Loading...
Min 02/02/1999 380 Wichita Falls, Texas Memorial Auditorium Building February 2, 1999 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. Invocation was given by Dr. Robert Allen, First United Methodist Church. Item 3 Mr. Steve Cornelison, Automotive Equipment Operator II, Public Works Department, was recognized as Employee of the Month for the month of February. Mayor presented Mr. Cornelison with a plaque, a City pin, dinners for two, transit passes, and a check. Mayor proclaimed the month of February, 1999 as "American Heart Month" in Wichita Falls. Mayor proclaimed February 2, 1999 as the official recognition of "Ground Hog Job Shadow Day" in Wichita Falls. Item 4 No one signed up for public comments. Item 5 The Minutes were approved as distributed. City Manager gave a briefing on the items listed under the Consent Agenda. Items 6a-8c Councilor Beaty requested that Item 6b be brought down to the Regular Agenda. Moved by Councilor Thompson that the consent agenda be approved with the exception of Item 6b. 381 Item 6a-8c continued Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 6a RESOLUTION NO. 7-99 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA FALLS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPLY FOR ASSISTANCE UNDER THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT PROGRAM, AND TO EXECUTE ANY NECESSARY CONTRACTS WITH THE STATE AND NON-PROFIT AGENCIES INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION TO OPERATE THIS PROGRAM; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Item 7a Bid was awarded for the purchase of one (1) each tractor and flex-wing cutter (brush hog) to Ag-Power, Inc. in the amount of$42,614.00. Items 8a-8c Minutes for the following boards and commissions were received. a. Board of Adjustment, November 18, 1998. b. Planning & Zoning Commission, January 13, 1999. c. Commission on Human Needs, January 18, 1999. Item 6b RESOLUTION NO. 8-99 RESOLUTION AWARDING CONTRACT TO CLARKLIFT FOR PURCHASE OF A LANDSCAPE TRACTOR IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,919; 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. 8-99 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Beaty. Councilor Beaty asked about the requirement to go out for bids on items that are $15,000 and over, since this item was $15,909. Mr. Jack Murphy responded that this was a sole source item. Mrs. Peggy Gahagan explained how they arrived at this decision. Council cautioned that specifications on any item not be written for one specific type of item. Item 9a A public hearing was held to receive comments on hazardous structures. An ordinance declaring certain structures as dangerous, in violation of ordinance and commanding certain action with regard to same was considered. Mayor declared the public hearing open. 382 Item 9a continued The following persons spoke on the structures being considered for demolition. 119 Lee Street Sergio Morales requested additional time to rebuild the structure. He was granted an additional six months, and instructed to talk with Mr. King. Mr. Morales was directed to complete work on the building to bring it up to minimum standards. He needs to apply for a building permit and begin the work as soon as possible. 207 Patterson Street Loretta Carr, 1029 Ridgeway, informed that she is in the process of purchasing 207 Patterson from Mark Nacol, and requested one year to rehab the structure into a center for disabled persons. Mrs. Carr informed that a foundation had been created with articles of incorporation and that the board consisted of eleven members. She informed that this group was going to work to get this center built. Council granted Mrs. Carr thirty days to provide proof of ownership and transfer of title, and if this is not accomplished within those thirty days, the structure will be demolished by the City. If that requirement is met within the thirty days, she will be allowed a total of sixty days, including the 30 days of the proof of ownership requirement, to provide proof of financial capability, plans, obtain a building permit, and show considerable progress. 700 Bonner Street Lee Ester Pope, San Angelo, requested additional time to make repairs to the structure. Mr. Pope was granted an additional six months to provide plans, obtain a building permit and show considerable progress. He was directed to work with Mr. Jim King. 1201 Smith Street Mr. Jim King informed that the address in the agenda book was incorrect, however he noted that it was correct in the publication and the notifications. The correct address is 1201 Smith Street and not 1202 Smith Street. Mr. King informed that the owners will get with him after this public hearing. They are wanting to repair the structure and would like additional time. They were granted an additional six months. 1302 Thirty First Street Michael A. McDaniel wants to repair the structure and requested additional time. He was directed to talk with Mr. King to obtain necessary permits and to discuss his plans. Mr. McDaniel was allowed an additional six months. 1312, 1314 and 1316 Thirty First Street Mr. Jim King informed that title search indicated that Mr. Robert Lyon is the owner of record of 1312 and 1314 Thirty First Street, and Mr. Kevin Grimes is the owner of 1316 Thirty First Street with Mr. Lyon as the lienholder. Kevin Grimes stated that he is the owner of 1312 Thirty First Street and that he is buying 1314 and 1316 Thirty First Street and will have those paid off within three months. He stated that he could not do anything with the structures at 1312 and 1314, but he would like to demolish the structure at 1316, and requested 60-90 days to do it. He already has a demolition permit. Mayor stated that according to Mr. King's records there is no public record that Mr. Grimes has title to the properties located at 1312 and 1314 Thirty First Street. Mr. Grimes said he did not bring his documents with him because he did not know ownership was going to be an issue. Mr. Grimes was allowed to demolish 1316 Thirty First Street and was instructed to provide ownership documents of 1314 and 1312 Thirty First Street to Mr. King. The City will demolish 1312 and 1314 Thirty First Street. Mr. Grimes concurred. 1516 Kell West (Rear) Rick Neas, 3107 Avenue S, son of Lillie E. Neas, requested additional time to rehab the structure. He was granted an additional six months and was directed to visit with Mr. King, take out a building permit and provide plans. 1108 Alma Mr. Jim King informed that the owners had requested that the structure be demolished. 383 Item 9a continued 1910 Kemp (Rear) Mrs. Economou requested additional time to rehab the structure. She was directed to get with Mr. King to make repairs and was allowed an additional six months. 1702 Fairfax John Levatte, #10 McNabb, informed that the buildings are used for storage and will continue to be used for that same purpose. He requested additional time to make repairs. He was granted an additional six months and within thirty days of those six months he is to secure the buildings. Mr. King brought up the issue of zoning and stated that he would review that issue and work with Mr. Levatte. Rudy Sommerfelt, 2200 Princeton, spoke on the removal of asbestos from hazardous structures by the City. He pointed out that the City is not taking any precautions and asked if the City was going to study this problem. Mr. Jim King informed that the structures are very carefully monitored within the Code Enforcement and the Wichita County Health Unit. He explained the requirements placed on the contractors and the State guidelines, which are followed very closely. He informed that they have a number of engineering firms and asbestos sampling firms to establish if we do have asbestos materials in those buildings and we must report those to the State and the Texas Health Department. We have a good track record in doing that. We have paid very close adherence to State and federal guidelines, which are in my office and they are open for review at any time. Mayor called for additional comments. There being none, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Item 10a ORDINANCE NO. 8-99 AN ORDINANCE CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING AND FINDING CERTAIN BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES TO BE DANGEROUS; COMMANDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO DEMOLISH SAID BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; FINDING AND 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. 8-99 be passed with the allowed additional time set out in Item 9a first above. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson. Councilor Shine asked for clarification on the action for the structure located at 1201 Smith. It was noted that the owners would be allowed an additional six months to repair. Councilor Thompson asked if the owner of 207 Patterson, would be notified of today's Council action. It was noted that he would be properly notified. Motion carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 10b This item was deleted from the agenda. City Manager informed that it would be on the next Council agenda. 384 Item 10c ORDINANCE NO. 9-99 AN ORDINANCE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION TO THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FROM THE TEXAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE FUND BOARD (TIFB) AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT ACCEPTING THE AWARD; 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. 