HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-16-1990 - _77
rM Y~'ID.k~ ~ ■
I I
e,a
i 7
VVV
a AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
January 16, 1990
Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday,
January 16, 1990, at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of
City Nall, 215 L. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the
following items will bo considered:
i Note: Any item listed on the Agenda for the Work Session may
also be considered as part of the Agenda for the
Regular Meeting.
5:15 p.m.
1. Executive Session:
A. Legal Matters Under Sec. 2(e), Art. 6252-17
V.A.T.S.
i
1. Consider action in Denton county vs. Ctty
and in re: Flow Regional Medical Center.
B. Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f), Art. 6252-17
V.A.T.S.
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(g), '
Art 6252-17 V.A.T.S. ;
1. Consider an appointment to the Cable T.V. 4
Advisory Board. i
5:45 p.m. {
1. Presentation of the Management Letter by the fir■ of
Deloitte 6 Touche for the year ending September 30,
1989.
2. Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financia} F
Report (audit) for the year ending September 30, 1969.
3.(6:10) bold a discussion and consider staff direction 1
concerning proposed amendments to the Building Code
rd regarding energy conservation.
4.(6:35) Receive a report on the Sanus/New York Life Health
Insurance Program including results from op±n
enrollment, status of self-.funded prescription dcuq
program, and proSections of former self-funded health
t insurance fund.
5.(6:50) Discuas a preliminary assessment concerning annexation
in the vicinity of Hartlee Field and
give staff
direction about Initiating formal annexation
i sproceedings.
1
i
i
f
1
wr• f
,yraw~ it
~ r
City of Denton City Council Agenda.,.
January 16, 1990
Page 2
V
Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday,
{ January 16, 1990, 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. Consider approval of a resolution of appreciation for
Howard Frank.
l 2. Public Hearings
A. Hold a public hearing and con ider adoption ofcan
ordinance providing for zoning change om
Agricultural (A) to Pl%nrod Development District
(PD) with respect to •?cras located east of
and abutting the I rra Pockrus Page Road
and Shady Shores Ro:,• ^.•023 (The Planning
ds approval.)
and Zoning Commisaiar.
3. Consent Agenda
Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and
h 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. q
Listed below are bide and purchase orders to be
approved for payment under the Ordinance section of the
! M agenda. Detailed back-up information is attached to the
i f ordinances (Agenda items 4.A, 4.8.) This listing is provided 1
on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss any !
item prior to approval of the ordinance.
A. Bids and Purchase Orders:
s
1. Bid 01057 - Personal Computers (The Data
Processing Advisory Board recommends g
t approval.)
2. Bid 01047 - Wooden Transmission Poles 1
3. Bid #1045 - Reroof McCormick St. Fire Station
( 4. Bid #1044 - Meter Reading System
5. RFP 01034 - Medical Director Service
r;
f
r
i
!
k
I N~~' l
i
City of Denton City Council Agenda
s January 16, 1990
Page 3
6. RFP 101035 - Engineering/Architectural
Service for Fleet Service
7. RFP 101003- Telephone System
8. Bid 01042 - Avenue A and Avenue E Paving &
Drainage
9. P.O. #94407 - IBM - Software Maintenance
° (The Data Processing Advisory Board
1 recommends approval.)
10. P.O. #94344 - Computer Associates - Software
Maintenance (The Data Processing Advisory
Board recommends approval.) ti
4. Ordinances
A. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting
competitive bids and providing for the award of 1
contracts for the purchase of materials, ,
equipment, supplies or services. (Bid 01044. Bid
#1045. Bid 01047. Bid 01057)
i
B. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting d
competitive bids and providing for the award of
contracts for public works or improvements. (Bid
I #1042)
C. Consider adoption of an ordinance providing for
the expenditure of funds for purchases of
materials or equipment which are available from
one source in accordance with the provisions of
state law exempting such purchases from j
requirements of competitive bids. (P.O. #94344,
P.O. #94407)
D. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the
Mayor to execute an agreement with Brown Reynolds j
Watford Company for professional architectural
services relating to the design and construction
of a Fleet Maintenance Center and authorizing the
expenditure of funds therefor. (RFP 01035)
E. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the
City Manager to execute an employment contract
between the City of Donton and Randy Park, M.D.
for professional services relating to the City's A
emergency medical service program. (RFP 01034)
E ~
k
1
`r1
{1e Atltl i
h
I
City of Denton City Council Agenda
January 16, 1990
Page 4
F. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the
Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of
Denton Business
Systems, for the a purchase
GTE southwest incorporated of
telecommunications equipment. (RFPN1003)
j 0. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the
Mayor to execute a contract between the City of
Denton and the North Texas Umpires Association
for officiating softball games for City leagues. i
H. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the
Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the agreement
of February 16, 1988 between the City of Denton
and Freese and Nichols, Inc., relating to
professional engineering services for the detail
design phase of the Lake Ray Roberts Water
Treatment Plant and authorizing the expenditure
of funds ther9for. (The Public Utilities Board
recomm6nds approval.)
5. Resolutions
I A. Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the
I~ Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of
i Denton and the County of Denton for the provision
of library services.
~6. Miscellaneous matters from the City Manager.
A. Budget Recap + I
7. Official Action on Executive Session Items: 1
A. Legal Matters
~ B. Real Estate
C. Personnel
D. Board Appointments
~4 a. New Business: f
t;
E This item provides a section for Council Members to
suggest items for future agendas.
Y
4
hr
$ 1
Y
1
a~
r
r
City of Denton City Council Agenda
January 16, 1990
Page 5
9, Executive Session:
A. Legal KjVttets Under Sec. 2(e). Art. 6252-17
V.A.T.S.
B. Real Estate Under Sec. 2(f). Art. 6252-17
l V.A.T.S.
C. Personnel/Board Appointments Under Sec. 2(9),
Art 6257-17 +1.A.T.S.
j C E P T I F I C A T E
y i
certify that the notice above of
bulletin b and t the City Hall of the City owas f Denton, Texas,
on the day of 1990 at . _ o'clock 1
(a.m.) (P.o►.) JJ
CITY SECRETARY
3226C
I
t
v
!YR\u,~
I, r
G
i
i
I
I
• 1
{
i
I '
i
j
11i
J
w
t
e.
I
Q:
i~
rt~ 1
C,< n
•l
Y+[F
1
S
S
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO: Mayor and Membersof the City Council
FROM: Lloyd Y. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: MANAGEMENT LETTER PREPARED BY DELOITTE, HASKINS
F, SELLS
RECOMMENDATION: None
SUMMARY: Presentation of Management Letter prepared by
{ - Deloitte, Haskins & Sells.
i
BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the annual audit, the
independent auditors prepare a management
letter. The Management Letter evaluates the
City's system of internal accounting controls as
a whole in relation to their reliability in
order to express an opinion.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
None
R FISCAL IMPACT: None
{
AESP FULL, SU TTE
Lloy Y. l arrell
City Manager
Prepared by:
homer, ontroller
Monte
A roved:
n crane
ecutive Director/Finance
SOW
i
i
I ~
~({wr. III
'r
~+w.. nirw
f.1;:
x
Till
r
i
1
f
•
I
I
i
I
~Y
k
it
1
n.
jp ern
i CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
i
TO: Mayor and Member of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR FISCAL
YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1989.
I ~
w
i RECOMMENDATION: None
v
SUMMARY: Presentation by John McGrane, Executive Director
of Finance of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report prepared by the Finance Department. l
BACKGROUND: The City annually prepares a report of audited
financial information.
j
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS_ AFFECTED:
None
FISCAL IMPACT: None
- RESP Fl'I; S?~AITT
0y
arre
City Manager
Prepared by:
i
onto ercer, Controller
Approved:
o n c rane~
B:iecutive Director/Finance
3
S054F
J
X71 = a,
1
~J
FF
y. A
i
f 1
I it
i
I
?
t
r
i
t
NJ 1 111 [[1 1
L',
y w
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
r
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROMI Lloyd Y. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment to Energy Conversation Ordinance
Y
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approval 1
i
SUMMARY:
An ordinance amending Section 5-3 of Chapter 50 Article I
(building Code) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Penton
to provide for energy conservation requirements in certain
apartment buildings; providing for a penalty in the maximum
amount of 0for a
severability0lause;rproviding violations ha rrepealer; providing g providing
for an effective date. y
BACKGROUNDS
Building Code Board Minutes and Attachments
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:. I
Citizens of Denton
FISCAL IMPACTs
Cost efficient apartment buildings
~I
1
i
,
04991
i
#
I
k
i
ti
ORDINANCE NO.
I
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5-3 OF CHAPTERS, ARTICLF I (BUILDING
CODE) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTCA TO PROVIDE
FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN APARTMENT BUILD-
INGS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $500.00 FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING
FOR A REPEALER; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That Section 5-3 (11) of Artioli I, Chapter 5 of
the Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton, Texas is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Boo. 5-3. Deletions and Amendments.
I
(11) Chapter 17 is amended by adding a new Section 1717 to read
as followss
Section 1717, Energy Conservation in New Building
Construction. Listed below are minimum requirements for
control of air infiltrations
{
a. Exterior bottom plates must be sealed with construction
adhesive or caulking.
I
b. Door and window frames must be sealed and caulked. ,
c. All exterior wall ponetrationa, (pipes, etc.) must be
III sealed and caulked. E'
d. All holes or spaces in top plates must be sealed.
e. All exterior walls must be insulated with insulation
having a minimum R11 value. '
f. Attic areas must be insulated with insulation having a
minimum R19 value.
g. No cracks shall be permitted in exterior wall
sheathing. All joints in sheathing not over solid
framing shall be sealed with materials to stop air
infiltration.
PAGE 1
a
1
I
1 ^I~
P
Y
1
Exception, Group R, Division 1 Apartment Buildings.
Listed below are minimum requirements for apartment
buildings:
a. Exterior bottom plates must be sealed with construction
adhesive or caulking.
b. Door and window frames must be sealed and caulked.
r
c. All exterior wall penetrations, (pipes, etc.) must be
sealed and caulked.
d. All holes or spaces in top plates must be sealed.
e. All exterior walls shall provide a minimum R19
insulation value.
f. Attic areas over conditioned areas shall be insulated
with insulation having a minimum R30 value where
electrical resistance heating is used and a minimum R26 i
value when other heating means are used.
g. No cracks shall be permitted in exterior wall
sheathing. All joints in sheathing not over solid
framing shall be sealed with materials to stop air
infiltration.
h. Ore layer of minimum 4 mil plastio sheeting shall be
applied to the framing behind the wall finish material.
at all wells surrounding conditioned areas.
i. No cooling equipment shall be installed which has s !
t
SEER rating of less than 9.0.
j. All hot water heating devices shall be contained in an !
insulating blanket (either internally or externally)
which has a minimum R10 value.
i k. All exterior windows and sliding glass patio doors
shall have double glazing.
1. Unshaded west facing glass shall not exceed twenty
percent (201) of the total exterior glazed area in any
individual apartment. Glass facing west or up to
PAGE 2
F
rll
1 ~ a
i
c
forty-five degrees (45) either north or south of due
west shall be deemed to face west.
The following are acceptable shading installations:
(1) fixed or operable louvers;
(Z) grilles;
(3) shade-producing screens and roofs; or
(4) mature undisturbed tree(s) which will provide a
minimum of fifty percent (50=) shading on the
I glass in question when the sun angle is thirty
degrees (30) above the horizontal and due west.
I
Other methods which will provide a minimum fifty
percent (50%) shading may be acceptable.
I
SECTION II. That any person violating any provision of this
ordinance shall, upon conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding
f $500.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance is violated
shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
SECTION IU~L That if any section, subsection, paragraph,
sentence, clause phase 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
i enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity.
{CTI_ON IV, That the repeal of any ordinance or any portion
` E thereof by the preceding sections shall not affect or impair any
1 act done or right vested or accrued or any proceeding,
I prosecution had or commenced in any cause before such repeal shall
J take effect) but every such act done, or right vested or accrued,
j or proceedings, suit or prosecution had or commenced
purposes as lif remain
such
in full force and effect to all intents or
ordinance or part thereof so repealed had remained in force.
A19119N VV. 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
PAGE 3 I
E ~ I
F
i
owl
10
S
9
1
4
I e,
r
s
j data of its passage.
I PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1990.
i
RAY STEPHEN S~ MAYOR
ATTESTS
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
i
BY :
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMS
DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH# CITY ATTORNEY
- ~ 1
BY: j
BLDGCODE.ORD
j
i
f
~ I
I'
PAGE 4
1
r
~ 1
J
`j
CITY of pSNTONi T!'XAS 215 E. McK)NNEY/ OFNTON, TEXAS 162011 TELEPHONE (Bi]) 6eB-8200
MEMORANDUM
z
DATE: January 11, 1990
TO. Lloyd Harrell, City manager f
i
FROM: Jackie Doyle, Building Official :f
SUBJECTS proposed Energy conservation measures
In March of 1988, the city council requested that the Building Code Hoard
irements relating to energy
provide recommendations to upgrade the city's requ s
conservation in building construction. The Building Code Board worked on this
project at 12 different meetings between April 14, 19&8 and December 7, 1989.
During this period, the board met with Jeff Meyer , and Richard PosteDenton Home President of the
representing the Utility Department,
and Apartment Builderr Association, Sill Burley and Prank Cunningham of Burley
and Coward Mechanical Contractore, Carroll Goen apartment builder, and Jack
Bell apartment builder.
` poster told the Board that the City receives many complaints froma apartment as
I
tenants during summer and winter months when thwould urather not build another
much as their cent. Meyer said that the city roblem. Meyer said that the J
1 electric plant but peak loads are becoming a P 11
Utility Department ng believes heat
saidpumps
thatenewrconstruction measureaany
other r electrical heating
should be considered to cut energy use. Foster mentioned the City of Austin
` and some of their requirements regarding heat pumps and EER ratings. I
Carroll Goen referred to apartments which he built at North Elm and Sherman I
I
Drive in which he used electrical resistance heating unite. He said utility
bills at this than most mpressors,p(2)
vapor barrier on inside wallop (3) a hairier such as a layer of felt paper
behind exterior siding, (4) Minimum R-19 insulation in exterior walls# (5)
insulated steel entry doors, and (6) double pane windows. Goen does not
more costly
believe heat pumps are suitable for apartments because they are
and must be replaced more oftene He said 20 gallon electric water heaters
cost $25.00 - $40.00 per month to operate and that an adeqGoen ua tely sl2edthi ler
with a circulating system would be cheaper to operatee believes the
greatest heating and cooling lose is through doors and windows.
I~
r £ A
Lloyd Harrell
Energy Conservation Ordinance
page 2
Bill Burley believed that tighter building construction will conserve more
energy than anything else. He believes that there is little difference in
savings between heat pumps and electrical resistance heating in a tightly 4
constructed building. Burley felt that the main cost of electricity in an
apartment was related to electric water heaters, ranges, ovens, and lighting.
Burley and Coen indicated that when the outside temperature reaches 350 -
400 degrees heat pumps become less efficient because of the electrical
resistance heating elements which must be used. Mr. Dave Boston, President of
the Home and Apartment Builders Association expressed concern about problems
with heat pumps relative to other heating methods.
i
During the Board's studies they were provided energy conservation information
for review from Denton County Electric Co-op, City of San Antonio, and from
the Model Energy Code.
Some questions, statements, and concerns expressed by Board memberes
1. if new regulations are added, will Denton be competitive with other
cities? i
24 Has the City considered rebates for better energy conservation standards?
3. Building Code Board should not be saddled with entire responsibility for
recommending energy conservation measures.
i. Current construction methods related to energy conservation is adequate
at this time for single family construction. Board should be more
concerned about energy conservation in apartment construction.
5. Now can prospective tenants be informed about average monthly utility
bills?
6. Students coming to Denton should know which apartments are efficient and
which are not.
7. Pass ordinance requiring apartment complexes to make available to
prospective tenants the average monthly utility coats.
8. Concern that energy conservation requirements recommended for apartment
construction will be required for single family construction.
9. Is growth being confused with waste? j
10. Loaning institutions look at energy conservation measures before making
loans.
11. Are heat pumps suitable for apartment buildings?
12. Fossil fuels are limited and should be conserved for future generations.
Energy Conservation ideas discussed by Board included:
14 Building orientation
2. Glass in exterior walls
3. Use of vapor barrier on inside of exterior wails
4. Thermostat location
5. Radiant barriers in rafter area
6. U value calculations
7. Building envelope requirements
S. Sealing gypsum board or paneling to sole plates
9. weather strip M ng
30. Minimum window requirements
11. Resistance heat va other types
rt
f F 1
1
Lloyd Harrell
Energy Conservation Ordinance
page 3
12. Controlling air leakage
13. Minimum insulation requirements
14. Minimum energy efficiency ratings for major electrical appliances
f 15. Attic ventilation
16. Problems of blocking cornice vents with insulation
17. Water heater insulation.
i
Proposed New Requirements: j
1 1. All exterior walls shall provide a minimum R19 insulation value.
2. Attic areas over conditioned areas shall be insulated with insulation
having a minimum R30 value where electrical resistance heating is used i
and a minimum R26 value when other heating means are used.
3. No cracks shall be permitted in exterior wall sheathing. All joints in
sheathing not over solid framing shall be sealed with materials to stop
air .nfiltratlon.
4. One layer of minimum 4 mil plastic sheeting shall be applied to the }
framing behind the wall finish material at all walls surrounding
conditioned areas.
5. No cooling equipment shall be Installed which has a SEER rating of less
than 9.0.
6. All hot water heating devices shall be contained in an insulating blanket
(either internally or externally) which has a minimum A10 value.
7. All exterior windows and sliding glass patio doors shall have double
glazing.
8. Unshaded west facing glass shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the
total exterior glazed area in any individual apartment. Glass facing
west or up to forty-five degrees (450) either north or south of due
west shall be deemed to face west,
Acceptable shading installations shall include fixed or operable louvers,
grilles, shade-producing screens and roofs or mature undisturbed trees
singly or together which will provide a minimum of fifty percent (50%)
shading in the glass in question when the sun angle is thirty degrees
(300) above the horizontal and due west. Other methods which will
provide a minimum fifty percent (50!) shading may be acceptable.
Z
The proposed ordinance amendment is the result of the Board's discussions with i
building industry representatives, City officials, review of energy
conservation documents, and the Board'a study and review over a twenty month
period.
04921 i .
i
y~y
8
1
'i
f'!^1 r
r
r
REPORT ON COSTS AND EFFICIENCY
OF ELECTRIC RESISTANCE HEATING
The Electric Utility Department has evaluated the various methods of
{ heating of buildings and recommends:
1. Electric resistance should not be used as the primary heating
source for an resident a structures because of its higher
operating cost an lowest overall efficiency of conversion.
2. Insulation requirements in the building code should be increased
to reflect recent changes to the model energy cede.
i
A comparison of operating costs for electric furnaces, gas furnaces j
and heat pumps show the following cost per million BTU's of heat:
s
Electric furnace @ $ .08/KWH -1001 Efficient 23.44 x
Gas furnace @ $5.50/million BTU- 801 Efficient 6.60
Heat pump 1 $ .08/KWH - 2501 Efficient 9.38
A "typical" 1600 square foot home in this area has an annual heating
requirement of approximately 37 million BTU's. The annual heating
cost for the three heating systems would be:
Electric furnace (37 x $23.44) ■ $ 867.00
Gas furnace (37 x $ 6.60) . $ 244.00
Heat pump (37 x $ 9.38) ■ $ 347.00
Purchase and installation costs for these three systems (for our
"typical" 1600 square foot home) are approximately:
Electric furnace (with air conditioner) $2900.00
Gas furnace (with air conditioner) $3300.00
Heat pump $3800.00
Many builders and developers choose to install resistance heating
due to the lower initial costs. The ultimate user, however, is
penalized by incurring much higher operating costs. If the initial
cost for a heat pump is $900 more than for resistance heat, but the
annual operating costs are $520 less, the increased capital cost is
recovered in approximately two years through the lower operating
costs.
Since many factors influence the amount of heat a structure
requires, we also recommend increasing insulation standards from R11
to R19 for walls, and from R19 to R30 for ceilings. We also j
recommend more stringent infiltration standards, such as requiring 11
an infiltration barrier, and double-pane glass for all glazing.
i
I
1
t
` 4 PP+c~~.
4
i
MINUTES
building Code Board
April 14, 1988
V
PRESENT: Mike Lewis, Isabel Miller, Robert Courtney, Cliff
t Reding, Building inspector and Building Official
~x ABSENT: Al Green
I. Miller moveu and Reding seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of November 3, 1987 as written, Motion carried
unanimously.
II. Mr. Dave Boston, President of the Denton Home and 3
Apartment builders Association was present to offer the
Board H.A.B.'s assistance and expertise concerning energy
conservation. Mr. Boston in regard to heating and
cooling systems indicated there were lots of problems
with heat pumps and that electrical resistance heating
units are much more efficient now than in the past.
Miller asked if Mr. Boston would provide the Board with
information regarding resistance heating efficiency.
Dick Guioitis indicated that he favored the use of heat
pumps baseo on his experience with the use of that type
unit in his home. Cliff Reding said that he had a heat
pump in a small commercial building which was well
insulated and he was not satisfied with its performance
based on monthly utility bills,
Mlke Lewis, Isabel Miller and Doyle provided Board
members with copies of energy conservation literature
from Denton County Electric Co-op, the Council of
Governments and the City of San Antonio.
Reding asked about building inspection in reference to
energy conservation inspections. It was indicated by
with energy IV Guiditis that he did inspect for compliance
conservation requirements.
i
yyy Isabel Miller suggested sealing the gypsum board to the
p bottom plate. Doyle mentioned the use of a poly vapor
barrier walls. Lewis
backedwinsulation
is used since a double vapor barrier would be created
causing possible condensation problems. Lewis stated
that the location of the thermostat was an important
consideration.
i
I
Ile- W-
i
t 1!
S
r
B{.B Minutes
page 2
In reference to attic insulation, Miller indicated that
i the proper use of a heat barrier in the rafter area could
reduce the temperature of the upper portion of the
insulation by as much as loo F. Miller indicated that
U valve calculations would be the ideal to strive for in r.
the future tegarding energy conservation.
Robert Courtney indicated he favored envelope
requirements as opposed to specifying heating appliances.
LEwis said that he had seen information which indicated,
for example that a 2,b00 square foot house's highest
utility bill should not exceed $280.00 or 10% of the
square footage.
Weather stripping and windows were also discusseo as well
as building orientation.
It was suggested that 2 or 3 HVAC contractors be inviteo
to the Board's next meeting to provide information on t
energy efficiency of various types of heating systems and
that 1 or 2 insulation contractors be invited to a later
meeting.
i
III. The Board talked briefly about the upcoming program to
demolish or repair substandard buildings. Doyle
indicated that only vacant substandard buildings would be
considered to start with. Doyle provided m.,jmbers with
information regarding inspection procedures and a list of
approximately 30 targeted buildings. Doyle said that
photos of the various buildings would be provided for
Board members to view as an aid in making decisions on
the various buildings.
Doyle suggested that Board members go by the various
locations and look at the buildings from the street but
warned them not to go on private property because of
possible legal problems.
Doyle said that there was some money available from the
Community Development Block 0rant for aiding in making
repairs and demolishing buildings. Doyle also indicated
that the code enforcement section was providing
assistance in regard to notification of property owners
and in identifying possible substandard buildings.
Meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
03691
II
{
Y
r
MINUTES
Building Code Board
April 21, 1988
i
PRESENT: Mike Lewis, Isabel Miller, Robert Courtney, Cliff
Reding, Building Inspector, Building Official to
ABSENT: Al Green
1
Reding moved and Miller seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of April 143 1988 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
f` II, Mr. Bill Burley of Burley and Coward Mechanical,
Incorporated, was present at the board's request and gave
a report to the Board regarding calculations he had made
comparing the estimated winter heating cast of two 3
Identical 600 square foot apartment units. One of these 33
units used a heat pump and the other used electrical
resistance heat. (See attachment provided by Mr. Burley
regarding his findings and ideas).
Mr. Burley stated that there was very little savings with
heat pumps versus resistance heating. He said the major
electrical costs came from hot water heaters, ranges,
ovens and lighting.
Mr. Frank Cunningham, a professional engineer, was also
present and indicated that his discussions with the
Utility Department indicated that they want to shift the
peak demand while still selling the same amount of
electricity.
It was pointed out that constructing tighter buildings
would conserve more energy than anything else.
Mr. Burley recommended that the City Council appoint an ad
hoc committee composed of qualified Denton residents who
are skilled in the computation of energy saving methods.
Mr. Burley felt that such a committee could perform these
I cost/benefit calculations for the City void of any
extraneous factors or forces of a political nature.
R
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
i
03711
i
1
owl
~a .VC~ 1
u..
e
Jpp
t' e
y.1J- 8V
ELECTRIC RESISTANCE HEATING
VS
HEAT PUMP
s ELECTRIC ENERGY COST TO PROVIDE DWELLING SPACE HEATINGp TYPICALLY.# (AT LEAST BY
CALCULATION) FOR AN AVERAGE RATING HEAT PUMP WHEN COMPARED TO ELECTRIC RESTANCE
HEATING SHOULD OPERATE APPROXIMATELY 599 LESS UTILITY EXPENSE.
IN A TYPICAL 600 SQ. FT. APARTMENT LOCATED ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND SANDWICHED
BET44EEN ADJACENT APARTMENTS THE ACTUAL CALCULATION SHOWS THE FOLLOWING:
HEAT PUMP HEATING SEASONAL COST $ 4274.35
61.84
ELECTRIC HEAT SEASONAL COST
OR AN AVERAGE FIVE-MONTH HEATING AVERAGE OF: $ 54.87
HEAT PUMP
ELECTRIC HEAT $ 92,37 ;
THE INCREASED INITIAL COST OF T11E HEAT PUMP SYSTEM OVER THE ELECTRIC RESISTANCE
HEATING ALONG WITH HIGHER MAINTENANCE COST OF THE HEAT PUMP AND THE ADDITIONAL
MORTGAGE INTEREST COST WOULD REQUIRE THE LANDLORD TO INCREASE RENTAL RATES ON
THE APARTMENT OF OUR EXAMPLE BY APPROXIMATELY $99.80 PER HEATING SEASON. THUS
THE ADJUSTED COST TO THE TENANTi THOUGH PARTIALLY DISGUISED BY HIGHER RENTAL
RATESA IS: j
HEAT PUMP HEATING SEASONAL COST $ 374.15 N
ELECTRIC HEAT $ 461.84
I
SOo THE ACTUAL SAVINGS BY USE OF A HEAT PUMP OVER THAT OF ELECTRIC RESISTANCE
HEATING IS $19,96 PER HEATING MONTH) IN OTHER WORDSo IT COST 21.609 LESS TO
HAVE A HEAT PUMP SYSTEM.
THERE IS A PHYSIOLOGICAL PROBLEM WITH THE USE OF HEAT PUMP IN THAT THE INTENSITY
1 OF HEAT IS A LOWER GRADED I.E., THE AIR BEING DISCHARGED INTO THE SPACE TO
PERFORM TAE HEATING FUNCTION 1S AT A LOWER TEMPERATURE AND SO GIVES ONE THE
}
SENSATION OF COOL DRAFTS.
THERE 1S AN OPERATIONAL PROBLEM ON THE PART OF THE TENANT THAT UNWITTINGLY ROBS
HIM BY HIGHER OPERATING EXPENSE (UTILITY BILLS). THE TENANT MONKEYS AROUND WITH
THE THERMOSTATS AND IN DOING SOJ CAN CAUSE THE HEAT PUMP COMPRESSOR TO RUN ?
+ SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE ELECTRIC RESISTANCE hif1ATER5. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT
THE TENANT MAY NEVER REALIZE THE POTENTIAL 19.96 /MONTIi SAVINGS POSSIBLE WITH A
HEAT PUMP SYSTEM. 6F'000RSE, TOOo SLOPPY PRACTICE OF LEAVING OUTSIDE ODORS OPEN
WHILE HE SHOOTS THE BREEZE ON THE BALCCNNYO ETC.,o SIMPLY COMPOUNDS THE PROBLEM.
THERE ARE ADDED AUTOMATIC CONTROLS THAT CAN LOCK OUT THE ELECTRIC RESISTANCE
HEATERS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE REQUIRES THEIR USE ONCE THE
"BALANCE POINTT't OF THE SYSTEM 1S REACHED. BALANCE POINT IS THE POINT AT WHICH ~
THE HEAT PUMP ALONE CANNOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEATING OWING TO ITS PERFORMANCE
CHARACTERISTICS DURING COLD WEATHER. ALSO$ SPACE TEMPERATURE CONTROLS CAN BE
ADDED THAT WILL AUTOMATICALLY LIMIT THE RANGE OF TEMPERATURES AVAILABLE IN THE
SPACE. SAYJ LIMIT THE MAXIMUM WINTERTIME INDOOR TEMPERATURE TO 76 DEGREES F.
AD THE MINIMLM COOLING INDOOR TEMPERATURE TO 72 DEGREES F. ADDING THE ELECTRIC
i
I
l -
i
~k
i
k 6'
ELECTRIC RESISTANCE HEATING VS. HEAT PUMP
PAGE TWO
LOCK-OUT CONTROL WOULD ADD APPROXIMATELY $45 PER SYSTEM; ADDING THE COMFORT
s RANGE CONTROLS WOULD COST AN ADDITIONAL $40.
I HAVE HEARD THAT ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL CONCERNS OF THE CITY OF DENTON IS THAT
a, OF PEAK POWER DEMAND MADE UPON OUR ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITY. AT THE RATE
} THAT THIS PEAK DEMAND IS RISINGO IF SOMETHING ISN'T DONE.. WE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING
t TO HAVE TO HIT OUR HIP AGAIN IN THE FORM OF HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES IN ORDER TO
CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL. POWER GENERATING PLANTS. IF THIS BE TORE.. THEN THE USE OF
HEAT PUMP SYSTEMS FOR DOMESTIC HEATING IS PROBABLY THE WORST DECISION THAT COULD
1 BE MADE. PEAK DEMAND IS INCREASED WITH A HEAT PUMP NOT ONLY BECAUSE THE HEAT
PUMP W4WSSOR RONSA BUT THE ELECTRIC RESISTANCE HEATERS MUST BE ON, ALSO
DURING COLD WEATHER (TYPICALLY BELOW 35 DEGREES F. OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE) WHEN A
{ VERY HIGH DEMAND IS ALREADY BEING MADE ON THE POWER PLANT,
I
f THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO REDUCE ELECTRICAL PEAK DEMAND IS TO IMPROV THE OVERALL
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND TECHNIQUES OF BUILDINGS WHICH EMPLOY ANY FORM OF
ELECTRICAL HEATING (HEAT PUMP OR ELECTRICAL RESISTANCE HEATING) OR COOLING.
NOW, IF WE IMPROVE CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND MATERIALSO THE OWNERS WILL HAVE
HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS WHICH.. IN TURN, INCREASES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY
WHICH IN TURN THE TAX ASSESSOR/COLLECTOR RAISES THE PROPERTY TAXES AND THE
TENANT'S RENT GOES UP SOME MORE II
SO WHERE IS THE TRADE OUTp HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES FOR ADDED POWER GENERATING
PLANTS OR HIGHER PROPERTY TAXES DUE TO HIGHER PROPERTY VALUATIONS? TO ANSWER,
THIS QUESTIONS I PROPOSE THAT AN AD HOC COMMITTEE BE APPOINTED COMPOSED OF THE
ANY NUMBERS OF WELL-QUALIFIED DENTON RESIDENTS WHO ARE SKILLED IN THE COMPUTATION
G OF ENERGY SAVING METHODS. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATINGjp REFRIGERATING AND
AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERS HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED STANDARDS FOR DOING THIS IN
COOPERATION WITH OUR UNIVERSITIESp THE NATIONAL. BUREAU OF STN4"DSo AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY. SUCH A COMMITTEE WOULD IDEALLY PERFORM SUCH CAST/BENEFIT
CALCULATIONS TO THE CITY VOID Of ANY EXTRANEOUS FACTOR OR FORCES OF A POLITICAL
NATURE.
!I 1 ;
1 ;
r
kl
r
r
MINUTES
Building Code Board
May 26, 1988
PRESENT: Mike Lewis, Isabel Miller, Alfred Green, Robert
Courtney, Cliff Reding
ABSENT: hone
STAFF: Jackie Doyle, Building Official
} Jeff Meyer, Energy Management Administrator
Richard Foster, Energy Management Consultant
1. Reding moved and Green seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of May 12, 1988 as written, Motion carried
I unanimously. 4
11. Jeff Meyer and Richard Foster were present from the Jr
Utility Department and spoke to the board about their A
departments concerns regarding energy conservation.
Meyer said the City would rather not have to build
another electric plant, He indicated that peak loads are
becoming a problem and that the City is considering a
program whereby citizens can sign up to allow the City to
shut off power to their cooling systems during peak load
periods. Citizens signing up for such a system would
receive a rebate or reduction in their monthly electric
bill. Meyer said that heat pumps properly installed and
f maintained save lots of money. Meyer said that the
Utility repartment believes that the heat pump is far more efficient than other electrical heating means. The
department believes that construction should take in to x
account measures to conserve energy while giving builders
or renters as many options as possible.
Richard Foster said that they receive many complaints
from apartment tenants in the hottest part of summer and t
the coldest part of winter because their utility bills k
almost equal their monthly rent. He said that the City
1,00O requires
square used if
all Austin
apartments code that
electricity is used for heating, Ile also indicated that
he had heard the number of apartment units of 11000
additional measures felt be
was oimportantadto greatly Insure decreased.
that square it feet
taken to insure quality construction. 11e indicated
builder flexibility was important when an energy
C conservation code is written,
f
r
f 1
i
}
l
4
A ~Y
Building Code Minutr
May 26,
page 2 of 2 pages
r
Miller commented that she felt energy was being uselessly
used ana that gas was Pore efficient.
Foster said that Austin has requirements for minimun. EER
ratings.
Reding said that he felt his business and other small
businesses were being penalizes so larger companies could
have enough power. He asked who was causing the power
problems?
%lewd
Lewis asked if regulations are added, will we be
competitive with other cities as far as building q
construction is concerned? Do we have a product in Denton
that is inferior to other metroplex cities?
Jeff Meyer said that the Utility Cepartment can show ;t
which apartment complexes are inefficient.
Reding askeo if the City has considered any rebates
regarding construction standards? It was mentioned that
heat pumps may not be suiteble for apartment buildings.
Miller pointed out that glass location in a building was
an important consideration.
Meyer said that the Utility Department would be glad to
provide any information on energy conservation that they
had.
Courtney asked if there were different utility rates for
apartments than single family. Foster said no.
Hiller thought it important that students coming to
Denton know which apartment units are efficient and which
are not.
Meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
03711
I
j
I ,
I ~
J
1
f
MINUTES
Building Code Board
June 23, 1988 Isabel Miller, Robert
PRESENT: Mike LewisClifflf Rred edingieand Ja kie Doyle, Building
Courtney,
official
ABSENT: None
{
1, Reding moved and 2691e1988coasedwria motion to approv tten. Motion carried
minutes of May
unanimously.
II. The Board considered the request of Wright-Rich and
Associates, Architects representing Denton Independent ,
985 v
School District for a variance from Sec. 3601 of the 1
Hih
Uniform Building Code at the proposed Billy Ryan Swain
School to be located on E. McKinney street, Mr. Mayo
Mayo of Wright-Rich and Associates was present. Mr.
explained that the proposed roof structure would be
constructed of fire retardant treated plywood attached to
metal framework and covered with a Class A asphalt
shingle, Mr. Mayo said the sloped roof structure would
cover less than one-third of the roof and was for
aesthetic purposes only. Mr, Mayo indicated that the
proposed structure would be mounted or, a 2-hour fire
resistive concrete roof. He also pointed out that the i
code only required a 1-hour roof. Green asked what grade
of plywood would be used. Mr. Mayo indicated that
exterior grade decking would be used. Miller asked about
wind resistance and Mayo sold that the structure would be
sealed the bacx side Land ewis that it
asked howl fare thecbuilding
I the concrete roof deck.
l would be located from property lines. Mayo said the
` building would be over 100 feet to the nearest property
Green asked how long the fire retardant treatment
{ line.
would last. It was pointed out that the treated wood
would not be exposed to rain and should retain its fire
Mr. Mayo
retardant qualities for a long period of flare.
said that there would located on penetrations back, the
vertical
structure except for vents ~
side.
Courtney moved and Green seconded a motion to permit the I
use of the fire retardant treated plywood decking on the
structure. Motion carried unanimously. {
~
proposed roof
Ill. Isabel Miller showed other Board members a copy of a 1982 I
NCTCOG energy code which she said was quite similar to the the ican
f
Model Energy Code puFbSillerdfelt thatCitnwouldfbe mapgood
Building Of icials.
idea to accept something similar ty G of code and
then use the simplified forms tha t the Ci Garland
F
uses.
i
a
Minutes
Building Code Board
June 23, 1988
page 2
It was suggested that resistance heating not be prohibited
but instead require insulation based on the type of fuel
f used i.e., gas heating would require less insulation than
electrical heating.
Lewis referred to previous electrical department comments
j and suggested that the electrical department sponsor a
I program of energy conservation with a rebate program. He
felt the electrical department should hire qualified
retired engineers to make energy conservation
inspections. Lewis suggested a point system with signs to
be placed in yards stating the energy efficiency of the
building; a free enterprise system. Reding liked Lewis
plan but believes the rebate should be in the form of
money and not just deducted from the utility bill. Miller
said she was for less regulation but Lewis plan could got
real gimmicky. t
i Reding felt that the Building Code Board shouldn't be
saddled with the entire responsibility of recommending
energy conservation measures. Lewis asked if the Board
was outside its field of expertise. Green asked who the
Board could get to help them, someone who is an
authority. Lewis felt that the Board should be concerned
more about enesQy conservation in apartment construction
as opposed to single family construction. The question
was raised about how prospective apartment tenants could
be informed about average monthly utility bills.
The Board agreed to read the Model Energy Code before the
Board's next meeting on July 14, 1988,
Meeting adjourned at 5,30 p.m.
0373I
i
;I
~ F
I ;
t~.
1
I
£ MINUTES
r Building Code Board
July 14, 1988
PRESENT: Robert Courtney, Alfred Green, Isabel Miller, Cliff
Reding, Charles Ginnings, Wayne Allen, Don Fletcher
and Jackie Doyle, Building Official
ABSENT: None
j 1. Miller moved and Reding seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of June 23, 1988 as written. Motion carried
unanimously,
It. Doyle told new Board members, Ginnings, Fletcher and
Allen that the City Council had requested that the
Building Code Board recommend to them ways of conserving
energy in new building construction.
Miller told the new members that she had appeared before t
the City Council and expressed concerns about the need I
for better energy conservation methods. She indicated z
that the City receives numerous phone calls from
a artment dwellers complaining about high utility bills,
She explained that the Board had met with Utility
Department personnel and two private engineers about
energy conservation. The Utility Department in the past
has indicated their desire that electrical resistance
heating be banned. Miller indicated that she favors a
code similar to the Model Energy Code which could be
simplified similar to the way the City of Garland has
done,
Allen asked if an energy conservation code would apply to
all buildings. The answer was yes.
i
Reding said that he was against requiring that a certain
type of heating system must be used. He was In favor of
a joint meeting with the Utility Board.
Miller said that fossil fuels are limited and that we
must conserve for future generations.
Allen asked if the City Council or someone couldn't pass
an ordinance requiring that average monthly utility costs
be made available by apartment owners to prospective
tenants.
Reding said that Peterbilt, Union Camp, and Texas
Instruments are the cause of peak demand. Why not make
conservation demands on them. We're as important as they
are, Reding said he felt actual growth was being
confused with waste. Reding was concerned that if the
Cityy Council adopted conservation measures based on the
Out ding Code Board's recommendations that the community
would hold the Board responsible if there were problems.
fl, W -OEM
7
E
I
r Building Code Board 'mutes
t July 14, 1988
page 2
Miller said that other ordinances have been adopted which
have not caused an uproar.
Allen asked if apartments are required to have more
insulation, etc. and would this overflow to single family
construction?
Miller moved and Fletcher seconded a motion that the
board work out the simplest of energy conservation
measures for apartments. Reding asked Miller if she
would be willing to table her motion until the Board gets
more information. Miller was agreeable. Green moved and
Reding seconded a motion to table Miller's motion.
Motion carried unanimously.
Ginnings asked what the City does now about insulation
inspections. Ginnings said that loaning institutions
look at energy conservation now before making loans.
Courtney suggested that the Board invite one or two
k apartment builders and an insulation contractor to talk
to the Board. Miller suggested that Richard Cooper be
M asked again to talk to the Board.
Ili. (1) Reding and Fletcher were sworn in by the City j
' Secretary.
(2) Doyle suggested a proposed amendment to the building
code in order to comply with a state law concerning
trench safety. The Board asked for additional
information before considering an amendment.
Meeting adjourned at 5:37 p.m.
05761
r r i
t,
r
E
I
I`
MINUTES
Building Code board
July 28, 1988
.
PRESENT: Robert Courtney, Isabel Miller, Alfred Green, Cliff
Reding, Wayne Allen and Jackie Doyle, Building
Official
ABSENT: Charles Ginnings
i
I. Reding moved and Green seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of July 14, 1988 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
II. Jack Bell and Carroll Goen were present to relay to the
Board their ideas regarding energy conservation in
apartment construction, 1
Mr, Bell said that large apartment complexes are
difficult to inspect because they are erected so fast by
out of town builders and contractors. He said he doesn't
believe the inspectors can do their job properly under
these conditions.
Mr. Goen said that Richard Foster of the City's Energy s
Management Office had called him and asked what kind of
heat pumps he had used at his apartments on north Elm r
street. Mr. Goen told Foster that he did not use heat
pumps. Mr. Goen said Foster was amazed because utility
1 records indicated such low monthly electric useage
compared to most other apartment complexes. Mr. Coen
said that he had used compressors having a SEER rating of
9 at his apartments on Elm street. Mr, Goen made the
following suggestions: (1) require minimum 9 SEER ratings
for electrical appliances, (2) require vapor barriers on
inside of stud walls (3) use 1/2 inch wafer board over
studs with tar paper over wafer board. Mr. Goan said 1
that heat pumps are efficient down to 400 then 1
resistance elements kick in. Mr. Goen stated that heat
pumps don't last as long. He also said that most
apartments have 20 gallon water heaters which cost $25.00
$40.00 per month to heat water. He said it would be
best to have a circulating hot water system with a single
water heater and storage tank with a circulating pump.
Miller said that gas is not always available at some
apartment sites and that 6 inch studs with k19 insulation
would be good.
Reding asked Coen what other reasons made his apartments 1
cheaper on utility bills. Goen answered, construction.
a
i i
i
1
J
x
4
Minutes
July 28, 1988
page 2
Goen suggested the following: (1) 2 x 6 outside walls
which will allow room for 58% more insulation than a 2 x
4 wall (2) siding needs to have backing such as wafer
board with a layer of 15 pound felt (3) steel entry doors
(4) double pane glass windows having a proper rating (5)
use vapor barriers on inside of exterior walls (6) caulk
inside and outside walls (7) air conditioning compressors
should have a minimum 9 SEER r..ting, City gives a rebate
for units with a SEER of 9 or better (8) use batt
insulation between joist spaces with blown in insulation
on top.
Goen said, keep the BTU's inside;
could or could not useponsibility to
Reding fbuilders was not the Board's
dictate what
onand R19
Allen asked if the building code
he reply requires R30
ly the
would that offend builders.
marginal builders. it was stated that windows and doors fl
are responsible for the greatest heattil and cooling loss
and that glass facing west is a big proem.
1
Miller felt that well built windows rather than double
pane windows is important.
Allen said that SEER's of 8.6 - 8.7 were good. I
Reding felt that should of debatesCand
` Council stating g ~
j discussions regarding electrical demand problems It is
felt that the Building Code Board is not the proper board
! to discuss this matter. The Building Code board should
talk about structural integrity. 1
to the Board arrangements for a
representative would to sp ak make
Reding insulation said
Miller said that she would like for Richard Cooper to
talk to the Board.
0377I 1
i
y.
a
r
n
MINUTES
Building Code Board
September 6, 1986
PRESENT: Alfred Green, Isabel Miller, Charles Ginnings, Cliff
Reding, Wayne Allen and Jackie Doyle, Building Official
ABSENI': Robert Courtney
I, Miller moved and Reding seconded a motion to approve the
minutes of July 28, 1968 with the sixth paragraph of
agenda item number II amended to read as follows:
Reding felt that it was not the Board's responsibility to
dictate what builders could or could not use in the way of
heating equipment and appliances.
Motion carried unanimously.
V It. The Board determined that if they can obtain and review {
information concerning various windows, their R values and
infiltration rates and if they can talk with Mr, Richard
Cooper a mechanical engineer, they will have adequate
information to make recommendations to the City Council
concerning energy conservation,
,a
III, Board members received additional information concerning a
proposed amendment to the building code relating to trench
safety, The Board recommended that Sec, 102(b) 2. of the {
proposed amendment be rewritten to more clearly indicate
requirements. Doyle will make the requested change and
submit it at the Board's next meeting,
IV. Doyle stated that he would be bringing to the Board later
this month recommendations to demolish 7 dilapidated or
destroyed single family buildings. Doyle asked that Board !
members read their copy of the minimum housing and 1
building standards ordinance and be familiar with its 1
requirements,
Reding asked what the Board member's liability was if they
ordered buildings to be demolished. Doyle said he would
try and have one of the City's attorneys come to the next
meeting and discuss this concern.
Meeting adjournol at 5:00 p,m,
0378I
i
j
I
i
i
k
MINUTES
Building Code Board
September 27, 1988
PRESENT: Robert Courtney, Isabel Miller, Charles Ginnings,
Alfred Green, Wayne Allen, Don Fletcher and Jackie
Doyle, Building Official
ABSENT; Cliff Reding
i I. Miller moved and Ginnings seconded a motion to
approve the minutes of September 13, 1988 as
written. Motion carried unanimously, F
11. Miller Indicated that energy conservation
requirements should not be based on just a few e
isolated requirements but rather a system which
permits flexibility. Courtney referred to Miller's
motion of July 14, 1988 which was tabled. The.
motion was to work out the simplest of energy
conservation measures for 'apartments. Courtney
asked If it was the Board's desire not to make any
energy conservation recommendations; to make
recommendations only concerning apartments or to
make recommendations to cover all types of
construction. Miller's motion of July 14, 1988 was
removed from the table And was approved unanimously.
Allen referred to two basic methods of energy
conservation, a model energy code and individual
requirements such as minimum insulation
requirements, energy efficient , windows and
equipment, sealing bottom plates, etc. Allen favors
the latter method of energy conservation, Ginnings
also favored individual requirements as opposed to a
model energy code. Allen was concerned about
repercussions which might result from
recommendations sent to the City Council such as the
recommendations for energy conservation in apartment
construction being applied to all types of
construction,
Miller said that she had talked to several builders
regarding any problems they had with codes. She
found that they didn't have any problems with the
codes and that they thought better construction
requirements would be of value. Miller also spoke
of building orientation being an important factor in
energy conservation.
3
pJewr. I
Y
Page 2
Minutes/Bldg. Code Board
Miller expressed her concern about using up
non-renewable energy sources and atmospheric
problems resulting from their overuse,
Ik The use of windows was discussed and it was
determined that k and U values for windows were not
available at this time. The Board felt that a major
problem with windows was air infiltration and that
windows which reduce infiltration should be used,
Miller agreed to draw several common wall sections
and indicate R or U values for the Board to review.
Allen agreed to provide Miller with details of wall
sections most commonly used in Denton. Members will
also make lists of individual items which might be
used for conserving energy.
III, There was a brief discussion of the minimum housing
and standards ordinance in relation to demolition
hearings scheduled for October 4, 1988.
IV. Allen asked if the Board was the proper group to
discuss ways of simplifying permitting processes for
additions and remodels of existing structures.
Allen referred to situations concerning handicap
requirements and flood plains. Allen said he would
provide specific information at a later date.
„ Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
03781
„
I'
C }
i
i
1,
yt
C
a
MINUTES
Building Code Board
October 2S, 1988
PRESENT: Robert Courtney, Alfred Green, Isabel Miller, Cliff
Reding, Wayne Allen and Jackie Doyle, Building Official
ABSENT: Charles Ginnings
1. Allen moved and Green seconded a motion to table approval
of the minutes of October 41 1988 until the Board s next
meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Ii. 1. Isabel Miller provided Board members with her
recommendations concerning energy conservation. Her
recommendations included:
a. Methods of controlling air leakage :
b. Minimum insulation requirements
c. Minimum efficiency ratings for major energy using
appliances in living units
d. Thermal envelope requirements for apartment
occupancies ,
Miller also provided members with drawings of typical
exterior wall and roof construction details indicating
the R and U values of each,
i 2. Reding commended Mrs. Miller on the work she had done
in preparing information for the Board.
3. There was some discussion of SEER and EER ratings and
Courtney agreed to provide Board members with
information at the Board's next energy conservation
meeting,
4. Reding was not in favor of setting minimum EER ratings
for appliances. He felt that the owner should be
allowed to choose the equipment lie wants.
Green reminded the Board of apartment builders who had
built in Denton and used low EER equipment and then
sold the apartments and left town,
S. Courtney asked Board members to name the various
energy conservation measures they would like to
consider. The list included:
i
i
i
I
y
I
I
r,;,.... Building Code Boa-' Minutes
October 15, 1988
page 2
a. Vapor barrier on interior walls and ceilings
b. Minimum EER ratings (some members want to address
this issue and some do not)
C. Minimum wall and attic insulation requirements
d. Window requirements
e. Minimum floor insulation requirements for pier
and beam construction
f. Attic ventilation requirements
it was recommended that a method be devised to inform
owners of the energy conservation values of roof color
and building orientation.
6. It is the general opinion of the Board that apartment
complexes should be required to post energy
conservation ratings.
s °o i
7. Miller _providi-d efficiency ratings of gas and electric
water heaters. Mrs. Miller also indicated her desire
for a simple method of calculating the building
envelope energy rating.
8. Allen talked about the problem of blocking cornice 1
vents with insulation and suggested possible solutions
such as using batt insulation of less thickness
adjacent to cornice vents.
