memos+to+council+12 16

8/3/2019 Memos+to+Council+12 16

1/29

Memorandum

DATE December 16, 2011

TO Honorable Members of the Quality of Life Committee: Angela HuntSandy Greyson (Vice Chair), Monica R. Alonzo, Dwaine R. CarawayDavis

SUBJECT Follow up on Bike Plan Implementation and the Thoroughfare PlanProcess Briefing

On Monday, December 12, 2011, you were briefed on Bike Plan Impand the Thoroughfare Plan Amendment Process. The attached materprovided in response to Committee requests and questions at this brieattachments include a copy of the published 2011 Bike Plan ImplemeStrategy and a bike system implementation status report.

If you have questions or need additional information, please let me k

~_A~Ryan S. EvansAssistant City Manager

Attachment

cc: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerRosa A Rios Acting City Secretary


2/29

!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

9

6

5

16

1

2

1:160,000

Funded or Partially-Funded Bike Plan Demonstration / Early Implementation ProjectsUn-Funded Bike Plan Demonstration / Early Implementation ProjectsOther Bike Plan Funded or Partially-Funded Public Works Projects

Dallas Trail Network Plan - Existing / Under Construction

2011 Dallas Bike Plan

!(!(

115

7

10

63

2

Bikeway System Implementation Status Report


3/29

2011 Dallas Bike PlanBikeway System Implementation Status Report

Funded or Partially-Funded Bike Plan Demonstration/Early Implementation Projects

P ro ject S tr eet /Name L imi ts / L oca ti on T ota l M il es T ot al P ro je ct Cos t P ro je ct F und ing G ap Bi cycl e Fac il it y Co st * F un di ng S ou rce Bi cyc le Fa cil it y T ypeThroughfare Plan

Amendment Required?Completed?

1 STEP Trail-Road Crossings 70 locations (Council Districts 2, 9, 11, 12, 14) N/A $887,216 $0 $887,216 STEP (TxDOT, FHWA), 2006 BondProgram, Dallas County MCIP

Pavement markings, signage, andlighting at operational, at-grade trail-road crossings along five trails.

No; N/A

2 W. Davis Corridor Improvements N. Bagley St. to 8th St./Corinth Ave. 6.7 $223,844 $0 $223,844 Davis Garden TIF DistrictShared lane markings; two 5'-wide one-way bike lanes; two 6'-wide one-waybike lanes w/ 5'-wide painted buffers

Yes; No

3 Mary Cliff Rd. W. Davis St. to Kings Hwy. 0.4 TBD $0 TBD 2006 Bond Program Shared lane markings; two 5'-wide one-way bike lanes. No; N/A

4 N Bishop Ave. W. Colorado Blvd. and W. Neely St. 0.7 $3,701,270 $0 $60,000 2006 Bond Program Two 5'-wide one-way bike lanes. Yes; Yes 6/11

5 Dickerson St. Frankford Rd. to McCallum Blvd. 0.7 $4,709,547 $0 $230,000 2006 Bond Program Two 4-wide, one-way bike lanes w/ 2painted buffers. No; N/A

6 Lakeland Dr. G.C. & S.F. R.R. to Ferguson Rd. 0.3 $4,309,482 $0 TBD 2006 Bond Program Two 4-wide, one-way bike lanes w/ 2painted buffers. Yes; No

7 N. Riverfront Blvd. Continental Ave. to Cadiz St. 1.5 $5,788,091 $0 TBD 2003 & 2006 Bond Programs,County MCIP Two 5-wide one-way cycle tracks. Yes; No

8a CBD-Fair Park Link (Phase I) Hall St. to Main St. 0.2 $5,250,000 $500,000 $95,0002006 Bond Program (Design andConstruction); future bond program(ROW and Construction)

Two 5 - wi de o ne -w ay b ik e l an es . Yes ; N o

8b CBD-Fair Park Link (Phase II) Main St. to Hickory St. 0.4 $1,000,000 $4,000,000 TBD2006 Bond Program (ROW); futurebond program (ROW andConstruction)

Two 5 -wid e one-way bike la nes. Ye s; No

9 Mountain Creek Pkwy. 2.400 SE of Eagle Ford Drive to Clark Rd. 1.6 $12,700,000 $6,350,000 $400,000

2006 Bond Program (design);Dallas County MCIP (50% matchfor construction); future bondprogram

Two 5-wide, one-way off-street cycletracks. Yes; No

10 Belleview St. Akard to Ervay 0.3 $2,200,000 $1,200,000 $5,000 2006 Bond (design & ROW only)and future bond program Shared Lane markings. Yes; No

11 Chalk Hill Rd. W. Davis to Singleton Ave. 2.0 $15,813,814 $0 $693,290 2006 Bond Program Two 5'-wide one-way bike lanes. Yes; No 6/12

12 Wheatland Rd. Lacaster City Limits to Lancaster Rd. @ Plaza 0.9 $5,295,618 $0 $784,937 2006 Bond Program Two 4-wide one-way bike lanes w/ 2painted buffers. Yes; No

13 Sylvan Ave. I-30 Frontage to Ft. Worth Ave. 0.1 $1,719,379 $0 $20,000 2006 Bond Program, Dallas CountyMCIP Program Two 5 -wid e one-way bike la nes. Ye s; No

14 N. Bagley St. Goodman St. to City Limit (Moonlight Dr.) 0.2 $530,941 $0 $14,000 2006 Bond Program Shared lane markings. No; N/A

15 Lamar St. Ross Ave. to Young St. 0.4 $5,253,548 $0 $10,000 2006 Bond Program Shared Lane markings. Yes; Yes 6/12

16 Brockbank Dr. Valley Meadow Dr. to Lombardy Ln. 1.0 $2,976,806 $0 $75,000 2006 Bond Program Shared Lane markings. No; NA 6/1

Total 17.4 $3,498,287

*Cost estimate includes the cost of designing, constructing, striping, and signing bicycle facility portion of the street.


4/29


Un-Funded Bike Plan Demonstration / Early Implementation Projects

Map Project # Project Street/Name Limits / Location Total Miles Total Project Cost Project Funding Gap Estimated BicycleFacility Cost*

Potential FundingSource

Bicycle Facility TypeThroughfare Pl

Amendment RequiCompleted?

