2003-06-13 RetreatPriority
Check 6 in
each column
2003 MASTER SCHEDULE - City Council Project Priorities
STEP 3: RESULTS OF COUNCIL RANKING 6 of 7)
High ----Low
Dept
Item
%
Comp
PAF
Enc-
Results
Pg
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
Score
4
2 `
PS
Emergency Preparedness Notification Program
90%
Yes
1
1.33
36
3
1
2
PL
Hotel / Motel Regulations in Zoning Ordinance
0%
Yes
2
1.83
24
2
3
I
PS
Sign Ordinance Revisions
0%
Yes
3
2.00
23
1
2>
2
l
PW
Right -of -Way Management Ordinance
80%
Yes
4
2.50
12
1
2'
2
1 >
PW
Drainage Master Plan
30%
Yes
4
2.50
13
1
1
1
2!
1
PS
Ord. 693-A, Excavation and Grading Ordinance - Revisions
0%
Yes
4
2.50
15
3
1
1
1
PL
Comprehensive Plan Update
50%
Yes
4
2.50
32
1
1
3
[11
PW
Drainage Utility System
10%
Yes
8
2.67
6
2
1
1
1
1
I PW
Underground Utilities Ordinance
0%
Yes
8
2.67
25
2
1
1
1 >
1
PS
High Grass / Weeds Ordinance revision
80%
Yes
8
2.67
31
2
1
2
1
PL
Utility Placement Ordinance
0%
Yes
11
2.83
33
3
2
1
CS
Amendments to Subdivision Ordinance to incorporate
changes from Trail System Master Plan
0%
Yes
11
2.83
16
2
1
1
2
PL
Conversion to a Unified Development Ordinance
50%
Yes
11
2.83
17
2
2
1'
1
PL
Special Events Permit & Procedures — Zoning Ord.
95%
Yes
11
2.83
28
3''
1
i
1
PL
SUP for Commercial uses in Industrial Districts
5%
Yes
15
3.00
7
3 G
1
1
1
PL
Amortization of Certain Non -Conforming Uses
0%
Yes
15
3.00
29
5
1
PW
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
0%
Yes
17
3.17
8
2
< >
3>
1
CS
Tree Ordinance Revisions
0%
Yes
17
3.17
9
2
1
:31
PL
Revise Landscape Ordinance to include bufferyards etc.
20%
Yes
17
3.17
10
1
2»
11
2
PL
Zoning Change Super -Majority
0%
Yes
17
3.17
14
2
I
3
CM
Ethics Ordinance Update
0%
Yes
17
3.17
35
1
2
2
1
PS
Update Noise Control Ordinance No. 484
90%
Yes
22
3.33
11
3
l
2
PL
Zoning Reversion Provisions
0%
Yes
22
3.33
19
2'
1
,_2.>
1
CS
Public Art Master Plan
25%
Yes
22
3.33
22
1
2
1
1
CS
Youth Master Plan Development
10%
Yes
22
3.33
30
1
1
2'
2
PS
Residential lighting standards review
0%
Yes
26
3.67
18
1
2
3
PL
1709 Medians
0%
Yes
26
3.67
21
1
2>'
3
PS
Substandard Bldg. Ordinance
0%
Yes
28
4.00
34
1 >>
1
4
PL
Driveway Ordinance Revisions
0%
Yes
29
4.17
27
1
3
2
PL
Zoning Ordinance - Front Yard Issues
10%
Yes
29
4.17
20
Department Legend: PW = Public Works, PL = Planning, CS = Community Services, CM = City Manager,
SEC = City Secretary, FI = Finance, PS = Public Safety, HR = Human Resources, ED = Economic Development
Master Schedule: City Council Project Priorities - June 19, 2003 - Page I of 3
Council Comments — Priorities 2003
General Comments
• Carolyn is concerned about turning projects over to committees. Thinks Council should be
providing the policy direction.
Emergency Preparedness
• Greg Standerfer would be concerned about spending lots of money on emergency sirens. Public
feedback.
Hotel / Motel Regulations
• Andy W. looked at hotel regulations in areas that have quality hotels.
Sign Ordinance Revisions
• Greg Standerfer took position that by asking for variance you get to look at what they are
proposing. Doesn't want change
• Carolyn is concerned about back lighting and LED signs.
• Tom doesn't like them either.
• CM - Address LED issue — only want minor changes.
• Mayor wants a review of variances.
• Tweak issues for minor problem. (Logo issues, perhaps conformance to subdivision)
ROW Management Ordinance
• Bring draft ordinance with corresponding financial info and legal parameters
Utility Placement
• Look at subdivision regulations not requirement of utilities.
• Legal parameters
Tree Preservation Ordinance
• Carolyn wants to look at list of protected trees to add protection for Hackberry
• Greg / Ralph hate hackberries.
• MJ with confirmation list and provide information
Amortization of non -conforming uses
• Bring list of NC uses,
• Change zoning ordinance language based on court of appeals ruling
Zoning SupermaioritV Issue
• Not much support
Public Art
• Status report
• Revamp?
Ethics Ordinance
2003 June Retreat, Council Comments - Draft-01: June 23, 2003 - Page 1 of 2
AW - would like ordinance reviewed for disclosure provisions
TS - All we need to do is disclose put it on record
GS - doesn't mind looking at it, but thinks that disclosure should be broad. Also thinks people
need to disclose who they've talked to.
Lighting Standards
• Carolyn raised tennis court issues, flood lights in yards?
• Keep light on property
Process Comments
• GS — Better descriptions are needed on the PAF's
2003 June Retreat, Council Comments - Draft-01: June 23, 2003 - Page 2 of 2
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Billy Campbell, City Manager
SUBJECT: City Council June Retreat
Your notebook contains information you will need to actively participate in the upcoming City Council
Retreat, scheduled for June 19 - 20, 2003 at the. DPS West Facility. Note that our schedule calls for the
Retreat to begin at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday. Day Two of the Retreat will be scheduled from 9:00 a.m. until
4:00 p.m. on Friday. (If you would like a copy of these materials on cd, please contact Lori Farwell.)
Agendas- The "official" posted agendas will follow this memo in the packet.
Day One Items- The timed schedule agenda for Day One will be placed in this section, along with
staff memos for each of the discussion items for this day.
Day Two Items The timed schedule agenda for Day Two will be placed in this section, along with
staff memos for each of the discussion items for this day
Text Only Items These items will probably NOT be discussed, unless a Council member requests to do
so. We have attempted to write the staff memos to provide sufficient detail for you to
develop an understanding of the issues, while recognizing the need for succinctness.
On Day One, we plan to discuss four items with you. As noted on your schedule, these items include: 1) Year
in Review; 2) Fiscal Year 2003 -04 Budget Preview; 3) CIP Projects; and 4) Personnel Issues.
Day Two will be fairly intense, as we plan to discuss several items with you. As noted on your schedule,
these items include: 1) North DPS Facility; 2) Disaster Notification Program; 3) Drainage Master Plan &
Storm Water Drainage Utility District; 4) Discussion of "Roundabouts"; 5) Economic Incentives; and 6)
Project Prioritization by City Council. Note: the "cookout" lunch will be provided by DPS staff. The working
lunch will provide you an opportunity to informally discuss city business, including ordinances, projects and
programs.
I want to thank you in advance for all the time you will invest in the June Retreat. We think you will find that
the material and information you receive during this Retreat will be useful for you as we go through the
budget process; it provides us with an excellent opportunity to hear your thoughts on many issues we are
normally unable to take the time to fully discuss.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
3
SOUTHLAKE CITY COUNCIL JUNE RETREAT
DAY ONE
LOCATION: DPS West Facility, Community Room
2100 W..Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas
DATE and TEME: Thursday, June 19, 2003 , 6:00 p.m. — 9:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Opening Comments.
.2. Discussion: Roundtable discussion with staff regarding FY 2002-03; FY 2003-04
preview; personnel issues; and current CIP project status.
3. Adjournment.
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the above agenda was po
sted on the official bulletin boards at Town
Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, June 13, 2003, at 6:00 p.m.,
pursuant to the Texas Government Code, 551.
O: 1
``a.• :co -
Lori A. Farwell ' v
City Secretary •'••....•••
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs,
please advise the City Secretary 48 hours in advance at (817)481-1490, and reasonable
accommodations will be made to assist you.
SOUTHLAKE CITY COUNCIL DUNE RETREAT
DAY TWO
LOCATION: DPS West Facility, Community Room
2100 W. Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas
DATE and TE%IE: Friday, June 20, 2003, 9:00 a.m. — 4:00 u.m.
AGENDA:
1. Opening Comments.
2. Discussion: Roundtable discussion with staff regarding public safety issues,
public works issues, economic incentives, and City Council priorities.
3. Adjournment.
14
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that the above agenda was posted on the official bulletin boards at Town
Hall, 1400 Main Street, Southlake, Texas, on Friday, June 13, 2003, at 6:00 p.m.,
pursuant to the Texas Government Code, ChaptS,554,,,,.
Lori A. Farwell
City Secretary
If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special needs,
please advise the City Secretary 48 hours in advance at (817)481-1490, and reasonable
accommodations will be made to assist you.
C+J
CITY COUNCIL JUNE RETREAT
June 19, 2003
DPS West Facility, Community Room, 2100 West Southlake Blvd
6:00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
DAY ONE
Page
6:00 p.m.
Opening Comments Mayor Wambsganss ;
Billy Campbell
6:10 p.m.
Year in Review- Sharen Elam 1
Fiscal Year 2002-03 Shana Yelverton
6:30 p.m.
Fiscal Year 2003-04 Sharen Elam 3
Budget Preview Shana Yelverton
7:30 p.m.
Progress of Ongoing Pedram Farahnak 4
Capital Improvement
Projects
8:00 p.m.
F
Personnel Budget Issues Kevin Hugman 6
9:00 p.m.
Wrap Up and Adjourn Mayor Wambsganss
Billy Campbell
}
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 2003
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager (x1429)
Sharen Elam, Director of Finance (x1713)
SUBJECT: Year In Review — Fiscal Year 2002-03
Action Requested: City Council discussion of current year financial information as part of June
Retreat.
Background
Information: The preparation and adoption of the FY 2002-03 budget was accomplished in
a framework of unprecedented financial challenge. Holding the line on
expenditures, while simultaneously providing a quality level of service
delivery required difficult choices. In the end, the FY 2002-03 general fund
budget was adopted with a reduction of 10 positions, deferral of certain
personnel and capital costs, and denial of many new requests. In addition,
the tax rate was adjusted to $.462. The utility fund budget included increases
in standard and volume rates, and the water rates were increased for volume
usage exceeding 10,000 gallons. The "Year In Review" discussion during
the Retreat will recap some of the issues that formed the framework for
budget development for FY 2002-03 and for future fiscal years.
Since the adoption of the budget, staff has closely monitored the collection of
revenues and expenditure trends. Retreat discussions will include a detailed
review of revenue/expenditure performance. Additionally, we will discuss
some of the financial highlights of the year that have been achieved as a
result of strong Council and staff management.
Financial
Considerations: The presentation will identify financial considerations for the upcoming
budget year.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: N/A
Legal Review: N/A
Alternatives: No action is required.
Supporting
Documents: N/A
1
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 13, 2003
Page 2
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends discussion of these important issues at the June Retreat.
A
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 2003
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Shana K. Yelverton, Assistant City Manager (x1429)
Sharen Elam, Director of Finance (x1713)
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget Preview
Action Requested: City Council discussion of financial information for the development of the
FY 2003-04 budget as part of June Retreat.
Background
Information: The preparation of the FY 2003-04 budget is underway, and the June Retreat
will provide Council and staff an opportunity to preview the issues together
prior to formal budget worksessions. This discussion will cover considerations
that will guide budget development, as well as provide an opportunity for
Council and staff to discuss revenue projections and anticipated development
activity.
Staff budget submissions are currently under review by the City Manager,
however, so very little expenditure information will be available during the
Retreat, but staff will be discussing major expenses.