9. Courtney suggested that each member use the J~
information provided by Miller to do an energy
calculation on their own house.
j
Meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
03961
i
1
e
Fl~ 1
sw
~ F
l
iy
S
a {
r
MINUTES
BUILDING CODE BOARD
December 6, 1988
PRESENT: Robert Courtney, Isabel Miller, Charles Ginnings,
Cliff Reding, Wayne Allen, Don Fletcher, Jackie Doyle,
Building Official
ABSENT: Alfred Green
1. Miller moved and Allen seconded a motion. to approve
minutes of November 8, 1988 as written. Motion carried
unanimously.
v II. There was a brief discussion concerning the status of
the Board's energy conservation review. Courtney asked
if the Board needs any more information. The Board
discussed two possible plans regarding energy
conservation. One plan would require that calculations
be done for each apartment building to ensure that
minimum required energy conservation standards are
complied with. The second plan would simply list energy
conservation measures which each apartment building must
comply with.
Courtney said that he would provide SEERIEER information
regarding water heaters at the Board's next meeting.
III. Mr. Palladino and Mr. Estes were present representing
Fibermesh Company. They talked to the Board and
answered questions regarding the use of Fibermesh,
polypropylene fibers as secondary, nonstructural
reinforcement in concrete.
Mr. Palladino stated that Fibermesh, polypropylene fiber
would not degrade in concrete as polyester 'fibers
sometimes do. He indicated that shrinkage cracks are
greatly reduced when Fibermesh is used. Palladino said
that polypropylene fibers were first used in England
j over twenty years ago but has only been used in this l
country for about five years. Mr. Palladino said that
he would provide Mrs. Miller with information regarding
the performance of Fibermesh in some older jobs which ;
I contain the fibers. Mr. Estes stated that 100,000 yards
of concrete with Fibermesh had been used in the Dallas,
Fort Worth area during the past two years. He named ±
four sites in Denton where the product had been used;
Lone Star Car Wash, Briscoe Tire Company, Southmont
Baptist Church and a parking lot on Sadau Court.
t
j
i
1
f
f
MOW imm
lrr
I
I
Minutes
r Building Code Board
Page 2
Allen asked about dispersal of the fibers in concrete.
Estes showed members samples of the product and
indicated that the fibers were added at a rate of
i.5 pounds per cubic yard of concrete and the rotation
of the concrete mixer disperses the fibers throughout y
the concrete.
y
Doyle said that the Building Code Board could only
review Fibermesh for use in buildings and that
Jerry Clark, City Engineer, should be consulted
regarding its use in parking lots and streets.
The Board agreed to meet again on January 6, 1989.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at i
6:05 P.M.
I
~ i
F
i
I
E
04031
{
i
1 21
i
r
r
MINUTES
Building Code Board
January 6, 1989
PRESENT: Wayne Allen, Charles Ginnings, Robert Courtney,
Alfred Green and Isabel Miller
ABSENT: Cliff Reding and Don Fletcher
STAFF: Jackie Doyle, Building Official
I. Approve minutes of December 6, 1988:
9
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. on Friday,
January 6, 1989 by Robert Courtney. Miller moved and
Allen seconded a motion to approve the minutes of December
6, 1988 if a correction is made by changing the word
degrade in item III, second paragraph, second sentence to
eter orate. Motion passed unanimously.
11. Discussion of polypropylene synthetic fibers in concrete:
Allen asked Doyle if he had received the a report from Mr.
Palladino of the Fibermesh Company regarding' the longevity
of fibermesh when used in concrete. Doyle said that
neither he nor the City Engineer had received any
information.
Green asked if fibermesh was used in a house slab would
the beams be required to have rebar. Doyle answered yes
and that if anyone wanted to use fibermesh in a building
slab to replace the nonstructural reinforcement the slab
would be required to be engineered.
Allen said he was in favor of using it in parking lots and
sidewalks but was not sure about using it in building .
slabs.
E V III. Continue review of energy conservation measures:
f C
by saying ourtney began discussion of energy conservation measures
heaters. Hehasaide hefound aters no
are EE stamped ratings EER for
and water air
conditioning units SEER. Courtney said that water heaters'
have R ranges from 4.5 to over 16. The use of insulating
blankets for water heaters was also discussed. Miller
said that she would check with Sears on their R values for
water heaters.
Courtney said, as discussed in the previous meeting, there {
f were three energy conservation plans they could work
toward. One would be a minimum standard, second would be
a heat conservation plan and third, a combination of the
r
I
i~
BCB Minutes
January 6, 1989
page 2
i
other two. Courtney felt that the minimum standard should
be studied first since it might require more than the
other two plans and therefore, there would be no need to
review the other two. Courtney presented the following
suggestions for energy conservation for apartment
construction:
(1) Materials shall be used which provide the following
minimum ratings - ceilings R-26, walls R-13. Allen
suggested minimum R-19 walls even if 2x6 walls have to be
used. Miller suggested that builders who use gas
appliances should get a break like R-13 walls and R-26
ceilings and that builders who use electric heat should be
required to have R-19 walls and R-30 ceilings because it
takes 3 times as much gas to produce the same amount of
electricity to heat a house. Allen felt that energy would
be wasted regardless if R-19 was not required for both gas
and electric heating. Miller felt that the gas company
should be required to provide gas to construction sites
the same as the City provides electric service. Miller
said she was hesitant about requiring all apartment
buildings to use 2x6 exterior walls. Green said he did
not want to penalize anyone by requiring R-13 for gas and
R-19 for electricity. Ginnings suggested R-30 for
ceilings and R-19 for walls as recommended for this area.
(2) No heating/cooling equipment shall be installed that
has an EER rating below 8.S. The Board agreed that more
information was needed to make a recommendation on minimum
EER ratings.
(3) All hot water heating devices shall be contained in an
insulating blanket having an R value of not less than 8.2.
(4) Windows on south and west sides of apartments shall
have solar screens installed. Miller said that solar
screens would be good on the north and west sides of
buildings. Allen said that 1/2 inch insulated glass
windows were normally built better than single glazed
windows.
(S) Walls shall be constructed with 1/2 inch wafer board '
over studs with 15 pound felt on the outside.
i (6) Minimum 6 mil plastic shall be used behind sheet rock
E on outside walls and apartment party walls.
Allen asked Doyle to invite a window manufacturer to
address the board in regard to energy savings with the use
of tinted and solar treated glass.
Courtney asked members to gather information pertaining to
these guidelines for the next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
04261
.
k
P
MINUTES
Building Code Board
December 70 1989
r
PRESENT: Alfred Green, Isabel Miller, Charles Ginninga, Mayne Allen, Cliff
Reding, and Jackie Doyle
i
ABSENTS None
1. Miller moved and Ginnings seconded a motion to approve the minutes of
' September 21, 1969 as written. Motion carried unanimously.
Ile The Board discussed exception (i) of the proposed energy conservation
ordinance for apartments. The Board agreed that as presently written,
exception (i) right be confusing or misleading. Miller moved and
Ginnings seconded a motion to rewrite (i) as follows: No cooling
equipment shall be installed which has a SEER rating below 9. Motion
carried unanimously.
Miller provided Board members with energy conservation suggestions
regarding building orientation and glazing in west facing walls.
Miller's suggestions were as follows: (1) Unshaded west glass shall not
exceed 20 percent of the total exterior glazed area in any individual
apartment. (2) Glass facing west or up to 450 either north or south of
due west shall be deemed to face west. (3) Acceptable shading
installations shall include fixed or operable louvers, grille,
shade-produzing screen, roofs, mature undisturbed trees which will
provide a minimum of 50 percent shading on the glass in question when the
sun angle is 300 above the horizontal and due waste Other methods
which will provide a minimum of 50 percent shading on the glass may be
i acceptable. There was considerable discussion concerning the types of
shading methods and materials. Miller and Ginnings felt that the
suggestions if adopted could be complied with at a reasonable cost if the
owner/architect designed and oriented the apartment buildings in a manner
that would require less west facing glass. Reding and Allen were
concerned that the City might be going too far by making people have to
pay more in order to have west facing glass. They were concerned that
such requirements would be made to apply to single family construction.
Reding and Allen felt that if a person could afford to pay the utility
bill they should be able to use as much glass in a wall as they want to.
Allen felt that the variance process available to people should be made 4
more public.
Miller moved and Ginnings seconded a motion that Millet's suggestions be
added to the proposed apartment energy conservation ordinance. Miller,
Ginnings, Green and Allen voted yes. Reding voted no. Motion carried 4
to le Allen went on record as saying that he believed that if a person
wanted to build a glass house in Denton he should be able to.
i
j
t
ro
z,, 1 (A .
I
1
'
F
a,y
Minutes-Building Code Board
September 78 1989
page 2
III. The Board discussed the possible use of Tyvek Radiant barrier as an
alternate to the polyethylene vapor barrier. The Board felt that the
Tyvek material was good but that it should not be permitted in lieu of E
the vapor barrier- Allen moved and Ginnings seconded a motion that the
use of a paper faced insulation material in conjunction with an exterior, ?
vapor permeable house wrap material is a suitable alternate to the use of
a polyethylene vapor barrier. Motion carried unanimously.
.
No Discussion began concerning the review of the 1988 edition of the Uniform
Building Code. Doyle provided Board members with the following }
materials: (1) Copy of the 1988 UBC 12) Copy of changes to the 188 UBC
(3) current city ordinance and amendments to the 185 UBC (4) copy of
proposed fire sprinkler ordinance. Board members agreed to divide
portions of the UBC among themselves and to take primacy responsibility
for reviewing and reporting to the Board the results of their review.
Allen will review Chapters 1-80 Reding, Chapters 9-17, Green, Chapters
18-25, Miller, Chapters 26-33, Ginnings, Chapters 34-56.
3
V. Allen had requested copies of the firelene ordinance and the parking lot J
paving ordinance at a previous Board meeting. Doyle provided members 1
with copies of these ordinances. Allen suggested that members review the
ordinances. Allen and Reding both expressed concerns about the number
and type of new requirements the City has been adopting. They felt that
new ordinances were affecting the ability of small businesses to build in
Denton.
Meeting adjourned at 6115 p.m.
j
04892
t
I.
i
' j
~ I
1
i
1j
I
I
I
-lour
a
i
S
ti
r '
i
I I
i
i I
}
r
A
r ~
i
r
11 6 1116 1
i
S
r
i
4 I
E
1r'a`v1♦ J/
.
i
a
t ct ry of DENTON / 215 E. McKinney ! Denton, Texas 76201
MEMORANDUM'
To: Betty McKean, Executive Director - LASED
From: Tom Klinck, Director - Personnel/Employee Relations
Date: January 12, 1990
Subject: New Health Insurance Program through Sanus/New York Life - Update
,
j Betty, this memo outlines results from the recent Health Insurance open
enrollment, status of investigating a self-funded Prescription Drug Benefit
Program, and year-end status and projections of the 1988/89 Health Insurance
Fund.
>talth Insurance oxen Enrollment
Open enrollment for employees to select options under the new Sanus/New York
Life Program was conducted throughout the month of November, 1989. During
this time, we conducted 30, 2-hour, in-depth meetings with employees on all
shifts explaining in detail coverages, premiums, and "how-to-use`
information on each option (HMO Only or Sanus Plus) with the new insurance
program. Approximately 90% (722) employees attended a meeting. We also
spent a considerable amount of staff time personally and on the phone
answering individual questions and clarifying specific points.
While we had a strong participation in the open enrollment meetings and i.
a satisfactory response with employees' sign-ups for insurance, such a major
change and transition with an important benefit program is not without some r
problems. There has been some miscommunication between Sanus and their
providers (doctors and Eckerd's Drug Stores). Sanus did not properly
follow-up to ensure the local doctors were aware that our employees and
dependents would begin seeking medical care on December 1 to facilitate a
smooth transition. Sanus also failed to notify the Eckerd Drug Stores that
our effective date was December 1, 1989. Internally, we also had some
difficulties in employees completing and turning in applications timely and
properly. However, these problems have been corrected.
0
Currently, all applications have been processed, Sanus has entered data into
their computers, and group membership cards were mailed to employees and 4j
dependents around the week of December 20. Every employee also now receives }
the $10 insurance supplement on their paychecks each payday ($20 per month),
f
F!t
a
R
r
s
January 12, 1990
Memo to B. McKean - Health Insurance - Update
Page 2
Results of open enrollment produced the following:
Erp r m Option Number a Employees er erg
HMO Only 162 20.8%
Sanus Plus 606 77.8%
Declining Ins. Coverage 11 1.4%
Retirees 6 -
COBRA 3 -
These percentages represent an almost complete reversal of what we had
originally projected for enrollment in discussions with the Employee
Insurance Committee (i.e., originally, we thought that approximately 60% of '
employees would select the HMO Only option). Hopefully, this will not have p
a significant effect on our funding assumptions. Since we have set-up the
Sanus revenues and premiums in a separate accounting fund, we'll be able to
track those funds separately from the former self-insured fund in order to
closely monitor amounts budgeted.
~ Since our first report to the City Council, the following new local doctors
have been added to the program:
k
Mark Wilson, M.D. - Family Practice - Denton
.
I James Howard, M.D. - Family Practice - Lewisville i
f Jackie Norria, M.D. - Internal Medicine - Denton
Marls Conger, M.D. - Pediatrics - Denton and Lewisville
Upon further review by Sanus, Dr. James Rampoldi (Family Practice) was ry
t dropped sa a provider. Employees who designated Dr. Rampoldi as their
Primary Care Physician have selected another doctor. Employees have also
been notified of all changes and we have maintained close communication with
them during this transition.
F;
s
.
Y
{
i
1
q
January 12, 1990
Memo to B. McKean - Health Insurance - Update
Page 3
LOW)
Sanus has been actively recruiting new doctors, and the following is a
listing of the number of doctors contacted by specialty:
o Primary Care Physicians o Specialists Physicians
-Family Practice 13 -Allergy 2
-Internal Medicine 8 -Cardiology 3
-Pediatrics 8 -Endrocrinology 1
-Internal Medicine 6
-OB/GYR 6
-Orthopedics 7
-Physical Medicine
& Rehabilitation 2
-General Surgery 2
-Urology 2
-Far, Eye, Hose,
k Throat 3
1b
Prescription Drug k a it Program 4
With the assist;nee of the Coopers & Lybrand actuary, Gordon Grubba, and
E Dave Palatiere, we studied the possibility of an additional prescription
drug benefit program for employees. Based on past prescription drug claims
j experience, participation, discount arrangements with the independent
pharmacist, current co-paps, and claims administration, the following
monthly premiums were projected as necessary to maintain the current program
(see Attachment 1 - letter from Gordon Grubbs):
Crt aorv Monthly semi
Employee Only $ 22.57
Employee A Spouse 46.06
Employee k Children 37.41
Employee & Family 59.98
In discussions with Dave, it was our belief that the program would add an a
additional amount to employees' health care costa that would be prohibitive.
Thus, Dave and I met, on December 1, 1989, with three local independent
pharmacist, presented this information and discussed it. We explored
whether there is an alternative method to re1-ce the above premiums (through
higher co-pays, additional discounts, etc.) to bring the costs down to r
amounts more affordable for employees. With a revised arrangement through
the local pharmacists and Prescription Management Corporation, the reduction r
i
I`
I
FJJ
i
i
k
,
January 12, 1990
Memo to B. McKean - Health Insurance - Update
Page 4
to the above premiums would be about 15% (see Attachment 2). Thus, it is
still our belief that the cost would be prohibitive to employees.
i
Former $elf-Funded flea It Lmu-mce Pro ram
At September 30, 1989, the Health Insurance Fund (with an additional $1.6
million added) had a surplus of $ 441,095. This is just slightly above
targeted projections as had been originally been developed by Coopers (see
Attachment 3). Coopers had projected a $585,000 claims reserve to cover
"run-off" claims and administrative expenses at September 30. A year-end
report on revenues, claims and expenses is shown in Attachment 4.
Since the effective date for the new Santis/New York Life program was
December 1, 1989, the former insurance program and fund was extended to
November 30, 1989. The October 30, 1989, and November 30, 1989, fund
revenues, claims, and expenses are shown in Attachment 5. Claims for
October and November have been much higher than anticipated. There is
one individual stop-loss claim which exceeded our $60,000 limit. That claim
(majority already paid) is around $190,890. Stop-loss recovery on this
claim is estimated at $130,000. This stop-loss claim was filed with the
stop-loss re-insurance company the week of December 18, 1989.
In October, 1989, Coopers 6 Lybrand had provided a projection of "run-off"
} claims for those claims incurred on or prior to November 30, 1989. It is
estimated that approximately $605,000 will be necessary to cover these "run-
off" claims. With a 6% retention fee to provide claims processing services
on these claims ($309000) and other administrative expenses, the next few
months will require very close monitoring to ensure the fund is sufficient
to handle final "run-off" activity (see Attachment 6).
There were throe employees who were not activoly at work on December 1, 1984
that will continue to be covered by the former insurance program. One is on ;
Long-term Disability; the other two are on Worker's Compensation. If any
of these three return to work, they will be eligible for coverage with
Santis. If not, they will continue to be covered by the former insurance
I program at the premium structure established for Santis Plus and subject to
t the indemnity coverage provisions ($400 Individual Deductible; 80%/20X;
$5000 Out-of-Pocket Maximum). If they terminate employment with the City,
they will be offered continuation of coverage as provided by Federal Law. }
t
,
3
i
e
r ~
I
I
j `
January 12, 1990
Memo to B. McKean - Health Insurance - Update
Page 5
Please let me know if you need additional information or an area clarified
concerning the current statua of the Health Insurance Program.
M,
a
I Thank you. Y
1 Thomas W. Klinck
bminsm2.1)rn 1/12/90 9:50x'
I
I
r
I .J~ 3
Yj
Q Y4
t
}
1
S
I
i
~ f ~
b /
11
t
11/14/89 16W NO. 148 P90 /M
Y
r Attachment I
' 2Wrarsnd NOW VAN 40(Ww" Im MMW perao WW d M wr
a: "Um ?sm
iY MUphor 4M)161d000
November 14,1989
4 ~
Mr, Tom Klinck
reFyS4' Director of Per'"o 1
City of Denton
324 Ent McKinney
Denton, TX 76201
Re: City of Denton Prescription Drug Program
Dear Tom:
Per your request, th letter address" the premiums required to fund the City of
Demon's pr drug program.
Since early 1988 th Y City of Denton has offered to its employees a PPO plan for
prescription dry tnistered by Prescription Management Corporation (PMC).
At this time theL`it changing Its medical benefits to Sinus, and Sinus often a
prescription plea, t only through Eekerd's pharmacies. You have asked that we
evaluate the sib offering the,PMC network as an adjunct to the Sinus HMO
program in order th~ employees would have greater choice of pharmacia.
I undentand that current PMC proms is in effect for all City employees on a
non-contributory b Is. Once the tAu don to Sinus is effective the FMC network ?
Will be available to mployees on an employee tyail basis, and this network will
be in addition to th 164erd's chain as provided by Sinus, 'Me benefits of the PMC
program will sort as they presently are, which means copays of S6 and $2 for
brand•narna and ge eric prescriptions respectively. Furthermore, the Sinus drug 3
plan requires the s e level of copsys thrip* the Eckerd's chain. i
~bL1~ Y
T have obtained u n and cat data from both the Cityrs medical plan claims
administrator, Au International, and the FMC offlca in Son Antonio. Based on
this data, the dispentint fees, and the understandings in the preceding 4
parahar I estlm the contribut1 ns necessary to fund the PMC program to be
the ollow~ng:
Employee y $ 22.37
Employoc/Sl Ouse $ 46.06
d
Employee/ ild(ren) $ 37.41
Employee/F ily $ 39198
1
Y
14rlb a~
'r
1
11/14/99 16147 N. 148 F003003
Mr. Tom Minds
November ber 14,1959
PAP
i
The contribudou rat auume that there u no pardcular selection agaimt PMC.
From the participants perspective, there is euentially no difference between the
Sunus and the FMC nefi% so there should be no reason why exculve utilisation
or hiSh-coat drug ns would be undated with the FMC network. Consider,
however, that since beneEita are the same, swept for choice of pharmacy, and
PMC is expensive c0 pared with the "Erse" Sanwa netwwrk, it is likely that few k
emptoyees will sign for PMC. This raises the possibility of selection against one
of the plans, though a impact of this Is difficult to "certain.
1 trust this Is the inf anon you Deed at this time. Please call me If you have any n
questions or need an~thiag else regarding this matter.
i
Sincerely,
/SZlr GrAW, enior Consultant 1~.5 A, M.A AA
f
W. Dave Model+
i
t
{
i
r
Mp~ I;
1rf1. tea P00a
10
r s - ~
Attachment 2
t ° MEMO TO: Mr. Dave Palatie'e DATEt 12/27/89
h FROM: Gordon M. Grubbs
i
RE: City of Denton j
As you requested, I have review" the rating of the City's
prescription drug program offered by Prescription Management
Corporation (PMC). Specifically, I have determined the
effect on premiums of the increased copays and reduced
{ dispensing fees as proposed in PMcrs letter to Tom Rlinck
t dated December 6. :
Increasing the copays for both brand and generio drugs by
$2.90 will reduce the cost of the plan by approximately 12%.
A reduction in the dispensing fees of 5.50 par prescription
for both brand and generic drugs will reduce the plan's
I premiums by about 3%. Thus, if both of these changes are
1 made in the program, the combined effect would be about 15%.
The premiums that I developed for the City on November 14
may be reduced by the above percentages to get the now a
rates. For your information, these rates arat
Employee Only $22.57
Employee/Spouse $46.06
Employee/Child(ren) $37.41
Employee/Family 659.98
Please let no know it you need anything additional.
t
'I
r•:
A'
t
j
FF I~
l ~~dM
■C 41•
' p .
I ~
I
i
1
ray...,
I
insrpt9e ATTACHMENT 3
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE FUND
YEAR-END REPORT
OCT 88 - SEP 89
MAY 89 ADJUSTMENTS REVISED 1989
COOPER'S FOR COOPER'S FUND YR END AMOUNT PERCENT
PROJECTION $1.6 MIL PROJECTION ACTUAL DIFF DIFF
%,MILOS? REVENUES:
,407 9643
EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS $325,407 $$800,
236 $2$643,307
CITY CONTRIBUTIONS $800,236
OTHER 14879009 $487,009 $242,464
TOTAL REVENUES -11,812,652- $1,600,000 -$3,412,652--$3,424,414- $11,762 0%
EXPENSES:
RESERVE ADJUSTMENT $351,000 $351,000
PERSONAL SERVICES $0 E0 $14,587
INSURANCE PREMIUMS $335,893 $335,893 $340,743
CLAIMS $1,964,431 $1,964,431 $1,816,438 ($147,993) -B%
OTHER $0 $0 $14,484
TOTAL EXPENSES -$20651,324- -$2,651,324--$2,186,253-($465,071) -21X
NET GAIN/(LOSS) ($838,612) $761,328 519238,161 ($476,833) 39%
FUND BAL-PRIOR YEAR ($797,066) ($797,066) ($797,066)
GAIN/(LOSS) ($838,672) $7619328 $1,238,161
J
FUND BALANCE-* ($1,6359738) ($350738) $441,095 $405,357 108%
ADJUSTMENT FOR ($381,902) {
CITY CLAIM RESERVES
REVISED FUND
BALANCE ($35,738) $590193 $94,931 160%
f a Does not include $150,000 - $200,000 Aggreg. Stop-Loss Recovery (in legal dispute)
and approx. $130,000 in Indtvid. Stop-Loss Recovery (Dec. submitted claim)
1
1/12/90 i
S
Ij
9
) I
Ole-
i
II[ ;
Iflrr ■ T■~■
x
fS
S frr Irwma
s i ■
i
insrpt9f ATTACHMENT 4
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE FUND
YEAR-END REPORT
OCT 88 - SEP 99
f` 1989
FUND YR END {
REVENUES: ACTUAL i
EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS $538,643 "r
CITY CONTRIBUTIONS $2,693,307
OTHER $2429464
TOTAL REVENUES $3,424,414
EXPENSES:
RESERVE ADJUSTMENT
PERSONAL SERVICES $14,587
INSURANCE PREMIUMS $340,743
CLAIMS $1,816,438
OTHER $14,484 ;
TOTAL EXPENSES $2,186,253
-
NET OAIN/(LASS) $ -
+ $1,238,161
FUND BAL-PRIOR YEAR ($797,066)
GAIN/(LOSS)
;1,238,161
{ FUND BALANCE-4 ---$441,095
• Does not include $150,000 - $200400 Aggreg. Stop-Lose Recovery (in legal dispute)
and approx. $130,000 in Individ. Stop-Loss Recovery (Dec. submitted claim)
E I/12/sa
A
{
S ,Y
1
d~
r 7 _
IV
IVCV~ ~
y
I~
A ~
insrpt90 ATTACHMENT 5
EMPLOYEE INSURANCE FUND
MONTHLY REPORT
OCT 89 - SEP 90
EMPLOYEE INS FUND OCT 89 NOV 89
REVENUES:
EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS $65,175 $43,291
CITY CONTRIBUTIONS $93,992 $94,507
OTHER $15 $1,295
TOTAL REVENUES $159,182 $139,094
EXPENSES:
PERSONAL SERVICES $1,076 $19277
INSURANCE PREMIUMS $18,756 $23,392
CLAIMS $209,608 x2891521 k
OTHER $0 $0
Y
TOTAL EXPENSES $229,440 5314090
-
NET GAIN/(LOSS) ($70,258)($1769096) Z
FUND BAL-PRIOR MONTH/ -$441,095 $370,837
CUMMULATIVE*
MO. GAIN/(LOSS) ($70,258)($1759096)
FUND BALANCE-** $370,837 $195,740
i
• Does Not Include $381,902 in Claims Reserves (1989)
tx Does not include $150,000 - $200,000 Aggreg. Stop-Loss Recovery (in legal dispute);
and does not include $130,000 Individual Stop-Loss Claim submitted Dec. 89
1/12/90
i
i
} II
I
I
FF
4-1 m !i pvo+ i 1 G
r':. e r O C y
1 !
G ~ ! n OJ~O pp y 1T+
CA 01 C iA O 10
a
1 p 1 b
1 V b nPb+ l
Liao N Z O b ° " b T y
~ J 41 Y. 411 lP '.',j I
VI ~ OI H C N O S
plWr.
y o y b In J
' I .J ~ C m Q p°i N 0 0
1
l H 1 W W # b
W T VI N l}11 °
1 _ b
11 I
Orn O O. O
N r 4 p
=e w o w~p~° 1
N 1 O N O M 1 r1 O 0 OI 1
C ~
r+ sl pb. rQy !
ae ; O 10 O " o '
V
{ e
C
M
a+ W ,y r ae
0
_ Rf
_ u
b I I
W ~ O W O
M 'f
(p O 1 ~ W ~ O
O a W O O
l G W O
Of ~~~51
N b O r
1
-WNW
i
r,
y
L LA I
I
{
I
1
IMF
1 1
~I
{
y
}
1
DATE: 01/16/40
~ V r JV
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
I SUBJECTS DISCUSS AND GIVE DIRECTION ABOUT HARTLEE FIELD ADDITION ANNEXATION
h
RECOMMENDATION:
t ^
Staff recommends not to initiate formal annexation proceedings.
P
SUMMARY:
j The provision of fire services will negatively impact the city
insurance rates because of the excessive response time to the site. x
Other municipal services including police protection, solid waste
collection, maintenance of roads and streets, as required by Section j
43.056 of the local government code must be provided within 60 days
after the effective date of annexation. Water/waste water services
coats are estimated st $1.184 million. Road construction costs are 4
$150,000. Annual property taxes when fully developed are estimated
` at between $169000 and s25,OOO.
BACKGROUND:
This study is a consequence of the filing of a preliminary plat for
the Hartlee Field Addition. Article 303 of Appendix A, Subdivision
and Land Development of Lhe Code of Ordinances requires that staff
prepare a preliminary study for Council to make a determination
whether or not to initiate formal annexation proceedings, when
significant developments are proposed, occurring or likely to occur
in the near future within areas of the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
I PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
All departments responsible for delivering municipal services.
FISCAL IMPACTS
1. To undertake formal annexation procedures: None
2. To provide infrastructure for ultimate "urban standards", the
cost of which may be shared with developers: ¢
water and sewerage: $1.184 million a
street construction: $150,000
3. Negative fire insurance rate.
Respectful submitted:,
loy V. Harrell
City Manager
Prepared and ppr d_:
~ I
FlaoL H. Ro ins, AICPRo ins, AICP
Executive Director
planning and Development
9AAlr
i
}
S rar»,r
PRELIMINARY ANNEXATION STUDY
HARTLEE FIELD ADDITION
The annexation policy of the City requires a case-by-case assessment of areas
f in the extraterritorial jurisdiction when significant developments are
proposed, occurring or likely to occur in the near future. The scope of this
study conforms to the guidelines contained in Article 3.03 of the Subdivision
j and Land Development Ordinance.
The proposed Hartlee Field Addition shows twenty-five oye acre building sites
for single family homes and aircraft hangers. The development, including the
f i existing runway, museum and farm house, will cover approximately
69.224 acres. This land would be owned, maintained and operated by the r
Hartlee Air Field Home Mars Association, according to the developer.
A. The ability of the City to furnish normal urban services equal to
other comparable areas Inside the City limits.
The City is required to provide the following municipal services
within 60 days after the effective date of annexation, as required by
F Section 43.056 of the Local Government Code. ,y
S
1. Police Protection. 1
I
The site is within 15 minutes from existing facilities. No
additional cost is estimated.
2. Fire Pr_otectloo. The provision of fire services will negatively
impact the city insurance rates because of the excessive response
time to the site. The private water system lacks capacity for
fire protection to City of Denton standards. "
3. Solid Waste Collection.
Solid waste collection is currently in place along Sherman Drive.
It is estimated that revenues will come close to offsetting coat
if this service is extended to the site.
4. Maintenance of F.oada and Streets.
i
This service will be made available at the same level that it is
offered to comparable locations inside the City. "Streets" within
the Hartlee Field Addition are not public, and will not be
maintained by the City or County. Hartlee Field Road, if annexed,
E would be city maintained.
54 Maintenance of Parke and PlaZgr)unds.
To be offered at the same level as available to comparable
I locations currently inside the City. No parks are planned within a
the Hartlee Field addition.
6. Maintenance of other publicly owned facilities.
To be offered at the same level as available to comparable
locations currently inside the City. None are anticipated within
the Hartlee Field Addition.
ti ,
. 1
4
4
s
Preliminary Annexation Study for
Hartlee Field
Page 2
t B. The reliability, capacity and future public coat of current and
0 planned provisions for community facilities such as roads, and
Under the provisions contained in Section 43.056 of the Local
Government Code, the City is required to make available to extend
water/waatewater services to the annexed area within 4 1/2 years after }
j the effective date of the annexation. The extenston of these services
need not begin after the effective date of the annexation. See the
legal opinion dated January 3, 1990, about this requirement has been
requested.
t
o The extension of water lines to the site based on current Water
Distribution System Analysis Study is estimated to cost X474,800.
o The extension of wastewater service to the site based on the °f
I 1985 Waste Water Collection System Master Flea is estimated to
cost $709,600.
o These costa could be borne by developers requiring this level of
service who pay for extension of water and sewer lines, and the
city who pay- oversizing.
o Reconstruction of 7.,000 feet along Hartlee Field Road is estimated
to coat $150,000.
The total cost for roads, vater/waatewater amounts to 1.33 million
dollars. (See Attachments 3 and 4).
C. The need and quality of land use and building controls.
Since the
proposed development integrates aircraft operations and
housing development, it may be necessary for land use and building
controls to be i.natituted. However, the airfield has been active for
f many years. The County has authority to regulate airfields.
Annexation of clear zones as part of city zoning control may add
additional service impacts and could lead to the expense of the city
acquiring/condemning clear zones.
D. Impact on the City, both current and long-range.
1. Fiscal coat and benefits.
' Currents There will be no "out of pocket" costs immediately felt
during the first several years after annexation. However, fire II
insurance rate impacts will begin to be adversely affected. The
coat of increased fire insurance has not been estimet ' and will
require substantial staff research to precisely define.
Long Ranges The city could bear some oversize costs, a part of
$1.184 million, at the city's option, to provide water and
wastewater service to another development. Sine the proposed
k ~ a
~ t 1
,,1,1~41
~fy0.
1
4, ~r
~n
Preliminary Annexation Study for
ra Hartlee Field
Page 3
I
development is not planning to hook on to our water amd wastewater
system, there are no oversize costs associated with it and no
revenue would offset this expenditure if it were made at a later
date.
Road reconstruction costs of $150,000 could be added to a long
list of unmet needs. The "bracket law" exempted the Hartlee Field
developer from any perimeter street improvement costs here. State
law does not i:equire that this improvement be made, if this
xrd service is similar to like areas in the city.
Ad valorem property tax revenue may be between $160000 and 125,000
annually, when the Hartlee Field Addition is completely developed,
i
and depending on the value of improvements. It is unlikely that
,
this revenue will offset the annual general government cost to
serve the development or fire insurance rate impacts. t
2. Traffic
r
There is minimal impact on traffic. The proposed development will
not contribute to a significant increase in vehicle trip
generation.
3. Infrastructure of roads, utilities and other community facilities.
The existing Hartlee Field Road is comparable to roads serving
similar areas inside the City. Reconstruction of Hartlee Field
Road will be necessary over the long-range.
Initially, the development will be connected to an existing well
and a private sewage system both to be approved by the City Health
Department. In view of the site of the proposed development, it
is unlikely to have any significant impacts of existing municipal
services and facilities,
4. Safety or Health.
4 -
The increase in aircraft operations at Hartlee Field could
potentially result in aircraft noise impacting existing and future q
residential uses in that area. The number of operations stated by 8!
the Hartlee Field developer would not be more then 6 per day and
none at night. The area is now sparsely inhabited. The runway to
much In excess of required tak off and land length for the type of
aircraft anticipated to operate out of the Hartlee Field Addition.
The proposed development is not regulated by the FAA because
Hartlee Field is registered as a private airport. It could become t
necessary is order to protect the "health, safety, morels and V
general welfare of the City" to require aircraft noise and height r
hazard zoning around Hartlee Field. This might be initiated by
homeowners' complaints, some of whom could reside outside the city
limits.
I
~ F
-T -7
I
a
t• preliminary Annexation Study for
G Hartlee Field
i4 } Page 4
III 5, Building/Development uali!L.
The developer has et+.T:ed that high quality aaadlathetamthe
` residences will t•eer bJty.t in a 1930-40's mot
uptl'"
museum will be
6. Aesthetic unlit.
There is no major impact on the aesthetic quality of the proposed . BO ofvexieting develo.Aing es One acre will
Hartlee Field fit into the contest
4 fCommunity Character.
The single family houses and aircraft than hangers
l it
will provide grass rLLaWdy
and identity.
with the official
conformance
aced to ensure
F. conformance Master th or
ado tad Master Plana of the Cit of
k
1. A 60 acre moderate activity center is at the intersection
1
Hartlee Field Road and Cooper Creek. "part of the hartlee Field
Addition is within this moderate attachment 5. The airport Outsidetthe
a low intensity area. See ears, but is not in
moderate mode has existed for ~e. y Hartlee Field Addition
conformance with a lox intensity
development may increase marginally that airport activity.
Single family home development around the airfield is conforming.
h Commercial expansion of airport or museum activity would not be
conforming.
2. The Thoroughfare Plan shows a major thoroughfare traversing racket i
airfield. This road alignment must be reevaluated. The this
law" eliminated implementation consideration of requiring ,
thoroughfare's right of way and some of its construction in the
platting process. I
3. This development does not impact utility or drainage master plans. -
ture of increased airport operations
Given the probable marginal ae
now sparsely inhabited
and large lot home construction in an area
area of rural character, annexation to insure conformance appears
' unwarranted, at thia timed
Summar_~„Y aaG Recommendntioa
I eat is not contiguous to the current City
The proposed Hartlee Field development
entails annexing another strip of land at i
limits. The annexation of this site City
f least 6,000 feet long and 1000 feet wide to connect to the existing
f limits.
i
r
c
Preliminary Annexation Study for
Hartlee Field
Page 5
I
f t
The tract will not pay for the cost of utility extension or road improvement.
It is outside the fire department's service Area. Proposed development is
consistent with the intensity area.
Staff recommends Formal annexation proceedings not be initiated. ~
Attachment_ q
%WOW
1. Site map.
2. Preliminary plat, Hartlee Field Addition,
3. Estimates for extending water/waste water services to the site.,
4. Es:lmates for reconstruction of 1000' along Hartlee Field Road.
5. Transportation and Intensity Master Plan.
I
If
i
~I
1
I '
2152k
t
s i
1
14 1
t
d
f ATTACHMENT 1
P 89 032
Unlr
• • r r it
SITE
•~`"ARTI.E■ FIELD ROAD
1
Z
1 r~
t
SCALE N4N0. DATE 1!.2J LM l tG JCW .
~ I-1 3
,:a
/I
~r imri~ 1
w. ~i n.r w1. ~~•I
t
F
4
ATTACHMENT 2
P 80 033
N N
w u,. 4 w.a
MFG; M► lfa A / 7
..4Y/1 I 11
I,r K,C
.a\I< eat
T%W~A too
Vil~rr I~rMa •w~ / ~
n` r 3 co I a
f
i ~ ~ J /M vf N,I!
iTY•~i. ~ wr I
b
f
60ALI NOWIL DATi 12 ' I2
i 2- laa>ctri.. Pai t~i-P
i
ATTACHMENT 3
r
HARTLEE FIELD AIRPORT
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST* 1
WATER
UNIT
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT UUANITY PRICE. AMOUNT
LF
1 18-inch WL 8600 $42.00 $273,000.00
2 18-inch O.V. EA 7 3000.00 21,000.00
3 Pavement Replacement SY 66 26.00 1,430.00
A
SUB-TOTAL $295,430.00
CONST. CONTINGENCIES (16%) 440314.60
t
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $339,T44.60
ADMINISTRATION $17,237.24
ENGINEERING 400220.22
SURVEYING 28,728.73
R-O-W AOUISITION 28,728.73.
Rea. PROJ. ENGINEER 209110.11
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJ. COST $474,789.51
COST/LF $73.04
* Includes extension to property as per Water Distribution System,
Analysis Study currently being developed in 1990 dollars.
I
l ,
ji
1 1fI
J ~ 1
3-1 3
k
P
HARTLEE FIELD AIRPORT
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST*
SANITARY SEWER
UNIT
ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANITY PRICE AMOUNT----- i
-------------------------------------------------°-----------1
i 18-inch gravity SL LF 2200 $38.00 $83,600.00
+ 2 10-inch force main LF 8200 21.80 1330300.00
3 4.60 MGD Lift Station EA 1 288400.00 288,400.00 s
4 Standard Manhole EA 7 1200.00 8,400.00
6 Extra Manhole Depth VF 30 130.00 3,900.00
6, Pavement Replacement SY 66 26.00 11430.00
7 MH Break-In EA 1 600.00 800.00 i
SUB-TOTAL $499,630.00
CONST. CONTINGENCIES (16%) 74,944.60
-
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $5740574.60,
ADMINISTRATION $17.237.24
ENGINEERING 40,220.22
SURVEYING 284726.73
R-O-W AQUISITION 28,728.73
RES, PROJ. ENGINEER 20,110.11
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJ. COV $709,699.61
` COST/LF $64.48
Includes extension to property as per 1986 wastewater Collection
System Master Plan in 1990 dollars.
4 I
I
3-y f
raw.. r...
I
I
40
1
ATTACHMENT 4
R URBAN SERVICES ANALYSIS
PUBLIC Waw
1 1. What existing roads, brid;ea, and other traaspottatiou facilities will be
s impacted by this proposed annention and/or development in terms of needed
improvements or up`radiug?
Na" and Locetioa Ty" of Improvasants Needed Approa Cost
1
2. Are any of these ispeovessats presently scheduled to be dons at state or,
federal aspease? If yes, please identify facility and
anticipated date improvemsmts r111 begia.
II ~
1
d
. Y
S
1. Pleue list say dtai"P isproves"ts that say require local fu"LusI and
include estimated cost (if no specific isprovem mts esa be detersined,
please melee gessrel comments concerning draiasp)t j
. • w:~. Sir.
Neva C asst
W a~..lltl~_ ,
Y
f
4-1
l
I
p, ~ tires c~ 1
M
.
_ sod ~
00
I
,I
OEM"
I i
1 1
y1
.
a
t Y.'ff.~~~~ ~1 ~l-•i7 -v At1DCtlh'hmNT b I
NO N
a
~1 S
aft
r J HAY aWO44o
fr~fy 4I ~ ~
1 / j S
MOKArO
attv"y
I ~ I ~ 1 I
O&W
~ bihllE~tlAt/.+
.
1
( err u„r~
:
:79 E" y JCCOI DATA I l p1Z' M I
{
rw: pare ~I~ I
t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1
1
+a
a
r
I
!J
~ J
1
1 y
~T ^I
l
~I
1
1
4 ~
i;
d
i
E 'aow: d wank
I
' wraAEAt, on October ]9, 1989, Howard wank nslgnd, alto
f sorting as captain since Parch 1, 19111 414
NVEREA9, during the past twenty-three years, sovard frank has 1
represented our City As a fire righter, a Driver, and an
' smergewy Ndlcal rechnicianl and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has been fortunate in having enjoyed
the dedicated and outstanding metric" of rowrd Frank
sad wish to rocogniae same) and
s
NEW AS, Howard Prank has always served above and beyond the
i efflclent discharge of his duties in Promoting the
welfare and Prosperity of the City, and has earned the j 1
full respect of his follow employees, colleagues and
citleens of Denton)
I
I Now, rAARrfGAli, Hs 1r Assomp1 'y
that the sincere and ware appreciation of ruwerd Prank -
felt by the cltisans and officers of the City of Denton,
i be formally conveyed to him in a permanent manner by
y recording this Resolution upon the official minutes of
the City Council of the City of Denton, Terms and for- ;
warding to him a true copy thereof as a token of our
appreciation.
PASSED AND APPAOVSD this the day of . 1990. i
i
AAr sr a,
me"
'IZ
E. }
~ ruoa r >N {
3
gat ~ .
~ 1l uaaaKnu E I
i
Anvis ALL 001V
1
N MR=* JM PKls6
AMST e
E Pu aLrrRr, ctr' r stanAtir ~ ~
I
.A
1
i n~lN
1
119
,y
(i
Y
I
I
i
k
f
i
I
1 ~
I
a I
i
J
I +
• I
,
i
I
I '
4
f
I I
r
+
1
a
I'
I If
Ft N
r+; DATE: 01/16/90
r CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT Zj- 02
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
i
SUBJECTt Public heating and adoption of an ordinance providing for a change ,
of zoning from Agricultural (A) to Planned Development District (PD)
with respect to 2.468 acres located east of and abutting she I-35E
between Pockrus Page Road and Shady Shores Road. (Z-88-023)
'i
f RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval at its
November 29, 1989 meeting by a vote of 6-0.
j SUMMARYt
The property is located is a moderate intensity area with an y
intensity allocation of 350 trips per day per acre. The location
and configuration of this tract warrants the allocation of a
disproportionate share of intensity. The Planned Development
District may incorporate a list of uses appended to the development
E standards.
BACKGROUNDi
r City Council considered a rezoning of this tract to Commercial (C)
I on August 15, 1989 and returned the case to the Planning and Zoning
Commission to reconsider as Planned Development (PD).
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTEDt
Nine property owners were notified. J
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact has been determined at this time.
Respect ly submit e t
,
Prepared by: L nyd .Harrell
City manager
AarArAy&N-Persaud AICP
Senior Planner
Ap di
n o no, AICP
Di ector 1
Executive I
f Planning and Development
20901
z
1
4.
k STAFF REPORT
i To: Mayor and City Council
Casa No.: Z-88-023 Meeting Date: January 16, 1990 j
r
GENERAL INFORMATION b
Applicant: Al Lissberger ;
P. 0, Box 3058
Denton, TX 76201
z
f
Status of Applicant: Owner
Requested Action: A change of zoning from agricultural
{A) to Planned Development District
(PD).
The Planned Development District will
permit specific uses listed in the
Development Standards attached.
Location and Size: The property is located east of and 1
abutting i-3SE and west of the MKT '
Railroad and is between Pockrus Page
Road and Shady Shores Road. The
tract is 2.468 acres in size.
Surrounding Land Use
j and toning: North - Vacant, commercial
South - Vacant, agriculture
East - Mobile home park, agriculture
West - I-3SE
Denton Development Plan: Moderate activity center
SPECIAL INFORMATION
i
Transportation: The property has direct access to the
service road of the I.3SE and abuts
the MKT Railroad on the east. The
site, when developed, will have one
I
r
z
I
Y
(Case Z-88-023)
Page Two
SPECIAL INFORMATION (Continued)
a
i
Transportation: driveway, The existing driveway
(Continued) serving a single family home on the
site will be eliminated when that T
house is demolished in the second
phase of the development. A
four foot sidewalk will be required
along the frontage of the property, r,
Utilities; The site to be included in the first 3
phase is a considerable distance from
existing water and sewer lines.
Proposed development on the site will
utilize an existing water well. An a
evapotranspiration system permitted
by the City is to
Y Y proposed provide
wastewater treatment. Future
connection to the city water and
wastewater system is required for
later phases. The City of Denton
will provide electric service to the
site.
Drainage: The tract is situated outside the
100 year flood zone according to the
current Denton County maps (FEMA). I
Drainage improvements will be ,
required for the channel on the south
corner of the property. The sidewalk
along the frontage of the property
will require appropriate culverts to
be installed.
HISTORY
i
The tract is part of a larger tract of 160 acres being part of
the C. Walker Survey Abstract 11330 and the MEP and PRR Survey
Abstract 1950 annexed into the City of Denton, August 20, 1985
and toned (A) agriculture. A single family home is located on
` the tract. The Planning and Zoning Commission considered the
preliminary plat and general development plan on July 12, 1989
and recommended approval to the City Council. A request for a
rezoning to Commercial (C) was returned to the P6Z for
consideration as a PD by Council on August 15, 1)89.
The commission considered PD zoning on September 27 and tabled
the case, A new site plan was submitted to the commission on {
November 29. {
i N
t ~
j
I
1
ell
1tAfY ~OEICtt~
R
(Case Z-88-023)
Page Three
ANALYSIS
The property is located in a moderate activity center designated
as intensity area 176 and adopted by the City Council, March 7,
1989 (R89-015). According to the policies in the Denton
Development Plan, a moderate activity center has a standard
intensity of 350 trips per day per acre (t/d/acre) and land use
diversity is encouraged. Intensity area 176 is currently 701 s
allocated (see calculations attached) with 9026 unallocated
trips. The proposed zoning change will generate approximately t
1,604 intensity trips, which exceeds the proportionate share by
740 trips. 11
In this case, the Denton Development Plan requires that a k
determination should be made as to whether there are planning
considerations that would warrant approval of a disproportionate
allocation of intensity.
a. Location and use relative to existing and planned
infrastructure.
The site has frontage on IH 35. The rear of the property is
adjacent to railroad right of way. Its location is
convenient for the extension of water and sewer lines in the
future. Major drainage improvements will not be necessary
for development of this property for commercial use.
b. Topography and environment in the planning area.
A minor tributary of Pecan Creek traverses the study area
(attachment 3) through its southeast part, flowing south to
north. This tributary has a narrow, shallow floodplain of
about 3.7 acres in size. Some land in this flood lain ma
P Y
be "reclaimed" and developed through filling and
channelization; thus, Intensity trips may not be available
for reallocation from the floodplain. The study area has a
substantial area of trees on its northern end. The proposed
I zoning district is neither heavily wooded nor does it
include floodplain.
A substantial proportion of this study area is categorized
as transportation. These 16.47 acres yield 5764.5 intensity
trips for reallocation.
c. Compatibility with existing and future land uses.
The site is located in a corridor between two transportation
corridors, an interstate highway and a railroad. These
transportation corridors form major barriers and buffers on
two sides of the proposed zoning district. It is located in
a moderate intensity area of such a size and shape so as to
i
i
f
S I
r~• '(Case Z-88-023)
Dr Page Four
ANALYSIS (Continued)
preclude major residential subdivision activity. As with
the house in this proposed zoning district, the other
single-family residential structures in the study area will
probably transition to other uses.
d. Other policies.
The requirements of the Sign and Landscape and Tree
Preservation Ordinances will apply, which should mitigate
typical (and past) strip commercial appearance. Curb cuts
will be controlled according to City codes. With respect to
neighborhood protection, the eight foot wall to be
constructed at the rear of the property, the existing trees
along the railroad, and the distance to the mobile home park
northwest of the site afford the mobile home park excellent
screening and noise attenuation.
;R
The location and configuration of this tract warrants the
allocation of a disproportionate share of intensity.
The Denton Development Plan further establishes the "one-third
rule" which limits commercial/retail land uses to one-third the,
gross acreage of a moderate activity center, According to the
one-third rule calculations (attachment 2), thin center has the
capacity to absorb an additional 19.90 acres of
commercial/retail developments. }
The Planned Development detailed plan (attachment 4) shows an
initial phase of 4,000 sq. ft. building development to be
completed within five (S) years. The ultimate developpment will
constitute 33,377 sq. ft. of building floor space to be used for
warehousing/light manufacturing, offices, retail and restaurant/
i private club.
The policy in the Denton Development Plan is "to encourage and
promote good urban design to enhance the aesthetic quality and
visual amenities along entranceways," The proposed planned
development has given emphasis to the facade of the building and
landscaping. The Landscape Ordinance requires a minimum of 41
non-street yard and 201 front yard landscaping. The landscape
plan (see attachment S) shows 1S% non-street yard and 20.81
street yard landscaping. Since the front yard of this site is
within the 100 it. TMPA easement, 1 1/2" caliper Mexican Redbuds
will be installed in the place of 2" caliper as required by the
ordinance.
Corrugated steel of any kind will not be used on the front
facade of the building. If bay doors are used along the facade
of the building, the landscape plan provides for additional
trees to screen bay doors and auto body painting from the I-3SE.
