HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1991-11-11 Agendas
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
CI1Y OF NORTH RICH LAND HILLS
PRE-COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 11, 1991 - 5:45 P.M.
For the Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers, 7301
Northeast Loop 820.
NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
1. IR 91-148 Hewitt Street Sanitary Sewer Extension (5
Minutes)
2. GN 91-158 Proposed Issuance of General Obligation Bonds
(Agenda Item No. 19) (10 Minutes)
3. IR 91-149 1992 Drainage Improvements Program (15
Minutes)
4. Changing Date of December 9th Council Meeting
(5 Minutes)
5. PS 91-17 A Reconsideration of Request of Volkman for
Replat of Lots 2R-1R thru 18R-1R, Block 26, and
Lots 4R-1R thru 7R-1R, Block 33 Holiday Lane
West Addition (Agenda Item No.9)
and
Moratorium on Building Permits in R-8 Zones -
GN 91-153 Resolution No. 91-41 (Agenda Item No. 14) (10
Minutes)
6. GN 91-157 Teen Court Coordinator Position (Agenda Item
No. 18) (5 Minutes)
7. IR 91-151 Park Land Dedication Ordinance (15 Minutes)
8. PZ 91-09 PLANNING & ZONING - PUBLIC HEARING-
Consideration of an Amendment to Zoning
Ordinance No. 1080 Regarding Carnivals and
Other Special Events - Ordinance No. 1748
(Agenda Item No.8) (5 Minutes)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
9. GN 91-97 Consideration of an Amendment to Subdivision
Ordinance No. 1579 Requiring Masonry Screening
Walls Along Major Thoroughfares - Ordinance
No. 1750 (Agenda Item No. 11) (10 Minutes)
10. GN 91-152 Ordinance Approving the Updated Service Credit
and Increased Benefits for Retirees Provisions of
the Texas Municipal Retirement Act - Ordinance
No. 1772 (Agenda Item No. 13) (5 Minutes)
11. Other Items
12. Work Session
13. *Executive Session (10 Minutes)
a. Personnel
b. Briefing on Pending Litigation
c. Review of Progress on Land Acquisition
114. I Adjournment - 7:20 p.m. i I
*Closed due to subject matter as provided by the Open Meetings Law. If any action is
contemplated, it will be taken in open session.
·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CI1Y OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
CI1Y COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 11, 1991
For the Regular Meeting conducted at the North Richland Hills City Hall Council Chambers, 7301
Northeast Loop 820, at 7:30 p.m. The below listed items are placed on the Agenda for discussion
and/ or action.
NUMBER ! ITEM ACTION TAKEN I
1. I Call to Order I
2. ! Invocation I
3. ! Pledge of Allegiance I
4. Minutes of the Regular Meeting
October 28, 1991
5. Presentations by Boards & Commissions
None
6. Removal of Item(s) from the Consent
Agenda
'-
7. Consent Agenda Item(s) indicated by
Asterisk (13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24 & 25)
8. PZ 91-09 PLANNING & ZONING - PUBLIC
HEARING - Consideration of an
Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No.
1080 Regarding Carnivals and Other
Special Events - Ordinance No. 1748
(Tabled at the July 9, 1991 City Council
Meeting)
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page 2
I NUMBER ! ITEM I ACTION TAKEN I
9. PS 91-17 A Reconsideration of Request of Volkman
for Replat of Lots 2R-IR thru 18R-1R,
Block 26, and Lots 4R-1R thru 7R-1R,
Block 33, Holiday Lane West Addition
(Denied at the October 28, 1991 City
Council Meeting)
10. PS 91-17 B Request of Volkman's Inc. for Replat of
Lots 2R-1R thru 18R-1R, Block 26 and
Lots 4R-1R thru 7R-1R, Block 33,
Holiday West Addition, Section 10
(Located on Cancun Drive and Buenos
Aries Drive) (Denied at the October
28th City Council Meeting)
11. GN 91-97 Consideration of an Amendment to
Subdivision Ordinance No. 1579
Requiring Masonry Screening Walls
Along Major Thoroughfares - Ordinance
No. 1750 (Tabled at the October 28,
1991 City Council Meeting)
12. GN 91-151 Special Permit for Truck Show/Swap
Meet
*13. GN 91-152 Ordinance Approving the Updated
Service Credit and Increased Benefits for
Retirees Provisions of the Texas
Municipal Retirement Act - Ordinance
No. 1772
14. GN 91-153 Moratorium on Building Permits in R-8
Zones - Resolution No. 91-41
*15. GN 91-154 North Hills Community Park Grant
Application
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
! NUMBER
*16. GN 91-155
*17. GN 91-156
*18. GN 91-157
19. GN 91-158
*20. PU 91-38
*21. PU 91-40
*22. PU 91-41
*23. PU 91-42
*24. PU 91-43
*25. PU 91-44
26.
27.
! ITEM
Adopt Revised Industrial Waste
Ordinance - Ordinance No. 1773
Award of Bid for Commercial Lot A3,
Richland Plaza Addition
Teen Court Coordinator Position
Proposed Issuance of General Obligation
Bonds
Glenview Drive Sanitary Sewer Project -
Easement Acquisition - Parcel No.4
Recommendation to Award Bid for City's
Property Insurance Coverage for 1991-92
Approve Purchase of Right-of-Way from
Bursey Ranch Partnership for the
Proposed Construction of Bursey Road
(Parcel No.1)
Purchase of Radios from HGAC
Extension of Contract for Uniform
Cleaning Services
Proposed Contract for $21,900 with
"Choice Solutions" for Computer
Hardware for Fire Department
Citizens Presentation
Page 3
ACTION TAKEN
POSTED
//-1·91
Date
¿¿'~!ij21YL
i !rne
- -
Adjournment
_ny V~'-'&~laIY
nO. -fkI__
I
'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No.
IR 91-144
Date:
November 11, 1991
Subject:
MARTIN DRIVE PAVING IMPROVEMENTS
The subject improvements were completed in 1989. Council authorized final
payment to the Contractor on December 11, 1989. The two year maintenance bond
is still in effect. We have officially notified the Contractor and bonding
company by registered mail that they have repairs to make on the subject
project.
We will continue to coordinate with the contractor, Austin Paving Company, on
this project until satisfactory repairs have been made.
Respectfully submitted,
ns, P.E.
ic Works/utilities
'. "-
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
........- ,.-.- -. .... -...-..... ".,...
. . ... NORTH RICHLAND HI~LS, TEXAS
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
if
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
"
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No. IR.91-145
Date:
November 11, 1991
Subject:
DAVIS BOULEVARD @ STARNES/RUMFIELD ROAD;
Temporary Signalization
The Public Works (PW) staff is proceeding with this project. We will
coordinate with the Texas Department of Transportation (TDOT) concerning the
design layout for the temporary signals and will be requesting proposals from
signal contractors. The work the signal contractors would do is all items
which the PW staff cannot accomplish. Installing the wooden poles and
stringing the cable between the poles is an example of the work our staff
cannot do.
We will notify the Council of all progress made in trying to install the
temporary traffic signals at the subject location.
Respectfully submitted,
j
ns, P.E.
ic Works/utilities
-,
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
---.- -
. . NORTH R'CHLAND HI~LS, TEXAS
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No. IR 91-147
~~
)(
l1F
Date:
November 6, 1991
Subject:
NETS Program
Attached is a report through September, 1991, for Northeast
Transportation Services. The service has just received two of their
three new vans. These two new vans will replace vans that were loaned
to NETS to start the service. The third van will help meet the
expanding need for this service.
Please call if you need additional information.
Respectfully submitted,
." ¡þ I L
I . ~ ....!l
{f· i 1. ï £H--,.
C.A. 'Sanf~~d
Assistant City Manager
CAS/gp
Attachment
- ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HilLS, TEXAS
I
Ie
I
I
I
··f~fCA. of :\Ietroootitan .Fort "r orth
Urban Services YMCA 5342 Davis Blvd., Ste. A Fort Worth. Texas 76180 ¡ (817) 428-6387
October 24, 1991
\~~/
'~~:~r c
., //
v ç/
../
~.
I
I
I
I
t'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Mr. Rodger Line
City Manager
City of N. Richland Hills
PO Box 820609
N. Richland Hills, TX 76182
Dear Mr. Line:
We are delighted that N. Richland Hills will continue to be a member
of the Northeast Transportation Service for the corning fiscal year.
With the help of UMTA Section 9, and State Transportation Funds,
we are able to expand the NETS program as demand increases.
I have enclosed a quarterly ridership report for N. Richland Hills
and for NETS as a whole. Ridership is growing steadily. It is
obvious that NETS is meeting a crucial need. Thank you for being
part of this important effort.
Please call me if you have any questions, or need additional information.
Sincerely,
-,
-L~--L- c"~
Cr'
Laurale achman
Program Director
o
United Way
Helps Here
1-
-.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
t-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
x":\IC.A of .\Ietroooiitan fort "i'ortn
lJrban Services YMCA ~ 5342 Davis Blvd.. Ste. A ) Fort Worth. Texas 76180 It (817) 428-6387
NORTHEAST TRANSPORTATION SERVICE
RIDERSHIP STATISTICS
CITY OF N. RICHLAND HILLS
March through Sept, 1991
N. Richland Hills
Total NETS
Total applications mailed
Total riders registered
Total trips orig. in N.R.H.
Total unduplicated individuals
112
85
766
46
498
298
2,708
178
Unduplicated individuals
Elderly
Disabled
Low Income
23
14
9
99
46
33
o
United Way
Helps Here
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t~~
t/)
I
I
I
I
I
I
--.
I
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No. IR 91-150
Date: November 11, 1991
Subject:
3rd Annual Metroplex Parks Maintenance Rodeo
The North Richland Hills Parks and Public Grounds Maintenance
Employees recently competed in the 3rd Annual Metroplex Parks
Maintenance Rodeo, sponsored by the Irving Parks and Recreation
Department. The competition consisted of contests based on use of
equipment and skills related to park maintenance. Events included a
riding mower obstacle course, nail driving contest, backhoe
operation, irrigation system troubleshooting, trailer backing
contest, plant identification, etc..
Ricky Bob Hodges, of the North Richland Hills Parks Department, won
the Backhoe Operation Competition which was comprised of scooping a
raw egg off the top of a sand pile, with a backhoe and placing it
unbroken in an oil pan in the shortest period of time and with the
least amount of sand! Ricky's winning time was well under three (3)
minutes. Sam Mason placed fourth in the trailer-backing competition
and Al Obregon placed fifth in the irrigation troubleshooting
contest. Seven (7) different North Richland Hills Parks and Public
Grounds employees placed in the top ten of the various events, which
was good enough to compile a 6th Place finish in the overall
standings.
In addition to an enjoyable time of fun and competition, with Park
Departments from throughout the Metroplex, seminars and training
programs in tree planting techniques, athletic field maintenance,
irrigations system, and chemical application were provided for
educational and professional development.
Respectfully Submitted,
\.~~
Jim Browne
Director
Parks and Recreation Department
''.... '-
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HillS, TEXAS
I
,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
N IR 91-148
o.
Date:
November 11, 1991
Subject:
HEWITT STREET SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
This project started in April 1989 when three property owners, Eddie Fuchs, T.R.
Bennett and Bill Privett submitted a joint application to replat their individual
lots. The application was reviewed by Public Works and it was determined that
the sewer line in the Hewitt Street right-of-way would need extending to the
west. The engineer for the replat was John Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman proceeded
with the survey and design of the subject sewer. The construction documents were
completed and approved by Public Works in March 1990. This was not a City
project therefore Mr. Zimmerman was allowed to negotiate this contract rather
than take public bids. The project was not constructed due to a lack of
financing by the three property owners. Since the sewer was not constructed, the
replat was not submitted to City Council.
The project resurfaced in January 1991. The property owners were requesting that
the sewer extension be constructed as a City project. This would allow the
property owners to pay for the project as an assessment. Mr. Zimmerman was
contacted by Public Works and agreed to provide the original design drawings.
Since the project was previously a developer project, the consulting City
Engineer was contracted to provide the bid documents. In February 1991, Mr.
Zimmerman transmitted the approved drawings to the City. In addition, he sent a
copy of the originally negotiated ($14,276.60) proposal. In March 1991, Richard
Stacey, Bill Privett, Edward Fuchs, and Larry Hutchens signed Covenants agreeing
to pay for the proposed construction by assessment. The assessment fees would be
levied as defined by City Ordinance No. 1707. This would allow the City to
construct the improvements and assess these property owners for 90% of the
construction cost. The project was then advertised and bids were taken on May
17, 1991. The low bid was $28,052.00. This was nearly twice the originally
negotiated price. Acting as spokesperson, Mr. Privett informed Public Works that
the property owners could not afford this project and therefore would request
that the City not construct the sewer line. The consulting City Engineer
notified the contractor of the results and returned the bid bond on June 3, 1991.
On May 13, 1991 the City Council approved the assessment projects for Valleyview
Estates and Crane Road Sewer Projects. The assessments were reduced by the
Council from 90% to 50%. As a matter of courtesy, Public Works notified M~~ .
Privett of the recent Council action. We pointed out that staff could not make
the same concession. If the owners wanted to present their case to Council, they
too might receive the same reduction in their assessment. Mr. Privett said that
he would notify the other property owners and let us know if they wanted to
pursue it.
Public Works has just recently been approached by Mr. Fuchs. We have explained
that the original bid is no longer any good. We also recommended that the
property owners present their case to the Council prior to taking bids again.
Respectfully submitted,
ISSUED BYTHECITY MANAGER
...._-~. -.- .-.- '"
. . NQRTH R'CHLAND HIt..LS, TEXAS
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tt
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MA VOR AND CITY COUNCIL
No. IR 91-149
~ Date:
7' r Subject:
November 11, 1991
1992 Drainage Program
Drainage improvement projects have been the predominant issue for the last
several CIP Meetings. The City Council, based upon the recommendation of
the CIP Committee, has approved and funded many projects which are listed
below. The CIP Committee has recommended that several additional drainage
projects be funded from the "drainage utility" fee.
In an effort to clarify the funding status of various projects, the
following information is submitted for your review. If the City Council
concurs with this schedule we will place it on a subsequent agenda for
formal Council approval of the 1992 drainage improvement program. The
attached list does not include voter approved bond projects for which
bonds have not been sold nor planned for immediate sale.
I. Project funded from the January bond sale
Calloway Branch Phase IIB/Maplewood Bridge
to Lola Drive (to include Lola Bridge)
$2,762,494
II. Drainage projects approved by the CIP Committee and
recommended to be funded from Drainage Utility Fee
($833,000) and remainder of January bond sale
$237,506)
A. Calloway Branch @ Hightower Drive
Permanent Box Culvert and Channel Liner
505,000
B. Continental Trial Drainage Improvements
(Culvert and Earthen Channel, CIP 10/23/91)
36,000
C. Corona Drive Drainage
(Storm Drain on Redondo Street from Marilyn to
to Corona then on Corona west to Katherine
Drive, CIP 8/19/91)
,"
200,000
D. Little Bear Creek Tributary No. 1
(Concrete Channel Liner adjacent to Northfield
Park, CIP 10/23/91)
240,000
E. Starnes Road Drainage Improvements
(6704 Starnes Road, Ralph Thrasher, CIP 10/23/91)
F. Debt Service Payment on 1990 Bond Sale
15,000
*
G. Balance unspecified to be held in reserve
74,506
Total Proposed Funding from Drainage Utility
and Remainder of January Bond Sale
$1,070,506
- ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HilLS. TEXAS
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
Page Two
III. Projects approved and previously funded
- other sources
A. Timberhill Drive/Crestwood Addition
Parallel Storm Drain (GN 90-166)
$260,000
B. Woods Lane Storm Drain
(Green Valley south to Woods Lane then
east to Davis Blvd. (GN 90-166)
213,000
C. Corona Drive Drainage Improvements
(from Shauna north to Marilyn west to Redondo)
(PW 91-30)
73,000
D. Little Bear Creek Channel Clearing
(Precinct Line to Northfield Park)
(CIP 10/23/91)
60,000
606,000
Total Funding - Other Sources
IV. Drainage improvements considered by CIP Committee
but not funded.
A. Mackey Creek Misc. (Shauna/Riviera/Mackey/
Briley)
1,700,000
B. Harmonson Drainage (Rufe Snow to Flory)
39,000
c. Little Bear Creek Bridge and Concrete Liner
(Precinct Line to Kirk Lane to Northfield Park)
4,407,000
* The first payment on the $3,000,000 1992 bond sale will occur in
1993.
· In summary, formal Council approval of a 1992 program will be reqùested at
a subsequent City Council Meeting. Thereafter, we will proceed with all
engineering, design work and bid documents.
Respectfully submitted,
9unwW ¡~
Dennis Horvath
Deputy City Manager
DH/gp
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
INFORMAL REPORT TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
IR 91-151
No.
\;J~
-c:::::: x
~r
Date:
November 11, 1991
Subject:
Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Texas cities have the authority to require the mandatory dedication
of private land for public purposes. An ordinance, outside the
authority of zoning, that mandates the dedication of park land,
payment of cash, or provision of park site improvements can be an
equitable, flexible and practical solution to park system expansion.
Such an ordinance should be administered as a part of the subdivision
and platting process. This allows municipal leaders and staff the
opportunity to review detailed site layouts and construction plans
prior to acceptance of land, cash, or dedication of site improvements
or a combination of these.
To avoid being confiscatory, the ordinance must require application
of formulas to ensure that the amount of land required for
dedication, or the amount of cash or site improvements required in
its place, is neither excessive or unreasonable. The formulas assure
that the required dedication is related to the additional demands for
park and recreation services created by a new sUbdivision. A draft
mandatory park land dedication ordinance is attached. The fOllowing
lists advantages and disadvantages associated with the use of
mandatory dedication by a city such as North Richland Hills:
ADVANTAGES
* Local park and open space needs may be met when an area is
platted.
* It allows for the joint acquisition and development of school and
park sites.
* It allows for selection of the most appropriate location for a
park at the time streets are being laid out. ~,
* It helps protect the City from overly inflated land costs for park
sites.
* It provides incentives for efficient sUbdivision design.
* Fees collected in lieu of land dedication are matchable by the
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for park grant applications.
* It creates future value for the city in the same manner as other
land development controls, such as zoning.
- ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER
NORTH RICHLAND HilLS, TEXAS
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
DISADVANTAGES
* Land taken by required dedication may not be used as local match
for Texas Parks and wildlife Department park grant applications.
* The area in which cash cOllected-in-lieu-of land dedication may be
spent is limited to the general location of the sUbdivision from
where it is collected.
* It adds to the cost of development, and this cost will be passed
on to the future buyers of lots. However, prospective purchasers
will likely see that the extra cost, amortized over the life of a
mortgage, will be balanced by the benefits they will receive from
the park facilities.
This ordinance has been reviewed and discussed by the Parks and
Recreation Board since 1986. In order for the ordinance to be
defensible and comply with the Texas Supreme Court findings, it was
necessary for the City of North Richland Hills to prepare and adopt
a current Comprehensive Parks, Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
which defines park service zones and determines park land needs in
geographic planning sectors. This criteria has been met with the
recent adoption of our 1991 Park Master Plan. This ordinance was
revised and re-presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission, without
objection, during the Master Planning Process. The Parks and
Recreation Board has prioritized the proposed adoption of this
ordinance in their Master Plan Strateqy for ImDlementation and voted
unanimously to request City Council review, make appropriate changes,
and "fine tune" this ordinance for implementation.
Respectfully Submitted,
~::-. ~\~N€
Jim Browne
Director
Parks and Recreation Department
Attachments:
Proposed Park Land Dedication Ordinance
Chart of Fees and Ratios from Other Cities
City of Allen - Review of Park Land Dedication Ordinances
City of Grapevine Case study - Summary
Formula for Land/Cash Ratios
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Page 2
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS, THAT:
Ordinance #1579, the Subdivision Ordinance, adopted March 13, 1989,
and heretofore amended, be and the same is hereby amended to include
the following provisions:
1. Neighborhood Park Dedication
Any person, firm or corporation offering a Preliminary or Final
Plat for development of any area zone R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4-SD,
R-5-D, R-6-T, R-7-MF, or R-8 in the City shall in such platting
include a fee simple dedication to the City of North Richland
Hills of land for neighborhood park purposes, such dedication
shall be on the basis of one (1) acre of land per each 100
proposed residential units, and/or the payment of cash in lieu
thereof, such amount shall be established annually as herein
provided. Fee simple title to said land shall be transferred
to the City prior to the filing of the final plat of said
subdivision.
2. Residential Planned Development Districts
Any person, firm or corporation offering a Preliminary of Final
Plat for development of any area under the provisions of the
Planned Development District (PD) of the City of North Richland
Hills Zoning Ordinance may be exempt from the requirements of
this .Park Land Dedication Ordinance provided said development
meets as a minimum all of the following conditions: (a)
exemption from this ordinance is specifically stated in the PD
ordinance covering the development; (b) the amount of park land
dedication required in the PD ordinance exceeds that required by
the Park Land Dedication ordinance; (c) the value of the public
improvements constructed (at no cost to the City) exceeds that
required by the Park Land Dedication Ordinance; (d) fee simple
title to the park land dedication is received by the City; and
(e) the park land dedicated is included in a final plat.
'\-.. '- .'
3. Cash in Lieu of Dedication
(a) Cash in Lieu of a One Acre or Less Dedication: The
City declares that development of an area smaller than
one (1) acre for public park purposes is impractical.
Therefore, if the proposed subdivision contains less
than one hundred (100) units, the subdivider shall be
required to pay cash in lieu thereof in the amount
provided herein. No plat showing a dedication of less
than one (1) acre shall be approved.
(b) Cash in Lieu of Less Than a Five Acre Dedication: In
instances where an area of less than five (5) acres is
required to be dedicated, the City shall have the
right to accept the dedication of an area with less
than five acres, or to refuse same, and to require
payment of cash in lieu thereof in the amount provided
herein.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Page 3
(c) Combined Land Dedication and Payment of Cash for Equal
To or Greater Than a Five Acre Dedication: In
instances where an area equal to or greater than five
(5) acres is required to be dedicated the City shall .
have the right to accept not less than five (5) acres
in partial fulfillment of the dedication requirement
with the remaining obligation fulfilled by a cash
payment.
(d) Cash in Lieu of Dedication: In instances where it is
determined that sufficient neighborhood park land is
already in the public domain within a Neighborhood
Park Zone the City shall have the right to refuse the
dedication and require payment of cash in lieu thereof
in the amount provided herein.
(e) Pre-development Acquisition: The City may from time
to time decide to purchase neighborhood park land
because of availability and ¡ocation, and/or an
anticipated shortage of land, in the future. If the
City does purchase neighborhood park land to the
extent that no additional neighborhood park land is
required to meet the needs of future residential
development in a park zone, all subsequent park land
dedications for that neighborhood park zone shall
require payment of cash in lieu thereof, in the amount
provided herein.
(f) Amount of Cash Payment Required: The dedication
requirement shall be met by a payment of cash in lieu
thereof computed on the basis of $351 per dwelling
unit. Cash payments shall be used only for
acquisition or improvement of a neighborhood park
located within the same neighborhood park zone as the
subdivision except as provided herein. Payment shall
be made by certified check and due prior to the filing
of the final plat. In addition to the cash payment in
lieu of land dedication the subdivider shall de~Qs~t
funds with the City for the construction of street
improvements which would be required under the
dedication of land requirement. The amount of said
deposit shall be based on the construction of 200
linear feet per acre of equivalent dedication as
determined by the Director of Public Works using
previous and/or current bids for said improvements.
4. Dedication Instruments
The land dedication required by this ordinance shall be made by
filing of a Final plat showing said land and the delivery of a
fee simple instrument in the name of the City of North Richland
Hills.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Page 4
5. Credits for site Improvements
The City Shall have the right to accept neighborhood park site
improvements in lieu of the payment of cash when the payment in
cash equals or exceeds a five acre equivalent dedication,
provided further the cost of construction of said improvements is
equal or exceeds the cash in lieu of payment, excluding the cost
of topographic survey, soils test, and fees for the preparation
of construction plans and specifications, the implementation of
this provision shall require and be conditioned to the following.
(a) site Plan: Such improvements shall be in accordance
with a site plan. Such site plan will include at a
mi~imum a topographic element including proposed
grading; landscaping and beautification elements; site
facilities, recreational facilities; and existing and
proposed utilities. The site plan shall be drawn at a
maximum scale of 1"=50' (or a suitable scale). All
approved improvements shall be provided in compliance
with the Desiqn Manual for Public Works/utilities for
such improvements. Additionally, the subdivider shall
include details related to materials, equipment,
methods of construction, warranties, assurances, and
indemnifications.
