HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-26-1996 f
A
a
b
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET
March 26, 1996
V
Agenda ft
Agenda Item
Date (a - _q 61
AGENDA
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL
March 26, 1996
Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, March
26, 1996 at 5:15 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of City Hall,
215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be
considered:
NOTE: A Work Session is used to explore matters of interest to
one or more City Council Members or the City Manager for the
purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such matters
should j-•: placed on a future regular or special meeting of the
Council for citizen input, City Council deliberation and formal
City action. At a work session, the City Council generally
receives informal and preliminary reports and information from City
staff, officials, members of City committees, and the individual or
organization proposing council action, if invited by City Council
or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by
individuals ar..] members of organiza`..ions invited to speak ceases
when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to public
input. Although Work Sessions are public meetings, and citizens
have a legal right to attend, they are not public hearings, so
citizens are not allowed to participate in the session unless
invited to do so by the Mayor. Any citizen may supply to the City
Council, prior to the beginning of the session, a written report
regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter being explored.
Should the Council direct the matter be placed on a regular meeting
agenda, the staff will generally prepare a final report defining
the proposed action, which will be made available to all citizens
prior to the regular meeting at which citizen input is sought. The
purpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the
regular meeting the opportunity to hear the views of their fellow
citizens without having to attend two meetings.
i
5:15 p.n. JI
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction
regarding the results of the Citizen Survey. j
2. Hold a discussion and consider participation in the Lewisville
Environmental Enhancement Project.
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction
regarding funding alternatives for replacing the Job
Partnership Training Act (JTPA) program in the City of Denton.
4. Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding contract
revision procedures/change orders to contracts.
5. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction
regarding the renovation of the American Legion Building in
Fred Moore Park.
City of Denton City Council Agenda r,9enCa I' m
March 26, 1996 onto
Pay. 2
6. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction
regarding amendments to the Council's Rules and Procedures
relating to the Agenda Committee and speaker time for Citizen
Reports.
7. Receive a report, hDld a discussion and give staff direction
sreegaondrding an ordinance
leaser with the chamber t of execute Commerce
extending the lease for an additional 25 years for a
consideration of $1.00 per year.
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the
bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on
the day of
(p.m.) 1996 at o'clock (a.m.)
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE
CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE
HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN
ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-8309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-8C0-'RELAY-TX SO
THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH
THE CITY SECRETARYfS OFFICE.
ACC002F4
T
t
J
WY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 02 IS E. MCKINNEY DENTON, TEXAS 7620 J
(8 J 00 is DFW METRO 434.2529
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
DATE: March 20, 1996
SUBJECT: RECEIVE A REPORT ON THE CITY OF DENTON CITIZEN SURVEY
RECOMMENDATION:
None required
SUAMIARY:
The city contracted with Dr. James Glass and the Survey Reset rch Center at the University of North
Texas to conduct a survey of a random sample of Denton citizen:. The survey was conducted over the
telephone during the month of January, 1996. The objectives of the survey were to Identify the extant
of use of municipal facilities; citizen perceptions regarding v,rious aspects of city performance; the
degree of citizen satisfaction or dissatisfaction with city sardce~; the degree of citizen support for new
city services and related tax proposals, and; the quality of I -e (if Denton citizens.
A copy of the survey is attached as back-tip.
BACKGROUND:
Every several years most cities, Denton included, conduct a survey of their citizens. These surveys allow
policy makers and city staff to learn more about the people they serve. The survey typically will address
people's perceptions of and degree of satisfaction with a wide range of city, programs, services, and
facilities.
Dr. Junes Glass, cif the University of North Texas, has conducted a number of past surveys in Denton,
The 1996 Denton survey is, however, the first to he conducteJ by UN'r's Survey Research Center,
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
Denton citizens, City Council, city staff.
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
City Council Report
Citizen Survey,
Page 2
a9~+~d~ Item
Det.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Cost of the survey was $7,000, which was budgeted,
Please advise if I can pro-Ode additional information.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: O-wSl~~
Wicard~ ared by; Rick Sveh a
Acting City Manager
c
Foster
Public Information Coordinator
App oved:
Joseph Portugal
Assistant to the City Manager
Attachment
AAAD4183
I
S
J
~I
CITY OF DENTON
1996 CITIZEN SURVEY
By:
Paul Ruggiere I
James Glass
Survey Research Center
University of North Texas
February 1996
M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Agenda I
Datr,
ge
LIST OF FIGURES Pa
LIST OF TABLES
I. INTRODUCTION
If. METHODOLOGY
A. Sample
B, Questionnaire
C. Data Collection
D. Report
Format ..,..3
III, SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
IV. FINDINGS
................................................11..............................................7
A. Overall Rating
B. City
Services
7
Library Services 8
Park and Recreational Facilities
Recreation Programs I I
Code Enforcement
Utility Department Services 17
Animal Control 18
31
Emergency Services ..................................................................................................32
C. Ratings of Infrastructure.........,.
40
Streets
Sidewalks
Neighborhood Conditions ...........42
"""...............43
Economic Development Tar
D. Communication With City and Staff
Cable Television 45
Factors
That Contribute to Denton Qua 49
Denton Visioning Program Quality I............................................................
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT,....,,,,.,
APPENDIX B: OTHER RESPONSES 53
63
Survey Research center, University ofNorrh Texas
LIST OF FIGURES
tiZ:r.C. I Jr1
Page
Figure 1: Ratings of Denton as a Place to Live
Figure 2: Overall Satisfaction With Library
Figure 3: Utility Service Rates Reasonable Considering Quality of Service
Figure 4: Contacted the Utility Department in Past 12 Months
Figure 5: Support Paying Additional Fee to Pay for Drainage Projects 24
Figure 6: Number of Power Outages in the Last 12 Months
Figure 7: Currently Recycle
Figure 8: Support Reducing Regular Garbage Collection to Provide Curbside Recycling 29
Figure 9: Willing to Pay AdditionaI Fee for Curbside Recycling
Figure 10: Overall Ratings of Animal Control Program
Figure 11: Overall Ratings of Police De
Figure 12: Came in Contact with Police Department in Past Year,.,,,,,,,
Figure 13: Overall Ratings of Fire Department
Figure 14: Called Denton Fire Department for Assistance with Fire in Past Year .....................38
Figure 15: Called the Fire Department For Ambulance or Paramedic in the Past Year .............39
Figure 16: Condition of Streets and Roads
Figure 17: Denton's Streets and Roads' Change in Last 5 Years
Figure 18: Importance of Sidewalks...........
Figure 19: Ratings of Neighborhood Conditions
Survey Research Center, University ofSorth Teras
Figure 20: Ratings of City Management Agenda No
TIC
Figure 21: Influence of Channel 26 on Opinion of City Government........:....
Survey Research Censer, University of Vorih Texas
hi
r
Agenda No.
` D
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Sample Characteristics
Table 2: Library Usage By Selected Demographics
Table 3: Ratings of Specific Library Services
Table 4: Recreational Facility Usage By Selected Demographics
Table 5: Satisfaction with Facility Components......
Table 6: Support For Hik,-g and Biking Trail By Selected Demographics
.....13
Table 7: Support For Tax to Fund Hike/Bike Trail By Selected Demographics ....................14
Table 8: Participation in Recreational Programs By Selected Demographics .......................15
Table 9: Satisfaction With Park and Recreation Programs ....................................................16
Table 10: Ratings of Code Enforcement ..................................................................................17
Table 11: Ratings of Service provided by the Utility Department
Table 12: Read Information From Utility Department „19
Table 13: Ratings of Electricity Charges by Selected Demographic Groups ...........................20
Table 14: Ratings of Water Charges by Selected Demographic Groups ..................................21
Table 15: Ratings of Waste Water Charges by Selected Demographic Groups .......................21
Table 16: Utility Department Most Recently Contacted 23
Table 17: Utility Department Contact Related ........................................................................24
Table 18: Ratings For Response Time 26
Table 19: Reasons For Not Recycling 28
Table 20: Willing to Pay Per Month for Curbside Recycling .................................................30
Table 21: Ratings of Police Responsiveness, Professionalism and Courtesy ..........................34
Table 22: Awareness of Community Oriented Policing
Program By Selected Demographics ........................................................................35
Table 23: Ratings for Denton Fire Department Service Provided ,..,,,,,37
Table 24: Ratings For Ambulance or Paramedic Service .........................................................39
Survey Research Center, University of North Texas
rv
i
4
C
Table 25: Support Portion of Utility Revenue For Economic Develo as Na.
By Selected Demographics .~rMI. 44
T able 26: Contact with the City by Selected Demographics . -
.l-
Table 27: Percent Reporting Contac; with Denton Officials 47-Table 28: Ratings of the Contacts 47 Table 29: How Often Channel 26 is Watched ,,.•.•.••••50
Table 30: Watch City Council Meetings .....50
Table 31: Awareness of Denton Visioning Program By Selected Demographics ...................52
Sunny Research Center, University ojNorrh Tetras
X
r
1. INTRODUCTION "dam
Itpe"0" Item
1
During the month of January 1996, a citizen survey was administered by the Survey
Research Center (SRC) of the University of North Texas for the City of Denton. Data for the
i
survey were collected in several interviewing sessions between January 10 and 14. The 1996
Denton Citizen Survey is the first survey conducted by SRC for the city. The results of the 1996
survey provide the city council and city staff with a current data base that is representative of
attitudes of the adult citizens of Denton. The objectives wei , to identify:
• the extent of use of municipal facilities;
• citizen perceptions regarding various aspects of city performance;
• the degree of citizen satisfaction or dissati,.faction with city services;
• the degree of citizen support for new city services and r:-: aed tax proposals, and;
• the quality of life of Denton citizens.
The analysis of the responses and differences among the respondents' replies should help
to identify for appropriate follow-up those areas where expectations are not 'oeing met or where
dissatisfaction has been expressed, either by the citizenry in general or by identifiable segments
of the population.
The report is divided into three major sections: methodology, sample characteristics and
findings.
Survey Research Center, University ofNorrh Teras
r
u
Agcnda No.
IL METHODOLOGY Apendi►:p~^
A. Sample
The conceptual population for the survey was all residents of the City of Denton IS years
of age and older who have te!ephones. Random digit dialing (RDD) was used as the method of
sample generation because it offers the best coverage of active telephone numbers and it reduces
sample bias. The RDD method ensures that:
• the conceptual and sampling frame match
• unlisted telephone numbers will be included; and
• the sampling frame will be as current as possible, thus maximizing the probability
new residents will be included.
To ensure that only citizens of Denton were interviewed, outlying areas where telephone
prefixes may cross city boundaries were identified. The instrument was programmed, through
the use of an initial filter question, to exclude those respondents who did not reside in the City of
Denton.
A total of 402 usable interviews were conducted and analyzed yielding a margin of error
of 4.9 percent at the 95 percent confidence level. This means that there is a 95 percent
likelihood that any single answer given by the study's sample is representative of the entire
Denton population within a margin of plus or minus 5 percent.
B. Questionnaire
The questionnaire used for this study was developed in conjunction with SRC and city
staff. SRC staffprepared a draft questionnaire that was structured to include all the basic
Survey Research Center, University of North Texas
d
tt
p
1
0.c^1a 170,
services provided by the city, as well as questions pertaining to city ad ir} stf t~ an quality o I -d
9, Cc
life. The city staff provided additional issues to be measured. SRC in 'P^
into the instrument design. Several revisions were made and commented upon by the city staff.
Eventually, a final instrument was prepared and approved by the city staff and city council.
The introductory phase of each telephone contact included a reference to complete
confidentiality of the information collected. Further, interviewers were instructed to fully
comply with this principle and to disregard any possible references that respondents might make
that would jeopardize such confidentiality.
C. Data Collection
Trained telephone interviewers who had previous experience in telephone surveys were
used for the Denton survey. Interviewers were selected from SRC's interviewer pool. Each
interviewer completed an intensive general training session. The purposes of general training
were to ensure that interviewers understood and practiced all of the basic skills needed to conduct
interviews, and that they were knowledgeable about SRC interviewing conventions. The
interviewers also attended a specific training session for the Denton project. The project training
session provided information on the background and goals of the study. Interviewers practiced
admiristeiing the questionnaire to become familiar with the questions. ,
All interviewing was conducted from SRC's centralized telephone bank in Denton, Texas.
