CP 2008-08-26
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND AGENDA
AUGUST 26, 2008
DOUG STOVER, MARVIN FRANKLIN, Place 6
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem
TIM BRANCHEAU, Place 1 MARSHA TUNNELL, Place 4
JAYNE PETERS, Place 2 BILLY FAUGHT, Place 5
BRIANNA HINOJOSA-FLORES, Place 3 KAREN HUNT, Place 7
JIM WITT, City Manager
MEETING TIME AND PLACE:
Call to Order 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers (Open to the Public)
Executive Session Immediately Following 1st Fl. Conf. Room (Closed to the Public)
Work Session Immediately Following 1st Fl. Conf. Room (Open to the Public)
Regular Session 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers (Open to the Public)
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas will
meet in Regular Called Session on Tuesday, August 26, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. for
Executive Session, Work Session will follow immediately thereafter, and Regular
Session will begin at 7:00 p.m., to be held at Town Center, 255 Parkway
Boulevard, Coppell, Texas.
As authorized by Section 551.071(2) of the Texas Government Code, this
meeting may be convened into closed Executive Session for the purpose of
seeking confidential legal advice from the City Attorney on any agenda item
listed herein.
The City of Coppell reserves the right to reconvene, recess or realign the Work
Session or called Executive Session or order of business at any time prior to
adjournment.
The purpose of the meeting is to consider the following items:
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
1. Call to order.
ag082608
Page 1 of 5
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
2. Convene Executive Session
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code - Consultation with City
Attorney.
1. The City of Coppell and Coppell Independent School District
opposition to a change of zoning request of the Billingsley
Corporation in the City of Dallas, Zoning Case Number Z045-
107; and City of Coppell vs. CB Parkway Business Center VI, et
al in the County Court at Law No. 3; and CB Parkway Business
Center, et al vs. City of Coppell, et al; and City of Dallas vs.
Douglas Stover, et al in the 191st District Court; and City of
Coppell, et al vs. City of Dallas, et al in the 101st District Court.
B. Section 551.072, Texas Government Code - Deliberation regarding
Real Property.
1. Purchase of Real Property West of Denton Tap and South of
Bethel Road.
2. Land Purchase West of MacArthur and South of Beltline.
C. Section 551.087, Texas Government Code – Economic
Development Negotiations.
1. ED Prospects East and West of Beltline/Denton Tap and south
of Bethel Road and north of S.H. 121 and east of Denton Tap.
D. Section 551.074, Texas Government Code - Personnel Matters.
1. City Manager/Deputy City Manager Transition.
WORK SESSION (Open to the Public)
3. Convene Work Session
A. Discussion regarding the sale of alcohol at Oaktoberfest.
B. Rail North Texas.
1. Cotton Belt Service.
2. Town Hall Meeting.
C. Discussion regarding Coppell 2030 Process.
D. Discussion of Agenda Items.
Adjourn Work Session.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS
Public Service Announcements concerning local civic events and no Council
action is required or permitted.
ag082608
Page 2 of 5
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public)
4. Convene Regular Session.
5. Invocation.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Presentation by Raymond Turco of Raymond Turco and Associates
regarding the executive summary of the 2008 Waste Collection and
Recycling Attitude Survey.
8. Report by Library Board.
9. Citizens' Appearances
CONSENT AGENDA
10. Consider approval of the following consent agenda items:
A. Consider approval of minutes: August 12, 2008
August 18, 2008.
B. Consider approval of purchase of three 3M Self Check ™ machines
in the amount of $58,539 from Alpha Data Corp (TXMAS-6-70030).
END OF CONSENT
11. Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas,
approving an amendment to Ordinance No. 2007-1181, the budget for
Fiscal Year October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008, and authorizing
the Mayor to sign.
12. PUBLIC HEARING:
To receive public comment concerning the proposed 2008-2009
Municipal Budget.
13. PUBLIC HEARING:
To receive public comment concerning the proposed 2008-2009 tax rate
of 0.64146.
ag082608
Page 3 of 5
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
14. Consider approval of a proposal from Dallas County, as provided for in
the existing City/County Agreement to overlay the asphalt paving of the
following streets: Sanders Loop, Holly Street and Nash Street south of
Sandy Lake Road; with Dallas County furnishing labor, materials and
equipment to perform the work; with the City of Coppell paying a cost of
$124,886.87 as provided in the IMF fund; and authorizing the Mayor to sign
and to execute any necessary documents.
15. Consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of
Coppell and the City of Lewisville for construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive; and authorize
funding in the amount of $169,264.46 for construction; and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and to execute any necessary documents.
16. Consider approval of a Purchase Agreement between Pacific Realty
Associates, L.P. (PacTrust) and the City of Coppell for the construction of
Southwestern Boulevard from the Denton Tap/Belt Line intersection to
Coppell Road; and authorizing the City Manager to sign and execute any
necessary documents.
17. Consider approval of a resolution designating the sole Provider of
alcoholic beverages at the October 18, 2008 Coppell Oaktoberfest, and
authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with said
Provider.
18. Mayor and Council Reports.
A. Report by Mayor Stover regarding Coppell 2030 Update.
B. Report by Mayor Stover regarding Coppell Chamber meeting.
19. Council Committee Reports.
A. Carrollton/Farmers Branch ISD/Lewisville ISD – Tunnell
B. Coppell ISD – Peters and Hinojosa-Flores.
C. Coppell Seniors – Brancheau and Faught.
D. Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition – Peters.
E. DFW Airport Board – Peters.
F. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) –
Brancheau
G. Metrocrest Hospital Authority – Tunnell.
H. Metrocrest Medical Foundation – Hunt.
I. Metrocrest Medical Services – Hinojosa-Flores.
J. Metrocrest Social Service Center – Hunt.
K. North Texas Council of Governments – Peters.
L. NTCOG/Regional Emergency Management – Franklin.
ag082608
Page 4 of 5
ITEM # ITEM DESCRIPTION
M. North Texas Commission – Franklin.
N. Senior Adult Services – Faught.
20. Necessary action resulting from Work Session.
21. Necessary action resulting from Executive Session.
Adjournment.
____________________________________
Douglas N. Stover, Mayor
CERTIFICATE
I certify that the above Notice of Meeting was posted on the bulletin board at
the City Hall of the City of Coppell, Texas on this 22nd day of August, 2008, at
__________________.
____________________________________
Libby Ball, City Secretary
DETAILED INFORMATION REGARDING THIS AGENDA IS AVAILABLE ON
THE CITY'S WEBSITE (www.ci.coppell.tx.us) UNDER PUBLIC
DOCUMENTS, COUNCIL PACKETS.
PUBLIC NOTICES
STATEMENT FOR ADA COMPLIANCE
The City of Coppell acknowledges its responsibility to comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990. Thus, in order to assist individuals with disabilities who require
special services (i.e. sign interpretative services, alternative audio/visual devices, and
amanuenses) for participation in or access to the City of Coppell sponsored public
programs, services and/or meetings, the City requests that individuals make requests for
these services forty-eight (48) hours ahead of the scheduled program, service and/or
meeting. To make arrangements, contact Vivyon V. Bowman, ADA Coordinator or
other designated official at (972) 462-0022, or (TDD 1-800-RELAY, TX 1-800-735-2989).
ag082608
Page 5 of 5
KEY TO COUNCIL GOALS ICONS
2007 — 2012
Maintain Sustainable, Financially Sound City Government with Excellent Services
• Maintain quality customer service resulting in 90+% customer satisfaction ratings
• Ensure adequate resources to support defined services and service levels
• Retain reserves consistent with city policy
• Invest in the city’s future: operations & capital
• Ensure residents are aware of city vision, goals, services and programs
Develop & Revitalize Commercial Areas & Corridors
• Continue development: corporate offices and major distribution businesses
• Revitalize aged or deteriorating strip centers
• Maintain and expand business tax base
• Develop a quality hotel serving residents and guests
• Retain and support expansion of current businesses located in Coppell
Maintain & Upgrade City Infrastructure
• Maintain and improve quality of roads, alleys, and sidewalks
• Improve quality of storm water management systems
• Improve and maintain quality of city facilities
• Facilitate efficient traffic flow within and through the city
• Improve municipal utilities where necessary and maintain existing
Develop an Alive Old Coppell – A Community Destination
• Develop a community destination: residents think of Old Coppell as a place to go
• Attract small, niche retail businesses
• Attract more restaurants
• Maintain and expand the Farmers’ Market
• Attract non-residents to come and return for dining, shopping and entertainment
Maintain Attractive, Livable Neighborhoods with Quality Homes
• Protect the integrity and identity of current neighborhoods
• Enhance the attractiveness of neighborhood infrastructure (trees, streetscapes)
• Maintain and increase property values in older homes
• Have infill developments that add value to the neighborhood
• Have a high percentage of owner-occupied single-family homes
Create a City for a Lifetime
• Provide leisure and recreational opportunities for all family generations
• Maintain a reputation as a safe community for all
• Have all generations and diverse populations feel welcome
• Maintain top quality schools in partnership with ISD’s
• Rejuvenate community events with a high level of participation
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
DATE: August 26, 2008
ITEM #: ES-2
EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code – Consultation with City Attorney.
1. The City of Coppell and Coppell Independent School District opposition to
a change of zoning request of the Billingsley Corporation in the City of
Dallas, Zoning Case Number Z045-107; and City of Coppell vs. CB Parkway
Business Center VI, et al in the County Court at Law No. 3; and CB
Parkway Business Center, et al vs. City of Coppell, et al; and City of Dallas
vs. Douglas Stover, et al in the 191st District Court; and City of Coppell, et
al vs. City of Dallas, et al in the 101st District Court.
B. Section 551.072, Texas Government Code – Deliberation regarding Real
Property.
1. Purchase of Real Property West of Denton Tap and South of Bethel Road.
2. Land Purchase West of MacArthur and South of Beltline.
C. Section 551.087, Texas Government Code – Economic Development
Negotiations.
1. ED Prospects East and West of Beltline/Denton Tap and south of Bethel
Road and north of S.H. 121 and east of Denton Tap
D. Section 551.074, Texas Government Code – Personnel Matters.
1. City Manager/Deputy City Manager Transition.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name: %exsessn
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
DATE: August 26, 2008
ITEM #: WS-3
WORK SESSION
A. Discussion regarding the sale of alcohol at Oaktoberfest.
B. Rail North Texas.
1. Cotton Belt Service.
2. Town Hall Meeting.
C. Discussion regarding Coppell 2030 Process.
D. Discussion of Agenda Items.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/07 Document Name: %wksessn
Mr.Jim Witt
City Manager
City of Coppell
P.O.Box 9478
Coppell,TX 75019-9478
Dear Jim:
August 11,2008
8-
City Council
Steve Mitchell
Mayor
Bob Townsend
Mayor Pro Tern
Rhea Allison
John Murphy
Gary A.Slagel
Prls Hayes
Dennis Stewart
Bill Keffler
City Manager
As you are well aware,the topic of a regional rail system has become an active
point of discussion throughout the Dallas-Ft.Worth Metroplex.The Cotton Belt
Railroad has become an integral part of this discussion,drawing significant attention
among the cities along this 52 mile rail corridor.Ron Whitehead and I have been
involved in a series of meetings with many city officials representing communities
along the Cotton Belt rail line,in the effort to promote a planning initiative that could
advance the construction schedule and the ultimate goal of passenger service on
the Cotton Belt.
To this point NCTCOG is taking the lead in concert with DART and the T to examine
funding possibilities,legislative strategies,and other technical considerations that will
enable the successful development of the Cotton Belt in a timely basis.Through the
leadership of the Regional Transportation Council,progress can best be achieved in
this important transportation initiative.
For the RTCto assume this leadership role,it is critical that the cities along the Cotton
Belt express their interest to NCTCOG.Ron and I have enclosed a draft that can be
used as a model for a formal letter from your Mayor and City Council outlining your
support for the RTC's future study of the Cotton Belt rail corridor.We need your
assistance in getting your city's communication to Michael Morris and NCTCOG so
that this collaborative effort can be started as soon as possible,as outlined in the
attached draft.Your assistance in this effort is greatly appreciated by all of us
committed to a regional rail solution to our Metroplex transportation challenges.If
you have any questions or need further information,please do not hesitate to
contact us.
s~reIY,t~
Bill Keffler
City Manager
Enclosure
cc:Ron Whitehead,City Manager,Town of Addison
(JQ,
0.-~ENVIRONM~:NT'CJ(:7 FRIENDLY
P.O.Box 830309
Richardson.TX
75083-0309
972-744-4100
Fax 972-744-5803
hltp:/!ww\v.cor.net
LETTER OF SUPPORT
DRAFT
August 11,2008
Mr.Michael Morris,P.E.
Director of Transportation
North Central TexasCouncil of Governments
616 SixFlags Drive
Arlington,TX 76011
Dear Mr.Morris:
An efficient and reliable transportation system is important to each of our
communities and to the entire Dallas-FortWorth region.Expanding the regional
rail system is a key component of the system and will be a benefit to our citizens
and visitors.We are particularly interested in the Cotton Belt corridor through
Collin,Dallas,and Tarrant Counties.We would like to request that the Regional
Transportation Council fund and coordinate the effort with DARTand the T to
advance the construction timeline of the Cotton Belt rail line between Fort Worth
and the Red Line with a target revenue service date in 2012 to 2013.
The RTC has shown a strong ability to identify funding and move projects
forward.We feel that innovative financing,such as toll revenues and public-
private partnerships could provide a jump-start to this project.The RTC will
partner with the transit agencies and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport to
identify strategies to expedite this rail line that connects the eastern and western
portions of our region.We understand the sensitive nature of this rail corridor in
some communities and urge you to respect existing commitments as well as
continued efforts to mitigate challenges such as vehicle technology and
environmental impacts such as noise,vibration,and visual impacts,as stated in
DART,the T and NCTCOG transportation plans.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.We look forward to working
with the Regional Transportation Council,transit authorities,Dallas/Fort Worth
International Airport,and other interested parties to bring regional rail to our
communities.
Sincerely,
515517105101520No Response AvailabilityUnlikelyAvailablewithin 0-5YearsAvailablewithin 5-10YearsAvailablewithin 10-15YearsAvailablewithin 15-20YearsNumber of City ResponsesPotential Availability of 4a/4b for Transit UsePotential Availability of 4a/4b for Transit Use
4A/4B Revenue ($)New 4A/4B Debt PaymentExisting 4A/4B Debt PaymentHypothetical 4A/4B Retirement ScenarioHypothetical 4A/4B Retirement ScenarioRetired 4A/4B DebtRetired 4A/4B Debt201020152020202520304A/4B Excess RevenueYearRevenue From ½Cent Sales TaxRevenue From ½Cent Sales Tax
FAMILY 5: Focus on a CountyFAMILY 5: Focus on a County--Specific SolutionSpecific SolutionDallas CountyDallas CountyExample values provided by NCTCOG staffSales TaxGas Sales TaxMotor Vehicle Sales TaxVehicle Reg. FeeLocal Option Gas TaxVMT TaxNew Resident Impact FeeTransportation Property TaxLocal Subsidy OptionRate1%$201 ½ centsAnnual Revenue Target for Dallas Co: $199Annual Revenue Target (RNT Cities):$83Annual Revenue Target (DART Cities):$116Rail North Texas Revenue (RNT Cities): $40Transportation Infrastructure Fund (DART Cities): $162Total: $202RAIL NORTH TEXASAnnualized Revenue - Cost$83$116$40$162$199 $202-400-300-200-1000100200300400500600RNT Cities DART CitiesTotaldollars (millions)RNT Revenue Transportation Infrastructure FundAnnual revenue Target Annual Total RevenueSolve for
FAMILY 5: Focus on a CountyFAMILY 5: Focus on a County--Specific SolutionSpecific SolutionDallas CountyDallas CountyExample values provided by NCTCOG staffSales TaxGas Sales TaxMotor Vehicle Sales TaxVehicle Reg. FeeLocal Option Gas TaxVMT TaxNew Resident Impact FeeTransportation Property TaxLocal Subsidy OptionRate1%$207 ¼ centsAnnual Revenue Target for Dallas Co: $199Annual Revenue Target (RNT Cities):$83Annual Revenue Target (DART Cities):$116Rail North Texas Revenue (RNT Cities): $84Transportation Infrastructure Fund (DART Cities): $298Total: $382RAIL NORTH TEXASAnnualized Revenue - Cost$83$116$84$298$199$382-400-300-200-1000100200300400500600RNT Cities DART CitiesTotaldollars (millions)RNT Revenue Transportation Infrastructure FundAnnual revenue Target Annual Total RevenueSolve for
Natinsky Plan for use of the Cotton Belt as a DART North cross-town line Presented by: Ron Natinsky, Dallas City CouncilmemberDallas, Texas
Purpose StatementTo develop a “win-win”solution that will enhance the affected Dallas residential neighborhoods with safety improvements, sound and visual mitigation, an environmentally acceptable solution and pedestrian trail access improvements while increasing access and ridership for the DART light rail system by providing community access while maintaining neighborhood compatibility.