9-99 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 10d ORDINANCE NO. 10-99 ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $150,000 AND MATCHING CITY FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BOAT RAMP ON LAKE WICHITA; DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW Moved by Councilor Burns that Ordinance No. 10-99 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Beaty. Moved by Councilor Shine to amend the ordinance by reflecting that matching funds be paid from General Fund Equity instead of the RV Park proceeds. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Original motion as amended carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 11 a RESOLUTION NO. 9-99 RESOLUTION DETERMINING NECESSITY FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE LAKE WICHITA BOAT RAMP PROJECT, APPROVING THE APPRAISALS, SETTING JUST COMPENSATION, AND AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OR CONDEMNATION. FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS RESOLUTION WAS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW 385 Item 11 a continued Moved by Councilor Johnston that Resolution No. 9-99 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Beaty. Councilor Johnston suggested establishing a policy on negotiating the purchase price, and asked that this be discussed at some later date. Moved by Councilor Shine that payment be made from General Fund Equity. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Item 11 b RESOLUTION NO. 10-99 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A ONE- YEAR EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH LAIDLAW MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION, INC., DBA AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE TO THE AMBULANCE SERVICE CONTRACT DATED JANUARY 21, 1997 AND AMENDING RATES; 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. 10-99 be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None City Council recessed at 10:35 a.m. and reconvened at 10:55 a.m. Item 11 c A proposed resolution was presented establishing a parental access area in the Wichita Falls Public Library. Moved by Councilor Altman that proposed resolution be passed. Motion seconded by Councilor Johnston. Mayor invoked a three minute time limit and set the guidelines for the speakers. Council concurred. Councilor Altman presented an amendment to the proposed resolution. He stated that the amendment would be to strike everything below the phrase Section 1 and insert material that has been submitted to the Council with the exception of paragraph number five (5) in Section 1. If this amendment is acceptable he will explain and give the reason for omitting paragraph number five (5). Moved by Councilor Altman that the amendment be adopted. Motion seconded by Councilor Beaty. 386 Item 11 c continued Council was allowed time to read over the amendment submitted by Councilor Altman. Mayor requested an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether any of this amounts to enough change in the substance of the resolution as to be in effect a violation of the Open Meetings Act. Councilor Altman explained the changes to the resolution. City Attorney explained the difference between a substantive change and a ministerial change. This issue, the proposed amendment and the amendment procedure were discussed at length. Three Council members expressed concern that they had not had an opportunity to review the amendment prior to this meeting. Motion to amend the resolution failed by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Thompson, Altman, and Beaty Nays: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, and Burns Mayor called for public comment and numerous persons spoke for and against the proposed resolution. City Council recessed at 1:35 p.m. and reconvened at 2:05 p.m. Council discussion on the proposed resolution ensued. Following the discussion, Mayor stated that she had received a letter from the ACLU which would be a part of the record. Motion on the proposed resolution failed by the following vote. Ayes: Councilors Thompson, Altman, and Beaty Nays: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, and Burns Councilor Thompson requested that the City Attorney take the amended resolution, prepare it and bring it back to Council within two weeks. Councilors Altman and Beaty concurred. Item 12a Moved by Councilor Johnston that bid for the City's annual requirement of spring flowers be awarded to Smith's Greenhouse in the amount of$29,741.49. Motion seconded by Councilor Thompson and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None Items 13a and 13b City Manager informed that two requests for voluntary annexation had been received, one from the City View Independent School District for 56.3 acres west of City View Drive and one from the Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 2 for 3.54 acres out of the 387 Items 13a and 13b continued Northside Irrigation Canal. He noted that there was another annexation to look at and that is where the prison is located. We wanted to bring this to your attention to see if you had any questions and to focus on the City's annexation picture at large. Mr. Dave Clark provided information on the annexation requests. He informed that in the City View petitioned area there were two parcels at the north end and the south end that are not included in the petition and they would essentially become islands within the City that would need to be dealt with. He noted that the petitioned area was the location where the new high school is to be built. He also showed where the Water District No. 2 petitioned area was located. The two petitioned areas and the annexation process were discussed. Council decided it was time to review the overall picture of annexation for the City. Mayor will appoint a Council sub-committee to work with the staff on the initial start of an overall annexation plan for the City. Council concurred. Michael Smith, City View ISD Superintendent, requested that the City act on their annexation request separately from the City's overall annexation plan. City Manager said that our biggest concern was the two islands that annexation would create. That alone suggests we need to look at the whole plan because there are questions which need to be addressed. Item 13c Moved by Councilor Altman to confirm the appointment of Major Manuel Borrego as Acting Chief of Police. Motion seconded by Councilor Beaty and carried by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Yeager, Councilors Johnston, Shine, Thompson, Altman, Burns, and Beaty Nays: None City Manager informed that we have two acting majors - Glen Smith and Greg Martin, who will be presented to the Council at the next meeting. Item 13d John Barton, Director of Transportation and Development, TXDOT presented a feasibility report on the Maplewood Extension/Callfield Reliever, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Item 14a Councilor Altman expressed appreciation to everyone who has contacted him since he has been on the Council. He appreciates all the comments he has received with the exception of two which expressed nothing but threats and those he ignored. There is no place for that in a democracy. Democracy won here today. Nothing bad happened here today just because we had a discussion. We will probably have other discussions in the future that will bring people out. We hope that people will hold their emotions in check, but we realize on any issue people can get emotional. I appreciate all the input from the community the Council has received from varying view points. The proposal today was not the answer, it was an answer. He thanked everyone who came. Mayor expressed regrets that Council was unable to accompany City Clerk Lydia Torres to Austin to accept her certification as a Texas Registered Municipal Clerk. Mayor, on behalf of the City Council congratulated the City Clerk for her hard work in this accomplishment. 388 Item 14a continued Mayor provided information from Sheppard Air Force Base. Mayor informed that Col. Gorenc, head of the 80'h Flying Training Wing, had been promoted to Brigadier General, and General Bergren received his second star. It is a great recognition of what is happening at Sheppard Air Force Base. I think it is a credit to Sheppard Air Force Base and we as citizens of this community need to be aware of that and to really know what is happening and going on out there. It is such a vital part of this community. Item14b City Manager handed out fund balance information to the Council. City Manager informed that we have had non-annexation agreements with B.W. Sinclair and Burcamp Steel but they do not wish to go into another stage of non-annexation agreement. Mr. Robert Parker gave an update on the Kickapoo Air Park Feasibility Study. Councilor Thompson asked about the traffic count at Tenth and Grace Streets. Mr. Parker informed that they will perform another count in March. Mr. Les Copeland, Public Relations Director for WalMart, informed that they propose to open two new Super WalMart Stores in Wichita Falls which will be located behind the current WalMart on Kell and at the corner of 1-44 and U.S. 287. The new location will be a relocation of the Iowa Park WalMart Store. They plan to open by the spring of the year 2000. The City Council adjourned at 3:50 p.m. PASSED AND APPROVED this 161h day of February, 1999. KATP RYNI A. Y AGE MAYOR ATTEST: Jla' ) Lydia Torres City Clerk s FEASIBILITY REPORT i -�'10jr ( �`- Callfield Reliever yyY �C,G9 F Wichita Falls, Texas , January 12, 1999 Prepared for. Texas Department of Transportation .��P�rc•... .•TE�.