Loading...
Min 11/03/1998 318 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building November 3, 1998 Items 1 & 2 The City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas met in regular session on the above date in the Council Room of the Memorial Auditorium Building at 8:30 o'clock a.m., with the following members present: Kay Yeager - Mayor Don Johnston - Councilors Dan Shine - Angus Thompson - Bill Altman Johnny Burns - Bud Beaty James Berzina - City Manager Greg Humbach - City Attorney Lydia Torres - City Clerk Mayor Yeager called the meeting to order. Councilor Shine was not in attendance at the beginning of the Council Meeting, but arrived later. Invocation was given by Reverend David Barnes, New Life Church. Item 3a Ms. Barbara Shreves, Housing Counselor I, was honored as Employee of the Month for the month of November, 1998. Mayor presented her with a plaque, theater passes, City pin and dinners for two. Mayor mentioned the TML Excellence Award presented to the City of Wichita Falls in the Public Works category for cities with a population of 25,000 and over. Mr. Jack Murphy, Mr. Robert Parker and the crew members who worked on this project were recognized. This award was received on the structures in the medians which cover and protect the traffic controllers. Mayor proclaimed the month of November, 1998 as "National Home Care Month" in Wichita Falls. Mr. Don Carter and Mrs. Margaret Nelson accepted the proclamation. Mayor recognized the efforts of the National Kidney Foundation of Texas and the Wichita Falls Chapter organized by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie 41-28. This organization is helping to make lives better for those suffering with kidney disease. Mr. Ray Hassell of the Fraternal Order of Eagles, Aerie 41-28 accepted the proclamation. Item 4 No one signed up to speak under Public Comments. Item 5 The Minutes were approved as corrected. 319 City Manager gave a briefing on the items listed under the Consent Agenda. Items 6a-6c Councilor Altman requested that Item 6c be moved to the Regular Agenda. Mayor requested that Item 6a be moved to the Regular Agenda. Moved by Councilor Johnston that the Consent Agenda be approved with the exception of Items 6a and 6c. Motion seconded by Councilor Beaty and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 6b RESOLUTION NO. 157-98 RESOLUTION AMENDING ARTICLE III, SECTION 7 OF THE BY-LAWS OF THE WICHITA FALLS 4B SALES TAX CORPORATION CONCERNING BOND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY-TREASURER; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Item 7a RESOLUTION NO. 159-98 RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT THE LANDFILL LINER CELL NO. 13 AND FINAL COVER CELL NO. 11 PROJECT AND AUTHORIZE FINAL PAYMENT TO BEAVERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Item 8a - 8c Minutes of the meetings of the following boards and commissions were received: a. Wichita Falls Arts Commission - October 23, 1998. b. Aviation Advisory Board - September 4, 1998 c. 4B Sales Tax Corporation - June 30, 1998 Item 6a RESOLUTION NO. 156-98 RESOLUTION APPROVING A TEMPORARY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT FOR A FUND RAISING EVENT LOCATED WITHIN A LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 2120 SPEEDWAY, WICHITA FALLS, ON NOVEMBER 14, 1998; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS ., REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Beaty that Resolution No. 156-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston, Mayor asked, in regards to the liquor laws, if the proximity of this event to the Fain Presbyterian Church and the Ben Franklin Elementary School was a legal problem. City Attorney stated that the measured distance was 200 feet door to door. Mr. Seese informed that 320 Item 6a Continued there was some legitimacy by TABC when they put in the distance requirement because they were referring to the active periods of these organizations. Mayor commented that the leeway was essentially when you have a temporary permit as opposed to a permanent permit. Mr. Seese concurred. City Attorney informed that a temporary permit is approved by TABC and they will not sign off if there is a legal impediment, and this event has been held for several years running. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 6c RESOLUTION NO. 158-98 RESOLUTION APPROVING CERTAIN GRANTS TO ARTS AGENCIES AS RECOMMENDED BY THE WICHITA FALLS ARTS COMMISSION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND THE ARTS COMMISSION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS WITH SUCH AGENCIES; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Johnston that Resolution No. 158-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Councilor Altman noted that under Item 18a in the Arts Agreement the word "sect" should be "sex". Moved by Councilor Altman that the agreement be amended to reflect the word "sex" in place of"sect". Motion seconded by Councilor Burns and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Original motion as amended carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 9a ORDINANCE NO. 93-98 ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE LAND USE PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Johnston that Ordinance No. 93-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None 321 Item 9b ORDINANCE NO. 94-98 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT A COPS MORE '98 GRANT AND TO APPROPRIATE $142,139 IN THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OF THE CITY; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Thompson that Ordinance No. 94-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Council requested more detailed information on type of software, cost and actual use of laptops, when bids are received. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 10a RESOLUTION NO. 160-98 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS FOR CERTAIN PARCELS OF EXCESS REAL PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF DEEDS TO CONVEY TITLE; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Johnston that Resolution No. 160-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Burns and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 10b RESOLUTION NO. 161-98 RESOLUTION APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONDUCTING A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF KICKAPOO AIR PARK; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW. Moved by Councilor Johnston that Resolution No.161-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Beaty. Council directed Staff not to limit the scope on options and to hold the land option open. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None 322 Item 10c A proposed resolution was presented approving the expenditure of 4B Sales Tax Funds in the amount of$12,000 for purpose of improvements to Rotary Park. Moved by Councilor Burns that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Mr. Robert Powers informed that this had been presented to the 4B Board. The Rotary Park has benefited from donations from Rotary Clubs of Wichita Falls, and working with the Parks Department they have made improvements to that Park. The Club requested $12,000 from the 4B Board as a matching situation in order to construct a picnic shelter and table at Rotary Park. Mr. Walter Tindale stated that their goal has been to take a park that has their namesake and improve it and make it a better asset to the Community. We did not have enough funds to complete the shelter, which will add a lot to the park and will continue to be useful for the community. We are asking your consideration to help us improve the Rotary Park for the community and continue the growth of this Park. Councilor Altman asked if we would be approving the 4B Board recommendation to spend $12,000 from sales tax funds and combining that with the $8,700 given to the City by the Rotary Clubs in years past? Since the City is going to put in the $8,700, would we have to put this out for competitive bidding? City Attorney replied that the project itself would need to have competitive bids because the 4B funds, if authorized, are public funds. Any kind of project funded with City funds requires competitive bidding. Mayor clarified that today Council was being asked to approve the recommendation of the 4B Board. We are not awarding a contract today. Councilor Altman stated that if it was not put out for competitive bidding, we would not know the exact amount that we would need to award, whether from City funds or 4B funds, as well as determining how to allocate those funds. Do we need the bids before making the allocation or do we allocate first? City Attorney responded that you make the allocation first, then go out for bids, and if the amount is higher than the revenue appropriated, then you make a decision as to whether or not you want to up the ante with some other source. The $8,700 would be spent first. Councilor Johnston was concerned that this was going to be a precedent setting decision and that Council would be flooded with non-profit project requests asking for 4B funds. I feel that 4B funds should be for more significant projects, although I am not against this project and I think we should try to find some way to fund it if we can. I am concerned that we can get ourselves into a trap where we are going to start committing a lot of money to these type projects and I feel we should look at this a long time. I think we may be setting a bad precedent here. Councilor Altman felt that this use was in an appropriate category and he had no problem in following the 4B Board's recommendation in this instance. He thought that in the future Council should try to work closer with the 4B Board and develop a little more coordination as to projects that both the Council and the 4B Board would like to see, and I think that can be done as to this particular project. While it does set some type of precedent, nevertheless, it is in a category that is statutorily acceptable. It is a small amount and it represents bringing to fruition some work that was started by the Rotary Clubs in this community, and I recommend we accept it. i Councilor Johnston stated that he was aware that it was legally acceptable, that it is within an appropriate category, and that it is positive for the City. I just hope that we give it due consideration because I am concerned about the fact that we will have problems with the projects. When we went to the taxpayers with this 4B Sales Tax they wanted something to be very positive and very strong for the City. This is a small project that we should handle internally, and 4B money should be for things that we could not do within the budget, which is the reason we went to the taxpayers for the 4B Sales Tax. Councilor Altman commented that generally he would agree with that concept, however, we still have to operate under the statutory framework that says 4B money can be used in various categories. I also feel that we should not prevent any group within the City to 323 Item 10c Continued make a proposal within those categories that are statutorily allowed. In the future we may decide that we don't want to accept some of those projects that have to go through a two- phase filtering, through the 4B Board and the Council. There may be a wider concern in that area by the Council and perhaps this should be tabled. He suggested a possible joint workshop with the 4B Board to discuss proposed uses of the 4B money and try to achieve some general guidelines and understanding between both of us as to the uses we would like to do. We need to work closely with the 4B Board and develop a joint understanding as to the type projects we want to initiate. Moved by Councilor Thompson that this item be tabled. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 10d RESOLUTION NO. 162-98 RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE NAMING OF CITY-OWNED FACILITIES; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Thompson that Resolution No. 162-98 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None City Council recessed at 10 a.m. and reconvened at 10:25 a.m. At this point Councilor Shine was in attendance at the City Council meeting. Item 11 a Councilor Thompson urged citizens to vote today. Councilor Thompson congratulated City Clerk Lydia Torres who received her designation as Certified Municipal Clerk in the International Institute of Municipal Clerks. Councilor Thompson asked about the Downtown Development Report and tour. Mr. Clark informed that a 1993 report had been provided to Council, and that Visions is sponsoring a series of meetings to update a plan for the downtown area. Dates of those meetings are November 4, 1998 at MPEC, November 19, 1998 and December 10, 1998. All citizens are invited to attend. A downtown tour can be accommodated at any time the Council wishes. I think it might be a good idea to wait until the Visions process, as well as other downtown developments, are completed. Councilor Thompson asked about the Holt Hotel. Mr. Clark stated that they continue to work on the Holt and there are some things that look promising which he hopes will come to fruition. Councilor Thompson mentioned the flooding in Oklahoma, Kansas, Honduras, and Nicaragua, and asked that we be in prayer for all who have been affected. Councilor Shine asked Mr. Jack Murphy to check into a metal building at the entrance of Tanglewood. 