HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-12-1997
•
•
I
i
City Counci.1
Agenda Packet i
August 12, 1997
•
f
t
. .
^l l.Y .
•
n
Agenda No.
AGENDA Agenda Item
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Date al
August 12, 1997
After d:termining 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, August 12,
1997 at 6:00 p,m. ir. the Police Department Conference Room of the Denton Municipal
Complex, 601 E. Hickory, Denton, Texas, at which the following items will be considered:
1. Closed Meeting:
A. Conference with Employees Under TEX. GOV'T CODE Sec. 551.075. The
Council may receive information trom 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
CLOSED MEETING OR ON INFORMATION RECEIVED IN A CONFEkENCE 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 TEX GOVT CODE SEC. 551.001, ET SEQ. (TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS
tCT) 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 WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT,
INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SECTIONS 551.071-551.085 OF THE OPEN
MEETINGS ACT.
Special Called Meeting of the City of Ccnton City Council on Tuesday, August l2, 1997 at 7:00
p.m. in the Central Jury Room of the Denton Municipal Complex, 601 E. Hickory, Denton,
Texas at which the following items will be considered:
1. Hold a public hearing to disLass the proposed 1997-98 budget.
2. Consider nominations/- ppointments to City Boards and Comrr,;ssions.
FolloAing the completion of the Special Called Meeting, the Council will convene into a Joint
Work Session with the Public Utilities Board at which the follot:'ng item 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 r
matters should be placed on a future regular or special meeting of the Council for citizen input,
City Council deliheration asxl 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 and 0 •
members of organizations 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
•
•
City of Denton City Council Agenda
August 12, 1997
Page 2
to the beginning of the session, a written report regarding the citizen's opinion on the matter
being explored. Should the Council direct tho 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
p:,rpose of this procedure is to allow citizens attending the regular meang the opportunity to
hear the views of their fellow citizens without having to attend two meetings.
1. Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the final report of
the Management Study as prepared by Black & Veatch.
CERTIFICATE
1 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 , 1997 at o'clock
(a.m.) (p m.)
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CENTRAL JURY ROOM OF THE DENTON MUNICIPAL COMPLEX
IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE FIGN LANGUAGE
INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING.
PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S OF: ICE AT 349-8309 OR USE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING
1-SOO-RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE
SCHEDULED THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
A00003B7
•
r
e
s
J
Agenda No. I _ D' 7
Agenda Henn 55 02
ILD
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING DENTON,TEXAS 76201, TELEPHONE 817.566-8309
Office of fhe Cory Secretary
ME140RANDUM
DATE: August 6, 1997
TO: Mayor and Members of the city council
FROM: Jennifer Walters, City Secretary
SUBJECT: Board/Cmmission Appointments
The following is a list of current Board/Commission
vacancies/nominations:
Keep Dentc:i Beautiful Board - Fred Patterson was nominated by
Council Member Cochran and Council had approved that nomination.
Mr. Patterson has now indicated that the meeting times for this
Board present a scheduling conflict and he will not be abl-a to
serve.
Information Services Advisory Board - Renee Seely has resigned.
This is a nomination for Council Member Kristoferson.
Coomunity Development Advisory Committee - Cou'acil Member Young has
indicated that Ben Sheffield is unable to serve.
If you regeire any further information, please let me know.
Je : fer a e r s
Cit ecreta y
ACCOOOF4
`Dedicated M Qwlify Smicf"
ke"
. u~_-...~.
•
i
•
i.
_-..,_.....,,.,rv..~rt-Iw.+.Y..ItMfl+lllsWwdt'. ~TIY-..
Agenda No._L1~ 03~~
Agenda Item-1~
llaie ,
CITY of DENTON, TEXAS MUNICIPAL 8UILDING p 215 E. McK(NNEY s DENTON, TEXAS 76201
(917) 566.8200 DFW METRO 434.2529
I
Memorandum
To: Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: R.E. Nelson, Executive Director of Utilities
Date: August 6, 1997
RE: Denton Municipal Utilities Management Study 1997
The Denton Municipal Utilities Management Study 1991, was sent out with Council
Packets on August 1 to ensure adequate time to review the document before the
August 12°i Work Session.
