Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
February 3, 2009 Agenda
AGENDA CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL February 3, 2009 After determining that a quorum is present, the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas will convene in a Work Session on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 1.Requests for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for February 3, 2009. 2.Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding results of the 2008 City of Denton Citizen Survey. 3.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding proposed amendments applicable to the Rayzor Ranch Overlay District and Rayzor Ranch Special Sign District on approximately 410 acres of land, generally located on both sides of West University Drive (U.S. Highway 380) and being generally located between IH-35 and Bonnie Brae Street. (Z06-0029 andZ06-0030, Rayzor Ranch). 4.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding an amendment of Section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Building Code, 2006 International Residential Code for one and two family dwellings, 2006 International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 International Plumbing Code, and the 2006 International Mechanical Code all published by the International Code Council. 5.Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding an amendment of Section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, as published by the International Code Council. Following the completion of the Work Session, the City Council will convene in a Closed Meeting to consider specific items when these items are listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda. When items for consideration are not listed under the Closed Meeting section of the agenda, the City Council will not conduct a Closed Meeting and will convene at the time listed below for its regular or special called meeting. The City Council reserves the right to adjourn into a Closed Meeting on any item on its Open Meeting agenda consistent with Chapter 551 of the TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, as amended, as set forth below. 1.Closed Meeting: A.Deliberations regarding consultation with the City Attorney – Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071 and Section 551.087 – Deliberations regarding Economic Development Negotiations. 1.Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding legal issues on matters in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with the provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code. Also hold a discussion regarding granting economic development incentives to Allegiance Hill Development, LP with respect to development at Rayzor Ranch. This City of Denton City Council Agenda February 3, 2009 Page 2 discussion shall include commercial or financial information the City Council has received from Allegiance Hill Development, LP which the City Council seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in or near the territory of the city, and with which the city council is conducting economic development negotiations; including the offer of financial or other incentives. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 215 E. McKinney Street, Denton, Texas at which the following items will be considered: 1.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE A. U.S. Flag B. Texas Flag “Honor the Texas Flag – I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.” 2.PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamations/Awards 1. Proclamation for Denton Family United Week. 2. Proclamation for Go Direct/Direct Express Month. 3. Presentation of Fleet Services Award naming them one of the top 100 fleets in North America. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Each of these items is recommended by the Staff and approval thereof will be strictly on the basis of the Staff recommendations. Approval of the Consent Agenda authorizes the City Manager or his designee to implement each item in accordance with the Staff recommendations. The City Council has received background information and has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. Citizens may speak on items listed on the Consent Agenda. A Request to Speak Card should be completed and returned to the City Secretary before Council considers the Consent Agenda. Citizen comments on Consent Agenda items are limited to three minutes. Listed below are bids, purchase orders, contracts, and other items to be approved under the Consent Agenda (Agenda Items A – Q). This listing is provided on the Consent Agenda to allow Council Members to discuss or withdraw an item prior to approval of the Consent Agenda. If no items are pulled, Consent Agenda Items A – Q below will be approved with one motion. If items are pulled for separate discussion, they may be considered as the first items following approval of the Consent Agenda. A. Consider approval of the minutes of: January 6, 2009 January 13, 2009 City of Denton City Council Agenda February 3, 2009 Page 3 B. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, supplementing Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances and enacting a new Section 18-215 titled “Use of Hand Held Mobile Telephones Prohibited in School Zones;” providing for a penalty not to exceed $200; providing for a severability clause; providing for incorporation into the Code of Ordinances; and providing for an effective date. C. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of hot mix asphalt concrete for the City of Denton Street Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4236–Annual Contract for Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item, Jagoe-Public Company, in the estimated cumulative annual amount of $1,750,000). D. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of ready mix concrete and cement products for various City departments; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4242–Annual Contract for Ready Mix Concrete and Cement Products awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each section in the estimated cumulative annual amount of $500,000). E. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Number One to the contract between the City of Denton and J.R. Stelzer Company; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3945–High School Elevated Storage Tank Change Order Number One in the amount of $73,400). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). F. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the financing of fleet vehicles and equipment for the City’s Solid Waste and Wastewater Departments through a lease purchase financing agreement; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 4247–Third Party Lease Purchase of Solid Waste and Wastewater Vehicles and Equipment, approximate finance charges of $257,351.57 for 60 months in the estimated principal sum of $2,369,488 for an estimated total payback amount of $2,626,839.57). G. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order through the Houston- Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), Buy Board Cooperative Purchasing Network for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment for the City of Denton Utility Fund Departments by way of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Denton; and providing an effective date (File 4224–Interlocal Agreement for the purchase of Utility Fund Vehicles and Equipment awarded to multiple vendors as listed on Exhibit A in the amount of $2,416,741.25). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). City of Denton City Council Agenda February 3, 2009 Page 4 H. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of two control buildings for Denton Municipal Electric; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4200–Control Buildings for RD Wells Interchange awarded to Systems Control in the amount of $296,928 and Hickory Substation awarded to Stuart C. Irby Company in the amount of $216,090 for a total award of $513,018). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). I. Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of underground line location services for Denton Municipal Electric; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4178–Underground Line Location awarded to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. in the amount of $265,000). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). J. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Numbers One and Two to the contract between the City of Denton and Chain Electric Company; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4152–138 kV Transmission Line Construction 2009 Change Order Number One in the amount of $88,605 and Change Order Number Two in the amount of $21,000 for a total Change Order amount of $109,605). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). K. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending Section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Building Code, 2006 International Residential Code for one and two family dwellings, 2006 International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 International Plumbing Code, and the 2006 International Mechanical Code all published by the International Code Council; regulating and governing the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings and structures; by providing the standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical things and conditions essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary and fit for occupancy and use; providing for the condemnation of buildings and structures unfit for human occupancy, providing for the regulation and governing of the construction, altering, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment location, removal and demolition of detached one and two family dwellings and multiple single family dwellings not more than three stories in height with separate means of egress; providing the regulation and governing of the design construction, quality of materials, erection, installation, alteration, repairs, location, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance of plumbing and mechanical systems in the city of Denton, Texas; providing for the regulation and governing of fuel gas systems and gas fired appliances; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees thereof; providing for amendments thereto; providing for a penalty for violation of a fine not to exceed $2,000.00; providing for a severability clause; repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith; and providing for an effective date. City of Denton City Council Agenda February 3, 2009 Page 5 L. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending Section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, as published by the International Code Council; providing for amendments thereto; providing for a penalty for violation of a fine not to exceed $2000.00; providing for a severability clause; repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith; and providing for an effective date. M. Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing an agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the University of North Texas for the purpose of hosting the African Cultural Festival; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing for an effective date. ($750) N. Consider approval of a resolution approving a legislative position on Rail North st Texas as a primary legislative item in the 81 Texas Legislature supporting taxes or fees to generate revenue to fund regional rail and supplemental roadway improvements North Central Texas. The Mobility Committee recommends approval (2-0) O. Consider adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to approve change orders in city contracts that are subject to competitive bidding or competitive proposal requirements as specified in the Texas Local Government Code Section 252.048; and providing an effective date. P. Consider adoption of an ordinance ordering an election to be held in the City of Denton, Texas, on May 9, 2009, and if a runoff election is required, on June 13, 2009, for the purpose of electing council members to Places 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas; designating voting places and appointing election officials; providing for bilingual notice of the election; ordering that an electronic voting system be used; making additional provisions for the conduct thereof; providing an open meetings clause; and providing for an effective date. Q. Consider adoption of an ordinance approving an agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District relating to holding their elections jointly on May 9, 2009 in election districts that can be served by common polling places; and providing an effective date. 4.ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. Consider approval of a resolution creating a Charter Review Committee to consider and advise the City Council whether and in what manner to revise City Charter provisions governing mayor and council member terms of service or changes of position during terms of service on the City Council and providing an effective date. B. Consider nominations/appointments to the City’s Boards and Commissions (Historic Landmark Commission, Human Services Advisory Committee and Traffic Safety Commission). City of Denton City Council Agenda February 3, 2009 Page 6 C. Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries from the City Council or the public with specific factual information or recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. D. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. E. Official Action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. C E R T I F I C A T E I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the City Hall of the City of Denton, Texas, on the ________day of ___________________, 2009 at ________o'clock (a.m.) (p.m.) __________________________________________ CITY SECRETARY NOTE: THE CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IS ACCESSIBLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THE CITY WILL PROVIDE SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED IF REQUESTED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE SCHEDULED MEETING. PLEASE CALL THE CITY SECRETARY'S 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY OF DENTON CITIZEN SURVEY Purpose and Objectives The City of Denton conducted a citywide citizen survey from October 15 thru November12, 2008, as administered by the University of North Texas Survey Research Center. The last citywide survey was administered in 2003. The purpose of the 2008 survey is to commence a bi-annual process and to serve as a 1) Tool in setting City Council priorities; 2) Guide for future resource allocation; 3) Benchmark for trend analysis; and 4) Base for citywide Strategic Plan. The citizen survey also set out to accomplish the following objectives: 1) Assess quality of customer service; 2) Assess citizen attitudes on community issues and programs; 3) Identify citizen needs and desires; and 4) Utilize outcomes to improve service delivery. A total of 800 usable telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed. The margin of error is +/- 3.5%.Responses were also collected from an Internet survey. Internet responses were presented where they significantly differed from the telephone interviews. Below is a synopsis of the most favorable and least favorable ratings from the telephone survey, the results of which are detailed in the attached report. Most Favorable Ratings: 88.8% Quality of Life: of respondents rated the quality of life in Denton as excellent or good. 91%25% felt safe and secure living in the City of Denton. of respondents reported the best aspect of living in Denton was its small town/college town atmosphere. City Services: A majority of city services were rated either excellent or good. Public Safety: 97.0%93.4%88.0% Fire , Ambulance , Police Î Community & Neighborhood Services: 96.0%90.0%89.4% Library , Parks , Recreational programs , Recreation centers Î 87.2% 89.4%84.7%85.5%84.2% Water pressure , Water quality , Electric , Sewer , 82.5% Trash and recycling 74.3% Overall Value of City Services: rated the value of city services compared to taxes and fees paid as either excellent or good. Least Favorable Ratings: City Services: Mobility: 65.3% Street Maintenance: rated street maintenance as either fair or poor Î (potholes, rough and uneven roads, the number of roads under construction or 37% being repaired, and the length of time taken to repair or construct roads). reported that road construction/repair was the one thing that would make Denton a better place to live. Ratings of major street surfaces and residential street surfaces had similarly low ratings. 56.8% Efficiency of Travel in Denton: rated efficiency of travel between major Î residential areas and major retail or employment centers in Denton as fair or poor. Construction, traffic and lack of another north-south route through Denton were among the reasons given for a poor rating. Community & Neighborhood Services: 42.2% Code Enforcement: rated code enforcement as either fair or poor. Î Inconsistent enforcement and response time were the primary reasons given for a poor rating. Metroplex Benchmark Comparisons: The University of North Texas also conducted citizen surveys in the Metroplex, Denton County, and Metroplex Suburbs, providing benchmark results to which the City of Denton citizen survey Appendix C results could be equitably compared. Complete details may be found in of the attached report. Below is a table depicting notable excellent/good ratings of city services in the City of Denton, as compared to the Metroplex, Denton County, and Metroplex Suburbs, respectively. City Service City of Denton Metroplex (Neighborhood & Metroplex Denton County Suburbs Community Services) Libraries 96% 88% 86% 95% Parks 90% 79% 83% 90% Recreational Programs 89% 78% 79% 87% Water Pressure 89% 84% 88% 89% Water Quality 85% 79% 79% 80% Recycling Collection 83% 79% 82% 80% Services City Service City of Denton Metroplex Metroplex (Public Safety) Denton County Suburbs Fire 97% 95% 97% 98% Ambulance 93% 91% 94% 96% Police 88% 82% 89% 92% As the tables below illustrate, street maintenance and code enforcement rated lower in all benchmark comparisons. City Service City of Denton Metroplex Metroplex (Mobility) Denton County Suburbs Street Maintenance 35% 58% 65% 71% City Service City of Denton Metroplex (Neighborhood & Metroplex Denton County Suburbs Community Services) Code Enforcement 58% 67% 75% 78% University of North Texas Survey Research Center 2 City of Denton 2008 Citizen Survey Prepared for: City of Denton By: Paul Ruggiere Survey Research Center University of North Texas December 5, 2008 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................... III I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 II. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 2 S ................................................................................................................................... 2 AMPLE I ............................................................................................................................ 2 NSTRUMENT DC ................................................................................................................... 2 ATA OLLECTION ADG ....................................................................................... 3 NALYSIS BY EMOGRAPHIC ROUPS RF ..................................................................................................................... 3 EPORT ORMAT III. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................................................. 4 IV. QUALITY OF LIFE ................................................................................................................ 7 V. CITY SERVICES ..................................................................................................................15 PS .......................................................................................................................33 UBLIC AFETY NSPW .......................................................................40 EIGHBORHOOD ERVICES AND UBLIC ORKS Services Offered to Residences .........................................................................................47 Services Provided to City as a Whole ................................................................................55 M ................................................................................................................................59 OBILITY C ...................................................................................................................78 OMMUNICATIONS CCS ................................................................................................... 105 ONTACT WITH ITY TAFF VI. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................... 121 APPENDIX A: INSTRUMENT ................................................................................................. 123 APPENDIX B: OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES .......................................................................... 137 APPENDIX C: BENCHMARK COMPARISON ......................................................................... 230 University of North Texas Survey Research Center i LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Quality of Life in Denton ............................................................................. 7 Figure 2 Feel Safe and Secure Living in City of Denton .......................................... 33 Figure 3 Ratings of City of Denton Police Visibility .................................................. 35 Figure 4 Pay Electric Bill Directly or as Part of Rent ............................................... 47 Figure 5 Aware of Call-in Service for Curb-Side Collection of Home Chemicals ..... 51 Figure 6 Usage of Recycling Drop-Off Center in the Past 12 Months ..................... 53 Figure 7 Usage of Bicycle as Primary Mode of Transportation ............................... 63 Figure 8 Would Use Bicycle More if There Were More Dedicated Bike Lanes ........ 65 Figure 9 Visited the Denton Airport in Last 12 Months ............................................ 67 Figure 10 Ratings of Denton Airport Facilities ........................................................... 69 Figure 11 Ratings of Denton Airport Services ........................................................... 70 Figure 12 Usage of Connect, Access or Commuter Express Bus Services in Last 12 Months ................................................................................................. 71 Figure 13 Seriously Considered Riding the Bus in Denton ........................................ 73 Figure 14 Have Access to Internet ............................................................................ 78 Figure 15 Usage of Cell Telephone to Access the Internet ....................................... 80 Figure 16 Get Enough Information about City Programs and Services ..................... 82 Figure 17 Visited City of Denton Web Site in Past 12 Months ................................ 101 Figure 18 Would Use Wireless Internet Access at the Library ................................ 103 Figure 19 Contacted City Officials in Past 12 Months ............................................. 105 Figure 20 Reason for Contact with Fire Department ............................................... 112 Figure 21 Fire Department/Ambulance Responded to Call ..................................... 113 Figure 22 Police Department Responded to Call .................................................... 115 Figure 23 Overall Value of City Services Compared to City-Related Taxes and Fees Paid ............................................................................................... 117 Figure 24 Support or Oppose Paying Increased City-Related Taxes or Fees ......... 120 University of North Texas Survey Research Center ii LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Demographics ............................................................................................ 4 Table 2 Quality of Life By Selected Demographics .................................................. 8 Table 3 Best Aspect or Part of Living in City of Denton ........................................... 9 Table 4 Small Town/College Town Atmosphere By Selected Demographics ......... 10 Table 5 Distance from Dallas/Fort Worth By Selected Demographics ................... 11 Table 6 Proximity to Shopping By Selected Demographics ................................... 11 Table 7 Friendly, Nice People By Selected Demographics .................................... 12 Table 8 Recreation By Selected Demographics ..................................................... 12 Table 9 Clean and Attractive By Selected Demographics ...................................... 12 Table 10 Parks By Selected Demographics ............................................................. 13 Table 11 One Thing That Would Make Denton a Better Place to Live ..................... 14 Table 12 Ratings of City Services ............................................................................ 15 Table 13 Ratings of Fire Services By Selected Demographics ................................ 16 Table 14 Ratings of Library Services By Selected Demographics ........................... 16 Table 15 Ratings of Ambulance Services By Selected Demographics .................... 16 Table 16 Ratings of Parks By Selected Demographics ............................................ 17 Table 17 Ratings of Recreational Programs By Selected Demographics ................ 18 Table 18 Ratings of Police Services By Selected Demographics ............................. 18 Table 19 Ratings of Recreation Centers By Selected Demographics ...................... 19 Table 20 Ratings of Electric Services By Selected Demographics ........................... 19 Table 21 Ratings of Water Quality By Selected Demographics ............................... 21 Table 22 Rating of Sewer Service By Selected Demographics ................................ 21 Table 23 Ratings of Trash and Recycling Services By Selected Demographics ...... 22 Table 24 Ratings of Animal Control By Selected Demographics ............................. 23 Table 25 Ratings of Storm Water Drainage By Selected Demographics ................. 23 Table 26 Ratings of Bicycle and Walking Trails By Selected Demographics ........... 24 Table 27 Ratings of Code Enforcement By Selected Demographics ....................... 25 Table 28 Rate Street Maintenance By Selected Demographics ............................... 26 Table 29 Usage of City Services ............................................................................. 27 Table 30 Usage of Parks By Selected Demographics ............................................. 27 Table 31 Usage of Library Services By Selected Demographics ............................. 28 Table 32 Usage of Bicycle and Walking Trails By Selected Demographics ............. 29 University of North Texas Survey Research Center iii Table 33 Usage of Recreation Centers By Selected Demographics ........................ 30 Table 34 Usage of Recreation Programs By Selected Demographics ..................... 30 Table 35 Usage of Police Services By Selected Demographics .............................. 31 Table 36 Usage of Fire Services By Selected Demographics .................................. 32 Table 37 Feel Safe and Secure Living in Denton By Selected Demographics ......... 34 Table 38 Ratings of City of Denton Police Visibility By Selected Demographics ...... 36 Table 39 Ratings of Lighting Quality at Night ........................................................... 37 Table 40 Ratings of Lighting: Major Thoroughfares By Selected Demographics ..... 37 Table 41 Ratings of Lighting: City Parks By Selected Demographics ...................... 38 Table 42 Ratings of Lighting: Streets in Your Neighborhood By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 38 Table 43 Rate Lighting: Trails By Selected Demographics ...................................... 39 Table 44 Ratings of Neighborhood Problems .......................................................... 40 Table 45 Litter in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics ............................. 40 Table 46 High Grass and Weeds in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 41 Table 47 Stray Animals in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics ............... 42 Table 48 Drainage or Flooding Problems in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 43 Table 49 Cars Parked on Yards in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 44 Table 50 Substandard or Deteriorating Housing in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics ............................................................................ 45 Table 51 Junk Vehicles in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics ............... 45 Table 52 Illegal Dumping in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics ............ 46 Table 53 Pay Electric Bill Directly or as Part of Rent By Selected Demographics .... 48 Table 54 Ratings of Denton Municipal Electric ........................................................ 49 Table 55 DME Rates Compared to Other Electric Supply Companies By Selected Demographics ............................................................................ 49 Table 56 DME Reliability of Service Compared to Other Electric Supply Companies By Selected Demographics .................................................... 50 Table 57 Aware of Call-in Service that Arranges for Collection of Home Chemicals By Selected Demographics ..................................................... 52 Table 58 Usage of Recycling Drop-off Center in the Past 12 Months By Selected Demographics ............................................................................ 54 Table 59 Ratings of Maintenance Services .............................................................. 55 Table 60 Ratings of Maintenance of Landscaped Medians on Major Streets By Selected Demographics ............................................................................ 56 University of North Texas Survey Research Center iv Table 61 Ratings of Graffiti Removal By Selected Demographics ........................... 56 Table 62 Ratings of Maintenance of Major Street Surfaces By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 57 Table 63 Ratings of Maintenance of Residential Street Surfaces By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 58 Table 64 Ratings of Street-Related Issues .............................................................. 59 Table 65 Ratings of Street Sign Visibility By Selected Demographics ..................... 59 Table 66 Ratings of Condition of Existing Sidewalks By Selected Demographics .... 60 Table 67 Ratings of Signal Timing on Major City Streets By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 61 Table 68 Ratings of Sidewalk Availability By Selected Demographics ..................... 61 Table 69 Ratings of Efficiency of Travel in Denton By Selected Demographics ....... 62 Table 70 Usage of Bicycle as Primary Mode of Transportation By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 64 Table 71 Would Use Bicycle More if There Were More Dedicated Bike Lanes By Selected Demographics ....................................................................... 66 Table 72 Visited Denton Airport in Last 12 Months By Selected Demographics ...... 68 Table 73 Usage of Connect, Access or Commuter Express Bus Services in Last 12 Months By Selected Demographics ............................................. 72 Table 74 Seriously Considered Riding the Bus By Selected Demographics ............ 74 Table 75 Ratings of Denton Public Transportation System ...................................... 75 Table 76 Ratings of Denton Public Transportation Services in General By Selected Demographics ............................................................................ 75 Table 77 Ratings of Bus Stop Locations By Selected Demographics ...................... 76 Table 78 Ratings of Availability of Information about Routes By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 76 Table 79 Ratings of Condition of Bus Stops By Selected Demographics ................. 77 Table 80 Ratings of Route System Destinations By Selected Demographics .......... 77 Table 81 Have Access to Internet By Selected Demographics ................................ 79 Table 82 Usage of Cell Phone to Access the Internet By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 81 Table 83 Get Enough Information about City Programs and Services By Selected Demographics ............................................................................ 83 Table 84 Sources of Information about the City of Denton ...................................... 84 Table 85 Source of Information: Word of Mouth By Selected Demographics .......... 84 Table 86 Source of Information: Utility Bill Insert By Selected Demographics .......... 85 Table 87 Source of Information: Denton Record Chronicle By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 86 University of North Texas Survey Research Center v Table 88 Source of Information: Direct Mail from the City By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 87 Table 89 Source of Information: City Libraries By Selected Demographics ............. 88 Table 90 Source of Information: City Web Site By Selected Demographics ............ 88 Table 91 Source of Information: Local TV Stations By Selected Demographics ...... 89 Table 92 Source of Information: Newsletters By Selected Demographics ............... 90 Table 93 Source of Information: DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38 By Selected Demographics .......................................................................................... 91 Table 94 Source of Information: City Staff By Selected Demographics ................... 91 Table 95 Source of Information: Radio By Selected Demographics ........................ 92 Table 96 Source of Information: E-Mail By Selected Demographics ........................ 93 Table 97 Source of Information: City Council By Selected Demographics ............... 93 Table 98 Source of Information: Text Message By Selected Demographics ........... 94 Table 99 Preferred Method of Getting Information about the City of Denton ........... 95 Table 100 Willingness to Use Methods When Dealing with the City of Denton .......... 96 Table 101 Willingness to Appear in Person By Selected Demographics ................... 96 Table 102 Willingness to Use On-line Registration By Selected Demographics ........ 97 Table 103 Willingness to Use On-line Bill Pay By Selected Demographics ............... 99 Table 104 Willingness to Use Automated Bill Pay by Phone By Selected Demographics ........................................................................................ 100 Table 105 Visited Denton Web Site in Past 12 Months By Selected Demographics ........................................................................................ 102 Table 106 Would Use Wireless Internet Access at Libraries By Selected Demographics ........................................................................................ 104 Table 107 Contacted City in Past 12 Months By Selected Demographics ............... 106 Table 108 Person or Office Contacted .................................................................... 107 Table 109 Method of Contact .................................................................................. 108 Table 110 Satisfaction with Contact: Time Waited for Response ............................ 109 Table 111 Satisfaction with Contact: Professionalism .............................................. 110 Table 112 Satisfaction with Contact: Ability to Solve Problem or Concern .............. 111 Table 113 Satisfaction with Fire Department Emergency Contact ........................... 112 Table 114 Satisfaction with Fire Department Emergency Response ....................... 113 Table 115 Reason for Contact with Police Department ........................................... 114 Table 116 Satisfaction with Police Department Emergency Contact ........................ 114 Table 117 Satisfaction with Police Department Emergency Response .................... 115 Table 118 Type of Contact with Municipal Court (Internet only) ............................... 116 University of North Texas Survey Research Center vi Table 119 Overall Value of City Services Compared to City-Related Taxes and Fees Paid By Selected Demographics ............................................. 118 Table 120 City Services Would Like to Receive Increased Funding ........................ 119 Table 121 Other City Services Would Like to Receive Increased Funding .............. 119 Table 122 Support or Oppose Increased City-Related Taxes or Fees By Selected Demographics ........................................................................................ 120 University of North Texas Survey Research Center vii I. INTRODUCTION During the months of October and November,2008, a citizen survey was administered to residents of the City of Denton, Texas. The survey measured citizen perceptions regarding several areas of interest: Ratings of the quality of life in Denton; Ratings of city services in several areas: Neighborhood Services and Public Works Î Public safety Î Electricity, Trash, Recycling Î Mobility; and Î Communication with citizens, including contact with City officials. The University of North Texas Survey Research Center conducted the survey in association with the staff of the City of Denton. This survey functions as a benchmark for future surveys. Another benchmark comparison to comparably-sized cities in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex for 21 questions is included in the 2008 report appendix as well as Denton County and Metroplex households. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 1 II. METHODOLOGY Sample The conceptual population for the survey was all residents of the City of Denton who were 18 years of age or older and who reside in households with telephones. SRC worked with Denton GIS staff to determine city council district definitions. SRC used a listed sample of city council districts based on Census blocks. The target area as defined was not comprised of telephone exchanges that were unique to the target area making a Random Digit Dialing survey too inaccurate and inefficient. A listed sample provided greater geographic precision at a lower cost. A list-based sample was developed by selecting telephone numbers from existing directories and lists. SRC used Marketing Systems Group (MSG) GENESYS, an industry leader in telephone survey sampling, for our list-based sampling needs. Databases for listed samples are updated monthly. The primary disadvantage of a list-based sample is that unlisted telephone numbers or new telephone numbers will not be included in the sampling frame. It is expected that as many as one-third of the landline telephones in the city of Denton are unlisted. Generally, unlisted telephone numbers tend to be more common among younger households. Anyone who had lived in Denton for less than six months was also screened from the survey. A total of 800 usable telephone interviews were conducted and analyzed. In a random sample, 800 interviews yield a margin of error of 3.5 percent. This means, for example, confident that the actual proportion of residents in the same question is 3.5 percentage points higher or lower than 40 percent (36.5 percent to 43.5 percent). The margin of error is higher for individual council districts. Instrument SRC and Denton staff began with sample citizen survey questions provided by SRC, listened to staff input and created a draft questionnaire. Several revisions were made based on staff input before the final questionnaire was approved for the telephone and Internet surveys. Additional questions about contact with the Municipal Court were included in the Internet survey. The instrument can be found in Appendix A. Data Collection The survey consisted of two components. The primary component was the telephone survey. Trained telephone interviewers who had previous experience in telephone surveys were used to conduct the survey. Each interviewer completed an intensive general training session. The purposes of general training were to ensure that interviewers understood and practiced all of the basic skills needed to conduct interviews and that they were knowledgeable about standard interviewing conventions. The interviewers also attended a specific training session for the project. The project training session provided information on the background and goals of the study. Interviewers practiced administering the questionnaire to become familiar with the questions. All interviewing for the telephone survey was conducted from a centralized telephone bank in Denton, Texas. An experienced telephone supervisor was on duty at all times to University of North Texas Survey Research Center 2 supervise the administration of the sample, monitor for quality control, and handle any other problems. Data for the telephone survey were collected from October 15 to November 6, 2008. Fifty-one interviews were conducted in Spanish. The second component of the citizen survey was the Internet survey. Residents who wanted to participate in the Internet survey were invited using several methods. Several advertisements were printed in the Denton Record Chronicle. invited any visitor to participate in the survey. Several other promotional methods were used. Since the Web data were collected using an open invitation, they are not directly comparable to the telephone data which were collected using an active solicitation. However, these data are presented in the report as a cross-tabulation variable as described in the next section. Analysis by Demographic Groups Each question in the survey was cross-tabulated with the following 12 demographic categories: Years of education Own or rent home Age of respondent Employment status Gender of respondent Have children Length of residence Race/ethnicity Household income Language of interview City Council District Telephone or Internet survey Whenever the responses to a single question are divided by demographic groups, the percentage distribution of responses within one group will rarely exactly match the percentage distribution of another group; there will often be some variation between groups. The most important consideration in interpreting these differences is to determine if the differences in the sample are representative of differences between the same groups within the general population. This consideration can be fulfilled with a test of statistical significance. The Survey Research Center only reports those differences between groups that are found to be statistically significant. Internet data is presented only in these tables when statistically significant differences exist between the telephone data and the Internet data. Otherwise, the Internet data are not combined with the telephone data. Report Format The remainder of the report is arranged in four sections beginning with Section III. where it is otherwise noted. regarding the quality of life in Denton regarding services received including public safety, neighborhood services and public works, mobility, communications, and contact with city officials. Section VI is the report Conclusions. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 3 III. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS Table 1 Demographics Demographics Percentage Telephone Internet 1 (n=800) (n=254) 2 *** Length of residence 4.1 7.5 6 to 12 months 21.5 26.0 1 to 5 years 16.2 15.4 6 to 10 years 58.2 51.2 More than 10 years *** Age of respondent 4.7 6.2 18 to 25 10.6 21.5 26 to 35 12.4 31.1 36 to 45 24.9 29.7 46 to 60 23.3 10.0 61 to 70 24.2 1.4 71 or older Ethnicity Caucasian 78.9 84.3 African-American 6.7 2.9 Hispanic or Latino 10.5 8.3 Asian 2.0 1.0 Other 1.8 3.4 *** Gender of respondent 64.6 48.0 Female 35.4 52.0 Male *** Language of interview 93.6 99.2 English 6.4 0.8 Spanish All findings are based on the telephone interviews unless otherwise noted. As shown in Table 1, 58.2 percent of the respondents reported living in Denton for more than 10 years. Seventy-two percent of the respondents were 46 years of age or older. Nearly half (47.5 percent) were 61 years of age or older. Seventy-nine percent of the sample was Caucasian. Asian and Other ethnic group respondents -tabulations. Sixty-five percent of the respondents was female. A very large majority (93.6 percent) of respondents completed the interview in English. 1 The number of respondents whose computer IP address was collected by the Internet survey was 438. Once data was removed for cases with no answers (169) and cases of respondents who had lived in Denton for less than 6 months (8) or did not live in Denton (7), the number of cases had diminished to 254. However, the number of respondents actually completing all questions on the questionnaire was 201. *** The difference between the telephone and Internet surveys was statistically significant at the p<.001 level. 2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 4 Demographics Percentage Telephone Internet (n=800) (n=254) *** Education 4.3 1.0 Less than high school 3.6 0.0 Some high school 15.7 8.1 High school graduate 26.7 32.4 Some college 25.8 36.7 College graduate 23.9 21.9 Grad school/degree *** Employment status 33.7 70.0 Full-time 8.0 4.8 Part-time 40.1 11.0 Retired 3.5 4.8 Student 9.7 5.2 Homemaker 1.5 1.9 Disabled 3.4 2.4 Unemployed *** Income (n=709, 200) 6.8 1.5 Under $10,000 17.0 8.5 $10,001 to $25,000 26.4 18.5 $25,001 to $50,000 19.5 30.0 $50,001 to $75,000 14.3 17.5 $75,001 to $100,000 8.7 12.5 $100,001 to $125,000 2.8 4.0 $125,001 to $150,000 4.5 7.5 More than $150,000 Ninety-two percent of the sample had educational experience past high school. Fifty . The first three categories were combined (high school graduate or less) in cross-tabulations appearing later in this report. Forty-two percent were employed either full-time (33.7 percent) or part-time (8.0 percent). Forty percent were retired. Student, homemaker, disabled and unemployed respondents were combined to run cross-tabulations. Forty-six percent of the respondents earned between $25,000 and $75,000 per year. Nearly one-quarter (23.8 percent) earned less than $25,000 per year. Respondents with income over $100,000 per year were combined in cross-tabulations. Generally, the Internet sample tended to live in Denton for a shorter period of time than the telephone sample. The Internet sample was also younger, more likely to be male, educated, employed full-time, earning a higher income and more likely to have children. These differences should be considered when analyzing the results of the survey. *** The difference between the telephone and Internet surveys was statistically significant at the p<.001 level. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 5 Demographics Percentage Telephone Internet (n=800) (n=254) Own or rent home Own 75.5 80.4 Rent 24.5 19.6 *** Have children under 18 in household 26.5 38.8 Yes 73.5 61.2 No Have children less than 6 years old Yes 47.2 54.4 No 52.8 45.6 Have children 6 to 12 years old Yes 58.5 58.5 No 41.5 41.5 Have children 13 to 17 years old Yes 41.5 44.5 No 58.5 55.4 * City Council District (n=800, 201) 25.0 13.9 District 1 25.0 30.3 District 2 25.0 25.9 District 3 25.0 29.9 District 4 Three-quarters (75.5 percent) of the respondents owned their homes. Approximately one-quarter (26.5 percent) of the respondents reported having children under 18 living in their household. Respondents with children were more likely to have children age 6 to 12 (58.5 percent) than children less than 6 years old (47.2 percent) or children age 13 to17 years of age. Two hundred respondents (25.0 percent) from each City Council District were interviewed. *** The difference between the telephone and Internet surveys was statistically significant at the p<.001 level. * The difference between the telephone and Internet surveys was statistically significant at the p<.05 level. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 6 IV. QUALITY OF LIFE Figure 1 Quality of Life in Denton (n=798) 100% 80% 59.8% 60% 40% 29.0% 20% 9.9% 1.4% 0% ExcellentGoodFairPoor Respondents were asked to describe the quality of life in Denton. As shown in Figure 1, 88.8 percent of the respondents reported that the quality of life in Denton was either excellent (29.0 percent) or good (59.8 percent). One percent of respondents indicated that the quality of life in Denton was poor. The comments regarding why they rated the city as poor were varied. The most common answers mentioned streets, the city council, and law enforcement. A complete list of these rating-ended comments can be found in Appendix B. There were statistically significant differences among demographic groups for this question. As shown in Table 2, the percentage of respondents who rated the quality of life in Denton as either excellent or good was higher among Caucasian respondents, retired respondents, homeowners, and telephone survey respondents, and was lower among respondents with a high school diploma or less. Data from the Internet survey is shown in this report only if it is statistically different from the telephone survey. Open-ends from the Internet survey are presented in Appendix B. A benchmark comparison of this and other questions in this report to Metroplex, Denton County, and Metroplex Suburb respondents can be found in Appendix C. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 7 Table 2 Quality of Life By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 31.8 60.2 6.7 1.3 African-American 9.3 59.3 25.9 5.6 Hispanic or Latino 22.0 67.1 11.0 0.0 Other 26.7 36.7 36.7 0.0 Education High school grad or less 19.1 62.8 13.8 4.3 Some college 27.4 63.7 8.5 0.5 College grad 27.0 63.2 9.8 0.0 Grad school/grad degree 42.9 48.7 7.4 1.1 Employment status Employed 31.3 56.6 10.5 1.5 Retired 30.9 60.3 8.4 0.3 Unemployed/other 18.9 66.4 11.2 3.5 Own or rent home Own 31.7 58.9 8.5 0.8 Rent 20.9 63.8 13.3 2.0 Survey Telephone 29.0 59.8 9.9 1.4 Internet 15.1 67.2 13.9 3.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 8 Table 3 1 Best Aspect or Part of Living in City of Denton (n=800) Percentage responding Small town/college town atmosphere 24.6 Distance from Dallas/Fort Worth 11.3 Quality of schools 10.9 Proximity to shopping 6.8 Friendly, nice people 6.4 Safe place to live 5.1 The universities 4.8 Quiet, tranquil place 3.4 Easy to get around Denton/proximity/location 3.4 Recreation 3.3 Clean and attractive 2.9 Parks 2.9 Family 2.8 Quality of housing 2.3 Proximity to medical facilities/doctors 2.3 City services 2.3 Opportunities/social activities 1.9 Variety of businesses 1.8 The arts 1.6 The weather 1.3 Jobs 1.0 Selection of housing 0.9 Distance to lake 0.9 Diversity of people 0.9 Libraries 0.9 Transportation 0.8 Cost of living 0.8 Less traffic 0.8 Church 0.5 Proximity to DFW Airport 0.5 Other 1.0 Respondents were asked what was the best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton. This was an open-ended question that allowed the respondent to express their thoughts. As shown in Table 3, 24.6 percent reported the best aspect of living in Denton was its small town/college atmosphere. The top four answers of those suggested in the questionnaire were distance from Dallas/Fort Worth (11.3 percent), quality of schools (10.9 percent), proximity to shopping (6.8 percent), and a safe place to live (5.1 percent). A list of the comments can be found in Appendix B. 1 Respondents could select more than one answer so percentages will not add to 100.0 percent. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 9 Small town/college town atmosphere One quarter (24.6 percent) of respondents reported that the best aspect of living in Denton was its small town/college town atmosphere. small town/college town atmosphere increased as length of residence in Denton, education and income increased, varied with the age of the respondent and employment status, and was higher among respondents completing the interview in English and homeowners. Table 4 Small Town/College Town Atmosphere By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 6.3 93.7 1 to 5 years 14.5 85.5 5 to 10 years 24.4 75.6 More than 10 years 29.7 70.3 Age 18 to 25 24.3 75.7 26 to 35 17.6 82.4 36 to 45 28.3 71.7 46 to 60 31.3 68.7 61 to 70 29.1 70.9 71 and over 15.5 84.5 Language of interview English 25.7 74.3 Spanish 9.6 90.4 Education High school grad or less 16.9 83.1 Some college 20.8 79.2 College grad 29.9 70.1 Grad school/grad degree 31.7 68.3 Employment status Employed 30.0 70.0 Retired 20.3 79.7 Unemployed/other 22.2 77.8 Household income Under $10,000 10.4 89.6 $10,001 to $25,000 18.2 81.8 $25,001 to $50,000 21.8 78.2 $50,001 to $75,000 24.8 75.2 $75,001 to $100,000 35.6 64.4 Over $100,000 36.8 63.2 Own or rent home Own 28.6 71.4 Rent 14.2 85.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 10 Distance from Dallas/Fort Worth As shown in Table 5, the percentage of respondents who reported that the distance from Dallas/Fort Worth was the best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton was greater among Caucasian respondents, respondents conducting the interview in English, and homeowners. Table 5 Distance from Dallas/Fort Worth By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Ethnicity Caucasian 13.0 87.0 African-American 7.4 92.6 Hispanic or Latino 1.2 98.8 Other 3.3 96.7 Language of interview English 12.0 88.0 Spanish 0.0 100.0 Own or rent home Own 12.5 87.5 Rent 5.6 94.4 Proximity to shopping As shown in Table 6, the percentage of respondents who reported that the proximity to shopping was the best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton was higher among respondents conducting the interview in English. Table 6 Proximity to Shopping By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Language of interview English 7.2 92.8 Spanish 0.0 100.0 Friendly, nice people As shown in Table 7, the percentage of respondents who reported that friendly, nice people was the best aspect about living in Denton varied with the age of the respondent and employment status, and was higher among respondents without children under 18 living in the household. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 11 Table 7 Friendly, Nice People By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 5.4 94.6 26 to 35 4.7 95.3 36 to 45 2.0 98.0 46 to 60 3.5 96.5 61 to 70 8.2 91.8 71 and over 10.9 89.1 Employment status Employed 3.6 96.4 Retired 9.7 90.3 Unemployed/other 5.6 94.4 Have children under 18 in household Yes 3.3 96.7 No 7.5 92.5 Recreation As shown in Table 8, the percentage of respondents who reported that recreation was the best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton varied by education. Table 8 Recreation By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Education High school grad or less 1.6 98.4 Some college 7.5 92.5 College grad 2.5 97.5 Grad school/grad degree 1.1 98.9 Clean and attractive As shown in Table 9, the percentage of respondents who reported that being clean and attractive was the best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton was greater among respondents conducting the interview in Spanish, and respondents who were unemployed/other. Table 9 Clean and Attractive By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Language of interview English 2.5 97.5 Spanish 7.7 92.3 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 12 Percentage responding Yes No Employment status Employed 0.9 99.1 Retired 4.1 95.9 Unemployed/other 4.9 95.1 Parks As shown in Table 10, the percentage of respondents who reported that parks were the best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton was greater among respondents age 36 to 45, and respondents with children under 18 living in the household. Table 10 Parks By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 2.7 97.3 26 to 35 4.7 95.3 36 to 45 9.1 90.9 46 to 60 2.5 97.5 61 to 70 1.1 98.9 71 and over 1.0 99.0 Have children under 18 in household Yes 5.2 94.8 No 2.0 98.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 13 Table 11 One Thing That Would Make Denton a Better Place to Live Telephone (n=730) Road construction/repair 37.4 No changes or improvements needed 7.7 Economic development 7.7 Other street/traffic/infrastructure issues 6.8 Lower taxes 5.8 City management 3.8 Parks/recreation/activities 3.0 City Council 2.9 Public transportation 2.9 Police 2.9 Schools 2.6 Non-city services 2.2 More job opportunities 2.1 Code enforcement 1.9 Planning and zoning 1.9 Utilities water and electric 1.8 Trash/recycling 1.6 Housing 1.4 Other city services 1.4 Clear air and water 0.7 Alternative energy 0.5 Other 1.1 All respondents were asked what one thing would make Denton a better place to live. As shown in Table 11, 37.4 percent of the respondents who gave a response wanted road construction or repairs. This was followed by no changes or improvements needed (7.7 percent), economic development (7.7 percent), other street/traffic/infrastructure issues (6.8 percent) and lower taxes (5.8 percent). Less than 4 percent reported some other improvement. A complete list of comments can be found in Appendix B. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 14 V. CITY SERVICES Table 12 Ratings of City Services Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Fire (n=720) 47.6 49.4 2.5 0.5 Library (n=724) 48.9 47.1 3.4 0.6 Ambulance (n=620) 39.2 54.2 5.4 1.3 Parks (n=758) 35.4 54.6 8.9 1.2 Recreational programs (n=689) 28.4 61.0 9.4 1.3 Water pressure (n=787) 26.8 62.6 8.2 2.5 Police (n=755) 34.2 53.8 8.5 3.5 Recreation centers (n=675) 30.3 56.9 10.5 2.2 Electric services (n=780) 26.1 59.4 9.3 5.2 Water quality (n=789) 26.1 58.6 11.2 4.1 Sewer (n=749) 18.8 65.4 12.6 3.2 Trash and recycling services (n=782) 31.3 51.2 12.3 5.3 Animal control (n=712) 17.0 57.8 17.6 7.6 Storm water drainage (n=759) 11.6 52.6 26.9 8.9 Bicycle and walking trails (n=698) 14.3 46.9 25.0 13.9 Code enforcement (n=648) 8.7 49.1 27.5 14.7 Street maintenance (n=795) 5.4 29.3 37.1 28.2 Respondents were read a list of city services and asked to rate the service as excellent, good, fair or poor. The services are presented in descending order of the combined excellent/good rating (see Table 12). Resp questions were under each service in this section but listed in full in Appendix B. Fire Fire services were rated either excellent (47.6 percent) or good (49.4 percent) by 97.0 percent of the respondents (see Table 12). Respondents who used Denton fire services (64.8 percent) were more likely than those who did not use those services (45.4 percent) to rate fire services as excellent (see Table 13). response time. One respondent mentioned a hiring issue. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 15 Table 13 Ratings of Fire Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Used fire services Yes 64.8 31.0 4.2 0.0 No 45.4 51.9 2.2 0.6 Library Library services were rated either excellent (48.9 percent) or good (47.1 percent) by 96.0 percent of the respondents. As shown in Table 14, 56.8 percent of respondents who used the library and 26.2 percent of those who did not rated library services as excellent. Telephone survey respondents were more likely than Internet survey respondents to rate library services as either excellent or good. Respondents who rated library services as poor mentioned the variety of materials, a library fine, and evening hours of service. Table 14 Ratings of Library Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Used library Yes 56.8 39.4 3.4 0.4 No 26.2 69.2 3.6 1.0 Survey Telephone 48.9 47.1 3.4 0.6 Internet 44.6 44.1 9.5 1.8 Ambulance Ninety-three percent of the respondents rated ambulance services either excellent (39.2 percent) or good (54.2 percent). Respondents who used ambulance services (60.0 percent) were more likely than those who did not (35.2 percent) to rate ambulance services as excellent (see Table 15). Respondents who rated ambulance services poorly mentioned the cost, response time, and getting the appropriate care. Table 15 Ratings of Ambulance Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Used ambulance services Yes 60.0 34.7 5.3 0.0 No 35.2 57.8 5.5 1.5 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 16 Parks Parks were rated either excellent (35.4 percent) or good (54.6 percent) by 90.0 percent of the respondents. As shown in Table 16, the percentage of respondents who rated parks either excellent or good were higher among respondents who completed the interview in English, used the parks in the past 12 months, and lived in District 3. The percentage increased as education increased. Telephone survey respondents were more likely than Internet survey respondents to rate parks as either excellent or good. Respondents who rated parks as poor mentioned maintenance, lighting, the number of parks, and attractiveness. Table 16 Ratings of Parks By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Language of interview English 35.5 54.6 9.2 0.7 Spanish 31.4 54.9 5.9 7.8 Education High school grad or less 28.6 58.3 9.7 3.4 Some college 43.2 46.7 10.1 0.0 College grad 33.2 58.2 8.2 0.5 Grad school/grad degree 36.3 55.5 7.7 0.5 City Council District District 1 24.4 59.1 14.5 2.1 District 2 37.0 55.7 6.3 1.0 District 3 39.7 55.0 4.2 1.1 District 4 40.2 48.4 10.9 0.5 Used parks in past 12 months Yes 39.7 51.5 7.6 1.1 No 23.4 62.4 12.7 1.5 Survey Telephone 35.4 54.6 8.9 1.2 Internet 29.4 53.8 14.5 2.3 Recreational programs Eighty-nine percent of the respondents rated recreational programs as either excellent (28.4 percent) or good (61.0 percent). As shown in Table 17, excellent/good ratings of recreational programs were higher among respondents who used the programs (92.2 percent) compared to respondents who did not use the recreational programs (87.2 percent). Telephone survey respondents were more likely than Internet survey respondents to rate recreational programs as either excellent or good. Respondents who rated recreational programs poorly mentioned a wider selection of programs, programs for young people, lack of advertising, and programs for the disabled. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 17 Table 17 Ratings of Recreational Programs By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Used recreational programs Yes 38.2 54.0 7.0 0.7 No 21.4 65.8 11.1 1.7 Survey Telephone 28.4 61.0 9.4 1.3 Internet 22.2 55.1 19.4 3.2 Water pressure Eighty-nine percent of the respondents rated water pressure as either excellent (26.8 percent) or good (62.6 percent). There were no significant differences among demographic groups for this question. Police Police services were rated either excellent (34.2 percent) or good (53.8 percent) by 88.0 percent of the respondents. As shown in Table 18, the percentage of respondents who rated police services as either excellent or good increased with education and household income, and were higher among homeowners and respondents who had not used police services. The most common reasons for rating police services as poor were response time and officer attitude. Table 18 Ratings of Police Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Education High school grad or less 27.1 53.0 11.6 8.3 Some college 35.0 52.8 10.7 1.5 College grad 32.8 57.1 6.3 3.7 Grad school/grad degree 40.1 52.7 6.0 1.1 Household income Under $10,000 29.2 43.8 8.3 18.8 $10,001 to $25,000 40.7 46.6 11.0 1.7 $25,001 to $50,000 28.8 57.1 10.9 3.3 $50,001 to $75,000 26.2 63.8 7.7 2.3 $75,001 to $100,000 37.0 55.4 5.4 2.2 Over $100,000 41.3 50.0 5.8 2.9 Own or rent home Own 32.4 56.8 8.3 2.5 Rent 37.6 46.6 9.5 6.3 Used police services Yes 36.6 49.7 9.3 4.3 No 33.1 55.1 8.4 3.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 18 Recreation centers Eighty-seven percent of the respondents rated recreation centers as either excellent (30.3 percent) or good (56.9 percent). Respondents who used recreation centers were more likely than those who did not to rate them as excellent (see Table 19). Telephone survey respondents were more likely than Internet survey respondents to rate recreation centers as either excellent or good. Respondents who rated the recreation centers as poor mentioned that there needed to be more of them or they needed to be expanded. Two comments mentioned activities for senior citizens. Table 19 Ratings of Recreation Centers By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Used recreation centers Yes 39.3 49.1 9.8 1.8 No 21.9 64.3 11.2 2.6 Survey Telephone 30.3 56.9 10.5 2.2 Internet 20.4 53.7 22.2 3.7 Electric services Eighty-six percent of the respondents rated electric services as either excellent (26.1 percent) or good (59.4 percent). As shown in Table 20, the percentage of respondents who rated electric services as either excellent or good increased as the age of the respondent, education and household income increased, and were higher among Caucasian respondents, retired respondents, and homeowners. The percentage was lower among respondents living in City Council District 1 and Internet survey respondents. Service rates and customer service were the main reasons given for poor ratings of electric services. Table 20 Ratings of Electric Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Age 18 to 25 5.6 66.7 11.1 16.7 26 to 35 24.7 56.5 12.9 5.9 36 to 45 21.1 58.9 11.6 8.4 46 to 60 26.0 57.1 11.7 5.1 61 to 70 31.4 59.3 5.8 3.5 71 and over 27.9 62.1 6.8 3.2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 19 Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 27.8 60.8 7.9 3.5 African-American 9.3 53.7 22.2 14.8 Hispanic or Latino 24.1 60.2 7.2 8.4 Other 30.0 40.0 20.0 10.0 Education High school grad or less 19.3 60.4 11.8 8.6 Some college 24.3 59.2 10.2 6.3 College grad 27.1 62.3 7.5 3.0 Grad school/grad degree 33.5 55.5 7.7 3.3 Employment status Employed 24.8 59.9 9.8 5.5 Retired 29.7 60.0 6.5 3.9 Unemployed/other 21.4 56.4 14.3 7.9 Household income Under $10,000 17.4 58.7 6.5 17.4 $10,001 to $25,000 28.3 53.3 10.8 7.5 $25,001 to $50,000 21.1 62.7 10.3 5.9 $50,001 to $75,000 19.3 68.1 10.4 2.2 $75,001 to $100,000 42.1 47.4 8.4 2.1 Over $100,000 31.5 55.9 9.0 3.6 Own or rent home Own 28.3 59.4 8.6 3.7 Rent 20.0 59.0 10.8 10.2 City Council District District 1 18.1 60.8 15.1 6.0 District 2 27.2 61.0 7.2 4.6 District 3 27.6 59.3 6.0 7.0 District 4 31.6 56.1 9.1 3.2 Survey Telephone 26.1 59.4 9.3 5.2 Internet 24.4 54.4 16.6 4.6 Water quality Water quality was rated as either excellent (26.1 percent) or good (58.6 percent) by 84.7 percent of the respondents. The percentage of respondents who rated water quality as either excellent or good generally increased as the age of the respondent increased, and was lower among African-American respondents (see Table 21). Respondents rating water quality poorly mentioned the taste and smell of their water. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 20 Table 21 Ratings of Water Quality By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Age 18 to 25 13.5 64.9 10.8 10.8 26 to 35 23.5 56.5 18.8 1.2 36 to 45 23.5 50.0 15.3 11.2 46 to 60 24.0 59.7 14.3 2.0 61 to 70 24.7 62.4 9.0 3.9 71 and over 33.3 58.2 5.8 2.6 Ethnicity Caucasian 26.9 59.7 9.7 3.6 African-American 11.1 57.4 20.4 11.1 Hispanic or Latino 26.2 56.0 14.3 3.6 Other 31.0 44.8 20.7 3.4 Sewer Eighty-four percent of the respondents rated sewer service as either excellent (18.8 percent) or good (65.4 percent). As shown in Table 22, the percentage of respondents who rated sewer service as either excellent or good generally increased as education and household income increased, and was lower among African-American respondents and renters. The respondents who rated sewer service as poor mentioned that the sewer backed up, smelled, drained slowly, and needed maintenance. Table 22 Rating of Sewer Service By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 19.8 67.1 11.6 1.6 African-American 7.8 56.9 21.6 13.7 Hispanic or Latino 17.7 63.3 12.7 6.3 Other 17.2 55.2 17.2 10.3 Education High school grad or less 14.0 66.5 12.8 6.7 Some college 14.6 70.8 12.5 2.1 College grad 21.6 64.7 11.6 2.1 Grad school/grad degree 24.7 59.3 14.3 1.6 Household income Under $10,000 8.9 62.2 20.0 8.9 $10,001 to $25,000 13.3 61.1 20.4 5.3 $25,001 to $50,000 20.8 64.6 11.2 3.4 $50,001 to $75,000 15.2 68.2 13.6 3.0 $75,001 to $100,000 22.9 66.7 9.4 1.0 Over $100,000 26.0 63.5 10.6 0.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 21 Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Own or rent home Own 19.4 67.0 11.1 2.5 Rent 16.4 60.5 18.1 5.1 Trash and recycling services Eighty-three percent of the respondents rated trash and recycling services as either excellent (31.3 percent) or good (51.2 percent). Excellent/good ratings of trash and recycling programs were higher among Hispanic respondents, homeowners, respondents living in City Council District 4 and telephone survey respondents (see Table 23). Respondents who rated the trash and recycling services poorly mentioned reduced pick up days, missed pickups, not picking up all of the trash left out for pickup, and paying for recycling when the respondent does not recycle. Table 23 Ratings of Trash and Recycling Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 32.8 51.6 10.6 5.0 African-American 18.9 47.2 28.3 5.7 Hispanic or Latino 30.5 54.9 11.0 3.7 Other 10.0 53.3 23.3 13.3 Own or rent home Own 33.0 50.6 12.1 4.3 Rent 24.6 54.1 13.1 8.2 City Council District District 1 18.3 57.1 15.7 8.9 District 2 34.5 49.2 10.2 6.1 District 3 32.0 50.0 14.9 3.1 District 4 38.7 49.2 9.0 3.0 Survey Telephone 31.3 51.2 12.3 5.3 Internet 31.5 44.6 13.1 10.8 Animal Control Three-quarters (74.8 percent) of the respondents rated animal control services as either excellent (17.0 percent) or good (57.8 percent). As shown in Table 24, the excellent/good ratings of animal control services were higher among Caucasian respondents, respondents with a college degree, and respondents with a household income of $75,001 to $100,000 annually, and were lower among respondents living in City Council District 1. Respondents rating animal control services as poor mentioned the number of dogs, cats, raccoons and other animals that run wild, response time, and the need for a new facility. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 22 Table 24 Ratings of Animal Control By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 16.2 60.1 17.6 6.2 African-American 6.4 53.2 23.4 17.0 Hispanic or Latino 25.6 50.0 14.1 10.3 Other 12.0 48.0 24.0 16.0 Education High school grad or less 17.9 54.3 14.5 13.3 Some college 12.9 61.9 18.6 6.7 College grad 13.7 62.9 18.3 5.1 Grad school/grad degree 23.0 51.5 19.4 6.1 Household income Under $10,000 12.2 63.4 4.9 19.5 $10,001 to $25,000 19.1 51.8 20.0 9.1 $25,001 to $50,000 15.0 59.5 17.9 7.5 $50,001 to $75,000 9.8 66.4 19.7 4.1 $75,001 to $100,000 20.9 59.3 17.6 2.2 Over $100,000 22.4 51.0 18.4 8.2 City Council District District 1 12.7 55.8 18.2 13.3 District 2 23.0 56.2 15.2 5.6 District 3 15.1 59.8 17.3 7.8 District 4 16.1 59.8 20.1 4.0 Storm water drainage Storm water drainage was rated excellent (11.6 percent) or good (52.6 percent) by 64.2 percent of the respondents. The percentage of respondents who rated storm water drainage as either excellent or good decreased as length of residence increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents, respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, respondents who lived in City Council District 4 and telephone survey respondents (see Table 25). Flooding was the most common reason given by respondents who rated storm water drainage as poor. Table 25 Ratings of Storm Water Drainage By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 14.8 55.6 22.2 7.4 1 to 5 years 17.5 53.8 24.4 4.4 5 to 10 years 12.1 56.5 20.2 11.3 More than 10 years 9.2 51.0 30.0 9.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 23 Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 11.7 52.8 27.3 8.2 African-American 2.0 43.1 33.3 21.6 Hispanic or Latino 16.7 65.2 15.2 3.0 Other 16.7 40.0 30.0 13.3 Language of interview English 11.4 51.3 28.0 9.2 Spanish 15.2 81.8 3.0 0.0 City Council District District 1 9.8 51.4 27.3 11.5 District 2 9.8 51.8 28.5 9.8 District 3 7.9 52.9 31.9 7.3 District 4 18.8 54.5 19.9 6.8 Survey Telephone 11.6 52.6 26.9 8.9 Internet 3.6 48.0 34.4 14.0 Bicycle and walking trails Sixty-one percent of the respondents rated bicycle and walking trails as either excellent (14.3 percent) or good (46.9 percent). The percentage of respondents who rated bicycle and walking trails as either excellent or good was higher among respondents living in Denton for 1 to 5 years, respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, respondents living in City Council District 2 and respondents who use the bicycle and walking trails (see Table 26). The percentage decreased as education and household income increased. Poor ratings for bicycle and walking trails centered around the lack of these trails. Several respondents reported that there were not any trails in Denton. Others indicated that the trails were unsafe for a variety of reasons. Table 26 Ratings of Bicycle and Walking Trails By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 27.6 34.5 27.6 10.3 1 to 5 years 15.9 57.2 13.8 13.0 5 to 10 years 13.9 48.7 21.7 15.7 More than 10 years 12.8 43.6 29.6 14.0 Language of interview English 14.1 45.7 26.6 13.6 Spanish 16.0 60.0 6.0 18.0 Education High school grad or less 13.1 57.7 18.5 10.7 Some college 16.2 48.6 25.1 10.1 College grad 15.6 42.8 25.6 16.1 Grad school/grad degree 12.1 38.2 31.5 18.2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 24 Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Household income Under $10,000 14.6 65.9 9.8 9.8 $10,001 to $25,000 19.6 47.7 23.4 9.3 $25,001 to $50,000 9.7 53.3 23.0 13.9 $50,001 to $75,000 11.2 43.2 32.8 12.8 $75,001 to $100,000 18.7 44.0 25.3 12.1 Over $100,000 18.9 32.6 26.3 22.1 City Council District District 1 10.1 52.8 26.4 10.7 District 2 13.8 51.4 23.2 11.6 District 3 12.1 44.3 29.3 14.4 District 4 21.3 37.8 21.3 19.5 Use bicycle and walking trails Yes 19.8 45.3 21.6 13.3 No 8.9 48.2 28.4 14.5 Code enforcement Code enforcement was rated either excellent (8.7 percent) or good (49.1 percent) by 57.8 percent of the respondents. As shown in Table 27, excellent/good ratings of code enforcement decreased as length of residence, education and household income increased and were higher among Hispanic respondents and renters. Inconsistent code enforcement and response time were the primary reasons given by Table 27 Ratings of Code Enforcement By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 22.7 59.1 13.6 4.5 1 to 5 years 15.2 54.4 17.6 12.8 5 to 10 years 7.8 55.3 25.2 11.7 More than 10 years 6.0 45.2 31.9 16.8 Ethnicity Caucasian 7.9 48.4 28.7 15.0 African-American 2.1 42.6 40.4 14.9 Hispanic or Latino 13.8 63.1 15.4 7.7 Other 15.0 40.0 15.0 30.0 Language of interview English 8.8 47.3 28.7 15.2 Spanish 6.5 83.9 3.2 6.5 Education High school grad or less 7.6 55.2 23.4 13.8 Some college 7.4 56.3 26.1 10.2 College grad 10.2 44.9 32.3 12.6 Grad school/grad degree 9.0 40.0 27.1 23.9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 25 Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Household income Under $10,000 8.1 62.2 13.5 16.2 $10,001 to $25,000 9.8 60.9 17.4 12.0 $25,001 to $50,000 10.8 40.8 34.4 14.0 $50,001 to $75,000 4.3 50.4 35.7 9.6 $75,001 to $100,000 4.8 44.6 36.1 14.5 Over $100,000 9.9 47.3 23.1 19.8 Own or rent home Own 7.1 47.4 28.7 16.9 Rent 12.5 55.6 23.6 8.3 Street maintenance Sixty-five percent of the respondents rated street maintenance as either fair (37.1 percent) or poor (28.2 percent). As shown in Table 28, the percentage of respondents who rated street maintenance as excellent or good decreased as length of residence increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents and telephone survey respondents. Potholes, rough and uneven roads, the number of roads under construction or being repaired including Loop 288, and the length of time taken to repair or construct roads dominated the comments of respondents who rated street maintenance as poor. Table 28 Rate Street Maintenance By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 12.5 40.6 31.3 15.6 1 to 5 years 9.5 30.8 33.7 26.0 5 to 10 years 4.6 35.4 38.5 21.5 More than 10 years 3.7 26.1 38.6 31.7 Ethnicity Caucasian 4.4 27.5 40.2 27.9 African-American 1.9 27.8 37.0 33.3 Hispanic or Latino 13.4 47.6 19.5 19.5 Other 10.3 10.3 34.5 44.8 Survey Telephone 5.4 29.3 37.1 28.2 Internet 0.9 24.6 47.3 27.2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 26 Table 29 Usage of City Services Percentage responding Yes No Parks (n=798) 69.4 30.6 Library (n=800) 66.5 33.5 Bicycle and walking trails (n=800) 43.1 56.9 Recreation centers (n=796) 42.0 58.0 Recreational programs (n=796) 35.5 64.5 Police (n=799) 20.2 79.8 Ambulance (n=800) 11.9 88.1 Fire (n=799) 8.8 91.2 Respondents were asked if, in the past 12 months, they had used any of the city services listed in Table 29. Parks and the library were reported to be most used among those city services. The services are shown in decreasing order of usage. Parks Sixty-nine percent of respondents reported using city parks in the past 12 months (see Table 29). As shown in Table 30, the percentage of respondents who reported using city parks in the past 12 months generally decreased as the age of the respondent increased, varied with ethnicity and employment status, and was higher among respondents with children under 18 living in the household and Internet survey respondents. Table 30 Usage of Parks By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 78.4 21.6 26 to 35 94.1 5.9 36 to 45 85.9 14.1 46 to 60 77.7 22.3 61 to 70 59.3 40.7 71 and over 47.9 52.1 Ethnicity Caucasian 66.4 33.6 African-American 73.6 26.4 Hispanic or Latino 89.2 10.8 Other 66.7 33.3 Employment status Employed 79.9 20.1 Retired 55.5 44.5 Unemployed/other 74.8 25.2 Have children under 18 in household Yes 92.9 7.1 No 60.8 39.2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 27 Percentage responding Yes No Survey Telephone 69.4 30.6 Internet 86.7 13.3 Library Approximately two-thirds (66.5 percent) of respondents reported using a city library in the past 12 months. As shown in Table 31, the percentage of respondents who reported using library services in the past 12 months varied with age of the respondent and employment status, increased as education and household income increased, and was higher among respondents with children under 18 living in the household and Internet survey respondents. Table 31 Usage of Library Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 67.6 32.4 26 to 35 81.2 18.8 36 to 45 82.8 17.2 46 to 60 66.7 33.3 61 to 70 64.3 35.7 71 and over 52.3 47.7 Education High school grad or less 50.8 49.2 Some college 67.5 32.5 College grad 73.0 27.0 Grad school/grad degree 73.5 26.5 Employment status Employed 71.5 28.5 Retired 58.4 41.6 Unemployed/other 70.8 29.2 Household income Under $10,000 52.1 47.9 $10,001 to $25,000 57.9 42.1 $25,001 to $50,000 69.7 30.3 $50,001 to $75,000 70.8 29.2 $75,001 to $100,000 74.3 25.7 Over $100,000 70.2 29.8 Have children under 18 in household Yes 81.0 19.0 No 60.9 39.1 Survey Telephone 66.5 33.5 Internet 74.6 25.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 28 Bicycle and walking trails Bicycle and walking trails were used by 43.1 percent of respondents during the past 12 months. Usage of bicycle and walking trails during the past 12 months decreased as length of residence and age of the respondent increased, and was greater among Hispanic respondents, employed respondents, renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 32). Table 32 Usage of Bicycle and Walking Trails By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 53.1 46.9 1 to 5 years 51.2 48.8 5 to 10 years 43.5 56.5 More than 10 years 39.4 60.6 Age 18 to 25 62.2 37.8 26 to 35 74.1 25.9 36 to 45 66.7 33.3 46 to 60 48.0 52.0 61 to 70 31.3 68.7 71 and over 18.7 81.3 Ethnicity Caucasian 38.3 61.7 African-American 50.0 50.0 Hispanic or Latino 67.9 32.1 Other 53.3 46.7 Employment status Employed 56.8 43.2 Retired 23.4 76.6 Unemployed/other 54.2 45.8 Own or rent home Own 40.8 59.2 Rent 49.7 50.3 Have children under 18 in household Yes 63.0 37.0 No 35.9 64.1 Survey Telephone 43.1 56.9 Internet 55.0 45.0 Recreation centers Forty-two percent of respondents indicated they had used a recreation center in the past 12 months. As shown in Table 33, the percentage of respondents reporting use of a recreation center in the past 12 months was higher among respondents age 36 to 45, African- American respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, respondents living in City Council District 2 and Internet survey respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 29 Table 33 Usage of Recreation Centers By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 45.9 54.1 26 to 35 51.8 48.2 36 to 45 57.6 42.4 46 to 60 38.4 61.6 61 to 70 36.9 63.1 71 and over 35.9 64.1 Ethnicity Caucasian 38.4 61.6 African-American 61.1 38.9 Hispanic or Latino 54.2 45.8 Other 41.4 58.6 Have children under 18 in household Yes 57.1 42.9 No 36.2 63.8 City Council District District 1 42.7 57.3 District 2 48.2 51.8 District 3 45.5 54.5 District 4 31.0 69.0 Survey Telephone 42.0 58.0 Internet 51.8 48.2 Recreational programs Over one-third (35.5 percent) of respondents reported using recreational programs in the past 12 months. The percentage of respondents reporting usage of recreational programs in the past 12 months increased as education increased, and was higher among respondents age 36 to 45, employed respondents, and respondents with children under 18 living in the household (see Table 34). Table 34 Usage of Recreation Programs By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 25.0 75.0 26 to 35 50.6 49.4 36 to 45 54.1 45.9 46 to 60 28.8 71.2 61 to 70 32.6 67.4 71 and over 29.2 70.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 30 Percentage responding Yes No Education High school grad or less 27.5 72.5 Some college 36.4 63.6 College grad 35.0 65.0 Grad school/grad degree 41.3 58.7 Employment status Employed 41.6 58.4 Retired 30.5 69.5 Unemployed/other 30.8 69.2 Have children under 18 in household Yes 56.0 44.0 No 28.0 72.0 Police Police services were used by 20.2 percent of the respondents during the past 12 months. Usage of police services during the past 12 months varied with the age of the respondent, and was higher among employed respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 35). Table 35 Usage of Police Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 27.0 73.0 26 to 35 25.0 75.0 36 to 45 33.3 66.7 46 to 60 21.2 78.8 61 to 70 18.7 81.3 71 and over 11.4 88.6 Employment status Employed 26.5 73.5 Retired 12.2 87.8 Unemployed/other 25.0 75.0 Have children under 18 in household Yes 25.6 74.4 No 18.6 81.4 Survey Telephone 20.2 79.8 Internet 37.1 62.9 Ambulance Twelve percent of respondents indicated they had used ambulance services in the past 12 months. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 31 Fire Nine percent of respondents reported using fire services during the past 12 months. Usage of fire services in the past 12 months varied with education (see Table 36). Table 36 Usage of Fire Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Education High school grad or less 13.8 86.2 Some college 6.6 93.4 College grad 6.9 93.1 Grad school/grad degree 9.0 91.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 32 Public Safety Figure 2 Feel Safe and Secure Living in City of Denton (n=797) 100% 80% 60% 48.3% 42.7% 40% 20% 8.4% 0.6% 0% AlwaysUsuallySometimesNever Respondents were asked if they felt safe and secure living in the City of Denton. As shown in Figure 2, 91.0 percent of the respondents reported feeling safe and secure either always (48.3 percent) or usually (42.7 percent). The percentage of respondents reporting they always or usually felt safe and secure living in the City of Denton increased as education increased, and was greater among retired respondents, homeowners and telephone survey respondents (see Table 37). When respondents who indicated they never felt safe or secure were asked why, most mentioned criminal behavior. A complete list can be found in Appendix B. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 33 Table 37 Feel Safe and Secure Living in Denton By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Always Usually Sometimes Never Education High school grad or less 45.7 38.3 13.8 2.1 Some college 50.2 38.9 10.4 0.5 College grad 48.0 46.1 5.9 0.0 Grad school/grad degree 49.5 47.9 2.7 0.0 Employment status Employed 44.6 45.2 9.3 0.9 Retired 55.0 40.3 4.7 0.0 Unemployed/other 41.7 43.1 13.9 1.4 Own or rent home Own 49.5 44.7 5.6 0.2 Rent 44.9 37.2 16.3 1.5 Survey Telephone 48.3 42.7 8.4 0.6 Internet 24.8 63.3 9.3 2.7 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 34 Figure 3 Ratings of City of Denton Police Visibility (n=781) 100% 80% 58.8% 60% 40% 27.0% 20% 11.9% 2.3% 0% ExcellentGoodFairPoor Respondents were asked to rate City of Denton police visibility. As shown in Figure 3, 85.8 percent of the respondents reported that police visibility was either excellent (27.0 percent) or good (58.8 percent). As shown in Table 38, the excellent/good ratings for police visibility varied with household income, and were higher among respondents living in City Council District 2 and telephone survey respondents. Comments about poor ratings for police visibility included lack of visibility and slow response time, and can be found in Appendix B. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 35 Table 38 Ratings of City of Denton Police Visibility By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Household income Under $10,000 28.3 56.5 6.5 8.7 $10,001 to $25,000 36.4 50.0 11.9 1.7 $25,001 to $50,000 23.9 58.5 16.5 1.1 $50,001 to $75,000 21.5 61.5 14.1 3.0 $75,001 to $100,000 31.6 58.2 9.2 1.0 Over $100,000 29.5 58.9 9.8 1.8 City Council District District 1 25.4 53.8 18.3 2.5 District 2 32.1 58.2 6.1 3.6 District 3 26.4 59.4 11.7 2.5 District 4 23.0 63.9 12.6 0.5 Survey Telephone 27.0 58.8 11.9 2.3 Internet 18.5 58.1 18.9 4.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 36 Table 39 Ratings of Lighting Quality at Night Percentage responding Adequate Inadequate Major thoroughfares (n=756) 87.1 12.9 City parks (n=567) 80.8 19.2 Streets in your neighborhood (n=791) 79.0 21.0 Trails (n=428) 61.8 38.2 Respondents were asked to rate lighting quality at night in the areas listed in Table 39. Findings are presented in descending order of adequacy. Major thoroughfares Eighty-seven percent of respondents rated the lighting quality on major thoroughfares as adequate. Adequate ratings for major thoroughfare lighting at night varied with the age of the respondent, and were higher among female respondents and homeowners (see Table 40). Table 40 Ratings of Lighting: Major Thoroughfares By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Adequate Inadequate Age 18 to 25 90.9 9.1 26 to 35 88.8 11.2 36 to 45 75.8 24.2 46 to 60 87.2 12.8 61 to 70 92.7 7.3 71 and over 85.9 14.1 Gender Female 88.8 11.2 Male 83.8 16.2 Own or rent home Own 88.9 11.1 Rent 81.7 18.3 City parks Eighty-one percent of the respondents rated the quality of lighting in city parks at night as adequate. The percentage of respondents who rated city park lighting at night as adequate varied with the age of the respondent, and was higher among retired respondents, respondents without children under 18 living in the household, and telephone survey respondents (see Table 41). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 37 Table 41 Ratings of Lighting: City Parks By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Adequate Inadequate Age 18 to 25 87.5 12.5 26 to 35 74.3 25.7 36 to 45 70.1 29.9 46 to 60 73.2 26.8 61 to 70 87.5 12.5 71 and over 91.9 8.1 Employment status Employed 77.2 22.8 Retired 86.7 13.3 Unemployed/other 77.4 22.6 Have children under 18 in household Yes 75.6 24.4 No 82.9 17.1 Survey Telephone 80.8 19.2 Internet 73.7 26.3 Streets in your neighborhood Seventy-nine percent of the respondents rated the lighting quality of the streets in their neighborhood at night as adequate. The percentage of respondents rating the lighting quality of the streets in their neighborhood at night as adequate was higher among respondents completing the interview in English, retired respondents, respondents living in City Council District 4, and telephone survey respondents (see Table 42). Table 42 Ratings of Lighting: Streets in Your Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Adequate Inadequate Language of interview English 79.8 20.2 Spanish 63.5 36.5 Employment status Employed 74.9 25.1 Retired 83.4 16.6 Unemployed/other 77.1 22.9 City Council District District 1 72.1 27.9 District 2 81.2 18.8 District 3 76.9 23.1 District 4 84.8 15.2 Survey Telephone 79.0 21.0 Internet 72.1 27.9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 38 Trails Sixty-two percent of the respondents rated the lighting quality of the trails as adequate. A greater percentage of female respondents, respondents completing the interview in Spanish, and respondents with a high school diploma or less reported that the lighting quality of the trails at night was adequate (see Table 43). Table 43 Rate Lighting: Trails By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Adequate Inadequate Gender Female 67.3 32.7 Male 53.3 46.7 Language of interview English 59.3 40.7 Spanish 81.3 18.7 Education High school grad or less 74.4 25.6 Some college 57.9 42.1 College grad 59.6 40.4 Grad school/grad degree 52.2 47.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 39 Neighborhood Services and Public Works Table 44 Ratings of Neighborhood Problems Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Litter (n=797) 15.9 29.2 35.6 19.3 High grass and weeds (n=792) 12.9 25.7 28.6 32.8 Stray animals (n=793) 12.5 24.2 33.5 29.8 Drainage or flooding problems (n=791) 5.9 18.7 28.6 46.8 Cars parked on yards (n=792) 8.1 16.2 17.4 58.3 Substandard or deteriorating housing (n=792) 6.9 14.5 22.4 56.1 Junk vehicles (n=791) 4.1 14.8 24.0 57.0 Illegal dumping (n=778) 4.5 9.4 19.0 67.1 Respondents were asked how often they had seen the problems listed in Table 44 in their neighborhood. The problems are presented in descending order of the frequently/sometimes percentages. Litter As shown in Table 44, 45.1 percent of respondents indicated they saw litter in their neighborhood either frequently (15.9 percent) or sometimes (29.2 percent). The percentage of respondents who saw litter in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes generally decreased as age, education, and household income increased, and was higher among respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, unemployed/other respondents, renters, respondents who live in City Council District 1, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 45). Table 45 Litter in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Age 18 to 25 18.9 37.8 32.4 10.8 26 to 35 16.5 45.9 28.2 9.4 36 to 45 24.2 27.3 38.4 10.1 46 to 60 14.1 29.3 38.9 17.7 61 to 70 17.7 21.5 37.0 23.8 71 and over 12.0 28.8 31.9 27.2 Language of interview English 16.5 28.3 36.4 18.8 Spanish 11.5 42.3 21.2 25.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 40 Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Education High school grad or less 19.6 31.2 27.0 22.2 Some college 14.2 34.0 36.3 15.6 College grad 16.4 29.9 35.8 17.9 Grad school/grad degree 14.8 20.6 42.3 22.2 Employment status Employed 18.0 29.7 37.5 14.7 Retired 13.2 26.2 35.6 24.9 Unemployed/other 18.8 34.7 29.2 17.4 Household income Under $10,000 25.0 33.3 22.9 18.8 $10,001 to $25,000 23.1 38.8 19.0 19.0 $25,001 to $50,000 19.3 31.6 34.2 15.0 $50,001 to $75,000 16.1 22.6 43.8 17.5 $75,001 to $100,000 9.1 34.3 37.4 19.2 Over $100,000 9.6 19.3 45.6 25.4 Own or rent home Own 14.0 26.7 39.9 19.4 Rent 23.4 37.0 21.3 18.3 City Council District District 1 23.5 39.0 25.0 12.5 District 2 13.5 31.5 37.5 17.5 District 3 20.5 27.0 36.0 16.5 District 4 7.1 19.3 43.1 30.5 Survey Telephone 15.9 29.2 35.6 19.3 Internet 25.8 38.5 30.3 5.4 High grass and weeds Thirty-nine percent of respondents reported seeing high grass and weeds in their neighborhood either frequently (12.9 percent) or sometimes (25.7 percent). As shown in Table 46, the percentage of respondents who saw high grass and weeds in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes generally decreased as education and household income increased, and was higher among respondents who completed the interview in English, homeowners, respondents living in City Council District 1, and Internet survey respondents. Table 46 High Grass and Weeds in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Language of interview English 13.5 25.9 29.9 30.7 Spanish 5.8 23.1 9.6 61.5 Education High school grad or less 14.9 23.9 19.7 41.5 Some college 11.4 28.0 26.5 34.1 College grad 14.1 24.2 34.8 26.8 Grad school/grad degree 12.2 24.9 33.9 29.1 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 41 Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Household income Under $10,000 6.3 16.7 22.9 54.2 $10,001 to $25,000 15.3 32.2 19.5 33.1 $25,001 to $50,000 12.3 29.4 31.6 26.7 $50,001 to $75,000 13.9 19.7 33.6 32.8 $75,001 to $100,000 9.2 29.6 34.7 26.5 Over $100,000 11.5 27.4 24.8 36.3 Own or rent home Own 14.0 25.2 30.7 30.1 Rent 9.7 27.7 22.6 40.0 City Council District District 1 17.7 30.3 24.7 27.3 District 2 10.6 26.8 30.3 32.3 District 3 13.0 27.5 31.5 28.0 District 4 10.7 18.4 27.6 43.4 Survey Telephone 12.9 25.7 28.6 32.8 Internet 23.2 32.3 32.3 123 Stray animals Stray animals were seen either frequently (12.5 percent) or sometimes (24.2 percent) in their neighborhood by 36.7 percent of respondents. As shown in Table 47, the percentage of respondents who report seeing stray animals in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes varied with age, ethnicity, education and household income, and was higher among renters, respondents living in City Council District 1, and Internet survey respondents. Table 47 Stray Animals in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Age 18 to 25 13.5 24.3 27.0 35.1 26 to 35 15.3 24.7 20.0 40.0 36 to 45 17.2 27.3 34.3 21.2 46 to 60 12.2 31.0 34.0 22.8 61 to 70 9.4 22.7 42.0 26.0 71 and over 11.2 18.1 31.4 39.4 Ethnicity Caucasian 10.8 24.9 37.2 27.0 African-American 28.3 22.7 24.5 24.5 Hispanic or Latino 9.5 25.0 17.9 47.6 Other 23.3 20.1 23.3 33.3 Education High school grad or less 13.4 24.1 22.5 40.0 Some college 11.8 25.1 36.0 27.0 College grad 13.4 29.4 32.3 24.9 Grad school/grad degree 10.1 19.1 42.0 28.7 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 42 Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Household income Under $10,000 14.6 27.1 20.8 37.5 $10,001 to $25,000 14.9 24.8 25.6 34.7 $25,001 to $50,000 14.5 23.1 35.5 26.9 $50,001 to $75,000 13.1 19.7 39.4 27.7 $75,001 to $100,000 11.1 34.3 32.3 22.2 Over $100,000 5.3 21.1 41.2 32.4 Own or rent home Own 11.8 23.7 38.4 26.1 Rent 13.7 27.4 19.3 39.6 City Council District District 1 17.3 27.9 27.4 27.4 District 2 11.5 22.0 36.5 30.0 District 3 16.1 24.6 30.7 28.6 District 4 5.6 22.8 38.6 33.0 Survey Telephone 12.5 24.2 33.5 29.8 Internet 17.3 31.8 40.0 10.9 Drainage or flooding problems One-quarter (24.6 percent) of respondents reported seeing drainage or flooding problems in their neighborhood either frequently (5.9 percent) or sometimes (18.7 percent). As shown in Table 48, the percentage of respondents who reported seeing drainage or flooding problems in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes decreased as age increased, and was higher among African-American respondents, renters, respondents living in City Council District 2, and Internet survey respondents. Table 48 Drainage or Flooding Problems in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 9.4 15.6 21.9 53.1 1 to 5 years 2.9 17.1 25.3 54.7 5 to 10 years 3.8 13.7 27.5 55.0 More than 10 years 7.4 20.5 31.0 41.0 Age 18 to 25 5.4 18.9 32.4 43.2 26 to 35 6.0 28.6 22.6 42.9 36 to 45 7.1 20.2 38.4 34.3 46 to 60 8.1 20.2 30.3 41.4 61 to 70 3.9 15.0 30.0 51.1 71 and over 4.8 15.0 23.5 56.7 Ethnicity Caucasian 4.8 18.2 31.2 45.8 African-American 16.7 29.6 25.9 27.8 Hispanic or Latino 3.6 14.3 19.0 63.1 Other 13.8 20.7 24.1 41.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 43 Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Own or rent home Own 5.1 16.7 30.9 47.3 Rent 8.3 23.8 23.3 44.6 City Council District District 1 6.1 21.2 30.3 42.4 District 2 4.5 25.1 25.6 44.7 District 3 8.6 15.7 33.8 41.9 District 4 4.6 11.7 25.5 58.2 Survey Telephone 5.9 18.7 28.6 46.8 Internet 8.6 26.7 44.3 20.4 Cars parked on yards Twenty-four percent of respondents indicated they saw cars parked on yards in their neighborhood either frequently (8.1 percent) or sometimes (16.2 percent). The percentage of respondents who reported seeing cars parked on yards in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes decreased as household income increased, and was higher among respondents living in City Council District 1 and Internet survey respondents (see Table 49). Table 49 Cars Parked on Yards in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Household income Under $10,000 8.3 16.7 22.9 52.1 $10,001 to $25,000 13.4 25.2 16.0 45.4 $25,001 to $50,000 9.1 21.4 21.4 48.1 $50,001 to $75,000 5.8 12.4 17.5 64.2 $75,001 to $100,000 8.2 10.2 22.4 59.2 Over $100,000 4.4 8.8 10.5 76.3 City Council District District 1 15.7 19.8 18.8 45.7 District 2 8.0 21.0 17.5 53.5 District 3 5.1 14.6 21.2 59.1 District 4 4.1 8.6 12.2 75.1 Survey Telephone 8.1 16.2 17.4 58.3 Internet 8.2 19.5 31.4 40.9 Substandard or deteriorating housing Substandard or deteriorating housing was seen in their neighborhood either frequently (6.9 percent) or sometimes (14.5 percent) by 21.4 percent of the respondents. As shown in Table 50, the percentage of respondents who reported seeing substandard or deteriorating housing in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes decreased as household income increased, and was higher among African-American respondents, respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, homeowners, respondents living in City Council District 1, and Internet survey respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 44 Table 50 Substandard or Deteriorating Housing in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Ethnicity Caucasian 5.1 14.6 22.9 57.4 African-American 23.1 17.3 28.8 30.8 Hispanic or Latino 10.8 15.7 16.9 56.6 Other 10.0 10.0 23.3 56.7 Language of interview English 6.6 14.6 23.5 55.3 Spanish 13.7 13.7 7.8 64.7 Household income Under $10,000 19.1 17.0 14.9 48.9 $10,001 to $25,000 11.7 17.5 21.7 49.2 $25,001 to $50,000 6.4 17.1 23.5 52.9 $50,001 to $75,000 4.4 13.9 28.5 53.3 $75,001 to $100,000 4.0 12.1 21.2 62.6 Over $100,000 4.4 8.8 19.3 67.5 Own or rent home Own 5.1 13.6 23.3 57.9 Rent 11.9 17.6 20.7 49.7 City Council District District 1 14.4 21.0 27.2 37.4 District 2 5.0 17.0 23.5 54.5 District 3 7.0 13.6 23.1 56.3 District 4 2.0 6.6 16.2 75.3 Survey Telephone 6.9 14.5 22.4 56.1 Internet 7.8 21.0 38.4 32.9 Junk vehicles Nineteen percent of respondents indicated they saw junk vehicles either frequently (4.1 percent) or sometimes (14.8 percent) in their neighborhood. As shown in Table 51, the percentage of respondents who reported seeing junk vehicles in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes varied with length of residence and was higher among African-American respondents, respondents living in City Council District 1, and Internet survey respondents. Table 51 Junk Vehicles in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 9.7 6.5 19.4 64.5 1 to 5 years 1.2 13.5 18.8 66.5 5 to 10 years 4.6 16.9 20.0 58.5 More than 10 years 4.8 15.2 27.6 52.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 45 Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Ethnicity Caucasian 3.3 13.7 25.0 58.0 African-American 11.1 25.9 22.2 40.7 Hispanic or Latino 3.6 19.0 20.2 57.1 Other 10.0 13.3 30.0 46.7 City Council District District 1 8.1 19.7 28.3 43.9 District 2 3.5 17.1 23.6 55.8 District 3 3.0 13.6 28.3 55.1 District 4 2.0 8.7 16.3 73.0 Survey Telephone 4.1 14.8 24.0 57.0 Internet 10.0 16.8 41.8 31.4 Illegal dumping Illegal dumping was seen either frequently (4.5 percent) or sometimes (9.4 percent) in their neighborhood by 13.9 percent of respondents. As shown in Table 52, the percentage of respondents who reported seeing illegal dumping in their neighborhood either frequently or sometimes decreased as the age of the respondent increased, and was higher among renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents. Table 52 Illegal Dumping in the Neighborhood By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never Age 18 to 25 5.6 13.9 16.7 63.9 26 to 35 6.0 16.9 16.9 60.2 36 to 45 12.1 9.1 22.2 56.6 46 to 60 2.0 11.7 21.4 64.8 61 to 70 4.5 5.6 15.3 74.6 71 and over 2.2 5.5 20.3 72.0 Own or rent home Own 3.3 8.7 19.0 69.0 Rent 8.0 11.2 18.7 62.0 Have children under 18 in household Yes 6.8 13.6 18.9 60.7 No 3.7 7.7 19.1 69.5 Survey Telephone 4.5 9.4 19.0 67.1 Internet 12.8 16.0 37.9 33.3 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 46 Services Offered to Residences Figure 4 Pay Electric Bill Directly or as Part of Rent (n=792) DirectlyPart of rent 95.7%4.3% Respondents were told that the next set of questions dealt with services offered to residences. They were then asked if they paid their electric bill directly or if it was included as part of their rent. As shown in Figure 4, 95.7 percent of respondents paid their electric bill directly. The percentage of respondents who pay their electric bill directly increased as education and household income increased and was higher among respondents who completed the interview in English and homeowners (see Table 53). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 47 Table 53 Pay Electric Bill Directly or as Part of Rent By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Pay Pay as part directly of rent Language of interview English 96.4 3.6 Spanish 84.3 15.7 Education High school grad or less 92.1 7.9 Some college 96.2 3.8 College grad 95.0 5.0 Grad school/grad degree 98.9 1.1 Household income Under $10,000 85.4 14.6 $10,001 to $25,000 89.3 10.7 $25,001 to $50,000 97.3 2.7 $50,001 to $75,000 97.8 2.2 $75,001 to $100,000 99.0 1.0 Over $100,000 99.1 0.9 Own or rent home Own 99.1 0.9 Rent 85.7 14.3 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 48 Table 54 Ratings of Denton Municipal Electric Percentage responding Higher than other About the Lower than other electric supply same electric supply companies companies 1 DME rates (n=580) 30.6 46.7 22.7 2 DME reliability of service (n=635) 26.2 69.1 4.7 DME rates Respondents who paid their electric bill directly were asked if they thought that DME rates were higher, about the same, or lower than other electric supply companies. As shown in Table 54, nearly half (46.7 percent) indicated that DME rates were about the same as other electric supply companies. Nearly one-third reported the rates were higher than other companies. The percentage of respondents who indicated that DME rates was higher than other electric supply companies were greater among African-American respondents, renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and respondents living in City Council District 1 (see Table 55). Table 55 DME Rates Compared to Other Electric Supply Companies By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Higher About the Lower same Ethnicity Caucasian 26.8 47.9 25.3 African-American 68.4 21.1 10.5 Hispanic or Latino 32.8 55.2 12.1 Other 47.6 23.8 28.6 Own or rent home Own 27.6 48.1 24.4 Rent 41.0 42.5 16.4 Have children under 18 in household Yes 38.8 38.8 22.5 No 27.8 49.5 22.7 City Council District District 1 41.9 41.9 16.2 District 2 24.7 50.7 24.7 District 3 28.4 46.1 25.5 District 4 28.6 47.1 24.3 1 Twenty- 2 Twenty-one pe University of North Texas Survey Research Center 49 DME reliability of service All respondents were asked if they thought that DME reliability of service is higher, about the same, or lower than other electric supply companies. Sixty-nine percent indicated that DME reliability of service was about the same as other electric supply companies. Approximately one-quarter reported the reliability of service was higher than other companies. The percentage of respondents who indicated that DME reliability of service was higher than other electric supply companies varied with the age of the respondent, and was higher among female respondents and homeowners (see Table 56). Table 56 DME Reliability of Service Compared to Other Electric Supply Companies By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Higher About the Lower same Age 18 to 25 20.7 65.5 13.8 26 to 35 24.7 67.1 8.2 36 to 45 20.3 69.6 10.1 46 to 60 25.9 72.9 1.2 61 to 70 32.6 62.4 5.0 71 and over 23.8 73.4 2.8 Gender Female 24.6 72.4 3.0 Male 28.8 63.1 8.2 Own or rent home Own 29.0 67.5 3.4 Rent 16.8 74.5 8.7 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 50 Figure 5 Aware of Call-in Service for Curb-Side Collection of Home Chemicals (n=786) Yes No 59.6% 40.4% Respondents were asked if they were aware of a call-in-service that arranges for curb- side collection of home chemicals they would like to discard. As shown in Figure 5, 59.6 percent of respondents were aware of this service. Awareness of the call-in service increased as length of residence, age, and education increased, and was higher among Caucasian respondents, homeowners, and respondents living in City Council District 2 (see Table 57). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 51 Table 57 Aware of Call-in Service that Arranges for Collection of Home Chemicals By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 41.9 58.1 1 to 5 years 51.5 48.5 5 to 10 years 55.4 44.6 More than 10 years 64.4 35.6 Age 18 to 25 37.8 62.2 26 to 35 46.3 53.7 36 to 45 48.5 51.5 46 to 60 61.0 39.0 61 to 70 64.6 35.4 71 and over 68.1 31.9 Ethnicity Caucasian 63.0 37.0 African-American 43.4 56.6 Hispanic or Latino 50.0 50.0 Other 41.4 58.6 Education High school grad or less 47.3 52.7 Some college 58.8 41.2 College grad 60.0 40.0 Grad school/grad degree 70.1 29.9 Employment status Employed 53.1 46.9 Retired 70.6 29.4 Unemployed/other 48.2 51.8 Own or rent home Own 64.1 35.9 Rent 44.1 55.9 City Council District District 1 49.7 50.3 District 2 65.0 35.0 District 3 62.6 37.4 District 4 59.9 40.1 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 52 Figure 6 Usage of Recycling Drop-Off Center in the Past 12 Months (n=800) YesNo 39.9%60.1% Respondents were asked if they had used a recycling drop-off center in the past 12 months. As shown in Figure 6, 39.9 percent of respondents indicated they had used a recycling drop-off center in the past 12 months. Usage of a recycling drop-off center in the past 12 months generally decreased as length of residence and the age of the respondent increased, increased as education increased, and was higher among male respondents, employed respondents, homeowners and respondents living in City Council District 3 (see Table 58). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 53 Table 58 Usage of Recycling Drop-off Center in the Past 12 Months By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 46.9 53.1 1 to 5 years 29.7 70.3 5 to 10 years 44.3 55.7 More than 10 years 42.2 57.8 Age 18 to 25 43.2 56.8 26 to 35 47.1 52.9 36 to 45 44.4 55.6 46 to 60 46.0 54.0 61 to 70 33.5 66.5 71 and over 33.7 66.3 Gender Female 36.4 63.6 Male 46.5 53.5 Education High school grad or less 33.3 66.7 Some college 37.7 62.3 College grad 40.7 59.3 Grad school/grad degree 48.1 51.9 Employment status Employed 47.7 52.3 Retired 35.6 64.4 Unemployed/other 31.3 68.8 Household income Under $10,000 29.2 70.8 $10,001 to $25,000 30.6 69.4 $25,001 to $50,000 43.1 56.9 $50,001 to $75,000 38.7 61.3 $75,001 to $100,000 49.5 50.5 Over $100,000 43.9 56.1 Own or rent home Own 41.7 58.3 Rent 33.5 66.5 City Council District District 1 40.0 60.0 District 2 39.0 61.0 District 3 49.0 51.0 District 4 32.0 68.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 54 Services Provided to City as a Whole Table 59 Ratings of Maintenance Services Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Maintenance of city parks (n=745) 31.9 60.6 7.0 0.5 Maintenance of landscaped medians on major streets (n=789) 30.7 54.6 12.1 2.7 1 Graffiti removal (n=689) 21.9 58.4 16.2 3.6 Maintenance of major street surfaces (n=791) 6.2 44.7 32.5 16.6 Maintenance of residential street surfaces (n=788) 6.5 42.9 36.9 13.8 Respondents were asked to rate maintenance services provided to the city as a whole. The services are presented in descending order of the excellent/good rating. this section and listed in full in Appendix C. Maintenance of city parks As shown in Table 59, 92.5 percent of respondents rated the maintenance of city parks as either excellent (31.9 percent) or good (60.6 percent). Respondents rating the maintenance of city parks as poor mentioned the parks needed to be cleaned up. Maintenance of landscaped medians on major streets Maintenance of landscaped medians on major streets was rated either excellent (30.7 percent) or good (54.6 percent) by 85.3 percent of respondents. Caucasian respondents were more likely than respondents of other ethnic groups to rate the maintenance of landscaped medians on major streets as either excellent or good (see Table 60). Respondents rating the maintenance of landscaped medians on major streets as poor commented about the overgrowth of trees, grass and weeds. 1 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 55 Table 60 Ratings of Maintenance of Landscaped Medians on Major Streets By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 33.0 54.8 9.9 2.3 African-American 13.2 56.6 26.4 3.8 Hispanic or Latino 27.4 57.1 14.3 1.2 Other 23.3 40.0 23.3 13.3 Graffiti removal Eighty percent of respondents rated graffiti removal as either excellent (21.9 percent) or good (58.4 percent). Eighty-six percent of respondents with children under 18 living in the household and 78.1 percent of those without children under 18 living in the household rated graffiti removal as either excellent or good (see Table 61). Telephone survey respondents were more likely than Internet survey respondents to rate graffiti removal as either excellent or good. Many of the respondents who ranked graffiti removal as poor mentioned that there was still a lot of graffiti to be seen on buildings, dumpsters, electrical boxes and under bridges. Table 61 Ratings of Graffiti Removal By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Have children under 18 in household Yes 27.5 58.2 10.1 4.2 No 19.9 58.2 18.7 3.2 Survey Telephone 21.9 58.4 16.2 3.6 Internet 12.1 52.4 28.2 7.3 Maintenance of major street surfaces Maintenance of major street surfaces was rated either excellent (6.2 percent) or good (44.7 percent) by 50.9 percent of respondents. As shown in Table 62, the percentage of respondents who rated the maintenance of major street surfaces as either excellent or good varied with the age of the respondent, decreased as education and household income increased, and was greater among Hispanic respondents, renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and telephone survey respondents. Comments by respondents who rated maintenance of major street surfaces poorly included Loop 288, potholes, rough streets and constant construction/repair. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 56 Table 62 Ratings of Maintenance of Major Street Surfaces By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Age 18 to 25 2.7 54.1 24.3 18.9 26 to 35 16.5 48.2 25.9 9.4 36 to 45 6.2 40.2 33.0 20.6 46 to 60 2.5 47.0 32.3 18.2 61 to 70 3.9 41.4 34.8 19.9 71 and over 9.1 43.3 35.3 12.3 Ethnicity Caucasian 5.6 43.9 33.6 17.0 African-American 5.8 42.3 32.7 19.2 Hispanic or Latino 12.0 59.0 21.7 7.2 Other 6.9 31.0 37.9 24.1 Education High school grad or less 8.6 54.1 24.9 12.4 Some college 7.6 44.5 32.7 15.2 College grad 3.5 41.8 34.3 20.4 Grad school/grad degree 5.9 38.3 37.8 18.1 Household income Under $10,000 11.1 51.1 22.2 15.6 $10,001 to $25,000 7.6 54.6 27.7 10.1 $25,001 to $50,000 6.4 49.2 31.0 13.4 $50,001 to $75,000 8.1 36.0 39.0 16.9 $75,001 to $100,000 4.0 42.6 35.6 17.8 Over $100,000 2.6 39.5 30.7 27.2 Own or rent home Own 5.1 43.2 34.0 17.6 Rent 9.8 48.7 28.0 13.5 Have children under 18 in household Yes 9.1 50.2 24.9 15.8 No 5.3 42.7 35.1 16.9 Survey Telephone 6.2 44.7 32.5 16.6 Internet 2.8 32.7 44.7 19.8 Maintenance of residence street surfaces Fifty-one percent of respondents rated maintenance of residential street surfaces either fair (36.9 percent) or poor (13.8 percent). As shown in Table 63, the percentage of respondents who rated the maintenance of residential street surfaces as either excellent or good varied with the age of the respondent, and was greater among Hispanic respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and telephone survey respondents. Respondents who rated maintenance of residential street surfaces poorly included potholes, cracked and uneven streets, and streets needing repair/repaving. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 57 Table 63 Ratings of Maintenance of Residential Street Surfaces By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Age 18 to 25 5.4 35.1 45.9 13.5 26 to 35 12.0 47.0 28.9 12.0 36 to 45 4.1 45.4 27.8 22.7 46 to 60 3.0 44.7 38.6 13.7 61 to 70 4.4 42.2 38.9 14.4 71 and over 11.7 38.8 39.9 9.6 Ethnicity Caucasian 6.3 42.0 38.2 13.5 African-American 7.5 37.7 34.0 20.8 Hispanic or Latino 9.8 58.5 25.6 6.1 Other 3.3 23.3 40.0 33.3 Have children under 18 in household Yes 8.3 48.5 28.6 14.6 No 6.0 40.8 39.6 13.6 Survey Telephone 6.5 42.9 36.9 13.8 Internet 1.9 27.4 46.0 24.7 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 58 Mobility Table 64 Ratings of Street-Related Issues Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Visibility of street signs (n=795) 12.0 61.0 21.7 5.3 Condition of existing sidewalks (n=748) 6.0 55.4 31.3 7.2 Signal timing on major city streets (n=794) 7.9 52.5 27.9 11.7 Availability of sidewalks (n=773) 6.1 45.2 33.7 15.0 Efficiency of travel between major residential areas and major retail or employment centers in Denton (n=783) 6.0 37.2 30.1 26.7 Respondents were asked to rate several street-related issues. The issues are presented in descending order of the excellent/good rating (see Table 64). are summarized in this section and listed in full in Appendix C. Visibility of street signs The visibility of street signs was rated either excellent (12.0 percent) or good (61.0 percent) by 73.0 percent of respondents (see Table 64). As shown in Table 65, the percentage of respondents who rated the visibility of street signs as either excellent or good generally increased as the age of the respondent increased, was higher among Hispanic respondents, and lower among respondents with some college education. Respondents who rated the visibility of street signs as poor mentioned signs hidden by trees or construction, signs that were hard to read because they were small, and signs that were bent or missing. Table 65 Ratings of Street Sign Visibility By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Age 18 to 25 8.1 51.4 29.7 10.8 26 to 35 18.8 50.6 24.7 5.9 36 to 45 16.2 54.5 20.2 9.1 46 to 60 10.7 59.2 24.0 6.1 61 to 70 7.7 67.6 22.0 2.7 71 and over 12.6 66.8 16.8 3.7 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 59 Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 11.4 62.6 21.2 4.7 African-American 11.1 51.9 27.8 9.3 Hispanic or Latino 16.7 61.9 17.9 3.6 Other 13.3 40.0 30.0 16.7 Education High school grad or less 11.8 63.4 19.4 5.4 Some college 9.4 55.7 26.4 8.5 College grad 9.4 67.5 18.7 4.4 Grad school/grad degree 18.1 58.0 21.3 2.7 Condition of existing sidewalks Sixty-one percent of respondents rated the condition of existing sidewalks as either excellent (6.0 percent) or good (55.4 percent). Respondents who completed the interview in Spanish (78.8 percent) were more likely than those completing the interview in English (60.2 percent) to rate the condition of existing sidewalks as either excellent or good (see Table 66). Cracks, uneven, inaccessible to strollers and wheelchairs, and a lack of sidewalks were some of the comments made by respondents who rated the condition of existing sidewalks as poor. Table 66 Ratings of Condition of Existing Sidewalks By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Language of interview English 5.8 54.4 32.9 6.9 Spanish 9.6 69.2 9.6 11.5 Signal timing on major city streets Signal timing on major city streets was rated either excellent (7.9 percent) or good (52.5 percent) by 60.4 percent of respondents. As shown in Table 67, the percentage of respondents who rated signal timing on major city streets as either excellent or good was higher among Hispanic respondents and female respondents, and was lower among respondents with a grad school education or degree and employed respondents. Respondents who rated signal timing on major city streets as poor mentioned unsynchronized lights, length of time waiting for red light to turn green, and the short length of green lights causing drivers to sit through a light several times before getting across an intersection. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 60 Table 67 Ratings of Signal Timing on Major City Streets By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 7.0 52.2 28.2 12.6 African-American 3.7 53.7 33.3 9.3 Hispanic or Latino 14.3 64.3 14.3 7.1 Other 13.3 30.0 43.3 13.3 Gender Female 8.9 56.5 24.9 9.7 Male 6.1 45.5 32.6 15.8 Education High school grad or less 8.0 56.9 24.5 10.6 Some college 4.2 55.2 28.3 12.3 College grad 5.9 56.4 24.8 12.9 Grad school/grad degree 14.0 41.9 33.3 10.8 Employment status Employed 6.3 46.8 29.9 16.9 Retired 8.9 57.9 25.3 7.9 Unemployed/other 9.7 54.9 27.1 8.3 Availability of sidewalks The availability of sidewalks was rated either excellent (6.1 percent) or good (45.2 percent) by 51.3 percent of respondents. Excellent/good ratings of sidewalk availability were higher among Hispanic respondents, and decreased as education increased (see Table 68). Respondents rating the availability of sidewalks poorly commented that there were some neighborhoods without sidewalks, some streets had sidewalks down one side of the street and not the other, lack of sidewalks is a safety issue for children walking to and from school, and few sidewalks on major streets like Teasley, McKinney and University Drive. Table 68 Ratings of Sidewalk Availability By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Ethnicity Caucasian 5.2 44.8 35.9 14.0 African-American 9.3 42.6 20.4 27.8 Hispanic or Latino 10.8 56.6 20.5 12.0 Other 6.7 33.3 43.3 16.7 Education High school grad or less 10.1 55.3 22.9 11.7 Some college 3.8 43.5 37.3 15.3 College grad 5.5 44.2 35.7 14.6 Grad school/grad degree 5.5 39.2 37.6 17.7 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 61 Efficiency of travel Fifty-seven percent of respondents rated the efficiency of travel between major residential areas and major retail or employment centers in Denton as either fair (30.1 percent) or poor (26.7 percent). Forty-three percent rated it either excellent (6.0 percent) or good (37.2 percent). As shown in Table 69, the percentage of respondents who rated efficiency of travel between major residential areas and major retail or employment centers in Denton as either excellent or good varied with age, decreased as education and household income increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents, renters, and telephone survey respondents. Construction especially on Loop 288, traffic, and lack of another north-south route through Denton were among the reasons given by respondents who rated efficiency of travel as poor. Table 69 Ratings of Efficiency of Travel in Denton By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Age 18 to 25 8.3 55.6 33.3 2.8 26 to 35 5.9 47.1 24.7 22.4 36 to 45 6.1 39.8 23.5 30.6 46 to 60 4.1 27.9 33.5 34.5 61 to 70 5.5 34.6 29.1 30.8 71 and over 7.8 40.2 33.0 19.0 Ethnicity Caucasian 5.1 34.3 30.8 29.8 African-American 0.0 50.0 32.7 17.3 Hispanic or Latino 13.3 59.0 20.5 7.2 Other 13.3 16.7 40.0 30.0 Language of interview English 5.5 35.1 31.1 28.3 Spanish 13.7 66.7 15.7 3.9 Education High school grad or less 7.6 49.2 22.2 21.1 Some college 5.4 36.6 33.2 24.9 College grad 4.5 34.3 33.3 27.9 Grad school/grad degree 7.0 28.5 31.2 33.3 Household income Under $10,000 10.9 65.2 10.9 13.0 $10,001 to $25,000 10.1 45.4 30.3 14.3 $25,001 to $50,000 4.9 39.5 34.1 21.6 $50,001 to $75,000 2.2 38.2 29.4 30.1 $75,001 to $100,000 3.0 24.2 34.3 38.4 Over $100,000 7.1 24.8 29.2 38.9 Own or rent home Own 5.7 32.2 31.9 30.2 Rent 6.3 51.8 26.2 15.7 Survey Telephone 6.0 37.2 30.1 26.7 Internet 5.7 23.8 37.6 32.9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 62 Figure 7 Usage of Bicycle as Primary Mode of Transportation (n=796) 100% 85.9% 80% 60% 40% 20% 7.0% 4.3% 2.8% 0% DailyWeeklyMonthlyNever Respondents were asked how often they use a bicycle as a primary mode of transportation. As shown in Figure 7, Fourteen percent used a bicycle as their primary mode of transportation either daily (2.8 percent), weekly (4.3 percent) or monthly (7.0 percent). Primary usage of a bicycle (at least monthly) was greater among male respondents, college graduates, employed respondents, renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 70). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 63 Table 70 Usage of Bicycle as Primary Mode of Transportation By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Daily Weekly Monthly Never Gender Female 1.8 2.7 6.4 89.1 Male 4.9 7.0 8.1 79.9 Education High school grad or less 3.2 7.0 5.9 84.0 Some college 1.4 2.8 8.0 87.7 College grad 3.4 3.4 11.3 81.9 Grad school/grad degree 3.2 3.7 2.7 90.4 Employment status Employed 4.8 6.0 10.6 78.5 Retired 0.9 1.3 2.2 95.6 Unemployed/other 2.1 7.0 9.9 81.0 Own or rent home Own 2.4 3.4 6.5 87.8 Rent 4.1 7.2 9.2 79.5 Have children under 18 in household Yes 4.3 9.1 10.5 76.1 No 2.2 2.6 5.8 89.4 Survey Telephone 2.8 4.3 7.0 85.9 Internet 0.9 7.5 9.9 81.6 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 64 Figure 8 Would Use Bicycle More if There Were More Dedicated Bike Lanes (n=771) Remain the Increase same 29.3% 70.7% Respondents were asked if there were more dedicated bike lanes, would your use of a As shown in Figure 8, 70.7 The percentage of respondents who reported that their bicycle usage would increase if there were more dedicated bike lanes was higher among respondents age 36 to 45, Hispanic respondents, employed and unemployed/other respondents, and respondents with children under 18 living in the household (see Table 71). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 65 Table 71 Would Use Bicycle More if There Were More Dedicated Bike Lanes By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Increase Remain the same Age 18 to 25 41.7 58.3 26 to 35 50.6 49.4 36 to 45 54.6 45.4 46 to 60 38.4 61.6 61 to 70 16.8 83.2 71 and over 7.6 92.4 Ethnicity Caucasian 26.2 73.8 African-American 23.5 76.5 Hispanic or Latino 56.1 43.9 Other 37.0 63.0 Employment status Employed 39.8 60.2 Retired 14.6 85.4 Unemployed/other 39.1 60.9 Have children under 18 in household Yes 47.6 52.4 No 22.8 77.2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 66 Figure 9 Visited the Denton Airport in Last 12 Months (n=797) Yes No 18.4% 81.6% Respondents were asked if they, a member of their family or a friend had visited the Denton airport in the last 12 months. As shown in Figure 9, 18.4 percent of respondents The percentage of respondents who indicated that they, a member of their family or a friend had visited the Denton airport in the last 12 months generally increased as education and household income increased, and was higher among male respondents, homeowners, and respondents living in City Council District 4 (see Table 72). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 67 Table 72 Visited Denton Airport in Last 12 Months By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Gender Female 13.6 86.4 Male 27.2 72.8 Education High school grad or less 13.8 86.2 Some college 13.7 86.3 College grad 23.5 76.5 Grad school/grad degree 21.8 78.2 Household income Under $10,000 12.5 87.5 $10,001 to $25,000 11.6 88.4 $25,001 to $50,000 14.0 86.0 $50,001 to $75,000 18.2 81.8 $75,001 to $100,000 24.8 75.2 Over $100,000 29.2 70.8 Own or rent home Own 22.1 77.9 Rent 7.1 92.9 City Council District District 1 12.5 87.5 District 2 17.0 83.0 District 3 21.3 78.7 District 4 23.0 77.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 68 Figure 10 Ratings of Denton Airport Facilities (n=127) 100% 80% 60% 52.1% 40% 28.9% 16.6% 20% 2.4% 0% ExcellentGoodFairPoor Respondents who had reported a friend or family member had visited the Denton Airport in the last 12 months were asked to rate Denton Airport facilities. As shown in Figure 10, 81.0 percent of respondents reporting a friend or family member had visited the Denton Airport in the last 12 months rated the airport facilities as either excellent (28.9 percent) or good (52.1 percent). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 69 Figure 11 Ratings of Denton Airport Services (n=115) 100% 80% 59.7% 60% 40% 20.6% 16.3% 20% 3.4% 0% ExcellentGoodFairPoor Respondents who had reported a friend or family member had visited the Denton Airport in the last 12 months were asked to rate Denton Airport services. As shown in Figure 11, 80.3 percent of respondents reporting a friend or family member had visited the Denton Airport in the last 12 months rated airport services as either excellent (20.6 percent) or good (59.7 percent). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 70 Figure 12 Usage of Connect, Access or Commuter Express Bus Services in Last 12 Months (n=798) Yes No 13.8% 86.2% Respondents were asked if they or a member of their family had used the Connect, Access, or Commuter Express bus services in Denton in the last 12 months. Fourteen percent of respondents reported usage of these bus services in the last 12 months (see Figure 12). As shown in Table 73, usage in the last 12 months of Connect, Access or Commuter Express Bus Services decreased as age, education, and household income increased, and was greater among African-American respondents, respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, unemployed/other respondents, renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and respondents living in City Council District 1. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 71 Table 73 Usage of Connect, Access or Commuter Express Bus Services in Last 12 Months By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 24.3 75.7 26 to 35 27.1 72.9 36 to 45 18.4 81.6 46 to 60 16.2 83.8 61 to 70 8.8 91.2 71 and over 6.3 93.8 Ethnicity Caucasian 9.6 90.4 African-American 37.0 63.0 Hispanic or Latino 28.9 71.1 Other 16.7 83.3 Language of interview English 12.4 87.6 Spanish 35.3 64.7 Education High school grad or less 20.3 79.7 Some college 11.8 88.2 College grad 11.3 88.7 Grad school/grad degree 12.2 87.8 Employment status Employed 15.7 84.3 Retired 8.8 91.2 Unemployed/other 20.8 79.2 Household income Under $10,000 35.4 64.6 $10,001 to $25,000 27.3 72.7 $25,001 to $50,000 14.5 85.5 $50,001 to $75,000 7.3 92.7 $75,001 to $100,000 9.9 90.1 Over $100,000 7.0 93.0 Own or rent home Own 8.5 91.5 Rent 29.9 70.1 Have children under 18 in household Yes 18.6 81.4 No 12.3 87.7 City Council District District 1 22.1 77.9 District 2 14.6 85.4 District 3 14.0 86.0 District 4 5.0 95.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 72 Figure 13 Seriously Considered Riding the Bus in Denton (n=680) YesNo 26.4%73.6% Respondents who had not used the Connect, Access, or Commuter Express bus services in Denton were asked if they had ever seriously considered using one of these bus services to the extent that they had attempted to research how they would use the system. As shown in Figure 13, percent of the total sample). The percentage of respondents who had not used the bus services but had seriously considered it decreased as the age of the respondent and household income increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents, unemployed/other respondents, renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and respondents living in City Council District 1 (see Table 74). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 73 Table 74 Seriously Considered Riding the Bus By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 42.9 57.1 26 to 35 41.0 59.0 36 to 45 37.5 62.5 46 to 60 25.0 75.0 61 to 70 20.7 79.3 71 and over 19.7 80.3 Ethnicity Caucasian 23.5 76.5 African-American 30.3 69.7 Hispanic or Latino 53.3 46.7 Other 20.0 80.0 Language of interview English 24.7 75.3 Spanish 57.6 42.4 Employment status Employed 28.2 71.8 Retired 22.0 78.0 Unemployed/other 33.3 66.7 Household income Under $10,000 40.0 60.0 $10,001 to $25,000 37.2 62.8 $25,001 to $50,000 23.3 76.7 $50,001 to $75,000 28.6 71.4 $75,001 to $100,000 21.1 78.9 Over $100,000 19.8 80.2 Own or rent home Own 24.9 75.1 Rent 33.3 66.7 Have children under 18 in household Yes 35.3 64.7 No 23.4 76.6 City Council District District 1 35.5 64.5 District 2 28.3 71.7 District 3 21.1 78.9 District 4 21.8 78.2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 74 Table 75 Ratings of Denton Public Transportation System Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Denton public transportation services in general (n=258) 20.7 42.6 27.5 9.1 The locations of bus stops (n=253) 6.6 58.7 24.3 10.4 The availability of information about routes (n=249) 13.1 51.5 20.8 14.6 The condition of bus stops (n=256) 7.0 56.7 24.9 11.4 The route system in terms of destinations (n=234) 13.5 46.9 29.8 9.7 Respondents who had used the Denton public transportation system or seriously considered using it, representing 33.2 percent of the respondents, were asked to rate several aspects of the system. A breakdown of respondents using the system compared to those who only considered using the system were included when running cross-tabulations in this section. The differences were statistically significant on one fo the items listed in Table 75. The ratings of all but the general rating are presented in descending order of the excellent/good rating. Denton public transportation services in general In general, Denton public transportation services were rated either excellent (20.7 percent) or good (42.6 percent) by 63.3 percent of respondents who had used the system or seriously considered using it (see Table 75). The percentage of respondents who used or seriously considered using the Denton public transportation system and rated the system as either excellent or good was greater among respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, respondents with $75,001 to $100,000 in household income, and telephone survey respondents (see Table 76). Table 76 Ratings of Denton Public Transportation Services in General By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Language of interview English 17.0 43.8 29.5 9.8 Spanish 44.1 35.3 14.7 5.9 Household income Under $10,000 40.7 33.3 11.1 14.8 $10,001 to $25,000 23.7 39.0 27.1 10.2 $25,001 to $50,000 20.7 51.7 24.1 3.4 $50,001 to $75,000 9.5 38.1 40.5 11.9 $75,001 to $100,000 16.7 62.5 8.3 12.5 Over $100,000 16.0 40.0 36.0 8.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 75 Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Survey Telephone 20.7 42.6 27.5 9.1 Internet 10.1 33.3 42.0 14.5 Locations of bus stops Nearly two-thirds (65.3 percent) of respondents who had used or considered using the Denton public transportation system rated the locations of bus stops as either excellent (6.6 percent) or good (58.7 percent). The percentage of respondents who used or seriously considered using the Denton public transportation system and rated the location of bus stops as either excellent or good was greater among renters and telephone survey respondents (see Table 77). Table 77 Ratings of Bus Stop Locations By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Own or rent home Own 1.9 61.8 23.6 12.7 Rent 14.0 53.8 26.9 5.4 Survey Telephone 6.6 58.7 24.3 10.4 Internet 7.2 33.3 36.2 23.2 Availability of information about routes Sixty-five percent of respondents who had used or considered using the Denton public transportation system rated the availability of information about routes as either excellent (13.1 percent) or good (51.5 percent). As shown in Table 78, the percentage of respondents who used or seriously considered using the Denton public transportation system and rated the availability of information about routes either as excellent or good was greater among respondents completing the interview in Spanish and telephone survey respondents. Table 78 Ratings of Availability of Information about Routes By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Language of interview English 12.7 48.6 21.8 16.8 Spanish 16.7 70.0 13.3 0.0 Survey Telephone 13.1 51.5 20.8 14.6 Internet 11.3 35.2 36.6 16.9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 76 Condition of bus stops Sixty-four percent of respondents who had used or considered using the Denton public transportation system rated the condition of bus stops as either excellent (7.0 percent) or good (56.7 percent). The percentage of respondents who used or seriously considered using the Denton public transportation system and rated the condition of bus stops either as excellent or good was greater among respondents completing the interview in Spanish and telephone survey respondents (see Table 79). Table 79 Ratings of Condition of Bus Stops By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Language of interview English 5.4 55.4 26.6 12.6 Spanish 17.6 61.8 17.6 2.9 Survey Telephone 7.0 56.7 24.9 11.4 Internet 4.4 35.3 45.6 14.7 Route system destinations The route system in terms of destinations was rated either excellent (13.5 percent) or good (46.9 percent) by 60.4 percent of respondents who had used or considered using the Denton public transportation system. The percentage of respondents who used or seriously considered using the Denton public transportation system and rated the route system in terms of destinations either as excellent or good was greater among respondents completing the interview in Spanish, respondents living in City Council District 2, and telephone survey respondents (see Table 80). destinations than those who had considered but do not ride the bus. Table 80 Ratings of Route System Destinations By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Language of interview English 11.9 44.8 31.8 11.4 Spanish 24.2 54.5 21.2 0.0 City Council District District 1 18.5 38.3 38.3 4.9 District 2 11.3 61.3 21.0 6.5 District 3 11.1 38.9 31.5 18.5 District 4 10.8 48.6 27.0 13.5 Survey Telephone 13.5 46.9 29.8 9.7 Internet 8.6 30.0 41.4 20.0 Ridership Ridden 18.6 39.2 28.4 13.7 Considered 9.8 51.5 31.8 6.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 77 Communications Figure 14 Have Access to Internet (n=798) 60% 50% 47.2% 40% 30.5% 30% 19.7% 20% 10% 2.6% 0% HomeWorkBothNo access Respondents were asked if they had access to the Internet. As shown in Figure 14, 80.3 percent of respondents reported having Internet access at home (47.2 percent), at work (2.6 percent) or at both home and work (30.5 percent). Respondents who reported having Internet access at both home and work generally decreased as the age of the respondent increased, generally increased as education and household income increased, and was higher among Other ethnic group respondents, male respondents, employed respondents, homeowners, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, respondents living in City Council District 3, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 81). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 78 Table 81 Have Access to Internet By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Home Work Both No access Age 18 to 25 37.8 8.1 40.5 13.5 26 to 35 27.1 3.5 49.4 20.0 36 to 45 27.3 3.0 49.5 20.2 46 to 60 36.4 4.0 48.0 11.6 61 to 70 65.4 2.2 20.3 12.1 71 and over 62.2 0.0 2.1 35.8 Ethnicity Caucasian 52.2 1.8 31.5 14.5 African-American 33.3 9.3 24.1 33.3 Hispanic or Latino 22.6 6.0 19.0 52.4 Other 30.0 0.0 60.0 10.0 Gender Female 48.7 2.5 26.0 22.7 Male 43.8 2.8 38.5 14.8 Education High school grad or less 32.3 4.2 12.2 51.3 Some college 54.7 2.8 29.7 12.7 College grad 47.5 2.5 40.7 9.3 Grad school/grad degree 52.9 1.1 39.2 6.9 Employment status Employed 18.9 5.4 64.0 11.7 Retired 72.8 0.0 3.8 23.4 Unemployed/other 54.2 2.1 12.5 31.3 Household income Under $10,000 25.0 0.0 4.2 70.8 $10,001 to $25,000 48.8 2.5 10.7 38.0 $25,001 to $50,000 49.5 3.7 28.7 18.1 $50,001 to $75,000 48.9 3.6 40.9 6.6 $75,001 to $100,000 42.6 1.0 52.5 4.0 Over $100,000 47.4 2.6 48.2 1.8 Own or rent home Own 49.0 2.4 34.2 14.4 Rent 40.1 3.6 19.8 36.5 Have children under 18 in household Yes 32.2 2.4 48.3 17.1 No 52.3 2.7 24.0 21.0 City Council District District 1 38.5 5.0 24.0 32.5 District 2 48.7 1.5 30.7 19.1 District 3 44.2 2.5 34.2 19.1 District 4 56.5 1.5 33.0 9.0 Survey Telephone 47.2 2.6 30.5 19.7 Internet 22.1 2.9 74.0 1.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 79 Figure 15 Usage of Cell Phone to Access the Internet (n=792) Yes No 12.0% 88.0% Respondents with Internet access were asked if they used their cell phone to access the Internet. (see Figure 15). Usage of a cell telephone to access the Internet decreased as the age of the respondent increased, increased as household income increased, and was higher among male respondents, respondents completing the interview in English, employed respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 82). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 80 Table 82 Usage of Cell Phone to Access the Internet By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 33.3 66.7 26 to 35 25.0 75.0 36 to 45 17.3 82.7 46 to 60 8.6 91.4 61 to 70 8.2 91.8 71 and over 7.3 92.7 Gender Female 9.8 90.2 Male 16.4 83.6 Language of interview English 12.8 87.2 Spanish 2.0 98.0 Employment status Employed 16.6 83.4 Retired 6.9 93.1 Unemployed/other 13.3 86.7 Household income Under $10,000 4.3 95.7 $10,001 to $25,000 8.3 91.7 $25,001 to $50,000 9.2 90.8 $50,001 to $75,000 12.4 87.6 $75,001 to $100,000 16.8 83.2 Over $100,000 23.7 76.3 Have children under 18 in household Yes 16.7 83.3 No 10.5 89.5 Survey Telephone 12.0 88.0 Internet 25.2 74.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 81 Figure 16 Get Enough Information about City Programs and Services (n=786) Yes No 71.5% 28.5% Respondents were told that the next set of questions dealt with communications from the City and with technology. They were then asked if they got enough information about City programs and services. Seventy-two percent of the respondents indicated they got enough information (see Figure 16). As shown in Table 83, the percentage of respondents indicating they got enough information about City programs and services, increased as the age of the respondent increased, varied with ethnicity and household income, and was higher among respondents living in City Council District 2 and telephone survey respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 82 Table 83 Get Enough Information about City Programs and Services By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 43.2 56.8 26 to 35 59.0 41.0 36 to 45 66.3 33.7 46 to 60 70.3 29.7 61 to 70 75.6 24.4 71 and over 81.6 18.4 Ethnicity Caucasian 74.4 25.6 African-American 55.6 44.4 Hispanic or Latino 65.1 34.9 Other 58.6 41.4 Household income Under $10,000 50.0 50.0 $10,001 to $25,000 71.2 28.8 $25,001 to $50,000 73.3 26.7 $50,001 to $75,000 72.1 27.9 $75,001 to $100,000 77.0 23.0 Over $100,000 69.1 30.9 City Council District District 1 63.5 36.5 District 2 77.0 23.0 District 3 73.6 26.4 District 4 70.9 29.1 Survey Telephone 71.5 28.5 Internet 52.9 47.1 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 83 Table 84 Sources of Information about the City of Denton Percentage responding Yes No Word of mouth (n=795) 72.9 27.1 Utility bill insert (n=785) 72.2 27.8 Denton Record Chronicle (n=798) 71.7 28.3 Direct mail from the City (n=793) 64.7 35.3 City libraries (n=797) 50.2 49.8 City web site (n=794) 48.7 51.3 Local TV stations (n=793) 47.1 52.9 Newsletter (n=792) 42.6 57.4 DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38 (n=791) 33.4 66.6 City Staff (n=788) 26.4 73.6 Radio (n=798) 25.1 74.9 E-mail (n=798) 23.5 76.5 City Council (n=790) 21.0 79.0 Text message (n=794) 5.5 94.5 Respondents were asked if they obtained information from the City using any of a list of sources. As shown in Table 84, the most common sources were word of mouth (72.9 percent), utility bill inserts (72.2 percent), and the Denton Record Chronicle (71.7 percent). Word of mouth Seventy-three percent of respondents reported getting information about the City of Denton by word of mouth (see Table 84). As shown in Table 85, the percentage of respondents who indicated they got information about the City of Denton by word of mouth was greater among African- American respondents, respondents who completed the interview in English, respondents with a college degree or more, and homeowners. Table 85 Source of Information: Word of Mouth By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Ethnicity Caucasian 75.4 24.6 African-American 83.3 16.7 Hispanic or Latino 55.4 44.6 Other 64.3 35.7 Language of interview English 74.9 25.1 Spanish 45.1 54.9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 84 Percentage responding Yes No Education High school grad or less 64.2 35.8 Some college 74.9 25.1 College grad 76.4 23.6 Grad school/grad degree 76.1 23.9 Own or rent home Own 76.4 23.6 Rent 63.7 36.3 Utility bill insert The utility bill insert was a source of information about the City for 72.2 percent of respondents. The percentage of respondents who reported that the utility bill insert was a source of information about the City increased as length of residence and the age of the respondent increased, and was higher among Caucasian respondents, respondents who completed the interview in English, homeowners and telephone survey respondents (see Table 86). Table 86 Source of Information: Utility Bill Insert By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 55.2 44.8 1 to 5 years 67.5 32.5 5 to 10 years 69.0 31.0 More than 10 years 76.0 24.0 Age 18 to 25 57.1 42.9 26 to 35 63.5 36.5 36 to 45 66.7 33.3 46 to 60 75.4 24.6 61 to 70 77.2 22.8 71 and over 73.5 26.5 Ethnicity Caucasian 75.1 24.9 African-American 69.8 30.2 Hispanic or Latino 57.3 42.7 Other 69.0 31.0 Language of interview English 73.4 26.6 Spanish 54.9 45.1 Household income Under $10,000 46.8 53.2 $10,001 to $25,000 72.6 27.4 $25,001 to $50,000 78.9 21.1 $50,001 to $75,000 76.3 23.7 $75,001 to $100,000 73.0 27.0 Over $100,000 68.1 31.9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 85 Percentage responding Yes No Own or rent home Own 75.1 24.9 Rent 63.7 36.3 Survey Telephone 72.2 27.8 Internet 59.0 41.0 Denton Record Chronicle Seventy-two percent of respondents indicated they got information about the City from the Denton Record Chronicle. As shown in Table 87, the percentage of respondents who reported getting information about the City from the Denton Record Chronicle increased as length of residence, the age of the respondent, and education increased, and was higher among Caucasian respondents, retired respondents, homeowners, respondents without children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents. Table 87 Source of Information: Denton Record Chronicle By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 58.1 41.9 1 to 5 years 56.1 43.9 5 to 10 years 61.8 38.2 More than 10 years 80.9 19.1 Age 18 to 25 57.1 42.9 26 to 35 51.8 48.2 36 to 45 69.7 30.3 46 to 60 70.7 29.3 61 to 70 77.5 22.5 71 and over 79.3 20.7 Ethnicity Caucasian 74.5 25.5 African-American 73.6 26.4 Hispanic or Latino 54.8 45.2 Other 69.0 31.0 Education High school grad or less 64.0 36.0 Some college 73.0 27.0 College grad 71.4 28.6 Grad school/grad degree 78.3 21.7 Employment status Employed 69.6 30.4 Retired 79.1 20.9 Unemployed/other 59.7 40.3 Own or rent home Own 76.3 23.7 Rent 58.5 41.5 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 86 Percentage responding Yes No Have children under 18 in household Yes 61.7 38.3 No 75.2 24.8 Survey Telephone 71.7 28.3 Internet 78.6 21.4 Direct mail from the City Nearly two-thirds (64.7 percent) of respondents reported getting information from direct mail sent by the City. The percentage of respondents who reported getting information about the City from direct mail sent by the City varied with the age of the respondent, and was higher among employed respondents, homeowners, respondents living in City Council District 4, and telephone survey respondents (see Table 88). Table 88 Source of Information: Direct Mail from the City By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 47.2 52.8 26 to 35 62.4 37.6 36 to 45 70.4 29.6 46 to 60 72.7 27.3 61 to 70 65.9 34.1 71 and over 55.9 44.1 Employment status Employed 70.8 29.2 Retired 60.0 40.0 Unemployed/other 60.8 39.2 Own or rent home Own 68.3 31.7 Rent 53.6 46.4 City Council District District 1 55.6 44.4 District 2 63.3 36.7 District 3 68.0 32.0 District 4 71.9 28.1 Survey Telephone 64.7 35.3 Internet 40.3 59.7 City libraries City libraries were the source of City information for half (50.2 percent) of the respondents. As shown in Table 89, the percentage of respondents for whom the City libraries were a source of City information generally decreased as the age of the respondent increased, increased as education increased, and was higher among Other ethnic group University of North Texas Survey Research Center 87 respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and telephone survey respondents. Table 89 Source of Information: City Libraries By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 43.2 56.8 26 to 35 65.5 34.5 36 to 45 61.6 38.4 46 to 60 45.7 54.3 61 to 70 48.9 51.1 71 and over 44.3 55.7 Ethnicity Caucasian 47.3 52.7 African-American 53.7 46.3 Hispanic or Latino 65.5 34.5 Other 70.0 30.0 Education High school grad or less 44.4 55.6 Some college 45.5 54.5 College grad 54.9 45.1 Grad school/grad degree 56.1 43.9 Have children under 18 in household Yes 61.1 38.9 No 46.2 53.8 Survey Telephone 50.2 49.8 Internet 39.1 60.9 City Web site Forty-nine percent of respondents indicated they got information about the City from the City Web site. The percentage of respondents who reported getting information about the City of Denton from the City Web site generally increased as length of residence, education and household income increased, varied with the age of the respondent, and was higher among respondents completing the interview in English, employed respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 90). Table 90 Source of Information: City Web Site By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 43.8 56.2 1 to 5 years 51.5 48.5 5 to 10 years 61.2 38.8 More than 10 years 44.6 55.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 88 Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 62.2 37.8 26 to 35 63.1 36.9 36 to 45 70.4 29.6 46 to 60 57.7 42.3 61 to 70 46.7 53.3 71 and over 22.0 78.0 Language of interview English 50.3 49.7 Spanish 24.5 75.5 Education High school grad or less 27.6 72.4 Some college 49.8 50.2 College grad 55.9 44.1 Grad school/grad degree 61.7 38.3 Employment status Employed 58.7 41.3 Retired 37.5 62.5 Unemployed/other 50.0 50.0 Household income Under $10,000 30.4 69.6 $10,001 to $25,000 37.8 62.2 $25,001 to $50,000 47.6 52.4 $50,001 to $75,000 57.4 42.6 $75,001 to $100,000 67.3 32.7 Over $100,000 60.5 39.5 Have children under 18 in household Yes 66.8 33.1 No 42.2 57.8 Survey Telephone 48.7 51.3 Internet 87.6 12.4 Local TV stations Forty-seven percent of respondents reported getting information about the City of Denton from local TV stations. The percentage of respondents who indicated they got information about the City from local TV stations decreased as education and household income increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents and renters (see Table 91). Table 91 Source of Information: Local TV Stations By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Ethnicity Caucasian 42.5 57.5 African-American 59.3 40.7 Hispanic or Latino 75.0 25.0 Other 44.8 55.2 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 89 Percentage responding Yes No Education High school grad or less 59.8 40.2 Some college 46.4 53.6 College grad 42.1 57.9 Grad school/grad degree 39.0 61.0 Household income Under $10,000 64.6 35.4 $10,001 to $25,000 58.0 42.0 $25,001 to $50,000 47.8 52.2 $50,001 to $75,000 44.1 55.9 $75,001 to $100,000 41.6 58.4 Over $100,000 31.9 68.1 Own or rent home Own 42.9 57.1 Rent 59.3 40.7 Newsletters Newsletters were the source of City information for 42.6 percent of respondents. As shown in Table 92, 44.3 percent of homeowners and 36.1 percent of renters reported getting most of their information about the City from newsletters. Telephone survey respondents were more likely than Internet survey respondents to report getting most of their information from newsletters. Table 92 Source of Information: Newsletters By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Own or rent home Own 44.3 55.7 Rent 36.1 63.9 Survey Telephone 42.6 57.4 Internet 31.1 68.9 DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38 One-third (33.4 percent) of respondents reported getting information about the City of Denton from DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38. The percentage of respondents who indicated they got information about the City from DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38 decreased as education and household income increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents, renters, respondents living in City Council District 1, and telephone survey respondents (see Table 93). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 90 Table 93 Source of Information: DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38 By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Ethnicity Caucasian 30.0 70.0 African-American 44.4 55.6 Hispanic or Latino 54.9 45.1 Other 26.7 73.3 Education High school grad or less 41.9 58.1 Some college 31.3 68.8 College grad 27.7 72.3 Grad school/grad degree 32.3 67.7 Household income Under $10,000 35.4 64.6 $10,001 to $25,000 42.9 57.1 $25,001 to $50,000 36.2 63.8 $50,001 to $75,000 33.3 66.7 $75,001 to $100,000 28.0 72.0 Over $100,000 22.8 77.2 Own or rent home Own 30.5 69.5 Rent 42.6 57.4 City Council District District 1 42.4 57.6 District 2 36.5 63.5 District 3 29.9 70.1 District 4 24.6 75.4 Survey Telephone 33.4 66.6 Internet 23.9 76.1 City staff Twenty-six percent of respondents got information about the City from City staff. As shown in Table 94, the percentage of respondents who reported getting information about the City from City staff increased as education increased, and was higher among retired respondents, and homeowners. Table 94 Source of Information: City Staff By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Education High school grad or less 21.9 78.1 Some college 23.2 76.8 College grad 26.5 73.5 Grad school/grad degree 34.0 66.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 91 Percentage responding Yes No Employment status Employed 25.4 74.6 Retired 31.0 69.0 Unemployed/other 18.1 81.9 Own or rent home Own 28.6 71.4 Rent 19.3 80.7 Radio Radio was the source of City information for 25.1 percent of respondents. The percentage of respondents who indicated that they got information about the City from radio generally decreased as the age of the respondent, education and household income increased, and was greater among Hispanic respondents, and homeowners (see Table 95). Table 95 Source of Information: Radio By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 35.1 64.9 26 to 35 30.6 69.4 36 to 45 31.6 68.4 46 to 60 24.7 75.3 61 to 70 17.0 83.0 71 and over 25.0 75.0 Ethnicity Caucasian 21.1 78.9 African-American 38.9 61.1 Hispanic or Latino 45.8 54.2 Other 26.7 73.3 Education High school grad or less 37.8 62.2 Some college 24.5 75.5 College grad 17.7 82.3 Grad school/grad degree 20.6 79.4 Household income Under $10,000 41.7 58.3 $10,001 to $25,000 35.5 64.5 $25,001 to $50,000 16.1 83.9 $50,001 to $75,000 24.1 75.9 $75,001 to $100,000 25.7 74.3 Over $100,000 15.8 84.2 Own or rent home Own 22.4 77.6 Rent 32.7 67.3 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 92 E-mail Twenty-four percent of respondents indicated they got information about the City from e- mail. The percentage of respondents reporting they got information about the City from e-mail was higher among respondents who completed the interview in English and increased as education increased (see Table 96). Internet survey respondents were more likely than telephone survey respondents to indicate they got most of their information by e- mail. Table 96 Source of Information: E-Mail By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Language of interview English 24.4 75.6 Spanish 9.6 90.4 Education High school grad or less 13.8 86.2 Some college 24.8 75.2 College grad 24.5 75.5 Grad school/grad degree 31.2 68.8 Survey Telephone 23.5 76.5 Internet 36.7 63.3 City Council The City Council was the source of information about the City for 21.0 percent of respondents. As shown in Table 97, the percentage of respondents who indicated they got information about the City from the City Council generally increased as the age of the respondent increased, and was higher among respondents with graduate school experience or more, retired respondents, and homeowners. Table 97 Source of Information: City Council By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 13.5 86.5 26 to 35 11.8 88.2 36 to 45 18.2 81.8 46 to 60 18.3 81.7 61 to 70 26.7 73.3 71 and over 24.7 75.3 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 93 Percentage responding Yes No Education High school grad or less 19.4 80.6 Some college 17.7 82.3 College grad 16.4 83.6 Grad school/grad degree 30.9 69.1 Employment status Employed 18.7 81.3 Retired 26.3 73.7 Unemployed/other 14.6 85.4 Own or rent home Own 23.2 76.8 Rent 15.5 84.5 Text message Six percent of respondents reported that they got information about the City of Denton from text messages. As shown in Table 98, the percentage of respondents reporting they got information about the City from text messages was higher among respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, respondents with a high school diploma or less, renters, and respondents with children under 18 living in the household. Table 98 Source of Information: Text Message By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Language of interview English 5.0 95.0 Spanish 14.0 86.0 Education High school grad or less 10.8 89.2 Some college 3.3 96.7 College grad 4.4 95.6 Grad school/grad degree 4.3 95.7 Own or rent home Own 4.3 95.7 Rent 9.3 90.7 Have children under 18 in household Yes 8.6 91.4 No 4.5 95.5 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 94 Table 99 Preferred Method of Getting Information about the City of Denton Percentage responding Preferred Next best method method (n=766) (n=700) Denton Record Chronicle 27.7 16.2 Direct mail from the City 15.8 10.6 City web site 13.5 10.6 Newsletter 9.6 10.3 E-mail 8.3 8.2 Utility bill insert 8.0 13.0 Local TV stations 5.5 8.2 DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38 3.4 5.6 Word of mouth 3.1 8.3 City libraries 1.6 3.3 City Staff 1.3 1.9 Radio 0.9 2.0 City Council 0.8 1.1 Text message 0.5 0.7 Respondents were asked which of those methods was their preferred method for getting information from the City, followed by which was their next best method. As shown in Table 99, reading the Denton Record Chronicle (27.7 percent) was the preferred method of getting information from the City, followed by direct mail from the City (15.8 percent), and the City web site (13.5 percent). Reading the Denton Record Chronicle (16.2 percent) was also the next best method of getting information from the City, followed by utility bill inserts (13.0 percent). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 95 Table 100 Willingness to Use Methods When Dealing with the City of Denton Percentage responding Very Somewhat Not willing willing Willing Appearing in person (n=789) 38.0 34.8 27.2 On-line registration (n=770) 41.6 18.5 40.0 On-line bill pay (n=784) 35.6 14.7 49.7 Automated bill pay by phone (n=783) 14.5 18.4 67.1 Respondents were asked if, when paying bills, submitting forms or registering for classes with the City of Denton, they would be willing to use each of the methods shown in Table 100. As shown in Table 100, respondents were more likely to report willingness to appear in person (72.8 percent), register on-line (60.1 percent), and pay bills on-line (50.3 percent) than use the automated bill pay by telephone (32.9 percent). Appear in person Seventy-three percent of respondents indicated they were either very willing (38.0 percent) or somewhat willing (34.8 percent) to appear in person to pay bills, submit forms or register for classes with the City of Denton (see Table 100). As shown in Table 101, the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very willing or somewhat willing to appear in person when dealing with the City of Denton generally decreased as the age of the respondent increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents, unemployed/other respondents, and respondents with children under 18 living in the household. Thirty-eight percent of telephone survey respondents and 25.9 percent of Internet survey respondents were very willing to appear in person. Table 101 Willingness to Appear in Person By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Very Somewhat Not willing willing willing Age 18 to 25 40.5 37.8 21.6 26 to 35 42.9 34.5 22.6 36 to 45 45.9 33.7 20.4 46 to 60 38.6 38.6 22.8 61 to 70 36.5 35.4 28.2 71 and over 30.5 31.6 38.0 Ethnicity Caucasian 34.4 35.9 29.7 African-American 59.3 25.9 14.8 Hispanic or Latino 53.0 33.7 13.3 Other 33.3 40.0 26.7 Employment status Employed 41.5 35.4 23.2 Retired 33.9 32.0 34.2 Unemployed/other 38.5 40.6 21.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 96 Percentage responding Very Somewhat Not willing willing willing Have children under 18 in household Yes 45.0 35.9 19.1 No 35.2 34.7 30.1 Survey Telephone 38.0 34.8 27.2 Internet 25.9 47.8 26.3 On-line registration Sixty percent of respondents indicated they were either very willing (41.6 percent) or somewhat willing (18.5 percent) to register on-line for classes. As shown in Table 102, the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very willing or somewhat willing to use on-line registration for classes increased as length of residence, education and household income increased, decreased as the age of the respondent increased, and was higher among Other ethnic group respondents, respondents who completed the interview in English, employed respondents, homeowners, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, respondents living in City Council District 4, and Internet survey respondents. Table 102 Willingness to Use On-line Registration By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Very Somewhat Not willing willing willing Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 32.3 25.8 41.9 1 to 5 years 51.5 18.6 29.9 5 to 10 years 53.1 19.5 27.3 More than 10 years 35.1 17.6 47.3 Age 18 to 25 45.9 37.8 16.2 26 to 35 66.3 13.3 20.5 36 to 45 47.4 30.9 21.6 46 to 60 48.4 21.1 30.5 61 to 70 45.2 13.6 41.2 71 and over 16.6 11.6 71.8 Ethnicity Caucasian 44.3 18.4 37.4 African-American 27.8 18.5 53.7 Hispanic or Latino 27.2 21.0 51.9 Other 58.6 13.8 27.6 Gender Female 40.8 16.3 42.9 Male 42.9 22.3 34.8 Language of interview English 44.0 18.4 37.5 Spanish 4.2 18.8 77.1 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 97 Percentage responding Very Somewhat Not willing willing willing Education High school grad or less 16.8 15.6 67.6 Some college 42.4 22.7 35.0 College grad 51.0 18.5 30.5 Grad school/grad degree 55.7 16.4 27.9 Employment status Employed 51.9 21.3 26.9 Retired 31.4 14.2 54.5 Unemployed/other 40.4 19.9 39.7 Household income Under $10,000 13.3 6.7 80.0 $10,001 to $25,000 29.9 17.9 52.1 $25,001 to $50,000 32.4 25.7 41.9 $50,001 to $75,000 52.6 14.8 32.6 $75,001 to $100,000 63.6 15.2 21.2 Over $100,000 59.1 21.8 19.1 Own or rent home Own 45.0 17.7 37.3 Rent 32.4 19.2 48.4 Have children under 18 in household Yes 54.9 19.4 25.7 No 36.8 17.9 45.3 City Council District District 1 28.9 22.7 48.5 District 2 38.2 19.4 42.4 District 3 44.2 14.7 41.1 District 4 54.9 16.9 28.2 Survey Telephone 41.6 18.5 40.0 Internet 67.8 18.8 13.4 On-line bill pay Half (50.3 percent) of respondents reported they were either very willing (35.6 percent) or somewhat willing (14.7 percent) to use on-line bill pay. As shown in Table 103, the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very willing or somewhat willing to use on-line bill pay when dealing with the City of Denton varied with length of residence, increased as education and household income increased, decreased as the age of the respondent increased, and was higher among Caucasian respondents, male respondents, employed respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, respondents living in City Council District 4, and Internet survey respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 98 Table 103 Willingness to Use On-line Bill Pay By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Very Somewhat Not willing willing willing Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 32.3 22.6 45.2 1 to 5 years 49.1 13.8 37.1 5 to 10 years 45.4 13.1 41.5 More than 10 years 27.9 15.1 57.0 Age 18 to 25 40.5 32.4 27.0 26 to 35 61.9 6.0 32.1 36 to 45 40.8 19.4 39.8 46 to 60 39.1 17.2 43.8 61 to 70 36.8 14.3 48.9 71 and over 15.1 10.8 74.2 Ethnicity Caucasian 38.1 15.2 46.7 African-American 20.8 13.2 66.0 Hispanic or Latino 25.6 14.6 59.8 Other 41.4 10.3 48.3 Gender Female 33.7 13.1 53.3 Male 38.7 17.9 43.4 Education High school grad or less 15.8 12.0 72.1 Some college 36.7 15.0 48.3 College grad 43.8 17.9 38.3 Grad school/grad degree 45.2 13.8 41.0 Employment status Employed 44.2 17.4 38.4 Retired 29.1 10.9 60.1 Unemployed/other 29.8 17.0 53.2 Household income Under $10,000 13.0 2.2 84.8 $10,001 to $25,000 20.8 15.8 63.3 $25,001 to $50,000 27.2 18.5 54.3 $50,001 to $75,000 41.6 13.1 45.3 $75,001 to $100,000 56.6 13.1 30.3 Over $100,000 54.0 20.4 25.7 Have children under 18 in household Yes 49.8 12.6 37.7 No 30.4 15.5 54.2 City Council District District 1 26.0 16.8 57.1 District 2 34.2 12.2 53.6 District 3 32.7 14.8 52.6 District 4 49.0 15.3 35.7 Survey Telephone 35.6 14.7 49.7 Internet 66.2 15.0 18.8 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 99 Automated bill pay by phone One-third (32.9 percent) of respondents were either very willing (14.5 percent) or somewhat willing (18.4 percent) to use the automated bill pay by telephone. As shown in Table 104, the percentage of respondents who indicated they were either very willing or somewhat willing to use automated bill pay by phone decreased as the age of the respondent increased, and was higher among employed respondents, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents. Table 104 Willingness to Use Automated Bill Pay by Phone By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Very Somewhat Not willing willing willing Age 18 to 25 8.1 37.8 54.1 26 to 35 25.6 24.4 50.0 36 to 45 20.4 22.4 57.1 46 to 60 17.0 22.7 60.3 61 to 70 12.7 16.0 71.3 71 and over 7.5 8.1 84.4 Employment status Employed 16.4 24.3 59.3 Retired 11.5 12.5 76.0 Unemployed/other 17.3 18.7 64.0 Have children under 18 in household Yes 20.8 23.7 55.6 No 12.3 16.7 71.0 Survey Telephone 14.5 18.4 67.1 Internet 22.0 27.5 50.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 100 Figure 17 Visited City of Denton Web Site in Past 12 Months (n=794) Yes No 56.7% 43.3% Respondents were asked if they or a member of their household had visited the City of Denton Web site (CityofDenton.com) in the past 12 months. Fifty-seven percent of the respondents (see Figure 17). The percentage of respondents who reported that someone in their household had visited the City of Denton Web site increased as length of residence, education and household income increased, varied with the age of the respondent, and was higher among Caucasian respondents, employed respondents, homeowners, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 105). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 101 Table 105 Visited Denton Web Site in Past 12 Months By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 53.1 46.9 1 to 5 years 61.2 38.8 5 to 10 years 68.7 31.3 More than 10 years 51.6 48.4 Age 18 to 25 67.6 32.4 26 to 35 72.9 27.1 36 to 45 73.7 26.3 46 to 60 65.5 34.5 61 to 70 59.9 40.1 71 and over 27.5 72.5 Ethnicity Caucasian 60.3 39.7 African-American 51.9 48.1 Hispanic or Latino 38.6 61.4 Other 58.6 41.4 Education High school grad or less 33.2 66.8 Some college 57.8 42.2 College grad 65.5 34.5 Grad school/grad degree 69.7 30.3 Employment status Employed 67.8 32.2 Retired 45.6 54.4 Unemployed/other 55.2 44.8 Household income Under $10,000 23.4 76.6 $10,001 to $25,000 40.0 60.0 $25,001 to $50,000 58.6 41.4 $50,001 to $75,000 66.4 33.6 $75,001 to $100,000 73.0 27.0 Over $100,000 71.1 28.9 Own or rent home Own 60.5 39.5 Rent 44.6 55.4 Have children under 18 in household Yes 70.3 29.7 No 51.7 48.3 Survey Telephone 56.7 43.3 Internet 97.6 2.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 102 Figure 18 Would Use Wireless Internet Access at the Library (n=791) 60% 50% 47.4% 40% 29.2% 30% 20% 11.8% 9.4% 10% 2.2% 0% DailyWeeklyMonthlyA few times aNever year Respondents were asked if they would use wireless Internet access at the three libraries if the Denton Public Library offered it. As shown in Figure 18, 23.4 percent of the respondents indicated they would use wireless Internet access at the library at least monthly if offered: daily (2.2 percent), weekly (11.8 percent), and monthly (9.4 percent). Twenty-nine percent reported they would use it a few times a year, and 47.4 percent indicated they would never use it. As shown in Table 106, the percentage of respondents who reported they would use wireless Internet access at the library at least monthly if it was offered decreased as length of residence increased, and was higher among respondents who completed the interview in Spanish, unemployed/other respondents, renters, respondents with children under 18 living in the household, and Internet survey respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 103 Table 106 Would Use Wireless Internet Access at Libraries By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Daily Weekly Monthly A few times Never a year Length of residence in Denton 6 to 12 months 0.0 21.9 15.6 34.4 28.1 1 to 5 years 2.3 17.0 9.9 26.9 43.9 5 to 10 years 1.6 10.2 14.1 35.2 39.0 More than 10 years 2.6 9.8 7.2 28.3 52.2 Language of interview English 2.4 11.1 8.9 28.1 49.5 Spanish 0.0 23.5 13.7 47.1 15.7 Employment status Employed 2.7 12.1 10.9 33.0 41.2 Retired 1.3 9.5 6.6 22.5 60.1 Unemployed/other 3.5 16.9 10.6 35.9 33.1 Own or rent home Own 1.7 9.4 9.2 28.7 50.9 Rent 3.6 19.6 8.8 32.0 36.1 Have children under 18 in household Yes 4.8 14.9 15.4 38.9 26.0 No 1.4 10.8 7.0 25.8 55.0 Survey Telephone 2.2 11.8 9.4 29.2 47.4 Internet 7.6 11.4 8.6 32.4 40.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 104 Contact with City Staff Figure 19 Contacted City Staff in Past 12 Months (n=794) YesNo 48.7%51.3% Respondents were asked if they or a member of their household had contacted the City of Denton about a complaint, request for service, or information in the past 12 months or had any contact with city employees while they were performing their jobs. As shown in Figure 19, 48.7 percent of the respondents The percentage of respondents who reported contacting the City of Denton regarding a complaint, request for service, or information in the past 12 months or had contact with city employees while they were performing their jobs generally increased as the age of the respondent increased, increased as education and household income increased, and was higher among Caucasian respondents, homeowners, respondents living in City Council District 2, and Internet survey respondents (see Table 107). University of North Texas Survey Research Center 105 Table 107 Contacted City in Past 12 Months By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Yes No Age 18 to 25 33.3 66.7 26 to 35 35.3 64.7 36 to 45 56.1 43.9 46 to 60 54.3 45.7 61 to 70 58.9 41.1 71 and over 36.3 63.7 Ethnicity Caucasian 52.2 47.8 African-American 46.3 53.7 Hispanic or Latino 22.9 77.1 Other 50.0 50.0 Language of interview English 50.5 49.5 Spanish 17.3 82.7 Education High school grad or less 28.5 71.5 Some college 42.2 57.8 College grad 58.8 41.2 Grad school/grad degree 63.3 36.7 Household income Under $10,000 25.0 75.0 $10,001 to $25,000 36.4 63.6 $25,001 to $50,000 46.8 53.2 $50,001 to $75,000 54.0 46.0 $75,001 to $100,000 57.4 42.6 Over $100,000 60.7 39.3 Own or rent home Own 55.6 44.4 Rent 26.4 73.6 City Council District District 1 39.2 60.8 District 2 54.3 45.7 District 3 50.3 49.7 District 4 49.7 50.3 Survey Telephone 48.7 51.3 Internet 75.0 25.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 106 Table 108 1 Person or Office Contacted (n=503) Percentage responding Police 22.0 Streets 21.1 18.6 Denton Municipal Electric 13.4 Customer Service, Utilities 13.1 Water/Wastewater 9.1 Legal/Risk Management 7.1 Code Enforcement 6.3 Parks and Recreation 4.9 Trash Collection/Recycling 4.9 Planning 4.3 Municipal Court 3.7 Engineering 3.4 Libraries 3.4 Fire (EMS) 2.6 Public Communications Office 2.0 Airport 1.7 Building Inspections 1.1 Human Resources 0.6 Economic Development 0.3 Respondents who reported contacting the City in the past 12 months were asked what person or office they contacted. As shown in Table 108, 22.0 percent of those respondents reported contacting the City about a complaint, request for service, or information contacted the Police Department. This was followed by Streets (21.1 percent), and Customer Service, Utilities (13.1 percent). Nine percent or less of the respondents contacted any of the other departments. 1 Because respondents could have contacted more than one City department, the percentages will not add to 100.0 percent. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 107 Table 109 Method of Contact Count responding In-person Phone E-mail Airport (n=2) 1 1 0 Building Inspections (n=3) 0 3 0 Code Enforcement (n=61) 12 48 1 22) 10 5 7 Customer Service, Utilities (n=46) 14 32 0 Denton Municipal Electric (n=47) 13 34 0 Economic Development (n=1) 0 1 0 Engineering (n=12) 6 6 0 Fire (EMS) (n=5) 2 3 0 Human Resources (n=2) 0 2 0 Legal/Risk management (n=25) 4 20 1 Libraries (n=12) 11 0 1 Municipal Court (n=12) 9 3 0 Parks and Recreation (n=16) 7 7 2 Planning (n=15) 9 4 2 Police (n=20) 12 8 0 Public Communications Office (n=7) 4 3 0 Trash Collection/Recycling (n=72) 10 61 1 Streets (n=17) 4 12 1 Water/Wastewater (n=31) 5 25 1 Respondents who reported contacting the City in the past 12 months were asked how they contacted the person or office. As shown in Table 109, most departments were contacted either by phone or in person. E-mail was used in a limited number of cases. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 108 Table 110 Satisfaction with Contact: Time Waited for Response Count responding Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied Airport (n=2) 1 1 0 0 Building Inspections (n=3) 2 1 0 0 Code Enforcement (n=58) 13 35 5 5 21) 12 6 1 2 Customer Service, Utilities (n=45) 15 19 7 4 Denton Municipal Electric (n=46) 19 22 4 1 Economic Development (n=1) 1 0 0 0 Engineering (n=12) 5 6 1 0 Fire (EMS) Non-emergency (n=5) 2 2 1 0 Human Resources (n=2) 1 1 0 0 Legal/Risk Management (n=24) 9 11 2 2 Libraries (n=12) 11 0 1 0 Municipal Court (n=12) 3 6 2 1 Parks and Recreation (n=17) 11 5 1 0 Planning (n=15) 5 6 2 2 Police Non-emergency (n=20) 9 10 1 0 Public Communications Office (n=8) 5 3 0 0 Trash Collection/Recycling (n=71) 34 31 5 1 Streets (n=17) 6 9 1 1 Water/Wastewater (n=31) 15 13 2 1 Respondents who reported contacting the City in the past 12 months were asked if they were satisfied with the time they waited/stayed on hold before they received a response from/spoke with the person. As shown in Table 110, most respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the time waited to receive a response/speak with the person. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 109 Table 111 Satisfaction with Contact: Professionalism Count responding Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied Airport (n=2) 1 1 0 0 Building Inspections (n=3) 2 1 0 0 Code Enforcement (n=60) 29 21 6 3 22) 15 5 0 2 Customer Service, Utilities (n=46) 17 22 4 3 Denton Municipal Electric (n=45) 21 21 0 3 Economic Development (n=1) 1 0 0 0 Engineering (n=12) 7 4 1 0 Fire (EMS) Non-emergency (n=5) 2 1 1 1 Human Resources (n=2) 2 0 0 0 Legal/Risk Management (n=25) 9 13 2 1 Libraries (n=12) 11 1 0 0 Municipal Court (n=12) 5 4 2 1 Parks and Recreation (n=17) 9 5 2 1 Planning (n=15) 8 4 2 1 Police Non-emergency (n=20) 11 8 1 0 Public Communications Office (n=8) 4 4 0 0 Trash Collection/Recycling (n=72) 42 25 3 2 Streets (n=17) 8 8 0 1 Water/Wastewater (n=32) 21 8 2 1 Respondents who reported contacting the City in the past 12 months were asked if they were satisfied with the professionalism of the person they contacted. As shown in Table 111, most respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the professionalism of the person they contacted. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 110 Table 112 Satisfaction with Contact: Ability to Solve Problem or Concern Percentage responding Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied Airport (n=2) 1 1 0 0 Building Inspections (n=3) 2 1 0 0 Code Enforcement (n=57) 19 21 10 8 22) 11 6 3 2 Customer Service, Utilities (n=46) 16 21 6 3 Denton Municipal Electric (n=45) 24 18 1 2 Economic Development (n=1) 1 0 0 0 Engineering (n=12) 5 4 1 2 Fire (EMS) Non-emergency (n=5) 2 1 0 2 Human Resources (n=2) 2 0 0 0 Legal/Risk Management (n=25) 8 7 6 4 Libraries (n=12) 10 1 0 1 Municipal Court (n=12) 4 5 2 1 Parks and Recreation (n=17) 9 3 3 2 Planning (n=14) 4 4 5 1 Police Non-emergency (n=20) 10 8 2 0 Public Communications Office (n=8) 5 3 0 0 Trash Collection/Recycling (n=73) 44 19 6 4 Streets (n=17) 7 8 2 0 Water/Wastewater (n=32) 21 9 2 0 Respondents who reported contacting the City in the past 12 months were asked if they were satisfied with the ability of the person to solve their problems or concerns. As shown in Table 112, most respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the ability of the person to solve their problems or concerns. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 111 Figure 20 Reason for Contact with Fire Department (n=9) EMS 31.6% Other emergency 12.6% Other non- emergency 55.8% Respondents who indicated they had contact with the Fire Department were asked the reason for that contact. Of the nine respondents who answered this question, three called 911 for EMS, one called about some other emergency, and five called about a non-emergency (see Figure 20). As shown in Table 113, the respondents who contacted the Fire Department regarding an emergency were satisfied in general with that contact. Other reasons for contacting the Fire Department included a medical situation, a fire hazard, and getting a cat out of a tree. See Appendix B for a list. Table 113 Satisfaction with Fire Department Emergency Contact Count responding Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied Time on hold before spoke to 911 operator (n=4) 4 0 0 0 Professionalism of 911 operator (n=4) 4 0 0 0 Ability of person to collect the needed information for your call (n=4) 2 1 1 0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 112 Figure 21 Fire Department/Ambulance Responded to Call (n=4) Yes No 75.0% 25.0% Respondents who contacted the Fire Department due to an emergency were asked if the Fire Department/Ambulance had been sent to respond to their call. Three of the four respondents answered 21). As shown in Table 114, all three of the respondents for whom the Fire Department or Ambulance was dispatched were very satisfied with . Table 114 Satisfaction with Fire Department Emergency Response Count responding Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied Time it took the Fire Department/EMS to arrive (n=3) 3 0 0 0 Professionalism of personnel who responded (n=3) 3 0 0 0 Ability of Fire/EMS personnel to serve your needs (n=3) 3 0 0 0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 113 Table 115 Reason for Contact with Police Department (n=90) Percentage responding Emergency Called 911 for help 3.3 Called 911 to report a crime 2.1 Report suspicious noise 2.1 Report suspicious behavior 4.8 Other emergency 7.9 Non-emergency Called 911 to report a crime 19.9 Called to make an inquiry 33.8 Traffic violation 3.3 Participated in citizen police academy/other program 1.0 General social interaction 1.0 Other social contact 20.8 Respondents who indicated they had contact with the Police Department were asked the reason for that contact. The most common reason was making an inquiry (33.8 percent), followed by reporting a crime in a non-emergency situation (19.9 percent). (see Table 115). As shown in Table 116, the respondents who contacted the Police Department regarding an emergency were satisfied in general with that contact. Other reasons for contacting the Police Department included accidents (emergency) and complaints about noise, traffic, and education about false identity. See Appendix B for a complete list of comments. Table 116 Satisfaction with Police Department Emergency Contact Count responding Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied Time on hold before spoke to 911 operator (n=1) 1 0 0 0 Professionalism of 911 operator (n=1) 0 1 0 0 Ability of person to collect the needed information for your call (n=1) 0 1 0 0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 114 Figure 22 Police Department Responded to Call (n=18) Yes No 89.6% 10.4% Respondents who contacted the Police Department due to an emergency were asked if Police personnel had been sent to respond to their call. Sixteen of the eighteen 22). As shown in Table 117, most of the respondents for whom the police were dispatched were very satisfied or satisfied with the Police response. Table 117 Satisfaction with Police Department Emergency Response Count responding Very Satisfied Dissatisfied Very satisfied dissatisfied Time it took personnel to arrive (n=16) 11 5 0 0 Professionalism of personnel who responded (n=16) 12 3 1 0 Ability of police personnel to serve your needs (n=15) 10 4 1 0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 115 Table 118 Type of Contact with Municipal Court (Internet only) 1 (n=19) Percentage responding Appeared in person Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm 11 Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 8:00 am 3 Thursday, 4:00 pm to 6:30 pm 2 Made an appearance before the judge 2 Used phone Automated phone line for information 1 Automated phone line for payment by credit card 1 Spoke with clerk over the telephone 9 Used Internet City of Denton Web site for information about Municipal Court 10 City of Denton Web site to make a payment by credit card 1 E-mail contact to correspond with Municipal ffice 1 Internet survey respondents were asked if they used any of the services in Table 118 in their contacts with Municipal Court. This question was not asked in the telephone survey. As shown in Table 118, the most common contacts took place Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm, over the Telephone speaking with a clerk, and using of the City of Denton Website to look for information about the Municipal Court. 1 Because respondents could give more than one answer, the total count exceeds the total number of respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 116 Figure 23 Overall Value of City Services Compared to City-Related Taxes and Fees Paid (n=777) 60% 56.4% 50% 40% 30% 20.9% 17.9% 20% 10% 4.7% 0% ExcellentGoodFairPoor Respondents were asked if, overall, they considered the services currently provided by the City of Denton to be an excellent, good, fair or poor value compared to the city- related taxes and fees they paid. As shown in Figure 23, 74.3 percent of respondents rated the value of city services compared to taxes and fees paid as either excellent (17.9 percent) or good (56.4 percent). As shown in Table 119, the percentage of respondents who rated the value of city services compared to taxes and fees paid as either excellent or good generally increased as the age of the respondent increased, increased as education and household income increased, and was higher among Hispanic respondents, male respondents, retired respondents, and telephone survey respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 117 Table 119 Overall Value of City Services Compared to City-Related Taxes and Fees Paid By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Age 18 to 25 8.3 61.1 25.0 5.6 26 to 35 15.5 59.5 22.6 2.4 36 to 45 14.6 50.0 29.2 6.3 46 to 60 11.3 61.3 18.6 8.8 61 to 70 19.3 55.2 21.0 4.4 71 and over 27.9 52.0 19.0 1.1 Ethnicity Caucasian 18.9 56.8 20.4 3.9 African-American 7.5 49.1 30.2 13.2 Hispanic or Latino 14.6 65.9 17.1 2.4 Other 25.0 28.6 32.1 14.3 Gender Female 15.0 58.0 23.0 4.0 Male 22.8 52.9 18.1 6.2 Education High school grad or less 11.4 58.7 24.5 5.4 Some college 19.6 55.4 20.1 4.9 College grad 15.2 62.4 19.3 3.0 Grad school/grad degree 25.4 47.0 21.6 5.9 Employment status Employed 14.8 58.8 19.7 6.7 Retired 23.9 51.5 21.0 3.6 Unemployed/other 11.6 60.1 25.4 2.9 Household income Under $10,000 14.9 51.1 19.1 14.9 $10,001 to $25,000 24.1 50.9 24.1 0.9 $25,001 to $50,000 16.9 59.0 22.4 1.6 $50,001 to $75,000 17.6 63.2 14.0 5.1 $75,001 to $100,000 22.4 62.2 13.3 2.0 Over $100,000 14.2 51.3 25.7 8.8 Survey Telephone 17.9 56.4 20.9 4.7 Internet 15.5 50.2 23.7 10.6 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 118 Table 120 City Services Would Like to Receive Increased Funding (n=701) Percentage responding Streets 37.8 Library 7.4 Prefer none get increased funding/ reduce taxes 7.3 Police services 6.4 Parks 4.9 Recreation programs 4.0 Trails 2.9 Sidewalks 2.3 Fire Department 1.9 Other, specify 25.2 Respondents were asked if there were additional funds available, what one City service they would like to get increased funding. Thirty-eight percent wanted additional street funding (see Table 120). Twenty-five percent of respondents wanted some other service to receive additional funding. As shown in Table 121, the top four services were public transportation (16.6 percent), street issues such as lighting (13.7 percent), schools/education (12.0 percent) and utilities-electric and water (9.7 percent). A complete list can be found in Appendix B. Table 121 Other City Services Would Like to Receive Increased Funding (n=175) Percentage responding Public transportation 16.6 Street issues 13.7 Schools/education 12.0 Utilities electric and water 9.7 Trash collection and recycling 7.4 Emergency services 5.7 Animal control 4.6 Services for low-income/disabled citizens 4.0 Programs for children/youth 4.0 Services for senior citizens 3.4 Housing 2.9 Code enforcement 2.3 Sewer/drainage 2.3 Arts/culture 1.7 Economic development 1.7 Planning 1.7 Health care 1.1 Environment 1.1 Communication 1.1 Other 2.9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 119 Figure 121 Support or Oppose Paying Increased City-Related Taxes or Fees (n=618) SupportOppose 64.0%36.0% Respondents who selected a city service to receive increased funding if funds were available were asked if they would support or oppose paying increased city-related taxes or fees to make more funds available for increased funding of that service. Sixty-four percent of those respondents indicated they would support paying increased taxes or fees (see Figure 121). As shown in Table 122, the percentage of respondents who indicated they supported paying increased city-related taxes or fees to make more funds available for increased funding of a city service varied with education and was higher among renters. Table 122 Support or Oppose Increased City-Related Taxes or Fees By Selected Demographics Percentage responding Support Oppose Education High school grad or less 66.1 33.9 Some college 60.0 40.0 College grad 58.9 41.1 Grad school/grad degree 72.3 27.7 Own or rent home Own 61.5 38.5 Rent 72.3 27.7 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 120 VI. CONCLUSIONS The 2008 Denton Citizen Survey reveals that the majority of telephone respondents (88.8 percent) rated the quality of life in Denton as excellent (29.0 percent) or good (59.8 percent). About one-quarter of the respondents reported that the best thing about living in the City of Denton was that it had a small town or college town atmosphere. Other aspects included the distance from Dallas/Fort Worth (11.3 percent) and the quality of schools (10.9 percent). Thirty-seven percent of the respondents wanted better road construction/repair to make Denton a better place to live. A majority of respondents rated all city services either excellent or good. The only exception was street maintenance where 65.3 percent of the respondents rated this service as either fair or poor. Among the reasons given for poor ratings included potholes, rough and uneven roads, the number of roads under construction or being repaired including Loop 288, and the length of time taken to repair or construct roads. Maintenance of city parks (92.5 percent), landscaped medians on major streets (85.3 percent) and graffiti removal (80.3 percent) were rated either excellent or good. However, about half of respondents rated maintenance of major street surfaces (50.9 percent) and residential street surfaces (49.4 percent) either excellent or good. Excellent/good ratings of other street-related issues also varied: visibility of street signs (73.0 percent), condition of existing sidewalks (61.4 percent), signal timing on major city streets (60.4 percent), availability of sidewalks (51.3 percent) and efficiency of travel between major residential areas and major retail/employment centers in Denton (43.2 percent). Construction especially on Loop 288, traffic, and lack of another north- south route through Denton were among the reasons given by respondents who rated efficiency of travel as poor. The largest percentage of respondents who paid their electric bill directly indicated that DME rates (46.7 percent) and DME reliability of service (69.1 percent) were about the same as other electric supply companies. Denton police services received excellent or good ratings from 88.0 percent of the respondents. Ninety-seven percent of the respondents rated fire services as excellent or good. Ambulance services were rated excellent or good by 93.4 percent of the respondents. About twenty percent of the respondents reported contact with the Police Department while contact with Ambulance Services (11.9 percent) and Fire Department (8.8 percent) was less common. Between 35 and 70 percent of respondents used other city services in the past 12 months: parks (69.4 percent), library (66.5 percent), bicycle and walking trails (43.1 percent), recreation centers (42.0 percent) and recreational programs (35.5 percent). Respondents were asked about different types of transportation. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated they used a bicycle at last monthly as their primary mode of transportation. A large majority (70.7 percent) reported their use of a bicycle would remain the same even if there were more dedicated bike lanes. Eighteen percent reported that they or someone they knew had visited the Denton airport in the last 12 months. These respondents reported high excellent/good ratings for the airport facilities (81.0 percent) and services (80.3 percent). Fourteen percent of respondents reported a member of their family had used the Denton bus system in the last 12 months while another 26.4 percent had seriously considered using it. Ridership of this system decreased as age, education and household income increased. Over 60 percent of the riders and potential riders rated the public transportation services in general (63.3 percent), the locations of bus stops (65.3 percent), the availability of information about routes (64.6 percent), the condition of bus stops (63.7 percent), and the route system destinations (60.4 percent) as either excellent or good. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 121 Nearly all respondents (91.0 percent) reported feeling safe and secure living in the City of Denton either always (48.3 percent) or usually (42.7 percent). Lighting quality at night was deemed to be adequate by a majority of the respondents on major thoroughfares (87.1 percent), city parks (80.8 percent), neighborhood streets (79.0 percent), and trails (61.8 percent). Eighty-six percent of respondents indicated that police visibility was either excellent (27.0 percent) or good (58.8 percent). The highest excellent/good ratings were reported by respondents living in City Council District 2 and the lowest from those in City Council District 1. Respondents were more likely to report seeing litter (45.1 percent), high grass and weeds (38.6 percent) stray animals (36.7 percent) and drainage or flooding problems (24.6 percent) either frequently or sometimes. These were followed by cars parked on yards (24.3 percent), substandard or deteriorating housing (21.4 percent), junk vehicles (18.9 percent) and illegal dumping (13.9 percent) in their neighborhood. These problems were more likely to be reported in City Council District 1 than other districts. Seventy-two percent indicated that they get enough information about City programs and services. The most common source of information about the City of Denton was word of mouth (72.9 percent) followed by utility bill inserts (72.2 percent), the Denton Record Chronicle (71.7 percent), and direct mail from the City (64.7 percent). The Record Chronicle was the preferred method of getting information about the City. Eighty percent of respondents reported having Internet access at home (47.2 percent), at work (2.6 percent), or at both sites (30.5 percent). Twelve percent of these respondents reported accessing the Internet with their cell phone. Half or more of the respondents reported willingness to appear in person, use on-line registration, or on-line bill pay when dealing with the City. Two-thirds (67.1 percent) were unwilling to use automated bill pay by phone. A larger percentage of Internet survey respondents than phone survey respondents expressed willingness to use technology when communicating with the City. Fifty-seven percent of all respondents indicated that someone in their household had -quarter of respondents reported they would use wireless Internet access at the three libraries at least monthly if the Denton Public Library offered it. Forty-nine percent of the respondents reported contacting the city about a complaint, request for service, or for information in the past 12 months or had any contact with city employees while they were performing their jobs. Departments contacted most often were the Po Most departments were contacted either by phone or in person. E-mail was used in a limited number of cases. Most respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the time waited to receive a response/speak with the person, the professionalism of the person they contacted, and their ability to solve the problem or concern. A few respondents contacted the Fire Department or Police Department in an emergency situation. All were satisfied with their contact. However, two respondents were dissatisfied with the professionalism of the personnel who responded to their call and the ability of police personnel to serve their needs at the scene. The most common type of contacts with the Municipal Court took place Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., over the phone speaking with a clerk, and using the City of Denton Web site to look for information about the Court. Three-quarters (74.3 percent) of respondents rated the services currently provided by the City of Denton to be an excellent or good value compared to the city-related taxes and fees they paid. Streets (37.8 percent) was the most common answer when asked there they would like additional funding to go if it were available. Sixty-four percent of respondents who selected a city service to get increased funding indicated they would support paying increased taxes or fees. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 122 This page intentionally left blank. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 123 APPENDIX A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT University of North Texas Survey Research Center 124 City of Denton 2008 Citizen Survey North Texas. The City of Denton is conducting a survey of its citizens and I would like to talk with (TO RESPONDENT) any female/male age 18 or older. The City is conducting a survey to determine how citizens rate City services. The questions that I want to ask you will take about 15 minutes and your answers will be useful to the City as it develops programs and budgets for the future. All of your answers will be kept confidential. This project has been reviewed by the UNT Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects. If you have any questions, please call 1-800- 687-7055. Keep in mind that text in ALL CAPS is generally not read out loud. 1. How long have you lived in Denton? (TERMINATE INTERVIEW) 1. LESS THAN 6 MONTHS (TERMINATE INTERVIEW) 2. NO LONGER LIVE IN DENTON 3. 3 TO 12 MONTHS 4. 1-5 YEARS 5. 6-10 YEARS 6. MORE THAN 10 YEARS 9. NR/DK/NR Quality of Life 2. Generally, would you rate the quality of life in Denton as excellent, good, fair, or poor? [SPECIFY] 1. EXCELLENT 2. GOOD 3. FAIR 4. POOR 9. NR/DK 3. What would you say is the best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton? (DO NOT READ RESPONSES) A. QUALITY OF SCHOOLS B. SELECTION OF HOUSING C. QUALITY OF HOUSING C. SAFE PLACE TO LIVE D. CLEAN AND ATTRACTIVE E. PARKS F. RECREATION G. DISTANCE FROM DALLAS/FORT WORTH H. DISTANCE TO LAKE I. PROXIMITY TO SHOPPING J. OTHER (SPECIFY) _________________________________ 4. If the City government could change one thing to make Denton a better place to live now and in the future, what change would you like to see? University of North Texas Survey Research Center 125 5. Next I am going to read you a list of city services, projects and/or issues. For each, please rate the service as excellent, good, fair or poor. The first is ___________. Would you rate the City of Denton [Ask why for each poor rating]. ___________ as excellent, good, fair or poor? Rotate order of services Excellent Good Fair Poor NR/DK [Specify] a. Library 1 2 3 4 9 b. Street maintenance 1 2 3 4 9 c. Parks 1 2 3 4 9 d. Bicycle and walking trails 1 2 3 4 9 e. Recreational programs 1 2 3 4 9 f. Recreation centers 1 2 3 4 9 g. Storm water drainage 1 2 3 4 9 h. Water quality 1 2 3 4 9 i. Water pressure 1 2 3 4 9 j. Trash and recycling programs 1 2 3 4 9 k. Animal control 1 2 3 4 9 l. Sewer 1 2 3 4 9 m. Code enforcement 1 2 3 4 9 n. Electric services 1 2 3 4 9 o. Police 1 2 3 4 9 p. Fire 1 2 3 4 9 q. Ambulance 1 2 3 4 9 6. In the past 12 months have you used any of the following city services? Rotate order of services Yes No NR/DK a. Library 1 2 9 c. Parks 1 2 9 d. Bicycle and walking trails 1 2 9 e. Recreational programs 1 2 9 f. Recreational centers 1 2 9 o. Police 1 2 9 p. Fire 1 2 9 q. Ambulance 1 2 9 7. Do you feel safe and secure living in the City of Denton always, usually, sometimes, or never? <1> ALWAYS <2> USUALLY <3> SOMETIMES <4> NEVER (SPECIFY ____________) <9> DK/NR 8. Would you rate City of Denton police visibility as . . . . (BENCHMARK) [SPECIFY] 1 .EXCELLENT 2. GOOD 3. FAIR 4. POOR 9. NR/DK University of North Texas Survey Research Center 126 9. Would you rate lighting quality at night as adequate or inadequate in the following areas? Adequate Inadequate DK/NR a. Streets in your neighborhood 1 2 9 b. Major thoroughfares 1 2 9 c. City parks 1 2 9 d. Trails 1 2 9 Neighborhood Services and Public Works 10. How often would you say you have seen the following problems in your neighborhood? Have you seen ________________ frequently, sometimes, rarely or never? How about . . . Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never NR/DK a. Litter 1 2 3 4 9 b. Illegal dumping 1 2 3 4 9 c. High grass and 1 2 3 4 9 weeds d. Junk vehicles 1 2 3 4 9 e. Stray Animals 1 2 3 4 9 f. Drainage or Flooding 1 2 3 4 9 Problems g. Substandard or 1 2 3 4 9 Deteriorating Housing h. Cars parked on 1 2 3 4 9 yards Electricity, Trash, Recycling The next set of questions deals with services offered to residences. 11A. Do you pay your electric bill directly or is it included as part of your rent? <1> DIRECTLY <2> PART OF RENT (SKIP Q12, ASK Q13) <9> DK/NR IF Q11A = 2 SKIP TO Q13 12. s are higher than other electric providers and electric companies, about the same, or lower than other electric supply companies? <1> HIGHER THAN OTHER ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES <2> ABOUT THE SAME ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES <3> LOWER THAN OTHER ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES <9> DK/NR University of North Texas Survey Research Center 127 13 electric providers and electric companies, about the same, or lower than other electric supply companies? <1> HIGHER THAN OTHER ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES <2> ABOUT THE SAME ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES <3> LOWER THAN OTHER ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANIES <9> DK/NR 14. ASK ALL; Are you aware of a call-in service that arranges for curb-side collection of home chemicals that you would like to discard? <1> YES <2> NO <9> DK/NR 15. Have you used a recycling drop-off center in the past 12 months? <1> YES <2> NO <9> DK/NR 16. I am going to read a list of services provided to the city as a whole. For each of the services, [Ask why for each poor rating]. poor? Excellent Good Fair Poor NR/DK [Specify] a. Graffiti removal 1 2 3 4 9 b. Maintenance of City parks 1 2 3 4 9 c. Maintenance of landscaped 1 2 3 4 9 medians on major streets d. Maintenance of major street 1 2 3 4 9 surfaces e. Maintenance of residential street 1 2 3 4 9 surfaces Mobility questions The next set of questions deal with getting around the city. 17. Please rate the following street-related issues on a scale of excellent, good, fair, or poor. The first is ___________. Would you rate _____________ as excellent, good, fair or poor? How about . . . Excellent Good Fair Poor NR/DK [Specify] 1 2 3 4 9 b. Signal timing on major city streets 1 2 3 4 9 c. Visibility of street signs 1 2 3 4 9 d. Availability of sidewalks 1 2 3 4 9 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 128 Excellent Good Fair Poor NR/DK [Specify] e. Condition of existing sidewalks 1 2 3 4 9 f. Efficiency of travel between major 1 2 3 4 9 residential areas and major retail or employment centers in Denton. 19. How often do you use a bicycle as a primary mode of transportation? Would you say . . . <1> Daily <2> Weekly <3> Monthly <4> Never <9> DK/NR 20. If there were more dedicated bike lanes, would your use of a bicycle as a primary mode of transportation increase or remain the same? <1> INCREASE <2> REMAIN THE SAME <9> DK/NR 21. Have you, a member of your family or a friend visited the Denton Airport in the last 12 months? <1> YES <2> NO (SKIP TO Q24) <9> DK/NR (SKIP TO Q24) Excellent Good Fair Poor DK/NR 22. Generally, would you rate Denton Airport 1 2 3 4 9 facilities as . . . 23. Generally, would you rate Denton Airport 1 2 3 4 9 services as . . . 24. Have you or a member of your family used the Connect, Access, Commuter Express bus services in Denton in the last 12 months? <1> YES (SKIP TO Q26) <2> NO <9> DK/NR 25. Have you ever seriously considered riding one of these bus services to the extent that you attempted to research how you would use the system? <1> YES <2> NO (SKIP TO Q31) <9> DK/NR (SKIP TO Q31) University of North Texas Survey Research Center 129 Excellent Good Fair Poor DK/NR 26. Generally, would you rate Denton public 1 2 3 4 9 transportation services as . . . 27. How would you rate the route system in terms 1 2 3 4 9 of destinations? 28. How about the availability of information about 1 2 3 4 9 routes? 29. How about the condition of bus stops? 1 2 3 4 9 30. The locations of bus stops? 1 2 3 4 9 Communications The next set of questions deals with communications from the City and technology. 31. Do you think you get enough information about City programs and services? (BENCHMARK) 1. Yes 2. No 9. NR/DK you 32. Please tell me if obtain information from the City of Denton using any of the following methods. Method (ROTATE) Yes No DK/NR a. Denton Record Chronicle 1 2 9 b. DTV Cable Channel 26 or 38 1 2 9 c. Local TV stations 1 2 9 d. City website 1 2 9 e. E-mail 1 2 9 f. Radio 1 2 9 g. Utility bill insert 1 2 9 h. Word of mouth 1 2 9 i. City Council 1 2 9 j. City Staff 1 2 9 k. City libraries 1 2 9 l. Newsletter 1 2 9 m. Direct mail from the city 1 2 9 n. Text message 1 2 9 33. Which of those methods is your preferred method for getting information from the City? What is the next best method? <1> DENTON RECORD CHRONICLE <2> DTV CABLE CHANNEL 26 OR 38 <3> LOCAL TV STATIONS <4> CITY WEBSITE <5> E-MAIL <6> RADIO <7> UTILITY BILL INSERT <8> WORD OF MOUTH <9> CITY COUNCIL <10> CITY STAFF <11> CITY LIBRARIES University of North Texas Survey Research Center 130 <12> NEWSLETTER <13> DIRECT MAIL FROM THE CITY <14> TEXT MESSAGE <99> DK/NR 34. When paying bills, submitting forms or registering for classes with the City of Denton, tell me if you would be very willing, somewhat willing, or not willing to use each of the following methods: <1> Automated bill pay by phone <2> On-line bill pay <3> On-line registration <4> Appearing in person 36. Have you or a member of your household visited the City of Denton, CityofDenton.com in the past 12 months? (BENCHMARK) 1. Yes 2. No 9. NR/DK 37. If the Denton Public Library were to offer wireless internet access at all three libraries, would you use it daily, weekly, monthly a few times a year or never? <1> Daily <2> Weekly <3> Monthly <4> A few times a year <5> Never <9> DK/NR Contact with City Officials 38. Now I would like to ask you about contacts you have had with City officials. Have you or a member of your household contacted the City of Denton about a complaint, request for service, or for information in the past 12 months or have you had any other contacts with city employees while they were performing their jobs? <1> YES <2> NO (SKIP TO 57) <9> DK/NR (SKIP TO 57) 39. Who in the City did you contact, what person or office? (DO NOT READ) 1. Airport 11. Legal/Risk management 2. Building Inspections 12. Libraries 3. Code Enforcement 13. Municipal Court 4. 14. Parks and Recreation 5. Customer Service, Utilities 15. Planning 6. Denton Municipal Electric (DME) 16. Police 7. Economic Development 17. Public Communications Office 8. Engineering 18. Trash Collection/Recycling 9. Fire (EMS) 19. Streets 10. Human Resources 20. Water/Wastewater University of North Texas Survey Research Center 131 IF FIRE IS SELECTED ASK Q40. IF POLICE IS SELECTED ASK Q45 EACH OF THE OTHERS SHOULD BE ASKED A COMPLETE SET OF QUESTIONS Q55 THRU Q56C. FIRE/AMBULANCE 40. Was the reason for your contact with the fire department an emergency or non-emergency? IF MORE THAN ONE, ASK FOR MOST RECENT CONTACT (EMERGENCY TAKES PRECENDENT) What was the nature of the contact? EMERGENCY 1. CALLED 911 FOR EMS 2. CALLED 911 TO REPORT A FIRE 3. OTHER EMERGENCY [SPECIFY] _________________ NON EMERGENCY 4. CALLED TO MAKE APPOINTMENT FOR FIRE INSPECTION 5. CALLED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PREPAREDNESS 6. OTHER NON-EMERGENCY [SPECIFY] ________________ 9. DK/NR IF Q40 = 4 through 9, SKIP TO Q55 ASK IF Q40 = 1 thru 3 Were you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with . . . . VS SAT DIS VD DK/NR 41a. The time you had stay on hold before you spoke to the 911 operator 41b. Professionalism of the 911 operator 41c. Ability of the person to collect the needed information for your call 42. Was the [fire department/ambulance] sent to respond to your call? <1> YES <2> NO (SKIP TO Q57) <9> DK/NR 43. Now, thinking about the [fire department/ambulance] personnel who responded to your call, were you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with . . . VS SAT DIS VD DK/NR 44a. The time it took the [fire department/ EMS] services to arrive 44b. Professionalism of the personnel who responded 44c. Ability of the [fire department/ EMS] personnel to serve your needs SKIP TO Q57 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 132 POLICE 45. Was the reason for your contact an emergency or non-emergency? IF MORE THAN ONE, MOST RECENT CONTACT (EMERGENCY TAKES PRECENDENT); What was the nature of the contact? EMERGENCY 1. CALLED 911 FOR HELP 2. CALLED 911 TO REPORT A CRIME 3. RESPONDED TO HOME ALARM SYSTEM 4. REPORT SUSPICIOUS NOISE 5. REPORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR 6. OTHER EMERGENCY [SPECIFY] _________________________ NON EMERGENCY 7. CALLED 911 TO REPORT A CRIME 8. CALLED TO MAKE AN INQUIRY 9. TRAFFIC VIOLATION 10. PARTICIPATED IN CITIZENS POLICE ACADEMY OR OTHER CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM SOCIAL 11. TALKED TO POLICE ON PATROL 12. GENERAL SOCIAL INTERACTION [SPECIFY] ______________ 13. OTHER 99. DK/NR IF 7 THRU 99, SKIP TO Q55. ASK IF Q45 = 1 thru 6 Were you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with . . . . IF RESPONDENT ANSWERED Q41a-c, VS SAT DIS VD DK/NR SKIP TO Q49 46a. The time you had stay on hold before you spoke to the 911 operator 47b. Professionalism of the 911 operator 48c. Ability of the person to collect the needed information for your call 49. Was a police officer sent to respond to your call? <1> YES <2> NO (SKIP Q57) <9> DK/NR Now, thinking about the police personnel who responded to your call, were you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with . . . VS SAT DIS VD DK/NR 54a. The time it took personnel to arrive 54b. Professionalism of the personnel who responded 54c. Ability of the police personnel to serve your needs SKIP TO Q57 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 133 MUNICIPAL COURT (WEB SURVEY ONLY) Did you use any of the services below in your contacts with Municipal Court? (check all that apply) Appeared in person: Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Thursday, 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Made an appearance before the judge Used Phone Automated telephone line for information Automated telephone line for payment by credit card Spoke with clerk over the phone Used Internet City of Denton Web site for information about Municipal Court City of Denton Web site to make a payment by credit card E- University of North Texas Survey Research Center 134 55. Regarding your contact with ____________________. Was that contact in-person, by phone, or by e-mail? (IF MORE THAN ONE, SELECT THE ONE HIGHEST ON THE LIST) <1> IN-PERSON <2> PHONE <3> E-MAIL <9> DK/NR Were you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with . . . . VS SAT DIS VD DK/NR ASK FOR EACH DEPARTMENT CONTACTED 56a. The time you had [to wait/stay on hold] 1 2 3 SPECIF9 before you [received a response from/spoke Y with] the person 56b. Professionalism of the person with whom 1 2 3 4 9 you had contact 56c. Ability of the person to solve your 1 2 3 4 9 problems or concerns Funding Decisions We have discussed a number of current and potential services in this survey. 57. Overall, do you consider the services currently provided by the City of Denton to be an excellent, good, fair or poor value compared to the city-related taxes and fees you pay? [SPECIFY] 1. EXCELLENT 2. GOOD 3. FAIR 4. POOR 9. NR/DK 57a. If additional funds were available what one City service would you want to get increased funding? <1> PARKS <2> TRAILS <3> STREETS <4> SIDEWALKS <5> LIBRARY <6> RECREATION PROGRAMS <7> POLICE SERVICES <8> FIRE DEPT. <9> PREFER THAT NONE GET INCREASED FUNDING (OR PREFER TO REDUCE TAXES)[SKIP TO Q58] <10> OTHER ____________________ 57b. Would you support or oppose paying increased city-related taxes or fees to make more funds available for increased funding of [ANSWER FROM 57A]. <1> SUPPORT <2> OPPOSE University of North Texas Survey Research Center 135 Profile 58. Now for the last few questions, I would like to ask you several things about yourself so that we can develop a general profile of our sample. First of all, are you between the ages of . . . (INTERVIEWER: CODE RESPONSE INTO CORRECT CATEGORY) 1. 18-25 5. 61-70 2. 26-35 6. 71 and over 3. 36-45 9. NR/DK 4. 46-60 59. Are you employed fulltime, part-time, presently unemployed, retired, or are you a student, or homemaker? 1. FULLTIME 5. STUDENT 2. PART-TIME 6. HOMEMAKER 3. UNEMPLOYED 7. DISABLED 4. RETIRED 9. NR/DK 60. How many years of education have you completed? 1. 8 OR LESS 5. COLLEGE GRAD 2. SOME HIGH SCHOOL 6. GRAD SCHOOL/GRAD DEGREE 3. HIGH SCHOOL GRAD 9. NR/DK 4. SOME COLLEGE 61. I am going to read several different income categories. Without telling me your exact income, into which category did your total household income for the past year fall? 1. Under $10,000 5. $75,001-100,000 2. $10,001-25,000 6. $100,001-125,000 3. $25,001-50,000 7. $125,001-150,000 4. $50,001-75,000 8. OVER $150,000 9. DK/NR 62. Do you have access to the Internet at home, at work or both? <1> HOME <2> WORK <3> BOTH <4> NO ACCESS <9> DK/NR 62a. Do you use your cell phone to access the Internet? <1> YES <2> NO <9> DK/NR 63. Do you have any children under the age of 18 living in your household? <1> YES <2> NO (SKIP TO Q64) <9> DK/NR University of North Texas Survey Research Center 136 63a. Please tell me if you have any children living at home in the following age groups. YES NO NR/DK Less than 6 years old 1 2 9 6-12 years old 1 2 9 13-18 years old 1 2 9 64. Do you own your home or do you rent? 1. OWN 2. RENT 9. NR/DK (RENT FREE) 65. Which of the following best describes your ethnicity? <1> Caucasian or White <2> African-American or Black <3> Hispanic or Latino <4> Asian <5> Other (specify) <9> DK/DK Thank you very much for your time and cooperation. We believe that this project will help City officials provide better services to all citizens. 66. INTERVIEWER: RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT 1. FEMALE 2. MALE 9. NR/DK University of North Texas Survey Research Center 137 APPENDIX B: OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES University of North Texas Survey Research Center 138 Reasons for poor rating forQuality of Life Telephone survey responses Because I am handicapped. Boring. Everything is torn up and too many people living here. Family had the Denton County Probate Court allowed guardians to steal and give things away to put money in their pockets. Homestead law was not treated fairly. I can sum this up in a few words, "Don't go out after dark". It's a college town and the law enforcement is too strict. Just a money a deal they want something for nothing. Long story. Need new council members. Not a balance of things for the races. Rights for others are the rights for all. University town that caters to students. Roads, highways, too many minorities. The city caters to the colleges and not to the homeowners. The streets are bad and no sidewalks in the city. The streets are terrible. We have very few sidewalks. The taxes we pay on property goes up while the price of houses go down. I do not know where the money goes. The way they do things, bargain utilities, bad roads, no sidewalks. They made a complete joke out of our election laws, showed zero integrity. They use the police as their personal police to ignore federal and state laws. Best aspect or part of living in the City of Denton Small town/college town atmosphere Telephone survey responses Atmosphere. Big city that looks like a small town. It's very hard to find, that why I like this place. Big, but not too big. City is nice size, well constructed and the people are nice. Close community. Close knit community. College atmosphere. College town atmosphere. College town. College town. Convenient to everything. Comfortable and it's not too large, not too small. Community atmosphere. Community feeling, good place to raise and sense of community. Community togetherness. Community you live in. 1 Community. (3) Convenience, familiarity. Like small-town/college-town atmosphere. Downtown square. Downtown. Feeling of living in the country but actually living in the city. 1 The number in parentheses indicates the frequency that this comment was made by respondents. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 139 Feels like a small town. Getting away from high population. Good atmosphere, good place to live and raise kids. Good atmosphere. Good size, can find most things you want in town. Great for retired people and it is a college town. Has a lot of country. Has a small town feel. Has a small town feel. Feels like you live in the country even though you're not far from the town square and the city. Home town atmosphere and the people. Home town feel, not that way anymore. I like how small Denton is. I like that the city is smaller. I like the downtown part of Denton. I like the pace of Denton. It's too fast paced and is a perfect size. I like the size of the city. It being a college town. It feels like a small town. It has everything you need without having to go to a big city. It is small and easy to get around. It still has a small town atmosphere and friendly people. It's a big city that feels like a small town. It's a college town and it's not a really big city. It's a college town. It's a small town. It's a smaller city. It's got everything a big city has, but it is smaller. It's just a town to me. It's kind of like living in the country. It's kind of small-townish. It's medium size. It's not Dallas. (2) Its size. Like that it's a college town. The people are interesting. Like the atmosphere. Maintains community. More open landscape. Nice sized city, not too big or too small. Nice small town flavor with the services of a larger town. Not a big city but still has all the amenities. Not a big city. (2) Not a large city. Not as big as other cities. Not as high as if you go further south. Not being so large. Not big enough to have traffic but it still has fun things to do and people are generally nice. Not crowded. Not in Dallas. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 140 Not overcrowded. Not so big. Not so crowded. Not too big a city. Not too big and not too many people. Not too big not too small. Not too big or small, the right size. Not too many people. Not too small and not too large. Population size. Quality of life...atmosphere. Reminds me of Austin. Sense of community. Size and convenience and good people. Size is good. Size of city. Size of city. Size of Denton. Size of the city. Size of the town. Size of town and friendly people. Size of town. Size until recently. Size yet access to similar services larger cities have. Size, it's a medium-sized city. Size, population. Size, small but big enough. Size. Small and fun things to do. Small and tranquil town. Small but a big city feel. Small but still a lot to do. Small city and very livable. Small city. Small community. (2) Small enough and large enough to have all services you need. Small enough but has all the services that one would need. Small enough to get around. Small enough town being close to airport. Small enough, easy to get around and the universities. Small size. Small town, good educational facilities and fairly good public education. Small town and easy to get around. Small town and low crime. Like the college atmosphere. Small town atmosphere and theater and colleges but in a big city. Small town atmosphere near large cities, and university. Small town atmosphere with access to large metropolitan social events. Small town atmosphere, not a lot of traffic, safety. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 141 Small town atmosphere, things easily accessible. Small town atmosphere, variety of restaurants. Small town atmosphere. (14) Small town atmosphere. Things that are available because of the two universities. Nice variety of activities for all ages. Small town community effect. Small town environment, the fact that it's a town rather than suburb, university provides many opportunities. Small town feel but big town accommodation. Small town feel in the Square. Small town feel to it. Small town feel with big town amenities. Small town feel with services of big city. Small town feel with things to do. Small town feel, am able to stay away from downtown if I feel like it. Small town feel. (10) Small town feeling. (2) Small town life. Small town quality. Like that it's a college town. Small town, related to a Metroplex. Small town. (9) Small, calm city. Small, secluded, not very many people. Small. Smaller city and faster to get around. Smaller city. Smaller community. Smaller population. Smaller than Dallas. Smaller town. Smallness. Spacious -ness of Denton. Still kind of a small town. Still seems like a small town. That it is not a big city. The community spirit. The community. (3) The environment. The pace of life is not as fast compared to other major cities. The size of Denton and the things that are offered to the community. The size of the city is nice. The size of the city, people and trees. The size of the city. (2) The size. (3) The small town feeling. The tranquility of the town, and the schools, as well as my husband's job. The vitality. The warmer weather in the winter and the small town feeling because of the Square and the universities. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 142 There is a small town feel but is close to a big city. There is small town feel to the city even though it's large. Town Square. University hometown feeling. Used to be the size. Very nature oriented. Internet survey responses College town Coziness of a small town and options of a big city. General atmosphere of the city. Its at the outer edge of the Metroplex. Live and let live atmosphere. Sense of true community interaction. Small town atmosphere. The small town feel you are ruining with too much development. Used to be a nice small town. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 143 Friendly, nice people Telephone survey responses Everybody's friendly. Friendliness and small town feel. Friendliness and the senior citizen. Friendliness of the people. (2) Friendliness. (2) Friendly and easy to live in. Friendly people, it just seems like home. Friendly people, not too big. Friendly people. (2) Friendly town. Friendly, senior citizens center. Friendly. (2) Generosity and kindness. Good circle of friends. I love the friendly people. It is a small, diverse city that is growing. The people are nice. It's generally a nice place. Lots of friends and family live here. It's a friendly town and it has anything to offer. Nice people, safe environment, nice neighborhood. Nice people. Nice people. Ideal-sized city. People and good services. People are friendly and work together. People are friendly. Small, down-to-earth, easy and slow-paced, people are friendly. The few natives that you know are friendly. However, this is only a third of the transit population. The openness. The people are friendly. (2) The people are friendly. It is easier to get around here in Denton. The people are nice. The people are the best aspect. The people are very friendly. The people who live here. The people, friendlier city. The people. (15) Internet survey responses Friendly people. Good neighbors. Historical homes, huge trees, friendly people. The people. The universities Telephone survey responses Access to colleges. Access to two colleges and library system. Availability of university learning. Being around colleges and athletics. Close to campus. Close to the universities for my daughters. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 144 Closeness to the universities. College. Convenience and universities. Education. (2) Good colleges. Having a college. Having the university in town. It's a university town and is very diverse. It's a university town. Offerings the universities bring, entertainment-wise. Proximity to university. The campus of UNT. The city has a lot diversity because of the university. The colleges and convenience. The colleges. The two universities provide a nice cultural experience with its size. The two universities, the education level of the community. The universities and facilities. The universities. (9) The University of North Texas. The university systems, UNT and TWU. The University's always got activities going on. There are colleges so there are many education opportunities. Two universities. Two universities. UNT makes it more exciting. Internet survey responses Close to UNT. Distance to UNT. Proximity to colleges. Proximity to UNT. Universities. University. UNT. UNT, period. Quiet, tranquil place Telephone survey responses A calm place to live. Calm and nice place to live. Calm city. (2) Calm city. Lower contamination (smog). Calm town. Is quiet and anything that we need is easy to find around here. It is a calm city, and it does not have many problems. It is a calm city. It is peaceful. It is quiet. It's a calm place to live. It's a nice quiet little neighborhood. It's a quiet place. It's a tranquil place. It's calm, and has a different feel from bigger cities. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 145 It's quiet and friendly. It's quiet and I love the universities. It's quiet, lots of trees, not much traffic. It's quiet. I've had very tranquil life. Laid back, low stress. Nice place, quiet. Peaceful. Quiet and not too much people. Quiet city. Quiet, small town atmosphere. Quiet. Quietness. The city is quiet and away from Dallas. Tranquil, even though they sell beer. Here it is calm. Tranquil. Easy to get around Denton/proximity/location Telephone survey responses Access from neighborhoods. Accessibility to pretty much anything you would need. Accessibility to things. Close proximity to everything, doctors, stores, etc. Close to everything. Close to my job. Close to work. Convenience in location to Lewisville. Convenience with everything. Convenient location. Convenient. It has everything in town such as shopping and food. Distance between stores is convenient. Easy to get across town. Easy to get around. Everything is convenient. Everything is really close. I like the fact that it's small enough to get around to my favorite places. It has health food stores and a square and universities. It's close to what I need. Location, close to Oklahoma, close to a big city, but not in a big city. Location, cost of housing, jobs. Location, small city, not quite as much traffic. Location. (2) Proximity of everything. Proximity to surrounding areas. Suburban accessibility. The location is in a good place so I can get to where in need to go. You can get around in Denton easier than in bigger cities. Family Telephone survey responses All my family is here. I love that. It's a pretty town. Being close to children. Being with my kids. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 146 Close family. Close to my children. Convenience and all my kin live here. Family atmosphere. Family is close and the proximity to higher education. Family is close. Family is located in Denton. Family lives in city. Family oriented, very good people and better morals than big cities that I have been to. Family. Family's there. Good place to raise kids. It's a good family city. Lives by family. Location to family. My family. Near my son. Not that big, and children live there. Our children live here. Proximity to relatives. Retirement center close to children, business on square, programs at university. Internet survey responses Family and business ties. Family friendly. No drive-by shootings - safe for kids. Proximity to medical facilities/doctors Telephone survey responses Convenient medical facilities. Good dermatologist. Good hospital and people. Health care and family. Medical care and shopping. Medical care. (2) Medical community; everything is within proximity. Medical facilities are convenient. Medical facilities. Medical service. Medical. Proximity to doctor offices. Response to private hospital care. The medical facilities. The services that are available (hospitals and doctors). The services they give in hospitals. To get to doctors. City services Telephone survey responses Able to pay your utilities at one place. Big city service in small service. City services. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 147 Clean, good police, no alcoholics. Denton has good services and I love the recycling program and curbside collection. Government offices are here. Growth of street expansions and availability...but changed. I think we have a good police department and fire department. Love having City of Denton pay for electricity. Our waste management system. Police. Quality of services and businessmen. Senior Center and other recreational facilities. Senior Center. Services and events. The city. The infrastructure and the economy. Utilities are reasonable. Internet survey responses Above average emergency services (police, fire, EMS). Need street lights in north university area. Opportunities/social activities Telephone survey responses A lot of opportunities and it is inspiring. Community activities. Community stuff, celebrations. Community, there are activities. Cultural and medical centers. Fairs. Free events for family. Free youth programs like the Jazzfest. Local culture. Lots of activities to do around the city. Opportunities available and entertainment options. Opportunities. The availability of things to do: entertainment and shopping. The night life. Things to do, the younger crowd. Everything is so close; everything we need is here. Internet survey responses Civic activities. Variety of businesses Telephone survey responses Access to variety of services whether it be medical, retail, restaurants, schools, etc. Always building and improving. Businesses are good, people are nice. Choices of food and entertainment [big variety on both] and bars. Commercial growth. Farming and ranching. Food. Future growth potential. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 148 Good stores and easy to get around. Growth. It's growing. Restaurants. Services offered. The downtown square has local businesses. The Square. Internet survey responses Unique stores/restaurants. The arts Telephone survey responses Access to music community. Arts and diversity. Arts and music. Arts. Cultural aspect. The university events such as the theaters, use the music, sports. Cultural aspects, like the university and the fine arts programs. Cultural opportunities. Culture, we're an arts and music city. Love the UNT music programs and proximity to access to their facilities. Musical environment. The arts. The music environment and friends. The variety of arts. Vibrant arts community between the universities and the community. Internet survey responses Art and education community. I love the music in this city!! The weather Telephone survey responses Climate. (2) Good climate, low taxes, good stores. Nice weather. The weather, we miss all of the tornados. There is hardly ever any bad weather. Weather. (3) Winter weather. Jobs Telephone survey responses Employment. (2) Job availability. Jobs. Lots of jobs. My job. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 149 That I have a job and a husband. The job market is good. The job. Work. Diversity of people Telephone survey responses Diverse city, underground. Diverse culture. Diversity of the people. Diversity with the college and rural. Diversity. Educated populous, very cultural. a small town but still has everything I need. Mixture of people, lots of different types of people around. The diversity of the people that are in Denton. Libraries Telephone survey responses Appreciate the library, people are friendly. Close to the library. Good libraries. Libraries. Library. The library. Very good to seniors, libraries, groceries stores. Internet survey response Library programs and services. Transportation Telephone survey responses City transportation and atmosphere. Transportation and a church on every corner. Transportation facilities, senior citizen center. Transportation systems. Transportation. (2) Cost of living Telephone survey responses Affordability. Cost of living. (2) Economically viable. Lower cost of living. Taxes. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 150 Internet survey responses Affordability. Affordable housing. Housing/cost of living/universities. Inexpensive place to live. Less traffic Telephone survey responses Less traffic. (3) Not a lot of traffic, with conscience of large town. Not much traffic. The traffic. Internet survey responses Far enough from Dallas and Fort Worth to be out of traffic. Church Telephone survey responses Church community. My church, my kids. My church. (2) Where my church is. Internet survey response A great church. Proximity to DFW Airport Telephone survey responses Access to worldwide travel. Accessibility to airport and hospitals. Close to airport. It's not too big and it's close to the DFW airport. Proximity to work Internet survey responses Close to work. Distance from work. Proximity to employment. Proximity to work. Other Telephone survey responses Good city to live in. Good neighborhoods. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 151 I like the city. It's home for me. Just likes it. My home town. Neighborhoods. Privacy in the neighborhood in Denton. The north side. There aren't many bars. Internet survey responses All of the above. All the above. One Thing That Would Make Denton a Better Place to Live Road construction/repair Telephone survey responses 288 finished. 288 Loop needs to get done. 6 lanes or 8 lanes on I-35. I want people to get through the city, and not make a roadblock. And would like to see more commitment from city officials on roads. Improve the conditions around the Golden Triangle Mall. Takes too long to build roads. A better control over road building. A change in the streets and the utility bills. They only pick up trash twice a week, so I would like to see improvement in the quality of the trash services. I'm a senior citizen and I have difficulty pushing the trash cans out to the curb. They should give senior citizens a break on that. A road system for better flow of traffic. Actual city planning that involves planned road work, not at all at one time, Actually finish construction on 288. Better city administration as far as road maintenance goes. Better cohesion when building new roads. Better construction planning as far as roads. Better infrastructure. Better infrastructure for the highways and roads. Better infrastructure, coordinate street improvement. Better lighting and better paved roads. Better maintenance of streets. Better planning for road construction. Better planning when developing roads in town. Better road management. Better road planning. Better road repairs and construction. Better road repairs and lower taxes. Better road systems. Better roads. (16) Better roads and faster construction of roads. Better roads and highways. More bicycle paths, make getting around Denton easier. Better roads and road scheduling. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 152 Better roads and zoning and transportation. Better roads are important. There should be more attention paid to junk cars and vacant lots. Better roads, more activities for senior citizens to participate in. Better roads, too many potholes. Better roads. Less construction time building the new roads. Better roadway service. Better street maintenance. Better street repair, improvement on traffic control. Better street repair, less construction. Better streets. (9) Build roads before building shopping centers Change how crooked the streets are. Changes in streets; they are terrible all over Denton. Changing the roads 288 and I-35 was bad and now they are tearing up University Drive. Completed construction. Construction near Loop 288 needs to be finished -- so [does] the Golden Triangle Mall. Construction on the roads, doing a better job of it. Construction timing to be faster, better. Loop 288 needs to be fixed. Construction work on the main roads. I live in the north east section of Denton and the roads need work drastically. The layout of the traffic flow (on the intersection of Mingo and Mockingbird) is strange; its hard to determine where to drive. Audra Street needs reconstruction; and the stop signs on the intersection of Audra and Mockingbird needs relocation. Contractors get roads completed in a reasonable amount of time. Decrease road construction time. Do something about these roads round here. Early planning on expansion streets. Expand I-35E. Faster road work. Finish 288, quickly. Finish construction on 288. Finish Loop 288. (3) Finish road work. Finish the construction and get the traffic moving. Finish the construction. Finish the Loop. Finish the streets. Finish the roads so everything isn't torn up. Finishing road work. Fix road construction (work with county and state), coordinate with growing rates. More overview on traffic expansion. Fix roads and especially 288. Fix roads faster. Fix some of the roads around here so that traffic is better and watch the growth. We're getting too big almost. Fix the Loop. Fix the roads. (4) Fix the roads 288 and on ramp on I-35...dangerous intersections. Fix the roads. I have never lived in a city with this many potholes. Fix the roads and keep them fixed. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 153 Fix the roads in a timely fashion, if at all. Fix the roads, specifically 288. Fix the streets ASAP. Fix the streets quickly. Fix the streets. (2) Fix the streets. Infrastructure is horrible. General repair of the streets. When building new streets and roads, they seem to not finish it. Get Loop 288 finished. Get rid of all the construction. Get road construction finished and become more efficient. Get the roads fixed quickly. Get the streets better. Get the streets fixed faster. Been working 3 years on 288. All over town. I can't go out the back of the apartments because they are working on the roads again. Getting 288 fixed. Getting all the streets fixed. Have roads improved. Have the streets open to traffic. Highway structures straightened out and finish projects that they start instead of tearing up the city. I feel that roads should be improved. They should be wider. In the older part of Denton the roads have a lot of potholes. I think that they need to fix the streets up a little bit. I think the city could use better roads. I think the roads and streets are terrible. We got potholes that ruin our cars. We need more restaurants on the north side of town and more shopping too. I think the streets could be better. I think they need to have more say in the Loop 288 project and I think they are dragging their feet on that. I think the city should get together and put some heat on this contractor and get it complete. I want the streets to be fixed. The street repairs need to be finished. I would like the roads to be fixed quicker. I would like them to take a shorter time to redo streets. I would like to see all the construction finished. I would like to see better roads. I would like to see improvements on the streets. Code enforcement need a little more clout in cleaning up the city. I would like to see Loop 288 completed. I think that the downtown area should be remodeled. I would like to see Rayzor Ranch developed. I would like to see Loop 288 widened. I would like to see road improvements, i.e. road repair and work on the Loop. Better public transportation system. They should bury electrical cables and do away with the electrical poles and telephone poles. I would like to see the roads and streets improved. I would like to see the streets repaired and widened in a timely manner. I would like to see them about finishing up the Loop. Thats a safety issue. And do something about crappy traffic. I would like to see them improve the roads faster. I would say the roads and streets. They're not keeping up with development. I would say the roads more than anything else they have been a mess since I've been here. I'm concerned about the streets, the lack of upkeep, and some of them are dangerous because they're not marked or well lit. When some of the trains come through, they lay on the horns for some time. It's very disturbing. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 154 Immediately improve roadways. Improve streets. Improve the road systems. Improve the roads. (2) Improve the roads and highways Improved roads and public transportation to DFW area Improved street conditions. Improved streets and traffic. Improved streets. Improvement in the roads, less disruption. Improvement of quality of the roads in old Denton, closed businesses in the area, and many clothes lying around. As well as the street lights, at night they continually flash and blink. They also need to improve the public parks. They are not well managed, a lot of money must go into it, but the results are not seen. Reduce the congestions in streets. Improvements to older areas of Denton, streets, utilities, etc. Improving some of the roads in the traffic situation. Infrastructure, the roads are lousy. It's pretty annoying that its been years and they are not constructed. Larger road ways and better roads. Like them to have better streets and better ways to get through the town. Like to see the road construction schedule at better times. Loop 288. Loop 288 completed. Loop 288 needs major improvements. It is going to have a negative effect on businesses. It takes too much time to navigate through; it is a mess. Make it safe for families, better construction tactics, sensors in the road. Make sure this road situation doesn't happen like it's happened in the last three years. Make the streets better and more factory jobs. More accomplishments as to road construction and repair time-wise. More city planning on the road construction, also allow online pet registration. More complete road structure. More done on the streets, residential. More efficient public work. More efficient road construction. More input from the citizens. Better roads. Finish repairs. More road construction. More road work completed. More streets, wide streets. Something to relieve traffic congestion. More through streets. Much more organization with their road improvements. Per plan traffic problems and fixing construction faster. Plan road repairs. Quicker road construction.. Redo the streets (repave them). Repair the streets. Repair the roads to decrease traffic and better control the flow. Re-timed the development of Loop 288, closed down Loop 288 during Christmas time. Road construction before building construction. Road construction done faster; more public transit routes. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 155 Road construction, go more smoothly. Road construction needs to be completed faster...especially Loop 288. Road construction should be finished. Road finished, or public transportation to larger cities. Road improvement and improve potholes. Road improvement done on 288. Road improvement quickly. Road improvements finished sooner. Road Infrastructure. Road maintenance. Road planning should be better due to the construction. Road repairs. Roads. (2) Roads -- Loop 288 to be completed. Roads better. Roads- completion. Roads finished. Roads need to be made more professionally (288; the Business's were made before the road was built). The roads are not built logically. Roads repaired. Roads, better roads. Roads, planning should have been better. Roads; Loop 288. Roadways are improved, streets need to be better. Short entrance ramps are unsafe and construction of streets takes too long. Speed up construction. Speed up on road repair. Speed up repairs on streets. Speed up road repair. Start one road project and finish it. Street condition -- i.e. construction. Street construction in general; need better planning when proposing a construction project. It seems to take them much longer than expected to complete construction. This causes a lot of frustration among citizens. Street construction to get done. Street improvement. (2) Street maintenance. Street maintenance needs to be better. Street maintenance should be better, too much construction and it takes too long to fix. Street maintenance, too much construction for too long. Streets and construction detours for months. Streets better maintained. Streets get fixed faster-- Mingo Road. Streets need to be better. Streets, fix the streets. Tear up the streets and get through with it in a short [time]. The 288 Loop finished. The cits highway construction, finish it. The city to find some way to cause road construction to go faster. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 156 The construction end on Loop 288, completion of construction on 288. The construction on Loop 288 to hurry up and be completed. The construction to cease. The main thing is when they are going to do a business they need to fix the streets first. The road system needs to be better. And they need to stop chopping down all the trees. The road work is inadequate. Shopping is hard to get to and is inconvenient. The roads. (3) The roads and highways. The roads around here are the worst I've ever seen. Loop 288 is filled with traffic. It should've been completed a long time ago. The roads fixed ASAP. The roads fixed. The roads need improvement. The roads need to be improved because it does not keep up with traffic. Loop 288 seems to be the biggest problem. The roads need to be improved. The roads need to be wider and more organized. The roads, fixing the roads faster. The roads. Need to do something about congestion about 288. And I-35 is a disaster. The street constructions. The street maintenance could use improvement. The streets. The streets and roads need to be improved. The streets and traffic, maintaining and building more streets. The streets are still not as good as they should be. The streets fixed. The streets need fixing badly. More transportation for seniors to get to the doctor and grocery. Need more direct transportation. The streets need to be better. Redo a lot of potholes and widen the streets. The streets need to be improved. The streets need to be repaired because they are tearing the cars up. The streets should be fixed. University needs new streets. The streets widen quicker. The streets, that they finish the construction as soon as possible. The streets, they are all messed up. The structure of the roads made better. The surface of the streets is in deplorable conditions. At one point it's smooth and one point there's potholes. The works department should take better care of the roads. There aren't many improvements that need to be made except for some of the roads. There should be less construction on major thoroughfares. The potholes fixed on secondary roads would be nice. They are tearing up too much stuff. Too much building in the streets. They need to finish one project before starting another one. They need to fix a lot of city streets. They need to have better streets. To better the streets. To get our roads done faster, improve the speed of which the infrastructures being done. To get the roads fixed up, too much traffic. To improve the streets and finish one before starting on another. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 157 To the roads before the expansion hits. Widening of the streets. Would like to see quicker time frames to get the main roads fix. Internet survey responses Better city streets and more police protection in our neighbor hoods. At least more patrol. Better road quality and continue developing small and large businesses. Better roads. (8) Better roads and efficient public works. (i.e. Why is the Loop a nightmare!?) Better roads, all of them. Main arteries as well as neighborhood streets that need repair. Better roads, better roads, and better roads. Do something, anything to encourage some kind of development! We dont drive Model-Ts anymore! Better streets. Better streets-more friendly towards new business. Complete road construction. Condition and access to roads. Coordinate development with street improvements (traffic) better. Expedite road and commercial development, ex. 288 and Rayzor Ranch. Faster road construction. Faster road repair and construction. Faster turn around on road construction projects. Finish Loop 288. (2) Finish roads faster. Finish the Loop construction!!! Finish the mess on 288. Finish the road work on Loop 288! Finish your road construction now and faster. Fix the roads in a timely manner instead of the who gives a darn fashion currently in use. Fix the roads. Dont start one road to fix, stop, then start another before finishing the first. Fix the streets. (2) Fix the traffic issues. Hire more motorcycle cops. Get Loop 288 fixed sometime before my 8 year-old graduates from high school. Get the construction done!! Get the darned Loop 288 completed! What does it take? Businesses are losing $$$! Hire real engineers for streets. I would like to see the roads improved. The entrance and exits from I-35 arent safe and cause many traffic jams. Also the quality of the roads could be greatly improved. Improve roads. Improve roads and drainage. Improve roads and more public transportation. Improve streets for better access and traffic conditions. Improve the roads. Improve the streets. Improved roads. Make road construction a priority. It shouldnt take years to complete Loop 288! Provide incentives to construction companies to get projects done faster and penalize them if they fail. Other cities do a much better job of staying ahead of population growth when it comes to roads. More road work. More streets to get from Point A to Point B. Plan road construction so that all alternate routes are not torn up too. Get the Loop done before Thanksgiving so retailers wont lose sales for the third year in a row. Pave my residential street, something I have requested for 6 years now. When I do call they are very polite on the phone and say they will call back with info and never do. Quicker road construction...the 288 Loop is a JOKE!! Repair roads faster. Road improvements. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 158 Roads! Repair quicker and build quicker. Roads, no slow-down from the city on building schools. Speed up Loop 288 expansion. Streets. Transportation fix streets, No changes/improvements needed Telephone survey responses Cannot think of any. Cannot think of anything. Cant answer. Cant say anything at the moment. Cant think of any. Cant think of anything. (7) Cant think of anything at the moment. (2) Cant think of anything to change Can't think of one. Denton is the only place I've ever known. I cannot answer this question. Do not presently have anything in mind that I don't approve of. Don't have anything in mind. Don't have anything to say. Don't really have any complaints. Everything is okay. Everything seems fine now. Everything seems good. I am content with the way it is. I am satisfied with everything. I can't think of anything wrong. I think that everything is fine. I can't think of anything. I dont know, nothing. I don't want any change I have no complaints. (2) I just want to be where I am, no changes. I like everything as it is. I'm really very satisfied with it. I see they are telling the place up now and I hope it will be good afterwards. Keep doing what you are doing. No change at all. No change. (5) No changes need to be made. No changes. (3) None. (5) Nothing, satisfied with all aspects. Nothing. (9) Really satisfied and dont want to change anything. There is nothing to change. They work together for the good of everybody. Internet survey responses I think the city government is doing an excellent job for the size that we are. Its too late to get a clue. So I guess nothing. Keep a small town feel. Keep Dentons small town atmosphere. Keeping the small town, quiet atmosphere. Most people came here to avoid the noise and traffic of University of North Texas Survey Research Center 159 the city and the northern suburbs. However, we seem to be bringing in new development to complete with Frisco and Plano without first developing the infrastructure to support the development. Leave it the way it is an stop bulldozing everything. Economic development Telephone survey responses Be more business friendly. Too many businesses can't get in because of advertisement. Be more friendly to business coming in. Be more progressive. Seems like Denton hasn't grown very much in past 30 years. Other towns are more assertive and modernizing. Better shopping. Better shopping opportunities. Mall is awful, better merchandise, streets. Bring in more business and reduce homeowners taxes. Closer shopping area. Community development. Cut down on construction on these new shopping malls. Developing of Rayzor Ranch-- shopping near University Drive and 380. Economic change. Everything built on the south end of town and the traffic is horrendous. Doesn't shop in Denton. Want more available shopping to those who live on the north end, as well as park improvement. Growth too fast. I think there are a lot of old buildings that are just sitting vacant. I think they need to refurbish them and rent them out or just tear them down. I think we need another Walmart. I feel that the city had gotten too big. I want the new Walmart on University to hurry and finish building. I wish the construction of that mall on I-35 would speed up because I'd like to have more stores to go to. I would like to see more growth and more progression. Interest in quality of life over the attracting of more businesses. Less development or new-development oriented. Stabilize the environment. Like to see them develop a culture around the university similar to what Austin has done. Make it easier for new businesses to open. Make it to where its easier to locate retail, and fix the roads. Make sure there are more supermarkets closer out not everything on 288. More business friendly. More business on the north side of town. Also, I wish there was a better place for people to put their garbage cans instead of in front of the house. There needs to be an ordinance in place for this. More businesses. (2) More development, restaurants, etc. More encouragement of business. More entertainment and more jobs. More grocery stores in the east side of Denton. More in favor of business. More malls and big stores. More nice restaurants. More restaurants. More shopping centers such as specialty stores and more variety. More shopping opportunities in the north section, restaurants, etc. More stores. (2) More stores and schools. More stores being built. More stores off the Vista Ridge Mall off Loop 288. More stores, serve liquor closer. Need to improve the mall, if possible. Do something to get better businesses into the Golden University of North Texas Survey Research Center 160 Triangle Mall. Improve shopping, etc. Nicer restaurants. Not doing too much building and taking away land. Not too much development. Pay more pro-business development plan. Regulate growth of the city. Responsible development. Restrict development. Some better eating places. Stop growth. Streamline the development process. They could attract more family oriented businesses like go-cart tracks or improve the water park. Too much overcrowding, limit number of businesses and/or homes. Well, we live in a part of Denton that is in the SW side, we are a long way from grocery stores and shopping centers. Denton needs to grow. Working with more business to get them to come to town. Would like to have more stores closer to them. Internet survey responses An HEB or Central Market, Better selection of fresh produce Better selection of stores for shopping. Better shopping. Better shopping facilities. Better shopping, cleaner parks, better trails, improve business around the Square. Concentrate on retaining and supporting the small businesses. They will be around longer. Encourage/promote retail to build on the north side of town. Encouraging small independent businesses to develop instead of large chains. Keep Denton unique instead of a cookie cutter suburb. Get Rayzor Ranch and the Fry Street properties moving forward. We hate the way those areas now look. Give more thought to development. Dont just approve everything that someone wants to do. I was very happy to see the city stand up to the Fry Street developer, but it now appears that the developer is pouting. In developing retail areas, expand roadways before stores are completed (e.g. 288). More business friendly. More knowledge industry!! It is ridiculous that I have to drive to DFW to work as a technical writer! More retail and business. More shopping in the I-35W corridor. More shops and entertainment. Shopping. Slow growth. I know thats the last thing a city wants to hear. Stop running off business with regulations. Stronger development code and more development. Update the mall to attract more retailers, customers, and revenue. Other street/traffic/infrastructure issues Telephone survey responses Attention to roads and stop lights. Be a little bit more ahead on traffic. Better attention to infrastructure. Better planning and decisions about development and to relieve traffic congestion. Better scenery. Cameras on the streets. Carroll Ave. Fix it to look nicer because it a main street. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 161 Easier access to more places for the handicapped. Faster response to a growing city (IE electrical, infrastructure, etc.). Fix traffic lights--take too long, Get rid of 2-hour parking in Square and make it unlimited. Help move the traffic. I live in a homeowner's association. One of the storms blew down a huge tree, and a streetlight. They still haven't replaced the streetlight, after two months. The police people are wonderful. I-35 (in the Golden Triangle area; in both directions) is very congested and some of the exits are not located in good places. Improve the traffic. Improve traffic. Less flooding. Less traffic. Maintenance. Make available more sidewalks. More pedestrian friendly. More responsive to changing the infrastructure. More sidewalks. (3) More sidewalks and more routes for public transportation (buses). More sidewalks on busy streets. More statues around town. No cell phone use while driving vehicles. No graffiti. Preserve the historic center and homes around the city. Reduction in traffic. Street cleaner more often. The city is too crowded; and improve the traffic. The Confederate Monument in the city square (a disclaimer or something about it). The infrastructure to keep up with the growth. The sidewalks. The traffic is too fast. Neighborhood laws are lax and there is not enough enforcement. There is a lack of safety in walking around town. The traffic should be improved. I would like more small businesses. Also, I would like cultural centers: performing arts etc. The train stops traffic in the morning so maybe make a bridge. They could fix traffic situations, too many one way streets and construction. Time the stop lights so they are more consistent. Traffic. Traffic lights on Brinker Road. Traffic reduced between home and Walmart. Traffic situation. Traffic system. Traffic tears up rows. Really inconvenient. Traffic control. Trim the trees, assume responsibility for trees in the road. Would like to see a good set up way for the lights to be sequence. Would like to see government beautify Denton. Internet survey responses 3 things: 1. Reducing noise from trains. 2. Educating people on courteous driving. 3. Making sure people take down their garage sale signs which make the city look ugly when they have been there for 3 months. A better traffic plan, more public transportation, updated roadways. A light at the intersection of Wheeler Ridge and Teasley Better infrastructure. Better traffic handling, like longer ramps, more turn lanes. I guess its coming. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 162 Better transportation network Build more sidewalks. Clean the streets and public areas more often Gateway project started ASAP on Fort Worth Drive/377 south. The traffic is horrible and dangerous. Government is not responsive to request for signage problems, traffic signs or for promoting the use of solar or wind for power and water heating. Austin and San Antonio are far ahead of this city even though Denton on the surface is pushing a Green initiative. Improve traffic congestion. Improve traffic flow. Increase bike lanes. I do not feel safe enough on the roads. Less cars in city. Less traffic. Less traffic congestion. Less vehicles in town. Make highway on/off ramps safe and more driver friendly. Make the city more clean and attractive, preserve historic Denton and Dentons distinctive qualities Make the highways wider for traffic and improve city roads. More bike-friendly roads in heavily trafficked areas. More sidewalks so my son has a safer way to walk to school. More traffic light and park area. More ways to get around in this town. Need to do a better job at preparing for future growth by expanding roads and highways before they need to be. No to the name changing of streets. It is hard to get around especially in an emergency. Readable street-name signs at all traffic signals. Repair or replace old infrastructure. Sound barrier along Mingo Road to cut down on noise pollution caused by the train. Traffic on I-35. Traffic, specifically in school zones. Calhoun Middle School gets out at 3:40. The flashing light protecting the students goes off at 4PM. So for 40 minutes the school zone is protected and no students are out in the street. DHS gets out at 3:50 and proceeds to speed through CMS. There are times when the CMS students can not even cross. Work on the traffic flow with the growth. Would like to have more walking trails etc. in Denton. Something for families to do that makes us healthy, too. Lower taxes Telephone survey responses Cut taxes down on the elderly. The government charges more when the elderly are on a retired income and they, elderly, dont have much to live on. Decrease property taxes. I would like lower taxes. Keep taxes low, specifically school taxes. Keep the taxes low. Less taxation and property. It's going to be hard to pay property taxes and other small taxes. Less taxes. Lower DISD taxes. Lower homeowner taxes. Lower property taxes. Lower property taxes and little bit of more road construction. Lower property taxes and, well, I think we spend too much money on things that arent needed. Like that school bond thing. They are building this and building that. Some things needed to be built but other things were not needed. Lower taxes. (15) Lower taxes and the evaluation of homes are not consistent. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 163 Lower taxes, a little bit more culture would be a good idea. Lower the property taxes big time and don't tax me because my kids dont go to school in Denton. Lower the property taxes. Property taxes. Reduce school taxes. Reduce the property taxes. Reduced taxes, and bureaucracy. Reduction for older people in the school taxes. Reduction of taxes. Senior citizens shouldn't pay school taxes. Tax reduction. Taxes, because it affects elderly people. Utility rates go down and city taxes. Internet survey responses A reasonable property tax base that would be attractive to potential home buyers. Lower taxes. (4) Lower taxes (especially school) for senior citizens. City management Telephone survey responses Accountability with charter rule. Availability of city officials. Be more honest. Better locations for government buildings, spread out and oddly placed. Better organization: theres little to no interaction between departments in the city. They do not work together. There is no good customer service approach within the city staff. The administration and various departments refuse to eliminate problems within their ordinances to improve staff. Better teamwork. Change the corruption in the city government. Control spending better. For the City to step up and help the community. (Ex: the city calls the Ministry to help with issues with the bus coverings; they should not rely on the Ministry all the time. It's like they are becoming dependent on the Ministry to do their job.) Generally, how the whole city is run by the government. Have money for project before the project is started on. Elimination of drive-ins except drug store and banks because it affects the air. Fix the roads. Ryan high school needs more roads. Have them listen to citizens and their wants and needs. I dont mean to say that you're not friendly but you could be more friendly. I think that the relationship between the citizens and the city government. I would like to see the city government listen more to the input of the people. Libertarians, too much politics, totally controlled by realtors and home builders and lawyers. Listen to the people more. More communication with the citizens. More equality in the treatment of its citizens. More money for the libraries. Would be nice to have a Tom Thumb and a Boston Market. More open government. More representation from more groups of people in the city government. Openness in government. Pay rate. Reduction in expenses. Replace the Fire Marshall, Sheriff and the Mayor. Staff at City Hall being more responsive to citizens complaints. Stuff not done at City Hall. No fairness in pay. There are people working there that dont need to be University of North Texas Survey Research Center 164 working there. The city government [should] stay the same. The city needs to have better communication with all residents of Denton to relay information better and faster. The cronyism kept out of the city. There is much prejudice among the people and city officials. To be fair to the Hispanics. To treat better the people that are undocumented and to offer more assistance. Use the resources better. Internet survey responses Come to the 21st century. Denton is light years behind. Do something to make city workers happier so they would be friendlier. Include residents with diverse opinions on boards and committees rather than concentrating of the racial makeup. Less government interference into citizen lives. Less government. Make all city employees and management realize they work for the taxpayers. Make the language in Denton all English. More regulation of what is given to the IT department for spending. Quit trying to make Denton into Plano or Frisco. We dont need more people. Require employees to treat the public with respect and be courteous while helping. Slow growth of city budget. All Denton knows is: spend more. Spend more on maintenance and less on new projects To stop trying to be a HOA and start taking care of the real problems in this town. Wide range of resources exclusive to residents. Parks/recreation/activities Telephone survey responses A little more forethought on the part of the city government: example: The new water park. It's wastefully spending. Add a zoo or something like it. Bicycle friendly. Bike paths. Good facilities for seniors. Opportunities for seniors. Have more stuff for the youth. Teen dance club, teen gathering place. Nothing for teenagers to do. I dont know that I am dissatisfied with any aspect of Denton, but as far as any changes I would say that we could use more parks in the area. I think there should be more activities for kids to keep them out of trouble. (Ex: Boys and Girls Club). I also like to see a bigger public park. I'd like to see a bus to Winstar Casino that would take us up there whenever we feel like going. More bike access. More parks. (3) More parks and recreation. More parks with kids and adults with public restrooms. More parks, and more shopping stores, food stores, more street maintenance. The park maintenance near McKinney, there is a lot of trash. More programs for the youth so that they can have something to do in their free time. More recreation areas for children. More recreational parks. More things for children, more parks. Reduce costs for youth sports. Some changes in the park services to be upgraded. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 165 Specific areas for bike routes and sidewalks. The cost of living to go down. Have big Christmas celebrations like Denton had in the past. To insure that as we grow to insure that we have the same percentage of space devoted to parks than we do at this point. Internet survey responses Activities for children at a lesser expense. Add bathrooms to the dog park. More community events. More family oriented/recreational businesses (skating). Businesses in all areas not just one side of town. More walk and bike trails. Work on putting more effort into improving the natural settings, for example landscaping. City Council Telephone survey responses A different mayor. City Council should have term limits. Clarification of what Council members can do. Council expanded, better represented. Council terms to be 3 years instead of 2. End the corruption within the City Council. It seems like they are not aiming to make Denton beautiful. They are more interested in academic fluff. Extend the length of time that the council people are serving. I would like to see more liberals in office. Beautification would be nice. I would like to see the Council people to be more accountable for what they promise the voters. I would like to see the government listen to the people instead of each other. When decisions are made for zoning changes, building permits, planning, and roads, it would be best if one or two people on the City Council would take action instead of forming a committee because it takes longer. Sometimes that prudent but not always. Less "squabbling" among the Council, better handling of the roads and the growth, Less hassle over term length and fooling each other; They had a lawsuit over term limits and the district attorney. Like to see them listen to their citizens more at the City Council meetings. Make the citizens feel like they are involved and have a say beyond the agenda. The Council makes everything so political now. Give the people some ability to make an active role in deciding for the City at the Councils. More fiscal responsibility. More fiscal responsibility. I don't feel that they've ever met a spending project that they haven't taken on. More honesty in the politics. More knowledgeable people who are on the board making voting decisions. A lot are inexperienced making bad decisions for everyone. More visibility to citizens about whats going on. Improve their emergency management capability. Open the city forum for people to give more views on things. Set term limits on all elected offices. The government officials to resign because they have served too many terms. The mayor should realize that he shouldnt have the tax business and the rest of the City Council should recognize that. Want to see the City Council be more open to a two-way dialogue with the citizens. We need a new person in office. Internet survey responses Dont allow City Council to change districts to skirt the limit rule of years they can serve. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 166 Enforce council/mayor term limits. Get rid of the good ole boy syndrome in the council and leadership. New blood in the City Council and/or walking away from the -good-ole-boy-network and mentality I still see. Public transportation Telephone survey responses Better transportation. (2) Better transportation in the DFW. Fix the bus routes. Improve bus services. They take a long time to get to destinations. Improved public transportation. Mass transit. More commuter services/public transportation. More frequent busses to places. More friendly businesses and more housing. More public transportation. (2) More public transportation and a way to lower the cost of ambulance services. More transportation. More transportation to State Fair of Texas. Public transportation expanding. The streets and more public transportation. The transportation. They spend money on things they shouldn't and the money should go towards things like public transportation. Transportation better flow and traffic solutions. Transportation services. Transportation to Dallas or Fort Worth like a train. Transportation, without increasing the budget. Would like to see more transportation. Internet survey responses A transformation, where people are more united regardless of what party they belong too or what age they are. A place where people dont need a vehicle to get around in, and where Denton is alive with people enjoying the city and interacting with others. Better and more frequent public transportation. Better public transportation, more bike lanes. Better public transportation. (2) Transportation improvements, extension of the DART line into Denton for job commuters Police Telephone survey responses Arresting neighbor; crack addict. Better police with speeding around rural streets. Crime reduced. Enforce the laws that they have on the books. Fix speed areas. Follow through with laws and enforce what is supposed to happen. For there to be more vigilance from the police. For there to be more vigilance, more security so that the police would pass by more frequently through the neighborhoods. Laws on noise control, loud radios, etc. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 167 Less crime. Less harassment from the police. Less tickets. More efforts to combat crime. More humanity in legal enforcement. More law enforcement. More police. (2) More police and better pay for them so they can get the thugs out of the streets. More security for the neighborhoods, improve lighting in the neighborhoods, make sure officers cover all of the city, not just parts of it. Police department should be approved. Reduction of drug traffic. They are trying to govern too much of what is on your property and trying too hard to govern everyone elses property. And the medical facilities are not properly governed. Security. The police are too hostile. To pay attention to the police. They need to watch for delinquents on McKinney Street. Vandals. Wish there were more police. Internet survey responses Hire police who are responsive to citizens needs. More motorcycle officers for traffic enforcement. More police. More police and sheriffs with better pay scales for their hard work. More police officers and fire fighters. The corrupt cops give the good cops bad names. Id like to see police corruption end. They should work with local police to decriminalize drug possession in order to save valuable taxpayer money. Schools Telephone survey responses A school close to where I live. A voucher program so that public school is not the only choice. Better education. Better schools. (2) Community college in town or business school in town I would like to see more teachers, and more visible police. Improve busing for the school district. Improve the quality of schools and teachers. Improve the schools. Improving public education. Have more public health programs for children, green technology (i.e solar wind technology). Improve recycling program. More schools. More schools, parks, and recreations, for the kids and students. More security in schools. More work with the schools. Maybe have a program to get parents involved with kids. More, better schools. The education systems to change according to the population changes and the staff should reflect the change in times. The public school system. There seems to be a lot of things that are being built without longevity in mind. The administration of DISD is top heavy and we need to let teachers teach. I realize that there's a lot of paperwork that teachers need to do but they also need to teach. Took God out of the school and the way the voting, Go back to the way the country was founded. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 168 Internet survey responses A great deal of improvement in the quality of the schools. I am not satisfied with the quality of public education in Denton at all. Better schools. Better schools in the older neighborhoods, not just the affluent parts of town. Improve the public schools. Non-city services Telephone survey responses A system to assist the Hispanics with a passport. Better stage plays. Better watch on the CPS workers. Different phone service. Free gym membership for health well being. Get rid of all illegal aliens. Health care. Homeowners association. I need more medical specialists than Denton currently offers, so higher level of medical facilities. I would like there to be more help for the students for their classes. Mail service doesn't have good hours. More alcohol sold, not such a "dry" town. More help for elderly people. More help for people with disabilities. More social services for people with disabilities and low income. More support for the arts. Pay more attention to handicap people. People who come from other countries, especially from Mexico, should do a course to keep the city clean and less noisy when they get their driver's license. The prices of the real estate property. To clean up the state. Would like to see more health services in the community and programs for adults to be able to get an education at a college level. Internet survey responses The city post office is supposed to be handicap accessible. Take out the outside stairs add ramps so I do not have to walk a block around the building. More job opportunities Telephone survey responses A work permit. I would like to see more jobs and more help of people with low income getting housing. I wish that more "citizens" could be able to get on housing. More and better higher paying jobs. More business for job opportunities. More employment opportunities for felons. More industries so people can have jobs in the city. More industry. More job availability. More job creation. More job opportunities. More job opportunities from the city. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 169 More job opportunities and better housing and streets. More jobs. (5) More jobs in the city. More jobs, change city trash pickup rules. They need to clean up a few things around the district and have jobs where citizens can make a decent living. Internet survey response Get rid of illegal aliens so American citizens can work. Code enforcement Telephone survey responses Better code enforcement. Building rules. City codes. Ease up on code enforcement. It is too out of hand now. I would like the code enforcement officers to not tell me and my neighbors what we can and can't do. I would like to see code enforcement regulations in all neighborhoods. I would like to see the government use common sense in their enforcement of the codes that they apply to the citizens. Less harassment from the yard authority (code enforcement). Better attitudes within the police department. I would like to see better background checks on landlords and the people that they rent to. I refer to it as wild life that lives down here. Like more care in industrial sites that pollute air and water. I live about three miles from major polluters. Like to see them be more about property owners taking care of their property. Overgrowth of grass should be cleaned up. Construction on 288. Stricter rules about housing conditions, housing, and yards. The beautification project, code enforcement, but the pressures are too great. The government needs to get off their backs in Denton because they are making too many rules. For example, you cannot change your water heater without a plumber or permit. Internet survey responses Allow residents to cut trees on their own property and also allow developers and all owners to do more of what they want on their own property. Clean it up. Do not allow 180 to remove buildings that have been demolished (3851 E. Sherman Dr.). We have to live with the giant toothpick pile until January 2009. Clean this city up, rental is a mess, more code enforcement. Clean up dilapidated areas of the city - enforce codes. Clean up the neighborhoods. Clean up the run down areas. Code enforcement based on complaints only. Enact a strong tree preservation ordinance. Enforcement of codes. Extensive clean up of junk, falling apart houses and junk cars parked on street. Get rid of the code officers / de-monopolize the utilities (cable, gas, phone, electric). How the code enforcement officers do their job. I would like for the code enforcement officers to only give citations for complaints. I dont believe they should have the right to try to make all areas in Denton look like Southridge estates. A lot of residents dont have the money to keep up with things. Please make the place litter free. Code enforcement is not consistent all over Denton. Reduce code enforcement officers, pompous, self-righteous bureaucrats. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 170 Rental houses cleaned up, streets blocked with parked cars overnight and yard parking problems addressed. Stricter enforcement of code violations. Planning and zoning Telephone survey responses Being specific about zoning before subdivisions are built. Better use of public space and to eliminate suburban and corporate development. Better zoning, better infrastructure for the streets to handle traffic. City planning and zoning to be better, more on top of things. Do not cut so many green areas (trees and grass). When I first moved in, Denton was very green, and now there has been cutting and replacement with buildings. Don't let developers get their way all the time. Get the planning and zoning under control. Mixed zoning in areas that shouldn't have mixed zoning. 288 is a mess and the extension of Teasley Lane. I would like the city to be more aggressive and zone properly to make Denton prettier. Like to see more consistent zoning More input in city planning. More receptive to what the people want not what the developers want. Planning. Denton is like a city that just happened as if it were an accident. They need to be more responsive on changing the zoning and that kind of thing. Zoning and city planning on buildings. Internet survey responses A comprehensive plan for Fry Street and quick action to begin the update of Fry Street. Better planning between roads and business. Better planning for infrastructure -- make sure the roads are built before the stores are. Better planning on road development. City zoning. Ease zoning restrictions. More green spaces, less concrete. Plan things better before commencing major projects. US 380 is a good example. Prepare before developments begin. Stop trying to grab every square inch of property you can. Deal properly with what you have already annexed. Update zoning and make businesses - like along Fort Worth Drive - but all the junk (materials, vehicles, garbage) out of view. Utilities water and electric Telephone survey responses Denton Municipal Electric is unfair at not allowing its citizens to use other electric companies of their choice. I would like better water quality I'd like to see them deregulate electricity. Lower prices on utilities. Lower the electricity rates. Lower utility cost. Lower utility rates. Lower Taxes. Lower utility and service cost. More choices for electric companies. More control on the utility bills. We do nothing different and water bill goes up and up. The economy; utility bills are too expensive. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 171 The electric participate in something besides itself. They are the only company that doesnt participate in the Light Up Texas. Utility company - more friendly to disabled people. Ask you to make donations but they don't subscribe to the programs that help disabled people in Denton with disabilities. Utility changes assistance. Internet survey responses Deregulate the electricity. Give people a choice on electricity. Implementation of city-wide standards for utilities and services (electric, cable TV, telephone, etc.). Lower electric bills. Lower utility rates and no fee for the rain that runs off of our homes. Utility competition. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 172 Trash/recycling Telephone survey responses Better trash collection services. Garbage pick-up. They don't pick up the garbage entirely. Go to recycling more instead of just throwing everything away in one thing. I would like to have two trash days because this is the worst trash facility. I would like to see Denton do more about alternative energy and recycling. I feel that the environment is very important. I would like to see more information on where to recycle certain items. I would like to see more trash pick ups and a cleaner atmosphere. Improve recycling. Large trash can was imposed on us and we were charged when we didn't want it. I don't want it and I have to pay monthly. Lower the trash pickup fees. Start picking up my garbage in the alley. Trash collecting. Trash collection, difficult for handicap to get bin out. Housing Telephone survey responses A greater variety of housing opportunities. Address the needs of the homeless. Affordable homes. Better apartments. Build more houses for senior citizens. For there to be benefits and assistance to build our own homes. I would like to see the city help the people in poverty try to better themselves. I feel that housing and better jobs should be available. Improve the Denton house authority and fix the streets that have been torn up for years. Low rent on homes, lower prices on owning homes. More low income people and retirement citizens have access to lower rent. More senior apartments, over crowded. Rental management companies to take better care of their properties. Internet survey responses Encourage more affordable housing for people that make too much for low income housing, but are not wealthy. Stop mixing single family homes, apartments and businesses. The rent is too high. Other city services Telephone survey responses Better communication to the citizens, especially in southeast Denton. Better justice in the city or quality. Mass communication. More animal control. More of an effort to make better natural environmental changes, like working to make existing things better instead of starting from scratch, also more art-related entertainment, like museums and theaters. One thing I would like see is a better leash law. Lots of dogs loose in our neighborhood. Also, better University of North Texas Survey Research Center 173 parking areas - just overall, around food courts. The Probate Court and Guardianship Gone. Too many people in jail for just about petty things, I would probably like to see that changed. Want more information for city services in Spanish. Internet survey responses City managed ISP. Fiber preferred but Wi-Fi okay. Make it available for citizens to get equal library services that other citizens get. And I know the other residents of my MHP feel the same way. Why should we pay to check out a book while others get to do it for free? More senior services. Clean air and water Telephone survey responses Air quality. Better air quality. Clean the water. Cleaner air. Control environmental development. Protecting the public from second hand smoke. Internet survey response No smoking in all restaurants and bars, i.e. anyplace the public could go. This would include the so- called private clubs that only exist to get around liquor laws. With the same ordinance you could do away the private clubs. Alternative energy Telephone survey responses Allowing for alternating source of energy, and allowing better cable opportunities that would allow you to pick and choose. Alternative energy. Rebates for renewable energy should be top priority (solar, insulation, new windows, heat pumps, etc). This will lower cost of energy and air quality. Seriously consider credits for energy efficiency; for example solar, that way the community could become more advanced. Internet survey response Promote more energy efficiency. Other Telephone survey responses All the school teachers taken out the city government. Fewer college professors. Fewer people. General prices going down. Involve themselves over individuals and their properties. Less restriction. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 174 More culturally diverse, thats most important I think. More participation on behalf of the community. That the economy would lower a bit. The food is too expensive. Like the infant food is too expensive and the electricity, because sometimes it is too expensive. Internet survey responses Build a safe way to travel by walking or bike all throughout Denton. Connecting sidewalks and better bike lanes. Do not make the same mistakes Austin, Texas did early 1970s. Pay more attention to Hispanics. Require that 50% of citizens vote on issues before anything passes or fails. The restriction on illegal immigrants. They are taking over our city and state by having us pay for their medical and education. Reasons for poor ratings of city services Fire Telephone survey responses Hired people outside of Denton to work as firemen. It takes too long for the fire department to get here. Had a house burn to the ground. Asked to bring a closer station and nothing has been done about it. Takes too long. Poor response and they were late getting there. Takes too long to get there. They took a long time to get to my burning house. They said their house was not in attendance and the fire stations need to be better manned. Took them over 20 minutes to get a house burning down in community. Everyone was out practicing. House burnt to ground. Library Telephone survey responses Not enough variety, main library in down to 25% of the books it had. The library says I owe money for something I never checked out, and the library has failed to answer my calls. They are not open at night. Ambulance Telephone survey responses Costs too much money to use. Just because a person isn't doubled over in pain doesn't mean that they aret in anguish. They need to really provide care instead of judging. They have become indecent tied to their environment. Mom got hit by a shopping cart and the emergency was called and it took almost a 1 hour for the ambulance to arrive. Outsourcing companies drive the prices up on services; need to keep business local. Over charge. Senior citizens use it the most, and can't afford to pay big ambulance bills. Takes too long. Took a long time. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 175 When you really need the help you wont get the help. Parks Telephone survey responses City didn't plan well enough for all of the subdivisions. Doesn't have enough for city parks. More information about the closed restrooms. More lighting. People litter and don't clean up after themselves. The parks are not maintained. They are not very inviting, not attractive. Should be more woodsy, finds them bland, not enough color. More inviting to walk down my own road. They need more lighting, sidewalks, and things for children to play. Water too high. Internet survey responses Dog fecal matter. Get the vagrants out of there. Haven't seen any. More vegetation. Too much $$. What parks? Recreational programs Telephone survey responses Aint nothing good. Management restrictions have made this poor. If you are not within a specific group, then there is no place for you. Many services are not available for disabled. No advertising of them. Not enough programs, for bigger range, wider selection, seniors need wider selection, need auditing programs at the university. Not enough things for younger people to do. Nothing here that treats me at all. Recreational programs are limited in the summer. Southeast Denton, no entertainment, harassed when you are there The few programs that are available are not advertised well so that citizens could take full advantage of them. They need more activity. Internet survey response I wasn't aware there were any. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 176 Water pressure Telephone survey responses Because it is very [?] where I live. City of Denton directed me to three different dead ends to call and get my hot water heater repaired. Could be improved. Dont get a high level. Don't have any. Dont have any pressure where I live. Gone downhill. My apartment complex does not have a lot of water pressure. I have low water pressure. I live an older part of town and the pipes cannot maintain the pressure that is needed. Not adequate for the same of amount of people living in Denton. Its poor but I don't know why. My cold water doesn't come out like my hot water does. The pressure is bad. Never very much water pressure in restroom. Much time in my apartment that the water is off. No pressure in showers. Poor water pressure. Potholes unfixed roads. Put in new sewers in the area and it is poor in my area. Runs slow, need better pressure. The temperature changes and the pressure isnt high. The water smells like chlorine. Need to let it run to let the smell dissipate. Water pressure is just not that great. Water pressure is terrible. Water pressure is too low. Weak water pressure at my house. Internet survey responses Checked more often. High density housing near the university has pitiful water pressure. Lack of maintenance. Very low, we need way too many sprinkler heads for a small yard. Police Telephone survey responses Corrupt police officers throughout the police department. Don't like the way they treat people they are arresting. Friend of my daughter's had her car damaged and police did not come out to help. I think the policemen could be a little more helpful. They shouldn't just be there to hand out tickets. I've had to report one of the officers. It took the police department 9 minutes to respond to a 911 call, and 2 1/2 hours to respond to a non-emergency call. The police need to help target areas of the city instead of focusing on irrelevant issues. Police are unfair. They always arrive late; when they get there it's all done. I say, give me good service and if not, don't be a policeman. The police do not contact you in case of an emergency. There have been times when they stop you My house was broken into 3 times. The police refused to do anything or investigate. They definitely did not help. However, there are good officers. I have encountered bad ones often. One time I had someone break into my car and it took them 5 hours to come and the guy was real University of North Texas Survey Research Center 177 lazy. Pick on people, very nosy. If they stop by mistake like a signal, and they use the same laws as using signal when they give turns. Some police are nice and follow the book. Denton has some cops that are rude and don't follow the policy. Take long time to respond. Takes them a long time to get to them, bad experience. Takes too long. The only difference between the crooks and the cops is that the cops get away with it. The police arrive late after the incident. The police are never at the scene when they are supposed to be. They are always late. The police are very prejudiced and don't always have a cause for stopping certain races. The police are biased. They give tickets when they please to whom they please. They are rude. They are too hard on people. I think they railroad people. When one needs one they are not there, and when you don't need one, they are. They do too much harassment do their job instead of harassing little kids. They don't show up when you call them. They have not been proficient in solving crimes. They have poor judgment in what they are doing. They stay at home too much. Too arrogant. Too strict. Very cocky and arrogant. Don't know the law. Don't get enough training. Wait two hours if you call. When you need them they are never there, when you don't need them they are always there. The sheriff's department works with the judges, conduct is inappropriate in this way. Internet survey responses Chief won't move against illegals. I have never seen them in my community. I never see them in my apartment complex. Money hungry. Need quicker response times. Never see police patrolling our neighborhood. Not in right places at right times. Officers have been rude. Response time too slow. Rude and unprofessional. They spend too much time watching. They waste time arresting drug possessions. Total ignorance of civility. Way too many expired tags on cars. We dont have enough of them. Recreation centers Telephone survey responses Because there are not any. Crowded. Do not feel comfortable in going. It's not big enough and [they] keep people from going in there when it's cold. Management is poor. More needed and expanded. Not enough. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 178 Run down and no maintenance. Senior citizen and there isn't much for older people. Size of the center is too small. The access is a minimum. The restrooms in the parks are dirty, and in some of them the restrooms do not have locks, which is not good for the children. There aren't enough recreation centers. Getting close to retirement. Civic center has inadequate programs. Needs better transportation for the elderly. There aren't enough. And if there are, you have to have money to enjoy them. They are going to do nothing on their own and they ain't gonna help none. It's going to get worse before it gets better. They only have one which is older. We need more recreation centers. Internet survey responses Have not kept up with growth of city. No pool. I wasn't aware that there is one. No incentives to join. Outdated, poorly maintained. The cost of exercise/weight programs is too high. Too much $$ for the number of people that use. Usually dirty and cold. What recreation centers? Electric services Telephone survey responses A monopoly. Always goes out, hard to deal with. Arrogant when people call, unwilling to work with people, put charges on the bill that arent suppose to be there. Because the electricity is always pricy. Because they cut off electricity too quick without allowing for grace period. My mother was on life support and the electricity was cut off at a crucial time. Bills are so high. Can't get other services. Charge too much. (2) Consecutive times, the lack of sufficient power lines to carry loads, transformers that are old don't get replaced, are at fault for many outages. Customer service is bad. Denton Municipal Electric doesn't allow its citizens to switch electric companies to get better rates and services, which is not right. Dont care for Denton Municipal. Electricity has been cut before at my apartment complex without notice for 3 days and for no reason. Electricity is too high. High electric rates. It seems like no matter what you do the services are always going up. It took six months for them to put in a new power line. They are lazy. It's just too expensive. Something needs to be done. Its too expensive. Electricity is too expensive. The bill is too expensive. Monopoly. A lot of the street lighting is not working and they are still charging electricity. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 179 Prices fluctuate with no reason given. Rates are higher than other providers. Rates are really high, Seems goes down when other electric service are still running. Takes too long to turn lights back on when they go out. The amounts you have to pay. The billing is very bad. They don't consider the individual circumstances. The bills are extremely high and I don't understand why. The bills are too high for people living check to check. The electric bill is extremely high. Only 2 people and bill is 300 dollars. The electric bill is too high and the service is poor. The electric company has meters that fail. They want to charge on usage estimation. Their estimation is excessive and do not refund any money. The electric services are far too expensive. The power goes out when it rains. They are not reliable. There need to be more light fixtures in the street. They are very expensive. They are very expensive. They charge way too much and no leeway if you are late. They don't give people enough chance. They have high rates. They started averaging everybody out and you dont know what your bill is going to be and they are not willing to work with you much. Too expensive. Too expensive for what I receive. Too high. Too inconsistent. Utility bills are too expensive. Internet survey responses Expensive. Fragmented service. Hidden charges, rude service people. Meter readers selfish. Need to work on decreasing rates. No options, poor customer service. No outages in my neighborhood. Price twice Oklahoma rates. Pricey. Services are okay, their prices are high. Should be deregulated. Stop raising the price. Want choices. Where is the incentive? Water quality Telephone survey responses Bad quality of water. Because it tastes like salt and sometimes it taste like chlorine. Its terrible. Because the water is cloudy. The hot water is really cloudy and not clear. Could be improved. Different colored water. Has a bad taste to it, water must be filtered. I dont trust it because there is a high estrogen level in the water that has not really been publicly University of North Texas Survey Research Center 180 announced. I just don't like the taste. In the summer it tastes like dirt. It has a lot of minerals in it. It just tastes bad. It stinks. Lime and calcium in the water. Nasty. Nasty water. No fluoride. Quality of water is not palatable. Smells and is bad quality. Smells and tastes bad. (2) Taste is horrible, leaves a black ring in sink and bathtub and toilet. Tastes terrible. The quality is not good. The taste of the water is poor; the water is hard and bitter. The water doesn't taste good. It's awful. The water isn't clean. The water quality is poor. It is either lacking or needs something in addition to the water. It tastes bad. The water contains particles. Its disgusting. The water smells and drinking it is bitter and horrible. The water tastes awful. The water tastes terrible and it smells. There are times I turn on the water and it is horrible. There is a pungent smell coming from the water so I only drink bottled water. There is no stability through the year of the quality. They are too expensive. Too high in chlorine, doesnt taste good. Our kids ended up with kidney stones because of the water. We had to buy a $6,000 water system. Denton is rated third poorest water quality in the nation. Water restrictions. Water tastes horrible. If you dont have a water filter you have to buy water. Waters taste like it has sand in it. Filtering systems are necessary. Without a purifier the water tastes like chlorine. Internet survey responses Chlorine levels in tap water. (2) I can't drink it without filtering it. I use a RO water filter. I would drink sewer water first. Not drinkable. Tastes awful in the summer. Tastes bad. I filter my water. Tastes dirty. Tastes horrible, chemicals. The EPA lists over 70 communities Too much of a chemical taste. Water is nasty. Water smells during hot months. Sewer Telephone survey responses Backs up. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 181 Because last year it was inundated. Because [of] the bubbling artesian wells. Because when it rains the gutters are so full of water and you can't go across the street and it takes so long for that to go away. Also sewer lines have to be repaired too much and they smell bad. Because you can smell it. Drainage terrible. There are some water drainage areas that are too deep and need to be leveled. Long time to come fix. Not maintained. Bad when it rains. Paying way too much for the sewer. Poor service, always have to call for someone to unclog the sewer. Seems like the building without considering consumer waste during the time. Smells bad. The plumbing backs up due to the age of the buildings. The quality of service is bad. The sewer smells bad at times. The smell. The system doesn't work good. There is a lot of trash that are on the streets. Recycling bins are helpful. They don't clean the drainage systems and they smell. They have backups and mold. They're not maintained; dirty, clogged, yard workers dump their waste in there. Too many trees. Very poorly organized. When the weather is moist it makes my whole house smell, and my neighbors too. When they blast lines with water, it backs up into residential lines, and then a plumber needs to be called to get it unclogged. To fix ones problem, they are causing others. You have a new one but the old one was better. Trash and recycling services Telephone survey responses Back in the day you could take your trash to the recycling place and didn't get charged and now you get charged for that. Because a lot of times they don't take yard waste. Because I don't approve of the recycle bins that homeowners are forced to use for recycling. I feel that should be optional. Because we are restricted to one barrel and they only come once a week. Because they have these monster bins that are very difficult to maneuver. The trash has been cut from twice a week to once a week. I think the Recycling Program is good but should not be charged for it. Can't overfill the canister, and get charged for hauling off extra trash. Leave the trash can in the streets. Don't like that they have green containers. They charge extra for extra containers. They raised taxes on trash collection because of the new green containers. Dropped doesn't get picked up. Garbage can is imposed on me. Good for homes and bad for apartments. Apartments need more trash service help. Has to pay for recycling, and doesn't use it. Hate the bins and they reduce pick up service to once a week and m never home on Mondays. Have to pay for recycling. I can put trash in the recycling bin and they will still dump it. I do not like the way they leave the containers on the street after they come and pick up the trash. It makes it hard to drive around them. It's like they throw the recycling containers anywhere. I dont see any recycling centers. I have an issue I have been dealing with for three years and it has been unresolved. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 182 I think that a flier needs to go out about what is considered material that can be recycled.. I think that it is agitating that I have to pay for recycling programs that were not available to me at the apartments that I live in. I don't like that I am paying for the service and have to drive across town. If something is on curb and not in a container they won't throw it away. They only take what's in the container. If you got stuff you need something to be picked up, they are going to pick it up and charge a special price for that. If you don't have things that don't fit in the bins, then you get charged. This is only based on area however. This is biased. If you have one garbage can you dont fill up, you have to pay. It is not collected frequently. That can be improved. It's only done once a week. I've asked for a recycling bin times and in an entire year, they still have not given me one. Never know when they're going to pick trash up. None available in area. Not enough recycling centers. Once a week is not enough for what we pay. One day I put out a couch and they picked it up and didn't say anything. The next week I put out a hot water heater and they said I have to pay $75 to pick it up. No consistency. Poor pick of trash/ recycling. Service before they went to the containers. Small trash cans not clean, creates smell, don't pick up trash on the curb. The people on the trucks are hateful and don't do their job well. The trash is never collected when it should be. My trash has been outside for about 2 weeks accumulating. There are recycle bins in my neighborhood. There is a lot of trash that is on the streets. Recycling bins are helpful. There's is no recycling available at the apartment where we live. They always leave some of my trash and yard waste and they don't pick it up like they are suppose to. They do not recycle enough. They dont care how they leave the garbage cans. They dont listen to us when we have complaints. They drop trash and dont pick them up even if we tell them. They don't pick up the trash entirely. They want us to do the recycling and then they take the things that we put our efforts into to dispose of it at a profit or whatever they want to do with it but they still charge high utility bills which are outrageous. They won't pick up anything extra like boxes unless you can get it inside of the small trash can. Too costly. Trash bins need to be easier to get out. We only have one dumpster for the whole neighborhood and it quickly fills up. When picking up trash, they leave bins in any kind of condition. Internet survey responses Collect all that is put on curbsides. Cost is too high; people should not have to pay for recycling. Far too expensive for the value received. For students that live in apartments, there is no collection for their bulky items. Getting better. Had to have cans now the trees are too low for the automatic trucks? Impose a fee for recycling - make money off the backend and not credit. Lots of people don't know how to throw out bulky items; they stay in street. Missed days. If they drop something, they won t pick it up. Worst service. Need more recycle stations or city pick up. Need more recycling. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 183 Need trash and recycle pick up more than one time per week. New restrictions do not help the homeowners. No apartment recycling. Oh, we could do so much better! Why can t we recycle polystyrene? Oil recycling lacking. People fined for having trash cans out too long. Recycling company allows trash to escape every Monday. Recycling contractor does poor job of emptying containers completely. Recycling should not be forced on us. Should not charge for containers. The idea that anything not able to fit in the green container needs to The pick ups leave the trash bins up side down and in the street. The service is fair, but the price is outrageous. We have to pay to recycle. Animal control Telephone survey responses Animal control building is inadequate. The officers are probably unqualified. More opportunity to adopt. More housing for them. Bad customer service. Barking dogs, poor enforcement of neighborhood animals Because an opossum in the tree was never taken care of by Animal Control. Because I had an encounter with a dog and they never come when I called. They call you back when they get ready. Because the apartments are small and there are too many animals and this can cause pollution and infections. Because there's too many dogs running around loose. Because they hardly ever respond and when they do respond they can't find the stray dog you were talking about. Called numerous times about loose dogs, not once have they sent anyone out. Daughter was bit by stray animal. Dealing with opossum, raccoons, and stray cats are all in the area. Needs to do more inspections. Has a family of raccoons. Dogs live next to me that constantly make noise and the city has yet to do anything about the problem. Don't believe in putting stray animals to death. Dont come out for neighbor disturbances. Had a cow in my yard and called police and kept getting transferred to different departments because each one said they didn't deal with that so I didn't know who to call. Had an animal that was taken to the pound that roamed, but neighbors took it to the pound and said it was theirs so that it could get put down without any verification. They abused their ability to put animals down. Have a lot of stray animals roaming around. Leash law isnt enforced. Have two incidents of stray animals. They said m responsible for the problem and I would have to trap them myself. They should do it. I have not heard a good story come out of that place yet. They euthanize the wrong pets. No proper notice for licensed pets. I have seen many streets downtown where there were loose dogs, and I think its dangerous for the children. I see a lot of it in the streets, people take their pets out to use the restroom and they don't pick up after their pets. I would like the control but I would not sacrifice the animals because they are living too. In my experience the animal control services are not very friendly. Not organized. I've been walking and I see animals in the streets. Little kids get out of the school bus and all the dogs come out to play. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 184 Lots of animals running around the area. Many stray animals, Dogs on the loose that provide a danger to runners. Need a new facility. Never can get anyone to come get animals. Never see them around. No response to calls about sick animals. Outrageous tickets, no warnings, change rules. Strays, people are not careful about walking dogs- get loose. Takes too long to pick up stray animals. There are a lot of stray cats and dogs. The dogs look big and dangerous. There are animals running lose with no collars, and people just let them lose and let them go. There are stray dogs everywhere in the neighborhood. It makes the neighborhood look dirty. There are very many animals running around and people don't control their animals. There are wild dogs running around our neighborhood that we can't get stopped. They are biased. If you are in the south you are okay with letting animals run wild. If you are in east Denton, then you are fined. They aren't reliable when it comes to timing. I had to wait 2 hours for them to remove a dog from in front of my house. They can't even catch a cow. They do not operate on weekends unless there are complaints and in many cases they dont respond to them. They do not have enough people to control the stray animals. They always leave dead animals on the side of the road for days. Dont pick them up like the are supposed to. They dont believe in facts, arrogant, not clean facilities. They just dont do what they need to do. You call and they dont show up. They pick up dogs a lot of times that shouldn't be picked up and dont wait very long before they euthanize them. Then they take them to the dump ground and dump them out. I dont agree with that. They should have a no-kill shelter. Too many dogs to a yard. Too many stray animals. Too many stray animals running around. Twenty cats running around, called they don't do anything. Was laughed at for complaining about a dog. We have a lot of stray dogs and cats in my neighborhood. We have called in several times about dogs and they dont come. We need a new animal shelter. We've had a family of raccoons and opossums living by our house. We've had issues with animals and they dont seem to care. Takes 5 hours to get there, by the time they get there the animals are already gone. Internet survey responses Always get an answering machine. Animal Control does not help. Better to kill a vicious dog and put it in the street as to wait on services to come by. Dogs off the leash in parks. I tried to help a man who was being chased by dogs. Don't come out when you call them. Had a problem with a neighbor dog in my yard and Animal Control was too busy to handle. I have called Animal Control about stray dogs many times and have been ignored. I have called Animal Control due to stray dogs in my yard. I could not reach anyone. I've called about a lot of animals in need and nothing was done. If the animal is not easy to catch; it is ignored. Pits should be unlawful in Denton. Irregular enforcement, lack of concern for rules. It's common knowledge that the people who work at Animal Control do not regularly scan. Need no-kill shelter. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 185 Not responsive to needs. Reduce the number of dogs per household and require homeowners to pick up the poop. Stray dogs are everywhere. Too many dogs not on leash. Storm water drainage Telephone survey responses The city made a mistake by placing drainage to run off the run way and the water runs off on a friend's yard. A lot of flooding. A lot of streets in the area get flooded. A lot of runs off, no drainage. Because it seems to me like we don't have water drainage. Because it seems to collect and stay in places. Because too much water gets into the rain gutters and its like a river. It takes forever for them to go away. Because there are a lot of areas that flood in Denton. Because they do not take care of the situation and it causes people not to see while driving. Because they flood terribly during storms. Because they havent followed through on the work they were obligated to perform. Bought a house on a street and storm flooded the house. Ditches in front of my house do not have a drain. Does not drain well. Flash floods tend to block roads. Flooded the last couple of years. Flooding. Flooding all the time. Flooding is frequent when it rains in certain areas. Flooding last year also water standing is streets because of unlevel roads. Floods downtown often. Floods near home. Get heavy rains, city floods. Had a bad flood in town. Half inch of rain in house. Having plumbing issues on her street. Flood out easily. Heavy rains bring ample flooding and the water doest drain efficiently. Homes flooded because of poor water drainage system. I feel that on certain streets there is major flooding. The water doesnt drain like it should. I live in a flood zone. I live next to a flood ditch and it floods my yard and under my house every time it rains hard. I think that it is an extra tax. In northeast Denton there is poor drainage. The water stays on the street. We are paying the city extra money for run off water and I cannot tell [if] they are using our money. I do not see any improvements in my area. It floods in the east and downtown part of town. It floods in West Oaks, going towards the hospital, across the road from Bonnie Brae. Lots of flooding in neighborhood. My house has flooded twice. My street floods after it rains. Neighborhood gets high water, needs to be fixed. Not enough flood drainage. Not improved upon since city built. Part of my house flooded. Storm water ditches are overgrown and 25 homes in my old neighborhood were flooded. We lost a University of North Texas Survey Research Center 186 lot of stuff. The area south of town, Binswanger glass, southwest of the city square, was under water about a year ago. The drainage fee. The drainage is bad. The drainage overflows. The streets aren't maintained well. The terrible dips in the streets are used for water drainage. The water stands in the street; neighbors home flooded. The water draining into sewage bubbles up into a well The water pools up in the front of my house and all the dirt washes there after it rains. There are floods everywhere you go when there is a major thunderstorm. There are problems in the northern part of Denton. There aren't enough drainage systems to go around Denton; streets get flooded too easily after storms. There aren't very many openings for the water to drain to in my neighborhood. There is a creek that runs behind our homes and nothing has been done about it. Therefore, there are huge flooding problems. There is a major flooding problem and the drains should be cleaned more often. There is flooding around my neighborhood. There was a stock take at the end of the street. They all just suck. I'm always flooded and I get my Sunday shoes wet. They get backed up every time it rains. They left my ditch in a mess and it floods in a sprinkle and they wont come fix it. This needs to be worked on overall. In the newer part of Denton it is decent. The same quality should be applied to the older part. Too many streets flood when it rains. Water collects in front of my house partially due to potholes. Water surfaces for unknown reason. Water was too high and could have flooded my home. We have a creek right across the street and it flooded over here. When it flooded a few years ago the south side of the UNT campus. Whole area flooded really bad. When it rains we have flooding. When washing clothes, water backs up in sink. Internet survey responses Around UNT. Creeks clogged everywhere in this city. Depends on where, though. Good in my neighborhood. Do not use street for it. Extremely expensive for no benefit. Flood of 2007. Flooding common. For the money you collect I'd think it would be better. Funds mismanagement. High bills and poor planning. I survived the flood of 2008. Leave collected money in this department. Lots of streets do not have good drainage. Need to clean out the creeks and drains. Need updated systems. No ongoing maintenance, only after a storm. Quick to flood. Remove concrete and landscape for better results. Substandard considering known problem. Summer water tastes very bad. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 187 Too many flooding issues. Too much flooding downtown. Unsafe amounts of water on roads. Water drains in Wheeler Ridge community. What happened to the millions allocated? When it rains hard, the end of my street floods. Bicycle and walking trails Telephone survey responses Almost nonexistent. Aren't enough of them, and the ones that are there are full of potholes. Because of all of the development that the city didn't plan. Because people are inexperienced drivers. Bicycle trails not designed for bicycles. Better bicycles routes required. Broken sidewalks. Causes traffic. Denton is neither a pedestrian- or bicycle-friendly city. Do not have many trails. Not enough facilities for runners or bikers, no safety or anything. Does not have enough bicycle roads. Don't really have any that are functional. Have major highway I-35 and no way to deal with those walking and biking. Lacking more sidewalks for cycling. Few walking trails, walkers that walk in the street, few sidewalks. Has not seen a dedicated bicycle and walking trail. I want to see more bike routes. Heard about it. I don't even know where any are located. I don't see any for general riding. I don't see many safe places to ride a bike. I feel that they need more trails on two-lane roads or beside the two-lane roads. Bicycles shouldn't have to ride on the roads. I wish there were more bike and walking trails. Is not emphasized as much. It goes through a wooded area with lots of uncleared underbrush. There's not enough lighting, dangerous at night. It's too dark in some areas. Lack of availability. Lack of biking and walking trails. Like to see the availability of bike on roads. Little space for bicycles and to walk. Little space to ride bikes and to walk. Many holes in the bike routes. More sidewalks need to be available. Most of the people ride bicycles on the streets. They should put bike trails in my area (Robson Ranch). Need to make and have more bicycle and walking sidewalks (paths). Need bicycle lanes. Need more bicycle trails where people actually ride their bikes. Need more bike trails. Needs improvement. We need more bikes lanes and the ones we do have people park in them. Needs improvement. Needs plumbing in order to be safe. Never see any. I see bikers on the road not on trail. No lighted areas. No way of getting around town because you constantly have to watch where you're going. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 188 Not a lot of them. Not accessible. Not any trails in the city just ride down the middle of the road. That's pretty dangerous. Not accessible, no network connections. Not available enough especially with having students who use bicycles. Not bike-friendly. Not enough. (2) Not enough bicycle paths. Not enough of them. Not enough parks. Not enough sidewalks. Not enough, you should make more. Not enough accessed to town. Not that many. One trail that connects to nothing. No way to get around in Denton without taking a huge risk of getting hit by a car. Only one bike trail that I know of that is at least ride-able. Not enough bike trails. Other than the parks, I don't find bike lanes anywhere. Poor bike lanes, not enough sidewalks. Some neighborhoods do not have sidewalks. Kids need to be able to walk and ride bikes to school safely. The Katy Trail is chopped up. Go a block, cross the street, go a block, cross another street, etc. There are hardly any trails. Not enough. There are no bicycle lanes. There should be more. There are no bike routes. There are none in the city. Here you have to ride with too much. It's not safe. There are none. (2) There are not a lot, not good locations. There are not enough adequate spaces for cars in lanes, and instead they are forced into bicycle lanes. There are not enough for the elementary and high school students. There are not enough lanes for bicycles to ride safely. There are not enough. The neighborhood I live in does not have sidewalks, therefore it is hard to get to a trail. There are parts where there are not designated walking areas, not enough bike routes. There aren't any sidewalks where I walk. There aren't any. There aren't enough bicycle and walking trails. There aren't enough of them. There isn't enough walking or bicycle access around Denton. There needs to be a walk place between Mayhill and the school district Billy Ryan. There is no safe walk place for the children to walk to school. There need to be bike lanes on roads. Walking and bike trails are rarely used. There not enough trails. They are not really available. There should be more bicycle lanes on the roads and more pedestrians should use those available to them. There should be more trails. Ex: Locust Street. There's not enough of them. They are in unsafe parks, dangerous. Stop and start on busy roads. They are not well enough marked, and not dedicated properly. They are poor where I live. Only one bike trail, it's dark and not well maintained. And with as many apartments in the area it could draw young people to the area. They need more trails. They took out a bridge; it's all dirt. There aren't any. They're not safe. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 189 This is a college town. I would think that they would have more trails and such and walk. There really aren't any places for you to do it safely. Too few bike lanes, everyone should have a sidewalk. Walk every morning and afraid to bike. Wanted it to stay the way it was where I could take my bike out to Corinth but found it disturbing that they were doing the reconstruction on 288. But then wondered if they are putting the trail into affect We don't have any and far too many bicycles on public streets. We don't have any bike lanes and there are not enough sidewalks. We don't have any in our neighborhood. We don't really have bicycle trails. We live on a roadway and there are cyclists that use this a lot and they are risky due to lack of lanes. We'd like to have more, only in a few places. Internet survey responses Cannot get around. Few available. Kind of bland. Lack of quantity. Need more. Need more bicycle trails. Need more. No bikes on my side of town. Not enough. (2) Rails to Trails. There are not enough. Too few. Too much $$ for trails. We need more! What bicycle trails? Where are they? Code enforcement Telephone survey responses A lot at end of street owned by street; called repeatedly to have it mowed and they haven't. A lot of people break codes, still breaking them, no regulation. A lot of trash that piles up on streets and they are not taking care of it as quickly as it should be. There are places around UNT where there are dangerous traffic situations because of poor code enforcement with parking. A lot of unsightly places in Denton. Agent of harassment. As we go around we see nice houses stacked up against not so nice houses. Associations don't agree with the city codes. Bad experience. Because they did not take care of things they should have. Very bad! Because each code enforcement [officer] has their own set of rules and it is not uniform. Because I live in an older neighborhood with a lot of codes broken and code enforcement needs more workers in Singing Oaks. Because I think it's very unfair. They pick on some places and not others. Because some people are ticketed and some are not for the same thing. Because the zoning codes are bad and should be changed. Boats in driveway- think its illegal. More enforcement Dont like them Don't pay enough attention to the worst violations and are nit picky about small things. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 190 Don't think the city should be able to dictate what we can and can't have in our yards. Enforcement of cutting down trees. Erratic. Far from good. Fire Marshal isn't doing job well. Friend had a car in public parking place and was ticketed. Car ticket enforcement. Had severely measuring grass height. I complained of a neighbor having too many dogs and my complaints were not heard. I dont see that they do anything about trash and junk in peoples yards and in the street. I have a horse barn in my backyard that is not supposed to be there and the city has done nothing about it I have contacted officials about problems and nothing has ever been done. I live in a neighborhood with a lot of code enforcement areas. In Dena they don't have enough enforcement. It takes too long to get around to our issues. I made complaints about weeds/fire hazards behind my home. The service is poor and there are no [uncertain of word] made afterwards. Mr. Mulrow is the best city council [person] here, and [he] fixed this. I see areas that are not being looked at. On Mockingbird Street people leave their trash on the street and it stays for long periods of time and there is tall grass that is not cut down. I think that some code enforcers are stricter in some neighborhoods than others. It is unfair. It seems based on social status which is wrong. I think that there are too many people living in single houses for a single family. Too many cars parked on the street and yards. I think there could be more done to improve code enforcement. I was sent a letter because I had hose in my front lawn, it was pathetic. I was sent a letter of violation when it was supposed to be for my neighbor. Ive never seen anyone doing code enforcement. If its code like to the politicians to take away their benefits. In the neighborhood people do not discipline code breakers. It doesnt seem that everything is equal to the various parts of which you live. It's selective, and its existence is to generate income. Lack there of. Leash laws need to be better enforced. Open fields need to be mowed-weeds too high. Better vacant lot maintenance. Leasing firms have allowed slum housing due to corruption. Lives in an apartment complex, and doesn't enforce code. Lots of signs being taken down or fines. Lots of yards over grown not enforcing keeping it clean. My street often receives code enforcement violations [that] are not consistent. Trash cans are visible but the neighbor got cited but they did not. Neighbors got cited for high grass and they did not even though they had the same. Neighbor operates a car repair shop. Has junk vehicles. No one mowed their lawn all summer long. Not enough officers. Code enforcement good. Adequate number of officers to maintain without citizen aid. Outside fencing unfinished is against codes. Over monitor, dont follow code and always trying to expand code and making it difficult to follow. Over picky. People go to the empty house next door to do drugs, etc. and police have not been out there to do anything about it. Some of the codes are not very good. They need to revise their codes. Some of the laws in the city about recreational vehicles are ridiculous. Some people do not follow codes. Those who do it dont make a difference. Some codes are too picky, like parking codes for trailers. Some people get by with not following. Takes too long for someone to clean my area. The city has never come to mow my ditch after 10 years of asking the city to come do it. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 191 The city ought to tell people and need to make a way for people to go to city meetings. The code enforcement people have to be called and they need to ride around the neighborhoods. Too much junk around and nothing is done about it. They are over zealous. People are being sighted for ridiculous things. Most of the residents feel picked on and not helped. The garbage bins restrictions are ridiculous. The people do not keep a lot of the streets the way that they should be kept and I believe that there is a code that says this needs to be done. The standards must be very high, but they are not implemented. There [should] be more code enforcement and there is a need for space that needs to be adjusted in neighborhoods. That should be enforced. There are a lot of violations that aren't given citations. People with existing violations are targeted. There is a six acre lot that hasnt been cut in 5 years. There isnt any. They've admitted that they dont have enough people to enforce codes. There seem to be too many people working in that area and seem to be a bit too astringent in some areas and not in others. They are judging the lots as to what they think is right. They should be taking care of city properties. They are not consistent and they are way too aggressive. They are not consistent in the code enforcement. Seem to pick on certain parts of Denton only. They are out of line. It is unfair that they are picking on the wrong stuff. Ex: Being cited for having a plant pot with no plant in it. They give citations continuously for the same problem. They didn't like something I had in the yard. It was a grill. Where else am I supposed to put it. They do not enforce codes. They do not enforce the codes. They dont do the citations right. They don't know what they're doing and abuse authority. Enforce the code selectively and allow others to get away with violations and use their authority to hinder some businesses. They don't really get into the neighborhoods and check out the lawns, seeing if people are keeping they're grass mowed. They don't use common sense in the enforcement of it. They go after innocent people instead of looking at the people right in front of them; don't always act on things. They go around nit picking little things. They write up people for unnecessary reasons. They are inconsistent and are not really contributing to the quality of life. They harass people who have problems. Let people who make the neighborhoods worse get away with things. They harass residence without explanation and no notice given ahead of time. They have overstepped their bounds, overzealous. They just now got on board with having a decent number of code enforcement people. They look more at appearances rather than whats healthy or good for the people. The code rangers encourage disunity; neighbors should work together with issues. They pick on you for silly things, small things, not concerned with big things. They send you letters to go to court, when they should just give a warning to do it. This is biased. They try to enforce codes on the citizens that don't apply to them. They're arrogant bureaucrats. They're enforcing in upper scale areas rather than lower scale areas. Tickets for no reason. Too out of hand. Too strict. Tree ordinances seem too extreme, expensive fines. Tree trimming, forced to pay, ruined yard. Vandalism lately. Destroyed my car twice. Very selective in neighborhoods. In north side of town they give piddling tickets and are preferential to south side and don't give any tickets on east side of town. Too selective. Weed law is not enforced. When you complain about something they dont make an effort to anything about it. You have people who are using code enforcement for personal vendettas. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 192 Internet survey responses Codes not enforced. Do not have or use common sense or fairness in work. Do not know the codes themselves. Do not take legal action allowed to destroy condemned buildings. Failure to enforce existing codes. In our neighborhood, trash cans are out all the time, cars are parked illegally, and they block the sidewalk forcing walkers to walk into the street. That is dangerous. Just drive around the city and see for yourself. Keep bugging hard working people. Lack of care for citizens, discriminatory enforcement, lack of knowledge on codes. Make code enforcement pro-active with a territory for each officer who will get to know the entire neighborhood. Money talks: selective enforcement. Need more enforcement and officers. Need more on rental. Neighbor has junk in her yard--nothing has been done about it. Not consistent. Out of control. Your citizens shouldn't hate you! Overkill with unnecessary codes. Picking at everyone else while the city isn't doing its own. Priorities are misplaced; staff nit picks inches of weed height while rat-infested unhabitable buildings are allowed to remain. Priorities in the wrong place. Punishment does not fit the crime--fines too steep. Seems poorly enforced. Seems very random and seems to target historic and older neighborhoods. Slow or no response to complaints. Some really silly codes that some people get hit for and others don't. Spotty and biased. Stricter enforcement for neighborhoods and business. Look at the business at the corner of McKinney and Mayhill Road. Takes too long. There is a truck in my neighborhood with expired tags, in my neighborhood cars parked in the wrong direction of the street, election signs still up since the primaries. They are always bugging hard working residents over little things. They are always riding around harassing hard working people. If they get a complaint then follow up. I don't think they should have the right to go looking for area. They just bug Denton residents. Too inconsistent. Too much "gotcha" going on. Very poor department. They are not consistent with their policies. Very selective, not consistent. We worry about the fleas while the elephants rampage. You place rules on the trash/recycle program, but you never enforce them. Street maintenance Telephone survey responses 288 construction, and the street maintenance on my street is poor. 288 has been going on for years, 380 took 15 years to get in Denton, takes too long to keep them maintained. 288 is horrible. 288 mess is going on too long and rush hour time going in and out is terrible. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 193 288 potholes here and there, traffic control isn't great. Don't know when I-35 will be finished. 288 was still under construction when I moved here in 2000. There's no reason for what they've been doing to 288 north out here. A lot of construction and it seems like your cars are going to tip over. A lot of construction on 288. Working 5 and 6 years. Potholes. A lot of old roads, potholes take too long. A lot of potholes, water in the potholes, don't fill them properly. A lot of roads need help. A lot of streets have problems, need resurfacing. A lot of streets need to be repaired. A lot of the streets are uneven and have potholes. A lot of the streets need to be repaved instead of patched. A whole lot of potholes all over. All over town it's poor, except in front of my house. All the streets are beyond fixing and all the road projects are behind. Along my route there are many potholes. A lot of construction everywhere; narrow lanes. A lot of potholes not being refilled, and a lot of cracks not being repaired. A lot of streets are in poor shape. Bad potholes (Bonnie Brae). A lot of uneven streets. The road by the house has a constant problem that never goes away. 288's traffic interferes with convenience. The hired contractors are slow. A lot of roads need to be worked, poor times to work on it. Areas near I-35 trees everywhere, and are not cut and trimmed. Bad roads that don't seem to be getting taken care of. Battle ground to go anywhere. Had a lot of guests that mentioned how dirty and torn up the roads were, difficulty to get from spot A to spot B. Because I don't think they do enough street maintenance in residential areas. Because it takes them forever to finish a project. Because the streets that need to be fixed are not being fixed, the priority is not where it should be for streets. Because there are potholes and a lot of streets need to be widened to allow more traffic. No good future planning. Because there so many potholes that need fixing. Because there's a lot of streets that I drive on that seem to be in need of great repair. Because they all need to be fixed, and they were forever fixing University Drive. Most of the streets are terrible. Because they are full of potholes. Because there are so many places you can't go because you can't get there. Because too much construction and takes too long. Because you can't drive down any street without hitting potholes or blocked off areas. It's difficult to navigate through city. Been working on the Loop way too long. Should've been done a long time ago. Been slow in making projects complete and missed main areas that need to be fixed. Broken roads. Certain streets that were repaved didn't need repaving. The ones that need to be repaved are not repaved. Bernard Street is a prime example. Construction. Construction in the south side of town around 288 is taking too long. Construction takes too long. Construction takes too long and it takes too long to get where you need to go. Construction, very slow. Loop 288 specifically. Some streets (downtown) have too many potholes, but still too slow. Damaged streets that look easy to repair are ignored until they become human hazards. Different places where the street washes out with potholes. Dips in the roads, unevenness, people dig in streets and they don't fix the streets right. Don't seem to maintain streets quality was better. Everywhere you go there's a bump and a bump and a hole. I'm always having to get my car University of North Texas Survey Research Center 194 realigned. Fix the roads! I live in a road that has been in a horrible mess for three years now. It has never been fixed. Get out all this construction up and out. Has too many potholes. Streets need to be redone. Horrible. I dont know why it takes so long to build a road, especially at 288. There are holes everywhere. I think it's bad. I live out here in Robson Ranch and I've seen a street sweeper about two times in five years. I think that it's poor, the streets are always torn up. You leave your house to go somewhere and find out that the street that you want to take is not available. I think the streets should be improved. Streets in older parts of Denton are extremely neglected. That is in the northern part. Street lights are poorly lit also in the northern part. Street display names poor. I would like to see them widen streets so that people can ride bicycles; many people ride bikes and they need safer, wider streets. In the older parts of town the infrastructure is so old that it hasn't been maintained very well. It takes a long time. It takes them a long time to complete street projects. Many streets have many pot holes. It took 3 years to fix State School Road and 288 is an endless project. It's hardly a street in town that jar you. Many torn up streets. It's taking a long time just too fix the roads, Ex: Loop 288. Keep streets torn up all the time. Lack of initiative in developers to widen streets before putting in huge subdivisions. Litter is frequent on the roads. Loop 288 has been torn up for two years now and other streets have been torn up for a long time. Loop 288 is terrible. Loop 288 project took way too long to finish. Loop 288, Mayhill. Took 5 months between Crescent and Alice. Don't care if it is inconvenience for people. Start something and don't finish it. Lot of work, lot of potholes. Lots of bumps and potholes. Lots of potholes. Lots of potholes and uneven surfaces. Maintaining the repairs. Maintenance schedule lousy. Traffic management. Maintenance workers speeding down roads. Many of the streets are bumpy. Many potholes. Mockingbird, potholes. Most of the roads are a disaster, trees in the middle of the street, take forever to come out. Most of the streets have not been resurfaced and have only been patched and it is hard on the cars. My street is torn up right now. It was supposed to be completed by the 17th of October but it's still not done. It's an inconvenience. My street needs to be repaired. Near TWU the street is worn out. Need great deal of repair. Need to focus on one area at a time. Neighborhood streets with potholes. Neighborhood and main thoroughfares are not good and bumpy. Never finish jobs. Not in good condition. Not planning ahead in time. Number of streets that don't have signs up, signs have been down all year. A stop sign had been knocked over and they need to do their job to fix it. Our roads are in need of repair. They have potholes and wreck cars. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 195 To start, Denton is pretty old and I [think] the city takes too long to do something about the streets. There are roaaisle. There are too many streets that are one way and they are too antique. Potholes. Potholes on all residential streets. Potholes, road repairs. Potholes. Potholes, bumps and slow maintenance. Potholes everywhere. Potholes everywhere and streets are falling apart. They don't fix things properly and keep having to fix the same streets over again. Potholes everywhere that have damaged my vehicle. Potholes in streets. Potholes that have been there since I was a teenager and are still unfixed. Potholes, street torn up, and too many projects incomplete. Projects on University too long. Quality of maintenance and repair is poor. Quick to start new projects before finishing previous ones. Really bad roads. Repair the roads, then rain comes and the holes crumble out because it's not done more. Once they start, it takes forever for them to finish and when it's done it's not well done. Residential streets need more attention. Road are rough. Road in front of my house is full of potholes. Road torn up takes a long time to repair. Roads all over town with potholes and untimely construction. Roads I drive on are "potholed." Roads look terrible. Better construction. Roads that need to be done don't get done. Redid the wrong roads while leaving the other roads in bad shape. Roadwork on 288 has taken too long, too congested. Roadwork elsewhere takes too long as well. Side roads are in poor shape and it seems like it takes forever to get a project finished. Slow at construction, too many potholes, slow at maintaining streets. So Loop 288 construction is too slow. So many holes and very rough. So many places under construction all at once, makes it difficult to get place to place. So many potholes. So many streets need work. Too hard to understand directions of streets. Streets are ugly right now. Commuting is too hard because of unnecessary traffic. Some neighborhoods get street maintenance, while others do not. For example, King's Row halfway through the route, they fixed even though it was already nice. But halfway through the route they did not, which is terrible. Some of the streets are poor because there are a lot of bumps. Started the job and never finished it. Streets need to be redone and not just repatched. Streets are bad everywhere. All buildings are built on the south side of town and buildings are allowed before infrastructure permits. Streets are horrible. I sprained my ankle Halloween night while walking with my children because I stepped into a pothole. Streets are in disrepair. Streets are in need of repair. Streets are not fixed. Streets are not good. Streets are poorly kept up with. Streets are pretty rough. Streets falling apart. Streets that have potholes and cracks and rough places. When they start a project it takes forever to University of North Texas Survey Research Center 196 finish. Sycamore and Carroll Blvd there is a huge hole in the street which is actually a drop off needs to raise it up or tend to it somehow. Takes too long to fix the streets. Takes forever to finish roads. Takes long time to finish projects on roads. Takes too long to fix streets: Loop 288 is a nightmare. Buses are always behind. Taking too long on certain roads and neglecting others. Terrible. The Loop construction has been going on for almost 6 years and they haven't completed much construction. The traffic is slow from it. The city cannot maintain the streets. Part of it is cheap materials. Very important that this is fixed. The garbage collection truck has significantly damaged the street I live on. The layouts of the street; I do not like the way the traffic is laid out; it is not safe. The length that the projects go on. The long duration of the street maintenance. The planning is poor on road projects. The potholes, the length of time that it takes to get things fixed is really bad; the potholes tear our cars up. The road humps, bumps, and potholes need to be removed from public and private property. It affects people's front ends of their cars. The road was not fixed where it needed to be. The roads are horrible. The roads around here are the worst I've ever seen. Loop 288 is filled with traffic. It should've been completed a long time ago. The roads have holes and are dangerous when it rains. The street is in ill-repair, broken curbs, streets have big cracks in the road, road needs repaving, and street repair needs repairing all over town. It's much worse now than it was. The streets are in bad condition and could use some patching and taking forever to finish Loop 288. The streets are in bad shape and 288 is taking forever in getting fixed. The streets are rough. The streets are rough and narrow and unkempt. The streets are rough and there are holes everywhere in many places in Denton. The streets could have improvement. The streets need to be fixed. The streets need to be paved because there are too many potholes. The streets need to be repainted. The surfacing is not well done. In some places there are potholes and uneven surfaces. Some of medians don't have fluorescent paint around them so you don't where they are. There are a lot of holes and rough roads. There are a lot of potholes and the streets are narrow. There are a lot of potholes. The roads need to be paved. The roads get patched up sometimes but it occurs again because it is done poorly. There are areas where the tax base is low and some areas are limited and in the minorities area the streets are horrible. The rich have good streets. TWU needs better roads too. There are holes all over the place. There are a lot of dips in roads. There are many potholes and rough streets. There are many potholes and small things wrong that need to be addressed sooner. They basically just put a band-aid on a situation and never completely fix it. There are potholes and the street raises. Ex: Hinkle Street is in terrible shape. There are so many potholes and there doesn't seem to be much improvement. There are so many potholes in the roads. The city does not stripe the lines on the roads adequately enough so that people know what side of the road they can drive on. There are so many streets that are uneven, no shoulder bar on the side of the road, and there are many potholes. There are too many potholes and when they start on something they start on something at the wrong University of North Texas Survey Research Center 197 time. I understand why they are doing it because of the students but there are other people who live here. They fix potholes and six months later they are broken and potholes are wearing on my car. They are more like craters. There has been a hole down the street from me, and they attempted to fix it, but failed to do it correctly. It still has not been fixed. There is no maintenance. There is not a good road in the state of Texas. There is poor maintenance, poor drainage, potholes, water standing. There seems to be no coherent plan in constructing the roads. They are torn up and never fixed. They are torn up and traffic is getting heavy, not enough signal lights. They do not get streets cleaned. They do not put enough time into street construction. They don't keep them maintained well. They just don't fix things fast enough. They start one street and start another one. They need to fix stuff faster than they tear it up. They never finish their projects and roads are always under construction. They never keep up streets on our side of town. It seems like they don't finish anything, they just start new projects. They started that mess on the Loop, and it's still not finished. They have stuff torn up all over the city. They need to finish one project before they start on something else. They start too many projects at the same time and they don't finish it. They stop one place and they don't finish, a lot of clutter. They take forever to get things done: Loop 288. They tear everything up at once. They tend to stand on one area of the road then tend not to finish. They're full of potholes. Too many streets with holes and it needs to be taken care of. Too much going on in the Loop, too much traffic in my neighborhood. In the morning it's a lot of traffic too. It's too rough in spots. Takes too long for them to finish. Too many areas that need resurfacing or too many areas with constant construction. Too many bad roads, especially Loop 288. Too many need to be repaved-fixed. Too many parts of Denton that haven't been done (certain parts)...potholes. Not evenly distributed. Too many potholes. Too many potholes and too much construction. Too many potholes and they need to fix places where the roads swell because of weather. Too many projects all at the same time. Too many projects at one time and it's not helping. Too many streets in Denton that need repair. Bell Ave and Mulky Lane as examples. Too many streets in poor condition. Too much construction going on. Too much construction, roads need to be widened, too many potholes. Too much work that needs to be done and doesn't seem like there is enough help to repair the streets. Too slow in building connecting areas (by the Loop). Torn up, never complete, not done in efficient manner. Very poor, lousy. Wait too long. We are hiring code enforcement officers instead of fixing the streets. We have potholes all the time. We have potholes and dips everywhere. Whoever is planning things is doing wrong things. Takes so long to get stuff done. Medians, left turn lanes are bad. Working on too many places at one time. You can hardly drive on my street, it is so poor. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 198 Internet survey responses 288. 288 is a hot mess! 288 project. Always too much construction. Can't keep up with growth. Come on people, 288 should have been finished a year ago. Good on the main roads, fair in the neighborhoods. Horrible planning of roads expansion after significant business development (Loop 288, now Lillian Miller/Teasley), timeliness of completion of roads projects. Ill-timed, no plan, no follow-up. Just poor. Look around, duh. Loop 288. Loop 288. Loop, bad road quality all over town, etc. Lots of construction, not seeing quick progress, especially Loop 288. Lots of potholes in roads. Many of our streets are in disrepair throughout the city. North side roads not maintained. Need more repairs. Not maintained properly. Our regular street cleaning is wonderful. Outdated. Over-regulated streetways, too much cross traffic. Slow! Painting of roads, turns, lanes, etc. Plan road construction so that all alternate routes are not torn up too. Get the Loop done before Thanksgiving so retailers wont lose sales for the third year in a row. Pave my residential street, something I have requested for 6 years now. When I do call they are very polite on the phone and say they will call back with info and never do. Poor patching versus resurfacing. Potholes all over the city. Potholes and takes too long to fix. Potholes, drainage, street curbs falling apart. Potholes, lack of traffic lights at busy intersections, broken pavement, lack of traffic signs. Preventative maintenance is needed. Repairs. Roads are bad. Roads caving in like Magnolia. Roads like Hinkle are never repaved, only temporary repairs are made. Roads in need of repair, snails pace in major repairs. Rough streets everywhere. See State School Road, northbound, right turn lane. See the recurring graffiti in the Panhandle- Egan culverts. Streets in Denton are some of the worst in Denton County. Taking forever. The 288 is a JOKE!! It's taken a year!! The roads are rough. There are too many streets without proper lines on them, or no proper signs. They take too long. Too many poor roads, not enough forward planning in road construction. Too many potholes. (2) Too much construction that should have been done in the first place, while other roads are falling apart and in bad need of repair. Too much construction, and where there is construction the roads are dangerous or damaging to University of North Texas Survey Research Center 199 cars. Too slow. (2) Very poor quality roads. When project started work faster. Reasons for never feeling safe and secure living in the City of Denton Telephone survey responses A lot of undesirable people that live in the city. Civil and human rights are poor. They can be stripped at the drop of a hat. Does not know a lot of people around town. Lack of adequate services. There have been many break-ins in the neighborhood and the response time is very slow. UNT and downtown seem [to have] too much crime. When the sun goes down, doors have to be locked 24/7. Immigration services should come down and clean house around "cement city" (around University Blvd, Prairie, Bonnie Brae, and Oak St.). This area is not safe for college students. Reasons for poor rating of City of Denton police visibility Telephone survey responses I don't feel the police are visible where they should be. I don't see them. I haven't seen any in the seven months of residing in Denton. I live on a busy street next to the high school, and when kids get out it is like NASCAR - Crescent Street. I rarely see any, and if I do it's because it's after the fact. Someone has been pulled over or something has happened. I seldom see them. I very rarely see them patrolling the streets. It seems like the Denton police will ticket people three times more often at the end of the month to reach a quota. Just moved to the house and there's a lot of drug dealing going on and the cops are nowhere to be seen. Police are never on time to the scene. Police don't know what's going on; show up at a location and don't know what's going on; best judgment is not always right. See more at night than in the day; around the hospital it's good. The police arrive late after the incident occurs. There should be more visible officers in residential areas. They are never around, you can never find them. They are not given enough money for it so they won't put much energy in it. They need to bring the bicycle and foot patrol back to Denton. Those methods are very effective. There is no reason that me or anyone should keep being broken into, robbed, or not feel safe. They pick on college students. They should stick around certain spots more, they only stay for about 45 seconds at a time. They stay at home too much. Very rare that I see a police [car] on the road. Would like to see them more around Paisley (off Mockingbird), lots of speeding. Internet survey responses University of North Texas Survey Research Center 200 All you see them do is nothing. Days and days will go by and not a cop in sight. Get them on the street-out of speed traps. I reside at Robson Ranch, I saw police patrol once in two years. I've never seen them in my neighborhood. In my neighborhood we seldom see a police car. Need increased officers dedicated to traffic enforcement. Need more patrol in southeast Denton. Police set up permanent speed tramps. Should have bike cops out in the park areas. They do not patrol my neighborhood. Too busy working minor traffic violations and not major incidents. Unfortunately. It's easy to be visible when you're not busy. Reasons for poor ratings of services provided to the whole city Maintenance of city parks Telephone survey responses There is a lot of trash, cigarette butts, males drinking alcohol. They just do not maintain them very well. Badly taken care of. They need to be updated and clean. Too many holes in the street. Took them two days to clean up. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 201 Maintenance of landscaped medians on major streets Telephone survey responses A lot of overgrowth and trash. Because they don't keep it clean. Get rid of the trees on 380 and Bonnie Brae. No one can see oncoming traffic and cars. Grass grows everywhere. Hard to see them. Put a bright color on them. I think they can be made more green (especially in the summer). They can use some landscaping and plant flowers. In my neighborhood they are. Live on University Street and I use a mobility scooter. Loop 288 is horrible now, but that's just because it isn't finished yet. Once it's done, I'm sure it will be excellent. Most of the roads are not kept well at all. Big grass, weeds, and dust can be seen. Flat tires, stones, and clothes are seen for days and not cleaned up. Mow once a year, don't care if there is trash, and leave it. Not a lot of landscaping in area. Roads are really bad. Several dips in the roads. Streets are really bad. The roads are so bad, can't notice them. There are weeds everywhere between the streets and private property. They have grass growing everywhere. Buildings have high grass on buildings. This is overdone. Too many problems with streets and they take too long to fix them. Graffiti removal Telephone survey responses At the park and it is not getting clean. Because the graffiti you see up is still up! Don't think there is one. Don't think they are responsible of getting graffiti cleaned up. Graffiti has been there forever. Graffiti in neighborhood, been there for six months. I haven't seen them remove any graffiti; some graffiti shouldn't be removed. I see graffiti everywhere. (2) I see these buildings everywhere all tagged up. I think if they could just clean the graffiti up a bit it would be cleaner and would make it a better environment. It is terrible in the northern area. Looks bad where it is done. Markings in outlying parts of the city. Sometimes I ask for help and I don't get it. Still a lot of graffiti. The city makes a good effort to keep it under control but it resurfaces. The electric boxes in a lot of areas have graffiti on it. The kids, they'll do it again. There is a lack of response to paintings on walls, but they will spend thousands of dollars for repainting bridges. There is graffiti on my building for months and all the city does is give me a bottle of remover and I have to remove it myself. They are lousy. I'm sick and tired of looking at the "Westside Homies, Bloods, Crips." They need to eradicate the gangs out of this area. They're not painting over it and it's just staying there. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 202 Victims of graffiti have not gotten it removed. Seen it on dumpsters, under bridges. We don't do it the right way. If someone gets their building tagged it is their job to fix it. We penalize the victim. Jim Kirkpatrick gets hit all the time and they expect him to fix it. Works at a high school and the problems are left and not fixed. Fridmore High School on bridges and railroads. Internet survey responses All over Denton and rarely removed. Bridges on Stuart and the Verizon boxes. But you tore down some of the best artwork in town. Drainage systems. Graffiti is often left for months without being cleaned up. Graffiti is all over the city. I have notified the City of graffiti that has never been removed. Is there any?! The Square is a mess! Often falls to business owner. Panhandle-Egan. Roselawn area/especially new bridge. Some buildings receive different color of paint then the original. Southlakes Pavillion has graffiti on it. Under bridges. Maintenance of major street surfaces Telephone survey responses 288. (2) 7 years they have been working on one road. A few places where you can't see the signs because of the trees have overgrown. A lot of potholes on the roads. Poorest thing in Denton. A lot of potholes, bumps and poor maintenance. A lot of potholes, really bumping. A lot of streets are uneven with holes. Alice Street has poor spots and Fort Worth Drive. All torn up. Always under some kind of construction. Are not well kept. Around UNT and TWU the roads are terrible. They got holes. They're patched, cracked, bumpy not smooth and they are not marked well. Because there are so many unlevel places in my area. Because they aren't maintained and some are so old and just cracked and rough, it takes forever for them to fix the potholes. Because they repaved, they always have to redo it. Because they work on them and don't finish. Bonnie Brae-potholes, side streets are horrible. Broken street. Broken, rips, when one is driving their car it makes the "crash" sound. Bumps, potholes. Bumpy. Can't get through traffic because of torn up streets. Clumpy, holes. It's not what I'm used to. Constant construction. Construction on streets. Construction, uneven pavements and potholes. Crappy roads. Damaged and busy roads from large trucks and construction. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 203 Don't keep streets clean. Don't take care of the roads. Always a bump or something. Every street is torn up. They take their time fixing streets. Fix the street and the next thing you know it needs to be fixed again. What they use doesn't hold up. Fix the streets. Full of potholes. Go drive around, look at Loop 288. I think that the repairs need to be smoother than what they are. They are too rough. Lack of maintenance on streets, length of time to fix them. Lack of upkeep, potholes, rough areas. Loop 288 between 1-35 and University. Been under construction for over a year and it's torn up and not progressing. Loop 288 construction. Loop 288 is a mess and should be fixed. Loop 288 needs to be fixed. The rest of the streets are fine. Loop 288. Lot of potholes that need to be fixed. Lot of wear and tear, quick-fix patches. Many potholes. McKinney, Loop 288, University, don't seem to fix the problems of the roads quick enough. Mingo is bad. In various places the streets are bad. North Texas 3 days a week some routes are bad. University and Carroll are in good shape, others aren't. My street needs to be repaired. Need major improvement, potholes. Need to take care of potholes and lanes need to be painted correctly, and need to do it faster. No repairs on potholes. North of University is just a rough board, Alice Street is torn up, and Loop 288. Not fixing the potholes, doing patch-work instead of the repaving. Not worried about streets that really need to be fixed. On Mayhill Road widening the roads and existing road is poor. Poor maintenance. Poor road conditions. Potholes and it's never kept up with. Potholes are not filled to last long. Potholes everywhere. Potholes, and lack of working or repair signs. Potholes, cracks in north and northeast Denton. Potholes, etc. Potholes, repairs don't last very long. Potholes, uneven surfaces, and lack of good markings. Potholes. (6) Problems with potholes and blocks off streets. Repair. Road conditions are bad. Road is like a washboard, many bumps. Roads aren't fixed. Seems like you drive a certain road and it seems like it's never repaired. Some of the streets need to be repaved. Some parts of it are so badly damaged but they don't fix it; fix parts that don't need fixing. Still doing construction and potholes. Streets are bad everywhere I go. Streets need to be taken better care of. Teasley. The deterioration of the streets needs to be fixed. The dips in streets and on the sidewalks. The Loop, the speed, need repairs. The planning is poor in the aspect of time and they need to get on the ball and repair the streets. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 204 The streets are not in good condition. The streets have potholes and they are rough. The streets in all of Denton are terrible. The surfaces are rough; the streets are narrow and junky. There are a lot of cracks and potholes that usually take a long time to repair. There are a lot of pot holes. If it's fixed it needs to be maintained. There are a lot of potholes. The streets are very rough to drive on. There are a lot of streets that have potholes. There are potholes and rough streets everywhere. There are potholes and the ground has shifted and road has sunken with holes all over the place. There are too many bumps and holes and it needs repaving. They are bumpy. (2) They are in terrible shape, they are very poorly finished. They begin and don't finish. They are need of repair and to be resurfaced. They didn't plan ahead. They do not fix the curbs and potholes; and it takes forever for them to fix it when they do. They don't repair and whey they do they do a crappy a job. They don't, no maintenance. They have potholes, dips in the roads, and there are no curbs on some roads. They haven't fixed my street in 30+ years. They just do patch jobs and never fix it. They just don't get them fixed. They'll tear up one, and tear up another one before they get the first one fixed. They take time doing the construction. They're not kept repaired and if they are it takes years to get anything done. They're rough and not taken care of. Too many cracks and holes. Too many dips, cracks, potholes, etc. Too many potholes and too congested. Too many potholes and ugly poorly done patchwork. If it is patched it isn't done well and it starts crumbling more. Too many potholes, uneven streets, etc. Too many potholes. Too many potholes. Too much construction, too much traffic, streets need to be widened: 288, 377, and Teasley, specifically. Too much construction. Torn up, potholes. Uneven surface, don't have smooth roads. Some of the marking is terrible. Mainly uneven surfaces. It's tough in a hot environment, it causes the streets to move. They should use concrete instead of asphalt. Uses the scooter where the road is uneven in intersections. Many potholes. When the streets are repaired/resurfaced it's not long before they have to be repaired/resurfaced again. They are not doing a good job. When there is a problem it takes too long to get fixed and then they just fixed the road but never look at the quantity of traffic that has increased the problem on the road. They only address one part of two issues. When you see pavement and potholes that you can't get through it's pretty substandard. Whole transportation system is poor because of 288. You cannot get around because they have waited too long to do anything. You cannot get across town without running into construction. You'll go down a street and little streets are neglected. Internet survey responses Again, let's try preventative maintenance versus waiting until it's a major problem. Broken pavement potholes. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 205 Central University Drive and the west end need to be resurfaced and widened. You did the east end, what about the rest of it? Do I need to elaborate? North Bonnie Brae. Finish Loop 288. For quite a while, there were some problematic potholes on I-35 E Southbound. Especially on already unsafe entrance ramps. (Too short.) Lillian Miller Pkwy. Lines, curbs poorly visible after dusk. Loop 288. Loop 288 - when will it be finished? Loop 288 project. Lots of streets have ruts. Many patch jobs both in service and appearance look poor. Mayhill. My alignment is bad due to Denton potholes. Need more money to maintain our roads. (2) Need paint, fix potholes. No markings, no signs, holes. Plan road construction so that all alternate routes are not torn up too. Get the Loop done before Thanksgiving so retailers won t lose sales for the third year in a row. Pave my residential street, something I have requested for 6 years now. When I do call they are very polite on the phone and say they will call back with info and never do. Potholes are the norm in Denton. Potholes so big they could cause damage, especially while construction is happening. Repairs take too long to complete. Mingo Road and Maple Street for example. Roads that need repaving often only get temporary repairs that have to be done again and again. Roselawn/Bonnie Brae being torn up by truck traffic. Some of the worst I've seen in Texas! Stripe painting visibility. Sunken areas in the streets. Surfaces are too bumpy with too many potholes and unnecessary imperfections. Teasley and Hickory Creek. Too many streets need repair. Too slow. Very poor maintenance. Very, very uneven. Way too many bumps and holes. Maintenance of residential street surfaces Telephone survey responses A lot of neighborhoods have streets in disrepair. A lot of potholes and rough streets. Streets are bumpy. A lot of the older neighborhoods do not have drainage outlets. A street is too rough. Area that I live in needs to be fixed. Because i just had an issue. Because the people dig in the streets and then they don't make the streets even, they cause big potholes. Because there are potholes and cracks and they are not being fixed. Because there is a spot on Oak in the historical area when you're going towards UNT there is a spot that sunk. It has been fixed but it's sinking again. There is another one in front of Lee that hasn't been fixed. Because when they repave it doesn't last and there are all types of potholes and bumps in the road. Big dips in the road. It's horrible. It's been like this for many years. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 206 Bonnie Brae is horrible. Street maintenance is poor and there are potholes and the road is uneven. Broken, rips, when one is driving their car it makes the "crash" sound. Can't get through traffic because of construction. Cracks and unlevel street surfaces. Depends on where you live. Same answer as previous. Dips, cracks, potholes, etc. Do not like potholes and drainage problems. Doesn't seem like the streets are getting repaired like they should in neighborhoods. Mulky Street being one of them. Needs to be resurfaced. Don't fix residential streets very often. Down the road, they have not completed construction and it has been a long time. Drive on some streets and not maintained well. Especially on the colleges residences. It's very badly damaged and they don't care. Holes are all over the place and it is impossible to miss them. Holes in the grounds that damage vehicles. Holes on streets and uneven. I see potholes and they are filled with water. It's just horrible. They don't do anything to fix the streets. It's torn up because they are putting in new water lines. Lack of being desired. Too much to handle... slow down on fixing one thing at a time. Longer for residential potholes to get fixed. Lots of medians broken, potholes in residential areas. Lots of potholes and the streets are torn up at parts. Lots of streets need work. Many of the street areas contain potholes. The main dividers should be more prominent and visible. Maybe painting or lane dividers could improve this. Putting in walking trails would help and make it more safe. Many streets in ill-repair. Many times it takes too long. My street needs to be repaired. Need repair on potholes. Need repaired roads. Need repaving. No kids crossing signs on the streets in my neighborhood. No maintenance. Not fixing the potholes, doing patch-work instead of the repaving. Not very good maintenance. Not well kept. Not well taken care of, bad surfaces. On Georgetown there are major problems with the street surfaces. They only patch it up and don't really solve the problem. The base of the street is inadequate. They need to use a flex base. Pennsylvania Ave. is kept perfect, but McKinney is not. Population and the city are growing and the traffic. Potholes. (6) Pothole city. Pothole, cracks, bumps, years. Potholes and reconstruction are done poorly, need to do better maintenance. Potholes are not filled well. Potholes are on every road in Denton. Potholes everywhere. Potholes haven't been fixed in years, for example: Fort Worth Drive. Potholes in the road. Potholes they will come in and repair a small section and seem to leave other damages. Potholes, etc. Potholes, uneven roads. Potholes. Road is dropped out in front of my house. Drainage system does not work. Floods when it rains. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 207 Resurfacing of neighborhood streets long overdue, not done very much. Road conditions are bad. Rough. Rutted up with tar and asphalt. Seems like you drive a certain road and it seems like it's never repaired. Spot improvements. Still doing construction and potholes. Street is hideous, filled the cracks with tar. Streets are not maintained -- bumpy, potholes, etc. Streets have not been resurfaced, they only patch. Streets need working on. Streets with older homes on them aren't as nice as the streets with newer homes. Takes too long to fix a street once they decide to tear them up. Tear them up all the time. The planning is poor and they need to get on the ball and repair the streets. The potholes need to be fixed. The repairs should be smoother. They are currently too rough. The roads aren't fixed. The streets are bad. The streets are rough. The streets have potholes. The streets need to be repaved. There are a couple of bad roads. There are a lot of cracked streets and holes that need to be repaired. They seem to patch up a lot of streets instead of resurfacing. There are a lot of potholes. If it's fixed it needs to be maintained. There are potholes and rough streets everywhere. There are too many potholes and not [enough] people working on it to get done better than what is already. There are too many potholes. There is always. There's a lot of streets that have never been resurfaced and [they] only fix the ones politicians live on. They don't repair and when they do they do a crappy a job. They don't resurface them, they patch. They're not repaired, it takes years for them to repair them, and the repairs are poor. They're too slow on repairing them. Those need to be fixed in older neighborhoods and older parts of town. Too busy and damaged. Too many cracks and holes. Too many potholes, etc. Too many potholes. (2) Working on other roads. Worst because they are deep holes. Internet survey responses Again, some of the worst I've seen in Texas! Alice Street. Bent Oaks. Briar Forest is falling in, yet the city just dumps asphalt to patch it. It is a concrete road. Curbs in my neighborhood are falling apart. Goodson Way needs repair. Have watched pothole workers driving around and not filling the potholes. Housing divisions were put in substandard, need constant repairs. I never see middle to low income streets repaved as ofve seen upper middle and upper class neighborhoods. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 208 In different parts of town and slow in repairing potholes. In residential areas patch jobs are done very poorly. Lots more work needs to be done. Mack Drive needs repair after Lee Elementary reconstruction. Major holes even after they were filled in with asphalt. Many in my area deteriorating/Goodson Way. Need more quality maintenance. Need paint, fix potholes. No markings, no signs, holes. North side of town. Streets are not in good shape. Old North Road. Older sections of city. Older streets rarely get resurfaced. Only after a water main breaks does someone pay attention to it. Once again lots of minor streets have ruts and potholes. Plan road construction so that all alternate routes are not torn up too. Get the Loop done before Thanksgiving so retailers wont lose sales for the third year in a row. Pave my residential street, something I have requested for 6 years now. When I do call they are very polite on the phone and say they will call back with info and never do. Policies, standards and practices are below competent. Potholes broken pavement. Streets need to be widened not new streets built. Potholes. (2) Roads are sinking in and the water mains are high. Rough. Takes too long. They fix those? They patch our street, but they repave streets in Southridge. Why is that? Too slow. Very poor upkeep. Very slow. You know it's worse. Reasons for poor ratings of street-related issues Visibility of street signs Telephone survey responses A lot of the street signs are down. A lot of them are behind trees and bushes and nobody seems to maintain them. A lot of them are getting covered by bushes and trees. A lot of time there are trees and tree limbs and they are in a disability state. A lot of the signs are always obstructed. A lot of times they are hidden where people cant see them. Because I've been driving in dark streets and suddenly cars pass you. There is not enough lighting. Because you have trouble reading the names. You have to be right on top of the sign to see it. Because you can't see them. They need to be larger and more reflective for the aging population. Behind bushes, areas that are doing construction and haven't moved signs, especially speed limit signs. Code enforcement, many streets with over hanging bushes and trees. Hidden. Design of the road makes it hard to locate street signs. Downtown has trees blocking or missing street signs Far behind trees. Hard time finding street signs. Gets lost. Over brush, trees hiding signs. I dont see the timing on the signs I got a ticket on 288 when I turned on from I-35. Didnt see any signs. Wasnt marked very well. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 209 I have poor vision. Im legally blind but have fairly good vision. Some signs are not big enough for someone to see with 20/100 vision. In some parts, do not see very many. It's a problem. Lot of tree limbs blocking the signs. Many signs are hidden by trees or weeds. Not many signs out. Not very good. Over growth is covering them. Should adopt programs of other cities where they tell you the street that's coming up. So many of them that you cannot see because of trees, or signs being twisted or turned, inability to read signs at night. Some signs you can't see unless you are right on top of them due to trees and bushes. Sometimes even seeing signs, and also when you go to turn a corner you have to pull out to see if there is traffic. Sometimes the signs aren't visible because something is obstructing people's view of it, i.e. trees and branches or the signs aren't there at all because it has been removed and not replaced. Sometimes they dont have any. Sometimes they are bent and beat up. Some streets signs are covered by trees and some streets dont have signs. The signs should be more visible on main streets (especially at night). There should be better lighting. The street signs are not visible and easy to see at night. The street signs should be bigger, narrow ones are hard to pick up on, and trees block the signs. There are a lot of stop signs that you cant see with trees in front of them. This is in many places including Kings Row and Wellington. There are missing street signs in a lot of places and they get turned the wrong way. There are times when the railroad crossing lights don't function. It seems like they don't maintain them. They don't have a lot of street signs up; trees hanging over the signs. They're in the trees. Tree limbs often obstruct the view of stop signs. Trees and bushes are in the way. Trees get in the way of signs sometimes. University Blvd. has trees that blocks the view of the stop sign. There are many instances where this occurs. There should be more signs that inform people about the speed limit. Its only marked every so often. Visibility of street signs is poor, low hanging tree limbs and/or bushes hiding part(s) of street signs, i.e., on North 77 going past N.T. Research Center turning left on Bonnie Brae, trees hide approaching traffic. Wears glasses so there needs to be bigger lettering. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 210 Condition of existing sidewalks Telephone survey responses A lot of them need to be replaced because of cracks and some look like they're caving in. Because its raised up. Because of the maintenance and lack of sidewalks. Because some areas have it and some areas don't. Because some of them are uneven. They have cracks. Broken, irregular, weeds, bushes overhanging the sidewalks. Bumpy and chewed up not well maintain. Cracked and you can push a stroller. Cracked up and down. Easy to trip and fall. Rise too high. Cracks, raised, uneven, need sidewalks because traffic is so bad but they're hard to use. Downtown is poor. Excess concrete because of repaving the street; and now the patchwork has ended up in pieces. Hardly have any, very few sidewalks. High grass and weeds. I feel that the condition could be definitely be improved. I live in old section of town, and they are very uneven. I live on north side of town and sidewalks around Congress and older neighborhoods aren't maintained properly. In the older parts. it is horrible. They should look into that. None, but they want to give you a citation for walking on the wrong side of the road. Not maintained, no repair. Not many sidewalks. On Bonnie Brae from 77 down to University, they could do more mowing/taking care of weeds. Older neighborhoods, the sidewalks are old. Somewhat dangerous conditions. Repairs needed. Sidewalks are in poor condition; they're very uneven and broken. Sidewalks in the area have not been repaired and look back. Sidewalks on Hickory and Malone--some sidewalks on one side and then disappear. Some are better than others. Some are cracked and broken. The crosswalks. The neighborhoods around campus are in general unlevel and an individual can twist their ankle. The sidewalks are too short. There are a lot of cracks and holes. There are large trees lifting up the pavement and they're uneven and fairly dangerous. There are lots of cracks, and they are unlevel; needs maintenance. There are no sidewalks in my neighborhood. There are none. (2) There are too many that are broken and others are too high. There are too many that are broken or unleveled. They don't maintain them. (2) They don't pay much attention to the sidewalks unless a call is put in to fix them. They have sunken and shifted and need to be corrected. They make it impossible for people on bikes and mothers with strollers to access them. They need fixing. They need repair, they need a ramp. They require maintenance. Trees grow in the sidewalks, could not get a wheelchair down a sidewalk if you tried. Uneven surfaces, a lot of cracks and holes in different places. Uneven. (2) Usually everyone walks in the street. We dont have any sidewalks out here. The ones that we do have are excellent. When walking son to school existing sidewalks are horrible. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 211 Internet survey responses A lot are covered with weeds, broken and deteriorating on North side of town. Bad around poor areas and UNT. Don't exist on my street. Look at the parks-employees. Lot of busted up sidewalks. Overgrown lawns or trash cans. Sidewalk in front of my home. Too much money spent. Very uneven in my neighborhood. Wheelchair/stroller accessible. Signal timing on major city streets Telephone survey responses 288 always backed up, lesser traffic light on longer. 288 is a train wreck. Has been forever and seems to be a permanent problem. 288 too long red. Teasley Lane too short green. A lot of traffic. A stop light near my house is very irregular. Sometimes it is long and sometimes short. Many accidents. All through out Denton, too long. Bad spots, too fast. Basically anywhere in downtown Denton the signal timing is pretty horrible. Because a lot of times you get through one light and the timing is just bad. Because Carroll Blvd. is the one I'm most familiar with and if the timing is right you can go through all of them, but it won't let you. Because I had to sit at a light on the corner of Post Oak and I-35 and it never changed for over 5 to 10 minutes. Because I sat at a light for a good 10 minutes waiting for it to change and they are not synchronized. Because I sit around waiting for the lights to go. Golden Triangle Mall is ridiculous. Because the intersection needs a light where I live. Grandson hit by car because of light on Teasley and Pennsylvania. Because there aren't enough of them. 380/University is poor. 288 is poor. I've gotten lost in Denton, and the major streets are just too busy and too many people moving in to deal with the growth. Because they don't give enough time from when the light turns green back to red. Sometimes it'll turn red before you can get to the other side. Because you're stuck 3 red lights in a row. By Ryan High School there is a traffic mess to get to Loop 288, especially in the morning and afternoon rush hour. Carroll Blvd. makes you stop at every light after 8 am. Cars back up too much, takes a long time, especially getting off I-35 to the 288 Loop - very dangerous. Certain street lights that are a lot longer than others. Crosswalks, not enough time to get across when disabled. Down Carroll Boulevard it's excellent and on University it is poor because they are not timed like they are on Carroll Boulevard. Drive lights need to be coordinated. Even on one way streets you have to stop when you're going at the legal speed limit. Exit off of I-35 at Mayhill has poor timing. Frequents Carroll Blvd. to take daughter to school. Big hassle. From the north to south the lights are longer than if you're going east to west especially on University of North Texas Survey Research Center 212 University Drive. Hard time with light stops at speed limits. Hard to get around. Not very productive. Hard to locate and the design of the road is hard to locate the signal timing. Has to stop on every light. Hit on red light, continuously caught in red lights, poor timing. I have to stop too many times on Carroll Blvd. If you get one red light you hit them all. If you maintain a certain speed the lights should be timed so you can hit the next traffic lights, like on Carroll Blvd. That's the only road that's like that in town. Intersection at Sherman around Piggly Wiggly. At night you can't make right turns. Stay forever, around 10 minutes one time. It should go from red to green faster. I've been in many cities in Texas where the city engineer and people were working on it. They are falling apart. Here in Denton, for 3 1/2 years, 288 has been a mess. Lights are not synchronized. Lights are synchronized very well. Lights blinking, not safe. Lights take too long. Corner of Bell and Hickory, light is way too long. Left turn signals are not long enough, at Bell and McKinney. Live on Nottingham and the light is too short to get across intersection. And McKinney and 288 is never working properly. Nightmare getting across town because of the way the lights are set. Not synchronized like they should be. Not synchronized properly. Not synchronized, travel short distance, stop at stop light every stop light. Not timed properly for traveling from one end of city to the other. Not timed right. On 288 it's not good. You get one green light then quick red and you have to wait. On Carroll Street the lights are not timed at all. One street is lousy: corner of 288 and Colorado. People don't always signal. Route 288 is horrible due to construction ramps up and lights are blinking making it risky to drive. Seems to deliberately time the lights so you stop a lot. Sensors for traffic are frequently messed up. Majority are good, and some that create problems for traffic, but they were good. Set timers. Sherman Drive and Bell Avenue, the light timing is too short. Should be regulated better, faster signal timing. Some in the Square take far too long. Some of the lights are set up for, if you are on the major streets it's longer than the streets with less traffic. Sometimes lights don't last very long. Impossible to move on the Loop. Sometimes you have to wait forever and the light is short. Stay on long enough. Takes a long time for the lights to change. Terrible; can't seem to get it organized at all. Computers don't work. The light doesn't stay green long enough. We have to wait too long and they should be timed better. The lights aren't timed, have complained. The lights between McKinney, between Elm and Locust offset. The lights don't seem to be coordinated. Signals are either too fast or too slow. It's all messed up. The red lights are not in sequence. The signal timing is not fast enough. The street lights aren't synchronized. The wait time at a light is too long. The timing to be better. The traffic control at Guyer High School is horrible. Students don't have sidewalks to all the University of North Texas Survey Research Center 213 construction going on. Going to the mall is horrible. I think it's all bad. I don't think they planned for the future. Their lousy, poor light timing. There is no way to get from 380 to I-35 without getting stopped at streets like Hickory, Oak, or Eagle. It needs to be designed so that traffic can flow through instead of being stopped at every major intersection. There is not a well timed traffic light, worst out all places lived. There is not an average speed that can get you through lights without stopping. They are not sequenced. They aren't set to keep traffic moving. They don't tend to match the traffic. For instance, early in the mornings and some streets that are not major they are on and not blinking. The not timed properly according to traffic. Traffic moves congested. Not consistent timing. They're not in synch. Timing is very off, will sit on light for 45 minutes on Loop 288. Timing needs to be faster and more accurate. A lot of times, I have to sit and wait at a stop light when there are no other cars around. Timing of lights is horrible and very frustrating. There are not times where they should all be green or red and that's a waste of gas. Too long a wait at lights when there is no traffic. Too many concurring red lights. If you go down McKinney Street you'll catch the red light on Elm Street. You go down a block and catch a red light on Locust. Too much construction on streets. Traffic lights are too quick, or too long. Under I-35 the lights are not timed correctly and it backs up traffic. Waiting too long. We should be able to drive at a certain speed limit and not miss a light. There is no reason we can't drive forty and not hit a light. The signal control people complain that it's expensive and time consuming to fix. Well, because they are always working on it. You have to stop at every stop light you come to especially on Carroll. You sit and sit and the light never changes (on Elm Street on Sherman Drive and University). Internet survey responses 288 and IH-35 has been a major problem since I moved to Denton. Bell and University, Bell and Sherman. Carroll Blvd--you catch a red at every intersection. Carroll is a beating once you catch a light. Crescent and Carroll. For years your sensors still are not sensitive. Green lights into red, also cycling back on at 6:00 a.m. I can't believe how bad the lights are. It's bad. Just drive around town. Lack of care by staff. I know they can do better. Let's get the timing down a little better. Lights could be timed and coordinated far better. Lights should be timed to prevent stops and idling. Loop 288 is a problem. Mockingbird at McKinney Street. More signal lights need to be blinking or on a trip mechanism. Need to hire new people, wait forever at one light and get caught at the next. Needs better coordination with nearby traffic signals. No timing at all. Not coordinated. Out of sequence. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 214 Seem to be anti-timed. Timers need to be checked frequently. University and Carroll. We should not have to stop at every light on University. Availability of sidewalks Telephone survey responses A lot of neighborhoods don't have sidewalks. A lot of the roads don't have them. A majority of the neighborhoods don't have sidewalks and mothers have to push their strollers in the streets. I live in a neighborhood that doesn't have any sidewalks at all. A street with railroad track next to it. I've had to walk on the street and there is high grass and no infrastructure for pedestrians. All areas of Denton do not have sidewalks. Along University Drive between shopping areas and TWU the sidewalk access is very poor for the students Area in particular, Hickory by the Police Dept. One must cross the sidewalk times to get to the sidewalk. There is no rhyme or reason how they put the sidewalks up. Aren't enough of them. Because even when there are sidewalks they are covered up by weeds and such. Because I live on Bonnie Brae and Windsor and there is grass so tall that it covers the sidewalk. Because there are some places where you'd have to use the street because there are no sidewalks. Because there not taken care of or they do not exist. Because you can be going down the street and have a sidewalk and go a little further and there is no sidewalk. They are inconsistent. Because you got dont have too many sidewalks. Been in several towns, and Denton is the worst of the lot. A lot of foot traffic and no sidewalk. Compared to others were they are virtually everywhere. No expenditure, not in any kind of complete way. Seems like their answer to it is to wait for an entrepreneur [?] to come and be forced to make the side walks, not standard. Denton doesn't have enough side walks. Depends on the neighborhood. Dont see many sidewalks around. Dont seem to notice sidewalks or not any at all in some areas. Don't have any. Getting up to my neighborhood there are no sidewalks. I dont see very many sidewalks other than residential areas. I feel it is not terrible but can be improved. I feel that children are always riding bikes and walking so there should be more sidewalks for them. It would avoid accidents. I feel that there should be more sidewalks. (2) I rarely see a sidewalk when I need it. There aren't as many sidewalks now as there used to be. I walk and ride bikes a lot and on busy streets I would love to ride on the sidewalk but there is no sidewalk. In my neighborhood there aren't any. It depends on the area. Just a lot of streets with no sidewalks. Lack of sidewalks in my area makes it so I have many, many sidewalks out of his area to access before I can reach my destinations. Leave off of Teasley and Hickory Creek, the children attend Guyer High School and there are no sidewalks or crosswalks between place of residence and the school. Like to see more, more area. Many areas do not have access to sidewalks. Especially with two major universities. Many areas don't have sidewalks, walkers in street. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 215 Many of the places dont have any sidewalks. McKinney has no sidewalks. Most of the newer residential areas don't have sidewalks at all. The ones on some of the main roads stop and start again. I don't feel that large parts of Denton are designed for pedestrians. Most the residential areas any distance from the town don't have sidewalks. My residential area has no sidewalks. Need more of them, kids dont have a sidewalk to walk to school on. No sidewalks in lots of places. No sidewalks in my neighborhood, as well as lots of places in Denton. No sidewalks in my neighborhood. No sidewalks in my neighborhood. Lots of places where there are no sidewalks. No sidewalks in places. No sidewalks in your neighborhood. No sidewalks. None available in neighborhood. North Lakes Park needs a bike trail that goes all around the park as it does over at Eureka. Sidewalks from the fire station on Bonnie Brae going all the way down to the park. Forced to ride in the street. Not a lot of sidewalks in my neighborhood. Not enough in neighborhoods. Not enough room. Not enough sidewalks in our neighborhood. Not enough sidewalks in the residential areas. Not enough. Not one for kids to [get to] school. Not that many sidewalks in Denton. Not very many sidewalks and they're very needed. Noticing when driving. On McKinney, I walk to and from school and have to walk on the side of the road. On my street there are no sidewalks. Couple of different routes and none involve sidewalks. On University Drive there are no sidewalks. On University, need complete walks. Only a tenth of the streets have them and that forces people to walk on streets. Serviced more towards the pedestrian people. Sidewalk on one side of the street and not the other side. Sidewalks could go from I-35 to University then it would get rid or traffic. Some areas are really hard to walk around and hazardous to kids. Some areas need more sidewalk areas. Some sink three or four inches and are uneven. Students don't have sidewalks to walk on to get to Guyer High School. It is dangerous. Teasley doesn't have sidewalks by the high school. It's very dangerous and nothing's been done about it. Kids are walking near construction. The kids have to walk on busy streets and some places have no sidewalks at all like the newer neighborhoods. The low availability of sidewalks made it hard to walk around. The older neighborhoods don't have as many sidewalks as the newer ones. The sidewalks do not exist in most areas (neighborhoods). There are a number of elementary schools that children are required to walk to and the sidewalks stop short of the neighborhoods. There are areas where people have to walk in between traffic. They should make more sidewalks for people to walk on. There are disability ramps in places where there are no sidewalks at all. There need to be more sidewalks for safety purposes. There are lots of areas with no sidewalks on major thoroughfares. There are no available sidewalks. That should definitely be fixed because they are non-existent. There are no sidewalks in my area (northwest Denton). There are no sidewalks in my neighborhood and I live within the city limits. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 216 There are none in my area and I have to walk my dog in the street which is very unsafe and its a lot of people in my neighborhood that walk and people dont slow down for you. I live in Southridge. There are none in my neighborhood. There are not enough and its endangering our students. There are not enough of them. There are not enough sidewalks. There are not enough sidewalks. There are not enough sidewalks. Some streets have them some don't, so there is inconsistency. There are not very many. The any. No sidewalks anywhere. There arent enough sidewalks. There arent many sidewalks except in that subdivision. The kids have no where to walk by the school Guyer High School. There aren't any sidewalks in the neighborhood. There aren't enough sidewalks. The provision of sidewalks is very poor. There aren't many sidewalks. There is some place on University that people walk in street because sidewalks aren't provided. There need to be more sidewalks. It would be more safe. There should be more dedicated sidewalks. There should be more major sidewalks on major streets connecting to neighborhoods. Theres not enough of them. They end at certain points and you end up walking on the roads They dont seem to be at the right places to accommodate a lot of people to walk safely. They don't have enough quantity of sidewalks. They havent fixed them good enough. They need finish the sidewalk on Redstone Street because my kids walk on the street. They need more sidewalks on University and McKinney Street. They need more sidewalks; children have to walk to school on the streets and its dangerous. Too many places in town where there aren't sidewalks, particularly in neighborhoods. Too many places where there are not any. Very few older neighborhoods have few sidewalks. Walk around a lot of time and certain areas and streets have a limited amount of sidewalks. Eagle Drive only has sidewalks on one part of the street. We dont really have any. We don't have any in our neighborhood. We don't have sidewalks where I live and University Drive doesn't have them all the way. We need more sidewalks, especially on Loop 288 and Teasley. We simply do not have sidewalks where we should. What sidewalks? No maintenance. Very little sidewalks. Unfriendly to pedestrians. Internet survey responses Bonnie Brae, Loop 288 and University. Cannot go everywhere with them. Code forces a new business to put in a sidewalk, but it doesnt connect to any other sidewalk on either side of the business. Improving, but not there yet. Inconsistent. Lots of areas have no sidewalks. Lots of children walk in the streets. Many areas of town have no sidewalks. Mingo, McKinney, University. More are needed around schools to keep students out of streets. Need more sidewalks on major residential streets going to schools. Need more sidewalks on major roads connecting residences to retail and recreation. No sidewalks are available on my street. None in most areas. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 217 Not designed to allow long distance walking. Not enough. (2) Not enough throughout Denton. Poor planning, maintenance and enforcement of regulations. No responsibility by city for problems. Sidewalks are available in areas with few pedestrians, such as Carroll Street or University Drive, but are not available other places. Sidewalks in Denton, what?? Some streets have no sidewalks at all. South Bonnie Brae is a major jogging road for many residents and students. No sidewalks or trails/excessive speeding vehicles. The city has sidewalks? There are none. They stop and start and are not connected. This is the worst I've ever seen. I can't count how many times I've seen people hiking through grass, walking on the streets. Very little availability. What sidewalks? With high gas prices we need more in major areas. Would be nice to have more sidewalks to make walking or bicycling easier on busy streets. Would like sidewalk on Audra from University to Paisley. Efficiency of travel between major residential areas and major retail/employment centers in Denton Telephone survey responses 2181 to Denton Crossing, always under construction. 288. 288 has been biggest disaster in the history of man. I have never seen a project in highway economics executed this poorly and I have done this for a living. 288 Interstate. 288 is a problem. 288 is major shopping area. 288 - the traffic is too congested. 288 - way too long. A lot of road construction on Loop 288 and Mingo Road, Mayhill Road, Gayla Drive. The construction is being done very slowly and is taking too long to finish. A lot of traffic build-up off of Loop 288. Age of existing streets was not coordinated well with the expansion of the new roads. All major thoroughfare projects waited too long. All development programs came after actual development. The roads should have come in first. All of the businesses are on one side of town and the traffic is always backed up. All the construction between North Denton and the mall. All the construction, it takes forever. Loop 288, University Blvd. are the two main ones. Traffic is atrocious there. All the streets are torn up. All the traffic with Loop 288 construction and other road construction. Always road construction and a lot of traffic. Backup, not many traffic warnings. Bad roads, you cant get on them because they are all closed off because of construction (Loop 288). Because all the roads are torn up Because I live in Southridge and both the back way to get to the mall and Loop 288 were all torn up. Because I work at Walmart and that street should have been done a long time ago. Its a pain to get in and out of. Because it is just horrible. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 218 Because it was poor planning by the city for the expansion on 288. Because most of the retail outlets are by the mall and 288 is a construction nightmare. Because of 288 and access to anything off I-35E. Because of 288 construction. Because of construction right now. Because of Loop 288. Because of the construction and they finish in the length of time that they need to be. Because of the construction on 288. Because of the excess construction being underway. Nothing is finished, everythings in progress. Because of the road construction. Because of traffic on 288, its poor for the businesses and getting in and out of them. Because the barricades confuse people and clogs up traffic. Because the roads are bad. Because they always have the road [torn] up and they have been working on 288 for years. Because to go from point A to point B it takes a long time because of the torn up roads, causes traffic. Because too much traffic for small roads and finish one road at a time. Because traffic stays backed up all the time on 288. Been working on the mall for 7 years. Bottleneck traffic at 288 and the inability to make progress on 288. Cant get the roads completed. Cant get to the mall. Can't get to the mall or any place to shop, the entire area is under construction. Congestion. Light timing. Not enough through streets. Constant work on roads. Construction. (4) Construction along 288 and now massive road interruptions along Teasley Lane. Construction and lanes are cut down. There is more traffic congestion. Construction for way too many years, crosswalks in terrible need of painting all over time. Construction for years. Construction is going on and on and it's a pain to get around. Must be careful in traffic. Construction makes it difficult. Construction near the Golden Triangle Mall down through to where Walmart, Kroger, etc. Construction on 288. Construction on Loop 288 and previously on University Drive and intermediate construction on Colorado and a number of thoroughfares simultaneously. Construction, 288 too long, entrances to shopping areas too steep. Construction, not enough lanes, lot of bottlenecks and a lot of backup. Control traffic better and crowd of cars. Don't have any convenience from where I am. Downtown too crowded for road size. Due to all of the signal lights, it takes too long to get from one point to the other. If the signal lights were all synchronized, it wouldn't take so long to get from one place to another. Due to roads being torn up. Everything has traffic and construction and it's all a mess. It takes forever for them to fix a street or make a new one. Everything is closed off or under construction. Everywhere. Example: 288, too much traffic and not enough lanes. Generally poor, you cant move around Denton without your patient hat on, too many of us and infrastructure cant support all of the vehicles. Getting from my house to the mall and Walmart is hard. Going on I-35. Faster to take Loop 288 and go around the north end instead of cutting through town because traffic is terrible on I-35 (going from north to south). Going to the side of town where most of the shopping is in painful. Hard to get to certain areas due to dead ends and where you are located depending on certain areas. It is easy to get lost and construction. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 219 Hard to get to shopping areas. No through street except for roundabout street. Bell to Colorado, you have one or two places you can go and theres nothing between, no straight route. Have to go on the other side of town to get everything that they need, not much in that part of town Horrible, awful, timing on traffic lights, road construction, multiple projects at once, use of right turn only lanes. I go through 288 and the mall area and it's horrendous. I have to stay off major roads because they are always clogged or under construction. Loop 288 is a real mess. I live on the north side of town, and its hard to get to Walmart and Target. I was stuck in traffic and late for a meeting in Denton traffic. Arriving 10 minutes late I would rather fly a helicopter. The traffic is awful, there is always construction, makes you not even want to go because of all of the ruckus and congestion on the road. If they will [word missing] 288 that will help. If you travel on 288 its terrible. It can take 30 minutes to drive through a 1/2 mile of road on 288. It is not efficient. There are so many stops when trying to travel between these areas. It is poor because of the street repair. It takes a long time to get around. The streets are usually congested and traffic is a issue from to 7 pm or early in the morning. It takes us a long time. It takes too long to get places because every place has construction. Its bad. It's a nightmare, 288 and 380, the accessibility to these is bad. Its difficult to get around because of traffic especially on the south side and I avoid going to that side of town. Its pretty bad because I get frustrated when I'm late for work. Just because of all the construction. Lives near 288 and because of construction it is hard to get around. Loop 288. (9) Loop 288 and 380 on the north end needs to be better prepared with the traffic control. Loop 288 construction, even alternate routes. Loop 288 construction is an obstruction and the way the roads are built one has to go in circles to get to a destination. Loop 288 delays traffic and causes trouble, taking too long on construction. Loop 288 has been under construction for years and there is always a backup of traffic. Loop 288 is bad. Loop 288 is been going on for far too long. Loop 288 is difficult, everything else okay. Loop 288 is horrible. Loop 288 is still developing, just to go from the north side of Denton to the south side of Denton, Loop 288 is congested a good portion of the working day. Loop 288 is terrible. Awful. Loop 288 is the biggest problem. Loop 288 lane changes and sometimes there are no signs. Loop 288 traffic is terrible. Doing construction for 6 years. Loop 288, that should take an engineer a month. Lots of quick build-up of traffic around 288. Mainly because everything is on one side of town and it's really hard to get to, since there is always something under construction. Major construction makes it difficult. Don't travel because of it. Major retail places I go are on the Loop. Major thoroughfares are too crowded; should have been fixed and widened before putting in new residences and shopping centers. Most of the major roads are under construction (288, Mingo Road). They are taking too long to finish the construction in these areas. Need faster construction on 288, too hard to get to new buildings. Need to widen the streets so there will be two lanes going and two lanes coming. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 220 Needed to do Loop 288 a long time ago, need an additional north-south thoroughfare. Not enough direct routes across town to major retail or employment centers. Not enough early morning time and late at night. Not enough main thoroughfares. Not enough road for all the cars. Not good on 288. Not many through streets in Denton, particularly going east and west, so it's very hard getting from one place to another. Ongoing construction and poor street maintenance. Ongoing construction makes it difficult to travel. Poor roadways. Poor timing on traffic signals and random construction. Poorly planned construction, uncoordinated construction. Quite a hassle to get to major shopping centers. Road construction is a problem. Slow construction, 288 has taken too long. So much construction in the city that gets in the way. Some areas, especially Loop 288. There's too much traffic and it gets bottled up and you feel like you're not getting where you need to go. Southlake 288 area. Street maintenance blocks and causes traffic. Streets are torn up and it will take forever to replace all these streets. Take Loop 288 away and I would say good. Takes too long to get construction done, specifically on 288 and it is too congested. Taking the Loop. Under construction a long time. Traffic is heavy and is only two lanes. The 288 loop is taking too long. The construction of 288. The construction that causes delayed timing from one place to another. Woodrow Lane is down to one lane. The extensive delays in completing Loop 288 construction. The Golden Triangle Mall street. Maintenance is horrible. The intersection is bad and has been for the past three years, maybe longer. The Loop 288. The Loop 288 is horrible. The Loop 288 is too long. The Loop 288 need to finish faster. The Loop 288 project makes it tough to get to the shopping centers. The Loop 288, all the hassle you go through to get around on it. It almost doesn't make you want to go at certain times of the day. The Loop has too much construction that has been going on for too long. The Loop makes travel very difficult. It has been under construction for a while now and it is the main connection between North and South Denton. The Loop's traffic is terrible and there are no extra ways to go from North Denton. The mall, Loop 288. The ongoing construction to major areas like Loop 288 going into the major shopping. The planning and funding commission is not good with planning; Denton Crossing has bad traffic and its hard to get to the mall. The road work. You cant even get through half the time. It takes them 9 years to finish a 2-year project in this town. The streets dont run parallel, it's like a jigsaw puzzle. The traffic by the mall is a mess. Loop 288 is a mess due to the construction of poor planning. Near Rivera school there's a ditch and other street closings. The traffic patterns and one-way streets make it difficult. The travel is too long. There are a lot of road construction and detours that make travel between residential areas and retail areas very time-consuming. There are many problems. 288 has been under construction for 2 years. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 221 There are not enough bicycle trails. There is no maintenance. There is too much construction. There's a lot of construction that's been going on in the major thoroughfares. They don't have any bus services in most of the city and if there is one they are too far away to get to. They got too much construction going on and sometimes you cant get home and takes too long to fix a street and its poor planning. They had half the lanes closed on Colorado and it took a long time to get across the street. They have had construction on 288 since we moved. They have overbuilt the commercial areas. They know traffic will increase but they build shopping centers before they add extra lanes. They race and go real fast. They've been working on Loop 288 for like 4 years and its still not complete so I take Spencer Road or Colorado. Too congested, construction takes too long, need more lanes. Too few routes. Too much construction. Too much road construction for too much time constricts traffic. Too much road construction to get from one side to the other. Too much roadwork done. Too much traffic and too hazardous with kids walking around. Too much traffic and too many winding roads you have to take to get where you want to go. Too much traffic, all major shopping areas in one area. Too much traffic. Traffic is bad due to construction. Traffic is heavy, roads are not wide enough, no access for 18-wheelers. Traffic is too heavy to get where you want. Traffic on Loop 288. Traffic to the mall because the construction of the Loop 288; and Mingo Road. Traveling on 288 with the never-ending construction on that road is bad. Under construction, traffic lights bad, all in one location. Very congested. Where I live I couldnt get a bus to take me to stores. I dont have a car. Working on Loop 288 for years and they'll never get it finished. Internet survey responses 288 - have to use back ways to go anywhere. 288 construction is terrible. 288 is a nightmare. (2) Access to the mall traveling south on Dallas Drive is dangerous. Again, not coordinating development with improvements to streets. All roads are torn up with construction. And will be poor until Loop 288 is finished. Area near Target is a mess. Bad traffic in mall area, even considering construction. Bad, bad. You are 20 years late on trains. Carroll should be extended to North Elm Street for easier access to the northern sector. Construction everywhere. Current construction makes it difficult to reach 288. Denton has excessive road congestion, especially Loop 288, West University, Teasley Lane, Lillian Miller. Difficulties often caused by construction. Finish Loop 288. For nearly a decade I've heard talk and seen little action making bike lanes a higher priority. Have you actually driven down 288? University of North Texas Survey Research Center 222 Huge traffic jams. I live off of Lillian Miller and have to take 288 or I-35 to go anywhere - need I say more? It can take up to 30 minutes to get to the Kroger on Loop 288 from my house. Kroger on University- traffic is very bad and unsafe because people do not obey traffic signs. Loop 288. Loop 288 - enough said. Loop 288! Loop 288 and Hwy 380 stink. Loop 288 and that area is a mess takes an incredible amount of time to travel through there. Loop 288 is a disaster. Infrastructure should come before development and the city has it backwards. Loop 288 is a mess, poorly orchestrated. Colorado and Brinker needs a traffic light! Loop 288 is a problem. Loop 288 is hard to get through. Loop 288 poor planning. Loop 288 should have been and should be expedited due past mistakes. Loop 288 street project. Loop 288, need I say more? Loop 288, University Drive West Loop 288. Need I say more? Loop 288. Mingo. Too much construction, the trip to work takes too much time. No rhyme or reason to the layout of the infrastructure in this town. Not adequate streets to shopping areas. Poor street quality. Poorly timed stop lights. Road construction delays. Road construction is taking too long to complete. Roads (IH-35) to the mall is terribly busy. Roads are confusing. Several street projects at once makes this difficult. Statement should not even be asked if city official would drive around and see the problem. Terrible. A disgrace. Build the streets, then develop - we do it backwards. That'll change once construction is complete on 288. The Loop 288 project. The loop is horrible due to construction. The Loop 288/I-35E. Mayhill/Colorado. The public transit system in this town is a joke. Too much traffic. Traffic control has no idea what is going on. Traffic is terrible. Takes 30 minutes to drive from Loop over to Golden Triangle Mall. Traffic planning, none. Major roads to nowhere. You are kidding right. Loop 288!! Other reasons for contacting Fire Department Emergency Telephone survey response An elderly friend wouldnt respond and another elderly lady fell. Non-emergency Telephone survey response University of North Texas Survey Research Center 223 Apartment is not following regulations so I called the Fire Marshal. Met the chief while they were doing an emergency practice. Talking with friends. To get the cat out of the tree. Other reasons for contacting Police Department Emergency Telephone survey response Called to report an accident. Domestic dispute. Got sudden flat tire and police helped change the tire. Hit and run. Police came to help when they thought it was an emergency. Police were contacted for me. I was in an accident. Suspicious for vandalism in apartments. Non-emergency Telephone survey response Animal control; stray dog. Called 911 for an ambulance. Called police for crime but not 911. Complaint. Domestic. Education for group on false identity. File a complaint loud music. It was directly. My son had run away and I needed the police to help me. It was effecting my investment. City official was from the Planning Department. Logging a complaint. Make complaint about neighbors. My daughter needed some legal advice. Pedestrian traffic problem. Spoke to the chief while conducting an exercise. Students next door, noise. There was a person sleeping in a car outside. Through my office I had called the police for both emergencies and non-emergencies. To complain about noise to a neighbor. To get fingerprinted so that I could get a state license I needed. To let them know we were going away and we wanted them to keep an eye on the house. Traffic light did away with protected turn over Bell and University Drive. Reasons for very dissatisfied rating for time spent waiting or staying on hold before received a response or spoke with the person Code Enforcement Telephone survey responses Because they were doing nothing about illegal dumping. I had to wait a long time. I was falsely committed of a code. It was a waste of time. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 224 To have to wait to talk to an idiot. Took a long time. Telephone survey responses He responded but nothing was done. Was contacted two days later. Customer Service, Utilities Telephone survey responses It took too long. I held for close to 5 minutes. They actually hung up on me and I had to call back. It was a very long time. Never got through to the person. Had to keep calling for a while to get through. Took forever on hold, close to 16 minutes; rotary. Waited too long: 10 minutes. Denton Municipal Electric Telephone survey responses Never spoke with them. They made me wait too long. Legal/Risk Management Telephone survey responses No response. Told to wait until tomorrow. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 225 Municipal Court Telephone survey response Customer service needs to improve 100% just to be terrible. Planning Telephone survey responses It took too long to get him on the phone. He said we wont do anything. They were not representing the interest of the citizens of Denton. Police Non-emergency Internet survey responses It seems nobody works on phone duty. It was concerning the CMS traffic situation. No one seems to be working every time we call. Public Communication Internet survey responses I have yet to receive any reply back! No return call, I called numerous times. That guy is just too busy to answer a call. He had two conversations going on when he was talking to me. I just want a pothole fixed in our cul-de-sac. They patch it and the garbage truck backs up and it needs to be fixed again. Streets Telephone survey response Were basically being ignored. Internet survey response Too long. Left barricade in unsafe position for week. Still have not fixed the failed repair. No response from City. The time for them to respond to the problem. Had to call them more than one time for the same problem. I called requesting they pave my residential street, something I have requested for 6 years now. When I do call they are very polite on the phone and say they will call back with info and never do. Rude service. Trash Collection/Recycling Telephone survey responses They let me complain and they made excuses rather than try to solve the problem. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 226 Internet survey response 25 minute wait Water/wastewater Telephone survey response Called several times to speak to someone. Reasons for poor rating of overall value of city services compared to city-related taxes and fees paid Telephone survey responses All the taxes I paid compared to the work I've seen done doesn't seem equal. Because everything is very expensive. Because I pay high taxes on two houses and never had contact with the city. Because the infrastructure and bus service could be better. Can't get the city of Denton to get anything done, and want to know why they are tearing up the streets and not fixing them up. City is growing so more social services need to be implemented. Housing waiting list is overcrowded and too long for the program to handle, disability services, more children's programs for lower income kids. Erratic. Garbage pickup is too expensive. Electricity bill is too high. I cannot use the services; I do not have a computer. I feel that I pay too much taxes and fees. I live in a state of code enforcement commandos. I think overall everything I've said should be an indications of how I feel about that. I would say poor because the taxes are so high. More service, more lighting. My neighborhood pays higher taxes but get fewer services because we maintain our own private streets and areas. Needs better services for the taxes I pay (ex: roads). Over paying for bad services. Pay more for property taxes. Pay more than what I receive. Paying too much in taxes. Streets, traffic control, and ill-planned repairs. Taxes and fees are too high. Im not married and dont have children. Why am I paying for school taxes and marriage taxes. People active in those areas should be the only ones paying. I'm paying for things I dont use. Taxes are extremely high for what you receive. School taxes are very high but quality of schools is debatable. Three are on troubled list. Taxes are so high. The city doesn't think stuff is important. The roads are inferior to the taxes we pay. The taxes are high. We pay a lot of taxes for services that we do not use. They raise the taxes but don't improve the services. Too high. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 227 Too much school for non-school users. Utilities and gas are too high. We don't have bus service out here, the police do not come out our way, fire will come if necessary, and ambulance will come if necessary. We pay too much taxes. Well, I feel that the taxes are outrages for the quality of schools and streets we're getting. So... There's just no raw perception that taxes are too high. You dont even know about the taxes. Internet survey responses City customer service is very, very unprofessional and they act indifferent to you. All you hear is it is a city council decision. If it is that inflexible why even have the department? Why should we have to pay for a service as part of our utility fees that is that incapable of assisting us? Does not care about the businesses in Denton. Fees are not in line with service received. Garbage fee. Higher fees equal lower service. As fees and taxes have risen, the level of responsibility and service has plummeted. I have never seen a police car patrol our neighborhood. The street sign at Briar Forest and Dunlevy has been gone for at least two years, yet never replaced. Briar Forest needs to have some major repairs in several places. I would like to see more programs for low income families and more information on the ones that are already available. No city TV broadcast available (Grande Comm), to city electric (CoServ), no sidewalks, no police, no parks within 5 miles. Only thing I see changing but never finishing are the roads that cause so much traffic we don't go certain places at certain times. Taxes too high. Too much code enforcement. Way too expensive and wasteful. We are paying too much for fees - trash, water drainage, code violations. We're not Dallas so why do we pay same tax scale as they do? With the exception of roads and utility rates, services are good. However, I think the tax rate is too high and there are too many bonds, and debt service on loans is insane. Example, the jail that was built at least 7 years ago that hasn't been used but still costs money. The water park which we have to cover liability insurance and only half of it is used 100% because of seasons. The football stadium that was built on the Loop, why did we need it? The high schools have stadiums. Other services would like to receive additional funding if available Internet survey responses Animal Control/Shelter Animal Services. Bicycle lanes wide enough for safety. Code enforcement - Denton is rather trashy. Code enforcement. (2) Drainage. Gateway Fort Worth Drive/377 expanded. Greening Denton. Less, fix the streets. Light rail. More health inspectors. More public transportation and also parks. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 228 None, they have plenty of money now. Non-profit agencies located within Denton. Police and Fire Departments. (2) Public education. Reduce taxes, cut the fat. Schools. (2) Schools/education. Services. The importance of good customer relations. Transportation/commuting to other cities. Turn what used to be historic Fry into a nice area. Water lines. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 229 APPENDIX C: BENCHMARK COMPARISONS University of North Texas Survey Research Center 230 Overview The UNT Survey Research Center performed a survey of Metroplex residents between September 26 and October 15, 2008 approximately 1,200 residents of Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant Counties. At least 300 respondents were interviewed in each of the four counties. Among the questions asked in the survey, a total of 21 questions regarding city services were included. These questions provide a benchmark for 21 questions in the City of Denton Citizen Survey. The Metroplex consists of many cities in various stages of development and population levels. Therefore, it can prove difficult to provide an exact match of community characteristics when constructing a benchmark comparison. In this section, three benchmark measures are Metroplex benchmark: This measure consists of all 1,229 respondents included in the four-county Metroplex Survey. Data are weighted by the population of each county and by race/ethnicity so that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely match those of the Metroplex as a whole. Denton County benchmark: This measure consists of 329 respondents from the Metroplex survey living in Denton County. Metroplex Suburb benchmark: This measure was created by selecting all respondents from the Metroplex survey who lived in eight cities with populations ranging in from 78,850 to 137,550. The data were weighted by actual population to reflect the composition of these cities in the Metroplex area. A total of 355 respondents were included in the Metroplex Suburb group. Findings When examining the Denton findings compared to benchmarks, it is often helpful to consider the understood when comparing the excellent or good findings only. Findings are presented in Table C-1 through C-7. Overall ratings of the quality of life in Denton are lower than the Metroplex Suburb and Denton County benchmarks. Quality of life ratings are close, but slightly higher, to the Metroplex benchmark. The findings show several high points for the City of Denton. The library, parks, recreational programs, water pressure, water quality and recycling collection services each show favorable ratings (excellent and good combined) for Denton. Generally, these ratings are higher for Denton compared to Metroplex and Denton County benchmarks and slightly better or similar when compared to the Suburb benchmarks. Ratings for fire department, ambulance and police are generally similar to most of the area benchmarks. However, the police department has slightly higher ratings than those of the Metroplex as a whole. The fire department has a compared to other suburbs although the combined excellent/good ratings are similar. Ratings for animal control, and storm water drainage services ratings were less favorable than Denton County and Metroplex Suburb ratings (excellent and good combined) but more favorable than those for the Metroplex as a whole. Services that appear to be rated lower in Denton than among most benchmark groups are code enforcement and street maintenance. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 231 Respondents in the City of Denton rated feelings of safety and security either always or usually higher compared to the Metroplex benchmark but slightly lower than the Denton County benchmark. Police visibility (excellent and good combined) was higher in Denton compared to the rest of the Metroplex and similar compared to Denton County and the lower. Compared to the Metroplex Suburb, Denton County, and Metroplex benchmarks, residents of Denton were less likely to say they get enough information about the city. The city has a lower percentage of people with Internet access, and similarly, a lower compared to the other three benchmarks. Table C-1 City Services Benchmark Comparisons Area Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Quality of life Denton 29.0 59.8 9.9 1.4 Metroplex** 34.7 51.4 11.2 2.7 Denton County*** 43.8 46.5 7.3 2.4 Metroplex Suburb** 38.7 55.9 4.2 1.1 Fire Department Denton 47.6 49.4 2.5 0.5 Metroplex 49.2 45.7 4.4 0.6 Denton County 48.8 47.8 2.7 0.7 Metroplex Suburb* 56.7 41.2 2.2 0.0 Library Denton 48.9 47.1 3.4 0.6 Metroplex*** 41.8 46.3 9.8 2.1 Denton County*** 43.2 43.2 8.9 4.6 Metroplex Suburb* 55.4 39.2 3.2 2.2 Ambulance Denton 39.2 54.2 5.4 1.3 Metroplex 35.5 55.6 7.7 1.2 Denton County 39.1 54.8 5.2 0.8 Metroplex Suburb 39.1 57.0 3.9 0.0 Parks Denton 35.4 54.6 8.9 1.2 Metroplex*** 30.6 48.2 17.9 3.4 Denton County* 33.0 50.3 14.1 2.6 Metroplex Suburb 40.5 49.0 9.6 0.9 Recreational Programs Denton 28.4 61.0 9.4 1.3 Metroplex*** 26.3 51.3 16.6 5.8 Denton County*** 30.4 48.8 16.6 4.2 Metroplex Suburb*** 40.9 46.3 11.2 1.6 Water Pressure Denton 26.8 62.6 8.2 2.5 Metroplex** 29.9 54.2 11.9 4.0 Denton County 32.1 55.9 9.0 3.1 Metroplex Suburb*** 39.0 50.4 8.6 2.0 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 232 Table C-2 City Services Benchmark Comparisons (Continued) Area Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Police Denton 34.2 53.8 8.5 3.5 Metroplex* 30.0 52.1 13.5 4.4 Denton County 36.1 53.2 7.6 3.2 Metroplex Suburb 34.6 57.8 4.9 2.6 Water Quality Denton 26.1 58.6 11.2 4.1 Metroplex* 25.2 53.3 15.9 5.6 Denton County 27.5 54.0 14.5 4.0 Metroplex Suburb 29.5 50.6 15.6 4.3 Sewer Service Denton 18.8 65.4 12.6 3.2 Metroplex** 26.1 58.5 12.6 2.7 Denton County** 28.8 61.1 8.1 2.1 Metroplex Suburb 34.1 58.4 6.9 0.6 1 Trash Collection Services Denton 31.3 51.2 12.3 5.3 Metroplex 34.0 49.6 12.5 3.8 Denton County** 37.9 50.9 9.9 1.2 Metroplex Suburb** 40.7 45.6 11.0 2.9 Recycling Collection Services Denton 31.3 51.2 12.3 5.3 Metroplex* 30.8 47.7 12.9 8.6 Denton County 35.4 46.6 11.2 6.8 Metroplex Suburb 36.1 44.1 11.8 8.0 Animal Control Denton 17.0 57.8 17.6 7.6 Metroplex* 20.7 51.5 18.9 8.9 Denton County*** 30.3 53.4 10.9 5.4 Metroplex Suburb*** 29.9 54.0 10.5 5.6 Storm Water Drainage Denton 11.6 52.6 26.9 8.9 Metroplex*** 20.4 53.8 19.7 6.1 Denton County*** 22.2 57.9 13.9 6.0 Metroplex Suburb 27.5 54.6 14.6 3.3 Code Enforcement Denton 8.7 49.1 27.5 14.7 Metroplex*** 16.4 50.1 24.1 9.4 Denton County*** 21.7 53.1 19.1 6.1 Metroplex Suburb*** 27.5 50.3 16.8 5.4 Street Maintenance Denton 5.4 29.3 37.1 28.2 Metroplex*** 13.8 44.2 26.7 15.2 Denton County*** 12.0 53.1 23.3 11.7 Metroplex Suburb*** 19.7 51.0 23.1 6.3 1 Trash and recycling services were combined in the Denton survey. For comparison purposes, the same Denton data is used to for both trash services and recycling services. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 233 Table C-3 1 Feel Safe and Secure Benchmark Comparisons Percentage responding Always Usually Sometimes Never Feel safe and secure Denton 48.3 42.7 8.4 0.6 Metroplex*** 35.4 46.0 13.3 5.3 Denton County* 53.6 41.8 3.3 1.2 Metroplex Suburb 43.9 47.0 8.3 0.8 Table C-4 Police Visibility Benchmark Comparisons Percentage responding Excellent Good Fair Poor Police visibility Denton 27.0 58.8 11.9 2.3 Metroplex*** 28.3 48.2 18.3 5.3 Denton County** 36.9 48.7 10.7 3.7 Metroplex Suburb** 38.1 49.2 9.7 3.0 Table C-5 Internet Access Benchmark Comparisons Percentage responding Home Work Both No access Internet access Denton 47.2 2.6 30.5 19.7 Metroplex*** 29.2 3.5 52.7 14.7 Denton County*** 28.4 1.5 62.8 7.3 Metroplex Suburb*** 31.6 1.7 59.3 7.3 Table C-6 2 Percentage responding Yes No Denton 56.7 43.3 Metroplex*** 66.2 33.8 Denton County** 67.3 32.7 Metroplex Suburb*** 77.4 22.6 1 The choices for this question in the Metroplex survey were very safe, safe, somewhat safe, and not very safe. The choices shown in this table are for the Denton Citizen survey which are comparable. 2 The percentages shown in this table are for all respondents in each group, not just those with Internet access. University of North Texas Survey Research Center 234 Table C-7 Information about City Benchmark Comparisons Percentage responding Yes No Get enough information about city Denton 71.5 28.5 Metroplex* 75.6 24.4 Denton County** 81.2 18.8 Metroplex Suburb*** 85.6 14.4 University of North Texas Survey Research Center 235 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning Department ACM: Fred Greene SUBJECT Z06-0029 and Z06-0030 (Rayzor Ranch) Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding proposed amendments applicable to the Rayzor Ranch Overlay District and Rayzor Ranch Special Sign District. The subject site is approximately 410 acres of land, generally located on both sides of West University Drive (U.S. Highway 380) and between IH-35 and Bonnie Brae Street. BACKGROUND Applicant: Allegiance Development Dallas, TX November 4, 2008 On , the City Council approved amendments to the development standards and exhibits of the Rayzor Ranch Overlay District. The amendments are summarized as follows: 1. Removed all references to required drainage improvements within North Lakes Park, including payment of a $250,000 park improvement fee; 2. Allowed modifications of the tree mitigation requirements that do not impact the overall tree mitigation and landscaping percentages; 3. Created a new Subarea with separate architectural standards that will allow the development of hospital and medical related uses to the south of the proposed Panhandle Drive along Scripture Street; 4. Allowed architectural accent and accent colors on buildings that are consistent with a National Trade Dress and the overall building architecture still meets the Rayzor Ranch standards; and 5. Updated the transportation requirements to reflect current construction planning. 1 February 3, 2009 The purpose of the Work Session is to brief the Council on the following: 1. The applicant is proposing to add language to the approved Trade Dress provisions from November 4, 2008. The Council approved language is shown in Exhibit 1. The new language proposed by the applicant will be presented at the Work Session and is designed to allow an aggregate Trade Dress percentage for a multi-tenant retail building, as long as that aggregate total does not exceed 25% of the total building facade. The applicant is also proposing language that allows for a limited waiver of up to an additional 10% of the Trade Dress for a specific tenant. 2. Proposed additional language for the Architectural Guidelines section of the Overlay District. These provisions will focus on the commercial development outside of -Mart, approved standards in place. The buildings addressed by the new language include the north of U.S. 380, several smaller multi-tenant structures, and individual outparcels containing uses such as small restaurants, banks, and offices. 3. Proposed additional language regarding landscaping. The applicant has prepared a detailed landscape plan for the area north of U.S. 380. The plan includes some deviations from the Denton Development Code; however, it exceeds current Code requirements in several aspects. 4. Additional language for the Rayzor Ranch Special Sign District. The applicant is prepared to establish guidelines for the rest of the site north of U.S. 380, including wall signs, detached monument signs, and detached pylon signs. 5. The proposal to replace the Master Site Plan (see Exhibit 2) with a conceptual plan that allows shifting of buildings without going through a full amendment procedure. The flexibility will need to be established without compromising the integrity of the architectural standards or reducing the applican minimum agreed upon commercial square footage. 6. Proposed uses along the I-35 corridor south of U.S. 380 and corresponding changes to the Overlay District subarea map. 7. Upcoming proposal to increase residential density around the proposed 15 acre park south of U.S. 380. All of the above items will be brought forward to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for public hearings at a later date as a part of the next round of Overlay District amendments. 2 EXHIBITS 1. Approved Trade Dress Language 2. Master Site Plan Prepared by: Chuck Russell, AICP Planner Supervisor Respectfully submitted: Mark Cunningham, AICP, CPM Director, Planning and Development Division 3 EXHIBIT 1 Approved Trade Dress Language In Rayzor materials, entry treatments and architectural features, if it is part of a national identity for ese colors do not have to match the architectural color palette for Rayzor Ranch. Trade Dress elements cannot extend beyond the facade of the building. Trade Dress cannot exceed 25% of the total area of the facade for each tenant. Wall signage must be incorporated into the Trade Dress and cannot exceed 20% of the total area of the facade. If the building is a corner building, or a freestanding building, then the tenant is allowed to have Trade Dress on all facades. 4 EXHIBIT 2 Master Site Plan I-35N 5 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Building Inspections ACM: Fred Greene ______________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding an amendment of Section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Building Code, 2006 International Residential Code for one and two family dwellings, 2006 International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 International Plumbing Code, and the 2006 International Mechanical Code all published by the International Code Council. BACKGROUND national consistency. The International Model Code consists of the: International Residential Code, International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fire Code, and International Energy Conservation Code. The International Codes are also intended to provide regulations that safeguard public health and safety in all communities. While the Codes are initially composed on a national level, they are amended to suit local needs. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has participated in the development of local regional amendments. Several of these amendments are found in each of the Codes proposed for adoption. The 2000 International Codes were first adopted by the City of Denton in February of 2002. Prior to the adoption of the 2000 International Codes, the City of Denton adopted the Uniform process through the International Code Council (ICC). Changes to the International Codes are brought about by new technology and events that have occurred throughout the nation. The majority of the changes are related to health and safety. Building Inspections staff has performed a comprehensive local review of the subject changes. In addition, Staff has had meetings with the Committee on the Environment regarding possible code changes to increase energy efficiency in new buildings. The Committee supports the proposed changes. City staff met with members of the building community in November of 2008. This meeting provided information to the building community regarding the proposed changes to the International Codes. Special attention was given to the proposed local amendments. This 1 meeting also allowed the building community to provide input regarding the changes. Through a collaborative effort between the building community and the City of Denton, staff proposed to increase amendments to energy efficiency of new residential buildings. The building community supports the proposal. The purpose of the proposed International Codes is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare. This will be accomplished by addressing structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, adequate light, ventilation, and energy conservation. Safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment are also addressed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Building Inspections held a Contractor Luncheon on November 19, 2008 and discussed the adoption of the Irrigation ordinance, the IECC ordinance, and the Building Code ordinance. The Construction Advisory and Appeals Board heard a report and held a discussion on November 20, 2008 about the adoption of the 2006 International Codes, including the IECC with the 10% over amendment and the other proposed International Building Codes with their amendments. FISCAL INFORMATION There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of the proposed codes. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance 2. November 20, 2008 Construction Advisory and Appeals Board Minutes Prepared by: Respectfully Submitted Kurt Hansen Mark Cunningham, AICP, CPM Building Official Director, Planning and Development Division 2 Exhibit 2 Minutes Construction Advisory and Appeals Board November 20, 2008 Members present: Dana Binnion, Jim Strange, Brian Bentley, Alan Nelson, Colleen Isaguirre and Ira Weinstein Staff members present: Kurt Hansen, Glenda Gailliard, Zackery Loiselle, Elizabeth Coleman and John Knight I.Welcome and Call to Order Alan Nelson called meeting to order at 4:04 p. m. II.Pledge of Allegiance a.U.S. Flag b.Texas Flag III. Consider approval of the minutes of October 16, 2008. Ira made a motion to approved the minutes of October 16, 2008. Seconded by Dana. Motion carried 6-0. IV.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 819 Lakey Street. John Knight, Assistant City Attorney and Elizabeth Coleman, Substandard Structure Officer came forward. Elizabeth Coleman and Kurt Hansen was sworn in by Alan Nelson. Elizabeth began to go through several exhibits of the property located at 819 Lakey Street allowing the members to view the structure. John Knight also passed copies of the exhibits to the members of the board. John Knight asked Elizabeth questions regarding the process of declaring a structure substandard to further give the board additional information regarding the property at 819 Lakey. There was a brief discussion. John Knight asked Kurt if he had gone by the structure and if he felt it was substandard. Public hearing opened at 4:23 p.m. Public hearing closed at 4:24 p.m. Dana made a motion to declare the structure substandard, dilapidated, unfit for human habitation, and a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare with a 90 day extension. Seconded by Jim. Motion carried 6-0. V.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 530 Maddox. John Knight suggested that we move this item to the next meeting, because the structure is possibly in the process of being demolished. Alan entertained a motion for item number V to be tabled until the next meeting. Jim made a motion to table item number V until the next meeting. Seconded by Ira. Motion carried 6-0. VI.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2009 Irrigation Code as directed by State Statue and make recommendation to City Council. Alan asked Kurt to present the information concerning the 2009 Irrigation Code. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the new TCEQ law which will be effective January 1, 2009. Handouts were given to the board members. There was a brief discussion. VII.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as directed by State Statue. There was a brief discussion. VIII. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. There was no representative present for the Fire Department. There was a brief discussion. IX. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International building Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Residential Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Plumbing Code as amended by the City, 2006 Mechanical Code as amended by the City, and the 2006 International Fuel Gas Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. X.Hold a discussion concerning: (1) the starting time of future CAAB meetings, (2) shall the board meet in December, and (3) staff will give the CAAB a status report of the properties requested to be demolished at our last CAAB meeting. 1. The starting time for future CAAB meetings were approved for 4:00 p.m. 2. It was agreed that the board will meet December 18, 2008. 3. XI.There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:15p.m. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Building Inspections ACM: Fred Greene SUBJECT Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding an amendment of section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, as published by the International Code Council. BACKGROUND onsistency. The International Model Code consists of the: International Residential Code, International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fire Code, and International Energy Conservation Code. The International Codes are also intended to provide regulations that safeguard public health and safety in all communities. While the Codes are initially composed on a national level, they are amended to suit local needs. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has participated in the development of local regional amendments. Several of these amendments are found in each of the Codes proposed for adoption. The 2000 International Codes were first adopted by the City of Denton in February of 2002. Prior to the adoption of the 2000 International Codes, the City of Denton adopted the Uniform Ctroduced after a lengthy review process through the International Code Council (ICC). Changes to the International Codes are brought about by new technology and events that have occurred throughout the nation. The majority of the changes are related to health and safety. Building Inspections staff has performed a comprehensive local review of the subject changes. In addition, Staff has had meetings with the Committee on the Environment regarding possible code changes to increase energy efficiency in new buildings. The Committee supports the proposed changes. City staff met with members of the building community in November of 2008. This meeting provided information to the building community regarding the proposed changes to the International Codes. Special attention was given to the proposed local amendments. This meeting also allowed the building community to provide input regarding the changes. Through a collaborative effort between the building community and the City of Denton, staff proposed to increase amendments to energy efficiency of new residential buildings. The building community supports the proposal. 1 The purpose of the proposed International Codes is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare. This will be accomplished by addressing structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, adequate light, ventilation, and energy conservation. Safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment and also. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Committee on the Environment (COE) received a report on April 7, 2008 and discussed whether to require exceeding the requirements of the IECC by 10% or by 15%. Building Inspections held a Contractor Luncheon on November 19, 2008 and discussed the adoption of the Irrigation ordinance, the IECC ordinance, and the Building Code ordinance. The Construction Advisory and Appeals Board heard a report and held a discussion on November 20, 2008 about the adoption of the 2006 International Codes, including the IECC with the 10% over amendment and the other proposed International Building Codes with their amendments The COE met and received a report on December 1, 2008 regarding adopting the 2006 IECC with the 10% over amendment. COE The 2006 IECC was discussed at the on January 23, 2009 with the objective of FISCAL INFORMATION There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of the proposed codes. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance 2. April 7, 2008 Committee on the Environment Minutes 3. November 20, 2008 Construction Advisory and Appeals Board Minutes 4. December 1, 2008 Draft Committee on the Environment Minutes Prepared by: Respectfully Submitted Kurt Hansen Mark Cunningham, AICP, CPM Building Official Director, Planning and Development Division 2 1DRAFT MINUTES 2CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 3April 7, 2008 4 5After determining that a quorum of the Committee on the Environment of the Denton City 6Council was present, the Chair of the Committee on the Environment convened into a meeting 7on Monday, April 7, 2008 at l1:38 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room, 215 East McKinney 8Street, Denton, Texas to consider the specific agenda items listed below 9 Present: 10Chair Joe Mulroy, Mayor Pro Tem Pete Kamp and Council Member Jack 11Thomson Also Present: 12Howard Martin, ACM 13 Fred Greene, ACM 14 Jim Coulter, Director of Water Wastewater Utilities 15 Dr. Kenneth Banks, Manager Division of Environmental Quality 16 Katherine Barnett, Utilities Special Projects Coordinator 17 Mark Cunningham, Director Planning and Development 18 Emerson Vorel, Director Parks and Recreation 19 Ron Menguita, Planning Supervisor 20 Kurt Hansen, Building Official 21 Ann Forsythe, Boards and Committees Coordinator 22 OPEN MEETING: 23 24 251)Consider approval of the Committee on the Environment Meeting minutes of: 26a.March 3, 2008 27 Chair Joe Mulroy asked that the minutes be amended to include an action item to the 28 closed meeting for the City Attorney to provide an update at a later meeting. The minutes 29 were approved as circulated and amended. 30 31 32Howard Martin, ACM, stated that Dr. Banks has requested that Items 2 and 3 be presented as one 33item. 34 352)Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the Carbon Footprint 36Project Planning Document. 37 383)Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the Community 39Committee Planning Document. 40 41Dr. Banks stated that these two items are closely related. Both deal with putting together a 42format for a planning document when dealing with the larger projects that Division of 43Environmental Quality is becoming involved in. In the interest of time, staff thought it would be 44appropriate to present both items together. In effect, what staff is planning are the Carbon 45Footprint Project and the Community Committee Project. Staff’s vision for large projects 46involving multiple departments is to put together a planning document prior to beginning the 47project. Staff has discovered that for these larger projects, where there are multiple directors and 48large numbers of staff involved, getting the project off the ground without having a plan together 49has been a challenge. Staff has put together a format for discussion, evaluation and feedback to 50determine if this is the right approach. 51 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 2 of 7 4 5 6The goal of the planning document includes providing project information to those directors with 7staff involved in the project and to provide the opportunity for the directors to assign staff. In the 8past it has been somewhat incumbent upon DEQ staff to ascertain who they thought were the 9best people to be involved and in many cases that has worked out well; however, there could be 10instances where there might be more appropriate folks to be involved. Staff also wanted to 11provide an opportunity to estimate and review the number of staff hours needed to accomplish a 12project. Some of these larger projects are fairly time intensive and staff thought if they had an 13idea of how many hours were involved at the forefront, they could better plan and give a better 14assessment of when the deliverable could be completed. The document itself has a section that 15will be used to establish timelines, milestones, deliverables, and responsibilities. 16 17Staff has provided, as a mockup, both a planning document for the Carbon Footprint Project 18even though staff is well under way with this project, and a planning document for the 19Community Committee project. In effect, the presentation outlines elements of these individual 20project plans. All have an introductory statement, a statement that explains where the request is 21coming from, a brief summary of project element and overview, and project management 22responsibilities. The plans also contain a fair amount of detail, including directors involved in 23the project, staff members assigned by the directors, staff members’ roles in the project, time 24commitment estimates, and deliverable dates. 25 26DEQ Staff use that information to create a draft project timeline with sections for possible 27elements of certain projects, data acquisition meetings, software/hardware needs, equipment, or 28any other special project requirement. Directors or appropriate managers can review this 29information and make adjustments according to their staffing needs and time estimates. If there 30is a stakeholder component to the project, there will be a section for that to be addressed within 31the project plan. There will also be a final list of deliverables and timelines including when 32updates will be brought to the Committee, status reports communicating any delays or 33difficulties, and then a timeline to draft a final project report. 34 35Banks next provided a brief progress update of the Carbon Footprint project currently underway. 36Staff has put together a planning document for the project even though it is believed there are 37only going to be certain components of the planning document that will actually be needed to 38finish the project. Banks stated he thinks it would still be a good exercise for staff, to the extent 39possible, to retroactively complete a planning document so that staff can evaluate the planning 40tool format and see if it needs tweaking. 41 42Banks then reviewed the Community Committee project which is a project to create a citizen 43group to discuss sustainable building practices that have been brought up by the Committee on 44the Environment. The planning document for this project will be more focused on meetings and 45meeting logistics. Staff is requesting guidance on committee size, the selection process, and the 46appropriate to forum to discuss these issues. Elements for consideration within the plan are land 47use issues, green building standards, residential and commercial energy efficiency requirements, 48water wastewater management and green power transportation and education outreach. This 49will help gauge how many meetings will be needed and elements to be considered at each one of 50those meetings. 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 3 of 7 4 5 6Banks stated staff is asking if anything had been omitted, was this an appropriate tool and, if 7appropriate, staff will implement. 8 9Chair Mulroy stated that staff’s ground work is excellent. Mulroy offered a couple of 10suggestions for conducting the Committee meetings. One is to have a block of time at the front 11of the meeting for interested parties wanting to serve on the committee to provide written 12opinions. Mulroy also suggested for subsequent meetings to provide a block of time at the end 13for anybody in the audience to provide comments or give further input. Mulroy stated he 14thought the Committee should consist of about twenty-one people. The Committee would not be 15too large and unwieldy, or too small to limit equal representation. Each council person could 16have three nominees which could consist of builders, designers, academia, people involved in 17environmental issues, activists and regular citizens. It is important to vary choices. 18 19Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated she was very impressed with the thoroughness. She agrees with 20three nominees per council member. Other items to decide would be committee members would 21be appointees or nominees. Mulroy stated he believed a nominee would be best. 22 23Martin asked if the Committee envisioned staff bringing the plan, along with some suggestions 24as to the Committee makeup, to a City Council work session to get direction from Council. 25Mulroy replied that it would be appropriate for staff to bring it to a work session within a few 26weeks, or a month, and to include minutes from today’s meeting. It would also be helpful to 27provide a flow chart with these activities graphically displayed. 28 29Thomson stated his concern is that there will be a study, getting groups together, and it taking 30too long to make any progress. He believes strict guidelines should be implemented so that 31timelines are reasonable. He does not want it to take years to study. 32 33Mulroy stated hopefully a Committee will be appointed, there will be a couple of meetings, 34maybe with some subcommittee assignments then staff will be available to produce data, crunch 35numbers and sometime in September to November zero in on recommendations. He did not 36think that all recommendations should be made at the same time, but perhaps there could be 37some intermediate recommendations. Thomson asked if it was possible to make available to the 38Committee existing plans such as one from Austin, Texas. That plan has proposed benchmarks 39he thinks it is worth studying. 40 41Martin asked if recommendations from the Community Committee should first flow through the 42COE before going back to Council. Mulroy stated that the COE will vet anything problematic. 43Martin asked if when scheduling the Community Committee meetings would staff schedule 44around the COE’s schedules. Mulroy stated the COE would make introduction at the first 45meeting; it is anticipated that the committee willelect a Chair and Vice Chair and set its schedule 46to its comfort level and if the meetings lag, COE would visit and see what could be done to move 47it along quicker. It should be the citizens committee and not the COE. The COE will be the 48pipeline or sounding board. Kamp agreed stating she really wants to hear what the citizens have 49to say as opposed to what they think the COE wants to hear. 50 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 4 of 7 4 5 6Kamp asked if staff would be using ICLEI’s software for the Carbon Footprint Project. Banks 7replied that is correct. Barnett replied this is the only software available. 8 94)Receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding Air North Texas 10Partnership Agreement. 11 12Howard Martin, ACM, stated that Katherine Barnett, Special Projects Coordinator, has provided 13minimum expectations to which Denton will commit. She has also provided an outline of the 14new agreement along with a draft resolution. Martin then called on Barnett to present. Barnett 15stated that the partnership agreement is ready and that this is a great campaign in that this is 16really the first campaign that sends a comprehensive, consistent message throughout the region 17for a year-round air quality campaign. 18 19Council Member Thomson asked about the cost. Barnett replied there was no monetary impact 20to join the campaign. The City will simply incorporate COG’s advertising materials whenever 21possible. 22 23Mulroy asked about the time frame to respond. Barnett replied by the end of this month. 24 25Mayor Pro Tem stated she believed there would be a presentation of this item to the RTC on 26Thursday and she would certainly like to be able to say that the item is going to the City Council. 27 th Action Item 28: Staff was directed to place this item on the April 15 City Council agenda as an 29item for individual consideration and to include minutes in the backup. 30 315)Receive a briefing and hold a discussion regarding CDM’s Building Sustainable 32Communities Conference. 33 34Martin called on Ron Menguita, Planning Supervisor, to present. Menguita stated the 35Conference was held February 29 and he attended with Council Member Thomson. Menguita 36stated that presenters included members and representative from NCTCOG and the State Energy 37Conservation Office and topics included Vision of North Texas, Sustainable Skylines, Green 38Design and Infrastructure Engineering and Solid Waste Management. Menguita stated that 39everything associated with this conference was paperless. 40 41Menguita next reviewed several of the presentations from the conference. The presentation from 42Vision of North Texas was a comparison from 2007 to 2030 areas of severe congestion with a 43plan to add $71 billion for transportation improvements for this region. 44 45Thomson added that the Vision of North Texas in 2030, which projects a population of an 46additional 2.6 million, indicated that they are currently on Phase II with green printing and a 47more compact scenario and regional land use. He also stated there was Phase III which is North 48Texas 2050 and he did realize they were that far along. There were a number of things he 49learned one being zero waste where materials are seen as potential revenue. He thought that was 50an interesting concept with an entire area devoted to engaging the community. 51 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 5 of 7 4 5 66)Receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding increasing the minimum 7residential energy conservation requirements from 10% over the International Energy 8Conservation Code to 15% over the IECC. 9 10Martin called on Kurt Hansen, Building Official, to present this item. Martin stated that the city 11is currently using the 2003 IECC version plus 10% and he will talk about where the city goes 12from here. 13 14Hansen stated that two years ago when talking about adopting the new 2003 International 15Conservation Code as a part of the International Building Code family the question asked was 16that if the City wanted to be greener than just meeting the code, how will it affect the builders, 17and how feasible would it be to increase the requirement to at least 10% above code. Staff wrote 18the 10% requirement into the ordinance; all builders who come into the City to get permits bring 19a REScheck report that demonstrates compliance. Staff was notified that 10% is good but what 20about 15%? Hansen then explored how feasible it would be to go from 10% to 15%. The 21subject then got complicated. If one looks at the COG amendment, Section 401.211, it talks 22about compliance software tools which determine state code compliance which are deemed 23acceptable. Under the 2006 COG amendments, REScheck is not acceptable for residential 24compliance which means that what the builders are now accustomed to using is no longer being 25recommended. Hansen next called the Energy Systems Laboratory, a division of the Texas 26Engineering Experiment Stations and talked with an engineer to inquire why REScheck was no 27longer being used. He was told it was not good, and that Denton should use IC3 software 28provided by Energy Systems Laboratory which is available online and is free. The challenge is 29to beat the code by 10-15% and what will work for the builders. When Hansen compared 30REScheck to the IC3 software, using an average 2400 square foot house in the city, he 31discovered that REScheck met code while IC3 required window upgrades and a better seer rating 32for air conditioning to meet 15%. Hansen therefore recommended adoption of the 2006 IECC 33along with the COG amendments and to not use REScheck any longer, but keep the minimum of 34at least 10% above the new code, which is actually a little bit of improvement of the REScheck 35software. Let’s get used to the new software and provide transition since all builders that bring 36in new plans will have to use IC3 software or an energy star or something that already surpasses 37the 15%. 38 39Thomson asked if the percentage for 2006 was better than 2003. Hansen replied that according 40to an analysis by A&M Engineer, 2006 is not quite as restrictive. Thomson stated that currently 41the city is 10% above the 2003, so if we adopt 2006 with a 10% we will be at about the same. 42Hansen replied it will be a 2% to 3% improvement. 43 44Kamp stated if we move to different software, there will not be a cost. Hansen replied that is 45correct, the software is free and readily available. 46 47Mulroy looking at Option 2 stated that we are pretty much at status quo and if we want to stay 48upgraded, then Option 3 should also be recommended. This would allow the Community 49Committee to provide input for the development of a sustainable building and development 50program. 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 6 of 7 4 57)Receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding the National Green 6Building Standard (NGBS) as soon to be published as a joint venture between the National 7Association of Home Builders and the International Code Council. 8 9Martin called on Hansen to also present this item. Hansen stated that last February while visiting 10the International Code Council website, there was the opportunity to fill out an application to 11become a member of a committee for national green building standards.He applied and out of 12270 applications, 42 were selected, and Denton was chosen because it is pursuing a more 13restrictive energy code. It is a consensus committee of 42 people of various occupations and is a 14joint venture between the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the International 15Code Council (ICC). In a continuing effort to advance the use of environmentally responsible 16technologies in residential construction the NHB, the ICC and the NHB Research Center have 17initiated a process for the development of ANSI standard for green building construction 18practices. The result will be a voluntary green home building standard that can be adopted by 19local green home building programs or local building departments as a conformance guide. This 20document will be available for green builders, municipalities, etc. to use as a guide when 21building or remodeling a residential property. It will also be used as a guide to rank the amount 22of ‘green’ incorporated into the structure and designate the project as a bronze, silver, gold or 23emerald level green. 24 25Kamp asked how this compared with the LEED certification. Hansen replied LEED is typically 26associated with commercial construction. There is a residential branch, but it is not as widely used. 27 28Hansen stated that the recommendation is for the City to consider implementing a separate Green 29Building Standard program that runs parallel with the current traditional building standards. 30 31Thomson asked if there were any incentives. Hansen replied there may be some tax breaks and that 32DME does offer some incentives. 33 34Mulroy stated that this is an item for consideration by the Community Committee, but that staff 35does need to schedule some education for the Committee. 36 378)ACM Report: 38a.Air Quality Standards for Ozone 39b.Emerging Contaminants in Water 40c.2008 Mosquito Season 41d.Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 42Chair Mulroy asked about a presentation on green cement to the Committee on the Environment 43e.Matrix 44 459)New Business: This provides an item for the Committee on the Environment members to 46suggest items for future agendas or to request information from the City Manager. 47 48Council Member Thomson asked about Congressional funding for an Energy Efficiency 49Conservation Block Grant which provides $2 billion each year for 10 years with approximately 50 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 8 of 7 4 5 670% going to municipalities. The problem is getting it funded and he would like for the City to 7find a way to encourage the funding. He had spoken with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and 8was told appropriations are funded by groups. Thomson asked if it is possible for the Committee 9or the City Council to write to Senator Hutchinson to encourage her to do whatever she can to 10fund this program. 11 12Mulroy stated a presentation should be made to the City Council and that a resolution with a 13copy of the minutes should be sent to Senator Hutchinson. 14 15Kamp stated that when in Washington recently she did not receive any good feedback on the 16funding. 17 18Banks stated another issue to consider is that with that particular block grant program, the 19municipality has to be 100,000 in population or over according to the 2000 census to be eligible 20to apply. The City is ineligible and will be ineligible until 2010. Thomson replied that there was 21also money through the County, about 25% or more. 22 23Staff was directed to prepare a resolution for presentation to the Council to send to Senator 24Hutchinson. 25 26The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:58 p.m. 27 Exhibit 3 Minutes Construction Advisory and Appeals Board November 20, 2008 Members present: Dana Binnion, Jim Strange, Brian Bentley, Alan Nelson, Colleen Isaguirre and Ira Weinstein Staff members present: Kurt Hansen, Glenda Gailliard, Zackery Loiselle, Elizabeth Coleman and John Knight I.Welcome and Call to Order Alan Nelson called meeting to order at 4:04 p. m. II.Pledge of Allegiance a.U.S. Flag b.Texas Flag III. Consider approval of the minutes of October 16, 2008. Ira made a motion to approved the minutes of October 16, 2008. Seconded by Dana. Motion carried 6-0. IV.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 819 Lakey Street. John Knight, Assistant City Attorney and Elizabeth Coleman, Substandard Structure Officer came forward. Elizabeth Coleman and Kurt Hansen was sworn in by Alan Nelson. Elizabeth began to go through several exhibits of the property located at 819 Lakey Street allowing the members to view the structure. John Knight also passed copies of the exhibits to the members of the board. John Knight asked Elizabeth questions regarding the process of declaring a structure substandard to further give the board additional information regarding the property at 819 Lakey. There was a brief discussion. John Knight asked Kurt if he had gone by the structure and if he felt it was substandard. Public hearing opened at 4:23 p.m. Public hearing closed at 4:24 p.m. Dana made a motion to declare the structure substandard, dilapidated, unfit for human habitation, and a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare with a 90 day extension. Seconded by Jim. Motion carried 6-0. V.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 530 Maddox. John Knight suggested that we move this item to the next meeting, because the structure is possibly in the process of being demolished. Alan entertained a motion for item number V to be tabled until the next meeting. Jim made a motion to table item number V until the next meeting. Seconded by Ira. Motion carried 6-0. VI.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2009 Irrigation Code as directed by State Statue and make recommendation to City Council. Alan asked Kurt to present the information concerning the 2009 Irrigation Code. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the new TCEQ law which will be effective January 1, 2009. Handouts were given to the board members. There was a brief discussion. VII.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as directed by State Statue. There was a brief discussion. VIII. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. There was no representative present for the Fire Department. There was a brief discussion. IX. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International building Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Residential Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Plumbing Code as amended by the City, 2006 Mechanical Code as amended by the City, and the 2006 International Fuel Gas Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. X.Hold a discussion concerning: (1) the starting time of future CAAB meetings, (2) shall the board meet in December, and (3) staff will give the CAAB a status report of the properties requested to be demolished at our last CAAB meeting. 1. The starting time for future CAAB meetings were approved for 4:00 p.m. 2. It was agreed that the board will meet December 18, 2008. 3. XI.There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:15p.m. Exhibit 4 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 3 December 1, 2008 4 5 After determining that a quorum of the Committee on the Environment of the Denton City 6 Council was present, the Chair of the Committee on the Environment thereafter convened into an 7 Open Meeting on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session 8 Room, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. 9 Present: 10 Chair Joe Mulroy, Mayor Pro Tem Pete Kamp and Council Member Jack 11 Thomson 12 Also Present: 13 Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities 14 Fred Green, ACM/Administration 15 Jim Coulter, Director Water Utilities 16 Dr. Kenneth Banks, Manager Division of Environmental Quality 17 Katherine Barnett, Utilities Special Projects Coordinator 18 Emerson Vorel, Director/Parks & Recreation 19 Mark Cunningham, Director/Planning & Development 20 Lisa Lemons, Community Education Manager 21 Kurt Hansen, Building Official 22 Ann Forsythe, Coordinator Boards & Commissions 23 Dr. James Meernik, Chair, Department of Political Science, UNT 24 Benjamin Vail, UT Student 25 Lowell Brown, Denton Record Chronicle 26 OPEN MEETING: 27 28 29 3) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Community 30 Sustainability Committee and adoption of IECC 2006. 31 32 ACM Martin called on Dr. Kenneth Banks to present this item. Dr. Banks referring to the 33 backup stated that this item has been talked about beginning in February 2008 and that a couple 34 of planning documents were put together. The planning documents discussed the appropriate 35 staff members to involve in the initial discussions associated with forming a Community 36 Sustainability Committee (CC), an estimate of how much staff time would be needed to 37 accomplished outlined goals, and how many meetings it would take to plan the initiatives, 38 activities, and goals associated with the Community Committee. 39 40 Dr. Banks stated that during the February 4, 2008 meeting, the Committee on the Environment 41 42 adopting more effective building and development standards. The COE recommended the 43 Community Sustainability Committee to be comprised of 21 members, with three members 44 appointed by each City Council Member. The COE also stated that the main goal of the 45 Committee was to perform a stakeholder / advisory function to help establish goals and 46 objectives for energy efficiency and sustainability issues. These issues initially include adopting 47 the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), recommending whether Denton 48 should exceed the 2006 IECC by 10%, 15%, or more, and development of a Green Building 49 program for Denton. 50 1 Draft Minutes of the Committee on the Environment meeting 2 December 1, 2008 3 Page 2 of 4 4 5 6 Following the February meeting, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff presented an 7 ACM update during the March COE meeting outlining issues staff felt were appropriate for the 8 Community Sustainability Committee to consider. After receiving further directions from the 9 COE during the March 2008 meeting, DEQ staff prepared an updated 10 outlining the Denton staff members that would be needed to work on the Community 11 Sustainability Committee initiative, the number of hours estimated for each staff member, and 12 potential meeting topics, and anticipated outcomes. This Planning Document was presented to 13 14 the Planning and Building Inspections departments would be the lead for most topics. Other 15 participants included Denton Municipal Electric, the Water / Wastewater Department (including 16 the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)), and the Public Information Office (PIO). The 17 role of the DEQ also included acting as a liaison between Planning / Building inspections, other 18 departments, and the COE, including providing updates regarding timelines and milestones as 19 the project progressed. It was estimated that 160-230 hours of cumulative staff time would be 20 needed to facilitate the 7 meetings proposed in the Planning Document. This time estimate did 21 not include the time needed for any code revisions, preparing and presenting information to the 22 COE, and presentations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. 23 24 DEQ staff presented the Community Committee item again during September 8, 2008 COE 25 meeting. Staff was seeking direction on how the COE would like the initiative presented to the 26 full council, including how the Council appointment of a 21 member committee would be 27 facilitated. The COE members directed staff to provide a brief summary presentation to the full 28 council during an upcoming work session, and to request the Council for appointments for 29 Community Committee members. At this time, staff suggested that the Planning document still 30 needed to be discussed among all Denton staff members because of concerns about adequate 31 resources being devoted to this project. 32 33 DEQ staff members had several discussions about the Community Committee initiative with 34 Planning staff following the September 2008 COE meeting, which ultimately culminated in a 35 staff meeting on November 5, 2008. This meeting was attended by Ken Banks, Jim Coulter, 36 Mark Cunningham, Fred Greene, Kurt Hansen, and Howard Martin. During the meeting, 37 Planning and Building Inspections staff stated that staff resources are currently insufficient for 38 conducting meetings with a Community Committee, and that alternatives needed to be developed 39 to allow staff to move forward with adopting the 2006 IECC and developing Green Building 40 Programs for Denton. 41 42 Chair Joe Mulroy interrupted Dr. Banks stating that before Dr. Banks goes forward with his 43 recommendation, Chair Mulroy wanted to go back to the meeting where the decision was made 44 by staff to abate the CC concept. Chair Mulroy stated that management has obviously made the 45 decision on what they are going to do and that Chair Mulroy wants to reiterate for the minutes 46 that policy discussions and direction from the City Council retreat and the joint Council/Planning 47 Zoning meetings have been voiced by Council consensus that the City stop the habit of always 48 being reactive to the demands of accelerated development and to address and reallocate 49 resources to restart a true planning function city-wide. Chair Mulroy stated that staff was in 50 agreement that this needed to be done and that it was a desirable goal. The City and the Planning 1 Draft Minutes of the Committee on the Environment meeting 2 December 1, 2008 3 Page 3 of 4 4 5 6 Department have, over the last three or four years, been development centered. The discussion 7 has taken place to come back with a universal umbrella that has green building issues, 8 international standards for land planning, ESA standards, and similar issues that all need to have 9 a universal planning approach. The decision has already been mostly made by management of 10 what level of commitment needs to be allocated to these efforts, and we have had a year and half 11 discussions concerning how to really get back in the planning mode. Chair Mulroy then invited 12 Dr. Banks to continue his presentation. 13 14 Dr. Banks continued, stating that staff recommends the following actions to move forward with 15 adopting the 2006 IECC, discussing whether 10% or 15% above the 2006 IECC is appropriate, 16 enton. Staff is seeking 17 direction from the COE on the following series of staff recommendations. 18 19 1. Initially, adopt the 2006 IECC for Denton, and establish 10% above IECC 2006 (as 20 determined using the IC3 calculation software) as the minimum requirement. The Building 21 Official will present this option to the full Council for consideration during January 2009. 22 After 10% above the 2006 IECC is established as the baseline, the Building Official will 23 facilitate a meeting with the Construction Advisory and Appeals Board, local builders, and 24 interested individuals during February 2009 to discuss the issue of 15% exceedences of the 25 2006 IECC. The results from this meeting will be brought back to the COE during the 26 March 2009 meeting. If the COE recommends changing from 10 to 15% above 2006 IECC, 27 the Building Official will present this recommendation to the full Council for approval 28 during the next available Council session. 29 30 2. The Building Official, along with staff from the DEQ, Denton Municipal Electric (DME), 31 the Water / Wastewater Department, and Solid Waste Department will develop a plan on 32 how to establish a "Green Building / Green Built Certified" program for Denton. This 33 program will likely be somewhat similar to the program adopted by the City of Dallas, and 34 35 and calculation methods. The draft plan for the Green Building Program will be presented 36 to the COE during February 2009. After incorporating any changes recommended by the 37 COE, the Building Official will present the Green Building Program to the Construction 38 Advisory and Appeals Board and interested individuals during one to two meetings to be 39 conducted in February 2009 and in March 2009 (if needed). A progress report will be 40 provided to the COE during the March 2009 COE meeting and a summary of findings will be 41 provided during the April 2009 COE meeting. If any additional meetings with the 42 Construction Advisory and Appeals Board are warranted, staff will update the COE during 43 the April 2009 COE meeting and seek direction. 44 45 Upon positive recommendation from the COE during the April 2009 meeting, the Building 46 Official will present a recommendation to adopt the Green Building Program to the full Council 47 for approval during the next available Council session. 48 49 Chair Mulroy, asked if the recommendation from the first action item is the approval of the 50 initiative of the 2006 IECC at 10%, but then to possibly bring it back in March for 1 Draft Minutes of the Committee on the Environment meeting 2 December 1, 2008 3 Page 4 of 4 4 5 6 recommendation of to 15%. Banks replied that was correct. Chair Mulroy asked if it would then 7 go to Council for adoption or just wait for three months with what we have and what do we have 8 right now. Dr. Banks stated that Kurt Hansen could better address that but Banks believed 9 Hansen has the 2006 IECC ready to approve at 10% exceedence; Legal has reviewed it and 10 Banks believed Hansen plans to take it forward in January 2009. Hansen replied that was 11 correct. Mulroy stated that staff is going to say to Council here is what we want adopted in 12 January, but we may be back in March to raise it to 15%. Dr. Banks replied that was correct. 13 Mulroy asked what would be the loss if the recommendation waited until March. Hansen replied 14 there would not be a lot of loss. Mulroy stated that it therefore would make sense to wait until 15 there is a final recommendation. Members Kamp and Thomson agreed. Hansen stated what he 16 wanted to do was to nest this effort with the other 2006 Building Code and those are just about 17 ready to submit to Legal, but by January he should have the entire family of building code for 18 2006 ready to present. 19 20 Mulroy stated that the COE needed a recommendation of what is more manageable for staff, and 21 that he would like Hansen to facilitate the adoption of 10% over and then go out to the 22 community, talk about a green building program for Denton and then talk about increasing the 23 code to 15%. In keeping with the 2003 Code adopted at 10% exceedence clause, we would just 24 be continuing that momentum. 25 Action Item 26 : Mulroy stated that since there is some lag with the 10% to 15% in March, we 27 green-built certified program for April or possibly May or June. It is 28 important to line up the new legislation with the other Codes then do them all in January and 29 wrap the 15% with the green built discussion and bring it all back at once in April or May so 30 when we go back t 31 Hansen agreed. 32 33 Thomson, stated that if we are going to present this information to developers, is it reasonable to 34 expect that they would want to go to 15%? ACM Martin stated that to a large extent the 35 developers want a level playing field; they are not necessarily concerned about the 10 or 15% as 36 long as everyone builds to the same standard. 37 38 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 1:45 p.m. 39 CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 6, 2009 After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in a Work Session on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Burroughs; Mayor Pro Tem Kamp; Council Members Heggins, Moreno, Mulroy, and Thomson. ABSENT: Council Member Watts 1.Staff responded to requests for clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for January 6, 2009. Council Member Thomson asked about the dollar amount for the base bid and alternatives for Consent Agenda Item O. Council Member Mulroy left the meeting with a conflict of interest. Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that the alternatives were selected on what would be the most cost advantageous for the programs. The intent was to spend the dollars as efficiently as possible. He did not know the basis for the selection of the alternatives. The back page of the evaluation indicated the added options that increased the base amount. Council Member Thomson stated that if all the alternatives were chosen, the amount of the bid would be greater than the published amount. Gary DeVries, BRW, stated that there were six alternatives for the project. #1 was for the parking lot, #2 was for the painting of a number of existing rooms, #3 was for the retiling of the existing restrooms in the front of the lobby, #4 was for a new public address system, #5 was for an exhaust system for the wood shop, and #6 was for electrical outlets and pull down electrical cords for the wood shop. The total with the base bid was the number referenced. Mayor Burroughs stated that the CIP Bond Committee had forwarded a recommendation to research whether another location could be found as an alternative to an expansion of the current Senior Center. Emerson Vorel, Director of Parks and Recreation, stated that BRW did a full feasibility study for a smaller renovation to the existing structure, vacant properties, or to renovate other properties. With the funds available, these renovations were the best answer at this point in time. Council Member Mulroy returned to meeting. Council Member Mulroy asked several questions regarding Consent Agenda Item 3L - Western Blvd. He asked for a follow-up on the reason for the pipe failure. Mayor Burroughs asked about Consent Agenda Item J and if expanded times for review would be available. PS Arora, Wastewater Division Manager, stated that the times would not change. The engineers would be available on Mondays, twice a month for review. Plans could be turned in at any time but must wait until the next review date for acceptance. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 2 Mayor Burroughs stated that the issue he had heard about was after the initial submittal but this time frame would not change Arora replied correct. Mayor Burroughs asked about Consent Agenda Item M and how partners were found for such contracts. Tom Shaw, Purchasing Agent, stated that in 2005 the Dallas ISD had bid for an outsourced fleet and since then other cities had done the same. Denton had done such a contract for three years to see how the program would work and had extended the contact from September to January to see what was going on with the market in terms of competition. This was a renewal for one more additional year to have the market develop. Council Member Mulroy had questions regarding Item 5B under Items for Individual Consideration relative to the airport lease and the indemnification clause and the non- performance clause. He asked that Legal review those provisions and have alternative wording ready for the consideration of the ordinance at the regular meeting. 2.The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding adding a section to Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances – “Use of Hand Held Mobile Telephones Prohibited in School Zones Roy Minter, Police Chief, provided an update on the proposed ordinance. There were two main aspects of the proposed ordinance. One was that the restriction would be only in school zones during school hours. The second was the restriction applied to hand held devices only. The ordinance also allowed for emergency situations. There were 31 school zones in the city and the estimated cost for two signs for each zone was approximately $1500 for the signs only, labor charges would be additional. An informational campaign and grace period of 30-45 days would be done regarding the ordinance. Research had also been done regarding the restriction of two way radios in school zones but this would be difficult to enforce due to FCC licensing agreements. The Traffic Safety Commission approved the proposed ordinance. Increased traffic enforcement had also been done in the school zones. Crossing guards had expressed concern regarding drivers paying attention in the zones. This ordinance was another step to increase driver awareness in school zones. The ordinance only applied to hand held devices in active school zones. Council Member Moreno questioned several schools that did not have marked school zones such as the Ann Windle School and the school at the Catholic Church. Frank Payne, City Engineer, stated that staff had talked with those schools about marked school zones but there were very few children walking to those schools and the schools felt zones were not necessary. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the ordinance as presented. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 3 Following the completion of the Work Session, the City Council convened in a Closed Meeting at 5:00 p.m. to consider specific items listed below under the Closed Meeting section of this agenda. 1.Closed Meeting: A. Consultation with Attorney – Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071. 1. Considered and discussed status of litigation styled David Johnson v. City of Denton, Cause No. 4:07cv449, currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Sherman Division. 2. Received legal advice and information from the City’s attorneys pertaining to the lawsuit that is currently pending involving Russell Pettway d/b/a Maaco Collision Repair and Auto Painting, Plaintiff v. the City, Defendant in Cause No. 2008-10344-16 pending in the 16th Judicial District Court in and for Denton County, Texas; discuss, deliberate, and provide the City’s attorneys with direction and any recommendations regarding such legal matter. A public discussion of these legal matters would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. 3. Received legal advice and information from the City’s attorneys pertaining to the lawsuits that are currently pending involving the Texas Municipal Power Agency (“TMPA”) and its member cities, in Cause No. 28169 pending in the 506th Judicial District Court in and for Grimes County, Texas; Cause No. D-1-GN-08-003426, pending in the 126th Judicial District Court in and for Travis County, Texas; and Cause No. D- st 1-GN-08-003693, pending in the 261 Judicial District in and for Travis County, Texas, discussed, deliberated, and provided the City’s attorneys with direction and any recommendations regarding such legal matters. A public discussion of these legal matters would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the City Council under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas. B. Deliberations regarding Real Property – Under Texas Government Code Section 551.072; Consultation with Attorneys – Under Texas Government Code Section 551.071. 1.Discussed, deliberated, and received information from Staff and provided Staff with direction pertaining to the acquisition or the condemnation of several street right-of-way tracts and several temporary construction, grading and access easement tracts for Westcourt Road improvements, the limits of which being from F.M. 1515 (Airport Road) to Springside Road, in the City of Denton, Denton County, Texas. Consultation with the City’s attorneys regarding legal issues associated with the acquisition or condemnation of the tracts referenced above where a public discussion of City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 4 these legal matters would conflict with the duty of the City’s attorneys to the Denton City Council under the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Conduct of the State Bar of Texas, or would jeopardize the City’s legal position in any administrative proceedings or potential litigation. Regular Meeting of the City of Denton City Council on Tuesday, January 6, 2009 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall. 1.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Council and members of the audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the U. S. and Texas flags. 2.PROCLAMATIONS/PRESENTATIONS A. Proclamations/Awards 1. The Denton Lions Club Day 2. Presentation of the Achievement of Excellence in Procurement Award from the National Purchasing Institute Mayor Burroughs presented a proclamation for Denton Lions Club Day. Jon Fortune, Assistant City Manager, announced that the Materials Management Department had been awarded the Excellence in Procurement Award from the National Purchasing Institute. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Council Member Mulroy requested that Item O be removed for separate consideration. Mulroy motioned, Kamp seconded to approve the Consent Agenda and accompanying ordinances and resolutions with the exception of Item O. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. Item O was considered Council Member Mulroy left the meeting with a conflict of interest. A Request to Speak Card was submitted by Richard Hunt who spoke in favor of the item. Kamp motioned, Thomson seconded to approve Consent Agenda Item O. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Thomson “aye” and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Mulroy returned to the meeting. A. 2009-001 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to an Agreement for City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 5 Professional Legal Services with Ford & Harrison, LLP for professional legal services relating to litigation styled David Johnson, individually and as class representative v. City of Denton Fire Department and City of Denton, Cause No. 4:07cv449, currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Sherman Division; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date. B. Approved the minutes of: December 1, 2008 December 2, 2008 December 9, 2008 C. 2009-002 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, approving the third amendment to that agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Affordable Housing Corporation; authorizing the City Manager to execute the third amendment that will increase the current program budget by $78,684 and revise the requirements regarding program proceeds allowing DAHC to use funding for housing and administrative activities that may not fall within current HOME program regulations; and providing for an effective date. D. R2009-001 - A resolution of the City of Denton suspending the effective date of CoServ Gas Ltd.'s requested rate changes to permit the City time to study the request and to establish reasonable rates; approving cooperation with other cities within the CoServ system to hire legal and consulting services and to negotiate with the company and direct any necessary litigation; requiring reimbursement of cities’ rate case expenses; authorizing intervention in the proceeding at the Railroad Commission; requiring notice of this resolution to the company; and establishing an effective date. E. 2009-003 - An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Ambulance Agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County for ambulance services; and declaring an effective date. F. 2009-004 - An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas approving and authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Fire Protection Agreement between the City of Denton and Denton County for fire protection services; and declaring an effective date. G. 2009-005 - An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, authorizing the expenditure of funds to pay the Denton Central Appraisal District (DCAD) the City of Denton’s portion of the budget allocation in an amount not to exceed $359,551.59; and providing an effective date. H. 2009-006 - An ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing an Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and Opening Doors Immigration Services for provision of assistance to victims of domestic violence; providing for the expenditure of funds; and providing for an effective date. ($1500) City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 6 st I. R2009-002 - A resolution supporting a legislative position during the 81 Texas Legislature on the discontinuation of diverting transportation user revenues to non-transportation uses and the appropriation of all revenue generated from highway user fees and taxes to fund transportation projects. The Mobility Committee recommended approval (3-0). J. 2009- 007 - An ordinance providing for in-house engineering review by City staff development review engineers for those development review tasks that were performed by the outside consulting firm Freese & Nichols, Inc.; and these tasks were then deleted from the new contract with Freese & Nichols, Inc. dated November 4, 2008; establishing engineering review fees that are payable by developers to the City of Denton for variances, alternative development plans, general development plans, planned development district detailed site plans, comprehensive plan amendments; building permit site plan review; clearing/grading permit review; engineering preliminary plat and final plat review for one and two lot residential subdivisions; providing for a repealer; providing for a severability clause; providing an effective date. K. 2009-008 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Number Three to the contract between the City of Denton and JRJ Paving LP.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3897–Shady Oaks and Brinker Paving and Drainage Improvements Change Order Number Three in the amount of $32,474.60 for additional repairs to Shady Oaks outside of the original contract including the installation of handrails over four box culverts and a decrease to reflect actual work performed versus original estimates for paving, curb/gutter and storm drains). . L. 2009-009 - An ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Number Four to the contract between the City of Denton and Ed Bell Construction; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3929–Western Blvd. Paving and Drainage Improvements Change Order Number Four in the amount of $89,895.60 60 to raise the level of Cindy Lane for drainage improvements and to reflect the actual work done versus original contract estimates for fencing and junction boxes). M. 2009-010 - An ordinance extending a contract awarded by Council on September 22, 2005 for one additional year by way of an Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing Program Participation Agreement with the Dallas Independent School District under Section 271.102 of the Local Government Code, for the purchase of products and services for an onsite vehicle parts facility; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (File 3405– Interlocal Agreement for the Purchase of Products and Services for an Onsite Vehicle Parts Facility with the Dallas Independent School District, contract awarded to Genuine Parts Company in the estimated amount of $1,344,000). N. 2009-011 - An ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of curb, gutter, and driveway structures and radiuses City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 7 on Headlee Street; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3516–awarded to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specification, Floyd Smith Concrete, Inc. in the amount of $217,060.34). O. 2009-012 - An ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas accepting competitive sealed proposals and awarding a best value contract for the renovation and expansion of the City of Denton Senior Center; authorizing the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (RFSP 4206–Denton Senior Center Renovations and Addition awarded to H.C.I. General Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $1,184,300). P. 2009-013 - An ordinance of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, approving a grant application from Elk River Investments, Inc. from the Downtown Incentive Grant Program not to exceed $15,000; and providing for an effective date. The Economic Development Partnership Board recommended approval (4-0). Q. 2009-014 - An ordinance finding that a necessity exists to acquire street right-of- way and temporary construction, grading and access easements and authorizing the acquisition thereof through agreement or eminent domain on various hereinafter described parcels of real property for paving and drainage enhancements related to the “Westcourt Road Improvements Project”; providing a severability clause; providing an effective date. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS A. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, providing for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Denton, Texas, for approximately 4.23 acres of land, located on the northwest corner of Loop 288 and Sherman Drive, from an “Existing Land Use/Infill Compatibility” land use designation to a “Community Mixed Use Centers” land use designation; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. (CA08-0001) The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0). Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, presented information for both Items A and B. Item A was a request for a comprehensive plan amendment from existing land use/infill compatibility to community mixed use center. Item B was a request to rezone the property from Neighborhood Residential 4 to Community Mixed Use General. The applicant was requesting the same land use on his property as what was on the property across the street. The permitted uses for Mixed Use General versus Neighborhood Residential were noted as well as the development code comparison regulations for land use. Five notices were mailed with none returned. The recommendation was to approve both the comprehensive plan amendment as well as the rezoning request. The Mayor opened the public hearing. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 8 Jeremy Sain, applicant, stated that he was available to answer questions from Council. The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning would complement the current non- residential uses in the area. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2009-015 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, FOR APPROXIMATELY 4.23 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOOP 288 AND SHERMAN DRIVE, FROM AN “EXISTING LAND USE/INFILL COMPATIBILITY” LAND USE DESIGNATION TO A “COMMUNITY MIXED USE CENTERS” LAND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Kamp motioned, Thomson seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance providing for the rezoning of approximately 4.23 acres of land, located on the northwest corner of Loop 288 and Sherman Drive, from a Neighborhood Residential 4 (NR-4) zoning district classification and use designation to a Community Mixed Use General (CM-G) zoning district classification and use designation; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date. (Z08- 0002) The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0). The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2009-016 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 4.23 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOOP 288 AND SHERMAN DRIVE, FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL 4 (NR-4) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION TO A COMMUNITY MIXED USE GENERAL (CM-G) ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION AND USE DESIGNATION; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 9 PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mulroy motioned, Heggins seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. C. The Council held a public hearing and considered adoption of an ordinance amending Subchapters 3 and 16 of the Denton Development Code conforming procedures to statutory provisions relating to proportionality of development exactions; providing for a penalty in the maximum amount of $2,000.00 for violations thereof, severability and an effective date. (DCA08-0011) The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (6-0). Frank Payne, City Engineer, stated that the reason for the proposed amendments was to conform the current procedures for handling exaction appeals to the standards set forth in the Texas Local Government Code. The Denton Development Code set forth a variance process that provided an avenue of appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Section 212.904 of the Local Government Code established the City Council as the appellate body for consideration of exaction appeals. It could be argued that the current Code could unintentionally deprive the applicant of the due process provided by State law. The proposed amendments were intended solely to remedy this potentially litigious situation, not to provide methods of calculation on rough proportionality. Rough proportionality was not intended to be a precise, mathematical determination. The proposed procedures for an exaction variance were reviewed. The procedural modifications would provide applicants with an exaction appeal process, consistent with the correct legal standard, and would help avoid confusion from the existing conflict. The Mayor opened the public hearing. No one spoke during the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2009-017 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AMENDING SUBCHAPTERS 3 AND 16 OF THE DENTON DEVELOPMENT CODE, CONFORMING PROCEDURES TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROPORTIONALITY OF DEVELOPMENT EXACTIONS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IN THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $2,000.00 FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (DCA08-0011) Kamp motioned, Mulroy seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 10 5.ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION A. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, on first reading, annexing by consent two tracts of land consisting of approximately 865.92 acres, contiguous and adjacent to the city of Denton, generally located in two distinct areas, the first area (annexation area #1) being approximately 24.94.23 acres in size and is generally located between the City’s current northern city limits and Lake Ray Roberts, south of FM 2153, and the second area (annexation area #2) is approximately 843.35 acres and is generally located east of FM 2164 and north of Shepard Road; approving a service plan for the annexed property; providing a severability clause and an effective date (A08-0001). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval (5-0). Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, stated that this was the first reading of the annexation ordinance. Council had held two previous public hearings on this proposed annexation. The proposal was a voluntary annexation of approximately 865.92 acres in multiple ownerships and consisting of two separate and non-contiguous areas used for rural residential and agriculture. The future use of the property was a proposed master planned community. Staff found the request consistent with city’s annexation policy and recommended approval. Mayor Burroughs asked for a general time frame for providing public services. Cunningham indicated that it would be contingent on when the applicant submitted an official plan. The following ordinance was considered: FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, ON FIRST READING, ANNEXING BY CONSENT TWO TRACTS OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 865.92 ACRES, CONTIGUOUS AND ADJACENT TO THE CITY OF DENTON, GENERALLY LOCATED IN TWO DISTINCT AREAS, THE FIRST AREA (ANNEXATION AREA #1) BEING APPROXIMATELY 24.94.23 ACRES IN SIZE AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN THE CITY’S CURRENT NORTHERN CITY LIMITS AND LAKE RAY ROBERTS, SOUTH OF FM 2153, AND THE SECOND AREA (ANNEXATION AREA #2) IS APPROXIMATELY 843.35 ACRES AND IS GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF FM 2164 AND NORTH OF SHEPARD ROAD; APPROVING A SERVICE PLAN FOR THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE (A08-0001). Heggins motioned, Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. B. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance approving the termination of that certain lease of Airport Property between the City of Denton, Texas and Sykes-Vaughan Investments (US Aviation Group); authorizing the City Manager to execute a Fixed Base Operator Airport Lease Agreement between the City of Denton, Texas, and US Aviation Group which includes among other provisions the right to sell aviation fuel to the public for a five- City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 11 percent fuel flow fee, provide commercial hangar and tie-down service and the expansion of the US Aviation Group leasehold by approximately 168,000 square feet; and providing an effective date. Mark Nelson, Transportation Director, stated that US Aviation Group had requested a renegotiated lease that would allow for a longer term to the existing lease and allow their organization to expand the level of aviation services they provided to the public to include Fixed Base Operation services. The proposed lease rate was $0.17 per square foot per year for non- aircraft movement area parcels and $0.13 per square foot per year for aircraft apron areas. A 10% tie-down and hangar commission would be in effect the first year of the proposed seven year lease, would be adjusted to 11% in December 2009 and adjusted to 12% in December 2019. The lease provided for a fuel flow rate of 5% of wholesale cost of fuel until December 2009 and the opportunity to renegotiate the fuel flow fee in December 2019. The City would be required to participate in drainage improvements for the proposed apron expansions. Staff and the Airport Advisory Board were proposing that gas well royalties be utilized to enhance the drainage infrastructure immediately east and south of the existing south public apron to better facilitate the expansion of the south pubic apron by the tenant. The tenant would take over management of the south public apron and would assume pavement maintenance responsibility for the apron. Lease obligations would require the tenant to initiate construction on the FBO expansion within 9 months and complete the improvements within two years of the effective date of the proposed lease. The tenant would also be required to start apron expansion within two years of the effective date. Staff and the Airport Advisory Board recommended approval of the proposal. John Knight, Deputy City Attorney, stated that questions were asked during the Work Session about insurance and indemnification provisions. This was a layered approach. Indemnification was the way the city dealt with an applicant. If the tenant refused to deal with it, the general provisions were looked at. Failing that, the named insured would be used. The second issue dealt with termination of insurance language. He provided revised language for Council consideration. Council Member Mulroy stated he was cautious about the last sentence of the indemnification clause. He was not sure he could vote for the proposal as written. Knight stated that they had discussed the proposed language but had not talked about removing the indemnification clause or the last sentence. Mayor Burroughs suggested that a motion could be made with a condition to allow staff and the tenant to finalize the language. Council Member Mulroy requested a clarification on the fuel charges and the charge structure. Nelson stated that staff was recommending a 1% discounted rate on the established fuel flowage fee for the next ten years for the US Aviation Group. The current FOB, Business Air Center, had a flowage fee of 6% and would increase to 7% in 2009. The tenant was requesting a 5% rate for the duration of the 30 year lease. However, the staff was recommending the rate only for ten years. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 12 Council Member Moreno asked if the improvements using the gas well funds would have to be done whether or not the lease was approved. Nelson replied that the improvements would eventually have to be done. Mayor Burroughs stated that he had a hesitation to reduce the usual and customary flowage fee. The proposal was a reduction in the rate to allow the applicant to recuperate the costs for the construction of the fuel farm. Nelson stated that it was recognition of costs for a fuel farm while the current FOB did not have those costs for a fuel farm as it was city owned. Mayor Burroughs felt that the tenant had asked the City to provide a mechanism to recoup funds and to allow them to compete at a lower rate than current competition. He felt that there should be a compelling public interest to subsidize the new tenant and what was the compelling public purpose? The first fuel farm had an environmental issue and no one wanted to build it so the City constructed it for a public purpose. Here there seemed to be no compelling reason. The request was for another FBO subsidized by the public in order to create competition. A compelling reason to subsidize the FBO would be if the current FBO was inadequate. Where was the compelling public need to provide tax payer underwriting for a retail establishment to complete with other retail establishment? Nelson stated that there had been requests by other tenants to seek competition and by working with this entity they would be able to recruit a different market and clientele than the current tenant could do. At the time the city elected to construct a fuel farm, there was another FBO with its own fuel farm at the airport that the tenant had built. The compelling factors were competition and the recognition that the proposed FBO would be required to construct a fuel farm while the exiting one did not. City Manager Campbell stated that the calculations indicated that based on the performed fuel sales, the tenant would not recover, at 5%, the full amount for the fuel farm in the 10 year period. John Knight stated that at this point, he could not give the Council precise language for the phrasing on the indemnification but he and the tenant agreed to rewrite the paragraph with the tenant assuming liability regardless of fault. Don Smith, 2107 Emerson, Denton, 76209, submitted a Speaker Card in support of the proposal. Mayor Burroughs stated that his main issue was whether the public needed to fund, over time, the creation of this FBO. He would have liked to see improvements to public property to be used by the public. Council Member Mulroy felt that it might be in the City’s best interest to have the fuel farm built with their money and let them recoup the costs over time. There would eventually be a need for a second location for a fuel farm on site. The City of Denton was the developer and owner of the Airport. As owner and developer, the city made a yearly general government contribution to make the airport self-sufficient. This would serve a public purpose for the development of the Airport. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 13 Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated that the Mobility Committee had already discussed this item. It had considered many questions regarding a public/private partnership and was in favor of the proposal. Jeff Soules, Managing Director of US Aviation Group, stated a second FBO would make the Airport more efficient as customers would not have to wait for fuel. Some customers felt that there was a monopoly at the Denton Airport and went to other airports for fuel. US Aviation was going to spend $1.8 million for improvements at the Airport plus provide increased national visibility and fuel branding. That provided increased job opportunities and competitive wages, gave customers a choice and provided competition at the airport. Mayor Burroughs asked if the ramp expansion would be a benefit the public. Nelson replied yes that it would be a privately developed public ramp. Mayor Burroughs asked why a portion of that cost was not proposed as an alternative similar to drainage as opposed to fuel flowage fee. Council Member Mulroy stated that US Aviation was asking for the same flowage rate as the current FBO as they would be building the tanks. Soules stated that they would be getting less because the rate would only be for 10 years. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2009-018 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TERMINATION OF THAT CERTAIN LEASE OF AIRPORT PROPERTY BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AND SYKES-VAUGHAN INVESTMENTS (US AVIATION GROUP); AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIXED BASE OPERATOR AIRPORT LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, AND US AVIATION GROUPWHICH INCLUDES AMONG OTHER PROVISIONS THE RIGHT TO SELL AVIATION FUEL TO THE PUBLIC FOR A FIVE-PERCENT FUEL FLOW FEE, PROVIDE COMMERCIAL HANGAR AND TIE-DOWN SERVICE AND THE EXPANSION OF THE US AVIATION GROUP LEASEHOLD BY APPROXIMATELY 168,000 SQUARE FEET; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mulroy motioned, Heggins seconded to approve the lease as discussed with the addition of the 12A language by Legal and with the additional clarification of the indemnification paragraph that would be incorporated between Legal and the applicant, as discussed. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “nay”. Motion carried with a 5-1 vote. C. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing an agreement between the City of Denton and Aldi (Texas), L.LC. providing for reimbursement for the acquisition through purchase or condemnation of certain street right of way tracts and temporary construction, grading and access easements located in the W. Neill Survey, Abstract No. 970 and City of Denton City Council Minutes January 6, 2009 Page 14 the J. Hardin Survey, Abstract No. 1656, City of Denton, Denton County, Texas; and providing an effective date. (Westcourt Road Improvements) The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2009-019 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND ALDI (TEXAS), L.LC. PROVIDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE ACQUISITION THROUGH PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN STREET RIGHT OF WAY TRACTS AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION, GRADING AND ACCESS EASEMENTS LOCATED IN THE W. NEILL SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 970 AND THE J. HARDIN SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1656, CITY OF DENTON, DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Kamp motioned, Mulroy seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. D. The Council was to consider nominations/appointments to the City’s Boards and Commissions (Human Services Advisory Committee and Traffic Safety Commission). Mayor Burroughs stated that he did not have any nominations at this time. E. Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries from the City Council or the public with specific factual information or recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. No items were suggested at this meeting. F. Possible Continuation of Closed Meeting under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. There was no continuation of Closed Meeting. G. Official Action on Closed Meeting Item(s) under Sections 551.071-551.086 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. There was no official action on Closed Meeting items. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. ________________________________ ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS JENNIFER WALTERS MAYOR CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS CITY OF DENTON CITY COUNCIL MINUTES January 13, 2009 nd After determining that a quorum was present, the City Council convened in 2 Tuesday Session on Tuesday, January 13, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall. PRESENT: Mayor Burroughs; Mayor Pro Tem Kamp; Council Members Heggins, Moreno, Mulroy, and Thomson. ABSENT: None 1. The Council received a report, held a discussion and gave staff direction on the proposed RFSP #4237 Downtown Implementation Plan for professional services to include a Parking Plan, Architectural Design Guidelines, Open Space and Linkages, and Land Use Analysis for the Denton Downtown. Mark Cunningham, Director of Planning and Development, stated that the purpose of the Downtown Implementation Plan was to identify the actions necessary to achieve the identified goals of the adopted Downtown Master Plan. Downtown Master Plan Goals included (1) the Downtown should be a vital part of Denton’s economy; (2) should be a source of pride, (3) should be a place to live, work and play; (4) should contain compact and concentrated activities, (5) should contain a variety of things to do, (6) should be pedestrian friendly and an enjoyable place to walk, (7) should have linked parks and open space and (8) should be attractive and well designed. The implementation plan would also address downtown parking, architectural design, land use analysis and open space and linkages. Elements of the Parking Plan included (1) a block-by-block preparation that detailed the overall parking supply and demand for on-street and off-street parking; (2) identifying specific locations for additional parking, shared parking, and new public facilities with recommendations for funding mechanisms over a specified time period and (3) included recommendations for amendments to existing codes, planning policy decisions and regulations that might impede implementation of the parking plan. Mayor Burroughs suggested taking the pressure off people to park downtown by having policies/procedures to ride transit methods from the universities to the downtown area to avoid taking so many spaces. Council Member Watts stated that the economic feasibility study provided options for funding and included a TIF but felt that others such as bonds would be available. Architectural Design Guidelines of the Plan would include the development of architectural design standards for new construction, modifications, alterations, or façade changes to existing structures. Council Member Watts asked about a design committee that was mentioned and how members would be appointed to that committee. Cunningham stated that the members would be appointed by the Council but they would need to know from the architect what to take to the committee. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 2 The Land Use Analysis portion of the plan would include a plan for the facilitation of zoning amendments to existing codes and land use regulations and/or the creation of new land use districts within the study area with recommended guidelines and standards. The current zoning would be reviewed with recommendations for appropriate land uses that supported downtown development/redevelopment and develop vertical and horizontal mixed used design standards. Mayor Burroughs asked if an arts/entertainment district development would be looked at in the RFP for the downtown area. Cunningham stated that the concept would be included. The Open Space and Greenway Linkages element included improving and increasing existing open space, parks and greenway linkages to support the planned downtown transit oriented development and increasing downtown residential development. The plan would also make recommendations for funding. Existing open spaces and opportunities for new spaces plus two and three-dimensional public art would be reviewed. Cunningham reviewed the implementation schedule. The RFP agreement was budgeted for FY 2008-2009 and would be presented to the Downtown Task Force on January 14, 2009. It would also address funding opportunities and ways of ensuring efficient process review and approval by the City. The recommendation was to direct staff to proceed with the RFSP. Council Member Watts asked how it would take to complete the study once the award was made. Cunningham stated that he hoped it would not take longer than 6 months. Council Member Mulroy suggested a review of the density and get changes memorialized as necessary. The Parks Department might consider doing a companion study on open space/greenway linkages especially with Quakertown Park. He also suggested opening up the Selection Team for major downtown merchants and invite them to participate. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with the RFP process. 2. The Council received a report, held a discussion, and gave staff direction regarding the size and timing of future General Obligation Debt Service bond programs. Bryan Langley, Director of Finance, presented the overview and purpose of the presentation. It would incorporate a review of components of the tax rate, discuss general obligation debt service fund principal revenue sources, review general obligation debt service fund 5 year long term financial plan, discuss future bond program possibilities and discuss staff recommendations and next steps. Tax Rate Fundamentals The tax rate was comprised of two components - operations and maintenance which was deposited into the General Fund and general obligation debt service which was deposited into the general obligation debt service fund. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 3 For FY 2008-09 the total tax rate was Operation & Maintenance, $0 .44765; debt, $0.21887 for a total rate of $0.66652. The GO/CO debt service requirements were paid from the GO debt service fund. The revenue bond debt service was paid from the respective utility funds. GO Debt Fund Key Revenue Sources Property tax was the principal revenue source for GO debt service fund. Transfers from other funds also represented significant revenue sources. Transfers were related to debt that had been issued for specific purposes in other funds such as solid waste, technology services or fleet services. Interest income and delinquent tax revenue also provided additional resources. Long Term Financial Plan Assumptions No tax rate increase for GO debt service fund with a potential tax increase for the General Fund in FY 2010-2011. Appraisal growth assumptions mirrored those in the General Fund. A 4% growth was projected in 2009-10 and 7% growth was projected in 2010-13. Interest income would be $350,000 per year Delinquent tax income from prior years would be at $137,000 per year. The financial plan attempted to maintain a constant tax rate despite fluctuations in the debt service requirement. The fund balance levels were managed to offset potential tax rate increases. Lower property tax growth assumptions had a significant impact on debt service capacity. Debt issuances in FY 2008-09 included the remaining $10.0 million general obligation debt to be issued from the 2005 program. An additional $15.4 million in COs would be issued for a variety of projects including the construction of a public safety training facility. In future years, $4.0 million in COs would be issued each year of the plan. $2.5 million would be used for vehicle replacement and $1.5 million for facility improvements. The adopted long term financial plan assumed a GO bond program of $5 million. An election would be held in November of 2009 with $5 million sold in 2010-2011, $10 million in 2011-2012, $15 million in 2012--2013, and $15 million in 2013-2014. Langley then reviewed the adopted 5 year financial forecast in terms of the GO debt service fund and also reviewed the appraised value growth from 2007-09 to 2012-13. Considerations for 2009-10 Forward FY 2010-11 was a critical year in the 5 year plan as the fund balance was projected to be less than $100,000. Appraised value growth estimates might be aggressive. FY 2009-10 preliminary appraised values would not be known until May 2009. If growth rates were lowered, the financial plan capacity was reduced substantially. The current bond market would likely mean higher interest rates than previously realized. A 1 cent tax increase would provide capacity for approximately $7.2 million increase in debt issuance. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 4 Long Term Plan Options with Revised Growth Assumptions Option A included a planned $25.7 million bond sale in 2008-09 and a new $45 million GO program with a November 2009 election. The fund balance would go negative with this option. Option B included a planned $25.7 million sale in 2008-09 and new $45 million GO program with a November 2010 election. The fund balance would still go negative but not as much as Option A. Option C included a planned $25.7 million bond sale in FY 2008-09 but had no additional GO bond program. The fund balance would still be negative. Option D had a planned $14.6 million GO/CO sale in FY 2009-09, delayed the Public Safety Training Facility sale to FY 2009-10 and had no additional GO bond program. Again, the fund balance would be negative. Option E delayed the planned $25.7 million bond sale including the Public Safety Training Facility sale to FY 2009-10 and a $45 million GO bond program to a November 2010 election. This option would get the fund balance positive until FY 2012-2013. Recommendation and Next Steps Staff recommended Option E which would delay the planned $25.7 million GO/CO bond sale including the Public Safety Training Facility until FY 2009-10; $45 million GO bond program. The uncertainty of the economic assumptions had the potential to drastically alter financial capacity. Projects from 2005 were still ongoing. Delay a bond election to November 2010 at the earliest. Delays beyond this date might be necessary depending on economic circumstances. Re-evaluate the recommendation once the certified appraised values were known. The preliminary appraised values would be available in May 2009 and the certified appraised values would be released in July 2009. Mayor Burroughs asked if any of the proposed GOs were tied to state or regional funding such that the City might lose opportunities to participate in grant matches. Langley stated that some of the proposed projects might get revenues back from the state. They would have to look at them on a case by case basis and look for ways to participate. City Manager Campbell stated that there were some non-allocated bond funds that could be used in those types of situations. Council Member Heggins stated that a delay was not a denial of the projects especially with Public Safety Training Facility. Langley stated that the delay for one year was due to the economic conditions with the hope to issue the debt the following year. If Council wanted to change the tax rate there would be more capacity to issue debt. Consensus of the Council was to proceed with Option E. City of Denton City Council Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 5 Following the completion of the Work Session, the Council convened in Open Session to consider the following: 1. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of the Roselawn elevated water storage tank; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4207– awarded to the lowest responsible bidder meeting specification, Landmark Structures I, L.P. in the amount of $5,146,000). The Public Utilities Board will consider this item at its January 12, 2009 meeting. Frank Payne, City Engineer, presented background information on Items 1 &2. Bids for the project were structured with a base bid for a 2.5 MG capacity, 35-foot head range tank and an alternative bid for a larger 3.0 MG, 40 foot head range capacity. Water Utilities pursued pricing on the alternative bid in the interests of evaluating the ability to obtain additional service delivery volume at the current outer reaches of the distribution system while taking advantage of the base bid pricing. Staff recommendation was for the 3.0 MG, 40 foot head range tank with the inclusion of Additive Alternate 2 for staircase access. A projected completion date was prior to the summer of 2010 (late June) as best value would be realized if it were completed before the summer peak in late July. Payne stated that the primary intent of the change order for Item #2 was to construct the elevated storage tank’s feed line as a part of the water line contract in order to take advantage of favorable pricing on the pipe. In addition, the project originally included the construction of permanent barbed wire fencing across the property owned by Rayzor Investments. Rayzor Investments had since notified the City that they would prefer to construct their own fencing on this property. The deletion of this work from the contract would result in a net decrease of $15,295.00. The following ordinance was considered: NO. 2009-020 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROSELAWN ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mulroy motioned, Kamp seconded to adopt the ordinance. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, Watts “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. 2. The Council considered adoption of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Number One to the contract between the City of Denton and Fox Contractors, Inc.; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3971–Roselawn 24-Inch Water Line Change Order Number One in the amount of $67,089.75). The Public Utilities Board will consider this item at its January 12, 2009 meeting. The following ordinance was considered: City of Denton City Council Minutes January 13, 2009 Page 6 NO. 2009-021 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND FOX CONTRACTORS, INC.; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mulroy motioned, Heggins seconded to adopt the ordinance as presented. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, Watts “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. 3. The Council considered approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, appointing a primary and alternate member as an official voting representative to the Regional Transportation Council (RTC) of the North Central Texas Council of Governments; and providing an effective date. Mark Nelson, Transportation Director, stated that this resolution would affirm Pete Kamp as the primary member and Mark Burroughs as the alternate member to the Regional Transportation Council. The following resolution was considered: NO. R2009-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS, APPOINTING A PRIMARY AND ALTERNATE MEMBER AS AN OFFICIAL VOTING REPRESENTATIVE TO THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL (RTC) OF THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mulroy motioned, Watts seconded to approve the resolution. On roll vote, Heggins “aye”, Kamp “aye”, Moreno “aye”, Mulroy “aye”, Thomson “aye”, Watts “aye”, and Mayor Burroughs “aye”. Motion carried unanimously. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. _________________________________ MARK A BURROUGHS MAYOR CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS _________________________________ JENNIFER WALTERS CITY SECRETARY CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Police Department ACM: Fred Greene SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas, supplementing Chapter 18 of the Code of Ordinances and enacting a new Section 18- 200; providing for a severability clause; providing for incorporation into the Code of Ordinances; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND This Ordinance prohibits a driver or operator of a motor vehicle from the use of hand held mobile telephones in school zones during designated school zone hours. The ordinance prohibits drivers from using hand held mobile phones to engage in calls or to create, send, or read messages while driving or operating a motor vehicle in any school zone on official school days during the hours when school zones are in effect and when school zone signs and signs prohibiting hand held mobile telephone use are in place. The ordinance does not prohibit the use of hands free mobile telephones in school zones. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Staff made a presentation to Council at the April 15, 2008 Work Session. This Ordinance was sent to the Traffic Safety Commission on September 8, 2008 at the request of the City Council. The Traffic Safety Commission approved the Ordinance on September 8, 2008 by a 9-0 vote. Staff made a presentation to Council at the January 6, 2009 Work Session. FISCAL INFORMATION This Ordinance will require 90 signs at $22.50 each, for a total of $2,025.00. Funding for these signs will come out of either the Red Light Camera funds or through the City of Denton Street Department budget. Respectfully submitted, Roy W. Minter, Jr. Chief of Police AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Jim Coulter 349-7194 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of hot mix asphalt concrete for the City of Denton Street Department; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4236-Annual Contract for Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item, Jagoe- Public Company, in the estimated cumulative annual amount of $1,750,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the annual contract to supply Hot Mix Asphalt Concrete and specialized equipment with operations for installation services as needed. This contract is utilized in the construction, renovation, and maintenance of city streets. The contract allows for delivery of asphalt to the jobsite or pickup in City trucks at the plant and also a per ton price for equipment and operations lay down or installation of the asphalt at the direction of the Streets Division. RECOMMENDATION Award to Jagoe-Public Company in the estimated amount of $1,750,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Jagoe-Public Company Denton, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This bid is for a one-year time period, with the option to extend for additional one-year periods. FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for the acquisition of this product will be charged to the appropriate account number at the time that the order is placed. Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Bid Tabulation 1-AIS-4236 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE FOR THE CITY OF DENTON STREET DEPARTMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 4236-ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE AWARDED TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR EACH ITEM, JAGOE-PUBLIC COMPANY, IN THE ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,750,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 4236 1-2 Jagoe-Public Company Exhibit A SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to pur- chase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. Should the City and the winning bidder(s) wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute a written contract in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents and to extend that contract as determined to be advantageous to the City of Denton. SECTION 4. By the acceptance and approval of the above enumerated bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _________________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ 3-ORD-4236 Þ×Ü ýìîíê ÜßÌÛæ Ü»½»³¾»® íðô îððè Exhibit A ß²²«¿´ ݱ²¬®¿½¬ º±® ر¬ Ó·¨ ß°¸¿´¬ ݱ²½®»¬» ÛÍÌò ÜÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒ ×ÌÛÓËÑÓÊÛÒÜÑÎ ßÒÒËßÔ ÏÌÇò Ö¿¹±» Ы¾´·½ ݱ³°¿²§ Ю·²½·°´» д¿½» ±º Þ«·²»æ Ü»²¬±²ô ÌÈ Ø±¬ Ó·¨ ß°¸¿´¬ ݱ²½®»¬» øÐÙóêìóîî÷ °·½µ«° ¿¬ °´¿²¬ ïëðôððð̱²ßòüëîòëð øп¬½¸·²¹ ±® Ý·¬§ Ý®»© ײ¬¿´´¿¬·±²÷ Þòر¬ Ó·¨ ß°¸¿´¬ ݱ²½®»¬» øÐÙóêìóîî÷ ÚÑÞ Ü»´·ª»®»¼üëêòëð Ú±® ¬¸» °«®°±» ±º ´±© ¾·¼ ¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±²ô ¿ üðòîð °»® ³·´» ½¸¿®¹» ©·´´ ¾» ¿¼¼»¼ ¬± ¬¸» «²·¬ °®·½» º±® »¿½¸ ³·´» º®±³ çðï Ì»¨¿ ͬ®»»¬ô Ü»²¬±²ô Ì»¨¿ ¬± Ê»²¼±®ù °´¿²¬ íðîð Ú±®¬ ɱ®¬¸ ß¼¼®»æ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ü®·ª» ó Ü»²¬±² ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò øðó ïò üïëòðð ìð𠬱²÷ ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò îò üéòëð øìððóççç ¬±²÷ ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò íò üëòðð øïôðððóïôççç ¬±²÷ ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò ìò üìòëð øîôðððóìôðð𠬱²÷ ر¬ Ó·¨ ß°¸¿´¬ ݱ²½®»¬» øÐÙóéêóîî÷ °·½µ«° ¿¬ °´¿²¬ îïëôððð̱²ßò üêïòéë øп¬½¸·²¹ ±® Ý·¬§ Ý®»© ײ¬¿´´¿¬·±²÷ Þòر¬ Ó·¨ ß°¸¿´¬ ݱ²½®»¬» øÐÙóéêóîî÷ ÚÑÞ Ü»´·ª»®»¼ üêëòëð Ú±® ¬¸» °«®°±» ±º ´±© ¾·¼ ¼»¬»®³·²¿¬·±²ô ¿ üðòîð °»® ³·´» ½¸¿®¹» ©·´´ ¾» ¿¼¼»¼ ¬± ¬¸» «²·¬ °®·½» º±® »¿½¸ ³·´» º®±³ çðï Ì»¨¿ ͬ®»»¬ô Ü»²¬±²ô Ì»¨¿ ¬± Ê»²¼±®ù °´¿²¬ íðîð Ú±®¬ ɱ®¬¸ ß¼¼®»æ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ü®·ª» ó Ü»²¬±² ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò øðó ïò üïëòðð ìð𠬱²÷ ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò îò üéòëð øìððóççç ¬±²÷ ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò íò üëòðð øïôðððóïôççç ¬±²÷ ß¼¼·¬·±² °»® ¬±² º±® ·²¬¿´´¿¬·±² ¿¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¶±¾ ·¬»ò ìò üìòëð øîôðððóìôðð𠬱²÷ Ê»²¼±®ù °´¿²¬ ¬± Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ¼»¬·²¿¬·±² · ÁÁÁÁÁ ³·´»òíòë Ó·´» çìðóíèîóîëèï îì ر«® ¬»´»°¸±²» ²«³¾»® º±® ³»¿¹» Û¨¬ò ý ìî ͸·°³»²¬ ½¿² ¾» ³¿¼» ·² ÁÁÁÁÁÁ ¼¿§ º®±³ ®»½»·°¬ ±º ±®¼»®ò í Ü¿§ öЮ·½» ¸¿´´ ¾» ¾·¼ ÚòÑòÞò Ü»²¬±² «²´» ²±¬»¼ò±¬¸»®©·» AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Tom Shaw 349-7100 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding an annual contract for the purchase of ready mix concrete and cement products for various City departments; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4242- Annual Contract for Ready Mix Concrete and Cement Products awarded to the lowest responsible bidder for each item in the estimated cumulative annual amount of $500,000). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the annual supply of ready mix concrete and cement products utilized by various City departments in the maintenance and new construction of streets, utility lines, street cuts and backfilling operations. These materials are ordered on an as needed basis. RECOMMENDATION Award to the lowest responsible bidder for individual items and for a group of like items in the estimated annual amount of $500,000. Item # Vendor 1 -1a Custom Crete Exhibit A 2 2a Ash Grove Cement Exhibit A 4-13 Redi-Mix Concrete Exhibit A The pricing variance between the lowest bidder and the second lowest vendor was greater than five percent, therefore, environmental and local preferences were not considered for the ready mix section of the bid. Although Custom Crete was the apparent low bidder for Item 12, this item is an option to the ready mix bid Items 4-7, and cannot be awarded on its own. No bids were received for Items 3 and 14; therefore, no award will be made. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Ash Grove Cement Custom Crete Redi-Mix Midlothian, TX Dallas, TX Euless, TX Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This price agreement will be in effect for a period of one year from the date of award and may be extended for additional one-year periods if agreed to by both parties with all pricing, terms and conditions remaining the same. FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for each individual order will come from the appropriate budget or bond account of the using department. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Bid Tabulation 1-AIS-Bid 4242 ORDINANCE NO. ______ AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING AN ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF READY MIX CONCRETE AND CEMENT PRODUCTS FOR VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 4242-ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR READY MIX CONCRETE AND CEMENT PRODUCTS AWARDED TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR EACH ITEM IN THE ESTIMATED CUMULATIVE ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $500,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefor; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID ITEM NUMBER NO VENDOR AMOUNT 4242 1, 1a Custom Crete Exhibit A 4242 2-2a Ash Grove Cement Exhibit A 4242 4-13 Redi-Mix Concrete Exhibit A SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to pur- chase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. Should the City and the winning bidder(s) wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute a written contract in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents and to extend that contract as determined to be advantageous to the City of Denton. SECTION 4. By the acceptance and approval of the above enumerated bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _________________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ 3-ORD-4242 EXHIBIT A Þ×Ü ýìîìî ÜßÌÛæ Ö¿²«¿®§ îîô îððç ß²²«¿´ ݱ²¬®¿½¬ º±® λ¿¼§ Ó·¨ ݱ²½®»¬» ú Ý»³»²¬ Ю±¼«½¬ ÛÍÌò ÝÑÜ ÍÌÑÝÕ ×ÌÛÓËÑÓÜÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒÊÛÒÜÑÎÊÛÒÜÑÎÊÛÒÜÑÎ ßÒÒË ý ßÔ Ý«¬±³ λ¼·óÓ·¨ ߸ Ù®±ª» Ý®»¬»Ý±²½®»¬»Ý»³»²¬ Ю·²½·°´» д¿½» ±º Þ«·²»æ Ü¿´´¿Û«´»Ó·¼´±¬¸·¿² ÐÑÎÌÔßÒÜ ÝÛÓÛÒÌ Ð±®¬´¿²¼ Ý»³»²¬ °»® ¿½µ ÁÁÁÁÁ ´¾ò çðý ïéðéëðóîïóðððÍ¿½µÜ»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² É¿®»¸±«» ·² üïíòð𠬮«½µ´±¿¼ ¯«¿²¬·¬·»ò Û¬·³¿¬»¼ ¼»´·ª»®§ ¿º¬»® ®»½»·°¬ ±º ±®¼»® ï¿ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ó·²·³«³ Ñ®¼»® Ï«¿²¬·¬§ ·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ï¾ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ îèððÒñß̱²Ì§°» ï ¾«´µ ½»³»²¬ ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± ¶±¾ ·¬»üïìçòðð Û¬·³¿¬»¼ ¼»´·ª»®§ ¿º¬»® ®»½»·°¬ ±º ±®¼»® î¿î ¼¿§ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ÎÛßÜÇ Ó×È ÝÑÒÝÎÛÌÛ èð ´¾ò Ю»³·¨»¼ Í¿½µ ݱ²½®»¬» íïîëðéëðóéðóðððÍ¿½µÜ»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² É¿®»¸±«» ·² ¬®«½µ´±¿¼ ¯«¿²¬·¬·» Û¬·³¿¬»¼ ¼»´·ª»®§ ¿º¬»® ®»½»·°¬ ±º ±®¼»® í¿ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ó·²·³«³ Ñ®¼»® Ï«¿²¬·¬§ ·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´» í¾ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ п´´»¬ Ú»» ·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´» üÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ í½ Ý·¬§ ·²¬»²¼ ¬± »¨½¸¿²¹» °¿´´»¬ò Ý«¾·½ ìèðððÒñßë Í¿½µ Ó·¨ ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± ¶±¾ ·¬»üçéòðð Ç¿®¼ Ý«¾·½ ëëðððÒñßïòë Í¿½µ Ó·¨ ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± ¶±¾ ·¬»üéçòëð Ç¿®¼ Ý«¾·½ êíðððÒñßï Í¿½µ Ó·¨ ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± ¶±¾ ·¬»üééòðð Ç¿®¼ Ý«¾·½ éïðððÒñßî Í¿½µ Ó·¨ ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± ¶±¾ ·¬»üèîòðð Ç¿®¼ Ý«¾·½ èïðÒñßíððð ÐÍ× ó ìòë ÉÎß ¼»´·ª»®»¼ ¬± ¶±¾ ·¬»üçëòðð Ç¿®¼ Ý«¾·½ çïðÒñßíððð ÐÍ× ©·¬¸ Ú´§ ߸ îðû Ó¿¨üçëòðð Ç¿®¼ ïðóóÒñßØÎÌ®«½µ Ì·³» ·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´» üÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ͳ¿´´ Ô±¿¼ ݸ¿®¹» ·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ïïóóÒñßÛß üÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ïîóóÒñßÍÕÍ¿½µ ß¼¶«¬³»²¬ üÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ °»® ¿½µüëòðð Û²ª·®±²³»²¬¿´ Ú»» °»® ´±¿¼ ·º ¿°°´·½¿¾´» ïíïëðÒñßÔÜÍüðòðð üÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ö Ю·½» ¸¿´´ ¾» ¾·¼ ÚòÑòÞò Ü»²¬±² AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Jim Coulter 349-7194 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Number One to the contract between the City of Denton and J.R. Stelzer Company; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 3945-High School Elevated Storage Tank Change Order Number One in the amount of $73,400). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). CHANGE ORDER INFORMATION Change Order Number One is to repaint the exterior of the 2.0 million gallon McKenna Park ground storage tank. A complete description of the Change Order is included in the Public Utilities Board Agenda Information Sheet included as Exhibit 1. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utilities Board approved this item at its January 12, 2009 meeting. Bid 3945 was awarded to J.R. Stelzer Company by Council on May 6, 2008 in the amount of $949,467. RECOMMENDATION Approve Change Order Number One in the amount of $73,400 for a total bid award $1,022,867. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS J.R. Stelzer Company Lincoln, NE ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The extra work required under Change Order Number One will add 75 calendar days to this project with the estimated completion by March 2009. FISCAL INFORMATION The Change Order will be funded from account 630140517.1360.40100. Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Public Utilities Board Agenda Sheet Without Exhibits Exhibit 2: Change Order Number One Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AIS-Bid 3945 Exhibit 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD AGENDA ITEM # AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 12, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Water Utilities ACM: Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT Consider recommending adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute change order one to the contract between the City of Denton and J. R. Stelzer Company; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Ordinance No. 2008-095 awarded to J. R. Stelzer Company in the not to exceed amount of $949,467.00 and Change Order One in the amount of $73,400.00 for a total amount of $1,022,867.00. BACKGROUND The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) performed their annual comprehensive compliance investigation of the C The findings of the TCEQ inspection included an alleged violation of 30 TAC §290.46(m)(1)(A) 30 the interior and exterior coating systems are continued to us to photographs showing that the McKenna Park ground storage tank has been repaired and returned Their original deadline for demonstrating compliance was November 6, 2008, but an extension was granted by the TCEQ through March 2009. The condition of the exterior of the tank is more an aesthetic issue than a corrosion issue. The water quality within the tank is safe and not a public health concern. The Water Department understands the appearance of the water towers is a reflection on the City given that they are so visible to the public. The Water Department planned to paint the McKenna Park Tank after the High School Tank project, which is currently in progress. The planned project of painting the McKenna Park Tank included the complete removal and replacement of the exterior and interior painting system, which requires the tank to be out of service for an extended time. At this time and for the next few years, the Water Department cannot afford to have this tank out of service until an equal or greater volume of storage is in place to supply the southern portions of Denton. It is anticipated that a new elevated tank, with a greater volume than the McKenna Park tank, will be erected within the next few years. An interim solution to the current alleged violation and overall appearance of the McKenna Park tank is to paint over the existing painting system. Due to the adhesion properties of the current paint, iover coating paint job will allow the tank appearance to be acceptable for a period of five to seven years. The cost for water blasting the exterior of the tank, applying two (2) coats of acrylic paint, one (1) City of Denton Flag Logo and one Exhibit 1 AIS PUB Agenda Item # January 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 (1) blue band of paint at the top of the side wall is $73,400.00. Based on the life span of this properly prepare the exterior of this tank, as we will when we can take the tank out-of-service, and apply the same paint system we are placing on the High School Tank is $260,000.00. This painting system is expected to last from fifteen (15) to twenty (20) years or $17,333.00 to $13,000.00 per year, respectfully. The cost of over coatingthe McKenna Park Tank is not a wasted cost since the annualized cost is approximately equal to the annualized cost of a properly prepared and painted tank. It is estimated that using the already mobilized High School Tank painting contractor benefits the city in pricing on this project. It is the goal of the Water Department to continue with its tank side with a blue stripe/band around the top sidewall of the tank. At this time the Water Department is planning on one flag logo facing west, toward interstate highway 35 and the Razor Ranch development. OPTIONS The Public Utilities Board may approve or disapprove the change order in the amount of $73,400. RECOMMENDATION The Water Utility staff recommends approval of the change order to J. R. Stelzer Company in the amount of $73,400. PRIOR REVIEW The repainting of the High School Tank contract was approved by the Public Utilities Board at their meeting of April 14, 2008, and by the City Council at their meeting of May 6, 2008. FISCAL INFORMATION In anticipation of the need to paint the water towers, the Water Department developed and funded a tank painting fund to support these maintenance projects using O&M funds budgeted in the Water Production Division. The fund balance accumulated since FY 1992 was $2,150,000 with $949,467 allocated to the painting of the High School Tank. The current fund balance with fiscal year 2009 deposits is $ come from this fund. DATE SCHEDULE FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL February 3, 2009 Exhibit 1 AIS PUB Agenda Item # January 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBITS 1.TCEQ 2008 Comprehensive Compliance Investigation Letter 2.Change Order 3.Agenda Information Sheet for the High School Tank Painting Bid Award Respectfully submitted: Jim Coulter Director of Water Utilities Prepared by Tim Fisher, P.E., Assistant Director of Water Utilities Exhibit 2 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND J.R. STELZER COMPANY; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 3945-HIGH SCHOOL ELEVATED STORAGE TANK CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF $73,400). WHEREAS, on May 6, 2008 by Ordinance No. 2008-095, the City awarded a public works contract to J.R. Stelzer Company in the amount of $949,467 for the High School Elevated Storage Tank Repaint project; WHEREAS, the Staff having recommended, and the City Manager having recommended to the Council that a change order be authorized to amend such contract agreement with respect to the scope of work and an increase in the payment amount, and said change order fees under the proposed contract are fair and reasonable and are consistent with and not higher than the recommended practices and fees published by the professional associations appli and such fees do not exceed the maximum provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Change Order Number One, increasing the amount of the contract between the City and J.R. Stelzer Company, which is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, in the amount of Seventy Three Thousand Four Hundred and 0/100 ($73,400) Dollars, is hereby approved and the expenditure of funds therefor is hereby authorized in accordance with said change order. The total purchase order amount increases to $1,022,867. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of, 2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _________________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ 3-ORD-Bid 3945 1DRAFT MINUTES 2PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD 3January 12, 2009 4 5After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was 6present, the Vice Chair of the Public Utilities Board thereafter convened into an Open Meeting 7on Monday, January 12 at 9:00 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton 8Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. 9 Present 10: Vice Chair Dick Smith, Bill Cheek, Phil Gallivan, John Baines, Randy Robinson 11and Bill Grubbs 12 13Ex Officio Members: 14George C. Campbell, City Manager 15Howard Martin, ACM Utilities 16 Absent 17: Chair Charldean Newell, excused 18 OPEN MEETING: 19 20 CONSENT AGENDA: 21 22 23has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. 24 Board Member Phil Gallivan pulled Item 2 for individual consideration. 25 26 ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 27 28 292) Consider recommending adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute 30change order one to the contract between the City of Denton and J. R. Stelzer Company; 31providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (Ordinance 32No. 2008-095 awarded to J. R. Stelzer Company in the not to exceed amount of $949,467.00 33and Change Order One in the amount of $73,400.00 for a total amount of $1,022,867.00. 34 35Board Member Phil Gallivan asked if there was no recourse or appeal to the TCEQ to do it later. 36Assistant Director Tim Fisher stated that the TCEQ has criteria for maintenance on tanks and it 37tends to notice appearance and what the TCEQ was seeing was a deteriorated appearance which 38was not noticed on the prior survey. In this case TCEQ called it as a violation. Fisher stated that 39the condition of the exterior of the tank is more an aesthetic issue than a corrosion issue. The 40water quality within the tank is safe and not a public health concern. Staff has attempted to 41appeal the TCEQ interpretation without much success. Staff questioned whether this 42maintenance was putting too much money into the tank for a short life project. The economics 43indicated that it was favorable; so, staff thought that getting the physical appearance of the tank 44up to a higher standard was beneficial. It is estimated that using the already mobilized High 45School Tank painting contractor benefits the city in price on this project. The goal is to bring the 46appearance of the tank up short term, and to also push the project back a little bit farther so a 47larger supply line can be available to operationally be better able to pull the tank back up. 48 49Board Member Gallivan asked if staff will not have to do it again. Fisher replied no and that 50what it means is that staff is doing an overcoat on a tank that has fairly poor adhesion to the 51existing paint. This is not the normal way to do it so that there is a certain element of risk with Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting January 12, 2009 Page 2 of 2 1the over coating. The interior system is actually holding up well;so, this will allow staff to delay 2repainting the tank by approximately five years when the City will be in a stronger position with 3storage and facilities. 4 5Board Member Gallivan asked what the original start date was. Fisher stated it was originally 6planned after the northwest tank was finished. 7 Board Member Bill Cheek moved to approve Item 2 with a second from Board Member 8 Bill Grubbs. The motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 9 10 11The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 10:11 a.m. 12 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Tom Shaw 349-7133 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the financing of fleet vehicles and equipment for agreement; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing an effective date (File 4247Third Party Lease Purchase of Solid Waste and Waste Water Vehicles and Equipment, approximate finance charges of $257,351.57 for 60 months in the estimated principal sum of $2,369,488 for an estimated total payback amount of $2,626,839.57 ). LEASE/PURCHASE ORDER INFORMATION This third party lease purchase financing agreement is for the funding of six heavy duty refuse trucks, one backhoe tractor, three 14 cubic-yard dump trucks, one skid loader, one hydraulic packer, one (1) ton box truck, and one landfill compactor over a 60 month period. A detailed list of the trucks and equipment with the estimated cost is attached for your review. The 60 month lease period will have ten (10) semiannual payments of $262,683.96. These payments will be made annually and include principal and interest. Chapter 271 Subchapter A Section.005c of the Texas Local Government Code exempts the acquisition of third party lease purchase financing from the competitive bid process. Approval of this agreement is for funding only. Competitive bids or interlocal agreements for the purchase of the trucks and equipment will be presented to Council or the City Manager for final approval. This agreement is intended to make funds available for these acquisitions. RECOMMENDATION Award to Chase Equipment Leasing Inc. at an effective rate not to exceed 3.84% with an estimated cost of financing in the amount of $257,351.57 for 60 months. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Chase Equipment Leasing Inc. Dallas, TX Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULING OF PROJECT Funds will be available upon Council approval and will be dispersed as equipment is received. The first payment is due one year from funding and every twelve months thereafter throughout the five year agreement period. FISCAL INFORMATION The finance charges or interest in the approximate total amount of $257,351.57 will be paid as a portion of the annual payments. The total amount of the lease is approximately $2,369,488 and will be paid from budgeted equipment acquisition funds from Solid Waste and Waste Water departments. 60 Months@3.84% Financed Amount $2,369,488.00 Approx. Finance Charges $ 257,351.57 Approx. Total Payback $2,626,839.57 Approx. Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Attachment 1: Equipment List Attachment 2: Proposal from Chase Equipment Leasing 1AIS-File 4247 Exhibit 1 Equipment Listing Estimated Equipment Quant. Purchase Price Total Side Load Refuse Truck 1 each $105,808 $105,808 Front Load Refuse Truck 3 each $101,902 $305,706 Body Front Load Refuse Truck 4 each $123,170 $492,680 Chassis Front Load Refuse Truck 1 each $233,152 $233,152 With Scales 14 Yd Dump Truck 3 each $ 106,892 $320,676 Backhoe Tractor 1 each $ 73,073 $ 73,073 Skid Loader 1 each $ 38,392 $ 38,392 Landfill Compactor 1 each $ 800,000 $800,001 Total Approximate Cost $ 2,369,488 Exhibit 2 ïïïï б´¿®· п®µ©¿§ô Í«·¬» Õí ݱ´«³¾«ô ÑØ ìíîìð Ö¿²«¿®§ éô îððç ̱³ ͸¿© Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² Ы®½¸¿·²¹ Ѻº·½» çðï Þ Ì»¨¿ ͬ®»»¬ Ü»²¬±²ô Ì»¨¿ éêîðç ÎÛæ Ô»¿» Ю±°±¿´ Ó®ò ͸¿©æ ݸ¿» Û¯«·°³»²¬ Ô»¿·²¹ ײ½ò øþÝÛÔ×þ÷ô ¿²¼ ÖÐÓ±®¹¿² ݸ¿» Þ¿²µô ½±´´»½¬·ª»´§ ÖÐ Ó±®¹¿² ݸ¿» ú ݱòô º±® ·¬»´ºô ·¬ «½½»±®ô ¿²¼ ¿·¹²ô · °´»¿»¼ ¬± «¾³·¬ ¬¸· º·²¿²½·²¹ °®±°±¿´ ¬± ¬¸» ½±³°´·¿²½» ©·¬¸ ¬¸» ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ±º ¬¸» ײ¬»®²¿´ 못²«» ݱ¼» ±º ïçèêô ¿ ¿³»²¼»¼ô ¿²¼ ¿´´ 󻨻³°¬ ´»¿»ó°«®½¸¿» º·²¿²½·²¹ º±® ¬¸» ·²¬»²¼»¼ °«®°±»ò ̸» ¬»®³ ¿²¼ °®±ª··±² ±º ¬¸· º·²¿²½·²¹ ¿®» «¾¶»½¬ ¬± ©»´´ ¿ ½»®¬¿·² ½±²¼·¬·±² »¬ º±®¬¸ ¾»´±©æ ÌÎßÒÍßÝÌ×ÑÒæ Ú·¨»¼ó®¿¬»ô º«´´§ ¿³±®¬·¦·²¹ô °®·ª¿¬»´§ °´¿½»¼ ¬¿¨ó »¨»³°¬ ´»¿»ó°«®½¸¿» ¿¹®»»³»² ©·¬¸ üïòð𠾫§±«¬ ¿¬ »²¼ ±º ¬»®³ò ÔÛÍÍÛÛæ Ý·¬§ ±º Ü»²¬±² ÔÛÍÍÑÎæ ݸ¿» Û¯«·°³»²¬ Ô»¿·²¹ ײ½ò ÛÍÌ×ÓßÌÛÜ Ú×ÒßÒÝ×ÒÙ ßÓÑËÒÌæ üîôíêçôìèèòðð ÞßÒÕ ÏËßÔ×Ú×ÛÜæ ̸· °®±°±¿´ ¿«³» ¬¸¿¬ Ô»»» ©·´´ ²±¬ ·«» ´» ¬¸¿² üïð ³·´´·±² ·² ¬¿¨ó»¨»³°¬ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±² ¬¸· ½¿´»²¼¿® §»¿® ¿²¼ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» Ô»»» ©·´´ ¼»·¹²¿¬» ¬¸· ó󻨻³°¬ ±¾´·¹¿¬·±²ò ËÍÛ ÑÚ ÐÎÑÝÛÛÜÍñÌ×ÌÔÛæ ̱ º·²¿²½» ¬¸» ¿½¯«··¬·±² ±º ¬©± ¼«³° ¬®«½µô ±²» ¾¿½µ¸±» ¬®¿½¬±®ô ±²» µ·¼ ´±¿¼»®ô ±²» ¸§¼®¿«´·½ ¬®¿½¬±®ô ±²» ¾±¨ ¬®«½µô ±²» ·¼»ó´±¿¼ ®»º«» ¬®«½µô º±«® º®±²¬ó´±¿¼ ®»º«» ¬®«½µô ±²» º®±²¬ ´±¿¼»® ©·¬¸ ½¿´»ô ¿²¼ ±²» ´¿²¼º·´´ ¬®¿½¬±®ô ¬¸» ´»¹¿´ ¬·¬´» ±º ©¸·½¸ ¸¿´´ ª»¬ ·² ¬¸» Ô»»» ¼«®·²¹ ¬¸» ¬»®³ ±º ¬¸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ò City of Denton January 7, 2009 Page 2 ÍÛÝËÎ×ÌÇæ ÝÛÔ× ¸¿´´ ±¾¬¿·² ¿ ´·»² ±² ¬¸» º·²¿²½»¼ »¯«·°³»²¬ò ̸» ß¹®»»³»²¬ ¸¿´´ ¾» «¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿²²«¿´ ¿°°®±°®·¿¬·±²ò ÛÈÐÛÝÌÛÜ Ú×ÒßÒÝ×ÒÙ ÌÛÎÓæ Ú·ª» øë÷ Ç»¿® ÐßÇÓÛÒÌ ÓÑÜÛñÚÎÛÏËÛÒÝÇæ п§³»²¬ ¸¿´´ ¾» ³¿¼» »³·¿²²«¿´´§ ·² ¿®®»¿®ò ÐÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ×ÒÌÛÎÛÍÌ ÎßÌÛæ íòèìû ÐÎÑÐÑÍÛÜ ÔÛßÍÛ ÐßÇÓÛÒÌÍæ Ì»² øïð÷ °¿§³»²¬ ±º üîêîôêèíòçê ×ÒÌÛÎÛÍÌ ÎßÌÛ ÔÑÝÕæ ̸» ¿¾±ª» °®±°±»¼ ײ¬»®»¬ כּ ¿²¼ Ú·²¿²½·²¹ п§³»²¬ ¿®» ª¿´·¼ ¬¸®±«¹¸ ¿²¼ ·²½´«¼·²¹ Ö¿²«¿®§ éô îððçò ׺ º«²¼·²¹ ¼±» ²±¬ ±½½«® ±² ±® ¾»º±®» «½¸ ¼¿¬»ô ¬¸» °®±°±»¼ ·²¬»®»¬ ®¿¬» ¿²¼ º·²¿²½·²¹ °¿§³»²¬ ¿®» «¾¶»½¬ ¬± ¿¼¶«¬³»²¬ ¬± ®»º´»½¬ ½¸¿²¹» ·² ³¿®µ»¬ ½±²¼·¬·±²ò ÜÑÝËÓÛÒÌßÌ×ÑÒæ ÝÛÔ× ±® ·¬ ½±«²»´ ¸¿´´ °®»°¿®» ܱ½«³»²¬¿¬·±²ò ÐÎÑÐÑÍßÔ ÛÈÐ×ÎßÌ×ÑÒæ ̸· °®±°±¿´ ©·´´ »¨°·®» ·º º«²¼·²¹ ¼±» ²±¬ ±½½«® ¾§ Ö¿²«¿®§ éô îððçò ׺ ¿½½»°¬¿²½» ¿²¼ º«²¼·²¹ ¸¿ª» ²±¬ ±½½«®®»¼ ¾§ ¬¸· ¼¿¬»ô ¬¸» Ú·²¿²½·²¹ כּ ¿²¼ п§³»²¬ ß³±«²¬ ©·´´ ¾» ¿¼¶«¬»¼ ¿½½±®¼·²¹ ¬± ³¿®µ»¬ ½±²¼·¬·±²ò É» ¿°°®»½·¿¬» §±«® ·²¬»®»¬ ·² ݸ¿» Û¯«·°³»²¬ Ô»¿·²¹ ײ½ò ¿²¼ ´±±µ º±®©¿®¼ ¬± §±«® º¿ª±®¿¾´» ®»°±²»ò ͸±«´¼ §±« ¸¿ª» ¿²§ ¯«»¬·±² ®»¹¿®¼·²¹ ¬¸· °®±°±¿´ ±® ²»»¼ ¿¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ô °´»¿» ½±²¬¿½¬ ³» ¿¬ êïìóîïíóçëêï ±® ª·¿ »³¿·´ ¿¬ ¶±¸²ò°»´¦»®à½¸¿»ò½±³ Í·²½»®»´§ô ݸ¿» Û¯«·°³»²¬ Ô»¿·²¹ ײ½ò Ö±¸² л´¦»® Ô»¿·²¹ Í¿´» λ°®»»²¬¿¬·ª»ô Ы¾´·½ Ú·²¿²½» ßÝÝÛÐÌÛÜ ÞÇæ Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÜÛÒÌÑÒ Þ§æ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ò¿³»æ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ Ì·¬´»æ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ City of Denton January 7, 2009 Page 2 Ü¿¬»æ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE FINANCING OF FLEET VEHICLES AND THROUGH A LEASE PURCHASE FINANCING AGREEMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFORE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 4247THIRD PARTY LEASE PURCHASE OF SOLID WASTE AND WASTE WATER VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT, APPROXIMATE FINANCE CHARGES OF $257,351.57 FOR 60 MONTHS IN THE ESTIMATED PRINCIPAL SUM OF $2,369,488 FOR AN ESTIMATED TOTAL PAYBACK AMOUNT OF $2,626,839.57 ). WHEREAS, In the 2008-2009 budget process the City Council authorized the purchase of various trucks and equipment listed on Exhibit A from the to be determined lowest responsible bidders pursuant to Chapter 252 of the Texas Local Government Code in the estimated principal sum of $2,369,488; and WHEREAS, Section 271.005 of the Local Government Code authorizes the City council, in its discretion, to contract for the financing of personal property; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the herein authorized financing of the budgeted equipment through a lease purchase agreement with Chase Equipment Leasing Inc. is appropriate and in the public interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be expended for the herein authorized lease purchase agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby authorizes a lease purchase agreement to finance the acquisition of trucks and equipment listed on Exhibit A with Chase Equipment Leasing Inc., said agreement providing for a financed amount of $2,369,488 having ten semiannual payments of approximately $262,683.96 with an effective rate of not to exceed 3.84% over 5 years . SECTION 2. The City Manager, or the Purchasing Agent as his designee, is authorized to enter into a lease purchase agreement on behalf of the City in accordance with the terms set forth in Section 1 and to expend the funds provided for in Section 1. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _________________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ 4-ORD-4247 Exhibit A Equipment Listing Estimated Equipment Quant. Purchase Price Total Side Load Refuse Truck 1 each $105,808 $105,808 Front Load Refuse Truck 3 each $101,902 $305,706 Body Front Load Refuse Truck 4 each $123,170 $492,680 Chassis Front Load Refuse Truck 1 each $233,152 $233,152 With Scales 14 Yd Dump Truck 3 each $ 106,892 $320,676 Backhoe Tractor 1 each $ 73,073 $ 73,073 Skid Loader 1 each $ 38,392 $ 38,392 Landfill Compactor 1 each $ 800,000 $800,001 Total Approximate Cost $ 2,369,488 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Mike Ellis 349-8424 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a purchase order through the Houston-Galveston Area Council (H-GAC), Buy Board Cooperative Purchasing Network for the acquisition of vehicles and equipment for the City of Denton Utility Fund Departments by way of an Interlocal Agreement with the City of Denton; and providing an effective date (File 4224-Interlocal Agreement for the purchase of Utility Fund Vehicles and Equipment awarded to multiple vendors as listed on Exhibit A in the amount of $2,416,741.25). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). FILE INFORMATION These twenty-eight units are utility related acquisitions. A list and description of vehicles/equipment is shown below. FA indicates a fleet addition. Item Description Quant. Price (Ea)_ Department Co-op* 1 Ford F150 Cab Pickup 1 $ 18,276 Water Treat B Board 2A Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $ 58,442.60 Electric Dist B Board 2B Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $ 49,572 Electric Dist B Board 2C Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $ 51,712 Drainage B Board 2C Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $ 51,712 Drainage B Board 2D Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $ 43,699 Water Mtr B Board 3 Ford Ranger XL 1 $ 15,592 Water Prod B Board 4 Ford F150 Super Cab XL 1 $ 18,931 Electric Dist H-GAC 5 Case 590 M Series Loader/Backhoe 1 $ 73,073 W/W Coll H-GAC (FA) 6 TYMCO Model 500 Sweeper 1 $ 195,713.38 Drainage H-GAC 7 Vac-Tron PMD 855 SDT Trailer Mounted Vacuum 1 $ 53,905.95 Drainage B Board 8 Grasshopper Model#430D/72 1 $ 11,392.50 Water Prod B Board 8 Grasshopper Model#430D/72 1 $ 11,392.50 Water Prod B Board(FA) 9 A300 Bob Cat All Wheel Loader 1 $ 38,392.33 W/W Coll B Board(FA) 10 Peterbilt Model 340 Dump Truck 1 $ 106,892.33 Water Dist B Board 10 Peterbilt Model 340 Dump Truck 1 $ 106,892.33 W/W Coll B Board(FA) 10 Peterbilt Model 340 Dump Truck 1 $ 106,892.33 W/W Coll B Board(FA) Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 FILE INFORMATION (CONTINUED) 11 Peterbilt Model 340 / Faussi Crane 1 $ 266,912 Electric Dist B Board 12A Street Force Side Loader 1 $ 105,808 SW Res B Board 12B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $ 121,550 SW Res B Board 13A McNeilus #4029 Body 1 $ 101,902 SW Com B Board 13A McNeilus #4029 Body 1 $ 101,902 SW Com B Board 13A McNeilus #4029 Body 1 $ 101,902 SW Com B Board (FA) 13B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $ 123,170 SW Com B Board 13B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $ 123,170 SW Com B Board 13B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $ 123,170 SW Com B Board (FA) 14B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $ 123,170 SW Recy B Board 14A McNeilus#4029 Body w/Fork Scales 1 $ 111,602 SW Recy B Board 28 $ 2,416,741.25 * Cooperative agreement handling fees and service manuals are estimated at $5,000 and may vary depending upon the number of purchase orders issued and service manuals required. All units are powered by gasoline or diesel engines with LEV ratings that meet or exceed EPA standards. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utilities Board approved this item at its January 26, 2009, meeting. All listed items were approved in the 2008-2009 budget process. RECOMMENDATION Award the purchase of Utility Fund vehicles and equipment through interlocal agreement contracts to the vendors listed below for a total award amount of $2,416,741.25. ITEM NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 1-4 Philpott Motors $ 307,936.60 5 Equipment Support Services $ 73,073.00 6 Tymco $ 195,713.38 7 Vermeer $ 53,905.95 8 Moridge Mfg Inc $ 22,785.00 9 Bob Cat Company $ 38,392.33 10,11,12B,13B, 14B Rush Truck Center $ 1,201,818.99 12A, 13A, 14A McNeilus Truck & Mfg $ 523,116.00 Total for Vehicles/Equipment $ 2,416,741.25 Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 3 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Philpott Ford Tymco Inc Vermeer of TX Equipment Support Services Nederland, TX Euless, TX 76040 Waco, TX Ft. Worth, Tx Moridge Mfg Inc Bob Cat of Denton Rush Trucks McNeilus Trucks Mounridge, KS Denton, TX San Antonio, TX Hutchins, TX ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The delivery schedule for this list of equipment varies from 10 to 220 days after receipt of an order. FISCAL INFORMATION These vehicles will be funded from the following sources: Department Account Number Dollar Amount Electric 60413605-602416605 -1355.3920 $ 393,857.60 Water 635009635-635014635-1355.3920 82,076.00 Wastewater 645004645.1355.3920 18,276.00 Wastewater Third Party Funding 432,142.32 Solid Waste Third Party Funding 1,137,346.00 Drainage 6550001645-6550005645-1355.3920 _ 353,043.33 $2,416,741.25 EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Vehicle & Equipment Pricing Sheets Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent Item 1 Item 2A Item 2B Item 2C Item 2D Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12A Item 12B Item 13A Item 13B Item 14 ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER THROUGH THE HOUSTON- GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL (H-GAC) AND BUY BOARD COOPERATIVE PURCHASING NETWORK FOR THE ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE CITY OF DENTON UTILITY FUND DEPARTMENTS BY WAY OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF DENTON; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (FILE 4224-INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF UTILITY FUND VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT AWARDED TO MULTIPLE VENDORS AS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,416,741.25). WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 95-107, the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Government (H-GAC) has solicited, received, and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies, or services in accordance with the procedures of state law on behalf of the City of Denton; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance 2005-034, the Buy Board Cooperative Purchasing Network has solicited, received, and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies, or services in accordance with the procedures of state law on behalf of the City of Denton; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described materials, equipment, supplies, or services can be purchased by the City through the Houston-Galveston Area Council of Government (H-GAC) and Buy Board Cooperative Purchasing Network at less cost than the City would expend if bidding these items individually; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies, or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The numbered items in the following numbered file for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, are hereby approved. ITEM NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 1-4 Buy Board/Philpott Ford $ 307,936.60 5 H-GAC/ Equipment Support Services $ 73,073.00 6 H-GAC/ Tymco $ 195,713.38 7 Buy Board/ Vermeer $ 53,905.95 8 Buy Board/Moridge Mfg inc. $ 22,785.00 9 Buy Board/Bob Cat $ 38,392.33 10,11, 12B, 13B, 14B Buy Board/Rush Truck Center $1,201,818.99 12A, 13A, 14A Buy Board/ McNeilus Truck & Mfg $ 523,116.00 SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items set forth in the referenced file, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids to the H-GAC or Buy Board for such items and agrees to purchase the materials, equipment, supplies, or services in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the bid documents and related documents filed with the above listed agencies, and the purchase orders issued by the City. SECTION 3. Should the City and persons submitting approved and accepted items set forth in the attached purchase orders wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of -GAC or Buy Board, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute the written contract; provided that the written contract is in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications and standards contained in the Proposal submitted to H-GAC or Buy Board, quantities and specified sums erein approved and accepted. SECTION 4. By the acceptance and approval of the above enumerated items, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _________________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ 3-ORD-4224 EXHIBIT A 2008-2009 UTILITY FUND VEHICLES Item Description Quant. Price (Ea)_ Department 1 Ford F150 Cab Pickup 1 $18,276 Water Treat 2A Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $58,442.60 Electric Dist 2B Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $49,572 Electric Dist 2C Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $51,712 Drainage 2C Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $51,712 Drainage 2D Ford F550 Cab/Chassis 1 $43,699 Water Mtr 3 Ford Ranger XL 1 $15,592 Water Prod 4 Ford F150 Super Cab XL 1 $18,931 Electric Dist 5 Case 590 M Series Loader/Backhoe 1 $73,073 W/W Coll 6 TYMCO Model 500 Sweeper 1 $195,713.38 Drainage 7 Vac-Tron PMD 855 SDT Trailer Mounted Vacuum 1 $53,905.95 Drainage 8 Grasshopper Model#430D/72 1 $11,392.50 Water Prod 8 Grasshopper Model#430D/72 1 $11,392.50 Water Prod 9 A300 Bob Cat All Wheel Loader 1 $38,392.33 W/W Coll 10 Peterbilt Model 340 Dump Truck 1 $106,892.33 Water Dist 10 Peterbilt Model 340 Dump Truck 1 $106,892.33 W/W Coll 10 Peterbilt Model 340 Dump Truck 1 $106,892.33 W/W Coll 11 Peterbilt Model 340 / Faussi Crane 1 $266,912 Electric Dist 12A Street Force Side Loader 1 $105,808 SW Res 12B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $121,550 SW Res 13A McNeilus #4029 Body 1 $101,902 SW Com 13A McNeilus #4029 Body 1 $101,902 SW Com 13A McNeilus #4029 Body 1 $101,902 SW Com 13B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $123,170 SW Com 13B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $123,170 SW Com 13B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $123,170 SW Com 14B Peterbilt Model 320 Chassis 1 $123,170 SW Recy 14A McNeilus#4029 Body w/Fork Scales 1 $111,602 SW Recy 28 $2,416,741.25 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD 3 January 26, 2009 4 5 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was 6 present, the Chair of the Public Utilities Board thereafter convened into an Open Meeting on 7 Monday, January 26, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton 8 Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. 9 Present: 10 Chair Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Bill Cheek, Phil Gallivan, Randy Robinson 11 and Bill Grubbs 12 13 Ex Officio Members: 14 George C. Campbell, City Manager 15 Howard Martin, ACM Utilities 16 Absent: 17 John Baines, excused 18 OPEN MEETING: 19 20 CONSENT AGENDA: 21 22 23 has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. 24 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 25 : 26 27 1) Consider recommending approval of the purchase of twenty-three vehicles and eight pieces 28 of equipment for the City of Denton Utility Fund Departments regarding individual motor 29 pool items approved in the 2008-2009 budget process. These units will be acquired utilizing 30 various cooperative purchasing agreements (File 4224 Interlocal Agreement for the 31 Purchase of Utility Fund Vehicles and Equipment in the amount of $2,416,341). 32 33 Board Member Bill Cheek asked for an explanation of what is included in a service package. 34 AMC Howard Martin called on Mike Ellis, Fleet Superintendent, to respond. Ellis replied it 35 includes items such as a hydraulic tool circuit or auto crane that will allow crews to perform day 36 to day functions. 37 38 Board Member Phil Gallivan asked if all were new vehicles. ACM Martin replied that items 39 noted on the right are all new additions and that everything else is 40 a replacement vehicle. 41 42 Board Member Bill Cheek asked if vehicles taken out of service will be auctioned off. Ellis 43 replied all would be auctioned off. 44 Board Member Phil Gallivan moved to approve Item 1 with a second from Board Member 45 Bill Cheek. The motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 46 47 48 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:13 a.m. 49 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Phil Williams 349-8487 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a public works contract for the construction of two control buildings for Denton Municipal Electric; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4200-Control Buildings for RD Wells Interchange awarded to Systems Control in the amount of $296,928 and Hickory Substation awarded to Stuart C. Irby Company in the amount of $216,090 for a total award of $513,018). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). BID INFORMATION This bid is for the purchase of control buildings for the RD Wells Interchange and Hickory Substation. Control buildings are required in each substation to house protective relay equipment, control devices, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) hardware, fiber optic communication electronics, station batteries, and battery chargers in a climate controlled environment. A complete description of the bid process and analysis is included in the Public Utilities Board Agenda Information Sheet (Exhibit 1). PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utilities Board approved this item at its January 26, 2009 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Award the control building for the RD Wells Interchange to Systems Control in the amount of $296,928 and the control building for Hickory Substation to Stuart C. Irby Company in the amount of $216,090 for a total award of $513,018. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Systems Control Stuart C. Irby Company Iron Mountain, MI Fort Worth, TX Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The Hickory Substation building can be delivered within 13 weeks of receipt of the order. The RD Wells Interchange building can be delivered within eight (8) weeks of receipt of the order. FISCAL INFORMATION The control building for RD Wells will be funded from account 600005488.1350.3530. Requisition 91665 has been entered in the Purchasing software system. The control building for the Hickory Substation will be funded from account 600128488.1350.3530. Requisition 91667 has been entered in the Purchasing software system. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Public Utilities Board Agenda Information Sheet Without Exhibits Exhibit 2: Bid Tabulation Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AIS-Bid 4200 2 Exhibit 1 PUBLIC UTILITES BOARD AGENDA ITEM #2 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE : January 26, 2009 DEPARTMENT : Electric Engineering ACM: Howard Martin, Utilities, 349-8232 SUBJECT: Consider recommending approval of Bid #4200 and awarding the purchase for manufacturing and delivery of the control buildings to Systems Control, Iron Mountain, MI, for the RD Wells Interchange in the amount of $296,928 and to Stuart C. Irby Company, Fort Worth, TX, for the Hickory Substation in the amount of $216,090 for a total expenditure amount of $513,018. BACKGROUND: The RD Wells Interchange and Hickory Substation projects are approved CIP projects. Their locations are shown in Exhibit 1. Control buildings are required in each station to house protective relay equipment, control devices, supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) hardware, fiber optic communication electronics, station batteries, and battery chargers in a climate controlled environment. The equipment contained in a station control building is the heart of the substation providing voltage and current sensing, metering, fault clearing, and control for just about everything that must happen in a station. Most of these devices are microprocessor based. A climate controlled building provides the best advantage for reliability; ease of installation, operation, and maintenance; and accessibility for future enhancements. Figure 1 below is a picture of a typical control building for substations. Figure 1 AIS PUB Agenda Item #2 January 26, 2009 Page 2 of 4 Figure 2 shows two pictures of the interior of a building similar to what the RD Wells and Hickory buildings will be like. Figure 2 Exhibit 2 contains site plans for the RD Wells Interchange and the Hickory Substation. Exhibit 3 contains floor plans for the two buildings proposed for purchase. Purchase of transformers, circuit breakers, instrument transformers, transmission switches, distribution switchgear, insulators, bus material, steel and the construction contract have all been previously awarded. Control buildings are required to complete construction of the RD Wells Interchange and the Hickory Substation. Bid #4200 was advertised in accordance with standard Purchasing Department procedures. Bid packages were provided to 22 vendors. Four bids were received. One bid was rejected because it did not include a bid bond. Information from the accepted bids is summarized in Exhibit 3. The bid was structured with a base bid for the buildings and options for a battery chargers, station batteries, and additional roof insulation. The bid was also structured to allow two prices for the RD Wells building because it is needed by early April to allow time for installation of the relay and control hardware inside the building to meet the planned June 1, 2009 completion date. Only Systems Control offered early delivery of the RD Wells building. There is no need for accelerated delivery of the Hickory building. The bid requested option pricing for for the RD Wells building. As can be seen from the bid summary in Exhibit 2, there is only a $5,281 difference in cost for the larger building. It is proposed to accept the extra width option for this very modest cost difference. There is not space in the Hickory Substation for a building. It is also proposed to accept the options for battery chargers, batteries, and the additional roof insulation. Exhibit 1 AIS PUB Agenda Item #2 January 26, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Several other items should be noted about this bid. None of the manufacturers met all the requirements of the specification. The areas for exceptions were the thickness of the metal on the inside and the outside of the buildings, the efficiency ratings on the air conditioning units, paint color for the exterior, and wall and ceiling load ratings. The manufacturers offered differing systems to meet the intent of the specification. While there were reasons for including certain requirements in the specification, the alternate proposals are acceptable. OPTIONS: 1. Recommend approval for purchase of control buildings in accordance with Bid #4200. 2. Not recommend approval for purchase of control buildings for the RD Wells Interchange and Hickory Substation from Bid #4200 and instruct other actions to be taken. RECOMMENDATION: DME recommends approval of Bid #4200 from Systems Control in the amount of $296,928 for purchase of the RD Wells control building and approval of Bid #4200 from Stuart C. Irby Company in the amount of $216,090 for purchase of the Hickory Substation control building. This includes all options. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (Council, Boards, Commissions): None FISCAL INFORMATION: The total expenditure for the control building for the RD Wells Interchange as a part of Bid #4200 is estimated to be $296,928 and will be funded with bond funds from project account 600005488. The total expenditure for the control building for the Hickory Substation as a part of Bid #4200 is estimated to be $216,090 and will be funded with bond funds from project account 600128488. BID INFORMATION: The bid information is summarized in Exhibit 2. DATE SCHEDULED FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL: February 3, 2009 EXHIBITS: 1. Station Location Map 2. Site Plans 3. Building Floor Plans 4. Summary and Evaluation of Bid #4200 Respectfully submitted: Phil Williams, General Manager of Electric Utilities Denton Municipal Electric AIS PUB Agenda Item #2 January 26, 2009 Page 4 of 4 Prepared by: Chuck Sears Engineering Division Manager Denton Municipal Electric EXHIBIT 2 Þ×Ü ýìîðð ÜßÌÛæ Ö¿²«¿®§ ïëô îððç ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ º±® ÎÜ É»´´ ײ¬»®½¸¿²¹» ¿²¼ Ø·½µ±®§ Í«¾¬¿¬·±² ׬»³ÜÛÍÝÎ×ÐÌ×ÑÒÊÛÒÜÑÎÊÛÒÜÑÎÊÛÒÜÑÎ ØÜ Í«°°´§ ˬ·´·¬·» ͬ«¿®¬ Ýò ×®¾§Í§¬»³ ݱ²¬®±´ Í»®ª·½» Ю·²½·°´» д¿½» ±º Þ«·²»æ Ú±®¬ ɱ®¬¸ô ÌÈͬ®»»¬¾±®±ô ÑØ×®±² Ó±«²¬¿·²ô Ó× ïÞ«·´¼·²¹ Ú¿¾®·½¿¬±® Ì®¿½¸¬»ßÆÆ ó 第¾«®¹ô ÕÍͧ¬»³ ݱ²¬®±´ îÓ¿²«º¿½¬«®·²¹ Ú¿½·´·¬§Ñ®»¹±²ô É×第¾«®¹ô ÕÍ×®±² Ó±«²¬¿·²ô Ó× í Ø·½µ±®§ ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ïìù ¨ ìðù Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ю·½»üïéíôíçðòððüïêçôéëîòððüïçìôêìîòðð ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§ Ì·³» øßÎÑ÷ïí É»»µ ßÎÑïê É»»µ ßÎÑïî ó ïì É»»µ ßÎÑ ÎÜ É»´´ ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ñ°¬·±² ßæ ïìù ¨ ëêù Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ю·½» º±® è É»»µ Ü»´·ª»®§ øßÎÑ÷öÒßÒßüîêêôîíéòðð Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ю·½» º±® ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§üîïéôéìðòððüîííôèìîòððüîêêôîíéòðð ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§ Ì·³» øßÎÑ÷ïê É»»µ ßÎÑïê É»»µ ßÎÑïî ó ïì É»»µ ßÎÑ Ñ°¬·±² Þæ ïêù ¨ ëêù Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ю·½» º±® è É»»µ Ü»´·ª»®§ øßÎÑ÷öÒßÒßüîéïôëïèòðð Þ«·´¼·²¹ Ю·½» º±® ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§üîîîôçèðòððüîìçôèïíòððüîéïôëïèòðð ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§ Ì·³» øßÎÑ÷ïê É»»µ ßÎÑïê É»»µ ßÎÑïî ó ïì É»»µ ßÎÑ éß¼¼·¬·±²¿´ ݱ¬ º±® Ñ°¬·±²¿´ Îíè α±º ײ«´¿¬·±²üíêðòððüçëçòððÒñß èÞ·¼ Þ±²¼ ±® Ý»®¬·º·»¼ ݸ»½µ ¿¬¬¿½¸»¼Ç»Ç»Ç» ïïÑ°¬·±²¿´ ïîë ÊÜÝ Þ¿¬¬»®·» ¿²¼ ο½µüíìôéîðòððüìèôîïðòððüîðôððíòðð ïîÑ°¬·±²¿´ ïîë ÊÜÝô îë ¿³° Þ¿¬¬»®§ ݸ¿®¹»®üéôêîðòððüéôíêëòððüëôìðéòðð ̱¬¿´ Ю·½» º±® Ø·½µ±®§ ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ ©·¬¸ Ñ°¬·±² üîïêôðçðòðð üîîêôîèêòððüîîðôðëîòðð ó ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§ ̱¬¿´ Ю·½» º±® ÎÜ É»´´ ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ô üîêðôììðòððüîçðôíéêòððüîçïôêìéòðð Ñ°¬·±² ß ©·¬¸ Ñ°¬·±² ó ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§ ̱¬¿´ Ю·½» º±® ÎÜ É»´´ ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ô ÒñßÒñßüîçïôêìéòðð Ñ°¬·±² ß ©·¬¸ Ñ°¬·±² ó Û¿®´§ Ü»´·ª»®§ ̱¬¿´ Ю·½» º±® ÎÜ É»´´ ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ô üîêëôêèðòððüíðêôíìéòððüîçêôçîèòðð Ñ°¬·±² Þ ©·¬¸ Ñ°¬·±² ó ͬ¿²¼¿®¼ Ü»´·ª»®§ ̱¬¿´ Ю·½» º±® ÎÜ É»´´ ݱ²¬®±´ Þ«·´¼·²¹ô ÒñßÒñß üîçêôçîèòðð Ñ°¬·±² Þ ©·¬¸ Ñ°¬·±² ó Û¿®´§ Ü»´·ª»®§ öÏ«±¬»¼ ïð É»»µ Ü»´·ª»®§ ®¿¬¸»® ¬¸¿² è ©»»µ ¼»´·ª»®§ ®»¯«»¬»¼ Ю·½» ¸¿´´ ¾» ¾·¼ ÚòÑòÞò Ü»²¬±² öÞ·¼ ¾±²¼ ®»¯«·®»¼ò Ю±°±¿´ ®»½»·ª»¼ ©·¬¸±«¬ ¾·¼ ¾±²¼ ¿®» ½±²·¼»®»¼ ²±²ó®»°±²·ª»ò Ò±¬»æ Ô·²» ·¬»³ ¸¿ª» ¾»»² ®»¼¿½¬»¼ò ̸» ®»¼¿½¬»¼ ´·²» ·¬»³ ¼± ²±¬ ®»º´»½¬ °®·½·²¹ ·²º±®³¿¬·±²ò ORDINANCE NO. _________ AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO CONTROL BUILDINGS FOR DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 4200-CONTROL BUILDINGS FOR RD WELLS INTERCHANGE AWARDED TO SYSTEMS CONTROL IN THE AMOUNT OF $296,928 AND HICKORY SUBSTATION AWARDED TO STUART C. IRBY COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $216,090 FOR A TOTAL AWARD OF $513,018). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has received and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the construction of the public works or improvements described in the bid invitation, bid proposals and plans and specifications therein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The following competitive bids for the construction of public works or improvements, as described in the "Bid Invitations", "Bid Proposals" or plans and specifications on file in the Office of the City's Purchasing Agent filed according to the bid number assigned hereto, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids: BID ITEM NUMBER NUMBER CONTRACTOR AMOUNT 4200 1 Stuart C. Irby Company $216,090 4200 2 Systems Control $296,928 SECTION 2. The acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids shall not constitute a contract between the City and the person submitting the bid for construction of such public works or improvements herein accepted and approved, until such person shall comply with all requirements specified in the Notice to Bidders including the timely execution of a written contract and furnishing of performance and payment bonds, and insurance certificate after notification of the award of the bid. SECTION 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute all necessary written contracts for the performance of the construction of the public works or improvements in accordance with the bids accepted and approved herein, provided that such contracts are made in accordance with the Notice to Bidders and Bid Proposals, and documents relating thereto specifying the terms, conditions, plans and specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained therein. SECTION 4. Upon acceptance and approval of the above competitive bids and the execution of contracts for the public works and improvements as authorized herein, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds in the manner and in the amount as specified in such approved bids and authorized contracts executed pursuant thereto. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of ,2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ 3-ORD-Bid 4200 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD 3 January 26, 2009 4 5 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was 6 present, the Chair of the Public Utilities Board thereafter convened into an Open Meeting on 7 Monday, January 26, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton 8 Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. 9 Present: 10 Chair Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Bill Cheek, Phil Gallivan, Randy Robinson 11 and Bill Grubbs 12 13 Ex Officio Members: 14 George C. Campbell, City Manager 15 Howard Martin, ACM Utilities 16 Absent: 17 John Baines, excused 18 OPEN MEETING: 19 20 CONSENT AGENDA: 21 22 23 has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. 24 25 2) Consider recommending approval of Bid #4200 and awarding the purchase for 26 manufacturing and delivery of the control buildings to Systems Control, Iron Mountain, MI, 27 for the RD Wells Interchange in the amount of $296,928 and to Stuart C. Irby Company, Fort 28 Worth, TX, for the Hickory Substation in the amount of $216,090 for a total expenditure 29 amount of $513,018. 30 Board Member Phil Gallivan moved to approve Item 2 with a second from Board Member 31 Randy Robinson. The motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 32 33 34 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:13 a.m. 35 36 Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting January 26, 2009 Page 2 of 4 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION 1 : 2 3 1) Consider recommending approval of the purchase of twenty-three vehicles and eight pieces 4 of equipment for the City of Denton Utility Fund Departments regarding individual motor 5 pool items approved in the 2008-2009 budget process. These units will be acquired utilizing 6 various cooperative purchasing agreements (File 4224 Interlocal Agreement for the 7 Purchase of Utility Fund Vehicles and Equipment in the amount of $2,416,341). 8 9 Board Member Bill Cheek asked for an explanation of what is included in a service package. 10 AMC Howard Martin called on Mike Ellis, Fleet Superintendent, to respond. Ellis replied it 11 includes items such as a hydraulic tool circuit or auto crane that will allow crews to performed 12 day to day functions. 13 14 Board Member Phil Gallivan asked if all were new vehicles. ACM Martin replied that items 15 noted on the right are all new additions and that everything else is 16 a replacement vehicle. 17 18 Board Member Bill Cheek asked if those vehicles taken out of service will be auctioned off. 19 Ellis replied all would be auctioned off. 20 Board Member Phil Gallivan moved to approve Item 1 with a second from Board Member 21 Bill Cheek. The motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 22 23 24 4) Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for 25 the purchase of underground line location services for Denton Municipal Electric; providing 26 for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4178-Underground 27 Line Location awarded to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. in the amount of $265,000). 28 29 Board Member Dick Smith asked if the current $265,000 is the total dollar amount regardless of 30 the number of line locates. ACM Martin called on Jeff Morris, Operations Division Manager. 31 Morris replied that the dollar amount is based on the number of locations and that the City is not 32 obligated for that amount, only for per line location. Board Member Smith asked how many line 33 locations there were last year. Morris replied approximately 1500. Morris also stated that other 34 factors are considered such as line locations in a whole subdivision which is considered a project 35 and has a different price and is also included in the bid package. Smith stated it did not appear to 36 be a bad idea to subcontract this out, but he is concerned that there are no facts to back it up. It 37 appears that the city is subcontracting more and more work out rather than doing it in-house. 38 ACM Martin replied the city is using contractors where possible. Phil Williams, DME General 39 Manager, stated that ideally there is a base amount of work for city crews. When there is a 40 project such as ten miles of line to be run, which is simple and straight forward, the intention is 41 to contract that growth work out and when it is finished then contract goes away. The Utilities 42 department handles unusual workloads and peaks with contract, not by adding additional staff. 43 Morris stated that line locates fall into that category because they fluctuate tremendously. 44 Board Member Smith asked if the city has used this group before. Morris replied no but that it is 45 a large company used throughout states. Board Member Smith asked if this company would be 46 held to the same standards as city crews. Morris replied that it would and if it failed to meet 47 those standards the contract would be terminated. Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting January 26, 2009 Page 3 of 4 Board Member Dick Smith moved to approved Item 4 with a second from Bill Cheek. The 1 motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 2 3 4 5) Consider approval of a professional services agreement with Raftelis Financial Consultants, 5 Inc. for professional consulting services relating to the water and wastewater utilities cost of 6 service and rate design study in an amount not to exceed $89,948. 7 8 Board Member Dick Smith asked if the City is required to conduct a study every five to seven 9 years and stated that he did not see a date when the last study was done. ACM Martin replied he 10 did not know that the City is required, but that the general business practice is to do one every 11 five to seven years and during the interim to utilize staff. Board Member Smith asked when the 12 last study was done. Tim Fisher, Assistant Director of Water Utilities, replied that a study was 13 conducted in 2003. Board Member Smith asked how long the process would take. Fisher 14 replied approximately four months. 15 Board Member Smith moved to approve with a second from Board Member Randy 16 Robinson. The motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 17 18 19 6) Consider recommending approval of the Public Utilities Board meeting minutes of: 20 a. January 12, 2008 21 22 7) Receive a draft report and discuss the Water, Wastewater, and Engineering Management 23 Study performed by Matrix Consulting Group; and discuss, deliberate, consider, and provide 24 staff with direction regarding such matters. 25 26 8) Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding a proposed strategy for Utilities Customer 27 Service. 28 29 9) Consider an agreement with Fidelity Express for remote payment acceptance. 30 31 10) ACM Update: 32 a) Chair Charldean Newell announced that a quorum was present and convened into a closed 33 meeting at 9:00 a.m. to consider the following under the provision of §551.072 of the Texas 34 Government Code. 35 36 CLOSED MEETING 37 : 38 39 40 the provisions of Texas Government Code §551.086(c) relating to 41 the Chair of the PUB shall first announce the time, and then the PUB must then vote and make a 42 good faith determination, by a majority vote of its members, that if any particular agenda item 43 44 45 agenda, then a separate vote must be taken for each item. The vote shall be taken during the 46 Closed Meeting and shall be included in the certified agenda or tape recording of the Closed 47 Meeting. If the PUB fails to determine by a majority vote of its members that the particular Draft Minutes of the Public Utilities Board meeting January 26, 2009 Page 4 of 4 1 agenda item satisfies the requirements of §551.086(b)(3), then the PUB may not discuss, 2 deliberate or take any further action on that Agenda item in its Closed Meeting. For any agenda 3 item listed under any other section of the Texas Government Code, other than §551.086, 4 consideration in the Closed Meeting is permitted without the necessity of a preliminary motion 5 and a vote of the Board being taken.] 6 A.CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY --- Under Texas Government Code 7 §551.071. 8 9 10 1. Receive a status report, briefing and information regarding the litigation entitled City 11 of Denton v University of North Texas, Cause No. 2008-20043-158, now pending th 12 before the 158 Judicial District Court in and for Denton County, Texas; and 13 discuss, deliberate 14 recommendations regarding such legal matter. A public discussion of this legal 15 matter would conflict with 16 Board under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of 17 Texas. 18 B.DELIBERATIONS REGARDING CERTAIN PUBLIC POWER UTILITIES: 19 COMPETITIVE MATTERS --- Under Texas Government Code §551.086. 20 21 22 1) Receive competitive electric information, including financial information from staff 23 nd 24 25 26 deliberate, consider, determine policy, and provide Staff with direction regarding 27 such matters. 28 29 2. Receive information from Staff, discuss, deliberate and consider approval of and/or 30 action regarding proposed electric generation acquisition issues, which matters are 31 competitive public power information and financial matters. 32 33 11) Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Government Code, respond to inquiries from the Board 34 or the public with specific factual information or recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to 35 place the matter on the agenda for an upcoming meeting. 36 37 12) Official Action, if necessary, on Closed Meeting item(s) under §551.071-551.088 of the 38 Texas Government Code, as amended. 39 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Phil Williams 349-8487 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of underground line location services for Denton Municipal Electric; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4178-Underground Line Location awarded to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. in the annual estimated amount of $265,000). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). BID INFORMATION This bid is for Denton Municipal Electric (DME) to contract out line locating services instead of performing this in-house. Contracting out the service will allow DME to better utilize existing staff by increasing the productivity of the maintenance crew, decreasing overtime expenses, and decreasing the overall cost of line locates. A complete description of the line locating service is included in the attached Public Utilities Board agenda information sheet (Exhibit 1). PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utilities Board approved this item at its January 26, 2009 meeting. RECOMMENDATION Award to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. in the annual estimated amount of $265,000. PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. Carmel, IN ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT This is a twelve (12) month contract, effective from date of award or notice to proceed as determined by the City of Denton Purchasing Department. At the City of Denton approval by the vendor, the contract may be renewed for four (4) additional one (1) year periods, contingent upon the renewal options listed in the bid specifications. Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 FISCAL INFORMATION The line locates will be funded from account 600200.7899.5840 as the service is requested. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Public Utilities Board Agenda Information Sheet Without Exhibits Exhibit 2: Bid Tabulation Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AIS-4178 Exhibit 1 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD AGENDA ITEM #4 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: January 26, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Electric ACM: Howard Martin, Utilities 349-8232 SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for the purchase of underground line location services for Denton Municipal Electric; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4178-Underground Line Location awarded to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. in the amount of $265,000). BACKGROUND DME currently performs all of its line locates in-house. A line locate consists of a contractor, or customer calling in a line locate to Digg Tess, (which is the one call reporting system for line locates in Texas). Digg Tess then sends out a request to DME for a line locates to be done. All DME line locates are received by DME Dispatch from Digg Tess, dispatchers then enter and assign line locates as job orders, which are then issued to the Line Locator. On a normal day the DME Line Locator can complete up to 30 locates, costing $20.24 per locate, which includes salary, benefits and vehicle. On most days the locate count for the day can reach as many as 80 line locates, when this happens DME service truck consisting of two lineman per truck are pulled away from their daily routine to help complete the daily line locate schedule. For a service truck and its personnel to help with locates it costs DME $28.40 per locate. After hour locates otherwise known as emergency line locates are completed by the on call personnel, this consists of a Lineman, a helper, service truck, and a ¾ ton pickup. These calls are usually single locates requested by other utilities (water, phone and cable TV). When making emergency repairs to their systems, these locates costs DME $106.50 per locate. DME is requesting by approval of this bid to contract out all of the line locates. This has become the industry standards and will allow for DME to better utilize staff as outlined below. DME will benefit in the following areas: 1. Service Trucks will be able to increase productivity on maintenance job orders, streetlight repairs, system reliability, and customer service. 2. Over time cost will decrease with the on call personnel not having to do emergency line locates. 3. Current DME Line Locator position will be moved to the maintenance department as a Lineman and will be able to add to the productivity of the maintenance crew. 4. All line locate requests will go straight to the line locate contractor from Digg Tess, a weekly report of all line locate activity will be delivered to DME electronically from the Line Locate Contractor on a weekly basis thus increasing productivity within our utility dispatch department. 5. Overall cost of Line Locates will decrease. Exhibit 1 AIS PUB Agenda Item #4 January 26, 2009 Page 2 of 2 OPTIONS 1. Award a contract to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. and free up DME personnel for more productive maintenance activities 2. Denial of contract to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. and continue to utilize DME personnel RECOMMENDATION DME recommends awarding the contract for Underground Line Location Service to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISIONS) None DATE SCHEDULED FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL February 3, 2009 FISCAL INFORMATION 08-09 budget in the amount of $265,000 under the following codes: 600200.7899.5840 EXHIBITS 1. Bid Evaluation Sheet Phil Williams General Manager Denton Municipal Electric Prepared by: Jeff Morris, Operations Division Manager Denton Municipal Electric Exhibit 2 BID # 4178 DATE: 1/6/09 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR UNDERGROUND LINE LOCATION SERVICE ITEMDESCRIPTIONVENDORVENDORVENDORVENDOR ݱ²±´·¼¿¬»¼ Ø»¿¬¸ êðí èéôñôéä ˬ·´·¬§ Í»®ª·½» ˬ·´·Ï«»¬ ݱ²«´¬¿²¬ëøêîèëúøê ¼¾¿ Ù®»¿¬ д¿·² Ô±½¿¬·²¹ Í»®ª·½» Principle Place of Business:ر«¬±²ô ÌÈѳ¿¸¿ô ÒÛ߬´¿²¬¿ô Ùß úÜËÐØÑ ôï Total Charge per Digg Tess Ticket during 1normal business hours üîíòêëüïïòêðüïîòðð (Monday - Friday 8 till 5 pm) Total Charge per Digg Tess Ticket for 2 Òñßüìîòðð üíìòðð emergency or after normal business hours. Project Rate (Locates 3over 8 hours) üëîòîë üìîòðð üëîòëð ñØÎ õë $______ per locates Site Surveillance Fee 4 üìîòëð üìîòðð üëîòëð $________ per hour ADDENDUM # 1 ÒÑÇÛÍÇÛÍ äøê ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING COMPETITIVE BIDS AND AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF UNDERGROUND LINE LOCATION SERVICES FOR DENTON MUNICIPAL ELECTRIC; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 4178-UNDERGROUND LINE LOCATION AWARDED TO SM&P UTILITY RESOURCES, INC. IN THE ANNUAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF $265,000). WHEREAS, the City has solicited, received and tabulated competitive bids for the purchase of necessary materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the procedures of State law and City ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Manager or a designated employee has reviewed and recommended that the herein described bids are the lowest responsible bids for the materials, equipment, supplies or services as shown in the "Bid Proposals" submitted therefore; and WHEREAS, the City Council has provided in the City Budget for the appropriation of funds to be used for the purchase of the materials, equipment, supplies or services approved and accepted herein; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The numbered items in the following numbered bids for materials, equipment, supplies, or services, shown in the "Bid Proposals" on file in the office of the City Purchasing Agent, are hereby accepted and approved as being the lowest responsible bids for such items: BID NUMBER VENDOR AMOUNT 4178 SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. Exhibit A SECTION 2. By the acceptance and approval of the above numbered items of the submitted bids, the City accepts the offer of the persons submitting the bids for such items and agrees to pur- chase the materials, equipment, supplies or services in accordance with the terms, specifications, standards, quantities and for the specified sums contained in the Bid Invitations, Bid Proposals, and related documents. SECTION 3. Should the City and the winning bidder(s) wish to enter into a formal written agreement as a result of the acceptance, approval, and awarding of the bids, the City Manager or his designated representative is hereby authorized to execute a written contract in accordance with the terms, conditions, specifications, standards, quantities and specified sums contained in the Bid Proposal and related documents and to extend that contract as determined to be advantageous to the City of Denton. SECTION 4. By the acceptance and approval of the above enumerated bids, the City Council hereby authorizes the expenditure of funds therefor in the amount and in accordance with the approved bids. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _________________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ 3-ORD-4178 Exhibit A BID # 4178 DATE: 1/6/09 ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR ITEMDESCRIPTIONVENDOR êðí èéôñôéä ëøêîèëúøê Principle Place of Business:úÜËÐØÑ ôï Total Charge per Digg Tess Ticket during 1normal business hours (Monday - Friday 8 till 5 pm) Total Charge per Digg Tess Ticket for 2 emergency or after normal business hours. Project Rate (Locates 3over 8 hours) õë $______ per locates Site Surveillance Fee 4 $________ per hour ADDENDUM # 1 äøê 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD 3 January 26, 2009 4 5 After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was 6 present, the Chair of the Public Utilities Board thereafter convened into an Open Meeting on 7 Monday, January 26, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton 8 Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. 9 Present: 10 Chair Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Bill Cheek, Phil Gallivan, Randy Robinson 11 and Bill Grubbs 12 13 Ex Officio Members: 14 George C. Campbell, City Manager 15 Howard Martin, ACM Utilities 16 Absent: 17 John Baines, excused 18 OPEN MEETING: 19 20 ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION: 21 22 23 4) Consider adoption of an ordinance accepting competitive bids and awarding a contract for 24 the purchase of underground line location services for Denton Municipal Electric; providing 25 for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4178-Underground 26 Line Location awarded to SM&P Utility Resources, Inc. in the amount of $265,000). 27 28 Board Member Dick Smith asked if the current $265,000 is the total dollar amount regardless of 29 the number of line locates. ACM Martin called on Jeff Morris, Operations Division Manager. 30 Morris replied that the dollar amount is based on the number of locations and that the City is not 31 obligated for that amount, only for per line location. Board Member Smith asked how many line 32 locations there were last year. Morris replied approximately 1500. Morris also stated that other 33 factors are considered such as line locations in a whole subdivision which is considered a project 34 and has a different price and is also included in the bid package. Smith stated it did not appear to 35 be a bad idea to subcontract this out, but he is concerned that there are no facts to back it up. It 36 appears that the city is subcontracting more and more work out rather than doing it in-house. 37 ACM Martin replied the city is using contractors where possible. Phil Williams, DME General 38 Manager, stated that ideally there is a base amount of work for city crews. When there is a 39 project such as ten miles of line to be run, which is simple and straight forward, the intention is 40 to contract that growth work out and when it is finished then contract goes away. The Utilities 41 department handles unusual workloads and peaks with contract, not by adding additional staff. 42 Morris stated that line locates fall into that category because they fluctuate tremendously. 43 Board Member Smith asked if the city has used this group before. Morris replied no but that it is 44 a large company used throughout states. Board Member Smith asked if this company would be 45 held to the same standards as city crews. Morris replied that it would and if it failed to meet 46 those standards the contract would be terminated. 47 Board Member Dick Smith moved to approved Item 4 with a second from Bill Cheek. The 48 motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 49 50 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:13 a.m. 51 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009Questions concerning this acquisition may be directed DEPARTMENT: Materials Management to Phil Williams 349-8487 ACM: Jon Fortune SUBJECT Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order Numbers One and Two to the contract between the City of Denton and Chain Electric Company; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date (Bid 4152-138 kV Transmission Line Construction 2009 Change Order Number One in the amount of $88,605 and Change Order Number Two in the amount of $21,000 for a total Change Order amount of $109,605). The Public Utilities Board recommends approval (6-0). CHANGE ORDER INFORMATION Change Order Number One will allow Chain Electric Company to subcontract the right-of-way clearing for the Hickory Substation and RD Wells Interchange projects and to also install three permanent metal gates on properties that Denton Municipal Electric will be entering to install transmission lines. It was first thought that it would be more cost effective to bid the right-of- way clearing separately, however, after further research it has been determined that it would be more cost effective and save time to allow Chain Electric to subcontract this portion of the project at a cost of $88,605. Change Order Number Two is for the removal of a portion of existing distribution line along Corbin Road as part of the RD Wells Interchange project. Denton Municipal Electric (DME) had originally planned to use their crews to do the removal. However, due to current workload, DME staff recommends allowing Chain Electric Company to perform the removal of these lines at a cost of $21,000. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW (COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS) The Public Utilities Board approved this item at its January 26, 2009, meeting. Bid 4152 was awarded to Chain Electric Company by Council on October 21, 2008, in the amount of $3,629,189.25. RECOMMENDATION Approve Change Order Number One in the amount of $88,605 and Change Order Number Two in the amount of $21,000 for a total bid award amount of $3,738,794.25. Agenda Information Sheet February 3, 2009 Page 2 PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS Chain Electric Company Hattiesburg, MS ESTIMATED SCHEDULE OF PROJECT The change orders will not affect the estimated completion time of the projects which is May 2009. FISCAL INFORMATION The change orders will be funded from the RD Wells project account 600130489.1360.3550. EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Change Order Numbers One and Two Respectfully submitted: Tom Shaw, C.P.M., 349-7100 Purchasing Agent 1-AIS-Bid 4152 Exhibit 1 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NUMBERS ONE AND TWO TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF DENTON AND CHAIN ELECTRIC COMPANY; PROVIDING FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS THEREFOR; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE (BID 4152-138 KV TRANSMISSION LINE CONSTRUCTION 2009 CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,605 AND CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,000 FOR A TOTAL CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT OF $109,605). WHEREAS, on October 21, 2008 by Ordinance No. 2008-252, the City awarded a public works contract to Chain Electric Company, in the amount of $3,629,189.25 for 138 kV Transmission Line Construction 2009; and WHEREAS, the Staff having recommended, and the City Manager having recommended to the Council that a change order be authorized to amend such contract agreement with respect to the scope of work and an increase in the payment amount, and said change order fees under the proposed contract are fair and reasonable and are consistent with and not higher than the recommended and such fees do not exceed the maximum provided by law; NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION 1. The Change Order Number One, increasing the amount of the contract between the City and Chain Electric Company, which is on file in the office of the Purchasing Agent, in the amount of Eighty Eight Thousand Six Hundred Five and 0/100 ($88,605) Dollars and Change Order Number Two in the amount of Twenty One Thousand and 0/100 Dollars ($21,000), is hereby approved and the expenditure of funds therefor is hereby authorized in accordance with said change orders. The total purchase order amount increases to $3,738,794.25. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and approval. PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of, 2009. ______________________________ MARK A. BURROUGHS, MAYOR ATTEST: JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY BY: _________________________________ APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: ANITA BURGESS, CITY ATTORNEY BY: _________________________________ Bid 3-ORD Bid 4152 1DRAFT MINUTES 2PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD 3January 26, 2009 4 5After determining that a quorum of the Public Utilities Board of the City of Denton, Texas was 6present, the Chair of the Public Utilities Board thereafter convened into an Open Meeting on 7Monday, January 26, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. in the Service Center Training Room, City of Denton 8Service Center, 901-A Texas Street, Denton, Texas. 9 Present: 10Chair Charldean Newell, Dick Smith, Bill Cheek, Phil Gallivan, Randy Robinson 11and Bill Grubbs 12 13Ex Officio Members: 14 George C. Campbell, City Manager 15 Howard Martin, ACM Utilities 16 Absent: 17John Baines, excused 18 OPEN MEETING: 19 20 CONSENT AGENDA: 21 22 23has had an opportunity to raise questions regarding these items prior to consideration. 24 253)Consider adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order 26Numbers One and Two to the contract between the City of Denton and Chain Electric 27Company; providing for the expenditure of funds therefor; and providing an effective date 28(Bid 4152-138 kV Transmission Line Construction 2009 Change Order Number One in the 29amount of $88,605 and Change Order Number Two in the amount of $21,000 for a total 30Change Order amount of $109,605). 31 Board Member Phil Gallivan moved to approve Item 3 with a second from Board Member 32 Randy Robinson. The motion was approved by a 6-0 vote. 33 34 35The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 11:13 a.m. 36 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Building Inspections ACM: Fred Greene _____________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Building Code, 2006 International Residential Code for one and two family dwellings, 2006 International Fuel Gas Code, 2006 International Plumbing Code, and the 2006 International Mechanical Code all published by the International Code Council; regulating and governing the conditions and maintenance of all property, buildings and structures; by providing the standards for supplied utilities and facilities and other physical things and conditions essential to ensure that structures are safe, sanitary and fit for occupancy and use; providing for the condemnation of buildings and structures unfit for human occupancy, providing for the regulation and governing of the construction, altering, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment location, removal and demolition of detached one and two family dwellings and multiple single family dwellings not more than three stories in height with separate means of egress; providing the regulation and governing of the design construction, quality of materials, erection, installation, alteration, repairs, location, relocation, replacement, addition to, use or maintenance of plumbing and mechanical systems in the city of Denton, Texas; providing for the regulation and governing of fuel gas systems and gas fired appliances; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees thereof; providing for amendments thereto; providing for a penalty for violation of a fine not to exceed $2,000.00; providing for a severability clause; repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND The International Model Code consists of the: International Residential Code, International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fire Code, and International Energy Conservation Code. The International Codes are also intended to provide regulations that safeguard public health and safety in all communities. While the Codes are initially composed on a national level, they are amended to suit local needs. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has participated in the development of local regional amendments. Several of these amendments are found in each of the Codes proposed for adoption. The 2000 International Codes were first adopted by the City of Denton in February of 2002. Prior to the adoption of the 2000 International Codes, the City of Denton adopted the Uniform 1 process through the International Code Council (ICC). Changes to the International Codes are brought about by new technology and events that have occurred throughout the nation. The majority of the changes are related to health and safety. Building Inspections staff has performed a comprehensive local review of the subject changes. In addition, Staff has had meetings with the Committee on the Environment regarding possible code changes to increase energy efficiency in new buildings. The Committee supports the proposed changes. City staff met with members of the building community in November of 2008. This meeting provided information to the building community regarding the proposed changes to the International Codes. Special attention was given to the proposed local amendments. This meeting also allowed the building community to provide input regarding the changes. Through a collaborative effort between the building community and the City of Denton, staff proposed to increase amendments to energy efficiency of new residential buildings. The building community supports the proposal. The purpose of the proposed International Codes is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare. This will be accomplished by addressing structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, adequate light, ventilation, and energy conservation. Safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment are also addressed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW Building Inspections held a Contractor Luncheon on November 19, 2008 and discussed the adoption of the Irrigation ordinance, the IECC ordinance, and the Building Code ordinance. The Construction Advisory and Appeals Board heard a report and held a discussion on November 20, 2008 about the adoption of the 2006 International Codes, including the IECC with the 10% over amendment and the other proposed International Building Codes with their amendments. FISCAL INFORMATION There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of the proposed codes. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance 2. November 20, 2008 Construction Advisory and Appeals Board Minutes Prepared by: Respectfully Submitted: Kurt Hansen Mark Cunningham, AICP, CPM Building Official Director, Planning and Development Division 2 Exhibit 2 Minutes Construction Advisory and Appeals Board November 20, 2008 Members present: Dana Binnion, Jim Strange, Brian Bentley, Alan Nelson, Colleen Isaguirre and Ira Weinstein Staff members present: Kurt Hansen, Glenda Gailliard, Zackery Loiselle, Elizabeth Coleman and John Knight I.Welcome and Call to Order Alan Nelson called meeting to order at 4:04 p. m. II.Pledge of Allegiance a.U.S. Flag b.Texas Flag III. Consider approval of the minutes of October 16, 2008. Ira made a motion to approved the minutes of October 16, 2008. Seconded by Dana. Motion carried 6-0. IV.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 819 Lakey Street. John Knight, Assistant City Attorney and Elizabeth Coleman, Substandard Structure Officer came forward. Elizabeth Coleman and Kurt Hansen was sworn in by Alan Nelson. Elizabeth began to go through several exhibits of the property located at 819 Lakey Street allowing the members to view the structure. John Knight also passed copies of the exhibits to the members of the board. John Knight asked Elizabeth questions regarding the process of declaring a structure substandard to further give the board additional information regarding the property at 819 Lakey. There was a brief discussion. John Knight asked Kurt if he had gone by the structure and if he felt it was substandard. Public hearing opened at 4:23 p.m. Public hearing closed at 4:24 p.m. Dana made a motion to declare the structure substandard, dilapidated, unfit for human habitation, and a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare with a 90 day extension. Seconded by Jim. Motion carried 6-0. V.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 530 Maddox. John Knight suggested that we move this item to the next meeting, because the structure is possibly in the process of being demolished. Alan entertained a motion for item number V to be tabled until the next meeting. Jim made a motion to table item number V until the next meeting. Seconded by Ira. Motion carried 6-0. VI.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2009 Irrigation Code as directed by State Statue and make recommendation to City Council. Alan asked Kurt to present the information concerning the 2009 Irrigation Code. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the new TCEQ law which will be effective January 1, 2009. Handouts were given to the board members. There was a brief discussion. VII.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as directed by State Statue. There was a brief discussion. VIII. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. There was no representative present for the Fire Department. There was a brief discussion. IX. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International building Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Residential Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Plumbing Code as amended by the City, 2006 Mechanical Code as amended by the City, and the 2006 International Fuel Gas Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. X.Hold a discussion concerning: (1) the starting time of future CAAB meetings, (2) shall the board meet in December, and (3) staff will give the CAAB a status report of the properties requested to be demolished at our last CAAB meeting. 1. The starting time for future CAAB meetings were approved for 4:00 p.m. 2. It was agreed that the board will meet December 18, 2008. 3. XI.There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:15p.m. AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Building Inspections ACM: Fred Greene SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton, Texas amending Section 28-27 of the Code of Ordinances to provide for the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code, as published by the International Code Council; providing for amendments thereto; providing for a penalty for violation of a fine not to exceed $2000.00; providing for a severability clause; repealing all ordinances in conflict therewith; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND onsistency. The International Model Code consists of the: International Residential Code, International Building Code, International Mechanical Code, International Fuel Gas Code, International Plumbing Code, International Fire Code, and International Energy Conservation Code. The International Codes are also intended to provide regulations that safeguard public health and safety in all communities. While the Codes are initially composed on a national level, they are amended to suit local needs. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has participated in the development of local regional amendments. Several of these amendments are found in each of the Codes proposed for adoption. The 2000 International Codes were first adopted by the City of Denton in February of 2002. Prior to the adoption of the 2000 International Codes, the City of Denton adopted the Uniform Ctroduced after a lengthy review process through the International Code Council (ICC). Changes to the International Codes are brought about by new technology and events that have occurred throughout the nation. The majority of the changes are related to health and safety. Building Inspections staff has performed a comprehensive local review of the subject changes. In addition, Staff has had meetings with the Committee on the Environment regarding possible code changes to increase energy efficiency in new buildings. The Committee supports the proposed changes. City staff met with members of the building community in November of 2008. This meeting provided information to the building community regarding the proposed changes to the International Codes. Special attention was given to the proposed local amendments. This meeting also allowed the building community to provide input regarding the changes. Through a 1 collaborative effort between the building community and the City of Denton, staff proposed to increase amendments to energy efficiency of new residential buildings. The building community supports the proposal. The purpose of the proposed International Codes is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare. This will be accomplished by addressing structural strength, means of egress, stability, sanitation, adequate light, ventilation, and energy conservation. Safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributed to the built environment are also addressed. PRIOR ACTION/REVIEW The Committee on the Environment (COE) received a report on April 7, 2008 and discussed whether to require exceeding the requirements of the IECC by 10% or by 15%. Building Inspections held a Contractor Luncheon on November 19, 2008 and discussed the adoption of the Irrigation ordinance, the IECC ordinance, and the Building Code ordinance. The Construction Advisory and Appeals Board heard a report and held a discussion on November 20, 2008 about the adoption of the 2006 International Codes, including the IECC with the 10% over amendment and the other proposed International Building Codes with their amendments. The COE met and received a report on December 1, 2008 regarding adopting the 2006 IECC with the 10% over amendment. COE The 2006 IECC was discussed at the on January 23, 2009 FISCAL INFORMATION There is no fiscal impact with the adoption of the proposed codes. EXHIBITS 1. Ordinance 2. April 7, 2008 Committee on the Environment Minutes 3. November 20, 2008 Construction Advisory and Appeals Board Minutes 4. December 1, 2008 Draft Committee on the Environment Minutes Prepared by: Respectfully Submitted: Kurt Hansen Mark Cunningham, AICP, CPM Building Official Director, Planning and Development Division 2 1DRAFT MINUTES 2CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 3April 7, 2008 4 5After determining that a quorum of the Committee on the Environment of the Denton City 6Council was present, the Chair of the Committee on the Environment convened into a meeting 7on Monday, April 7, 2008 at l1:38 a.m. in the Council Work Session Room, 215 East McKinney 8Street, Denton, Texas to consider the specific agenda items listed below 9 Present: 10Chair Joe Mulroy, Mayor Pro Tem Pete Kamp and Council Member Jack 11Thomson Also Present: 12Howard Martin, ACM 13 Fred Greene, ACM 14 Jim Coulter, Director of Water Wastewater Utilities 15 Dr. Kenneth Banks, Manager Division of Environmental Quality 16 Katherine Barnett, Utilities Special Projects Coordinator 17 Mark Cunningham, Director Planning and Development 18 Emerson Vorel, Director Parks and Recreation 19 Ron Menguita, Planning Supervisor 20 Kurt Hansen, Building Official 21 Ann Forsythe, Boards and Committees Coordinator 22 OPEN MEETING: 23 24 251)Consider approval of the Committee on the Environment Meeting minutes of: 26a.March 3, 2008 27 Chair Joe Mulroy asked that the minutes be amended to include an action item to the 28 closed meeting for the City Attorney to provide an update at a later meeting. The minutes 29 were approved as circulated and amended. 30 31 32Howard Martin, ACM, stated that Dr. Banks has requested that Items 2 and 3 be presented as one 33item. 34 352)Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the Carbon Footprint 36Project Planning Document. 37 383)Receive a report, hold a discussion and give staff direction regarding the Community 39Committee Planning Document. 40 41Dr. Banks stated that these two items are closely related. Both deal with putting together a 42format for a planning document when dealing with the larger projects that Division of 43Environmental Quality is becoming involved in. In the interest of time, staff thought it would be 44appropriate to present both items together. In effect, what staff is planning are the Carbon 45Footprint Project and the Community Committee Project. Staff’s vision for large projects 46involving multiple departments is to put together a planning document prior to beginning the 47project. Staff has discovered that for these larger projects, where there are multiple directors and 48large numbers of staff involved, getting the project off the ground without having a plan together 49has been a challenge. Staff has put together a format for discussion, evaluation and feedback to 50determine if this is the right approach. 51 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 2 of 7 4 5 6The goal of the planning document includes providing project information to those directors with 7staff involved in the project and to provide the opportunity for the directors to assign staff. In the 8past it has been somewhat incumbent upon DEQ staff to ascertain who they thought were the 9best people to be involved and in many cases that has worked out well; however, there could be 10instances where there might be more appropriate folks to be involved. Staff also wanted to 11provide an opportunity to estimate and review the number of staff hours needed to accomplish a 12project. Some of these larger projects are fairly time intensive and staff thought if they had an 13idea of how many hours were involved at the forefront, they could better plan and give a better 14assessment of when the deliverable could be completed. The document itself has a section that 15will be used to establish timelines, milestones, deliverables, and responsibilities. 16 17Staff has provided, as a mockup, both a planning document for the Carbon Footprint Project 18even though staff is well under way with this project, and a planning document for the 19Community Committee project. In effect, the presentation outlines elements of these individual 20project plans. All have an introductory statement, a statement that explains where the request is 21coming from, a brief summary of project element and overview, and project management 22responsibilities. The plans also contain a fair amount of detail, including directors involved in 23the project, staff members assigned by the directors, staff members’ roles in the project, time 24commitment estimates, and deliverable dates. 25 26DEQ Staff use that information to create a draft project timeline with sections for possible 27elements of certain projects, data acquisition meetings, software/hardware needs, equipment, or 28any other special project requirement. Directors or appropriate managers can review this 29information and make adjustments according to their staffing needs and time estimates. If there 30is a stakeholder component to the project, there will be a section for that to be addressed within 31the project plan. There will also be a final list of deliverables and timelines including when 32updates will be brought to the Committee, status reports communicating any delays or 33difficulties, and then a timeline to draft a final project report. 34 35Banks next provided a brief progress update of the Carbon Footprint project currently underway. 36Staff has put together a planning document for the project even though it is believed there are 37only going to be certain components of the planning document that will actually be needed to 38finish the project. Banks stated he thinks it would still be a good exercise for staff, to the extent 39possible, to retroactively complete a planning document so that staff can evaluate the planning 40tool format and see if it needs tweaking. 41 42Banks then reviewed the Community Committee project which is a project to create a citizen 43group to discuss sustainable building practices that have been brought up by the Committee on 44the Environment. The planning document for this project will be more focused on meetings and 45meeting logistics. Staff is requesting guidance on committee size, the selection process, and the 46appropriate to forum to discuss these issues. Elements for consideration within the plan are land 47use issues, green building standards, residential and commercial energy efficiency requirements, 48water wastewater management and green power transportation and education outreach. This 49will help gauge how many meetings will be needed and elements to be considered at each one of 50those meetings. 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 3 of 7 4 5 6Banks stated staff is asking if anything had been omitted, was this an appropriate tool and, if 7appropriate, staff will implement. 8 9Chair Mulroy stated that staff’s ground work is excellent. Mulroy offered a couple of 10suggestions for conducting the Committee meetings. One is to have a block of time at the front 11of the meeting for interested parties wanting to serve on the committee to provide written 12opinions. Mulroy also suggested for subsequent meetings to provide a block of time at the end 13for anybody in the audience to provide comments or give further input. Mulroy stated he 14thought the Committee should consist of about twenty-one people. The Committee would not be 15too large and unwieldy, or too small to limit equal representation. Each council person could 16have three nominees which could consist of builders, designers, academia, people involved in 17environmental issues, activists and regular citizens. It is important to vary choices. 18 19Mayor Pro Tem Kamp stated she was very impressed with the thoroughness. She agrees with 20three nominees per council member. Other items to decide would be committee members would 21be appointees or nominees. Mulroy stated he believed a nominee would be best. 22 23Martin asked if the Committee envisioned staff bringing the plan, along with some suggestions 24as to the Committee makeup, to a City Council work session to get direction from Council. 25Mulroy replied that it would be appropriate for staff to bring it to a work session within a few 26weeks, or a month, and to include minutes from today’s meeting. It would also be helpful to 27provide a flow chart with these activities graphically displayed. 28 29Thomson stated his concern is that there will be a study, getting groups together, and it taking 30too long to make any progress. He believes strict guidelines should be implemented so that 31timelines are reasonable. He does not want it to take years to study. 32 33Mulroy stated hopefully a Committee will be appointed, there will be a couple of meetings, 34maybe with some subcommittee assignments then staff will be available to produce data, crunch 35numbers and sometime in September to November zero in on recommendations. He did not 36think that all recommendations should be made at the same time, but perhaps there could be 37some intermediate recommendations. Thomson asked if it was possible to make available to the 38Committee existing plans such as one from Austin, Texas. That plan has proposed benchmarks 39he thinks it is worth studying. 40 41Martin asked if recommendations from the Community Committee should first flow through the 42COE before going back to Council. Mulroy stated that the COE will vet anything problematic. 43Martin asked if when scheduling the Community Committee meetings would staff schedule 44around the COE’s schedules. Mulroy stated the COE would make introduction at the first 45meeting; it is anticipated that the committee willelect a Chair and Vice Chair and set its schedule 46to its comfort level and if the meetings lag, COE would visit and see what could be done to move 47it along quicker. It should be the citizens committee and not the COE. The COE will be the 48pipeline or sounding board. Kamp agreed stating she really wants to hear what the citizens have 49to say as opposed to what they think the COE wants to hear. 50 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 4 of 7 4 5 6Kamp asked if staff would be using ICLEI’s software for the Carbon Footprint Project. Banks 7replied that is correct. Barnett replied this is the only software available. 8 94)Receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding Air North Texas 10Partnership Agreement. 11 12Howard Martin, ACM, stated that Katherine Barnett, Special Projects Coordinator, has provided 13minimum expectations to which Denton will commit. She has also provided an outline of the 14new agreement along with a draft resolution. Martin then called on Barnett to present. Barnett 15stated that the partnership agreement is ready and that this is a great campaign in that this is 16really the first campaign that sends a comprehensive, consistent message throughout the region 17for a year-round air quality campaign. 18 19Council Member Thomson asked about the cost. Barnett replied there was no monetary impact 20to join the campaign. The City will simply incorporate COG’s advertising materials whenever 21possible. 22 23Mulroy asked about the time frame to respond. Barnett replied by the end of this month. 24 25Mayor Pro Tem stated she believed there would be a presentation of this item to the RTC on 26Thursday and she would certainly like to be able to say that the item is going to the City Council. 27 th Action Item 28: Staff was directed to place this item on the April 15 City Council agenda as an 29item for individual consideration and to include minutes in the backup. 30 315)Receive a briefing and hold a discussion regarding CDM’s Building Sustainable 32Communities Conference. 33 34Martin called on Ron Menguita, Planning Supervisor, to present. Menguita stated the 35Conference was held February 29 and he attended with Council Member Thomson. Menguita 36stated that presenters included members and representative from NCTCOG and the State Energy 37Conservation Office and topics included Vision of North Texas, Sustainable Skylines, Green 38Design and Infrastructure Engineering and Solid Waste Management. Menguita stated that 39everything associated with this conference was paperless. 40 41Menguita next reviewed several of the presentations from the conference. The presentation from 42Vision of North Texas was a comparison from 2007 to 2030 areas of severe congestion with a 43plan to add $71 billion for transportation improvements for this region. 44 45Thomson added that the Vision of North Texas in 2030, which projects a population of an 46additional 2.6 million, indicated that they are currently on Phase II with green printing and a 47more compact scenario and regional land use. He also stated there was Phase III which is North 48Texas 2050 and he did realize they were that far along. There were a number of things he 49learned one being zero waste where materials are seen as potential revenue. He thought that was 50an interesting concept with an entire area devoted to engaging the community. 51 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 5 of 7 4 5 66)Receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding increasing the minimum 7residential energy conservation requirements from 10% over the International Energy 8Conservation Code to 15% over the IECC. 9 10Martin called on Kurt Hansen, Building Official, to present this item. Martin stated that the city 11is currently using the 2003 IECC version plus 10% and he will talk about where the city goes 12from here. 13 14Hansen stated that two years ago when talking about adopting the new 2003 International 15Conservation Code as a part of the International Building Code family the question asked was 16that if the City wanted to be greener than just meeting the code, how will it affect the builders, 17and how feasible would it be to increase the requirement to at least 10% above code. Staff wrote 18the 10% requirement into the ordinance; all builders who come into the City to get permits bring 19a REScheck report that demonstrates compliance. Staff was notified that 10% is good but what 20about 15%? Hansen then explored how feasible it would be to go from 10% to 15%. The 21subject then got complicated. If one looks at the COG amendment, Section 401.211, it talks 22about compliance software tools which determine state code compliance which are deemed 23acceptable. Under the 2006 COG amendments, REScheck is not acceptable for residential 24compliance which means that what the builders are now accustomed to using is no longer being 25recommended. Hansen next called the Energy Systems Laboratory, a division of the Texas 26Engineering Experiment Stations and talked with an engineer to inquire why REScheck was no 27longer being used. He was told it was not good, and that Denton should use IC3 software 28provided by Energy Systems Laboratory which is available online and is free. The challenge is 29to beat the code by 10-15% and what will work for the builders. When Hansen compared 30REScheck to the IC3 software, using an average 2400 square foot house in the city, he 31discovered that REScheck met code while IC3 required window upgrades and a better seer rating 32for air conditioning to meet 15%. Hansen therefore recommended adoption of the 2006 IECC 33along with the COG amendments and to not use REScheck any longer, but keep the minimum of 34at least 10% above the new code, which is actually a little bit of improvement of the REScheck 35software. Let’s get used to the new software and provide transition since all builders that bring 36in new plans will have to use IC3 software or an energy star or something that already surpasses 37the 15%. 38 39Thomson asked if the percentage for 2006 was better than 2003. Hansen replied that according 40to an analysis by A&M Engineer, 2006 is not quite as restrictive. Thomson stated that currently 41the city is 10% above the 2003, so if we adopt 2006 with a 10% we will be at about the same. 42Hansen replied it will be a 2% to 3% improvement. 43 44Kamp stated if we move to different software, there will not be a cost. Hansen replied that is 45correct, the software is free and readily available. 46 47Mulroy looking at Option 2 stated that we are pretty much at status quo and if we want to stay 48upgraded, then Option 3 should also be recommended. This would allow the Community 49Committee to provide input for the development of a sustainable building and development 50program. 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 6 of 7 4 57)Receive a report, hold discussion and give staff direction regarding the National Green 6Building Standard (NGBS) as soon to be published as a joint venture between the National 7Association of Home Builders and the International Code Council. 8 9Martin called on Hansen to also present this item. Hansen stated that last February while visiting 10the International Code Council website, there was the opportunity to fill out an application to 11become a member of a committee for national green building standards.He applied and out of 12270 applications, 42 were selected, and Denton was chosen because it is pursuing a more 13restrictive energy code. It is a consensus committee of 42 people of various occupations and is a 14joint venture between the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the International 15Code Council (ICC). In a continuing effort to advance the use of environmentally responsible 16technologies in residential construction the NHB, the ICC and the NHB Research Center have 17initiated a process for the development of ANSI standard for green building construction 18practices. The result will be a voluntary green home building standard that can be adopted by 19local green home building programs or local building departments as a conformance guide. This 20document will be available for green builders, municipalities, etc. to use as a guide when 21building or remodeling a residential property. It will also be used as a guide to rank the amount 22of ‘green’ incorporated into the structure and designate the project as a bronze, silver, gold or 23emerald level green. 24 25Kamp asked how this compared with the LEED certification. Hansen replied LEED is typically 26associated with commercial construction. There is a residential branch, but it is not as widely used. 27 28Hansen stated that the recommendation is for the City to consider implementing a separate Green 29Building Standard program that runs parallel with the current traditional building standards. 30 31Thomson asked if there were any incentives. Hansen replied there may be some tax breaks and that 32DME does offer some incentives. 33 34Mulroy stated that this is an item for consideration by the Community Committee, but that staff 35does need to schedule some education for the Committee. 36 378)ACM Report: 38a.Air Quality Standards for Ozone 39b.Emerging Contaminants in Water 40c.2008 Mosquito Season 41d.Environmentally Preferable Purchasing 42Chair Mulroy asked about a presentation on green cement to the Committee on the Environment 43e.Matrix 44 459)New Business: This provides an item for the Committee on the Environment members to 46suggest items for future agendas or to request information from the City Manager. 47 48Council Member Thomson asked about Congressional funding for an Energy Efficiency 49Conservation Block Grant which provides $2 billion each year for 10 years with approximately 50 1Draft Minutes – Committee on the Environment meeting 2April 7, 2008 3Page 8 of 7 4 5 670% going to municipalities. The problem is getting it funded and he would like for the City to 7find a way to encourage the funding. He had spoken with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson and 8was told appropriations are funded by groups. Thomson asked if it is possible for the Committee 9or the City Council to write to Senator Hutchinson to encourage her to do whatever she can to 10fund this program. 11 12Mulroy stated a presentation should be made to the City Council and that a resolution with a 13copy of the minutes should be sent to Senator Hutchinson. 14 15Kamp stated that when in Washington recently she did not receive any good feedback on the 16funding. 17 18Banks stated another issue to consider is that with that particular block grant program, the 19municipality has to be 100,000 in population or over according to the 2000 census to be eligible 20to apply. The City is ineligible and will be ineligible until 2010. Thomson replied that there was 21also money through the County, about 25% or more. 22 23Staff was directed to prepare a resolution for presentation to the Council to send to Senator 24Hutchinson. 25 26The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:58 p.m. 27 Exhibit 3 Minutes Construction Advisory and Appeals Board November 20, 2008 Members present: Dana Binnion, Jim Strange, Brian Bentley, Alan Nelson, Colleen Isaguirre and Ira Weinstein Staff members present: Kurt Hansen, Glenda Gailliard, Zackery Loiselle, Elizabeth Coleman and John Knight I.Welcome and Call to Order Alan Nelson called meeting to order at 4:04 p. m. II.Pledge of Allegiance a.U.S. Flag b.Texas Flag III. Consider approval of the minutes of October 16, 2008. Ira made a motion to approved the minutes of October 16, 2008. Seconded by Dana. Motion carried 6-0. IV.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 819 Lakey Street. John Knight, Assistant City Attorney and Elizabeth Coleman, Substandard Structure Officer came forward. Elizabeth Coleman and Kurt Hansen was sworn in by Alan Nelson. Elizabeth began to go through several exhibits of the property located at 819 Lakey Street allowing the members to view the structure. John Knight also passed copies of the exhibits to the members of the board. John Knight asked Elizabeth questions regarding the process of declaring a structure substandard to further give the board additional information regarding the property at 819 Lakey. There was a brief discussion. John Knight asked Kurt if he had gone by the structure and if he felt it was substandard. Public hearing opened at 4:23 p.m. Public hearing closed at 4:24 p.m. Dana made a motion to declare the structure substandard, dilapidated, unfit for human habitation, and a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare with a 90 day extension. Seconded by Jim. Motion carried 6-0. V.Hold a public hearing to affirm or reject an order by the Building Official to declare a structure substandard. The structure is located at 530 Maddox. John Knight suggested that we move this item to the next meeting, because the structure is possibly in the process of being demolished. Alan entertained a motion for item number V to be tabled until the next meeting. Jim made a motion to table item number V until the next meeting. Seconded by Ira. Motion carried 6-0. VI.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2009 Irrigation Code as directed by State Statue and make recommendation to City Council. Alan asked Kurt to present the information concerning the 2009 Irrigation Code. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the new TCEQ law which will be effective January 1, 2009. Handouts were given to the board members. There was a brief discussion. VII.Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. Kurt Hansen, Building Official, briefed the board on the adoption of the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code as directed by State Statue. There was a brief discussion. VIII. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International Fire Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. There was no representative present for the Fire Department. There was a brief discussion. IX. Hold a discussion concerning the adoption of the 2006 International building Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Residential Code as amended by the City, 2006 International Plumbing Code as amended by the City, 2006 Mechanical Code as amended by the City, and the 2006 International Fuel Gas Code as amended by the City and make recommendation to City Council. X.Hold a discussion concerning: (1) the starting time of future CAAB meetings, (2) shall the board meet in December, and (3) staff will give the CAAB a status report of the properties requested to be demolished at our last CAAB meeting. 1. The starting time for future CAAB meetings were approved for 4:00 p.m. 2. It was agreed that the board will meet December 18, 2008. 3. XI.There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:15p.m. Exhibit 4 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT 3 December 1, 2008 4 5 After determining that a quorum of the Committee on the Environment of the Denton City 6 Council was present, the Chair of the Committee on the Environment thereafter convened into an 7 Open Meeting on Monday, December 1, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. in the City Council Work Session 8 Room, 215 East McKinney Street, Denton, Texas. 9 Present: 10 Chair Joe Mulroy, Mayor Pro Tem Pete Kamp and Council Member Jack 11 Thomson 12 Also Present: 13 Howard Martin, ACM/Utilities 14 Fred Green, ACM/Administration 15 Jim Coulter, Director Water Utilities 16 Dr. Kenneth Banks, Manager Division of Environmental Quality 17 Katherine Barnett, Utilities Special Projects Coordinator 18 Emerson Vorel, Director/Parks & Recreation 19 Mark Cunningham, Director/Planning & Development 20 Lisa Lemons, Community Education Manager 21 Kurt Hansen, Building Official 22 Ann Forsythe, Coordinator Boards & Commissions 23 Dr. James Meernik, Chair, Department of Political Science, UNT 24 Benjamin Vail, UT Student 25 Lowell Brown, Denton Record Chronicle 26 OPEN MEETING: 27 28 29 3) Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding Community 30 Sustainability Committee and adoption of IECC 2006. 31 32 ACM Martin called on Dr. Kenneth Banks to present this item. Dr. Banks referring to the 33 backup stated that this item has been talked about beginning in February 2008 and that a couple 34 of planning documents were put together. The planning documents discussed the appropriate 35 staff members to involve in the initial discussions associated with forming a Community 36 Sustainability Committee (CC), an estimate of how much staff time would be needed to 37 accomplished outlined goals, and how many meetings it would take to plan the initiatives, 38 activities, and goals associated with the Community Committee. 39 40 Dr. Banks stated that during the February 4, 2008 meeting, the Committee on the Environment 41 42 adopting more effective building and development standards. The COE recommended the 43 Community Sustainability Committee to be comprised of 21 members, with three members 44 appointed by each City Council Member. The COE also stated that the main goal of the 45 Committee was to perform a stakeholder / advisory function to help establish goals and 46 objectives for energy efficiency and sustainability issues. These issues initially include adopting 47 the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), recommending whether Denton 48 should exceed the 2006 IECC by 10%, 15%, or more, and development of a Green Building 49 program for Denton. 50 1 Draft Minutes of the Committee on the Environment meeting 2 December 1, 2008 3 Page 2 of 4 4 5 6 Following the February meeting, Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff presented an 7 ACM update during the March COE meeting outlining issues staff felt were appropriate for the 8 Community Sustainability Committee to consider. After receiving further directions from the 9 COE during the March 2008 meeting, DEQ staff prepared an updated 10 outlining the Denton staff members that would be needed to work on the Community 11 Sustainability Committee initiative, the number of hours estimated for each staff member, and 12 potential meeting topics, and anticipated outcomes. This Planning Document was presented to 13 14 the Planning and Building Inspections departments would be the lead for most topics. Other 15 participants included Denton Municipal Electric, the Water / Wastewater Department (including 16 the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ)), and the Public Information Office (PIO). The 17 role of the DEQ also included acting as a liaison between Planning / Building inspections, other 18 departments, and the COE, including providing updates regarding timelines and milestones as 19 the project progressed. It was estimated that 160-230 hours of cumulative staff time would be 20 needed to facilitate the 7 meetings proposed in the Planning Document. This time estimate did 21 not include the time needed for any code revisions, preparing and presenting information to the 22 COE, and presentations to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. 23 24 DEQ staff presented the Community Committee item again during September 8, 2008 COE 25 meeting. Staff was seeking direction on how the COE would like the initiative presented to the 26 full council, including how the Council appointment of a 21 member committee would be 27 facilitated. The COE members directed staff to provide a brief summary presentation to the full 28 council during an upcoming work session, and to request the Council for appointments for 29 Community Committee members. At this time, staff suggested that the Planning document still 30 needed to be discussed among all Denton staff members because of concerns about adequate 31 resources being devoted to this project. 32 33 DEQ staff members had several discussions about the Community Committee initiative with 34 Planning staff following the September 2008 COE meeting, which ultimately culminated in a 35 staff meeting on November 5, 2008. This meeting was attended by Ken Banks, Jim Coulter, 36 Mark Cunningham, Fred Greene, Kurt Hansen, and Howard Martin. During the meeting, 37 Planning and Building Inspections staff stated that staff resources are currently insufficient for 38 conducting meetings with a Community Committee, and that alternatives needed to be developed 39 to allow staff to move forward with adopting the 2006 IECC and developing Green Building 40 Programs for Denton. 41 42 Chair Joe Mulroy interrupted Dr. Banks stating that before Dr. Banks goes forward with his 43 recommendation, Chair Mulroy wanted to go back to the meeting where the decision was made 44 by staff to abate the CC concept. Chair Mulroy stated that management has obviously made the 45 decision on what they are going to do and that Chair Mulroy wants to reiterate for the minutes 46 that policy discussions and direction from the City Council retreat and the joint Council/Planning 47 Zoning meetings have been voiced by Council consensus that the City stop the habit of always 48 being reactive to the demands of accelerated development and to address and reallocate 49 resources to restart a true planning function city-wide. Chair Mulroy stated that staff was in 50 agreement that this needed to be done and that it was a desirable goal. The City and the Planning 1 Draft Minutes of the Committee on the Environment meeting 2 December 1, 2008 3 Page 3 of 4 4 5 6 Department have, over the last three or four years, been development centered. The discussion 7 has taken place to come back with a universal umbrella that has green building issues, 8 international standards for land planning, ESA standards, and similar issues that all need to have 9 a universal planning approach. The decision has already been mostly made by management of 10 what level of commitment needs to be allocated to these efforts, and we have had a year and half 11 discussions concerning how to really get back in the planning mode. Chair Mulroy then invited 12 Dr. Banks to continue his presentation. 13 14 Dr. Banks continued, stating that staff recommends the following actions to move forward with 15 adopting the 2006 IECC, discussing whether 10% or 15% above the 2006 IECC is appropriate, 16 17 direction from the COE on the following series of staff recommendations. 18 19 1. Initially, adopt the 2006 IECC for Denton, and establish 10% above IECC 2006 (as 20 determined using the IC3 calculation software) as the minimum requirement. The Building 21 Official will present this option to the full Council for consideration during January 2009. 22 After 10% above the 2006 IECC is established as the baseline, the Building Official will 23 facilitate a meeting with the Construction Advisory and Appeals Board, local builders, and 24 interested individuals during February 2009 to discuss the issue of 15% exceedences of the 25 2006 IECC. The results from this meeting will be brought back to the COE during the 26 March 2009 meeting. If the COE recommends changing from 10 to 15% above 2006 IECC, 27 the Building Official will present this recommendation to the full Council for approval 28 during the next available Council session. 29 30 2. The Building Official, along with staff from the DEQ, Denton Municipal Electric (DME), 31 the Water / Wastewater Department, and Solid Waste Department will develop a plan on 32 how to establish a "Green Building / Green Built Certified" program for Denton. This 33 program will likely be somewhat similar to the program adopted by the City of Dallas, and 34 will include both r 35 and calculation methods. The draft plan for the Green Building Program will be presented 36 to the COE during February 2009. After incorporating any changes recommended by the 37 COE, the Building Official will present the Green Building Program to the Construction 38 Advisory and Appeals Board and interested individuals during one to two meetings to be 39 conducted in February 2009 and in March 2009 (if needed). A progress report will be 40 provided to the COE during the March 2009 COE meeting and a summary of findings will be 41 provided during the April 2009 COE meeting. If any additional meetings with the 42 Construction Advisory and Appeals Board are warranted, staff will update the COE during 43 the April 2009 COE meeting and seek direction. 44 45 Upon positive recommendation from the COE during the April 2009 meeting, the Building 46 Official will present a recommendation to adopt the Green Building Program to the full Council 47 for approval during the next available Council session. 48 49 Chair Mulroy, asked if the recommendation from the first action item is the approval of the 50 initiative of the 2006 IECC at 10%, but then to possibly bring it back in March for 1 Draft Minutes of the Committee on the Environment meeting 2 December 1, 2008 3 Page 4 of 4 4 5 6 recommendation of to 15%. Banks replied that was correct. Chair Mulroy asked if it would then 7 go to Council for adoption or just wait for three months with what we have and what do we have 8 right now. Dr. Banks stated that Kurt Hansen could better address that but Banks believed 9 Hansen has the 2006 IECC ready to approve at 10% exceedence; Legal has reviewed it and 10 Banks believed Hansen plans to take it forward in January 2009. Hansen replied that was 11 correct. Mulroy stated that staff is going to say to Council here is what we want adopted in 12 January, but we may be back in March to raise it to 15%. Dr. Banks replied that was correct. 13 Mulroy asked what would be the loss if the recommendation waited until March. Hansen replied 14 there would not be a lot of loss. Mulroy stated that it therefore would make sense to wait until 15 there is a final recommendation. Members Kamp and Thomson agreed. Hansen stated what he 16 wanted to do was to nest this effort with the other 2006 Building Code and those are just about 17 ready to submit to Legal, but by January he should have the entire family of building code for 18 2006 ready to present. 19 20 Mulroy stated that the COE needed a recommendation of what is more manageable for staff, and 21 that he would like Hansen to facilitate the adoption of 10% over and then go out to the 22 community, talk about a green building program for Denton and then talk about increasing the 23 code to 15%. In keeping with the 2003 Code adopted at 10% exceedence clause, we would just 24 be continuing that momentum. 25 Action Item 26 : Mulroy stated that since there is some lag with the 10% to 15% in March, we 27 green-built certified program for April or possibly May or June. It is 28 important to line up the new legislation with the other Codes then do them all in January and 29 wrap the 15% with the green built discussion and bring it all back at once in April or May so 30 when we go back t 31 Hansen agreed. 32 33 Thomson, stated that if we are going to present this information to developers, is it reasonable to 34 expect that they would want to go to 15%? ACM Martin stated that to a large extent the 35 developers want a level playing field; they are not necessarily concerned about the 10 or 15% as 36 long as everyone builds to the same standard. 37 38 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 1:45 p.m. 39 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CM/DCM/ACM: George C. Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT: Consider adoption of an ordinance of the City of Denton authorizing an agreement between the City of Denton, Texas and the University of North Texas for the purpose of hosting the African Cultural Festival; providing for the expenditure of funds therefore; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND: This agreement allows for the total expenditure of $750 ( Mayor Mark Burroughs, $250; Council Member Charlye Heggins, $200; Council Member Chris Watts, $100; Council Member Rudy Moreno, ) from Council Contingency Funds. Key provisions of $100 and Council Member Joe Mulroy, $100 the agreement include: Funds shall be used by the University of North Texas to host the largest and most successful African Cultural Festival in the state and region. In addition to other reporting requirements, documentation in the form of cancelled checks and/or corresponding receipts specifically detailing expenditure of funds for the purpose provided is required for reimbursement from these designated funds. FISCAL INFORMATION Funding for the contract will come from respective Council contingency fund accounts. Respectfully submitted: George C. Campbell City Manager Prepared by: Linda Holley Executive Assistant AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Transportation Operations ACM: Howard Martin, 349-8232 ______________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT Consider the approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas, st approving a legislative position on Rail North Texas as a primary legislative item in the 81 Texas Legislature supporting taxes or fees to generate revenue to fund regional rail and supplemental roadway improvements in North Central Texas; and providing an effective date. Mobility Committee recommends approval (2-0). BACKGROUND The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) estimates that by the year 2030 the population in North Central Texas will exceed 8.5 million. NCTCOG supports the position that to maintain regional mobility and sustain economic vitality of the North Central Texas Region, seamless regional rail service in the urbanized areas of North Texas is essential. To that end, the NCTCOG Regional Transportation Council (RTC) Transit Authority Partnership Subcommittee began holding monthly meetings in December 2007 in an effort to develop a legislative action plan to identify a funding source dedicated to implementing a proposed 251 mile regional rail system in North Central Texas, Exhibit 2. The Rail North Texas proposal was previously known as the Regional Transit Initiative (RTI) th leading up to and during the 80 Legislature. The RTI enjoyed regional support as scores of local governments, transit authorities and chambers of commerce in the region passed resolutions supporting the Tri-Party Agreement. The Tri-Party agreement advocated for an exemption to the two-cent sales tax cap for local governments to provide a funding source for the initiative. The th measure gained substantial support during the 80 Legislature; however, the large business lobby did not support sales tax as the financial mechanism to advance the initiative and was successful in derailing proposed bills supporting the initiative. The RTC Transit Authority Partnership Subcommittee met regularly since the end of Calendar 2007 to address the concerns outlined in the RTI effort and to build a coalition between local governments, transit agencies and the businesses community to identify acceptable funding sources and establish a regional strategy to advance legislative support of a regional rail system. It was determined that sales tax would not be utilized to fund the proposal, rather revenue options or a menu of fees and taxes were developed. The fees and taxes would be unique to each county allowing local elected officials to select the best revenue option for their communities and approved by county elections. The RTC believes that the use of revenue options will increase the chances for legislative support in contrast to the sales tax as the only finance option. Attachment 1 to the draft resolution (Exhibit 1) provides a Policy Summary stating that the program will be primarily rail with supplemental roadway projects. Roadway projects could be funded in communities such as Denton and Lewisville that have an existing sales tax dedicated to rail/transit. The proposal states that the transportation providers (DART, DCTA and The T) issue bonds and those projects are to be built by the existing transportation authorities or providers. A newly created Transportation Funding Area (TFA) is proposed which will coordinate the planning, financing and implementation of projects across the region. Projects will be selected through a call of projects and sub-area roundtables will determine the required funding necessary for the project(s). As stated, a menu of revenue sources are proposed as part of the legislation and this option menu is listed below: A vehicle registration fee, not to exceed $150 per vehicle per year A motor fuels excise tax, not to exceed $0.1 per gallon A mileage fee, not to exceed $0.01 per vehicle mile driven A property tax, not to exceed $0.05 per $100 appraised value A driver’s license fee, not to exceed $50 New resident impact (vehicle registration), not to exceed $250 At their December 11, 2008 meeting, the Regional Transportation Council prioritized the Rail st North Texas initiative as the primary legislative action item to pursue in the upcoming 81 Texas Legislature and passed a resolution in support of this position.Michael Morris, Director of Transportation, NCTCOG has asked that all communities and organizations who have participated in the Rail North Texas proposal pass similar resolutions in support of the Rail North Texas in an effort to demonstrate regional support of the issue with lawmakers in Austin. HillCo Partners, has been hired by the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition to assist in coordinating legislative efforts of this proposal. RECOMMENDATION The Mobility Committee recommends consideration of the resolution. PRIROR ACTION/REVIEW Support of the Rail North Texas proposal was included as part of the City of Denton Legislative Action Plan approved by Council on December 9, 2008. At the December 2008 meeting, the Mobility Committee Recommended Council consideration of the proposed resolution 2-0. The Denton Chamber of Commerce approved a similar resolution supporting Rail North Texas on th January 15. The NCTCOG RTC approved a resolution 34-4 at their December 2008 meeting. FISCAL INFORMATION The Rail North Texas proposal suggests the utilization of revenue options from a list of fees and taxes outlined above to finance the proposed regional rail system and supplemental road projects where approved. The NCTCOG has estimated the annualized capital costs of the expanded system at $389 million and the annual operating and maintenance costs for 250 miles of new rail and associated bus system at $68 million or a total annualized cost of $457 million. EXHIBITS 1.Draft Resolution 2.Pending Rail Line Map 3.Draft Mobility Committee Minutes, December 16, 2008 Respectfully Submitted: Mark Nelson Transportation Director DRAFT MINUTES 1 City Council Mobility Committee 2 Tuesday, December 16, 2008 3 4 After determining that a quorum of the Mobility Committee of the Denton City Council was 5 present, the Chair of the Committee on the Mobility will convened into a meeting on Tuesday, 6 December 16, 2008 at 2:03 p.m. in the City Council work session room, 215 E. McKinney 7 Street, Denton, Texas. 8 9 Present: Mayor Mark Burroughs and Council Member Chris Watts 10 11 Absent : Chair Pete Kamp, excused 12 13 Staff Present : Howard Martin, ACM Utilities; Jim Coulter, Director Water Utilities; Mark 14 Nelson, Transportation Director; Frank Payne, City Engineer; Emerson Vorel, Director Parks & 15 Recreation; John Knight, Assistant City Attorney, Bud Vokoun, Traffic Engineer, Julie Glover, 16 Main Street; Ann Forsythe, Boards and Committees Coordinator 17 18 Also Present: John Polster, ITS; Dee Leggitt, DCTA Vice President of Communications & 19 Planning 20 21 OPEN MEETING 22 23 5)Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide a recommendation on a resolution relating to 24 regional efforts to establish legislative support for the Rail North Texas proposal. 25 26 Mark Nelson, Transportation Director, stated that at the last couple of meetings, staff has briefed 27 the Committee on Rail North Texas and the proposal to advance a regional rail system. A vote 28 was taken by the RTC in November on a draft resolution outlining legislative action during the 29 st 81 Texas Legislature to identify local option transportation funding mechanisms. The 30 resolution was approved on a 26-13 vote. However, local and state officials expressed concerns 31 that there was not unanimous support for this initiative. Several meetings with the three transit 32 agencies and RTC leadership were held to refine the proposed program outlined in the resolution 33 approved by the RTC in November. At the December 11, 2008 meeting, the RTC voted 34-4 to 34 support an amended resolution for the Rail North Texas Initiative. The revised resolution called 35 for: (1) the rail to be primary purpose of the initiative and surface transportation to be 36 secondary; (2) RTC to create a Legislative Subcommittee to participate and provide oversight of 37 any lobbying efforts for the initiative; and, (3) that the three transit agencies be permitted to 38 participate in lobbying efforts and in the crafting of legislative language for the initiative. 39 40 Council Member Chris Watts asked if the County would have a local election to determine if it 41 would participate and would this be approved by citizens and would not be unilateral by the 42 County Commissioners or the City Council. Nelson replied that was correct. Watts asked if 43 Nelson needed a recommendation to take this forward to the City Council. Nelson replied that a 44 recommendation to move forward was needed for the resolution and for Items 1, 2, and 3 45 contained in the resolution. 46 47 Staff’s direction from the Mobility Committee was to take the resolution to the City 48 Council for consideration. 49 50 The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 3:34 p.m. 51 52 AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CM: , George CampbellCity Manager SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance ordering an election to be held in the City of Denton, Texas on May 9, 2009, and, if a runoff election is required, on June 13, 2009, for the purpose of electing Council Members to Places 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the City Council of the City of Denton, Texas; designating voting places and appointing election officials; providing for bilingual notice of the election; ordering that an electronic voting system be used; making additional provisions for the conduct thereof; providing an open meetings clause; and providing for an effective date. BACKGROUND Approval of this ordinance would formally call the May 9, 2009 City Council election. The ordinance contains all of the provisions necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Texas Election Code. Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CM: George Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT Consider adoption of an ordinance approving an agreement between the City of Denton and the Denton Independent School District relating to holding their elections jointly on May 9, 2009 in election districts that can be served by common polling places; and providing an effective date. BACKGROUND The City and the DISD have been holding joint elections for many years. The original agreement was approved by Resolution R89-009 with subsequent amendments throughout the years, the latest in 2000. Approval of this proposed agreement will update procedures that are already in place and conforms to Texas Election Code provisions. FISCAL IMPACT The DISD will reimburse the City one-half of the expenses for holding the joint election upon receipt of satisfactory billing and invoices reflecting the total of such expenses. The DISD will be responsible for the expenses for any District satellite early or election day polling location. EXHIBITS Ordinance Proposed Agreement Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET AGENDA DATE: February 3, 2009 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CM: George Campbell, City Manager SUBJECT Consider nominations/appointments to the City’s Boards and Commissions. BACKGROUND The following boards/commissions require nominations: Historic Landmark Commission – Jim Kirkpatrick has resigned. This is a nomination for Council Member Moreno. Human Services Advisory Committee – Everette Newland has resigned. This is a nomination for Mayor Burroughs. Traffic Safety Commission – Charles Guarnaccia has resigned. This is a nomination for Mayor Burroughs. If you require any further information, please let me know. Respectfully submitted: Jennifer Walters City Secretary S:\City Secretary\Boards & Comm\Agenda Info Sheet for Vacancies.doc