city council briefing meeting · 2 agenda city council briefing meeting wednesday, august 1, 2012...

AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING MEETING WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012

CITY HALL 1500 MARILLA

DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 9:00 A.M.

9:00 am Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 6ES Special Presentations Open Microphone Speakers VOTING AGENDA 6ES 1. Approval of Minutes of the June 27, 2012 City Council Meeting 2. Consideration of appointments to boards and commissions and the evaluation and

duties of board and commission members (List of nominees is available in the City Secretary's Office)

Briefings 6ES A. Dallas Municipal Court System: An Overview B. Total Compensation: A Review of Employee Pay & Benefits C. Recommended 2012 Bond Program Lunch D. Gas Drilling

• Presented by Terry S. Welch, Esq. • Presented by Ed Ireland, Ph.D.

2

AGENDA CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING MEETING

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012 Closed Session 6ES Attorney Briefings (Sec. 551.071 T.O.M.A.) - Acquisition of the leasehold interest of TGIF/DFW Restaurant Joint Venture of

certain space in Terminal A at DFW International Airport - Columbia Packing of Texas, Ltd. et al. v. City of Dallas et al., Cause No. DC-12-04747 Open Microphone Speakers 6ES The above schedule represents an estimate of the order for the indicated briefings and is subject to change at any time. Current agenda information may be obtained by calling (214) 670-3100 during working hours. Note: An expression of preference or a preliminary vote may be taken by the Council on any of the briefing items.

3

A closed executive session may be held if the discussion of any of the above agenda items concerns one of the following: 1. Contemplated or pending litigation, or matters where legal advice is requested of the

City Attorney. Section 551.071 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 2. The purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property, if the deliberation in an

open meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the City in negotiations with a third person. Section 551.072 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

3. A contract for a prospective gift or donation to the City, if the deliberation in an open

meeting would have a detrimental effect on the position of the City in negotiations with a third person. Section 551.073 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

4. Personnel matters involving the appointment, employment, evaluation,

reassignment, duties, discipline or dismissal of a public officer or employee or to hear a complaint against an officer or employee. Section 551.074 of the Texas Open Meetings Act.

5. The deployment, or specific occasions for implementation of security personnel or

devices. Section 551.076 of the Texas Open Meetings Act. 6. Deliberations regarding economic development negotiations. Section 551.087 of the

Texas Open Meetings Act.

Memorandum

Date

To

Subject

CITY OF DALLAS

July 27,2012

The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Dallas Municipal Court System: An Overview

On August 1, 2012, you will be briefed on the Dallas Municipal Court System: An Overview. The briefing is attached for your review.

In addition, attached are the responses to the questions presented during the Ad- 0 Committee for Judicial Appointments Briefing of the Dallas Municipal __ '""IIII."",S stem: An Overview of June 19, 2012 .

. Gonzalez t Assistant City Manager

Attachment

c: Mary K. Suhm, City Manager Ryan S. Evans, Assistant City Manager Jill A. Jordan, P.E., Assistant City Manager Forest E. Turner, Assistant City Manager Joey Zapata, Assistant City Manager Jean Chipperfield, Chief Financial Officer Craig D. Kinton, City Auditor C. Victor Lander, Administrative Judge Thomas P. Perkins, Jr., City Attorney Rose Rios, City Secretary Stephanie Cooper, Assistant to the City Manager-Council Office

Dallas, The City That Works: Diverse, Vibrant, and Progressive

Dallas Municipal Court System: An Overview

Presented to the Dallas City Council August 1, 2012

1Short Version

Local Justice

• Courts are part of the community's effort to maintain order, preserve community values, and protect quality of life

• This effort includes setting of laws, enforcing them, insuring that enforcement is accurate

and fair, providing penalties for infractions and compensation for enforcement abuse

2

Dallas’

Local Justice

• Municipal Court’s jurisdiction includes enforcement of City and State laws regulating

not only traffic, but many quality of life behaviors including:

– fire hazards, restaurant safety, weedy lots, housing, zoning, junked motor vehicles, illegal dumping

offenses, litter, prostitution, sleeping in public place, panhandling, public intoxication, disorderly conduct

etc.

• These quality of life issues often become the focus of neighborhood concerns

3

• Pictures of weedy lots, falling down structures in residential area, accidents, any other

pictures of violations that can be gathered

4

Keep in Mind• 720.002. Prohibition on Traffic‐Offense Quotas

– (a)

A political subdivision … may not establish or maintain, formally

or informally, a plan to evaluate, promote, compensate, or

discipline: • (1) a peace officer according to the officer's issuance of a predetermined or

specified number of any type or combination of types of traffic citations; or

• (2) a ... judge of a …municipal court of record according to the amount of

money the judge collects from persons convicted of a traffic offense.

– (b)

A political subdivision … may not require or suggest to a peace

officer, or…

a judge of a …

municipal court of record:

• (1) that the peace officer is required or expected to issue a predetermined

or specified number of any type or combination of types of traffic citations

within a specified period; or

• (2) that the …

judge is required or expected to collect a predetermined

amount of money from persons convicted of a traffic offense within a

specified period.

9

Compliance

• Compliance is most achieved when people believe:

– Laws are appropriate– Enforcement is fair

– Penalties are real and timely

10

Court System Functions

• Municipal Court is a critical component of establishing a sense of fairness of the

administration of laws as well as a sense that community rules need to be followed

• The Court system’s basic functions are:– Administration (Court Services) (City Clerks)

– Prosecution – Judiciary*

11* More in depth discussion of the role of the Judiciary in the appendix

Recent Court Improvements“ZIP Process”

Efficiency Study Implementation Results:

• Court settings reduced from 9 months to 1 month

• Docketing capacity increased 67%

• Compliance increased 10% by implementing Scofflaw

(violator can not register car before clearing up pending citation)

• Collection per case increased from $70 to $81

• Window wait time reduced from 1 hour to 10 minutes

• Facility improvements underway (end 2012)

• New Technology: E‐Citation, Court Notify, Case Mgt System

• Proof or Plea Court created

• Saturday Court docket created

• Double trial dockets implemented

12

Court Effectiveness

• To get a sense of how we are achieving compliance and getting operational results

and efficiencies, we analyzed how tickets are being disposed of and costs of

operation in two ways:–A fiscal year review

–A five day snap shot

13

Options for Defendants

14

Profile of FY 10‐11 Violations

15

FY 10-11 Total Violation Count 303,275Total Dollar Value $71M *

•$47.8M Fine Value – Eligible Revenue to the City•$23.3M Court Costs Value – Monies designated to the State

•Assumes all citations are valid, found guilty, and collected within 21 days• Does not reflect the maximum allowable fine (roughly 60%)

Number Window Value*

Total 283,990 $43MThrough Clerks 69,772 $9.8MBefore a Judge 214,218 $33.2M

16

FY 10‐11 Dispositions

*Assumes all citations are valid, found guilty, and collected within 21 days. Does not reflect maximum allowable fine (roughly 60%).

FY 10‐11 Dispositions

CITY CLERKS JUDGESTotal Cases 69,772 214,218

Total Window Fine Value $9.8M $33.2M

Fines Collected $8.6M $1.7M

Average per Case $123 $8

Percentage of Window Fine Value 86% 5%

Deferred Disposition Fees Collected $82,000 $2.3M

Average per Case $78 $65

Expense of Operation $4.7M $9.8M17

FY 10‐11 DispositionsCLERKS JUDGES

Plead Guilty and Paid Fine 72% 6%

Average Fine Collected $169 $135

Deferred Disposition 2% 17%

Average Fee Collected $78 $65

Dismissed N/A 34%

Time Served N/A 28%

Community Service/Work

Release

6% 3%

Driver Safety School 10% .04%

Dismissed Compliance (Showed proof of insurance, driver’s

license, registration)

4% 12%

Actual Trials N/A .01%

Voided/Misc. 4% .05%

18

FY 10‐11 Dispositions Highlights• High percentage of dismissals

• Significant percentage resolved with time served

• Around 25% of fine face value collected• Deferred cases receive significantly lower fee

than the window fine–Offered by mail, proof or plea, or trial

• Net operational costs of differ significantly

19

Profile of Snap Shot Violations

20

.

Randomly selected 5 days from FY 10‐11 and followed the disposition of

the violations given on those days. Total number of violations was 4,651

Snap Shot Disposition Status Day 23

21

Snap Shot Disposition Status Day 180

22

“Alias Warrant Status” and “Set for Court” decrease while the other categories increase

Last Update

Review of Snap Shot Cases

Experienced similar collection, dismissal, time served,pay rates as demonstrated in Fiscal year review

Violation Type for “Ignored Us”

Category

24

*Quality of Life includes prostitution,Drugs, public intoxication, sleeping in public , urinating in public , etc. 78% had a City of Dallas address

Other Observations of Docketed Cases• Of the cases before a Judge, 30% have been reset

multiple times – 76% Attorney/Defendant’s request– 21% Administrative Reset due to inclement weather

– 2% Judge Reset the Case

– 1% State’s Request (Prosecutor’s Office)

• Of the reset trial cases, the average time it took to dispose of the case was 106 days

• Of the non‐reset trial cases, the average time it took to dispose of the case was 66 days

25

• Of the “multiple reset”

trial cases– 39% Dismissed Witness Unavailable

– 24% Dismissed Insufficient Evidence

– 16% Dismissed Deferred Disposition

– 8% Dismissed Want of Prosecution

– 8% Time Served

– 2% Paid– 1% Dismissed Compliance, Voided

– 1% Dismissed No Outside Witness

– 1% Dismissed Complaint Quashed

26

Other Observations of Docketed Cases

Judge Ordered Deferred Disposition Fees

State Court Costs Eligible Amount – $24,342

Amount Collected – $24,342

• 100% collected for State

Fee Eligible for City Amount* – $43,782

Amount Collected – $16,308

• 37% collected for City

27

*Window Fine Value, does not reflect the maximum allowable fine (roughly 60%)

Payments Made Through City Clerks• 39% of the payments were made online

• 61% of the payments were made at the window or by mail

• 33% were disposed within 23 days after the offense date

• 59% were disposed between 23 – 180 days from the offense date

• 8% were disposed after 180 days from the offense date

28

Snap Shot Study Highlights

• Significant percentage ignore notices• High percentage of dismissals

• Around 26% of fine face value collected• Deferred disposition cases receive significantly lower

fee than the window fine

– Offered both at the window and the Judiciary• Net operational costs of disposition differ significantly • Significant percentage of trial cases reset multiple

times

• High percentage of transactions now made online29

Related information

• Warrant Round‐up results

• Time served

• Other non‐financial penalties – Community service

– Work Release

– Jail • Other cities’

operations comparisons

30

Warrant Round‐up

31

2012 Warrant Round Up • Marshal’s Office conducts two Round‐Ups annually• This year, we had

2,043 cases:

– Involved 893 defendants– Arrest cost was approximately $71,000

– 30% were Quality of Life Citations (Sleeping in Public, Prostitution, etc.)

– Value of tickets was $538,090 or 3,442.2 days of time served following State law minimum guideline

– 96% were granted time served and paid no money

– Total penalties imposed: $20,360 and 522.2 days• To date, $2,187 has been received

32

Marshal’s Office Warrant Round‐Up • Significant effort is made to arrest those failing

to take care of their outstanding tickets (focus on defendants having 3 or more warrants)

– Estimated cost to arrest each defendant is $80

• During Round Up efforts, most citations are disposed of with the time served while being

processed in Jail

• Other possibilities exist:– Work release

– Community Service

– Jail time (consistent with State Law)33

Time Served

34

Time Served• Time Served is the practice where a defendant

is given “credit”

for time they served in jail to offset a monetary fine

• Under State Law – Defendants, following certain procedures, must

be

given credit for the time they serve for other violations or in other jurisdictions

– State Law provides that $50 worth of fine should be offset by no less than 8 hours, but no more than 24

• This amount

of the credit given for time served is a

matter of dispute in our system

• Review of sample records suggest there is no standard35

Current Practice of City Judges• Defendant may have their tickets disposed of

with ‘time served’

if he:– Is arrested and spends any time in jail before he

comes before a judge

– Has spent any time in jail on other violations (whether in other jurisdictions, different types, or

multiples of same type, etc.)

– Has spent some time in jail and brings multiple tickets before the Judge; is then applied concurrently

• If a person has ten tickets and is in jail one day, all tickets are credited with the one day

• The fine is usually set at a level where the time served

offsets the fine36

Time Served

• Reasons given for the practice include:– Defendant’s freedom was taken, that should be

sufficient

– If monetary penalty is added to jail time, penalty is imposed twice,

– Lack of jail space; it costs the City to have a prisoner in jail

– This provides a means to clear tickets outstanding status

37

Other non‐financial penalties

38

Work Release• Allows a defendant to work at the City of

Dallas in lieu of payment of fine

– Seven departments utilize the City’s work release program (custodial duties, etc.)

–Non‐docket process by the court clerk (if amount due is less than $600) or granted in

the courtroom

–Current practice is credit given at $100 per 8 hour work day

39

Community Service• Allows a defendant to work at a non‐profit

agency (or coordinated through the Volunteer Center) in lieu of payment of fine

–Non‐docket process by the court clerk (if amount due is less than $600) or granted in

the courtroom

–Current practice is credit given at $100 per 8 hour work day

40

Jail Time• State law provisions

– Class C Misdemeanors are not punishable by jail time; fine only

– However, time served in jail can be credited as discussed above

• Warrants for a person’s arrest are issued for failing to appear in court or failing to comply with Judges’

orders, with the understanding,

– Failing to appear in court, alone, is not a jailable violation– Failure to comply with a judge’s order is a jailable violation

41

Jail Time–Detention options

• Lew Sterrett Jail– City contracts with Dallas County for the provision

of 100 beds a day for Class C’s

– Most of the City’s costs are fixed

– An additional $58 is charged per night for each bed used

– Currently use about 42% of its capacity• City Detention Center

– Owned and operated by the City– Has a capacity for about

160 individuals

– Currently used for intoxication and other Class C violators; used for quicker Police turnaround

42

Jail Time

• Jail time is used by those*: – Arrested and awaiting a Judge (magistration) to enter

a plea, be sentenced for failure to comply with judgments, be declared indigent, be found guilty, etc.

– Choosing to “sit it out”

(stay in jail) rather than pay

– Ordered to stay for failing to comply with Judges’ order

43* In the context of Class C Misdemeanors

Jail Time– Judges have the discretion to set out jail

time for those that have been found guilty and failed to comply with a Judge’s order.

Some of the factors that might be used in sentencing could be:

• Lack of good faith effort• Personal circumstances of defendant

• Physical condition of defendant • Financial ability of defendant (Indigency)• Other factors deemed appropriate by the Judge

44

Overall Observations

• Many operational improvements have been implemented, or are in progress, to make the

primary customer, the citizen, make their way through the Court more efficiently

• Low collection rates raise several concerns– Consistency with expectations– Impact on compliance, community safety and values

– Impact on operational costs

– Unintended consequences with changes45


• Operations changes to upgrade scheduling of Police (Court Notify) and enhance ticket writing

accuracy and court testimony (E‐citations) are critical for the next level of Court operation

improvement – Police have strengthened supervisory oversight of

officers to insure they appear at designated trials and are prepared

– A multi‐departmental task group has been charged with completing enhancements on time

46


• Time served is used in a significant percentage of violations to dispose of cases

– Raises questions as to the value of the Warrant Round Up effort, or any effort by police, to arrest

those ignoring City notices

– There is not agreement as to how State Law should be applied

• Fines rarely reflect cost of trial

47


• Most defendants choose to either ignore citations or go to Court. Is a logical choice:

– Likelihood is the violation will be dismissed or result in less penalty than paying the fine upfront

– No financial disincentives in going to Court – Ignoring citation creates little additional risk

• Even if arrested, most receive little to no

financial/community service/jail penalty

48

Overall Observations• The Judiciary is an independent body, however:

– Can they, as a body, work to frame some parameters for operations and/or judgments?