•
"Dedicated to Qualiry Service"
•
•
•
Handout to Council 8/12/97
+iv
x ,aqM
.3 CITY OF DENTON
~I enton Municipal Utilities
Management Study
1997
e
SONC~kWGtS?8~
~ Y
i
4f.rV', r
BLACK & VEATCH
~P KPMG Peat Marwick
II
1
•
•
•
BLACK & VEATCH
3
t
i
THE PROCESS w.
• Community
• Utility
• Practice Experts
- Findings wises
- Recommendations w
• Benchmarking ►
• E
E
I
I
• •
•
•
i
•
BLACK & VEATCH
VALUE DEFINITION COMMUNITY
• Effectiveness: • City Council
"Doing the Right Thing" • Public Utility Board
• Community
• Efficiency: - Citizens
"Doing "fhings Right" - Business
- Industry
- Community Groups
• •
i
2
•
r
q
•
BLACK & VEATCH
COMMUNITY VALUES COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
• high Quality of Service • DMU Doing Commendable Job in
- Reliable/Responsive Ensuring:
- Protect Public Health - High Quality of Service
- Reliable Product
- Effective Management - Fair Price
- Plans to Meet Future Needs • Senior Management Committed to:
• Service at Reasonable.-Not Necessarily - Effectiveness and Efficiency in Operation
Lowest--Cost - Responsive Level of Service
q fl
3
c'
M, MAWKSM
•
•
0
BLACK & VEATCH
MAJOR CHALLENGES MAJOR CHALLENGES
s Deregulation/Reregulation of Electric • Fixing City's Widespread Drainage
- Afford to Keep Electric Syvern Problems
- Deal with Stranded Costs - Funding the Capital Costs
• Rapid Growth of Denton • Pressure of Ptivatization
- Challenge of Serving New Gro«th - Competitive with Private Sector
- Competitive with Surrounding Communities
- Afford Current LeveVQualit} of Service
• - Stay Competitive
{
4
j
•
•
•
BLACK & VEATCH
UTILITY STRENGTHS
• Strengths • Personnel • Short Term Planning
• Level of Customer • Dependable Power
• Weaknesses Senice Supply
• Training/Safety • Future Water Supply
• Opportunities • Understanding Cost of Secured I
~ Services • Esclushe Commercial
• Threats • KnowNeet Industry Waste Hauling
• Standards t
i
i
• O
.J
5
•
BLACK & VEATCH
WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES
• Retaining Louver • TMPA - Stranded
Level Employees - CosmDereguiation • Quality of Service vs Costs
Non Competitive • High Cost of Raw • Technologies
Salanes Water - SCADA Systems
• Strategic Long Term - Computers
Planning • 15 Months of Landfill Capacity • Image Building
• Communication With • Fiber Optics
General Government
• Departments
i
I
i
6
j
•
•
i
1
BLACK VEATCH
THREATS PRACTICE EXPERTS
• Rapid Groolh • TMPA -Stranded • Governance
• Increased./New Costs * Utility Management
Regulations • Long Term Decline in • Facilities
• Pncatization Water Usage per • Policies / Practices
Customer
• Deregulation - • Permitting Nei' • Competitiveness
Customer Choice of Landfill • Findings / Recommendations
Electric Po«er Supp.y
O
1
7
1 i
I rf
• ` v
# &T Nkomo"
•
i
. ui.f~rvrw.Or.A'.:~.+K WRY.iww~.Yrw~..M.ri~a.r~u.-riw~~.~r~-+r..~.. ~....~~~_r~~~.~~r._.~.. r s~---r.~--..--.~rnw.~r.+~•~R~n
BLACK & VEATCH
GOVERNANCE GOVERNANCE
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Statutory Roles of: • Competitive Decision Processes
- City Council - Closed Session Discussions of Comptddve
- Public Utility Board Strategies
- City Manager • Clearer Definition of Roles
- Executive Director - Ad Hoc Study Cornmittee To Further Define
1 Poles and Recommend Changes to City Charter
• Clear Agreement & Understanding of Roles • Timeliness and Reduced Bureaucracy
- Routine Purchases over $50,000 Go Direct :o
• City Council
J
n
I
j
J
8
1
I Vf
111 1
I~YMMwrfr 6r 4 ~ +y Irn ~ r
•
•
•
t
n.... .......wow....~......i....«........e....-.....,....«...~.w...........~._._..._._._._._~._~~..~_..r.~~.....-..Y._.e__~..e,.......r.~....... ..........w.~.-•:..
