructed In 1995. Will also reduce development costs of property between 1.36E and Dallas Drive. t onthw dl fM*V $Ch* ufe (11,000'8! 1995.96 1999.97 1997.98 1998.99 1999-00 Total Existing Bonds - issue:_ 0 AuthorizedAkissued Bonds 0 UnauthorizedfUnissued Bonds 939 939 Aid in Construction 0 Other l 0 Total 0 0 0 0 939 939 Comowtlon fw"v costs 01,0001x1 1996.99 1898.97 1887.98 1998.99 1889-00 Total Services 169 169 Land (Right-of-way) 6 6 Construction 775 775 Other D Total 0 0 0 0 939 939 t7peraNnp Brvdget Costs /11,000'0 1895.96 1999.97 1997.98 1998.98 1999-00 Total Personal Services 0 Supplies 0 Maintenance 0 Services 0 Debt Service 0 Insurance Fixed Assets 0 i D • Total-T-0 0 0 0 0 • • Please Not expected source of operating funds. Wit this project result In any savings? _ Yes, approximate amount annually ~ No 02E72 19 • e 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Title WELCH AT HIGHLAND RIGHT-TURN LANE Took fthe p Project t+ 0010.121 fmmtwywI DadOn Bld Comftw ComPWW Ro*mting Dept. Engineering & Trans. Begin Oct-99 Jan-00 Mar-00 Estimatef Cost $23,000 End Dec-99 Feb-00 May-00 N this wi update or revision of a parent CIP Project? yes J L No f If Pro(ect Descrlptlonflocatlon r F Construct a righblurn lane on southbound Welch onto Highland Street. UNIT has committed to dedicate necessary right-of-way. Project Ptaposoijusifficatlon Highland Street has high bus use due to UNIT drop-off. Will help got busses oft of Welch Street more easily and improve traffic flow. Contewcdon Fmrrdny Schedas ($1,000S) 1098.98 199897 1997.98 1998.99 1999-00 Tad Existing Bonds • issue: 0 Authorized/Unissued Bonds 0 Unauthori:edfUnissued Bonds 23 23 Aid in Constnrction 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 23 23 Corofructfon F04V - Costs 0 1, 000',1 1998.98 1998.97 1997.98 _ 1999.98 1999.00 Total I Services 3 3 Land (Right-of-way) 0 Construction 20 20 1 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 23 23 CpWeflnp Brx/yet Costs (11,000'8/ 1999.98 1998.97 1997.99 1998.99 1999-00 Total Personal Services 0 e Supplies 0 { Maintenance 0 Services 0 Debt Service 0 I Insurance 0 Fixed Assets 0 e Told 0 0 0 0 t==0 0 Please got tblrpected source of operating funds. 4 J Will this project result in any swings? Yes, approximate amount annually J L No AM03073 20 0 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Projoict TIW ROSELAWN PAVING AND DRAINAGE MEANARD TO CEMETERY/ Tak $CArdisls 1 1reOJeot N 0010.138 IkbMM'WJ GINNh rtld r,^pgyystf CO"*" RagWatlng Dept, Engineering A Trans. lepat 10199 02!00 03/00 07100 &Nrmtad Opt 0664,000 End 01/00 03100 06100 08100 i is -pan update of ration of a current CIP Projaotl yes J, No Projw DacriptlorilLocasion Reconstruct Roselawn Drive from Bernard Street to cemetery entrances as a 24-foot estate section road. Would include proper cross drainage and driveway culverts. Propct Pwp"Numw4o ion Existing road is very narrow and the pavement is in poor condition. Provides main access to Roselawn Cemetery. This project is in response to citizen request. Corsshsa..1f'M... 5$01110A A '.Of, lowlil$ 19901.97 1907.99 1990-141 1906-00 Totat t..ie. `rte-fti 0 Unaut,-i:edlUni,~ i Bonds 684 664 Aid In Construction 0 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 0 684 a 44 CWaraax:0bn fwsp9p Coeft 010ON18) 19966$ 199047 1997.99 199Wt 1966, TOW Services 112 112 Lanol 1Right•ol•wayl 20 20 Construction 832 832 Other 0 Totat 0 0 0 0 864 864 epaatky /+fdNaf Costa (H'OOD'$) 1696.90 1996.971 1997.99 1999.99 169000 Total Personal Services Supplies • 0 0 Maintenance 0 Services 0 Debt Service 0 Insurance 0 Fixed Assets e Tai 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pleas Not expected eoura of operating funds. { 1 WIN this Project fault in ert1' saving7 - Yes, approximate amount annually No AAA0 ZE 70 21 • • 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Prole" TM9 WEST WINDSOR DRIVE PAVING (OPTION 2) Project 0 0010.88 Tetk (AScYow)s lontNYsa►I Design I!d Constru1 CornPlrhd Ragires•;ng Dept. Engineering a Trans. Bpln Oct-99 Mar-00 May-00 Estkinmad Cost 1439,000 _ End Feb-00 Apr-00 Soo-00 Is tMs an update cr rrrtsion of a current CIP Projact? _ Yes No Pro)eot Descriptionflir. cation a Expand Existing lrifindsor to 4 lanes from Bonnie Brae to the recreation center and widen the Zlane suction from thjtoHin1le,, i ~W~ PurposelJustNkatlon Provide better and safer access to North Lakes Park and the surrounding noighborhoods. Contro K~Ofon Fwm*tp SCk*" to 11000'SI 1996.96 1990.97 1997.98 189899 1999-00 Existing Bond s • Issue: 0 ALMM2edlUnlssued Bonds 0 Unauthorized/Unissued Bonds 439 439 Aid in Construction 0 Other 0 Toro 0 0 0 0 439 439 Comtracoon rwwkv Costs 11 1, 000'sl- 1986.98 1986.97 1997.98 1988.99 1998.00 Total IIJ Services 74 74 Land (Right-of-way) 0 Construction 365 386 Other _0 Total 0 0 0 0 439 439 t7psr~flny trdyst Casts 01,00018l 1996.90 1996.97 1997.98 198899 1999-00 Total Personal Services 0 Supplies Maintenance 0 Services 0 Debi Service Insurance 0 0 Fixed Assets p Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . Please Pit expecisd source of operating funds. Will this project result In any savings? Yes, approximate amount aninally No AAA02ECE 22 • ~ a • 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Title RANCH ESTATES DRAINAGE Project N 0810.18 Tadk ScMdsztr WorsfNYar! wslyn #rd cooob ldt Cslntpdrtad Regwsthlq Dept, Engineering 6 Trans, Begin Nov-99 Apr-00 Jun-00 Estimated Cost 4517,000 End Mar-00 May-00 Oe000 b tfds an tspdste ar revision of a current CIP Project? Yee X No Wolect DesatptlonlLooeYon Lined channel from Hampton Drive to Hwy. 380 with now culverts under Hwy. 380 and grass lined charnel south of Hwy, 380, $5,000 for processing a Letter of Map revision through FEMA. Project PurposaWustHkaNon will solve a localized flooding problem and remove several homes from the floodplain. There are several Instances of water entering homes. Caftii rs,ftw Funo isp So/*" 01,0001V 1986.96 1999.07 1997.90 1986 98 1999-00 Total Existing Bonds • Issue: Authorizeft nis sued Bonds 0 UnsuftrizedlUnissued Bonds ° Aid in Construction 817 517 Other 0 0 Total U 0 0 0 517 617 CorsthuCtAon Fiatdlrs# Coda (411,000,5) lost-so 1998.97 199749 1999.99 199940 Tool Services Land (Right-of-way) 8B P8 15 16 Construction 409 408 Other 8 6 ' Toth 0 0 0 0 617 517 073entbty ltudYat Costa /4116000'#1 199••99 199897 1897.99 199s•99 1999.00 ToW Pens0031 Services 0 ' Supptlea • Maintenance 0 0 Services ° Debt Service Insurance 0 0 Fixed Assets ® Toth 0 0 0 0 0 0 • Pteaee Yet expected source of oparstlnq tulle. r VAII this project result In any savings? - Yes, approximate amount annually X No AAA02E71 23 • 0 s • a • r 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project This NORTH LAKES PARK EXPANSION T ~ I TeA Soho" PraJeot / 008329 (Monrh/Yeer) Des/0" 9/d CamtrsrCt Cony~t~d i Requesting Dept, Perks & Recreation Begin 09198 02199 04/99 t Estimated Cost 01,600,000 End 02199 0099 of= 01100 Is this an update or revision of a current CIP project? Yes -x- No i Project DescrptlonfLocatlon This project will allow for the expansion of approximately 20 acres at North Lakes Park. TMs expansion will include additional soccer fields, parking, restroome, and support facilities. Project PuryotalJustincetion This project will allow the Parks and Recreation Department to keep up with the growth In youth athletics. conrtwe" fiaNMng Schedrde 01,000'S/ 1005.96 1890.97 1997.98 1999.98 1999.2000 Total Existing Bonds - Issue: 0 AuthoriiedlUnissued Bonds 0 Unautharited/Umssued Bonds 11000 1,000 Aid in Construction 600 600 Other Total 0 0 0 0 1,500 1,600 comrtmicdorr.rumov Costs to 1,000's) 1895.98 1990.97 1997.98 1898.99 1990.2000 Total Services 150 160 Land (Right-of-way) Construction 1,350 1,350 Other 0 Total 0 0 0 1,600 1,600 f Op►ref/nq Budpel t Costs 1$1,000's! 200001 1990.87 f1997-980 1998.89 1999.2000 Total Pe sonal Services 44 44 Supplies a 6 [ Maintenance 26 26 Services 30 30 Debt Service 0 Insurance 0 , Fixed Assets 0 ® Totd 108 0 0 0 0 108 • • ! 3 r Please at expected source of operating funds. City of Denton General Fund Operating Budget WIII this project result in any savings? V Yes, approximaa, amount annually JL No AAA02EOA 24 h I cm • M 1996.2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM gEatknMod Title Construct Fuel Storage Facility 0018.004 rest Sorladwll IMaK &W) MWp► IW Carrtrtat Co~owtrd pt, Airport eepMt 1899 1999 1999 1999 t $488 End 1999 1999 1999 1999 Is thi n an update or rwhllm of a cmem Clot, protect? ` Ya No Revision ' Project DeacrlptlonfLocatlon Per Master Plan Construct Fuel Storage Facility. Pro)ect PurpooeNwtlRcatlon To meet E.P.A, requirements by removing underground storage tanks. Corse0vaNoe fraea9y $Cho" 14111A00S) 1008.96 11@96-07 11007.98 1$9@-99 18914000 TOW Existing Bonds - issue; 0 Autlwrired/Unissued Bonds 0 UnauthorizedfUnissued Bonds 0 Aid in Construction 0 Other 488 488 Total 488 488 t:orsabucNOrr fatesitt/ Com 0 000W 19@@-@6 11696.97 1997-96 19"-99 1@60-2000 TOW Services Land IfUght•of-wsyl Construction Other Told COW&dry sudpwf ' Cosm 01,00's) 1998.98 1998.97 1997.96 191@-@9 1909.2000 Total Personal Services Supplies Maintenance Services a Debt Service Insurance Fixed Assets Toth 488 Please Not smpootad stwree of operating, h,n,h. WWI this prooot rawk N any aevlng,a7 ~ Yes, approximate amount annually ~ NO ' wAoscoM 26 w L Y 1 1 t 26 r r I G) 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT - OTHER PROJECTS SUBMlTTEO TOTAL (ME REOUIRk'D AID TOTAL OPERAT. PROJECT EXISTING RUTH, UNAUTH, OTHER CITY IN PROJECT AND YEAR OnIAEPT Hl1b1BER PROJECT NAME BONDS UNISSUED UNISSUED FUNDING CONT. COSTB MA1NT,' 90-00 AIRPORT 0019007 CONSTRUCTGEN, AVIATION AUTOMOSLE PARKING a UNDERWOOD RO W. 101,000 .,i., 191,000 1,710,000 1,010.000 , 99-00 AIRPORT 001000! CONSTRUCT GENERAL AVIATION TERMINAL. BUILDING 712,000 712,000 363,000 1,076,000 11000 90-00 DRAINAGE 001012 SEOUO?APARK DRAINAGE 1,146,000 1,146,000 1,146,000 , 99-00 DRAINAGE 001010 THUNDERBIRD DRAINAGE 92000 00-00 DRAINAGE 001014 DANIELSIFCAT WORTH DRIVE DRAINAGE 62'~ t` 382,000 362,000 362,000 90-00 DRAINAGE 061016 CORBIN ROAD BADGE 11050,000 11060.000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061017 FORT WORTH DRIVE DRAINAGE 1,050,000 $92,000 602,000 $02,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061020 HOUSTON PLACEMENA DRANAGE 492000 492,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061023 HCKORY STREET 48'O 181,000 161,000 161,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 081024 6. R UODEL STREET DRAINAGE 9221000 322,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061024 OAKLAN D STREET DRANAGE 39'~ 090,000 909,000 0901000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061027 NORTHPoOGE DRAINAGE 206,000 296.000 206,000 a 99-00 DRAINAGE 081028 STRICKLAND JUNIOR HIGH DiWNAOE 102.000 102,000 , 99-DO DRAINAGE 081029A GOOD SAMARITAN VILLAGE DRAINAGE (OPTION 2) 102,000 447,000 447,000 447,000 "-00 DRAINAGE 081030 EVERS PARKWAY DRAINAGE 28,000 'S 26,000 28.000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061032 ECTOR STREET DRAINAGE 771,000 771,000 90-00 DRAINAGE rCWT MOCKINGBIRD LAND DRAINAGE 771,000 WOOD 63,000 63.000 99.00 DRAINAGE 081035 PECAN CREEK CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS 607,000 607,000 99-0e DRAINAGE 091036 COOPER CREEK CHANNEL PHASE II 1,162,000 1,182,000 1,182,000 P9-00 DRAINAGE 081030 COOPER CREEK CHENNEL PHASE III 7th 000 712,000 ® 09-00 DRAINAGE 081040 PECAN CREEK BRANCH PEC-3 712,000 0 s 200,000 200,000 200,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 06t041 PECAN CREE K SYCAMORE SOUTH TO N EAR ALWELL 3"000 309,000 99-00 DRAINAGE 061043 PECAN CREEK UN VERSrrY TO COR DELL'S 493,000 493,000 493,000 'This revenue source includes certificates of obligation, Lund balance, and general fund resources. N V r i I 4.