The City Manager's recommended budget will be filed with the City
Secretary's Office no later than August 15, 2003. Formal worksessions will be
conducted with the Council in late August. The budget must be adopted no
later than September 30, 2003.
Financial
Considerations: The presentation will identify financial considerations for the upcoming
budget year.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: N/A
Legal Review: N/A
Alternatives: No action is required.
Supporting
Documents: N/A
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends discussion of these important issues at the June Retreat.
3
City of Southlake, Texas
IM
IR
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 2003
To: Billy Campbell, City Manger
From: Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, ext.2308
Subject: Presentation on the Progress of Ongoing Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Projects.
Action Requested: No action is requested from Council at this time regarding this
presentation. Comments from the Council are greatly appreciated.
Background
Information: The following is a list of the current CIP projects the City of
Southlake:
1.
Redundant Water Supply Line from Ft. Worth
2.
S. Kimball Ave. Reconstruction — SH 114 to Crooked Lane
(west half)
3.
TMB Proposition 3, Trails 2A — Pearson to SH 114
4.
N. Peytonville Avenue Reconstruction
5.
Johnson Road Reconstruction
6.
S. Kimball Ave. Reconstruction — FM 1709 to Heritage
Business Park (east half)
7.
FY 00-01 Water & Sewer Projects (Sewer for Garden
Addition and the associated main to N-1 interceptor, Cedar
Oaks Estates, & Hillside Estates; Southlake Woods lift
station abandonment: Water for Lakewood Ridge Addition
and Indian Creek Estates; drainage improvements at the
intersection of Lonesome Dove Avenue & Dove Road; and
pump relocation from Pump Station No. 2 to Pump Station
No. 1)
8.
Union Church Road / S. Pearson Lane Rehabilitation
9.
N. Carroll Avenue Reconstruction — Federal Way to SH
114)
10. Randol Mill Avenue Rehabilitation
As you are aware, the City Council reviews, adjusts, and approves
all Capital Improvement Program projects. This presentation is
intended to keep Council informed of the status of the ongoing
program. Staff will present the timeline, progress, and budget for
each project.
4
Financial
Consideration: Not applicable to this presentation.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Not applicable to this presentation.
Legal Review: Not applicable to this presentation.
Alternatives: Not applicable to this presentation.
Supporting
Documents: Not applicable to this presentation.
Staff
Recommendation: Please review this presentation and direct your comments to the
staff.
Staff
Contact: Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, 481-2308
PF/vb
5
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 2003
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Hugman, Director of Human Resources
SUBJECT: June City Council Retreat - Personnel Budget Issues
Action Requested: Presentation by staff and discussion with City Council of expected budget
concerns and issues related to personnel.
Background
Information: Municipal services are by nature, labor intensive. As such, a large portion of
the City's operating budget (approximately 68 %) is related directly to
personnel costs. The City pays wages to 230+ full-time employees, as well
as provide employee benefits such as vacation, sick leave, health and dental
insurance, long-term disability and life insurance, worker's compensation,
accidental death and dismemberment, retirement costs, etc. By far, the two
largest components of personnel costs are (1) wages, and (2) health insurance
costs. Staff will discuss budget planning efforts related to these two
components in detail with City Council at the June retreat.
Financial
Considerations: There will be a financial impact to the FY 2003-2004 Operating Budget, but
at this time, the exact magnitude is unknown and is dependent on various
options that may be chosen.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Not Applicable.
Legal Review: Not Applicable.
Alternatives: Input as desired by Council.
Supporting
Documents:
• No supporting documents - a presentation will be given by staff at the
June Retreat.
Staff
Recommendation: City Council discussion of personnel budget issues as it relates to pay and
benefits.
A
A
7
E
CITY COUNCIL JUKE RETREAT
June
20, 2003
DPS
West Facility, Community Room, 2100
West Southlake Blvd
9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
K
.
DAY TWO
k
Page
9:00 a.m.
Opening Comments
Mayor Wambsganss
E
Billy Campbell
9:10 a.m.
Public Safety Issues
Rick Black
r
}
• North DPS Facility
Capital Improvement Project
g
• Disaster Notification Program
10
10:10 a.m.
Public Works Issues
4
• Overview of "Roundabouts"
Bruce Payne
12
• ` Drainage Master Plan and Storm
Pedram Farahnak
14
Water Drainage Utility District
12:00 p.m.
Lunch -- general discussion of city business,
f
including ordinances, projects and programs
1:00 p.m:
Economic Development Issues
Greg Last
16 p'
2:30 p.m.
Project Prioritization by City Council
Greg Last
26
4:00 p.m
Wrap Up and Adjourn
Mayor Wambsganss
Billy Campbell
z,
s
E
{y{
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 12, 2003
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Rick Black, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: North DPS Facility, Capital Improvement Project
Action Requested: City Council discussion of the North DPS Facility construction project as
part of June Retreat.
Background
Information: The Department of Public Safety facility concept plan was adopted in 1997
with the passage of the Crime Control Prevention District. One of three
components of the plan included the building of a West DPS facility to
provide emergency services access to the highly populated western portion of
our city. That facility opened in March, 2002. The second component of the
facility concept plan includes building North DPS headquarters facility that
would also serve as the Emergency Operations Center for the city. A
replacement for the current East facility makes up the third component of this
plan..
A critical need for a hardened Emergency Operations Center and a hardened
Emergency Communications Center to ensure continued emergency
operations during a disaster makes past planning for this facility a clear
reality. Other critical needs of a new holding facility to reduce liability,
expanded Criminal Investigation facilities, patrol operations facilities and
administrative offices can greatly improve the productivity and efficiency of
present staff.
Financial
Considerations: Land purchase, design, land preparation and Construction costs are budgeted
within the Crime Control and Prevention District funding. There are no
personnel costs associated with the construction and subsequent opening of
the North Facility. Current Police, Communications, and Administrative
personnel will move to the new facility. Building maintenance costs are
minimal for the new facility and will not be needed until the first quarter of
2006.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: This presentation was also provided to the Crime Control and Prevention
District Board Members on June 4`', 2003.
Legal Review: N/A
61
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 13, 2003
Page 2
(W Alternatives: No action is required.
Supporting
Documents: N/A
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends discussion of this important issue at the June Retreat.
0
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 12, 2003
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Rick Black, Director of Public Safety
SUBJECT: Disaster Notification Program
Action Requested: City Council discussion of the Disaster Notification Program as part of June
Retreat.
Background
Information: In 1997, the Department of Public Safety developed and adopted an
Emergency Response Plan for natural disasters. When this plan was approved
by the State of Texas Department of Emergency Management, staff remained
concerned that we were unable to effectively communicate an impending
storm to the community as a whole. Staff began researching this issue and
developed a plan of communications. Staff has since extended the scope of
this project and prepared a plan to notify the community of a threat (natural
disasters, hazardous materials incident or terrorism related)
This presentation will inform council of the tools that exist to notify residents
of an impending threat and will focus on one means of effectively
communicating to the outdoor community through the purchase and
installation of outdoor emergency sirens. Such sirens would be strategically
located throughout the city where large outdoor populations exist.
Financial
Considerations: This project is currently in the CIP with no funding approved for FY 02-03.
Outdoor emergency sirens are approximately $34,705.30 per siren. Staff
recommends a two phase implementation program which includes three
sirens per phase. The first phase total is estimated to cost $113,990.90. The
second phase total is estimated to cost $104,115.19. Total recommended cost
is $218,106.09. This is a measurable reduction from staff's presentation in
1999 when the estimated total cost was $446,622.65.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: N/A
Legal Review: N/A
Alternatives: No action is required.
Supporting
Documents: N/A
10
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 13, 2003
Page 2
A
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends discussion of this important issue at the June Retreat.
11
City of Southlake, Texas
IN
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 2003
To: Billy Campbell, City Manger
From: Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, ext. 2308
Subject: Roundabouts
Action Requested: Staff requests input, comments and guidance from the City
Council.
Background
Information: Due to increased traffic counts at several arterial intersections
around Southlake, the Public Works staff has been researching
alternative traffic regulators for these intersections. One such
option is constructing a roundabout. See picture below.
Traditional Intersection Roundabout Intersection
.. 0WA
• 32 Vehicle to vehicle conflicts ' •
8 Vehicle to vehicle
0 24 Vehicle to pedestrian conflicts ■ 8 Vehicle to pedestrian
Roundabouts will increase capacity, reduce accidents, and reduce
delay for motorists when compared to traditional intersections.
This is mainly due to the deflected entry and yield -at -entry
components of the roundabout. Although roundabouts have not
been traditionally used in this country, more and more engineers
are considering roundabouts for urban intersections.
Staff will make a presentation on what comprises a roundabout,
advantages/disadvantages of roundabouts, and possible locations
within Southlake for roundabouts.
a
Financial
Consideration: Not applicable to this presentation.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Not applicable to this presentation.
Legal Review: Not applicable to this presentation.
Alternatives: City Council's comments and direction will be used to examine
other alternatives if applicable.
Supporting
Documents: (To be handed out in the meeting)
Staff
Recommendation: Please review this presentation and direct your comments to the
staff.
Staff
Contact: Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, 481-2308
Charlie Thomas, P.E., City Engineer, 481-2175
(W Valerie Bradley, Assistant to the Director Public Works, 481-2342
PF/vb
13
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 2003
To: Billy Campbell, City Manager
From: Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, ext. 2308
Subject: Presentation on Drainage Master Plan and Storm Water Drainage
Utility District.
Action Requested: Staff requests input, comments and guidance from the City
Council.
Background
Information: Due to rapid growth and increased storm water run-off and its
adverse impact on the environment, rules have been developed as
part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) in compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) to
prevent excessive amount of pollutants entering the state and the
U.S. waters.
A master plan will set forth the Council's direction for compliance
with the NPDES as well as the priorities by the Council for
funding the necessary drainage improvements in Southlake. The
presentation will provide an overview of citywide basins and
watersheds, the general scope of Master Plan, the Drainage Utility
System (DUS) as a possible source of funding, and steps necessary
to adopt this source for implementation.
Financial
Consideration: Not applicable to this presentation.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Not applicable to this presentation.
Legal Review: Not applicable to this presentation.
Alternatives: City Council's comments and direction will be used to examine
other alternatives if applicable.
Supporting
Documents: Not applicable to this presentation.
1 It
Staff
Recommendation:
Staff
Contact:
PF/vb
A
Please review this presentation and direct your comments to the
staff.
Pedram Farahnak, P.E., Director of Public Works, 481-2308
15
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
TO:
IWZI)m
SUBJECT:
June 13, 2003
Billy Campbell, City Manager
Greg Last, Director of Economic Development
Economic Incentives - June Retreat Discussion
Action Requested: City Council discussion of Economic Incentives.
Background
Information: Tax Abatement Policy
The City of Southlake has approved a Tax Abatement Policy as of June 19,
2001. Following is an overview of criteria contained in the Policy and a
comparison of the current policy with our original policy. According to State
Law, tax abatement policies expire two years after adoption, so an update will
be required prior to any further adoptions of tax abatements.
Current Policy
Item
Adopted June 19 2001
May 4 1999 Policy
Purpose and
"All applicants shall be considered on a
Same
Objective
case -by -case basis."
Criteria
"Considerations ... shall be for new
Same
construction, whether it is a new facility or
an expansion of an existing building."