BLACK & VEATCH
UTILITY MANAGEMENT UTILITY MANAGEMENT
Overall Condition
• Overall Condition • Management Team/Leadership -.Strong &
• Organization Structure Highly Educated
• Planning Process • Team Work - Good
• Internal Communications - Good
r Understanding of Mission - Good
• DMU Services Provided to General
Government Depts - Satisfactory
•
~.t...:
•
•
•
BLACK & VEATCH
UTILITY MANAGEMENT UTILITY MANAGEMENT
Overall Condition Organization
• Communication General Gove.tunent • Evolved Over Time to Meet Changing
Departments - Needs Improvement Needs & New Challenges
- Communication Summits • Pressures On Current Organization
• Public Information - Information Based - Deregulation
- Need to Focus More on What Service - Landfill Permits
Communitp Gets for Its Investment - Legislative Initiatives
• Finance - Meet Industry Standards • Drives Need For Minor Changes
• • Economic Development - Very Good
• o
•
•
•
BLACK & VEATCH
CIO c«,fto
PLANNING PROCESS
by Y~uN
a Short Term • Good
PUB
• Strategic - Needs Tmprovements
- 3 Year Plan
- Appro%vd By CC/PUB
• Tactical Plans - Goes milk Budget
' i
i
• Denton Munklpal VoNtim
C ~ "
•
•
•
l
BLACK & VEATCH
i
FACILITIES POLICIES/PRACTICES
• Overall Condition - Good to Overall Focus - Conservative:
• Focused on Plaro:ed/Preventive - Protecting Public Investment
Maintenance Acti,,it'tes
• Updated Technolofjes Needed -High Level do Quaii'-; ACS rrvice
- SCADA • Changing Focus In Some Areas to be More
- Automation Cost Competitive With Private Sector
- Computer Systems • Match With Industry Accepted Policies &
• Practices
S.
i
'1, :Sax '.r r.l
•
•
•
BLACK & VEATCH
i
COMPETITIVENESS FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
• Currently Electric, Water/Wastewater & • 171 Recommendations
Solid Waste Rates - Competitive In Region 4P Find ings/Recomrnendations Found in Each
• Managers Have Detailed Understanding Of Chapter
Costs • Summarized in Appendix A
• Managers Are Focused On Being • Prioritized:
Competitive - One - Inlegral to Competitiveness (6 Mo.)
• Deregulation & Privatization Changing the - Two -Improve Operations (18 Mo.)
• Playing Field - Three - ARer One & Two lmplemenled
i
77
ZZ 211101~
•
•
1
BLACK & VEATCH
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Electric Utility Water Utility
• Fornt Strategy Committee to Address • Reduce Staffing At Water Plant
Deregulation - Use O&M Technicians (6 Posidonsj
• Keep Strong Leadership Position on TMPA - Install SCADA System
• Upgrade SCADA System - Power Management System
• Pursue Potential In Fiber Optics • Separate Staff Used to Perform CIP From
Plant O&M Staff
• Look at Outsourcing Grounds Maintenance
•
2-f,Y
•
•
•
BLACK & VEATCH
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Wastewater Uti ity Water/Wastewater Engineering
• Reduce Staffing At Wastewate: Plant • Implement New Coordination Procedures
- Use O&M Technicians (6 Positions) With Engineering & Transportation
- Install SCADA System • Continue to Improve Cooperation &
- Oxygen Management Save Power Costs Communications
- Power Management System • Move Pipeline Design/Construction Under
- Permit Change Reduced Chlorine Costs DM`U When Rapid Growth of City Begins
• Expand Use of Automation
• • Continue to Outsource Ground Maintenance
•
0
'AA ko
•
•
t
•
1
BLACK & VEATCH
I
E
i
E
i
I
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Solid Waste Drainage Operations
• Develop Alternate Disposal Plan to be • Appoint Senior City Official to Develop 8c.
