Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CP 2016-04-26
City Council City of Coppell, Texas Meeting Agenda 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 Council Chambers5:30 PMTuesday, April 26, 2016 KAREN HUNT GARY RODEN Mayor Mayor Pro Tem CLIFF LONG NANCY YINGLING Place 1 Place 5 BRIANNA HINOJOSA-FLORES MARVIN FRANKLIN Place 2 Place 6 WES MAYS MARK HILL Place 3 Place 7 CLAY PHILLIPS City Manager Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas will meet in Regular Called Session at 5:30 p.m. for Executive Session, Work Session will follow immediately thereafter, and Regular Session will begin at 7:30 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: 1.Call to Order 2.Executive Session (Closed to the Public) 1st Floor Conference Room Section 551.071, Texas Government Code - Consultation with City Attorney. A.Discussion regarding legal status and obligations of City of Coppell regarding City property and adjacent land located at Northlake. B.Legal advice from City Attorney regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. Page 1 City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 4/22/2016 April 26, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda Section 551.072, Texas Government Code - Deliberation regarding Real Property. C.Discussion regarding the purchase of real property south of Belt Line Road, west of MacArthur and north of I-635 in Dallas County, Texas. Section 551.087, Texas Government Code - Economic Development Negotiations. D.Discussion regarding economic development prospects south of Bethel Road and west of Royal Lane. 3.Work Session (Open to the Public) 1st Floor Conference Room A.Presentation regarding activities and programs of Living Well in Coppell (LWiC). B.Discussion regarding the bid award for cleaning and related services of municipal buildings. C.Discussion regarding amendment to the Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, Article 15-1 “Building Code.” D.Presentation related to recommended changes to the Special Events ordinance, to add stipulations regarding horse-drawn carriage rides. E.Discussion regarding the implementation of Coppell Arts Council Phase I Public Art Proposal. F.Discussion of Agenda Items. LWiC Memo.pdf Special Events Ordinance Memo.pdf Memo - Public Art Proposal.pdf Attachment - DRAFT Public Art Proposal.pdf Attachments: Regular Session 4.Invocation 7:30 p.m. 5.Presentations 6.Citizens’ Appearance 7.Consent Agenda A.Consider approval of Minutes: Council Meeting of 04/12/2016. Minutes - April 12, 2016.pdfAttachments: B.Consider approval of awarding Bid #Q-0316-04 for cleaning and related services of municipal buildings to Premium Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $278,640.00 for a one-year period beginning June 1, 2016 with options to renew four additional one-year periods; as budgeted in general fund; and authorizing the City Manager to sign any Page 2 City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 4/22/2016 April 26, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda necessary documents. Cleaning Contract Memo.pdf Cleaning and Janitorial Tab.pdf IFMA Operations and Maintenance Report.pdf Retraction Letter of Bid.pdf Premium Maintenance, Inc. Contract.pdf Attachments: C.Consider award of a bid from Marathon Fitness, for the replacement of fitness equipment at the CORE, in the amount of $62,764.31, as budgeted, utilizing Buy Board Contract #413-12; and authorizing the City Manager to sign the necessary documents. Memo.pdf Proposal.pdf Attachments: D.Consider approval of accepting the resignation of Stephen Hafer from the Coppell Recreation Development Corporation (CRDC). Memo CRDC Member Resignation.pdf Stephen Hafer Resignation.pdf Attachments: End of Consent Agenda 8.Consider approval of an amendment to an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15, Article 15-1, “Building Code,” Section 15-1-2, “Amendments” to add a new Subsection 15A to provide an amendment to Section 419 Live/Work Units, Subsection 419.1.1 Limitations; providing an effective date; and authorizing the Mayor to sign any necessary documents. Memo - Amendment to Code Book.pdf Attachment - Ordinance - Code Book Amendment - Item #8.pdf Attachments: 9.Consider approval of an amendment to an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, Article 15-1, “Building Code”, Section 15-1-2 “Amendments”, to amend Section 503, Table 503, to require resistive building material for certain classified buildings; providing an effective date; and authorizing the Mayor to sign any necessary documents. Building Code Memo.pdf Attachment - Ordinance - Code Book Amendment - Item #9.pdf Sections 602 & 603.pdf Table 503.pdf R Group Definition.pdf Type A & B Units Definition.pdf Attachments: 10.Consider approval of a Resolution directing Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC to file certain information with the City of Coppell setting Page 3 City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 4/22/2016 April 26, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda a procedural schedule for gathering and reviewing necessary information in connection with: setting dates for the filing of the city’s analysis; ratifying the hiring of legal counsel and consultants; reserving the right to require reimbursement of Coppell’s rate case expenses; setting public hearing dates; and determining the reasonable rates to be charged by Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC; and authorizing the Mayor to sign. Memo - Oncor Rate Case.pdf Attachment - Resolution - Oncor Rate Case.pdf Attachments: 11.Consider approval of a Resolution to enter into an agreement between the City of Coppell and SPAN, Inc., for the provision of transit services for Senior Citizens and Citizens with Disabilities; and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Resolution and the City Manager to sign all contract documents. Transit Memo to Council.pdf Exhibit A - SPAN MAP rev1.pdf Exhibit B - Transportation Policy and Procedures.pdf SPAN Resolution.pdf Attachments: 12.City Manager Reports - Project Updates and Future Agendas 13.Mayor and Council Reports A.Announcement by Mayor Hunt regarding upcoming events. B.Report by Councilmember Yingling regarding the National League of Cities Washington, DC conference and the North Central Texas Council of Government Emergency Preparedness Planning Council meeting. 14.Council Committee Reports concerning items of community involvement with no Council action or deliberation permitted. A.C/FBISD/LISD Liaison - Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores B.CISD Liaison - Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores C.Coppell Seniors - Councilmember Yingling 15.Public Service Announcements concerning items of community interest with no Council action or deliberation permitted. 16.Necessary Action from Executive Session Adjournment ________________________ Karen Selbo Hunt, Mayor Page 4 City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 4/22/2016 April 26, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda 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 ______th day of _________, 20__, at _____________. ______________________________ Christel Pettinos, City Secretary PUBLIC NOTICE - STATEMENT FOR ADA COMPLIANCE AND OPEN CARRY LEGISLATION 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 makes 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). Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun. Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly. Page 5 City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 4/22/2016 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2760 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2760 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/21/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Exec Session - NorthlakeFile Name: Title: Discussion regarding legal status and obligations of City of Coppell regarding City property and adjacent land located at Northlake. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: A. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 Discussed under Executive Session 04/26/2016City Council Discussed under Executive Session Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2760 Title Discussion regarding legal status and obligations of City of Coppell regarding City property and adjacent land located at Northlake. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2760) Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2771 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2771 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/22/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Legal Advice - OMAFile Name: Title: Legal advice from City Attorney regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: B. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 Discussed under Executive Session 04/26/2016City Council Discussed under Executive Session Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2771 Title Legal advice from City Attorney regarding the Texas Open Meetings Act. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2771) Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2765 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2765 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/21/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Exec Session - Real PropertyFile Name: Title: Discussion regarding the purchase of real property south of Belt Line Road, west of MacArthur and north of I-635 in Dallas County, Texas. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: C. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 Discussed under Executive Session 04/26/2016City Council Discussed under Executive Session Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2765 Title Discussion regarding the purchase of real property south of Belt Line Road, west of MacArthur and north of I-635 in Dallas County, Texas. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2765) Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2766 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2766 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/21/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Exec Session - Econ DevFile Name: Title: Discussion regarding economic development prospects south of Bethel Road and west of Royal Lane. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: D. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 Discussed under Executive Session 04/26/2016City Council Discussed under Executive Session Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2766 Title Discussion regarding economic development prospects south of Bethel Road and west of Royal Lane. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2766) Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2750 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2750 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Secretary 04/18/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Work SessionFile Name: Title: A.Presentation regarding activities and programs of Living Well in Coppell (LWiC). B.Discussion regarding the bid award for cleaning and related services of municipal buildings. C.Discussion regarding amendment to the Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, Article 15-1 “Building Code.” D.Presentation related to recommended changes to the Special Events ordinance, to add stipulations regarding horse-drawn carriage rides. E.Discussion regarding the implementation of Coppell Arts Council Phase I Public Art Proposal. F.Discussion of Agenda Items. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: LWiC Memo.pdf, Special Events Ordinance Memo.pdf, Memo - Public Art Proposal.pdf, Attachment - DRAFT Public Art Proposal.pdf Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 Presented in Work Session 04/26/2016City Council Presented in Work Session Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2750 Title Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2750) A.Presentation regarding activities and programs of Living Well in Coppell (LWiC). B.Discussion regarding the bid award for cleaning and related services of municipal buildings. C.Discussion regarding amendment to the Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, Article 15- 1 “Building Code.” D.Presentation related to recommended changes to the Special Events ordinance, to add stipulations regarding horse-drawn carriage rides. E.Discussion regarding the implementation of Coppell Arts Council Phase I Public Art Proposal. F.Discussion of Agenda Items. Summary Fiscal Impact: Staff Recommendation: Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 THE·CITY •OF COPPELL MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Mario Canizares , Deputy City Manager Date: April 26 , 2016 Reference: Presentation Regarding Activities and Program of Living Well in Coppell (LWiC) 2030: Community Wellness & Enrichment; Sense of Community Introduction: The Living Well in Coppell Steering Committee has been very busy and the Co-Chairs will be briefing the City Council of their activities in 2015 and what they have planned for 2016. Ed Guignon will be providing the comments on Tuesday evening. Analysis: This item did not require analysis. Legal Review, Fiscal Impact, and Recommendation: There is no legal review, fiscal impact, or recommendation required. 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Brad Reid, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: April 26, 2016 Reference: Presentation related to recommended changes to Article 6-5. – Special Events, to add stipulations regarding horse-drawn carriage rides on the streets 2030: Successful Community Events and Festivals Introduction: With the past operation of horse-drawn carriages and vehicles, particularly in Old Town, the need arose for horse-drawn carriages and vehicles to be included in the Special Events Ordinance so that the City could ensure their safe operation. The Special Event Review Committee (SERC) comprised of City staff from various Departments, reviewed the current Special Events ordinance and have provided recomm endations on the addition of horse-drawn carriages and vehicles. The SERC committee will also be responsible for the review and application of the ordinance, with the Police Department taking on the responsibility of enforcement. Analysis: The Parks and Recreation Department recommends the addition of permitting and operation of horse-drawn carriages to Chapter 6 – Business Regulations. Article 6-5. - Special Events. Recommended changes include a process for prospective horse-drawn carriages or vehicles to apply for and obtain permits to ensure their safe operation, as well as proof of liability insurance, safety lighting, proposed sanitary plans, proposed route, identify staging area, and hours and times of operation. Legal Review: Agenda item does not require legal review. 2 Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact will result from this item. Recommendation: No council action is required on this item at this time. The item will be brought back as an ordinance revision at a later date if the Council is favorable to the proposed changes. THE •CITY•OF COPPELL MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Mike Land, Deputy City Manager Date: April 26 , 2016 Reference: Coppell Arts Council Public Art Proposal 2030: Community Wellness and Enrichment Strategy-Goal 3: Expand Cultural Arts Amenities and Opportunities Introduction: This Work Session item is the continuation of the discussion started on October 27, 2015 regarding the arts in Coppell. At that time one of the items specifically discussed was the establishment of a public art program in the City. Janna Tidwell will be presenting their proposal (see attached draft) for creating a public art program that will initially involve the City's Old Town Coppell Square and potentially expand to the Great Lawn at Andy Brown East. Consideration: If directed by City Council , staff is prepared to bring the proposal forward for formal Council consideration during the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Tuesday May 10 , 2016. DRAFT I. Implementation of a Coppell Arts Council Phase I Public Art The Coppell Arts Council (CAC) strives to increase art awareness and enrichment within our community. These goals parallel those established by the City's Vision 2030 Plan. CAC is proposing a tiered public art program that has short, mid and long range goals. This would allow the community to enjoy public art installations in the near future, it would help build a foundation for arts to grow in Coppell and it would help gain community momentum to support and develop long range plans. The main purpose of this proposal is to outline implementation of CAC's Phase I, short-range goals to establish a Rotating Public Art Exhibit within the community. A. Overview CAC is proposing to execute a public art rotating exhibit for our community within the next 6 months. This art exhibit would include the installation of 10 art pieces to be installed within Old Town in 2016 (Phase I) around the Old Town Coppell Square and possibly along the trail connection to Grapevine Springs Park and in 2017 (Phase II) in Andy Brown East in the Great Lawn. Public art candidates would be gathered from a regional call for art managed by CAC. A call for art will be conducted which will define insurance, maintenance and safety standards that must be adhered to by the artist. CAC suggests the program be a 24 month program, where each artists will be compensated $1,500.00 for delivery and exhibition oftheir work. To engage the community CAC will host a Community Art Stroll in which citizens can meet the artist. Prior to this event the community will be allowed to vote for a People's Choice Award, which will include prizes for the selected Artist and be awarded during the Community Art Stroll. CAC will use this exhibition to market and build partnerships for supporting future art endeavors within our community. The Community Art Stroll will be a fund raiser event for CAC to supplement funding for continuation of the exhibition . B. Benefits of Rotating Art Exhibitions A Rotating Art Exhibition would allow our community to lease art from artist for a set period oftime, typically 1-2 years, for a portion of the actual price of the art. There are many benefits to initiating this type of program: • Quick avenue to public art in our community. • Low implementation cost. (Costs would include lease, concrete pad, insurance and minimal maintenance) • Would allow several different art installations at one time allowing the first art installation within our community to incorporate art of different styles and types that would have a broad er appeal to our population. • Art rotates or changes at the end of the art on loa n program. Th is keeps public art in our community fre sh and dynamic. It also help s the community by off on art installations since the art is not permanent. • Help generate economic development and drive foot traffic to a specific location w ithin a city . C. Similar Art Programs in Texas These types of programs are being successfully executed by other cities and information for beginning this type of program is readily available . A few local examples are Exhibition Arlington located between Globe Life Park and AT&T Stadium and Art on Henderson located on Henderson Street in Dallas . Many cities throughout Texas are implementing temporary I rotating public art exhibits in some fashion; Austin, Bee Cave, Cedar Park, El Paso, Lubbock, Houston, Kerville, Roundrock ... just to name a few. D. Selection Committee CAC proposes a selection committee be formed to facilitate implementation. The committee should consist of 2-3 CAC members, 2 citizens, 1-2 city staff and 1 student member. The Committee will be tasked with selecting the specific art installation locations and selected sculptures from the Call for Entries. The committee will make recommendations to City Council for final approval. E. Expenses Although it is the goal of the CAC to develop an Art Exhibition that will partially fund itself through sponsorship, art sales and donations the committee will need monetary and staff support from the City, especially for the initial implementation of the program. CAC is estimating ten art installations for a period of 2-years would equal Twenty eight thousand dollars . Purchase of one permanent art installation could easily exceed this amount. Known Costs: • Art Installations {10) • Concrete Sculpture Pads {10) • Marketing I Printing • People's Choice Award • Community Art Stroll Event Total Known Costs Unknown Costs: • Increase in City Insurance Policy $15,000.00 7,500.00 1,500.00 500.00 3,500.00 $28,000.00 • City staff hours and equipment to help with installation. F. Revenue The exhibition presents several small opportunities to help offset costs for implanting this program. CAC would like to request that the funds be deposited into a CAC account to offset future costs of the exhibition. Potential Revenue Opportunities • Call for Entry fee of $35.00 per artist submittal. • CAC will charge a commission of 30% for any art sales during the exhibition. • CAC will seek community sponsorships to offset future costs . • Meet the artist fundraising event. F. Timeline June 2016 • Form Selection Committee • Develop Call for Art • Selection sculpture locations July 2016 • Release Call for Art September 2016 • Review Submissions • Recommend Selected Entries and Locations • Notify Selected Artists • Issue Press Releases October 2016 • Install Sculpture Pads • Begin Installation of Art • Implement Social Media Campaign November 2016 • Complete Installation of Art • Continue Marketing and Social Media Efforts January 2017 • Begin Marketing Meet the Artist Fund raiser Event • Begin Marketing People's Choice Voting Campaign March 2017 • People's Choice Voting Opens April 2017 • People's Choice Voting Closes • Meet the Artist Fund raiser G. Draft Call for Entry Old Town Art Splash (Phase I, Phase II for ABE would be a similar call) Details: The City of Coppell Arts Council (CAC) is proud to announce a call for entries for Old Town Art Splash, a biennial outdoor public art exhibit. Coppell is a family friendly, community centric town. Old Town Coppell is known for its nationally recognized Fa mer's Market, great dining, public gathering space, restaurants, playground, splash pad and community craft and art festivals . Additionally, old town is located nea r DFW airport and surrounded by distribution facilities such as Amazon, The Container Store and U-Line to name a few. The location promises great exposure for the artist. In addition to this the Coppell Arts Council will host a Meet the Artist event and promote the exhibit throughout the DFW region . Guidelines: Old Town Art Stroll is open to Texas residents that are 18 years of age or older. CAC is seeking up to ten professional sculptures to be located in and around the Old Town Coppell Square that are appropriate for public viewing and supports, the family I community oriented values of Coppell. Sculptures are owned by the artist and are loaned to the exhibit for a two year period. All sculptures musts be safe for a public setting and made of materials that can withstand the harsh Texas weather and not require any maintenance . The honorarium is $1,500 dollars with an additional $500 awarded to the People's Choice . • Artist are to provide all fasteners and other hardware to attach artwork to concrete pads. The City of Coppell will provide a lift and additional labor to help place the sculpture and install fasteners . Any installation equipment required beyond a fork lift will need to be supplied by the artist. • The artist may list the work as for sale while on exhibit. CAC will receive a 30% commission for any works sold during the exhibition. • The artist is responsible for delivering the work to site during the installation periods of October_, 2016-November _,2016. The Artist must pick-up art work October _2018-November _,2018 . Early pick-up of work is not permitted. • During the period of exhibition the artwork will be covered by the City of Coppell's Insurance policy. The artist will be responsible for the works prior to the anchor bolts I fasteners being installed and after the anchor bolts I fasteners are removed. • Sculpture pad size is 8" thick concrete, 5' X 5' square . • The artist must deliver the selected sculpture, no substitutions are allowed. • Juried sculpture selection process is used and the selections of the jury are final. • Submissions are evaluated on artistic merit, public safety, appropriateness, durability in the outdoors and creativity. Entry Requirements: Each artist can submit up to 3 pieces of work for consideration . To be considered the following information shall be submitted through Callforentry.org • Artist Statement (up to 200 characters) • Resume or CV • JPEG (minimum of 1) o 1920 pixels x 500 pixels 0 72 dpi o 5 MB Maximum H. Draft Contract STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF Dallas § § Lease Agreement This agreement is made and entered into by and between __________ __, ("Artist"), and the Coppell Arts Council (CAC} 501 non-profit entity. 1. ARTWORK. Artist agrees to lease the work of art named " " (the "Artwork"), as shown in Exhibit A, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Artwork is valued at $ ______ _ 2. LEASE PRICE . The Coppell Arts Council agrees to pay to Artist, by delivery of funds to Artist the following amount in payment of the lease price for the Artwork: Total lease for the project will be $1,500. Final payment will be made once artwork is installed in as described in Exhibit C. 3. TERM. The term of the exhibition permitted under this Agreement will commence upon the Effective Date of (installation date) for a period of three (2) years until (uninstall date). The Arts Council, at its sole discretion, may terminate this Agreement early and thereby require the Artist, at his or her sole cost and expense, to remove the Artwork from the Site within the two-year period. 4. DELIVERY AND INSTALLATION . The Artist will deliver and attend the installation of the Artwork on concrete pad, installed by CAC and the City of Coppell. 5. EXPENSES. Artist will be responsible for all costs and expenses of insuring, packing, shipping, delivering, and Artwork. 6. IDENTIFICATION PLAQUE. The CAC at its sole cost and expense, will or will cause the design, fabrication and installation of a plaque to be erected at the Site . The plaque will identify the name of the Artist, the title and the date of creation of the Artwork (the "Plaque"). 7. LEASED ARTWORK FOR SALE. If the artist sells the sculpture while it is on display, CAC will take a 30% commission and provide the remaining 70% to the artist, 30 days after payment has been made . In addition, if a sculpture is sold before the duration of the term, the artist agrees to replace the sculpture with a comparable sculpture. Approval by the CAC will be required for the substitute Artwork. 8. MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS. The Artist, at his or her sole cost and expense, will maintain the Artwork during the term ofthis Agreement . The Artist will not seek any reimbursement or other payment from the CAC for incurring maintenance costs and expenses related to the Artwork. The CAC and City of Coppell, TX, at its sole cost and expense, will maintain the Site and the Plaque, provided, however, the City is not required to provide security for the Artwork. In the event the Artwork is damaged or defaced or otherwise experiences extraordinary wear and tear, whether due to vandalism, force majeure, exposure to the elements, or otherwise, the Artist will within four (4) weeks of receipt of written notice from the CAC make, or cause to be made, the necessary maintenance and/or repairs to the Artwork. If that time period is insufficient in order for the Artist to complete the reasonably necessary maintenance and/or repairs, then the Artist will perform or make, or cause the performance or making of, the maintenance work and/or repairs within a reasonable time, which time period shall not exceed three (3) months or such other time period as the Parties may agree to, in writing. 9. INSURANCE; RISK OF Loss. The risk of loss or damage to the Artwork will be borne by Artist until the Artwork is initially installed at the selected location . The Artist's insurance will cover the Artwork prior to installation . 10. RELOCATION AND REMOVAL. The CAC reserves the right to relocate or remove the Artwork if the security of the sculpture can no longer be guaranteed in its current site, the sculpture has become a hazard to public safety or the site has changed such that the sculpture is no longer appropriate for the site. In such an instance, the CAC will take every effort to contact and work with the Artist in the relocation or removal plans. 11. MARKETING OF ARTWORK. The Artist grants the CAC unrestricted license to use photographic images and reproductions of the Artwork in advertising and marketing materials such as, but not limited to, the City website, publications and social media outlets. 