– What powers could be delegated to a presiding judge to manage these determinations?

• While operational efficiencies can be enhanced, it appears the market is responding to Municipal Court practices seeking least cost (first), least

trouble (second), least damage to their driving record (third)

49

Comparisons of Court Operation in Other

Cities

50

Court Practices of Texas CitiesCities surveyed… Because…

Houston, San Antonio, Austin, Fort

Worth, El PasoLarge cities facing similar scale of

problems

Irving, Plano, RichardsonAlso, Dallas County

Share Dallas’

pool of drivers

What we asked about… To better understand how others

manage….

Trial and officer scheduling methods Conflicts resulting in court inefficiencies

Valuation of community service and

time servedValuation of alternative sentencing

Officer recall of case details Enforcement follow through that

impacts court efficiencies

Case management systems and

software usedAppropriate metrics to increase

efficiencies

Round up activities Failure to appear violations

Tiered fine schedules Timely payment of fines51

Court Practices of Texas CitiesWhat we asked about… To better understand how others

manage….

Plea bargains on trial date Incentives that might exist to request trial

Reset rules Delays that cost all parties involved

Local rules for courts Court operations

Authority of top judge Ability to enforce local rules

Judicial appointment methods Selection of judges

Payment plan procedures Ability to collect on judgments• Application process• Number of days to pay

Pre‐trial procedures Dockets and police overtime costs

Parameters for judgments for guilty

verdictsSignals to violators as to importance of

community values

Deferred disposition Appropriate fees to cover program costs52

Current Court Practices ComparisonCurrent Dallas

PracticeProblem Best Practice

Elsewhere

Subpoena and court

scheduling systems not

integrated

Schedule conflicts result in

case dismissals due to lack of

witnesses, weakening

effectiveness of laws

Court subpoena

automatically blocks

officer leave requests and

system avoids conflicting

court dates (Dallas

County)

Defendant requesting a

trial is still eligible to

receive same reduced

penalty previously

available

Creates incentive to request

trial as a maneuver to see if

officer is absent, maximizing

City’s cost, but at no risk to

defendant

No plea bargains on trial

date, so conviction or

guilty plea at trial yields

maximum penalty. Most

defendants take a deal in

advance. (Plano)

Judges frequently grant

repeated continuance

requests

Increases likelihood that

witness isn’t available or

can’t recall details of case.

Inconvenient for citizen, if

City delays.

Resets require compelling

justification (Richardson)

Maximum 1 reset per side

(Fort Worth)

53

Current Court Practices ComparisonCurrent Dallas Practice Problem Best Practice Elsewhere

Administrative judge

can set policies, but has

no other authority or

direction to enforce

Administrative Judge has

little authority to set and

enforce local rules and

procedures

A Presiding judge actively

supervises other judges,

issuing procedural and

policy directives. Reviews

performance and

recommends on

reappointment. (Austin)

Time served not tied to

fine schedules

Lax valuation can remove

incentive to obey laws

Time served in jail for City

warrants is valued

proportionally at $100 per

24 hours clocked. (Fort

Worth)

Community service and

work release not

consistently monitored

at hourly rate to work

off value of fine.

Lax valuation and monitoring

can remove incentive to

obey laws and fail to provide

a substantive benefit to

defendant or organization

Community service &

work release valued at

$12.50 per hour,

monitored by Volunteer

Center. (Garland)

54

Current Court Practices Comparison

55

Current Practice Problem Best Practice Elsewhere

Allow defendants who

fail to respond to

citations or appear for

trial to have cases set

on the trial docket by

submitting an off‐

docket motion, but no

bond

Defendant is allowed to

delay a trial setting

increasing likelihood that the

officer will not recall the

facts of the case. When the

officer does not have factual

recall, the case will be

dismissed for insufficient

evidence.

Defendants who do not

respond to citations or

trial settings are required

to post either a cash or

surety bond to secure

their appearance at trial.

(Plano)

Limited information is

gathered on persons

seeking payment plans.

Payment plan collections are

poor.

More detailed information

is collected making it

easier to enhance

collections. (Garland)


56

Current Practice Problem Best Practice Elsewhere

No mandatory pre‐trial

hearings are conducted

with defendants and

prosecutors to determine

if citations can be satisfied

without a trial.

Often, trial settings are

used to collect or give

information which could

be more efficiently

handled at a pre‐trial

hearing.

Mandatory pre‐trial

meetings are held to

collect information and

resolve a citation without

the need for a trial. This

saves court resources

which includes judges,

bailiffs, and police

overtime. (Irving)

Deferred dispositions are

granted at a significant

discount from the window

fine.

Rationale for offering this

benefit at half the window

fine amount is flawed,

given overall operational

expense levels

Full window fine amounts

are charged when

deferred disposition is

provided on the day of

trial. (Irving)


57

Current Dallas Practice Problem Best Practice Elsewhere

Paper intensive process

for court docket

paperwork

Limited automation makes

operations expensive and

information analysis

extremely difficult.

Paperless trial docket

system (Ft. Worth)

No tiered fine structure

is offered for early

payment

Without any financial

incentive given, very few pay

their fines within the first 21

days. More delay creates

greater risk of defendants to

seek court dates or ignore

the citation altogether.

Tiered fines are provided

which include a financial

incentive for prompt

payment. (Austin)


58

Current Dallas Practice Problem Best Practice Elsewhere

City Web site is used to

attract online

transactions.

While experiencing increased

usage, site would be

improved by:• making more options

available for the defendant• having attractive offers• expanding payment options

Deferred Disposition may

be applied for and granted

online. (San Antonio)

Video Magistration of

citations daily. (San Antonio)

Phone payments accepted.

(Richardson)

New Idea Employ the use of resellers to

help market opportunities for

online transactions

So far as we know, concept

of resellers is new

Court Revenue ComparisonCity Per Capita Income FY 10/11 Revenue Per Case

Irving $23,419 $104.34

Arlington $22,445 $98.90

Richardson $29,551 $83.95

Garland $20,000 $80.34

Austin $24,163 $60.26

FT Worth $18,800 $53.93

Dallas $22,183 $41.49

San Antonio $17,487 $38.52

When compared to several cities in the region and larger Texas cities with similar per capita income, Dallas has a low revenue per case average 59

Recommendations

60

Topic Recommendations Actions Needed

Technology Changes

Police appearance and

performance

Continue implementation of:• E‐Citations to address

accuracy of tickets• Court Notify to address

scheduling issues• Court Management System

to address need for overall

Court operation enhancement

including paperless court

docket

Continue review of Officer

attendance and performance

Determine if elimination of

standby system is needed to

enhance attendance and

performance

• Partial Implementation

July 2012• Partial Implementation

Winter 2012• 4th

Q 2013

Report August 2012

Report September 2012

Recommendations

61


Web site Investigate ways to improve user

experience by:• Adding additional options that

can be paid or requested online• Determine how Pay by Phone

option can be added• Reach out to private sector to

test if a reseller opportunity

would attract interest• Critical that the site can offer

attractive alternatives to drive

interest, such as •1 Day Deferred Disposition

reboot• Somewhat lower fine amounts

on deferred disposition

• Report Oct 2012

• Report Oct 2012

• Report Oct 2012

Recommendations

62


Expectations of City

Council

Council provides guiding principles

by which the Court should be

operated. For example,• How should community values

including safety, quality

neighborhoods, compliance with

ordinances, etc. guide Judicial

decisions?

• What leadership authority should

reside with the Administrative

Judge?

• Should defendants be given more

favorable options for resolving

their citations before opting for a

trial?

Mission statement

by the Council

Recommendations

63


Judicial Refinements Gather more detailed information

from defendants when granting

payment arrangements.

Establish a tiered fine structure that

incentivizes defendants to respond

within the first 21 days.

Modify rules of Dallas

Municipal Court

Administrative Judge

establish a tiered fine

schedule

Recommendations

64


Judicial Refinements Determine if Judiciary will

consider penalties consistent with

State Law guidelines of 8 to 24

hours for every $50 of fine

amount when community service,

work release, or jail space is

available.

If higher penalties given, then

Marshal's office can prioritize

arrest efforts. For example, to

seek violators who fail to respond

to City notices for multiple

offenses or defy judges’

orders

Response from

Judiciary September

2012

Based on response,

actions to be taken

by October 2012

Recommendations

65


Judicial Refinements Work with County to determine

prioritization of jail space

Work with County regarding serial

inebriates and “frequent flyers”

to

determine what intervention

programs might be helpful in

reducing repeat offenders

Report from City

Staff and County

officials Oct 2012

Report from City

Staff and County

officials Oct 2012

Recommendations

66


Judicial Refinements Prior to all trial case settings,

require that the defendant attend a

pretrial conference with the

prosecutor. Deferred disposition

and/or reduced fines might only be

offered in this meeting. All

defendants will be apprised of their

right to hire an attorney and their

right to a jury trial during their Pre

Trial conference. Defendants will

not be granted a reset at trial to

hire an attorney.


Municipal Court

Recommendations

67


Judicial Refinements Require all off‐docket procedures

occur inside the courtroom and in

the presence of a prosecutor

Limit Motions for Continuance to

one per side

Disallow off‐docket motions for

trial settings on delinquent cases.

Require that a cash or surety bond

be posted to secure appearance in

trial.


Municipal Court


Municipal Court


Municipal Court

Recommendations

68


Judicial Refinements

Court System

Conduct a review of window fines,

fines assessed over the internet,

deferred disposition fees,

parameters for time served,

community service, and work

release

Have the Municipal Court

Administration, Prosecutor's

Office, and Judiciary present a

joint report to the Ad Hoc Council

Committee annually regarding

efforts to achieve community

goals that are impacted by City

ordinances.

Response from

Judiciary September

2012

City Council establish

ordinance

Next Steps

• Proceed with technology improvements to address scheduling issues

• Determine if Council wishes to implement other changes included in recommendations

69

Questions

70

City of Dallas

Total Compensation:A Review of Employee Pay & Benefits

City CouncilAugust 1, 2012

Presentation Overview

What is “Total Compensation”?

Why is “Total Compensation” important?

What is required by law?

City of Dallas Pay & Benefits

How does the City compare to other employers?

Recommendations & Summary

2

What is “Total Compensation”?

Total compensation, pay and benefits, is comprised of two basic elements:

Pay elements

Salary, overtime

“Special Pay” Items

Shift differentials, Certification Pay, Education, Language Skills, Longevity Pay, Assignment Pay

Benefit elements

Comprehensive Healthcare Program

Insurance Offerings

Workers’ Compensation

Deferred Compensation

Paid Leave

Pension

3

Competing Against Other Employers

The City competes for employees in the labor market

Total compensation must be able to be measured/compared

Benefit levels vary by type of organizations

Public vs. private

Different industries

Challenges

Spend tax dollars prudently

Be an employer of choice (recruitment)

Maintain a quality workforce (retention)

4

Importance of “Total Compensation”

To attract and retain qualified employees, pay and employer- sponsored benefits must be:

Perceived by prospective and current employees as valuable

Commensurate with the value of the work performed

Focused on “Total Compensation” rather than individual elements

Compliant with various laws and mandates

5

Importance of “Total Compensation” (cont’d)

If the City cannot compete in the labor market, not only is hiring impacted but the City’s operations are also negatively impacted. For example:

If we do not compensate mechanics commensurate with the market, we can hire people with fewer skills and train them but once they are trained, they leave for better pay and benefits

If we do not have enough trained mechanics, we cannot fix garbage trucks, squad cars, and other equipment in a timely manner

Not being able to fix equipment quickly results in operational employees not having the tools they need to complete their work so the work doesn’t get done on time and employees are not as efficient as they need to be

6

What is Required?

Compliance with Federal and State laws related to wages, special pay, hours/overtime, protected leave, unemployment, discrimination and workers compensation, etc.

City rules and policies governing employment included in the City Charter and Personnel Rules

7

For more information on City requirements, see pages 77 and 78 in the appendix

CITY OF DALLAS - COMPENSATION

8

Overview - Cost of Major Pay & Benefits Elements CY 2011

2011 Cost of Major Pay & Benefits Elements: $917,788,925

9

Pay Elements

10

Compensation Overview

The City has five Salary Schedules

Civilian

$42,644 Average Salary

Legal


Auditor


Police


Fire


11

Civilian Pay

Information on Civilian Employee Pay

Civilian jobs are placed in Grades

The City has 20 civilian job grades:

Grade A (lowest) to Grade T (highest)

Jobs in the same grade have similar levels of complexity and scope of influence

Job grades have a pay minimum, midpoint, and maximum which reflect the complexity of the position

When comparing the City’s pay to other employers, the midpoint of the range is compared to the middle of the market

13

Civilian Pay Categories

Category 1: Entry to mid-level position (Grades A-E)

Typical positions: Laborer, Office Assistant, 911/311 Call Taker, Customer Service Representative, Code Enforcement Inspector, Water Meter Reader, Animal Control Officer, Painter, Computer Operator, Truck Driver.

Over 52% of civilian employees are in this category

Category 2: Professional/Supervisory—(Grades F-K)

Typical positions: Accountant, Supervisor I & II, Inspector II, Executive Assistant, Electronic Technician, Master Electrician, Engineer, Librarian, Sanitarian

40% of civilian employees are in this category

Category 3: Sr. Professional/Manager—(Grades L-P)

Typical positions: Assistant Director; Sr. Engineer, Sr. Architect, Manager III, IT Manager

Approximately 6% of civilian employees are in this category

Category 4: Executive Management—(Grades Q and above)

Typical positions: Director, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Information Officer, Assistant City Manager

Less than 1% of civilian employees are in this category

14

Special Pay Items Civilian Employees

In addition to base pay, some civilian employees receive ‘special pay’ for skills or assignments*

Special pay for civilian employees averages $653 annually per employee

15

* List of civilian special pay items can be found in the appendix on page 79

Uniform Pay

Uniformed Employee Pay

Uniformed employees are on a “Step System”

Each Uniformed Rank is in a pay grade which includes a series of “Steps”

Each step represents a 5% increase in base pay

Special Pay – Uniformed Officers

FY11-12 Budgeted cost for Police Special Pay is $25,574,618

Special pay for DPD Officers averages $7,282 annually per employee

FY10-11 Budgeted cost for Fire Special Pay is $10,724,262

Special pay for DFR Officers averages $5,665annually per employee

* List of uniformed special pay items can be found starting on page 80 in the appendix

17

Benefits

18

Benefits - Healthcare

19

What is “healthcare”?