An experienced telephone supervisor was on duty at all times to supervise the administration of
the sample, monitor for quality control, and handle any other problems. Interviews were
conducted Sunday through Friday evenings. All telephone numbers in the sample were tried at
Survey Research Center, UnNersity of North Tetras
3
t
m
least two times, using a rotating schedule of call-backs to ensure that a n
rrilgeyFtN8 ~
A,aa?31',n
attempted at various times.
A Report Format
The data are presented in tabular form with some descriptive comments and preliminary
interpretation and evaluation. The objectives were to secure overall citizen perceptions and to
identify particular concerns for detailed evaluation by city officials. The analysis of data
involved two steps. First, the observed frequencies or percentages for each question were
calculated. These frequencies are displayed in the report as the percent responding "yes" or "no"
or "excellent," "good," "fair," or "poor" to a question. Upon completion of the first step, each
question was then cross-tabulated with the following 11 descriptive characteristics.
1. Length of Residence
2. Owner-Renter Status
3. Age
4. Education
5. Income
6. Children Living at Home
7. Work in Denton
8. Race/ethnicity
9. Gender
The nine descriptive hararteristics comprise a set of independent variables that could
help to explain variations among the responses of the residents.
Survey Research Center, University of ftrih Texas
4
L
Q
III. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ~oMa,
f
Va.
Table 1 presents a summary of the descriptive characteristics of the sample. Denton may
be described as a middle-income, stable community. Approximately 36 percent of the
respondents reported incomes of 25,000 dollars or less, and 46.6 percent reported incomes
ranging from 25,001 to 60,000 dollars. Over half of the respondents (51 percent) have lived in
Denton for 10 or more years.
Forty-nine percent of the respondents were 45 years of age or younger, and 51.5 percent
were 46 or older. Sixty percent of the respondents were female. Sixty-two percent of the
r respondents owned their own homes, and 37.8 percent were renters. Twenty-nine percent of the
respondents had children under the age of 18 living at home, while 71.4 percent did not. Sixty-
five percent of the respondents work in Denton,
Surrey Research Center, Unn ersily of Nardi Texas
3
r
i
F
Table 1 Agenda
Sample Characteristics Amanda Clem
OMr-C2 to "
Characteristics Percent
Responding
Length of Residence
3 to 12 months 6.0
1-5 years 25.2
6-10 year 17.7
More than 10 years 51.1
Home ownership
Renter e Grou
18-25 26-35 36-45
Owner 134
46-60 61-70 71 and older Education
8th grade or less Some high school High school graduate Some college College graduate Graduate school or degree 20.6
Income
Under $15,000 18.4
15,000.25,000 18.1
$25,000440,000 25.1
$40,000460,000 21.5
Over $60,000 16 9
Emoloved in Denton
Yes 65.4
No 34.6
Children 18 or younger at home
Yes 28.6
No 71.4
Gender
Female 60.1
Male 39.9
Suney Research Center, University of North Teras
6
Apa 6 No.
t4
IV. FINDINGS Cafe -
A. Overall Rating
The first substantive question of the survey asked respondents to rate Denton as a place to
live. Thirty-three percent of the respondents rated Denton as an excellent place to live, and 52.5
percent rated it as a good place to live for a combined "excellent/good" rating of 85.2 percent.
There was some variation by demographic group in the ratings. The percentage of "excellent"
ratings increases with the respondent's age--from 18 to 25-year-olds (14.0 percent) to those over
70 years-old (47.2 percent). A larger percentage of women (38.7 percent) rated Denton as
excellent compared to men (23.9 percent).
Figure 1
Ratings of Denton as a Place to Live
(n=398),
FO%
70%
0%.
52.5
60 %
40% 32.7%
30%
20•!. 13 8%
10%
1.0%
0%
Excellent Goad Fair Poor
Survey Research Center, University ofNorlh Texas
s
Apendj 110. J~
Agenda I'em
B. City Services Date- UO
^
Local government officials have always been concerned about the quality of municipal
services and about problems that occur during service delivery. In recent years, however,
increasing attention has been given to measuring not just service outputs in terms of the number
of miles of streets paved, the timely response of emergency service personnel, and the number of
parks and pools open to citizens, but also measuring the quality of the service outputs in terms of
the service outcomes that are received by service recipients.
This section of the 1996 Denton Citizen Survey addresses the issue of the quality or
outcomes of city services. In this section of the report, citizen responses to various service
questions are provided in terms of their evaluation of the product that they are offered.
Library Services
r iftyone percent of the respondents said that they or a member of their family had used
Denton's library in the past year. Library use was higher among those who were employed it,
Denton, 36 to 70 years of age, with higher levels of education or income, and with children at
home (see Table 2). Library users were asked about their general level of satisfaction with the
library and its services (see Figure 2). A significant majority of respondents are either "very
satisfied" (68.2 p(;rcent) or "somewhat satisfied" (27.6 percent) with the librruy and its services.
Respondents were then asked to rate the library's hours of operation, book selection,
special programs, availability of materials, and staff helpfulness and courtesy (see Table 3).
Respondents provide favorable overall ratings to all five services. The combined
"excellent/good" rating was highest for staff helpfulness and courtesy (96.8 percent), followed by
Sure Research Censer, Unrversiry ofNarth Texas
8
v
L
t
88.3 percent for hours of operation, 83.9 percent for special program pert t
Agenda No.
selection, and 81.0 percent for availability of materials. r.^eada lienL_..
Table 2
Library Usage By Selected Demographics
Demoaraohic Percentaee Indicating
Library Usage
Age
18-25 45.5
26-35 55.1
36-45 60.6
46-60 68.4
61.70 60.0
71 and over 37.5
Employed in Denton
Yes 64.8
No 46.3
Education
Less than high school 31.6
High school 47.3
Some college 56.5
College graduate 63.3
Graduate school or more 69.2
Income
Less than $15,000 40.4
$15,000 to $25,000 55.6
$25,001 to $40,000 54.4
$40,001 to $60,000 70.0
Over $60,000 63.6
Children in household
Yes 72.5
No 50,6
Sun•ey Research Center, University of North Texas
9
t
4
i.
Figure 2 ~,eada Ito Lczi:
A,°'da It~n
Overall Satisfaction With Library
(n=192) Dar
100%
90%
so%
68,2%
70%
60x
60x
40%
30x 2T6%
20x
S OSS 3.6%
0.5%
0x -
Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied
Table 3
Ratings of Specific Library Services
Attribute Excellent Good Fair Poor
Hours of operation 34.8 53.5 9.1 2.7
(n=187)
Book selection 35.7 44.6 17.0 2.7
(n=190)
Special programs 36.4 47.5 14.4 1.7
(n=118)
Availability of materials 28.3 52.7 15.8 3.3
(n=184)
Staff helpfulness and courtesy 62.6 34.2 2.6 0.5
(n=190)
Sun-ey Research Center, University of North Texas
10
f
M
I
Park and Recreational Facilities
~Apmd~NO. _ _
Respondents were asked whether they or a member of their f iqJ hat use a par .Qr
recreational facility, such as picnic areas, ball fields, swimming pools, or recreation centers in the
past 12 months. Overall, 60.6 percent of the respondents had used a park or recreational facility.
The largest percentages of recreational facility users had lived in Denton from one to five years,
were under 35 years old, had more education, were middle income, and had children in the
household (see Table 4).
Respondents who had used park and recreation facilities were then asked to rate selected
components of those facilities. Components included were hours of operation, personal safety,
location, cleanliness, and overall quality. Without question, Denton residents expressed
satisfaction with all aspects of park and recreation facilities (see Table 5). For each service or
characteristic, more than 90 percent of the respondents offered a rating of "very satisfied" or
"somewhat satisfied,"
Respondents were asked if they would like to see a comprehensive hiking and biking trail
constructed in Denton. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents were in favor of the trail. As
shown in Table 6, more support was indicated by renters. Support between age groups varied.
Those who were in favor of the trail ,veie asked if they would support a small tax increase to {
fund the trail, and 67.8 percent reported they would be in favor of the tax increase. The most
support was found among respondents who had lived in Denton from one to five years, rented
their homes, were employed in Denton, and had greater education and income levels (see Table
7).
Survey Research Center, University of North Texas
• 11
t
0
Recreational Facility Usagell3y Selected Demogra ;Apda . ' r 1
Demopraohic Percents a Us
Recreational FacilLength of Residence
3 to 12 months 45.5
1 to 5 years 74,0
6 to 10 years 60.0
More than 10 years 55.9
Age
18-25 80.0
26-35 79.3
36-45 63.5
46-60 56.6
61-70 54.5
71 and over 27.5
Education
Less than high school 27.3
High school 50.7
Some college 63.3
College graduate 70.5
Graduate school or more 67,9
Income
Less than $15,000 49,2
$15,000 to $25,000 67.2
$25,001 to $40,000 72,4
$40,001 to $60,000 64.5
Over $60,000 _ 57.6
Children in household
Yes 78,1
No 53.6
Survey Research Center, University of North Texas
12
Table 5 n
Satisfaction with Facility Component '
Attribute VOry Somewhat
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied
Hours of operation 56.7 40.8 2.1 .4
(n=233)
Personal Safety 54.0 39.6 4.3 2.1
(n=235)
Location 66.8 30.7 2.1 .4
(n=238)
Cleanliness 59.4 34.7 4.6 1.3
(n=239)
Overall Quality 54.8 39.7 3.8 1.7
(n=239)
Table 6
Support For Hiking and Biking Trail By Selected Demographics
Demographic Percentage
Supporting
Housing
Own 74,8
Rent 84.9
Age
18-25 90.0
26-35 83.9
36-45 84.3
46-60 76.2
61-70 82,5
71 and over 54.0
Survey Research Center, University gflvorth Term
13
o:
Table 7
Support For Tax to Fund Hike/Bike Trail By Selected77,
Demographic Percentage Su .2~
Years of Residence
3 to 12 months 56.3
1-5 years 82.4
6-10 years 63.5
Over 10 years 63.2
Housing
Own 61.4
Rent 77.4
Age
18-25 86.0
26-35 68.2
36-45 75.0
46-60 62.0
61-70 51.5
71 and over 56.0
Employed in Denton
Yes 72.6
No 58.8
Education
Less th?n high school 46,2
High school 52,7
Some college 67.0
Coliege graduate 68.3
Graduate school or more 88,3
Income
Less than $15,000 69.4
$15,000 to $25,000 65.2
$25,001 to $40,000 68.6
$40,001 to $b0,000 70.4
Over $60,000 75.0
Survey Research Center, University of Notth Texas
14
a
(
Recreation Programs f
w o At rll
Several questions on participation in park and recreation prog -
adult and youth leisure programs, and aerobics classes, followed. Twenty-two percent of those
surveyed indicated that a household member had been involved in a park or recreation program
in the past 12 months. Participation in park and recreation programs is most prevalent among
respondents who were 26 to 70, owned their homes or had children (see fable 8).
Table 8
Participation in Recreational Programs By Selected Demographics
Demographic Percentage
Participating
Housing
Own 26.8
Rent 15.7
Children
With children 39.6
Without children 15.6
Age
18-25 8.3
327,5
425,2
2Landover 27,8
626.2
712,5
Survey Research Censer, University ojNarih Texas
/S
z
Program participants were then asked to rate various factors o p%R
Apenda Ittm
programs (see Table 9). Most of the factors--quality of instruction, pr g
helpfulness and courtesy, and program content--had "very satisfied/satisfied" ratings above 90
percent. Only program scheduling had "very satisfied/satisfied" ratings below 90 percent (88.8
percent).
Table 9
Satisfaction With Park and Recreation Programs
Component Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied
Quality of instruction (n=78) 69.2 28.2 2.6 0.0
Program costs (n=80) 71.3 21.3 _ 3.8 3.8
Variety of programs (n=80) 53.8 40.0 6.3 0.0
Scheduling (n=80) 57.5 31.3 10.0 1.3
Staff helpfulness and courtesy (n=82) 72.0 24.4 3.7 0.0
Program content (n=79) 65.8 29.1 5.1 0.0
I
Survey Research Center, University of North Teras
16
h~en1+ Hn _
Code Enforcement r.,.., r^ri
Questions rating effectiveness of the city's enforcement progra that address ee~dr------
compliance and environmental health and safety concerns were asked of respondents. There was
some variation in "very effective" ratings. For example, control of high grass and weeds had the
lowest "very effective" rating of 28.7 percent (see Table 10). This compared to junk vehicles
(38.7 percent), litter (38.2 percent), and property cleanliness (36.0 percent). Highest percentages
of "very effective" ratings were given to illegal dumping (44.4 percent) and signs (41.4 percent).