324 Item 11 a Continued Councilor Beaty commended Mrs. Jan Stricklin for her hard work and the nice accommodations and lowered rates for Council and Staff at the TML Conference. Councilor Burns echoed Councilor Beaty's comments. TML was educational for him and it was an opportunity to see the staff in a different environment, which showed the Staff's knowledge and expertise in their specific areas. He expressed appreciation to the Staff for their time spent with Council during TML. Councilor Altman expressed appreciation to citizens who supported him in the May election. We have an excellent City Council. He expressed a concern about having term limits in Wichita Falls. In looking at TML and the national organizations, because we instituted term limits we have prevented our Mayor or any councilor or any representative of this City from participating in the offices of those organizations which could ultimately be of great benefit to this City. The Mayor would be an excellent representative on some of these associations, and an excellent representative to be an officer of TML or one of the national organizations, but is restricted by term limits. It would help us with industrial development and in the legislature. He asked that the citizens look at it from that point of view. At some time in the future we need to re-look at term limits. Mayor informed that she received a letter from the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Civil Works Division, notifying us that the funding for the Red River Chloride Project has been restored so that study can proceed. Mayor also informed that the Water Board met and part of the funding impasse has been resolved in that the Water Development Board will be going to the legislature to increase the funding to 90%, versus 10%, from the State to local entities. While this still leaves Wichita Falls as paying more than any other entity in Region B, it is still considerably less than what we were looking at before this time. Mayor informed that our share at this time would be $12,500. It is my hope that in the early stages of the legislature they will find a way to totally fund these water plans, because I am still convinced that it is an unfunded mandate to pass this state function down to the local levels. She will distribute to the Council a copy of the plan as it progresses. Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. Robert Powers and Mr. Jim Dockery for preparing the agenda in the absence of the City Manager. Mayor mentioned the Community Forum to be held at MSU Clark Student Center, November 10 at 5:30 in the Theater. This is being sponsored by Times Record News at which the City, the School District, the County and BCI will give a presentation on matters that we deem of great impact and importance within the next five years as we look to the millennium. Mayor invited everyone to attend. Item 11 b City Manager stated that in the budget process an issue came up of what we could do to enhance the RV Park, and Mr. Jack Murphy has a recommendation on that. Mr. Murphy informed that the plan is to beautify the RV Park. Some suggestions were paving, beautification and acquiring land to expand the RV Park. The expansion of the RV Park is down the road as a more serious capital improvement. We are recommending expansion and paving in order to allow larger RVs to park there. Landscaping, which would include trees and shrubs, is proposed around the sewage dump station at the exit. At this time flowers are not included because of their high maintenance. We think that by doing these improvements the visitors will feel they are getting more for the increased fee. Mr. Murphy stated that the cost will include $10,000 for paving and $2,000 for landscaping. The current amount in the RV Fund is $105,000-$110,000 and the improvements could be paid from this fund. He added that they had considered a shelter and a restroom but the Park is in the floodway and structures are not allowed in the floodway unless an engineering study is done. City Manager stated that they would bring this back to Council with more specific plans for approval and appropriation. Mr. Murphy explained that the idea of acquiring land is that if there could be a temporary structure that would qualify being put in a floodway. That might be a way to have a resident on sight like the KOAs, and we could get away from the honor system. That way we can take reservations, which we cannot do now. It would also be a greater sense of security if there was somebody living on site, as well as a higher rate of collection. 325 Item 11 b Continued Councilor Johnston suggested an exchange of services such as allowing a couple to stay free for the summer and in exchange they would collect the fees for the City at the Park. Item 11 c A worksession was held on storm water drainage. Mr. Bonnett informed that $72,553,229 has been spent in the last fourteen years on major projects. Of that amount $20,264,923 were local funds, most were bond issues, and around $3,000,000 or$4,000,000 was from General Fund. Council has directed us to improve the receiving streams before addressing the upstream needs, and we have done that with McGrath Creek and Holliday Creek, which are completed. We can now look forward to planning the next area which could take about thirty to forty years before we make effective progress. Mr. Bonnett explained that any of the needs that we have are the result of questionable developmental practices, however, he cautioned of the tension that exists between the desire for affordable housing and the need for effective infrastructure. Most of us live in homes or apartments that cost less than they would have cost if an effective infrastructure has been built at the time of development. There is no doubt that it costs more to retrofit infrastructure than it costs to build it in the first place. The difference, in cost in your home between what it would have cost if drainage would have been installed and what it truly costs us today, might be instructive as we consider the funding alternatives. We need to think about that very carefully as to how we pay for that. We have recorded unmet needs over the past fourteen years and the source of those needs are predominantly from Council, neighborhoods, individuals, and staff. Several of the projects have multiple alternatives and we have selected the best alternative for the cost. He cautioned that the costs are based on very preliminary engineering. The projects are in alphabetical order and are not in any hierarchy in terms of need. Mr. Scott Taylor presented the 59 projects which have a very preliminary engineering cost of$32,800,000. A copy of the list of projects, their location and cost is attached hereto as Attachment C. City Manager noted that this is not a complete list because this process will probably add to the list. He felt that the greatest potential to begin with this list is to come up with an identified dedicated source of funding. Councilor Johnston stated that he did not think discussing funding and prioritizing the projects are necessarily exclusive, they can go on concurrently. We need to determine our priorities, and he felt that the first priority was what is the most life threatening project. Then go into the cost benefit ratio of each one of these projects. How much funding can the City reasonably handle that does not overload the Staff and the City, and not stop the other things we are doing? We would want a long term commitment to nibble away at this until we get it done. Mayor asked, funding aside, what would be a reasonable length of time to accomplish this? Mr. Bonnett replied that a reasonable amount to consider would be about $1 million per year. Mayor asked if the estimates included purchase of right of way, and Mr. Bonnett replied that they did. Councilor Altman commented that, assuming all of these projects were done at once, what we are seeing here based on the information we currently have would take care of every known significant flooding or drainage problems within the City limits. Mr. Bonnett concurred, and added that there are some flooding problems which were not captured here but we have gotten most of the problems that involve danger to structures. Councilor Altman summarized that what Mr. Bonnett has come up with is an outline of projects that would take to cover the entire City with all the significant flooding or drainage problems that would affect structures. If we set about on a design long-term program we could attempt to improve the City with the work that has already been done. We are in a sense making up for past mistakes once we get all this done. Mr. Bonnett concurred. 