HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-1997
•
•
City Count.-.%..I*l
Agenda Packet
May 27, 1997
~
c4
r
•
•
s
s VC!a No,,_J
AGENDA A;,enda Item _
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Date
May 27, 1997
P fter determining that a quorum is present and convening in an open meeting, the City Council
will convene in a Closed Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, May 27, 1997
at 5:15 p.m. in the Civil Defense Room of City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas, at
which the following iv-ms will be considered:
I. Closed Meeting:
A. Consultation with Am. ey Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.071
L Discuss and consider Sangster and Tetreault claims growing out of the
drowning incident which occurred at Bell and Robertson Streets in
November, 1996.
B. Conference with Employees Under TEX. GOVT CODE Sec. 551.075. The
Council may receive information from employees or question employees during
a staff conference or briefing, but may not deliberate during the conference.
ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A
CLOSET) MEFTING OR ON INFORMATION RECEIVED IN A CONFERENCE WITH
EMPLOYEES WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN
COMPLIANCE. WITH TEX. GOVT CODE CH. 551. THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES
THE. RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR EXECUTIVE SESSION AS
AUTHORIZED BY 7 EX GOV'T CODE SEC. 551.001, ET SEQ. (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS
ACT) ON ANY ITEM ON ITS OPEN MEETING AGENDA OR TO RECONVENE IN A
CONTINUATION OF THE CLOSED MEETING ON THE CLOSED MEETING ITEMS
NOTED ABOVE, IN ACCORDANCE R ITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEF t.YGS ACT,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SECTIONS 551.071-551.085 Of THE OPEN
MEETINGS ACT.
Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, at 6:00 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 Ci'y Manager for the purpose of giving staff direction into whether or not such
matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input,
City Council deliberation and formal City action. At a 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
t City Council or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and
• 1 members of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the session is being f~ O
closed to public input, Although Work Sessions arc 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 Courn il, 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 meting agenda,
c staff will generally prepare a final report defining the proposed action, which will be made
•
•
0
9
City of Denton City Council Agenda
May 27, 1997
Page 2
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 felIow citizens without having to attend two meetings.
6:00 p.m.
I. Storm Drainage Briefing
A Receive a report regarding various drainage plans
B. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the
Robertscn Street drainage project.
2, Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding fiber optics
contracts with the Denton Independent School District, Texas Woman's University and
University of North Texas.
3, RecPi•re a report, hold a discussion and give staff directior, -egarding a timetable for
Board/Commission appointments.
CERTIFICATE
I crrtify 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 , 1997 at o'clock
(a. m.) (p.m.)
CITY SECRETARY
• NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE
CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE
HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 t10URS IN ADVANCE
OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY
SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 566-6309 OR USE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
DEVICES FOR THE DEAF JDD) BY CALLING 1.800-RELAY-TX SO THAT ,
• A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED THROUGH 0
J THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
ACCO0389
•
•
i
Agen0a H
Agenda Item
Date -~-7
i
I
C1TY OF QENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 • TELEPHONE (817) 5668307
Office of the Crry Manager
MEMORANDUM
DATE: M2y 23, 1997
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: FEPORT ON DRAINAGE STUDIES
Included with this memo are two documents. The first one is the Cooper Creek Regional
Detention Study and the Tributary PEC4 channel improvements done by Freese & Nichols and
the second study is of Pecan Creek by Teague, Nall and Perkins. The purpose of the first study
is to begin to look at what will be required for improvements along with Cooper Creek,
particularly with a look toward detention, since there are undeveloped areas along Cooper Creek.
The second study done or: Pecan Creek gives a more detailed look toward improvements since
it is more developed and affords little opportunity for any more detention to be built.
Council may recall that the study on Cooper Creek and PEC-4 was funded with a grant and
match money from the City. The grant was from the Texas Water Development Board. The
study on Pecan Creek was part of the last bond issue and funding for it was included in the first
year bond sale.
Since we have money for improvements in both of the watersheds, the studies are very important f
in helping us determine prudent strategies for the expenditure of bond mop:y and for reserving
land for detention as opportunities present themselves.
The executive summary on Cooper Creek supports our using bond money for enlargements of
• crossings at major streets such as Stuart, Sherman, Windsor, Nottingham and Old North along I, • $
J with the use of detention ponds. We would get there detention ponds as development occurs,
either through dedication by land owners who want to build detention for their own
developments in conjunction with our detention areas, or through purchase using either drainage
money and/or park money to facilitate building park facilities, drainage facilities and open space.
'DeXcated to Qualfry Sers Le"
r„
lip
•
•
Memo to City Council
May 23, 1997
Page 2
The second paragraph in the executive summary talks about the benefits of this kind of strategy.
You will see a cost of approximately $5.3 - $6.6 million in today's dollars for the actual
construction, You can see the benefits to that would be approximately $1 - $1.1 million worth
of increased property value and actual elimination or reduction of the Cooper Creek flood plain
by nearly 65 acres.
The second study looks more st trying to enlarge and make improvements to exiting systems.
Since most of the Pecan Creek watershed is already developed, Oe solutions are more expensive
because we would be rebuilding structures and channels in areas where there is not a lot of room
rnd structures are already built so we must substitute for them. On the second page of this
report these solutions could reduce the flood elevations up to 5.7' on Pecan Creek and 3' on
North Pecan Creek and 4112' on PEC-4. In this watershed if we make all of these improvements,
the financial benefits are much greater. We would remove about 500 structures from the flood
plain and provide approximately 200 acres of developable land by removing them from the flood
plan, As mentioned earlier, this would be done by widening and lining existing channels. These
improvements would be extensive. Some channel widths could be increased to as much as 80'
in width. All of the crossings structures (bridges or culverts; would be enlarged or replaced
except for one. As a way to mitigate some of the costs, the study also recommends eliminating
some crossings. A number of those are listed toward the bottom of the second page. That will
take a lot of study by the Council, but it is one way to eliminate a large amount of cost and
reduce maintenance. Each of those structures would range from $200,000 to $400,000 and if
all of there are eliminated, 3 savings of $3 to 4$ million could be realized, As mentioned
earlier, we get a lot more benefits from these improvements, but they are much more expensive.
The study es;~mates the cost at $21.5 million in today's dollars.
There is one other cost that we have not talked about and that's land acquisition. We would
have to acquire additional land to widen channels, or, in some cases, to buy areas for detention
ponds. That would require additional funds. However, those would be offset by dedication for
development or by land owners that would gain back land that is currently in the flood plain.
Still. we estimate approximately $4 to $5 million worth of costs for those acquisitions on Pecan
• Creek and Cooper Creek. In some cases we might also be acquiring buildings in areas where
street crossings need to be widened, or in areas where buildings exist in the flood plain which
could increase acquisition costs.
The total of all of these costs is approximately $30 million. That is a large number; however,
we are talking about an extensive program. One that could easily span the next one or two bond
issues. The staff wanted the Council to understand the strategies that we are looking at and tl•
® magnitude of the problems. But, again, this would ensure that the 100 year flood is contained i~ O A
within these channels. It is something that a lot of people have been talking about and an issue
that we think is very important.
i
I
•
Memo to City Council
May 23, 1991
Page 3
An example of that is the second memo on the Robertson Street Project which incorporates part
of the Freese & Nichols study. This recommendation would do exactly what the study is talking
about. We included several pieces of data on that project and we would like to talk to the
Council about that roject in more detail at the worksession. We think it is a good example of
exactly the kinds of strategies that the two plans suggest and promote.
We would be happy to answer any questions the Council may have on either of the studies or
on Robertson. We look forward to discussing these issues with you.
Rick Svehla
Deputy City Manager
RS •f
Ai=hnk
AMMTA1S
I
•
•
COOPER CREEK REGIUM DEMWIM AM TRIBUTARY PEC-4
Ex lye Summary
The purpose of the Cooper Creek Regional Datention and Trbutary PECA C±Annel
improvement Studies Is to determine an effeclhra approach to managing the 4,00-year
ficodplaln As a result of continued development within the Cooper and Perin Creek
watersheds, the 100-year floodplain has exceed the stream banks along Caper Creek
and Tributary PEC4, both of which flow tiuough the City of Denton.