9
w
I 1
t
y 4
(Case Z-88-023)
Page Five
ANALYSIS (Continued)
The 4,000 sq. ft. restaurant/private club shall unly be
constructed after the property ties on to a public sanitary r
sewer system. Dancing in the private club shall not exceed
2,000 sq. ft. of floor space. R
The detailed site plan shows 144 parking spaces representing a I
71 reduction of the parking requirements listed in the general j
zoning ordinance. Mixed use developments, however, can share
parking spaces because peak time demands vary among different i
uses. Since the restaurant/ private club will share parking on s
the entire site late at nights, a solid 8 ft. screening fence s
should be required along the rear property line to protect the
existing mobile home park to the east of this site.
RECOMMENDATION 1
The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this case on I
November 29, 1989 and voted 6-0 to recommend approval subject to
the following conditions.
1. Corrugated or any other steel construction will not be
allowed on the front elevation of the building.
2. The property shall be connected to a public sanitary
sewer system according to city ordinances before the
restaurant is constructed and/or when building
development exceeds 8,000 sq. ft.
1
3. The existing house on the site shall be demolished or
removed after building development on the site exceeds ,
8,000 sq. ft.
4. Dancing in the restaurant/private club shall not
exceed 2,000 sq. ft. of floor space. I
5. Vehicles to be repaired or painted shall be parked in 1
the rear of the building.
j
6. Shared parking standards shall only apply in this PD
District when the restaurant/private club is in
place. Otherwise parking requirements shall be
determined from the Denton Code of Ordinances Article
15 of Appendix B, Zoning, for all phases of building
development.
r
E
r.~... (Case Z-88-023)
Page Six
31
ALTERNATIVES
I ;t
1. Recommend approval of the petition,
2. Recommend approval with conditions. A
3. Deny petition.
4. Postpone or table a decision.
%Moor ATTACHMENTS
1, Location Map
2. Intensity calculations
3. Intensity area map
4. PD detailed plan
S. Landscape plan
b. PD development standards
7. Parking requirements for mixed-use developments.
i
J
i~
I
i
~ j
18SOk
' I JJI
1
I _ i•, .y qA, NC*`eiilhA JW~Iy'~{:
I ,
i
i
P~
(I~
f
4
C
ATTACHMENT 1
C
Z 88 023
N STN
' DSNT ~ \ . ~t 1
n 1 ~.•7
Mee
,c
s
i
f
`fr--_ c;orN
~oAU A*" OATI
1-1
• ~1
1
i1
o-
ATTACHMENT 2
a
~ v
I }
LAND USE MANACEM£NT INFORMATION SYSTEM
PLANNING AND OEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT
CITY OF DENTON
I. -
intensity are s: 16 Type: Moderate Intenslty trips/Ac 350
} Traffic survey zones: 6615A
6oumdary Decriptl2n: North: Union Pacific Railroad snd Pockrus Ad.
South: City ilmits lima south of Shady Shores Rd.
f Date: 05/10/69 West: I-356
i
{ LANG USE EXISTING LAND USE CURRENT ZONING PLANNED DEYEICPMENTS
CATEGORY UNITS ACRES INTENSITY ACRES INTENSITY ACRES UNITS INTENSITY
-15 0 " 10 110 0 0 0 0 0
-
SF
SF-7)10 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0
LESS SP-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MOS.WMES 11 5.5 110 0 0 0 0 0
0 0'
DUPLEX 0 0 .0 0 0
MF-R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q
MF-1~2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s
COM/AET 0 O.TT 500.3 3 1950 5.23 0 3319.5
OFFICE 0
INDUSTRY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
INSTI'NAL 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 +
PARKS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i
j R/O/SPACE 0 1.15 0 0 0 0 0 i
TRANSIT 0 16.47 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
AGRIC. O 0 0 43.68 0 0 0 0
VACANT 0 $1.81 0 6 0 O 0 0
TOTAL 22 18.rl
_ 721 45.58 1180 s.23 0 3400 t
INTENSITY CALCULATION jj
(1) Intensity arm total tripe 11.71 tlaaa 3110 30341
(3) Trips allocated to currrent'zoland nin/ ulnel. P (built)
06 )(mot built) 53721
30
(4) trios allocated to vacant lands not zoned pica Agric. soning 15263
(6) Estimated unallocated Intensity trips 0 )minus(2)+(3)+(4 9024
Percentaga of Intensity tripe allocated TO
....ElTMIRO RULE CALCULAT - w.w......
ION
-.a..w..... ~ i
Acres Trips
E (1) Allocations for cook retail development 21.10 111/1 1
(2) Existing com\retall land uses (built) O.IT $61 1
(3) Current toning for coo\retall land uses 1.23 $330
(4) rota! allocated (2) + (3) 1.00 5130 t
(5) Unallocated tripe/acres
j
+ 11,10 •12931 M • . - . .
I =_I /11
I
i~
q 1f
r
tr
ATTACHMENT 3
IJI 1N?33111?T AttA d ~d VII 86,x- AC>ttt
~I
i
t0v8DAST DNO1lP?lox
I
~ Msett 2-158
I~
North: Union Pacific Railroad (formerly mg? Railroad) and Pockrus i
j Road
Souehi City limits line south of Shady Shores Road
I
II I
~OptlVa aA ' •
1
M
1
I
ICALi
/ ON 1///
&PP d Boom ru"
f
}
3-1
i
,r
I
ATTACHMENT 4
r
3
N
I. • ro
LL J a I N ' ~2~~ I0
LANE
' u v1
~~.11 i o" R yy z
z °
a a e ~i.
Its
I
y ~f . I o ~
oil
JyY I er+•IFj^S
r "
B z Il . ~ 1
Of
Mrllf _ _ I
01 0
t
a
~ ` 1rP1 f ar ~ ~ ~ f
f 99 ~5 43d
1 R~ t
a>~ 9~ 666 '
I
E ~<<tu _ ;it• lr r(!j(fill l ~rll(f,ll►';'~riEl (p 1 ,y
I
rrlEr`(~ r( ~r .r tr4k( ~I rNrl ri E n 1r 1slfiiff4x tr~l Ilr F(I~~II r~Itrl~I~r,E1 =!f-is ~i
it ' ~i~ fl r rll+I~,~l'1~ ! IrurE~ fl fit ~r=l;I~~ ;j ~,~11 I Il,~f`Jl !r~ (,r(
lII,~(~I ~ I lr~ I+~
+1 ,1 r(~,r r lr ~ 1 ~rl~f ~ ~ r r J ; ~ I rr111r,11= r t 1rr ~►►+!f r~l
~I r r ( r II,( l' I 1, II1 r11+ r Jr ' ( r{',rrl'r~i~+l~ 1 f' i I~ i~t• k.
3
,r i 1 , c1,1+11~,~=I~1 1(rr r•,~I(rllr~.~~if
~ ~ s ~ ~ i ~ ' Ic'=11~r r (f ~ Ei•''r r rrr'!''
j; r ~ ~ ; ! ~ ~ i (l,rr~,l:i,t(~i ~ ~ r,E lr~ii~l''~r~`lrE~ (ii
` . I r ~ r i , ~ rl rr E ►E ,Ir ~rr(i
I
t
j
5 ~ !C ~
71111 7~
n 'S? ~ i yid 1 ji
. 17
^ r
j T • e ® ~ t 3
e • f
' rf
+ ° I
Y I A
` .I I •
LL-
T14 P_
Itif - - - _ I,
Sao' !N[M[[t
1 e
D
5 ~
I
1 0i%t ~lOJ.
1 • Ml 1 ! tl.... I
t
6
ss
r
S S,N3W8~tt,LSV
I
t Y.
rr■ ~ p ~ ~
ATTACHMENT 6 DEVELUNENT STANDARDS
i
DETAILED PLAIT
4 1. Statement of Intent of Owner:
f Secure P.D.-District zoning plat & build building for his business.
and leasing.
I
1
2. St.Atement Indicating Relation to Denton Ltvelopmert Plan:
This area is currently zoned agriculture, is located within a moderat e
intensity area. Physical characteristics warrant consideration for
the proposed uses and type of development.
3. Total Number of Acres in Proposed District: }
2.468 acres. x
Land Uses and Total Number of Acte$ in Each Parcel or Tract:
Total Proposed Acreage
a. Single Family Detached N j
be Single Family Attached (townhouses, cluster, etc.) -
% c. Attached Patio/Garden/zero Lot Line
d. Duplex
e. multi-Family
f. Office
g. Neighborhood Service
he General Retail
to commercial
J. Light Industrial
k. Heavy Industrial
1. Other (specify)
see Exhibit A
{ -
I
(
6-1
1
1
Bwn. l
111~
s I
awl
owl
.
S. Off-Site' Information - adjacent or Surrounding land uses, zoning, streets,
drainage facilities, and other existing or proposed improvements.
(Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
6. Traffic and Transportation - indicate existing and proposed streets, packing lots,
j loading areas, access points. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.l
Projected Traffic Generation. (Based on traffic study, if required.)
ri
I J`t
7. Buildings,
a. Approximate location. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
b. Maximum heights
feet and not over 20 feet in TI-TA easement.
y
c. Minimum setbacks: (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
18' to northwest, 18' to rear( 18' to southeast( 75'+ at front -
d. Maximum gross floor arcs (square feet) for nonresidential:
Maximum, 33P377 sq,ft, one building size as shown y
8. Residential Subdivision,
a. Number of units per acre (deneity),
b. Number and location of lots: (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
co Minimum elte, width and depth of lots: (Shown on concept or detailed plan.{
d. Minimum front, side and cur yard setbacks: (Shown on concept or detailed plan.
4
1
s
i,
.
l`A
I
Paget J
9. Hater and Drainage - approximate location of all existing or proposad creeks,
ponds, lakes, ffoodplains, other water retention or major drainage facilities
and improvements. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
i 10. Utilities - location of all major so,.er, water or electrical lines and facilities.
l5hown on concept or detailed plan.l
i
il. Location of trees 34 in diameter - six (6) feet from ground level.
(Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
r I~
12. Open Space - location and size of greenbelts, parks, common and recreational areas, j
f (Shown on concept or detailed plan.) I
13. Screening - location, type and size of all (ences, berms or screening features,
(Shown,on concept or detailed plan.)
310' of Burford Holly hedge, 3' high and entrance facade along front of
parking lots - grass elsewhere. An 6' screenin fence along rear rope; r 01 to scrIonnte~ o Be snoiay oors, nR c w 1 bepsameec-C
er as e IT
}v at
14. De a opmolnt Schedule iconcept plan) - showing specific date detailed plan will
be submitted, date to start construction and complete construction, and rate of ft
development. All dates should indicate month and year. r
i
ADDITIONAL REpUIP.EN.ENTS FOR A DETAILED PLAN
15. Landscaping Plan - major features and types of landscaping to be used.
Entrance facade and 3' high Burford Holly hedge along 310' of parking
I lot frontage as constructedf grass elsewhere. Detail landscaping shown
11 on Landscape Plans. All landscaping incorporated in Planned Phasing
shall be installed as building is constructed.
'
6-3
I (
,m7
Page 4
r ' 16. Signs - show location, type and size on detailed plant otherwise, signs must
conform to Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance.
f A 101 high 10' by 251 sign shown on detail plan is proposed,
17. Sidewalks, (Shown on detailed plan.)
All sidewalks shall be built in first phase.`
18. All information required for preliminary plat in accordance with Appendix A
(Denton Development Code) of the Code of Ordinances. F
3
(A separate plat is required,) F
19. Development schedule (detailed plan) - indicating start and completion of rk
construction and the rate of development. All dates should indicate month
• ~4
and year.
See Exhibit B for First Phase construction and Second and later
phase construction. I
• i
1
I
a
ab
.1/87
6-4 ° I
! 1
1
1
roll
gAi1BIT A
The Planned Development District me; include the following type of uses.
Art Gallery or Museum Theatre, Other Than Drive-In Type
Schools Business or Trade Hauling or Storage Company
Telephones Business Office Auto Painting and Body Repair
Auto Sales and Repair (In Building)
Seat Covet and Muffler Installation Shop ,
Rink
Roller or ice Skating
Bus Stop or Repair Used Auto Parts Sales (In Building)
r Amusement Center Bakery or Confectionery Shop (Retail)
Auto Laundry Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pickup
New Auto Parts Sales Store Drapery, Needlework or Weaving Shop
New or Used Car Sales Lot Greenhouse or Plant Nursery (Retail)
(In Open) Household Appliance Service and Repair
Antique Shop Mimeograph, Stationery or Letter Shop
Cafeteria office, Professional and Administrative
Custom Personal Service Shop Off Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wine -V
Florist or Garden Shop On Premise Sale of Beer aadlor Wine
Handicraft Shop Retail Stores 6 Shops 4,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
Laundry or Cleaning Studio for Photographers Musician, Artist
Self Service or Health ?
Licensed Private Club Tool or Trailer Rental s
Pawn Shop Animal Clinic or Hospital (8o Outside Runs
;o
Restaurant or Pens)
Retail Store and Shops Animal Clinic or Hospital With Outside Runs
Over 4,000 Sq. Ft. or Pens
Secondhand Store, Used Cleaning and Dyeing Plant (Commercial)
Furniture or Rummage Sale Greenhouse or Plant Nursery
Bakery (Wholesale) Cleaning Pleat, Bags or Carpets (Special
Cabinet and Upholstery Shop Equipment) F
Engine and Motor Repairing Feed Store s
Laundry Plant (Commercial) Clothing Manufacture or Light Compounding i
Heavy Machinery Sales and or Fabrication
Storage Job Printing or Newspaper Printing
Plumbing Shop Petroleum Products Storage Wholesale
Storage or Sales Warehouse Scientific or Research Laboratories
Wholesale Office and Sample
Room,
I,
The following type of uses will be prohibited.
~ (a) Sewage pumping station
(b) Savage treatment plant
(e) Stable or related facilities for horses
(d) Truck parking lot
(e) Commercial parking lot with structure
(f) Auto wreekiag or Salvage yard
(g Tire retreading or capping
(h) Poultry hatchery
(i) Stora,se yard
(j) Sand or gravel sales or storage i
(k) Heavy manufacturing or industrial uses requiring special
proceales
(1) private :tility shop or storage yard
(m) Storage and sales of used furniture or appliances outside a
building
side yards
(a) outside
Sexually storage oriented businesses
2069x 6-5
I x
19 October 1989
EXHIBIT B
FIRST PHASEt 1990-1995
Construct initial 4,332 sq. ft. of building
*Construct 18-foot fire lane around entire building
*Construct entrance facade and driveway
*Construct grade and install 24-inch drainage culvert
*Construct 20 parking spaces
*Construct and install landscaping in front of building (68 sq. ft.)
*Construct landscape area at top of parking area (102 sq. ft.)
i *Install trees in front of bay doors
*Construct and install landscape area at front entrance (640 sq. ft.)
*Install screening hedge in front of parking lot (40 ft.)
*Construct all sidewalk
*Construct and install evapotranspiration system +
*Upgrade well to meet city code and supply water as needed
*Grade and install rip-rap and 24-inch culvert in 15-foot easement at
southwest corner of property
*Clear out 135 culvert in front of property (southwest corner)
*Construct and install island for dumpeter in rear
*Construct and install island and landscaping for transformer (70 sq. ft.)
*Construct an 8-foot screening fence along the entire length of the
property on the rear property line
SECOND AND LATER PHASES 1996-2010
*Construct balance of building 29,005 sqq ft.)
*Construct balance of fire lane around building
*Construct balance of entraace facade and landscaping incorporated in
each phase in street (79396 sq. ft.)
I *Construct balance of landscaping incorporated in each phase in rear
yard (4,538 sq. ft.)
f *Construct and install trees in landscape areas as shown on Detail
Plan (11 Mexican Redbuds and 3 Live Oaks)
*Conscruct and install balance of islands for dumpaters
I ' *Install balance of Dward Burford Holly screening hedge
` *Construct and install balance of landscape in front of building
f *Install trees in front of bay doors
*Asmove single family house when expanding building development over
81000 sq, ft. 4
*Remova septic system when connecting to city sewerage. R
1
6-6
,r
~M f0~ilr
6 E 1
F
ATTACHMENT 7
CALCULATING PARKING FOR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS*
WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTTIMI'Y
, 3 b
Daytime Evening Daytime Evening
(9 a.m. - (6 p.m,- (4 a.m.- (b p.m,- m i d n i g h
r'
4 p.m.) midnight 4 p.m.) midnight) 6 a.m.,
Office/Industrial 1001 101 101 51 S
Retail 60 90 100 70 S
I Hotel 7S 100 75 100 7S
Restaurant 50 100 100 100 10
I
Entertainment/
Recreational 40 100 80 100 10v
'Source: PAS Report 0377, Flexible Parking Requirements.
II,
Lissber er Addition: Parkin Re uirements
based on the Zoning Ordinances
I
,fr
11,100 sq. ft. Office/Industrial..,.... 14 spaces
180177 sq. ft. Retail 91 spaces
4j000 sq. ft. Restaurants.........,,. 40 spaces
Total 1SS spaces
I
7.1
198Ox/1 i
r
rte...
1
F
Lissber er Addition: Parkin Re uirements
a uste or m xe uses.
` NIGHTTI,NE t
WEEKDAY WEEKEND
s
Daytime Evening Daytime Evening.
midnight
(9 a.m. m.- (9 a.m.- (b p,m.4 p.m.) midnight 4 p.m,) midnight) 6 a.m.),
1 1
E Office/Industrial 24 3 3
82 91 64 5
I Retail 55 - -
Hotel
20 40 40 40 4
Restaurant
E Entertainment/ '
Recreational
lOb 11
j TOTAL 99 115 134
_ I y
Suamar Y.,
According to this analysis, 134 parking spaces is adequate for the proposed
mixed use development. This represents a 13,45 percent reduction of the
ordinance requirements.
7-2
t 19sox/2
1
1
I
FIELD NOTES to all that certain tract of land situated in the G. Walker Survey
Abstract Number 1330 in the City and County of Denton Texas and being all of the
called 1.468 acre tract described in the deed from Estella H. Woodford to
Caraway/routs J.V. recorded in Volume 1468 Page 75 of the Real Property Records
of Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 8.931 acre tract
described in the deed from Larry Schmitz to Bob Caraway recorded in Volume 1484
Page 146 of s,td Real Property Records as recognized and occupied on the ground;
the subject tract being more particulary described as follows:
BEGINNING for the Northwest Corner of the tract being described herein at an
iron rod found at the Northwest corner of the said 1.468 acre tract in the
nonumented Northeasterly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 35E;
THENCE North 42 Degrees 55 Minutes 48 Seconds East with the North line of said
1.468 acre tract a distance of 316.39 feet to an iron rod found at the Northeast
Corner thereof, in the Southerly right-of-way line of the M.K.ST. Railroad;
THLNCE South 30 degrees 32 Minutes 43 Seconds East along said Railroad a
distance of 78.82 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius
of 1273.57 feet;
THENCE in a Southeasterly direction along the arc of said curve, along said
Railroad at 158.36 feet passing an iron rod set for the Southeast Corner of said
L.468 acre tract, same being the Northeast Corner of said 8.931 acre tract and
continuing along said curve, in all, a total arc distance of 347.74 feet ( chord
bearing of South 38 Degrees 22 Minutes 03 Seconds East a distance of 346.66 feet
? to an iron rod set for the Southeast corner of the herein described tract;
THENCE South 42 Degrees 56 Minutes 51 Seconds WevL with a line parallel with the
South line of said 1.468 acre tract a distance of 220.48 feet to an iron rod set
for the Southwest corner of the herein described tract in the Northeasterly line
of the abovementioned Highway;
THENCE North 49 Degrees 57 Minutes 00 Seconds West along said Highway as
monumented at 188.70 feet passing an iron rod set for the Southwest Corner of
said 1.468 acre tract and continuing along said course with said Highway, in
all, a total distance of 418.70 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing
2.473 acres of land.
These Field Notes were prepared from an on the ground survey made by me on
August 17, 1988.
,
Mi heh el i. Kern R.P,S. No. 4158 Da e
f..,,
MICHA[~ J. KERN
III IM/11NI µN111/N11111
4158 ,r
A~ C,SUPfl
f~
7-3
i
t
e
'I.
3
1
d
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON# TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR A CHANGE
FROM AGRICULTURAL "A" TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT "PD" ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR 2.473 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED EAST OF AND ABUTTING
I-35E AND WEST OF THE MKT RAILROAD, BETWEEN POCKRUS-PAGE ROAD AND
SHADY SHORES ROAD, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) PROVID-
APPROVAL
ING
OF A DETAILED ING FOR A PENALTY INTHE MAXIMUM AMOUN LT OF $2, 000. 0 FOR VIOLATIONS
:a
THEREOFI AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Al Lissberger has petitioned-for a charge in zoning
from agricultural "Al' to planned development "PD" zoning district
classification for 2.473 acres of land located east of and abutting
I-35E and west of the MKT Railroad, between Pockrus-Page Road and
Shady Shores Road, and for approval of a detailed plan for the i
district; and
WHEREAS, on November 29, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Com-
mission held a public hearing on the petition and recommended
approval thereof; and,
'WHEREAS, on January lb, 1990, the City Council held a public
hearing an the petition, notice of which was given as provided by
laws NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINSs
SECTION i. That the 2.473 acres of land described in Exhibit
"A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is
changed from Agricultural "A" zoning district classification to
?i Planned Development "PD" zoning district classification under the
comprehensive zoning ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas.
SECTION 1J. That purscant to the provisions of article 11 of
Appendix B-Zoning of the Code of Ordinances, the Detailed Plan
designated as Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated hei4in
j by reference, is approved for the district, so that hereafter such
land shall be developed, used, and maintained in accordance with
i the detailed plan and development standards herein approved subject
to the additional following aonditionst
(1) Corrugated or any other steel construction will not be
allowed on the front exterior of the building.
(2) This property shall be connected to a public sanitary
sewer system according to City ordinances before any
restaurant begins business or when building development
exceeds 8,000 square foot, whichever first occurs.
(3) rThe emoved when building development eon the dsiteiexceeds
8,000 square feet of floor space.
I
ell
~elae.r ~ l
r
I,
F A
r
(4) The dance floor in any restaurant or private club use
shall not exceed 2,000 square feet of floor space.
(5) Vehicles to to repaired or painted in coniunction with
any automotive service use shall be parked n the rear of
the building.
(6) Shared parking standards shall only apply in this PD
district when and if the district is used for restaurant
or private club purposes. Otherwise, parking require-
ments shall be determined from the Denton Code of
Ordinances Article 15, of Appendix B-Zoning, for all
phases of building development.
SECTION 111. That the zoning Map of the City of Denton,
Texas, adopted the 14th day of January, 1969, as an Appendix to the !
Code of Ordinances of the city of Denton, Texas, under ordinance
No. 69-1, as amended, is further amended to show such change in the
zoning district classification and use designation for the property '
described.
;p
SECTION IV. That any person violating any provision of this 14
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.
SECTION V. 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 , 1990.
RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR
A'rTEST1
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY ,
1
BYr
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL rORM1
DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
BY I Z8802 or
~ R
4
F k
F4
r
Y '
EXHIBIT "A"
k
I FIELD "TOTES to all that certain tract of land situated in the C. Walker Survey
Abstract Number 1330 in the City and County of Denton Texas and being all of the
called 1.468 acre tract described in the 'deed from Estella H. Woodford to
' Caraway/Fouts J.V. recorded in Volume 1468 Page 75 of the Real Property Records
` . of Denton County, Texas and being a part of the called 8.931 acre tract
f described in the deed from Larry Schmitz to Bob Caraway recorded in Volume 1484
Page 146 of said Real Property Records as recognized and occupied on the ground;
the subject tract being more particulary described as follows:
BEGINNING for the Northwest Corner of the tract being described herein at an
iron rod found at the Northwest corner of the said 1.468 acre tract in the
monumented Northeasterly right-of-way line of Interstate Highway 35E;
THENCE North 42 Degrees 55 Minutes 48 Seconds East with the North line of said
1.468 acre tract a distance of 316.39 feet to an iron rod found at the Northeast
Corner thereof, in the Southerly right-of-way line of the M.K.&r. Railroad;
THENCE South 30 degrees 32 Minutes 43 Seconds East along said Railroad a
distance of 78.82 feet to the beginning of a curve to the left having a radius
of 1273.57 feet;
THENCE in a Southeasterly direction along the are of said curve, along said
Railroad at 158.36 feet passing an iron rod set for the Southeast Corner of said
1.468 acre tract, same being the Northeast Corner of said 8.931 acre tract and
continuing along said curve, in all, a total arc distance of 347.74 fast ( chord
bearing of South 38 Degrees 22 Minutes 03 Seconds East a distance of 346.66 feet
to an iron rod set for the Southeast corner of the herein described tract;
TWCB South 42 Degrees 56 Minutes 51 Seconds West with a line parallel with the
South line of said 1.468 acre tract a distance of 220.48 feet to an iron rod set
for the Southwest corner of the herein described tract in the Northeasterly line
of the abovemsntioned Highway; 7
THENCE North 49 Degrees 57 Minutes 00 Seconds West along said Highway as
monumented at 188.70 feet passing an iron rod set for the Southwest Corner of
said 1.468 acre tract and continuing along said course with said Highway, in
all, a total distance of 418.70 feet to the PLACE OF BEGINNING and enclosing
2.473 acres of land.
I These Field Notes were prepared from an on the ground survey made by me on
August 11, t988.
-Mi hael J. kern R.P.S. No. 4158 Da Cs
t
7
MICKA J. URN }
158 r
00
i SUA
r
N `
Iy~
1
j 1
i
k EXHIBIT "B"
PD DETAILED PLAN FOR Z-88-023
CONSISTING OF:
1. PD detailed plan (1 page).
2. Landscape plan (1 page).
3. Development standards 16 pages).
4. Parking standards for mixed-use developments
(2 pages).
1
R
0
i
I
1
j. '
C
i
i
E
t
ATTACHMENT 1
r
Gr0 r
FtRi LINE
lei
zr,Kt
f ~ i pia
i fir' ' •
R r
t n .
1n •
!r 111 iii
Sao; '
k.K
ji ZIP
i i
I i r{!!I d + If ~!'(!rr+ rl rrIr r „
"fr 'I• it ! III ,I, 'r ~h i 1 II ly t f ' II ,Elry, ! I !
' Ir I j r l rl i ( !i!1f!EI!!E I ~ ,Irl) ~ , I ! ~ 'r + ,r II i
I I'i I' 1~ lr' I4 Ey ii l I ► !rf I ,I r ~~f €I , i I , e,l ! , ,
• l ,ir~~ tl{ E r j' I I i rr llr i ICI I "jI r+J(++ rill IIr 1,1[!I'!
I~,i 111 ~'4l If ' ~I r i rr r fry i [+!I~ij1J i I',~ ['ll ;;iE!
I 1r r r + ! Irlt J t Ir 111 ~l E I rl J~ it
1
II I ri; I~ j jl,lil,E~l(r IIJI!nr !J i(r rl ~ r'I! rllr rt!J,II J,If +i ~~;,',J
It r r r I 'r ,Ij,1 ! li Ili , !'rE11q I li I ti~ lrlf J(I f,,,(~rl;,f l!
it E I I ! rl' ' 'r Erl 1il' I I i''' r'll I +1111 iq '
I'fell [f!i if Il
e+ + ; ! !~I i ! i~ri i(I~~ + I ! 'J~JI!<<'llll !lr'Jir jllif
I! I I I I !I ! I I ► r~'1'~i ' III~~~IIj !
i
I.
if
Z
f f~
g Z R..
1 ~ ~w
d,
' I
e ~
• Iw
R
1 ~ 4
tir " o~
PA
Soo'
r
It
f ~Or
fill'
I
e` I ski st
0
4
r ~
~ ~ ~ z selswe~vasv
{yrnr rT ;:y a.w
y
4}
fi
r,e..• DEVELC,PriEhT ,AVDARDS
ATTACHMENT3
DETAILED PLAII
I
1. Statement of Intent of Owners
Secure P.,.,Q.-Dlatrict zoning0j at & build building for his business
and leasing.
2. Statement Indicating Relation to Denton Developmert Planr
} This area is currently zoned agriculture, is located within a moderat ,
intensity area. Physical characteristics warrant consideration for
the proposed uses and type of development,
3, Total Humber of Acres in Proposed District:
2.468 acres.
1, Land Uses and Toe%l Humber of Acres in Each Patcsl or Tracts
Total Proposed Acreage
a. Single family Detached
bo single ramily Attached Itownhouses, cluster, sta,)
C. Attached Patio/Garden/tero Lot Line
d. DuPlsx
e, multi-featly
lt, f, Office '
Is Neighborhood service
h, General Retail
is Commercial
f. Light Lndusttial
I k. Heavy tndusttial
10 Other (specify)
See Exhibit A -1
i 3-1
l
.
S. Cff-Site' information - adjacent or surrounding land uses, zoning, streets,
k drainage facilities, and other existing or proposed improvements.
I + (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
t .
` 6. Traffic and Transportation - indicate existing and proposed streets, packing lot!)
r loading areas access n s. w
, pot t ISI:on on concept or detailed plan.)
i Projected Traffic Generation. (Based on traffic study, if required.) E
k
7. Buildings:
a. Approximate location. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
b. Maximum height:
36 feet and not over 20 feet in TMTA easement.
c. Minimum setbacks: (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
18' to northwestr 18' to rear$ 181 to southeast) 751* at front
d. Maximum gross floor area Isquare feet) for nonresidential:
Maximums 339377 sq.ft, one building size as shown
S. Residential Subdivision:
a. Number of units pet acre (density):
C
b. Number and location of lots: (Shown on concept a: detailed plan.)
a
c. Minimum slier width and depth of lots: (Shown an concept or detailed plan.) 1
d. Minimum front, side and roar yard setbacks: (Shown on concept or detailed plat,
I 1
3-2 y
i
I 1
f/
}
f■■I l
1aY,
4
F
('IP_M 1 • I
9. water and Drainage - approximate location of all existing or proposed creeks,
ponds, lakea, froodpiains, other water caeention or major drainage facilities
and improvements. (Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
i
{
10. utilities - location of all major s-.er, dater or electrical lines and facilities.
(Shown on concept cc detailed plan.)
11. Location of trees 3• in diameter - six (6) feet from ground level.
'r
(Shown on concept cc detailed plan.)
i
12. open Space - location and size of greenbelts, parks, common and recreational areas
i
(Shown on concept or detailed plan.)
13. Screening - location, type and site of all fences, berms or screening features.
(Shown.on concept or detailed plan.)
310' of Burford Holly hedge, V high and entrance facade along front
aarkin loots - crass elsewhere. An 8' sscreenin fence along rear propf'
l ~pncgpr~ianten LO ScYelhn Day oors, wh C W l bepsame®co or as e. )Y,
14. 0evelopmtnt Schedule (concept plan) - showing specific date detailed plan will
be submitted, date to start construction and complete construction, and rate of
development. All dates should indicate month and year.
.
w1
.1.G
t
ADDITIONAL REQUIP.EPENTS foR A DETAILED PLAN
15. Landscaping Plan - major features and types of landscaping to be used.
Entrance facade and 3' high Burford Holly hed s along 310' of parking I
lot frontage as constructedi grass elsewhere. Detail landscaping show
on Landscape Plans. All landscaping, incorporated in Planned Phasing
shall be installed as building is constructed.
} 3-3
1
.j
w
16. Signs - show Location, type and size on detailed plan; otherwise, signs must
conform to Article 11 of the Loninq Ordinance.
A 101 high 10' by 25' sign shown on detail plan is proposed
i
17. Sidewalks. (Shown on detailed plan.)
All sidewalks shall be built in first phase.
18. All information required for preliminary plat in accordance with Appendix A
f (Denton Development codel of the Code of Ordinances. 3
(A separate plat is required.)
19. Development Schedule (detailed plant - indicating start and completion of
s~
construction and the rate of development. All dates should indicate month
and year.
See Exhibit B for First Phase construction and Second and later
phase construction.
A
z7
I~ y
ff I
Y
r .l ✓,a .
1.
i
i
Ab
7/07
3-4
I
5
l
yls
t
tie
i
x
7
L
EXHIBIT A-L
The Planned Development District may include the following type of uses.
Art Gallery or Museum Theatre, Other Than Drive-In Type
I School, Business or Trade Hauling or Storage Company
Telephone, Business Office Auto ?slating and Body Repair
Auto Sales and Repair (In Building)
Roller or lee Skating Rink Seat Cover and muffler Installation Shop
Bus Stop or Repair Used Auto Parts Sales (In Building)
s Amusement Center Bakery or Confectionery Shop (Retail)
Auto Laundry Cleaning and Pressing Small Shop and Pickup
Nov Auto Parts Sales Store Drapery, Needlework or Weaving Shop
New or Used Car Sales. Lot Greenhouse or Plant Nursery (Retail)
(In open) Household Appliance Service and Repair
Antique Shop Mimeograph, Stationery or Letter Shop
Cafeteria Office, Professional and Administrative
Custom Personal Service Shop Off Premise Silo of Beer and/or Wine
Florist or Garden Shop On Premise Sale of Beer and/or Wine
Handicraft Shop Retail Stores b Shops 4,000 Sq. Ft. or Less
Laundry or Cleaning Studio for Photographer, Musician, Artist
Self Service or Health
Licensed Private Club Tool or Trailer Rental
Pawn Shop Animal Clinic or Hospital (No Outside Runs
Restaurant or Pens)
Retail Store and Shops Animal Clinic or Hospital With Outside Runs
Over 4,000 Sq. Fts or Pens
Secondhand Store, Used Cleaning and Dyeing Plant (Commercial)
Furniture or Rummage Sale Greenhouse or Plant Nursery
Bakery (Wholesale) Cleaning Plant, Bags or Carpets (Special
Cabinet add Upholstery Shop Equipment)
Engine and Motor Repairing Feed Store
Laundry Plant (Commercial) Clothing Manufacture or Light Compounding
Heavy Machinery Sales and or Fabrication
Storage Job Printing or Newspaper Printing
i Plumbing Shop Petroleum Products Storage Wholesale
Starata or Sales Warehouse Scientific or Research Laboratories
Wholesale Office and Sample
Room '
The following t
~ yps of ores will be prohibited.
(a) Sewage pumping station'
(b) Sewlte treatment plant j
(c) Stable or related facilities for horses'
(d) Truck parking lot
(a) Commercial parking lot with structure
(f) Auto wrecking or Salvage yard
(g) Tire retreading or capping
(h) Poultry hatchery a
(i) Storage yard
(j) Sand or trawl sales or storage
(k) Heavy manufacturing or industrial uses requiring special
processes ? {
(1) Private utility shop or storage yard
(m) Storage and sales of used furniture or appliances outside a
building
(a) Outside storage in front or side yards.
(o) Sexually oriented businesses
20691
6-5
r
.11t91f.~
R
19 October 1969
EXHIBIT B-1
I
v
FIRST PRASE: 1990-1995
Construct Initial 4,332 sq. ft. of building
*Construct 18-toot fire lane around entire building
"Construct entrance facade and driveway
*Construct grade and install 24-inch drainage culvert
*Construct 20 parkrag spaces
°Construct and install landscaping in front of building (68 sq. ft.)
i. *Construct landscape area at top of parking area (102 sq. ft.)
*Iastall trees in front of bay doors
aConstruct and install landscape area at front entrance (640 sq. ft.)
aInatall screening hedge in front of parking lot (40 ft.) I
*Construct all sidewalk
i *Construct and install evapotranspiration system
*Upgrade well to meet city code and supply water as needed
*Grade and install rip-rap and 24-inch culvert in 15-foot easement at x
southwest corner of property 1
*Clear out 135 culvert in front of property (southwest corner)
*Construct and install island for dumpster in rear
aConstruct and install island and landscaping for transformer (10 sq. ft.)
"Construct an 8-foot screening fence along the entire length of the
property on the rear property line
k
SECOND AND LATER PHASES 1996-2010
*Construct balance of building (29,005 sq. ft.)
*Construct balance of fire lane around building
*Construct balance of entrance facade and landscaping incorporated in
each phase in street (7,396 sq. ft.)
*Construct balance of landscaping incorporated in each phase in rear
yard (4,538 sq. ft.)
*Construct and install trees in landscape areas as shown on Detail
Plan (17 Mexican Redbuds and 3 Live Oaks)
*Construct and install balance of islands for dumpsters
*Install balance of Dward Burford Holly screaming hedge
*Construct and install balance of landscape in front of building
alnstall treea in front of bay doors
r sRenove single family house when expanding building develope"t over
Y 8,000 sq. ft.
klemove septic system whom cormecting to city sewerage.
~I
^ 1
1
i
---r z:-
ATTACHMENT 4
1.
CALCULATING PAR[1NG FOR NIXED-USE DEYELOPNENTS+
t
E WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTTIME
I
Daytime Evening Daytime Evening
(9 a.m. - (6 pa.- (9 a.m.• (6 p.m.- midnight }
4 p.m.) ■ldnight 4 p.m.) midnight) 6 a.m.)
Office/Industrial 100% 10% 101 5% 5% t
i
Retail 60 90 100 70 S g
Hotel 7S 100 75 100 75
Restaurant so 100 100 100 10 t
Entertainment/
Recreational 40 100 g0 100 10
+Source: PAS Report 1377, Flexible Parking Requirements.
i
g
it.
'
L_i~ss~ber, Addition: Parkin Requirements
Wised on t e on n■ r Hance.
11,100 sq. it. Office/Industrial....... 24 spaces
130277 sq. it. Aetall 91 spaces
40000 sq. ft. Restaurants............ 40 spaces
Total 1SS spaces
4.1
~I
19gOx/1
{
I
III.
Lissber er Addition: parkin Re utre■ents
a a uste or ■ xe uses.
WEEKDAY WEEKEND NIGHTTIME
Daytime Evening Daytime Evening
(9 A.M. - (6 p.■.- (9 a.m.- (6 p.m.- midnight
4 p.m.) midnight 4 p.m.) midnight) 4 a.m.)
Office/Industrial 24 3 3 2 2 i
Retail SS 82 91 64 S
~ I
3
Hotel
~i
Restaurant 20 40 40 40 4
Entertainment/
Recreational
I
TOTAL 99 12S 134 106 11
Summaryi
According to this analysis, 134 parking spaces is adequate for the proposed
mixed use development, This represents a 13.4S percent reduction of the
j ordinance requirements.
z
i
2
4-2
` 1980x/2
I
a ~
i
I i
rTT
rlrlrT=
rlrTl=
LIME=
rlrrT=
i
t
1
y
s
e I
f ~ 111
5 1
I
7 ~ {
'
I
j~
K
1
I-
i
R
t
9
' 2651L-1/3689
NO.
AN ORDIVANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT
FOR THE PURCHASE OF MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES OR SERVICES;
PROVIDING FOR THE EXPE14DITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
j WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated F
competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equip- s
meat, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of
state law and City ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has t
reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the t
or
as shown in bids the for the materials,
lowest services responsible
Proposals" submitted therefor; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for r
the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the
materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted '
herein; NOW, THEREFORE,
r
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I That the numbered items in the following numbered r
bids or ma erials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the
"Bid Pro Fels" on file in the Office of the City's 'Purchasing
Agent fi I according to the bid number assigned thereto, are
hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids
for such items:
BID ITEM AMOIItJT
NUMBER NO. VENDOR
S 53.325.00 4
1044 ALj,DATAMATIC
1045 ALL C.D. McKAMIE COMPANY $ 22,954.00 a
29,649.00 i,
r 1047ALL COLFAX CREOSOTING COMPANY $
1 '
_057 A.L CeD c 9~6.948_OD
t
1057__ A_7 SOFT WAREHOUSE -S 4.076.00
F _ ~t
11110
I
i
Y
SECTION II. That by the acceptance and approval of the above
numbere3 items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer
of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to
purchase 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.
SECTION III. That should the City and persons submitting
approved and "accepted items and 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 containeA
in the Bid Proposal and related bid 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 bide or pursuant to a written
contract made pursuant thereto as authorized herein.
SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective
imme ate y upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 1990.
RJtY ST , MAYM
ATTEST:
3EN I ER ALTER CITY SECRUTIU
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FOR11:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
J
r
BY:
ft t
PAGE TWO
~u.wwnow
i
I
~ R
,i r r.. , w"ww7
i
0
f
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
I ;
i FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: BID# 1044 - METER READING SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to Datamatic, the
lowest bidder meeting the bid specifications, in the amount of
$53,325.00.
SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of a hand held meter reading
system including hardware and software. Included is seven (7)
hand held reading devices and report generation software. The bid;
I offered by Radix Corporation is lower than the bid of Datamatic.
I However, it fails to meet specifications in several major areas. X
I (See memorandum from Ray D. Wells, Superintendent, Electric
Metering/Substations/Communications, dated 12/19/89 and 12/21/89.
BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet and Memorandums from Ray D. Wells. A"
r
I PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Electric Utility Meter
Reading, Customer Service.
FISCAL IMPACT: This expenditure was approved in the 1989-90
budget. Account number 610-080-0253-9224, and Capital Expenditure ;
Electric Utility.
} Respec lly submitted:
Lloy Harrell ,
City Manager 5
i Pr pared b
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent
Approved: C
Names Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. a
Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent
024.DOC
I '
{ 1
~ J
Y i
1
j
r
i
s
tt y
}
j
t
l
y o m o~
_ A H
3
ow ac tyv
- N
LW
5 Q y o oc Ai
co :4
i
P C o I
Ino .1 W
j
x ~ yy N Ln
V7 Vi VI
h7 b ka
010 N co
x %
1
N C
w
IA y I i
1 ~
o n
N C
z---- 1
{
r
1
}
c
l
F
{ CITY `I V NA
I'1$9 DEC 20 f11 3: 07
C1 rY 0 f DEN TON M UNWIPA L UTILITIES / 901-A Texas Street I Denton, 1X 78201 '
MEMORANDUM
9
DATE: December 19,1989
TOs Robert E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities
,,.3ohn J. Marshall, Purchasing Agent {
FROM: Ray D. Wells, Supt. Electric Metering/Substations/
communications sf
SUBJECT: EVALUATION CITY OF DENTON BID NO. 1044
METER READING SYSTEM.
Sealed bid proposals were opened December 50 1989 at 2:00 PM. We
had three companies to respond with valid bid documents. Th
companies were: ese
1. RADIX a
CORPORATION
2. ITRON,NRPORATED - SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
3. DATAMATIC, INCORPORATED - RICHARDSON, TEXAS
The prices quoted by the respective companies were:
1. RIFDIX CORPORATION - f 400408.00
2. DATAMATIC - 530325.00
3. ITRON - 134,376.00
After careful examination of bids versus specifications I
recommend we accept the bid of DATAMATIC, INC. in the amount of
$530325.00 as the low bid meeting specifications, while
RADIX CORP. submitted lowest price they do not comply with some
very important requirements in the specifications. i therefore ,
recommend next low bid~and suggest award to DATAMATIC, INC.
Real ctfully
Ray we s
1220949
a
I
r , -
r
n,r m:d
i
R%CEI'ti'7
G1TY C' OE't1~;C,1
1489 VEC 22 M 9. 46
CITYo/DENTONMUNICIPAL UTILITIES / 901-A Texas Street / Denton,TX76201
T0: John J. Marshallr Purchasing Agent
i
FROM., Ray D. Wells, Supt.
Electric Metering/Substation/Communications
1
DATEr December 21, 1989
SUBJ. Evaluation BID 01044 - Meter Reading System
In my memo dated December 20, 1989, I noted that Radix
I Corporation was low bid in the amount of $40,408.001 but I
recommended acceptance of the Datamatic bid of $53,325.00. To
substantiate my recommendation. I offer the following
` !xplanationss P)
f
Reason N1
s
Item 9 of the Radix proposed order schedule
I lists the WLT-40 format via PC-connected 9-channel 'j
I tape* In other words, we wou have to run the Data Star
Sangamo) 101 recorder programs and the Westinghouse EMF
II 2500 (T.O.U. Metering) programs separate from the program
format used to send billing records and data over to Data a
Processing for customer billing. We deem this unacceptable 4+ 1
since it would create the need to run two (2) separate 4
programs just to gather data needed, and then do a manual
I input back into the billing system. Thio would create f
additional work for our Meter Reader Foreman and Meter
Information Tech., while slowing down tho process of
customer billing. In short, it would be ono step
backwards form where we are now, not a step ahead, which
was the original intention.
Reason 12 p
Item 1 listed four (4) hand-held devices with
256 Kb memory at $2,500.00 each and Item 2 listed three
(3) hand-held devices with 512 kb memory at $3,200.00 ' J
f each. Why they chose to price this way I haven't a clue. 1
We asked for seven (7) hand-holds in the specifications ,
with capability to hold data from 400 meters itc luding
the Data Star 101 recorder and the Westinghouse EMF 2500.
This would require a minimum of 512 Kb which means we
would have had to increase their bid price by $2,800.00
to purchase the other four (4) units.
j
~srr all
} IY1'A it
S
r
Reason 113
t
b Item A of the Radix quote listed only one (1)
Bac P:obo. 1 again do not understand whys since seven
rice)by $2r550.09quired. This
again wouIdrraise thedp-held would be re
Well to sum up, by the time you increase their bid price to the
required levels there is $7,567.00 difference (with Radix still
low) between Datamatic and Radix. We have in place a Datamatic
system which functions with our existing file transfer program.
We just don't know how much programming time would be required to
make the Radix system compatible, but I am sure it would far
exceed the money saved on hardware. Datamatic is locaboth for
(Richardson, Texas), gives excellent customer support
5
hardware and software, and I don't think we would get the
personal attention from SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH.
clear up cnlleasoningi but if you need
I hopethis helps
additional information Res ctfully
gay . Wells
e
i RDWsth
12219051
i
r
i
a
i
i
~77
a
i'
a
f
F ~7i.
Y
k ;k
r
i
DATES JANUARY 16, 1990
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
R T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: DID# 1045 - ROOF McCORMICK FIRE STATION
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest
bidder meeting specifications, C,D, McKamie Company, in the amount
of $22,954,00.
SUMMARY: This bid is to replace the original roof on the McCormick
Street Fire Station, known as Station #3. The bid includes removal
and disposal of the old roof and installation of a new roof. The
building is approximately 100' X 68' on two levels. The existing
roof has been patched numerous times over the past eight (8) to ten
(10) years. The existing roof leaks in several places creating a
very unkempt appearance and health hazards to firefighters in the
facility.
BACKGROUND: Tabulation Sheet
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Denton Fire Department, ss
Firefighters, and Citizens of Denton,
i f
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this purchase will be partially from ~ 11
Building Maintenance, and partially from funds transferred out
! of Equipment Maintenance. This project was not included in the
1989-90 budget, however, due to continuing problems with the roof,
the replacement is necessary. ,
Respect ly submitted:
Lloy Harrell
t City Manager
Prepared by:
f
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent k I
Approved:
j Name: Tom Shaw, c. P.M.
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent 1
025.DOC
M !~N•
i
i
a °
A
~ c z r A M ~ o
-
4~i ~ ti ~ o ° 8 ~ k
N O M
O
DO x
rMr O
H W b '
Z H
2
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
•
N •
N A
tll • i
•7 y7.
W INJI CD ~ ri ~ j
6 6 6
O O O I I I
Y O J v '~R'II ~~~II
m O ~ C1o I
O O O i
1j
W 00 yMp ~ 1
O J O ~ I
41h JA %a
ri w co LM M
N vi o O
CD 0 0
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
n
•
N M ~ ~ 1
W N `l
}
N #A A ~
O l11 O 2d
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N ` g
• • HHH
O 0 O
~ ~
1
N.A-V
fn.C
1
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990
f r.
a
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
l SUBJECT: BID# 1047 -WOODEN TRANSMISSION POLES
RECOMMENDATION: We recommethis bid Cr be award Company# inowthe
bidder meeting specification,
total amount of $29,649.00, FOB Denton. Poles'
SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of 75' and 80' wood ent for inventory stock. They are used by
These poles are replacem
the Electric Distribution Department in the maintenance and new
construction of overhead high volta-ze transmission power lines. s
This bid was previously awarded to international Paper on Dece oer
International failed toaftericbate id thaward. bid
19, 1
did not not tir
International Paper
specification requires Douglas Fir poles. Interna
Yellow Pine. The Fir Poles has a con~iwilI be cancelled and
expectancy, The award to International 7ape
the requirement reassigned to Colfax Creosoting Company.
BACKGROUNDS Tabulation Sheet
I
GRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Warehouse stock and
PRO
Electric Distribution Department
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for the purchase will be taken from funds
udgeted for inventory purchase #710-043-0580-8708
Respe ally subm tteds
Llo Harrell
1 City Manager
i
Prepared bys J
h C.P.M.
Names Tom Shaw,
c
Titles Assistant Purasing Agent
Approved:
I
Names Tom D, Shaw, C.P.M. R
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agentk
024.DOC
k N Oro WI~ w
I I h] 6
oo „ J A a z #
" r `I If
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
N O p
~W R *04
b yy Y
0 r ~7t~7y try H
ro O 0 CxG p f
d N y
ID m q `H o to to N e I co
~ cc tD O
4 Z
to O N
x O co
ro
I
~
H %D N PO Imo, IN, y
K d o is co ~b H
l0 K x b co Z H 'SC
O p p
- - - - 0------- O-- o---
H
O hi
-4 i
z
n
'
O
O H N N Vi 0 ld ~ ~yC! C7 j
b 'rY YYOp ZN I
;o ;o a m ro
k 7C CV w %Q v x
Ul w N rn Oi k o in
66 0 0
O O O O `
- ! - - H-~.
nNi o to to t~ ro l
00 y ~ r t
N k N tro*7 y I
Ln to .7 ,'iJ 'ra M I
O Y
a
0 0 0
O C' I '
._-_-.---0__-0---
t 411.•' f
r
G,
Rol
-T
I
? ~Mwb 41 J
DATE: JANUAF.f 16, 1990
CITY COUtJCIL REPORT T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: BID# 1057 - PERSONAL COMPUTERS AND RELATED ITEMS
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest
bidder for each section, A) Hardware, B) Hardware Options, CI
Software, and D) Maintenance, with the exception of item A-7
Printers. The lowest bidder for Sections A, 8, C, and D, is EDS
Corporation, in the total amount of $96,998.00. The exception,
Item A-7 Printers, the lowest bidder is Soft Warehouse, in the
amount of $4,076.00. Total bid purchase is $101,074.00.