Location Map •Study looking at area between west of Preston Road east to CoitRoad•Cotton Belt Corridor
Issues and Opportunities Issues–Heavy Rail (diesel)–Vehicular / rail conflicts, 7 crossing in one mile–Noise –Vibration–Environmental concerns –Hike and bike trail plan stalled–Lack of stations/accessOpportunities–Better esthetics for vehicle–Increased property values –Increased mobility –Cotton Belt Hike and Bike trail schedule advances –Connection to other trail systems–Rail-Trail separation–Multi-modal solution–Neighborhood compatibility–TOD
Solution Components •Light Rail New Technology (LRNT) vehicles •Depress the rail in cut section-Eliminates rail-vehicular-pedestrian conflicts-streets & pedestrians crossover rail-eliminate whistle/horn sound issueat crossings-can redirect funding •Landscape buffer•Sound walls including visual component•Facilitates Cotton Belt Hike and Bike Trail•Relocate existing freight rail•3 stations, 2 TOD oriented and1 neighborhood oriented•Community input
Corridor Plan
Station amenities:–drop off area–vehicular parking–pedestrian walkways–connection to Cotton Belt Trail –TODPotential LRNT Stations -Prestonwood
Potential LRNT Stations -PrestonwoodClarendon StationThe Cedars StationExisting Examples
Station amenities:–drop off area–covered vehicular parking–pedestrian walkways–connection to Cotton Belt Trail Potential LRNT Stations -Preston Road / KellerSpringsUnder Preston Road looking north
Potential LRNT Stations -Preston Road / Keller Springs
Station amenities:–drop off area–vehicular parking–pedestrian walkways–connection to Cotton Belt Trail–TOD Potential LRNT Stations -Coit/ McCallum
Potential LRNT Stations -Coit / McCallum
Cotton Belt Cut Rail Sections
Corridor Benefits with Plan•Increased residential property values•Improved esthetics of vehicle and line•Better traffic solution at 7 grade crossings•Improved neighborhood public safety•Improved access to the DART rail network•Better access to and quicker implementation of the Cotton Belt Hike and Bike Trail with connection to area trail systems•Improved aesthetics for rail corridor•Improved environmental quality for corridor and region•Improved TOD economic development opportunities near the proposed Prestonwoodand Old Renner stations•Unique utilization of ROW for Preston station•Win-Win solution for everyone with a stake in the corridor
Comments and Questions
Natinsky Plan for the use of the Cotton Belt as a North cross-town line Ron Natinsky, Dallas City CouncilmemberDallas, Texas214-670-4067ron.natinsky@dallascityhall.com
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
Parks and Recreation
August 26, 2008
7
✔
PRESENTATION
Presentation by Raymond Turco of Raymond Turco and Associates regarding the executive summary of the 2008
Waste Collection and Recycling Attitude Survey.
^Waste Survey-1 AR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Over a 12-day period in July, Raymond Turco & Associates implemented a
Waste Collection Attitude Survey for the city. The purpose of the survey was to
gather scientifically valid input from residents relative to waste collection and
recycling, and specifically,whether the city should provide customers with either
a 65-gallon or 95-gallon rolling trash collection cart for waste and recycling and
whether they would support or oppose that measure. Additionally, attitudes
were collected relative to moving from its current collection schedule of two
days per week for trash and one day per week for recycling to one day per
week for trash and every other week for recycling. This survey was conducted
and findings provided so that council, city staff, and concerned citizens could
see how residents view these issues as city leaders look at how to best address
this issue.
Recall that a survey is an attitudinal “snap-shot” of the community during the
time of survey implementation and has not been influenced by either positive or
negative publicity. So that all residents were equally represented, the city was
divided into three geographic sectors, with each area assigned a quota
proportional to the number of households with available telephone numbers.
The telephone survey included the responses of 401 individuals, which equates
to an overall error rate of +/-5%, at a 95% confidence level. Below are listed the
highlights from our analysis of the project:
Below are listed the highlights from our analysis of the project:
GENERAL ATTITUDES ABOUT THE COMMUNITY AND WASTE COLLECTION
Nearly everybody who lives in Coppell (96%) was either satisfied
(32%) or very satisfied (64%) with the quality of life in their community.
Approximately 3% of the sample, 13 respondents, were not satisfied
and admitted they were dissatisfied (8 individuals, 2%), very
dissatisfied (3 individuals, 1%) or had no opinion (2 individuals, 0%).
The ratio of satisfied to dissatisfied responses was 32 to one, which
was similar to that expressed in the 2007 Citizen Attitude Survey.The
satisfaction ratio was 98.0:1 in Area I (98%-1%), compared to 48.5:1 in
Area II (97%-2%), and 24.0:1 in Area III (96%-4%).Also note that
enthusiasm was less evident in Area II (69%-55%-66%), although still in
excess of 50%. The less positive one was with trash collection
(excellent-good-fair/poor), the lower the very satisfied (79%-59%-40%)
and overall satisfied (98-96%-82%) remarks. Satisfaction ratings were
not impacted by tenure in the community (95% of under 5 years, to
98% of 5-7 years, to 98% of over 7 years)nor the age of the
respondent (96% of under 35, to 97% of 36-55, to 97% of over 55
years).
Ninety-three percent of the sample rated trash collection in Coppell
positively, either good (37%) or excellent (56%). An additional 5%
graded it fair, one individual (0%) felt it was poor, and 1% had no
opinion. The resulting ratio of positive to negative comments was
18.6 to one, with an excellent to poor ratio of better than 56 to one.
Across the board, 93% assessed trash collection positively, with only a
slight variance in excellent ratings (53%-61%-56%). People newer to
the city were less positive about trash collection (91%-98%-95%),
although that level was still better than nine of ten. The same trend
was evident when reviewed by age, as the youngest portion of the
sample was slightly less content (87%-93%-94%). Also, parents were
slightly more complimentary of trash collection (97%with children
under 6, to 94% of 6-1, to 94% of 13-18) than nonparents (90%),
people without children or whose children were over the age of 18.
Regarding recycling service, 79% graded it good (39%) or excellent
(40%), while 11% considered it fair (8%) or poor (3%).The positive ratio
was 7.2:1. Additionally, the ratio of intense opinions (40%-3%,13.3:1)
shows a more complimentary viewpoint then a critical perspective.
Positive opinions about recycling were consistent throughout the city
(79%-78%-79%). Respondents who thought highly of trash collection
felt similar about recycling (68%). However, those believing trash
collection was only good (5%) or fair/poor (4%) were much less
complimentary in terms of excellent ratings. Overall, those positive
about trash collection (88% and 75%) shared similar opinions about
recycling, just not as many. The 6% who rated trash collection fair or
poor carried that opinion over to recycling, as only 34% rated it
positively. Excellent opinions about waste collection grew the longer
one had lived in Coppell (32%-39%-46%), as well as among older
rather than younger respondents (33%-39%-41%).
Twice weekly garbage pickup (95%) was the trash collection service
most frequently utilized by residents. Also popular was one time a
week recycling pickup (78%). The other two services, bulky waste on
Saturday (29%) and one time a week yard trimmings (38%) were
much less likely to be utilized. Always ratings for twice weekly
garbage pickup was higher in Area I (91%-81%-82%), compared with
similar ratings for recycling pickup (68%-71%-65%). In terms of always
ratings, note that Area I was least likely to utilize trash pickup but most
apt to use one time weekly recycling pickup.The lower the opinion
of recycling, the less apt the respondent was to use it always (80%-
73%-53%). Also, people who lived in another city before moving to
their current address were more active participants in one time a
week recycling (73%-61%) when compared with people who lived in
the city prior to moving to their current address.
When it comes to recycling, 50% of the sample said they had one
recycling bin that they used, while 15% indicated they had none
(13%) or used something else (2%). The remainder had more or used
more, either two, (28%) or three or more (4%). Two percent had no
opinion on the issue. Area II was the area with the highest level of
two or more bins (29%-43%-30%) and by a significant amount.
Respondents who graded recycling fair or poor were most likely to
say they had no bins (6%-6%-29%), while people who rated it
excellent had more bins (40%-36%-22%2+ rates).Also having more
bins were people who lived elsewhere prior to moving to Coppell
(36%-28%), while residents more often had none (17%-10%). The older
the respondent, the more likely he or she was to have just one bin
(33%-50%-54%) and least likely to have two or more (42%-34%-25%).
Fifty-five percent of the sample universe said that prior to moving to
their current address, they had not been a Coppell resident. In
subsequent follow-up questions, approximately one-third (36%)of
that subset acknowledged having had once a week trash pickup in
their previous city. The subset of respondents who said they had
once of week trash pickup, approximately 22% of the full sample was
split regarding the statement “once a week pickup was adequate
for my needs or the needs of my family,”with as many agreeing
(49%) as disagreeing (46%).Furthermore, the 55% subset who had
lived outside the city of Coppell were more unlikely (62%) than likely
(32%) to support the city moving to once a week trash pickup. Area I
had the highest percentage of respondents who had not been a
Coppell residents previously (62%-59%-46%). Interestingly, non-prior
residents were less open to once a week trash pickup (37%-61%
agreed to disagree)than residents (52%-46%).In all three subsectors
(8%-29%, to 10%-43%, to 11%-37%), respondents were a minimum
three times more inclined to be very unlikely to support the city
moving to once a week trash pickup than very likely. Very unlikely
ratings totaled 65% in Area I, 64% in Area II, and 57% in Area III.
Residents who were Coppell residents at their prior residence were
more supportive than people who were not (39%-25%). Newer
residents (40%-23%-29) and older respondents (26%-29%-39%)
comprised the highest percentage of likely supporters.
In a secondary line of questioning,the subset of non-prior Coppell
residents most often said that neither trash nor recyclables (52%)
were collected in carts rather than bins or other containers. What
was collected, according to respondents, was trash only (18%), both
recyclables and trash (11%), or recyclables only (5%), with the
remaining 13% having no opinion on the question.In addition, the
subset of respondents who utilized carts (N=90), although limited,
wholeheartedly agreed (82%) with the statement, “collection of trash
or recyclables in carts was adequate for my needs or the needs of
my family.” Finally, the 241 individuals who not been a resident of
Coppell at their prior address would be more likely (60%) than unlikely
(31%) to support the city requiring all trash and recyclables be stored
and picked up in carts. One in ten of the subsample had no opinion.
Regarding the city requiring all trash stored and picked up in carts,
support was consistent throughout the city (60%-59%-59%), although
enthusiasm was higher in Area III (15%-21%-24%). Respondents who
agreed with the statement about being open to once a week trash
pick-up were more likely support the carts (70%-70%-59%-44%) than if
that issue was disputed.
Very few people have had concerns with their trash collection
service, as 90% said they had no concern. Of the remaining 10%, 5%
acknowledged having a concern but had no contact and 4%
having had contact 1-3 times. Didn’t pick up/didn’t pick up
everything (31%), too long a wait for bulky item pick-up (14%), and
messy/dropped trash left (11%) were the most frequent concerns of
the 35 people who had voiced concern with the trash collection
service. Not having a concern was a consistent comment
throughout the city (92%-92%-88%). The findings did show younger
respondents to have more concerns than older individuals (38%-7%-
9%).Regarding the issues voiced, the limited number of respondents
provides little statistical validity.
Consistency in time of collection/don’t come too early (15%), city-
provided carts (13%), and pick up litter that is dropped in street and
put cans/bins back properly (both 9%) were the most popular
suggestions among respondents for improving trash collection
services in their neighborhood. Secondary suggestions included pick
up tree limbs/bulky items more often (8%), empty trash cans totally
(7%), and better truck maintenance, pick up hazardous waste, and
once a week recycling (each 5%). Note that only 149 respondents,
37% of the full sample, were able to provide a specific suggestion.
The most popular response in Area I was put cans/bins back properly
(18%-8%-2%), also the only response which varied significantly based
on geography, although once a week recycling (2%-11%-3%)nearly
met the ten percent criteria. Area III was most likely to suggest both
consistency in time of collection (12%-16%-18%) and city-provided
carts (12%-13%-15%). City-provided carts was the top suggestion for
those grading trash collection excellent (12%), compared to
consistency in time of collection (24%)for those rating it good and
pick up litter that is dropped in street (15%) among those negative in
their evaluation.
More bins/larger bins (37%) were the clear choice among survey
participants responding suggestions they would make to improve
recycling in their neighborhood. Other popular suggestions for
improving service was recycling education/advertising (17%),
expand types of recyclables (12%), and twice a week collection
(10%). More people offered a suggestion to improve recycling
(N=204)than trash collection, although it represented just 51% of the
full sample. Regional variances included Area II most often
suggesting more bins/larger bins (35%-48%-31%), Area III saying more
recycling education/advertising (12%-14%-24%), and Area I making
most frequent mention of expand types of recyclables (20%-4%-10%).
People under 35 focused their attention on more recycling
education/advertise (29%-15%-18%), middle-aged respondents on
twice a week collection (0%-14%-0%), and the old on expand types
of recyclables (14%-11%-18%).
Trash is collected twice weekly, on Wednesday and Saturday (97%-
3%, 32.3:1), recycling is collected once a week, on either Wednesday
or Saturday (91%-9%, 10.1:1), and Waste Management is the vendor
that provides waste collection and recycling pickup for city residents
(89%-12%, 7.4:1) were the facts about trash collection and recycling
in Coppell of which residents were most familiar, based on the ratio
of familiar to unfamiliar ratings. What people were not familiar with
was that city residents pay approximately $15.00 per month for trash,
recycling, and yard trimmings collections, with senior citizens paying
10% less (46%-53%, 0.9:1) and trash collection trucks cause significant
wear on alleyways and streets (47%-51%, 0.9:1). The trash collection
schedule (84%) and recycling schedule (67%) were what people
were most familiar with, based on intensity ratings. And 56% were
very familiar with the vendor. Intensity ratings dropped to 17% in
terms of the fees residents paid and 14% for wear caused by trash
collection trucks. When it came to acknowledging the trash
collection (84-92%-79%) and recycling (63%-80%-63%), residents in
Area III were generally less likely to be very familiar when compared
with the others. However, relative to the name of the vendor (51-56-
559, the cost for service (10%-11%-24%), and wear caused by waste
collection trucks (9%-13%-21%), they were the region most apt to be
very familiar.
0%-5%was the percentage increase most acceptable to residents if
the city were to maintain its current collection schedule, as 61%
selected that response. The remaining 40% of the sample were open
to a larger increase, namely 6%-10% (26%), 11%-14% (5%), 14%-20%
(5%), or more than 20% (4%). Therefore, all would be open to the
minor increase to maintain the current collection schedule, 40% of at
least 10%, and 14%a higher percentage. Where people lived had
little impact on fee acceptance, as levels were consistent at the 0%-
5% mark (60%-60%-62%). People who strongly agreed with the
statement of being open to once a week trash pick-up were least
open to any increase, as 75% said 0%-5% was most acceptable. That
percentage declined if one agreed (66%), disagreed (55%), or
strongly disagreed (55%). Therefore, survey participants who
disagreed or strongly disagreed with once a week pick-up (45% and
46%) were open to a higher increase, although the bulk of those
levels were 10%.
Own experience (82%), water bill inserts (80%), friends/neighbors
(76%), the city website (65%), and The Coppell Gazette (59%) were
the sources most likely to be utilized by residents to get information
about city activities in Coppell. Of the 11 sources tested, residents
were least likely to utilize council members (16%), the cable channel
(20%), city staff (24%), and homeowners associations (26%). Of the
five primary sources, Area III voiced the lowest utilization rate either
outright, as in the case of own experience (85%-85%-76%),
friends/neighbors (79%-81%-70%), city website (69%-71%-58%), or The
Coppell Gazette (66%-57%-53%), and with Area II, the water bill insert
(86%-76%-76%). Respondents who disagree about being open to
once a week trash pickup in Coppell were more likely to rel y on their
own experience (73%-81%-89%-81%)and The Coppell Gazette (57%-
44%-67%-67%). Middle-aged respondents claimed to utilize the
various sources more often than others, except in cases such as The
Coppell Gazette (38%-59%-63%),The Dallas Morning News (21%-34%-
56%) and city staff (13%-24%-28%), cable channel (8%-21%-22%), and
council members (8%-15%-19%)
ATTITUDES AND SUPPORT OF VARIOUS COLLECTION OPTIONS
Keep the current service level as is (92%-7%, 13.0:1) was the service
option being studied by the city relative to trash and recycling
collection that generated the highest ratio of support to opposition.
Residents were also open to collecting recyclable materials in carts
rather than the bins, with those carts provided by the vendor (70%-
18%, 3.9:1) or collect trash in carts provided by the vendor rather
than other trash containers (62%-26%, 2.4:1). What they most
opposed was the two reduced collection methods, those being
recycling pickup from one a week to every other week with vendor-
provided carts (37%-58%, 0.6:1) and trash pickup to one day per
week, bringing about a reduction in costs (38%-58%, 0.7:1). Fifty
percent of those sampled strongly agreed with keeping the current
service level as is. The next two highest intensity ratings were a 27%
for strongly opposing the reduced trash pickup and 23% for reduced
recycling pickup. The two cart-provided statements generated 18%
and 16% strong support, respectively.
Lower costs/save money (68%), twice a week pickup
unnecessary/not enough trash (10%), and use less gas (9%) were the
top three reasons people would give for supporting the city moving
to once a week trash pickup. Conversely, trash build-up (53%),
odor/unsanitary/unhealthy (17%), and attract pests/rodents (7%)
were the most frequent concerns voiced for opposing the city
moving to once a week trash pickup.While lowering costs/save
money was the most popular reason for moving to once a week
trash pickup, it was on people’s minds most often if they didn’t want
that level of service, as the higher the disagreement, the more
frequent this response (51%-66%-82%-88%). Individuals who strongly
agreed, or even agreed with being open to once a week pickup
said twice a week pickup unnecessary/not enough trash (22%-10%-
3%-0%) and better for environment (14%-7%-3%-0%).The two primary
criticisms for moving to once a week trash pickup, trash buildup/too
much (57%-53%-48%) and odor/unsanitary (14%-20%-20%) were also
consistent concerns throughout the city. And although few people
rated trash collection fair or poor, they were most frequently critical
of trash buildup (51%-54%-67%). Also, those who most frequently
disagreed with being open to once a week trash pickup in Coppell
focused their concerns on trash buildup/too much (35%-49%-63%-
53%).Both trash buildup/too much (53%-54%-48%) and
odor/unsanitary (26%-18%-15%) were of least concern to older survey
participants, in contrast to neighborhood would look “trashy” (5%-3%-
9%), of more concern to them.