In the case of the Cooper Creek Reg;unal Detention Study, several possible aites
for detention ponds were evaluated for their effectiveness it reducing the 1CO-year
floodplaim Thirteen scenarios of Individual pond construction and combination of ponds
were evaluated to determine an affective oomtoination of pond options. ApproAmMe
floodpialn width reductions were used to estimate the benefit of implementing the regional
detention program. The.benefut was compan)d to the cost of each scenario and a
moommendatkm was made regarding the acenariu that ehoutd be knplemaruted by the City.
As a result of the evaluation, detention ponds are recommended at two sites west of
Locust Street (FM 21134), one on the main stem of Cooper Creek and the other on
Tributary C$. The anticipated construction coat of the recommended detention pond
eonstructlon is approximately 85,298,4oo. The resulting reduction in the 100-year
floodplain width Is expected to provide a benefit of approximately 5926,500 In Increase
property value by reducing the Cooper Creek floodplain by nearly e5 acres. Since the
recommended regional detention ponds evaluated in this study do not reduce the
floodplain to within the charnel',)wks, an additional study Is recommend ad to determine
the extent of improvements to the Cooper Croak channel and culverts to maintain the
floodpiain within the channel area.
In the case of the Tributary PEC4 Channel Improvement Study, several iterations
were made to determine the combination of channel and culvert Improvements that are
needed to reduce the 10D-year floodplain such that flow d"mions are eliminated and flow
is maintained within the channel banks. The recommended Improvements consist
primarily of a concrete channel with s 20-foot bottom width and 2:1 sidesiopes.
improvements to each street crossing were made to eliminate backwater conditiona
caused by the existing culverts. The cost of the recommended channel and culvert
Improvements is 53,735,500. Future design of the, Improvement should consider
alternatives to concrete lining, such as gabicns, segmertol retaining walls and Interlocking
slope pavers to enhance the aesthetics of the dmvml. Since improvemerts to the culvert
• at the MKT. Railroad will require a parallel track to prevent disruption in rali service, a
bypass option was evaluated at Robertson Street to irwastigate the possibility of reducing
the cost of culvert improvements at the MXT. Railroad. The bypass option Is expected
to cost approximately $597,200, which is nearly $440,000 lose than replacing the existing
culverts beneath tho railroad.
e ~ ~ r
0
0
h CITY OF DENTON
PECAN CREEK DRAINAGE STUDY
EXECUTFVB SUMMARY
PURPOSE
This study focuses on developing a master plan of specific drainage improvements with the alm
of miaimiring flooding corlitiom in the study area., which includes the central business district
(downtown) as well as s=ounding residential areas.
Existing flooding conditions have the capability of posing a safety hazard, inundating roads and
threatening homes and businesses. In addition, these floods and the existing location of the 100-
year floodplain can significantly lin* the potential for redevelopment of the downtown area. The
potential for redevelopment is the key to maintairdng a bealrhy business and residential
environment. Drainage inhastructure appears to be a significant 11miting factor affecting the
redevelopment of Ibe downtown area. Chapter 30 of the City of Denton Code (Flood Damage
Prevention) oudims specific r+equirtxoeots for all new construction and reconstruction within the
100-you floodplain, including extensive floodproofing. EUmbutdoo of this flood bazard would
remove nearly 500 structures and over 200 stcm from the existing floodpialn. This
reclamation would permit new development and reconstruction through a large portion of the
downtown area.
The exteat of the scope of this study is as follows:
Downstream Walt Upstream Limit
Pecan Creek Woodrow Lane Pulton Stmt
North Paean Pecan Creek Alice StrM
PEC-4 Locust Street Mulberry Street (west of Canoll)
The principal storm frequency considered in this evaluation is the 100-year event, which is the
standard storm frequency evaluated in Federal Ermgency Management Agency (FEMA) studies,
and is the base or regulatory flood interval sdpula:ed for consideration by the City of Deacon
Code. Ultimate development conditions are the focus of the study. The term multimate
development " as used in this report refers to the complete development of the watershed
t/ a; cording to future land use maps, along with the Improveumm rommmerded herein. The 100-
ytsr discharges, based on ultimate development and channel improvements, are generally 25 %
to 30% hlgher than discharges under existing conditions, with increases as high as 44% near the
confluence of North Pecan and Pecan. This increase is due to additional development as well as
the loss of valley storage when the floodplain is reduced.
O O
2
e
•
f ~
i
FLOODING PROBLEMS
Current flooding problems under existing development conditions include inundation of all but one
of the street crossings of the subject streams in a 100-year stornm. As indicated above, base flood
elevations in the HS indicate that numerous residences, places of business and municipal facilities
are currently within the I00-year floodptaim Continued development of the watershed without
channel improvements will only serve to compound the problem. Panels 1 through 8 show the
floodplain under existing conditions as well as with !till development of the watershed.
FLOODING SOLUTIONS
Full urbarCmdoo of the Pecan Creek watershed without improvements to the channels will cause
flood elevations to be higher than the effective base flood elevations by as much as 2.4 fed along
Pecan Creek, and by as much as 1.0 feet along North Pecan. The watershed for PEC4 is already
fullydeveloped, Improvements proposed herein can lower the water surfaces by as much as 5.7
feet along Pecan Creek, by as much as 3.0 feet along North Pecan, and more titan 4,5 feet along
PEC-4, based on a comparison of the frilly urbanized watershed with and without the
recommended improvements.
Construction of the proposed improvements will, throughout virtually all of the study area, result
in containment of the ultimate development 100-year flood within the banks of the channel.
Containing the 100-year flood within the banks of the proposed channel will result in removing
the 500 structures and 200 developable acres from the floodplain.
Most of the channels evaluated in this study an currently concrete lined. Pecan Creek
downstream of Sycamore Street is an earthen channel. Proposed improvements primarily consist
of wider concrete lined channels, ranging in width from 30 fcot to 80 feet. In order to reduce the
land requirements, the recommended channels will have vertical walls. Virtually all the bridges
and culverts are recommended to be replaced with larger structures, although in some cases
existing structures could be supplemented and expanded.
In an effort to make the concrete chancels more aesthetically pleasing, alternatives to the concrete
1 lining may be possible. Key factors involved in selecting such alternatives uxI,tde surface
roughness (which can decrease channel capacity by as touch s 25% or more) and structural
ictegrity (channel walls trust flmction as retaining walls), as well as cost.
ePermanent removal of several bridges, and associated street closings, are recommended.
Sselecied both for their location and function as well as their hydraulic effect, these closings
incluck Blount Street (also known as Bell Place), between Bell Street and McKinney; Egan Street
between Denton and Coit; Austin Street between Hann and Marshall; Aetna Street between
Crescent and Panhandle; and Stroud between Pierce and South Elm. In addidon, Marshall Street
0 between Locust and OWP--W would be converted to a ore-way alley. O O
J A diversion is recommended on Pecan Creek; to decrease flowy to the culvert system lying under and
3
•
,
I
i
i
i
along Parkway Street from the Chamber of Commerce to the City Complex. The diversion, a four
span Vx Y box culvert, will be oonsmwted in Panhandle Street from Pecan Crock (at Denton Road)
to North Pecan (between Bolivar and North Elm).
A diversion culvert is also recommended on PEC 4 along Mulberry Street. This diversion will
connoct the westerly crossing of PEC-4 and Mulberry with the easterly crossing of the same street.
This will prrmit the channel section upstream of Carroll Street, u well ascent to the County
Court building, to remain in its current oondition.
Construction of the recornrneoded improvements will require the soquisition of several properties,
as well u additional easements and right-of-way. Costa associated with the recommended
improvements are an average of $550 per linear foot of channel, and range from $65,000 to 5338,000
for road crossing Improvemicei, Total cost of eonskuction for all recommended improvements
(excluding engineering and property soquisition) [s apptoximnely $21,400,000.