SUMMARY: This bid is for the purchase of the PC's and related
items approved in the budget process for 1989-90. Several
departments and even more numerous configurations make up the .
request. No bidder responded to all items, Section A, Hardware
and Section B Options, must be awarded to the same vendor since
some options must be factory installed. On Section C Software, we
based our evaluation on the vendor offering the most items, at the
lowest cost. An advantage to one vendor is staff time saved in
installing all soitware at one time, as well as the time saved in
coordinating the hardware configuration with the software,
application. Soft Warehouse is lower on some items, however, the {
amount is not significant enough to offset the savings associated
with a single vendor award. This was discussed with the Data s
Processing Advisory Board, and they are in agreement with the
recommendation. The savings generated by separating the printers
from the other hardware is significant enough to justify the split.
BACKGROUtIDt Tabulation Sheet, Memorandum from Gary Collins, and
i
Data Processing Advisory Board Minutes.
PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Electric Utility,
Water Wastewater Utility, Legal, Mun c pal Services/Rconomic
Development, and Data Processing.
6
oe- _T
i
4
M 4
~wr
5 ~ 'I1
i
i
o-
i
i
Bid# 1057 - ?ersonal Co!nputers and Related items
January 16, 1990
Page 2 of 2
FISCAL IMPACTi Funds for the purchase of these items were approved
in the 1989-90 Bndget in the following accounts
Municipal Services/Econorilc.al Development 100-030-0009-9103
Legal 100-010-0004-9103
Electric Utility 610-080-0256-9229
610-080-0250-9229 a
p 610-080-0253-9224
610-080-0251-9229
water/wastewater Utility 620-081-0460-9107
620-081-0461-9103
620-081-0463-9103
620-081-0472-9103 a
620-082-0481-9103
620-082-0470-9103
Respec Ily submi teds
Lloy Harrell
City Manager
Prepared bye
Names Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent
Approveds
Names Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
E Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent
025.DOC
1
9
1
1
11
1
i
~gokr ~J
~r
~I
1
I'
H
r CD >1
e
NNr.+rr r rrrr~ I M-i I
r O cp OD J Oi N A W N r 0 !O OD V Or Vt A W N r ik D' V Oi lA A W N 1 rn
I
' 1 ~ zz pp rN O r r rr r r{p I f O O X X O W O N~ 1 0 00.< A I N Z Z Z M RP V D~ 0000t,
t
w=W0Twxx0-4 x N400NV'Z°D0 mm INTIy-~IONNNND 1
02UIW WD mmmm Z cc D~S~O-i Z 1
Hw=u<i.NizWSO~ OD >O n Od3D~ NM v MOOOOM I ~~~11 i
X. -10 my>NHH mV zeixrr =mm"mooOOm I S
MCA n9mx:cI mH 3.4 omI~-rmxg-<Omj.4>pm p0zzm r r r r 1 m
OHO0-I ►"i{mo W>> mmmimm'C mmm WNOD I CO
OXIt>X Xmm~N12~D<< mXWXpH o171HH rzm OVA N O n
;KNmTI.Nf NDx7-I{-W T1N << O ONODOD 1 a
46W m C" MOZH§mmCD-~ Z 0 1 1 g
r 1
H OxldpOX0Vt> -4O2m>N O U O ~
<:VOOjID2mHXr"0 co rOr A w0 1 1
mHOOV H-4 A-1 O A ON OAO + 1
< w 0 < m w H9DVlR m (A I
M Op m A O -40-1 0z N
v
p 1 1
1m
ww r Or WN-~r10V~ 1 N
CD O +
AA WrA N-~~OON W W W W +NA mO -4W100t-MO 1 {
wWW AWIOODOODOO +O~rVWaa -4WN NO I '
' '•OivtO~WOCAWWVIOOiOOOOA47A ZJIOO00IOA I
C I
m A
r App ~~pp
p IZ>
rr rr r r r 0N
W W-~+NN I I.
V N 06 V 0" W N . W . W O W N W - - O m N J Vf O (A r #D V I M
E
~O~ +OOAAtOwmt~N-~rOiNM10JWtp0 ~IOA0.+-~N.•Nt0 IM
NOr►O,ODJwAO'~V+WONJOODOIDJOIO rnN~OtTNrroAw ~
m.~ i>
m 1 >
1 m 0 k
gig,
vt ~ m I
I
m 1 A j
m k
N I
N r%, r H CD 1~
N A co
1
pQ
W W..J W Cl) 0W"VU O WN W. No a- J-4 -4V$ Im to "0)N -J I
I i .
N IN f7i OD 4h A 00 N O.•JtD ODW ODA NOS
NOOW aC•{7~OV~V~010NVi W tOW W NNIO woo 0#.00 1
{
I
yr.M+.~ flw!al~~
~I
O N r r r r r r r r r r O I
ODJ0ILA AWN-+ 0100-40046WN- 0100 J0046WNr I m
I O
~ c $ c cn I
mfoAmN\i-f m7\~'vvi~n->iC>iZZ~s~00o i
M2 ONN\NZ UN >m-4ooaoocAA2<cc 1
Ox Z6 m~~f1 ZNmW*f0zzoivmommUf«D;yN> 1 -HI
'U"UVm0~O6Z -I mwo-ID m r11-iHmmmm Ov""m 1 m
~
E z AO m0 m rz7C>Z H<Mmm NNm I z
HHN mmrmz < mmOMMIH m <Www I
ZZCD rr rO >;mm + m~Nmc 1 O
-1-40 U m r ZZ *000 N0-+ <m i N
m~ O0N CA 00 < O 2472-i~•
I k m OOmtAm z fm ;ma 1 m
N r O' 0< pNNW I H
01 "0 c O m M N N N
N n r aDN U I Z
r
H rc i 4
N O N
1
z I
0 z I p
H O ~ N
N N N v A N N N A A W NN w w I i
00000000 -4JCRWNco (D V 100U tTUO,Nr W-t0 O J J-4 4 4Mlh 0 W I
OU A I
f
1
o
~'00
N tr rOW NN AAW NNNWW I m
NU UCnUU W JA WO f>pOQIWJA W OIJNr01UU 1 ~
00000000 CA •CDWO "0000000l 00000 r
0000000 0000 z z I mAm
N\NrWN\NNNW IZ i
000 0000 P
OOC4WODOOIVrOOQ1-+tDONQ1U-+ 12b
H HHH HHMM MMHH 1•Mfp (7110 NOi71 + OW W-401 I -r
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000. O••'••'' I N
0 -400 JUWW WNtnJr I m
W W WU WO10- WJU 1010 I
r
I
1
1
00 0 z
O co w I C
rrr.arrrr OOLM rao NNNAAW N NW W I
UUUUUC ov 0 0 A WJW m W {Dr Jr i
00000000 wo" mWW A10UbOWO Wloo I
p!p
Y
ti
3 is
ry
DAI'K: 1-10-90
L
CQITY COUNCIL REPORT FORiH t
T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council '
r
# FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: Purchase of PCs and related Hardware and Software
8CR OMMZ D TIO :
Teat the city award the purchase order of Personal Computers, Hardware options,
Printers and related Software to the lowest bidder in each category. The PCs,
Hardware options and Software would be awarded to EDS and Epson Printers would
ba awarded to Soft Warehouse.
1
SUMMARY: s
Four vendors bid on this purchase request and the low bidders in each category
is being recommended.
+
r1
VACKGROUND:
These 14 PCs and related items were requested and approved during the budget
process. The Data Processing Hoard recommends approval.
PROGRAMS DePA TMBHTS OR OROUPS_ AFFBCTSD:
Municipal Services/Economic Development, Legal, Electric Utility, and Water
Utility.
FISCAL IMPACT:
101,074.00
I
Re etful su ted: {
L1 d Harrell
Prepared by: City Manager
el&; w {
ary o ns A
Director of Information Services
Approved:
etty c can r
Director of Municipal Services/
Economic Development
i '
i
wxv.~
I LL~~
k
7
MINUTES OF
DATA PROCESSING ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1990
MEMBERS PRESENT: Dale Maddry, Jim Kuykendall, Ron McDade,
Charles Ridens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cengis Capan
rTHERS PRESENT: Gary Collins, Ernie Tullos, Sam Flemming,
Jerry Drake, Tom Shaw, and Dave Ham of the
City staff
Jim Kuykendall made the motion and Charles Ridens secondod the
motion that the minutes of the November 29, 1989 meetinj be
accepted as presented. The motion was passed unanimously.
Gary Collins explained that there were four vendors that bid on
this year's personal computer acquisition. The four vendors
were EDS, Basic, Softwarehoose and Compucom. Not all vendors
bid on all items and none of the vendors bid on every item.
Gary also explained that last year we awarded the hardware bid a
to one single vendor and the software bid to another single
vendor. The awarding of the bids last year was based upon the r
single vendor that could provide the best price for the most a
items. If we were to continue this practice this year then EDS,
would be the lowest bidder on both software and hardware with
the exception of the Epson LQ1050 printers. If we were to
select and choose between each item there would be an
approximate $1,100 difference in the total then awarding on the
! lowest overall cost in each category of hardware and options, w
software, printers, and maintenance.
The Board continued to discuss taking the low bid an only y
software as a whole or at the cost of each package from each of
the four vendors. Gary Collins explained that the differences
of $821 in software prices would be more than offset in staff
time in coordinating the acquisition and implementation of the #
software package. With a single vendor this would be their
responsibility. Jim Kuykendall suggested the City consider
standardization of software.
Gary explained that the PCs and options are regularly justified
in the budget process and he then looks at the requests to see
what other equipment will be needed to support those PCs.
The Board questioned the need to take the PCs to bid. Gary and
Tom explained the new purchasing law that has gone into effect
that if you have similar and subsequent purchase orders that
i '
I
Data Processi g
Advisory Boar Minutes
r January 91 1990
Page 2
will exceed $10,000 then you must bid all of the items. Cale
Maddry expressed a concern with the need to know what will be
purchased during the year. Gary and Tom explained that the
City is aware of all PC purchases for the year ahead of time
because of the budget process and why ;he City must meet the
requirements of the law.
i The Board reported that it is standing behind the City's
j methodology of purchasing PCs, and asked if the City staff is
requesting for the Board's approval of the purchase of the
PCs. Gary Collins stated that yes the staff was requesting a
recommendation.
The Board expressed the need for standardization of software.
The Board expressed that there could be a substantial benefit
to the City staff in training and efficiency of systems to have
standardized software. On the other hand, as Gary pointed out,
the individual departments must be allowed to allocate the time
and skills of their employees as well as the fiscal resources
of their departments themselves. i
Tom proposed purchasing all the software from EOS, the low u
bidder for the package. Choosing individual software packages ,
"e all . carte" would result in slightly lower expense.
Purchasing the software from a single vendor will simplify the
installation. Since ono vendor will be responsible for {
coordiration and implementation, no coordination will be J
necessary. I
The Board supported Gary's judgment on the bid as written.
Jim Kuykendall made a motion and Dale Maddry seconded that the
Board recommend the hardware, options, and software be awarded
to EOS and the Epson Printers be awarded to Softwarehouse. The
motion was passed unanimously.
~A
Gary Collins explained that in the past each department was
responsible for obtaining maintenance contracts on their PCs. u
This year, due to changes in the purchasing laws and to ensure
that all PCs were covered with maintenance contracts, a Request
for Proposal (RFP) was prepared for vendors to propose on-site 3
maintenance on 58 PCs. Gary Collins further explained that ^
three vendors bid maintenance on the PCs. IBM was high bidder
with $13,721, Softwarehouse was next with $13,271, and the d
Office Equipment center was low with $100700. Gary Collins
noted that the Softwarehouse proposal was not signed and they s
did not provide any references as requested. Also
Softwarehouse had responded that their average on-site response
time was 24 hours.
i
i
{
r
Data Processing
Advisory Board Minutes
January 9, 1990
Page 3
Gary Collirs stated that the office Equipment Center was a
small local firm that had limited parts inventory and had asked
what a number of items that were specified in the proposals
were and had stopped at his office to view them. Gary Collins
stated that since 19 of the PCs listed in the proposal had
these items, he was concerned about parts availability from ,
aaW this vendor. Jim Kuykendall discussed some negative
experiences his wife had with this vendor in having a PC
repaired.
Ron McDade questioned whether the City should place PCs under
contract. Ernie Tullos and Dave Hamm discussed some of the
critical roles PCs play in their departments' operations and
the need for fast on-site response time. Jim Kuykendall
indicated that his firm had a staff member dedicated to PCs,
and this person performs most maintenance as one part of the
job function. Gary Collins stated he had requested a similar
position in the last budget process, but the package was not
approved. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board
recommend the proposal be awarded to IBM. The motion failed '
due to a lack of a second.
Dale Maddry asked if the staff knew what the repair charges ~
would have been last year if the PCs had not been under a,
maintenance. Gary Collins explained that since each department k
was responsible for its own maintenance, he did nut have that
information. Gary Collins stated he was at+are of f,pproximately
$2,000 worth of invoices on PCs that did not hive maintenance
contracts. Dale Maddry suggested that the staff gather the
information on what costs the City would have incurred on a
time and materials basis and bring this item back to the Board
along with the vendors' responses to an RFP.
Gary Collins explained that we had sent out an RFP for
maintenance on the IBM mainframe and received only one response
from IBM. Gary Collins stated that IBM had offered three 4
different options: the standard maintenance at $5,635 per
month, a five-year mid-range systens amendment (MRSA) at
$4,592.86 per month, and a corporate s-Irvice amendment (CSA) at -
$4,356.86 per month. '
Gary Collins explained that two lower options required either a
six month notification or one month penalty fee if the City
wished to cancel its contract versus 30-day notification with
the standard contract, Also Gary Collins stated that both of
the lower cost options guaranteed only a three percent (3%)
increase in maintenance costs per year for the next five years
over the current prices. Gary Collins stated typically IBM's
maintenance costs have increased five percent (5%) to ten 1
percent (10%) a year with most years being seven percent (7%)
i
EI
f
mow
1 ~
I z, Ile
Data Processing
Advisory Board Minutes
January 9, 1990
Page 4
to eight percent (8%), Gary Collins stated that in order to
y take advantage of the lowest option, IBM would have to qualify
the City's com3uter operations procedures, Jim Kuykendall
} stated that his firm took advantage of this option, and IBM had
conducted an intensive audit of their data processing
operations, Ron McDade asked if the IBM audit was
unreasonable. Jim Kuykendall stated he felt the audit was
appropriate. Ron McDade stated the City would be getting a
free audit by exercising this option. Gary Collins stated that
I the fiscal funding out options and upgrade or replacement of
{ individual pieces of equipment were available under all three
options. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board recommend
the City exercise Option 2 and then exercise option 3 once IBM w
determined the City qualified. Dale Maddry seconded the motion h
and it passed unanimously. ti
Gary Collins explained Item 5 was a continuation of the leasing
of proprietary system software from IBM that enabled the IBM
mainframe to function. Jim Kuykendall and Dale Maddry seconded ,i
a motion that the Board recommend approval of this purchase
order. The motion passed unanimously.
Gary Collins explained that the neat item was continuing t
leasing the proprietary software from C.,oputer Associates for a "j
tape management system, job accounting and file sorting
' system. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board recommends
approval and Dale Maddry seconded the motion. The motion"
passed unanimously,
-There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ~
t
I
'I
1
1
1S
r•
t
a
f
P
i
a ~
6
1
Ir
S
1
Y
{
7
~i
i
Yt ~i
i
{ fl
h
1
gtt
a
f;Y
it
I
1 '
f
EE 1
1
1 M
I
l~1 I.:
.e;r4
r,
i
d
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND PROVIDING FOR THE AWARD
OF CONTRACTS O PUBLIC EXPENDITURE OF FUNDSTHEREFOR$ AND VPROVIDINGNFOR AN EF ECTIVE DATE +
WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated
competitive bids for the construction of public works or
accordance with the procedures of state law and
improvements in City ordinances) and
1 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
plans imrovements specifications thereforeti NOWT THEREFOiRE proposals and
{
1
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS!
SECTION I. That the following competitive bids for the
construction of public works cr improvements, as described in the
"Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications
attached hereto are hereby accepted and approved as being the 's
lowest responsible bids! {
AMOUNT
gT D Nu~tas8
r
1042 JAGOE PUBLIC $437,748.95
AZCTION _ II. That the acceptance and approval of the above k
competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City
~r and the person submitting the bid for construction of such Such
all and ap in tuntil he Notice
works or improvements with herein
person shall comply
to Bidders including the urnishing of performance and timely bonds, after written notification of '
f
the award of the bid.
gFCTION_ Iii. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the
ance with
construction of the public rks or roved hersint provia dsthat muchdcontracts
the bids accepted and d app app
are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid
quantities termsd
Proposals, alans and specifications, spedscifying
conditions, plans ~
specified sums contained therein.
i
J
{
{
i
Y
SECTION IV. That upon acceptance and approval of the above
competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public
works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council
6 hereby authorizes the ")enditure of funds in the manner and in the
amount as specified in ouch approved bids and authorized contracts
executed pursuant thereto.
SEQTjON V. That this ordinance shall become effective
imnediate_y upon its passage and approval. sr
f PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1990.
I
RAY STEPNENS, MAYOR.
I
ATTESTt
I !
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORXi
DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCM, CITY ATTORNI'Y
-7 6tj
BYt
SID-2
y
a
Page 2
R
1
f
r
DATES JANUhL 16, 1990
l
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
w
t T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECTS BID# 1042 - AVENUE A & E PAVING/DRAINAGE
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend this bid be awarded to the lowest
bi der, Jagoe Public, in the amount of $437,748.95, with completion
in 105 days after notice to begin. Section 3 of the bid will not
be awarded at this time and will be rebid at a later date as funds
become available. {
SUMMARY: This bid is for the repaving and drainage improvement on
a section of Avenue A, repaving a section of Avenue E, some overlay
work on Eagle Drive, and sidewalks along Avenue A and Avenue E.
The bid includes all material and labor for the project.
BACKGROUNDS Tabulation Sheat, Memorandum from Jerry Clark.
f PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Engineering, Public
Wor s, and Citizens of Denton. 3u
FISCAL IMPACTS Funds for this project are included in the 1985
bond issue for Capital Improvements to streets. Account
iii #434-002-SB85-9105.
Re ape ully s ttedS
f '
Lloy Harrell S'
City Manager
Prepared by:
! ~ 1
Name: Tom D. SSaw, C.P.M. ;i
! Title$ Assistant Purchasing Agent 1
Approved:
Names Tom D. S aw, C.P.M.
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent
025,D0C ;G
i
7T-
rn w,r,
€ r
W-- N---_ -
11 ~
- ak ~ a
8 '
C C po ro
H H lli C
i v ,
'~*7 ~(~yd Gzl ,tl i
Y R' H 1 r
Ln co
LO
N r oZ N
ni td d x W
0 z
r
O
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
w w
A% ~ n t°a
co
o ~o
w w
r
w
vi
00
V w
0
0o ii z
v
;S
O
I Mill
~r
~q
Yr
~Mt
i `
i 1
cirr of DENTON / 215 E, McKinney ! Denton, Texas 76201
1
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 12, 1990
j
i TO= Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent
FROM. Jerry Clark, City Engineer {
4
SUBJECT: Bid 1042 - Avenue A Paving and Drainage ry
side were received on December 5s 1989 with Jagoe Public being the low bidder
would allow the following to be
on the combined total. Award of the bid
constructed.
Available
Budget Bid
1. Avenue A Paving and Drainage 115,000 363,397,
(1359 to Eagle Drivel
2. Avenue E - 235 to Eagle 36,326 26,897 `r
0 180899 p
3. Overlay Eagle - Avenue E to 235
4. Avenue A and Avenue E Sidewalks 30,300 28,554
Items two, three, and four are all well within funds available, item 3 is an
add on that was not in the bond issue but is critically needed. That portion
of the street is in horrible shape. Excess funds from Avenue a will fund
one-half and the Street Department maintenance funds one-half to address this
problem while in the area.
Item One is considerably over the available fund balance of $225,961 at
53630391.93, No interest has been allowed to accumulate in that fund since it L
was approved over S years ago. This project would have accumulated $1000000
approximately in compound interest over that time period.
r~.
The other main issues involve modifications to the design to respond to
existing and future needs in the area. This is one of three major entrances
to UNT from the mouth, Since 751 or more of the students approach from the
i south, the intersections of Bell-Eagle# Welch-Eagle# Avenue A-Eagle, and 135E
at Avenue D are nearing capacity. The design width of 45' back to back
matches ax sting widths south of Eagle to 1352, This street already functions
as a major collector or minor arterials When the 135E at Avenue A/McCormick
intersection is signalised and the road surface is upgraded so that it is
driveable# we feel some students using other entrances will move to this one,
Downgrading this situation to 34' as originally figured in 1984-85 would be an x
engineering mistake.
r~
F
sBid 1042
page 2
I
The original estimate in 1984-85 provided for a 34' street from 135E to
` Highland to provide local type access. The real critical need in the area is
to provide access to Eagle for students to reach Welch, Avenue C, and Avenue E
where the parking lots are. Therefore, we emphasized providing 4 lane access
plus left turn lanes to Eagle.
s
C
We designed left turn lanes from UNT south to Eagle. Funding issues and
i opposition from UNT campus development staff makes these upgrades unnecessary.
Our estimate in 1985 ran the 34' street section up to Highland as local
access. This section seems to have a poor cost benefit ratio as dispersion
inside the UNT campus at the points of connection to Highland, Maple, etc
becomes very confusing. The streets cha ge from one way to two way, are
offset, and most are too narrow with no turn lanes. Pedestrian volumes from
y dormitories and parking lots also would create potential conflicts if the
section was upgraded in the future. These helped guide us towards our present
design configurations We recommend that Section III for $370617,03 be deleted
y from the bid.
The design that was bid addressed several major problems that effect the Fire
Station there. First, the existing curve radii were extremely sharp to have
3 the Fire Station and Underwood Road exits. Both exits do not have reasonable
site distances. We designed a flatter curve that included a realignment of
Underwood. This added 40' of extra street on Avenue A and a retaining wall.
4 Underwood had to be rebuilt for 150' back. Cost for the Underwood work is
about $5,300. Site distances for both exits will be improved grtatlys Since
students are the main component of Avenue A and speeds are high at times, good
site distances ace crucial. Changes to McCormick Street on the west side of
the fire station upgrading access and parking totaled $4,500.
kb
The second issue that we feel will greatly reduce congestion, frustration, and
increase operational safety is the addition of the left turn lane for Avenue A
north bound traffic at Eagle, We will rephase the signal to allow a a
significant movement to occur. This will relieve pressure north of Eagle on
Avenue A as this is a priority stated by UNT administrators in a recent ;N
meeting. Estimated cost - 12,200.
We also have allowed a special material alternate for the drainage pipe on a.
this project to reduce costs. Total drainage costs are in the range of r
$120,659. One major reason for this is the fact that the outfall on Eagle is
old, undersized, and therefore makes the new drainage system fairly flat. A
I flatter slope requires larger pipes to carry the same flows. As a major cost
cutter, all drainage could be eliminated but no real coat savings would be
realized from trimming off inlets and small pipes upstream since the real
costs are in the pipe and the many junction boxes, inlets, and utility
adjustments.
Utility adjustments on this project are estimated at $140400 from the bid
prices. This results from the lines being installed very shallow many years
ago. Perhaps funding from other sources could help here.
Finally, several minor add-one due to policy changes or State laws have added
significant costs to our projects. I will list those with bid cost as they
effect Avenue A. (see next page)
I ,Y
aid 1042
page 3
i
,
i
1. Patterned riprap - $20553
2. Hydromulch and St. Augustine Sod - $3,567 F;
3. Excavation Protection - $1,500
4. Cement treated backfill versus replacement - $6,500
The difference in coat for 340 versus 450 is about $330000 only figured from
Eagle south to 135E.
This project was also designed with an 8' pavement versus the original
estimated 6' pavement thickness. Our experience combined with engineering J
judgment resulted in this design. The extra cost is only $24,900. We feel 7 J~1
this could add about ten years to the life of the pavement. Two main
advantages result from the extra 20. First, the curb is placed on a 2' x
pavement section that helps prevent rolling over. Second, the extra 2' helps
resist the rutting and pavement failures caused by cement trucks, delivery
trucks, etc. The uNT campus will continue to grow and, this being the most
direct route off the Interstate to the center of campus, will result in
concrete trucks and other heavy vehicles associated using it.
G+,
in summation, we need $210,000 to fund the project as designed this would
includ% the changes in design and the increased costs of construction,
testing, and capitalized labor.
~ i
,Y
Design Cost Change Summary A
340 versus 450 ■ $ 330000
E Policy i Law changes ■ 141150
8' versus 6' 2422900
Curve modification 2,203
200
McCormick access and parking 5,300
y Underwood realignment 13,000
Retaining Wall f~
Turn Lane - north bound • 2,200
Utility adjustments '
TOTAL 31330653 ~1 1
II
We have researched the available funds in the 434 Fund - $10 million dollar
issue. Interest has been allowed to accumulate untouched. There are more
than adequate funds to most this need and the finance Department has no
problem with this disbursement, This action places the accumulated interest
on the projects voters that the ap
Please advise if you need further information.
C~
J r Clark r j
0S21C
4
1
1
u
Y
a
RRR
r
R
I
f
f
h
k4
r
F
F
r,
i
i
f
}
`d
1
E
.rr
I ~
i
lrr
Fi
4
I
a
ORDINANCE N0.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASES
OF MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE AVAILABLE FROM ONLY ONE SOURCE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW EXEMPTING SUCH
PURCHASES FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COMPETITIVE BIDS1 AND PROVIDING AN
~y I EFFECTIVE DATE.
i
WHEREAS, Section 252.022 of the Local Government Coda provides
that procurement of items that are only available from one source,
including; items that are only available from one source because of
patents, copyrights, secret processes or natural monopolies; films,
manuscripts or books; electricity, gas, water and other utility
or components for equipment; art
s
parts
purchases; captive replacement
and library materials for a public library that are available only ;
to the
from the persons holding exclusive to cmdistribution ptitive bidet rights
and
materialt need not be s
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to procure one or more of the {
items mentioned in the above paragraph; NOW, THEREFORE, r
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: P
SECTION I. That the following purchases of materials, equip-
ment or supplies, as described in the "Purchase orders" attached
hereto, are hereby approved:
PURCHASE SCEN~4B AMOUNT
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES $ 21,285.00
94344 $
94407 IBM 32,810.00
gjgTION ii. That the acceptance and approval of the above
items shall not constitute a contract between the City and the
person submitting the quotation for such items until such person
shall comply with all requirements specified by the Purchasing
Department.
sxri~oN ;acts the City Manager is hereby authorized to w
executecany contracts relating to the items specified in Section I
and the expenditure of funds pursuant to said contracts is hereby t
authorized.
axCTiON iy. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval.
i
i
V
!V
I
I
k
f
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1990.
v
RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR
ATTESTt
r
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY w
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMt
3 r~
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
x
BYt
BID-4
•
P~
l
s
~ J
{ ANN] y` J
i
L
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990
i
r CITY COUNCIL REPORT
T0: Mayor and members of the City Council
j FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECTS PURCHASE ORDER #94344 - COMPUTER ASSOCIATES }
ECOMMEND ATION: we recommend purchase order #94344, to Computer
R
Associates be approved in the amount Of $21,285.00, and that the I
i vendor be notified to proceed.
E 4t
SUMMARY: This purchase order is for the annual lease payments on
proprietary software required for operation of the Data Processing
Department and available only from Computer Associates. Leasing
this software is less expensive than outright purchase and allows
for flexibility of implementing changes and updates. ,
1 I
BACKGROUND: Purchase order #94344, Memorandum from Gary Collins,
and Minutes from Data Processing Advisory Board.
I, PROGRAMS DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED= Data Processing r '
Department and their customers. 3
4
nds for this lea were in the 1989-50
FISCAL s
budget.IMAccountF# 00-036-0017-85216elease ofpsoftwaro licenses.
Respec lly sub teds 1
I
Harrell
Y Har
Llo
City Manager
Prepared by:
Names Torn D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent
Approved:
r
Name: Tom D Saw, C.P.M.
Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent
1 025.DOC 'x
G ~ y
.u J
I
t
FED Elti "D r o o
ITO
POR VA
B9 EC S 110 49 v V~ t;
o
~T
N N H
i
i
i
r moo
40
~r
Vi P. %0
y
6 A
M1
z
{ u • u N Z O .s
g 1 x P~ r
A1NO ssn ONISI un1 aol svivv oaNtaos
i
1
w,h
}
DATE: 1-10-90
CITY COUNCIL REPORT FORMA
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: Software Maintenance agreement with Computer Associates
5
RBCOFL'16NDATION:
That lity of Denton continue leasing three software packages from Computer t
Associates.
f
{ylji
S
S RY:
'these 3 software packages perform the Tape Management, Job Accounting and
File Sorting functions associated with all the jobs run on the mainframe.
i
i
C GROUND:
i
This was a sole source purchase order due to the proprietary nature of these
software packages. The D.ta Processing Advisory Board recommends approval.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
All departments within the organization.
FISCAL I}TPACT: 1
$21,285
Respe ully ub t
i
L10 Narrslt
Prepared by: City Manager r,
Director of Information Services
{ Approved:
Betty Mckean t
Director of Municipal Services/
Economic Development
I
1
T Y
t
6
r
MINUTES OF
DATA PROCESSING ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1990
14EMBERS PRESENT: Dale Maddry, Jim Kuykendall, Ron McDade,
Charles Ridens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cengis Capan
OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Collins, Ernie Tullos, Sam Flemming,
Jerry Drake, Tom Shaw, and Dave Ham of the
City staff
Jim Kuykendall made the motion and Charles Ridens seconded the
motion that the minutes of the November 29, 1989 meeting be
accepted as presented. The motion was passed unanimously. °
Gary Collins explained that there were four vendors that bid on
this year's personal computer acquisition. The four vendors
were EDS, Basic, Softworehouse and Compucom. Not all vendors
bid on all items and none of the vendors bid on every item.
Gary also explained that last year we awarded the hardware bid
to one single vendor and the software bid to another single
vendor. The awarding of the bids last year was based upon the
single vendor that could provide the best price for the most
items. If we were to continue this practice this year then EOS
would be the lowest bidder on both software and hardware with
the exception of the Epson LQ1050 printers. If we were to
select and choose between each item there would be an
approximate $1,100 difference in the total then awarding on the i+
lowest overall cost in each category of hardware and options,
software', printers, and maintenance.
The Board continued to discuss taking the low bid on only
software as a whole or at the cost of each package from each of
the four vendors. Gary Collins explained that the differences
of $821 in software prices would be more than offset in staff ;
time in coordinating the acquisition and implementation of the
software package. With a single vendor this would be their r
responsibility. Jim Kuykendall suggested the City consider
standardization of software.
Gary explained that the PCs and options are regularly justified
in the budget process anJ he then Iioks at the requests to see
what other equipment will be neede, support those PCs. g
The Board qucstioned the need to take the PCs to bid. Gary and
Tom explained the new purchasing law that has gone into effect
that it you have similar and subsequent purchase orders that
i
V
t
1
7
A
r
Data Processing
Advisory Board Minutes
January 9, 1990
Page 2
4 will exceed $10,000 then you must bid all of the items. Dale
Maddry expressed a concern with the need to know what will be
purchased during the year. Gary and Tom explained that the
City is aware of all PC purchases for the year ahead of time
because of the budget process and why the City must meet the
requirements of the law.
The Board reported that it is standing behind the City's
k
methodology of purchasing PCs, and asked if the City staff is
s requesting for the Board's approval of the purchase of the
f PCs. Gary Collins stated that yes the staff was requesting a
recommendation.
The Board expressed the need for standardization of software.
The Board expressed that there could be a substantial benefit
to the City staff in training and efficiency of systems to have w
standardized software. On the other hand, as Gary pointed out,
the individual departments must be allowed to allocate the time #
and skills of their employees as well as the fiscal resources
of their departments themselves,
Tom proposed purchasing all the software from EOS, the low £
bidder for the package. Choosing individual software packages
"a all carte" would result in slightly lower expense.
Purchasing the software from a single vendor will simplify the
installation. Since one vendor will be iesponsible for
coordination and implementation, no coordination will be
necessary.
The Board supported Gary's judgment on the bid as written.
Jim Kuykendall made a motion and Dale Maddry seconded that the
Board recommend the hardware, options, and software be awarded
to EDS and the Epson Printers be awarded to Softwarehouse. The y
motion was passed unanimously.
Gary Collins explained that in the past each department was
responsible for obtaining maintenance contracts on their PCs.
This year, due to changes in the purchasing laws and to ensure
that all PCs were covered with maintenance contracts, a Request
for Proposal (RFP) was prepared for vendors to propose on-site
maintenance on 5$ PCs. Gary Collins further explained that
three vendors bid maintenance on the PCs. IBM was high bidder
with $13,721, Softwarehouse was next with $13,271, and the
Office Equipment center was low with $10,700. Gary Collins
noted that the Softwarehouse proposal was not signed and they
did not provide any references as requested. Also
Softwarehouse had responded that their average on-site response r
time was 24 hours.
d
7
4 ;
1
1 ~ ~6
v
Data Processing
Advisory Board Minutes
January 9, 1990
Page 3
Gary Collins stated that the office Equipment Center was a
f small local firm that had limited parts inventory and had asked
what a number of items that were specified in the proposals
were and had stopped at his office to view them. Gary Collins
stated that since 19 of the PCs listed in the proposal had
these items, he was concerned about parts availability from
this vendor. Jim Kuykendall discussed some negative
experiences his wife had with this vendor in having a PC
repaired.
Ron McDade questioned whether the City should place PCs under
contract. Ernie Tullos and Dave Hamn: discussed some of the
critical roles PCs play in their departments' operations and
the need for fast on-site response time. Jim Kuykendall Y
indicated that his firm had a staff member dedicated to PCs,
and this person porforms most maintenance as one part of the
job function. Gary Collins stated he had requested a similar
position in the last budget process, but the package was not
approved. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board
recommend the proposal be awarded to IBM. The motion failed
due to a lack of a second.
Dale Maddry asked if the staff know what the repair charges
would have been last year if the PCs had not been under }
maintenance. Gnry Collins explained that since each department }
was responsible for its own maintenance, he did not have thht
information. Gary Collins stated he was aware of approximately
$2,000 worth of invoices on PCs that did not have maintenance
contracts. Dale Maddry suggested that the staff gather the a
information on whet costs the City would have incurred on a
time and materials basis and bring this item back to the Board
along with the vendors' responses to an RFP. I
Gary Collins explained that we had sent out an RFP for I
maintenance on the IBM mainframe and received only one response
from IBM. Gary Collins stated that IBM had offered three
different optionsi the standard maintenance at $5,635 per
month, a five-year mid-range systems amendment (MRSA) at
$49592.86 per month, and a corporate service amendment (CSA) at
$4,356.86 per month.
Gary Collins explained that two lower options required either a
six month notification or one month penalty fee if the City
wished to cancel its contract versus 30-day notification with
the standard contract. Also Gary Collins stated that both of r
the lower cost options guaranteed only a three percent (3%)
Increase in maintenance costs parr for the next five years
over the current prices. Gary Collins stated typically IBM's
maintenance costs have increased five percent (5%) to ten
percent (10%) a year with most years being seven percent (7%)
i
i
1
i
Data Processing
Advisory Board Minutes
January 9, 1990
e Page 4
i
{ to eight percent (B). Gary Collins stated that in order to
have to ualif
take advantage of the lowest options IBM would Jim Kuykendall
the City's computer operations procedures.
stated that his firm took advantage of this option, and IBM had
conducted an Intensive audit of their IBM audit Was
Ron McDade asked if the ;Y
operations.
unreasonable. Jim Kuykendall stated he felt the audit was a,
appropriate. Ron McDade stated the City would be getting a ;
free audit by exercising this option. Gary Collins stated that
the fiscal funding out options and upgrade or replacement of
individual pieces of equipment were available under all three r
options. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board recommend
the City exerciso Option 2 and then exercise Option 3 once IBM
determined the City qualified. Dale Maddry seconded the motion
and it passed unanimously.
Gary Collins explained item 5 was a continuation of the leasing y
of proprietary system software from IBM that enabled the IBM,
y
mainframe to function. Jim Kuykendall and Dale Maddry seconded e
1 a motion that the Board recommend approval of this purchase ;
order. The motion passed unanimously.
Gary Collins explained that the next item was continuing
leasing the proprietary software from Computer Associates for a
a accounting an
that thed Boards recommend
type mKuykendellmmade job
system. . Jim
approval and Dale Maddry seconded the motion. The motion ~
passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
I
x
.Y
y1
11~
5~ryry
1
1
1
v
I •
I
f
I
DATES JANUARY 16, 1990
s
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
f TOs Mayor and Members of the City Council
V
FROMs Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECTS PURCHASE ORDER #94407 TO IBM
RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend Purchase Order #94407, to IBM be
approved in the amount of $32,810.00 and that the vendor be
notified to proceed.
SUMMARYs This Purchase order is for the annual lease payments on
IBM software for the Data Processing Department. This software is
for the IBM 4381 Mainframe, and is proprietary to IBM. Leasing
this software is less expensive than outright purchase, and allows
for updates as new releases are developed.
BACKGROUNDS Purchase order #94407, Memorandum from Gary Collins, 7
Minutes from Data Processing Advisory Board
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECPEDs Data Processing
Department and their customers.
FISCAL IMPACTS Funds for this lease were approved in the 1989-90
budget process, account #100-036-0017-85210 lease of software {
licensee. i„
t
Respe idly aubmittede
I '/~7-$L
€i4 Llo Harrreell
€ City Manager
.
Prepared bye
Names Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M.
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent
Approvede
Names Tom D. S aw, C.P.M. f
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent
025.DOC
i
7
c
N~~~(llZ~ •O
Fra;~.• gi` r. N p W N 1
:raz
41
i r ! r•
a QS i a O a p IcH, >
~ _ •y to Cpp9
61a mr. a.• r JD K . y
{O~ aJw O,: r P "~Ql
0.4
.4 L44 C)
! pl• i1%k N• NR •
14 (W0,~ ODD N~Q 57 ~0 ~19 Fr~O ~ ~ ~?P p
A~ raid d'o
f jb ~
1V, f M d NMZ
.n
c i xo i
P. W
A N (~z Z m mm K y1. t',
0 is
gyp. > s r 9
Ni
0
0 fa VA IkL
1
02 X X X X p j
p~ {
mosm
~ p y r y12 ~ 1 # 't I
1' O z V )p O • rnmr•
xaz ,
vNvvr
zz~'1 ~z
OfTI N r L1 r., ~ a
W P r N c. W
N~ M P a NOa d
G O O O .
O O p b tl
O O O O O b.
J A
I
N ~ 1 ~Q
WW W P N
~ •W Oo 'O' P O N P O V
p„ O O O O O'
s>, co • • 1
k~ • 1 O O b O O J '
co V O G 4 U
4tl
i
f ~ If
I
RECEIVED
CITY OF [IF. UNI
PURCHASING
k 9139 OEC 15 l,FI ID 49
r
s
CITY of DtNTON, TtXAS 215 E. MCKINNEY / DENTON, TEXAS 782011 TELEPHONE (817} 666.8200
M 8 M O R A N D U M
l9
0
I
G TO: Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent
lroms Gary A. Collins, Director of Data Processing
Dates December 11, 1989 `
Subjects SYSTEM SOFTWARE FROM IBM
The attached purchase requisition is for leasing of system
software for the IBM 4381 mainframe.' This software io
proprietary to IBM and therefore must be acquired from IBM.
I am leasing this software versus purchasing it due to the
extremely high purchase price and the flexibility this method
provides when new releases of this software is developed.
i
If you have any questions, please call me.
p
Oar A. Collins
Director of Date Processing
I
I
I
II
,y I
`I
I
i
FF
DATE: 1-10-90
f^""• CITY COUNCIL SORT FORMAT
t
TO. Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM,. Lloyd Harrell, City Manager
c
a,
SUBJECT: Software Maintenance Agreement with IBM
RECOMNDATION t
a
The operating system software on the IBM mainframe from IBM.
<i
i
,G
ry
i
SyMB~t
This software consist of items such as DOS/VSE SP, VM POWER, CICS, etc.
These software packages are proprietary to IBM and necessary for the mainframe
computer to function.
1 ~
I ! ~CKOROUND:
i
This was a sole source purchase order due to the propriatary nature of this
software the Data Processing Advisory Board recommends approval.
eRr., M DEPARTMINT9 en GROUPS AFFECTED:
All departments within the organisation.
jT,~CAL IMP CTi
$339610
Rasps lly subtn t d:
Llo Harrell
Prepared by: City Manager
Director of Iriornation Services
Approved:
city c eaa '
Director of Municipal Services/
Economic Development
I
4
I
t
r V
it
MINUTES OF
DATA PROCESSING ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 1990
MEMBERS PRESENT., Dale Maddry, Jim Kuykendall, Ron McDade,
Charles Ridens
MEMBERS ABSENT: Cengis Capan
OTHERS PRESENT: Gary Collins, Ernie Tullus, Sam Flemming,
Jerry Drake, Tom Shaw, and Dave Ham of the
City staff
Jim Kuykendall made the motion and Charles Ridens seconded the
motion that the minutes of the November 29, 1989 meeting be ,
accepted as presented. The motion was passed unanimously. 1
Gary Collins explained that there were four vendors that bid on
this years personal computer acquisition. The four vendoro:
were EDS, Basic, Softwarehouse and Compucom. Not all vendors
bid on all items and none of the vendors bid on every item.
Gary also' explained that last year we awarded the hardware bid
to one single vendor and the software bid to another singlet'
vendor. The awarding of the bids last year was based upon the 1
single vendor that could provide the best price for the most 1
items. If we were to continue this practice this year then EDS
would be the lowest bidder on both software and hardware with
the exception of the Epson LQ1050 printers. If we were to
select and choose between each item there would be an
approximate $1,100 difference in the total then awarding on the
lowest overall cost in each category of hardware and options,
software, printers, and maintenance.
The Board continued to discuss taking the low bid on only "t
software as a whole or at the cost of each package from each of
the four vendors. Gary Collins explained that the differences
of $821 in software prices would be more than offset in staff
time in coordinating the acquisition and implementation of the
software package. With a single vendor this would be their
responsibility. Jim Kuykendall suggested the City consider
standardization of software.
Gary explained that the PCs and options are regularly justified
in the budget process and he then looks at the requests to see
what other equipment will be needed to support those PCs.
a
The Board questioned the need to take the PCs to bid. Gary and {
Tom explained the new purchasing law that has gone into affect
that if you have similar and subsequent purchase orders that t
t
i
'
a
Data ProcessingMinutes
Advisory Boar
January 9, 1990
Page 2
will exceed $10,009 then you must bid all of the items. Dale
Maddry expressed a concern with the need to know what will be
purchased during the year. Gary and Tom explained that the
all purses for the ear ahe of ime
because of atheobudget Pprocesshaand why the City mustdmeet tthe
requirements of the law.
i
The Board reported that it is standing behind the City's
chasestaff
Board's PCs, and the City
the
requesting for purchasing
PCs. Gary Collins stated that yes the staff was requesting a
recommendation.
The Board expressed the need for standardization of software.
The Board expressed that there could be a substantial benefit
to the City staff in training and efficiency of systems to have
standardized software. On the other hand, as Gary pointed out,
the individual departments must be allowed to allocate the time
and skills of their employees as well as the fiscal resources
of their departments themselves.
Tom proposed purchasing all the software from EDS, the low
bidder for the package. Choosing individual software packages
"a all .-carte" would result in Slightly lower expense.
Purchasing the software from a single vendor will simplify the
installation. Since one vendor will be responsible for
coordination and implementation, no coordination will be ,y
necessary.
The Board supported Gary's judgment on the bid as written.
Jim Kuykendall made a motion and Dale Maddry seconded that the
armdthe ht awarded to S ftwarehouse,.+ar
to EOS and the Epson Printers be The
a motion was passed unanimously.
Gary Collins explained that in the past each department was
responsible for obtaining maintenance contracts on their PCs.'
This year, due to changes in the purchasing laws and to ensure
that all PCs were covered with maintenance contracts, a Request
for Proposal (RFP) was preparrsd for vendors to propose on-site
maintenance on 58 PCs. Gary Collins furth,ar explained that
three vendors b Softwarehousee aon, s the PCs. B 3138271,g andidthe
with $13,721,
Office Equipment center was low with $10,700. Gary Collins
noted that the Softwarehouse proposal was not signed and they
did not provide anv references as requested. Also
Softwareho..a had responded that their average on-site response at
time was :4 hours. r
f
F
Data Processing
k Advisory Board Minutes
January 9, 1990
Page 3
Gary Collins stated that the office Equipment Center was a
small local firm that had limited parts inventory and had asked
what a number of items that were specified In the proposals
were and had stopped at his office to view them. Gary Collins
stated that since 19 of the PCs listed in the proposal had
these items, he was concerned about parts availability from
this vendor. Jim Kuykendall discussed some negative
<x { experiences his wife had with this vendor in having a PC
1 repaired.
Ron McDade questioned whether the City should place PCs under
contract. Ernie Tullos and Dave Hamm discussed some of the
critical roles PCs play in their departments' operations and
the need for fast on-site response time. Jim Kuykendall
j indicated that his firm had a staff member dedicated to PCs,
and this person performs most maintenance as one part of the
fob function. Gary Collins stated he had requested a similar
position in the last budget process, but the package was not
approved. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board
recommend the proposal be awarded to IBM. The motion failed
due to a lack of a second.
Dale Maddry asked if the staff knew what the repair charges ?
would have been last year if the PCs had not been under
maintenance. Gary Collins explained that since each department
was responsible for its own maintenance, he did not have that
information, Gary Collins stated he was aware of approximately
$2,000 worth of invoices on PCs 'that did not have maintenance
contracts. Dale Maddry suggested that the staff gather the
information on what costs the City would have incurred on a
time and materials basis and bring this item back to the Board
along with the vendors' responses to an RFP.
Gary Collins explained that we had sent out an RFP for '
maintenance on the IBM mainframe and received only one response
from IBM. Gary Collins stated that IBM had offered three 114 1
different options3 the standard maintenance at $5,635 per I
month, a five-year mid-range systems amendment (MRSA) at
$4,592,86 per month, and a corporate service amendment (CSA) at
$4,356.86 per month. e
Gary Collins explained that two lower options required either a
six month notification or one month penalty fee if the City
wished to cancel its contract versus 30-day notification with
the standard contract. Also Gary Collins stated that both of
the lower cost options guaranteed only a three percent DO
increase in maintenance costs per year for the next five years
over the current prices. Gary Collins stated typically IBM's }
maintenance costs have increased five percent (5%) to ten
percent (l0%) a year with most years being seven percent (Y%) 1
fi
i
1
M
Fri
~N
Data Processing
r Advisory Board Minutes
* January 9, 1990
Page 4
Gary Collins stated that in order to
to eight percent (BX).
f fi take advantage of the lowest option, IBM would have to qualify
} the City's computer operations procedures. Jim Kuykendall
off tthis heir data and
processing
stated conducted at nis ifirm took ntensive advantage
operations. Ron McDade asked if the IBM audit was
unreasonable. Jim Kuykendall stated he felt the audit was
appropriate. Ron McDade stated the City would be getting a Gary free audit by funding exercising out pthis tions option. . upgrade Collins
or replacement h
the fiscal of
individual Places of equipment were available under all three
options. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board recommend
the City exercise Option 2 and then exercise Option 3 once IBM
determined the City qualified. Dale Maddry seconded the motion r
and it passed unanimously.
Gary Collins explained Item 5 was a continuation of the leasing z
of proprietary system software from IBM that enabled the IBM y
mainframe to function. Jim Kuykendall and Dale Maddry seconded
a motion that the Board recommend approval of this purchase
order. The motion passed unanimously.
{ Gary Collins explained that the next item was continuing
leasing the proprietary software from Computer Assoficiatessorfor a
1 tape management system, job accounting and le
system. Jim Kuykendall made a motion that the Board recommend
approval and Dale Maddry seconded the motion.. The motion
passed unanimously. t
r ~I
-There being no further business, the meeting was.adjourned.
I
l
j
1
i
y', i.. C~f.itFl.L ~4kS~AyR
1
1~ 1
I
5
t
a
1Irr'IjjIjj~,W. Flit
Tlr~
xi
a
f
I
d
44114
444
144'" p 4.1
wax'
*`:1~if'rj v
IWO.
I
rIi►.Mr ~ ~
r
1
b
r
r
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1990
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
I TOs Mayor and Members of the City Council
t FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
3 'OBJECT: RFP #1035 - ENG/ARCHIT. SERVICE FOR FLEET SERVICE
BUILDING
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend that the City of Denton accept the
proposal from Brown Reynolds Watford Architects for the engineering
i and architectural services for the new Fleet Services Maintenance
Center. Proposal amount is $21,500.00.
SUMMARY: The construction of a new Fleet Services Maintenance
Center was approved during the budget process. The facility will
be located in the South East Corner of the Service Center. It will
consist of an approximate 14,000 square foot metal/steel structure
and contain eight (8) service bays, offices and parts supply
storage.
The proposal submitted by Brown Reynolds Watford covers from
schematic design through construction administration. BRW meets
all requirements of the Request for Proposal. They have
considerable experience in this type structure, they have
professional liability and errors/omissions insurance, they have an
excellent track record, and they aie the lowest cost proposal.
I
BACKGROUND: Cost evaluation sheet, Memorandum from Jack Jarvis,
Fleet Operations Superintendent, and Contract.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Fleet Operations and the
others that utilize the facilities and services.
FISCAL IMPACTS Certificates of obligation in the amount of
440,000.00 have been sold with the intent of funding this project.
Res tfuully s itteds
Lloyd Harrell
City Manager
Pr ared b'
Name: Tom D. Shaw
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent
I App veds
i
Names John J. Marshall
Titles Purchasing Agent A
022,DOC
f
i
lY.
e~y'.p;Y I ~ I
4(
C 1 t=1 N {
p f_d ~ A 3
1I 1~ Y ~N1 i"~
m T 1 1_1 ~ A H 1
m
« I 1
I
1
N
I o!
i
OUR"
N w.
i
CITY Of DENTON, TE"S VEHICLE MAINTENANCE J 804 TEXAS ST. l DENTON, TX 76201 / (81796"430 a
M E M O R A N U U M
TO: Tom Shaw, Assistant Purchasing Agent
FROM: Jack Jarvis, Fleet Superintendent
DATES December 13, 1989
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES FOR NEW GARAGE FACniry I
as
is
My recommendation is that we accept the proposal for Y
architectural services from Brown Reynolds Mtford Architects.
