Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council-Agenda Packets-7/16/2013 City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com Tuesday, July 16, 2013 City Council Chambers PRE COUNCIL MEETING EXECUTIVE SESSION 5:30 P.M. EXECUTIVE CONFERENCE ROOM THIRD FLOOR CALL TO ORDER PC-1 Presentation of the Classification and Compensation Study results and recommendations PC-2 Presentation and update on fees and charges PC-3 Discussion of a future worksession regarding sidewalks PC-4 Presentation of the Monthly Financial Report - June 2013 PC-5 Discussion of the July 16, 2013, City Council regular agenda items 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D Section 551.071 - Legal - Consultation with attorney on legal issues raised by public hearing or action items on the agenda Section 551.071 - Legal - Advice from the City Attorney regarding drainage Section 551.072 - Real Estate - Deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property for City facilities Section 551.087 – Economic Development - Discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the City has received from business prospects that the City seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in the City and with which the City is conducting economic development negotiations; deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect City Council Agenda July 16, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 2 RESUME REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS INVOCATION: Pastor Cameron Veaze, Colleyville Assembly of God PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: City Attorney Matthew Boyle 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CONSIDER AND TAKE ANY ACTION(S) NECESSARY RELATIVE TO ITEMS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION - Resolution R-13-3652 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Announcements of civic and charitable events Presentation of calendar events and updates Announcements of awards and recognition In recognition of Colleyville's featured business - Luke's Locker, 5505 Colleyville Boulevard, Suite 102 - Mark Murphy and Paul Hudson - Mayor David Kelly and Economic Development Director Marty Wieder Donation to Special Olympics Texas from the Old Tyme BBQ event - Mayor David Kelly and Captain Robert Hinton 4. CONSENT: READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - Resolution R-13-3653 4a Approval of the minutes of the City Council Worksession of June 26, 2013 4b Approval of the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of July 2, 2013 4c Approval of bid award for medical and dental insurance to Blue Cross Blue Shield and third-party administration of the flexible spending account and health reimbursement account to Total Administrative Services Corporation, and authorize the city manager to execute the agreement 5. ORDINANCE(S): SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING 5a Ordinance O-13-1880 Consideration for a zoning change from R40-Single Family Residential to R20-Single Family Residential on 10.2 acres on Lot 1, Block 1, of the Stajduhar Addition located at 816 W. L.D. Lockett Road, Case ZC13- 006 City Council Agenda July 16, 2013 City of Colleyville Page 3 6. RESOLUTION(S): READING AND PUBLIC HEARING 6a Resolution R-13-3654 Consideration of a request for a sidewalk appeal on Lot 6B, Block 1, Pleasant Oaks Estate Addition located at 800 Beverly Drive, Case GC13-009 7. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA 8. ACTION/RESOLUTION: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RATIFYING COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FOR JULY 16, 2013 - Reading and Public Hearing - Resolution R-13-3655 9. ADJOURNMENT I hereby certify this agenda was posted on City Hall bulletin boards Friday, July 12, 2013, by 5:00 p.m. Amy Shelley City Secretary Any matter on this agenda may, at the discretion of the governing body, be opened for public comment and discussion. If you plan to attend this public meeting and have a disability that requires special accommodations, please advise the City Secretary at least 48 hours in advance at 817.503.1133, and reasonable accommodations will be made to assist you. City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number PC-1 Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Type Pre Council Department Human Resources Title Presentation of the Classification and Compensation Study results and recommendations Explanation This presentation provides the recommendations related to the new job classification structure, the results of the market compensation and benefits analysis, and the recommended pay structures for the City's employees. Background Included in the Fiscal Year 2013 (FY 2013) budget were funds to conduct a comprehensive job classification and compensation study. The last comprehensive job classification and compensation study was conducted in FY 2006. During the March 19, 2013 Pre Council meeting, staff obtained the City Council’s direction regarding compensation philosophy and strategy to proceed with the completion of the study (Attachment A). Fox Lawson & Associates (FLA) was engaged to conduct a review of the City’s classification and compensation/benefits systems and make recommendations regarding job structure and individual position allocations; current state of compensation and benefits; market competitiveness of specific employee benchmarks; benefits and costs associated with recommendations; implementation and transition options; and, pay practices, policies and overall compensation program. Study objectives included compensation levels reflective of multiple and varied labor markets covering City jobs, including both public and private sector information, with pay grade midpoints reflective of the 50th percentile of the relevant labor markets; development of a pay structure where the midpoint is reflective of the defined labor market rates of pay; and classifications placed in the salary structure based on their respective internal equity ratings and market data results. The approach of the study is consistent with compensation philosophy presented to the City Council at the Pre Council meeting on March 19, 2013 (Attachment A). This philosophy includes broad job classes to facilitate flexibility and simplification; internal equity measured using the Decision Band™ Method (DBM) system; consideration of total compensation including benefits; and market parity assessed at the market 50th percentile. City of Colleyville Page 1 City Council Agenda Briefing Existing job descriptions were collected and reviewed. Employees completed a Position Description Questionnaire (PDQ) to describe their current work. A classification structure was developed that consolidated and summarized jobs based on the type and level of work currently performed. Job descriptions were developed utilizing information obtained from PDQs, and then jobs were evaluated by using the DBM system. The DBM system is based on the decision-making requirements of the job, and addresses internal equity, leadership responsibilities, job difficulty, and job complexity. The proposed job classification structure below decreases the existing narrow job classifications from approximately 100 to 28 broad job classifications: Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Administrative Support Administrative Support Assistant A13 Administrative Support Technician B22 Administrative Support Specialist B23-B24 Administrative Support Coordinator B25 Fire Firefighter B21-B22 Fire Engineer B24 Fire Captain C41 Fire Battalion Chief C45/C52 Library Library Clerk A12 Library Assistant B22 Librarian C41-C42 Maintenance & Operations M&O Technician A12-A13 M&O Specialist B22-B23 M&O Supervisor B31 M&O Projects Specialist B24-B25 M&O Project Manager C43 Management Manager D61-D62 Director E81-E83 Assistant City Manager E91 City Manager F101 Management-Program Support Management Specialist B24 Management Analyst C41 Management Analyst Senior C42 Police Code Enforcement Officer B21 Police Officer B22-B23 Police Sergeant B32 Police Lieutenant C42 Police Captain D62 City of Colleyville Page 2 City Council Agenda Briefing Salary and benefits data was obtained for 45 benchmark jobs. Published survey data from 15 sources was utilized to make comparisons with the private sector, and a customized survey was sent to 23 Texas towns and cities to make comparisons with the public sector. The results are as follows and also included in the final report (Attachment B). Results related to aggregate comparison to the 50th percentile of the market for non-sworn positions, actual base salary compared to actual market rates of pay lag the market by 5.3%, and the current range midpoints lag the actual market rates of pay by 2.6%. For sworn fire positions, actual base salary compared to the actual market rates of pay lag the market significantly, by 13.4%, and the current range midpoints lag market rates of pay by 1.1%. For sworn police positions, actual base salary compared to the actual market rates of pay lag the market by 0.7%, and the current range midpoints are ahead of the actual market rates of pay by 0.2%. Summary of salary data comparisons Overall, for positions where private sector data was available, the City’s current midpoints lag actual private sector pay by 10.5%. The City’s current midpoints lag actual public sector pay by 1.6%. When public and private data are combined, the City’s current midpoints lag the overall market by 2.6%. Salary Width and Range Recommendations The non-sworn pay structure width is recommended to be expanded from 35% to 40% for entry-level positions and up to 60% for management positions consistent with the market. Sworn pay structures are recommended with variable range spreads by level consistent with the market, as follows: Proposed Pay Structure (Non-Sworn) DBM Rating Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Spread A11 $ 23,750 $ 28,500 $ 33,250 40% A12 $ 25,413 $ 30,495 $ 35,578 40% A13 $ 28,462 $ 34,154 $ 39,847 40% B21 $ 30,056 $ 37,570 $ 45,084 50% B22 $ 32,160 $ 40,200 $ 48,240 50% B23 $ 34,641 $ 43,301 $ 51,961 50% B24/B31 $ 37,977 $ 47,471 $ 56,965 50% B25/B32 $ 41,303 $ 51,629 $ 61,954 50% C41 $ 47,965 $ 59,956 $ 71,947 50% C42 $ 51,291 $ 64,114 $ 76,936 50% C43 $ 54,617 $ 68,271 $ 81,925 50% C44/C51 $ 57,953 $ 72,441 $ 86,929 50% City of Colleyville Page 3 City Council Agenda Briefing C45/C52 $ 61,279 $ 76,599 $ 91,918 50% D61 $ 65,328 $ 84,926 $104,524 60% D62 $ 68,526 $ 89,084 $109,641 60% D63 $ 71,724 $ 93,241 $114,758 60% E81 $ 84,535 $109,896 $135,257 60% E82 $ 88,762 $115,391 $142,019 60% E83 $ 93,200 $121,160 $149,120 60% E91 $ 97,860 $127,218 $156,576 60% F101 $107,646 $139,940 $172,234 60% Proposed Sworn Police Pay Structure DBM Rating Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Spread Police Officer Recruit B22 $46,432 $ 53,861 $ 61,290 32% Police Officer B23 $50,959 $ 59,113 $ 67,266 32% Police Sergeant B32 $64,475 $ 69,633 $ 74,791 16% Police Lieutenant C42 $80,193 $ 85,405 $ 90,618 13% Police Captain D62 $89,935 $101,177 $112,419 25% Proposed Sworn Fire Pay Structure DBM Rating Minimum Midpoint Maximum Range Spread Firefighter/ EMT B21 $46,317 $52,338 $58,359 26% Firefighter/ Paramedic B22 $48,975 $55,342 $61,708 26% Fire Engineer B24 $56,034 $61,358 $66,681 19% Fire Captain C41 $65,467 $70,377 $75,287 15% Fire Battalion Chief C45/C52 $73,244 $82,400 $91,555 25% Cost associated with proposed pay structures The cost to bring all positions to the minimum of the proposed pay ranges is approximately $193,357, or 1.9% of payroll. Of this amount, approximately $173,059 would come from the General Fund. This action would provide a pay increase ranging from 0.1% to 26% for 84 out of 199 employees. The cost to maintain all positions City of Colleyville Page 4 City Council Agenda Briefing relative to their current position in the proposed pay ranges is approximately $610,349, or 6.1% of payroll. Of this amount, approximately $534,911 would come from the General Fund. This action would provide a pay increase ranging from 0.1% to 34% for 170 out of 199 employees. Other implementation options are available, assuming all employees, whose current rate of pay is below the proposed minimum, are brought to the minimum of the proposed pay range. These include: • Provide a flat percentage increase for employees currently within the range based on current position within the range. For example, provide a certain percentage increase for those employees in the first quartile, second quartile, third quartile, and fourth quartile. • Implement a percentage of the cost to maintain relative position in proposed range. For example, implement at 75% instead of 100%. • Implement a multi-year approach, not to exceed 2 years. For example, implement 70% the first year and 30% the second year. Summary of benefits comparisons The City is on par with the comparator market regarding variable pay; retirement contributions; holiday, personal, and bereavement leave; leave carry-over; flexible benefit offerings; and wellness programming. The City slightly lags the market related to vacation and sick leave; medical and vision premium contribution; and lags the market related to life insurance coverage. Overall, the City’s benefit offerings are considered close to market and competitive. No changes to City benefits are recommended at this time. The overall job classification and compensation study report has been prepared by FLA and is attached to this briefing (Attachment B). Attachments 1. Compensation Philosophy and Strategy - Attachment A 2. Classification and Compensation Study Final Report - Attachment B 3. Classification and Compensation Study Presentation City of Colleyville Page 5 Attachment A CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 PURPOSE  The City of Colleyville (City) values its employees as the key to providing efficient, effective, responsive and creative public services.  The purpose of a compensation system is to support the recruitment, motivation and retention of well-qualified employees. In order to obtain and maintain taxpayer support, the compensation system should be fiscally sound and cost effective while supporting the employees of the City by encouraging them to be responsive to customers/taxpayers.  The compensation system shall be administered in an efficient, cost effective, responsive, fair and equitable manner to meet the needs of all stakeholders including elected officials, managers, employees and citizens of the City. GOAL 1 – ORGANIZE THE WORK To provide for a simplified flexible classification system that defines the general scope and complexity of the work required. The classification system will also facilitate internal equity across all jobs within all departments of the City. Objective 1 – Broad Class Structure To establish a classification structure that reflects meaningful and measurable differences in the level of work within each occupational group but maintains the flexibility necessary for employee growth and efficient management. Strategies – Broadly Defined Classes  The classification system will consist of broadly defined classes that reflect the essential duties and responsibilities performed by incumbents in each class. This approach will facilitate flexibility in the assignment of duties to individual employees within the job classification.  Where practical and feasible within each occupational group, there will be an opportunity for career advancement opportunities. The differences in job levels will be clearly defined and defensible. Objective 2 – Classification Structure The classification plan will meet the current needs of the departments while providing maximum flexibility to manage and organize the work in a changing environment. 1 Attachment A CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 Strategies – Classification System Maintenance  The existing classification system will be reviewed to identify current requirements that may inhibit management flexibility. Recommendations will be made to make the system consistent with the City’s goals and objectives and will position the City to be responsive to change.  The class specifications, including the statements of essential duties, minimum qualifications, and physical requirements, will be written to reflect the current needs of the City. The goal is to ensure that new hires are qualified and capable of performing the work required. Incumbents who currently do not meet the minimum qualifications will be grandfathered into their current classes. However, any incumbent not meeting the new minimum requirements will be required to acquire the applicable knowledge and/or skills within a reasonable time period so that they will be qualified for their job. Otherwise, the employee may apply for vacant positions elsewhere in the City, or other positions external to the City, for which they qualify. Objective 3 – Reclassification of Jobs The reclassification process will be administered by the Human Resources Department in an efficient, cost effective, responsive, fair, and equitable manner to meet the needs of both the City and its employees. Because the City has adopted the concept of broad job classifications, the number of reclassifications should be minimal since the differences between classifications will be clearly defined. Strategies – Reclassification Process  Timetables will be established which will set the time the reclassifications will be reviewed and acted upon.  Responsibilities for each step of the reclassification process will be established to include the employee, department head, and the Human Resources Department.  Employees will be notified in writing of the results of the reclassification process and the reasons for approval or denial.  Employees who are reclassified will not receive any adjustment in their base compensation unless the salary range for the class into which they are reclassified has a minimum salary that exceeds the employee’s current salary. Reclassification should not be used to circumvent promotions into a higher job classification. Objective 4 – Creation of New Jobs The classification system will be responsive to organizational and environmental change through the creation of new classes and redefinition of job responsibilities as defined by the City and its departments. 2 Attachment A CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 Strategies – New Job Development Process  The class specifications will be reviewed by the departments on an annual basis to ensure they meet current needs. The Human Resources Department will facilitate the review process.  The Human Resources Department will respond to department requests for individual reclassification, and will assist with the revision of class specifications and development of new class specifications within the broad class concept, as necessary to meet the on-going operational requirements of the City. GOAL 2 – DISTRIBUTE PAY The compensation system should reflect economic conditions of the various occupational labor markets in which the City competes. The system should also reward employees who perform at above-standard levels within their respective job class. Objective 1 – Compensation Levels Compensation levels should reflect the multiple labor markets (both public sector and private sector) in which the City competes. The value of compensation offered to City employees shall be consistent with the value of compensation offered by employers with whom the City must compete within both the public and the private sectors. Strategies – Executive Level Classes  For FLSA exempt classes and jobs that are most commonly found in the public sector, the labor market should include the various government entities within Texas. The jurisdictions and organizations should be similar in size and character and perform a similar range of services as the City. Salary comparisons shall reflect the cost of labor differences for each geographic location. Strategies – All Other Classes  For FLSA non-exempt classes, the labor market should include public and private sector employers in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area that are of a similar size and complexity to the City and/or with whom the City competes for such employees. Objective 2 – Market Parity Pay grade midpoints should approximate the actual average salaries paid to positions in the relevant labor market(s) as reported in salary survey and market pricing results. Pay range minimums and maximums should be established from survey/market pricing results to provide for market parity within the pay structures. 3 Attachment A CITY OF COLLEYVILLE COMPENSATION PHILOSOPHY & STRATEGY Proposed to Begin Fiscal Year 2014 Strategies – Range Spans  The salary structure should provide sufficient breadth with range spans based on the level of the job classification and market information. Typically, salary ranges for lower level jobs are narrower than for upper level jobs. For example, defined jobs within an organization might have a maximum salary that is only 20% to 25% greater than the salary range minimum for the job class. For executive level jobs, the salary range maximum may be as much as 75% to 90% greater than the minimum of the salary range for the class. This range spread at higher levels in the organization reflects a variety of factors including a longer learning curve, greater consequence of error, the cost of recruitment and training, and increasing value to the organization over time. As class structures become broader to accommodate simplification and flexibility, broader salary ranges will have higher maximum rates of pay than with a narrow structure. Strategies – Depth of Range Progression  The salary structure should provide sufficient depth to achieve midpoint progression between salary ranges of five to ten percent. (This is the percentage difference in salary range midpoints from one level or salary grade to the next.) The salary structure is based on a multiple regression model using salary survey results. (Most regression models exclude outliers that exceed two standard deviations from the norm.) Strategies – Process for Salary Progression  The length of time for progression within the salary range should increase as jobs move up the salary grade structure. Progression within the salary range should be based on proficient or competent performance up to the 50th percentile or job rate of the established salary range. Progression above the job rate of the salary range shall be based on performance that is above proficient and should be tied to the performance management process. Compensation above the job rate will be performance based and may be added to base compensation or may be granted as a one-time bonus. Strategies – Job Rate Percentile  Each classification should have a job rate (midpoint) set at a percentage of the actual average salary paid incumbents occupying like positions in the relevant labor market. The job rate shall approximate the 50th percentile or the median of pay for like positions in the labor market. Strategies – Hiring Range  The hiring range is from the range minimum for minimally acceptable qualified candidates to the job rate (middle of the salary range) for exceptionally well qualified candidates. Appointment above the mid-point will require the approval of the City Manager. 4 City of Colleyville, TX Compensation Study Final Report July 2013 Table of Contents •Study Background •Survey Methodology •Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •Summary of Benefits Data •Administrative Recommendations •Attachments –Benchmark Summary Sheets –Implementation Cost Analysis 2 Study Background •Fox Lawson & Associates was engaged to perform a review of job classification, compensation and benefits for the City of Colleyville and make recommendations regarding: –Job structure and individual position allocations; –Current state of compensation and benefits; –Market competitiveness of specific employee benchmarks; –Benefits and costs associated with recommendations; –Implementation and transition options; and, –Pay practices, policies and overall compensation program. •The major consideration of the City is to establish market comparisons to the current level of compensation paid to all City job classifications. •The following items were provided by the City to facilitate the study: –Organization materials; –Current job descriptions; and –Current compensation and pay structure information for employees. 3 Study Background •Compensation and classification objectives were identified and include: –Compensation levels reflective of multiple and varied labor markets covering City jobs, including both public and private sector information, with pay grade midpoints reflective of the 50th percentile of the relevant labor markets: •Non-exempt positions compared to other public and private sector organizations in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area of similar size and complexity; •Exempt level positions compared to similar-sized cities and other public sector organizations throughout Texas; •Compensation will be viewed from a total compensation perspective, including base pay, employee benefits and applicable variable compensation. –Development of a pay structure where the midpoint is reflective of the defined labor market rates of pay. –Classifications will be placed in the salary structure based on their respective DBM rating and market data results. 4 City Compensation Philosophy Broad job classifications will be utilized to facilitate simplification and flexibility. Internal equity job evaluation approach (DBTMM) consistent with broad class concept. A total compensation approach, including benefits, will be taken into consideration. Market parity will be assessed at the market 50th percentile. Exempt classes and jobs that are most commonly found in the public sector, the labor market will include the various government entities within Texas that are similar in size and character and perform a similar range of services as the City. Private sector compensation will also be considered for those jobs that are not exclusively found in the public sector (e.g. HR, IT, etc.) Non-exempt classes will be compared to public and private sector employers in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area that are of a similar size and complexity to the City and/or with whom the City competes for such employees. 5 Summary of Job Analysis •Existing job descriptions were collected and reviewed. •Employees completed Position Description Questionnaires (PDQs) to describe the work they are currently performing. •A classification structure was developed that consolidated and summarized jobs based on the type and level of work currently performed. •Jobs within the proposed structure were evaluated utilizing the Decision Band™ Method (DBM). 6 Decision BandTM Method The value of a job should reflect the importance of the job to the organization. The importance of a job is directly related to the decision-making requirements of the job. Decision-making is common to all jobs. Decision-making is measurable. 7 Decision BandTM Method •DBM ratings address internal equity and supports development of pay structures. •Decision bands within DBM include: –Band F – Top Level Policy Decisions –Band E – Programming Decisions –Band D – Interpretive Decisions –Band C – Process Decisions –Band B – Operational Decisions –Band A – Defined Decisions •Bands are further subdivided into “grades” based on leadership responsibilities and “subgrades” based on areas such as difficulty and complexity. • 8 DBM Step 1 - Bands Band A defined Determine manner and speed to perform defined steps of an operation Band B operational Determines how and when to perform steps of processes Band C process Selects appropriate process to accomplish operations of programs Band D interpretive Interprets programs into operational plans and deploys resources Band E programming Plans strategies, programs and allocates resources to meet goals Band F policy Organization scope, direction, and goals 9 DBM Step 2 - Grade Authority Structural Authority Responsibility Accountability Sapiential Authority Advisability Informability 10 DBM Step 3 - Subgrade Is determined by: Is affected by: Primary Criteria Job Difficulty Duty Complexity Number of Duties Diversity of Duties Duty Occurrence Duty Frequency Percent of Time 11 DBM Structure BAND GRADE SUBGRADE F - Policy 11 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 10 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 E - Programming 9 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 8 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 D - Interpretive 7 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 6 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 C - Process 5 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 4 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 B - Operational 3 – Coordinating/Supervisory 2(5) 1(4) 2 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 A - Defined 1 –Non-coordinating 3 2 1 0 - Non-coordinating 3 2 1 Top Leadership Mid - Mgmt Staff Roles 12 Classification Structure 13 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Administrative Support Administrative Support Assistant A13 Administrative Support Technician B22 Administrative Support Specialist B23-B24 Administrative Support Coordinator B25 Fire Firefighter Recruit B21 Firefighter B22 Fire Engineer B24 Fire Captain C41 Fire Battalion Chief C45/C52 Library Library Clerk A12 Library Assistant B22 Librarian C41-C42 Maintenance & Operations M&O Technician A12-A13 M&O Specialist B22-B23 M&O Supervisor B31 M&O Projects Specialist B24-B25 M&O Project Manager C43 Classification Structure 14 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Management Manager D61-D62 Director E81-E83 Assistant City Manager E91 City Manager F101 Management-Program Support Management Specialist B24 Management Analyst C41 Management Analyst Senior C42 Police Code Enforcement Officer B21 Police Officer Recruit B22 Police Officer B23 Police Sergeant B32 Police Lieutenant C42 Police Captain D62 Survey Methodology – Benchmark Jobs 15 ^Data from Colleyville not available, positions vacant at time of analysis JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE 1 Accounting Clerk 24 Fleet Manager 2 Administrative Clerk 25 Human Resources Analyst 3 Administrative Secretary 26 Human Resources Director 4 Battalion Chief 27 Information Services Manager 5 Billing Supervisor 28 Information Systems Technician 6 Building Inspector^ 29 Librarian 7 Building Maintenance Technician 30 Library Assistant (Circulation/Technology) 8 Building Official 31 Library Clerk 9 City Engineer 32 Mechanic - Fleet 10 Community Development Director 33 Meter Reader 11 Construction Manager 34 Municipal Court Administrator 12 Deputy Court Administrator 35 Office Assistant 13 Economic Development Director 36 Park Maintenance Superintendent 14 Equipment Operator 37 Park Maintenance Worker 15 Executive Secretary 38 Police Chief 16 Field Operations Manager 39 Police Lieutenant 17 Field Operations Supervisor 40 Police Officer 18 Field Technician 41 Police Sergeant 19 Finance Manager 42 Public Works Director 20 Fire Captain 43 Recreation Specialist 21 Fire Chief^ 44 Sign Technician 22 Fire Engineer 45 Systems Administrator 23 Firefighter/Paramedic Survey Methodology •FLA developed a survey questionnaire to collect salary and benefits data. Questions in the survey were posed in a fashion that were standard and easy for participants to answer, as well as being easy to quantify and analyze. •The survey results represent data from the following 23 organizations: 16 Participating Organizations Participating Organizations City of Bedford City of Hurst City of Cedar Hill City of Keller City of Cedar Park City of New Braunfels City of Conroe City of North Richland Hills City of Coppell City of Paris City of Duncanville City of Rowlett City of Eagle Pass City of Sherman City of Euless City of Southlake City of Galveston City of Watauga City of Georgetown Town of Farmers Branch City of Grapevine Town of Flower Mound City of Haltom City Survey Methodology •FLA followed-up with each organization to encourage participation. •FLA reviewed and entered the data collected from participants. •FLA followed-up directly with the participants to clarify and validate missing or questionable information reported. •FLA asked organizations to make a match for only those jobs that reflected at least 70% of the duties as outlined in the benchmark summaries. –If there were any questions in job matching, we reference job descriptions, organizational charts and other information to verify that the match is valid. •All data are effective April 1, 2013 and reflect an annual basis. •FLA follows the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission guidelines that state 5 job matches should exist per job in order to conduct statistical analyses or for drawing conclusions. 17 Survey Methodology •The following published survey data was utilized to make comparisons with the private sector: 18 Published Survey Sources Economic Research Institute (ERI) Hay Local Area Pay Mercer Finance, Accounting & Legal Mercer Human Resources Mercer Information Technology Mercer Metro Benchmark - South Central PRM Not for Profit Towers Watson CSR Accounting & Finance Towers Watson CSR Call Center & Customer Service Towers Watson CSR Engineering, Design & Drafting Towers Watson CSR Human Resources Towers Watson CSR Info Technology & e-Commerce Towers Watson CSR Office & Business Support Towers Watson CSR Supervisory & Middle Management Towers Watson CSR Technical Support & Production Survey Methodology: Geographic Differentials •Applying geographic differentials is a sound compensation practice in an effort to arrive at a more precise figure for use in analyzing and setting pay. •Just as data are trended forward to be effective for a current point in time, data should be adjusted to reflect cost of labor differences between geographic areas. •Geographic adjustment factors are shown below: 19 Comparison Locations Factor Adjustment Comparison Locations Factor Adjustment Bedford, TX 100% Grapevine, TX 100% Cedar Hill, TX 105% Hurst, TX 99% Cedar Park, TX 99% Keller, TX 100% Conroe, TX 104% New Braunfels, TX 96% Coppell, TX 105% North Richland Hills, TX 100% Dallas, TX 106% Paris, TX 93% Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 106% Rowlett, TX 95% Duncanville, TX 104% Sherman, TX 97% Eagle Pass, TX 92% Southlake, TX 103% Euless, TX 100% Watauga, TX 100% Farmers Branch, TX 104% Texas - Statewide 98% Flower Mound, TX 107% Region: South 107% Galveston, TX 105% Region: South Central 107% Georgetown, TX 99% United States 101% Base City: Colleyville, TX Survey Methodology •FLA performed several reviews of the data to identify any extreme data and to ensure validity and reliability of the data. •Through a statistical analysis, any salary figures that were considered extreme in relation to all other salary figures were excluded. •Various statistics were calculated (25th, 50th, 75th, low, and high) in analyzing the data. •Once the survey analysis and report was completed, it was submitted internally through our firm’s quality control process for review before it was submitted to the City. 20 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 21 –On an overall basis of all jobs combined, the amount that the City is above or below the market (public and private sectors) is shown in the tables below. •The 50th percentile of market data was used as the comparison point with the midpoint of the current pay ranges for classes, as this is where the City identified its targeted pay: •The 50th percentile of market data was used as the comparison point with the midpoint of the current pay ranges for sworn public safety classes: Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Base Salary Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Non-Sworn Positions 1.2% -3.7% -6.5% -5.3% -2.6% Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Base Salary Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Sworn Fire -12.7% -5.6% 0.6% -13.4% -1.1% Sworn Police 0.6% -0.5% -1.6% -0.7% 0.2% Summary of Salary Data Comparisons –Graphical representations of current salaries compared to market are shown on the following page and reflect how the City’s salaries compare to the market utilizing a statistical procedure called regression analysis. –Regression analysis was utilized to blend market data with internal equity. •Regression trend line is used as an anchor for salary ranges and represents the “best fit” taking into account market parity and internal equity. 