��11t j r/ R. H SHEU,ABARGER 1 .. / For information, contact: /r1,9.9�75s27 �o �� Becky Shellabarger, P.E. �1�°��c••G►sTEP- Jeremy Boswell �>>>,h" L��� David Halloin °Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1999 City Council Meeting February 2, 1999 Agenda Item 13d Exhibit A ��❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Table of Contents Title Page I 1 Executive Summary Introduction 5 Travel Demands 6 I Figure 1 —Capacity Flow 8 Table 1 —Traffic Volumes/Projections 10 Development of Alternatives 11 Figure 2 — N. Regent Dr. Alternatives 13 Figure 3 — S. Regent Dr. Alternatives 14 Primary Alternative Evaluation 16 Figure 4 — Primary Alternatives 17 1 Table 2— Evaluation Matrix 18 1 26 Conclusion 1 i 1 1 1 1 Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Stucly ❑ ❑ Kimley and Associat Horn es,Inc. Study Process The study process described below was developed to facilitate the development of alternatives for the reliever route. Public Input Before the development of any alternative the Kimley-Horn team conducted a Public Information Workshop on June 11, 1998. The workshop was designed to collect input on what the community and local officials wanted from the project. Community members could ask questions at several "stations" about traffic impacts, environmental concerns, and voice their opinions and preferences about route selection. Kimley-Horn and the Texas Department of Transportation presented no alternative alignments at this meeting. Those in attendance were also encouraged to mail comments to Kimley-Horn within ten days of the workshop. Development of Initial Alternatives After evaluating public comment, the development of alternatives began. The alternatives generally allow traffic to move from the north and west to near Sikes Mall and other retail areas as determined by the origin-destination survey. The alternatives utilize existing streets to connect the new route. For example, North Regent Dr. and South Regent Dr. serve as termini at the western end of the project. On the eastern end of the project the alternatives terminate at several places including: Maplewood Ave., Kemp Blvd., Lawrence Road, Wayne Ave., and Hampstead Ln. Using TxDOT's design criteria as a basis, twenty alternatives were identified including the No Build (See Figures 1 and 2). Primary Alternatives After identification of the initial alternatives, the design team met with TxDOT to select the primary alternatives for presentation at a Public Meeting. Alternatives were eliminated for numerous reasons including failure to improve the LOS on Callfield Road, undesirable geometric configurations, and ineffective traffic flow. Six alternatives were selected to present to the public at a formal Public Meeting, five as depicted in Figure 3, and the No Build Alternative. Public Comment 1 After identifying and selecting the primary alternatives, the alternatives were presented to the public at an October 6, 1998 Public Meeting. KHA presented the alternatives, discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each including the No Build. Public 1 comment was requested both at the meeting, and through the mail. In addition to comment on the specific alternatives, the public's opinion was also requested.on the roadway typical section, four-lane divided vs. four-lane undivided. Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 3 ❑M❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Feasibility Assessment After receiving public comment, a detailed analysis of each alternative was completed, evaluating each alternative in four general areas: design, traffic, socioeconomic, and environmental. An evaluation matrix was generated as shown in Table 2. Each alternative was evaluated for its benefits and impacts based on a number of criteria. Once the matrix was developed, adequate information was available to determine the feasibility of each alternative and the selection of a technically preferred alternative. Conclusion The purpose of the evaluation matrix was to aid in the determination of a feasible alternative, if available. To make this determination, a judgement must be made as to whether the reliever route's ability to increase the operational characteristics of the network outweigh it's construction, socioeconomic and environmental costs. In addition, to be feasible, a build alternative must serve the project's purpose and need. After careful analysis of the data, it is our recommendation that the No Build Alternative be selected for the Callfield Reliever Study. Although all of the build alternatives serve the purpose of improving the LOS on existing Callfield Road, none of the routes improve the operation in the overall traffic network. Because of its inability to improve the operational characteristics of the local network, the costs involved in construction of the reliever route outweigh any benefits received. We recommend to the Texas Department of Transportation that this project is not the most appropriate use of available construction funds at this time. It is our recommendation that the City of Wichita Falls conduct a more widespread study of the operations of the overall traffic network in the area. Additionally further consideration of improvements to Lawrence Road, existing Callfield Road, and the Lawrence-Reah Road intersection should be made. Finally, this recommendation does not preclude the City of Wichita Falls from undertaking this project. In fact, the City has the potential to utilize other funding sources if they become available. Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Studv 4 ►' a MMM KirnandAssociatley Horn es,Inc. Introduction Background The 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the City of Wichita Falls will guide the city in decision and policy making for transportation-related projects over the next twenty years. Outlined in this plan are Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) recommendations for future transportation improvements. Three of the top five recommendations involved projects bounded by Callfield Road, Kell Fwy., McNiel Ave., and Kemp Blvd. In fact, two of the top three involved projects directly related to the operational characteristics of Callfield Road. In an attempt to improve traffic operations on Callfield Road, the 1995 Metropolitan Transportation Plan recommends construction of a reliever route. The plan proposes a four-lane divided minor arterial facility to serve as an alternate route, providing better ! access to major traffic generators. i Traffic volumes on Callfield Road have continued to increase in recent years. In addition to Sikes Center, Midwestern State University and surrounding retail, new development including restaurants and Kmart have continued to increase traffic problems in this area. Because most shopping and retail is now located in this general vicinity, traffic concerns are heightened during the holiday season. The proposed route would provide an alternative from Callfield Rd. to access major shopping and retail. Ideally this route will "pull" some existing traffic from Callfield Road and encourage new development along its length. By providing a more direct route, the reliever facility should improve the operational characteristics of Callfield Road, including its Level of Service (LOS), yielding fewer delays and less congestion. i Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive analysis on the feasibility of a reliever route for Callfield Road. Specifically, this report will provide a recommendation to TxDOT on the warrant of this project. Additional recommendations will be made to the City of Wichita Falls, and other pertinent organizations as necessary. The focus of the project was to determine the feasibility of a reliever route for Callfield Road in an area bounded by Callfield Road, Kell Fwy., McNiel Ave., and Kemp Blvd. The purpose and need of this route was defined to be relief of existing and future traffic congestion, to make the- thoroughfare network more efficient and to meet the transportation needs of future development in the area. As a result, the objective of this study was to: 1) investigate alternative alignments, 2) determine the most efficient configuration for the road, 3) identify the locally preferred alternative, and 4) determine the feasibility of this facility. After determination of the study objectives, the next logical question was: What makes the facility feasible? This study evaluated the reliever route's ability to optimize traffic operations in relation to its construction, environmental, and socioeconomic costs. Once possible alternatives were selected, they were evaluated on the basis of their Callfield Reliever Route Feusibilihv Study 5 j ❑ ❑ K and Associatimley Horn es,Inc. effectiveness in providing relief to Callfield Road. The Kimley-Horn project team has coordinated this study and through this report is presenting final recommendations. Project Team The Texas Department of Transportation has selected Kimley-Horn and Associates to complete the feasibility study of a Callfield Reliever Route. The project team consists of TOOT, the City of Wichita Falls, and Kimley-Horn and its sub-consultants. The Wichita Falls District of the Texas Department of Transportation serves as the administrative agency for this study. District Design Engineer Joe Anderson, P.E. is the point of contact for TxDOT. In addition to TOOT, significant coordination and cooperation with the City of Wichita Falls is required. Scott Taylor, P.E. serves as the contact for the city engineering department. Kimley-Horn and Associates is serving as the prime consultant for this study. Kimley- ' Horn is a multi-faceted engineering firm specializing in transportation planning and design. Becky Shellabarger, P.E. is serving as the Kimley-Horn project manager. In addition to Kimley-Horn, supporting team members contributed greatly to the success of this project by providing special expertise. These firms include: Hicks & Company, Aerial Data Services, Inc. and A.R.S. Engineers, Inc. i TRAVEL DEMANDS As the main purpose of the proposed alternative is to relieve traffic on Callfield Road, a critical aspect of the route selection and feasibility study was traffic analysis. This section describes the process used to determine and analyze the existing conditions and to develop the future demand for the transportation network as influenced by the proposed reliever route. Existing Conditions During the initial phase of this study, traffic was analyzed on existing Callfield Road and on other roadways in close proximity that could experience a change in traffic volumes if a reliever route were to be constructed north of existing Callfield Road. The first step in looking at the existing travel demand was to collect data showing volumes on these roadways, vehicle movements at the intersections, and travel patterns within the corridor. Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 6 M Kim' C1 MM❑ and eyHorn Associates,Inc. �! Data Collection 24 Hour Volume Counts: The City of Wichita Falls collected 24-hour traffic counts at various locations near major intersections in the corridor. This provided 1998 volumes on the major roadways in the corridor, as shown in Figure 1. These volumes were used to identify existing deficiencies and to project future volumes in the corridor. Traffic data obtained from the Texas Department of Transportation confirmed that the month during which the traffic data was collected should have provided a good representative average for the year. 1 Turning Movement Counts: A.M. and P.M. turning movement data was collected for 12 intersections in the corridor. This data was used to determine how much traffic was moving in specific directions at the major intersections in the corridor. This data, combined with other data collected, Was used in the process of identifying high volume travel patterns in the corridor and in assigning volumes to the proposed alternatives. License Plate Survey: License plate numbers were recorded, using tape recorders, at multiple intersections in the corridor in an effort to track vehicles through the corridor. This data was used in conjunction with turning movement data and 24-hour counts to determine travel patterns and related volumes through the corridor. Level of Service The concept of "levels of service" uses qualitative measures that characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream and the drivers' perception of the quality of traffic flow. The description of level of service characterize these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined by the Highway Capacity Manual for each type of facility i for which analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations, from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. The following section describes the operating conditions that exist for each of the levels of service. • LOS A represents free flow. Individual drivers are virtually unaffected by the presence of other vehicles in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream is extremely high. • LOS B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other vehicles in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 7 G: - _ { --�,,4 '°'" .*,r'as ..tea srt$,1 4'F,.',!►t „ykfp � _ � � �'f.�'J��i a� a 4 t#;F •`I„�•.r ..'. k»,A• O _. � j_ 1� �. J ,s - Ip :iI #�yt - .�.,rs:>a�� =" 4 e �a • 46 Nt qgw 1 R-fir �'x �'s�� .�$ @� ly ��Tl � r r'-�.•� � k� , • + r k i € r. `°S tLt �Y t kqF aiP° ',•]ice .,� i[{�. �'r .t� ' Po �i.�r _ i i 3 - e=v,t ��--kt� Or : _ a i ' w 9� •t xs5 r�. ��$$ � � '�� ¢-:.�€ li t,3 �.- ,, - � i � V rt�., �� xj�� � e _ ��;:�.«. r T?i ;ems, . f fAll , .. �t� f Y ' E r .. v - ' ' f "31 E M❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. • LOS C is also in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the point at which individual drivers become significantly affected by interactions with other vehicles in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of other vehicles, and maneuvering requires substantial vigilance on the part of the driver. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level. • LOS D represents high-density, but stable, traffic flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a poor level of comfort and convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause significant operational problems. This level of service has been used to justify thoroughfare improvements. • LOS E represents operating conditions at or near the capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver is extremely difficult, and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and frustration is generally high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in volume of minor perturbations within the traffic stream will cause severe speed reductions. • LOS F is used to define forced flow. This condition exists wherever the volume of traffic at a point on the roadway exceeds the capacity of the roadway at that point. Queues form behind such locations. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop-and-go waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for several hundred feet, then be forced to stop in a cyclic fashion. The volume of traffic that can be served under the stop-and-go conditions of LOS F is generally accepted as being lower than possible at LOS E; consequently, service flow rate E is the value that corresponds to the maximum flow rate, or capacity, on the facility. For most design or planning purposes, however, service flow rates D or C are usually used because they ensure a more acceptable quality of service to facility users. For this study, the volumes representing capacity on each type of roadway facility were defined by the Texas Department of Transportation and listed as Table 3-3 in the Wichita Falls Metropolitan Transportation Plan. These capacity flow volumes are listed in Table 1. All roadway thoroughfare facilities in the corridor are currently operating at a LOS C. Cullfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 9 Kimle -Horn ❑�❑ and Associates,Inc. Table 1: Capacity Flow Roadway Class Capacity Flow Urban Divided Streets 4-Lane 23,000 6-Lane 33,000 Urban Undivided Streets 2-Lane 11,000 4-Lane 18,000 ♦ 6-Lane 28,300 Existing Traffic Flow Analysis of the existing traffic has revealed some dominant patterns of traffic currently i using the portion of Callfield Road between McNiel Ave. and Kemp Blvd. As would be i expected, one major movement is the through movement from Midwestern Pkwy. to Callfield Road west of McNiel Ave. This traffic would not divert from the existing roadway if a reliever route were constructed. The traffic of interest in this study is traffic currently using Callfield Road that could be diverted to a reliever facility constructed to the north of Callfield Road. As determined by an Origin-Destination study using the data collected, the highest volume movements that would theoretically place traffic onto a reliever route are movements between the following locations: Lawrence Rd. and Maplewood Ave. Callfield/McNiel Intersection and Lawrence Rd. Kemp Blvd. and Lawrence Rd. Maplewood Ave. and McNiel Ave. Kemp Blvd. and McNiel Ave. Future Demand Traffic Volumes Projected traffic volumes, for the year 2018, are based on traffic growth on the individual roadway facilities as identified in the City of Wichita Falls Metropolitan Transportation Plan adopted in 19.96. These volumes are shown in Figure 1. The largest growth in traffic is anticipated to be on Lawrence Road, but volumes are also expected to increase greatly on Maplewood Ave., McNiel Ave., and on Callfield Road which connects all of these facilities. Projected Deficiencies Analysis of the level of service provided by the existing roadway facilities for projected volumes identifies deficiencies on both Lawrence Road and the eastern portion of Callfield Road between Lawrence Road and Kemp Blvd. These facilities are both projected to operate at LOS F. Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study l0 C_11 Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. The most critical deficiency is projected to be for Lawrence Road. A portion of this 4- lane undivided roadway is projected to carry from 21,300 average daily traffic (ADT) to 26,570 ADT, resulting in volumes from 1.19 to 1.48 times the capacity of the facility. Traffic Assignment on Reliever Route In order to analyze the effectiveness of providing a reliever route to divert traffic from existing Callfield Road, traffic needed to be assigned to the new facility. This assignment of projected traffic was performed in two steps, diverted traffic assignment and new growth traffic assignment. The amount of traffic assigned for each step differs for different alternative alignments based on network connectivity, directness, and 1 access to potentially developable property. ,j Traffic will tend to take the route that takes the shortest time to get between two points. Therefore, alternatives which provide the most direct path for the movements identified in the existing traffic flow section of this report will attract the most traffic, and in turn provide the most relief to existing Callfield Road. In addition to traffic that would potentially divert from existing Callfield Road, a reliever route would handle traffic traveling to and from new development expected to take place along such a facility. There is considerable land available for development in this corridor and it is believed that projected volumes on Lawrence Road include traffic generated by anticipated development in this area. It then makes sense that an alternative providing good access to this development would carry more traffic generated f by the new development than an alternative providing poor access