Criteria— Specific
• Furthers goals and objectives of city
Same
Considerations
. Relative impact of project including costs
of providing services, environment, local
housing market and required
infrastructure
Criteria — Value
. Based on merits of project: capital
Same
and Term
investment, added employment, avg
annual salary
• Maximum of 10 years
• Only for additional value
Criteria — For New
• Min. value of $10 M in real and personal
• Min. value of $10 Min
Business
property
real and personal
• Minimum of 500 full-time jobs
property
• Avg annual salary of $40,000 or more
• Minimum of 1.000 full-
time jobs
• Avg annual salary of
50 0.00 or more
Criteria — For
• Min. value of $5 M in real and personal
• Min. value of $5 M in
Expansion or
property
real and personal
Modernization
• Minimum of 500 jobs
property
• Avg. annual salary of $40,000
• Minimum of 500 jobs
• Avg. annual salary of
50 000
Criteria — Direct
• Consideration will also be given or direct
Same
Sales Tax
sales tax that is generated
16
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 13, 2003
Page 2 of 3
Overview of Various Types of Incentives
Incentives — Any number of inducements that an agency / community / state
might offer to a prospect to entice them to remain, expand, or locate within a
preferred area. Examples in three major categories include:
o Corporate Expenses — Several categories of expenses can be grouped
and defined as follows:
o Land Related - Free land, free rent, land write -downs, land leases,
public infrastructure.
o Financial - Tax increment financing, special assessment districts,
IRB's, cash grants, loan guarantees, subordinate financing, deferred
payment mortgages, interest rate buy -down.
o Operational - Equipment leasing, utility cost reduction and tax
abatements.
o Construction - Permit acceleration, fee reductions, non -strike
agreements, contractor selection assistance, free office space during
construction, dedicated inspection staffing.
o Workforce Development Incentives - Pre -employment screening, on-
the-job training programs, customized training programs, job training
funds, and technology transfer programs. Also see Workforce
Development.
o Relocation Assistance Incentives - Community presentation visits at
company location, spousal employment programs, temporary executive
housing, transportation, children acclimation, childcare, discounts on
home furnishings, moving cost reimbursement, guaranteed home sales,
bank assistance with home mortgage extensions or bridge loans,
complimentary hotel rooms during house hunting visits.
Financial
Considerations: N/A
Financial Impact: N/A
Citizen Input/
Board Review: N/A
Legal Review: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
17
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 13, 2003
Page 3 of 3
(W Supporting
Documents: Tax Abatement Policy approved June 19, 2001
Tax Abatement Application dated February 6, 2001
Incentives History dated January 11, 2002
Potential Incentives Summary dated January 8, 2002
A
Staff
Recommendation: Staff recommends discussion of this important issue at the 2003 June Retreat.
I
17
Economic Incentives
Introduction
. Purpose
■ Discuss various types of business prospects
■ Discuss various types of potential incentives
■ Review current tax abatement policy
■ Review ED summaries regarding incentives
. Desired Outcome
■ Determine Council direction regarding incentives for
various scenarios and types of prospects
■ Identify any potential changes to Tax Abatement
Policy for future update
Economic Incentives
Competitive Environment
. Slow economy
■ Deals are smaller
■ Significant inventories of space (Las Colinas,
Lewisville, Richardson)
■ "Prepare for war in time of peace"
. Highly competitive
■ Las Colinas / Frisco / Richardson / Plano
■ Westlake
Economic Incentives
Competitive Environment
. Strengths
■ School districts
. Adjacency to DFW and Alliance Airports
. Regional roadways
. Demographics / income data
. Weaknesses
. Cumulative tax rate -is high
■ Housing availability
■ Labor (more for restaurants / retail)
Economic Incentives
Fishing Analogy
■ Fish where the fish are
. Greater Dallas Chamber
. Broker Associations
. Corporate RE Associations
■ More bait, more fish
. Allows a match with the various
prospects (fish)
■ Hook and land if they bite
. Develop systems / procedures
■ Cull them after they are in
the boat
Economic Incentives
Various Types of Prospects
. Office . Industrial
■ Corp. Headquarters . 100,000 sf plus
■ Regional Office . Redevelopment
■ Non-profit
■ large vs medium size
. Retail
■ Major Anchor
■ Developer Driven
2
Economic Incentives
Various Types of Incentives
■ Corporate Expenses
. Land Related: Free land, free rent, land write -downs, land
leases, publk infrastructure
• Financial: Tax increnentFinanang(7TFJ, special assessment
districts, Industrial Revenue Bonds, cash grants, loan
guarantees, subordinate financing, deferred payment
mortgages, interest rate buy -down, construction materials sales
tax rebate
. Operational: Equipment leasing, utility cost reduction, tax
abatement
. Construction: Permit acceleration, tee reduction; non -strike
agreements, contractor selection assistance, free office space
during construction, dedicated inspecbbn staffing
Economic Incentives
Various Types of Incentives
Workforce Development
. Pre -employment screening, on-the-job training programs,
customized training programs, job training funds, and
technology transfer programs
Relocation Assistance
. Community presentation visits at company location, spousal
employment programs, temporary executive housing,
transportation, children acclimation, childcare, discounts on
home furnishings, moving cost reimbursement, guaranteed
home sales, bank assistance with home mortgage extensions or
bridge loans, complimentary hotel rooms during house hunting
visits
Economic Incentives
Tax Abatement Policy
. Adopted June 19, 2001
. Criteria / Thresholds
■ Evaluate impacts of project including costs of
providing services, environmental, local housing
market and required infrastructure
■ Based on merits of project: capital investment,
added employment, avg. annual salary
■ Max. length of 10 years
■ Min. value of $10M in real and personal property
■ Min. 500 full-time jobs w/ avg. salary of $40,000
A
0
Economic Incentives
Tax Ahatement Application
. Includes:
. Contact Information
■ Basic Data on Property
■ Project Clarification (Use, relocation/expansion, own
or lease)
. Development Concept (style, campus, etc)
■ Development Timing
■ Project Criteria (values, sq. ft., employees, salaries)
■ Incentives Requested
Economic Incentives
Tax Abatement Policy
. Update required prior to next abatement
. Council feedback / direction
.?
.?
Economic Incentives
Outreach Summaries
. Incentives History
■ Sabre Corporate Headquarters
■ Verizon Wireless
. Town Square TIF
. Potential Incentives Summary
■ Financial
■ Procedural
■ Intangible
. Posted on web site, included in proposals
A
n
Economic Incentives
Summary
. Slow Economy
■ Smaller deals
. Significant Competition
. Many strengths, some weaknesses
. Tax Abatement Policy updated soon
. Many potential incentives, need to be selective
and match to desired prospects
. Council feedback and direction?
5
City of Southlake, Texas
Tax Abatement Policy
Section 1. General Purpose and Objectives
A. The City of Southlake, Texas, is committed to the promotion and retention of high
quality development in all parts of the City; and to an on -going improvement in the quality of
life for its citizens. Insofar as these objectives are generally served by the enhancement and
expansion of the local economy, the City of Southlake will, on a case -by -case basis, give
consideration to providing tax abatements as stimulation for economic development in
Southlake. It is the policy of the City of Southlake that said consideration will be provided in
accordance with the criteria outlined in this document. Nothing herein shall imply or suggest
that the City of Southlake is under any obligation to provide tax abatement to any applicant.
All applicants shall by considered on a case -by -case basis.
Section H. Applicability
A. This tax abatement policy establishes guidelines and criteria for tax abatement programs
and agreements under the provisions of Chapter 312 of the Texas Tax Code.
(W Section M. Abatement Criteria
A. Any consideration for a tax abatement shall be reviewed by the City of Southlake City
Council. The review process will examine the "value added" terms of the project.
Considerations by the City Council shall be for new construction, whether it is a new facility
or an expansion of an existing building.
B. Specific considerations will include the degree to which the individual project furthers
the goals and objectives of the community, as well as the relative impact of the project,
including costs to the City for providing services, impact on the environment and the local
housing market, and required infrastructure.
C. Value and Term of Abatement. Abatement shall be granted effective with the
execution of the agreement. The amount of the abatement will be determined based on the
merits of the project, including, but not limited to, total capital investment, added
employment, and average annual salary. Abatement will be granted for a maximum of ten
years. Abatement may be granted only for the additional value of eligible property
improvements made subsequent to and listed in a tax abatement agreement.
1.) For new businesses, the project must be reasonably expected to produce a minimum
added value of Ten Million Dollars ($10,000,000) in real and personal property improvements
within the City of Southlake, and create a minimum of 500 full-time jobs which have an
LW average annual salary of $40,000 or more.
Southlake, Texas - Tax At ' ' -- " - " "- -d June 19, 2001 - Page 1 of
19
(W
2.) For expansion or modernization of existing businesses, the project must be reasonably
expected to produce a minimum added value of Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000) in real and
personal property improvements within the City of Southlake, and create a minimum of 500
new full time jobs with an average annual salary of $40,000.
A
D. Consideration will also be given for direct sales tax that is generated by the applicant.
Section IV. Inspection and Financial Verification
A. The terms of the agreement shall include the City of Southlake's right to (1) review and
verify the applicant's financial statements in each year during the life of the agreement prior to
granting a tax abatement in any given year, and (2) conduct an on -site inspection of the project
in each year during the life of the abatement to verify compliance with the terms of the tax
abatement agreement.
Section V. Evaluation
A. Upon completion of the construction of the facilities, the City shall no less than
annually evaluate each project receiving abatement to insure compliance with the terms of the
agreement. Any incidents of non-compliance will be reported to all affected taxing units.
Section VI. Severability and Limitation
A. In the event that any section, clause, sentence, paragraph or any part of this Tax
Abatement Policy shall, for any reason, be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to
be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect, impair, or invalidate the remainder of the guidelines
and criteria in this Tax Abatement Policy.
Section VIL Expiration and Modification
A. This Tax Abatement Policy is effective upon the date of its adoption and will remain in
force for two years, at which time all reinvestment zones and tax abatement contracts created
pursuant to its provisions will be reviewed by the City Council to determine whether the goals
of the. abatement program have been achieved. Based upon that review, the Tax Abatement
Policy may be modified, renewed or eliminated.
B. Prior to the date for review, as defined above, the Tax Abatement Policy may be
modified by a three fourths vote of the City Council, as provided for in Chapter 312 of the
Texas Tax Code.
Southlake, Texas - Tax Aha' " ' ".-_--....A June 19, 2001 - Page 2 of
20
A
A
1.
Department of
Economic D::velopment
City of Southlake
Application for Tax Abatement
Please respond to the following information and submit the application and
supporting information to the Dept. of Economic Development.
(PH: 817-481-1686, econdev@ci.southlake.tx.us)
CONTACT INFORMATION:
A. Company Requesting Abatement:
B. Contact Person:
C. Contact's Company Name:
D. Address:
E. Phone: Fax:
F. Email:
2. BASIC DATA:
A. Property Location:
B. Total Acreage:
Title:
Web Page:
Cell:
3. PROJECT CLARIFICATION: Please describe the following aspects of the project.
A. Intended Use: (e.g. call center, corporate office, professional office, etc.)
B. Is the project a relocation, expansion of existing facility, or new facility to expand
operations? If relocation or consolidation, give location of current facilities.
C. Will the occupants of the project be owner or lessees? If lessees, are occupancy
commitments already existing?
4. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT: Please describe the concept for development of the project.
A. Building Type: (# of stories, style, materials, etc.)
B. Development Concept: (single building or campus setting, open space, surface or
structured parking, acreage, vehicular access, etc.)
City of Southlake, Texas - Applicaj
21
;bruary 6, 2001 - Page 1 of 2
A
5
on
TIMING QUESTIONS: Please provide an estimation of the following timing questions.
Ref
Month / Year
(e.g. Jan 2002)
Item
a.
First development application (zoning, site plan, etc.)
b
I Ground breaking
c.I
Phase I occupancy
PROJECT CRITERIA:
Ref
Category
Approximate Dates by Phase
e.g. Jan 2002
Etc.
Etc.
a.
Building construction in square feet
s.f
s.f
s.f.
b.
Construction value
$
$
$
C.
Personal property value
$
$
$
d.
Annual sales tax(generated here)
$
$
$
e.
Total Employees
f.
Employees with salary $50,000 or greater
g.
Average employee sal
$
$
$
h.
Percentage of employees residing in
Tarrant County
Ref: Provide any additional notes here regarding any of the items above:
e.g. 4a - Notes.....
