HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-08-1980
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL OF T[IF. CITY OF DEN':ON
July 8, 1980
BROADCAST LIVE ON KNTU RADIO
JOINT MEETING OF THd CIT1 COUNCIL AND THE
ASR RT_AD S R B D
Special Called Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Airport
Advisory Board at 7100 P.M.$ Tuesday, Julyy 8, 1980 in the
Council Chambars of the Municipal Buiiding at which
i following items of business will be discussed, y
1. General discussion on the Denton Municipal Airport.
Y
h A
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
1, Approval of a contract with LWFW to conduct a review of j
the data processing financial applications.
2. Adoption of an crdinance providing for the continuance of
Ad Valorem Taxation on all automobiles.
for the McKinney Street selection BridgR projectngineering
3, sultart Recomendation
cn
4. Stofus report on the proposed animal control ordinance.
5, approval of an agreement with Golden Triangle Mall to
refund any excess funds for the Texas U-Turn construction
at Loop 288 and I-35.
6, Executive 3essiont
i
A, Legal Matters - Under sec. 2(e)► Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S.
Art. 6252-17 V.A.T.S.
B. Real Estate - Under Sec. 2{E},
C. Personnel - Under Sec. 2(g), Art, 6252-17 V,A.T,S, }
}
~
D. Board Appointments - Under 5eo. 2(g)► Art, 6256-17
V.A.T.S.
t 9
7. Consider Board Appointments
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
T03 H,ayor 6 Members of the City Council
FROMt Bill Angelo, Administrative Assistant g
e
DATEi July 3, 1980
SUBJECTc Joint Meeting of the Council and Airport Board
I
Per your request, we have scheduled a joint meeting with the
Airport Advisory Board for 700 P.M., July 8, 19306 I am
currently preparing a packet of information relatf.ng to the
history of the Airport and highlighting the various contract
documents. This packet will be delivered to you on Monday
morning.
I
i
E
Q
till Ange o
BAijm #
i i
j I
II
1
i
E
~I
I
i
e
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TOs Chris Hartung, City Manager
FROM: Bill McNary, Finance Director
DATES July 2, 1980
SUBJECT: Approval of a Contract with LWFW for Review of s
Data Processing Applications
Included on the Agenda for City Council consideration on July
8th is an item requesting approval of a contract with LWFW, Inc.
for a review of the City's data processing applications. The
proposal which has been selected was provided in response to the
Request for Proposal previously submitted to the City Council
and approved. LWFW has proposed a review of the financial
applications of the City for a professional fee of $35,000 and
expenses not to exceed $2,500. The proposal additionally
j includes a review, for $7,000, of other data processing
applications for the purpose of providing management Information
and assisting the City in beginning a comprehensive data
processing planning process. }
BACKGROUND r
d
On June 30 1980, tha City Council approved a Request for a
Proposal to be issued for reviewing data processing financial ;
applications. This request had been developed in response to a
recommendation by Alexander Grant and Company, the City's
auditors, and in response to the need to revise many of the
k City's current financial applications, The staff worked with
the Data Processing Citizens Advisory Board from the inception i
of this project to formulate this approach.
EVALUP.TION
In response to issuing the request for proposal, the City
received 8 proposals from firms interested in assisting the City c
in this review. The proposals were submitted to an intensive
review by a six member committee composed of a member of the
Data Processing Citizens Advisory Board► the City Manager, the
Assistant City Manager, the Director of Data Proceeding, the
Director of Utilitles► and the Director of finance. a
y
idAMrfrw,,,.,.....,:.,,-...._.___, ..............,.-..«..,«,.....,..........«..,.~.,.w,...,,,...................,.,«........,.,.~.......w...«mrs~eyl')ypilAlK~.
I
Chris Hartung
July 2, 1980
Page Two
From the eight proposa;s submitted, the Committee requested
three firms to make further oral presentations. As a result of
i these presentations, LWFW was selected as the firm to perform
I the project.