When combining the "very/effective" and "somewhat effective" scores, there was little variation
in the ratings of code enforcement programs as ratings ranged between 83.5 percent for litter and
junk vehicles and 88.2 percent for property cleanliness.
People who work in Denton gave lower effectiveness ratings for controlling litter (80.8
percent very/somewhat effective) than people who do not work in Denton (88.1 percent).
Table 10
Ratings of Code Enforcement
Code Very Somewhat Somewhat Very
Effective Effective Ineffective Ineffective
High grass and weeds (n=396) 28.7 56.1 10.0 5.1
i
Junk vehicles (n=357) 38.7 44.8 11.5 5.0
Litter (n-387) 38.2 45.2 11.6 4.9
Illegal dumping (n=322) 44.4 41.0 9.9 4.7
Property cleanliness (n=381) 36.0 52.2 8.9 2.9
Signs (n=372) 41.1 46.0 8.6 4.0
Sunny Research Center, University of North Texas
17
V
Utility Department Services A,tndr rM it
Admda Ite~ri- l_^~
Respondents were asked to rate several utility department services ~Q*,:calm(' ~
"excellent," "good," "fair," or "poor". As sho Am in Table 11, most services had 30 percent or
more of the respondents gave a rating of "excellent." Likewise, 80 percent or more of the
respondents rated most services as "excellent" or "good." The only exception was with the
ratings of drainage. Twenty percent of the respondents rated this service as "excellent" and 46.6
percent rated it as "good" for a combined "excellent/good" rating of 66.6 percent.
There was some variation between demographic groups on these characteristics. People who live
in apartments had lower ratings of electricity (28.2 percent excellent) than those who live in homes (43.0
percent excellent). The same was true for people in the younger age groups (ravings ranged from 26.0
percent excellent for 18 to 25-year-olds to 45.1 percent for those over 70 years old).
Table 11
Ratings of Service provided by the Utility Department
Attribute Excellent Good Fair Poor
Electric 37.3 45.2 14.1 3.4
(r.=383)
Water 33.6 52.8 10.4 3.2
(n=375)
Waste Water 31.5 53.3 11.3 3.9
(n=362)
Solid waste/garbage 38.4 47.9 11.8 1.8
(n=380)
Customer Service 37.6 47.5 13.2 1.7
(n=356)
Drainage 20.0 46.6 20.8 12.6
(n= 365)
Survey Research Center, Unn-ersiry of North Teras
18
ti
u
t
ages rtd w7rt,
Respondents were also asked questions about informational mem
their monthly bills. Seventy-five percent reported that they read the informs ,
71.2 percent reported that they read the flyers (see Table 12). Informational messages were most
likely to be read by respondents in the 61 to 70 age group (90.7 percent). Both informational
messages and flyers were more likely to be read by women.
In contrast, only 29.9 percent read the informational ads in the Denton Record Chronicle.
The informational ads in the Denton Record Chronicle are more likely to be read by older
respondents, those who have lived in Denton longer or those who own their homes. When asked
if the information in the ads was helpful, 82.5 percent answered yes.
Table 12
Read Information From Utility Department
(n=375)
Category Percent Responded
Yes
Read the informational messages in bills (n=375) 75.2
Read the informational flyers in bills (n=375) 71.2
ational ads in Denton Record Chronicle (n=395) 29.9
Read inform
Respondents were next asked if the rates charged for several utility services were
reasonable considering the quality of service received. As shown in Figure 3, the percentage of
respondents indicating that the services are reasonable range are highest for solid waste (89.1
percent). Eighty percent of the respondents reported that water charges were reasonable, and
76.0 percent of the respondents reported that electricity charges were reasonable. The lowest
"reasonable" ratings were for waste water charges (74.9 percent).
These ratings varied by demographic groups. For example, respondents who owned their
homes had lower "reasonable" ratings for electricity, water, and waste water charges (see Tables
Survey Research Ccnier, University ofNorih Texas
19
13 through 15). A greater percentage of respondents in younger Q~~IM4
A;Md
ratings of water and waste water. Respondents employed in Den lµ1so- ad rz so
electricity and water.
Figure 3
Utility Service Rates Reasonable Considering Quality of Service
(n=382)
~ oo°x
90°,6 89.7 °,6
h 79.7%
80% 76.0% 74.9%
i
70%
60%
SO%
40%30%.
20%
0%
Electric Water Waste Water Sold Waste
Table 13
Ratings of Electricity Charges by Selected Demographic Groups
Demographic Percentage Indicating
Reasonable Char"
Employed in Denton
Yes 78.5
No 67.0
Housing
Own 71.9
Rent 82.4
Stoney Research Center, University oj;Yorth Tecas
20
f
4
Table 14 np:n'.a 0
.
Ratings of Water Charges by Selected Demograph caGr in
Uuc
Demographic Percentage In ica ine
Reasonable Charges
Employed in Denton
Yes 84,0
No 72.5
Housing
Own 74,8
Rent 89.4
Age
18-25 _ 100.0
26-35 i 75.5
36-45 77.1
46-60 82.8
61-70 70.7
71 and over 71.7
Table 15
Ratings of Waste Water Charges by Selected Demographic Groups
Demographic Percentaee Indicating
Reasonable Charges
Housing
Own 70.0
Rent _ 84.5
Age
18-25 97.4
26-35 75.0
36-45 80.3
46-60 70.1
61-70 63.2
71 and over 64.3
Survey Research Center, University of North Texas
21
i
Respondents were next asked if they had contacted the utility de a4it'*WI
R~mda art
months. Forty-eight percent of the respondents reported that they had c rftok
department (see Figure 4). Respondents with more education or more income were more likely
to contact a utility department.
When asked which department they had contacted, 61_1 percent of the respondents
indicated they had contacted the electric department (see Table 16). The water department had
been contacted by 13.5 percent of the respondents, and the solid waste/garbage department had
been contacted by 9.7 percent. Aside from customer service (8.6 percent), the remaining
departments had been contacted by less than 5 percent of the respondents. Overall, 84.8 percent
of the respondents were satisfied with the assistance they received, and 93.4 percent rated the
utility staff as helpful and courteous (see Table 17).
Respondents were asked if they would be willing to pay an additional fee on their utility
bill to fund more drainage projects (see Figure 5). Thirty-four percent of the respondents
reported that they would be willing to pay the extra fee.
A
Sunev Research Center, University ojNorth Texas
22
a
t.
AacnQa Ilo...
Figure 4 A2eoda Item
Contacted the Utility Department in Past 12 i ]dktt
(n=395)
Yes No
47.8%
52.2°h
Table 16
Utility Department Most Recently Contacted
(n=185)
Department Percent
Resvondine
Electric 61,1 I
Water 13.5
Solid Waste/Garbage 9.7
Customer Service 8,6
Drainage - 1.6
Waste Water/Sewer 1.1
Public Information 1,1
Other 3.2
Sun ey Re: eorch Center, University of North Tasar
23
t
M
{
l
f
Table 17 c' r
Utility Department Contact Related
Category Percentage Responding
Yes
Satisfied with assistance (n=184) 84 8
Contacted persons courteous and Mpful (n=181) 93.4
I
i Figure 5
Support Paying Additional Fee to Pay for Drainage Projects
(n=361)
Yes
No
338 66,2%
Survey Research Center, University of North Texas
24 ~
t
L
l
r,
V ho _n
Respondents were asked several other questions regarding el ctricityis
Da:c
asked how often they experienced a power outage, 46.8 percent res efi Imes see
Figure 6). Thirty-eight percent reported power outages of a greate~:-cauency, while 14.3 percent
reported experiencing no power outages. Power outages were more common among
homeowners (87.4 percent reporting 1 or more outages) than renters (81 percent).
When asked about the response time of the electric department, 33.2 percent reported the
response time was excellent, and 47.8 percent reported response time was good (see Table 18).
{
I
Surrey Research Center, University ofSorrh Teras
25
f
Figure 6
/lper43 r'n _1
Number of Power Oatages in the Last 12 Mon h&
(n=391) `
~ oov.
70%
60 X
so% 46.13%
40%
30 X
19,4% 118.996
20X 14.8°h
10%
0%
None 1.3 times 4 - 6 times More than 6 l mes
Table 18
Ratings for Response Time
(n=322)
Percent
Resvonding
Excellent 38.2 i
Good 47.8
Fai, 11.2
Poor 2.8
Survey Research Center, Universirv of North Texas
s
Respondents were asked if they currently recycle, and 67.7 per e*At~ t3~
reported that they do recycle (see Figure 7). More homeowners recyc *a3. + er t
renters (58.4 percent). As shown in Table 19, when asked why they do not recycle, the most
common responses were "too busy" (14.0 percent) or "recycling is too much work" (14.0
percent). Those who do not recycle were asked if they would recycle if a site was located closer
to them. Sixty-eight percent reported that they would -recycle with a closer recycling site.
When asked if they would support reducing regular garbage collection to once a week in
order to provide curbside recycling, 53.3 percent responded yes (see Figure 8). Fifty-one percent
of these respondents indicated they would also be willing to pay an additional fee for curbside
recycling (see Figure 9). When asked how much they would pay, 29.3 percent stated less than
two dollars (see Table 20). Thirty-five percent indicated 2 to 3 dollars, and 21.2 percent indicated
3 to 4 dollars. Fourteen percent said they would pay more than 4 dollars.
Survey Research Center, University of North Texas
27
a
Figure 7 A+ vda loo _
Currently Recycle Da Item
(n=399) Date re
Yes 11
67.7% No
323%
Table 19
Reasons For Not Recycling
(n=129)
Reason Percent Responding
No reason 34.0
Too busy 14,0
Recycling is too much work 14.0
Not interested in recycling 10.9 ;
No recycling centers nearby g.$
tither 13.6
Survey Research Center, Unirershy of North Texas
28
Agenda No
Figure 8 agenda No
Support Reducing Regular Garbage Collection to Provide C r8u4e Recd clin•
(n=377)
No
46.7%
f
Yes
53.3%
1
Survo Research Center, University of North Teas
29
a
Agenda No.
Figure 9 Agenda Hem
Willing to Pay Additional Fee for Curbside gin
(n=195)
No
487%
F
Yes
51.3X,
Table 20
Willing to Pay Per 1Nlonth for Curbside Recycling
(n=99)
Amount Percent Responding
Less Than $2.00 29.3
Between $2.00 to $3.00 35.4
Bem-een $3.00 to $4.00 21,2
More Than $4,00 14.1
SLrvq Research Center, University offorih Teras
30
Agenda NO
Animal Control Agenda 0en
cae
Ratings for the city's animal control program were somewha ixrdsez=~igwe`Tt~~A
total of 72.7 percent of those surveyed rated the program as "excellent" (27.8 percent) or "good"
(44.9 percent), while the remainder rated the program as "fair (18.1 percent) or "poor" (9.2
percent).
h Figure 10
Overall Ratings of Animal Control Program
(n=370)
100%
9094
60Y°
70%
60%
60% 44.9%
40%
30°A. 27.6%
20% 18. a %
9.25E
10%
0°,4
txce lens Good Far Poor
I
Sun-ey Research Center, Universiry ojNorrh Teras
3!
4
Emergency Services 4genda t1o
Rp!ada Iten _
Emergency services include police services and services offe ea•by.tBeFir
All respondents were asked to evaluate t'.e performance of Denton's Police Department. As
shown in Figure 11, the largest percentage (45.3 percent) rated the department as "good," with
39.7 percent providing an "excellent" rating, for a combined "excellent/good" rating of 85.0
percent. Ninety percent of the respondents who own their homes gave an "excel] ent/good" rating
compared to 78.6 percent of the respondents who rent their home.
Next respondents were asked if they or a member of their family had requested the
services of or come into contact with Denton's Police Department during the past 12 months.
Forty-four percent of the respondents said they had contact with the police (see Figure 12). Those
who had contacted the police were asked to rate the services provided by the police department
on the basis of three factors: speed of response, courtesy and professionalism. The results are
shown in Table 21. The ratings of "excellent" in most areas were quite good. courtesy (59.5
percent) and professionalism (58.1 percent). Speed in responding to calls were slightly lower.
r While 83.8 percent rated response Ome as excellent (40.0 percent) or good (43.8 percent), 16.2
percent rated response time as fair (10.6 percent) or poor (5.6 percent).