7. INCENTIVES REQUESTED: Please note extent of abatement requested.
A. Tax Abatement
i. % of real property for years.
H. % of personal property for years.
B. Any other incentives being requested? (i.e. other than tax abatement)
8. SUPPORTING INFORMATION PROVIDED:
Yes No
Item (10 copies each or B/W original for reproduction)
Company description
Annual Report
Cover letter with request
Conceptual development layout
Applicant company website:
Financial or credit rating report or similar evaluation
Other:
Other:
9. GENERAL COMMENTS FROM APPLICANT: (Provide any comments here)
Enc: Tax Abatement Policy adopted with Resolution No. _ on
City of Southlake, Texas -
22
- February 6, 2001 - Page 2 of 2
Department of
Economic Development
Incentives Histog
The City of Southlake has a proven history of providing competitive incentives for
projects that meet the vision and standards established by City leaders. It is our
desire to utilize incentives strategically and judiciously to create a win -win outcome
for our future corporate citizens as well as our existing taxpayers.
Tax Abatement Policy and Application - The City of Southlake has adopted a Tax Abatement Policy
addressing various aspects of reviewing and granting tax abatements in the City. The application for
tax abatement is available from the Department of Economic Development. It is necessary that this
application be filled out adequately prior to negotiations regarding tax abatements.
Following is a brief overview of incentives granted to previous projects.
Sabre Corporate Campus Headquarters
Development Program
• National Headquarters
• Catalyst for the State Highway 114 West Corporate Corridor in Southlake
• 156 acres of low impact, environmentally sensitive, campus development
• Average employee salaries.of $50,000 or greater
• Phase I:
o 487,000 square feet class `A' corporate office, two buildings, 5 and 6 stories, 100%
structured parking (completed 1-1-02)
cl 1,200 employees
o National "Green Building" program participant
• Ultimate Potential:
0 2 million square feet class `A' corporate office, 10 buildings over 8 years
o $540 million capital investment
o $14 billion impact on the regional economy
Incentives Package
Financial
• 10-Year, 90% tax abatement on real and personal property for each programmed
construction year
• Chapter 380 agreement returning a portion (.5%) of the total 8.25% sales tax Sabre pays for
construction materials purchased at the Southlake site
• Infrastructure cost reimbursement for 12" water line relocation
Procedural
• Fast -track site plan approval process through P&Z and City Council
• Fast -track building inspections plan approval
• Dedicated inspections permitting staff via on -site city trailer
Southlake, Texas
23 pry 11, 2002 - Page 1 of 2
Verizon Wireless — Network Observation & Control Center
(W Development Program
• One of two facilities in the Nation
• Highly technical facility
• Phase I:
0 187,000 square feet, 400 employees
o $40 million in real and personal property
Ultimate Potential:
0 350,000 square feet, 1,000 employees
o $80 million in real and personal property
Incentives Package
Financial
• 4-Year step down tax abatement on real and personal property, Year 1-30%, Year 2-20%,
Year 3-15%, Year 4-10%
• An additional 5-year extension at a 10% level on real and personal property if Verizon
Wireless or landline constructed a building exceeding 200,000 square feet on a different
property in Southlake
• Chapter 380 agreement returning a portion (.5%) of the total 8.25% sales tax Verizon
Wireless pays for construction materials purchased at the Southlake site
• 50% reduction in administrative processing and review fees
• 50% reduction in impact fees, waiver of Park Dedication Fee
Procedural
• Fast -track site plan approval process through P&Z and City council
• Fast -track building inspections plan approval
• Dedicated inspections permitting staff via on -site city trailer
Southlake's Intanzible Incentives
These are offered to all projects!
Site Amenities: The Southlake sites along State Highway 114 include many amenities not
available at any other locations (e.g. rolling terrain, stable soils, extensive tree cover, natural
streams and lakes, proximity to full -service retail and personal services)
Community Presti&e: Southlake has developed a national reputation for quality projects and
community vision
Access: Imminent improvements to State Highway 114 allow exceptional vehicular access for
labor as well as a location mid -way between DFW and Alliance International Airports
Please contact us should you have any questions or desire further clarification.
Greg Last, CED, ASLA, AICP
Director of Economic Development
City of Southlake, 1400 Main Street, Suite 300, Southlake, Texas 76092
Phone: (817) 481-1671 Fax: (817) 481-1701
LW EM: glast@ci.southlake.tx.us Web: www.ci.southlake.tx.us
Southlake, Texas - In. 24 .1, 2002 - Page 2 of 2
Department of
Economic Development
Potential Incentives Summary
The City of Southlake is pleased to negotiate a variety of incentives to attract
corporations meeting the vision and standards established by City leaders. It is our
desire to utilize incentives strategically and judiciously to create a win -win outcome
for our future corporate citizens as well as our existing taxpayers.
Tax Abatement Policy and Application - The City of Southlake has adopted a Tax Abatement Policy
addressing various aspects of reviewing and granting tax abatements in the City. The application for
tax abatement is available from the Department of Economic Development. It is necessary that this
application be filled out adequately prior to negotiations regarding tax abatements.
POTENTIAL INCENTIVES
Following is a brief overview of potential incentives for qualified projects.
Financial
• Real Property Tax Abatement
• Personal Property Tax Abatement
• Chapter 380 Agreement (construction materials sales tax recapture)
• Administrative Fee Reductions
Procedural
• Fast -Track Planning Processing: City would work with the prospect to accommodate a zoning or
site plan approval process shorter than the typical process.
• Fast -Track Permitting: City would work with the prospect to allow fast -track permitting with
phased permit releases if desired.
• Dedicated Inspections: City would provide building inspectors dedicated to the construction project
as deemed necessary by the prospect's construction managers. Typically this involves on -site
accommodations for city staff.
Intangible Incentives
• Site Amenities: The Southlake sites along State Highway 114 include many amenities not available
at any other locations (e.g. rolling terrain, stable soils, extensive tree cover, natural streams and
lakes, proximity to full -service retail and personal services).
• Community Prestige: Southlake has developed a national reputation for quality projects and
community vision.
• Access: Imminent improvements to State Highway 114 allow exceptional vehicular access for
labor as well as a location mid -way between DFW and Alliance International Airports.
We are confident you will find these incentives more than competitive and when combined with the
many attributes of a Southlake location, come to the conclusion that this is the right location to
establish your corporate future. Please contact us should you have any questions or desire further
clarification.
Greg Last, Director of Economic Development
Phone: (817) 481-1671 Fax: (817) 481-1701
City of Southlake, 1400 Main Street, Suite 300, Southlake, Texas 76092
EM: glast a cisouthlaketx.us. Web: www.ci.southlake.tx.us
Southlake, Texas - Potentia 25 wary 8, 2002 - Page 1 of 1
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 06, 2003
(W TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Greg Last, Director of Economic Development
SUBJECT: Annual Project Prioritization by City Council
Step 2 - PROJECT RANKING
Action Requested: It is now time to rank the priority of projects in the master schedule.
Background
Information: The "Project Prioritization" process has been utilized as a management tool for
several years to best match staff work with the priorities of Council. It allows
City Council, board members and individual advocates of projects an
opportunity to place their item before City Council for collective ranking. This
process has provided clear direction to staff as to the Council's desires and has
greatly aided in the productivity of staff due to our ability to focus on the higher
priorities.
Process: The attached master schedule lists every project that has been submitted for
ranking by City Council and staff. (Note that there is an extra copy of the
master schedule on yellow paper for returning to staff.)
Please provide a "x" or check in the appropriate box in the "Priority" columns
1-5 on the left side of the chart with #1 being the higher priority. Approximate
distribution should be as shown in the priority column.
Please return the Yellow Master Schedule with your rankings distributed as
noted above to Greg by WEDNESDAY, June 11, 2003. Please keep the bound
booklet of PAF's for your reference and bring to the Retreat.
Financial
Considerations: None
Citizen Input/
Board Review: Citizens, board members and any interested parties are allowed to submit a
Project Advocacy Form (PAF) for consideration by Council.
Legal Review: None
Alternatives: Staff would be glad to pursue alternative management tools if suggested.
However, the current process has been used to match Council's desires with
staff's efforts for several years.
26
Supporting
Documents:
Staff
Recommendation:
Thanks.
Greg Last
Ph: (817) 481-1671
Fax: (817) 481-1701
Attached you will find a booklet including the following information.
• Copy of this memo
• Master Schedule / Status Report of all projects.
• Project Advocacy Forms for all projects on master schedule as noted.
• Loose Yellow copy of Master Schedule (Return this after ranking)
Continue to utilize the project prioritization management tool to ensure
alignment of Council's desires with staff's efforts.
We appreciate your cooperation in providing timely responses.
Feel free to contact any department director or the staff contact shown on the PAF
form to discuss an item or find out additional information.
PLEASE RETURN THE RANKED MASTER SCHEDULE TO GREG
LAST BY WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11.
N:\Econdev\PROJECTS\PRIORrrY\Memos\2003-06-06 CC Step2.doc
n -Y
L f
0
Results of Ranking
At this time the results cannot be compiled, but I hope to compile them prior to the
Retreat. Please submit the yellow ranking sheet to Greg to allow compilation of the
cumulative results.
I have received rankings from:
Mayor Wambsganss
Councilmember Evans
Call if you have any questions.
Greg Last
Cell: (817) 992-6156
P.S. Please bring your bound white booklets of PAF forms to the retreat. These will
contain the references to the projects once they are ranked.
28
A
A
Priority
MASTER SCHEDULE - City Council Project Priorities
STEP 3 - RESULTS OF RANKING (dune 2002 - Revised)
High -Loa
Dept
Z OO
Item
Comp
PAF
Enc.
Results
1
2
3141
5
Rank
Score
5
1 >
1
PL/CS
Ord. 483-I Amendments to Subdivision Ordinance changing
park dedication requirements
20%
Yes
1
1.43
3
PW
Drainage Master Plan
0%
Yes
2
1.57
3
2
1
PL
I-1 and B-1 Zoning District Changes
90%
Yes
3
1.67
3
2
PL
Special Events Permit & Procedures - Zoning Ord.
0%
Yes
4
1.80
4
1,
1
PL
Hotel / Motel. Regulations in Zoning Ordinance
0%
Yes
5
1.86
4
A`.
1
1
PL
Zoning Ord: Reduce Residential PUD Min. Acreage
50%
Yes
5
1.86
3
2
2::PL
Revise Landscape Ordinance to include bufferyards etc.