Included in their approach, LWFW proposes to include a review of ±
the management information requirements of the City and the
means by which it can obtain that information through the use of
data processing. Although this effort was not included within
the scope of the original RFP, it was determined that the review
would be appropriate and desirable. The most efficient means of
accomplishing this task would be to incorporate it within the
.,.,iew of the financial system.
a
j RECOMMENDATION
1 f
This proposal has been approved by the Data Processing Citizens
Advisory Board and submitted for city Council review and
approval.
I will be happy to answer any questions that may arise
concerning the specifics of the evaluation. The members of the
firm will be available to explain any questions that may arise
about their proposal.
r
BILL MCNary
Director of Finance
BMcNtjm
i ~
J
{
I
NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF 013NTON9 TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR • THE
CONTINUANCE OF AD VALOREM TAXATION ON ALL AUTOMOBILES THAT A FAMILY
UR INDIVIDUAL OWNS AND DOES NOT HOLD OR USE FOR PRODUCTION OF
INCOME; AND PROVIDING AN T;FFECTIVF: DATE,
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature has passed H.B. 1060 which
includes the comprehensive implementation of the 1978 "Tax Relief
Amendment" approved by Texas voters in November of 1978; and
111]rRL'AS, the provisions of Article 5 of H. B. 1050 permit the
governing body of a taxing unit to continue the ad VAlorom taxation
of all automobiles, as defined by Section 2, Uniform Act Regulating
Traffic on Highways, as am..fnded (Article 6701d, V.A,T.S,), that a
family or individual owns'and does not hold or use for production of
income; and
i
WHEREAS, the City of• Denton, Texas presently taxes all such
automobiles within its corporate limits; and
1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas after
careful consideration of the matter has determined that 'the bity of
Denton should continue to carry all such automobiles on its tax
rolls for the 1980 tax year as allowed by Article 5 of II.B. 1060
(Section 25, Property Tax Code V.A.T.S.);
NOW, 'HEREFORD, THE CITY COUNCIL DF 4115 CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS,
HEREBY ORDAINS: 3
SECTION 1.
That the exemption from ad valorem-taxation on all automobiles
that a family or individual owns and does not hold or use for
production of income provided for under Article 5 of H. B, 1060
(Section 25, Property Tax Code V.A.T.S,) shall not apply to the City i
of Denton, Texas Tax Rolls for the 1980 tax year. 1
f SECTION III ~
That the City of Denton, Texas shall continue an ad Y610'rem tax
1 for the 1980 tax year on all automobiles within Its co orate limits
that a family or individual owns and does not ho ff or u5o for
production of Income.
SECTION III. I
That due to the importance of this legislation and the deadline {
for passage imposed by the Act creates an emergency In the
preservation of the public health, safety and welfare, and it
.requires that this ordinance shalt tako effect Immediately from and
after its passage, as the law in such cases provide.
t
PASSED AND APPROVED this the _ day of A., D. {
1880. ~ ~ '
CITY OF DENTON, TEX'3
S
AT I'GST.-
r
+n.r ~'uMrrrh~wn ..i WfYW J1YM:.Ir'.M.M•nllRfll•NYkNLIV.Y.f,•fi.:rvNn.NAiwo^••.w w.s ...i.rnrY M~V~j~>M•n a"
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
;i
DATE OF MEETING: Jul '17 9 8a
CITY COUNCIL AVENDA ITEM (USE EXACT WORDING AS ITEN IS TO BE PLACED ON ACEND
Receive a recommendation for the selection of a consultant for the McKinney
Street Bridge Design.
SUnLAR1t
Staff received 12 Proposals from our initial RFP mailout• red
to 5 firms that were interviewed on dune 26, Staff then revie~edwa)1 comments'
and recommends Rady 3 Associates.
41
FISCAL SU4%XkRYt
Staff has made a recommendation to you on the form of the contract. Na would
f bring this back re you with a total estimated cost for your revlew a»d apppro~al
in the nea future
r , Funds are availablq in the Capital Improvement Bond Fand.