1 Central Core ConnectionDowntown, Deep Ellum, Baylor, West End,Victory, Bishop Arts, N. Oak Cliff GatewayArea,

14.0 $350,000 $350,000 $350,000 TCSP Shared Lane Markings; Bike Lanes;Buffered Bike Lanes. Yes; No

2 NC Route (Boedeker Dr. / St.Michaels Dr. )Boedeker/University Park City Limit to HillHaven Dr./Forest Ln. 4.0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 TBD

Shared Lane Markings; Bike Lanes;Buffered Bike Lanes. Yes; No

3 Southern Sector Wonderview Area 18.7 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 TBDShared Lane Markings; Bike Lanes;Buffered Bike Lanes. Yes; No

4 West Dallas NeighborhoodProjectWest Dallas, La Bajada Neighborhood (I-30 toCanada Dr., Beckley Ave. to Westmoreland) 9.4 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 TBD

Shared Lane Markings; Bike Lanes;Buffered Bike Lanes. Yes; No

5 Hampton Rd. City Limits to Canada Dr. 10.1 $175,000 $175,000 $175,000 TBD Shared Lane Markings Yes; No

7 Route / Way-Finding SignRemoval and Replacement** City-Wide N/A $600,000 $600,000 $600,000 TBDShared Lane Markings; Bike Lanes;Buffered Bike Lanes. Yes; No

Total 56.2 $1,950,000 $1,950,000

**Project does not include striping roadway for bicycle facilities.*Cost estimates include striping existing streets and regulatory, warning, and way-finding sign signs. Does not include cost estimates for street re-surfacing or re-conditioning, if necessary.


5/29


Other Bike Plan Funded or Partially-Funded Projects

P ro je ct St re et /N ame Li mi ts / Lo cat ion Tot al M il es Tot al Pr oj ect C os t Pr oj ec t F un di ng Gap B ic ycl e Fa ci li ty C ost * F un di ng S ou rc e Bi cycl e F aci li ty Typ eThroughfare Plan

Amendment Required?Completed?

1 N. Beckley Ave. 750' N of W. Commerce St to 750' S of W.Commerce St 0.3 $1,512,508 $2,500,000 $125,000 1998 & 2003 Bond ProgramsTwo 5'-wide one-way bike lanesw/ 2' painted buffers. Yes; No

2 Griffin St. Elm St. to Young St. 0.3 $5,253,548 $0 $10,000 2006 Bond Program Shared Lane Markings. Yes; Yes 6/

3 I-30 Trinity River Bridge

ReconstructionBeckley Ave to. Riverfront Blvd. 0.7 $83,000,000 $0 N/A U.S. FHWA / TxDOT 12'-wide two-way off-street

(separated) cycle track.No; N/A

4 Goodman St. N. Bagley St. to N. Morocco Ave. 0.2 $390,548 $0 $4,000 2006 Bond Programs Shared lane markings. No; N/A 6/10

5 Herbert St. Toronto St. to Canada Dr. 0.2 $225,000 $0 $4,000 U.S. HUD CDBG Shared lane markings. No; N/A 6/

6 Cadiz St. Riverfront Blvd to S. Lamar St. 0.4 $3,191,331 $215,000 $5,000 2006 Bond Program Shared lane markings. No; N/A 7/12

7 Morris St. Sylvan Ave. to Canada Dr. 0.2 $175,000 $350,000 $45,000 2006 Bond Program Two 4-wide, one-way bike lanesw/ 6" stripe. No; N/A

8 Lake June Rd. Pemberton Hill Rd. to U.S. 175 (C.F. Hawn) 0.3 $987,106 $0 $112,000 2006 Bond Program Two 7-wide, one-way bike lanesw/ 6" stripe. Yes; No

9 Goodnight Ln. Royal Ln. to Joe Field to Harcourt 0.3 $7,241,867 TBD $67,941 2006 Bond Program One 10'-wide, 2-way off-streetsidepath w/ 4' parkway buffer. Yes; No

10 Continental Ave. IH 35 to Riverfront 0.2 $3,828,900 $0 $80,000 2006 Bond ProgramTwo 5-wide, one-way off-streetcycle tracks. Yes; No

11 Bexar St. Hatcher to End (Levee) 1.5 $12,140,883 $0 $100,000 Neighborhood InvestmentProgram (NIP)Shared Lane Markings; BufferedBike Lanes. Yes; No

Total 4.6 $117,946,691 $3,065,000 $552,941

*Cost estimate includes designing, constructing, striping, and signing bicycle facility portion of the street.

**Cost estimate includes striping and signing existing streets. No street reconstruction or re-surfacing is anticipated.


6/29

iMPLeMenTATiOnSTrATeGy

vi

inTrODuCTiOn

This chapter describes practical and feasible strategies for implementingthe 2011 Dallas Bike Plan. In order for bicycling to become a truly viableform of transportation in Dallas, it is essential to institute practicesfor the construction and maintenance of the physical network and toprovide programs for the encouragement of bicycle use. It will also be

important to establish complementary laws and regulations with regard toaccommodating wide-spread use of bicycles, and to expand the planningand support function of bicycle planning at the City. Policies and designpractices related to construction of the physical network, encouragement ofbicycle use, laws and regulations and bicycle planning are recommendedto make bicycling a truly viable form of transportation in Dallas.

The actions described in the following sections de ne the role andrecommended actions of the City and desired actions of partner agencies.The City recognizes that other agencies such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit,the Texas Department of Transportation, the North Central Texas Council ofGovernments, and surrounding jurisdictions play important roles in shapingDallas transportation systems. Consequently, a high level of collaborationand cooperation will continue to be necessary in order to implement the Plan.

All recommendations for the Bikeway System Network/Master Plan havebeen prioritized into three general implementation phases near-term (2012-2014), medium-term (2015-2017), and long-term (2018-2021) projects.

Speci c projects within the three general implementation phases shouldbe further prioritized by the City on an annual basis using the criteriadescribed on page 26 and in Appendix B. These criteria were developed

through an interactive exercis(BAC), Bicycle Policy SteeringCommittee (PRC), and through spublic meeting.

In addition to the near-, mediuimmediately begin to include bicyand reconstruction projects. Tprojects developed to improve streets at-grade, are listed as earlon page 23.

DALLAS BiKeWAy SySTiMPLeMenTATiOn STrAT

The implementation strategy andDallas Bikeway System Master Pthose parts of the bicycle netwostations. Using this general appparking around transit is the moan integrated, and almost citywthe shortest time possible. Takinon, such as connecting trails topart of the overall strategy for iThe many funded roadway impat the City, with input from thto implement portions of the earlier stages of implementatio


7/29

reconstruction and resurfacing projects] will be used to maintain on-streetbicycle facilities that have already been installed, and will function asthe Citys systematic repair and preventative maintenance program. Itis also recommended that the maintenance and repair of the off-streetfacilities represented in this Bikeway System Master Plan are to continueas chie y the responsibility of the Park and Recreation Department, withinput and guidance from City bicycle planning staff

There are demonstration/early implementation projects plus three mainimplementation phases: near-term, medium-term, and long-term. Adescription of each phase is provided on the following page.

