HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-28-1998
aewa ~ , f '
O I`
r
mmve~mr
1
}
r
l
rr
t
City Council Agenda Packet
July 28,1998
,
T
1[
' ~ t 1 Y
r
Ir
1 )J 1
v1 _ ~
ip
I I
,r
N1 ~
I.~",yr .r •Y,
1 iS
44
.32 x
0 10
25
s ,
0
AGENDA Agenda Ilem"
CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL Dale
V
Jul), 28, 1998
After 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, July 28, 1998
at 5:15 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas
at which the following items will be considered:
1. Closed Meeting:
A Conference with Employees - Under TEX. GOVT, CODE Sec. 551,075. The
Council may mccive information from employees during a staff conference or
briefing, but may not deliberate during the conference.
B. Personnel - Under TEX. GOVT, CODE Sec. 551,074
I. Discuss the appointment of an Acting 0y Manager and the duties of the
appointee. I
ANY FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A I
CLOSED MEETING OR ON INFORMATION RECEIVED IN A CONFERENCE WITH
EMPLOYEES WILL ONLY BE TAKEN IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT 1S HELD IN
COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. GOV'T. CODE CH. 551. THE CITY COUNCIL RESERVES
THE RIGHT TO ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED MEETING OR ! .E.'UTIVE SESSION AS
AUTHORIZED BY TEX. GOVT. 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 WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT,
INCLUDING, WITHO1Tr LIMITATION SECTIONS 551.071.551.085 OF THE OPEN
MEETINGS ACT.
Work Session of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, July 28, 1998 at 6:00 p,m. in the
Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas at which the
following items will be considered:
NOIF: 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
masters 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 City
C'oun,il or City Manager to participate in the session. Participation by individuals and memhers
of organizations invited to speak ceases when the Mayor announces the session is being closed to
• public input, Although Wor Sessions are public nreerings, and citizens have a legal right to q
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
i
O .
City of Denton City Council Agenda
July 28, 1948
Page 2
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 r Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Denton Central
Appraisa' District's budget.
2. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the City's ad
valorem tax rate and changes to the property tax coder
3. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Hotel Occupancy
Tax allocations,
4r Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding Lake Chapman
(Cooper Lake) contract between the City of Denton and Upper Trinity Regional Water
District considering the pass-through of water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake.
5. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Planned
Development Multi-Family zoning issues,
6. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide direction to staff regarding the interim
Corridor Ordinance.
Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council will convene into a Special Called
Meeting to consider the following:
1. Consider and adopt a motion to reconsider an ordinance establishing fees to be charged
for emergency ambulance services and standby emergency aribulance services in the City
of Denton as provided for in Sec. 27-102 of Article 1V of Chapter 27 "Vehicles for Hire'
of i de Code of Ordinances of the City of Denton.
2. Consider adoption of an ordinance establishing fees to be charged for emergency
ambulance services and standby emergency ambulance services in the City of Denton as
provided for in Sec. 27.102 of Article IV of Chapter 27 "Vrhicles for Hire" of the Code
' . of Ordinances of the City of Denton.
3, Consider nominations/appointments to the City's 9oards,'Commissions. {
I
4. Official Action on Closed Meeting items held under Section 551.071.551.085 of the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
r
v'L
r
o, V t ,
j
f,.
®onm r
r `A 1 '1 M i L+^' `
r
•++✓,Y.rn7lJitl1!'!Y`:NMM/a:1MIMTMVrt11Vw~ ...r +w..
I
City of Denton City Council Agenda
July 28, 1998
Page 3
CERTIFICATE
1 certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the ; j
City of Denton, Texas, on the day of 1998 at o'clock
(a.m.) (P.m,)
CITY SECRETARY
NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION ROOM IS
ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACTT yf~
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 SECRETARYS OFFICE AT 349-8309 OR USE `
TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEVICES FOR THE DEAF (TDD) BY CALLING 1-800-
RELAY-TX SO THAT A SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETER CAN BE SCHEDULED
THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
+
y
a
I 1 t 1 r',
t a,
c it %
.34r,Y a ~
p
A _ .
oaacuai
gQ
Anaade Nb
Agenda Item _
Date R
AGENDA INFOP tifATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: July 28, 1998
D :PARTMENT: Finance
ACM: Kathy DuBose, 349-8228
SUBJECT - Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding
Denton Central Appraisal District's budget.
BACKGROUND
The Tcxas Property Tax Code requires taxing jur;.dictions to approve or disapprove their
Appraisal District budget within 30 days after its adoption by the Appraisal District's i
Board of Directors. The Denton Central Appraisal District's adoptod budget will be
presented to the City Council by Mr. Joe Forsythe, Director of Administration for the
Appraisal District.
II
FISCAL INFORDIA'HO
'f he praposcd budget contribution required by the City of Denton is $15,069 more than
this current year,(Fiscal Year 1997-98 allocation = 5130,021; 1998.99 allocation =
5145,090). 7 he taxing unit contributions are based on each taxing unit's percentage of
lolnl current year levy, which has increased over prior year.
Respectfully submitted:
A 1 r !
Kathy DU
Assistant City Manager, Finance
i
Ptna[ i~
Director of Fiscal Operations 0 t
Lj 11
two 10
1 r 1
,
i
n . n.. v r. n4nvwwr n.~. a~••. r n.. •...r ~
• • 1
Ir
I r
r
r
1
r
1
1
Denton Central Appraisal District
1999 Budget
i
f,
i
a.
j
I ,
ti-
i
I
t,:r
p
2S 10
77777777 77777777 7
'1 •4 1~ i i. r r.
r.
,
0
r
•
' Page 1 ~ J
/
DENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT
1999 BUDGET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
i
F
PAGE 1: TABLE OF CONTENTS
.J
PAGE 2: BUDGET LETTER
PAGE 4: SUMMARY OF REVENUE AND EXPENSE BUDGET AND
COMPARISON TO THE PRIOR YEAR REVENUE AND EXPENSE
BUDGET
PAGE 5: EXPENSE BUDGET AND COMPARISON TO THE PRIOR YEAR
EXPENSE BUDGET j
PAGE 6: EXPLANATION OF EXPENSES ,
PAGE 13: BUDGET ALLOCATIONS WORKSHEET
PAGE 15: CAPITAL EXPENSES
PAGE 17: SALARY SCHEDULE
t
F
1 r
( fir.
r r "a
:w
•
O
M
LENTON CENTRAL APPRAISAL LISTRICf
3911 MORSE STREET, P O Box 2816
DENTON, TEXAS 76202-2816
i
July 20. 1998
1 o the Board of Directors and the taxing jurisdictions served by DCP.D, Cite final 1999
Budget is hereby submitted, A public hearing was held on the Budget at 4 001 , on
July 9th. All cha-oes that the Board directed be made to the Budget after the public
hearing were made and are incorporated into the Budget.
It is common knowledge that Denton County is experiencing substantial economic
growth, The growth correlates to tax roll increases for rri-P of 'he taxing jurisdictions
The tax roll increases suggest that our budget must increase to provide the necessary
resources for staff to appraise the added growth, In addition to the growth the property
tax base is becoming more diverse The complexity of some types of properties is
placing a substantial strain on our resources due to the time and expertise required to
appraise the properties. The re nainder of this transmittal letter is dedicated to
examining some of the appraisal situations we face,
Until recently, most subdivisions were cOmpnsed of "tract homes all or which were of
similar design and square footage in each subdivision. These homes all sell for
approximately the same amount Accordingly, appraisers can justifiably assign a similar
appraised value to all homes in a subdivrsro t, We are now experiencing a reduction in
1 Ine construction of tract homes. The reduct on of these homes is being replaced with
i construction of custom homes, which have varying sales prices. Since the sales price of
custom homes varies widel r from home to home, the time and effort required to
determine the market value of custom homes is substantial.
Appraising custom homes is Extremely ddficu.t because the market value of custom
hemes is influenced by several iictors The finish out of a clis!om rome is mire critical
to sales price than the finish out of a tract home. The size of the house being appraised I
in relation to these around it has a major impact on its sales price. Landscaping and
O r, natural or man nade lot features has a significant impact on market value. obviously, 0 •
V1I delerm nrng herv much these variables effect market value so that the house can be
correctly appraised can be very, difficult.
I'lli!~I r'rl~lr4,r..rr~n1 \11 IRU i,I",1:1.]r,ir!
5,
4 0 3/] X
s
I
Page J
{
a
In addition to i unique features of the house or lot, the sales price of a custom home
is affected by any prominent outside influence in the area, Proximity to a golf course
can command a premium from certain buyers. Ilia condition of the golf course over
time has a direct impact on the sales price of the home A potential home buyer that
jogs or walks may pay a premium for immediate access to a green belt or a park, Other
buyers opt to pay a premium to live in close proximity to a lake. Hot, dry summers that
cause lakes to be lowered can have a major effect on the value of waterfront property.
Some factors that have strictly a negating effect on market value are proximity to a noisy
freeway or a railroad track. All of the above are common knowledge concerning Impact
on market value. Determining the exact impact on the value of a custom home prior to
its sale is the difficult part.
Just as custom homes carry inherent appraisal difficulties, appraising merchandise
inventory In various types of facilities can become an even more difficult assignment.
For instance, merchandise Inventory Is constantly being shipped and received.
Determining the jurisdiction, or "situs", of the merchandise inventory on the assessment
date can be quite a ch211enge. If we can not prove situs, the appraised value of the
inventory becomes mute.
After situs Is esta;lished, we then appraise the inventory. This task becomes rather
difficult at times. The contents of a container on a shelf in a warehouse or production
facility may hold a few dollars worth if food items, toys, trinkets, etc. On thou next shelf
virtually identical boxes may contain thousands of dollars worth of high tech equipment.
Obviously, a box of potato chips has minimal value compared to an Identical box
containing cellular phones. Of course, most owners of merchandise inventory are not
overly anxious to provide the kind of Information that staff needs to accurately appraise
these inventories.
Equipment used in the production of income is another type of inventory that can have a
substantial market value An actual situation can be owed to illustrate this point. The
Food Lion building in the City of Roanoke and Northwest ISD at one time contained
approximately $25 million in merchandise inventory The appraised value of this
merchandise inventory pales in comparison to the projected value of the equipment
inventory in th9 Intel facility. "he Wet facility is expected to house ip to $1 billion of
• equipment inventory. The magnitude of these amounts is so great that our staff has to
be very accurate in their appraisals Attaining the level of accuracy needed, creates a
tremendous demand for resources for the Appraisal District
1
The information presented above is intended to indicate that we are moving into an era
of substantial value increases Increases in property values that are not easy to
• determine d support. To do our job, we have to have the resources requested.
O •
Joe Rog
Chief Appraser
5
KU 32 x~G
r i
1
r
a
0
,11111
awa+a {II
Page 4
w'
SUMMARY OF 1899 REVENUE AND EXPENSE BUDGET AND
COMPARISON TO THE 1998 REV: WE AND EXPENSE BUDGET `
i
1998 1999
CLASSIFICATION BUDGET BUDGET
REVENUES,
FUNDING FROM JURISDICTIONS $3,181,97525 $3,779,934,44
INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS $3,000.00 $0.m
FUNDING FROM APPRAISAL DISTRI SOHO $300,000.00
TOTAL REVENUES $3,184,975.25 $4,079,934.44
EXPENSES:
TOTAL EXPENSES ,184,975 25 94.079,934.44
1 rr. Ji
ri
r ,r, e
I ,u
X
10
F, h ~ w .yi iif'.6. r
s,
f. 1 1
.I
it
I
,
Page 5
1999 EXPENSE BUDGET
AND COMPARISON TO THE 1998 EXPENSE BUDGET
I
1998 1999
ACCT ACCOUNTTITLE BUDGET BUDGET 5111 SALARIES $1,550,508.59 51.833,982.94
5119 SOCIAL SECURITY (FICA) $113,336.35 $134,484.83
5120 GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE $159,000.00 $186,1D0.00
5121 RETIREMENT (TCDRS) $88,857,11 $118,103.10
j 5123 LONGEVITY PAY $41,070.00 $42,690.00
5124 AUTO EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT $135,216.83 $154,210.60
5125 WORKERS' COMP INSURANCE $19,238.76 $22,214.39
5128 GENERAL INSURANCE $18,61900 $19,188.00
5121 AUDIT $5,50000 $5,750.00
5128 LEGAL SERVICES 5145.00000 $160,000.00
5129 OIL, GAS, HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, AND
UTILITY VALUATION $28,000,00 $39,700,00
5130 DEEDS, SALES, AND VALUE INFORMATION $38,605A8 $47,75538
5132 PRINTING SERVICE $65,436,00 $78,55100 I .
5133 OFFICE SUPPLIES $40,408,00 $43,503.00
5134 FURNITURE 6 EQUIPMENT $44,155,00 $168,500.00
5135 OFFICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE $17,090.00 $16,570 00
5138 DATA PROCESSING MAINTENANCE $111,958.00 $140,631.50
5137 MEMBERSHIPS, SUBSCRIPTIONS 8DUES $42,83000 510,70900
5138 TRAINING • SCHOOLS, CONFERENCES, AND TRA $45,970.00 $56,545,00
5139 POSTAGE 8 FREIGHT $77,118.00 $78,523,00
5141 LEGAL NOTICES 8 ADVERTISING $8,000.00 58,000.00
5143 ELECTRICITY, WATER, SEWER, d SOLID WASTE $42,260.12 547,260.12
5145 TELEPHONE 529,19113 $32,459.58
$146 BUILDING 8 GROUNDS MAINTENANCE 325,600,00 533,/43,00
5t48 APPRAI,ROL REVIEW BOARD $29,250.00 $45,000.00
5152 CONTINGENCY $65,00000 $70,000.00
$153 BUILDING 8 LAND PAYMENT $59,088,00 $59,008.00
5154 BUILDING 8 LAND IMPROVEMENTS $29,000,00 $129,000.00
5155 MISCELLANEOUS $6.200.00 $0,000.00 '
5156 OTHER ASSETS $700.00 $0,00
5151 GIS DEBT PAYMENTS $50.000,00 S50,D00.00
5163 GIS OPERATIONS $84,710,00 $40000.00 1
!A TOTAL $3,184 97.5 25 S4,O1D.934.44
1
I ~ ~ I r
y , ryl Y
ay 11
M1 yr 1 ~
11:. l
~32 III
t
0 ,
O
Page 6
EXPLANATION OF EXPENSES
1991 1911 INCREASE OR~
CLASSIFICATION BUDGET BUDGET DECREASE
ACCT 05117-SALARIES $1,136,912,99 11,650,6Jd, 61 1261,47135 `
THERE ARE 57 FULL-TIME POSITIONS iN HE PROPOSED
BUDGET. OF THE 57 POSITIONS, SO WERE IN PLf.CE IN THE
1996 BUDGET THE OTHER POSITIONS ARE BEING REOVESTED
AS ADDITIONAL STAFF U. THE 1999 BUDGET.
NOTE. THE INFORMATION BELOW INCI .'DES A 3 0%
MERIT INCREASE.
FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES $1,602.670 94 I
' PARRTIME CLERICAL FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 15.356.00
PART-TIME CLERICAL FOR LAND DEPT 15,356.00 -
PART-TIME CLERICAL FCR RESIDENTIAL $2060.00
PART-TIME CLERICAL FOR APPRAISAL SUPPORT S3,D90A0
PART-TIME CLERICAL FOR DATA PROCESSING 115.450.00
SALARY SURVEY UPDATE BY CONSULTANTS $5000.00
TOTAL SALARIES • ACCT 9 6111 31,876.982 94
ACCT 15119• SOCIAL SECURITY (FICA) 1134,4"13 1113,338.35 121,141,41
THE FICA 9UDGET IS BASED ON EMPLOYEES'
CALARIES THE INCREASE IN THIS ACCOUNT IS
DUE TO THE SALARY INCREASES FOR CURRENT
EMPLOYEES AND THE SALARIES OF ADDED POSITIONS
TOTAL SOCIAL SECURITY • ACCT 6 6119 $13446483
I4
I
ACCT 0 $110 -GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE 1166,100,00 61!9.000.00 $29,100.00
THE GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE BUDGET IS FOR I
FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES ONLY. THE GROUPHEALTH
INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDES HEALTH, DENTAL,
LIFE. AND LONG tERM DISABILITY COVERAGE, TI IE
r 1 DISTRICT DOES NOT PAY FOR O£PENDENTS' I
i I
1 HEALTH INSI'R?N,E
• TOIAL HEALTH INSURANCE - ACCT 6 3120 5166.10000
I
I ACCT 95121- RETIREMENT ITCORSI 6111,101,10 668131.17 129024593
I
THE RETIREMENT EXPENSE IS FOR ALL FULL-TIME
II PERSONNEL. THE RATE IS INCREASING FROM 0569 t
TO 0640 FURtHER, THE INCREASE IN SALARIES
• AND THE ADDING DF FULL-TIME PERSONNEL 0 ,
IS DRIVING THE RETIREMENT EXPENSE UP. THE
j~ BW'JET CALCULATICNS AREAS FOLLO,NS
TOTAL RETIREMENT. ACCT 61121 W SI1810310' 4
I
` `r ?5x10 32X
71114151'111 , ~
i
Page 7
EXPLANATION OF EXPENSES
1990 1996 INCREASE OR -
CLASSIFICATION BUDGET BUDGET DECREASE k
I. ACCT 0 5123 • LONGEVITY PAY 641,690.00 $41,070.00 11,620.00
EACH EMP'.OYEE'S LONGEVITY PAY IS $10 PER MONTH FOR
EACH YEAR OF SERVICE.
TOTAL LONGEVITY PAY - ACCT 0 5123 S42,6?0 00
ACCT 0 $121• AUTO EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT SIS4,21050 6135,21603 $11.9$207
THE BUDGE'? EXPENSE FOR MILEAGE IS CHANGING
TO REFLECT THE CHANGE IN THE IRS MILEAGE RATE
FROM S 31510 1.325 PER MILE. THIS CHANGE EQUALS
A3.17S INCREASE. THE 3.17u4,S REFLECTED IN THE
SECTIONS BELCW. FURTHER, 3CA NEW POSITIONS - i~
ARE BEING ADDED.
TOTAL AUTO EXPE14SE REIMBURSEMENT - ACCT 15t $154,210.50
a
ACCT 0 $125 • WORKCRI' COMP INSURANCE 122,274.39 611,236.;1 $2,035.61 -
THIS ACCOUNT PROVIDES WORKERS' COMP INSURANCE
TO THE EMPLOYEES '
TOTAL WORKERS'COMP INSURANCE - ACCT 0 612' f22.2N 39 -
I
ACCT 05121• GENERA! 1143UPANCE $11,18.00 $11,11!,00 1557.00
THE GENERAL INSURANCE BUDGET ITEM IS f4
COMPRISED OF TILE FOLLOWING
LIABILITY sl 1,380 DO
PROPERTY $1,16600 I
BLANKLT CRIME $61600 I
TOTAL GENERAL INSURANCE -ACCT 0 S12'3 $19,16600 '
ACCTOS127-AUL..T $5,750.00 63,50060 $250.00
i
. THIS BUDGET ITEM IS FOR THE ANNUAL INDEPENDENT
AUDIT. THIS BUDGET ITEM 15 BEING INCREASED A
M,NCR AMOUNT WHICH REFLECTSA REASONABLE
j INCREASE -
TOT.ALAUDIT ACC) 1512? $5.75000
Ak:
A:CT 05121• LEGAL SERVICES RESERVE 1160,00000 $1.',000.00 113,000,00 O ,
THIS 9'1DGET TE1A IS CHARGED 1`01 ALL LEGAL EXPENSES j
4SSOCIAtSDWITHOEFENDINGIALUES TKEDISTRICT'S
LEGAL EXPENSES WERE $223.974 FOR 1997
THE BUDGET IS BE LNG INCREASED TO ACCCAIMODA TE r
THE :NCREAS N'G LEGAL EXPEEN'SES
TOTAL LEGAL SERVICES RESERVE • ACCt 0 $121 x$150 ; 1.11L
I • 11.r i ' t
r. ? 5 ❑ 32 x 1~
riammommoomm"
rw4ar.
o
Page 8 I
EXPLANATION OF EXPENSES
1999 1996 INCREASE OR
CLASSIFICATION BUDGET BUDGET DECREASE
ACCT P 5129 -OIL, GAS, AND UTILITY VALUATION $39,700.00 629.000.00 611,70040
THIS BUDGET ITEM IS FOR CONTRACTED SERVICES.
THIS CERVICE WAS REBID IN THE FALL OF 1997 FOR
1998 & 1999. THE 1999 BID AWARD INCLUDED AN
INCREASE OF 511,700, THE INCREASE WAS DUE TO
THE LEVE' OF SERVICE NEEDED TO APPRAISE
INTEL
TOTAL VALUATION 61.14VICES, • ACCT 96129 579,700.00
ACCT 95130- DEED, SALES, AND VALUE INFO 647,735.36 636.603.49 69,140,20
THIS BUDGET ITEM IS COMPRISED OF THE PRIAIARY SOURCES OF
VALUE INFORMATION
TOTAL DEEDS. SALES AND VALUE INFO -ACCT 0 $13 ~ 3,0155 38
ACCT 9 $132, PRINTINO SERVICE S76,S51.00 $65,436.00 611,115.00
THIS ACCOUNT IS CHARGED FOR ALL I'~. AS THAT ARE PRINTED.
TOTAL PRINTING -ACCT P $132 $76.651 00
ACCT 95133.OFFICP SUPPLIES 643103.00 940,40600 33,091.00
THE OFFICE SUPPLY BUDGET IS COMPRISED OF EXPENSES
INCURREO FOR TRADITIONAL OFFICE SUPPLY ITEMS
TOTAL OFFICE SUPPLIES ACCT 6 6133 143 $03 00 -
ACCTPS134 F'.'00.IIIRFAEOUtPMENT 6166,506.00 S44,1$300 $122,351.00 -
AN ASSET SCHEDULE APFEAR: AT THE BACK OF THE BUDGET
n~
TOTAL FURNITURE A EQUIPMENT • ACCT $134 $166 506 00 '
ACCT 9 $US • OFFICE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 616.576 00 117,090.00 ISS14 001
MAINTENANCE OF ALL OFFICE EQUIPMENT EXCEPT FOR
THE PERSONAL COMPUTERS, THE PR15IA9Y COMPUTER '
AND COMPUTER PERIPHERAL 0£V'CES IS CHARGED TO
THIS ACCOUNT THE EQUIPMENT INCLUDES TYPEWRITERS,
A COP'CPS, h4D FORM BURSTERS WHEN THE COST TO REPAA
'f4E EOVIPLIENT EXCEECS THE COST OF REPLACELIENT,
b,. THE ASSET IS REPLACED AND CHARGED TO THIS ACCOUNT.
hLKJI TOTAL OFFICE EQUIP MAINT • ACCT 6 5133 S16 576 00 i
I
IO
~7 G
Cl 32x1o
'
Page 9
EXPLANATION OF EXPENSES
logo tots INCREASE OR
CLASSIFICATION BUDGET BUDGET DECREASE
ACCTA $136.1 ATA PROCESSING MAINTENANCE $140,131.50 $111,95100 $26,671.50 '
THIS ACCOUNT IS COMPRISED OF BOTH DATA PROCESSING
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE. BOTH ITEM:,
ARE CHARGED TO THIS ACCOUNT SO TFJ.T THE TOTAL COST
OF DATA PROCESSING WI1 L BE SHOWN IN DNS ACCOUNT.
THE PURCHASE OF A NEW MORE POWERFUL MAINFRAME '
COMPUTER AND INCREASED ANNUAL SUPPORT CHARGES
HAS IN:RE.ASEO THIS ACCOUNT SUBSTANTIALLY -
HARDWARE RELATED $62,06350
SOFTWARE RELATED 57056900
TOTAL DATA PROLES SING MAI NT - ACCT 61116 5140.611.50 i
ACCT 6 5131 • MEMBERSHIPS. SUBSC i DUES $10,701.00 $12,110,00 (83,121.00)
I
THIS ACCOUNT IS CHARGED FOR ALL MEMBERSHIPS AND
DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS TO EDUCATIONAL MEDIA.
TOTAL MEMBERSHIPS, SUBSC i DUES -ACCT S137 110709 00
ACCT 6 6131 • TRAINING • SCHOOLS, CONFERENCES $51,345.00 143,97910 $10,675.00
III TRAVEL -
THIS ACCOUNT IS CHARGED FOR ALL EDUCATIONAL RELATED
TRAINING AND TRAVEL. THE TRIPS TO AUSTIN TO PROTEST
THE COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS PROPERTY TAX
DIVISION VALUE FINDINGS ARE ALSO CHARGED TO THIS
ACCOUNT.
TOTAL TRAINING - ACCT 9 $138 $5654500
7
ACCT 15139- POSTAGE I FREIGHT (71,97300 117,111.00 $1,405.00
`H'AS BUDGET ITEM IS COMPRISEO OF THE FOLLOWING. ,
• REAPPRAISAL NOTICES $46.75000
SALES LETTERS$ RETURN MAIL POSTAGE 59.83000
HOMESTEAD VERIFICATION LETTERS 51,05600
HOMESTEAD ADVISEMENT NOTICES S2,46400
GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE $8.00000 I '
CERTSIED MAILINGS 15.80000 `
OTHER MAILINGS $4 873 00
I
TOTAL POSTAGE 6 FREIGHT -ACCT 0 $139 $78 $2300 I
I ~
y.
2 K10
CON21WA
1
Page 10
.
I
EXPLANATION OF EXPENSES
1699 •.966 INCREASE OR f .
CLASSIFICATION BUDGET B'. DGET DECREASE j
ACCT 06141 • LEGAL NOTICES 6ADVERTISM0 $6,00000 16,000,00 f0.00
THIS ACCOI'NT ISCHARGEO FCRADVERTISEMENTS IN
NE'..SPAPERS CONCERPIiNO tXEMPTION MATTERS SUCH AS
HOMESTEADS, OVER-0, OISABLEO VETEPANS. AND PRODUCTIVITY
VALUATION MATTERS. OTHER ADVERTISEMENTS HAVE TJ DO
WITH APPRAISAL REVIEW NOTICES, MISCELLANEOUS CLASSIFIED
ADVERTISING, ANJ INVITATIONS TO BID,
TOTAL LEGAL NOTICES 5 ADV. • ACCT 15141 SAL700 DO
I
1
ACCT 15143. ELECTRICITY, WATER, SEWER 6 SOLID WASTE 147.20 12 142,260.12 13,000,00
THIS BUDGET ITEM IS FOR THE DISTRICT'S CITY PROVIDED -
UTILITIES. THE BUDGETED AMOUNT 19 INCREASING DUE
TO THE BUILDING EXPANSION.
TOTAL ELECT, WATER S 6EWFR -ACCT 1 $142 347.260.12
I
ACCT 05143• TELEPHONE I32,1S961 $29,111.63 12.667.T6 ! III
THIS BUDGET ITEMS FOR THE DISTRICT'S TELEPHONE EXPENSE.
LOCAL LINES $464208
METRO LINES $6055.00
LONG DISTANCE CALLS $1 400 00
CONTRACTED MAINTENANCE S4580 DO
REMOTE ACCESS 31.930.60 I
CONIPUTEFL'FAA LINES $1.400.40
PHONES 6 EQUIPMENT $4.692 DO
MISCELLANEOUS 5165940
TOTAL TELEPHONE- ACCT 13143 132,15966
ACCT 1 5146 • BUILDING A GROUNDS MAINTENANCE S33,7AS.00 525,60000 11.145.00
THIS BUDGET ITEM COMPR ISE5 ALL OUILDING AND GROUNDS
MAINTE%ANCE TH, 4XPENSE TO MAINTAIN 1 HE A:R CONDITIONINO
. UN11 S IS CAUSING THIS ACCOUNT TO REMAIN AT A SUBSTANTIAL
LEVEL THIS ACCOUNT IS BEING INCREASEO DUE 10
ADDITIONAL YARD MAINIENANCE. IHECURRENT
MAINTENANCE EMFLOYEE WILL N01 BE REQUIRED TO
VAUNT a,N THE YAPD. DUE 10 INCREASED RESPCNS'BILI+IES
TO VA14TAIN THE BUILDING ADDITION
` 11) BU~LOINr3MAINIENANCE 527,?7000
121 GROUNDS IAINTENANCE f597500
TOTAL BLDG & GROUNDS MAINT. ACCT 85146 _ s3374s oo 0
J14
12
32XIO
6 ,
Page 11
i
EXPLANATION OF L(PENSES
7199 1991 INCREASEOR
CLA^CIFICATIGA BUDGET BUDGET DECREASE
ACCT 15141- APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD 115,000,00 929,250,00 1!1,750.00
THIS BUDGET ITEM IS CHARGED FOR PAYMENTS
TOTHE ARB MEMBERS FOR WORKPERFORMEO
DURING DIE MANDATED EQUALIZATION PROCESS.
THE APIT4:IPATEO VALUE INCREASES FOR THE i
UPCCNIiN(.z YEAR WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN -
"ICREAS£DA6B ACTIVITY WHICH COULD MUSE
THIS ACCOUNT TO IN;REASE.
NOTE. THERE ARE THREE NEW MEMBERS BEING
BUDGETED FOR 1999,
MAY, JUNE AND JULY MEETINGS $34,100.00
FOUR SUPPLEMENTAL ALL DAY MEETINGS 57.200.00 y
FIVE SUPPLEMENTAL HALF DAY MEF.TIN95 $3,00000 TOTAL APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD • ACCT 8 5141 S4500000
ACCT 15152 • CONTINGENCY 170,000.00 185000.00 15,00000
THE FUNDS IN THIS BUDGET ITEM AR' APPROPRIATED
FOR UNAN'ICIPATEU E (PENUtTURES. ALL ANTICIPATED
EAPENDITURES ARE P'7DGETED IN SPECIFIC ACCOUNTS.
THIS ACCOUNT IS SEIN.:, INCREASED DUE TO THE
POS:n51LITY OF MAJOR LAASUITS. FURTHER, THERE
ARE A NUMBER OF LARGE COMPANIES MOVING
INTO THE AREA THAT HAVE INVENTORIES THAT MAY
REOVIRECONTRACTAPPRAISALS, WEARESIMPLY
EXPERIENCING AN EVER INCREASING NEED FOR FUNDS
CURING THE YEAR FOR ITEMS THAT WERE NOT BUDGETED. 1
TOTAL CONTINGENCY -ACCT 0 9152 170.00000
ACCT 15113 • BUILDING S LAND PAYMENT 659,011.00 159,081.00 so Do
THIS ACCOUNT 15 CHARGED FOR THE PAYMENTS ON THE
APPRAI SAL DI STRIC T' S BUILDING AND LAND NOTE
~
B
TOTAL BUILOIN6 & LAND PAYMENT • ACCT R 5152 $5908800
j ACCT 4 $154 • SUILD,NO 1 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 5329,000 00 929.000.00 1300,000.00
i
THIS BUDGET ITEM 13 CHARGED FOR VARIOUS BUILDING -
AND LAND INIPROV£NIENTS 1
III ADD TO DRIV£4NAY AND PARKING SPACES $11,000 00
r • I2I ADD TREES AND BUSHES FOR LANDSCAPING $300000
O •
131 REPLAr'£ AIR CONDITIONING UNITS $1200000
131 REPLACE AIR CONOITIONINLZ UNITS 530000000
TOTAL BLDG. 6 LAND IMP • ACCT 1 $151 5329.00600
i
11
25 K'❑ 32x1❑
1. 5
1 , Y Y
t • ' 4 1 ~ l
i
Ai
Page 12
EXPLANATION OF EXPENSES
1999 1666 INCREASEOR ,
CLASSIFICATION BUOG£'7 9UOGET DECREASE
ACCT 151$5 • MISCELLANEOUS $6.00000 16.200.00 6700.00
ITEMS THAT WILL NOT FIT WELL IN ANOTHER CATEGORY `
(1) FILM 6 FILM PROCESSING $1,200.00
i (2) REIMBURSING UNEMPLOYMENT !1,00000
(S) MEASURING WHEELS AND TAPES $700.00
14; MISCELLANEOUS 00000
TOTAL MIS%ELLANEOUS•ACCT 05155 36.900.00 f
ACCT96116-OTHER ASSETS 50,00 6100,00 (6100.00) -
f
THIS ACCOUNT IS USED TO PURCHASE MINOR ASSETS.
i~
TOTAL OTHER ASSETS -ACCT * 1156 to DO
' AG':I a 6167 -GEOGRAPHIC INfORMATION iYSTEM 650,000.00 650,000.00 {0.00 -
THE FUNDS IN THIS ACCOUNT ARE FOF PAYMENTS
ON THE GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION S!STEM. `
TOTAL GEOGRAPHIC INFO - ACCT 6 615) $50.10000 ,
I I
ACCT 96143 - GEOGRAPHIC OPERATIONS 610,000.00 664,71073 (544,710751 1
I ' J
THE FUNDS IN THIS ACCOUNT ARE fOR
GIS OPERATIONAL EXPENSES.