•
i
4
1
I
die:►w+~.•....,... rCt .c.. _ _ _ + I _ `ii.f5, ~ _ _ _
•
•
~yrnei Na l-7 -~~d---
Agenda Lam
Date
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUN)OPAL BU1LOWG • DENTON, TEXAS 76201 • TELEPhONE (817) 5668307
Office of the City Manager
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 19, 1997
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: RECONIMEND,'.TIONS FROM THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
Attached is the back-up which was presented to the Oversight Committee on April 7th. The
Committee toured the Robertson Street drainage project, held a lengthy discussion and
recommended the funding scenario that was presented by staff. That scenario included using
existing funds for Robertson Street as well as the Scott Street money that was not allocated to
the sidewalk project. The Committee also endorsed the recommendation of the Community
Development Advisory Committee for additional funding for crossings at "key Street and
Bradshaw Street. Also, they recommended moving up the bonds in both years four and five
for this very same channel. The available funding is approximately $2,216,000 (see backup,
page 9), there is almost $2,600,000 worth of funding needs, The Committee's original i
recommendation was to use one time money from this year's budget process to fund the
remaining shortfall.
The Committee also recommended that Engineering start immediately, if the Council agrees with
this scenario. The Committee felt that Engineering would be us:d sooner or later. That is, if
• the Council agreed with this project, it could be used as soon as Llis fall. If the Council did not
agree with the Oversight Committee's recommendation, then this engineering would be used in
the fourth and fifth year of the CIP program for channel work and/or crossing work at Bradshaw
and Lakey if the CDBG fonts were approved.
Since then the drainage subcommittee has met and recommended further staff proposals that
® would reduce the one time funding needs. The subcomnitt;e's plan would be to issue $270,000 •
worth of miscellaneous drainage from the $574,000 ava ' 1c in the fifth year. The $270,000
would be used to fund the original $235,000 contingeacy (see page 9 Exhibit p2) and provide
$35,000 for the design of the Ruddell street briJge (this bridge would be bid as an alternate in
the project), "Moving up" the $270,000 worth of bonds would cost $40,000 in one time money
thus reducing the impact on the operating budget from $400,000 to $205,000 (see Exhibit B).
,L7edicared to Quality Service"
e
•
I ,
Memo to Mayor and Council Members
April 22, 1997
Page 2
In conclusion, the Oversight Committee recommended the following for the Robertson street
drainage project;
*Use the existing funding.
*Use the surplus Scott street money.
eApprove the CDAC's recommendation and include funds for the
Lakey and Bradshaw crossing,
*Move up the sale of $1.266 million of bonds for channel work.
*Bid the Rudde!I street bridge as an alternate,
*Begin the engineering early using the existing Robertson street
project funding.
In addition, the Oversight Drainage subcommittee recommended the following;
♦Move up the sale of $270,900 of miscellaneous drainage bonds
to reduce one time operating costs and provide funds for the design
of the Ruddell street bridge as an alternate bid item.
I will be happy to try and answer any questions Council might have at your convenience.
Rick S"]a
• Deputy City Manager
AS if
Anxhnxm,
AMMb09FB
y
a a
e
•
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS O Y HALL WEST 22m. ELM " DENTDN, TEXAS 76201 (817} 56641350 " VFW METRO 434-2523
1-yanning and Ikcelrpmanl Dcro,tm,"I
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 2, 1997
TO: Oversight Committee Members ,
FROb1: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager
ti
SUBJECT: BACKUP FOR APRIL T" MEETING
In February of this year, we had our second briefing with Council about the Robertson Street
underpass. At that lime we were looking at ways to enlarge the culvert under Robertson Street
to carry all of the water rather than just a part of it as the committee had recohilcnded. The
Council directed us to bring this issue back to yqu because they wanted to be able to carry all
of the storm water in the culvert and yet, maintain the existing clearance at the Robertson Street
underpass to facilitate fire and EMS services.
As we discussed with Council, the way to do that is to lower the proposed culvert which would
allow us to maintain the underpass height and still pass the major storms. 1 have included a
couple of attachments, The first of these is a example, or conceptual idea, of where the culvert
would be constructed (Exhibit 1). The second piece of paper is a schematic of the charnel
bottorn elevations (Exhibit 2). There are major drops at,Bradshaw and just upstream from
Skinner. If we lower, or smooth out, those "humps", we would be able to lower to entire
channel and thus; would be able to meet the capacity requirements and underpass height
requirements. In order to do this, we must do channel work. The other problem that arises is
that if we pass a major amount of water at Robertson and the rail road tracks, then we will be
sending larger quantities of water downstream. If this is done, then staff had to look at t,ie other
obstacles along this stretch of channel,
e
The four that come immediately to mind are the crossings at Bradshaw, Lakey and Skinner and 0 ~
enlarging the channel to carry this larger amount of water. The third sheet in your packet
(iixllibit 3) is the time line and a listing of costs and funding if we began to look at Braking the
ultimate solutions for this whole length of,the channel. In the tirne line, you will see a heading
at the left called "prior funding". That is your original fending of $1,.00,040, your SI00,00(l of
3
~cdicafed fn C)ira,ifu $aruira
•
•
Oversight Committee Members
April 2, 1997
Page 2
Good Samaritan drainage money, and the $200,000 of utility funding that is available to help
us build the culvert and make the crossing at Robertson. In addition to this, in January Council
allocated a portion of the Scott Street money, some $110,000, and then in mid-February the
Community Development Advisory Committee recommended additional funding fur the Lakey
Street crossing and the Bradshaw Street crossing, making $340,00 available. Finally, the last a
thing that we havr been looking at is bonds. In the 1998-99 time frame you have $266,000 for
channel work downstream from Bradshaw and in the 1999-2000 you have $1,000,(N.10 for
channel work on PEC4, which is this channel. If you look further down that page, you will find
some columns. The first of these is called "Funding". It simply adds up all of the funding on
the time line. The $500,000 from prior funding, the $1'0,000 from Scutt Street, the 5340,000
recommended from the Community Development Block Grant money, and the $1,000,000 and
the $266,000 from the bonds for the channel work for a total of $2,216,000. That's the good
news.
The not so good news is the cost. We just received bids on the Kerley Street crossing for about
$150,100 so we think the crossings at Skinner, Lakey and Bradshaw would begin at those
funding levels and increase a little bit as we go downstream. That's the $150,000, S155,000
and $160,000 for Skinner, Lakey and Bradshaw. Robertson has been relooked. We have had
to narrow up the crown span, make it deeper and add some extras to it making oar estimate on
Robertson now $600,000 and then we are estimating a lean $1,000,000 for channel work,
making the total cost of the project $2,065,000. We will then have to add engineering to the
project which makes the total $2,246,000, or $30,000 short of funding levels.
The final column on the right shows that we need $235,000 for contingencies, aril $165,000
worth of what we call bond move up costs. The bond move up costs are actually one time in
nature because you already have the debt service for them in your bond program for repayment
and thus, the debt service Is already programmed. The only debt service that is not programmed
is moving these two issues up or selling them early. So we must have funds to pay this early
deht service (Le,, 1/2 year for the $266,000 and 11h years for the $1,000,000). We will be able
to show you that a little bit easier at the meeting, but in essence it will cost us S 165,000 to move
® those bonds up (Exhibit 4, hand out).
If the Committee decides that this is a good project and that our costs are accurate, then the staff
would recommend that we move these bonds up and sell early, recommend community
development advisory's recommendation on I-akey and Bradshaw and, finally, use $400,000 of
one time operating funds to gather all of the funding that we would need for this project. One
last footnote on the bettom of this page is the cost for the Ruddell Street crossing which is
downstream from where the PEN channel enters the main channel of Pecan Creek. We think p
we should bid this as an alternative because this would ultimately be the long tern solution and
if we have any available funds we could use them for the crossing.