+ O N ~ r4 A' 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT - OTHER PROJECTS SUBMITTED 0%1571 w"WT1[m11N1 OWN _ ~V TOTAL (MEMO) REWIRED AN TOTAL OPERAT, PROJECT EXISTING AUTN. UNAUTK OTHER CITY IN PROJECT AND YEAR DIV/DEPT NUMBER PROJP.CT NAME BONDS UNISSUED UNISWGD • FINDING CONST. COSTS _MAINT. a 00-00 DRAINAGE 08!044 PECAN CREEK CORDELL TO FULTON 170,000 170,000 179,000 -,y 99-00 DRAINAGE OAID45 PECAN CREEK SNIGABRIEL TO COLORADO 290,000 200,000 299000 ` 09-DO DRAINAGE 001040 PECAN CREEK SPENCER TO SHADY OAKS 163,000 163,000 153,000 !3 z 09-00 DRAINAGE 061051 COOPER CREEK FM 2164 TO BROOKE STREET 394,000 391.000 3{14000 09-00 DRAINAGE 061051 ANGELINA BEND DRAINAGE 111,000 111,000 111000 ';44 99-00 DRAINAGE 061056 MILLS ROAD DRAINAGE 818,000 616,000 616,000 40--00 DRAINAGE 061063 EL PASEO FRENCH DRAIN 25.000 26,000 21cw QfY 00-00 DRAINAGE 061064 SANTA MONICA DRAINAGE 127,000 127,000 127.000 00-00 DRAINAGE 061066 BERNARD/SYCAMORE STREET DRAINAGE 317,000 317,000 317,000 00-00 DRAINAGE 061067 JOHNSON/DAUO HERTY STREET DRAINAGE 152,000 162,000 162,000 09-00 DRAINAGE D01M WOOD STREET DRAINAGE 110,000 110,000 110,000 00-00 DRAINAGE 061070 JAGOE/SCRIPTURE STREET DRAINAGE 76,000 75,000 75,000 09--00 DRAINAGE 061071 PAAVIN STREET DRAINAGE 145,000 145,000 146,000 P 00-00 DRAINAGE 061072 MONTECRO LAKE BYPASS 249,000 249ODO 249000 00-00 URAINAGE 06107) SOUTHRIDGE PLAZA STORM DRAIN E) TENSION 14,000 14,000 14,000 -t * 90-00 DRAINAGE 061074 SENT OAKS DRAINAGE 255,000 266,000 255,000 99-00 ENG 001055 BERNARD STREET PAVING AND Di%AINAGE 1,610,000 1,810,000 1,610,000 90-00 ENG 001056 WiLLLOWWOOD PAVING AND DRAINAGE (OPTION I) 3,066,000 3,065,000 3,066,000 a 00-00 ENG 001000 KINGS ROW PAVING AND DRAINAGE 2,347,000 2,347,000 2,347,000 90-00 ENG 001061 EAST WINDSOR DRIVE PAYING AND DRAINAGE 773,000 773,000 7731000 A 00-00 ENG 001002 WEST WINDSOR DRIVE PAVING MID DRAINAGE (OPTION D 3,438,000 3,430,000 3,436.ODO 99-DO ENO 001063 SOUTH BONNE BREA PAVING AND DRAINAGE 2,363,000 2.' W.000 2,383.000 t 09--00 ENG DD1054 MAYH41 ROAD PAYING AND DRAINAGE PHASE I 6.111,000 6. 111.000 5,111,000 "This revenue source Includes certificates of obligatlon, Lund balance, and general fund resources. IK r M N i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ! I" 2 V1' Nil m f, my ` c.,Y • I 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT -OTHER PROJECTS SUBMITTED cllmarcw«1orKlwu>~~ TOTAL (MEA00) REQUIRED AID TOTAL OPERAT. PROJECT EXISTING RUTH, UNAUTH. OTHER CITY IN PROJECT AND YEARDIVIDEPT NUMBER PROJECTNAME GONDS UNISSUED UNISSUED fUNDIN4 COAST. COSTS MAW, 99-00 ENG 001065 MAYHILL ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE PHASE II 3,663,000 3,663,000 3,663,LX10 99-00 ENO 005071 MASCHBRANOHROAD PHASE 11 2,207,000 1 2,207,000 2,207,000 99-00 ENG 001075 MASCH BRANCH ROAD PHASE III 1,666,0DO 1,666,000 t,666,000 99-00 ENO 001077 STATE SCHOOL. ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE 1,120000 1120000 1120000 99-00 ENG 001082 SCRIPTURE STREET PAVING AND DRAINAGE 1,192,000 1,192,000 1,192,000 1 99-00 ENO 001095 AUDRA LANE PAVING AND DRAINAGE 1,516,000 1,646,000 5,646,000 '2 99-00 ENO 001096 BELL AVENUE CORONADO TO CREEK 248000 240000 246000 99-00 ENG. 001097 MkL ROAD FROM MAYHILL TO RYAN ENTRANCE 153,000 163,000 163,000 . 99-00 ENG 0010101 BARTHOLD ROAD PAVING 99,000 63,000 63,000 99--00 ENG 0010105 GREENLEAF CIRCLE PAVING AND DRAINAGE 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 99-00 ENO 0010106 LATTIMOREPAVING AND DRAINAGE 1.392,000 1,302,000 1,.'!92,000 99-00 ENO 0010109 MOCKINGBIRDIANEPAVING ANDDRMNAGE(AUORA TO MINGO) 716,000 716,000 716.000 99-00 ENO 0010110 MOCKING BIRD LANE PAVING AND DRAINAGE (PAISLEY TO AUDRA) 425,000 426000 426000 99-00 ENO 0010111 PER SHWG/JUNG ALLEY REC ON SRUCTI ON 29000 20000 29,000 98-00 ENG 0010112 LINDSEY STREET CIA-DE-SAC 60000 60000 60000 99-00 ENG 001 D113 MAPLE STREET PAYING AND DRAINAGE (MICH TO BERNARD) 213,000 213,000 213,000 99-00 ENG 0010114 RANCH ESTATES STR EET R ECON STRUCTION 719000 710,050 719000 99--DO ENG 0010115 SEQUOIA PARK SIDEWALK RE PAIR 47,000 47000 47000 90-00 ENO 001. 0116 SOUTH RUDOELL STREET SIDEWALK 96000 90.0m 06 000 99-00 ENG 0010117 OAKLAWN STREET PAVING 49,000 49000 49,000 99-00 END 001011.9 MEADOW RIDGE DRt,'E CU. - DE-SAC'S 46,000 45,000 46,000 k0 a 9D-00 END 0010120C LOOP 26812469 BYPASS RIGHT-LOF-WAY 2610000 2540000 2,640000, 99-00 ENO 0010122 NOTTINGHAM DRIVE(MINGO TO AUORA) 2,796,000 2,70 ODO 2,796,000 99-00 ENO 0010123 MOCORMICK STREET EXTENSION IPARVIN TO HOSF.LAWN) M8.000 ODO 266,000 'This revenue source includes certificates of obllgatlon, fund balance, and general fund resources. ; N ~D N 1 >1 • a 0 • I W u 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT' PLAN GENERAL GOVERNMENT - OTHER PROJECTS SUBMITTED cutllm&w~p71lw1uVAU oA9+M Cork, (MEMO) REQUIRED AID TOTAL' OPERAT, PROJECT EXTBTINQ RUTH. UNAUYH. OTHER CITY IN PROJECT AND YEAR DIVTUEPT NUMUR PROJECT NAME BOND$ UNI89UED UNIBBUEID FUNDINO CONST. COSY$ MAINr. W-00 ENO 0010121 CARROLL BLVD. EXTENSION (NORTHRIDGE TO WINDSOR 34,000 34,000 34.000 "-DD ENO 0010" CONNECTION ROAD (TEASLEY TO STATE SCHOOL ROAD) 376,000 376,000 3761ODO 99-00 ENO 0010120 NORTH NOTTINGHAM EXTEN SIC'] 466,000 466,000 486,000 J 99-DO ENO 0010127 SOUTH B(WNAE BRAE IMPROVEMENT (377 TO FIO$"WN) 600,000 959,000 00.000 09-00 ENG 0010126 ROSELAWN EXTENSION (JAMES STREET TO I- SW 1,136,000 1,136,000 1,130,000 99-00 ENO 0010129 OLD NORTH ROAD EXTENSION 601,000 661,000 501,000 99-00 ENO 0010130 EAST WINDSOR DRIVE EXTENSION 377,000 377,000 377,000 99-00 ENO 0010151 WEST AIRPORT FREEWAY 0,030,000 61690,000 6,630,000 99-00 ENG 0010153 R VODELLIMI NOD, CONNECTI ON 2691000 260,000 269,000 99-00 ENG 0010135 ROSELAWN PAYING AND O"NA0E (BERNARD TO FT WORTH) 329,000 329,ODO 320,000 "-00 LIBRARY 007003 LIBRAR YSAANCHCONSTRUCTFON-PHASEN 2,773,000 2,773,000 2,773,000 799,000 99-00 PARKS 006321 RECREATION CENTER EXPANSION 957,000 967,000 967,000 70,000 • 99-CO PARKS OWL= COLORADO BOULEVARD LANDSCAPING 32,000 0,000 36,000 36,000 4,000 99-00 PARKS 006526 NORTHEAST RECREATION CENTER 2,6001000 2,600,000 $600,000 238,000 99-00 PARKS 000300 POOL CONSTRUCTION 2,331,.000 2,334,000 2,334,000 _ 71,000 TOTAL 0 0 74,412,000 0,000 74,418,000~2,062.0DO 76,600,000 1,181,000 0 J I I "This revenue source includes certificates of oblfgation, fund balance, and generat fund resources. • • • V1 Q 11 ! LL tl 13 O W ~f M~ ~ aPMi N , . ~ w, i"ir',~ ~~AIfY'~ `!Y~ u 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-1095-90 SUBMISSIONS TOTAL OPERAT, PROJECT AECOmAemm OTHER GRANT AND YEAR DIV/DEPT NUMBER _PROJECT NAME RE0UESTED COBG HOME • FUNDING tWUNT. 95-90 HSC CDOG01 HUMAN SENVCES COMMITTEE 167,703 163000 0 F-163,000 95-96 DEMO CDBG02 OF-MOLRION ANDCLEARANCE 65,000 65,000 0 63000 93-96 EGO,DFV. CDBG03 DENTON COMMUNITY DEV. CORP. 60,600 60600 0 00500 03-90 ENG. CDBG05 BELL AVENUE SIDEWALK REPAIR 13,796 13,796 0 13.796 05-96 ENG. CDBG06 COMMUNITY S IOEWALX REPAIR 102,500 48,000 0 46000 95-00 ENO. COOG07 C00K&RJTHSI 4EPAVIN0 19,900 19,900 0 1RAW l 95-96 ENO. CDBGID CRAWFORD Si REETCONCRETEREPAIRS 30,000 30,000 0 30000 05-06 ENO. C08G17 SPEEDHUMFS 126,000 123,000 0 126,000 05-06 HOUSING CDBG16 HOMEBUYERSASS4TANCE PROGRAM 530,000 201,760 116,220 350,000 95-0e HOUSING CDBG19 OPTIONAL RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 220.000 0 220,000 220000 95-90 HOUSING CD8020 RENTAL REHABIVTATION 71,600 60000 0 60000 05-96 HOUSING COOG21 FAIRHAVEN RETIREMENT HOME 12,260 0 $2.260 12,260 05-06 NON-PRFT. CDBG22 CITY-CO DAY NURSERY KITCHEN RENOVATIONS 40,000 30,000 0 30,000 95-90 NON-PRFT. COB023 FAIRHAVEN RETIREMENT HOME 23465 12,000 0 12,000 05-96 NON-PRFT. CDM24 FRED MOO RE DAY NUR SERY SCHOOL, INC. RENOV. 121,070 76,000 0 76,000 i 93--96 PARD CDB027 EVERS PARK RESTROOM-CONCESSION BLDG. PROD. 115,000 100,169 0 100,160 95-•96 PARD COS029 MARTIN LUTHER KING RECREATION CTA, tJOHTIN3 3,000 3,000 0 5,000 05-96 PARD CDO030 PHOENDC PARK PLAYGROUND 36,000 33,000 0 33000 z 95--9D ENG. CDO004 KERLEY STREET C U LVERT 102,054 0 0 0 95-96 ENG. COBG06 BERNARDUSYCAMORE DRAINAGE 250,000 0 D 0 .t O 95-96 ENG. CDBG09 SEQUOIA PARK SIDEWALK REPAIR - OPTION II 37,000 0 0 0 05-96 ENO, CD6G11 fUDDEILSWTH SIDEWALK 75,612 0 0 0 95-96 ENG. CM12 JOH NSO NIOAUGHERTY DNAINAG E 119,961 0 0 0 .Y 'This revenue source Includes certificates of obligation, fund balance, and general fund resources, w r 0 m • 0 W N S 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT- 1996-9E SUBMISSIONS - WMO) TOTAL OPERAT, PROJECT AWCAAIA' NOW OTMA ` GRANT ANO YEAR HWIDEPT NUMBER PROJECT NAME AWASTED ODSQ HOME FUNDING MAINT, 95-96 ENO. CM13 MASSEY STREET DRAOMS 175,810 0 0 0 95-96 ENO. CDOO14 WOOD STREET DRAN"E SCOW 0 0 0 95-96 ENO. CDB016 WOOD STREET DRAN"E 30,016 0 0 0 95-96 ENO. CD6016 OAKIAWN PAVJNO 22,000 0 0 0 95-06 NON-PRFT, C00026 VOWNTEER SERVICES COUNCIL 20,000 0 0 0 95- 00 PARD CDD020 CIM CENTER TENNIS COUR RE-6URFACMKi 10,000 0 0 0 D5-90 PARO CD5026 FRED MOOREPARK BASKETBALL CAT,RECONST. 46,000 0 0 0 2,664.360 1,0071166 577,600 .WVa 1,414,666 0 r I This revenue source includes certiPoates of oOlgatfon, fund balance, and general fund resources. I I I I f I i I I i s I r I I 11 I `i 1 11 1 '1 • 1 0 1 • • UTILITY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The fiscal year 1996-2000 CIP totals $114.473 million as compared to $106.381 million in the 1995-1999 CIP. Compared to the 1995-1999 CIP, the 1996-2000 CIP reflects decreases for Electric and Water, but increases for Wastewater, Solid Waste and Fleet Services. The total five year CIP by department is shown below: ELECTRIC $ 50.459 milli,^n WATER 22.522 million WASTEWATER 30.318 milli.-.n SOLID WASTE 10.204 million FLEET 'ERVS/OTHER .970 milli5ia Total $114.473 million The Utility funded CIP, exclusive of Lb~. Fleet Services/Other CIP, totals $113.503 million for the fiscal year 1996-2000 period as compared to $106,279 million foi the 1995-1999 CIP period, an increase of 6.8t. Drainage and Fleet services capital programs are not funded by the Utility department. • 33 . • 0 e • MAJOR ISSUES/PROGRAMS/PROJECTS - 1996-2000 CIP Electrig Production Power IIternatives - The CIP currently contains $25 million for a combined cycle gas turbine generator at the Spencer plant for 1998. However, other viable power supplies may be ident.itied in the future as alternatives or supplements to the combined cycle repowering proposal. Electric Distributign Line overhead to Underaround Program The program has been recenr.ly funded at one-half of one percent ($350,000 - $400,000) of electric revenue. However the 1996 University Drive project reflects a major investment (41.2 million) in this program. Electric Substation Expansion - The CIP contains funding for duplexing substat':n capacity. Additional capacity requirements will be studied in fiscal year 1996 with capacity location expansion dependent upon growth and program success to equalize bus loading of existing aubatations, Wai.er Plant ConstruC ion froject - Construction of a new water treatment plant at Ray Roberts has been scheduled to begin in the year 2003 and be on line in 2005. The associated cost and j schedule revisions are becoming significant, planning issues. 