This recommendation is based on three main considerations,
1)' Price - Lowest estimated cost
i 2) insurance - Fully insured - no additional cost to city
3) Experience Have
facilities with gooderesulta built all types of maintenance
G r
1
1
{ I
1
1
4 1
ORDINANCE NO.
3
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH
BROWN REYNOLDS WATFORD COMPANY FOR PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL
SERVICES RELATING TO THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FLEET
+ MAINTENANCE CENTER! AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
w
SECTION I. That the Mayor is authorized to execute an
agreement between the City of Denton and Brown Reynolds Watford
Company of Dallas for professional architectural services relating
to the design and construction of a Fleet Maintenance Center, under
the terms and conditions contained in said agreement, which is
III attached hereto and made a part hereof.
,SECTION II, That the City Council hereby authorizes the
expenditure of funds in the manner and amount as specified in the
agreement.
h SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon its passage and approval. r
I PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1990. 's
RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR
I ATTEST:
i JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAM YOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
III J~
/ BY; -
i
a
7V .7
H ybw+
s
x
s
k
2241L
I- F
1 ~
THE STATE OF TEXAS g AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON
AND BROWN REYNOLDS WATFORD ARCHITECTS
COUNTY OF DENTON §
This Agreement made as of the day of , 19
between the City of Denton, Texas, Tiereinafter re errs to as
"Owner" and Brown Re holds Watford Archi is , hereinafter referred
to as "Architect or the following Project: leServic s
R
The Owner and Architect
m e an
agree as set forth below.
ARTICLE 1
ARCHITECT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
1.1 ARCHITECT'S SERVICES
G 1.1.1 The Architect's services consist of those services
y performed by the Architect, Architect's employees and Archi-
tect's consultants as enumerated in Articles 2~and 3 of this
Agreement and any other services included in Article 11.
1.1.2 The Architect's services shall be performed as
expeditiously as is consistent with the highest degree of
professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the
k Work. Upon request of the Owner, the Architect shall submit
for the Owner's approval a schedule for the performance of the
Architect's services which may be adjusted as the Project
proceeds, and shall include allowances for periods of time 1
required for the Owner's review and for approval of submissions
by authorities having jurisdiction over the Project. Time
limits established by this schedule and appproved by the Owner
shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the
Architect or Owner, and any adjustments to this schedule shall
be mutually acceptable.
1.1.3 The services covered by this Agreement are subject
to the time limitations contained in Subparagraph 10.4.1.
# I
ARTICLE 2
SCOPE OF ARCHITECT'S BASIC SERVICES
i 2.1 DEFINITION
2.1.1 The Architect's Basic Services consist of those
described in Paragraphs 2.2 through 2.6 and any other services
a
a
P
G identified in Article 11 as part of Basic Services, and include
without limitation normal structural, mechanical and electrical
engineering services and any other engineering services neces-
sar to
by t and required accurate in Paragraph Construction
as produce described complete
Doc
2.2 SCHEMATIC DESIGN PHASE
i 2.2.1 The Architect in consultation with the Owner shall
develop a written program for the Project to ascertain Owner's
needs and to establish the requirements for the Project.
2.2.2 The Architect shall provide a preliminary
evaluation of the Owner's program, construction schedule and
set forth in Subparagraph 5 2elother,
limitations requirements,
subject c to o the budget
2.2.3 The Architect shall review with the Owner alter-
native approaches to design and construction of the Project.
I 2.2.4 Based on the mutually agreed-upon program, sche-
dule and construction budget requirements, the architect shall
prepare, for approval by the Owner, Schematic Design Documents
consisting of drawings and other documents illustrating the
scale and relationship of Project components. The Schematic
Design shall contemplate compliance with all applicable laws,
statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2.2.5 The Architect shall submit to the Owner a prelimi-
nary detailed estimate of Construction Cost based on current
area, volume or other unit costs and which indicates the cost
of each category of work involved in constructing the Project
and establish an elapsed time factor for the period of time
from the commencement to the completion of construction,
2.3 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE
2.3.1 Based on the approved Schematic Design Documents
and any adjustments authorized by the Owner in the program,
schedule or construction budget, the Architect shall prepare for
approval by the Owner, Design Development Documents consisting
of drawings and other documents to fix and describe the size w
and character of the Project as to architectural, structural,
mechanical and electrical systems, materials and such other F
elements as may be appropriate, which shall comply with all I
applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations.
2.3.2 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjust-
ments to the preliminary estimate of Construction Cost in a
further Detailed Statement as described in Paragraph 2.2.5.
PAGE 2
I
77
D
2.4 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS PHASE
+ 2.4.1 Based on the approved design Development Documents
and any further adjustments in the scope or quality of the Pro-
ject or in the construction budget authorized by the Owner, the
h Architect shall prepare, for approval by the Owner, Construction
Documents consisting of Drawings and Specifications setting
forth in detail requirements for the construction of the Pro-
ject, which shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes,
ordinances, codes and regulations.
i
2.4.2 The Architect shall assist the Owner in the prepa-
ration of the necessary bidding information, bidding forms, the
Conditions of the contract, and the form of Agreement between
the Owner and Contractor.
i
2.4.3 The Architect shall advise the Owner of any adjust-
ments to previous preliminary estimates of Construction Cost in-
dicated by changes in requirements or general market conditions.
2.4.4 The Architect shall assist the Owner in connection
with the Owner's responsibility for filing documents required
for the approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction
f over the project.
.
2.5 BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE
2.5.1 The Architect, following the Owner's approval of the
{ Construction Documents and of the latest preliminary estimate _J
of Construction Cost, shall assist the Owner in obtaining bids
or negotiated proposals and assist in awarding and preparing
contracts for construction. "
2.6 CONSTRUCTION PHASE - ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION t
CONTRACT k
2.6.1 The Architect's responsibility to provide Basic Ser-
vices for the Construction Phase under this Agreement commences
with the award of the Contract for Construction and terminates
at the issuance to the Owner of the final Certificate for
f Payment, unless extended under the terms of Subparagraph 9.3.3.
2.6.2 The Architect shall provide detailed administration
of the Contract for Construction as set forth below and in the
edition of AIA document A201, General Conditions of the Contract
for Construction, current as of the date of this Agreement,
unless otherwise provided in this Agreement.
2.6.3 Construction Phase duties, responsibilities and
limitations of authority of the Architect shall not be
PAGE 3
I
I
restricted, modified or extended without written agreement of
the Owner and Architect.
2.6.4 The Architect shall be a representative of and
shall advise and consult with the Owner (1) during construction,
and (2) as an Additional Service at the Owner's direction from
me time to time during the warranty period described in the
l contract for Construction, i.e. one year. The Architect shall
have authority to act on behalf of the Owner only to the extent
provided in this Agreement unless otherwise modified by written
instrument.
2.6.5 The Architect shall visit the site at intervals
appropriate to the stage of construction or as otherwise agreed
by the Owner and Architect in writing to become familiar with
the progress and quality of the Work completed and to determine
if the Work is being performed in a manner indicating that the
Work when completed will be in accordance with the Contract
Documents. On the basis of on-site observations as an archi-
tect, the Architect shall keep the Owner informed of the pro-
gress and quality of the Work, and shall exercise the utmost
care and diligence in discovering and promptly reporting to the
Owner any defects or deficiencies in the work of Contractor or
any subcontractors. The Architect represents that he will
follow the highest professional standards in performing all
services under this Agreement. Any defective designs or
specifications furnished by the Architect will be promptly
f I corrected by the Architect at no cost to the Owner. The
Owner's approval, accectance, use of or payment for all or any
part of the Architects services hereunder or of the Project
itself shall in no way alter the Architect's obligations or the
Owner's rights hereunder.
2.6.6 The Architect shall not have control over or charge
of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods,
techniques, sequences or procedures, or for safety precautions
and pprograms in connection with the Work. The Architect shall
not be responsible for the Contractor s schedules or failure to
carry out the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents
except insofar as such failure may result from Architect's acts
} or omissions. The Architect shall not have control over or
4 charge of acts or omissions of the Contractor, Subcontractors, i
or their agents or employees, or of any other persons
i performing portions of the Work. t
2.6.7 The Architect shall at all times have access to
the Work wherever it is in preparation or progress.
Wi
2.6.8 Except as may otherwise be provided in the Contract
Documents or when direct communications have been specially
authorized, the Owner and Contractor shall communicate through
j 7
PAGE 4
r
4
j
I
r
~ F
I
I
the Architect. Communications by and with the Architect's
consultants shall be through the Architect.
i
2.6.9 Based on the Architect's observations at the site
? of the work and evaluations of the Contractor's Applications
for Payment, the Architect shall review and certify the amounts
due the Contractor.
2.6.10 The Architect's certification for payment shall
constitute a representation to the Owner, based on the Archi-
tect's observations at the site as provided in Subparagraph
2.6.5 and on the data comprising the Contractor's Application
for Payment, that the Work has progressed to the point indicated
and that the quality of the Work is in accordance with the Con-
tract Documents. The foregoing representations are subject to
minor deviations from the contract Documents correctable prior
to completion and to specific qualifications expressed by the
Architect. The issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall
further constitute a representation that the Contractor is
entitled to payment in the amount certified. However, the
issuance of a Certificate for Payment shall not be a represen-
tation that the Architect has (1) made exhaustive or continuous
on-site inspections to check the quality or quantity of the
Work, (2) reviewed construction means, methods, techniques,
sequences or procedures, (3) reviewed copies of requisitions
received from Subcontractors and material suppliers and other
data requested by the Owner to substantiate the Contractor's
right to payment or (4) ascertained how or for what purpose the
Contractor has used money previously paid on account of the r
Contract Sum.
2.6.11 The Architect shall have the responsibility and
authority to reject Work which does not conform to the Contract
Documents. Whenever the Architect considers it necessary or
advisable for implementation of the intent of the Contract Docu-
ments, the Architect will have authority to require additional
inspection or testing of the Work in accordance with the pro- ?i
visions of the Contract Documents, whether or not such Work is
fabricated, installed or completed. However, neither this
authority of the Architect nor a decision made in good faith
either to exercise or not exercise such authority shall give
rise to a duty or responsibility of the Architect to the
Contractor, Subcontractors, material and equipment suppliers,
their agents or employees or other persona performing portions
of the Work.
2.6.12 The Architect shall review and approve or take
other appropriate action upon Contractor's submittals such as
Shop Drawings, Product Data and Samples for the purpose of (1)
i compliance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances and codes;
and (2) determining whether or not the Work, when completed,
f
PAGE 5
u
N
~ I
r
k
i
s will be in compliance with the requirements of the Contract
Documents. The Architect's action shall be taken with such
f reasonable promptness to cause no delay in the Work or in the
h j construction of the Owner or of separate contractors, while
t allowing sufficient time in the Architects professional judg-
ment to permit adequate review. Review of such submittals is
not conducted for the purpose of determining the accuracy and
I completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities
or for substantiating instructions for installation or perfor-
mance of equipment or systems designed by the Contractor, all
of which remain the responsibility of the Contactor to the
extent required by the Contract Documents. The Architect's
review shall not constitute approval of safety precautions or,
unless otherwise specifically stated by the Architect, of
construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or
procedures. The Architect's approval of a specific item shall
not indicate approval of an assembly of which the item is a
When professional certification of performance
component.
characteristics of materials, systems or equipment is required
by the Contract Documents, the Architect shall be entitled to
rely upon such certification to establish that the materials,
systems or equipment will meet the performance criteria
required by the Contract Documents.
2.6.13 The Architect shell prepare Change Orders and
Construction Change Directives, with supporting documentation
and data if deemed necessary by the Architect as provided in
Subparagraphs 3.1.1 and 3.3.3, for the Owner's approval and
execution in accordance with the Contract Documents, and may
- authorize minor changes in the Work not involving an adjustment
in the Contract Sum or an extension of the Contract Time which
are not inconsistent with the intent of the Contract Documents.
2.6.14 On behalf of the Owner, the Architect shall
j conduct inapections to determine the dates of Substantial
Comletion Substantial a and iFinalo Completion. and Thel t will Architect
and review written guarantees and related documents required by w
the Contact Documents and assembled by the Contractor and shall
issue a final certificate for Payment.
2.6.15 The Architect shall interpret and provide recom-
mendations. on matters concerning performance of the Owner and
Contractor under the requirements of the Contract Documents an
written request of either the Owner or Contract. The Archi-
tect's respocse• to such requests shall be made with reasonable
promptness and within any time limits agreed upon.
2.6.16 Interpretations and decisions of the Architect
shall be consistent with the intent of and reasonably inferable
from the Contract Documents and shall be in writing or in the
PAGE 6
T
i
form of drawings. When making such interpretations and initial
decisions, the Architect shall endeavor to secure faithful per-
s formance by both Owner and Contractor, shall not show partiality
to either, and shall not be liable for results for interpreta-
tions or decisions so rendered in good faith in accordance with
all the requirements of the Owner-Architect Agreement and in
( the absence of negligence.
2.6.17 The Architect shall render written decisions with-
in a reasonable time on all claims, disputes or other matters
in question between the Owner and Contractor relating to the
execution or progress of the Work as provided in the Contract
j Documents.
2.6.18 The Architect (1) shall render services under the i
Agreement in accordance with the highest professional standards k
prevailing in the metroplex area; (2) will reimburse the Owner
for all damages caused by the defective designs the Architect
prepares; and (3) by acknowledging payment by the Owner of any
fees due, shall not be released from any rights the Owner may
have under the Agreement or diminish any of the Architects
obligations thereunder.
2.6.19 The Architect shall provide the Owner with one
set of reproducible prints showing all significant changes to
the Construction Documents during the Construction Phase and
shall also provide the Owner with one set of reproducible
as-built Drawings for the Owner's file.
N
E
~ ARTICLE 3
i
ADDITIONAL SERVICES ,
3.1 GENERAL,
3.1.1 The services described in this Article 3 are not
included in Basic Services unless so identified in Article 2,
and they shall be paid for by the Owner as provided in this
Agreement, in addition to the compensation for Basic Services.
The services described under Paragraphs 3.2 and 3.4 shall only
be provided if authorized or confirmed in writing by the
Owner. If services described under Contingent Additional
Services in Paragraph 3.3 are required due to circumstances i
beyond the Architect's control, the Architect shall notify the
Owner prior to commencing such services. If the Owner deems
that such services described under Paragraph 3.3 are not
required, the Owner shall give prompt written notice to the
Architect. If the Owner indicates in writing that all or part {
of such Contingent Additional Services are not required, the ,i
Architect shall have no obligation to provide those services. s '
PAGE 7
I Y II
6
i
Owner will be responsible for compensating the Architect for
Contingent Additional Services only if they are not required
due to the negligence or fault of Architect.
3.2 PROJECT REPRESENTATION BEYOND BASIC SERVICES j
? 3.2.1 If more extensive representation at the site than I
is described in SuL~paragraph 2.6.5 is required, the Architect
shall provide one or more Project Representatives to assist in
carrying out such additional on-site responsibilities.
3.2.2 Project Representatives shall be selected,
employed and directed by the Architect, and the Architect shall
be compensated f therefor as agreed by the Owner and Architect
and limitations of authority o
The duties, responsibilities .
Project Representatives shall be as described in the edition of
AIA Document B352 current as of the date of this Agreement,
unless otherwise agreed.
C 3.2.3 Through the observations by such Project Represen-
tatives, the Architect shall endeavor to provide further pro-
tection for the Owner against defects and deficiencies in the j
Work, but the furnishing of such project representation shall ,
not modify the rights, responsibilities or obligations of the '
Architect as described elsewhere in this Agreement.
3.3 CONTINGENT ADDITIONAL SERVICES j
3.3.1 Making material revisions in Drawings, Specifications
or other documents when such revisions are:
1. inconsistent with approvals or instructions
previously given by the Owner, including
revisions made necessary by adjustments in i
the Owner's program or Project budget;,
2. required by the enactment or revision of
codes, laws or regulations subsequent to the {
preparation of such documents, or
3. due to changes required as a result of the
timely manner.
3.3.2 Providing services required because of significant
changes in the Project including, but not limited to, size,
quality, complexity, the Owner's schedule, or the method of {
bidding services required negotiating udand er Subparagraph 5.2 5nstruction, except
for se
! 1
PAGE 8
11
rsr n>~
5j6, r
1
3.3.3 Preparing Drawings, Specifications and other
documentation and supporting data, and providing other services
in connection with Change Orders and Construction Change
Directives.
3.3.4 Providing consultation concerning replacement of
Work damaged by fire or other cans„ during construction, and
r furnishing services required in connection with the replacement
of such Work.
i
3.3.5 Providing services made necessary by the default
of the Contractor, by major defects or deficiencies in the Work
of the Contractor. F
f 3.3.6 Providing services in evaluating an extensive
number of claims submitted by the Contractor or others in
connection with the Work.
i i
3.3.7 Providing services in connection with a public T
hearing, arbitration proceeding or legal proceeding except
where the Architect is party thereto.
sk
j 3.3.8 Preparing documents for alternate, separate or
l sequential bids or providing services in connection with
bidding, negotiation or construction prior to the completion of
the Construction Documents Phase.
l c
3.4 OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL SERVICES
3.4.1 Providing financial feasibility or other special
studies.
3.4.2 Providing planning surveys, site evaluations or
comparative studies of prospective sites.
3.4.3 Providing special surveys, environmental studies
and submissions required for approvals of governmental auth-
orities or others having jurisdiction over the Project.
3.4.4 Providing services relative to future facilities,
systems and equipment.
3.4.5 Providing services to investigate existing condi-
tions or facilities or to make measured drawings thereof. y
3.4.6 Providing services to verify the accuracy of draw-
ings or other information, furnished by the Owner.
3.4.7 Providing coordination of construction performed by
reparate contractors or by the Owner's own forces and coordina-
tion of services required in connection with construction
performed and equipment supplied by the Owner.
i PAGE 9
I1
I
Fa
1 ~RAM7IM \Ya
F1K'M1Y..>
T/
s
I
h 3.4.8 Providing services in connection with the work of
a construction manager or separate consultants retained by the
Owner.
3.4.9 Providing detailed quantity surveys or inventories
of material, equipment and labor.
3.4.10 Providing analyses of owning and operating costs.
3.4.11 Providing interior design and other similar ser-
vices required for or in connection with the selection, pro-
curement or installation of furniture, furnishings and related
equipment.
3.4.12 Providing services for planning tenart or rental
spaces.
3.4.13 Making investigations, inventories of materials
! or equipment, or valuations and detailed appraisals of existing;
facilities.
3.4.14 Providing assistance in the utilization of equip-
ment or systems such as testing, adjusting and balancing, preps-
ration of operation and maintenance manuals, training personnelu
for operation and maintenance and consultation during operation. a
3.4.15 Providing sesrvices after issuance to the Owner of
the final Certificate for Payment, or in the absence of a final
Certificate for Payment, more than 60 days after the date of
Substantial Completion of the Work.
3.4.16 Providing services of consultants for other than
architectural, e`ructuralI mechanical and electrical engineering
portions of the Project provided as a part of Basic Services.
3.4.17 Providing any other services not otherwise
included in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in
accordance with generally accepted architectural practice.
3.4.18 Preparing a set of reproducible record drawings a
showing significant changes in the Work made during construction i
based on marked-up prints, drawings and other data furnished by
the Contractor to the Architect. (This is for drawings prepared
in addition to those called for in Section 2.6.19.)
ARTICLE 4 !
j OWNERS RESPONSIBILITIES
k 4.1 The Owner shall consult with the Architect regarding {
requirements for the Project, including (1) the Owner's
PAGE 10
r
I ~ A
i
i
i
s objectives, (2) schedule and design constraints and criteria,
j including space requirements and relationships, flexibility,
6 expandability, special equipment, systems ana site requirements,
i as more specifically described in Paragraph 2.2.1.
4.2 The Owner shall establish and update an overall
budget for the Project, including the Construction Cost, the
Owner's other costs and reasonable contingencies related to all
of these costs.
4.3 If requested by the Architect, the Owner shall
furnish evidence that financial arrangements have been made to
i fulfill the Owner's obligations under this Agreement.
i
4.4 The Owner shall designate a representative authorized
to act on the Owner's behalf with respect to the Project. The
Owner or such authorized representative shall render decisions
in a timely manner pertaining to documents submitted by the s
Architect in order to avoid unreasonable delay in the orderly
and sequential progress of the Architect's services.
4.5 The Owner shall furnish surveys describing physical
characteristics, legal limitations and utility locations for the
site of the Project, and a written legal description of the
site. The surveys and legal information shall include, as ;
applicable, grades and lines of streets, alleys, pavements and
adjoining property and structures; adjacent drainage; rights-
of-way, restrictions, easements, encroachments, zoning, deed
restrictions, boundaries and contours of the site; locations,
dimensions and necessary data pertaining to existing buildings,
other improvements and trees; and information concerning avail-
able utility services and lines, both public and private, above n !
and below grade, including inverts and depths. All the infor-
mation on the survey shall be referenced to a project benchmark.
4.6 The Owner shall furnish the services of geotechnical 7
engineers when such services are requested by the Architect.
Such services may include but are not limited to test borings,
test pits, determinations of soil bearing values, percolation
testa, evaluations of hazardous materials, ground corrosion and
resistivity tests, including necessary operations for antici-
pating sub-soil conditions, with reports and appropriate
professional recommendations.
4.6.1 The Owner shall furnish the services of other
consultants when such services are reasonably required by the
scope of the Project and are requested by the Architect and are
not retained by the Architect as part of his Basic Services.
4.7 The Owner shall furnish structural, mechanical,
chemical, air and water pollution tests, tests of hazardous
i
I
PAGE it
J
r,, r
t
materials, and other laboratory and environmental tests,
1 inspections and reports required by law or the Contract
Documents.
f
} 4.8 The Owner shall furnish all legal, accounting and
insurance counseling services as may be necessary at any time
for the Project, including auditing services the Owner may
require to verify the Contractors Applications for Payment or
to ascertain how or for what purposes the Contractor has used
the money paid by or on behalf of the Owner.
4.9 The services, information, surveys and reports
required by Paragraphs 4.5 through 4.B shall be furnished at
the Owner's expense, and the Architect shall be entitled to
rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof in the absence
of any negligence on the part of the Architect.
4.10 Prompt written notice shall be given by the Owner to
f the Architect if the Owner becomes aware of any fault or defect a
in the Project or nonconformance with the Contract Documents.
i
4.11 The proposed language of certificates or certifi-
cations requested of the Architect or Architect's consultants
i shall be submitted to the Architect for review and approval at
least fourteen (14) days prior to execution. The Owner shall
not request certifications that would require knowledge or s
services beyond the scope of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 5
CONSTRUCTION COST
5.1 DEFINITION +
5.1.1 The Construction Cost shall be the total cost or
estimated cost to the Owner of all elements of the Project
designed or specified by the Architect.
5.1.2 The Construction Cost shall include the cost at
current market rates of labor and materials furnished by the t^
Owner and equipment designed, specified, selected or specially
provided for b7 the Architect, plus a reasonable allowance for
the Contractor s overhead and profit. In addition, a reasonable
allowance for contingencies shall be included for market condi-
tions at the time of bidding and for changes in the Work during
construction.
5.1.3 Construction Cost does not include the compensation
of the Architect and Architect's consultants, the costs of the
land, rights-of-way, financing or other costs which are the
responsibility of the Owner as provided in Article 4.
PAGE 12
1 11
l '
4
1 Y
f
f
5.2 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONSTP.UCTION
5.2.1 Evaluations of the Owner's Project budget, pre-
liminary estimates of Construction Cost and detailed estimates
of Construction Cost, if any, prepared by the Architect, repre-
sent the Architect's best judgment as a design professional
familiar with the construction industry. It is recognized,
gay however, that neither the Architect nor the Owner has control
over the cost of labor, materials or equipment, over the Con-
tractor's methods of determining bid prices, or over competitive
bidding, market or negotiating conditions. Accordingly, the
j Architect cannot and does not warrant or represent that bids or
negotiated prices will not vary from the Owner's Project budget
or from any estimate of Construction Cost or evaluation prepared
or agreed to by the Architect.
f` 5.2.2 No fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be
E established as a condition of this Agreement by the furnishing,
proposal or establishment of a Project budget, unless such a
fixed limits has been agreed upon in writing and signed by the
j parties thereto. If such a fixed limit has been established,
the Architect shall be permitted to include contingencies for
design, bidding and price escalation, to determine what
materials, equipment, component systems and types of construc-
j tion are to be included in the Contract Documents, to make
reasonable adjustments in the scope of the Project and to
include in the Contract Documents alternate bids to adjust the
Construction Cost to the fixed limit. Fixed limits, if any,
shall be increased in the amount of an increase in the Contract
Sum occurring after execution of the Contract for Construction.
5.2.3 If the Bidding or Negotiation Phase has not com-
menced within ninety (90) days after the Architect submits the
Construction Documents to the Owner, any Project budget or
fixed limit of Construction Cost shall be adjusted to reflect `
changes in the general level of prices in th3 construction
industry between the date of submission of the Construction
Documents to the Owner and the date on which proposals are I
sought.
r
5.2.4 If a fixed limit of Construction Cost (adjusted as 1 +
provided in Subparagraph 5.2.3) is exceeded by the lowest bona
fide bid or negotiated proposal, the Owner shall:
1. give written approval of an increase in such
fixed limit;
2. authorize rebidding or renegotiating of the
Project within a reasonable time;
E
3. if the Project is abandoned, terminate in
accordance with Paragraph 7.3; or
1 PAGE 13
I
v'
r r~- •
r
4. cooperate in revising the Project scope and
i quality as required to reduce the Construc-
tion Cost.
5.2.5 If the Owner chooses to proceed under Clause 5.2.4.4.
the Architect, without additional charge, shall modify the Con-
tract Documents as necessary to comply with the fixed limit, if
~x established as a condition of this Agreement. The modification
i of Contract Documents shell be the limit of the Architect's
responsibility arising out of the establishment of a fixed limit.
The Architect shall be entitled to compensation in accordance
f with this Agreement for all services performed whether or not
the Construction Phase is commenced.
ARTICLE 6
USE OF ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS,
1 SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
6.1 The Drawings, Specifications and other documents pre- {
pared by the Architect for this Project are instruments of the
Architect's service for use solely with respect to this Project
and, unless otherwise provided, the Architect shall be deemed m
the author of these documents and shall retain all common law,
statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright.
The Owner shall be permitted to retain copies, including repro- ,
ducible copies, of the Architect's Drawings, Specifications and
other documents for information and reference in connection with
the Owner's use and occupancy of the Project. The Architect's
Drawings, Specification or other documents shall not be used by
the Owner or others on other projects, for additions to this
Project or for completion of this Project by others, unless the
Architect is in default under this Agreement, except by agreement
in writing and with appropriate compensation to the Architect.
6.2 Submission or distribution of documents to meet
official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in
connection with the Project is not to be construed as publica-
tion in derogation of the Architect's reserved rights.
ARTICLE 7
TERMINATION, SUSPENSION OR ABANDONMENT
I 7.1 This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon du
not less than seven days written notice should the other party
fail sibstantially to perform in accordance with the terms of
this Agreement through no fault of the party initiating the i
tee-Ltination.
PAGE 14
x . 4 waif
it
f
1
~I
J
Y4
n
7.2 If the Project is suspended by the owner for more
than 30 consecutive days, the Architect shall be compensated
for services performed prior to notice of such suspension.
When the Project is resumed, the Architect's compensation shall
E interruption andresumption rof the Architect'ssservices. in the
Pt
7,3 This Agreement may be terminated by the Owner upon
not less than seven days written notice to the Architect in the
! event that the Project is permanently abandoned. If the Project
than 90
this Agreement eby days the
Owner e may for more
Architect abandoned or the the
written notice.
7.4 Failure of the Owner to make payments to the Archi-
considered
this
tect
subet ntial nonperformance and cause forn termination.
f ~ 7.5 If the Owner fails to make payment to Architect
I within thirty (30) days of receipt. of a statement for services
properly performed, the Architect may, upon seven days written 4.
notice to the Owner, suspend performance of services under this i
` Agreement. Unless payment in full is received by the Architect '
within seven (7) days of the date of the notice, the suspension
shall take effect without further notice. In the event of a i
suspension of services, the Architect shall have no liability
to the Owner for delay or damage caused the Owner because of
such suspension of services.
7.6 In the event of termination not the fault of the
` Architect, the Architect shall be compensated for services
properly performed prior to termination.
ARTICLE 8
I P
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS } -
I 8.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Texas.
e
l 8.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning ;
is
Contract foin AIA r Constructiont current 0easraof the Conditions of of ththe
' Agreement.
8.3 The Owner and Architect, respectively, bind them-
selves, their partners, successors, assigns and ag anreto sthe
tatives to the other party to this Agreement
other eY successors, aand legal repre ll covenants ofethi.siAgreementh
party
PAGE 15
a
s
1
S
v
Neither Owner nor Architect shall assign this Agreement without
the written consent of the other.
8.4 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated
agreement between the Owner and Architect and supersedes all
P prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either
91 written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written
instrument signed by both Owner and Architect.
8.5 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a t
1 contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of
i~ a third party against either the Owner or Architect.
8.6 Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement, the
i ~
Architect and Architect's consultants shall have no respon-
sibility for the discovery, presence, handling, removal or
disposal of or exposure of persons to hazardous materials in
any form at the Project site, including but not limited to
asbestos, asbestos products, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) or
j other toxic substances, provided, however, Architect shall have
li the responsibility to and shall report to the Owner the
location of any hazardous material that an Architect of similar
skill and expertise should have noticed.
8.7 Upon receipt of prior written approval of Owner, the
Architect shall have the right to include representations of
the design of the Project, including photographs of the
exterior and interior, among the Architect 'a promotional and
professional materials. The Architect's materials shall not
include the Owner's confidential or proprietary information if
the Owner has previously advised the Architect in writing of
the specific information considered by the Owner to be confi-
dential or proprietary. The Owner shall provide professional
credit for the Architect on the construction sign and in the 3
promotional materials for the Project.
ARTICLE 9 '
~PAYMENTS TO THE ARCHITECT
I 9.1 DIRECT PERSONNEL EXPENSE
9.1.1 Direct Personnel Expense is defined as the direst
salaries of the Architect's personnel engaged on the Project
and the portion of the cost o:- their mandatory and customaty
contributions and benefits related thereto, such as employment
taxes and other statutory employee benefits, insurance, sick
leave, holidays, vacations, pensions and similar contributions
and benefits. +
1
PAGE 16
,l
IS
r '
if
owl
I
r`
, M.
I
f,
i
I r
9.2 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
l 9.2.1 Reimbursable Expenses are in addition to compensa-
tion for Basic and Additional Services and include expenses
incurred by the Architect and Architect's employees and con-
sultants in the interest of the Project, as identified in the
1 following Clauses.
s
9.2.1.1 Expense of transportation in connection with the
Project; expenses in connection with authorized out-of-town
travel; long-distance communications; and fees paid for securing
approval of authorities having jurisdiction over the Project.
9.2.1.2 Expense of reproductions, postage and handling
of Drawings. Specifications and other documents.
ti
9.2.1.3 If authorized in advance by the Owner, expense y
r
of overtime work requiring higher than regular rates.
9.2.1.4 Expense of renderings, models and mock-ups ;
requested by the Owner.
9.2.1.5 Expense of additional insurance coverage or
limits, including professional liability insurance, requested
by the Owner in excess of that normally carried by the Archi-
teat and Architect's consultants. s
t
9.3 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF BASIC SERVICES
9.3.1 Subsequent payments for Basic Services shall be
made monthly and, where applicable, shall be in proportion to
I services performed within each phase of service, on the basis
set forth in Subparagraph 10.2.2.
J
9.3.2 If and to the extent that the time initially estab-
lished in Subparagraph 10.4.1 of this Agreement is exceeded or r
extended through no fault of the Architect, compensation for any
services rendered during the additional period of time shall be
computed in the manner set forth in Subparagraph 10.2.3.
9.3.3 When compensation is based on a percentage of Con-
struction Coat and any portions of the Project are deleted or
otherwise not constructed, compensation for those portions of
the Project shall be payable to the extent services are
performed on those portions, in accordance with the schedule
set forth in Subparagraph 10.2.2 based on (1) the lowest bona
fide bid or negotiated proposal, or (2) if no such bid or
1 proposal is received, the most recent preliminary estimate of
Construction Cost or detailed estimate of Construction Cost for
such portions of the Project.
j
PAGE 17
1
IJY`71M1~ `
k
t
i
i
9.4 PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES
9.4.1 Payments on account of the Architect's Additional
Services and for Reimbursable Expenses shall be made monthly
upon presentation of the Architects statement of services
rendered or expenses incurred.
9.5 PAYMENTS WITHHELD
1 9.5.1 No deductions shall be made from the Architect's
compensation on account of penalty, liquidated damages or other
sums withheld from payments to contractors, or on account of
the cost of changes in the Work other than those for which the
Architect is responsible.
9.6 ARCHITECT'S ACCOUNTING RECORDS
9.6.1 Records of Reimbursable Expenses and expenses
pertaining to Additional Services and services performed on the
basis of a multiple of Direct Personnel Expense shall
available to the Owner or the Owner's authorized representative
for inspection and copying during regular business hours for,
three years after the date of the final Certificate of Payment.
AkTICLE 10
BASIS OF COMPENSATION j
I
The Owner shall compensate the Architect as follows:
10.1 BASIC COMPENSATION
10.1.1 FOR BASIC SERVICES, as d6scribed in Article 2,
and any other services included in Article 11 as part of Basic
Services, Basic Compensation shall be: twentyone thousand five hundred
dollars and no cents 21,500.00)
10.1.2 Progress payments for Basic Services in each
j phase shall total the following percentages of the total Basic
Compensation payable:
~
Schematic Desi;n Phase: fifteen percent (15%)
30x
'
Design Development Phase: twenty percent (
Construction Documents Phase: thirty percent 1
Bidding or Negotiation Phase: ten percent (10%) ~
Construction Phase: twenty-five percent (25X.)
Total basic Compensation: one hundred percent (lUOx)
i
a
PAGE 1B
I
~Mi.r 1~~1[M t
i
{
i
10.2 COMPENSATION FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
be Scomputed
1 FOR PROJECT 2.2SENcompensationN shall BASIC
as described
as follows:
On an hourly rate basis, based on Article 10.2.2.
10.2.2 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF THE ARCHITECT, as
other than (1) Additional
described Articles es adescribed in Para3raph 3.2, and (2)
Project Repr resentation,
'
services included in Article 11 as part of Additional Services,
but excluding services' of consultants, compensation shall be
computed as follows:
j
Principals $ 70 Per tour i
it qg
~ Other Employees hourly rate
i ~
10,2.3 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES OF CONSULTANTS, including
additional structural, mechanical and electrical engineering
services and thoaclepr11 i as parts of SAdditionalh Services, oa 5
identified in Arti
multiple of 1 times the amounts billed
.10
to the Architect or suc services.
10.3 REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
10.3.1 FOR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES, as described in Para-
graph 9.2, and any other items includedl ion Article 11 as
Reimbursable Expenses, a multiple of -----grc tect s
times the expenses incurr:d by the rc tect,
employees and consultants in the interest of the Project.
10.4 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS
10.4.1 IF THE BASIC SERVICES covered by this agreement
have not hbeen iofintl eWeArchiteet,moexten ionthof dthe
heerreo,
1Q.282a11 be compensate as
Architect's services 9.3.t3 and time
providad in Subparagraphs
10.4.2 Payments are due and payable thirty (30) days
shall bea ouinterestaat
from the date °aftere the rcinvoicesdateinvoice.
thirty (30) days month.
s
the rate of one percent (1%) per ,
i
I
PAGE 19
j
l ~ ~ 11
1
)Y f
7
1
f
ARTICLE 11
t
OTHER CONDITIONS OR SERVICES
(insert descriptions of other services, Identify Additlonai Services Included within
Basic Compensation and modifications to the payment and compensation terms included in
!I t1Js Agreement.
1
1
t
I
This agreement entered into as of the day and year first
written above.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, r,(}IiTFF $ _r T$,( TTM~ r _
OWNER
BY: BY:
AIG REYNOL S, PARTNER I
ATTEST:
JENNIFER W E , CITY SETRITA-Ky
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
1
BY:
PAGE 20
i
K!
t
~t
z
F
i
I LL
t
i
' X
1
1
I
I E~~
i
I
1
1
w
J
~ 1
Jf
or
oa,a~
f
,
e
DATES JANUARY 16, 1990
CITY COUNCIL REPOP.T
s _
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager I
SUBJECT: RFP# 1034 - MEDICAL DIRECTOR SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this Request for Proposal be awarded
to R. L. Park, M.D., in the amount of $12,000,00
per year,
SUMMARY: This Proposal is designed to acquire the services of a }
qualified physical to participate in tha daily operation of the
Denton Fire Department Emergency Medical "•ervice (EMS), and Medical
Control, along with other related duties. Two qualified proposals
were received. After careful consideration by Assistant Fire Chief
James Thompson, Chief Randy Corbin of the Lewisville Fire
Department as an outside party, and myself, it was agreed that the
proposal from R.L. Park, M.D. was the best for the City of Denton, j
The City of Denton has been under contractual agreement with Dr, t
Keith Krein, M.D., for Medical Director Service since February 1,
1986. The Contract has been renewed each year. Dr. Krein has
relocated his office and practice to Houston, Texas, and resigned
his position as Medical Director for the DFD Emergency Medical
Service at the end of the Contract term. Dr. Krein's relocation j
'I and resignation prompted the solicitation of proposals to provide
Medical Director Services, i
BACKGROUND: Recommendation from Assistant Chief .;amen Thompson,
Contract signed by R. L. Park, M.D.,
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: Denton Fire Department i'
Emergency *9edical Service.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this service were a
budget, pproved in the 1989-90
Respe IIy_gub ed:
f Lloyd Harrell -
Prepared by: City Manager
a
Name: Tom D, Shaw, C.P,M A
Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent
i Y
Ap roved:
Names Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. }
Titles Assistant Purchasing Agent
025.DOC
I
~y
!
k t
r
}
i
MEMORANDUM
s
w TO: Tom Shaw, Assistant Purchasing Agent
FROM: James R. Thomason, Assistant Fire Chief +
DATE: January 90 1990
I SUBJECT: MEDICAL DIRECTOR CONTRACT
Doctors Geoffrey Coate and Randy Parks were interviewed on Decem-
ber 14, 1989. Present were Chief Randy Corbin of the Lewisville
Fire Department and myself. Chief Corbin was asked to sit on this
interview board because we felt Chief Corbin could offer a fair
E and impartial opinion of the candidates, and would be in a posi-
tion to help us evaluate the candidates. Also, his department
uses Metroerest Medical for medical control direction and continu-
ing education and Chief Corbin is thoroughly familiar with their
system.
After interviewing each applicant Chief Corbin and I agreed that
Randy Parks, M.D. was the best and most logical choice for the
position. {
1. Dr. Parks was low bid at $129000 per year as opposed to
!14,600.
s
2. Dr. Parks is a local physician who resides and practices in
the city of Denton.
3. Dr. Parks demonstrated a desire and willingness to have
considerable "hands on" contact with the EMS and the depart-
ment's Wellness Program, 8
4. Dr. Parke has five (6) years experience in emergency medicine
in our community working with Denton Fire Department Paramed-
ics and is very well acquainted with our system. As well he
has had experience in other comparable emergency medical
systems. 3
! !
If you need any further information, please feel free to call. E
3 1
amen R. Thomason
JRT/bf #
7T ',7
.
~IWM+' Rimy I
1
v ~ ~.r.a,. a wty7
i '
III
I 1 f.
1 ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN EMPIAYKENT
' CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND RANDY PARK, M. D. FOR
r 1
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATING TO THE CITYIS EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICE PROGRAM! AND DECLARING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION i. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute a contract with Randy Park, MAD., for professional medical
services as Medical Director of the City's Emergency Medical
Service technicians, a copy of which is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
t SECTION 11. That the City Council authorizes the expenditure
i of funds in the manner and amount as specified in the Agreement.
I ;,r
SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective e+
immediately upon its passage and approval.
ti
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of January, 1990. pr
~r
t~
j v
RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR
i ,
` ATTESTi
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
i
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
F
r ~
BY:
1
r
Randypar.ord
1
k
9 ~r
1
IIII
1 '
THE STATE OF TEXAS ; AGREEMENT FOR MEDICAL DIRECTOR
SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF
COUNTY OF DENTON ; DENTON AND RANDY L. PARK, M.D.
WHEREAS, Chapter 197 of the Medical Practices Act provides
that each facility providing emergency medical service should have
a physician licensed by the State of Texas who is responsible for
certifying the skills of the CITY's emergency medical service
technicians and for supervising the emergency medical service
technicians; and
WHEREAS, the CITY and Randy L. Park, M.D. wish to enter into
an agreement providing for Park's professional services;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as followss
sECTI0N I.
QMRAL
CITY hereby engages the professional services of Randy L.
Park, M.D. (MEDICAL DIRECTOR) as Medical Director of the Emergency
Medical Service Technicians of the CITY, to perform the duties and
responsibilities set forth in state law and in this agreement. The
CITY agrees to pay MEDICAL DIRECTOR, for his services an annual
salary of Twelve Thousand Dollars ($12,000.00), payable monthly, 3
for a minimum of twenty (20) hours' service per month.
a=CTI0N Ii.
i
SERVICES r
The MEDICAL DIRECTOR shall perform the following services for
the CITY's Emergency Medical Service Program (Program);
1. Periodically review, evaluate, and update the
emergency medical services protocols to be used by
paramedics and rMTs in the field as directed by
MEDICAL DIRECTOR.
2. Establish and administer a continuing education
program for Denton Fire Department Emergency
Medical Services personnel.
3. Review records of ambulance runs and evaluate the
performance of Denton Fire Department paramedics
through such means as in-service examinations,
advanced skills testing and ride/out evaluations.
R
I
f
r
4. Evaluate and periodically update Denton Fire
Department Emergency Medical Services field
procedures.
i
5. Interact with area physicians and inform them of
any changes in procedures and answer any questions
they may have regarding the Program.
6. Assist with the administration of Emergency
Medical Technician classes which are held by
CITY's Fire Department as needed.
7. Meet monthly with the Fire Department Division
Commander/Operations and/or Emergency Medical
Services Coordinator to discuss, evaluate and
direct the operations of the Program.
8. Prepare an annual report for presentation to
CITY's City Council on the past year's performance
of the Program and the present and future needs of
the Program.
9. Comply with and fulfill all existing requirements
of Chapter 197 of the State Board of Medical
Examiners rules pertaining to MEDICAL DIRECTOR.
(The current rules are attached as Exhibit A.)
10. Comply with and fulfill all existing and future
requirements of the State Board of Health's rules
f concerning a MEDICAL DIRECTOR.
11. Approve patient care equipment.
12. Assist in the development of the Fire Department )
Wellness Program.
sRC'1'I011 IIi.
IMDRPENDIN CONTRACTOR
The status of MEDICAL DIRECTOR performing work related to this
Agreement shall be that of an Independent Contractor and not an P
agent, servant, employee, or representative of CITY in the
performance of the Services. No tare or provision of, or act of
MEDICAL DIRECTOR or CITY under this Agreement shall be construed as }
changing that status.
3
{
2
d
E
i
I
,
I1
6
A
j.
Y
SECTION IV.
INDEMNIFICATION
A. Subject to the provisions of Subsection B, below, MEDICAL
DIRECTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY and
f all of its officers, agents, and employees from any suits,
? actions, or claim whatsoever that might arise on account of
{ any injury or damage received or sustained by any person or
property as a result of MEDICAL DIRECTOR's conduct of any
activity or operation in connection with MEDICAL DIRECTOR's
provision of services required under this Agreement.
B. MEDICAL DIRECTOR shall not be obligated to indemnify, defend,
or hold harmless CITY or any of its officers, agents, or
employees when the injury or damage to a person or property is
caused by the negligence of CITY, its officers, agents,
employees, or the negligence of a person or persons not under
the supervision or control of MEDICAL DIRECTOR.
C. No provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted to 5
constitute a waiver of the immunities or limits of liability
granted to CITY under the constitution and laws of the State
of Texas, including the Texas Tort Claims Act. }
C
D. The MEDICAL DIRECTOR agrees to be responsible for maintaining
physician's malpractice insurance coverage in the following
minimum limits; $2,000,000 per occurrence. MEDICAL DIRECTOR
shall provide a copy of the policy to CITY and any such policy
shall provide at least fifteen (15) days notice of
cancellation to CITY.
SECTION V. 1
1
~ MlscsLLANe~os
A. Wire Agreement. This Agreement embodies the complete
agreement of the parties hereto, superseding all orel or written
previous and contemporary agreements between the parties relating
to matters herein; and except as otherwise provided herein, cannot
be modified without written agreement of the parties.
E
j 84 Assignment. MEDICAL DIRECTOR shall not sell., assign,
transfer or convey this Agreement, in whole or in part, without the
1 prior written consent of CITY.
C. Notices. Any notice given by one party to the other in
connection with this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be
sent by registered mail, return receipt requested, with postage and
3
4
Yl6
Y'I
S
f
registration fees prepaid, as follows:
If to the CITY, If to the MEDICAL DIRECTOR,
addressed to: addressed to:
City Manager Randy Park, M.D.
City of Denton 4405 M. I-35
215 E. McKinney Emergency Department
Denton, Texas 76201 Denton, Texas 76201
Notices shall be deemed to have been received on the date of
receipt as shown on the return receipt. j
SACTION VI.
TEAK
This Agreement shall be effective January 1, 1990 and
terminate December 31, 1990. The parties hereto agree that this
Agreement may be thereafter extended for two additional one year
terms by notification in writing from the City Manager.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
LLOYD V. HARRELL
CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
I BY:
j
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORMS
DEBRA A. DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
~ BY:
MEDICAL DIRECTO {
BY: ~12
Ra Park, M.D.
t
4
f
++r
1
i
ri
0
y1
5
{ar,..♦
AA r F y
1-6 LLZJj=i
1
I
JI
m
i
♦I
I 1
I
r 1
Li I
+I
I
1
Y
I
:t
1
YX
j
+1
A
III
V
i
{
4
DATE: JANUARY 160 1990
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
tl -
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
SUBJECT: RFP #1003 - TELEPHONE SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend this RFP 01003, be awarded to the
lowest evaluated respondent, GTE, in the amount of $381,349.00,
SUMMARY: This RFP #1003, is for the purchase of a new telephone
system to replace the existing 11-year old system. The new system
consists of three telephone switches, new phones, and all wiring
inside the City buildings, The Utility Department will supply all 9
outside wiring and cabling, including fiber optics and copper.
This option gives the City a good degree of flexibility and is a
considerable savings over other proposals received.
BACKGROUND: The majority of the background information concerning
this proposal has been presented to Council in
previous memorandums
and meetings. The recommendation is the result of both Staff }
evaluation and that of Doug Arnold, Ltd Consulting firm.
Proposals were received from GTE, AT&T, Southwestern Bell, and V
Rohm.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED: All departments within
the organization and the Citizens of Denton,
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds for this acquisition will come from
Certificates of Obligation approved for sale in October of 1989.
Respe ulllyy submitted: $
U
t4~
Llo Harrell
City Manager
1 Pr red by:n
1 '
I Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P.M. >
Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent i
Ap oved:
Name: Tom D. Shaw, C.P,M.
Title: Assistant Purchasing Agent
025.DOC
7 7~- =-7
t~
DATE: 1-10-40
SiTY COUNCIL REPORT FORMAT
TO. Mayor and Members of tho City Council '
FROM: Lloyd Harrell, City Manager
x SUBJECT: RFP
{
RECOMMENDATION:
That the city award the contract for a new telephone system to the low bidder
which is GTE. This system will consist of 3 telephone switches, new instruments
and all
cabling DincludingibothyfDiberropticswand
all t inter building building wiring,
supply ~
copper. }
sUMMARY:
` Four vendors responded to the RFP with GTE being the lowest bidder. The system
bid by GTE will meet our current and foreseeable needs. ~
BACKGROUND: j
The awarding of this contract is one o! the final steps in implementing a system I
that will replace a 11 years old system that is at capacity and lacks many
technological and productivity saving features.
ELOrg&W DBPARTMENTS OR GROUpB AFFECTED:
a
All departments within the c.rganization.
Flsc~,1L LMPACT: !
$381,344 I
Re tf 1 su ted: 1
L1 yd Harrell {
Prepared by: City Manager
a o ns
j Director of Information Services $
Approved:
etty c can
Director of Municipal Services/
[ Economic Development
i
.1
7
i i
b
u
ANALYSES OF TELECOMMUNICATION, '
PROPOSALS FOR CITY OF DENTON
'.4
I
NOVEMBER 14, 1969
DOUG ARNOLD, LTD.
15330 L-B-J- FREEWAY, SUITE 301
MESQUITE, TEXAS 78150
r J 21~-613-1800
L~
1i d
I
I
E
I J;
9
,
-
Y
owl
1
Fri
{i{
a
i
l •
a
~ E
y TABLE Of CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
TITLE
k
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 TECHNICAL ANALYSES OF VENDORS AND
PROPOSED SYSTEMS 3
1
2.1 synopsis of System Design 3 S
2.2 overview of Proposed systems 4
2.3 AT&T Information Systems 6
A 2.4 GTE Southwest, Inc. 9
` 2.5 Rolm Company 12
2.6 southwestern 3e11 Telecom is
t 300 FINANCIAL ANALYSES OF PROPOSED SYSTEMS Is
P
~a 4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 22
j
TABLE I SYSTEM PRICING 27
TABLE II - REVISED SYSTEM PRICING 26
TABLE III - SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 2!
TABLE IV - COST RELATED PROPOSAL CONDITIONS f0
t
i '
0
1
i
F
i
i
7
e
{
d
1.0 Infiroduotion
Based on the decision of the City of Denton to solicit
competitive bids for a new telecommunication system, Doug
Arnold, Ltd. (DAL) prepared the detailed design criteria for
a system that would meet the unique requirements of t
he
City. This system design was then incorporated into a'
Request For Proposal (RFP) that was distributed to qualified
vendors by the City of Denton Purchasing Division. Four (4)
jy
proposals were received by the official due date of
September 5, 1989.