to such land. Traffic f volumes projected on the proposed reliever, by this study, are similar to those volumes projected by the Texas Department of Transportation's Transportation Planning and IProgram Office in Austin. Development of Alternatives A critical step in the process of determining the warrant of a reliever facility involved developing potential routes for the reliever. These routes were then studied to determine their effectiveness in optimizing operations at Callfield. Once the primary alternative routes were developed, they were presented to the public allowing property owners and public officials to intelligently comment on the effects of the potential routes. Throughout the development process, the Kimley-Horn team used information gathered at the Public Information Workshop. After developing 20 different alternatives, they were reduced to five build-alternatives and the No Build Alternative. The following paragraphs detail the processes employed to select the six primary alternatives presented at the October 6, 1998 Public Meeting. Alternative Alignments Before any alternatives were created, a Public Information Workshop was held on June 11, 1998. Kimley-Horn in conjunction with Hicks & Company conducted an informal Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study l l � Kimley-Horn ❑ and Associates, Inc. workshop geared toward garnering public input before the process of creating the alternatives. As a whole, the meeting was a success. Most people agreed with the need for a reliever facility. Several ideas brought forth in the meeting were used extensively during the design process. Among these was tying into the existing Maplewood Ave. — Kemp Blvd. Intersection, use of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad right of way, and use of Arizona St. The development of the alternatives was broken down into three "zones." These zones allowed a more precise analysis of route selection. In addition, examining the different routes independently in zones, generated a "mix and match" approach to finding the best alternatives. Refer to Figures 2 and 3 for alternative alignments. The first study zone included the area from McNiel Ave. to Lawrence Road. Lawrence Road to Arthur St. made up the second zone, while the third zone included the area east of Arthur St. to Maplewood Ave. The zones located on each end of the project emphasized the project termini while the middle zone included consideration of existing facilities that could be utilized for an alternative. At the western end of the project, North Regent Dr. and South Regent Dr. were selected as possible termini for the reliever. The major attraction of these locations is they offer an existing facility with which to tie the reliever route. Additionally, they provided good intersection angles with McNiel Ave. and required few residential or business displacements. The middle zone involves selecting existing facilities to use in tying both ends of the project. Existing Tarry St. and Keith St. and the BNSF Railroad make up the facilities considered in this area. In addition, a route south of McGrath Creek was created to tie to several termini. The eastern end of the project involved the most complicated design issues, as selecting logical and functional termini for the route was a significant challenge. As suggested in the Public Information Workshop, a terminus utilizing the existing Kemp Blvd. — Maplewood Ave. intersection was selected. Additional termini include Hampstead Ln., Wayne St., and a "T" intersection with Kemp Blvd. Finally, Arizona St. was extended through Kemp Blvd. to Maplewood Ave. as a terminus. Eighteen different build-alternatives were created though this development process. One additional build-alternative also emerged although it does not use the previous corridor termini. Tbis final alternative alignment involved expanding existing Callfield RoaO to a six-lane facility from McNiel Ave. to Kemp Blvd. Alternative Reduction The process of creating alternatives involved examining every possible route. Although some routes are impractical or do not meet the scope of the project, they are helpful in making a comparison between alternatives that do possess positive characteristics toward this project. When all of the alternatives had been identified, attention turned to Cullfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 12 t � V 4Ap It t2 10 ow Tl x , s t[ ,P 6 6 S c m v' i t Tf ��� , lKh d47 - W Wit ' F L � E £ F �1 J s �'�"`;. f -et.,a` a e' a•J fix: i -s • J NIY t 51~ y 1 E d } fi.' ra..,:�. a y1,. y:{ p F ka lot It ai t s. ♦- � a,` MC � }R�Jr ��"3�b� Yam'+7�i. Rua,�.' �# � � , � 4 �• , �. s t + �'" ,. ✓ '3 �iP •i��€ fir' '1iR -°• g .� ;�1 , k # r 3i .46 4 eHe. i�m7^ C'� A ;: t ��" • �a g,g0.': ,� Sto ' I �A �1�4}! Oy,r lj LK MIN,, twi IR tE k' ""5,,�,� a�.s.:Jexyms._ _ ..*-..+H x°E.3aE:- p ��,t-.a.,.. .Lr"u._". 'x. .,,--�:w• �. :.� 4. �= F,� _ 'Si�'"+�:-„�W _ g fi t h ' �� gi3 '�� ( - E?:. •c 1,1. .'i x'i'_L � 1�9 `'F�sS I Eas` } x bdYtxe':bsx x �fro t FM1 ,:. ^Pan . '.7 rcJl Itehd+•lu? All a` 3 - a- r , J � ARF F L , ❑�❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. selecting those that would best meet the purpose and need of the project and therefore be presented at the Public Meeting. For any alternative to be considered for further evaluation it needed to be determined that the alternative would serve the purpose and need of this study, which was to relieve traffic congestion on existing Callfield Road. The alternative also needed to be safe, geometrically desirable, and not create new problems for the existing system. In making an initial evaluation of the alternatives, the focus again turned to the three zones. In the first zone on the western end of the project, the focus becomes whether to use North Regent Dr. or South Regent Dr. as a terminus. South Regent Dr. displays several disadvantages making it undesirable. The most significant is that South Regent Dr. leads directly into a residential neighborhood. Ending an arterial here would potentially introduce additional traffic onto a local collector street, instead of to another arterial. Also, the close proximity of South Regent Dr. to Callfield Road creates an undesirable distance between major intersections. As a result, North Regent Dr. was selected as the western terminus for all alternatives. It provides an acceptable distance between major intersections, and all traffic would be directed to use McNiel Ave. The alternatives chosen in the middle zone generally utilized existing facilities well. As a result, most were accepted as viable routes. Alternative 2 was combined with Alternative 8 utilizing both the railroad right of way and the existing Avenue Z. Only Alternative 7 was eliminated. Conceptually, this route would have a low construction cost and few residential/business displacements making it an ideal selection. Additionally, it would utilize the recently improved section of Callfield Road between Lawrence Road and Kemp Blvd. However, because the route would introduce new and existing traffic 1 back on to Lawrence Road and then Callfield Road, the LOS on Callfield Road and on Lawrence Road would increase to F. Alternative 7 therefore did not meet the purpose and need of the project because it failed to reduce traffic on Callfield, between Lawrence Road and Kemp Blvd. On the eastern end of the project corridor, a significant factor in the analysis of each 1 alternative was the traffic analysis. Alternative 3 was eliminated since it was determined that it would do very little to relieve traffic on Callfield, because it does not provide a reasonable alternative alignment for most of the major traffic movements. Though alternative 5 had some positive features, it was eliminated for multiple reasons. It would have introduced potential signalization problems due to the short spacing it would provide between signalized intersections on both Kemp Blvd. and Midwestern Pkwy. This alternative also does not provide direct connections to the major movements including Maplewood Ave. or southbound Kemp Blvd. Alternative 9 had multiple flaws. It created a potentially major intersection directly across from Barwise Junior High School as well as failing to provide direct access to the major traffic movements involving Maplewood Ave. r Finally, Alternative 10, which proposed to widen existing Callfield Road to six lanes, was eliminated. Traffic analysis shows that widening will improve its LOS. However, this analysis is based on the traffic model developed for the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, which is assumed to include a reliever facility for Callfield Road as part of its traffic network. In essence, the analysis depicts widening existing Callfield Road and building a reliever facility. Therefore, this analysis does not accurately model the conditions Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 15 CKimley-Horn ❑ and Associates,Inc. present for widening Callfield Road without building a reliever facility. Additionally, Alternative 10 does not meet the purpose of the project, which was to remove traffic from Callfield. Alternatives 1,2,4,and 8 were all considered for further evaluation on the basis that they would serve the purpose and need of the study by providing a relatively direct alternative for most of the major movements identified in the corridor. A major key was the direct connection that each of these alternatives provides to Maplewood Ave. It was determined that Alternative 6 would also be considered in additional evaluation processes. Though this alternative provides poor network connectivity and provides a direct alternative for only a limited number of the major traffic patterns in the corridor, it