City residents would save money if the city went to once a week
pickup (57%-39%, 1.5:1), once a week trash pickup is more friendly to
the environment (50%-42%, 1.2:1), and the trash collection company
would provide the recycling and trash collection carts at either no
cost or a minor fee (52%-42%,1.2:1) were the kinds of information
most likely to influence residents to support the city reducing trash
pickup to once a week, based on these scoring the highest ratios of
likely to unlikely ratings. Of the nine informational statements tested
these were the only ones to generate majority likely ratings.
Comparatively, less likely to influence residents were the facts that
trash collection trucks would be on alleyways one-quarter less often,
causing less damage to streets and alleys (35%-58%, 0.6:1), many
other cities have successfully converted to once a week trash pickup
(37%-54%, 0.7:1), city residents will be less likely to see trash trucks on
the road (36%-51%, 0.7:1), and residents enjoy the current twice a
week trash and once a week recycling collection (40%-55%, 0.7:1).
Also unlikely to sway residents were two negative statements, that
trash carts may develop odor due to the accumulation of a weeks’
worth of trash (30%-62%, 0.5:1) or some residents may not be able to
or choose not to store their trash carts properly in their garage or
back yard (33%-59%, 0.6:1).Intensity ratings showed that saving
money if the city went to once a week pickup (19%) was the
statement that caught the most positive attention. Conversely, what
was very unlikely to influence support was trash collection trucks
causing less damage on streets and alleys (28%), trash carts may
develop odor due to accumulation of trash (28%), and not storing
trash carts properly in garages or back yards (24%). Seven of the
nine statements generated higher very unlikely rather than very likely
levels to encourage support for the measure.
In terms of a rate reduction, 58% assigned a percentage that was
acceptable to them if the city were to switch to once a week
pickup. More chose 15%-20% (24%), than 6%-10% (14%), 0%-5% (11%),
11%-14% (4%), or more than 20% (4%). However, 37% said they were
opposed to once a week pickup no matter the rate reduction.
Being opposed to once a week pickup was higher in Area I (40%)
than in Areas II (33%) or III (36%). By combining responses, the
percentages open to an increase of more than 5% totaled similar
rates of 46%, 46%, and 50%.Fifty-eight percent of respondents who
strongly agreed with being open to once a week trash pickup were
open to a rate reduction of 10% or less, compared with 43% who
agreed, 10% who disagree, and 7% who strongly agreed.
Conversely, the higher the disagreement with this statement, the
more opposed one was to once a week pickup (0%-7%-44%-76%).
More survey participants disagreed (54%) than agreed (44%) with the
statement, “I am open to once a week pickup of trash here in
Coppell.” Note that based on a comparison of the intensity ratings,
the anti response was much more committed than the pro comment
(33%-14%). Respondents in Area I were least agreeable with the trash
pickup statement (39%-47%-46%), as well as being most apt to
dispute it (59%-51%-52%). The more positive one was with current
trash collection, the more inclined they were to agree with this
statement (46%-42%-30%). Therefore, people dissatisfied with the
service did not see once a week pickup as a solution to their
concerns. One note was that people who had not been Coppell
residents at their prior address expressed more agreement with this
statement than those who had been Coppell residents (52%-37%).
The age of the respondent influenced the ratings, as older
respondents voiced more agreement than younger persons (38%-
41%-52%).
Voicing similar sentiments, residents were more apt to disagree (52%-
44%) than affirm the statement, “I am open to every other week
recycling pickup here in Coppell.” Again, a comparison of intensity
ratings showed a greater degree of animosity toward the issue (30%-
12%). Agreement ratings were consistent throughout the city (45%-
42%-46%), as too, disagreement levels (50%-56%-51%). Interestingly,
the more negative one was of recycling, the more open they were
to every other week collection (40%-46%-51%), which was contrary to
those voiced about trash collection. Additionally, 50% of people with
no opinion about recycling also agreed with the collection
statement. The people most supportive of the change in recycling
collection were those over the age of 55 (38%-42%-54%).
Once a week trash collection was the reduced-service collection
option most opposed, at 46%. Fewer were against every other week
recycling in carts (32%) or once a week collection in carts (13%). The
remaining 8% had no opinion on this issue. Being opposed to either
once a week trash collection (49%-43%-46%) or every other week
recycling in carts (32%-37%-29%) were both consistent viewpoints
throughout the city.People who were Coppell residents at their prior
address were split as to which option to oppose (39%-34%), although
they leaned more toward once a week trash collection.
Comparatively, people who were not Coppell residents at their prior
address were more opposed to once a week trash collection rather
than the reduced recycling collection option (52%-30%).Once a
week trash collection became less of a reduced service option the
more respondents disagreed about being open to once a week
trash pickup (9%-26%-63%-70%). Conversely, residents who agreed
were more likely to oppose either once a week collection in carts
(23%-13%-12%-9%) or every other week recycling in carts (45%-55%-
21%-14%). Therefore, people open to once a week trash pickup did
not want to give up their current level of recycling pickup, an option
that did not upset people committed to the current trash pickup
schedule, which they did not want to lose.
More residents would like the city to provide a 95-gallon cart (47%)
than a 64-gallon cart (29%). The remaining 23% were either opposed
to containers in general (19%) or had no opinion on the issue (4%). A
majority of Area I respondents would choose the 95-gallon cart (55%-
43%-43%), compared to plurality preference elsewhere in the city.
Area III was the region most attracted by the 64-gallon cart (227%-
25%-34%)and Area II, neither size cart (12%-25%-21%). Those most
positive about trash collection had the highest levels of preference
for the 64-gallon cart (31%-30%-13%), while a poorer perception led
to a desire for the 95-gallon container (47%-46%-61%). Respondents
who had been Coppell residents at their prior address were more
inclined to choose the 64-gallon cart (34%-26%) or else prefer neither
(25%-14%). Conversely, it was individuals who had moved to Coppell
that preferred the larger 95-gallon container (56%-36%).The older the
respondent, the more often they chose the 64-galllon cart (29%-27%-
36) over the 95-gallon container (54%-53%-35%). Also, people newer
to the community were more open to the larger cart (55%-58%-41%).
“Carts are a very efficient way to store trash” (73%-17%, 4.3:1) and
“using the carts would be better because it would minimize blowing
trash and the attraction of animals” (71%-23%, 3.1:1) were the
statements for using a cart that drew the highest ratios of agreement
versus disagreement from survey participants. Of the five pro or
negative arguments tested, the only one disputed was “I won’t use
the carts because they are not as convenient as what I currently
use” (27%-64%, 0.4:1). The two remaining statements drew ratios of
1.7:1 (61%-36% for the cart would be too large to store in my garage,
so I would have to keep it outside) and 2.5:1 (66%-26% for not only
would I support the city having trash carts, but I would support them
for other collection services). Therefore, the positive arguments of
carts being efficient ways to store trash and minimizing blowing trash
and animals attractions were more popular than the negative
perspectives of not as convenient as what I current use or too large
to store in my garage, although the latter statement did draw
majority agreement. More people believed that the cart would be
too large to store in their garage (30%) than it would minimize
blowing trash and the attraction of animals (20%). Additionally, 14%
strongly agreed that carts are an efficient way to store trash, as well
as strongly disagreeing that they are not as convenient as what they
currently use.
"What’s most important is that the city ensures the best service at the
best price”was the statement about trash collection and recycling
efforts in Coppell that generated the highest ratio of agreement to
disagreement (83%-11%,7.5:1) from residents. Of the five other
statements, agreement was most significant for the following:“I
would not support once a week trash pickup unless I considered the
savings to be significant” (72%-24%, 3.0:1) and "what’s most important
is that the city keeps the current trash collection service the way it is”
(79%-13%, 6.1:1). The three remaining statements generated more
disagreement, including one statement, “I would like to reduce the
time trash and recycling trucks spend on city streets” (39%-56%, 0.7:1),
where a majority contested it. The other two statements were
“moving to every other week recycling would be a better use of
resources (50%-44%, 1.1:1) and "I trust the city to make the best
decision for residents regarding trash and recycling pickup” (55%-
36%, 1.5:1). Note that “best service at best price” and “savings to be
significant” drew a higher rate of agreement than “keep current
trash collection service the way it is.” In terms of strong agreement,
residents were more committed to keeping the current trash
collection service the way it is (33%) then best service at best price
(31%) or not support unless savings are significant (28%). This
indicates that the populace as a whole was more drawn to the
savings statements, while a minority of the community was
passionate about keeping current service the way it is. Also note
that survey participants called into question the statement that every
other week recycling would be a better use of resources (44%
disagreement) and wanting to reduce the time trash and recycling
trucks spend on city streets (56%).
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
City Secretary
August 26, 2008
8
✔
REPORT
Report by the Library Board.
The semi-annual report will be made by a member of the Library Board.
No action necessary on this item.
%boardreport
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
DATE: August 26, 2008
ITEM #: 9
CITIZENS' APPEARANCES
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-964
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING RULES, TIMES AND
PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, THE
FOLLOWING ARE HEREBY ADOPTED AS THE RULES, TIMES AND PROCEDURES FOR
CONDUCTING COUNCIL MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL,
TEXAS:
The City of Coppell Code of Ordinances, Article 1-10 "Rules, Times and Procedures for Conducting
City Council Meetings," be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:
"ARTICLE 1-10
RULES, TIMES AND PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING
CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS
". . .
1-10-6.2.1 CITIZENS APPEARANCE
Persons wishing to speak on any matter other than an item scheduled for a public hearing on the agenda, must
sign a register and list their residence address, provided by the City Secretary on a table outside the Council
Chambers, and such persons may be heard only at the "Citizens Appearance" portion of a regular meeting or
special meeting. Each speaker must state his or her name and address of residence. Presentations by individuals
during the "Citizens Appearance" shall be limited to two (2) minutes each. An individual speaker's time may be
extended for an additional two (2) minutes with the approval of a majority of the Council members present.
There shall be a cumulative limit of twenty (20) minutes allotted of any regular or special Council meeting.
Those persons who signed up to speak at the "Citizens Appearance" shall be called upon in the order that they
have signed the provided register. No personal attacks by any speaker shall be made against any member of the
Council, Mayor, individual, group or corporation (Charter Article 3, Section 3.12).
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: %citapp.doc
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
City Secretary
August 26, 2008
10/A
✔
PROCEDURAL
Consider approval of minutes: August 12 and August 18, 2008.
Minutes of the City Council meeting held on August 12 and August 18, 2008.
Staff recommends approval.
%minutes
MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2008
The City Council of the City of Coppell met in Regular Called Session on
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 5:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of
Town Center, 255 Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas. The following
members were present:
Doug Stover, Mayor
Marvin Franklin, Mayor Pro Tem
Tim Brancheau, Councilmember
Jayne Peters, Councilmember
Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember (late arrival)
Marsha Tunnell, Councilmember
Billy Faught, Councilmember
Karen Hunt, Councilmember
Also present were City Manager Jim Witt, City Secretary Libby Ball and
City Attorney Robert Hager.
1. Call to order.
Mayor Stover called the meeting to order, determined that a
quorum was present and convened into Executive Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
2. Convene Executive Session
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code -
Consultation with City Attorney.
1. The City of Coppell and Coppell Independent
School District opposition to a change of
zoning request of the Billingsley Corporation in
the City of Dallas, Zoning Case Number Z045-
107; and City of Coppell vs. CB Parkway
Business Center VI, et al in the County Court
at Law No. 3; and CB Parkway Business Center,
et al vs. City of Coppell, et al; and City of
Dallas vs. Douglas Stover, et al in the 191st
District Court; and City of Coppell, et al vs.
City of Dallas, et al in the 101st District Court.
B. Section 551.072, Texas Government Code -
Deliberation regarding Real Property.
cm081208
Page 1 of 10
1. Purchase of Real Property West of Denton Tap
and South of Bethel Road.
2. Land Purchase West of MacArthur and South of
Beltline.
C. Section 551.087, Texas Government Code –
Economic Development Negotiations.
1. ED Prospects East and West of Beltline/Denton
Tap and south of Bethel Road and north of S.H.
121 and east of Denton Tap.
D. Section 551.074, Texas Government Code -
Personnel Matters.
1. City Manager/Deputy City Manager Transition.
Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores arrived prior to convening
Executive Session.
Mayor Stover convened into Executive Session at 5:46 p.m. as
allowed under the above-stated article. Mayor Stover recessed the
Executive Session at 6:45 p.m. and opened the Work Session.
WORK SESSION (Open to the Public)
3. Convene Work Session
A. Discussion regarding Rail North Texas.
B. Update on Roadway, Senior Center and Cemetery
Construction Projects.
C. Discussion of Agenda Items.
REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public)
4. Convene Regular Session.
5. Invocation.
Pastor Phil Geleske from Rejoice Lutheran Church led those
present in the Invocation.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Stover led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance.
cm081208
Page 2 of 10
7. Citizens' Appearances.
1) Pastor Rod Collver, 204 Simmons, spoke regarding alcohol at city
events.
2) Patrick Kernan, 724 Robin, spoke against Item 11 and the bonds
for Northlake.
CONSENT AGENDA
8. Consider approval of the following consent agenda items:
A. Consider approval of minutes: July 16, 2008
July 22, 2008
July 31, 2008.
B. Consider approval of the annual review of the
written Investment Policy of the City of Coppell as
provided by the Public Funds Investment Act,
Chapter 2256, Texas Government Code.
C. Consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement
between Dallas County Community College District
and the City of Coppell to conduct law enforcement
services; and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
D. Consider approval of an Ordinance for Case No. PD-
229R-LI, Minyard Addition (KTR Capital), a zoning
change request from PD-229-LI (Planned
Development-229-Light Industrial) to PD-229R-LI
(Planned Development-229 Revised-Light Industrial)
to allow a revised monument sign plan including
revisions to the location, design and size of four (4)
monument signs on 79.53 acres of property, located
at the southwest corner of Freeport Parkway and
Bethel Road and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
E. Consider approval of an Ordinance for Case No. PD–
233-R, Coppell Vision Center, a zoning change
request from SF-12 (Single Family-12) to PD-233-R
cm081208
Page 3 of 10
(Planned Development-233-Retail) to allow the
construction of a 2,600-square-foot medical office
on 0.434 acres of property located at the southeast
corner of Sandy Lake and Nash Road, 541 East
Sandy Lake Road and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
F. Consider approval of an Ordinance for Case No. S-
1246-TC, DeVine Cellars, a zoning change request
from TC (Town Center) to S-1246-TC (Special Use
Permit-1246-Town Center), to allow the operation of
a 2,100-square-foot retail/convenience store and
restaurant located in the Town Center Addition, Lot
3, Block 1, 230 Denton Tap Road, Suite 104 and
authorizing the Mayor to sign.
Action:
Councilmember Peters moved to approve Consent Agenda Items A,
B, C, D carrying Ordinance No. 91500-A-502, E carrying
Ordinance No 91500-A-503 and F carrying Ordinance No. 91500-
A-504. Councilmember Hunt seconded the motion; the motion
carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Franklin and Councilmembers
Brancheau, Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Tunnell, Faught, Franklin and
Hunt voting in favor of the motion.
9. Consider approval of the certification of the 2008
anticipated collection rate for the period of July 1, 2008
through June 30, 2009, and the amount of excess debt
collections during the period of July 1, 2007, and June
30, 2008.
Presentation:
Jennifer Miller, Director of Finance, made a presentation to the
Council.
Action:
Mayor Pro Tem Franklin moved to approve the certification of the
2008 anticipated collection rate for the period of July 1, 2008
through June 30, 2009, and the amount of excess debt collections
during the period of July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2008.
cm081208
Page 4 of 10
Councilmember Brancheau seconded the motion; the motion
carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Franklin and Councilmembers
Brancheau, Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Tunnell, Faught, Franklin and
Hunt voting in favor of the motion.
10. Consider approval of a proposal to maintain a tax rate of
.64146 for the 2008 tax year and to set the Public
Hearings on the proposed tax rate for the next regularly
scheduled Council Meeting on August 26, 2008 at 7:00
p.m. and a Special called meeting on September 2, 2008
at 6:00 p.m.
Presentation:
Jennifer Miller, Director of Finance, made a presentation to the
Council.
Action:
Councilmember Tunnell moved to approve a proposal to maintain
a tax rate of .64146 for the 2008 tax year and to set the Public
Hearings on the proposed tax rate for the next regularly scheduled
Council Meeting on August 26, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. and a Special
called meeting on September 2, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. Councilmember
Hunt seconded the motion; the motion carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro
Tem Franklin and Councilmembers Brancheau, Peters, Hinojosa-
Flores, Tunnell, Faught, Franklin and Hunt voting in favor of the
motion.
11. Consider approval of a Resolution directing publication of
notice of intention to issue Certificates of Obligation,
Series 2008 A in the principal amount not to exceed
$20,000,000 for the acquisition of approximately 832.8
acres and the Series 2008 B in the principal amount not
to exceed $10,000,000 for the acquisition of
approximately 108.0 acres, to be used in part for water
system improvements, including storage facilities and
pumping station and in part for future municipal
facilities, and for paying legal fiscal, and engineering fees
in connection with such projects and related bond
issuance costs, and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
cm081208
Page 5 of 10
Presentation:
Jennifer Miller, Director of Finance, made a presentation to the
Council, and announced the Attorney General’s changes to the
caption stating: “…future municipal improvements, facilities and
purposes...”