1 Water Tower Paint Program - The 1996 budget includes y100,000 to aad to reserves to paint the High School water tank. • Elevated Storage Tank - The Water CIP reflects the need for a new water tower in southwest. Denton by 1998 at a cost of $3.5 million, Design work begins in 1996, and the cost, schedule, and site location will be significant issues. , • • • 34 • 4 • • l erewater Plant Exgansio Project - A $12.8 mil.;.ion wastewater treatment plant expansion project scheduled for 1999/2000 represents a significant financial impact on the r utility. However, scheduling the payoff of the Electric debt I by 2000 should free up funds to offset the debt service cost relating to this expansion. ~szlid Waste Landfill Exnansion Project - The $5.0 million to complete the landfill expansion, which will have a total cost j1 of $7.660 million, represents 75ir of the entire Solid Waste 5 year CIP. Completion is scheduled for 1997. Solid-Waste Int =UALg ProcessinaQ me - The other major Solid Waste project provides a $2.0 million Intermediate Processing Center (IPC) that will recycle waste material and reduce landfill volumes. Design begins in 1996 and completion scheduled in 1996. This project represents 20% of the CIP. !i ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT CIP SUMMARY The total 5 year 1996-2000 CIP totals $50.459 million as compared to current $52.858 million CIP. This represents a $2.399 million reduction from last year's CIP. Within the 15)6.2000 CIP, $4.449 million is in fiscal year 1996, iz;cluding $4.398 million in revenue funded projects and no crojects funded by bond debt. The following 5 projects total $2.694 million, or 61% of total fiscal year 1996 CIP • expenditures in millions): -U/G Extensions/Improvements (95-1031-03) $ .650 -Overhead Extensions/Improve (95-1031-01) .350 -Denton Center Line Relocation (96-1031-07) 1.150 ' • -Transformers and Equip 96-1031-04) .289 -Meters and Assoc Equip (96-1034-01) .255 36 • • Other major capital expenditures are highlighted on the 5 year CIP summary page (by group assignment number). Every single project is also listed on the 5 year summary, by year and by division. Major capital programs include: -Gas Turbine Combined Cycle ($25.0 million in 1998) 1. -Distribution substations ($5.658 million in 5 year CIP) ' -Underground improvements ( $5.302 million total CIP) -Overhead extension/improvements ($3.317 million in 5 year CIP) -Over/Under conversions ($2.832 million in 5 year CIP) WATER DBPARTMRNT CIP SUMMARY The total 5 year 1996-2000 CIP totals $22.522 million as compared to the $28.24F illion 1994-1998 CIP, an decrease of $5.724 million. The major change is the movement of $5.770 million for a Booster Pump Station project beyond the CIP period. This was offset by a increase of $1.944 in Regulatory Disinfection Modification expanses for the 5 year CIP period, The fiscal year 1996 portion of the CIP totals $5.098 million, consisting of $1.596 million in revenue funded • projects and $3.415 million funded by bond debt. The major 1996 projects include (in millions): • -2 MOD Elevated Storage Tank (96-460-F06) 1.169 • • -State Hwy 380 Waterline Relocation (96-461-012) .940 36 O 0 A • -Distribution Sys Upgrade (96-461-(309) .956 (Kerley) -Replace Waterline (Yorkshire) (96-461-05) .357 -Development Plan Waterlnes (96-461-08) .250 -Field Services Replace Waterlines (96-461-10) .200 These 6 projects account for $3.872 million or 76% of the total CIP expenditures for fiscal year 1996. Other major projects in the 1996-2000 CIP are highlighted on the 5 year CIP summary page (group assignment) and all projects are listed on the 5 year summary, by year and by division. Major capital programs include the following: -Regulatory Disinfection Modification - ($2.791 for 5 year CIP) -Elevated Storage - ($1.169 in 1996 and $4.453 million over 5 year CIF) -Distribution ._stem Upgrade - ($1.020 in 1996 and $4.623 million over 5 year CIP period) -Replacement Water Lines - ($1.507 million over 5 year CIP) -Field Services Replace Waterlines - ($1.650 million over 5 year CIP) Rate Highway Relocations - ($1.176 million for 5 year (!IP) • -I-35 Water Line (Sanger) - ($1.630 million for 5 year CIP) -Taps/Fire Hydrants/Field Equip - ($1.687 million total over 5 year CIP period) -Development Plan Waterlines - ($1.250 million total. A over 5 year CIP period) • A 37 • O • a~ • These programs account for 92% of the total Water 1996-2000 ~i CIP. II ~f WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT CIP SUMMARY The total 5 year 1996-2000 CIP totals $30.318 million as compared to the $17,624 million 1995-1999 CIP, an increase of J~ $3.2.694 million, This increase is due primarily to the I. inclusion of $7.2 million in additional funds for the next wastewater treatment plant expansion ($6,0 million in the year i 2000). The other major increase relates to a $4.8 million increase for liftetation improvements. Other CIP expense I categories are nct changed significantly from the 1995-3.999 CIP.' Within the total 5 year CIP, $4.002 million is reflected in fiscal year 1996, including $1.440 million in revenue funded projects and $2.530 million funded by bond debt. The R major 1996 projects include (in millions): I -State Hwy 380 Sewerline Relocation (95-471-p11) $,815( -Cooper Creek Interceptor Upgrade (96-4'71-(305) .525 s a -Cooper Creek Lift Station (96-471-11) ,275 { -Hickory Creek Interceptor (96-471-0302) ,400 -Infiltration inflow correction (95-471-06) ,225 38 • 0 • a~ • A -Replace Sewerlines (95-471-G10) .384 -Development Plan Liries (95-471-04) .250 -Land Purchase - Sludge Disposal (96-470-06) .250 These 8 projects account for $3.124 million or 78t of the total CIP expenditures fox* fiscal year 1996. Other major projects in the 1996-2000 CIP are highlighted i on th9 5 year CIP summary page (r-roo.p Assignment Numbers) and all projects are listed on the 5 year summary, by year and by division. Major capital programs include the following; -Wastewater Treatment Plant Imp/Exp - $14.036 million in the 5 year CIP) -Liftstation Imprevemente ($5.126 million in 5 year CIP) -Collection System Upgrade - ($3.455 million over 5 year CIP) -Replacement Sewer Lines - ($2.544 million over 5 year CIP period) -Infiltration/Inflow Projects - ($1.650 million in 5 year CIP) -Development Plan Sewer Lines ($1.250 million in 5 year CIP) -State highway relocations - ($1.051 million in the 5 • year CIP) 11' ) 30 • O These programe account for 90 of the total Wastewater 1996- 2000 CIP. Over 53% of total capital expenditures occur in last two years of the CIP period as a result of *the plant expansion. SOLID WASTE DEPARTMENT CIP SUXKhRT The total 5 year 1996-2000 CIP totals $19.204 willion as I~ compared to the $ 7.551 million 1995-1999 CIP, an increase of $2.653 million. This increase is due to an increase in the l landfill expansion project during the CIP period. The total expenditures for property in the. new CIP is $2.453 million. The major expenditure is for the construction phase of the II landfill expansion at a cost of $4.784 million during the CIP period. The property acquisition/landfill expansion project accounts for 70V of the total 5 year CIP. Il Within the total. 5 year CIP, $5.437 million is reflected in fiscal year 1996 (53% of total), which includes $128,000 in revenue funded projects and $5.309 million funded by bond I~ : debt. The major 1996 projects include (in millions): ii i! -Landfill Construction (96-803-08) $3.131 -Property Acquisition for Landfill (96-803-E12) 1.078 e f -Methane Collection System (96-803-09) .700 A40 • w . 1 -Intermediate Processing Center (96-803-H07) ,200 -Landfill Drainage System (96-803-02) .030 -Additional Recycling Sites (96-804-01) .025 I These 6 projects totaling $5.164 million account for 95% of total 1996 capital spending, other projects in the 1996- 2000 CIP are highlighted on the 5 year CIP Aummary page (Group Assignment Number) and all projects are listed on the 5 year summary, by year and by division. Other major projects in the 1996-2000 CIP are highlighted on the 5 year CIP summary page (Group Assignment Numbers) and all projects are listed on the 5 year summary, by year and by division. Major capital programs include the following; -Landfill Expansion - Construction - $4.784 million in the 5 year CIP) -Landfill Expansion - Property - $2,453 million in 5 year CIP) -Recycling Equipment - ($1.982 million over 5 year CIP) 1 -Existing Landfill Construction ($.760 million over 5 t year CIP period) A 41 0 E These programs account for get of the total Solid Waste :1996- 2000 CIP. Over 76% of total capital expenditures occur in first two years of the CIP period as a result of the landfill expansion and recycling (Intermediate Processing center) projects. Programs in the 5 year CIP basically reflect the recommendations of the Solid Waste Master Plan Committee, The City Council has not yet approved the programs in this plan and there may be changes in funding, schedules and program direction. FLEET SERVICES DEPARTKINT CIP SUNXJLRY The Fleet Services 1996-2000 CIP totals $970,000 compared to $1.02,000 in the 1995-1999 CIP. The major difference involves the inclusion of the construction of a new fleet v ~k service center ($800,000) in 1997. There are no other major projects contained in the CIP. Most projects in 1996-2000 are for routine replacement of existing capital items. Facility improvements, primarily the new fleet service center, account for approximately 89% ($862,000) of the total 5 year CIP, ® r a 42 r • • This department in not funded by Utility revenues, but operates as a City working capital fund under Utility department management. Funding responsibility for the Motor Pool fund rests with the Finance Department in General Government. DRAINAGE CIP The Drainage Division CIP is developed and funded by General Government. i I I • I 1 I~I 1 43 o 0 • • l i A ■ 44 ~ ~ a. ~ ~ x:11... a e I L L L L, ELECTRIC A i 1i f A d a i i i NI tt • r 46 1 W U I '0000,* 1* q,-.w I 1 W 6 ' • O I I I 4B ~ ~ 4'3 • • 1996 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN, CASH REQUIREMENTS ELECTRIC UTILITIES (s x x000) GROUP - ASSIGNMENT YEARS NUMBERS' GAO* CATEGORY 1999 1997 1088 _W 1999 ~ 2000 TOTAL 1 POWER PRODUCTION ADDITIONS $150 $0 $26,000 $0 $0 $26,160 2 POWER PRODUCTION REPLACEMENT so 0 0 0 0 0 3 OVERHEAD EXTENSIOWIMPROVEMENTS 9366 076 336 1,440 1,274 4,421 4 UNDERGROUND EXTENS/IMPROVES $860 1,673 1,046 0 630 4,106 y 6 DISTRIBUTION TRANSFORMERS $-330 304 310 369 362 1,683 6 METERS $336 262 288 360 374 11607 7 LOAD MANAGEMENT PROGRAM $0 40 77 18 3 136 s 8 DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATIONS 1307 1,214 1,887 1,9W 276 6,666 9 STREET LIGHTING $337 274 279 266 45 1,220 10 $0 0 0 0 0 0 1 t TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT $-00 96 70 36 116 375 12 GAS PIPE LINE 93 0 0 0 0 0 13 A*HT-OF-WAY/FACIL PURCHASES 14 OFFICE EQUIP, COMP, FURN, SYS MAP $87 37 37 37 85 283 -:y • 15 BUILDINGS~CENTRAL V19PATCH $-0 88 0 0 0 38 18 COMMUNICATIONS AND CONTROL $135 40 0 18 18 207 } 17 POWER FACTOR IMPROVEMENT $63 33 35 0 37 186 18 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT $0 0 0 0 96 06 10 OVER TO UNDER CONVERSIONS $1,150 380 380 380 642 2832 ' 20 MISCELLANEOUS, OTHER $421 416 407 406 600 2,341 • TOTALS: N,H9 $6-,602 -_30227 28 _ X4,664_{60,460 A i i l •*OROUPASSIaNMENT (GA) NUMBERS mo usod for Idomlfketlon of CIP Projoob by mow oetopmy of smonoo. i A v • d • L~ • • ca 1996--2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES I TOTAL TOTAL I PROJECT PROJECT BOND CUFVWNT UTILITY AID-ON F16CAL YR NUMBER GA PROJECT NAME _ COST FUND REVENUE FUNDING CONSTR COST 7 90-1011-01 1 (T) POWER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS $0 $160 $150 $0 $160 96-1011-02 I1 (T) POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT $0 $20 $20 $0 $20 96- 1011 _03 14 (T) OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $0 $20 $20 W $20 96 5011 -04 3 (0} STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS $0 $20 ;20 $0 $20_ TOTAL 1995-96 ELECTRIC PRODUCTION $0 $210 $210 $0 $210 96- 1031 -01 3 (0) Ofi EXTENSIONS A IMPROVEMENTS $0 $350 $350 W $360 t 06-1031-02 17 (G) POWER FACTOR IMPROVEMENTS 0 83 63 0 63 `9 96-1031 -03 4 (G) UIG EXTENSIONS & IMPROVEMENTS 0 860 880 0 650 96-10'31 -Od 5 (G) TRANSFORMERS & EQUIPMENT 0 289 269 0 289 96-1031 -05 5 (I) MISC. TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 0 50 50 0 b0 96 -1031-06 13 (0)RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS 0 30 30 0 30 06-1031-07 19 (G) DENTON CENTER LINE RELOCATE 0 1,160 1.150 0 1,150 96- 1031 -08 14 (0) MISC. OFFICE EQUIP/FURNITURE 0 5 5 0 6 96 - 1031 -09 3 (0) COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 0 15 16 0 16 1 -i 96- 1031 -10 20 (Q) CONTINGENCY 0 400 400 0 400 ti 1 96--1031-11 9 (G) RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTS 0 32 32 61 83 j 96 -1W I -12 9 (G) STREET LIGHTS ARTERIAL 0 217 217 0 217 96-11031 13 9 (0) STREET LIGHTS - SECURITY 0 37 37 --_0 37 .t TOTAL 1996-98 ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION 80 $31288 $31288 $51 $3,339 96- 1032--01 8 (IJTJR) REPLACEMENT 89 KV BREAKERS $0 $105 $106 $0 $105 16-1032. 02 6 (I/T/R) LOCUST 16 KV CONVERSION $0 $110 $110 $0 $110 1032-03 8 (N) SUBSTATION BUS KWH METERS $0 $30 Sw so $30 I-1032-04 8 (NIS) FURNITURE AND FIXTURES $0 $2 $2 $0 $2 08- 1032-05 B (N) FURNITURE AND FIXTURES $0 1 $1 $0 81 96- 1032-06 B (N) TEST EQUIPMENT $0 20 $20 $0 $20 96. 