0%
Yes
7
2.14
1
5
11'
PW
Drainage Utility System
10%
Yes
7
2.14
1
2
4
PS
Emergency Preparedness Notification Program
80%
Yes
9
2.43
2
1:
2
PL
Driveway Ordinance Revisions
0%
Yes
10
2.80
1
4
1!`
PW
Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
0%
Yes
11
2.83
1
5
`a
PS
Ordinance Establishing Regulations on Corps' Property
90%
Yes
12
2.86
2'
3
'::1
PW
Pavement Management Ordinance
45%
Yes
13
3.00
2
1(
1
3
PL
Amortization of Certain Non -Conforming Uses
50%
Yes
14
3.14
2
.::1:::
3
PL
I-1 and 1-2 Zoning District Changes
0%
Yes
15
3.17
2
1;;
2
PW
Right -of --Way Management Ordinance
80%
Yes
16
3.20
1
.1.:
1
_
2
PS
Ord. 693-A, Excavation and Grading Ordinance - Revisions
0%
Yes
16
3.20
2
2
3
PL
"MH" District Changes in Zoning Ordinance
20%
Yes
18
3.29
1'<
1
1
PL
SUP for Commercial uses in Industrial Districts
5%
Yes
19
3.33
2
-
PW
Engineering Standards Ordinance
20%
Yes
20
3.50
1
1 <
1
X
3
CS
Amendments to Subdivision Ordinance to incorporate changes
from Trail System Master Plan
0%
Yes
20
3.50
3
1
3
PL
Conversion to a Unified Development Ordinance
50%
Yes
22
3.57
1
2
i>:
3
PL
Land Use Plan (LUP) Update
10%
Yes
23
3.71
1
1
4
PS
Residential lighting standards review
0%
Yes
24
3.83
l
1
1:'
4
PL
Zoning Ordinance - Front Yard Issues (Workgroup)
10%
Yes
25
4.14
1
:1:
4
CS
Public Art Master Plan
25%
Yes
26
4.17
2
3
PS
High Grass / Weeds Ordinance revision
0%
Yes
27
4.20
1
4
PL
Utility Placement Ordinance
Yes
27
4.20
2
3
CS
Youth Master Plan Development
10%
Yes
27
4.20
1
i'i
2
PS
Substandard Bldg. Ordinance
0%
Yes
30
4.25
1
1
3
CS
Develop policies for Therapeutic Recreation Programs
0%
Yes
31
4.40
2
5
PS
Update Noise Control Ordinance No. 484
90%
Yes
32
4.43
Department Legend: PW = Public Works, PL = Planning, CS = Community Services, CM = City Manager,
(W SEC = City Secretary, FI = Finance, PS = Public Safety, HR = Human Resources, ED = Economic Development
Master Schedule - City Counci ine 17, 2002
29
Priority
MASTER SCHEDULE - City Council Project Priorities
STEP 3 -RESULTS OF RANKING
High --Low
Dept
+�
�r
Item
%
Comp
PAF
Enc-
Results
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
Score
5
PW
Storm Water Utility District
80%
Yes
1
1
6
]
PL
City -Initiated Rezonings per the 1998 LUP Update
Comment: Staff preparation complete, pending workgroup
direction
70%
HOLD
Yes
2
1.43
3
PW
Drainage Ordinance Revisions
Comment: Intend to begin after elections.
80%
Yes
3
1.5
4
2::
1
PS/PL
Emergency Preparedness Notification Program
80%
Yes
4
1.57
I
41:
ED
Revisions to Tax Abatement Policy
Comment: Significant research collected. Priority has been the
Kirkwood Road Closure issue.
20%
Yes
5
1.8
3
2
PL
Conversion to a Unified Development Ordinance
0%
Yes
5
1.8
4
1
I
PW
Drainage Master Plan
0%
Yes
7
1.83
4
1
` `::
1
PL
Amortization of Certain Non -Conforming Uses (on hold)
Comment: ZBA orientation /procedures completed by staff,
awaiting city attorney's review and council direction.
50%
Yes
8
2
2
3
1'i
PL
Ord. 480-LL, revising outside storage / screening regulations
0%
Yes
8
2
3
2
1
::A:A
PW
Underground utilities
70%
Yes
8
2
3
.2::
1
>1
PW
Utility Placement Ordinance
70%
Yes
8
2
1
2:
1
PW
Utility Policies and Standards Ordinance
70%
Yes
8
2
4
1
PS
False Alarm Reduction Program
90%
Yes
13
2.14
3
1
2:
CS
Sidewalk / Trail Implementation Plan
Comment: In conjunction with TSMP update.
10%
Yes
14
2.17
2
3
PL
Thoroughfare Plan Amendment: Peytonville / Shady Oaks
connection
Comment: On hold at Council (work group to be formed of
area residents)
25%
HOLD
Yes
15
2.2
2
2'
1
PL
Zoning Ordinance 480-V - Misc. Clean-up Items Phase I
80%
Yes
15
2.2
1
3
1
1`;
PL
Hotel / Motel Regulations in Zoning Ordinance
Comment: Staff completed first draft, waiting on establishing a
workgroup.
25%
Yes
17
2.33
1
1.
3
CM
Commercial Dumpster Ordinance
50%
HOLD
Yes
18
2.4
I
1
4
CS
Revise Bicentennial Park Master Development Plan:
40%
Yes
19
2.5
2
.2::
a
1
PS
Update Noise Control Ordinance No. 484
90%
Yes
19
2.5
2
1
:`'2'
PS
1997 Uniform Fire Code
90%
Yes
21
2.6
2
1
CM
Citywide Strategic Plan
50%
Yes
21
2.6
1
2
2
1
PW
Street Standards Ordinance (Ord. 217)
75%
Yes
23
2.67
2
.;:1I
1
<:3
CS
Revise Bob Jones Park Master Development Plan
Comment: In conjunction with Parks Master Plan update and
75%
Yes
24
2.71
Master Schedule - City Council Prc 30 !000 9:36 AM
Priority MASTER SCHEDULE - City Council Project Priorities
STEP 3 - RESULTS OF RANKING
High ----- Low 7 Gb1ft+ PAF Results
112131415 Dept Item Comp Enc. Rank Score
Bob Jones Development
2
1
1.:
1
PL
Growth management study
85%
25
2.8
Comment: Final report pending in workgroup
1
1
2 <_2<
PS/PL
Revise Landscape Ordinance to include bufferyards etc.
0%
Yes
26
2.83
2
l
2
1
PL
Zoning Ordinance - SUP for Commercial uses in Industrial
5%
Yes
26
2.83
Districts
Comment: Idea has not been supported by PZ or CC in past.
2
2 :
l
CM
Trash pick-up contract review
0%
Yes
28
3
]
1:<
2
1
1
PL
Ord. 480-KK, revising noise standards
80%
Yes
28
3
Comment: Staff preparation and City Attorney review complete,
waiting on discussion at CC on 7-18-00, consideration by PZ
on 7-20-00
3 :
1
1:
1
PS
Sign Ordinance Revisions
0%
Yes
28
3
1
2
3
PS
Ordinance Establishing Regulations on Corps' Property
0%
Yes
31
3.17
1 <
1
2?
PW
Septic Ordinance
25%
Yes
32
3.25
is
4
1.
1
CS
Youth Master Plan Development
0%
Yes
33
3.29
1
3
1 `
1
PL/CS
Ord. 483-I Amendments to Subdivision Ordinance changing
0%
Yes
34
3.33
park dedication requirements
2.
2
2
CM
City of Southlake Annual Report
0%
Yes
34
3.33
1
PL
Zoning Ord: Reduce Residential PUD Min. Acreage
50%
Yes
34
3.33
(land conservation revision)
HOLD
Comment: On hold per request of workgroup.
1
2
2?
1 PL
Zoning Ordinance - Special Events Permit & Procedures
80%
Yes
34
3.33
Comment: Staff has completed first draft
4
2
PS
Parade and Street Closure Ordinance441
5%
Yes
34
3.33
1:
2
PS
Substandard Bldg. Ordinance
0%
Yes
34
3.33
1 :
3
..3'
PS
High Grass / Weeds Ordinance revision
0%
Yes
34
3.33
]
"
]
'.4
PW
Sign Ordinance Revisions (704-B) Open House Signs
0%
Yes
34
3.33
2
3 PL
Revisions to the Corridor Overlay Regulations
0%
Yes
42
3.4
4
1
PW
Flood Plain Ordinance
0%
Yes
42
3.4
1
3 2
1
CS
Clean Streets / Beautiful City Project
0%
Yes
44
3.43
I
1'
1 .1:
2
CS/PL
Trail System Master Plan Update
20%
Yes
44
3.43
1
2<
]>
3
CS
Ord. 774, Amending Trail system Master Plan to require all
60%
No
44
3.43
trails to be 8 feet in width
2?
1
1
2
PS
Residential lighting standards review
0%
Yes
47
3.5
CM
Resident Satisfaction Survey
0%
Yes
47
3.5
I
< 2
3;'
1
CM
Southlake Historical Commission
50%
Yes
49
3.57
2
1
2
CM
Rules of the City Council
0%
Yes
50
3.6
Master Schedule - City Council Pro 31 soon 9:36 AM
A
(W N:1Econdev\PROJECTS\PRIORITY\Reports\2000-06-23.doc
Department Legend: PW = Public Works, PL = Planning, CS = Community Services, CM = City Manager,
SEC = City Secretary, FI = Finance, PS = Public Safety, HR = Human Resources, ED = Economic Development
Priority
MASTER SCHEDULE - City Council Project Priorities
STEP 3 - RESULTS OF RANKING
High--Lom,
Dept
2 M C1QVCV
Item
Comp
PAF
Enc.
Results
1
2
3141
5
Rank
Score
2'
1
2
PL
Elimination of perimeter walls and fences around residential
subdivisions in low density areas along arterial roadways.
0%
Yes
50
3.6
7'
1
`.'2
1
PW
Health and Sanitation Ordinance
0%
Yes
50
3.6
li
2
1
2
PL
Zoning Ordinance - Front Yard Issues (Workgroup)
10%
Yes
53
3.67
2
2::
]
PL
Zoning Ordinance Revisions: Lighting Standards
0%
Yes
54
3.8
1:;
1
1:4
2
PW
Street Light Standards
0%
Yes
54
3.8
>:
2
1
2
PS
Mass Gathering Ordinance
0%
Yes
56
4
1
i'
4
PS
Elevator Ordinance
0%
Yes
57
4.5
The following projects were submitted after Council ranking.
PS/PL
Tree and Landscape Ordinances, (GF/PD)
0%
Yes
PL
City Art Fund/Commission/Business District (PD)
0%
Yes
PUPW
Driveway Ordinance Revisions (PD)
0%
Yes
PL
Gas Station Regulations Revisit (PD)
0%
Yes
LL
Note: If you would like to request a Project Advocacy Form (PAF), please contact Greg at 481-5581, x750
or E-mail: glast@ci.southlake.tx.us
Master Schedule - City Council Project 1 32 :36 AM
A
Priority
MASTER SCHEDULE - City Council Project Priorities
1999 June Retreat Ranking - 6/25/99 10:52 AM
High -Low
Dept
Item
%
Comp
PAF
Enc.
Results
1
2
3141
5
Rank
Score
6
1.
PL
Zoning Ordinance - Outside Storage Issues (no workgroup)
80%
Yes
1
1.14
4
3
ENG
Drainage Master Plan
Phase I: Inventory and data assembly
Phase II: West Jones Branch Study Area
Phase III: South Fork Kirkwood Branch Study Area
25%
Done
Done
50%
Yes
2
1.43
4
3.
ENG
Drainage Ordinance Revisions
80%
Yes
2
1.43
5
1
1
CS
Sidewalk / Trail Implementation Plan
5%
Yes
2
1.43
6
1
CM
Citywide Strategic Plan
0%
Yes
5
1.57
4
2
1
PS
Lighting Standards
90%
Yes
5
1.57
3
1:<
2
1
ED
Revisions to Tax Abatement Policy
20%
Yes
7
2.14
3
2;
1
1
PL
City -Initiated Rezonings per the 1998 LUP Update (on hold)
0
Yes
8
2.29
2
J';
4
PL
Hotel / Motel Regulations in Zoning Ordinance
5%
Yes
8
2.29
2
>:3'1:
I
1
ENG
Underground utilities
0%
Yes
8
2.29
1
2<
4
CM
Commercial Dumpster Ordinance
50%
Yes
11
2.43
4
2
1
ENG
Utility Placement Ordinance
50%
Yes
12
2.57
3 i
3
PL
Zoning Ordinance - Front Yard Issues (Workgroup)
10%
Yes
13
2.71
2
4
1
PS
Update Noise Control Ordinance No. 484
10%
Yes
13
2.71
3
1
?<2:>
1
CM
Southlake Historical Commission
0%
Yes
] 3
2.71
1
?
2
2.
All
Impact fee update
50%
Yes
13
2.71
1
1
4
1
ENG
Storm Water Utility District
80%
Yes
17
2.86
1
1
3
:21
CS
Youth Master Plan Development
0%
Yes
17
2.86
1:
5
I.i
ENG
Street Standards Ordinance (Ord. 217)
75%
Yes
19
3
2
<
2
2
1
PS
Emergency Preparedness Notification Program
0%
Yes
19
3
1
4
.2:
PL/PS
Revise Landscape Ordinance to include bufferyards etc.