Should this option be exercised, the subdivider and
the City shall, prior to initiation of work on such
improvements, enter into an agreement for credit of
the subdivider expenses for authorized park
improvements. Final credit will be accorded to the
subdivider upon final acceptance of the authorized
park improvements.
(b) If the payment of cash in lieu of dedication value is
in excess of the value of the improvements provided,
then the excess shall be paid to the City at the time
of the issuance of the first building permit in the
subdivision. In no case shall the City be required to
reimburse the subdivider if the subdivider chooses to
improve the park land at a value greater than
required.
(c) site Improvements: Improvements proposed in this
agreement may include one or more of the following
neighborhood park improvements. Any improvements
proposed by the subdivider, but not included in this
list, and/or any improvements which are not needed or
deemed necessary at the site, may be rejected. In
addition, the City may approve the provision of any
improvement not shown on this list if such improvement
is in compliance with the findings and recommendations
of the Comprehensive Park System Master Plan.
.
. j..~:,-~.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
~.. .,......-..
~ .
Page 5
.. . "......:
-. -- ...,'-....
,":~~";;~;.¡¡,-.~. .' .-.,;..--
Playgrounds (provisions for handicap access and use
must be made)
Practice Athletic Fields
Volleyball Courts
Basketball Courts
Tennis Courts
Multi-purpose Trails and Walkways
Benches and picnic Tables
Drinking Fountains
Security Lighting (provided that electrical service is
placed underground)
Landscaping, Irrigation and Park Signage
Parking and Park Roads
6.
Expenditures of Collected Funds
(a). Special Fund
There is hereby established a special fund for the deposit
of all sums paid in lieu of land dedication under this
ordinance. This fund shall be known as the Park Land
Dedication Fund.
(b) Right to Refund
The City shall account for all sums paid in lieu of land
dedication under this ordinance with reference to the
individual plats involved. Any funds paid for such purposes
must be expended by the City within five (5) years from the
date received by the City for acquisition, and/or
development, of neighborhood parks as defined herein. Such
funds shall be considered to be spent on a first in, first
out basis. If not so expended, the subdivider or the owner
of the subdivision on the last day of such period shall be
entitled to a pro-rata- refund of such sum, computed on a
square footage or area basis. The owners of such property
must request such refund within one year of entitlement, in
writing, or such right shall be forfeited. ~..
(c) Geographic Limits to Use of Funds
All funds accumulated through the payment of cash in lieu of
park land dedication shall be identified as being
attributable to that neighborhood park zone and shall be so
designated in the Park Land Dedication Fund. All
expenditures from the Park Land Dedication Fund shall be
expended for land or improvements within the zone from which
received, with the sole following exception:
When existing conditions preclude the effective acquisition
and/or development of park land and/or recreation
facilities, such as a lack of undeveloped sites, the funds
collected from one zone may be expended in a contiguous
zone only. But in no case shall the funds be expended at
1-·
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
-I
~I-
Page 6
dîstance greater than-one (1) mile from the boundary of the
zone from which the funds were collected.
7.
General Requirements of Property Dedicated
(a)" Land dedicated shall be clearly visible to. p~blic
safety vehicles and the neighborhood residence.
(b) Pedestrian and vehicular access to the land dedicated
shall be available from one 'or more public streets.
A minimum of two hundred linear feet of street shall
be required per acre of land' dedicated for a distance
of up to 1,200 linear feet.
Land dedicated shall have widths and depths which
permit the development and/or construction of
facilities listed herein and as described in the
Master Park Plan.
(c) A minimum of fifty (50) percent of the land dedicated
shall have grades of less than three (3) percent, well
drained, and suitable for development of neighborhood
park facilities.
(d) Potable water and sanitary sewer shall be readily
available to the land dedicated from an adjacent
street right-of-way or a public utility easement.
(e) Land dedicated should be free of overhead utilities
and/or easements which prohibit the effective use of
the property as a neighborhood park.
(f) The subdivider shall warrant that no' construction
materials, rocks, and/or dirt will be disposed of or
dumped within th~ dedicated land dedicated by its
contractor, subcontractors, employees or agents at any
time. If, however, these materials are disposed of or
dumped on the land dedicated, the subdivider sha~l' ,be
required to remove those materials upon receipt of
written notice requesting same. Additionally, the
subdivider shall be responsible for returning the
dedicated land to its natural condition prior to or at
the time of dedication.
(g) The subdivider shall prepare a final plat of the land
dedicated.
(h) Floodway land as defined by the City Engineer of North
Richland Hills will not be eligible for fulfillment of
the dedication requirements of this ordinance.
However, the subdivider is encouraged to donate such
land in its natural state to the city for open space
purposes.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
re
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
,I
I
Page 7
(i) Flood fringe ·land or that area located between the
floodway. line and the 100 year flood plain line as
defined by the City Engineer may be included in the
land dedication, however, land located in said area
must equal two (2) times the area requirements
specified herein (that is one acre of flood fringe
equals 1/2 acre of land located above the flood
fringe); provided further, said flood fringe land
shall be deemed suitable for active and/or passive
recreational use, be easily accessible, visible and
identifiable as public open space, and contain
environmental features; and/or provides, or will
provide in the future a connection in total or in part
between existing or proposed park and/or school sites.
(j) The subdivider shall construct all street
improvements, including paving, drainage, sewer and
water, at no cost to the city adjacent to dedicated
land; if the construction of said improvements should
be delayed because of phasing of subdivision
development the subdivider shall deposit funds with
the City fqr said construction. The amount of the
deposit shall be determined by the Director of Public
Works using previous and/or current bids received for
said improvements by the City and/or the subdivider
8. Private Park Option
The subdivider has the option of establishing and developing a
private park site (which is equal to the area requirements as
contained herein) with recreational improvements reserved for the
exclusive use of the residents of a particular subdivision. This
type of private park development may fulfill up to fifty (50)
percent of the requirements contained herein.
The private park property shall be final platted, and covered by
restrictive covenants providing for its ownership, use,
maintenance, and management. The covenants and restrictions·",
shall provide for the establishment of a homeowner's association
or trust, that the covenants and restrictions shall be permanent,
that the homeowners are liable for the payment of maintenance
fees and capital assessments, that unpaid homeowner's fees and
assessments will be a lien on the property of the delinquent
homeowners, that the association or trustee shall be responsible
for liability insurance, taxes and perpetual maintenance, that
membership shall be mandatory for each homeowner and any
successive buyer, and that each homeowner, at the time of
purchase, shall be furnished with a copy of the approved
covenants and restrictions. said covenants and restrictions
shall be approved by the City prior to the filing of the final
plat of any part of the subdivider's property, including the
final plat of the private park property. The instruments
containing the covenants and restrictions shall be approved by
the City Attorney for North Richland Hills.
.,.. .~~-.~-.
__.~ _.. 01.....
... . ~:- ... -.. ,....
I
I Page 8
e 9.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ 10.
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Park Land Dedication for Subdivisions Containing Two or More
Phases
(a) Dedication Option
At the time of filing of a final plat for any phase of the
project, the park land required under this ordinance will be
dedicated in fee simple to the city. In addition, a
reversionary public access easement will be provided that is
suitable for allowing effective public access, maintenance
and use of the dedicated property.
(b) Escrowed Cash Option
At the time of filing a final plat for any phase of the
project, a cash in-lieu of land dedication amount, as
provided by this ordinance, will be escrowed on a pro-rata
basis pending the platting of the project phase that
contains the required land dedication site. All escrowed
funds shall be returned with any accumulated interest, upon
filing of the final plat that contains the required park
land dedication. Fee simple title to the required park land
will be dedicated to the City at the time of filing of
final plat containing the required park land.
Establishment and Responsibilities of Open Space Committee
(a) Establishment of Open Space Committee: The Director
of Parks and Recreation, Director of Community
Development, and the Director of Public Works, (a
designated Parks and Recreation Board member, and a
designated member of the Planning and Zoning
Commission) shall compose the membership of the Open
Space Committee.
(b) Report of Fin~ings: A report of findings shall be
prepared by the open Space Committee, said report shall
identify and describe the requirements for park l~nd,
dedication and/or options to said park land dedication
as provided herein for all preliminary and final plats.
Said report of findings shall be transmitted to the
subdivider, Planning and Zoning Commission, and City
Council.
(c) Responsibility of Open Space Committee: The
responsibility of the Open Space Committee shall be to
apply the provisions and requirements of this ordinance
to all preliminary and final plats and submit those
findings to the subdivider at a regularly scheduled
meeting and/or by written communication. Additionally,
said Open Space Committee shall submit said report of
finds to the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at which the
plat will receive action. The report of findings
prepared by the Open Space Committee shall be
considered as information only by the Planning and
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Page 9
Zoning Commission. Following the approval of the plat
by the Planning and Zoning Commission or an appeal of
the action by the Planning and Zoning Commission on
said plat the report of findings prepared by the Open
Space Committee shall be forwarded to the City Council
for final action.
11. City Council Approval
The final action on the provisions herein contained shall be by
the city Council. All plats considered by the City Council shall
have been considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
the Open Space Committee.
Should any portion or part of this ordinance be held for any
reason invalid or unenforceable, the same shall not be construed
to affect any other valid portion hereof, but all valid portions
hereof shall remain in full force and effect.
\... '. --
I.
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Comprehensive Master Plan for Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Park Dedication Ordinance
A. Assignment - Review and Revise Draft Copy of Park Dedication Ordinance
B. Major Assumptions and Guidelines
1. Conform to the facts and fmdings of the Supreme Court ruling, College Station
vs. Turtle Rock Corp.
2. Implementation of the Neighborhood Park Recommendations in the Master Park
Plan.
3. Maintain a competitive environment within the region for residential subdividers.
4. Finance neighborhood parks serving new residential development.
5. Provide flexibility in application of ordinance.
6. Establish an ordinance which meets unique needs of city.
7. Reduces amount of bonds required for parks.
8. Pennits funds to be used for city wide facilities.
c. Unique Characteristics of Ordinance
"" '
1. Responsibilities of subdivider is less than 6 of the 8 ordinances reviewed.
2. Provides several options to meet obligations.
a. Land dedicate.
b. Payment of cash in lieu of ded.icadon.
c. Combination of dedication and payment of cash.
d. Combination of dedication and construction of improvements.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
re
I
I
I
I
I
·1
Ie
I
I
Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
c. Combination of payment of cash and construction of improvements.
f. Combination of dedication, payment of cash, and construction of
improvements.
3. Implements the concept of the "user pays."
4. Development of subdivision and neighborhood park occurs at the same time.
D. Key Elements of the Ordinance
1. "Ratio" of park land to dwelling units.
2. "Ratio" of cash to dwelling units.
3. Location of park land/improvements.
4. Length of time cash is held by city.
5. When park land is dedicated and/or when cash is collected.
E. Legal Requirements of Ordinance
1. Accomplish a legitimate goal - relate to health, safety or general welfare (police
Power).
2. Ordinance must be reasonable, it cannot be arbitrary; and should be guided by:
a. Comprehensive Park Plan.
b. Importance of parks and recreation facilities.
'\... '- .
c. Defined princip¡~s and standards.
d. Specific conditions of the city (uniqueness).
e. Reasonable connection between need and benefit.
f. Park land and fees must be used for future population of a specific
subdivision/neighborhood park zone.
*'...~.. -
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
re
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Schrickel, Rollins and Associates, Inc.
E. Criteria of Other Ordinances
City
Land Dedication
College Station
Grapevine
Corpus Christi
Flower Mound
Colleyvile
Keller
Southlake
Arlington
1 ac./133 D.V.S.
1 ac./145 D.U.S.
5% of land (43 acJS.M.)
1 ac./1oo D.U.S.
1 ac./57 D.U.S.
1 ac./66 D.V.S.
1 ac./50 D.V.S.
not applicable
F. Meetings With the Following Staff
1. Jim Brown - Director of Parks and Recreation
2. Bob Miller - Director of Economic Development
(1) *
(1) .
(1) .
(1)
(1) *
(1)
(1) **
(1) *
3. Barry LeBaron - Director of Community Development
4. Dennis Horvath - Deputy City Manager
5. Rex McEntire - City Attorney
6. Greg Dickens - Director of Public Works
7. Roger Line - City Manager
* Plus Public Improvement Cost.
** Sewer, water, drainage.
(1) Required with fmal plat.
Cash-in-lieu
$225 / D.U.
appraised land value
appraised land value
$250 / D.U.
appraised land value
$375 / D.D.
appraised land value
$350-$570 / D.U.
"", ........ .
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOIJ 5' 91 11: 15
CITY OF ALLEN
PAGE.02
~ - . ",
.. "" L" - ....." , -
. .
CITY OF ALLEN
TO: DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
FROM: RHODA L. SAVAGE, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND
RECREA TION
SUBJECT: MANDATORY DEDICATION, COMPARISON OF COST TO
DEVELOPER
DATE: OCTOBER 14, 1991
At our previous subcommittee meeting, staif was requested to
investigate the mandatory park dedication regula.tions from various
cities and compare them to Allen's proposed ordinance. Enclosed is a
summa.ry of data included in other dedication ordinances and a table
that reflects the per unit dedication req\11rements compared to Allen's
proposed ordina.nce.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Den ton:
Ordinance #185-A-2
$150JPlatted Lot - Single Family
$ 75JUnit - Multi Family
50% Payable Upon Plat Approval/Submission
50% Payable Upon Obtaining Building Permit
Payment Refunded if Plat/Permit Rejected by CitX, .
Resolution R89-022/Policy (For Neighborhood
Parks)
For 500 or more dwelling units, la.nd can be
dedicated
1 acre per 100 dwelling units minimum dedication
amount
Developer must plat park and develop
infrastructure to park property
Dedicate land on the final plat for development
If the development is less than 500 units, a fee is
donated in lieu of land
Fee = 1/2 of one per cent (1%) of the construction
value of the dwelling as identified on the
b\tilding permit
Fee paid when building permit is Issued
Can donate land and fee
Land must be outside floodplain unless tapa is
acceptable for a ballfield
Coppell:
C'~~ P\ rn·¥1\ ~~~}':. , , ~~.~~~. ~X^S ~~~
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
re
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
t'-tOU 5' 9 1 1 1 : 1 6
CITY OF ALLE f'j
PAGE.03
Page 2
Subject: Mandatory Dedication
October 14, 1991
Flower Mound:
Grapevine:
McKinney:
Land donation must be finalized between final plat
approval and 50% build-out
Fee donation must be finalized at the time of issuing
building permit
Example:
Home Value x (.25\) =
D·edication Amount
$70,000 x (.25%) = $175
(Ordinance #45-85)
For open space development re: neighborhood
parks
Dedicate land prior to issuing building permit
Pay fee prior to issuing building permit
Floodplain can be included as part of area that ca.n
be dedicated
One acre per 100 dwellings rate of dedication
(lOO'x150' minimum)
Plat must show land dedicated when presented to
planmng and zoning ss well as council
Submit land to be dedicated when filing preliminary
plat
Fee = $2501 dwelling unit to pay for park and
infrastructure
Must pay fee prior to beginning construction
Expend fee donated within 5 years
If land dedicated for private use - homeowners will
be responsible for care forevermore
May credit previous land donations "~" .
Current certified appraisal of fair market value
shall accompany land donation
Mark corners with 3/4" iron pins in concrete -
locate pins on survey performed by a
registered surveyor
Ðeveloper will clear &. grade, remove dead plants t
burn poison ivy and provide adequate
drainage prior to final acceptance .
Take utilities to park to location designated by
Parks and Recreation Department director
( Ordinance)
As R-20, R-12.5, R-7.5, R-5.0 (300) square
feetl dwelling unit rate of dedication
In PRD-6 and PRD-12 - open space and recreation
area requirements apply (lOQ'x 150' minimum)
Ordinance #1290 - Amendment to Subdivision
Ordinance
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
NOV 5' 9 1 1 1 : 1 6
CITY OF ALLE~~
PAGE.04
,,"
Page 3
Sllbject: Mandatory Dedication
October 14 J 1991 .
College Station,
Lewisville and
Allen
Convey land in an amount equal to 220 square feet
per capita on all proposed residential sites
Determine density at time of platting J City will
determine density
If density increases, a fee will be paid to
compensate City for the change
Where private recreation facility built, Council may
grant up to 50% credit on park dedication
requirement
Credit on floodplain (3 acres of floodplain = 1 acre
of non-floodplain)
Developer/Owner will provide access to park site
infrastructure, etc. Provide grading, clean-
up and drainage. If land in excess of
requirements is made, other elements may be
waived by the Council
Money paid based on average per acre value within
residential area. Base valtle on
1) Most recent appraisal and made by Central
Appraisal District
2) Confirmed sale prices of property or
adjacent land sold within previous two
years
3) Independent appraisal performed by City t
paid for by dev~loper
Payment made prior to signing of plat
Must use funds within three years of 95% of all
certificates of occupancy have been issue -
or by. written request for refund develope!',,,,,
can receive money back within one year of '
su brnittal
Developer waives their right to a refund if 110
timely request is made
Ordinance pa.tterned after College Station and
contents are comparable (see Allen proposed
ordinance)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LAND
DEDICATION OR PAYMENT OF CASH, IN LIEU THEREOF AS A CONDITION TO
SUBDIVISION PLAT APPROVAL; TO PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY PLANNING FOR
OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION AND PARK DEVELOPMENT; ESTABLISHING A
SPECIAL FUND FOR MONEY PAID FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT; CONTAINING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; SAID ORDINANCE
SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AS THE PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the state of Texas in its 1984 landmark
case, city of College station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.W.2d 802,
reaffirmed that mandatory park land dedication is within the broad
authority of local governments to determine local needs and impose
regulations for use of private property for the good of the community
as a whole; and
WHEREAS, the City council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas,
has determined that the platting of residential subdivisions results
in an increase of population, which in turn creates a need for
neighborhood parks, and further, the population thus created is the
benefactor of neighborhood park improvements;
WHEREAS, the City council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas,
has prepared and adopted the 1991 Comprehensive Parks System Master
Plan of the city which establishes planning standards and identifies
the need for additional Park Land and improvements within the City;
and
WHEREAS, the platting of residential subdivisions increases the need
for additional neighborhood park land and improvements, placing an
inordinate burden on existing City sites and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that public open space in the
form of neighborhood parks is necessary and in the interest of public
welfare, and that an effective method to provide for the same is by
incorporation of procedures into the process of planning and
development of property through the Subdivision Ordinance to
accomplish park dedication and/or other provisions thereto; '~.
WHEREAS, the city council desires to provide such procedures
consistent with the facts and findings of College Station v. Turtle
Rock Corp., 680 S.W.2d 802, while at the same time desiring to modify
such procedures to meet the specific needs unique to this City;
NOW THEREFORE,
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
NOV 5' 91 11: 17
CITY OF ALLEN
PAGE.05
Page 4
Subject: Mandatory Dedication
October 14 J 1991
PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENT COMPARISON
City Single Multi- Single l\~ulti-
Family Land Family J.Jand Family Fee Family Fee
Cappel! $150/Unit $75/Unit
Denton 1 Acre/1OO 1 J 2 of 1 %
Units (5 Home Value
Acre
Minimum)
Flower 1 Acre/1OO $250/Unit
l\1ound Units
(lOO'x150'
minimum) ..
McKinney 220 square Based on
ftl capita on average per
proposed acre value
lot
(100'x150'
minimum)
Lewisville 1 Acre /160 1 Acre /200 $220/Unit $175/Unit
Units Units
-
College 1 Acre/l60 1 Acre/200 $220/Unit $175/Unit
Station U ni ts Units '''.<'--.
Allen 1 Acre/160 1 Acre /200 $220/Unit $175/Unit
Units Units
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
CITY OF GRAPEVINE
PARK LAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE
CASE -STUDY - SUMMARY
The City of Grapevine, Texas has had a-Park Land Dedication Ordinance
in effect since 1984. Since that time over 1.5 million dollars and
approximately 80 acres of neighborhood park land has been accumulated
through the implementation of their ordinance.
The City of Grapevine has added 14 neighborhood parks through this
program as neighborhood development occurred in their community. In
addition, the following park improvements were financed through fees
collected via the ordinance:
* ($150,000) New bathhouse for swim facility.
* ($280,000) Two (2) new tennis courts, sand volleyball, basketball
courts and sprinkler system at Dove Park.
* Parking lot and basketball court at Parr Park.
* ($30,000) New playground.
* ($100,000) matching fund portion for Texas Parks and wildlife
Department Grant for Little Bear Creek Park development.
(Total project with matching funds - $200,00)
'~, .
I
Ie
A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
FORMULA FOR LAND/CASH RATIOS
Buildout Forecast Population:
Estimate 1991 Population
FUTURE PERSONS
92,800
(45.000)
47,800
B.
47,800 is 2.5 persons per dwelling unit = 19,120 dwelling units
c.
96 acres additional neighborhood park land needed at buildout
(as per page 55 of Park Master Plan).
D.
19,120 dwelling units/96 acres = 199 dwelling units/acre.
Per acre park development cost: $35,000 (average).
(Page 81 of the Park Master Plan).
Per acre raw land cost: $35,000.
E.
F.
96 x $35,000 = $3,360,000 total future development cost.
G.
$3,360,000/19,120 = $176 per dwelling unit ($ ratio).
H.
Ratios in "D" and "G" above are not valid by themselves because:
* "D" accounts for land acquisition only, and not cost of site
development.
* "G" accounts for development cost only, and not land
acquisition.
* An unequal application of either will result in an unbalance,
i.e., too much land - not enough money, or vice-versa.
THEREFORE:
I.
* Double cash requirement to cover cost of land:
$176 x 2 = $352/dwelling unit.
'~.......
* Halve land requirement to cover value of site development:
199/2 equals approximately 100 dwelling units/acre.
J.
Proposed land/cash ratios are:
1 acre per 100 dwelling units, or
$352 per dwelling unit cash in-lieu-of land.
(Remember the ordinance allows us the flexibility to accept
combinations of land, money or improvements.)
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
{'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CI1Y
COUNCIL OF THE CI1Y OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS,
TEXAS, HELD IN THE CI1Y HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST
LOOP 820 - OCTOBER 28, 1991 - 7:30 P.M.
1.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the meeting to order October 28, 1991, at 7:30 p.m.
Present:
Tommy Brown
Byron Sibbet
Mack Garvin
Lyle E. Welch
Mark Wood
Jo Ann Johnson
Charles Scoma
Staff:
Dennis Horvath
C.A. Sanford
Patricia Hutson
Rex McEntire
Greg Dickens
Absent:
Linda Spurlock
Rodger N. Line
Jeanette Rewis
Councilman Garvin gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilwoman
Councilman
Deputy City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Assistant City Secretary
Attorney
City Engineer
Councilwoman
City Manager
City Secretary
2.
INVOCATION
3.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
\.... '- .'
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
October 28, 1991
Page 2
4.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 14, 1991
APPROVED
Mayor Pro Tem Sibbet moved, seconded by Councilman Welch, to approve the minutes
of the October 14, 1991 meeting.
Motion carried 6-0.
5.
PRESENTATIONS BY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
No action necessary.
Mayor Brown removed Item No. 18 from the Agenda.
6.
REMOVAL OF ITEM(S) FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA
Councilman Wood removed Item No. 12 from the Consent Agenda.
7.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM(S) INDICATED BY ASTERISK (13, 14, 16,
17, 19, 20, 21, 22, & 23)
APPROVED
Councilman Garvin moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Motion carried 6-0.
~, .
8.
PRESENTATION OF "YARD OF THE MONTH" AWARDS
FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER
Mayor Brown and Alice Scoma, Beautification Committee, presented the "Yard of the
Month" awards for the month of October to: Jim and Joyce Cagle, 6533 Briley; Colin
and Christi McCall, 5624 Guadalajara; Janet and William Prescott, 4813 Colorado; Truitt
and Merle Campbell, 6701 Meadow; Ralph and Melanie Springer, 9116 Nob Hill Drive;
Mr. and Mrs. John Womack, 7316 Holiday Lane; and Eric and Debbie Younkin, 4820
Lariat.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
October 28, 1991
Page 3
9.
PRESENTATION OF "LANDSCAPE OF THE MONTH" AWARD FOR THE MONTH
OF OCTOBER
Mayor Brown and Alice Scoma, Beautification Committee, presented the "Landscape of
the Month" award for October to Mi Raes Restaurant, Rae Vasquez, Owner, 8208
Bedford Euless Road.
Councilman Garvin thanked the Beautification Committee for their fine program.
10.
PZ 91-21 - PLANNING & ZONING - PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST OF HERMAN J.
SMITH TO REZONE LOT 3 AND LOTS 5 THROUGH 13, BLOCK A, LOTS 6
THROUGH 11, BLOCK C, RICHLAND OAKS ADDITION, FROM R-l SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND C-l COMMERCIAL TO C-2 COMMERCIAL
(LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF OAKRIDGE TERRACE AND NORTH OF
AIRPORT FREEWAY)
Mayor Brown opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak to
come forward.