7
s
•
Oversight Committee Members
April 2, 1997
Page 3
As we mentioned, if the Committee thinks this is a good project and recommends approval, the
last of the funding sources would happen about October 1 (i.e., moving up the bonds). We
would not be able to move them up before that because we would not be able to get our one
time operating funds before October 1 of this year. Thus the project in its entirety could not
start until then. Ilowever, you do have $300,000 of Good Samaritan money and original
funding for Robertson Street on hand now. I mentioned earlier that the engineering costs were
$181,000. We have been talking to a consultant about these costs and those are good, firm
numbers. You could recommend to Council that the engineering be stared early. The good a
things about that are the funds are available and tf this is done sooner, we could do the project
sooner. Even if the Council does not take your recommendations, the $1,000,000 and the
$266,000 will ultimately be used and these designs will be used for those improvements.
I licrefore, we would recommend doing the design early.
Some of the other major activities that we have to talk about are connected to the April 15" bond
safe. You have already chosen the miscellaneous drainage projects at your last meeting.
However, we have miscellaneous street work that we must begin to consider and we also have
sidewalks that you must recommend. Jerry has included a memo covering each of these areas,
and we would Nke to visit with you about those. Finally, we will have at least one issue which
staff considers to be an economic development issue for you, and we would like to talk to you
further about it at the meeting.
Another issue we wanted to talk to you about involved olJ money issues. Jerry has also
included a memo discussing funds that were not used from previous issues. Those are street
projects, signal and turn lane projects, and sidewalk projects that should be dealt with also. I 1
have included as pan of the backup information we gave to Council back in September, 1995
(Exhibit 5), At that meeting, Roberta Donsbach made the final '91 Cc,,..-itiee presentation to
the City Council. On page 3, item #G, the '91 Committee suggested that any additional street
and drainage money be used for U.S. Highway 77. As indicated in Jerry's memo, we do have I
some unspent money from streets projects. We also have about $37,000 left from the Opticont
Signal Project. We suggest that $27,000 of that money be used for additional signal and turn
lane costs associated with the Congestion M itigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) Project on Eagle. The
costs have changed because TxDot is now including more charges for the reviews and we need
to spend more money on some additional design work. They are still agreeing to pay for the
majority of the projects so it's still a good deal (82% vs. 18%). The other area where we have
some extra money left is from the Willowwood sidewalk project. We suggest using some of this
for some of the downtown Improvements that you have money set aside for in the "out" years.
A There is over $400,000 set aside for the downtown square improvements, but it is out in the
later years. Currently, the Sherman building is being built and we are trying to make O ra
improvements downtown that would set the stage for the rest of the square. Several of you have
been involved in ibis project through the Vision process. Even as we speak, Margaret's
subcommittee is working on "public improvements" for Hickory Street and the rest of the
square, so we suggest using a part of this remaining sidewalk money ($22,000) for the sidewalks
e
e
Oversight Committee Members
April 2, 1997
Page 4
and planters on the square at the Sherman building. We know normally that you would like to
consider this at one meeting and then vote on it at the next. However, since this is old money,
and we are using it for and at the direction of the '91 Committee, for "like' projects, and you've
considered and acted on "old money" at the same meeting in the past, we have included both
consideration and action on these items.
Finally, we would like to suggest a strategy for repaving Railroad Avenue, UIand, Banner and
Kent streets. These streets are very close to Mingo and Paisley Streets. With last year's
miscellaneous street money and prior funds (old money from the 91 committee) for Mingo Road
and Mingo at Nottingham turn lane money, we think we will have enough money to finish these
other small streets. We would still pave all of Mingo from Frame to Nottingham and all of the
portions of Paisley that require rebuilding. We would then use the remaining money in
conjunction with CDBO money to provide the ultimate street solution to the small Railroad
Avenue area (Exhibit 6). Therefore, we would recommend this also.
We look forward to seeing you on the 7th. Just a reminder we are scheduled to start at 10:00
a.m. because we wanted to give you a tour of the projects that are already under way from the
first year. We will meet at City Nall at 10:00 a.m.
If you have any questions on any of this information, please give me at call at your convenience.
Rick Svehla
Deputy City Manager
its of
Ankh"v
• AMMOOM
1
1.
4{
•
•
•
I
x::+++e -.::Y~ b.m..r : V~w.JW'A.~c[Ln.+'"ryy..n~nM'rrr S•-•M'.•amwau»a.vo..~.....
i
I I
V
8' CULVERT rouAto~KA" R08ERTSON ST.
court STMXTM
e o
m
x
s
~ s
OMAN
e
•
•
FIGURE III-15. 100-Year Floodplaln
Profile Comparison (PECK)
5
. iw
M"T,
shw
/20
Lalwi i
10
Z Ine&l.d
0
W
• SIe I ~ .
F
j
0 Soo 1000 1500 2000 2W ~ooo ~SOO 1000 Iloo 1000 O
STREAM STATION (FT)~
m ~
J
Exisdng comedy ---PropoW Goomeay --Elasdmg y+r.S. - Mroaa WS
N
I
•
•
•
. ...ae ..:.~yq...r;rM ~^:.:a-:.w:. ePVS;;•.. »:e't'-,Y,rca.n oC;:V'Pt FYr.danpw.td..wn.e.rv.,.,v.-^.-. n,...
Y
i
Prior Funding CDAC Recommendation (COancil Approves in Budget)
$100,000 Good SAID. $126,651 Wcey + 33,349 (CDBG '96 Funding)
$200,000 Org. Fund 160,Q44 Bradshaw
$200,000 Utilities $340,000 Move Bonds
Scott St. . $1,000,000 (99-00 Poc 4) ,
t $1i 10,000 1 266,00(9&9 Poa Ck.)
1997 r,
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
-O
BUDGET
Sbortlall Nut
Funding Cost Operating Funds
$ 500,000 $ 130,000 Skinner (ON time money)
110,000 155,000 LAkey $ 165,000 Band Move Up
340,000 M000 Bradshaw 231,QQQ Condagency
1,000,000 600,W0 Robertsoo $ 400,000
• - 266, ,444..444 Channel
$2,216,000 $2,045,000
181, 000 Eogiaeering
$2,246,000
RuddeU $315,000 Bid m Alternate x
x
m
ti~na`.ti t.+
J'
VON
•
0
.w-..+. ~.rT+:'n+r. RD,:c.,y gar. zv avcw..r.... ..w.r,.._.._.,..w•uoW+n!`AAnMMe/DOMM?tr4l~tlMtM~.R6 JYr~wwwVLn.wt Y_Ur1II':1'PR"~'1(P
!t
t
EXHIBIT 4
19"_M CAMAL Pr*OVEMM►UN (t,000.QO0)
aeellll awewrt UMIM+rr IfPI olroro.r oaw M~a.+ rl~ 0etJ 1+ 111►tw r lIq • ,
Iawr.Iw.1 o+11.r1 ea.w
I 1 I a n T.. 1 (St'1 yl rw ✓b LQr ry 1,.v. P.l '3T : tt" 1 -t`t 've ? 1111
r~lY '++.f J:f't:• 4!' a,r<ur Sri; If4a-o?~j:.1iY W I Malt+lw Fiv:/rNUs.1 `.,r •'17'IIN~A~` •:alt' ri f+~'':3FTt' ^'14.i 1 IYXJli1 ql. r 1 l
pF f;wL MYr1iiY n A'.. rdldi idH J:4TAirtYMM r' rrY1Y
aliM. hl•.?'MI~rlYit ',firs ' YirIY1'WA '17fM':H!M11ir1Y11i'rj;.~ry~~ 'MR 'Tr5/1BnlYWYOri11 r~ii1P. 'r oirk - rP
e^.r r..1 nlr r~row.lel...Ir trr eraa.r e..wwc«r.w IrP , ra..•wrtw
urs.w rw rr4M t.r'rl Arr fY.P rw wrtrlwlir.r ICs
am
t..r~ ur.w~rFY rem r Slb.r PP r. l.~u+tw+.Frv WOM Irrlrw+w Pr
a.~ faL...rrr w...+.+ rP rr. dI MIr tw Ar O•w~ »r w1 Mw
a.~ Iir a.~c.rw.~.Frl IAP Iw.l~alwl rllr br YCI Pr ty- Irw ~O~M MwrM1 .FP
nnr Iew+t~rw.AI MI PP Wa„yvww~wrl MP t~rirlrl rr PP rr rt Ms }Mr
M ~M1r..►~w~t1M !P tww~rw► IMP rurr~wr irr rrr wr rrrrr.