' a
ACTION REQUIREDs
Council should select a consultant and authorize Staff to Proceed with contract
negotiations.
i ALTERNATIVES:
Council could choose a different consultant and authorize the staff to contract
i I negotiations
i
STAFF REC01MENDATIONS.-
Rady and Associates of Fort North,
Ea11IBITSS
I. MCmo to G. Chris Hartung
I1. Agreement
.~,mow.-.w..•--.:.•..-•......___. .._,,...__~_~_...__....~.m.~._._...,_~___,_ ._..__.,.«4,,. '
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
TO: G, Chris Hartung
FROM: Rick Svehla 'k
DATE: July 3, 1980
RE: Consider the recommendation of Rady b Associates as Consultants for
the McKinney Street Bridge Project
On June 26, the Engineering staff interviewed 5 consultants for the,
McKinney Street Bridge Design, These 5 were chosen from a total of 12
proposals that were received. The firms were Hogan b Razor and URS from
Dallas; Freese 6 Nichols and Rady and Associates from Ft. Worth; a.id
Schnell 6 Fields from Denton, All 5 firms made very good presentations
and I'm sure all 5 firms are all capable of doing a very good job for the y
City of Denton. The sele:tlon of one firm was very difficult, hrniever the
staff finally did choose a firm and will recommend Rady 6 Associates of Ft.
Worth for the bridge design work. The ,apabilities that helped us choose
Rady were the following:
1. The preliminary design approach that will look at all alternatives ;
from adding on to the existing bridge to building a completely new
structure.
j 2. Their hydraulic design capabilities and e.N 'ra drainage investigations. d`
3. Rady has assembled a bridge design team that will be ready to begin
i work immediately.
r
For these reasons, we would recommend that Rady be approved as the consulting
firm for design of the bridge. 3
In all of the interviews we discussed contracts and different ways for the s
consultants to charge for their services.
4 Staff would recommend that the preliminary investigations be funded on a hourly
$ rate times a multiplier with a not to exceed limit and then the actual bridge
design be awarded on a lump sum price. As mentioned, we have discussed this
with all the consultants and none of them had any difficulties with them.
hc v
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM
F
TOs Chris Hartung, City Manager
FROM.S King Cole, Asgistant City Manager
DATEt July 3, 1980
SUBJECTS Animal Control Ordinance
~ Tho staff was instructed by the Council to examine our existing
animal control ordinance We have pursued this in two ways. We
surveyed area cities to investigate and compare their ordinances
and procedures to our own. Secondly, we met with Interest
groups In the community to solicit input on proposed changes. o
Letters were sent to area veterinarians, physicians, kennel
owners, breeders and members of the Humane Society,
t
In contacting area cities we found that most were beginning to
~ realize the effect of the animal population by adopting more
stringent ordinances and becoming more involved in educating the
community about their responsibilities. 3
3
The staff then compiled a list of proposed changes from the
survey and other problems facing our City. This list was
presented to community interest groups and their comments were
j+ solicited. The minutes from those meetings are attached.
We would like to receive as much citizen input as possible on {
this ordinance. The next phase will be to set up a aeries of
{I t~t public hearings over the next few weeks.
i 3
King C Ie
KCtjm
Attachment
i
1
1. City Registration of Pets
Presently, the veterinarians in the city hold the
only identification and data on animals. The City has ro means
of data retrieval on pets except through the veterinarians. +
City registration provides centrality and a more direct approach 1
to identification of lost or stray animals, while at the same
time gives a better knowledge of the animal population.
2. Limitation on Pets Per Household
The limitation on the number of pets per household is 1
the
a policy that a number of cities have instiituteat. itSome of the
reasons these cities list for this policy
population explosion, allows those pets to receive more care,
and minimizes the chance of a neighborhood nuisance, (i.e.
cleanliness and noise).
i
3. Recognition of the Cat Population "
Historically, the cat population has t.,een the silent {
f pet in relation to the dog. However, cats can present the same
situations that dogs have. in terms of rabies alone, cats are }
potential carriers.
l 4. impoundment and Euthanasia Procedure:.
Presently, the animal control ordinanc4 states that
any animal in violation of the ordinance may be impounded. This
includes animals running at-large, not currently vaccinated, or
suspected of rabies.