Survey Research Center, Vniversioy of North Texas
32
t
Figure 11 r7sr'1 rn ~~Q'~
Overall Ratings of Police Department
(n=382) F80%
x
70%
sox
SOY. 45.3%
39.7%
40%
30%
20%
12.9%
10% 1[4MV 2.1%
ox
Exreitent Good F& Pbor
~I
Survey Research Center, Unlversiry of North Texas
33
r
a
i
=Jie4p
Figure 12 Came in Contact with Police Department in Past (n=402) F No
55,7°x6
Yes
44.3%
Table 21
Ratings of Police Responsiveness, Professionalism and Courtesy
Component Excellent Good Fair Poor
Speed in responding to calls (n=160) 40.0 43.8 10.6 5.6 I
Courtesy (n=173) 59.5 30.6 5.8 4.0
Professionalism {n=172) 58.1 29.7 8.1 4.1 1
Survey Research Center, University of.Vorrh Texas
34
tic^?] rlo .
+
reii#ii
Finally, all respondents were asked if they were aware of the "C rff
Oata
Policing" program. Thirty-two percent were aware of the program, and 68.2 percent were not
aware of the program. Those who were more knowledgeable about the program were long time
residents, homeowners, 46 to 70 years old, and upper income (see Table 22).
Table 22
Awareness of Community Oriented Policing Program By Selected Demographics
Demographic Percentage Indicating
Awareness
Years of Residence
3 to 12 months 26.1
1.5 years 19.8
6-10 years 28.2
Over 10 years 40.0
Housing
Own 37.6
Rent 22.4
Age
18-25 20.0
26-35 19.3
36-45 35.7
46-60 41.9
61-70 40.5
71 and over 22.0
Income
Less than $15,000 17.7
$15,000 to $25,000 27.9
$25,001 to $'40,000 30.3
$40,001 to $60,000 43.8
Over $60,000 41.7
Survey Research Cenier, University of North Teras
35
t
M
1
l
Respondents were then asked to rate the Denton Fire Department. As. shown in Fi ure
13, 51.5 percent of the respondents rated the Fire Department as excell-a~ .
it as good.
Respondents were asked if they had called the Denton Fire Department for assistance
with a fire, and 6.1 percent indicated they had (see Figure 14). Those respondents were then
asked to rate the service provided (see Table 23). Seventy-one percent rated the service as
excellent, and 16.7 percent rated service as good.
Respondents were also asked if they had called the Denton Fire Department for
ambulance or paramedic service within the past year. Thirteen percent of the respondents
indicated that they had contacted the Fire Department for ambulance or paramedic service in the
last year (see Figure 15). Of those who had requested paramedic or ambulance service, 64.0
percent rated the service as excellent, and 30.0 percent rated it as good (see Table 24).
j
Sumey Research Center, University of North Texas
36
y
Figure 13 A,anLa k=n
Overall RatinLs of Fire Department WIC
(n=338)
100%
90%.
80°/.
z0x
6056
51.5%
sox
40%. 38.2%
30%.
20%
89%
lox
1.5%
ov. i
Excellent Good Fair Poor
~I
Surrey Research Center, UnNersiry Df North Texas
37
L
K
Figure 14
Called Denton Fire Department for Assistance 11 Fire r~Phu feat -
(n=395)
939%
%
Yes
6.1°L
Table 23
f Ratings for Denton Fire Department Service Provided
(n=24)
Rating Percent
_ Responding _
Excellent 70.8
Good 16.7
Fair I2 5
Poor OA
Suney Research Centcr, Unirersio.OfNarth 7eras
38
JJ y
S
42c,ld] no
Figure 15 At aqa 1%n
Called the Fire Department For Ambulance or Paramedi iRzj P ~
(n=228)
C5y Y
es
12,5%
Table 24
Ratings For Ambulance or Paramedic Service
(n=50)
Rating
Percent
Responding
Excel le,i 64.0
rood
Fair 4. 0
4.0
Poor 2.0
Survey Research Center, University of North texas
39
r
ij
R
C. Ratings of Infrastructure Agenda to
A ge~da Itrn
Streets Date ^
Respondents were asked to rate the condition of streets and roads in the city. As shoran
in Figure 16, most respondents answered "good" (45.9 percent). Thirty-seven percent rated
streets as fair, 12.5 percent as poor, and 4.5 percent as excellent.
Figure 16
Condition of Streets and Roads
(n=399)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50% 459%
%
40% 37.1 °6
30%
20%
10% 4,5% 12.5%
0%
Excellent Good Fair
Poor
Survey Research Center, University of North Taras
40
0
i
Respondents were asked whether the condition of Denton 's Sir MAgenda fie,
Olt
better, stayed the same or gotten worse over the last 5 years. As shown in figure z~----
percent of the respondents reported that the condition of streets had improved. Twenty-one
percent reported conditions had gotten worse, and 40.8 percer:t reported they stayed the same.
Ratings were more favorable among residents who do not work in Denton.
i
Figure 17
Denton's Streets and Roads' Change in Last 5 Years
(n=380)
Same
40.8%
Worse
21.3%
Better
37.9%
Su; ve), Research Center, University ofi'orrh Texas
41
C
A,re~Ca I:a _ ~(J
Sidewalks
r,.,rnQa Hzn
Respondents were also asked how important sidewalks were to th m as enton residents.
As shown in Figure 18, 50.3 percent of the respondents indicated that sidewalks were very
important, and 26.0 percent indicated they were somewhat important. "Very important" ratings
' were more common among renters (58 percent) than homeowners (45.0 percent). "Very
important" ratings were also most common among 26 to 35 year-olds (64.9 percent) and steadily
declined with respondent age.
Figure IS
Importance of Sidewalks
(n=392)
Somewhat
Important
26.0%
Not Important
23.7%
Very Important
50.3%
Suney Research Center, Unner h>, ofNorlh Terns
4I
qtr
r
I i.
M~Zhborhood Conditions ti0enda uo ?
A.0^nCa f~'^}^t
Respondents were asked to rate the condition of their neighborho R'OA~s>it~
Figure 19, 29.1 percent of the respondents rated their neighborhood as "excellent," and 52.6
percent rated their. neighborhood as "good." A ratings; improve among respondents with higher
incomes, home o%Nmership, and older ages.
Figure 19
Ratings of Neighborhood Conditions
(n=399)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
51.6°5
50%
40%
29,1 %
30%
i
20% 148%
10%
3.5%
0%
Excellent Good Fair
Poor
Survey Research Center, Unii ersity of North Texas
43
L
Economic Develo ment Tar
ApenQp flo a
Respondents were asked if a portion of utility revenue should ^ e, ^
economic development in Denton, and fift _ 80 ~he1p ^ Q ~p
y two percent said yes. This response was more
common among renters aid varied among respondents from different age groups (see Table 25).
Support Por'ion of Utili gable 25
I3 ty' Revenue For Economic Development
Y Selected Demographics
Demo ra hic
Percentage Suu-- °-°nine ,
Housing
Urn
Rent 44.5
Age ` 63.9
18-25
26-35 77.1
35-45 50.0
* 46-60 55.6
61-70 47.3
71 and over 35.9
41.9
Survey Research Censer, L r, ii ersrty oJNorrh Texas
~4
S
41
5
f
4~ ,
D. Communication With City and Staff A ,e3 uem _
Dale," _
Local goveraments often pride themselves on being the "government closest to the
people"--the government most easily contacted when citizens have problems. Most council
members, city managers, and city staff members undoubtedly would agree that citizens do not
hesitate to call city hall. To determine the degree of citizen-local government interaction in
I~ Denton, respondents were asked if they had contacted anyone in the City of Denton's government
f about a problem, a request for service, or for information during the previous year.
Twenty-six percent of the respondents reported that they had contacted the city about a
complaint, request for service or information within the past 12 months. A s shown in Table 26,
the percentage of respondents who contacted the city was higher among homeowners and
increased with income and education.
Table 26
Contact with the City by Selected Demographics
Demographic Contacted the Citv
Housing
Own 28.9
Rent 20.3
Income
Less than $15,000 13.8
$15,000 to $25,000 24.2
$25,001 to $40,000 24.7
$40,001 to $60,000 32.9
Over $60,000 35.6
Education
Less than high school 19,0
High school 4.2
Some college _ 32.1
College graduate 25.3
Graduate school 34.6
Survey Research Center, University of North Teras
45
P
w
l
i
[143 Item aft ^
Respondents who had contacted the city were then asked who they contacted, w; ether the
People contacted were courteous, and if the problem, request, or question had been resolvej.
Table 27 reports the results of the citizen-initiated contact questions. The office of the city
manager was contacted most often by residents (13.4 percent), followed by the water department
(12.4 percent), police department (9.3 percent), and mayor or city council (8.2 percent). Ninety
percent of those surveyed indicated that the person they contacted was courteous, with a smaller
percentage (74.7 percent) indicating that the problem, request, or question had been resolved (see
Table 28)•
All respondents were asked to rate the city's professional management staff. As indicated
in Figure 20, the majority of respondents provided a favorable overall rating of the professional
staff, with 13.4 percentjudging performance to be "excellent" and 55.5 percent categorizing it as
"good"--for an overall "excellent/good" rating of 68.9 percent.
a
Survey Research Center, University ofAbrth Texas
46
r
u
F
1
Table 27
F~,aad~f;n
L' d
Percent Reporting Contact ttiith Denton Off idd~s _
(N=154)
Percen_ t Reoortis
City manager Contact
Water dep,,rtment 13.4
Police 12.9
Mayor or council 9.3
Code compliance 8.2
Planning/zoning 5.2
Parks1recreation 5'2
Building inspections 5.2
Fire 2.1
Library 1.0
Tax office 1.0
Other 0.0
36.1
Table 28
Ratirgs of the Contacts
LService CategoryPercent
contacts courteous? Responding Yes
ll resolve probl.;m? 90.3
74.7
I
Suney Research Ce:ner, Unrrersjo~ ofNorrh Texas
47
r
Z
t
f
1
AOenC~ IVo
Figure 20 Agenda I;em
Ratings of City Management D~rei
(n=357)
100%
60%.
70%
i
60% 55.5%
60%-
40%-
30%- 25.6%
20%- 13.4%
10%
5.3%
OX
w AN.
Excellent Good Fair Poor
SuneyResearch Center, Univmiry oj,VorrhTesas
J8
f '
ii
Cable Television Agenda 110.
A„nda !^m
Sixty-three percent of *.he respondents in Denton have cable tel:v 'an-,- scriptrens
cable television increased with income. When asked if they have ever watched Channel 26, 53.0
percent said yes. Those who reported they had watched Channel 26 were asked how often. As
shown in Table 29, 51,1 percent reported they watch Cf annel 26 once a month or less. Fourteen
percent watch it several times a month, and 27.8 percent watch it once per week. Eight percent
watch Channel 26 more than once a week.
Those who watch Channel 26 were asked if they watch city council meetings. Sixty
percent of the respondents who watch Channel 26 reported that they do watch city council
meetings. Eighty percent of those reported they watch the meetings occasionally, and 13.8
i
percent report they watch them once a month (see Table 30).
Overall, 66.9 percent of those who watch Channel 26 felt more informed about city
programs, services and issues. When asked if watching Channel 26 has helped form an opinion
of city government, 12.4 percent reported a more favorable opinion of city government, and 18.2
percent reported a less favorable opinion of city government (see Figure 21). 'thirty six percent
of the respondent; who watch Channel 26 supported an increase of 50 cents to provide expanded
programming.
Survey Research Center, Universit ojNorrh Texas
49
Y
Y
r
III
I
F
Table 29
How Often Channel 26 is Watched
(n=133)
Rate
Percent Responding
b4ore than once a week
Once per w,ek 27.8
Several times a month 8
Once a month or less 13.5
51.1 `
Table 30
Watch City Council Dleetings
(n=30)
~ Rate
Most
=6
Once a month Occasionally Figure 21
Influence of Channel 26 on Opinion of City Government
(n=121)
Mora
+m
Same
7055
Less
ae~c
Sun ey Research Censer, UniVersrry of Vonh Texas
50
7
u
1
i
Denton Visioning Program Ap a1a rJo kz _
Respondents were asked several questions regarding Denton's Dare -
respondents were asked if they were aware of the conclusions and recommendations of the
program. Twenty-one percent of the respondents reported awareness of the recommendations.
As shown in Table 31, respondents who knew about the program were likely to be homeowners,
older, employed in Denton or better educated. Sixty-six percent of t11e respondents who were
aware of the program supported the recommendations. Several people made comments about the
recommendations (These are available in Appendix B).