1032--07 8 (I(T/R) COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT $0 39 $0 $39 TOTAL 1996-96 SUBSTATIONS $0 $307 1307 $0 $307 t. 96--1033-01 t4 (N) HARDWARE ENOINEERINQ so $25 $25 so $25 06--1033-02 14 (N)MISCELLANEOUS SOFTWAREIHARDWARE 1)8 $10 $10 $0 $10 96-1033-03 14 (N) MISCELLANEOUS SOFTWARE $0 -0 TOTAL 1996-90 ELECTRIC ENGINEERING $0 $38 $38 IFO 1)38 f I t II II II 11 II 1/ I! it, ot Ilk AF."t O 0 • 6) • • Ir x t, if j 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES ----..R__- - TOTAL - TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT "D CURREW UTILITY AlO-IN FISCAL YR kUIm GA PROJECT NAME COST FUND REVENUE FUNDINQ...... CO"T - .__g._--. COST' ~t. 86-1034-01 6 (G/TAIS) METERS 6 ASSOC EOMT 96-1034-02 6 (TIGA) REMOTE METER READING EXPANSION 0 78 78 1266 0 1265 c 96-1034-03 20 MUNINTERRUPTEDPOWERSUPPI.IES 0 76 0 T8 96-1034-04 14 0 18 16 0 15 (N) FURNITURE/FIXTURES 3 . TOTAL 1995-96 ELECTRIC METERFIEIDSERVICES 0- 8 3 0 $O t34a 1348 SO - i34a 96-1041-01 14 (N) OFFICE FURNITURE 8 EQUIPMENT 96--1041 -02 20 (N) MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT 0 4 4 0 4 0 6 TOTAL 1996-96 ELECTRIC METER READING SERVICES p t0 t10 if0 -so - - $10 96-1042-01 6 (N) MULTI-MEDIA SYSTEM 0 Y TOTAL 19%-96 CUSTOMER INFORMATION 0 5 $5 80•-1043-01 14 (0) MISC OFFICE EQUIP/FURNITURE - -o - --?---0---- 2 TOTAL 1996-6DEMAND-SIDEMANAGEMENT LO $2 62 so $2 96-1051 --01 14 (0) MISC OFFICE EQUIP/FURNITURE TOTAL 1896-96 ELECTRIC ADMINISTRATION 0 18 16 0 $15 6 i18 N6 +io- i16 r ' 96-1061-01 11 (N) COMMUNICATIONSEQM7 • 96-1061-02 16 ($q ,OMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH 0 ;0 as tap t20 t0 t08 96-1061-03 16 (TIN) RADIO EOUIPMENTSHELTER so 0 86 60 80 0 20 96-1061-04 11 (TIN) RADIO REPEATERS 20 20 G 2 so TOTAL 1995-90 COMMUNIUTION9 '0 0 ~t0 i17a H78 i_ tp - >j176 TOTAL 1986-96 ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT fp` $4 H1396 t61^ i4,M9 A • i A tp ~4 u • 0 • 47 • • j 0 199611-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT UTILITY AID-IN Ft8CAL NUMBER GA PROJECT NAME COST _ FUND REVENUE FUNDING CONSTR COST JJ { 97-1011 -01 3 (T) POWER PUNT IMPROVEMENTS 110 $570 670 110 01'7J 97-1011 -02 11 (T) POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT 0 20 20 0 20 97-1011-03 14 (T) OFFICE FURNITURE AID EQUIPMENT 0 10 10 0 10 TOTAL 1998-97 ELECTRIC PRODUCTION 110 $800 2600 110 11CA0 t 97-1031-01 3 (G) 0/H EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS $0 $408 $400 110 $406 97 -1031 -02 17 (G) POWER FACTOR IMPROVEMENTS 0 33 33 0 33 97--1031 --03 4 (G) U/0 EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 0 1,673 1,873 0 1,673 07- 1031-04 5 (G) TRANSFORMERS AND EQUIPMENT 0 304 904 0 304 97 -1031 -05 11 (1) MISC. TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 0 65 65 0 65 97 - 4031 -06 19 (I/$) 0/H TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSIONS 0 380 360 0 380 ? 97- 1031-07 14 (0) MISC. OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 0 12 12 0 12 9/- 1031 --08 20 (0/S) CONTINGENCY 0 400 400 0 400 97 -1031--09 9 (G) RESIDENVALSTREET LIGHTS 0 37 37 60 67 W --10111 -10 9 (0) STREET LIGHTS - ARTERIAL 0 148 148 0 148 1 97-1031-11 9 (G) STREET LIGHTS - SECURITY 0 39 39 j 39 TOTAL 1996-97 ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION f0 113,469 113,469 160 ><3,539 97-- 1032--01 6 (S) SUBSTATION SCRRENG - (LOCUST) $0 $130 $130 $0 $130 97 -1032 -02 B OrT/R) REPLACE 69 KV BREAKERS 0 110 110 0 110 • ` 9-1-1032-03 8 (I/T/R) LOCUST 16 KV BREAKER CONVERSION 0 66 66 0 66 97-1032-04 6 (N) SUBSTATION ADDITION 650 0 860 0 660 j 97-1032- 05 B (I/T/R) REPLACE OVERCURRENT RELAYS - 38 fla - - - 88 TOTAL 1996-97 ELECTRIC METER FIELD SERVICES 6650 1184 $1,214 110 ><t 214 j 1 97-- 1033--01 16 (N) OUTAGE ANALYSIS, REPORTING&DISPATCHING SYSTEM 0 60 60 0 68 U TOTAL 19%-97 ELECTRIC ENGINEERING - ---$0 SIMI Ilse so • 97-1034 -01 6 (S/0/1/17 METERS 8 ASSOC EOMT $0 $202 1262 $0 1262 07-1034-02 7 (T/G11) REMOTE METER READING EXPANSION 0 40 40 0 4U 07-1034-03 20 (T) UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLIES 0 Is Is 0 TOTAL 1998-97 SUBSTATIONS 110 8118 $318 y0 R718 97-1051-01 14 (R/T) VISO OFFICE EQUIPTIFURNITURE so 018 111b 110 S16 TOTAL 1990-97 ELECTRIC ADMINISTRATION $0 $16 1116 f0 ;16 • • • 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL. j FPRO6JECT PROJECT BONO CURRENT UTILITY AID-1N FIBCA6 YR MBER GA PROJECT NAME _CQBT FUND ~ENUB FUlOlNO CLNt* COST 97-1081-01 11 (MCOMIIUNICATIONSEOUIPMENT 40 420 420 40 420 r 97-1081-02 10 (R) REPI 4CF VINTA13E RADIO REPEATERS 0 1S 18 0 18 97-1051 -03 1S (R) UP< WE UTILITY DEPARTMENT LAN SERVER 0 12 12 0 12 97-1081-04 18 (N) IN'?ALL FAX SYSTEM ON LAN 0 12 12 0 12 TOTAL IM-97 COMMUNICATIONS - 40 -4E0 w $0 -480 TOTAL IM-97 ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT u 4880 $4,902 48,752 $a 48,50: • a } A ~ { I t J • r) • • N .j V` 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL z PROJECT PROJECT 80NO CURRENT UTILITY AID-IN FISCAL YR ) PUMHEH .__._GA_ PROJECT NAAIE__ -_-------------__COST FUND _REVENUE_. FUNDIPIGCONSTR COST f 98 -1011-•01 1 (T/G) GAS TURBINE COMBINED CYCLE INSTALLATION $26,000 s0 $26,000 $0 $28,000 90-1011--02 11 (T) POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT s0 $20 $20 s0 $20 90 -1011--03 14 (1) OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT 0 10 ~10 0-___., 10 TOTAL 1997- 98 ELECTRIC PRODUC'ilON $25,000 S30 $28,030 $0 $25,030 98--1031-01 3 (0) Olli EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS $0 $336 $335 $0 $335 90-1031 --02 17 (G) POWER FACTOR IMPROVEMENTS 0 38 35 0 36 98-1031- 03 4 (0) 0l0 EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 0 1,045 1,045 0 1,048 98.1031-04 5 (G) TRANSFORMERS AND EQUIPMENT 0 319 319 0 319 7 98.1031 -05 11 (I) MISC. TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 0 80 d0 0 50 98 -1031 -06 19 (IlS) O/H TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSIONS 0 380 380 0 380 i 98--1031 --07 14 (0) MISC. OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 0 +7 12 0 12 98-1031 -08 20 (G/S) CONTINGENCY 0 130 480 0 460 90-- 1031-09 9 (G) RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTS 0 39 39 62 91 go 1031 -10 9 (0) STREET LIGHTS - ARTERIAL 0 140 148 0 148 j 1 DB- 1031 -11 9 (G) STREET LIGHTS - SECURITY 0 40 40 0 40 TOTAL 1997-98F.l.ECTRIC DISTRIBUTION $0 $2,883 $2,803 $62 $2,935 1 98-1032-01 0 (S)SUBSTATIIONSCREENINO - (O.N.q s0 $222,30 22230 $0 $222 • 98- 1032 02 0 (I/T)R) REPLACE 09KV BREAKERS s0 116 SI T$ $0 $116 98-1032-03 8 (N) SUBSTATION ADDITION 1,350 0 1,350 0 1,350 98-1032-04 8 (IJT/R) REPLACE OVF.RCURRENT RELAYS 0 36 38 0 38 98-1032-05 8 (I/T/R) NORTHLAKES 18 KV BREAKERS CONVERSION 100 100 0 100 TOTAL 1997-94SUBSTATION9 $1,350 $476 $1,025 $0 $1,826 98-1033-01 7 (N) INTEGRATION SOFTWARE 0 35 36 0 35 TOTAL 1997-.98ENGINEERNO $0 s36 $36 f0 05 © O 98-1034-01 8 (GlSPM METERS & ASSOC EQM't $o ON $200 b $200 98--1034-02 7 (TIGIq REMOTE METER READING EXPANSION 0 42 42 0 42 98-1034-03 20 (T) UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLIES 0 17 17 0 17 TOTAL 1997-98 ELECTRIC METER FIELD SERVICES $0 $546 $346 $0 $345 08-1051-01 14 (RM MISC OFFICE EQUIPT/FURNITURE so $16 08 s0 $15 TOTAL 1097-90 ELECTRIC ADMINISTRATION $0 $16 $16 $0 Ps I ~ f I ! I I I ~ i I F I, • q • a • • lit > y 'r7 C7 C-I fir t1996•-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN s , ELECTRIC UTILITIES PROJECT - TOTAL - - - NUMBER - _ - pHOJECT NAME PROJECT BONb CURpE11T IJTIUTY A0, TOTAL IN RrSCAL YFI Dg-1061-01 g ~~ND Cqt~ p (N) COMMUNICATIONS ECMi 98-1061-02 a (IT REPLACE VINT REPEATERS t0 on ` 26-1061-03 6 (N) LAN SEGMENTATION EOUIPMENT 0 16 Is TOTAL 1997-96 COMMUNICATIONS g 16 0 16 10 µZ g - 6 TOTAL 1227-96 ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT N2` o $42 i I 0 0 w w I • ca • A 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ELECTRIC UTILITIES PRO,IECT TOTAL TOTALYR PROJECT BOND CURRENT UTILITY AID-10 FISCAL 1 NUMBER OA PROJECT NAME _CO6T____ FUND REVENUE FUNDING _CONSTR 99--tJ11 -O1 3 (T) POWER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 99-1011 -02 11 M POWER PLAN! EQUIPMENT i1$25 $5 $0 $26 $15 W 99- 1011 --03 14 (G) OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT 0 10 $0 828 .j TOTAL 1996-09 ELECTRIC PRODUCTION --so- 99- 0 6 0 10 0 10 ,p - - - -1031 --01 3 (G) O/H EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS $0 $285 $265 99--1031-02 3 (G) POWER FACTOR IMPROVEMENTS f0 99 -1031--03 3 (G) WO EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS 0 35 36 0 235 99-1031-04 5 (G) TRANSFORMERS AND EQUIPMENT 0 1,104 1.104 0 1,104 99 - IC31 --05 5 (1) MISC. TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 0 3~ 319 0 0 319 99- 1031 -06 19 (I/S) O/H TO UNDERGROUND CONVERSIONS 60 99-1031 --07 14 (G) MISC. OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 0 360 380 0 99--1031 -06 20 (G/S) CONTINGENCY 0 12 12 p 302 99 1031 -09 8 (0) SUBSTATION ADDITION 69KV U.O. 48 460 99 1031--10 0 (G) RESIDENTIAL STREETLIGHTS 0 1,0 1,700 0 1,700 99--1031-11 9 (G) STREET LIGHTS - ARTERIAL 0 39 39 62 01 99-1031--12 9 (O) STREET LIGHTS - SECURITY 0 152 152 0 162 TOTAL 1996-90 ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION 0 42 42 0 42 '96 T46 - s 99- 1032--01 8 (S) SUBSTATION SCREENING (POCKRUS) t 99- 1032 02 B (I(T/R) RFPLACE 69 KV BREAKERS O $134 $134 f0 $134 99 20 -1032-03 8 (I/T!R) REPLACE OVERCURRENT RELAYS - f~~-- 120 0 120 TOTAL 1096-09SUBSTATIONS $0 $204 $294 50 _ _4 $m ~ 99 -1033--D1 7 (J)MiSCELIANEOLS SOFTWARE TOTAL 19W-09ENGINEERING ------_..__$15 16 0 I6 P: 99- 1034-01 6 (GIE,T/I) METERS d ASSOC EQMT 99 1034 02 6 (T/0/1) REMOTE METER READING EXPANSION W > $308 $0 $308 99-1034-03 20 (T) UNiNTERRJPTED POWER SUPPLIES 0 44 46 0 44 ? TOTAL 1096-99 ELECTRIC METER FIELD SERVICES 18 40 90-1051-01 14 (FIM MISC OFFICE EOUIPT/FURNITURE TOTAL 1996-09CLECTRICAOMINLSTRATION 06 16 $16 0 99-1061 -01 11 (R) COMMUNICATIONS EOMi 99 1061 --02 18 (R) REPLACE VINT RADIO REPEATERS W $20 $20 $0 $20 • TOTAL 1998- 99 COMMUNICATIONS ----0 18 I8 0 18 TOTAL 1096-99 ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT - - • 0 • e e !v 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, ELECTRIC UTILITIES PROJECT TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER---_caA PROJECT NAME PROJECT 90610 CURRENT UTILlTy AID-IN FISCAL YR~ COST FUND REVENUE FUNOIN3 ~CONSTR COST J DO--1011-01 3 (T) POWER PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 00-1011 -02 11 (T) POWER PLANT EQUIPMENT $0 $660 $650 so $650 ` 00-1011--03 14 (0) OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT 0 36 35 0 35 ' TOTAL 1998•-2000 ELECTRIC PRODUCTION - 20 U ?0 $0 $706 $706.. -----1705 00-10,31-01 3 (G) O/H EXTENSIONS 6IMPROVEMENTS 00-1031-02 17 (0) POWER FACTOR IMPROVEMENTS $0 $.624 $624 $0 $624 00-1031-03 4 (G) UlG EXTENSIONS 6IMPROVEMENTS 0 37 37 0 37J 00-1031-04 5 (G) TRAl~FORMERS 6 EQUIPMENT 0 830 0.70 0 00-- 1031-05 11 (1) MSC. TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT 0 352 352 0 352 JO-1031-06 19 (118) O/H TO WO CONVERSIONS 0 60 60 0 60 00--1031-07 14 (0) MISC. OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 0 395 346 0 395 `y 00-1031-08 20 (G) CONTINGENCY 0 60 50 0 50 00-1031-09 16 (G) RESIDENTIAL STREET LIGHTS 0 4~ 4~ 0 490 Si 00- 1031-10 19 (G) STREET LIGHTS - ARTERIAL 60 96 00-1031-11 9 (G) STREET LIGHTS - SECURITY 0 147 147 0 147 TOTAL 1999-2000 ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION - ~6 46 _ $0 $3060 - <6 } 13,066 $60 _.87,126 00-1032-01 8 (S) SUBSTATION SCREENING - ARCO 1 00-1032-02 8 (I/T/R) REPLACE OVERCURRENT RELAYS $0 $109 $100 $0 $109 l 00-1032 -03 8 (I1TJR) REPLACE 69 KV BREAKERS $0 42 $42 $0 $42 TOTAL 1999-2000SUBSTATIONS 126 $125 W 1126 $270 d! $0 $278 - $0 $276 • 00-1033-01 7 (N) MISCELLANEOUS SOFTWARE $0 TOTAL 1999-2000 ELECTRIC ENGINEERING ` - ---i3 45- 00-1034-01 8 ,'3;511/q METERS AND ASSOC EQMT 00-1034-02 6 (T/GA) REMOTE METER READING PACKAGE $0 $325 $328 W $326 00-1034-03 20 (T) UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLIES 0 46 40 0 46 TOTAL 1990-2000 ELECTRIC METER FIELD SERVICES 0 10 19 0 19 $0 1343 8100 1390 d 00-1051-01 14 (RlT) MISC OFFICE EOUIPT/FURNITURE 0 15 16 0 15 TOTAL 1999•-2000 ELECTRIC ADMINISTRATION _ - $0 $15 _ $16 f0 $16 00-1081-01 11 (A) COMMUNICATIONS EQMT 00-1061-02 18 (A) REPLACE VINTAGE RADIO REPEATERS 20 0 20 TOTAL 1999- 2000 COMMUNICATIONS 0---- 16 10 0 18 $0 - -s $36 TOTAL 1990-2000 ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT $4,49 $60 -~4, 654 L, 1996-2000 GRAPH TOTAL ELECTRIC $7'I6~=-~_. ,4 e o • ca • • m i 1 i e • fog A • 0 WATER ~ I 1 ' I I i 67 c~ a~ fA i . I 1 l ~ 1 ~l I i i r ~a ! _ ~ o ~j • c~ • • i 1996 - 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CASH REQUIREMENTS WATER UTILITIES 1 (s x 1000) GROUP ASSIGNMENT YE'AR$ NUMBERS _ GA** _ CATEGORY 1996 '1997 Im IQ" 2000 _ TOTAL I NEW WATER PLANT/TRANS LINE =0 s0 60 60 Im $0 2 BOOSTERSTATION 260 0 60 540 0 660 3 ELEVATED STORAGE 1.150 2,894 690 0 0 4AS3 4 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE 1.020 11326 924 664 490 4,623 5 REPLACEMENT WATER UNES 743 314 150 150 150 1507 6 FIELD SERVICES REPLACE WATERLINES 200 260 400 400 400 1,660 7 DEVELOPMENT PUN WATER LINES 250 260 250 250 260 1260 6 OVERSIZE WATER LINES 100 100 100 100 100 600 9 TAPS. FIRE HYDS, AND FIELD EQUIP 325 314 331 303 363 1,667 10 LABORATORY IMPROVEMENTS 6 28 22 46 19 126 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 1 0 1 0 2 4 13 OFFICE FURNITURE/EQUIPMENT 20 6 6 6 6 52 14 MISCELLANEOUS 71 63 40 15 15 224 • 16 REGULATORY DISINFECTION MODIFICATIONS 0 0 500 397 1694 2791 10 1-35 WATER LINE 0 260 1.360 0 0 1,630 17 STATE HIGHWAY RELOCATIONS 940 _ 236 0~_ 0 1,176 66,066 .