HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet City Council - 02/10/2004CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
FEBRUARY 30, 2004
11:45 A.M. - Proclamation declaring the month of February as "American History Month"
Certificate of Recognition for Dan Alexander
AGENDA
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1201 LEOPARD
FEBRUARY 10, 2004
9:00 A.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE - THE USE OF CELLULAR PHONES AND SOUND ACTIVATED PAGERS ARE
PROHIBITED IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DURING MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Members of the audience will be provided an opportunity to address the Council at approximately 12:00 p.m. or at the end
of the Council Meeting, whichever is earlier. Please speak into the microphone located at the podium and state your name
and address. Your presentation will be limited to three minutes. If you have a petition or other information pertaining to your
subject, please present it to the City Secretary.
Si Listed desea dirigirse al Concilio y cree qua su ingl6s as limitado, habri un int6rprete ingffis-espahol an todas las juntas
del Concilio para ayudarte.
Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need auxiliary aids or services are requested to
contact the City Secretary's office (at 361-880-3105) at least 48 hours in advance so that appropriate arrangements can be
made.
A. Mayor Samuel L. Neal, Jr. to call the meeting to order.
B. Invocation to be given by Minister to Children, Kay Dunlap, First Baptist Church.
C. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States.
D. City Secretary Armando Chapa to call the roll of the required Charter Officers.
Mayor Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor Pro Tem Mark Scott
Council Members:
Brent Chesney
Melody Cooper
Javier D. Colmenero
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
E. MINUTES:
City Manager George K. Noe
City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer
City Secretary Armando Chapa
Approval of Regular Meeting of January 27, 2004. (Attachment # 1)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Paye 2
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
F. BOARDS & COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: (Attachment # 2)
2. Civil Service Board/Commission
* Committee for Persons with Disabilities
* Leadership Committee for Senior Services
G. EXPLANATION OF COUNCIL ACTION:
For administrative convenience, certain of the agenda items are listed
as motions, resolutions, or ordinances. If deemed appropriate, the City
Council will use a different method of adoption from the one listed, • may
finally pass an ordinance by adopting it as an emergency measure
rather than a two reading ordinance; or may modify the action specified.
A motion to reconsider may be made at this meeting of a vote at the
last regular, or a subsequent special meeting; such agendas are
incorporated herein forreconsideration and action on any reconsidered
item.
H. CONSENT AGENDA
Notice to the Public
The following items are of a routine or administrative nature. The Council has
been furnished with background and support material on each item, and/or it
has been discussed at a previous meeting. All items will be acted upon by one
vote without being discussed separately unless requested by a Council
Member or a citizen, in which event the item or items will immediately be
withdrawn for individual consideration in its normal sequence after the items not
requiring separate discussion have been acted upon. The remaining items will
be adopted by one vote.
CONSENT MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS. ORDINANCES AND ORDINANCES
FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
(At this point the Council will vote on all motions, resolutions and ordinances not
removed for individual consideration)
3. Motion approving the purchase of two (2) tractors and seven (7)
rotaryweed cutters from Gulf Tractor, of Corpus Christi, Texas in
accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI -0024-04 based on low bid
and low bid meeting specifications in the amount of $109,248.
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Page 3
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
This equipment will be used by the Storm Water and Water
Department. Funds have been budgeted by the Maintenance
Service Department and the Water Department in FY 2003-2004.
One item is an addition to the fleet, the remainder are
replacement units. (Attachment # 3)
4. Motion approving the lease purchase of one (1) ambulance from
Wheeled Coach, of Orlando, Florida based on the cooperative
purchasing agreement with the Texas Local Government
Purchasing Cooperative (TLGPC) and the lease purchase of
Ericsson radios and fire com system from Dailey Wells
Communications, Inc., of San Antonio, Texas based on sole
source for a total amount of $150,364, of which $16,000 has
been budgeted in FY 2003-2004. The ambulance will be used by
the Fire Department. This unit is a replacement. Financing will
be provided through the City's lease/purchase financing program.
(Attachment #4)
Wheeled Coach Dailey -Wells Communications, Inc.
Orlando, Florida San Antonio, Texas
Ambulance - $131,945 Ericsson Radios and Fire Com
System - $18,419
Grand Total: $150,364
5. Motion authorizing the appointment for an ad hoc peer panel to
the Arts and Cultural Commission, consisting of arts professionals
and community peers to make recommendation for Baseball
Stadium "Percent for Art" Project. (Attachment # 5)
6.a. Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to accept
a grant from the Coastal Bend Regional Advisory Council in the
amount of $17,300 to be used for the purchase of Crisis
Information Management System for the Corpus Christi Fire
Department. (Attachment # 6)
6.b. Ordinance appropriating a $17,300 grant from the Coastal Bend
Regional Advisory Council into the No. 1062 Fire Grants Fund for
the purchase of Crisis Information Management System for the
Corpus Christi Fire Department. (Attachment # 6)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
7. Motion authorizing the purchase of WebEOC, a crisis information
management software package, from ESi as a sole source
purchase, in the amount of $41,524 with funds coming from a
$17,300 grant from the Coastal Bend Regional Advisory Council
and $24,224 from the proceeds of the Metropolitan Medical
Response System contract with the United States Department of
Homeland Security. (Attachment # 7)
8. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
Amendment No. 2 to a Contract for Professional Services with
Urban Engineering, of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of
$374,813 for the Downtown Drainage Improvements Project.
(Attachment # 8)
9. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
a construction contract with Elite Construction Company, of
Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $309,320 for the Gas
Department Building Remodeling, Phase 1 Project.
(Attachment # 9)
10. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
a construction contract with Progressive Structures, of Corpus
Christi, Texas in the amount of $211,750 for the New Ben Garza
Park Sports Pavilion and Ben Garza Gym Locker Room
Improvements. (Attachment # 10)
11. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
Amendment No. 18 to the architectural/engineering services
contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc., of
Houston, Texas in an amount not to exceed $40,640 for
preparation and revision of bid and contract documents for
interior buildout of the Federal Inspection Station and
Transportation Security Administration lease space forthe Corpus
Christi International Airport Terminal Project. (Attachment # 11)
12. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
a Warranty Deed and a Utility Easement with D.H. Braman, et al
in the amount of $40,439 for Parcels 5 and 5UE, both parcels
being out of Lots 49, 50, 51, and 52 of the Artemus Roberts
Subdivision and the Adams, Beaty, and Moulton Survey No. 411,
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Page 5
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Abstract 554, located along the west side of McKinzie Road,
south of Haven Drive, in connection with the McKinzie Road
Street Improvement Project, Haven Drive to South City Limits,
Phase 2, Bond Issue 2000. (Attachment # 12)
13. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
Change Order No. 1 with Rycon E & C, LLC, of Kingsville, Texas,
in the amount of $82,280 for the Wastewater Clean -Out
Installation Program FY 2002-2003. (Attachment # 13)
14. Ordinance appropriating $20,000 from the Port of Corpus Christi
into Park Capital Improvement Program Fund No. 3280 for the
Bayfront Master Plan; and amending the FY 2002-2003 Capital
Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 by increasing
appropriations by $20,000. (Attachment # 14)
15. First Reading Ordinance - Clarifying the Definition of Well in
Section 35-24, Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi.
(Attachment # 15)
16. First Reading Ordinance - Authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to execute a First Amendment to the Lease Agreement
with Great Western Soccer League, a non-profit organization, for
the use of Terry and Bobby Labonte Park for its soccer program
in consideration of Great Western Soccer League maintaining the
premises and improvements. (Attachment # 16)
17. Second Reading Ordinance -Amending Article V, Code of Ethics,
Chapter 2, Code of Ordinance, relating to outside employment;
and providing for penalties. (First Reading 01/27/04)
(Attachment # 17)
18. Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit
a grant application to the United States Bureau of Reclamation in
the amount of $12,100 for technical and financial assistance to
develop and implement a Water Management and Conservation
Plan, with a City match of $12,100 in the No. 4010 Water Fund,
for a total project cost of $24,200. (Attachment # 18)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Page 6
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
(RECESS REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING)
MEETING OF CITY CORPORATION:
19. CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
CORPORATION: (Attachment # 19)
AGENDA
CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE: Tuesday, February 10, 2004
TIME: During the meeting of the City Council beginning at
9:00 a.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers
1201 Leopard St.
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
1. President Rex Kinnison calls meeting to order.
2. Secretary Armando Chapa calls roll.
Board of Directors
Rex A. Kinnison, President
Javier Colmenero, Vice President
Brent Chesney
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Mark Scott
Jesse Noyola
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Officers
George K. Noe, General Manager
Armando Chaps, Secretary
Mary Juarez, Asst. Secretary
Vacant, Treasurer
Constance P. Sanchez, Asst. Treasurer
3. Appointment of Treasurer - Cindy O'Brien, Director of
Financial Services
4. Approval of Minutes of May 13, 2003.
5. Financial Report.
6. Appointment of Loan Review Committee Members.
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Page 7
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
7. Approval of funding for NCCAA in the amount of $279,384
of HOME CHDO Funds. This funding is for down payment
and closing costs assistance in the purchase of newly
constructed homes for individuals at or below 80% of Area
Family Median Income for Phase 1 of Holly Properties.
8. Approval of funding for Terra -Genesis (TG) 303, Inc. aka
Casa de Manana Apartments, in the amount of $300,000
of HOME CHDO Funds for renovation of the apartment
complex.
9. Approval of funding for Housing Authority of the City of
Corpus Christi in the amount of $150,000 of HOME CHDO
Funds to assist 30 low-income residents of Corpus Christi
to compliment their Section 8 Homeownership Program.
10. Approval of funding for Merced Housing in the amount of
$433,750 of HOME CHDO Funds for land acquisition and
design for a proposed 204 -unit development in the
Northwest area of Corpus Christi at McKinzie Road and
Carbon Plant Road.
11. Public Comment.
12. Adjournment.
(RECONVENE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING)
J. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ITEM:
20. Discussion and possible action relating to the City/County Jail
Contract. (Attachment # 20)
K. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
21.a. Public hearing to consider adopting the revised South Central
Area Development Plan; establishing the City's Comprehensive
Plan Policies on the downtown, uptown, bayfront, bayfront arts
and science park and surrounding areas for protection of the
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10,2004
Page 8
21.b.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
environment, future land use, transportation, public services, and
capital improvements; and amending related elements of the
Comprehensive Plan including the Urban Transportation Plan.
(Attachment # 21)
First Reading Ordinance - Amending the Comprehensive Plan of
the City of Corpus Christi ("the City") by adopting the revised
South Central Area Development Plan; establishing the City's
Comprehensive Plan Policies on the downtown, uptown, bayfront,
bayfront arts and science park and surrounding areas for
protection of the environment, future land use, transportation,
public services, and capital improvements; rescinding the South
Central Area Development Plan previously approved by
Resolution 021169, May 21, 1991 and amended by Ordinance
022166, February 28, 1995; and amending related elements of
the Comprehensive Plan including the Urban Transportation Plan.
(Attachment # 21 )
ZONING CASES: (NONE)
PRESENTATIONS:
Public comment will not be solicited on Presentation items.
South Texas Military Facilities Task Fome, Gary Bushell
(Attachment # 22)
Overview ofthe Percent forArt Ordinance. (Attachment # 23)
Animal Care Services Update. (Attachment # 24)
Council Update on specific Bond Issue 2000 Projects.
(Attachment # 25)
Results of the 2003 Citizen Satisfaction Survey.
(Attachment # 26)
Review of Proposed FY 2004 Long-Range Street Projects and
Bond 2004 Process. (Attachment # 27)
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Page 9
REGULAR AGENDA
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND ORDINANCES:
28.
Second Reading Ordinance - Approving the FY 2003-2004
Capital Budget in the amount of $173,624,300. (First Reading -
01/27/04) (Attachment #28)
29.a.
Resolution approving the execution of the Business Incentives
Agreement between the Corpus Chdsti Business and Job
Development Corporation ("Corporation") and A.C. Distribution,
Inc. to reimburse A.C. Distribution, Inc. for job training expenses
up to $3,700 per new job created; and to create at least fifty new
jobs primarily employed to serve a customer base outside a fifty-
mile radius of the City. (Attachment # 29)
29.b.
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to
execute a Project Agreement with the Corpus Chdsti Business
and Job Development Corporation ("Corporation") regarding
administration of the Business Incentives Agreement between the
Corporation and A.C. Distribution, Inc. (Attachment # 29)
30.a.
Motion to amend prior to second reading an ordinance amending
the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 24, Human Relations, by
adding Article V, Discrimination Against Individuals With
Disabilities, establishing procedure and implementation; providing
publication; providing for penalties, by substituting in its entirety;
An ordinance amending Sections 24-2, 24-4, 24-20, 24-21,24-22,
and 24-25 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Chdsti, by
adding a member to the Human Relations Commission, adding
persons with disabilities to the classes of persons protected by
Chapter 24, Code of Ordinances, and clarifying the penalty
provisions; and by adding Article V, Discrimination Against
Individuals With Disabilities, Chapter 24, Human Relations
establishing procedure and implementation; and providing for
penalties. (Attachment # 30)
30.b.
Second Reading Ordinance- Amending the Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 24, Human Relations by adding Article V, Discrimination
Against Individuals with Disabilities, establishing procedure and
implementation and providing for penalties. (First Reading -
07/22/03) (Attachment # 30)
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
February 10, 2004
Page 10
N. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE ON MATTERS
NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA WILL BE HEARD AT
APPROXIMATELY 12:00 P.M. OR AT THE END OF THE
P=
COUNCIL MEETING, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. PLEASE
LIMIT PRESENTATIONS TO THREE MINUTES. IF YOU PLAN
TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL DURING THIS TIME PERIOD,
PLEASE SIGN THE FORM AT THE REAR OF THE COUNCIL
CHAMBER, GIVING YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND TOPIC.
(A recording is made of the meeting; therefore, please speak into the
microphone located at the podium and state your name and address. If you
have a petition or other information pertaining to your subject, please present
it to the City Secretary.)
Si usted se dirige a la junta y cree que su inglOs es limitado, habr~ un intOrprete
inglOs-espa[~ol en la reunion de la junta para ayudade.
PER CITY COUNCIL POLICY, NO COUNCIL MEMBER, STAFF
PERSON, OR MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE SHALL
BERATE, EMBARRASS, ACCUSE, OR SHOW ANY
PERSONAL DISRESPECT FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE
STAFF, COUNCIL MEMBERS, OR THE PUBLIC AT ANY
COUNCIL MEETING. THIS POLICY IS NOT MEANT TO
RESTRAIN A CITIZEN'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
PUBLIC NOTICE is given that the City Council may elect to go into
executive session at any time during the meeting in order to discuss
any matters listed on the agenda, when authorized by the provisions of
the Open Meeting Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code,
and that the City Council specifically expects to go into executive
session on the following matters. In the event the Council elects to go
into executive session regarding an agenda item, the section or
sections of the Open Meetings Act authorizing the executive session
will be publicly announced by the presiding office.
REPORTS:
The following reports include questions by Council to Staff regarding
City policies or activities; request by Council for information or reports
from Staff; reports of activities of individual Council members and Staff;
constituent concerns; current topics raised by media; follow-up on Staff
assignments; scheduling of future Council meetings and activities; and
other brief discussions regarding city-related matters.
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
Febmary 10,2004
Page 11
31.
32.
33.
Q.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
* Upcoming Items
MAYOR'S UPDATE
COUNCIL AND OTHER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT:
POSTING STATEMENT:
This agenda was posted on the City's official bulletin board at the front entrance
~_..~,City Hall, 1201. Leopard Street, at c~;E>(~ p.m.,
~"L~c~ v'v (z~ ,2004.
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
CiTY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
NOTE:
The City Council Agenda can be found on the City's Home
Page at www.cctexas.com after 7:00 p.m. on the Friday
before regularly scheduled council meetings. If technical
problems occur, the agenda will be uploaded on the
Internet by Monday morning.
Symbols used to highlight action item that implement
council priority Issues.
1
PRESENT
Mayor Samuel L. Neal Jr.
Mayor Pro Tem Mark Scott
Council Members:
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - 9:08 a.m.
City Staff:
City Manager George K. Noe
City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer
City Secretary Armando Chapa
Mayor Neal called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The
invocation was delivered by Reverend E.F. Bennett and the Pledge of Allegiance to the United
States flag was led by Council Member Colmenero. City Secretary Chapa called the roll and
verified that the necessary quorum of the Council and the required charter officers were present to
conduct the meeting. Mayor Neal called for approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting
of January 20, 2004. A motion was made and passed to approve the minutes as presented.
Council Member Kinnison requested that the Council allow today's minutes to reflect that
he felt he had erred in his vote on Item 27 at the January 20, 2004 meeting regarding the case
management services contract for workers' compensation. Mr. Kinnison stated that, in hindsight,
he felt he should have voted "No" on Item 27, and asked that it be duly noted.
Mayor Neal called for consideration of the consent agenda (Items 2-5). City Secretary Chapa
announced that Council Member Chesney was abstaining from the vote and discussion on Item 4.
Council Member Scott requested that Item 5 be discussed. There were no comments from the
audience. A motion was made and passed to approve Items 2 through 5, constituting the consent
agenda, except for Item 4, which was pulled for individual consideration. City Secretary Chapa
polled the Council for their votes as follows:
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 2
MOTION NO. 2004-033
Motion approving supply agreements for vehicle and equipment tires and tubes in
accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI-0022-04 with the following companies for the
following amounts. Awards are based on low bid and only bid, for multiple progressive
awards for a total estimated annual expenditure of $521,556.62. The term of the contracts
will be for twelve months with an option to extend for up to two additional twelve-month
periods, subject to the approval of the supplier and the City Manager or his designee. Funds
have been budgeted by Maintenance Services, Aviation, Emergency Medical Services, and
the Fire Department in FY 2003-2004.
A to Z Tire and Battery
Corpus Christi, TX
Items: 1.1-1.3, 1.8, 1.10, 1.13, 1.14, 1.16-1.18,4.1,5.1-5.17, 6.1-6.3,7.1-7.4,8.1-8.2,9.1-
9.4, 10.1
$433,149.85
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
Corpus Christi, TX
Items: 1.4-1.7, 1.9, 1.11, 1.12, 1.19, 2.1-2.3, 3.1
$88,406.77
Grand Total: $521,566.62
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neai, Chesney,
Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye".
MOTION NO. 2004-034
Motion approving a supply agreement with Envirosolve, of Tulsa, Oklahoma for the
collection, transportation, and disposal of household hazardous waste in accordance with
Request for Proposal No. BI-0013-04 for an estimated three-year expenditure of $333,058.
The term of the contract will be for three years, subject to annual appropriations, with an
option to extend the contract for up to two additional twelve-month periods, subject to the
approval of the supplier and the City Manager or his designee. Funds have been budgeted
by the Storm Water Department in FY 2003-2004.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye".
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 3
4. MOTION NO. 2004-035
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Real Estate Sales Contract
with Jesus A. Lopez and wife, Blanca Lopez in the amount of $20,000 plus $1,000 in closing
costs and an additional amount not to exceed $22,500 for relocation assistance in connection
with a replacement dwelling, all for the purchase of fee simple property fights for Parcel 3,
being all of Lots 10 and 11, Block 4, H. E. Luter Partition, with street address of 422
Eighteenth Street, necessary for the Garcia Arts Center Area Street Improvements, Phase 2.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Colmenero,
Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Chesney abstained.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 5 regarding federal highways in Texas. Council
Member Scott asked if the city was monitoring the progress of the Transportation Reauthorization
Bill. Mayor Neal stated that, per his meeting with them last week, Senator Comyn, Senator
Hutchison and Congressman Ortiz were sponsoring legislation to ensure that Texas would receive
its fair share of highway funding. He said Mr. Larry Myers, the city's Washington D.C. lobbyist,
was closely monitoring the reauthorization bill. Mr. Scott commented that it was important to
include language in the bill funding international transportation corridors. Mayor Neal agreed, and
said this should be clarified with Mr. Myers.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 025641
Resolution supporting a fair share for federal highways in Texas.
The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye".
Mayor Neal referred to the presentations on the day's agenda. The first presentation was a
quarterly update from Work-Force 1. Ms. Irma Caballero, Chairperson of the Work-Force 1 Board,
provided an overview of the presentation as follows: labor market information; customer service
levels; follow-up on initiatives discussed last quarter; and follow-up information requested at the
last quarterly presentation. She stated that there were presently two city-appointed vacancies on the
board. She also explained that there were new contracting guidelines being reviewed by the state
which would affect the way Work-Force 1 procures services. She said the new guidelines would
be received in March. She noted that Work-Force 1 was preparing to procure services for $12
million in early March.
Mr. Oscar Martinez, President and CEO of Work-Force 1, provided information on the labor
market in the area. He said the 2003 annual unemployment rate was 6.5 percent, compared with 5.3
percent in the state and 4.94 percent nationally. He compared Nueces County with four other urban
areas in South Texas (Cameron, Hidalgo, Victoria and Webb counties) in terms of labor market
growth over the last five years, and noted that Nueces County had only grown one percent, the
lowest of the five areas. He also compared unemployment rates among the five urban areas, and
concluded that Nueces County consistently had the fourth lowest unemployment rate.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 4
Mr. Martinez provided an update on current year service levels. He provided the following
statistics on the total Work-Force 1 customers seeking services between July 1, 2003 to December
31, 2003: Childeare - 6,365; Welfare Reform - 5,788; Adult - 1,552; Youth - 899; and Employment
Services - 23,590. He said employment services constituted 62 percent of the services they provide.
Thus, he said one of Work-Force l's primary initiatives should be working with employers to
develop jobs and match individuals with those opportunities.
Mr. Martinez compared job vacancies in the area with jobs filled in the area from July 1
through November 30, 2003. He said there were 3,924job vacancies during this period and 1,894
jobs filled. He pointed out that many of the jobs being created were in the service and construction
industry, and the number of jobs filled was about equal with the creation rate. By contrast, Mr.
Martinez said there was a gap in professional, managerial and clerical positions, saying that jobs
were being created but not filled at capacity.
Mr. Martinez provided an update on current Work-Force 1 initiatives. Regarding the youth
mentoring program initiative, he said two contracts have been executed to recruit 400-500 mentors
to mentor 345 youth. He said the initiative to conduct economic and labor market analysis for
businesses initiative had resulted in a monthly newsletter, a data analysis contract with Texas A&M-
Corpus Christi and procurement of an industry cluster analysis. Regarding the initiative to contract
training funds directly to businesses to improve productivity, wage levels and job retention, Mr.