.w trrl.rlw.M. Ft .~..rrt.r. Mr PP Irbl~.~w.'w~FY IMP Pr fr.4iMww t}P
rP 1wY1Ynt~~ rP w .OIIIt~h~M Mr
Iw rr~lrra~. rP Iwnwwr ww u.r u. IrP wYwrrrlrrl PP
.Mr rrr~w.w Fl yr
.m. Flwy~lrtiwwr rM W'•Irr I.rIP /Yw lMw hr Ml Saw
mm. IIrM ~Iw+1-~ trP
Ulm w Iw►Ir lrnM H1 Mr+1~tr.rw WON rwn r~rMwd1 /•P
A~ rtYalwww6~~M111 IMP rl~r•w.r rIP IIIrYM1M VlwA
5w tw.~~w.rr M}P b.4.41 .t hP r~r4.inw rt 3em rrw.rv wrw MhlMw1 IrlP
Iw ~wtwrFl OIP rr~.rwlrl MOO ti/wrrt PP rWrtYrA rP
,w fut nr~ywrla Yafl IMM •Y peer..Fl Mr WCIf~wMM IMP Ylrarl btr Arrwr.OA rr tirYlV r.ra~wFl MP rf.~wrwr PP
bVIr RrJ hl1 IPP Or.M fto MIP r1 W, IMP
r b~rMY PP
trl pr~yr.[r~rrl trr
1M /MI "a 0,/00.100
T- ollel owaoe t»+.eoa ~w.~t+x/aa lla . I+rsat
wMa Edsfrq Dads ,000 s Orloeollll a 71ri NO
TolM lliltlutd (Rvld Bcrrrrb) 400" f,I11 NO fo,rst.000 0.770a i ,
Ol4nal Ufftwe0 ,w1.oo1 &MIN 11 MAN I'M
(1.000.0.1
Olfterome 1 1.710000 ON."
v 1
s 17x.000 I,O,01M 0 0
N1M000 Orly 5erMU 183000 1 700011RrM _ 10a0000
0 (1) E1MInp Dents
M CorMcalr1 of OOn0llion
J
i
~wyy,rwy,y-- r.!M.MA ('~•1-w._~+rt""w~ • hrRs; r~ ~ ~ Ij~
'AS
•
r
•
r
NO
1~paada~taav.~~ a"---'-
S EXHIBIT 5
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUN1ClPAL BU O NG DENTON, TEXAS 76101 TELEPHONE (617) 566 8307
Office of the City Manager
MEMORANDUM
TOt Lloyd V. Harrell, City Manager
FROMi Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager
DATHt September 7, 1995
SUBJECTi 191 Committee Recommendations
Attached is the back up that we used for the 191 Committee meeting
on Thursday at noon. The meeting was very successful as always.
What we attempted to do is to bring to a close the duties of this
191 Committee. Council may recall that thee bduties of mthis
ake
committee were to monitor the projects
sure that all of the projects were built, and that all of the bond
funds were used appropriately.
As you can see from the back up, the 191 Committee did an excellent
job of doing that. We will plan to have the current Chairman, Ms.
itemize give
the following
Roberta reports DIn sthat , report, I meeting su a Tuesday she night to
major points:
1. 1985 Issues
All of the projects listed in the attached back up have been
completed with the exception of two. Those are Locust and Elm
Street. These projects were not; built since TXDOT rebuilt
• these two roads immediately after the 1985 election.
Subsequent to that, Council made the decision to use this
money as our match to the U.S. 77 project. As council may
recall, that project was submitted to us by TXDOT in late
1987. Council approved that in early 1988.
• •
2. 1986 Issue
first of been built with the
is the Southridge exception
All of these The projecte have
three items. Drainage.
"Dedicated to Quoliry Servlee"
•
•
4er~aNo
191 Committee Recommendations
September 7, 1995
Page 2
That project is currently underway and is expected to be
finished within the next three to four months. Second,
Council may recall that there was originally three rec centers
in the bond issue. The first of those, MLK, was built.
Before the second and third centers were built, the Parks b
Recreation Board, as well as the Council, held public
hearings. The 91 committee subsequently recommended to
Council that the other two rec centers not be built. Instead,
new parks should be acquired and more improvements should be
made in the parks, and the rest of the bonds should not be
sold. Subsequently, South Lakes Park was acquired and is
being developed. There is also a park in the northeast part
of the community that will be acquired in the near future
(money has been set aside). Finally, $1.4 million worth of
bonds have not been sold and were recommended not to be sold
by the 191 Committee.
The third area concerns the highway projects. Teasley Lane is
being built and will be finished shortly. U.S. 77 (Fort Worth
Drive) from I-35 to F.M. 1830 was dropped of TXDOT funded
projects. However, we were able to solicit funds and to use
our own bonds to rebuild Fort Worth Drive from Collins Street
0 1-35. TXDOT will also rebuild the two overpasses at I-35
to accommodate a six-lane structure. That is currently in the
final stages of design. U.S. 380 is in the right-of-way
acquisition stage. The scope of this project has expanded
from a six-lane facility from Elm Street to Loop 288 to a six-
lane facility from I-35 to U.S. 377 on the east side Lake
Lewisville. The 191 Committee also recommends that any unused
funds from the 83 or 86 issue be used to ray off debt all of the right-of-way contracts and coats for U.S. 380 from
TXDOT have been met. Finally, through the new legislation
govern+.ng TXDOT, funding for Loop 288 is not available from
TXDOT at this point. However, staff continues to work on this
project and believes that it will be able to get it fitted
into TXDOT's-new funding structure within the next ten years.
f
All of the 1986 street bond money has been sold, allocated or spent
with the exception of $750,0000. That money could be available if
Council authorized use of that in the future. However, the 191
Committee has no recommendation at this point.
• Tht last information included in your backup is a list of almost
$4.3 million worth of extra projects that the 191 Committee has •
recommended to Councils over the last ten years, and Council has
subsequently approved. Those projects include projectu that are
either totally
1
still to be built TXDOT funding with local match scenarios. With this list, the through
7 7
•
•
AI-
r "a la 9S- C .3
i
'91 Committee Recommendations 2 ^ ~S J
September 7, 1955
Page 3
Committee has established an envious record for any subsequent
groups that will be charged with these responsibilities.
The Committee's final recommendations to Council inc!vde the
following uses for the last remaining interest money or any money
that will accrue after that:
r.
A. They recommended approximately $87,000 be used as our
match to the Rails-to-Trails project. Currently, there
is approximately $82,000 cf unallocated interest in the
park bonds. There will be sufficient funds to meet our
needs since TXDOT's schedule requires the payments over
time.
B. They recommended 'allocating approximately $50,000 -
$60,000 worth of engineering design cost to be charged
for the CMAQ (Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality)
projects. As you all know, these projects are connected
with the non-attainment area that Denton is in. They are
match monies for State projects and will allow our
Engineering Department to charge out their time to these
projects.
C. They recommended a $60,000 match for a drainage study to
be done by the state for Pecan Creek through the downtown
area. The Committee thought this was a good project and
a good way to again use other State money to leverage our
own. 11
I
D. They also recommended $12,000 to be used as our match for
a raised median to be built on Loop 288 from Colorado
Boulevard to 1-35.- Currently, these turn lanes are just
painted on the pavement. TXDOT will channelixe the
traffic in better fashion with this raised median.