STrATeGiC DeMOnSTrATiOn/eArLyiMPLeMenTATiOn PrOjeCTS

The demonstration/early implementation Projects of this Plan will f ocus onthe area including downtown and its immediate surrounding districts (i.e.,Deep Ellum, Uptown, Cedars, and the Design District), as well as thoseprojects that are already being planned by the City as funded roadwayreconstruction projects that will have designated bicycle facilities on themas part of the bikeway system network. It should be noted that, in manycases, the latter approach will result in improved sections that will not, inthe short run, connect with the larger, un nished sections of the network.It has the potential of leaving bicyclists with no clear place to go whena facility ends. This reality can be addressed by providing bicyclists withtemporary, spot signing at the end of each facility that directs them to thenearest and best available street. There are two basic options or strategiesfor adding way- nding and other signage required by this Plan. As facilitiesrecommended in the 2011 Dallas Bike Plan are installed, existing routesigns can be removed and new ones installed. In some cases, routes willremain the same as those identi ed in the 1985 Plan while others will becompletely new. The removal of existing signs could be accelerated if anaggressive way- nding signage program is in place to stake out the entireDallas Bikeway System even before the on-street facilities are implemented.

Figure 12 is a table of projects, many of which are already programmedand funded as City Thoroughfare Plan reconstruction projects, whichrepresent an opportunity to implement discrete segments of the DallasBikeway System.

Demonstration/Early Implementation ProjectsStreet/Project Name FacilityCentral Core Connector (CCC):Bishop Ave. Jefferson Viaduct - Katy Trail Spur - ConventionCenter Hotel - City Hall/Central Library - Farmers Market - ArtsDistrict - Baylor Medical Center/LRT (DART) - Santa Fe Trail

Combination of one-way and two-way on-street faciliti

Traf c control and safety treatments for at-grade trail-roadcrossings

Pavement markings, signage, signalization, and lighting

NC Route Combination of on-street facility types and off-streetpathways

W. Davis, 8t h St. Corridor Impr ovements (~6 miles) Combination of on- str eet facil ity types

N. Oak Cliff - Rosemont Elementary Safe Routes to School (SRTS) demonstration project,temporary-to-permanent

N Bishop Ave. Two 5-wide one-way bike lanes w/painted buffersDickerson St. Two 5-wide, one-way bike lanes with 2 painted buffersLakeland Dr. Two 4-wide, one-way bike lanes with 2 painted buffers

N. Riverfront Blvd. Two 5-wide one-way bike lanesCentral Business District (CBD) - Fair Park Link One 12-wide two-way off-street cycle track on south s

of street

Mountain Creek Parkway Two 5-wide, one-way off-street cycle tracksBrockbank Dr. Shared lane markingsLamar St. Bike lanes/shared lane markings

Bagley St. Shared lane markingsBelleview St. Shared lane markingsChalk Hill Rd. Bike lanes (25-wide one-way)Wheatland Rd. Two one-way cycle tracks

West Dallas Neighborhood Projects Combination of on-street facility types

Southern Sector Project (Wonderview area) Combination of on-street facility types

Existing (1985) Bike Plan Route Sign Removal/Replacement 4,000-5,000 signs (estimated)Hampton Road Shared lane markingsSylvan Dr Two 5-wide one-way bike lanes with 2 painted buffersSylvan Dr Two 5-wide one-way bike lanes with 2 painted buffers

Figure 12. Demonstration and early implementation projects


8/29

24

Figure 13. 2011 Dallas Bike Plan, Central Core Connector Project.

neAr-TerM iMPLeMenTATiOn (2012-2014)

From 2012 through 2014, the Plan recommends the installation of approximately 90 miles of new on-street bicycle facilities. New bicyclefacilities include approximately 20 miles of bicycle lanes, 10 miles of cycletracks/buffered bike lanes, 30 miles of shared lane markings, 0 miles that willneed further study and 5 miles of additional network connections (not studied- likely to be shared lane markings).

Some of these numbers will v ary slightly, depending on the number and locationof repaving projects that provide opportunities for implementation of bicyclefacilities. Partnerships with local organizations for bicycle safety education,enforcement, encouragement, and parking (e.g. DART) will also be developedfor the near-term period. New way- nding signs will be installed in conjunctionwith new facilities, and can be installed citywide under a more aggressive signremoval and bikeway system network de nition way- nding program.

The following table represents 14 is a summary of all recommenpriorities as shown on the priorit

Facility

Bike lanesCycle tracks/buffered bike lanesShared lane markingsClimbing lanesAdditional analysis neededAdditional connections

Figure 14. Near-term implementa

MeDiuM-TerM iMPLeMen

From 2015 to 2017, the Plan recom370 miles of new on-street bicycapproximately 50 miles of bicyclbike lanes, 80 miles of shared lanstudy and 80 miles of additional be shared lane markings).

If not already completed in the ninstallation or upgrade of most osystem is completed, the City

improvements to create an interwill be updated during this time pFigure 15 summarizes the recomThey re ect priorities as shown o

Facility

Bike lanesCycle tracks/buffered bike lanesShared lane markingsClimbing lanesAdditional analysis neededAdditional connections

Figure 15. Medium-term implem

LOnG-TerM iMPLeMenTA

In the closing stage that completfor the Dallas Bikeway System Mand the remaining on-street and ofto be completed. From 2018 th


9/29

installation of approximately 480 miles of new on-street bicycle facilities.New bicycle facilities include approximately 50 miles of bicycle lanes, 50miles of cycle tracks/buffered bike lanes, 90 miles of shared lane markings,60 miles that will need further study and 150 miles of additional networkconnections (not studied - likely to be shared lane markings).

Major construction projects to provide bicycle and pedestrian bridges andbicycle facilities in constrained roadway corridors are likely to be designedduring this long-term timeframe. Visionary projects, such as the completionof dedicated bicycle bridges and some roadway reconstruction projects mayoccur further in the future, but are still identi ed as important to this Plan.

Figure 16 summarizes recommended long term projects. They re ectpriorities as shown on the prioritization map.

Facility MeasurementBike lanes 46 MilesCycle tracks/buffered bike lanes 50 MilesShared lane markings 86 MilesClimbing lanes 1 MileAdditional analysis needed 31 MilesAdditional connections 150 Miles

Figure 16. Long-term implementation (2018-2021).

DALLAS BiKeWAy SySTeM MASTer PLAnPrOjeCT PriOriTizATiOn MeTHOD

PriOriTizATiOn CriTeriA

The prioritization methodology is based on estimated levels of current orlatent demand for bicycle facilities. The gures to the right illustrate theprocess. Map of gures shows the existing transit stations, map two thefuture transit stations, map three the major employment centers weightedto re ect the number of employees, and map four the colleges anduniversities. For each destination (i.e. transit station, employment center,college, etc.), a three mile bubble (or radius) was drawn to indicate thegeographic area most likely to capture bicycling trips.