Health Insurance Medical Plans

City Hall Clinic

Tax Exempt Spending Accounts

Employee Wellness Program

Employee Assistance Program

20

City of Dallas Healthcare

Two plan options

Health Reimbursement Account (HRA)

Preferred Provider Organization (PPO)

Offered to full-time and permanent part-time employees, councilmembers, retirees and qualified dependents

Self-insured and administered by UnitedHealthcare

20,750 lives covered as outlined below:

21

Status Plan Lives CoveredActive HRA 13,319Active PPO 4,422

Terminated COBRA 39

Retiree HRA 1,715Retiree PPO 1,106Retiree Over 65 HRA 47Retiree Over 65 PPO 102

Annual Health Care Contributions

Revenues (Millions) FY 2010‐2011City of Dallas Contributions & Interest $54.315Employees Contributions $32.833 Retirees Contributions $23.385 Total Revenues $110.532

FY 2010/11 Health Care Revenues

22

Benefits - Insurance Offerings

23

City of Dallas Insurance Offerings

City Paid Insurance

Life Insurance - $50,000 basic life insurance for all full- time employees

Employee Paid Insurance (Voluntary Benefits)

Supplemental life insurance for employees and their dependents

Vision

Dental

Cancer

Accident

Short-Term Disability

Critical Illness

Hospital Confinement Indemnity

Universal Life Insurance

24

Benefits Workers’ Compensation

25

Workers’ Compensation

Workers’ Compensation is required by State law to provide benefits to employees for injuries or illnesses occurring during scope of employment

Benefits

All related medical (lifetime)

Payment of lost wages

70% of weekly wage (based on prior 13 weeks earnings)

Subject to weekly maximum (currently $787)

Length of payment based on when employee released by doctor to return to work, or reaches Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)

Maximum time to receive is 104 weeks

Wage supplementation

Difference between workers’ comp pay and employee’s net pay

Maximum time to receive is 52 weeks

Impairment Rating Payment

Once Maximum Medical Improvement reached

Impairment Rating (0 to 100%) established by doctor

Payment made based on rating

26

Workers’ Compensation Costs

FY Workers comp Wage Supp Total # of Employees

FY06-07 $10,968,032 $1,146,246 $12,114,278 1317

FY07-08 $11,403,249 $1,030,314 $12,433,563 1245

FY08-09 $11,198,623 $1,011,034 $12,209,657 1140

FY09-10 $11,376,023 $782,810 $12,158,833 1201

FY10-11 $9.916,965 $661,560 $10,578,525 1109

27

The City’s Workers’ Compensation costs have been steadily decreasing due to:

Implementation of the City’s certified network

Decrease in the number of workers’ compensation claims

Active Limited Duty Program

BenefitsDeferred Compensation Program

28

Deferred Compensation

City's deferred compensation benefit features two plans - a 401(k) and a 457

City does not contribute to either plan

‘Temporary employees’ are required to contribute to the 457 plan in lieu of Social Security

Each plan overseen by its own seven-member board of trustees, all of whom are City employees

Plans administered by Fidelity Investments with assistance and management oversight from City's deferred compensation staff

Fidelity provides employee communications, and education for the respective plans

29

BenefitsPaid Leave

30

Paid Leave

Holidays

Employees currently receive 9 holidays

Per the Meet & Confer Agreement, beginning FY12-13 uniform employees will have 11 holidays

Vacation Leave

Vacation leave varies by years of service

Sick leave

Full-time employees receive 12 days per year

City does not pay for short-term disability, but allows sick leave accrual

Attendance Incentive Leave

Rewards excellent attendance by granting additional time off to employees

Employees not using sick leave or leave without pay during a calendar quarter earn one day of additional leave

Employees not using sick leave sick leave or leave without pay for four consecutive quarters earn two days of additional leave

31

BenefitsPension

32

Pension Overview

The City of Dallas has two pension plans

Employees’ Retirement Fund (ERF) for civilian employees

Police and Fire Pension Fund (PFPF) for uniformed employees

Both provide retirement, death, and disability benefits and both plans replace Social Security

Both governed by their respective boards

Employees’ Retirement Fund Plan terms and provisions are governed by Chapter 40A of the Dallas City Code

The Dallas Police & Fire Pension System Plan terms and provisions are authorized by State Law

33

Pension Contributions

Mandatory contributions made by both employees and the City to the Pension Funds

34

Employees’ Retirement Fund (ERF) Civilian Employees

Employees’

Retirement Fund (Civilian Employees)

GroupContributions(CY2011)

% of Total

Contributions

Employees $ 31,748,000 35%City $ 57,706,000 65%

Total $ 89,454,000

35

Police & Fire Pension Fund (PFPF) Uniformed Employees

Police & Fire Pension Fund

GroupContributions

(CY2011)

% of Total

Contributions

Employees $ 19,520,251 16%

City $ 103,980,832 84%

Total $ 123,501,083

36

TOTAL COMPENSATION STUDY

37

2006 Total Compensation Study

2006 - Contracted with the Hay Group to evaluate and compare the COD pay to the labor market.

The city’s goal is for pay to be near the market median so that we can recruit and retain employees

Findings from the 2006 study

Police

Police Officer trainee pay was low compared to the market

Pay for newly hired police officers was low compared to surrounding cities

Deputy Chief salary ranges aligned with the market; however, the Deputy Chiefs in the rank at the time were low in the salary range because they were newly appointed.

38

2006 Total Compensation Study (cont’d)

Findings from the 2006 study (cont’d)

Fire

Fire Rescue Officer trainee pay was low compared to the market

Civilian Employees

Category 1 - Entry to mid-level positions (Grades A-E)

Pay was at the median of the market

Category 2 - Professional/Supervisory—(Grades F-K)

Pay was at the 25th percent of the market

Category 3 - Sr. Professional/Manager—(Grades L-P)

Pay was slightly below the 25th percent of the market

Category 4 - Executive Management—(Grades Q & above)

Pay was below the 25th percent of the market

39


Over 3-Year period, implemented the following changes*:

Police and Fire

Eliminated the “Police Trainee” and “Fire Trainee” ranks and began hiring at the “Police Officer, Step 1” and “Fire Rescue Officer, Step 1” ranks

Increased starting pay for recruits

Added additional special pay items

Increased rates for existing special pay items

Added two “Steps” to all the ranks

Adding steps increases the amount officers can earn at the top of the ranks

40

* This is a summary of changes. Details can be found starting on page 89 in the appendix


Police and Fire (cont’d)

Compressed Steps

Prior to compression, some steps were “One-Year” steps, others were “Two-Year” steps. This refers to the length of time an officer stays in a step before moving to the next step.

Compressing steps allows officers pay to increase faster

Police only changes

Increased graduation incentive pay from $1000 to $6000 (one-time payment)

Added a completion of probation incentive payment of $4000 (one-time payment)

Both the graduation incentive and completion of probation incentive were eliminated in July, 2009 for budgetary reasons

Added 5-year ($5,000) and 10-year ($3,000) retention incentive payments

41


Civilian employees

Made adjustments to salary schedules over three year period

Adjusting salary schedules moves the minimum, maximum, and midpoints of the ranges to make the City’s midpoints more closely align with the market

Adjusting salary schedules only increases pay for employees whose salaries fall below the ‘new’ pay minimum

42

Recent Staffing and Pay Changes*

Staffing Pay

Police & Fire

• Number of officers has increased since 2008

• Pay Changes• October, 2010 - Pay for officers was reduced two

ways:• Implementation of mandatory city leave days

(aka ‘furloughs’)• Police only - Officers received ‘comp time’ rather

than overtime• Since then, pay has been incrementally restored

• Number of mandatory city leave days has been reduced

• Officers were again allowed to earn overtime• October, 2012

• Pay fully restored• Officers receive 3% ‘across-the-board’ increase

• Step Increases• No Step increases for FY09/10; FY10/11; or

FY11/12

43

* This is a summary of pay changes. Details can be found starting on page 92 in the appendix

Recent Staffing and Pay Changes*

Staffing Pay

Civilian Employees

• Three consecutive years of Reductions-in- Force

• Since 2008:• Number of

civilian employees has decreased 19.3%

• Pay Changes• Beginning in July, 2009, multiple pay reductions:

• Implementation of mandatory city leave days• Pay reductions of 0%, 2%, or 3%, based on

salary• Since then, pay has been incrementally restored

• Number of mandatory city leave days has been reduced

• Pay reductions partially restored• October, 2012

• Pay fully restored• Merit Increases

• No merit increases for FY09/10; FY10/11; or FY11/12

44

Current Compensation Study

World-at-Work, a non-profit organization that represents and certifies compensation professionals, recommends doing a total compensation study every three to five years

In 2011, the City engaged Milliman to complete a study of the City’s Total Compensation

The City identified 190 positions for salary comparison. Selected those that were:

Easily comparable – positions exist in other organizations – truck driver, secretary, police officer, etc.

Occupied by large numbers of City of Dallas employees, and/or

Positions that the City is having a hard time recruiting and/or retaining employees

Milliman also compared the City’s benefits (health benefits, pension, and paid leave) to the market

45

Current Compensation Study

Milliman compared City of Dallas to:

Peer cities and other public sector organizations – referred to as “Custom Survey” in their report

Twenty-seven public sector organizations participated

Included jobs that only exist in public sector – police officer, fire-fighter, for example

Also included positions found in both public and private sector

Private sector

Used published survey data (more than 20 survey sources)

46

47

Total Compensation StudyExecutive Summary

City of Dallas

August 1, 2012

Prepared by:Milliman 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3800Seattle, WA 98101-2605206/504.5545

48

Analysis of cash compensation and major benefits– Medical, dental, vision– Life insurance– Long-term disability– Retirement

Custom survey of eighty-two jobs, twenty-seven cities (custom survey group):

Project Approach

City of Austin City of PhiladelphiaCity of Baton Rouge City of PhoenixCity of Charlotte City of PortlandCity of Chicago City of San AntonioCity of Fort Worth City of San DiegoCity of Frisco City of SeattleCity of Garland City of TulsaCity of Houston DFW International AirportCity of Irving Harris CountyCity of Kansas City Los AngelesCity of Lubbock Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson CountyCity of Memphis The City of El PasoCity of Mesquite Travis CountyCity of Oklahoma City

49

Custom Survey Jobs911 Call Taker Department Director (small) Plans Examiner, Senior Airport Operations Officer, Senior Detention Officer Police Chief Animal Services Officer Economic Development Analyst Police Deputy Chief Architect, Senior Environmental Coordinator Police Dispatcher Assistant City Attorney Fire and Rescue Officer Police Dispatcher, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Senior Fire and Rescue Officer Trainee Police Lieutenant Assistant City Auditor Fire Battalion/Section Chief Police Officer Assistant Department Director (large) Fire Captain Police Senior Corporal Assistant Department Director (small) Fire Deputy Chief Police Sergeant Bailiff Fire Driver - Engineer Program ManagerCaseworker Fire Lieutenant Program Manager, SeniorCaseworker, Senior Information Technology Manager Public Information Officer, Senior Chief Financial Officer Inspector Public Service OfficerChief Planner Inspector, Senior Real Estate Specialist, Senior City Attorney Irrigation Technician, Senior Recreation Center Assistant City Auditor Laborer Recreation Program Specialist City Controller Librarian Sanitarian Community Outreach Representative Librarian, Senior Service Agent Community Service Worker Manager Community Service Supervisor Heavy Equipment Community Service Worker, Senior Manager Environmental Health Supervisor Park MaintenanceCoordinator - Recreation Manager Fleet Supervisor Water Council Assistant Manager Land Use Planning Supervisor Water, LeadCouncil Secretary Manager Solid Waste Surveyor Court Specialist Manager Water Utilities Truck DriverCrew Leader Municipal Judge Water Field Representative Crime Technician Parking Enforcement Officer Water Meter Reader Department Director (large) Planner, Senior Water Plant Operator

50

Published data for 115 jobs, twenty survey sources

Project Approach (continued)

Published Surveys

CompData Survey PSI Exempt Compensation SurveyEmployers Assoc of America - Executive PSI Non-Exempt Compensation SurveyEmployers Assoc of America - NE/Ex Towers Watson Middle ManagementEconomic Research Institute Towers Watson Office PersonnelMilliman Healthcare Towers Watson Prof - AdministrativeMilliman Information Technology Towers Watson Prof - SpecializedMilliman Management & Professional Towers Watson Supervisory ManagementMilliman Non-Exempt & Exempt Towers Watson Tech & Skilled TradesMilliman Public Sector Towers Watson Top ManagementMilliman Retail/Wholesale/Distribution United Way Survey

51

Published Survey JobsAccountant III Economic Develop Analyst Librarian Programmer Analyst I Sr Office Assistant

Admin Spec Electrician Library Associate Programmer Analyst II Sr Plumber

Admin Specialist II Electrician Assistant Licensed Vocational Nur Programmer Analyst III Sr Public Inform Officer

Assistant City Attorney Electronic Technician Manager - Warehousing Project Coordinator III Sr Real Estate Spec

Asst City Auditor III Engineer Manager II - Business Public Health Nutrition Sr Security Analyst

Buyer III Engineer Assistant Manager II - Commun Records Mgment Officer Sr Systems Programmer

CAD Tech Environ Specialist II Manager II - Events/Med Risk Analyst, Senior Sr Welder

Casew orker Equipment Operator Manager II - Facilities Security Officer Storekeeper II

Casew orker II Executive Assistant Manager II - Fleet Serv Sr Accountant Supervisor - Electrical

Chemist Executive Asst City Att Manager II - HR Sr Architect Supervisor - Facilities

Chief Financial Officer Executive Secretary Manager III - Fleet Sr Assistant City Attor Supervisor - Heavy Equip

City Attorney Financial Accountant Manager III - HR Sr Budget Analyst Supervisor - Maintenanc

City Auditor Financial Specialist Manager III - Warehous Sr Carpenter Supervisor II - Office

City Controller GIS Analyst III Mechanic Sr Contract Comp Admin Supervisor II - Pk Maint

Computer Operator Heavy Equipment Opr Mechanic II - Auto Serv Sr Customer Service Rep Supervisor II - Warehou

Contract Comp Administr HR Analyst II Mechanic II - Heavy Sr Electronic Techn Surveyor

Coordinator - Events/Me Human Resources Assista Netw ork Analyst Sr Engineer Systems Programmer

Coordinator - General HVAC Mechanic Netw ork Analyst II Sr HR Analyst Truck Driver II

Council Secretary IT Architect Nutritionist Sr HVAC Mechanic Water Plant Operator

Crew Leader IT Business Analyst V Office Assistant Sr IT Analyst Web Designer

Custodian IT Manager Office Assistant II Sr IT Manager

Customer Service Agent Laborer Painter Sr Legal Secretary

Customer Svc Rep II Laborer II Payroll Specialist, Senior Sr Machinist

Database Analyst Lead Custodian Pension Benefits Specia Sr Maintenance Worker

Design Technician II Legal Assistant Plumber Sr Mechanic - Maintenan

52

The midpoints of pay ranges for the civilian jobs included in this study are an average of 9% below market median

Pay Ranges – Civilian Jobs

$0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000

$120,000

$140,000

$160,000

$180,000

$200,000

0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000

Bas

e Pa

y

Grades

Dallas Grades vs Mkt 50th

Dallas Midpoints Mkt 50th

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

53

Base salaries for civilian jobs average 7% below the market median (50th percentile)

Base salary is less competitive at the higher job levels

Base Salary – Civilian Jobs

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $200,000

Base

Pay

Job Size

Base Pay Comparisons (Civilian Jobs)

Dallas Avg Pay Mkt 25th Mkt 50th Mkt 75th

54

Base salaries for uniformed jobs are aligned with the market median (average at median)

Base Salary – Uniformed Jobs

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $200,000

Bas

e Pa

y

Job Size

Base Pay Comparisons Police/Fire

Dallas Avg Pay Mkt 25th Mkt 50th Mkt 75th

55

Total cash compensation (salary plus annual cash bonuses) for civilian jobs at the City of Dallas is below the market median

Total Cash Compensation-Civilian Jobs

$20,000

$70,000

$120,000

$170,000

$220,000

$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000 $140,000 $160,000 $180,000 $200,000

TCC

Job Size

Dallas Mkt 50th TCC Mkt 75th TCC

56

Dallas’ medical plan is below the 25th percentile of both the survey group and the private sector

Values are relative from an employee’s perspective. A higher dollar value means that the plans’ features (including cost sharing arrangements) are better than those plans with lower dollar values.