Following is a list of the vendors submitting proposals
and the telecommunication's systems being offered:
VENDOR SYSTEM PROPOSED
CITY HALL SVC CENTER &
1 POWER PLANT
AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS* INC. DIFINITY G-1 DM 75 XE
GTE SOUTHWEST, INC. SL-1 NT SL-1 ST
ROLM COMPANY 9751-MODEL 50 9751-MODEL 10
SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELECOM SL-1 NT SL-1 ST
These four proposals have been analyzed by DAL staff,
Additional information was requested from each vendor in
order to clarify specific items in the proposal and to
provide assurance that the proposals were in compliance with
the intent of the RFP.
This report contains technical and financial analyses
of the proposals received along with a critique of the
a
~ 1
F
Y
vendor organization and their ability to properly install
3
' and maintain proposed system.
Based on the above detailed analyses, DAL has included r
its recommendations and possible alternatives. x
Each of the vendors have been given an opportunity to
make a technical presentation to the City of Denton.
f +
it
r
i
k
2
f
h
1
2.0 Technical analyses of Vendors i Proposed Systems
2.1 .5YA psis of Svstem_ ? an
v
it is proposed that the new telecommunications system
will consist of three (3) fully equipped PBX switches, one
each to be. located at City Hall, the Service Center and the
Power Plant. The City Hall switch will directly serve the
Police Department, Fire Department and Data Processing
Personnel as well as all buildings at the City Hall complex.
The three (3) switches will be interconnected by high speed
(T1) digital links. These links will utilize either fiber-
optics or microwave as the connection medium.
since the City Hall switch is serving the Police and
Fire Department it will be equipped with a redundant Central
I Processing Unit (CPU) as well as backup batteries.
The system will also record billing information on all
long distance calls in order to verify the accuracy of long
distance charges and to provide a tool for department heads
to better control these expenses.
Another major feature is the addition of Voice Mail
1
which is designed to help eliminate telephone tag while
providing butter service to City employees.
outlying locations such as the Recreation Center,
Animal Control, Airport, outlying Fire Stations, Solid Waste
Disposal, etc. will be served by off Premise Extensions
(OPX) lines leased from GTE. At the larger locations key I'
systems will be used to improve service and reduce the JJI
number of current OPX lines required. i
3
r
4
The City owns several of these systems at the Service
Center & Power Plant. These will be reused at other
locations since they will become spare when the new PBX
switches are installed at the Service Center & Power Plant. j
2.2 overview of Proposed System
Most modern voice/data systems offer many of the same
features. The three (3) types of systems being considered
in this report, for example, all have features such as call
forwarding, call hold, conference call, speed calling, call
park, least cost routing, call detail recording, direct
inward dial, etc. All of the systems proposed use a uniform
four (4) pair of wires to each station. Any telephone
in.atrument can be easily moved by merely entering a software
r
change in the PBX systems computer. All of the systems
support T1 carriers as an interface between the systems at
i
City ball, Service Center, and the Power Plant.
In addition, all of the systems have included the
following features:
i
i
I A
f
x
4
• :d
Hti
p~; y r•
r
r
i ARS _ (AUTOMATIC ROUTE SELECTION)
i
This provides the ability to utilize more than one (1) long
distance service through single digit access and to maximize
the use of lease costly services. This is especially
significant where metro lines are used. ?
CDR 6 CDR REPORT (CALL DETAIL RECORDING)
This feature permits the system to collect data on all long
distance calls and to provide periodic reports back to the
various departments.
BATTERY BACKUP
All systems have offered a battery backup to prevent 4
interruption of service in case of power failure.
MUSIC ON HOLD
The capability of providing music to a caller while the call
1111 is on hold.
ACD (AUTOMATIC. CALL DISTRIBUTION)
This feature permits the orderly distribution of calls
within specific departments, such as Customer Service, that
have a large volume of calls.
VOICE MAIL
voice Mail permits a caller to leave a voice message for a
called party when they are unavailable. It has various ;
other features that improve employee productivity as well as
o- reduce the infamous telephone tag.
MESSAGE CENTER SERVICE
Basically this service, as included in this proposal,
provides a message waiting light on each telephone. The
1
service is usually associated with a message center. With
this approach an attendant accepts messages and lights the a
message lamp on the users telephone. Also the message }
waiting light can be interconnected to the voice mail
service.
T CARRIER SERVICE
All respondents have offered the capability of ,
interconnecting the three (9) telephone systems via a high
speed digital system referred to as T] Carrier. This
permits the easy transfer of voice and data between s ,
terminals, significantly improves the quality of each
voice/data call, and allows all major features to operate
5
~k
F
r
across this Ti Carrier in a transparent tanner. The T1
carriers will operate over microwave or fiber-optic
facilities connecting these three locations.
The most notable differences between the systems are
f
the physical configuration of the telephone instruments,
attendant consoles and data interfacing devices. We are,
1
therefore, concentrating our report in the areas that the 1
systems differ.
Following is a review of the vendors submitting
proposals and a technical analysis of the telecommunication
f
systems proposed.
2.3 AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS (ATM
AT&T Information Systems is the division of American
j
Telephone and Telegraph Company that was established
_ I
following divestiture for the purpose of selling and
maintaining telephone equipment manufactured primarily by
other divisions of AT&T. It is the largest manufacturer of
telephone equipment in the united States.
Before divestiture the installation and maintenance of
these systems was handled by the various Bell Operating
Companies. Since then AT&T has developed its own
installation and maintenance forces. According to their
proposal, AT&T currently has 10 installation and service
people in the DPW area with two (2) located in the Denton
area* on the negative side, it should be noted that
although their maintenance rate is fixed for five (5) years,
it is the highest of the proposals evaluated.
6
,:..rte
Any h`v r~
r
i
AT&T has guaranteed its post-cutover pricing on
j equipment for twenty-four (24) months. It has also offered
no restocking charge for changes made in the equipment for
` the first sixty (60) days following cutover. This is
f usually the period in which any significant telephone I
instrument types or quanity changes are made,
AT&: advises that the system can be cutover within
eight (8) weeks after contract has been signed.
A check with references submitted by AT&T indicates
that users are well satisfied with the equipment as well as
service response.
AT&T is proposing a new Difinity Generic I to be
installed at the City Hall with Dimension 75s to be
installed at the Service Center & Power Plant.
I I
AT&T Difinity G 1 and Dimension 75 }XE
f
s
AT&T until recently offered the Dimension 75 for
smaller customers and the Dimension 85 for larger customers. J
These two systems were quite different in design. The new 1 I
Difinity Generic 1 is the first step towards developing a ~
system that can grow from a small size like the 75 to a'
large size such as the 85. The Difinity GI has a Redundant
Central Processing Unit (CPU) as standard equipment.
The Dimension 75 xE is a smaller version of the
Dimension 75 and serves locations with less critical
requirements. As such it does not have a redundant CPU. ° j
11
~ I
7
MOM
r
.
Both the Difinity and the Dimension have many features
in common. They both are equipped with all of the same
` digital instruments. Voice and/or data can be transmitted `
from any terminal without changing line cards. They both
I
have battery backup to protect against outages in case of
power failure.
Both systems are truly non-blocking. This means that
all stations can be carrying conversations or data at the r
same time. In other systems, without this design #
architecture, it is necessary to rebalance the line cards as
! usage increases. otherwise it is possible to encounter busy
signals at peak load times. These systems require only
minimal conditioning, require less floor space and reduced
power consumption.
They have a Remote Trouble Monitor feature in which the ;
i
system automatically dials the AT&T trouble center when a
alarm condition is detected. With this feature AT&T can
often remotely diagnose a potential case of trouble and have
it cleared before the customer is aware of the problem.
The Call Detail Recording feature allows the collection
of data on station to station calls as wall as calls outside
i
of the system. This feature is not available on the other
j systems proposed and can be useful in tracking intro
department call patterns.
' The attendant console has Direct Station Selection
(DSS) which permits the attendant to ring a station by
pressing as single button. This also is not available with
8
owl
r
the other systems. Directory Look-up whicr permits the user
to scan an employee directory in software is also available
from any telephone equipped with a digital readout.
The all digital instruments recommended in this
proposal are as follows!
7401D - single Line With Message Waiting Lamp
7406D - Five (5) U nes and Nineteen (19) Feature Buttons
j 7407D - Ten (10) Lines and Thirty-One (31) Feature Buttons
Plus Speakerphone and Digital Display,
7410 - Ten (30) Lines or Feature Buttons
The system as proposed will have Voice Mail. The Voice
j Mail system would be located at the City Hall switch.
However, stations on the other two switches would have their {
message waiting light illuminated should a call be left for
that station. This feature is not available on all
switches. r
2.4 QJE southwest. Inc. (GTES
GTE Southwest, Inc. is the current supplier of
i
telephone service to the City of Denton. Since it is the
authorized provider of local telephone service in the Denton
area, it will continue to provide trunking service, off
Premise Extensions, tie lines, etc. regardless of the vendor
who will furnish and install the new telephone system. 1
GTE also has a separate branch that sells and services
PBX systems. For this specific project they are offering
the Meridan SL-1 systems manufactured by Northern Telecom.
I
GTE has, like AT&T, been in the business of providing
I
telephone service for many years. in the last ten years
{ 9
i ~
i
k
they havo made great strides in upgrading their central
F
offices as well as outside plant.
l
Since GTE is not a manufacturer of PBX systems, they
have offered several different brands over the past years.
The system currently serving the City of Denton is a Rolm,
which was installed around 1978. Subsequently they stopped
marketing the Rolm system and for the last five or more
years have mainly been supplying the Northern Telecom SL-1.
GTE currently has about 34 technicians who have been
factory trained on the installation and maintenance of the
i SL-1 system. While the majority of these technicians
operate from the Irving, Texas office there are technicians
working directly out of the Denton office.
GTE has sold and is maintaining SL-1's in several of
the cities in the North Texas area in which it provides
local telephone service. Garland and Irving are two
r
examples who are using their services and have expressed
their satisfaction with its quality.
GTE offers relatively the same parts price protection
as AT&T. One of the most important features is the
elimination of restocking charges and the maintaining of
precutover prices until after cutover. This allows last
minute additions and deletions to be obtained at precutover
prices without restocking charges.
GTE is offering the Northern Telecom SL-1NT for City
Hall and SL-1ST's for the Service Center and Power Plant.
10
1.
r
r
4
y
i
GTE is y sting 16 weeks from contract award to cutover,
however this interval can probably be reduced through
negotiation. 1
111
Northern Telecom SL-1 NT 6 SL-1ST
Northern Telecom is the second largest manufacturer of
telephone equipment on the North American continent,
surpassed only by AT&T. The Si.-1 system was originally
introduced in 1575 and since then has become one of the most
widely used business communication systems in the United c
I i
i States. Numerous improvements have been introduced since
{ its entry in the marketplace with each existing system i
having the capability of being upgraded to accept the new
I,
offerings. ;
GTE quoted all digital instruments as requested in the
proposal. This permits an easy change of instruments
4
~ 'rt+0 without concern of whether the line card is analog or I
digital. However should data actually be used from a
specific location it would be necessary to install a voice
plus data card in place of the digital voice only card. ~I
This is in contrast to the AT&T system that uses the same 1
card.
GTE is proposing the following digital telephonesr
M2006 - Single line with two feature buttons j
M2009 - Nine line or feature button
M2112 - Eleven line or feature buttons plus speakerphone
M2317 - Eleven line or feature button plus digital readout t
M2018 - Eighteen line or feature buttons
The attendant console is very user friendly, however
i
Direct Station Selection, as offared by AT&T, is not
11
I
~R+
i'
Y
available. Like the AT&T System 75XE, the SL-1ST does not
have Duplicate Central Processor. However, the SL-lNT at
City Hall is equipped with a Duplicate Central Processor.
The SL-1ST is a blocking system which means that
traffic balance is required in order to prevent busy signals
when attempting to place a call. This becomes more
importsnt as the traffic load increases.
{
The SL-1ST does require air conditioning to control
temperature, however its newer design is less sensitive to
high temperatures than previous models,
Currently GTE is proposing separate Long Distance Call
analysis equipment at each switch. This is necessary since
the system does not currently pass the station number to the
s
City Hall switch when a long distance call is placed from
either the Service Center or Power Plant. A future release
of the SL-1 which covers ISDN will provide this capability,
however this may not be available until mid-1990,
The Voice Mail proposed by GTE is called Meridan Mail
and is also a product of Northern Telecom. Like the call
detail analysis feature described above, this feature is
currently non-transparent between switches and accordingly a
station on either the Service Center or the Power Plant
switch will not be provided a message waiting indication
.
when a message is left in the voice mail box. This also is
scheduled to be corrected by mid-1990.
2.5 841m.S2mDanv
12
I
1.
,'d i.'an •
}
Rolm was one of the first companies to introduce a
digital PBX. This occurred around 1976. Since that time it
has evolved its offerings in such a manner that newer
{ introductions are usually backward compatible.
Rolm was purchased by IBM in the mid-1980's so that IBM
could offer a complete voice and data package to its many
IBM users. Accordingly newer modification of the Rolm c~
i
system have been compatible with IBM equipment.
I
Last year IBM entered into an agreement with Siemens
corporation whereby the latter would own the Rolm
manufacturing plant while IBM and Siemens would be equal
partners in the marketing branch: Siemens in turn will
provide Rolm with its latest developments in digital
transmissions and networking especially ISDN (Integrated
1 System Digital Network) architecture.
While Siemens is already one of the largest
i
manufacturers of telecommunications equipment, there is a
question as to how the Rolm system will operate alongside
i
the Siemens Saturn PBX equipment which does serve a segment
of the same size market place. Also, Siemens will be
responsible for the R&D effort relating to the Rolm system.
During the early 19e0fs Rolm established its own
marketing and service entities in many of the larger markets
in the United States. one of these areas was Dallas/Fort
Worth. Concurrently other vendors, such as GTE, were not
i
allowed to sell new Rolm systems, however they were !
permitted to continue maintenance on older systems.
13 i
's
~s
I
A
t_
Ile- f7
t
Mom,
I er,rs
{
r
t
i~
I Since that time the Rolm servicing organization has
r grown to some 14 factory trained technicians in the
i
Dallas/Ft Worth area. Maintenance of a new system for
I` Denton would be handled from this North Dallas office.
a Rolm is offering a 9751 Model 50 PBX for the City Hall
and two 9751 Model 10 PBX's for the Service Center and the
Power Plant. The Model 10 is a new release and first
installations are not scheduled until around March 1990.
Rolm has assured us that delivery can be made somewhat
sooner if this is important.
Rolm is guaranteeing post-cutover prices for only one
(1) year instead of the two years requested in the RFP.
i
Also, their precutover pricing stops at contract signing. x
In addition, Rolm will charge extra to have a man show
up at Denton each working day while the system is in
warranty.
Warranty period is 12 months from date of shipment and
not 12 months from date of system acceptance.
Rolm 9751 Model 50 and Model to
Rolm is proposing the Model 50 for the City Hell
3
location and the Model 10 for the Service Center and the
i Power Plant. While the Model 50 has been in service for
several years the Model 10 was just recently introduced and
first shipments are scheduled for the first quarter of 1990.
The 9751 is a state-of-the-art switch and has all the
same basic features as the Difinity and the SL-if Redundant
CPU, Battety Backup, Digital Telephone instruments, Voice
14
6
i
rll~ W_ 71- F . 0 - 1;
r
' Mail, and Call Detail Analysis are all included. It is
t however more transparent than the other switches which means
that long distance call information from the Service Center
and the Power Plant switches would be passed to the City
r
Hall switch. Also, it is possible to pass information to
extensions in the other switches that a Voice Mail message
has been received.
1
Rolm is proposing the following digital phone
instruments: 'y
120 - Single Line and 6 Feature Buttons 5
240 - 11 Lines and 11 to 21 Feature Buttons and
Speakerphone
400 - 29 Lines or Feature Buttons and Digital Readout r
i
n
The 9751 switch is virtually non-blocking which means
that it, like the Difinity, does not require load balancing,
which is required by the SL-1.
2.6 Southwestern Bell Telecom (SWBT)
After the divestiture of AT&T, the various operating
companies were not permitted to manufacture telephone
equipment, but were allowed to market any existing
manufacturer of PBX equipment. Most elected not to market
the AT&T equipment and instead either chose Northern Telecom
or the Nippon Electric Company as their primary supplier for
PBX equipment. SWBT chose the Northern Telecom SL-1
equipment.
Since the SWBT installation and maintenance people had
previously only been trained on AT&T Dimension equipment, it I
was necessary to cross train or hire a new service staff. ,
15 ~ i
1
1
Y
i
Currently they have over 49 people trained in the operation
and maintenance of the Northern Telecom equipment. These
Y service personnel are primarily located in North Dallas.
I
While SWBT does not provide local telephone service in
the Denton area it is actively selling and servicing
y
telephone PBX systems in this area just as GTE is actively Li
selling PBX's in the Dallas area.
As one of the major Bell Operating Companies in the
United States, SWBT is a very stable company and will
continue to provide quality telephone service indefinitely.
Also, they have over five (5) years of experience in the
C installation and maintenance of SL-1 equipment. Their
current customers have testified to the quality and
f timeliness of their service.
SWBT has proposed a Northern Telecom SL-iNT for the i
City Hall and two Northern Telecom SL-1ST's for the Service
Center and Power Plant.
Pre-cutover pricing stops at contract signing with a
second higher rate being applicable between contract signing
and cutover. Also, they would charge extra to have a
maintenance man show up each work day during the warranty
period.
16
1
w
owl
f
, ell
1
Nprthern Telecom SL-1NT and SL-1ST
k These are the same switches proposed by GTE and SWBT
has configured the switches in the same manner. {
'f
1
i
i
f
f r ~
i I
r
,
"a
17
Y M1
i
s 3.0 Finanoial Analyses of Pronosed,$ystems
t
The vendors were requested to provide a firm, fixed
price for the new system including all equipment costs, )
Installation costs, cable costs, fiber-optic costs and
s
microwave costs. In addition, they were requested to
provide a seven (7) year lease rate with a One Dollar
($1.00) buyout at the end of the lease. A seven (7) year
i lease is recommended as a normal life for a
i
telecommunications system before it should be replaced due
to obsolescence.
3.1 Overview
It was also requested that each vendor provide a fixed
maintenance cost based on the same seven (7) year period.
i
It should be understood that the maintenance cost is based
on the size of the system at cutover and will increase as
the number of stations increase during the next seven (7)
years.
?,I We also requested that the vendors provide a pre-
1
cutover and post-cutover price list, primarily for
instruments and line cards. The post-cutover price list is
1
also to be fixed for the next seven (7) years. The pre-
cutover price list is necessary in order to fix the actual
j cost of the system at cutover. This final price will not be
I
j determined until an exact count of each type of instrument
1
is made after interviewing each department. This action
cannot be taken until a decision is made on the type of
18 P ~ I
J
I
system to be installed since the instruments vary depending
on the manufacturer.
Each vendor also was requested to advise any restocking
charge that would be applicable for the first forty five
(45) days following cutover. This is important since quite
often there is a significant amount of adjustment in tha
equipment specified in the RFP and the final system
configuration based on the departmental interviews, as
referred to above.
The City Hall switch will be connected to the Service
Center switch and the Power Plant switch via a high speed
I digital carrier (T1). The vendors were requested to
interconnect the switches with either fiber-optic cable or
microwave. Subsequently we asked that they provide a price
for fiber-optic between the City Hall and the Service Center
since the City's GIs system would require fiber between
these sites.
s,
Subsequently the City decided to investigate the cost
of a fiber-optic network that would serve the City Hall, the
Service Center and the Power Plant, Data Processing and the
Police Department. Thin network would handle the T1 I
11
` requirements of the telephone system, the GIs requirements,
I as well as provide the backbone for future high speed LAN
networks.
r With this in mind we requested that the telephone
vendors revise their bid to eliminate the fiber-optic and +
1
microwave requirements. Also, since the City is providing
19
i
{
Y
1 l1~
rF VVAIAJ
the conduit between locations served by the City Hall
switch, it was further suggested that the city provide and
install the inter-building cable.
J
Accordingly we have received several price adjustments 1
from the various vendors. It is our feeling that with this
approach the city will receive the best system at the least
cost possible. J
~ ~Il
We have included several tables on pages 27 through 30
to more easily compare the costs submitted by the various i
{ vendors. It should be noted that since the proposals were
received each vendor was given several opportunities to
review their bid and offer revised pricing or any special
City discounts. The "System Pricing" table on Page 27 is a
comparison of the major costs involved with the city wide
telephone system. This table includes the optional features {
which we believe are necessary as well as all copper fl
cabling, fiber-optic and microwave our
per original RFP.
The second table "Revised System Pricing" compares the
totals on the first table with the revised price quotation
based on elimination of inter-building cabling and fiber- {
i
optic and then the elimination of the microwave requiroment.
The third table covers "System Maintenance Costs" as
well as maintenance guarantees.
The fourth table, "Cost related Proposal Conditions",
are important as pointed out earlier in this section.
It should be noted that should the City elect to have
the vendor provide all cabling as well as fiber-optic and
20
f ~ 1
M _
~P
P
t'
microwave system, the AT&T proposal is slightly lower that
I, GTE with SwBT very closely behind. However, if the City
elects to do the cabling, the GTE proposal becomes much more
1
attractive. It should also be noted that AT&T's maintenance
costs are significantly higher then any of the other
bidders.
1
1
{ j
J
Z1
q 1
s i
Y
I
r.r.r.
4.0 Recommendations
DAL has carefully evaluated each
proposal received.
1 The companies involved have all established a track record
I
for competence and integrity. Each vendor meticulously
answered all items requiring clarifications.
The vendors are all large corporations and there is no
question about their financial stability. f
The telephone equipment proposed by the various vendors
have all been successfully used in similar environments with
the exception of the Rolm 9751 Model 10. The Model 10 has
been in Beta test and the first regular shipments are
scheduled for the first quarter of 1990. Tt is however
based on the same system architecture as the other models of
the 9751.
All systems use uniform J or 4 pair of wires to each
station and, as proposed, all systems have quoted digital i
instruments throughout.
All systems except the SL-1 have a non-blocking
E 4~ architecture. This is helpful when the system becomes
heavily loaded or when requirements change. With the SL-1
it is necessary to balance the load as the system approaches
its capacity, otherwise it is possible to encounter busy
signals when attempting to place a call.
The AT&T System 75 and the Rolm 9751 have Direct
Station Selection from the attendant console. This permits
the attendant to ring any station by merely pressing a
single button. Also the Call Detail Recording feature
22
fir,.
I
ti
4M
captures data on station to station calls. This is useful
s
in determining the traffic generated from any station. Both
of the above features are not offered with the SL-1 systems.
s The telephone instruments, as proposed, are all digital
and meet the requirements of the RFP. Certain models of
each system proposed have digital display. All systems have
at least one model with a built-in speakerphone. All
systems have the capability of transmitting data and voice
simultaneously from a given location. Some models have the
data board mounted in the base of the telephone while others
1 use an adjunct device.
The AT&T System 75 also offers Directory look-up from
any instrument with digital display. This permits the
attendant or secretary to check employee telephone
i
extensions via their telephone.
The Voice Mail feature is an important addition to any
new telephone system. within the various departments of the
city it can be used to quickly pass messages to busy
executives that are frequently unavailable due to heavy
meeting schedules. The City Council members can have a
single source for receiving messages from the Mayor, City
j
Manager or others. Reduced clerical time and associated
paperwork will pay for this featur3 many times over.
Maintenance performance of the vendors has all been
good. They have all been in the business for many years and
since this business is highly visible to all users, they all
have experienced some dissatisfied customers. The
t
•
23 c
t:
`F
E
b
r•
} performance
guarantee of each vendor is similar as shown on
Page 29.
GTE has the ability to provide a single source for
I
trouble clearance since both the equipment vendor and the
4
common carrier are under the same corporate umbrella.
Under "Cost Related Proposal Conditions" as shown on
Page 30 there are a number of other important comparisons.
AT&T and GTE have agreed to no restocking charges until
sixty (60) days after cutover while Rolm and SWBT only '
permit no restocking charges until contract signing. Since
there can be a considerable number of changes during this a
i
period it is important that the restocking charge be
eliminated.
i
Also, AT&T and GTE have agreed to pre-cutover pricing
on additions until sixty (60) days after cutover, while Rolm
and SWBT again only guarantee this
pricing until contract
signing.
All except Rolm have also agreed to protect the post-
cutover pricing for two (2
9 ) years after cutover. Rolm only {
agreed to one year (1).
The remaining major factor is the projected cost of the
i
system as well as maintenance costs for the years after the
warranty expires. The comparisons shown on Page 28 "Revised
System Pricing" show that based on the original bid
parameters which included inter-building cabling, fiber-
optic to the Service Center and microwave to the Power
Plant, AT&T submitted the low bid by less than $8,000 under
9
24
i
t
I
27
~rrrs 'j, `
l
g
I
GTE with SWBT only $16,000 higher than GTE. However if the
I' City should elect to furnish and install the inter-building
cabling and should further elect to install a fiber-optic
network as has been suggested, then GTE is some $39,000
under SWBT and some $66,000 under AT&T.
Under "Maintenance Costs" SWBT is low with GTE second
? and AT&T the highest by a significant amount.
After thorough review, DAL recommends that a contract
be awarded to GTE for the SL-1 systems proposed based on the
following parameters:
Total System Cost is lowest should the City elect to
install a fiber-optic network which can be used by GIS
as well as the telephone system.
GTE can
provide a single source of contact for all ,
telecommunications problems.
E SWBT while offering the same equipment has not offered
as attractive pricing on parts nor does it offer as
attractive maintenance conditions.
The SL-1 system manufactured by Northern Telecom is
being continually improved and has remained state-of-
the art for many years. New releases already scheduled
will permit it to retain this position for the
i foreseeable future. While the SL-1 lacks some features
provided by AT&T and Rolm, these features are not in
themselves that important to the city of Denton to
warrant changing the recommendation.
GTE will
~ provide a maintenance man on site each work
day through the warranty period to clear any problem
that may have developed.
i
Should the City of Denton for any reason desire an
alternate recommendation, DAL would recommend AT&T. Their
equipment is somewhat technically superior to that proposed
a
pp 25
t
-TI :71
.~1
Fri
1
j
L
by GTE. However other factors outlined above has lead us to
recommend GTE.
h
i
r
X
V
l
4
r
- J
4
1:{
.A)
1
1
f t
26
rz
9
Y
r
TABLE I
SYSTEM PRICING
BWBT
TELEPHONE 8Y8TFM14 AT6T GTE ROLM
k
CITY HALL
E 202,105 231,149 300,573 241,227
SERVICE CENTER 74,853 73,085 91,054 69,460
POWER PLANT 55,687 54,953 67,370 45,980
MISCELLANEOUS ,
13,371 25,991 INC. INC.
SUBTOTAL 346,016 3850178 398,997 356,717
s KEY SYSTEMS
WASTE WATER INC. 2,152 INC. 901
f ANIMAL CONTROL 1,708 1,206 2,015 1,646,
DENIA PARK 1,708 1,206 2,015 1,646
NORTH LAKE INC. 1,582 INC. 803 1
LANDFILL 1,708 1,206 2,015- 1,646
AIRPORT 1,420 984 2,162. 1,307
MLK INC. 1,170 3,780 X803
DISCONNECT EXISTING SYSTEM INC. INC. INC. 522
SUBTOTAL 6,544 9,506 11,987 9,274
OPTIONAL SERVICES
i
BATTERY BACKUP INC. INC. 39,765 INC.
VOICE MAIL 370749 34,303 38,900 39,080
CALL ACCOUNTING 13,665 21,954 14,525 15,908
j
COPPER CABLING
INTER BUILDING
50,720 1160061
68 r 339
38
INTEA BUILDING 41,029 INC. INC. INC.
C.
SUBTOTAL 91,749 116,061 68,339 38,900
,i
FIBER OPTIC cK -SC)
TERM EQPT 1,504 20,128 INC. 11 635
CABLE 36,856 620125 96,359 66,325
SUBTOTAL 380360 82,253 96,359 77,960
MICROWAVE {CH -PP) 32,253 61,786
FIBER OPTIC ten -pp) INC. 55,858
SUBTOTAL 5670701 7110041 668,872 593t697
DISCOUNT 1360040 2,000
TOTAL 567,701 575,001 6680872 591,697
t I
27 y
a
Fri,
1 s
y
TABLE II 3y
REVISED SYSTEM PRICING
C014PARISIONS UTILIZING CITY PERSONNEL/OTHERS TO PERFORM OUTSIDE PLANT
SERVICES
--AT&T-- GTE ROLM SWBT
~
WITH INTER-BLDG 567,701 575,001 668,872 591,697
CABLING, FIBER-
OPTICE 6
ii MICROWAVE
WITHOUT 447,872 381,349 504,174 420,979
j INTER-BLDG.
CABLING, FIBER- 1
OPTIC &
MICROWAVE
fir: 1{'
1
i
i
,
28
`r l
{ re ~eY
owl
E
h
z
f E TABLE III
SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
AT&T GTE ROLM SWHT
1ST YEAR 0 0 0 1,655 a
3
2ND YEAR 45,804 29,236 37,801 25,013
3RD YEAR 45,804 30,990 37,801 25,692 's
4TH YEAR 45,804 32,847 37,801 25,692
i 5TH YEAR 45,804 340820 37,801 25,692
6TH YEAR 45,804 36,909 37,801 25,692
7TH YEAR NA 39,124 NA 25,692
4
TRAINED
MAINTENANCE
PERSONNEL 10 34 34 49
i
GUARANTEED
RESPONSE
i
MAJOR FAILURE 4 HOURS 4 HOURS 4 HOURS 2 HOURS
MINOR FAILURE 8 HOURS 24 HOURS 24 HOURS 24 HOURS
PARTS DEPOT NORTH IRVING NORTH NORTH
DALLAS DALLAS DALLAS
I
29
i
i
"Owl
14,
Y
S
TABLE IV
COS ELATED PROPOSAL CONDITIONS r
AT&T GTE ROLM SWBT
! TERMINATION OF +
PRE-CUTOVER PRICES 60 DAYS 60 DAYS AT AT
AFTER MOVER AFTER CUTOVER CONTRACT CONTRACT
SIGNING SIGNING
START OF RESTOCKING
CHARGE 60 DAYS 45 DAYS AT AT
AFTER CUTOVER AFTER CUTOVER CONTRACT CONTRACT
i SIGNING SIGNING
POST-CUTOVER
PRICING SCHEDULE 2 YEARS 2 YEARS 1 YEAR 2 YEARS
1
VALIDITY OF
PROPOSAL PRICING 90 DAYS 90 DAYS 90 DAYS 90 DAYS
i
l h a j
i
i
i
i
10
I
1
t, YT
t
1 ♦
$ I
f
2879L
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BE-
TWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND BUSINESS PHONE SYSTEMS, A DIVISION
OF GTE SOUTHWEST INCORPORATED FOR THE PURCHASE OF TELECOMMUNI-
CATIONS EQUIPMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE:
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute an
agreement etween the City of Denton and Business Phone Systems,
a division of GTE Southwest Incorporated for the purchase of
telecommunications equipment, under the terms and conditions
contained in the agreement, a copy of which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
SECTION II. That the City Council hereby authorizes the
expen tune o funds not to exceed Three Hundred Eighty-One
Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty-Three ($381,463) Dollard.
SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective §
imme ate y upon its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1990.
RAY STEPHENS, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
i
BYa
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY p
BY: OIL
t
7
r
r ~r
j
a
t
c 28764
w
TELECOMMUNICATIONS PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN BUSINESS PHONE SYSTEMS,
A DIVISION 01' GTE SOUTHWEST
INCORPORATED AND CITY OF DENTON
BUSINESS PHONE SYSTEMS ("Seller") I a division of GTE SOUTHWEST
INCORPORATED, whose ailingxasdre015 12013 nanE. Carpenter d the CITY OFFDEeNTON,
P. 0. Box 152013, Irv g, { whose DENTmailing
lowst ddress a Texas municipal corporation
entonj Texas a 76201, Attention
address is 215 E. McKinney, D
a
conditions herein set out ions Purchase
Mr. Gary on the Collins, terms enter and into this
Agreement
J 1. GENERAL. Seller sells to Buyer and Buyer purchases from
hereto more
the Seller the f particularly set t out in the whachedich is
f incorporated herein, as Exhibit A. Seller shall comply with all set
in it provisions, conditions and representatio find amendments theretos
response to the Request for Proposal (RFP),
2. PURCHASE PRICE.
assfollowis $381,463.
(a) The total purchaseprice of the
The purchase price shells be payable by Buyer :
25% within 10 days of invoice after delivery of equipment
i
25% within 10 days of invoice after installation of
_
equipment' T r;.
M
30% within 10 days of invoice after Cutover
20% within 30 days of invoice after acceptance
(b) Payments shall be mailed to GTE, Business Phone
P.O. Box 152013, Irving, Texas
Systems, 290 E. Carpenter Freeway,
75015-2013, and be received within thirty (30) days of the issuance
of the invoice. For payments received after the stated 30 day ,
period, there will be a late pay service charge of 5x of the total
amount due applied immediately upon default. Acceptance of this
s.4rvice charge by the Seller shall not be deemed a waiver of any
rights the Seller may have by reason of nonpayment by the Buyer. s
(c) The Cash purchase price referred to in this d A e een2
is based on quantities and types of equipment specifie in
of the RFP and subsequent amendments. Modification of pricingg
based on revised quantities will chsrgee r® However,p ins the devent
not be subject to restock g
deletions of equipment are required by Buyer after installation by
Seller sion ofrthe deletedotelecommunications equipment. Restocking
1 posees i
{
j1zFffl
charges become effective 45 days after Cutover.
3, ACCEPTANCE OF EQUIPMENT. Buyer shall, after installation
is complete and all the telephone equipment is ofstational,
execute and deliver be completed Caar t ate of
10
Acceptance, which will
days after Cutover and after satisfaction of acceptance test.
Title to all telecommunications equipment shall at all times until
e as
urchase paiditowSellerlas sp cifieduundermthe terms of this Agreeme t ce is
p
4. LOCATION OF EQUIPMENT. The telephone equipment shall be
delivered to and located at the premises of Buyer. If Buyer wants
to move the equipment during the warranty period or while subse-
quent maintenance coverage is provided by Seller, the move will be
performed by Seller at Seller's then prevailing rates, except that
All items of the tele-
Buyer may relocate telephone instruments.
phone equipment shall at all times be and remain personal property
notwithstanding that any of such telephone equipment may be affixed
to real property.
5. DEFAULT. If any of the Buyer's payments to Seller are not
remitted promptly when due or if Buyer materially breaches any
other provision of the Agreement, Buyer shall be in default. In
the event any such default continues, after written notice from
Seller, all sums unpaid by Buyer shall, at Seller's option, become
immediately due and payable and Seller shall have the right to all -further withhold delivery and to EEgtake uipposmentse sions_of
Equip ent:or
retain alLr~ yme
~ remove Equipment from service. Upon default, Seller
licable testate aor
all the rights and remedies provided under app
federal law. No remedy of Seller shall be exclusive of any other
remedy provided herein or by law, but they shall be cumulative.
buyer shall reimburse Seller for all expenses including but not
limited to reasonable attorneys' fees as may be allowed by law and
costs of repobsession incurred by Seller in enforcing this
Agreement or its rights hereunder.
6. SELLER'S DEFAULT. Should Seller breach any of the provi-
k
sions of this Agreement, Seller shall be in default. In the event,
any such default continues, after written
asnotice from Seller uand n well as all rights shall have the right to withhold payme
remedies provided by law. No remedy of Buyer shall be exclusive
of any other remedy provided by law, but they shall be cumugglative.
SELLER shall reimburse Buyer for all expenses allowedubynlacourt
in-
;
coats and reasonable attorneys fee as may
curred by Buyer in enforcing this Agreement.
i
7. WAIVER OF DEFAULT. Any waiver by Seller or Buyer of a de-
fault by the other party shall not be considered a waiver of any
other default hereunder.
4
i PAGE 2
i
I
~N.rl r:' wyR~
' Ir
v1
1
i
L
8. MISCELLANEOUS. Phis agreement shall be construed in
accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Texas, and
any legal action, for venue purposes, shall be deemed to have
k accrued and shall be brought in Denton County, Texas.
9. DESIGNATION OF PROJECT COORDINATOR. Within five (5) days
i~ of the execution date of the Agreement, and before performance of
VZ. the provisions of this Agreement commences, Seller will designate
an experienced, competent and knowledgeable full-time employee as
Seller's Project Coordinator for the design installation, testing
` and Cutover of the System, and shall notify the Buyer as to the
h identity of the individual designated. Seller shall use its best
efforts to retain the same individual as Project Coordinator
throughout the project unless his/her employment with Seller ter-
i minates or a substitute is requested by the City of Denton. No
change in Project Coordinator shall be effective until notice of
such change is given to Buyer, and Buyer approves in writing of
the change.
10. PROJECT SCHEDULE. Within ten (10) days of the execution
date of this agreement, Seller will prepare and submit to the
Buyer a proposed schedule ("Schedule') for design, installation
and testing of the System. Such Schedule shall provide that the
System be completed and ready for use not later than April 30,
1990. Seller will exercise its best efforts to ensure that an
earlier Cutover date is established. Such Schedule shall in detail
itemize all stterial events and items necessary to the successful
and timely installation and Cutover of the System. If the Byetem:r
is not completed and ready for use by,-Che deadline specified
above, Seller shall pay Buyer liquidated damages in the amount of
$2,000.00 per day not to exceed $25,000.00 total. Liquidated
damage; shall not be applicable if Cutover is delayed at Buyer's
€ request.
11. WEEKLY REPORTS. Beginning one (1) week after designation
E
of a Project Coordinator and each week thereafter, Seller will
furnish to Buyer a written progress report ("Weekly Report") as to
the status of all items on the Schedule. Seller shall identify in
the Weekly Report any matters identified by Seller being existingg
or potential future problem areas which could cause slippage of
any dates in the Schedule.
12. BI-WEEKLY STATUS MEETING. Seller shall schedule bi-weekly
status meetings at the office of Buyer. These meetings will be
attended by Seller's Project Coordinator and staff, as required
representative of the Buyer and Doug Arnold Ltd. ("DEN"j
I ("Consultant") representative. All aspects of the project shall
be reviewed at these meetings. Also, any change in the project
# schedule to be discussed and approved at these meetings.
{
PAGE 3
9
I~
13. SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONFIGURATION. Seller shall be respon-
sible for preparing the design and configuration of the System,
and submitting the same to the Buyer and to Buyer's Consultant for
their approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Notwithstanding such approvals, it shall remain Seller's obliga-
tion to design, install and make operable the System. Seller
shall perform such inspection of the Equipment during construction
thereof by the manufacturers as is customary in the telephone
z~ industry. Seller shall submit proposed standard testing procedures
to the Buyer. Buyer may visit the place of manufacture of the {
System of Equipment. Any such visit will be at Buyer's own
expense. Failure of buyer to make such visit shall not waive any
of its rights hereunder in the event of System failure to perform
in accordance with the terms hereof.
14. SHIPMENT. Seller shall be responsible for selecting
appropriate means for transporting the Equipment to the Site and
for payment of all transportation charges involved. The Buyer
shall either (i) provide, at no charge to Seller, suitable inter-
mediate storage facilities for the temporary storage of the Equip-
ment during the interval between date of receipt by Seller of the
Equipment and date that the Site is available for installation of
the Equipment, or (ii) so coordinate shipments from manufacturers
with the Site construction and availability that shipments of the
Equipment may be received by Seller at the Site directly from the
manufacturers.
15. DELIVERY. _Seller shall,arrauge for, and. coordinate wtth..
the Buyer as necessary for the delivery of all Equipment, hardware-
and installation materials to the Site. Seller shall receive, un-
crate, inspect, inventory and position or store in the Buyer 3
j provided secure storage areas at the Site all equipment,-hardware
and installation materials so as to prevent loss or damage thereto
' during such storage and subsequent installation. Seller shall
determine when the storage area (s) are environmentally sufficient
1 and secure to prevent damage to or loss of the System and the
Equipment, hardware and installation materials and shall not take
i
delivery at the Site until making such determination.
16. FACILITIES AND ENVIRONMENT. The Buyer will be responsible
j generally to provide adequate facilities for the System to include:
i heating, air conditioning, lighting, adequate floor space and
access to the building as required for Seller to properly install
and maintain the System. Seller will review with the 8u er the
environmental designs for the Site to determine that the Site
facilities will be sufficient to permit the System to operate
properly on a 24 hour per day, 7 day per week basis. Seller will
advise the buyer immediately if Seller determines that the Site I
environment requires modification to permit such operation.
E
PAGE 4
7 ~ ~
i
4
17. POWER REQUIREMENTS. The Buyer will boa responsible for
providing power to the system and the facilities basedSel on
Seller's recommendation for adequate power requirements. ler
will test the adequacy of power supplied to the Buyer and notify
the Buyer of any exceptions in required power supply. Any correc-
tions to the power requirements shall be at Buyer's expense.
18. DATA & INFORMATION. Seller shall be responsible for
s~ providing adequate trained staff members to interview the va:tous
departments in the City and gather the basic data base infor-
mation along with the locations and type of instruments to be
be reviewed t
used. This information will
Buyer and the Consultant prior to submission to manufacturer. by
19. INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT AND CABLES. Seller shall be
responsible for installation of the Equipment and all cables and
wiring for the System in a good and workmanlike manner in keeping
with accepted telephone industry standards of installation and all
applicable building and fire codes. Except as provided in Seller's
Responses to the RFP, Seller shall be responsible for providing
all wire and cable, terminal tand
he
other parts and ha
System.
f 20. TIME. Time is of the essence of this Agreement. Seller
shall be responsible for supplying all personnel necessary for the
proper installation of the, System by Se114x,.. Such inetallatiopg; a
to be compte ~ce. with, V9.:,$shedule..,,. F,zc"fe 'a. Co-
h eof, $
t on work nlle
vided in Item 21' Hereof, if, at any time, inetalTd i
behind that is called for by the Schedule, Seller, shall, at
Seller's expense, assign additional personnel on the job, authorize
assure completion,ofr take such other
overtime work by required to personnel
steps the installation
1 as may q
. Y
as required by the Schedule.
21. EXTENSION OF SCHEDULE DATES. In the event of agtther
party's being rendered unable, wholly or in part, by
sajaure, to cordlete its obligation regarding installation of the
1 system in accordance with the Schedule, upon that party's giving
I' notice of such force majeure to the other party, stating reason. i
able full particulars thereof, then the obligation of the party
` giving such notice, to the extent that such force majeure would
require delays in completing installation of the System as pro.
vided in the Schedule, shall be suspended for the continuance of
any inability so caused, and the dates stated in the Schedule
extended for such period, but no longer, and the cause of such
force majeure shall, as far as possible, be remedied with all
majeu ebshall dispatch. tp notobeslimitedsto acsection, ofhGod, govern
PAGE 5
p
mental action, fire or failure of the Buyer to make the Site
available on the dates originally agreed upon by the parties in
fixing the Schedule.
22. TERMINATION FOR DELAY. Notwithstanding the provisions of
4 Item 21 or any other provision hereof, in the event that any delay
in completion of any item on the Schedule shall exceed thirty (30)
days, Buyer shall have the right to cancel this Agreement. In the
event, so such termination, Buyer shall have all the rights and
remedies provided under applicable law. No remedy of Buyer shall or b
for herein by law,
provided
be exclusive of any other remedy
but they shall be cumulative. Buyer shall also have the right to
purchase from Seller such Equipment, installation and hardware and
wiring installed at the Site as the Buyer shall select, at the
item prices stated i hereireasonable value, credit tof Buynot, er fora all nonrecoverable
labor and material costs paid or due from Buyer associated
herewith.
23. SUBCONTRACTORS. Seller shall not use subcontractors in
connection with theyq design, installation, testing, Cutover or
authorized eelsor the e hereshereinuoreprior cwritt n approval thereforeais
given by the Buyer.
24. RISK OF LOSS. Prior to acceptance of the System, Seller
shall bear the risk of lose or damage to the Equipment and System
from any and all causes, other than loss or damage repulting from,
the gross negligencb"dt' villfui=misconduct of .the Buysr~: iQq-U h-
standing the obligation of the 'Buyer to provide secure 'storage
areas for the Equipment and System pursuant to Item 15 hereof,
Buyer will not be responsible for any lose or damage thereto while
stored by Seller at the Site except if caused by the gross negli
Bence or willful misconduct by Buyer or its agents, employees, or
representatives. If Seller shall, at any time prior to Cutover, ti
determine that the storage area supplied by the Buyer is or has
become unsecure, Seller shall give Buyer prompt notice thereof,
specifying the security changes required, and the notice thereof,
specifying the security changes required, and the Buyer shall 8
implement such security changes as may be mutually agreed upon.
Buyer shall bear all risk of lose after acceptance.
25. SELLER'S INSURANCE. Seller shall carry, and shall require
that any subcontractor who performs work at the site, shall sepa-
rately carry, with an insurer of recognized responsibility,
comprehensive public liability Seland ler, p iperty a sgst insuranc
covering acts of omissions by
tractors and suppliers and their employees in an amount of not
less than E CoMILLION DOLLARS mpensation Insurance ($1,000,000.00) ) efor each mployees oof uSeller,
(b) Worker's
PAGE 6
-40
\r ,
t
.
d
i its contractors and subcontractors in an amount not leas than
required by law, and (c) Employer's Liability Insurance covering
employees of Seller, its contractors and subcontractors in an
amount not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) for each
accident, and shall cause and require all subcontractors to carry
like from all insurance. insurers Seller a ishall d ncingmsuchoinsthe urancee certificates
e (format
specified in the RFP.
26. INDEMNITY. To the extent not covered by the insurance
specified in Item 25 hereof, Seller agrees to indemnify and hold
the Buyer, its employees and agents harmless from and against any
and all claims demands, costs, causes of action, liabilities and
damages for injury to or death of persons and damage to or disrup-
tion of property asserted against Buyer, its amployeas, agents, by
any person or entity, growing out of or related to work performed
by Seller pursuant to this contract except to the extent caused by
the negligence or intentional acts or omissions of Buyer or its
agents, employees, or representatives.
27. DOCUMENTATION OF HARDWARE. For each item of Equipment,
Seller shall furnish the Buyer a Systems Hardware map Station
attendant user and console
user manualeg which formats n and instructions for the day-to day use will and include management
of the Equipment, and a complete cable record identifying all
cable by location, port assignment and key station, as well as an
itemization of the station equipment installed at Cutover.
28. SOF2VARE- DOCUM STATION. Seller : ahalLe-fuenLsh,:.the, Amyex
with complete documentation, including System software map and
any other information necessary so that qualified personnat can
operate and change feature assignments in the Software without
assistance from Seller should it be required at some future date,
provided that Buyer's personnel have been trained in the operation i
` of the System Software parameters. Seiler reserves the right to
invoice the Buyer, at Sellers then current time and materials
rates, to restore the Systems Software if Buyer makes modifications
prior to being trained by the equipment manufacturer.
29. DESIGN CHANGES BY SELLER. Seller may incorporate design `
changes into the Equipment or Software, provided that such chapgges
shall be reported in writing to the Buyer, shall be at no addi-
tional expense to the Buyer, shall cause no delay in performance
by Seller, shall impose no additional burdens upon the buyer for
installation, and shall provide System performance which is equal
to or better than that set forth in the specifications which have
been previously established. No design changes shall be made by
Seller under this section which would result in a substitution of
S y
written approval terefore from then Buyer. unless
ellere receives materials h
.
PAGE 7
. i I
F.,
I
i r
30. CHANGES REQUESTED BY THE BUYER. The Buyer may request
i additions to, deletions from and changes in the configuration of
the System, the type, the number of ietemof EquipIDeot, he loca-
tion or method of installation, performance
work, or the omission of work previously required at any time until
The price
thirty (30) days prior to Cutover of the entire System.
howeverer prate stated
applicable to such changes shall be at t ed pre-cutov
in the proposal and amendments; provid, o t, if no
m price is stated therein for the change orequest d, the not ice
therefore shall be determined by agreement
fair market value applicable to such charge.p Ifice orange
requested does not cause any increase in the contract price
for performance, Seller will notify the Buyer within ten (10)
days and will proceed with such change only after written confir-
mation. No modification will be deemed effective unless such the B
or a b-
The primodification applicable requested
such changesnshalln be badded tuyer
trpriceacted PP from, as appropriate, the base price, as provided in the
proposal and amendments hereof.
31. TESTING BEFORE CUTOVER. Upon completion of the installa-
tion of the System, Seller will notify the Buyer that Seller is to ins
ure the
ready to perform ready the functional
Cutover. Duringt testing his rperiod3 one week prior
ats uyer specified e have the right Manufacturer
witnessland
System is ready tem performed butSellerelandeB
confirm the results of all tests. Seller shall promptly repair or
replace any_partion of•the System _.that_ does not.. successfully pass ~
such tests, and such tests -applicable---thlreto'bhall, be' repeated ° s
E until successful.
32. SCHEDULING CUTOVER. Upon successful completion of the
above tests, Seller and Bu er shall schedule the Cutover of the
j System so as not to interfere with the on-going business opera-
tions of the Buyer. '
33. POST CUTOVER INSPECTION. On or before ten (10) working
days following the Cutover of tha System, the Buyer shall inspect
the entire System and inventory all all equi a u ment nt has to been insurinstalle to
is functioning properly n a p
required by the design, plans and specifications herein.
34. SUBSTITUTION FOLLOWING FAILURE. If, during the thirty
or any defective
j (30) day period after Cutover, the System, Seller to the
portion thereof, cannot be repaired or replaced by
telecommunicattons ethe Bu quipment
other with
to iinstall accordance
mayi require s Seller Buyer
which meets or exceeds the requirements of the original System and
PAGE B
' 1
~e
F {4 , 1
a
r
I 4
I ,
r .
i
Buyer shall not be obligated to make any further payments to Seller
until a system is installed and working in accordance with the
original specifications. In any event, Buyer shall not be liable
to Seller for cost incurred by Seller in making such replacement,
beyond the contract prices stated herein.