326 Item 11 c Continued Mayor referred to the Kell Drainage Project and the Kemp Drainage Project and asked if the completion of Kell would force us to do that project at that time or can that project stand alone to be done later? Mr. Bonnett replied that there were two answers. The Kell Project is pretty much a stand alone project. The Kemp Project is unique, but we will be able to handle it when it is re-paved. We may be able to handle a part of that problem, but it will not solve "the problem" entirely, maybe 80% or 60%. Councilor Thompson asked if we would look at the entire City and see how we can channel, re-direct and work with the water in a way where we will not create problems as we try to correct problems. He suggested that we look at it comprehensively and then try to break it down in a way where we will try to do as little harm as possible to those down stream. Mr. Bonnett stated that he felt that had been done. We tried to insure that we have the receiving stream upgraded. It made no sense to us to go out and start a program if we did not have a receiving stream that would accept that water, in fact it would make the problem worse down stream. We have tried to look very carefully at each of these to insure we have a receiving stream in place and that we are not going to make "due violence" down stream or to make anybody worse off. The following financing options were discussed: a) General Fund by raising property tax, b) General obligation bond election; c) Certificates of obligation, and d) Storm water utility districts. Mayor asked about the use of 4B funds for this. City Attorney replied that drainage is an authorized use as long as it has a benefit to business interest in the community. He and Mr. Bonnett have gone over these 59 projects to identify those that would benefit industrial business/commercial interest, which is a requirement before 4B funds can be expended on drainage improvements. There are not that many projects that qualify and we took a very liberal interpretation of that application of having a benefit to a commercial, retail or industrial site. Councilor Shine asked for a true list of the projects which qualify. Mr. Bonnett explained the storm water utility concept which is authorized by statute. The entire city can be under one district, instead of drawing it around a specific project and driving those costs to the benefited property. The cost is a monthly charge based on the runoff generated from each developed property. Generally, a uniform charge is placed on residential property, and on commercial property it is a calculated amount. Charges vary from $1/month to $4/month per residence. Those funds are specifically earmarked and used to address storm water needs. It becomes a utility bill and identified as such, and is billed with your water, refuse, and sewer bill. Those funds can be spent specifically for a project or to service a bond fund, but they become storm water funds for work inside of your utility. We think we can generate about $750,000 to $1 million a year with this type of a program if we set the fees at $1.50. Mr. Taylor detailed how the commercial site fees could be based. City Attorney informed that the statute provides for exemptions for school districts, county, state and governmental entities. Councilor Johnston asked how non-annexation agreements would be handled. Mr. Bonnett replied that he did not see anything about that in the statute and would have to look into that. City Attorney stated that you could extend it into the ETJ. Mr. Taylor informed that most cities have set a flat rate. Only six cities have a tier rate structure on residences. Mr. David Clark informed that they were still allowing construction in the flood plain, with an elevation certificate. There is a perceived assurance that water won't come into the floor level of your home, but if there is a hundred year event and you step outside your front steps you potentially step out into water. In regards to cost benefit analysis, there can be limited funds available from the state and federal government in regards to acquisition of property that has repeated flooding. Mayor asked if we needed to look at our ordinances and regulations and at some point say we are not going to allow construction in flood plain areas. Councilor Shine stated that it was too difficult to determine what the Ordinances say and we depend on the Staff to bring ordinance changes or discussion of same as we get into these type of issues. He urged Staff to bring these concerns to Council. 327 Item 11 c Continued Councilor Thompson said that with our water retention ordinance that we passed we wanted to limit the amount of runoff. So they build in the flood plain, what have we accomplished? Mr. Clark said they were separate issues. When you are talking about a subdivision in a flood plain the engineering details to establish the contours and drainage design for that have to take into consideration the basic ordinance of requiring no more flood than came before. Secondly, is the structure itself. They qualify in that the water is taken care of in the sense that it does not run downstream anymore than it did before. But if it accumulated in that area and you built your house a little higher, when you step out you are going to step into water. It is a question of practicality. The fact that you have your elevation certificate does not constitute that you will be dry, because you are still in the flood plain. Councilor Shine asked if other cities were handling plotting differently from us? What constitutes a subdivision in our City and is it different in other cities? Is there a better discussion on water retention than what we are doing now? Mr. Bonnett replied that in Wichita Falls there is a tendency to plat a large area on a preliminary plat; then you see five and ten lots at a time. In other rapidly growing communities where the housing demand is expanding you see that the detention is done into three or four lots and there are sections set aside for detention. I think Wichita Falls is a little different, because your net housing has remained constant for the past 20-30 years. One of the dynamics is the competition between the existing homes on the market and a new home. Mr. Bonnett commented that there is nothing wrong with building in the flood plain, but I see a lot wrong building with the first floor elevation in the flood plain. If the homes in the Sierra Madre area were built one foot up and there was a one foot swale in-between the home, no one would have a problem. Councilor Shine questioned why this had not been brought to Council? Councilor Altman asked, what prioritization approach did the cities adopting the storm water districts have? Mr. Bonnett replied that it was a mix of the political and technical. Generally they were prioritized if there was structure damage, then there was the