Martinez said seven contracts have been executed with employers to train 614 workers. He said an
initiative to upgrade their facilities infrastructure would result in new buildings in Beeville and
Falfurrias. He stated that Work-Force 1 was preparing to implement pilot drug testing for job
seekers referred to employers to fulfill another initiative. Work-Force 1 had held four rural strategy
sessions and was planning one urban session on February 4 to further the initiative to develop a
region-wide literacy strategy. Regarding the initiative to develop a business service team at each
Workforce Center, Mr. Martinez said 618 employers are under contract since September I and 659
employees have used the workforce system. He said 1,101 job vacancies have been filled as a result.
Mr. Martinez also stated that Work-Force 1 is working with Port employers to develop an integrated
program for youth.
Mr. Martinez discussed efforts to aggressively search for grant funds to support community
needs. He said Work-Force l's grant writing efforts had benefitted Habitat for Hamanity, Coastal
Bend Youth City, Mission 911, Neighborhood Visions and the Nueces County Community Action
Agency, among others. Mr. Martinez said a marketing contract has been executed and a strategic
session has been planned to market of the Workforce Development System to community leaders,
businesses and job seekers. Finally, Mr. Martinez said the initiative to continue privatization of
services historically operated by government has resulted in bids for a workforce center management
company, to be released in February.
Mr. Martinez discussed a series of new Work-Force 1 initiatives. He mentioned a job search
assistance program for the homeless population that consisted of twenty voice mail boxes available
through Work-Force l's workforce center system. He said the voice mail boxes would allow
homeless job seekers served by Metro Ministries to maintain contact with potential employers. Mr.
Martinez noted that Work-Force 1 had been selected by the Texas Workforce Commission to serve
as one of only three sites in the state to pilot implementation ora system of integration ofworkforce
services in our existing workforce centers. He said the integration effort may promote a more
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 5
efficient and seamless delivery of services to workforee customers in the Coastal Bend area and
across the state.
Mr. Martinez reported that Work-Fome 1 had applied for and was awarded an $110,000
grant for apprenticeship training in the local area. He said apprenticeship training services will be
delivered by the following agencies: Texas Gulf Coast Electrical Union Apprenticeship Committee;
Associated General Contractors; Coastal Bend Associated Building and Contractors Apprenticeship
Program; and the Corpus Christi Air Conditioning & Plumbing Contractors Association.
Finally, Mr. Martinez reported that Work-Foree 1 will begin distributing a State of the
Workforee Report in approximately 60 days. The report will present data and information relevant
to the quality of the local workfome and stimulate decision making to improve the region's
economic competitiveness.
Council Member Scott commented that the Regional Economic Development Corporation
has said that the Corpus Christi area has a problem with underemployment. He asked if Work-Force
1 had also identified this problem. Mr. Martinez replied that the lack of growth in the area's labor
market could result in an underemployment problem. He said individuals who are not able to find
employment at a level in which they are qualified for in pay or skill would probably leave the area.
Council Member Scott said he understood there was a problem filling blue collar positions in
manufacturing and the Port industries. Mr. Martinez agreed, saying that the workforce in these
sectors was aging, yet the youth in the area either were unaware of the opportunities or were not
interested. Ms. Caballero added that her company's experience has been that there were few
qualified candidates for job openings in the port industries because the jobs required extensive
computer and technical skills. Finally, Mr. Scott mentioned that Ms. Sally Shipman, a homelessness
issues advocate, said that as community, Corpus Christi has not taken advantage of grants addressing
homeless issues. He said he would provide Work-Force 1 with her contact information.
Mr. Martinez provided a report on information requested at the last quarterly presentation.
He stated that the number of welfare recipients in Nueces County has decreased from 5,000 in 2001
to 3,000 in 2003. Mayor Neal asked ifa disproportionate share of these welfare recipients were also
unemployed. Mr. Martinez answered affirmatively.
Mr. Martinez provided a number of characteristics of the customers served by workforce.
He said the majority of their customers had only a high school degree (55 percent), were between
22 to 54 years of age (71 percent), and were female (77 percent). Mayor Neal commented that this
would explain why jobs in manufacturing and the Port industries were difficult to fill. He asked Mr.
Martinez to provide information on their male customers, constituting 23 percent, because they
would be the labor force potentially filling the manufacturing and refining jobs.
Mayor Neal thanked Ms. Caballero, Mr. Martinez, and City Secretary Chapa for their efforts
in improving Work-Force 1.
Mayor Neal referred to Item 7, a presentation on the park improvement plan for Dan
Whitworth Park. Mr. David Ondrias, Acting Director of the Park and Recreation Department,
introduced Mr. Chuck Anastos, a local architect and community volunteer, who would be making
the presentation. Mr. Anastos described the plans in detail. He said the total estimated construction
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 6
cost for the project was $150,000 and would take approximately 90 days to complete. He said he
hoped to have the funds raised and construction underway in the next 30 to 45 days. He said many
members had already committed funds and/or services for the project, a tribute to Mr. Whitworth.
He thanked Mr. Tony Thomasson with BHP Engineering for providing a computerized fly-through
for the Council's review. Mayor Neal thanked Mr. Anastos and staff for their work.
Mayor Neal referred to Item 8, an update on the city/county jail contract negotiations. Chief
of Police Pete Alvarez Jr. provided a brief history on negotiations to date. He said jail consolidation
began on September 17, 1991. As part of those negotiations, ChiefAlvarez said the county agreed
to provide for booking of city Class C prisoners, totaling an average of 12,000 prisoners per year.
He said there was a provision in the contract asking the city to reduce the number of prisoners as
much as possible. He stated that in 2003, a total of 5,149 Class C prisoners were booked, a
significant reduction. He said the city agreed to pay $275,000 in annual costs by October 1, as well
as staff the Intake Identification Unit. He said the contract provided for a review of costs by a
committee of city and county representatives.
ChiefAlvarez stated that on August 7, 2003, County Judge Terry Shamsie sent a letter to the
City Manager requesting the appointment ora committee to conduct a cost review. On August 13,
County Attorney Laura Jimenez sent a letter to the City Manager providing one-year notice of
termination of the j ail contract, effective September 12, 2004.
ChiefAlvarez provided information on the Cost Review Committee. He said the committee
consisted of three city employees and six county employees. He stated that the committee had met
on October 30, November 6 and November 20, and January 15.
Chief Alvarez provided an update on the negotiations to date. He said the county had
requested $2,000,000 with an annual increase based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with the
understanding that the county would assume the management of the Intake Identification Section
and all duties and responsibilities. Chief Alvarez said the city countered with the current annual
figure of $275,000 with an annual increase based on the CPI. On January 15, City Manager Noe
made a counter proposal to the committee. The proposal consisted of $393,000, derived by adding
the CPI since 1991 to the original contract amount of $275,000. He said the city agreed to consider
allowing the county to assume management of the Intake ID employees, provided the level of
benefits and the quality of identification work remained the same.
Chief Alvarez reviewed the existing agreement. He said the city's annual contractual
obligation was $275,000. He said the city operated the Intake Identification Unit, comprised of 13
employees responsible for photographing, fingerprinting, and verifying identification of all prisoners
for all agencies. He said the city's annual cost for operating the Intake Identification Unit was
$509,151. ChiefAlvarez stated that the city provided a part-time magistrate for weekend processing
at an annual cost of $13,134. Thus, he said the city's total annual obligation for use of the county
jail was $797,285.
ChiefAlvarez discussed the Sheriff's legal obligations with regard to prisoners. He said the
County Commissioners' Court was charged with the legal duty to provide a safe and suitable jail for
the county, and the shefiffwas the keeper of the jail. The sheriffhad the legal duty to confine all
prisoners committed to the jail by a lawful authority in the county, including paying for their
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 7
maintenance and housing. He stated that an arresting agency, like the Corpus Christi Police
Department, is responsible for those people it arrests until they have been seen by a magistrate and
ordered commitment. Once the order of commitment is signed, the responsibility for that prisoner
immediately devolves upon the sheriffand the county.
ChiefAlvarez provided a series of recommendations and proposals regarding the city/county
jail contract negotiations. The first recommendation was to establish a central magistration center
to allow for the timely magistration of prisoners arrested by the Corpus Christi Police Department.
Second, the establishment of a temporary detention facility was proposed to hold people arrested
by city law enforcement officers and provide for their magistration and order for commitment by
city magistrates. Chief Alvarez explained that the intent is not to create a new city jail, but to
establish a facility limited in scope and duration to holding detainees for a maximum of 12 hours,
until they can be magistrated in a timely manner. Finally, ChiefAlvarez said the responsibility for
the prisoners would immediately shift to the Sheriff, and the prisoners would be transported to the
county jail for confinement.
ChiefAlvarez provided information on the proposed detention facility. He said the detention
facility would be located on the first floor of the Police Department. He stated that the existing
property room would be converted into the detention facility, relocating the property warehouse to
the Washington School. He said additional detention personnel would need to be hired to staffthe
facility, including nine employees (2 positions per shift for a 24/7 operation). In addition, Chief
Alvarez said a supervisor, a police lieutenant, would need to be assigned to oversee the facility.
In sum, Chief Alvarez said the total cost would be $976,540, consisting of a recurring fee of
$433,540 and a one-time fee of $543,000 for construction and renovation.
ChiefAlvarez provided information on the proposed Central Magistration Center. He said
the Magistration Center would be located in the aforementioned Detention Facility. He stated that
the facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. To operate the facility on this type
of schedule, he said five full-time judges and a number of part-time judges would need to be hired.
He said additional staff would be needed to process paperwork. He said a video link and fax for
judges would be needed for after hours magistration. Chief Alvarez said the total cost for the
Central Magistration Facility would be $406,414, comprised of a recurring cost of $381,589 and a
one-time cost of $24,825.
ChiefAlvarez reviewed the total cost of operations for both facilities. He said in Year One,
the total cost would be $1,821,389. The cost would decrease in Year Two to $1,253,564. Chief
Alvarez said the Police Department's existing budget for FY 03-04 was $797,285. Thus, he said in
Year One, the Police Department would need an additional $1,024,104 to operate the facilities. In
Year Two, Chief Alvarez stated that an additional $456,279 would be needed.
Chief Alvarez reviewed the implementation timeline for the project, including the
construction schedule. He provided the following timeline: January 22, 2004 - Begin Design Phase;
February 6, 2004 - 60 percent submittal; February 11, 2004 - City review; March 10, 2004 - Final
submittal; March 15 & 22, 2004 - Advertise for bids; March 31, 2004 - Pre-Bid conference; April
7, 2004 - Receive bids; May 3, 2004 - Begin construction; and August 31, 2004 - Construction
completion. Chief Alvarez also noted that the process for hiring personnel was scheduled to begin
on May 1 for part-time judges and detention personnel. He said it was estimated to take three to four
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 8
months to complete.
Mayor Neal asked how the city had arrived at the $275,000 in the original 1991 contract.
Ms. Pat Eldridge, Administrative Assistant with the Police Department, replied that the figure was
derived from the U.S. Marshall's formula at that time, which was $40 a day. She said the average
number of prisoners was 12,000 at that time, but the majority of their prisoners were jailed for Class
C misdemeanors which required only a half day's stay. Mayor Neal asked what the U.S. Marshall's
formula was now. Ms. Eldridge stated that the rate was $49. Mayor Neal noted that the current
number of city prisoners in the jail was closer to 5,000. Thus, he said that one could argue that the
county owed the city $125,000. Mayor Neal pointed out that the city was also processing the intake
of all 24,000 prisoners in the county jail, regardless of which arresting agency had them committed.
Since the city had approximately 11,766 prisoners in the county jail, Mayor Neal stated that it could
be argued that the county owed the city approximately $250,000 (half of the city's cost for operating
the intake i.d. unit). Thus, the Mayor concluded that it could be argued that the county owed the city
approximately $400,000. Mayor Neal said his point was that the city was not underpaying the
county for services received for the jail. Mayor Neal said the city had entered into good faith
negotiations with the committee to no avail. Thus, he said the city should present their offer directly
to Commissioners' Court for an answer.
Council Member Chesney stated that if the city's only responsibility by law was magistration
of its offenders, then in his opinion the city should only provide the county the cost for magistration.
He asked if the county had justified why they were asking for the $2,000,000. Assistant Chief of
Police K.A. Bung replied that the county had provided a document listing their jail operating costs,
and suggested that the city base their costs on relative use. He said the county stated that the cost
to operate the jail was $18 million. Other than this information, Assistant Chief Bung said they had
been provided no other justification. Council Member Chesney asked if there had been any inquiry
into the efficiency of Nueces County's jail operations. Assistant Chief Bung replied negatively. Ms.
Eldridge added that she had specifically asked the committee to justify the $2,000,000 cost, and had
not received a response.
Mr. Chesney inquired about the cost to hire judges for the magistration. Municipal Court
Judge Rodolfo Tamez said the plan was to promote the current part-time judge to full-time status.
As a full-time judge, her salary would increase from $15,000 currently to $105,681 for full-time
status, a net amount of approximately $90,000. He also recommended a pay increase and benefits
of $30,000 per judge and Presiding Judge to compensate for the added duties as well as being on call
from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. on weekdays. In addition, Judge Tamez said it was being recommended
that additional part-time judges be hired to be on site at the detention facility in 12 hour shifts. He
said this would equate to 60 hours at $25 per hour, or $93,132. Mr. Chesney questioned whether
these increases were necessary. He asked if the process could be re-examined to reduce the costs.
Mr. Kinnison asked how many other cities operate detention facilities. City Manager Noe
replied that San Antonio had a similar facility because of a conflict they had with Bexar County over
the cost of providing jail services. Judge Tamez added that San Antonio had hired three full-time
judges to work Monday through Friday for 40 hours a week and had hired part-time judges to handle
magistration during the weekends. Mr. Kinnison said he understood San Antonio also had medical
costs incurred for personnel at their facility. Assistant Chief Bung replied that San Antonio had
nurses on staff in their facility in the event that an individual would need medical attention during
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 9
the magistration process. Mr. Kinnison asked why the city's proposal did not include medical costs.
Assistant Chief Bung said that currently if a prisoner needed medical attention, they were taken to
the hospital, and were not jailed until cleared by the hospital. For this reason, he said the proposal
did not include a provision for medical staff. ChiefAlvarez added that San Antonio's operation was
much larger than the one being proposed for Corpus Christi.
Mr. Kinnison stated that he wanted to be sure that the proposed detention and magistration
facility was in the public's best interest. He said he hoped that the city had not reached the point
where it was planning the facility because it was the easiest answer to the situation. He said he
wanted the city to have a good grasp of how much more money they were going to be asking from
the Corpus Christi taxpayers. He also said that the city should present their offer directly to the
Commissioners' Court as soon as possible. He said if they did not respond immediately, then the
city should move forward with its plans. Council Member Chesney agreed.
Mr. Colmenero asked if the city would be incurring more risk by operating these facilities.
City Manager Noe replied that there was no question that the city would be incurring more risk by
entertaining this operation. He noted that San Antonio's experience has been positive because it has
not incurred any lawsuits. He said he hoped the city could match their record.
Council Member Kelly stated that, in his estimation, the magistration issue could provide
a win-win situation for the city and the county by applying some creative solutions. He said it
appeared that the city could provide magistration at the jail in a more cost-effective manner than the
county currently was. He said the city's judges do not make as much as the county's judges do. He
said that since the county already complied withj ail requirements, they were not required to provide
magistration services 24 hours a day, seven days a week. However, since they do not magistrate
prisoners 24 hours a day, their prisoners remain in the jail longer, eliminating an opportunity for an
additional revenue stream by bringing in more federal prisoners. Thus, he said if the city were to
provide magistration at the jail on a 24 hour/seven days a week basis, then this would create
efficiencies for both the city and the county. Mr. Kelly said he had brought these issues before the
County Judge and representatives of the county but had not received a response. He asked if these
issues had been raised in committee. City Manager Noe replied negatively, saying the discussion
was strictly based on payment for jail services. Mr. Kelly said he was in favor of approaching the
Commissioners' Court directly with the city's offer, but added that he would like to see a discussion
of how to create more efficiencies in the jail operation.
Council Member Cooper asked who was liable for the prisoners during transport from the
city's facility to the county jail. Chief Alvarez replied that the city was liable until the prisoners
arrived at the jail. Ms. Cooper said she was in favor of approaching the Commissioners' Court with
the city's best offer. She hoped it was clear to the citizens that the city was not trying to create a
new project for the taxpayers to fund; rather, the city was being put into this position forcibly by the
county.
Mr. Scott stated that he supported having Mayor Neal send a letter to the County Judge and
the Commissioners' Court presenting the city's best offer and asking for a response. He said he was
disappointed by the county's position in this matter.
Mr. Garrett also spoke in support of having Mayor Neal sending letters to the County Judge
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 10
and the Commissioners' Court regarding this issue, l~{r. Garrett said he was involved in the 1991
jail contract negotiations and he remembered clearly that the community at that time wanted the city
and county to eliminate duplication in services. He said he was disappointed that the community
would be taking a step backwards if the negotiations failed.
Mr. Noyola also spoke in support of a letter from Mayor Neal to the County Judge and
Commissioners' Court. He expressed his frustration about the current situation, and encouraged the
county to do the right thing for the sake of the city and county taxpayers.
Mayor Neal asked how the city would fund the proposed projects. Assistant City Manager
Mark McDaniel stated that it was not certain at this time. He imagined the funds would come out
of the general fund. He said the cost would probably translate to an increase in the tax rate to cover
the cost. Mayor Neal commented that if the Council was to move forward on these
recommendations, the Council would need a definite amount that the city would be willing to offer
the county in addition to what it is already paying. Mr. Kelly stated that instead of offering
additional money, he would recommend taking over the magistration of all prisoners during the
week while maintaining the city's current level of services. Mr. Noyola suggested that the city could
offer the county several options, including the city's initial offer of an additional $225,000 or Mr.
Kelly's idea of offering expanded magistration services. Mayor Neal asked Judge Tamez if the
expanded magistration services could be offered within the $225,000 range. Judge Tamez replied
that he would need to do additional research on the matter before he could answer. Mayor Neal
stated that the majority of the Council wished to send a letter to Commissioners' Court, but asked
for additional information on alternatives to be presented in the first meeting in February.
Mayor Neal called for a brief recess.
The Council returned fi.om recess, and Mayor Neal called for petitions fi'om the audience.
Ms. Priscilla Leal spoke regarding drainage and sidewalk improvements to the
Sunnybrook/Manshiem area. Mr. Phil Rosenstein, 949 Bobalo, commended the City/County Health
Department for providing flu shots to senior citizens. Mr. J.E. O'Brien, 4130 Pompano, spoke
regarding the city's submission of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Mr.
Sirfi.ederickvonking VII, 905 Cleveland Street//4, spoke regarding documents he had left in the City
Secretary's Office. Mr. Roland Garza spoke regarding drainage and sidewalk improvements to the
Sunnybrook/Manshiem area and dues check-offs.
Mayor Neal referred to Item 9, a presentation on Downtown Drainage Improvements. City
Manager Noe said that before the Council engaged in a discussion on proposed storm water projects
and the capital budget, staff wanted to provide an update on the Downtown Drainage Project. Mr.
Larry Urban with Urban Engineering said that his firm had created a mathematical model to help
understand and predict the drainage problems in the downtown area. He said the purpose of the
model was to correlate information fi.om known storms, and then nm theoretical storms to identify
problem areas.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 11
He said there were two pump stations that pumped water out of the downtown area. He
stated that the Power Street Station, located at the comer of Water Street and Power Street, had a
capacity of 500 cubic feet per second (CFS). He said the second pump station was the Kinney Street
Pump Station, located at Kinney and Water Streets, with a capacity of 167 cubic feet per second
(CFS). He said a small amount of water was drained through gravity pipes through the seawall, but
these flapgates were closed when the tide came up.
Mr. Urban said the model showed some surprising results. He said the presumption was that
water in the John Sartain drainage basins terminated in Blucher Park, which had two seven-by-six
foot boxes that went down the old Blucher Arroyo and into the John Sartain box. He said the John
Sartain box was only 108-inch diameter equivalent. He said when the pump stations were initially
designed, the city was much smaller and less developed. He said the city had little or no
underground storm drainage piping. He said they were designed for lower levels of protection,
perhaps a five-year to twenty-year storm, instead of the 100-year storm that this project anticipates.
He said the city has grown to the point where the pump stations are not enough. He said it has
become evident that the city does not have a downtown or Water Street area drainage problem;
rather, it is a regional drainage problem that affects a large portion of the city. He said the resultant
water flows end up in the downtown area.
Mr. Urban discussed problems in the Power Street area. He said the Power Street pump
station was substantially overwhelmed during heavy rainfalls. Instead of handling 500 CFS as
designed, Mr. Urban said the Power Street Pump Station was processing closer to 2,000 CFS. Thus,
Mr. Urban said it was anticipated that the solution would be to diminish the load on the Power Street
Station to 500 CFS or less. Mr. Urban said a pump station with approximately 1,200 CFS capacity
was being proposed for the intersection of Hirsch and Chaparral, one of the lowest areas in the city,
to accomplish this.
Mr. Urban discussed the main focus of their study, the Kinney Street and Blucher Park area.
He said the area had two seven-by-six boxes leading out of the park and joining the John Sartain
box. He said the water would then drain to the bay by gravity. Unfortunately, Mr. Urban said there
were more pipes coming into the park then going out. Consequently, Mr. Urban said that when a
heavy rainfall saturates Blucher Park, the water spills to Tancahua Street and flows to the Holmgren
Center. He said the water proceeds to Mesquite Street, and the flow then splits. He said part of the
flow goes to A.R. Schindel Company and the other part flows to Williams Street. He said the water
was flowing into Williams Street at a rate of 200 CFS.
Mr. Urban reviewed the proposed Downtown Drainage Improvements. He said the proposed
improvements would be made in two phases. He said the flint phase consisted of three
improvements. The first improvemen~ was installing a large concrete box near the intersection of
Water Street and Williams Street and ending at the Kinney Street pump station. He said it would
have a capacity of 150 CFS, which would reroute that amount of water from the Power Street pump
station. The second improvement would expand the capacity of the Kinney Street pump station.
The third improvement would increase the size of the discharge line from the Kinney Street pump
station out to the seawall.
Mr. Urban reviewed the proposed Phase 2 Downtown Drainage project improvements. He
said the plan would consist of four steps. The first step would be to construct a balustrade along
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 12
Tancahua Street in Blucher Park. He said the second step was to construct a relief line on top of the
existing Blucher Arroyo boxes. The third step was to construct another relief line from Chaparral
to Water Street. Finally, the fourth step was to construct an Agnes Street box.