~ I
35. TRAINING. On or before the Cutover date, Seller shall
establish and have completed, in coordination with Buyer, hands-on
operational training, programming training, user training, console
attendant training and operational assistance, and shall supply,
in connection with such assistance and training, owner-user docu-
mentation and instructions so that all operators and users will be
functionally literate in use and operation of the System and
capable of using the System for the routine communications
purposes of Buyer. Such training shall be performed using the
actual System or a functional substitute therefore and shall be
performed at the Site or an alternative location acceptable to
Buyer. During the year following acceptance, Seller shall make
available to the Buyer additional operational assistance, hands-on
operational user training, console training and programming train-
ing and assistance as may be reasonably requested by Buyer.
36. WARRANTY/AND MAINTENANCE. For a period of one (1) year
after the acceptance date, Seller warrants the Equipment against
defective parts and workmanship and that the system and all Equip-
ment and materials relating thereto will perform in accordance
with the design and specifications. Upon notification of a defect, k
Seller shall have -the -option -of. repair- or replacement of any
defective parts. All--expensea%incidental •to:reps ir,. maintenance-
or replacement under warranty, including all labor and materiel,
shall be borne by Seller. All replaced parts will become the
property of Buyer.
SELLER DOES NOT MAKE ANY WARRANTIES WITH RESPECT TO EQUIPMENT,
EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT.
IF ANY LABOR, REPAIR OR PARTS REPLACEMENT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE OF P
ACCIDENT, NEGLIGENCE, MISUSE, THEFT, VANDALISM, FIRE, WATER OR J
PERIL; OR BECAUSE OF CONDITIONS OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATIONS, IN-
CLUFJING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ELECTRICAL POWER, TEMPERATURE, HUMID-
ITY OR DUST; OR BY MOVING, REPAIR, RELOCATION, OR ALTERATION NOT
PERFORMED BY SELLER; OR BY ANY CAUSE OTHER THAN NORMAL USE, THE
WARRANTIES AND MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS OTHERWISE PROVIDED HEREIN
SHALL NOT APPLY. IN NO EVENT SHALL SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY
I CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
Seller shall at all times during the warranty period and during
any subsequent period in which a maintenance contract is in
effect, adhere to a four (4) hour response time for major outages
and a response time of leas than 24 hours for minor outages.
Major and minor outages are as specified in paragraph 4.34 of
Seller's Response to RFP.
{
PAGE 9 i
ell .
1 t0+~'~
BOA,,
f
f4'Vti~ I
yyr, .
a
37. MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. Buyer shall have the option to
purchase from Seller maintenance for the system for the second and
subsequent years of use of the system at a price not to exceed
that set forth in Seller's Response to RFP. However, should Buyer
become dissatisfied with the maintenance services being provided
by Seller, Buyer shall have the right to notify Seller, in writing,
of the areas of dissatisfaction and to discontinue the maintenance
contract with sixty (60) days notice. Terms and conditions of
maintenance for the second and subsequent years of the System's
operation are stated herein in the proposal and amendments hereto.
38. PATENTS, COPYRIGHTS, AND RELATED WARRANTIES.
(a) Seller agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless
Buyer from and against any claim, suit, demand or action
alleging that the Equipment or any component or software
thereof infringes a United States patent or copyright, or
any trade secret, or any other proprietary rights of any
third party of that Seller failed to mark or brand the
Equipment or any component thereof, unless such mark or i
brand was omitted at Buyer's request, and Seller shall 4
indemnify Buyer against all costs, expenses, and damages,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as may be allowed by
j law, arising from any such claim, suit, demand, action, or '
proceeding; provided that Buyer shall have given Seller
written notice of such action sod all prior claims
relating thereto and that Seller shall have sole control
' of the defense of such action and all negotiations for its
settlement-or^compromise.
(b) If an7 temporary or final injunction is obtained against
Buyer a use of the Equipment or any component or software
thereof by reason of an infringement of a United States
patent, copyright, or any trade secret or other
r proprietary right, Seller shall, at its option and expense:
1. Procure for Buyer the right to continue using the
i Equipment; 4
2. Replace or modify for Buyer the Equipment or any
component or software thereof so it no longer infringes
such patent, copyright, trade secret, or other
proprietary right, so long as the utility or perform-
ance of the Equipment is not degraded by such replace-
ment or modification and the Equipment continues to ;
comply with the Equipment Specifications; or a
3. Accept Buyer's return of the Equipment and~reimbursa to
Buyer the undepreciated portion of the Purchase Price
i k PAGE 10
1 11
I
.
i
of the Purchase Price of the Equipment at the expense
of said Seller plus the costs of
System removal.
39. MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF SOFTWARE. Buyer has the option
to purchase the functionality of turning on message waiting lights
at the remote sites and centralized call detail recording. The
Seller will provide the software features updates, modifications
or changes at a price not to exceed $30,000 installed. This price
y ~ will be adjusted and based upon Seller's actual cost in software
right to use fees and labor to install said fees, Seller to provide
documentation in a form acceptable to buyer and Seller with the
understanding that this information is proprietary. Seller will
also provide Buyer upgrades or modifications to Generic 14 to
correct any software faults discovered during normal operation at
no cost to Buyer.
i
40. NOTICES. Any notice required or permitted by this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be effective when
delivered in person or when mailed, certified mail, postage
prepaid, and addressed as follows:
If to Buyer: If to Seller:
City of Denton Business Phone Systems
Mr. Gary Collins Ms. Teresa Coles
215 E. McKinney 8550 Esters Boulevard
Denton, Texas 76201 Irving, Texas 75063
t, .11 k L
If to Consultant:
s
J
i Mr. Mel Horne
Doug Arnold, Ltd.
15330 L.B.J. Freeway, Suite 301 {
Mesquite, Texas 75150 P
provided however, that any notice may be given orally between
Project Coordinator and Purchaser Representative and shall be
effective when given if it is promptly reduced to writing and
transmitted as described above. Reports aad routine communi-
cations required or permitced under this Agreement can be sent by
regular mail.
1
41. CANCELLATION. Either party shall have the right Co
cancel this Agreement without penalty in the event the other party
becomes insolvent, bankrupt or makes an arrangement for the
benefit of creditors, or consents to the appointment of a trustee
or receiver, or in the event a trustee or receiver is appointed,
for part or all of the properties of the other party without its
consent and is not discharged within (30) days. No such cancel.
lation shall prejudice the terminating party's rights arising
I prior to such cancellation or shall limit in any way other rights
or remedies available to the terminating party.
PAGE 11
i
man l
M
42. INFORTEXT. Seller agrees that the INFORTEXT C311
4 detail recording equipment will be completely programmed and
operational prior to Cutover. Seller further agrees that said
rack, record reort tr
from all n the network asdspecified lintthe RFPfand
RT the l switches properly o
Seller's response.
43. EXHIBITS. The following documents are attached hereto
as Exhibits and are if expressly set forth herein made part of
this agreement, as
EXHIBIT
A Equipment Schedule i
B DENTONS Request for Proposal August 7 1989 14, l9ag
C DENTON'S Amendment Al to RFP September 5, 1989
D GTE'S Proposal
E GTE'S Revised Response to RFP September 29,189
F DENTON S Amendment i2 to RFP October 17 9
G GTE'S Response to Amendment Y2 October 20, 1989
44. TRANSPARENCY. The system provided by Seller shall
include complete network transparency between the switches to the
hardware and software to the extent available on the SL-1 from
Northern Telecom. Seller represents that the System is data f
ready for all stations, i.e. each station is date terminated in
the switch, to the extent specified in Seller's Response _To -RFP,
and that adequate network (loops and junctor) -equipment is
provided in each switch to prevent network blockage to meet the
CCS requirement as specified in Seller's Respoore to the RFP.
45. VOICE MAIL. Total system acceptance is predicated on
acceptance of the Voice Mail system. Software programming for
Voice Mail will be performed within 30 to 60 days after System
Acceptance.
46. MANUALS. Seller shall provide one complete set of {
~ Northern Telecom installation manuals and software and ~
maintenance manuals for each installation site. i
47. JACKS. All jacks on the proposed system shall be
numbered clearly on the faceplate of each jack. There shall be
separate consecutive numbers for voice and separate consecutive
numbers for data jacks. Each numbering scheme shall be separated
by individual building location witIV adequate separation acted
number blocks to account for growth.
anywhere in the system. The connection blocks shall be crated
labeled with the appropriate jack number so as to show which jack
is connected to which connected block terminal lugs.
r
~ I
PAGE 12
1
~Aypru IWY1 y)
1
.l•fW~ 1
r
7
i
48. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and the documents re-
ferred to in Section 43 contain the entire agreement between
parties and cannot be modified, amended, supplemented or
rescinded except in a written instrument signed by both parties.
However, at the time of installation, this Agreement may be
amended by the addition or deletions of items or equipment the
value of which may not exceed 10% of the purchase price of the
telephone equipment indicated on the Equipment Schedule. The
payment will be adjusted accordingly and Buyer agrees to pay such
adjusted payment. This agreement shall inure to the benefit of
and be binding upon Seller, its successors and assigns, and shall f
be binding upon Buyer, its successors and assigns.
49. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) Bq execution hereof, the parties hereby mutually certify
that they have read this Agreement, and that they are 1
duly authorized to execute same oo behalf of Buyer and
Seller.
(b) If any paragraph, section or subsection of this Agreement s
shall be void or voidable by a party as the result of its }
being contrary to federal, state or local law, regulation
or ordinance, or if any such section or subsection shall
be finally declared void or unenforceable by any court or
agency of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this
Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
j
onsentshall the other by either party without prior
(c) writtenassignment
(d) headings are for convenience only and shall not be used
in any manner to construe this Agreement.
(a) This Agreement, any variation or modification of this
j Agreement, any waiver of any of its provisions or
conditions or changes to schedules shall not be valid
unless in writing and signed by an authorized officer or
manager of Seller and Buyer.
I 50. INTER-BUILDING CONNECTIONS. The Microwave System, Conduit-
Power Plant, and Conduit-City Hall are deleted from the Bass Bid
and addendum number 2. Buyer shall provide to Seller a dmarc
point at a DS-1 level for the provision of TI service. i
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, BUYER
f
i
PAGE 13
I
po~
I r
if
f S
r ~
•
4
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
I 't
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
{ DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
i
i
BUSINESS PHONE SYSTEMS, A ,
DIVISION OF GTE SOUTHWEST
INCORPORATED, SELLER
1
BY: _
Title:
q
1
PAGE 14
1
i
,f
1
-air.
0 owl
i
k
it #i 1
{
I ~ •
I ~ •
i
t
1
4 L
7
~ Y
f
k
xt
4
fI)1
i
j
i
}
i
F
N
r ~ I
i
f
i
i ~
r
i c eatiOn
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS Civic Center/ 321 E. McKinney/ Denton, TX 76201 }
}
MEMORANDUMi
;S
~ Tai Lloyd Harrell, city manager '
PROMt Steve Brinkman, Director of Parke and Recreation r
DATEt January 12, 1990
SUBJECT. Contract for Services Between the City of Denton
and the North Texas Umpires Associaticn
This is a standard contract which the city has entered Into with the North
Texas Umpires Association for eight consecutive years. The Association
provides officiating services for all the adult softball leagues which are
administered by the department, The only changes in the contract from that of
previous years has been the elimination of the $20 per team scheduling fee and
the addition of a clause which states the city has the right to remove from
I! the schedule any officials with whom the City is dissatisfied.
i
f if you should need additional information, please call me at est. 8270.
I~
i
f a
Steve Brinkman
,r
RECR0625
i
~/lra ~yr~rl ~Pold atedal ohoaa *6tne4 Denton Parks and Rocreaflon / Denton, Yaxas / 1817)500-8
470 ti'
w7
41WN~
• + N~a~ s■y~
j~G A
1 Y
l
F ~
2428L
i
NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN
akot~ THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE NORTH TEXAS UMPIRES ASSOCIATION FOR
OFFICIATING SOFTBALL GAMES FOR CITY LEAGUES; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
i
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HERESY ORDAINS:
i r
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Denton here-
by aut or zes the Mayor to sign an agreement between the City and
the North Texas Umpires Association, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated by rlaference herein.
i
SECTION It. That the City Council authorizes the expenditure
of fun"3sTn `tie manner and amount as specified in the agreement, a
not to exceed $20,000.
SECTION 111. That this ordinance shall become effective
immediately ' up-on its passage and approval. t
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1990. i
i
J
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY.
r
I APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
BY: I
Sd.S~
i
ti
1
to ~ n
• 1
1
2428L
`s
THE STATE OF TEXAS § AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE
COUNTY OF DENTON § NORTH TEXAS UMPIRES ASSOCIATION
I
The City of Denton, Texas, a Municipal Home Rule City situated
in Denton County, Texas, hereinafter called "City", acting harein
by and through its City Manager, and the North Texas Umpires
Association hereinafter called "Contractor", hereby mutually
agree as foh ows:
1, SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED: City hereby retains Contractor
to perform the ere na ter -designated services and Contractor
agrees to perform the following services:
A. Schedule officials to officiate softball games for 5
City leagues; Contractor agrees to limit officials
to two (2) per game unless agreed othsrwien prior
to game,
B. Contractor shall ensure that each official schee-
uled to officiate softball gapes for city leagues
is a member in good standing of the Amateur Soft-
ball Association of America. These officials must
have also made a passing score on the current
umpire test used by the Ama¢auir Softball Associa-
tion of America to certify officials.
E In addition, the City reserves the right to re-
move from the schedule any officials with whom the
City is dissatisfied.
2. COMPENSATION TO BE PAID CONTRACTOR: City agrees to pay
Contractor or E Re services performed ereurder as follows:
t
A. Amount of Payment for Services:
Twelve Dollars ($12.00) per official per game at
slow pitch leagues.
Fifteen Dollars ($1500) per official per game at
fast pitch leagues.
Six Dollars
($6.00) per scorekeeper per game.
B. Dates of Payment:
Within two (2) weeks after services are rendered
i ~
1
1 I
1
1
I/11sa`
A■]■ it
IY"~
ry ,,r„.
it
for each game, during the term of the contract,
which shall be from March 1, 1990 through November
30, 1990.
3. SUPERVISION AND CONTROL BY CITY: It is mutually understood
and agree y an etween City an Contractor that Contractor is
an independent Contractor and shall not be deemed to be or con-
sidered an employee of the City of Denton, Texas for the purposes
of income tax, withholding, social security taxes, vacation or +
sick leave benefits, or any other City employee benefit. The City I
shall not have supervision and control of Contractor or any em-
ployee of Contractor, but it is expressly understood that Con-
tractor shall perform the services hereunder at the direction of !
and to the satisfaction of the City Manager of the City of Denton
or his designee under this agreement.
4. SOURCE OF FUNDS: All payments to Contractor under this
agreement are to Se pWd by the Cityy from funds appropriated by
the City Council for such purposes in the Budget of the City of i
Denton. '
5. JNSURANCE: Contractor shall provide at his own coat and
expense- worScmen''s compensation insurance, liability insurance,
and all other insurance necessary to protect Contractor in the
operation of Contractor's business.
6. CANCELLATION: City reserves the right to cancel this
Agreement at an time by giving Contractor thirty (30) days
written notice of its intention to cancel this Agreement.
E 7. TERM OF CONTRACT: This Agreement shall commence on the let
day of Match, 1990, an end on the 30th day of November, 1990.
I 9. INDEMNIFICATION: Contractor hereby agrees to hold harmless
and indemnify the city from and against any and all loss, expenses
and damages for injury to or death of persons and injury to or
destruction of pproperty arising as a result of any act or omission
of Contractor in the course of performing the services provided
for in this agreement.
i
EXECUTED the this day of 1990. I
i.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
BY:
a
PACE 2
I
P'
j P
1
ATTEST:
1
JENNIFER WALTERS,,_ci,R SECRETA
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
' I
8Y:
I
I NORTH TEXAS UMPIRES ASSOCIATION
h
BY
II
That Paul Leslie is hereby designated as the person to
administer the provision of this agreement.
i
DATE RAY STEPHINSO MAYOR
t
''@r7(
S)
r
j 4
I i ~ !
I ~ Ij~y
PAGE 3
I
1~1
~~\MeI r 1
n.r
C i
d
F
f
I
1
i
13I
'a
d
1
;r
1
fi
r
r
3
wrr~ ~
r
M
Y
r+ January 16, 1989
CITY COUNCI6 AGENDA ITEM
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FRUMt Lloyd Harcell, City Manager
~ SUUJi CONSIDER ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT NO, 1 TO THE AGREEMENT
WITH FREESE i NICHOLSi INCs, WHICH ESTABLISHES THE ENOINERR3
COMPENSATION FOR DETAILED DESIGN OF THE LAKE RAY ROBERTS WATER
TREATMENT PLANT
i
RECOMMENDATIONS f
The Public Utilities Board, at their meeting of December 19, 19890
1
recommended to the City Council approval of Amendment No. 1 to the
agreement with Freese i Nichols, Inc,, for the Detail Design services
j for the Water Treatment Plant, for an amount not to exceed $481,406.
I
SUMMARYI j
f ,
The existing contract covers all phases of engineering services for
1 the proiectr preliminary design, detailed design, bid, and
construction. Section III of the contract provides the Scope of '
services for the three phases of engineering. The maximum fee for
the preliminary design is established in Section Vi. The contract
states that tees for the detail design and the construction phase
G shall be submitted at completion of the preliminary phase.
Amendment No. 1 includes additional items to be included in the scope
of work, the time of complation, and the method of compensation,
which establishes a maximum fee of $461,406. Resident Engineering
services will be considered after the design is finished. The
j estimated cost of the 10 MGD plant is $70500,000. The engineering i
contract for the Transmission main will be an amendment at a later
times
BACKGROUNDS
r
The Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant project consists of four
elementes
1. water Treatment Plant
2. Transmission Main
3. Booster Station
4s Distribution System Connection
The 1989 Forecast W 4.atcs the project is needed by May, 1993.
i
A contract for design of the Hartlee Field Booster Station was
awarded in November 1969. Efforts to secure easements for the
transmission main have been initiated.
i
i
P
CC Agenda Item
Page 2
Public Works Engineering has been provided a notice to proceed on the
distribution system connections. For the plant completion to occur
in a timely manner, design must be initiated by February 1990,
Special Considerations
Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1976. The act
b' required EPA to develop additional standards for drinking water.
Many of these regulations are now coming into effect and many more
are under review. The Preliminary Design Report addressed the issues
which were evident at the time. The new plant must be designed to
accommodate the changes which occur during the design period as well
as foreseeable and reasonably expected regulatory developments.
The plant is designed to initially use chloramines for disinfection.
Ozone will probably be added at a later date (depending on final
disinfection by product rules). At that time, the plant or each
treatment train, will be upgraded from 10 MGD to about 15 MGD, The
gpaping and unit hydraulics, as well as the general plant piping, must
be designed to meet initial requirements and accommodate increased I
unit capacity and plant expansions. 1
The Upper Trinity Regional Water District will construct regional
facilities at this location. For reasons of economics, the
facilities will be shared.
Chemical feed capabilities must be designed to allow greater
flexibility in feed points and to allow addition of more types of
chemicals.
Controls will be semi-automatic rather than manual. As the plant
expands, it can be rendered fully automatic if desired.
Design fee j
Freese A Nichols, Inc., has submitted Amendment No. 1 to the
contract, which establishes the maximum fee for detailed design
servifas. Assistance in bidding the project is included with
construction period services. Due to the complexity of this project,
the fee for construction period services will be determined upon
completion of the detailed design. The required level of effort can
be more accurately estimated then.
The maximum fee is established at $481,406. This has been broken
down into two categories; Basic Services and Additional Services.
The maximum fee for Basic Services is $474,206, and the maximum fee
for Additional Services is $19200,00
Additional Services are included to provide for coordinating with
regulatory agencies and any travel required to locations other than
the project site.
i
7T 7
i
i [4r~ Iii
i'
CC Agenda Item
Page 3
The contract does not include fees for other services, such as
surveying or geotechnical. Denton can avoid a 15% markup for
handling by contracting directly for these services. Currently, they
are estimated to t about:
Surveying $110000
Geotechnlcal 15,000
Total $26,000
i Alterations
The amendment as presented and as included in Exhibit 1, is being
altered to reflect these changes.
' Maximum Fee
In Section 111, the table for the maximum fee shall read:
Water Treatment Plant Additional Fees
_ Phase II Not-to-Exceed
i
Basic Services $4740206
7,200 4
Additional Services
Total $481,406
Reimbursement
The contract is oryyanixed to provide reimbursement based upon
ofsCharges.a Thetlnsteparagraphihas been ed In Ex changedh toiread;Schedule
i r
The ENGINEER shall be paid on the basis of
payroll cost times a multiplier of 2.80, plus q
{ ayroll cost times 0.42 to compensate for fringe
} benefits, plus sub-contract expense times a
1 multiplier of 1.151 except 'or dames M.
1111 Montgomery, which will be at sub-contract expense
times a multiplier of 1 i10, plus direct non-labor
expense times a multipler of 1.0. The fee shall
{ not exceed $474,206 for Basic Services, nor
$7,200 for Additional Services without written
approval of the OWNER.
Time for Completion
A paragraph will be added to amend Section VII, Time of
Completion in the original contract to read: t
Item Period
Detail Design 12 Months Following Date
of this Agreement
a
CC Agenda Item
Page 4
1
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR CROUPS AFFECTEDr
Citizens of Denton, Denton Municipal Utilities, and Freese i Nichols,
Inc.
t FISCAL IliPACTr
Budgeted Amount per CIP 511,107.00
Expondituces and Commitments to Date 726.00
f
Current Balance $10,777.00
4A1.00 •
Contract Amount
i
Remaining Balance for Bidding, $ 90896.00
Construction, Construction Engineering,
Surveying, Testing, etc.
y
R tEully su red,
L Yd Na[ra11, City
Manager
4 I
t
Prenaced/Approved y, ~ I
R. t. Nelson, Executive Di[ecto[
Depatteent of Utilities
Exhibit I Amendment No. 1
11 Fund Analysis
Ill Project Schedule
~ 1v Payment Schedule ~v PUB Minutes of December 19, 1989
VI Ordinance
' a
f
6587Ui1-4 {
i
i ~
I~
AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON
AND FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC., FOR 1
LAKE RAY ROBERTS WATER TREATMENT PLANT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DENTON
The Agreement for Engineering Services entered into on the 16th day of
February 1988, by and between the City of Denton (OWNER) and Freese and Nichols,
inc., (ENGINEER) shall be amended as set forth below. The said Agreement is z
attached as Attachment A and is hereby amended as follows:
1.
That portion of the Agreement within Section III which describes Phase It is
hereby amended by substituting the following in lieu of the paragraph designated 4
as No, 1 on Page 7, and shall read as follows, to wit:
Prepare detailed plans specifications, contract documents, designs, and ~F
layouts of improvements to be constructed (surveys to be furnished ins;
Additional Services, Section IV), This includes the preparation of design
and contract documents for a 10 MGD water treatment facility with a 15 MGn 'i
I hydraulic capacity as approved in the amended Preliminary Oesign Report and
incorporating the following:
1. An offsite raw water pumping station with a firm pumping capacity of 10 ;i
MGD to include two (2) exposed, can-type, vertical, mixed flow pumps with
provisions for the addition of three (3) additional units, including flow
metering and flow control, the connection to the existing conduit and the
raw water transmission line to the treatment facility.
2. A pumped diffusion flash mix system, a
3. Settling basins including eight (8) vertical shaft flocculatoos in a
ff flocculation basin providing 30-minute detention time, and a 3-hour
3 detention time sedimentation basin with two (2) chain and flight sludge
1 collectors,
4. Four (4) dual media, self-backwashing gravity filters sized for 5 GPM/S.F.
1 ;
f
I
V ~
I
I
t
Y
f
i
1
5. A filter washwater reclamation basin with duplex recycle pumps.
6. A three (3)-bay sludge lagoon.
7. One (1) one-million gallon, concrete clearwell with two (2) exposed
vertical turbine pumps mounted on the clearwell with a firm capacity of 10
4 MGO, with provisions for adding three (3) more units.
8. A 2,900 S.F. chemical feed building including provisions for feeding
ferric sulfate, liquid cationic polymer, liquid anionic/nonionic polymer,
liquid caustic soda, gaseous chlorine, aqueous ammonia, hydrofluosilicic
ror4 acid, and a spare chemical. Provisions shall be made for future feeding
of hydrogen peroxide when ozonation is added.
9. A 6,200 S.F., two-story administration and operations building with
provisions to be expanded to 9,150 S.F.
10. Required electrical power for operation of the above described facilities
and instrumentation and controls based on a supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) system.
,s
11. Yard piping, general civil and site work exclusive of landscaping and a
irrigation.
12. The plant process and hydraulics are to include provisions for the 3
addition of ozonation and the increase of plant capacity to 15 MGD. The
increase will be based upon a two-hour sedimentation basin detention time
and an 8 GPM/S.F, filter loading rate after the addition of ozonation.
II.
The ENGINEER shall be paid for the Phase II - Detailed Design Phase,
described in the original Agreement and modified in Amendment 1, as set forth in
Exhibit 1, Schedule of Charges, with the total additional fee not to excaed the
amount listO below: 1
Water Treatment Plant
Additional Fee
Phase11 Not to Exceed
1
Basic Services $ 474,206
it Additional Services 7.200 y
TOTAL $ 481,406
Partial payments to the Engineer will be made on the basis of monthly s
statements rendered to and approved by the Owner; however, under no circumstances
l
2
I
shall any monthly statements exceed the value of work performed at the time a
statement is rendered.
Prior to proceeding beyond Phase 11 - Detailed Design Phase, the ENGINEER
shall submit a maximum fee for Phase III - Construction Phase Services for 1
j approval of the OWNER. The agreed maximum fee will be attached to and made a part
of this Agreement for Engineering Services,
1l1.
I All other provisions, terms, conditions and obligations of the Agreement
j between Owner and Engineer which are not expressly amended here shall remain in i
full force and effect. Said Agreement and this Amendment shall be construed
together as a single contractual agreement.
IV. 4
i a
That portion of the Agreement within Section VII which describes the time of y
completion is hereby amended by the addition of the following, and shall read as
follows, to wit:
LIEM COMPLETION PERIOD
Detail Design 12 months following the date of this Agreement
i
This Amendment Number 1 is executed in two counterparts, on this the
day of 1989.
A
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, OWNER
BY:
RA TEPHEN , Y R
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY 1I
BY,
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
LJ
j DEBRA AOAM1 DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC., ENGINEER
4 BY: BY:
r E
ATTESTt i
SECRETARY
3
i I
1
i
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES EXHIBIT 1
COMPENSATION TERMS.
1. "Fringe Benefit" is defined as the cost of Social Security
contributions, unemployment compensation insurance, retirement benefits,
medical and insurance benefits, longevity payments, sick leave, vacation,
and holiday pay applicable thereto for engineers, draftsmen,
} stenographers, surveyors, clerks, laborers, etc. for time directly related
to the Project. (Fringe Benefit for 1989 is equal to 0.42 of "Payroll
Cost This factor is adjusted annually,)
2. "Payroll Cost" is defined as the cost of payroll, including payroll I
deductions for withholding for income taxes, etc., paid directly to
engineers, draftsmen, stenographers, surveyors, clerks, laborers, etc. for
time directly
chargeable to the Project. Social Security contributions, ,
unemployment compensation insurance, retirement benefits, medical and
insurance benefits, longevity payments, sick leave, vacation and holiday 1
pay applicable thereto are excluded from "Payroll Cost".
3. "Salary Cost" is defined as the cost of payroll for engineers,
draftsmen, stenographers, surveyors, clerks, laborers, etc, for time
directly chargeable to the Project. plus Social Security contributions,
unemployment compensation insurance, retirement benefits, medical and #
insurance benefits, longevity payments, sick leave, vacation and holiday,
pay applicable thereto. (Salary cost for 1989 is equal to payroll plus
0.42 of payroll. This factor is adjusted annually.)
I
4, "Sub-Contract Expense" is defined as the expense that is incurred by
the Engineer in employment of others in outside firms for services in the
f nature of foundation borings, geotechnical investigations, testing,
surveying, process design and similar services that are not included in
the Basic Services.
I 5. "Direct Non-Labor Expense" is defined as that expense incurred by the
Engineer for supplies, transportation and equipment, travel,
1 communications, subsistence and lodging away from home and similar
incidentals in connection with the Project.
c
BASIS OF COMPENSATION USING PAYROLL COST TIMES A MULTIPLIER:
I The ENGINEER shall be paid on the basis of Payroll Cost times a multiplier of
2,80, plus Payroll Cost times 0.42 to compensate for Fringe Benefits, plus Sub- t
Contract Expense times a multiplier of 1.15 (except James M. Montgomery which will
be at Sub-Contract Expense times a multiplier of 1,10), plus Direct Non-Labor
i 4
i
F N ~
s
M.
f Expense times a multiplier of 1.0. The fee shall not exceed the $474,206 (four
? hundred seventy-four thousand, two hundred six dollars) for Basic Services, nor
$7,200 (seven thousand two hundred dollars) for Additional Services without
? written approval of the OWNER.
t
i s
i
j
r
' 5
(47YF •I ~A41 / I
AMCHMENt A
AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
f
' FOR
LAKE RAY R08ERTS WATEN TREATMENT PLANT
STATE OF TEXAS
L COUNTY OF DENTON (1 {
This Agreement made, entered into and executed this the day
of 1488, by and between the T-ity of Denton, #
here na er ca e e and Freese and Nichols, Inc., hereinafter
called the "ENGINEW acting herein, by and through its representative,
duly authorized so to act for and in behalf of said ENGINEER.
WITNESSETH, that in consideration of the covenants and agreements
herein contained, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
4
SECTION I
i
EMPLOYMENT OF ENGINEER
The OWNER agrees to employ the ENGINEER, and the ENGINEER agrees to perform
professional engineering services in connection with the Project as stated
the OWNER
in the services sections to
in the sections toand
comfor havin pensation rendered
as d stated such
agrees to pay to the ENGINEER
follow.
The Project shall include design of a potable surface water treatment
facility known as "The Lake Ray Roberts Water Treatment Plant" (WTP)
composed of a raw water transmission facility, IO MGD water treatment
plant, high service pump station and clearwell. The ENGINEER agrees to
perform the services standards under prevailingr in the Dallas/Fort accordance Worth/Metroplaxeet
area.
SECT I O11 11
PERIOD OF SERVICE
This A reemene shall become effective upon execution by the OWNER and the
1
ENGINEER and shall remain in force for the period which may reasonably be
required for the design, award of contract, and construction of the Pro-
ject, Including Additional Services and any required extensions approved +
by the OWNER.
i
j ~ i
J
i
i
i
' I
SECTION III
BASIC SERVICES'
The ENGINEER shall render the following professional services for the
p development of the Project:
PHASE I - ANALYSIS AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN PHASE
Upon execution of this Agreement, ENGINEER shall:
a. Consult with OWNER: (1) to review the scope of work, (2) to verify
the OWNER's requirements for the Project, and (3) to review
available data.
b. Advise OWNER as to the necessity of OWNER's providing or obtaining
data or services from others, and assist the OWNER in connection
with any s..-h services.
c. Provide analyses of OWNER's requirements for the project, as
verified in Section III, Paragraph A.I.a., including planning,
surveys, site evaluations and comparative studies of prospective
sites and solutions.
d. Prepare a flow chart showing key project milestones including
Phase I through 111. The flow chart will be updated monthly and
sent to the OWNER. The ENGINEER understands that the OWNER
desires the project to be in operation by May 1, 1991, however,
the OWNER acknowledges that the ENGINEER is only one of many
parties involved in the project and that the ENGINEER cannot
assure completion of the project by a specific date.
e. Prepare a Preliminary Design Report (POR) containing scheeatic
layouts, sketches and conceptual design criteria with appropriate
exhibits to indicate the considerations involved and the alterna-
tive solutions available to OWNER and setting forth ENGINEER's
findings and recommendations with opinions of probable construc-
tion costs for the Project, which includes estimates of r
contingencies and allowances for charges of professionals and
consultants. Allowances for the cost of land and rights-of-way,
compensation for or damages to properties and Interest and
financing charges will be provided by the Owner or others so
desi nated by the OWNER, all of which are hereafter called
"Project Costs".
The POR shall include the results of four Technical Memorandums
(TM) addressing the following areas:
~ a
r
-2-
3
1
i TM 11 - TREATABILITY STUDY
Sub-task 1 - Water Treatment plant Inspection Trip
The ENGINEER will participate in an inspection trip with
OWNER'S representatives to various water treatment plant
installations in Texas, Arizona and California. This trip
will include one day in Texas, one day in Arizona and three J
days in California. it
Sub-task 2 - Data Collection and Review'
a 1. Modeling data on raw water quality applicable to Lake
Ray Roberts developed by North Texas State University
will be collected and evaluated. Critical water quality 111
parameters include turbidity, color, tastes and odors,
coliform counts, corrosion potential, and trihalomethane
I (THM) formation potential. If supplemental data is
required for specific parameters, the ENGINEER will
recommend further sampling and analysis. Additional
sampling and analysis will be done by the OWNER's
laboratory, an independent testing laboratory in North
Texas, or by the ENGINEER as an additional service.
Other available existing reports related to this project
will be reviewed, particularly those relating to soils
and geotechnical site conditions. Available information 1
on the operation of Lake Ray Roberts will also be
reviewed. Other studies conducted for the City of
Denton concerning the proposed treatment plant will be
reviewed to obtain background information on the
project. It is assumed that the above referenced
information will be available within 30 days from date
of Contract. Up to five reports will be reviewed.
3. Additional information on treatability of surface water
similar to the quality anticipate.: at Lake Ray Roberts
will be obtained by observing existing facilities and "
reviewing process performance of water treatment plants
using similar supplies in the local area. Three such
cases will be evaluated. (Includes the OWNER's
existing WTP served by Lake Lewisville). Three years of
data will be evaluated.
4. Regulations and design criteria established by the State
of Texas will also be reviewed to provide a basis for
discussions on process selection and design criteria
flexibility with the Texas Department of Health (TON}.
i }
-3- s
1
x
I e y
1
9
~ Sub-task 3 - Development of Finished Water Quality Objectives
r+,
1. After a review of the outlined above, the finished water
quality objectives for the proposed water treatment
plant will be developed. In general, the finished water
should be safe, palatable, and economical. Specifically,
the objectives must be developed in the context of the
i current drinking water regulations of the TDH and the
proposed new regulations as a result of the Safe J
Drinking Water Act (SOWA) amendments of 1986. 1
2. A workshop between the ENGINEER, OWNER and TDH will be
held to review the new requirements and to discuss the
impact they may have on process selection for the
proposed treatment plant. Final objectives will be
established as a result of this workshop. The
workshop will include discussion of potential process
combinations that can successfully meet the water
quality objectives. This discussion will provide input
necessary for final process selection.
TM 12 - PROCESS SEI.ECTION i
Sub-task 1 - Development of Alternative Treatment Process {
Combinations
1. Using the information obtained in the previous
Sub-tasks, the ENGINEER will develop three alternative '
treatment process schemes for evaluation.
2. Schematics of tho. three alternatives (containing repre-
sentations of the unit processes employed and the waste
handling procedures to be used) will be developed to aid
in the final selection process. The ENGINEER will
evaluate the feasibility of pumping the waste chemicals
and sludge to the existing WWTP for disposal.
i Sub-task 2 - Treatability Study
1. A meeting will be held between the ENGINEEA, OWNER and
TDH following data review, establishment of treated
water quality objectives, and development of process
alternatives to determine the extent of design flexi-
bility allowed by the TOM. This meeting will review I,
the benefits and costs of doing pilot treatability jl
studies as part of the alternative selection process.
If additional pilot treatability studies are determined
to be desirable, the ENGINEER will obtain written
authorization from the OWNER based on a detailed Scope
3
-4.
3
4
1
FF(
t
of work prior to proceeding. Compensation will be
provided under SECTION IV - ADDITIONAL SERVICES.
Sub-task 3 - Process Selection
1. Based on the results of the analyses outlined above, the
selection process can be completed. Selection of the
appropriate treatment process will be based upon
consideration of several factors, some of which are
listed below:
1) Cost effectiveness of the system, both in terms of
capital and 0 b M costs;
2) Overall system reliability, including capabilities
r to handle abnormal water quality episodes;
b 3) Flexibility and simplicity in operation;
4) Ability to meet not only present but mutually
agreed future water quality regulations;
5) Adaptability of the process to both seasonal and
long terns changes in raw water quality;
6) Capability of process to be upgraded when water
f quality and/or drinking water regulations are
! changed; a
J) Capability of process to meet both hydraulic and
e) Compliance awith State and federal design criteria
and water quality regulations
These factors will be considered during the evaluation,
and one alternative process combination will be
selected.t
a~
2. Technical Memorandum No. 2 - Treatment Process Determi-
nation, will be prepared and submitted for review by
Technical Review Board members and the OWNER.
3. Technical Review Board Meeting No. 1 will be held to
discuss the trestability /process selection results and
to gather consensus from the ENGINEER and the OWNER on
the proposed treatment process. The Technical Review
Board shall consist of four senior staff members of the
ENGINEER or its sub-consultant. They will provide #f
independent review of the Analysis Phase. The TON will
be consulted following this consensus to receive their
agr"ment on the process selection. Upon approval of TM
112, the preliminary design process will proceed to
completion using the selected process alternative,
a
z
TT
roe
i
FT
jtw yd, .
NT ~r .
l
TM i3 - PRELIMINARY LAYOUT
Sus-task 1 - Develop Design Criteria
The ENGINEER will establish detailed design criteria for the
selected treatment process including the foilaaing items:
1 1.1 Unit process design criteria:
J (a) process loading rates
I (b) chemical dosages
(c) number of units
i (d) basin sizes
(e) pump sizes, number, and horsepower
(f) sludge volumes
(g) wastewater and sludge handling facilities
1.2 Operational requirements including labor, chemical, and
energy.
I Sub-task 2 - Establish Hydraulic Profile
Hydraulics for the treatment plant will be evaluated based on
the proposed plant capacity. A hydraulic profile (manually
calculated) from the lake to the new high service pump
station will be prepared for the initial and ultimate
capacities. An analysis will be made of the feasibility of
utilized excess hydraulic head for power generation. The
ENGINEER will meet with the OWNER's Utility Department and
the Corps of Engineers to coordinate planning of any WTP
hydroelectric generation facility and a second hydroelectric 3
generator being considered by the OWNER for flows discharged
around the WTP,
Sub-task 3 - Develop Preliminary Site Layouts/Architectural
Design
Y
i Develop a topographic map of the selected site. Prepare
preliminary layout of major treatment units (including raw
water facilities, clearwell and high service pumping station)
and the operation/control building. Additionally, consult
with OWNER concerning space requirements and architectural
features of the treatment plant, including visits to r
E appropriate local facilities for examples of the preferred
I style. Provisions for security of the WTP facilities such as
fencing will be addressed. Prepare Technical Memorandum No.
3 - Preliminary layout, including applicable sketches and
concepts to be used in selecting final siting plan and
architectural design. A workshop will be conducted with the
OWNER to present and discuss the results of this Technical
Memorandum and to finalize the site layout.
I -e-
f
1
i
f
Sub-task 4 - Opinions of Probable Cost
Project probable construction costs and operation and mainte-
nance costs will be estimated for a 10 and 20 mgd plant.
Operation and maintenance costs will be reflective of the
number and level of plant staffing and chemical usage
projected.
TM 14 - DEVELOP INSTRUMENTATION AND CONTROL PLANT
Design concepts and criteria for instrumentation and control
systems will be developed. The results of this effort will be
summarized in Technical Memorandum No. 4 - Instrumentation and
Control Concept Report. A workshop with the OWNER's staff will be
conducted to present and review the results of this Technical s
Memorandum and to finalize the concept most appropriate and
acceptable to the OWNER. 3
c
Furnish fifteen copies of each Technical Memorandum and the
Preliminary Design Report. ti
t ,
PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY DESIGN REPORT
A draft PDR surm,arizing the information, analyses, and findings
developed in the above tasks. }
Conduct Technical Review Board Meeting No. 2 followin
of the draft PDR. 9 preparation
r
A final
TechnicalDReview foll,owiandngpresentedreview
Onts WNER'Isthe
Public Utility Board and to the Planning and Zoning Commission and
City Council. (Two trips to Denton Included)
PHASE II - DETAILED DESIGN PHASE
The scope of work for this phase is a general outline of services to be
p
Upon rovided and is based on the understanding of the project at this time.
detailed completion scope of of
work Phase for g Phase nalysis
d
III Detailed l Design Phase, willebea
furnished to the OWNER.
After written authorization from the OWNER, the ENGINEER shall provide
professional services in this phase as follows:
1. Prepare detailed plans, specifications, contract documents,
designs and layouts of improvements to be constructed (surveys to
be furnished In Additional Services, Section 1V).
2. Provide the OWNER with advice, when requested, with respect to the
making of all subsurface investigations,
including borings, test
r~
j
1
loe- i
amp
I~
r pits, soil resistivity surveys, and other subsurface explorations;
however, the making of such investigations and the interpretations I
of data and reports by special consultants are not a part of the 1111
services to be rendered by the ENGINEER, and the cost therefor
shall be paid by the OWNER. 1
The ENGINEER shall monitor and review the work of testing
laboratories and inspection bureaus required for the testing or
inspection of materials, witnessed tests, factory testing, etc.,
j for the Project, but the cost of such laboratory tests or
inspection shall be paid by the OWNER.
~l4
1 3. Furnish the OWNER, when requested, the engineering data necessary
for applications for routine permits required by local, state and
1 federal authorities. Preparation of detailed applications and
supporting documents for government grants or for planning
advances will be provided as Additional Services.
k
i
4. Submit plans, specifications, and contract documents to the
applicable federal and state agency(s) for approval, where
required.
S. Furnish such information necessary to utility companies whose
facilities may be affected or services may be required for the
Project.
6. Prepare revised opinion of probable construction cost, and
bidder's proposal forms iproject quantities) of the improvements
to be constructed.
j 7. Conduct Quality Control (QC) workshops utilizing three senior
staff members with experience acceptable to the OWNER. QC ray
workshops are to be held at approximately 30, 60 and 994 complete i~
milestones of Phase It Detailed Design. +i
8. Furnish the OWNER three 13) sets of copies of plans, specifica-
tions, and bid proposals marked "Preliminary" for approval by the
OWNER. Upon final approval by the OWNER, the ENGINEER will provide
the OWNER ten i10) sets of copies of "Final" plans, As directed
by the OWNER, additional sets of plans, specifications and bid
documents as are necessary in the receipt of bids for construction i
and as are required in the execution of the project, shall be i
i furnished by the ENGINEER and shall be paid for by the OWNER at r
actual cost of reproduction.
PHASE 111 - CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES y
Upon completion of the design services and approval of "Final' plans and
specifications by the OWNER, the ENGINEER will proceed with the performance
of services in this phase as follows: J+
1
1
i
1
=WAR
F'
'r
3
1. Assist the OWNER in securing bids, issuing notice to bidders and {
willfbenfurnishedctootheeOWNERpublications.
publication in notice
the local bidders news 1
media. The cost for publications shall be paid by the OWNER.
2. Assist the OWNER in the opening, tabulation, and analysis of the
bids received and furnish recommendations on the award of
contracts or the appropriate actions to he taken by the OWNER.
j 3. Assist in the preparation of formal contract documents for
/ construction contracts.
xu~
4. Assist in conducting pre-construction conference(s) with the
Contractor(s), review construction schedules prepared by the
Contractor(s), and prepare a proposed estimate of monthly cash
requirements of the project.
5. Make two visits each month to the site (as distinguished from the
continuous services of a Resident Project Representative) to
observe the progress and the quality of work and to attempt to
d
the etermine in general if the work is proceeding in accordance with
contract
tolprotectthe performing OWNER these services, defethe
cts and
d
any eficiencies in the work of Contractors; the ENGINEER will report
however, it diseunderstoodethatetheeENG ENGINEER immediately does not t gua0rantee the f
Contractor's performance nor is he responsible for supervision
of the Contractor s operation and employees. ENGINEER shall not be
responsible for the means, methods, techniques, sequences or
procedures of construction selected by Contractor or the safety
precautions and programs incident to the work of the Contractor.
ENGINEER shall not be responsible for gthe acts or omissions of any and a persontherwi(esexpecept
ofothesWork ofethe Projectproject site or '
b. Consult and advise with the OWNER during construction, make
recommendations to the OWNER regarding materials and work-
manship, and prepare change orders with OWNER's approval.
7. Review samples, catalog data, schedules, shop drawings, labora- { i
tory, shop and mill tests of material and equipment and other data
pursuant to the General Conditions of the Construction Contract.
w
8. Assist the OWNER in arranging for testing of materials and
laboratory control during construction to be conducted at the
OWNER 's expense.
9. Interpret intent of the plans and specifications for the OWNER and
Contractor(s). Investigations, analyses, and studies requested by
the Contractor(s) and approved by the OWNER, for substitutions of
1
i
i
{
4
I equipment and/or materials or deviations from the plans and speci-
fications will be considered an additional service. (NOTE: Such
studies conducted by the ENGINEER, if' determined to be inadequate,
due to incompleteness of ENGINEER prepared plans and specifi-
cations, will be redone without additional compensation.) Any
defective designs, plans or specifications furnished by the
ENGINEER shall be promptly corrected by the ENGINEER at no cost
to the OWNER.
10. Review and comment on monthly and final estimates for payment to
Contractor s), pursuant to the General Conditions of the
Construction Contract, {
11. Conduct, in company with the OWNER'S representative, a final
inspection of the Project for conformance with the, design concept +
of the Project and general compliance with the contract docu-
ments, and review and comment on the certificate of completion and
the recommendation for final payment to the Contractor(s).
12. Revise the construction drawings in accordance with the infor-
mation furnished by construction Contractor(s) reflecting changes
in the Project made during construction. One set of reproducible
I ! prints of "Record Drawings" shall be provided by the ENGINEER to
the OWNER.
13. The ENGINEER will contact the OWNER's operating staff ten (IO)
months after the date of final acceptance to determine warranty ;A
items to be addressed by the Contractor.
i;
i
SECTION IV
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
4
Additional services to be performed by the ENGINEER, if authorized by the
OWNER, which are not included in the above described basic services, are
described as follows:
A. Field Surveying required for the preparation of designs, drawings
and plans including topographic survey of the plant site.
B. Field layouts or the furnishing of construction line and grade
surveys.
C. Investigations involving detailed consideration of operation,
maintenance and overhead expenses, and the preparation of rate
schedules, earnings and expense statements, feasibility studies,
appraisals, evaluations, assessment schedules, and material auo;ts
or inventories required for certification of force account con-
struction performed by the OWNER.
0. Making necessary property, boundary and right-of-way surveys,
preparation of easement and deed descriptions, including title
a
i t
f
i
FFFu
N WYl1~y
1l■ayA 1 '
i
RM II
search and examination of deed records. Providing a land agent or
public relations specialist to assist the OWNER in obtaining
easements.
E. Preparing applications and supporting documents for government
grants, loans, or planning advances and providing data for
detailed applications.
F. Providing shop, mill, field or laboratory inspection of materials
and equipment.
G. Preparing any required Operation and Maintenance Manuals or
conducting operator training and preparing Environmental Impact
Assessments or Statements.
H. Appearing before regulatory agencies or courts as an expert wit-
ness in any litigation with third parties or condemnation proceed-
ings arising from the development or construction of the Project,
including the preparation of engineering data and reports for r
assistance to the OWNER.
I. Furnishing the services of a Resident Project Representative to
act as the OWNER 's on-site representative during the construc-
tion phase, if requested by the OWNER. The resident project
representative shall be acceptable to the OWNER. The Resident
Project Representative will act as directed by the ENGINEER in
order to provide more extensive representation at tht, Project site
' during the Construction Phase. The duties and responsibilities and
the limitations on the authority of the Resident Project Repre-
sentative and assistants will be set forth in Exhibit B which is
to be identified, attached to and made a part of this Agreement.
As set forth in Section 111, C.S, the ENGINEER does not guarantee
the Contractor's erformance nor is he responsible for supervision
I of the Contractor's operation and employees. If the ENGINEER is
requested to visit the site more frequently than two (2) visits
each month as set forth in Section 111, Paragraph C.S, the ,
requested visits shall be considered as an Additional Service and
the ENGINEER shall be entitled to additional compensation.
` Through more extensive on-site observations of the work in pro-
gross and field checks of materials and equipment by the Resident
Project Representative and assistants, the ENGINEER shall endeavor
1 to provide further protection for OWNER against defects and defi-
ciencies in the work, but the furnishing of such Resident Project
Representation will not make ENGINEER responsible for construction
means, methods, techniquos, sequences or Procedures or for safety
precautions or programs or for Contractor's failure to perform the
r construction work in ar,ccrdance with the Contract Documents except i
insofar as such failure may result from the ENGINEER's negligent
acts or omissions.
i a
i
I
i
` I
I
rW
gwl
n"i
r ~
rd 0.
J. Assisting the OWNER in claims disputes with Contractor(s),
K. Perfonaing investigations, studies and analyses of substitutions
of equipment and/or materials or deviations from the plans and
i specifications.
E
i L. Assisting OWNER or Contractor in the defense or prosecution of
litigation in connection with or in addition to those services
? contemplated by this Agreement. Such services, if any, shad be
furnished by ENGINEER on a fee basis negotiated by the respective
parties outside of and in addition to this Agreement.
M. Additional water quality sampling, testing or analysis beyond that
specifically included in Basic Services. This includes pilot
f treatability testing, bench-scale testing or trailer mounted
testing to determine the following objectives:
(I) To evaluate chemical requirements; types, amounts and points
of addition {
I (2) To determine mixing and flocculation rates and times;
(3) To determine media design parameters, such as filter media
types, size and depth;
(4) To confirm the design criteria used for the treatment plant;
(S) 'fo evaluate operational criteria, such as filter ripening,
filter rate, backwash rates, etc.;
f (b) To evaluate tastr and odor control strategies;
(7) To evaluate overall treatment process;
i (8) To provide support documentation to the Texas Department of
Health.
I N. Preparing copies of Computer Aided Drafting (CAD) electronic data
r bases, drawings, or files for the OWNER's use in a future CAD
system,
II 0. Providing video camera with video tapes of construction phase to
be used as a historical record and for operator training.