E. They also suggested using interest money to help in the
incidental costs of right-of-way acquisition along Loop
268 near the Walmart development. They thought it was
appropriate to use money in this corridor to facilitate
traffic movements along and across Loop 288 in this area.
P. They also suggested that any other money that accrued
from the park bonds be used for playground equipment or
other improvements in existing parks.
9. They suggested that any other interest money that accrued
in the streets and drainage areas be used to help fund
the U.S. 77 project.
3
0
•
;en4aP~o_ 9~-'=0 3 ~
~anCe!tem,~,-~~
191 Committee Recommendations
September 7, 1995
Page 4
As mentioned earlier, Ms. Donsbach and i will be at the meeting on
Tuesday night to answer any other questions that the Council might
have. We look forward to congratulating this group of individuals
for their long and successful tenure on the 191 Committee.
E
Rick Sve a
Deputy City Manager
RS:bw
AMM006CS
Attachments
• ,
l
:
A • •
4
•
•
PAVING CDBG
COLLEG `~C>
D U w PIRTLE
SAW R >
CHMiTZ
EXA
TEXAS
TEXAS a
HANN Li
0 a o
z WITHERS ° >
U
Of
N
¢ Z J V~ W
ARSH 1 L Y f ¢
a x
a 0 ti a 0A
U w
Z ON R a ~a 3
a BARBER 0
cl~ U
a u >
U LEHRMAN
~ i DAVIS
v :t ULAND
~v fY
KEN
L EAST MCKINNEY
d
a F a r.
J
a EAST QA OAK H OAK
R X Q O
• [H:lCKOR a _ wHICKORY00
i
J J F
EAST a a
ULBERR 0~ a a o
MULB R
N u Q
` • SYCAMOR ? SYCAMORE w u • •
0 i SYCAMO
W H
3 ~
z ¢
¢ E. PRAIRIE
•
•
MEMO
To: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager
From: Jerry Clark, Director of Engineering and'fransportation
subject: April 7, 1997, Oversight Committee Meeting
Date: Adril3, 1997
There are several items that we would the Oversight Committee to consider this meeting phis
memo will address the issues of street construction, sidewalks, turn lanes, etc. that will allow
work to progress on current projects, Several of these projects are part of the CMAQ program
and involve TXDOT and the North'rexas Council of Governments.
1. Street Reconsfruction. This area has a budget of $400,00. The estimated full
allocation of $222,500 is recommended for the Rancho Del Lago secondard arterial right
of way. That leaves a balance of $177,500. Based on the speed that the development will
occur a payment of 5100,000 this year is more likely. Tl following streets are
recommended for reconstruction using those funds.
A. Panhandle Bonnie Brae Ponder S 90,000
B. Fulton Panhandle Bridge us 380 k J500
$165,000
C. Linden(option) Bonnie Brae Fulton $200,000 Full Cost
May select portion ofwork(ie $135,000) -S135-M
Total $300,000
Staff would recommend partial funding of Linden at the $135,000 level and funding for all of
Fulton and Panhandle..
I
2. Sidewalks and Bikeways. The available funds is this category are S142,00.We are
providing a map showing the old requests and the original rating sheets. The map will also
contain all the requests for sidewalks since the bond election was approved by the voter
• including the recent P&Z hearing on March 26,1997. At the meeting, we will provide a
new rating'of she sidewalks using one category in a slightly different manner with the r
pedestrian traffic being used instead of the vehicle traffic since most of the candidate roads
would probably justify checking the vehicular Iraftic category. The following projects ere
sidewalks that we feel that you should consider for the miscellaneous category. The
bikeway system is not being given priority consideration since the plan has not been
• adopted, 0 @
A Prcjecl 4; Dallas Drive from Eagle to Teasley. Cost =$50,000
B. Project 1: Bell Avenue from Windsor to Sherman Cost=S50,000
C. Project 26: Bernard from I ickory to Eagle. Cost=$40,000 plus walls
I~
•
Rick Svehla
Page 2
April 3, 1997
Staff would recommend these 3 projects for the $142,000 with the understanding that some
finaling out of the cost estimates needs to be done on the final selections by the Oversight
Committee.
3. Old Bond Aceounls. There are three categories of projects that all the remainders of
the old bond accounts are recomeded to be finaled out into,Those are Streets, Signal &
Turn Lanes, and Sidewalks.
A. Streets Account# Balance
College and Second 446-9603 $35,680
Fire Station 2 Drive 444-9520 $ 2,551
Azalea Repave 446-9256 $ 382
$38,631
B. Sidewalks $60,479
Willowwood 446-9277
Sidewalks for Fire Station 440-9536 $ 2,025
Sidewalks 444-8911 $ 3,137
Locust Sidewalk 441-9516 S 887
$65,641
C. Traffic Signals and Turn Lanes $ 221
Traffic System Square 441-8910 I
Shady Oaks Signal 446-9266 S $ 1 751
731
Lillian MillerlSV Turn Lanes 446-9266 1,28
Opticom 446-9405
$39,884
Staff would recommend that each of these categories would be established to provide funding
0 sources. These would be allocated by the Oversight Committee and City Council for projects in
those specific areas. The designation at this time for the street money would be towards the US
77 project currently being developed by TXDOT.
I L -
0 ~ 0
al II I
r.t W+..,y..
ir.
f
M~
}I`\, -''iii I+~ ~IrFESL ~,I_I• i'n u~ll I r 4 JO. . 7 , _~I ~I i ~}I ~ _
1
"m
Lwiy or s7
r
r
J i
( ~2 f~ S~ p fY] CI A] crl
3 J c ° =°x-- 1
z c I _ S , .c-' 0 DE'' U I \ _IF Er F'rcu.e.i
l~ Ik 3~~
-r
•
r • .
i ° fr
:I~ l1 ~ r- .rd ~ C, 17^~` c t`I c. Lfp- ~ rC0
•U
Jq~~ r
C-7
1
1 I
Y r lr` 1~1 {li uL~L ~.YP~~J ~+/.C I ;..~"CJi~~i_.~ fT1,~` O'~? ~ ~.~r~ ~j~r • c ^
D \ 4
J r
L 1 I
E
100 'IEEAR FLOODPLAN
~CC+MPAR,SON
EXHIBIT A
-_YP . ..'fir. i } ri.. s
r
•
i
i
LVIBIT B
Robertson Funding Strategy
(Alternate to Reduce $400,000 one time General Fund Cost)
Bond Move Up:
Original Strategy
98-99 Pecan Creek/Bradshaw 266,00011 yr) $ 13,000
99-00 Pecan Creek/Bradshaw ($1,000,00012 yrs) 1$4.004
$165,000
Contingency/General Fund One Time 235.000
5400.000
Alternate Strategy
98-99 Pecan Creek/Bradshaw 266,00011 yr) $ 13,000
99-00 Pecan Creek/Bradshaw ($1,000,00012 yrs) 1$Q QQQ
$165,000
Contingency $235,000
Design Ruddell 35.000
$270,000
Move up bond sales (2 yrs)
Use part of 99-00 Misc Drainage ($574,000) 40.000
S20Q ,000
i
\J
C
,
1 •a.-,. ..r iii, . ,u.
o'
•
Prior Funding CDAC Recommendalioo (Council Approves in Budget)
$100,000 Good Sam. $126,651 Lakiy + 53,349 (CDBG '96 Fuo&o4
5200,000 Oct. Fund 160, Bradshaw
5200,000 Utilities $340,000 Move Bonds
Scott St- _ 51,000,000 (99.00 Fec 4)
$I 101000 266,000 (98-99 Pavan Ck.)