Impounded large animals are held for three days and
if not claimed will be advertised for sale within ten days. All
E animals not sold will be painlessly elestroyed.
small animals are held at the animal shelter for
three been nthefpr cnot edureiasdestablished will be iby oordinanceainleesly.
j This has k
5. Graduated impoundment Fees
The present impoundment fee is five dollars ($5) per
day for the feeding of large animals any animal one dollar c)aninf
advertising each large animal.
species the impoundment fee is five ($5) and a feeding charge o '
one dollar. These fees were established in 1959.
The graduated fee is an increasing fine for each
offense within a t%elve month period.
M
M
6. Animal Adoption
At this time the City does not offer animals for
adoption. This practice was discontinued a number of years ago,
7. Handling of Exotic Animals
Exotic animals are considered to be undomesticated
animals that have a natural instinct for the wild. Example of
such animals include panthers and snakes, At this time, the
animal control ordinance has no provision for the keeping of
exotic pets.
8. Quarantine Procedures
If an animal is suspected of rabies, the ordinance
states that the animal is to be quarantined in a veterinary
establishment at the owner's expense. The animal must remain
confined for six (6) months or until the City Health Officer
approves release in writing. If after reasonable effort the
owner cannot be located, the animal will be humanely destroyed.
As of January 1 of this year, the State of Texas
passed a new house bill governing quarantine. These rules will
have to be incorporated into the animal control ordinance of
Denton.
I
9. Pet Nuisance
The present ordinance declares a nuisance as any
frequent or long continued noise that disturbs the comfort and
repose of any person of ordinary sensibilities in the immediate
vicinity. The ordinance does not address air pollution from
owners that do not clean and sa.iitize their pet's environment
and its effect on neighbors,
10, Jurisdiction of the Animal Control Officer
The ordinance does not address the jurisdiction of
the Animal control officer. The ordinance does define "at
large", but does not give the officer the right to enter the
premises of the owner. ?or instance, the animal that is lying i
in the front yard unleashed and not behind a wall of sufficient
containment.
I
i
7
' i
r
SPECIAL MEETING ON PROPOSED ANIMAL
CONTROL ORDINANCE
April 14, 1980
5c00 P.M. City Manager's Conference Room
i
PRESENT: Jim Baird, Debbie Shelton, King Cole and Margaret
Green
The representatives of the Humane Society were very much in
favor of City registration or animals. This is also endorsed by
the Humaae Society of the United States. Debbie Shelton stated
that the registration should be utilized in conjunction with the
impoundment fee.
The Humane Society has no position on the limitations of the
number of animals per household. However both members present
were opposed.
6 Baird and Shelton felt that cats need to be under the same
restrictions as dogs. They especially emphasized registration
and health requirements.
I ~
Shelton voiced opposition to the length of time between
impoundment and euthanasia. She felt that five days was much
better. This is also endorsed by HSUS. Both membare are also i
in favor of bottled carbon monoxide to euthanize animals.
The next item addressed was the graduated impoundment fee. ;
Baird and Shelton were in favor of the graduated fee and that it
4 be coupled with a fee reduction for spayed and neutered
animals. it was felt that this would foster proper animal care
and cut down on the incidence of unwanted stray animals. }
The Denton Humane Society is in favor of reinstituting animal `
adoption from the Animal Shelter. They are of the opinion that
it will reduce the number of animals euthanized. Also, they
j feel that It will promote the spaying and neutering of animals. 1
f Shelton and Baird feel that exotic animals should be prohibited
as pets. This is also endorsed by HSUS. However, they feel
that a grandfather clause should be allowed.
The representatives feel that the quarantine procedures are }
adequate coupled with the provisions in House Bill 1323.
r
Animal Control Ordinance Meeting
April 14, 1980
Page Two
The issue of pet i.ilsance was the next topic of discussion. t
Shelton felt that odir and cleanliness needed to be included a
under this section.
The group had no opinion on the jurisdiction of the animal
control ordinance.
Shelton and Baird indicated they would like to see more
enforcement on shall establishments, such as K-Mart, that sell
animals. Also they felt that the name "Animal ShRlter" was not x
appropriate because the City does not shelter animals.