Figure 18 shows the equally weighted sum of the rst four maps surfacesclassi ed in three categories representing near-, medium- and long-termpriorities. Areas with higher projected potential demand are indicated by thedarker color on the maps. As would be anticipated, Downtown Dallas and areasalong the light rail lines have higher levels of projected potential demand than inmore suburban portions of the City according to this prioritization methodology.

Figure 17. Prioritization Areas by Trip Generator.


10/29

26

ADDiTiOnAL PrOjeCT P

As noted previously, speci c phases/priority categories will bebasis using the formula found in

PrOGrAMS AnD evenTS

As stated in Chapter V of this Pare recommended as strategies education and enforcement, andof bicycling in the City of Dalla20 and could be initiated as pabecomes available.

POLiCy CreATiOn PrOCe

As stated in Chapter V of this Paddressed within the larger cotheir compatibility or integratiDesign Manual.

Relevant forms that bicycle-specChapter IV, page 16, can take inlimited to:

City Council resolution City Code (ordinance)

approval), Inter-governmental Mem Inter-governmental Mem City planning document

Council approval), and Inter-jurisdictional MOU

CiTy OF DALLAS BiCyC

ACTiOn 6.1: Coo d at Dallas B k Pla w th Co

As noted on page 3, the City Initiative that will further devel

G e t T n i y o s t

Kest

T n t y R v e G e n b e t

ai Pak

C e d a R d g e P e e v e

a i O a s

H a y S M o s s

oppa Pee ve

Boude

olege

l m o k G e n b e t

W i e R c k L a k e

N o b c k

a g P o e H l

Roceste

ez

LBHoustn-Gol Couse

W i e R c k G e e n b l t o u t h

Cawod Memoial

Em ok Gun lub

Gaeway

ensonGol Cuse

OlveShapio

L B H o s t o n N a u e A e a

S m u e - G a d

McCommasBlu

K e b e g

G o e C K e t o n - G o l

Ceda Cest Gl Couse

A d e n Te a e

Mounan Ceek Lae

B e t e l d s

D a l s o o

akeCi

EmeadLake

Bahman Lae

oeyGeoguis

Em ok Athetc Complx

i e i d e

L w n i w

D a l a s A b o e t m

a t e a c k o n

Genao

Glndale

evechon

E m o k G e e n b l t - s i n g H oe a k e

Roemade

T n i y t a n d Ta l

oxHolow

S c y n e Ta l

Runon Ceek

RP Books

We t h a v n

SamuelGaand

S t v e n s G o l C o u e

embeton Hll

Andeon Bonne

LaeHghands

ohn C Phlps

C a i o n a C o s i g

A h C e e k G e n b e t

Chak Hil Tal

Woodand Spings

Bachman Ceek Geenbet

i v e M i e C e e k G e n b e t

R c k e t s B a n ch G e n b e t

P a i e C e k G e e n be t

Dion Banch Genbet

Peton Rdge Tal

Irving

Garland

Plano

Carrollton

Richardson

Wylie

Rowlett

Grand Prairie

Hutchins

Coppell

Duncanville

DeSotoLancaster

Farmers Branch

BalchSprings

Addison

Cedar Hill

UniversityPark

Highland Park

Cockrell Hill

Mountan Creek Lake

North Lake

W h i t e R o c k L a k e

0 3 6 91 5Mi es

Prioritization

Long Term(2018- 2021)

MediumTerm(2015 - 2017)

Near Term(2013- 2014)

MajorEmployment Center

MajorHigher EducationalInstitution

Early ImplementationTrail Crossing

RailStation

Existing orFunded Shared Use Path

Planned SharedUse Path

Intersection Improvement Recommendation

Dallas TrailNetwork Plan Facilities

On-Street InterjurisdictionalConnection Point

Connectionto VelowebTrail

Existing Transit LineFuture Transit Line

Sy m bo l c oespo nds to t an s i t l ne c o o )

City ofDallas Park

Other Open SpaceBodyof Water

City ofDallasSurroundingJurisdiction

Road

Off-Street InterjurisdictionalConnection Point

Bikeway System Off-Street FacilityTypes

Figure 18. PrioritizationAreas.


11/29

and asking them to send a representative isnt enough; openings should beadvertised through local media sources. A letter of interest and a resume shouldbe required. People who invest their time are more likely to be committed BABmembers. The interview should be like any other job interview. For example,interviews could be conducted by a representative from the mayors of ce, theperson who will be staf ng the BAB, and a current BAB member.

There are three qualities to look for in prospective BAB members:

1) Candidates need to have the interests of the broader community inmind rather than be focused on an issue close to home (e.g. a stopsign on their street), or they are likely to leave once their issue hasbeen addressed.

2) Candidates should have a history of volunteerism. Experiencedvolunteers will be more likely to attend meetings and commit thetime needed to make the BAB successful.

3) Candidates need to be good listeners and have a collaborativeapproach to problem solving.

Since BABs are advisory, they will only be effective and legitimate if theirmembers re ect the community they represent. Gender, race, age, typeof bicyclist (inexperienced to advanced bicyclists), and the geographiclocation of residence for each applicant should be considered to ensure abalanced, representative board.

Step 3: Determine Logistical SupportThe local agency should make it very clear from the beginning what

services can and cannot be provided to a BAB. Staf ng a BAB shouldrequire about four to eight hours a month. Direct services should be limitedto providing a meeting place and attending meetings. Minutes and meetingnotices should be done by the board. The more the board members takeresponsibility for their logistics, the more invested and effective they will be.

Step 4: Provide BAB Members with Timely and Useful InformationThe most important role for local agency staff is to provide the BAB with timely anduseful information so their input is effective. BAB members are volunteers who aregiving up their limited time to the community and their time should be well spent.For example, board members need to know when they can provide comments onan Environmental Impact Statement or a major public works project.

An informed BAB will be a better decision-making and advisory body for theCity bicycle planning program. For example, in Dallas, BAB members may

meet once a year for a day-long, facilitated retreat. As part of the retreat, Citystaff would conduct a short training session on bicycle design issues. Oneof the purposes of the training is to help participants better understand itemsthat cannot be changed (e.g. shape and color of a regulatory sign) versusthings that involve more choice and engineering judgment (e.g. determiningthe number of lanes needed on an arterial that is being reconstructed).

Step 5: Set the BAB AgendaThe board chair should coordinafor board review and input, and meetings, as needed. The relationthe success of the board.