benefit cost and mixed in with that was the political realities of having to answer to the bill payer. First would be to look where people are getting wet in a structure or if there is a loss of life threat, and next look at the benefit cost coupled with that throughout. There has to be accountability back to the folks who are paying the bill. Mayor suggested that Staff come back with a more comprehensive look about what we have talked about this morning and with some recommendations to the Council. She added that we have talked enough about it and it is time that we address it and it has to be done in a systematic way with a funding mechanism which will give a great deal of assurance that the problem will be finished. We have to have a definite funding mechanism. Councilor Shine commented that once the financing is decided, a determination on prioritization of the projects will need to be made. However, he did not know what the Staff was comfortable with or if more Council input was needed, and a lot of work could be done then the whole thing turns around because of politics. City Manager said that because this could turn around he would like to bring back to Council a way to approach this. However, he would like to stay away from the prioritization except to get into it this deep that if we consider the $1 million mark. Obviously, some of these projects were at $2 million, $3 million and $5 million. We may come back with something that perhaps would let the public know that we immediately begin to affect the problem and they know that is exactly what is happening. We might suggest some sort of a ratio as to what ought to be put back for long term projects, you might have to save three or four years, but in the mean time an approach that will allow you to get some of the smaller projects off and „_4 running so that we are making that progress that everyone here wants to make. Then we could go into this thing and review what other accompaniments should come with this in terms of recommendations so that we are not creating other problems and during this process if you want to re-review local capacity without new revenues to fund this, we could do that. Any of that can be concurrently completed, and I am comfortable in bringing back to Council where we could conceivable go from here. Then we could have another worksession and possibly get into the prioritization if Council likes what we have done at that point, or Council may want to refine it. Councilor Johnston asked if the utility districts required a vote of the citizens. City Attorney replied that they did not. 328 Item 11 c Continued Councilor Altman agreed with City Manager's idea of funding the smaller projects while creating a sinking fund to handle some of the larger projects. He suggested giving Council a range from about $1 million to $1.5 million so that they can look into the possibility of doing some current projects as they go along while creating a sinking fund for two or three years to handle the bigger projects. He suggested looking at some comparison like from a General Fund standpoint or utility district standpoint. He did not think the outright issuance of bonds was a practical matter because that involved raising a large amount of money that they could not spend but would be paying interest on. That is probably not a reasonable solution. You are looking at, whether certificates of obligation or some type of general fund expenditures, versus this utility district approach. He stated that Staff could work on those ideas and come back to Council with a little range. We may be able to spend $1 million a year and find it acceptable to take half a million and put it aside and let it accumulate two or three years then be able to handle the bigger ones every four or five years. City Manager said that is what he would like to do because this is going to take a real developed concept to be salable, explainable and to get the job. We can structure a long term project that will do this and make substantial progress. Councilor Shine asked what the time frame would be to bring this plan back to Council? City Manager replied that they will get this back to Council as quickly as possible, maybe four weeks. It will be a Staff priority. Mayor stated that as Staff goes through this process there are other issues that Council needs to address to protect the long term benefit of this, and the Council wants to see those now, too. We want a complete package. Item 11 d The City Council went into Executive Session at 12:45 p.m. as authorized by Section 551.074 of the Government Code, and reconvened at 3:15 p.m. Item 12 The City Council adjourned at 3:15 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this _day of , 1998. KAA- HRYN A. Y AGER MAYOR ATTEST: Lydia Torres City Clerk CITY COUNCIL STORM WATER WORKSHOP City of Wichita Falls 11/3/98 I. Introduction II. Projects Carried in Capital Improvement Needs List <71 a) Location b) Brief Description c) Estimated Cost III, Financing Options a) General Fund b) Bonds � > c) C.O.s d) Storm Water Utility S ------------ IV. Council Discussion V. Summary and Staff Direction 3� 1a► Item 11c, Attachment C 1 " City Council Meeting November 3, 1998 DRAINAGE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Adrian Avenue Drainage Proi ct Cost: $220,000 This proposed project will call for the construction of storm sewer and inlets from the low point on Adrian, northward to Tampico, and up Tampico approximately 600 feet. Allen Road Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $286,000 This project will consist of the construction of approximately 1,800 feet of concrete channel from around the VFW and west of Allen Road. It will also include the construction of inlets in an 18" RCP at Allen, which will be extended to the existing open drainage west of Richmond. These inlets will allow the removal of the drainage dips on Allen Road. Apache Trail/Sisk Road Drainage Cost: $262,000 This project will construct a drainage outfall to serve Apache Trail and extend the storm sewer/channel with a concrete pilot channel on the north side of the irrigation canal. Armory Road Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $148,000 This project will call for the construction of a new drainage channel from the existing 8' X 7' box culvert under Armory Road extended to the Central Expressway 6' X 5' box culverts. Austin Street Storm Sewer Replacement Project Cost: $637,000 Phase I and Phase II This project is to be constructed in two phases would be the replacement of an existing brick arch storm sewer with reinforced concrete pipe. The project would extend from 7th Street to an existing 8' X 5' concrete box culvert installed during the construction of the MPEC. Austin Street Storm Sewer Replacement Project Cost: $588,000 Phase III This would be the third phase of the Austin Street Storm Sewer Project and would extend from 7th Street to the intersection of 11 th and Broad. The project would consist of the replacement of the existing brick arch storm sewer with reinforced concrete pipe. Bert/Southmoor Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $362,000 This project would call for the construction of a 42" storm sewer from the Brenda Hursh channel, east to a point 200' east