0%
Yes
19
3
3
4!
ENG
Street Light Standards (separated from lighting stds above)
0%
Yes
22
3.14
2
J'
1
3
CS
Trail System Master Plan Update
5%
Yes
22
3.14
4..
3
PL
Zoning Ord: Reduce Residential PUD Min. Acreage
(land conservation revision) on hold
50%
Yes
24
3.29
1
2
1
3
PL
Zoning Ordinance 480-V - Misc. Clean-up Items Phase 1
80%
Yes
24
3.29
1<
2
3>
]
ENG
Utility Policies and Standards Ordinance
50%
Yes
24
3.29
2.
2
2'
1
PW
Septic Ordinance
25%
Yes
24
3.29
21
4
PL
Zoning Ordinance - Special Events Permit & Procedures
.80%
Yes
28
3.33
3
CS
Revise Bob Jones Park Master Development Plan
0%
Yes
29
3.43
1
1
`3'
2
PL
Amortization of Certain Non -Conforming Uses (on hold)
0
Yes
30
3.57
1:
3
J<
2
CM
Open Records Ordinance
15%
Yes
30
3.57
1
1
3
2
PL
Michael Drive Initiative (Direction from CC on 12-1-98)
60%
Yes
32
3.71
3
:1
1
PS
Parade and Street Closure Ordinance
5%
Yes
32
3.71
1
2
> 1':
3
1 PL
I Sign Ordinance Revisions (704-B) Open House Signs
0%
Yes
34
1 3.86
N:1Econdev\PROJECTS\PRIORITY\Reports\1999-06-25. doe
33
A
Priority
MASTER SCHEDULE - City Council Project Priorities
1999 June Retreat Ranking — 6/25/99 10:52 AM
High --Low
Dept
Item
%
Comp
PAF
Enc.
Results
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
Score
2
>'3':
2
CS
Clean Streets /Beautiful City Project
0%
Yes
35
4
1
3
3
PL
Zoning Ordinance - SUP for Commercial uses in Industrial
Districts
5%
Yes
36
4.14
1
31
3
CS
Revise Bicentennial Park Master Development Plan
0%
Yes
36
4.14
V
4
CM
All America City Award in 2000
0%
Yes
38
4.29
1
; 1;
5
CM
Rules of the City Council
0%
Yes
39
4.57
Dept Legend: PW = Public Works, ENG = Engineering, PL = Planning, CS = Community Services, CM = City Manager,
SEC = City Secretary, PS = Public Safety, HR = Human Resources, FI = Finance, ED = Economic Development
The following items have been asked for / approved by Councilmembers but have not been prioritized by City Council
CMO
Trash pick-up contract review (PD)
0%
Yes
PS
Revise Tree Ordinance (DE)
0%
Yes
PL
Revise Multi -Family Requirements (DE)
0%
Yes
PL
Revise Manufactured Housing Requirements (DE)
0%
Yes
ENG
Revise Flood Plain Ordinance (DE)
0%
Yes
PS?
Write grading (earth moving) ordinance (DE)
0%
Yes
The following items are additional projects identified by staff.
N:\Econdev\PROJECTS\PRIORITY\Reports\1999-06-25.doc
34
Priority
COUNCIL PRIORITIZATION SCHEDULE - June 26,1998
High ---Low
Dept
'
Item
Results
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
Score
5
2
CD/PS
Sign Ordinance Revisions (WG 75% complete)
1
1.57
3
4
PR
Land Acquisition Plan for Ultimate Build -out of Park System
1
1.57
4
2'
1`
PW
Drainage Master Plan
3
1.71
4
2'
PW
Drainage Ordinance Revisions
3
1.71
2
3.
2
1
CD
Zoning Ordinance - Outside Storage Issues
5
2.00
4
2
1.
CD
Zoning Ordinance - Reduce Residential PUD Min. Acreage
5
2.00
4
2;>
CD
Zoning Ordinance 480-CC: (Residential Adjacency, Corridor revisions)
(95% Complete)
5
2.00
3
1 I'
2
1
CMO
Citywide Strategic Plan
8
2.29
2
31.
1
1
PW
Storm Water Utility District
8
2.29
4
2
1
CD
Zoning Ordinance 480-BB: (Impervious Coverage)
10
2.43
3
2
2ii
PW
Utility Placement Ordinance
10
2.43
3
1:
1,
2
CD
City -Initiated Rezonings per the 1998 LUP Update
12
2.71
1
CD
Zoning Ordinance -Amendments to Parking Requirements
12
2.71
2
2.
PS
Lighting Standards / Street Light Standards (WG 60% complete)
14
2.86
4
I
<;
1
PW
Street Standards Ordinance (Ord. 217)
14
2.86
1;
5
1
CD
Zoning Ordinance - S.O.B. Regulations
16
3.00
1
4
I
1
CD
Zoning Ordinance 480-V - Misc. Clean-up Items Phase 1(95%)
17
3.14
3
1
3
CD
Zoning Ordinance - SUP for Commercial uses in Industrial Districts
17
3.14
Z
3
1 <
1
CD
Amortization of Certain Non -Conforming Uses
17
3.14
3
13
PR
Sidewalk / Trail Implementation Plan
17
3.14
3
1
3
CMO
Smoking Ordinance
21
3.43
2>
21.
1:
2
CMO
Commercial Dumpster Ordinance
21
3.43
2
I
3
1
PW
Utility Policies and Standards Ordinance (Revise Ord. No. 170)
21
3.43
4
2
1
CD
Zoning Ordinance - Front Yard Isues (Workgroup 10% complete)
24
3.57
2':
3,
2
PS
Health and Sanitation Ordinance
25
3.71
2
4'.
1
CD
Zoning Ordinance - Special Events Permit & Procedures
26
3.86
2:
2i
3
CM07
Open Records Ordinance
26
3.86
N:\ECONDEV\PROJECTS\PPIORrMREPORTS\1998-06-26.DOC
35
LM
A
Priority
COUNCIL PRIORITIZATION SCHEDULE - June 26,1998
High ----Low
Dept
Item
Results
1
2
3
4
5
Rank
Score
Dept Legend: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, PR = Parks, CMO = City Manager's Office,
CS = City Secretary, PS = Public Safety, HR = Human Resources, FI=Finance
1<
l
3
2
PR
Trail System Master Plan Update
26
3.86
2
3;
2
PW
Septic Ordinance
29
4.00
.
1
1
4
PS
Update Noise Control Ordinance No. 484
30
4.14
1
::2:::4
PR
Park Dedication Ordinance - Fee Justification Study
31
4.43
Dept Legend: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, PR = Parks, CMO = City Manager's Office,
CS = City Secretary, PS = Public Safety, HR = Human Resources, FI=Finance
ti
N:\ECONDE VIPROJECTS\PRIORITY\REPORTS\1998-06-26.DOC
36
r
Southlake City Council
Project Prioritization
■ Purpose
. Provide management staff with collective
Council direction and prioritization of multiple
projects
■ Desired Outcome
. Discuss ranked list of Council priorities and
other project ideas
■ Agree on prioritization for coming year
Southlake City Council
Project Prioritization
. Includes:
■ Ordinances
■ Master plan components
■ Projects, special requests
■ Does not include:
. Capital Improvements, infrastructure, etc.
. Administrative issues
Southlake City Council
Project Prioritization
■ Process
■ Solicit projects from Council / Directors
■ Citizens may also submit through Council
■ Identify problems to correct, issues to resolve
and formalize through Project Advocacy Form
■ Council ranks projects
. Review results at retreat
bN-f i LOo
1
Southlake City Council
Project Prioritization — Results roof»
1. Emerg. Preparedness Program
2. Hotel / Motel Regs
3. Sign Ord. Revisions
4. ROW Mgmt Ord.
4. Drainage Master Plan
4. Excavation/ Grading Ord.
4. Comp. Plan Update
8. Drainage Util. System
S. Underground Udl. Ord.
8. High Grass / Weeds Ord.
11. Ublity Placement Ord.
11. Subdivision Ord. - Trails
11. Unified Dev. Ord.
11. Special Events Permits & Roc.
15. SUP for Commercial in Indust.
15. Amortization of Certain Uses
17. Sanitary Sewer Master Plan
17. Tree Ord. Revisions
17. Landscape / Bufferyard Ord.
17. Zoning Change Super -majority
17. Ethics Ord. Revisions
22. Noise Ord. Revisions
2.2. Zoning Reversion Provisions
22. Public Art Master Plan
22. Youth Master Plan
26. Residential Ughting Ord.
26. 1709 Medians
28. Substandard Bldg. Ord.
29. Driveway Ord. Revisions
30. Zoning — Front Yard Issues
Southlake City Council
Project Prioritization - Summary
. Understand process and outcome?
. Suggestions to the process?
■ Any unlisted projects to be discussed?
. Collectively agree on prioritizations?
. Discussion
2
CITY COUNCIL JUNE RETREAT
DPS Facility, Community Room 2100 West Southlake
.West
Blvd
TEXT ITEMS ONLY
Page
Status Report on 800 MHZ Radio System
Gary Gregg'
37
Overview of the Impact Fee Ordinance :
Bruce Payne
39
Revisions to Mass Gathering and Solicitors
Bruce Payne
42
Ordinance
Overview of Alternatives Relating to Senior
Malcolm Jackson
46
Transportation
Overview of Issues Relating to Joint Utilization
Malcolm Jackson
49
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 13, 2003
(W
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Gary Gregg, Technical Services Manager
SUBJECT: Status Report on 800 MHZ Radio System
Action Requested: City Council discussion of financial information for the development of the
FY 2003-04 budget as part of June Retreat.
Background
Information: As of June 4, 2003 the conversion to the Northeast Tarrant County Trunked
Radio System is 90% complete. All police and fire mobile and portable radios
were reprogrammed. The communications consoles were refreshed and
upgraded to newer software on June 3ra
Over two hundred portable and mobile radios were reprogrammed to specific
templates designed to increase efficiency and to allow total infra -city and
inter -agency communications with the six surrounding cities of Euless,
Bedford, Grapevine, Colleyville, Keller and Westlake. Our dispatchers can
now tone out and give assignments directly to fire units from neighboring
cities as they respond. Police services now have the ability to have
individual radio channels for several operations occurring simultaneously.
The system enhancements also added several channels that will be used for
events where multiple divisions of the city will be operating together such as
Art in the Square and October Fest.
The greatest improvement noticed immediately was in coverage both in -
building and outdoors, throughout the city. Public safety officers will now
be able to talk from inside Sabre and the public schools. Communications
specialists noted the improved signal quality almost immediately after the
transfer.
We will complete the addition of our trunked radio channel to the Northeast
Tarrant County Trunked Radio System by the end of the month. This will
increase the system capacity overall.
This project is currently on schedule and will be finalized by the end of June,
2003.
Financial
Considerations: City Council approved participation in the Northeast Tarrant County Trunked
Radio System and the upgrade to the 800 MHZ radio system was funded by
the Crime Control & Prevention District.
37
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 13, 2003
Page 2
(W Citizen Input/
Legal Review: N/A
Alternatives: N/A
Supporting
Documents: N/A
Staff
Recommendation:
A
Staff recommends discussion of these important issues at the June Retreat.
38
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Bruce Payne, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Overview of the Impact Fee Ordinance Update
Action Requested: This "text only" item is provided as information to Council as part of the June
Retreat.
Background
Information:
Impact Fees
Impact fees are charges by the City on new development to help fund the costs of designing, acquiring
land, and constructing major capital improvements necessary to serve new growth. Impact fees also help
recover the cost of constructing oversized facilities and expanding existing facilities. Through impact fees,
a developer pays only the share of the costs needed to provide improvements based on the demand their
new development places on the overall system. Impact fees cannot be used to fund operation or
(W maintenance costs, or to cure system deficiencies generated by existing development.