TOTAL GEOGRAPHIC INFO - ACCT 6 61ST 54200000 i
~ F
~ 1 I
I
Alk
14
10 32xio
r
1999 BUOG£T ALLOCATIONS WORKSHEET Page 13
"ALL FIGURES ARE ESTDAATES
%OF DENTON OUT OF 1999
1997 TOTAL COUNTY COUNTY BUDGET
JMSDIC110N5 TAXLENY LEVIES CHARGES CHARGES ALLOCATIONS
SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
Sol ARGYJ E ISD $4,107,189,99 L41701,1. $52.422.99 $52,422 89
SD2 AUBREY'SD 51.817,199,75 0.6271°,10 523,20113 $23,201.83
SOS DENTON ISD 546.719,10414 16.118001/. 5596,315,68 $596,315 68
507 KRUMLSD $1,520,328.61 0.3245!/1 $19,405,00 $19,405,00
SO$ U',KEUAILAS' J $6,191,644.02 2.1361% $79,028,21 S79,02521
S09 LEWISVD.LE ISD $109,041,237.44 3761861,6 $1.391,16B.47 S1,391,76847
S10 LITTLE ELM ISD $2,786,50270 0,%131/6 $35,566.05 $35.566.05
S11 NORTHWEST ISD $19,80»,1? 02 6.8315% $252,781.10 $65,656,00 5318.437.10
S12 PD.oT POINT IsD $2,668,311.07 01206% $34,060.91 $14,146.00 $48.20681
S13 PONDER ISD $1,100.494.18 0.3197% $14,046.36 $14,046.36
S14 SANGER ISD $2,870,046.34 0.99006 $36,632.37 $36.512 1'
SCIIOOLDISTRICTSTOTALS $199,628,247 47 6851361,: S2,5)5.228 '7 $79.802.00 $2,61S.CiO17
001 DENTONCOUN1'Y $37,2 30,753 09 12,8444% $475.201,67 $0 $473.2016'
CITIES.
C26 CTI'YorAROYLE S41I.37438 0.1420% $5,233.21 $3,23321
C01 CITY OFAUBREY $131,090.63 0,0521% $1,928.47 $1.928.47
CSI TOWN OFBARTONWIT $97,024.19 0.033501: $1,238.39 $1.23839
COS CTrY OF THE COLONY $5,461,290.37 1,8848:: $69,731.73 $69,731 71
C04 TOWN OF CORNM $1,764,065.08 0,6086°, $22.51197 $22,515 97
C27 1OIANOrCOPPER CANYO $94,363,75 0,0326% $1,204.43 51,204,43
COS CITY OrDENrON $11.358,443.29 3.9196% $144,975,61 5144,975.61
C30 cnYOFDOUBLEOAK $100,84424 0,1038% S3.939 Is $3.839.88
C07 CFIYOFFLDWTRMOUND $9,120,064.18 31464°a $116,403.64 S116.40564
C22 'to%Nori1ACKBLRRY $12,31633 0.00430,0 $157.46 5157.46
C19 loWNOrIDCKORYCREI: $336,071.62 0.1159% $4,289.31 S4r2"11
COA C11YOrIJGIDANDVLO S3,960,60 34 1.1664°10 $50,35195 $50,53195
019 C'HYOFJUSTIN $167,17057 0.(1517% $2.133.71 $2.133.71
CIA CI'IYOFKRIJGLRVII.11' $39,61393 0.1113701 1505.98 5505.88
CIO CnYoFKRUM $111,273.81 0.0384% $1,42026 $1.42026
C I I CI iY 01 IAKr DALLAS $789,398,37 0 27206, $10.062 87 510,062 10,062187
CIS CliY OI IAKEWO)D ViLG $47,622 36 0 01641, $607.84 $6(17 94
CI2 CI'IY01'I.EW95Vll,I,E $13,577,32162 46840: $173,296.69 102.00 $113.398.68
co CTIY of T mi r ELM $227,649.01 0 078S% $2,903.64 $2,90.,64
I C23 CFIYOF'MARSIIALLCRK $7.986.76 0.002816 $101.94 $10194
C13 CTIY of N0R110AKF 560,696.65 0.0209% $774.71 5774 71 ,
C24 CI 'I Y CIF OAK POLY, $219,7A3 S0 0 (1756^, $2.8115 25 52.80 2$
C14 Ctl Y Or MOT PODn S431,753 69 0.155916 $5.766 04 0.76004
CIS C11YOF PON A $24.07651 (LW910 : $10731 530731 .
C17 CHYOI'ROANOKI: $397,6124(1 01372°. 1$873.00 SS,0751NI
J C 16 CHY (1r SANGLR 5410.413 1S 0 095^10 $3.494 42 55.4')4 42
C'28 cllYOl 11tniHY0.1,11 $1,415.71496 0.493411 $18,(X,974 $191N914 +
ct [I S [f)IM S $51016,941.01 170114". $651,419.54 $1~(N) $651.321 $4
i'
1
r
IS
25x 10 32XID
Ka NIL
0
1
I,
1999 BUDGET ALLOCATIONS WORKSHEET Page 14
f
%OF DENTON OUT OF 1999
1997 TOTAL COUNTY COUNTY BUDGET
j URISDICT10N5 TAX LEVY i,EM CHARGES CHARGES ALLOCATIONS
f \
SPECIAL DIS1RICTS:
W04 CLFARCREEK WATERSITED
I AUTHORITY $18,923.49 0.0063% $241.53 $241.53
W07 CORIN HMUD $223,434.31 0.0771% $2,85115 f2,851,85
F01 DENTON COUNTY FIRE
DISTRICT $61,820.02 0.0213% $789,05 $78945
1.01 DENTON COUNTY LEVY
IMPROVEMENTDISTNI. S99,81TV 0.0344% $1,274.04 $1,274.04 P
W05 TROPHY CLUB MUD 02 $378,272,69 0.1995% $7,380.89 57.380 ,89
RUD DENTON COUNTY ROAD R
UTILITY DISTRICT 11 S981,247.41 0.30401. 511,247,97 $11,247.97
R'03 TROPHY CLUB MUD NI S890,237.04 0,307111 $11,362.71 $347.78 $11.710.49
W 10 DENTON CO. FRESH
WATER DIST 01B $210,333.33 0.0726% $2,684.63 $2.684.63
SPEC LAMSMCTSTOTALS $2,964,086.22 1.022616 $37,832,67 $347.78 $34.180,45
GRAND TOTALS $289.960,029.80 100.000u-~s $3,699,682.63 _ $90623178 $3.719,934.43
f
A
i '
V I
16 ~
. <wl
0
JWflq
. O
1
Page 1:
5134-ASSET 07.13
1999 CAPITAL EXPENSES
UNIT
DEPT. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRICE TOTAL
(1) DEPT. 1-ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT ASSETS
(A) OFFICE CHAIR FOR SUPPLEMENT & AGENT FORMS
MANAGER 1 $300, DD $300,00
(9) SWIVEL CHAIRS ON CASTERS FOR ARS MEMBERS 12 5300,00 53,600,00
(C) FOLDING TABLES AND STACKING CHAIRS FOR ARB 1 SIDD0.00 $1,000.00
(D) MAILING EQUIPMENT 1 5°.245.00 $6,245.00
(2) DEPT. 2 -COMMERCIAL DEPARTMENT ASSETS
i
(A) FOUR DRAWER, 42" WIDE, LATERAL FILE CABINET 1 $500.00 $500,00
(B) OLSK 1 $70000 $10000
(3) DEPT. 3 • PERSONAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT ASSETS
(A) FOUR DRAWER FILE CABINET 1 $175.00 $175.00
I
i
(q DEPT. 4, RESIDCNTIAL DEPARTMENT ASSETS
(A) FOUR DRAWER FILING CABINETS 4 $300.00 $1,200,00
(B) CHAIRS FOR APPRAISERS & tUPPORT CLERKS 4 $300.00 $1,200,00
E
(C) DESKS FOR APPRAISERS S SUPPORT CLERKS 4 $400.00 $1,60000
(D) PHONES FOR APPRAISERS & SUPPORT CLERKS 4 $250,0) $1,00000
i
(E) 35mmCAPAERA 1 $160.00 $16000
(f) SIX SHELF BOOKCASE 1 1350.00 $35000
17
u~ar
y
•
O
1 1
Page 16
a 1999 CAPITAL EXPENSES
UNIT
DEPT. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY PRIDE _ TOTAL
(S) DEPT. 8 • DATA PROCESSING DEPARTMENT ASSETS
(A) IBM RS/6000 MODEL S70 OR COMPARABLE COMPUTER
WITH OPERATING SYSTEM AND APPLICATION SOFTWARE
THIS IS A 5-YEAR LEASE PURCHASE ITEM. TYE AMOU VT
M BELOW WILL APPEAR IN THE BUDGET FOR F:VE YE 1 $99,878.00 $99,870.00
(8) PERSONAL COMPUTERS W117' MONITOR S SOFTWARE
`f .
FOR RESIDENTIAL DEPT. 5 $3.000.00 315,000.00
(C) PERSONAL COMPUTER W117" MONITOR 3 SOFTWARE
FOR LAND DEPT, 1 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
(D) LASER PRINTER FOR RESIDENTIAL DEPARTMENT. 1 $2,500,00 $2500,00
(E) 17' COLOR MONITOR FOR DIRECTOR OF ADMiNIST 1 $700.00 $7DO co
(F) PERSONAL COMPUTER, MONITOR 8 SOFTWARE FO 1 $3,000,00 :1,000,00
SYSTEMS ANALYST
(G) CHAIR FOR GIS SYSTEMS ANALYST 1 $300,00 $300,00
(H) DESK FOR GIS SYSTEMS ANALYST 1 $400.00 $40000
(1) PHONE FOR GIS SYSTEMS ANALYST 1 $250.00 $25000
(6) DEPT. # -APPRAISAL SUPPORT DEPARTMENT ASSETS
(A) COLOR COPIER/LASER PRINTER 1 517,000.00 $17,000,00
(7) DEPT. 7 • MAPPING DEPARTMENT ASSETS
t
f'
. (A) FLANHOLD PLAT CABINET 1 !3,500.00 53500 00
•F
i
(8) DEPT. 8 • LAND DEPT. ASSETS
r ,
(A, OFFICEDESK 1 $0000 $40000
(3) CHAIR FOR APPRAISER 1 $300.00 $300.00
(C) PHONE FOR APPRAISER 1 $25000 $250.00
1160 506ro
t
; IV1T 32X
E
y
G
r
t
Page 17
'z
1999 SALARY SCHEDULE
1999
TITLE SALARIES
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPARTMENT:
CHIEF APPRAISER $71,437.18
? DEPUTY CHIEF APPRAISER 558,14818 `
DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION 558,42219
OFFICE MANAGER $38,027,60
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $38,027.60
SUPPLEMENTS & AGENT FORMS MANAGER $34,70 36
MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEE i18,359.z8
°
COMMERCIAL. PROPERTY DEPARTMENT:
APPRAISAL SUPERVISOR-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY $49,650.12
SENIOR COMMERCIAL APPRAISER $35,535.22
COMMERCIAL APPRAISER $32,136.00
h COMMERCIAL APPRAISER $32,136.00
COMMERCIAL APPRAISER $28,922.40 ` .
INFORMATION SPECIALIST-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY $21,424.00
APPRAISAL SUPPORT CLERK $21,691.80
FILING CLERK (PART-TIME) $5,358,00
LAND DEPARTMENT:
APPRAISAL SUPERVISOR • LEWD $52,408.46
SENIOR LAND APPRAISER W,492,00
LAND APPRAISER $32,136.00
LAND APPRAISER $32,136.00
FILING CLERK (PART-TIME) $5,356.00
I ro,
PERSONAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT:
APPRAISAL SUPERVISOR-PERSONAL PROPERTY $49,650.12 '
SENIOR APPRAISER-PERSONAL PROPERTY $35,535.22
t.
PERSONAL PROPERTY APPRAISER $32,138.00
PERSONAL PROPERTY APPRAISER $32,138.00
! PERSONA: PROPERTY APPRAISER $32,136.00
~ APPRAISAL SUPPORT CLERK 1 $21,691.80 -
y
1
1 t,
1.
I 1
i
19
r
- - a'a' 5 y 1.! `''a t, 3 x IJ
SEEN-
0
O
1
' Agenda No _ 7 Y Cd+
Agenda item-
Oate
AGENDA DATE: July 28, 1998
DEPARTMENT: Finance/Managemcmt and Budget
CNIfDCA1/ACM: Kathy DuBose, Assistant City Manager of Finance
i UBS JECT; RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION, AND GIVE STAFF
DIRECTION REGARDING THE CITY'S AD VALOREM TAX RATE
AND CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY TAX CODE,
AJ! CK4ROUND:
During 1997, the Texas Legislature made some changes to the truth in taxation
r notification requirements that may impact the City's budget process. Prior to the
Legislative changes, a governing body could not adopt a tax rate that excerded the notice
and hearing Awit, which is the lower of the effective rateI times three perceut or the
rollback rate, without holding a public hearing on the proposed increase. If the
gurerning body did not adopt a tax rate above the notice and hearing limit then it was not
required to have a public hearing on a tax increase or publish notices in the newspaper.
For the past eight years the City Council has approved a tax rate that was at or below the
efective rate making it unnecessary to hold a public hearing on the tax rate or publish
notices,
i
The new Legislat+%c changes now require a governing body to vote to place the proposal
to adopt the tax rate on a future meeting as an action item. Plus the governing body must
publish notices and hold a public hearing before adopting a tax rate that will resuh in any
larreate in tornI prupertr• tar receuae r er the prior year. This is a substantial deviation
front the old notice and hearing requirements. Suppose City Council desires to adopt the
same tax rate as the rate from the prior year, Inhere is an increase i'l appraised values
l
1 i
The c/Iorrire rare is the rate that will provide approx imairly the same omoun' rrcrcmit from the prior
cat on propc ty that is tared in both )cart t
?'the rnllhacA rare Is the rate that till provide approximately the some amount orrerenue from the prior
)car rut day to day operations plus eight percent •
r
14
25,A0 3 X10
s
• o '
I
SSW"
j
I
over the prior year, the Council must bold a public hearing and publish notices due to the
projected incicase in revenues. See the following example.
rDD7•DB }DDB•DD
Appraised Value 2,000,000,000 2,100,000,000
Tax Rate $ 0.51315 $ 0,51315
Levy 10,283,00': 10,778,150
r~ a~ o•®®s ~>o.~a
As you can see in the example above, due to the fact that the apprai,ed value increased,
the levy increased though the tax rate remained the same. Eves if the tax rate is reduced,
if the levy increases over the prior year, the City would t: required to publish notices and
hold a public hearing oo the tax rate This is a separate hearing and is not to be confused
with the public hearing oil the proposed budget, which is required by City Charter.
If City Council adopted a tax rate that is adjusted for reappraisals on property taxed in
both years, the levy on the existing property owners Hill not increase. As you can see in
the example below. the property on the tax roll in 1997.98 was reappraised by an
incicase of $50,0u0,000 in 1998-99, 1 he 147.98 levy was $10,263.000 a.1d the tax rate
was.513153100 valuation, In order to achieve the same Icvy in 1998.99 ($10,263,000)
due to the higher reappraised value, the tax rate would decrease to ,50063!$100
valuation. In this case, the revenue generate.t from property, taxed in both years did not
increase,
Re-Appraisat New Value increase In
Re-appralsal Only 1997.98 Increase Added 1998.99 Revenue
Appraised Value 2,000,000,000 50,000,000 2,050,000,000 1
Tax Rats 051316 0,50063
10.283,000 I
I
Re•Appreleel plus Niw Value Added
Ap, aised Value 2,000,000,000 50,000,000 100,000,000 2,1;0,000,000 I
l r~ Tax state 051315 050083 _
l 0 - 10 281,000 10,763,545 500,545
No", su11Fxxe $100.000,000 in value is added to the appraisal roll due to new
developnteni, Applying the adjusted 1998.99 tax rate will produce an additional levy of
$500,545, As you can sec in the above example, the City Council has reduced the tax rate ~
and did not increase the Icvy of property taxed in both years. I lowever. City tevenuc Hill
0 increase due to the addition of the new value associate! to new development. Ilacause 0 0
rot enuc has increaw.l oecr the prior year, the City, must publish notices and hold a public
hearing on the tax increase. This is true even if the increase was due to the levy on new
dcvclopmcnl rather than from reappraisals on existing property.
2
F
4 e
i y 4 1 M 1
. r
'I w<...: v/IIi Y•I~:-S;3.. YIL.I:A^NU.YY aaw,n w.r„....~.. I.. uu. I. wY I~ ~ t r
3
y <Y
It is my goal to propose a tax rate that is adjusted for re-appraisals on property fared In
both years so that the levy on the existing property owners will not increase. Because, the
i levy will increase due to new development, the Council will have to vote to consider a ~ r
proposed tax rate, hold a public hearing and publish special notices.
According to the new law, the governing body must vote to consider a proposal for a tax
? rate, and then publish notice of a public hearing on the proposed rate at least seven days
prier to tho date of the hearing. This quarter page notice shows the proposed percentage
increase, the difference between the proposed tax rate and last year's actual rate, and
effect of the proposed increase on the average home taxes. See attachment A for an
example of this notice. After the public hearing and before the vole on the tax rate, a
second quarter page notice titled, "Notice of Vote on Tax Rate" must be published (see r
attachment B).
1f
If at any time the City Council body chooses to moth6- or adopt a rate other than the one
originally proposed (the rate the governing body voted to propose), the entire notice and
hearing process must be completed again. Therefore, it is essential that the City Council
carefully consider the proposed rate prior to publishing the notices and holding the public
hearing. Atta,hment C includes 4c calendar to adopt the tax rate.
Respectfully submine
'l
!o rortune
Director of M nagement and Budget
With
n
~ f.
•
t
~.ft r
g ;gt'<c~t~titit a C1 F. 32 x
L
I
r
Janata
-
,zing=
r
{
ATTACHMENT A
Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase
The City of Denton will hold a public hearing on a proposal to increase total tax
revenues from properties on the tax roll by _ perCant. Your
Individual taxes may increase or decrease, depending on the change in the
taxable value of your property In relation to the change in taxable value of all
other property and the tax rate that is adopted.
The public hearing will be held on at Denton City Hall
located at 215 E, McKinney.
r
(results of City Council vote)
FOR the proposal: (results of vote to propose the fax Increase)
AGAINST the proposal: (results of vote to propose the tax increase)
PRESENT and not voting: (results of vote to propose the tax Increase)
ABSENT: (results of vote to propose the fax Increase)
The following table comparos taxes on an average home In this taxing unit last
year to taxes proposed on the average home this year. Again, your individual
taxes may be highar or lower, depending on the taxable value of your property,
Last Year This Year
Average residence homestead value $
General exemptions available (amount ? 1
on the average homestead, not including
senior citizen's or disabled person's
exemptions) $ $
f Average taxable value $ $ {
•
Tax Rate t i
e.
Tax S
Under this proposal, taxes on the average homestead would LjU0 Ahfecrease
by $ or percent compared with last year's taxet►.
• Comparing tax rates without adjusting for changes in property value, the 0 R
tax rate would !ncreaseMecrease by $ per $100 of taxable value or
percent compared to last year's tax refs. These tax rate figures
are not adjusted for changes In the taxable value of property.
,L..:
x #G 32x1L7
.L
e
ANN"
0
RMIiA
i
j
ATTACHMENT B
Notice
of Vote on Tax Rate
The City of Denton
conducted a public hearing
on a proposal
to increase the total tax revenues
of the
City of Denton
by percent
on date
The City of Denton
is scheduled to vote
on the tax rate that will result in
• that tax Increase
at a public meeting to be held
on date at
• Denton City Hall located at o
215 E, McKinney,
s
~t Y
1 1 . 1
C
aaaaaaea .
0
A {
,
1
ATTACMENT C 1
1998-99 BUDGET CALENDAR
July 28 Tuesday Discuss the City's ad valorem tax rate and changes to
the property tax code.
Jul) 31 Friday Deliver the 1998.99 Proposed Budget Document to city
Council.
CANCELLED
01
August 7 Friday City Council Budget Workshop. from 9:00 a.m. to
3:00 p, n.
August I 1 Tuesday City Council approval of appraisal roll.
Submission of ad valorem effective and rollback tax rates.
Submission of certified ad valorem collection rate.
City Council budget discussion.
August 14 Friday (Tentative) City Council budget workshop
from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p,m.
August 18 Tuesday Final date to vote to consider a proposal for a tax
Increase prior to publishing notice of hearing.
City Council budget discussion.
August 25 1 uesday City Council budget discussion.
September I Tuesday Publiallcaringon 1998.99 budget.
Public l learingon tax Increase.
City Council budget discussion.
f
September 8 Tuesday City Council adopts 1998.99 budget.
City Ccuncil adopts 1998.2003 Capital improvement
Prograro. t
Approval of 1998 tax roll
~ , 4 FI
X11 k , ,
~ ~ e r
{
°•r XI 0
7 2.5 Y ' -
i t y r r 4 t, A~ d.
r 0
I . `
r P, 1'.,, i f•N awnd. .r.::..eaw.,:,:. .:e a.,..ar ..w
Agenda No.._11~G
Apenda Item
Data
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: July 28, 1998
DEPARTMENT: Finance
ACM: Kathy DuBose
SUBJECT: Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Hotel
Occupancy Tax allocations.
BACKGROUND: In the spring of 1997, City Council appointed a sub-committee to study
future allocations of Hotel Occupancy Tax (HOT) revenue. The three-member Cou,ucil Sub-
Committee met on numerous occasions to receive information from both existing and
potential recipients. Many factors were considered and the Sub-Committea formulated a
recommendation to allocate HOT funds to fourteen organizations, The organizations and
their current allocations are listed on attachment A. Current contracts with HOT fund
recipients expire September 30, 1998, and further discussion is needed to determine future
allocations of HOT revenue. The attached information includes issues surrounding the
allocation of hotel taxes and will hopefully facilitate the process.
PRIOR ACTIONIREVIEW (Council. Boards. Commissions): The City Council Sub-
Committee consisting of Council Member Beasley, Council Member Cochran, and Council
Member Young met in June and July of 1997 to study HOT allocations and make a
recommendation to City Council, City Council approved contracts and budgets fcr the
recipients listed in Attachment A on September 2, 1997,
On May 12, 1998 the Council approved a contract for the relocation of the "Selby Home" In
the amount of $71,700. It was anticipated at that time that the City would reimburse the
Utility Department from HOT reserve funds.
FISC'.4L INFORMATION, See Attachments
Respectfully submitted:
~ 4 f
Keth o
Assistant City Manager Finance
Prc aced by: _
To ortdne ` •
Di ctor of anagement and Budget i
~ a ky I
j
' ~ A III
t ,
10 32 X I O
an~an
0
TIM"
i
HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ALLOCATION ISSUES !
ISSUE I - CARRY FORWARD OBLIGATIONS
To begin, staff is recommending a proposal to avoid future carry forward obligations to
recipients from prior contracts. As you may recall, in 1995-96 City Council approved two-
year contracts wi,h several recipients that included a provision that would allocate funding
based on a percentage up to a cap. The provision required any excess HOT revenge over the
budgeted amount to be distributed (carried forward) in the subsequent year according to the
contracted allocation percentages. A problem is that no contractual requirements exist
concerning future awry forward money. Though the 1996.97 contracts required the City to
allocate excess 1996-97 HOT revenue, there is no provision in the 1997.98 contract to cover
the expenditure and reporting of the funds. However, City Council did approve 1997.98 r
recipient budgets that included funding carry forward amounts from previous years. For
example, the City Council did not fund the Denton County Histoi ;cal Foundation in 1997-98.
Yet, due to the prior contract with the Foundation, the City will make a carry forward
payment to honor the commitment from the 1996.97 contract. This creates two problems.
First, as mentioned above, the Foundation doesn't have a 1997.98 contract with the City, yet
will receive carry forward funding, Second, since no contract exists, there is no provision to
require the Foundation to report how carry forward money is Currently an audit of the
Foundation is being conducted and a decision regarding unspent HOT money is pending.
Preliminary indications a,e that although the City Council approved a Foundation budget of
$917, which includes 1995.96 and 1996.97 carry forward money, a contract will need to be
established with the Foundation to specify reporting requirements. Pending the conclusions
of the audit, it is likely to be determined that the Foundation will have unspent HOT funds
from previous years. A new contract and budget would be required before any HOT money
i, spent by the Foundation, The other option would be for the Foundation to return all
unspent HOT funds.
As of September 30, 1997, the City received 526,263 more HOT revenue than estimated and
allocated in the 1997.98 budget. See the 1996.97 carry forward analysis below.
199697 Budget $ 556,920
1996-97 Estimate 628,000
Estimated AdditionalReverm $ 71,084
1996-97 Actual 634,263
' Actual Additional Revenue 97,343
1996-97 Allocation Difference 26,263
1997.98 Budgeted Carry Forward for 1996-97 71,060
1998.99 AdditiorJ Cary Forward for 19X-97 26,263 O
..i 1ota11996-97CsuryForwaid $ 97,343
9y/ ~
I
2
2r) Y, X
A
«ar+rm
O
V
may
The City's 1997.98 budget includes an allocation to pay the 1996-97 estimated carry forward
balance of $11,080. This estimate was made during the third quarter of the 1996-97 fiscal
year prior to fourth quarter receipts. Now that the 1996.97 year Is complete and actual HOT
revenue is higher than estimated, the City must pay the additional 1996-97 cant' forward
balance of 526,263 per the previous contractual obligations. The current procedure to pay the
additional carry forward balance would be to pay the difference in the 1998.99 budget.
However, another option exists that completely elimim tes the need for future cant' forward
requirements. The 1997.98 bud3ei includes a reserve appropriation of 527,168. This money, I
which was budgeted to go to the HOT reserve in 1997.98, could be used to pay the 1996-97
carry forward balance now. This would essentially eliminate the need for any future carry
forward payments since the carry forw: r; provision has been omitted from existing
contracts. The 1997.98 reserve appropriation could be used as follows.
1997.98 Reserve Appropriation S 27,168
1997.98 Additional Payment for 1996.97 Carry Forward
Convention and Visitor Bureau 9,880
Greater Denton Arts Council 3,513
North Texas State Fair Association 3,293
Denton County Historical Foundation 242
Additional 1997-98 Payments S 16,928
Balance to Reserve S 10,240
Balance S 27,168
Attachment B illustrates how each recipient's 1997.98 budget will change by applying the
above proposal to eliminate carry forward obligations. Of course the above recipients would
have to submit a revised budget that included the additional allocation and a revised contract
must by approved by City Council. Because the City Council has committed to using reserve
110 f funds to rciinburse the Ulility Department for the move of the Selby. Bayless house, the
,niount of money projected to be in the HOT reserve at September 30, 1998 will be reduced
' from S 160,000 to 5143,000.
A
ISSUE II - ALLOCATION
(A) SPLIT GRO IJ- In order to provide City Council future planning options, staff has
nrepared a funding scenario that would allow recipients to have increased funding each year
of the contract period and allow the City to increase the amount of available 140T revenue
lift alternate purposes. Essentially both the recipients and the City would split the anticit med 0
growth each year. For example, 1998.99 HOT receipts are anticipaled to increase by 10%
over the 1997.98 estimate, Staff proposes increasing recipient allocations by a maximum of
5% ovrr their 1997.98 budgets and allowing the City to retain the remaining portion (51/11) for
alternate purposes. The actual increase for recipients can be evaluated on a case by case
j
- 2S A0 32XI❑
0
O
basis by City Council, If the City Council does not wish to increase a recipient a total S%
then the balance could be used by the City for alternate purposes. The increase would occur
each year of the contract period.
Attachment C illustrates how recipients realize increased revenue over a three-year period.
Although recipient revenue will increase, recipients will not receive the entire growing
percentage in HOT revenue each year. In addition, the City will realize additional revenue to
use for alternative purposes; recipient oI erations will grow each year and the City can
accomplish more.
i
{B} U.5E OF AVAILABLE FUNDS - Once a percentage of HOT revenue has been set aside
or resen'ed for alternative uses, there are a number of possible ways to allocate the O-riding.
It is gaffs intention to begin competing for HOT funds to use the HOT rf venue for eligible
City purposes such as the Denton Air fair or the renovation of the Civic Center or the Steam
Plant Dee way to achieve the renovation of the Civic Center or Steam Plytt le to issue
bonds. A percentage of HOT funds can be dedicated each year to repay the debt resulting
from the bonds.
Another option is to increase funding to current recipients such as the Festival Foundation for
the Arts & ),uz Festival and Story Telling Association. Additional funding could make these
events bigger attractions, and could allow them to become signature events for the City.
Enhanced funding for these events allows the City to take advantage of its close relationship
with both UNr and T"Ll. Because UNT has such a nationally recognized music program,
hosting o major jars event in the City of Denton, one that is recognized throughout the
country, would attract many visitors to the City. Plus drawing on the resources from the City
and both UNT and T WU libraries for the Story Telling Festival has tremendous potential as
well
ISSUE IN -ANNUAL AUDIT
Due to the fact that the number of recipients has grown over the past few years, the
administration orthis tax has become very cumbersome. In fact, the administrative
responsibilities are now to the point where one full-time person could be dedicated to the
yearly duties. 7 his position could audit recipient quarterly reports, audit hotels paying the
tax, devvlop and administer annual contracts, and facilitate recipient budget development and
presentation to City Council. Another possible function could be it yearly audit of each `
recipient, although this function may best be performed by an extemal auditor. At this time, I
rather than hire a dedicated staff person for HOT revenue administration, staff recommends
that City Council consider using HOT funds to hire an external auditor to conduct an ennual
audil of recipients.
a~ 10
44~- t
_2x10
Anows
0
ISSUE 1V - CONTRACT TERMS
Longer contract terms have been sought by some recipients is order to help them plan for
their future. Many are concerned with the uncertainty of future funding due to a one or two-
year contract, and afraid to make long-term commitments towards a project. To ease the
administrative responsibilities on the City, staff suggests changing contract periods to three-
year terms, This not only benefits the City, but recipients can make better long-range plans.
ISSUE. V- UNSPENT HOT FUNDS
Unspent HOT funds must be addressed in future contracts with recipients. During The 1997-
98 budget process, City Council did not fund two organizations that previously received
HOT funding (Denton County Historical Foundation and the City of Denton Historic,
Landmark Commission), Both these organizations had unspent funding remaining in their
budgct at the end of the 1996-97 fiscal year. Unspent funding may also occur when actual
trcn,es are less than budgeted, This frequently happens each year. To take this matter
fu,lher, a recipient may not spend any HOT funding as planned. For example, in 1996-97 the
Demon Black Chamber of Commerce, due to unforeseen circumstances, was not able to hold
their , nnual event as planned, and did not spend any Hotel Occupancy Tax. The Black
Chamb •r asked the City for permission to use the unspent 1996-97 funding for another
program in 1997.98. Staff has asked for and received a legal opinion that concluded that the
Black Chamber should either return their unspent 1596-97 Hotel Occupancy Tax funds or
seek an amendment to its 1997.98 budget to provide for the expenditure of such funds in the
1997-98 fiscal year. The Black Chamber requested and was granted a budget amendment
from the City Council to aniend their 1997.98 budget to include the expense of unspent
1996.97 HOT funds. The opinion also suggests that future contracts with recipients be
changed to require any unexpended funds be returned to the City, or the City Council
approxr a budgct for the next budget year that reallocaes such funds.
ISSUE VI-QUARTERLY REPORTING
The current method of paying recipients at the end of the reporting period may cause some
variance in the actual revenue received compared to budgct. Thus, it may appear that a
recipient did not reccive the budgeted funding for the year. However, the recipient will
• reccive the entire budgeted amount, provided that collections are sufficient but the payment
for the fourth quarter of 1996-97 will be paid in the first quarter of 1997.98. The delay in
payment is rMributed to the 30-day period That recipients have at the rnd of each quarter to
submit th! Ir quarterly report and the 15-day period that the City has to audit the report and
pay the r, cipicnl,
Supiuise a recipient receives four quarterly payments for the year, the first payment of the
A year is from the fourth quarter of the prior year and the remaining payments are from the ~ d •
current year, If The total of the four payments exceeds their budget then a balance of unspent
it funds will exist, However, if the total ofthe four payments is less than their budget, the t
recipient may not have sufficient funds to cover planned expenses, Either situation makes
I
x h< 0 [.I 32 X i Cl
9
s
0
I
accurate reporting difficult. Some first time recipients may not have any funding to begin the
first quarter, They must wait until the second quarter to make any payments,
Reporting for first time recipients is difficult for the first few quarters of the year when a
recipient begins receiving funds. If the recipient has never received any money, they cannot
make any purchases. Therefore, there is nothing to report nor reimburse. The City has
1 andlcd ibis situation in the past by requesting a written statement stating that the recipient
Ls had no expenses and that the recipient request payment so that purchases may be made in
!.u subsequent quarter.