1 1 1 1997 1
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
BUDGET
Sbortfall from
Funding Cost Opusting Funds
(one time moo")
$ 500,000 $ 150,000 Skinaee
110,000 155,000 LAhy $ 165,000 Bond Move Up
340,000 160,000 Bradshaw 235.000 Coodogeocy
1,000,000 600,000 Robertson $ 400,000
266 • ~ 1,009,4S1Q Channel
52,216,000 $2,0651000
181, Eaginorziug
$2,246,000 _
M
Ruddell $715,000 Bid as Alternate se
S
m
'W
AAM~0
•
•
•
i
w........:...v,..........snw rc^.rwvw.,.~._...-._._.....--............ . ......~»...ue.hnar;
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1996-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
- ----TOTAL -C-ON (MEMO)
REOUIREO AID TOTAL WIRAT.
PROJECT EMISTNG ALIT". UNAUTH. OTHER CITY IN PROJECT AND I
YEAR DIVICEPT NUMBER PROJECT NAME BONDS UNISSUED UNISSUED EUNDIHG TT. COSTS MAINT.
94 99 DRAINAGE 091041 WALLAS DRIVE DRAINAGE 40,000 SO,DDD
96 99 DRAINAGE 041042 PECAN CREEK SRAO"W TO MAIN CHANNEL 266,00. 266,000 266,000
9a 99 DRNUNAGE 041019 CPT STREET DRANAGE 400,000 440,000 440,000 Z
r
96 99 CAMAGE 061069 PACE DRIVE DRAPIRGE 400,000 400.000 4W.0DO
.4799 DRAINAGE 061075 PECAN CPEEK RUDDIFLL 250,000 110,000 2`50,000
94.99 COWNAGE 061036 COOPER CREEK CHANNEL PRASE 1 We." 600.000 600.000
96 99 DRAiVAGE 061061 SOUTH LAKE RE TENTION POND 260,000 2%0`0. 260.070
96 99 DRAINAGE 0610620 LISC DRAINAGE CAPITAL WROVEMENTS PH N 125,000 125,000 125000 'I
9697 PARKS 0063054 A. 1FILE TIC FAC WIE S R E NOV I OCV PH I 500,000 500,000 500,000
p699 PARKS 006306 SOUTHLAKES PARK PILASE I DEVELOPMENT 650,000 650.000 650,000 5700)
94 99 PARKS 0043010 UPGRADE EXISTING PARKS PM 700,000 700,000 700000 4.000
9699 PARKS 004315 UNIVERSITY CONE LANDSCAPING 219,000 249,000, 249,000 494,000
9699 TRANS 001.134 ATERIAL TURN LANES PH I 247,000 241,000 241,000
9697 TRANS 0010174 TRAFFIC SIGNAL S PHI 325,000 325,000 725,000
9699 TRANS 0050132 MAYMLIJLOOP2N CONNECTOR ROAD 745,000 745,000 145,000
"99 TRANS 001054 COLLINS ST PAVING ANDORNNAGE PKASE 1 WOOD 440.000 W0.000
96 99 TRANS 0010150 SIOEY'IALKSMItEWAYS PH■ 142,000 112,000 142,000
9699 TRANS 0010770 S THE E T COTC+TRUC TION PH N 450.000 450,000 450.000
1 Da 99 PUB Wf TY 00?W PHI FI'E40LICE26d COMP INFO SERV. 2,mo L00 7000,000 2,000.000
• + 9A 99 INTO SVGS DOA001 DATA PROCESSINGmILINO SYSTEM 2,000. DOO 2.070,090 7000,000 4,000.0r1O
249,0(4 1110040W 0 4,000900 11.341,000 2,247.000 11,574.000 51,D7o
i
I
7
• •
J '
'This revenue source includes certificales of obligation, fund balance, and general fund resources. it
I
'Dedicated to Ouakfy Service'
T 1 1 t 1 1 I I , 1 1 i 1 N 5 I 1 I I I 1 I f I ~ pti
-"Now 4
•
•
(
( I ! I ( 1 ! 1 I ~ I 1 I 1 1 I . I . I . 1 . i - I 1
CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS -
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1996-2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
TOTAL (MEMO)
REOUIRED AID TOTAL OPERAT.
PROJECT EXISTING AUTH. UNAUTH. OTHER CITY IN PROJECT AND
YEAR DIVrDEPT NUMBER- PROJECT NAME - ` __BONDS Uf6SSUED UNISSUED -FUNDINO- CONST__COSTS- MAINZ
91070(10 DRAINAGE 061087 CARROLLW.KORYCULVERT 6APROVETAENIS 116,000 516,000 116,000
YI ta,a DRANAGE 061011 PECANCREEK SYCAMORE SOUTH TO Rt100fLL 302.000 302,000
/11hxK1 DRAl71AGE 061084 PECANCREEK TRIG PECI 8613) 1,000000 1,000,000 1,000,000
9+17x10 DRAINAGE 061O67E LASC DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PHV F-71 514.000 574,000
4170'.10 PARKS 0063050 ATHLETIC FACILITIES RENOV 6 DEV PH■ 500,000 500900 500,000
9q 7010 PARKS 00677$ ATHLETIC FIELDS ADOiTIONS AHD 1APROVEMENTS 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000
99 JOW PARKS 0063M FUTURE tIDOOR RECREATION FACILITY 500,000 500,000 500,000
91070'10 PARKS WSW PARK&MRARY EXPANSION 600,000 600,000 600,000 1(710,000
9'120M 11NA11S 0010117 JMCRYSIALBR+OGES 200,000 200,000 200,000
11 NX10 IRANS 001061 RNEY ROAD PAVING 140,000 110,000 140,000
9.1.X10 IPNIS 001097 PALL S ROAD F RCM MAYHIL L TO RYAN ENTRANCE 300,000 300,000 150,000 450,000
rI 1DA 1RM45 001014 ROSELAWNPAVRJO SENARDTOCEMETARY 250,000 250,DOO 250000
~r11(00 7H415 0010108 WELOWWOOD PAVING FVJDDRAOUGE IOPTION n e75,D00 675.000 675'000
V'7D'10 TRANS 0010116 SOUTH RUDOCLL$IREETSIDE WALK 86,000 66,000 58,000
f11O10 TRANS DO 101 IC TRAFFICSW4A_'3PH4 225900 225,000 725,000
9'170(10 IRAN$ 00101489 LOOP 786(435) TOTEASLEY 250,000 250,000 250,000
992000 TRAr15 001077E STREE T CONSTRUCTION PH V 759,000 759,000 759,000
7J79,000
0 0 7.179,000 150.000 7,929,000 100,000
•
• ' I
'This revenue source Includes certilIcales of oblgalion, fund Datance, and general fund resources. `
'Dedirvied To OwNty Smvico'
t
•
•
Agenda No 97- ~~Q
Aflendaltem_
Date -7-
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
i
TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: R.E. Nelson, Executive Director of utilities
DATE: MAY 27, 1997
SUBJECT: FIBER OPTIC FACILITIES FOR DISD COMPUTER NETWORK AND
FIBER OPTIC CONNECTIONS WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH
TEXAS AND TEXAS WOMAN'S UNIVERSITY
RECOMMENDATION:
There is no recommendation. Staff submits the following information regarding
development of a contract with DISD to lease excess fiber optic capacity from the City's
fiber optic system for use in the DISD computer network and an agreement with UNT
and TWU to connect their campus to the city of Denton fiber optic system for the
purpose of data exchange and analysis.
SUMMARY:
The City of Denton Electric Utility has developed an extensive fiber optic system which
supports the operati m of the electric utility and Is used for communication between City
of Denton facilities. Due to the geographical location of the electric utility and City
facilities, the majority of the City of Denton is covered by the City fiber optic system.
DISD and UNT have requested an opportunity to utilize part of Denton's Fiber Optic
System for data exchange. The city's fiber optic system is presently providing a link
between Denton's Library an the TWU Library but no other data exchange connections
presently exist.
O
DI SD
i
DISD is implementing a new computer network which requires connection of all DISD
facilities to their Information Services Center located adjacent to the DISD
Administration Building. DISD has requested that the Denton Electric Utility lease
O excess fiber capacity on the City system to DISD for data transfer between the DISD O O
facilities.