12 . REPRESENTATIONS OF ARTIST. Artist represents to City that (i) the Artwork is an authentic work of art created by the Artist and (ii) Artist has the legal authority to convey good title in the Artwork to City if the City desires to purchase the artwork. 13 . RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. Ownership of copyright in the Artwork will remain with Artist. Subject to any limitations provided in this Agreement, the Artist reserves all rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act and other moral rights relating to the Artwork. The City may not make or authorize any reproduction or derivative work or public display for profit of the Artwork without the Artist's prior written consent. The Artist reserves all rights in and to the Artwork and other materials not expressly granted or licensed to the City herein . 14. If any of the terms, provisions, covenants, conditions or any other part of this Agreement are held for any reason to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the terms, provisions, covenants, conditions or any other part ofthis Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected, impaired or invalidated. 15 . GENERAL. This Agreement represents the entire understanding between the Leasee, on the one hand , and the Artist on the other hand, with respect to the lease ofthe Artwork hereunder. The terms of this Agreement may not be modified except in writing signed by all parties hereto. This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. Venue of any action shall be in Dallas County, Texas. This Agreement may not be assigned by any of the parties hereto. AGREED : ARTIST: Date: -------------------------------- LEASEE: COPPELL ARTS COUNCIL BY: _____________ _ Wheelice Wilson Chairman THE STATE OF TEXAS § § ARTIST ACKNOWLEDGMENT COUNTY OF TARRANT § BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public i.n and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared "ARTIST", known to me (or proved to me on the oath of _______ or through (description of identity card or other document)) to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of "ARTIST", and as Owner thereof, and for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein expressed. GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the ___ day of _____ _, 2015 . [Seal] Notary Public in and for The State of Texas Notary's Printed Name THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF Dallas § § § Coppell Arts Council ACKNOWLEDGMENT BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, a Notary Public in and for the State of Texas, on this day personally appeared known to me to be the person and officer whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed same for and as the act and deed of Coppell Arts Council a non-profit entity in Dallas County, Texas, for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in the capacity therein expressed . GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE on this the ___ day of ______ , 2015. [Seal] Notary Public in and for The State of Texas Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2754 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2754 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/20/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: MinutesFile Name: Title: A.Consider approval of Minutes: Council Meeting of 04/12/2016. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: Minutes - April 12, 2016.pdfAttachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved on the Consent Agenda 04/26/2016City Council Mayor Hunt pulled Consent Agenda Item B to be considered separately. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Cliff Long, that Agenda Items A, C and D be approved on the Consent Agenda. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Text of Legislative File 2016-2754 Title A.Consider approval of Minutes: Council Meeting of 04/12/2016. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2754) [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478City of Coppell, Texas Minutes City Council 6:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, April 12, 2016 KAREN HUNT GARY RODEN Mayor Mayor Pro Tem CLIFF LONG NANCY YINGLING Place 1 Place 5 BRIANNA HINOJOSA-FLORES MARVIN FRANKLIN Place 2 Place 6 WES MAYS MARK HILL Place 3 Place 7 CLAY PHILLIPS City Manager Karen Hunt;Cliff Long;Brianna Hinojosa-Flores;Wes Mays;Gary Roden;Marvin Franklin;Mark Hill and Nancy Yingling Present 8 - Also present were City Manager Clay Phillips, Deputy City Managers Mario Canizares and Mike Land, Deputy City Secretary Jean Dwinnell and City Attorney Robert Hager. The City Council of the City of Coppell met in Regular Called Session on Tuesday, April 12, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Town Center, 255 Parkway Boulevard, Coppell, Texas. Call to Order1. Mayor Hunt called the meeting to order, determined that a quorum was present and convened into Executive Session at 6:00 p.m. Karen Hunt;Cliff Long;Brianna Hinojosa-Flores;Wes Mays;Gary Roden;Marvin Franklin;Mark Hill and Nancy Yingling Present 8 - Executive Session (Closed to the Public) 1st Floor Conference Room2. Section 551.087, Texas Government Code - Economic Development Negotiations. A.Discussion regarding economic development prospects south of Bethel Road and west of Royal Lane. Discussed under Executive Session Page 1City of Coppell, Texas April 12, 2016City Council Minutes B.Discussion regarding economic development prospects north of Hackberry and east of Belt Line Road. Discussed under Executive Session C.Discussion regarding economic development prospects north of Sandy Lake Road and west of Denton Tap Road. Discussed under Executive Session Work Session (Open to the Public) 1st Floor Conference Room3. Mayor Hunt adjourned the Executive Session at 6:58 p.m. and convened into Work Session. A.Discussion regarding SPAN Transportation. B.Discussion regarding a transition plan for events and activities resulting from the construction at the Andrew Brown Park System. C.Discussion regarding the resignation of a CRDC Board Member. D.Discussion regarding follow up from annual Council Retreat E.Discussion regarding Agenda items. Presented in Work Session Regular Session Mayor Hunt recessed the Work Session at 7:28 p.m. and convened into Regular Session at 7:34 p.m. Invocation 7:30 p.m.4. Reverend Palmer, First United Methodist Church, gave the invocation. Pledge of Allegiance5. Mayor Hunt and the City Council led those present in the Pledge of Allegiance. Proclamations6. A.Consider approval of a proclamation recognizing the month of April as “Monarch Migration Awareness Month” and authorizing the Mayor to sign. Mayor Hunt read the Proclamation and presented it to Ms. Jen Ferguson, Community Program Manager and Ms. Molly Bujanda, Community Program Coordinator. Ms. Ferguson and Ms. Bujanda gave a brief explanation and reviewed upcoming activities to further the awareness of Monarch Migration. Mr. Bill Sundermann, also supporting the awareness, was present. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Page 2City of Coppell, Texas April 12, 2016City Council Minutes B.Consider approval of a proclamation recognizing the month of April as “Driver Distraction Awareness Month” and authorizing the Mayor to sign. Mayor Hunt read the proclamation and presented it to Mr. Ed Guignon representing Living Well in Coppell (LWiC). Mayor Hunt also announced that the City placed 1st in the Mid-Cities and third Overall for The "It's Time Texas" Fitness Challenge. A motion was made by Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, seconded by Councilmember Nancy Yingling, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. C.Consider approval of a proclamation naming April 10-16, 2016, “National Library Week” and authorizing the Mayor to sign. Mayor Hunt read the proclamation and presented it to the Library Board, Friends of the Library, and staff. Ms. Janet Koester, Library Board Chair, thanked the Council for their support and asked everyone to "like" the Friends of the Library page on Facebook. She announced that the Library is scheduled to open in October/ November of this year. A motion was made by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Gary Roden, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Presentations7. A.Presentation of the Texas Municipal Library Directors Association “Achievement of Library Excellence Award” to the William T. Cozby Public Library. Library Director Vicki Chiavetta presented the award to her staff and explained the history of the award. She advised that only 31 Libraries received the award this year, and that this is the 11th year in a row for the Coppell Library to win. Board Reports8. A.Report by the Library Board. Ms. Janet Koester, Library Board Chair, reviewed some of the programs offered at the Library, reported statistics, and advised of the on-line books and book sales. She explained that the use of social media is great for outreach to all of those interested in Library activities. There are currently 25 members of the Friends of the Library organization. Mayor Hunt thanked the board and staff for all they do. Citizens’ Appearance9. Mayor Hunt advised that no one signed up to speak. Page 3City of Coppell, Texas April 12, 2016City Council Minutes Consent Agenda10. A.Consider approval of the minutes: March 22, 2016. A motion was made by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Mark Hill, that Consent Agenda Items A-C be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. B.Consider approval of an Ordinance for a TEXT AMENDMENT to the Zoning Ordinance/Chapter 12 - Sec. 12-30-18, Hotel, Motel & Residence Hotel and Sec. 42-1, Definitions, to revise the development standards and definitions for these uses and authorizing the Mayor to sign. A motion was made by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Mark Hill, that Consent Agenda Items A-C be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Enactment No: 2016-1433 C.Consider approval of an Ordinance for Case No. PD-234R-H, Wilson-Kirkland-Minyard Addition, Lots 1 & 2, Block A, a zoning change from PD-234-H & H (Planned Development-234-Historic) and H (Historic), to PD-234R-H (Planned Development-234 Revised-Historic), to expand the Planned Development zoning area from 0.265 acres to 0.83 acres to allow the relocation of an 853-square-foot historic home onto Lot 2, Block A, and the retention of existing structures on property located at the southeast corner of Bethel Road and South Coppell Road and authorizing the Mayor to sign. A motion was made by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Mark Hill, that Consent Agenda Items A-C be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Enactment No: 91500-A-691 End of Consent Agenda 11.PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of CASE NO. PD-237R8-HC, Springhill Suites, a zoning change request from A (Agriculture) to PD-237R8-HC (Planned Development-237 Revision 8-Highway Commercial), to attach a Detail Site Plan for a five-story hotel with accessory uses including a conference center on 4.0 acres of property located approximately 200 feet east of South Belt Line Road, north of Hackberry Drive. Councilmember Gary Roden left the Council Chambers and did not participate in the discussion or vote due to a filed conflict of interest affidavit. Page 4City of Coppell, Texas April 12, 2016City Council Minutes Mayor Hunt opened the Public Hearing and advised that no one signed up to speak. Ms. Marcie Diamond, Assistant Director of Planning, presented the item. The Planning and Zoning Commission had previously approved the item unanimously. A motion was made by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Nancy Yingling, to close the Public Hearing and approve this Agenda Item. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. 12.PUBLIC HEARING: Consider approval of CASE NO. PD-205R2R-HC, Vista Ridge Addition, Lot 6, Block D (The Plaza), a zoning change request from PD-205R2-HC (Planned Development-205 Revision 2-Highway Commercial) to PD-205R2R-HC (Planned Development-205 Revision 2 Revised-Highway Commercial), to amend the Planned Development to attach a Detail Site Plan to allow a 6,484-square-foot medical building on 1.56 acres of property located at the northwest corner of S.H. 121 and Plaza Blvd. Mayor Hunt opened the Public Hearing and Mr. Matt Steer, City Planner, presented the item. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Cliff Long, to close the Public Hearing and approve this Agenda Item. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. 13.Consider approval of entering into a contract with Halff & Associates for a flood study along Denton Creek; in the amount of $282,000.00; as provided for in the Municipal Drainage Utility District (DUD) fund; and authorizing the City Manager to sign any necessary documents. Mr. Ken Griffin, City Engineer, made a presentation regarding the item and answered questions of the City Council. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. 14.Consider approval of award of a bid and enter into a contract with Insituform Technologies, LLC, for the Wagon Wheel Park storm drain system rehabilitation, in the amount of $505,923.71 utilizing BuyBoard Contract #462-14; and authorizing the City Manager to sign the necessary documents. Mr. Guy McLain, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, made a presentation on the item and answered questions of the City Council. A motion was made by Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, seconded by Councilmember Nancy Yingling, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. 15.Consider approval of award of a bid and enter into a contract with Page 5City of Coppell, Texas April 12, 2016City Council Minutes Nortex Concrete Lift and Stabilization, Inc., to raise and underseal the concrete pavement at the Wagon Wheel Park, in the amount of $100,000.00 through an interlocal cooperative purchase agreement with the City of Grand Prairie; and authorizing the City manager to sign the necessary documents. Mr. Guy McLain, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, made a presentation on the item. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Nancy Yingling, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. 16.Consider approval to accept recommendations to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Mr. Guy McLain, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director, made a presentation on the item and anwered questions of the City Council. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Gary Roden, seconded by Councilmember Cliff Long, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. City Manager Reports - Project Updates and Future Agendas17. City Manager Clay Phillips reported on the progress of the Denton Tap and Sandy Lake Road intersection and the median. He explained that the work is moving along well. Mr. Phillips announced that the Five-Year Plan will be discussed at a special meeting on Monday, April 18th. Mayor and Council Reports Report by Mayor Hunt regarding upcoming events. 18. Mayor Hunt gave the following update on the upcoming events: Earthfest is Saturday, April 16th from 10 a.m. - 2 p.m.. The band will be Definitely, Maybe. Food trucks, artisan vendors,environmental vendors, kids crafts, bike and pedestrian awareness, and more will be on site. Food Truck Frenzy is Saturday, April 23rd from 5 p.m. - 9 p.m. Several food trucks and Old Town Coppell businesses will be on hand, plus face painting, music and fun. Old Town Coppell Anniversary Concert on the Lawn is May 6th from 7 p.m. - 9 p.m. The band will be Texas Flood. Old Town Coppell businesses will be on hand selling food under the pavilion and in the restaurants. Public Service Announcements concerning items of community interest with no Council action or deliberation permitted. 19. There were no reports given. Mayor Hunt recessed the Council meeting at 9:20 p.m. and the Council returned to Work Session. The Work Session was adjourned at 9:38 p.m. Page 6City of Coppell, Texas April 12, 2016City Council Minutes Necessary Action from Executive Session20. There was no action taken. Adjournment There being no further business before the City Council, the meeting was adjourned at 9:41 p.m. __________________________________ Karen Selbo Hunt, 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 ________th day of ______________, 20_______, at _______________. ________________________________________ Jean Dwinnell, Deputy City Secretary PUBLIC NOTICE - STATEMENT FOR ADA COMPLIANCE AND OPEN CARRY LEGISLATION 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 makes 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). Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun. Pursuant to Section 30.07, Penal Code (trespass by license holder with an openly carried handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (handgun licensing law), may not enter this property with a handgun that is carried openly. Page 7City of Coppell, Texas Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2747 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2747 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: Engineering 04/18/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Renewal of Cleaning ContractFile Name: Title: B.Consider approval of awarding Bid #Q-0316-04 for cleaning and related services of municipal buildings to Premium Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $278,640.00 for a one-year period beginning June 1, 2016 with options to renew four additional one-year periods; as budgeted in general fund; and authorizing the City Manager to sign any necessary documents. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: Cleaning Contract Memo.pdf, Cleaning and Janitorial Tab.pdf, IFMA Operations and Maintenance Report.pdf, Retraction Letter of Bid.pdf, Premium Maintenance, Inc. Contract.pdf Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved04/26/2016City Council Presentation: Sheri Moino, Facilities Manager, made a presentation to Council. A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Gary Roden, seconded by Councilmember Nancy Yingling, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Text of Legislative File 2016-2747 Title B.Consider approval of awarding Bid #Q-0316-04 for cleaning and related services of Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2747) municipal buildings to Premium Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $278,640.00 for a one-year period beginning June 1, 2016 with options to renew four additional one-year periods; as budgeted in general fund; and authorizing the City Manager to sign any necessary documents. Summary Fiscal Impact: Funds have been budgeted in the Facilities Maintenance Department, Cleaning Services account. (01-03-13-4225) Staff Recommendation: The Engineering Department recommends approval. Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Ken Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering and Public Works Date: April 26, 2016 Reference: Annual Cleaning & Related Services Contract 2030: Sustainable City Government, Goal 3 Excellent and Well-maintained City Infrastructure and Facilities General Information: Budgeted amount of $285,000.00 Bid #Q-0316-04 for Annual Cleaning Contract Opened March 29th Contract includes 16 municipal buildings totaling 210,000 square feet 14 bids received/1 bidder withdrew their bid (bid tabulation attached) Bid was “Best Value” instead of “Low Bid” with weighted evaluation criteria Contract term is effective June 1, 2016 for one year term, with options to renew 4 additional one year terms Introduction: This agenda item is being presented to consider approval of awarding Bid #Q-0316-04 for Cleaning and Related Services of Municipal Buildings to Premium Maintenance, Inc. in the amount of $278,640.00 for a one-year period beginning June 1, 2016 with options to renew four additional one year periods; as budgeted in general fund; and authorizing the City Manager to sign any necessary documents. Analysis: The annual Cleaning and Related Services of Municipal Buildings contract was bid last in 2012 with options to renew for an additional 4 years. In 2012 we had 166,000 square feet of cleanable space and the bid amount was $144,000.00 or $0.86/square foot. Since the original contract, the City has increased square feet of municipal buildings with the purchase of 265 Parkway, the Biodiversity Center, the conversion of the jail into additional offices, the outdoor pavilion at the cemetery, the historical buildings at Heritage Park, the expansion of the CORE, the expansion of the Library, and the new construction of the Life Safety Park. Based on the increased square footage, it was necessary to rebid this contract even though it could have been extended an additional two years. Facilities met with all departments to develop the cleaning specifications that would ensure all areas of cleaning concerns were met and redefined the scope to ensure the frequency of cleaning addressed all departmental operational needs. Results of our internal services survey over the last three years indicated that cleaning services needed improvement. Also included in the bid requirement are green cleaning products and consumables. Facilities anticipated and budgeted for a cost per square feet based on International Facilities Management Association benchmark standards to ensure best practices in this industry were met. We are currently paying $0.86/square feet which is below the benchmark and according to our internal service survey by end users, the service received is below average. Facilities worked with Purchasing to bid the Annual Cleaning and Related Services of Municipal Buildings contract as “Best Value” instead of “Low Bid”. The evaluation criteria was distributed during a mandatory pre-bid on March 22, 2016 and included: Total Purchase Price – 40 points, Experience and Qualifications – 20 points, Information/Comments Received from References – 15 points, and the Bidders Ability to Meet Criteria listed in Request for Bid including Communication – 25 points for a total of 100 points. It was conveyed to the bidders that the price considered was not Low Bid, but rather most responsible price based on the scope and level of service delivery desired. Bid #Q0316-04 for Cleaning and Related Services of Municipal Buildings opened on March 29, 2016. There were 14 bids received, however 1 bidder withdrew their bid after submittal (bid tabulation attached). Facilities staff conducted the background and reference checks on each bidder. Using the evaluation criteria established, we assigned points for each bidder. After evaluating the scores assigned, Facilities recommended PMI (Premium Maintenance, Inc.) as the successful bidder for this project in the amount of $278,640.00. They received top points in each evaluation criteria and is within the anticipated budgeted amount. PMI will deliver the exceptional cleaning services that meet and exceed the expectations of not only our employees, but citizens who frequent our facilities. Their bid price equals $1.32/square foot. Legal Review: N/A Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact of this Agenda item is $278,640.00. Recommendation: The Engineering Department recommends approval of this contract with Premium Maintenance, Inc. LUMP SUM (MONTHLY)LUMP SUM (YEARLY) JAMES JANITORIAL SERVICES $11,193.00 CTJ MAINTENANCE, INC.$149,785.00 REDLEE $167,698.00 UBM $169,530.00 GLOBAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.$14,500.00 AMERICAN FACILITY SERVICES, INC. $180,416.88 RAS SERVICES $181,440.00 FACILITIES SERVICE GROUP, LLC.$187,246.78 UNICARE BUILDING MAINTENANCE $215,038.62 ORIENTAL BUILDING SERVICES $18,388.00 AMBASSADOR FACILITY MAINTENANCE $236,474.00 MEMBERS BUILDING MAINTENANCE, LLC $270,483.40 PREMIUM MAINTENANCE, INC.$278,640.00 ABS JANITORIAL SERVICE $498,000.00 #Q-0316-04 - CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS Research Report #32operations and maintenanceBencHmarKs OperatiOns and Maintenance survey cOMMittee Me Mbers JC Blakely, CFM, PICA Management Resources, Inc. Jean Boutet, IMS Health Canada Limited Jonathan P. Bredemeier, CFM, Sears, Roebuck & Company George Denise, CFM, Cushman & Wakefield, Adobe Systems Buck Fisher, CFM, CFMJ, SAS Jamie Galileo, Energy Solutions Arena Peter Genovese, U.S. General Services Administration George M. Gogola, CFM, CAE, College of American Pathologists David Hornyak, Ohio Attorney General’s Office George Mansor, FMP, General Dynamics Darrell Oldham, Hastings Mutual Insurance Company James T. Pettinato, CFM, Valeo Lyle Schall, General Dynamics Jason Willemarck, Foremost Farms USA Ed Wirth, Emprise Bank Aaron Wittig, FMP, General Dynamics James E. Wolfe, American General Finance directOr Of research Shari F. Epstein © Copyright 2009 by the International Facility Management Association All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in whole or part, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the International Facility Management Association. For more information, please contact: IFMA Research Department 1 East Greenway Plaza, Suite 1100, Houston, TX 77046-0104, USA Phone: +1-713-623-4362 Fax: +1-713-623-6124 E-mail: research@ifma.org ISBN 1-883176-79-4 Printed on 10% post-consumer waste recycled paper. FSC certified. Research Report #32operations and maintenanceBencHmarKs Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Table of Contents intrOductiOn 6 Using This Report 6 Acknowledgements 6 About this Report 7 Database is Available for Further Analysis 7 Methodology 7 About IFMA 8 Definitions for Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Report 9 s ectiOn 1: facility descriptiOn 13 Industries Represented 14 Facility Use 15 Facility Description 16 Location of Facility 17 Facilities by Region 17 Climate Zones for the U.S. and Canada 18 Facility Age and Setting 19 Facility Age 19 Facility Setting 19 Ownership 20 Overall Ownership 20 Central Plant 21 Developed Acres 22 s ectiOn 2: s ize Of facilities and square fOOtage per Occupant 23 Building Exterior Gross Area (Gross) 24 Facility Rentable Area (Rentable) 25 Gross and Rentable by Industry Type and Facility Use 26 Square Footage per Occupant 28 s ectiOn 3: sustainable OperatiOns and Maintenance practices 31 Green Certification Status 32 Recycling 32 Green Janitorial Practices 33 Energy Management Practices 33 Water Conservation 34 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Table of Contents s ectiOn 4: JanitOrial 35 Janitorial Costs 36 Janitorial Staffing 38 Contractor Practices 38 Janitorial Contract 39 Janitorial Practices 40 s ectiOn : Maintenance 43 Maintenance Categories 44 Maintenance Costs 45 Roads and Grounds Costs 47 Maintenance Tracking 48 Facility Operating Current Replacement (CRV) Index 48 Maintenance Staffing 49 Maintenance Management 52 Administrative Support 53 s ectiOn 6: utilities 55 Utility Costs 56 Utility Consumption 58 Targeted Goals 58 Changes in Consumption 58 Energy Use Index 59 Energy Management Staffing 60 Temperature Standards 61 s ectiOn 7: cOst Of OperatiOns 62 s ectiOn 8: participant list 67 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Introduction using this repOrt Benchmarking and metrics are terms that are often used in today’s business environment but are often misunderstood. Benchmarking is a continuous and systematic management process that measures work processes, protocols and services for the purpose of organizational comparison and improvement. When properly applied, benchmarking can identify costly or inefficient practices and quantify your department’s overall contribution to the bottom line. There are several types of benchmarking that an organization can undertake. They include internal, competitive and generic. When conducting an internal benchmarking exercise, a facility manager compares similar functions within his or her own organization. This is typically done when an organization operates multiple sites or units and comparisons can be made. With competitive benchmarking, a facility manager compares costs, processes and practices to other organizations’ sites within the same industry. To undertake a generic or process benchmarking exercise, a facility manager analyzes data and best practices regardless of the industry, and concentrates on studying the function or process. This report allows you to make any these benchmarking comparisons because information is broken down by industry sector, facility use, region and a variety of other factors. Using this benchmarking data calls for some words of caution. The information contained in the report represents a “self-report” from IFMA members and others. All information was voluntarily provided but was not checked with site visits. When interpreting the data, it is important to remember that every facility is different, and every organization operates using different accounting and measuring practices. The data listed in this report will not provide a perfect comparison of