The following spoke in favor:
Mr. Ross Calhoun, representing Herman Smith Company, requested favorable
consideration of the zoning request.
Mayor Brown called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to come forward.
The following appeared to speak:
~""-
Ms. Myrtis Byrd, 7312 Hialeah Circle, - Stated she was not against the zoning, but
was concerned with the development being carried out.
There being no one else wishing to speak Mayor Brown closed the Public Hearing.
Councilman Scoma asked what type of construction they were anticipating that would
require C-2 zoning.
Mr. Calhoun stated C-2 zoning was requested because it provided the greatest amount of
flexibili ty .
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
October 28, 1991
Page 4
11.
ORDINANCE NO. 1771
APPROVED
Councilman Garvin moved, seconded by Councilwoman Johnson, to approve Ordinance
No. 1771.
Motion carried 6-0.
12.
PS 91-17 - REQUEST OF VOLKMAN'S INC. FOR REPLAT OF LOTS 2R-IR
THROUGH 18R-IR, BLOCK 26, AND LOTS 4R-IR THROUGH 7R-IR, BLOCK 33,
HOLIDAY WEST ADDITION, SECTION 10 (LOCATED ON CANCUN DRIVE AND
BUENOS AIRES DRIVE)
DENIED
Mr. Alan Dissmore, representing Volkman's Inc., appeared before the Council.
Councilman Wood asked that he clarify what was being built on the lots.
Mr. Dissmore stated single family homes would be built.
Councilman Wood was concerned that a loophole in R-8 zoning would allow single
family houses to be built away from the side lot line which was not the intent of R-8
zomng.
Mter considerable discussion, Councilman Scoma moved, seconded by Councilman
Wood, to deny PS 91-17 with the stipulation that if applicant should decide to request a
replat at a future date on this project that the City waive all fees.
Motion carried 6-0.
''."
Councilman Scoma moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, that the Council adopt a
resolution putting a moratorium on the permitting of all R-8 houses until such time as
Council has had the opportunity to do a complete study, maximum of ninety days.
Motion carried 6-0.
*13.
PS 91-18 - REQUEST OF STAR ENTERPRISE FOR FINAL PLAT OF LOT 1, BLOCK
1, CALLOWAY ADDITION (LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY AND NORTHEAST LOOP 820 SERVICE ROAD)
APPROVED
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie!
I
I
October 28, 1991
Page 5
*14.
PS 91-21 - REQUEST OF BROOKES BAKER SURVEYORS FOR CORRECTED
FINAL PLAT OF STEEPLE RIDGE ADDITION (LOCATED WEST OF DAVIS
BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF SHADY GROVE ROAD)
APPROVED
15.
GN 91-97 - CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE NO. 1579 REQUIRING MASONRY SCREENING WALLS ALONG
MUUORTHOROUGHFARES
ORDINANCE NO. 1750
TABLED
Councilman Garvin moved, seconded by Councilman Scoma, to approve Ordinance No.
1750.
Councilman Wood stated the ordinance did not specify residential only so it could also
include commerical. Councilman Wood felt this needed to be clairifed.
Councilman Scoma also felt that alternate types of screening needed to be addressed.
Mter discussion, Councilman Garvin withdrew his motion and Councilman Scoma
withdrew his second.
Councilman Garvin moved, seconded by Councilwoman Johnson, to table Ordinance No.
1750 until the November 11, 1991 City Council meeting.
Motion carried 6-0.
*16.
GN 91-149 - PROPER1Y TAX REFUND
APPROVED
'~'- '
*17.
GN 91-150 - STATE FUNDING FOR NETS
APPROVED
18.
PU 91-38 - GLENVIEW DRIVE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT - EASEMENT
ACQUISITION - PARCEL NO.4
REMOVED FROM AGENDA
No action taken.
I'
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
W-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
October 28, 1991
Page 6
*19.
PU 91-39 - GLENVIEW DRIVE SANITARY SEWER PROJECT - EASEMENT
ACQUISITION - PARCEL NO.5
APPROVED
*20.
PW 91-32 - STREETS TO BE RESURFACED UNDER THE 1992 COUN'IY PROGRAM
APPROVED
*21.
PW 91-33 - AWARD OF BID ON RUFE SNOW DRIVE SYNCHRONIZATED SIGNAL
SYSTEMS
APPROVED
*22.
PAY 91-16 - APPROVE FINAL PAY ESTIMATE NO.2 OF $12,348.67 FOR CRANE
ROAD SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
APPROVED
*23.
PAY 91-17 - APPROVE FINAL PAY ESTIMATE NO.2 OF $30,428.37 FOR VALLEY
PARK ESTATES SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
APPROVED
24.
CITIZENS PRESENTATION
None.
\" >
RECESSED
Mayor Brown recessed the meeting to Executive Session.
BACK TO ORDER
Mayor Brown called the meeting back to order with the same members present.
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r-
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
October 28, 1991
Page 7
25.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilman Garvin moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to adjourn the meeting.
Motion carried 6-0.
Tommy Brown - Mayor
ATTEST:
Patricia Hutson - Asst. City Secretary
., ...
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
eepartment:
Community Development
11/11/91
Subject:
Public Hearing to Consider an Amendment to
Zoning Ordinance t1080 Regarding CarRi~alo
and Special Events.
Council Meeting Date:
PZ 91-09
Agenda Number:
Ordinance 111748
.
This is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow carnivals and special events as
temporary uses when sponsored by civic or non-profit organizations. The proposed
ordinance amendment was tabled by the City Council at the July 8th meeting to allow the
Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a second review to address concerns by the
Council regarding the hours of operation for these types of temporary activities and the
length of time that such actt\Tities could exist.
The attached proposed ordinance has been changed to address these concerns and approved
by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their October 10th meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council hold the required Public Hearing and consider
the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
e
I.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
a Bonds (GO/Rev.)
., Operating Budget
Othe1s~ l g-~
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
uP-
. Finance Director
Pa e 1 of
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
1
ORDIHANCE NO.
1748
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAHD HILLS AMENDIRG
ORDINANCE 1080 , THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO
ESTABLISH REGULATIONS REGARDING TEMPORARY USES AND
BUILDINGS: PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE: PROVIDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE: AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning co..ission of the ci ty of Horth
Richland Hills has forwarded a reco..endation to the City Council for
aaendaent of Ordinance No. 1080, the Co.prehensive Zoning ordinance,
by changing the said ordinance as set forth herein.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS:
1.
THAT, Section 24.4 TEMPORARY USES AND BUILDINGS be hereby amended to
insert the following paragraph:
(b) Carnivals, circuses and special fund raising events sponsored by
a public entity, civic or non-profit organization located within
the City may be held for a period not exceeding seven consecutive
days on an open si te in any zoning district, provided that
adequate parking and sanitary facilities are made available to
the satisfaction of the Building Official. No carnival or
special event shall begin operation before 8:00 A.M and operation
shall cease before 11:00 P.M. on all nights except on Saturdays
when the event shall cease operation at mid-night. The Building
Official shall establish the terms and conditions for the
temporary use at the time of approval. In the event that a
sponsor is dissatisfied with the Building Official's decision,
the sponsor may appeal the requested use to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
2.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. That it is hereby declared to be the intention
of the city Council that the section, paragraphs, sentences, clauses
and phrases of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase,
clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be
declared invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree
of any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconsti tutionali ty shall not affect any of the remaining phrases,
clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this ordinance, since
the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the
incorporation in this ordinance of any such invalid or
unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
2
3.
SAVINGS CLAUSE. That Ordinance 1080, The Zoning Ordinance of the city
of North Richland Hills, Texas, as amended, shall remain in full force
and effect, save and except as amended by this ordinance.
4.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS ~ DAY OF OCTOBER.
1991.
SECRETARY
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS
1991
DAY OF
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY SECRETARY
ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Page 7
P & Z Minutes
October 10, 1991
~""":¡~,þ~1\l.I~~~~~~~~M.Jatmuæ~~~~
Chairman Brock called for
wishing to speak in favor
request to please come f 'rd.
There being n~~~e Chairman
called fo~-.,~e wishing to speak in
. opp~n to this request to please
~. forward.
.¿J~ There being no one wishing to speak,
~ Chairman Brock closed the Public
Hearing.
p~. J~.'
.:;~~ROVED
~.. ---- .-----
6. PZ 91-09
TABLED 9/26/91
Ms. Marin made the motion to approve
PZ 91-21. This motion was seconded by
Mr. Miller and the motion carried 7-0.
. I&.~ -_-";.IM'''ltJ~'tlloiilli.PI'''''''''"r) f&~I4.1''~ r__T
Consideration of an amendment to
Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding
carnivals and other special events.
Chairman Brock stated this was tabled
at the last meeting to give staff time
to incorporate some ideas from the
Planning and Zoning Commission. He
said Mr. LeBaron has re-written the
ordinance and we need to look at it to
make sure it is our intentions and
then send it on to the City Council.
Mr. Bowen said there is one thing. He
said we need to strike out "containing
at least 6 acres" in paragraph (b).
PZ 91-09
APPROVED
Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve
PZ 91-09 with the deletion of five
words in paragraph (b) "containing at
least six acres". This motion was
seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion
carried 7-0.
7-: ~--;;~1~-'---~-_·-.r·,~·- -- ~--~::~:-:;::-:;--:-;:;.~:--~
TABLED 9/26/91 Detention/Retentio~l2$jÇ91Nt;~e Pond
Ordinance. .' JIj;#~~"i.;~
, .tVíol~~~ etI~ ¡c.;..a..
J.~"~'
~.¡~.p.:J;·:··enairman Brock stated the Commission
~..~;:'.'I;"":~""~ ~ looked at this at their last meeting
.' ~);.).¡'-:J;:':;}1¡¡..... and it was tabled for further study.
. ~;..þ'~"'~'''¡;;'¡' He said he was not sure they had made
j.. ~_F''''')..''¡'''·~~;..>f'·· any progress.
.----..... -- - _....._~____~.-nø...--~_..,....~... .....__... .......___IIj~~.,.....~~"........._~ ..... _~_...._...,.. .___.~~.~___ _~_ __ __
-- -
I
-Page 2
P & Z Minutes
September 26, 1991
Ie
I
2.
PZ 91-09
Consideration of an amendment to
Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding
carnivals and other special events.
I
I
Chairman Brock stated that P & Z has
reviewed this; requested the City
Staff draw up an ordinance; sent that
ordinance to the City Council and the
City Council has sent it back to P & Z
for additional study and review.
Chairman Brock read the proposed
amendment: "That Section 24.4
TEMPORARY USES AND BUILDINGS be hereby
amended to insert the following
paragraph: (b) Carnivals, circuses
and special fund raising events
sponsored by a public entity, civic or
non-profit organization located within
the City may be held for a period not
exceeding seven consecutive days on an
open site containing at least six
acres in any non-residential zoning
district, provided that adequate
parking and sanitary facilities are
made available to the satisfaction of
the Building Official. No carnival or
special event shall begin operation
before 8:00 A.M. and operation shall
cease before 11:00 P.M. on all nights
except on Saturdays when the event
shall cease operation at mid-night.
There shall be at least 180 days
between subsequent events at the same
location or by the same sponsor. No
reduction in any minimum zoning
requirement shall be affected by such
activity and the Building Official
shall establish the terms and
conditions for the temporary use at
the time of approval."
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Mr. Barfield said he feels they need
to look at some of the items in the
ordinance. He said in the first
sentence, "non-residential" should be
removed because some schools are in
residential zoning. Mr. Barfield said
to delete "There shall be at least 180
days between subsequent events at the
same location or by the same sponsor.
I Page 3
P & Z Minutes
Ie September 26, 1991
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
No reduction in any m1n1mum zoning
requirement shall be affected by such
activity and". He said to start a new
sentence with "The Building Official
shall establish the terms and
conditions for the temporary use at
the time of approval." Mr. Barfield
said we need to make some provision
for special exceptions to this
ordinance. He said he would like to
send it back to the City Staff to
re-write this with these changes and
an Appeal Process and bring it back to
us at the next P & Z meeting.
Mr. Lueck said the Appeal Process could
be worded like this: "In the event a
sponsor is dissatisfied with the
Building Official's decision, the said
sponsor may appeal the requested use
to the Planning and Zoning
Commission".
Mr. LeBaron asked if the 11:00 o'clock
closing time was okay.
Several of the Commission members said
they had no problem with the time.
Mr. Lueck asked if they should in the
first sentence add "bonified" public
entity. He said it might need to be
checked for legality.
Mr. Barfield asked, under "special
fund raising events", should they add
"rummage sales".
Chairman Brock stated that rummage
sales would fall under that. He said
there are so many things that could be
listed under special fund raising
events. He said we could not list
them all.
I
Page 4
P & Z Minutes
September 26, 1991
Ie
I
I
PZ 91-09
TABLED
I
I
PS 90-30
-'W' _II --''''''~'M.I
d;'
'ff;'~';
; ~>'"
<J";,1J.
.;Ÿ
f/'!-'-
tit?'
.,.i~·
~,
rI'
3.
I
I
I
{'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Barfield made the motion to send
PZ 91-09 back to the City Staff with
our suggestions and re-write it and
bring back and present it at the next
scheduled P & Z meeting. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Lueck and the
motion carried 6-0.
-. --~~::':t-¡on of :: ame-:-;:ent to /
Subdivision Ordinance #1579 requiring~
masonry screening walls along major,:~'
thoroughfares. .._;'
,.(,'
,¡;
Chairman Brock said there hav.e·;"been
several meetings on this item. He
asked Mr. LeBaron to exp1;ain the
~.
history of this item. .~I~
J"v-
, .-.~'..
~. Þ'
Mr. LeBaron said ~Þis issue started
about a year ag~).~·· He said the
Commission as~éd City Staff to look
into what Qþffer cities were doing
."
regarding;masonry screening walls.
Mr. LeBáron said he found that some
citiJ~s""were requiring them, some did
not~~equire them, and some had
{...
OÔnstruction standards for developers
.,,-,\vrif they put in screening walls. Mr.
..."~' LeBaron said he had a slide show for
the Commission where we looked at
different types of construction of
these fences. He said he took'
Planning and Zoning's suggestions and
prepared this ordinance. He said this
ordinance was then submitted to the
City Council for their review and on
July 22nd they asked questions
regarding the way you were going to
apply the requirement for masonry
screening walls. Mr. LeBaron said the
ordinance stated that when a
subdivision is developed adjacent to a
thoroughfare as shown on the City's
Master Thoroughfare Plan, the
development would be required to
construct a masonry screening wall
according to these standards. He said
there was concern from the City
~"
~/
;.f,"
I
Ie
I
I No action necessary.
I Ms. Kathy Robinson advised the Council that the Beautification Co
participants of the 1991 Governor's Committee Achievement Aw
I
I
I
.1
July 8, 1991
Page 2
5.
PRESENTATIONS BY BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
REMOVAL OF ITEM(S)
None.
7.
AGENDA ITEM(S) INDICATED BY ASTERISK
(14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19)
APPROVED
1
I
I
I
1
I
8.
PZ 91-09 PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1080 REGARDING
CARNIVALS AND OTHER SPECIAL EVENTS _
ORDINANCE NO. 1748
TABLED
Mayor Brown opened the Public Hearing.
Staff explained the changes.
Mayor Brown called for anyone wishing to speak in favor to come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak in favor, Mayor Brown called for anyone wishing to speak in
opposition to come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak in opposition, Mayor Brown dosed the Public Hearing.
Ia:::ouncil had questions on several areas of the ordinance - hours of operation, liability, and number of
~ays a carnival could be held. There were also questions pertaining to schools holding carnivals.
I
I
Councilwoman Spurlock moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Sibbet, to table Ordinance No. 1748.
I
Ie
I
I Ms. Byrd was advised staff would study it further.
I Motion carried 7-0.
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
II
I
I Mayor Brown called for anyone. ing to speak in favor to come forward.
There being no one wishin
I come forward.
I Councilman
July 8, 1991
Page 3
Ms. Myrtis Byrd, 7313 Hialeah Circle, had questions pertaining to liab~lity insurance for different
events that were held in the City.
10.
ORDINANCE NO. 1747
WITHDRAWN
9.
PZ 91-11 PLANNING & ZONING - PUBLIC HEARING-
REQUEST OF BANK OF NORTH TEXAS FOR AN APPEAL
HEARING TO REZONE TRACT 7, JOHN'S ADDITION,
FROM C-2 COMMERCIAL TO 1-2 INDUSTRIAL
(LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DAVIS BOULEVARD SOUTH OF THE
WITHDRAWN
11.
PZ 91-15 PUBLIC HEARING FOR C
AN AMENDMENT TO ZONING 0 INANCE NO. 1080
REGARDING DAY CARE/KINDERGAR IN V-INSTITUTIONAL ZONE _
ORDINANC O. 1749
APP VED
Mayor Brown opened the Public Heariny/
Staff explained this ordinance was on! orrecting an oversight.
speak Mayor Brown called for anyone wishing to speak in opposition to
shing to speak Mayor Brown closed the Public Hearing.
'n moved, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Sibbet, to approve ordinance No. 1749.
I Council ed about the enforcement of the ordinance.
eAt ney for the City advised the ordinance would be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance.
I
I
otion carried 7-0.
I
Page 3
p & Z Minutes
June 13, 1991
Ie
I
There being no one, the Chairman
called for those wishing to
opposition to this amen
come forward.
I
I
There bei 0 one wishing to speak,
Chai Brock closed the Public
ing.
I
Mr. Bowen said he felt this was
something they had just overlooked and
think it is a good thing to correct
it.
I
I
Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve
PZ 91-15. This motion was seconded by
Mr. Miller and the motion carried 5-0.
4.
PZ 91-09
Public Hearing to consider an
amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080
regarding Carnivals and other special
events.
I
Ie
Chairman Brock said the Commission has
taken a long hard look at this, Mr.
LeBaron has checked with several other
cities to see how they handle
carnivals and special events, and now
has prepared an ordinance which reads
as follows: "Carnivals, circuses and
special fund raising events sponsored
by a public entity, civic or
non-profit organization located within
the City may be held for a period not
exceeding seven days on an open site
containing at least six acres in any
non-residential zoning district,
provided that adequate parking and
sanitary facilities are made available
to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. There shall be at least 180
days between subsequent events at the
same location and/or by the same
sponsor. No reduction in any minimum
zoning requirement shall be affected
by such activity. To protect nearby
residents, the Building Official shall
establish the terms and conditions for
the temporary use at the time of
approval."
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I Page 4
P & Z Minutes
~ June 13, 1991
I
I
I
I
I PZ 91-09
APPROVED
I
I 5. PS 91-10
~
I
, I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Chairman Brock opened the Public
Hearing and called for those wishing
to speak in favor of this amendment to
please come forward.
There being no one, the Chairman
called for those wishing to speak in
opposition to this amendment to please
come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak,
Chairman Brock closed the Public
Hearing.
Ms. Marin made the motion to approve
PZ 91-09. This motion was seconded by
Mr. Collins and the motion carried
5-0.
Request of Arthur E. Gordon for
Preliminary Plat of Lot 2, Block 1,
Green Valley Addition (previously
submitted as Lot 1, Block 2). is
property is located on the th side
of Green Valley Drive be en
Smithfield Road and Da s Boulevard.
Mark
came
L and Associates
represent Mr. Gordon.
said there are two issues,
7 foot easement requirement along
east side and the 15 foot building
ne requirement, but they understand
there is an existing building there.
Mr. Long stated the building is
already there.
Chairman Brock stated that last Monday
night, the City Council considered the
school's plat to the west of this
property and they required an addition
5 feet dedication for road widening
for Green Valley Drive. Chairman
Brock asked if Mr. Gordon would be
willing to dedicate an additional 5
feet also.
I
Page 3
P & Z Minutes
April 25, 1991
Ie
I
I
for compact cars. He said
that is in the curr
Ordinance is Ie; he
know it carne from.
not
I
I
Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve
PZ 91-08 with the addition of the
table for compact cars. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the
motion carried 7-0.
3.
PZ 91-09
Public Hearing for consideration of an
amendment to Zoning Ordinance #1080
regarding carnivals and other special
events.
I
I
Chairman Wood stated he would open the
Public Hearing for anyone to speak,
but would request this be tabled
pending additional information from
other cities to see how they handle
these events. He stated that the
current ordinance does not allow
carnivals and other such events.
I
~
I
PZ 91-09
TABLED
Mr. Barfield made the motion to table
PZ 91-09. This motion was seconded by
Mr. Lueck and the motion carried 7-0.
I
4 .
PZ 91-13
Discussion of an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance #1080 regarding
political signs.
I
I
Chairman Wood said case was for
discussion only a e Commission has
elected to ce discussion until a
later dat
I
ADJOURNMENT
e meeting adjourned at 7:50 P.M.
I
Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission
Ie
I
I
Secretary Planning & Zoning Commission
I Page 9
P & Z Minutes
Ie April 11, 1991
I
I
I 6. PZ 91-09
I
I
I
I
~
7 . PZ 91-10
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
They also the requirement
mpact car parking and handicap
parking. They asked Mr. LeBaron to do
more study on this and bring back at
the next meeting.
.
Discussion of proposed regulations
regarding carnivals and other special
events.
Chairman Wood stated that the way the
Zoning Ordinance is written, it does
not allow carnivals.
It was discussed that they should be
allowed in some zoning district and
give latitude to the staff to enforce
the requirements, but not to give the
responsibility to the City Council.
It was also discussed that they could
be in City parks and this could be
coordinated with the recreation
department.
Discussion regarding the rezoning of
an area in the Diamond Loch
Subdivision from Duplex to a Sin
Family Zoning District.
Chairman Wood stated a portion of
Diamond Loch Addit zoned for
duplexes, R-S-D ut only one duplex
was built, others were built as
single ly R-1 like the rest of
Dia Loch. He asked if P & Z would
t to initiate a zoning change to
R-l and contact all property owners
within 200 feet of this property.
Mr. LeBaron said the Zoning Ordinance
says that the City Council, Planning
and Zoning Commission, or an owner of
property or agent of the owner of
property may initiate a zoning change.
He said this zoning classification was
done many years ago and the purpose of
requesting a zone change would be to
clean up the map.
II· .' '
I"
II
81
II
II
II
II
'I
_it
_I
JI
·
·
·
II
--
.
·
ORDINANCE NO. 1472
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1 .
Section 6.10 of Ordinance No. 984 is hereby amended and now and
hereafter read as follows:
"6.10
Reconsideration
A motion to reconsider any action of the City Council can be made
not later than the next succeeding official meeting of the City
Council. The proposal to reconsider an action previously taken
may be discussed at the Pre-Council Meeting prior to the said next
succeeding official meeting, but the vote on reconsideration shall
be taken at the official meeting. A motion to reconsider can only
be made by a member who voted with the majority. It can be
seconded by any member. It can be made, seconded and voted upon
even though it is not on the formal agenda. The motion to
reconsider sMail require a majority vote to carry. No question
shall be reconsidered twice except by unanimous consent of the
City Council, except that action relating to any contract may be
reconsidered at any time before the final execution thereof. II
PASSED AND APPROVED this 27th day of July, 1987.
~
Mayor
ATTEST:
','-
n'//~¿m:? ¿.u¿~
cpy' Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Attorney
~
I_epartment:
SUbject:
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Community Development
11/11/91
Council Meeting Date:
PS 9l-17B
Agenda Number:
Request of Volkman's Inc. for Replat of
Lots LR-IR through l~R-IR, Block Lb, ana
Lots 4R-1R through 7R-IR, Block 33,
Holiday West Addition, Section 10. This
Property is Located on Cancun Drive and
Buenos Aries Drive.
This Replat was denied at the October 28, 1991 City Council meeting. Mr. Volkman has
subsequently met with staff and Councilman Mark Wood to resolve any potential problems
which may have been associated with this Replat and the zoning district designation.
The developer will show slides of homes he has constructed in another city to indicate
that he is building a quality housing product.
The Replat consists of 26 existing lots which are being replatted into 23 lots to
provide for additional lot width for each of the lots. The property is zoned for zero
lot line dwelling units. The developer has satisfied all engineering comments.
The Planning and Zoning Commission requested the developer to add a five foot utility
easement along the west side property line of Lot 7R-1R, Block 33 (at the southwest part
of the replat) so that adequate side yard clearance is provided between the adjacent lot
and any home constructed on Lot 7R-1R. The developer has agreed to this request and it
is shown on the Replat drawing.
No water, sewer or street improvements will be required for this replat. Sidewalks will
be required for each lot and these will be installed as building permits are issued for
construction of each dwelling unit.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and approved this replat at their October
10th meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.) _
_ Operating Budget .-:-
Oth~ t8~
~rtment Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
¡}b
I-r~~
CI y Manager
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
I
... -..