One way to address reporting discrepancies and still pay recipients based on a reimbursement
would be to change recipients' contract periods and budgets from an October- September
fiscal year to a January - December fiscal year. Once recipients are on a January - December
fiscal year, their first quarter (Jan-Mar) is when they will actually receive the City's first
quarter payment (Oct -Dec) due to the fact that payments are made aller the quarter has
ended. Each quarterly payment would actually match the recipients quarter, and eliminate
any discrepancy. ('rcourse existing contracts expire September 30, 1998, therefore an
interim (three month) cone act would need to be approved to get recipients on a calendar year
budget to begin January 1, 1999.
ISSUE VH -THIRD PARTY MANAGEMENT
Another issue to consider involves a proposal from the Convention and Visitor Bureau
(CVB) made durii:g their request for funding last year to the City Council HOT Sub-
Commitlec. The C'V0 proposed managing the allocation of HOT on behalf of the City
C'ouncil' T he CVB asked the City to increase its funding and reduce funding other recipients.
Tlien the (NB mould then be able to make sub-grants to organizations. Rather then applying
to the City Council for funding, organizations could apply to the CVB. Staff does not
recommend this practice primarily because it takes direct control of the allocation of HOT
funds away from the City Council. The current situation with the Museum is an example of
how importenl City imrolvemcnt is to the allocation of HOT Funds. Plus, recipients are no
longer directly accountable to City Council, but rather to the CVB.
ISSUE VIII - NUMBER OF IIOT RECIPIENTS
• Future funding allocations need to be based on a consideration of the number of
organizutions currently receiving HOT funds. The number of recipients has increased from
five in 1994 to fourteen in 1997, Each year as more and more organizations seek HOT
funding, it will become more difficult for the City to administer. City Council should
consider whether the current number of recipients (14) is too large and possibly limit the total
numbcr, the use of selection criteria to limit the number of potential recipients is one method
• to help maintain or reduce the current number of recipients. Issue IX below discusses 4 •
1 selection criteria.
6
i
✓ f~ 32X111
A
0
' I
r ,
ISSUE IX - SELECTION CRITERIA
Staff recommends that City Council establish selection criteria for new organizations to
receive funding if applicable. It is likely that additional organizations will solicit City
Council to receive HOT funds. If a set of selection criteria were established, the process of
making future funding choic:s could be easier. Criteria to determine future funding could
include the number of overnight visitors, the length of time the organization has existed, the
percent of out cf town visitors, the location of the event and etc. Should Council wish to
develop performance standards, staff can develop a complete set for review and approval.
SUMMARY
The above information is intended to pruvide City Council a review of the major issues
facing both current and future allocations of HOT funds, and is provided to facilitate City
Council discussion Due to the complexity and number of issues that have surfaced during
the past year, staff desires City Council direction regarding these issues. The following
issues discussed above are summarized below,
I. Carry Forward Obligations - Staff recommends the use of S 16,928 from current
allocations to pay remaining carry forward balances now, eliminating any future
obligations.
2 Split Growth -
(A) As revenue increases each year, staff recommends splitting the ealicipaled
growth between recipients and the City. Increased HOT fund allocations will
allow recipient funding to increase and allow the City to capture additional
HOT funding for alternative purposes.
(13) If Council chooses the above option to provide additional HOT revenue, a
deter-mination regarding additional uses should be made.
3. Annual Audit - Staff recommends City Council dedicate HOT funding to conduct
annual external audit of recipients.
4. Contract Terms - Staff recommends a three-year contract term,
5. Un.irent Funding - Esccss HOT funds at the end of the fiscal year should be
retooled to the City.
6: Quarterly Reporting - Staff recommends a January - December contrau for
' " recipients:
7. Third Party Management- Staff does not recommend delegating the management
and allocation of HOT funds to another organization such as the CVB.
8. Number ojllOT Reriplents - Staff recommends that City Council consider a policy
k to limit the number of recipients each year. The use of selection criteria will help in
this process.
9. Selection Crherla - Staff tecommends City Coamcil adopt a set ofperformance
• standards to select additional organisations for funding.
0 •
10
2~) 32X
e
mes.nr
0
1 ~
Attachment A
1997.98 Hotel Occupancy Tax Allocation
1997.98 1997-98 1997-98 1995-96 1996-97
Percent of Tax Rate Contract Carry Estimated
Tax Revenue Allocation Forward Carry
Recipients Difference Forw,ud
Convention and Visitor Bureau 37.71% 2.64010 255,674 $13,397 $26,804
as
Greater Dcntru Arts Council 15.000/0 1.050/0 101,700 4,722 9,447
North Texas State Fair Association 11.001/4 0.77% 74,580 4,466 8,935
Denton County Historical Museum 8.9000 0.63% 60,308 4,214 8,430
Moon County Iiiswrical Fot :on 0.00°/a 0.000/6 0 306 611
Denton County Amphitheater Association 0.44% 0.0350 3,000 N!A NSA t;i
Denton Festival Foundation 5.90% 0.41% 40,000 NIA N/AaIt"a
Denton Black Chamber of Commerce 0,89% 0.06°/6 6,000 N/A NIA
`hnwn Hispanic Chamber of Commerce 0.47% 0.03510 3,200 NIA N/A
Denton Ilohday Festival Foundation 0.44% 0.03110 :,000 NIA N/A
Friends of Denton County Hislory, Inc. 0.74% 0.05% 5,000 N/A N/A
m Scholars Phair Foundation of Texas 1.47% 0.10% 10,000 N/A N/A
Storytelling 3691/6 0.26% 25,000 N/A N/A .
85.65°'0 6.060/6 587,462 27,105 54,227
Eligible City Expenses
Civic Center 11.061,0 0.78% 75,000 $4,547 S9,098
Available for Other Purposes 2.2900 0.16% 15,538 3,875 7,755
13.35% 0.940,'6 90,538 $8,422 $16,853
Total 100.000,10 7.(10°0 678.000 35,527 71,080
1995.96 Remaining Carry Forward 35,527
1996-97 Projected Carry Forward 71,080
Total 1997.98 Budgeted 784,607
32X10
0
v
t
t
s-n-.WF"^IY,«: M1~neuwmfFMl+:,rs~+fAwY!rY.MwYFa.wpnww++wr.+.w•w.....,.....w.....»......+.--..~-__~. ......-__..,,_...~.-....i....,......-a......,.a.,. •rrm~.srwr~.arw+AYV
e
Attachment B "
1997-98 Hotel Occupancy Tax Allocation (ELIMINATE CARRY FCRWARD OPTION)
1997.98 1997-98 1995-96 1996-97 1996-97 1996-97 1997-98
Percent of Contract Carry Estimated Actual Carry Total
`fax Revenue Forward Carry Carry Forward Budget E
Recipients Difference Forward Forward Difference (OPTION)
Convention and Visitor Bureau 37.71% 255,674 $13,397 $26,804 $36,684 $9,88: $305,755
Greater Denton Acts Council 15.00% 101,700 4,722 9,447 12,960 3,513 S t 19,382
North Texas State Fair Association 11.00°/1 74,580 4,466 8,935 I TM~'9i1)• 12,228 3,293 $91,274
Denim County Historical Museum 8.90% 60,308 4,214 8,43041Ir9~' 11,561 - $72,952
Denton County Historical Foundation 0.000/0 0 306 611853 242 $1,159
Denton County Amphitheater Association 0.44°/1 3,000 NIA N/A i + NIA N'A 3,000
Denton Festival Foundation 5.90% 40,000 N/A N/A YM ^w 0, 11. Y/A N/A 40,000
Denton Mack C'ham,)er of Commerce 0.890/6 6,000 N/A N/A ~r.. ' N/A N/A 6,000
Denton Hispanic Chamber ol'Commerco 0.47% 3,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,200
Denton Holiday Festival Foundation 0.44% 3,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3,000
Friends of Denton County History, Inc. 0.74% 5,000 NIA N/A r N/A N/A 5,000
o Scholars Phair Foundation of Texas 1.47°'o 10,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10,000
Storytelling 3.69% 25,000 N/A N/A N/A NIA 25,000
86.65% 587,462 27,105 54,227 74,286 16,9x28 685,722
Eligible City Expenses
C'ivicCenter 11.06% 75,000 $4,547 $9,098 x: $12,473 3,375 $92,020
Available for Other Purposes 2.290,'0 15,538 3,875 7,755 1 . ~ 10,584 5,960 $33,128
1335% 90,538 $8,422 $16,853 $23,057 $9,335 125,148
Total 100.00% 678,000 35,527 71,080 97,343 26,26 810,870
e 1995.96 Remaining Carry Forward 35,527 •
1996.97 Projcc,cd Carry Forward 71,080
Total 1997-98 Budgeted 784,607
~ jW.
e Ibis scenario represenl the to i%ed 1997-98 110r budgcl if City Council dimis elafr to pay an eery romard balUKes now,
,
E.
r;.'.. 25 10 32,
Attachment C "
Mee Year Contract Allocations
t
1998.99 1999-2000 2000-01
Total Allocation Total Allocation Total Allocation
Recipients Budget Percentage Budget Percentage Budget Percentage
Convention and Visitot Bureau 268,458 32.98D% 281,881 34,63% 295,975 36.36%
Greater Denton Arts Council 106,785 13.119% 112,124 13.77% 117,730 14.46%
North Texas State Fair Association 78,309 9.620% 82,224 10.100/0 46,336 10.61%
Denton County Historical Museum •e
Denton County Historical Foundation - 0.0004/9 - O.W°/o - 0,00%
Denton County Amphitheater Association 3,150 0387°'° 3,308 0.41°,'o 3,473 0.43%
Denton Festival FOnndation 42,000 5.1600/0 44,100 5.42% 46,305 5.69%
Dcnton Black Chamber of Commerce 6,300 0.774% 6,615 0.81% 6,946 0.85°i0
Denton Hispanic CI-amter of Commerce 3,360 0.413% 3,528 0.43% 3,704 0.46%
Denton Holiday Festival Foundation 3,150 0.387% 3,308 0.41% 3,473 0.43%
Friends of Denton County History, Inc. 5,230 0.645% 5,513 0,68% 5,788 0.71°'°
o Scholars Phair Foundation of Texas 10,500 11904/0 11,025 1.35% 11,576 1.42%
Stor)lelling 26,250 3.125% 27,563 3.39% 28,941 3.56%
553,512 67,9990/9 581,187 71.40% 610,247 74.97%
i
Eligible City Expenses I
Civic Ccnter 75,000 9.21% 75,000 838% 75,000 7.61%
0 Available for Other Purposes 185,488 22.79% 239,213 20.22% 299,693 11.42% I
260,488 32.00°0 314,213 28.60% 374,693 25.03%
Total 814,000 100,00% 895,400 100.00% 984,940 100.00%
814,000 100.00% 895,400 100.00% 984,940 100N t
1995.96 Remaining Carry Forward
J 1996-97 Projected Cany Fon~ard
J~i Total 1997.98 Budgeted
• .'undinµ xennriuaa,umcs g )cat I) IDYSgrusslh in ltOr rcccipb split helNcen rceipicnu and the Ciry.
"rhe II Ccn(cr fat ding Is m°fntoinoJ n S73,000 pvr) car
It h N msnsgc,9 undo. Inding the there Is nc kmgcr sa> ohligrHlun w are Dcnton County Irisrnrlcd Museum.
1hocti,re aw nm, pnn im. ty dlocntd kick Museum mey be and rut dtemete purpoAs,
f
7h x 10 32x10
a
•-„aa
:
Agenda Na, It~O~S
Ayertda Item _
Efate
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: Jul), 28,19-48
DLPARTMEPfT: Utility Administration
ACM; I loward Martin, 349.8232 IA
SUBJECT
RECEIVE A REPORT AND 11OLD A DISCUSSION AND GIVE: STAFF DIRECTION
REGARDING LAKE CHAPMAN (COOPER LAKE) CONTRACT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF DENTON AND UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT
CONSIDERING THE PASS-THROUGH OF WATER FROM COOPER (CHAPMAN) I i l
LAKE.
BACKGROUND
"the UTRWD purchased 11.7 NIGD of water from the City of Commerce in Lake
Chapman. Denton has participated in this project with UTRWD and purchased a 2 MGD
share of the UT RWD's 11.7 MGD supply.
The UTR11'D's proposed pass through agreement with Denton would allow for the
conveyance of UMVD's Chapman Water Supplies through Lake Lewisville to the
existing water supply intakes of the UTRWD and the City of Lewisville. The contract
would involve the use of Denton's storage and water rights in Lake Lewisville but is
designed to not impact Demon's firm yield for water supplies from the Lake Lewisville- f
Ray Roberts system:
1'recse and Nichols was contracted to assist staff in evaluating the UfRWD's proposed
pass-through agreement for the Chapman (Cooper) Lake water supply project. Tom
Ciooch with Freese and Nichols met with all of the participating entities that are involved
in the transportation of water from Lake Chapman to lake Lewisville. Mr. Gooch
presented his final report and recommendations to the Public Utility Board on May 4,
1998 (Exhibit 11). Freese and Nichols evaluated the Terms and conditions of the contract
and made rccommendations to city staffto adeyuatcly protecl Denton's water storage and
safe yield. Dt:nlon's stall worked with the UTRVr"D to incorporate most of the specific
recommendations from the Freese and Nichols report into the final contract agreement.
• Staff' has also worked extensively with the City Attorneys Office to protect Denton's Q •
interests. The Public Utilities Board has been briefed on this contract as the contract
y negotiations proceeded and has now recommended approval of the contract. The key
provisions of the proposed agreement are listed in Exhibit 111.
01
?1 K10 32XIO
EMMA&
~ j
;.:..~:z.....li,.eu!?s,::m,r1b1.'.~z:'...rfr:MYxrY4aM'^M1.:K IVw!e✓_"tr. nv:..r aav.K->:.u..~ EI .
. f
I
,
The City Council was last briefed on the passthrough agreement on April 28, 1998.
ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT
Irving has negotiated a contract with Montgomery Watson Inc., to serve as Program
Manager for the Lake Chapman water supply project. UTRWD is trying to develop a
Agreement between the City of Irving and the UfRWD to transport UTRWD Lake
Chapman Water supplies to Lake Lewisville, The current schedule for the pipeline
project is as follows:
Planning Phase 1498-I999
Design Phase 1999.2000
f Construction Phase 2000.2002
FISCAL INFORMATION
Denton's cost to transport its share of the Lake Chal man water is unknown at this time,
Preliminary estimates of the transportation expenses for Denton's 2 MGD share of the
Lake Chapman Water Supply project are as follows:
50.67/1000 gallons for 2 M G D water supply
Total Annual Cost - $489,100
Projected Revenues from U rRWI) li•: the Pass-Through Agreement
50.0211000 gallons for U IRWD's share of 11,7 MGD supply
Estimated Annual Revenue- 570,810 ;
Additional revenues and water supplies could be available by obtaining a re-use permit
from the TNRCC. Pass through fees of $0.0211000 gallons apply for Lake Chapman
Water Supply if passed through Lake Lewisville prior to re-use.
Respectfully submitted:
1ilk1ordan
Dircctor of Water Utilities
Lxhibit I. U IRIA U Lake IxA issille Pass- through Agreement
rxhibit II: May I, 1998 Frcese and Nichols Final Repon •
Exhibit III Key' ProsWk)ns
Exhibit IV: Location Map
1
i
i
02
25 32X1❑
O
_ f .
I
f
ORDINANCE NO.
1
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENT!?N, TEXAS AU fHORIZING THE CiTY MAN-
AGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND THE
UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT, AND THE CITY OF LEWISVILLE
CONCERNING THE PASS-THROUGH OF WATER FROM COOPER (CHAPMAN) LAKE
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEKMS AND CONDITIONS OF SAID AGREEMENT;
PROVIDING CONSIDERATION FOR THE PASS-THROUGH OF SAID WATER AND FOR
THE INTERIM AND LONG TERM SALE OF DENTON'S SHARE OF THE COOPER LAKE
WATER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR THE COORDI-
NATION OFDAILY USAGE, WATER ACCOUNTING AND AN OPERATING PROTOCOL
AND OTHER PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE BODY OF SAID AGREEMENT; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Upper Trinity Regional Water District ("District') entered into a Contract with
the City of Commerce, Texas on July 5, 1990 (Commerce Contract) to purchase water out of the
Cooper Lake (recently renamed Chapman Lake) in an amount which is approximately 11,72
gallons per day on a firth yield basis; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton (Denton), the City of Lewisville (Lewisville) and others I
entered into a contract (the "Cooper Reservoir Project Contract') with the District on June 10,
1991 to purchase specific amounts of Cooper Lake water from the District pursuant to the Com-
merce contract; and
WHEREAS, the amount of Cooper Lake water that Denton and Lewisville, respectively,
have the right to purchase and to receive on a firm yield basis under the Cooper Reservoir Proj-
ect Contract is approximately 2.0 mgd plus any authorized overdrafling, and
WHEREAS. Denton h: a the right to pass its contracted share of Cooper water through
Lewisville Lake for withdrawal at its existing intake structure and treatment at its existing water i
treatment structure or for sale to the District or other parties approved by the District, subject to
various contracts between the District, Denton, Lewisville and other parties; and
'i
• "14EREAS, Denton, District and Lewisville desire to pass the remaining Cooper water
not taken by Denton through Lewisville Lake to existing intake structures owned by Lewisville
and District for subsequent treatment and to water treatment plants owned by the District and
Lcwisville, respectively; and
WHEREAS, in considcralioz for Denton's Agreement to pass this water through
• Lewisville Lake, the District agrees to pay Denton an annual pass-through fee equal to two cents
(50.02) per thousand gallons of Cooper water, to make inter;m end long term sales from O 0
y, Denton's share of the Cooper not requested by Denton to be reserved to it and for other consid-
'lyir oration exp cssed in the body of the contract; and
03
r 10 32XI❑
~ eel
o
I
4
WHEREAS, Denton, Lewisville and District wish to enter into an Agreement entitled the
"Upper Trinity Regional Water District Agreement with the City of Denton and the City of '
Lewisville Concerning Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake" hereinafter referred to as the
"Lewisville Lake Pass-Through Agreement;" and
WHEREAS, the Public Uti!ity Board at its regular meeting of July 6, 1998, recom-
mended approval of the Lewisville I ake Pass-Through Agreement by a vote of 4 to i; and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it in the public interest to approve and authorize the
City Manager to execute the Lewisville Lake Pass-Through Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION I. That the facts and recitations contained in the preamble of this ordinance are
hereby found and declared to be true and correct.
SECTION IL That the Lewisville Lake Pass-Through Agreement in substantially the
form of the attached Agreement, which is made a part of this ordinance for all purposes, is
hereby approved and the City Manager is authorized to execute that Agreement on behalf of the
City of Denton.
SECTION Ill. That the City Manager or his respective designee is hereby authorized to
negotiate and enter into an Operating Protocol and Proposed Reuse Strategy as a part of the
Lewisville Lake Pass-Through Agreement to make fuI' use of the District's water from the Coo-
per Lake while avoiding any adverse impact on Denton's water r id storage rights in Lewisville
Lake and to undertake any and all other obligations imposed on tr,e City Manager and Denton in
said Agreement.
SECTION IV. That the City Council has found and determined that the meeting at which
this ordinance is considered is open to the public and that notice thereof was given in accordance
with provisions of the Texas open meetings law, TEX. GOVT CODE ch. 551, as amended, and
that a quorum of the City Council was present.
rr i
$ECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage i
and approval
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1998,
f JACK MILLER, MAYOR
.r
M a ~....a. R,...., [ 4
Page 2
,r
2sx-, 32X
t r
'
Q }
1 .
i
.
1 1
ATTEST.
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
i~
BY:
,
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
I ,
BY:
C
' Y
.1
1 ~
y~ 1111,` ,
i
1
' r
Illr 1. t
~Kk f.,.,,~.._.~....... 0 5 C
Page 3
,
4
Una
1
O
UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT
AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF DENTON AND CITY OF LEWISVILLE
CONCERNING
WATER FROM COOPER (CHAPMAN) LAKE
THE ST#^TE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DENTON §
This LEWISVILLE LAKE PASS-THROUGH AGREEMENT (the 'Agreement") for water from
Cooper (Chapman) Lake is made and entered into as of the day of
,
1998 (the % law of Agreement'), by and between the CITY OF DENTON therein "Denton"), and the r
CITY OF LEWISVILLE (herein "Lewisville") and UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT
(herein the 'District"), each of which is sometimes referred to herein as Party, or collecUvely as the
Parties.
l
I
WITNESSyETH
WHEREAS, the District entered into a conrract (with an initial term of fifty years) on July 5, 1990,
with the City of Commerce, Texas )the 'Commerce Contract") to purchase water out of Cooper j
Lake (recently renamed Chapman Lake), the amount of which is approximately 11.72 million
gallons per day (mgd) on a firm yield basis, which amount is subject to revision by future yield
studies; and r
I 5 it ` a i
v • I •4 I
WHEREAS, the amount of water under the Commerce Contract available to the District by
diversion out of Cooper Lake in any given year Is authorized to be approximately 14.4 mgd,
including overdrafting rights; and
WHEREAS, the actual yield and available divorsion amount from Cooper Lake may be modified L .
06
EXHIBIT I
2 5 32 X
r _ 7 n it t.
.,Now=
UTRVMClty of DentonT4 of Lewisville
Lewlavllle Lake Post-Through Agreement • water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page 2
in the future, based on future yield studies or operating agreements; and
WHEREAS, District may purchase additional water out of Cooper Lake from the City of Irving or
other parties, and
L.
WHEREAS, on behalf of District, the City of Commerce and Sulphur River Municipal Water District
applied to and received authorization from Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
("TNRCC") for District to divert water from Cooper Lake In Sulphur River Basin to Trinity River
Basin for use by District; and
WHEREAS, Denton, Lewisville and others entered into a contract (the'Cooper Reservoir Project
Contract") with District on June 10, 1991 to purchase specific amounts of Cooper water from
District pursuant to the Commerce Contract; and
it
WHEREAS, the amount of said water that Denton and Lewisville, respectively, have the right to
purchase on a firm yield basis under the Cooper Reservoir Project Contract is approximatety 2.0
mgd plus any authorized overdrafting and
f • WHEREAS, each of the Parties to this Agreement currently has and agrees to maintain water !
sources other than Cooper Lake to meet their total water supply requirements, whether for peaking
or for base flow purposes; and
WHEREAS Lewisville desires to pass its Cooper Lake water through Lewisville Lake and concurs t
with the provisions of this Agreement, with the understanding that Lewisville has a limited role in
07
0
UTRWtKity of Gnton%City of Lewisville
Lewisville Lake Pau-Through Agreement - Water from Cooper (Chapman) Later
Pape 3
this Agreement related to operation of its raw water pumping facilities in a coordinated program for '
efficient use of Cooper Lake water, and wid avoid use of Denton's storage rights in the Lake, and
WHEREAS, the City of Irving holds water fights (approximately 39.5 mgd firm yield) In Cooper
Lake, and has appropriate authorization to divert up to 48.2 mgd annually to the Trinity River
Basin; and
WHEREAS, District is planning to participate with the City of Irving in the design, construction and
operation of pipeline, pumping and meter facilities to transport and measure Irving's and District's
water from Cooper Lake to Lewisville Lake; and
;j
WHEREAS, Denton and the City of Dallas, respectively, hold water rights in Lewisville Lake, which
rights enable Denton and Danes to authorize other parties to transport water into, through, and out
of Lewisville Lake under the conditions and restrictions set forth in various contracts that Denton
and Dallas have with each other and with other parties, including, without limitation, that certain
contract between Denton and the United States of At nenca entitled 'Contract Conservation Storage
Garza-Little Elm Dam and f'.aservoir' identified as Contract #DA-41443-ENG-1043, 2^ that
' certain untreated water contract between Dallas and Denton dated Aujust 7, 1885; and
WHEREAS, the City of Irving has contracted to convey its wo.er from Cooper Lake through
Lewisville Lake (with specified use of storage rights) under an agreement with the City of Dallas
! for subsequent treatment downstream of Lewisville Lake; and
'M 1
WHEREAS, under the Cooper Reservoir Project Contract, Denton and Lewisville (and other
I
i
C6
5
Q
s
UTWAFMCIfy of OeMonlCity of Lewisvirls
Lewlsvills Laks Pass -Through Agraword • Wsler from Cooper tChspman) Lake
Page / _
Participating Members) have certain rights and obligations. Including, without limitation, the right
to participate or not to participate in the Cooper Reservoir Project and the right to purchase or
receive quantities of the Cooper raw water in the proportions identified in the Contract and Exhibit
A to the Contract, said rights and obligations being defined by the terms and conditions of the
Cooper Reservoir Project Contract; and
WHEREAS, the Parties' rights to purchase or receive Cooper water under the Cooper Reservoir
Project Contract are dependent on the Commerce Contract and on a Contract between the City
of Commerce, Texas and the Sulphur River Municipal Water District ("SRMWD") entered into on
or about March 7, 1991 (the "SRMWD Contract"); and
WHEREAS, Denton has the right to pass its contracted share of Cooper water through Lewisville
Lake for withdrawal at its existing Intake btrrture and treatment at its existing water treatment plant
or for sale to District or other parties approved by District, subject to the contracts mentioned
herein; and
I ,
WHEREAS, District and Lewisville desire to pass the remaining Cooper water not taken by Denton {
through Lewisville LeLe to the existing intake s -ucture(s) owned by Lewisville and District for
subsequent treatmv nt at waler treatment plants owned by District and Lewisville, respectively; and
WHEREAS, it Is the Intention of all Parties to this Agreement to accomplish the conveyance of 0
the Dislrict's water through Lewisville Lake with no right of storage in the Lake; and
I
09
I l
0 3 n
9
o r
n
uTRWLACMy of DentortCdy of Lewlsvl I le
L•w1sv1Me Lake pass-Through 0-4reenent • Water fan Cooper (Chapman( Lake
Page S
WHEREAS, it is the desire of all Parties to this Agreement to convey and use the water
available to District from Cooper Lake; and
WHEREAS, Ihe' District's water" as generally referred to in this Agreement includes: (1) all if the
water purchased pursuant to the Commerce Contract, Including amounts of said water contracted
to Denton, Lewisville and other pt rtes pursuant to tho Cooper Reservoir Project Contract and
similar water sales contracts entered Into t,y District subsequent thereto. and (2) any additional
water not to exceed ten (10.0) mgd that District may purchase that criginales in Cooper LakA; and
WHEREAS, passage of Cooper Laks water by Distrct through Lewisville Lake will not occupy or
impair storage rights or adversely af.ect water yield of Denton or the City of Dallas In Lewisville
Lake; and
WHEREAS, Denton, Lewisville and District desire to cooperate in strategles to facilitate the efficient
and economical transportation and use of Cooper Lake water; snD
WHEREAS, Denton, Lewisville and District own and operate separate Intake and water treatment
facilities, the collective capacity of which Is more than adequate to withdraw are treat District's
water from Cooper Lake that might reasonably be expected to be discharged into Lewt: v+lle Lake
on any given day.
~ EEE
NOW, THEREFORE, In consids ration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained ,
and subject Iv the terms and conditions herein set forth, Denton, Lewisville and District agree and
contract as follows.
4(
'r! ~ Y
10
t 'n
32x10
0
:~a.reet.
UTRWO)CIty of DentonThy of Lewisville
Lewisville Lake Pass -Through Agreement • Water from Cooper I(` hspman) Lake
Page
ARTICLE I '
PREAMBLE
Soction 1.0. Prearnble, That tho matter; slated in the preamble are true and correct and are
Incorporated into the body of this Agreement as if copied herein in their entirety. Any conditions
and terms set forth in the preamble which imWd oblig, ms on the Parties 0all be just as
,
enforceable as the matters stated in the body of this Agreement.
ARTICLE II
THE PROJECT
Section 2.0. Cooper to Lewisville Protect, To provide an economica!ly feasible means to
transport the District's water from Cooper Lake to Denton County, Including the amount of water
contracted to Denton and Lewisville, respectively, District plans to participate with the City of Irving i
in the design, construction and operation of pipeline, pumping and meter facilities to transport and
measure both the District's and Irving's water from Cooper Lake to Lewisville Lake. District, Denton
and Lewisville recognize that the provisions of this Agreement are necessary for achle, emenl of
the transport of the water from Cooper Lake in an efficient manner to the Parties' treatment facAties
as contemplated in the heretofore referenced Commerce and Cooper Reservoir Project Contracts.
Furthermore, Denton a d Lewisville agree to reasonably assist District In making and supporting
applications or requests to the United States Corps of Engineers and Texas Natural Resource t
Conservation Commission concerWng related approvals for the Cooper Lake to Lewisville Lake
jr, project that may be needed from the respective agencies 1o effect the intent of this Agreement,
Provided, howevor, nothing in this Agreement shall create any obligation on Lewisville's of
i
11
<xr ? ~i x 32 x I❑
0
i S
I ,
U711MCNy of wMonMty of Lewisville
Lewisville Lake Pass-Through Agreement • water from Cooper (Chapman) We
Page 7
Denton's part to participata in the Cooper Water Pipeline Project, including funding for that Project, '
beyond existing obligations contained in the contracts referenced above in this Section. Further,
I
it is agreed that Denton and LeWsville have the same right and opportunity to participate or not to
participate in capital funding for the Project under Section 3.03 (b) and other applicable provisions
of the Cooper Reservoir Project Contract, whether capital funds for the Project are supplied by the
District or supplied by the City of Irving. If Denton exercises its option to not participate in the
Cooper Reservoir Project, the District shall purchase or convey Denton's inte.est in the Project.
Terms of the. purchase or conveyance shall be a^cording to the Cooper Reservoir Frojecl
Contract
ARTICLE III
WATER/GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 3.0. General Agreement fgr Pass-through, Denton agrees that District may pass
Disirkl's water from Cooper Lake through Lewisville Lake within water rights held by Denton under
permit from State of Texas and under contracts with United States Corps of Engineers ("Corps")
and the City of Dallas mentioned in the preamble subject to any terms, conditions, and limitations
set forth in the permit and the contracts. Prov' ied, however, the pass-through of water shall be
limited arictly to the Cooper water described herein and District shall not pass through any other
water. It Is expressly understoc : that this Agreement, including, without limitation, the monthly
accounting and Operating Protocol, does not authorize Lye District, Lewisville or any other party
to use Denton's storage space within Lewisville Lake or to cause it to he reduced or Impaired
Sedlon 3.1. Pipeline and Transpgrtstion Losses, The quantity of Cooper water discharg~.A into
I
12
2. x 10 32 X I O
vim
smea~er
0
UTRwlylaty of Denton" of Lewisville
Lew wills Lawn Past-Through Agreement • water from Coope• (Chapman) Lake
Paged
Lewisville Lake is to be determined by the metered quantity at the pipeline pump stalian, less
pipeline and transmisslon losses. For estimating water losses thit may occur from the metering
point near Lake Lavon to the discharge into Lewisville Lake, the Parties agree to the following:
a) Pipeline Losses. Use percentages specified In, or determined pursuant to, a separate
Agreement (attached hereto as a part of this Agreement as Exhibit A) datr.d January 8,
1998 between City of Irving and City of Dallas for water treatment services related to water
from Cooper Lake.
b) Channel Losses. If District delivers Cooper Lake water to a tributary of Lewisville Laka,
losses In excess of those expected from a pipeline of corresponding length as agreed upon
by the Derdon City Manager, or authorized designee, and the District's Executive Director,
will be added to the losses determined pursuant to paragraph (a) Immediately preceding
In arriving at such a annel losses. Denton and District agree to give due con:,kferation to
comparable losses determined pursuant to the IrvinglOallas Contract attache 3 hereto as
Exhibit A
c) Failure to Agree. If agreement is not achieved by the designated staff representatives
I S '
pursuant to poregroph (a) or (b) Immediately preceding, the matter shall be referred to the
goveming bodies tat District and Denlem for determination.
Y ~
SecCon 3.2, Pass-Through I ft Evaporation Lq}su. Denton and District agree that since no O
. ,S storage rights are to be granted to District under this Agreement, and since the elevation of water
lqI ~ ,
surface In the lake will not be Increased by passage of water through Lewisvi!te Lake, ihere will
13
~t 32X
0
i .
i
3
I
UTRIN04ity of Danlnn%Qty of LewiaYll If
Lewisville Lake Past-Urough Agreement • Walter from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Pape 0
be no increase in evaporation losses resulting from such passage through the Lake. Accordingly,
each of the Parties to this Agreement will be authorized to withdraw their respective amounts of
water from the Lake that was discharged Into the Lake. It is agreed that any incidental evar oration
losses that might be associated with the passage of Cooper Lake water through Lewisville Lake
shall be adequately compensated to Denton by the consideration hereinafter specified.
Section 3A. Determination of Plater Qltantity Subject to the two paragraphs Immediately
preceding, the amount of District water to be discharged into and withdrawn from Lewisville Lake
by the respective Parties shall be determined by monthly coordination of meter readings from
planned metering facilities at an intermediate point on the pipeline near Lake Lavon between
Cooper Lake and Lewisville Lake and at the respective punts of withdrawal by the Parties from
Lewisville Lake. The meter facilities near Lake Lavon, shall measure the quantity of Cooper water
for City of Irving in adds on to the District and other parties The Parties hereto agree to provide
mutual access to mcter reading records of each Party upon 48-hour written notice by the Party
requesting same, fo verify quantities of Cooper Lake water discharged Into and withdrawn from
Lewisville Lake.