Mr. Urban explained that in the area being addressed by Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the proposed
project, there could be flows of 1,500 CFS. He said most of this water has been going to the Kinney
Street Pump Station, with a 167 CFS capacity. He said 695 CFS would be re-routed to the Blucher
Box, 460 CFS to the Agnes Box, and 57 CFS routed through gravity lines. He said this let~ a total
of 288 CFS that needed to be addressed. Mr. Urban noted that the Water Street box had imported
150 CFS out of the Power Street service area into Kinney Street. Thus, the total to be pumped by
the Kinney Station was 438 CFS. He said his firm proposed designing a pump station to handle the
438 CFS.
Mr. Urban stated that the proposed improvements for Phase 1 and Phase 2 would cost
approximately $13.5 million. He noted that the problem was not isolated to the downtown area;
rather, it affected a large portion of the city. City Engineer Angel Escobar stated that the $13.5
million in repairs was being recommended as one of the proposed FY 2004 Storm Water
Supplementary Projects. He said the $13.5 million included all of Phase 1 and Phase 2, and a study
of the preliminary location and design of the third pump station (Phase 3).
Mr. Colmenero asked which areas comprised the John Sartain water basin. City Engineer
Escobar replied that the area was bordered by the Crosstown Expressway, Agnes/Laredo, Morgan,
Craig and Staples Streets. Mr. Colmenero stated that this would minimize the flooding in the
Staples corridor between Agnes and Morgan. City Engineer Escobar agreed. He asked if the
improvements would prevent Blucher Park from becoming flooded during heavy rains. Mr. Urban
replied that the improvements would not eliminate water from collecting in Blucher Park. However,
Mr. Urban said the improvements would greatly reduce the levels of water and the length of time
the water remained in the park. Mr. Colmenero asked how long Phase 1 and Phase 2 would take to
implement. Mr. Escobar replied that the recommendation was that Phase 1 and Phase 2 be
accomplished within the next five years.
Council Member Scott spoke in support of the improvement plans. He said the installation
of the boxes also provided an opportunity to reconstruct a number of streets in the downtown area.
Council Member Kelly observed that even though this plan is called the Downtown Drainage
Improvements Plan, the improvements will substantially relieve flooding throughout the central part
of the city.
Council Member Garrett asked if there were any upgrades planned for the Power Street pump
station. Mr. Urban said the Power Street pump station was in good condition and was serving its
purpose adequately. He said the intent was for it to remain unchanged.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 10a regarding storm drainage projects and Item 10b
regarding the capital budget. City Manager Noe stated that a determination needed to be made
regarding the specific storm drainage projects to be funded as part of the Capital Improvement
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 13
Program (CIP). He said this determination would affect the adoption of this year's CIP. Assistant
City Manager McDaniel stated that the proposed FY 2004 Capital Budget totaled $173,624,300 and
is categorized in the following summary: Airport - $36,854,100; Park and Recreation - $630,600;
Public Facilities - $21,980,000; Public Health & Safety - $27,465,700; Streets - $8,137,400; Gas -
$1,608,500; Storm Water- $35,050,000; Wastewater o $20,247,000; Water- $15,280,000; and
Water Supply - $6,371,000.
Mr. McDaniel provided a brief summary on the five-year funding plan for storm water
capital projects. He said in FY 2003, the Council had authorized $5 million a year to be spent on
storm water projects. In FY 2003-2004, the Council asked for more funding for storm water
projects, so the funding levels increased an additional $30 million. Thus, the allocation of funds for
storm water projects totals $55 million over a five-year period and is reflected in the staff
recommendation for storm water candidate projects. Assistant City Manager McDaniel provided
a summary of the rate model for the five-year funding period. He said the programmed rate
increases over the period were as follows: FY 02-03 - 5 percent; FY 03-04 - 6 percent; FY 04-05 -
5 percent; FY 05-06 - 4.75 percent; and FY 06-07 - 4.75 percent.
City Engineer Escobar referred to the Storm Water CIP recommended project listing by
category. He also explained the criteria ranking for the project prioritization as follows: 1 -
Mandatory (emergency or planned); 2 - Property damage (water in facility); 3 - Safety hazard
(repair/replace); 4 - increased system capacity; 5 - Health/vector control (extensive standing water);
and 6 - economic development. He said the city had contracted with numerous engineering
consultants to assist staffin establishing the scope, magnitude, and approximate cost for the projects.
He said the total cost of drainage priced by the consultants was $342,962,995. He said staffasked
the consultants to include the cost of any necessary utility adjustments related to the storm water
projects. He said staffalso provided an estimated timeline for each project.
Mr. Escobar said staff met with the consultants to determine which projects could be
completed within the $55 million range. He said staff also determined which projects could be
divided into a Phase 1, Phase 2 or Phase 3 approach. He said the first phase of the project would
be designed to address critical issues whenever possible, such as water going into homes or
businesses. He said problems such as water on the streets would not be minimized until all phases
of the project were complete. Mr. Escobar stated the preliminary engineering and design had
already been completed on a number of projects.
A discussion ensued over how best to distribute the projects throughout the city. Council
Member Kinnison noted that out of the $55 million budgeted over five years for the projects, only
$40 million is available in FY 2003-04. City Manager Noe added that the city was already halfway
through this fiscal year, so the next $5 million increment would soon be available. Thus, the city
really had $45 million to use for capital projects.
Council Member Kinnison asked what comprised the "Other" category for funding on the
proposed list. City Engineer Escobar replied that the "Other" category consisted of CDBG funds.
Mr. Kinnison observed that the project list the Council approved today would have implications on
which projects needed to appear on the Bond 2004 list. City Manager Noe agreed, noting that a
number of projects had significant street reconstruction for which the city had no other funding
source other than a future bond issue or CDBG. He said the Council would be discussing Bond
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 14
2004 proposed projects at the February 10 meeting. Mr. Kinnison also asked that if the city was
using CDBG funding to fund significant projects, then it was important to know what impact this
would have on other funding requests.
Ma'. Noyola stated that he was glad to see the Sunnybrook//Vlanshiem drainage improvements
project was being recommended. He asked if any of the projects that were not recommended could
be funded through Bond 2004. City Manager Noe replied that Bond 2004 could be a funding option,
but the Council might first want to discuss funding strategies beyond the current five-year schedule.
Assistant City Manager Ron Massey also said the local ability to contract work over time needed
to be taken into account. Mr. Escobar added that another consideration would to space out the work
on major collectors in one area to prevent problems.
Council Member Colmenero asked how the city would schedule the work to minimize the
stress on the local contracting community. Assistant City Manager Massey stated that staff has had
a number of preliminary discussions with the Major Projects Advisory Committee asking the
contractors to determine their work capacity. Mr. Escobar added that the city has been using more
consultants to assist and supplement city staff with scheduling and project management.
Mr. Scott observed that the city has never undertaken this many storm water projects in its
history ($45 million). He asked that the Category 1 and 2 projects take precedence in the funding.
Ma'. Kelly stated that several projects being recommended in his district were being funded
for an initial phase. Assistant City Manager Massey replied that the initial phase being
recommended would address critical issues first. Mr. Kelly stated that a number of projects on the
list were shown as being "Complete". Assistant City Manager Massey said these projects had been
completed with the first $5 million in funding. He said the projects were being included on the list
to account for them. There were no comments from the audience. City Secretary Chapa polled the
Council for their votes as follows:
10.b. FIRST READING ORDINANCE
Approving the FY 2003-2004 Capital Budget in the amount of $173,624,300.
The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following
vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye".
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 11 regarding a contract for the Northside/Port Area
Infrastructure Project. City Manager Noe explained that a number of the improvements were related
to the area around the baseball stadium site. There were no comments from the audience.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 15
11. MOTION NO. 2004-036
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a consultant contract for
engineering services with MEI Govind, Inc., of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of
$351,021 for the Northside/Port Area Infrastructure Improvement Project.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye".
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 12 regarding the Code of Ethics and outside
employment. City Attorney Fischer explained that when a city employee receives outside
employment from a business that has dealings with the employee's department, there is a potential
for conflict of interest. She said staff was recommending that the Code of Ethics be amended to
specifically prohibit such employment relationships to avoid the appearance of impropriety. First
Assistant City Attorney Jay Reining added that the issue was raised in the Development Services
and Engineering Departments, where a staff engineer may perform windstorm inspections for a
developer. The developer may in turn submit infrastructure plans for review by the employee's
department, although not necessarily by the same said employee. Mr. Reining said that no ethics
violations have been found; rather, this amendment is designed to address the perception of
impropriety. There were no comments from the audience. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council
for their votes as follows:
12. FIRST READING ORDINANCE
Amending Article V, Code of Ethics, Chapter 2, Code of Ordinances, relating to outside
employment.
The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following
vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye".
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 13 regarding the lease for the baseball stadium. City
Secretary Chapa announced that Council Member Kelly was abstaining from the vote and discussion
on this item. City Manager Noe replied that the lease was with Round Rock Baseball, the entity that
officially owns the team in Round Rock. He said the agreement was consistent with the MOU. He
said it includes a 15-year base term with two five-year options for renewal. He said the rent in Years
1-5 would total $50,000 per year; Years 6-10 - $60,000 per year; and Years 11-15 - $70,000 per
year. He said starting in the option year periods, the rental rate would increase to $80,000 per year
plus an annual CPI adjustment. He added that in the option year periods, the Ryans would also be
obligated to make a supplemental rent payment to replace money in the capital reserves. He said
the capital reserves would be initially pre-funded from the bond sale, maintained through
supplemental rents, and adjusted according to the CPI in later option years.
He stated that the city will own the base stadium site and will lease the adjacent parking
spaces for 1,500 spaces from the Port of Corpus Christi. He said the rent the Port will receive will
be from non-baseball related revenues. He said the lease was being developed at the present time.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 16
Mr. Noe provided a schedule for action on the baseball stadium. He said the second reading
of the lease was scheduled for consideration on February 24. He said the effective date of the lease
was April 25. He said the financing was scheduled to close on April 27. He said the city should
close on the port property in late April, and construction should begin in May 2004 and extend
through March 2005. There were no comments from the audience. City Secretary Chapa polled the
Council for their votes as follows:
13. FIRST READING ORDINANCE
Authorizing the City Manager to execute a long-term lease with Round Rock Baseball, Inc.
to manage and operate a baseball stadium to be constructed by the City, in consideration of
the payment of rent and the obligation to have a minor league baseball team affiliated with
major league baseball play its home games in the stadium.
The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following
vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye";
Kinnison was absent; Kelly abstained.
Before the executive sessions, Council Member Chesney made a motion to direct the City
Manager to place an item on the February 10 agenda regarding the development of the city's
legislative agenda and whether the city needed to hire additional lobbyists. Mr. Scott seconded the
motion. Mayor Neal questioned whether this was a timely discussion, because the legislative agenda
would not be known until al~er the special session on education. City Secretary Chapa polled the
Council for their votes as follows: Chesney, Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, and Scott, voting "Aye";
Neal, Kelly, Kinnison, and Noyola, voting "No". The motion passed.
14.
15.
Mayor Neal announced the executive sessions, which were listed on the agenda as follows:
Executive session under Texas Govemment Code Section 551.071 regarding Gloria
Cardona, et al vs. Maria Jimenez and the City of Corpus Christi, Cause No. 01-3216-G, in
the 319t~ Judicial District Court of Nueces County, Texas, with possible discussion and
action related thereto in open session.
Executive session under Texas Govemment Code Section 551.074 for deliberations
regarding the evaluation of the City Secretary, with possible discussion and action related
thereto in open session.
The Council went into executive session. The Council returned from executive session and
the following motions were passed with the following vote:
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 17
14. MOTION NO. 2004-037
Authorizing the City Manager to settle Cause No. 01-3216-G; Gloria Cardona, Yolanda
Cardona, individually a/n/f of Samantha Bustillos, Brittany Bustillos and Roland Capetillo
vs. Maria P. Jimenez City of Corpus Christi, in the 148~h District Court, Nueces County,
Texas for the sum of $123,500.00, subject to certification of funds.
Mr. Chesney made the foregoing motion, seconded by Mr. Colmenero, and it passed
unanimously.
15. MOTION NO. 2004-038
Authorizing a salary increase for the City Secretary to a new level of $92,000 and the
payment of five additional days each of vacation and sick leave, based on total annualized
salary at the time of termination of employment.
Mayor Neal made the foregoing motion, seconded by Mr. Colmenero. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Chesney made a motion to amend the previous action related to the legislative agenda
to change the date from February 10 to the first meeting in April, seconded by Mr. Kelly. Mayor
Neal asked if the discussion could be held during the Council Retreat in May instead, since it would
be held shortly after this date. Mr. Chesney said he would rather begin the discussion before May,
and he also preferred that this be an action item on a council meeting agenda. A discussion ensued
about the preferred time to hold the discussion. As a result, Mr. Chesney withdrew his motion to
change the discussion to the April meeting. Council Member Scott made a motion to amend the
earlier action regarding the legislative agenda discussion to change the date from February 10 to the
Council Retreat in May, seconded by Mr. Kinnison. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for
their votes as follows: Neal, Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison and Scott, voting "Aye";
Noyola and Chesney, voting "No".
Mayor Neal called for the City Manager's report. City Manager Noe announced that a
[eception would be held tomorrow from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Museum of Science and
History for City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer. He stated that the following items were scheduled for
February 10: preliminary Bond 2004 discussion; Animal Control update; second reading of the
Capital Budget; second reading of the anti-discrimination ordinance relating to persons with
disabilities; and a presentation on the results of the citizens survey.
Mayor Neal called for Council concerns and reports. Mr. Garrett said a number of local
roofing contractors had contacted him about an increase in charges for permits. They said that
instead of being charged by the dollar amount, they are now being charged by the square footage
of the home. City Manager Noe said he would look into it.
Mr. Scott asked about the city discontinuing its service to pick-up possum traps for residents.
City Manager Noe said staff would be providing an update on Animal Control at the Council's next
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
January 27, 2004 - Page 18
meeting. Regarding the previous legislative agenda discussion, Mr. Scott said the city should have
more ora lobbying presence at the federal government level. Mr. Scott asked if the public hearing
date has been set for the Island Development Plan. City Manager Noe replied that the date for the
heating was February 12. Mr. Scott commented that Mr. Dan Alexander, owner of King-Isles
Construction, had passed away last weekend. He said it was a big loss to the community, and asked
that the city recognize him in some way.
Council Member Noyola gave his regrets to City Attorney Fischer, saying he would be out-
of-town and unavailable to attend her reception. In response to Mr. Noyola's question, Assistant
City Manager Rose replied that she would be meeting with staff at 3:30 p.m. today regarding
CHDO. She said an item was being scheduled tentatively for February 10.
Mr. Colmenero provided the City Manager with the names of individuals who lived outside
of the Neighborhood Improvement Program areas who were requesting assistance in cleaning up
their neighborhoods.
Mr. Kinnison agreed with Mr. Scott that the city could use more lobbyists in the federal
government. However, he disagreed with the idea that city needed more of a lobbying presence in
the state legislature. Mr. Kinnison asked for more information on a letter from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. City Manager Noe said the letter cautioned that the Corp of Engineers was facing
continuing funding issues, in part because the federal budget was not funding the Corps at a
preferred level. Mayor Neal added that he, Mr. Larry Myers and Mr. Tom Utter had met with a
high-ranking official in the Corps of Engineers to discuss the letter. Mayor Neal said the letter was
saying that the Congress had not fully funded the Corps of Engineers. He said Senator Hutchison's
office has committed to working with the Corps to assist them in other funding areas as long as they
continue to fund existing projects. He said Senator Comyn and U.S. Representative Ortiz also
support this effort.
Mayor Neal also commented that the city is concerned about water issues and has
emphasized this point to Lt. Governor Dewhurst. He said Lt. Gov. Dewhurst reassured Mayor Neal
and staffthat the ongoing studies were not meant to penalize the city. He said Senator Hinojosa and
State Representative Luna were also ready to defend the city's water rights.
Mr. Colmenero presented a petition signed by approximately 35 citizens complaining about
a noisy bar on McArdle Road. City Manager Noe said he would follow-up on the matter.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Neal adjourned the
Council meeting at 3:05 p.m. on January 27, 2004.
2
CIVIL SERVICE BOARD/COMMISSION - One (1) vacancy with three-year term to 6-15-06.
(The City Manager appoints to the Civil Service Commission and the City Council appoints to
the Civil Service Board Traditionally, the same member serves on the Board and Commission.)
DUTIES: To adopt, amend, and enforce a code of roles and regulations providing for
appointment, employment, or suspension in all positions in the classified service based upon
citizenship, character, merit, efficiency, and industry, which shall have the force and effect of
law; and also rules regulating promotions, demotions, reduction of force of employees in the
classified service and in what order they shall be dismissed and reinstated.
COMPOSITION: Three (3) members shall be appointed by the Council for three-year terms or
until a successor is named. The members choose their own chairman and appoint a chief
examiner, not a member of the Board, who shall also act as secretary. Members receive $5.00
per Board meeting, not to exceed $100.00 per year.
MEMBERS
*Andrew Lehnnan, Chairperson
Erich Wendl
Cydney Farrar
ORIGINAL
TERMS APPTD. DATES
6-15-03 10-14-97
6-15-05 1-14-03
6-15-04 7-18-00
*Has met the six-year limitation and is ineligible for reappointment.
(Note: City Manager George K. Noe is recommending the appointment of Leonides G. Bazar to
the Civil Service Board.)
INDIVIDUALS EXPRESSING INTEREST
Leonides G. Bazar
Senior HR Manager, Celanese Corporation. Received
B.S. in Education fi.om Texas A & I University-
Kingsville and M.Ed. from the University of Houston
- Victoria Center. Has been involved in the
following activities: Calallen I.S.D. Board of
Trustees, LULAC National Education Service Center
Advisory Board, Boys and Girls Club, Society of
Hispanic Engineers Advisory Council and Jr.
Achievement Board of Directors.(1-16-04)
Robert R. Canales
Safety Inspector, Valero Refining. Pursuing M.A. in
Public Administration, Texas A & M - Corpus
Christi. Member of American Society of Safety
Engineers. Served on Planning Commission for four
years. (11-01-01)
Nicloas Curiel, Jr.
John E. Dunn
Paul Grivich
Chad Luhan
Oscar Martinez
John Silvas
Retired. Received M.B.A. and M.S. in Computer
Science. (1-21-04)
Retired civil servant (GS 13). Professional and
community activities include: Mayor's Council on
Senior Citizen Affairs, former member of Park and
Recreation Advisory Committee and ACOA member.
Special recognition include: Chairman of the Human
Relation Council for Defense Communication
Agency in Washington, D.C. and President of the
National Association of Government Engineers. (7-
21-03)
Extensive background in finance, accounting and
management. B.S. in Political Science, Sam Houston
State University. Activities include: former member
of the Board of Adjustment and current member of
the Nueces County Tax Appraisal District. (6-05-01)
Project Control, Bay Ltd. B.S. in Environmental
Biology, Texas A & M University - Corpus Christi.
Activities include: Padre Island Business Association
and Youth Minister. Former member of C.C. Yes
Surfers for Packery Channel and Beautify Corpus
Christi. (4-09-03)
President/CEO, Coastal Bend Workforce
Development Corporation. M.A. in Public
Administration, St. Mary's University. Activities
include: Education Advisory Council and the
Chamber of Commerce. (11-08-02)
Human Resources Consultant, Citgo Refining &
Chemical. Attended Del Mar College and Monterrey
Tech. Activities include: Leadership Corpus Christi
Class XXII and Steering Committee XXVIII, Corpus
Christi Education Foundation, CLASS Mentoring
Program and Padre Little League. (3-22-02)
COMMITTEE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES - Four (4) vacancies with two-year
terms to 2-01-06.
DUTIES: To carry on a program to encourage, assist and enable persons with disabilities
to participate in the social and economic life of the city; to achieve maximum personal
independence; to become gainfully employed; and to enjoy fully and use all public and
private facilities available within the community.
COMPOSITION: Nine (9) residents of the city who shall be appointed by the City
Council. The membership of the committee shall be composed of individuals with
disabilities and representatives of agencies and organizations functioning within the
committee's area who are interested in the provision of services to persons with disabilities
and others who are interested in the abilities and specific needs of persons with disabilities,
subject to Council approval. The city's Director of Human Relations, Director of Park and
Recreation, and Building Official shall serve as ex-officio non-voting members. The
chairperson of the Committee for Persons with Disabilities shall serve as an ex-officio
voting member of the Human Relations Commission.
MEMBERS TERM
ORIGINAL
APPTD. DATE
*Crystal Lyons, Chairperson 2-01-04
Mary J. Saenz 2-01-05
Brian Watson 2-01-05
*Linda Fallwell-Stover 2-01-04
Roberto M. Flores 2-01-05
*Billy Ray Sayles 2-01-04
*Toni Padilla 2-01-04
Eloy Soza 2-01-05
Glen Ray Tomo 2-01-05
Park & Recreation Director Ex-officio
Human Relations Director Ex-officio
Building Official Ex-officio
2-27-01
8-21-01
11-11-03
2-27-01
2-27-01
12-11-01
2-27-01
2-27-01
2-27-01
*Seeking reappointment
ATTENDANCE RECORD OF MEMBERS SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT
NO. OF MTGS. NO. % OF ATTENDANCE
NAME THIS TERM PRESENT LAST TERM YEAR
Crystal Lyons 11 11 100%
Linda Fallwell-Stover 11 11 100%
Billy Ray Sayles 11 11 100%
Toni Padilla 11 11 100%
Robert A. Bangham
Clifford E. Bost
Johnette B. Cook
Irene Chavez
Gonzalo "Gonzo" Gonzalez
Janet K. Henry
Director of Orthotics, Park Prosthetics Inc. Licensed
Orthotist and Board Certified with the American
Board for Certification in Orthotics. Academic
training acquired at Northwestern University and
New York University. Past Scientific Program
Chairman for Texas Association of Orthotists and
Prosthetists. More than 40 years of experience in
Orthotics and Prosthetics. (1-24-02)
Assistant Public Information Officer, Texas
Department of Transportation. B.A. in
Communications TV/Film from Texas A & M
University - Corpus Christi. Activities include:
Cubmaster for Boys Scouts of America, President of
Coastal Bend Top Soccer and Chairman of the
Planning Advisory Committee for MHMR. (8-05-02)
Director of Personnel and Safety, Westem Steel
Company. Bachelor's in Social Work/Certification
for Teaching (Secondary English). Activities include:
Corpus Christi Human Resource Managers, Executive
Women International, and Family Outreach Corpus
Christi. (2-03-03)
Assistant Director of Community, Corpus Christi
State School. Attended St. Mary's University.
Activities include: Volunteer Services Council, Cesar
Chavez Committee and Coastal Bend Alliance for
Youth. (6-04-02)
Student Support Specialist, Texas A&M University-
Corpus Christi. B.A. in Psychology (Highest Honors)
and M.A. in Psychology (expected in 2002), Texas
A&M-CC. Also serves as Disabilities Services
Consultant and Interagency Liaison with Texas
A&M-CC. Special awards include a Commendable
Service Certificate from the Defense Distribution
Depot, C.C. Naval Air Station. (8-16-01)
Psychotherapist. Holds a Master of Arts degree.