was the best of the "northern" alternatives and could be used for the purpose of comparison during further evaluation. These alternatives became Alternatives A — E, respectively, and along with the No Build Alternative, were presented at an October 6, 1998 Public Meeting. Primary Alternative Evaluation Once the primary alternatives were selected, see Figure 4, a detailed evaluation began. Public involvement began the process followed by an extensive analysis of design, traffic, socioeconomic, and environmental issues. { Public Meeting On October 6, 1998 Kimley-Horn presented the six primary alternatives at a Public Meeting held at Barwise Junior High School. This presentation included design, traffic relief, socioeconomic, and environmental ,r�•1 � f considerations. The alternatives presented included the five build alternatives previously ' discussed and the No Build Alternative. Those in attendance were requested to comment on the project for public record either at the meeting or via a mailed response. The majority of respondents indicated support for Alternatives B, D, and No Build. After receiving comments, an evaluation matrix was developed to aid in the selection of a technically preferred alternative. Evaluation Matrix and Description of Criteria Table 2, the Evaluation Matrix, is presented as the basis of evaluation for determining the feasibility of constructing a Callfield Road Reliever Route. This matrix details the evaluation of each alternative including the No Build. Development of the matrix led to a final decision on the feasibility of a reliever facility for Callfield Road. Cullfielcl Reliever Route Feasibility Stuck• 16 r _ A at All 4j ' �' i _. { �t•. r i ' a5 dor � lw �k0. 31 r MIN IA 5. f 'killa +$ x is M1'- y �Rc 9 fi h. 4in of 3 �. rt �i� 1 C Sq 5 Mtn ,:••,. '� "-' AEA I'.z..,.F. ✓2�'S4 I.- �, .: 1 J r bY.' M�� 5� �k <-�•�{}� .� # ,� 'a�a h fit.. Sf+ 09 Iffla # ,$ a F tal �, •_ ''3 r �,{ �• �= Pos#fit k �� si` C r� �Ni 3 ■, JV y a F ) \ � + z ` � ( | § ' ` § 77 ' u f02! - - - / ! ») } } } _ > 2 k / § ( ) � � \ > = �A * e33 � I = ( - � - w uz 22 \ - � - � . » 1 - � : - / - � - \ ( it it / U $ § < § { § a § \ ( \ ( \ \ \ - .. § �) ' \) #}V \ � z . -' 2 - ¥ � \z ( § }§2�) ;}}\ ■ \ )§�) ! I: - ego § acc zz f - _ !� � +« ' � ( � ( � § 7 /;\ {_ - } ]m� - E2/\ \) +\ � .$ > ]/2 r. t- �7 lit• Kirnley-Horn ill_❑ and Associates,Inc. �. The matrix is divided into four sections: geometric and roadway design evaluation, traffic evaluation, socioeconomic evaluation, and environmental evaluation. Each I" section is further divided into specific categories. These criteria and their evaluation is shown for each proposed alternative. a Geometric/Roadway Design i The first section is the design evaluation, which includes elements pertaining to the design of the roadway, and cost estimates. The evaluation criteria may be described as follows: Roadway Construction Cost An estimate of the construction cost of each alternative was calculated based on a four- lane divided roadway typical section. The estimated cost shown includes all roadway costs and drainage costs for storm sewer, and structures required due to the alternative crossing McGrath Creek. Alternatives A-C parallel the existing McGrath creek channel and will require a significant investment in drainage improvements and floodplain mitigation. The level of drainage design and floodplain mitigation varies with each alternative. Additionally, there are several options for channel improvements to the existing McGrath channel. In an effort to represent each of the different drainage options, they are each included as separate costs in the matrix as described below. Cross Drainage Structures Alternatives A-C are parallel to the existing McGrath Creek drainage channel. Drainage structures would be required to allow water to flow under the roadway and outfall into the creek channel as it does currently. An estimate of the construction cost for these 19 drainage structures is included in this category. Channel Improvements a As a part of any roadway construction project in this corridor, improvements to McGrath Creek and floodplain may be considered. One option is improving and enlarging the existing channel to contain the flow from a 100-year storm event. The estimated cost to improve the channel is included in this category. Additionally, permanent drainage - easements should be considered for the limits of the channel improvements. _ Encasing Channel A second option for channel improvements is to full encase McGrath Creek from McNiel � - { Y :. Ave. to Arthur St. with capacity to hold the discharge for a 100-year . storm event. Estimated costs for this structure are shown in this section. Cullfield Reliever Route Feusibilit-v Stctdv 20 Y EKimley-Horn M and Associates, Inc. r Utilities An evaluation of required utilities relocation work involved in the project relative to that anticipated on any standard construction project was completed. Each of the build alternatives required relocation of some utilities. None, however, require relocation of a major facility such as an electrical substation. The evaluation for each build alternative was "0" or no significant impact. The No Build Alternative received an evaluation of or no relocation required. r Geometries This section is an evaluation of the conformance of the roadway geometries to TxDOT accepted standards. A positive "+" evaluation indicates all meet the desirable design criteria, a "0" evaluation indicates that all geometries exceed the minimum design criteria, and a "-" evaluation indicates that the geometries do not meet the design criteria. The No Build Alternative was not evaluated in this category, because no change to existing roadways will be made. This evaluation was not intended to evaluate the geometric design of existing facilities. Traffic Projected LOS on Callfield The traffic study indicates that by drawing traffic from existing Callfield Road, alternatives A,B,C,D, and E would all improve the level of service on Callfield, between Lawrence Road and Kemp Blvd. from LOS F to LOS D. This is not considered to be ideal, but is 0 considered an improvement. The No Build Alternative that has been assigned a negative score in the evaluation matrix, would leave traffic conditions as they currently exist. i Projected LOS on Existing Maplewood Ave. Under the No Build Alternative, Maplewood Ave. north of Midwestern Pkwy. is projected to continue operating at LOS C. This is considered a positive operating level of service and is scored with a "+" in the evaluation matrix. All of the build alternatives are projected to decrease the level of service on Maplewood Ave. from LOS C to LOS E. This is a result of moving traffic that would travel from either McNiel Ave. or Lawrence Road down Callfield Road and Midwestern Pkwy. through the Maplewood Ave. intersection to the alternative and then onto Maplewood Ave. Since the LOS remains above F, a score of "0" is associated with these alternatives. Projected Volumes on Callfield Reliever This measure identifies the ability of the alternative to draw traffic off of Callfield Road, along with the alternative's ability to serve traffic associated with projected development. Obviously the No Build Alternative does not serve this need and therefore it is scored with a ...... Alternatives A, B, C, and D provide a relatively direct alternative alignment for the major corridor traffic movements, and thus serve quite a bit of traffic. Therefore, Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 21 ❑ Kimle •Horn and Associates, Inc. •I these alternatives were scored with a "+". Alternative E only provides a direct alternative for some of the major traffic movements and is projected to only serve about half of the traffic that the other build alternatives would serve, thus resulting in the score of "0". Ability of reliever to serve new traffic This traffic measure is in great part related directly to the alternative's geometry and can be scored easily by looking at the figure illustrating the alternatives. Basically the more land available for development adjacent to the alternative the better it can serve new traffic demand expected to be generated by that development. Positive scores are associated with alternatives A, B, and C, which border several vacant parcels of land. Negative scores are associated with the No Build Alternative and with Alternative E, which borders very little vacant land. Alternative D falls somewhere in between the others as far as the amount of vacant land it borders, and is therefore scored with a "0". Projected Average Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled at LOS F This measure of effectiveness is related directly with a numerical value. The projected vehicle miles traveled on portions of Callfield Road and Lawrence Road that are operating at LOS F was calculated for each alternative. The No Build Alternative results in a projection of vehicles traveling more than 20 thousand miles a day at LOS F, and earns a negative score. All build alternatives reduce this distance to a value between 8 and 9 thousand miles a day. This is considered a substantial benefit and is scored with a "+". Geometry/ Network Connectivit This final measure relates to many of the other measures, but is isolated here. The y network as it exists today appears to be missing a link that could be provided by a roadway built to the north of and parallel to Callfield Road. This missing link is satisfied by Alternatives A, B, C, and D. Alternative E is too far to the north to satisfy fill this need and has been shown throughout the study to fail in many ways for this reason. Socioeconomic The socioeconomic evaluation provides a tool for analyzing the impact of a route to the surrounding community. It also includes public input received during the public meeting. General Public Input This section includes a summary of input received from October 6, 1998 Public Meeting. (+) indicates support for alternative, while (0) indicates no comment was received. A rating of (-) indicated opposition for the alternative. Public Agency Input This section includes a summary of input received from October 6, 1998 Public Meeting. (+) indicates support for alternative, while (0) indicates no comment was received. A rating of (-) indicates opposition for the alternative. Cullfiehl Reliever Route FeusibiliA,Stiov ,� ❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. 