Ready if Landfill Permit is Delayed Implement Improvements to Drainage
• Improve Image in Commercial Collection System
• Obtain Routing Software to Improve • Consolidate Planning, Engineering &
Efficiencies Maintenance Under One Department
• Implement Street Rental Fee on • Expand the Use of Enhanced Technology
Commercial Haulers Operating Within City for Errly Warning
• • Expand Maintenance Stag'
1
• 0
3
4
V ' r f.
•
i
•
BLACK & VEATCH
i
I
FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Fleet Services Support Services
• Pursue Preventive Maintenance Program *Improve Communication & Working
• Finalize Plans for Upgrading or Replacing Relationships
Vehicle Maintenance Facilities • Support City Manager's Communication
• Purchase Extended Warranties On Nc%v. Summits
Equipment • Must Be Part of Utility Team To Stay
• Continue to Oetsource Specialized Services Competitive
• Need Salary and Position Evaluations
- ~r
i•
•
•
s
BLACK & VEATCH
BENCHMARKING ELECTRIC UTILITY
• Municipal Utilities • Compared Well with Municipal r rd
Investor-Owned Utilities Cost Performance
• Private / Investor-Owned Measures
• Industry Standards
s
• Findings
i
E
I
I
f,
Tabl: 13.12
Denton Municipal Utilities
Electric Utility
Comparison of Cost Performance Measures
Entity Transmission Expenses Distribution Expenses ARG Expenses
s/MWh(l) S/MWh(1) S/MWh
Municipal Utility
Denton 0.68 9.72 3.94
B 6.75 538 17.59
C NIA 15.13 2.45
D 1.53 5.86 4.24
G 2 69 10.69 4.97
Investor•Oµned till
1 2.99 6.29 6.83
2 1,90 7.46 8.80
3 2.09 17.10 3.49
4 3.82 11.00 4.45
5 2,32 6.>- 4.01
6 4,20 7.94 6,59
1995 Data from data repotted to FERC
NIA = Not Available
(1) Impacted by size of service area and relative percentage of construction which is
overhead or underground.
i
i
J
i
7 _7 7~ 71
•
r
Table 13-13
Denton Municipal Utilities
Electric Utility
Comparison of Operating and Maintenance Costs
Entity Customer & Sales Expenses Administrati%e e- "3eneral
Total Expense Expenses per Total Expense Rcvenue per
$/MWh Customer S/RIWh Employee
mills/kWh $1,000
Municipal Utility
Denton 65.56 0.16 1.68 162
B 61.93 0.12 5.31 43
i
C 61.08 0,20 1.10 NIA
D 61.71 0.082 1,64 N/A
G 47,06 0.04 3.75 172
Investor - Owned Utility
1 59.72 3.86 109
2 58.02 - 666 54
3 65.95 0.13 4.33 29
4 71.14 0.02 3,85 48
5 6396 - 3.43 60
• 6 59.40 0.02 333 33
1995 Data from data reported to FERC 3.33 r
N/A = Not Available
r ~ • r .