Survey Research Center, University of North Torus
S1
i
I
T
3
c
Table 31
Awareness of Denton Visioning Program By Selected De op5phics " -J
Demographic Aware of
Recommendations
Housing
Own 26.9
Rent 10.9
Age
18-25 8.0
26-35 12.1
36-45 17.6
46-60 29.9
61-70 27.3
71 and over 22.4
Employed in Denton
Yes 24.8
No 12.5
Income
Less than $15,000 6.3
$15,000 to $25,000 12.7
$25,001 to $40,000 19.5
$40,001 to $60,000 27.6
Over $60,000 33.3
Education
Less than high school 9.1
High school 7.0
Some college 13.9
College graduate 25.3
Graduate school 41.3
Surrr
Keseu;;h Center, Unhvrsiry of North Texas
52
r
rn'~ ~,a . r'"1
It^.r1 1
Q% _
APPENDIX A:
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
Survey Research Center, Unn-ersfry of A'arth Texas
33
I~
DENTON CITIZEN SURVEY 099,
Ii11 tJt ~i^, _
a. . The City of Denton is conductin a u 'e '.off its citizens arnd
eak with anyone age I8 or older. TO RESPONDENT: The city is conducting
rmine how citizens rate city services. The questions I want to ask you will take
Hello
Larew
tes and your answers %kill be useful to the city staff and council as they
ns about city services. All ofyour answers tail] be kept confidential.
1. First, how long have you lived in Denton? (DO NOT READ
RESPONSES WHEN ALL IN CAPS)
1. LESS THAN 3 MONTHS (TERMINATE INTERVIEW)
2. NO LONGER LIVE IN DENTON JER,NIINATE INTERVIEW)
3. 3 TO 12 MONTHS
4. 1-5 YEARS
5. 6-10 YEARS
6. MORE THAN 10 YEARS
9. NO RESPONSE/DON'T KNOW (NR/DK)
2. Generally, would you rate Denton an excellent, good, fair, or poor place to live.
L Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
3. Generally, would you rate the condition of your neighborhood as excellent, good fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
4. Have the condition of Denton's streets and roads, gotten better, stayed the same, or gottsn worse over
the past 5 years?
1. Better 2. Same 3. Worse
9. NR/DK
5. Are sidewalks very important, somewhat important, or not important to you as a Denton resident?
1. Very 2. Somewhat 3. Not 9. NR/DK
6. Nest, I'm going to ask you questions about parks and recreation facili ie P3o g
about city facilities (such as parks, picnic areas, ball fields, swimming pools, a _ ati caters
have you or a member of your household used any park or recreation f~cilitic7lif t s?
4
1. YES (ASK Q 6A) 2. NO (SKIP TO Q 7) 9. NR/DK
6A. Regarding the facilities you have used, are you very satisfied, some what satisfied, somewhat
dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with each of the following?
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very NR/DK
sat sat dissat dissat
a. Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 9
b. Personal safety 1 2 3 4 9
c. Location 1 2 3 4 9
d. Cleanliness 1 2 3 4 9
e. Overall quality l 2 3 4 9
7. Would you be in favor of a comprehensive hiking and biking trail system in the city?
1. YES (ASK 7A) 2. SKIP TO Q8) 9. NR/DK
7A. Would you support slight increas in the current tax rate to pay for hiking and bike trails?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
7. Now, thinking only about city recreation programs such as athletic programs, adult and youth
leisure programs, aerobics classes, and so forth, have you or a member of your household
participated in any Denton park or recreation program in the past 12 months?
1. YES (ASK Q7A) 2. NO (SVJP TO Q8) 9. NR/DK
7A. Regarding the programs your household has participated in, are you very satisfied, somewhat
satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied with each of the following?
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very NR/DK
sat sat dissat dissat
a. Quality of instruction 1 2 3 4 9
b. Program costs 1 2 3 4 9
c. Variety of Programs 1 2 3 4 9
d. Scheduling 1 2 3 4 9
e. Staff helpfulness and
courtesy 1 2 3 4 9
f. Program content 1 2 3 4 9
S. Have you or a member of your family Wed the Denton Public Library in the past year?
1. YES (ASK QSA-S) 2. NO (SKIP TO Q9) 9. NR/DK
8A. Generally, are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, some+vha did~ atisfied, '
dissatisfied with the library and its services? , .e
L Very satisfied 3. Somewhat dissatisfied Oaic- -
2. Somewhat satisfied 4. Very dissatisfied 9. NR/DK
8B. Please rate the following library services as excellent, good,
fair, or poor.
Excellent Good Fair Poor NR/DK
a. Hours of operation 1 2 3 4 9
b. Book selection 1 2 3 4 9
C. Special programs 1 2 3 4 9
d. Availability of materials l 2 3 4 9
e. Staff helpfulness and
courtesy 1 2 3 4 9
9. The City of Denton provides enforcement programs that address code compliance, and
environmental health and safety concems. In each of the following areas how effective is the
enforcement program? As I mention each program, just answer very effective, somewhat
effective, or somewhat ineffective, or very ineffective.
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very NR/DK
Area Effective Effective Ineffecti~.c Ineffective
High grass and weeds 1 2 3 4 9
Junk vehicles 1 2 3
Litter l 4 9
Il legal dumping 1 2 3 4 9
2 3 4 9
Property Cleanliness 1 2 3 q
Signs 1 2 3 9
4 9
10. Should the City of Denton use tax dollars to continue landscaping of city property such as
street medians, land around city buildings, and parks?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
11. How would you rate Denton's animal control program? Would you rate it as excellent,
good, fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
12. The next several questions concern the Denton Police Department. First, would you rate
the Denton Police Department's overall performance as excellent, good, fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 3. Fair
2. Good 4. Poor 9, NR/DK
:ptr~'3 NO 13. Ilave you or any member of your family requested the servi:es off
r;emrn im
with, Denton's Police Department during the past year?
Cate
1. Yes (ASK Q 13A) 2. No (SKIP TO Q14) 9. NR/DK
13A. Now I would like for you to rate the performance of the Denton Police
Department in three specific areas as being excellent, good, fair, or poor. The
first area is "speed in responding to calls." Would you rate the Denton
Police Department as excellent, good, fair, or poor in this area?
INTERVIEWER: REPEAT FOR EACH AREA.
Excellent Good Pair Poor NR/D1C
Speed in Responding 1 2 3 4 9
to calls
Courtesy 1 2 3 4 9
Professionalism 1 2 3 4 9
14. Are you aware of the city's Community Oriented Policing program?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
15. The next several questions concern the Denton Fire Department. First, would you rate
the Denton Fire Department's overall performance as excellent, good, fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 3. Fair
2. Good 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
16. Have you or anyone in your household called the Denton Fire Department for
assistance with a fire in the past year?
1. Yes (ASK QI6A) 2. No (SKIP TO Q17) 9. NR/DK
16A. Would you rate the service provided by the fire department as excellent, good,
fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 3. Fair
2. Good 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
17. Have you or anyone in your household called the Denton Fire Department for an
ambulance or other paramedic service during the past year?
1. YES (ASK Q17A) 2. NO (SKIP TO Q18) 9. NR/DK
17A. Would you rate the ambulance or paramedic service as excellent, good,
fair, or poor?
i. Excellent 3. Fair
2. Good 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
r
L
g
The next several questions concern the services provided by the utility departure it. GX tQ---~-St---
18. Would you rate the following services provided by the utility departure tas excellent-
,-good;-4'm;----or poor?
Y~
Excellent Good Fair Poor NR/DK
a. electric 1 2 3 4 9
b. water 1 2 3 4 9
C. waste water/sewer 1 2 3 4 9
d. solid waste/garbage 1 2 3 4 9
e. customer service 1 2 3 4 9
f. drainage 1 2 3 4 9
19. Often your utility bill has informational messages printed on it or information flyers are included
with the bill. Do you:
YES NO NR/DK
a. read the informational messages 1 2 9
b. read the flyers 1 2 9
20. Are the rates charged for the following utility services reasonable considering the quality of
service received:
YES NO NR/DK
a. electric 1 2 9
b. water 1 2 9
c. wastewater 1 2 9
d. solid waste 1 2 9
21, In the past 12 months have you or a member of your family contacted the utility department for
any reason?
1. YES (ASK 21A-C) 2. NO (SKIP TO 22) 9. NR/DK
21A. Which utility department did you most recently contact?
a. electric 1
b. water 2
c. waste water/sewer 3
d. solid waste/garbage 4
e. customer service 5
f. public information 6
g, drainage 7
h. other - 8
NR/DK 9
21 B. Were you satisfied with the assistance you received?
1. YES 2, NO 9. NR/DK
u
21 C. Was the person(s) you contacted courteous and helpful? ~cene3 ho _
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK Ac~nda Item
Date.~5 _
22. Would you support paying an additional fee on your utility bill each m n li toTielp pay for more ,
drainage projects?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
23. Currently residential garbage is collected mice a week. Would you support reducing regualr
garbage collection to once a week in order to provide curbside recycling pick up?
' 1. YES (ASK 23A) 2. NO (SK!;' TO 24) 9. NR/DK
23A. Would you be willing to pay an additional fee for curbside recycling?
1. YES (ASK 23B) 2. NO (SKIP to 24) 9. NR/DK
23B. How much per month would you be willing to pay for curbside recycling?
1. Icss than $2.00
2. between $2.00 to $3.00
3. between $3.00 to $4.00
4. more than $4.00
9. NR/DK
24. Do you currently recycle?
1. YES (SKIP TO 25) 2. NO (ASK 24A-B)
24A . Is there any particular reason you don't recycle?
1, NOT INTERESTED IN RECYCLING
2. TOO BUSY
3. RECYCLING IS TO MUCH WORK
4. NO RECYCLING SITES CLOSE BY
5. NO REASON
6. OTHER
9. NR/DK
24B. Would you recycle if there was a recycling site located close by you?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
25. In the last year, how often have you experienced an electrical power outage?
1. none (SKIP TO 26)
2. 1-3 times (ASK 25A)
3. 4-6 times (ASK 25A)
4. more than 6 times (ASK 25A)
9. NR/DK
25A. How would you rate the electric department's respons t Oo"" o
1. excellent 2. good t., nG I;°~
3. fair 4. poor 9. NR/DK "
26. Should a portion of utility revenue go to help promote economic development in Denton?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
27. The utility department places informational ads in the Wednesday edition of the Denton Record
Chronicle. Do you read these ads?
1. YES (ASK 27A) 2. NO (SKIP TO 28) 9. NR/DK
27A.. Do you find the information in the ads helpful?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
28. Would you rate the condition of streets and roads in the city as excellent, good, fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Poor 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
29. Now I would like to ask you about contacts you have had with city officials. Have you or a member of
your household contacted the City of Denton about a complaint, request for service, or for information in
the past 12 months?
1. YES (ASK Q 29 A,B, C) 2. NO (SKIP TO Q 30) 9. NR/DK
29A. Who in the city did you contact, what person or office?
01. CITY MANAGER 08. POLICE
02. MAYOR OR COUNCIL 09. FIRE
03. WATER DEPARTMENT 10. PARKS AND RECREATION
04. TAX OFFICE 11. LIBRARY
05. PLANNING/ZONING 12. OTHER
06. BUILDING INSPECTIONS 99. NR/DK
07. CODE COMPLIANCE
29B. Were the people you contacted courteous?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
29C. Did the call resolve your proble.n, request, or question?
1. YF,S 2. NO 9. NR/DK
30. Referring only to the professional management staff of the city, such as city manager and department
heads, would you rate the way the City of Denton is managed as excellent, good, fair, or poor?
1. Excellent 2. Good 3. Fair 4. Poor 9. NR/DK
31. Does your household subscribe to cable television?
1. YES (ASK Q31A) 2. NO (SKIP TP Q32)9. NR/DK
r
G
A,erda 1!0 ~ O
31A. Have you ever watched the City's government access dbTV c
w
Channel 26? eax
1. YES (ASK 31 A.1 - A.2) 2. NO (SKIP TO Q32) NR/D'
31 A.1. Do you watch channel 26 more than once a week,
approximately once per week, several time per month, or once p nonth or
less?
1. More than once week 2. Once per week 3. Several' s month
1. Once month or less 9. NR/DK
31A.2. Have you watched City Council meetings on Channel
1. YES (ASK 31A.2.1) 2. NO (SKIP TO 31 B)
31A.2.1. Would you say that you watch the City Council meetings
most of the time, once a month, or occasionally.