Medical/Vision Benefits

57

Dallas does not contribute to the dental plan, a practice consistent with the 25th

percentile of the survey group but below the 25th percentile of the private sector

Dental Benefits

58

Dallas’ civilian retirement benefits are below the 50th percentile of the survey group and at median of the private sector

Retirement Benefits – Civilian Jobs

59

Dallas’ uniformed retirement benefits are above the 75th percentile of the survey group and the private sector (not shown here)

Retirement Benefits – Uniformed Jobs

60

Dallas does not provide an LTD benefit, a practice similar to the survey group but below the 25th

percentile of the private sector

LTD Benefits

61

Dallas’ life insurance benefit is at the median of the survey group and at the 25th percentile of the private sector

Life Insurance

62

Dallas’ vacation benefit is comparable to the survey group; holidays are slightly below

Vacation and Holidays

Dallas’ vacation benefit is slightly below median compared to private sector companies; holidays are at median

63

Dallas’ sick leave accrual policy is slightly below the practice of the survey group but maximum

accruals are in line with median market practice

Sick Leave

Sick Leave Dallas Average MedianNumber of hours accrued per year for sick leave 96 109 104Maximum sick leave balance (hours) 1,440 1,309 1,400

Sick Leave - Custom Survey

Dallas’ sick leave accrual policy is above the median of the private sector with maximum accruals significantly above typical practice

Sick Leave Dallas Average MedianNumber of hours accrued per year for sick leave 96 79 90Maximum sick leave balance (hours) 1,440 413 272

Sick Leave - Private Sector

64

The value of major benefits offered by the City are below the median of the survey group and the private sector

Total Benefits – Civilian Jobs

Note: A base salary of $50,000 was assumed to calculate the above benefit values

65

The value of total benefits for uniformed jobs is competitive with the median of the custom survey group

Total Benefits – Uniformed Jobs

Note: A base salary of $50,000 was assumed to calculate the above benefit values

66

Total compensation (cash plus the value of major benefits) for civilian jobs at the City of Dallas is below the market median (an average of 14%). Weaker than average total benefits pull the City’s total compensation lower compared to market.

Total Compensation – Civilian Jobs

67

Pay Element Summary Vs. Public Sector Vs. Private SectorBase Pay Weak 7% below blended market

Medical/Vision Weak At 25th percentile < 25th percentile

Dental Weak At 25th percentile < 25th percentile

Life Average At the 50th percentile At the 25th percentile

LTD Average At the 50th percentile < 25th percentile

Retirement Average At the 25th percentile > 50th percentile

Time Off Average Average <50th percentile

Total Comp Weak Weak Weak

Total Compensation Summary - Civilian

68

Total compensation for uniformed jobs is on average 11% above the median of the survey group

Total Compensation – Uniformed Jobs

69

Pay Element Summary Vs. Public SectorBase pay Average At the 50th percentile

Medical/Vision Weak At 25th percentile

Dental Weak At 25th percentile

Life Average At the 50th percentile

LTD Average At the 50th percentile

Retirement Strong Above 75th percentile

Time Off Average Average

Total Comp Above average Between median & 75th

Total Compensation Summary - Uniformed

70

Cash compensation for civilian jobs is not well aligned with market median

Current pay range midpoints are not in line with market median levels

Current benefits are in general below median market levels

Current total compensation is below market median compared to both the public and private sectors

Conclusions – Civilian Compensation

71

Compensation for Police and Fire jobs is competitive generally– There are a very limited number of jobs which should be reviewed for potential

adjustments in order to improve recruiting and retention

Compensation for civilian jobs is generally weak compared to the market data in this study

– The City may want to develop a three-year plan to address total compensation for specific civilian jobs that are difficult to hire and or difficult to retain

– The lack of merit awards in recent years has weakened the base pay for civilian jobs; reinstating merit awards would be a mechanism to improve pay competitiveness over time

The City’s medical benefit is particularly weak. Solutions include:– Increasing the employer contribution to premiums

– Increasing total compensation by adjusting base pay and/or using lump sum cash awards

Observations

RECOMMENDATIONS

72

Considerations for the City Manager’s Recommended 12/13 Budget

For all employees:

No healthcare premium increases

Expanded Wellness Program

Maintain current mix of leave, disability, life insurance, and pension benefits

For uniformed employees:

Current Meet & Confer contract expires in October, 2013

If Meet & Confer negotiations continue, discuss compensation options for the few jobs where Dallas’ pay may need to be more competitive

73

For civilian employees:

Over three-year period, adjust pay on positions where the City’s pay is significantly below market

Prioritize based on costs and operational impact

Over three-year period, adjust pay schedules to more closely align the midpoint of the ranges to the market

Reinstate performance-based merit increases

Additional options for consideration:

Reinstate Tuition Reimbursement program

Reinstate Language Skills pay for new participants

Increase the shift differential for deep-night shifts

74

Considerations for the City Manager’s Recommended 12/13 Budget

APPENDIX

75

76

City rules and policies governing employment

City Charter

Chapter II, Section 1., (35) & (36)

Make provisions for the care and sustenance of police, fire, and all officers and employees who:

Become disabled while in the service of City (e.g. disability pension)

Become incapacitated due to age or infirmity (e.g. retirement, healthcare, sick leave)

Become incapacitated due to longevity of service alone (e.g. retirement)

Provide aid and relief to widows, minor children, and dependents

Create funds for the above purposes

77

City rules and policies governing employment (cont’d)

City Charter (cont’d)

Chapter XVI, Section 14. – Adoption of Personnel System and establishment of rules and regulations, including

Description of employment positions

Methods of determining merit and fitness

Hours of work, attendance, provisions for sick leave and vacation leave

Equitable pay scales

City Personnel Rules

Health and life benefits

Paid and unpaid leave

Special Pay Items Civilian Employees

In addition to base pay, some employees receive ‘special pay’ for skills or assignments

Interim Assignment Pay - For employees serving in a higher level position for more than one month

5% of base pay

Language Skills Assignment Pay - For employees whose language skills support the departments’ service delivery

$110/mo for Intermediate skill level

$150/mo for Advanced skill level

Shift Assignment Pay - For employees with 50% of regular work hours between 6PM and 6AM

2% of pay

Service Incentive Pay - For employees hired before 10/1/2002

$4 for each month of service completed to a maximum of $1,200 per year

78

Special Pay Items DPD

Certification Pay - applicable to all ranks

TCLEOSE Intermediate - $200/mo

TCLEOSE Master - $500/mo

Service Pay - applicable to all ranks

$4/mo for each year of service completed

Maximum: $100 per month for 25 years of service

5 Year Retention Incentive - applicable to all ranks

$5,000 Lump Sum

10 Year Retention Incentive – applicable to all ranks

$3,000 Lump Sum

79

Pay Rate

Comparison

0‐45

Hours 45‐90 Hour 90‐105 Hours

105 Hours

or More

Max w/o

Bachelors

Max w/

Bachelors

Current $0

$4 per month for

each 3 credit

hours earned

$0 per month for

every 3 credit

hours earned $0 $60 per month

$100 per

month

Effective

April 1, 2013 $0

$12 per month

for each 3 credit

hours earned

$12 per month

for every 3 credit


$300 per

month

Educational Incentive Pay

Applicable to all ranks

*Education Incentive Pay is pensionable

Special Pay Items DPD (cont)

80

Temporary Assignment Pay (TAP)

For serving one rank higher:

Pay increases to the officer’s current step at the higher level rank

For serving two or more ranks higher:

Base pay increases to the step in the higher level rank that provides a 10% increase

Language Skill Assignment Pay



Down Payment Assistance Program

$6,000


81

Detective Assignment Pay – for Police Senior Corporals

$100/mo

Field Training Officer Pay - for Police Senior Corporals

$100/mo

Narcotics Hazardous Material Interdiction Team

$100/mo

Patrol Duty Pay - for Police Officers & Corporals

6 Years Service $100/mo



Shift Assignment Pay

3.5% (50% of hours between 6PM and 6AM)

6.5% First Watch (from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am)


82

Special Pay Item DFR

Service Pay - applicable to all ranks

$4/mo for each year of service completed

Maximum: $100 per month for 25 years of service

Temporary Assignment Pay (TAP)

5% for each rank served above officer’s current rank - maximum 15%

Language Skill Assignment Pay



83

Pay Rate

Comparison

0‐45

Hours 45‐90 Hour 90‐105 Hours

105 Hours

or More

Max w/o

Bachelors

Max w/

Bachelors

Current $0

$4 per month for

each 3 credit

hours earned

$0 per month for

every 3 credit


$100 per

month

Effective

April 1, 2013 $0

$12 per month

for each 3 credit

hours earned

$12 per month

for every 3 credit


$300 per

month

Special Pay ItemsDFR (cont)

Educational Incentive Pay

Applicable to all ranks

*Education Incentive Pay is pensionable

84

Wellness Incentive Pay

$150/yr (Good), $250/yr (Excellent), $350/yr (Superior)

Currently being funded by the FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants

Pay will be eliminated in FY 12-13 when the grant expires

Certification & Assignment Pay

Can only receive 2 certification and/or assignment pays at one time

Firefighter/Fire Inspector Certification – Employees who meet certification requirements

$175/mo Intermediate

$250/mo Advance

$500/mo Master

Aircraft Rescue (ARFF) – Employees at designated stations

$150/mo – Lieutenant and below

$350/mo – Captain and above


85

Arson Investigator - Assigned Arson Investigators

$175/mo

EMS Assignment Pay

Fire Instructor - Assigned Fire Instructors

$175/mo

Hazardous Material Response Team (HAZMAT) – Employees at designated stations

$150/mo Lieutenant and below

$350/mo Captain and above

$200/mo – 0 to 4 years $300/mo - 8 to 11 years

$250/mo - 4 to 6 years $350/mo - 11 to 14 years

$275/mo - 6 to 8 years $400/mo - 14 years Plus


86

Paramedic Certification – For selected positions

$75/mo

Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) – Employees at designated stations

$150/mo Lieutenant and below

$350/mo Captain and above


87

2006 Total Compensation Study – Details of 3-Year Compensation Changes

Over 3-Year period, implemented recommendations from the study as follows:

88

YEAR ONE – FY2006-2007 Police Fire Civilians

Eliminated the “Police Trainee” rank and began hiring at the “Police Officer, Step 1” rank (increased starting pay for recruits)

Added Certification Pay as follows: Intermediate $100 per month

Master $400 per month Increased Graduation Incentive Pay from

$1,000 to $6,000 one-time payment Added Incentive Pay for Completion of

Probation - $4,000 one time payment Added 5 year Retention pay - $5,000 one

time payment Added Tuition Reimbursement -

Reimburse up to 70% of tuition expenses – Max $1,500 per year

Increased Language Skills Pay

Eliminated the “Fire Trainee” rank and began hiring at the “Fire/Rescue Officer, Step 1” rank (increased starting pay for recruits)

Added Certification Pay as follows: Intermediate $100/month

Master $200/month Added additional assignment pay for:

AARF, USAR, Instructor, Arson Added Wellness Incentive Pay (varies from

$150 to $350 per year) Added Tuition Reimbursement - Reimburse

up to 70% of tuition expenses – Max $1,500 per year

Increased EMS Certification Pay $50/month

Increased Paramedic Certification Pay $50/month

Increased HAZMAT Pay $50/month Increased Language Skills Pay

Adjusted Salary Schedules as follows: o Grades A-E – No changeso Grades F-K – Increased

Max 3% o Grades L-P – Increased

Max 3% o Grades Q & Up –

Increased Max 3% Added Tuition

Reimbursement - Reimburse up to 70% of tuition expenses – Max $1,500 per year

Increased Language Skills Pay

Study Recommendations (3-Year Implementation)

89

YEAR TWO – FY2007-2008 Police Fire Civilians

Compressed Steps o All pay steps became one year steps.

Before the change, some were one year steps and others were two year steps. The ‘years’ indicates how long an employee stays in that step before being eligible to move to the next step.

o Implemented in order to increase pay for newer officers more quickly

Added additional 5% step to pay schedule Increased Certification Pay as follows: From To

Intermediate $100 $200 Master $400 $500

Added 10 year Retention Pay - $3,000 one-time payment

Added Down Payment Assistance Program - $6,000 one-time payment

Compressed Steps Added additional 5% step to pay schedule

Adjusted Salary Schedules as follows: o Grades A-E – Increased

Max 2% o Grades F-K – Increased

Min 3% o Grades L-P – Increased

Min 3% o Grades Q & Up –

Increased Min 3%


Study Recommendations (3-Year Implementation)

90

YEAR THREE – FY2008-2009 Police Fire Civilians

Added additional 5% step to pay schedule Added Detective Assignment Pay - $100

per month Eliminated Graduation Incentive Pay -

$6,000 Eliminated Incentive Pay for Completion

of Probation - $4,000

Added additional 5% step to pay schedule Increased Certification Pay as follows:

From To Intermediate $100 $175

Advanced $100 $250 Master $200 $500

Adjusted Salary Schedules as follows: o Grades A-E – Increased

Min 2% o Grades F-K – Increased

Max 3% o Grades L-P – Increased

Max 3% o Grades Q & Up –

Increased Max 4%


Details of Recent Staffing and Pay Changes

Staffing Pay

Police/Fire • Number of officers has increased since 2008

• October, 2010 - Begin Meet & Confer• Pay reduction from:

• Five Mandatory City Leave days (aka “furloughs”)• Elimination of overtime in Police (officers received

‘comp time’ in lieu of overtime)• Suspend Fire “Wellness Program”

• October, 2011 • Partial pay restoration from elimination of two of the

five Mandatory City Leave days• April, 2012• Comp-time for overtime provision expires – Police

officers can again begin earning overtime• October, 2012

• Final pay restoration from elimination of the three remaining Mandatory City Leave days

• 3% across-the-board pay increase• April, 2013

• Education Incentive Pay increases• Merit Increases

• No Step increases for FY09/10; FY10/11; or FY11/1291

Staffing Pay

Civilian Employees

• Three consecutive years of Reductions-in- Force

• Since 2008:• Number of

employees has decreased 19.3%

• July & August, 2009• Pay reduction via two furlough days

• October, 2009• Pay reduction via five furlough days

• October, 2010 • Pay reduction from:

• Five Mandatory City Leave days• Additional pay reduction of 0%, 2%, or 3%,

based on salary• October, 2011

• Partial pay restoration from the elimination of four Mandatory City Leave days

• May, 2012• Partial pay restoration via restoration of 2% &

3% cuts• October, 2012

• Final pay restoration via elimination of remaining four Mandatory City Leave days

• Merit Increases• No merit increases for FY09/10; FY10/11; or

FY11/12 92

Details of Recent Staffing and Pay Changes

DATE

TO

SUBJECT

Memorandum

July 27, 2012

The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Recommended 2012 Bond Program Briefing August 1,2012 Council Briefing

CITY OF DALLAS

On August 1, 2012, the City Council will be briefed on the Recommended 2012 Bond Program. Briefing materials are attached for your review.

The projects listed therein are those that you have approved for your District as of July 27, 2012. Additional projects will be added as is stated in the memorandum from me dated July 27, 2012 on the subject: 2012 Bond Program Projects. This updated project list will be distributed at the council briefing .

Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.