Meeting adjourned at 6140 P.M.
t
i ~
j
'r
I r
r
i
i
i
1
SF
.r
b
. ~ws.+.v...r•a......~....e...........,..e•wrw.r.wrfi rw+.Ywwa.nw~rxN.MVTwkAtlNM1AYN'1~MMIS.+wMMMw.wur.a. ~'~••••w• ••~•-•••••^wy.w~~y~,~.
• fir:
i
!
ia9tyY~
I
i
SPECIAL MEETING ON PROPOSED
I ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
April 16, 1980
5,00 P.M. City Manager's Conference Room
I
! PRESENT, Dr. D. R. Dyal, George Schneider and Hargaret Green
i
On the issue of City registration of pets, Dr. Dyal and George
Schneider felt that City registration was very important.
However they felt that its effectiveness would only be realized
if linked with a graduated impoundment fee and proper
enforcement of the ordinance. No consensus was formed on the
method of registration.
'Item number two was a discussion of the limitation on the number
of pets per household. Both Dyal and Schneider felt that this
provision owners. might h p auso comet to that
would be met with other cities that have opposition
decision about the mean number of pets that & househo]d could
rationally care for. Dr. Dyal gave an example of one of his
client's that had twenty cats and that the client cared very
well for each animal. Both felt that this was a difficult item
for a city ordinance to deal with and that perhaps the health 1
office could probably handle it better.
George Schneider felt that cats needed to be included in every !
provision that dogs wet-0. Dr. Dyal stated that cats are not the
roamers that dogs are if properly cared or and spayed or
rabneed for cats ies potential. to be
neutered. recognized asoareedogs If onlyrforetheir the
Both Schneider and Dyal felt that the impoundment and euthanasia
procedures were more than adequate.
The group was very much in favor of the graduated impoundment
fees especially with a provision for a reduction in charge for
spayed and neutered animals, Dyal stated that animal ownership
is a privilege and not a right. Schneider felt that the
graduated impoundment fee would prove to be a deterrent to
owners that allow their animals to roam and therefore enforce
proper pet ownership. Both stated that this should be linked to
animal registration. Schneider stated that if an animal was
registered and impounded, the owner could be charged whether or
not the animal was claimed, because the City would have proof of
ownership.
a
, r
,
Animal Control Ordinance Meeting
April 16, 1980
Page Two
Schneider and Dyal were opposed to re-establishing animal
adoption. one reason was that people adopt animals only to save
them from death and then release the animal to roam. Another
reason was that the animal shelter should not be in the practice
of adoption because of the administrative cost and expertise
needed to find proper owners.
Both Schneider and Dyal felt that the quarantine procedures were a
fine as is. However, both voiced opposition to the home
quarantine adopted by the stete. They suggested the staff might
want to study the issue.
The issue of pet nuisance was discussed with no conclusion. It
was agreed that noise was a perception of each individual and
difficult to enforce.
Dr. Dyal and Mr. Schneider felt that the attorneys need to
establish the jurisdiction of the animal control officer. }
The closing made by Dr. Dyal and George Schneider were that
enforcement would be the key to a successful ordinance.
i
Meeting adjourned At 6:55 P.M.
i ,
i
j
i
r
1
{
i
I
I
~r
i
I SPECIAL MEETING ON PROPOSED
ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
April 17, 1980
300 P.M. City Manager's Conference Room
f
PRESENTe (City) Lil Davis, Tillman Uland, Rick Miller, King
Cole, Margaret Green, Burt Solomons, Howard Wattei
(County) Jim Legerri, Lorrie Knox
The representatives from the City and County felt that City
registration of animals was justifiable. Chief Miller felt that
it would provide a revenue source. King Cole stated that it
would not be done as a revenue source. The question came up as
to what use registration would have. Lil Davis felt it would
help the animal control division in identification of the
animals brought in. The County representatives felt it would
help in getting some indication of the animal population in the
City.
In the issue of the limitation of pets per household, Butt 1
Solomons felt that it should be a Council decision. The group
voiced no strong feelings pro or con.