1 Residential Displacements j The number, if any, of residences displaced by the alternative (and subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Program) was determined. A rating of "-" indicates relocation of any residence was required, while a rating of "0" indicates no relocations were required. Potential Impact on Neighborhood Cohesion The relative degree to which the alternative could sever or alter social interaction among groups or individual members of a community was evaluated in this section. Alternatives A,' C and the No Build will not divide the existing neighborhood and were therefore given an evaluation of "0" or no impact. Alternatives B, D and E will require a four-lane arterial to be constructed through an existing neighborhood, effectively dividing the neighborhood and therefore received an evaluation of "-" or negative impact. Potential Impact to Noise Sensitive Receivers The number of residences, schools, churches, institutional care facilities, etc. within 500 feet of the proposed right-of-way lines that would be affected by traffic noise increases in excess of acceptable limits was measured in this category. Each build alternative will require the construction of a four-lane arterial in lieu of or in addition to the existing neighborhood residential streets. The purpose and effect of the reliever construction is to draw traffic from Callfield Road. The increase in traffic will have a negative impact "-" to the existing noise sensitive receivers along the route. The No Build Alternative will not change the current traffic flow and will have no impact "0" on existing noise sensitive receivers. Commercial/Industrial Displacements The number, if any, of businesses displaced by the alternative (and subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance Program) was determined. A rating of "-" indicates relocation was required, while a rating of "0" indicates no relocations were required. Community Facility Displacements The number, if any, of churches, schools and public facilities displaced by the alternative was determined. A rating of "-" indicates relocation was required, while a rating of "0" indicates no relocations were required. Alternatives A and C both require the displacement of the tennis courts at Barwise Junior High School and the relocation of the Free Will Baptist Church at the intersection of Arizona St. and Arthur St. Impact on Recreational Resources The impact of an alternative to recreational resources in the corridor was evaluated in this category. A rating of "-" indicates an impact to a resource. Alternatives A and C impact the tennis courts at Barwise Junior High School as well as the south side of Tesco Park. Alternatives B and D impact the softball fields in the center of Tesco Park. Neither Alternative E or the No Build Alternative has an impact on a recreation resource, therefore they were given a rating of "0", no impact. Callfield Reliever Route Feasibility Study 23 1 �❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 1 Impact on Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 1 This category is an assessment of whether an .� alternative would require acquisition of the railroad right-of-way for roadway use, as well as how many times a particular route would cross the existing railroad and spur tracks. Alternative A runs south of the railroad track for its entire length and would gawk not impact the railroad corridor, therefore resulting z in a rating of "0", no impact. Alternatives B and C not only cross the existing tracks, but require the acquisition of the rail corridor for roadway purposes. Alternatives D and E require crossing the existing tracks. During the study, it was learned that the corridor is potentially for sale. This would decrease ..::- the impact to the rail facility itself, however, the impact to those current property owners who might use the railroad in support of their business must inot be discounted. Based on the above, Alternatives B-E were given a rating of or negative impact. The No Build Alternative has no Y impact to the existing rail corridor and received a rating of "0", no impact. Conformity with Adopted Comprehensive Plans The relative degree to which a project alternative conforms to the City of Wichita Falls transportation and land use plans was evaluated in this section. The Wichita Falls thoroughfare plan shows a new location minor arterial between Kemp Blvd. and McNiel Ave. in the corridor north of existing Callfield Road. Alternatives A-D conform with the City's proposed plan and received a rating of "+" for conformity. Although Alternative E provides the link shown on the thoroughfare plan, it travels too far to the north in the corridor to effectively serve the project land use and traffic demands and was given a rating of "0" for minimal conformity. A rating of "-" represents nonconformity. Environmental The environmental evaluation provides an opportunity to analyze the impact of a route to environmental features in the project corridor. Parkland Displacement The amount of public park or recreation area of national, state or local significance displaced by the project, and therefore subject to a Section 4(f) or 6(f) evaluation, was evaluated in this section. A rating of "-" indicates parkland will be displaced. Alternatives A and C impact the south side of Tesco Park. Alternatives B and D impact the softball fields in the center of Tesco Park. Neither Alternative E or the No Build Alternative causes any parkland to be displaced, therefore they were given a rating of "0", no impact. Cullfield Reliever Route Feasibility Stucly 24 ❑�❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates,Inc. Y ;} Potential Impact on Park Cohesion , .z• s The relative degree to which the alternative could sever or alter parkland functions was evaluated. Both Alternatives A and C impact the far south edge of Tesco Park, _ - but they do not disrupt the use of the park to the local community. They were each given a rating of "0", minimal impact. Alternatives B and D travel from Ave. Z through the softball fields in the center of the park. The park will effectively be divided with these two alternatives. Both were given a rating of "-", negative impact. Alternative E and the No Build Alternative do not have any impact on the existing park facilities and were therefore given a rating of no impact. Floodplain Impact This category identifies if the existing McGrath Creek floodplain is impacted by a project alternative. Each of the build alternatives was given a rating of "-" indicating they have some level of impact on the floodplain. A rating of "0" indicates no impact to the floodplain for the No Build Alternative. A "+" rating indicates a benefit to the existing floodplain. The extent of the impact and the mitigation required varies with each alternative. Additionally, the level of impact can be altered significantly during the design/construction phase of the project. For example, if the channel is improved and/or the floodplain contained, the current rating of "-" for a particular alternative could be mitigated to a rating of "+". Impact on McGrath Creek This section analyzes the impact of each alternative on the creek system itself and any existing habitat. Each of the build alternatives crosses McGrath Creek at least one time, therefore they were each given a rating of "-" indicating an impact to the creek. The No Build Alternative has no impacts on the creek system and received a rating of "0". Similar to the floodplain impacts described above, the level of ultimate impact to the creek may be mitigated by the ultimate drainage design of the technically preferred alternative. Potential Impact to Wetlands A linear wetland area exists within the project corridor north of the railroad tracks, between McNiel Ave. and Lawrence Road. Neither alternative A nor the No Build Alternative disturbs the wetland area and therefore received a rating of "0", no impact. Of the remaining build Alternatives, D and E cross the center of the wetland area while B and C impact the east end of the wetland area. All of these alternatives were given a rating of "-" denoting their impact to the area. Callfielcl Reliever Route Feasibility StuclY 25 /1 M Kimley-Horn [� and Associates, Inc. Impact on Woodland Area A woodland area exists on the west end of the project corridor in the property surrounding South Regent Dr. All of the build alternatives will require a portion of this area be converted to transportation use and were therefore given an impact rating of The No Build Alternative will not impact the area and was given a rating of "0". Hazardous Materials Sites This category evaluated each alternative for the presence of hazardous material sites within the route and the relative potential to require remedial action. Alternatives A, C and the No Build Alternative appear to impact no hazardous material sites, therefore receiving a rating of "0", no impact. Alternatives B, D and E appear to contain several hazardous material sites, mostly comprised of