LJ:c£f2P~ Assistant City Manager

Attachment

c: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Mary K. Suhm, City Manager Thomas P. Perkins, Jr., City Attorney Rosa Rios, City Secretary Craig Kinton, City Auditor Judge C. Victor Lander, Administrative Judge A.C. Gonzalez, First Assistant City Manager Ryan S. Evans, Assistant City Manager Forest E. Turner, Assistant City Manager Joey Zapata, Assistant City Manager Jeanne Chipperfield, Chief Financial Officer Jack Ireland, Director, Financial Services Edward Scott, Director, Controller's Office Stephanie Cooper, Assistant to the City Manager - Mayor and Council Office Kelly High, Director, Trinity Watershed Management Rick Galceran, P.E., Director, Public Works

"Dallas, The City That Works: Diverse, Vibrant and Progressive:

Recommended 2012 Bond Program

City Council Briefing

August 1 , 2012

2012 Bond Program Propositions

Proposition No.1: Street & Transportation Improvements $ 221,200,000

Proposition No.2: Flood Protection, Storm Drainage & Creek Erosion $ 323,800,000

Proposition No.3: Economic Development in the SouthemArea of the City and Transit-Oriented-Development citywide $ 55,000,000

Total $ 600,000,000

2

-

Proposition No.1: Streets & Transportation Improvements

-Sidewalk Repairs Citywide $ 1,500,000

West Dallas Gateway Citywide $ 34,300,000

Houston Street Bridge Citywide $ 12,200,000

Alley Petition $ 1,900,000

Alley Reconstruction $ 15,000,000

Arterial (Residential Street Collector) Reconstruction $ 18,400,000

Arterial (Residential Street Collector) Resurfacing $ 31,700,000

Complete Streets $ 20,500,000

Intergovernmental Partnership (streets & trails) $ 17,000,000

Sidewalk Projects $ 300,000

Street Petition & Target Neighborhood Program $ 17,200,000

Street Resurfacing & Reconstruction $ 38,600,000

Thoroughfares $ 1,200,000

Trails $ 11,400,000

Total $ 221,200,000

These projects include transportation systems management, participation with other agencies for improvements to intersections, alternate transportation modes including trails, thoroughfares, street resurfacing, street petitions, street reconstruction, street lighting, streetscaping, complete streets, sidewalks, thoroughfare improvements, alley petitions, alley reconstruction, bridge repair and modifications. 3

Proposition No.2: Flood Protection, Storm Drainage & Creek Erosion

Mill Creek, Peaks Branch & State Thomas Citywide

Levee Drainage System - Sump A (Able Pump Station) Citywide

Erosion Control

Upper McKamy Bypass Swale

Bahama Relief System

Total

Erosion Control

$ 218,600,000

$ 91,700,000

$ 11,600,000

$ 1,300,000

$ 600,000

$ 323,800,000

Provides for erosion control projects for structures threatened by creek or channel bank erosion; Typical structures include streets, culverts, bridges, alleys and homes

Flood Management . Provides for projects primarily recommended in Flood Plain Management Studies of creeks and tributaries. The emphasis is on reduction of severe flood impact on neighborhoods bordering flood plain areas. Typical projects in this category would be bridge and culvert replacement, channel improvements, and voluntary purchase of flood prone properties

Storm Drainage Relief System Provides for additional drainage systems for developed areas currently served by drainage systems that have become inadequate after years of development. Typical upgrades include upgrade and/or extension of storm drain systems

4

Proposition NO.3: Street, Utility and Other Infrastructure Improvements in Furtherance of Economic and Business

Development in the Southern Area of the City and Other Areas of the City in Connection with Transit Oriented Development

Canyon Boulevard $ 10,000,000

UNT Transit-Oriented-Development (TOO) $ 5,000,000

Economic Development and Housing Demand Driven Projects $ 40,000,000

Total $ 55,000,000

Provides funds in Southern Dallas and TOO citywide for planning, designing, constructing, improving and expanding streets, utilities, and other necessary infrastructure facilities, land acquisition, facility demolition and other financing support for commercial , industrial, retail , mixed-use and residential development.

5

District Funding on the Streets & Transportation Improvements and Flood Protection, Storm Drainage & Creek Erosion Propositions

Amounts shown in COl CO2 CD3 C04 CDS COG C07 CD8 CD9 COlO CDll C012 CD13 CD14 $ mil lion Jasso Medrano Griggs Caraway Hill Alonzo Davis Atkins Kadane Allen Koop Greyson Margolin Hunt

Tota l

Streets $1302 $1302 $11.7 $1301 $1206 $1303 $1302 $1208 $1103 $808 $1201 $11.8 $1302 $1209

Total

Erosion/

Storm

Drainage $002 $002 $1.8 $0.4 $007 $000 $001 $005 $201 $405 $103 $1.4 $000 $002

Total

Streets & Erosion/

Storm

Drainage $1304 $13.4 $1305 $1305 $1303 $1303 $13.3 $1303 $13.4 $1303 $13.4 $1302 $1302 $1301

6

Remaining 2012 Bond Program Schedule

August 1

program)

August 8

November 6

Council Deliberation (finalize projects to be included in bond

Council Votes to Call the Bond Program

Election

Bond Program Election

7

District 1 ‐ 2012 Bond Program List

Category LocationEstimated

Cost CommentAlley Petition

Alley between Bishop Avenue and Haines Avenue from Neches Street to Wickford Street $171,400

Alley between Mt. Nebo Street and Mt. Shasta Street from Mt. Royal Street to Mt. Ranier Street $251,000

Street PetitionElmdale Pl‐Polk St to Tyler St $455,500Rockwood St‐Jerden Ln to Pembroke Ave $979,600

Arterial ResurfacingEwing Ave (S) from IH 35 to Viola $91,300

Edgefield from Clarendon to Illinois $889,600

Jefferson (W) from Rosemont to Hampton $949,300

Jefferson (W) from Beckley to Madison $293,300

Ewing from 8th to Comal $305,500

Polk St from Jefferson Blvd to Davis $237,300 50/50 w CD3

Pilot Complete StreetsDavis Street Beckley to Hampton $979,600

Priority ProjectsComplete Street Bishop from Jefferson to 8th $3,061,300

Jefferson Blvd from Crawford to Van Buren $1,469,400

Street Resurfacing 5th (E) from Crawford to Denver $112,700

Patton from Davis to 6th $190,100Barnett Ave from Irwindell Blvd to Brooklyndell Ave $77,600

Eli Ave from Irwindell Blvd to Brooklyndell Ave $84,000

TrailsElmwood Parkway pedestrian connection to Kiest Park $698,000

Target Neighborhood Madison (N) from 7th to 9th $1,040,800

Adams (N) from Davis to 9th $826,500

Total Street and Transportation $13,163,800

Erosion ControlMartin Weiss Park Site 3 ‐ Pedestrian Bridge $34,300Martin Weiss Park Site 1 ‐ Pavilion $68,600Clarendon 3435 $111,200

Total Flood Protection and Storm Drainage $214,100

7/27/2012



Cost CommentArterial Reconstruction

Lindsley from Beacon to Munger $2,434,000Maple Ave from 700' south of Mockingbird Ln to Mockingbird Ln $730,200

Arterial ResurfacingEmpire Central St from Harry Hines Blvd to Heartsill Dr $374,300Harry Hines Blvd from Medical District Drive to Butler Street $591,500

Inwood Rd from Forest Park Rd to Cedar Springs $1,202,400Cedar Springs Rd from Inwood Rd to W. Mockingbird Ln $737,500

Mockingbird Ln (W) from Maple to Harry Hines$1,010,100

Mockingbird Ln (W) from Maple to Cedar Springs $691,000 75/25 w CD14Graham Ave from Lindsley to Terry St $176,500Henderson Ave (N) from Richard to Ross $740,200

Priority Projects

Complete Street Main Street from Good Latimer to Exposition $734,700

Sidewalk ImprovementsHarry Hines from Oak Lawn to Wycliff DART Station $122,500

Trails Trinity Strand $3,673,500


Erosion ControlCedar Springs 5910 $185,100


7/27/2012



Cost CommentIntergovernmental Partnership

Mountain Creek Parkway from 2400’ southeast of Eagle Ford to Clark Road $6,701,000

Arterial Reconstruction

Canada Dr from Tamerisk St to Westmoreland Rd $2,075,000 50/50 w CD6Hampton Rd (S) from Crow Creek Dr to north of W. Ledbetter Dr. $1,855,900

Arterial ResurfacingJefferson Blvd (W) from Polk to Rosemont $836,100

Polk St from Jefferson Blvd to Davis St $237,300 50/50 w CD1


Erosion ControlColorado (W) 705 $77,700Hampton Road (S) 3817 $228,500Deep HIll Circle 2671, 2675, 2679, 2683 $553,500Kiesthill Drive 3431 $222,400Blue Ridge 3721 $123,500

Flood and Storm DrainageBahama Drive Relief System $577,000

Total Flood Protection and Storm Drainage $1,782,600

7/27/2012




Alley between Idaho Ave and Maryland Ave from Holden Ave an estimated 250' south to Dallas Power & Light property $85,700

Street PetitionMichigan Ave‐Saner Ave to Hobson Ave $446,900

Arterial ReconstructionBonnieview from Overton to Springview $523,300Fordham from Bonnieview to Illinois $1,521,300Ewing Ave (S) from Galloway Ave to Genoa Ave $1,161,000Overton Rd (E) from Biglow to Garrison $1,510,300

Arterial Resurfacing

Kiest Blvd (E) from S. Lancaster Rd to Kellogg Ave $1,031,000

Marsalis Ave (S) from Elmore Ave to Corning Ave $992,300Polk St (S) from Town Creek Drive to Brook Valley Lane $49,400 50/50 w CD5

Bonnieview from Springview to Fordham $316,400

Corinth St (S) from Woodbine Ave to 11th St $243,400

Sunnyvale from Kiest to Ann Arbor $626,800

Saner Ave (E) from Michigan Ave to S. Marsalis Ave $135,600Priority Projects

Alley ReconstructionFox Hill Ln (5949‐5977) and W. Red Bird (1007‐1031) A6358 $115,600

Sidewalk Improvements Sidewalk improvements District 4 $244,900

Target Neighborhood Arizona from Saner to Kiest $1,714,300McVey from Beckley to Marsalis $1,347,000Hendricks from Denley to Moore $551,000Yancy St from Carbondale St to Saipan St $500,800


Erosion ControlCavender 445 $73,100Five Mile Pkwy W. 922 $222,400Glen Oaks 816 $137,100


7/27/2012



Cost CommentStreet Petition

Gardenview Dr ‐ Alto Garden Dr to Loma Garden Av $1,469,400

Arterial ResurfacingPolk St (S) from Town Creek Drive to Brook Valley Lane $49,400 50/50 w CD4Red Bird Ln (W) from S Polk Street to Bar Harbor Drive $765,000

Priority Projects

Street Reconstruction Rocky Ridge Rd From E Ledbetter Dr To Woodacre Dr $408,100Lazy River Dr From Wagon Wheels Trl To Caravan Trl $399,700Brierfield Dr From Brierfield Cir To W Camp Wisdom Rd $573,600Reynoldston from Hampton to Heather Glen $1,079,500

Mayforge Dr From Le Forge Ave To E Ledbetter Dr $1,963,900

Ledbetter Dr (E) From Kolloch Dr To Mayforge Dr $578,100Stratton Dr From Calcutta Dr To Penguin Dr $213,900Five Mile Dr From Frio Dr To Burnside Ave $213,000Bismark Dr from E. Ledbetter to 51st $900,600Tacoma from Ann Arbor to Marjorie $608,500Haas from Marjorie to 51st $413,800

7/27/2012



Cost Comment

Street Resurfacing Bonnie View Rd From Cummings St To Great Trinity Forest Way $271,500Linfield Rd From Seay Dr To Humphrey Dr $57,700Caravan Trl From Trio Ln To Lazy River Dr $89,400Caravan Trl From Old Ox Rd To Trio Ln $42,500Deerwood Dr From Library Ln To Eop $59,600Spring Glen Dr From Willow Glen Dr To Cedar Glen Dr $104,400Silvery Moon Dr From Singing Hills Dr To Silvery Moon Cir $128,400Bowling Brook Dr From Humoresque Dr To Lazy River Dr $121,800Humphrey Dr From Linfield Rd To Seaton Dr $84,900

Underwood St From Kilburn Ave To Modree Ave $34,200

Ann Arbor Ave From Bonnie View Rd To Cranfill Dr $178,100

Lake Placid from Reynoldston Ln to Swansee St $486,800

McKissick Ln from Algebra Dr to W. Wheatland Rd $507,300Matagorda Dr from Marblehead Dr to Lake Placid Dr $200,800

Trails Runyon Creek Greenbelt Trail (Glendale to UNT) $612,300 Funding also in D8


Erosion ControlGlendale Park Site 4 ‐ N. of footbridge $34,300Glendale Park Site 3 ‐ S. of footbridge $34,300Glendale Park Site 1 ‐ Pavilion $68,600Twin Falls Park Trail $257,100Rosemont Rd. 7322 $114,300Caracas 5410 and 5416 $171,400


7/27/2012




Alley between Manana Drive and Park Lane from Larga Drive to Marsh Lane $391,800

Intergovernmental PartnershipDenton Drive Phase 1 (Walnut Hill to Royal) $5,992,300

Street PetitionPalacios Ave ‐ Ottawa Rd to Canada Dr $471,400

Arterial Reconstruction

Canada Dr from Tamerisk St to Westmoreland Rd $2,075,000 50/50 w CD3


Ambassador Row from Regal Row to Dividend Drive $714,600Jefferson (W) from Walton Walker service road to Flowers Ave $1,052,700

Governor's Row from Regal Row to Empire Central $421,800Mockingbird Ln (W) from US 183 to Quebec $1,751,700

Southwell Rd from Harry Hines Blvd to Denton Dr $62,600Walnut Hill Ln from 500' west of Dale Crest Dr to Webb Chapel $345,000 50/50 w CD13


Flood and Storm Drainage

Total Flood Protection and Storm Drainage $0

7/27/2012



Cost CommentStreet Petition

Longhorn Street from Bar X St to Ferguson Rd $832,700


Lawnview Ave from Scyene Rd to Fairway Ave $451,800

Pilot Complete StreetsGrand from R.B. Cullum to Good Latimer $2,449,000

Priority ProjectsComplete Street Lamar (S) from IH 45 to Hatcher $4,898,000

Street Reconstruction JB Jackson from Grand to MLK $1,095,300

Imperial St from Bertrand Ave To Lagow St $584,200Scyene / Hatcher area TOD improvements

Montie St from Scyene Rd To Junction St $860,400Scyene / Hatcher area TOD improvements

Mingo Street from Dolphin to Gault $304,300Beall Street from Dolphin to Gifford Street $365,100

Street Resurfacing Rustown Dr from Oates Dr to Inadale Ave $170,400

ThoroughfareHighland Road from Ferguson to north of the entrance to Primrose at Highland (1500' to NE) $1,224,500


Erosion ControlWild Oak 2488 $148,300


7/27/2012




Bluffman Drive, Castle Hills Drive & Lovingood Dr. ‐ Lovingood Dr. ‐ Loud Dr. $226,500

Street PetitionFernheath Ln‐South Beltline Rd. to Dead End $1,285,700Crenshaw Dr‐Cushing Dr to Old Seagoville Rd $857,200

Priority Projects

Alley ReconstructionCoach Light Rd (7204‐7260) And Pecan Ridge Dr (7322‐7346) A6160 $316,100Meadow Gate Ln (2703‐2763) And Meadow Isle Ln (2704‐2764) A6161 $195,000Meadow Dawn Ln (2705‐2759) And Meadow Bluff Ln (2706‐2756) A6158 $154,200Meadow Dawn Ln (2706‐2760) And Meadow Harvest Ln (2705‐2759) A6154 $166,300Meadow Harvest Ln (2706‐2760) And Meadow Isle Ln (2709‐2763) A6155 $165,600Meadow Stone Ln (2705‐2759) And Meadow Gate Ln (2710‐2762) A6156 $162,800Meadow Bluff Ln (2703‐2755) And W Camp Wisdom Rd (2400‐2400) A6157 $154,900