of Christine on Brenda Hursh Drive, then construct open channels on temporary easements to Southmoor Lane. This would relieve the water standing at the intersections of Aldrich Avenue and Southmoor Lane, and at the intersection of Bert Drive and Southmoor Lane. Best Blvd. Drainage Project Cost: $385,000 This project will call for the concrete lining of an existing drainage channel from Gilbert Street to Old Windthorst Road. Briargate Drainage Reconstruction Project - Phase I Cost: $310,000 This project would call for the construction of a concrete lined channel from Misty Valley East to an existing drainage system located north of the intersection of Southwest Pkwy. and Barnett Road. The project would also entail the purchasing of access easements to maintain the improved channel. Briargate Drainage Reconstruction Project - Phase II Cost: $372,500 This project will be the construction of a concrete bottom in an existing drainage easement from Misty Valley westerly to the railroad right-of-way. This project will be designed to provide a solid bottom for maintenance of this drainage easement and also stabilize the existing concrete sides. Bridwell Drainage Reconstruction Project Cost: $251,000 This . project will rehabilitate an existing box culvert which is showing structural deterioration. The drainage box is located from the intersection of Brook and Kell Blvd. to an open channel located on Ardath Avenue. Bristol/Normandy Drainage Project Cost Alternative #1: $ 107,000 Cost Alternative #2: $ 658,000 Cost Alternative #3: $1,490,000 This project is to provide drainage for the Bristol and Normandy storm drainage from Normandy Street to Holliday Creek. Three alternatives have been proposed to address this project. Alternate #1 consists of the purchase of existing sand pits and performing work to convert the sand pits into a park and have these pits function as a storm water detention facility. Alternative #2 would call for the extension of a storm sewer from two 24 pipes located immediately north of Bristol and extend this sewer westerly to Collard then north along Collard to a natural drainage swale to Holliday Creek. The third alternative would use the existing two 24" outfalls located north of Bristol extend the sewer through the sand pit area, then to Collard and then ultimately to Holliday Creek. This alternative would fill all of the sand pits in the area and provide underground drainage for the entire area. Burkburnett/Lincoln St. Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $72,000 This project will install storm sewer from the Wichita River, north to Lincoln Street. It will correct ponding at the intersection of Lincoln and Burkburnett Roads and also improve marginal drainage on Burkburnett, south of Lincoln. Camp Fire/Salvation Army Drainage Project Cost: $338,000 This project will call for the construction of a concrete lined open channel in an existing drainageway which is currently located on private property. This existing drainageway is not being maintained. This project will also tie into improvements being made currently along Seymour Hwy. and in the drainageway to the east of East Inwood. This will also serve the new subdivision being constructed along Kemp Blvd. Cherokee Street Drainage Improvement Cost: $81,500 This project will call for the installation of underground drainage in a poorly defined existing natural drainage swale that is on private property. This storm sewer would be extended to the existing drainage system in Hamilton Park. Colonial Park Drainage Improvements Cost: $770,000 With the completion of the McGrath Creek Project, a drainage problem still exists in Colonial Park. The street grades are significantly below standards. A 10-year event will cause extensive street flooding and some structural flooding, as the water cannot get to the existing pump stations/outfalls. This project will call for the installation of an underground storm sewer system in Colonial Park to move water from the street to the pump stations or drainage outlets if the pump stations are abandoned. Covington Trail Drainage Project Cost: $142,000 This project will call for the construction of an open concrete drainage channel from Covington Trail to a point located south of the intersection of Clovis Drive and Ruidosa Drive. Duncan Street Pump Station Cost: $440,000 This project would call for the installation of automatic flood gates and a pumping station at Duncan Street. The pumping station would consists of 4 pumps with 18,000 gallon per minute capacity each. East Lynwood Drainage Project Cost: $20,000 This project will call for the construction of inlets and storm sewer pipe on Sumner Terrace, north of Roanoke, with outfall into Lynwood Park. Echo/Nets Lane Drainage Project Cost: $372,200 This project will call for the construction of underground storm sewer from Jacksboro Hwy. and Echo westerly to existing drainage west of Neta and Jarmon Street. This project also would entail a removal and replacement of existing 36" and 48" pipe. Eden Storm Sewer Outlet Project Cost: $15,000 This project would pave a 20' channel from the box culvert under Eden to 5 corrugated metal pipes under the railroad right-of-way to eliminate standing water in this location. Faith Village Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $5,562,000 (Based on Option 1 E and 3) Three options were reviewed for the improvement of the drainage within Faith Village. The first option is a series of alternatives that deal with mitigation plans within the Flood Plain/Floodway in Faith Village. The second option studied is the construction of a diversion channel upstream of Rhea Road, diverting the flow to the south to Holliday Creek, downstream of the Lake Wichita spillway. The third option reviewed is the improvement of the channel from Sikes Lake spillway upstream to Kemp Blvd. Each option discussed is listed below with it's estimated cost. Option 1A Estimated Cost: $13,905,000 Under this alternative, the City would initiate a plan to purchase all structures in Faith Village within the floodway and floodplain at their appraised value when they come on the market for sale. The estimated number of structures to be removed is 309 with a estimated cost of each structure of$45,000. Option 1 B Estimated Cost: $5,013,750 This option would consist of the purchase of approximately 83 structures in the floodway and constructing a park/detention facility. This plan would not eliminate the floodplain, although our calculations indicate a 100-year water surface elevation would be reduced by approximately 2', resulting in the removal of 170 structures from the existing 100-year floodplain. This plan would also call for the reconstruction of streets to provide for smooth flow of traffic. This project would provide for 16 acre park/detention facility. Option 1 C Estimated Cost: $14,538,750 This option is similar to Option 1 B which calls for the creation of a detention and park facility east of Rhea Road with the limits generally following the limits of the existing 100-year floodplain. This project would call for the removal or the purchase and removal of approximately 253 structures and the construction of a detention facility. The existing drainage structures along Kemp Blvd. would act to