In terms of recognizing the cat population, Lil Davis stated
that education was one of the best ways of handling cat owners.
It was the concensus of the group that cats have the same
enforcement policies as other animals.
The group felt that the impoundment and euthanasia procedures
were adequate.
The group was in favor of the graduated impoundment fee coupled
with a program for spaying and neutering animals. it was felt
to be a great deterrent. Solomona, although in favor, warned
against fees that were excessively high.
it was the concensus of the group that exotic animals he
I prohibited. Jim Legerri stated that for most exotic animals no
vaccines had been discovered and therefore these animals could
pose problems in terms of disease control. Also most exotic
animals are wild in nature and tend to attack even the owner.
The group felt that the quarantine procedures were adequate.
t
F,
q
}
i
Animal lontrol Ordinance Meeting
April 17, 1980
Page Two
Tho group was in agreement that the pet nuisance section should '
be revised. Rick Miller suggested that a petition of three
persons that lived or worked in close proximity of the pet owner
in question would help in identifying and eradicating the
problem. The group saw this as a viable solution to an
increasing complaint on noise as well as odor and health.
The jurisdiction of the animal control officer was discussed at
some length. Chief !filler asked Lil Davis how this was handled
in animal control. She stated that presently animals are not
picked up if they are lying idle in a yard. However, this
conflicts with the definition of "at-large" in the present
ordinance. Burt Solomons skated that the attorney's office had
problems with officers entering the premises to impound
animals. The attorney's office felt that entering the premises
constitutes trespassing c;glomons stated that he had done
research on the issue and that perhaps Impounding from the front a
yard would be legal but not from the back or side. Chief Miller
stated he would draw up a policy on the matter and give the
animal control officer the right to at least issue citations.
Solomons wanted the Chief to delay the policy until the
ordinance was approved.
Meeting adjourned at 4x51 P.M.
d
r
I
,r
i
i
I
'r
i
R•
t
Y6M~ .
CITY OF DENTON
tMiORANDUM
DATE OF MEETING.__ July 8, 1980
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM (USE EXACT WORDING AS ITEM IS To BE BLACED ON AGENDA
Approval of an agreement with the Golden Triangle Mall to refund any excess
funds for the Texas U=Turn Construction at Loop 288 and 1-35.
SUMMARY$
The Council approved the escrow agreement at the July Y mthe eeting. The total
cost of the Texas U-T,rrn ($438,300) is being funydedthatby if the he They are
asking the Council to sign an agreement which sas bid price is
less than this, the City will refund their over payment. This refund will be i
! from the Highway Department to the City and then to the developer.
I ~
FISCAL SUMM&RI t A,
No cost to the city of Denton.
~ j
I
ACTION REQUIREDt
Council should approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign it.
ALTERNATIVES:
Mot to sign the agreement.
j
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSt
Approval of the agreement.
Ex}IIBITSs
1. Memo to G. Chris Hartung
A B?
IJ(d`
S 'd I`
CITY OF DENTON
MEMORANDUM T;
TO: G. Chris Hartung
FROM: Rick Svehla
DATE: July 3, 1980 ?'t
RE: Concerning the Agreement with the Golden Triangle Mail on the
Texas U-Turn at Loop 288 and I-35
F
P
Representatives from the Mall have delivered money for the Texas U-Turn and
f they are also requesting that the Council approve an agreement by which the n
City agrees to refund any excess funds if the bids for the construction are
less than the $438,300 that the developer is providing. This is a fairly
standard procedure with the Highway Department. In this procedure, the City
of Denton would request the refund from the State and after it is received,
we would forward it to the developer.
I f,
4ci;ve a
s
t
I
I
i
AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT ("Agreement'), made and entered into
this , day of July, 1980, by and between the CITY OF
DENTON$ TEXAS, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Cilg'), and DENTON MALL COMPANY, a Texas limited
partnership (hereinafter referred to as 'Developer').
W I T N E S 8 E T H3
WHEREAS, Developer is constructing an enclosed mall
regional -shopping center in the northeast quadrant of the
intersection of interstate Highway 35-E and State Highway
Loop 288, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas (the
'Shopping Center')1 and
,
r.