~ I •
^ I ARTICLE iV
WATER, ACCCOUNTING AND COORDINATION ;
i
Section 4.0. ODeratina Protocol I Water Accountina Within the framework of this Agreement,
Denton and Lewisville gill assist the District in development and Implementation of an Operating
Protocol to make full u3e of District's water from Cooper Lake, avoiding any adverse Impact on
Denton's water and storage rights In Lewisville Lake. Nothing in this Agreement shall ever be
14
i
!o
si ~ 10 32 x 1
0
„tea
UTRwD%City of DenlonTily of Lewlavl Ile
Lewlevllle Lake Pass-Through Agrnmant • water bom Cor per (Chapman) Lake
1 Page 10
construed as granting to District any storage rights in Lewisville Lake. Prior to initial discharge of
Cooper water by District Into Lewisville Lake, District shall develop said protocol for approval by the
City Manager of Denton and City Manager of Lewisville or their respective designees, which
I
approval will not be unreasonably withheld. District, Denton and Lewisville agree to maintain an
overall water balance through an operating strategy coordinated by District, processing water
through the individual treatment plants of the Parties as required and needed to achieve a balance
between water discharged Into and withdrawn from Lewisville Lake. The District will maintain an
accounting of water Into and out of Lewisville Lake to assure that each Party gels their respective
share, or a lesser amount if requested, of Cooper Lake water on an annual basis. The Operating
Protocol will provide for total usage of all Parties combined to be balanced with total discharges Into
Lewisville Lake on a monthly basis. Any recoros associated with water accounting shall be made
available to the Party requesting those records upon 48-hour written notice to the party who has
custody of the records. 1
I
Sect!un 4.1. Q=d_1MlAq.Qalfy Usage I Other, available Water, No Party to this Agreement
will be expected or required to process at their respective water treatment plant more water from
1
Cooper Lake on any given day than would otherwise be needed to meet their system da;ty
' requirement. Provided however, that nothing In this Section shall be construed to be a waiver of
the District's obligations under Section 6,0 If on a given day, any F'irty uses man than their
respective share of Cooper water, the water accounting system approved by the Parties as a part
of the Operating Protocol and maintained by District will make offsetting adjustments in subscquenl
days to bring total usage by each respective Party back into balance by year-end. It is agreed that O
> each Patty to this Agreement has other water resrurces available to it out of Lewisville Lake and 1
other sources to supplement water from Cooper Lake to meet total daily requlremenls, whether for
I
15
75Y 32XIO
•
,MAMA
p
' i
UTRWrACity of QenlonlCity of Lewiaville
lawlsville Lake Pats-Through Agreement - Water from Cooper (Cfupman) Lake
Page 11
I
peaking or to, base flow purposes. Provided, however, District will use its bes efforts 1c Supply
each Party's daily and annual requirements within the limitations of pipeline and pumping capacities
I
according to this Agreement, the Cooper Reservoir Project Contract and the Ope acing Protocol.
Section 4.2. grithly Water AccountinolTotal Usage, Pursuant to this Agreement and the
Operating Protocol, District will maintain a monthly balance between the total amount of Cooper
v
water discharged into Lewisville Lake and the total amount of water withdrawn. All Parties hereto
will cooperate to achieve a monthly balance; and, excess water, if any, will be accounted for
according to Section 6.0 (g) herein.
Sectlun 4.3. Settle-Up Between Patties. For purposes of this Agreement, District will account
for water usage and water sales for each Party pursuant to the Operatng Protocol, coordinated
with the period used in reporting raw water d versions or withdrawals to Stale of Texas. Any settle-
up of usage between the Parties required b;, the Operating Protocol or water accounting system
will be performed at least annually.
Section 4A. Coordination with Irving Water. District agrees to coordinate the Operating
Protocol for conveying District's water through Lewisville Lake with the corresponding procedures
by the City of Irving for conveying its water from Cooper Lake through Lewisville lake under a
i
separate agreement with the City of Dallas. Provided, however, nothing herein shall ever relieva
0
District of any of its obligations under this Agreement and the Operating Protocol.
Section 4.5. $hort•Term Provision for Sale of Wells Water. If requested in writing from time
i
to time, the District will use its best efforts to use or sell on behalf of Denton or Lewisville any
16
- 7h 32XI❑
4
j
LITRWMCIty of Donton*tY of Lewisville
Lewisville Lake Peas-Through Agreement • Water Firm Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page 17
portion of their Cooper Lake water not required or used currently. This Section will be administered
on an annual basis and relates to water that the Party had expehted to need or use and armrdingly
was reserved for their regular use. This provision relates to short-term periods of on,) year or less
and Is distinct from the provisions of Sections 6.0 (c) and (d), which covers sales over an extended
period of time for Denton, only. Under this Section, any such purchases from Denton or Lewisville
will be priced at eighty rivet percent (85%) of the Dallas posted price for firm raw water sold at
wholesale for resale.
i Section 4.6. Metering, Measurement of water discharged Into Lewisville Lake by the District and
water withdrawn by one of the Parties hareto will be measured at meter facilities which are
installed for other purposes pursuant to other agreements. Maintenance ani calibration of the
meters will be performed according to the terms of said other agreements to assula accurate
readings. Denton shall have access to the records concerning maintenance and calibration of the
meters upon 24-hour notice.
ARTICLE V
WATER REUSE
Section 5.0. Reuse of Water, District agrees to maKe reasonable efforts 1j obtain permission
from the Slate of Texas for reuse of water imporicd into the Trinity River Basin by District from
Cooper Lake. Within the framework of this Agreement, Denton anj Lewisville will assist the District
• in development and implementation of a Proposed Reuse Strategy to make full use of District's O •
er from Cooper lake, avoiding any adverse impact on Denton's water and storage rights In
wat
J14
Lewisville Lake. Nothing in this Agreement shall ever be construed as grant'ng to District any
E
17
---;r, 1
a ~i~
49 6) Ia 32X0
0 0
UTRW=ity of DontonlClly of Lswlsvlrlit
LrMsvIlls Lake Pass- hroagh Agreement • Wale from Cuope (Chapman) Lake
Page 1]
storage rights in Lewisville Lake. Prior to the District making application for such reuse, District `
shall develop said Proposed Reuse Strategy for approval by the City Manager of Denton and City
Manager of Lewisville or their respective designees, which approval will not be unreasonably
withheld. Denton and Lewisville agree to cooperate with the District In making and supporting
applications to obtain permission for such reuse of water diverted from Cooper Lake, after initially
used by the Parties an! treated and returned to waters of the State of Texas. It Ls the Intent of the
Parties to this Agreement that any such approved reuse will be of benefit to each of the Parties to+
obtain maximum benefit from their respective amounts of water from Cooper Lake pursuant to the
Cooper Reservoir Project Contract, Further, Denton agrees that if approval Is granlod for such
reuse by the State of Texas, any such water so reclaimed or treated and returned to Lewisville
take or its environs may be ronveyed through and withdrawn from Lewisville Lake by District,
Denton and Lewisville on the same terms and conditions as provided herein for water originally
diverted from Cooper Lake. Provided, however, the Parties hereto expressly agree that if any Party
Is aulhorized to so reuse their respective share of Cooper Lake Water, they will not be required by
the District to pay for the water again, recognizing that the District Is Rmiled to recovery of its actual
cost pursuant to the Cooper Reservoir Project Contract. Denton expressly reserves the right to not
participate in any such reuse application for its share of Cooper Lake Water.
ARTICLE VI !
CONSIDERATION, FEES
r,
Section 0.0. Consideration For ServlcIII District and Lewisville recognize that Denton's
agreement herein for District and Lewisville to convey (pass through) their Cooper water through
Lewisville Lake within Denton's water and storage rights has value to District and its cuslomers ;
1 g
32 X I O
d ,
- o
UTRWMCity of oerdon*ty of Lewisville
Lewbrltie Lake Pass-Through Agreement • water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page 14
over and above the actual cost to Denton. Accordingly, District and Lewisville agree to provide the
following benefits as consideration for the grants and privileges agreed to herein by Denton:
a) Pass-Throuoh Foe, On an annual basis, District will pay to C a fee equal to
two cents ($0.01) per thousand gallons of Cooper water actually discharged into and
withdrawn from Lewisville Lake pursuant to this Agreement. Said fee shall not apply to the
water contracted to Denton and which Denton acquires under the Cooper Reservoir Project
Contract heretofore refers tcr;ri, unless Denton refuses to participate in funding the Project,
and said water Is sold or conveyed pursuant to Section 3.03 (b) of said contract. Also, the
fee shall apply to Cooper water reclaimed for reuse if discharged Into and subsequenUy
wiU,drawn from Lewisville Lake by District or Lewisville pursuant to a reuse permit or other
appropriate re3ulatory authorization.
b) Fee I Periodic Adjustment, The fee amount provided in paragraph (a) immediately
preceding shall be subject to an annual adjustment on or about October 1 of each year,
commencing the year that facilities a, a operational to discharge the District's water from
Cooper Lake into Lewisville Lake, to reflect increases or decreases in costs cccording to
the Consumer Price Index For All Urban Consumers (CPI-U, all items, published by United
States Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1£82.1984=100). The "Cu,-ent
Index" shall refer to the most recent quarterly Index published prior to the date of
I ~
adjustment. "Previous Index" shall refer to the comparable period one year earlier. The fee
shall be adjusted by multiplying the applicable fee times a fraction, the numerator of which
is the Current Index, and the denominator of which Is the Previous Index,
•
1 c) Interim Provlslor for Sale of Denton Water. Until Denton notifies the District that
it needs its share of the Cooper water, the provisions of this paragraph and paragraph (d)
19
- - - N0 25 x ~0 32xi0
rr,
+tsr~waes
i ,
UTRYOCIty of DonloMC Ity of Lewlaville
LevAgOle Lake Pass-Through Agre ment • water from Cooper (Chapmenl Lake
Pape 1!
following are effective, District agrees to use its best efforts to use or sell any portion of '
Denton's water from Cooper Lake that Denton does not request to be reserved for its use. ,
Denton and the District agree that the price of said water shall be equal to the Dallas posted
price for firm raw water sold at wholesale for resa i. If District Is unable to use or sell
Denton's water under this Interim provision, any proposed resale by Denton shall be in
accordance with lie Cooper Reservoir Project Contract.
d) Long Term Provislon for Sale of Denton Water. District agrees to purchase or
sell Denton's water under the following circumstances. In any year that District needs water
to augment water available to District out of its rights In Cooper Lake, except pursuant to
"lake or pay," "ratchet," or such clauses In other contracts the District may have for
purchase )f raw or treated water, District will purchase or sell Denton's water until Denton
gives written notice at least twelve 02) months in advance that Denton desires to reserve
the water for its own use. The obligation of District to purchasa or cell Denton's water
hereunder shall come ahead of an other existing or future agreements the District may have
for temporary or interim purchases of water from others, Includinq Denton. To the extent
that District does not purchase said water from Denton but is able to sell to others on behalf
of Denton, District agrees to remit to Denton the proceeds of such sales, less odual cost,
• d any, of administering such sale. Denton and the District agree that IN price of said water
under this paragraph shall be equal to the Dallas posted price for frn, -iw water sold at
wholesale for nasals.
e) Application for Reuse District agrees to use reasonable efforts to make
application for and to obtain permission from TNRCC for District, Denton, Lewisville and
i
20
I
0i 32X
iaaW
0
t
i
UTRMCIty of DemmnVty of Lswlsvllle
Lewisville Lake Pess-Through Agreement • Water from Cuopar (Chapman) LaAS
Page 1E
others to reuse Cooper lake water that has been used, reclaimed, treated and returned to
waters of the Sla!e of Texas.
f) Flood Stage Provisions. Recognizing that Cooper Ldke wat:., is an important
source of water for the District, its customers and the Parties to this Agreement, Oe District
Is authorized to pass its Cooper Lake water thr^ugh Lewisville Lake during flood stage
conditions subject to autl orizatlon, if requlled, by the Corps as provided in Section 2.0.
Such pass-through during flood stage shall be subject to all other applicable provisions of
this Agreement including Section 3.0 which proh;bits the District from using, reducing or
impairing Denton's storage space.
g) }plater Balance 1 Excess Water. It Is the intent of all Parti that daily discharge
into and withdrawals from Lewisville lake will be kept In reasonable balance. It is agreed
i
that the contracted basic for balancing actual quantities for usage and compensation under
this Agreement will be monthly volumes. District and Lewisville agree that it more water Is
discharged than wilhdrawn in any given month, said excess water shall become the
property of Denton for use or sale by Denton. The quantity of Coiner water, under this
' paragraph shall be determined bv th5 Operating Protocol specified in :,action 4.0, which k
protocol will take into account the normal time required for water to flow between the
meterino point and Lewisville Lake,
Section 6.1. Fees / Terms Apply to Lewlsvilfe. Lewisville agrees to pay its pro rata share of •
Y any fees provided for herein and to be bound by the :ern s hereof. District agrees to Include any
' such fee..s in the cost of water (or Annual Requtreff*o';) d-grged by District or otherwise provided
21
e
eamene
0
UTRWDICIy of rentonlCily of Lewisville
Lewisville Lake P.ss•Thruugh Agreement • Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page I?
i
for in the Cooper Reservoir Project Contract, Hewever, District shall not Include such fees ;n the
cost of Cooper water sold to Denton, except to the extent that fees and cost, if any, are Incurred
by District in connection with Denton's Cooper water,
ARTICLE VII
BILLING AND PAYMENT
Section T.O. Ot Rendered, Denton shall render bills monthly to District for services provided
by Denton under this Agreement. District will cooperate with Denton and will provide ooxdinated
meter readings or other water accounting information reasonably necessary for preparation of
monthly bills by Denton. If mutually agreed, monthly estimates will be acceptable for billing
purposes, subject to settle-up provisions of this Agreement. District will be responsible for biding
and collecting fees and charges from Lewisville and any other users of the water. Bills shall be due
and payable upon receipt by District and by Lewisville.
Sectlen 71. Prompt Payment and Disouted Bills, District shall make payments to Denton
within 20 calendar days of the date a bill for service is rendered, Likewise, Lewisville shall make
prompt payments within 20 calendar days to District- If the receiving Party at any Vme disputes the
amount to be paid by it to the billing Party, the receiving Party shall nevertheless promptly make
such payment or payments; but, if It's subsequently determined by agreement or final court
decision that such d;sputed payments should have been less, or more, the amount shall be
prr,nptly adjusted. The charges shall be adjusted in such manner that the receiving Party will O '
~f reoc.vep its overpayment or the billing Party will recover the amount due it. All amounts dc,+a and
owing to any Party shall, if not paid ++hen due, bear Interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per
2
❑
25 32X
latex.
0
uTRWM y of DenlonTity of Lewiav IIle
L rwisv IIIs Lake Pass•Through Agresmenl • Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page U
annum from the date when due until paid.
I
ARTICLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 8.1. Representations of the Parties. The District, Denton, and Lewisville hereby
covenant and agree as follows:
a) Each Party to this Agreement warrants that its actions in executing and entering
I
Into this Agreement have been duly authorized In a manner that follows the laws
applicable to it.
b) Each Party to this Agreement warrants that it shall promptly and with all due
diligence, acting Jointly or individually as may be appropriate, take all necessary actions and
endeavor to obtain all regulatory approvals, lice nses, orders and permits necessary to carry
out its obligations under this Agreement, Including, without limitation, any approval
_i
necessary from the Corps and TNRCC, The pass-through of Cooper Lake water authorized
by this Agreement is conditioned upon Denton obtaining permission, if necessary, from the
Corps.
Section 8.2. Termination and Default.
I
a) Should District fail, refuse or neglect to pay any bill for services hereunder within
r ,
sixty (60) days of the da% due; or, should It refuse, neglect, or fail to comply with or perform
•
I any of the conditions on its part required to be complied with or performed hereunder
Nr including, without limitation, District's failure to develop or comply with the Operating
I
23
i
,
1tn r.
10 132X0
teaataw ' ,
l
i
UTRWOkCIty of DentonlClty of Lewis vl lie
Lfwlerl Ile Lake Pass-Through Agreement Water from Cooper(Chapmanl LANs
Page tY
y
Protocol set forth In Section 4.0, the District shall be In default. If after such default, Denton
shall deliver to District, addressed to the Executive Director of District, a notice In writing
of its intent to terminate the passage rf water through Lewisville lake on account of such
failure, refusal or neglect, then Denton shall have the right to terminate the services
hereunder, including sale of water, at the expiration of thirty (30) days after the giving of
such notice and to terminate this Agreement, unless within thirty (30) days District shall
make good such failure, refusal or neglect. If District pays or performs within the thirty-day
(30) period, the default shall cease to exist. The termination of this Agreement or right to
terminate this Agreement shall not constitute Denton's only remedy for breach of the
Agreement as provided herein. Termination of this Agreement, as provided herein, shall
not release District from its obligation to make payments of any amounts due or to become
due in accordance with the terms hereof, or to pay damages to Denton resulting from such
default, and Denton specifically reserves all remedies at law or In equity for any such
breach, Including, without limitation, the right to demand specific performance, or to obtain
a writ of mandamus in the District Courts of Denton County to require compliance. EI
I
b) In the event Lewisville fails to comply with or carry out its obligations and
{
requirements under this Agreement, including, without limitation, Lewisville's failure to
reasonably approve and to comply with the Operating Prolocot set forth In Section 4.0 and
. 1
j the Proposed Reuse Strategy set forth in Section 5,0, the District or Denton shall give
Lewisville thirty (30) days written notice to comply. In the event Lewisville fails to comply
or take satisfactory steps towards compliance within said thirty (30) day period, the Party 0 •
d or Parties giving the notice shall have the right to require speufic performance, or to obtain
'A~IP t
a writ of mandamus In the District Courts of Denton County to require compliance, or to
24
25 K 10,
32 x10
0
;aa~eeasa
UTRWDICIty of 0enloMCUy of Lewlsvirle
Lewisville Lake P^ss•TNOUgh Agreement- Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page 20
y
terminate the Agreement, or to collect damages resulting from such failure to comply, and
District and Denton specifically reserve all remedies at law or In equity for breach of this
Agreement,
C) In the event Denton fails to comply with c; carry out its obligations and requirements
under Ihls Agreement, Including, without IimMfion, Denton's failure to reasonably approve
and to comply with the Operating Protocol set forth In Section 4 0 and the Proposed Reuse
Strategy set forth In Section 5.0, the District or Lewisville shall give Denton thirty (30) days
written notice to comply. In the event Denton fails to comply or take satisfactory steps
towards compliance within said thirty (30) day period, the Party or Parties giving the notice
shall have the right to require specific performance, or to obtain a writ of mandamus in the
District Courts of Denton County to require compliance, or to terminate the Agreement, or
to collect damages resulting from such failure to comply, and District and Lewisville
specifically reserve all remedies at law or In equity for breach of this Agreement.
Section 8.3, Force Maleure. If, because of flood, drought, fire, explosions, civil disturbance, war,
water system failure or malfunction, acts of God, or other causes beyond the control of either Party,
either Party is not able to perform any or all of its obligations under this Agreement, then the
respective Parry's obligations hereunder shall be suspended during such period, and for no "r
than such period of time when the Party is unable to so perform. 3
I
1 ~
Section 8.4, Liability and Claims, t'
a) To the extent allowed by law, except for the actions or inactions described and 0
w disclaimed in paragraphs 8,5 and 8.8, which are expressly excluded from this Indemnity,
Denton agrees to indemnify and hold harmless and defend District and Lewisville, their
25
2 5x 32XIO
I
1
9
i
1
UTRINMCIty of DsnlonlCity of Lewisville
Lawlavige Lake Pus-Through Agreement • water from Cooper {Chepman) take {
Page 21
{
officers and employees, from any claim for injuries, damages or losses, administrative
proceedings, lawsuits or judgments, penalties, costs, expenses, and attomey's fees for
personal injury (including death), property damage, other harm for which recovery of
damages Is sought, or violations of federal or state laws or regulations that arise from any
act, omission or negligence of Denton, its officers or employees, arising from the
performance of this Agreement, unless said injuries, damages or losses result from the
r'
negligence of District or Lewisville, respectively. The Indemnity shall apply in cases where,
due to Denton's operations and obligations under this Agreement, the Lewisville Lake water
quality is Impaired of the Cooper water Is Impaired, and if Denton violates applicable state
or federal environmental laws, rules, or regulations.
b) To the extent allowed by law, District agrees to Indemnify and hold harmless and
defend Denton and Lewisville, their officers an 'employees, from any claims for Injuries,
damages or losses, administrative proceedings, lawsuits or judgments, penalties, costs,
expenses, and allomey's fees for personal injury (including death), property dar,tage, other
harm for which recovery of damages is sought, or violations of federal or state laws or
regulations that arise from any act, omission or negligence of District, its officers or
} employees, arising from the performance of this Agreement, unless said Injuries, damages
t
• or losses result from the negligence of Denton or Lewisville, respectively. The Indemnity,
shall apply in cases where, due to District's operations and obligations under this
Agreement, the Lewisville lake water quality Is impaired or the Cooper water is Impaired,
• and if the District violates applicable stale or federal environmental laws, rules, or 0 •
i regulations.
26
,.n.t 2 5~ '1 2 X ❑
,
0
i
i
UTItWC1Cily or MntonlCiN or Lewbv Ills
Lewisville Lake Pots-Through Agreement • Water from Cooper (Chapman) We
Pape 22
c) To the extent allowed by law, Lewisville agrees to Indemnify and hold harmless and
defend District and Denton, their officers and employees, from any claims for Injuries,
damages or losses, administrative proceedings, lawsuits or judgments, penalties, costs,
expenses, and attomey's fees for personal Injury (including death), property damage, other
i
harm for which recovery of damages Is sought, or violations of federal or state laws or
regulations that arise from any act, omission or negligence of Lewisville, its officers or
employees, arising from the performance of this Agreement, unless said Injuries, damages
or losses result from the negligence of District or Denton, respectively.
The provisions of this Agreement, including the above Indemnities, are solely for the benefit of the
Parties to this Agreement, and are not intended to create or grant any rights, contractual or
otherwise, to any other person or entity.
Section S.5. jyo Warrantlos. Denton makes no representation or warranty, express or Implied,
as to the character, quality, or availability of the water to be taken or sold by the District under this
Agreement; and, the District agrees to assume all such risks, to accept such water, N available, in
the same state as it Is provided or made available to District; nor, does Denton make any
representation that such water will be suitable for the purposes for which the District desires to use
it. Denton shall not be liable in the event of tttia non-availability of water hereunder, the unsuAability
j of such water, or its quality, or the Inability of Denton to perform any obligation under this Contract
for force majeure reasons as stated in Section 8.3 hereof, including rules and regulations of other 1
l:
governmental agencies, 0
1
Sectlon 8.8, Regulations of Other Agencies. Denton shall not be liable In any event for the
27
2 5 Q 32 X 10
VA~ mom
r .
0
;
I
uTRWVCRy or t)enton%Clly or LeKtevIIIs
Lewisville Lake Pass-Through Agreement. Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake i
Page 77
r
nonavailability of services hereunder due to the Inability of Denton to perform any obligation under
this Agreement for reasons beyond its control, including rules or regulations of other governmental
agencies. Provided, however, Denton will pursue action or remedies It deems reasonable, with
reasonable assistancs by District, for such non-availabilil of services to allow restoration of
services so affected, Impaired or suspended within a reasonable time, ~:onsldering the conditions
creating the non-availability of services
Section O.T. Severability, If any provision of this Agreement is by any court held to be Illegal or
in conflict with any law or regu'ation, the validity of the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall
not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced as
if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be Invalid.
Section O.S. Assignment )Neither Party shall assign nor transfer in whole or in part the rights and
privileges granted In this Agreement without first obtaining the written consent of the other Party.
Section B.O. fntirg Agreement: ModiReation. This Agreement embodies the whole agreement
of the Parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other that those contained
'I herein. This Agreement shall supersede all previous communications, representations. or I
' I
agreements, either verbal or written, between the Parties, and all modifications of this Agreement 1
shall be in writing and approved by the affected Parties.
1
1r Section 8.10. Venue, All amounts dun under this Agreement shall be paid and be due in Denton 0
County, Texas, tt Is specifically agreed among the Parties that Denton County, Texas, Is the place
of performance of this Agreement. In the event that any legal proceeding is brought to enforce this
28
25 x 10 32 X I O
i.
r
i
I
'i/ ANO
' y' Q I -
'Naw
UTRMCity of DantonVty of Lmlovllla -
LowAvllla Lake Paao•Tlvough Agroomom • Misr from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page 24
Agreement or any provision hereof, the same shall be brought in Denton County, Texas.
Section 8.111. Notices. Any notice, request for information or other document to be given
hereunder to any of the Parties hereto by the other Party shall be in writing and shall be hand-
delivered or sent
by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, requesting evidence of receipt as follows:
• .r
a) If to Denton, addressed to:
City of Denton
Attention, City Manager
215 East McKinney
City of Denton, Texas 76201
b) If to b strict, addressed lo;
Upper Trinity Regional Water District
Attention: Executive Director
Poet Office Drawer 305 ,
Lewisv, le, Texas 75067 1
C) If to Lewisville, addressed to:
City of Lewisville
Attention: City Manager II "
P.O. Box 299002 j
Lewisville, TX 75029-9002
• Either Party may change the address for notice above by certified mail to the other Parties at any 1 '
i
time.
l
Section 8.12. Captions, The captions of the various sections and paragraphs herein are Intended
• • •
for convenience or reference only and shall not define or limit any of the terms or provislats hereof.
29
- '17
ANIMAL MEAML
O
l .
,'mow"
UTRWD%City of DaMWC Ity of Lewlevl lla
Lswlsvllls We Pass-Through Agrnmant • Walar loom Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Papa 79
Section 8.13. Governing Laws. This Agreement shall in all respects be governed by and '
construed In accordance with the laws of the State of Texas, Including all matters of construction,
validity and performance.
Section 8.14. Governmental Immunity Not Waived, Neither Denton, District, nor Lewisville
waives, nor shall be deemed hereby to waive, any Immunity or defense that would otherwise be
available to it against claims made or arising from any act or omisslon resulting from the
Agreement.
Section 8.13. Nonmaiver. The waiver by either Party of any breach of any provision contained
in this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such provision for any subsequent breach
of the same or any other provision.
ARTICLE IV
TERM OF CONTRACT
Section 0.1 Effectlvp ll rc, execution by all Parties, this Agreement shall become effective
upcn the date first written above.
Section 9.2. Term of Contract. This Agreement provides for delivery of Cooper Lake water
purchased pursuant to the Commerce Contrail; and, it is desirable to coordinate the initial term and
renewals of this Agreement with said contract, and any renewals thereof. Accordingly, the Initial 0
term of this Agreement shall continue in force and effect until September 28, 2041; provided,
however, this Agreement may be renewed for succeeding twenty fivo (25) year periods for as long
i
30
y' 29 10 32XIO
1
2r ~ t. t..
i
#Sam=
Q l `
i
UTRWMIty of DentonCty of Lowlevilie
Lewisville Laker PaanThrough Agrearr"t • Warr from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Page 76
as the Commerce Contract remains in effect. If District requests such renewal by notifying Denton
of its intention to renew In writing at least 160 days before the end of the Initial or each succeeding
i renewal term, Donlon and Lewisville shah not unreasonably withhold approval. Upon each renewal
after the initial term, the fees provided for herein (Section 6.0s) may be modified in an amount
mutually agreed to by Denton and District, If Denton and District cannot agree on fees, either
Denton or District may, at its sole option, terminate the Agreement. Other provislons of renewal
agreements may be modified by mutual agreement of the Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused trna Agreement to be executed by
their respective duly-authorized officers In multiple originals as of the date aM year first above
written.
CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS
Ted Benavides, City Manager
ATTEST:
Jennifer Walters, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: ~ f
Herb Prouty, Ci Af omay E
CITY OF LEWISALLE, TEXAS
01 Bobble J. Mitchell, Mayor •
ATTEST:
Marty Hendrix, CMClAA£, City Secretary
I
I
25;x1 32XIO
--11.- W-1 1111111
r
0
uTMOCity of DontWCiy of Lswravirls
UWtsvtrra Lake Pose-through Aprsomsnt • Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake
Paps 27
i
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Ronald J. Neiman, City Attorney
UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL
WATER DISTRICT
f
Johnny D. Harris, President
Board of Directors
ATTEST:
Stephen L. Bacchus, Secretary
Board of Directors
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
i
i
John F. Boyle, Jr., Attorney
General Counsel for District
-IN
f 7
.1 •
II -
1 M1 ;.1 i I
I
1
1.
32
l'r 1
d
1~ I '
2 5 32
0
f
MEMORLAM M TO FILE
From: Thomas C. Gooch, P.E. •
Freese and Nichols, Ine. LOAM ca$
Date: Stay I, 19984+ 50668 ,/~w r/r/
Project: DTN•9809 rw 0T]91799lr% M0%?o
Subject: Review of Proposed Lake Lewisville Pass-Through Agreement between Upper
Trinity Regional Water District and City of Denton
i
i
INTRODUCTION
+n March of 1998, the City of Denton hired Freese and Nichols to review a proposed agreement
beMren Denton and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District (UTRWD). The agreement would
allow UTRWD to make use of Lake Lewisville to deliver water brought from Lake Chapman in east
Texas to treatment plants louttd on Lake Lewisville, Freese and Nichols' assignmem included the
following:
• Review the proposed agreement and determine the effect on Denton's storage, yield and
water rights,
• Review the proposed delivery facilities and operating procedures to determine whether
UTRWD could detiver,water as proposed.
• Review pertinent contracts, agreements, and permits,
• Warn Denton of potential pitfalls in the agreement
• Male recotnmeaduions for Changes in the agreement.
• Recommend whether or not Denton should enter into the agreement
• FREESE AND NICHOLS' WORK TO DATE '
i
In order to carry out this assignment, Freese and Nichols has reviewed documents provided by
Denton staff and others, including:
• UTRWD proposed principles for agreement (two draft) •
Numbers in puentheses match references listed in Appendix A j
33
EXHIBIT II
K ❑ 32x~a
•
0
i
MEMORA\DUM TO FILE from Thomas C Gooch. P E of Freese and N',choN
klay I, 1998
Page 2 of 10
• UTRWD draft contracts
e Contract between Dallas and Irving for Lake Lewisville storage
Contnct among UTRWD, Denton,'.ewisville, etc, for Lace Chapman water
• Contnct between Ur.WD and Commerce for Lake Chapman w;ter
• Denton water lights q•r.iet
a c'onuact between Dallas and Denton for raw water suppih to Denton
a Contract between Denton and the Co" of Ergineers for storage in lake Lewisville "st
• Other documents provided by Denton and others t" - •"ae.'n
Freese and Nichols has also met with key entities in the transfer of water from Lake Chapman to
Lake Lewisville to discuss U M%%D's proposed operation. Mecums have been held with the City
of Denton and with the following entities:
0 Upper Trinity Regional Water District
• Consult Ant Don Rauscbuber (by telepbone)
• North Texas Municipal Water District
4 City of (MA&
• Dallas Water Utilities
Freese and Metals' notes on these meetings are attached to this memorandum in Appendix B.
1
BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSED PASS-THROUGH AGREEMENT
Chapman Lake, formerly known u Cooper lake, was built by the U,& Army Corps of Engineers
TTe project was completed in 1991, and it is located on the South Fork of the Sulphur River in Delta
and Hopkins Counties, near the town of Cooper. (Figure I shows the location of Wee ChapmM and r tD
• other water supply lakes in North Texas) Storage In Lake Ctiapman is controlled by three local
sponsors:
4
34
s
0
Kam.
SIESIOR CNDUNI TO FILE from Thomas C Gooch, P E of Freese and Nichols
May 1, 1998
Pagc 3 of 10
0 North Texas Murucipal Water District (diversion right of 54,000 acre-feet per )ear)
0 City of Irving (diversion right of 54,000 acre-feet per year)
0 Sulphur River Municipal Water District (diversion right of 38,520 acre-feet per )ear)
These three local sponsors have obtained Texas water rights allowing them to impound water in
Lake Chapman and to divert water for municipal and industrial use. The Sulphur River Municipal
Water District water rights were acquired on behalf of three cities located near the reservoir,
Commerce, Sulphur Springs, and Cooper
In 1990, shortly before the constnxtion of Lake Chapman was completed, the Upper Trinity
Regional Water District signed a convict with the City of Commerce to purchase Commerce's
portion of the Sulphur River Muticipal Water District's Lake Chapman water. According to the
conaut. UTRWD obtained the right to divert up to 16,106 acre-feet per year (14A mgd) Eom the
reservoir. The contract indicates that the estimated firm yield of Commerce's share of Lake
Chapman is 1),122 acredeet per year (11.7 mgd). The contract gives Commerce the right to reclaim
up to 25 percent of its water after 30 )can, to reclaim up to 50 percent of its water after 15 years,
and reclaim up to 100 percent of its water after 100 year Thus the estimated firm yield committed
to the UTRWD over time is as follows t's:
• 1990.2040: 11,7 mgd
• 2040.2065: 8.8 mgd
0 2065.2090: 5.85 mgd
• After 2090: None
y Since Commerce is not required to exercise its optioe to reclaim wun, UM WD could have the rigf:t
. to make use of mote than the minimum amounts listed above.