--
u
--'LJ 1 ~ ~
~
-
=d
I
~~
III
T~~m
R ..... I.. I 11 I
- rm .......
1-2
I
I
-
1414
...,
¡.cnl' 1'.. I.l
J"R. .i yO
l-Z
-
~
,Uillil ¡II
«
II II I rAy
",
----oil ~
~
.
--
~-2ISue
~ ·....n......
"1-2SU*
I
,R-7-MF
\
T
...
,
~
.,,,,
~..,
¡ .
i'
111111 :
L-L1J ~. I
- f'i'ti.., 'ItI!mf~'" ·
- ~ I
.J '
~
...-
¡..-,..
.
~a
. \
"
... ...
,
{I ~ TT 1"\ \.
Ii !R~T'iF I
~ : ~
~\ ~
,.\ =ê!fQ
\ _dTTT
\ -Þ1 ì I T ì
\ _ T1TT......
t K' 1 J~' 'i i,: I
'-:~.. ~:ÜÜLj
fltlUWCM', /"\ \ I T M
d j, ,r--,
t:i '1 ¡ I ¡ }. ~ i ~
\ /1, ¡ ì
r -J'. I' 1 \ I
-1l---- LL. -' U ~I ji~êS
_ 1.. ~
....... ~........
~ ¡ ..' \'It::Þ-
.' .' , .-JI~ t.
-- :... 1 _~:::J ~ L-
U I G-I - - \ It: ~Io!.. :::
_~_ In
! I ~ [l V' "'---
~ "'-~
~~ ~ ì'~
~ 1= 3' .. f"'I ""'" \
::::J r-r-1 r ~ f'. ..~ U 'IIT- \ ~
1_~~ I l~ 7r:: 1 I~~
¡c r-r-a I- I . I I ~ r-::::.
rI. 1. I: ~ { 1iI~_ It- [l
I I I I 1 1 S r 1 11 ·1 I I 1 I I r I I CÏTr I
II I I 1I1I ,,/ I 111111 HH
C-I Lt'..? l~-I
'r'"
;
".. J.. {'\ ....oj
-.
tÆl
\ I
"'II.' r¡,.
R-1-MF ,,<i
./'
~r'
.
I C-2
1450
I C-2
U&4
C-2 n-I - ......(,.,
;~ ~. U ·
~_ It!6
T I\... 0 ~~O~ R-7-MF
e'-"4..
ì ìó'1 ~
e;3 e-I-su·
Sa
~1..1I'~ ~~
C-2 L.šIj* __ C-2- C 2
flOg C-2 SU·
1110
j¡;1~d ~v
~ ~
~I>
SCMOOL
OFFICE USE (PO) LR S U ..
~,r~ ~ Lz.o!:~~ r~~
_,__!J;;J íI~,
" -c ~I
:-= ~ ~,.. r'~ iP III ~I T
~ Þ-- ""- _ -
::: ~_ - ,- 1-)
~ t=;: - ...1';'.-rn ~ -, _TM .'CM.....O
III T T '"'....r = T\ T 1'\ ì .- ...... SCMOOL
/ \ \ \ I I I I -~-
----
ì
r
.... n,
,
\
\
\ R-2
" F. F?
',);
'\
~I
.v
: ,c. \
--.~
= ~'-' R-7-MF
IIUCM"'."O
HIGH
IIIOW
..tOMTI
IU".
III 1
I
-
-:::::
T-1 I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
,.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
OCTOBER 10, 1991 - 7:30 P. M.
Chairman Brock called the meeti
order at 7:30 P.M. .~~
PRESENT: ~,
.,.'"
Chairman ~y~ James Brock
Vice Chairman _ ..,.;J'...... David Barfield
Secretary ..~' Don Bowen
Membersj/..,.'·:·.... Ron Lueck
rV~~/' Don Collins
Pat Marin
Paul Miller
Wayne Moody
Barry LeBaron
Steve Pence
Wanda Calvert
! ....JÞ\'o,.}
.y~'"
.,;?
..~.;Klt. Member
.r
:.~,/ Dir. Community Dev.
~~? Building Official
.ý
;?-"'¡')- P & Z Coordina tor
';i-Y
,y-i:Þ
~
, ./:.,j)
Since all members are present,
Alternate Member Moody will not vote.
Mr. Bowen made the motion to approve
the minutes as written. This motion
was seconded by Mr. Barfield and the
motion carried 6-0 with Mr. Collins
abstaining since he was not present at
the meeting.
OF THE MINUTES
. R 26, 1991
1 .
PS 91-17
!eII!iIi".~~~~""~.....".____
Public Hearing for request of
Volkman's Inc. for Replat of Lots
2R-IR thru 18R-IR, Block 26, and Lots
4R-IR thru 7R-IR, Block 33, Holiday
West Addition, Section 10. This
property is located on Cancun Drive
and Buenos Aries Drive.
Chairman Brock opened the Public
Hearing and called for those wishing
to speak in favor of this Replat to
please come forward.
John Volkman came forward. He said
they are widening the lots to make
more room between the houses, make it
more attractive, make it more
marketable for them and make it a
better product for the city.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I ~=
I
Page 2
P & Z Minutes
October 10, 1991
Mr. Barfield said the City Staff had a
problem with Lot 4R-IR, Block 33. He
said if you build a zero lot line
house, you would be building right up
to an R-3 lot. He said you need to
change the configuration of the lots
on Buenos Aries.
Mr. Volkman said he has no problem
with that.
Chairman Brock said all they need to
do is flip the lots over.
Mr. Barfield said this needs to be
done before it is sent to the City
Council.
Chairman Brock called for anyone else
wishing to speak in favor of this
Replat to please come forward.
There being no one, the Chairman
called for those wishing to speak in
opposition to this Replat to please
come forward.
There being no one wishing to speak,
Chairman Brock closed the Public
Hearing.
PS 91-17
APPROVED
Mr. Barfield made the motion to
approve PS 91-17 with the
recommendation the staff coordinate a
re-configuration of the lots in Block
33 so the zero lot line side will not
butt up against the R-3 and that Lot
4R-IR will end up more like a standard
residential lot. This motion was
seconded by Mr. Lueck and the motion
carried 7-0.
"'V'"W ~.....-e~.x."".~J;m1ll.í..::8~~~~¡;mŒWt.rJ.~œ.¡~~~.iItØIJD·
2. PS 91-18 Request of
Plat of Lo ,
. ~ön. This property is located at
s~~~the southeast corner of Northeast Loop
== ~_ _a~__~~~:.:::~_~~~:~~~v~~:::~___
-
Ie City of J(òrth Richland Hills
I _~/\ø__
Ø1~
I 1
I
I
I
I
I
1ft
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
September 23, 1991
Ref:
PWM 91-098
MEMO TO:
Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM:
Kevin B. Miller, P.E.
Assistant Director of utilities
SUBJECT:
PS 91-17; HOLIDAY WEST SECTION 10;
Replat
I have reviewed the subject documents received in our office on
September 18, 1991. Public Works has no additional comments.
~
KBM/smm
(817) 281-0041
P.o. BOX 18609
.
NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS 76180
7301 N.E. lOOP 820
.
.
I
Ie !*~ 1.e-
Crowley, Texas 76036
Phone: 297-2911
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
September 19, 1991
Wanda Calvert
City of North Richland Hills
7301 NE Loop 820
North Richland Hills, Texas
Ms. Calvert,
76180
Donald T . Volkman
President
Please be advised that we have attempted to answer all of the
engineer's comments on Holiday West Addition, Section 10.
Land Development
Th;¡l~
John C. Volkman
Volkman's, Inc.
904 N. Hwy. 731
Crowley, rx 76031
Residential Construction and Sales
Ie City of )Xòrth Richland Hills
I _~/~
ø~
I \
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
(817) 281-0041
September 11, 1991
Ref:
PWM 91-091
MEMO TO:
Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM:
Kevin B. Miller, P.E.
Assistant Director of utilities
SUBJECT:
PS 91-17; HOLIDAY WEST, SECTION 10; Block 26, Lots 2R-1R through
18R-IR; Block 33 Lots 4R-1R through 7R-IR; Final Plat
I have reviewed the subject documents submitted to this office on August 21,
1991 and offer the following comments.
1.
The Surveyor's seal and signature should be added to the Plat.
2 .
The title block should be revised as shown.
3 .
The address and telephone number for the Owner should be added to the
Plat.
4.
The attached easement dedication should be incorporated into the closing
paragraph after the Metes and Bounds description.
5.
The Subdivision Ordinance requires a 7.5 foot utility Easement around
the perimeter of the property. The existing 5 foot easement should be
revised accordingly.
6.
The intersections at Trinidad and Cancun will require a Sidewalk and
utility Easement as defined in the Design Manual. The easement should
be clearly indicated on the Final Plat.
7.
Building Setback lines should be shown for the lots adjacent to this
plat.
8.
All zoning for the proposed lots and the adjacent lots should be clearly
indicated on the face of the plat.
9.
Due to the recently passed Zoning Ordinance, this subdivision will be
required to construct sidewalks throughout. The sidewalks may be
constructed as the individual lots are improved.
.
7301 N.E. lOOP 820
.
NORTH RICHlAND HillS, TEXAS 76180
P.O. BOX 18609
.
I'
Ie
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
lit
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie'
I
I
September 11, 1991
PWL 91-091
Page Two
10. The utility services should be relocated prior to filing this plat.
This area has been platted three times previous to this plat. The
services are no longer in their proper location. The Developer has gone
to some expense to physically locate the existing services. The
Developer's Engineer has an approved plan for relocating the services.
Public Works feels that the plan should be carried out prior to another
replat. The plan calls for the water and sewer relocations to comply
with the new lot configuration.
11. The marked-up blue lines should be returned with the next submittal.
~K . BM-:'l<l E
eVln . 1 er, P. .
Assistant Director of utilities
cc:
Gregory W. Dickens, P.E., Director of Public Works/Utilities
Barry LeBaron, Director of Community Development
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Community Development
Council Meeting Date:
11/11/91
consideration of an amendment
to 5ubdivi5ion Ordinan~e #1519
requiring masonry screening walls
along major thoroughfares.
Agenda Number:
GN 91-97
Ordinance #1750
At the October 22nd Council meeting, action was tabled regarding
the masonry screening wall requirement to allow for modifications
regarding non-residential developments to be incorporated into the
proposed ordinance. staff has met with Councilman Wood as
instructed and have made the necessary modifications. The attached
proposed ordinance will require the construction of masonry
screening walls for new "non-residential" subdivisions where the
back side is adjacent to a major four lane street as shown on the
Master Thoroughfare Plan. Furthermore, the proposed ordinance has
been modified to allow wrought iron fencing as an alternate
material at street intersections or at entrances to new
subdivisions.
At the September 26th meeting the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the attached Ordinance #1750. For your
additional information, design and technical construction
specifications will be included in the Design Manual for Public
Works such as required for other public works projects.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City council approve the recommendation
of the Planning and Zoning commission.
,"
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Acct. Number
Bonds (GO/Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available
egf:~~BUdget h- 1
'0' k/~~ UJ tðt ~
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1579, THE SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE, TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY OR CONCRETE SCREENING
WALLS ALONG CERTAIN MAJOR THOROUGHFARES;
PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS:
I.
THAT, ORDINANCE 1579, "THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS", SECTION 1-01, Subsection D, be hereby amended to
insert a new Paragraph 7, to hereafter be and read as follows:
7. Every newly platted residential or non-residential subdivision or resubdivision of
lots adjacent to a C-4-U thoroughfare or larger as shown on the prevailing Master
Thoroughfare Plan shall comply with the screening wall requirements as provided in
this section.
7.1 The developer of any lot located in a newly platted residential subdivision or
resubdivision of existing residential lots adjacent to a C-4-U thoroughfare or
larger as shown on the prevailing Master Thoroughfare Plan shall be
required to construct a masonry or concrete screening wall along and
adjacent to said thoroughfare. However, a replat of an existing one lot
residential subdivision on a Collector Street is exempt.
7.2 The developer of any lot located in a newly platted non-residential
subdivision or resubdivision of lots which have a rear property line adjacent
to a C-4-U thoroughfare or larger as shown on the prevailing Master
Thoroughfare Plan shall be required to construct a masonry or concrete
screening wall along and adjacent to said thoroughfare.
7.3 The Masonry or concrete screening wall shall be constructed in a mannèr
consistent with the standards and specifications contained in the Design
Manual for Public Works/Utilities. Any combination of wrought iron and
landscaping at street intersections or entrances to subdivisions shall be
considered as an acceptable alternate material. Except for landscaping
materials, no masonry or concrete screening wall or its foundation shall be
constructed within the street right-of-way.
7.4 Any masonry screening wall constructed within the City of North Richland
Hills not required by Section 7.1 or 7.2 of this Ordinance shall be constructed
in a manner consistent with the standards and specifications contained in the
Design Manual for Public Works/Utilities.
7.5 Unless an alternative maintenance plan is determined satisfactory to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, a maintenance agreement between the
City and a Homeowners Association for the continued maintenance of said
screening wall shall be iDcluded with the Final Plat submittal.
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
2
II.
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. That it is hereby declared to be the intention of the City
Council that the section, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this ordinance are
severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall
be declared invalid or unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the
remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs or sections of this ordinance, since the
same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this
ordinance of any such invalid or unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or
section.
III.
SAVINGS CLAUSE. That Ordinance No. 1579, The Subdivision Ordinance of the City
of North Richland Hills, as amended shall remain in full force and effect, save and except
as amended by this ordinance.
IV.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THIS DAY OF
1991.
CHAiRMAN
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
SECKE'l 'AR Y
PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS
, 1991
DAY OF
"
MAYOR
A TIEST:
CITY SECRETARY
ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
epartment: Administration
Special Permit for Truck Show/Swap Meet
Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Agenda Number: GN 91-151
Bill Hielscher was the operator of Green Valley Raceway and currently has a
lease with BHL Joint Venture (present owner) on this land. Attached is a
request to use this property for a large show in May of 1992. This property
is zoned both R-l and Commercial but would require a special permit from the
Council for this use. We would also need to require sales tax permits or
temporary vendor permits for any sales activity.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider the above request.
, .
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
R~
ead Signature I - Ÿ Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
, Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
It
I
p.o. Box 821371
Ft. Worth, Ix 76182
October 31, 1991
I
:1r. C. A. Sanford
City Hall
7301 N.E. Loop 820
No. Richland Hills, Tx 76180
I
Dear Sir:
I
Durning these financially rough times I have an idea on
making the different businesses in the City some extra
money (motels, food, gas, shopping malls). Extra sales
tax would halp the City plus bring attention to North
Richland Hills.
I
I
I would like to have a pickup truck show, shine and swap
meet on Green Valley land in ~1ay of '92. We have had
car events but this would be the first for trucks. They
would win trophies for best paint, best engineering, et~.
plus all trophy winners would have pictures of their
trucks in a national magazine. All trucks and other
vehicles would all have mufflers like any street driven
car or truck. We would have a swap meet with different
truck parts and a manufactures area with new truck pro-
ducts. For the kids and families we would have volley
ball, tug of war games.
I
if
I
I
As always, we would have a two million insurance policy,
safety equipment and security.
I
We would sell cokes, chips, sandwiches, I-shirts, hats,
pins, etc.
I
We would set up on Friday.
and Sunday 7AM to 6PM.
The show would be Saturday
Because of the three month lead off time for the magazine
we would need an answer before November IS, 1991.
I
I
Sincereley.
ÆJ/~J/~
Bill Hielscher
Ie
~
I
I
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
PAr~onnA 1 ~ Council Meeting Date:
Ordinance Approving the Updated Service
Cr~rl; +- ~nrl Tnrrp~~prl RpnAfi r~ for Retirees Agenda Number:
provisions of the Texas Municipal Retirement Act.
Ordinance No. 1772.
11-11-91
GN 91-152
The Updated Service Credit benefit of the Texas Municipal Retirement
System (TMRS) was initially adopted by the City Council in 1984. This
benefit provides retirees with a monthly annuity based on their average
deposits for the 3 years immediately preceding their retirement date.
This reduces the impact of inflation on member's deposits made during
their early years of employment.
The Increased Benefits for Retirees benefit was initially adopted in 1988. ;
This benefit provides our current retirees with a cost-of-living increase I
equal to 70% of the change in the Consumer Price Index.
The City Council has continued to re-adopt these benefits each subsequent
year. The TMRS Act has been amended to allow cities to adopt these
benefits one time rather than requiring annual adoptions. Once adopted,
the benefits will continue from year to year until repealed by ordinance.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council appro,!e Ordinance ·No. 1772
adopting the Updated Service Credit and Increased Benefits for Retirees
provisions of the TMRS Act effective January 1, 1992.
Finance Review
Acct. Number Departmentalized
Sufficie~nd~~lable
~ 'I{~I~-/
- r< L -{'
Cit!~ager
in Acct. 1160
x
. Finance Director
ct Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page 1 of
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
lit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND ALLOWING, UNDER
THE ACT GOVERNING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, "UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS"
IN SAID SYSTEM ON AN ARRUAL BASIS FOR SERVICE
PERFORMED BY QUALIFYING MEMBERS OF SUCH SYSTEM
WHO AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ALLOWANCE ARE
IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE CITY OF NORTH
RICHLAND HILLS; PROVIDING FOR INCREASED PRIOR
AND CURRENT SERVICE ANNUITIES FOR RETIREES AND
BENEFICIARIES OF DECEASED RETIREES OF THE
CITY; AND ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR
THE ORDINANCE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS, TEXAS:
Section 1. Authorization of Updated Service Credits.
(a) On the terms and conditions set out in Sections 853.401
through 853.404 of Subtitle G of Title 8, V.T.C.A., Government
Code, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the "TMRS ACT"), each
member of the Texas Municipal Retirement System (hereinafter
referred to as the "System") who has current service credit or
prior service credit in the System in force and effect on the 1st
day of January of the calendar year preceding such allowance, by
reason of service in the employment of the City of North Richland
Hills (hereinafter called the "City"), and on such date has at
least 36 months of credited service with the system, shall be and
is hereby allowed "Updated Service Credit.. (as that term is defined
in subsection (d) of Section 853.402 of the TMRS Act).
(b) On the terms and conditions set out in Section 853.601 of
the TMRS Act, any member of the System who is eligible for Updated
Service Credits on the basis of service with this City, who has
unforfeited credit for prior service and/or current service with
another participating municipality or municipalities by reason~of
previous service, and was a contributing member on January 1, 1991,
shall be credited with Updated Service Credits pursuant to,
calculated in accordance with, and subject to adjustment as set
forth in said Section 853.601, both as to the initial grant
hereunder and all future grants under this ordinance.
(c) The Updated Service Credit hereby allowed and provided
for shall be 100% of the "base Updated Service Credit" of the
member (calculated as provided in subsection (c) of Section 853.402
of the TMRS Act).
(d) Each Updated Service Credit allowed hereunder shall
replace any Updated Service Credit, prior service credit, special
prior service credit, or antecedent service credit previously
authorized for part of the same service.
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
Updated Service Credit Ordinance (continued)
Page 2
(e) In accordance with the provisions of subsection (d) of
section 853.401 of the TMRS Act, the deposits required to be made
to the System by employees of the several participating departments
on account of current service shall be calculated from and after
the effective date of this ordinance on the full amount of such
person's compensation as an employee of the City.
Section 2. Increase in Retirement Annuities.
(a) On terms and conditions set out in Section 854.203 of the
TMRS Act, the City hereby elects to allow and to provide for
payment of the increases below stated in monthly benefits payable
by the System to retired employees and to beneficiaries of deceased
employees of the City under current service annuities and prior
service annuities arising from service by such employees to the
City. An annui ty increased under this Section replaces any annui ty
or increased annuity previously granted to the same person.
(b) The amount of annuity increase under this Section is
computed as the sum of prior and current service annuities on the
effective date of retirement of the person on whose service the
annuities are based, multiplied by 70% of the percentage change in
Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, from December of the
year immediately preceding the effective date of the person's
retirement to the December that is 13 months before the effective
date of this Section.
(c) An increase in an annuity that was reduced because of an
option selection is reducible in the same proportion and in the
same manner that the original annuity was reduced.
(d) If a computation hereunder does not result in an increase
in the amount of an annuity, the amount of the annuity will not be
changed hereunder. ',>
(e) The amount by which an increase under this Section
exceeds all previously granted increases to an annuitant is an
obligation of the City and of its account in the municipality
accumulation fund of the System.
Section 3. Dates of Allowances and Increases.
The initial allowance of Updated Service Credit and increase
in retirement annuities hereunder shall be effective on January 1,
1992, subject to approval by the Board of Trustees of the System.
An allowance of Updated Service Credits and an increase in
retirement annuities shall be made hereunder on January 1 of each
subsequent year until this ordinance ceases to be in effect under
subsection (e) of Section 853.404 of the TMRS Act, provided that,
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Updated Service Credit Ordinance (continued)
Page 3
as to such subsequent year, the actuary for the System has made the
determination set forth in subsection (d) of Section 853.404 of the
TMRS Act.
Section 4. Effective Date.
Subject to approval by the Board of Trustees of the System,
this ordinance shall be and become effective on the 1st day of
January 1992.
Passed and approved this the ____ day of
, 19
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Secretary or Clerk
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Attorney for the City
'~,.
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
epartment: Le9al
Moratorium on Building Permits in
Subject: R-8 Zones - Resolution No. 91-41
Council Meeting Date: 11 /11 /91
Agenda Number: GN 91-153
By motion, the Council voted on October 28, 1991 to impose a 90 day moratorium
on building permits in R-8 zones. This motion has been set for
reconsideration. If it is to be considered a part of agenda item dealing with
a plat approval, the attached resolution should be approved if Council still
wants the study and moratorium.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve Resolution No. 91-41.
\,,'
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
Department Head S gna ure
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
KIfJ/~
City Manager
, Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
-.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 91-41
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH
RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, that:
1.
A ninety day moratorium is hereby imposed on issuance of building permits in R-8
zones of the City.
2.
The Director of Community Development is directed to study and recommend
changes in the uses permitted in R-8 zones under the Zoning Ordinance of the City. Such
study and recommended changes are directed to be completed for Council study by
December 9, 1991.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 11th day of November, 1991.
APPROVED:
Tommy Brown - Mayor
ATTEST:
,,'
Jeanette Rewis - City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Rex McEntire - Attorney for the City
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
partment: Parks & Recreation Department
Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
North Hills Community Park Grant Application Agenda Number: GN 91-1 S4
The city council requested Staff to contract the professional services of
Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc. to prepare a matching funds grant
application to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for a potential
park site on property currently held by North Hills Medical Center.
The grant proposal is contingent upon agreement of North Hills Medical
Center's ownership for dedication or long term lease of property to be
applied as the city's matching portion for development funds.
Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc. has agreed to prepare the grant application
on the same basis as was previously proposed. Whereas, if the grant
application is approved and funded compensation will be made from the
grant funds. If the grant application is not funded then compensation
will not exceed $5,000 and will be paid from the City Council Contingency
Fund.
FUNDING SOURCE:
01-99-01-5970
city Council contingency Fund
$5,000
RECOMMENDATION:
city council is requested to authorize Knowlton-English-Flowers, Inc. tó
provide the professional services necessary to prepare a matching fund
grant application to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and to
establish a $5,000 contingency Budget for their services if the grant
application fails to be funded.
'~........ -
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
d~
-
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient Funds Available
-
~
¡( 1;1/~
City Manager
. Finance Director
I
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITE.M
Page 1 of
I
~epartment:
I Subject:
I
I
I
I
I
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Public Works/utilities
Adopt Revised Industrial Waste
Ordinance - Ordinance No. 1773
~ Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Agenda Number: ~N 91-155
The subject ordinance revises the old North Richland Hills Industrial Waste Ordinance
No. 1063 adopted in September, 1983. Several changes in federal regulations have
occurred since 1983. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required the city of
Fort Worth in 1988 as part of renewing their National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to revise their industrial waste ordinance. The EPA has finally
approved their revised ordinance and on July 23, 1991 the Fort Worth City Council
adopted it.
Our wholesale wastewater contract with the City of Fort Worth (FW), as well as the
Federal Pretreatment Program requires that we enact and enforce an industrial waste
ordinance at least as stringent as FW's. We have revised the ordinance and made some
minor changes, mostly grammatical. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached.
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 1773.