Street ReconstructionGentle River Dr from end of pavement to Hidden Trail Dr $456,400Highland Hills Dr from Simpson Stuart Rd to Bonnie View Rd $1,257,600Sweet Sue Ln from Hidden Valley Dr to Camp Wisdom (E) Rd $974,800

Street Resurfacing Ivywood Dr from Woodspan Dr to Woodshire Dr $274,100Racine Dr from Kirnwood to Cleardale $150,400Goldwood Dr from Polk to Woodspan $304,300

Woodshire Dr from Kirnwood Dr to Clearwood Dr $304,300

Chaucer Pl from Camp Wisdom Rd to Kirnwood Dr $486,800Sebring Dr from Tioga St to Soft Wind Dr $176,500

Kirnwood Dr from Leigh Ann Dr to Woodspan Dr $228,800Tumbling Creek Trl from Leaning Oaks St to Alta Mesa Dr $152,100

7/27/2012



Cost Comment

Trails

Runyon Creek Greenbelt Trail (Glendale Park Loop Trail from Wagon Wheels Trl. and Lazy River Dr. south along Ricketts Br. onto University Dr.) $3,061,300 Funding also in D5

Target Neighborhood Gooch St From S Lancaster Rd To Tracy Rd Block $1,285,700


Erosion ControlBlackstone 2729 $91,400Blackstone 2709 $114,300Blackstone 2745 $220,500Bainbridge 2733 $91,400


7/27/2012



Cost Comment

Intergovernmental PartnershipSOPAC Trail Phase 3 (East Dallas Veloway) $2,081,700

Street PetitionStevens St from Cayuga Dr to Davilla Ave and Davilla Ave from Stevens St to Drake St $673,500

Arterial ReconstructionWoodmeadow from La Prada to end of divided roadway $1,703,800

Arterial ResurfacingAbrams Rd from Mockingbird Ln to Lange Cir $262,300 50/50 w CD14Easton Rd from Northwest Highway to concrete east of Bon Aire Dr $710,700Gus Thomasson Rd from Materhorn Dr to Maylee Blvd $364,100

Gus Thomasson Rd from Zacha Dr to Desdemona Dr $401,600

Peavy Rd from E. Lake Highlands Dr to Northcliff Dr $351,700Gaston Ave from Loving Ave to 200' west of Brendenwood Dr $307,300 50/50 w CD14

Mockingbird Ln (E) from Rockaway Dr to Hillgreen Dr $988,900

Priority ProjectsStreet Resurfacing Cotillion Dr from Shiloh Rd to Plummer Dr $389,400

Dumbarton Dr from Cotillion to Drummond Dr $202,800Drummond Dr from Drummond Ct north to Ferguson Rd $285,800Mercer Dr from Vinewood Dr to Buckner Blvd $497,500

Mercer Pl from Mercer Dr to EOP $46,200

Mercer Cir from Mercer Dr to EOP $40,900

Velasco Ave from Abrams Rd to Pearson Dr $233,200

Aledo Dr from Crest Ridge Dr to Tisinger Ave $721,700

Tisinger Ave from Aledo Dr to Estacado Dr $149,200

Santa Clara Dr from Lakeland Dr to Ocalla Ave $242,400Arboreal Dr from 300' north of NW Highway to Walling Ln $461,900

Waterview Rd from Buckner Blvd to dead end $166,000


7/27/2012



Cost CommentErosion Control

Tamarack 1745, 1739, 1751 $308,500Beechmont Dr. 2507 $54,800Sunland Street 11825 $45,700Healey 2116 and Kingsman 9869 $137,100Springwater 9204, 9210, 9216 $297,100Tranquilla Dr. 1251 $109,700Twin Creek 9726 $123,500Sperry St. 3220 $84,000Dixon Branch at Easton Road $182,800Mercedes 6607, 6615, 6621 $114,300Lyre Lane 6909 and Chantilly Court 6916 $68,600Kiltartan 1511 $177,900Summer Creek Circle 6121, 6123, 6125,6127,6139,6141 $434,200



7/27/2012




Alley southwest and parallel to Shoreview Road from Forest Trail to Nimrod Trail $189,800

Intergovernmental PartnershipLBJ at Skillman Interchange $1,714,300

Arterial ResurfacingFerndale Rd from Linkwood to Longmont $66,700Ferndale Rd from Shoreview to NW Highway $91,500Ferndale Rd from Walnut Hill Ln to Vistadale Dr $636,000

Priority Projects

Alley ReconstructionBuxhill Dr (9406‐9734) And Shady Dale Ln (9607‐9735) ‐ A8390 $244,500Chiswell Rd (9707‐9747) And Lanshire Dr (9718‐9738) ‐ A8384 $85,700Estate Ln (10111‐10171) And Caribou Trl (9909‐9949) ‐ A8686 $165,400Lakemere Dr (9807‐9951) And Crestwick Dr (9806‐9940) ‐ A8318 $304,500Overwood Rd (9406‐9536) And Parkford Dr (9407‐9529) ‐ A8357 $241,400Parkford Dr (9819‐9963) And Ridgehaven Dr (9806‐9950) ‐ A8324 $308,400Shoreview Rd (9506‐9748) And Audelia Rd (8725‐8725) ‐ A8400 $368,900Buxhill Dr (9405‐9735) And Lanshire Dr (9408‐9636) ‐ A8389 $310,400Shoreview Rd (9222‐9246) And Deer Trail Dr (8044‐8044) ‐ A11633 $71,200Aldwick Dr (8805‐9031) And Fenchurch Rd (8904‐9020) ‐ A8409 $218,000Chesterton Dr (10206‐10432) And Walnut Hill Ln (10201‐10201) ‐ A8448 $302,100

7/27/2012



Cost CommentStreet Reconstruction Heatherdale from Dove Meadow to Abrams $693,700

Chandler Dr from Carthage Ln to Carthage Ln 12900 to 13100 $1,095,300Carthage Ln from Chandler Dr to Buckingham Rd (13300 block) $317,600

Dahman Cir from Church Rd to end of pavement $228,800

Street Resurfacing Glen Regal Dr From Rialto Dr To Hallum St $149,700Clearwater from Boundbrook to Woodbrook $130,500Campanella Dr From Rialto Dr To TI Blvd $245,800Rialto Dr from Glen Regal Dr to Bunche Dr $73,000Merriman Pkwy from Hyde Park Dr to Sedgewick Dr $174,300Parkshire, Lizshire, Sanshire, Danashire, Debshire, Clayshire $371,200


Erosion ControlFair Oaks Crossing 8849 $285,600Skillman 8109 $163,400Royal Lane 9750 (Jackson Branch ‐ E. Bank downstream of Royal Bridge) $259,400Whitehurst 9730 (Audelia Branch ‐ W. Bank dwnstrm of Whitehurst) $444,800Langdale Circle 8668 and 8656 $285,600Church Road 9233 $160,000Whitehurst 9727 (Jackson Branch ‐ E. Bank upstream of Whitehurst Br) $345,900Audelia 11601 (Audelia Branch ‐ E. Bank downstream of Audelia Bridge) $617,700Skillman 7920 (Jackson Branch ‐ E. Bank downstream of Skillman Br) $518,900

Harry Moss Park Site 1 ‐ S. of pedestrian bridge $68,600Greenville Avenue 9320/Vista View 8915 $197,700Rocky Branch @ Middle Downs Sites 1, 2, 3, 4 $666,300Fair Oaks Crossing 8201 $114,300Green Oaks Circle 9032 $137,100Abrams Road Bridge ‐ hike & bike trail $48,000Lanett Circle N. 10741 $142,800



7/27/2012



Cost Comment

Intergovernmental PartnershipSpring Valley Rd from Coit Rd to Goldmark sidewalk and pedestrian improvements $153,100

Arterial ReconstructionMerit from Park Central to Clodus Fields $1,052,700

Arterial ResurfacingAlpha from Peyton to Coit $786,700

Forest Ln from Preston Haven Dr to High Forest Dr $273,800 WB lanes only

Hillcrest Rd from Northaven to Currin Drive $164,900 NB lanes onlyMeandering Way from Birchwood Dr to Spring Valley Rd $207,400Meandering Way from Spring Valley Rd to Belt Line Rd $654,300

Priority Projects

Alley ReconstructionAlley between Royal and Lavendale from Camellia to Edgemere (A8951 and A8967) $495,100Alley between Lavendale and Azalea from Royalshire to Lavendale (A8948 and A8952) $449,300Alley between Azalea and Royalton from Azalea to Tibbs (A8946) $253,900 Azalea Ln (7107‐7239) And Currin Dr (7106‐7238) A8773 $258,700

Street ReconstructionSpring Grove from Alpha to Coit $2,255,500Trails End from Berry Trl to Arapaho Rd $1,427,500Berry Trail from Preston Rd to Copperhill Dr $753,300Southview Ln From Coit Rd To Blossomheath Ln $481,900Red Fern Ln From Coit Rd To Blossomheath Ln $601,200

Street Resurfacing Churchill Way from Whitley to Preston $119,300Tibbs St from Royal Ln to W Ricks Cir $206,900Royal Crest Dr from W Ricks Cir to Preston Rd $263,400Clodus Fields Rd from Merit Rd to Coit Rd $171,100Blossomheath Ln from Coit Rd to Kit Ln $103,000

Target Neighborhood Hughes Lane from Churchill Way to Lafayette Way $814,300Hughes Lane from Lafayette Way to IH 635 $137,800 Sidewalks only


7/27/2012



Cost CommentErosion Control

Burninglog 13156 $68,600Spring Valley 8444 $297,100Royal Lane 7832 and 7920 $493,600Kalani 6323 $79,100Clubhouse Circle 6523 and 6527 $114,300Anderson Bonner Park Site 1 ‐ hike & bike trail (WRC 164) $231,400



7/27/2012



Cost CommentIntergovernmental Partnership

Keller Springs / Preston / Westgrove $306,100

Arterial ReconstructionHillcrest Rd from Wester Way to McKamy $615,800

Pilot Complete StreetsMeadowcreek Drive Arapaho to Campbell ‐ pedestrian and traffic calming improvements $271,800

Priority Projects

Alley ReconstructionAmberwood Rd (16101‐16239) And Wickerwood Dr (6401‐6535) A9726 $347,000Clearhaven Dr (7206‐7246) And Alto Caro Dr (7249‐7279) A9160 $125,100La Cosa Dr (7604‐7760) And Chalkstone Dr (7605‐7747) A9262 $423,900Rustic Valley Dr (7238‐7420) And Echo Bluff Dr (7104‐7132) A9142 $409,600Earthwind Dr (17101‐17409) And Campbell Rd (6001‐6101) A9582 $508,200Indian Springs Rd (7609‐7679) And Tophill Ln (7614‐7652) A9319 $177,000Spring Creek Rd (15408‐15432) And Fallmeadow Ln (7927‐7931) A9266 $86,500Chattington Dr (7403‐7439) And Meandering Pl (15105‐15115) A9290 $180,300Duffield Dr (6321‐6415) And Earthwind Dr (17134‐17222) A9589 $136,500La Cosa Dr (7705‐7761) And El Padre Ln (7706‐7746) A9258 $156,000Park Grove Ln (18627‐18851) And Kirkmeadow Ln (4007‐4131) A10466 $302,500Caulfield Dr (6701‐6805) And Spanky Branch Ct (6904‐7000) A9551 $203,500Country Brook Dr (4204‐4328) A10502 $270,300 Fallmeadow Ln (7612‐7668) And Meandering Way (14800‐14800) A9273 $220,400 Gray Wolf Trl (6203‐6251) And Bentwood Trl (6211‐6247) A10666 $169,600 Harbinger Ln (2503‐2623) And Kingsridge Dr (2504‐2624) A10349 $214,700 Tophill Ln (7405‐7449) And Lynworth Dr (7408‐7444) A9302 $165,800 Harbinger Ln (2303‐2423) And Kingsridge Dr (2308‐2424) A10354 $215,100 Hillcrest Rd (17920‐18014) And Bremerton Dr (7003‐7011) A10597 $133,000 Kingsridge Dr (2307‐2627) And Silverthorne Dr (2304‐2516) A10345 $421,900 La Cosa Dr (7804‐7960) And Fallmeadow Ln (7931‐7997) A9265 $296,800 Lacehaven Dr (14907‐14957) And Knollview Dr (14908‐14944) A9299 $249,500 Spring Creek Rd (14906‐15022) And Hillfawn Cir (7906‐7916) A9248 $147,600

7/27/2012



Cost Comment Timber Creek Ln (6001‐6037) And Gentle Knoll Ln (6002‐6030) A9601 $153,600 Partial recon.Alto Caro Dr (7305‐7447) And Clearhaven Dr (7306‐7446) A9167 $260,200El Padre Ln (7707‐7747) And El Santo Ln (7706‐7746) A9257 $156,400La Cabeza (7707‐7765) And Scotia (7702‐7718) A9118 $176,800Roundrock Rd (7707‐7823) And Briaridge Rd (7708‐7820) A9272 $182,000La Manga Dr (7707‐7765) And La Cabeza Dr (7708‐7764) A9119 $178,500Arapaho Rd (7630‐7630) And El Padre (7707‐7707) A9260 $188,800Hillfawn Cir (7905‐7947) And Woodstone Ln (7938‐7992) A9246 $135,200Alley location to be determined $126,600

Street Resurfacing Gretchen Ln from Davenport Rd to Peppy Pl $225,900Richwater Dr from Cedar Creek Canyon to Campbell Rd $143,900Squaw Valley from End of Pavement to Crested Butte Dr $124,700

Selecman Dr from La Sobrina Dr to Foxworth Dr $37,000

Leavalley Dr from Hillwood Ln to Winterwood Ln $53,200

Earlport Dr from Roundrock Rd to Winterwood Ln $73,400

Misty Trl from Golden Creek Rd to Warm Mist Ln $85,300Coolglen Dr from Meadowcreek Dr to end of pavement $105,700Windy Ridge Dr from Meadowcreek Dr to Arbor Downs Dr $137,000Camille Ave from Davenport to Cansler $175,500Tomlinson St from Graystone Dr to Meandering Way $98,200

La Cabeza Dr From Spring Creek Rd To Querida Ln $122,900

Trails Trail from Timberglen Park to Barry Barker Park $856,700 Design and ROW

Trail from Timberglen Park to Barry Barker Park $1,225,000 Construction


Erosion ControlSquaw Valley 17628 $91,400

Flood and Storm DrainageMcKamy Swale $1,309,800


7/27/2012




Alley between Hurley Way and Lenel Place from Williamsburg Road to "T" alley south of Walnut Hill Lane $202,000

Arterial ResurfacingRoyal Ln from Marsh Lane to Cox Lane $391,100Walnut Hill Ln from 500' west of Dale Crest Dr to Webb Chapel $345,000 50/50 w CD6Forest from High Meadow to Josey $1,277,900

Priority Projects

Alley Reconstruction Allencrest Ln (4608‐4732) And Forest Ln (4609‐4719) A5246 $209,400 Allencrest Ln (4807‐4931) And Nashwood Ln (4808‐4918) A5244 $274,000 Boca Bay Dr (4109‐4263) And Shady Bend Dr (4110‐4264) A5528 $376,600 Brookview Dr (4400‐4538) And Gloster Rd (4407‐4533) A3086 $295,500 Caruth Blvd (7403‐7543) And Colgate Ave (7402‐7542) A3880 $241,000 Cedarbrush Dr (3809‐3951) And Goodfellow Dr (3810‐3948) A5588 $305,800 Chapel Downs Dr (3108‐3256) And Timberview Rd (3111‐3253) A5691 $349,000 Beauty Ln (10804‐11030) And Royal Ln (3461‐3461) A5447 $317,200