control the discharge from the facility. Option 1 D Estimated Cost: $2,842,000 This option would call for the construction of a concrete lined channel to divert the 100-year flow from the existing drainage channel on the north side of Southwest Parkway, downstream of Rhea Road. This proposal would call for the purchase of 22 structures, 1,800 linear feet of concrete lined channel, fencing, relocating and adjusting utilities, realignment of existing street and alley system, and two bridges. Option 1 E Estimated Cost: $2,995,000 This option is similar to Option 1 D except that the channel will be earthen with 3-to-1 slide slopes. The channel would be wider than the proposed concrete. This option would call for the purchase of 32 structures, modification of street patterns, relocate and adjust utilities. Option 2 Estimated Cost: $2,451,000 This project would be to construct a concrete box culvert under Southwest Parkway to an existing drainage ditch between Bridge Creek Subdivision and Midwestern Farms Subdivision. This would divert approximately 700 CFS of flow from McGrath Creek. This would reduce the flow sufficiently to remove the structures in the southeast corner of Faith Village from the 100-year flood plain. This would not remove local open 'localized flooding". This proposal will also improve flooding problems in the Midwestern Farms Subdivision east of the proposed channel. Option 3 Estimated Cost: $2,567,000 This proposed project does not directly address the Faith Village area but, however, should Options 1 D and 1 E be considered, there could be potential adverse drainage effects downstream of Kemp Blvd. This proposal would reduce the floodplain and floodway along this portion of McGrath Creek. Hamilton Drainage Improvement Project Cost:: $297,200 This project will be the continuation of a project constructed previously to improve the drainage on Hamilton Blvd. located just west of the north Country Club entrance. This project will call for the extension of underground drainage west and south from the Country Club entrance and north from the Hamilton Park Tennis facility. Hillcrest Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $425,000 This project will call for the construction of concrete lined channel in an existing natural drainage channel. The limits of the project are from Armory Road to the intersection of 31 st and Travis. This project would also call for the reconstruction of the concrete box culverts located at Armory Road. Hirschi High School Drainage Project Cost: $350,000 This project would call for the extension of 3' X 7' box culverts, 900' to enclose the open drainage on the Hirschi High School grounds. Kell Blvd. Drainage Project Cost: $570,000 This project will install a concrete drainage channel along the existing drainageway on the south side of Kell Blvd. from Chelsea to McNiel. This drainage is in the State right- of-way, however the City is responsible for the drainage facility. Kemp Blvd. Drainage Project Cost: $192,500 This project will call for the construction of underground drainage on Kemp Blvd. from Maplewood to Kell Blvd. This will drain into the Quail Creek drainageway at Barwise Junior High School. Lack of drainage in this area is damaging the street subgrade. Kemp/Monroe Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $2,002,000 This project will call for the installation of underground drainage from Monroe Street and Kell Blvd. northwest to Kemp Street. This project would improve the amount of water standing on Kemp Blvd. during significant rainfall events. Lake Park Drive Drainage Project Cost: $33,000 This project will call the construction of inlets on Lake Park Drive, north of Brenda Hursh, and a 12" storm sewer with a swale to carry high flows graded to drain easterly to the Brenda Hursh channel. Lake Wichita Addition Drainage Project Cost: $86,000 This project will repair erosion and reconstruct an existing drainage facility serving approximately 326 acres. The project would extend from south of Southwest Parkway to 4715 Fairway. It should be noted that a developer has recently constructed a portion of this channel in 1997. Likins Circle Drainage Project Cost: $192,600 This project would extend from Likins Circle to 4801 Fairway. This project would be an extension of the Lake Wichita Addition Drainage Project and will call for the construction of a concrete lined channel in an existing natural drainageway. Lindsey/9th Street Storm Drainage Outfall Project Cost: $498,000 This project will call for the construction of a combination of a concrete lined and earth channel from the intersection of 10th and Beverly to the Big Wichita River. Loch Lomond Creek Drainage Project Cost: $2,180,000 This project will call for the construction of a drainage channel from Rathgeber Road (Woodhaven Subdivision) northward to Holliday Creek. The initial portion of the project would be underground storm sewer in the Woodhaven Subdivision. The remainder of the project would be open channel. Longview Drainage Project Cost: $92,000 This project will call for the construction of new inlets and a storm sewer from a low point on Longview and Wrangler Drive extending to Plum Creek. McNiel Avenue Drainage Project Cost: $1,328,000 This project would construct an underground storm sewer system on McNiel from the intersection of McNiel and Southwest Parkway northward to the intersection of Blanton and McNiel. McNiel was constructed without any subsurface drainage. The project is proposed to be constructed in three phases. The first phase would be from Southwest Parkway to McGaha, the second phase from McGaha to Pool, and the third phase from Pool to Blanton. Morgan Lane Drainage Project Cost: $1,660,000 This project will call for the construction of an earth channel with required structures from the Big Wichita River to the Old Henrietta Hwy. (approximately where the Denver Tank is located). Old Iowa Park Road/Industrial Blvd. Drainage Cost: $1,199,000 Improvement Project This project will be done to install drainage to serve the area between Central Freeway and the railroad south of Plum Creek. This project would reverse the flow to the south to the Big Wichita River by tunneling under the Central Freeway and the railroad. Pearlie Drive Drainage Project Cost: $68,300 This project would consists of the construction of two new inlets at the intersection of Pearlie Drive and SH 277. Two hundred ninety (290) linear feet of 24" RCP south to an existing inlet will be reconstructed and remove an existing 18" reinforced concrete pipe and replace with a 24" RCP to an existing 5' x 5' box culvert crossing under SH 277, Spur 325 and SH 240. Pebblestone Drainage Project Cost: $22,580 This project will call for the installation of a perforated tile drainage behind the curb and under the street to address ground water seeping into the street gutter. Perigo Street Drainage Project Cost: $75,000 This project will improve the drainage at Perigo and Rowland by cutting the swale to Holliday Creek inlet, from Perigo. A new culvert will have to be installed under Perigo and Rowland. This will also call for the installation of storm sewer on Rowland and the cutting of a swale on Barry Lane. Plum Creek East Branch Improvement Proiect Cost: $2,565,000 This