__}3,126Y 591 122622 • L 1 I F •~0ROUP ASSIGNMENT (GA) NUMBERS mo usod for Idoml9ao6on o1 CIP P1oNds by major catopory of $)Portso. / v, • Q ♦ . • 0 0 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WATER UTILITIES PROJECT TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER 0111 PROJECT NAME PROJECT BOND CURRENT UTILi7Y A~~-IN FISCAL YR COST :FUND REYENUp FUNDfNQ CONSTR COST 96-0450-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENTIFURMITURE so_ - - - w s2- 70TAL 1995-98 WATER ADMINISTRATION i0 $2 $2 $0 $2 96-0460--02 13 (R) OFFICE FURNITURE AND MACHINES 96-0460-03 14 (R) TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT $0 $0 $8 $0 $6 96-0460-04 14 (R) CHEMICAL FEED AND PROCESS CONTROL EQUIPMENT $6 $5 $0 $5 SO $10 $10 $10 88-0460.05 14 (q HIGH SERVICE PUMP CONTAOLV $0 ONT ) 96'-0460-06 14 (R) OAS MONITORING EQUIPMENT W $35 $36 $0 $35 II 96-0460-07 2 (G) NEW BOOSTER PUMP FOR THE UPPER PRESSURE PLANE $0 $16 $16 so $18 96-0460-06 2 (G) SITE ACQUISITION FOR ELEVATED STORAGE TANK (UPPER PLANE) $i 10 $0 f110 $0 $110 98-0460-09 2 (G) SITE ACQUISITION FOR LOOP 28880OSTER PUMP STATION $86 W $88 $0 $66 96-0460A01 1 (G) RAYROSERTS WTP AND RAW WATER FACILITIES (1968) 76 W •475 $0 $76 96-046OA03 2 (C) BOOSTER S7ATtONAND SYSTEM TIE-?N $16,733 $0 $0 $0 $0 $U 90-0460C02 I (G) FINISHED WATER TRANSMISSION LINE (1891) (10,477 f0 $0 $0 $o $o 98-0460F06 $9 3 (G) 2 MG ELEVATED STORAGE TANK ,317 $0 62 $0 $0 $3,613 $1,189 $0 $1,189 $0 $1,189 R _ 96-0401-01 8 (G) OVERSIZE WATERLINES TOTAL 1995 - 98 WATER PRODUCTION $1'419 S71 $1,480 $0 $1,490 4 98-0461 -02 13 (R) OFFICE FURNITURE AND MACHINES $100 u1 $100 $0 $100 06-0461.-03 9 (C,) WATER TAPS. LOOPS $0 $3 $3 $0 0 96-0461 -04 9 (R) REPLACE FIRE HYDRANTS d VALVES $0 $62 $52 $87 $139 96-0461-05 5 (R) REPLACE WATERLINE -YORKSHIRE $0 $38 $38 $0 $36 96-0461 -06 5 (R) REPLACE WATERLNES - LAURELWOOD $173 so $12 $12 i0 >i$12 $12 $0 $ 12 f ♦ 96--0461-07 5 (R) REPLACE WATERLINES - SYCAMORE $O 173 so $1 101 4'-D461-08 7 (G) DEVELOPMENT PLAN WATERLINE 61 $161 $0 $181 96-0461-09 9 (S) MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT i0 X60 $260 $0 $250 96••0461 -10 8 (R) FIELD SERVICES REPLACE WATERLINES $0 $32 $32 $0 $32 96-0461 -11 4 (I) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE (BERNARD) S1.7113 i0 $a $200 $$64 $0 $260 96--0461 C,6 5 (R) (1995) REPLACE WATERLINE - HOUSTON PLACE AREA $228 so $p 164 96-WIG09 4 (I) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE - KERLEY $213 $213 so $213 ® $1,473 $966 b $968 $0 (968 1 • 96-0461G12 17 (S) STATE HIGHWAY 380 RELOCATION $2114____ $9p TOTAL i9B5-98 WATER D ISTRISViION - 60 E40 $1,996 $1,380 $3.378 $87 $3,103 1♦ li ~ t# Y ! 1 ~ 1 I I I I ~ 1~ M h d1 ~P ♦ 0 e e e . . v:,~rcn a,6,µ:.. or a ! s o: !s Nlr of w 9~° I['-z vrz IIIkm m IIIII. 7 1 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WATER UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL r PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT UTILITY AIO-IN FI8CAi VM NUMBER M PROJECT NAME COST FUND,_ . gEVENU~ FUNDING CONSTA C08 06-0492-01 13 (RZ) OFFICE FURNITURE AND MACHINED 62 62 W $2 96-0462-02 0 (R) WATER METERS $0 $112 $112 t0 6112 98-0462-03 9 (R) MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT _0_.- $6 ><0--- TOTAL 1996-06 WATER METER REPAIR t0 $120 $120 s0 6120 96•-0463-01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT !0 f1 E1 i0 $I 96-0163-02 13 (R) OFFICE EOUIPME14T AND FURNITURE __-$0 u 2 $2 TOTAL 1096-96 WATER ENGINEERING f0 $3 $3 $0 96-0460-01 10 (R) LAB RENOVATION 96-0490-02 12 (T) DIV INFOPfAATION MGMTSYSTEM $0 $1 61 $8 so $0 $1 98-0480-03 13 IR) LABORATORY EQUIPMENT $0 $8 15 $0 $5 96-0460-04 14 (S) WATERSHED MONITORING so 10 0 TOTAL 1998-98 WATER LABORATORY $0 120 s20 $0 t20 TOTAL 1096-90 WATERDEPARTMEN7 ~t3,416 =1.606` {6011187 $yppe r i e ~ o, Y ' t. • L1 • • 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WATER UTILITIES si TOTAL TOTAL V__TOTAL [PROJECT PROJECT SONG CURRENT UTILITY AID-IN FISCALYR NVMBEq _ CiA PROJECT N_AM_F_ _ COST_ FUND _ REVENUE FUNDING OONSTR_ CAST 97-0450-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EOUIPMENTIFURNITURE TOTAL 1998-97 WATER ADMINISTRATION ip -$1 $1 - $1 07-0.160-02 13 (R) OFFICE FURNiTURE AND EQUIPMENT , 9'7-0460.03 14 (R) TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT $0 $5 $5 $0 $8 97- N60-04 14 (R) CHEMICAL FEED AND PROCESS CONTROL EQUIPMENT $0 $10 $10 $0 $10 97--0460-05 14 (T) PARTICLE COUNTERS $0 168 $85 $0 $65 97- 046OA01 1 (G) RAY ROBERTS WTP AND FAW WATER FACILITIES (1986) $111,733 $0 i0 $0 $0 50 97--046OA03 2 (G) BOOSTER STATION AND SYSTEM TIE-IN $10,477 $0 $9 $0 $0 $0 07 -0160002 1 (G) FINISHED WATER TRANSMISSION LINE (1991) $9,317 $0 so $0 $0 $0 d 97--046OF06 3 (G) 2 MG ELEVATED STORAGE TANK $3,513 $2,344 $0 $2,344 $0 $2344 ~l 97-0460101 3 (G) ELEVATED STORAGE FOR THE UPPER PLANE , 940 TOTAL 1998-97 WATER PRODUCTION -M 480o $0 $2 sx,394 $ee $s,4s so sa,4eo 1 97-D461-01 8 (G) OVERSIZE WATERLINES $1oD $0 $100 50 $100 1 97 - 0461 -03 9 (G) WATER ZAPS, LOOPS $0 $67 $57 $94 $161 l 97 - 0461 -04 9 (R) REPL. FIRE HYDRANTS & VALVES so $33 $33 $0 $33 97-0461- 05 5 (R) (1997) REPLACE WATERLINE STREET PROGRAM $160 $0 $10 $10 W $10 97-0461 --D6 6 (R) (1997) FIELD SERVICES REPLACE WATER LINES W $250 $280 $0 $250 97--0461 -08 ! (G) DEVELOPMENT PLAN WATERUNES $o $260 $260 $0 $250 97 --0461-11 16 (0) 1-35 WATER LINE $1.630 $280 s0 $250 so $250 97 --0161-13 17 STATE HIGHWAY 377 RELOCATION $236 $0 $238 $0 $235 97-D461G06 5 (R) REPLACE MISCEL:A.NEOUS WATERLINES - BOYD $180 $0 $150 $1 C4 $0 $150 97-0461(309 4 (1)DISTRIBUTION SY,jTF.MUPGRADE (KERL" $1473 $465 to 5466 $0 $4118 • 97-0461 IM 5 (R) REPLACE WATERLINES - LAURELWOOD $188 so $164 $184 $0 $164 97- 0461 H11 4 (I) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE - BERNARD $1.783 $0 $660 $8110 $0 $580 $ TOTAL 1996-97 WATER DISTRIBUTION $1,061 $1,764 12,816 $94 $-2 97--0462-01 9 (R) WATER METERS f129 12D W-_ $129 T07AL1998-97 WATER METER REPAIR $0 $120 - $121 i0 $120 0 97-0483-01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT $0 $1 $1 $0 $1 ' • 97-0463--02 13 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENT & FURNITURE $0 $1`_ - $1 Y ip TOTAL 1998-97 vY%TER E140INEEMING 62 $0 $9 97-0180--01 10 (R) LABORATORY EQUIPMENT $0 $14 114 $0 $14 9)--0460-02 $0 (T) GAS CHROMATOGRAPHJMASSSPEC $14 $o $14 $0 $14 97--0480-03 14 (S) WATERSHED MONITORING $0 $3 so 93 TOTAL 1998--97 WATER LABORATORY it 4 f17^----~~ 1 1.11 TOTAL 1998-97 WATER DEPARTMENT -4 $8 r 81,489 N,909 ,455 $04 04 W,862= I I I f I I I I I I I I L K gl n ~ d 1 • (a M:j s 4:'J s s as a s ■ a ■ w ra mr s.... ~c .,r s v ial 1k r 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WATER UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT UTILITY AID -IN FISCAL YR NUMBER _ GA PROJECT NAME FUND REVENUE FUN01NO CONSTR COST 98-0460-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE i0 =1 TOTAL 1097-08 WATER ADMINISTRATION s0 $1 31 $0 $1 r'= 98-0460-02 13 (R) OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT s0 so $0 $6 98-0460-03 14 (R) TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT s0 $0 95 98-0460-04 14 (R) CHEMICAL FEED AND PROCESS CONTROL EQUIPMENT s0 610 $10 s0 $10 98-0460-05 14 (R) REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING CHEMICAL STORAGE TANKS s0 $26 $25 s0 $25 9 98-0460-06 15 (S) CHLORINATION SYSTEM EMERGENCY GAS SCRUBBERS s600 6600 $0 $600 s0 SSW 98-0460-07 2 (G) BOOSTER PUMP STATION FOR THE UPPER PLANE 5800 $80 s0 $60 s0 $60 98-046OA01 I (G) RAY ROBERTS WTP AND RAW WATER FACILITIES (1968) $10,733 s0 $0 s0 $0 $0 98-0460A03 2 (O) BOOSTER STATION AND SYSTEM TIE-IN $10,447 s0 60 $0 $0 $0 98-04600D2 I (G) FINISHED WATER TRANSMISSION LINE (1991) $9,317 s0 s0 s0 s0 s0 98-0460101 3 (G) ELEVATED STORAGE FOR THE UPPER PLANE $940, _ .$690 s890~ s0 _ _$890• TOTAL 1997-08 WATER PRODUCTION 55,460 t46 $1,406 s0 $1,496 98-0461-01 8 (G) OVERSIZE WATERLINES $100 s0 $100 SO 6100 98-0461 -03 9 (G) WATER TAPS. LOOPS $0 $89 $60 $104 $163 98-0481 - 04 9 (R) REPL FIRE HYDRANTS d VALVES $0 $37 $37 s0 937 98 -0461 -05 6 (R) (1998) REPLACE WATERLINE $150 s0 $40 $10 s0 $10 " 98--0481 -06 8 (R) (10916 FIELD SERVICES REPLACE WATER LINES s0 $400 6400 s0 $400 98-0461 -08 7 (G) DEVELOPMENT PLAN WATERLINES ' 90-0481-13 4 (I) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE (LOOP 288) $1.317 s66 2so 6 ~ 686 so $66 98-0161H11 4 (1) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE - BERNARD 61,783 s0 $650 lose s0 $660 98-0481105 6 (R) (1997) REPLACE WATERLINE STREET PROGRAM $160 60 $140 $140 s0 $140 98-0461111 18 (G) 1-35WATER LINE $1630 $1300__ $0 _"4 300 s01~360 TOTAL 1997-0 WATER DISTRIBUTION - $1,640 $1,768 63,300 "104 $3,404 98-0462-01 9 (R) WATER METERS $0 _ $130 __$180 s0 _ s150 TOTAL 1907-08 WATER METER REPAIR - $0 1130 i130- $0 6130 08-0483-0$ 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT s0 $1 $1 s0 $1 98-0463-02 13 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENTS FURNITURE _ s0 $1 $0 $1 TOTAL 1997-08 WATER ENGINEERING s0 s2 $2 $0 62 w I 4a • • 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN I WATER UTIUTIES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT BOND 'CURRENT UTILITY AO-IN f'IBCALY" HUMBER GA PRNECT NAME _ COST FUND REVENUE FUNGI CONo C09 98-0480-01 10 (R) LABORATORY RENOVATION 60 64 LN $0 64 98-0480-02 10 M MICROSCOPE WITH FLUORESCENCE Lo $14 $14 00 $14 98-0460-03 12 M OIV, INFORMATION MGMT SYSTEM i0 $1 $1 =o $1 98-0480-04 10 (R) LAB EQUIPMENT 40 $4__.__.04SO 44, TOTAL 1947-98 WATER LABORATORY $0 $23 $23 00 $23 TOTAL 1991-DO WATER DEPARTMENT $2,005 , $1,987 $4,052 AA $104 $5,068 i I i I i • r ~ ~ I I I r I I I i ! + I I F+ 1 A t N d~ ~ AQ AR ~ • o J 0 • • A ~ ■ L L L L L E6 it ~ ~ !i-":' !IK 6l ~i IAI• A!~ t 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WATER UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL S PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT UTILITY AID-IN FISCALYR NUMBER GA PROJECT NAME COST FUND gEyENUq FLINGING CONROR COST 99-0450-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENTIFURNITURE $0 $1 $1 i6_ $1_ t, TOTAL 190-99WATER ADMINISTRATION 00 $1 $1 $0 - $1 90-0460-01 16 (S) OZONATION (SPENCER PLANT) DISINFECTION SYSTEM $6,063 $397 $0 $307 $0 $397 99-0460-02 13 (R) OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT $0 W $8 $0 $6 . 