Typically, BABs will want to pand projects. Board meetings shotopics, and review progress on tSystem Master Plan as well adesigned to make every meeting and participation. The chair (nproject manager to participate aassigned to the BAB should helprotocol is intended build teamwdirection and purpose of program

PLAn ACCOunTABiLiTy

ACTiOn 6.3.1: Task th Bmo to a d t ack mpl

Once adopted, the City must beThe Bicycle Advisory Board is tthat represents all types of bicyc

More than 680 people provided input

was established by the forward Dallas! Comprehensive Plan. The primarygoal will be to develop a consistent set of design policies, guidelines,processes and standards for the street network in the context of variousland development patterns in a manner that promotes increased choiceand safety for all users (including bicyclists).

This Plan provides protocols and generic design guidance for standard andspecial bicycle facilities and recommended cross-sections for 769 milesof on-street bicycle facilities. These are designed to be used as regionaltemplates by the City and the NCTCOG. As Dallas moves forward andadopts a Complete Streets Design Manual, the protocols, design guidance,and cross-section recommendations in this Plan should be used as areference to plan and design on-street projects.

ACTiOn 6.2 P o d c ssa staff xp t s a dcomm tm t to mpl m t th s Pla w th tht m f am d t f d.

This Plan envisions an accelerated pace for bicycle facility implementationthroughout the City of Dallas. The City may require additional full-timeand part-time staff, and have a volunteer force, to administer and executeprograms, design projects, monitor progress, conduct public outreach,and perform other tasks related to implementation of the Plan. Thisstaf ng level is consistent with staf ng levels in other cities that havesuccessfully implemented plans in a relatively short time frame.

ACTiOn 6.3: Adopt p o s o s fo how to c at a d a ff ct B c cl Ad so Boa d (BAB).

The following is a template for how to create and run an effective BicycleAdvisory Board (BAB).

Step 1: Create an Of cial BABBABs should be created through of cial action such as a resolution or ordinance. The creation of the BAB will immediately make decision-makers aware of the board and its importance while also educating themon important bicycle issues.

Step 2: Recruit and Interview BAB MembersBABs should be made up of about eight to eleven people; any fewer, and

participants will be overwhelmed; any more, and the size can becomeunmanageable. Appointments should be staggered to avoid large turnoverand promote continuity. In order to ensure stability and continuity, the chairposition should be for at least one year.

To create an effective, balanced, and diversi ed BAB, all prospective candidatesshould be recruited and interviewed. Simply contacting various organizations


12/29

28

City Responsibilities Annual Work Plan: Once a year, the City will provide the Bicycle Advisory

Board with a work plan for the upcoming year. The work plan will includea list of work products as called for in the Plan. For example, it mightsay that 50 miles of new bicycle lanes and shared lane markings will beinstalled in the upcoming year. The work plan should be short (under tenpages) and focused, with measurable deliverables.

Report Card: Once a year, the City will provide the Bicycle Advisory Boardwith a report card that summarizes all the work products completed forthe year, along with a big picture review of where things are in relation tothe ten-year time-frame for c ompleting various elements of the Plan. Thelist of work products completed should be compared to the work plansubmitted the year before as a way to build institutional accountability.

Bicycle Advisory Board (BAB) Responsibilities Timely Review: The BAB will provide timely review and feedback

on the annual work plan and report card. Comments provided bythe BAB must relate t o implementing the Plan and should referencePlan actions and other recommendations.

Overall Progress: The BAB will monitor overall progress of Planimplementation. For example, the City will have to install close to

fty miles of new bicycle facilities per year to complete installationwithin ten years. If the City falls behind, the BAB will need to agthis immediately and then work with the City to get back on track.

PLAn PerFOrMAnCe MeASureS AnD evALuATiOn

ACTiOn 6.4: establ sh bas l data a d datacoll ct o m thods that ca b s d to m ass cc ss th f t .

PerFOrMAnCe MeASure FrAMeWOrK

This Plan establishes two types of performance measures, 1) theperformance measures used to monitor progress toward long-term trendsin bicycle use and safety, and 2) the performance measures related tospeci c performance targets (e.g. miles of bike lanes installed). For eachnew performance measure, the City and partner agencies will collect thedata necessary to establish baseline measurements.

LOnG-TerM PerFOrMAnCe MeASureS

Long-Term Performance Measure: Number of bicyclists observed at counting

locations throughout Dallas. Bicycle counts should be taken at up to 30locations throughout the City every other year to benchmark the amount ofbicycling in the City. Count locations could include downtown entry points,locations on each of the Citys major trails, arterial roadways with bicycle lanesor shared lane markings, and intersections of arterial roadways with existingor planned bicycle facilities. The of cial counts for this performance measureshould be taken around the same date each year, on the same day of theweek, and under similar weather conditions. In other cases, one-time beforeand after counts should be taken to measure increases in bicycle use relatedto a speci c bicycle lane, shared lane marking, or trail project. The NationalBicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project provides more guidance ondates, times, locations and methods to follow for consistent counts.

Additional bicycle counts may be obtained by requiring bicycles tobe included in current, manual traf c counts. This data set would notrepresent all bicycle activity throughout Dallas, but would begin to providesome basic data on the use of bicycle facilities. Counts may also includeobservations of important bicyclist behaviors, such as wearing helmets,riding on the correct side of the street, obeying traf c controls, and usinglights at night. The City will need the assistance of local bicycle advocacyand other organizations to take these counts. In addition, pneumatic tubesshould be used to reduce the labor required to count bicyclists on trails.Bicycle counting technologies, such as video and infrared detection shouldbe explored for counts in all types of locations, and the City should movetoward adopting these technologies.

Long-Term Performance Measure: Number of reported bicycle crashes

per total number of bicyclists observed during the bi-annual bicycle countand annual traf c volumes. This measure would compare bicycle crashtrends (as reported in police records) in terms of bicycle exposure. Exposurewould be approximated using one or more of the following: the annualbicycle counts at up to 30 locations throughout the City or the total numberof bicycle trips in t he City reported by the NCTCOG R egional Travel Survey(assuming that it is updated to capture more bicycle trips). The number ofreported bicycle crashes should also be normalized by changes in annualtraf c volumes, as observed at a consistent sample of locations (suchas regular traf c count locations). It should be noted that police reportedcrashes do not represent all bicycle collisions. 33

33 A study by Stutts and Hunter of a sample of cases collected at eight hospital emer -gency rooms in three states showed that only 56 percent of the pedestrians and 48percent of the bicyclists were successfully linked to cases reported on their respective

state motor vehicle crash les. This study looked at only the most serious crashes (in -volving emergency room treatment). We can assume that less-severe crashes wereaccurately reported at an even lower rate.

Source: Stutts, J.C. and W. W. Hunter. Police-reporting of Pedestrians and BicyclistsTreated in Hospital Emergency Rooms, Transportation Research Record No 1635,Transportation Research Board, 1998. P. 88-92.