Since the completion of Lake Chapman, North Texas Municipal Water District (NTM%D) and
Irving have constructed an 84-inch pipeline from Lake Clupmaa to new Lake Lavon and a pump
station at Lake Chapman. The current capacity of this awsntissivn system is f 10 mgd, shared
equally between Irving and NT.MWD. Because of excessive costs for electricity during peak
demand times, Irving and NTNIW'D do not plan to operate the pump station and pipeline during TU tD s
Electric's on-peak demand period, which is 12:00 tsood to 800 p m. on weekdays during Jura, July,
y August, and September.
i
35
I
r i
d
........._.e..._...~-:,.wnnr.F.nwlr.r~•h~~.Vm•Ywh•M~•'Y•V wgsr.+n..+V~+n~nw..xirwr•...rr•..-nrw~..~.~.~~~.~ ...~......~._~r_.».n~•.....n..-,.»~.~.uw.rr,ro~r~.brrlr~wwv•~iP~s.
LW k T I() s, %I NP
OKLAHOMA
~.l n 1 f L l l t• i
1 ( ~ ~ 11 , •l.l
1, t 1 Ihfis~
r
r~~. W l~ n vJ~
ARKANSAS
i .P ' A/< ti 1. t TI} H s • . xi
1~ ~ F ~ T I l r .Vi `J~\' ..I. •.I III J~.• `n l_1''~\ l..r ~Fr~; I.l y
t y ~ \ ri , ~ r. v r~ r P,•, . r. " TP7 I>~ ,v..I r
TEXAS
{^r ~ ~ ~ , ..r, tit ((j r:~0• , r. .
6 f'tl~ 7i 1 r n.v. ' ~ ~ e. ~I t$ }vfl o IS I ~ ! I
.~~~~;~C~Y~~~' Y+.i Jf...i', 1P1 r Yr~ 4 r••' I i,.•. T'~ . li~~j ' I,r ,r1 I~ II!I _ i
~xJ I1 ~ I
J \ .V t N i.•V~R r v. _ Y..M ill 1 I ~ r
tu..,~~r ~t, 1111 r. ~-J t.l~ iJ~sr~
1 hr.♦
nl
CITY OF DENTON
ro r ,
3 racru•Y+rctKx 5 1591 FiGI'RE.I
i'
'I
i 7 x to 32xlo
0 ,
0
MEMORKSM- t TO FILE from Thomas C Goxh, P E, of Freese and Nichols
May 1, 1998
Page 4 of to
At the current time, UTRWD plans to pay Irving to trampon UTR%D water using a part of trving's
capacity in the 84-inch pipeline from Lake Chapman to near Lake Lavon. In addition, Irving and
UTRWD plan to construct a pipeline from the end of the 84.inch pipeline new Lake Lavon to deliver
water to Lake Lewisville, In January of MS. Irving signed a contract with Dallas allow4ng Irving
to make use of Dallas' storage in Lake Lewisville'". This will allow Irving to store water delivered
from Lake Chapman in Lake Lewisville and to meet peak summer demands in pan from stored
water. Irving will also pass water delivered from Lake Chapman through Lake Lewisvilk for
treatment by Dallas. ;
MWD is currently seeking to reach an agreement with Denton that would allow UTRWD to pass
water delivered from Lake Chapman through Lake Lewisville for treatment at plants owt ed by
VTRWD. Denton, and Lewisville. Unlike Irving, L'TRWD does not plan to make use of storage in
Lake Lewisville.
UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT CONCEPT FOR DELIVERY OF
WATER
The details of UTRWD's plans for delivery of its water from Lake Chapman are as follows:
• Irving will install a larger pump at Lake Chapman, so that lrving's capacity in the
uwumission system from Lake Chapman to near Lake Lavon is increased to 78 mgd
• trying will share its capacity in the Chapman-Lavon transmission system with UTRWD for
r fu. (Tbe plan is for UTRWD to use 22.74% of 78 mgd, or about 18 mgd 110.)
• Irving will construct a pump station and pipeline to Lake Lewisville i4om the end of the
Chapman-Lavon transmission system to the east of Lake Lavon.
A • Irving sill deliver UTRWD water through the Lavon-Lewisville truumission system for
a fee.
• I
• Irving will use Lake Lewisville storage purchased from City of Dallas for peaking and will
detiver raw water traruponed from Lake Chapman through Lake Lewisville to Dallu for
treatment.
• UTRWD will use Mpau-0vough agreement with Denton and deliver raw water a=poned
• from Lake Chapman through Like Lewisville to Denton, Lewisville, and UTRWD for f • •
y, aeatmcnt. I
t I .
37
0 32XI
ALC
4 ,
O
r
Kne"
May MIOP&SDCNI TO FILE from Thomas C _
Gooch, P E. of Freese and 1'uhois
,1498
Page 3 of l0
• UTRWD will use other existing contracts for water from Lake Chapman (with Dallas and
Denton) to meet peak demands when deliveries from Lake Chapman are not sufrcient. '
UTRWD will not use storage in Lake Lewisville and will not acquire storage in Lake
Lewisville
a UTRWD will pursue a Texas Natural Resource Conyrvation Commission permit for reuse
of retum 11o%i originating Gom water transported from Lake Chapman.
Working for the Upper Trinity R.giond Water District, Caner and Burgess Consulting Engineer
estimated the total cost of raw water delivered to Lake Lewisville as $0 6731 per thousand gallons,
assuming full use of UTRWD's Lake Chapman water This is more dtart Dallas' cuaeot cost for
raw water, which is about SO.'S per thousand gallons. Tom Taylor of UTRWD indicates that be r
expeca Da11u' raw water cost to increase over time and to exceed UTRWD's cost for water from
Lake Chapman in the near future.
SOURCES OF RAW WATER FOR THE UPPER TRIMTV REGIONAL WATER
DISTRICT
Upper Trinity Regional Water District curreody has two sources of raw water from Lake Lewisville:
• Unused City of Denton Ray Roberts/Lewisville water (p ice is 85% of Ulas price for raw
wow.)
• City of Dallas Ray Robeea/Lewlsville water
Met coapledoa of the facilities for delivery horn Lake Chapman, UTRWD's sotuas of raw watef
will include:
• UTRWD Lake Chapman water
A • Reuse of treated wastewater originating from Lake Chapman water (if a permit is obtained
from the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) ,
•
a Unused City of Denton Lake Chapman water NTRWT) proposed price isIM of Dallas
price for raw water)
• Unused Cityof Denton Ray Robe rtAt%1svi[It wattf (Price is 83% of Dallas price for raw
~ water) ~ O " •
38
- - - }y~~
YMRYIAR'1
~i
32X10
,.I X
t
0
MEMOR CSDUM TO FILE from Thomas C Gooch. P E of Freese and Nichols
May 1. 1498
Page b of 10
• City of Dallas Ray Roberi:Aewisville water
e Unused City of Irving Lake Chapman water (if available and if agreement can be reached
with trying).
UPPER TRIMITY REGIONAL WATER DISTRICT PROPOSED TERMS FOR PAS&
THROUGH AGREEMENT
The Upper Trinity Water District and Denton an in the process of negotiating an agreement to allow
the UTRW'D to pass eater Bom Lake Chapman through Lake LeMsvlle for deli-.cry to the Denton, i
Lewisville, and UTRWD water treatment plants, So far, UTRWD hu provided Denton with two
draA set of principles of agreement"') and two draft contracts '"t, Based on the latest drag contract,
UTRWD proposes as follows:
e Denton will allow UTRWD to pus water through Lake Lewisville
• UTRWD will attempt to sell or use Denton's water delivered from Lake Chapman if Denton
does tat need it. The price for this water will be equal to Dallas' system price for raw water.
• UTRWD will seek a permit from the TNRCC for the rouse of traced wutawater originating
from water dclivetcd from Lake Chapntar4 and Denton and Lewisville will support the
application
• Dentoa will allow UTRWD to pau wastewater through Lake Lewisville for teuse
• UTRWD will pay Notoo $0.02 per thwusatd gallons for wMer passed through Lake
Lewisville (with no payment for water passed through for Deotoo's use). Thlsayment
includes treated wastewater passed through Lake Lewisvilk for reuse ;
• When Lake Lewisville is in flood sage, UTRWD will buy interruptible water from Denton
• at a price equal to Dallas' Oct for interruptible water.
• Accounting for water will be annual (some parts of contract) or monthly (other parts of
contract),
a water losses in transmission will be set based on the Dallas•Iming contract.
39 '
10
0
w
MEMOR.01DUM TO FILE from Thomas C Gooch, P E of Freese and Nichols j
May t, 1998
Page 1 of 10
CONCEILSS WITH PROPOSED UPPER TRINITY REGIONAL WATER 01STRICT
OPERATION
In our review of the proposed agreement between UTRWD and Denton to pus water through Lake
Lewisville, we saw several concerns with the proposed operation. Some of these concerns have been
partially addressed in Denton's discussions with UTRWT) and in our meetings with key entities.
Hone of these concerns would necessarily prevent an agreement, but they should be considered by
Denton,
L Can Irving and North Trial Vaniclpol Wartr Dirtricf reach agreement on Installing a
larger pump at Chapman' Irving rind North Texas Nl"cipal Water District are in the
process of negotiating an operating agreement for the Chapman•Lavon raw water
transmission system, and both polies indicate that they are near agreement. However,
I'rving's plans to WWI a larger pump at the Lake Chapman pump station and increase the
capacity of that system have not been reviewed by NTMWD. If Irving and MMWD cannot
reach an agreement on pump station expansion, UTR WD's proposed delivery strategy will
have to be rethought.
2, With mulriplf possiblt sources of "ter, which will U AWD actually buy water ftom? One
of the potential benefits to Denton of a pass•thvough agreement is the possible sale of Lake
Chipman water Denton does not aced to UTRWD. This would reduce the cost of keeping
this water supply available to Denton for the future, When the :veer from Lake Chapman
can be delivered to Lake Lewisville, VMWD will have multiple sources of supply In the
lake and may not always need or want to buy Dentoo's exctu Lake Clsapmao water.
7. How will UTRWD provide for peak rands without ruing Denton's storage In Lab
LtwUvillt? UTRWD plum to purchase wmtr from Dallas when demands exceed the arnount
that can be delivered cross Lake Chapman:, This MU probably lead to more puRhases from
Dallas in the arty yeah of Lake Chapman deliveries than shown in VMWD's projections
of demands and supply sours:
4. Whorl will Upper rriniy RWD do ifdelivtrlts are initrmpted /pump jail urn, piptlint brta,W ?
3. Are Lpptr Trinity RWD water use forrcasu reliable trough for planning? UTRWD
projects very rapid increases in is demand 0 % and it seems possible slat demand will grow
more slowly than projected. This would a.;ect she amount of water purchased from Denton
and perhaps the amount of wetter delivered from Lake Chapman, both of which tight change
Denton's toss and revenues.
• , 9 •
6. How likely 0 it that LfiRWO will obtain a TYRCCrrWr permit jar xmrewaru originating
40
1
32 x i
0
i
MEMORANDUM TO FILE from Thomas C. Gooch, P E of Freese and Nichols
%lay 1, 1998
Page 8 of 10
from wager imported from lake Chapman? Current TNRCC regulations discourage the sort
of indirect reuse of treated wastewater for which UTRWD would be applying, and it is not
clear what position Dallas would take on the application. It is not certain that UTRWD will
be able to get a permit for indvect reuse.
7. Can Denton tell lnterrupijblt supplies to Upper Mmry MWD when lake Ukrville is at
flood stage? Denton's contract for raw water from Dallas contains provisions limiting
Denton's overdraRing of Lake Lewisville unless Denton has am alterrute source of supply.
According to Dallas Water Utilities staff, the purpose of this provision is to protect Lake
LewtisvilIt's yield. Since oserdrxkng Lake Lewisville when the iske is at flood stage would
not threaten the yield, they feel that Dallas µ'ater Uulides would not object. Denton st suld
probably incorporate this undentmd1ing in their agreement with Dallas.
8. Will Dallas be comfortable wiih the proposed operation? Dallas Water Utilities suffdid not
object io the proposed agreement m it was presented to them at a meeting. They did request
that Denton review the proposed agreement with Dallu Water Utilities, which should be r
done,
9. Does Draton's contract with the US Army Corps of Engineers require COEptrmistion for
the proposed agreement? Denton's contract with the Corps of Engineers I'rtconuims the
following provision:
I
"Article 12. TRANSFER OR ASSIGNMENT,- The City shall not transfet or asslgm this
coo trut of any sights acquired thereunder, nor suballot said conservation storage space or
any part thereof, not stunt any interest, privilege or hcenu whatsoever in connectioo with
this contract, wil"ut permission in writing from the Secretary of the Army; provided, that
this restriction dull mot be construed to apply to any wasa whkb may be obulned from the
conservation storage space by the City amd furnished to any third party or parties not any
method of allocation tbemof."
The proposed agreement wilt UTRWD might be an "interest, privilege, of hetrat" which
would require peratission in writing from the Secretary of the Army.
i
RECONMEYDATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT j ~
i ;
Based on our review and analyses, we would suggest some improvements to the agreement proposed p
by UTRWD. These suggestions apply to the version provided by UTRWD and .aced A01 24,
1998:
l
41
~SKIC~ 32xi❑
o .
%IE%lORA.VDU%t TO FILE frcm Thomas C. Gooch, P E of Freese and Aichols
May I, 1999
Page 9 or 10
1. The agreement should be absolutely clear that all accounting is monthly. The amount of
water put in Lake Lewisville must equal the amount used on a monthly basis. Any excess '
water put in Lake Lewisville would belong to Denton, and any use in excess of the amount
put in the lake mus! be obtained from another source,
2. The agreement should be absolutely clear that tent in has total control over the amount of
Lake Chapman water Denton uses. Denton instructs UTRWD that it wants to use all, pars
of, or none of its share of the Lake Chapman supply, and UTRWD must comply with
Denton's iruuwdoro, Denton has no obligation to use or pay operating costs for Lake
Chapman water it has not requested.
3. The commitment of U7RWD to use or sell Denton's excess Lake Chapman water should be
made as firm as possible.
4. T1w wording in Secdon 30 should be changed so that the last sentence reads as follows; "it
is expressly understood that this agreement does not wthorize the Disuict, Lewisville or any
other party to eawe 630 Denton's storage space within Lewisville Lake or to eause it to be
reduced or impaired."
S. The fee adjustment is Section 6(b) should not be based on electric power since deregulation
may result in priced decreases over the next few years. A more stable measure, such as the
consumer price index, should be used.
6. 7be agreement should be conditioned on Denton's obtaining parr mission in writiry from the
Secretary of the Army, as required in Mick 12 of Denton's contract with the Corps of
Engineers.
7, The agreement to provide interruptible supplies in Section 6 (0 should be conditioned on
reaching agreement for such sales with the City of Dallas.
1. On a ;cvel of detail, the diversion out of Cooper Lake in the second "whereas" on the rust
page should be "approximately 11.1 mgd." The water rights in Cooper Lake held by the City
• of Irving (on the second page) should be 11.2 mgd
9. Before fwli&g the agreement, Denton should wort with Dallas Water U61ides staff to
review the proposed ttr ms and snswcr any questions they may have.
With the improvements described above, we feel that the agreement would not impair Demon's use
• of Lake Lewisville, and we would recommend that Denton enter into the proposed agreement 0 •
42
-
117 2 .5
x ❑ 32XI❑
"T
t
• , 7r
,
,
t
0
{
p
.
..A
1 ~
r
1
SIESIORANDUSI 70 FILE from Thomas C Gooch, P E of Freese and Mchols
Slay 1, 1498
Page 10 of 10
I
FURTHER ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION IN LAKE CHAP,%tAN
Denton has contracted for a share of UTR%1)'s diversions from Lake Chapman equivalent to a firm
yield of 2 mgd. In the next few months, Denton will decide whether or not to retain that shut and
pay a part of the cost of the facilities needed to deliver that water. To help with making that
decision, Denton should seek the following information:
t More refined estimates of the capital and operating costs of delivery from Lake Chapman. .
4 An updated projection of Denton's demands for water.
• information on Dallas and Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission positions on
she indirect reuse of treated wastewater originating from water brought from Lake Chipman.
0 Dallas' estimates of future raw water cosh.
• Information on Dallas' willingness to commit to a long term water supply for Denton.
1
1 r
,
I %1
r
10,
43
1
a
x Q 32 x 10
.
e
0
1
J
j
v
r ~
' 1s
APPENDIXA
LIST Fc
J
J
I
i
,i
44
. ~d
25 32x
0
loop"
APPENDIX A
LIST OF FF ENCES
(1) Upper Trinity Regional Water District: "Proposed Concept for Use of Water from Chapman ,
(Cooper) Lake, October 13, 1997.
(2) Upper Trinity Regional Water District: "Proposed Concept for Use of Water from Chapman
(Cooper) Lake, October 3l, 1991.
(3) Upper Trinity Regional Water District "Agreement with City of Denton and City of
` Lewisville Concerning Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake, December 11, 1991.
(4) Upper Trinity Regional Water District: "Agreement with City of Demon and City of
Lewisville Concerning Water from Cooper (Chapman) Lake, Apnl 24, 1998.
(5) Dallas and lasing: "Water Treatment Services Contract," January 8, 1998.
(6) Upper Trinity Regional Water District and Others "Regional Raw Water Supply • Cooper
Reservoir Project," June 10, 1991,
(7) Upper Trinity RegioM Water District and Commerce: "Water Sale Contract by and between
the Ciry of Commerce, Texas and the Upper Trinity Regional Water District," July 5, IM.
(1) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission: "Certificate of Adjudication 01.2348'
(Demon's Lake Lewisville right), July 22, 1983. ii
(9) Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission: "Certificate of Adjudication 01.2348"
(Deoton'a Lake Ray Roberts right), July 22, 1983. {
(10) TcKas Natural Resource Conservation Commission: "Permit to Appropriate Public Waters
of the State of Texas Number 1706' (Denton's Lake LewiMlle right), June 17,1954.
(l l) Dal In and Denton: "Untreated Water Purchase Context," August 7, 1983, and Supple
taental
Agreements I and 2,
(12) U S. Army Corps of Engi.teers and Denton: "Contract No DA41443eng•1098, Conhset
Conservation Storage, Garza-Lime Elm Dam and Reservoir;" December I 1933. (Garu•
Lithe Elm Reservoir" is now known as Lake Lewisville.)
t
(13) Carter and Burgess, Inc.; Preliminary $#'are., Corr Study/or the City o/living Water Supply
Busrnerr Plan Baird an Prehminary Concepu Pending,1'egorlarians bomfen the Parrler. O t!
prepared for the Upper Trinity Regional Waite District, April 18, 1995
(14) Caner and Burgess, Inc.: "Addendum to Preliminary Water Cost Study/or the Ory o/lrving
45
25 32 x 10
lei
,
:YellfafM '
5 ~
I
,
i
µ'"O' Supply Busiarrr Plan Bared on Preliminary Concrp+s Prnding.1'r80nariau ber*f('I
the Parnti, Schedule of Costs for UTRWD Related to the ir%ing Water Supply
K
\egotiations," as revised and resubmitted %farcb 31, 1497,
(15) Dallas and Denton: "Exhibit F. Operational Agreement between Dallas and Denton for
Lewisville Lake and Ray Roberts Lake," undated.
(16) Don Rauschuber, DORA, I'atc. W David Rybum, City of Irving: "Drag • Subject to Rodsion
# Presentation Packet Regarding .++e Delivery and Treatment of Irving's Lake Cooper Water
Presented to the ]wing City Cou,% -I," July 16, 1997,
(17) Upper Trinity Regional Water District "Water Projections," Match 27, 1498.
j
;y
i
,
P
74
r
46
n I
I
32 x L~
-MMAL
r I ''d. Ir ~ r x ~ )1. 1 ~ M 1 q rl} . ~
I
1
`1 II
rl
1
1 ~ 1 !
I
. ) r
MURN"
1.
~,I 1
. I r lr ) t
r
i '
S r , .
l
4 !raj
,
1
I
j
1
rj
1
I t I
it
+I, r
1 (1
' I 1
r
47
1 i ~ ,~y ss ~
2.15 x Q ; .I 32 x
1 t ,
I
t
A1liM F L e I' I
0
a
J je ~l . 1
J , , p
APPF\DtY a
SIEMORANDA D c tan % f - S
i. This appendix includes the follo%ing memoranda:
Memorandum of March 20, 1998, Telephone Conversation with Tom Taylor of Upper Trinity
Regional Water District
I;
Notes on Mcering with Tom Taylor of Upper Trinity Regional Water District, Much 23. 1991
Notes on Telephone Conversation with Don Rauschuber, March 21, 1998
Notes on Meeting with North Texas Municipal Water District Surf, April 13, 1998
Notes on Meeting with Datie Rybum (City of lning), April 13, 1998
Notes on Meeting with Dallas Mater Utilities, April 23, 1998
i'
• I
F s,
I„
I
48
X. p 1 .I„ ' 32 ~ L Iw
o.., . ,
0
l
1
MEMOPUNDCNI OF TELEPHONE CONNERS,kTIOY '
8y: Tom Gooch
Due: Much 20. 1998
With: Tom Taylor
Representing: Upper Trinity MWD
?hone: 9721219.1226
Owner: City of Denton
Project: DTN•98 199, Advice on Contract F ,is ormii" ri Tow.pa
Subject: Contract between UTMWD and Denton
Copies to: RSO, LBF, Tim Fisher
I. I called fir Taylor to set up a meeting to discuss the proposed contract between Denton and
UTM4VD for transmission of water from Lake Chapman to Lake Lewisville and through
La!- Lewisville, I told him that Denton had asked us to review the proposal.
2. NO. Taylor indicated that he regards the agreement to be "within the family" and is eager to
figure out what we should do to reach agreement He made several points:
0 UTMWD'i intent Is to make absolutely no use of Denton's storage in Lake
Lewisville Lnd to have no negative impact on Denton,
• Because UTMWD has not reached fiord agreements with Irving, on its plans,
UTMWD can be flexible in making sure those plans meet Denton's needs,
a Irving and UTMWD plan to use a variable speed pump to assure flexibility in their
operation, Their water is commingled with hving's, and who UTMWD doesn't use,
Irving can which gives UTMWD almost unlimited flexibility.
• UTMWD can peak from other sources, such as their contract for raw water fyom
Laks Lewisville with Dallas,
• Tbtte ere S pales to an W"ment, all with major treatment facilities on Lake
LewlsvilW Denton Lewisville, and UTMWD.
* . 1. The District is willing to consider agreeing that any water brought to Lake Lewisville that
. can't be used by the District would be owixd by Denton.
4. UTMWD has reached an agreement in principle (not in writing) with Irving on slaving
fxilities. h- ing'sengineer (Don Rauschuber) says that there is sufficient capacity in the line
to do so. Mr. Taylor gave me tit. Rauxhuber's phone number S I21123.1231.
S. kit. Taylor agreed to meet at his office at 9:00, Monday, Much 21. He emphasized that time
Is of the essence.
49
2 5 r 32XI❑
o .
,
MEMORA.VDL>I TO FILE
From Tom Gooch
Date; Much 25, 1998
Project OTN.98199 Fie or oi" rM.T4V10tcr7o
Subject Notes on Sleeting with Tom Taylorof Upper Trinity Regional Water District, Much
2), 1998
1. I met with Mr. Taylor at the Upper Trinity Regional Water District office in Lewisville. My
questions are In italics. and his responses ate in regular
type.
24 How will LTRIVDshore the Chapnnan•layonpipehm with living' UTR%4D and Invtg will
negotiate a service agmment, and trying will pump UTRWD water through their hado; the
pipeline, Compenution will probably Ne on a fee for service basis, aid there are too plans
for UTRWD to scquirc equity in the pipeline. Irving and UTRWD have not yet negotiated
a fee.
3. 470r are the plant /or operation ojthi Chapntart•Lavonptpeline in the summer? Thete are
limitations on summer peaking for electric rates. The analysis of summer operation was
done by Wing's engineer, Don Rauschuber, Irvina's plain include the addition of another
pump for Irving at the Chapman Lake pump station. The additional pump will be variable
frequency to allow Irving needed flexibility in operation.
4. Where did the flrm yield shares In the Wit WD compact comehom (Irving J9.! mgct
WRWD H.7 m$40? The firm yield c me from studies done for the or SUW water right
hearings, as confirmed by HDR in a 1990 study for the Sulphur Rlver Water District Dr.
BmMes is now doing some additional work intended to lad to an operating Agreement,
3. R9sat u the status o/f TAWD m8alationr with Irving? Irving red UTRWD bove reached
agreement in principle and sre in the pmeess of drawing up is oontract Mr. Taylor expects
the cost to be on i ust-tquity basis.
E
6. How does LTRWD plan to paste revue under current replations? Sine the water
I • originates out orthe Trinity Basin and since Dallas has agreed not to oppose the permit and
Denton favors it, UTRWD is in a good position to pursue a permit.
7. How has Dallas agreed to let LTRWD pursue race? it is in UTRWD's contract with
Dallas
• 8. The JJguPr attached to UTRWD drgll ag►iemint number 2 shows trying use ojld 2 mgd 0 •
How dais this Pilate to thi/lrm yield ojI9 S? The 48.2 Rgtue b the Iidl ptriWtted dismion f
50
r
25 x
32 X I O
~zv' 0 1 -J
e
L OUM
0
.%IE.%IORA"VDU.%l TO FILE on Slarch 1998, Mecung with Tom Taylor of UTRUU
Tom Gooch, March 25, 1998
Page 2 of 4
from the lake.
9. The figure attached to UTRWD draft agreement number 2 shows Irving',; esters capacity
going to :ro by 1016 How doer this relate to long-term we by LTRWD? UTRWD would
buy excess water from Irving if it is mailable at a good price. That excess is not the capacity
UTRWD is counting on using to deliver its water,
10. not is the basic for the UTRWD pottrsllal pumping capacity attached to UTRWD drop
agreement number 2? That is the capacity needed to deliver all of UTRWD's water,
11. 147wt is the secure capacrry of the Chapman line? XV allowance has been made for pL.mp
down rime? !vet, Taylor does not know,
12, Whin is the basis for Carter and Burgers' assumed A loss fFom Lake Lavon to Lab
Lewisville? How dots UTRWD propose to AdrOt lotto? The Caner and Burgett number
is an assumption. UTRWD is willing to do whatever is fair regaidinl losses. They are
willing to adopt the Dallas-Irving assumptions and to modify those assumptions based on
future studies if appropriate.
13. In the bfarch 11, 1997, Carter and Burgess memorandum, the costs listed in the table on the
last page !ice a pipeline fFom Lavon to Lewisville (among other items). They do nor !ui
storage at Lawn or a lavon•Lewirville pump station How wire there items stared? What
cost was used per foot of pipeline? Mr. Taylor thinks the pump station is included in the
i
costs. Caner and Burgess and Don Rauschuber lot together on the costs. W. Taylor WAS I
that Mt. Rauschuber's snore recent costs an lower.
I
14. What is the ewrent status of plans to obtain use of sediment storage (below 415.5) fFom
Chopman? Bob Brandes will be pursuing slut is W of the study he will be snaking for the
entities with storage in We Chstpow.
15. What are the tong-term plans beyond the end of the cwrtnr agreement with Commerce? The
water is fine for 50 yean, and the project Is justified based on the SRy year period.
Commerce can take back portions of the supply at intervals after so years for a priee. Ali of
UTRWD's needs for the next 40 years are in Dallas' latest master plan. All of the L'TRWD
service area is in Dallas raw water supply service ate
A 16. ;4%jt ii the price foe Dallas water? UTRWD sus a 30-year retxwable contract with Dally 0
The current raw water cost is about $0 45 per thousand gallons right now,
17. Why was UTRWD rnurested in Chapman? LITRWD er.pecu Chapman water to be cheaper
than Dallas water eventually. Dallas' price will rise over time u Lake Fork and Palestine
err -7k El 32 x I E
e ,
0
i
MENIORA.YDL NI TO FILE on Mauch :3. 1998,'61cetinj with Tom Taylor of LTRWD
Toni Gooch, Much.' S. 1998 i
Page 3 of a
come on line. %ir, Taylor expects Dallas' price to exceed the District's costs for Chipman
water in 10.15 )tars Also, Dallas's available supply from Lewis<illeRay Roberti is not
unluruted. Ttue District will evenrually have to connect to other Dallas lines. The primary
motivation war to develop additional long-term water supplies
18, Mr. Taylor pointed out that UTRWD has unlimited llerubility tinder its contras with Dallas.
UTRWD can peak u much as it wants under its Dallas contnct, and there is not penalty for
pe+ g
19 Mr Taylor suggested slat our detailed discussions had gone be)ond what is needed for
negotiations bemiten UTRWD and Denton. AJI that matters is that L'TRwD will not use
storage. I told Mr. Taylor that Denton had asked me to look at the economics of various
alternatives and that f needed to have enough information to do so properly.
20. We reviewed UTRWD's raw water supply sources now and after the Chapman line is
developed. Sources now (in order of use) zee:
• Unused Denton Ray RobertAtwisville water at 85% of the Dallas system price
• Dallas Ray Robe n1twisviIle water
After the Chapman line is complete, sources (in order of use) will bet
• UTRWDChapman supply
• Denton unused Chapman supply at 1001/t ~f Dallas system price
• Unused Denton Ray Robeftlewisville water at 13% of the Dallas system price
• Dallas Ray RobtKAtwisvtlle water,
21, Mr. Taylor emphasized that UTRWD steeds to reach an agreement with Denton to lave a
basil for penulnk and design of s joint line with Irving The District's current offer is to;
• Pay a pass through chugs on all water from Chapman lSttOti Notion's water
0 Take unused Denton water at Ulu system pries
a Pay no pass through on reuse water.
22. We discussed the history of the Chapman water supply. W. Taylor IrWicated that Denton
started pursuing that supply even before UTRWD existed. Initially Denton, Lewisville,
Highland Village, and Denton County FWSD committed to buy all of the Chapman water
purchased from Commerce, Subsequently, UTRWD exercised an option to buy back some
of the supply Each entity now owns a shut of the supply. Based oo the estimated 11.7 mgd
frtn yield, the shares zee intended to provide the following firm )ield
0 Denton • 2 0 mgd
• Lewisville • 2.0 mgd 4
• Highland Village • L0 mgd
52
c~
32 x I❑
i ~ rl 1 ~ ~ la
`.4
r tV ~ .
.n
MESIOWDUSI TO FILE on Much 23, 1998, Meeting with Tom Taylor of UTRMD
Tom Gwh, March 25, 1998
Page 4 of 4
• Denton CouM FWSD • 1.0 mgd
AAer buying back part of the project, UTRWD sold a shut equivalent to 01 mgd to Lake
Cities.
23, Mr. Taylor asked my thoughts on accounting for the use of storage and whetber I thought
dally accounting was needed to balance inflows and outflows to guard against the use of
storage. I said that I thought monthly accounting might be sufficient.
24. Mr. Taylor mentioned the Idea of buying floodwater from Denton at the Dallas interruptible
supply price (now about $0 25 per thousand gallons) when Lake Lewisville is in its flood
pool. I said that Denton had mentioned that to me, and it sounded like a good idea
23. 1 asked Mr. Taylw for Wom stion on their projected water use, and he provided the attached
table and figure. He said that they an pr 14nirtary numbers, subject to rtvtew.
1
1
' I
1
1
M~ r
~ P r
3
A -L
M
•
0
y
%IEVOR?I.NDU%l TO FILE
From: Tom Gooch
Date: Much 25, 1998
Project: DTN.98199 V k Dry m r v.MlYCm %Po
Subject: Notes on Telephone Conversation with Don Rauschuber, March 24, 1498
1. 1 called Mr. Rauschuber at 312/328.3253 to discuss the Lake Chapman water supply, My
questions are in italics, and his responses are in regular type
2 Now will LTRWD share rhr Chapman-Lavon pipeline with frying? The operating agreement
for the Chapman•Lsvon pipeline currently being negotiated between living and NTIvIWD
allows for sharing the fa: /lilies with 31-party licensees. UTR%D would be such a licensee
to Irving. (Mr. Rauschu`.,er mentioned that Irving and NI MWD are currently working to
reach a similar arrangement with Sulphur Springs, which has been using the Chapman pump
station unler a 2-party agreement with NCMWD,) For the segment from Lavon to
Lewisville, Irving has considered transmitting the water for a fee or allowing LrfRWD to be
a partner in pipeline development.
3. What are the plans for operation of the Chapman.lavon pipeline in the summer? From
January I•May 31 and October I-Decembet 31, the pumps would operate 24 hour per day,
From June I-September 30, the pumps would operate 16 bouts per day, avoiding any
penalties for power use during the day. Irving plans to WWI an additional pump at the Lake
Chapman pump station, dedicated to Irving. It would be about an 10 mgd variable speed
pump, intended to provide backup apaeity, deliver all UTRWD and Irving water, provide
excess capacity to maki, up for reduced Cows from the I TMVID pump due to higher friction
losses, ayd provide a little extra capacity for Irving.