petroleum storage tanks, therefore receiving a rating of "-", negative impact. All sites require field confirmation. The investigation conducted was preliminary only and does not constitute Phase 1 environmental site assessment. All of the evaluation data and criteria discussed in the preceding pages is included in the evaluation matrix. Each evaluation was reduced to a "+", "0", or "-" value to allow for comparison between the alternatives. The project feasibility assessment and { recommendations that follow are based primarily upon these evaluation criteria. ! Conclusion The purpose of the evaluation matrix was to aid in the determination of a feasible alternative, if available. In order to be feasible, the alternative's ability to improve the operational characteristics of the network must be weighed against its construction, socioeconomic and environmental costs. To be feasible, a build alternative must serve the project's purpose and need. Project Feasibility As illustrated in the evaluation matrices, Alternatives A-E do serve the purpose of improving the LOS on existing Callfield Road. All of the build alternatives in some manner support the thoroughfare plan of the City of Wichita Falls, as the City has shown foresight in anticipating an addition to their roadway network. However, the construction of any of the routes does not substantially improve the operation of the overall traffic network in the corridor. With or without the construction of the reliever route, Lawrence Road, for example, will remain at LOS F. Additionally, as shown in the matrices, each build alternative has some level of negative impact to the socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood community and corridor. In the consideration of a technically preferred alternative, public and/or civic opposition to a particular alternative was sufficient reason to discard the route. Both Alternatives A Cullfietcl Reliever Route Feusibiliry Sttuh, 26 C_C__] KimleyHorn and Associates,Inc. and C were opposed by the Wichita Falls Independent School District as well as several individuals who commented during the public involvement process. Alternatives B and C utilize the railroad corridor with the assumption that it can be officially abandoned and used for roadway purposes. Alternatives A, B and C will require in addition to their roadway construction cost, significant investment to mitigate the effects of the roadway construction on the McGrath Creek floodplain. Current drainage design criteria will allow no change in the water surface elevation of the 100 year flood. As mentioned above, none of the build alternatives improve the operation of the overall traffic network in the corridor. This presents the issue that the traffic congestion may also be an operational concern, not just a need for additional capacity. A new route alone does not solve the problem — it may serve to hamper existing operating problems by creating new intersections and access points. Recommendations Based on the information presented in this study, it is our opinion that the construction of a reliever route is not the most appropriate use of available TOOT construction funds without insuring improvement to the operational characteristics of the overall traffic network. Because the reliever facility provides little traffic relief, its ability to optimize traffic operations in the area is minimal. With little improvement in traffic movement and delays, the overall costs associated with the project are too great. After careful analysis of the alternatives, the No Build alternative is recommended. Although this study definitively shows that a reliever facility is not warranted at this time, Kimley-Horn proposes several recommendations to both TxDOT and the City of Wichita Falls. ! Primarily, Kimley-Horn recommends to the Wichita Falls District of the Texas Department of Transportation that a build alternative for the Callfield Reliever Project is not feasible at this time. Further, before TOOT participates in construction funding for projects in this area, it is our recommendation that the City of Wichita Falls conduct a more widespread study of the traffic network from a traffic operations standpoint. Clearly, traffic problems exist in this region and are likely to worsen, however; the simple addition of this reliever route will not alone solve the congestion problems. Additionally, we recommend the study and improvement of Lawrence Road. As seen in Figure 1, Lawrence Road traffic volumes are projected to double over the next twenty years. Furthermore, the Lawrence — Rhea Road intersection presents a number of traffic problems. Because Lawrence and Rhea Road directly connect to Callfield, addressing these problems should be included in the operations study previously mentioned. Finally, consideration should be given to alternative modes of transportation during those peak seasons of the year in which traffic in the study area far exceeds the norm. Use of concepts such as local buses or trolleys between major shopping areas may provide interim relief during peak periods. i Cctllfielcl Reliever Route Feusihilih Stucly ! 27 II ❑ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Although Kimley-Horn recommends a No Build Alternative to TxDOT, for the City of Wichita Falls this recommendation in no way precludes the city from undertaking this j project. This point was presented and discussed in the presentation of the No Build Alternative at the public meeting. In fact, the ability of the city to allow a private developer to undertake the cost of this project, or part of this project, instead of using public dollars is a distinct possibility. Among the build alternatives, D is the most logical choice from an economical standpoint. Alternative D is the least expensive both in terms of roadway construction cost and drainage mitigation costs. It is also in compliance with the City of Wichita Falls Transportation Plan. It is important to note, however, that the economics associated with any particular alternative could be changed in the view of the City if alternate funding sources became available. In that case, the possibility exists that Alternative D would no longer be the most cost effective. 3 I Cullfield Reliever Route Feusihilin•Stroh 28 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, February 2, 1999 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: 3. Presentations: Employee of the Month 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 Authorizing The City Manager To Apply For Assistance Under The Texas Department Of Housing And Community Affairs Emergency Shelter Grant Program, And To Execute Any Necessary Contracts To Operate The Program. (City Council Bill #16) b. Resolution Awarding Contract To Clarklift For Purchase Of A Landscape Tractor In The Amount Of $15,919. (City Council Bill #17) City Council Agenda Tuesday, February 2, 1999 Page 2 7. Award of Bids: a. Award Of Bid For The Purchase Of One (1 ) Each Tractor And Flex-Wing Cutter (Brush Hog), To Ag-Power, Inc., In The Amount Of $42,614.00. 8. Receive Minutes: a. Board of Adjustment - November 18, 1998 b. Planning & Zoning Commission - January 13, 1999 c. Commission on Human Needs - January 18, 1999 REGULAR AGENDA 9. Public Hearings: a. A Public Hearing On Hazardous Structures, An Ordinance Declaring Certain Structures As Dangerous, In Violation Of Ordinance And Commanding Certain Action With Regard To Same. 10. Ordinances: a. An Ordinance Declaring Certain Structures As Dangerous, In Violation Of Ordinance And Commanding Certain Action With Regard To Same. (City Council Bill #18) b. Ordinance Approving Rate Schedules For Texas Utilities Electric Company. (City Council Bill #19) c. An Ordinance Making An Appropriation to the Special Revenue Fund From the Texas Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund Board (TIFB) and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Contract Accepting the Award. (City Council Bill #20) d. Ordinance Appropriating Texas Parks And Wildlife Department Grant Funds In The Amount Of $150,000 And Matching City Funds In The Amount Of $50,000 For The Construction Of A Boat Ramp On Lake Wichita. (City Council Bill #21) City Council Agenda Tuesday, February 2, 1999 Page 3 11 . Resolutions (cont'd): a. Resolution Determining Necessity For Acquisition Of Property For The Lake Wichita Boat Ramp Project, Approving The Appraisals, Setting Just Compensation, And Authorizing Purchase Or Condemnation. (City Council Bill #22) b. Resolution Authorizing The City Manager To Execute A One-Year Extension Agreement With Laidlaw Medical Transportation, Inc., dba American Medical Response To The Ambulance Service Contract Dated January 21 , 1997 And Amending Rates. (City Council Bill #23) c. Resolution Establishing A Parental Access Area In The Wichita Falls Public Library. (City Council Bill #24) 12. Award of Bids: a. Award Of Bid For The Purchase Of The City's Annual Requirement Of Spring Flowers To Smith's Greenhouse In The Amount Of $29,741 .49. 13. Other Business: a. Discuss Petition Received From The City View Independent School District Requesting Annexation for 56.3 Acres West Of City View Drive. b. Discuss Petition Received From Wichita County Water Improvement District No. 2 Requesting Annexation Of 3.54 Acres Out Of The Northside Irrigation Canal. c. Motion and Order Confirming the Appointment of Major Manuel Borrego as Acting Chief of Police. d. Receipt and Discussion of Maplewood Extension/Callfield Reliever Report. 14. Other Council Matters: a. Discussion Of Items Of Concern To Members Of The City Council. b. Staff/Council discussion. 15. Adjourn. City Council Agenda Tuesday, February 2, 1999 Page 4 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