project will call for the construction of an earth channel and four bridges to provide drainage along the east branch of Plum Creek from Sheppard Access Road to Big Wichita River. Plum Creek Upper Drainage Improvement Proiect Cost: $317,000 This project will call for the construction of a concrete lined channel on Plum Creek from the intersection of U.S. 287 Expressway southward to the north side irrigation canal. Quail Creek Drainage Project Cost: $2,278,000 (McGrath Creek Tributary A & B) This project will call for the construction of a concrete lined channel from the intersection of Sikes Lake at Midwestern Pkwy. westward and northerly along the existing Quail Creek to the intersection of Bel-Air and Fairway. This project would also call for the reconstruction of the existing concrete lined channel located north of the intersection of Prince Edward and McNiel running to the north of Prince Edward to the intersection of University and Kell. Rhea Road Drainage Project Cost: $133,000 This project would call for the concrete lining of 1,100 linear feet of drainage channel located west of Rhea Road and north of James Street. Selma Drive Drainage Improvement Project Cost: $140,000 This project will call for the construction of a concrete lined open channel in a drainage swale located east of Selma Drive. It will be from Missile Road to an existing pond located at the north end of Selma Drive. Seymour/Barnett Road Drainage Improvements Cost: $450,000 This project will call for the construction of an earth channel from the Lake Wellington Subdivision outfall at Seymour Hwy. and extend the channel to Barnett Road. Sinclair Drainage Project Cost: $394,000 This project will call for the construction of underground storm sewer of varying sizes from the intersection of Sinclair Blvd. and Burkburnett Road to FM 171 and East Plum Creek. Spanish Trace Drainage Proiect Cost: $898,000 This project is proposed to be constructed in two phases. The first phase will be the construction of an overflow flume while leaving the 48" irrigation pipe in place. The second phase of this project will call for the construction of a 421, underground storm sewer to drain from the flume at Sierra Madre and Catskills draining southwesterly along Catskills to the upper end of the Kingston/Jamaica drainage system. Terral Street Drainage Project Cost: $194,000 This project will call for the construction of concrete lined drainage channel from Central Freeway crossing Terral Street and then to Holliday Creek. Wndthorst Road Drainage Proiect Cost: $305,000 This project will call for the construction of a earth channel with a concrete pilot channel from Old Windthorst Road, north of Hawthorne Street, proceeding westerly to Holliday Creek. This is a continuation of the Best Blvd. Drainage Project. f YMCA Drainage Project Cost: $233,500 This project will call for the construction of a concrete lined drainage channel on the north side of the YMCA facility. The concrete channel will extend from west of Edgecliff to Holliday Creek. NPDES Permit Implementation Cost: $500,000 The City of Wichita Falls will be designated under the Phase II rules of the NPDES. The permit process will need to be completed by March 1, 2002. The permit will require the City to implement control measures minimizing the impact of storm water runoff. TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $32,802,800 Regular meeting of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Wichita Falls, Texas to be held in the City Council Chambers of the Memorial Auditorium on Tuesday, November 3, 1998 beginning at 8:30 a.m. City Council: Mayor Kay Yeager - Councilors Angus Thompson, Bud Beaty, William Altman, Don Johnston, Johnny Burns and Dan Shine 1 . Call to Order. 2. Invocation: The Reverend David Barnes New Life Church 3. Presentations: a. Employee of the Month: Barbara Shreves, Housing Counselor 1 4. Comments from the public to members of the City Council on items which are not on the City Council Agenda. (The Regular Agenda will begin upon completion of public comments, or no later than 9:00 a.m. Individuals who prior to this Council meeting signed up to speak, but could not be heard before 9:00 a.m. due to time constraints, may speak at the conclusion of the meeting.) 5. Approval of Minutes CONSENT AGENDA 6. Resolutions: a. Resolution Approving A Temporary Alcoholic Beverage Permit For A Fund Raising Event Located Within A Limited Commercial Zoning District At 2120 Speedway, Wichita Falls, On November 14, 1998. (City Council Bill #265) City Council Agenda Tuesday, November 3, 1998 Page 2 b. Resolution Amending Article III, Section 7 Of The By-Laws Of The Wichita Falls 4B Sales Tax Corporation Concerning Bond Requirements For The President And Secretary- Treasurer. (City Council Bill #266) c. Resolution Approving Certain Grants To Arts Agencies As Recommended By The Wichita Falls Arts Commission And Authorizing The City Manager And The Arts Commission To Enter Into Contracts With Such Agencies. (City Council Bill #267) 7. Change Orders and Payment Approvals: a. Resolution To Accept The Landfill Liner Cell No. 13 And Final Cover Cell No. 11 Project And Authorize Final Payment To Beavers Construction Company. (City Council Bill #268) 8. Receive Minutes: a. Wichita Falls Arts Commission - October 23, 1998 b. Aviation Advisory Board - September 4, 1998 c. 4B Sales Tax Corporation - June 30, 1998 REGULAR AGENDA 9. Ordinances: a. Ordinance Adopting The Land Use Plan As An Element Of The Comprehensive Plan. (City Council Bill #269) b. Ordinance Authorizing The City Manager To Accept A COPS MORE '98 Grant And To Appropriate $142,139 In The Special Revenue Fund Of The City. (City Council Bill #270) 10. Resolutions: a. Resolution Accepting Bids For Certain Parcels Of Excess Real Property And Authorizing Execution Of Deeds To Convey Title. (City Council Bill #271) b. Resolution Approving And Authorizing The City Manager To Submit A Grant Application To The Federal Aviation Administration For The Purpose Of Conducting A Feasibility Study Of Kickapoo Air Park. (City Council Bill #272) City Council Agenda Tuesday, November 3, 1998 Page 3 c. Resolution Approving The Use Of 4B Sales Tax Fund Revenues For Purposes Of Improvements To Rotary Park. (City Council Bill #273) d. Resolution Providing For The Naming Of City-Owned Facilities. (City Council Bill #274) 11. Other Council Matters: a. Discussion of items of concern to members of the City Council. b. Staff/Council discussion. c. Work Session - Stormwater Drainage d. Executive Session: (1) Annual Evaluation: City Council Appointees as Authorized by Section 551 .074 of Texas Government Code. 12. Adjourn. Wheelchair or handicapped accessibility to the meeting is possible by using the handicapped parking spaces, ramp and elevator located off the east parking lot on Sixth Street entrance. Spanish language interpreters, deaf interpreters, Braille copies or any other special needs will be provided to any person requesting a special service with at least 24 hours notice. Please call the City Clerk's Office at 761-7409. CERTIFICATION I certify that the above notice of meeting was posted on the bulletin board at Memorial Auditorium, Wichita Falls, Texas on the day of , 19 at o'clock (a.m.)(p.m.) City Clerk