I
7 7 7,
•
•
_ l
This creates an opportunity for two local governmental entities to work together for the
benefit of Denton children and all local taxpayers.
Denton Electric Utility will provide DISD excess fiber capacity, electronics, and system
maintenance for connection of 21 DISD facilities.
• Two high schools
• Three middle schools
• Twelve elementary schools
• Four Service/Administration Facilities
The cost to DISD for this service will be $462 per month per facility for an annual cost
of $116,425 per year.
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
Connecting Denton's fiber optic service to UNT for the purpose of data exchange, the
city will receive the following immediate benefits:
• Water Quality monitoring at the Pecan Creek/Lake Lewisville Confluence - UNT is
assisting the City of Denton in monitoring the impact of the wastewater treatment plant
discharge on water quality In Lake Lewisville, as required by a TNRCC permit. The
fiber connection will allow water quality data to be transferred instantaneously from the
monitoring point to UNT.
• EPA Storm Water Grant - The City of Denton and UNT have secured a $100,000
EPA grant to assist that agency in developing a model plan for monitoring and
enforcement of storm water regulations in cities of less than 100,000 population. As
part of this effort, UNT will be investigating the use of a GIS system for identifying and
tracking storm water pollutant in the drainage basin.
A stream gauging and rain monitoring station will he developed. The fiber optic system
will be used to transmit data from such stations back to UNT for analysis by the GIS
system.
• Storm Water Early Warning System - The technology developed for both the water
! quality monitoring and the EPA grant activities will also be useful for Incorporation in a
storm water early warning system.
In addition to the Utility Department projects, the city of Denton will receive the
following benefits from the fiber optic link with UNM
! • Access to Satellite Data - UNT has access to "SPOT" satellite data which the City O •
could use over the long term to evaluate land use and vegetation changes.
- - •
0
•
i
•
• Exchange of GIS Information - UNT has access to GIS data on Denton County and
the Ray Roberts watershed which the city of Denton does not have available.
• Public Relations - In return for establishment of the fiber optic link, UNT will allow
the City to develop a public access terminal and a Utility Department technology
demonstration exhibit In the new Environmental Education Science and Technology
building.
• Library Access - Data exchange between the Denton Public Library and the UNT
Library will become available.
TEXAS R'OMAN'S UN ER ITY
TWU and Denton are not presently in discussions about data links for any service other
than for the library, but in the past TWU has inquired about data exchanges with
Dtnton's mainframe computer, especially for GIS and Internet coordination. We
anticipate that similar synergies exist with TWU that exist with UNT and DISD - and
staff seeks similar council permission to negotiate a contract with TWU when such
opportunities arise.
PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENTS OR GROUPS AFFECTED:
City of Denton General Government Depai iments, Utility Department, Denton Public
Library.
FISCAL IMPACT:
DISD - ANNUAL ELECTRIC UTILITY REVENUE OF $116,415
I:VT - The expenditures associated with the equipment required to accomplish the fiber
connection with UNT is $13,501, a portion of which may be paid from the EPA grant.
Please advise if 1 can provide additional information.
RESPECT Y SUBMITTED:
• ~ ~L~-v`-~ 11
R.E. Nelson, Executive Director
Department of Utilities
Prepared by:
Sharon Mays, Director
Electric Utilities
•
Agenda No. V-02f)
Agenda Item 3
Date _~~=~.z.
i
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING DENTON, TEXAS 76201 TELEPHONE 617.566-8309
Office of the City Secretary
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 1997
TO: Ted Benavides, City Manager
FROM: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary
SUBJECT: Board/Commission Appointment Timelins
Following the procedures approved by the City Council for
board/commission appointments, I have worked up a tentative
timeline for Council consideration.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Jen fer alters
Cit Secr tary
Attachment
ACCOOICB
1
t
e
i
I
i
..J
'Deduaa^d to Quality Service"
a
IP pit
•
•
1
PROPOSED TIMELINE FOR BOARD/COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
DATE ACTION
Week of May 26 Letter from City Secretary to
current members with expiring
terms with application and/or
letter of thanks
Week of June 2 Advertising in Denton Record-
Chronicle for prospective
applicants
Week of June 2 Advertising in Denton Record-
Chronicle for briefing session
June 11 Briefing for prospective board
members with City Council members
and staff liaison presentations -
Center for the Visual Arts, 7:00 -
8:30 p.m.
June 13 Deadline for board applications
June 13 Board/Commission information
forwarded to City Council
June 17 Board/Commission appointment
nominations by individual City
Council members in regular session
July 1 Finalize Board/Commission
nominations, if necessary
July 8 Council vote on nominations in
regular session
July 9 Letters sent to new appointments,
• reappointments board/commission
members
July 29 Board/Commission Reception -
Visual Arts Center, 7:00 - 9:00
p.m.
N • O
V ACCOC?.C8
J +1
•
i
a
•
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
1996-199
council Home Office Original Present
Place Member Home Address Telephone Telephone Appointment Term r,
3 Carcl Ann Ganzer 605 Cordell 566-866n 383-2570 7/1996 1996-98
4 Rudy Mozeno 3608 Marianne CirCle 665=8301 3876111 1/1911 95 1995-97
Eligible -rea intment {
5 Ellen Schertz 3820 Granada Trail 566-6005 566-3005 7/1994 1996-98
6 Jim Engelbrecht 2305 North Lake Trail 565-1009 6/1997 1996-98
Pending approval on 6/3 76207
7 Barbara Russell 919 5. Carroll. 02016 382-8914 366-2730 ':11993 - 1995-9'l
Cli able - ree intment 1324'Heatber Y,n haM
1 Guy Jones 4208 'I-3S No 76207A87-3754 5664377 7/1995 1995-97
Eligible reappointment
2 Bob F W011 127 Wf Woodrow tn., 382-1390 498-66227/1995 19955-97
Sliyible - reappointment 76205
Staff Liaison - David Hill
• Chair
Members appointed for 2 year terms
Members must be real property taxpayers
Members must be residents one year before appointment
Decision Making Board
f
I
SHADED LINES - EXPIRING TERMS
ACCO0008
Rev. OS-22-97
r
(UFEP DENTON BEAUTIFUL BOARD
1996-1997
Council Home Office Original Present
Place Member Home Address Telephone Telephone Appointment Term
1 Larry Mullen 602 cardinal, IE-11 591-1079 382-6521 7/1996 1996-98
2 Sara Saunders 221 N. Locust 76201 (0) 566-0592 11/1996 1996-98
3 Cresha Sagford Beattie 1319 Greenbrier 382-6179 SAS-8484 7/1995 1995-97
Eligible - reappointment 76201
4 nauglas Fbarrole 3210 Montecito 383-2914---- 11/94 1945-9?
Eli ibis reappointment 76205 ,
5 G9rl Aschanbrenner 3102 Broken "row - 982-4606 'a °387«3222 ';6Ji997 199S-97
Pend approval on 6-3 76201
6 Gayla Robles 1823 N. Bell 382-2677 5/1956 1996-98
76201
7 Vera Laney 2508 Robinwood 382-803. 7/1994 1996-98
76201
1 Rev. L. E. Lawson 611 S.'Ruddell 566-1386 7/14~5, 1995-97
Eligible - reappointment 76205 n
2 Mark Osborne 2220 Oak Tree 848 1931 %'.s a 7j19y95 1945-91
.
Eligible - rea intmont i'
3 Sara LaGrone 529 Magnolia 383-4343 3/1996 1996-98
4 DeeDee Scott 3407 Bob-O-Link, 76201 380-0072 566-3005 7/1996 1996-98
Staff Liaison - Cecile Carson
chair - no chair at present due to resignation f
of Jean Rose
• Members appointed for 2 year terms e®
Advisory Board
ED LINES - EXPIRING TERM
ACCOO008
Rev. 05-22-97
• ~-ma'r'- • .
77
a
•
r.r. .
I, U-1 N'
ot,
FILE
•