Active with the Karen E. Henry Foundation and
Housing for Persons with Disabilities. Past President
of Brain Injuries Association of South Texas. (2-01-
oD
Mike Patterson
Assistant Director of Transportation, CCISD. Holds a
B.S. in Criminal Justice and M.B.A. Established
special needs transportation within CCISD in 1996.
(1-2S-01)
Helen Roland
Salesperson, Double R. Medical. Attended
University of Omaha. Received an award for her
work on the Barbara Jordan Award held in Corpus
Christi and for her work on the MS Society Walk. (2-
05-01)
David D. Russell
Owner, Russell Medical - specializes in providing for
disabled community. Associate's degree in
Architectural Technology, Del Mar College. Has 12
years experience working with people with both short
and long-term disabilities. (2-08-01)
Henri Mae Tillis
Retired. Member of the Senior Companion Program
and Church Choir Treasurer. (1-28-04)
Curtis Weidner
Case Manager, Communities in Schools. B.A. and
M.S. in Secondary Education and M.S. in Educational
Administration. Member of the Coastal Bend
Advocacy Development Program. (11-22-02)
Jack Widder
Administrator, APAC. Attended Del Mar College.
(S-02-01)
LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE FOR SENIOR SERVICES - Ten (10) vacancies with
terms to 2-01-05 and 2-01-06 representing the following categories: 1 - RSVP, 2 - Senior
Companion Program, 2 - Direct Service Agency, 1- Senior Center and 4 - Community.
DUTIES: To assist the Senior Community Services division staff in the development of
comprehensive senior citizens program plans; to advise the SCS division staff of the needs
for services according to locally conceived priorities; to review and evaluate SCS
operations; to increase recognition of volunteers and public awareness of the division by
coordinating and planning special events; and to coordinate and plan fund raising activities
to benefit SCS division goals.
COMPOSITION: Fifteen (15) members representing the following categories: 2 -
Senior center participants, 2 - Retired and Senior Volunteer Program (R.S.V.P.) volunteers,
2 - Senior Companion Program (S.C.P.) volunteers, 3 - Direct service agencies, and 6 -
Community representatives. Initially, eight (8) members shall be appointed for a term of
one-year and seven (7) members shall be appointed to two-year terms.
MEMBERS TERM
Alan D. Bligh (Community), Chairperson 2-01-05
**H. Rex Amick (Agency), Vice-Chair 2-01-04
Marion Bail (Senior clx.) 2-01-05
**Pauline Johnson (Senior clx.) 2-01-04
Helga Graham (R.S.V.P.) 2-01-05
*Diamantina Cisneros (R.S.V.P.) 2-01-05
**Apolonia Cantu (S.C.P.) 2-01-04
*Hilda Rodriguez (S.C.P.) 2-01-05
Roland Medrano (Agency) 2-01-05
*Juanell Graham (Agency) 2-01-05
***Gloria Farias (Community) 2-01-04
**Anna Gonzales (Community) 2-01-04
Lucy Johnson (Community) 2-01-05
*Patricia Shufelt (Community) 2-01-04
***Russell B. Stowers (Community) 2-01-04
ORIGINAL
APPTD. DATE
2-12-02
2-12-02
2-12-02
2-12-02
2-11-03
6-11-02
2-12-02
2-11-03
2-12-02
6-11-02
2-12-02
2-12-02
2-12-02
2-12-02
2-12-02
*Resigned
**Seeking reappointment
***Not seeking reappointment
ATTENDANCE RECORD OF MEMBERS SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT
NO. OF MTGS. NO. % OF ATTENDANCE
NAME THIS TERM PRESENT LAST TERM YEAR
H. Rex Amick(Agency) 10 9 90%
Apolonia Canto (SCP) 10 10 100%
Anna Gonzales (Comm.) 10 l0 100%
Pauline Johnson (Sen. Clx.) 10 9 90%
Note: The Leadership Committee for Senior Services is recommending the following
appointments: Donna Cisneros (RSVP), Juan Del Bosque (SCP), Lou Trlica (.4gency),
Curtis Ford (Community), Barbara Deguzis (Community) and Hope Franklin
(Community).
OTHER INDIVIDUALS EXPRESSING INTEREST
Kevin Betts
Executive Director, Trinity Towers Retirement
Community. Associate's degree fi.om Columbus
State College. Certified Assisted Living Manager in
Texas. (Agency) (6-15-01)
Donna Marie Cisneros
Lab Adjunct, Del Mar College. Member of the
Auxilary to the CHRISTUS Spohn Memorial
Hospital and nominee for the Jefferson Award.
(RSVP) (I-21-04)
Barbara A. Deguzis, Ph.D.
Consultant/Speaker, Self-Vibrant Maturity. Received
a B.A. in Psychology and a Ph.D. in Gerontology.
Served on Planning Committee for 2003 Senior
Fitness Day, Mayor's Council on Senior Citizens
Activities, and Area Agency on Aging - Medical
Management Program. (Community) (7-16-03)
Juan G. Del Bosque, Jr.
Retired, HEB. Member of the Senior Companion
Program. Received Service Award for 40 years
perfect attendance at work. Currently at Cub Scout
Master 177CHK. (Senior Companion Program) (1-
09-04)
Curtis Ford
Self-employed Realtor. Received J.D. fi.om
Coltunbia Southern University. Former State
Legislator. (RSVP) (7-14-03)
Hope R. Franklin
Information Specialist, United Way InfoLine.
Associate's degree in Social Work; certified Benefits
Counselor II; certified case manager. Former
secretary for the Senior Companion Program
Advisory Committee. (Agency) (11-07-01)
Cathy Gilroy, R.N.
Director of Patient Care, Girling Health Care.
Member of Professional Advisory Committee.
(Agency) (12-11-00)
William Koprowski, J.D., Ph.D. Professor & Program Manager of Health
Administration, Texas A&M University-Corpus
Christi. J.D., University of South Carolina; Ph.D.,
Temple University, M.S. from University of Southern
California; B.A. from Temple University. Member of
Texas Healthcare Information Council and Board
Member of Healthcare Financial Management
Association. Special awards received include:
Fulbright scholar. (Community) (7-25-01)
Jean Ann Martin
Retired. B.A. in Mathematics and M.A. in Education.
Activities include: Friends & Neighbors, C.C.
Retired Teachers Association Board, Texas Congress
of Parents and Teachers, Texas Retired Teachers
Association and Doe-Paw-So's Square Dance Club.
(Community) (2-18-02)
Teresa Martinez
Retired. Community activities include: nursing home
volunteer, Senior Companion Program volunteer, and
member of the Las Abuelitas folklorico dance group.
Recipient of Vacation Bible School awards and
S.C.P. awards. (Senior Companion Program) (1-29-
O2)
Margaret Palacios
Retired. Graduate of Miller High School and
attended Del Mar College. Vice-President of AARP
(Greenwood chapter). (Community) (11-28-01)
Para Stetina
Assistant Professor of Nursing, Texas A&M
University-Corpus Cin'isti. Master's and Bachelor's
degrees in Nursing and holds a certificate in
Gerontology. Professional and community activities
include: member of Oncology Nursing Society,
National League of Nursing and Sigma Theta Tau.
Special awards received include: Educator of the
Year, 1995; Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare
1999-2000. (Community) (12-11-01)
Myrtle S. Tabor
Retired. Member of Church Women United, United
Methodist Women and Senior Ushers. Member of the
Oveal Williams Senior Center. (R.S. EP.) (6-06-02)
Henri Mae Tillis
Retired. Member of the Senior Companion Program
and Church Choir Treasurer. (Senior Companion
Program) (1-28-04)
Lou Trlica
Regional Marketing Director, American Medical
Home Health. Member of the Mayor's Council on
Senior Affairs, TRACM Social Workers, Bee County
Westem Week and Bee County Chamber of
Commerce. (Agency) (1-19-04)
Kathy Turner
Marketing Director, Holmgreen Center at Trinity
Towers. Received a Master's in Social Work.
President of the South Texas Social Work Society.
(Agency) (7-17-05)
Jerry Wagoner
Retired Supertinent, General Motors. Activities
include: South Shore Christian Church, Ethel Eyerly
Senior Center, mentoring at Kaffie Middle School,
Site Council and the Neighborhood Association.
(P, SV~) (1-20-04)
Julia Whitehurst
Director of Senior Friends with Corpus Christi
Medical Center, M.S. in Nursing, Member of
Alzhiemers Association, Texas Nursing Association,
American Nursing Association and International
Nursing Honor Society, Adjunct Associate Professor
of Nursing for Texas A&M University in Corpus
Christi. (Agency) (l l-07-OD
Iris P. Williams
Director of Rehabilitation, Heartland of Corpus
Christi. B.S. in Physical Therapy, Tuskegee Institute.
Professional activities include: member of Delta
Sigma Theta (public service organization) and former
member of the Senior Companion Program Advisory
Committee. Named the Director of Rehabilitation for
the Quarter for HCR Manorcare. (Agency) (7-31-03)
3
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
RECOMMEDATION: Motion approving the purchase of (2) Tractors and (7) Rotary Weed
Cutters from Gulf Tractor, of Corpus Christi, Texas, in accordance with Bid Invitation No. BI-
0024-04 based on low bid and low bid meeting specifications in the amount of $109,248. This
equipment will be used by the Storm Water and Water Department. Funds have been budgeted
by the Maintenance Service Department and the Water Department in FY03-04. One item is an
addition to the fleet, the remainder are replacement units.
******************************************************************************
Purpose: The utility tractors will be used to power and pull rotary weed
cutters. The rotary cutters will be used for everyday mowing of
roadsides, rough terrain and general grounds maintenance by the
Storm Water Department.
A 15 foot flex wing 3 deck rotary weed cutter will be purchased
for the Water Department and is an addition to the fleet. It will be
used to cut the grass and weeds around the Wesley Seale Dam.
Pricing Analysis:
Items 1 & 3
No previous purchase for this configuration and horsepower rating.
Item 2
When compared to previous purchase, pricing has increased
approximately 2% since the last purchased price of 2002.
Bid Invitations issued: Twenty
Bids Received: Three
Award Basis:
Low Bid - Items I & 2
Funding:
Low Bid Meeting Specifications - Item 3
Coastal Plains Equipment Co., of Corpus Christi, Texas submitted
the apparent low bid for line item 3. However, their offer does not
meet specification requirements regarding the size hitch specified.
Maintenance Services Department
550020-5110-40120
Water Department
550040-4010-30200
$98,068
11,180
Total
$109,248
Micha~rrera, C.P.~.
Procurement & General Services Manager
BID INVITATION NO: BI -0024-04
UTILITY TRACTORS AND
ROTARY WEED CUTTERS
BUYER: MICHAEL BARRERA
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
PURCHASING DIVISION
BID TABULATION
ITEM DESCRIPTION CITY
Gulf Tractor
Corpus Christi, Tx
UNIT TOTAL
PRICE PRICE
Coastal Plains Equip.
Corpus Christi, Tx
UNIT TOTAL
PRICE PRICE
1 75 PTO hp Utility Tractor with Cab and
2
$32,494.00 $64,988.00
$ 32,997.00 $ 65,994.00
Air Conditioning in accordance with
Specification No. 610A
2 15 ft. Flex -wing 3 Deck Rotary Weed Cutter
3
11,180.00 33.540.00
11,797.00 35,391.00
in accordance with Specification No. 445
3 72 inch Rotary Weed Cutter
4
2,680.00 10.720.00
2,637.00 10,548.00
in accordance with Specification No. 418A
$109,248.00
$111,933.00
(Coastal Plains Equipment Co., of Corpus Christi, Texas submitted the apparent low bid for line item 3. However, their offer does not
(") meet specification requirements regarding the size hitch specified.
Luber Bros. Inc.
Dallas, Tx
UNIT TOTAL
PRICE PRICE
$32,810.00 $65,620.00
14,300.00 42,900.00
3,210.00 12,840.00
$121,360.00
4
COUNCIL MEMORANDUM
RECOMMENDATION: Motion approving the lease purchase of one (1) ambulance from
Wheeled Coach, Orlando, Florida based on the cooperative purchasing agreement with the Texas
Local Government Purchasing Cooperative (TLGPC) and the lease purchase of Ericsson radios
and fire com system from Dailey Wells Communications, Inc., San Antonio, Texas based on sole
source for a total amount of $150,364, of which $16,000 has been budgeted in FY03-04. The
ambulance will be used by the Fire Department. This unit is a replacement. Financing will be
provided through the City's lease/purchase financing program.
Wheeled Coach
Orlando, Florida
Ambulance - $131,945
Dailey-Wells Communications, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas
Ericsson Radios and Fire
Com System - $18,419
Grand Total: $150,364.00
Purpose:
Basis of Award:
Price Comparison:
Funding:
The ambulance will be used by the EMS Division of the Fire
Department for emergency medical response services. It will be
assigned to Fire Station 1. The City currently has twelve ambulances
in the fleet with eight operating as front line units, three used for
backup during maintenance and repair and one unit in reserve status.
The replaced item will be disposed of through standard surplus
equipment disposal procedures.
This vehicle will be purchased through the cooperative purchasing
agreement with the TLGPC. TLGPC is administered by the Texas
Association of School Boards (TASB) and co-sponsored by the Texas
Municipal League (TML) and the Texas Association of Counties
(TAC). TLGPC acts as an independent agency awarding exclusive
cooperative purchasing contracts for its members. An additional $800
will be paid to TLGPC as an administration and contracting fee.
To complete the unit, custom ericsson radios and a fire com system
will be purchased through a sole source service provider.
The City purchased a similar ambulance in 2003 for a price of
144,049.
The ambulance will be funded through the City's lease/purchase
financing agreement for a 60-month period. The estimated interest
rate is 2.50%. The actual interest rate will be determined after
acceptance of the vehicle.
The annual payment is $28,100.16. The 60 months total, including
principal of $131,945 and interest of $8,555.80 is $140,500.80.
The custom ericsson radios and tim com system will be funded
through the City's lease/purchase financing agreement for a 60-month
period. The estimated interest rate is 2.50%. The actual interest rate
will be determined after acceptance of the radio equipment.
The annual payment is $3,922.68. The 60 months total, including
principal of $18,419 and interest of $1,194.40 is $19,613.40.
As the delivery lead time of the ambulance is estimated at six months,
no funds from the current fiscal year are required for this lease
purchase. Funds will be requested in subsequent fiscal years during
the budget process.
Michael Barrera, dd~.M.
Procurement & General Services Manager
Item
2/10/2004
Ambulance
Quantity -1
City of Corpus Christi
Purchasing Division
Bid Tabulation
Description
Ambulance
2004 Sedes Freightliner 170X95x72
Custom Erricsson Radios and Fire
Com System
Wheeled Coach
Orlando, Florida
Total
N/A
$1317945
Dailey-Wells
Communications, Inc.
San Antonio, Texas
Total
N/A
187419.00
Total
Grand Total
$131,945.00
$150~364.00
$18,419.00
5
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: __February 10, 2004___
AGENDA ITEM: Motion authorizing the appointment of an ad hoc peer panel to the Arts
and Cultural Commission, consisting of arts professionals and community peers to make
recommendation for Baseball Stadium "Percent for Art" Project
ISSUE: Ordinance # 19634 stipulates that no city advisory board or committee can appoint
persons outside its membership as advisors, or to subcommittees or ad hoc committees
without prior approval of the City Council. Therefore, Council approval to appoint the panel
is required.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of Selection Panel
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Arts & Cultural Commission approved the
panel at their January 15th meeting. The Commission and City Staff recommend the ad
hoc peer panel be approved.
David Ondrias, Acting Director
Park & Recreation Department
Attachments:
List of Peer Panel Members
Baseball Stadium Peer Panel: Lynda Jones, Chairperson ACC Commissioner
Mark Anderson, Arts Professional
James Moltz, Arts Professional
Veronica Dittman, User (neighborhood)
Joel Mumford, Neighborhood
(Professor of Art TAMUCC)
(Artist and Public School art teacher)
(Sports Promoter and enthusiast)
(Director of the local NAACP)
Background Information
The make-up of the art selection panel is directed by policies and guidelines established in
the Public Art Ordinance. Two arts professionals, two members of the area/neighborhood
where the art will be placed, an Arts and Cultural Commission member, city staff, an
architect or designer, related board members and a representative of the department that
will receive the artwork is the standard make-up of the panel.
The Visual Arts Subcommittee made recommendations to the Arts and Cultural
commission of two people that would represent the community and two local art
professionals. The ad hoc peer panel members were selected with this recommendation.
By ordinance all allocations for funds for City Construction Projects over $50,000 shall
include an amount equal to one and one-quarter (1 1/4) percent of the Construction cost, to
be used for the selection, acquisition, commissioning, and display of works of art and any
other associated costs.
6
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Date: 01/07/03
AGENDA ITEM:
A. Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or the City Manager's Designee, to
accept a grant from the Coastal Bend Regional Advisory Council in the amount of
$17,300 to be used for the purchase of crisis information management system for
the Corpus Christi Fire Department.
El. Ordinance appropriating $17,300.00 grant from the Coastal Bend Regional
Advisory Council into Fund No. 1062 Fire Grants Fund for purchase of crisis
information management system for the Corpus Christi Fire Department; and
declaring an emergency.
ISSUE: The Coastal Bend Regional Advisory Council on Trauma (RAC) has forwarded the City a
Grant in the amount ors 17,300, to support the purchase of a crisis information management system.
This is a direct grant. No application was required.
BACKGROUiq D: The RAC serves as a coordinating group, charged by the Texas Department of
Health with the development of regional programs and standards relating specifically to trauma
services, and generally to all hospital and pre-hospital emergency medical care. In addition, the RAC
is coordinating the activities of all the hospitals within the region to formalize planning and
preparation for potential terrorist events that might impact the Coastal Bend region. A major
delimia facing the RAC, the hospitals, and EMS providers within the region is the inability to
coordinate information concerning resourees, events, and activities in a real time coordinated
method. The RAC is aware of the City's efforts to acquire a internet based program that will have
the capability of supporting the City's operations, and have the capability to be expanded to include
the regional hospitals and EMS agencies. This grant is proposed to support the acquisition of such a
program.
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION: (may not be required) The Fire Department and MIS will be
proposing that the City Council authorize the use of this grant, and funding from the Department of
Homeland Defense's Metropolitan Medical Response System contract with the City of Corpus
Christi to purchase a crisis information management system.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council motion to accept the grant and to
appropriate the funds to the Fire Grants Fund to support the purchase of a crisis information
management system.
/,~,~./'~ .~m e ~-C fife f -
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR THE CiTY MANAGER'S
DESIGNEE, TO ACCEPT A GRANT FROM THE COASTAL BEND
REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL IN THE AMOUNT OF $17,300 TO BE
USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF CRISIS INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR THE CORPUS CHRISTI FIRE
DEPARTMENT
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS;
SECTION 1. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, is authorized to
accept a grant from the Coastal Bend Regional Advisory Council in the amount of
$17,300 to be used for the purchase of a Crisis Information Management System for the
Corpus Christi Fire Department.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Approved: January 7, 2004
Mary Kay Fischer
City Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Lisa Aguilar
Assistant City Attorney
ORDINANCE
APPROPRIATING $17,300 GRANT FROM THE COASTAL BEND
REGIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL INTO FUND NO. 1062 FIRE
GRANTS FUND FOR PURCHASE OF CRISIS INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR CORPUS CHRISTI FIRE
DEPARTMENT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That a $17,300 grant from the Coastal Bend Regional Advisory
Council is appropriated into Fund No. 1062 Fire Grants Fund for purchase of
Crisis Information Management System for Corpus Christi Fire Department.
SECTION 2. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council members,
copy attached, the City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the
need for immediate action necessary for the efficient and effective administration
of City affairs and (2) suspends the Charter rule that requires consideration of
and voting upon ordinances at two regular meetings so that this ordinance is
passed and takes effect upon first reading as an emergency measure this the
__. day of ,2004.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
APPROVED: January 7, 2004
Mary Kay Fischer
City Attorney
Lisa Aguilar ~
Assistant City Attorney
7
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
Date: 01/16104
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the purchase of WebEOC, a crisis information management software
package, from ESi as a sole source purchase, in the amount of $41,524 with funds coming
from a $17,300 grant from the Coastal Bend Regional Advisory Council and $24,224 from
the proceeds of the Metropolitan Medical Response System contract with the U. S.
Department of Homeland Security.
ISSUE: Communication and coordination of emergency response functions during normal
operations are critical functions. During periods of Emergency Operations Center (EOC)
activation these functions become more significant and more difficult. The package being
proposed for purchase would provide an additional tool that would serve to support both
functions through real time Internet messaging and documentation.
BACKGROUND: City staffbegan reviewing systems and capabilities several years ago, that
would enhance the function of the EOC. As the move into the new center occurred, significant
capability was achieved; however, efforts to evaluate additional tools have continued, with a focus
upon those tools that would enhance existing capabilities, particularly in the areas of
communications and coordination capability. The staff began to focus attention upon a variety of
crisis information management systems approximately six months ago. There are a variety of
packages available, both from the Federal Government and from industry. Staff also identified a
study conducted by the National Institute of Justice (research division of the U. S. Department of
Justice), which evaluated crisis information management systems based upon 106 different criteria.
That study identified the WebEOC product as meeting 102 of these criteria. No other product met
more than 94 of the identified functions.
Additionally, the following criteria are submitted as justification for the sole source designation:
Licensed per server with unlimited users allowed.
Contains a simulation tool that allows user to input drill/exercise data and
automatically release data based on scenario timeline to individual status boards.
Form builder that provides an interface that allows the user to create customs status
boards and forms using only a browser.
Supports any third party form or web builder application tools.
Does not use proprietary per user technologies.
Permits simultaneous display of multiple status boards that are updated in real-time
without interventions.
Does not require any client software other than Internet Explorer.
Provides a tactical map viewer/display application that can be used with any mapping
or GIS system.
The Fire Department has coordinated this project with MIS to insure system and technology
compatibility and with the Police Department to insure functional capabilities would satisfy their
operational requirements. The WebEOC package was also presented to the group of City employees
and the consultant who are working on the city wide wireless project. The results of these meetings
were positive and appeared to indicate support for the anticipated acquisition of this package.
In addition, two separate demonstrations of the package have been conducted to bring together
representatives from multiple City departments, area hospitals, and County agencies. Again, the
overwhelming response to the package demonstrations indicated a strong belief that the package
would be beneficial to the EOC operations and to the individual organizations that might be
authorized access to the package, were it to be purchased.