The City of Southlake charges three types of development impact fees: 1) water, 2) wastewater,
and 3) roadways. The amount of the fee charged is based upon the amount of "impact" that an
individual development will have on the City's capital facilities. The greater the demand a
development places on these systems, the greater the fee the City will assess. Fees for each
facility type are calculated, assessed and collected independently.
Types of development subject to impact fees
Water and wastewater fees are charged when installing a new water meter or increasing the size
of an existing meter. No water or wastewater impact fees are charged when replacing an existing
meter with a meter of the same or smaller size. The City does not charge water impact fees for
service solely dedicated for fire protection or wastewater impact fees for service solely dedicated
towards irrigation.
Roadway impact fees are charged when constructing a new structure or expanding an existing
non-residential structure. Roadway fees are not charged for additions to an existing single family
residence, construction/enlargement of a residential accessory building or finish-out/remodeling
of an existing commercial building.
Adoption of an Impact Fee Ordinance:
(W The adoption of an impact fee ordinance by a Texas city is a detailed process, the steps of
which are outlined in Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. In general, the
following steps must be taken:
W7
• Appointment of the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee (Texas Local
Government Code § 395.058). The city's Planning and Zoning Commission may be
appointed as the advisory committee; however, if that is done by the city, at least one
member of the advisory committee must be a representative of the real estate,
development or building industry. During the last impact fee ordinance update, the city
used the Planning and Zoning Commission as the Capital Improvements Advisory
Committee (CIAC).
The CIAC reviews the scope of the proposed impact fee ordinance and identifies targets
facilities. In Texas, those eligible facilities are water supply, water treatment and
distribution facilities; wastewater collection and treatment facilities; storm water,
drainage and flood control facilities; and roadway facilities. In determining the scope of
the impact fee program, only certain charges and facilities may be included in the impact
fee.
The CIAC prepares the Land Use Assumptions (LUA). "Land Use Assumptions" are
defined as including a "description of the service area and projections of changes in land
uses, densities, and population in the service area over at least a 10-year period." The
LUA is based on the City's adopted Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The Land Use
Assumptions (LUA) will serve as a basis for the preparation of the Capital Improvements
Plan (CIP) over a ten-year period as well as a basis for the generation of the number of
"service units" to be served.
• After the Land Use Assumptions have been established, a public hearing must be held to
consider those Land Use Assumptions "within the designated service area that will be
used to develop the capital improvements plan." There are very specific notice and
publication requirements for the public hearing and approval of the Land Use
Assumptions is required before an impact fee ordinance can be adopted. Although the
statute allows a consolidated hearing on the Land Use Assumptions and the Capital
Improvements Plan, that rarely is advisable since changes in the Land Use Assumptions
will often necessitate modifications to the Capital Improvements Plan.
• After the adoption of the Land Use Assumptions, the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) is
prepared. The State statute sets out certain requirements for the Capital Improvements
Plan. A city must be able to show that costs within the Capital Improvements Plan that
are eligible for impact fee funding indeed are attributable to new growth and are derived
from the Land Use Assumptions. It should be noted that the Capital Improvements Plan
prepared pursuant to Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code is very different
from a city's traditional capital improvements plan. The traditional capital improvements
plan identifies many projects (including repairs or enhancements of existing facilities)
that are to be undertaken during a five year period of time. Consequently the City of
Southlake and many other cities have two types of capital improvements plans, a Chapter
395 Capital Improvements Plan and a traditional capital improvements plan. The Chapter
395 Capital Improvements Plan requires a city to define an appropriate level of service.
This level will vary depending upon the nature of the targeted capital facility. Selection
of a service level represents an indirect commitment by the city to both correct existing
deficiencies and to deliver services in accordance with projected need. In order for a
project to be eligible to receive impact fee funds, it must be listed as a project on the
Chapter 395 Capital Improvements Plan.
• After the completion of the Capital Improvements Plan, a public hearingis necessary.
The notice and hearing requirements the Capital Improvements Plan are contained in
Section 395.049 of the Texas Local Government Code. Specifically, an impact fee
40
ordinance must be adopted within thirty (30) days of the hearing on the Capital
Improvements Plan and impact fees.
A
Periodic Update of the Land Use Assumptions and the 395 Capital Improvements Plan:
The City of Southlake adopted its latest impact fee ordinance on February 15, 2000. By state
law (Chapter 395 of the Local Government Code), a city imposing an impact fee shall update
the land use assumptions and capital improvements plan at least every five years. The initial
five-year period begins on the day the capital improvements plan is adopted. The city's
update shall follow the steps outlined previously in this memo.
Upcoming Events:
Late 2003 or Early 2004 — The City Council will review the proposed City of Southlake
Comprehensive Land Use Plan as recommended by the Southlake 2025 Committee. The
update of the Land Use Assumptions on the impact fee ordinance will be based on the
newly adopted Land Use Plan.
Late 2003 or Early 2004 — The CIAC will prepare a report with respect to the progress of
the 395 Capital Improvements Program and report to the City Council any perceived
inequities in implementing the plan or imposing the impact fee. Also, the CIAC will
advise the City Council of the need to update or revise the Land Use Assumptions in the
impact fee ordinance, capital improvement plan and impact fee.
• Spring 2004-The CIAC begins work on updating the current Land Use Assumptions in
the impact ordinance, the 359 Capital Improvements Program and the Impact Fee
Ordinance.
Financial
Considerations:
Citizen Input/
Board Review:
Legal Review:
Alternatives:
Supporting
Documents:
Staff
Recommendation:
None.
None at this time.
None at this time.
Council may choose to repeal the impact fee ordinance instead of performing the
required update.
None.
No recommendations at this time.
41
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
Im
TO: Hon. Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bruce Payne, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Revisions to Mass Gathering and Solicitors Ordinances
Action Requested: This "text only" item is provided as information to Council as part of the June
Retreat.
Background
Information: Upon the departure of former City Secretary Sandra Le Grand in February,
2002, acting City Secretary Kim Bush was assigned the duties of administering
the city's solicitors and seasonal sales ordinances, which are found in the
Southlake City Code. In attempting to apply the regulations, Ms. Bush
determined that the city's traditional practices with regard to soliciting and
seasonal sales activities were not consistent with the language and actual
requirements of the ordinances. The inconsistencies of the ordinance language
with past practice became immediately apparent at the time of the April, 2002
Art in the Square event held in Town Square. The ordinance language required
each participant with goods for sale to have a solicitor's permit, which had not
been previously required. Later the same year, the farmer's market activities in
Town Square raised similar concerns. The immediate result of enforcing the
requirement that every vendor involved in such events have a valid solicitor's
permit created an acute increase in the workload of the city secretary's office.
After reviewing the language of the ordinances with various members of the city
staff, the city manager's office assigned the task of rewriting the two ordinances
to the planning department.
The planning department began work on revising the two ordinances in August
of 2002. The first phase of the task was to review Southlake's administrative
code and zoning ordinance to determine if there were any other regulated
activities that were related to those covered in the solicitor's and seasonal sales
ordinances. In addition, other cities' ordinances regulating soliciting activities
were reviewed which, in part, were provided by the city attorney's office.
After the initial review, the planning department determined that there were five
separate ordinances/categories of activities presently on the city's books that are
closely related and were in need of comprehensive revision. These include the
separate ordinances relating to 1) solicitors; 2) seasonal sales; and 3) mass
gathering, found in the city's administrative code; along with the regulation of
4) special events and 5) temporary uses, found in the city zoning ordinance.
The central theme that runs through these items is that they are all temporary in
nature.
42
In February, 2003, the city encountered a number of people representing a
private charity soliciting for donations in the city's public right's -of -way
(specifically, by mingling with vehicular traffic at traffic lights on the paved
portion of the streets). The limitations of the solicitor's ordinance again became,
apparent when it was determined that the ordinance did not prohibit the use of
the public right-of-way by non-profit entities for such activities. In March,
2003, City Council passed a 120 day moratorium that prohibited soliciting in the
public rights -of -way. Being so closely related to the ordinance work already in
progress, the planning department was able to incorporate corrective measures
into the soon -to -be proposed ordinance revisions governing soliciting and mass
gatherings.
Below is a quick review of the existing, related ordinances and regulations as
determined by the planning department with the identified issues that are in need
of attention:
• Mass Gathering Ordinance (198-1)
Adopted June, 1982. Based upon review of the content of the ordinance, it
would appear that it was originally adopted to contend with the possibility of a
"Woodstock" style rock concert occurring in Southlake. The ordinance applies
to all gatherings of 500 people or more and goes into great detail about required
supplies of water, emergency aid supplies (i.e. band -aids), number of porta-
potties, etc. Given that the type of large scale event the ordinance was designed
for never materialized (resulting in the ordinance being applied rarely- if ever),
in-house memory of the ordinance faded. Consequently, the provisions of the
LW ordinance had not been invoked in some time. During the ordinance review
phase conducted by the planning department, it was discovered that the literal
interpretation of the ordinance would require mass gathering permits to be
processed for children's soccer leagues and little league teams, the July 4'
celebration, special events such as Art in the Square and October fest, etc.
Following up on the recognition of the requirements of this ordinance, its
provisions were recently applied to the Jewel outdoor concert that was held
during the 2003 Art in the Square event. The mass gathering ordinance is
administered by the city secretary's office and the department of public safety.
• Sale of Seasonal Items (Ord. 419)
Adopted February, 1988. This ordinance attempts to bridge the gap between
permanently established uses controlled by the zoning ordinance and temporary
retail sales operations related to seasonal events. The seasonal sales ordinance
also functions similarly to a solicitor ordinance via the application and
registration requirements of the vendors. The ordinance authorizes the
temporary sale of Christmas trees, snow -cones, firewood and similar seasonal
goods. Vendors are required to have a seasonal sales permit in order to conduct
the authorized activities and are specifically prohibited from conducting such
activities without a permit. The ordinance stipulates the specific zoning districts
where authorized seasonal sales operations are allowed to be conducted,
(W therefore, it performs as a hybrid zoning ordinance designed to regulate
temporary retail uses. Permits are limited to the following specific zoning
districts: AG, CS, R-1, R-2, I-1, & I-2. Please note that two of the named
43
zoning districts no longer exist within the city, due to the adoption of Ord. 480,
which converted the R-1 and R-2 districts to C-1 and C-2 (inexplicably, the
ordinance language in the updated city code presently references the C-1 and C-
2 districts, however, there is no record of an amendment to Ord. 419
accomplishing this task). It should also be pointed out that the locations that
have been traditionally used for seasonal sales activities (Dallas Foam site, NW
corner of FM 1709 & Randol Mill, SW corner of Dove & Kimball, etc.) are not
in any of the aforementioned zoning districts. This ordinance is administered by
the city manager's office.
• Zoning Ordinance (Ord. 480)
Adopted September, 1989. The initial version of this comprehensive revision to
the city's zoning ordinance did not include language governing special events or
temporary uses. Outdoor vending in the 0-1, 0-2, C-1, C-2, C-3 & C-4 zoning
districts is dealt with through the standard floor area requirement that "Each
store, shop or business shall have a minimum of 500 square feet of floor area
("floor area" being limited to the interior of the primary structure), which
would indicate that no outside vending may occur within the aforementioned
zoning districts. However, hot dog, popcorn & drink vendors notwithstanding,
a quick review of existing businesses within the city quickly reveals that there
are dozens of otherwise legitimate "stores, shops or businesses" within these
zoning districts that do not meet the floor area standard (i.e. accounting,
insurance, landscaping, banks, and other uses). Therefore, it is apparent that
the floor area provision, as written, has not been rigorously applied over the
years. The zoning ordinance was amended to allow for temporary tents for the
purposes of promoting retail sales by Ord. 480-H. Outdoor vendor sales and
special events were allowed as an SUP through adoption of the Town Square
NR-PUD in 1997, and subsequently remained an SUP when the PUD was
converted to the Downtown zoning district in 2003. The zoning ordinance is
administered by the zoning administrator.
• Peddler's and Solicitor's (Ord. 643)
Adopted November, 1996. The solicitor's ordinance was the city's most recent
attempt to regulate itinerant merchants and solicitors operating within its limits.