STrATeGiC PerFOrMAnCe

Strategic performance measures been made toward speci c 2021

Percentage of bicycle facility nprogress toward completing the network by 2021. An additionathe percentage of network miles bicycle lanes, climbing lanes, sh

The frequency or density of routemeasure for evaluating its effectfactors to consider are connecttopography, traf c volumes and spto destinations.

Percentage of bicycle-related This measure will track progreimprovements recommended in th

(Recommended for DART considbicycle parking accommodationswill monitor progress towards prdestinations throughout Dallas by

(Recommended for DART consDART trains and buses. DART data on bike-on-train & bus boroutes served by DART throughoto the City of Dallas.

Strategic Performance Measure:other bicycle parking accommod

Strategic Performance Measurebicycle parking accommodation

Strategic Performance MeasureMaps distributed, viewed and progress toward improving bicyc

use the Citys bicycle facilities. of bicycle maps that are distribnumber of times maps are accessmaps should be distributed per y

Strategic Performance Measurbicycle and neighborhood organ


13/29

residents participating in pedestrian or bicycle safety education programsor events. Dallas area bicycle and neighborhood organizations shouldtrack the number of participants in education or encouragement activities(e.g. Bike to Work Day, bicycle commuter classes, bicycle safety training,bicycle camps, etc.). The number of participants in these bicycle activitiesshould triple between 2011 and 2021.

Strategic Performance Measure: Percentage of targeted City staff whoparticipate in training on bicycle planning, design, and engineering issues.This measure will help indicate the level of internal training that is providedon bicycle issues. The following types of staff should receive bicycle training:planners, designers, engineers, project managers, and staff working onprojects with signs and paint, staff working on signals, crew chiefs, and eldcrews. The City should take advantage of everyday opportunities to providethese targeted staff with bicycle training. This includes Complete Streetstraining, eld demonstrations of products (e.g. shared lane markings),ProBike/ProWalk conference sessions, mobile workshops, walking audits,and out-of-town expert presentations. 100 percent of targeted City staffshould receive some type of training every year.

Strategic Performance Measure: Amount of grant funding applied for andobtained, and private funding secured, for bicycle programs and projects.The City should continue to track the amount of bicycle project funding thatthey obtain through grant and private sources.

Figure 19 summarizes and describes the performance measures. Theseperformance measures will be reviewed and updated every two years to

ensure that the City continues to use the best available metrics to assessPlan implementation.

ACTiOn 6.5: P s L ag o f Am ca B c cl sts(LAB) B c cl -F dl Comm t awa d.

The LAB Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) program provides awardrecognition for communities that actively support and advance bicycling asa form of transportation. A bicycle-friendly community welcomes bicyclistsby providing safe accommodation for bicycling and encouraging people tobike for transportation and recreation. 34 There are ve levels of recognition:Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze and Honorable Mention. LAB has recognizedmore than 150 cities through its BFC program.

As progress on implementing the Plan moves forward, the City will apply forand obtain the various levels of BFC designati ons. The City should set a goalto obtain the Bronze level of recognition within three years of Plan adoption.

34 http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica/communities/

Long-TermPerformance Measure

BaselineMeasurement Performance Target

DataCollectionFrequency

Number of bicyclists observed atcounting locations throughout Dallas

To be counted in2011

Triple the number ofbicyclists between 2011 and2021

Every twoyears

Number of reported bicycle crashes pertotal number of bicyclists counted andannual traf c volumes

To be calculated in2011

Reduce the bicycle crashrate by one third between2011 and 2021

Every twoyears

Strategic Performance Measure BaselineMeasurement Performance TargetDataCollectionFrequency

Percentage of bicycle facility networkcompleted

Miles of existingfacilities: 0 100% by 2021 Every year

Intersection Improvements CompletedNumber ofIntersectionsimproved: 0

100% of identi edintersections by 2021 Every year

Number of bicycle racks ins ta lled ~500 exist ing

Provide up to 2,500 publicracks by 2021 (includesexisting racks, does notinclude new racks at DARTstations, racks provided bybusinesses and residentialestablishments).

Every year

Number of DART stations withadequate bicycle parking and/or other lock-up facilities

0 100% of DART light railtransit stations by 2021 Every year

Number of bicycles carried on DARTtrains and buses

To be counted inFY 2011-2012

Utilize 50-100% of existingweekday and weekendservice capacity by 2021

Every year

Number of Dallas bicycling guide mapsdistributed

Number of newbicycling guidemaps distributed: 0

Once 75% of network iscompleted, provide 30,000route guide maps

Every year

Number of people participating in safetyeducational programs or events


Triple the number between2011 and 2021

Every twoyears

Percentage of targeted City staff whoparticipate In training on bicycle issues


100% of targeted staffparticipating in regulartraining by 2021

Every twoyears

Number of bicycle project grantapplications applied for and obtained forbicycle programs and infrastructure

To be tracked in2011

Steady annual increase inthe amount grant fundingcaptured, and private fundsraised for bicycle programsand infrastructure.

Every year

Figure 19. Bicycle master plan performance measures.


14/29

30

regulations and standards are not in place to guarantee a certain levelof bicycle facilities are provided.

2) Required restoration and mitigatio n: large projects may require anEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS) or other type of environmentalpermit. Often, this can present an opportunity for signi cant bicycleimprovements. For example, a new development may generate enoughtraf c to warrant a signal near a school or other destination. A water main or ber optic cable placed next to a roadway or in an abandonedrailroad line can provide an opportunity for constructing a pathway.

3) Funded Improvements: because of economies of scale, it is oftenadvantageous to fund improvements that are constructed as part oflarger projects. For example, if there is a public works proj ect to constructa roadway, it may be cheaper to add construction of a nearby multi-usepath instead of building it as a separate project and at a different time.

In addition to partnerships on major capital projects, there are manyopportunities to raise funds by partnering with local community andadvocacy groups on special events.

Public invovlement can help build support for funding bicycle facilities.

ACTiOn 6.6: Pa t w th local ts a d hold othts to a s f ds fo b k pla mpl m tat o ,

wh l at th sam t m p omot g b c cl g Dallas.

Finally, to take full advantage of partnership opportunities, the City shouldtake the following two actions:

FunDinG

Funding from public and private sources is critical to implementation.It can be the enabler for making improvements or the barrier thatprevents needed improvements from being made. In a time of severepublic sector funding challenges, it is recommended here that the Plansimplementation strategy also include raising funds from private sources. Itwill be necessary for the City and the community to work together to ensurethat there are mechanisms for raising, accepting, and managing privatesector contributions with regard to speci c goals in the Plan. In addition theCity will view the allocation of public funds towards bicycle improvementsas a priority for the implementation of this Plan, and as an opportunity tomeet a growing demand for alternative transportation through this dif culteconomic period. Grant award opportunities in which bicycle improvementsqualify amongst a list of other qualifying purposes that the City could applyfor, could be given serious consideration. Doing so will be a challenge inthe face of other unmet needs, and that is why private sector support willbe critical to keep up the desired pace of implementation.