1. Most (ASK 31 B) 2. Once por month (ASK 31B)
3. Occasionally (ASK 31B) 9. NR/DK
31B. Asa result of watching Channel 26 do you feti more informed about City
programs, services, or issues?
1, YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
31C. Asa result of watching Channel 26 has your overall opinion of
Denton's City government become more favorable, less favorable, or stayed
about the same?
1. More 2. Less 3. Same 9. NR/DK
31D. Would you be willing to pay a charge of 50 cents on your cable TV bill
each month to expand programming on Channel 26 such as telecasting
Planning and Zoning meetins, rebroadcasting city council meetings, and
covering public forums?
1. YES 2. NO
32. Are you aware of the conclusions and recommendations developed by Denton's Visioning Program?
1. YES (ASK 32A-B) 2. NO (SKIP TO 33) 9. NR/DK
32A Do you support the conclusions and recommendaitons develop A by the Visioning Program?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
32B. Do you have any commons in reagrd to the recornmedations?
Now for the last few questions, I would like to ask you several things about yourself so that we can
develop a general profile of our sample. First of all, do you own your home or do you rent?
33. 1. Own 2. Rent 9. NR/DK
ICI
4
M
t
.r
7
Agenda IJo.
ale Item
Agaila
34. Into which of the following age groups do you fall? D
1. 18-25 3. 36-45 5.61-70 Date-
2. 26-35 4. 46-60 6.71 and over 9. NR/DK
35. Is your place of employment in Denton?
1. YES 2, NO 9. NR/DK
36. How many years of education have you completed?
1. 8 OR LESS 5. 16, COLLEGE GRAD
2.9-11, SOME HIGH SCHOOL 6.17 OR MORE, GRAD SCHOOL/GRAD DEGREE
3. 12, HIGH SCHOOL GRAD 9. NR/DK
4.13-15, SOME COLLEGE
37. I am going to read several different income categories. Without telling me your exact income, into
which category did your total household income for the past year fall?
1. Less than $15,000 3.25,001-40,000 5.0ver 60,000
2. 15,000-25,000 4.40,001-60,000 9. NR/DK
38. Do you have any children age 18 or younger living in your householl?
1. YES 2. NO 9. NR/DK
39. To what racial or ethnic group do you belong?
1. WHITE 2. BLACK 3. HISPANIC 4. ASIAN 9. NRfDK
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. We believe that this
project will help city officials provide better services to all citizens.
INTERVIEWER: RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT 1. FEMALE 2. MALE 9, NR/DK
;o '
Ape","
~,'eaC~ If:n
Dstc
APPENDIX B:
OPEN ENDED RESPONSES
Survey Research Center, Unlrersity ojNorrh Texas
63
S
f
Comments on the Denton Visionin Program LA;ena da too.
dltam
The program is vane; it should be focused on the people who live in D -
businesses to Denton.
Too much talk and very little action.
I think that there is enough development and enough too much traffic problems.
they are vague generalizations and not connected to real life. I felt they were out of touch with
future economic development--specifically that we will be absorbed by North Dallas and Ft.
Worth in the near future. I would recommend that they look at the city of Boulder, Co. as an
example of the direction that I would like to see Denton move in.
I would like Denton to stay the same.
We need to develop more business and rely on our local contractors.
Leave Denton the way it is; don't try to expand business.
Public transportation is not dealt with.
Some seem far fetched and expensive.
Insightful conclusions; head off problems before they start; address the drug problem in cement
city.
Continue toward economic development plan.
Better prioritization.
Denton needs to take a hard look at its self.
Denton needs alternate forms of mass transit to the metroplex.
I don't favor using utility money economic development. I think that the universities do not
contribute enough for the economic growth of the cities. I do not support growth for
growth's sake alone. I am not for tax breaks for industries to locate in this area.
They need to be thought through.
Survey Research Center, University of;Yordt Terns
64
v
r
J
Agends ft
AQende !tarn
oete -d
March 26, 1996
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: RICK SVEHLA, ACTING CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE LAKE LEWISVILLE
ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT PROTECT FEASIBILITY STUDY
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public Utilities Board recommends approval of a feasibility study for the Lake
Lewisville Environmental Enhancement Project as established by the Water Resource
Development Act, Section 1135 (b).
SUMMARY:
At the February 19, 1996 meeting, the Public Utilities Board again reviewed the
activities proposed for the Lake Lewisville Environmental Enhancement Project. The
Board requested staff to explore the level of interest and participation from other entities
in this project.
The University of North Texas has expressed an interest in the project and is committed
to providing the on-going operation and maintenance associated with the project as part
of their research and curriculum development efforts (See Exhibit 1).
Several other entities were contacted but most lack resources to commit. The Ryan High
School Ecology Club, Cross Timbers Serria Club, Denton Organic Society and others
have expressed interest in the project and the ability to provide volunteer labor but did
not have funding to support the project.
BACKGROUND:
The Cities of Dallas and Denton and the Fort Worth District of the Army Corps of
Engineers have been working together to develop a Greenbelt Corridor on the Elm Fork
of the Trinity River between the Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake to satisfy federal
recreation requirements. In conjunction with this project, the City of Denton realized
opportunities available through a federally sponsored program (Section 1135) to enhance
the Greenbelt project with a combination of environmental restoration and wildlife
management activities.
7
I
Agendr No
R;:ad1 I.em
Page 2 t sr `
The City and the District worked closely to develop project objectives compatible with
the Greenbelt development and to define the various restoration and enhancement
components to be included in the initial project appraisal. The initial appraisal of the
proposed project is included in Exhibit II.
PROGRAM/DEPARTWM OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
City of Denton Water Customers, City of Denton Water Utilities, Army Corps of
Engineers, University of North Texas
FISCAL IMPACT:
The estimated project implementation cost is $800,000. The cost would be cost-shared
75 % Federal ($600,000) and 25 % non-Federal ($200,000). The annual debt service cost
for this project would be approximately $19,000 plus the annual operation and
maintenance cost of $15,000 for a total of $34,000.
Respectfu submitted,
Lt 4 e I /,W, &A
Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
i
Prepared by:
ow~, Drtor
Environmental Opeation s
Approved by:
R.E. /V11Q~-
Nelson, Executive Director of
Utilities
Exhibit I: University of North Texas Letter
Exhibit II: ACOB Project Scoping Letter
C:\WP51\PUBADEND\ 1135B
r
G
University of North Texas
Ih parlntent of Hinlr+gieal Srien crs
Dillbinq of Epw ronntental Srirnres 4~t~93 f"~
A%lisulerfApphed Srirures '"aS! 1'^n
.
February 15, 1996
Mr. Howard Martin
Director of Environmental Operations
901A Texas Street
City of Denton Utilities
Denton, Texas 76201
Dear Mr. Martin:
I appreciate the opportunity to partnership with the City of
Denton in the proposed Lewisville Lake Wildlife Habitat
Restoration 1135 project. As you know, ecological restoration
has become a major educational and research area for the
Environmental Sciences Program at UNT. We are currently actively
involved in a number of projects associated with the Lake
Lewisville Environmental Learning Area, restoring prairie and
bottomland habitats. We are keenly interested in working with
the City of Denton on the proposed project because it would give
us access for teaching and research purposed to a local
demonstration site.
It is my understanding that the total estimated project
implementation cost is approximately $800,000 with 75V from
Federal sources and 25t from the local sponsor (City of Denton)
While I can not assist you in meeting the local sponsor's share,
I believe we can provide in kind services to assist the City of
Denton to meet the annual operation and maintenance needs of the
project (estimated to be $15,000 annually). we (the
Environmental Science Program at the University of North Texas)
are prepared to provide the personnel and time necessary to
maintain the three proposed compartments (A,s and C). We propose
to accomplish this by using the project site as a
demonstration/outdoor classroom for our ecological restoration
oriented classes. Students from the program, as part of L%ol r
learning activities, will assist the Environmental Science
Program faculty and staff in providing routine maintenance on the
project site. In return for assuming this responsibility, we
would line to be able to use the site for student research
projects which we would coordinate with the City of Denton and
the COE.
P.O. &+; 0078 - Ocnion, Teca% 76203-6078
(KI7i565.269a-FAX (817)565.4297
71)11 (Rlq)7 iS-y989
EXHIBIT I
T
t
t
i
°.QERSi p0 L,J
Agenda Item e
We would also be keenly interested in workin w?s
and City of Denton in the implementation of the restoration
project. If it is possible for the City of Denton to use some of
the project funds to support students in the Environmental
Science program at UNT to do some of the restoration work, all
parties would benefit.
We are excited about the possibility of working together
with the City of Denton on this project. If we can be of any
assistance in securing project approval with the COE, please give
me a call.
Regards,
kL`~ -V~
Kenneth L. Dickson
Director
I
4
l
r
Date: November 9, 1995
Division: Southwestern
District: Fort Worth
Section 1135 Initial Appraisal
for
Lewisville Lake Wildlife Restoration, Texas
I. PIWCU: Lewisville Lake Wildlife Habitat Restoration, Texas (CWIS No. xxxxx)
a. Project modified: Lewisville LAke, Texas, constructed May 1954
b. Authorized purpose: Flood Control
c. Congressional District: District 26
2. Authority: Section 1135 (b) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as
amended.
3. j Galan : Lewisville Lake is approximately 10 miles southeast of Denton, Texas, and 45
miles north of Dallas, Texas. The specific project site is located at the upper-northern end of
the lake. The project area is located in Denton County, in north Texas (Enclosure 1).
4. Lkwilption:
Purpose and Background. Lake Lewisville was previously known as Garza Little-Elm.
Before Lake Lewisville was impounded, the Elm Fork of the Trinity River had substantially
more area of wetlands, bottomland forests and upland forests. Prior to acquisition and
impoundment, much of the bottomland hardwood forest that would be within the flood pool
was "salvaged" by property owners. After impoundment, additional areas were cleared and
leased out for agricultural purposes. These agricultural activities led to the direct degradation
of the project area. The purpose of this project modification is to restore wetland and
bottomland communities to benefit all wildlife, including migratory waterfowl and neotropicals
in the upper end of Lewisville Lake.
The cities of Denton and Dallas and the Fort Worth District of the Corps of Engineers have
been working together to develop or implement a Greenbelt Corridor on the Ebn Fork of the
Trutity River. This development will be between Ray Roberts Dam and Lewisville Lake for
the purpose of riparian recreation. The entire area of proposed modification is on existing
Corps propet,;- t the upper end of Lewisville Lake adjacent to and immediately downstream
of the Greenbelt Corridor. Real Estate acquisition is currently underway for the Greenbelt
which involves 1,600 acres in fee or conservation easement. The City of Denton, in
contemplating management of the Greenbelt, envisions a multiple objective management
scenario which would combine habitat restoration, management, and interpretation of the
restoration area with the lateral riparian corridor which would be managed for recreation
EXHIBIT 11
w
Aoendd No
Agenda Uri
Data
-3-
9. Implementation ojt.nd Benefits: The total estimated project implementation cost of
$800,000 would be cost-shared 75 % Federal and 25 % non-Federal. The Federal share would
be $600,000 with the balance of $200,000 (25 being cost-shared with the City of Denton,
Texas. This restoration proiect will benefit a wide spectrum of wildlife species including both
wetland and upland species as well as migratory birds, including waterfowl and neotropical.
10. Implementation Schedule
Months I23t~
Initial Appraisal 2 Nov 1, 1995 - Jan 15, 1996
Approval from HQ 1 Jan, 1996
PMR and Plans and Specs 12 Feb 1, 1996 - Jan 31, 1997
Approval/Review from HQ 2 Feb 1, 1997 - Mar 30, 1997
Implementation 12 April 1, 1997 - Mar 30, 1998
Total 29
11. Supplemental Information- Ibis project also has concurrence from Operations Division.
12. Financial Data- Project Modification Costs ( $ 000's)
DOLLAR TOTALS
101315 Non-Federal EWCMl FY96 FY97 FY-98
PMR 80.0 80.0 80.0
Plans & Specs 80.0 80.0 80.0
Implementation 640.0 200.0 460.0 100.0 540.0
TOTALS
($000'3) _ 800.0 200.0 600.0 80.0 180.0 540.0
Non-Federal Requirements: LHRRD - 0
Cash- $200,000.00
Annual O&M - $15,000.00
13. -gyp: Enclosures 1&2
S
Y
i
~9P'1!3 r7D ~ D
CESWF-PL-RE rve_ NO r,
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, Southwestern Division, ATTN: CESWD-PL-R
(Gary Earls)
SUBJECT: Submission of the Section 1135 Fact Sheet for the Lewisville Lake Wildlife
Habitat Restoration Project
1. Enclosed is a copy of the Section 1135 Fact Sheet (Initial Appraisal) for your action.
2. The City of Denton is eager to begin this project. The District received Denton's Letter of
Intent stating their intentions to cost-share at the non-federal rate of 25 Also, they state
their understanding of the requitement, and willingness to assume, future operation and
maintenance of the project area.