Finally, the WebEOC package was made available from a server in Atlanta to support the two day
functional Weapons of Mass Destruction Exercise on January 13 and 14, 2004 in which the Citywas
asked to simulate response to six separate terrorist events over the course of the two days. Aside
from wanting additional training, the after action meetings yielded strong support for the package,
despite the fact that we had decided to utilize only portion of the system's capability.
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION: (may not be required) The only future action will involve an
annual maintenance agreement to sustain and keep this package current with all updates and
modifications. This agreement will not be required for the first year of operations. The first such
expense will occur during the FY04-05 budget.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council motion to approve the purchase of this
sofrware package. ~~-e
8
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Downtown Drainage Improvements Design (Project No. 2036)
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 2 to a
Contract for Professional Services with Urban Engineering in the amount of $374,813 for
the Downtown Drainage Improvements Project. (Project # 2036)
ISSUE: This contract amendment will provide additional design, bid and construction
phase services necessary to address phase 2 and preliminary design of phase 3 of the
Downtown Drainage Improvements project.
FUNDING: Funds for this project are available in the Storm Water Capital Improvement
Budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the motion as presented.
Dalerie~y, P'~E.
irector of Storm Water Services
'Angel R. Escobar, P.' E., '
Director of Engineering Services
Additional Support Material:
Exhibit "A" Background Information
Exhibit"B" Contract Summary
Exhibit "C" Location Map
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Downtown Drainage Improvements Design (Project No. 2036)
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
1. September 23, 2003 -
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to
execute Amendment No. I to a Contract for Professional Services with Urban
Engineering in the amount of $732,010 for Downtown Drainage Improvements
Design (Project # 2036)
December 17, 2002 -Approval of the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Capital Improvement
Budget for $299,913,200 (Ordinance No. 025144).
PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
1. February 20, 2002 - Distribution of Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No. 2002-
01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
2. March 13, 2002 - Addendum No. 1 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
3. March 15, 2002 - Addendum No. 2 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
4. March 26, 2002 - Addendum No. 3 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
5. March 28, 2002 - Addendum No. 4 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
6. April 11,2003 - Distribution of Letter of Notification #1 (LON) for FY 2002 - 2003
Capital Improvement Program (Public Facilities, Storm Water, Wastewater,
Infrastructure, street, Park and Miscellaneous Projects) to 183 architectural and
engineering firms (79 local and 104 out-of-town).
7. April 17, 2003 - Addendum No. 1 to the Letter of Notification #1 (LON) for FY
2002 - 2003 Capital Improvement Program (Public Facilities, Storm Water,
Wastewater, Infrastructure, street, Park and Miscellaneous Projects) to 183
architectural and engineering firms (79 local and 104 out-of-town).
8. April 25, 2003 - Addendum No. 2 to the Letter of Notification #1 (LON) for FY
2002 - 2003 Capital Improvement Program (Public Facilities, Storm Water,
Wastewater, Infrastructure, street, Park and Miscellaneous Projects)to 183
architectural and engineering firms (79 local and 104 out-of-town).
9. August 28, 2003 - Approval of a small engineering contract with Urban for
EXHIBIT "A" ]
Page 1 of 3
H:\HOME\LYNDAS\GEN\Stormwater~2036 - Downtown DrainageV~,mendment No. 2\Background.doc
preliminary engineering in the amount of $24,892 for the Downtown Drainage
Improvements design
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION:
Approval of construction contracts to complete the improvements as necessary.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The Downtown and Pod area of City of Corpus Christi has experienced problems in the
past with flooding during heavy rainfall. Floodwater has been known to rise above the
curbs and enter the buildings in the areas in and around Water Street and the Port area.
This project initiates improvements to address these problems through Amendments No. 1
and No. 2 to the contract. Council was given a presentation by Urban Engineering outlining
the results of the Downtown Drainage Study and recommended improvements.
Amendment No. I provided for the Engineer to provide engineering services related to:
the design, bid and construction of a new storm water pump station to greatly
increase the pumping capacity to the existing Kinney St. Pump Station,
· the design and construction of a new interceptor along Water St. to the new pump
station, and
· the design and construction of additional inlets on existing storm sewer in Water
Street to increase capacity.
Amendment No. 2 provides for the Engineer to provide engineering services related to:
· the design, bid and construction of a new interceptor along Agnes Street, Blucher
Park Balustrade and smaller relief pipes to relieve the Blucher box, and
· the preliminary design, as part of Phase III, of new interceptor/collector system to
dived storm flow to new Port area pump station, new Pod area pump station and
discharge conduit from the new Port area pump station to the Harbor.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project will result in an adjustment of the Power Street Pump Station drainage
boundary into two drainage areas. The reconfiguration of the drainage areas boundaries
will result in the construction of a new pump station to handle the storm flow from the pod
area. This work will include preliminary, design and construction phase services to include:
· a new Agnes Street box from Blucher Park to Bay,
· Blucher Park balustrade, and
· new Blucher Box relief pipelines.
This contract will include hydrologic analysis and preliminary design services for: · a new Port area pump station,
· new discharge conduit from the new pump station to the Harbor,
· new interconnect conduit along Mesquite Street from Interstate 37 to Hirsch Street
area, and
· new drainage box from existing ditch to new Mesquite Street box.
IEXHIBIT "A"
Page 2 of 3
H:\HOME\LYNDAS\GEN\Stormwater~2036 - Downtown Drainage~Amendmen/No. 2\Background,doc
The Traffic Control Plan for the Seawall project has been reviewed by the Consultant. The
work will be coordinated so as to minimize traffic problems between the two projects. The
contract documents will require the contractor to use project sequencing and coordinate
with the Seawall contractor during the Water Street and Agnes Street interceptor
construction.
CONTRACT/FEE SUMMARY: A contract summary and fee is attached as Exhibit "B".
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 3 of 3
H:\HOME\LYNOAS\GEN~Stormwater~2036 - Downtown Drainage~Amendment No. 2~Background.doc
CONTRACT SUMMARY
SCOPE OF PROJECT Downtown Drainage Improvements Design
(Project No. 2036)
Project consists of analysis and design to evaluate adjusting the Power St. Pump Station
drainage boundary into two drainage areas. The analysis will determine how to reconfigure
the drainage areas boundaries, enlarge the existing pump station and/or construct a new
pump station in a different location. This work will include preliminary phase services for:
new Arena area pump station, new discharge conduit from new pump station to harbor,
new interconnect conduit along Mesquite St. from Interstate 37 to Hirsch St. area, new
drainage box from existing ditch to new Mesquite St. box. In addition, as a result of the
Kinney St. area analysis this work will include design and construction phase services to
include: new Agnes St. box from Blucher Park to bay, Blucher Park balustrade and new
blucher box relief pipelines.
Summary of Fees
Original Amd. Amendment Total
Contract No. 1 No. 2 Revised
=ee for Basic Services PHI PH II PH III Fee
I. Preliminary Phase $24,89; $124,200 $0 $137,80( $286,892
_~. Design Phase $435,40(; $170,080 TBD $605,480
3. Bid Phase $32,30(; $13,800 TBD $46,100
~. Construction Phase $97,100' $41,430 TBD $138,530
~ubtotal Basic Services Fees $24,892 $689,00(~ $225,310 $137,80( $1,077,002
Fee for Additional Services (Allowance)
I. Permitting TBD
2. Row Acquisition Survey $1,60¢ $1,60¢
:~. Topographic Survey (AUTHORIZED) $6,18¢ $7,230 TBD $13,41
¢. Environmental Issues $2,93¢ $1,153 TBD $4,082
5. Line Locate Service $25,00(: $1,240 TBD $26,24¢
3. Start-up Services $3,22(: TBD $3,22¢
7. Warranty Phase $4,08(: $2,08¢ TBD $6,16¢
Sub-Total Additional Services Fees $0 $43,01£ $11,703 $0 $54,71.~
Total Authorized Fee $24,892 $732,01( $237,013 $137,800 $1,131,7t.~
TOTAL AMENDMENT NO. 2 $374,8t3
*Typographical error in Amendment No. 1. Value shown in this table is correct.
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 1
File : \HOME\CorlosR\Gen2\ClPNOTEBOOK\exh2036o,dwg
PHASE 3 ~~
Arena Are,a I / ~/,~'/~ ~ n '
~ ~ ~ ~ ) // rJ BAY
"~ ~ EXISTING
2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~_~ ~~ "IBlucher St. I
;~~~~~ ~mssum C°nduit I
PHASE2 < : ~ ~ ~ ~ Z g ~J ~
I1'
~ ~,~ ~ ~~~11 //)/""~ //.
~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~1 ~ //~
~ ~_~ ~ / ~ / // New and Exist.
PHASE 2 .us~' ~~ ~.~ ~/~ ~ - ~/ .? ~inney St.
PHASE 2 ~~~-- --rH~ LOCATION
iBox ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ,~ ~ 'T':~ ~ LOCATZON MAP
CZTY COUNCZL EXHZBZT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SER~CES
DOWNTOWN D~ZNAGE ZMPROVEMENTS PAGE: I of 1
CI~ OF CORPUS CHRISTI, T[~S DATE: 01-13-2004
9
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Gas Department Building Remodeling, Phase 1 (Project No. 1555)
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to award a construction contract to
Elite Construction Company of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $309,320 for the
(Gas Department Building Remodeling, Phase 1 Project.
ISSUE: The Gas Department Building was constructed in approximately 1950; and no
significant remodeling has taken place since then. The proposed project is a remodeling
project that will accommodate shop staff and administrative staff of the Gas Department.
FUNDING: Funds to finance the proposed project are available in the Gas Operating
Budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Motion as presented.
ie Mar~quin/~. E.
Director of Gas D4rpartment
~ge~ 15,. Escobar, P. E.,
Director of Engineering Services
Additional Support Material:
Exhibit "A" Background Information
Exhibit "B' Bid Tabulation
Exhibit "C" Project Budget
Exhibit "D" Location Map
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Gas Department Building Remodeling, Phase 1 (Project No. 1555)
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
1. July 22, 2003 - Ordinance approving the FY 2003-2004 Capital Operating Budget
(Ordinance No. 025394).
PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
1. September 29, 2003 - Executed Small Agreement for Architect/Engineer Consultant
Services with Morgan Spear Associates, Inc. in the amount of $25,000 for the Gas
Department Building Remodeling, Phase 1.
2. October 30, 2003 - Executed Small Agreement for Architect/Engineer Consultant
Services with Health & Safety Management, Inc. in the amount of $350 for the Gas
Department Building Remodeling, Phase 1.
3. October 30, 2003 - Executed Testing Agreement with Rock Engineering & Testing
Laboratory, Inc. in the amount of $1,100 for the Gas Department Building
Remodeling, Phase 1.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: The Gas Department Building is located at 4225 S. Port
Avenue. The facility was constructed in approximately 1950; and no significant remodeling
has taken place since then. The proposed project enhances the Gas Department re-
engineering and training efforts. The Meter Shop was re-engineered several years ago
and resulted in available floor space. This extra floor space will be utilized to
accommodate fifty-two (52) department employees to provide a more productive work
environment. To continue the quality of service to our citizens, training is essential to the
operation of the Gas Department. As mandated by the Texas Railroad Commission, we
must also continue the Operator Qualification Program in which a training room will be
incorporated into the design.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project consists of demolition, drywall partitions,
carpentry, millwork, acoustic ceilings, cement plaster, storefront glazing, interior finishes,
electrical, HVAC and plumbing; all work to be accomplished at the location shown and shall
be in accordance with the plans, specifications, and contract documents.
BID INFORMATION: The City received proposals from three (3) bidders on January 14, 2004.
See Exhibit "B" Bid Tabulation. The bids range as follows:
Total Base Bid From $291,000 To $343,000
Additive Alternate No. 1 From $10,400 To $19,500
AdditiveAIternate No. 2 From $5,920.00 To $19,800
H:~USERS2~HOME~VELMAR~GEN~GAS~1555',AGENDA BACKGROUND
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of 2
The Base Bid consists of all remodeling work described in the plans and specifications except
power wash, pdme and paint on existing extedor brick; new structural slab and associated
demolition.
Additive Alternate No. 1 includes power wash, pdme and paint on all exterior bdck. Shield all
existing extedor metal roof and fascia, downspouts, doors, windows, and stone window tdm
from being painted.
Additive Alternate No. 2 includes saw cut, demolish, and removal of concrete slab, as
dimensioned in the drawings and provides for a new structural slab.
The Architect's estimated construction cost for the project is $275,000. The City's consultant,
Morgan Spear Associates, Inc., and City staff recommend that the Total Base Bid, Additive
Alternate No. 1, and Additive Alternate No. 2 be awarded in the amount of $309,320 to Elite
Construction Company of Corpus Chdsti, Texas for the Gas Department Building Remodeling,
Phase 1 Project.
CONTRACT TERMS: The contract specifies that the project will be completed in 90
calendar days, with completion anticipated by the end of May 2004.
FUNDING: Funds for this project are available in the FY 2003-2004 Gas Operating
Budget.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 2 of 2
H'~USERS2'~HOME~VELMAR\GEN\GAS\1555~AGENDA BACKGROUND
TABULATION OF BIDS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING - CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
TABULATED BY: Angel R.Esoobar, P.E., Director of Engineering Services
DATE: Wednesday, January 14, 2006 TIME OF COMPLETION: 90 Calendar Days
Page 1 of 1
ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE: $275,000
--- ---- o. Dunning remodeling Elite Construction Co. DESS Construction Inc.
Phase
1
5914 Pressler P.O.
Sal -Con Inc.
Project No. 1555 BOX 8313
C.C., TX 78913
P.O. Box 71771
C.C., TX 78468
C.C., TX 78467
ITEM DESCRIPTION
QTY. UNIT UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT UNIT PRICE
To furnish
AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMUNT
UNIT PRICE
AMOUNT
all labor and
materials, tools and
$0.00
necessary equipment and to
Perform the work required
for the project at the
locations set out by the
Plans and specifications
and in strict accordance
with the contragt
documents
TOTAL BASE BID:
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE
$291,000.00 $293,237.00
$343,000.00
$0.00
NO 1:
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE NO 2�
$12,400.00 $10,400.00
$19,500.00
$0.00
$5,920.00 $17,669.00
$19,800.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
PROJECT BUDGET
GAS DEPARTMENT BUILDING REMODELING, PHASE 1
(Pr~e~ No. 1555)
January 27, 2004
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
Gas ...................................................................................
$383,502.00
FUNDS REQUIRED:
Construction (Elite Construction Company) .................................
Contingencies (10%) ............................................................
Consultant (Morgan Spear Associates, inc.) ..............................
Consultant (Health & Safety Management, Inc.) ...........................
Engineering Reimbursements ................................................
Construction Inspection Activity ................................................
Testing (Rock Engineering & Testing Laboratory) ........................
Texas Department of Licensing ................................................
Misc. (Printing, Advertising, etc.) .............................................
Total .................................................................................
$309,320.00
30,932.00
25,000.00
350.00
3,500.00
10,700.00
1,100.00
100.00
2,500.00
$383,502.00
IEXHIBIT "C"
H:\USERS2~HOME~VELMAR~GEN~GAS~I555~,PROJECT BUDGET Page 1 of 1
\ Mproject \ councilexhibits \ exh 1555.dwg
P~'~OJECT LOCATION
PROJECT # 1555 EXHIBIT "D"
GAS DEPARTMENT BUILDING CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES~ '
REMODELING, PHASE '1 PAGE: I o"i: 1
CIT~' OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS DATE: 1-21-2004
10
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2004
SUBJECT: New Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion (Project No. 3234) and
Ben Garza Gym Locker Room Improvements (Project No. 3262)
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to award a construction contract to
Progressive Structures of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $211,750 for the New
Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion and Ben Garza Gym Locker Room Improvements.
ISSUE: Community Development Block Grant Funds will provide for improvements to the
Ben Garza Sports Pavilion and Gym Locker Room. This project is necessary to provide
shade area for court play, reduce the weather deterioration to court surface and refurbish
the existing deteriorated playing surface at the sports court area. Due to additional funding
and increased demand for shower and locker use, improvements will be made to the Gym
Locker Room to make it more suitable for the needs and quantity of users.
FUNDING: Funds to finance the proposed project are available in the FY 2002-2003
Community Development Block Grant Fund Budgets.
(,z.Staff recommends approval of the Motion as presented.
David Ondrias,
f Parks and Rec.
Neighborhood Services Department
,~g~l R. Escobar, P. E.,
Director of Engineering Services
Additional Support Material:
Exhibit "A" Background Information
Exhibit "B" Bid Tabulation
Exhibit "C" Project Budget
Exhibit "D" Location Map
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: New Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion (Project No. 3234) and
Ben Garza Gym Locker Room Improvements (Project No. 3262)
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
1. May 15, 2001 - Motion approving the FY 2001-2002 Community Development Block
Grant Program (Motion No. M2001-191).
PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
1. January 2, 2002 - Executed Small Agreement for ArchitectJEngineer Consultant
Services with Roots Foster Associates, Inc., Architects in the amount of $18,000 for
the New Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion and Ben Garza Gym Locker Room
Improvements.
2. May 1, 2003 - Executed Testing Agreement with Fugro South, Inc. in the amount
of $2,245 for the New Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion and Ben Garza Gym Locker
Room Improvements.
3. July 23, 2003 - Executed Amendment No. I to the Small Agreement for
ArchitectJEngineer Consultant Services with Roots Foster Associates, Inc.,
Amhitects in the amount of $6,450, for a total re-stated fee of $24,450, for the New
Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion and Ben Garza Gym Locker Room Improvements.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: Community Development Block Grant Funds will provide for
improvements to the Ben Garza Sports Pavilion and Gym Locker Room. The proposed
project is necessary to provide shade area for court play, reduce the weather deterioration
to court surface and refurbish the existing deteriorated playing surface at the sports court
area. Due to additional funding and increased demand for shower and locker use,
improvements will be made to the Gym Locker Room to make it more suitable for the
needs and quantity of users.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project consists of an approximate 12,000 square foot
(roof area), open-sided pre-engineered metal building structure with concrete plinths,
drilled piers and tie beams to cover existing asphalt basketball courts, which are also to be
re-asphalt topped and court-striped. Other construction includes new showers and other
miscellaneous work in existing Gym Dress Rooms; all in accordance with the plans,
specifications, and contract documents.
BID INFORMATION: The City received proposals from eight (8) bidders on January 14, 2004.
See Exhibit "B" Bid Tabulation. The bids range as follows:
Base Bid Item No. 1 - Sports Pavilion From $185,000
Base Bid Item No. 2 - Locker Room From $19,360
AdditiveAIternate No. 1 From $1,750
To $255,633
To $35,000
To $9,100
H:~U S ERS 2~OM E~VE LM~,R'~GEN~GAS~1555',AGE NDA BACKGROUND
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of 2
The Base Bid Item No. 1 consists of construction of the new Sports Pavilion work except for
two (2) side basketball goal/backstops.
The Base Bid Item No. 2 consists of modifications work in existing gym dress rooms.
Additive Altemate No. 1 includes two (2) side basketball goal/backstops for the new Sports
Pavilion.
The Architect's estimated construction cost for the Base Bid Item No. I Sports Pavilion is
$170,000; and the estimated construction cost for the Base Bid Item No. 2 Locker Room is
$27,200. The City's consultant, Roots Foster Associates, Inc., Architects and City staff
recommend that the Total Base Bid and Additive Altemate No. 1 be awarded in the amount of
$211,750 to Progressive Structures of Corpus Christi, Texas for the New Ben Garza Park
Sports Pavilion and Ben Garza Gym Locker Room Improvements.
CONTRACT TERMS: The contract specifies that the project will be completed in 140
calendar days, with completion anticipated by the end of July 2004.
FUNDING: Funds to finance the proposed project are available in the FY 2002-2003
Community Development Block Grant Fund Budgets.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 2 of 2
H:\USERS2~HOME~V~:LMAR\GEN~GAS\1555~,GEN DA BACKGROUND
TABULATION of BIDS
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING
- CITY of coRPUs CHRISTI,
TEXAS
Page 1 of 2
TABULATED BY: Angel R.Eacobar, P.E., Director of
DATE'
Engineering 8erviose
Wedaeeday, January ld, 2004
TIME OF C4tjpLETION: 160 Calendar Days
ENGINEER'S
ZSTID81TE: $27,270
(Gym) $170,000 (Pavilion)
New Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion b
Ben Garza Gym Locker Room Improvements
Progressive Structures
David Van Fleet, Inc.
Project No. 3234/3262
Inc.
dba Van Fleet Constr.
Economy Services
Inc.
Sal-Con Inc .
P.O. Box 270713
312 East Kleber 9
1018
Hibiscus
P.O. Box 71771
C.C., TX 78427
Kingsville, TX 78363
C.C.,
TX 78405
C.C., TX 78467
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT
UNIT PRICEAMOUNT
Item
HB-1 Base Bid: Total cost 1
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
ULiIT�
PRI
AMOUNT UNIT
PRICE AMOUNT
No.
LS
for all work described in
$185,000.00
$191,900.00
BB-1
plans b specifications for
$192,279.00
$200,000.00
construction of the new
Pavilion work except two
(2) side basketball
goal/backstops as shown
complete in place per lump
SM.
Item
BB-2 Base Bid: Total cost 1 LS
No.
for all work described in
$25,000.00
$19,360.00
BB-2
plans b specifications for
$27,036.00
$21,000.00
modifications work in
existing gym dress rooms,
-
complete in Place per lump
a=.
W BID lZTIIw BH_I
4 ZTBaf gg
$210,000.00
$211,260.00
Item
Add. Alt. No.l: Total
$219,315.00
9221,000.00
No.
1 LS
additive cost for
$1,750.00
$5,000.00
AA-1
including two (2) side
$6,778.00
$9,100.00
basketball goal/backstops
as shown, complete in
Place per lump sum.
TOTnr ADDITIVE ALTERNATE
!AA-17:
$1,750.00
$5,000.00
$6,778.00
$9,100.00
TABULATION OF BIDS
DEPAR2MNT OF ENGINEERING - CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
TABULATED BY: Angel R.Escobar, P.E., Director of Engineering Services
DATE: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 TnU OF COMPLE
New Ben Garza Park Sports Pavilion n
Ben Garza Gym Locker Room Improvements
Project No. 3234/3262
ITEM DESCRIPTION
Item BB -1 Base Bid: Total cost
No. for all work described in
BB -1 plans 6 specifications for
construction of the new
Pavilion work except two
(2) side basketball
goal/backstops as shown
complete in place per lump
SUM.
Item BB -2 Base Bid: Total cost
No. for all work described in
BB -2 plans S specifications for
modifications work in
existing gym dress rooms,
complete in place per lump
sum.