'""-,,
N/A
Finance Review
Acct. Number N/ A
Sufficient Funds Available
ø
« !tl/~
City Manager
. Finance Director
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page 1 of
1
I..
crt Worth
Water
P.o. Box 870
1000 Throckmorton
Fort Worth, Texas 76101-0870
Administration Division 817/870-8220
I Department
I
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
I
I
I
I
I
'-
I
,
August 26, 1991
Honorable Tommy Brown, Mayor
City of North Richland Hills
P. o. Drawer 18609
North Richland Hills, Texas 76135
Dear Mayor Brown:
A copy of the revised industrial waste ordinance adopted by the City
Council of Fort Worth on July 23, 1991, is enclosed. EPA Region 6
in Dallas has advised us that the ordinance meets their requirements
and is "approvable." The new ordinance includes several changes
required by EPA as part of the Federal pretreatment program,
including "technically based local limits" (developed according to
EPA's guidelines), and new rules issued by EPA as revisions to 40
CFR 403. A draft copy of the ordinance was previously furnished to
you and your staff and the approved version contains no significant
changes from the draft.
The Wholesale Wastewater Contract between Fort Worth and North
Richland Hills includes an agreement in Section 10 that North
Richland Hills will enact and enforce an industrial waste ordinance
that is at least as stringent as Fort Worth's ordinance. Since Fort
Worth's ordinance is a part of the Federal pretreatment program, the
City of North Richland Hills is now requested to enact a new
ordinance that includes the changes in the enclosed ordinance. So
that we can send a copy of your new ordinance to EPA, as required by
the Federal pretreatment program rules, you are requested to adopt
and send me a copy of a new ordinance by October 25, 1991. .,
If you have any questions about the enclosed ordinance or if we can
assist you in any way, please call James Scanlan at 871-8203
or Robert Taylor at 871-8305.
Enclosure
City of Fort Worth
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
< .
ORDINANCE NO. 1773
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING PERMITS TO DISCHARGE INDUSTRIAL
WASTE INTO THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS SANITARY SEWER
SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF THE NORTH RICHLAND
HILLS PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITIES DEPARTMENT TO PROMULGATE
REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO SUCH PERMITTING, PROVIDING FOR
DEFINITIONS, MAKING THIS ORDINANCE CUMULATIVE OF PRIOR
ORDINANCES; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES AND PROVISIONS OF
THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY CODE IN CONFLICT HEREWITH;
PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY;
ENGROSSING AND ENROLLING THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH
RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS:
SECTION I - DEFINITIONS
When used in this Ordinance, these terms shall be defined as follows:
Abnormal Sewage: Any industrial waste discharged into the
Authority's sanitary sewer which, when analyzed, shows by weight a
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration greater than 240 mg/L or a
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) concentration greater than 210 mg/L.
In addition, the Authority may judge independently a waste's
suitability for discharge to the POTW that requires additional
treatment, based upon BOD, TSS or other characteristics, as abnormal.
Any waste in this classification must be made acceptable for
discharge into the POTW as defined in this ordinance.
Act: The Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq), as amended.
Assistant Director of utilities: Assistant Director of Utilities of
the City of North Richland Hills, or his authorized representative.
~
Authority:
The City of North Richland Hills, Texas.
Authorized Representative: Authorized representatives (Authorized
Signatories) for wastewater discharge permit applications .and for
reports submitted under Section V, of this ordinance are:
A) A responsible corporate officer, if the discharger submitting
the application or report is a corporation. This includes the
president, vice-president, secretary or treasurer of the
corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any
other person who performs similar policy or decision-making
functions for the corporation.
Page 1
I.
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
1
B) The manager of one or more manufacturing, production or
operation facilities employing more than 250 persons or having
gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in
second-quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents
has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance
with corporate procedures.
1
C) For a partnership or sole proprietorship, a general partner of
the proprietor, respectively.
1
D) The principal executive officer or director having
responsibility for the overall operation of the facility if the
discharger is a federal, state or local governmental entity, or
their agents.
1
1
E) A duly authorized representative of the individual designated
in A), B), C) or D) above if: a) the authorization is made in
writing by the individual described above in A), B), C), or D),
b) the authorization specifies either an individual or a
position having responsibility for the overall operation of the
facility from which the discharge originates (such as a plant
manager), or a position of equivalent responsibility, or having
overall responsibility for environmental matters for the
company, and c) the written authorization is submitted to the
City. If an authorization is no longer accurate because a
different individual or position has responsibility, a new
authorization must be submitted to the City prior to or
together with any reports signed by an authorized
representative.
1
I
t'
1
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (B.O.D.): The quantity of oxygen utilized
in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard
laboratory procedure, as specified in "Standard Methods", in five
days at twenty (20) degrees Centigrade, expressed as parts per
million by weight or in terms of milligrams per liter.
I
I
Bypass: The intentional diversion of waste streams or wastewater
from any portion of a discharger's wastewater treatment equipment or
pretreatment facility. '~
1
Categorical Pretreatment Standards: Limitations on pollutant
discharges to POTW's promulgated by EPA in accordance with Section
307 of the Clean Water Act, that apply to specified process
wastewaters of particular industrial categories [40 CFR 403.6 and
Parts 405-471].
I
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations.
I
Ie
I
I
City: City of North Richland Hills, Texas.
Page 2
I.
~
I
Ord. No. 1773
C~site Sample: A mixture of grab samples collected at the same
sample point at different times and composed of not less than four
samples. The series of samples may be collected on a time or flow
proportional basis.
1
A) Time Proportional Composite Sample - A sampling method which
combines discrete samples of constant volume collected at
constant time intervals (e.g., 200 milliliter samples collected
every half hour for a 24-hour period).
1
B) Flow Proportional Composite Sample - A sampling method which
combines discrete samples collected over time, based on the
flow of the waste stream being sampled. There are two methods
used to collect this type of sample. One method collects a
constant sample volume at time intervals which vary based on
the stream flow [e.g., 200 milliliters of sample collected for
every 5,000 gallons discharged]. The other method collects
samples of varying volume, based on stream flow, at constant
time intervals.
I
I
1
Cooling Water: The water discharged from any system of condensation
such as air conditioning, cooling, refrigeration or water used as a
coolant in cooling towers where the only pollutant is thermal.
I
~
Director: The Director of Public Works/Utilities of the City of
North Richland Hills, or his authorized representative.
I
Discharger: Any user discharging an effluent into a POTW by means
of pipes, conduits, pumping stations, force mains, constructed
drainage ditches, surface water intercepting ditches, intercepting
ditches, and all constructed devices and appliances appurtenant
thereto. The term includes owners and occupants of such premises.
1
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency of the federal government.
I
Garbage: Solid waste from domestic or commercial preparation,
cooking or dispensing of food or from the handling, storage, and sale
of produce.
o
I
Grab Sample: A sample which is taken from a waste stream on a one
time basis with no regard to the flow of the waste stream and without
consideration of time. The sample is collected over a period of time
not exceeding 15 minutes.
1
Industrial Waste: Solid, liquid or gaseous waste resulting from any
industrial, manufacturing, trade, or business process or from the
development, recovery or processing of natural resources.
I
~
I
I
Interference: A discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a
discharge or discharges from other sources, both:
Page 3
I.
Ord. No. 1773
~
I
A) Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or
operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and
I
B) Therefore is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the
POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or
duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge
use or disposal in compliance with the following statutory
provisions and regulations or permits issued thereunder (or
more stringent state or local regulations): Section 405 of the
Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (including
Title II, more commonly referred to as the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and including state
regulations contained in any state sludge management plan
prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA, the Clean Air Act,
the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act.
I
I
I
I
Maximum Daily Average: The maximum concentration of a substance
allowed in a discharge as determined from a laboratory test of a
daily composite sample. When wastewaters are collected and stored for
more than a day prior to discharge, such as batch discharges, a
laboratory test of a grab sample of the stored wastewater may be used
to determine the maximum daily average concentration.
I
~
Maximum Grab: The maximum concentration of a substance allowed in a
discharge as determined from a laboratory test of a grab sample.
mg/L: Milligram per liter.
I
New Source: Any building, structure, facility or installation from
which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the construction
of which commenced after the publication of proposed Pretreatment
standards under section 307(c) of the Act which will be applicable to
such source if such standards are thereafter promulgated in
accordance with that section, provided that:
I
I
A) The building, structure, facility or installation is
constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or
~
I
B) The building, structure, facility or installation totally
replaces the process or production equipment that causes the
discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or
I
C) The production or wastewater generating processes of the
building, structure, facility or installation are substantially
independent of an existing source at the same site. In
determining whether these are substantially independent,
factors such as the extent to which the new facility is
integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the
new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as
the existing source should be considered.
I
~
I
I
Page 4
I
Ord. No. 1773
~
I
D) Construction on a site at which an existing source is located
results in a modification rather than a new source if the
construction does not create a new building, structure,
facility or installation meeting the criteria of B) or C)
above but otherwise alters, replaces, or adds to existing
process or production equipment.
I
E) Construction of a new source as defined under this paragraph
has commenced if the owner or operator has;
I
1) Begun, or caused to begin as part of a continuous onsite
construction program;
a) Any placement, assembly, or installation of
facilities or equipment; or
b) Significant site preparation work including
clearing, excavation, or removal of existing
buildings, structures, or facilities which is
necessary for the placement, assembly, or
installation of new source facilities or equipment;
or
I
I
I
2) Entered into a binding contractual obligation for the
purchase of facilities or equipment which are intended to
be used in its operation within a reasonable time.
Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated
or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for
feasibility, engineering, and design studies do not
constitute a contractual obligation under this paragraph.
I
~
I
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
program of the Environmental Protection Agency.
o and M (or O&M): Operation and Maintenance.
I
Other Wastes: Decayed wood, sawdust, shavings, bark, lime, refuse,
ashes, garbage, offal, oil, tar, and all other substances except
sewage and industrial wastes.
I
OWner or Occupant: The person, firm, or public or private
corporation, using the lot, parcel of land, building or premises
connected to and discharging sewage, industrial wastewater or liquid,
into the sanitary sewage system of the City, and who pays, or is
legally responsible for the payment of, water rates or charges made
against the said lot, parcel of land, building or premises, if
connected to the water distribution system of the City, or who would
payor be legally responsible for such payment if so connected.
':~
I
I
I
~
I
Pass Through: The discharge of pollutants through the POTW into
navigable waters in quantities or concentrations which are a cause of
or significantly contribute to a violation of any requirement of the
POTW's NPDES permit.
Page 5
I
I.
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
Pe~it: Wastewater Discharge Permit, issued to non-domestic
dischargers of industrial waste into the sanitary sewerage system of
the POTW.
I
I
Person: Any individual, business entity, partnership, corporation,
governmental agency, political subdivision, or any agent or employee
thereof.
pH: The logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the concentration
of hydrogen ions, in grams per liter of solution, measured and
calculated in accordance with "Standard Methods".
I
POTW (Publicly OWned Treatment Works): Any sewage treatment plant
owned and operated by an entity other than a private industry and the
sewers, pipes and conveyances owned in whole or part by the Authority
that convey wastewater to the sewage treatment plant. This definition
includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment,
recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial waste of
a liquid nature.
I
I
t'
Pretreatment: The reduction of the amount of pollutants, the
elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of
pollutant properties in wastewater to a less harmful state prior to
or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants
into the sanitary sewer.
I
Pretreatment Requirements: Any substantive or procedural requirement
related to pretreatment, other than a National Pretreatment Standard,
imposed on an industrial user.
I
Pretreatment Standard: The term "National Pretreatment Standard,"
"Pretreatment Standard," or "Standard" means any regulation
containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the EPA in
accordance with section 307 (b) and (c) of the Act, which applies to
industrial users. This term includes prohibitive discharge limits
established pursuant to 40 CFR Part 403.5.
I
I
Sanitary Sewer: A publicly owned pipe or conduit designed to collect
and transport industrial waste and domestic sewage to the POTW. ',<'-
I
Severe Property Damage: Substantial physical damage to property,
damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become
inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources
which can be reasonably expected to occur in the absence of a bypass.
Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays
in production.
I
I
Ie
I
Sewage: Water-carried human wastes or a combination of water-carried
wastes from residences, business buildings, institutions and
industrial establishments, together with such ground, surface, storm
or other waters as may be present.
Page 6
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
Shall:
Is mandatory.
I
Significant Change: An increase or decrease in the volume of
wastewater discharged by more than 20 percent from the data submitted
in the permit application, or the deletion or addition of any
pollutant regulated by the Authority or by a categorical standard.
Volumes are those measured by the water service meter, a verifiable
estimate, or a permanently installed effluent flow meter approved by
the Authority.
I
Significant Industrial User(SIU): All industrial users subject to
categorical pretreatment standards and any other industrial user
that: discharges an average of 25,000 gallons per day or more of
process wastewater to a POTW (excluding sanitary, noncontact cooling
or boiler blowdown wastewater); contributes a process waste stream
which makes up 5 percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic
or organic capacity of a POTW; or is designated as such by the
Authority on the basis that the industrial user has a reasonable
potential for adversely affecting a POTW's operation or for violating
any pretreatment standard or requirement. Upon a finding that a
noncategorical industrial user meeting the criteria for a significant
industrial user has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting a
POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or
requirement, the Authority may at any time on its own initiative or
in response to a petition received from a noncategorical industrial
user, determine such user is not a significant industrial user.
I
I
I
I
t'
I
Slug or Slugload: Any substance (including Biochemical Oxygen
Demand) released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or concentration
which will cause a violation of the specific discharge prohibitions
in Section III ParagraphsB, D, or E of this ordinance or
hydraulically overload the sanitary sewer collection system. This
includes, but is not limited to an accidental spill or a
non-customary batch discharge.
I
I
Standard Methods: IIStandard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater", a publication prepared and published jointly by the
American Public Health Association, American Waterworks Association
and the Water Pollution Control Federation, as it may be amended~~ram
time to time.
I
Total SUspended Solids (TSS): Solids that either float on the
surface of, or in suspension in, water, sewage or other liquid and
which are removable by laboratory filtering.
I
Unpolluted Water or Waste: Any water or liquid waste containing none
of the following: phenols or other substances to an extent imparting
taste and odor in receiving waters; toxic or poisonous substances in
suspension, colloidal state or solution; noxious or odorous gases;
more than ten thousand (10,000) parts per million, by weight, of
dissolved solids, of which not more than twenty-five hundred (2500)
I
Ie
I
I
Page 7
I,
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
'I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
parts per million are chloride; not more than ten (10) parts per
million each of TSS and B.O.D.; color not exceeding fifty (50) color
units; nor pH value of less than 5.0 nor higher than 12.0 and any
water or waste approved for discharge into a stream or waterway by
the appropriate state authority.
Upset: An exceptional incident in which a discharger unintentionally
and temporarily is in a state of noncompliance with the standards
established in this ordinance, due to factors beyond the reasonable
control of the discharger and excluding noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment
facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation thereof.
V.A.C.S.: Vernon1s Annotated Civil statutes of the state of Texas.
Wastewater: Industrial waste, sewage or any other waste that has
been used by and discharged to the POTW from an industry, commercial
enterprise, household or other water consumer, including that which
may be combined with any groundwater, surface water or storm water.
SECTION II - PURPOSE AND POLICY
This ordinance provides for prohibitions on discharges of certain
substances into the public sewer system of the City from all sources,
domestic, commercial, or industrial. A further purpose of this
ordinance is to set forth uniform requirements for industrial
dischargers into the Authority1s wastewater collection and treatment
systems, and to enable the Authority to protect the public health in
conformance with all applicable state and federal laws relating
thereto. Parts of this ordinance are enacted pursuant to regulations
established by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as
set forth in 40 CFR Part 403.
All categorical pretreatment standards, lists of toxic pollutants,
industrial categories and other standards and categories which have
been or which will be promulgated by the EPA shall be incorporated as
a part of this ordinance, as will EPA regulations regarding sewage-
pretreatment established pursuant to the Act, and amendment of this
ordinance to incorporate such changes shall not be necessary. The
Authority shall maintain current standards and regulations which
shall be available for inspection and copying.
The objectives of this ordinance are:
A) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into the Authority
wastewater system which will interfere with the normal
operation of the system, including interference with the use or
disposal of sludge, or contaminate the resulting sludge;
Page 8
I.
Ord. No. 1773
~
I
B) to prevent the introduction of pollutants into the Authority
wastewater system which do not receive adequate treatment in
the POTW, and which will pass through the system into receiving
waters or the atmosphere or which are otherwise incompatible
with the system; and
I
C) to improve the opportunity to recycle or reclaim municipal and
industrial wastewaters and sludges.
I
The regulation of discharges into the Authority's wastewater system
under this ordinance shall be accomplished through the issuance of
permits, as specified in Section V herein, and by monitoring and
inspection of facilities, according to this ordinance.
I
The Director shall have the authority to promulgate such
administrative regulations as are from time to time necessary for the
enforcement of this ordinance.
I
SECTION III - DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
I
A. DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND WATERCOURSES
I
~
It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge or cause to be
discharged any wastewater into any storm drain or watercourse within
the City, except for those persons with approved permits for such
discharges.
B. PROHIBITED DISCHARGES
I
No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any storm water,
groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage or drainage from
downspouts, yard drains, yard fountains and ponds, or lawnsprays into
any sanitary sewer. Water from sw~ing pools, unpolluted industrial
water, or cooling water from various equipment shall not be
discharged into sanitary sewers if an alternate acceptable means of
disposal is available. If an alternate acceptable means of disposal
is not available, such water may be discharged into the sanitary
sewer provided the water is metered and meets the discharge ~-
prohibitions and limitations of this ordinance.
I
I
I
C. PROHIBITED SEWER CONNECTIONS, INCLUDING TRUCKED
OR HAULED WASTEWATER
I
It shall be unlawful for any person to deposit or discharge into the
sanitary sewer any liquid or solid waste, including trucked or hauled
wastes, unless such deposit or discharge has been approved by the
Authority.
I
~
I
I
Page 9
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
D. PROHIBITED WASTEWATER CONSTITUENTS
No person shall contribute or cause to be discharged directly or
indirectly, into any public sanitary sewer any of the following
described substances, materials, water or waste:
1) Temperature - any liquid or vapor having a temperature
higher than one hundred fifty degrees (150') Fahrenheit
(65' degrees Centigrade);
2) Solidifying Substance - any water or waste which contains
wax, grease, oil, petroleum oil, nonbiodegradable cutting
oil, products of mineral oil origin, plastic or other
substance that will solidify or become discernibly
viscous at temperatures between thirty-two degrees (32')
to one hundred fifty degrees (150') Fahrenheit, thereby
contributing to the clogging, plugging or otherwise
restricting the flow of wastewater through the collection
system;
3) Explosive - pollutants which create a fire or explosion
hazard in the sewer system or POTW, including but not
limited to, waste streams with a closed cup flashpoint of
less than 140' degrees Fahrenheit or 60' degrees
Centigrade using the test methods specified in 40 CFR
Part 261.21. This includes flammable or explosive
liquids, solids or gases such as gasoline, kerosene,
benzene, naphtha, etc., which by reason of their chemical
properties or quantity may be sufficient, either alone or
by interaction, to cause fire or explosion.
4) Obstruction - solid or viscous substances in quantities
capable of causing obstruction in the flow in sewers or
other interference with proper operation of the POTW,
such as, but not limited to, ashes, cinders, asphalt,
concrete, cement, sand, mud, straw, shavings, metal,
glass, rags, feathers, tar, plastics, wood, whole blood,
paunch manure, hair and fleshings, entrails, lime slurry,
lime residues, slops, chemical residues, paint residu~s)
or bulk solids;
5) Garbage - any garbage that has not been properly
comminuted or shredded to such a degree that all
particles will be carried freely under the flow
conditions normally prevailing in public sewers, with no
particle greater than one-half (1/2) inch in any
dimension;
6) Gases - any noxious or malodorous liquid, gas, or solid
which can form a gas which, either singly or by
interaction with other wastes, is capable of causing a
Page 10
I
Ord. No. 1773
~
I
I
public nuisance, objectionable odors or hazards to life
or form solids in concentrations exceeding limits
established in this ordinance, or creates any other
condition deleterious to structures or treatment
processes, or requires unusual provisions, attentions or
expense to handle such material, or which may prevent
entry into the sewers for their maintenance and repair;
I
7) Sludge - any substance which may cause the POTW's
effluent or treatment residues, sludges, or scums, to be
unsuitable for reclamation and reuse or to interfere with
the reclamation process as determined pursuant to
criteria in this ordinance. In no case, shall a
substance discharged to the POTW cause the POTW to be in
noncompliance with sludge use or disposal criteria,
guidelines or regulations developed under Section 405 of
the Act or any criteria, guidelines or regulations
affecting sludge use or disposal developed pursuant to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances
Control Act, or state standards applicable to the sludge
management method being used;
I
I
I
I
~
8) NPDES - any substance which will cause the POTW to
violate its NPDES or other disposal system permits, or
the receiving stream water quality standards;
I
9) Objectionable Color - any substance with objectionable
color not removed in the treatment process, such as, but
not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning
solutions;
I
10) Slugload - any dump or slugload;
I
11) Hazard to human life - any wastewater which causes a
hazard to human life or creates a public nuisance;
E.
WASTEWATER LIMITATIONS
~.
I
No person shall contribute or cause to be discharged, directly or
indirectly, into any sanitary sewer any wastewaters containing or
having:
I
1) Fats, oils, and greases - free or emulsified fats, oils,
and greases exceeding 200 mg/L as determined by the freon
extraction analytical procedure. A concentration of
500 mg/L is allowable providing the Authority has
specifically determined that the waste: a) derives from
animal or vegetable materials; b) biodegrades readily in
the POTW; c) does not cause an obstruction of flow in the
I
~
I
Page 11
I
I Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
sewer line; and d) the discharge is pretreated by
discharge through an approved grease trap or other
pretreatment process.
2) Acids or alkalies - acids or alkalies capable of causing
damage to sewage disposal structures or personnel or
having a pH value lower than 5.0 or higher than 12.0.
3) Metals - metals in the form of compounds or elements with
total concentrations exceeding the following:
MAXIMUM DAILY MAXIMUM GRAB
AVERAGE (mg/L) (mg/L)
Arsenic 0.1 0.3
Cadmium 0.3 0.9
Chromium 5.0 15.0
Copper 3.0 9.0
Lead 2.9 8.7
Mercury 0.01 0.03
Nickel 2.0 6.0
Silver 0.1 0.3
Zinc 5.0 15.0
4) Cyanide - cyanide or cyanogen compounds [(expressed as
total Cn-)] in excess of 1.0 mg/L.
5) Gases - hydrogen sulfide, sulfur dioxide or nitrous oxide
in excess of 10 parts per million.
6) Radioactive - radioactive wastes or isotopes with a half-
life or concentration exceeding limits established by the
Authority in compliance with applicable state or federal
regulations.
7) Toxics - toxic pollutants in sufficient quantity, either
singly or by interaction with other wastes, to injure or
interfere with any wastewater treatment process,
constitute a hazard to humans or animals, or to pass
through the treatment plant and impair aquatic life in
receiving water, as expressed by the results of acute~or'
chronic toxicity tests of the POTW effluent.
8) Temperature - a temperature which inhibits or interferes
with biological activity in the POTW treatment plant. In
no case shall wastewater be introduced which would have a
temperature exceeding 40·C (104·F) upon entering the POTW
treatment plant.
9) Categorical - pollutants in excess of the limitations
established in an applicable categorical pretreatment
standard set forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Page 12
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
10) Explosive - wastewaters which emanate vapors causing the
atmosphere in the sewer system to exceed 20% of the lower
explosive limit in the immediate area of the discharge.
SECTION IV -SPECIAL RULES
RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS
A. COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS
I} Applicable Laws - All dischargers shall be subject to
those Federal, state and local requirements and
limitations which are the most stringent.
2) Dilution - No discharger shall increase the use of
potable or process water in any way for the purpose of
diluting a discharge as a partial or complete substitute
for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with the
standards set forth in this ordinance.
3} Mass Limitations - Where deemed appropriate the Authority
may apply mass limitations expressed in pounds per day of
pollutant discharged.
B. ACCIDENTAL DISCHARGES
Each discharger shall provide protection from accidental discharge of
prohibited or regulated materials or substances established by this
ordinance. Where necessary, facilities to prevent accidental
discharge of prohibited materials shall be provided and maintained at
the discharger's cost and expense. When applicable, detailed plans
showing facilities and operating procedures to provide this
protection shall be submitted to the Authority for review, and shall
be approved by the Authority before construction of the facility.
Review and approval of such plans and operating procedures by the
Authority shall not relieve the discharger from the responsibility to
modify its facility as necessary to meet the requirements of this
ordinance.
."'.......
Dischargers shall notify the Authority immediately upon the
occurrence of a IIslugll or accidental discharge of substances
prohibited by this ordinance. The notification shall include
location of discharge, date and time thereof, type of waste,
concentration and volume, corrective actions taken, and be signed by
the dischargers Authorized Representative. Any discharger
discharging slugs of prohibited materials shall be liable for any
expense, loss or damage to the wastewater system and the POTW, in
addition to the amount of any fines imposed on the Authority under
state or federal law.