7/27/2012



Cost CommentStreet Reconstruction Weeburn from Marsh to Mid Pines $752,100

Street Resurfacing Wonderland Trl from Northaven Rd to Peter Pan Dr $269,200Silverton from Dennis to Caraway $124,600Caraway from Latham to Northaven $304,000Channel from Royal to Talisman $343,700Regent from Webb Chapel to Countess $239,500Duchess from Royal Club to Marquis $181,100Norcross from Webb Chapel to Cromwell $294,500Royal Club from Merrell to Regent $270,400Marquis from Norcross to Royal $227,600Countess from Camelot to end of pavement north of Regent $381,200Earlshire from Regent to Royal $44,100Pensive from Walnut Hill to Merrell $327,900Harwich from Walnut Hill to Timberview $121,700Dale Crest from Walnut Hill to Citation $70,100Timberview from Pensive to Webb Chapel $294,800Thackery from Waggoner to Royal $358,800Edgemere from Park Lane to Prestonshire $141,700Prestonshire from Tulane to Edgemere $162,800Park Lane from Thackery St to Hillcrest Rd $171,400Park Lane from Tulane St to Edgemere Rd $162,600Stefani Dr from Thackery St to Hillcrest Rd $128,500Tulane St from Prestonshire Ln to Lupton Dr $51,100Shady Bend from Midway to Haydale $205,900

Trails Northaven Trail Extension $1,224,500

Target Neighborhood Phoenix from Fair Oaks to Holly Hill $857,200Holly Hill from Phoenix to Pineland $857,200



Total Flood Protection and Storm Drainage $0

7/27/2012




Capps Dr & Rexford Dr fr. Lemmon Ave parallel to Glencrest Ln $146,900Alley between Hibernia Street and State Street from Boll Street to Worthington Street $91,800Alley between Hibernia Street and McKinney Avenue from Routh Street to Boll Street $94,300Alley between State Street and Thomas Avenue from Routh Street to Boll Street $91,800

Arterial ReconstructionMunger Blvd (N) from Rieger to Tremont $1,135,500

Arterial ResurfacingAbrams Rd from Mockingbird Ln to Lange Cir $262,300 50/50 w CD9Bowen St from McKinney Ave to Turtle Creek $260,000Carlisle St from Sneed St to N. Hall St $217,600McKinney Ave from Hall to Oak Grove $246,800Cole from Harvard to Lee $664,700Gaston Ave from Loving to 200' west of Brendenwood $307,300 50/50 w CD9

Avondale from Throckmorton to Oak Lawn Ave $106,900Lemmon Ave from W. University Blvd to Bluffview Blvd $407,700Haskell Ave from Lemmon to Ross $395,500McMillan from Willis to Monticello $375,600

Mockingbird Ln (W) from Maple to Cedar Springs$230,300 75/25 w/CD2

Ross Ave from N. Field St to Crockette St $441,000Main St from Harwood to Lamar $730,200 15/85 w CD2Street location to be determined $318,400

Pilot Complete StreetsKnox ‐ Katy Trail to US 75 $734,700

Priority Projects

Complete StreetGreenville from Belmont to Bell ‐‐AND‐‐ from Alta to Ross $3,673,500Greenville Ave Retail Areas $820,400Cedar Springs Ave from Douglas to Oak Lawn $1,154,100


Erosion Control

Turtle Creek Greenbelt Site 1 ‐ hike and bike trail $222,800


7/27/2012

A Balanced Approach to Urban Gas Drilling

Terry S. Welch, Esq.Brown & Hofmeister, LLP

Decrease in setback distances

Drilling in the floodplain

Drilling in public parks

Setbacks and Setback Variances

Scientific studies currently differ as to the effect of gas drilling/hydraulic fracturing on human health, and doubt should be resolved in favor of public health and safety

The closer gas drilling is allowed to protected uses through setback variances, the “bar is set” at that distance

Flower Mound ExperienceTotal Number of Pad Sites Applied for: 22 Total Number of Pad Sites Approved:

19Pad Sites Requiring Variances: 15

Almost 80% of the pad sites approved in Flower Mound since the inception of its gas drilling ordinance in 2003 obtained some sort of variance, the overwhelming majority of which were setback variances

The majority of drilling applications contained setback variances

The City should anticipate most drilling applications will contain a variance request

Allowing gas drilling nearer than 1,000- 1,500 feet from residential areas has the potential to negatively impact residential property values

In 2009 Flower Mound commissioned Integra Realty Resources to study the effect of gas drilling on residential property values

Integra’s Conclusions After Reviewing Sales Data:

Price-Distance Relationship• Damages indicated are -2% to -7%• Dissipate at 1,000 to 1,500 feet

Sales Comparison• Damages indicated are -3% to -14%• No damages past 750 to 1,000 feet• Effect is near zero if a buffer is present

Drilling in the Floodplain

Floodplains by definition are subject to flooding, and flooding of gas well sites may result in release of undisclosed hazardous chemicals, along with significant amounts of salt and hydrocarbons, into water channels

Contamination of water may result in serious health and safety risks

UT Energy Institute concluded that surface spills are more prevalent with hydraulic fracturing than other oil and gas production

The primary risk of uncontrolled releases is generally to surface water and groundwater resources

Hydraulic fracturing chemicals at the surface present a more significant risk above ground than as a result of injection in the deep subsurface

The more toxic the release is, the higher the risk if there is migration into surface water or groundwater to humans, animals or other receptors

Little information is available on the short- or long- term consequences of surface spills

Downstream property owners at risk

Drilling in the floodplain would allow drilling in the Trinity River corridor

Dallas development regulations currently allow landfills and electrical substations in the floodplain; however, those activities are subject to several existing federal water pollution prevention laws that gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations are exempt from.

Therefore, comparing gas drilling to landfills and substations is not appropriate

Drilling inPublic Parks

All parkland is valuable and a limited public commodity, and if drilling is allowed, that area may be diminished or effectively eliminated as parkland for decades

Industrial uses of parkland are incompatible with traditional uses of park property and are inconsistent with the City’s long-term planning goals

Future uses of park property often not currently contemplated

Passive park areas may become active park areas in the future

Potential health effects of gas drilling on visitors to park areas

If these concerns are later determined to be without merit, the City Council may amend its ordinances accordingly.

If these concerns are determined to be of merit after enactment of weaker provisions, it will be too late.

Dallas Gas Drilling Task Force: A Balanced Approach to Urban Gas Drilling August 1, 2012

1

Introduction The Gas Drilling Task Force spent many hours addressing all aspects of natural gas drilling operations. Most of the Task Force’s final recommendations presented to the Dallas City Council in May 2012 were either unanimous or nearly so; however, there were several areas of concern about the final recommendations that were presented to the Council, and the undersigned Task Force members strongly urge the Dallas City Council to consider the alternative recommendations contained in this Balanced approach. While there were differences of opinion on several key Task Force recommendations, one area of unanimity was our great appreciation of the leadership provided by Lois Finkelman as the Task Force chair and the incredible assistance provided by City staff members Kris Sweckard, David Cossum, Theresa O’Donnell, Tammy Palomino and many other City staff members. The work of the Task Force could not have been completed without them. Dr. Ramon Alvarez Senior Scientist, Environmental Defense Fund Cherelle Blazer, Executive Director You Can’t Live in the Woods Dr. David Sterling, Professor

Chair, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences

Chair (Interim), Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health University of North Texas Health Science Center

Terrence S. Welch, Attorney Brown & Hofmeister, LLP

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Establish more protective setbacks and variance distances that protect both public health and property rights

● Scientific studies currently differ as to the effect of gas

drilling/hydraulic fracturing on human health, and doubt should be resolved in favor of public health and safety

● The closer gas drilling is allowed to protected uses through setback

variances, the “bar is set” at that distance. In Flower Mound, 80% of drilling sites obtained variances, the majority of which were setback distance variances

● Allowing gas drilling nearer than 1,000—1,500 feet from residential

areas has the potential to negatively impact residential property values

2. Prohibit drilling in the floodplain ● Floodplains by definition are subject to flooding, and flooding of gas

well sites may result in release of undisclosed hazardous chemicals, along with significant amounts of salt and hydrocarbons, into water channels

● UT Energy Institute concluded that surface spills are more prevalent

with hydraulic fracturing than other oil and gas production ● Contamination of water may result in serious health and safety risks ● Downstream property owners at risk ● Drilling in the floodplain would allow drilling in the Trinity River

corridor ● Dallas development regulations currently allow landfills and electrical

substations in the floodplain; however, those activities are subject to several existing federal water pollution prevention laws that gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations are exempt from. Therefore, comparing gas drilling to landfills and substations is not appropriate.

3

3. Prohibit drilling in any public parks (see note 10) ● All parkland is valuable and a limited public commodity, and if drilling

is allowed, that area may be diminished or effectively eliminated as parkland for decades

● Industrial uses of parkland are incompatible with traditional uses of

park property and are inconsistent with the City’s long-term planning goals

● Future uses of park property often not currently contemplated—dog

parks, in-line skate parks and other current uses probably weren’t contemplated 30 years ago

● Potential health effects of gas drilling on visitors to park areas ● Ironic that we call parks a “protected use” and prohibit drilling within

1,000 feet of a park, but would allow drilling in the park Conclusion: If these concerns are later determined to be without merit, the City Council may amend its ordinances accordingly. If these concerns are determined to be of merit after enactment of weaker provisions, it will be too late.

4

KEY ISSUES TO THE BALANCED APPROACH

A. Drilling Setback Distance Variances Task Force Recommendation: By a 5-3 vote, it was recommended that protected uses should have a 1,000 foot setback (measured from the property line), with a minimum setback variance of 500 feet allowed with a 2/3 City Council vote. Other setbacks, however, would be measured from habitable structures and would only be 300 feet.1

Balanced Approach Recommendation: Many members of the Task Force originally supported the compromise position of a 1,000-foot protected use setback with a minimum setback variance of 750 feet; however, several Balanced Approach members believe the protected use setback should be 1,500 feet, measured from the property line, and not reduced to less than 1,000 feet with a 3/4 City Council vote.

Rationale supporting Balanced Approach Recommendation:

1. First, it should be noted that the Task Force initially recommended that the setback variance for a protected use be no less than 750 feet; however, at the last meeting of the Task Force on February 28, 2012, this recommendation was significantly reduced to only 500 feet. The 750-foot distance itself was a compromise position, and the Balanced Approach still believes this distance is preferable to the 500-foot distance. In addition, several members of the Balanced Approach suggest that if the original compromise distance (1,000-foot setback/750-foot variance) is abandoned, then they would now support both a greater setback distance and variance distance (for example, 1,500 feet/1,000 feet).

2. After the conclusion of the Task Force’s meetings, in March 2012 the

University of Colorado Denver School of Public Health issued a report that air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing may contribute to acute and chronic health problems for those individuals who live near gas drilling sites.2 While it 1 This recommendation is found at page 15 of the Recommendations Matrix dated March 1, 2012. This vote was taken after Dr. Alvarez had left the meeting. 2 “Our results show that the non-cancer health impacts from air emissions due to natural gas development is greater for residents living closer to wells,” the report said. “The greatest health impact corresponds to the relatively short-term, but high emission, well completion period. . . . We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further

5

was not the charge of the Task Force to review and critique scientific studies on the topic, at an absolute minimum it is clear and undisputed that scholars and scientists in this area of study often strongly disagree about the human health effects of gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Because of this dispute and these unresolved issues, caution is advised and setback distances become even more important.

3. The experience of at least one Metroplex municipality is that

whatever the designated well setback distance may be, the overwhelming majority of drilling applications will request setback (and other) variances. In Flower Mound, the historical data is as follows:

Total Number of Pad Sites Applied for: 22 Total Number of Pad Sites Approved: 19 Pad Sites Requiring Variances: 153

Thus, almost 80% of the pad sites approved in Flower Mound since the

inception of its gas drilling ordinance in 2003 obtained some sort of variance, the overwhelming majority of which were setback variances.

4. Based upon observations of many Metroplex cities, it is reasonable

to anticipate that practically every application to drill will contain a setback variance request. As the foregoing reflects, the minimum permitted setback variance that is allowed by ordinance in all likelihood will become the standard for operators, thereby ensuring that every operator will request a setback variance down to (or close to) 500 feet.

5. The foregoing is one reason why in July 2011 the Town of Flower

Mound decreased the setback variance distance. Instead of a minimum setback

[away],” the report said. “Benzene is the major contributor to lifetime excess cancer risk from both scenarios.” University of Colorado Denver News Release, “Study Shows Air Emissions Near Fracking Sites May Pose Health Risk,” dated March 19, 2012, quoting Lisa McKenzie, lead author. The news release is found at http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/health-impacts-of-fracking-emissions.aspx. 3 Information provided by the Town of Flower Mound Environmental Services Division.

http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/health-impacts-of-fracking-emissions.aspx

http://www.ucdenver.edu/about/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/health-impacts-of-fracking-emissions.aspx

6

variance of 500 or 300 feet (depending upon ownership of a mineral interest), the most a setback can be reduced is 25%.4

6. The impact of gas drilling on residential property values should also

be considered in determining appropriate setbacks. Although there is no data for the City of Dallas since no drilling has yet occurred inside the City, in August 2009 Integra Realty Resources (“Integra”) prepared for the Town of Flower Mound a Well Site Impact Study (“Study”). The objective of the Study was “to develop an opinion of the impact, if any, of the proximity of improved residential properties as a result of their proximity to natural gas well sites.” The Study concluded, in general, “that in the Flower Mound area, when houses are immediately adjacent to well sites there is a measurable impact of value. As distance from the well site increases, this affect quickly diminishes.” (Emphasis in original). The 2009 Integra Study further concluded that residential property with price points over $250,000 and immediately adjacent to well sites can experience an impact from -3% to -14% in value based on the sales comparison method. Any influence on property values on a linear basis was found to dissipate at around 1,000 feet from the wellhead. The range in property value decline found in price-distance relationships was observed to be about -2% to -7%. Impact on housing prices by the price-distance method generally dissipated between 1,000 and 1,500 feet. This data suggests that gas drilling has an impact on nearby residential property values, and consequently, if through the variance process gas drilling is permitted closer to residential properties, the greater the potential for the reduction of property values.5

7. Pursuant to state law, zoning variances may only be approved by a

3/4 vote of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.6 Since the approval of gas drilling pad sites in Dallas will be through the specific use permitting process—a zoning process—it seems appropriate that there should be consistency between

4 Prior to July 2011, for homes with residents without a mineral interest, the setback was 1,000 feet with a minimum setback variance of 500 feet. For homes with residents with a mineral interest, the setback was 500 feet with a minimum setback variance of 300 feet [Flower Mound Code of Ordinances, § 34-422(d)(1)(b) and (c), (d)(3) (now repealed)]. 5 A more detailed discussion of the Integra Study is on the Flower Mound website at pages 3 and 4 of the Flower Mound oil and gas ordinance, found at http://www.flower-mound.com/index.aspx?NID=983. A copy of the Integra Study may be obtained from the Town of Flower Mound. 6 See Section 211.009(c) of the Texas Local Government Code.

http://www.flower-mound.com/index.aspx?NID=983

7

“traditional” zoning variances requiring a 3/4 vote and a gas drilling specific use process/variance request similarly requiring a 3/4 vote.

B. Drilling in the Floodplain

Task Force Recommendation: By a 5-4 vote, it was recommended that gas drilling be permitted in a floodplain, subject to City approval and where applicable, approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.7

Balanced Approach Recommendation: Prohibit all gas drilling activities in any floodplain areas.

Rationale supporting Balanced Approach Recommendation:

1. Numerous cities in the Metroplex have prohibited gas drilling and operations in any floodplain areas. This is for a simple reason—when significant rainfall occurs, floodplains by definition are subject to flooding, and any gas drilling- or production-related equipment (particularly tanks containing undisclosed hydraulic fracturing chemicals, produced water or condensate) that is inundated by floodwaters may create significant health and safety risks, threatening water quality and aquatic life.