22 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 23 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Rating City of Colleyville, TX City Range Midpoints vs Market Actual Salaries (50th Percentile) City: Range Mid Public: Adj Annual Rate $ Private: Adj Annual Rate $ Combined: Adj Annual Rate $ Linear (City: Range Mid) Linear (Public: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Private: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Combined: Adj Annual Rate $) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 24 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Rating City of Colleyville, TX City Actual Salaries vs Market Actual Salaries (50th Percentile City: Annual Salary Public: Adj Annual Rate $ Private: Adj Annual Rate $ Combined: Adj Annual Rate $ Linear (City: Annual Salary) Linear (Public: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Private: Adj Annual Rate $) Linear (Combined: Adj Annual Rate $) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 25 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Rating City of Colleyville, TX Range Minimum vs Market Range Minimum (50th Percentile) City: Range Min Public: Adj Range Min Private: Adj Range Min Combined: Adj Range Min Linear (City: Range Min) Linear (Public: Adj Range Min) Linear (Private: Adj Range Min) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Min) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 26 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Value City of Colleyville, TX Range Midpoint vs Market Range Midpoint (50th Percentile) City: Range Mid Public: Adj Range Mid Private: Adj Range Mid Combined: Adj Range Mid Linear (City: Range Mid) Linear (Public: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Private: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Mid) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 27 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Value City of Colleyville, TX Range Midpoint vs Market Range Midpoint (50th Percentile) City: Range Mid Public: Adj Range Mid Private: Adj Range Mid Combined: Adj Range Mid Linear (City: Range Mid) Linear (Public: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Private: Adj Range Mid) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Mid) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 28 $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 An n u a l S a l a r y DBM Value City of Colleyville, TX Range Maximum vs Market Range Maximum (50th Percentile) City: Range Max Public: Adj Range Max Private: Adj Range Max Combined: Adj Range Max Linear (City: Range Max) Linear (Public: Adj Range Max) Linear (Private: Adj Range Max) Linear (Combined: Adj Range Max) A B C D E Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 29 The following tables summarize current range midpoints against the public, private and combined market sectors: Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Public Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Public Sector Pay Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Private Sector Pay Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Private Sectors Pay Accounting Clerk $36,864 $37,284 -1.10% $39,101 -6.10% $38,462 -4.30% Administrative Clerk $31,845 $32,314 -1.50% $28,013 12.00% $31,616 0.70% Administrative Secretary $38,707 $38,865 -0.40% $44,593 -15.20% $40,287 -4.10% Billing Supervisor $57,188 $59,974 -4.90% $56,578 1.10% $59,974 -4.90% Building Inspector $49,401 $46,664 -4.10% $42,130 6.00% $46,118 -2.90% Building Maintenance Technician $44,809 $36,558 18.40% $48,852 -9.00% $36,747 18.00% Building Official $72,988 $76,963 -5.40% N/A N/A $76,963 -5.40% City Engineer $93,154 $101,766 -9.20% $91,645 1.60% $101,766 -9.20% Community Development Director $88,718 $97,850 -10.30% N/A N/A $97,850 -10.30% Construction Manager $76,638 $84,594 -10.30% $103,123 -7.40% $89,320 14.50% Deputy Court Administrator $47,049 $40,208 14.50% N/A N/A $40,208 14.50% Economic Development Director $118,891 $109,557 7.90% N/A N/A $109,557 7.90% Equipment Operator $36,864 $32,979 10.50% $39,602 -7.40% $33,920 8.00% Executive Secretary $42,675 $49,618 -16.30% $59,493 -39.40% $50,568 -18.50% Field Operations Manager $88,718 $77,534 12.60% $85,548 3.60% $78,145 11.90% Field Operations Supervisor $51,872 $54,224 -4.50% $63,711 -22.80% $55,329 -6.70% Field Technician $31,845 $32,218 -1.20% $26,707 16.10% $32,180 -1.10% Finance Manager $88,718 $90,242 -1.70% $103,286 -16.40% $92,785 -4.60% Fire Chief $118,891 $123,264 -3.70% N/A N/A $123,264 -3.70% Summary of Salary Data Comparisons 30 Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Public Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Public Sector Pay Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Private Sector Pay Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Privat e Sectors Pay Fleet Manager $63,050 $63,757 -1.1% $73,296 -16.3% $64,816 -2.8% Human Resources Analyst $51,872 $49,452 4.7% $50,959 1.8% $49,452 4.7% Human Resources Director $88,718 $99,145 -11.8% $107,533 -21.2% $103,080 -16.2% Information Services Manager $76,638 $101,431 -32.4% $105,012 -37.0% $101,876 -32.9% Information Systems Technician $47,049 $42,446 9.8% $43,306 8.0% $42,528 9.6% Librarian $51,872 $45,953 11.4% $45,585 12.1% $45,953 11.4% Library Assistant (Circulation/Technology) $36,858 $33,828 8.2% N/A N/A $33,828 8.2% Library Clerk $28,890 $28,323 2.0% $23,908 17.2% $27,777 3.9% Mechanic - Fleet $40,643 $39,910 1.8% $40,720 -0.2% $40,240 1.0% Meter Reader $31,845 $29,316 7.9% $28,770 9.7% $28,796 9.6% Municipal Court Administrator $57,188 $66,119 -15.6% N/A N/A $66,119 -15.6% Office Assistant $35,109 $33,500 4.6% $27,946 20.4% $33,377 4.9% Park Maintenance Superintendent $76,638 $64,920 15.3% $85,710 -11.8% $66,288 13.5% Park Maintenance Worker $31,845 $28,835 9.5% $22,190 30.3% $28,615 10.1% Police Chief $118,891 $129,105 -8.6% N/A N/A $129,105 -8.6% Public Works Director $107,837 $122,032 -13.2% $145,790 -35.2% $122,295 -13.4% Recreation Specialist $51,872 $41,141 20.7% N/A N/A $41,141 20.7% Sign Technician $40,643 $34,929 14.1% N/A N/A $34,929 14.1% Systems Administrator $69,513 $62,021 10.8% $78,943 -13.6% $65,538 5.7% Summary of Salary Data Comparisons –Overall, for positions where private sector was available, the City is lagging the private sector by 10.5%, which is significantly greater than the 1.6% lag compared to the public sector market. –When looking at public and private sector combined, the City is lagging the overall market by 2.6%(1) 31 Difference: City Current MidPt vs Public Sector Actual Pay Difference: City Current MidPt vs Private Sector Actual Pay Difference: City Current MidPt vs Combined Sectors Actual Pay -1.6% -10.5% -2.6% (1) Based on positions that exist within the private sector and market data as available. Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •KEY MEASURES: Overall, current midpoints of all positions, excluding sworn public safety, lag the 50th percentile of the comparator market by 2.6%, from an aggregate perspective of all classes combined . •Current non-sworn actual rates of pay compared to market actual rates of pay lag the market by 5.3%. •Overall, current non-sworn salary ranges lag the defined labor market by 3.7% compared to the current midpoint for all classifications combined. •Individual comparisons vary. •Longevity, performance and hiring conditions may explain some differences in actual salary. 32 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •KEY MEASURES: Overall, current salary range midpoints for sworn public safety lag the 50th percentile of the comparator market by 0.4%, from an aggregate perspective of all classes combined . •Current salary ranges for Sworn Police are leading the market at the range minimum by 0.6%; the salary range minimums for Sworn Fire are low, lagging the market by 12.7%. •Current sworn salary range maximums for Sworn Police, compared with market salary range maximums, lag by 1.6%; the salary range maximums for Sworn Fire are on par with the market, leading by 0.6%. •Individual comparisons vary. •Longevity, performance and hiring conditions may explain some differences in actual salary. 33 Summary of Salary Data Comparisons •Six (6) individual jobs’ range midpoints are significantly misaligned with the market, as detailed below: 34 Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Private Sectors Pay Executive Secretary $42,675 $50,568 -18.5% Human Resources Director $88,718 $103,080 -16.2% Information Services Manager $76,638 $101,876 -32.9% Municipal Court Administrator $57,188 $66,119 -15.6% Benchmark Title City Current Range Midpoint Combined Public & Private Sector: Actual Avg Pay (50th Percentile) Difference: Current MidPt vs Combined Public/Private Sectors Pay Building Maintenance Technician $44,809 $36,747 18.0% Recreation Specialist $51,872 $41,141 20.7% Salary Data Recommendations •The proposed non-sworn pay structure, which takes into consideration internal alignment and external market data, expands the existing width of the pay ranges from 40% (entry level non- exempt) to 60% (management)*, which is consistent with market data. •The proposed sworn pay structures range spreads have been developed to align with the range spreads found in the market for sworn Fire and Police and vary based on position. 35 *Current pay range widths are 35% from entry level through management Salary Data Recommendations 36 Proposed Pay Structure (Non-Sworn) DBM Min Mid Max Range Spread A11 $23,750 $28,500 $33,250 40% A12 $25,413 $30,495 $35,578 40% A13 $28,462 $34,154 $39,847 40% B21 $30,056 $37,570 $45,084 50% B22 $32,160 $40,200 $48,240 50% B23 $34,641 $43,301 $51,961 50% B24/B31 $37,977 $47,471 $56,965 50% B25/B32 $41,303 $51,629 $61,954 50% C41 $47,965 $59,956 $71,947 50% C42 $51,291 $64,114 $76,936 50% C43 $54,617 $68,271 $81,925 50% C44/C51 $57,953 $72,441 $86,929 50% C45/C52 $61,279 $76,599 $91,918 50% D61 $65,328 $84,926 $104,524 60% D62 $68,526 $89,084 $109,641 60% D63 $71,724 $93,241 $114,758 60% E81 $84,535 $109,896 $135,257 60% E82 $88,762 $115,391 $142,019 60% E83 $93,200 $121,160 $149,120 60% E91 $97,860 $127,218 $156,576 60% F101 $107,646 $139,940 $172,234 60% Salary Data Recommendations 37 Proposed Sworn Police Pay Structure Proposed Sworn Fire Pay Structure DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Firefighter/EMT B21 $46,317 $52,338 $58,359 26% Firefighter/Paramedic B22 $48,975 $55,342 $61,708 26% Fire Engineer B24 $56,034 $61,358 $66,681 19% Fire Captain C41 $65,467 $70,377 $75,287 15% Battalion Chief C45/C52 $73,244 $82,400 $91,555 25% DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Police Officer Recruit B22 $46,432 $53,861 $61,290 32% Police Officer B23 $50,959 $59,113 $67,266 32% Police Sergeant B32 $64,475 $69,633 $74,791 16% Police Lieutenant C42 $80,193 $85,405 $90,618 13% Police Captain D62 $89,935 $101,177 $112,419 25% Salary Data Recommendations •The costs associated with the proposed pay structures are represented in the table below: 38 NonSworn: Annual Payroll Bring-To-Minimum Cost Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range Full-Time $5,173,036 $66,541 $390,684 Part-Time $374,712 $16,375 $40,234 Subtotals $5,547,748 $82,916 $430,918 % of Payroll: 1.5% 7.8% Sworn: Annual Payroll Bring-To-Minimum Cost Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range Full-Time $4,401,685 $110,441 $179,431 % of Payroll: 2.5% 4.1% Combined (NonSworn & Sworn): Annual Payroll Bring-To-Minimum Cost Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range $9,949,433 $193,357 $610,349 % of Payroll: 1.9% 6.1% Implementation Options •There are multiple implementation options available to the City, including (assumes all employees whose current rate of pay is below the proposed minimum are brought to the minimum of the proposed pay range): –Provide for a flat percentage increase for employees currently within the range based on current position within the range (ie, X% for those employees in the first quartile; X% for those employees in the second quartile, etc.); –Implement based on a percentage of the ‘Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range’ (ie, implement at 75%); –Implement utilizing a multi-year approach, not to exceed 2 years (ie, 70% year 1 and 30% year 2). •Other implementation options are available and are all dependent upon budgetary constraints. 39 Summary of Benefit Data Comparisons •A customized data collection form was created to collect benefits information in conjunction with the salary survey. •FLA distributed the survey to comparator organizations identified by the City. •FLA reviewed and entered the data collected from participants. •FLA followed-up directly with the participants to clarify and validate questionable information reported. 40 Survey Participant Demographics 41 Comparator Market Average City of Colleyville Customers Served 43,374 23,328 Annual Operating Budget $78,885,219 $35,923,748 Number of FT Employees 389 171 Number of Job Classifications 156 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Customers Served Participating Organizations 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Number of Full-Time Employees Participating Organizations Pay Practices: Employee Salary Increases 42 Notes: 1. Average includes those responding with 0% increase; 2.% of Responding Orgs= Of the organizations surveyed, X% provided a response; 3.Some Sworn Police received increases to base of, on average, 8% for compression adjustment. Average Increase1 % of Responding Organizations2 % of Responding Organizations providing an increase City of Colleyville Average Increase3 NonExempt 2.4% 96% 91% 0% Exempt 2.4% 96% 91% 0% Executive 2.3% 96% 86% 0% The City is lagging with the comparator market with respect to employee salary increases for 2013 as shown in the table below: Pay Practices: Formal Salary Ranges 43 Established Salary Ranges % of Responding Organizations NonExempt 95% Exempt 95% Executive 77% Similar to the comparator market, the City has formal salary ranges for all levels of employees as shown in the table below: Pay Practices: 2013 Salary Range Adjustments 44 Average Adjustment % of Responding Organizations NonExempt 2.6% 36% Exempt 2.6% 36% Executive 2.6% 36% 36% of the organizations surveyed implemented range adjustments during 2013. The City, like 64% of the comparator organizations, did not implement salary range adjustments in 2013. The average adjustment for salary ranges, for those organizations implementing adjustments, is shown in the table below: Pay Practices: Variable Pay Plans 45 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 # O r g a n i z a t i o n s Variable Pay NonExempt Exempt Executive The City is on par with the comparator market with respect to variable pay. The City, similar to those organizations offering variable pay, provides for lump sum payments, performance pay, longevity pay and other pay (education pay and on-call pay). Benefits: Retirement 46 Retirement Benefit Avg Employer Contribution % of Organizations Avg Employee Contribution % of Organizations PERS Non-Exempt 13.3% 100% 6.7% 100% Exempt 13.1% 100% 7.0% 100% Executive 13.1% 100% 6.4% 100% Tax Deferred Non-Exempt 4.0% 4% IRS Limit 74% Exempt 4.0% 4% IRS Limit 74% Executive 4.0% 9% IRS Limit 74% SERP2 Non-Exempt 0.0% 0% 7.7% 5% Exempt 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0% Executive 0.0% 0% 0.0% 0% The City contributes 14% and employees contribute 7% to TMRS (PERS1), which is on par with the comparator market. Additionally, the City has a tax-deferred retirement program for employees with no employer match: 1PERS is a generic term used to describe a Public Employer Retirement System, similar to TMRS in Texas. 2SERP program available at 1 organization for seasonal, non-exempt employees only. Benefits: Paid Leave 47 - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Holidays Personal Bereavement Holiday, Personal & Bereavement Leave Market Average Number of Days City of Colleyville The City is generally on par with the market with respect to holiday, personal and bereavement leave as shown in the chart below: Benefits: Paid Leave 48 0 5 10 15 20 25 <2 Yrs 2 to 4.9 Yrs 5 to 9.9 Yrs 10 to 14.9 Yrs 15 to 19.9 Yrs 20 to 24.9 Yrs 25+ Yrs Vacation Market City of Colleyville The City slightly lags the market with respect to vacation leave as shown in the chart below: Benefits: Paid Leave 49 The City slightly lags the market (market average is 13 days versus 12 days offered by the City) with respect to sick leave as shown in the chart below: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 <2 Yrs 2 to 4.9 Yrs 5 to 9.9 Yrs 10 to 14.9 Yrs 15 to 19.9 Yrs 20 to 24.9 Yrs 25+ Yrs Sick Leave Market Colleyville Benefits: Carry-Over of Unused Leave Time 50 Carry-Over ("Banked") Unused Vacation Average # Hours % of Responding Orgs 268 65% Based on Accrual % of Responding Orgs 1/2 to 3 times annual accrual 30% Other % of Responding Orgs Unlimited 5% Carry-Over ("Banked") Unused Sick Leave Average # Hours % of Responding Orgs 720 48% Based on Accrual % of Responding Orgs 1 times annual accrual 9% Other % of Responding Orgs Unlimited 43% The City is on par with the market with respect to leave carry-over, providing for an average of 300 hours of vacation (varies between 200 and 400 hours) and 720 hours of sick leave carryover. The comparator market averages are shown in the tables below: Benefits: Flexible Benefits Offered 51 Cafeteria Options Organizations Offering Offered by the City Premium Conversion 41% Yes Flexible Spending Account 82% Yes Simple Choice 23% No Full Flex 5% No Consumer Driven Health Plan 32% No The City is on par with the comparator market with respect to flexible benefit offerings, as shown in the table below: Benefits: Medical Insurance Premiums 52 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Medical Insurance: Monthly Employer Contributions Market City of Colleyville $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Medical Insurance: Monthly Employee Contributions Market City of Colleyville $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Medical Insurance: Total Monthly Premium Mkt Total Premium Colleyville Total Premium On average, the City pays 76% of the monthly medical premium compared to the market average of 78%. Overall, the City’s cost for medical benefits is lower than the market. A summary of market data compared to the City is shown in the charts below: Benefits: Premiums Paid by Employees 53 $- $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Dental Insurance: Monthly Employer Contribution Market City of Colleyville $- $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Dental Insurance: Monthly Employee Contribution Market City of Colleyville $- $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Dental Insurance: Total Monthly Premium Market City of Colleyville On average, the City pays 52% of the monthly dental premium compared to the market average of 50%. Overall, the City’s average cost for dental benefits ($66) is 14% higher than the average cost for the market ($57). A summary of market data compared to the City is shown in the charts below: Benefits: Premiums Paid by Employees 54 The City offers a vision program to employees, but does not subsidize the cost of the program. The market provides for nominal contributions by Employers, as shown in the charts below: 21% 14% 13% 11% $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Vision Insurance: Total Monthly Premiums Avg Market Employee Contribution Avg Market Employer Contribution $0 $1 $2 $3 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Vision Insurance: Monthly Employer Contributions Avg Market Employer Contribution $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 EE EE+1 EE+Children EE+Family Vision Insurance: Monthly Employee Contributions Avg Market Employee Contribution Benefits: Group Life Insurance 55 Group Life Insurance - Base Coverage Average Base Level Coverage ($) % of Organizations Average Base Level Coverage (X Salary Level) % of Organizations $23,000 23% 1.6 X Annual Salary 77% Group Life Insurance - Maximum Coverage Average Maximum Base Level Coverage ($) % of Organizations Average Base Level Coverage (X Salary Level) % of Organizations $122,857 65% 1.4 X Annual Salary 35% The City lags the comparator market with basic life insurance coverage of $15,000. The market provides for the following: Benefits: Health Opt-Out Credits/Cash Back 56 Opt-Out Benefit (In Lieu of Health/Welfare Coverage) All Organizations Combined Average Monthly Benefit % Organizations Credit toward other benefit plan $128 13% Comparable to the market, the City does not provide for opt -out credits/cash back. Only 13% of surveyed organizations provide for opt-out credit/cash back as detailed below: Benefits: Wellness Programs 57 The City is on par with the comparator market with respect to wellness program provisions and offerings as detailed in the tables below: Wellness Program Offering # Organizations offering Programs 14 % Organizations Offering Programs 61% Wellness Program Offerings: Wellness Offering Type # Organizations % Organizations Fitness Club Membership Discount 11 79% Stress Management 7 50% Smoking Cessation 10 71% Weight Reduction 10 71% Nutrition Program 9 64% Health Assessment 13 93% Recommendations: Benefit Data Comparisons •Due to the competitive nature of the City’s current benefit offerings, no changes are recommended to the benefits provided by the City at this time. 58 Administrative Recommendations •Salary Structure Review/Updates –Annual Updates •In order to reflect necessary increases in the minimum and maximum rates appropriate for each job, the salary structure should be reviewed annually. FLA can provide the City with the average percentage increase for employee salaries and salary structures on an annual basis, or the City may use a labor market index. •It is recommended that the respective starting rates and maximums be increased by a percentage that reflects the market trends and the City’s hiring experience. The use of a dollar amount increase would compress the structure over time. –Long-Term Updates •The City should reevaluate its overall structure at regular intervals (e.g., 2 to 3 years depending upon market movements) to ensure that its salary levels are consistent with the marketplace. •This would involve conducting a market salary study, such as was conducted here, every 2 to 3 years (depending on the economy) to make sure that the City’s pay scales and employee salaries remain competitive. 59 City of Colleyville, TX Classification and Compensation Study Executive Summary Pre Council Meeting July 16, 2013 Background, Philosophy, & Analysis 2 Study Background •Fox Lawson & Associates was engaged to perform a review of job classification, compensation and benefits for the City of Colleyville and make recommendations regarding: –Job structure and individual position allocations; –Current state of compensation and benefits; –Market competitiveness of specific employee benchmarks; –Benefits and costs associated with recommendations; –Implementation and transition options; and, –Pay practices, policies and overall compensation program. •The major consideration of the City is to establish market comparisons to the current level of compensation paid to all City job classifications. •Market comparison to both public and private sector information –Non-exempt positions: compared to other public and private sector organizations in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area of similar size and complexity; –Exempt level positions: (generally found only in the public sector) compared to similar-sized cities and other public sector organizations throughout Texas; 3 City Compensation Philosophy A total compensation approach, including benefits, will be taken into consideration. Broad job classifications will be utilized to facilitate simplification and flexibility. Internal equity job evaluation approach (DBTMM) consistent with broad class concept. Positions will be placed in the salary structure based on their respective DBM rating of their job classification category and market data results Pay grade midpoints reflective of the 50th percentile of the relevant labor markets (public and/or private sector as available) Pay structure where the midpoint = the defined labor market rates of pay 4 Decision BandTM Method •DBM ratings address internal equity and supports development of pay structures. •Decision bands within DBM include: –Band F – Top Level Policy Decisions –Band E – Programming Decisions –Band D – Interpretive Decisions –Band C – Process Decisions –Band B – Operational Decisions –Band A – Defined Decisions •Bands are further subdivided into “grades” based on leadership responsibilities and “subgrades” based on areas such as difficulty and complexity. 5 Classification Structure 6 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Administrative Support Administrative Support Assistant A13 Administrative Support Technician B22 Administrative Support Specialist B23-B24 Administrative Support Coordinator B25 Fire Firefighter Recruit B21 Firefighter B22 Fire Engineer B24 Fire Captain C41 Fire Battalion Chief C45/C52 Library Library Clerk A12 Library Assistant B22 Librarian C41-C42 Maintenance & Operations M&O Technician A12-A13 M&O Specialist B22-B23 M&O Supervisor B31 M&O Projects Specialist B24-B25 M&O Project Manager C43 Classification Structure 7 Classification Structure Job Classifications DBM Rating Management Manager D61-D62 Director E81-E83 Assistant City Manager E91 City Manager F101 Management-Program Support Management Specialist B24 Management Analyst C41 Management Analyst Senior C42 Police Code Enforcement Officer B21 Police Officer Recruit B22 Police Officer B23 Police Sergeant B32 Police Lieutenant C42 Police Captain D62 Survey Methodology – Benchmark Jobs 8 ^Data from Colleyville not available, positions vacant at time of analysis *Data obtained from both public and private sources JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE JOB CODE BENCHMARK TITLE 1 Accounting Clerk* 24 Fleet Manager* 2 Administrative Clerk* 25 Human Resources Analyst* 3 Administrative Secretary* 26 Human Resources Director* 4 Battalion Chief 27 Information Services Manager* 5 Billing Supervisor* 28 Information Systems Technician* 6 Building Inspector^* 29 Librarian* 7 Building Maintenance Technician* 30 Library Assistant (Circulation/Technology) 8 Building Official 31 Library Clerk* 9 City Engineer* 32 Mechanic – Fleet* 10 Community Development Director 33 Meter Reader* 11 Construction Manager* 34 Municipal Court Administrator 12 Deputy Court Administrator 35 Office Assistant* 13 Economic Development Director 36 Park Maintenance Superintendent* 14 Equipment Operator* 37 Park Maintenance Worker* 15 Executive Secretary* 38 Police Chief 16 Field Operations Manager* 39 Police Lieutenant 17 Field Operations Supervisor* 40 Police Officer 18 Field Technician* 41 Police Sergeant 19 Finance Manager* 42 Public Works Director* 20 Fire Captain 43 Recreation Specialist 21 Fire Chief^ 44 Sign Technician 22 Fire Engineer 45 Systems Administrator* 23 Firefighter/Paramedic Survey Methodology •FLA developed a survey questionnaire to collect salary and benefits data. Questions in the survey were posed in a fashion that were standard and easy for participants to answer, as well as being easy to quantify and analyze. •The survey results represent data from the following 23 organizations: 9 Participating Organizations Participating Organizations City of Bedford City of Hurst City of Cedar Hill City of Keller City of Cedar Park City of New Braunfels City of Conroe City of North Richland Hills City of Coppell City of Paris City of Duncanville City of Rowlett City of Eagle Pass City of Sherman City of Euless City of Southlake City of Galveston City of Watauga City of Georgetown Town of Farmers Branch City of Grapevine Town of Flower Mound City of Haltom City Survey Methodology •The following published survey data was utilized to make comparisons with the private sector: 10 Published Survey Sources Economic Research Institute (ERI) Hay Local Area Pay Mercer Finance, Accounting & Legal Mercer Human Resources Mercer Information Technology Mercer Metro Benchmark - South Central PRM Not for Profit Towers Watson CSR Accounting & Finance Towers Watson CSR Call Center & Customer Service Towers Watson CSR Engineering, Design & Drafting Towers Watson CSR Human Resources Towers Watson CSR Info Technology & e-Commerce Towers Watson CSR Office & Business Support Towers Watson CSR Supervisory & Middle Management Towers Watson CSR Technical Support & Production Results & Conclusion 11 Results of Market Comparison 12 –On an overall basis of all jobs combined, the amount that the City is above or below the market (public and private sectors) is shown in the tables below. •The 50th percentile of market data was used as the comparison point with the City actual salaries Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Market Actuals vs City Actual Salary Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Non-Sworn Positions 1.2% -3.7% -6.5% -2.6% -5.3% Aggregate Comparison Range Comparisons Market Actuals vs City Range Midpoint Market Actuals vs City Actual Salary Range Minimum Range Midpoint Range Maximum Sworn Fire -12.7% -5.6% 0.6% -1.1% -13.4% Sworn Police 0.6% -0.5% -1.6% 0.2% -0.7% Recommendations 13 Recommendation: Classification & Pay Structure 14 Proposed Pay Structure (Non-Sworn) Job Classification DBM Min Mid Max Range Spread N/A A11 $23,750 $28,500 $33,250 40% Library Clerk Maintenance & Operations Technician A12 $25,413 $30,495 $35,578 40% Administrative Support Assistant Maintenance & Operations Technician A13 $28,462 $34,154 $39,847 40% Code Enforcement Officer B21 $30,056 $37,570 $45,084 50% Administrative Support Technician Library Assistant Maintenance & Operations Specialist B22 $32,160 $40,200 $48,240 50% Administrative Support Specialist Maintenance & Operations Specialist B23 $34,641 $43,301 $51,961 50% Administrative Support Specialist Maintenance & Operations Supervisor Maintenance & Operations Project Specialist Management Specialist B24/B31 $37,977 $47,471 $56,965 50% Administrative Support Coordinator Maintenance & Operations Projects Specialist B25/B32 $41,303 $51,629 $61,954 50% Recommendation: Classification & Pay Structure 15 Proposed Pay Structure (Non-Sworn) - Continuation Job Classification DBM Min Mid Max Range Spread Librarian Management Analyst C41 $47,965 $59,956 $71,947 50% Librarian Management Analyst Senior C42 $51,291 $64,114 $76,936 50% Maintenance & Operations Project Manager C43 $54,617 $68,271 $81,925 50% N/A C44/C51 $57,953 $72,441 $86,929 50% N/A C45/C52 $61,279 $76,599 $91,918 50% Manager D61 $65,328 $84,926 $104,524 60% Manager D62 $68,526 $89,084 $109,641 60% Manager D63 $71,724 $93,241 $114,758 60% Director E81 $84,535 $109,896 $135,257 60% Director E82 $88,762 $115,391 $142,019 60% Director E83 $93,200 $121,160 $149,120 60% Assistant City Manager E91 $97,860 $127,218 $156,576 60% City Manager F101 $107,646 $139,940 $172,234 60% Recommendation: Classification & Pay Structure 16 Proposed Sworn Police Pay Structure Proposed Sworn Fire Pay Structure DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Firefighter/EMT B21 $46,317 $52,338 $58,359 26% Firefighter/Paramedic B22 $48,975 $55,342 $61,708 26% Fire Engineer B24 $56,034 $61,358 $66,681 19% Fire Captain C41 $65,467 $70,377 $75,287 15% Battalion Chief C45/C52 $73,244 $82,400 $91,555 25% DBM MIN MID MAX Spread Police Officer Recruit B22 $46,432 $53,861 $61,290 32% Police Officer B23 $50,959 $59,113 $67,266 32% Police Sergeant B32 $64,475 $69,633 $74,791 16% Police Lieutenant C42 $80,193 $85,405 $90,618 13% Police Captain D62 $89,935 $101,177 $112,419 25% Cost to Fully Implement Recommendations 17 Implementation Cost by Fund General Utility Drainage CCCPD CEDC Juvenile Case Manager TOTAL COST $636,822 $50,725 $16,422 $11,632 $14,405 $5,208 $735,214 Items to Note •157 out of 186 employees would have their pay adjusted by an average of 7.8% •Implementation of this plan brings us up-to-date with the current market, but salaries will soon lag the market without funding of annual salary adjustments •Funding for merit increases based on performance is not included •Most cities are averaging a 3% merit increase budgeted for FY 2014 The cost associated with implementing the recommended classification and pay structure (maintaining relative position in proposed range) is represented in the table below: Partial Implementation Options •Bring all employees whose current rate of pay is below the proposed minimum to the minimum of the proposed pay range •Provide for a flat percentage increase for employees currently within the range based on current position within the range –ie, X% for those employees in the first quartile; X% for those employees in the second quartile, X% for those employees in the third quartile, X% for those employees in the fourth quartile) •Implement based on a percentage of the ‘Cost to Maintain Relative Position in Proposed Range’ (ie, implement at 75%); •Implement utilizing a multi-year approach, not to exceed 2 years (ie, 70% year 1 and 30% year 2). 