4. Now did you obtain a summer pumping rate o/ 36.61 mgd for Irving and 10.544 for
MWD? The 36.67 Agure for Irving is 2/3 of the system capacity o($5 mgd, representing
operation for 16 bouts pet day in the summer. The 10.544 summer delivery for UTRWD Is
2/3 of thou I S. 117 winter opacity, The combined total Is the amount needed to deliver
U11WD water. UvLng's delivery of UTRWD water depends oo construction of the)" pump
• at the Chapman pump station.
S. The figure attached io LTRWD draJ1 agreement number 2 shows Irving are of 48.2 mgd
Ilow dory this relate to the firm Jteld of l9.5? The 48,2 figwe is the Rill permitted diversion
6rom the lake. '
• 6. What is the bwu for the LTRWD porenrtal pumping capacity attached to LTRWD drag ~ O •
agreement number 1? Thm Is the capacity needed to deliver all of UTRWD's water, based
54
r•dN 25 A a 32 x~f~
1 • ~ dl 1 i fw._I w
•
J I,
%
r
1 '
a1'.
1 •
MEN101UNDUS1 TO FILE on Starch 24, 1998, Telephone Comersauon A Don Rauschuber
Tom Gooch, March 25, 1998
Page 2 of 2
3:. on permitted diversions.
' 7. What it the tenure capacity of the Chapman lint? What allowance has been made jot pump
down rime? The secure capacity is currently SS mgd for each p rrj, going to 80 mgd for
Irving with the additional pump, Mr. Rauschuber's work includes no allowance for pump
down time.
1.
8. In the March J1, 1997, Corrtr and Burgess nwmaandarn the costs listed In t1w table on the
last page lest a pipeline hone lavon to Le wt ille (among other lttms). 77wy do not list
uoragr at lawn o► a la'on•GwfsvUlr pump semlon How were these tetmt trtaled.) WMt
cost was rued per jour ojpol,nt? NIt. Rauschuber thinks that the pump station is included /y
in the cosy. He offered to obtain an updated cost estimate Gom MontgorneryWatson Ma
provide it to me. I said that would be helpful.
9• Mr. Rauschubet said that Irving anticipates continuous operation of their Chapman.
Lewisville system.
I
j
A I: 'I 1
1 \ 4 1. b
t
t
Il i r.a 4
f .
55
1
z1~x I CI ~~32 x l
s
MAT"
0
a~A
. I
r~
KEY COMPONENTS OF THE PASSTHROUGH
AGREEMENT WITH UTRWD
July 28,1998 '
WHEREAS SECTION- Page 5 first Whereas on the page:
This section makes the contract applicable to the water (11.72 MGD) that
the District purchased from Commerce on Jul}, 5, 1990 and up to 10 MGD
additional water that the District may purchase in the future that comes from
Cooper Lake.
ARTICLE I Page 60
Terms in the Whereas clauses are enforceable components of the contract.
ARTICLE 2 Page 6.7:
Describes the project and amends the contract between the UTRWD and
Denton giving Denton the right to get out of the Chapman project if Irving
finances the project instead of UTRWD.
ARTICLE 3.0 Page 7:
Outlines the general agreement between UTRWD, Lewisville, and Denton.
None of Denton's storage rights in Lake Lewisville may be used, only the
Cooper water mentioned in the Whereas clauses can be passed through the
Lake, This agreement is subject to Corps approval.
SECTION 3,1 Page 7.8:
Pipeline and Transportation Losses, Pipeline losses are set to be the same as I
those losses specified in the Dallas/ Irving agreement. Channel losses are to
be agreed upon later between Denton and UTRWD pending outcome of
future studies and design work being done by Irving and Dallas. I
I
,
5011 EXHIBIT III
M25 !0 32x10
i
I
"
o
n
I
SECTION 3.2 Page 8 -9:
~I
No evaporation losses within Lake Lewisville are assumed.
I
SECTIONS 3.3 and 4.2 Page 9-11:
i
A monthly accounting of the volumes of water entering the lake and being
used will be done. If more water enters the lake than is withdrawn, the
excess water will belong to Denton (per Section 6.0g.).
SECTION 4.0 Page 9 -10.
The UTRWD is to develop an operating protocol for requesting, using, and
accounting for the used water. The protocol must be approved by the City
Managers of Denton and Lewisville.
SECTION 4.1 Page 10 - I I.,
No patty to the agreement has to take more Cooper water on any given day
than they need to meet their system demand. Each party must have other
water sources. The District may adjust water usage of the parties to bring
the water usage into balance by year-end,
i
SECTION 4.2 Page 11:
Water usage will be settled between the parties at least annually,
i
SECTION 5.0 Page 12:
I~
UTRWD with the assistance and approval of Denton and Lewisville will
develop a reuse strategy. Parties will cooperate with the preparation of a
• reuse permit from the TNRCC. Any water reused by the parties is subject to • •
the pass through lee paid to Denton. Entities would not have to pay the i
UTRWD a second time for reused water. Denton does not have to
participate in a reuse application for our portion of the water.
57
25~~CJ 32 x.
10
S
Q
l
i ,
SECTION 6.0.a. Page 14: j
UTRWD will pay a pass through fee to Denton for the Cooper water equal
to $0.02 per thousand gallons of water. Fee does not apply to Denton's
portion of the water.
SECTION 6.0.15 Page 14:
The pass through fee shall be subject to annual adjustment based on the
Consumer Price Index.
SECTION 6.0.c Paige 14.15:
Becat,se Denton does not need its share of the Cooper water for
approximately 15 years, the District will attempt to sell this water on
Denton's behalf at the Dallas posted price for firm raw water if the District
does not have need for the water. If the District needs Denton's water, then
the District will buy the water at this same price (Section 6.0.d). The
District's obligation to buy this water from Denton will come ahead of all
other existing or future agreements the District may ha%, for the purchase of
temporary purchases of water, Once Denton begins to use its water, the
UTRWD may sell on Denton's behalf Denton's water, The sales price shall
be tb^ 85% of th Dallas price for firm raw water (Section 4.5). `
k
SECTION 6.01 Page 16:
1
l UTRWD may pump Cooper water into Lake Lewisville during floods.
i-
' ~ 1 E I
SECTION 9.2 Page 25 - 26:
The term of this contract shall coincide with the dates for renewal and i
terminatinn of the original Commerce contract, making the initial term of the
contract last until September 2Q, 104 1.
i
58
~E 15 ~ 10 32 X I O
~y~
f
0
0
y
' CHAPMAN
? TRANSMISSION LINES {
lCOOKZ RAYSON
- FANNIN
DEN70N - DELTA Z
HUNT
I Denton I CHAPMAN I~
~ ~ fY
2
LL
- y 1 Garland - L. HOPKINS.
I f.. I ROCK-f ' it i
TARRANT LL I RAINS
V.. T
Arlin ton
I 9 I LOCATION MAP
`J For f ~ Il0\~,'` ,
I Worth~j- Meslife I EXHIBIT IV
Grand[ I i
32XIO
O
i
5.2 Irving shall notify Dallas each day, not later than a time determined by Dallas' V
Director of Water Utilities, of the amount of water that it requires to be released V
from the Lake Lewisville dam. According l , Dallas shall include Irving's water with
the release of its water from Lake Lewisville dam.
5.3 For purposes of water accounting that may be necessary under the terms of
this Contract, Irving shall maintain a record of the quantity of water Irving delivers
to Lake Lewisville, the volume of water in its Lake wisville storage, the quantity
of Irving's requested releases from Lake Lewisville dam, and the amount of water it
receives through its Supply Line No. 3.
SECTION 6. DFLIVERY FROM ELM FORK WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO
j VR ING
6.1 Dallas siiall provide potable water for Irving's use at the discharge side of the
Elm Fork Water Ttestmentt?lant (the "delivery point") as referenced in Section 1 of
this Contract. Such water shall be delivered to wing's Supply Line No. 3 through
pipeline facilities that extend from Dallas' high service pumps at the Elm Fork
Water Treatment Plant. Such delivery shall be at Dallas normal operating pressure
leaving the water treatment plant without re-pumping or additional pressurization
by Dallas. Irving shall be responsible for facilities and operations required for higher
or lower pressures thin Dallas' pressure.
62 Irving shall design, construct, operate and maintain all facilities necessary to
transport its water from the Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant to Irving's water
system, including but not limited to pumping stations, pipelines and storage
reservoirs.
6.3 The delivery point for Irving's water leaving the Elm Fork Water Treatment
Plant shall be located as close as possible to the Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant. In
addition to other facilities required by this and other Sections of this Contract, Irving
shall design and construct a metering station at the Elm Fork Water Treatment
Plant delivery point meeting Dallas' requirements established in Section 10 of this i
Contract. The delivery point and metering facilities are described in Exhibit A to
this Contract. Dallas shall provide licenses or easements, in the form as approved by
Dallas' City Attorney, for all necessary improvements owned by I~g to be
installed on Dallas property.
SECTION 7. 3MATER LOSSES '
7.1 For purposes of the administration of this Contract, certain losses in Irvings '
water from Jun Chapman Lake, unless modified as provided in Sections 2.1, 2.4 and
3.5 of this Contract, must be assumed.
7,2 For purposes of the administration of billing under this Contract, a loss of 1%
shall be used for the pipeline segment between an Irving raw water flow meter
installed at the Lake Lavon terminus point and the pipeline discharge point at Lake
Lewisville, unless it is determined that a larger or smaller loss actua[I occurs, in Q
which case the larger or smaller value shall be utilized and other quantities in this
agreement modified accordingly,
W,ree trumrni SOMC" eonhM -city H ktins
6J EXHIBIT A
f'' °i"d l}i 'lid; Y1 • ~'1 K .J 32 X N f
0
0
73 If Irving delivers Jim Chapman Lake water to a tributary of Lake Lewisville,
losses in excess of those expected from a pipeline of correspond'gg lgth, as agreed
upon and determined by Dallas' Director of Water Utilities a.nd trumenp s Dir or of
Public Works, will be added to the losses already established within Oils Agreement.
7.4 The total storage loss for Irving's Jim Chapman Lake water stored in Lake
Lewisville shall be 16% per year of the actual amount of Irviag's Am. Chapman Lake
water discharged into Lake Lewisville each year. Provides, owever, the total
storage loss shall not exceed 655 acre-feet per year, unless modified as provided in
Sections 2.1 and 3.5 of this Contract.
7.5 The water loss associated with the treatment of Irving's Jim Chapman Lake
water at Dallas' Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant shall be 3% of Irvutg's water
released from Lake Lewisville, as such 3% loss is calculated pursuant to Section 11.3
of this Contract.
SECTIONS. SUPPLY DURING MAINTENANCE AND EMERGENCY
INTERRUPTIONS ATTRIBUTED TO DALLAS' FACILI' ES
8.1 Dallas and Irving agree that Dallas' Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant
facilities, and any other conveyance or treatment facilities owned by Dallas and
required to provide treatment service to Irving under the provisions of this
Contract, shall be taken out of service periodically for planned or unforeseen
maintenance, and that potable water supply to Irving shall be maintained under
these conditions in accordance with this Section of the Contract. Planned
maintenance activities shall normally occur annually during lower demand,
wintertime periods.
8.2 During Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant scheduled or non-scheduled
maintenance periods, includin periods of emergency interruption of service, which
prevent Dallas from treating rr utg's Jim Chapman Lake water thereby preventirtR
II ing from obtainin its anticipated supply from Jim Chpman Lake, Irving will
purchase treated wafer from Dallas through the existing( Jamison, Hackberrryry and
Supply Line No. 3 wholesale treated water delivery points , as further described in
the wholesale treated water contract between Dallas and Irving. Under this
circumstance, Irving shall be permitted to temporarily increase its demand at the
Jamison, Hackberry or Supply Line No. 3 wholesale metering station(s) up to a
maximum amount less than or equal to, but not exceedin Irving's actual average
day usage for water treatment services at Dallas' Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant
without causing the wholesale treated water demand charge to increase pursuant to
the prevailing wholesale water supply contract between Dallas and Irvin~gg. The
average day usage shall be determined by Dallas' Director of Water 1Ttilities
according to the average amount of water treated for Irving during the previous 12
month period. However, should Irving's demand for treated water from Dallas
exceed Its actual average day usage for water treatment services at Dallas' Elm Fork
Water Treatment Plant, as previously determined, then Irving's demand and
related charges under the wholesale treated water supply contract shall be increased
tD up to the new higher amount. C
8.3 During Elm Fork Water Treatment Plant scheduled or non-scheduled
.d maintenance periods, includin periods of emergency interruption of service which
prevent Dallas from treating; Irving s Jim Chapman Lake water, Irving shall pay
Wmr rn,lm,ni 1Am<n GentrM GNr e! 4MnL r
6, , ysr a•t' Vm ,"M t91, i t , iAy
~._c -t= a~1 l r ~•.i \l2- X
~ r
~ I
O
AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
W4 lin
DO.
AGENDA DATE: July 281',1998
DEPARTMENT: Planning & Development
CMIDCAI/ACAS: Rick Svebla
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Planned Development Multi-Family
zoning issues.
BACKGROUND
On June 20, 1998, City staff was requested to prepare information for discussion at an upcoming
Council work session regarding the feasibility of a Planned Development (PD) Overlay District, The
primary issue is the potential increase in multi-family dwelling units, and the potential impacts that can
be anticipated if vacant MF zoning approved previously by past City Councils is developed within several
Planned Developments. Some of the concerns raised by Council members include:
(1) a desire to maintain a balance of land uses, particularly between single fam. Iv ai multi-family
dwellings;
(2) mitigation of traffic impacts associated with higher density concentrations of housing units;
(3) prevention of undue stress on existing utilities systems;
(4) consideration of the impact of higher density residential development on public school
facilities; and
(5) several Planned Developments approved by past City Councils, particularly in the mid-1980's,
have caused significant citizen concern during review of plan amendments.
Conclusions
Staff recommends that any actions taken to develop a PD Overlay district for the purposes of regulating
multi-family development densities be poolponed until completion of the comprehenLive plan. Reasons
for this recommendation include the following:
(1) The average density of undeveloped Multi-Family zo aing locate,l in approved Planned
Developments is 11,74 dwciling units per acre (DUA). The highest permitted MFdensity
found in any PD was 15 units per acre. The average 11,74 DUA for undeveloped multi-family ~I
parcels within PD's is lower than the existing citywide multi-family density of 14.23 DUA.
A (2) Based upon the existing percentage of land currently devoted to multi-family uses (9.00/0), and
the percentage of land zoned for multi-family uses (1.5%), the City of Dcnlon is consistent
with other U.S. cities. If no new A1F zoning is created, the percentage of developed MF land
will decrease slightly from its current 9.0% level.
(3) 1 he balance beta ecn single-family homes (47.30,10) and muhi•family dwciling units (52.70,%) is
not consistent with most North Texas cities. This, however, should not be a considered a
. problem until the extent of the impact of university student housing is researched and fully
understood. O 0
q (4) The impact of multi-family development on public schools, particularly for elementary
1r, districts, is slightly, less than the impact of single-family subdivisions. With an average
density of 2.73 homes per acre and 0.512 students per home, single-family development
produces 1.40 studentsDcr acre, With an average density of 14.23 dwelling units per acre and
0.088 sled mts per unit, multi-family development produces 1.25 students Wr acre.
i
32xIn
0
The need to prepare a land use strategy that includes areas for potential multi-family development
of varying densities still exists. Unless City Council members feel that the data provided in this
report warrants immediate action, the comprehensive plan would be the best mechanism available
to develop a multi-family policy within the context of other land uses yet to be evaluated. Staff
also feels that all available resources should be devoted to the comprehensive plan; other
competing short-term planning tasks threaten to delay comprehensive plan completion. Staff will
soon approach City Council members with a proposal to complete the plan sooner than projected.
i
Data for Discussion
The data tables provided are intended to portray relevant characteristics of citywide land uses, including
planned developments, multi-family land uses, and multi-family zoning within the City of Denton,
Interpretive notes have been provided to highlight significant implications of the data.
Table N 1: Selected City Multi-Famil Residential Zoning and Develo meat Characteristics
Ind ividuallyZoned NIF Land MF•Zoncd Land in PD's Total MF Land Within City
Zoning 'Strai ht" Zonin MF Zoning with other land uses
Category Developed Vacant Total Developed Vacant Total Developed Vacant Total
MM 712 60 772 301 0 301 1,013 60 1 ,07.
NIF-2 784 0 784 0 0 0 784 0 784
MF-R 10 24 44 73 773 846 93 797 890
Total 1,516 84 l 1,600 374 773 1,147 l 890 857 = 747
(1) Roughly 2,747 acres of MF-zoned land exist in the City of Denton (7.7% of all land). Of these
2,747 N1F•zoncd nrres, 1,890 acres are developed (69%) and 857 acres are undeveloped
(31 °-o).
(2) Of the undeveloped MF land inside the city, 90% (773 out of 857 acres) is located within
planned developments. Most of this property is assumed to be zoned as part of a concept plan
only (and not a detailed plan).
(3) The average density allowed in approved but undeveloped Planned Developments is 11.72
dwelling p0113 per acre, Many of the approved PD's have a maximum allowable MF density
of S units per acre. Five PD's allow 201- units per acre, with the highest density being 25 units
pct acre (see Table N7). At existing allowable densities, the 857 acres of undeveloped MF land
would yield 9,076 dwelling units. By comparison, 857 acres developed at a maximum MF-1
density (approximately 40 units per acre) would yield 34,280 MF units. Please note that the
average density of existing NIF development in the City of Denton is currently 14.23 units per
ac re,
'rabic N2: Average DISD Student-to-Household Ratios b Housin 1fe
HOUSING TYPE N OF UNITS N OF STUDENTS STUDENTS I UNIT f
0 Single Familhomes 18879 61% 9,660 80% 0.512 0
Multi-Family Dwelling Units 8,618(28%) 756 6% 0.088
Manufactured Homes 3,627 11°0 1,623(14%) 0.4417
TOTAL 31,124 12 039 0.387 t
Note: 'Ihc figures provided in this table reflect preliminary DISD data. Comparison to City of Denton data Is not possible
because DISD and city of Denion'urisdictional boundaries do notcorrespond
2
32 x~
o
meae.
0
The data exhibited in Table 42 was collected by Denton Independent S -hoot District (DISD) staff.
Student enrollment and residential address information was used to estimate the impact of different
housing types on the demand for public school services. Staff cautions that this data has not yet been
verified, and continuing efforts are being made to refine the information.
Tables #3, 04, 45, and #6 were presented to City Cruncil during an Alternative Development Scenarios
work session, on April 28`h, 1998, along with the .rbservations that follow.
Table 03: Residential Land Use Characteristics: City of Denton
Characteristic Single Family Muld-Family Total
Homes D' elling Units
Number of Units 15,013 16,725 31,738
Land Occupied (Acres) 5,504 1,175 6,679
Accra a Unit Density per Acre 2.73 1413 4.75
Aser eeOccu ants per Unit 28 1.8
I'atalOccupants 42,03611 30,10511 72,141
Table I#4: City of Denton Zoning Classifications by Area
ZONING PD ZONING+ %OF
ZONING CLASSIFICATION (AC'RES) \I[LQ. ZONING pD'S(ACRES) PD'StSQ. TOTAL
/a PD's (ACRES) MILES)
AqticultuTal [A] 14,172 8 22,15 14,176 9 °
n le- a it 1,076.1 1 6b 412 1,1173 T
Sinyle-Family 51 5 °
nl- 03.2 3.19 38513 2,424 ~ 9
'r 1- e it 7 [Sr-71 3,374.9 5.59 1.053.51 4 "
"
Zero 204,8 2G4,8 0.32 0.6
"
T%0 Family 12F1 239,B 7 122 6 .4 037 1.0
x r llumes 0.0 0,00 1 1.2 0. 0,00,
~
RESIDENTIAL SL!
Mul(jimily R WF-R] -_A41 0,07 94689013 1.3 2,50,
u ' INIF-21 784.1, 123 0. 784 3 121 °
N106-Family (NIF-1 1 767,8 120 301, L0699 I
~y
114F RIESIDENTIAI. SUHY PTAL 1,596 4 ' 2,49 01414, i y
' <I AI ' 140 °
t 22,70710 33.48 e 25,691& 40.14 e
A Comm rcial I0 1,54t 4 4 4 ~
Office 1561 024 210.1 3662 057 1
6 "
'c ra Mail 4244 0,6 9 804.5 1.2 2.3
ei hb rhood Service INSI 14L 0.0 32.8 47, 0.07 0'1
aikin PI6.7 00.01 6.7 0.01
ILL lndugtrial 1111 4 jL2 9J ~Q a 4952.0 4 79"'
Ilcacv Industrial Ilill Q. 18 4 140.9 0.22 4°
N QNRESID N' A. §J05,7 10, 1 ~ 6 It
PI AsNP.D DEV'ELUPbtENTS IPL1 255. 77 170 174,6 0.2 .5
S11111110 AL 0, 0 00 478.7 478.7 9.7 13
TOTAL 35,668.3 55,73 6,255.6 3$,668.3 55.73 100.0%
3
1,►,r ~M C, 32 x
KAMM&
0
I
Table N5: Ratio Of Land Uses
LAND USE 1991 NCTCOG LAND USE 1992 NATIONAL 1998 CITY OF DENTON
CATEGORY ESTIMATES FOR CITIES SURVEY ZONING DISTRIBUTION
CITY OF DENTON DATA
Acres quarse %ofTotal 1983 1992 Acres quay %ofTotal
Mile TOTAL 34,002 53.13 100.0% 35,668 55.73 100.0%
VACANT 20,944 32.73 611% N/A N/A N/A
DEVELOPED 13,058 20.40 38.4% NIA NSA NIA
% Developed Land % Zoned
Land
Single family 5,521 8.6? 423% 39.0% 38.0% 22,949 35.8 643%
Residential
Slulti-Family& 1,175 1,84 9.0% 9.0% 10.0% 2,677 4.18 7.5%
Other 1111
Commercial 1,235 1.93 9.5% 9.0% 10.0•/. 41230 6.61 11.9%
Tndustrial 1,167 1,82 8.9% 12.0;4 10.0•/. 5,093 7.9 143%
Public / Inst. / Gov't 3,960 6.14 303% 31.0'/. 32.0'1 479 0.75 13'1
Table #6:1990 Crasus Housing Data
By T a Occupancy and Tenure J
Type Total Number Total Occupied Percent Owner Percent Renter
i
of Units Units Occupied Occupied
Si_ngle•Family _ 13,207 12,494 74% 26316
NIU1910 m11)_ 13,20 11,767 1% 99°/.
Mobile Homes 1,417 1,300 70°/. 30°
Other 798 _ 158 28% 72"/°
Total 28,791 25,719 39% 61°1
a. Sufficient vacant land is available within city limits to accommodate growth beyond the year
2020. NCTCOG data estimates indicate that more than 601,10 (32 of 53 square miles) of the
land within city limits is undevc!oped.
h, The "balance of land uses" currenily exhibited by the City of Denton correlate fairly closely to
the national sun Cy data collected by the American Planning Association. There is no ratio of
land uwx grnrrally ronsidered to he oplimal for rity healdr. t
r. Adequate land zoned for a diverse array of la-d uses is available, with the exception of Heavy
industrial. The distribution of current zoning is roughly proportional to the distribution of
current developed land uses, taking into account the necessity of public dedication when raw
land is developed. The only:oning ralegon, that may've less available as compared io
hisrorir des.lopment patterns is mtdtt family (990 ofdf ecloped land, but only 7.31160 of all city
toning).
d. The ratio of single family homes to multi-family (and Aer) dwelling units is currently
estimated to be 47.3% SF / 52,7% MF. Current denSiued are estimated to be 2.7 SF homes per
4
la w~ f r rvs~r rr s k, ) t~ J 32X
k J
o
bAMO
acre, and 14.2 MF dwelling units per acre, on average. Developed SF properties occupy 5,504
acres (82% of developed residential land), while MF properties occupy 1,175 acres (18% of
developed residential property). Assuming an occupancy rate of 2.8 persons per SF unit, and
1.8 persons per MF unit, the estimated total population living in single family homes is
42,036; the multi-family population is 30,105. Please be aware that 1990 Census data shows
that more than 10010 of the city's population lived in group quarters (nursing homes, college
dorms, correctional facilities, etc.). The group quarters statistics are included within the multi-
family residential figures in the tables provided with this memo.
e. The supply and location of vacant land zoned suitably for different land uses will not j
correspond to the timing, location, and type of land use demand caused by market forces. As I
indicated in forecasting information, southern areas of Denton's city limits and ETJ will
experience a disproportionate share of the growth pressure. Property within the ETJ is not
included in the statistics in Exhibit #2, and could change the size of the city and its land use
ratios significantly, particularly extending both east and west from the 1-35W corridor.
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
A concern expressed during public hearings and meetings is related to previously approved Planned
Developments. Planned Developments may be approved ~n three forms: (1) Concept Plan, (1)
Development Plan, and (3) Detailed Plan.
PD Concept Plans are approved zoning designations and do not expire after a certain period of
time. The only way to amend a PD Concept Plan is through City Council approval. Major features of
Concept Plans include land uses, general thorot ghfare layout, and development standards (lot area, width,
depth, building setbacks, building heights, etc.).
PD Development P]o are approved zoning designations with limited site information, requiring
only a table of permitted uses and site boundaries beyond Concept Plan requirements. Very few
previously approved Development Plans currently exist. If a PD Development Plan is approved by City
Council, the Planning & Zoning Commission may approve a subsequent Detailed Plan with no further
review.
I
PD Detailed Plans require significantly more information than Concept or Development Plans
(location of buildings, drainage plan, landscape plan, signage, open space, sidewalks, etc.). PD Detailed
Plans approved prior to February 1", 1991 have no time expiration regulations, and may be amended only
with City Council approval. PD Detailed Plans approved after February 1", 1991 carry a two-year time
limit to commence construction before lapsing Applicants may petition the Planning & Zoning
- Commission for additional 360-day time extensions without City Council approval,
It has been the cspcricncc of Planning staff that fcw, i f any, previously approved Concept Plan or
Detailed Plans have been constructed without first being amended. In some cases, amendments are
needed to suit a particular project under contract; for others, it appears that changing land values and
marl,.:t conditions necessitate amendments more in line with consumer preferences for homes or
apartnicnts. Cit) Council may decide that it is necessary to make changes in previously approved PD
Concept Plans or Detailed Plans in the future. Staff acknowledges the frustration exhibited by many
U neighborhood groups when faced with amendments loan approved plan. However, until the Denton O
community decides how it wants to position land uses relative to each other (in the comprehensive plan),
it would be difficult tojuslify how such changes could be made in a consistent and fair manner, If
additional information is requested by Council regarding these issues, staff will respond as quickly as
possible.
S ~ I
32 x
43 ,
C
Table N7: PD's with Approved & Undeveloped Multi-Family Zoning
PD t* Acres Density Max. Units Notes
Zoned MF (Units / Acre) Allowed
9 6,8 20,0 135 Proposed school facility
12 21.8 12.4 270
20 29.0 21.0 609
22 157.0 7.5 1,178
27 20,6 112 272
35 7.6 7.9 60
39 24.6 MO 246
41 13.7 22.0 301
35 $3.9 0.1 4
73 46.0 8.0 368
86 24.9 18.0 448 Proposed downzoning to SF
90 8.0 10.0 80
90 11.7 18.0 210 Possible downzoning to SF
93 10.0 17.0 170
96 10.0 20.0 200
97 2.2 20.0 43
99 13.5 18,0 243 Density subject to PD detailed plan approval by CC;
18 uniWacre assumed
100 4J 6.8 32
102 9,2 20.0 185
104 16.0 11.9 191
III 11.9 18.0 214 Possible downzoning to SF
113 18.3 10.9 200
115 33,2 13.9 460
118 14.1 14.0 197
I20 491 15.4 758 Proposed amendment to reduce MF
120 92.8 6.1 756 Proposed amendment to reduce MF
125 11.1 I7.1 190
126 20.0 25.0 500 Most of PD downzoned to Ag
129 3,5 9.2 32
132 16.0 25.0 400
133 1 1 0.0 0 Fratemity Ilousc
136 104 11,9 124
772,7 9016
~ ♦ Average MF Density for undeveloped PD's is 11.74 Units per Acre
♦ 21 of 32 PDs have allowed density greater than 11.74 units per acre
• ill hest Allowed Density Is 25 Units per Acre former Lakeview PD's 132 & 126
• 30 of 167 18% Planned Developments bare undevelo ed MF desk nations
i
6
a,
~ Kl~:1 32XIO
F C
1 • r
J
Mum"
0 t
i
.,av. t.... r..'-u ..1 , run Y,M~` e.warf w.. .wr n•.vo~io..A NMO..Y •IMI.MWI`r. A[VM..4M Ka!•w Ni.l ~ rn ons
I
PRIOR ACTIONIREVIEW
The topics addressed in this staff report are part of ongoing efforts by the City of Denton, through its
citizens, City Council members, and city staff, to prepare for anticipated development growth pressures.
The Denton Plan process was initiated in July 1997, and several Council and public meetings have been
held to discuss growth issues since that time.
i
FISCAL INFORMATION
Information regarding the fiscal impacts of different land uses is somewhat limited at this point in time.
A table presented in April 28'h, 1998 staff report materials included the following:
Table #8: Comparison Of Appraised Value Vs. Land Use
Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of
Property Description Appraised Value Land Area Land Area
All Real Properly) b A11 Pro All Developed Property)
Real Property: Undeveloped '
Vacant, Platted 2.3519
Acreage _ 4.7% 61.6%
Farm & Ranch 0.5%
Total: Undevclo d Real Property 7.5%
Real Property: Developed
Single Family Residential 52.5% 16.2% 412%
Multi-Family Residential 10.5% 03.5% 9.1%
Commercial & Industrial 20.9% 07.1% 18.5%
Utilities 02.96: 11.6% 30.2°/n
Exempt _ 05.6%
Total Developed Real Property 92.5°/. 38.4°/. 100.0%
TOTAL REAL PROPERTY 100.0% 100.0% -
Additional analyses will be conducted to determine the fiscal impact of different land uses, including an i
evaluation of the proper ratio of land uses that can help to guide development of the comprehensive plan.
Respectfully Submitted:
~-T '
~ vid M. Hill ; , 0 i
Director of Plann;ng and Development
f ~ e
7
r V U
{
V I 1 n, l .[f,
1 '
M.
"r~}~; 25 K~ 32x
I 01-dilgh"_4 NOW
via
b
Q
Agwida No. 0o2.r
tea,-.
DAGENDA INFORMATION SHEET O~
AGENDA DATE: July 28,1998
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Development Department
CM1DCiiI/ACM: Rick Svehla
SUBJECT
Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide direction to staff regarding the interim
Corridor Ordinance
BACKGROUND
In January 1998, the City Council directed staff to prepare a corridor ordinance to
implement regulations to enhance and improve the appearance and safety of condors.
The preliminary approach was presented to the City Council in a work session on April
28. Overall regulations related to setbacks, architectural materials, architectural design,
uses visible from the corridor, signs, and non-conforming landscaping are recommended.
On June 24"', July 10, and July 24`s, staff presented information and received comments
from Denton Chamber of Commerc e representatives. Staff also reviewed existing
properties in relation to the ordinance. Several issues have been raised during these
review sessions, and will continue after the August 4`" joint City Council - Planning and
Zoning Commission public hearing. Staff recommends that a City Council WopC Session
be scheduled for August I Ith 1999 to discuss the comments received.
ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION
A preliminary list of issues raised by the Chamber of Commerce include:
1. Vic ordinance review and adoption process is moving too quickly;
2. Compliance requirements for expansions;
3. Possible exemptions for active agricultural land uses;
4. Applicability of the ordinance to entire parcels even if only a portion is
located within the corridor;
5. Some roadways should be emphasized while others should be deleted a.,
corridors;
6. Landscape requirements within landscape setbacks cannot be met if all
existing trees have to be preserved and native vegetation must remain
undisturbed;
7. No parking within landscape setback areas is burdensome;
8. Requirements for architectural materials need to be reworked, especially with O .
respect to glass percentages;
9, Screening requirements fcr ftatures that may not be visible from designated
roadways are very difficult to interpret and should be defined better;
E
t
IQ 32x10
•
o .
10. The Limited Visibility Uses list contains some land uses that should not be so
severely restricted within the corridors;
11. The display of merchandise should be defined and differentiated from outdoor
storage uses that must be screened;
12. The retroactive lands~ap ng requirements should be dropped from the
ordinance;
13. Corridor regulations should be tailored to different types of land uses; and
14. Signage requirements need to be better understood,
STAEMFNERVATIONS
Although in,*mplete, staff has prepared several comments in response to some of the
issues raised:
Properties Affected: Section 35-413 states "the regulations shall apply to the entire
property whether all or part of the property is located within the (500 or 1,000-foot wide]
rip" The reasoning for this was to insure uniform implementation. one alternative is
to make the regulation applicable only to the property within the strip
Landscape Setbacks: In regard to Section 35-414, Setbacks, the re::rence to existing
vegetation could be eliminated since the Landscape Ordinance covers this topic.