Jim Witt, City Manager, made a presentation to the Council.
At this time, Mayor Stover convened into Executive Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
Convene Executive Session
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code -
Consultation with City Attorney.
Mayor Stover convened into Executive Session at 7:45 p.m. Mayor
Stover adjourned the Executive Session at 7:56 p.m. and reopened
the Regular Session.
REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public)
Action:
Councilmember Peters moved to approve Resolution No.
2008-0812.1 directing publication of notice of intention to issue
Certificates of Obligation, Series 2008 A in the principal amount
not to exceed $20,000,000 for the acquisition of approximately
832.8 acres and the Series 2008 B in the principal amount not to
exceed $10,000,000 for the acquisition of approximately 108.0
acres, to be used in part for water system improvements, including
storage facilities and pumping station and in part for future
municipal improvements, facilities and purposes, and for paying
legal, fiscal, and engineering fees in connection with such projects
and related bond issuance costs, and authorizing the Mayor to
sign. Councilmember Brancheau seconded the motion; the motion
carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Franklin and Councilmembers
Brancheau, Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Tunnell, Faught, Franklin and
Hunt voting in favor of the motion.
cm081208
Page 6 of 10
12. PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider approval of Case No. PD-205R2-HC, Vista Ridge
Addition, Lot 6, Block D (The Plaza), a zoning change
request from PD-205R-HC (Planned Development -205
Revised-Highway Commercial) to PD-205R2-HC (Planned
Development-205 Revision 2-Highway Commercial), to
amend the Planned Development to attach a Detail Site
Plan to allow a 13,450-square-foot retail/restaurant
building on 1.56 acres of property located at the
northwest corner of S.H. 121 and Plaza Blvd.
Presentation:
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning, made a presentation to the
Council.
Michael Dowdy and Tom Acevedo, representing the applicant,
spoke to Council.
Public Hearing:
Mayor Stover opened the Public Hearing and advised that no one
had signed up to speak on this proposal.
Action:
Councilmember Tunnell moved to close the Public Hearing and
approve Case No. PD-205R2-HC, Vista Ridge Addition, Lot 6, Block
D (The Plaza), a zoning change request from PD-205R-HC (Planned
Development -205 Revised-Highway Commercial) to PD-205R2-HC
(Planned Development-205 Revision 2-Highway Commercial), to
amend the Planned Development to attach a Detail Site Plan to
allow a 13,450-square-foot retail/restaurant building on 1.56 acres
of property located at the northwest corner of S.H. 121 and Plaza
Blvd., subject to the following condition:
1) This property shall be replatted to establish, realign and
abandon various easements in support of this development.
Mayor Pro Tem Franklin seconded the motion; the motion carried
7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Franklin and Councilmembers
Brancheau, Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Tunnell, Faught, Franklin and
Hunt voting in favor of the motion.
cm081208
Page 7 of 10
13. Consider approval of the Wagon Wheel Park Site Plan
Amendment, (Storage Building), to allow a 4,000-square-
foot maintenance and storage facility, located on the
north end of Wagon Wheel Park, adjacent to the irrigation
pond (345 Freeport Parkway).
Presentation:
Gary Sieb, Director of Planning, made a presentation to the
Council.
Action:
Councilmember Hunt moved to approve the Wagon Wheel Park
Site Plan Amendment, (Storage Building), to allow a 4,000-square-
foot maintenance and storage facility, located on the north end of
Wagon Wheel Park, adjacent to the irrigation pond (345 Freeport
Parkway). Councilmember Peters seconded the motion; the motion
carried 7-0 with Mayor Pro Tem Franklin and Councilmembers
Brancheau, Peters, Hinojosa-Flores, Tunnell, Faught, Franklin and
Hunt voting in favor of the motion.
14. City Manager's Report.
A. Construction Update.
A. Jim Witt, City Manager, gave a brief update on the City’s
construction projects:
1) Bethel Road has one lane of traffic in each direction.
Traffic lights will be up soon. It will be the first of the
year to mid-January before the road is 100% completed.
2) Coppell Road has had several utilities issues along the
way. It is approximately 85% completed on the water
line, 15% completed on the storm drain and work has
not begun on the sewer line. Police will be assisting
when school starts at Wilson Elementary, and signage
will be posted stating expect delays. Estimated
completion is expected to be the second quarter of 2009.
3) The Community/Senior Center is taking shape. The
estimated completion date is two months.
4) The funeral home at the cemetery is estimated to begin
in 30-60 days. The City’s portion of the cemetery plans
to be completed by mid-March, which is on schedule.
cm081208
Page 8 of 10
15. Mayor and Council Reports.
A. Report by Mayor Stover regarding the Metroplex
Mayors’ Meeting.
A. Jim Witt, City Manager, gave the report on the Metroplex
Mayor’s Meeting. The speaker was Mike Simpson, former
Mayor of Frisco. He gave an overview on the Mayor’s
conference held last year and is looking for sponsorship for
next year. There was also discussion on the relocation of the
AT&T Headquarters to Dallas and the DART parking lot
expansion in Plano.
At this time, Mayor Stover reconvened into Executive Session.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
16. Convene Executive Session
A. Section 551.071, Texas Government Code -
Consultation with City Attorney.
The City of Coppell and Coppell Independent School
District opposition to a change of zoning request of the
Billingsley Corporation in the City of Dallas, Zoning Case
Number Z045-107; and City of Coppell vs. CB Parkway
Business Center VI, et al in the County Court at Law No.
3; and CB Parkway Business Center, et al vs. City of
Coppell, et al; and City of Dallas vs. Douglas Stover, et al
in the 191st District Court; and City of Coppell, et al vs.
City of Dallas, et al in the 101st District Court.
D. Section 551.074, Texas Government Code -
Personnel Matters.
1. City Manager/Deputy City Manager Transition.
Mayor Stover reconvened into Executive Session at 8:39 p.m. as
allowed under the above-stated article. Mayor Stover adjourned
the Executive Session at 11:59 p.m. and opened the Regular
Session.
REGULAR SESSION (Open to the Public)
cm081208
Page 9 of 10
17. Necessary action resulting from Work Session.
There was no action necessary under this item.
18. Necessary action resulting from Executive Session.
There was no action necessary under this item.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the
meeting was adjourned.
____________________________________
Douglas N. Stover, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Libby Ball, City Secretary
cm081208
Page 10 of 10
MINUTES OF AUGUST 18, 2008
The City Council of the City of Coppell met in Special Work Session on
Monday, August 18, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. at the William T. Cozby Public
Library, 177 N. Heartz, Coppell, Texas. The following members were
present:
Doug Stover, Mayor
Marvin Franklin, Mayor Pro Tem
Tim Brancheau, Councilmember
Jayne Peters, Councilmember
Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember
Marsha Tunnell, Councilmember
Billy Faught, Councilmember
Karen Hunt, Councilmember
Also present was Deputy City Manager Clay Phillips.
1. Call to order.
Mayor Stover called the meeting to order, determined that a
quorum was present and convened into Work Session.
WORK SESSION (Open to the Public)
2. Convene Work Session.
A. Presentation by the Coppell 2030 Steering
Committee regarding their findings and
recommendations for the Coppell 2030 Strategic
Vision Plan.
EXECUTIVE SESSION (Closed to the Public)
3. Convene Executive Session.
A. Section 551.072, Texas Government Code -
Deliberation regarding Real Property.
1. Land Purchase West of MacArthur and South of
Beltline.
Mayor Stover convened into Executive Session at 9:25 p.m. as
allowed under the above-stated article. Mayor Stover adjourned
cm081808
Page 1 of 2
the Executive Session at 10:07 p.m. and opened the Special
Session.
SPECIAL SESSION (Open to the Public)
4. Necessary action resulting from Executive Session.
There was no action necessary under this item.
There being no further business to come before the City Council, the
meeting was adjourned.
____________________________________
Douglas N. Stover, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Libby Ball, City Secretary
cm081808
Page 2 of 2
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
Library
August 26, 2008
10/B
✔
CONTRACT/BID or PROPOSAL
Consider approval of purchase of three 3M Self Check ™ machines in the amount of $58,539 from Alpha Data Corp
(TXMAS-6-70030).
A quote was received from TXMAS Vendor, Alpha Data Corp., Ft. Walton Beach for three 3M Self Check ™ machines
in the amount of $58,539. The Self Checks are Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) compatible. RFID conversion was
included in the Five Year Plan. This purchase will cover the Self Check portion of the RFID conversion project.
Funds are available in the Library Department (salary savings due to vacancies) General Fund budget for this
purchase.
Staff recommends approval
+3M-1AR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Witt, City Manager
FROM: Kathleen P. Metz Edwards, Library Director
DATE: August 26, 2008
SUBJECT: Library 3M Self Check ™ machines
The Five Year Plan included funds for replacing “legacy” self check machines with
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) compatible self check machines. These machines
will be the largest financial portion of the RFID project. This purchase request includes a
third machine which will allow the library to continue to meet increased circulation
demands without the addition of staff. The machines are compatible with the Library’s
existing security devices.
The single quote of $58,359 was solicited from TEXMAS vendor, Alpha Data
Corporation, TXMAS-6-70030, in support of State purchasing requirements.
The following Executive Summary with recommendation is respectfully submitted:
A quote was received from TXMAS Vendor, Alpha Data Corp., Ft. Walton Beach
for three 3M Self Check ™ machines in the amount of $58,539. The Self Checks are
Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) compatible. RFID conversion was included
in the Five Year Plan. This purchase will cover the Self Check portion of the RFID
conversion project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
TXDIR0519
7/25/2008
Net 30
12/31/2008
FOB Destination
Chuck Bachelder
(850) 292-8045
(678) 809-0416
Item Qty Product No.Unit Price Extended Price
1 3 75-0500-8885-7 18,120.00 54,360.00
2 3 V3-INST 908.00 2,724.00
3 1 Freight 1,275.00 1,275.00
TOTAL 58,359.00
Fort Walton Beach, FL 32547
TO:
William T. Cozby Public Library
177 N. Heartz Road
A L P H A D A T A C O R P O R A T I O N
Information Technology Solutions and Information Services
1326 Lewis Turner Blvd,
QUOTE
Coppell, Texas 75019
Quote#
Date:
Terms:
Zone 1
Pricing Valid Thru
Phone
Salesperson
FaxEmail
Kathy Edwards
972-304-7030
kedwards@ci.coppell.tx.us
Contact
Phone
Shipping
Description
3M SelfCheck(TM) Model 7410 (V3) Tabletop w/Laminate Top Cabinet
Installation for V3
Freight Charge Estimate
Color Choices: Base - Clear Maple, Top - Graphite Nebula
Texas State Contract# TXMAS-6-70030
TOTAL 58,359.00
*Shipping & Handling - Alpha Data Corporation will charge back actual freight costs on invoice.
Comments:
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
Finance
August 26, 2008
11
✔
ORDINANCE
Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, approving an amendment to Ordinance No.
2007-1181, the budget for Fiscal Year October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008, and authorizing the Mayor to sign.
The amendment is being brought forward to reflect changes experienced through the last half of the fiscal year. The
accompanying memo provides the detail of the amendment.
Staff recommends approval.
$BudAmend-1AR
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 26, 2008
To: Mayor and Council
From: Jennifer Miller, Director of Finance
Via: Clay Phillips, Deputy City Manager
Subject: Budget Amendment - Fiscal Year 2007-08
This budget amendment is being brought forward to reflect items that have been brought before
Council and changes experienced to date for fiscal year 2007-2008.
General Fund
General Fund revenues are being increased $568,305. This increase is associated with increased
franchise tax collections ($370,000), sales tax ($150,000), and building permits ($50,000).
General Fund expenditures are being increased $345,186. $105,844 is for an economic
development incentive. $40,000 is associated with the Wellness Program. Engineering is being
increased $14,100 for the Engineering Study regarding Old Town. Facilities is being increased
$94,642. Approximately $50,000 is for roof repairs at the Justice Center. The other $44,000 is
for unbudgeted repairs that have occurred at various City facilities. The Tax Department is being
increased by $12,100 due to an employee retirement and payment of accrued benefits.
Purchasing is being increased for a copier that was needed as a result of the remodel. Planning’s
increase is associated with the fees related to the oil and gas well consultants. The increase in
Parks is related to the erosion control and drainage improvements feasibility study at Andy
Brown Park East and Central.
Child Safety Fund
The increase in expenditures is related to the Child Photo I.D. Kits.
Police Special Revenue Fund
Revenues are being amended to reflect grants, donations and forfeitures that have been received.
The expenditures are those associated with the purchase of the Autocite ticket writers and
fencing at the Service Center for seized vehicles.
Parks Special Revenue
The revenues are being amended to reflect the collection of park fees.
2
Tree Preservation Fund
Revenues are being increased for income actually received. Expenditures are for planting of
trees.
Infrastructure Maintenance Fund
Revenues are being amended to reflect collection of the ¼ cent sales tax for street maintenance.
Drainage Fund
Revenues are being amended to reflect the increase in interest earnings. Expenditures are related
to the community programs, such as Earthfest.
Historic Preservation Fund
Expenditures are being amended to reflect the costs associated with moving and renovating the
Kirkland House and moving the Minyard Store.
Donations – Special Revenue
Revenues are being amended to reflect donations received. Expenditures are being amended to
reflect costs associated with the Fire Department’s 50th Anniversary..
Red Light Fund
Revenues are being amended to reflect projected collections and expenditures are being
increased for the payment to the State..
C.E.D.C. Special Revenue
Revenues are being amended to reflect actual sales tax collections for the CEDC.
Crime Prevention Fund
Revenues are being amended to reflect the collection of the sales tax associated with the Crime
Prevention District.
1
ORDINANCE NO. _____________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR OCTOBER 1, 2007 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2008; PROVIDING
THAT EXPENDITURES FOR SAID FISCAL YEAR SHALL BE MADE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SAID BUDGET; AND DECLARING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Budget Officer of the City of Coppell, Texas, did on the 3rd day of August,
2007, file with the City Secretary, a proposed general budget for the City covering the fiscal year
aforesaid, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Coppell approved said budget on the 11th day
of September, 2007, and
WHEREAS, the governing body of the City has this date considered an amendment to said
budget;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF COPPELL, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That Section No. 2 of Ordinance No. 2007-1181, for the 2007-08 Fiscal Year
Budget, is hereby amended as follows:
General Fund Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $47,759,550 $48,327,855 $568,305
Expenditures
Combined Services 1,096,945 1,242,789 145,844
Engineering 1,056,609 1,070,709 14,100
Facilities 1,024,571 1,119,213 94,642
Tax 294,059 306,159 12,100
Purchasing 177,658 191,658 14,000
Planning 445,384 461,384 16,000
Parks 1,407,189 1,455,689 48,500
Total Expenditures $345,186
Net Increase in Undesignated Fund Balance $223,119
Child Safety Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Expenditures $6,000 $8,000 $2,000
Net Decrease in Projected Fund Balance $2,000
2
Police Spec. Rev. Fund Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $119,754 $379,218 $259,464
Expenditures 88,035 205,535 117,500
Net Increase in Projected Fund Balance $141,964
Parks Special Revenue Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $9,000 $114,835 $105,835
Net Increase in Projected Fund Balance $105,835
Tree Preservation Fund Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $40,147 $308,197 $268,050
Expenditures 24,000 65,000 41,000
Net Increase in Projected Fund Balance $227,050
Infrastructure Maint. Fund Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $1,198,000 $2,240,000 $1,042,000
Net Increase Projected Fund Balance $1,042,000
Municipal Drainage District Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $230,500 $246,000 $15,500
Expenditures 84,206 94,764 10,558
Net Increase in Projected Fund Balance $4,942
Historic Preservation Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Expenditures $1,500 $101,500 $100,000
Net Decrease in Projected Fund Balance $100,000
Donations-Special Revenue Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $61,121 $64,474 $3,353
Expenditures 72,128 74,628 2,500
Net Increase in Projected Fund Balance $ 853
Red Light Camera Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $401,500 $701,500 $300,000
Expenditures 300,000 454,000 154,000
Net Increase in Projected Fund Balance $146,000
3
C.E.D.C. Special Revenue Current Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $4,000,000 $3,489,348 $510,652
Net Decrease in Projected Fund Balance $510,652
Crime Prevention Budget Amending Budget Change
Revenues $0 $803,000 $803,000
Net Increase in Projected Fund Balance $803,000
SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
That this ordinance shall become effective immediately from and after its passage as the law
and charter in such cases provide.
DULY PASSED and adopted by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, on the _____ day
of August 2008.
APPROVED:
______________________________
DOUGLAS N. STOVER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________________________
LIBBY BALL, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
CITY ATTORNEY
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
Finance
August 26, 2008
12
✔
PUBLIC HEARING
To receive public comment concerning the proposed 2008-2009 Municipal Budget.
Pursuant to the City Charter, a public hearing will be conducted by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, to
receive public comment concerning the proposed 2008-2009 Municipal Budget. At this hearing, taxpayers must have
the opportunity to express their views on the proposed budget.
$PHBudget-1AR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PROPOSED 2008-2009
MUNICIPAL BUDGET
A PUBLIC HEARING will be conducted by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, to
receive public comment concerning the Proposed 2008-2009 Municipal Budget. This budget will
raise more total property taxes than last year’s budget by $1,599,641 or 5.43 percent, and of that
amount $810,294 is tax revenue to be raised from new property added to the tax roll this year.
The Public Hearing will be held on August 26, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at the
City Hall, 255 Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas 75019. A copy of the Proposed Budget will
be on file for public view in the office of the City Secretary at City Hall, and at the William T.
Cozby Public Library, 177 N. Heartz Road, Coppell, Texas 75019.
PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT
FOR ADA COMPLIANCE
The City of Coppell acknowledges its responsibility to comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990. Thus, in order to assist individuals with disabilities who require special
services (i.e. sign interpretative services, alternative audio/visual devices and amanuenses) for
participation in or access to the City of Coppell sponsored public programs, services and/or
meetings, the City requests that individuals make requests for these services forty-eight (48)
hours ahead of the scheduled program, service and/or meeting. To make arrangements, contact
Vivyon V. Bowman, ADA.
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
Finance
August 26, 2008
13
✔
PUBLIC HEARING
To receive public comment concerning the proposed 2008-2009 tax rate of 0.64146.
Pursuant to Section 26.06 of the Texas Property Tax Code, when a proposed tax rate exceeds the notice-and-hearing
limit, the taxing unit's governing body must hold two (2) public hearings on the proposal. At these hearings, taxpayers
must have the opportunity to express their views on the proposed increase. The governing body may not adopt the
tax rate at these hearings; and, must announce the date and time of the meeting at which it will vote on the tax rate.
The meeting to adopt the 2008 tax rate must be at least three (3) days but no more than fourteen (14) days after the
public hearing.
$PHTaxRate-1AR
The City of Coppell will hold two public hearings on a proposal to increase total tax
revenues from properties on the tax roll in the preceding tax year by 2.40 percent
(percentage by which proposed tax rate exceeds lower of rollback tax rate or effective tax
rate calculated under Chapter 26, Tax Code). Your individual taxes may increase at a
greater or lesser rate, or even decrease, depending on the change in the taxable value of
your property in relation to the change in taxable value of all other property and the tax
rate that is adopted.
Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase
The first public hearing will be held on August 26, 2008 at 7:00 PM at Town Center, 255
Parkway Blvd, Coppell,TX.
The second public hearing will be held on September 2, 2008 at 6:00 PM at Town Center,
255 Parkway Blvd, Coppell, TX.
The members of the governing body voted on the proposal to consider the tax increase as
follows:
Marvin Franklin Tim Brancheau
Jayne Peters Brianna Hinojosa-Flores
Marsha Tunnell Billy Faught
Karen Hunt
FOR:
AGAINST:
PRESENT and not
voting:
ABSENT:
The average taxable value of a residence homestead in City of Coppell last year was
$264,099. Based on last year's tax rate of $0.64146 per $100 of taxable value, the amount
of taxes imposed last year on the average home was $1,694.09.
The average taxable value of a residence homestead in City of Coppell this year is
$272,101. If the governing body adopts the effective tax rate for this year of $0.62643 per
$100 of taxable value, the amount of taxes imposed this year on the average home would
be $1,704.52
If the governing body adopts the proposed tax rate of $0.64146 per $100 of taxable value,
the amount of taxes imposed this year on the average home would be $1,745.42.
Members of the public are encouraged to attend the hearings and express their views.
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
ȱ ȱ
Engineering
August 26, 2008
14
✔
CONTRACT/BID or PROPOSAL
Consider approval of a proposal from Dallas County, as provided for in the existing City/County Agreement to overlay
the asphalt paving of the following streets: Sanders Loop, Holly Street and Nash Street south of Sandy Lake Road; with
Dallas County furnishing labor, materials and equipment to perform the work; with the City of Coppell paying a cost of
$124,886.87 as provided in the IMF fund; and authorizing the Mayor to sign and to execute any necessary documents.
Approval will allow Dallas County crews to overlay several existing streets with asphalt to improve the driving surface.
These streets were identified for the improvements in the IMF Five-Year Plan.
Funds have been budgeted in the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund for this project.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal.
#Dallas Co Asphalt Overlay
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Keith R. Marvin, P.E., Project Engineer
DATE: August 26, 2008
REF: Consider approval of a proposal from Dallas County, as provided for in the existing
City/County Agreement to overlay the asphalt paving of the following streets:
Sanders Loop, Holly Street and Nash Street south of Sandy Lake Road; with Dallas
County furnishing labor, materials and equipment to perform the work; with the
City of Coppell paying a cost of $124,886.87, as provided in the IMF fund; and
authorizing the Mayor to sign and to execute any necessary documents.
The City of Coppell has budgeted funds in the Infrastructure Maintenance Fund for rehabilitation of all
the asphalt streets within the City of Coppell. This project has been ongoing for several years, with
Dallas County performing all the asphalt work to date. The streets listed in the IMF plan for this year
are Holly Street, Nash Street, and Sanders Loop. Kaye Street is also listed in the plan for this year,
however that will be moved to back to avoid the construction currently taking place on Coppell Road.
Dallas County has provided a cost proposal of $124,886.87 to perform spot repair as necessary, milling
the existing asphalt where required, and the asphalt overlay. Dallas County proposes to complete the
work under an Interlocal Agreement approved by both the City of Coppell and Dallas County in
October of 2003. That agreement is attached herewith, and allows for the County to perform
maintenance on City streets in exchange for payment of County costs by the City. Dallas County has
completed several asphalt paving projects within the City recently, and we have been pleased with the
results.
The three attached exhibits named “Exhibit A” show the streets to be resurfaced under this agreement
and the cost proposal for each.
Staff recommends approval of this proposal from Dallas County for repair and asphalt overlay of
Holly Street, Nash Street, and Sanders Loop in the amount of $124,886.87 as provided in IMF funds.
Staff will be available to answer any questions at the Council meeting.
1 INCH = FT.
0 2000
2000
1000
MA07-02 Asphalt Pavement Repair
Holly Street, Nash Street
and Sanders Loop
Created in LDDTS:\CAD\In_Design\MISC EXHIBITS\dwg\EXHIBITS.dwg\MA07-02 ASPHALT
Created on: 01 August 2008 by Scott Latta
AREA OF PROPOSED REPAIR OF
ASPHALT PAVING
3
2003 1965
o
CO T QRllER
ORDER NO
DAT
COUNTY OF DALLAS
6
STATE OF TEXAS
BE IT REMEMSERED at a regular meeting of the Commissioners Court of Dalla County
1 cA U LU va ollt 1 1 OdY 1 vv on mo on
maae Jy John Wiley Price Comnissioner of District No 3
like Cantrell OOmnissioner of District No 2
and seconded by
the following order was
adopted
WHEREAS the City of Coppell and the Commissioner of District No 4 desire to enter
into an agreement for maintenance nd improvement of City streets by County
as Iurther escribed y the attached C1TY coUNTY AGREEMENT an
WdEREAS the terms and conditions set forth within this CITYfCOUNTY AGREEMENT provide
the cooperative framework for the City and County to undertake a variety of
transportation planning engineering desi9n construction and maintenance
functions services and activities and
hHEREAS the City of Coppell has executed the attached City County Agreement in
accordance with Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code ana
h RE1 S City may request County to perform services on the City s ecreet system during
the period from January 1 2003 through Dec mber 31 2003 The City County
agreement shall thereafter be automatically renewed each year for the same
period of time until superseded by a supplemental agreement or earlier
t rmin eed as provided by this Agreement
IT IS THEREFO ORI ADJUtlG ID AND DBCJUED by the tlallas County Commissioners Court that
the County Judge is hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached CitY Count
I I Q ro v of r nn 1
OONE IN OPEN COURT this the 21st day of m
Md
i MiK Cantrell vis rict 2
Conforms ts
CommissionerCourtPolicy Qt t YHl
Don ld R Holzwarth P E
Dir ctor of public wo
STA TE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
CITY COUNTYAGREEMENT
WHEREAS the city of Coppell herein after called City and the County of Dallas herein after
called County desire to enter into an agreement for maintenance and
improvement of city streets by the County
WHEREAS Chapter 791 of the Texas Govenunent Code as amended provides authorization
for local governments to enter into interlocal agreements
WHEREAS the Dallas County Commissioners Court has adopted Order No 84 659
establishing the County Road and Bridge Policy and Order No 92 1254
amending the official County Road List
NOW THEREFORE THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is hereby made and entered into by
the City and the County upon and for the mutual consideration stated herein
PURPOSE
The terms and conditions set forth within this Agreement provide the cooperative framework for
the City and the County to undertake a variety of transportation planning engineering design
construction and maintenance functions services and activities Unless specifically delineated
and defined herein all such functions services and activities must be approved in advance of
project initiated by the Commissioners Court of Dallas County Such approval will require at a
minimum project definition ofscope type location and estimated resources required by the City
and by the County
WITNESSETH
1
The City may request the County to perform services on the City s street system during the periodfromJanuary12003toDecember312003ThisMasterAgreementshallthereafterbe
automatically renewed each year for the same period of time until superseded by a supplemental
agreement or earlier terminated as provided by this agreement Services may include
improvements and maintenance of thoroughfares and bridges of major county importance which
are either existing or proposed or improvements and maintenance ofminor local streets roadsbridgesanddrainagefacilitiesforagoemmentalentityasdefinedWlderChapter791TxasGovmmentodeInterloc1CoperatIonActSuchworkmayincludescarifyingstabilizinggradmgpatchmgsealcotlOgslgnmgpavementmarkingmowingwideningresectioningoverlaymgandotherrepaIrorImprovementprojects
II
The City agrees to reimburse to the County the total cost ofall work perfonned including labor
equipment materials and administrative costs on Type E streets on a monthly basis upon billing
by the County The City agrees to reimburse the County 50 of the total cost of work performed on
Type B and Type en streets as outlined in the current DaUas County Road and Bridge Policy
Costs of labor equipment materials and administrative will be pursuant to the attached fee schedule
which is incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A
III
The City agrees to indemnify and save hannIess the County from any liability or damages the County
may suffer as a result of claims demands costs or judgments against the County for injuries to
persons or damage to the property of any person s or corporation s arising out of the performance
ofthe work and services under this Agreement except to the extent such liability or damages are
caused by the sole negligence of County
IV
The City agrees to allow the County to make routine special studies of traffic conditions within
the City These studies may include traffic counts and measures of speed delay and other
factors Any such studies conducted for County purposes and not specifically requested by the
City will be at County expense
v
The City agrees to notify the County Department of Public Works within 30 days of any
annexations or de annexations to allow County to accurately maintain the Official Road List
VI
Specific projects to be undertaken by the tenns and conditions ofthis Agreement must be
defined and clearly detailed in scope type location and party or parties performing the
governmental functions or services All payments must be in amounts that fairly compensate the
perfonning party for the services or functions perfonned and shall be made from current
revenues available to the paying party Specific project detail must be documented and supplied
for individual project approvalbefore the project is begun Pavement marking projects
performed by the County for the City will require the City to provide appropriate traffic control
Such control may include as traffic volume and conditions warrant flagging cones barricades
shadow vehicles arrow boards signs and other desirable actions specified by the Texas Manual
or Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD
VII
Eit er City or Co ntY may terminate this Agreement by providing the other party thirty 30 days
wntten notice ofIts Intent to terminate The written notice ofthe intent to terminate shall be
delivered to the following
City Manager
City ofCoppell
P O Box 9478
Coppell TX 750 9
Director of Public Works
Dallas County
411 Elm Street 4th Floor
Dallas TX 75202
IX
This Agreement shall be constructed in accordance with the laws of the State ofTexas Exclusive
venue for any legal actions between the parties arising from this Agreement shall be in Dallas
County Texas
BILLING
AU work will be billed within the first five 5 working days after the end of the month in which
it was performed All invoices are due upon receipt Escrowed funds are to be paid over to the
County on a monthly basis under the same tenus A copy of each invoice is to be sent to the
County Auditor as it is prepared for accounts receivable control
MISCELLANEOUS
City and County certify that this Interlocal Agreement is executed in accordance with the
governing provisions oCtile Texas lnterlocal Cooperation Acts as amended and City and County
expressly represent that payment for all funds expended herein are from current budgeted funds
available for the purpose recited in this agreement and that any required separate document approval
by the County will be acc omplished as a condition precedent to the exe ution ofmis agreement
The City of Coppell has execute this Agreement pursuant to duly authoTiu d City Council
Ii1 fJu7 EoS da The County of Dallas has executed this
Agreement pursuant to Commlssioners Court Order No 2003 1965 l on this 21st
day of October 2003
BY
COUNTY OF DALLAS
APPROVED AS 10 FOR21
1 r
iYUX f C1 V l j JJJf rtl1
B Janet rergusonl j
Advlsory Chief C vil Section
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT 4
KENNETH A MAYFIELD COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT A
FOR Holly St
CITY OF Cappel ESCROW AMOUNT 31 873 20
DATE 81612008
TYPE E
UMITS Sandy Lake Rd Clear Creek
EST MArLS 20 623 20
EST E LA 19 250 00 EST W W D 6
PROJECT EST 39 873 20 DESIGN EQU 0
LENGTHIlF WIDTHILF S Y 1 0 NUMBER MILES COST PER MILE
900 24 2400 28012 0 17045455 233 922 77
MATERIALS EST LBSlSY QUANTITY UNITS UNIT COST SUB TOTAL
Traffic Control 1 2400 Sy 0 35 840 00
Prep SubGr 1 2400 Sy 3 75 9 000 00
Cement Slurry 44 52 8 Ton 170 00 8 976 00
Asphalt MCS600 0 3 720 Gal 1 25 900 00
Asphalt Tack 0 1 240 Gal 3 78 907 20
H MA C Ty 0 220 264 Ton 45 00 11 880 00
20 623 20
EQUIPMENT EST HOURS HR DAY COST PER HR NO WWO
275 50 28 00 6 7700 00
LABOR EST HOURS HR DAY COST PER HR NO WWD
462 84 25 00 6 11 550 00
TOTAL ESTIMATE 39 873 20
PREPARED BY
DON KENNEDY
ROAD AND BRIDGE SUPERINTENDENT
DISTRICT 4
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT 4
KENNETH A MAYFIELD COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT A
FOR Nash St
CITY OF Coppell ESCROW AMOUNT 24 286 67
DATE 81612008
TYPE E
LIMITS Sandy Lake Rd End
EST MATLS 10 953 33
EST E LA 13 333 33 EST W W D 4
PROJECT EST 24 286 67 DESIGN EQU 0
LENGTHlLF WIOTHlLF S Y 1 0 NUMBER MILES COST PER MILE
500 24 1333 28013 0 09469697 256 467 20
MATERIALS EST LBS SY QUANTITY UNITS UNIT COST SUB TOTAL
Traffic Control 1 1333 Sy 0 35 466 67
Prep SubGr 1 1333 Sy 3 75 5 000 00
Cement Slurry 8 44 29 Ton 170 00 4 986 67
Asphalt MCS600 0 3 400 Gal 1 25 500 00
Asphalt Tack 0 1 133 Gal 3 78 504 00
H M A C Ty 0 220 147 Ton 45 00 6 600 00
10 953 33
EQUIPMENT EST HOURS HR DAY COST PER HR NO WWD
190 50 28 00 4 5 333 33
LABOR EST HOURS HR DAY COST PER HR NO WWO
320 84 25 00 4 8 000 00
TOTAL ESTIMATE 24 286 67
PREPARED BY
DON KENNEDY
ROAD AND BRIDGE SUPERINTENDENT
DISTRICT 4
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT 4
KENNETH A MAYFIELD COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT A
FOR Sanders Loop
CITY OF Coppell ESCROW AMOUNT 60 727 00
DATE 81612008
TYPE E
LIMITS Belt Line Rd Belt Line Rd
EST MArLS 31 152 00
EST E LA 29 575 00 EST W W D 8
PROJECT EST 60 727 00 DESIGN EQU 4
LENGTHlLF WIDTHlLF S Y I D NUMBER MILES COST PER MILE
1800 24 4800 28014 0 34090909 178 132 53
MATERIALS EST LBSlSY QUANTITY UNITS UNIT COST SUB TOTAL
Traffic Control 1 4800 Sy 0 25 1 200 00
Prep SubGr 1 4800 Sy 250 12 000 00
Cement Slurry 8 44 105 6 Ton 170 00 17 952 00
Asphalt MCS600 0 3 1440 Gal 1 25 1 800 00
Asphalt Tack 0 1 480 Gal 3 78 1 814 40
H MAC Ty 0 220 528 Ton 45 00 23 760 00
31 152 00
EQUIPMENT EST HOURS HR DAY COST PER HR NO WWD
423 50 28 00 8 11 830 00
LABOR EST HOURS HR DAY COST PER HR NO WWD
710 84 25 00 8 17 745 00
TOTAL ESTIMATE 60 727 00
PREPARED BY
DON KENNEDY
ROAD AND BRIDGE SUPERINTENDENT
DISTRICT 4
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
ȱ
Engineering
August 26, 2008
15
✔
CONTRACT/BID or PROPOSAL
Consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Coppell and the City of Lewisville for construction
of a traffic signal at the intersection of Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive; and authorize funding in the amount of
$169,264.46 for construction; and authorizing the Mayor to sign and to execute any necessary documents.
Approval of the agreement will allow for the construction and maintenance of a traffic signal at the intersection of
Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive, north of SH 121.
Funds are available in Roadway Impact fees for this agreement. (Zone 11)
Staff recommends approval of the interlocal agreement with
Lewisville.
#Interlocal for Highland Signal
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering/Public Works
DATE: August 26, 2008
REF: Consider approval of an Interlocal Agreement between the City of Coppell
and the City of Lewisville for construction of a traffic signal at the
intersection of Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive; and authorize funding
in the amount of $169,264.46 for the construction; and authorizing the
Mayor to sign and to execute any necessary documents.
Since the initial stages of development of the Vista Ridge Retail tract (Market Street), the cities
of Coppell and Lewisville have been working together to come up with an agreement to allow
for the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Highland Drive with Denton Tap Road.