0-0460-03 14 (R) TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT so $a '60 $5 99-0460-04 14 (R) CHEMICAL FEED AND PROCESS CONTROL EQUIPMENT $0 $ to $0 $0 $10 89-0460ADI 1 (G) RAY ROBERTS WTP AND RAW WATER FACILITIES (1966) $16,703 $0 $0 =0 $0 $0 z. 99-046OA03 2 (G) BOOSTER STATION AND SYSTEM TIE-IN $10,447 $0 $0 i0 $0 $0 99- 0460002 1 (0) FINISHED WATER TRA NSMISS ION LINE (1991) $9,317 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 09-0460J07 2 (G) BOOSTER PUMP STATION FOR THP UPPER PLANE $600_ 5640 ,_10 - ylp $0 TOTAL I998-99 WATER PRODUCTION $937 $21 $968 $0 $966 99-0461-01 8 (0) OVERSIZE WATERLINES $100 $0 $100 to $100 99-0461-03 9 (0) WATER TAPS, LOOPS 80 $88 $66 $116 $161 99-0461-04 9 (R) REPL. FIRE HYDRANTS 8 VALVES $0 $37 647 $0 $37 99-0401 -05 5 (R) (1909) REPLACE WATERLINE $160 $0 $10 $10 $0 $10 99-0461-08 6 IN (1999) FIELD SERVICES REPLACE WATER LINER $0 $400 $100 so $400 0-0461-08 7 (G) DEVELOPMENT PLAN WATERUNES $0 $280 $260 $0 $250 00 -0481106 5 (R) (INM REPLACE WATERLINE $160 $0 $140 $110 $0 $140 99-0461J13 4 (0 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE (LOOP 288) $1317__ $681 $0 $864 $0 _ • TCTALIM-99 WATER DISTRIBUTION $064 OW $1,$87 $115 v$1,902 99-0462--01 9 (R) WATER METERS $0 $131 ___It 34 _ $0 $134 TOTAL 1998-99 WATER METER REPAIR $0 $134 $131 (C $134 99-0463-01 9 (8) FIELD EQUIPMENT $0 $1 $1 t0 $1 99-0463-02 13 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENTS FURNITURE Lo- $1 _H • TOTAL 1998-90 WATER ENGINEERING $0 $2 - $2 - so $2 99-0480-01 10 M ICP EMISSION SPECTROMETER - 0 TOTAL1998-99 WATER LABORATORY $48 $0 $18 00 i4$ TOTAL 108-99 WATERDEPARTMENT $1,090 $1,051 $3,010 '$11563,125 o, N • CJ • s m 19962000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN 'HATER UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL [PROJECT PROJECT BONG CURRENT UTILITY AID-IN FISCAI, YR NUMBER 13A PROJECT NAME COST FUND REVENUE FUNDING CONSTR COST 001-450-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENTIFURNITURE $1 51_- TOTAL 1999-2000 WATER ADMINISTRATION $0 $1 $1 $0 $1 00-0460-02 18 (R) OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT W $8 $6 $0 $8 ~i 00-0460-03 14 (R) TOOLS ANDEQUIPMENf $0 $0 $5 $0 0 00-0460-04 14 (A) CHEMICAL FEED AND PROCESS CONTROL EQUIPMENT 10 $10 110 $0 610 00-04WAOI 1 (0) PAY ROBERTS WTP AND RAW WATER FACILITIES (1968) $16,733 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 00-046OA03 2 (0) BOOSTER STATION AND SYSTEM TIE-IN $10,447 10 $0 10 $0 $0 DO-0450002 1 (G) FINISHED WATER TRANSMISSION LINE (1991) $9,317 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 00-046OK01 16 (S) 02ONATtON (SPENCER PLANT) DISINFECTION SYSTEM $6,063 11,894 $0 $1,894 $0 $1,094 TOTAL 1999-2000 WATER PRODUCTION 57,894 $21 7;1,916 so $1,915 e 00-0461 -01 8 (0) OVERSIZE. WATERLINES $100 $0 1100 $D $100 00-0461-03 9 (0) WATER TAPS, LOOPS $0 $72 $72 $122 $194 00-0461 -04 9 (R) REPLACE FIRE HYDRANTS 8 VALVES $0 $34 $34 $0 7134 00-0401-05 5 (A) (2000) REPLACE WATERLINE $160 $p 00-0461-06 6 (R) (2000) FIELD SERVICES REPLACE WATERUNEB 110 110 10 110 so $400 $400 so $400 00-0461-06 7 (0) DEVELOPMENT PLAN WATERLINES $0 1280 $260 $0 $260 00-0461 -13 4 (1) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE - RYAN $1,661 $84 $0 $64 i0 $84 00-0481J13 4 (I) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM UPGRADE - LOOP 288 $1,317 $408 $0 $408 $0 "m } DO-0481 K05 5 (R) (1999) REPLACE WATERLINE 10 11,0 11,10 __-_-00_-- $140 Jk • TOTAL1999-20DOWATERDJSTRIBUTION $690 1908 $1,408 $122 $1,$18 00-D462-01 9 (R) WATER METERS 1134 _____I_!34 $0 $134 TOTAL 1999-2000 WATER METER REPAIR $0 $134 $134 $0 $134 DO-0463-01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT $0 $1 $1 $0 $1 00-0463 -02 13 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENT AND FURNITURE 7_p IO i,Il 8 TOTAL 1999-2000 WATER ENGINEERING --iii $2 $2 i0 $2 DO-0480-01 12 (T) DIV INFORMATION MOMTSYSTEM $0 $2 $2 $0 $2 00-0480-02 10 (T) LIQUID CHROMANFRARED SPEC $14 $0 $14 p $14 00--0460-03 10 (R) LABORATORY RENOVATION $0 - to $0 TOTAL IM-2000 WATER LABORATORY $14 67 621 $0 821 TOTAL 1990-2000 WATEROEPARTMENT -$2,408 $1,071 81,680 $122 _ 81,601 1998-200DWATERDEPARTMENTGRANOTOTAL $14,316 $7,604 622A00 $822 $22.522 i ! I I I I I I ' f f I I I I 11 li ! i! li i 1 • t1 m r r f f r I WASTEWATER I I I I A ~f c f~ r ~ • o r 87 fs O • • I E PAZ S 1 i i r i i 4 68 • M _ N X... X.;," W.."' CCU W'." K7" m 1o, mw m WIN No 1998 - 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN j CASH REQUIREMENTS WASTEWATER UTILITIES (s x It 000) i+ ASSIGNMENT YEAq$ NUMBERS GAO* __~W CATEGORY - low low 1908 IP'" _ 2000 TOTN I 1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMP ow $442 $49 $61 sm 2 WASTEWATERTREATMENTPLANTEXP 0 200 w 8000 Eooo 13040 3 LIFTSTATION IMPROVEMENTS 628 2,432 2,121 4 COLLECTION SYSTEM UPGRADE 605 e90 22 23 6112E 5 REPLACEMENT SEWER LINES 660 746 746 3,444 912 204 448 48 440 448 2,644 8 DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWER LINES 240 240 2E0 260 250 7 OVERSIZE WASTEWATER LINES 100 100 1240 8 INi ILTRATIOWINFLOW 225 375 3 100 100 60 360 0560 1 6600 9 TAPS AND FIELD EQUIP 37 43 44 48 4E 10 LA90RATORYIMPROVEMENTS 82 241 r5 47 e7 333 { II 0 0 0 0 0 12 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 32 0 13 OFFICE FURNITURUOUIPMENT 3 3 0 30 14 MISCELLANEOUS 11 2 2 2 6 e 22 is » 0 10 16 STATE HIGHWAY RELOCATIONS 816 236 72 ~ 0 0 1,001 TOTALS; Q~_ -46 29~_.__3~ 930 f8 088 ~Q.QN2~ ~0.~1 e • '~GROUP A$$IGNMENT (GA)'41N9ERS ua usod forld•ntMooHon of CIPPro Ncla by major em" of oVo*" m cp i • („1 e e 0 1996-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WASTE WATERUTILITIES- TOTAL TOTAL fOTAI PROJECT CITY BOND CURRONT CITY AID -•IN FISCALYR , NUMBER GA PROJECT NAME,_ _COST _ FUND _ REVENUE FUNDINR gCLM- R _ COBT _ 96-"451 -01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENTIFU!IN TURE 60 62 $2 60 - 62 TOTAL 1995-98 WASiPATERAOMIN, $0 62 62 60 $2 96-0470-01 1 (H) FENCING $0 616 $16 $0 616 96-0470-02 3 (R) LIFT STATION RENOVA110N 60 620 $20 $0 $20 96-0470-03 3 (T) LIFT STATION SCADA 60 628 $28 60 628 96-0470-04 1 (I) COVERED SERVICE VEHICLE PARKING $65 60 $65 $0 665 96-0470-05 t (I) TREATMENT PAVED ROAD $30 $0 630 $0 $30 96 -0470--06 I (S) LAND PURCHASE $250 $0 6250 $0 $260 96-0470-07 1 (S) ALGAE SWEEP $0 620 $9.0 $0 $20 96-0470-08 12 (R) COMPUTER UPGRADE $0 616 $15 $0 $16 96-0470-09 ;3 (R) OFFICE FURNITURE $0 $1 $1 $0 $1 9G-0470- 10 1 (R) FIBERGLASS DOORS/FRAMES $0 $E $0 68 I 96-0470- 11 14 (R) RADIO EQUIPMENT _ $0 $3 $3 _ $0 $3 TOTAL 1995-96 WATER RECLAMATION $346 610E $453 $0 $453 96-0471 --01 7 (G) OVERSIZE SEWER LINES 6100 60 $100 $0 $100 96-0471 -02 13 (R) OFFICE FURNITURE AND MACHINES $0 61 $1 $0 $1 96-0471 -03 9 (G) SEWER TAPS $0 60 $0 $32 $32 96-0471 - 04 6 (G) DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWER LINES $0 6250 $250 $0 6260 e 96--0471 -05 4 (R) (1996) UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR AND INFLOW CORRECTION 6820 60 $70 $70 60 %70 ' 96-0471 - 06 6 (1) INFILTRATION INFLOW CORRECTION INVESTIGATION $225 60 $226 60 $226 ,I 96-0471- 06 5 (R) FIELD SERVICE. SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT 60 $60 $50 60 $50 i 96 -0471- 09 5 (R) MANHOLE INSTALLATION $0 66E $88 60 $66 96- 0471 - 10 5 (R) REPLACE SEWER LINES - ROBINWOOD AREA 6160 60 $12 612 612 3 (1) COOPER CREEK LIFT STATION $4,476 6278 60 $275 $0 $276 98 0471-11 96 -0471 -12, 3 (1) DENTON WEST FORCE MAIN 6362 $45 W $45 W $46 ' 96- 0471-- 13 9 (S) MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT $0 620 $20 $0 $20 (3 96-0471G02 5 (R)(1995)HICKORY CREEK INTERCEPTOR CREEK CROSSING 6426 60 1100 $400 f0 $400 , • 96- 0471 G05 4 (1) COOPER CREEK UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR 6 I/I CORRECTION $526 60 $526 $0 $526 96-0471G08 3 (1) BARROW LIFT STATION $200 $180 60 61T 6o 6160 PO-0471 G 10 5 (R) REPLACE SEWERLINE - HOUSTON PLACE AREA $113 60 $384 6384 60 6364 96--0471rd11 15 (R) HWY 360 SEWER LINE RELOCATION 6892$616$06616 60$816 TOTAL 1995-96 SEWER COLLECTION 67,737 62,145 $1,263 $3,238 $32 63,430 S' K iA !1 A A 1 1 R I I I I ! } A" A ' ' ~ ''y' 91! • I- ~ • s i r r t i r r_ a W s a rels `I 1996-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WASTE WATER UTILITIES r - - TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL: PROJECT CITY BOND CURRErIT CITY AID-IN FISCALYR 7 NUMBER._ CIA PROJECT NAME COST FUND REVBNU$ FUNDING CONSTR COSY 98-0472-01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT $0 15 $8 r ' 98-0472-02 13 (R) OFFICE EOUIPMENT& FURNITURE $0 32 ` 30 $2 96-0472-03 14 (R) SEWER VIDEO CAMERA CRAWLER 30 $13 $13 30 313 96-0472-04 12 M COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $12 312 ~ $12 TOTA'.1995-90 WASTEWATERENOINEERING 30 $32 f32 30 $32 96-0481-01 10 (R) LABORATORY RENOVATION $0 $12 $12 80 $12 96-0481 -02 12 (T) DIV INFORMATION MGMT SYSTEM 96-0481-03 14 (S) WATERSHED MONITORING EQUIP $0 s $3 $3 $0 4 96-0481-04 10 (R) TRAINING FACILITY $40 $0 - W TOTAL 1995-96 WASTEWATER LABORATORY 340 $21 $81 _$0 $01 96-0483-01 13 (0) OFFICE ECUIPMENT/F WTURE $0 38 $8 10 IS 96-0483-02 12 (T) DIV INFORMATION MOMT SYSTEM y so $2 $2 $0 $2 96-0483-03 10 (S) REMOTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT $0 $10 310 30 310 96-0483-04 14 (1) ALL TERRAINVEHICLEJTFWLER ~7 TOTAL 1995-98 PRETREATMENT $0 $24 321 $0 $24 TOTAL 1996-90 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT x,630 $1,410 33,810 $32 $4,002 i • i. ' • 1 rf V • • • i , N 1 q 1996-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WASTE WATER UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT CITY BOND CURRENT CITY AID-IN FISCAL Y NUMBER GA PROJECT NAME COST FUND REVENUE FUNDING CONSTR _COST _ 97-0451 -01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENTIFURNITURE ~_----s~-------- =1 50E1 TOTAL 1008-97 WASTEWATERADMIN. $0 $I - $1 ~ Si 97- 0470 -01 1 (R) FENCING $0 $20 $20 s0 $20 97-0470-02 3 (R) LIFT STATION RENOVATION $0 $5 m $0 $6 97-0470-03 3 (T) LIFT STATION SCADA $0 $20 $20 s0 $20 97-0470-04 1 (G) BENEFICIAL SLUDGE REUSE $400 $0 $400 W $400 97-0470-05 1 (5) ALGAE SWEEP s0 $22 $22 $0 $22 97-0470105 2 (S) WWTP UPGRADE - 21 MGD $13,040 _ o _$200 TOTAL 1996-97 WATER RECLAMATION $M7__-_ s0 $687 97-0471 -01 7 (G) OVERSIZE SEWERUNES $100 s0 $100 $0 $100 97-0471-03 0 (G) SEWER TAPS s0 $0 $0 $38 $38 97-0471-04 0 (G) DEVELOPMENT PLANS6-WERUNES $0 $250 $260 $0 $260 97-0471-05 4 (G) (1997) UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR & IN CORRECTION $660 $0 s60 $60 $0 $60 97-0471-06 B (1) INFILTRATION INFLOW CORRECTION INVESTIGATION $226 s0 $226 s0 $228 j 97 -0471 -07 8 (R) MANHOLE REHABILITATION $0 $160 $160 $0 $160 97 -0471 -p8 5 (R) FIELD SERVICE SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT $0 $50 $50 $0 $50 97-0471-09 5 (R) MANHOLE INSTALLATION s0 $66 $06 s0 $40 07 -0471-10 5 (R) (1977) REPLACE SEWER LINES $330 $0 $30 $30 s0 $30 97-0471 - 13 15 (R) FORT WORTH DRIVE SEWERUNE RELOCATION $236 $0 $236 s0 $234 97--0471H05 4 (J) IM UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR&1/1 CORRECTION $820 s0 $750 $760 s0 $760 97-0471H10 5 (R)(1996) REPLACE SEWERLINE - ROBINWOODAREA $160 $0 $140 $148 $0 $144 97-04711111 3 (1) COOPER GREEK LIFT STATION • 97-0471H12 3 (1) DENTON WEST FORCE MAIN $362 352 $2,100 $0 $2'100 $0 $2,100 $6397 _ TOTAL 1998 -97 SEWER COLLECTION $2,08a-~- =1,191 ---t4 67 S4 6007 I 97-0472-01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT s0 s8 97-0472-02 13 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENT & FURNITURE $0 $1 $1 $0 $1 97-0472-03 (A)SEWERVIOEOCAMERA $1 $0 $1 1 TOTAL 1998-97 WASTEWATER ENGINEERING 10----- - $12 $12 , s0 $12 to t1a s1e so $te s) 97-0481 -01 10 (T) GAS CHROMATOGRAPH/MASS SPEC • $$0 84 so 97-048t--p2 14 (S) WATERSHED MONITORING $0 N 64 so 64 97-0481 -03 12 (T) DIV INFORMATION MGMT SYSTEM _SO $3 63 $0 $3 TOTAL 1998-97 WASTEWATER LABORATORY s64 $7 s42 $6 s42 97-0483-01 10 (S) SAMPLING EQUIPMENT s0 s10 $10 s0 $10 ~i 97-0483-02 10 (R) STORAGE BUILDING UPGRADE $10 1110 ___$0- $10 TOTAL 1998-97 PRETREATMENT - s0 $20 $20 s0 - $20 ] TOTAL 1096-97 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT ~ $3,823----- 11,407 $6,230 - -$98 $x,284 i I I I I i I I ! I i ~ ~ f • • • 1998-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WASTE WATER UTILITIES ,t TOTAL, TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT CITY BOND CURRENT CITY AID-ON FISCAL YR S NUMBER OA PROJECT NAME C087 FUND REYENUE FUNDING CONSTA „COBTEOUIP NTNUR 98-0451-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE TOTAL 1997{98 WAST IEWATERADMIN. -------$0 ---------$1 `f- $f =t . 