18 In addition to the recommended full implementation (costs shown on prior slide), there are partial implementation options available. –Partial implementation would no longer maintain employees in their current position within the pay range Recommendation: Benefit Data Comparisons •Due to the competitive nature of the City’s current benefit offerings, no changes are recommended to the benefits provided by the City at this time. 19 Recommendation: Maintenance/Updates •Salary Structure Maintenance/Updates –Annual Updates •In order to reflect necessary increases in the minimum and maximum rates appropriate for each job, the salary structure should be reviewed annually. FLA can provide the City with the average percentage increase for employee salaries and salary structures on an annual basis, or the City may use a labor market index. •It is recommended that the respective starting rates and maximums be increased by a percentage that reflects the market trends and the City’s hiring experience. The use of a dollar amount increase would compress the structure over time. –Long-Term Updates •The City should reevaluate its overall structure at regular intervals (e.g., 2 to 3 years depending upon market movements) to ensure that its salary levels are consistent with the marketplace. •This would involve conducting a market salary study, such as was conducted here, every 2 to 3 years (depending on the economy) to make sure that the City’s pay scales and employee salaries remain competitive. 20 City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number PC-2 Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Type Pre Council Department City Manager Title Presentation and update on fees and charges Explanation The purpose of this item is to provide a presentation and discussion of fees and charges as a part of the annual budget process. As the budget contains both revenues and expenditures, it is prudent to review the City's fees and charges during this time. An annual review is also important in that it works to avoid large adjustments that can occur if fees and charges are evaluated and updated infrequently. As a part of the budget submittal process, departments identified needed fee changes and made recommendations for adjustment. The focus was on keeping fees current with the marketplace and ensuring that appropriate cost recovery occurs for staff time or other costs incurred. Staff seeks direction from City Council to determine whether staff should proceed with their analysis and prepare the necessary ordinance amendments for the fees and charges discussed in the attached presentation. For many of the fees and charges, recommended adjustments could be brought back for formal City Council approval in September, concurrent with other budget items. A few particular items would require more time to formulate final recommendations, but would be brought forward upon completion of the necessary analysis. Attachments 1.Development Fee Survey 2.Update on fees and charges Colleyville Miscellaneous Permit Fee Survey 2013 1 Permit Type North Richland Hills Euless Bedford Hurst Keller Grapevine Southlake City Average Colleyville (Current) Colleyville (Proposed) PUD Amendment $564 $500 + $10/acre $205+ $205 (For each additional acre over 1) $600 (>10 acre) $700 (<10 acre) N/A $500 + $25/acre $200 $428 $250 $450 Amending Plat $248 $275 $100 + $25/lot $250 + $25/acre $200 + $10/lot $200 $300 + $20/lot (res) $300 + $20/acre (comm) $224 $150 $250 ZBA/SBA ZBA - $186(res), $220 (commercial) SBA - $621 $75 $100 $200 $200 $100 $300 $165 -ZBA $228 - SBA $125 $175 (for Both) Fence permit $21.00 (wood) $21.00 (iron) *Based on Valuation Min $30.00 + $3.05/$100 *Based on Valuation Min $30.00 + $4.00/$100 *Residential Min $75.00 Commercial on Valuation Min $23.50 + $3.05/$100 *Based on Valuation Min $23.50 +$3.05/$100 *Based on Valuation Min $21.00 first $500 Min $21.00 +$2.75/$100 $75.00 $68.38 $25.00 $75.00 Wall sign Base on sqft min $57 max- $2.00/sqft *Based on Valuation Min $30.00 +$3.05/$100 **Based on sqft Min $50.00+ *Based on Valuation Min 23.50 first $500 then Min 26.55 +$3.05/$100 *Based on Valuation Min $23.50 +$3.05/$100 *Based on Valuation Min $21.00 first $500 Min $21.00 +$2.75/$100 $85.00 $71.32 $45.00 $75.00 Development sign Base on sqft min $57 max- $2.00/sqft *Based on Valuation Min $30.00 + $3.05/$100 **Based on sqft Min $50.00+ *Based on Valuation Min 23.50 first $500 then Min $26.55 +$3.05/$100 *Based on Valuation Min $23.50 +$3.05/$100 *Based on Valuation Min $21.00 first $500 Min $21.00 +$2.75/$100 $25.00 $70.10 $35.00 $75.00 New residence plan review 65% of permit fee added No fee, Included in Permit 65% of Permit Fee Credit to Permit fee No fee, Included in Permit 40% of permit fee added No fee, Included in Permit No fee, Included in Permit N/A Flat Fee $250.00 Flat Fee $350.00 Residential addition and remodel--Plan review No fee, Included in Permit No fee, Included in Permit 65% of Permit fee Credit to Permit fee No fee, Included in Permit 40% of permit fee added No fee, Included in Permit No fee, Included in Permit Based on 3 cities $114.00 Flat Fee $100.00 $150.00 Colleyville Miscellaneous Permit Fee Survey 2013 2 $10,000 and greater Footnote #1 Swimming pool plan review fee No fee, Included in Permit **Comm. Only: Valuation No fee, Included in Permit No fee, Included in Permit No fee, Included in Permit No fee, Included in Permit No fee, Included in Permit N/A $25.00 $50.00 Grading and earthwork permit $93.00 Determined by Eng. Dept. *$38.00 min +sqft Determined by Public Works $25/lot $100/acre 10% of permit fee $100.00 $83.67 $55.00 $75.00 Temporary Construction Trailer $62.00 $50.00 $38.00 $25.00 $58.50 Based on Value of Construction $75.00 $56.79 $94.00 $100.00 * City of North Richland Hill: permit fees based on dollar valuation (e.g. minimum: Sum; $28.00 + $3.26 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof). For a complete permit fee list refer to the table in the Appendix-A “Fee Schedule”. * City of Euless: permit fees based on dollar valuation (e.g. minimum: Sum; $30.00 + $3.06 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof). For a complete permit fee list refer to the table in the Table 30-13(d) “Fee Schedule”. * City of Bedford: permit fees based on dollar valuation (e.g. minimum: Sum; $30.00 + $4.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof). For a complete permit fee list refer to the table in the Table 30-13(d) “Fee Schedule”. * City of Hurst: permit fees based on dollar valuation (e.g. minimum: $23.50 for the first $500.00 then Sum; $26.55 + $3.05 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof). For a complete permit fee list refer to the table in “Fee Schedule” City of Hurst. *City of Keller: permit fees based on dollar valuation (e.g. minimum: Sum; $23.50 + $3.50 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof). For a complete permit fee list refer to the table in the Table 4-120 “Fee Schedule”. * City of Grapevine: permit fees based on dollar valuation (e.g. minimum: $21.00 for the first $500.00 then Sum; $21.00 + $2.75 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2000.00). For a complete permit fee list refer to the Exhibit A; table1-An in “Building Permit Fees” City of Grapevine. *Foot Note #1, City Averages: In order to establish a common denominator between permits evaluated on a valuation cost verses permit costs based on a flat fee, the city averages category of residential remodels has been based on two classes 1. $10,001.00 (greater than) 2. $9,999.00 (less than) Colleyville Miscellaneous Permit Fee Survey 2013 3 *Foot Note #2, City Averages: In order to establish a common denominator between permits evaluated on a valuation cost verses permit costs based on a flat fee, the city averages category of residential and commercial new construction has been based on a $500,001.00 structure or in the case based on dollar amount per square foot a 5,000 square foot structure was used for the example. f An n u a l  Re v i e w  of  Fe e s & Ch a r g e s Fe e s  & Ch a r g e s Pr e  Co u n c i l   Me e t i n g Ju l y 16 , 20 1 3 Ju l y  16 ,  20 1 3 Ov e r v i e w Ov e r v i e w • Re v i e w  fe e s  an d  ch a r g e s  an n u a l l y  du r i n g  th e  bu d g e t   pr o c e s s  Bu d g e t in c l u d e s re v e n u e s & ex p e n d i t u r e s pr o c e s s   Bu d g e t  in c l u d e s  re v e n u e s  & ex p e n d i t u r e s • Fo c u s  on  ke e p i n g  fe e s  cu r r e n t  wi t h  th e  ma r k e t p l a c e   an d re c o v e r i n g co s t s to th e gr e a t e s t ex t e n t po s s i b l e an d  re c o v e r i n g  co s t s  to  th e  gr e a t e s t  ex t e n t  po s s i b l e • Wo r k s  to  av o i d  la r g e  ad j u s t m e n t s  th a t  ca n  oc c u r  if fees  an d  ch a r ges  ar e  on l y ev a l u a t e d  an d  upda t e d  on c e   g y p ev e r y  5+  ye a r s   • De p a r t m e n t s  id e n t i f i e d  ne e d e d  ch a n g e s  an d  made  re c o m m e n d a t i o n s  fo r  ad j u s t m e n t  du r i n g  th e  budget  su b m i s s i o n  pr o c e s s Pu r p o s e Pu r p o s e • To  de t e r m i n e  if  th e  Ci t y  Co u n c i l  wo u l d  li k e  fo r  staff to  d ih hi li d h pr o c e e d with their an a lys is an d pr e p a r e  the  ne c e s s a r y  or d i n a n c e  am e n d m e n t s  fo r  th e  fe e s  and  ch a r g e s di s c u s s e d ch a r g e s  di s c u s s e d • Fo r  ma n y  of  th e  fe e s  an d  ch a r g e s  di s c u s s e d  tonight,  re c o m m e n d e d ad j u s t m e n t s co u l d be br o u g h t back re c o m m e n d e d  ad j u s t m e n t s  co u l d  be  br o u g h t  back  fo r  fo r m a l  Co u n c i l  ap p r o v a l  in  Se p t e m b e r  al o n g  with  ot h e r  bu d g e t  it e m s  (a  fe w  ma y  re q u i r e  mo r e  time to  fo r m u l a t e  re c o m m e n d a t i o n s ) En g i n e e r i n g Fe e s & Ch a r g e s En g i n e e r i n g  Fe e s  & Ch a r g e s Dr a i n a g e Fe e Dr a i n a g e  Fe e • Fe e  cu r r e n t l y  ba s e d  on  ty p e  of  la n d  us e ;  no t  im p e r v i o u s  area A f f hl d h li i h • Amo u n t  of fee  shou ld  re p r e s e n t  the re lat ive  imp a c t  to the  Ci t y ’ s  dr a i n a g e  sy s t e m • An up d a t e d dr a i n a g e fe e wo u l d po t e n t i a l l y al l o w fo r An  up d a t e d  dr a i n a g e  fe e  wo u l d  po t e n t i a l l y  al l o w  fo r   ad d i t i o n a l  fu n d i n g  of • Dr a i n a g e  ca p i t a l  pr o j e c t s • Eq u i p m e n t  re p l a c e m e n t Re c o m m e n d a t i o n • Co n d u c t  an a l y s i s  to  de t e r m i n e  im p a c t  on  dr a i n a g e  system by  am o u n t  of  im p e r v i o u s  ar e a  up d a t e  fe e  ac c o r d i n g l y Ma p & La r g e Do c u m e n t Pr i n t i n g Ma p  & La r g e  Do c u m e n t  Pr i n t i n g • Re p l a c e  cu r r e n t  la n g u a g e  fo r  fe e s  fo r  pr i n t i n g  co p i e s  of maps and  la r g e do c u m e n t s la r g e  do c u m e n t s   Th e  fo l l o w i n g  sc h e d u l e  of  fe e s  sh a l l  be  ad m i n i s t e r e d  by  th e  city engineer: Fl o o d p l a i n  ma p  .. . . . $  3. 0 0 St o r m  dr a i n a g e  ma s t e r  pl a n  .. . . . 3 5 . 0 0 Ma p s : 11 "  × 1 7 "  .. . . . 4 . 0 0 20 " × 20 " 70 0 20 "  × 20 "  .. . . . 7.00 36 "  × 3 6 "  .. . . . 1 5 . 0 0 62 "  ×6 2  .. . . . 4 0 . 0 0 Rd t i Rec o m m e n dati on • Al l  ma t e r i a l s  wi l l  be  di s t r i b u t e d  on  CD  fo r  a fl a t  fe e  of  $25 Ne w Ho m e Sa n i t a r y Se w e r In s p e c t i o n Fee Ne w  Ho m e  Sa n i t a r y  Se w e r  In s p e c t i o n  Fee • Be f o r e  a ce r t i f i c a t e  of  oc c u p a n c y  on  a ne w  ho u s e  is  id h i li d i ld b id iss u e d, the se r v ice  li ne  an d ma in wo u ld  be inspected  to  en s u r e  it  is  no t  bl o c k e d  by  co n s t r u c t i o n  de b r i s Th i ld b t f ll t d t th ti • Th i s wo u ld  be a se p a r a te fee  co ll ec ted at th e time  th e  bu i l d i n g  pe r m i t  is  is s u e d • Es t $1 5 0 20 0 to re c o v e r co s t s (K e l l e r ch a r g e s $225) • Es t . $1 5 0 ‐20 0  to  re c o v e r  co s t s  (K e l l e r  ch a r g e s  $225) • Th i s  in s p e c t i o n  wo u l d  be  ou t s o u r c e d In s p e c t i o n  Fe e  & De p o s i t (fo r  in s pec t i o n s  ou t s i d e  of  bu s i n e s s  ho u r s ) ( p ) • Fe e  fo r  al l  in s p e c t i o n s  pe r f o r m e d  ou t s i d e  of  regular  bu s i n e s s ho u r s is cu r r e n t l y $3 0 pe r ho u r (4 ho u r bu s i n e s s  ho u r s  is  cu r r e n t l y  $3 0  pe r  ho u r  (4  ho u r   mi n i m u m  on  Sa t u r d a y ;  no  Su n d a y s ) • In s p e c t i o n s of pu b l i c or pr i v a t e im p r o v e m e n t s • In s p e c t i o n s  of  pu b l i c  or  pr i v a t e  im p r o v e m e n t s Re c o m m e n d a t i o n $ • Fe e  of  $50  pe r  ho u r  to  co v e r  co s t s • De p o s i t  Re q u i r e d : – $1 0 0  to  be  pa i d  be f o r e  cl o s e  of  bu s i n e s s  on  Fr i d a y – $5 0  pe r  ho u r ;  mi n i m u m  of  2 ho u r s  = $1 0 0  de p o s i t Wo u l d be cr e d i t e d to w a r d s th e i r bi l l – Wo u l d  be  cr e d i t e d  to w a r d s  th e i r  bi l l De v e l o p m e n t Fe e s & Ch a r g e s De v e l o p m e n t  Fe e s  & Ch a r g e s PU D Am e n d m e n t PU D  Am e n d m e n t • PU D  Am e n d m e n t  is  a fo r m a l  am e n d m e n t  to  an  ex i s t i n g  PUD  Or d i n a n c e   • A ne w  PU D  Zo n i n g  Fe e  is  $5 0 0  + 5 pe r  ac r e St f f ti t PU D Ad t i ii l t th t t • St aff  ti me  sp e n t on  PU D  Ame n dme n ts is simil ar  to th at spent  on  a ne w  PU D  re q u e s t   in t e n t  is  to  re c o v e r  th e  co s t  of staff  ti m e  sp e n t  on  ad m i n i s t r a t i v e  re v i e w Re c o m m e n d a t i o n • Ch a n g e fe e fr o m $2 5 0 to $4 5 0 Ch a n g e  fe e  fr o m  $2 5 0  to  $4 5 0 • Ci t y  Av e r a g e  is  $4 2 8 Am e n d i n g Pl a t Am e n d i n g  Pl a t • Am e n d i n g  a Pl a t  re q u i r e s  ad m i n i s t r a t i v e  ap p r o v a l  on l y   • An  in c r e a s e  is  re c o m m e n d e d  du e  to • th e  am o u n t  of  st a f f  ti m e  sp e n t  on  th e  pl a t it it h it i lt f • co n s isten c y  wit h  ex isti ng  plat fee s • th e  re s u l t s  of  th e  su r v e y  of  fe e s  ch a r g e d  by  ou r  su r r o u n d i n g  cities Rd t i Rec o m m e n dati on • Ch a n g e  fe e  fr o m  $1 5 0  to  $2 5 0 • Ci t y Av e r a g e is $2 2 4 • Ci t y  Av e r a g e  is  $2 2 4 ZB A / S B A Va r i a n c e ZB A / S B A  Va r i a n c e • Fe e  ch a r g e d  fo r  va r i a n c e  re q u e s t s  to  th e  Zo n i n g  Bo a r d  of  Ad j u s t m e n t  an d  th e  Si g n  Bo a r d  of  Ap p e a l s • An  in c r e a s e  is  re c o m m e n d e d  fo r  bo t h  fe e s  du e  to • th e am o u n t of st a f f ti m e sp e n t on re v i e w of th e ap p l i c a t i o n • th e  am o u n t  of  st a f f  ti m e  sp e n t  on  re v i e w  of  th e  ap p l i c a t i o n • th e  re s u l t s  of  th e  su r v e y  of  fe e s  ch a r g e d  by  ou r  su r r o u n d i n g  ci t i e s Re c o m m e n d a t i o n Re c o m m e n d a t i o n • Ch a n g e  bo t h  fe e s  fr o m  $1 2 5  to  $1 7 5 • Ci t y Av e r a ge is  $16 5 ‐ ZB A  Va r i a n c e /App ea l y g $ /p p • Ci t y  Av e r a g e  is  $2 2 8 ‐ Si g n  Bo a r d  Ap p e a l Mi s c e l l a n e o u s Pe r m i t Fe e s Mi s c e l l a n e o u s  Pe r m i t  Fe e s Pe r m i t  Ty p e Ci t y  Av g . Cu r r e n t Proposed Fe n c e Pe r m i t $6 8 3 8 $2 5 0 0 $7500 Fe n c e  Pe r m i t $6 8 .38 $2 5 .00 $75.00 Wa l l  Si g n $ 7 1 . 3 2 $ 4 5 . 0 0 $ 7 5 . 0 0 De v e l o p m e n t  Si g n $ 7 0 . 1 0 $ 3 5 . 0 0 $ 7 5 . 0 0 Ne w  Re s i d e n c e  Pl a n  Re v i e w N / A $ 2 5 0 . 0 0 $ 3 5 0 . 0 0 Sw i m m i n g  Po o l  Pl a n  Re v i e w N / A $ 2 5 . 0 0 $ 5 0 . 0 0 Gd i & Et h k $8 3 6 7 $5 5 0 0 $7500 Gra di ng  & Ear th wo r k $8 3 .67 $5 5 .00 $75.00 Re s i d e n t i a l  Ad d i t i o n / R e m o d e l                    $1 1 4 . 0 0 $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 $ 1 5 0 . 0 0 Pl an Revi ew ($ 10, 0 0 0 +) a ee ($ 0, 0 0 0 ) Te m p o r a r y  Co n s t r u c t i o n  Tr a i l e r                $5 6 . 7 9 $ 9 4 . 0 0 $ 1 0 0 . 0 0 Co l l e y v i l l e  Ce n t e r Fe e s  & Ch a r g e s Co m b i n e Ba l u s t r a d a an d Ch a i r Re n t a l Co m b i n e  Ba l u s t r a d a an d  Ch a i r  Re n t a l  Ba l u s t r a d a R e n t a l  is  $1 5 0  Cu r r e n t l y ,  gu e s t s  mu s t   ar r a n g e  fo r  ch a i r  dr o p  of f  &  pi c k up pi c k  up  Ce n t e r  ha s  pu r c h a s e d  ch a i r s    Re c o m m e n d :    Co m b i n e d   F f $3 0 0 f Bl t d Fee  of $3 0 0  for  Balus tra da Re n t a l  AN D Ch a i r  Re n t a l  Co l l e y v i l l e  Ce n t e r  Ad v i s o r y   Co m m i t t e e  un a n i m o u s l y   ap p r o v e d    at  Ma y  20 th me e t i n g We e k e n d  St a n d a r d  Re n t a l  Ra t e s (8  ho u r s ;  en t i r e  bu i l d i n g ) Ty p i c a l  Us e :  76 % we e k e n d bo o k i n g s ar e no n ‐re s i d e n t 76 %  we e k e n d  bo o k i n g s  ar e  no n re s i d e n t  40 %  av g .  25 0 ‐30 0  gu e s t s  At t r a c t i n g  ve r y  yo u n g  ad u l t s  Al c o h o l  is  se r v e d  at  th e  ev e n t s Re s u l t i n g  Is s u e s :  Ad d i t i o n a l  st a f f i n g  is  re q u i r e d  (2  ev e n t  st a f f  vs .  1)  We a r an d te a r on bu i l d i n g fr o m la r g e pa r t i e s  We a r  an d  te a r  on  bu i l d i n g  fr o m  la r g e  pa r t i e s    We a r  an d  te a r  on  bu i l d i n g  fr o m  al l o w i n g  fo o d  br o u g h t  in  fr o m  re n t e r s  and  ou t s i d e  ve n d o r s  Ev e n i n g mu s i c  vo l u m e  mu s t  be  mo n i t o r e d  to  av o i d  no i s e  co m pla i n t s  from nearby  g p y pr o p e r t y  ow n e r s We e k e n d  St a n d a r d  Re n t a l  Ra t e s (8  ho u r s ;  en t i r e  bu i l d i n g ) Pr o p o s e d  Ra t e  Ch a n g e s :    No n ‐Re s i d e n t  Fr i d a y  & Su n d a y            $1 , 6 0 0   $1 , 8 0 0  Sa t u r d a y $1 , 8 0 0  $2 , 2 0 0 Sa t u r d a y $1 , 8 0 0   $2 , 2 0 0 Pr o p o s e d  Ra t e  Ch a n g e s :    Co l l e y v i l l e  Re s i d e n t / B u s i n e s s    20 %  di s c o u n t  on  ra t e s Fi d & Sd $1 2 8 0  $1 4 4 0  Frid ay  & Sun day            $1 ,28 0   $1 ,44 0  Sa t u r d a y $ 1 , 4 4 0   $1 , 7 6 0 Pr o p o s e d  Ra t e  Ch a n g e s :    No n ‐Pr o f i t s    50 %  di s c o u n t  on  ra t e s  fo r  Fr i d a y  an d  Su n d a y ;  20 %  di s c o u n t  on  ra t e s  for Saturday  Fr i d a y  & Su n d a y            $8 0 0         $9 0 0  Sa t u r d a y $ 1 , 4 4 0   $1 , 7 6 0  Co l l e y v i l l e  Ce n t e r  Ad v i s o r y  Co m m i t t e e  ap p r o v e d  at  Ma y  20 th me e t i n g  by  voting members  pr e s e n t  (7  ay e s ;  1 ab s t e n t i o n )  Al l  Ce n t e r  bo o k i n g s  th r o u g h  Se p t e m b e r  30 ,  20 1 3  wi l l  ha v e  ex i s t i n g  re n t a l  rates  df h d f h hl d f h d gr a n df at her e d ev e n  if the ev e n t  is  held  afte r  that  dat e Pa r k s  an d  Re c r e a t i o n   Fe e s  & Ch a r g e s To be Co n s i d e r e d … To  be  Co n s i d e r e d …  Af t e r th e re ‐br a n d i n g st u d y ha s be e n co m p l e t e d Af t e r  th e  re br a n d i n g  st u d y  ha s  be e n  co m p l e t e d   (a n t i c i p a t e d  Fa l l  20 1 3 )  Wa i t  to  ta k e  a co m pre h e n s i v e  lo o k  at  th a t  ti m e p Qu e s t i o n s an d Di s c u s s i o n Qu e s t i o n s  an d  Di s c u s s i o n City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number PC-3 Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Type Pre Council Department Public Works Title Discussion of a future worksession regarding sidewalks Explanation This item is to select a date for a City Council worksession to discuss possible revisions to the sidewalk policy as adopted by the 2008 Colleyville Supplemental Sidewalk Map. Staff recommends one of the following dates for the worksession: October 22, 23, 24, 29, or 30. Attachments City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number PC-4 Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Type Pre Council Department Finance Title Presentation of the Monthly Financial Report - June 2013 Explanation General Fund The percentage of current year taxes collected through the end of June is 98.64%, which is slightly behind that collected as of June 2012. Sales tax revenue received in June increased 13.36% or $25,942 from the amount received in June 2012. Year to date General Fund sales tax is up 8.37% ($132,918.) This is the fourth month of increased sales tax revenues as compared to the prior year, and is the highest June allocation ever reported. Thirteen new residential building permits were issued this month compared to 15 issued this time last year. Permit revenues exceed budgeted projections by $95,746. Revenues received from fines are down 7.48% compared to budgeted projections. Through June 2013, 490 fewer citations were issued, a decrease of 5.6%, when compared to last year. Also, due to the new court software installation and conversion, warrant issuance was delayed until mid-year, which also caused a decrease in revenues when compared to last fiscal year, however, all warrants have now been issued and are up to date. Ambulance collections are slightly behind budgeted projections and Colleyville Center's revenues are ahead of projections by $22,957. The average amount expended by the General Fund departments at the end of June is 65.81% of the total appropriation versus 67.00%, which was projected to be spent. Utility Fund Water usage has increased when compared to the amount sold through June 2012. The average amount expended by the Utility Fund departments at the end of June is 61.25% of the total appropriation versus 65.37%, which was projected to be spent. Attachments 1.June 2013 Monthly Financial Report MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JUNE 2013 GENERAL FUND RECEIVED PROJECTED RECEIPT VS RECEIVED PERCENT FY 2013 AS OF AS OF PROJECTED AS OF CHANGE OVER REVENUE SOURCE BUDGET 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 INCR (DECR)6/30/2012 PRIOR YEAR Current Taxes $10,825,606 $10,738,004 $10,732,244 0.05%$10,514,224 2.13% Delinquent Taxes 72,000 60,716 57,600 5.41%89,197 -31.93% Penalty & Interest 63,000 57,503 68,972 -16.63%62,403 -7.85% TOTAL AD VALOREM TAXES $10,960,606 $10,856,223 $10,858,816 -0.02%$10,665,825 1.79% Oncor Electric $840,000 $891,771 $840,000 6.16%$1,024,876 -12.99% Tri-County Electric 115,000 100,229 115,000 -12.84%118,281 -15.26% Atmos Gas 335,000 289,708 335,000 -13.52%333,098 -13.03% AT&T 85,000 63,518 63,750 -0.36%65,395 -2.87% Verizon/Others 75,000 68,248 56,250 21.33%65,690 3.89% Refuse/Recycling 145,800 116,602 109,350 6.63%104,485 11.60% Cable TV 378,000 347,815 283,500 22.69%305,267 13.94% TOTAL FRANCHISE TAXES $1,973,800 $1,877,891 $1,802,850 4.16%$2,017,091 -6.90% Sales Tax $2,675,000 $1,721,468 $1,659,019 3.76%$1,588,550 8.37% Mixed Beverage Tax 67,000 50,991 50,250 1.47%48,595 4.93% TOTAL SALES TAX $2,742,000 $1,772,459 $1,709,269 3.70%$1,637,145 8.27% Building $485,768 $388,579 $364,326 6.66%$526,524 -26.20% Plumbing 48,680 42,681 36,510 16.90%57,512 -25.79% Mechanical 28,868 29,781 21,651 37.55%34,658 -14.07% Electrical 37,568 39,963 28,176 41.83%49,243 -18.85% City License 37,372 31,605 28,029 12.76%36,925 -14.41% Building Plan Review Fee 55,207 79,549 41,405 92.12%85,741 -7.22% New Business 3,372 3,995 2,529 57.97%4,324 -7.61% Sign Permit 5,463 4,330 4,097 5.68%5,450 -20.55% Fence Permit 3,500 3,625 2,625 38.10%3,675 -1.36% Fire Permits 6,500 5,150 4,875 5.64%6,825 -24.54% Irrigation Permit 13,660 10,956 10,245 6.94%12,699 -13.73% TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS $725,958 $640,215 $544,469 17.59%$824,036 -22.31% Fines $795,000 $551,661 $596,250 -7.48%$650,290 -15.17% Alarm Fees 52,000 39,288 39,000 0.74%37,780 3.99% Library Fines 20,969 19,286 15,727 22.63%17,256 11.76% TOTAL FINES $867,969 $610,234 $650,977 -6.26%$705,326 -13.48% MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JUNE 2013 RECEIVED PROJECTED RECEIPT VS RECEIVED PERCENT REVENUE SOURCE FY 2013 AS OF AS OF PROJECTED AS OF CHANGE OVER BUDGET 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 INCR (DECR)6/30/2012 PRIOR YEAR Re-zoning $7,500 $6,080 $5,625 8.09%$10,455 -41.85% Plat Fee/Site Plan 4,000 8,530 3,000 184.33%5,373 -58.77% Board of Adjustment 1,250 1,625 938 73.33%2,000 -18.75% Sale of Material 100 158 75 110.33%103 52.86% Weed Mowing 6,500 5,677 4,875 16.45%6,465 -12.19% Ambulance 275,000 204,053 206,250 -1.07%244,950 -16.70% Recreation Program 145,000 109,678 108,750 0.85%118,779 -7.66% Non-Resident Fee Parks 36,570 35,838 36,570 -2.00%36,525 -1.88% Field Use Charge 22,500 20,575 22,500 -8.56%22,110 -6.94% Engineering & Inspection 0 48,453 0 100.00%12,424 289.99% Colleyville Center Rental 230,000 195,457 172,500 13.31%184,402 5.99% Lot Drainage Insp Fee 16,875 10,125 12,656 -20.00%15,125 -33.06% TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICE $745,295 $646,248 $573,739 12.64%$659,766 -2.05% SRO Officer Reimb $89,792 $94,282 $89,792 5.00%$89,792 5.00% Keller Court $216,980 $110,305 $108,490 1.67%$0 100.00% TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL $306,772 $204,587 $198,282 3.18%$89,792 127.85% Sale of Surplus Property $10,000 $0 $0 0.00%$6,195 -100.00% Interest Income 35,000 21,250 22,750 -6.59%27,444 -22.57% Miscellaneous 54,000 83,548 55,585 50.31%46,321 80.37% Use of Available Cash 1,000,000 0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Antenna Lease 70,040 59,559 56,728 4.99%56,728 4.99% TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS $1,169,040 $164,358 $135,063 21.69%$136,688 20.24% Transfer from Utility Fd $956,469 $0 $0 0.00%$0 0.00% TOTAL TRANSFERS $956,469 $0 $0 0.00%$0 0.00% TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES $20,447,909 $16,772,216 $16,473,464 1.81%$16,735,668 0.22% MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JUNE 2013 TOTAL PERCENT FY 2013 THROUGH THROUGH INCREASE INCREASE BUDGET 6/30/2013 6/30/2012 (DECREASE)(DECREASE) % OF CURRENT TAX ROLL COLLECTED 99.0%98.64%98.79%-0.15%-0.15% RESIDENTIAL BLDG PERMITS 132 72 117 (45)-38.46% COMMERCIAL BLDG PERMITS 7 6 6 0 0.00% CITATIONS ISSUED 11,750 8,346 8,836 (490)-5.55% GENERAL FUND EXPENSES EXPENDED YEAR-TO-DATE FY 2013 THROUGH PROJECTED % OF BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6/30/2013 EXPENDITURES EXPENDED REMAINING City Council $203,306 $178,089 $179,763 87.60%$25,217 City Manager 600,530 423,239 424,984 70.48%177,291 City Secretary 319,696 245,450 247,403 76.78%74,246 Finance 434,896 347,211 347,641 79.84%87,685 Legal 130,460 112,610 112,610 86.32%17,850 Engineering 393,139 304,657 305,536 77.49%88,482 Economic Development 379,692 209,329 217,864 55.13%170,363 Building Inspection 307,617 205,458 213,470 66.79%102,159 Community Development 238,064 149,423 150,815 62.77%88,641 Fire 4,113,285 3,151,197 3,168,798 76.61%962,088 Police 4,197,317 3,131,908 3,139,875 74.62%1,065,409 Parks 1,388,218 821,785 828,135 59.20%566,433 Recreation 309,175 164,431 177,034 53.18%144,744 Senior Center 51,328 16,409 17,723 31.97%34,919 Street Maintenance 3,340,996 1,270,282 1,399,864 38.02%2,070,714 Library 717,534 484,587 491,445 67.54%232,947 Communications 142,676 100,967 102,503 70.77%41,709 Colleyville Center 382,537 284,307 284,457 74.32%98,230 Human Resources 237,510 163,488 164,116 68.83%74,022 Municipal Court 411,805 285,465 289,989 69.32%126,340 Fleet Maintenance 227,322 160,290 160,850 70.51%67,032 Building Services 325,559 203,877 209,124 62.62%121,682 Information Services 757,927 609,084 633,403 80.36%148,843 Capital Equipment Reserve 231,000 231,000 231,000 100.00%0 Strategic Initiatives Fund Transfer 200,000 200,000 200,000 100.00%0 Performance Pay 402,751 - - 0.00%402,751 TOTAL EXPENSES $20,444,340 $13,454,541 $13,698,400 65.81%$6,989,799 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT - JUNE 2013 UTILITY FUND RECEIVED PROJECTED RECEIPT VS RECEIVED PERCENT FY 2013 AS OF AS OF PROJECTED AS OF CHANGE OVER REVENUE SOURCE BUDGET 6/30/2013 6/30/2013 INCR (DECR)6/30/2012 PRIOR YEAR Water Sales $9,361,814 $6,399,732 $6,858,015 -6.68%$5,857,766 9.25% Sewer Sales 2,884,565 2,368,581 2,163,424 9.48%2,241,840 5.65% Sewer Installation 7,000 7,900 5,250 50.48%11,300 -30.09% Water Installation 21,000 19,640 15,750 24.70%23,220 -15.42% Sewer Tie-on Charges 5,000 0 0 0.00%0 0.00% Engineering Charges 5,000 22,662 3,750 504.33%7,083 219.94% Penalties 183,696 131,581 137,772 -4.49%146,224 -10.01% Miscellaneous 13,000 13,109 9,750 34.45%12,882 1.76% TOTAL OPERATING INCOME $12,481,075 $8,963,205 $9,193,710 -2.51%$8,300,315 7.99% Interest Income $20,300 $27,357 $20,300 34.77%$23,459 16.62% TOTAL NON-OPERATING INCOME $20,300 $27,357 $20,300 34.77%$23,459 16.62% TOTAL INCOME $12,501,375 $8,990,562 $9,214,010 -2.43%$8,323,774 8.01% TOTAL PERCENT THROUGH THROUGH INCREASE INCREASE 6/30/2013 6/30/2012 (DECREASE)(DECREASE) GALLONS OF WATER SOLD 1,524,735,960 1,505,221,300 19,514,660 1.30% NUMBER OF WATER CUSTOMERS 9,348 9,219 129 1.40% UTILITY FUND EXPENSES EXPENDED YEAR-TO-DATE FY 2013 THROUGH PROJECTED % OF BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 6/30/2013 EXPENSES EXPENDED REMAINING Billing 382,501 267,465 $269,873 69.93%115,036 Operations 9,414,733 5,804,234 6,305,524 61.65%3,610,499 Utility Support 661,488 616,628 620,435 93.22%44,860 Debt Service 827,824 810,574 810,574 97.92%17,250 Performance Pay 28,470 0 0 0.00%28,470 Interfund loan repayment 44,286 44,286 44,286 100.00%0 Transfer to General Fund 956,469 $0 0 0.00%956,469 TOTAL EXPENSES $12,315,771 $7,543,187 $8,050,692 61.25%$4,772,584 City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number PC-5 Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Type Pre Council Department City Secretary Title Discussion of the July 16, 2013, City Council regular agenda items City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 1 Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Type Executive Session Department City Secretary Title Section 551.071 - Legal - Consultation with attorney on legal issues raised by public hearing or action items on the agenda Section 551.071 - Legal - Advice from the City Attorney regarding drainage Section 551.072 - Real Estate - Deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property for City facilities Section 551.087 – Economic Development - Discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the City has received from business prospects that the City seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in the City and with which the City is conducting economic development negotiations; deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect Attachments RESOLUTION R-13-3652 A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY COUNCIL ACTION REGARDING EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 16, 2013 WHEREAS,following discussion in Executive Session, and in full accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, the City Council determines that the following action is in the best interests of the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1.THAT the following actions of the City Council are hereby adopted and approved: a.THAT AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. APPROVED BY A VOTE OF ________ AYES, ________NAYS, AND ________ ABSTENTIONS ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013. ATTEST:CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Amy Shelley David Kelly City Secretary Mayor City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 3 Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Type Announcements, Proclamations and Presentations Department City Secretary Title In recognition of Colleyville's featured business - Luke's Locker, 5505 Colleyville Boulevard, Suite 102 - Mark Murphy and Paul Hudson - Mayor David Kelly and Economic Development Director Marty Wieder Donation to Special Olympics Texas from the Old Tyme BBQ event - Mayor David Kelly and Captain Robert Hinton Attachments RESOLUTION R-13-3653 A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY COUNCIL ACTION UNDER CONSENT ITEMS AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 16, 2013 WHEREAS,City Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Consent Items. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1.THAT the agenda decisions approved by City Council action under Consent Items as follows are hereby adopted: a.Approval of the minutes of the City Council worksession of June 26, 2013 b.Approval of the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of July 2, 2013 c.Approval of bid award for medical and dental insurance to Blue Cross Blue Shield and third-party administration of the flexible spending account and health reimbursement account to Total Administrative Services Corporation, and authorize the city manager to execute the agreement AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. APPROVED BY A VOTE OF ________ AYES, ________ NAYS, AND ________ ABSTENTIONS ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013. ATTEST:CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Amy Shelley David Kelly City Secretary Mayor City of Colleyville City Council Worksession Minutes - Draft City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com Wednesday, June 26, 2013 Mayor David Kelly called the Colleyville City Council Worksession to order on June 26, 2013, at 6:16 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mayor David Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor and Councilmembers Carol Wollin, Chuck Mogged, Stan Hall, Jody Short, and Tom Hart. City Manager Jennifer Fadden, Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake, Police Chief Mike Holder, Captain Robert Hinton, Interim Fire Chief Clif Nelson, Economic Development Director Marty Wieder, Parks and Recreation and Library Director Mary Rodne, Human Resources Director Michelle Reyes, Colleyville Center Manager Leslie Hill, Public Works Director Bob Lowry, City Engineer Jeremy Hutt, Management Assistant James Hubbard, Finance Manager Karen Hines, Community Development Director Ron Ruthven, Communications and Marketing Director Mona Gandy, Parks Superintendent Tim Hightshoe, Strategic Services Manager Adrienne Lothery, Information Systems Manager Chris Pena, and City Secretary Amy Shelley. 2. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 2a Update on the Fiscal Year 2014 budget process and Munis Strategic Services Manager Adrienne Lothery presented an update regarding the Fiscal Year 2014 budget process and MUNIS. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding cost reductions, are the trade-in packages applicable to those cost reductions? Manager Lothery replied there are several opportunities for cost savings within this budget process. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained staff would present major cost saving initiatives to City Council, prior to including them in the budget process. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the budget software. Manager Lothery stated she is very pleased with the budget component of the software. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding how quick the software updates. Finance Manager Karen Hines explained it is updated as soon as the checks are posted, usually within the same week. City of Colleyville Page 1 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 2b Update of major funds financial forecast Strategic Services Manager Adrienne Lothery presented the major funds financial forecast. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the patrol cars have a decal which states, “Paid for by CCCPD”? Mayor Kelly replied no. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he would like staff to consider placing such a decal on the patrol cars so citizens know where their tax dollars are being spent. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding why the street maintenance draw down stops in 2019. Manager Lothery replied it was determined that in the year 2019 the draw down would stop in order to maintain a comfortable level in the fund balance. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding the number of days of reserve to have on hand. Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake replied 90 days for the reserve. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding when the contract for the Bedford Response Area in Colleyville (BRAC) ends. Mayor Kelly stated the contract ends in 2015. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the available funding from the BRAC contract. Manager Lothery explained the funds become available for use, but not as an increase in the budget. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding the history of the one and a half percent. Manager Lothery replied inflationary costs for expenditures are reflected by this percent. Mayor Kelly added the budget has always been very conservative in the estimates. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding if the street construction includes the curb and gutter. Public Works Director Bob Lowry replied yes. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding the two percent (2%) for the non-discretionary. Manager Lothery explained the 2% is located in everything but the Trinity River Authority (TRA) amounts. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding the new police personnel; will they have a new vehicle? Police Chief Mike Holder replied yes. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding the cost of the compensation study. Manager Lothery explained this will have to come from the $700,000. City of Colleyville Page 2 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding if savings still exist from the merger with Colleyville and Keller regarding jail services? Chief Holder replied yes. Mayor Kelly explained the one city was going to charge more of a yearly fee, and wanted help from Colleyville to contribute to the new building. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding the number of new personnel. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained there are several other requests for additional personnel, above and beyond the City Council commitment for police officers and firefighters, however, staff will review and present those requests later in the budget process. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if City Council has three options. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained these were scenarios, not options, but staff will present a balanced budget at the August 13th worksession. She explained staff wants to present the entire budget picture, in terms of available resource appropriation of what is being considered for this next fiscal year and other years to come. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding the economic initiatives. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained those initiatives are in the strategic services fund. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding the available balance. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied there is approximately $200,000 available. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding the amount received from Whole Foods, where are those funds listed? City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained those funds are put into the general fund and are utilized for delivery of services. Mayor Kelly explained there are also TIF grant monies for specific purposes of economic initiatives. Manager Lothery explained in the Fiscal Year 2015 budget, a $100,000 dollar increase has been estimated for Whole Foods. City Manager Jennifer Fadden stated staff would appreciate any thoughts or City Council direction regarding the budget. Councilmember Hall stated having concerns with showing the BRAC as a revenue when it has been an expenditure. Manager Lothery stated staff wanted to show this amount as coming back into the budget to be used to help cover expenditures. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the mutual aid agreements are standing agreements. Mayor Kelly replied yes. City Manager Jennifer Fadden added the mutual aid agreements are with all neighboring cities. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding if there are measurements in place to help deliver these services for less. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained City of Colleyville Page 3 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 those options are on the radar; however, staff cannot incur those extra duties to implement an efficiency/process improvement team. Mayor Kelly stated there needs to be enough staff to cover the future new developments; therefore the personnel may need to be increased in Community Development. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained staff has provided those details in the service level enhancements, regarding the necessary personnel, given what the future workloads will require. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned the $600,000 on the compensation/classification study. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied the amount includes implementing the results of a study currently underway with Fox Lawson. She stated the results will be seen at the July 16th City Council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated this will be in excess of what was done with the police department compression. City Manager Jennifer Fadden concurred. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained the results of the study will bring Colleyville in line with the competitive market. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the study is completed. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied the study results will be presented to City Council on July 16. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding if this will be the cost of implementing the study. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied yes and the amount would then be added to payroll in the upcoming years. City Manager Jennifer Fadden stated we have known that over the last couple of years, over 50 percent of Colleyville employees are five percent below the competitive market. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated with the police department compression, Colleyville was really $800,000 out of line with the market. City Manager Jennifer Fadden concurred. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff if anymore adjustments will be coming forward in the future. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained additional adjustments may have to be made in or to keep up with the market. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if this will also clean up classifications for each job assignment. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied yes. Councilmember Wollin questioned the benefit or liability of doing the study this year versus doing it next year. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained the current City of Colleyville Page 4 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 service level enhancements and stated these items will be presented, in detail, at the August 13th meeting. Councilmember Short questioned staff regarding if there are cooperative efforts with contracts. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied yes, absolutely. Public Works Director Bob Lowry explained Grapevine has staff in house to maintain traffic signals. Councilmember Short stated they may be willing to pick up our traffic signals. Mayor Kelly questioned City Council regarding implementation of the compensation study. Councilmember Hall stated he would like to see the results before providing guidance of implementation. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated the place holder of $600,000 needs to remain. He stated implementation in the past has been done in partials, therefore compounding this budget. Mayor Kelly stated staffing levels are at about 30 percent compared to the surrounding cities. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated City Council may have to approve those salary adjustments once the results are given. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained the information will be presented at the July 16th meeting. Councilmember Hall stated the $2.4 million dollars in street maintenance funding needs to remain in place. Mayor Kelly stated other revenue sources such as a bond will have to be issued, since this cannot be maintained out of the revenue sources available. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated not seeing street projects done through bond issuance/packages in Colleyville. Councilmember Hall stated he did not think citizens will go for such a bond issuance. He stated citizens expect roads to be taken care of with their taxes. Mayor Kelly explained it is, up to certain levels, however, certain levels cannot be maintained with the current revenue sources. Councilmember Hart stated he feels the citizens will support it. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated the citizens are going to support the roads in which they heavily travel. 2c Presentation of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Public Works Director Bob Lowry presented the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). City of Colleyville Page 5 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained the TIF monies and how those funds are used regarding roadway construction. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the available TIF funding. Director Lowry replied this includes the amount of funding available minus the other TIF commitments. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the TIF revenue decreases in the upcoming years. Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake explained these are conservative available amounts to be spent on other commitments within the TIP project plan. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding if the school district is excluded. Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake replied yes. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned why are the available TIF funds dropping off rather than increasing. Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Terry replied with some of the projects being completed, there will not be a tremendous amount of growth over the next few years. She explained it is entirely likely that the $3,000,000 would be spent in 2017 based on the project plan. She stated some of the funds, from the original project plan in 1998, have not been spent. She added over the next five years, that money will be spent on projects within the TIF. City Manager Jennifer Fadden stated in 2019 the debt becomes fully serviced. Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake explained that $700,000 in debt is spent each year. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the TIF will collapse at that point. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained City Council amended the TIF to continue to 2029 with additional categories for the remainder of the TIF. She stated $44 million will be available to be spent through the life of the TIF. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding the construction of a sidewalk versus a trail along Glade Road. Director Lowry replied some sidewalks and trails currently exist on Glade Road. He added more right-of-way is needed for a trail versus a sidewalk. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding the right-of-way on Pleasant Run Road. Director Lowry replied some right-of-way may need to be acquired. Councilmember Short questioned staff regarding if any money will be recovered from the gas drilling operation as it relates to Pleasant Run Road. Director Lowry replied $30,000 has been received. He stated not much additional damage has occurred with this operation. City of Colleyville Page 6 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding the Whites Chapel Road bridge, is it in Colleyville? Director Lowry replied it is shared with Southlake. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the construction on Glade Road is to begin at Pool Road and end at Bransford Road. Director Lowry stated the consultant has not concluded what Phase I will include. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding the $17 million. Director Lowry replied the $17 million is committed. Councilmember Short questioned staff regarding other opportunities for funding. Director Lowry explained staff is always looking for other opportunities for funding. Mayor Kelly stated there may be revisions to the criteria for alternative funding. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the Bedford Road and Cheek- Sparger Road round-a-bout, when is this anticipated to be constructed. Director Lowry replied not sure when this will be constructed since it will be funded by the developer. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if impact fees have been contributed to the round-a-about at Bedford Road and Cheek-Sparger Road. Director Lowry replied yes. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained impact fees are being waived for this developer, not existing impact fees. Community Development Director Ron Ruthven explained Covenant Christian Academy has also contributed impact fees as well. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated those impact fees should be noted here. Director Lowry explained it was an oversight on his behalf, and that the developer is constructing this on their own. Councilmember Mogged questioned the bridges on Heritage Avenue. Director Lowry stated the developer, in the future, will need to contribute to the construction/improvements to that infrastructure. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding if Heritage Avenue is completely within Colleyville. Director Lowry replied yes. Councilmember Short questioned staff regarding if a guard rail exists on Heritage Avenue. Director Lowry replied yes. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding the dollar amount estimate for Roberts Road. Director Lowry explained Roberts Road but did not have an estimate. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if Roberts Road is a product of an improperly constructed road. Director Lowry replied yes. City of Colleyville Page 7 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Mayor Kelly questioned staff’s ability to handle more projects, in any given year. Director Lowry replied staff will not be able to handle any more projects without adding more staff. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained staff cannot handle additional projects. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the subtotals under the proposed funding for each year. Director Lowry explained the project plan. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the salary issue is included in the $2.4 million. City Manager Jennifer Fadden stated the $2.4 million is unfunded, at this time. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the $9 million is being proposed unless City Council changes it. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied yes. Councilmember Hall stated he liked the presentation. Mayor Kelly stated the $2.4 million for street maintenance in the current service levels, does not include street reconstruction. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained the City is utilizing a portion of the $2.4 million for street reconstruction. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the inflation rate being used. Director Lowry replied no inflation rate is being used, these are current dollars. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding street failures. Director Lowry replied if there are massive street failures, the City will have to cancel a project. City Manager Jennifer Fadden stated the budget could be amended. City Manager Jennifer Fadden stated street maintenance is not a form of street reconstruction. Councilmember Mogged stated the program may have delays rather than cancelling projects if there are unexpected issues. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated being in favor of the proposed plan since it identifies the needs. He added these may be problems right now, but elected officials are responsible for deciding how to remedy those problems. Director Lowry stated this is staff’s best effort to identify the worst need. Mayor Kelly concurred. Councilmember Hart stated a bond election is going to have to be held, in the future, to take care of some of these projects, which cannot be funded. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated it would free up the burden onto other projects. He stated most citizens do not understand these needs. City of Colleyville Page 8 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Councilmember Short questioned staff regarding when the CIP plan would be reviewed. Director Lowry stated this presentation was simply an overview, but that City Council may give direction to staff at any time. City Manager Jennifer Fadden stated input received this evening would be incorporated into the CIP when the proposed budget is presented. Mayor Kelly stated he will rely on staff’s judgment since they are the experts. Councilmember Short stated Roberts Road appears to be the big issue. City Manager Jennifer Fadden questioned City Council regarding if there were any projects in which they felt needed further direction. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he would like to discuss the Service Center need. Mayor Kelly stated that is discussed in the next item on the agenda. Mayor Kelly recessed the meeting at 8:46 p.m. Mayor Kelly reconvened the meeting at 8:54 p.m. 2d Presentation of facility needs Public Works Director Bob Lowry updated City Council regarding facility needs. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding how the Council Chambers was approved but did not meet the requirements of the state for ADA compliance. Director Lowry replied not knowing how it received approval. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding if the original contractor can be contacted to fix the issue. Director Lowry replied it was never approved by an ADA state approved contractor. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding how does the City Council know that the installation is not going to be done wrong, again? Director Lowry replied it takes quality inspectors, not civil engineering technicians. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated there is a perception that the City signed off on something, therefore it was approved. He stated there is a great misunderstanding of what a quality inspector or a type of an inspector inspects. He further added the money has been spent on this once, now those funds have to be used again when they could be used for something else. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding the expensive quote for the cleaning of the stone at City Hall. Director Lowry replied the stone should have been sealed in the beginning. City of Colleyville Page 9 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding if a water fountain could be installed on the third floor. Director Lowry replied it would be very expensive to install a fountain. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding if the roof leaks have been repaired at the Justice Center. Director Lowry replied temporarily. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the previous renovations to Colleyville Center. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained the countertops were not replaced and therefore need to be replaced with stone. She added those countertops are used and abused. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the painting of the trim. Colleyville Center Manager Leslie Hill explained the trim/mill work was not painted during the previous renovations; the trim was last painted in 2007. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the stage area. Manager Hill explained the stage had not been renovated in the last updates made to the Center. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained these items were not included in the scope of the original renovation plan. Councilmember Hall questioned staff regarding if the debt is still being paid for that renovation. City Manager Jennifer Fadden replied debt was not issued for the renovation, the money was borrowed from the Colleyville Tomorrow Fund and one year is left to pay into this fund from CEDC money. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he thought these items were included in the scope, especially the usable areas. Director Lowry stated a budget is established and then the design is completed. He stated some of these items may have been eliminated to meet the budget. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the loggia water fountain. Director Lowry replied the entire fountain will be repaired. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding funds appropriated towards building maintenance. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained the funds that have been appropriated for these projects. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding if the generator would be for the entire City Hall versus only sections of City Hall. Director Lowry replied only if that is determined as a priority need. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding if staff can operate in other locations if City Hall were to lose power. Assistant City Manager/Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake replied yes. City of Colleyville Page 10 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding what is to be done in the event of a disaster. Mayor Kelly stated a presentation can be given. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he would like City Council to go through the building permit process in the building inspection department. Councilmember Hall stated he would like a security briefing done with the entire City Council. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he would like to see this done yearly. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding funding sources available for some of the items. Director Lowry replied yes and those are the highest priority. Councilmember Mogged stated he would like to take a tour of the public works department. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor concurred. 2e Update of the Information Technology Strategic Plan Information Systems Manager Chris Pena updated City Council regarding the Information Technology Strategic Plan. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding what is the backup plan if telecommunications goes down. Manager Pena explained there are currently POTTS lines in place for backup. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if items are going to be uploaded to Laserfiche, especially prior to 2000. City Manager Jennifer Fadden yes, as staff has time to be able, the information will be uploaded. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if there will be geographic distance between the cities in which will help with offsite data systems. Manager Pena replied this project is still being studied for the best possible solution and cost. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding when the ISM strategic plan through FY 2018 will be presented. Manager Pena replied not knowing for sure. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding what is the digital signage platform. Manager Pena stated these are monitors installed in City buildings, like the one in the Library foyer. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the “Call on Colleyville.” Manager Pena replied that is the program for citizens to use when they have a request. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the blade chassis and servers at City Hall, are they worn out? Manager Pena replied yes, there is about a five to seven year window for them. City of Colleyville Page 11 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if they have been worth their investment. Manager Pena replied yes. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained that the 2014 and 2015 initiatives are not in the current budget nor funded, and will therefore have to compete for funding within the service level enhancements. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the authorized plan. City Manager Jennifer Fadden explained there is a contingency on the plan with whether or not it can be funded. She stated there are several service level enhancements which will compete for funding. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the desktops and thin client, are they in jeopardy? Manager Pena replied no. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding the use of laptops. Manager Pena explained the laptops will be reviewed for their continued use next year. 2f Presentation of the Fiscal Year 2013 Employee Opinion Survey Human Resources Director Michelle Reyes presented the Fiscal Year 2013 Employee Opinion Survey. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding if the survey is coded such that one can see if the issues are within any particular area. Director Reyes replied a question does identify the department, and therefore some responses can be made for particular areas. She stated trends can be monitored so that focus can be made in those areas. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding if the surveys are done with paper or online. Director Reyes replied the survey may be done both ways, paper and online. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding if all employees have access to the internet. Director Reyes replied yes, with shared computers. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding if the Employee Assistance Program is through the same broker as the health insurance. Director Reyes replied they are separate, with Alliance Work Partners. 3. ADJOURNMENT The City Council worksession adjourned at 10:29 p.m. APPROVED BY A VOTE OF ________ AYES, ________ NAYS, AND ________ ABSTENTIONS ON THIS THE ________ DAY OF _______________ _____. City of Colleyville Page 12 City Council Minutes - DRAFT June 26, 2013 Minutes taken and prepared by: Amy Shelley City Secretary City of Colleyville Page 13 City of Colleyville City Council Draft – Minutes City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 817. 503.1000 www.colleyville.com Tuesday, July 2, 2013 City Council Chambers Mayor David Kelly called the Pre Council meeting of the Colleyville City Council to order on July 2, 2013, at 5:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mayor David Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor and Councilmembers Carol Wollin, Chuck Mogged, Jody Short, and Tom Hart. Absent: Councilmember Stan Hall City Manager Jennifer Fadden, Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake, Police Chief Mike Holder, Captain Robert Hinton, Interim Fire Chief Clif Nelson, Economic Development Director Marty Wieder, Parks and Recreation and Library Director Mary Rodne, Recreation/City Events Manager Lisa Escobedo, Human Resources Director Michelle Reyes, Colleyville Center Manager Leslie Hill, Public Works Director Bob Lowry, City Engineer Jeremy Hutt, Community Development Director Ron Ruthven, Communications and Marketing Director Mona Gandy, Information Systems Manager Chris Pena, City Attorney Matthew Boyle, and City Secretary Amy Shelley. PC-1 Discussion of health insurance bid analysis and recommendation Human Resources Director Michelle Reyes introduced Ed Oleksiak with Holmes Murphy to discuss the health care reform. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned Mr. Oleksiak regarding if the delayed mandate will affect the City. Mr. Oleksiak replied yes. Councilmember Hart questioned Mr. Oleksiak regarding if the employee would be able to opt back into the City’s plan. Mr. Oleksiak replied yes, at the time of open enrollment. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned Mr. Oleksiak regarding if there are any caps related to catastrophic events. Mr. Oleksiak replied $6,350 for an individual, and double that for a family, this being the maximum out-of-pocket expense. He stated there is no cap on the amount that the actual plan has to pay. Councilmember Mogged questioned Mr. Oleksiak regarding “cadillac” plans being hit with extra tax assessments. Mr. Oleksiak explained the excise tax being assessed. City of Colleyville Page 1 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 Mayor Kelly questioned Mr. Oleksiak regarding if this tax will be assessed to the marketplace plans or private plans. Mr. Oleksiak replied primarily plans will try to avoid the tax. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned Mr. Oleksiak regarding the reason for the excise tax of 40 percent. Mr. Oleksiak replied they want to see how much tax they can avoid by having these rich plans. He stated the theory was that the plans were tax free. Director Reyes updated City Council regarding the health insurance renewal rates. Councilmember Wollin questioned staff regarding how many months are considered mature to be with a carrier. Director Reyes replied 12 months with a single carrier is considered to be mature in order to review the history. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding comparisons of the surrounding cities. Director Reyes replied another city is at a 150 percent loss ratio and others over 100. She stated currently Colleyville’s loss ratio is at 59 percent. She added a single catastrophic event could raise this percentage significantly and that surrounding cities are experiencing double digit increases. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding if the Texas Municipal League has added anything to the discussion for the state of Texas, in general. Director Reyes replied no, but that other clients with Holmes Murphy have experienced the same increases. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding dental insurance. Director Reyes explained the dental insurance will renew for an additional year. Mayor Kelly adjourned the Pre Council meeting at 6:09 p.m. PC-2 Presentation and discussion regarding special events Mayor Kelly reconvened the Pre Council meeting at 8:22 p.m. Parks and Recreation and Library Director Mary Rodne and Community Development Director Ron Ruthven updated City Council with a presentation regarding special events. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding where the egg hunt was held previously. Director Rodne explained it has been held in front of the parks building and at times it was held at the old city hall property. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding the parking space numbers. Director Ruthven stated there are approximately 200 parking spaces. City of Colleyville Page 2 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the parking space numbers at Colleyville Center, including the unimproved parking area. Director Ruthven stated there are 189 parking spaces located at Colleyville Center; however that does not include the unimproved parking areas. Economic Development Director Marty Wieder explained the City Hall and Library complex should have been constructed with the thought of a plaza in place for such events. Mayor Kelly stated a venue for large events versus small events needs to be considered. He stated there are several smaller events associated with the Library in which a developed plaza will affect the available space. Director Wieder stated staff is not recommending a developed plaza. Mayor Kelly stated Colleyville Center has the green town center aspect and therefore it would not have to be created. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated the smaller events can still be held with a developed property. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated having several concerns for the subject properties: 1) not City owned property; 2) lost ad valorem revenue if purchased by the City; and 3) properties are off the beaten path and hard to see. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated the Colleyville Center grounds can be altered, such as removing the pond areas. Mayor Kelly stated being in favor of considering the properties directly in front of the Library. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated purchasing the entire property does not make sense. Mayor Kelly stated having concerns with taking away from the future retail development along Main Street. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated both properties are within the TIF district. Councilmember Short stated having a difficult time ignoring the history of the development. He stated there has not been a cooperative effort between the commercial development and the municipality to create these events. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated we are serving two types of citizens, the ones here now, and the ones that will be here. Councilmember Mogged stated he is not sure this property will ever work for the large events. City of Colleyville Page 3 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 Mayor Kelly stated an investment has been made inside the Colleyville Center but that there may be a need to invest in the outside of Colleyville Center and re- purpose that area. Councilmember Wollin stated she would like a master plan to be put together for Colleyville Center. She further stated she would like staff to look at the options for the four lots versus the six lots. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding the funding sources for either the four lots or the six lots. Councilmember Short stated the band stand area at City Park may need to be considered. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated there are options for updating the outdoor area at Colleyville Center. Mayor Kelly recessed the Pre Council meeting at 9:33 p.m. PC-3 Discussion of the July 2, 2013, City Council regular agenda items There was no discussion of this item. The regular meeting of the Colleyville City Council was called to order by Mayor Kelly on July 2, 2013, at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL: Mayor David Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor and Councilmembers Carol Wollin, Chuck Mogged, Jody Short, and Tom Hart. Absent: Councilmember Stan Hall City Manager Jennifer Fadden, Assistant City Manager and Chief Financial Officer Terry Leake, Police Chief Mike Holder, Captain Robert Hinton, Interim Fire Chief Clif Nelson, Economic Development Director Marty Wieder, Public Works Director Bob Lowry, City Engineer Jeremy Hutt, Community Development Director Ron Ruthven, Community Development Coordinator Darren Cain, Communications and Marketing Director Mona Gandy, Information Systems Manager Chris Pena, City Attorney Matthew Boyle, and City Secretary Amy Shelley. 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION - In accordance with Texas Government Code Chapter 551, Subchapter D Section 551.071 - Legal - Consultation with attorney on legal issues raised by public hearing or action items on the agenda City of Colleyville Page 4 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 Section 551.072 - Real Estate - Deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property for City facilities Section 551.087 – Economic Development - Discuss or deliberate regarding commercial or financial information that the City has received from business prospects that the City seeks to have locate, stay, or expand in the City and with which the City is conducting economic development negotiations; deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect Mayor Kelly explained the Executive Session had been called in accordance with the Texas Government Code, Chapter 551, Subchapter D, Section 551.071, Legal, Section 551.072, Real Estate, and Section 551.087, Economic Development. He further explained there would be no decisions made or action taken during this time. The meeting was recessed at 6:09 p.m. and reconvened at 6:10 p.m. INVOCATION: Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: City Attorney Matthew Boyle 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: CONSIDER AND TAKE ANY ACTION(S) NECESSARY RELATIVE TO ITEMS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION - Resolution R-13-3648 This resolution was not needed. 3. ANNOUNCEMENTS, PROCLAMATIONS, AND PRESENTATIONS Announcements of civic and charitable events Presentation of calendar events and updates Announcements of awards and recognition Proclamation in recognition of Parks and Recreation Month - Mary Rodne, Library and Parks and Recreation Director Mayor Kelly presented a proclamation in recognition of July being Parks and Recreation Month to Mary Rodne, Library and Parks and Recreation Director and Recreation/City Events Manager Lisa Escobedo. 4. CONSENT: READING AND PUBLIC HEARING - Resolution R-13-3649 4a Approval of the minutes of the regular City Council meeting of June 18, 2013 4b Approval of a preliminary plat for 12.0 acres on Tracts 3, 3E, and 3F, of Abstract 936 of the Joseph M. Looney Survey, and Lot 1, Block 1, of the Bone Addition, located at 5008 and 5100 Bluebonnet Drive, Case PC12-021 City of Colleyville Page 5 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 4c Approval of a contract with Castro Roofing of Texas, LP, for repairs to the roofs on City Hall and the Library through the TIPS/TAPS Cooperative Purchasing Network, in an amount not to exceed $248,902, and authorize the city manager to execute the contract 4d Approval of a change order to the 2012 Pavement Rehabilitation Project, in the amount of $95,203.04, and authorize the city manager to execute the change order 4e Approval of the Colleyville Events Steering Committee Bylaws Mayor Kelly read Resolution R-13-3649 in its entirety. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding prohibiting original contractors, who did not meet expectations, from performing work in the City. Public Works Director Bob Lowry explained there are challenges with that request since competitive bids are sought for work performed in the City. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if this is the same contractor who put the original roofs on the City Hall and the Library. Director Lowry replied no. City Attorney Matthew Boyle stated the City may prohibit work performed by contractors who did not meet expectations. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he would like for staff to inform City Council regarding why any particular contractor is chosen to perform work on City facilities. Councilmember Hart questioned staff regarding the warranty. Director Lowry replied there will be a 20 year warranty with annual inspections for the first ten years. Mayor Kelly opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Kelly closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor moved to approve Resolution R-13-3649. Councilmember Hart seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Mayor David Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor, and Councilmembers Carol Wollin, Chuck Mogged, Jody Short, and Tom Hart City of Colleyville Page 6 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 Absent: 1 - Councilmember Stan Hall 5. ORDINANCE(S): SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING 5a Ordinance O-13-1879 Approval of the Fiscal Year 2014 (FY 2014) Colleyville Crime Control and Prevention District budget Mayor Kelly read the caption of Ordinance O-13-1879. Police Chief Mike Holder presented the agenda item and briefed the City Council. Mayor Kelly opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. There was no one present wishing to speak and Mayor Kelly closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Councilmember Wollin moved to approve Ordinance O-13-1879. Councilmember Hart seconded the motion. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor stated he would like decals placed on the police vehicles to include “Paid for by CCCPD” so citizens will know where their money is being spent. Chief Holder explained the pricing, for such graphics, will be included. The motion to approve carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Mayor David Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor, and Councilmembers Carol Wollin, Chuck Mogged, Jody Short, and Tom Hart Absent: 1 - Councilmember Stan Hall 6. ORDINANCE(S): FIRST READING AND PUBLIC HEARING 6a Ordinance O-13-1880 Consideration for a zoning change from R40-Single Family Residential to R20-Single Family Residential on 10.2 acres on Lot 1, Block 1, of the Stajduhar Addition located at 816 W. L.D. Lockett Road, Case ZC13-006 Mayor Kelly read the caption of Ordinance O-13-1880. Community Development Director Ron Ruthven presented the agenda item and briefed the City Council. Mayor Kelly opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. City of Colleyville Page 7 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 John Dickerson, 8333 Douglas Avenue, Dallas, the applicant, presented the agenda item and briefed the City Council. Steve Nykiel, 5909 Kays Court, spoke in opposition to this request with concerns for flooding and further stated he would like for Laura Lane to be gated. Pamela Nykiel, 5909 Kays Court, spoke in opposition to this request with concerns for flooding. Walter Scott, 5917 Kays Court, spoke in opposition to this request stated having concerns of flooding and an increase in traffic. He stated he would like Laura Lane to be gated. The following persons did not wish to speak but wanted to express their opposition: Brian Chandler, 6205 Emmas Court; David Warrick, 6104 Emmas Court; Elizabeth Warrick, 6104 Emmas Court; and Diane Rawson, 6208 Emmas Court. There were no others wishing to speak and Mayor Kelly closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. City Attorney Matthew Boyle explained the difference between a straight zoning request versus a planned unit development request. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding drainage and if it will be met with a straight zoning request. City Engineer Jeremy Hutt explained the flow rate cannot exceed the rate at which it currently exists as undeveloped property. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding the retention pond on the Covington Addition, is it contributing to the drainage issue? Engineer Hutt replied the pond does overflow and travel to Laura Lane. Councilmember Mogged questioned staff regarding if they will have to remedy the drainage issues. Engineer Hutt replied the developer will have to meet the requirements of the Land Development Code. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the drainage from the subject property. Engineer Hutt replied there is a natural flow to Laura Lane, but the inlet may not be working properly. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding the topography of the land, is the land sloping toward L.D. Lockett, north to south or south to north. Engineer Hutt explained the low point of the subject property. City of Colleyville Page 8 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the water from Laura Lane and Kays Court travel to the Crescent Lane detention ponds. Engineer Hutt replied yes. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the Covington Addition water shed breaks to the east or to the west. Engineer Hutt replied a portion of the Covington Addition water does break to the east and a portion breaks to the west. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the development of this property addresses the drainage issues to Precinct Line Road. Engineer Hutt replied yes. Mayor Pro Tem Taylor questioned staff regarding if the water will continue to cause turbulence at the intersection of Kays Court and Laura Lane. Engineer Hutt replied the water will continue into the inlets at Laura Lane or to the proposed street, St. Andrews. Mayor Pro Tem questioned Mr. Nykiel regarding if all of the lots on Kays Court are fully developed. Mr. Nykiel replied no. Councilmember Wollin questioned staff regarding the open space lots, are those lots in the correct location to collect the drainage. Engineer Hutt replied those lots appear to be reasonable in those locations. He stated the development of the roadway may have an effect on those lots. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding the zoning districts in this area. Director Ruthven replied the Covington Addition to the east is zoned R20, the west is zoned R20, and Emerald Park is a higher density. Mayor Kelly questioned staff regarding if the gates located at Kays Court and Laura Lane are in place. Director Ruthven replied no. Mayor Kelly stated the Fire Marshal needs to check the gates in those locations. 7. RESOLUTION(S): READING AND PUBLIC HEARING 7a Resolution R-13-3650 Approval of a resolution changing the date of the first August 2013 City Council meeting Mayor Kelly read Resolution R-13-3650 in its entirety. City Secretary Amy Shelley presented the agenda item and briefed the City Council. Mayor Kelly opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. City of Colleyville Page 9 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 There was no one present wishing to speak concerning this item and Mayor Kelly closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. Councilmember Hart moved to approve Resolution R-13-3650. Councilmember Mogged seconded the motion. The motion to approve carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Mayor David Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor, and Councilmembers Carol Wollin, Chuck Mogged, Jody Short, and Tom Hart Absent: 1 - Councilmember Stan Hall 8. CITIZEN COMMENTS/PRESENTATIONS REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA There was no discussion of this item. 9. REPORTS Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - June 10, 2013 There was no discussion of this item. 10. ACTION/RESOLUTION: DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RATIFYING COUNCIL AGENDA ACTION FOR JULY 2, 2013 - Reading and Public Hearing - Resolution R-13-3651 This resolution was not needed. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council, Councilmember Mogged moved to adjourn, and Councilmember Wollin seconded the motion. The motion carried with the following vote: Aye: 6 - Mayor David Kelly, Mayor Pro Tem Mike Taylor, and Councilmembers Carol Wollin, Chuck Mogged, Jody Short, and Tom Hart Absent: 1 - Councilmember Stan Hall Mayor Kelly adjourned the City Council meeting at 8:22 p.m. City of Colleyville Page 10 City Council Draft - Minutes July 2, 2013 APPROVED BY A VOTE OF ________ AYES, ________ NAYS, AND ________ ABSTENTIONS ON THIS THE ________ DAY OF ______________, 2013. Minutes taken and prepared by: Amy Shelley City Secretary City of Colleyville Page 11 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 4c Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Number Resolution R-13-3653 Type Resolution Department Human Resources Title Approval of bid award for medical and dental insurance to Blue Cross Blue Shield and third-party administration of the flexible spending account and health reimbursement account to Total Administrative Services Corporation, and authorize the city manager to execute the agreement Explanation Reading and Public Hearing At the July 2, 2013 Pre Council meeting, staff presented to City Council the analysis of the medical and dental insurance and third-party administration of the flexible spending account and health reimbursement arrangement bid results, and provided supplemental information on the employee wellness initiative. In May 2013, staff received the medical insurance renewal from Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS), which reflected a 9.9% rate increase. The City's dental provider, also BCBS, submitted a rate pass due to a two-year rate guarantee effective through Fiscal Year 2014 (FY 2014). Staff initiated a bid process for employee medical and dental insurance, in an effort to obtain competitive offers and potential economies of scale. Also included in the bid process was the third-party administration of the flexible spending account (FSA) and health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), which had not been out to bid for several years. As a point of reference, the initial FY 2014 renewal rate for medical insurance premiums from BCBS was an increase of 9.9%, or approximately $141,498 annually, with an estimated additional 4.0% increase, or an additional $47,122 annually, in January 2014 for anticipated fees associated with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The renewal rate of 9.9% was based upon several factors. One factor was the existing plan design, which consists of a $2,000 individual / $4,000 family in network deductible, 90% in network coinsurance, $25 office visit co-pay, and an out-of-pocket maximum of $1,000 individual / $2,000 family. Other factors affecting the renewal rate included claims data for the period of October 2012 through April 2013 and group size. Regarding claims data, the City changed insurance carriers in FY 2013 from Aetna to BCBS and had only experienced seven months of medical claims at the time the renewal rate was due. During the seven-month period with BCBS, medical claims were favorable. The average claims to premiums ratio (loss ratio) was 60% (insurance carriers prefer to see 85% or less), and two large claims (defined by BCBS as claimants who have paid expenses in excess of $30,000 within the reporting period) were incurred City of Colleyville Page 1 City Council Agenda Briefing 4c with a value of approximately $96,000. Comparatively, during the 12-month period in fiscal year 2012, the loss ratio was 64% and 10 large claims (defined by Aetna as claimants who have paid expenses in excess of $25,000 within the reporting period) were incurred with a value of approximately $388,000. However, having experienced seven months of medical claims with a new vendor in the current fiscal year, the claims data is considered immature to insurance carriers and affects how premiums are assessed. Regarding group size, the average number of participants in the health plan for FY 2013 is estimated at 158 employees and 204 dependents for a total average of 362 participants which insurance carriers consider small and therefore potentially more of a risk. One catastrophic or large claim could drive the loss ratio up which means potentially more costs to the insurance carrier. Medical Insurance The City advertised and instructed the City’s benefit consultant, Holmes Murphy & Associates, LLC (Holmes Murphy) to seek competitive bid proposals using the City's current plan design from all National Tier 1 and Tier 2 companies. Tier levels are defined by the highest percentage of membership within the state (Attachment A). The bid opening took place on June 3, 2013. Proposals were received from BCBS and Texas Municipal League (TML) Intergovernmental Employee Benefits Pool. The low response rate this year is mainly indicative of upcoming health care reform and the City’s immature claims. The feedback received from the carriers, such as United Healthcare, Cigna and Aetna, who typically bid on the insurance each year, is they are anticipating the impact of the PPACA on their existing client groups while minimizing risk by avoiding the addition of new business, especially of groups with immature claims. The Employee Benefits/Wellness Committee (the “Committee”) (Attachment B) met with the Assistant City Manager / Chief Financial Officer and Holmes Murphy to review the medical proposals received. In reviewing the proposals, the Committee and Holmes Murphy compared proposed benefit levels, physician networks, coinsurance, deductibles, pharmacy and office visit coverage, and proposed premiums. The primary goal when evaluating the two options was to find a financially feasible medical insurance plan that would continue to provide similar or same benefits to employees. The Committee focused on the BCBS bid because keeping the current carrier would prevent disruption for employees, was the least expensive option and maintained current plan design. Ultimately, BCBS was able to obtain and consider one more month of claims data that was not available at the time the original renewal rate was due. The month of May 2013 was favorable at 55%. BCBS provided a final competitive bid increase of 4.5% in premium costs (approximately $64,312 annually assuming all participants are at Tier I in the wellness program and receiving the full City subsidy) effective October 1, 2013. Additionally, beginning January 1, 2014, due to health care reform, costs will be passed on from BCBS to the City to reflect the effects of the Health Insurer Fees and Reinsurance Fees. The cost is anticipated to be an additional 4.0% increase of premiums, or approximately $44,807, in FY 2014. Final regulations and guidance regarding these fees, which will be assessed January 1, 2014 by the federal City of Colleyville Page 2 City Council Agenda Briefing 4c government, have not been fully established. BCBS’s approach is to wait until these fees are known before passing them on to their client groups whereas TML has anticipated the fee costs and included them in their premium increase effective October 1, 2013. The Committee viewed BCBS’s bid more favorably than TML’s bid which consisted of a 13.22% increase in premium costs (approximately $188,877 annually and including fees under the PPACA) and significant changes in plan design affecting out of network provisions for coinsurance, out of pocket maximum, office visits and emergency room copayments, and inpatient hospital expenses, in addition to changes affecting in network provisions for office visits and emergency room copayments which upon use, would increase a participant’s financial exposure. Overall, the Committee recommends remaining with BCBS for maintaining the current benefit plan design, administrative ease, employee satisfaction, cost, and minimizing the risk of being considered immature with a new carrier during next year’s bid process (Attachment C). With the increase of 4.5%, the total annual premiums would be increased from approximately $1,429,263 to $1,493,575, an overall increase of $64,312 (based on an average of 158 plan participants at the highest tier level). Because participants on the medical plan have shown prudent use of the plan, the Committee suggests the City Council consider absorbing the 4.5% premium increase in the FY 2014 budget. Cost savings have been identified in other benefit line items, including the introduction of a fourth subsidy tier explained below, and would not create additional expense to the budget. The Committee also suggests passing the cost of health care reform fees directly to the employees effective January 1, 2014, because the fees are not directly linked to the participant’s plan usage. The absorption of the 4.5% premium increase, if approved by the City Council, would affect the subsidy level percentages. In FY 2011, a change to the health benefits strategy was the linking of future insurance premium subsidies to the wellness program and employee and spouse health. In FY 2011, the City fully subsidized the cost for employee medical insurance and covered 75% of dependent medical premiums. For FY 2012 and FY 2013, the funding for employee and dependent medical insurance premiums consisted of a program that included three tiers of subsidy levels with a 7% differential between each tier. The chart below illustrates the FY 2012 and FY 2013 subsidy levels at each tier: Subsidy Level Tier III Tier II Tier I Employee 86% 93% 100% Dependent 61% 68% 75% All employees began at a Tier III subsidy level and had the opportunity to earn their way to Tiers I and II through one of the two following methods. To reach Tier I, the first method for employees and spouses would be to achieve in-range health scores in four out of five risk factor categories, including waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose, LDL cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol; complete an online health risk assessment; complete a tobacco affidavit. Acceptable health score ranges were established and are updated each year by the medical staff at Cooper Aerobics Center by utilizing City of Colleyville Page 3 City Council Agenda Briefing 4c scientifically-based metrics supported by the Center for Disease Control and the American Heart Association. The second method was to participate in a specified level of wellness activities. The tiers are determined in the fiscal year prior to the receipt of the subsidy. For example, each employee's and spouse's tier was determined at the end of June 2012 to determine the FY 2013 subsidy levels, which were effective October 1, 2012. For FY 2014, the program will expand from three tiers to four tiers, and the percentages would change based on the absorption of the 4.5% premium increase. The addition of the fourth tier is to further encourage employees and their spouses to engage in healthy habits, to emphasize the City’s philosophy of employing a healthy workforce, and to engage employees and spouses to become informed consumers of healthcare. Employees and spouses on the plan who decline to participate in the wellness program will be placed at a Tier IV subsidy level. Employees and spouses on the plan who participate in the wellness program can earn their way to Tiers I, II and III through the same methods mentioned above. The chart below illustrates the recommended FY 2014 subsidy levels at each tier: Subsidy Level Tier IV Tier III Tier II Tier I Employee 80.00% 86.60% 93.30% 100.00% Dependent 56.07% 62.68% 69.37% 76.07% Out of 160 employees eligible to participate in the FY 2014 wellness program year, 55 employees qualified for Tier I from their health screening scores taken in August 2012, and 29 employees did not complete the screening and will automatically be Tier IV. The remaining 76 employees were “point eligible" to work their way through the tiers by participating in various wellness activities through June 30, 2013. The attached chart illustrates the results of the participants at each tier and compares them to the results of the participants from the FY 2012 and FY 2013 wellness program year (Attachment D). Implemented in FY 2009, the plan continues to fund the HRA, which is a deductible sharing account between the City and employees, where employees pay the first portion and the City reimburses the remainder. Should the employee need to meet the individual deductible of $2,000 (for example, through hospitalization), the employee would pay the first $750 and be reimbursed by the City for the remaining $1,250. Employees with family coverage would pay the first $1,500 of the $4,000 deductible, and be reimbursed by the City for the remaining $2,500. The City is responsible for the full cost of its portion of the shared deductible should employees incur deductible expenses. The City budgets 35% of the total cost of this risk exposure based on actual deductible reimbursement experience of prior fiscal years and Holmes Murphy’s recommendation. For FY 2014, the City's budgeted expense for the HRA includes third party HRA plan administration costs of $8,665, and funding the HRA at 35%, or $108,063. City of Colleyville Page 4 City Council Agenda Briefing 4c Staff recommends that the BCBS medical insurance plan be accepted at a monthly rate of: Medical Coverage Rate Employee Only $ 421.07 Employee + Spouse $ 942.42 Employee + Children $ 757.54 Employee + Family $1,275.18 Using the final tiering numbers and including all vacant positions with the assumption of employee plus family coverage at Tier I, the total annual employer funding of the premiums will be $1,312,852.04, compared to current year premium funding of $1,381,463.28. Although the overall premium rate increase from BCBS is 4.5%, the city’s portion of current premium funding will decrease by approximately 4.97%, or $68,611.24, due to tiering and sharing the premium rate costs with employees. Dental Insurance The City has a dental premium rate guarantee through FY 2014 with the current carrier, BCBS. However, Holmes Murphy was directed to seek competitive bids from the top dental carriers in the state (Attachment A) to ensure competitiveness and potential economies of scale. Proposals were received from BCBS and Delta (Attachment E). The Committee compared the current BCBS plan design and premium cost with Delta. There were no differences in plan design and the premium difference offered by Delta was negligible (1.54% decrease, or on average, $0.49 per month per month for employee only coverage). Additionally, BCBS offered a rate guarantee for FY 2014 and FY 2015 if renewed with the BCBS medical insurance in FY 2014. The Committee recommends remaining with BCBS for administrative ease, cost, employee satisfaction and rate guarantees for two fiscal years. Staff recommends that the BCBS dental insurance plan be accepted at a monthly rate of: Dental Coverage Rate Employee Only $ 31.60 Employee + Spouse $ 64.73 Employee + Children $ 62.49 Employee + Family $ 104.01 The City currently pays 91% of premiums for the employee’s coverage and the employee is responsible for dependent coverage. The City’s premium cost would be approximately $54,866.45. City of Colleyville Page 5 City Council Agenda Briefing 4c Third Party Administration of Health Reimbursement Arrangement and Flexible Spending Account Total Administrative Services Corporation (TASC) has been the City’s provider of third party administration of the health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) and flexible spending account (FSA) for several years. Holmes Murphy was directed to seek competitive bids from top third party benefit administrators to ensure competitiveness with fees, services, and customer care. The City’s medical plan is supplemented by an HRA in which the City reimburses an employee for up to $1,250 of the deductible expense after the employee pays the first $750. Additionally, an employee may utilize an FSA to set aside pre-tax dollars to pay for certain qualified benefits which reduces the amount the employee and City pays in taxes and increases an employee’s take-home pay. Proposals were received from TASC, Discovery, and Integrated Benefit Services (Attachment F). The differences in the services offered were negligible and TASC’s fees were the most competitive. Additionally, a new customer care representative is being added to the Texas region and will be assigned to the City’s account, which is anticipated to provide greater administrative support and customer service. Staff recommends that the TASC third-party administration for FSA and HRA be accepted as follows: FSA price per member per month: $ 3.61 HRA price per member per month: $ 4.57 FSA monthly minimum: $200.00 HRA monthly minimum: $600.00 FSA annual renewal: $300.00 Summary Following extensive review and negotiations with responding carriers, staff recommends maintaining the medical and dental insurance with Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) and to maintain the third party administration of the HRA and FSA with Total Administrative Services Corporation (TASC) as summarized below. Medical 4.5% rate increase recommended to be funded by the savings from other benefit line items, including the implementation of the tier IV subsidy PPACA fees based on premium rates (anticipated to be 4.0%) to be funded by passing the costs to employees Dental 0.0% rate change with 2-year rate guarantee through FY 2015 HRA/FSA Administration 0.0% rate change City of Colleyville Page 6 City Council Agenda Briefing 4c Overall, the City’s medical and dental plans appear to be sufficient and competitive when compared to surrounding cities (Attachment G). Implementation would begin with open enrollment meetings in August 2013, and a coverage effective date of October 1, 2013. Financial Impact The net savings to the City is displayed below by line of insurance coverage: Line of Insurance Budgeted Cost Difference FY 2013 to FY 2014 Medical $(68,611.24) Dental $ 00.00 HRA/FSA Administration $ 00.00 Total decrease in budgeted city cost for employee insurance for FY 2014 $(68,611.24) Funds are available in the proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget to cover the cost of the employee medical and dental insurance coverage and the third-party administration of the HRA and FSA. Recommendation Approve Attachments 1. Insurance Bid Responses - Attachment A 2. Benefits - Wellness Committee Members - Attachment B 3. Medical - Renewal and Proposals - Attachment C 4. Tier Subsidy Levels FY 2012 - FY 2014 - Attachment D 5. Dental - Renewal and Proposals - Attachment E 6. HRA FSA Administration - Renewal and Proposals - Attachment F 7. Surrounding Cities Medical and Dental Benefits Survey - Attachment G City of Colleyville Page 7 Carrier Response Received Coverage(s) Bid BCBStx 6/3/2013 Medical, Dental,FSA Cigna 6/3/2013 Medical, Dental - declined to quote Aetna 6/3/2013 Medical, Dental - declined to quote UHC 5/30/2013 Medical, Dental - declined to quote TML 6/3/2013 Medical, Dental, FSA, HRA Guardian 6/3/2013 Dental Delta Dental 6/3/2013 Dental Ameritas 5/29/2013 Dental - declined to quote Discovery Benefits 6/3/2013 FSA, HRA Tax Savers n/a FSA, HRA -No Response Integrated Benefits 6/3/2013 FSA, HRA TASC 6/3/2013 FSA, HRA Patillo Brown & Hill n/a FSA, HRA -No Response Requested RFP Prime Vendors n/a No Response FY 2014 Insurance Bid Response Summary Attachment A Attachment B Benefits / Wellness Committee Members Mike Almy, Parks Crew Leader Mark Cantrell, Fire Battalion Chief Lisa Escobedo, Recreation and City Events Manager Theresa Fox, Utility Billing Supervisor Marilyn Gilbert, Colleyville Center Office Assistant Erica Gill, Adult Services Librarian Adrienne Lothery, Strategic Services Manager Gary Moore, Police Officer Eddie Moran, Fire Captain Jesse Perez, Human Resources Analyst Amy Shelley, City Secretary Chuck Tinsman, Police Sergeant Ken Tywater, Field Operations Manager Overall Payment Provisions Calendar Year Deductible In Network Out of Network In Network Out of Network In Network Out of Network Individual $2,000 $4,000 $2,000 $4,000 $2,000 $2,250 Family $4,000 $8,000 $4,000 $8,000 $4,000 $4,500 Coinsurance (In/Out)90%70%90%70%90%60% Out of Pocket Maximum (Ind/Family)*$1,000/$2,000 $4,000/$8,000 $1,000/$2,000 $4,000/$8,000 $1,000/$2,000 no max/no max *OOP Max excludes the deductible Lifetime Maximum Copayments Physician Office Visits $25 70% after deductible $25 70% after deductible $25 60% after deductible Specialist Office Visits $30 70% after deductible $30 70% after deductible 90% after ded 60% after deductible Urgent Care $75 70% after deductible $75 70% after deductible 90% after ded 60% after deductible Emergency Room - Facility $200 $200 $200 $200 90% after $100 90% after $100 Emergency Room - Physician 90% after ded 70% after ded 90% after ded 70% after ded 90% after ded 90% after ded Inpatient Hospital Expenses Inpatient Hospital Expenses 90% after ded 70% after ded 90% after ded 70% after ded 90% after ded 60% after ded Pre-Admission Deductible None None None None None None Prescription Drug Program Retail Prescriptions Deductible Generic $20 Copay 70% of Allowable less copay $20 Copay 70% of Allowable less copay $10 Copay $10 Copay Preferred Brand Name $40 Copay 70% of Allowable less copay $40 Copay 70% of Allowable less copay $38 Copay $38 Copay Non Preferred Brand Name $70 Copay 70% of Allowable less copay $70 Copay 70% of Allowable less copay $60 Copay $60 Copay Mail Order Prescriptions Generic Preferred Brand Name Non Preferred Brand Name Rates Employee Only: 69 Employee & Spouse: 17 Employee & Child(ren): 24 Family: 48 Monthly Premium Annual Premium Rate Guarantee % Over Current Annual Difference Over Renewal Annual Difference Over Current ACA Health Insurance and Reinsure Fee Impact Effective 01/01/2014 Resulting increase to renewal Proposed Allocation Increase to Employer Effective 10/01/2013 Increase to Employee Effective 01/01/2014 *No increase in city funds needed due to tiering and other benefit savings HRA Reserves HRA Reserves HRA Reserves HRA Reserves Employee Only: 69 $1,250 $438 $1,250 $438 $1,250 $438 Employee & Spouse: 17 $2,500 $875 $2,500 $875 $2,500 $875 Employee & Child(ren): 24 $2,500 $875 $2,500 $875 $2,500 $875 Family: 48 $2,500 $875 $2,500 $875 $2,500 $875 Total:$108,063 $108,063 $108,063 Attachment C Medical - City of Colleyville Renewal/Proposals (effective 10/1/2013) $25 