3. The restoration project will include the restoration/creation of 100 acres of wetlands, 165
acres of habitat restoration, including vegetation plantings, and 15 acres of riparian forest
restoration. The estimated project cost for this effort is $800,000; $600,000 federal/$200,000
non-federal.
5. Mr. Torn Cloud, Senior Biologist, USFWS Arlington Field Office, stated USFWS will be
glad to provide whatever technical biological assistance they can during the study. His letter is
attached to the Fact sheet.
b. Please direct all inquiries and discussions regarding this report to the Study Manager,
Mr. Eric Verwers, at (817) 334-2370, or Mr. Paul M. Hathorn, at (817) 334-2095.
FOR THE COMMANDER:
Encl WILLIAM FICKEL, JR.
Chief, Planning Division
-
3
i
Agenda fro., _0
Agenda
purposes. There are roughly 2,400 acres at the upper end of Lewisville A ~
as wildlife habitat, however only about 250 acres would actually undergo habitat- restoration
measures. When considered along with the Greenbelt, there would be a total of about 4,000
contiguous acres under management by the project sponsors or their agent.
Description of Restoration. The project includes the restoration of 250 acres concluding
with Iha lease of (lie 2,400 acre project area. The restoration is divided into three
compartments (Enclosure 2).
Compartment A will consist of 25 acres of wetlands, 15 acres of grassland restoration, and
100 acres of emergent wetland vegetation restoration. The vztlands will be approximately 18"
to 24" deep in the middle with a slight rise to the edges graoually sloping into the existing
grade. This will allow the establishment of many different wetland communities and
encourage various types of wildlife. Each wetland cell will be approximately one to two acres
in size. The grassland restoration will include the removal of the agricultural Bermuda grasses
and replacement with native grasses such as smartweed and other desirable species which are
more beneficial to the wildlife.
Compartment B is an abandoned strip mine. Restoration of riverside or riparian bottomland hardwood restoration, with of
the t reshapinwill g and include restoration of
the soil.
Compartment C will require 75 acres of wetlands to be built. These will be built similarly
to those in Compartment A. It is estimated that 50 acres will require inoculation of wetland
vegetation such as smartweed.
5. Qasistemy, Restoration of this area is consistent with the authorized u
control in addition to restoring the wildlife habitat. P 'Pose of flood
6. Yie_as of Cru=: The City of Denton has expressed strong interest in cost-sharing on the
restoration project and in establishing a city operated wildlife management area at this
location. The city also understands that they will be required to pay 25 % of the project cost as
well as the requirement of future operation and maintenance of the restoration area. The city
has agreed to pursue an out grant license for the entire project area. (Enclosure 3).
7.
eager to assist and will be an irate ral Tl~e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is his* ' study participating in baseline data gathering and otrmulat on of resttoration
measureressed interest in
(Enclosure 4).
8' The NEPA document and coordination will be completed
during the feasibility stage. However, there is much baseline information available from oche;
studies recently conducted near the project area. This should eliminate duplication as well as
save time and money.
qF
V
F
ApenQt N0.
Apei rtf
Qu
r. erwerslds/4-2370
PAXTON, CESWF-PL-RE
HATHORN, CESWF-PL-R
AIESE, CESWF-OD-R
AICCF.ORY/KANGAS, CESWF-PL-M
FICKEL, CESWF-PL
MAIL AND RETITRN TO CESWF-PL•RE
I
I
i
Lake Lewisville Wildlife Res ®r'
Denton County, texas
L-r
r; ~
PR JE E.
ton ' -
t
,
„
,
1
, Y V Y• 0,~ Ws
N
irk Yw Yr ll Y,w / 1t CI•~. ~.lCN raY '
ENCLOSURE 1
3
! Agenda No. ' d
- J
Agenda Ilem
Date
i
1 i
377
• jl
Lake Lewisville Wildlife Restoration ,`e"'
f L1110l f1~~
Denton County
I~' qtr ~f~Vr
1 7kxas
Y11~ ~ V/a $blIR11
W~ V h Cwt 1Wp1G ~J Oil colds
ENCLOSURE 2
e
r
AgeWl k -O f 6t
Aa14 nem
. Do
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 E. MCKINNEY DENTON, TEXAS 76201
(817) 566.8200 DFW METRO 434.2529
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
FROM: Kathy DuBose, Executive Director of Finance
DATE: March 19, 1996
SUBJECT: JTPA PROGRAM FUNDING
I've attached a proposal from Lloyd Webb, Executive Director of the North Texas Education
and Training Co-op, for a Summer Youth Employment Program similar to that of JTPA. The
total estimated cost for 40 youth working 40 hours per week for 10 weeks is $94,760.
At the City Council's request, I have analyzed the General Fund financial records in an
attempt to identify funding sources for a program to replace 1 /2 of the unfunded JTPA
program. The remaining 1/2 can be funded by the Utility funds utilizing personal services
allotted for temporary/seasonal help and salary savings.
I've identified several General Fund possibilities to consider:
1. Campus Theater expenses have been substantially
less than anticipated. $24,000
I
2. Budgeted renovations to the Municipal Judge's
area have been deemed unnecessary by Judge Ramsey. $13,500
3. Budgeted funds for the Police Department's
Alternate Promotional System will not be utilized. 10 000
TOTAL 47 500
As you are aware, the City Charter allows transfers of budget allocations across agency lines
only during the last three months of the fiscal year. Until that budget adjustment can be
accomplished, contingency funds would have to be used.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
KDA
AFF01136
"Dedicated to Quality Sen ice"
J
1
CITY OF DENTON
PROPOSAL FOR SUMMER YOUTH PROGRAM 1996
FUNCTION North Texas
Education &
Training co-op
Payroll for 40 youth
Hourly Inc. Workers, comp $5.15
Hours per week 40
Total for 10 Weeks $82,400
Administration - Payroll and $12,360
Following Activities
Pre-Employment Work Maturity* for 40 youth Included
Job Specific Skills Training* Included
Totals include Pre-employment Work maturity
and Job Specific skills Training for 40 $94,760
youth
I
As you can see from the chart, there will be no difference in the hourly wage including workers'
compensation for the 40 youth. We have no Idea what your administration of the payroll, work(rs'
compensation claims and resulting paperwork will be.
We have provided you with several options: l) you could elect to provide the program yourself-, 2)
you could administer the program and add the two enhancements which the students receive every
year, or, 3) NTETC could handle the total program for you.
Please let us know how you would like to proceed. If you need clarification or additional
Information, please do not hesitate to call me.
* Explanations of these components LLOYD A. WEB-. Executive Director
are attached. 60>4 df /.KKK Wy~~. 11l~ (litA•7
eel C, SD re, r, rr ~lr ~j
~i FtS .t rt~r7~,
n~ra!a No
NORTH TEXAS EDUCATION & TRAININ tCO-Opc- `
Services Available to Youth " - -
Pre-Employment w---1• This is a 16 Hour classroom activity which would be
completed during the week before the youth begins employment. This course is designed to
prepare youth for the world of work and is beneficial to both the youth and the employer. The
youth will gain awareness of work ethics and expectations of employers in various work settings.
The employer will gain a knowledgeable employee with a foundation to begin work with
minimal supervision.
The Pre-Employment Work Maturity course modules include:
Work Values and Ethics Job Seeking, Nchvorking, & Nvwspapcr Search
Job Applications Resumes
Job Inters iew Decision Making
Cultural Diversity Stress Management
Sexual Harassment Self-Esteem and Being Unique
Time Management Money Matters
*Attached please find a copy of the Pre-Employment Work Maturity Participant
Workbook
Job SFecifie Skills Try:..- This training involves a task-oriented curriculum
developed by business and industry leaders in cooperation with the Texas Department of
Commerce to establish the minimum requirements for a specific job. This curriculum will
be completed by the participant in the form of on-the-job training through cooperation of
the NTETC Case Manager and the workshc supervisor. The employee participant who
accomplishes these tasks will earn a certificate of achievement which may, be presented to
future employers.
CnrttLP&rffaQ- The Career Portfolio is designed for youth to gather personal
information Involving school progress, post-secondary school requirements and plans,
work experience information, and other related accomplishments. The portfolio may
include a resume, diplomas or transcripts, samples of work, and any certificates of
achievement.
*Attached please find a sample Career Portfolio
fi
E
ApenEa No
AaenEa
0at$ ? .
Case Management- The NTETC Career Specialist will provide indi v* casr-
management which sill include counseling or instruction to address any work-related
deficiencies. Examples of deficiencies may include punctuality, professional attire,
communication skills, and stork etiquette.
SAGE Assesstnen~ -The SAGE is a comprehensive assessment instrument used to
explore interests and aptitudes as they relate to careers. This assessment will be
particularly beneficial to youth because this type of assessment Is not utilized in the public
schools at this time. The information gained by the SAGE assessment will assist the youth
in choosing a career path. The SAGE takes approximately six hours to administer and one
hour to interpret.
SAEAsses.sment includes:
Vocational Interest Inventory Learning Styles Inventory
Work Attitudes Assessment Reasoning, Math, Language, Verbal Abilities
Manual Dexterity Motor Coordination
Eye-Nand-Foot Coordination Spatial Perception
Agenda No. Qfzi ` 01
Agenda bm
091-
Offica of PHONE L817) 566-830
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • DENTON TEXAS 76201 * TELE
MEMORANDUM
To$ Mayor and Members of the City Council
PROMe Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
DATBs March 20, 1996
SUBJECTt Change Orders
Currently, the City Manager's limit to approving changes to contracts and change
orders is $15,000. The City Attorney advises that State law has now changed that
limit to $25,000 or 25% whichever is less. That would be helpful.
To that end, we are proposing the following changes in our reporting procedures
to address Council's concern about being made aware of the cumulative effects of
change orders on a more timely basis. In fact, that is what Howard talked about
the other evening when we brought the HDR contract change orders to the Council.
Howard and the staff had been keeping the Public Utility Board abreast of the
change orders; and because that study is so broad, legitimately, we could have
processed those change orders separately and not even brought them to the
council. we did not think that was a good idea and so we brought them to the
Council. to be Obviously, uster the fact as accumulated over several weeks so some of them
appeared t indeed they were.
Our solution to that would be to use The Week That Was as a way to keep ou
informed of changes to contracts or authorization by the manager every week.
That would keep the council more to amounts that are largertthanathewlimits rised of the issues and bring you those when they aggregate
allowed.
I hope this will help improve the communication, and make the Council more awara
and more to hhethe lpcremedyothis problem. If you would or the Council h
as our as
further questions, I would be happy to try to answer them at your convenience.
Ri
Act ng city anager
RS:bw
AMMO 01DC
I
I
"Dedicated to Quality Service"
i
5
F.
f
AWAI NO.
. Apendi IGn1 .a ~
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING # 215 E McKINNEY # DENTON, TEXAS 76201
(817) 566.8200 DFW METRO 434.2529
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
,ATE: March 21, 1996
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Acting City Manager
SUB: American Legion Building Renovation
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction
regarding the renovation of the American Legion Building in Fred
Moore Park.
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with City Council direction, the Parks and Recreation
Department has coordinated the design and bidding of the renovation
of the American Legion Building in Fred Moore Park. The Council's
desire to pursue this project, funded with $100,000 through the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program in 1994, was
reaffirmed by the approval of the new lease agreement with American
Legion Post No. 840 on August 15, 1995. A recap of events and
decisions leading up to the new agreement is attached for your
information (Attachment I).
A contract for design services was negotiated with architect
Russell Bates for $8,250 plus reimbursables on September 15, 1995,
leaving a project balance available for construction of approxi-
mately $90,000. Plans and specifications were completed for the
2100 square foot building and advertised for bid in December 1995.
Bids were opened on January 9, 1996; a low bid of $127,874 was
received, exceeding the construction budget by $37,974 (42t over
the construction budget $90,000).