Additional clarify ation could allow the setback to apply only to the property abutting the
designated corridor. An setbacks exception for single family residential properties could C
also be considered. Under the c :Trent versioi of the proposed ordinance, houses with I
side or rear yards abutting the corridor would require an open, unscreened setback. The
design of the structures with side or rear yards„ Auld be severely restricted since the
yards could not be screened, If single-family parcels were exempted from this provision,
tka .zoning code would still require minimum setbacks.
Architectural Glass Requirements: The provisions in Section 34-415 regulate
maximum and minimum percentages of facade glass. Staff recommends that exterior
glass reflcctan~ c standards be maintained. The minimum 20"/o glass would provide a
visual relief along the facade; however, the minimum glass requirement presents several
obstacles. The provision may be in conflict with the limited use provisions whir't allows
• certain uses if sere^:ncd or located within a bulling so that the use is not visible from the
corridor. The minimum glass would also require glass in some exposures such as
western exposure that may nr t be desirable. In review of recent single family
construction puns, the average glass on a front facade is 10',o. Elimination of the
minimum glass requirement and continued review of the maximum glass requirement
may be options to consider.
• trehileclural Mitterids: The provision related to "split face" concrete block in Section • •
34-415 could be removed. The term was interpreted by different sources with different
results and the term does not have a clear definition. In regard to "tilt-wall" construction,
during our review of the ordinance we determined and the Building Inspection Division
2
- 2 r`~~ 32X ID
A
O
i
a~
confirmed that this type of construction material is applicable under the currently worded
provision.
Screening: Several issues have been raised with respect to screening. If certain
development features must be screened from all roadway views within each designated
corridor, difficulty in meeting ordinance requirements is envisioned when significant
changes in elevation occur. An option to consider is to require screening from views
directly adjacent to corridors frontage, thus allowing limited angled views of features
deemed appropriate for screening.
Retroactive Landscape Requirements: In regard to nonconforming properties, the
interim ordinance recommended retroactive perimeter parking lot plantings along all
designated corridors by 2003. The Legal Department inserted an appeal process that
would allow until 2008 for compliance. This provision could be deleted and reviewed if
or when specific plans are prepared. The review may include a recommendation for
planting in the parkway or the area between the property line and the edge of the
roadway. A plan could be developed as part of a Small Area Plan or as part of an
improvement plan for the area. All landscape plans for a parkway would require review
by the Development Review Committee with consultation with the TXDOT Resident
Engineer and the City of Denton Department of Transportation and Engineering.
Although not part of the ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission stated the need
for a plan for public improvements along corridors to enhance the corridors. In 1987, the
City Council instituted a process to apply for TXDOT matching funds as MOT road
projects are proposed. The matching grant process was used to install landscaping on
Teasley Lane (Fhi 2181) and University Drive (US ti;athway 380). Elements of a public
improvement plan for right-of-way may include landscaping of right-of-ways and
medians, TXDOT logo signs, maintenance of roadway areas, directional signs, lighting,
a;rd sidewalks.
Expansions of Existing Developments: A provision for limited expansion of legal non-
conforming uses could be added. The landscape ordinance ; xempts remodeling and
redevelopment that would expand existing gross floor area of the lot's structure or
structures by less than twenty-five (25), Such an approach could be considered for the
Corridors Ordinance.
• Planned Developments: Another potential exemption is for properties with tpproved
detailed plans. Since a separate zoning ordinance must be adopted to appro e a detailed
plan, any changes resulting from the Corridors Ordinance would require new public
hearings and changes in existing detailed plan. Proposed amendments to a detailed plan
would be reviewed based on the corridor ordinance.
The observations made in this report are prelimin, ry; staff will meet again with Chamber
• of Commerce representatives on August 5"i, 1998 to resume discussions regarding these • •
and other issues,
3
.r
S
U`. .lf +ar ~ ~ iMY'l:1til .r+-;,y;. y rvt~rruV.rzr.}'rW:irr'4Yr:~Y.•+i. Ar •h»e iew.e a.rue, ~ nrr«d..
i
i I
1
ESTIMATED SCHEDUI',E OF PROJECT "
A meeting with representatives of the Denton Chamber of Commerce was held on Friday,
July 24. A}oint public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission is schedcled
for August 4. Planning staff mailed notice to approximately 1,450 property owners
regarding the August a public hearing and two notices have been published in the
Denton Record Chronicle. After reviewing comments received from the Chamber of
Commerce and members of the public, City Council will be able to give staff instructions
regarding ordinance progress during the August 11th Work Session. .
j PRIOR e TIC ON/REVIEW
The City Council reviewed the notification process for the ordinance at the June 9 work
session and adopted an ordinance specifying the notification process at the June 16 r'r
meeting. The City Council held a public hearing on June 2nd, 1998. At the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting on May 27*, the Commission recommended approval by a
vote of 4-1. The staff met with the Denton Chamber of Commerce on Friday, May 19 and
reported comments from the meeting at the June 2nd public hearing. A second meeting
was held on July 10t% followed by a third meeting on July 20.
FISCAL INFQRMATION
Additional staff review will be required but no specific fiscal impacts have been
estimated at this time. The enhancement of public right of way, as a companion
component to the corridor ordinance, will require a financial commitment but a
recommendation on the public enhancement is not being proposed at this time.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Ordinance
July 13`h, 1998 Letter from Chamber of Commerce
r~
rI
Respectfully su it
ra
Director of Planning and Development
Prepared by:
* t t
Cccile Carson
Small Area Planning Manager
~ t
t a
r
,
32 x lo
a
0
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 35
"ZONING CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF DENTON BY ADOPTING
ARTICLE XI "CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT"; PROVIDING A CLASSIFICATION
FOR DESIGNATING ROADWAYS IN DENTON; ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM
LANDSCAPE SETBACK ALONG DESIGNATED ROADWAYS; PROVIDING
ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR DESIGNATED ROADWAYS; ESTABLISHING
` SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ROOF TOP
EQUIPMENT, VEHICLE SERVICE BAYS, LOADING DOCKS, AND OUTSIDE STORAGE
OF MERCHANDISE; LIMITING THE VISIBILITY OF CERTAIN USES ALONG
DESIGNATED ROADWAYS; REQUIRING TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLANS FUR
PROPERTIES THAT ACCESS THE DESIGNATED ROADWAYS; AND PROVIDING FOR
NONCONFORMING LANDSCAPING; PROVIDING FOR CREATION OF SIGN
DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000,00
FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Denton City Council has determined that our corridors impact the visual
image of our community; and
WHEREAS, the Vision for the 21" Century project identified entranceways as a
component of the vision for Denton a$ great place to live, work, learn and play; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the public interest to insure that new
developments in Denton will help to enhance the economic and aesthetic environment; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton recognizes that the establishment of new rules and
regulations through an overlay district fur architectural standards, setbacks, screening of uses,
prohibition ofccrtain uses if visible from the corridor, and traffic circulation will help to enhance
the economic and aesthetic environment; vtd
H'IIEREAS, the City Council has conducted public hearings on the proposed regulations
contained herein; NOW THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS HEREBY ORDAINS:
SECTION L That Chapter 33 "Zoning" of the Code of Ordinances of the city of Denton,
Texas is hereby amended by the adoption of Title XI, entitled "Corridor Overlay District," so
that hereafter said title shall be and read as follows:
Nafl July 16, 1999 S
Draft June 29. 1999
Draft June 9, 1998
Cui ridor Overlay bistric, Ordinance `
4 i,t.
ING
.
•
u
ARTICLE X1. CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT
Sec. 35.111. Short Title and Scope.
This article shall be known and may be cited as the Corridor Overlay District. This
article is creating a new district that overlays current districts and that except where they conflict
with this article all rules and regulaticn of the underlying district shall still have full force and
effect.
Sec. 35-412. Stalement of Purpose.
The intent of this article is to promote the immediate and long-term public health, safety,
economic stability and general welfare of the citizens of Denton by establishing
regulations related to access and appearance of designated roadways. This article is
intended to promote the following general purposes:
1) To provide a visually attractive environment for those who travel through the City in
automobiles buses, other motorized vehicles, non-motorized vehicles or on foot.
2) To combine the plant materials and person-made structures to visually soften the built
environment, cleanse the air, and reduce the heat effect of pavement.
3) To establish a character or theme for Denton that is visible along its corridors,
4) To design and locate streetscape amenities that are visually pleasing but avoid
conflicts with driver sight visibility triangles and utilities.
5) To presen a the Cross Timbers terrain and to enhance the grand prairie.
G) To create a distinctive sense of arrival to Denton.
7) To address issues facing corridor users including motorists, transit, cyclists,
pedestrians in order to create a safe and efficient transportation system.
8) To communicate a sense of order and safety to motorist and pedestrians through
• development of landscape design, access plans and structural treatments.
9) To retain and enhance lend value by restricting incompatible uses and creating a sense
of visual unity along cur;dors.
10) To market Denton as a unique and identifiable city for economic development, .
•1 Sec. 35-413, Clatsincellons. • •
l) Gateways: The Gateway designation is reserved fur the roadways with the highest s,
volume of traffic and provides limited direct access. Roads designated as Gateways
Dnn July 16, 1999 6
Drat1 June 29, 1998
D 'aft June 9, 1998
Corridor Overlay Diortct Ordinance
2i Y 10 " 3?X10
l
-r, ~n
include: 1-35 N, 1-35 W,1-35 E, Loop 288, U.S. Highway 380 from Primrose Street
west to the city limits and U.S. Highway 380 from Ruddell Street east to the city
limits. Along Gateways, maximum efforts will be taken to preserve natural features
including trees, native vegetation, and views. Regulations shall be applied to
property within a 500 foot wide strip on each side of the roadway measured fi')m the
centerline of the roadway, and the regulations shall apply to the entire property
whether all or part of the property is located within the 1,000-foot wide strip. Any
building within the designated 500 foot wide strip shall comply with the provisions of
the ordinance.
2) 2) Entranceways: Entranceways are classified as primary or secondary arterials
and may have curb and gutter or barrow ditch or swales along the right-of-way.
Entranceways shall include; US Hwy 77 from 1.35N to Windsor Dr., Teasley Lane
(FM 2181), Fort Worth Drive (US Highway 377) from 1.35 E south to the city limits,
Locust Street (FM 2164) from Loop 288 north to the city limits, McKinney Street
(FM 426) from Loop 288 east to the city limits, and Sherman Drive (FM 428) from
Loop 288 north to the city limits. Regulations shall be applied to all property located
within 250 feet from the centerline of the roadway and the regulations shall apply to
the entire property whether all or part of the property is located within the 500-foot
wide strip. Any building within the designated 250 foot wide strip shall comply with
the provisions of the ordinance.
3) City limits: The regulations shall apply to property along the designated roadway that
is within the city limits. As annexation occurs along the designated roadways the
regulations shall apply to the area annexed.
See. 35-414. Setback Requirements.
1) General provision: Driveway accesses and a sign in compliance with the city of
Denton Sign Ordinance may be loch, i in the setback area. All provisions of the
Landscape Ordinance 98.100 shali apt In determining the landscape and tree
requirements for the setback, a calculation of the land area in the setback in
comparison to the overall land area shall be made, Landscaping requirements and
trees shall be installed in the setback in an dual percentage of the land area; for
• example if the setback is 10% of the overall property then l"// of the tree and
landscape requirements must be installed in the setback.
2) Gateways: A 25-loot minimum landscape setback measured from the property line
abultingthe designated roadway is required, Within the area, all existing trees shall
be preserved Native vegetation shall be undisturbed in the area of existing trees. No {
parking shall be permitted within the 25- foot setback.
}3) Entranceways: A 15-foot minin--n landscape setback measured from the property
line abuttinsz j desiynalcd roadway is required. Within the area, all existing trees j
Uran July 16, 1999
[trait June 29. 1999
Dratl June 9, 1998
corridor 0%rrlay Ilistmi Ordinance i
32 x❑
r~
t
0
r
~ r
r i
shall be preserved. Native vegetation shall be undisturbed in the area of existing trees.
No parking shall be permitted in the setback.
Sec. 35-415. Architectural Standards.
1) Materials: The exterior walls of the building visible from the designated street shall
be comprised of stone, cast stone, stucco, brick, limestone, granite or a similar appearing
natural or created masonry material. A maximum of t0% of the build ng facade visible
from the designated street may be comprised of "split face" concr.te block. Glass
including windows and doors shall be limited to no more than SO% of the front building
facade visible from the designated street and no less than 20910. The exterior glass shall
have a maximum reflectance of 20%. An alternative building material consistent Mth the
appearance of the materials listed above may be approved upon recommendation of the
Building Official to the Director of Planning.
2) Colors: Neon and fluorescent wall colors as defined by industry standards are
specifically prohibited on all building faces visible from a designated gateway or
enlranceway.
3) Design: The design of each structure shall include relief to front wall and rooiline.
No single uninterrupted surface plane shall be permitted. Reference Exhibit A, Building
Articulation.
See, 35.416. Screening.
1) Mechanical equipment: Mechanical equipment including satellite dishes must be
visually screened from view from the designated roadway and from adjacent residential
zones or uses. Roof-mounted equipment shall be integrated into the building design and
screened from view from the designated roadways.
2) %'chicle service bays and loading docks: All vehicle repair, service, and
maintenance bays and all loading docks shalt be arranged or screened so that the bay(s)
or dock is not visible from the designated roadways or ad;accnt residential zones or uses.
All screening provisions of Ordinance 98.100 shull apply.
Ordinance 98-100. Sec. 31.7 states: Any outdoor storage area, or portion thereof, must be
• screened from public rights-of-way using live evergreen screening plants, six (6) feel in
height at installation, spaced no more than eighteen (18) inches apart, edge to edge.
A fcmc or wail may also be used for outdoor storage area screening, provided it is at
least six (6) feet tall, opaque, and of masonry, stone, or wooden material, or of the same
matcnal as that of the prin^ipal building. Dumpsler enclosure openings may not face
• public rights-of-way unless they are gated. p •
3) Limited visibility uses: The following uses shall be prohibited from being visible
from the designated corridor. These uses are permitted if screened by a minimum 9 foot
Draft July 16, 1998 8
Draft June 29, 1998
Man June 9,1999
Corridor Overlay District Ordinance
WFI 10 32 X
%
r
yam,.
i
1
I
screen composed of solid everyFeen vegetation 111 time of planting, masonry walls, or
similar solid construction excluding or by design within a building, in addition to I
the requited setback, so that the use is not visible in any manner from the designated
roadway or adjacent residential zones or uses. The reeuired screening shall be erected
along the property to screen the use from the designated road and adjacent residential
zones or uses.
Primary Residential Uses
Trailer Camp or Mobile Home Park
Educational, Institutional and Special Uses
Correctional Facility
Utility, Accessory and Incidental Uses r
Electric Generating Plant
Electric Substation
Electrical Transmission Line
Private Utility Shop or Storage Yard
Public Building, Shop, Yard of Local, State, or Federal Government
Sewage Pumping Station
Sewage Treatment Plant
Telephone Line and Exchange Switching or Relay Station
Water Pumping Station or Well
Water Treatment Plant
Drag Strip or Commercial Racing
Fairground or Exhibition Area
Go-Cart Track
Sexually Oriented Business
Transportation Related Uses
Hauling or Storage Company
Motor Freight Terminal
Railroad Freight Terminal i
Railroad Passenger Station
" Parking Lot Truck
Automobile Service Uses ;
Auto Wrecking or Salvage Yard
Fire Retreading or Capping
I• ~ o 0
bra ft July 16, 1998 9 i
Draft June 29, 1998
Dral" June 9, 1998
Corr idor Overlay District Ordinance ~
25x 10 32X10
e
0
Retail and Service Type Uses
Household Appliance Service and Repair (Outside)
Secondhand Store, Used Furniture or Rummage Sale
Tool or Trailer Rental
Agricultural Type Uses
Hatchery, Poultry
Livestock Auction
Livestock Feeding Plant, Pens, or Yards
Commercial Type Uses
Contractors Shop and Storage Yard
Heavy Machinery Sales and Storage
Petruleum Products Storage-Wholesale
Storage and Sales of Furniture or Appliances Outside A Building
Trailer Rental or sales
Natural Resource Storage and Extraction
Petroleum Collecting or Storage Facilities
Special Industrial Processes
Asphalt or Concrete Batching Plant
Brick Kiln or Tile Plant
Cement or Hydrated Lime Manufacture
bump or Sanitary Fill Area
Mixing or Sale of Concrete
Open Salvage Yard for Rags or Machinery etc.
Smelter or Rcrinery
4) Outside storage and storage or mercbandise outside-. All business operations and i
activities shall be conducted within an enclose' building. The only exceptions for
outside activity shall be off-street parking or loading; drive-in or drive-through
windows at financial institutions, restaurants, prescription pharmacy or dry cleaners,
and outside eating in conjunction wish a restaurant. No merchandise other than
vehicles located on a lot used primarily for the sale of vehicles including but not
limited tQ automobiles. trucks- construction euuinment. trailers, and similar
• c.ui ruent or living materials such as Christmas trees, pumpkins and flowers Aad
similar living landscape plants may be visible from the designated roadway or
adjacent residential zoi.es or uses. Merchandise may -.laced outside if screened by
solid Iivc evergreen vegetation planted in accordance with at the time of planting as {
per Ordinance 99.100, or by a minimum 9-foot masonry or similar solid construction i
wall gxgludinyl wood so that the merchandise is not visible from the designated
• rcadway or from adjacent residential zones or uses. tD •
1
bran July 16, 1998 10
bran June 29, 1998
bran June 9, 1998
Corridor Orerlay District Ordinance i`
,te; „ Jim
s
,aaarM.
O
See. 35-417. Traffle Circulation Plan.
A traffic circulation plan shall be prepared and provided for all new development. This
plan should allow a safe and efficient flow of traffic idout of property to maximize the
capacity of the roadway. Access management design features will allow the congestion of
the adjacent roadways to be minimized. Examples of access management include corner
clearances, driveway spacing, joint access driveways and parallel access roads. The
Traffic Circulation Plan should provide detailed information showing how the
development will minimize transportation impacts while providing the necessary
business connection to the Entranceway Corridor. The plan shall be reviewed by the City
of Denton Engineering Department for compliance with all Subdivision Regulations,
Sec. 35-418. Non-Conforming Properties.
1) Perimeter Parking Lot Landscaplag: All legal non-conforming properties within
the designated corridor shall provide landscaping by October I, 2003. The minimum
requirement shall be compliance with Sec.31.7(1)(a) Parking Lot Screening,
perimeter screening and Sec.31-8 Maintenance (Ordinance 98-100).
12) Redevelopment: In the event of demolition of an existing legal non-conforming use,
all requirements of this code shall be met, In accordance with provisions of Code of
Ordinances, Sec. 35.13(d), all requirements of this code shall apply if partial
destruction exceeds 500/6. For any legal non-conforming uses as of the effective _date
of this ordinance, the property shall be subject to the provisions of this chaDlgr when I
remodeling or redevelopment is proposed that would expand existing gross floor arm
of the lot's structurcor stRleJures by twenty-five (25) percent or more.
2) Appeal: All legal nonconforming properties within a designated corridor shall
comply with the perimeter screening requirements for parking lots contained in Code
of Ordinances, Sec. 31.7(1)(a) by October I, 2003. The owner of a legal non-
conforming property may appeal for relief to the Board of Adjustment to determine a
later compliance date, In deciding whether to grant relief :n the owner based upon
such a,ipcal, the Board of Adjustment shall take imo consideration the factors set
forth in Code of Ordinances, Sec. 35-48(b), but in no event shall such compliance
date be extendcu beyond October 1, 2008.
Sec, 35-419. Signs.
1
A sign district shall be required for any property which has more than three hundred !
(300) feet of continuous frontage on a Gateway or Entranceway. The plan shall conform 1
to the provisions of Code of Ordinances, Sec. 33.254(2). All signs in the sign district
• must b: dcsigc,cd to conform to regulations in Code of Ordinances, Chapter 33 as • •
presently en 1cted or as hereinafter amended.
than July 16, 1998 11
Drift lone 29, 1998
Draft )one 9, 1998
Corridor Ovrrlay District ordinance
- ~ ,<10 32 x!0
=-ULm-WJLm-%&4RAL- ERA
0
C P,
i
1
r.
r. ',5 I.hvti!'_6"A'w iM. i'1!:"'n.flIY11 M'M,rVnM^wr~N'W.AWd:'/"sm~M"V'~hnt l'.-srr.4 r .',ern.,.. .
r
Sec. 35-420 Applicability and Exclusions
11 Applicability. The ordinance shall apply to all new construction at the time a
(t"ing permit is reauested,
a.
21 Planned Developments' Prop&LIigg zoned planneddevelooment with a, aon3oved
yjgdjiplan shall be exempt from the provisions of this article so long as the =cm
is developed in accordance with a detailed plan approved prior to the effective date c,
this ordinance.
h t
31 Single-familys PropM zoned single-farridy shall be exemoted from the setback
quire ents. Section 35-414,
1 F: r
SECTION It, That any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon f j
conviction, be fined a sum not exceeding 52,000.00. Each day that a provision of this ordinance
is violated shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.
i
h SECTION Ill. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentenec, clause, phrase or
word in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not effect the validity of the remaining
portions of this ordinance, and the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas hereby declares it
would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such validity.
1
SECTION IV. That save and except as amended hereby, all the provisions, sections,
subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, and phrases of Chapter 35 of the Code of Ordinances
shall remain in full force and effect.
y r, ~SECTION V. That this ordinance shall become effective fourteen (14) days from the
date of its passage, and the City Secretary is hereby directed to cause the caption of this
ordinance to be published twice in the Denton Record-chronicle, a daily newspaper published in
the City of Denton, Texas, within ten (10) days of the date ofpassage. r I',
PASSED AND APPFOVED this the day of 1998.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
r '
s
;r
D -snluly 15, 1998 12
.y r
Dmft June 29, 1998
Draft June 9, 1998
Cor.id x Or crlsy District Ordinance
i
\
r
c
c
i
r
Sf:YfiYd
..,'I i'~.14fY\1 'fY'/1• TYMR,AAFT.Or.i41+Mti REMN.W rr, .
f
ATTEST: f
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
i
BY: _
i
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUCTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
a
i
F r,
4
c
r
I
A
I
4 yU
R R
f
.4,
S
Y r l xy 1 ~I Y
"Nij
Drat July 16, 1998 13 F ; .a
Di &r. June 29, 1998 y 4 rx`r , r
Drd, June 9, 1998 j a
Comdor Overlay District Ordinance
r. t; u~,r .A li { I J r t 32
'I 'p
Y A.J I y r ! , 1,
.k,t,,... ~f.
p
I r
I
I
EXHIBIT 'A
BUILDING kRTICULATION
T
H - xei;hl of 0 ~lldin~
MHFL • Maximum horiunul Sacade knCa~rh
MYFL • Mulmum vertical Nude knfth Ifi
MHOL a Minimum hoduflul offm teaftllfth
MVOL - Minimum vertical offset knftlr 21
x
NI
r
Igvt.•sntt ~~R
MHOL • IsfM1 ` MHFL • i31{dmaml~smekydtNmlAn ecjrm,rpw
1SOMETRICOF HORIZONTAL ARTICULATIOn ~MVfi, r1 . M ormulm mluel
Of oft WjmmmtR stw
MOM
-jul
ano
e r
PLAN VIEW. ORIZONM ARTICULATION MVAIION • VERTICALSRTICLCULATION
I '
r I'
r,
Drag July 16, 1998 14
Drafl June 29, 1998
Draft June 9, 1998
Coridor Overlay District Ordinance
r
e `b' 10
2 5 x 0 32x
•
0
l
1
{
CHAMFER t
COMMERCE
July 13, 1998
Mr. Mark Donaldson
Planning & Developmert Department
City Hall W st
211 North Etm Street
Denton,Tcxus 76201
Dear Mai k:
i
'I1.iank you for meeting with us July 10 regarding the proposed Corridor Overlay District `
Ordinance. A copy of the sign-in sheet is attached if you would like to contact any of
these people directly. I have also included a copy of the itemizci points that Frank
Martino brought io the meeting. In reviewing my own notes from the meeting, some of
the key concerns and questions that were raised during the meeting included:
- Statement of Purpose, 05, how would the landscaping requirements for adding trees
affect the proposal to "enhance the grand prairie?"
Sce, 33.413, concerns were expressed over the interpretation that the entire lot will be
affected by the ordinance, although actual public visibility may be limited.
Sec. 33.414, concems were expressed over the percentage proportion of required
trees to land area, and setback requirements should consider the depth of the lot,
. Sec. 33-413, Architectural Standards, there were questions pertaining to why there is
such scrutiny over tilt-wall and exterior glass that are visible from the designated
roadway? It was noted that construction is less competitive if tilt-wall is not allowed.
It was suggested that only prohibited materials be listed in this section.
Sec, 33-416, concerns were expressed regarding the extent to which loading docks
• and mechanical equipment can or should be effectively and safely screened from the
front?
I +
Sec" 35.416 (4), concerns were expressed about prohibiting front outside storage of
merchandise, as this a commonly accepted practice for successful retailers
15. ewraaow~a
41 4 PARKWAY PA, DRAWER ► DENTON, fEXAti 7rif07.11U (+wo1 sa•aaa~ . " • ' t`
r ,w-m m~u
- - - - - ? 5 x p
04 L { 32 X I❑
r
,
p
~ r r 'r z
r
r
f
Sec, 35-418, Non-Con forming Properties, abetter definition and further clarification
' are needed to determine height requirements and specific material allowed for
parking tot and perimeter screening. A specific example was Golden Triangle Ma11,
and whether the screening wall height would be measured from 1.35 or the service
road?
Several individuals expressed general concern over the rapid pace at which this ordinance
ti is being considered, and requested more time to seek possible clarification or
compromise on some of the specific initiatives.
t Per the offer to allow us to appoint a special task force to work with you on some the
specific mechanics of these regulations, our Executive Committee recommends the
following; r
- Dale Irwin, Irwin Realty Group, 566-0033
Frank Martino, Russell-Newman Mfg., 898-8888
Joe Mulroy, CBS Mechanical, 382.3395
Rick Salazar,Weathertrol, 387.1778 X314
Bob Widmer, Attomey, 381-1082
We appreciate your willingness to listen to the issues that were raised, and do hope that
we can delay the process in order reach a broader level of acceptance and understanding
on an ordinance that will have such a significant impact on critically needed commercial
and industrial growth in our city, As a charnber, we remain wiling and available to assist
with this process.
4 Si cercly
C arles W. Carpenter
President
~ ~ I r
II• ~ ,
16.
s,
.
lt' 1 `1yTN~s',''.h. 10
e.+ 4 .t
mom
0
h
N~`~ Cry ~vsCi~, 3~2 -Y3s7
~~ka„s,... •fJ+caeX~ .~'~,~+..coe,2Q, ~.~eso• SLL~ 1'13 p
s
~qY Qs•sa0.r,.ao ve~ad... ~`n.9.4 n~. Go ~ y
8 ss • X08 v
5 Add mo . 4,861
Gv+\-w- CJc,~" ~ ~o~+ti.+~+a~~ i2,£, 5 L G -oyO • ,
~OtiI /Ci2+921eI~ ~/~ZJC/1 ~m•~7~R~'!a~ ~F ~d 'DYO~
wft3ick hefwoe keilt-A /;ew, ,P/j 9y//
r t
l}F~~ (}~W fry ~Mk+n ~y'is~e 3~z-s's-9
• ~~1 i~0.l rrnn ~e~ ~ P„~l ,V~ Cowpar 3g~-°ls.!r'
A41P Or
Dz~, d s8~'95~4
rr Ge w u'/ 5t 5'- 9l 01
if rt~
1,61
NC il~ UNT 4V C.C SFRC 5f4~5~p~~~c {
SRI V~ J rnt~G7 f l~~ d i bQc 17.
32XI❑
r
, r
o '
I now"
o
ORDINANCE N0, _
E
The following ore ideas, thoughts, and questions Chet i have for the Corridor Overlay District:
Src.31•a IS, Clmall7nUoas '
5
I '
I I f',alcwap: Whmau Rwxl6Newnlsn lne own property on Loop gat tarendina b Mayhilt rood would tlw
rcgnlminn apply to all ofdia propcr;yIlls. p b Maybill Rwd.} ,
21 tntranceirays: Some a above
Sec. SS-alt. Setback Bequiremaota
I I Central provislont Does Ill i mu,, If ibe act back Is I sensors 7 acre dessrapmnd that Is Iron would be
rcqutrcd in front sad pe Cats is ifi, balance, w if a scree am budding ilia got back would havt IS trece and
Ilia rcanalning rmpcrty mI rounds 6rd1dins would be nqulrcd to have So ueee, or if aita bulldl Ma end
parting consumed tine m nalnlns a acres then would the ss bock have I J lreu7 And the parking lot 61
Iknne lot area.
21 Guke'rry: Intend of no iiiiii ins ghatl be permined within Ilia 15•foot xl back Law abonl Ihis referring so
ii pnrchmcd anct Ile Bile of adoption and anndfahcrlns all current awned property. i.e, Lend ws
own on Loop Lee irwe own cod i cvslop ilia rutdcllon would not apply. If we gatd the land to analhur p:uly
for dcvclopuwot Ilia new coi would apply. Nanow Iola like Miller and Bud* loci wo ild have dirficulq.
It Tnuari4rwa3's: Slgacstumessabm,
Sea SS-US Arcl0lcetural Standards,
11 Malcrlala: "The exterior walls of the bbd l ding dd6ls from the dulamled airat" would l rebel any Mullikin
Ih,n Pinscll-Ncwmmithic wmdd add to eehl ing build All baance the aides or the back atrdi t ion wadJ be
visible because of m vaunt 1ul.
A I I read [lie ma 1411a is It appeals that till wall slab eonalmction is not approved, nor cant rcte block, nor more
I luil Mk `eplh face" eoncrcre block. Lowey and Well-Mart would not comply at ilia new Anderson
Warcboute, PnsxII-Ncwmmn and many other bulldinas In rawn
The p rm ision on flan of none has I hen 10% 1 bell in would u,aa ,piablsmg wl t h anyone building
distribution centers and warcliauses HisbwayIII I aldtbealrparllssfowdnadnmatiullywllhettnctlve
bu I1dmae ilia( would nil qunltfy. Developers Blot I have talked with In Dallot rind this provision totally
tmacmplable
.
I
I
Why ilia limitation of botldinga rvit'c Damara Ilion SnSa glass This wl l la Int that a 14 glary ortlu bullJlns
wadd be rcqutrcd la have no mare than 50%Clan:. There are some bcauGSd buildlnas In the mctraplea mm
um vlrnlally a!I {lass
y) Nlarv Th i m:y need more dednnion. Is purple lots d'e«d neon w Norescenl.
i
31 Dralgn: Illtink this shculJbeomllled entirely.
I
Sea SS 416. Scresning,
q Arechanisdtqulpm<nb"M«hsntul cqulpnunt_mum bevintally xranod from else twin dulsnalcd
raod,rny end Somadjaccntrcaidtntlal aoncieruses" Nollmposibfeb+:vaydlRcull
I
y) \'chtdc ormIce hays end lnudingdncks: "AB vcllldn repair, ic"lu, and matm.a:"cr! ,I and all lanlhq
dust shall be arranged a gems Red b 1101 Ilia layrA of dock is NOT Yid9p PORK rho deslsnsladmd• t
Rvys or e,lJorenNesidnrllof toner w Ylrt" UNIA, Tip Anderson, Amscn-Newman, Iludwlste. soil
ninny Militia Ja not comply.
1) Llmhed vhl6lilly user. "The following nets INII oAitUadpane Wool ridalefrom ilia dial{Rated 1
corridor. Thus aces an prnullled t/rrnrnday rsq!dnlay arrsosry rwllr, a a1,n!!u asndeonnrvstlen, or
by dnlga wIIINn a Mal ldl n{. 61 still non to ilia lequlrad setback, so that the IA7f if NOf V197D1.d 1NANy
dLLV ti rd/torn the d.vrpnured reaJtwy a &,##red raddel lases W sea' Lots Ihlt nun lhH Q
repoidicu of In locarlan It mnti not be can from tau deel8nn ed baii rfd0 A£V1flYlr8y. IM120
eY+ n,h 11111N Qrrayrf ry
t wuiJd augamr d.rt wee act a bill from orwi1 and Irvin the till CopxJl, parr, land owners, hcarmn, Jcvvluptrs and nlwr
Inlcrested parties to make s rant of Ilia earldom and gal if Dow puny puce acl,ully eanrarm to Ibh ordiriams Wants
yea 1 have not Imtnd a sinalo business at Willy that comprise even though wee have game that an very Altricilm The
oiler probrcm Is wlial Rtwul a building lint Is Internal an ilia corner of two corridors Ornenlly glen Ilia mnln DulWing
rinna eoofonu. I low call a xrvict Mallon do Ilia?