TOTAL BASE BID !ITEM BB -1
4 I= BS -2:
Item Add. Alt. No.l: Total
No. additive cost for
AA -1 including two (2) side
basketball goal/backstops
as shown, complete in
Place per lump sum.
MTAL ADDITIVE ALTERNATE
1I LS
1 1 LS
1 1 IS
Page 2 of 2
TION: 140 Calendar Days ENGINEER'S ESTn4M: $27,270 (Gya) $170,000 (Pavilion)
EGH Construction Inc.
P.O. Box 270668
C.C., TX 78427
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
$213,600.00
$35,000.00
$248,600.00
$6,580.00
$6,580.00
Elite Constr. Cc
5414 Pressler
C.C., TX 78411
AMOUNT
$219,000.00
$31,100.00
$250,100.00
$6,300.00
$6,300.00
DMB Construction
P.O. Box 71118
C.C., TX 78467
PRICE AMOUNT
$231,942.00
$29,487.00
$261,429.00
$6,686.00
$6,686.00
Barcom Commercial Inc.
1710 SPID Ste B
C.C., TX 78416
PRICE
$255,633.00
$27,770.00
$283,403.00
$6,165.00
$6,165.00
PROJECT BUDGET
NEW BEN GARZA PARK SPORTS PAVILION (PROJECT NO. 3234)
BEN GAR7_.A GYM LOCKER ROOM IMPROVEMENTS (Project No. 3262)
February 10, 2004
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
CDBG ........................................................................................................
$271,120.00
FUNDS REQUIRED:
Construction (Progressive Structures):
Base Bid - Sports Pavilion $185,000.00
Base Bid - Locker Room 25,000.00
Add. Alt. No. 1 - Sports Pavilion 1,750.00
Total Construction .................................................................................... $211,750.00
Contingencies (10%) .................................................................................... 21,175.00
Consultant (Roots Foster Associates, Inc., Architects) .......................................... 24,450.00
Engineering Reimbursements ........................................................................ 2,500.00
Construction Inspection Activity ........................................................................ 7,000.00
Testing (Fugro South, Inc.) .............................................................................. 2,245.00
Misc. (Printing, Advertising, etc.) ..................................................................... 2,000.00
Total .........................................................................................................
$271,120.00
I EXHIBIT "C"
Page 1 of 1
H :\USERS2~IO M EIVEL MAR~G EN\PARK& REC\B E N GARZA/PROJECT BUDGET
File : \Mproject\councilexhibits\exh5254,5262.dwg
NUECES BAY
N
PROJECT
LOCATION
AtoNES
CORPUS CHRISP BAY
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
Fb~.JL;I :tt' I
BEN GARZA
PARK
PROJECT Il 3234~3262
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT "D"
NEW BEN GARZA PARK SPORTS
PAVILION AND GYM LOCKER ROOM
IMPROVEMENTS
CIT¢ OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
PAGE: I of 1
DATE: 02-0,3-2004
11
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
February 10, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute
Amendment No. 18 to the amhitectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur
Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $40,640 for preparation and
revision of bid and contract documents for interior buildout of the Federal Inspection
Station and Transportation Security Administration lease space for the Corpus Christi
International Airport Terminal project. (Project No.1071)
FUNDING: Funding is available from Airport Capital Improvement Funds.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the motion as presented.
Dave Hamrick
Director of Aviation
/~gel R. Escobar, P. E.
~Oirector of Engineering Services
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT MATERIAL
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B.
Exhibit C.
Exhibit D.
Background Information
Prior Council/Administrative Actions
Contract Summary
Location Map
BACKGROUNDINFORMATION
PRIOR COUNCIL/ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS:
Numerous actions by the City Council and staff have been made for this complex project. A
list of the more significant actions is attached. See Exhibit B.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The amendment provides for preparation of bid and contract documents for the build-out of
the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Inspection Station lease spaces.
Council approved the completion of the lease space through "dried in" status by a change
order with Fulton/Coastcon, J.V. The total of the build out cost prevented the City from
completing the project as a change order. The Local Government Code limits the total
value of change orders for a project to 25% of the original contract price. This requires a
new contract be issued for the completion of the interior build out.
FAA requires a sealed bid to proceed with the completion of the lease space. The
amendment is necessary so the bid documents reflect the work that will be completed by
Fulton/Coastcon. A contract summary is attached. See Exhibit C.
BOARD/COMMITTEE REVIEW: The Airport Board has reviewed the amendment and
recommended its approval.
H:~-IOME~J~EVINS\GEN~JR\NEWTERM~AE#18AWD.bkg.doc
I EXHIBITA 1
Page 1 of 1
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTIONS
August 25, 1998 - Resolution approving the financial feasibility plan to fund the five-year capital
improvement program for CCIA including the terminal reconstruction program. (Res. 023426)
March 30, 1999 - Approval of recommended Terminal Reconstruction and Landside Development
concept at CCIA. (M99-089)
April 20, 1999 - Motion to authorize City Manager to execute a contract for
architectural/engineering services with M Arthur Gensler Jr. and Associates in the amount of
$2,225,000 for the CCIA Terminal Building. (M99-105)
July 20, 1999 - Adoption of FY99-00 Capital Budget and 2000-2004 CIP Guide which included
Airport Project No. 1, Terminal Building Reconstruction, Airport Project No. 2, Terminal Apron
Construction, and Wastewater Project No. 22, Airport Lift Station Relocation. (Ord. No. 023703).
December 21, 1999 - Approval of the Terminal Design Concept as presented by the Gensler
Team.
January 25, 2000 - Motion to authorize City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the
architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $72,095 related to the airport automated access control system (AACS) and closed-
circuit television (CCTV) system for the Terminal Reconstruction project. (M2000-027)
February 23, 2000 - Motion to authorize City Manager to execute a construction contract in the
amount of $1,575,000 with B. E. Beecroft Company, Inc. for temporary facilities for the Terminal
Reconstruction Program. (M2000-66)
May 23, 2000 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the
architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $180,700 related to the terminal apron construction, terminal re-construction, and lift
station relocation projects at Corpus Christi International Airport. (M2000-153)
August 22, 2000 - Motion authorizing City Manager, or his designee, to execute a construction
contract with Fulton/Coastcen in the amount of $16,472,000 for the Corpus Christi International
Airport Terminal Construction project. (M2000-292)
10.
November 21, 2900 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the
architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $420,940 for the for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction
project (M2000-412).
11.
November 21, 2000 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a project liaison and
inspection contract with AGCM, Inc. in the amount of $196,400 for the for the Corpus Christi
International Airport Terminal Construction project. (M2000-413).
12.
November 21, 2000 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1
(construction by-pass) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount of $56,026.58 for the Corpus Christi
International Airpod Terminal Construction project. (M2000-292)
13.
April 18, 2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 9 (substitution
of concrete in lieu of asphalt under open concourse areas) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount of
$103,140.44 for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction project. (M2001-
154).
14.
May 29, 2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 12 (rewsion of
structural foundations to reflect field conditions) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount of
EXHIBIT B I
Page 1 of 6
H:\HOME'~KEVI NS\GENLAI R\N EVVTERMLAE#18AWDPdorActions Exh B.doc
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
$38,618.74 for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction project. (M2001-
207).
June 12, 2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 8 to the
architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of ($132,344) for the for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction
project (M2001-219).
September 11, 2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 19
(upgraded public address system, additional escalators, wall laminates, & decorative tiles) with
Fulton/Coastcon in the amount of $514,974.42 for the Corpus Christi International Airport
Terminal Construction project. (M2001-347).
October 9, 2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 22 (replace
eight (8) inch water line under commercial apron) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount not to
exceed $155,449.01 for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction project.
(M2001-373).
October 16, 2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment
No. 3 with AGCM in the amount of $598,500 for construction management, project liaison, and
inspection services for the new Airport Terminal Building (M2001-387).
October 23, 2001 -
a. Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 23 (additional filters on
cooling towers and addition of two manholes) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount of
$20,326.24 for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction project.
b. Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 24 (reduce depth of
relocated wastewater lift station, add 225 amp service, and provide exit lights for sliding doors
at front terminal entries) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount of $23,490.93 for the Corpus
Christi International Airport Terminal Construction project. (M2001-401 ).
April 16, 2002 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 12 to the
architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $46,060.00 for the for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction
project (M2002-102).
May 14, 2002 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 31 (relocate
security check point and enhanced finishes) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount not to exceed
$63,857.91 for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction project. (M2002-
132).
June 6, 2002 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 35 (extend
canopy 35' from commemial island to parking lot) with Fulton/Coastcon in the amount not to
exceed $212,129.81 for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction project.
(M2002-192).
December 17, 2002 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 13 to the
architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and Associates, Inc. in the
amount of $366,158.00 for the for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal Construction
project (M2002-102).
May 27, 2003 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute change order 45
with Fulton/Coastcon, Inc., A Joint Venture, in the net amount of $425,410.87 for Corpus Christi
International Airport New Terminal Building for concrete and structural steel for the retail and
Transportation Security Administration lease areas and an exterior finish system for the Air Cargo
Building (M2003-198).
H:~HOME~KEV[NS\GE N~AIR\NEWTERM~AE#18AWD PdorActionsEx~B.doc
EXHIBIT B I
Page 2 of 6
25.
October 14, 2003 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment
No. 16 to the architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and
Associates, Inc. in the amount of $150,350 for additional construction phase services for the
Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal project. (M2003-361)
26.
January 13, 2004 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute change
order 54 with Fulton/Coastcon, Inc., A Joint Venture, in the amount of $1,250,000.00 for Corpus
Christi International Airport New Terminal Building to complete exterior Terminal Expansion to
include all work associated with the final phase of the original terminal design as modified and the
exterior shell of the Transportation Security Administration and Federal Inspection Station areas.
27.
January 13 2004 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment
No. 17 to the architectural/engineering services contract with M. Arthur Gensler, Jr. and
Associates, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $143,870 for additional construction phase services
for the Corpus Christi International Airport Terminal project
PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
1. January 17, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $24,071 to Fulton/Coastcon for
temporary vestibules, air curtains, and lighting.
2. January 22, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $19,121,55 to Fulton/Coastcon for
temporary canopy.
3. January 23, 2001 - Award of Amendment No. 4 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount of
$14,000 for structural slab and double wall air handler units.
4. February 9, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $11,921.16 to Fulton/Coastcon for
various utility work, rerouting of conduits, and temporary speakers at curb-side.
5. February 14, 2001 - Award of Amendment No. 5 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount
of $14,920 for apron extension/access roads & terminal apron projects. (separate project)
6. February 16, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 5 in the amount of $19,914.33 to Fulton/Coastcon
for additional pedestrian tunnel support.
March 19, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 6 in the amount of $15,672.70 to Fulton/Coastcon for
storm drain repairs and removal, additional traffic markings and signage, and isolation of HVAC
piping and controls.
8. March 29, 2001 - Award of Amendment No. 6 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount of
$14,900 for design of additional escalators, voice paging, plastic laminate, and decorative mosaic tile.
9. March 30, 2001 - Award of Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $15,000 to AGCM, Inc. for additional
inspection services.
10. April 2, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $5,974.87 to Fulton/Coastcon for
installation of piers for future installation of structural slab under the concourse.
11. April 13, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 8 in the amount of $14,495.95 to Fulton/Coastcon for
various electrical modifications and security alarms.
12. May 4, 2001 - Award of Amendment No. 7 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount of
$5,280 for design of three (3) overhead coiling security grills and side-stream filter and isolation
valves for cooling towers.
H:~IOME\KEVINS\GE N~AIR\NEWTE RM~AE# 18AWDPdorActionsExh B.doc
Page 3 of 6
13. May 10, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 10 in the amount of $19,340.74 to Fulton/Coastcon for
various mechanical modifications and modification of a pier cap.
14. May 22, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 11 in the amount of $22,253.97 to Fulton/Coastcon for
additional fill material and relocation of food court water meter.
15. May 22, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 13 in the amount of $23,381.00 to Fulton/Coastcon for
substitution of double wall air handlers in lieu of single wall air handlers.
16. June 21, 2001 - May 22, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 14 in the amount of $23,636.11 to
Fulton/Coastcon for re-route of gas and water mains and addition of lithium bromide filters for chillers.
17. June 25, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 15 in the amount of $19,995.02 to Fulton/Coastcon for
substitution of copper wound transformers in lieu of aluminum wound transformers and additional fill
material.
18. July 2, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 16 in the amount of $23,965.32 to Fulton/Coastcon for an
upgrade of passenger loading bridge carpet and remobilization of demolition contractor.
19. July 5, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 17 in the amount of $13,119.75 to Fulton/Coastcon for
storage of advanced purchase equipment in bonded warehouse and Data Room and Tower Vault
Signal additions to facilitate relocation of telephone and local area network (LAN).
20. Au,qust 22, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 18 in the amount of $23,885.98 to Fulton/Coastcon for
raising the elevation of asphalt crosswalks and additional excavation and fill material under the old
restaurant area.
21. September 4, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 20 in the amount of $21,597.31 to Fulton/Coastcon
for relocation of equipment for jet bridge power room, and baggage service office/additional operation
space for Continental Express.
22. September 14, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 21 in the amount of $24,686.88 to
Fulton/Coastcon for air conditioning shop space under concourse and additional power supply for
data and communication room equipment.
23. March 30, 2001 - Award of Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $15,000 to AGCM, Inc. for additional
inspection services.
24. December 31, 2001 - Award of Amendment No. 9 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount
of $20,850 for design alternatives for wastewater lift station and aluminum panel details at security
checkpoint.
25. January 24, 2002 - Award of Amendment No. 10 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount
of $10,500 far modification of security checkpoint location and electrical/security rooms.
26. February 19, 2002 - Award of Amendment No. 11 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount
of $9,700 for extension of the Terminal Building Main canopy.
27. October 31, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 25 in the amount of $14,515.57 to Fulton/Coastcon
for ground radio provider and Continental Airlines operations, three phase motors for baggage doors,
include baggage equipment on emergency power, revise cooling tower foundation, and relocate
water line to improve future access.
28. November 14, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 26 in the amount of $17,712.62 to
Fulton/Coastcon for emergency power for airlines, modification of bag handling door controls, and
other modifications.
H:~HOME~KEVINS\GEN~A~R~IEWTE RM~AE#18AWDPriorActionsEx~B.doc
EXHIBIT B I
Page 4 of 6
29. December 14, 2001 - Award of Change Order No. 27 in the amount of $21,234.46 to
Fulton/Coastcon for additional space for a baggage office and operations suite for Continental Airlines
and modification of transom to electric vault door.
30. January 31, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 28 in the amount of $24,424.61 to Fulton/Coastcon
for security modifications associated with 9/11 and installation of high speed operator on Gate 24B.
31. February 12, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 29 in the amount of $24,078.56 to Fulton/Coastcon
for additional security expenses, bag conveyor openings, and fire damper.
32. February 26, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 30 in the amount of $21,343.15 to Fulton/Coastcon
for additional foundation work, chilled water interconnect, temporary electrical supply connection,
additional exterior lighting for exterior baggage operations, and stucco fascia along roof edge.
33. May 2, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 32 in the amount of $24,840.92 to Fulton/Coastcon for
additional offices, relocation of ticket counters and return air openings.
34. May 15, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 33 in the amount of $24,871.93 to Fulton/Coastcon for
mechanical and structural modifications.
35. May 29, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 34 in the amount of $19,973.85 to Fulton/Coastcon for
electrical rough-ins for advertising, ticket counter revisions, and mechanical modifications.
36. July 17, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 36 in the amount of $20,265.24 to Fulton/Coastcon for
various minor enhancements (carpet, voice/data circuits, door pulls, security modifications, etc.).
37. Au(lust 7, 2002 ~ Award of Change Order No. 37 in the amount of $19,558.82 to Fulton/Coastcon for
mechanical, electrical and other modifications.
38. September 5, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 38 in the amount of $24,954.30 to Fulton/Coastcon
for placing terrazzo in the food court.
39. October 30, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 39 in the amount of $20,030.49 to Fulton/Coastcon
for various electrical modifications, lock sets, PA service, etc.
40. November 5, 2002 - Award of Change Order No. 40 in the amount of $17,231.32 to Fulton/Coastcon
for electrical modifications, advertising modifications, rent car telephones, and window blinds.
41. February 6, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 41 in the amount of $21,337.32 to Fulton/Coastcon
for food court ceiling and relocation of visitor information desk.
42. February 17, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 42 in the amount of $22,915.20 to Fulton/Coastcon
for additional electrical power to rent car offices, vending machines, enclosure of open administrative
space, storage of equipment City requested advanced delivery, and additional security costs.
43. February 28, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 43 in the amount of $24,542.08 to Fulton/Coastcan
for various electrical, plumbing, signage, fire alarm, and HVAC modifications.
44. March 21, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 44 in the amount of $20,422.87 to Fulton/Coastcon for
various ticket counter shell, bagwell for Delta, additional piping flanges, modification of rent car
parking lot, removal of manholes under additional retail space, new gate operator support, conduit to
new checkpoint location.
45. April 10, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 46 in the amount of $24,919.61 to Fulton/Coastcon for
valance support, fire alarm monitoring modules for jet bridges, HVAC modifications, western power
feed to jet bridge power center, and interior trash receptacles.
IEXHIBIT B I
Page 5 of 6
H:\HOM E~KEVINS\GEN~AI R\N EWTERM~AE# 18AWDPdorActionsExh B.doc
46. April 30, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 47 in the amount of $24,393.37 to Fulton/Coastcon for
painting old terminal, hardware revisions, exterior operators for fire doors, relocation of fire hydrant,
fiber optic network, power for vending, retail and check point lights, and adding regulator and vent to
boiler.
47. June 25, 2003 - Amendment No. 14 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount of $24,900 for
relocation of the jet bridge emergency generator, women's restroom, security checkpoint, and
modification of Gate 6 for international and domestic arrivals.
48. June 27, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 48 in the amount of $23,998.95 to Fulton/Coastcan for
painting type-S light fixtures, adding four smoke alarms to baggage claim, backflow check valve at
Gate 2, photocells for type-M light fixtures, electrical support for Southwest Airline move, revise cargo
facility CCTV cameras, chiller expansion tank, revise doors for the temporary Southwest Airline
ticketing location.
49. July 7, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 49 in the amount of $23,562.00 to Fulton/Coastcon for
Hayden W. Head sign.
50. July 28, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 50 in the amount of $22,923.05 to Fulton/Coastcon for
modifications to the Southwest Airline Air Traffic Operations area, modification of existing fire
sprinklers, additional ticket lobby restroom signage, underground utilities for concourse expansion,
power to temporary Aero Mex location, revision of cargo building participation to tenants'
requirements, removal of transite material, and wall grills in cargo building.
51. September 23, 2003 - Amendment No. 15 to M. Arthur Gensler and Associates in the amount of
$16,250 for documentation of revisions to west and east administrative offices, specification of
furniture, meetings with Art Task Force, improvement of lighting in security checkpoint area, design
and document Terminal primary sign and lighting adjacent to McGregor murals.
52. September 24, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 51 in the amount of $24,802.51 to
Fulton/Coastcon for automated chiller valve operation, 277 volt lighting circuits, and chiller piping
modifications.
53. October 24, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 52 in the amount of $24,189.76 to Fulton/Coastcon
for upgrade of the temporary partition, additional signage, and finish trim not included on plans.
54. November 6, 2003 - Award of Change Order No. 53 in the amount of $23,766.51 to Fulton/Coastcan
for modification of AHU ducts, modification of Southwest Airline ticket counters, additional exterior
hose bibs and gate operator power.
Page 6 of 6
H:\HOME~KEVlNS\GEN'~AIR\N EWTE RIV~AE#18AWDPdorActionsExhB.doc
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Section II. SCOPE OF SERVICES, G. ADDITIONAL SERVICES, will be amended by the addition of item 34.
34. The Architect will develop and prepare bid, contract and other documents necessary for the City
to advertise and receive bids for the build-out of the Federal Inspection Station and
Transportation Security Administration lease spaces. The bid proposal will ensure that prices are
clearly identified provided for the Federal Inspection Station and Transportation Security
Administration.
Section III. FEES Authorized is amended to read:
III. FEES AUTHORIZED
The additional service fee authorized by Amendment No. 18 consists of a total not to exceed fee of $40,640.
IExhibit C I
Page 1 of 1
H:~IOME~EVIN S\GEN~AIR~NEWTERMV~E#18AWDConSurnmarTExhC.doc
File : \ Mproject \ councilexhibits \ exh10 71.dwg
San Pa~ricio Coun~.v
N
CORPUS
CHRISTI
BAY
PROJECT LOCATION
1000 INiEh~NATIONAL DRIVE
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
L OCA TION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
TERMINAL
PARKING
LANDING
APRON
RMINAL BUILDING
LANDING
APRON
PROJECT SITE
NOT TO SCALE
CITY PROJECT NO. 1071
EXHIBIT "D"
CORPUS CHRISTI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
TERMINAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 2000
FAA AlP $-48-0051-28-00
01~ ~ CORPUS CHRIS~ 'fEXAS
CZTY COUNCZL EXHZBZT
D~ARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVIC~
PAGE: I of 1
DA~: 02-10-2004
12
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
February '10, 2004
SUBJECT: McKinzie Road Street Improvements, Bond Issue 2000
Acquisition of Parcels 5 & 5UE
AGENDA ITEM: Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a
Warranty Deed and a Utility Easement with D.H. Braman, et al in the amount of $40,439
for Parcels 5 and SUE, both parcels being out of Lots 49, 50, 51, and 52 of the Artemus
Roberts Subd. and the Adams, Beaty, and Moulton Survey No. 411, Abstract 554, located
along the west side of McKinzie Road, south of Haven Drive, in connection with the
McKinzie Road Street Improvement Project, Haven Dr. to South City Limits, Phase 2,
Bond Issue 2000.
ISSUE: The Texas Department of Transportation will improve McKinzie Road, from Haven
Drive south to the City Limit line, for approximately 2.6 miles. The City is obligated to
acquire additional right-of-way as well as provide utility relocations and adjustments. The
project requires the acquisition of five parcels of land within this project area. Land
Acquisition staff has concluded negotiations with the landowners for Parcels 5 and 5UE
in the amount of $40,439. City Council approval is required for expenditures exceeding
$25,000.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize the acquisition of these parcels and approve
the expenditure of funds from the Street Bond Fund.
FUNDING: Street Bond Funds (Bond Issue 2000) 550701-1020-11155
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the motion as presented.
_Angel R Escobar, P E.