The need to work with Lewisville was precipitated by the fact that the connection of Highland
Drive with Denton Tap Road is within the city of Lewisville, the Market Street development is
within the city of Coppell and the location of two of the traffic signal poles are proposed within
the city of Coppell, along the west side of Denton Tap Road.
Working with two cities to develop an agreement for the installation of a traffic light has
complications. The largest hurdle to overcome in this negotiation was police enforcement within
the intersection. Lewisville made the first attempt to come up with an interlocal agreement and it
included language to the effect that the city of Coppell would provide police enforcement and
emergency response at the intersection. This concerned our Police Department because most of
the intersection lies within the city of Lewisville.
Through numerous iterations, we have now agreed on an interlocal that does not provide for city
of Coppell police enforcement within the intersection. The basics of the agreement provide for
the city of Coppell to pay for the initial installation of the traffic signal, and then for Lewisville
to operate and maintain the traffic signal. The actual traffic signal will be similar in nature to the
traffic signals installed at the intersection of State Highway 121 with Denton Tap, which is the
standard TxDOT traffic signal.
The estimated cost for the traffic signal is $169,264.46. This includes the traffic analysis,
warrant study, design fee and the estimated hard costs for the materials and installation.
The need for a traffic signal at this location is strongly supported by the traffic impact analysis
provided to the City. Currently, during a 24 hour period there are approximately 22,000 vehicles
on Denton Tap Road at Highland Drive and approximately 2,800 vehicles on Highland Drive.
At build-out, this development will generate approximately 13,000 additional trips per day in
that area. Not all of these vehicles will utilize the intersection of Highland and Denton Tap, but a
large percentage will use it in trying to gain safe entry onto Denton Tap Road.
Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement between the city of Coppell and the city
of Lewisville for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection and Highland Drive and
Denton Tap Road, with funding in the amount of $169,264.46 to be provided by the city of
Coppell, and operation and maintenance provided by the city of Lewisville. Staff will be
available to answer any questions at the council meeting.
1 INCH = FT.
0 50
50
25
Proposed Traffic Signal
Highland Drive at
Denton Tap Road
Created in LDDTS:\CAD\In_Design\MISC EXHIBITS\dwg\EXHIBITS.dwg\VISTA RIDGE SIGNAL
Created on: 05 August 2008 by Scott Latta
PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL
LOCATION
CITY OF COPPELL
CITY LIMIT CITY OF COPPELLCITY OF LEWISVILLECITY OF LEWISVILLECITY OF COPPELL
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
COUNTIES OF DALLAS AND DENTON §
This Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) for the Design, Installation, and Maintenance
of a Traffic Signal at the intersection of Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive (the “Project”) is
made and entered into by and between the City of Coppell, Texas, a municipal corporation
located in Dallas County, Texas (“Coppell”), and the City of Lewisville, Texas, a municipal
corporation located in Denton County, Texas (“Lewisville”). (Lewisville and Coppell shall
hereafter be collectively referred to as “the Cities”).
WHEREAS, the Cities mutually desire to enter into an interlocal agreement to provide
for the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive
which lies partially within each City; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 791, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, as amended (the “Act”), provides
authorization for municipalities to contract with one another for the performance of
governmental functions and services under the terms of the Act; and
WHEREAS, Coppell shall provide funding for the entire Project from current revenue
or other lawfully available funds; and
WHEREAS, it is mutually understood that the sole purpose of this Agreement is to
provide for the installation and future maintenance of a traffic signal that is partially located
within each City; and
WHEREAS, it is mutually advantageous to both parties to enter into this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms and
conditions set forth herein, and the mutual benefits to each party, the receipt and sufficiency of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Cities hereby contract, covenant, warrant and agree as
follows:
I
ADOPTION OF PREAMBLE
All of the matters stated in the preamble of this Agreement are true and correct and are
hereby incorporated into the body of the Agreement as though fully set forth in their entirety
herein.
II
OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES
2.01 The Cities have independently reviewed the plans for the Project and concur that
the Project is needed for safe traffic movement at the intersection.
Interlocal Agreement – Traffic Signal at Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive
Page 1
2.02 The Cities agree that Coppell shall cause the construction of the Project solely at
Coppell’s cost.
2.03 The Cities agree that each respective city shall review and approve all
construction plans and specifications for the Project.
2.04 The Cities agree that each respective city will be responsible for pursuing the
relocation of public utilities within their city necessary for the construction of the Project.
2.05 The Cities agree that Lewisville will provide construction inspection for the
Project, both in Coppell and Lewisville.
2.06 The Cities agree that Lewisville will provide ongoing maintenance for the
Project, including the portion within Coppell. Such maintenance shall include but not be limited
to: standard scheduled maintenance; necessary equipment replacement or upgrade; or emergency
and unscheduled equipment failure repair.
2.07 The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of one year beginning on the last
date of execution hereof and shall thereafter renew for successive terms of one year each. Either
party may terminate this agreement by giving the other party six month advance written notice
thereof.
III
INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS
3.01 LEWISVILLE AGREES TO, THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, TO INDEMNIFY
AND HOLD COPPELL HARMLESS FROM ANY CLAIM BY A THIRD PARTY FOR DAMAGES ARISING
FROM OR RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT LYING IN
LEWISVILLE.
3.02 COPPELL AGREES TO, THE EXTENT ALLOWED BY LAW, TO INDEMNIFY
AND HOLD LEWISVILLE HARMLESS FROM ANY CLAIM BY A THIRD PARTY FOR DAMAGES
ARISING FROM OR RESULTING FROM THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROJECT
LYING IN COPPELL.
3.03 HOWEVER, THE INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONTAINED HEREIN
SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OF ANY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ALLOWED PURSUANT TO TEX.
CIV. PROC. & REM. CODE, SECTION 101.001 ET SEQ., OR OTHERWISE.
IV
NOTICES
Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been
adequately given if deposited in the United States mail in an envelope with sufficient postage
and properly addressed to the other party as follows:
If to Lewisville: If to Coppell:
Interlocal Agreement – Traffic Signal at Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive
Page 2
City of Lewisville City of Coppell
P.O. Box 299002 P. O. Box 9478
Lewisville, Texas 75029-9002 Coppell, Texas 75019
Attention: City Manager Attention: City Manager
A change of address may be made by either party upon the giving of ten (10) days prior
written notice.
V
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
5.01 This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties
hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
5.02 This Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement of the parties hereto and
supersedes any prior understandings or written or oral agreements between the parties respecting
the subject matter hereof.
5.03 This Agreement may be amended or modified only by the mutual agreement of
the Cities. Such amendment or modification must be in writing, signed by an authorized agent
for the signing City and attached to and incorporated into this Agreement.
5.04 All payments made hereunder shall be payable from funds currently available to
the respective Cities.
5.05 This Agreement may be executed concurrently in one or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same
instrument.
5.06 If, in case anyone or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for
any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity,
illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision hereof and this Agreement
shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained
herein.
5.07 The Cities agree that if legal action is brought under this Agreement, exclusive
venue shall lie in the Courts of Denton County, Texas, and its terms or provisions, as well as the
rights and duties of the Cities hereunder, shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas.
5.08 Each party hereto warrants that it has received authority from its governing body
to enter into this Agreement.
Interlocal Agreement – Traffic Signal at Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive
Page 3
EXECUTED this ____ day of ______________________, 2008.
CITY OF LEWISVILLE, TEXAS
By:
Claude King, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
By:
Julie Heinze, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Ronald J. Neiman, CITY ATTORNEY
Interlocal Agreement – Traffic Signal at Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive
Page 4
EXECUTED this ____ day of ______________________, 2008.
CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS
By:
Douglas N. Stover, MAYOR
ATTEST:
By:
Libby Ball, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Robert E. Hager, CITY ATTORNEY
Interlocal Agreement – Traffic Signal at Denton Tap Road and Highland Drive
Page 5
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
ȱ
Engineering
August 26, 2008
16
✔
CONTRACT/BID or PROPOSAL
Consider approval of a Purchase Agreement between Pacific Realty Associates, L.P. (PacTrust) and the City of
Coppell for the construction of Southwestern Boulevard from the Denton Tap/Belt Line intersection to Coppell Road;
and authorizing the City Manager to sign and execute any necessary documents.
Approval of the agreement will allow for the reconstruction and widening of Southwestern Boulevard from the Denton
Tap/Belt Line intersection to Coppell Road including the Grapevine Creek bridge.
Funds are available in the Street CIP accounts for this project (Series 2007).
Staff recommends approval of the agreement with PacTrust.
#Southwestern Blvd Agmt
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kenneth M. Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering/Public Works
DATE: August 26, 2008
REF: Consider approval of a Purchase Agreement with Pacific Realty Associates,
L.P. (PacTrust) and the City of Coppell for the construction of Southwestern
Boulevard from the Denton Tap/Belt Line intersection to Coppell Road; and
authorizing the City Manager to sign and execute any necessary documents.
The City of Coppell Engineering Department has been working with representatives of PacTrust
since August 2007 concerning the construction of Southwestern Boulevard. Council may be
aware that there was an old agreement signed by Prentiss Properties (prior owner) concerning the
construction of a portion of Southwestern Boulevard. In November 1993 the agreement was
revised, however, the intent of the agreement stayed the same. The developer on the south side of
Southwestern is responsible for the construction of Southwestern from Denton Tap/Belt Line to
Grapevine Creek. The City is then responsible for the construction of the bridge over Grapevine
Creek and the remainder of the roadway from the creek to Coppell Road.
In August 2007, representatives of PacTrust met with the City and stated their intent to proceed
with the construction of Southwestern Boulevard. During the discussion it was noted that the
city also had plans to construct our portion of Southwestern in the near future. After much
discussion it was decided by both parties that it could be beneficial to bid the projects as one
project with each party being financially responsible for their part of the project. In early 2008,
work began on an agreement that would allow for the construction of Southwestern Boulevard
with each party paying their fair share.
After many, many, many iterations of the agreement, it appears that both parties have now
agreed on the wording in the agreement and are ready to move forward with approval of the
agreement so the construction of Southwestern Boulevard can begin.
The agreement in basic terms defines the project, defines the limits and the responsibilities for
the portions of the project to each party, defines how bids will be solicited and reviewed, and
how the project will be awarded. The concept behind this agreement is that PacTrust will take
responsibility for the entire project from the Belt Line/Denton Tap intersection up to Coppell
Road, (their portion and the City’s portion), will solicit bids for the project, then select a
contractor and proceed with the construction of the project.
Exhibit C states how the City will then purchase completed portions of the project back from
PacTrust. There will be an initial down payment of 15% after award of the contract to a suitable
contractor, then incremental payments for each 25% of the project as it is completed up to a total
purchase of 90%. The remaining 10% will be paid once the entire project is completed and
accepted by the City.
The City’s purchase price will only pertain to the portion of the project defined as: Grapevine
Creek to Coppell Road, including the bridge over Grapevine Creek, half of a 24” waterline that
needs to be relocated, construction of sidewalks on the north side and the relocation of an
existing sewer line on the north side. PacTrust’s responsibility will be construction of the
roadway from Denton Tap/Belt Line intersection to Grapevine Creek and 50% of the relocation
cost of the 24” waterline.
The need to relocate the 24” waterline is driven by the fact that the waterline was constructed on
PacTrust property in what was supposed to be the future realignment of Southwestern Boulevard.
Current members of Council may not be aware, but in the 1980’s there was a realignment of
Southwestern proposed that would dip south and eventually line up with the current intersection
of Gateway Boulevard and Freeport Parkway. There were several studies commissioned in the
80’s to study the alignment of Southwestern Blvd. and other streets on the west side of Coppell.
However, in the final analysis, the Thoroughfare Plan that was ultimately approved showed
Southwestern to continue in a westerly direction from its intersection with Denton Tap/Belt Line.
In anticipation of Southwestern being realigned and renamed Gateway Boulevard, the 24”
waterline was installed in the late 80’s along the proposed alignment. Again, that alignment is
no longer valid and the 24” waterline needs to be relocated off private property and in the right-
of-way of Southwestern Blvd.
If this agreement is approved by Council, there are still several items to be completed prior to
beginning construction. One is utility relocations. We have been informed that the utility
relocations will be complete in approximately 10-12 weeks. The next item is an additional
agenda item to close down Southwestern at the bridge so that the existing bridge can be removed
and the new bridge constructed. This will occur during the school year, so prior to bringing the
item forward, we are exploring options to facilitate traffic to and from Pinkerton Elementary
during the construction. Once we have an acceptable option, an agenda item for closure of
Southwestern at Grapevine Creek will be brought before Council for consideration.
Staff recommends approval of the Purchase Agreement between PacTrust and the City of
Coppell to allow for the construction of Southwestern Boulevard from the Denton Tap/Belt Line
intersection to Coppell Road. Staff will be available to answer any questions at the council
meeting.
1 INCH = FT.
0 400
400
200
Proposed Improvements
Southwestern Blvd Re-Construction
City of Coppell Project ST07-01
Created in LDDTS:\CAD\In_Design\MISC EXHIBITS\dwg\EXHIBITS.dwg\ST07-01
Created on: 11 January 2008 by Scott Latta
AREA OF PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS,
CITY OF COPPELL
AREA OF PROPOSED
IMPROVEMENTS,
PACTRUST
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 1 23128
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ Purchase Agreement
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
This Purchase Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made by and among the City of Coppell,
Texas (the “City”) and PW Commerce Center, LP, a Texas limited partnership (the “Company”),
acting by and through their respective authorized officers.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Company owns the real property described in Exhibit “A” (the
“Land”); and
WHEREAS, The Prentiss/Copley Investment Group, the Company’s predecessor in
interest as owner of the Land, and the City have previously entered into a certain Developer’s
Agreement for Southwestern Boulevard dated November 11, 1993 (the “Prior Development
Agreement”) relative to construction of portions of Southwestern Boulevard adjacent to the
Land;
WHEREAS, the Company and the City have mutually determined that it would promote
their respective interests if they terminated the Prior Development Agreement and the City
purchased from the Company a completed roadway consisting of Southwestern Boulevard from
Denton Tap/Beltline Road to South Coppell Road as described on Exhibit “B” (the “Project”);
and
WHEREAS, the Company has agreed to sell, transfer and convey the Project to the City
upon completion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City has issued certificates of obligation 2007 series in the principal
amount of $5.54 Million for the design and construction of the Project;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and other valuable
consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as
follows:
Article I
Term
The term of this Agreement shall begin on the last date of execution hereof (“Effective
Date”) and continue until the Expiration Date, unless sooner terminated as provided herein.
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 2 23128
Article II
Definitions
Wherever used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to
them:
“City” shall mean the City of Coppell, Texas acting by and through its City Manager, or
designee.
“City Acceptance” shall mean: (i) the Punch List Items have been completed; (ii) City
has been provided with “as-built” plans as required by City Ordinances; and (iii) the City has
been provided with a 2 year maintenance bond for each public improvement comprising the
Project.
“City Engineer” shall mean the city engineer for the City or designee.
“City Project” shall mean that portion of the Project consisting of the design and
construction of the improvement of Southwestern Boulevard from Grapevine Creek (including
the Bridge) to South Coppell Road.
“Commencement of Construction” shall mean that: (i) the Plans have been prepared and
all approvals thereof required from applicable governmental authorities have been obtained for
the Project; (ii) all necessary permits for construction of the Project pursuant to the respective
Plans therefore have been issued by all applicable governmental authorities; (iii) all franchise
utilities or public utilities affected by the Project have been relocated by the respective utility
providers; and (iv) grading of the portion of the Land required for the Project has commenced.
“Company” shall mean PW Commerce Center, LP, a Texas limited partnership, and its
permitted successors and assigns.
“Company Project” shall mean that portion of the Project as generally depicted in
Exhibit “B”, consisting of the design and construction of: (i) the improvement of Southwestern
Boulevard from Denton Tap/Belt Line Road to Grapevine Creek, and (ii) the design,
construction and rerouting of the existing twenty-four inch (24”) waterline that encroaches onto
the Land off of the Land in accordance with plans approved by the City (50% of the cost of
which is to be paid by each Party).
“Completion of Construction” shall mean that: (i) a certificate of substantial completion
has been issued by the general contractor(s) for the Project; and (ii) the City Acceptance has
been achieved for the Project.
“Effective Date” shall mean the last date of execution hereof.
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 3 23128
“Event of Bankruptcy or Insolvency” shall mean the dissolution or termination of a party’s
existence as a going business, insolvency, appointment of receiver for any significant part of such
party’s property and such appointment is not terminated within ninety (90) days after such
appointment is initially made, any general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or the
commencement of any proceeding under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws by or against such party
and such proceeding is not dismissed within ninety (90) days after the filing thereof.
“Expiration Date” shall mean the date that all parties have fully satisfied their respective
obligations herein.
“Force Majeure” means any contingency or cause beyond the reasonable control of a
party including, without limitation, acts of God or the public enemy, war, terrorism, riot, civil
commotion, insurrection, criminal acts by unrelated third parties, government or de facto
governmental action or delays (unless caused by acts or omissions of the party), adverse weather,
fires, explosions, floods, strikes, slowdowns or work stoppages.
“Impositions” shall mean all taxes, assessments, use and occupancy taxes, charges,
excises, license and permit fees, and other charges by public or governmental authority, general
and special, ordinary and extraordinary, foreseen and unforeseen, which are or may be assessed,
charged, levied, or imposed by any public or governmental authority on the Company and/or
affecting the Land.
“Land” shall mean the real property described in Exhibit “A”.