FunDinG STrATeGieS

Routine Accommodation: The construction of bicycle infrastructure as partof normal public and private development, and the adoption of traf cmanagement practices that are used to implement bicycle infrastructureare known as routine accommodations. Routine accommodations are themost cost effective funding strategy for reducing bicycle crashes andencouraging more bicycling. In many communities, the majority of bicycleinfrastructure is built in conjunction with other projects. On-street bicyclefacilities are built in conjunction with roadway resurfacing or new roadwayconstruction projects. The same applies to traf c management practices.All funding strategies begin with routine accommodation since it allows forsigni cant improvements over time, even if there is no direct fundingavailable for bicycle improvements.

Partnerships Opportunities: Most public works projects, and many privatedevelopments, provide partnership opportunities to implement projects thatimprove safety for bicyclists (this is in addition to what can be accomplishedthrough routine accommodation). Partnerships typically occur in three ways.

1) Voluntary no cost improvements: many projects will generate someneighborhood concern or opposition. In response, public and privateprojects more often than not include some bicycle amenities that aresupported by the neighborhood, in order to build good will. In manycases, there may be a common bene t. A safer, more accessibledevelopment is more attractive to potential tenants or buyers. The Cityof Dallas should be proactive throughout the development processto ensure their interests are being addressed, particularly where

ACTiOn 6.7: establ sh a mf ds f om p at so cb k pla p og ams a d Pla , a d th C t of Dalla

ACTiOn 6.8: establ sh C tfo acc pt g B k shaf d a B k sha P og

Funding Priorities and Criteria:The City of Dallas should considfunds for projects and programslooking at prioritization and fungive higher scores to those projsuch as intersection improvemenfor bicycle projects (those likefunding independently of a large

Dedicated Funds - Set Asides:The City of Dallas should conpedestrian) improvements. Set percentage of a larger fund is set aa percentage of their transportprojects. The second set aside source. Examples include devdevelopers into a centralized funatural resources such as gravel oon all sales of real estate).

The advantage of dedicated fundependable source of revenuedisadvantage, especially if they amay actually reduce the total nubicycle facilities. Improvements be credited to set aside funds. In put in place, construction of traias having ful lled certain obligat

Safety:Achieving intended outcomes al

to safety. It should be the numbthis commitment is made, it giveall types of crashes, including bi

A simple cost / bene t analysis caincrease expenditures on bicycthat reduce crashes are often re


15/29

efforts to reduce motor vehicle crashes. In other words, the cost to the Cityto reduce a bicycle crash will typically be much less than it costs to reducea motor vehicle crash. In fact, it may not cost anything if it is a policy changeor a change in a design standard that leads to fewer bicycle crashes. For example, lower design speeds and lower speed limits for arterial andcollector streets, e.g., reducing motor vehicle speeds to 35 mph can be amajor contributing factor to reducing bicycle fatality rates

Annual Maintenance Budget:Maintenance of the Dallas Bikeway System network will be a major part ofthe implementation strategy for the Plan, and will be an integral part of theCitys strategy in planning for overall t ransportation system improvements.The relevant City departments will strive to budget for maintaining andimproving bicycle facilities in the roadway, especially re-striping bike lanes,replacing worn away pavement markings, and doing spot improvements tothe roadway surfaces that affect on-street bicycle facilities.

Act o 6.9: updat th 2011 Dallas B k Pla o ag la bas s.

As the Plan recommendations are implemented, priorities for bicycleimprovements may change and new needs and opportunities may beidenti ed. The Plan will be updated on a regular basis.

Every year the list of short-term projects for implementation shouldbe updated,

At least every ve years the entire Plan should be updated, and Periodic updates in coordination with other planning documents (e.g.

Complete Streets) should be completed on an as-needed basis.


16/29

Mernorand urn

DATE December 1 6, 20 1 1 CITY O

Honorable Members of the Quality of Life & Government Services Committee:TO Angela Hunt (Chair), Sandy Greyson (Vice Chair), MOnica R. Alonzo, Dwaine ft C

Carolyn R. Davis

SUBJECT Update on the Volunteer Center Briefing

Following the recent briefing on the Volunteer Center of North Texas and its partnerCity of Dallas to recruit volunteers to assist the City with daily activities and specrequest was made for additional information on how many volunteers actually dtime to the City of Dallas in 201 0. The Volunteer Center of North Texas was recalculate that there were approximately 1 ,554 volunteers who dedicated their time

Dallas.

If you have questions or need additional information, please let me know.

Je ZapataAssistant City Manager

cc: Honorable Mayor an d Members of the City CouncilMary K. Suhm, City ManagerRosa A. Rios, Acting City SecretaryThomas P. Perkins, Jr., City AttorneyCraig D. Kinton, City AuditorC. Victor Lander, Administrative JudgeA.C. Gonzalez, First Assistant City Manager

Ryan S. Evans, Assistant City ManagerJill A. Jordan, P.E., Assistant City ManagerForest E. Turner, Assistant City ManagerJeanne Chipperfield, Chief Financial OfficerFrank Librio, Public Information OfficeStephanie Cooper, Assistant to the City Manager


17/29

M e m o ra n du m

DATE De cem be r 16, 2011 CITY O F

TO T he H o no rab le M ayo r an d M emb ers of the City Co unc il

SUBJECT F ina nci a l F ore cas t R ep o rt

For your information, a ttac h ed is the fi nan cia l fo rec ast for FY 20 11-1 2 ,information th ro ugh O ct obe r. Both G en eral Fund reve n ue s and exp endproj ecte d to be $35 5,0 00 b elo w budg et.

Most of th e fo reca sts ar e rep orte d at b udg et during th is first m on th of the fiscalwill os e ly m on c r reve nue s and expe ndi ture s a nd keep you informed.