for up to 90 day supply $95 for up to 90 day supply $150 for up to 90 day supply BCBS Current na $901.84 $0 Combined Retail and Mail $20 per 30 day up to 90 day $40 per 30 day up to 90 day $70 per 30 day up to 90 day $421.07 $942.42 $20 per 30 day up to 90 day $40 per 30 day up to 90 day $100 individual/$300 family $44,807.25 Included in Rate $0.00 $64,312.68 $188,877.00 $822.11 $1,404.78 Estimated 4% increase BCBS Renewal TML na $0 $100 individual/$300 family 1 Year 1 Year $124,564.32 13.22%4.50% $124,464.57 $1,493,574.84 $134,844.93 $1,618,139.16 $1,013.67 $757.54 $1,275.18 $441.34 $64,312.68* $44,807.25 $724.92 $70 per 30 day up to 90 day $402.94 $1,429,262.16 1 Year $1,220.27 $119,105.18 Attachment D Tier Level FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 Employee Only - Tier 1 38 39 31 Employee Only - Tier 2 3 3 2 Employee Only - Tier 3 22 25 13 Employee Only - Tier 4 N/A N/A 13 Employee - Tier 1/Spouse - Tier 1 6 6 8 Employee - Tier 1/Spouse - Tier 2 0 0 0 Employee - Tier 1/Spouse - Tier 3 1 1 0 Employee - Tier 1/Spouse - Tier 4 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 2/Spouse - Tier 1 1 1 2 Emoloyee - Tier 2/Spouse - Tier 2 0 0 0 Employee - Tier 2/Spouse - Tier 3 2 2 0 Employee - Tier 2/Spouse - Tier 4 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 3/Spouse - Tier 1 2 0 0 Employee - Tier 3/Spouse - Tier 2 0 0 0 Employee - Tier 3/Spouse - Tier 3 3 4 4 Employee - Tier 3/Spouse - Tier 4 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 4/Spouse - Tier 1 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 4/Spouse - Tier 2 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 4/Spouse - Tier 3 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 4/Spouse - Tier 4 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 1/Child - Tier 1 14 12 12 Employee - Tier 2/Child - Tier 2 5 3 2 Employee - Tier 3/Child - Tier 3 10 9 6 Employee - Tier 4/Child - Tier 4 N/A N/A 2 Employee - Tier 1/Family - Tier 1 28 26 23 Employee - Tier 1/Family - Tier 2 1 0 2 Employee - Tier 1/Family - Tier 3 4 3 1 Employee - Tier 1/Family - Tier 4 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 2/Family - Tier 1 9 7 4 Employee - Tier 2/Family - Tier 2 2 2 0 Employee - Tier 2/Family - Tier 3 2 3 2 Employee - Tier 2/Family - Tier 4 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 3/Family - Tier 1 2 0 4 Employee - Tier 3/Family - Tier 2 2 0 0 Employee - Tier 3/Family - Tier 3 4 9 3 Employee - Tier 4/Family - Tier 1 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 4/Family - Tier 2 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 4/Family - Tier 3 N/A N/A 0 Employee - Tier 4/Family - Tier 4 N/A N/A 26 Total 161 155 160 # of Employees Employee Tier Level Comparison: FY 2012 - FY 2014 Primary Benefits Non Orthodontia Deductible In Network Out of Network In Network Out of Network In Network Out of Network Individual Period Family Limit Waived For Preventive Preventive Preventive Preventive Preventive Preventive Coinsurance Preventive 100%100%100%100%100%100% Basic 80%80%80%80%80%80% Major 50%50%50%50%50%50% Orthodontia Claim Payment Basis Fee Schedule 90% U&C Fee Schedule 90% U&C Fee Schedule 90% U&C Annual Maximum Special Feature Orthodontia Lifetime Maximum Rates Employee Only: 71 Employee & Spouse: 22 Employee & Child(ren): 20 Family: 46 Monthly Premium Annual Premium Rate Guarantee % Over Current Annual Difference vs Current Stand Alone or Contingent 2 year Guarantee with Medical Stand AloneStand Alone 0.00% $0.00 -1.54% -$1,792.44 1 Year 2 Year Dental - City of Colleyville Renewal/Proposals (effective 10/1/2013) BCBS - Renewal Delta $64.73 $62.49 $104.01 $9,701.92 $116,423.04 $31.60 $1,000 up to age 26 $1,000 up to age 26 Calendar Year 3 Per Family $50 Type II & III Calendar Year 3 Per Family $50 Type II & III No No $104.01 $31.11 $63.74 $61.53 $102.41 $62.49 $116,423.04 $9,552.55 $114,630.60 $31.60 $64.73 Attachment E $1,000 up to age 26 $9,701.92 No 50% for person/$1,000 lifetime 50% for person/$1,000 lifetime $1,500 $1,500 BCBS Current $50 Type II & III Calendar Year 3 Per Family 50% for person/$1,000 lifetime $1,500 EE Counts TASC Current TASC Bid Response Discovery Integrated Benefit Services Monthly Fees FSA PEPM 58 $3.61 $3.61 $4.90 $3.75 HRA PEPM 166 $4.57 $4.57 $4.90 $4.25 Combined Rate PEPM na na $8.00 na FSA Monthly minimum $200.00 $200.00 $50.00 $200.00 HRA Monthly Minimum $600.00 $300.00 $50.00 $550.00 Additional Fees Initial Setup Fee HRA $500.00 na na $400.00 FSA $300.00 na na $250.00 Renewal HRA na $300.00 na $175.00 FSA $300.00 na na $175.00 Debit Card Fees na na na $15 per card and $30 per reissue Estimated Monthly Costs Monthly FSA Fees $209.38 $209.38 $0.00 $217.50 Monthly HRA Fees $758.62 $758.62 $529.20 $705.50 Monthly HRA/FSA Combo rate $0.00 $0.00 $464.00 $0.00 Total Monthly Fees $968.00 $968.00 $993.20 $923.00 Estimated Annual Costs Annual FSA/HRA fees $11,616.00 $11,616.00 $11,918.40 $11,076.00 OE Fee $0.00 $0.00 $350.00 $0.00 FSA SetUp/Renewal Fees $300.00 $0.00 $0.00 $250.00 HRA SetUP/Renewal Fees $0.00 $300.00 $0.00 $400.00 Debit Card Fees*$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $870.00 Total $11,916.00 $11,916.00 $12,268.40 $12,596.00 1) Debit Card Fees assume 100% participation of those enrolled in the FSA plan 2) Discovery and Integrated Benefit Service can selectively issue debit card to only those who request them 3) TASC can only issue debit cards on an "all or none" basis. 4) Discovery and Integrated Benefit Service can reimburse via Direct Deposit and Paper Check, TASC will reimburse via Direct Deposit or TASC stored value card. Fees FSA and HRA Administration Services Attachment F Benefits Survey May 2013 MEDICAL Colleyville Average Bedford 1 Bedford 2 Euless Grapevine 1 Grapevine 2 Grapevine 3 Grapevine 4 Hurst 1 Hurst 2 Hurst 3 Keller 1 Keller 2 NRH 1 NRH 2 Southlake 1 Southlake 2 Southlake 3 Provider Name of Provider BCBS Cigna Cigna Self-insured Self-insured Self-insured Self-insured Self-insured Cigna Cigna Cigna Aetna Aetna Self-insured Self-insured Aetna Aetna Aetna Type of Medical Plan PPO, HMO, etc.PPO HDHP Base HDHP (Buy-up)Traditional PPO HSA OAP Consumer OAP Enhanced OAP HDHP w/HSA Buy-up (PPO)Traditional HRA HDHP HMO POS In-Network Benefits Deductible - Individual $2,000 $1,632 $2,500 $1,500 $500 $2,500 $1,750 $2,000 $500 $2,500 $1,000 $1,500 $1,500 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 Deductible - Family $4,000 $3,400 $5,000 $3,000 $1,500 $5,000 $3,500 $4,000 $1,000 $5,000 n/a n/a $3,000 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $10,000 $2,000 $2,000 Max Out-of-Pocket - Individual $1,000 $2,912 $5,000 $3,500 $2,500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $2,000 $4,000 $3,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,000 $3,500 $5,500 $4,000 $4,000 Max Out-of-Pocket - Family $2,000 $5,833 $10,000 $7,000 $7,500 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $4,000 n/a n/a $5,000 $6,000 $6,000 $7,000 $11,000 $8,000 $8,000 Max Lifetime Benefit Amount unlimited unlimited unlimited unlimited n/a n/a unlimited unlimited Physician Office Co-Pay $25 copay $28 *subject to deductible then paid at co- insurance rate *subject to deductible then paid at co- insurance rate *subject to deductible then paid at co- insurance rate *subject to deductible then paid at co- insurance rate Deductible/20%$30 $30 $20 n/a $30 80% after deductible Specialist Office Co-Pay $30 copay $46 Deductible/20%$50 $50 $40 n/a $45 90% after deductible HRA - Individual Coverage*$1,250 $654 n/a n/a n/a $1,000 $1,000 $750 $0 n/a n/a n/a $500 $500 $828 HRA - Family Coverage*$2,500 $1,261 n/a n/a n/a $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 $0 n/a n/a n/a $1,000 $1,500 $828 Prescriptions - Preferred List Deductible - Individual $100 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Deductible - Family $300 $0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tier 1 - Generic $20 $8 30%30%$5 $4 $4 $4 Deductible/20%$15 $15 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 $10 Tier 2 - Formulary Brand Name $40 $27 40%40%30 or 10% if cost >500 > of $15 or 20%> of $15 or 20%> of $15 or 20%Deductible/20%$40 $40 $25 $35 $25 $30 $25 $40 $40 Tier 3 - Non-Formulary Brand Name $70 $48 50%50%> of $50 or 50%> of $30 or 30%> of $30 or 30%> of $30 or 30%Deductible/20%$70 $70 $50 $60 $50 $60 $45 $60 $60 Premium Payment (%) City Paid - Employee Premiums 86%94%100%89%77%100%100%97%97%depends on rate and level of coverage 100%91%78%87%100%100%95% City Paid - Dependent Premiums 61%60% EC-74% ES-63% EF-67% EC-49% ES-40% EF-53% EC-42% EF-60% ES-52% depends on rate and level of coverage EC-80% ES-82% EF-80% EC-81% ES-78% EF-76% EE+2-65% EE+1- EE+3- EC-72% ES-72% EF-49% EC-58% ES-45% EF-35% EC-50% ES-64% EF-31% Monthly Premiums - City Paid ($) Employee Only $346.53 $490.11 $366.03 $370.81 $526.41 $78.36 $473.06 $680.49 $958.91 depends on rate and level of coverage $613.08 $660.40 $377.00 $389.00 $416.00 $476.00 $476.00 Employee plus Children $542.94 $1,022.09 $620.19 $584.73 $908.97 $1,412.59 $2,239.82 $990.75 $1,683.65 depends on rate and level of coverage $516.00 $904.54 $1,112.00 $1,113.00 $741.00 $741.00 $741.00 Employee plus Spouse $650.86 $684.58 $606.11 $571.12 $1,084.19 $405.36 $280.13 $388.73 $844.50 depends on rate and level of coverage $899.48 $1,005.54 $647.00 $629.00 $741.00 $741.00 $741.00 Employee plus Family $845.10 $998.27 $912.15 $883.88 $1,347.02 $121.76 $1,091.09 $1,204.89 $974.16 depends on rate and level of coverage $962.74 $1,082.15 $1,342.00 $1,501.00 $851.00 $851.00 $851.00 Monthly Premiums - Employee Paid ($) Employee Only $56.41 $36.36 $0.00 $44.74 $159.90 $0.00 $0.00 $21.00 $28.00 depends on rate and level of coverage $0.00 $65.46 $107.00 $59.00 $0.00 $0.00 $24.00 Employee plus Child(ren)$181.98 $173.66 $89.88 $176.70 $303.00 $33.00 $67.00 $100.00 $133.00 depends on rate and level of coverage $126.86 $209.82 $392.00 $233.00 $129.00 $195.00 $243.00 Employee plus Spouse $250.98 $213.67 $140.58 $231.88 $361.40 $37.00 $74.00 $111.00 $148.00 depends on rate and level of coverage $192.74 $284.79 $281.00 $202.00 $235.00 $318.00 $374.00 Employee plus Family $375.17 $360.41 $273.38 $417.78 $449.02 $60.00 $120.00 $180.00 $240.00 depends on rate and level of coverage $242.80 $341.69 $424.00 $265.00 $547.00 $702.00 $783.00 DENTAL Colleyville Provider Name of Provider BCBS Self-insured Cigna Cigna Cigna UHC UHC Type of Plan PPO PPO/DMO Traditional PPO DPPO DHMO PPO PPO PPO DHMO PPO Premium Payment (%) City Paid - Employee Premiums 91%100%100%100% City Paid - Dependent Premiums 0%0%0%0% Monthly Premiums - City Paid ($) Employee Only $28.76 $16.95 $26.36 $20.63 not available $0.00 $0.00 $30.57 $32.00 $7.00 $19.00 Employee plus Children $28.76 $27.33 $39.20 $12.56 $30.24 Employee plus Spouse $28.76 $34.73 $33.38 $47.45 $12.56 $45.52 Employee plus Family $28.76 $47.36 $51.68 $59.84 $25.81 $75.76 $57.77 $82.00 $7.00 $19.00 Monthly Premiums - Employee Paid ($) Employee Only $2.84 $1.49 $0.00 $6.88 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 Employee plus Children $33.73 $23.72 $13.07 $12.56 $45.52 Employee plus Spouse $35.97 $17.16 $10.00 $15.82 $12.56 $30.24 Employee plus Family $75.25 $39.06 $33.76 $19.94 $25.81 $75.76 $27.18 $20.00 $19.00 $91.00 *Medical deductible only Attachment G City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 5a Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Number Ordinance O-13-1880 Type Ordinance Department Community Development Title Consideration for a zoning change from R40-Single Family Residential to R20-Single Family Residential on 10.2 acres on Lot 1, Block 1, of the Stajduhar Addition located at 816 W. L.D. Lockett Road, Case ZC13-006 Explanation Second Reading and Public Hearing There were three persons who spoke in opposition to this request at the July 2, 2013 meeting. There were four persons who did not wish to speak, but registered their opposition to this request at the July 2, 2013 meeting. The speaker cards have been attached to the agenda briefing. Additionally, staff received one letter of concern, four letters of opposition, and a petition with 15 signatures, requesting Laura Lane to be gated. The letters and petition have been attached to the agenda briefing. The percentage of total properties within 200 feet of the subject property opposed to the request stands at 12.9 percent. Therefore no supermajority vote is required by the City Council in order to approve the request. First Reading and Public Hearing John Dickerson has submitted a request to change the zoning on 10.2 acres, located at 816 L.D. Lockett Road. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property from the R40-Single Family Residential to the R20-Single Family Residential zoning district. The applicant is seeking a zoning change in order to develop the property for 17 new residential lots and two (2) open space lots. Existing Conditions. The subject property currently consists of a horse stable and smaller ancillary buildings, however, the plan is to demolish all structures on the lot. The property is platted as one lot, and recorded with Tarrant County. Additional approval of a preliminary and final plat will be required upon approval of the rezoning request. Ordinance O-03-1397 authorized a Special Use Permit (SUP) for an accessory building on the property. This SUP was for the existing horse stable and smaller ancillary buildings, as shown on the conceptual site plan, attached to the original ordinance. Ordinance O-08-1654 amended Ordinance O-03-1397 to allow an increase in the size City Council Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 2 of the approved accessory building. Statement of Planning Objectives. The applicant submitted a Statement of Planning Objectives which contains a detailed description of the proposed development and it is attached to this agenda briefing. Non-Discretionary Zoning Request. As the rezoning request does not involve a discretionary zoning category such as a Special Use Permit or Planned Unit Development, and is, instead, a rezoning request from one non-discretionary zoning district to another non-discretionary zoning district, no extra conditions or exactions may be added to the proposed Ordinance O-13-1880, as part any approval by the City Council. Lot Dimensions and Setbacks. The R20 zoning regulations, in the Land Development Code, require a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet with a minimum lot width of 100 feet, and lot depth of 125 feet. Per Section 3.24 G, Schedule of District Regulations, in the Land Development Code, the following residential zoning standards apply: Minimum Front Yard Setback: 30 feet Minimum Side Yard Setbacks: 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback: 25 feet Maximum Building Height: 25 feet Maximum Lot Coverage: 30 Percent The dimensions of the proposed lots meet the minimum standards of the Land Development Code. Surrounding Development Trends.The site is located between two (2) subdivisions zoned R20-Single Family Residential. The subdivision to the east is known as Covington Addition, and the subdivision to the west is known as Lavaca Trail Estates. To the north is a collection of larger, estate sized R20-Single Family Residential zoned lots. Additionally, there is a subdivision, south of L.D. Lockett Road, zoned PUD-R-Planned Unit Development Residential, known as Reatta Place. This requested change in zoning from R40 to R20 is consistent with the lower density residential uses in this area. Tree Preservation. As required by Chapter 5 - Tree Preservation, of the Land Development Code, approval of a tree survey and mitigation plan shall be required prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed letter from the Engineering Division of the City Council Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 3 Public Works Department. To date, the applicant has not submitted this plan. Trees not located under a pad site must be preserved during construction. Before construction begins on the site, protective fencing must be installed around all preserved trees located outside the right-of-way. The fencing must be located at the drip line of the preserved trees. The protective fencing may be comprised of orange vinyl construction fencing, chain link fence, erosion control fencing, or other similar fencing. The fencing must remain in place during the entire construction period. Open Space. The R20 zoning district regulations, in the Land Development Code, do not require a minimum percentage of open space. However, the applicant has proposed two (2) open space lots, totaling approximately .51 acres, or approximately five (5) percent, located on the west side of the development, to the south of Lot 1, and to the north of Lot 4. Both open space lots will contain detention ponds. According to the Land Development Code, retention ponds located in open space lots are required to be maintained by the homeowner's association. This requirement will be added to the final plat. Preliminary Drainage Analysis. The developer has submitted a Preliminary Drainage Analysis of the site, which is to be reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. However, any conditions associated with drainage and storm water runoff shall be set and enforced at the time of platting. On site detention is required and is located in the open space lots, located on the west side of the development, to the south of Lot 1, and to the north of Lot 4. Sidewalks and Trails. Sidewalks are required to be installed along the new internal street, at the time of new home construction. According to the Colleyville Trails and Sidewalk Systems Map, a five (5) foot sidewalk is required along L.D. Lockett Road. The sidewalk must be installed prior to the acceptance of final public improvements. Development Fees. Parkland dedication fees are required, in the amount of $1,802.00 per residential lot, for the 17 lots where new homes are proposed. Parkland dedication fees are due at the time of final plat and must be paid before the final plat is recorded with the County Clerk's office. Roadway impact fees are due in the amount of $4,941 per residential lot at the time of the building permit application. Water and Wastewater impact fees are due at the time of the building permit application. Fees for a typical 5/8 inch meter are $2,491 for the water impact fee and $643 for the wastewater impact fee. Perimeter street improvement fees are due at the time of approval of the final plat for L.D. Lockett Road. Perimeter street improvements are required for the newly created City Council Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 4 lots since L.D. Lockett Road is considered unimproved adjacent to the subject property. The developer’s portion of the costs for infrastructure improvements may not exceed the amount that is roughly proportionate to the projected impact of the proposed development, as determined by a professional engineer, licensed in the State of Texas, and who is retained by the City of Colleyville. In making the rough proportionality determination, consideration shall be given to the availability of adequate and minimum levels of public facilities and accessibility to the site for the delivery of emergency services. Traffic Generation and Access. The developer is not required to provide a Traffic Impact Analysis, since the development is not projected to generate in excess of 1,000 vehicle trips per day. The Institute of Transportation Engineers publication Trip Generation provides estimates of expected traffic generation based on land use. Data has been collected in the United States and Canada since the 1960's, primarily in suburban locations. Single-family residences are expected to generate 9.57 trips per day, on average. Based on this average, a 17 lot development would add approximately 163 vehicle trips per day to the surrounding roadways. Two entryways are required for subdivisions that contain more than 12 lots. The proposed subdivision’s main entrance is from L.D. Lockett Road. The other entryway is internal from the existing stub-out from Laura Drive, which connects with Lavaca Trail Estates, to the west. The street connection, in the proposed development, is located between the open space, Lot 4, of Block 1 and Lot 1, of Block 2, on the west side of the development. This will be a public street, with no emergency access easement. Per the conceptual site plan, St. Andrews Boulevard aligns directly with Reatta Place, south of L.D. Lockett Road. The proposed layout has been reviewed and approved by the Fire Marshal. Infrastructure. Water and sanitary sewer services are available along adjacent rights-of-way. The developer is responsible for the extension of water and sewer service lines to the individual lots. Residential Density. The Colleyville Master Plan suggests a maximum residential density of 1.8 dwelling units per acre, in most situations. It further states densities higher than 1.8 units per acre, would be acceptable in those areas deemed consistent with sound land use planning principles. The proposed development would be situated between existing residential uses. The proposed development of 17 residential units on the 10.2 acre property will produce a residential density of 1.66 dwelling units per acre based upon the density calculation method prescribed by the Master Plan and will produce a residential density of 2.2 dwelling units per acre based upon the density calculation method prescribed by the Land Development Code. Master Plan. The Future Land Use Plan designates the entire subject property for single family residential. The proposed development is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan. City Council Agenda Briefing 5a City of Colleyville Page 5 Public Notification. Staff mailed notices to 40 adjacent property owners within 200 feet as well as all Homeowners Associations within 500 feet of the subject property regarding this request. Notice was published in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram as required by state law and the Land Development Code. To date, staff has received no correspondence regarding this request. At the June 10, 2013 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, there were six (6) persons who actually spoke in opposition to this request. There was one (1) person who actually spoke in support of this request. Although only four (4) speaker cards are attached in opposition, there are multiple names on two (2) of the speaker cards. Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request at the June 10, 2013 meeting by a vote of 6-0. Summary. The proposed zoning change is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, which designates the subject property as single family residential uses. Given the proposed use compliments surrounding developments, is compliant with the requirements of the Land Development Code, and is consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. Financial Impact There is no financial impact to the City. Recommendation Approve Attachments 1.Location and Zoning Map 2.Notification List 3.Buffer Map 4.Letters of Opposition and Petition 5.Letters of Support 6.Letter of Concern 7.Speaker Cards from the July 2, 2013 Meeting 8.Aerial Looking North 9.Statement of Planning Objectives 10.Site Plan 11.Ordinance O-13-1880 Location and Zoning Map Owner Name Owner Address Owner City Owner State Owner Zip Situs Address A R A F Inc 17290 Preston Rd Ste 114 Dallas Texas 75252 5801 Kays Ct Adams, Kenneth J Etux Barbara 5708 Texas Trl Colleyville Texas 76034 5708 Texas Tr Akinmerese, Olawale Etux Olayi 5912 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5912 Kays Ct Anderson, Jared Etux Heather 5800 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5800 Kays Ct Ashton Dallas Residential Llc 1221 N Interstate 35E # 170 Carrollton Texas 75006 724 Lockley Way Azer, Mervat N Etvir Sameh F 5805 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5805 Kays Ct Boots, Brian Etux Cathy E 5900 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5900 Kays Ct Childress, Michael S Etux Kara 5904 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5904 Kays Ct Croney, Edward J & Nancy M 727 Tappen Shire Colleyville Texas 76034 727 Tappen Shire Dinh, Nhung Etux Chinh 5913 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5913 Kays Ct Ediger, Melanie L Etvir Steve 724 Tappen Shire Colleyville Texas 76034 724 Tappen Shire Eitel, Jeramie 6101 Emmas Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 6101 Emmas Ct Ellison, John Etux Debra 5905 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5905 Kays Ct Gohr, Martin Etux Lorraine 809 Lavaca Trl Colleyville Texas 76034 809 Lavaca Tr Gordon, Mark K Etux Beverly W 720 Lockley Way Colleyville Texas 76034 720 Lockley Way Hankins, Jeremy 5816 Chalford Cmn Colleyville Texas 76034 5816 Chalford Common Hultquest, Philip P Etux Lily 5712 Texas Trl Colleyville Texas 76034 5712 Texas Tr Ishak, Ashraf Z 104 W Ld Lockett Rd Colleyville Texas 76034 805 W L D Lockett Rd Kuhlmann, Peter Etux Linda 4423 Chapel Rd Graham Texas 76450 801 W L D Lockett Rd Lavaca Associates Llc 5637 Smaller Rd Johnstown Ohio 43031 5908 Kays Ct Lavaca Oaks Lp -6401 Westcoat Dr Colleyville Texas 76034 901 Lavaca Tr Martin, Stephen Lee Etux Nan C 813 Lavaca Trl Colleyville Texas 76034 813 Lavaca Tr Mentavlos, Michael Constantine 727 Lockley Way Colleyville Texas 76034 727 Lockley Way Milligan, John 720 Tappen Shire Colleyville Texas 76034 720 Tappen Shire Newton Team Homes Inc PO Box 1162 Colleyville Texas 76034 723 Lockley Way Nykiel, Stephen & P Nykiel 5909 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5909 Kays Ct Rouse, James A Etux Nancy J R 720 Duns Tew Path Colleyville Texas 76034 720 Duns Tew Path Scott, Walter & Christy 401 Bridlewood S Colleyville Texas 76034 5917 Kays Ct Shurtleff, David J & Teresa K 719 Lockley Way Colleyville Texas 76034 719 Lockley Way Smith, Ted Etux Michele 5704 Texas Trl Colleyville Texas 76034 5704 Texas Tr Stajduhar, Martin Etux Lisa 816 W Ld Lockett Rd Colleyville Texas 76034 816 W L D Lockett Rd Thorne, Jennifer & Charles M 5808 Kays Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 5808 Kays Ct Votaw, J T Etux Ruth 5804 Chalford Cmn Colleyville Texas 76034 5804 Chalford Common Wellsheim, Matthew Etux Cheryl 719 Tappen Shire Colleyville Texas 76034 719 Tappen Shire Wheelwright, David 5701 Reatta Pl Colleyville Texas 76034 5701 Reatta Pl Willis, Randall Etux Yvonne 6105 Emmas Ct Colleyville Texas 76034 6105 Emmas Ct Reatta Place Hmowners Assoc 5506 Texas Trl Colleyville Texas 76034 Courtsey Notice L T Estates Hoa Inc 215 W College St Grapevine Texas 76051 Courtsey Notice Emerald Park H A Inc 400 Country Pl Colleyville Texas 76034 Courtsey Notice John Dickerson, Applicant 8333 Douglas, Suite 1300 Dallas Texas 75225 Applicant Public hearing notices were mailed Fri., May 31, 2013 by Taci Wrisley Notification List LIBE R T Y C T W L D LOCKETT RD DUNS TEW PATH KA Y S C T LAURA LN CR E S C E N T L N LAVACA TRL COLT S N E C K C T LO W R I E R D LOCKLEY WAY C H A L F O R D C M N SH E R S T O N G L N CR E S C E N T W A Y ST E R L I N G D R TAPPEN SHIRE CRYSTAL WAY EM M A S C T TE X A S T R L CHANTAL LN RE A T T A P L 5835 5996 6032 5824 6004 716 501 609 5608 6005 5830 6205 6201 5842 5906 5701 5909 5712 5912 6200 6108 509 5832 6205 6001 7206024 5803 5804 711 6104 5838 5845 5815 805 5922 6200 715 5843 6021 508 1121 5616 6004 5918 5807 5907 5836 5844 5809 708 6008 724 5812 5833 5904 5816 5820 708 5805 5849 5821 901 5920 5902 6109 5900 6112 5841 727 5905 6013 5908 715 5714 8131101 805 5613 711 5924 6005 6216 5909 5910 6204 701 6213 5804 5612 5800 5915 5608 6025 5908 5613 6101 5612 6020 5911 816 5829 719 613 5917 504 816 6099 5705 715 6113 5916 5704 727 715 6008 5609 816 707 719 5816 613 6220 5834 707 712 715 5812 5837 5912 708 6000 5901 6016 6111 6107 6105 6201 1013 5700 5801 5839 5808 809 6215 5923 606 5825 5917 5901 5921 5997 5804 5931 5700 712 5900 712 6208 6000 5927 5801 5904 715 6009 56095617 816 711 5935 716 720 6012 5811 5846 5913 5708 6021 6017 723 5913 6100 5903 5828 5813 720 801 6212 6205 5808 712 5831 5840 610 5928 5847 6209 6028 5914 6008 6204 705 724 716 5800 716 729 719 6200 704 5808 5812 5905 5919 5800 711 708 504 Buffer Map From:Wale To:Taci Wrisley Subject:Concerned resident of Lavaca Trail Date:Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:30:47 AM Hi, My name is Dr Akinmerese and I live at 5912 Kays Ct, colleyville. I am a concerned resident of Lavaca Trail sub division and I am opposed to placing a gate at Laura lane to allow through traffic between Kays ct and the proposed St Andrews development. This will help to prevent increased traffic from private cars, construction vehicles, maintenance trucks and safety for our children on the street. If a gate is placed, it should be an emergency entry/exit only. Also we are concerned about increased flooding in our neighbourhood from the new development and we hope this concerned are adequately considered. Thank you very much for giving us a voice. Dr Akinmerese 5912 Kays ct. Sent from my iPhone Letters of Opposition To the City of Colleyville Council, My name is Glenn Campanile and I live at 5812 Chalford Common in Colleyville. My home is located in the Covington neighborhood and my home backs up to the property at 816 W. L.D. Lockett. I am writing to voice my opposition to the rezoning from 1 acre parcels to ½ acre parcels. When I purchased my home in April 2013 I was told by the home builder that the property behind my home was designated to be 1 acre parcels and that there was a “letter of intent” on the property, but that it was only in the preliminary stages. I went to the City of Colleyville website to perform my due diligence and found nothing that would indicate anything different from what I was told. At the beginning of June, while meeting a couple of my neighbors, I was told that the city was notifying homeowners within 200 ft. of the proposed development. I never received a notice (I found out later that the notice was sent to the builder) so I called the city and had the proposed plat e-mailed to me. I have several points of contention with the proposed development: 1) The depth of the lots in the community. The average depth is about 133’. With a front setback of 30’. If a home built on this lot is 70’ deep, that leaves only 33’ +/- from the rear of the structure to the property line. A backyard as shallow as 30’ takes away the privacy that those of us who back to the proposed community currently have. It also is out of step from the country feel that surrounds this part of Colleyville. 2) Lack of imagination in the layout of the community. With such a narrow piece of property, it’s a challenge to plan anything unique when attempting to shoehorn this many lots into the limited amount of land. This proposal lacks uniqueness or forethought. 3) In reviewing the plat, I noticed how the street just divides the property straight down the middle. It doesn’t appear that any thought was given to the notion of saving, or working around some of the large trees already on the property. I am also concerned that the two large trees that are on my property line will be torn down as well. 4) What is grading plan for this development? My home currently sits above the land in question, is there a grading plan that will change that? I hope that the City Council is still open to input from the residents directly affected by this zoning change. I am not opposed to growth, as I work in the home building industry and have for the last 15 years. I am also not a NIMBY (not in my back yard), someone who buys somewhere and then fights any and all development around them. My neighbors and I just want a quality development that will not encroach on our privacy. Thank you, Glenn Campanile 817-369-4840 Letters of Opposition From:John Ellison To:Taci Wrisley Subject:Zoning Change Concerns - Proposed R20 Subdivision Date:Tuesday, July 02, 2013 3:17:12 PM Attachments: Taci, my wife and I would like to voice our concerns about a zoning change that goes before the Colleyville City Council tonight. We live in the Lavaca Trail Estates neighborhood. Our contact information is: John and Debbie Ellison 5905 Kays Ct. Colleyville, TX 76034 (817)337-4902 We would like to bring attention to two major concerns: 1)Drainage - Our property is located on the northeast corner of Laura Lane and Kays Ct. From our garage we back out on to Laura Lane and our back yard shares a border with the proposed subdivision to the east. We are concerned that an already bad drainage problem will be made worse by allowing new homes on half acre lots in the proposed subdivision. We further believe that a status quo drainage design in the new subdivision will not remedy or otherwise provide adequate protection from flooding. On three occasions during the year we have lived in our home we have witnessed serious flooding events. We are concerned that these events could become more severe and possibly more frequent as new roofs and roads replace natural ground. I have attached two video clips that show a dangerous amount of water flowing from the proposed subdivision property west on Laura Lane to Kays Court during a period of heavy rain in August of last year. Both videos were taken looking south on to Laura Lane from our garage. Unfortunately, neither video shows the sheets of water than flowed from the proposed subdivision property across our back yard to Laura Lane. One video does capture an SUV turning around upon encountering the water flowing south on Kays Ct. 2.) Our second concern has to do with opening Laura Lane to through traffic. We do not want to see young families in our neighborhood retreat from the streets due to increased traffic on Laura Lane. We do not want a throughway that benefits a new subdivision to decrease the desirability of our neighborhood. My wife and I have signed a petition in support of a gate between our neighborhood and the proposed subdivision. We believe this provides a good compromise to opening Laura Lane to unrestricted traffic. Thank you for registering our concerns with the Colleyville City Council. Respectfully, John and Debbie Ellison Letters of Opposition From:Edward Hogan To:Taci Wrisley Cc: Subject:Case # ZC13-006, Hearing to be held July 2 @ 7:30 PM Date:Tuesday, July 02, 2013 9:12:20 AM Gentlemen: This email is in response to case ZC13-006 hearing to be held July 2, 2013. This application considers a zoning change from R-40 Single Family Residential to R-20 Single Family Residential. This 10.2 acres (known as St. Andrews Estates) lies east and uphill from the LaVaca Trail Estates where I currently live. LaVaca Trail Estates consists of one long street (Kays Ct at one end and Emmas Ct at the other end) with a total of approximately 34 lots, 24 developed and 10 remaining. To mitigate silt runoff from our own development activity, we have installed silt barriers along the street and built two ponds to catch the silt that passes through the silt barriers. One of my concerns with the application is the development activity that will take place in a location uphill from us. From my personal observation a huge volume of water and silt from the proposed development already drains down Laura Lane (a stubbed side street) and directly into our already stressed pond located about a lot south on Kays Ct. As always, with new development, fresh ground will be broken and the water and silt into our pond will only be exacerbated. My question is, are the city engineers aware of the volume of water that goes down Laura Ln and have they reviewed the Site Plan for drainage and is the proposed pond (I think it is a pond, it's difficult to read the pdf) adjacent to Laura Ct adequate to handle the volume of water and silt? Also, I understand the requirement that a street with more than 12 houses have at least two exits for safety reasons. I have seen a number of subdivisions that have gates (not permanent) to eliminate any unnecessary traffic. Would it be possible to put a gate on Laura Ct to eliminate any unnessary traffic from St Andrews Estates onto Kays and Emmas Ct. I ask this because there are quite a few families with small children along Kays and Emmas Ct. Thanks for your consideration, Ed and Karol Hogan 6201 Emmas Ct LaVaca Trail Estates Colleyville Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n Le t t e r s o f O p p o s i t i o n ©2012 Google -Map data©2012 Google - Page 1of 1Google Maps 8/20/2012http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=32.898831,-97.181304&spn=0.005711,0.012392&t... Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition Letters of Opposition Letters of Support Letter of Concern Speaker Cards from the July 2, 2013 Meeting Speaker Cards from the July 2, 2013 Meeting Speaker Cards from the July 2, 2013 Meeting Speaker Cards from the July 2, 2013 Meeting W L D LOCKETT RD DUNS TEW PATH KA Y S C T LAURA LN CR E S C E N T L N LOCKLEY WAY C H A L F O R D C M N TAPPEN SHIRE CRYSTAL WAY EM M A S C T Subject Property Aerial Looking North Statement of Planning Objectives Si t e Pl a n ORDINANCE O-13-1880 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED; BY AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AND CHANGING THE ZONING ON 10.2 ACRES ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OF THE STAJDUHAR ADDITION FROM THE R40-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO THE R20-SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PROVIDING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville has received an application for rezoning under Case ZC13-006; and WHEREAS, the City of Colleyville deems it necessary, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the City to enact a new zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has appointed a Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend the boundaries of the various original zoning districts and appropriate regulations be enforced therein and to recommend a new zoning ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has divided the City into districts and has prepared regulations pertaining to such districts in accordance with a comprehensive plan designed to lessen congestion in the streets; and to secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers; to promote health, general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, has given reasonable consideration to, among other things, the character of the districts and their peculiar suitability for particular uses, with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land throughout the City; and Ordinance O-13-1880 Page 2 of 3 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Colleyville and the City of Colleyville City Council, in compliance with the Charter of the City of Colleyville, and State Law with reference to changes to zoning classifications under the Zoning Ordinance Regulations and Zoning Map, having given the requisite notices by publication and otherwise, and after holding due hearings and affording a full and fair hearing to all the property owners generally, and to the persons interested and situated in the affected area and in the vicinity thereof, the governing body of the City of Colleyville is of the opinion that said change in zoning should be made. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT all the foregoing premises and findings are found to be true and correct and are incorporated into the body of this ordinance as if copied in their entirety. Sec. 2. THAT the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, Texas, be, and the same is hereby amended by changing the zoning of 10.2 acres on Lot 1, Block 1, of the Stajduhar Addition, from the R40-Single Family Residential zoning district to the R20-Single Family Residential zoning district, as depicted in the attached Exhibit “A”. Sec. 3. THAT the above described tract of land shall be used only in the manner and for the purposes provided by the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville as heretofore amended, and as amended herein. Sec. 4. THAT any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance shall be subject to the same penalty as provided for in the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City of Colleyville, and upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for each offense. Sec. 5. THAT if any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase or provision of this ordinance shall be judged invalid or unconstitutional, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole or any portion thereof other than that portion so decided to be invalid or unconstitutional. Ordinance O-13-1880 Page 3 of 3 Sec. 6. THAT in addition to and accumulative of all other penalties, the City shall have the right to seek injunctive relief for any and all violations of this ordinance. Sec. 7. THAT it has been found that there has been a change in conditions in the above described property, it is now necessary that it be given the above zoning classification in order to permit its proper development and in order to protect the public interest, comfort and general welfare, and requires that this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The first reading and public hearing being conducted on the 2nd day of July 2013. The second reading and public hearing being conducted on the 16th day of July 2013. PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City of Colleyville, Texas, on this the ___________ day of _______________________ 2013. ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Amy Shelley David Kelly City Secretary Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: Matthew C. G. Boyle City Attorney Exhibit “A”- Location and Zoning Map City of Colleyville Page 1 City of Colleyville City Council Agenda Briefing City Hall 100 Main Street Colleyville, Texas 76034 www.colleyville.com Agenda Number 6a Agenda Date 07/16/2013 Number Resolution R-13-3654 Type Resolution Department Community Development Title Consideration of a request for a sidewalk appeal on Lot 6B, Block 1, Pleasant Oaks Estate Addition located at 800 Beverly Drive, Case GC13-009 Explanation Reading and Public Hearing Mindy McClure, applicant, is requesting an appeal to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to require the construction of a sidewalk for a new home located at 800 Beverly Drive. The applicant's appeal correspondence, an aerial, and photos of the site conditions, have been attached to the briefing. Requirements. The newly constructed single family home triggered the sidewalk requirement per the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map that was adopted by the City Council in October 2008. The map requires a sidewalk to be built along the subject property line upon the development or redevelopment of property as illustrated on the attached excerpt of the map. There are currently no sidewalks on the north side of Beverly Drive. In 2010, the City constructed a five foot sidewalk along the entire length of Beverly Drive on the south side of the street. Planning and Zoning Recommendation. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the applicant's waiver request at the September 10, 2012 meeting. To date, no construction of a sidewalk has occurred, and the home has not passed the final inspection pending the outcome of this appeal. At the time, the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission was final. Although the applicant did not request the option to escrow as part of the original application to the Planning and Zoning Commission, the applicant has since stated that she would like the option to pay into escrow in lieu of construction of the required sidewalk. Staff provided a summary of the City's current sidewalk regulations to the City Council at the October 16, 2012 Pre Council meeting. Given the amount of time that had passed since previous amendments to the City’s sidewalk construction and escrow policies, the upward trend of new residential construction, and concerns voiced about said sidewalk regulations, examination of the sidewalk requirements of Chapter 9- City Council Agenda Briefing 6a City of Colleyville Page 2 Subdivision Design and Public Facilities were due. Given the directive by City Council, staff recommended amendments to Section 9.19(A). City Council approved the following amendments at the January 8, 2013 meeting by attached Ordinance O-12- 1860: "Other than properties zoned as Planned Unit Developments or containing Special Use Permits with specific sidewalk provisions, any variance to the sidewalk construction requirements described above shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. Appeal to City Council – The decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be final, unless the applicant submits a written notice of appeal within ten (10) days from the date of the action by the Commission to the enforcement official. If an appeal is received within ten (10) days as described above, the enforcement official shall place the applicant’s appeal request on the next available agenda for consideration by the City Council. 2. Applicability of Past Appeals to the City Council – All sidewalk waiver requests considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission between March 3, 2009 and December 18, 2012 may appeal to the City Council, per the provisions of Section 1, subject to the following provisions: a. All appeals allowed by Section 2 must be filed no later than April 18, 2013. b. All appeals allowed by Section 2 shall be sent in writing to the Community Development Director." Staff proposed allowing all past decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding sidewalk waiver requests, to be appealed to the City Council no later than April 18, 2013. Staff notified all past sidewalk waiver applicants, and informed them of the new appeal options. Consistent with the Sign Board of Appeals process to the City Council, there would be no fee charged for applicants wishing to appeal to the City Council. District Neighborhood. Escrow payments received to date have been made available for any future sidewalks and/or trails located within Neighborhood Districts, as shown on the attached Colleyville Sidewalk Escrow Districts Neighborhood Map. The subject property is located in Neighborhood District #5. Waiver Request History. Between 2000 and March 3, 2009, the City Council considered 21 sidewalk waiver requests. Of those requests, nine (9) were denied and 12 were approved. Between March 3, 2009 and January 8, 2013, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered 10 sidewalk waiver requests. All 10 requests were denied by the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, of those 10 cases, four (4) City Council Agenda Briefing 6a City of Colleyville Page 3 were allowed the option of paying funds into escrow in lieu of construction. Summary. The Supplemental Sidewalk System Map requires construction of a sidewalk for the property. The Planning and Zoning Commission's ruling required construction of the sidewalk, however, to date, the applicant has not constructed the sidewalk. Staff recommends construction of the required sidewalk, and therefore recommends denial of the appeal. The available options by City Council are: (1) Approve the Appeal - This action would waive sidewalk construction, which is required by the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map. (2) Deny the Appeal - The applicant would be required to build a sidewalk on the property. This option adheres to the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map recommendation. (3) Require Escrow - The City Council may require payment into the sidewalk escrow fund in an amount of $4,842, as determined by the City Engineer. Financial Impact If City Council approves the waiver to either construct the sidewalk or escrow the funds for the sidewalk, the City will incur all expenses related to said sidewalk. Recommendation Denial Attachments 1.Applicant's Appeal Response Letter 2.Original Application 3.Location Map 4.Aerial Looking North 5.Photos Submitted by Applicant 6.City Stamp Page Given to Contractor Upon Permit Issuance 7.Colleyville Sidewalk Escrow District Neighborhoods - 2009 8.Supplemental Sidewalk System Map 9.Ordinance O-12-1860 10.Resolution R-13-3654 Applicant's Appeal Response Letter Community Development Services Application APPLICATION TYPE PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE Box BELOW. risidewalk Waiver o General Waiver PROPERTY INFORMATION City of Colleyville 100 Main Street Colleyville TX 76034 817.503.1050 Project Name: ____________________________________________________________________ __ Project Address (LOcatiOn):~~~~~~~~~~~~V~~~L~~~~~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Legal Description: JL V~ & -6 B ) 0 ck \ P I<ASAt0'-D Ak.s £s J~k U"'-. Proposed Number of Lots: _____ _ Gross Acres: __ _ Neighborhood District: __ Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: ______ _ Existing Use: __________ ,....-_______ Proposed Use: ______________ _ Applicant: ___________________ Company: ____________ _ Address: ________________ Tel: _______ Fax: ______ _ City: ________ state: __ ZIP: _______ Email: __________ _ Applicant's Status: (check one) Cl Owner Cl Representative Cl Tenant Cl Prospective Buyer Properly Owner: M-i' U1 ,~t /.tA...--e....- Address:~DO 13uer~ '\)y( v~ Company: ____________ _ Tel: <611 ~) J-'1 elt,] Fax: 0 I 7 Lf4;) 51 Cf'1 City: CA)l?1V I ll~ state~ z1P:7bO 3 If Ownership Status: (check one/riffudividual Cl Trust Email: Cl Partnership Cl Corporation • /LGf- SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT (SIGN AND PRINT OR TYPE NAME) SIGNATU~~ Date: ,,8'-11.0 -I ~ SIGNATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER (SIGN AND PRINT OR TYPE NAME) d if signature is other than property owner) The property owner must sign the application or submit a notarized letter of authorization. For Departmental Use Only Case #: (:zC \c9 -al ( Total Feels): ~ k;;f) .00 Receipt #: g \ ddd( Date Submitted: 01 \ 1I t \ ~ Accepted By, :r ID v=; 'b k\{ Public Hearing Date: q /, 0 II ~ I I 3 Original Application DU A N E S T COOKS LN BE N T T R E E C T GR A N D O A K C T LAUREL OAKS LN BEVERLY DR SUELLEN CIR 5701 811 5704 809 5709 5701 801 807 805 812 612 805 5804 812 700 800 705 609 701 5706 808 908 816 908 6014 5700 608 608 609 6001 704 717 6001 612 5703 5705 704 900 5801 804 5703 705 808 5707 704 5704 910 809 704 5705 909 5700 801 805 5904 700 617 801 708 800 5701 701 5703 5702 5707 800 5900 701 5609 605 800 608 803 5702 5908 613 5705 5916 5912 709 700 708 612 804 705 5706 616 608 Location Map Aerial Looking North Beverly Drive Photos Submitted By Applicant NO T E : Z o n e R - 4 0 S i n g l e - F a m i l y R e s . Mi n . L o t S i z e 4 0 , 0 0 0 s q . f t . Mi n . L o t W i d t h 1 5 0 f t . Mi n . L o t D e p t h 1 5 0 f t . Fr o n t B L 4 0 f t . ( 3 5 F t . P l a t ) Si d e B L 1 5 F t . Re a r B L 2 5 f t . Ma x . L o t C o v e r a g e 2 0 % La n d D e v e l o p m e n t C o d e C h . 3 s e c t i o n 3 . 2 4 . G Re a r B L 2 5 f t . Si d e B L 1 5 F t . Si d e B L 1 5 F t . BUILDERS COPY________ Provide to Applicant Engineering Dept. Review PERMIT SUBJECT TO NOTES & ATTACHMENTS LO T G R A D I N G BU I L D E R I S R E S P O N S I B L E T O C O M P L Y WI T H C I T Y R E Q U I R E M E N T S . SE E A T T A C H M E N T S . PL A N C H A N G E S ; An y c h a n g e w h i c h a f f e c t s th e l o c a t i o n o f s t r u c t u r e s i n re l a t i o n t o e a s e m e n t , bui l d i n g a n d / o r p r o p e r t y li n e s m u s t b e r e s u b m i t t e d to B l d g . I n s p . F o r r e v i e w an d a p p r o v a l pr i o r t o co n s t r u c t i o n . PL E A S E N O T E C O R R E C T I O N S AND / O R A D D I T I O N S T O T H E EA S E M E N T S S H O W N O N T H I S SU B M I T T A L A N D M A K E S U R E EA S E M E N T S A R E C O R R E C T O N FU T U R E S U B M I T T A L S AT T E N T I O N : R E C O N C I L E A L L SE T B A C K S , E A S E M E N T S A N D DI M E N S I O N S O N S U B M I T T A L S WI T H F O R M B O A R D S U R V E Y . MA I N T A I N D R A I N A G E A S S H O W N ON G R A D I N G P L A N , D O N O T BL O C K D R A I N A G E R E Q U I R E D B Y PL A N , M A I N T A I N S H E E T F L O W . 4 F T . S I D E W A L K R E Q ’ D PE R C I T Y O F C O L L E Y V I L L E LA N D D E V E L O P M E N T C O D E Ap p l i c a n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p r o p e r id e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d v e r i f i c a t i o n o f a l l ea s e m e n t s . A p p l i c a n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o en s u r e t h a t n o e a s e m e n t o r s e t b a c k re q u i r e m e n t i s e n c r o a c h e d . Pr o v i d e f o r d r a i n a g e o f s u r f a c e wa t e r ; d o n o t b l o c k s u r f a c e w a t e r wi t h w a l l s , f l a t w o r k o r o t h e r a n y ot h e r s t r u c t u r e . NOT E : S E P A R A T E P E R M I T S R E Q U I R E D F O R P O O L S , F E N C E S A N D A C C E S S O R Y B U I L D I N G S BU I L D E R I S R E S P O N S I B L E F O R PR E V E N T I O N O F E R O S I O N B Y CO L L E Y V I L L E C I T Y O R D I N A N C E 0- 9 3 - 9 0 1 CO R R E C T I O N S A N D / O R N O T E S HA V E B E E N A D D E D T O T H I S SU B M I T T A L . I F Y O U H A V E QU E S T I O N S P L E A S E C O N T A C T CI T Y S T A F F . Fi n a l G r a d i n g I n s p e c t i o n an d C e r t i f i c a t e R e q u i r e d Se e A t t a c h m e n t s Cu r b R a m p s a n d S i d e w a l k s s h a l l me e t A D A R e q u i r e m e n t s ( T D L R ) Se t b a c k s a s s h o w n a p p e a r t o me e t m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s fo r t h i s p r o p e r t y . F o r m s u r v e y ve r i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e d . Dr a i n a g e f o r t h i s s i n g l e l o t s h a l l ac c o m m o d a t e t h e i r o w n d r a i n a g e i n t o a n ap p r o v e d s t r u c t u r e w h e r e t o p o g r a p h i c el e v a t i o n s a l l o w t h i s t o o c c u r . Ci t y St a m p Pa g e Gi v e n to Co n t r a c t o r Up o n Pe r m i t Is s u a n c e Bu i l d i n g Pe r m i t Nu m b e r BL D 1 1 1 1 - 1 6 0 - 80 0 Be v e r l y Dr i v e Supplemental Sidewalk System Map 800 Beverly Drive Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code V tom ;smi 5 _ k•. Rev. 1/8/2013 Section 9.1 Purpose of This Chapter The purpose of this Chapter is to establish design guidelines necessary for proper layout of a subdivision and to establish the public improvement requirements for the development of a subdivision, but more specifically to: 1. ensure that public facilities and services are available to all subdivisions in the City; and 2. establish reasonable standards of design for public facilities. Section 9.2 Authorization for Adoption of This Chapter The regulations contained in this Chapter have been adopted under the following authority: 1. Chapter 212 — Municipal Regulation of Subdivisions and Property Development of the Texas Local Government Code, which authorizes a municipality to adopt rules governing plats and subdivisions of land within the municipality's jurisdiction. 2. Chapter 51 — General Powers of Municipalities of the Texas Local Government Code, which authorizes a municipality to adopt ordinances, rules, or police regulations that are for the good government, peace, or the trade and commerce of the municipality. 3. The Home Rule Charter of the City of Colleyville, which authorizes the City Council to exercise all powers granted to municipalities by the Constitution or the laws of the State of Texas. Section 9.3 Variances and Appeals Any person seeking approval of a development as required by this Land Development Code may request a waiver from a requirement contained in this Chapter, or appeal a decision of an Administrative Official by submitting a request using the procedures described in Chapter 1 — General Provisions of this Land Development Code. Section 9.4 Definitions Definitions applicable to this Chapter may be found in Chapter 2 — Definitions of this Land Development Code. Section 9.5 Subdivision Design Guidelines Every subdivision plat shall be reviewed for conformance with the design guidelines contained in this Chapter. The City recognizes that suitability characteristics vary from site to site and when approving a subdivision plat the following guidelines shall be used for interpretation, application and enforcement of the design guidelines contained in this Chapter: 1. It is the intention of these subdivision design guidelines to encourage new and creative ways to develop subdivisions. Developers and city officials are encouraged to utilize new and innovative ways to improve safety, economy, tax yield, maintenance cost, response time, drainage, vehicular access, and pedestrian Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-1 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code passage. 2. Whenever a subdivider can demonstrate an alternative method of meeting the requirements of this Chapter, it shall be incumbent upon the city staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the City Council to review the proposed variations and approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the proposed alternatives as appropriate for the conditions. Section 9.6 Blocks A. General Design — Blocks should have sufficient depth to provide for two (2) tiers of lots of appropriate depths, except that blocks adjacent to major streets, railroads or waterways shall have only one tier of lots. B. Block Lengths & Widths — Residential and industrial blocks generally shall be no longer than sixteen hundred (1,600) feet and business blocks no longer than one thousand (1,000) feet. Where long blocks in the vicinity of a school, park or shopping center are proposed, the City Council may require a public walkway near the middle of long blocks or opposite a street that terminates between the streets at the ends of the block. Section 9.7 Lots A. Lot Arrangement — Lots shall be arranged to provide access to lots from approved streets and to avoid foreseeable difficulties due to topography and natural physical features inherent to the property. B. Lot Area and Dimensions— Lot area and dimensions shall be consistent with the minimum requirements of the applicable zoning district and the following: 1. Special Lot Width Requirement-The width between side lot lines at their foremost points (where they intersect with the street line)shall not be less than eighty(80) percent of the required lot width. In the case of lots on the turning circle of a cul-de-sac, the width may be less than eighty(80) percent of the required lot width. 2. The City may approve a plat which contains a lot that does not meet the minimum requirements when special conditions exist. C. Frontage on Public Access Required — All lots shall have frontage on a public street, except a non- residential lot may be approved when the proposed public access has been determined by City to be adequate to meet the intent of this requirement. The lot line common to the street right-of-way line shall be the front line; except that a lot may have more than one lot line common to a street right-of-way line. D. Access from Major Thoroughfares 1. Residential Lots - No residential lot shall front on or derive access directly from an existing or proposed collector street, or larger, as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan, except where the proposed subdivision meets all the following criteria: a. Where the only street frontage which may be provided to the residential lot is from a collector street due to the shape, topography, or other physical condition of the property; b. The City Engineer has provided favorable recommendation; and. c. Where the residential lot is designed and dimensioned to permit loop driveways or on-site turnaround facilities so that vehicles head into the collector street. 2. Non-residential Lots—Non-residential lots which have frontage onto or derive access directly from an existing or proposed collector street, or larger, as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan, shall have Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-2 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code driveway locations which comply with the spacing requirements established elsewhere in Chapter 14 Engineering Design Standards of this Land Development Code. E. Buildable Area — Every lot shall contain a buildable area that is adequate in size for the proposed development. The buildable area shall be situated out of the 100 year flood plain. F. Flag Lots Prohibited — It is the policy of the City to prohibit the creation of flag lots unnecessarily, and to discourage the creation of any lot which, by virtue of its relatively great depth in relation to its width, is likely to facilitate future requests for re-subdivision to create a flag lot. G. Building Lines — Front building lines shall be shown on all lots in the subdivision. Building lines shall be shown along each street-facing of corner lots and through-lots. The building line shall be consistent with the requirements of the applicable zoning district, however, the City may approve a building line which differs from the zoning requirements when special conditions exist. H. Side Lot Lines—Where possible, all side lot lines shall be at right angles to straight street lines and radial to curved street lines. I. Lot Drainage and Grading 1. Grading and drainage of all lots shall be designed in a manner which will allow one lot to drain across an adjacent lot and into a permanent structure, such as a concrete flume, lined channel, or proper inlet to an adequate drainage facility, or to a street right-of-way. If an approved drainage structure is not present, it will be required of the developer to construct the necessary facilities. (0-00-1261/12-19- 00) 2. Sheet flow techniques shall be used for lot to lot drainage where possible. (0-00-1261/12-19-00) 3. Single lots shall accommodate their own drainage into an approved structure where topographic elevations allow this to occur. (0-00-1261/12-19-00) Section 9.8 Waterbodies and Water Courses If a tract being subdivided contains a water body, or portion thereof, lot lines shall be drawn so as to distribute the entire ownership of the water body among the adjacent lots. The City may approve an alternate plan provided the ownership of and responsibility for maintenance of the water body is so placed that it will not become a City responsibility. Where a watercourse separates the buildable area of a lot from the street by which it has access, provision shall be made for installation of a culvert or other structure, of design approved by the City. Any lot which includes a water body and contains a building site, contain a buildable area that is not less than the minimum buildable area for the applicable zoning district. Section 9.9 Street Names The developer shall submit all existing and proposed street names on any proposed subdivision plat. New street names shall be sufficiently different in sound and in spelling from other road names in the city so as to not cause confusion to the general public or for emergency response. A road which is, or planned, as a continuation of an existing road shall bear the same name. Section 9.10 Reserve Strips and Common Areas The creation of reserve strips shall not be permitted adjacent to a proposed street or to adjacent property in such a manner as to deny access from adjacent property to the street. No common areas shall be allowed in Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-3 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code a subdivision except where notation has been placed on the plat to prohibit development on the common area. Section 9.11 Double Frontage Lots Double frontage and reversed frontage lots shall be avoided except where necessary to provide separation of residential development from a collector street or to overcome specific disadvantages of topography and orientation. The City may require that a notation be placed on the plat to limit the facing of main structures or to limit driveway access from a collector street. Section 9.12 General Infrastructure Policy 03-03-09/0-09-1712) A. General Requirement—The developer of a subdivision shall install all water, sewer, street, sidewalk and drainage improvements, and any other facilities required by this Land Development Code, which are necessary for the proper development of the subdivision. The design, construction and inspection of any public facilities shall be a cost to the developer, unless the City has entered into an agreement for cost sharing. All such facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria contained in this Land Development Code and be in conformance with the general layout of the City of Colleyville Master Land Use Plan and Capital Improvements Plan. The public facility requirement of this section shall be applicable to the upgrading of any existing facilities which do not meet current standards. B. Apportionment of Infrastructure Costs —As a condition of the approval of a development, the developer's portion of the costs may not exceed the amount required for infrastructure improvements that are roughly proportionate to the projected impact of the proposed development, as determined by a professional engineer, licensed in the State of Texas, and who is retained by the City of Colleyville. 1. In making the rough proportionality determination, consideration shall be given to the availability of adequate and minimum levels of public facilities and accessibility to the site for delivery of emergency services. 2. The professional engineer making the proportionality determination may rely on categorical findings from comparable public improvement projects for establishing a cost basis. The basis used for determining estimated costs shall be revised annually on July 1 by the Colleyville Engineering Department. 3. A developer who disputes the determination by said professional engineer may appeal to the City Council and present testimony and evidence in support of the appeal. The appeal shall be written and filed with the City Secretary within ten (10) days after the date action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission on the development proposal. The developer shall not be required to waive the right to appeal as a condition of approval of the development project. C. Optional Escrow Provision — Where, in the opinion of the City, construction of a required public improvement should be deferred to a future date, the developer shall place in escrow with the City, an amount equal to the estimated cost of the improvements, as determined by the City Engineer. The Planning and Zoning Commission or City Council may consider an alternate arrangement when appropriate. Any escrow related to the construction of sidewalks shall adhere to the requirements set forth in Section F. D. City Participation in Over-Sizinq — Where over-sizing of a public improvement is required by the Comprehensive Master Plan, Thoroughfare Plan, Water or Sewer Capital Improvements Plan or other planning document adopted by the City, City participation shall be in accordance with the provisions of any applicable Impact Fee Ordinance or City-Developer Agreement,which has been approved by the City Council. E. Public Easements —All public improvements shall be constructed within easements or rights-of-way that have been dedicated for public use. The width of an easement or right-of-way shall be in accordance with the specifications contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code. Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-4 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code F. Escrow Policy for Sidewalks 1. Request for Escrow Payments into escrow in lieu of constructing any sidewalk may only occur where recommended by the Supplemental Sidewalk System Map. The only exceptions to this requirement shall be as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or City Council either as a condition to a formal sidewalk waiver request or as part of a Special Use Permit or Planned Unit Development request. 2. Deposit with the City Whenever the City agrees to accept escrow deposits in lieu of construction by the owner of the property under these regulations, the property owner or developer shall deposit an amount equal to his share of the costs of design and construction in escrow with the City. This amount shall be paid prior to release of construction plans by the Director of Public Works. The obligations and responsibilities of the property owner shall become those of the property owner's transferees, heirs, successors, and assigns; and the liability therefore shall be joint and several. 3. Determination of Escrow Amount The amount of the escrow shall be determined by using the average of the comparable bids awarded by the City in the preceding six (6) months for sidewalk design and construction or, if none exist, then current market value of the design and construction of a sidewalk in the City, to be determined by the Director of Public Works. The determination shall be based on reasonable current market value made as of the time the escrow is due. 4. Termination of Escrow Escrows fees paid to the City pursuant to this Section shall be held for a period of ten (10) years from the date of the deposit. If the City has not expended such funds on a sidewalk with the Sidewalk District of the dwelling unit that deposited the sidewalk escrow fee, and upon written request from the original party making the deposit, such funds shall be returned to the original party that paid the escrow fees with accrued interest, subject to the limitations in Subsection 6. Such return does not remove any obligations of the dwelling unit for construction of required improvement(s)if a building permit is applied for. 5. Refund If any public improvement for which escrow is deposited is constructed or is reconstructed by another governmental authority at no cost to the City, the escrow funds and accrued interest shall be refunded to the property owner or developer after completion and acceptance of the public improvements. In the event that a portion of the cost is borne by the City and the other portion of the cost by another governmental authority, the difference between the owner's actual proportionate cost and the escrow funds, including accrued interest, if any, shall be refunded after completion and acceptance of the improvements. 