Page 13
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
Each employer shall instruct all applicable employees, who may cause
or discover such a discharge, with respect to emergency notification
procedure including the proper telephone number of the Authority to
be notified.
c. WASTEWATER DISCHARGES INTO PRIVATE SEWER SYSTEMS
I
All dischargers who discharge wastewater into a private sewer system
shall comply with this ordinance including Section V; provided,
however, that flow measurement may be based on metered water
consumption. Each discharger shall provide an agreement, signed by
the owner of the sewer system, which authorizes the Authority's
personnel to enter onto the owner's property for purposes of
inspection and monitoring of discharger's premises, and for
enforcement pursuant to the term of this ordinance.
I
I
I
D. PROHIBITION OF BYPASS
I
1) Bypass of a discharger's treatment equipment or treatment
facility is prohibited and the Authority may take
enforcement action against the discharger unless:
a)
The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage, and;
I
~
b)
There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass,
such as use of auxiliary treatment facilities,
retention of untreated wastewater, or maintenance
during normal periods of downtime. This condition
is not satisfied if, in the exercise of reasonable
engineering judgement, adequate back-up equipment
should have been installed to prevent a bypass
which occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or maintenance, and;
I
I
c)
The discharger submitted advanced, written notice
of the need for a bypass.
I
2) The discharger shall submit oral notice to the Authority
of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds categorical
standards or other discharge limits within 24 hours of
the time the discharger becomes aware of the bypass.
Written notice shall be provided within 5 days of the
time the discharger becomes aware of the bypass. The
written notice shall include a description of the bypass
and its causes, duration of the bypass, steps taken to
prevent the reoccurrence of the bypass, and must be
signed by the Authorized Representative of the
discharger.
I
I
I
I~
I
Page 14
I
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
. ~
Ord. No. 1773
3) The Authority may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if it determines that
the bypass will meet all of the conditions of paragraph
1) above.
E. NOTIFICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISCHARGES
All dischargers shall notify the Authority, the EPA's Regional Waste
Management Division Director, and the Texas Water Commission's
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division Director in writing of any
discharge into a wastewater system or POTW of any substance, which,
if otherwise disposed of, would be a hazardous waste under 40 CFR
Part 261. Any notification under this paragraph must be submitted in
conformance with 40 CFR Part 403.12 (p).
SECTION V - ADMINISTRATION BY PERMIT
A. CLASSIFICATION OF DISCHARGERS AND PERMITS
1) All non-domestic users which discharge into the sanitary
sewer system of the Authority shall be grouped according
to the following definitions:
Group I Significant Industrial Users are defined in
Section I - Definitions.
Group II - Commercial Facilities and Small Industrial
Users are those commercial facilities and
industrial users which are not included in
Group I and which do not discharge a
significant amount of regulated pollutants on
a regular basis. Examples include automotive
service shops, small food processors and
photographic developing shops.
Group III - Classed High strength Users are restaurants,
car washes or other businesses which can be
classed according to an average strength~r .
abnormal strength of their wastewater.
Group IV - Wastewater Haulers are transporters of
wastewater desiring to discharge into the
Authority's sanitary sewage system.
2) All Group I dischargers shall submit a Wastewater
Discharge Permit Application to the Authority on a form
provided by the Authority. All Group II, III and IV
dischargers shall submit an Industrial Waste
Questionnaire. The questionnaire will be reviewed by the
Assistant Director of Utilities. If deemed necessary,
Page 15
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I~
I
I
Group II, III or IV dischargers may also be required to
obtain a Permit as outlined herein.
3) No new Group I user shall be allowed to discharge until
issued a valid permit.
4) The Authority will evaluate the completed applications
and data furnished by the discharger and may require
additional information. If, after evaluation, the
application is deemed satisfactory, then a wastewater
discharge permit shall be issued within 60 days after
the evaluation is complete. The wastewater discharge
permit shall be subject to the terms and conditions
specified herein and to the regulations of the Authority.
5) If the application is denied, the applicant shall be
notified in writing within 30 days of the reasons for
such denial. If denial is based on the Authority's
determination that the applicant cannot meet the
wastewater discharge limitations of this ordinance, the
Authority may specify that the applicant be required to
provide pretreatment of the waste before it is deemed
acceptable for sewer discharge.
6) Where additional pretreatment and/or operation and
maintenance activities will be required to comply with
this ordinance, pursuant to 5) above, the discharger
shall provide a declaration of the shortest schedule by
which the discharger will provide such additional
pretreatment and/or implement added operational and
maintenance activities.
a) The schedule shall contain milestone dates for the
commencement and completion of major events leading
to the construction and operation of additional
pretreatment required for the discharger to comply
with the requirements of this ordinance including,
but not limited to dates, relating to hiring an
engineer, completing preliminary plans, complettn~
final plans, executing contract(s) for major
components, commencing construction, completing
construction, and all other acts necessary to
achieve compliance with this ordinance.
b) The time increments established between milestone
dates shall be the shortest practicable for the
completion of the required work. Under no
circumstances shall the Authority permit a time
increment for a single step in the compliance
schedule to exceed 9 months. The completion date
in this schedule shall not be later than the
Page 16
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
compliance date established for applicable
categorical pretreatment standards.
c) Not later than 14 days following each milestone
date in the schedule and the final date for
compliance, the discharger shall submit a progress
report to the Authority, including a statement as
to whether or not it complied with the increment of
progress represented by that milestone date and, if
not, the date on which it expects to comply with
this increment of progress, the reason for delay,
and the steps being taken by the discharger to
return the construction to the approved schedule.
In no event shall more than 9 months elapse between
such progress reports to the Authority.
7) Prior to the approval of a permit, unless exempted by the
Authority, all dischargers shall provide monitoring
facilities to allow inspection, sampling and/or flow
measurement of wastewaters before entering the sanitary
sewer of the Authority. Each monitoring facility shall
be located on the discharger's premises; provided,
however, where such location would be impractical or
cause undue hardship to the discharger, the Authority may
approve the placement of monitoring facilities in the
public street or sidewalk area. All monitoring equipment
and facilities shall be maintained in a safe and proper
operating condition at the expense of the discharger.
Failure to provide proper monitoring facilities shall be
grounds for denial of a permit.
B. PERMIT CONDITIONS
Permits are issued to a specific discharger for specific operation
and are not assignable to another discharger or transferable to any
other location without the prior written approval of the Authority.
Permits may include as applicable, but shall not be limited to, the
following information: ~0
1) Limits on the average and maximum amount of certain
wastewater constituents to be discharged;
2) Limits on average and maximum rate and time of discharge
and/or requirements for flow regulations and
equalization;
3) Requirements for installation and maintenance of
inspection and sampling facilities;
4) Location of approved discharge point(s);
Page 17
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
5) Additional conditions as the Authority may reasonably
require under particular circumstances, applying to the
monitoring of a given discharge, including sampling
locations, frequency of sampling, number, types, and
standards for tests, laboratory analysis method, and
reporting schedule;
6) Compliance schedules;
7) Requirements for submission of special technical reports
or discharge reports where same differ from those
prescribed by this ordinance;
8) Duration of Permit;
9) statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for
violation of pretreatment standards and requirements; and
10) statement of non-transferability.
C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGERS
1) Baseline Report: Within 180 days following the
effective date for new or revised categorical
pretreatment standards, or at least 90 days prior to
commencement of the introduction of wastewater into the
POTW by a new discharger, any discharger subject to a
categorical pretreatment standard shall submit to the
Authority a report (in a form provided by the Authority),
indicating the nature and concentration of all prohibited
or regulated substances contained in its discharge, and
the average and maximum daily flow in gallons. The
report shall state whether the applicable categorical
pretreatment standards are being met on a consistent
basis and, if not, what additional 0 & M or pretreatment
is necessary to bring the discharger into compliance with
the applicable categorical pretreatment standards. This
report shall be signed by an authorized representative
and certified by a qualified professional as stated ~n '
40 CFR Part 403.12(b)(6).
2) 90 Day Compliance Report: Within 90 days following the
date for final compliance by the discharger with
applicable categorical pretreatment standards or 90 days
following commencement of the introduction of wastewater
into the POTW by a new discharger, any discharger subject
to categorical pretreatment standards shall submit to the
Authority a report indicating the nature and
concentration of all prohibited or regulated substances
contained in its discharge, and the average and maximum
daily flow in gallons. The report shall state whether
Page 18
I Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
the applicable categorical pretreatment standards or
requirements are being met on a consistent basis and, if
not, what additional 0 & M or pretreatment is necessary
to bring the discharger into compliance with the
applicable categorical pretreatment standards or
requirements. This report shall be signed by an
authorized representative of the discharger.
3) Periodic Compliance Reports: Any discharger subject to a
categorical pretreatment standard made a part of this
ordinance shall submit to the Authority a report
indicating the nature and concentration of prohibited or
regulated substances in the effluent which are limited by
the categorical pretreatment standards hereof. Reports
are required after the compliance date of such a
pretreatment standard, or in the case of a new
discharger, after commencement of the discharge, and are
to be submitted during the months of July and January of
each year. In addition, where applicable, this report
shall include a record of all measured or estimated
average and maximum daily flows which, during the
reporting period, exceeded the average daily flow
specified in Section V, paragraph B, 1) and 2) hereof.
Flows shall be reported on the basis of actual
measurement, provided however, where cost or feasibility
considerations justify, the Authority may accept reports
of average and maximum flows estimated by verifiable
techniques. The Authority, taking into consideration
extenuating factors, may authorize the submission of said
reports on months other than those specified above.
4) Analysis and Sampling Procedures: All analyses shall be
performed in accordance with procedures contained in 40
CFR Part 136 and amendments thereto or with any other
test procedures approved by the Administrator. Sampling
shall be performed in accordance with the techniques
approved by EPA. Where 40 CFR Part 136 does not include
sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutants in
question, or where EPA determines that the Part 136
techniques are inappropriate for the pollutant in
question, sampling and analyses shall be performed using
validated analytical methods or any other sampling and
analytical procedures, including procedures suggested by
the POTW or other parties, approved by EPA.
5) Reporting Additional Monitoring: If an industrial user
subject to the reporting requirements of this section
monitors any pollutant more frequently than required by
the Authority, using the procedures prescribed in
paragraph (4) of this section, the results of this
monitoring shall be included in the report.
Page 19
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
6) Significant Noncategorical Industrial User Reporting:
Significant noncategorical industrial users shall submit
to the Authority at least once every six months (on dates
as specified by the Authority) a description of the
nature, concentration, and flow of the pollutants
required to be reported by the Authority. These reports
shall be based on sampling and analysis performed in the
period covered by the report, and performed in accordance
with the techniques described in paragraph (4) of this
section. This sampling and analysis may be performed by
the Authority in lieu of the significant noncategorical
industrial user.
7) Notification of Changed Discharge: Dischargers shall
give prior written notification to the Authority of any
significant change in the volume or character of
pollutants in the discharge.
8) Authority Monitoring: Sampling and analysis for the
reports required by paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (6)
above may be performed by the Authority in lieu of the
discharger. If all information required for the report,
including flow data, is collected by the Authority, the
discharger will not be required to submit the report or
certifications.
9) Signatory Requirements: All applications and compliance
reports submitted to the Authority must contain the
following certification statement and be signed by the
Authorized Representative:
"I certify under penalty of law that this
document and all attachments were prepared under
my direction or supervision in accordance with a
system designed to assure that qualified
personnel properly gather and evaluate the
information submitted. Based on my inquiry of
the person or persons who manage the system, or
those persons directly responsible for gathering
the information, the information submitted is,
to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,
accurate, and complete. I am aware that there
are significant penalties for submitting false
information and for not reporting known
violations, including possibility of fine and
imprisonment."
D. INSPECTION AND FLOW MEASUREMENT
1) Inspection: The Authority may inspect the facilities of
any discharger to determine compliance with the
Page 20
I Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I 2)
I
I
~
I
I
requirements of this ordinance. The discharger shall
allow the Authority or its representatives to enter upon
the premises of the discharger at all reasonable hours
for the purposes of inspection, sampling, or examination
of records. All reports and records related to the
provisions of this ordinance shall be made available for
copying and inspection by the Authority. The Authority
shall have the right to set upon the discharger's
property such devices as are necessary to conduct
sampling, inspection, compliance monitoring and metering
or measuring operations. The inspectors, agents or
representatives of the Authority charged with the
enforcement of this section shall be deemed to be
performing a governmental function for the benefit and
health and welfare of the general public and neither the
Authority nor any individual inspector, agent or
representative shall be held liable for any loss or
damage, whether real or asserted, caused or alleged to
have been caused as a result of the performance of such
governmental function. The failure or refusal of such
owner or discharger to comply with this provision shall
be grounds for the disconnection of water or sewer
service to the facility.
The industrial waste discharged or deposited into the
sanitary sewers shall be subject to periodic inspection
and sampling as often as may be deemed necessary by the
Authority. Samples shall be collected in such manner as
to be representative of the character and concentration
the waste under operational conditions. The laboratory
methods used in the examination of said waste shall be
those set forth in 40 CFR Part 136. The determination of
the character and concentration of industrial waste shall
be made at such times and on such schedules as may be
established by the Authority. Should a discharger desire
a determination of the quality of such industrial waste
be made at some time other than that scheduled by the
Authority, such special determination may be made by the
Authority at the expense of the owner or discharger.
Measurement of Flow: The volume of flow used in
computing sewage charges shall be based upon metered
water consumption or discharge as shown in the records of
meter readings maintained by the North Richland Hills
Water Department.
Where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Director
that a substantial portion of the metered water does not
enter the sanitary sewer, the Director may require or
permit the installation of additional approved meters at
the owner's expense, to measure the quantity of water
Page 21
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
actually entering the sewer system. If approved by the
Director, the measured quantity of water actually
entering the sewer system will be used to determine the
sewer service charge.
Any discharger who procures all or part of its water
supply from sources other than the North Richland Hills
Water Department, all or part of which is subsequently
discharged into the sanitary sewer, shall install and
maintain at its expense an effluent meter or flow
measuring device approved by the Director for the purpose
of determining the proper volume of flow to be used in
computing sewer service charges. Such meters or measuring
devices shall be read monthly.
If the Director determines that it is not practicable to
measure the quantity or quality of waste by the aforesaid
meters or monitoring devices, the quantity or quality of
the waste shall be determined in any manner or method the
Director may find practicable in order to arrive at the
percentage of water entering the sanitary sewage system
of the Authority and/or the quality of the sewage to be
used to determine the sewer service charge.
E. PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
1) The Authority reserves the right to amend any permit
issued hereunder in order to assure compliance by the
Authority with applicable laws and regulations. The
Authority may amend any permit for good cause including,
but not limited to the following:
a) To incorporate any new or revised federal, state,
or local pretreatment standards or requirements,
b) Material or substantial alterations or additions to
the discharger's operation processes, or discharge
volume or character which were not considered in
drafting the effective permit, ~
c) A change in any condition in either the industrial
user or the POTW that requires either a temporary
or permanent reduction or elimination of the
authorized discharge,
d) Information indicating that the permitted discharge
poses a threat to the Authority's collection and
treatment systems, POTW personnel or the receiving
waters,
e) Violation of any terms or conditions of the permit,
Page 22
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
f) Misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all
relevant facts in the permit application or in any
required reporting,
g) To correct typographical or other errors in the
permit,
h) To reflect transfer of the facility ownership
and/or operation to a new owner/operator,
i) Upon request of the permittee, provided such
request does not create a violation of any
applicable requirements, standards, laws, or rules
and regulations.
2) All categorical pretreatment standards promulgated and
adopted by the EPA after the effective date of this
ordinance shall automatically become a part of this
ordinance. Where a discharger, subject to a categorical
pretreatment standard, has not previously submitted an
application for a permit as required by Section V,
paragraph A, 2) above, the discharger shall apply for a
permit from the Authority within 180 days after the
promulgation of the applicable categorical pretreatment
standard by the EPA. In addition, the discharger with an
existing permit shall submit to the Authority within 180
days after promulgation of an applicable categorical
pretreatment standard, the information required by
Section V, paragraph C, 1) above. The discharger shall
be informed of any proposed changes in its permit at
least 30 days prior to the effective date of change. Any
changes or new conditions in the permit shall include a
reasonable time schedule for compliance.
F. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
I
I
I
~
I
I
1) All information and data submitted by a discharger to the
Authority or POTW may be submitted to any State or
Federal agency governing the POTW. Such information '~,
shall be considered subject to public disclosure,
provided, however, that the discharger may request that
information not be subject to public disclosure, in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 2 as follows:
a) A discharger may assert a business confidentiality
claim covering part or all of the information in a
manner described below, and that information
covered by such a claim will be disclosed only by
means of the procedures set forth below.
Page 23
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i'
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
b) If no claim of business confidentiality is
asserted, all information will be subject to public
disclosure without further notice to the
discharger.
2} Method and time of asserting business confidentiality
claim: A discharge which is submitting information to
the Authority may assert a business confidentiality claim
covering the information by placing on or attaching to
the information, at the time it is submitted to the
Authority, a cover sheet, stamped or typed legend, or
other suitable form of notice employing language such as
"trade secret," "proprietary, II or IIcompany
confidential." Allegedly confidential portions of
otherwise nonconfidential documents should be clearly
identified by the discharger, and may be submitted
separately to facilitate identification and handling by
the Authority. If the discharger desires confidential
treatment only until a certain date or until the
occurrence of a certain event, the notice should so
state.
3} Nothing in this section shall prevent the disclosure of
information and data regarding the nature and content of
a discharger's effluent, and the frequency of discharge,
or a standard or limitation to be met by the discharger,
and this information shall be available to the public
with no restrictions. Effluent data which cannot be held
as confidential is as defined in 40 CFR 2.302.
4} The provisions of this section shall be subject to any
public disclosure requirements which may exist under
Article 6252-17a, V.A.C.S.
SECTION VI - ENFORCEMENT
A.
REVOCATION OF PERMIT
The Authority may revoke the permit or terminate water or sewer
service of any discharger which fails to:
1} factually report the wastewater constituents and
characteristics of its discharge; or
2) report significant changes in wastewater constituents or
characteristics; or
3) allow reasonable access to the discharger's premises by
representatives of the Authority for the purpose of
inspection or monitoring; or
Page 24
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
4) pay sewer charges; or
5) meet compliance schedules; or
6) fulfill the conditions of its permit, or this ordinance,
or to obey any final judicial order with respect thereto.
I
B. NOTIFICATION OF VIOLATION
I
Whenever the Authority finds that any discharger has engaged in
conduct which justifies revocation of a permit, pursuant to
Section VI,A. hereof, the Authority shall serve or cause to be
served upon such discharger a written notice, either by
personal delivery or by certified or registered mail, return
receipt requested, stating the nature of the alleged violation.
Within 30 days of the date of receipt of the notice, the
discharger shall respond in person or in writing to the
Authority, advising of its position with respect to the
allegations. Thereafter, the parties shall meet to ascertain
the veracity of the allegations and where necessary, establish
a plan for the satisfactory correction thereof.
I
I
I
C.
SHOW CAUSE HEARING
I
f
Where the violation of Section VI,A. hereof is not corrected by
means of administrative adjustment, the Authority may order
any violating discharger to show cause, before the Authority or
its duly authorized representative, why the proposed permit
revocation action should not be taken. A written notice shall
be served on the discharger by personal service, or by
certified or registered mail, return receipt requested,
specifying the time and place of a hearing to be held by the
Authority or its designee regarding the violation, the reasons
why the enforcement action is to be taken, the proposed
enforcement action, and directing the discharger to show cause
before the Authority or its designee why the proposed
enforcement action should not be taken. The notice of the
hearing shall be served no less than ten (10) days before the
hearing. Service may be made on any agent, officer, or
authorized representative of the discharger. The Authority
shall then enter appropriate orders with respect to the alleged
improper activities, if any.
I
I
I
I
I
D. RIGHT OF APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULING
I
~
I
Any discharger or any interested party shall have the right to
request in writing an interpretation or ruling by the Authority
on any matter covered by the ordinance and shall be entitled to
a prompt written reply. In the event that such inquiry is by a
discharger and deals with matters of performance or compliance
with this ordinance or deals with a permit issued pursuant
Page 25
I
I
Ie
I
Ord. No. 1773
I
hereto for which enforcement activity relating to an alleged
violation is the subject, receipt of a discharger1s request
shall stay all enforcement proceedings pending receipt of the
aforesaid written reply; provided, however, the Authority may
take any action it deems necessary to protect its wastewater
collection and treatment system or to comply with its NPDES
permit or to comply with any contract the Authority has for the
treatment of wastewater.
E.
JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
I
The Authority, with respect to the conduct of any discharger
contrary to the provisions of this ordinance may authorize its
attorney to commence any legal action in a court of competent
jurisdiction for equitable and/or legal relief.
I
F.
EMERGENCY SUSPENSION OF SERVICE & DISCHARGE PERMITS
I
The Authority, may, for good cause shown, suspend water or
wastewater service to the discharger1s facility, when it
appears to the Authority that an actual or threatened discharge
presents or may present an imminent or substantial danger to
the health or welfare of persons, substantial danger to the
environment, interfere with the operation of a POTW, violate
any pretreatment limits imposed by this ordinance or any Permit
issued pursuant to this ordinance. Any discharger notified of
the suspension of the Authority1s water or wastewater service
and/or the discharger1s permit, shall within a reasonable
period of time, as determined by the Authority, cease all
discharges. In the event of the failure of the discharger to
comply voluntarily with the suspension order within the
specified time, the Authority may commence judicial proceedings
to compel the discharger1s compliance with such order or may
immediately disconnect such discharger1s service line from the
City water and sanitary sewer system. In the case of emergency
disconnection of service, the Director shall make a reasonable
attempt to notify the owner or discharger before disconnecting
the service line. The party whose service has been
disconnected shall have an opportunity for a hearing on th~'-
issue of the illegal discharge and the disconnection as soon as
possible after such disconnection has taken place.
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
The Authority may reinstate the permit and/or the wastewater or
water service upon proof by the discharger of the cessation of
the non-complying discharge or elimination of conditions
creating the threat of imminent or substantial danger as set
forth above. The water and/or wastewater service shall be
reconnected at the discharger1s expense.
I
I
~
I
I
Page 26
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
G. OPERATING UPSETS
I
Any discharger which experiences an upset in operations which
places the discharger in a temporary state of non-compliance
with this ordinance shall inform the Authority within 24 hours
of first awareness of the commencement of the upset. Where
such information is given orally, the Authority may at its
discretion require the discharger to file a written report
within five working days. The report shall specify:
I
1) Description of the upset, its cause and the upset's
impact on a discharger's compliance status.
I
2) Duration of non-compliance, including exact dates and
times of non-compliance, and if the non-compliance
continues, the time by which compliance is reasonably
expected to occur.
I
I
3) All steps taken or to be taken to reduce, eliminate and
prevent recurrence of such an upset or other conditions
of non-compliance.
I
{'
An operating upset which was not the result of negligence on
the part of the discharger, and which has been documented and
verified in the manner stated above shall be an affirmative
defense to any enforcement action brought by the Authority
against a discharger for any non-compliance with the ordinance
which arises out of violations alleged to have occurred during
the period of the upset.
I
H. RECOVERY OF COSTS INCURRED BY THE AUTHORITY
I
Any discharger who discharges or causes a discharge producing a
deposit or obstruction, or causes damage to or impairs the
Authority's wastewater system, shall be liable to the Authority
for any expense, loss, or damage caused by such violation or
discharge. The Authority shall bill the discharger for the
costs incurred by the Authority for any cleaning, repair, or
replacement work caused by the violation or discharge. Farlu~e
to pay such bill may result in the termination of water or
wastewater service.
I
I
I . FALSIFYING INFORMATION
I
Any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation or certification in any application, record,
report, plan or other document filed or required to be
maintained pursuant to this ordinance, or falsifies, tampers
with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or
method required under this section, shall, upon conviction, be
punished as provided in Section XI of this Ordinance.
I
Ie
I
I
Page 27
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
SECTION VII - MISCELLANEOUS
A.
NET/GROSS CALCULATIONS
I
The Authority may elect to adjust categorical pretreatment
standards to reflect the presence of pollutants in the
discharger's intake water, in accordance with 40 CFR Part
403.15.
I
B.
PRESERVATION OF RECORDS
I
All dischargers subject to this ordinance shall retain and
preserve for no less than three (3) years, any records, books,
documents, memoranda, reports, correspondence and any and all
summaries thereof, relating to monitoring, sampling and
chemical analyses made by or on behalf of a discharger in
connection with its discharge. All records which pertain to
matters which are the subject of administrative adjustment or
any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the
Authority pursuant hereto shall be retained and preserved by
the discharger until all enforcement activities have concluded
and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all
appeals have expired.