98-0470-01 1 (R) FENCING $25 $0 $26 $26 $0 $26 98-0470-02 3 (R) LIFT STATION RENOVATION $p $3 $3 so 98-0470-03 3 (T) LIFT STATION SCADA $18 so $18 $15 $p $18 98-0470-05 1 (S)AL(GAESWEF.P $24 $0 $24 $24 $0 $24 'sy 98-0470105 2 (S) WWfP UPGRADE - 21 MOD $13.040 $840 $0 $840 =p TOTAL 1997-98 WATER RECLAMATION $13,1105840 570 5910 ~p t01p ' 98-0471-01 7 (0) OVERSIZE SEWERLINES $100 50 $100 $0 $100 I'1 98-0471 -03 9 (0) SEWER TAPS $0 $0 50 NO $ 0 98--0471 -04 8 (0) DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWERLINES $0 $280 $280 $0 $250 96-0471 - 05 4 (0) (1996) UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR& 1/1 CORRECTION $700 $0 $w $60 $0 $60 90-0471 -06 8 (1) INFILTRATION INFLOW CORRECTION INVESTIGATION $200 $0 t200 $0 $200 98-0471 -07 8 (R) MANHOLE REHABILITATION $0 $150 $160 ;D $160 98-0471 -08 5 (R) FIELD SERVICE SA N ITA RY SEWER RE^LACEMENT $p $50 $60 $0 $60 98-0471 -09 5 (R) MANHOLE INSTALLATION 50 $88 $88 50 508 ~ 98-0471 -10 5 (R) (1998) REPLACE SEWER LINES $330 $0 $30 $30 50 $30 96-0471H11 3 (1) COOPER CREEK LIFT STATION $4,478 $2100 $0 $2100 $0 $2106 98-0471105 4 (G) (1997) UPGRADE INTERCEPTORS 1/I CORRECTION $850 50 $WO $600 $0 $800 98-0471110 5 (R) (1997) REPLACE SEWER LINES 'OTAL 1997 -98 SEINER COLLECTION 5330 $2,4J0 so "m so "m $1 808 $3 908-$40 53,948 j • 98-0472-01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT $0 55 $8 50 98 1472 -02 13 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENT 8 FURNITURE ; $0 so TOTAL 1997-98 WASTEWATER ENGINEERING $0 0 $8 $e 50 - 58 ~i 98-0481-01 10 (R) LABORATORY RENOVATIONS $0 $2 $2 50 $2i. 98-0481 -02 10 (T) ANALYTICAL EQUIPMENT UPGRADE $0 $12 $12 $0 $12 98--0481 -0j 12 (T) DIV INFORMATION MGMT SYSTEM $0 $3 63 W $3 d 98-0481-04 10 (N) CHEMICAL CABINETS $0 84 $4 $0 $4 98-0481 --05 14 (R) LABORATORY EQUIPMENT $17 W $17 " o to $17 98-0481 -08 10 (R) UR RENOVATION $0_- _ _ $12 $12 $0 ~j2 ily TOTAL 1997-96 WASTEWATER LABORATORY $17 $33 - $80 - $p $80 98-0483-01 10 (T) DIV INFORMATION MGMT SYSTEM $0 $3 $3 $0 83 98 -0483-02 10 (S) REMOTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT $0 $10 $10 W $10 98-0483-03 10 (R) SAMPLING EQUIPMENT $0 _ t4-'~ TOTAL 1997-96 PRETREATMENT - $0 $17 t17 i0 $17 } w TOTAL IW7-98 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT $3,267 =i,893 ${,B9p ``4p- - H,930 r ; e Q • • V Y h f r 1998-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WASTE WATER UTILITIES TOTAL TOTAL T TOTAL PROJECT CITY BOND CURRENT CITY AID-IN FISCAL YR NUMBER OA PROJECT NAME FUND REVENUE ~UNbINa CONSTR COST 09-0451-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT)FURNITURE $0 TOTAL 1998-99 WASTEWATER ADMIN. - - $0 0 $1 $ it S1 $0 t1 99--0470-01 1 (R) FENCING $0 $30 $30 $0 $30 99-0470-02 3 (T) LIFT STATION SCADA $0 $22 $22 $0 $22 99--0470-03 1 (NJ SAMPLERS $0 $5 so $S 90-0470-04 1 (8) ALGAE SWEEP so $26 so $2e 99-0470105 2 (S) WWTP UPGRADE 21 MGD $13,040 _ $8,000 $0 $6000 $0 TOTAL 1998-99 WATER RECLAMATION 56,000 $83 $B,OCi $0 $b,083 99-0471-01 7 (G) OVERSIZE SEWERUNES $100 $0 $100 $0 $t00 99-0471-03 9 (G) SEWER TAPS $0 $0 $0 $43 $43 99-0471 -04 6 (0) DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWERLINES $0 $260 $250 W $260 99-0471-05 4 (1) (1999) UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR d IA CORRECTION $700 $60 $0 $80 $0 $80 99-0471 -08 8 (1) INFILTRATION INFLOW CORRECTION INVESTIGATION $200 $0 $200 $0 $200 99-0471 -07 8 (R) MANHOLE REHABILITATION so $160 $160 $0 $150 99-0471-08 5 (R) FIELD SERVICE SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT $0 $80 $60 $0 $60 99-0471-09 6 (R) MANHOLE INSTALLATION $0 89 -0471 -10 5 (R) (1999) REPLACE SEWER LINES $w $0 s w $$30 $0 $~90 99-0471J05 4 (0) (1998) UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR R III CORRECTION $700 $0 $640 $840 $0 $840 99-0471JI0 5 (R) (1998) REPLACE SEWER LINES X30 $0 $ MIX so $300 1. TOTAL 1998-99 SEWER COLLECTION - $380 - $1,468 $1,646 - - $43 $1,880 • 99-0472--01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT $0 $6 99-0472-02 13 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENT3FURNITURE $0 TOTAL 1998-99 WASTEWATER ENGINEERING jp - ~ =1 $6 $0 $8 99-0481-01 10 (T) ICP EMISSION SPECTROMETER $72 f0 _~72 10 $72_ ) TOTAL 1996-99 WASTEWATER LABORATORY t72 W =72 $p -=72 99-0463-01 10 (T) ICP EMISSION SPECTROMETER i16 _ $0 N6 • TOTAL 1998-99 WASTEWATER LABORATORY WASTEWATER LAI Sib $0 $18 $0 $15 e TOTAL 1098-90 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT $8,447 $8.0233 $43 $8,086 r a r f0 o • • li II{ II~ I. IN le 9 t NPN rN. pl A`'• lam. rv~. ,F. Ak f~W.IR~. 41 AW i C 1996-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN WASTE WATER UTILITIES TOTAL _ TOTAL - TOTAL PROJECT CITY BOND CURRENT CITY AID-1N FISCALYR NUMBER GA PROJECT FUND REVENUE FUNDING CONSTR COST_ 00-0451-01 13 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EOUJPMENTI:URNITURE t0 $1 $f $O tf `z TOTAL1998-200pWASTEWATER ADMiN, _--=0 ' $1 --61 - $0 --^$1 00-0479-J1 1 FENCING 00-0470-02 3 LIFT STATION RENOVATION $0 $0 $30 t0 $30 $4 so 64 00-0470-03 3 (T) LIFT STATION SCADA i0 $19 $ P $0 $19 00-0470-04 1 (6) ALGAE SWEEP $0 $28 $0 $26 S OD-0470:05 2 WWTP UPGRADE - 21 MGD $13.040 TOTAL 1998 -2000 WATER RECLAMATION li6,000 $g1 ".081 $0 $8061 00-0471--01 7 (G) OVERSIZE SEWER LINES $100 t0 $100 t0 $100 00-0471-03 9 (G) SEWER TAPS $0 $0 $0 $43 $43 00-0471--04 6 (0) DEVELOPMENT PLAN SEWER LINES t0 $280 $m so $250 00-0471-05 4 (1) (2000) UPGRADE INTERCEPTOR & III CORRECTION $700 $60 t0 t60 $0 $60 00-0471-08 8 (1) INFILTRATION INFLOW CORRECTION INVESTIGATION $200 $0 $200 $0 $200 00-0471-07 8 (R) MANHOLE REHABILITATION $0 $150 $150 $0 $150 00-0471 -05 6 (R) FIEL D SERVICE SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT t0 $50 $50 $0 $50 00-0471-09 6 (1) MANHOLE INSTALLATIO J $0 $66 sm t0 the 00-0471 -10 5 (R) (1995) REPLACE SEWS LINES 00- 0471KOS 4 (1) 1909 UPGRADE INTECEPTORA III CORRECTION $700 $640 $$00 $6w0 $$00 $6400 1 JO-0471 K10 5 (R) (1999) REPLACE SEWER LINES 5330 _ $0 $300 $900 $0~_ - $300 TOTAL 1998-2000SEWER COLLECTION ^ tI,u10 $646 $1,846 $43 $1.869 • 00-0472-01 9 (S) FIELD EQUIPMENT S0 $5 $8 $0 $8 00-0472-02 1,1 (R) OFFICE EQUIPMENT d FURNITURE $0 _$1 $f $0 ;1 ' TOTAL 1998-2000WASTEWATERENGINEERINQ $0--'- tb -$5 i0 - - $b 00 -0481-01 10 (T) DIV INFORMATION MGMT SYSTEM $0 $2 $2 $0 $2 00-0481 -02 10 (7) LIQUID CHROWNFRAREOSPEC t36 $0 $96 $0 $3A 00-0481 -03 14 (S) WATERSHED MONITORING $0 $10 t10 t0 $1 • 00-0461 -04 10 (R) LAB EOUIPMENT t0 $5 i6 " - $0 -ti-0 i0 0 0' I TOTAL 10%-2000 WASTEWATER LABORATORY t36 $17 $66 $0 $88 00-0483-01 10 (S) REMOTE MONITORING EQUIPMENT $0 $8 $6 $0 $6 00-0483-•02 10 (S) PRETREATMENT SAMPINGISAPETY EQUIPMENT W t9 M $0 $9 00-0483-03 13 (T) DIV INFORMATION MGMT SYSTEM $0 $3 $3 $0 $3 TOTAL 1998-2000 PRETREATMENT --$0 t20 t20 - $0 $20 TOTAL 1996-2000 WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT $7,036 W71 18,000 143 $6,062 1996-2000 WASTEWATER DEPTARTMENT GRAND TOTAL $22.006 --17,227 N --~20982 t30318 1 . aw t t. t t t t t t t t 76 .v 64 i 1 1 1 1 SOLID WASTE I t f 1 ' 1 1 77 0 0 i i r i_ 3 { ; 1 a y I e . y i 4 t ~I 78 . '..i I. .y 1996 - 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CASH REQUIREMENTS SOLD WASTE X 1000) GROUP - - ASSIGNMENT PEARS NUMBERS - GA"" _CATEGORY 1606 - 1G97' 1098 100p 2000 ---TOTAL 1 COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT 2 COMPUTER EQUIPMENT $9 0 $0 0 0 3 OFFICE SUPPORT EOUIPMENT 4 4 0 0 7 4 6 $24 3 4 0 0 p 0 0 $0 6 CONTAINER IMPROVEMENT61UPGRADES 6 30 28 30 0 $00 6 EXISTING LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION 730 0 0 0 0 $730 7 LANDFILL EXPANSION-PROPERTY 1,278 660 626 0 0 $2,463 6 LANDFILL EXPANSION-PERMITTING 0 0 0 0 0 $0 9 LANDFILL EXPANSION-CONSTRUCTION 3,131 0 0 1,660 0 µ 761 10 RECYCLING SITE ADDITIONS 0 0 0 0 0 $p 11 RECYCLING SITE IMPROVEMENTS 7 16 16 16 0 $62 12 RECYCUN3 EQUIPMENT 226 1,762 0 0 0 $2,007 13 MISCELLANEOUS 43 0 TOTALS; __~11 12.387__ 1676 t160p i 7 ® "GROUP ASSIGNMENT (GA) NUMBERS u1 uHd la idamNOaWn of CIP Pro;aob by ma)a od" of *Vomo, i i , I . il l s V ID . A Y'. • • • o 0 c 1996--2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOLID WASTE TOTAL TOTAL CTOTAL PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT GTY AIO-IN FISCALYR NUMBER GA PROJECT NAME COST FUND REVENUE FUNDING CONSTfl OST 96-0600-01 11 (R)MISCEL.OFFICE SUPP(NiTEOUIPMENT 62 52 $0$2 TOTAL 1696-9e SW ADMINISTRATION $O 62 $2 60 62 , 96-0801 -02 1 (N) rELLULAR TELEPHONE 60 $4 64 60 $4 96--0801-03 11 (R) PERSONAL COMPUTER AND PRINTER $0 $3 63 60 63 96-0801-04 2 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT $2_$2 so E2 TOTAL 1995-96 SW RESIDENTIAL $0 $0 60 50 by 't 96-0002- 01 5 (I) DUMPSTER SCREENING 50 66 66 W $5 96--0002-02 11 (R) FURNITURE AND FIXTURES 60 62~ _ $2 60 - 62 96--0802-04 13 (R) RENOVATE COMMERCIAL OFFICE 60 $13 613 So 913 ~TOTAL 1995-96 SW COMMERCIAL $0 620 620 50 620 ) 96-0803-01 3 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT 60 $2 92 90 42 96-0803-02 6 (S) LANDFILL DRAINAGE SYSTEM $0 630 630 9o 930 96-0803-03 1 (1) RADIO EQUIPMENT 90 62 92 90 62 96-0003-04 13 (1) REPAVE LANDFILL ROAD 60 630 930 t0 530 i 96-0803--05 2 (N) FAX MACHINE AND COPIER 90 93 93 f0 63 96-0803--06 2 (N) PERSONAL COMPUTER AND PRINTER 60 63 63 60 $3 96-0803H07 12 (N) INTERDEDIATE PROCESSING CENTER 6200 90 6200 Sa 6200 4 • 96 0603-08 9 (GI LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION 3,131 0 3,131 0 31131 96-0803-09 d ;3) METHANE COLLECTION SYSTEM 700 0 700 0 700 96-080JE12 7 (G) PROPERTY ACQUISITION FOR LANDFILL 62,700 1,07E 0 1,076 0 1,076 96-0803--12 7 (0) COMMUNICATIONS TOWER _ 200 0 200 _ 0 200 TOTAL 1995-96 SW DISPOSAL $8,309 _ 670 65,379 90 66,379 96-0804-01 12 (G) ADDITIONAL RECYCLING SITE 90 526 626 $0 925 ,x • 96-0804-02 3 (R)MISCEL.OFFICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 60 62 J TOTAL 1995-96 SW RECYCUNG 90 927 927 90 627 TOTAL 1995-68 SOLID WASTE 96,306 $126 95,437 60 95,437 i • o • a► • • 1998-•2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOLID WASTE _ TOTAL ---TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT CITY A10-IN FISCALYR c lY918E1R__-oA PgOJECTNAME COST FUND ,gHyENUE fl1NAINCi CONBTR COST. ¢7-0800-61 3 (A)MISCELOFFICE SUPPORTEQUIPMENT 80 fS___ $1 _ $0 TOTAL 1908-97 SW ADMINISTRATION --;p $1 61 $0 - $1 yr' 97-0801-02 3 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT _ 80 62 $o S2 TOTAL 1998-97 SW RESIDENTIAL $0 $2 - $2 10 $2 97-0802-01 5 (R) MISCELLANEOUS DUMPOYERS $0 820 $20 $0 X20 97-0802-02 3 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICF EQUIPMENT $0 $1 $1 80 L7 97-0802-03 5 (1) DUMPSTER SCREENING 0 10 10 _ 0 10 10TAL 1998 -97 SW COMMERCIAL $0 - $31 $31 $0 $31 ' 07-D803-O1 13 (J) MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 80 $6 $0 97-0803-02 7 (1) COMMUNICATIONS TOWER $176 $0 8175 $0 $175 97-0803H07 12 (G) INTERMEDIATE PROCESSING CENTER $1,782 $1,762 $0 $1,762 $0 $1,782 97-0803-00 7 (0) PROPERTYACOUISITION FOR LANDFILL 8376_ TOTAL 1998-07 SW DISPOSAL -$2392 $2,39$ $0 $2,33$ 97-0804-01 11 (I) RECYCLING SITE IMPROVEMENTS $0 81$ $1$ i0 _W TOTAL 1906-97 SW RECYCLING $0 $16 N6 $0 t16 • TOTAL 1996-97 SOLID WASTE $2,392 $66$2.367 10~ $2,387 f 1 I co .ra~~....-..r.