I I
I i8. ,
10 32
twin
o
I
I
Agenda No
%enda Item AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
AGENDA DATE: July 28,1948
I
DEPARTMENT: Fire Department
i
CM/DCM/ACM: Michael Jez, Assistant City ManagerlOperstion j~
StfBJECT:
Consider adoption of an ordinance establishing fees to be charged for emergency ambulance
services and standby emergency ambulance services in the City of Denton as provided for in
Sec. 27-102 of Article IV of Chapter 27 "Vehicles for Hire" of rile Code of Ordinances of the
City of Denton.
BACKGROUNDt I
On Jul), 21, 1498, the City Council adopted an ordinance establishing fees to be charged for
emergency ambulance services. However, due to some concerns and possible confusion of
final language in the adopted ordinance, the City Council may want to reconsider this
ordinance on July 28, 1998. If the City Council chooses to reconsider the ordinance, Staff
presents this ordinance to the City Council establishing fees for emergency ambulance
services,
THERE ARE SEVERAL IMPORTANT REASONS FOR THIS REQUESTED ORDINANCE;
The lest chinas of smeraency ambulance fees na In 1993.
Our current emergency ambulance service fees are determined by Ordinance No. 93.151
which was passed by the City Council on August 24, 1993.
Our costs to provide emergency medial servka have Increased substantially,
Since the last ordinance was adopted in 1993, our budget has increased 31% percent. This
ordinance proposes to raise our basic emergency ambulance transport fee from $200.00 to
$2.50.00 which is a 25% increase.
. The foss reflected in the ordinance are more In line with other 0101 emevancy medial eery1c01
Qroyldere.
In a recent survey of sixteen (16) area emergency ambulance providers (attached), the
a%crage basic transportation charge was $219. The basic fee ranged from a tow of $125.00 to
a high of 5215.00. Of the providers surveyed, the most common basic transportation rate
was $250.00.
• In addition, most (75%) of the providers charge a different basic emergency ambulance p
transportation rate for non-residents of their jurisdiction. Of these emergency ambulance
providers, the average non-resident basic transportation charge was $303.00.
{
32x10
t9
KNOW=
o
I`
i
I
I
Some (25%) of the providers charge a per mile fee for emergency ambulance services from
the scene of the emergency to the hospital. This mileage charge ranged from $2.00 to 55,00
per mile. Mileage charges are a standard in the ambulance industry.
Two providers now charge a non-transportation fee in those emergency incidents where a
patient is assessed and treated and then refuses transport. Both charge 550.00 whenever a
patient is treated and refuses transport.
the i ante t:h~non oar p n h re Fln n dminh~pH of
T eF-fiealtFt Care Finance mimstri on 'F esta is etTtTis eTimits on Charges at will
be paid out by Medicare which ultimately results in what rates insurance companies will pay
out for emergency ambulance services. The HCFA uses four methods of billing for
emergency ambulance services.
y HCFA Method 1: This method is a simple, all inclusive charge, reflecting all services,
supplies aid mileage using one code.
HCFA Method 2: This method is one charge, reflecting all services and supplies, with
r
separate charge for mileage,
y HCFA Method 3: This method is one charge for all services and mileage, with a
separate charge for supplies.
This is the current' HCFA method used by the City of Denton.
HCFA Method 4: This method uses separate charges for services, mileage and supplies,
TAls Is the HCFA method being proposed by the ordinance.
The proposed ordinance formally and officially changes the city of Denton from HCFA
method 7 to HCFA method 4.
Several NEW lase an reQueeted.
n e iuon to raw waste emergency ambulance transportation rate of 5250.00, the new
ordinance sets some new fees for ambulance services. These are new fees for the City of
Denton, but not new in the area of emergency ambulance charges. All are currently being
charged by other agencies in Texas.
• r A Non-Resident basic transportation rate of $300,00. As shown previously, emergency
artibulance services cost more than the amount recovered. This means that City of
Denton tax payers partially subsidize this valuable public safety service. This fee charger
non-residents, or non-taxpayers in the city of Denton, a slightly higher fee than someone
who is already paying taxes for quality emergency medical services. The survey of other
emergency ambulance providers shows that charging non-residents a higher fee is a
• common occurrence, 0
Try i An updated and more extensive list of disposahle goods and medications.
2 imam r "1 25 M IL7 32XILI
'
.
0
xaTIW~11r
Y A Non-Transport charge of $50.00 for patients who are assessed and treated but refuse
transport or are transported by another emergency transportation source, such as
Careflight. This will help recover some of our costs for disposable goods and drugs. A
good example is a patient with an emergency condition who has an IV set up and then as
the patient feels better, refuses transport. In addition to using supplies that cost the City {
money, the staffing and equipment also cost the City money as well as puts the units out ii
of service and unavailable to others needing emergency assistanc,: for an extended period I
of time.
At the City Council meeting on July 21, 1998, there was some discussion on this fee
and Its collectability. In addition, there was some confusion as to the actual
language adopted by the City Council on this specific charge In the ordinance. Ik
Some operational charges not charged for in the past:
CPR, vreighi over 300pounds, defibrillation, 11-lead 6KO, bandaging/splinting, patient
carried doxn stairs, cardiac monitoring, glucomerer forblood sugar.
These are all services that present some additional risk to firefighters and/or require
specialized expensive equipment.
At the City Council meeting of Jul) 21, 1998, there was discussion of the proposal to
charge additional fees to transport patients over 300 pounds. According to our
ambulance billing company, the following Texas emergency ambulance service
providers using their billing company's services, currently charge from $23.00 to
$100.00 for transporting people over 300 pounds:
Piano, Belies Savoy, Port Isabel, Harris County Rescue, Stephenville, and
Life Rescue
In addition, Medicare sets the 300 pound criteria In their billing codes handbook,
This Is the reason agencies use the specific language of patients weighing more than
300 pounds.
However, due to the controversy and misunderstanding of the need for this charge,
Staff recommends removing the $25.00 fee for transporting a patient over 300
pounds from the ordinance. The public relations gain will far ouriveigh any financial
loss.
i A fee for mileage of $3.00 per mile. The mileage is figured from the scene of the
emergency to the receiving hospital. This mileage charge helps recov -.r the costs of
operating our ambulances and the excessive wear and tear caused by rtsponding to over
5,800 medical emergencies per year.
I tab it as alandbtr faaa for out eMorpancy ambulance aarvlcaa, % p
This ordinance establishes a rate of $68.00 per hour for the use of a City ambulance at special
t events such as football games, concerts, rodeos, races, etc. with a two-person crew and
3
' R
32 X
r rw « -
rl { I .r
,'t I
I .
fl
r
' w.. r. <r.ol MuJ...,.n.v. r-rri',Y < I h6VC~irR a.. „f.•'.w.<rMr.,'Mf-.•4~`MA~M:nvRNWi~aDC+iga.;. M'm\Mm.a. ~ r..
S
I
i
mandates a four (4) hour minimum. The 558.00 per hour cost was determined in an
Emergency Medical Services Cost Analysis in July, 1998.
j I
j FISCAL INFORMATION:
This new ordinance will enable the City to recover a greater portion of the actual costs of
providing emergency ambulance services.
Staff estimates that revenues will Increase from the FY 1998/1999 budgeted amount of
$477,527 to $570,750. The budgeted revenues were estimated on the current average of
$251.00 per bill with a 50% collection rate for an estimated 3,803 transports in the coming
year. The new revenue is estimated using $300.00 as the expected average amount billed
with a 50% collection rate.
Respectfully Submitted:
F Ross Chadwick
Fire Chief
Attachments:
Emergency Ambulance Service Provider Survey
Proposed Ordinance for Emergency, Imbulance Service Pees
k P
! ; w l a
? 5
V Sn~.
x 32 x O
WON-
a
AMOM
Affib" o r
' J: aa.;.,.... ~F•..,: . ::.pro'...... ,w:a'r Ca..rvd. a ~is!Y[rJ r-x, ,rRaa.. n~J^v,ws♦ r s.r', .
SURVEY OF AREA EMERGENCY AMBULANCE PROVIDERS
June, 1998
Agency Resident Non-Resident Mlk•:ge Supplies Non-Transport
Transport Transport 5PerMile Charge? Charge?
f
Colony $230.00 ume none no no
Carrollton $230.00 $310,00 none no no
Flower Mound S1$5AO $210.110 none yes no
LewBvilk $133.00 5300.00 none no 530.00
Dallas $241.00 $341.00 none no no
DFW $230,00 same none no no
Desoto $225.00 same none no $50.00
Euless 523000 5400.00 none no no
Farmers Branch 512340 $200.00 non no no
Garland $230.00 5330.00 yes yes no
Grapevine $200.00 $300.00 no ycs no
Irving $223.00 same no tees no
McKinney 5273.00 $330.00 $400 no no
North Richland
Hills $230.00 5343.00 $100 yo no
Richardson $200.00 $230.00 no yes no
,r
Rowlett $200.00 S300.00 53.00 yes no
i~ Average 11!19.00 $303.00 111 11.!0,00
~ i
L'ITY OF DENTON:
1
Current $200A0 same no yes no
Proposed 5230.00 5300.00 53.00 yts $50.00
I r j I^
S
C
1a
32x~G
1
a r
t
AM"
r 1
C
ru.-r'.„r. f iv..N e...... p.i rca. R~q'mn♦ . r .y.M4'PYi ..ye-.,. , r..,p. r e '
I
ORDINANCE. NO. q
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON. TEXAS, ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE
CHARGED FOR EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICES AND STANDBY EMERGENCY
AMBULANCE SERVICES IN THE CITY AS PROVIDED FOR IN SEC. 27-102 OF
ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 27 "VEHICLES FOR HIRE" OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES
OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT
HEREWITH; ANn PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City of Denton has analyzed and studied its fees for emergency i
ambulance services; and '
WHEREAS, the City of Denton should operate a cost-effective and efficient emergency
medical service; and
WHEREAS, the City of Denton desires to change its Health Care Finance Administration
(HCFA) Method from HCFA Method 43 to HCFA Method 94; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON IIER9~'JY ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. That fees are hereby established for emergency ambulance services in the
City provided pursuant to Sec. 27.102 of the Code of Ordinances as follows:
I. A basic transportation fee of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) will be charged each patie,rl
who is a resident of the City of Denton transported from the scene of an emergency to a City
of Denton or Denton County hospital. In addition, a fee of three dollars (S3,00) per mile
from the incident location to the receiving hospital will be charged.
i,
2, A basic transportation fee of three hundred dollars ($300.00) will be charged each patient
1 who is a non-resident of the City of Denton transported from the scene of an emergency to a
A h City of Denton or Dentin County hospital. In addition, a fee of three dollars ($3.00) per mile
fl . from the incident location to the receiving hospital will be charged.
,
3. Additional fees, i f incurred, :,hall be charged as follows:
1
a. A $25.00 fee for bandaging'splinting,
b. A $25.00 fee for cardiac monitoring.
~s 0 !
I c, A S30.00 fee for cardios ersion.
d. A $50.00 fee for administering Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation (CPR).
i r
:,x ~ 5 < Ia 32Xl~
0
o
e. A $30,00 fee for defibrillation.
h
L A $30.00 fee for diagnostic 12-1ead EKG,
g. A $25.00 fee for patients in excess of 300 pounds,
h. A $10,00 fee for glucometer, blood sugar.
i. A 530.00 fee for pacing, non-invasive.
j. A 525,00 fee for carrying a patient down stairs.
1. Fres for additional supplies, medication and'or disposal goods administered to each
patient will be charged and billed in accordance with the schedule of prices and charges
attached to anri made a part of this ordinance for all purposes as Exhibit "A".
m. A non-transport fee of $50.00, in addition to the costs of the medications and supplies,
will be assessed if medication an&or supplies are used and the patient refuses transport or is
transported by another emergency transport source. Provided, this fee will not be assessed if
the patient is transported by another means than Denton emergency medical services to a
medical provider.
SECT14N_JL That the City shall charge an emergency ambulance standby fee o` sixty
eight dollars ($68.00) per hour with a four (4) hour minimum for the use of any City of Denton
emergency ambulance for standby at special events such as football games, rodeos, concerts, etc.
If any patient is transported, the other fees in the ordinance shall be charged a, incurred.
SECTION III. That a copy of this schedule of fees and the annual medication and
disposal of goods schedule of fees shall be maintained on file in the office of the City Secretary.
SECTION IV. That all ordinance or parts of ordinance in force when the provisions of
this ordinance become effective which are inconsistent or in conflict H nh the terms or provisions
contained in this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent ofany such conflict.
SECTION V. That if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or
%vord in this ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid by
any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not nffect the vaiidit+ of the remaining
portions of this ordinance, the City Council of the City of Denton hereby declares that they
would have enacted such remaining portions despite any such invalidity.
S SLCTION VI. That t' .-Oinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage O
and approval.
Page 2
10 32 x ID
r
p
vim""
.r »r+r:..~. e,..... ,.m.n.«-a.w..a.ywrµs.r,,wwrxHSe.r,+..v...,,n rrxw..r: ~ ..x:•,r .
PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of , 1498.
JACK MILLER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM;
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
BY:
.r
I', ~ 'rrn ra. vnr sn.ert+ncrr uu,wt*,wr.mam~.na w.mtwt.,a ,m'ir.nn 1
i
I
i01 . M1
l
wI
sr
I ;
a
Page `
f
ti
10
0
MOW"*
APPENDIX "A"
nos Em
ACTIDOS E CHARCOAL $13.64
ADENOCARO 6MG $51.00
ALBUTEROL $1.20
AMMONIA CAi°S $1.50
ASPIRIN 81MG 0,75
ATROPINE 1MG 5.25
BENADRYL 50*1 $5. DO
i BRETYLIUM SWIG 7,06
CAPOTEN 25W $1.50
DEXTROSE 50% 25,';M 6.14
DOPAMINE400MG12:10D51N 22.23
EPINEPHRINE 1MG 1.1,000 5,62
EPINEPHRINE 1MG 1:90,000 6.14
LASIX 40MO $4.15
LIDOCAINE 1OW260DI-W 5.54
LIDOCAINE 100MG 511.40
MAZICON O.SMGI2ML 58.06
MORPHINE $360
N.S. IRRIGATION 250ML $5.10
NARCAN 1MG12ML $1685
NITROSPRAY $3,000OSE
NITROUS OXIDE $25.00
NORMAL SALINE IV 1000ML $390
OXYGEN $15.00
SODIUM BICARB "Ea 3,32
TETRACAINE 112% SOL. 5,68
VALIUM 10MG INJ. $1230
PROCEaum Em
U NDAGINOMPLINTINO $ 25.00
CRRDULC MONITORING 525.00
CARDIOVERSION $30.00
1 CPR ADMINISTERED $30 DO
j DEMBRILLATION 530.00
♦ 1 DIAGNOSTIC 12 LEAD EKG $3000
EXCESSIVE VAT. > 30OLOS $25.00,
GLUCOMETER, BLOOD SULAR $10.00
1 PACING, NON4NVASIVE $30.00
PT. rARRIEO DOWN STAIRS $25.00
BODY SUBSTANCE 180LATION
♦ LEVEL 2 PER CAREGIVER $7.50 O ,
r LEVEL 3 PER CAREGVER $1000
T9/
1x10 32x111
ONIM=
•
u
i
- 1
APPENDIX "A"
DISPOSABLE GOODS EEE$ I
AIRWAY, NASAL, ANY SIZE $4.80
AIRWAY, ORAL, ANY SIZE 0.42
AMBU$VM, CAPNO-FLO 537,50
BANDAGE, TRIANGULAR $2.10
Band-AId, ANY SIZE 50,50
BLANKET, YELLOW 8.96
CATHETER, IV BUTTERFLY 1.26
CATHETER, IV INTRAOSS. 21.64
4 CATHETER, IV MEDIPORT $22.50
CERVICAL COLLAR, ANY SIZE 15.86
COLD PACK L68
E.T. TUBE, ANY SIZE 9.24
ELECTRODES, ANY SIZE $2.30
EMISIS BASIN! SAGS $0.75
ENDO•LOCK 16.27
EYE PAD 0.75
EYE SHIELD $2.50
GAUZE, 04, SINGLE 50.50
GAUZE, PETROLEUM 3.18
GAUZE. 4X410 PACK TUB t68
GLOVES, STERILE $2.00
HEAD BED $6.60
HEAD ON BLOCKS 6.46
HOT PACK $1.70
KLING, SOF, STERILE 4' 1.42
OB KIT $12.00
OXYGEN DELIVERY DEVICE S40)
PACING PADS, NON41NVASIVE $61.00
PILLOW, DISPOSABLE 24.07
SHEET, BURN $2 10.54
50
SHEET, DISPOSABLE
SOLUTION SET, IV, MINKORIP 6.18
SOLUTION SET, IV, REGULAR 5.34
'w SPLINT, PADDED, ANY SIZE 10.72
SUC I ION CANISTER, ANY 5.54
• SUCTION DEVICE, ANY $650
SUCTION, V•VAC, CARTRIDGE 17.45 I
SWADDLER, SILVER $11.90
TAPE, ANY APPLICATION 015
VENIGARD $0.80
V
u r
•
'
25 32XID
A '
0
BOARDS/COMMISSION NOMINATIONS Agenda No NOTE: Shading indicates nominations requiring vote Apnnda item . 5 J v
safe--~-~ 1~V.(T!
AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD _
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
7 Terry Garland Terry Garland 1996-98 Mayor
Approved 7/21198
3 Ann Houston Ann Houston 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7/21/98
4 Jar.,es Jamieson 1996-98 Kristoferson
S Jim Risser Ronald Keaton 1996-98 Beasley
A roved 7/21/98
ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
2 Joclla Orr Joella Orr 1996-98 Durance
Approved 7/21/98
5 Mary Bendzick Pkyllts Flat 1996.98 Beasley,
6 Amanda Casey Amanda Casey 1996.98 Butmughs
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
5 Bob Manning Bob Manning 1996-98 Beasley
_ Approved 7/21/98
3 Greg Muinccad (ALT) Grey, Muirhead 1996.98 Cochran
Approved 7/21/98
4 Joe Bendzick (ALT) Joe Bendtlck 1996-98 Kristo&"
2 LanyCollistcr LaryCollister 1996.98 Durrance
A roved 7/21/98
BUILDING CODE BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
3 Bob Hagemann Bob Hagemann 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7/21195
4 Bryon Woods Bryon Woods 1996.98 K tofertbn
S Henry Rife Henry Rife 1996.98 Beasley O
A roved 7/21/98
6 Alan Nelson Alan Nelson 19908 antrotigbt
7 Ken Dobias Ken Dobias 1996.98 Mayor
Approved 7/21/98
t
T' 4
32XID
0
o
CABLE TV ADVISORY BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
1 L, T. Hensley GT. Hensley 1996.98 Young
2 Richard Rodean 1996-98 Durrance
3 Juanita Johnson John Enlow 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7/21/98
4 Julia Klinck Julia Klinck 1996-98 Kristoferson
Approved 7/21/98
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION _
Seat Current Member Nomination Term
C'M Jana Sates Jana Bates 1996-98 City Mngr,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY CO :It•1rn'EE
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
5 Jean Hinojosa Sergio Shearer 1996-98 Beasley
6 Peggy Fox Barbara Sdnnele 199698 Burroughs
7 Jean Ellen Rogers Jean Ellen Rogers 1996-98 Mayor
_ Approved 7!21198
3 Kimberly Franklin Sondra Ferstl 1996-98 Cochran
A roved 7/21!98
5 Ann Hatch Ann Hatch 1996-98 Beasley
Approved 7/21/98
DENfO_N HOUSING AUTHORITY _
Seat Current Member Nomination Tenn
7 Tony Soto Tony Soto 1996-98 Miller
7 Bob Crouch Bob Crouch 1996-98 Miller
A D011 NTOWN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD^
Dist Current Mcmbcr Nomination Tenn Council
3 George Gocn Gcorge Gocn 1996.98 Cochran
A roved7/21/~8
4 Joanna Doonalh Joanna Deana►h 1996.98 Kristofmm
0 S _ Joy Williams Elizabeth Shearer 199698 Beasley a •
kjl~, 6 Michael Monticino ANchael Montidno 199698 Burroughs
7 Bette Sherman Bette Sherman 1996-98 Mayor '
1 Vacant(Resigned) 1997-99 Young
i
r
o
5
I
M1
n ,
1T:i!8p W
i
ELECTRICAL CODE BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
3 John W. Hardinger 1996-98 Cochran
(Master Electrician)
4 Fred Harper 1996.98 Kristoferson
1 Robert L. Hicks 1996-98 Young
S Salty Rishel 1996.98 Beasley
(Nominated for P & Z
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
3 Diane Ricks Diane Ricks 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7/21/98
7 Peggy Norton Peggy Norton 1996-98 Mayor
Approved 7/21198
2 Jim Kirkpatrick Jim Kirkpatrick 1996-98 Durrance
A roved 7/21/98
HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
4 Vacant (Resigned) Lynn Ebersole 1997-98 Kristoferson
Approved 7/21/98
6 _ Fran Moore -71 Fran Moore 1996-99 Btttrottghe
7 Carol Brantley Carol Brantley 1996.98 Mayor
Approved 7/21/98
2 Charles Saunders 1996-98 Durrance
4 Wallace Duvall Wallace Duvall 1996.98 Kristoferson
Approved 7/21/98
KEEP DENTON BEAU'T'IFUL BOARD _
• Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
1 harry Mullen 1996.98 Young 3
2 Sara Saunders 1996.98 Durrance
6 Beth Clark Jean Greenkw 1996-98 Hurioti~tirt.: I
• 7 Vcra Lancy 1996.98 Mayor O •
J Vacant (Resigned) 1996.98 Cochran
4 DccDee Scott DecDee Scott 1996.98 Kristoferson
Approved 7/21/98
I
2.5-10 32XILI
0
LIBRARY BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
7 Teresa Starrett Teresa Starrett 199698 Mayor
Approved 7!21!98
3 # K Kathy Pole p lava Ca"ader 19W98 Cochi°erl
4 Ema Ruth Rrssell 1996-98 Kristoferson
PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
0 Annie Burroughs Dale Yeatts 1996.98 All
A roved 7121!98
0 Martha Garcia Martha Garcia 1996-98 All
Approved 7/21198
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
3 Carol Ann Ganzer SaIV AIshel 1996.98 Cochmn'
S Ellen Hoover Schatz Jbe J4ngelbrecht 199698 Beasley
6 Jim Engelbrecht Carol Ann Gaiter 1996.98 Burrpughs
PLUMBING AND N1F.CIIANICAL CODE BOARD
[list Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
5 Millard Heath 1996-98 Beasley
Mcch, Contractor
6 Lee Capps Lee Capps 199698 Burroughs
1 Jeri Coe Jeri Coe 1996.98 Young
(Master Plumber) t°:...
J
i
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD
* DiFt Currcnt Membcr Nomination Term Council
• 0 George Hopkins George Hopkins 1994.98 All +
Approved 7/21198
- I
SIGN BOARD OF APPEALS
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
1 Slick Smith Slick Smith 1996.98 Young
0 •
3 Bill Allen Darlene Munger 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7121198 1
7 Mike Wicbe Chris King 1996-98 Mayor
A roved 7121/98
i
I
°r ~5 ~ ~ 32XI❑ 1
o„
4 01~• I
r ~ ` 1
I
I
n
YIR/ffAl ' - s
I
,
t
i
I
Ir wn..:,...s<6,~xv)nrr+•v.J~~r~.~nv,.MJOUIS~': ~:r~l¢.tlw ~1MNnV~kVa!'.ru~N+.rosw~. ~ w..•,,.
TAIPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Seat Current Member Nomination Tenn j
0 George Hopkins George Hopkins 1996.98 ALL
i
Approved 7/21/98
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
4 Aa ir~t~y,A r~r, SS"~. r4 F,h 5 ~~-II~I a~e ~ J
' . ~ 11 ~R'i rrm ~ I
J
2 Derek Hartsfield 1996-98 Durrance
3 Art Seely, Jr. Silvia Lesko 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7121/98
I
I
1
Y
I
I
1 I~ r
4 ~In
i • ~ `r
r
1 ~ 1
a J•
4 1
(1 1
4 . .
Y 4 "41" ~I M J,
I, 1
i ~ f d
4• " 4'M
I 1
32 X ! 1,
rl. X ~I e ~NQ 4ir~ii `/,f.4 X13) x
10
NJ i
,
•a.
r
1
e
:nom r...~.v...-. • ,vszw.•v.Y'+rMT Mbetv+.~,.a~•,v'•:.WwY'R6'8&O~JIW$I„IAM6JAIAM'kilr9.KiM~~uMa:~sMMN.~ •iunw, •
A
1
i
ATTACHM NI TO AGENDA MATERIALS FROM MINUTES '
f
THE ATTACHED PAGES ARE A LIST OF THE NOMINATIONS/APPOINTMENTS
MADE TO THE BOARDS/COMMISSIONS BY CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 28, {998
i.
i
f i
• ,ti
1 d i
_ ' _ +'fJ L'~Oi'},~wM1 ` Ii 1 k • a r. "~W ran'.3 Z " I o,
0
BOARDS/COMMISSION NOMINATIONS
AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council '
7 Terry Garland Terry Garland 1996.98 Mayor
Approved 7121/98
3 Ann Houston Ann Houston 1996.98 Cochran
A ro%~A 7/21198 '
004 James Jamieson 1996.98 Kristoferson
5 Jim Risser Ronald Keaton 1996-98 Beasley
Approved 7/21/98
ANIMAL SHELTER ADVISORY BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
2 Joclla Orr Joelis Orr 1996-98 Durrance
Approved 7121198
5 Mary Bendzick Phyllis Flott 1996.98 Beasley
Approved 7/28/98
*'6 Amanda Casey 1996-98 Burroughs
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
5 Bob Manning Bob Manning 1996-99 Beasley
Approved 7/21/98
r 3 Greg Muirlicad (ALT) Greg Muirhead 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7/21/98
4 Joe Hendzick (ALT) Joe Bendzick 1996-98 Krisloferson
Approved 7/28/98
2 Larry Collister Larry Collister 199698 Durrance
Approved 7 21/98
f~rt►
NOTE: Shading indicates nominations requiring vote
0! indicates nomination required
V ~ryz}h,V y: i
2 5 i a 32 X d❑
0
Z
n
BUILDING CODE BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Tent Council
3 Bob Ilagemann Bob 1{aganann 1996-98 Cochran I
AyProved 7121198
4 Bryon Woods Bryon Woods 1996-98 Kristoferson
t Approved 7/28/98
S Henry Rife Henry Rife 1996-98 Beasley
Approved 7/21/98
6 Alan Nelson Alan Nelson 1996-98 Burroughs
Approved 7/21!98
7 Ken Dobias Ken Dobias 1996.98 Mayor
Approved 7/21/98
I
CABLE TV ADVISORY BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Tent Council
1 L. T. Hensley L,T. Hensley 1996-98 Young
_ A roved 7/28/98
"2 Richard Rodcan 1996-S8 Durrance
3 Juanita Johnson John Enlow 1996.98 Cochran
Approved 7/21/98
4 Julia Klinck Julia Klinck 1996.98 Kristoferson
Approved 7121198
i
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Seal Current Member Nomination Term
CM Jana Bates Jana Bates 1996.98 City Mngr.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
S Jean llinojosa Sergio Shearer 1996-98 Beasley
Approved 7/28198
6 Peggy Fox Barbara Stinnett 1996.98 Burroughs
Approved 7/28196
. 7 Jean Ellen Rogers Jean Ellen Rogers 199fr98 Mayor
Approved 7/21/98
y' 3 Kimberly Franklin Sondra Ferstl 1996-98 Cochran
Approved 7/21/98
5 Ann Hatch Ann Hatch 1996-98 Beasley
Approved 7/21/98
I
i
7's x 32XIO
s
0
i
S
1
DENION HOUSING AUTHORITY
Seat Current Member Nomination Term
7 Tony Soto Tony Solo 1996.98 Miller i
7 Bob Crouch Bob Crouch 1996-98 Miller
i i
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Tenn Council
3 George Gocn George Gocn 1996-98 Cochran
A proved 7/21198
4 Joanna Deonath Joanna Deonath 1996-98 Kristorerson
Approved 7128/98
S Joy Williams Elizabeth Shearer 1996-98 Beaslcy
A roved 7128/98
1
6 Michael Monlicino Michael Monticino 1996-98 Burroughs
ADDrovcd 7/28198
7 Bette Sherman Bcllc Sherman 1996-98 Mayor
Approved 7/21/98
1 Vacant (Resigned) Jim Griffin 1997.99 Young
Approved 7/28/98
ELECTRICAL CODE BOARD - li
Dist C'i-, m( Member Nomination Tenn Council
3 Jul,n W. Ilardingcr 1996-98 Cochran
(Master Elecincian)
004 Fred I Iarper 1996-98 Kristorerson
I Robert L. Iticks Raymond Redmon 1996.98 Young
A 3 Salty Rishel Scott Richter 1996-98 Beasle),
HISTORIC LANDMARK COMMISSION
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
3 - Diane Ricks Diane Ricks 1996.98 Cochran
Approved 7121198
7 Peggy Norton Peggy Norton 1996.98 Mayor l
A roved 7/21198
2 Jim Kirkpatrick Jim Kirkpatrick 1996-98 Durrance
A loved 7/21198
I
~~x10 32X10
!
I
0
i
I
i
HUMAN SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
4 Vacant (Resigned) Lynn Ebersole 1997.98 Kristoferson I
A roved 7/21/98
6 Fran Moore Fran Moore 1996.98 Burroughs
Approved 7128/98
7 Carol Brantley Carol Brantley 1996.98 Mayor
Approved 7121198
042 Charles Saunders 1996-98 Durrance
4 Wallace Duvall Wallace Duvall 1996.98 Kristoferson
Approved 7/21/98
KEEP DENTON BEAUTIFUL BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
1 tarry' Mutien Jonatham Williams 1996.98 Young
2 Sara Saunders Lee Hlpple 1996.98 Dummce
6 Be h Clads Jean Grecnlaw 1996-98 Burroughs k
A roved 7/28/98
7 ' Vera Laney Jean Hinojoss 1996.98 Mayot
3 Vacant (Resigned) Julie Schamberg 1996.98 Cochran
4 DeeDee Scott DceDee Scott 1996.98 Kristorerson
-_Approved 7/21198
LIBRARY BOARD _
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
w 7 Teresa Starrett Teresa Starrett 1996-98 Mayor
Approved 7121/98
3 Kathy Pole Eva Cadwallader 1996.98 Cochran
A roved 7/18198
*'4 Ema Ruth kussell 1996-98 Krisloferson I
• PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD 0
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Coumcil
0 Annie Burroughs Dale Yealts 1996.98 All
Approved 7/21198
0 Martha Garcia Martha Garela 1996.98 All
Approved 7/21/98
10 32XI❑
Owl
10%,01-MI ~MNALMNLILMI
0
sew
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
3 Carol Ann Ganzer Salty Rishel 1996.98 Cochran
A roved 7/28/98
5 Ellen Hoover Schertz Jim Engelbrecht 1996-98 Beasley
A roved 7/28/98 k
G Jim Engelbrecht Carol Ann Garver 1996-98 Burroughs
Approved 7/28/98
PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL CODE BOARD
D:st Current Member Nomination Term Council
•05 slillard Heath 1996-98 Beasley
Mcch. Contractor
G Lee Capps Lee Cams 1996-98 BuToughs
Approved 7/28198
I Jeri Coe Jeri Coe 1996.48 Young
(Mader Plumber) Approved 7/28/98
PUBLIC U'11LITIES BOARD
Dist Current Member Nomination Temt Council
0 George Ilopkins George Hopkins 1994.98 All
Approved 7/21/98
SIGN BOARD OF APPEALS
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council
1 Slick Smith Slick Smith 1996-98 Young
Approved 7/28198
3 Bill Allen Darlene Munger 1996-98 Cochran I
• Approved 7/21/98
7 Mike Wicbe C'lvis King 1996.98 Mayor
Approved 7121/98
I
'L MPA BOARD OF DIRECtORS
• Scat _ Current Member _Nomination _Term a •
t7 George Ilopkins u George Hopkins 1996.98 ALL
1 A ruvcd 7121/98
f
25'K ID 32XIO
! 1.
.
:
I
.
SFr r s ,ran...u• ar^aJ w -4 .,'rlM~i•..±.,rk't K'9KY•tpk+t",kt. ^.,n. bcS('444 411T.1RI~d~*3"".+2~1bM A'k}wii+'tlkM W Lw WWI"
'
TIUFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
.I
Dist Current Member Nomination Term Council '
6 Greg Sawko Greg Sawko 1596.98 Burroughs
Approved 7/28/98
1 Fred Hill Fred Hill 199698 Young
A roved 7128/98
•02 Derek Hartsfield 1996-98 Durrance r
3 Art Seely, Jr. Silvia Lesko 1996.98 Cochran
A ro ved 7121198
4 Larry Luce Larry Luce 1996-98 Kristoferson
1
Approved 7/28198 ' .
4.
i f
ilk
i o
,
L~ii~►