I
I
I
('
C.
COSTS OF ADMINISTERING PROGRAM
I
The Authority may make such charges, known as monitoring and
pretreatment charges, as are reasonable for services rendered
in administering the programs outlined in this ordinance. Such
charges may include, but are not limited to:
I
I
1) permitting industrial facilities;
2) inspection;
3) sample analysis;
4) monitoring; and
5) enforcement.
D.
RIGHT OF REVISION
"~"<"'"
I
The Authority reserves the right to amend this ordinance to
provide for more or less stringent limitations or requirements
on discharges to the sanitary sewer or POTW where deemed
necessary to comply with the objectives set forth in Section
II of this ordinance.
I
I
Ie
I
I
E. PUBLICATION OF LIST OF SIGNIFICANT VIOLATORS
The Authority shall annually publish in the largest local
daily newspaper a list of users that have significantly
Page 28
I
Ord. No. 1773
Ie
I
violated federal pretreatment requirements during the previous
12 months. Definition of significant violation shall be the
definitions listed in 40 CFR Part 403.8 (f) (2) (vii), and in
the POTW's NPDES permit.
I
SECTION VIII - CUMULATIVE CLAUSE
I
That this Ordinance shall repeal every prior Ordinance and provision
of the North Richland Hills City Code in conflict herewith but only
insofar as any portion of such prior Ordinance or provision shall be
in conflict, and as to all other Ordinances or provisions of the
North Richland Hills City Code not in direct conflict herewith, this
Ordinance shall be and is hereby made cumulative. Ordinance No. 1063
is hereby repealed.
I
I
SECTION IX - REMEDIES
I
I
f
That all rights or remedies of the City of North Richland Hills,
Texas, are expressly saved as to any and all violations of the North
Richland Hills City Code, as amended, which have accrued at the time
of the effective date of this Ordinance; and as to such accrued
violations, the Court shall have all of the powers that existed prior
to the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION X - SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
I
It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that
the sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this
Ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence,
paragraph or section of this Ordinance shall be declared
unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of
competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any
of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections
of this Ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City
Council without the incorporation in this Ordinance of any such
unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section.'~ ,
I
I
I
SECTION XI - FINES
I
I
~
I
I
That the violation of any provision of this Ordinance or of the North
Richland Hills City Code relating to sewer service shall be deemed an
offense and punishable by a fine not exceeding Two Thousand Dollars
($2,000), and each violation hereof, and each day on which there is a
failure to comply with the terms of this Ordinance shall be and is
hereby declared to be a distinct and separate offense and punishable
as such.
Page 29
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
Ord. No. 1773
SECTION XII - EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
date of passage and publication as provided by law.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 11th day of November, 1991.
Tommy Brown, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jeanette Rewis, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
Attorney for the City
~.
Page 30
I
~epartment:
· Subject:
·
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Finance
Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Award of Bid for Commercial Lot A3, Richland Agenda Number: GN 91-156
Plaza Addition
On January 22, 1990 City Council accepted a gift of two parcels of
property located in the Richland Plaza Addition.
since this date the City has solicited to sell this property on
several occasions. Bids for the proposed sale were accepted once
again on November 5, 1991. One bid was received from Clarence
Huffman in the amount of $25,000.
·
Recommendation: It is recommended Council award the bid for the
sale of Commercial Lot A3, Richland Plaza Addition to Clarence
Huffman in the amount of $25,000.
'~,
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Acct. Number
Bonds (GO/Rev.) Sufficient Funds Available
Operating Budget - ~ --¡1f
~th:a7/L.~~ . ¡¿Îi1~
Department Head Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
1
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department: Administration
Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Subject:
Teen Court Coordinator Position
Agenda Number: GN 91-157
I
On November 4, 1991 the committee appointed by Mayor Brown met to review the
possibility of funding the Teen Court Coordinator position. This committee
was composed of:
I
I
I
Mayor Brown
Councilman Garvin
Councilman Scoma
Mike Fritz, Teen Court Board Chairman
Nancy Kirkland, Teen Court Coordinator
Dennis Horvath, Deputy City Manager
Bob Miller, Teen Court Board Member
Discussions centered around Teen Court procedures and programs, the need for
more than one court session each month, teen volunteers, Board participation
and the value of the program to the community. Teen Court Coordinator Nancy
Kirkland provided a study - TEEN COURT -- AN EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TO
TRADITIONAL SANCTIONS? - reviewing the Teen Court Program in the City of
Arlington, which is attached for your reference.
Fundina Source:
ufficient funds are available in the City Council's Budget Reserve for
Contingency and may be appropriated as indicated below:
From: 01-99-01-5975 Budget Reserve for Contingency
$16,500
To:
01-40-04-4800 Special Services - Contract
Teen Court Coordinator
16,500
Recommendation:
It is the recommendation of this Committee and the Teen Court Advisory Board
that the Teen Court Coordinator position be funded for FY 91/92 out of the
City Council Contingency account. It is also recommended that the, City
Manager be authorized to negotiate a contract with the Teen Court
Administrator, in an amount not to exceed $1,500 per month effective November
1st, 1991 and the transfer of funds as indicated above.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Acct. Number
Bonds (GO/Rev.) SUfÆundS Available
gf:~~tinl7udget - ~~ 0/
Y~P ¡Y¿1~ -~.~
Department Head Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
,I
ile
,
II
II
TEEN COURT - - AN EFFECITVE ALTERNATIVE
TO TRADfqONAL SANcrIONS?
BY
ROD HISSONG, PH.D.
-.......:, ,
~~
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Introduction
Traditional juvenile coun proceedings have occurred in an adult world. From the youth's
perspective, the offender was required to behave in accordance with agreements made at:ld
carried out by adults. In the last ten years, a new approach to juvenile courts emerged.
Known usually as Teen Court or Youth Court, the approach was new in two respects.
First, teens perfonned all or nearly all of the functions of the court. The prosecuting and
defense attorneys were teens as were'the court clerk, court bailiff, and jurors. In some
instances the judge \vas also a teen. Second, community service was heavily emphasized. The
local community provided ample opportunities for constructive community seIVice. The
underlying hypothesis was that young offenders responded more positively when judged by
tlleir peers and required to serve the community constructively than when judged and sentenced
in the traditional fashion. This paper reports the results of the test of that hYPoÙ1esis. TIle
Teen Coun program in Arlington, Texas, (a suburb of approximately 260,000 in the Dallas-
Fort Wonh CMSA) was evaluated using cross-tabs and survival time analysis. If Teen Court
was found superior, jurisdictions without such a program would find it an alternative to
consider. To date the literature does not contain a systematic evaluation of Teen Courtls ~>
.......... ,
effectiveness. Descriptive accounts of programs appeared in professional journals (Rothstein
1987) but most accounts were in the popular press.
Following a brief review of the national development of Teen Court, the data and
methodology are described. The results of the analysis are then presented. Policy
recommendations conclude me paper.
ï
\,
tl
,-
~
~
I
i
~
.
~
~
,
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I:;
,
I!
Ir
~
,I
11
·i
2
Development of Teen Court
No accurate compre,hensive cata,log of the numerous· Teen Court programs exists, panly
because the fragmented development of the concept. According to Pelliccio and Kennedy
(1986) the concept originated in California during the 1930s. The City of Oneida, New York,
initiated it in 1975 and Clarkstown, New York, began its program in 1981. Tarrytown, New
York, and Odessa, Texas, followed in 1983. Teen Court in Arlington, Texas convened in
,
June 1986. LaPorte County, Indiana, and Port Chester, New York, two relatively new
entrees, began programs in 1988 and 1990 respectively. Certainly, n1any more programs or
variations of Teen Court programs exist than these few but a comprehensive summary was not
the purpose here.
The programs typically were intended for Class "C" misdemeanor offences, which
included shoplifting, minor in possession of alcohol, vandalism, and a myriad of traffic
violations such as speeding, no driver's license, and seatbelt violation. Generally, the
programs \\'ere voluntary. Some programs detemrined guilt or innocence while others accepted
offenders only after the teen was found guilty. If guilt was predetennined, the offender was
often given the option of the traditional coun sanctions or Teen Court. Guidelines were givðn . "
for the sanctions for the various offenses. A combination of community seIVice volunteer
hours and Teen Coun participation was common. TI1C marc serious offenses called for more
volunteer hours and more Teen Coun participation. First time offenders or offenders who had
not previously been through Teen Coun were the nonnal panicipants. The success of the
programs had, in some instances, led to the inclusion of a wider variety of offenders. The
communities within which these coons operated often dictated different policies and operational
procedures but most coutts followed siÌI1ilar patterns.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If.
3
Methodology
Panicipants of Teen Court Arlington flrst were convicted of a Class C misdemeanor. The
offender was given the option of some fann of traditional sanction, e.g. fines, defensive
driving courses, or Teen Court. Previous Teen Court participants were ineligible to repeat.
Upon selection of Teen Court the individual was interviewed by the program director who
explained the program. TIle directòr had the authority at this step to refuse an individual's
panicipation but exaIIÙnation of case records indicated this authority was rarely invoked. Other
than the judge, the director was 11le only adult involved in the routine operations of Teen Court
program.
The judge was me only adult involved in the court proceedings. ll1e youms acting as
defense and prosecuting attorneys were trained in courtroom protocol. The defense presented
the rationale for committing the previously confessed to offense to an all teen jury and me
prosecution attempted to convince the jury the defendant acted in complete disregard of me
law. The jury's task was to assign, within guidelines, the number of community service
hours and Teen Court obligations. ll1Îs task was carried out 441 times during the first year of
" .
'............... '
the program.
The majority of Teen Court panicipants attended Arlington schools. In 1986, according
to Arlington Independent School District, 18,284 students attended grades seven through
twelve. Table 1 shows me disproportionate representation of white male high school students
in the Teen Court sample. Whites, which comprised nearly 85% of d1e student body made up
94% of the Teen Court participants. Boys were overrepresented by 17 percentage points and
high school students were overrepresented by approximately 36 percentage points.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
Several reasons for the disproportionalities were considered. The nature of the offenses
was believed to explain the preponderance of 16 year-aIds. Generally, the offenses were
traffic related and most often U1e driver of tile vèhicles may have been 16. T11e racial
differences were more difficult to. explain. Whites may have been more inclined to participate
- .
relative to other groups. It was also possible that whites, relative to other groups, were offered
t'he opportunity of Teen Court more frequently.
The next step was to match tl1e Teen Court panicipants with non-Teen Coun participants
and compile a two year log of subsequenrviolations for each person.
The sample was reduced to 196 observations because of purged computer records and the
inability to locate a reasonable match. An observation was deleted if it was fr0I? a zip code
outside of metropolitan area and no match from that zip code was available. Comparisons of
proportions across demographic characteristics indicated no systematic elimination of
~ )bservations had occurred. The composition of the remaining teens was the same as the
composition of the original group. The 196 were matched with non-Teen Coun panicipants
I
I
I
I
I
I
who had contemporaneously committed similar offenses but whose sanctions included fInes,
mandatory attendance of defensive driving, probation, or some combination of the three.
Great measures were taken to match observations on the basis of sex, age, race. Some
matches were not perfect. Often, a match for a Teen Court teen from a non-Arlington resident
':......'-
\..'- . "
\vas unavailable. Also, matches on race categories were imperfect. When these instances
OCCUITed, the best match available was made by first matching sex and age and then matching a
nearby zip. Together, the Teen Court teens and their respective matches produced a [mal
sample of 392 observations.
The effectiveness of Teen Court was evaluated using two statistical methods. First,
Ie Crosstabs analysis was used to detennine any general effect of the Teen Court program
I controlling for age, sex, and race. Second, Survival analysis, a statistical method that
I
t '
I!
I
Ie
t
5
1·1
.J
.
I
accommodated the timing of recidivism, was used to evaluate Teen Court in tenns of lengt
time until failure. Survival analysis techniques differentiated between two groups that had the
Ii
I¡
1
Ii
same recidivism rate at the end of the study period but had different timing of failure. For
example, a group with all failures occurring in me first tllree months at risk would be
distinguished from a group with all failures occurring in the second three months at risk. The
survival function, tile fundamental function of survival analysis, estimated the probability of aJ
individual surviving beyond a panicular period of tin1e at risk. Another useful function, the
hazard function, estimated the probability Ùlat an individual would fail during a particular
I!
I
~
I;
,
I:
'1
,ï
month at risk, given the teen had survived to the beginning of that month. For this paper, non
paramettic swvival and hazard functions for the Teen Coun and non-Teen Coun participants
were estimated and compared. Survival time analysis has been used increasingly in criminal
justice research (Stollmack and Harris 1974; Maltz and McCleary 1977; Maltz 1984; Schmidt
and Witte 1977, 1980,1984, and 1988) and was the appropriate methodology to test the
comparative advantages of Teen Court. See Kalbfleisch and Prentice (1980) for a detailed
discussion of survival time met110ds or Sclunidt and Witte (1988) for applications of survival
time methods to criminal justice data.
11
1
¡
¡
I~
.)
, ,
1_,1
:\
,
1:1
q
:.~
'4
I
IJ
.
I~i
:1
I:j
'.~
.'....:" ,
Results
Based on 196 observations, crosstabs analysis revealed a significant relationship between
Teen Court and success (X2=5.87, 0:=5%). Table 2 contains the results. Seventy-five
percent of the individuals who participated in Teen Court had not recidivated by the end of ù1e
study. Only 64% of the non-Teen Court teens were successful. TIle correlation was 0.21
and indicated a positive relationship between Teen Court panicipation and success.
~
II
~
~
~Ie
II
'I
·1
II
I
il
il
)
1
.
{
I
-
~
I
,
,.
H
6
Differences between the success rates were not unifonn across demographic characteristics.
Data was insufficient to test for the 17 year-aIds, the final sample contained only 8 from that
age cohort. None of the twenty 14 year-olds (ten in each group) recidivated during tl1e follow-
up period and those results were not presented. The 16 year-old and 15 year-old age cohorts,
for which a correlation coefficient could be estimated, had the expected sign and the results
have been displayed in Tables 3.1-3.2. The Chi-square statistic (X2 =0.89) was not
significant for the 15 year-old but the correlation efficient was 0.21. TIle Chi-square statistic
,
for tl1e 16 year-aIds, the largest age cohort, was significant (X2=3.97, <x=5%). Sixteen
year-aids in the program were substantially more successful than the non-Teen Coun sixteen
year-aIds. Nearly 73% of the Teen Court teens in this age cohort were successful compared to
approximately 63% of non-Teen Court sixteen year-aids. At least within the largest age
cohort, the results generally supported tIle proponents of Teen Court.
The results were conflicting when controlling for sex. (See Tables 4.1 and 4.2). Teen
Coun boys succeeded at a significantly higher success rate than their non-Teen Coun
counterparts. (X2=1O.74, 0:=0.01). Boys involved in Teen Court had only a 20.86% failure
rate. ll1e recidivism rate for non-Teen Coun boys was nearly double the rate of Teen Court
boys. The correlation coefficient for this group, 0.20, had the expected sign and was 0.8 larger
~::... .,
in absolute value than the coefficient for the full sample. The Chi-square was not significant at
any reasonable confidence level for girls and me correlation coefficient, -0.057, had the wrong
sign. These results indicated Teen Court, with respect to girls, was no more or less effective
than other sanctions. Teen Court, when controlling for age and sex, was most effective for
sixteen year-old boys. It was not as successful for girls in general.
The next factor considered was race. The effect on white teens was significant,
(X2=5.295,o:=O.05). The correlation coefficient was 0.119. Seventy-five percent of white
7
teens in the program were successful through the completion of Lhe study period. Oilly
64.02% of the non-panicipants were successful during the same time. (See Tables 5.1 and
5.2). The racial distribution of participants precluded crosstabs analysis other Ù1an on the basis
of white versus nonwhite.' The Chi-square statistic, 0.377. was not significant but phi.
0.141, had the expected sign. The success rate for nonwhite teens who participated, 83.33%
was more than 10 percentage points greater than the rate for Lheir non-Teen Court counterpans.
On ùle basis of age, sex, and race sixteen year-old white males were found to be
significantly affected by Teen Court.,_ Success and Teen Coun \vere correlated for all
demographic groups except for girls.
SUIVival Analysis
Crosstabs were useful in establishing a relationship between Teen Court and success when
controlling for age, sex, and race but were not able to establish the timing of failure. SUlVival
time analysis was mençi.oned previously as the methodology that accormnodated the timing of
failure as well as its actual occurrence.
Based on the results of the previous section estimated swvival and hazard functions for
"
" ,
Teen Court and non-Teen Court participants were compared for the full sample. whites. boys.
girls. 16 year-olds, and 16 year-old white males. Attempts were made to control for every
racial category but the data requirements were not met in the separate non-white groups.
Blacks, Hispanics and Asians. therefore, were consolidated into one group. Still, after
consolidating, too few observations (19, of which only 4 failed) were available for reliable
tests. Only results for whites therefore have been reported. Sinúlar problems were present
\vith Ù1C age cohorts and only the results for 16 year-olds have been reported.
'1
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
II
II
II
II
e
'I
8
Estimates of the survival functions for the full san1ple revealed that at every month the
probability of surviving beyond the month \vas greater for Teen Court participants than for the
non-panicipants.
The probability of a surviving beyond the eighteenu1 month for the Teen Court panicipant
and the non-participant was 74.68% and 64.05% respecúvely. The hazard rate, the probability
of failing during a given month, was greater in every month for the non-Teen Court teens than
for the participants. The hazard rate for both groups declined over time. The null hypothesis
of no difference bet\veen the survival fUQctions was rejected on the basis of the Wilcoxon
statistic (X2=6.81, Id.f., cx=O.Ol).
Estimated survival probabilties were higher for white Teen Court teens than for white
non-Teen Court teens. (See Figures 2.1 and 2.2 respectively). The hazard rate for Teen Court
teens was lower for all but the t\velth month. The estimated probability of a Teen Court teen
failing in that month, given survival to that month, was 1.68%. For non-participants the
hazard rate was 1.36%. TI1Ïs result was interpreted as Teen Coun having diminished
effectiveness approximately one year after participation. Overall the estimated hazard functions
had no peaks and declined for both groups. ll1is indicated that the longer a teen survived the
less likely it was the teen would fail. As with the full sample, the null hypoÙ1esis of no
difference between the respective survival functions was rejected (X2=6.74, Id.f. cx:=O.Ol).:~· ·
Teen Court, relative to other programs, improved the chances of survival for white teens.
The hypothesis next was tested controlling for sex. Teen Court boys performed superior to
non-Teen Court boys but tl1e Teen Court girls were found to be no better than their
counterpans. Boys had the greatest difference between estimated sUIVival functions. (See
Figures 3.1 and 3.2). The estimated sUIVival rate for Teen Coun boys reached a low of
79.43% by the eighteenu1 month. TIle estimated survival probability for non-Teen Coun boys
was 81.~9% by the sixtll month and 60.82% in the eighteenth month. For the flI"St six monúls
t:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
at risk the hazard rate for non-Teen Court boys was nearly t\vice 111e hazard rate for Teen Coun
boys. The hazard rate for Teen Court boys, after eighteen months, was greater than the rate for
their cQul1terpans. Even in light of tllis change, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 1 %
level.
Teen Coun was less effective for girls. The estimated suxvival probabilities, throughout
the study period, were slightly greater for non-Teen Court girls than the estimated rates for
Teen Court girls. (See Figures 4.1 and 4.2). The hazard rates for the two groups of girls
\
alternated in relative size. One peculiar peak was in the twelth month for Teen Coun girls. The
rate in the tweIth month was three times ù1e rate in the sixth month. Further evidence that the
effectiveness of Teen Court waned after the first year. TI1e null hypothesis of no significant
difference between survival functions was not rejected at any of the standard confidence levels.
Controls for age were next applied for a fmal test of the hypothesis. TIle estimated
survival function for the Teen Court 16 year-aIds was abave the non-Teen Coun 16 year-aIds
for every at risk period. (See Figures 5.1 and 5.2)., The survival probability was never less
than 70% for the Teen Coun group and fell below 70% after the fIrst year for the non-Teen
Court 16 year-aIds. TIle estimated probability of surviving 18 months for Teen Court 16
year-aIds and non-Teen Court 16 year-aIds was 71.30% and 61.76% respectively. Th~
~, "-
hazard rate for non-Teen Court participants was also generally greater than the rate for Teen
Coun panicipants. In the tweIth month at risk an individual from eiù1er group, who had
survived to the twelth month, had approximately the same risk of failure. Notwithstanding the
convergence of the hazard rates, me null hypothesis of no difference between the survival
functions was rejected. (X2=4.93, 0::=0.05). The results,from a purely statistical perspective,
were not as favorable for Teen Court for non-sixteen year-aIds.
The null hypothesis was not rejected but the estimated survival rates for non-16 year-old
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I,
!
f
II
:I:
Ii
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 0
Teen Court teens was consistently above the estimated rates for the non-Teen Court teens. The
probability of survival rates reached a mirumum of 89.19% for the twelÚl month and remained
at Ú1at level for the eighteenth monÚ1. TIle rates for non-Teen COW1 panicipants in tIle same age
cohorts were 84.85% for month 6 and declined to 75.12% for mont11 18. The average of
estimated hazard rates for Teen Court teens was 0.97%. The largest rate, 1.96%, was in
tnonth 18. TIle average hazard rate for non-Teen Court teens was 1.50%. TIle effectiveness of
Teen Court for this group was substantive but not statistically significant.
,
In light of the above results a final subgroup was fonned and the null hypothesis was
tested. Sixteen year-old white males \vere grouped by Teen Court participation. (See Figures
6.1 and 6.2).
The survival rates of the Teen Court participants were consistently and significantly above
the rates of the their counterparts. TIle lowest probability of survival for the Teen Court teens
was 75.10%. This \vas the probability of suxviving beyond the eigl1teenth month. The rate for
non-Teen Court teens was 80.18% to survive beyond the 6th month and declined to 56.46% to
survive beyond the eighteenth month. The hazard rate for Teen Court teens declined steadily
over time \vhereas 11le hazard rate for non-Teen Court teens increased and then declined. TIle
hazard rate for the later group peaked at 4.22%. The null hypothesis was rejected (X2=9~!6,.
0::::0.01). Teen Court had statistically superior effects on the largest sub-population of the
sample - sixteen year-old white males.
Conclusion and Policy Recommendations
This limited study found Teen Court to be more effective than non-Teen Court programs
and sanctions for 16 year-old white boys. It was not as effective for girls in general (the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
m
~
i1
f.
~
t.
ti
U.
i
~
\ t
~
~
~
I
I I
differences were substantial but not statistically significant) and reliable tests were infeasible
for the other demographic groups. The fi.ndings for the 16 year-old white boys were imponant
because that was the largest group of Teen Court clients. The poor perfonnance of Teen Court
girls was enigmatic. It was also found that the effectiveness of Teen Coun waned after
approximately one year. This usually extended beyond the time required for public service and
the positive effect inherent in the service.
Teen Court participants, whether they ultimately succeeded or not, provided much needed
community services. Some organizations received volunteer labor that was otherwise
unavailable. The primary cost of the program was the salary of the director and the director's
assistant. Like the teens involved in the trial, the judge was a volunteer. The value of the
students' conaibution to society likely exceeded the city's costs of the coun.
These results must be taken with some qualifications. The selection method for the
program may have been biased. How people were infonned of their options \vas unknown.
Did the program get candidates who were most likely to be successful regardless of treatment?
Were some canåidates systematically not informed of the program?
The follow-up procedure \vas tlawed because records only revealed recidivism within the
city of Arlington. Given the mobility of the general population and teens in particular it was
highly likely that some recidivists were missed. Furilier research would involve using count)'
level criminal records.
NorwiÙ1standing these qualifications, the Teen Coun program was found, for its core
clientele, to be superior at deterring teenagers from funher criminal activities.
These results can be generalized for first time youthful offenders of misdemeanor offenses.
Arlington, Texas, is a typical suburban community in a mea-opolitan area. It resembles many
of the types of communities that have reponed initiating Teen Coun programs. The recidivism
rates \vere nlgner mall UIU:)C reponea oy otl1er programs, but it was believed that the sponsors
of other programs did not consider other sanctions when defining recidivisnl. More research is
warranted but Teen Court initially was found to be a superior program. City officials should
consider expanding me Teen Coun eligibility to more serious juvenile offenders.
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
References
Aronow, Ina, "Yomh Court Judged Ready for Expansion: Irvington to Join Tarry towns
Sllldem Justice System," Gannett Westchester Newspaper, November 20, 1985.
Clarkin. Greg, "Tarrytown Y omh Court," Çatholic New York, p. 30. January 17, 1985.