"Dedicated to Qualrry.Senice"
s
American Legion Building Renovation
March 21, 1996
Page 2
A meeting with Russell Bates, Barbara Ross, Bruce Henington and
PARD staff was held on January 19th to discuss strategies for re-
bidding the project. The r';ision was made to readvertise the
project, in order to secure .:Jre favorable bids.
Bids were opened for the second time on February 20, 1996. Again,
the low bid exceeded the construction budget, this time by $24,550
(27k). In order to proceed with the renovation of the building as
designed, an additional $24,550 plus a 5t contingency amount of
$5,728 for a total of $30,775 would be required.
City Council action is needed to determine the direction of this
project. Staff has identified the following options for
consideration:
1. Terminate the ro'ect. Should additional funds not be
available, this option may be the most feasible. Under this
scenario, the City would limit its expenditures to design
services already performed; $90,000 would be returned to the
CDBG for reprogramming. The existing building would have to
be demolished, in accordance with the judgement of Jackie
Doyle, building official (see Attachment IV).
2. Secure additional funding in the amount of S30 775 to build
the Project with the current base bid. According to Barbara
Ross, approximately $42,063 is presently available in residual
CDBG funds from recently completed projects, including $10,063
from park improvement projects. Should the City Council elect
to proceed with this option, the Council may wish to refer
this matter to the Community Development Advisory Committee
for their recommendations.
3. Design and build a new meeting apace for use by the American
Legion and seniors. Using the remainin project ~
$90,000, a new, smaller space could be const uct dal ancFred
Moore Park or adjacent to the Martin Luther King Recreation
Center:
a. At F:ed Moore Park, the existing building would be
demolished at a cost of $5,000 to $7,000 (CDBG demolition
building w uldeth n 1,028 construct d t at residential the demolished
structure's location (see Attachment II). Additional
square footage could be built at an estimated cost of $70
per foot. This freestanding structure could be located
adjacent to the MLK Recreation Center for approximately
the same costs.
r
4
AMdi 14,
Apend e
American Legion Building Renovation ON#
March 21, 1996 -
Page 3
b. A prefabricated building, rather than new construction,
could be erected at either location within the $90,000
construction balance.
C. A 600 square foot addition to the MLK Center could be
constructed within the project balance. The addition
would be built at the southeast corner of the recreation
center.
Options 2, 3a, 3b, and 3c are compared on Attachment II.
Architect Russell Bates (see Attachment III) has recommended "that
the City reject all bids and consider the demolition of the present
building," should additional funds not be allocated to the project.
In addition, the City Building official has made a similar
recommendation (Attachment IV).
On March 12th, PARD staff met with approximately 30 citizens at the
MLK Center to discuss the above options for proceeding with this
project. Included at this meeting were representations of
N.I.C.E., the American Legion Post No. 840, the MLK Seniors
Advisory Committee and Council Member Carl Young, The group agreed
to the following:
1. There is still a need for a facility, separate and apart
from the MLK Center, to serve the American Legion, the
MLK Seniors and the southeast Denton community;
2. Given the option of constructing the additional space at
Fred Moore Park or an alternate location, the group's
preferred location is at Fred Moore Park;
3. By a slight majority, the group preferred to continue
with the renovation of the American Legion Hall, rather
than the demolition of the hall and the construction of
a new building. It was felt that the existing structure
is of cultural significance to the southeast Denton
community and thus worthy of presentation. The group was
also concerned that the new construction option would
produce significantly less useable square footage than
the existing building.
City Council direction regarding the disposition and funding of
this project is requested.
I
a
r
4j nda No.
R7anda TIM
American Legion Building Renovation Dar•
March 21, 1996
Page 4
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rick Svehla
Acting City Manager
Prepared by:
2W
Ed Hodney, Directo
Parks & Recreation Department
Approved: ( 1
r
Betty M Kean, Exe utive Director
Municipal Servic s/Economic Development
9013/3
a
r
R3"I'AC NI' .
AMERICAN LEGION BUILDING H1STOlt -
July 25, 1953 Lease agreement between City and American Legion Post #840 is signed. Legion
builds Legion Hall that their own expense. Agree to exclusive use by the American
Legion.
1992 Clothes closet moves into Legion Hall when Fred Moore School is renovated.
January 1994 Mark Chew and Harold Perry propose renovation of the Legion Hall for a Senior
Center facility.
January 1994 Park Department staff mee, Aith Bruce Henington to develop a cost estimate based
on the buildings needs.
February 1994 Park Department submits CDBG application for $100,000 to renovate the building.
March 21, 1994 Community Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) reviews application and
expresses concerns over control of the facility.
March 23, 1994 Mickey Ohland presents project to CDAC.
March 28, 1994 CDAC recommends funding.
May 1994 Park Department submits legal request to terminate lease agreement,
May 3, 1994 City Council reviews CDAC recommendation and questions need for Legion Hall
renovation.
May 10, 1994 Department responds to Council concems.
May 17, 1994 City Council discusses renovation and questions staff regarding use of the building.
June 7, 1994 City Council approves funding.
July 14, 1994 Legal responds to department request to terminate lease.
January 24, 1995 Staff meets with MLK Senior Advisory Council to discuss schedule of project and use
of building.
February 28, 1995 Staff meets with MLK Senior Advisory Council to discuss schedule of project and use
of building.
June 16, 1995 Professional Services contract is sent to Russell Bates for review.
June 23, 1995 Staffmeets with Russell Bates to discuss terms of contract.
June 26, 1995 Letter is sent to Harold Williams to officially terminate lease on building.
September 15, 1995 Contract with Russell Bates executed.
January 9 &
February 20, 1996 Plans advertised for bids; bids received.
WP61.aNst.js,m&
r
ATTACHMENT II
Pmerican Legion/Seniors Building Options
Type Square Room Total Cost Comments
option Construction Footage Capacity Cost " per foot
2 Renovation of 2,100 75 $120,775 $ 54/ft. If existing building is not renovated, it
existing building should be demolished - Declared unsafe by
City Building official
3a* New Construction 1,026 30 $ 90,000 $ 70/ft. 1,028 sq. ft. may be inadequate to serve
o freestanding the community, the MLK Seniors and the
building American Legion. Additional space could
(residential type) be added to this option at $70/ft, plus
design and contingencies.
3b* Prefabricated 1,500 SO $ 66,000 A$130/ft. Additional square footage could be
Suing purchased, if desired. 1,500 feet may not
be adequate to serve the user groups.
3c" New construction 600 20 $ 90,000 Space will not be adequate to serve user
oaddition o MLK groups. Additional space could be
Center constructed, if desired.
" Assumes demolition of existing American Legion Hall @ $5,000 - $7,000.
**Includes design, contingencies and construction management as needed.
ga >
i
C:
8011 ]/19/96 ) ) III
1
1 O
I C%r
Building Systems
i.
c..
ATTACHMENT III I~W'43 No
em
L4
THE Al7CHITECTURAL COLLECTIVE INC.
1300 NORTH LOCUST DENTON. TEXAS 78201 (817) 3874881
March 12, 1996
Mr. Ed Hodney
Director of Parks and Recreation
Denton Civic Center
215 East McKinney
Denton, Texas 76201
RE: American Legion Remodel
Fred Moore Park
Denton, Texas
Dear Ed:
Now that we have completed the second Bidding process on the
above Project, I would like to offer this commentary:
1. At the inception of the Project when the City decided
to renovate the existing building we went to the site
for an inspection, and our immediate reaction was,
"Why? We were told that there was an emotional
attachment to the building, and the desire was to
spruce it up, add restrooms and a small kitchen.
2. As we began our wirk, we had Dave Isbell, our
Structural Engineering consultant, give us a visual
look over of the Project and give us some input as to
the soundness of the building.
(1) He observed that there was separation of the
light-weight block work at the cornors, which was
of concern to us. Mr. Isbell, in a walk-around of
the building, thought it had stabilized over the
years and would probably not move any more.
(2) The roof was sagging under multiple layers of
shingles, but even so, it was generally agreed
that it did not appear to be in any danger of
falling, and suggested if we lessened the roof
load by taking off the heavy dead-load of previous
roofing jobs, we would be improving the structural
integrity of the building.
(3) The existing concrete slab-on-grade, although not
level, was not cracked, and appeared sound.
AACt1iTEM
GERALD E. STONE • RUSSELL L. BATES • MICHAEL A. BATES
3. The Program of Requirements initial V'~"-~„
(1) A.D.A. Men's and Women's Restrooms.
(2) Small "basic" Kitchen
envisioned (No major cooking was
(3 Crafts , Room. but mainly covered dishes).
)
(4) Table and Chair Storage.
(5) Office for "COPS" program.
As the job progressed
contribute , different entities began to
Requirementstasifollowst, which increased the Program of
(1) Originally we had anticipated a meeting space
that would accommodate 50 people. By code there is
space allowable for 75, it was felt that the air-
conditioning should be increased to meet the
maximum occupancy, if there should indeed be a
large meeting held.
(2) Health Department and Span asked for a triple-sink
and a hand-sink.
(3) An icemaker was requested.
(4) Vinyl floor tile was changed to ceramic tile.
(5) Pull alarms for emergency in the Restrooms were
requested, which are presently in other City
facilities.
(6) Electronically-operated door was requested for the
front entrance (push button Type).
Early in December of 1995, I began to feel that we were
approaching a Budget "crunch", because of these and other minor
additions and I did a Revised Cost Estimate during December 1996.
The bottom line was $152,779. This included a 20' x 20' porch on
the north, and a revised
porch
series of alternates we hope toatidentifystareas that migance. mig a
eliminate any frills and give us a basic facility. ht
Plans were issued mid December and Bids accepted on January 9,
1996. The low Bidder was DBR Construction of Denton, Texas, with
a Bid of $127,914. We had possible Deduct Alternates of $6,450,
which if accepted, would have given us a Project Cost of
$121,524. Staff felt that additional funds might be found to
increase the budget to $120,000.00
Comments made by Bidders during the bidding stage as to the
structural soundness of the roof framing, led us to wonder if the
bidders were scared of the unknown. It was determined to reject
the bids and expose the roof structure. City crews removed the
sheet rock allowing us to first-hand inspection of the now
ex o ed w od trus es.
After re-examining the exposed roof structure and receiving a
report from Dave Isbell, advising additional framing to "bring
the facility up to Code", Plans were issued for rebid.
L
P
4x20 ^3 I10
In order to identify our original budget of $90,000, the Plans
were set up for a Base Bid, plus Alternates to identify the aromas
of added work.
Pioneer Construction Company was the low Bidder with a Base Bid
of $114,550. The Add Alternates, which incorporated features
desired, if affordable, were an additional $45,750. The $114,550
was basically a rebuilding or replacement of the existing roof
structure, removing the load from the existing walls, and new
interior finishes, without appreciably dealing with the exterior.
This $114,550 Bid for cosmetic renovation, kitchen addition,
A.D.A accessible restrooms would translates into $54/s.f.
In light of the above, and the stated desires of the intended
users, to provide a functional and aesthetically pleasing
building,it is our recommendation that the City reject all Bids,
and. consider demolition of the present building as "not being
economically practicable to renovate", and set the stage for the
City to pursue other alternatives.
Respectfully submitted,
Russell L. Bates, Architect NCARB
i
c
a
F
ATTACHMENT
MAR 1 5 1996
CITY OF DENTON
PARKS & RECREATION
C/TYOF DEIVTOIV , TEXAS CITYFHALL WEST , 221 N. ELM •~DENTONETEXAS 7620 1
s ~s2o r
Building Irs;w6on
' MEMORANDUM
TO: Ed Hodney, Director of Parks and Recreation
FROM: Jackie Doyle, Building Official
DATE: March 14, 1996
SUBJECT: American Legion Hall Corner Lakey and Wilson Streets
Several weeks ago I inspected the above referenced building and
observed the following:
The roof framing does not appear to me to be structurally sound.
Various members are split, broken, spliced and in some cases have
been damaged due to roof leaks. The framing methods and the size
of framing materials appear to be inadequate and certainly would
not be permitted in Denton using current construction codes. Two
inch by four inch ceiling joists span the width of the building,
(approx. 32 feet) and are supporting a large portion of the roof
structure.
The masonry walls of the structure have several cracks of varying
widths and a few of the concrete blocks are broken. The
construction of the walls may not be adequate to support a new
roof.
As building official, I would feel very uneasy concerning the
continued use of the structure without a new roof and a thorough
investigation and recommendations by a structural engineer
concerning the exterior walls.
I do not believe the building is safe to occupy and suggest that it
be demolished.
Bui ing Offi ial