6. Interest Limitation If for any reason money is refunded within six (6) months of deposit, only the principal will be refunded. Monies returned after this date will be refunded with interest accrued calculated at one percent (1%) less than the rate of actual earnings received on the escrowed funds. 7.Waiver of Escrow The Developer may apply to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a waiver of the requirement to construct a sidewalk or escrow funds in lieu of construction as described in Section 9.19. 8. Use of Escrow Funds Six (6) Sidewalk Districts are hereby established throughout the City. These districts shall share the same boundaries as the six (6) neighborhoods depicted on the Neighborhood Boundary Map in the 2004—2025 Colleyville Plan. The Sidewalk Districts are established so that sidewalk escrow funds will Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-5 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code be expended within sufficient proximity to the dwelling unit that deposited the sidewalk escrow fee so as to reasonably benefit that dwelling unit. Funds escrowed pursuant to this Section shall be expended on design and construction of sidewalks located at any place within the same Sidewalk District as the dwelling unit depositing the sidewalk escrow fee. Form for Escrow An escrow for the construction of a sidewalk pursuant to this Section shall be in the following form: In lieu of constructing the necessary sidewalks in the development, the developer shall be required to escrow funds for the construction the sidewalks which shall be dedicated to the City. The developer shall be required to escrow these funds in the amount of $ which includes contingencies, engineering, and design. This escrow requirement shall be fulfilled prior to the signing and filing of the approved final plat. Section 9.13 Water System Requirements A. Water Lines — The developer of a subdivision shall be required to install, at no cost to the City, a water distribution system adequate for domestic supply and for fire protection needs which serves each lot. The water system shall be connected to the municipal water system and be designed, sized and constructed in accordance with the city design standards and specifications contained in this Land Development Code. B. Fire Hydrants — The developer of a subdivision shall be required to install, at no cost to the City, a sufficient number of fire hydrants to provide fire protection to every lot in the subdivision. All structures in residential areas shall have fire hydrants within 500 feet and a 600-foot hose-lay. All structures in commercial areas shall have fire hydrants within 300 feet and a 500-foot hose-lay. The design and construction of the fire hydrant system shall be in accordance with the city design standards and specifications contained in this Land Development Code. The layout of the fire hydrant coverage shall be approved by the Fire Marshal and be in accordance with the standards of the Texas State Board of Insurance requirements. (0-00-1261/12-19-00) Section 9.14 Sewage System Requirements A. Sewage Collection Lines — The developer of a subdivision shall be required to install, at no cost to the City, a sewage collection system adequate which shall serve each lot. The sewage collection system shall be connected to the municipal sewage system and be designed, sized and constructed in accordance with the city design standards and specifications contained in this Land Development Code. B. Private Sewage Treatment Systems — Private sewage treatments systems, including septic tanks, shall be prohibited except where approved by the Director of Public Services and the Tarrant County Health Department. Section 9.15 Storm Water Facility Requirements A. Drainage Improvement Requirements — The developer shall provide for the design of storm water management in the proposed subdivision and shall be required to furnish, install, construct, or extend, at his own expense, all storm sewers and drainage structure facilities necessary for the proper development of the subdivision. Storm water facilities shall conform to the storm water drainage master plan and shall be designed in accordance with the design standards and specifications contained in this Land Development Code. Alternate earthen channels may be approved when in accordance with the criteria established in Chapter 14-Engineering Design Standards. Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-6 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code B. Drainage Easements — All public drainage facilities shall be constructed within a public drainage easement or drainage right-of-way as required by the City. The following statement of restriction shall be placed in the dedication instrument of the subdivision plat: Drainage Easement Restriction: No construction or filling, without the written approval of the City of Colleyville shall be allowed within a drainage easement, and then only after detailed engineering plans and studies show that no flooding will result,that no obstruction to the natural flow of water will result,and subject to all owners of the property affected by such construction becoming a party to the request. Where construction is permitted, all finished floor elevations shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. C. Development of Flood Plain—Land within the 100-year flood plain shall be subject to the Colleyville Flood Plain Ordinance. Any land which in the natural state is subject to a 100-year flood or which cannot be properly drained shall not be subdivided, re-subdivided, or developed until receipt of evidence that the construction of specific improvements proposed by the developer can be expected to yield a usable building site. Thereafter, the Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of the plat. However, construction upon such land shall be prohibited until the specific improvements have been planned and construction completed. D. Floodway Easements 1. Floodway easements shall be provided along natural drainage-ways and lakes reservations. Floodway easements shall encompass all areas beneath the water surface elevation of the base flood, plus such additional width as may be required to provide ingress and egress to allow maintenance of the banks and for the protection of adjacent property, as determined and required by the Director of Public Services. 2. The following statement of restrictions shall be placed in the dedication instrument of the subdivision plat: Floodway Easement Restriction: No construction shall be allowed within a floodway easement without the written approval of the City of Colleyville, and then only after detailed engineering plans and studies show that no flooding will result. E. Off-Site Drainage—The following provisions shall be applicable to off-site drainage of new subdivisions: 1. The developer shall be responsible for all runoff from fully developed property upstream of the proposed development. 2. Where a drainage study indicates that additional runoff from the developing property will overload downstream drainage facilities and result in hazardous conditions, the City may withhold approval of the development until appropriate provisions have been made. These provisions shall include any drainage design or construction plans necessary to accommodate the off-site drainage problem. Section 9.16 Street Improvement Requirements A. General Requirement— The developer shall construct, at his expense, street facilities necessary for the proper development of the subdivision. The street system shall provide access to every lot in the subdivision and be designed and constructed in accordance with the criteria contained in this Land Development Code. B. Improvements to Existing Unimproved Streets and Utilities — This section is applicable to a proposed development situated adjacent to an existing street or municipal utility, which does not meet the standards contained in the Land Development Code. (0-06-1562/02-07-06) Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-7 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code 1 Improvements Required — If a proposed subdivision is situated adjacent to an existing street or municipal utility, which does not meet the standards contained in this Land Development Code, the developer shall bear the cost for constructing the infrastructure improvements required by this Land Development Code in accordance with the General Infrastructure Policy contained elsewhere in the Land Development Code. For the purpose of this regulation, the calculation used for estimating the reconstruction costs for an unimproved street shall include all street paving, curb and gutter, sidewalks, hike and bike trails, water and sewer utilities, and drainage improvements. The improvements shall be sized in accordance with the most recently approved Master Thoroughfare Plan or Capital Improvements Plan, which is applicable. 2. Escrow—The Administrative Official may recommend approval of a subdivision plat to the Approving Body conditioned upon the deposit in escrow of the estimated costs of the adjacent unimproved street and utility improvements in-lieu of the actual construction of said facilities. Any escrow, without interest, shall be applied against any assessment for improvements levied on such property, but shall not be deemed to release such property from liability for any future costs assessed which exceed the escrow. 3. One and Two Lot Residential Subdivisions— If a proposed residential subdivision contains only one or two lots and the developer does not own any contiguous property, in lieu of actual construction, the developer shall pay the applicable perimeter street costs in accordance with the General Infrastructure Policy contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code for the initial one hundred feet of street frontage. The applicable perimeter street costs shall be reduced 0.2% per linear foot of frontage in excess of one hundred feet, not to exceed fifty percent of the applicable additional street frontage. Exemption: A lot platted under this Section that contains an existing single-family dwelling at the time a subdivision plat application is filed with the City and the lot is situated with a zoning district that allows single-family residential uses, said lot shall have an automatic exemption from the perimeter street costs, provided that existing perimeter street facilities are sufficient to assure the safe, effective and orderly movement of traffic in and about the subdivision and utility services are adequate to serve the development. The following notation shall be placed on the plat: "Any future divisions of these lots will require full compliance with the unimproved street requirements applicable at the time of any subsequent replatting." Section 9.17 Street Design Criteria A. Street Functional Classification — All streets shall be designed in accordance with the functional classification shown on the most recent version of the Master Thoroughfare Plan and the following: Functional Classification ofStreets Street Classification Functions-Uses Carries traffic from residential and commercial areas to collector streets and Local interconnects individual sites. Local streets carry light traffic volumes and trips are of a short duration. Collector Carries traffic from local streets to arterial streets. Uses served would include medium and high density residential, limited commercial facilities, elementary schools, some Major small offices and as direct access within industrial parks. Collector streets also carry Minor heavy traffic to major commercial and industrial facilities from arterial streets. Uses would include office parks,industrial parks,and community level commercial facilities. The main function of an arterial is to carry traffic from on urban area to another. The Arterial arterial streets serve the major activity centers of urbanized areas. An arterial street is Major used for longer urban trips and carries a high portion of the total traffic with a minimum Minor of mileage. Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-8 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code B. Street Design 1. In-General— Streets shall be designed with due regard to topography, with due consideration of the abutting uses, and the anticipated destination of traffic and traffic volumes at full development of the neighborhood. Where necessary to prevent traffic congestion and to ease the movement of vehicles to and from principal traffic generators, additional right-of-way width or other special design shall be provided. Where topographical conditions make other treatment necessary to secure the best overall design, these standards may be modified by the approving body. 2. Street Continuity—The street layout shall provide for the continuation of the collector street system as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Streets shall provide connection to streets in adjacent subdivisions, but local streets shall be designed so as to discourage use by through traffic and to require the minimum number of streets necessary for convenient and safe access to property. 3. Curvilinear Streets Encouraged - The subdivider is encouraged to consider curvilinear, cul-de-sac, and loop street designs where such use would result in a more functional layout and not necessarily adhere to a rigid rectangular gridiron street pattern. 4. Right-of-way Widths— Every subdivision plat shall dedicate sufficient right-of-way to comply with the requirements of the Master Thoroughfare Plan. The right-of-way widths shall be designed for the intended use and anticipated traffic volume at optimum development of the area served. Additional right-of-way may be required at street intersections and to provide for left and right turn lanes at high- volume intersections. 5. Cul-de-sac Lengths — No street shall be designed as a permanent dead-end street, but shall be designed to incorporate a cul-de-sac which complies with this Section. (0-00-1261/12-19-00) a. Diameter—A cul-de-sac street shall be provided at the closed end with a minimum property line right-of-way diameter of one hundred feet, and a pavement turn-around with a minimum outside diameter of eighty feet(80'). (0-00-1261/12-19-00) b. Length — No cul-de-sac street shall exceed six hundred feet (600') in length, unless additional right-of-way width and additional pavement width are provided as required in this Section. Furthermore, no cul-de-sac street shall exceed the maximum length of one-thousand two hundred feet (1,200'). For purpose of this regulation, cul-de-sac length shall be measured along the centerline of the cul-de-sac from the intersecting street right-of-way line to the center point of the cul-de-sac. (0-00-1261/12-19-00) c. Width — A cul-de-sac street shall have a minimum right-of-way width of fifty feet (50') and a minimum pavement width of thirty-one feet (31'), back-to-back of curb. However, a cul-de-sac street which exceeds six-hundred feet(600') in length shall have a minimum right-of-way width of fifty-six feet(56')and minimum pavement width of thirty-six feet(36'), back-to-back of curb. (0-00- 1261/12-19-00) d. Maximum Number of Lots —The maximum number of single-family lots served on a cul-de-sac street shall be as shown in the following table: (0-00-1261/12-19-00) Maximum SF Residenc c Served on Cul-de-sac District Max.Number of Lots Served AG 5 RE 5 R-40 10 R-30 10 R-20 12 Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-9 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code R 12 PUD-R 12 I e. Temporary Turn-Around—A temporary turn-around is required when a street is temporarily dead- ended and is longer one-hundred and fifty (150) feet, as measured from the intersecting street right-of-way line. The temporary turn-around shall be within a temporary easement and constructed of asphalt or concrete. (0-00-1261/12-19-00) 6. Temporary Dead-End Streets- Temporary dead-end streets shall have provision for future extension of the street and utilities and, if a temporary cul-de-sac is utilized, a reversionary right to the land abutting the turnaround for excess right-of-way shall be provided. 7. Stub-outs for Future Extensions- Permanent dead-end roads shall not be allowed. The street layout shall be extended to the tract boundary to provide for future access into adjoining tracts to assure adequate neighborhood circulation, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions, or unless, the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that the extension is neither necessary for future development of adjacent tracts. In general, these extensions should be not more than one thousand (1,000)feet apart. 8. Pavement Required- All street surfaces within or abutting the proposed subdivision shall be paved, with curbs and gutters installed, and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code. 9. Frontage Access Road - Where a subdivision abuts or contains an existing or proposed collector street or railroad right-of-way or abuts a commercial or industrial land use, the City may require a frontage street approximately parallel to and on each side of such right-of-way to separate through and local traffic, or reverse frontage with screen planting contained in a non-access reservation along the rear property line, deep lots with rear service alleys, or equivalent treatment as may be necessary for adequate protection of residential properties. 10. Half Streets- Half streets shall be prohibited, except where essential to the reasonable development of the subdivision in conformity with the other requirements of these regulations, and where the Planning and Zoning Commission finds it will be practicable to require the dedication of the other half when the adjoining land is subdivided, the other half of the street shall be platted within such tract. 11. Number of Subdivision Entryways— Every subdivision shall be designed to provide sufficient access into the development to accommodate anticipated traffic demands and to provide for emergency public services using the criteria contained in this Section. (0-01-1280108-08-01) a. Where a proposed subdivision, or cul-de-sac street, contains more than twelve (12) lots, the development shall provide for two entryways as follows: i. The development shall provide one street entryway and one emergency access easement. The emergency access easement shall be located on an adjacent or opposite side of the subdivision from the main entryway. The widths of the right-of-way and driving surfaces of the street entryway and the emergency access easement shall be in accordance with the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code, or ii. The development shall provide two street entryways separated not less than one-hundred feet between the centerlines of the driving surfaces. The widths of the right-of-way and driving surfaces of the two entryways shall be in accordance with the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code, or The development shall provide a divided entryway and one emergency access easement. The driving surfaces of the divided entryway shall be separated by a median not less than ten 10) feet in width and provide for one-way traffic. The widths of the right-of-way and driving Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-10 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code surfaces of the divided entryway shall be in accordance with the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code. The emergency access easement shall be located on an adjacent or opposite side of the subdivision from the main entryway and be constructed in accordance with the standards contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code. b. If it is physically impractical or otherwise impossible to provide two entryways or to incorporate an emergency access easement into the development in accordance with the above stated requirements, the following alternative may be considered by the approving body: i. A single pavement width of forty-one (41) feet shall be constructed. Said pavement shall extend back from the intersecting street right-of-way a minimum distance of one-hundred 100') feet. All residences within the subdivision shall contain automatic fire-sprinkler systems. c. If it is physically impractical or otherwise impossible to comply with the above-stated requirements, an alternative design may be submitted to the City Council for consideration. The approving body may approve the alternate design if it finds that the above-state requirements can not be satisfied and that all efforts have been made by the developer to comply with said requirements. 12. Reverse Curves- Between reverse curves there shall be a tangent section of centerline not less than one hundred feet(100')long. C. Intersections 1. Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. A proposed intersection of two (2) new streets at an angle of less than seventy-five (75) degrees shall not be acceptable. 2. Proposed new intersections along one side of an existing street shall, wherever practicable, coincide with any existing intersections on the opposite side of such street Not more than two (2) streets shall intersect at any one point unless specifically approved by the City. 3. Street jogs with centerline offsets of less than one hundred thirty-five(135)feet shall not be permitted. 4. Local streets intersecting a collector street or larger shall have a tangent section of centerline at least fifty (50) feet in length measured from the right-of-way line of the collector street; however, no such tangent is required when the minor street curve has a centerline radius greater than four hundred 400)feet with the center located on the collector street right-of-way line. 5. At local street intersections, the property line corner shall be rounded by an arc having a radius of twelve (12) feet. This radius shall be increased when the smallest angle of intersection is less than eighty (80) degrees. At intersections of streets with major and collector streets the property line corners shall be rounded by an arc having a radius of twenty-five (25)feet. The approving body may submit comparable cut-offs or cords in place of rounded corners. 6. Where practical, spacing of intersections along collector streets shall be at least 500 feet apart. D. Easements—Easements for drainage and utility construction, service, and maintenance shall be provided in locations approved by the City and affected utilities according to the following standards: 1. Easement for the use of public utilities of not less than seven and one-half(7.5')feet in width shall be provided on each lot and extend along the entire length of the rear property line. Easements shall connect with easements already established on adjoining properties or extend to connect with a public right-of-way. No lot shall be shown with an easement which prevents proper development and full utilization of the lot as a suitable building site for the intended zoning district. Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-11 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code 2. For lots of more than two hundred (200)feet deep, the utility easement shall be not less than sixteen 16)feet wide. 3. The width of any drainage easement shall be determined by the City Engineer or in accordance with the need for drainage improvements established by any drainage study. 4. All utility easements shall be dedicated as utility and/or drainage easements. 5. When an easement is granted for public purposes as a separate instrument, the following statement of restrictions shall be placed in dedication instrument: Utility Easements Any public utility,including the City of Colleyville,shall have the right to move and keep moved all or part of any building, fences, shrubs, other growths or improvements which in any way endanger or interfere with the construction, maintenance, or efficiency of its respective systems on any of the easements shown on the plat; and any public utility, including the City of Colleyville, shall have the right at all times of ingress and egress to and from and upon said easements for the purpose of construction, reconstruction, inspection, patrolling, maintaining and adding to or removing all or part of its respective systems without the necessity at any time of procuring the permission of anyone. E. Easements Adjacent to State Highways—When a proposed water or sewer line or drainage facility will be placed adjacent to a public road maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation, a separate specific use easement shall be provided for each utility or drainage facility. F. Emergency Access Easements— Emergency access easements shall have a clear unobstructed width to accommodate a pavement section of not less than twenty-four(24)feet in width. The emergency access easement shall connect at each end to a dedicated public street or shall have a suitable size turnaround at the dead-end, and appropriate turning space at inside corners to permit free movement of emergency vehicles. An emergency access easement may be used as a driveway to gain access to parking or loading spaces, but shall not be used for parking. All emergency access gates shall provide for an opening of not less than twenty four (24) feet wide by fourteen (14) feet in height and include a locking and opening mechanism acceptable to the Fire Department. (03-20-07/0-07-1613) G. Alleys — Alleys shall be provided in commercial and industrial districts and at the rear of multifamily residential building sites for adequate circulation. Where approved by the Fire Marshal, an emergency access easement not less than twenty-four feet (24') in width shall be provided for emergency vehicle access in lieu of any alley. Alleys should intersect streets at right angles or radially to curved streets where sharp changes in alignment cannot be avoided. Property line corners shall be cut off fifteen feet 15') on each side to permit safe vehicular movement. Dead-end alleys shall be prohibited except where prior development of land adjoining the subdivision permits no other reasonable design; under such circumstances alleys shall be provided with turnaround or back-around facilities at the dead-end adequate to permit clear maneuvering of sanitation trucks, utility service vehicles and emergency vehicles. Alleys shall be not less than the following widths: 1. Twenty feet(20')where residential building sites are provided on both sides; 2. Twenty-two feet(22')wherever residential development abuts commercial or industrial areas; 3. Twenty-four feet(24')where commercial or industrial development abuts on both sides. H. Mutual Access Easements(0-02-1336/04-16-02) 1. Purpose — The purpose of this requirement is to provide public access to adjacent properties by reducing the number of driveway cuts and potential traffic accidents on adjacent streets. 2. Applicability—This Section shall be applicable to properties abutting and that may derive access from a Collector Street or Arterial Street as shown on the Master Thoroughfare Plan. Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-12 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code 3. Requirement— The City shall require the dedication of a mutual access easement to provide cross access to adjacent properties or shared use of a driveway to conform with the minimum driveway standards contained in Chapter 14 of this Land Development Code. 4. Easement Dimensions — Easements for shared driveways shall be 16 feet in width and 35 feet in length, but may vary given the shape of the particular tract. Easements extending across the entire width of the property shall not be less than 24 feet in width. Section 9.18 Traffic Impact Analysis When a proposed subdivision plat is estimated to generate more than 1,000 vehicle trips per day, a traffic impact analysis shall be required with the earliest submittal of a plat application. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Director of Public Services. The purpose of the traffic impact analysis is to determine the need for traffic mitigation measures which may include, but are not limited to, dedication of additional right-of-way, construction of turning lanes, or construction of traffic control facilities. This requirement may be waived when a traffic impact analysis was submitted at the time the current zoning was adopted and the traffic impact analysis is less than one year old. Any mitigating measures required shall be the responsibility of the developer, unless a cost-sharing agreement is approved by the City. Section 9.19 Sidewalks A. General Sidewalk Requirement — Sidewalks shall be constructed prior to completion of any primary structure for all lots that: (1) front on streets required to have sidewalks as shown on the City's Supplemental Sidewalk System Map, or; (2) are required as part of a Planned Unit Development or Special use Permit; or, (3) front on a new street dedicated in conjunction with a subdivision plat. The sidewalks shall be constructed adjacent to and within the public street right-of-way and include curb ramps where applicable. Where no public right-of-way exists, the sidewalk shall be located within a public access easement that provides accommodation of the future street right-of-way dedication. When a subdivision is proposed with a masonry or other permanent perimeter screening wall adjacent to a street, the sidewalk shall be constructed by the developer at the same time as the -screening wall. All sidewalks shall conform to the standards and specifications contained in this Land Development Code. Other than properties zoned as Planned Unit Developments or containing Special Use Permits with specific sidewalk provisions, any variance to the sidewalk construction requirements described above shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. 1. Appeal to City Council — The decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission shall be final, unless the applicant submits a written notice of appeal within ten (10) days from the date of the action by the Commission to the enforcement official. If an appeal is received within ten (10) days as described above, the enforcement official shall place the applicant's appeal request on the next available agenda for consideration by the City Council. 2. Applicability of Past Appeals to the City Council—All sidewalk appeal requests considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission between March 3, 2009 and December 18, 2012 may appeal the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the City Council subject to the following provisions: a. All appeals allowed by Section 2 must be filed no later than April 18, 2013. b. All appeals allowed by Section 2 shall be sent in writing to the Director of Community Development. Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-13 Exhibit "A" Colleyville, Texas,Land Development Code B. Trails System Sidewalks — When a proposed sidewalk coincides with the general location of a future sidewalk shown in the most recently approved Colleyville Trails System Plan, the sidewalk shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards for a trails system sidewalk. The standards and specifications for a trails system sidewalk are contained elsewhere in this Land Development Code. The developer shall be required to provide additional street right-of-way dedication or a public access easement of sufficient width to accommodate the trails system sidewalk. Where the trails system sidewalk will be located at the rear or to the side of a lot, such as within a green-belt or similar open space, the developer shall provide sufficient right-of-way or public access easement to accommodate the sidewalk. Section 9.20 Street Lighting A. General Requirements—The developer shall be required to install, at no cost to the City, a street lighting system at all street intersections, at the end of all cul-de-sac streets, and at additional locations in accordance with the criteria contained elsewhere in Chapter 14 — Engineering Design Standards of this Land Development Code. Section 9.21 Amendments to This Chapter Ord.Number Date Subject 0-00-1261 12/19/00 Cul-de sac street lengths 0-00-1261 12/19/00 Lot Draina a and Gradin 0-00-1261 12/19/00 Fire Hydrants 0-00-1261 12/19/00 Divided Entryways 0-00-1280 08/08/01 Number of Subdivision Entryways 0-00-1214 12/18/01 Existing Unimproved Street Requirements 0-02-1336 04/16/02 Mutual Access Easements 0-06-1562 02/07/06 General Infrastructure Policy 0-07-1613 03/20/07 Emergency Access Gates 0-09-1712 03/03/09 Amendment to sidewalk regulations—Sections 9.12 and 9.19 0-12-1860 1/8/2013 Amendment to sidewalk regulations adding appeal to City Council Chapter 9—Subdivision Design&Public Facilities Page 9-14 RESOLUTION R-13-3654 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A WAIVER FROM THE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR A SIDEWALK ON LOT 6B, BLOCK 1, OF THE PLEASANT OAKS ESTATE ADDITION LOCATED AT 800 BEVERLY DRIVE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1. THAT the sidewalk construction requirement for Lot 6B, Block 1, of the Pleasant Oaks Estate Addition located at 800 Beverly Drive is hereby waived. AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. PASSED BY A VOTE OF _____ AYES, _____ NAYS, AND _____ ABSTENTIONS ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013. ATTEST: CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Amy Shelley David Kelly City Secretary Mayor RESOLUTION R-13-3655 A RESOLUTION APPROVING CITY COUNCIL ACTION UNDER BUSINESS AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JULY 16, 2013 WHEREAS,City Council has taken action on certain items on the agenda under Business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COLLEYVILLE, TEXAS: Sec. 1.THAT the agenda decisions approved by City Council action under Business this date and not otherwise adopted by Ordinance and/or separate Resolution as follows are hereby adopted: a.THAT AND IT IS SO RESOLVED. APPROVED BY A VOTE OF ________ AYES, ________NAYS, AND ________ ABSTENTIONS ON THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2013. ATTEST:CITY OF COLLEYVILLE Amy Shelley David Kelly City Secretary Mayor