//

, U /

Mary K . h mCity M an age r

At ta ch me nt

c: A C. G o nz a le z , First A ssi s tan t City M ana g erRy an S. E van s, A ssi st an t City M an ag erJill A. Jord an , P.E ., A ssis tan t City M ana gerF o re st T ur ner , A ss ista n t City M an a ge rJ oe y Z ap a ta , A ssi s tan t City M an age rJ ea n ne Ch ipp e rf ie ld , Chief Financ ial OfficerJac k Ir e lan d , Director, Office of Fi nan cia l S er v ice s

DR


18/29

DRCOMPARISON OF 2011-12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES

AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2011(000s)

YEAR-ENDITEM BUDGET YEAR TO DATE FORECAST

Revenues $1,011,365 $43,027 $1,011,010

Expenditures $1,011,365 $98,157 $1,011,010

Sub Total $0 ($55,130) $0

Net Excess/(Deficiency) of RevenuesOver Expenditures and Transfersto Reserves $0 $0

GENERAL FUND


19/29

REVENUES YEAR-ENDBUDGET YEAR TO DATE FORECAST

TAXESAd Valorem Tax $433,218 $8,098 $433,218Sales Tax 215,508 0 215,508

FRANCHISE REVENUESOncor Electric 51,097 17,056 51,097AT&T 16,515 0 16,515Atmos Energy 11,474 0 11,474Time Warner Cable 6,170 432 6,170Other 17,212 26 17,212TOTAL TAXES & FRANCHISE REVENUES 751,195 25,612 751,195

LICENSES AND PERMITS 9,747 574 9,762

INTEREST EARNED 914 0 914

INTERGOVERNMENTAL 5,430 14 5,430

FINES AND FORFEITURES Municipal Court 17,822 932 17,733Vehicle Towing & Storage 7,874 582 7,874Parking Fines 5,793 421 5,793

Red Light Camera Fines 7,276 0 7,276Public Library 603 39 603TOTAL FINES 39,368 1,974 39,279

CHARGES FOR SERVICE Sanitation Service 59,922 5,142 59,923Parks 7,321 466 7,394Private Disposal Fees 18,336 1,722 18,351Emergency Ambulance 20,063 1,153 20,063Security Alarm 4,155 412 4,155Street Lighting 1,493 0 1,493Vital Statistics 1,563 114 1,563Other 18,756 2,077 18,757TOTAL CHARGES 131,610 11,086 131,699

(000s)

GENERAL FUNDFORECAST OF FY 2011-12 REVENUES

AS OF OCTOBER 31, 2011


20/29

BUDGET

EXPENDITURES

YEAR TO DATE

YEAR-END

FORECAST

B

DEPARTMENT

GENERAL FUNDFORECAST OF FY 2010-11 EXPENDITURES

AS OF JANUARY 31, 2011(000s)

GENERAL FUNDFORECAST OF FY 2011-12 EXPENDITURES


Building Services $17,836 $3,613 $17,827Business Dev/Procurement Svcs $2,016 $162 $2,016City Attorney's Office $10,754 $894 $10,754City Auditor's Office $2,052 $148 $2,052City Controller's Office $3,597 $268 $3,597

City Manager's Office $1,488 $113 $1,488City Secretary's Office $1,485 $62 $1,458Civil Service $1,431 $76 $1,423Code Compliance $27,316 $1,722 $27,316Court Services $10,943 $693 $10,807Elections $789 $5 $789Fire $205,558 $16,945 $205,558Housing / Community Services $8,027 $3,593 $8,027Human Resources $3,478 $403 $3,478Independent Audit $937 $0 $937Judiciary $3,077 $246 $3,077Library $18,422 $1,954 $18,422Management Services $3,255 $879 $3,255Mayor and Council $3,624 $233 $3,624Non-Departmental $29,845 $1,773 $29,800Office of Cultural Affairs $13,895 $366 $13,813Office of Economic Development $604 $311 $604Office of Financial Services $1,776 $94 $1,776Park and Recreation $64,643 $7,577 $64,617Police $399,406 $29,502 $399,406Public Works and Transportation $5,015 $780 $5,015Sanitation Services $74,535 $11,365 $74,535Street Lighting $18,559 $0 $18,559Street Services $53,165 $2,909 $53,165Sustainable Dev/Construction $1,204 $176 $1,204Trinity Watershed Management $252 $121 $252

OTHERAppraisal Districts $3,321 $3,321$3,321Dallas County Tax Collection $0 $533$556Jail Contract - Lew Sterrett $7,852 $7,852$7,852

RESERVES AND TRANSFERS


21/29

PROPRIETARY FUNDSFORECAST OF FY 2011-12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES


(000s)

BUDGET

EXPENDITURES

YEAR TO DATE

YEAR-END

FORECASTDEPARTMENT

REVENUES AND

Aviation$47,682 $3,509Revenues

Expenses $47,682 $1,570Net Excess of Revenues

Over Expenses/Transfer $1,939

$47,685$47,682

$0 $3

Convention Center$59,772 $4,572Revenues

Expenses $59,404 $3,493

Net Excess of RevenuesOver Expenses/Transfer $1,080

$59,772$59,404

$367 $367

Municipal Radio Fund$2,842 $279Revenues

Expenses $2,798 $336Net Excess of Revenues

Over Expenses/Transfer ($57)

$2,842$2,562

$43 $280

Sustainable Dev/ Construction$17,932 $2,016Revenues



$17,932$17,900

$32 $32

Water Utilities

$551,600 $50,286RevenuesExpenses $551,826 $35,166Net Excess of Revenues


$551,600$551,600

($225) $0

Communication & Information Svcs


22/29

PROPRIETARY FUNDSFORECAST OF FY 2011-12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES


(000s)

BUDGET

EXPENDITURES

YEAR TO DATE

YEAR-END

FORECASTDEPARTMENT

REVENUES AND

Equipment Services$47,743 $300Revenues

Expenses $47,812 $3,854Net Excess of Revenues

Over Expenses/Transfer ($3,554)

$47,743$47,812

($69) ($69)

Express Business Center$3,924 $107Revenues

Expenses $3,868 $267

Net Excess of RevenuesOver Expenses/Transfer ($160)

$3,924$3,868

$56 $56


23/29

OTHER FUNDSFORECAST OF FY 2011-12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES


(000s)

BUDGET

EXPENDITURES

YEAR TO DATE

YEAR-END

FORECAST

B

DEPARTMENT

REVENUES AND

Employee Benefits $614 $27 $614

Risk Management $1,340 $81 $1,340

9-1-1 System Operations$13,075 $516Revenues


Over Expenses/Transfer ($831) $456

$13,075$13,906

($831)

Storm Water Drainage$49,199 $4,249Revenues


Over Expenses/Transfer ($2,365) $3,616

$49,199$51,234

($2,036)


24/29

EXPENDITURESAND REVENUES YEAR-END

DEBT SERVICE BUDGET YEAR TO DATE FORECAST

Beginning Balance $2,918 $0 $2,918

Revenues $248,494 $3,899 $248,494

Expenses $248,845 $0 $248,845

Ending Balance $2,567 $3,899 $2,567

DEBT SERVICE FUNDFORECAST OF 2011-12 REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES



25/29

Beginning Balance October 1, 2011 $5,100,000

Balance as of October 31, 2011 $5,100,000

CONTINGENCY RESERVE STATUS


26/29

Beginning Balance October 1, 2011 $8,568,433

Paid October 2011 ($311,88

Balance as of October 31, 2011 $8,256,553

LIABILITY/CLAIMS FUND


27/29


28/29


29/29

memos+to+council+12 16

Documents