your organization to that of another company, but it should give you a good idea of how your facility fits into a range of performance. The percentile charts in this report allow you to see how your operation ranks against other organizations. The arrows beside some charts show the “best-in-class” direction. Using your facility’s numbers for the performance indicator, determine whether your building is above or below the median (50th percentile). If your facility falls way above or below the median, you may want to examine your cost or procedures on that area. However, your facility may differ from the median due to your type of facility, climate, or labor market. The data should help you identify areas where you can improve your facility operation. Readers will see arrows pointing in an upward or downward direction next to many of the percentile charts in this report. In many cases the arrow points toward the lowest cost; however, the organization with the lowest cost may not profess to have the best practice. There may be an underlying reason why a cost is so low. For example, a building scheduled for decommissioning may not have the same level of maintenance cost outlay compared to those that will continue to be in operation. Using this report is the first step in benchmarking. After you have identified areas where your facility operations could be improved, you should conduct additional research before reengineering the process. One should not immediately rush to find out which company is “best-in-class” and copy their practice. Instead you should look for a more homogeneous group in which to compare. Participating in a local IFMA chapter or council benchmarking study is a good way to explore how to improve your facility operations. IFMA’s research department can assist companies in forming benchmarking groups and conducting more detailed, smaller-scaled benchmarking studies. acKnOWledgeMents IFMA relies on the willingness and generosity of its members to compile the data and complete this lengthy benchmarking survey. Without their data, there would be no report. We thank these dedicated participants for their contribution. We cannot list all of the participant’s names, but we have listed their companies in the appendix. Many participants have responded year after year for which IFMA is extremely thankful Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 7 Introduction for their continued support to this endeavor and the profession. A committee of subject matter experts worked with IFMA’s research department to craft questions and pilot test the survey. The committee members are acknowledged on the inside cover of the report. Shari Epstein, IFMA’s director of research, conducted the survey, validated and analyzed the data, created the tables and graphs and wrote the report. abOut this repOrt To create this report, a committee of IFMA volunteers with expertise in housekeeping, maintenance, energy management and sustainability reviewed questions posed in previous IFMA surveys and developed new questions to better match today’s practices. Once tested, the 10-page survey was mailed and sent electronically in July 2008 to more than 10,000 IFMA professional members in the United States and Canada. Although the survey was issued to IFMA members, membership was not a requirement to participate. Survey recipients were encouraged to circulate the survey to the person responsible for the activity. Findings are discussed in the sections that follow. Statistically significant findings are integrated in the text of the report. When applicable, comparisons are made to previous IFMA benchmarking reports. Additional copies of this report may be ordered through IFMA’s bookstore. For those seeking different sorts of information not presented in this interactive form document. Questionnaire booklets were mailed to more than 10,000 North American professional members in July 2008. A postage-paid envelope accompanied the survey. In the same month, IFMA members received an e-mail directing them to IFMA’s Web site where they could download the electronic survey. Members were encouraged to pass the survey to the most appropriate person to complete. Respondents were asked to provide information on the facilities they manage for a 12-month period of time. Many chose to report the data for the 2007 calendar year. Approximately 1,445 surveys were returned during a six-month time period. A total of 1,422 surveys were deemed usable for tabulation purposes. A completion rate of 50 percent was considered usable. If a certain question was left unanswered, the respondent was contacted to supply this pertinent data. To ensure high quality data, highly structured coding and data verification procedures were use. In addition, all variables and values were checked to verify that they were within appropriate ranges and inappropriate outliers were corrected or removed. The majority of open-ended responses were read and coded into quantifiable variables to assist in analysis of the data. A full statistical analysis followed, using SPSS-PC™. IFMA used nonparametric and bivariate statistical techniques to conduct the data analysis. Standardized data analysis procedures included reviewing descriptive frequency report, one can order the database used to create this report database is available fOr further analysis The information contained in this report has been voluntarily supplied by IFMA members and is available in its entirety. Participant names and organizations are not included in the database, but a separate listing of contact information is available with the purchase of the database. The database is available in Excel. Cost varies based upon membership status and participation in the study. participant Member U.S. $500.00 Non-member U.S. $1,000.00 non-participant Member U.S. $750.00 Non-member U.S. $1,500.00 MethOdOlOgy The Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Survey was developed in spring 2008. The survey is an updated version of a 2005 questionnaire. Committee members examined each question to make sure questions were clear, unambiguous, concise and relevant. Questions were asked in an objective fashion in order to obtain responses that are truly representative of industry practices. The committee designed and added new questions pertaining to sustainable cleaning, maintenance and utility practices. The survey was made available in both a paper survey and Adobe .pdf Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 counts and cross tabulations of responses for variables of interest. To maintain real world usability of these research findings, statistics are most often provided in terms of absolute number of responses, percentages and mean averages. Percentages may not add to 100 percent due to rounding or the acceptance of multiple responses. In many cases, some respondents did not answer all questions, so the base numbers differ among the various quantitative findings. A few tables have lines in lieu of a number because there were not enough responses to generate a valid statistic. Additional calculations were made to determine cost and utility consumption per square foot, and square footage per occupant. Utility consumption data was changed to match the unit specified. Canadian cost data was converted to U.S. currency by multiplying costs by a factor of .82, the currency exchange rate on December 8, 2008. Metric numbers were converted to standard. If data appeared out of range, the respondent was contacted to determine how the information was derived. New information was subsequently entered. This report contains the results of those analyses deemed to be of most interest to facility managers. Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks is a self- report survey. All data, including respondent identification, was voluntary. As with any research, readers should exercise caution when generalizing results and take individual circumstances and experiences into consideration when making decisions based on these data. While IFMA is confident in its research, it is important to understand that the results presented in this report represent the sample of organizations that chose to supply the requested facility information. A confidence level and margin of error provide readers some measure of how much they can rely on survey responses to represent all IFMA member organizations. Given the level of response to this survey, IFMA is 95% confident that responses given by all responding organizations can be generalized to all IFMA member organizations, in general with a margin of error of approximately +/- 4.0%. For example, 77% of the respondents reported that they recycle aluminum cans as part of their recycling program. With a 4% margin of error for the sample size of 590, the reader can be 95% certain that between 73% and 81% of member facilities recycle aluminum cans. It is important to note that as the sample size decreases, which occurs in many of the tables, the margin of error increases. For example, a smaller sample of 150 decreases the margin of error to +/- 8%. Introduction abOut ifMa IFMA is the world’s largest and most widely recognized international association for professional facility managers, supporting more than 19,500 members in 60 countries. The association’s members, represented in 125 chapters and 16 councils worldwide, manage more than 37 billion square feet of property and annually purchase more than US$100 billion in products and services. Formed in 1980, IFMA certifies facility managers, conducts research, provides educational programs, recognizes facility management certificate programs and produces World Workplace, the world’s largest facility management conference and exposition. To join and follow IFMA’s social media outlets online, visit the association’s LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter pages. For more information, visit the IFMA press room or www.ifma.org. Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Definitions For Operations And Maintenance Benchmarks Report average Average is also referred to as the mean–the sum or total of all responses divided by the number of respondents. bas Building Automation System building e xteriOr grOss area (grOss a rea) The sum of the floor areas on all levels of a building that are totally enclosed within the building. Measure exterior building gross area to the outside face of exterior walls, disregarding canopies, cornices, pilasters, balconies and buttresses that extend beyond the wall face and courtyards that are enclosed by walls but have no roof. The building exterior gross area of basement space includes the area measured to the outside face of basement or foundation walls. Exterior bridges and tunnels that are totally enclosed, constructed areas connecting two or more buildings are included in building exterior gross area. cad Computer Aided Design cafM Computer Aided Facility Management caM charges Common Area Maintenance charges cMMs Computerized Maintenance Management System central Mechanical plant A plant that is owned by, and on the grounds of, a multi-building facility that provides district heating, district cooling, or electricity to one or more buildings on the same facility. The central physical plant may be by itself in a separate building or may be located in a building where other activities occur. cliMate zOnes The U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration issues a Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) every few years which includes five climate zones based on its 30-year average heating degree-days (HDD) and cooling degree-days (CDD) for the period 1971 through 2000. Designation of a climate zone serves as an indicator of heating and air condition use. Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE) regionalizes Canada into four climate zones. These four zones are based upon an average number of heating degree-days over a 30-year period. cOOling degree-day (cdd ) A measure of how warm a location is over a period of time relative to a base temperature, most commonly specified as 65° Fahrenheit. The measure is computed for each day by subtracting the base temperature (65°) from the average of the day’s high and low temperatures, with negative values set equal to zero. Each day’s cooling degree-days are summed to create a cooling degree-day measure for a specified reference period. Cooling degree-days are used in energy analysis as an indicator of air conditioning energy requirements or use. (Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration) cOst Of OperatiOns The annual cost of operation includes the total costs associated with the day-to-day operation of a facility. It includes all maintenance and repair costs (both fixed and variable), administrative costs (clerical, timekeeping, general supervision), labor costs, janitorial, housekeeping and other cleaning costs, utility costs and indirect costs—i.e. all costs associated with roadways and grounds. current replaceMent value (crv ) Current replacement value is defined as the total amount of expenditure in current dollars required to replace the organization’s facilities to its optimal condition (excluding auxiliary facilities). It should include the full replacement cost for all buildings, grounds, utility systems, and generating plants. Furthermore, it should meet the current acceptable standards of construction and comply with regulatory requirements. Insurance replacement values or book values Introduction 10 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 should not be used. Current replacement value does not include cost of contents. deferred Maintenance Deferred maintenance is defined as the total dollar amount of existing major maintenance repairs and replacements identified by a comprehensive facilities condition audit of buildings, grounds, fixed equipment, and infrastructure needs. This estimate should not include projected maintenance, replacement or other types of work, such as program improvements or new construction, for these items are considered capital projects. facility An environment which is built, installed or established to serve a work-related purpose. facility Operating current replaceMent value (crv ) i ndex This indicator represents the level of funding provided for the stewardship responsibility of an organization’s capital assets. The indicator is expressed as a ratio of annual facility maintenance operating expenditure to Current Replacement Value (CRV). (Asset Lifecycle Model for Total Cost of Ownership Management, 2005) facility ManageMent Facility management is a profession that encompasses multiple disciplines to ensure functionality of the built environment by integrating people, place process and technology. facility rentable area (r entable area) As defined in ASTM 1836-01, building exterior gross area minus exterior walls, major vertical penetrations, interior parking space and void areas is facility rentable area. fuel Oil A liquid petroleum product used as an energy source that is less volatile than gasoline. Fuel oil includes distillate fuel oil (Numbers 1, 2, and 4), but this study requested consumption of fuel oil #2. full-ti Me equivalent The operational and supervisory “person year” headcount that delivers a facility service on an annual, full-time basis, calculated on a 40-hour work week (2080 hours/year). g rOss square fOOt (gsf ) Basis used for utility calculations. heating degree-day (hdd ) u.s.: A measure of how cold a location is over a period of time relative to a base temperature, most commonly specified as 65° Fahrenheit. The measure is computed for each day by subtracting the average of the day’s high and low temperatures from the base temperature (65°), with negative values set equal to zero. Each day’s heating degree- days are summed to create a heating degree-day measure for a specified reference period. Heating degree-days are used in energy analysis as an indicator of space heating energy requirements or use. (Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration) canada: A measure of the severity of the weather. One degree day is counted for every degree that the average daily temperature is below the base temperature of 18° Celsius. For example, if the average temperature on a particular day was 12° Celsius, six degree days would be credited to that day. The annual total is calculated by simply adding the daily totals. (Natural Resource Canada, Office of Energy Efficiency) interiOr parKing space The space used for vehicular parking space that is totally enclosed within the (occupied) building envelope. KilOWatt hOur (kWh) A unit of work or energy, measured as one kilowatt (1,000 watts) of power expended for one hour. One kWh is equivalent to 3,412 Btus. MaJOr vertical penetratiOns Major vertical penetrations include stairs, elevator shafts, utility tunnels, flues, pipe shafts, vertical ducts and their enclosing walls. Mean See definition for average. Mean and average are used interchangeably and the interpretation is the same. Median The middle value in a range of responses is the median. One-half of all respondents will be below this value, while one-half will have a higher value. The median is also known as the 50th percentile. The advantage in using the median is Introduction Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 11 Introduction that it is not affected as much by extreme highs or lows in the range of values as is the case with the mean. Multi-use Used in this report to describe facilities with two or more primary uses, such as a single site that encompasses headquarter offices as well as production or research facilities. n N is the number of cases supplying the data being described. It is important to note the size of the sample for the value you are comparing. percentile Indicates dispersion of data. A specific percentile identifies where a value lies in relation to other values in a range of responses. The 25th percentile is the lower one-fourth point in the range of values in the group. The 50th percentile, also referred to as the median, represents a value of which one-half of the group falls below and one-half falls above. The median is not affected by extreme high or low values whereas the mean could be distorted. preventive Maintenance Planned actions undertaken to retain an item at a specified level of performance by providing repetitive scheduled tasks which prolong system operation and a useful life; i.e. inspection, cleaning, lubrication, and part replacement. (Cotts, Lee, 1992) rentable square fOOt (rsf ) Basis for most benchmark calculations. To measure rentable area, subtract major vertical penetrations, interior parking space, exterior walls and void areas from the gross area. repair Maintenance Work that is performed to put equipment back in service after a failure, to extend the life of the equipment or to make its operation more efficient. (Armstrong, 1996) site pOpulatiOn The number of full- and part-time employees, contract workers and/or tenants located at the facility(ies.) statiOnary e ngineers Stationary engineers (also called licensed engineers) are licensed personnel assigned to operate a power plant including the steam and hot water boilers or a chilled water plant. Some states and municipalities require licensed engineers watch 24 hours, seven days per week. Further, these individuals are not allowed to leave the power plant to perform maintenance outside the power plant. vOid areas Rooms that are more than one story in height. Void areas exist on upper floors, such as atriums, light wells or lobbies. xeriscape A landscaping practice that conserves water and protects the environment by using appropriate design, soil preparation, irrigation, plant selection, mulching and maintenance. Section 1Facility d escription i ndustries r epresented Facility Use Facility d escription l ocation of Facility Facilities by Region Climate Zones for the U.S. and Canada Facility a ge and s etting Facility Age Facility Setting o wnership Overall Ownership c entral p lant d eveloped a cres 1 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Facility Description Industries Represented Comparing a facility’s performance to others in the same industry, i.e., competitive benchmarking, is frequently done as part of an organization’s quality assessment program. The following chart shows the industry categories represented in this report. Respondents were asked to select among the 34 broad industry categories provided. These are further grouped into the services, manufacturing and institutional sectors. Please note that several similar categories are classified together, but they are listed as one industry category name throughout the report. The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) contributed data on more than 800 facilities. This large response is reflected in the federal government category. Industry Type Industry Description Number of Cases (N) Services 255 Banking Consumer, Commercial, Savings, Credit Unions 48 Health Care Health Care 28 Hospitality Hotel, Restaurants, Hospitality-Related 7 Information Services Data Processing, Information Services, E-Commerce 10 Insurance Health, Life, Auto, Mutual, Casualty, Flood 41 Investment Services Securities and Investment Services 10 Media Entertainment, Media, Broadcasting, Publishing 8 Professional Services Legal, Accounting, Consulting, Engineering, Architecture 24 Telecommunications Telecommunication, Internet 10 Trade Wholesale, Retail 29 Transportation Transportation, Freight 9 Utilities Water, Gas, Electric 24 Other Services 7 Manufacturing 131 Aircraft/Industrial Aerospace, Industrial Equipment 16 Building/Construction Building, Construction Materials 7 Chemical/Pharmaceutical Chemical, Pharmaceutical, Biotech 20 Consumer Products Food, Paper or related 13 Computer Computer Hardware or Software 22 Electronics Electronics, Telecommunications Equipment 28 Energy Energy related, Mining or Distribution 7 Medical Equipment Medical Equipment 8 Motor Vehicles Motor Vehicles 10 Institutional 1,034 Association Association, Society, Federation 17 Cultural Cultural Institutions 10 Education Training Center, K–12, Higher Education 47 Federal Federal Government 820 State/Provincial State/Provincial Government 9 City/County City/County Government 95 Special District/Quasi- Government Special Districts, Transportation Authorities 7 Military Military 1 Religious Religious, Charitable 13 Research Research 12 Other Institutions 3 Total 1,420 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 1 Facility Use The facility use category was expanded in this year’s study to better represent the breadth of facilities that IFMA members manage. Property type and sub-type categories used within the Appraisal Institute Commercial Data Standards were applied to allow for a more meaningful comparison. There were 31 facility use categories to choose from, but not all were selected. Note the expansion of the office category. This study breaks office space into four categories: headquarter, branch, medical and mixed use where office space is dominant. As in previous studies, office space is the most prevalent; however, other types of space make up 40% of the sample. Facility Use Facility Description Number of Cases (N) Office 851 Headquarters Headquarters 431 Regional Office Regional/Branch Office 288 Mixed Use Mixed Use–Office is dominant 128 Medical Office Medical Office 4 Industrial 60 Manufacturing Manufacturing 26 Warehouse Warehouse 34 Assembly 17 Recreational Community/Recreation Center 5 Convention Convention Center/Exhibit Hall 2 Religious Church, Mosque, Synagogue 5 Stadium Stadium/Arena/Auditorium/Theatre 5 Retail 13 Store Department/Big Box 2 Branch Bank Branch 9 Mall Mall 2 Other 478 Call Center Call Center 14 Correctional Jail/Prison 7 Courthouse Courthouse 269 Data Center Data/Computer/Switch Facility 16 Education Training/Classrooms 35 Hospital Acute Care/Clinic/Behavioral Care/Medical Center/ Rehab 12 Library Library 28 Lodging Hotel 2 Multi-Family Condominium/Student Housing 2 Multi-Use No single type of space dominates more than 50%16 Museum Gallery/Zoo/Arboretum 10 Post Office Post Office 14 Research Center Research/Laboratory 41 Senior Housing Assisted Living/Skilled Nursing 4 Sports and Entertainment Aquatic/Gaming/Golf Course 2 Transportation Airport/Rail/Bus Station 6 Total 1,419 Facility Description 1 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Facility Description To provide a more accurate comparison of cost and practices, respondents were asked to provide data on a single-use facility, preferably the largest or most active facility of their portfolio. Many of the respondents supplied separate building data, and as a result 79% of the facilities represented in this study are single buildings. Slightly more than 10% of the sample was classified as campus sites with a median of four buildings situated in one location. Six percent of the sample represented a portfolio of buildings spread among multiple locations. Facility Description N=1,421 79% Single Building 3% 6% 12% Multiple Buildings in One Location Multiple Buildings in Multiple Locations Space Within a Building Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 17 Facility Description Facilities by Region This report breaks out North America into 11 regions. The 10 U.S. categories are based upon postal zip codes. For example, the region labeled Heartland is composed of the four states in which the zip code begins with the number six. Region N Percentage of Sample Canada (AB, BC, MB, ON, QC, SK)28 2% New England (CT, MA, ME, NH, NJ, VT, RI)100 7% Northeast (DE, NY, PA)83 6% Mid-Atlantic (DC, MD, NC, SC, VA, WV)217 15% Southeast (AL, FL, GA, MS, TN)135 9% Midwest (IN, KY, MI, OH)124 9% North Central (IA, MN, MT, ND, SD, WI)102 8% Heartland (IL, KS, MO, NE)131 9% South Central (AR, LA, OK, TX)140 10% Mountain (AZ, CO, ID, NM, NV, UT, WY)134 10% Pacific (AK, CA, HI, OR, WA)207 15% Washington DC Location of Facility This benchmarking survey was sent to IFMA members located in North America. This report contains facility data for all 50 of the United States and six of the 10 Canadian provinces. 1 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Climate Zone N Number of Heating Degree Days Number of Cooling Degree Days US 1 (coldest)206 More than 7,000 Less than 2,000 US 2 321 5,500 to 7,000 Less than 2,000 US 3 284 4,000 to 5,499 Less than 2,000 US 4 371 Less than 4,000 Less than 2,000 US 5 (warmest)203 Less than 4,000 2,000 or More CN 1 (coldest)2 More than 8,000 CN 2 19 5,501 to 8,000 CN 3 5 3,500 to 5,599 CN 4 (warmest) 2 Less than 3,500 Climate Zones for the U.S. and Canada Recognizing that weather affects utility consumption, respondents selected the climate zone which best corresponded to the location of the reported facility. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) classifies the U.S. into five climate zones which are derived by averaging the number of annual heating and cooling degree-days in a 30-year period. Natural Resources Canada’s Office of Energy Efficiency (OEE) regionalizes Canada into four climate zones. These four zones are based upon an average number of heating degree-days over a 30-year period. To learn more about these nine climate zones, please refer to the glossary at the beginning of the report. The chart below shows the number of facilities within each climate zone. Facility Description Canada Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 United States Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 1 Facility Age The average age of the facilities in this data set is 43 years; the median is 36 years. Facility Description Facility Setting Given the large number of U.S. federal government buildings included in this data set, the percentage of buildings situated in central business districts is 65%. Manufacturing and warehouse facilities are more apt to be located in industrial settings. 3% 12% 7%6% 13% 30% 26% 3% 5< Years 5-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-30 Years 31-50 Years 51-100 Years >100 Years N=1,399 N=1,413 65% Central Business District 6% 9% 18% 1% Suburban Area Secondary Downtown Location Industrial ParkRural 20 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Overall Ownership More than four out five of the facilities in this report are owner occupied. Facility Description %10% 8% Owner Occupied Leased Combination N=1,420 owned versus leased by facility Single building93%6%1% Space within a building11%86%3 % Multiple buildings in one location73%13%14% Multiple buildings in multiple locations42%15%43% Owner Occupied Leased Combination N=1,421 As the amount of space managed increases, the portfolio expands to include both owned and leased facilities. Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 21 Facility Description Days and Hours of Operation Many of the facilities in this study operate 24/7 and are cooled and heated accordingly. Days and hours of operation correlate positively to utility consumption. Facility Use N Hours/Day Days/Week Headquarters 194 15 6 Mixed Use–Office 114 15 6 Regional Office 53 15 6 Research Center 33 18 7 Education 32 19 6 Library 27 8 6 Factory 24 20 6 Multi-Use 16 18 7 Call Center 14 22 7 Hospital 12 20 7 Courthouse 10 15 5 Retail–Branch 9 13 6 Data Center 8 18 7 Museum 8 19 7 Warehouse 8 21 6 Correctional 6 21 7 Religious 5 18 7 Medical Office 4 13 6 Recreational 4 15 7 Senior Housing 4 24 7 Total 585 16 6 Central Plant With 12% of the facilities in this study classified as a campus facility, it’s not surprising that one in ten operate a central mechanical plant that provides heating, cooling or electricity to one or more buildings. Facility managers at educational, correctional and health care facilities were most apt to maintain and operate a central plant. 90% No 10% Yes N=1,417 central mechanical plant serving multiple buildings? 22 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Facility Description Number of Occupants To gauge the size of the facility and determine density, respondents were asked to quantify the number of occupants they serve. Site population includes the average number of full-time, part-time and contract workers who occupy space over a 12-month period. Mean=2,049 Median=505 Range=1–500,000 18% 501–1,000 36% 101–50014% 100 or less 13% More than 2,500 19% 1,001–2,500 Developed Acres In this report, the annual cost of maintaining roads and grounds is derived by dividing cost by the number of developed acres. N=478 Mean=63 Median=13 25% More than 50 27% Less than 5 Acres 15% 5–10 Acres 15% 11–20 Acres 18% 21–50 Acres Section 2siZe o F F acilities and s QU are F oota G e per occ U pant Building e xterior Gross a rea (Gross) Facility r entable a rea (r entable) Gross and r entable by i ndustry type and Facility Use s quare Footage per o ccupant 2 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Size of Facilities and Square Footage Per Occupant Building Exterior Gross Area (Gross) IFMA’s area measurement standard, ASTM E1836-08, was updated in 2008; however, this benchmarking survey was distributed prior to the new standard’s issuance. Respondents were asked to provide building exterior gross area (Gross or GSF) and facility rentable area (Rentable or RSF) using the 2001 ASTM standard. Building exterior gross area is defined as the sum of the floor areas on all levels of a building that are totally enclosed within the building. This measurement includes facility interior gross area, exterior walls, major vertical penetrations, void areas and interior parking space. To learn more about this area measurement, see definitions on page X. Utility costs are reported as dollar per gross square foot. Percentile Gross Square Feet 99 5,610,160 95 1,408,905 90 809,959 75 388,571 50 143,005 25 49,960 10 12,574 5 6,068 1 2,191 Mean 428,018 N=1,418 N=1,418 Range=1,013–28,696,416 owned versus leased by size of facility 100,000 or less88% Owner Occupied Leased Combination 82% 86% 82% 78% 10%2 15%3 8%6% 7%11% 19%3 100,001–200,000 200,001–500,000 500,001–1,000,000 More than 1,000,000 100,001– 200,000 GSF 11% 500,001– 1,000,000 GSF 8% More than 1,000,000 GSF 19% 21% 200,001– 500,000 GSF 41% 100,000 or less GSF Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 2 Facility Rentable Area (Rentable) Rentable area is defined as building exterior gross area minus exterior walls, major vertical penetrations, interior parking space and void areas such as atriums and lobbies. Rentable area is a measurement used for both owned and leased properties. In this report, janitorial and maintenance costs are reported on a U.S. and Canadian dollar per rentable square feet ($/RSF) basis. Percentile Rentable Square Feet 99 3,911,117 95 1,199,596 90 722,457 75 350,000 50 128,050 25 43,501 10 11,458 5 5,665 1 1,982 Mean 365,417 N=1,411 Size of Facilities and Square Footage Per Occupant 44% 100,000 or less RSF 10% 500,001– 1,000,000 RSF 6% More than 1,000,000 RSF 19% 100,001– 200,000 RSF 21% 200,001– 500,000 RSF N=1,411 Range=928-28,000,000 owned versus leased by size of facility 100,000 or less 88% Owner Occupied Leased Combination 85% 84% 79% 77% 11% 12% 9% 9%12% 21%2 100,001–200,000 200,001–500,000 500,001–1,000,000 More than 1,000,000 1 3 7% 2 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Industry Type N Gross Sq. Ft.Rentable Sq. Ft. Mean Median Mean Median Services Banking 48 489,579 104,704 261,047 98,149 Health Care 28 691,742 207,655 635,039 195,000 Hospitality 7 260,016 172,000 246,900 154,000 Information Services 10 347,731 186,000 321,555 170,500 Insurance 41 563,161 375,865 396,741 422,475 Investment Services 10 513,161 375,865 484,631 355,434 Media 8 203,903 111,000 160,175 102,500 Professional Services 24 249,856 121,840 252,632 114,409 Telecommunications 9 88,673 81,469 86,233 78,650 Trade 29 610,328 346,000 548,962 331,717 Transportation 9 357,710 239,898 269,894 243,532 Utilities 24 592,480 275,351 529,212 235,363 Other Services 7 547,053 390,000 501,750 380,000 Manufacturing Aircraft/Industrial 16 891,740 492,326 831,202 474,258 Building/Construction 7 278,129 186,000 256,226 175,000 Chemical/Pharmaceutical 19 765,678 331,599 690,077 297,473 Consumer Products 13 581,774 268,000 616,954 420,000 Computer 22 516,095 356,500 483,410 332,604 Electronics 28 510,797 399,000 460,182 376,525 Energy 7 608,170 315,000 480,356 307,358 Medical Equipment 8 658,732 496,150 596,920 456,450 Motor Vehicles 10 670,634 504,355 638,644 465,894 Institutional Association 16 129,708 108,069 101,201 71,000 Cultural 10 997,593 239,654 928,161 148,693 Education 47 2,218,228 360,000 1,931,961 335,000 Federal Government 820 225,641 102,118 200,366 90,688 State/Provincial Government 9 4,064,928 354,408 3,673,002 225,000 City/County Government 95 366,659 102,815 227,540 87,608 Special District/ Quasi Government 7 646,702 620,854 485,587 379,231 Religious 13 362,167 150,000 316,689 145,000 Research 12 1,767,621 431,206 1,294,331 35,453 Size of Facilities and Square Footage Per Occupant Gross and Rentable by Industry Type Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 27 Gross and Rentable by Facility UseFacility Use N Gross Sq. Ft.Rentable Sq. Ft. Mean Median Mean Median Headquarters 430 403,448 179,877 359,284 160,274 Regional/Branch Office 288 145,025 30,460 127,870 26,255 Courthouse 269 221,807 135,166 191,627 116,756 Mixed Use–Office 127 656,279 225,000 605,049 208,000 Research Center 40 872,086 150,015 698,647 136,798 Education 35 3,740,923 618,000 1,189,085 160,000 Warehouse 34 268,541 196,829 239,170 193,079 Library 28 31,141 14,921 28,637 13,615 Factory 25 530,019 340,000 497,124 320,000 Multi-Use 16 809,034 317,308 747,891 302,500 Data Center 16 290,828 218,993 281,132 193,000 Post Office 14 134,501 81,977 110,860 75,331 Call Center 14 88,080 80,734 83,526 77,581 Hospital 12 1,278,316 172,665 1,189,085 160,000 Museum 10 909,581 172,730 842,584 127,693 Retail–Branch 9 1,369,221 171,240 342564 146,570 Correctional 7 2,443,853 444,430 399,938 341,000 Transportation 6 342,248 13,905 258,461 13,524 Recreational 5 192,780 240,395 171,052 190,000 Stadium 5 246,026 90,000 240,473 85,000 Medical Office 4 127,647 64,200 123,495 60,500 Senior Housing 4 525,585 361,171 446,250 332,500 Size of Facilities and Square Footage Per Occupant 2 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Square Footage Per Occupant In this report, there is evidence of a slight uptick in the amount of space per person compared to previous year’s data; however, this is not indicative of all industries and facility types. Additional space per person is likely the outcome of recent layoffs and downsizing of organizations. Percentile Square Foot per Occupant Gross Rentable 99 1,225 1,029 95 944 759 90 755 623 75 534 462 50 386 343 25 279 250 10 204 181 5 150 127 1 45 44 Mean 435 377 Industry Type N Gross Sq. Ft.Rentable Sq. Ft. Mean Median Mean Median Services Banking 43 373 360 334 313 Health Care 25 378 371 341 316 Hospitality 7 344 306 323 277 Information Services 9 464 355 427 345 Insurance 41 328 278 287 250 Investment Services 9 368 281 284 277 Media 8 447 411 381 316 Professional Services 22 362 336 325 316 Telecommunications 9 193 131 186 125 Trade 24 364 334 336 329 Transportation 7 363 299 342 298 Utilities 23 482 450 434 403 Other Services 5 331 317 328 301 Manufacturing Aircraft/Industrial 16 555 500 457 426 Building 6 570 555 484 434 Chemical/Pharmaceutical 17 511 470 462 450 Computer 20 377 339 349 321 Consumer Products 12 428 414 413 396 Electronics 28 508 453 454 419 Energy 7 478 437 386 347 Medical Equipment 8 547 478 502 439 Motor Vehicles 8 523 509 503 481 Institutional Association 16 421 400 322 315 Cultural 9 586 550 365 354 Education 45 425 343 365 283 Federal Government 10 524 467 502 437 State/Provincial Government 8 425 429 401 400 City/County Government 72 520 471 423 406 Special District/Quasi Government 7 481 421 385 336 Research 12 578 561 485 474 Religious 8 367 348 333 325 Size of Facilities and Square Footage Per Occupant Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 2 Size of Facilities and Square Footage Per Occupant Square Footage Per OccupantFacility Use N Gross Sq. Ft.Rentable Sq. Ft. Mean Median Mean Median Headquarters 190 399 365 350 322 Mixed Use–Office 105 418 400 368 354 Regional Office/Branch 50 368 345 322 300 Research Center 32 571 543 495 480 Education 31 387 250 341 232 Manufacturing 23 626 549 549 492 Multi-Use 16 473 444 388 384 Call Center 14 163 149 153 141 Library 12 933 937 714 679 Hospital 11 421 388 377 342 Courthouse 10 507 505 499 474 Museum 7 586 528 514 401 Data Center 6 622 427 551 410 Bank Branch 5 478 357 430 322 Correctional 5 529 515 343 322 Warehouse 4 510 492 436 457 Senior Housing 4 417 360 375 304 Section 3sUstainaBleoperations and m antenance practices Green c ertification s tatus r ecycling Green Janitorial p ractices e nergy m anagement p ractices Water c onservation 32 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Green Certification Status What was considered a fad or an experiment a decade ago, sustainability has become a recognized trend. As organizations recognize the importance of conducting business in a socially responsible manner, they are scrutinizing how its facilities impact the environment. In a 2008 IFMA study, more than 80% of facility managers reported they are implementing green building concepts. Facility managers are working to lower energy consumption, conserve water, harness natural sources of light and ventilation, and minimize waste while providing healthy and productive environments. Recognizing how prevalent these practices have become, respondents were asked which sustainable practices they have incorporated into their janitorial, maintenance and utility operations. In subsequent sections, we will examine the impact of these sustainable practices on operational costs and utility consumption. status on current buildings with respect to green certification Recycling More than four out of five (81%) have implemented a recycling program. Paper is the most common item recycled. 61% Green elements, but no certification 28% One or more buildings certified 11% No green elements N=597 Paper Cardboard Aluminum Cans Ink Cartridges Light Bulbs Computer Parts 1% 83% 77% 72% 68% 8% N=590 Carpet 2% Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 33 Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Green Janitorial Practices Since cleaning is a labor intensive process, one of the goals of green cleaning is to minimize exposure of chemicals and cleaning agents to housekeeping staff, workers and visitors while minimizing waste into the environment. %Green Cleaning 62%Use cleaning chemicals that meet Green Seal or similar standards 60%Have an effective wipe-off mat system inside each entry 59%Use janitorial paper products made with recycled content or rapidly renewable sources 49%Use automatic chemical dispensers to reduce exposure and ensure proper dilution 41%Replaced multi-fold hand towels with large roll towels and hands-free dispensers 38%Use ergonomically designed vacuum cleaners with high-filtration filters 34%Use microfiber wipes and dust mops instead of traditional dusters, dust mops, and damp mops 29%Implemented a green cleaning training program 25%Eliminated all disinfectants and sanitizers, except where specifically required 6%Reduced or eliminated plastic trash liners (substituting vegetable-based or reusable liners) N=598 Energy Management Practices Energy management practices examined included lighting, equipment and controls, building and envelope, and renewable sources. The energy management practices that are most often implemented, adjustment of thermostats and HVAC operating hours, do not require an outlay of capital. %Equipment and Controls 61%Adjusted operating hours of HVAC 47%Set back thermostat 39%Increased the number of items monitored/controlled through building automation systems 38%Installed variable speed drives for pumps and motors 34%Require the purchase of energy-efficient selections, e.g., ENERGY S TAR®-rated equipment 33%Installed energy efficient motors 23%Recommissioned building systems 22%Installed energy efficient ventilation equipment 22%Installed energy efficient heating equipment 20%Installed energy efficient chillers 15%Monitor power quality to balance loads and reduce waste heat 14%Installed electrical submetering for usage tracking of subunits %Building and Envelope 18%Performed thermal imaging study to detect a building’s sources of heat loss 14%Installed energy efficient windows 12%Improved building shell insulation %Lighting 42%Replaced existing light fixtures with new light fixtures 41%Installed occupancy sensors 38%Retrofitted existing light fixtures 26%Selectively reduced the number of lamps in over-lit areas 21%Installed energy management system 7%Implemented daylight harvesting %Renewable 6%Purchased green power from an outside source 4%Installed solar systems for electric use 1%Installed solar systems for heat use 1%Installed a wind generation system for electricity 1%Installed a geo-thermal system N=599 3 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Water Conservation Facilities located in the hotter U.S. climates, zones 4 and 5, implemented the majority of these water conservation practices. %Water 40%Installed low flow water fixtures 19%Planted native/drought tolerant plants 14%Installed computerized irrigation controllers 7%Installed waterless urinals 7%Implemented cooling tower blowdown recycling 7%Planted xeriscape 7%Use gray (reclaimed) water 1%Implemented rain harvesting N=599 Section 4Janitorial Janitorial c osts Janitorial s taffing c ontractor p ractices Janitorial Contract Janitorial p ractices 3 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Janitorial Costs Often scrutinized first in a facilities budget is janitorial cost, i.e. the cost associated with the cleaning of offices, other work areas, restrooms and common support space. Janitorial costs include wages, benefits, staff support, supervision, administration, supplies, paper goods and non- capital equipment. Respondents were asked to provide the amount of floor area cleaned and if it differed from rentable area. Approximately 14% of the respondents provided cleanable area, and janitorial costs were divided by this reduced square footage. Although, average janitorial costs jumped by as much as 19% when compared to the 2008 Benchmarks V publication, there were many industry, facility use and regional categories that exhibited a lower cost demonstrating how uneven janitorial costs can be. Percentile $/RSF 99 $3.98 95 $3.14 90 $2.49 75 $1.88 50 $1.45 25 $1.08 10 $0.73 5 $0.48 1 $0.09 Mean $1.55 N=1,262 Facility Use N $/RSF Headquarters 386 $1.55 Courthouse 258 $1.54 Regional Office/Branch 242 $1.55 Mixed Use–Office 108 $1.30 Research Center 38 $1.49 Education 30 $1.43 Library 26 $1.32 Warehouse 26 $0.67 Manufacturing 25 $1.15 Multi-Use 14 $1.19 Data Center 13 $1.03 Call Center 12 $1.75 Retail–Branch 9 $1.59 Museum 6 $1.95 Correctional 6 $1.86 Religious 5 $1.48 Recreational 5 $1.55 Transportation 5 $1.27 Hospital 4 $2.14 Country/Region N $/RSF Canada 26 C$1.48 New England 94 $1.70 Northeast 70 $1.77 Mid-Atlantic 165 $1.77 Southeast 123 $1.48 Midwest 119 $1.59 North Central 113 $1.52 Heartland 119 $1.50 South Central 127 $1.14 Mountain 125 $1.33 Pacific 179 $1.64 Services N $/RSF Banking 44 $1.43 Health Care 17 $2.06 Hospitality 5 $1.55 Information Services 6 $1.56 Insurance 40 $1.41 Investment Services 9 $1.64 Media 7 $1.62 Professional Services 18 $1.28 Telecommunications 8 $1.94 Trade 26 $1.45 Transportation 6 $1.08 Utilities 22 $1.13 Other Services 7 $1.37 Manufacturing N $/RSF Aircraft/Industrial 18 $1.04 Building 13 $1.33 Chemical/ Pharmaceutical 20 $1.35 Computer 27 $1.37 Consumer Products 13 $1.53 Electronics 27 $1.31 Energy 7 $1.19 Medical Equipment 7 $1.21 Motor Vehicles 10 $1.33 Institutional N $/RSF Association 13 $1.50 Cultural 4 $1.81 Education 44 $1.36 Federal Government 731 $1.52 State/Provincial Government 7 $1.36 City/County Government 90 $1.42 Special District/Quasi Government 6 $2.07 Research 11 $2.06 Religious 12 $1.25Best In ClassJanitorial Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 37 Janitorial Costs The composition of janitorial costs is similar to what was measured in 2005; labor makes up two-thirds of the cost. A number of factors can affect janitorial costs including operating schedule, provision of labor, specialized cleaning requirements and the time of day that cleaning is performed. Upon further examination, the implementation of specific green cleaning practices listed on page 33 increased the overall janitorial cost by one or two more cents per square foot with exception to the use of wipe-off mats in which the cost was lower. Janitorial Function Performed By N $/RSF In-house staff 85 $1.79 Contracted service 443 $1.40 Equally by in-house and contracted labor 14 $1.86 Facility Operated N $/RSF 5 days per week 200 $1.38 6 days per week 99 $1.42 7 days per week 216 $1.60 Primary Cleaning Performed N $/RSF Normal work hours 113 $1.56 After work hours 424 $1.45 Ownership N $/RSF Owner occupied 1,084 $1.56 Leased 110 $1.47 Combination owned and leased 67 $1.42 Green Certification Status N $/RSF One or more buildings certified 56 $1.49 Green elements, no certification 328 $1.58 No green elements 154 $1.53 Recycling Program in Place N $/RSF Yes 517 $1.56 No 24 $1.41 Age N $/RSF Less than 5 years 33 $1.30 5–10 years 131 $1.34 11–15 years 75 $1.59 16–20 years 72 $1.32 21–30 years 131 $1.32 31–50 years 269 $1.61 More than 50 years 258 $1.50 Other Type of Cleaning N $/RSF Specialized cleaning 177 $1.50 N=531 66% Labor 4%2% 7% 14% 7% OtherNon-Capital Equipment Day Porters/Matrons Cleaning Supplies/Paper Products Supervisors/Staff Support Janitorial 3 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Janitorial Staffing The following chart shows the average number of janitors, janitorial supervisors and project cleaners (special cleaning or floor crew) for different facility sizes. The median amount of floor area cleaned per janitor is 27,000 rentable square feet. Facility Size (RSF)N Number of Janitor FTEs Number of Janitorial Supervisor FTEs Number of Project Cleaners, Special Cleaning or Floor Crew FTEs Less than 50,000 85 3.2 1.0 2.2 50,000–100,000 89 3.7 1.0 2.6 100,001–250,000 132 6.7 1.3 2.7 250,001–500,000 109 13.1 1.7 3.3 500,001–750,000 33 18.7 1.8 3.7 750,001–1,000,000 20 23.2 3.0 4.0 1,000,001–1,250,000 12 24.8 3.8 6.1 1,250,001–1,500,000 13 33.4 4.6 6.2 1,500,001–2,000,000 7 41.8 4.0 6.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 12 88.8 5.9 7.8 3,000,001–5,000,00 8 143.7 12.1 19.0 More than 5,000,000 8 247.5 15.0 18.0 Contractor Practices Equipment Background Checks Supplies Paper Products 1% 8% 77% 48% number of in-house employees supervising contract Training contractor provides 2% N=521 N=513 Janitorial 16% Four or More Employees Two Employees 62% One Employee 7% Less than One Employee 10% 7% Three Employees Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 3 Janitorial Contract 1 2 3 4–5 6–10 11+ number of years existing contractor has been in place when janitorial contract comes up for renewal 12% 13% 21% 17% 23% 14% N=507 51% Renew with Same Provider 48% Re-Bid Contract 1%Bring Service Back In-House N=503 Janitorial 0 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Janitorial Practices In an effort to keep costs down, the frequency of certain tasks have decreased. Compared to IFMA’s 2005 measurements, the daily task of trash removal and restroom cleaning have declined while other tasks remain about the same. Note the addition of exterior window washing to the list of tasks, which is likely performed by a separate contractor. More than once a day Once a day Semi- weekly Weekly Bi- monthly Monthly Quarterly Semi- annually Annually As required Not performed Trash removal 22%63%6%7%1%0%0%0%0%1%0% Low dusting 1%26%12%43%5%7%1%0%0%5%0% High dusting 0%6%5%29%7%24%12%3%2%8%4% Polish furniture 1%11%5%19%5%15%5%1%1%18%19% Carpet vacuuming 4%56%13%21%2%2%0%0%0%2%0% Upholstery vacuuming 1%11%2%12%2%16%10%4%5%26%11% Recyclables collected 7%45%11%11%3%1%0%0%0%11%11% Spot carpet cleaning 3%19%4%12%2%6%2%1%7%42%2% Entire carpet cleaning 2%7%0%2%1%8%18%22%21%12%7% Restroom cleaning 39%50%2%1%0%0%0%0%1%1%6% Steam cleaning of ceramic walls 0%8%0%2%1%4%6%6%7%13%53% Sweep/mop tile or composition flooring 9%66%7%7%1%6%1%0%0%2%1% Buff tile or composition flooring 1%7%4%16%4%24%17%6%3%13%5% Wax/polish tile/ composition flooring 1%2%0%5%2%14%27%16%9%20%4% Clean light fixture/ ventilation grilles 0%3%1%11%2%18%13%10%11%23%8% Spot clean walls/ switch plates 2%20%2%14%1%8%3%1%6%37%6% Spot clean glass/ entrance doors 20%50%5%9%1%2%1%1%0%10%1% Interior window/ window blind cleaning 0%4%1%6%1%13%14%20%14%16%11% Exterior window washing 0%0%0%1%0%4%15%36%21%8%15% Dust clean telephones 1%20%4%22%1%5%1%1%1%14%30% Data center cleaning 1%18%2%7%0%6%4%5%2%19%36% Sanitize telephones 1%10%2%12%1%6%1%2%2%13%48% Janitorial Not performed Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 41 N=488 47% Tasks and Frequencies 53% Performance Based terms of contract Janitorial Janitorial Practices Section 5maintenance m aintenance c ategories m aintenance c osts Roads and Grounds Costs m aintenance tracking Facility o perating c urrent r eplacement (cr V) i ndex m aintenance s taffing Maintenance Management Administrative Support Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Maintenance Maintenance Categories IFMA divides maintenance cost into five distinct categories which are defined below. Most maintenance costs fall within the first three categories: external building maintenance, interior systems maintenance and roads and grounds. The remaining two cost categories, utility system maintenance, and process treatment/environmental system maintenance are costs likely incurred by manufacturing facilities and large campuses with central plants. Solid waste management—a category found under environmental system maintenance—refers to industrial waste that contains non-hazardous materials, such as by-products of production, and should not be interpreted as ordinary garbage, trash or municipal waste. external building Maintenance Roof Skin (siding, masonry, sash, glazing, window washing, external doors) Exterior signage interiOr systeMs Maintenance Electrical systems (primary and secondary systems, emergency electrical systems, UPS, lighting systems, egress signage, master clocks, fire/life safety systems and alarms and remote monitoring, elevator maintenance/repair) Mechanical systems (HVAC, chillers, boilers, plumbing, extinguishing systems, back flow prevention, refrigeration and non-process related pumps) Building and general maintenance (interior walls, doors, ceilings, partitions and interior finishes, pest control) Interior signage Administrative support services–trouble desks • • • • • • • • rOads and grOunds Maintenance Roadways, sidewalks, parking lots (paving repairs, sealing, striping, parking, roadway lighting, power washing), snow removal, de- icing Landscaping (planting, mowing, irrigation) Parking structures (surface repairs, sealing, striping, lighting and drainage systems) Storm sewers (catch basins, manholes, sub-surface drainage systems) Underground fire systems and hydrants utility/central syste M Maintenance Electrical (generation/ distribution) Mechanical (steam, hot and cold water systems) prOcess treatMent and envirOnMental systeMs Process cooling water systems Process gas systems Air discharge scrubbers Waste water systems Water treatment plants Incinerator operation Solid waste management system • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 4 Maintenance Maintenance Costs The annual maintenance cost includes all repair, preventive, materials, direct labor and contract costs. Those who manage leased properties provided maintenance costs from common area maintenance (CAM) charges in addition to building operating expenses charged by the landlord or property manager. The dollar per square foot costs listed in the Total Maintenance column does not equal the sum of the component costs due to the different sample sizes for each category. Compared to IFMA’s 2008 Benchmarks V report, maintenance costs have increased by just a few cents for most categories. $/RSF Percentile Total Maintenance External Building Interior Systems Roads and Grounds Utility/ Central System Process Treatment and Environmental Systems 99 $9.80 $2.76 $6.59 $2.37 $3.08 $0.74 95 $5.89 $1.11 $4.88 $1.26 $2.22 $0.66 90 $4.12 $0.59 $3.84 $0.85 $1.70 $0.54 75 $2.63 $0.22 $2.17 $0.45 $0.71 $0.22 50 $1.75 $0.10 $1.21 $0.18 $0.21 $0.08 25 $1.20 $0.04 $0.65 $0.06 $0.08 $0.03 10 $0.75 $0.03 $0.32 $0.03 $0.03 $0.01 5 $0.55 $0.02 $0.18 $0.02 $0.02 $0.01 1 $0.27 $0.01 $0.06 $0.01 $0.01 $0.00 Mean $2.22 $0.25 $1.66 $0.35 $0.54 $0.16 N =1,233 448 505 1,047 114 88 $/RSF Facility Use N Total Maintenance External Building Interior Systems Roads and Grounds Utility/ Central System Process Treatment and Environmental Systems Headquarters 369 $2.28 $0.21 $1.69 $0.18 $0.24 $0.06 Courthouse 261 $1.91 $0.13 $1.17 $0.13 $0.64 — Regional Office/Branch 253 $1.93 $0.10 $1.45 $0.26 $0.20 $0.07 Mixed Use - Office 100 $2.53 $0.19 $1.90 $0.26 $0.15 $0.13 Research Center 32 $3.19 $0.31 $2.38 $0.39 $0.74 $0.13 Education 28 $2.15 $0.41 $1.30 $0.30 $0.15 $0.23 Library 23 $2.15 $0.10 $1.20 $0.80 —— Manufacturing 19 $2.18 $0.18 $1.05 $0.22 $0.41 $0.38 Multi-Use 14 $2.51 $0.13 $1.68 $0.26 $0.34 $0.16 Post Office 14 $1.78 ————— Hospital 11 $3.12 $0.32 $2.03 $0.35 $0.57 $0.13 Data Center 10 $2.05 $0.01 $2.01 $0.28 —— Call Center 9 $2.01 $0.13 $1.87 $0.52 —— Museum 8 $2.57 $0.19 $1.89 $0.78 —— Retail–Branch 8 $2.45 $0.39 $1.25 $0.55 —— Correctional 6 $2.11 $0.18 $1.66 $0.22 —$0.05 Transportation 5 $3.96 ————— Religious 5 $1.59 $0.06 $1.17 $0.13 ——Best In Class Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Maintenance Maintenance Costs Region N $/RSF Canada 26 C$2.70 New England 91 $2.68 Northeast 71 $2.62 Mid-Atlantic 190 $2.21 Southeast 122 $1.85 Midwest 114 $1.80 North Central 110 $1.90 Heartland 118 $2.03 South Central 126 $1.75 Mountain 123 $1.87 Pacific 178 $2.23 $/RSF Facility Use N Total Maintenance External Building Interior Systems Roads and Grounds Utility/ Central System Process Treatment and Environmental Systems Services Banking 36 $2.47 $0.25 $1.44 $0.66 $0.13 $0.07 Health Care 20 $2.85 $0.27 $1.82 $0.40 $0.45 $0.05 Hospitality 5 $1.50 $0.72 $0.91 $0.46 —— Information Services 6 $1.96 $0.28 $1.58 $0.68 —— Insurance 39 $2.26 $0.13 $1.42 $0.52 $0.58 $0.15 Investment Services 6 $2.48 $0.16 $1.88 $0.55 —— Professional Services 15 $2.13 $0.35 $1.26 $0.46 —— Tele- communications 7 $2.20 —$1.86 $0.47 —— Trade 22 $2.22 $0.29 $1.19 $0.52 $0.47 $0.08 Transportation 6 $2.23 $0.39 $1.57 $0.46 —— Utilities 20 $2.32 $0.16 $1.75 $0.45 $1.26 — Other Services 5 $2.40 —$1.75 ——— Manufacturing Aircraft/ Industrial 14 $2.51 $0.25 $1.73 $0.24 $0.35 $0.07 Building 6 $2.11 $0.39 $1.41 $0.44 —— Chemical/ Pharmaceutical 12 $3.04 $0.10 $2.03 $0.28 $0.87 — Computer 18 $2.48 $0.32 $2.02 $0.36 —— Consumer Products 12 $3.16 $0.13 $1.76 $0.55 $0.08 — Electronics 23 $2.79 $0.30 $1.95 $0.38 $0.28 — Energy 7 $1.59 —$1.32 $0.19 —$0.23 Medical Equipment 5 $2.14 $0.11 $1.20 $0.52 —— Motor Vehicles 8 $1.78 $0.10 $1.10 $0.32 —— Institutional Association 12 $3.45 $0.21 $2.20 $0.60 —— Cultural 9 $3.43 $0.37 $2.23 $0.61 —— Education 40 $2.28 $0.31 $1.52 $0.40 $0.19 $0.24 Federal Government 750 $2.19 $0.11 $1.92 $0.25 —— State/Provincial Government 5 $1.82 $0.12 $1.44 $0.26 —— City/County Government 83 $2.20 $0.25 $1.48 $0.29 $0.28 $0.13 Religious 12 $1.78 $0.12 $0.94 $0.35 —— Research 10 $4.73 $0.37 $3.02 $0.58 $0.83 — Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 47 Roads and Grounds Costs The maintenance of roads, grounds, parking surfaces and structures are also represented as dollar per developed acre. This cost has gone up as much as 20% for some properties. Weather conditions such as colder than average winters and subsequent snow can affect this cost category as demonstrated by the climate zone chart. Percentile $/Developed Acre 99 $19,141 95 $14,853 90 $11,939 75 $7,636 50 $4,280 25 $2,160 10 $909 5 $391 1 $53 Mean $5,425 N=365 Facility Use N $/Developed Acre Headquarters 116 $6,079 Regional Office/ Branch 33 $5,555 Mixed Use - Office 50 $4,390 Research Center 21 $5,314 Education 25 $4,655 Library 17 $5,012 Manufacturing 19 $2,906 Multi-Use 13 $3,769 Health Care 6 $8,401 Data Center 5 $5,546 Call Center 6 $4,018 Museum 7 $5,880 Age of Facility N $/RSF % Preventive Maintenance % Repair/ Breakdown Maintenance Less than 5 years 35 $1.73 25%75% 5–10 124 $2.16 35%65% 11–15 89 $2.23 42%58% 16–20 69 $2.43 45%55% 21–30 153 $2.25 43%57% 31–50 117 $2.83 46%54% 51–100 54 $3.16 47%53% More than 100 10 $3.09 40%60% Maintenance Costs Facility Use N $/Developed Acre Single building 181 $5,233 Multiple buildings, one location 128 $5,262 Multiple buildings, multiple sites 45 $4,851 Facility Setting N $/Developed Acre Central business district 50 $6,853 Secondary downtown location 43 $5,990 Suburban area 196 $5,125 Industrial area 48 $4,289 Rural area 16 $2,562 Climate Zone N $/Developed Acre US 1 (coldest)67 $5,669 US 2 87 $5,391 US 3 73 $5,787 US 4 63 $4,460 US 5 (warmest)55 $4,285 CN 1 (coldest)—— CN 2 6 C$11,089 CN 3 —— CN 4 (warmest) 2 C$5,618 Maintenance Best In Class Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Maintenance Tracking To manage, schedule and track maintenance cost and activities, the majority of respondents, 46%, use a CMMS system. The type of information most often collected is response time for work requests and percentage of work orders closed on time. Facility Size (RSF)N CAFM CMMS Manual Spreadsheets Other Less than 100,000 174 14%37%38%11% 100,001–200,000 108 20%44%27%9% 200,001–500,000 150 29%47%18%6% 500,001–1,000,000 71 35%49%11%4% More than 1,000,000 70 26%70%0%4% Overall 573 23%46%23%8% Maintenance Productivity Data Collected Percentage Response time for work requests 60% Percentage of work orders closed on time 60% Cost per square foot 58% Number of service complaints 52% Maintenance staffing per square foot 32% Percentage of budget spent on breakdown maintenance 29% Maintenance Facility Operating Current Replacement Value (CRV) Index The CRV index represents the level of funding provided for maintaining an organization’s portfolio of capital assets. This percentage is derived by dividing total annual maintenance by current replacement value and multiplying by 100. The 1990 National Research Council report Committing to the Cost of Ownership: The Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings recommends a budget allocation for routine maintenance and repair to be in the 2% to 4% range of aggregate current replacement value. This year’s measurement, an average of 1.55%, demonstrates a continuing decline in the CRV index compared to previous reports. Percentile CRV Index % 99 9.14% 95 6.41% 90 3.31% 75 1.87% 50 0.94% 25 0.49% 10 0.26% 5 0.16% 1 0.04% Mean 1.55% N=274 Best In Class Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 4 Maintenance Staffing No two organizations are alike, and how they allocate staff differs as well. Survey respondents completed a worksheet quantifying the number of workers employed for base building operations. The worksheet was divided into three categories: maintenance workforce (trades), maintenance management and administrative support. Custodial workers and grounds keeping staff were not included in this maintenance headcount. The data provided shows the number of FTEs based upon facility size, provision of labor, and number of shifts and days worked and ratio of space per position. Electricians Staffing ratio–1 per 308,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 24 0.25 47%53%1.0 5.0 50,000–100,000 39 0.80 48%52%1.0 5.0 100,001–250,000 70 1.18 58%42%1.0 5.0 250,001–500,000 84 1.28 70%30%1.0 5.0 500,001–750,000 40 2.47 48%52%1.0 5.0 750,001–1,000,000 19 2.89 43%57%1.3 5.0 1,000,001–1,500,000 21 4.48 66%34%1.2 5.0 1,500,001–2,000,000 12 5.35 55%45%1.2 5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 10 5.75 77%23%1.0 5.3 More than 3,000,000 14 19.42 89%21%1.2 5.2 Plumbers Staffing ratio–1 per 380,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 13 0.52 46%54%1.0 5.0 50,000–100,000 36 0.61 60%40%1.0 5.0 100,001–250,000 54 0.80 61%39%1.0 5.0 250,001–500,000 57 1.13 75%25%1.0 5.0 500,001–750,000 26 1.92 59%61%1.0 5.0 750,001–1,000,000 15 2.31 54%46%1.0 5.0 1,000,001–1,500,000 20 2.83 70%30%1.2 5.0 1,500,001–2,000,000 9 2.97 60%40%1.1 5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 6 5.50 83%17%1.0 5.0 More than 3,000,000 14 14.1 88%12%1.2 5.0 Controls and Low Voltage Staffing ratio–1 per 450,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 4 0.17 75%25%1.0 5.0 50,000–100,000 23 0.49 60%40%1.0 5.0 100,001–250,000 34 0.72 43%57%1.0 5.0 250,001–500,000 36 0.94 70%30%1.0 5.0 500,001–750,000 21 1.20 50%50%1.2 5.0 750,001–1,000,000 9 1.97 49%51%1.4 5.0 1,000,001–1,500,000 12 3.10 73%27%1.0 5.0 1,500,001–2,000,000 7 3.42 69%31%1.1 5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 6 5.66 50%50%1.0 5.0 More than 3,000,000 12 11.7 77%23%1.2 5.2 Maintenance 50 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 HVAC and Central Plant Operators Staffing ratio–1 per 200,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 34 0.50 14%86%1.0 5.0 50,000–100,000 41 0.91 58%42%1.0 5.0 100,001–250,000 74 1.52 60%40%1.0 5.0 250,001–500,000 83 1.93 71%29%1.0 5.0 500,001–750,000 36 3.16 57%43%1.3 5.1 750,001–1,000,000 21 4.13 60%40%1.3 5.2 1,000,001–1,500,000 21 5.26 76%24%1.5 5.4 1,500,001–2,000,000 11 8.00 68%32%1.1 5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 11 14.63 80%20%2.0 7.0 More than 3,000,000 12 16.50 90%10%2.0 7.0 Stationery Engineers Staffing ratio–1 per 150,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 6 0.56 100%0%1.0 5.0 50,000–100,000 25 1.12 82%18%1.0 5.0 100,001–250,000 36 1.49 69%31%1.7 5.0 250,001–500,000 39 2.23 76%24%1.4 5.2 500,001–750,000 15 3.70 84%26%1.9 5.6 750,001–1,000,000 10 2.60 81%19%1.5 5.2 1,000,001–1,500,000 12 6.10 70%30%3.0 6.0 1,500,001–2,000,000 10 7.90 83%17%3.0 6.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 10 8.25 75%25%3.0 7.0 More than 3,000,000 14 8.42 89%11%3.0 7.0 Carpenters Staffing ratio–1 per 400,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 14 0.37 64%36%1.0 4.0 50,000–100,000 26 0.79 71%29%1.0 4.3 100,001–250,000 45 0.85 69%31%1.0 4.5 250,001–500,000 42 1.28 79%21%1.0 4.9 500,001–750,000 25 1.67 63%37%1.0 5.0 750,001–1,000,000 15 2.11 44%56%1.0 5.0 1,000,001–1,500,000 19 2.44 76%24%1.0 5.0 1,500,001–2,000,000 10 2.90 72%28%1.0 5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 9 3.56 57%43%1.0 5.0 More than 3,000,000 15 10.50 82%18%1.0 5.0 Maintenance Maintenance Staffing Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 1 Maintenance Maintenance StaffingGeneralists Staffing ratio–1 per 129,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 51 0.60 88%12%1.0 4.6 50,000–100,000 52 1.83 85%15%1.0 4.9 100,001–250,000 91 1.93 73%27%1.0 5.0 250,001–500,000 87 3.22 77%23%1.0 5.0 500,001–750,000 37 3.95 73%27%1.2 5.2 750,001–1,000,000 17 4.99 67%33%1.3 5.2 1,000,001–1,500,000 20 5.09 64%36%1.3 5.3 1,500,001–2,000,000 11 5.80 70%30%1.2 5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 11 7.00 61%39%1.3 5.4 More than 3,000,000 14 16.20 90%10%1.5 5.4 Locksmiths Staffing ratio–1 per 821,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 6 0.25 60 40 1 ------- 50,000–100,000 19 0.61 46 54 1 3.9 100,001–250,000 28 0.73 44 56 1 4.1 250,001–500,000 35 0.96 71 29 1 4.9 500,001–750,000 16 1.09 60 40 1 5.1 750,001–1,000,000 11 0.65 63 37 1 5.0 1,000,001–1,500,000 16 1.32 56 44 1 5.0 1,500,001–2,000,000 7 1.39 71 29 1 5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 7 1.21 60 40 1 — More than 3,000,000 12 2.66 88 12 1 5.0 Painters Staffing ratio–1 per 438,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 11 0.53 63%37%1.0 4.6 50,000–100,000 26 0.62 54%46%1.1 3.8 100,001–250,000 50 0.83 57%43%1.1 4.1 250,001–500,000 44 1.25 68%32%1.0 4.9 500,001–750,000 26 1.48 61%39%1.1 4.9 750,001–1,000,000 14 1.53 25%75%1.0 4.9 1,000,001–1,500,000 19 1.85 52%48%1.1 4.9 1,500,001–2,000,000 10 2.64 50%50%1.0 4.9 2,000,001–3,000,000 7 3.32 66%34%1.0 5.0 More than 3,000,000 13 6.49 88%12%1.1 5.0 52 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Maintenance Maintenance Staffing Other FTEs Staffing ratio–1 per 180,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % in house % contract Number of shifts per day Number days per week Less than 50,000 6 1.87 100%0%1.0 5.0 50,000–100,000 16 1.68 89%11%1.0 5.0 100,001–250,000 35 2.11 72%28%1.2 5.0 250,001–500,000 28 3.08 89%11%1.3 5.3 500,001–750,000 11 4.81 70%30%1.5 5.3 750,001–1,000,000 7 2.92 42%58%1.3 5.0 1,000,001–1,500,000 14 4.56 70%30%1.3 5.0 1,500,001–2,000,000 4 6.00 75%25%—5.0 2,000,001–3,000,000 11 8.18 60%40%1.6 5.6 More than 3,000,000 14 9.16 85%15%1.0 5.2 Other FTEs include: chemical handler, furniture technician, pipe fitter, plasterer, elevator maintenance, pest control, loading dock master, millwright, welder, light bulb changer, and calibration coordinator. Maintenance Management Group Supervisor (e.g. Foreman) Staffing ratio–1 per 275,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % Exempt (Salaried) % Non-Exempt (Hourly) Less than 50,000 21 1.12 63%37% 50,000–100,000 41 1.29 55%45% 100,001–250,000 75 1.66 78%22% 250,001–500,000 71 1.75 69%31% 500,001–750,000 40 1.88 77%23% 750,001–1,000,000 18 2.25 59%41% 1,000,001–1,500,000 24 3.30 64%36% 1,500,001–2,000,000 10 3.68 78%22% 2,000,001–3,000,000 12 5.83 75%25% More than 3,000,000 15 10.06 79%21% Operations and Maintenance Manager Staffing ratio–1 per 234,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs % Exempt (Salaried) % Non-Exempt (Hourly) Less than 50,000 61 0.59 94%6% 50,000–100,000 82 0.95 84%16% 100,001–250,000 123 0.96 94%6% 250,001–500,000 96 1.06 96%4% 500,001–750,000 43 1.20 97%3% 750,001–1,000,000 20 1.81 90%10% 1,000,001–1,500,000 24 1.87 95%5% 1,500,001–2,000,000 11 2.36 90%10% 2,000,001–3,000,000 14 2.75 92%8% More than 3,000,000 16 7.49 100%0% Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 3 Administrative SupportHelp Desk Staffing ratio–1 per 462,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs Less than 50,000 15 0.78 50,000–100,000 28 0.94 100,001–250,000 54 1.03 250,001–500,000 52 1.20 500,001–750,000 26 1.23 750,001–1,000,000 14 1.03 1,000,001–1,500,000 20 2.36 1,500,001–2,000,000 11 2.55 2,000,001–3,000,000 13 2.61 More than 3,000,000 15 5.51 Administrative Assistant Staffing ratio–1 per 620,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs Less than 50,000 33 1.00 50,000–100,000 55 1.06 100,001–250,000 84 1.07 250,001–500,000 86 1.18 500,001–750,000 36 1.21 750,001–1,000,000 18 1.33 1,000,001–1,500,000 23 1.41 1,500,001–2,000,000 12 1.65 2,000,001–3,000,000 14 1.75 More than 3,000,000 16 3.00 Total Maintenance Staff Staffing ratio–1 per 49,000 RSF Facility Size (RSF)N Number of FTEs Less than 50,000 54 2.00 50,000–100,000 93 4.00 100,001–250,000 136 5.00 250,001–500,000 112 8.67 500,001–750,000 51 13.00 750,001–1,000,000 21 16.00 1,000,001–1,500,000 27 27.00 1,500,001–2,000,000 11 34.50 2,000,001–3,000,000 14 44.00 More than 3,000,000 18 139.57 Maintenance Section 6Utilities Utility c osts Utility c onsumption Targeted Goals Changes in Consumption Energy Use Index e nergy m anagement s taffing temperature s tandards 5 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Utilities Utility Costs Utility costs are associated with the provision of electrical power, potable water, central heating and cooling and sewage service. The utility categories provided were those most commonly used— electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, chilled water, steam, water and sewage. A miscellaneous category was provided as well to capture other utility costs. Items that fell into this category included: diesel fuel, coal and storm water charges. Almost three-quarters of the respondents, 73%, reported water costs combined sewage costs, as they were unable to separate the two expenses. The overall utility cost does not equal the sum of the separate utility costs because of different sample sizes. In the U.S., the average electricity cost rose by 2.6% in 2007, while natural gas prices remained stable. Compared to IFMA’s previous benchmarking report, Benchmarks V–Annual Facility Costs, electricity and gas prices on a per square foot basis remained about the same. $/GSF Percentile Total Utilities Electricity Fuel Oil #2 Natural Gas Steam Water Sewer Other 99 $8.85 $6.39 $0.77 $2.15 $1.72 $0.62 $0.29 $1.86 95 $5.55 $5.14 $0.53 $1.25 $1.40 $0.38 $0.24 $1.23 90 $4.58 $3.77 $0.40 $0.84 $1.19 $0.27 $0.17 $0.97 75 $3.05 $2.36 $0.11 $0.51 $1.00 $0.15 $0.10 $0.48 50 $2.12 $1.51 $0.03 $0.29 $0.64 $0.09 $0.06 $0.11 25 $1.51 $1.00 $0.01 $0.13 $0.34 $0.05 $0.03 $0.02 10 $1.25 $0.77 $0.002 $0.03 $0.22 $0.03 $0.02 $0.01 5 $1.14 $0.71 $0.001 $0.01 $0.15 $0.02 $0.01 — 1 $0.97 $0.65 —$0.001 $0.01 $0.01 —— Mean $2.56 $2.02 $0.10 $0.40 $0.68 $0.13 $0.07 $0.30 N=923 954 139 911 105 1042 171 194 $/GSF Facility Use N Total Utilities Electricity Fuel Oil #2 Natural Gas Steam Water Sewer Other Headquarters 303 $2.39 $1.59 $0.06 $0.30 $0.87 $0.11 $0.07 $0.11 Courthouse 165 $1.75 $0.99 $0.05 $0.27 $0.57 $0.10 $0.03 $0.09 Regional Office/Branch 154 $2.63 $1.78 $0.04 $0.30 $0.66 $0.16 $0.05 $0.83 Mixed Use– Office 95 $2.57 $1.77 $0.04 $0.35 $0.62 $0.16 $0.05 $0.02 Research Center 28 $4.70 $3.00 $0.15 $0.77 —$0.22 $0.11 $1.28 Library 26 $2.39 $1.69 —$0.56 —$0.14 $0.03 — Education 23 $2.38 $1.10 $0.08 $0.55 $0.52 $0.15 $0.09 $0.07 Manufacturing 19 $3.40 $2.26 —$0.43 —$0.19 $0.05 $0.62 Multi-Use 15 $3.84 $2.99 $0.09 $0.52 —$0.14 $0.08 — Warehouse 15 $2.14 $1.45 —$0.23 —$0.05 $0.03 — Museum 10 $3.92 $2.39 —$0.67 —$0.12 $0.02 — Post Office 9 $1.86 $0.93 —$0.41 $0.64 $0.15 —— Hospital 9 $2.61 $1.73 $0.04 $0.70 —$0.18 $0.16 — Data Center 9 $3.52 $2.58 —$0.29 —$0.16 —$0.10 Call Center 9 $2.80 $2.41 —$0.49 —$0.11 $0.07 — Retail–Branch 8 $2.51 $2.07 —$0.29 —$0.12 $0.04 — Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 7 Utilities Utility CostsServices N $/GSF Banking 37 $2.72 Health Care 18 $2.65 Hospitality 6 $2.47 Information Services 6 $3.91 Insurance 39 $2.58 Investment Services 7 $2.34 Media 4 $3.43 Professional Services 16 $3.08 Telecommunications 7 $3.68 Trade 21 $3.03 Transportation 4 $2.75 Utilities 18 $2.14 Other Services 6 $2.65 Manufacturing N $/GSF Aircraft/Industrial 13 $3.41 Building 6 $2.11 Chemical/Pharmaceutical 13 $3.98 Computer 16 $3.99 Consumer Products 9 $2.27 Electronics 21 $3.37 Energy 6 $2.70 Medical Equipment 7 $3.04 Motor Vehicles 7 $3.62 Institutional N $/GSF Association 14 $2.36 Cultural 9 $3.33 Education 34 $2.24 Federal Government 446 $2.02 State/Provincial Government 5 $3.18 City/County Government 82 $2.32 Special District/Quasi Government 4 $2.27 Religious 11 $1.63 Research 8 $4.30 Facility Operated N $/GSF 5 days per week 188 $2.43 6 days per week 94 $2.79 7 days per week 213 $2.86 Central Plant N $/GSF Yes 122 $3.10 No 1122 $1.89 Green Certification Status N $/GSF One or more buildings certified 54 $2.73 Green elements, no certification 277 $2.83 No green elements 129 $2.81 Climate Zone N $/GSF US 1 (coldest)147 $2.30 US 2 219 $2.47 US 3 165 $2.47 US 4 225 $2.57 US 5 (warmest)117 $2.33 CN 1 (coldest)—— CN 2 15 C$2.14 CN 3 4 C$2.37 CN 4 (warmest) 2 C$1.96 Country/Region N $/GSF Canada 23 C$2.27 New England 88 $3.41 Northeast 73 $3.20 Mid-Atlantic 138 $2.45 Southeast 106 $2.23 Midwest 80 $2.25 North Central 103 $1.96 Heartland 80 $1.92 South Central 94 $2.50 Mountain 94 $2.14 Pacific 146 $2.71 5 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Utility Consumption Targeted Goals Four out of 10 respondents have a stated annual goal that relate to the facility’s utility consumption. The majority are striving to use less energy, working toward a reduction goal of 7% average. Those who anticipate an increase in consumption are holding to an average increase of 5%. Changes in Consumption When asked to compare energy usage to the prior year, the majority reported an increase in consumption. The average increase was 8%. The primary reason cited for using more energy was the addition of more space. Other reasons include extended operating hours, increased headcount, introduction of new equipment and weather variances. 65% Increase 29% Maintain same level of consumption 6% Decrease stated consumption goal N=182 N=482 reason for change in utility consumption 37%Implementation of energy management practices 34%Other 23%Expansion of space 6% Reduction of space 1% N=489 percentage change in utility consumption >-10.0% -5.1–10.0% -0.1–5.0% 0% 0.1–5.0% 5.1–10.0% >10.0% 17% 24% 8% 17% 12% 7% Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Utility Consumption Percentile Electricity kWh/GSF Fuel Oil #2 Gallons/GSF Natural Gas Therms/GSF Steam 1,000 lbs/GSF Water Gallons/GSF Sewer Gallons/GSF 99 85 0.36 3.06 0.79 91 51 95 61 0.25 1.48 0.57 61 39 90 46 0.19 1.00 0.20 44 33 75 30 0.03 0.58 0.09 28 22 50 21 0.01 0.29 0.03 15 9 25 15 .002 0.07 0.02 2 1 10 8 —0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 5 5 ——0.01 0.01 — 1 0.03 ————— Mean 24 0.04 0.44 0.09 19 13 N=370 66 278 29 285 91 Energy Use Index Energy can be measured by gross square foot as above, or it can be measured using an Energy Use Index (EUI) which converts the energy source to kBtus. There are many factors that influence a building’s EUI which include the building’s age, use, operating schedule, climate, occupant density, equipment and construction. To calculate the EUI for electricity, kilowatt hours are multiplied by a conversion factor of 3.415 to derive kBtus and divided by gross square footage. To calculate the EUI for natural gas, therms (100 CF) are multiplied by a factor of 100 and divided by gross square feet. As anticipated, facilities situated in warmer climates consume larger amounts of electricity and rely less on gas as heating requirements are reduced. Percentile Electricity kBtus/GSF Gas kBtus/GSF 99 230 130 95 180 100 90 132 78 75 100 56 50 72 27 25 51 7 10 27 2 5 11 0.4 1 0.1 0.1 Mean 78 34 N = 360 264 Facility Use N Electricity kBtus/GSF Gas kBtus/GSF Headquarters 120 75 26 Mixed Use - Office 56 74 28 Regional Office/ Branch 34 72 26 Library 22 68 53 Research Center 20 131 43 Education 19 49 45 Manufacturing 18 102 30 Multi-Use 12 84 40 Museum 7 62 67 Health Care 6 90 93 Call Center 5 97 34 Data Center 4 135 —Best In ClassBest In Class 0 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Utility Consumption Energy Use Index Operating Schedule N Electricity kBtus/GSF Gas kBtus/GSF 10 hours/day 34 66 30 12 hours/day 69 66 31 14 hours/day 21 82 29 16 hours/day 16 75 32 18 hours/day 17 64 36 24 hours/day 118 90 37 Energy Management Staffing The likelihood of having dedicated in-house energy management staff to handle procurement, tracking and conservation comes with increasing size and complexity of the facility. Facility Size (RSF)N Energy Management FTEs Less than 50,000 16 1.0 50,000–100,000 28 1.1 100,001–250,000 39 1.2 250,001–500,000 39 1.3 500,001–750,000 16 1.4 750,001–1,000,000 7 1.5 1,000,001–1,500,000 7 1.6 1,500,001–2,000,000 10 1.8 2,000,001–3,000,000 9 2.0 More than 3,000,000 13 2.5 Green Certification Status N Electricity kBtus/GSF Gas kBtus/GSF One or more buildings certified 31 69 32 Green elements, no certification 211 72 32 No green elements 109 82 39 Climate Zones N Electricity kBtus/GSF Gas kBtus/GSF US 1 (coldest)76 66 42 US 2 76 75 33 US 3 78 83 31 US 4 66 85 32 US 5 (warmest)43 91 21 Central Plant N FTEs Yes 63 1.8 No 120 1.5 Facility Description N FTEs Single building 86 1.3 Multiple buildings in one location 58 1.5 Multiple buildings in multiple locations 33 2.3 Facility Use N FTEs Manufacturing 11 1.3 Mixed Use - Office 42 1.7 Education 12 1.7 Research 12 1.3 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 61 Utility Consumption Temperature Standards As cited on page 33, one of the methods frequently used to reduce energy consumption is to adjust the thermostat temperature. When compared to IFMA’s 2006 measurement, the average summer low temperature standard has risen by one degree to 72° Fahrenheit and the winter low standard has dropped a degree to 69° Fahrenheit. Region N Summer High Summer Low Winter High Winter Low Canada 25 74°70°71°68° New England 49 74°71°73°69° Northeast 33 75°72°74°70° Mid-Atlantic 55 75°72°73°70° Southeast 45 75°72°73°70° Midwest 59 75°71°73°69° North Central 71 75°72°73°69° Heartland 44 75°72°73°70° South Central 41 75°72°73°68° Mountain 34 75°72°74°70° Pacific 83 75°71°73°70° Average 541 75°72°73°69° Facility Use N Summer High Summer Low Winter High Winter Low Headquarters 175 75°71°73°70° Mixed Use–Office 102 75°71°73°69° Regional Office/ Branch 48 75°71°72°70° Research Center 30 75°72°72°69° Library 27 75°70°74°69° Manufacturing 25 75°70°72°69° Education 22 76°72°72°68° Multi-Use 13 75°71°72°69° Courthouse 11 75°71°72°70° Warehouse 8 76°72°72°68° Museum 8 74°70°72°69° Section 7cost o F o perations Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Cost of Operations The previous sections of this report have detailed the components of a facility’s operation, janitorial, maintenance and utilities costs. This section combines these three costs— allowing for comparison by industry, facility use and by region. Due to different sample sizes (N), adding together janitorial, maintenance and utility costs from previous sections will not generate the same totals in this section. Percentile $/RSF 99 $21.32 95 $14.53 90 $10.77 75 $7.42 50 $5.51 25 $4.39 10 $3.52 5 $3.02 1 $2.32 Mean $6.54 N=1,072 Services N $/RSF Banking 35 $7.37 Health Care 16 $10.13 Hospitality 5 $5.37 Information Services 5 $8.25 Insurance 38 $6.66 Investment Services 6 $7.08 Professional Services 14 $6.38 Telecommunications 6 $8.79 Trade 20 $6.26 Transportation 4 $6.13 Utilities 17 $6.67 Other Services 5 $7.16 Manufacturing N $/RSF Aircraft/Industrial 13 $7.26 Building 5 $6.56 Chemical/Pharmaceutical 13 $8.54 Computer 14 $9.38 Consumer Products 12 $8.27 Electronics 23 $7.58 Energy 6 $5.50 Medical Equipment 4 $7.09 Motor Vehicles 6 $6.39 Institutional N $/RSF Association 11 $9.56 Cultural 7 $10.80 Education 36 $6.57 Federal Government 639 $5.72 State/Provincial Government 4 $6.23 City/County Government 82 $6.73 Religious 10 $5.17 Research 10 $12.49Best In Class35% Maintenance N=1,170 38% Utility 27% Janitorial Upon further examination, utility cost is the largest component of a facility’s operating cost. Electricity alone makes up 25% of the entire operating cost while gas accounts for 6%. Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 6 Cost of Operations Country/Region N $/RSF Canada 24 C$7.40 New England 89 $8.55 Northeast 70 $8.67 Mid-Atlantic 139 $7.07 Southeast 97 $5.79 Midwest 94 $5.70 North Central 105 $5.64 Heartland 105 $5.61 South Central 104 $6.15 Mountain 88 $5.56 Pacific 155 $7.06 Facility Use N $/RSF Headquarters 334 $6.30 Courthouse 236 $5.23 Regional Office/Branch 208 $6.37 Mixed Use - Office 92 $7.80 Research Center 28 $11.28 Education 24 $6.28 Library 23 $6.03 Manufacturing 19 $8.93 Warehouse 13 $5.01 Multi-Use 13 $8.18 Museum 9 $11.92 Bank Branch 8 $7.46 Health Care 8 $9.94 Data Center 7 $6.86 Call Center 7 $9.01 Correctional 6 $8.38 Transportation 5 $6.79 Religious 4 $5.06 Recreational 4 $6.46 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Facility Operated N $/RSF 5 days per week 166 $6.71 6 days per week 78 $7.59 7 days per week 182 $8.10 Facility Use N $/RSF Space within a building 11 $9.30 Single building 912 $5.86 Multiple buildings, one location 130 $8.65 Multiple buildings, multiple sites 60 $7.82 Facility Setting N $/RSF Central business district 99 $6.66 Secondary downtown location 61 $6.80 Suburban area 200 $6.83 Industrial area 58 $7.10 Rural area 14 $5.69 Central Plant N $/RSF Yes 106 $8.40 No 1,006 $6.09 Age N $/RSF Less than 5 years 31 $6.80 5–10 years 106 $5.80 11–15 years 74 $7.16 16–20 years 60 $7.09 21–30 years 127 $7.45 31–50 years 100 $7.76 More than 50 years 51 $7.35 Cost of Operations Section 8participant l ist Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Listed in this section are the organizations that participated in the Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks Survey. Multiple reports from a participant are indicated by parentheses and number (#). 7309321, LC AAA Northern CA, Nevada, Utah AAA Wisconsin Ace Hardware Corporation AequiCap, Inc. Air Force Institute of Technology Albemarle Corporation Allegan County Alliant Energy Allianz Life Allied Irish Bank Allstate Insurance Company (2) Altera Corporation Ameren American Family Insurance American General Finance American Honda Motor Company (2) American Institutes of Research Amgen, Inc. Amylin Pharmaceuticals Anesthesia Management Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield AOL (2) ARAMARK Argos Therapeutics Arizona Electric Power Cooperative Arlington County Government Armstrong World Industries Arup Lab ASML US, Inc. Associated Bank Corporation Assurant Health Astra Zeneca AT&T ATB Financial Augusta National Golf Club Automatic Data Processing (ADP) Babson College BAE Systems (9) Barnes-Jewish Hospital Barton Malow Company Bass Pro Shops Bastyr University Bayer Technology Services Baylake Bank BC Teachers’ Federation Best Buy Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Black Rock Black Hills Corporation Bluegreen Corporation Boat U. S. Boone County National Bank Bosch Security Systems, Inc. Boston Biomedical Research Institute Buckingham Browne and Nichols Calvary Church Campus Federal Credit Union Campus Management Corporation Canon Business Solutions, Inc. Carhartt, Inc. Caridian BCT Carlson Companies (2) Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP Cashman Equipment Company Caterpillar Global Paving CB Richard Ellis (10) Charles River Laboratories Chesterfield Mall Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Church & Dwight Company, Inc. Citizens Business Bank City of Carrollton City of Coconut Creek City of Commerce City City of Lancaster City of Logan City of Mesa City of Minneapolis City of Oklahoma City City of Ontario City of Orlando (3) City of Palm Bay City of Phoenix Convention Center City of Schertz City of Wichita City of Winston-Salem City Public Service Energy Clifford Chance US LLP College of American Pathologists Collier County Government Colliers Pinkard Colonial Properties Trust Colorado Springs Health Partners, P.C. Colorado Springs Utilities (2) CommonHealth Computer Sciences Corporation (2) Corporate One Federal Credit Union Corsair Memory, Inc. Council on Foreign Relations, Inc. (2) Country Meadows Countrywide Financial Corporation (2) County of Los Alamos County of Sacramento (2) County of San Bernardino County of San Diego (7) County of Ventura Coventry Health Care Cross Country Automotive Services Crowley Maritime Company Cubic Defense Applications, Inc. Cushman and Wakefield (5) Daimler Financial Services Deloitte Services LP Delphi Delta Dental of California Participant List Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 6 Participant List Detroit Edison Company Devon Realty Advisors, Inc. DFCU Financial Dienna Nelson Augustine Company Direct Supply, Inc. DirecTV Discount Tire Company Discover Financial Services Dole Food Company Dollar General Corporation Donald Danforth Plant Science Center Donohoe Real Estate Services, Inc. Dow Chemical Company (2) Dupont, Facilities Management & Real Estate Eagles Trace/Erickson Retirement Communities Eaton Electrical Eddie Bauer Edmonton Public School Board EFH Properties El Paso Corporation Elevations Credit Union Elsevier, Inc. EMCOR Facilities Services, Inc. EMI Christian Music Group Emprise Bank (2) Energy Solutions Arena Enterprise Rent A Car (2) Epworth Villa Erickson Retirement Communities Erie Insurance Escambia County Board of County Commissioners ESCO Technologies Essex River Ventures, Inc. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. Experian Express Scripts, Inc. Family Life Fanuc Robotics America Farm Bureau Life Insurance Company of Michigan Fed Ex Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (3) Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Fenwick & West, LLP FHG Enterprises, Inc. Fidelity Bank Fifth Third Bank (2) FINRA Fireside Bank First Advantage Federal Credit Union First Health Life & Health Insurance Company First Maintenance Company of Tulsa First Midwest Bank Florida Gulf Coast University Fluor Corporation Ford Foremost Farms USA Forsyth County General Services Departmwnt Four Seasons Produce, Inc. Franklin Templeton Investments Freddie Mac Frederik Meijer Gardens and Sculpture Park Fugro, Inc. GE Money GEICO General Dynamics (5) General Mills, Inc. Gentex Corporation George Washington University Georgia Institute of Technology (2) Gemological Institute of America Gilbane Development Company Girl Scouts of Northwestern Great Lakes God’s Pantry Food Bank Grace Presbyterian Village Grand Rapids Dominicans Granite Telecommunications Great West Life Realty Advisors, Inc. (2) Green Bay Community Church GreenStone Farm Credit Services Grubb & Ellis Management Services, Inc. Guaranty Bank (2) Gwinnett Technical College Hallmark Cards, Inc. Hamilton County (5) Hancock Bank Harkins Theatres Harvard Medical School Hastings Mutual Insurance Company Haworth Hazelden Foundation HD Supply HealthPlus of Michigan Hennepin County (41) Hershey Hilton Hotels Corporation (2) Hines Interests LP HOK Advance Strategies Hubbell Lighting, Inc. Humana Humane Society of the United States Idaho Power Company Idenix Pharmaceuticals IEEE ImClone Systems IMS Health Canada Infinera Corporation Institute of Contemporary Art Boston Inter-American Development Bank Intermap Network Services Isaac Commercial Properties, Inc. J. C. Penney J. J. Keller & Associates, Inc. Jack in the Box, Inc. (2) Jewish Community Campus Jewish Community Campus of San Antonio John Paul Jones Arena Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Johnson & Johnson Johnson Controls 70 Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 Participant List Johnson County Jones Lang Lasalle (5) Juniper Networks (2) Kaiser Permanente KBC Financial Products Kenneth Cole Productions Kent County KeyBank NA Kimberly-Clark Corporation (2) Kiplinger Washington Editors, Inc. Koch Supply Company LP L-3 Communications Lakewood Ranch Commercial Realty Lazydays RV Center, Inc. Lebanon Community Schools Lexicon Pharmaceuticals Lexmark International Liberty Mutual Group Life Gift LifeScan, Inc. Lifetime TV Light Sciences Oncology, Inc. Lincoln Financial Group Lockheed Martin Corporation (3) Lockheed Martin Space Systems Lord Corporation Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Maritz, Inc. Martin Federal Credit Union MassMutual Financial Group Mazda North American Operations McCormick & Company, Inc. McLean County Medco Health Solutions (2) Micron Technology, Inc. MidAmerican Energy Miller-Valentine Group Millipore Morris Museum and Bickford Theatre Mountain West Properties Mustang Engineering LP Mutual of Enumclaw NAI Ohio Equities Naper Settlement National Grid National Instruments National Life Group (2) National Renewable Energy Lab National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance National School Boards Association Nautilus Insurance Company Nebraska Public Power District Nestle Purina Pet Care Company Network Solutions LLC New Mexico Student Loans New York City Bar Nicor Services Nixon Peabody LLP Northrop Grumman Northrop Grumman Mission Systems Northwestern Michigan College Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation NYCE Payments Network, LLC OR&L Facility Services Oak Cliff Bible Fellowship Oak Ridge National Laboratory Oakland Community College Ohio Housing Finance Agency Oklahoma Natural Gas Company ON Semiconductor Oracle Corporation Orange County Oregon Health & Science University Organization of American States (2) Ottawa Township High School Pace Suburban Bus Panasonic Avionics Pearson Penn National Insurance Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency Pericom Semiconductor Corporation Pfizer - St. Louis PGP Corporation Physio-Control PICA Management Resources Planned Parenthood PNC Polaris Industries, Inc. PPD, Inc. Prince William County Dept. of Public Works Princess Cruises Product Marketing Association Progress Energy Protective Life Insurance Company (2) Proteolix, Inc. Providence Day School Public School Employees Retirement System Publishers Clearing House Q Center Questar Gas Company RAND Corporation Ransom Everglades School Raytheon (3) RCI Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic Regence Blue Shield Region 16 Region of Peel Rockwell Automation Rockwell Medical Technologies, Inc. Roush Fenway Racing Roy Jorgensen Associates RTI International Rutgers The State University of New Jersey Sacramento Municipal Utility District Sage Software Saint Louis Art Museum Saint Mary’s Hall Saint Paul Public Library Sallie Mae, Inc. (2) Sam Noble Oklahoma Museum of Natural History Sansum Clinic SAS Operations and Maintenance Benchmarks © IFMA 2009 71 Scott County Sears Holdings Management Corporation Seattle Cancer Care Alliance Seminole County BCC Seminole Electric Coop Inc. Shell Oil Copany/SRE/REA Simon Fraser University SIRF Technology, Inc. Sisters, Servants of the Immaculate Heart of Mary Smith College Smithsonian Institution (2) SNC Lavalin Profac (10) Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical High School Southwest Florida Water Management District Spartanburg County Facilities Sports Endeavors, Inc. Springville City Corporation SSOE, Inc. St. Charles Convention Center St. John Fisher College St. Johns River Water Management District St. Michael’s Hospital St. Michael’s Long Term Care Centre Stanford University Student Housing State Farm Insurance Companies (4) State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company State of Missouri Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP STMicroelectronics, Inc. Sybase T-Mobile (6) Talbots Customer Service Center Target Telect, Inc. Termo Fisher Scientific Terrus Real Estate Group Tessco Technologies Texas Gas Service The American Board of Pediatrics The American Institute of Architects The Bishop’s School The Capital Group Companies, Inc. (2) The First Church of Christ, Scientist The Heritage Escrow Company The Menninger Clinic The Merrick Printing Company, Inc. The Morton Arboretum The Roomplace The Toledo Blade The Westminster Schools The World Bank Thomson Reuters (3) Tiffany & Company Town of Apex Transwestern Travis Commercial Real Estate Services, Ltd. Travis Credit Union Trex Company, Inc. Tyco Electronics Tyco International U. S. Bank, NA U. S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs U.S. General Services Administration (813) U. W. Medical Foundation Umpqua Bank Unilever North American Ice Cream United Network for Organ Sharing United PanAm Financial Corporation United Retail Logistics Operations University of Alberta University of Cincinnati University of Manitoba University of Maryland Baltimore University of Nebraska Foundation University of Texas at San Antonio URS Corporation USA Federal Credit Union UT-Battelle-Oak Ridge National Lab Valeo Technical Center Van Andel Institute Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. VIP Energy Services, Inc. Virginia Credit Union, Inc. Vision Service Plan VNA of Boston VT State Employees Credit Union Wake County Wake County Public School System Walmart.com Washington County Government Washington State Department of Health Public Health Laboratories Washington State Department of Transportation Websense, Inc. Wells Fargo Bank WesCorp Wesley Rehabilitation Hospital Wesleyan University Westar Energy Westwood Plateau Golf & Country Club Wonderware/Invensys Workers’ Compensation Board - Alberta WorkflowOne Workscape, Inc. Wycliffe Bible Translators Xcel Energy Xilinx, Inc. Young Life YRC Worldwide, Inc. Participant List ifMa and ifMa fOundatiOn research publicatiOns : Distributed Work, Research Report #31 Benchmarks V Annual Facility Costs, Research Report #30 Profiles 2007 Salary Report, Research Report #29 Space and Project Management Benchmarks, Research Report #28 An Inside Look at FM Outsourcing, Research Report #27 European Benchmarks, Research Report # 22 Views from the Top, Executives Evaluate the Facility Management Function, Research Report #17 Facilities Management Outsourcing: An Overview of the Industry and its Largest Companies The Business of Green Cleaning (IFMA Foundation Report) FM Technology Update (IFMA Foundation Report) Violence in the Workplace - The Role of the Facility Manager (IFMA Foundation Report) Pandemic Preparedness Manual (IFMA Foundation Report) Designing the Facility Management Organization (IFMA Foundation Report) Wireless Systems in the Facility (IFMA Foundation Report) LEED-EB Deliver the Green (IFMA Foundation Report) Standardized Facility Management Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire MeasureMent standards : Standard Practice for Building Floor Area Measurements for Facility Management (ASTM E 1836-08) Standard Practices for Measuring and Calculating Building Loss Features That Take Up Floor Area in Buildings (ASTM E 2619-08) A Unified Approach for Measuring Office Space, For Use in Facility and Property Management (IFMA/BOMA) Visit www.ifma.org to view findings from other iFma and iFma Foundation studies. © 200 ifMa all rights reserved. isbn 1-883176-7-4 Copyright and photocopying: Because this report is copyrighted, one must obtain permission to copy from the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Mass. 01923. CCC’s phone number is +1-978-750-8400; www.copyright.com. There is a nominal charge payable to CCC to photocopy any page herein for personal or internal reference use. Unauthorized duplication or use of the information and/or contents herein without express written authorization of IFMA is strictly prohibited. an inFormation leader For tHe Fm proFession… In order to keep the profession informed of new developments in the industry, ongoing research is essential. IFMA conducts a variety of research programs year-round that serve to strengthen the knowledge and skills of FM professionals, while also advancing the profession itself. From industry surveys to forecasting to best practices forums, IFMA’s research department draws on the practices and opinions of FM professionals and educators, covering topics vital to the day-to-day operations of facility professionals and the built environment in general. additiOnal infOr MatiOn Please contact IFMA headquarters for: for more information, contact ifMa at 1-713-623-4362. Under no circumstances may an IFMA research publication or service by used or requested for any purpose of commercial or business solicitation. IFMA reserves all rights to publish information including data supplied to members through its information services and strictly prohibits the use for any form of commercial or self-promotion. Forming benchmarking consortiums Information from existing IFMA reference sources Custom research studies • • • Additional copies of IFMA research publications Facility management books and publications Permission for material reproduction, quotation or use • • • ®®International Facility Management Association Professional Credentialing Public and private employers and government agencies rely on professional credentialing programs to ensure the knowledge and abilities of practicing facility managers. IFMA is the recognized leader in facility management education and professional credentialing. IFMA’s Certified Facility Manager® (CFM®) credential sets the industry standard for ensuring the knowledge and abilities of practicing facility man- agers. The CFM was the first in facility management and remains the only global certification for the profession. Benefits: The competency-based CFM Program articulates the level of skill and talent required for the profession. Certified Facility Managers are recognized industry-wide for their proven abilities and demon- strated commitment to achieving excellence in the profession. Process: Step 1: Assess your readiness. Review the nine core competency areas on the IFMA Web site and estimate your level of knowledge. You may opt for additional training. Step 2: Submit your application. Step 3: Schedule and pass the exam. Candidates must take the exam within three months of acceptance. Step 4: You’re certified! CFM Candidate Assistance: Take the online CFM self-assessment test. Fill knowledge gaps with online and on-site competency courses. Take the CFM Exam Review course offered throughout the year. Participate in study groups and mentoring programs through your IFMA chapter or council. The knowledge-based Facility Management Professional (FMP) credential will prepare you for the unique challenges of the profession, focusing on competencies essential to an FM’s daily responsibilities. Benefits: Acquire career-building knowledge and skills, and set yourself apart by demonstrating your commitment to furthering your FM knowledge. The FMP is also an ideal catalyst to early candidacy for the CFM credential. Process: Step 1: Complete the four required IFMA courses, taken in any order. Step 2:Submit your application. Step 3:You’re an FMP! FMP Candidate Assistance: Take FMP required courses at annual IFMA educational events. Complete FMP program requirements with IFMA Online Courses. Complete coursework through IFMA’s Accredited Degree Programs. www.ifmafoundation.org/scholarships/degree.cfm All four courses are offered throughout the year in Houston, Texas. Increase your value and credibility as a skilled practitioner by pursuing one of IFMA’s two highly respected credentials. For more information, visit www.ifma.org/learning, e-mail education@ifma.org or call +1-713-623-4362. BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS CITY OF COPPELL • PURCHASING DEPARTMENT • 255 PARKWAY BOULEVARD • COPPELL, TEXAS 75019 Page 1 CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS STANDARD FORM PURCHASE CONTRACT BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard P.O. Box 478 Coppell, Texas 75019 This Agreement is made by and between the City of Coppell, Texas, a home-rule municipality (hereinafter referred to as the "Buyer") and the hereinafter named Seller, referred to as the "Seller," for the sale of the goods, materials and items specified hereinafter, and the Buyer and Seller hereby agree as follows: Seller: _Premium Maintenance Inc. ___ [Name] _900 Jackson Street, Suite B-175 ________________ [Address] _Dallas, TX 75202_______________________________ [City, State, Zip] _(214) 826-8244_________________________________ [Telephone] DESCRIPTION OF GOODS This Contract is for the purchase by the City of Coppell, Texas, of the goods, materials and items described hereinafter as the “Goods” or the subject of this Contract, and such parts, attachments, accessories, devices, and apparatus as may be considered an integral part of the Goods or necessary for the proper use or application of the Goods, whether or not specified herein. The Goods are more specifically described as follows: Description ___Cleaning and related services of Municipal buildings _____________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS [CHECK ONE:] This Contract is a “fixed price - fixed quantity” Contract for the purchase of the specified quantity at the specified price. The full quantity of the Goods shall be delivered to and received at the designated point or points of delivery no later than the date specified hereinbelow. This date is a material term and condition of this Contract and, in connection with the delivery date, time is and shall be of the essence. _______________________________ [Insert Date of Delivery] OR X This Contract is for a specific duration wherein the Seller will supply, furnish and deliver at the designated point or points of delivery the specified Goods in the quantities requested by Buyer at the time of Buyer’s order. The delivery date(s) shall be set forth in Buyer’s order. This Contract is not intended to be and shall not be construed as an exclusive requirements contract. This Contract is non-exclusive and Buyer may acquire any or all of its requirements for the specified Goods from Seller or any other source deemed appropriate by Buyer. Upon the conclusion of the duration of this Contract, Buyer may renew this agreement for an additional period or periods equivalent to the primary duration upon sending written notice of intent thereof within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the last day of the term of this Contract. The failure to send the foregoing notice shall convert this agreement into a “fixed price - fixed quantity” contract as described above. DURATION: From _June 1, 2016______________ to ___May 31, 2017____________________. PAYMENT TERMS The purchase price of the Goods shall be that contained in the Seller’s bid and specifically accepted in writing by Buyer. Seller shall submit separate invoices, in duplicate, on each purchase order after each delivery. Invoices shall indicate the purchase order number, and shall be itemized. A copy of the bill of lading should be attached to the invoice. Mail to City of Coppell, Purchasing Department, 255 Parkway Boulevard, P.O. Box 478, Coppell, Texas 75019. Payment shall not be due until the above instruments are submitted, until the Goods have been received by Buyer, and until Buyer has had sufficient opportunity to inspect and exercise its right to accept or reject. Seller shall keep the purchasing department advised of any changes in their remittance addresses. In no event shall Buyer be responsible for interest of any kind on any funds due to Seller, and no term or provision contained in any Seller’s invoice shall in any way modify, vary or alter the provisions hereof. BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS Buyer’s obligation is payable solely from funds available for the purpose of the purchase. Lack of funds shall render this contract null and void and to the extent funds are not available, any delivered but unpaid for goods will be returned to Seller by Buyer. Do not include federal excise tax, state or city sales tax. The City shall furnish a tax exempt certificate if required. BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Contract is made and entered into between the parties hereto in accordance with and subject to the following additional terms and conditions: 1. SELLER TO PACKAGE GOODS: Seller will package Goods in accordance with good commercial practice. Each shipping container shall be clearly marked and permanently packed as follows: (a) Seller’s name and address; (b) Consignee’s name, address, and purchase order or purchase release number and the supply agreement number if applicable; (c) Container number and total number of containers, e.g. box 1 of 4 boxes; and (d) the number of the container bearing the package slip. Seller shall bear cost of packing unless otherwise provided. Goods shall be suitably packed to secure lowest transportation costs and to conform with requirements of common carriers and any applicable specifications. Buyer’s count or weight shall be final and conclusive on shipment not accompanied by packing lists. 2. SHIPMENT UNDER RESERVATION PROHIBITED: Seller is not authorized to ship the Goods under reservation and no tender of a bill of lading will operate as a tender of goods. 3. TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS: The title and risk of loss of the Goods shall not pass to the Buyer until the Buyer actually receives and takes possession of the Goods at the point or points of delivery. 4. DELIVERY TERMS AND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: F.O.B. Destination Freight Prepaid unless delivery terms are specified otherwise in the bid; Seller shall pay for the transportation costs. 5. NO PLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE TENDER: Every tender or delivery of Goods must fully comply with all provisions of this contract as to time of delivery, quality and the like. If a tender is made which does not fully conform, this shall constitute a breach and Seller shall not have the right to substitute a conforming tender, provided, where the time for performance has not yet expired, the Seller may seasonable notify Buyer of his intention to cure and may then make a conforming tender within the contract time but not afterward. 6. PLACE OF DELIVERY: The place of delivery shall be that set forth on the purchase order or in any other written designation by Buyer. The terms of this agreement are “no arrival, no sale.” 7. RIGHT OF INSPECTION: Buyer shall have the right to inspect the goods at delivery before accepting them. 8. REJECTION OF GOODS: It is agreed that if Buyer rejects any of the goods sold pursuant to this agreement, Buyer’s only duty shall be to seasonably notify Seller of the rejection and hold the goods for the disposition of Seller, and it is agreed that under no circumstances shall Buyer be required to resell the rejected goods or incur the cost to deliver same to Seller. 9. GRATUITIES: The Buyer may, by written notice to the Seller, cancel this contract without liability to the Seller if it be determined by the Buyer that gratuities, in the form of entertainment, gifts, or otherwise were offered or given by the Seller, or any agent or representative of the Seller, to any officer or employee of City of Coppell with view toward securing the contract or securing favorable treatment with respect to awarding or amending, or the making of any determination with BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS respect to the performing of such a Contract. In the event this Contract is canceled by Buyer pursuant to this provision, Buyer shall be entitled in addition to any other rights and remedies, to recover and withhold the amount of the cost incurred by the Seller in providing such gratuities. 10. SPECIAL TOOLS AND TEST EQUIPMENT: If the price stated on the face hereof includes the cost of any special tooling or any special test equipment fabricated or required by Seller for the purpose of filling this order, such special tooling equipment and any process sheets related thereto shall become the property of the Buyer and to the extent feasible shall be identified by the Seller as such. 11. WARRANTY - PRICE: a. The price to be paid by the Buyer shall be that contained in the Seller’s bid which Seller warrants to be no higher than Seller’s current prices on orders for products of the kind and specification covered by the agreement for similar quantities under similar or like conditions and methods of purchase. In the event Seller breaches this warranty, the prices of the items shall be reduced to the Seller’s current prices on orders by others, or in the alternative, Buyer may cancel this contract without liability for breach or Seller’s actual expense. b. The Seller warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee excepting bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Seller for the purpose of securing business. For breach of violation of this warranty, the Buyer shall have the right in addition to any other right or rights to cancel this contract without liability and to deduct from the contract price, or otherwise recover the full amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee. 12. WARRANTY - PRODUCTS: Seller shall not limit or exclude any implied warranties and any attempt to do so shall render this contract voidable at the option of the Buyer. No such attempts to limit, disclaim or exclude any warranties, whether of fitness, merchantability or otherwise, by Seller shall be binding or effective. Seller warranties that the Goods furnished will conform to the specifications, drawings, and descriptions listed in the bid invitation and to the sample(s) furnished by Seller, if any. In the event of a conflict between the specifications, drawings, and descriptions, the specifications shall govern. 13. SAFETY WARRANTY: Seller warrants the product sold to the Buyer shall conform to the standards promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. In the event that the products do not conform to OSHA standards, Buyer may return the product for correction or replacement at the Seller’s expense. In the event that Seller fails to make the appropriate correction within a reasonable time, any correction made by Buyer will be at Seller’s expense. 14. NO WARRANTY BY BUYER AGAINST INFRINGEMENTS: As part of this contract for sale, Seller agrees to ascertain whether goods manufactured in accordance with the specifications attached to this agreement will give rise to the rightful claim of any third person by way of infringement or the like. Buyer makes no warranty that the production of goods according to the specifications will not give rise such claim, and in no event shall Buyer be liable to Seller in the event that Seller is sued on the grounds of infringement or the like. If Seller is of the opinion that BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS an infringement or the like will result, he will notify Buyer to this effect in writing or the like, within two weeks after the signing of this agreement. If Buyer does not receive notice and a claim is asserted or Buyer is subsequently held liable for the infringement or the like, Seller will indemnify, defend and save Buyer harmless. If Seller in good faith ascertains that production of the goods in accordance with the specifications will result in infringement or the like, this contract shall be null and void except that Buyer will pay Seller the reasonable cost of his search as to infringements. 15. CANCELLATION: Buyer shall have the right to cancel for default on all or any part of the undelivered portion of this order if Seller breaches any of the terms hereof including warranties of Seller or if the Seller becomes insolvent or commits acts of bankruptcy. Such right of cancellation is in addition to and not in lieu of any remedies which Buyer may have at law or equity. The Buyer may for any reason whatsoever terminate performance under this Contract by the Seller for convenience at any time. The Buyer shall give notice of such termination to the Seller specifying when termination becomes effective. Goods received but unopened or unused shall be made available to Seller for delivery. Buyer will, in the event of termination, remit such sums to Seller as may be due only for those Goods retained by Buyer. 16. FORCE MAJEURE: If by reason of Force Majeure, either party hereto shall be rendered unable wholly or in part to carry out its obligation under the Agreement, then such party shall give notice and full particulars of Force Majeure in writing to the other party within a reasonable time after the occurrence of the event or cause relied upon, and the obligation of the party giving such notice, so far as is effected by such Force Majeure, shall be suspended during the continuance of the inability then claimed, except as hereafter provided, but for no longer periods and such party shall endeavor to remove or overcome such inability with all reasonable dispatch. The term “Force Majeure” as employed herein, shall mean acts of God, strikes, lockouts, or other industrial disturbance, act of public enemy, orders of any kind of government of the United States or State of Texas or any civil or military authority, insurrections, riots, epidemics, landslides, lightning, earthquakes, fires, hurricanes, storms, floods, washouts, droughts, arrests, restraints of government and people, civil disturbances, explosions, breakage or accidents to machinery, pipelines, or canals, or other causes not reasonably within control of the party claiming such inability. It is understood and agreed that the settlement of strikes and lockouts shall be entirely within the discretion of the party having the difficulty, and that the above requirements that any Force Majeure shall be remedied with all reasonable dispatch shall not require the settlements of strikes and lockouts by exceeding to the demands of the opposing party or parties when such settlement is unfavorable in the judgment of the party having the difficulty. 17. ASSIGNMENT - DELEGATION: No right or interest in this contract shall be assigned or delegation of any obligation made by Seller without the written permission of the Buyer. An attempted assignment or delegation of Seller shall be wholly void and totally ineffective for all purposes unless made in conformity with this paragraph. 18. MODIFICATIONS: This contract can be modified or rescinded only in writing signed by both parties or their duly authorized agents. BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS 19. WAIVER: No claim or right arising out of a breach in contract can be discharged in whole or in part by a waiver or renunciation of the claim or right unless the waiver or renunciation is supported by consideration and is in writing signed by the aggrieved party. 20. INTERPRETATION - PAROLE EVIDENCE: This writing is intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and is intended also as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of their agreement. No course of prior dealings between the parties and no usage of the trade shall be relevant to supplement or explain any term used in this agreement. Acceptance or acquiescence in a course of performance rendered under this agreement shall not be relevant to determine the meaning of this agreement even though the accepting or acquiescing party has knowledge of the performance and opportunity for objection. Whenever a term defined by the Uniform Commercial Code is used in this agreement, the definition contained in the Code is to control. 21. APPLICABLE LAW: This agreement shall be governed by the Uniform Commercial Code. Wherever the term “Uniform Commercial Code” is used, it shall be construed as meaning the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in the State of Texas as effective and in force on the date of this agreement. 22. ADVERTISING: Seller shall not advertise or publish, without Buyer’s prior written consent, the fact that Buyer has entered into this contract, except to the extent necessary to comply with prior requests for information from an authorized representative of federal, state or local government. 