WHEREAS, retail business operations in the Shoppina
Center are currently scheduled to open to the general public
on or about August, 19901 and
i
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the existing
roadway system immediately adjacent to the Shopping Center
will be insufficient to adequately move, control and main-
tain the amount of traffic that will be seeking access to )
f
t
and from the Shopping Center when the tams is open for
business to the general publics and
t
WHEREAS, the Developer his agreed to cause certain
s
roadway improvements to be constructed adjacent to said
Shopping Center at its expense, if the City would agree to {
F
boar and pay certain expenses in connection with said
roadway Improvementas and `
1
WHEREAS, the City, by Agreement dated April 1, 1990, 4
has agreed to bear and pay certain expenses with regard to
said roadway improvements, and the parties desire to recite
and memorialize Developer's agreement to bear and pay for
i
certain roadway improvements to be constructed by the
x ,
I Highway Cepastment of the State of Texas. a
'e
Stt
1
7/l/10
4
J
I
I NON4 THEREFORE, in Consideration of the above and
foregoing and the mutual COVenant. and agreements contained
herein, the sufficiency of all of which is hereby acknow-
t ledged, the City and the Developer hereby agree as follows,
1. Developer agrees to bear and pay for all cosh and
expenses {including necessary design and engineering fees
heretofore paid by Developer( for the construction a 'Taxis
V-Turn" at the intersection of Interstate Highway 35-E and
Loop 288 within existing rights-of-way. Said Texas U-Turn
has been designed by the Highway Department of the State of
Texas (with the cost thereof being borne by Developer), to
facilitate access to said Shopping Center from the south-
bound traffic lanes of Interstate Highway 35-E, and City has
heretofore approved said design, as has Developer.
2. Pursuant to the above-referenced design of said
a
Texas U-Turn (being the plans entitled State 0! Texas, State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Plans
' f
j of Proposed State Highway Improvements, Project C-196.2-, {
IH)SE, Denton County, Locationt Turnaround at Loop 2881,
I
the Highway Department of the State of Texas has estimated
the total project cost to be 1138,300.00. It is the agree-
ment of Developer and City that Developer will bear all
costs and expenses charged by the Highway Depaetawnc'of the
State of Texas for the construction of said Texas U-Turn,
and Developer herewith delivers to City the sum of 138,100.00,
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the City.
City agrees to immediately pay said funds to the Highway
Department of Texas in advance payment of all estimated coats r
for the construction of said Texas U-Turn, as required by
the Highway Department of the State of texas as a Condition
precedent to the letting of the bids. In the event that the
cost of construction exceeds 1138,)00.001 Developer agrees
to pay the excess of said actual cost to the City, and City
j
1/x/80 2 .
y
woma
,
i
i J agreos to immediately pay said funds to the Highway Depart-
ment of the State of Texas.
I
3, in the avant that the actual cost of the Texas U-
Turn is less than the estimated amount* or in the event that
the Highway Department of the State of Texas requires
additional funds which are paid by Developer, but which are
not used for the construction of said Texas U-Trrn, Developer
shall be entitled to, and shall receive all refunds from the
` Highway Department of the State of Texas, and any funds so
I` delivered to City by the Highway Department of the State of
Texas will be immediately delivered to Developer.
i. Both City and Developer agree to fully cooperate
with the other and to use their best efforts to cause oil ,
design, payments, bid letting and construction contem-
plated hereunder to be completed as soon as possible.
S. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement
of the parties, and there are no representiona or modl H-
I cations not a part hereof.
j 3
I 6. This Agreement may only be amended by written
instrument executed by both Developer and City. ;
IN WITNESS WHEREOP, the parties hereto have executed
6
this Agreement so of the day and year first above written. {
CITY uP DENTON, TEXAS
ATTESTS By
mayor
j , acre rotary
Approved as to legal form by: j
{
City AttOtniey
i
DENTON MALL COMPANY, a Texas
limijd,r,n tnaerhip m
By DOV160peetoo a Texas
artherahipr CanataI
mono rar artner
l
7/1/SO 3
q
I