The ordinance applies to mobile solicitors, moving either by foot or by vehicle,
within the city limits. The predominant regulatory language of the ordinance
pertains to information required in making application; requirement for a bond;
allowed hours; and required display of identification. The ordinance does not
regulate what a solicitor sells, nor where items may be sold. The ordinance also
does not make a distinction between soliciting on private property vs. public
property, and does not apply to non-profit solicitation activities. The peddler's
and solicitor's ordinance is administered by the city secretary's office.
In light of our original assignment, the planning department has recently completed
final drafts of revised mass gathering and peddlers & solicitors ordinances. The
ordinance revisions are generally designed to create and expand necessary definitions,
rules and regulations and to assign administrative responsibilities to the appropriate city
departments. We have also worked closely with the city attorney's office to ensure that
44
Im
constitutional and statutory issues related to these types of ordinances are properly
observed and respected.
With regard to mass gathering issues, we have clearly defined what constitutes a mass
gathering event, de-emphasized the more narrow focus of large, outdoor concert events
and related regulations, and placed administrative responsibilities wholly with the
department of public safety. City Council will ultimately approve mass gathering
applications. In association with these changes, we are proposing that special events as
an SUP be removed from the zoning ordinance, as all special events would be covered
under the revised mass gathering regulations.
The revised solicitor's ordinance has also been expanded as to its application, properly
distinguishing between public and private property, and accommodating both non-profit
and for -profit activities. It is also structured to work in harmony with the mass
gathering ordinance, being that soliciting activities tend to go hand -in -hand with the
various mass gathering activities that occur within the city. We propose that
administration of the ordinance be assigned to the department of public safety, who
would also issue the permits after appropriate background checks are conducted.
The seasonal sales ordinance is somewhat more difficult to address, and we believe
requires Council direction. It is our view that the optimal solution would be to merge
seasonal sales activities into the city zoning ordinance due to the fact that such
temporary uses are more readily addressed within the context of zoning. Correction of
the authorized districts for such activities and revision of unworkable language
presently contained within the zoning ordinance are the most urgent issues that need to
be addressed. Additional time, place and manner restrictions that reflect tradition
limitations on such activities are readily accommodated within the structure of the
zoning code. The seasonal sales ordinance could then be repealed, thereby streamlining
the proper administration of such activities.
Financial
Considerations:
Citizen Input/
Board Review:
Legal Review:
Alternatives:
Supporting
Documents:
Staff
(W Recommendation:
None.
Planning & Zoning Commission - May 21, 2003 & June 5, 2003
Yes.
No action.
None.
Council schedule a work session to allow full discussion of all related issues.
45
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 11, 2003
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Malcolm Jackson, Director of Community Services (xt. 1527)
SUBJECT: Overview of Alternatives Relating to Senior Transportation
Action Requested: Place as a "Text Only Item" on the City Council June Retreat.
Background
Information: Senior transportation was originally provided to Southlake residents by the
Northeast Transportation System (NETS). NETS provided rides to seniors and
the disabled for medical, employment, senior services, and social services.
The cost to participate was fifty cents per capita or approximately $10,000 per
year based on population estimates. The City ended its relationship with
NETS in 2000 as a result of low rider -ship in comparison with the annual
costs, limited social transportation opportunities, and the advent of a new
volunteer transportation program referred to as Call A Ride Southlake, Inc.
(CARS).
CARS was established as a non-profit organization in November 1999 with the
function of providing volunteer transportation services to the senior population
of Southlake. CARS began offering transportation services to Southlake
seniors and the handicapped in January of 2000. CARS operates under a
Board of Directors, employs two part-time office staff, utilizes forty-eight
volunteer drivers and their personal vehicles, and owns a handicap accessible
van. Their service area is currently defined as a seven mile radius from the
Senior Center for regular rides (shopping, Senior Center, banking) and a
twenty-five mile radius for medical and dental appointments. Approximately
140 one-way rides are provided by CARS to seniors each month. The City has
annually supplemented the operational costs of CARS by allocating seed
money in the amount $22,500 to a decreasing amount of $5,000, with the
ultimate goal of CARS becoming self-sustaining. Minimal operational costs
for staff, fuel, insurance, and maintenance are estimated at $20,000 annually
with funding historically provided through the City, donations, grants, and
fund raisers. The City also currently provides office space at the DPS East
facility at no cost.
Staff was recently advised by CARS Chairman Steve Lakin that CARS had
approximately ten months of funding available for their operations. Mr. Lakin
indicated that CARS expects to end its volunteer operations around December
this year. Mr. Lakin cited reduced donations and the tremendous demand for
time involved in the recruitment and retention of volunteers and on -going
funding as the basis for their intent to end operations. Mr. Lakin further
indicated that both the existing CARS van and all of the financial assets would
be forwarded to any organization that continued the operations of a similar
program.
46
Billy Campbell, City Manager
Tune 10, 2003
Cge 2
Several options have been discussed among CARS representatives, the Senior
Advisory Commission, and city staff members, including the following: (1)
City completely fund CARS operations, including the existing CARS
employees; (2) Continue a CARS -like program using all volunteers through
the Senior Advisory Commission; (3) Seek alternatives utilizing other existing
organizations such as Metroport Meals on Wheels or Northeast Transportation
Systems; (4) Investigate a taxi -cab voucher program; (5) Discontinue this type
of service; (6) Seek some other alternative not yet identified; or (7) Implement
a senior transportation system that may incorporate a combination of these
alternatives.
Staff is currently exploring combining efforts with eight area cities (Hurst,
Euless, Bedford, NRH, Colleyville, Haltom City, Keller, and Grapevine) that
have formed an Urban Transit District and have taken over Northeast
Transportation System at the request of TxDot in order to continue receiving
federal funds. NETS is presently operating out of the YMCA in North
Richland Hills providing service through the use of four vehicles. They
currently provide, in priority order, transportation service for medical,
employment, senior services, and social services. The Urban Transit District
Board has hired a consultant to assist them with running the program and to
develop specifications as they are required to re -bid transportation services.
Initial discussions by the Board with public transportation providers resulted in
no show of interest. As a result, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was let
soliciting private transportation providers with technical proposals due to the
Board in July. Upon review and preliminary selection of a firm, a price
proposal will be requested with award anticipated in August. The new service
provider is anticipated to begin providing service in October of 2003. The
Board has mentioned that the group is open to other cities joining. Current
estimates for participation will be based on the price proposal accepted by the
Board, but historical indications suggest an established rate of $0.50 per
resident can be expected.
Financial
Considerations: The financial considerations will vary widely, depending upon the option(s) or
alternative(s) ultimately selected. Preliminary estimates indicate an annual cost
of $12,000 per year to participate in the Northeast Transportation System
through the Urban Transportation District, which is one option available.
Supplemental programs may be selected, such as the volunteer operation of
CARS through the Senior Advisory Commission, in conjunction with NETS
resulting in variable costs depending on selection and scope of services.
Financial
Impact: The proposed amount of up to $12,000 for NETS participation would be an
increase of $7,000 more than the amount CARS is currently requesting or
receiving this year. Additional costs for the maintenance and operation of the
47
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 10, 2003
;e 3
A
accessible van ($5,000 annually) would also provide a financial impact should
the City continue the CARS program in some fashion.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: City staff met with Steve Lakin, Chairman of the Board of Directors for
CARS, on March 25, 2003 to discuss various alternatives. A meeting was
conducted with the Senior Advisory Commission (SAC) on April 8, 2003 to
seek their input. The SAC indicated the following concerns: (1) If the City
adopted the entire program, support funding from outside organizations would
diminish or discontinue; and (2) Availability of transportation needs for daily
independent living needs, such as banking, shopping, and social services.
Legal Review: The City Attorney reviewed the original scope of services agreement proposed
by CARS; however, there has been no additional legal reviews conducted at
this time.
Alternatives: This item is placed as a "Text Only Item" and expects to be brought forward to
City Council at a future meeting for discussion.
Supporting
Documents: None
Staff
Recommendations: Place as a "Text Only Item" on the City Council June Retreat with the intent to
bring forward to the Council at a future meeting for discussion.
M
City of Southlake, Texas
MEMORANDUM
June 10, 2003
TO: Billy Campbell, City Manager
FROM: Malcolm Jackson, Director of Community Services (xt. 1527)
SUBJECT: Overview of Issues Relating to Joint Utilization
Action Requested: Place as a "Text Only Item" on the City Council June Retreat.
Background
Information: The concept of joint utilization between the City and Carroll Independent
School District officially began in May of 1993 with a resolution establishing
an agreement to share and/or jointly utilize facilities, equipment, parks and
maintenance, and to enter into other joint use projects. Over the years, the City
and CISD have worked cooperatively to share school gymnasiums for
basketball and volleyball programs, classrooms for recreation classes, school
and City playing fields for youth sports associations and school teams, and
park facilities for class outings. Additionally, the City has contributed $1.25
million towards the construction of the CISD Natatorium, $800,000 for the
Carroll Middle School gymnasium, $100,000 for sports lighting on the Carroll
Intermediate School (CIS) field, and annually budgets $20,000 for
maintenance items and improvements to joint use facilities. Per the Joint Use
Agreement, field usage fees collected from the youth sports association for the
use of the CIS field are divided between the City and CISD with each
receiving fifty percent. The City also provides assistance in the programming
and publicizing (Southlake Scene) of aquatic programs, and pays the CISD
twenty percent of all fees collected for City programs using the natatorium.
Economic restraints on CISD and the City have led the Joint Utilization
Committee (JUC) and staffs from both organizations to seek creative methods
to reduce CISD maintenance and operational costs. For the first time, this
year's City and CISD summer programming was consolidated into smaller,
more efficient facilities in an effort to reduce electrical and maintenance costs.
City staff also implemented an "Event Report Form" and "Facilities Duty
Form" to establish procedures and a check list for leaving joint use facilities in
a clean and well maintained manner.
As a discussion item at the August 8, 2002 meeting, CISD Board and Joint
Utilization Committee member Steve Lakin proposed to the JUC the
implementation of a user fee for City recreation program participants using
CISD facilities. During discussions, the general consensus of the JUC
appeared to be to have Mr. Lakin bring forward from the CISD Board of
Trustees a resolution asking the City to consider such a fee.
At the planned October 10, 2002, JUC meeting, Mr. Lakin asked that this item
be placed on the agenda for consideration in order for the clear direction of the
Joint Utilization Committee to be documented. The meeting was not held due
49
Billy Campbell, City Manager
June 10, 2003
Page 2
to a lack of a quorum, however, during informal discussions following the
meeting, it was reiterated by other JUC members that no action would be taken
absent a resolution from the CISD Board of Trustees asking the City to
consider such a user fee. No further discussion of this item has occurred at a
Joint Utilization Committee meeting since. If imposed, the cost for a potential
user fee would likely be implemented as a "pass through" fee collected by the
City and forwarded to the District. Approximately 6,000 recreation
participants use CISD facilities annually.
A
Financial
Considerations: The financial considerations will vary, depending upon future joint use
opportunities and the potential for implementation of a user fee for CISD
facilities.
Financial
Impact: The implementation of a joint use program between the City and the CISD has
resulted in substantial cost savings for the citizens of Southlake throughout the
years by reducing the number of facilities required to meet the needs of the
community. Savings can be directly linked to cost reductions in construction,
facility operations and maintenance, and staffing.
Citizen Input/
Board Review: The Joint Utilization Committee currently meets on the second Thursday of
every other month. The Committee consists of two Council members, one
Park Board member, one City appointed citizen representative, two CISD
Board representatives, and one CISD citizen representative.
Legal Review: No legal reviews are required at this time.
Alternatives: This item is placed as a "Text Only Item" to brief the Council on items relating
to the Joint Utilization process.
Supporting
Documents: None
Staff
Recommendations: Place as a "Text Only Item" on the City Council June Retreat.
50