-.Ya... 1 s r.r.rrewu~ a rlA..... O • W • i co N ~y 'a 1998-2090 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN S-OLID WASTE TOTAL TOTAL TOI PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT CITY AID-IN F16OALYR rNUMBERGA_ PROJECT NAME COST FUND REVENUE FUNDING CONSWR~_~OST 98-6a0-Ot 3 (R) MISCEL OFFICE SUPPORT EOUIPMENT $1 f1____^ $0 $1 TOTAL 1997-98 SW ADMINISTRATION SO $1 $1 $0 $1 98-0801-01 3 (R) MISC ELLA NEOUS OFPCE EGUIPMENT IC 63 63 $0 $3 98-0801-02 13 (R) STEAM CLEAN E.R/POWER WASHER $4 Lo____ TOTAL 1997-95 SW RESIDENTIAL i0 $7 $7 $0 $7 98-0802-01 5 (R) MISCELLANEOUS DUMPSTERS $0 $20 $20 $O $20 98-0802-C2 3 (R) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 1 1 0 1 98-0802-03 5 (f) DUMPSTER SCREENING 0 8 6 0 _5 TOTAL 1997-96 SW COMMERCIAL 60 $26 $26 $0 $26 98-0803-04 3 (p MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EOUIPMENTJFURNITURE $0 $2 $2 LO $2 98-0803-09 7 (E) LANDFILL EXPANSION $826 $0 --_-$625 $0 TOTAL 1997-96 SW DISPCQAL $626 62 $627 t0 $627 98-OOC1-01 11 (f) RECYCLING SITE IMPROVEMENTS 1A $16 $16 $0$15 TOTAL 1997-98 SW RECYCLING $0 $16 $16 $0 $16 TOTAL 1997-98 SOLID WASTE $625 $61 $876 $0=-~ $676 t ti a ~ F ~ ~ ~ rt ~ ~ r r I ir r t 1 r~ e r i~ I ~ r~ i I • d • s • • 1898-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOLID WASTE. TOTAL ~ TOTAL _ TOTAL [N~LIMBER OJECT PROJECT "D CURREMT CITY AID-IN FTSCALYR _ G A PROJECT NAME COSt FUlJD 6YENUE ,FUNDINq C06T 99-0601-01 3 (1) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EQUIPMENT/FURNITURE 2 2 0 2 TOTAL 1998-99 SW RESIDENTIAL i0 62 $2 $0- 99-0902-01 6 (1) DUMPS TER SCREENING 0 10 10 0 10 99-0602- 02 b (R) MISCELLANEOUS DUMPSTERS 0 _ 20 20 0 20 TOTAL 1996-99 SW COMMERCIAL - $0 $30 $30 $0 ~$30 99-0603-01 3 (I) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPORT EOUIPMENT $0 $2 $2 $0 $2 99-0603•-08 9 0) LANDFILL CONSTRUCTION $1660 so & TOTAL 1996--99 SW DISPOSAL $1,660 62 $1,662 $0 $1,662 99-0,U4-01 11 (I) RECYCLING SITE IMPROVEMENTS $0 $16 $16 $O $16 TOTAL 1999-99 SW RECYCLING ~ $0 $16 $16 $0 V $16 TOTAL1998-99 SOLIDWASTE CAW 1149 $1,669 to $1,699 • J m w • c► • • a 1996-2DOO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SOLID WASTE mm TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL PROJECT PROJECT BOND CURRENT CITY AID-IN PSCALYFt COST OWTH NUMBER GA F.90JECT_NAME COOT FUND R UB FUNDING 00-0001 -01 3 (1) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE EOUIPMENTIFURNITURE 0 $2 9 62 TOTAL IM-2000 SW RESIDENTIAL $0 $2 $2 d0 62 00-•0003-•01 3 (1) MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT $3 $0 TOTAL 1048-2000 SW DISPOSAL to $3 63 $0 $3 TOTAL 1848.2000 SOLID WASTE SO $5 $5 J 110 $5 1480-2000 SOLID WASTE GRAND TOTAL $0.910 t400 1110,204 i0^ $10,204 i i • • • d r r r r FLEET SERVICES r i ■ t r i r r ~r r r BS a; W i 'i i s i w d. i 3 s s i R i j 86 • w • • . r r r r. r r r er >r ar x arm a~~c s I ersi _r 1996 - 2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CASH REQUIREMEWS FLEET SERWOES (s x 1000) ASSIGNMENT 'YEARS NUMBERS GA" CATEGORY 1998 1997 1998 110"; 2000 , TOTAL 1 COMPUTER COUIPMENT $0 SID $0 11) $9 62 2 OFFICE SUPPORT EOUlPMENT 2 0 2 0 4 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 MISCELLANEOUS T OOLS AND EWIPMENT 21 2 10 11 16 60 6 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 4 22 6 0 0 32 6 FACtLf YIMPAOVEMENTS sir 600 3 0 0 662 TOTALS: 1121 tt1 i2~ 10T0 (4 i • ® 1• ..GROUP ASSIGNMENT (GA) NUMBERS we used 1d IdwdNlo&Wm of CIP Pro)oof4 by m4)or oNpay of 4YIP4r os, OD J i tr' co 1~. 1898-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN y FLEET SERVICES :y PROJECT 707AL^ - TOTAL ~ TOTAL t~ PROJECT BOND CURRENT CITY AID-IN OTHER PROJECT NUMSER CiAPRQ1E07'NhME U08T FUND gEVENUF? FUNbIN3 CONSTR CpgT 96-0580H01 6 (1) CONSTRUCT NEW FLEET SERVICE CENTER ~r0 9$0 $0 $60 $0 4 8-0580-02 4 (1) AIR IMPACT AND SPECIALTY TOOLS 63 0 3 t50 iF3 96-(Y80-03 4 (A)HYDRAULICFLOORJACK 3 0 0 3 96-0580-04 6 (R) HOIST W 0 3 3 0 0 3 96-0580-1.e 2 (G) OFFICE FURNITURE $2 0 8 98-0680-06 5 (G) SAFETY REQUIRED EQUIPMENT $6 $3 0 2 2 0 0 2 96-0560--07 4 (1) SPECIALTY TOOLS 0 3 3 p 0 3 3 $6 0 TOTAL 1986-98GARAGE -------8---- 0_ _0 i $73 i0 $23 3 - - b i $73 $0 iS0 i73 y 96-0581 -01 4 (1) PORTABLE STICK WELDER W $0 96-0581-02 4 (R) STEAM CLEANER oo so is 3 0 3 Y0 0 3 96-0581-03 5 (G) SAFETY REQUIRED EQU,OMENT 3 0 0 3 0 0 5 TOTAL 1906-96 MACHINE SHOP $10 i0 $10v NO $p-----f0 $10 06-0683,1 6 (1) PARTS ROOM RENOVATION $3 0 3 3 0 0 3 TOTAL i9%-OB PARTS R FUEL ~ _ ~ TOTAL 1098-98 FLEETSERVlCES - _ 03 $0 $36 we $0 sw = tee i i 97-0580MI 6 (I) CONSTRUCT NEW FLEET SERVICE CENTER $800 i0 I . 97-0680-02 4 (()AIR IMPACT TOOLS 2 0 2, $600 =0 yy00 2 97-0580-03 5 (8) EMISSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 0 0 22 p 2 TOTAL 1996-97 GARAGE ----22 22 p 0------ 22 $824 i0 $24 1824 LIO $600 $924 j 87-0581 -01 4 (R) CL1T OFF SAW $4 $0 97-0581--02 4 (R) WELDING EQUIPMENT $4 $0 $4 $D $4 j 3 0 3 3 0 -p 3 TO]'ALloge -07 MACHINE SHOP $7 $0 ----.--$7 e $7 $o $p p ~ TOTAL 1996-07 FLEET8ERVICE8 i63t ` W _--t31 = 1 X000 $631 98-0580-01 4 (I) MISCELLANEOUS TOOLS $4 50 98-0580-02 2 (G) OFFICE FURNITURE 2 0 2 2 $2 i2 $0 $0 i2 98-0580-03 6 (G) SAFETY REQUIRED EQUIPMENT 0 0 2 TOTAL 1097-9a GARAGE 0 6 6 0 ~ $12 f0 ! ~ I I I I ) ) 1 ) { ill $12 >b $0~ R12 I II ~I i I) . . • W • • 1996-2000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FLEET SERVICES _ _.TOTAL ~ TOTAL ~ TOTAL [-PMUMBEn ROJECT PRQ)ECT BOND CURRENT CITY A*-IN OTHER PROJECT ' OA PROJECT NAME rCOST FUND REYENUB FUNDING CO4STR COBTL 96-0581 -01 4 (R) CHOP SAW 93 s0 $3 $.3 s0 $0 63 0-0581-02 4 (I) HAND TOOLS 30 3 30 0 3 TOTAL 1997-96 MACHINE SHOP is $0 i6 $6 s0 s0 >{6 98-0683-OI a (1) PARTS ROOM RENOVATION $3 0 3 3 0 0 _ 3 TOTAL 1997-98 PARTS & FUEL s0 s0 $3 $3 s0 soY -93 v. 7JTAL1997-98 FLEETSERVICES $1a i0 i21- ~ i21 f0 $0 $21 99-0080-01 4 (R)SPECIALTOOLS $3 s0 $3 $3 s0 $0 $3 99-0680--02 4 (1) TIRE CHANGE MACHINE 5~ 0 6 6 0 0 6+' - TOTAL 1996-99 GARAGE so so so - $8 $0 so-'- to 99-0581-01 4 (R) SPECIALTY TOOLS -u- $3 0 3 3 0 0 3 TOTAL 1996-99 MACHINE SHOP $0 --s0 - 63 - - $3 - $0 `---'yp TOTAL IM-99 FLEETSERVICES $a so $1t $11 __..---$0 so ---$11 . 00-0680-01 4 (R) TRANSMISSION JACK $6 ;0 s6 so s0 s0 $a 00--0580-02 4 (R) FLOORJACK HYDRAULICS a 0 a a 0 0 6 00-0680-03 2 (R) MASC. FURNITURE AND FIXTURES 2 0 2 _2 0 0 2 ~q TOTAL 1999-2000 GARAGE $14 $0 ---$14 $14 so-_ - s0 i11 l 00-066I -oI 4 (R) WIRE WELDER $3 $0 i3 s3 $0__ sp TOTAL 1999-2000 MACHINE SHOP $3 s0 $3 $3 $0 so 93 • 00-0583-01 1 (R) PERSONAL COMPUTER $2 $0 $2 92 s0 s0 52 00-0683-02 2 (RA) OFFICE FURNITURE 2 _ 0 2 _ 2 0 0 2 TOTAL 1990-2000 PARTS A FUEL 64~ s0 $4 i4 sp s0 64 i TOTAL 1900-2000 FILE ETSERVICES $21 $0 $21 i21 so s0 s21 TOTAL 1990-2000 GRAND TOTAL $061 s0 $120 $070 s0 Illm solo • 4 • w I I 00, ~A L~ (l 11 l fl • I IF 90 • I_ q i HANDOUTS TO COUNCIL 6/6/95 CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING o 215 E. WKINNEY • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 1917) 566.8200 • DFW METRO 434.2629 MEMORANDUM DATE: June 6, 1995 TO: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager FROM: Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer SUBJECT: MAY DELUNOUFNT TAX COLLECTION COMPARISON Attached please find a report compering the effectiveness of our delinquent tax collection attorneys for the past six years. The report has sections comparing base tax only, base tax with current penalty and interest, and base tax with total penalty and interest. As you are aware, our contract with the delinquent tax collection firm requires them to collect sixty (60%) percent of the amount of taxes submitted to { them annually. The year-to-date percentage collected, in the base tax category, can be used to monitor their progress, y If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. . 1 • ~F at Attacrtment AFFOOE45 _J "Dedicated to Quality Service" • • DELINQUENT TAX ATTORNEY COLLECTIONS FOR MAY BASE TAX ONLY vax Month Rbe'd Subm1#0!1R Mont r t~tlti' ` Y• D'lIJ~►t z, 'Jt-C=;p, Tax Ydtr By Flan FU.* Cotlecttoti E ; ~4U+6cliAllt ;taeraenf 1988 July 1989 $663.877 $ 20,015 $501,377 71.52% f. 1989 July 1990 $597,310 $ 4,600 $365,465 61.19% 1990 July 1991 $584,531 $ 35,464 $337,918 57.81% 1991 July 1992 $433,010 $ 4,522 $231,266 53.41% 1992 July 1993 $368,753 $ 14,789 $214,767 58.24% 1993 July 1994 $321,304 S 7,260 $197,722 61.54% BASE TAX WITH CURRENT P & I y 1300 6 Tat' MW,4* TO Y•C 'Pa>If Morub'd Subndtted to P'tik t" ; )p 15~ ' Y•'111` Tax Yeor By Ilan Mrm Coliectlo~ ~;11Mi>ce~tt 1988 July 1989 $663,877 $ 25,629 $605,490 91.21% 1989 July 1900 $597,310 $ 5,888 $435,963 72.99% 1990 July 1991 $584,531 $ 45,393 $407,164 69.66% 1991 July 1992 $433,010 $ 5,779 $286,462 66.16% 1992' July 1993 $368,753 S 18,887 $262,801 71.27% 1993 July 1994 $321,304 $ 9,717 $243,580 75.91% BASE TAX WITH TOTAL P & I Rase Tax Monthly Tai Y•T•U ratt Month Rec'd 5ubm4ted To ' At I P 1l•I=b Tax Year By Firm Firm X81,6410 ~ot{e~igq F#nptt • 1988 July 1989 $663,877 $ 28,710 $660,107 99.43% 1989 July 1990 $597,310 $ 6,738 $470,388 78.75% 1990 July 1991 $584,531 $ 55,471 $465,078 79.56% 1991 Jul), 1992 $433,010 $ 7,966 $316,026 72.98% ® 1992 July 1993 $368,753 $ 20,720 $341,619 92.64% 1993 July 1994 $321,304 $ 17,215 $278,881 86.80% ' figures include the joint collection efforts of McCreary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen P.C. and Blair, Goggan, Sampson, & Meeks, P.C. for the July, 1993 through December, 199+ period. When we entered into a contract with a new collection firm in 1993, state law gave the Incumbent collection firm six (6) months to collect taxes on all accounts which were under suit. AAA0247E s w • CITY CAF DENTIN Turnover /Collections Comparison Thousands BASE TAX ONLY $700 $600 $500- $400 \ $300 $200 f-- ---~-f $100 • $0 May 90 May 91 May 92 May 93 May 94o Mily 06 Month/Year • I Colfaotlons Turnover r • • •TA10 Ilpur• oonUlnat IAO oollwtlsna of loth 111 McCreary, Waalhs, Sapp A Allen, P.O. and o101r, 00941%, sompoon p Meeks, P.O. • Q • DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTION ATTORNEY Cumulative Percentages of Total Turnover BASE TAX ONLY 10090 i' - - - - - 80% \ \\I \ \ - 60% 40% \ \ { \ 20% ~ wx~ \ 09'0 - - -J May 90 May 91 May 92 May 93 May %14• May 96 Month/Year L p LM YTD Percent • • -Thla Figure oontalna Ina Oollaollons of both McCreary, VuUka, Brapp 4 Allan, P.C. and 9161r, Oooan, Sampson 1 Meeks, P.C. • 0 • w • CITY OF DENTON Turnover /Collections Comparison Thousands EASE TAX WITH CURRENT P & 1 $700 x+600 - $500 \ \ $400 $300 $200 $100 • $0 _ _------_-J May 9a May 91 May 92 May 93 May 04, May 96 Month/Year • - • Collections Turnover •Th11 IIOUf• oontmIn1 the ool f7otl0nl of both MoCrovy, V9181kk, Ory0 1 GIUn, P.C. emd alilf, 00116, DIm PA06 1 Molks, P.O. • A 0 DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTION ATTORNEY Cumulative Percentages of Total Turnover SASE TAX WITH CURRENT P & I 100% , , 80% - soy \ \ a096\\ \ \ \ \ 209'0 \ \ \ 096 - I May 90 May 91 May 92 May 93 May 94f May 9b Month/Year TD Peroanl •Thlf IlyU re OOn Hlnf Sh• o01U0110M Of h01h MoCropry. Vfnika, are Od 1 Allen, P.C. and Blair. Oodan, bun Pson { Mafka, P.C. as • CITY OF DENTON Turnover /Collections Comparison BASE TAX WITH TOTAL P & 1 Thousands $700 $600 _ - $500 \ $400 $30'J $200 $100 • $0 May 9a May 91 May 92 May 93 May 94• May 95 Month/Year ® L -I-o1leoHone Turnover r • ~ -Thla Ilyure contain@ the oollaotlona of both C l MoCraary. Vaaalka, araoo • Allan, P.C. and alai r, aoPah, 66M P40" a Maakl. P.O. e DELINQUENT TAX COLLECTION ATTORNEY Cumulative Percentages of Total Turnover BASE TAX WITH TOTAL P & I 10046 INN 40% 20% \ \ 0% May - - \ - - - 90 May 91 May 92 May 93 May 94• May 96 Month/Year 1 YTD Prraent -This flOure Conte In$ Ih• 00116011one Of both McCreary. V4401ke, Ill a Allen, P,6. and Ill Ooll a.AOeon A Meeks. P.C. • to • HANDOUTS TO COUNCIL 6/6/95 CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • 215 E MCKINNEY • DENTON, TEXAS 7620f (8 17) 566-82M • DFW METRO 4342529 MEMORANDUM DATE: June B, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Jon Fortune, Chief Finance Officer 6 SUBJECT: AD VALOREM TAX COLLECTION RATE The following is a summary of the city's tax collection rate as of September 30"', for the past six years. COLLECTION RATES OF CURRENT TAXES September 30, 1994 98.50% September 30, 1993 97.95% September 30, 1992 97.71% September 30, 1991 97,07% September 30, 1990 96.80% L September ,,^,U, 1989 97.11 % As you can see, the City's collection rate has improved over the past five years, which means that a smaller percentage base has been turned over to the delinquent tax collection attorney each year. I hope this information is helpful as you choose a delinquent tax collection firm. If you • A o have any questions, please advise. J F. of AFFOOE87 "Dedicated to Quallry Service" • s '.i i ~n I` ~I ~ ~I I i i i t i ' t i I •I i I JI 1 . 4 { Fil