` P, Provide all power rate information required for the hydroelectric
feasibility study.
Q. Attendance at additional meetings beyond those specifically noted
in Basic Services required by TOH, other regulatory agencies or
4 the OWNER.
R, Any additional services required by the OWNER not included in
Basic Services.
)
i
I
1
'r
Ir
Y
SECTION V
RESPONSIBILITIES Of OWNER
OWNER shall do the following in a timely manner so as not to delay the
services of ENGINEER:
A. Designate in writing a person to act as OWNER's representative
with respect to the services to be rendered under this Agreement.
Such person shall have contract authority to transmit instruc-
tions, receive information, interpret and define OWNER's policies
and decisions with respect to ENGINEER's services for the Project.
;
a. Provide all criteria and full information as to OWNER's require- I
ments for the Project, including design objectives and con-
straints, space, capacity and performance requirements, flexi-
bility and expandability, and any budgetary limitations; and
i furnish copies of all design and construction standards which
OWNER will require to be included in the Drawings and Specifics- i
tions.
C. Assist ENGINEER by placing at ENGINEER's disposal all available
information pertinent to the Project including previous reports j
and any other data relative to design or construction of the i
Project. p
0. Arrange for access to and make all provisions for ENGINEER to
' enter upon public and private property as required for ENGINEER to
perform services under this Agreement.
f
E. Examine all studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifica-
tions, proposals and other documents presented by ENGINEER obtain l
advice of an attorney, insurance counselor and other consultants
as OWNER dams appropriate for such examination and render in
writing decisions pertaining thereto within a reasonable time so
as not to delay the services of ENGINEER,
4 F. Furnish approvals and permits from all governmental authorities
having jurisdiction over the Project and such approvals and
Ij consents from others as may be necessary for completion of the
I Project.
G. The OWNER shall make or arrange to have made all subsurface
investigations, including but not limited to borings, test pits,
4 soil resistivity surveys, and other subsurface explorations.
OWNER shall also make or arranya to have made the interpretations
I~ of data and reports resulting from such investsgations, All costs SS
associated with such investigations shall be paid by the OWNER,
s~ I
-13-
~t
N. Provide such accounting, independent cost estimating and insur-
IM ante counseling services as may be required for the Project, such
legal services as OWNER may require or ENGINEER may reasonably
k % request with regard to legal issues pertainiog to the Project
h including any that +aay be raised by Contractor{s1, such auditing
i service as OWNER may require to ascertain how or for what purpose
any Contractor has used the moneys paid under the construction
contract, and such inspection services as OWNER may require to
ascertain that Contractor(s) are complying with any law, rule,
regulation, ordinance, code or order applicable to their furnish-
ing and performing the work.
1. The OWNER shall determine, prior to receipt of construction bid,
if the ENGINEER 1s to furnish Resident Project Representative
I
service so the Bidders can be.informed,
j J. If OWNER designates a person to represent OWNER at the site who is
not the ENGINEER or ENGINEER's agent or employee, the duties, re-
sponsibilities and limitations of authority of such other person
and the affect thereof on the duties and responsibilities of Engi-
neer and the Resident Project Representative (and any assistants)
will be set forth in an exhibit that is to be identified, attached
to and made a part of this Agreement before such services begin.
K. Attend the pro-bid conference, bid opening, pro-construction
conferences, construction progress and other job related meetings
! and substantial completion inspections and final payment inspec-
.
tions
L. Give prompt written notice to ENGINEER whenever OWNER observes or
otherwise becomes aware of any development that affects the scope
or timing of ENGINEER's services, or any defect or nonconformance
of the work of any Contractor. )
M. Furnish, or direct ENGINEER to provide, Additional Services as
stipulated in Section IV of this Agreement or other services as
required.
N. Provide transportation such as airline fare, automobile rental or i
subsistence required for OWNER's personnel to attend project i J
meetings or inspection trips.
0. Bear all costs incident to compliance with the requirements of y 1
this Section Y. t
1 1
-14-
f '
3 j 1
y✓
}
f .
r= SECTION VI
COMPENSATION
A. COMPENSATION TERMS:
1. "Salary Cost" is defined as the cost of payroll for
ENGINEERS, draftsmen, stenographers, surveyors, clerks,
laborers, etc. for time directly chargeable to the Project,
plus Social Security contributions, unemployment compen-
sation, insurance retirement benefits, medical and insurance
benefits, longevity payments, sick leave, vacation and
holiday pay applicable thereto, (Salary cost is equal to
1.4136 times payroll.)
2. "Sub-Contract Expense" is defined as the expense that is
incurred by the ENGINEER in employment of others in outside
firms for services in the nature of foundation borings,
testing, surveying, process design and similar services.
3. "Direct Non-Labor Expense" is defined as that expense for any rz
assignment incurred by the ENGINEER for supplies, transp;,r- #
tation and equipment, travel, communications, subsistence and
lodging away from home and similar incidentals in connection
with that assignment.
B. BASIC SERVICES:
E
For and in consideration of Phase I - Analysis Phase of the Basic
Services to be rendered by the ENGINEER, the OWNER agrees to pay {
based on the Schedule of Charges shown in Exhibit A, with total
fee not to exceed three Hundred Forty Five Thousand Three Hundred
Dollars (53450300.00). Partial payments to the ENGINEER will be
made on the basis of monthly statements rendered to and approved
by the OWNER; however, under no circumstances shall any monthly
statement for services exceed the value of work performed at the
time a statement is rendered,
l
i,
Prior to proceeding beyond Phase I - Analysis Phase, the ENGINEER
shall submit a meximun fee for Phase It - Detailed Destpn Phase
and Phase III - Construction Phase Services for approval of the
OWNER The agreed maxia►um fee will be attached to and made a part
of this Agreement for Engineering Services.
a
It is specifically understood and agreed that the ENGINEER shall
not be authorized to undertake any work pursuant to this Agreement
which would require additional payments by the OWNER for any s
charge, expense or reimbursement above the maximum: fee as stated
without having first obtained written authorization from the
OWNER, In the event the OWNER does not elect to authorize the
ENGINEER to proceed to Phase II, Detailed Design, or subsequently
i
-15•
f
1
to Phase ill, Construction Phase the
will be utilized to terminate the Contiract{sions of Section XIV
C. ADDITIONAL SERVICES:
1, For Resident Representation and Inspection During Construc-
tion and Construction Layout
For the resident representation during construction and
construction layout (Section IV.1), the ENGINEER shall be
paid based on the Schedule of Charges in Exhibit A.' Pay.
meats for resident project representation and construction
layout shall be due and payable upon submission of statements
by the ENGINEER, Statements shall not be submitted more
frequently than monthly. l
2. For Other Additional Services
al
For additional services in Section IV except resident repro-
; sentation, the ENGINEER shall be paid based on the Schedule
of Charges shown in Exhibit A. Payments for additional
j services shall be due and payable upon submission by the
ENGINEER. Statements shal not be submitted more frequently
than monthly.
If OWNER fails to make payments due ENGINEER for services and
expenses within forty-five days after receipt of ENGINEER's
statement therefore, the amounts due ENGINEER will be increased at
the rate of 1% per month from said forty-fifth day, and in
addition, ENGINEER may, after giving seven days written notice to
OWNER, suspend services under this Agreement until ENGINEER has
been paid in full all amounts due for services, expenses and
charges. Any applicable new taxes imposed upon services, expenses,
and charges by any governmental body after the execution of this
contract will be added as necessary to the ENGINEER's
compensation.
(NOTE: Final payment processing may require sixty days and no
j increased amounts will be due until sixty days have elapsed.)
SECTION VII ~r
TIME OF COMPLETION
The ENGINEER will commence work on the Project immediately upon execution +
of this contract, the ENGINEER shall complete the work in accordance with
the following schedule:
(
A
-16-
1
r Submit Nittin Designated Calendar Days
r Item Following Date of This Agreement
•
Technical Memorandum 01 90
Preliminary Design Report ISO
r
SECTION VIII
OPINION OF PROBABLE CON57RUCTION COST
The ENGINEER will furnish an opinion of probable construction cost of the
work, but does not guarantee the accuracy of such estimates.
Opinions of probable construction cost, financial evaluations, feasibility
studies, economic analyses of alternate solutions and utilitarian con-
siderations of operations and maintenance cost Rrepared by ENGINEER
hereunder will be made on the basis of ENGINEER s experience and
qualifications and represent ENGINEER's best Judgement as an experienced
I and qualified design professional. It is recognized, however, that ENGINEER
does not have control over the cost of labor, material, equipment or
I services furnished by others or over market conditions or contractors' '
methods of determining their prices, and that any utilitarian evaluation of
any facility to be constructed or work to be performed on the basis of the
Report must of necessity be speculative until completion of its detailed
design. Accordingly, ENGINEER does not guarantee that proposals, bids or
actual costs will not vary from opinions, evaluations or studies submitted
by ENGINEER to OWNER hereunder.
SECTION IX
REVISION TO PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
The OWNER reserves the right to direct substantial revision of the Plans
and Specifications after approval by the OWNER as OWNER may does necessary,
but in such event the OWNER shall pay to the ENGINEER just and equitable
compensation for services rendered in making such revisions.
SECTION %
OBSERVATION AND REVIEW OF THE WORK
The ENGINEER will endeavor to protect the OWNER against defects and de-
ficiencies in the work of Contractors, by observation of the work as it
progresses, by interpretation of the plans, specifications and other;
contract documents to and with the Contractors, by the disapproval of
defective work as may be observed and the issuance of stop-orders from the
OWNER with respect to defective material and workmanship where they are
1
T
observed, and the ENGINEER will exercise due diligence to assist the OWNER ,
E in requiring that the work be done in accordance with plans and speclfi-
cations; but the Contractor will remain independent contractor with
F the OWNER, and the ENGINEER does not guarantee the performance of such
construction contracts. As set forth in Section 111, C.5 and Section Iv.I,
ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the means, methods, techniques,
sequences, or procedures of construction selected by the Cortractor, or the
safety precautions and programs incident to the work of the Contractor.
Also the ENGINEER shall not be responsible for the acts or omissions of any
h person except his own employees and agents at the project site or otherwise
4 performing any of the work at the project.
SECTION XI
1 OWNERSHIP Of DOCUMENTS
j All documents prepared or furnished by ENGINEER (and ENGINEER's independent
associates and consultants) pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of
service and ENGINEER shall retain an ownership and property interest here-
in. OWNER may make and retain copies for information and reference; how-
ever, such documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for
reuse by OWNER or others. Any reuse by OWNER without written verification ti
or adaptation by ENGINEER will be at OWNER's sole risk and without
liability or legal exposure to ENGINEER, or to ENGINEER's independent
associates or consultants, and OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless
ENGINEER and ENGINEER's independent associates and consultants from all
claims, dama^as, losses and expenses including attorneys' fees arising out `
of or resulting therefrom. Any such verification or adaptation will
entitle ENGINEER to further compensation at rates to be agreed upon by
OWNER and ENGINEER.
SECTION XII
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT
' ENGINEER shall indemnify and save harmless the OWNER and its officers,
agents, and employees from the liability of the OWNER on account of any
injuries or damages received or sustained by any person or persons or
property, including court costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred by
the OWNER, proximately caused by the negligent acts or omissions of the
ENGINEER or its officers, agents, or employees in the execution,
operation, or performance of this Agreement.
I In the event of liability from suits, actions or claims arising out of or
r occasioned by the negligence of both the ENGINEER and the OWNER, their
agents or employees, in the performance of this Agyreement, each party
shall contribute toward the satisfaction of the liability its propor-
tionate share, which share shall be equal to the percentage of negligence f
attributable to the party.
I
-la•
i
~w~ wier.~
i ~
~I
off
t
SECTION XIII
ARBITRATION
No arbitration arising out of, or relating to, this Agreement involving
one party to this Agreement may include the other party to this Agreement
without their approval.
SECTION XIV
TERMINATION OF CONTRACT
The obligation to provide services under this Agreement may be terminated
by either party upon thirty days' written notice in the event of substan-
tial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms
thereof through no fault of the terminating party. In the event of any
1 ; termination, ENGINEER will be paid for all services properly rendered and
reimbursable expenses incurred to the date of termination and, in addition,
all reimbursable expenses directly attributable to termination.
SECTION XV
i
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNMENTS
OWNER and ENGINEER each are hereby bound and the partners, successors,
executors, administrators and legal representatives of OWNER and ENGINEER
are hereby bound to the other party to, this Agreement and to the partners,
successors, executors, administrators and legal representatives (and said
assigns) of such other party, in respect of all covenants, agreements and
obligations of this Agreement.
Neither OWNER nor ENGINEER shall assign, sublet or transfer any rights
under or interest in (including, but without limitation, moneys that may
become due or moneys that are due) this Agreement without the written
consent of the other, except to the extent that any assignment, subletting
or transfer is mandated by law or tie effect of this limitation may be
restricted by low. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any
written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge
the assignor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement. Nothing
contained in this paragraph shall prevent ENGINEER from employing such
independent associates and consultants as ENGINEER may deem appropriate to
assist in the performance of services hereunder.
Nothing under this Agreement shall be construed to live an rights or ¢
benefits in this Agreement to anyone other than OWNR and ENGINEER, and all
duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be
for the sole and exclusive benefit of OWNER and ENGINEER and not for the r
benefit of any other party. ?
.Ig.
j
-N 7T
I '
This Agreement (ccnsisting of pages I to 22 inclusive) constitutes the
entire Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER and supersedes all prior
written or oral understandings. This Agreement may only be amended,
supplemented, modified or cancelled by a duly executed written Instrument.
SECTION XYI
I The following exhibits are attached to and made a part of this Agreement:
EXHIBIT A - Schedule of Charges
EXHIBIT B - Duties, Responsibilities and Limitations of Authority of
I Resident Project Representative
This contract is executed in two counterparts.
I n
ATTEST: CITY OF OENTON, TEXAS i
Owner
ro s o Legal Form
i
By By.
; . L&J Debra rayon c Ray ep n
i City Attorney Mayor
r FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC.
ATTEST. Engineer ~y
I
By
4' &L I
-Cook
Vice resident Executive Vice President
f
r
-20-;
1 r1
t
.
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES
Salary Cost Times multiplier of 2.3
Staff Members Salary Cost Times Multiplier of 2.0
i es en- eprese~at_1on
Salary Cost is defined as the cost of payroll of engineers, draftsmen,
stenographers, surveymen, clerks, laborers, etc., for time directly ,
chargeable to the proJtct, plus social security contributions, unemployment
compensation insurance, reL rement benefits, medical and insurance
benefits, longevity payments, sick leave, vacation and holiday pay
applicable thereto. (Salary Cost is equal to 1.4136 times payroll.)
I Subco_ ns is Charges (Except JMM1 Actual Cost Times Multiplier of 1.15
I Jaa+es ont9o+aery (Jhg1)- Actual Cost Times Multiplier of 1.10
All Other Direct Expenses Actual Cost Times Multiplier of 1.00
Other direct expenses shall include printing and reproduction expense,
communication expense, travel, transportation and subsistence away from
fort Worth and other miscellaneous expenses directly related to the work,
becdoudi ne bycindependentopersonsaorlagentstother tand hanostaffwmemb riuired to
k I
i
i
•21r ~ ,j
I
4
I
o ~
it
EXHIBIT 8
Duties, Responsibilities and Limitations of Authority
of Resident Project Representative _
t
A. General.
Res;dent "eel Aclintentsrive Is ENOWEER's Agent. will act as directed by and under the supervision of ENGI•
NEER, and will confer with ENGINEER retarding his actions. Resident project RepteseMative's dealings In matters
peAaininp to the on-site Work shalt In general be only with ENGINEER sod CONTRACTOR. and dealings with
or u dir of with of full knowledge of CONTRACTOR. Written communication with
oubconiracton will be ollly tonly hrough through
OWNER
B. Dukes sod Rupeasib10ties.
Resident l1roject Repntentetive will:
1. Schelrler: Review the progress scheduk, schedule of Shop Drawing submissions and schedule of values prepared
by CONTRACTOR and consult whh ENGINEER tonctmleg their seeeptab0hy.
t
2. CoVerencesr Altand preeonstruc0on tonf+reocts. Arnett a schedule of prolifinmeetints and atherjob onfereneet
l se required in consultation with ENGINEER and notify thole expected to attend in advana.'Anend me doss. end y
f mainisln and circulate copies of "Inutes thereof. l
J. L1elaon:
a. Serve to ENGINEER'S liaison with CONTRACTOR, working pdocipalty through CONTRACTOR's superinten-
dept and asix him in undemanding the Intent orthe Contract Documents. Assist ENGINEER in carving as OWNER's j
! liaison with CONTRACTOR when CONTRACTOR's operations affect OWNER's on-the opentions.
b. At requested by ENGINEER, assist In obtaining from OWNER additional details or informatlen, when required
at the job ilia for proper eaeeution of the Work,
S
I, Shop DfOWingranlSenrplea:
A. Receive and record data of total 4 of Shop Drawtngt atwl samples, receive samples which are fbmished at the ski
` by CONTRACTOR, and notify ENGINEER oh-heir eviilak4lity foreaaminatlea.
1 b• Advise ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR or let ltperinaenHnt Immediaidy of the eommeacnneM of any Work
1 requiring a Shop Drawing or temple submission If the tubmhslon has not been approved by ENOINTUR.
J. Rrvkw 4Work. Rejerdon of nrlerillf Wur#, 10srD44 rh+ni and Tells:
a. Conduct on•etto observations of the Work in projects to assist ENOINEERIndeterminleg If the Work Is peoeteding
in accordance with the Contract Documents and that completed Work will coaforn a tiN Contract D00014106.
b. Report to ENGINEER whenever he belleves that any Work Is untedifictery, Nulty or Mfectiw ort~~not
i conform to the Contract Documents, of dose not meet the requirements of any Impactions, tests or sppro
to be made or hu been damaged prior to Real psynxnl: and advise ENGINEER when he be{Nves Work should be
r r slid or rejected at should tle uncovered for obserntien. or requires specW toxin{, intputkn or gprovd•
e, Verify that tests, equipment and systems startups and operating and miimeninee instructions are conducted it
required adequate brecords thereof: ilboom,re ordandmpootoE OINEERapooprixt~dosed 0l n1u~etothelest delete
and ttanups.
d. Accompany vI►idng Impeetot+ ripreaenting public or wher agtocks having jutisdletlen ever tM Projut, reeefj
the outcome of these inspections and report to ENOtNEER,
d 1971 by Nsiansl Saiety of Anf+rstonal t?ntineers, yon K Sr•, N.W.. Washlotteo. D.C• laces
-22-
NSPUACtCrASCE KNkatbn No, 19141•A
t
i x .
e >
• n Iwlr'rprlldfl,rn ul lL.wlr,1.1 !),w wmnN• Ilan•nld b•l'I)NIkM'll)t+L~l itVl.ItK'\f1.1nIK]I. NI\Ynd unrljVftall,~n+
.d the /',•n11 n.1 ISNtlnl.'111\
7 !R>.d~rlrn, m. 1'an\YA'I ..nJ i rp61.d< f'f lV'l k AI')I lk'• .uplt•td•u+1.n IIM•l1fN•al M1M 111 IA are 'n K\ P! 1(.C<If1<]r111n\
and Ieflnrt Orr., •,Ih relam uxfY l:.t r.m fa 1'.NI ilNa k'.k
A, Kccurd+: wins and samples
t. Mainlaia at the joh site alder!y f+ks fm enrretrwltldence, repnrts of jnheonrerences, Strop Ora t
submissions, reproductions or original Coalracl Documents including all addetlda, chance ordeff, field orders. Addis
I oral f7tawingt issued suMcCllcnl In the cseeulian of the Cataract. £NGINEER's clarifications s rid inlcmrentions
7. of the Canuact rAxumcnt\, poor
rest rcfNlns. ar+d'K hCF nh lsityae weathe c ondo AnL fiat! fflallYC to q x)Ilan) of eR1ra]
h. Keep a diary or 110t tvulk, Iecnrdint Mur an the 1
or deduetan%. Sit1 of vi+itink offieiaSt and repr<\enut %r<4 of mh.acutfa`'cattn1n, i u in falw nulticea+nnO<ta,d w as in the D the caandst of obfabserhnon. 1
daily activitie%. deeisi.lns, ,h+crYalinn\ In gcncral amt +fKCdii ohving
test pcoeedures. Send eapl<\ In IiNGINh1ik.
e. Record names, addresxs and tckpN%ne nulnt+cn or all CoNTkACTt)RS, sutlcanlracton and major supplier of
mate ri. is and equi Pmtnl.
9. Repnrc
PerindieaMrtsau<ql:irtdofpnKreu ohhcwork andCONTRACTOR't<omp'iane<wdklhe
. FurnitA ENGINEER
t
approved progress schedule and schedule of SMP Drawing tuhmistinn%.
b. Consult with ENGINEER in adv]nct or tchcdtdcd maplf tech, in\ptclions of Stan of important 7hsscs of the
work.
e. Report immedWi ty to r;NGINF.ER nplln the 1K<IIfience of any xcident.
10. Poymenr Rrqursir nns: Revicw aprAkatinns for payment with CONTRAMIt for compliance with IN: tstablishcol
u
pro<edure for their submhsinn and forwari %hem with rteammendati0ns t° ENGINEER, noting p ty hc 1
relation to the schedule of values. Mork completed and materials and equipment O16-ered at the site b It not incor•
porated in the Wo11t.
I!. Cr rtlAeacres. AfaFnreacoatt rlndtlprfacrran Afanaacf]r Nfing the cOUlst (1)(111C Walk. Verify that etnificaes, mintenance y
1111141 the i ems actaxilyn inslalled; and deliver this miter'1a1III ENG14EER for his review and ffrwaarrdiOng IotO)V E prior k
Ica final aeeepence of the Work. +
a. Completion.
a , i
. Before ENGINEFR is+uet a C<niheate rf $uMlantial CnmDlrlinn, \uhmit to CONTRACTOR a lest tf apserved ~ X
i items rtquirint eomfile6on at eamcllan. fiml list of 6
b. Conduct final in+peetil)n in The eOmfulny of g!eGINEVR. f)tk'NER and CONTRACTOR and ptepert l
items to be completed or corrected.
C. Verify Illicit all items on final li-A have been <t)mpkled a coutcted and make recommendations to 11 NGIN£ER
conctrning sceepenct.
C. Limitations of Authority. 1
Except upon written inuructwnsof ENGINEER. Resident Prlljecl Rtpesentauvt:
f. Shall not authorial: any devlatk)n from the C'nmrscs tkt<vtnenls lK approve any substuutr materials *1 eqt ipment.
2. Shell not exceed limitations on UNCHNFMt alallatky as set forth in the Contract Documents.
r J. Shell Wundenaktsnyofthenespan\tt.ilaletofCANTRACTOIt.IUhhlerectum atCONTAACTOA'ssupe nltndeM.
or ealledhot the Work.
Shall not advilt on M Is+ue directnsns feloolive M'any a\ptd of the meant. methods. techniques, se.luences of
Procedures of commruction unrest %UCh is kileC14Cally called for in the Contract Documents. 7
Work.
j, SI+all not advise en or ilaut daettktfn as M \altly r4CVVrtIolM and P100(4111% ;I11 <anncclnln Wllhtht
a. Shall ",to alnln1117t ItWN1.R u11.\tapy Illy: 6M Ulvile oil III P.41%
7 Shalt n K pathtlp fit In-(1+'` 1.1111tJ 10111111.114,41J1.11) 101%
17
.x3. !
i
1'. OF EXHIBIT B
y r
.z
3
w Duties, Responsibilities and Limitations of Authority
of Resident Project Representative
A. General.
Resident Project Representative is ENGINEER's Agent, will act as directed by and under the supervision of ENGI-
NEER, and will confer with ENGINEER regarding bis actions. Resident Project Represemative'sdealinp in maters
pertaining to the on-site Work shall in general be only with ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR. sod dealings with
subcontractors shall only be through or with the full knowkdge of CONTRACTOR. Written communication with
OWNER will be only through or as directed by ENGINEER.
B. Duties and Responsibilities.
Resident Project Representative will:
1. Scheduler: Review the progress schedule, schedule of Shop Drawing submissicns and schedule of values prepared
by CONTRACTOR and consult with ENGME£Rconceming their acceptability. i
Conjertnrei: Attend preconstruction conferences. Arrange a schedule of progress meetings and other job conferences
as required in consultation with ENGINEER and notify those expected to attend in advince.'Attend meeting. and
maintain and circulate copies of minutes thereof.
J. Liolson: +
a. Serve as ENGINEER's liaison with CONTRACTOR, working principally through CONTRACTOR's superimen•
dent and assist him in understanding the intent of the Contract Docutstems. Assist ENGINEI-Ain serving so OWNER's
liaison with CONTRACTOR when CONTRACTOR's operations affect 0 W N ER's on•ate operations. 4
b. At requested by ENGINEER. assist in obtaining from OWNER additional detuls or information, when required
at the job site for proptir execution of the Work.
t
I I. Shop Drowlnjr end Sampler:
E a, Receive and record date or receipt of shop Drawings and samples. receive tampits which are furnished at the sae
I by CONTRACTOR, and notify ENGINEER of their availability for examination.
b. Advise ENGINEER and CONTRACTOR or as superintendent immediately or the commencement of any Work I
requiring a Shop Drawing or sample submission if the submission hat not been approved by ENGINEER G j
3. Review of Work. Rejection of Defective Work. lntprv-rnuts and Tessa: d
a. Conduct co-site observations of the Watt in progress to assist ENGINEER in determining if ibe Work is proceeding a
' In accordance with the Contract Docunw at . and that completed Wont will conform to the Contract Documents. j ,
b. Report to ENGINEER whenever he believes that any Work Is unsatisfactory. (sulky or dellsaive or does not
conform to the Cosuraet Documents, or does not meet the requirements er ay inspections, teas or approval required
io be made or has been damaged pno.- to finri payment. and advise ENGINEER wircm he believes Wort should be a
corrected or rejected or should be uncovered It r obsen anon, at requires special kadoIg. Inspatian of approval. i
t. Verify this teas, equipment and systems r,anups and operating and maimeaartet instructions are conducled as
required by the Contract Documents and In pi Bence of the required personal, and that CONTRACTOR maintains
adequate records thereof; observe, record and t epon to ENGINEER appropriate deals relative to the test proeedutes
sod startups. Al
d. Accompany visiting inspectors represeming public or other agencies having jurisdiction over the Project, record
tie outcome of these in<pettioni and report to CN61NEER.
Q 1119 by Nei" Society a1 y4nreatk+eat linsiwrs. 20" K St.. N.W., %skingtan. D.C. 20006
_22_ 1
NS"JACEC+ASCe: 14hr;cattan No. 19161•A
1971 E& ion
F~
'i
r
r
h lnfnpr: brf,.rn ..lrL.nff...l l,,w wm:r,f. I,:,mtnd 4,,f'H\1NM'NIHl,VIiIN1.1tK•S N.udxal,.ul. alNl atlelprri+l N.m ~ ,
nr IM ('•tnluJ I}N UnN'ul.
~ .{f.wlf•fallb,n, t nn♦,•1tI :.,L1 ev;,l Hale {'f 1v I NAI'I/tN \ ♦t17:C.INnt♦ r.H 11NNSIfN'it wins Irl pls. my\.\r ~pehft; aiNM•
l
and rrp,xl Them with rr: iunnx rvl,,t N,ns Lt IiNtB\I IcN '
R. Rrh,rJs:
a. M&Wain at the job site otdctly files for carfc{p oldenec. re pons of job confecencrs. Shop Drawings and samples
submissions, Icpioductions of original Contact Documenrs including ail addeoda, thanllt ofders, fKW ocders, addi-
tional Drawings issued suh.carlent to the esetutian of the Contras. ENGINF.ER's clarifications and mttmcclations
of the Conl ra cs Doc{,mc nt s, prnG re ss capons, and .r, her Alyea rclatrd dssc ume ors.
IS. Keep a dwty w log KNA. Iccetrdint hours on the job Or. w satheretindltions. data rebatlvt to questions ofestras
or deductions, list of vls:tinF nffrcWi and cp,csen x6ves of manufocnrrrr%. fabeicalncs, suppliers and distributors,
daily activities, dcei%;,sm. nhservatlo % In gcncral and %pcufi,: oh:a vntitltls in mole dciad as in the cast of ohurving l '
test procedures. Send ropres to L•NGIN1.M
e. Record names, addresses and wkplutne numHrrs of all CONTRACTORS. suhcontactors and major suppliers of
materials and equipment.
9. R<Mvrsa
a. Furnish ENGINEER pcrieA;creponsas requircdofpmgressofthcWalk antl CONTRACTOR's compliance with the
approved proptss schedule and schedule of Shop Orawing cuhmissions.
b. Consult with ENGINEER in advance of «heduled majo( tats, inspections or staff of imponant phases of the
work.
e. Report immediately to f:NGINFER upon the „canrenct of any accident.
10. Payment Rrquisirieflf: Review applications for payment with CONTRACTOR for compliance with the established
procedure for their submission and forward them with recommendations to ENGINEER, noting pankulady the;
refaliort to the schedule of values. Work tomptcied and maicriats and equipment delivered at the silt but not ineor•
porated in the Work. .
It. C<rrgfearfr.Maintenanteundflpnarinngfamah:Diffingtl`,cowc•oflheWork, vtrifythatceniffcates,maintenanee
and operation manuals and other data required to be ft swrhhled and furnished by CONTRACTOR are appilcable to
the items sctually installed; and deliver this matcrv.: to ENGINEER for his review and forwarding to OWNER prior
to Anal acceptance of the Woolf,
a. Before ENGINEER Issuet a Cenigcute of Substantial Comple inn, {uhmii to CONTRACTOR a list of observed
{ items regviring completion or cnrreaion,
b. Conduct Anal inspcclitsn In the company of ENGI!IEER, OWNER and CONTRACTOR and prepare a W1 list of
items lobe compkled at corrected.
I e. Verify that all keens on Anat tics have been crm+pkkd {1t corrected and make recommendations to ENGINEER v
eo ncern ing acce pt ante.
i r
C. Llmhations of AUIWNy.
Ewcpt upon written insuuctwrm of ENGINE iR. Rcsidtnt Project Reptesematsve:
1. Shall not authorize any dtvlatklo from the Carviran Documents cat approve any substitute materials or equipment.
i
it. Shall nob exceed limitations an ENGINRER's alabrility at set forth in the Conuaa Documents.
J. Shalldotundertake any oftherespun%iNlltiesofCONTRACTOR.suheomracwnceCONTRACTOR'ssuplrimendent.
or expedite the Work.
4. Shall not advise on Of issue diftalnM relative 4,1 *any aspect of the means, methods. techniques, sequences of
procedures of conyruction unfcs( vlKh 1s spe(ltkAy vilkll far in Ira' ('ontract Documents.
7. Shall not advise on of kau drres1141M as to softly pfts•aut N,M and prnglarns ill hlnntetkln with cite Work.
d. shill MOM aulht11112 ftW\1.A oI „seapy t1,.; 104,1^1 in wNile nl ,n p.111 t
y ShxN mN p.tau{lp do In ,(vs 11}uctl Act l cal l.thn.1,41 list. "I
.23.
1 Mt~,.14IM~nl. }.w Lr,.,l lb wet, ,•r..aw.
i
ell
S&P"
}
F
LAKE RAY ROBERTS
T WATER TREATMENT PLANT
PHASE II
FUND ANALYSIS
i
FUND SOURCE $
IX $1000)
88-WP 0460-01
TOTAL FUNDS -LL.143
11,103
EXPENDITURES
SITE
SOIL INVESTIGATION (FINAL) 1
SITE AQUISITION (FINAL) ''8 a
SITE BOUNDARY {FINAL) 357.1
SITE TOPO (CONTRACT) 2.8
SITE PLATTING (CONTRACT) 8.6
SUB-TOTAL 4.0
380.1
ENGINEERING
PH I: PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING (CONTRACT) 345.3
DETAILED DESIGN/BID
SUB-TOTAL (CONTRACT) 481.4 ti
TOTAL EXPENDITURES :
1_~ 6
AMOUNT OVER/(UNDER} BUDGET
` 19,886.2)
BUDGET TRANSFERS
NONE III
AMOUNT OVER/UNDER REVISED BUDGET 1
N/A 1
i
EXHIBIT.._,.._._ I
i
I
i
1
;r
v
i
's
~y1
LAKE RAY ROBERTS
i WATER TREATMENT PLANT
PROJECT TIME LINE
1989
1990 1991 1992 1993
I
NO J FM AM
A OJ FMA J J A8ON0J FMAMJA~a0``NDJ fMAMJ J 'Al
i a
i a bcdof9 h Z
I I,
989
1991 1992 E
i 1990
1
A M J ++J A++ S O N D
-0-J jj F M A M J J A S O N O J F M A
i
a b c d of a
LEGEND
A: QUARAL PROJECT
s: Dsts" Design Begin January 23,1990
b: Detailed Design Complete July 18,1991
Udfts 00 Approval August 13, Forr Bids septe~nbsrla
d: dwrW 1m
e, Old OPWWJM Qep<wnber 26,1991
i F Bid Award (PUe,CC) NOOMbW 8,11981
g: Construction Begin December 1,1991
h: Con*uctlon CompNte My 31,1993
B: DESIGN CONTRACT
a: PUB Reveiw Of Contract December 19,1969
I b: City CokmA Review of Contract January 9, 1990
c: issuance To Proceed Jwuq 23,1990
d: pinai Design CognpMM July 18,1991
e: Staff Revew Complete August 13,1991
kk f: Begin Review of contrect for Bidding August 13,1991
And Consstnwtion $orvicee
EXHIBIT
1111
A
Amount
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
pr rn
I ~
ms I ~
g I Q
(A ~
00,
I o m~p
' I
Y
I
3 j I
I
r
' to
ESTIMATED CONTRACT COMPLETION
(A
I
I I I
I ,
' yht-'~ilMw •e.... . . ,tea..
f
_
WARM
i~
1
i
5x
f
r
' r
r
E EXCERPT MINUTES
Public Utilities Board Meeting r
December 19, 1989
Y
i 1
5. CICHOLSRINCLNDMW}NiICNO-,W" SHES~THE }ENGINEERS r '
COMPENSATION FOR DETAILED DESIGN OF THE LAKE RAY ROBERTS
WATER 'TREATMENT PL T.
After a short discussion on this item, Laney made a
motion to recommend to the City Council approval of
subject Amendment i1 in the not-to-exceed. lltayeao no
to Breese t Nichols, Inc. Second by
nays, motion carried.
RgCE2VE UPDATI~ Or pA0P088D T Y
~J2 UHLIC fiEARiNU.
The Hoard agreed to set the public Hearing following the
regular January 17, 19900 meeting of the PUB. The
regular meeting will begin at 500 PM in the Civil '
C
Defense Room and the City Council Chambers atorconduct atheu public'hearing. the
City i
EXHIBIT 1G
1
Ile-
{4
2878L
t ORDINANCE NO.
r
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING TH:: MA1(,R TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
THE AGREEMENT OF FEBRUARY 160 1988 BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND I
FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC. RELATING TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING j
SERVICES FOR THE DETAIL DESIGN PHASE OF THE LAKE RAY ROBERTS WATER
TREATMENT PLANT; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That the Mayor is authorized to execute Amendment
No. to the agreement between the City of Denton and Freese and
Nichols, Inc. relating to the detail design phase of the Lake Ray
Roberts Water Treatment Plant under the terms and conditions con-
tained within said amendment, a copy of which is attached hereto
and made a part hereof.
SECTION II. That the City Council hereby authorizes the ex-
pend ture o undo not to exceed Four Hundred Eighty-One Thousand
Four Hundred and Eighty-Six ($481,486) Dollars.
t
SECTION III. That this ordinance shall become effective im- x
mediate y upon its passage and approval.
< 1
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,
1990.
ATTEST; I
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY I
i
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
BYE
oel~
!
p
n-M
i
r
i
S
1
r
ti
F
~ a
s
'r
I
i i
r
4
i
.1
I'Ih
f
Ia
r..:,..
2874L
RESOLUTION NO.
's
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE COUNTY OF DENTON FOR THE PROVISION OF
LIBRARY SERVICES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
S
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES: I
SECTION I. That the Mayor is authorized to execute an II
1 agreement between the City of Denton and the County of Denton for
the provision of library services under the terms and conditions
` contained in the agreement attached hereto.
SECTION 11. That this resolution shall become effective
imme atdefyon its passage and approval.
1
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of
1990.
4
RAY r
O MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
DEBRA ADAMI DRAYOVITCH, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
v.
i
p'
i
• i?
y r..
Ilp ~'3My '
Y A■]s
M
1
i
r
1
i
MEKORANDUM
TO: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
PROF: JOELLA ORR, LIBRARY DIRECTOR
1
. SUM CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY FOR LIBRARY SERVICES
DATE: January 4, 1990
Attached is the contract for the County's contribution for out-of-City service
for the fiscal year 1989/90.
This needs to be approved by the City Council at their January lb, 1990
meeting and then forwarded to the County.
Thank you.
i
JOEL A ORR
JOtjs
Attachment
1569H z
S
I
i.
i
I
7
9•
i
I
1
i
I
i ~
a ,
`t
I~
In~~~I'~IAI_
THE STATE OF TEXAS K
i ~
COUNTY OF DENTON X
1NTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR LIBRARY SERVICES i
i ~
;
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered Into this day of October, 1989, by
and between DENTON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the Great State of Texas,
hereinafter referred to as "County", and the CITY OF DEINTON a municipality of Denton
County, Texas, hereinafter referred to as "Municipality".
WHEREAS, COUNTY is a duly organized political subdivision of the State of Texas
engaged In the administration of County Government and related services for the benefit
1 of the citizens of Denton County; and
I`
j
WHEREAS, MUNICIPALITY is a dulj organized municipality of Denton County,
Texas engaged In the provision of I>brary service and related services for the benefit
of the citizens of Denton County, Texas; and
11
WHEREAS, COUNTY and MUNICIPALITY desire to Improve the efficiency and i
effectiveness of local governments by authorizing the fullest possible range of
intergovernmental contracting authority at the local level for all or part of the functions
r and services of police protection and detention services; fire protection; streets, roads,
and drainage; public health and welfare. parks; recreation; library servlces; museum
i
services; waste disposal; planning; engineering; and administrative functions such as tax
assessment and collection, personnel services, purchasing, data processing, warehousing,
equipment repair, and printing; and
WHEREAS, COUNTY and MUNICIPALITY mutually desire to be subject to the
provislors of TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. Art. 4413 (320), (Vernon Supp.), the Interloeal
Cooperation Act; and J
t
f
i
i M
f !
i
1 f
}
[S
r 1 I
1
NOW THEREFORE; COUNTY and MUNICIPALITY, for the mutual consideration
hereinafter stated, agree and understand as follows:
1.
The effective date of this agreement shall be the ist day of October, 1989.
~ s
ti.
The Initial term of this Agreement shall be for the period of October 1, 1989 to
and through September 30, 1990.
' tr1.
For the purposes and consideration herein stated and contemplated, COUNTY shall
i
provide the following necessary and appropriate services for the residents of Denton
County MUNICIPALITY to the maximum extent authorized by this agreement, without
regard to race, teligion, color, age, and national origin; to wit:
1. Library services and other related services for the benefit and to serve the
pubtle conveniences and necessity of the citizens of Denton County, Texas.
IV. f)
During the term of this contract, upon presentation of proper proof by Individual(s) j
of residence of Denton County, Texas, such Individual(s) shall be entitled to be Issued,
at no cost, a "library card" to be used In connection with said library services to be
valid for a term to coincide with the term of this contract.
V.
COUNTY shall designate Honorable Vic Burgess to act on behalf of COUNTY, and
to serve as "Lialson Officer" for COUNTY with and between COUNTY and
MUNICIPALITY. Honorable Vic Burgess or his designated substitute shall Insure the
performance of all duties and obligations of COUNTY herein stated; and, shall devote
sufficient time and attention to the execution of sold duties on behalf of COUNTY In
j ' (2) yi
p
1
,t J
IA
Y ~
i
v
full compliance with the terms and conditions of this agreement; and, shall provide
f Immediate and direct supervision of COUNTY'S employees, agents, contractors, sub-
contractors, and/or laborers, if any; in the furtherance of the purposes, terms and
1
conditions of this Agreement for the mutual benefit of COUNTY and MUNICIPALITY.
VI.
a
k MUNICIPALITY shall designate Lloyd V. Harrell to act on
i behalf of MUNICIPALITY, and to serve as "Liaison" for MUNICIPALITY with and between,
MUNICIPALITY and COUNTY to insure the performance of all duties and obligations of
MUNICIPALI1 Y as herein stated; and, shall devote sufficient time and attention to the
execution of said duties on behalf of MUNICIPALITY In full compliance with the terms
and conditions of this agreement; and, shall provide Immediate and direct supervision
0
of the MUNICIPALITY'S employees, agents, contractors, sub-contractors, and/or laborers,
it any; In the furtherance of the purposes, terms and conditions of this Agreement for r,
the mutual benefit of MUNICIPALITY and COUNTY.
VII.
MUNICIPALITY agrees to indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY, Its agents, and
employees, from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, Including
reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to pursue legal action, arising
out ^f performance of the services and duties herein which are, or are alleged to have
been caused in whole or In part by COUNTY or MUNICIPALITY, Including but not
necessarily limited to any negligent act and/or omission of any employee of
MUNICIPALITY, its directors, members, or that of asub-contractor of MUNICIPALITY,
or that of anyone employed by or contracted with MUNICIPALITY for whose acts
COUNTY and/or MUNICIPALITY is liable,
i
I
!
(3)~
I
-N -T 17
,i
j;.
1
s
k
vill.
MUNICIPALITY agrees to Indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY, its agents, and
employees, from and against all claims, damages, Ioyses, and expenses, Including
reasonable attorney's fees in case it shall be necessary to file an action, arising out
of performance of the services and duties herein stated, which are (1) for bodily Injury,
Illness, or death, or for property damage, Including loss of use, and (2) caused in whole 1
1
or In part by MUNICIPALITY'S negligent act and/or omission, or that of a sub-contractor }
of MUNICIPALITY, or that of anyone employed by or contracted with MUNICIPALITY
for whose acts the MUNICIPALITY is liable.
IX.
The MUNICIPALITY shall be solely responsible for all techniques, sequences,
procedures, and means, and for the coordination of all work performed under the terms
and conditions of this agreement, shall insure, dedicate and devote the full time and J~
attention of those employees necessary for the proper execution and completion of the 1
duties and obligations of the MUNICIPALITY stated in this agreement, and give all JJJJ)
attention necessary for such proper supervision and direction.
X.
COUNTY agrees to and accepts full responsibility for the acts, negligence, and/or
omissions of all COUNTY'S employees, and agents, COUNTY'S sub-contractors, and/or
i
{ contract laborers, and for those of all other persons doing work under a contract or
agreement with sold COUNTY.
XI.
The MUNICIPALITY agrees to end accepts full respon9iblity for the acts, negligence,
and/or omissions of all the MUNICIPALITY'S employees, and agents, the MUNICIPALITY'S
sub-contractors, and/or contract laborers, and for those of all other persons doing work I
(4)
f
i
i
/
r 4'
r
~x
k
t
I
Y
,T r
under a contract or agreement with said MUNICIPALITY,
Y
XII.
This agreement Is not Intended to extend the liability of the parties beyond that
f
provided by law, Neither Agency MUNICIPALITY nor County walvns any Immunity or
defense that would otherwise be available to it against claims by third parties.
i XHL
1
MUNICIPALITY understands and agrees that the MUNICIPALITY, its employees,
servants, agents, end representatives shall at no time represent themselves to be
employees, servants, agents and/or representatives of COUNTY.
XIV, '
COUNTY understands and agrees that COUNTY, its employees, servants, agents,
and representatives shall at no time represent themselves to be employees, servants,
agents, and/or representatives of MUNICIPALITY.
XV.
"COUNTY", Denton
~ County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas. The
address of "COUNTY" is:
' Commissioners Court of Denton County
Courthouse on the Square
110 W. Hickory
Denton, Texas 78201
Telephone (817) 383-9298
I
Attn: Honorable Vic Burgess
4 Ilj Denton County Judge
XVI.
f MUNICIPALITY Is a public service organization of Denton County, Texas. The t
address of "MUNICIPALITY" Is: (
i
` (S)
4 '
ti
i1
i ME
1
I
.c. ~a
9
e '
i
City of Denton
{ 215 E. McKinney
f Denton, Texas 76201
Telephone (817) 566-8200
3 Attn: LLOYD V. HARRELL
j X V1L
For the services hereinabove stated, COUNTY agrees to pay to MUNICIPALITY
for the full performance of this agreement, $1.1718 per capita of 88,353 or the sum r
III 1
of ONE HUNDRED THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-TWO AND NO1100
($103,532.00) DOLLARS to be paid in equal quarterly installments of TWENTY-FIVE k
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY THREE AND 00/100 (;25,883.00) DOLLARS
commencing October 1, 1980. In addition, COUNTY agrees to pay to MUNICIPALITY up
to SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO1100 ($7,500.00) DOLLARS In matching
funds upon receipt of proof from the MUNICIPALITY that revenue from sources other
than Denton County has been received and that this Information shall be provided each
{
quarter to COUNTY and will be matched in full each quarter until such time that
:7,500.00 has been paid, COUNTY understands and agrees that payment by COUNTY
3
to the MUNICIPALITY shall be made In accordance with the normal and customary
processes and business procedures of COUNTY.
XVIII.
This agreement may be terminated at any time, by either party giving sixty (80)
day advance written notice to the other party. In the event of such termination by {
either party, MUNICIPALITY shall be compensated pro rata for all services performed
to termination date, together with reimbursable expenses then due and as authorized
by this agreement. In the event of such termination, should MUNICIPALITY be a
I ~
overcompensated on a pro rata basis for all services performed to termination date,
and/or be overcompensated for reimbursable expenses as authorized by this agreement,
then COUNTY shall be reimbursed pro rate for all such overcompensation. Acceptance
of said reimburseryent shall no constitute a waiver of any claim that may otherwise
arise out of this Agreement.
~uaM• ( I
owl
s
J,
i
7 r
{ XIX.
This agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between
MUNICIP{1111TY and COUNTY and supersedes all prior negotiations, representetionswritten
agreements, either written or oral. This agreement may be amended only by
Instrument signed by both MUNICIPALITY and COUNTY.
t
XX. ttThe validity of this agreement and of any of its terms or provisions, as well as
the rights and duties of the parties hereto, shall be governed by the laws of the State J
of Texas. Further, this agreement shall be performable and all compensation payable
~ in Denton County, Texas.
XXI. t
~ In the event that any portion of this agreement shall be found to be contrary to
law It is the Intent of the parties hereto that the remaining portions shall remain valid
e~
and in full force and effect to the extent possible.
XXd.
r
The undersigned officer and/or agents of the parties hereto are the properly
authorized officials and have the necessary authority to execute this agreement on
titles to the other that any
Y hereby
each cer
behalf of the parties hereto, and sac party
necessary resolutions extending said authority have been duty passed and are now in
full force and effect.
I
1
(7)
S
1
1
I
Executed In duplicate orlginais at Denton, Denton County, Texas on the day and ;
a
r
year first written above.
i "COUNTY" "MUNICIPALITY" 1
1
DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS MUNICIPALITY
t
110 W. Hickory
Denton, Texas 78201
By. By.
HONORABLE VIC BURGESS Name:
DENTON COUNTY JUDGE Title:
' j
Acting on behalf of, and by Acting on behalf of, and by t
the authority of the the authority of the
Commis.-oloners Court of MUNICIPALITY
Denton, County, Texas
h ATTEST: ATT EST: J
By: By:
MARILYN ROBINSON Name:
h DENTON COUNTY CLERK Title:
APPROVED AS TO rORM AND CONTENT:
ROB MORRIS + { i
DENTON COUNTY ATTORNEY
All
f
f
STATE OF TEXAS x
COUNTY OF DENTON x
I
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this t
Honorable YIc Burgess, Denton County Judge, known
Is subscribed to the foregoing i
to me to be Personally pen whose name
foregoing lnterlocal Cooperation nstrument Agreement ledged and acknow to me that he execut d the
for the ur
expressed, in the capacity stated, and as the act and deed of ui~ Coetytlon therein
C1VEN under my hand and seal of office this the
1999.
day of
Notary PuDI a nand or t o State o exas
y Commission expires
SEAL
Notary a Pr Hied Name
I
r
I
STATE OF TEXAS
X
COUNTY OF DENTON X
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personate
known tome to be the person whore name Is subscribed
to a orego ng nstrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the foregoing
lnterloeel Cooperation Agreement of the purposes and consideration therein expressed,
and In the eapaelty atatad, and as the act and deed of said
GIVEN under my hand and seal of office this the ,
1999. day of
t
Notary Pub e n an cr Ti's State o exas
My Commission expires;
i
SEAL
1Notary+s Printed Name)
57
• hl
1
i f
I
l lii
1 1
J
y
1
7
p~p
H
I a
1
!~f
r
k
I
J ~
i i
i
1
II ~
I
I
I ~
CITY of DENTON / 215 E, McKinney / Denton, Texas 76201 p
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 11, 1990
TO: Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
1 FROM: John F. McGrane, Executive Director of Finance
SUBJECT: BUDGET REPORT
Now that the financial audit is almost complete, the monthly
' report should be getting back to normal processing,
Although it is still early in the fiscal year, revenues for the i
General Fund through the end of November look good. Total
General Fund revenues equal $11,324,848, which at 421 is exactly
the same percent of budget collected as for the same period last
year. Total General Fund expenditures through the end of
November were $4061S,193. Although this represents 171 of the i
total budget rather than 141 last year, a major
portion of the
difference is attributable to the transfer of insurance fund
payments. In November of this year, $567,000 was transferred
for fire, general and auto liability coverage to the Insurance
Fund. This transfer did not occur until later in the prior
year. If you adjust for this payment timing difference, the
expenditures and income for this year are right on track with
t`{ last year's budget expending pattern.
Once again, I anticipate that December's month end close will
occur within the next few days and we will be getting to you I
with the quarterly report at a later date.
If you need any additional information or have any further
information, please advise.
oh c rane
x`
:5* :
50S7F of
N
a'
1
1
t
y
i ~..r
Y .1
'r
n
h
i i
FILE
i
1~