i
I
I
•
•
•
1
If
BLACK & VEATCH
WATER UTILITY WATER UTILITY
• Compared to Other Municipal Utilities • DMU Field Crews Provide:
- Overall System Cost Rated Higher - higher !_eyel of Sen ice To Customer
- Current Plant O&M Costs Rated Higher - More Preventiye/Planned Maintenance
- Dstribution System Maintenance Cost Higher - More Minor Construction Actitiity
• Water Treatment Plant • Water Rates Are Competitive With
- - Provides Highest Quality or Water Regional Utilities of Same Size
- Reduction of 6 Positions Will Make Its
• Operation Competitive
e o
r
0
•
Table 13.1E
Denton Municipal j 'ities
Water Utility
Water System 0&M Costs Per 1,000 Gallons Produced
Utility
Description Entin A Entity D Entity C Entity D Entity E
Denton
511,000 S/1,OW S/1,000 f11,OW S/i,OCK!
gals, gals. gals. go1& gals,
Annual Production - MG 5,188 3,097 1bl 13,009 [1,] 6,940 [a] 9,855
Personnel Costs - S/1,000 gols. $0,469 50.306 So, 295 $0.343 50.481
Expenses'.
Poser - $11,000 gals. $0.129 $0 137 SOO76 N/A $0.099
Chemicals - 511,000 gals, S0.093 $0,022 $0.029 NIA $0.042
Maintenance - S/1,000 gals. 501212 50.165 NIA N/A so.Isu
Usher - S/1,000 gals. $0.171 50.619 NIA S0.442 50.248
Taal Expenses - S/I,(K)O gals. 50.605 $0.942 S(O51 $0.442 S0,569
Total O&M Costs - S/I,V)O gals. $1074, 51,247 S0.846 $0.785 Sl 050
Ranking S 5 2 1 3
MG- million gallons,
NIA - Not Available.
[al Annual syater purchased for Entity D
1b1 Annual hater production including both su•face and ground eaters
f
• k
II ,
I
O ;
a
Figure 13-2
arnc.Wa Water Bill Comparison [a]
Water B cmiles Bet_ 1n so o00 Jnd H10 DOC Pcpuiman
I
I
g.
N
n
F
C' ~ d
N PchAM wi% pva,n v
[a] PI calculaoon based wt 10 000 gallons of water usage
WMMMIP~
•
•
•
BLACK & VEATCH
t
I
I
i
i
WASTEWATER UTILITY WASTEWATER UTILITY
• Compared to Other Municipal Utilities • DMU Field Crews Provide:
- Overall System Cost Rated Average - Higher Level of Service To Customer
- Current Plant O&M Cce!s Rated Average - More Preventive/Planned Maintenance
- Collection System Maintenance Cost Higher - More Minor Construction Activity
• Treatment Plant Compared With Contract • Wastewater Rates Are Higher Than
Operated Facilities Rated Competitive Regional Utilities of Same Size
- Reduction of 6 Positions, Povver Costs, and
Chemical Costs Will Make Plant Highly
Competitive
. I
i
j.
I
I
i
c
• C. %'i ~c_'~ •
•
i
Table 13-30
Denton Municipal Utilities
Wastewater Utility
Wastewater System 08M Costs Per Daily Average Treated Wastewater Volume
Utility
Description Entity A Entity Entity C Entity F Entity G
Denton B
Doily Average Treated 11.7 6.8 19 11.5 11.2
Wastewater Volume, mpd
Personnel Costs, S/mgd 5231,406 5126,345 $111,297 S146,905 $333,833
Expenses
Power, Virid 536,768 $31,912 NIA $51,003 $31,847
Chemicals, S/mgd $13,655 $1,501 NIA $14,801 $7,844
Maintenance, S/mgd $40,540 $58,971 NIA $18,837 $35,452
Ckher,S/mgd S80,W8 5199,947 N/A $159,182 $3,781
Total Expenses, $170,970 $292,331 $200,154 $243,823 $78,923 1II
$/mgd }
Total C'&M Costs, S/mgd S402377 5418,676 $311,450 5390,728 5412,756
mgd • million gallons per day.
N/A • Not Available.
ti
r
r'
• ` • •
1 _
0
•
•
.