D~rector of Engineering Services
Attachments:
Exhibit A. Background Information
Exhibit B. Parcel Map
Exhibit C information Summary
H:\HOME\EUSEBIOG\GENgAgenda Items\McKenzie Rd.Braman~Agenda Memorandum.doc
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: McKinzie Road Street Improvements, Bond Issue 2000
Acquisition of Parcels 5 & 5UE
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
November 14, 2000 - Ordinance canvassing returns and declaring the results of the
Special Election (Bond Issue 2000) held on November 7, 2000, in the City of Corpus
Christi for the adoption of seven propositions; adopting and levying a sales and use
tax pursuant to Section 4A of the Development Corporation Act as approved by the
voters in Propositions 4 and 5. (Ordinance No. 024269)
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION: Council will be required to:
Authorize the award of future construction contracts and amendments; and
authorize the approval of any other parcels in the project where acquisition cost
exceeds $25,000.
PROJECT BACKGROUND:
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) will improve McKinzie Road from Haven
Drive south to the city limits, approximately 2.6 miles. These improvements will consist of
two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two 10-foot wide shoulders including drainage
improvements. The city is obligated to provide additional right-of-way as well as utility
relocations and adjustments for the project.
Five parcels of land are required for acquisition. Land Acquisition staff obtained appraisals
for each parcel from Thomas Dorsey, MAI and offers were made to each landowner based
on the appraisals. Negotiations have concluded with the landowners for Parcels 5 and 5UE.
As explained in the attached Information Summary, Exhibit C, an administrative settlement
of $40,439 was presented to and accepted by landowners. This is the largest of all the
parcels required and the third one acquired to date. San Jacinto Title Company will provide
a title policy and closing services for Parcel 5.
\\CLSTRI_USERS2_SERVER\USERS2\HOME\EUSEBIOG\GEN~.Agenda Items\McKenzie Rd,Braman\Background.doc
Exhibit A
File : \Mproject\councilexhib#;s\exh6239. dwg
Poterson
Pork
N
TULOSO
HIGH
SCHOOL
HAVEN RD
Turke
Creek
PARCEL 5, 5UE
PROJECT LIMITS
~ TO ROBSTOWN
CITY PROJECT No. 6239
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
HWY 44
TO C.C. ~ -
EXHIBIT B
PARCEL 5, 5UE
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPOSIT OF ENGINEERING SER~CES
PAGE: 1 of I
__-~.--
~: 01-23-2004
INFORMATION SUMMARY
Owner:
D.H. Braman, et al.
Location:
Just south of Haven Drive along the west side of McKinzie Road
Zoning:
R-1 b, Single-Family Dwelling District
Size:
Parent tracts -
Fee simple taking
Utility Easement taking -
323 acres
4.027 acres (40 ft. wide)
1.804 acres (15 ft. wide)
Total Length:
:1:5,239 linear feet of fee simple.
Platted: No
Assessed Value: $323,200 or $1,000/acre (2002)
Appraised Value: $3,000 per acre per Thomas Dorsey, MAI
Fee Simple $12, 081
Utility Easement - $ 4,059
Crop Damages $ 2,526
Total Just Compensation $18,666
Rounded $18,700
Negotiated Price: The appraised value of $18,700, which was based on agricultural lands,
was offered to the landowners. The owners countered with $80,000 which was based on
commercial land values that are prevalent on the northern end of this project area. They
also presented current sales information from their adjoining property, which is under
current development. Land Acquisition staff then reviewed the range of land values along
this right-of-way taking and determined a compromise settlement offer of $40,439. This
administrative settlement offer was presented to the landowners and accepted, pending
City Council approval. Due to the scheduling of this project and the potential for a high
award in condemnation, it is in the City's best interest to settle at this amount.
\\CLSTR1 USERS2_SERVER\USERS2\HOME\EUSEBIOG\GEN~Agenda
Summary~'Braman.doc
[tems\McKenzie
Rd. Braman\ln formation
Exhibit C
13
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Wastewater Clean-Out Installation Program FY 2002-2003 (Project No. 7279)
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Change Order No. 1 with
Rycon E & C, LLC in the amount of $82,280 for the Wastewater Clean-Out Installation
Program FY 2002-2003.
ISSUE: The residential sanitary service lines that do not have clean-outs must be broken
into by the Wastewater Department to clear stoppages. These service lines need to be
repaired to prevent debris and surface water from entering the collection system, causing
line blockages and/or overloading of treatment plants during heavy rainfall events. The
Wastewater Department has an on-going program installing clean-outs to avoid the
problem in the future. This Change Order requires Council Action.
FUNDING: Funds for this project are available in the FY 2002-2003 Wastewater Capital
Improvement Program.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the motion as presented.
Foster Crowell,
Director of Wastewater Department
~ir~l R. Escobar, P. E.,
ector of Engineering Services
Additional Support Material:
Exhibit"A" Background Information
Exhibit "B" Change Order Summary
Exhibit "C" Location Map
H:~USERS2',HOME~VELMAR~GEN~WASTEWAT~7279~CHANGE ORDER NO I~AGENDA MEMO
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT:
Wastewater Clean-Out Installation Program FY 2002-2003
(Project No.7279)
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
1. February 29, 2000 - Motion awarding a construction contract in the amount of
$79,500 to either Quality Machine & Equipment Company or Rycon Construction
for the FY 1999-2000 Wastewater Clean-Out Installation Program. The two firms
submitted identical bids. The successful bidder, Quality Machine & Equipment
Company, was chosen by the casting of lots (Motion No. M2000-065).
2. October 17, 2000 - Motion awarding a construction contract in the amount of
$93,916 to Quality Machine & Equipment Company for the FY 2000-2001
Wastewater Clean-Out Installation Program (Motion No. M2000-371).
3. April 16, 2002 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute
a construction contract in the amount of $161,435 with Rycon E & C, LLC for the
Installation of Wastewater Clean-Outs FY 2001-2002 (Motion No. M2002-098).
4. April 15, 2003 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to award a
construction contract in the amount of $335,370 with Rycon E & C, LLC for the
Wastewater Clean-Out Installation Program FY 2002-2003 (Motion No. M2003-
142).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Wastewater Department assumes the responsibility
for all sanitary sewer lines within public rights-of-way and easements. When a blockage
occurs in a service line and there is no clean-out, the line must be exposed and broken into
to see if responsibility for the problem lies with the City or the property owner. Once the
blockage has been cleared, the broken pipe must be replaced and a clean-out installed.
Because many Corpus Christi homes were constructed before clean-outs were required
in the City's Plumbing Code, the Wastewater Department has accumulated numerous work
orders for clean-outs.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: The Wastewater Department has an on-going program installing
clean-outs. Change Order No. I consists of 187 additional clean-outs which includes the
following:
· Excavation of existing service lines
· Removal of damaged pipe
· Installation of new PVC clean-out assemblies
· Site clean-up
· Backfill
It is cost efficient to include the work on the existing construction contract to benefit from
the contractor's price of the work.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of 1
H ~USERS2~HOME~VELMAR~GEN~WASTEWAI~72791CHANGE ORDER NO I~AGENDA BACI(GROUND
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY SHEET
February 2, 2004
PROJECT: Wastewater Clean-Out Installation program FY02-03
Project No: 7279
APPROVED: City Council on 4/15/03., by Motion No. M2003-142
CONTRACTOR:
Rycon
3316 N FM 1355
Kingsville, TX 78363
TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT ....................
25% Limit Amount ..............................
Change Order No. 1 (1/23/04 ......................
Total ............................................................
$335,370.00
83,842.50
82,280.00
82,280.00 = 24.53% < 25%
EXHIBIT "B"
Page 1 of 1
\ Mproject \ councilexhibits \ exh 72 79.dwg
N
NUECES BAY
CORPUS CHRISTI BAY
LAGUNA
MADRE
NOTE: CITY WIDE PROGRAM
LOCATION OF PROJECTS TO BE
DETERMINED BY WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT
GULF OF
MEXICO
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT No. 7279
EXHIBIT "C"
WASTEEATER CLEAN-OUT INSTALLATION
PROGRAM FY2002-2003
CIT"~ OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
PAGE: I of 1
DATE:02/03/2004
14
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Bayfront Master Plan
AGENDA ITEM:
Ordinance appropriating $20,000 from the Port of Corpus Christi into Park CIP Fund No.
3280; for the Bayfront Master Plan; and amending the Capital Budget FY2002-2003
adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 by increasing appropriations by $20,000; and declaring
an emergency.
FUNDING: Funds are available from the Park CIP Fund upon appropriation and the
Engineering Services Fund
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the resolutions, ordinance and motion as presented.
A~'~. F~. 'E~cobar, P, E.
D~rector of Engineering Services
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Additional Information
Exhibit B - POCCA Letter
H:~HOM E~EVINS\GEN\BayfrontMasterPlan\POCCAMemo.doc
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Bayfront Master Plan
BACKGROUND: The Port of Corpus Christi had not approved funding when Council
appropriated funding on December 16, 2003. The Port of Corpus Christi Board approved
funding for the project during their January meeting. (See Exhibit B.) Appropriation by
Council is necessary before the funds can be expended.
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
December 16, 2003
· Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Execute an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement with the RTA in the Amount $20,000 for the Bayfront Master
Plan (Res. No. 025598);
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Execute an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement with the Downtown Management District in the Amount
$20,000 for the Bayfront Master Plan (Res. No. 025599);
· Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Execute an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement with the Metropolitan Planning Organization in the Amount
$20,000 for the Bayfront Master Plan (Res. No. 025600);
· Resolution Authorizing the City Manager or his Designee to Execute an Interlocal
Cooperation Agreement with the Port of Corpus Christi Authority in the Amount $20,000
for the Bayfront Master Plan (Res. No. 025601);
· Ordinance appropriating $20,000 from the RTA into Park CIP Fund No. 3280; and
appropriating $20,000 from the Downtown Management District into the Park CIP Fund
No. 3280; and appropriating $20,000 from the Metropolitan Planning Organization into
the Park CIP Fund No. 3280 for the Bayfront Master Plan; and amending the Capital
Budget FY2002-2003 adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 by increasing appropriations
by $60,000; and declaring an emergency (Ord. No. 25602); and
· Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 4
with Thompson Ventulett and Stainback and Associates, Inc. for planning services
associated with development of a Bayfront Master Plan (M2003-459).
FUNDING: Funding is available upon appropriation.
L EXHIBIT "A" J
Page 1 of 1
H:~HOME~KEVINS\GEN~ayfrontMasterPlan\POCCAbkgExhA doc
OF CORF'US CI-IRISTI
John ~ LaRue
EXECUTIV£OIRECTOR
January 27, 2004
Ms Lis t Aguilar
As:iistm ~: City Attorney
Ci~/of Corpus Clu:isti
PIp. B~,x 9277
Co:~pus .7hristi, Texas 78469-9277
.lAN 2 9 2004
ENGINEERING SDtwu~5
Dear Mn. Aguilar:
]n reference to the Interlocal Agreement between the Port of Corpus Christi and
thc Cit5 regarding funding for the Bayfront Master Plan, our legal counsel has advised
thn: it is not necessary for the Port Authority to execute an Interlocal Agreement for this
project.
Wmply submit an invoice to the Port in the amount of $20,000 when the work is
srbstantially complete and the monies will be forwarded to the City as quickly as
possible. On the invoice, please reference the "Bayfront Development Master Plan".
It' you have any questions, please do not hesitate to cai1. I can be reached at 885-
JFL/sld
~ ~[r. Mike Mahaffey
I,egal Counsel
Sincerely,
John P. LaRue
Executive Director
Website: www.po~tofcorpuschristL corn
222 PowerStreel Corpus Christi, TX 78401 o RO. Box 1541 Corpus Christi, IX 78403 - TEL: 361-882-5633 o FAX: 361-882-7110
ORDINANCE
APPROPRIATING $20,000 FROM THE PORT OF CORPUS CHRISTI
IN10 PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUND NO. 3280
FOR THE BAYFRONT MASTER PLAN; AMENDING THE FY 2002-2003
CAPITAL BUDGET ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NO. 025144 TO
INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS BY $20,000; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY
BE lit ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That $20,000 from the Port of Corpus Christi is appropriated into the Park
Capi[al Improvement Program Fund No. 3280 for the Bayfront Master Plan.
SECTION 2. That FY 2002-2003 Capital Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 is
amended hy increasing appropriations by $20,000.
SECTilON 3. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council members, copy
attachgd, t!~e City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the need for
imme¢liate action necessary for the efficient and effective administration of City affairs
and (2) suspends the Charter rule that requires consideration of and voting upon
ordinances at two regular meetings so that this ordinance is passed and takes effect
upon first r~.ading as an emergency measure this the day of ,2004.
ATTFST THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando £hapa
City Secretary
Approved: February 6, 2004
L~sa ~luilal ~(.~
Assis':a nt C ~ty Attorney
for Cil:y Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Corpus Chdsti, Texas
Day of
,2O04
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Corpus Chdsti, Texas
For the reasons set forth in the emergency clause of the foregoing ordinance an
emergency exists requiring suspension of the Charter rule as to consideration and
voting upon ordinances at two regular meetings: I/we, therefore, request that you
suspend said Charter rule and pass this ordinance finally on the date it is introduced, or
at the present meeting of the City Council.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
Samuel L. Neal, Jr., Mayor
City of Corpus Christi
Council Members
The above ordinance was passed by the following vote:
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
15
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 10, 2004
SUBJECT: Desalination Projects
AGENDA ITEM:
Ordinance Clarifying the Definition of Well in Section 35-24, Code Of Ordinances, City of
Corpus Christi; Providing for Severance; and Providing for Publication.
FUNDING: This item requires no expenditure of funds.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the ~nce as prese~ed, j
,~el~R. Escobar, P.E. '' ' "U"~dm'E~Gara~'a,'l~:~. ~3/f~)d
Director of Engineering Services Director of Water Services ¢ ~[ - --
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Additional Information
H:~-IOME\KEVIN S\GEN\WATER~DESALINA\Wel[OrdinanceMemo.doc
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Well Ordinance
BACKGROUND: The City is preparing to drill a number of test wells associated with
desalination initiatives. The wells will be used to determine the quality, quantity and
sustainability of groundwater use for desalination. The wells will also help determine the
economic viability of aquifer storage and recovery.
During the course of preparing to drill the wells, it was determined that the City Code of
Ordinances regulating hydrocarbon production (oil and gas wells) addressed water wells
with a depth of greater than 350 feet. The intent of the code as set forth by Section Sec.
35-1 cleady sets forth "...that chapter shall govern the exploration, drilling and production
of hydrocarbons and matters incident thereto...." However, Section 35-24 of the ordinance
specifically mentions water. Water is a common by product of hydrocarbon extraction, with
injection wells being used for disposal.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT: The ordinance clarifies that the term well does not include a
municipal water supply well or a well used as part of a municipal aquifer storage and
recovery system.
EXHIBIT "A" J
Page 1 of 1
H:\HOME~KEVINS\GEN\WATER\DESAUNA\WelIOrdinanceBkgExhA,doc
AN ORDINANCE
CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF WELLIN SECTION 35-24, CODE
OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERANCE;AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. Section 35-24, Code of Ordinances, is revised to read as follows:
"Sec. 35-24. "Well."
'q'he term '~vell" means any hole, excavation or bore downward from the surface,
intended to extend three hundred fifty (350) feet or more into the subsurface, made by
any means or manner, for the purpose of exploring for, discovering, producing, or
injecting hydrocarbons, water or other mineral, and which has not been officially
plugged and abandoned. As used in this Chapter, the term "well" does not include a
municipal water supply well or a well used as part of a municipal aquifer stora.qe and
recovery system."
SECTION. If for any reason any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word
or provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by final judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any other section, paragraph,
subdivision, clause, phrase, word, or provision of this ordinance, for it is the definite
intent of this City Council that every section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase,
word or provision of this ordinance be given full force and effect for its purpose.
SECTION. Publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of Corpus
Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
R43803A2.doc
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
reading on this the day of ,2004, by the following vote:
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on this
the day of ,2004 by the following vote:
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the
ATTEST:
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
__ day of
,2004.
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED: 4th day of February, 2004:
R. J~'l~ning /
First A~sistant City Attorney
For City Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
2
R43803A2.doc
16
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: February 10, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: Authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a first
amendment to the lease agreement with Great Western Soccer League, a non-profit
organization, for the use of Terry and Bobby Labonte Park for its soccer program in
consideration of Gmat Western Soccer League maintaining the promises and
improvements; providing for severance; and providing for publication.
ISSUE: Gmat Western Soccer League has requested an amendment to their lease so that
they maintain the Premises and all Improvements during its soccer season, not on a year
round basis. Also, an amendment to the Promises in Exhibit A has been requested.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council must approve all amendments to multi-
year leases.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The City Council previously approved a five-year lease
with Gmat Western Soccer League.
FUNDING: No funding involved.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council
approve the amendment to the lease with Gmat Western Soccer League for the use of
Terry and Bobby Labonte Park.
David Ondrias, Acting Director
Park and Recreation Department
Attachments:
Background Information
Map
I
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Groat Western Soccer League has been using the fields at Terry and Bobby Labonte park
for youth soccer programs since February 1997. They entered into a five-year lease in
January 2002.
EXHIBIT A
KEY
LEASE AREA
Y AND BO~3Y ~ PARK
Page 9 of 10
Page 1 of 2
AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO
EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH
GREAT WESTERN SOCCER LEAGUE, A NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION, FOR THE USE OF TERRY AND BOBBY LABONTE
PARK FOR ITS SOCCER PROGRAM IN CONSIDERATION OF GREAT
WESTERN SOCCER LEAGUE MAINTAINING THE PREMISES AND
IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING
FOR PUBLICATION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute a First
Amendment to the Lease Agreement with Groat Westem Soccer League, a non-profit
organization, for the use of Terry and Bobby Labonte Park for its soccer program in
consideration of Great Western Soccer League maintaining the premises and
improvements. A copy of the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement, including an
exhibit that is attached to and incorporated into the lease, is attached as Exhibit A and a
copy is on file with the City Secretary.
SECTION 2. The City Council intends that every section, paragraph, subdivision,
clause, phrase, word or provision of this ordinance shall be given full force and effect for
its purpose. Therefore, if any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by final judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction, that judgment shall not affect any other section, paragraph,
subdivision, clause, phrase, word or provision of this ordinance.
SECTION 3. Publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of Corpus
Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Chdsti.
H:\LEG-DIR\DoyleD.Curtis~IYDOCS~003.04~-EASE .ORD~O12704DC.Great,Westem. Soccer. lstAmend,Lease-Ord-doc
Page 2 of 2
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
reading on this the__ day of ,2004, by the following vote:
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenem
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
William Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scoff
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on this
the__ day of ,2004, by the following vote:
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
PASSED AND APPROVED on the__ day of
A'Fi'EST:
William Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
~~a n~j~,<~
'Doyl~ D~,urtis-
Chief, Aaministrative Law Section
Senior Assistant City Attorney
For City Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor, The City of Corpus Christi
H:\LEG-D~R~D~y~eD~urtis~v~YD~CS~2~3~4~-EA~E~RD~3127~4DC~Great~estern~S~ccer~1stAmend~Lease~rd~d~c
17
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
January 20, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Ordinance amending Article V, Code of Ethics, Chapter 2, Code of Ordinances,
relating to outside employment
ISSUE: When a city employee receives outside employment from a business that
has dealings with the employee's department, there is a potential for conflict of
interest. The Code of Ethics should be amended to specifically prohibit such
employment relationships to avoid appearance of impropriety.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the ordinance.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The last amendment to the City Code of Ethics
was in October 2001.
FUNDING: No funding is required.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the
ordinance.
Mary l~ay Fi~/ch~
City Attorney
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
City Policy No. H. R. 5.0 provides that non-collective bargaining employees must
receive the approval of their department director prior to accepting outside employment.
The policy identifies factors to consider in evaluating the request which include
potential for actual or perceived conflict of interest. The policy defines a conflict of
interest generally as any outside employment activity or transaction that could be
enhanced or otherwise of benefit to the outside employer because of the public position
held by the employee, or any outside employment activity which unduly influences the
employee in the performance of his or her City-related functions, or any outside
employment which is in conflict with the City's Ethics Ordinance No. 20781.
Ordinance No. 20781 as amended is codified in the City Code of Ordinances at
Sections 2-311 through 2-315, and at 2-320 through 2-334, and 2-340 through 2-349.
Section 2-311 (8) addresses outside employment:
You shall not engage in any outside activities or employment which will
conflict or be incompatible with the full and proper discharge of your official
duties, impair your independent judgment in the performance of your duties,
or reflect discredit upon the city.
Situations have arisen where an employee has been offered outside employment with a
business that has dealings with the employee's department. The current ordinances to
not specifically prohibit this outside employment. It has happened that an employee will
accept outside employment with a company required to submit work to the employee's
department for approval. Even though the employee does not personally review the
work submitted by the business, there may be the appearance of impropriety. The City
has received complaints from members of the public that the outside employer is
getting special treatment from the department because of its relationship with the
employee.
To avoid the appearance of impropriety, the current Code of Ethics should be amended
to prohibit outside employment with a company that is required to submit work for
approval to the employee's department. The proposed amendment to the Code of
Ethics adds a new section which reads as follows:
As an employee, you may not be employed by any business or individual
who has business dealings with or for your department, including any work
that is subject to review or inspection by your department, even if you do not
personally review or inspect the work of the business or individual.
The Ethics Commission approved the proposed ordinance at their September 11, 2003
meeting.
ORDINANCE
AMENDING ARTICLE V, CODE OF ETHICS, CHAPTER 2, CODE OF
ORDINANCES, RELATING TO OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERANCE; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES; AND PROVIDING
FOR PUBLICATION
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2-311 Code of Ordinances is amended by adding new paragraph
(23) to read as follows:
"Sec. 2-311. Standards.
"The following rules of conduct apply to all council members, board members, and
employees:
"Provisions for employees:
"(23) As an employee, you may not be employed by any business or individual
who has business dealin.qs with or for your department, includin.q any work
that is subiect to review or inspection by your department, even if you do not
personally review or inspect the work of the business or individual."
SECTION 2. If for any reason any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase,
word or provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by final
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any other section,
paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word, or provision of this ordinance, for it is the
definite intent of this City Council that every section, paragraph, subdivision, clause,
phrase, word or provision of this ordinance be given full force and effect for its purpose.
SECTION 3. A violation of this ordinance or requirements implemented under this
ordinance shall subject the employee to appropriate disciplinary proceedings as
provided in Section 2-313 of the City Code of Ordinances.
SECTION 4. Publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of Corpus
Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication.
Jan 27 2004 Ethics Code amendments.doc
2
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
reading on this the day of ., 2004, by the follOwing vote:
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on this
the __ day of
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the __
ATTEST:
., 2004 by the following vote:
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
day of
,2004.