“Material Breach” shall mean a breach of a material term or condition of this Agreement
as follows: (i) failure to construct the Project in substantial accordance with the Plans; (ii) failure
to timely cause Commencement of Construction or Completion of Construction of the Project;
(iii) work or construction delays for a period of 45 days or more with respect to the construction
of the Project not due to Force Majeure; and (iv) failure of the City to pay any installment of the
Purchase Price for the Project in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
“Party, Parties” shall mean a reference to each of the City and Company.
“Permitted Exceptions” shall mean zoning laws, rules and regulations, the lien for current
taxes, the environmental condition and any easements or restrictions of record.
“Plans” shall mean the plans and specifications for design and construction of the Project, or
respective portion thereof, as approved by the City and the Company.
“Project” shall collectively mean the City Project, the Company Project and the Water
Line Project, as described in Exhibit “B”.
“Project Engineer” shall mean Halff & Associates, Inc. (Dave Littleton).
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 4 23128
“Punch List Items” shall mean the list of items prepared by the City and Company, and
confirmed by the Project Engineer and/or Company’s contractor and the City Engineer, which
remain to be completed in accordance with the respective Plans for the respective improvements
at the time of Substantial Completion.
“Purchase Price” shall mean the sum of: (i) the actual costs of design and construction of
the City Project, plus (ii) 50% of the actual costs of construction of the Water Line Project, not
to exceed $1,850,000, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 3.4 hereof.
“Substantially Complete” or “Substantial Completion” shall mean that stage by which the
construction of the Project is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Plans that the City can
enjoy the beneficial use of the Project for its intended purpose, exclusive of Punch List Items
even though minor miscellaneous work beyond punch list work and/or adjustments may be
required.
“Water Line Project” shall mean that portion of the Project consisting of the design,
construction and rerouting of the existing twenty-four inch (24”) waterline that encroaches onto
the Land off of the Land in accordance with plans approved by the City and as generally
depicted in Exhibit “B” , 50% of the cost of which is to be paid by each Party.
Article III
Project
3.1 Project. (a) For the consideration and upon and subject to the terms, provisions
and conditions hereinafter set forth in this Article, Company agrees to sell and convey (or cause
to be sold and conveyed) unto City, and City agrees to purchase from Company the Project and
the plans, specifications and warranties related thereto, it being agreed that Company shall own
such improvements until payment therefore is made by City in accordance with the terms of this
Article. The cost to design and construct the Company Project is to be paid solely by the
Company. The City shall purchase the City Project for the Purchase Price upon Completion of
Construction thereof which shall be paid to Company in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this Agreement. The Company shall design and construct the Water Line Project,
with each Party responsible for 50% of the costs thereof with the City’s portion thereof to be
paid as a part of the Purchase Price.
(b) Sidewalks and other Non-Project items. The City will be responsible for: (i) sidewalks
required on north side of Southwestern Boulevard from Grapevine Creek to Belt Line Road.; (ii)
the design and construction of a temporary road system to allow access to Pinkerton Elementary
once the Southwestern Boulevard Bridge has been removed; and (iii) the removal and
replacement of sewer system on the north side of Southwestern Boulevard (identified as Line E
in the Construction Documents) and that is not included in the Project.
3.2 Plans. The City shall, at its sole costs, cause the Plans to be prepared for the City
Project. The Company shall at its cost, cause the Plans to be prepared for the Company Project
and for the Water Line Project. The Company shall submit the Plans for the Company Project
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 5 23128
and the Water Line Project to the City Engineer for review and approval who shall have a period
of fifteen (15) business days to approve such plans (the “Plan Approval Period”). The City
Engineer shall be deemed to have approved the submitted plans unless it has provided written
notice to the Company to the contrary prior to the expiration of the Plan Review Approval
Period. If the City Engineer has objections to the plans, the City Engineer shall note such
objections in writing and the Company shall cause the Project Engineer to revise the plans to
address such objections and re-submit the plans to the City Engineer for approval (subject to the
same Plan Approval Period). This process shall continue until the City Engineer has approved
the plans or either Party has determined, acting in good faith, that the City Engineer objections
can not be addressed, in which case, either Party may, by written notice to the other, terminate
this Agreement.
3.3 Bidding.
(a) Solicitation of Bids. The Company shall, within the later of: (i) 30 days after the
Effective Date; and (ii) City approval of the Plans, cause a bid package, including the plans and
specifications for the Project to be prepared to be sent out to prospective bidders for the
performance of the Project. The bid package may include a request for bids on all or a portion of
the Project, but bidders shall be required to break out their respective bid between the City
Project, the Company Project and the Water Line Project. The Company shall provide a copy of
the proposed bid package including the plans and specifications to the City Engineer for
approval who shall have a period of ten (10) business days to approve such bid package (the
“Bid Package Approval Period”). The City Engineer shall be deemed to have approved the
submitted bid package unless it has provided written notice to the Company to the contrary prior
to the expiration of the Bid Package Approval Period. If the City Engineer has objections to the
bid package, the City Engineer shall note such objections in writing and the Company shall
cause the bid package to be revised to address such objections and re-submit the bid package to
the City Engineer for approval (subject to the same Bid Package Approval Period). This process
shall continue until the City Engineer has approved (or is deemed to have approved) the bid
package or either Party has determined, acting in good faith, that the City Engineer objections
can not be addressed, in which case, either Party may, by written notice to the other, terminate
this Agreement. Once the bid package is approved by the City Engineer, the Company shall
solicit at least three (3) competitive bids and/or competitive sealed proposals for the construction
of the Project for the review and approval by the City Engineer.
(b) Bid Review. The Company shall provide a copy of the bids to the City Engineer
for approval along with notification of the bid which the Company wishes to accept (the
“Recommended Bid”). The City Engineer shall have a period of ten (10) business days to
approve or reject the Recommended Bid (the “Bid Approval Period”). The City Engineer shall
be deemed to have approved the Recommended Bid unless it has provided written notice to the
Company to the contrary prior to the expiration of the Bid Approval Period. If the City Engineer
has objections to the Recommended Bid, the City Engineer shall note such objections in writing
and the Company and the City Engineer shall meet as promptly as possible thereafter to review
and discuss all bids. The Company may, after such meeting, ask the bidders to revise their bids
and re-submit bids to the Company and the City Engineer for approval. This process shall
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 6 23128
continue until the City Engineer has approved (or deemed to have approved) a Recommended
Bid or either Party has determined, acting in good faith, that a bid acceptable to the City cannot
be obtained. If either party determines that a bid acceptable to the City cannot be obtained , such
party may terminate this Agreement, in which event the Parties shall have no further duties or
obligations hereunder.
(c) Bid Award. Once a Recommended Bid has been approved (or deemed to have
been approved) by the Parties the Company shall award the construction contract(s) to the
approved bidder (the “Contract Award”). The Company shall enter into a construction
contract(s) for the Project with the approved bidder promptly thereafter (but not later than twenty
(20) business days after the Contract Award) for the construction of the Project.
3.4 Purchase Price. The Purchase Price is due and payable by the City to the
Company from lawful available funds of the City as set forth in this Section. In the event the
Contract Award for the City Project and 50% of the Water Line Project exceeds the amount of
the Purchase Price as set forth in Article II, the Purchase Price shall be increased to the amount
of the Contract Award approved by the City for such portions of the Project unless the Parties
agree otherwise in writing. For the purpose of securing the performance of the City under the
terms of this Section, the City shall deliver earnest money to the Company in the amount and on
the date set forth in the Installment Schedule attached as Exhibit "C” (the “Earnest Money”).
Subject to the satisfaction of the conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Purchase Price less
the Earnest Money for the Project shall be paid by the City to the Company in installments as
construction of the Project progresses, in the amounts and in accordance with Exhibit "C". The
obligation of the City to make each installment payment of the Purchase Price is subject to the
prior occurrence of each of the following conditions:
(i) City shall have received from Company evidence reasonably satisfactory to the
City that the construction of the Project (through its applicable stage of completion) complies
with all applicable laws.
(ii) City shall have received from Company a cost breakdown reasonably satisfactory
to City showing the estimated total costs of constructing the Project free and clear of liens or
claims for material supplied and for labor services performed.
(iii) City shall have received from Company a copy of each contract and agreement
entered into between Company and any contractor pertaining to the design, construction and
completion of the Project, unless previously provided.
(iv) City shall have received from Company an affidavit from the contractor and
supplier that has furnished labor and/or materials in connection with the completed aspects of the
Project that such materials and labor and any sub-contractor(s) have been paid for such work, in
a form acceptable to the City.
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 7 23128
(v) City shall have received a title report dated within five (5) days of the installment
payment date from the Title Company showing that no claim for mechanic’s or materialmen’s
liens has been filed against the Project.
(vi) The representations and warranties made by Company, as contained in this
Agreement, shall be true and correct in all material respects as of the date of each installment.
(vii) The covenants made by Company to City as contained in this Agreement shall
have been complied with in all material respects, except to the extent such compliance may be
limited by Force Majeure, the passage of time, or the Completion of Construction of the Project.
(viii) Company shall have delivered to City a report of any changes, replacements,
substitutions, additions or other modifications in the list of contractors and subcontractors.
(ix) City shall have received from Company a written request for payment of an
installment of the Purchase Price in a form that states the amount or percentage of the Project
work completed and that all work required at the stage of construction when the installment is
requested has been done.
(x) There shall be no Material Breach of this Agreement by Company.
(xi) The Project shall not be materially damaged or destroyed by Casualty.
(xii) Company shall execute and deliver (or cause to be executed and delivered) to
City a bill of sale reasonably acceptable to City, substantially in the form of Exhibit “D”
conveying to City the portions of the Project then constructed (it being agreed, however that
ownership of the Project then constructed shall automatically vest in the City upon payment of
the Purchase Price, without the necessity of any instrument). An amount equal to ten percent
(10%) of the Purchase Price shall be retained by City and shall be paid over by City to Company
as the final installment of the Purchase Price, provided that no lien claims are then filed and
remain un-bonded against the Project, when all of the following has occurred to the reasonable
satisfaction of City:
(A) Completion of Construction has occurred for the portion of the Project
then being conveyed.
(B) Company shall have delivered and assigned (or caused to be delivered and
assigned) to the City all warranties for the Project from contractors utilized in the
construction of the Project.
No payment of an installment of the Purchase Price shall be deemed an acceptance by the
City of the work theretofore done. City shall have no obligation to pay any installment of the
Purchase Price during the occurrence of a Material Breach of this Agreement on the part of
Company, but the City may do so, provided however if the City elects to pay any such
installment, no such payment shall be deemed a waiver of any remedies City may have in respect
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 8 23128
to such breach. If the City does defer any installment of the Purchase Price pursuant to the
preceding sentence, such deferred installments of the Purchase Price shall be fully due and
payable at such time as such Material Breach has been cured or corrected by the Company.
3.5 Construction of Project.
(a) Commencement and Completion of Construction of Project The Company
agrees, subject to events of Force Majeure, to cause Commencement of Construction of the
Project, to occur on or before _sixty (60) days after the Contract Award and subject to events of
Force Majeure, to cause Completion of Construction of the Project to occur within 365 calendar
days thereafter.
(b) Substantial Completion. The Company will use good faith efforts to provide at
least thirty (30) business days prior written notice to the City of the date that the Company
reasonably expects the Project to be Substantially Complete. Upon receipt of written notification
from the Company that the Project is Substantially Complete, City shall notify the Company of
the date the City Engineer intends to make a walk-through inspection of the Project to determine
Punch List Items, such date to be within ten (10) business days after City’s receipt of such
notice. A representative of the Company will accompany the City Engineer on the walk-through
inspection so as to mutually determine the Punch List Items to be completed or repaired by the
Company. The Company will complete all Punch List Items within twenty (20) business days
after the date of the walk-through inspection, subject to events of Force Majeure.
(c) Construction Meetings. The Company agrees to meet with City representatives
at least once per month to jointly review the progress of construction of the Project and to
discuss any other matters pertaining to the construction of the Project. The Company will keep
City reasonably informed as to the progress of the Project and agrees to meet with City upon
reasonable advance request to discuss the same. Furthermore, the Company will allow City
Engineer to inspect the Project at any time during business hours.
(d) Warranties. The Company agrees, as a part of the costs of construction, to
obtain and assign to City warranties from the Company’s contractors, subcontractors and
suppliers providing labor and/or materials in connection with the Project; provided that such
assignment shall not prevent the Company from enforcing the same. Such warranties shall: (a)
be at least standard industry warranties from generally recognized contractors, subcontractors
and suppliers with respect to the Project; and (b) obligate the Company’s contractors,
subcontractors and suppliers to repair all defects in the applicable portion of the Project for a
period of two (2) years following Completion of Construction.
(e) No Delay of Damages. In the event of delay not the fault of the City, then the
Company shall be entitled to an extension of time for the Completion of Construction of the
Project only and shall not be entitled to any additional payment from the City on account of such
delay.
(f) Casualty. Risk of loss due to casualty shall be borne by the Company until
Completion of Construction of the Project at such time said risk of loss due to casualty shall be
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 9 23128
borne by the City. During the term of this Agreement, the Company shall carry or cause to be
carried insurance in amounts sufficient to restore any of the Project damaged by casualty to
substantially the same condition they were in immediately prior to such casualty. The Company
shall, in any even, restore any of the Project damaged or destroyed by casualty as part of its
obligation to construct same.
3.6 General Requirements for Design and Construction.
(a) Compliance of Plans. The Project shall be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Plans. The Company shall cause all necessary permits and approvals
required by the City and any applicable governmental authorities to be issued for the
construction of the Project.
(b) Compliance of Laws. The Company shall comply with all local and state laws and
regulations regarding the design and construction of the Project applicable to similar facilities
constructed by the City, including but not limited to any applicable requirement relating to
payment, performance and maintenance bonds. Upon Completion of Construction of the Project,
the Company shall provide the City with a final cost summary of all costs associated with the
design and construction of the Project, and provide proof that all amounts owing to contractors
and subcontractors have been paid in full evidenced by the customary affidavits executed by the
Company and/or its contractors.
(c) Bonds. The Company shall in connection with the construction of the Project
cause its contractors to provide performance and payment bond(s) for the construction of the
Project to ensure completion of such Project in accordance with Chapter 2253, Texas
Government Code, as amended in forms reasonably satisfactory to the City for the construction
of the Project to ensure Completion of Construction of such Project.
(d) NCTCOG Standards. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the
design and construction of the Project shall be in accordance with the Standard Specifications for
Public Works Constructions published by the North Central Texas Council of Governments, as
amended, and as modified by the City, and to the extent applicable are hereby incorporated by
reference.
(e) Franchise Utilities. The Company and the City shall cooperate in obtaining all
necessary applications and approvals for franchise utilities that will be included in utility
easements as part of the Project and the City shall assist the Company in any efforts required to
expedite franchise utility approvals or coordinate franchise utility construction schedules with
the construction schedule for the Project. All delays due to construction schedules for franchise
utility suppliers shall be included as items of Force Majeure for all purposes hereunder.
(f) Materials Testing. Each party will pay the costs for material testing and special
inspections for its respective portion of the Project. The Company agrees to contract for testing
and inspections services on behalf of the Parties. The City agrees to reimburse the Company for
its share of the costs for testing and inspections for the City Project within thirty (30) days after
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 10 23128
receipt of a written invoice from the Company, which shall include such supporting
documentation as may be reasonably required by the City.
3.7 Representations, Warranties and Covenants. To induce City to enter into this
Agreement, and in addition to any other representatives, warranties and covenants of Company
contained herein, Company specifically represents, warrants and covenants the following to
City:
(a) Company covenants and agrees to cause the Project to be constructed in a
diligent, good and workmanlike manner, in substantial and material compliance with the Plans
and in compliance with all applicable construction ordinances and laws and using only new
materials of similar quality as customary in the industry.
(b) At such time as Company conveys the Project to the City, the Company will have
good and indefeasible title to such portions of the Project as are on parts of the Land so
conveyed, and shall quitclaim to the City all portions of the Project as are located on other
portions of land for which the City has obtained dedications of right-of-way or easements, all
conveyances being subject only to the Permitted Exceptions, and, to the best of Company’s
knowledge, there will be no adverse or other parties in possession thereof or any part thereof
pursuant to any license, lease, or other right relating to the use or possession thereof or any part
thereof granted by the Company.
3.8 Indemnification by Company. CITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE OR
RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND SHALL BE INDEMNIFIED, DEFENDED, HELD HARMLESS
AND RELEASED BY COMPANY FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL SUITS,
ACTIONS, LOSSES, DAMAGES, CLAIMS, OR LIABILITY OF ANY CHARACTER, TYPE,
OR DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING ALL REASONABLE EXPENSES OF LITIGATION,
COURT COSTS, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR INJURY OR DEATH TO ANY PERSON,
OR INJURY OR LOSS TO ANY PROPERTY, RECEIVED OR SUSTAINED BY ANY
PERSON OR PERSONS, INCLUDING THE COMPANY, OR PROPERTY, ARISING OUT
OF, OR OCCASIONED BY THE PERFORMANCE OF COMPANY UNDER THIS
AGREEMENT. THE PROVISIONS OF THIS INDEMNIFICATION ARE SOLELY FOR THE
BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES HERETO AND NOT INTENDED TO CREATE OR GRANT
ANY RIGHTS, CONTRACTUAL OR OTHERWISE, TO ANY OTHER PERSON OR
ENTITY. IT IS THE EXPRESSED INTENT OF THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT
THAT THE INDEMNITY PROVIDED FOR IN THIS AGREEMENT IS AN INDEMNITY
EXTENDED BY COMPANY TO INDEMNIFY AND PROTECT CITY FROM THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THE COMPANY’S NEGLIGENCE, WHETHER SUCH
NEGLIGENCE IS THE SOLE OR PARTIAL CAUSE OF ANY SUCH INJURY, DEATH, OR
DAMAGE.