Table t3-38
Best Practices Benchmarking Survey
1995 Operational Cost Comparison
The Innovation Groups
Wastewater Treatment Plants - Contract Operations
Hard atze Annual O&M Contras No, or NOY Average 1 FTFa Sludge Disposed per Numbet of OA)4 Per
Jurudition NCA in mgd Amount FTFs Treated-mgd mgdtreare4 Year (dry tons) wounts O&M pcr mad"' Actiounl
PretcoO Varrey 1,23 5430,000.00 30 0.80 3.75 NSA 4,000 $1,111.26 3107.50
Buming )6 $362.00000 70 20) 14 1,200 1.000 $41919 $4573
Burbank 9 31,730.634 00 22 0 1.36 26 1.721 47.W $56631 539.75
R'at Melbourne FL 191 5645,251,75 90 0.99 so 312 4,100 $1,775.)2 $137.35
Sioux City LA 30 $1912 OW 00 300 12.41 1.4 5,am 26,DO0 $63202 St1015
Neu Bedford kIA 30 $2.500.00000 Ito 1) 10 0.77 1,SW 41.000 $294.96 $59.32
Nc%buagh NY 7 $1)51.591.00 1.0 6.40 1.25 7,653 6,000 341531 $193.10
srrongville Olt 3.9 $1,043000.00 9.0 1,40 64 200 7,000 $2,01501 514929
Gresham OR 15 $1,5x70,000 00 ISO 9.00 1.6 NSA 16,000 $45620 393.73
M,vmn mn AR.A PA 7 $1.700,000 00 17,0 4.60 36 IOW 18,000 S10 1159 $91.44
I4vVngann so 25 3230.00000 40 all 49 1,700 1.500 $77401 $91.00
WISH TN IS $1.912,437,00 26.0 9.50 27 ),700 10,500 $51212 $17261
Alanistaan TN 1.5 51,400.000 00 120 3.'X1 27 N,A 7,000 $91779 $20000
Pigeon forge TN 4 $914,09400 70 1.97 3.5 1.370 1,570. 31,26951 539223
V IListor VA IS 32.000.90000 21.0 1000 11 N, 'A 15,000 5547.45 5133.33
0 Deulon FY 95 rN IS $1.732.000(A 14.0 11.7 1O 2.131 16.911 $417,11 310316
Denton FY 96 TN IS 52.052.116.00 23,2 it7 21) 1.731 16,311 5410.70 3111.61
(q Calcuratrd by Annual OUI Cost
WHY Avg (mgd) v 365 dpa
k
l
•
O
Figure 13-4
Wastewater Bill Comparison [a)
North Central Texas Cities Between 50,000 and 100,000 Population
30
25
20
w
m
15
N
to -
3
5 -
CarroMw Denton lawtsviUe N. Richland Hrls Richardson
(a] Bill calculation based on 7,50o gallons orttastewater Notume.
4°y
4 r 3"
1
is
•
i
0
BLACK & VEATCH
f~
I
i
t
SOLID WASTE
• Residential Rates Competitive WHERE DOES DENTON
• Commercial Rates Competitive GO FROM HERE?
{r{
I
e I •
k,
j 5c
•
s
Figure 13.5
Residential Waste Cost Comparison
Denton. TeMas
$20 00
I
$1500
U $10.00
11
s500
I' $000 Inr t.evnvtlle Sharman
i Beaumont Carrolmon Decatur Denton Grand Prairie Grapevine Ki een Richardson
0 hionthy Cost Averaga of i t Gibes (SS1 56(m nth)
f
•
1
•a
- 10
•
l
•
r
?L f
t r
1 ~e
Figure 13-10
Commercial Rate Comparisons
City or Denton
14 00
1200 ,loon , ■
Boo
a
U 6 00
1 ~ I
400
I
2 00
II
0.00
Allen CarroMon Commerce Euless Gainsville GrandPrairl Killeen McKinney Midland Stephenville Tyler
Arlington College Stal Denton Farmers Bra Garland Grapevine lawlsvift Mosques Richardson Temple
e Cosl per Cubic Yard Average of all CI les
i
I
Cubic Yard Open Top Container '
I
i
i
L
• O
•
•
•
I
g w"'t F
YILE
•
Lao.,............