Johnson, Dirk, "In a Court for YOlllh, Judgement by Peers," New York Times. National
Section, p. AID. Aprill6, 1990.
Kriss, Gary, "Tarrytown's Yomh Court Wins Gram," New York Times, Westchester
Section, p. 1 and p. 23. January 29, 1984.
Long, Katie, "Teens aren't Kidding Around in Mock Trial," Atlanta Constitution, Section
A, p. 13. ìvlay 13,1988.
Pelliccio, Richard A. and Lawrence W. Kennedy, "Youth Court of the Tarry towns," FBI
Law Enforcement Bulletin.. Vol. ## , No. ##, 1986.
Þ,'loss, Debra Cassens, "I was a Teen-age Advocate," American Bar Association Journal,
Vol. 74, p.l5, January 1988.
Roilistein, Robert N., "Teen Court: A Way to Combat Teenage Crime and Chemical
Abuse," Juvenile & Family Journal. Vol. 10, 1987.
Schmidt, Peter and Witte, Anne D. Predicting Recidivism Using Survival Models,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1988.
'~~ .~,
Smith, Doroiliea, "Tarrytown Youth Court Draws Media Attenrion, " The Tanytown Òailv
New, February 1, 1985.
-
I
I
'.
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Department:
Finance
Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
ubject: Proposed Issuance of General Obligation Bonds Agenda Number: GN 91-158
On 9/23/91, the city Council approved a $3,000,000 bond sale for
drainage improvements (GN 91-140). For the past two weeks, City
staff and our financial advisors have been studying the City's debt
structure and current market trends in the bond market. Interest
rates and Federal Reserve discount rates have recently dropped to
a point that makes it feasible to consider refunding our higher
interest rate debt. The City of North Richland Hills can refund
the callable portion of our 1985 to 1989 General Obligation Bonds
allowing the ci ty to save approximately $700,000 in interest
payments over the life of the debt.
Addi tionally, Ci ty Council and staff have had some discussions
regarding the need for $1,000,000 in bond sales for street
purposes, the major portion of which would probably be required for
the Bedford-Euless Road project. Although studies regarding needs
and costs for this project have not been completed, it is proposed
to sell $1,000,000 in bonds for street improvements in 1992, to be
allocated by the City Council based on the results of the Bedford-
Euless Road appraisals and the Rufe Snow Drive traffic study.
The total requirements for the refunding and new debt bond sale is
detailed as follows:
Refunding of existing
1985 to 1989 GO Bonds
$19,400,000
1992 Drainage Bond Sale
3,000,000
1992 Proposed Street Bond Sale
1,000,000
------------
TOTAL PROPOSED SALE
$23,400,000
------------
------------
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the refunding of the callable portion of the
1985 to 1989 General Obligation Bond Debt and $1,000,000 for street
purposes be added to the $3,000,000 in drainage bonds previously
approved for a total proposed bond sale of $23,400,000.
Finance Review
Source of Funds: Acct. Number
Bonds (GO/Rev.) SU:icZ_n.t. un~.,~/vailabl_e _
Operating Budget v / _ _
~L: 7}!~L.~/· //':'1 .~~- ier'~~
Department Head Signature if -, ~y Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Finance Director
Page 1 of
I
~epartment:
I Subject:
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Public Works
Glenview Drive Sanitary Sewer Project -
R~~AmAnt A~~]i~irion - Parcel No.4
11/11/91
Council Meeting Date:
Agenda Number:
PU 91-38
On April 8, 1991, City Council approved the subject project. This action is required
to purchase one of the five easements needed from homeowners fronting on Glenview
Drive.
The staff has acquired a temporary construction easement and a permanent sanitary sewer
easement from the property of Beulah F. Conn for the subject project. Compensation for
the easement is $1,500.00. Mrs. Conn's frontage is approximately twice that of the
other homeowners, and she requested more than our initial offer of $1,000.00.
Recommendation:
The staff recommends Council approve payment for the permanent sanitary sewer easement
along Glenview Drive to Beulah F. Conn in the amount of $1,500.00.
Finance Review
Acct. Number 02-91-04-6000
unds Available
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
_ Operating Budget
Oth r
x
, Finance Director
~
nt Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Page 1 of
1
I
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I j
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
STATE OF TEXAS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
That I, Beulah F. Conn, a widow, as Sellers, for and in consideration of the
agreed purchase price of One Thousand Five Hundred and nO/100 Dollars ($1,500.00),
and upon all of the terms and conditions hereof hereby grant, sell and convey to the
City of North Richland Hills, a municipal corporation of Tarrant County, Texas, as
Buyer, a perpetual easement for the purpose of constructing, using and maintaining
public sanitary sewer facilities including underground conduits, said perpetual
easement being shown and described on the plat attached hereto, which plat is made a
part hereof, and/or further described as follows:
(SEE ATTACHED PLAT AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
In addition to the above described perpetual easement, Seller also hereby
grants to City a temporary right of access to, and use of, lands of Seller
immediately adjacent to the perpetual easement as necessary for construction of
proposed facilities by normal operations.
The agreed purchase price includes full accord, satisfaction and compensation
for all demands of the Seller, subject also to the following special conditions, if
any:
To have and hold the same perpetually to the City of North Richland Hills and
its successors and assigns forever.
Executed this the
~t:l-
10) L~,,- ~ A.D., 1991.
day of
gJUd~'+ t:~
~eulah F. Conn
SELLER
ADDRESS OF GRANTEE:
City of North Richland Hills
7301 N.E. Loop 820
North Richland Hills, Texas 76180
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF TARRANT
,~~, This inst~ent was acknowledged before me by Beulah F. Conn on this the
~ ~~ day of ~~ (j--V\,~''- ~ , A.D. 1991.
lv-. w rJ (Ìt ~"
Notary Public, State of Texa
--
I~'~\ -
I.A;.L:~ \ MARl( D 811ADLIY
\i~./:i MY COMM.a.QN......
CoItll J1..r;!~ ExpiÑdl:2l, 1_
.----......,. ':" "-..- ~'. .....,. .:. ~;.. ..........
Notary's Printed Name:
J
4-22-93
Mark D. Bradlev
"......... .:
I
Ie
I
KEF NO.3-430, PARCEL NO.4
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
GLENVIEW DR. RELIEF SEWER
EXHIBIT "A"
I
PERMANENT SANIT AR Y SEWER EASEMENT
W. W. WALLACE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1606
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
I
SITUATED in the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas and being a strip of
. land out of the W. W. Wallace Survey, Abstract No. 1606, said strip also being across a
tract of land conveyed to Beulah F. Conn (Conn tract) by deed as recorded in Volume
5160 Page 351 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas (D.R.T.C.T.), and a one half
interest in said Conn tract conveyed to Thomas H. Conn by deed as recorded in Volume
7271, Page 1261 D.R. T. C. T., said strip being herein described as a 10 foot wide Perma-
nent Sanitary Sewer Easement as shown on the attached Exhibit "c" and being more
particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
I
I
BEGINNING at a point in the west property line of said Conn tract and the east property
line of a tract of land conveyed to Guy W. Morse and wife Sammie R Morse (Morse tract)
by deed as recorded in Volume 6688 Page 458, of the D.R.T.C.T., said point of beginning
being South, 159.53 feet from the northwest corner of said Conn tract;
I
THENCE, South 89 degrees 57 minutes 43 seconds East, 200.7 feet to a point in the east
property line of said Conn tract and the existing west right-of-way line of Keeter
Drive;
I
--
THENCE, South, along the east property line of the said Conn tract and the west right-of-
way line of Keeter Drive, 10.00 feet to a point;
THENCE, North 89 degrees 57 minutes 43 seconds West, 200.7 feet to a point in the west
property line of the said Conn tract and the east property line of the aforesaid
Morse tract;
THENCE, North, along the west property line of said Conn tract and the east property
line of said Morse tract, 10.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
I
The Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement herein described contains 0.0461 acres (2,007
square feet) of land, more or less.
I
TO ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN TITLE TO THE PREMISES SURVEYED, I DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC
RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND
THAT SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
I
Company Name: Spooner and Dunn
By:
~ßLtl ;( )~~
Eddie L. Dunn ' -
.......~".
I
I
\........
Registered Professional Land Surveyor,
Texas No. 4580
I
Date of Survey July 1991
Ie
I
I
Ie
I
KEF NO.3-430, PARCEL NO.4
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND lllLLS
GLENVIEW DR. RELIEF SEWER
EXHIBIT "B"
I
PERMANENT SANIT AR Y SEWER EASEMENT
W. W. WALLACE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 1606
TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
I
SITUATED in the City of North Richland Hills, Tarrant County, Texas and being a strip of
land out of the W. W. Wallace Survey, Abstract No. 1606, said strip also being across a
tract of land conveyed to Beulah F. Conn (Conn tract) by deed as recorded in Volume
5160 Page 351 of the Deed Records of Tarrant County, Texas (D.R.T.C.T.), and a one half
interest in said Conn tract conveyed to Thomas H. Conn by deed as recorded in Volume
7271, Page 1261 D.R.T.C.T., said strip being herein described as a 20 foot wide Tempo-
rary Construction Easement as shown on the attached Exhibit" C" and being more partic-
ularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
I
I
BEGINNING at a point in the west property line of said Conn tract and the east property
line of a tract of land conveyed to Guy W. Morse and wife Sammie R Morse (Morse tract)
by deed as recorded in Volume 6688 Page 458, of the D.R.T.C.T., said point of beginning
being South, 159.53 feet from the northwest corner of said Conn tract;
I
THENCE, North, with the west property line of said Conn tract and the east property line
of said Morse tract, 20 feet;
I
--
THENCE, South 89 degrees 57 minutes 43 seconds East, 200.7 feet to a point in the east
property line of said Conn tract and the existing west right-of-way line of Keeter
Drive;
THENCE, South, along the east property line of the said Conn tract and the west right-of-
way line of Keeter Drive, 20.00 feet to a point;
THENCE, North 89 degrees 57 minutes 43 seconds West, 200.7 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
I
The Temporary Construction Easement herein described contains 0.0921 acres (4,014
square feet) of land, more or less.
I
TO ALL PARTIES INTERESTED IN TITLE TO THE PREMISES SURVEYED, I DO HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED FROM PUBLIC
RECORDS AND FROM AN ACTUAL AND ACCURATE SURVEY UPON THE GROUND AND
THAT SAME IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
Company Name: Spooner and Dunn
I
I
By:
UL:. t ß-Þ-
Eddie L. Dunn
I
Registered Professional Land Surveyor,
Texas No. 4580
Date of Survey July 1991
I
Ie
I
I
I'
Ie
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ie
I
I
SURVEY: W. W. WALLACE. A-1606
LOCA TION .. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS
EASEMENT ACQUISITION: TEMPORARY: 0.0921 AC.
PERMANENT: 0.0461 AC.
'NHOLE PROPER ( ACREAGE : 0.834 AC.
KEF NO. 3-430, PARCEL NO. 4
GLENVlEW DRIVE REUEF' SEV/ER
EXHIBIT "c"
DRAWlNG OF EXHIBITS "A" & "8"
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
P.O.B. BOX 820609
NORTI-f RICHLAND HILLS TX. 76182
w
(f)
a:::
o
2
ci
w
2
~r-:
(f)Ü
~
w . .
lJ...0:::
~O
o ..
Z~
<{~
~cj
a:::Cl.
°eo
¿(%)
.CD
3:c.o
>-..J
::)0
c:»
w. W. WALLACE A-16G6
BEULAH F. CONN VOL. 5160 PG. 351 D.R. T.C. T.
TIiOMAS H. CONN VOL. 7271 PG. 1261, D.R. T.C. T.
f' \~
\ I'L \
r 1
o
a5
a
èõ
EXHIBIT "B"
i PROPOSED 20 FOOT 'NlDE
¡TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
: 0.0921 ACRES (4,014 SQ. FT.)
~
~~
~m
-'I.{)
ç~
e:::
~
o
:i
~
~
~
~
ä:
()
~
Cl..
êD
BRICK AND FRAME HOUSE ~ ~
7917 to ~
~ ~ ~~
~ w ~ ¡ ~
i .... ~ I;:; I
~ 0 ~ I 1
S.89·57' 43"~ .l_ _ ~ L ~ _ _200. 7~ \1M - - :I:~I
à ð' lREE OWATIR H'!1JRANT: C I. '. · 62 24.' ELJ.1 à'~ ~ 11
N .: ''1-~ .0 N \ 0 II
S 9·57' 43"E. ---I ! --L- . OO~ \ en:
o """ -,' ----r ----r I ~I 8°·C;-" 43"\1.: .. lJ--11
..... ~ - l' - E -+--; ---U. ~...1Ï.&.- .~ 11 34'
11 47' CABLE I BARRIER : '- ·
. - : \ 'CA9LE BARRIER
~ (".1'VII~ WA.11C I --, CONC.
~c I
I
!
.~~<J-
<1)'t'
v~j-
c:d
GLENVIEW
DRIVE
:
<
:
!
l EXHIBIT "An
PROPOSED 1 0 FOOT 'MDE PERMANENT"
SANITARY SEYVER EASEMENT
0.0461 ACRES (2,007 SQ. FT.)
~
~
t":1
,:Q
d
~
REVISED 9-23-91
~
~
SPOONER & DUNN
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
LAND SURVEYORS
JOB NO.: 7-91-138
DATE: 8-15-91
COGO FILE: 7 91 138
ACAD F1LE: 138-4
DRAWN BY: E.l.D.
COMPUTED BY: S.G.S.
CHECKED BY: E.L.D.
(817) 282-6981
~
~
<
o
CI)
()
:ï:
Q.
<
~
W-u ~ ~P---
I
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
ppr~nnnpl
Recommendation to Award Bid for City's
'Prnp~rty Tn~"r~n("~ rn'TAr~l)A -For 1 qq1 -q?
Council Meeting Date:
11-11-91
PU 91-40
Agenda Number:
The City's current property insurance policy expires November 15, 1991.
We submitted the coverage to bid and received the following bids.
Company
Deductible(s)
Annual Premium
Amerisure Lloyds Ins. Co.
$1000
3000
5000
$20,177
19,249
17,093
Appalachian Ins. Co.
$5000
$1000
3000
5000
$25,473.50
$37,803
36,643
36,179
,E~~loyer's Ins. of Texas
CIGNA Ins. Co.
$1000
$59,000
Coverage is currently provided by Amerisure Company. The annual premium
is $18,074 with $5000 deductible.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council award the City's property
insurance for 1991-92 to the Arnerisure Lloyds Insurance Company for their
bid of $17,093 with a $5000 deductible.
7
Finance Review
Acct. Number 01-99-01-4510
X Suffic~Funds Available
i\ _ ~ 71(~/
,J;, Ir if ~q~ ~
ad Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Fmance Director
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
. Operating Budget
_Other
Page 1 of
1
I
~epartment:
Subject:
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Public Works
Approve Purchase of Right-of-Way from
~]rRe¥ Ranch Partnership for the Proposed
Construction of Bursey Road (Parcel No.1)
Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Agenda Number: PU 91-41
The staff has negotiated with Bursey Ranch partnership/35 acres (David L. Moritz,
managing partner) to purchase right-of-way from their property that fronts on Bursey
Road. The negotiated price is $10,300.00, equaling $2.50 per square foot from property
that is zoned C-1.
Recommendation:
The staff recommends approval of payment for right-of-way on Bursey Road to Bursey
Ranch partnership/35 acres in the amount of $10,300.00.
I-
., -.
GO
Finance Review
Acct. Number 13-15-89-6000
unds Available
. Finance Director
-
nt Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
City Manager
Page 1 of 1
I
Ie
I
CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS
RIGHT-OF-WAY
STATE OF TEXAS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
I
COUNTY OF TARRANT
I
That I, Bursey Ranch Partnershp/35 acres, David L. Mortiz, Manaqer Partner, as
Seller, for and in consideration of the agreed purchase price of Ten Thousand Three
Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($10,300.00), and upon all of the terms and conditions hereof,
hereby grant, sell and convey to the City of North Richland Hills, a municipal corporation
of Tarrant County, Texas as Buyer, a perpetual right-of-way for the purpose of
constructing, improving, widening, maintaining and using a public street with drainage
facilities as may be required and the further rights to construct, improve, operate and
maintain water, sewer, or other public utilities in, under or upon said right-of-way, as
described on the plat attached hereto, which plat is made a part hereof, and/or described
as follows:
I
I
(SEE ATTACHED PLAT AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION)
The agreed purchase price includes full accord, satisfaction and compensation for
all demands of the Seller, subject also to the following special conditions, if any:
I
I
t'
To have and hold the same perpetually to the City of North Richland Hills and its
successors and assigns forever.
Executed this the ·1 t./ð day of
---+-I--
t.] 1~';
,. (/r l}fU,')
, A.D.,
1991.
I
Burs~~ Ranch Partnership/35 Acres:
/ /)1 (/. ~-
'y~' ¥:::-
k~J/K~/, 1/b:;u,
By: David. L'. Moritz '0
Managlng Partner ¡~
I
I
ADDRESS OF GRANTEE:
City of North Richland Hills
7301 N.E. Loop 820
North Richland Hills, TX 76180
".......
STATE OF TEXAS
I
COUNTY OF TARRANT
I
This instrument was acknowledged before me
David L. Moritz.
On~daYPf~
, 1991 by
I
'\..' .~
Texas
Ie
I
I
. -. - , . '.... :"'7'!--;.............
I
, -
,'." ....... .,'-, ,"
-.~. '/ ~< ):.:;~, ,,"
~1
JOHN EDMONDS SURVEY,
Ä-457
J~:
Ie
I
w
>
a:
o
~
o
z
(J)
UJ
LL.
::)
a:
BURSEY RANCH PARTNERSHIPS
VOLUME 7642. PAGE 1516,
D.R.T.C.T.
~e
)"...~I
. J
.~
!U
Q
en
c.
t-ttt
0::.
-~
CLoG..
(I)
. II) ...
k.O .-
CftU
z'" .
\û ...
> . .
Ld _ua::
.... 0 .
(.f) > Q'
I
~
I
?'TØ1f'O~ E.?t-1T
8~
U1J
(
I
~""" ' .
'~~ -, ' ....,..
I
~o.~:,/ B
14
¡
~ 1!I'J01S~ 4S. W
BURSEY ROAD
PC:2"ð~...1:'1 _ c.~t..l ~ I..... \~
I
I
t'
PARCEL 1
DESCRIPTION
I
ALL that certain tract or parcel of land being situated in the John Edmonds
Survey, .Abstract 457 , Tæ:rant County, Texas and being a portion of that same
tract described to David L. Moritz and Robert W. Moore as recorded in Volme
7224, Page. 222Ø, Deed Records,' Tarrant County, Texas and also being nx>re
particularly described by metes and bounds as f~llows:
I
BB;INNING at the intersection of the North right-of-way 1 ine of Bursey Road ( a·'
variable width right-of-way) and the East right-of-way' line of Rufe Snow Drive,
( a 199.9 foot right-of-way);
......
THENCE North øø degrees 99 minutes 23 seconds East with the said East right-of-
way line, 2.72 feet to a point;
I
'rHDI:E south 89 degrees 53 minutes 18 seconds East, 846.95 feet to the East
bound~y line of said tract; ~"'.
I
THEtCE SOUth øø degrees lØ minutes 24 seconds West with the said East boundary
line,. 5..82 feet to the Southeast corner of said tract, said point being on the
said North right~f-W8Y line of Bursey ROad;
. . -:->.
. .
~ North 89 degrees' 54 minutes 34 seconds West with the South boundary. lftìè~,
of. said tract· ard; said North right-of-way line, 284.23 feet .to. apointJ. . ~',., ":.>'~~'
. , :.~. . <:: ',~ . ~ .,. . ~ ~..:.~~ ~,'.
'THDCE North 89,' degrees 33 minutes 4S seconds West continuing with ·sai4.,SaGtb.·· :::~i.
tbandaryline and said North riqht-of-way' line, 562.71 feet to the 'pì~ o~.' ..'~~~(~
~i· nd ta"ini , 12a41 1 . .,. . '"Q'*". ''<i
.~ mung a con 119 .";;1 acre, more or esSe :.', ......,. .~ '.~~~'.;.. :~:!~p
- ····.Jw.:::-·..~,:fj!1 ~.~
-'"
~.~¡~
'$-;,
I
I
~ .
;~. .~
I
....... .
Ie
I
~...
~~~, ~..
1":a. I
~~j~
~~~'i
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Finance
~ Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Purchase of Radios from HGAC
Agenda Number: PU 91-42
In the 1991/92 budget, Council allocated funds for the purchase of
ten (10) hand held radios, chargers and additional batteries for
the Police Department.
Houston - Galveston Area Council solicited sealed competitive bids
for the type of radio the Police Department requires. staff
requests approval to participate in the purchase of these radios.
Recommendation: It is recommended Council approve the purchase of
ten Motorola radios from HGAC in the amount of $11,423.
\,'- .
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
e Operating Budget x
~the/) _
~~ ~-----..--,
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
. Finance Director
Page 1 of
1
Subject:
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
Finance
~ Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Ryt~ns;on of Contract for Uniform Cleaninq
Services
Agenda Number: PU 91-43
At the September 24, 1990 meeting, Council awarded the contract for
Uniform Cleaning Services to Richland Cleaners.
Richland Cleaners has offered to extend the contract for an
additional year at the current prices. The City has received
excellent uniform cleaning services from Richland Cleaners over the
past year.
Recommendation: It is recommended Council award the extension of
the uniform cleaning contract to Richland Cleaners for an
additional year.
>~....... .
Finance Review
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
~
'1t4~~v ./
Department Head Signature
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
Miscellaneous
---y-
Acct. Number
Sufficient F ds Available
. Finance Director
ttJ-
Page 1 of
CITY OF
NORTH RICHLAND HILLS
'Department: Manaqement Information Systems
Council Meeting Date: 11/11/91
Subject:
Proposed Contract for $21,900 with "Choice
Solutions" for Computer Hardware for
Fire Department
Agenda Number: PU 91-44
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
On September 23, 1991, City Council approved Agenda Number 91-31, approving the
allocation of $20,000 toward the purchase of computer equipment for the Fire
Department.
MIS designed the attached configuration and solicited proposals from vendors.
As this purchase if of a technological nature and requires consultant services,
the bidding process was not required as dictated by state law. MIS recommends
Choice Solution, Inc. to provide the hardware, software and installa.i.:.ion
services at a cost of $21,900.
The additional $1,900 is necessary.to connect the two local government networks
(LANS) between police and fire. This will provide the Fire Department full
utilization of the computer aided dispatch system. The additional funding of
$1,900 is available through savings from our hardware maintenance contract 01-
35-01-3445.
Fundina Source:
The City Council authorized the encumbrance of $20,000 from the 90-91 budget
in account #06-01-02-6500. Additional funding will require a transfer as
indicated below.
From: 01-35-01-3445
To: 01-35-01-6500
$1,900
$1,900
I
I
I
I
I
I
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council approve 1) the additional $1,900 in
funding and 2) a contract with Choice Solutions, Inc. in the amount of $21,900.
Source of Funds:
Bonds (GO/Rev.)
Operating Budget
Other
C?4
Finance Review
Acct. Number
Sufficient F~ Available
~~~,¿/
!r:l/1d~
Signature City Manager
CITY COUNCIL ACTION ITEM
, Finance Director
I
I
Pa e 1 of
1- .
--
I
I
I I
t___ .____.__.. n _..._.. _.__..__._..__....___.____..._ __ ___... _._
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
1
I
I
I
'-
I
I
.~---_._-..._--_.-.._--.---_.._-_..._-- ...------...--.--....-..-. -- _.. .....-.......-...-.....-- -.--..-..-.-.--------.---.--......--.. -.-.-..-----.... ..-~_....._.._._..
-.- ...--.... ------. -- ..- --- ------ _.. ......---- ------- ---------- -- --.
THE CITY OF NORTI-I RICHLAND HILLS
FIRE INCIDENT & EMERGENCY SERVICE PERSONNEL
REPORTING SYSTEM
f99t
CHOICE
SOLUTIONS,
INC.
----- .-.-----.-...-------. ......--- ---'. ......-. --,._ --"0- __.
EVEREX 386/33
STEPSERVER
,~SYNC DI"l.lJP FIAE STATION
fVERU 7.4. PHONE UNES
"AVES ^f ~
MODEMS MODfM
,-------.---------------------...-- ~
/"
, ~I flM!f
EVEREX
5250
286/f8.
GATEWAY
FIRE
STATION
'[]
. "'1 fIIIØ
. ~I ,...
~~ya
-
I1IIHII
III ..
Alllf. IIlml
11 IUf-I, I rnlJ
IUfAIII
FIRE
STATION
.
---~~ yfl\
19M
SYSTEM
36
FIRE
STATION
IO«tJ it ,,.1 r.~
o
-