2. Near the conclusion of the Task Force’s meetings, in February 2012

The University of Texas Energy Institute issued a report entitled “Fact Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development.” One of the key findings of that report was that surface spills and accidents involving toxic chemicals are more prevalent with hydraulic fracturing operations than in other aspects of gas production. Again, while it was not the charge of the Task Force to review and critique scientific studies on the topic, scientific findings such as this mandate caution.8

7 This recommendation is found at page 12 of the Recommendations Matrix dated March 1, 2012. 8 Id. at pp. 25-27. “The primary risk of uncontrolled releases is generally to surface water and groundwater resources. . . . Hydraulic fracturing chemicals in concentrated form (before mixing) at the surface present a more significant risk above ground than as a result of injection in the deep subsurface. . . . Effective containment is key to minimizing the impacts on human health and the environment when a spill occurs. The more toxic the release is, the higher the risk if containment is not effective to prevent migration into exposure pathways

8

3. Those individuals either residing or owning property downstream of

gas drilling facilities located in the floodplain may face serious environmental and other physical damages in the event of a flood inundating gas wells and related equipment.

4. In those areas of Dallas where gas drilling currently is feasible, the

major floodplain area would be along the Trinity River corridor. 5. Although Dallas’ existing development regulations presumably would

permit either an electrical substation or a sanitary landfill to be located in the floodplain,9 a flood event that overwhelmed a gas drilling pad site may result in the introduction of extremely hazardous chemicals into a river, stream or other water channel. Further, it seems somewhat disingenuous to contend that because several existing permitted uses in floodplain areas are somewhat questionable or potentially dangerous, any other potentially dangerous use of property should be permitted as a matter of right.

6. Due to exemptions from several federal laws relative to the

disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals, gas drilling operations in the flood plain simply are treated differently from landfills and substations. Due to the different legal status accorded to hydraulic fracturing, comparing gas drilling to other land uses that are not accorded such legal status is neither appropriate nor justifies location of gas drilling operations in the flood plain.

C. Drilling in Public Parks

Task Force Recommendation: By an 8-3 vote, it was recommended that gas drilling be permitted in public parks if (i) the park is not currently being used as a public park or playground; (ii) the park is located adjacent to an industrial use; (iii) the pad site is as close as practicable to the perimeter of the park; (iv) the parkland is not an environmentally sensitive area; (v) a portion of the revenue generated will go to a park property fund for Dallas Parks and Recreation; and

that are linked through surface water or groundwater to humans, animals, or other receptors. . . . Little information is available on the short- or long-term consequences of surface spills. Regulatory reports on spill investigations do not necessarily include information that would allow evaluation of environmental damage or the effectiveness of remedial responses.” 9 Dallas Code of Ordinances, § 51A-5.104(a)(2) and (3), respectively.

9

(vi) a specific use permit for such drilling must be approved by 3/4 of the City Council.10 Balanced Approach Recommendation: Prohibit all gas drilling activities in any public park.11 Rationale supporting Balanced Approach Recommendation:

1. Public parkland is a very valuable commodity, regardless how the parkland currently is used or where it is located in the City. The use of parkland for gas drilling removes that land from the City’s inventory of parkland, thereby permitting an industrial use of park property. Additionally, the cost of acquiring future parkland can be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming, especially if eminent domain procedures are utilized, and to willingly give away such parkland for gas drilling purposes may be seen by many Dallas residents as short-sighted.

2. Although there exists park property in the City of Dallas that may not

resemble traditional park uses, the land’s designation as a park is for a purpose—the enjoyment of the park by the public. Passive parks are just as important as traditional parks and public playgrounds. Consequently, the removal of passive park areas results in the loss of parkland.

3. Passive park areas may become active park areas in the future;

however, once a site has gas drilling activities and operations on it, that area effectively is lost as a public park area for years, if not decades.

4. The traditional purpose of public parks, in part, is to allow citizens to

escape urban activities and to enjoy open space and nature. Regardless of the designation of park property as either active or passive uses, gas drilling activities and operations remove that area (and the area immediately surrounding the location of such gas drilling) from any effective use as a park.

5. Parkland may one day become subject to park uses not

contemplated today. For example, 30 years ago, many would not contemplate 10 This recommendation is found at page 12 of the Recommendations Matrix dated March 1, 2012. Dr. Alvarez voted with the majority on this item and is not part of this recommendation. 11 Relative to the Task Force’s discussion of this recommendation, an issue has arisen whether there is a legal distinction between a “park” and “parkland.” To the best of the members’ knowledge, there exists no legal distinction between these two terms and they are interchangeable.

10

municipal dog parks, in-line skating facilities, outdoor amphitheaters, or other contemporary and innovative uses of park property. It would not be surprising if future uses of park property would “fit in” perfectly in those park areas where gas drilling may occur.

6. Even though there exists scholarly debate whether gas drilling

impacts public health, it is certainly conceivable that gas drilling in public parks may impact public usage of those parks and perhaps pose serious health and safety concerns for those who do use such parks. No other industrial uses are permitted in City parks.

7. It is ironic that in certain instances gas drilling may be permitted in a

public park; however, at the same time gas drilling will not be permitted within 1,000 feet of a public park since public parks are deemed a “protected use” for setback requirements.12 Consequently, while creating and protecting a 1,000-foot buffer around parks where gas drilling may not occur, gas drilling will be allowed in the park itself.

8. During the Task Force’s discussion of this recommendation,

reference was made to stringent requirements under state law for park property to be leased for gas drilling purposes. Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code addresses the use or taking of a park or recreation area, along with certain other uses, and simply mandates notice and a public hearing and thereafter certain findings of a governmental body prior to leasing the property. This procedure is not rigorous.

9. If the Task Force’s recommendation ultimately is approved, then

perhaps a seventh provision should be added—the property should be removed from the City’s inventory of park property before any drilling occurs.

12

The recommendation that public parks be deemed a protected use is found at page 15 of the Recommendations Matrix dated March 1, 2012.

11

Conclusion

With considerable questions existing about both the safety and health effects of gas drilling and operations, it is the recommendation of the Task Force members listed on page 1 of this Report that caution be utilized when considering drilling in public parks, drilling in the floodplain, and the reduction of setback variances down to 500 feet. If our concerns are later determined to be without merit, then the gas drilling ordinance may simply be amended; however, if gas drilling has occurred, pad sites dot the western portions of Dallas and studies have verified safety and health concerns associated with gas drilling, then it simply will be too late to respond.

Presentation to Dallas City Council

by Ed Ireland, Ph. D. August 1, 2012

Today’s Presentation • Provide background information on the Barnett Shale• Provide factual information to evaluate the

recommendations from the Dallas Gas Drilling Task Force (DGDTF) relative to the existing City of Dallas gas drilling ordinances.

Source: U.S. DOE, April 2011

Facts about the Barnett Shale• Barnett Shale Formation is 7,000- 10,000 feet deep • Underlies 5,000 square miles in 24 counties.

– Dallas County is the eastern-most county.• As of June 1, 2012, 18,298 Barnett Shale natural gas

wells have been drilled – 1,681 producing wells are in the City of Fort Worth– Many more wells are within the city limits of other

municipalities in the Barnett Shale.• Development is safe and protective of human health and

the environment.

Facts about the Barnett Shale• Tremendous economic impacts from natural gas development

(report by the Perryman Group, Sept. 2011)– 110,000 jobs– $11 billion per year in economic stimulus – $730 million in additional revenues to local governments and

school districts.• City of Fort Worth has received $182 million as of June 1, 2012

from leasing city-owned lands for natural gas drilling• School districts have benefitted:

– Fort Worth ISD has received over $861,000 in lease payments in 2011

– Arlington ISD, Burleson ISD and Mansfield ISD have each received over $2.5 million in lease payments in 2011

– These numbers do not include additional ad valorem tax benefits

Why Dallas should encourage the development of natural gas

• To reap the economic benefits for the citizens of Dallas– revenues to the City in the form of minerals leases

bonuses and ongoing royalties– Property tax benefits– Increased sales taxes

• To protect and promote the private property rights of Dallas citizens so they can reap the economic benefits of their mineral rights.

Well Setbacks

Setback Regulations• Existing: 300 feet from any institutional and community

service use, recreation use or residential uses, measured from the wellhead.

• DGDTF: 1,000 feet to a protected use measured from the property line of the pad site.

• Fort Worth: 600 feet from a protected use measured from the wellhead.

Health Protective SetbacksSafety Protective

Setbacks

Ordinance

Requirement

City of

Dallas

Current

Task

Force

Proposal

City of Fort

Worth

Mickey Leland

NUATRC ‐

June

2012

City of Fort Worth

Air Quality Study

International

Fire Code

Set Back 300 feet 1000 feet 600 feet** 100 meters 600 feet*** 300 Feet328 Feet

Clear Space * 6.5 Acres 134 Acres 26 acres**

* Assume a 4 acre pad site** Measured from the wellhead*** Affirmatively answered question "Is setback protective?"

• Data does not support extending setbacks greater than 600 feet from the wellhead

Fort Worth Star Telegram July 15, 2011*

“Air quality study finds no major health threats”

* Commenting on results of Fort Worth Air Quality Study

Land use ordinances

Land use ordinances• Existing: Gas drilling and production is an industrial use

permitted in residential and nonresidential zoning districts.• DGDTF: Same but to drill in floodplains requires approval

of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers and other appropriate agencies. Drilling on park land is permitted on park land not currently being used as a public park or playground and other restrictions.

Existing oil & gas wells in floodplains in nearby counties

• 4,352 oil and gas wells within 100-year floodplain per Railroad Commission of Texas:– 50 in Dallas County – 1,070 in Tarrant County.– 803 in Denton County.– 2,429 in Johnson County

• No impacts to water or floodways

A Typical Barnett Shale Pad Site

Rockwood, Fort WorthRockwood, Fort Worth

14

Completed well site in Barnett Shale

Hidden Creek, BurlesonHidden Creek, BurlesonHidden Creek, BurlesonHidden Creek, Burleson

15

Poly, Fort WorthPoly, Fort Worth

Completed well site in Fort Worth

Poly, Fort WorthPoly, Fort Worth

16

Sound Mitigation

Sound Ordinances• Existing: Drilling may not produce a sound level greater

than 78 dB and fracturing may not exceed 85 dB or 5 dB above background noise, whichever is greater.

• DGDTF: Drilling equipment may not exceed the ambient noise level by more than 10 dB during fracturing operations and by more than 5 dB during daytime hours for activities other than fracturing. Continuous noise monitoring is required during drilling or operating compressors if the well is within 1,000 feet of a protected use.

Sound Ordinances• Fort Worth ordinances permit intermittent exceedances:

10 dB for 5 minutes1 dB for 15 minutes20 dB for less than 1 minute

Air Quality

Air emissions ordinances• Existing:

– Electric motors or internal combustion engines may be used during drilling but only electric motors may be used during production.

– Except as permitted by the Railroad Commission, operator shall not vent gases into the atmosphere or burn gases by open flame.

– If venting or burning is permitted, it must be at least 300 feet from any structure.

Air Emissions Ordinances• DGDTF:

– Well may not flow or vent directly into the atmosphere without first directing the flow through separation equipment or into a portable tank (Fort Worth).

– Vapor recovery equipment is required for tanks that have an estimated rolling annual aggregate emissions rate of 25 tons of VOC.

– Vapor recovery equipment must be operated to ensure 95% recovery efficiency.

Areas of Dry Gas in the Barnett• Most natural gas in this area is

considered “dry” gas / “lean” gas

– Approximately 95%+ methane

– Trace amounts of VOCs, CO2 and nitrogen

– Virtually no treatment necessary

– Nearly same quality as delivered to homes

• No Barnett Shale wells in urban Tarrant County produce condensate

– Gas gets dryer/leaner as you move east

23

Gas Phases Barnett Shale Fort Worth Basin

Dry Gas: <1,050 BTU

Condensate bearing: 1,050–1,250 BTU

Oil: >1,250 BTU

Source: Barnett Shale Energy Education Council, October 2009

Air Quality in the Barnett ShaleOne of the most monitored areas in the nation• Texas Commission on Environmental Quality operates a permanent

ambient air monitoring network

– 7 existing sites

– 8 additional proposed

• 5 managed by UTA

• 1 managed by North Texas Commission

• SB 527 – 82nd Session of the Texas Legislature

– Reassigns some Texas Emissions Reductions Program funding to install approximately 15+/- additional monitors as part of a regional network within TCEQ regions 3 and 4

– Project Managed by the North Texas Commission

26

Proposed

New Auto

GC Locations

27

Proposed

New Auto

GC Locations

Proposed SB527

Monitor Locations Several Sites May Have Multiple Monitors

Wichita FallsBowieJack County

(2)WeatherfordParker CountyPalo PintoEastlandAbilene

What the air monitors have found in the Barnett Shale

• Over 100,000 air samples have been collected over the past 10 years.

• Results :– air emission attributable to gas drilling and production

do not approach health effects levels.– air measured by these monitors in Barnett Shale is not

significantly different than in areas that have no natural gas production

– Air samples at the Hinton Street monitor in Dallas look like those in Fort Worth, Dish, Eagle Mountain Lake and other monitors in the Barnett Shale

Implications for air emissions ordinances• Dallas should continue to recognize and support the jurisdiction and authority of the

Environmental Protection Agency and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality– Oil and Natural Gas Sector New Source Performance Standard/40 CFR 60

OOOO• Reduced Emissions completions• Low Bleed Pneumatics• Enhanced storage tank requirements

– No vapor recovery required on dry gas wells– VOC <6 tpy.

• Enhanced monitoring and recordkeeping• Maintenance requirements on compressors

– 40 CFR 98 Subpart W• Greenhouse gas control

• Gas analysis is required when well is completed and periodically afterward to verify dry gas.

• Support the TCEQ in their air monitoring programs.• Local government preempted from making this a requirement.

Water Use and Quality

Water Ordinances-Existing• Operator must ensure that ground water is not

contaminated by gas drilling and production and related activities.

• Operator shall not deposit any substance (i.e. brine, refuse, wastewater, etc.) into or upon a right-of-way, storm drain, ditch, sewer, body of water, sanitary drain, private property or public property.

• Operator must comply with all federal, state and local storm water quality regulations.

Water Ordinances-DGDTF• Operator must offer baseline testing of wells within 2,000

feet of a well bore and surface water within 750 feet of the well bore, including immediately upstream and downstream.

Water used for Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing

• Tarrant Regional Water District - 0.5% total water sales volume

• Area municipalities report 1% of their water total sales volume

• In Dallas, water would be purchased through the City (surface water)

Water Quality Issues in the Barnett Shale

• No incident of groundwater contamination due to gas drilling or disposal operations has been confirmed within the Barnett Shale area (Texas Joint Groundwater Monitoring and Contamination Report)

• Biggest impacts to groundwater quality in Texas

• Overuse (due to population growth in rural areas)

• Drought

• Improperly installed and cased water wells

– Unlicensed water well drillers

Wellbore Integrity• 7 layers of protection isolate our well

bore from its surroundings, preventing any exposure of chemicals, gas, or produced water with the environment

1. Conductor casing

2. Cement, sealing conductor casing in place3. Surface casing is drilled to a minimum depth

of between 50 to 100 feet below the deepest freshwater aquifer as specified by the RRC

4. Cement, sealing surface casing in place5. Production casing6. Cement, sealing production casing in place 7. Tubing

35

city council briefing meeting · 2 agenda city council briefing meeting wednesday, august 1, 2012...

Documents