3.9 Insurance. Throughout the term of this Agreement, Company shall, at its
expense, maintain (or cause to be maintained) in full force and effect, the following insurance:
(a) A policy of insurance for bodily injury, death and property damage insuring
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 11 23128
against all claims, demands or actions relating to the Company’s performance of its obligations
pursuant to this Agreement with (1) a policy of comprehensive general liability (public)
insurance with a minimum combined single limit of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence
for bodily injury and property damage with an aggregate of not less than $2,000,000.00; (2)
policy of automobile liability insurance covering any vehicles owned and/or operated by the
Company, its officers, agents, and employees, and used in the performance of its obligations
hereunder with a minimum of $1,000,000.00; and (3) statutory Worker’s Compensation
Insurance covering all employees involved in the performance of its obligations hereunder.
Insurance covering all improvements located or being constructed on the Project site against loss
or damage from perils covered by an all risk or special form policy. The policy must be in
amounts not less than eighty (80%) percent of the full insurable value of the improvements
included in the Project. Construction liability insurance shall be maintained at all times when
demolition, excavation, or construction work is in progress on the Project site, with limits of not
less than $100,000 for property damage and $300,000 for one person and $1,000,000 for one
accident for personal injury and must protect City and Company against all liability for injury or
damage to any person or property in any way arising out of demolition, excavation, or
construction work on the site of the Project.
(b) All insurance and certificate(s) of insurance shall contain the following
provisions: (1) name the City, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds as to all
applicable coverage with the exception of Workers Compensation Insurance; (2) provide for at
least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City for cancellation, or non-renewal; (3) provide
for a waiver of subrogation against the City for injuries, including death, property damage, or
any other loss to the extent the same is covered by the proceeds of insurance.
(c) All insurance companies providing the required insurance shall be authorized to
transact business in Texas and rated at least "A" by AM Best or other equivalent rating service.
(d) A certificate of insurance evidencing the required insurance shall be submitted to
the City prior to Commencement of Construction.
(e) Without limiting any of the other obligations or liabilities of Company, the
Company shall require its general contractors, at the general contractor's own expense, to maintain
during the term of this Agreement, the required insurance including the required certificate and
policy conditions as stated herein.
3.10 Right-Of-Way. The City shall, at its sole cost and expense, secure all right-of-
way dedications and easements required for construction of the City Project, other than right-of-
way dedications for the portion of the Project required from the Land, which shall be granted by
the Company to the City at no charge. The Company shall be required to dedicate and convey
without cost to the City such easements and right-of-way as are necessary for the portions of the
Project constructed on the Land. The City shall be responsible for the acquisition of such
easements and right-of-way as are necessary for the Project that are constructed off-site of the
Land.
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 12 23128
3.11 Waiver of Fees and Charges.
(a) Permit and Inspection Fees. The City shall waive all permit fees, inspection
fees and similar charges and fees with respect to the Project.
(b) Roadway Impact Fees. The City agrees to waive or provide a credit against
roadway impact fees assessed against the Land, if any, pursuant to the City Subdivision
Ordinance.
(c) Water/Waste Water Impact Fees. The City agrees to waive or provide a credit
against water/waste water impact fees assessed against the Land, if any, for the 12 inch water
line being a part of the Water Line Project not to exceed the Company’s costs to design and
construct the 12 inch water line less the City portion of the cost of the Water Line Project, if
approved by the City Council by separate action.
Article IV
Termination
4.1 This Agreement terminates upon any one or more of the following events:
(a) upon mutual written agreement of the parties;
(b) upon Expiration Date;
(c) by either Party, if the other Party has committed a Material Breach of this
Agreement and such Material Breach is not cured within sixty (60) days after written notice
thereof; provided that if the Material Breach cannot reasonably be cured within a sixty (60) day
period and the defaulting Party has diligently pursued such remedies as shall be reasonably
necessary to cure the default, then the non-defaulting Party shall extend the period in which the
default must be cured for an additional sixty (60) days; and
(d) by City, if Company suffers an Event of Bankruptcy or Insolvency.
4.2 In the event the Agreement is terminated by the City pursuant to Section 4.1(c) or
(d), the City may seek specific performance, and/or actual damages incurred as a result of such
uncured default by the Company.
4.3 In the event the Agreement is terminated by the Company pursuant to Section 4.1(c)
the Company may seek specific performance, and/or actual damages incurred as a result of such
uncured default by the City.
4.4 Right of Offset. The City may at its option, offset any amounts due and payable
under this Agreement against any debt (including Impositions) lawfully due to the City and
delinquent from the Company, regardless of whether the amount due arises pursuant to the terms
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 13 23128
of this Agreement or otherwise and regardless of whether or not the debt due the City has been
reduced to judgment by a court.
Article V
Miscellaneous
5.1 Binding Agreement; Assignment. The terms and conditions of this Agreement
are binding upon the successors and permitted assigns of the parties hereto. This Agreement
may not be assigned by the Company without the prior written consent of the City Manager.
5.2 Limitation on Liability. It is understood and agreed among the parties that the
Company and the City, in satisfying the conditions of this Agreement, have acted independently,
and assume no responsibilities or liabilities to third parties in connection with these actions.
5.3 No Joint Venture. It is acknowledged and agreed by the parties that the terms
hereof are not intended to and shall not be deemed to create a partnership or joint venture among
the parties.
5.4 Authorization. Each Party represents that it has full capacity and authority to
grant all rights and assume all obligations that are granted and assumed under this Agreement.
5.5 Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be delivered hereunder shall be
deemed received (i) three (3) days after deposit into the United States Mail, postage prepaid,
certified mail, return receipt requested, addressed to the Party at the address set forth below or
(ii) on the day actually received if sent by courier or otherwise hand delivered.
If intended for City, to:
Attn: City Manager
City of Coppell, Texas
P.O. Box 9478
Coppell, Texas 75019
With a copy to:
Peter G. Smith
Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P.
1800 Lincoln Plaza
500 North Akard
Dallas, Texas 75201
If intended for Company, to:
Mr. J. Benjamin Chessar
Pacific Realty Associates, L.P.
15350 S.W. Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 300
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 14 23128
Portland, Oregon 97224
With a copy to:
Kirsten Day, Esq.
Pacific Realty Associates, LP
15350 S. W. Sequoia Pkwy., Suite 300
Portland, Oregon 97224
Robert M. Allen
Higier, Allen & Lautin, P.C.
5057 Keller Springs, Suite 600
Addison, Texas 75001
Any Party shall have the right to change its address for notice by sending notice of change of
address to each other Party, in the manner described above.
5.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the parties
with respect to the subject matter covered in this Agreement. There is no other collateral oral or
written Agreement among the parties that in any manner relates to the subject matter of this
Agreement, except as provided or referred to in this Agreement or as provided in any Exhibits
attached hereto.
5.7 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Texas; and venue for any action concerning this Agreement shall be in the State District Court of
Dallas County, Texas. The parties agree to submit to the personal and subject matter jurisdiction of
said court.
5.8 Amendment. This Agreement may only be amended by a written agreement
executed by all parties.
5.9 Legal Construction. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in
this Agreement shall for any reason be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect,
such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect other provisions, and it is the intention
of the parties to this Agreement that in lieu of each provision that is found to be illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable, a provision shall be added to this Agreement which is legal, valid and enforceable
and is as similar in terms as possible to the provision found to be illegal, invalid or unenforceable.
5.10 Recitals. The recitals to this Agreement are incorporated herein.
5.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts. Each of the
counterparts shall be deemed an original instrument, but all of the counterparts shall constitute one
and the same instrument.
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 15 23128
5.12 Exhibits. The exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference for
all purposes wherever reference is made to the same.
5.13 Survival of Covenants. Any of the representations, warranties, covenants, and
obligations of the parties, as well as any rights and benefits of the parties, pertaining to a period
of time following the termination of this Agreement shall survive termination.
5.14 Covenants and Representations. The Company represents, warrants and covenants
that it has the authority to: (i) enter into this Agreement and to execute and deliver this Agreement
and (ii) perform and comply with all of the terms, covenants and conditions to be performed and
complied with by the Company hereunder. The City represents warrants and covenants that it has
the authority to; (i) enter into this Agreement and to execute and deliver this Agreement; (ii) perform
and comply with all of the terms, covenants and conditions to be performed and complied with by
the City hereunder; (iii) the City has issued and sold certificate of obligations 2007 Series in the
principal amount of $ 5.54 Million for payment of the Purchase Price; and (iv) that the City has
sufficient funds reasonably available to pay any costs of the Project required to be paid by the City
in excess of the Purchase Price.
5.15 Time for Performance. Time is of the essence in the performance of each
Party’s obligations hereunder.
5.16 Force Majeure. Whenever a period of time is herein prescribed for action to be
taken by City or Company (other than payment of money), City or Company shall not be liable
or responsible for, and there shall be excluded from the computation for any such period of time,
any delays due to Force Majeure.
5.17 Termination of Prior Agreement. The parties hereto herby terminate the Prior
Development Agreement for all purposes, and it shall be of no further force and effect with
respect to the Land from and after the date hereof, notwithstanding any subsequent termination
or expiration of this Agreement. If requested by Company, City shall join in a release of such
Prior Development Agreement in recordable form which may be recorded in the Real Property
Records of Dallas County, Texas.
5.18 No Recording of Agreement. The parties agree that neither Party shall record
this Agreement, any memorandum hereof, or certificate or affidavit pertaining hereto without the
prior written consent of the other Party. Any default by either Party of its obligations under this
provision shall constitute a Material Breach hereunder by the Party that records this Agreement
or any instrument pertaining hereto.
[Signatures Appear on the Following Page]
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 16 23128
EXECUTED in duplicate originals this the ____ day of, ____________________, 2008.
City of Coppell, Texas
By:
Douglas N. Stover, Mayor
Attest:
By:
Libby Ball, City Secretary
Agreed as to Form:
By:__________________________
City Attorney
EXECUTED in duplicate originals this the day of, 2008.
PW Commerce Center, LP
By: PW Fairview, Inc., a Delaware corporation
General Partner
By:
Name: _________________
Title: _________________
Final Draft 8/19/08
Coppell//Pac Trust Southwestern Blvd/Purchase Agreement - 17 23128
City of Coppell’s Acknowledgment
State of Texas §
§
County of Dallas §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ___ day of _______________, 2008,
by Douglas N. Stover, Mayor of the City of Coppell, Texas, a Texas municipality, on behalf of said
municipality.
___________________________________
Notary Public, State of Texas
My Commission Expires:
_________________________
Company’s Acknowledgment
State of Texas §
§
County of Dallas §
This instrument was acknowledged before me on the _____ day of ___________, 2008, by
__________, the ______________, of PW Fairview, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the General
Partner of PW Commerce Center, LP, a Texas limited partnership, on behalf of said limited
partnership.
Notary Public, State of _________________
My Commission Expires:
Final Draft 8/19/08
Exhibit “A”
Description of Land
PWCC means Park West Commerce Center, an addition to the City of Coppell, Texas
PWCC Lot 1 Block 1
PWCC Lot 2 Block 1
PWCC Lot 3 Block 1
PWCC Block 3
PWCC Block 4
Final Draft 8/19/08
EXHIBIT “B”
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Drainage, paving and utility improvements for Southwestern Blvd., from South Coppell Road to
Grapevine Creek and from Grapevine Creek to Belt Line Road, adjacent to Lots 1-3, Block 1,
Park West Commerce Center, Coppell, Texas, as described in the plans for such improvements
prepared by Halff & Associates, Inc. (June, 2008 version), subject to final review and approval
by the City and the Company, with a description of such final approved Plans to be attached to
this Agreement prior to the commencement of the Bid Package Approval Period described
herein.
Final Draft 8/19/08
Exhibit C
Installment Schedule
Earnest Money …………...15% of the Purchase Price to be paid 30 days after Contract Award
Periodic Installments Periodic installments each in amount equal to 25% of Purchase Price
to be paid as follows:
(1) When the Project is 40% complete, as mutually agreed to by
the City Engineer and the Project Engineer;
(2) When the Project is 65% complete, as mutually agreed to by
the City Engineer and the Project Engineer; and
(3) When the Project is 90% complete, as mutually agreed to by
the City Engineer and the Project Engineer.
Final Installment………….10% of the Purchase price to be paid upon Completion of
Construction of the Project as provided in Section 3.4
Final Draft 8/19/08
Exhibit D
BILL OF SALE AND ASSIGNMENT
STATE OF TEXAS §
§ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
This BILL OF SALE AND ASSIGNMENT (this "Bill of Sale") is made and executed as of
the ____ day of ____________, 2008 (the "Effective Date"), by and between PW Commerce
Center, LP, a Texas limited partnership ("Grantor"), and the City of Coppell, Texas, a municipal
corporation ("Grantee").
Preliminary Statements
Grantor and Grantee agree that the following preliminary statements are true and correct in all
material respects and incorporated into the Bill of Sale:
A. The Parties entered into that certain purchase agreement for the improvement of
Southwestern Boulevard and for the design, construction and rerouting of the existing twenty-
four inch (24”) waterline (the “Purchase Agreement”).
B. Grantor desires to sell, transfer and assign to Grantee all of Grantor's right, title
and interest in and to that portion of the Project thus completed (as such term is defined in the
Purchase Agreement) located on that certain real property owned by Grantor and located in the
City of Coppell, Dallas County, Texas, as more particularly described on Exhibit "A" which is
attached and incorporated into this Agreement (the "Land").
C. Grantor also desires to sell, transfer and assign to Grantee all of Grantor's right,
title and interest in and to any warranties and guarantees issued in connection with the
construction of the that portion of the Project (the "Warranties").
Agreement
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the receipt of TEN AND NO/100 DOLLARS
($10.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are
hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee hereby agree as follows:
1. Conveyance of Project. Grantor hereby ASSIGNS, SETS OVER and TRANSFERS to
Grantee, all of Grantor's right, title and interest in and to that portion of the Project thus
completed as generally described and depicted in Exhibit "B" which is attached and
incorporated into this Agreement.
2. Assignment of Warranties. Grantor hereby ASSIGNS, SETS OVER and TRANSFERS
to Grantee, all of its right, title and interest in and to the Warranties, to the extent said Warranties
are assignable with respect to the Project thus conveyed.
Final Draft 8/19/08
3. Miscellaneous. This Bill of Sale and the obligations of the parties hereunder shall be
binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective legal
representatives, successors and assigns.
[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
WORK SESSION CONSENT REGULAR
DEPT:
DATE:
ITEM #:
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
ITEM TYPE:
ITEM CAPTION:
GOAL(S):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL COMMENTS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION: ACTION TAKEN BY COUNCIL:
ȱ
Parks and Recreation
August 26, 2008
17
✔
RESOLUTION
Consider approval of a resolution designating the sole Provider of alcoholic beverages at the October 18, 2008
Coppell Oaktoberfest, and authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with said Provider.
^Oaktoberfest Alcohol Sale-1 AR
AGENDA REQUEST FORM DATE: August 26, 2008
ITEM #: 18
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Report by Mayor Stover regarding Coppell 2030 Update.
B. Report by Mayor Stover regarding Coppell Chamber meeting.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: %mayorreport
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
DATE: August 26, 2008
ITEM #: 19
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Carrollton/Farmers Branch ISD/Lewisville ISD – Tunnell.
B. Coppell ISD – Peters and Hinojosa-Flores.
C. Coppell Seniors – Brancheau and Faught.
D. Dallas Regional Mobility Coalition – Peters.
E. DFW Airport Board – Peters.
F. International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) –Brancheau
G. Metrocrest Hospital Authority – Councilmember Tunnell.
H. Metrocrest Medical Foundation – Hunt.
I. Metrocrest Medical Services – Hinojosa-Flores.
J. Metrocrest Social Service Center – Hunt.
K. North Texas Council of Governments – Peters.
L. NTCOG/Regional Emergency Management – Franklin.
M. North Texas Commission – Franklin.
N. Senior Adult Services – Faught.
Agenda Request Form - Revised 06/03 Document Name: %ccommreport
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
DATE: August 26, 2008
ITEM #: 20
NECESSARY ACTION RESULTING FROM WORK SESSION
Agenda Request Form - Revised 02/04 Document Name: %necessaryactionwork
AGENDA REQUEST FORM
DATE: August 26, 2008
ITEM #: 21
NECESSARY ACTION RESULTING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION
Agenda Request Form - Revised 09/02 Document Name: %necessaryactionexec
CERTIFICATE OF AGENDA ITEM SUBMISSION
Council Meeting Date: August 26, 2008
Department Submissions:
Item No. 10/B was placed on the Agenda for the above-referenced City
Council meeting by the Library Department. I have reviewed the Agenda
Request (and any backup if applicable) and hereby submit this item to the
City Council for consideration.
____________________
Library Department
Item Nos. 7 and 17 were placed on the Agenda for the above-referenced
City Council meeting by the Parks Department. I have reviewed the
Agenda Requests (and any backup if applicable) and hereby submit these
items to the City Council for consideration.
____________________
Parks Department
Item Nos. 14, 15 and 16 were placed on the Agenda for the above-
referenced City Council meeting by the Engineering Department. I have
reviewed the Agenda Requests (and any backup if applicable) and hereby
submit these items to the City Council for consideration.
____________________
Engineering Department
Financial Review:
I certify that I have reviewed all the items submitted for consideration on
the Agenda for the above-referenced City Council Meeting and have inserted
any financial comments where appropriate.
____________________
Finance Department
City Manager Review:
I certify that I have reviewed the complete Agenda and Packet for the
above-referenced City Council Meeting and hereby submit the same to the
City Council for consideration.
____________________
City Manager
(or Deputy City Manager)