23. RIGHT TO ASSURANCE: Whenever one party to this contract in good faith has reason to question the other party’s intent to perform he may demand that the other party give written assurance of his intent to perform. In the event that a demand is made and no assurance is given within five (5) days, the demanding party may treat this failure as an anticipatory repudiation of the contract. 24. PROHIBITION AGAINST PERSONAL INTEREST IN CONTRACTS: No officer or employee shall have a financial interest, direct or indirect, in any contract with the City, or be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale to the City of any land, materials, supplies, or services, except on behalf of the City as an officer or employee. Any knowing and willful violation of this section shall constitute malfeasance in office, and any officer or employee guilty thereof shall forfeit his office or position. Any violation of this section with the knowledge, express or implied, of the person or corporation contracting with the governing body of the City shall render the contract involved voidable by the City Manager or the City Council. 25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Contract, and all Specifications and Addenda attached thereto, constitute the entire and exclusive agreement between the Buyer and Seller with reference to the Goods. Specifically, but without limitation, this Contract supersedes any bid documents and all prior written or oral communications, representations and negotiations, if any, between the Buyer and Seller not expressly made a part hereof. 26. INDEMNITY AND DISCLAIMER: BUYER SHALL NOT BE LIABLE OR RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND SHALL BE INDEMNIFIED, HELD HARMLESS AND RELEASED BY SELLER FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL SUITS, ACTIONS, LOSSES, DAMAGES, CLAIMS, OR LIABILITY OF ANY CHARACTER, TYPE, OR DESCRIPTION, INCLUDING ALL EXPENSES OF LITIGATION, COURT COSTS, AND ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR INJURY OR BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS DEATH TO ANY PERSON, OR INJURY OR LOSS TO ANY PROPERTY, RECEIVED OR SUSTAINED BY ANY PERSON OR PERSONS, INCLUDING THE SELLER, OR PROPERTY, ARISING OUT OF, OR OCCASIONED BY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, THE PERFORMANCE OF SELLER UNDER THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING CLAIMS AND DAMAGES ARISING IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM THE NEGLIGENCE OF BUYER, WITHOUT, HOWEVER, WAIVING ANY GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY AVAILABLE TO THE BUYER UNDER TEXAS LAW AND WITHOUT WAIVING ANY DEFENSES OF THE PARTIES UNDER TEXAS LAW. 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 CONTRACT IS AN INDEMNITY EXTENDED BY SELLER TO INDEMNIFY AND PROTECT BUYER FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE SELLER’S AS WELL AS THE BUYER’S NEGLIGENCE, WHETHER SUCH NEGLIGENCE IS THE SOLE OR PARTIAL CAUSE OF ANY SUCH INJURY, DEATH, OR DAMAGE. 27. GOVERNING LAW: The Contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Texas. Venue for any causes of action arising under the terms or provisions of this Contract or the Goods to be delivered hereunder shall be in the courts of Dallas County, Texas. 28. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The Buyer and Seller bind themselves, their successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto and to successors, assigns and legal representatives of such other party in respect to covenants, agreements and obligations contained in this Contract. The Seller shall not assign this Contract without written consent of the Buyer. 29. SEVERABILITY: The provisions of this Contract are herein declared to be severable; in the event that any term, provision or part hereof is determined to be invalid, void or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms, provisions and parts, and this Contract shall be read as if the invalid, void or unenforceable portion had not been included herein. 30. NOTICES: All notices required by this Contract shall be presumed received when deposited in the mail properly addressed to the other party at the address set forth herein or set forth in a written designation of change of address delivered to all parties. BID #Q-0316-04 CLEANING AND RELATED SERVICES OF MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS EXECUTED this _______ day of _______________________________, _________. SELLER: __________________________________________ (Signature) __________________________________________ (Type/Print Name and Title/Position) __________________________________________ (Address) __________________________________________ (City, State, Zip) _________________________________________ (City Manager) Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2749 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2749 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: Parks and Recreation 04/18/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: CORE Fitness EquipmentFile Name: Title: C.Consider award of a bid from Marathon Fitness, for the replacement of fitness equipment at the CORE, in the amount of $62,764.31, as budgeted, utilizing Buy Board Contract #413- 12; and authorizing the City Manager to sign the necessary documents. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: Memo.pdf, Proposal.pdfAttachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved on the Consent Agenda 04/26/2016City Council Mayor Hunt pulled Consent Agenda Item B to be considered separately. Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores asked for further explanation on Item C. Jonathan Winters, Fitness Center Supervisor, gave a brief explanation about the equipment being purchased. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Cliff Long, that Agenda Items A, C and D be approved on the Consent Agenda. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Text of Legislative File 2016-2749 Title Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2749) C.Consider award of a bid from Marathon Fitness, for the replacement of fitness equipment at the CORE, in the amount of $62,764.31, as budgeted, utilizing Buy Board Contract #413-12; and authorizing the City Manager to sign the necessary documents. Summary See attached memo. Fiscal Impact: Funds have been budgeted in the Parks and Recreation Division - The CORE, Other Equipment account. (01-12-32-5060) Staff Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Department Recommends approval. Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Community Wellness and Enrichment Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Brad Reid, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: April 26, 2016 Reference: Consider award of a bid from Marathon Fitness, for the replacement of fitness equipment at the CORE, in the amount of $62,764.31, as budgeted, utilizing Buy Board Contract #413-12; and authorizing the City Manager to sign the necessary documents. 2030: Sustainable City Government: Excellent City Services with High Level of Customer Satisfaction Community Wellness and Enrichment: Recreation Programs and Services for all Generations, Residents’ Wellness and Longevity Introduction: With facility-wide attendance over 230,000 each year, the fitness center at The CORE is heavily used by the residents of Coppell. Each year, staff plans and budgets for the replacement of fitness equipment on a rotating basis, so that the equipment provided is well-maintained and is in keeping with the latest technology. Analysis: Marathon Fitness is the recommended vendor due to their competitive pricing and excellent customer service. Some of the fitness equipment included in this year’s replacement includes: Six (6) Precor treadmills One (1) Precor AMT (Adaptive Motion Trainer) Three (3) Precor multi-adjustable benches Numerous free weights, weighted balls, and mats Legal Review: Agenda item did not require legal review. Fiscal Impact: 2 The fiscal impact of this agenda item is $62,764.31. Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Department recommends approval of this item. Marathon Fitness Bill To:Ship To: Sales Proposal Item Number Description Sales Price Extended Price Page Proposal Number Unit Retail QT0005610 6 TRM 885-2 $ 8,648.50$ 12,355.00 -5 TRADE - EQUIPMENT $ 600.00$ 600.00 -1 TRADE - EQUIPMENT $ 300.00$ 300.00 1 AMT 885-2 $ 8,396.50$ 11,995.00 -1 TRADE - EQUIPMENT $ 600.00$ 600.00 3 PWDBR0119 $ 897.00$ 1,150.00 1 SLAM05 $ 24.00$ 30.00 1 SLAM10 $ 36.00$ 45.00 1 SLAM15 $ 48.00$ 60.00 1 SLAM20 $ 60.00$ 75.00 1 E-100-WWB-10 $ 55.99$ 69.99 1 E-100-WWB-14 $ 63.99$ 79.99 1 E-100-WWB-20 $ 79.99$ 99.99 5 07-70537 $ 37.81$ 47.26 1 07-71018 $ 20.00$ 25.00 2 07-70681 $ 34.98$ 34.98 2 07-70682 $ 39.98$ 39.98 2 07-70683 $ 44.98$ 44.98 2 MISC $ 53.98$ 53.98 1 MISC $ 65.98$ 65.98 1 MISC $ 79.98$ 79.98 Qty. $ 51,891.00Precor 885 Treadmill - P82 Console w/15" Touchscreen/TV/iPodConnectivity (120V) $ -3,000.00Trade-In 5 x working TRM885 from 2011 $ -300.00Trade-In 1 x non working TRM885 from 2011 $ 8,396.50Precor 885 AMT with Open Stride - P82 Console w/15" Touchscreen/TV (120V) $ -600.00Cybex Arc Trainer $ 2,691.00Precor Multi-Adjustable Bench $ 24.00(11 lb) 5 kg Escape Slam Ball $ 36.00(22 lb) 10 kg Escape Slam Ball $ 48.00(33 lb) 15 kg Escape Slam Ball $ 60.00(44 lb) 20 kg Escape Slam Ball $ 55.99Commercial Wall Ball - 10lb $ 63.99Commercial Wall Ball - 14lb $ 79.99Commercial Wall Ball - 20lb $ 189.04Premium Hanging Mat - 56" x 23" x 5/8" $ 20.00SPRI Wall Mounted Mat Rack (Holds 70537/ 70612 Mat) $ 69.966 lb body bar $ 79.969 lb body bar $ 89.9612 lb body bar $ 107.9607-70684 15lb body bar $ 65.9807-70685 18lb body bar $ 79.9807-70686 24lb body bar Quotation continued on next page ... Tel:(800) 391-9496 Fax:(888) 240-9360 P.O. Box 17705 www.MarathonFitness.com Sugar Land, TX 77496 City of Coppell Attn: Jonathan Winters 234 E. Pkwy Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 Coppell CORE attn: Jonathan Winters 234 Parkway Blvd Coppell, TX 75019 David Novit Salesperson Date Mar 29, 2016 Net 305/28/2016 Proposal Valid Until Terms Page 1 of 2 Marathon Fitness Bill To:Ship To: Sales Proposal Item Number Description Sales Price Extended Price Page Proposal Number Unit Retail $ 62,764.31 $ 0.00 QT0005610 2 EBOX-TG8G $ 40.00$ 50.00 2 EBOX-TG10R $ 40.00$ 50.00 2 EBOX-TG12B $ 40.00$ 50.00 1 FREIGHT $ 1,300.00$ 1,300.00 1 EQUIP INSTALL $ 1,075.00$ 1,075.00 BUY BOARD $ 62,764.31 Qty. $ 80.00Escape PU Training Glove 8oz (GREEN) $ 80.00Escape PU Training Glove 10oz (RED) $ 80.00Escape PU Training Glove 12oz (BLACK) $ 1,300.00Freight $ 1,075.00Equipment Installation BUY BOARD INFORMATION Vendor: Team Marathon Fitness, Address: PO Box 17705, Sugar Land, TX 77496 Phone: (281) 565-2307, Contact: Paul Croegaert, Email: paul@marathonfitness.com Federal ID: 68- 05446644, Contract: Athletic, PE & Gym. Supplies H.D. Exercise Eq. & Accessories #413-12, Effective Date: 4/1/2013 Total Subtotal Sales Tax 0.00% I accept the terms and conditions of this proposal. Prices are valid for 30 days. Equipment remains the property of Marathon Fitness until paid in full. Signature: _______________________________ PO# ________________ Printed Name: _________________________ Title: __________________ DELIVERY INSTRUCTIONS: Must arrive by ___ / ___ / _______ Loading Dock: Yes ____ No ____ Elevator: Yes ____ No ____ Frame: _______________ Upholstery: ______________ Tel:(800) 391-9496 Fax:(888) 240-9360 P.O. Box 17705 www.MarathonFitness.com Sugar Land, TX 77496 City of Coppell Attn: Jonathan Winters 234 E. Pkwy Blvd. Coppell, TX 75019 Coppell CORE attn: Jonathan Winters 234 Parkway Blvd Coppell, TX 75019 David Novit Salesperson Date Mar 29, 2016 Net 305/28/2016 Proposal Valid Until Terms Page 2 of 2 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2758 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2758 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/20/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Hafer resignation from CRDCFile Name: Title: D.Consider approval of accepting the resignation of Stephen Hafer from the Coppell Recreation Development Corporation (CRDC). Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: Memo CRDC Member Resignation.pdf, Stephen Hafer Resignation.pdf Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved on the Consent Agenda 04/26/2016City Council Mayor Hunt pulled Consent Agenda Item B to be considered separately. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Cliff Long, that Agenda Items A, C and D be approved on the Consent Agenda. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Text of Legislative File 2016-2758 Title D.Consider approval of accepting the resignation of Stephen Hafer from the Coppell Recreation Development Corporation (CRDC). Summary Fiscal Impact: Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2758) [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Mike Land, Deputy City Manager Date: April 26, 2016 Reference: Resignation of Stephen Hafer from the Coppell Recreation Development Corporation (CRDC) Board 2030: Sense of Community Introduction: Please find attached Stephen Hafer’s official notice of resignation from CRDC. 1 Amy Swaim From:Stephen Hafer <shafer@huckabee-inc.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 30, 2016 10:58 AM To:Amy Swaim Subject:CRDC Resignation Attention: City of Coppell Recreation Development Corporation City Manager Clay Phillips Dear fellow Board Members and Mr. Phillips: Please consider this notification that I will be resigning as a Board Member for the Coppell Recreation Development Corporation effective immediately. After being a resident of Coppell for 23 years, we will be relocating. I have enjoyed my many years as a resident of Coppell and my time serving with all of you on this Board and working with the staff of the City of Coppell. I hope that through my service to the City over the years that I have left the City in a better place for its residents. I wish you all the best and good luck with all your future endeavors. Respectfully Steve Hafer Stephen Hafer, AIA, LEED AP shafer@huckabee-inc.com www.huckabee-inc.com 800.687.1229 Committed to the success of all students and the profound impact it has on all of us Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2759 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2759 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/21/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Code of Ordinances Amendment - 419.1.1File Name: Title: Consider approval of an amendment to an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15, Article 15-1, “Building Code,” Section 15-1-2, “Amendments” to add a new Subsection 15A to provide an amendment to Section 419 Live/Work Units, Subsection 419.1.1 Limitations; providing an effective date; and authorizing the Mayor to sign any necessary documents. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: 8. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Memo - Amendment to Code Book.pdf, Attachment - Ordinance - Code Book Amendment - Item #8.pdf Attachments: Enactment Number: OR 2016-1434 Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved04/26/2016City Council Presentation: Gary Sieb, Director of Planning, made a presentation to Council. A motion was made by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Wes Mays, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Reconsideration of Agenda Item 8: City Manager Clay Phillips read the revised changes to the amended ordinance into the record. Mayor Pro Tem Gary Roden moved to approve the revision to the amended language. Councilmember Mark Hill seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Text of Legislative File 2016-2759 Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2759) Title Consider approval of an amendment to an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15, Article 15-1, “Building Code,” Section 15-1-2, “Amendments” to add a new Subsection 15A to provide an amendment to Section 419 Live/Work Units, Subsection 419.1.1 Limitations; providing an effective date; and authorizing the Mayor to sign any necessary documents. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: Approval recommended. Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 THE •C:ITY •OF MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Gary L. Sieb, Director of Planning Date: April26, 2016 Reference: Consider approval of an amendment to an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 15 of the Building Code, Section 419.1.1; providing an effective date ; and authorizing the Mayor to sign any necessary documents 2030: Business Prosperity Introduction: On the Agenda of Tuesday, April 26 is an item that recommends an amendment to the Building Code that clarifies elements of building requirements related to work/live building structures. Analysis: In November of 2015, Council passed an ordinance to allow three work/live building structures on a parcel of land located at the southeast corner of S. Coppell Road and Heath Lane. In addition to conditions requiring on-site sprinkler systems, no parking along Heath Lane and the typical landscaping, maintenance and site plan approvals, was a condition that " ... the ftrst floor shall be occupied for non-residential use ... " We now have a request for a second work/live project just north of the approved development and a question has been raised regarding where on the first floor and how large the "work" element should be . To clarify staff position on this question , we submit an amendment to the Building Code that leaves no question regarding true work/live uses . Specifically, the recommended amendment will state the work area shall be not more than 50% of the work/live area specified, and in no case, less than 50% of the floor on which the work area is located . For example, if the work/live unit is a two-story 2000 square foot building, the first part of this amendment would limit total work/live area to 1000 feet (50% ofthe unit square footage of2000 feet); the second part ofthis amendment would require the work area to be 500 square feet (50% of the floor area of 1000 square feet) on the floor the work activity is conducted. By approving this Building Code amendment, questions involving definition of what a work/live structure is will be clearly addressed. Legal Review: The City Attorney reviewed this Ordinance Fiscal Impact: None Recommendation: The Planning Department recommends approval. Attachments: Ordinance AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. __ _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 15, "OTHER CODES ADOPTED", ARTICLE 15-1, "BUILDING CODE", SECTION 15-1-2, "AMENDMENTS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION 15 A TO PROVIDE AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 419 LIVE/WORK UNITS, SUBSECTION 419.1.1 LIMITATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, 2012 EDITION TO PROVIDE AN AMENDMENT TO SUBSECTION (2) WHICH WOULD REQUIRE EACH FLOOR TO HAVE A 50 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL USE FOR SUCH LIVE/WORK UNIT; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Coppell has previously adopted certain amendments to the International Building Code 2012 Edition based upon the unique needs for the construction of buildings within the City of Coppell; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the construction of live /work units needs clarification concerning percentage of live to work elements on each lived of a multi-story unit; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that such buildings are built in a manner which protects the well-being of the occupants of such a building , as well as the surrounding community . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Article 15 , Other codes Adopted , Article 15-1 Building Code , Section 15-1-2 of the Code of Ordinances be , and the same is hereby, to add to Section 419 , Live/work Units , subsection 419.1.1 Limitations , of the International Building Code , 2012 Edition, to hereby read as follows: TM 76543 "CHAPTER 15 ARTICLE 15-1. BUILDING CODE Sec. 15-1-1. Building code -adopted. "Sec. 15-1-2-Amendments. The following sections of the International Building Code 2012 Edition, are hereby amended to read as follows: 15. Amend Section 406. 8, by adding a paragraph that reads as follows: 15A. Amend Section 419.1.1, Limitations, by amending subsection (2) to Section 419 by adding: (2) The nonresidential area is permitted to be not more than 50 percent of the area of each live/work unit and shall in no case be less than 50 percent of the area of the floor on which it is located. 16. Amend Section 506.2.2 by adding a sentence to read as follows .... " SECTION 2. That all provisions ofthe Code of Ordinances ofthe City of Coppell, Texas, in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and all other provisions not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That should any word, phrase, paragraph, section or phrase of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, be held to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole, or any part or provision thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, and shall not affect the validity of the Code of Ordinances as a whole. 2 TM 76543 SECTION 4 . An offense committed before the effective date of this ordinance is governed by prior law and the provisions of the Code of Ordinances, as amended, in effect when the offense was committed and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. SECTION 5. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances , as amended hereby, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction in the Municipal Court of the City of Coppell , Texas , shall be subjected to a fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2 ,000.00) for each offense; and each and every day such violation is continued shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the· law and charter in such cases provide. DULY PAS SED by the City Council of the City of Coppell , Texas, this the ___ day of -------' 2016. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT E. HAGER, CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED : KAREN SELBO HUNT, MAYOR ATTEST: CHRISTEL PETTINOS , CITY SECRETARY 3 TM 76543 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2748 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2748 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: Engineering 04/18/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Building Code ORD AmendmentFile Name: Title: Consider approval of an amendment to an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, Article 15-1, “Building Code”, Section 15-1-2 “Amendments”, to amend Section 503, Table 503, to require resistive building material for certain classified buildings; providing an effective date; and authorizing the Mayor to sign any necessary documents. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: 9. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Building Code Memo.pdf, Attachment - Ordinance - Code Book Amendment - Item #9.pdf, Sections 602 & 603.pdf, Table 503.pdf, R Group Definition.pdf, Type A & B Units Definition.pdf Attachments: Enactment Number: OR 2016-1435 Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved04/26/2016City Council Presentation: Ken Griffin, Director of Engineering, made a presentation to Council. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Mark Hill, that this Agenda Item be approved subject to the following condition: 1) Delete footnote D as presented in the amended ordinance. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Text of Legislative File 2016-2748 Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2748) Title Consider approval of an amendment to an Ordinance of the City of Coppell, Texas, amending the Code of Ordinances Chapter 15, Article 15-1, “Building Code”, Section 15-1-2 “Amendments”, to amend Section 503, Table 503, to require resistive building material for certain classified buildings; providing an effective date; and authorizing the Mayor to sign any necessary documents. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: The Engineering Department recommends approval. Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Ken Griffin, P.E., Director of Engineering and Public Works Date: April 26, 2016 Reference: Consideration of Approval of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.1 of the Building Code by adding construction requirements for all Hotel/Motel construction regardless of height and/or area. 2030: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Sense of Community Special Place to Live General Information: Approval would require that all Hotel/Motel construction be Type I or II, as identified in Table 503 of the 2012 International Building Code Type I or II construction means that building elements are noncombustible Approval would require any Hotel/Motel more than 2 stories or more than 3000 square feet above the first floor be constructed with fire resistive construction Introduction: Recently the City of Coppell has approved the construction of two hotels. However, the construction requirements for the two hotels are different. The City of Coppell has adopted and enforces the 2012 International Building Code (IBC). The construction requirements differ depending on the number of stories or the square footage of a hotel. The intent of this proposed code amendment is to uniformly regulate hotel construction, regardless of height or size. Analysis: All hotel construction falls under residential group R-1 (transient) or R-2 (not transient) of the 2012 IBC (see attached Section 310). The first hotel approved was the Coppell Conference Center & Hotel Complex (Four Points). This hotel has six stories and a per story square footage ranging from 12,330 square feet on the sixth floor 2 to 14,765 square feet on the first floor. Because of the height and size, it was required to meet R-1 Type II B construction requirements (see attached Table 503). Type II construction means that the building elements are generally required to be of a noncombustible material (see attached Sections 602 and 603). The second approved hotel was the Fairfield Inn & Suites. This hotel has four stories and a per story square footage ranging from 13,773 square feet on the second through fourth floor to 15,044 square feet on the first floor. Because of the height and size, it was required to meet R-1 Type V-A construction requirements (see attached Table 503). Type V construction means that the structural elements, exterior and interior walls are of any material permitted by the code, i.e., the materials are not required to be noncombustible. In reviewing Hotel/Motel requirements of Grapevine, it was noted that the City had added additional footnotes to Table 503 which required all Hotels/Motels to be of a Type I or II construction, regardless of number of stories or square footage. Grapevine also added a footnote to Table 503 which requires that all Hotel/Motel construction over two stories or with over 3000 square feet above the first story shall have one-hour fire resistive construction throughout. To ensure the long term quality of our growing hotel stock, the City is recommending that we follow the lead of Grapevine and add footnotes to Table 503 which in essence will require all Hotel/Motel construction to be Type I or II and basically require one-hour fire resistive construction throughout. Legal Review: Legal review and ordinance provide on April 15, 2016. Fiscal Impact: n/a Recommendation: The Engineering Department recommends approval on an ordinance adding footnotes to Table 503 which will require all Hotel/Motel construction to be a Type I or II construction. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS ORDINANCE NO. __ _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 15, "OTHER CODES ADOPTED", ARTICLE 15-1, "BUILDING CODE", SECTION 15-1-2, "AMENDMENTS", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO PROVIDE AN AMENDMENT TO TABLE 503 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, APPLICABLE TO ALLOWABLE HEIGHT AND BUILDING AREAS, BY AMENDING THE CAPTION AND ADDING FOOTNOTE C AND FOOTNOTE D; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING A PENALTY OF FINE NOT TO EXCEED THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00) FOR EACH OFFENSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Coppell has previously adopted certain amendments to the International Building Code based upon the unique needs for the construction of buildings within the City of Coppell ; and WHEREAS, the City Council fmds that the construction of buildings greater than two- stories in height require pose unique safety risks ; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that such buildings are built in a manner which protects the well-being of the occupants of such a building, as well as the surrounding community . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS: SECTION 1. That Article 15 , Other Code Adopted, Article 15-1 Building Code, Section 15-1-2 ofthe Code of Ordinances be , and the same is hereby, amended to add to Table 503 ofthe 2012 International Building Code by amending the caption and adding footnote 'c' and footnote 'd ', to said Table, to read as follows: "Sec. 15-1-2 -Amendments. The following sections of the International Building Code, 2012 Edition, are hereb y amended to read as follows: 15A. Amend Section 419.1.1 by amending subsection (2) th ereof that reads as follows: TM 76480 15B. Table 503 , Allowable Height and Building Areas of the 2012 International Building Code, is hereby amended as follows: that the caption to TABLE 503 shall add footnotes c and d thereto. The footnote s shall hereby read as follows : "c. Group R-1 Hotel/Motel occupancies shall be ofType I or II construction regardless of height and/or area. d. Group R1 and R2 occupancies more than two stories in height or having more than 3,000 square feet above the first story shall be of not less than one-hour fire resistive construction throughout." 16. Amend Section 506.2.2 by adding a s entence to read as follows .... " SECTION 2. That all provisions of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Coppell, Texas , in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and all other provisions not in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. That should any word , phrase, paragraph, section or phrase of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances , as amended hereby, be held to be unconstitutional , illegal or invalid , the same shall not affect the validity of this ordinance as a whole , or any part or provision thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional , illegal or invalid, and shall not affect the validity of the Code of Ordinances as a whole. SECTION 4. An offense committed before the effective date of this ordinance is governed by prior law and the provisions of the Code of Ordinances, as amended , in effect when the offense was committed and the former law is continued in effect for this purpose. SECTION 5. That any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions or terms of this ordinance or of the Code of Ordinances, as amended hereby, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction in the Municipal Court of the City of Coppell , Texas , shall be subjected to a fine not to exceed the sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2 ,000.00) for each offense ; and each and every day such violation is continued shall be deemed to constitute a separate offense. 2 TM 76480 SECTION 6. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately from and after its passage and the publication of the caption, as the law and charter in such cases provide. DULY PASSED by the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas , this the ___ day of -------' 2016 . APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT E. HAGER, CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED: KAREN SELBO HUNT, MAYOR ATTEST: CHRISTEL PETTlNOS , CITY SECRETARY 3 TM 76480 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2755 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2755 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/20/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: Oncor Rate suspensionFile Name: Title: Consider approval of a Resolution directing Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC to file certain information with the City of Coppell setting a procedural schedule for gathering and reviewing necessary information in connection with: setting dates for the filing of the city ’s analysis; ratifying the hiring of legal counsel and consultants; reserving the right to require reimbursement of Coppell ’s rate case expenses; setting public hearing dates; and determining the reasonable rates to be charged by Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC; and authorizing the Mayor to sign. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: 10. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Memo - Oncor Rate Case.pdf, Attachment - Resolution - Oncor Rate Case.pdf Attachments: Enactment Number: RE 2016-0426.1 Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved04/26/2016City Council Presentation: Mario Canizares, Deputy City Manager, made a presentation to Council. A motion was made by Councilmember Marvin Franklin, seconded by Councilmember Nancy Yingling, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. At this time, Mayor Hunt said a reconsideration for Item 8 was presented. Mayor Pro Tem Gary Roden moved to reconsider Item 8. Councilmember Franklin seconded the motion. The motion for reconsideration passed unanimously. See Agenda Item 8 for the reconsideration motion. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2755) Text of Legislative File 2016-2755 Title Consider approval of a Resolution directing Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC to file certain information with the City of Coppell setting a procedural schedule for gathering and reviewing necessary information in connection with: setting dates for the filing of the city ’s analysis; ratifying the hiring of legal counsel and consultants; reserving the right to require reimbursement of Coppell ’s rate case expenses; setting public hearing dates; and determining the reasonable rates to be charged by Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC; and authorizing the Mayor to sign. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 THE·CITY •OF MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Mario Canizares , Deputy City Manager Date: April 26 , 2016 Reference: Consideration of a Resolution Regarding the Initiation of a Rate Case and Public Hearing of Oncor Electric Delivery by the City of Coppell 2030: Sustainable City Government, Business Prosperity, Special Place to Live Introduction: The City of Coppell along with approximately 150 other cities are members of the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Electric Delivery. The purpose of this coalition of cities is to advocate for electricity consumers' interests regarding electrical rate increases that On cor requests from time to time. The usual process is that Oncor will make a case to raise rates, the cities will deny the increase or suspend the implementation of the increase. By doing so it allows the cities to work with its legal counsel to review the rate increase request and determine if the increased rate is justifiable. We have found that working as a coalition the cities reduce duplicative efforts and speak as a single voice against the electric utility because the rates affect millions of Texas consumers. In 2007, TXU , a publicly traded company was taken over by several private investors and formed Energy Future Holdings (EFH) and the transmission company of electricity became Oncor Electric Delivery which is a regulated service. Between 2008 through 2014 EFH was responsible for more than $40 billion in debt in which they could not pay and were anticipating that natural gas prices to climb from their highs in 2007 but it never occurred. As a result, EFH could not make sufficient profits on the sale of electricity alone to meet its debt obligations. In April 2014 , EFH declared bankruptcy and in December 2015, the bankruptcy court ordered that EFH sell Oncor as part of its reorganization plan. The divesture of Oncor would be made to a consortium of investors led by Billionaire Ray Hunt and would divide the company into two parts: Oncor operations and the other a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT). This structure allows Mr. Hunt's group sole authority over operations and the REIT owners to capture all federal tax savings derived from the REIT structure . The main issue being considered by the PUC is how and who should benefit from the distribution of the tax savings from re-structured Oncor. In this case it's the consumer rate payers in Texas versus the private investors Analysis: In mid-January 2016 , the PUC held hearings to determine if the proposed REIT transaction are in the public's interest. Currently, Oncor is collecting between $200-250 million annually from ratepayers for presumed payments to the IRS and has collected approximately $500,000 ,000 to date. Also at the PUC hearing , a representative of the Cities Steering Committee made the case that the Federal tax savings of the REIT are in the public 's interest and ratepayers should therefore see rates reduced as part of the Oncor transaction. The PUC determined at the January hearing that the issue before them was not a pending rate case. If there were to be any rate relief within the municipal city boundaries then it would be the responsibility of the cities to file rate proceedings resolutions against Oncor to initiate the process for them to show cause for not lowering the rates of its electrical customers as a result of these recognized tax savings . As a result , the Steering Committee is recommending that their member cities follow this path. The proposed resolution being considered by the City Council initiates steps for the rate case process. The resolution requires the following steps to occur: • On cor shall file information with the City of Coppell on or before September 1, 2016 to show cause why it will not reduce its rates. The information filed shall be for the period of January 1-December 31 ,2015 • The City of Coppell shall conduct a public hearing at a regular City Council meeting between the dates of November 15-December 15 , 2016 to allow an Oncor representative to address the City Council and make the case and summarize the information provided in September. • It designates Geoffrey Gay , Counsel for the Steering Committee , to assist the city in any rate proceedings , appeals , and representations before the Public Utility Commission of Texas. • The resolution must be passed by April 31 , 2016 for Coppell to be included in the rate proceeding. It is staffs understanding that nearly all the member cities of the Steering Committee are requesting passage ofthe model resolution. Legal Review The City Attorney 's Office has reviewed the model resolution and concurs with is approval. Fiscal Impact There is no fiscal impact regarding this resolution. However there is a potential for monetary savings for Coppell residents and businesses once the full impact is determined and if approved by the PUC. Recommendation: They City Manager 's Office recommends approval of the model resolution . 2 RESOLUTION NO. _____ _ DIRECTING ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC TO FILE CERTAIN INFORMATION WITH THE CITY OF COPPELL; SETTING A PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE FOR THE GATHERING AND REVIEW OF NECESSARY INFORMATION IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; SETTING DATES FOR THE FILING OF THE CITY'S ANALYSIS OF THE COMPANY'S FILING AND THE COMPANY'S REBUTTAL TO SUCH ANALYSIS; RATIFYING THE HIRING OF LEGAL COUNSEL AND CONSULTANTS; RESERVING THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE CITY OF COPPELL'S RATE CASE EXPENSES; SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING IF THE EXISTING RATES OF ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY ARE UNREASONABLE OR IN ANY WAY IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF LAW AND THE DETERMINATION BY THE CITY OF COPPELL OF JUST AND REASONABLE RATES TO BE CHARGED BY ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY, LLC.; NOTING COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING NOTICE OF PASSAGE WHEREAS, the City of Coppell is a regulatory authority under the Public Utility Regulatory Act ("PURA") and has original jurisdiction over the rates of Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC ("Oncor") to determine if such rates are just and reasonable; and WHEREAS, Sections 33 .0 21, 36.003 and 36.151 of PURA empower a regulatory authority, on its own motion or on a complaint by any affected person, to determine whether the existing rates of any public utility for any service are unreasonable or in any way in violation of any provision of law, and upon such determination, to determine the just and reasonable rates; and WHEREAS, the City of Coppell has reason to believe that Oncor is over-earning and its rates are excessive; and WHEREAS , the City of Coppell is a member of the Steering Committee of Cities Served By Oncor ; and WHEREAS, the Executive Committee of the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor has recommended that cities pass a resolution that requires Oncor to show cause why its transmission and distribution rates should not be reduced; and WHEREAS , the City of Coppell , and the City Council of the City of Coppell desires , on its own motion, to exercise its authority under Sections 33.021 , 36.003 and 36.151 ofPURA; and WHEREAS , a procedural schedule should be established for the filing of certain information by Oncor, procedures to be followed to obtain and review information from Oncor, the filing of an analysis of such information by the City, the filing of rebuttal information from Oncor, and a public hearing at which time the City shall make a determination whether the existing rates of Oncor are unreasonable or are in any way in violation of any provision of law, and if such rates should be revised, and just and reasonable rates determined for Oncor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS: SECTION 1. This resolution constitutes notice of the City 's intent to proceed with an inquiry into the transmission and distribution rates charged by Oncor. On or before September 1, 2016 , On cor shall file with the City of Coppell information that demonstrates good cause for showing that Oncor's transmission and distribution rates should not be reduced. Specifically, On cor shall file with the City of Coppell information for the test year beginning January 1, 2015 and ending December 31, 2015, regarding Oncor's cost of service elements, including , but not limited to, the elements detailed by the Public Utility Commission as necessary for the filing of a Statement oflntent to Change Rates. The test year may be updated for more current data and shall be adjusted for known and measureable changes. SECTION 2. City 's designated representatives shall have the right to obtain additional information from Oncor through the filing of requests for information, which shall be responded to within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of such request for information. SECTION 3. City's designated representatives shall file their analysis of Oncor's filing and information on or before October 13 , 2016 . SECTION 4. Oncor shall file any rebuttal to the analysis of City 's representatives on or before November 10 , 2016 . With its rebuttal, Oncor may present whatever additional information it desires to defend its current rates . SECTION 5. A public hearing shall be conducted by the City Council for the City of Coppell during a regular council meeting scheduled between November 15 and December 15. At such hearing a representative of Oncor and a representative of the City of Coppell 's consultants will each be allowed to address the City Council and summarize previously filed reports for no more than 15 minutes . Based upon such hearing , a determination of the reasonableness of the existing rates of Oncor shall be made by the City Council and , if necessary, just and reasonable rates shall be determined to be thereafter observed and enforced for all services of Oncor within the City of Coppell, Texas. SECTION 6. The City Council may , from time to time , amend this procedural schedule and enter additional orders as may be necessary in the public interest and to enforce the provisions hereof. SECTION 7. Subject to the right to terminate employment at any time, the City of Coppell hereby ratifies the Steering Committee's selection of Geoffrey Gay with the law firm of Lloyd , Gosselink , Rochelle & Townsend as legal counsel to assist the City of Coppell in its ratemaking and to prosecute any appeals to the Texas Public Utility Commission or court. The Executive Committee of the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor shall retain appropriate consultants to prepare a report and make rate recommendations. 2 SECTION 8. Fees and expenses of attorneys and consultants assisting the City in the Steering Committee's review of the reasonableness ofOncor's rates will be processed through the Steering Committee but the City reserves . the right to seek reimbursement from Oncor pursuant to the PURA Section 33.023. SECTION 9. That it is hereby officially found and determined that the meeting at which this resolution was passed was open to the public as required by law, and that public notice of the time, place, and purpose of said meeting was given all as required by Section 551.041, Texas Government Code. SECTION 10. That a copy of this Resolution shall be sent to E. Allen Nye, Jr., Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary, Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC, 1616 Woodall Rodgers Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75202, and to Geoffrey Gay, General Counsel to the Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor, at Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C., P.O. Box 1725, Austin, Texas 78767-1725. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and approved on this the 261h day of April , 2016 , by the following vote: Ayes: Nays: Abstentions: At regular meeting of April26, 2016. Karen Selbo Hunt, Mayor ATTEST: Christel Pettinos, City Secretary APPROVED: Robert Hager, City Attorney 3 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2756 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2756 Agenda Item Passed 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/20/2016File Created: 04/26/2016Final Action: SPAN Resolution/ContractFile Name: Title: Consider approval of a Resolution to enter into an agreement between the City of Coppell and SPAN, Inc., for the provision of transit services for Senior Citizens and Citizens with Disabilities; and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Resolution and the City Manager to sign all contract documents. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: 11. Sponsors: Enactment Date: Transit Memo to Council.pdf, Exhibit A - SPAN MAP rev1.pdf, Exhibit B - Transportation Policy and Procedures.pdf, SPAN Resolution.pdf Attachments: Enactment Number: RE 2016-0426.2 Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 PassApproved04/26/2016City Council Presentation: Deputy City Manager Mario Canizares made a presentation to Council. Deb Robinson, Executive Director for SPAN, answered questions of Council. A motion was made by Councilmember Wes Mays, seconded by Councilmember Cliff Long, that this Agenda Item be approved. The motion passed by an unanimous vote. Action Text: Councilmember Cliff Long, Councilmember Brianna Hinojosa-Flores, Councilmember Wes Mays, Councilmember Gary Roden, Councilmember Marvin Franklin, Councilmember Mark Hill, and Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Yingling 7Aye: Text of Legislative File 2016-2756 Title Consider approval of a Resolution to enter into an agreement between the City of Coppell and SPAN, Inc., for the provision of transit services for Senior Citizens and Citizens with Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2756) Disabilities; and authorizing the Mayor to sign the Resolution and the City Manager to sign all contract documents. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 1 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Mario Canizares, Deputy City Manager Date: April 16, 2016 Reference: Consider Approval of a Resolution and Contract for Services between the City of Coppell and SPAN for Transit Services for Senior and Para Transit Residents 2030: Community Wellness & Enrichment, Sense of Community, and Special Place to Live Introduction: Starting in late 2013, city staff has been working on the issue of incorporating Senior and Para Transit into the community. Since Coppell is not served by DART or DCTA an option available for seniors and the disabled is to utilize Metrocrest Services. Metrocrest has been a vital part of our community for several years and have been able to accommodate transportation requests for Coppell. However, as transportation service demands continue to grow, Metrocrest will have challenges meeting them in the near future. The effort to explore alternatives is to avoid a large service gap to a growing need. To begin establishing a transit service there have been multiple meetings and conversations with Coppell citizens, staff from the NCTCOG, presentations at City Council work sessions, public input meetings, and a citizen survey. Based on all the input received from the various stakeholders within our community, a draft agreement between SPAN and the City was presented to the City Council for discussion and feedback at the April 12th Council work session. The feedback provided by the City Council has been incorporated into the agreement and the City Attorney and SPAN have all agreed to the modifications. It is anticipated that the SPAN Board of Directors will consider the agreement at their upcoming Board Meeting. Once all parties have approved the agreement then the City and SPAN will begin marketing and educating the community about the new service. The new service will begin with the reservations for riders on June 6 and the first riders to be transported on June 20. Analysis: The following items are highlighted in the SPAN contract for service and the transportation policy and procedures. Cost: $2.50 for seniors (60 and older) and those with documented disabilities Hours/Days of Operation: Monday-Friday; 7:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.; and nine holidays when service is not operational. 2 Scheduled calls: one day in advance but no more than two weeks in advance between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 2:00 p.m. Door-to-door pickup with assistance of boarding and exiting the vehicle Costs to Coppell will be in billed in monthly increments in arrears of the service usage Service Area map is included in Exhibit “A” which includes all of Coppell and surrounding areas in close proximity to the Coppell city limits and have included the medical facilities for Baylor Scott & White Medical Center - Grapevine. The contract is through June 1, 2016-September 30, 2016 for an amount of $25,000. The date that reservations can be made is scheduled for June 6 with the first riders to be transported on for June 20. Another renewal of the contract will be brought before the City Council prior to the beginning of the 2016/17 fiscal year in the amount of $75,000. Legal Review: The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed all the necessary documents and have approved them for consideration. Fiscal Impact: The City Council designated $75,000 in designated fund balance. If the City Council approves the item then the Finance Department will request an amendment to the budget at a future City Council meeting. Recommendation: The City Manager’s Office recommends approval of the resolution, contract for service in the amount of $25,000, and associated documents as requested in the staff report. Grapevine Irving Carrollton Dallas Dallas Coppell Lewisville Farmers Branch Dallas Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Created in ArcGIS Created: April 20 16by Scott LattaColor Photo Da te: N/AW:\Sco tt\ARC MAP PROJ\SPAN MAP.mxd SPAN Boundary Map Vista Ridge Mall Grapevine Mills Mall Irving Market Place Las Colinas Medical ¯SPAN Boundar y S H 1 1 4 Royal Lane IH 35E SH 121 PGBTRound Grove Road Not To Scale Baylor Scott & WhiteMedical Cen ter - Grape vine SH 114 RESOLUTION NO. _______ _ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY COPPELL, TEXAS, APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES BETWEEN THE CITY OF COPPELL AND SPAN, INC.; AND PROVIDING FOR AN AUTHORIZATION BY THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS , the City of Coppell , Texas (hereinafter referred to as the "City") desires to enter into an Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") with SPAN, Inc., (hereinafter referred to as "SPAN") for the purpose of providing transportation services for seniors citizens and persons with disabilities. WHEREAS, the City of Coppell recognizes that has an aging population and special needs citizens in need of transportation . WHEREAS , SPAN is authorized under state law to contract with municipalities to provide transportation in the defined service area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, THAT: SECTION 1. The City hereby approves the Transportation Services by and Agreement between SPAN, Inc . and City of Coppell under the terms and conditions set forth therein and, that the City Manager is authorized to execute such Agreement and any related documents . SECTION 2. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon approval. DULY PAS SED and approved by the City Council of the City of Coppell , Texas, on this the day of . , 2016. TM 76578 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT E. HAGER, City Attorney (8 /17/15-ag:72929) APPROVED: KAREN SELBO HUNT , Mayor ATTEST: CHRISTEL PETTINOS, City Sec re tary TM 76578 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2757 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2757 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/20/2016File Created: Final Action: Mayor's AnnouncementsFile Name: Title: A.Announcement by Mayor Hunt regarding upcoming events. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 04/26/2016City Council Mayor Hunt announced the Old Town Coppell Anniversary will be held on May 6th from 7pm – 9pm. The Band will be Texas Flood, a Stevie Ray Vaughn Tribute Band. The Old Town businesses will be present selling food. Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2757 Title A.Announcement by Mayor Hunt regarding upcoming events. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2757) Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2769 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2769 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/22/2016File Created: Final Action: Councilmember Yingling reportFile Name: Title: B.Report by Councilmember Yingling regarding the National League of Cities Washington, DC conference and the North Central Texas Council of Government Emergency Preparedness Planning Council meeting. Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 04/26/2016City Council B. Councilmember Nancy Yingling gave a report on the NLC Conference in Washington, D.C. A couple of the discussion points included: e-fairness with online sales and preserving the tax exemption status for municipal bonds. Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2769 Title B.Report by Councilmember Yingling regarding the National League of Cities Washington, DC conference and the North Central Texas Council of Government Emergency Preparedness Planning Council meeting. Summary Fiscal Impact: [Enter Fiscal Impact Statement Here] Staff Recommendation: [Enter Staff Recommendation Here] Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2769) Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master City of Coppell, Texas 255 Parkway Boulevard Coppell, Texas 75019-9478 File Number: 2016-2761 File ID: Type: Status: 2016-2761 Agenda Item Agenda Ready 1Version: Reference: In Control: City Council 04/21/2016File Created: Final Action: Announcements - Community InvolvementFile Name: Title: A.C/FBISD/LISD Liaison - Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores B.CISD Liaison - Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores C.Coppell Seniors - Councilmember Yingling Notes: Agenda Date: 04/26/2016 Agenda Number: Sponsors: Enactment Date: Attachments: Enactment Number: Hearing Date: Contact: Effective Date: Drafter: History of Legislative File Action: Result: Return Date: Due Date: Sent To: Date: Acting Body: Ver- sion: 1 04/26/2016City Council A. Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores reminded the public to go vote. Early voting is going on through May 3rd. Election Day is May 7th. Councilmember Mays reported on the Key Communicator's Breakfast held on April 14th. The discussion topic was the importance of the school bond. B. Mayor Pro Tem Roden reported on the Coppell Seniors. Relay for Life will be held on April 30th. 13 seniors will be participating and have raised $2,500 for the American Cancer Society. He also reported on the KnitWits - a crocheting, sewing and knitting group that makes baby hats and booties. These items are donated to Parkland Hosptial and Women's Shelters through the Love Thy Baby Program. Action Text: Text of Legislative File 2016-2761 Title A.C/FBISD/LISD Liaison - Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores B.CISD Liaison - Councilmember Hinojosa-Flores C.Coppell Seniors - Councilmember Yingling Summary Page 1City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017 Master Continued (2016-2761) Fiscal Impact: Staff Recommendation: Goal Icon: Sustainable City Government Business Prosperity Community Wellness and Enrichment Sense of Community Special Place to Live Page 2City of Coppell, Texas Printed on 12/21/2017