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED: January 20, 2004
By:
Lisa Aguilat,~)
Assistant City Attorney
for City Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Jan 27 2004 Ethics Code amendments.doc
18
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: February t0, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: Authorizing the City Manager, orthe City Manager's designee, to submit
a grant application to the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation in the amount of $12,100 for
technical and financial assistance to develop and implement a Water Management and
Conservation Plan, with a City match of $12,100 in the No. 4010 Water Fund, and a total
project costs of $24,200.
ISSUE: The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Water Conservation Field Services Program is
offering funding assistance to update the City's Water Management and Conservation
Plan.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of resolution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None
FUNDING: The Water Department will provide matching funds of $12,100 from the
Public Education and Communication Activity.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the resolution.
Ed6ardo Garafia, P E, Water Director
A~Iachments
Resolution []
I I I
BACKGROUNDINFORMATION
I I I
In 2003, the State Legislature approved H.B 2660 amending Section 11.1271 of the Water
Code to require water utilities to amend their Water Management and Conservation Plan
(WMCP) to include specific quantifiable 5 year and 10 year targets for water savings. The
WMCP must identify goals to reduce water loss and improve efficiency in municipal per capita
water use. Municipalities must submit a new water conservation plan to the Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality by March 1, 2005.
In addition, Section 210 (b) of the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation Reform Act of October 12, 1982
contains provisions raquiring municipalities that have executed repayment or water service
contracts to develop and submit Water Management and Conservation Plans. The City and the
Nueces River Authority entered on June 30, 1976, into repayment contract No. 6-07-01-X0675,
as amended, with Reclamation for payment of the reimbursable cost of construction and
operation and maintenance of the Nueces River Federal Reclamation Project. The City is
obligated by the Reclamation Reform Act to develop an effective Water Management and
Conservation Plan and program to be updated at a maximum five-year interval. The City's last
WMCP was amended in 1999.
Future Council action will be needed to accept the Bureau of Reclamation's grant for financial
assistance and to enter into a cooperative five-year agreement for technical and financial
assistance to implement the City's Water Management and Conservation Plan.
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR THE CITY MANAGER'S
DESIGNEE, TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION TO THE U. S.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,100 FOR
TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT A WATER MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION PLAN,
WITH A CITY MATCH OF $12,100 IN THE NO. 4010 WATER FUND,
AND A TOTAL PROJECT COSTS OF $24,200
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, is authorized to submit
a grant application to the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation in the amount of $12,100 for
technical and financial assistance to develop and implement a Water Management and
Conservation Plan. The City match for this grant is $12,100 in the No. 4010 Water
Fund, for a total project costs of $24,200.
SECTION 2. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, may accept, reject,
agree to alter the terms and conditions, or terminate the grant, if the grant is awarded to
the City.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Arrnando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED: 4th day of February, 2004.
R. Jay//R~ning/
Acting City Attorney
Samuel L Neal, Jr.
Mayor
R43802A2.doc
Corpus Christi, Texas
of ,2004
The above resolution was passed by the following vote:
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenem
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
2
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
R43802A2.doc
19
AGENDA
CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
REGULAR MEETING
DATE:
TIME:
PLACE:
4.
5.
6.
7.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
During the meeting of the City Council beginning at 9 a.m.
City Council Chambers
1201 Leopard St.
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
President Rex Kinnison calls meeting to order.
Secretary Armando Chapa calls roll.
Board of Directors Officers
Rex A. Kinnison, President George K. Noe, General Manager
Javier Colmenero, Vice President Armando Chapa, Secretary
Brent Chesney Mary Juarez, Asst. Secretary
Melody Cooper Vacant, Treasurer
Henry Garrett Constance P. Sanchez, Asst. Treasurer
Bill Kelly
Mark Scott
Jesse Noyola
Samuel L Neal Jr.
Appointment of Treasurer - Cindy O'Brien, Director of Financial Services
Approval of Minutes of May 13, 2003.
Financial Report.
Appointment of Loan Review Committee Members.
Approval of funding for NCCAA in the amount of $279,384 of HOME CHDO
Funds. This funding is for down payment and closing costs assistance in the
purchase of newly constructed homes for individuals at or below 80% of Area
Family Median Income for Phase I of Holly Properties.
Approval of funding for Terra-Genesis (TG) 303, Inc. AKA Casa de Manana
Apartments, in the amount of $300,000 of HOME CHDO Funds for renovation of
the apartment complex.
10.
11.
Approval of funding for Housing Authority of the City of Corpus Christi in the
amount of $150,000 of HOME CHDO Funds to assist 30 Iow-income residents of
Corpus Christi to compliment their Section 8 Homeownership Program.
Approval of funding for Merced Housing in the amount of $433,750 of HOME
CHDO Funds for land acquisition and design for a proposed 204-unit
development in the Northwest area of Corpus Christi at McKinzie Road and
Carbon Plant Road.
Public Comment.
12. Adjournment.
MINUTES
CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
MAY 13, 2003
3:35 P.M.
PRESENT:
Board of Directors
Rex A. Kinnison, President
Javier Colmenero, Vice-President
Brent Chesney (Arrived at 3:37 p.m.)
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Samuel L. Neal Jr.
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
Officers
George K. Noe, General Manager
Armando Chapa, Secretary
President Kinnison called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall.
Secretary Chapa verified that a quorum was present to conduct the meeting and that notice of the
meeting had been duly posted.
President Kinnison opened discussion on Item 3, appointment of Ms. Melody Cooper as a
board member. A motion was made, seconded and passed unanimously (Chesney absent) to appoint
Ms. Cooper.
President Kinnison opened discussion on Item 4, election of officers. Ms. Cooper made a
motion to appoint the following officers, seconded by Mr. Colmenero, and passed unanimously
(Chesney absent): General Manager - George K. Noe; Secretary - Armando Chapa; Assistant
Secretary - Mary Juarez; Treasurer - Lee Ann Dumbauld; and Assistant Treasurer - Constance P.
Sanchez. President Kinnison asked for nominations for President and Vice-President. Mayor Neal
nominated Mr. Kinnison as President and Mr. Colmenero as Vice-President. The board voted
unanimously (Chesney absent) in favor of the reappointments.
President Kinnison called for the approval of the minutes of March 4, 2003. Mr. Colmenero
made a motion to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Ms. Cooper, and passed
unanimously (Chesney absent).
President Kinnison opened discussion on Item 6, the financial report. Mr. Noe referred to
the combined balance sheet and the combined statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in
fund balances as of April 30, 2003. President Kinnison noted that there was an unreserved fund
balance of approximately $840,000. He asked if there was any list of eligible programs available
that the board could consider funding. Mr. Noe answered that staff would meet and discuss the
status of the fund compared to last year and identify any trends. Then, he said staffwould provide
suggestions on how the funds could be allocated at a future meeting.
President Kinnison opened discussion on Item 6, the General Manager's annual report. Mr.
Noe reported that since the CCCIC began a partnership with CCHFC in 1996, they have greatly
exceeded their goal of assisting 4,000 units. He reported that the CCCIC also had undertaken a
number of other community improvement programs. He mentioned, for example, a program in
which the old Police Department facility was renovated and then leased to the Workforce
Development Corporation. He concluded that staffwould bring back some suggestions on how to
utilize the unresolved balance.
* Mr. Chesney arrived at 3:37 p.m.
President Kinnison opened discussion on Item 8, the appointment of Mr. George K. Noe as
Registered Agent. A motion was made, seconded, and passed unanimously to appoint Mr. Noe.
President Kinnison called for public comment. There were no comments from the audience.
There being no further business to come before the Corporation, President Kinnison declared the
meeting adjourned at 3:38 p.m. on May 13, 2003.
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
COMBINED BALANCE SHEET
DECEMBER 31, 2003
ASSETS
Cash and investments
Due from U S Government
Mortgages receivable
Accrued interest receivable
Loan receivable
Leasehold improvements (net of
accumulated amortization)
Investment in property (net of
accumulated depreciation)
Total assets
Loan Program Special Project HOME Program
Fund Fund Fund Total
1,034,426 216,420 388,706 1,639,552
434,226 0 201,000 635,226
11,571,322 0 7,740,828 19,312,150
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
251,024 0 0 251,024
201,407 21,047 19,750 242,204
13~492~40~5 237 467 8~350~284
221080~156
LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCE
Liabilities:
Accounts payable
Sank note payable
Total liabilities
Fund Balance:
Reserved for WDC project
Reserved for Kids in the Neighborflood
Reserved for HOME program
Reserved for mortgages
Reserved for Seawall loan
Unreserved
Total fund balance
344,010 0 82,300 426,310
248,298 0 0 248,298
592,308 0 82,300 674,608
63,753 0 0 63,753
140,380 0 0 140,380
508,009 0 0 508,009
11,571,322 0 7,760,578 19,331,900
0 0 0 0
616,633 237,467 507,406 1,361,506
12,900,097 237,467 8,267,984 21,405,548
Total liabilities and fund balance 13~492,405 237 467 8~350~284 22~080,156
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION
COMBINED STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES
FOR THE FIVE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2003
Contribution from Federal Government
Interest on loans
Interest on investments
Rental income
Miscellaneous
Total revenues
Loan Program Special Project HOME Program
Fund Fund Fund
Total
512,506 0 680,353 1,192,859
32,675 0 8,546 41,221
3,174 45 91 3,310
48,502 0 0 48,502
1,086 0 227 1,313
597,942 45 689,217 1,287,204
Expenditures:
Grants
Warranty Work
Community Development administration
Loan processing
Accounting services
Interest expense
Miscellaneous
Accumulated amortization-
forgivable loans
leasehold improvements
Accumulated depreciation - building
Total expenditures
6,982 0 587,115 594,097
0 0 0 0
0 0 12,874 12,874
0 0 23,755 23,755
0 0 0 0
5,757 0 0 5,757
0 0 0 0
22,210 0 47,243 69,453
46,486 0 0 46,486
3,108 0 0 3,108
84,543 0 670,987 755,530,
Excess of revenues over expenditures
Other financing sources(uses):
Operating transfers in(out):
Transfer From Federal/State Grant Fund
Transfer to Federal/State Grant Fund
Total other financing sources(uses)
Excess of revenues and other financing
sources over expenditures and other uses
Fund balances at beginning of year(unaudited)
Fund balances at December 31,2003
513,399 45 18,230 531,674
0 0 0 0
(3,367) 0 0 (3,367)
(3,367) 0 0
510,032 45 18,230
12,390,065 237,422 8,249,754
12~900~097 237~46, 7 8~267~984
(3,367)
528,307
20,877,241
21 ~405~,548
CORPUS CHRISTI COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION/LOAN REVIEW
COMMITTEE - Five (5) vacancies with three-year terms to 5-07-06 representing the following
categories: 1 - Community at Large and 4 from among the following categories: legal, real
estate agency, general/contractor/remodelor/homebuilder, architect, engineer, or residential home
designer.
DUTIES: Review and approve loan applications submitted through the various loan programs
in accordance with the Rehabilitation Loan Handbook.
COMPOSITION: Eleven (11) members - serving staggered terms as follows: five (5) for three-
year terms; three (3) for two-year terms; three (3) for one-year terms. The committee shall be
composed of the following representatives: 4 - members from the following professions: legal,
real estate agency, general contractor/remodelor/homebuilder, architect, engineer, residential
home designer; 2 - financial institutions; 1 - member individually employed in the delivery of
Health and Human Services; and 4 - community at large. Appointments to be made by the Board
of Directors of CCCIC (City Council). Members must comply with the City's Code of Ethics.
Chairman to be selected by Loan Review Committee for a one-year term.
MEMBERS
**Alice Vaughan (Real Estate), Chairperson
**Ben Grande (Community at Large), Vice-Chair
Raul Torres (Community at Large)
David Barganski (Financial Inst.)
**Alynda Asher (Real Estate)
David Cantu (Community at Large)
Barry Lobell (Community at Large)
Andrea Walter (Health/Human)
Daniel Suckley (Financial Inst.)
*Dipak V. Desai (Engineer)
**Caroline Stahl (Realtor)
ORIGINAL
APPTD. DATE
3-16-93
5 -24-94
7-10-01
7-10-01
7-27-93
5-12-98
5-12-98
7-10-01
5-12-98
7-10-01
6-20-95
*Resigned
**Seeking reappointment
ATTENDANCE RECORD OF MEMBERS SEEKING REAPPOINTMENT
NO. OF MTGS. NO.
NAME THIS TERM PRESENT
Alice Vaughan (Real Estate) 12 12
Ben Grande (Community at Large) 12 11
Alynda Asher (Real Estate) 12 8
Caroline Stahl (Realtor) 12 9
% OF ATTENDANCE
LAST TERM YEAR
100%
92%
66%
75%
OTHER INDIVIDUALS EXPRESSING INTEREST
Jesus A. Leija
Owner, The Leija Group. Received B.A. in Architecture
from Texas Tech University in Lubbock. (Qualifies -
~trchitect) (1-29-04)
Peggy Shirley
Broker/Owner, Century 21 Island Estates. Attended Del
Mar College and Texas A & M University for advanced
Real Estate training. Volunteers at various activities at
Flour Bluff Independent School District in sports and
academics. Founding member of the Seashore Learning
Center-Charter School. (Qualifies-Realtor) (1-29-04)
Clark Smith
Broker, The Village Realty. Received B.A. from Baylor
University. Attended CCSU and Del Mar for Continuing
Education in Computer Science and Real Estate.
(Qualifies - Realtor) (2-02-04)
David Wallace
Broker/Owner, ERA Windward Properties. Received B.A.
in Communications from Stephen F. Austin University.
Receive award for Top 50 ERA Company nationwide.
(Qualifies - Realtor) (1-27-04)
O. Wayne Watkins
Self-employed, Architect. Attended Mercer College, Army
Command and General Staff College. Licensed Architect
for the State of Texas. (Qualifies - Architect) (2/02/04)
To: George K. Noe, City Manager
Thru:
Margie Rose, ACM,
From:
Jonathan Wagner, Acting Director of NSD
Date:
January 30, 2004
RE:
Meeting request with the CCCIC - revised
We are requesting a meeting with the CCCIC for action on the following items:
The NSD has received four Requests for Proposals (RFP's) through the HOME Program.
As part of the FY03 Annual Action Plan process, the City Council approved the minimal
15% ($279,384) set-aside for CHDO's. Nueces County Community Action Agency
(NCCAA) and Terra Genesis (TG) 303, Inc. are currently certified CHDO's and have
submitted a RFP for funding consideration.
Program income in the amount of $465,0g0 has been generated from HOME Program
loans. Cash match is also available in the amount of $509,0l)0. In addition, $279,384 is
available, as mentioned above, for the 15% minimum CHDO set-aside. The total funding
that is available for the HOME Program for fiscal year 2003 equals $1,2~3,384. The total
amount of funding requested from the four proposals submitted total $t ,163,134.
NCCAA is requesting $279,384 of HOME CHDO grant funding The funding is for
down payment and closing costs assistance in the purchase of newly constructed
homes for individuals at or below 80% of Area Family Median Income. NCCAA is in
the process of completing Community Action Partnership (CAP) Estates, a 30-unit
subdivision that was funded with FY2000 & FY2002 HOME Program allocation. To
date, 18 of the homebuyers are in their homes, three homebuyers are closing at the
end of January, eight homes are under construction and another home is under
contract for construction. Program income generated from the sale of lots in CAP
Estates will be applied towards Holly Properties, a 101-unit subdivision. This
request will assist 15 new families for Phase 1 of Holly Properties. The funds will be
used for the acquisition of the land to develop Holly Properties. At closing, the cost
of lot to construct the home will be the homebuyer's down payment assistance
portion. If funded, NCCAA will have to comply with the project rule (see below) that
state that five or more units that are HOME assisted, 20% of the beneficiaries must
be at or less than 50% ($22,850 for four persons) of Area Median Income.
Terra-Genesis (TG) 303, Inc., AKA Casa de Manana Apartments, located at 4702
Old Brownsville Road is requesting HOME CHDO grant funding in the amount of
$300,000 for the renovations of the apartment complex. In October of 2002, Casa
de Manana was hit by a tornado. The windows and parking lot were not adequately
covered under the Texas Windstorm Insurance, this includes the windows and the
parking lot. Due to the age of the property, drainage issues have been experienced
which have been partially repaired. In addition, certain items are in need of
replacement such as flooring, appliances, a/c units, heaters, tubs and showers.
These needs are necessary to continue to preserve decent and affordable housing
for this Section 8 Iow-income housing property. If funded, TG303, Inc. will have to
comply with the HOME Program rule (see below) that states that 90% of the units
will not exceed 60% ($27,420 for four persons) of Area Median Income.
The Housing Authority of the City of Corpus Christi is requesting $150,000 of grant
funding to assist 30 Iow-income residents of Corpus Christi. This request will
compliment their Section 8 Homeownership Program which will be used for new
construction closing cost and buy down. All those assisted will be at 50% of Area
Family Median Income or below. This subdivision is being developed behind the
newly built Post Office on Lamont Street and Everhart Street. If funded, the
Housing Authority of the City of Corpus Christi will have to comply with the project
rule (see below) that state that five or more units that are HOME assisted, 20% of
the beneficiaries must be at or less than 50% ($22,850 for four persons) of Area
Median Income.
Merced Housing is proposing to develop 204 units in the Northwest area of Corpus
Christi at McKinzie Road and Carbon Plant Road. Merced Housing is requesting
$433,750 ($410,000 for land acquisition & $23,750 for closing costs and legal fees)
of grant funding. Merced Housing has been successful in obtaining a Low Income
Housing Tax Credit from the Texas Department of Housing and CommunityAffairs
in the amount of $8,750,000. In addition, mortgage financing of $5,811,900 will be
provided for their development. If funded, Merced Housing will have to comply with
the HOME Program rule (see below) that states that 90% of the units will not
exceed 60% ($27,420 for four persons) of Area Median Income.
Participating targeting standards for the HOME Program are as follows:
· Program Rule for rental & Tenant Based Rental Assistance: 90%
households with income not ex~cding 60% of Area Median Income
· Proiect Rule: Projects with 5 or more units, 20% occupied by households at
50% or less of Area Median Income
20
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and possible action relating to the City/County Jail
Contract.
STAFF PRESENTER(S):
Name
Title/Position
Department
1. P. Alvarez, Jr.
2. Judge R. Tamez
3.
Chief of Police
Presiding Municipal Court Judge
Police
Municipal Court
OUTSIDE PRESENTER(S):
Name
Title/Position
Organization
ISSUE: The Nueces County Commissioners Court terminated the City-County jail
contract on August 13, 2003, one week after requesting a review of costs associated
with the contract.
BACKGROUND: A cost review committee has been meeting since October to
negotiate a new contract. With the contract expiring on September 12, 2004, the City
must be prepared to deal with prisoners if an agreement cannot be reached. The City
Council was presented with a summary and possible options at the January 27, 2004
meeting and requested additional information and proposals to be presented at the
February 10, 2004 meeting.
P. ,~lvarez, ~
Chief of Poh'~e --
Additional Background
Exhibits
Jail Contractual Issues
02-10-04
Original Recommendations/Proposals
Establish a central magistration center
— To allow for the timely magistration of
prisoners arrested by the Corpus Christi Police
Department.
• Establish a temporary detention facility
— To hold people arrested by City law
enforcement officers and provide for their
magistration and order for commitment by City
magistrates.
Detention Facility
· Location Police Department 1 st floor
· Relocation of Property Room
· Renovation/Construction of vacated area
· Detention Personnel - 2 positions per shift for 24/7
requires 9 employees (4.5 FTE per position)
· Superwsor 1 Police Lieutenant
· Total cost - $976,540
- Recurring = $433,540
- One Time = $543,000
Central Magistrating Center
· Location: Police Department Detention Facility
· 24/7
· 5 full time judges
· Part time judges for weekends
· Additional staff for paperwork
· Video link and fax for judges after hours
· Total cost = $406,414
- Recurring = $381,589
- One Time = 24,825
Total cost
· Year One $1,821,389
· Year Two $1,253,564
· FY 03/04 budget $ 797,285
· Year 1 additional funds $1,024,104
· Year 2 additional funds $ 456,279
County Jail Magistration
Cost Comparison by proposed option
Proposal lA Proposal 1B Proposal 2 Proposal 3
Basic Requirements No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost No. Cost
Additional Full Time Judges 1 $99,707 1
Additional Part Time Judges 1' $0 1'
Increase for 5 Current Judges $119,410
Additional Support Staff Cost 1 $28,000 1
Video Equipment $34,415
Total 1st Year Cost$281,532
$69,854 1 $99,707 1 $99,707
$0 3 $78,132 1 $16,047
$0 $119,410 $119,410
$28,000 1 $28,000 1 $28,000
$6,000 $34,415 $34,415
$103,854 $359,664 $297,579
Recurring Costs $256,707 $99,854 $334,810 $272,754
Judge's salary is already included in current operating budget
*Part
time
Other options being discussed
· Wilson Building- 1 st floor- detention facility and
mag~strat~on center
- Construction of detention cells
- Construction of sallyport
- Parking - cost includes 10 spaces; at night
back lot.
· One Time $275,000 "build out" costs
- As compared to $528,000 to build
Provides for same floor space and
can use all
facility at CCPD.
number of cells.
· Recurring Costs $34,956 rental per year
Detention Facility - Wilson BuildingS]
· Location-Wilson Building on Leopard
oRenovation/Constmction of ground floor
· Detention Personnel - 2 positions per shift for 24/7
requires 9 employees (4.5 FTE per position)
- 1 Police Lieutenant
.Supervisor
· Total cost
-Recurring =
$743,496
$468,496
-One Time = $275,000
Detention Facility Cost Comparison
CCPD versus Wilson Building
•Location: CCPD
•Total cost
—Recurring
—One Time
_ $976,540
_ $433,540
_ $543,000
•Location: Wilson Building
•Total cost
—Recurring
—One Time
_ $743,496
_ $468,496
_ $275,000
Other options being discussed
• Renovation of Old City Jail
Estimated cost $430,600
Questions
21
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: 02-10-04
AGENDA ITEM:
ITEM A:
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTING THE REVISED SOUTH
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES ON THE DOWNTOWN, UPTOWN,
BAYFRONT, BAYFRONT ARTS AND SCIENCE PARK AND
SURROUNDING AREAS FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
FUTURE LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC SERVICES, AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND AMENDING RELATED ELEMENTS OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING THE URBAN
TRANSPORTATION PLAN.
ITEM B:
ISSUE:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI ("THE CITY") BY ADOPTING THE REVISED
SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN; ESTABLISHING THE
CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES ON THE DOWNTOWN,
UPTOWN, BAYFRONT, BAYFRONT ARTS AND SCIENCE PARK AND
SURROUNDING AREAS FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
FUTURE LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC SERVICES, AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; RESCINDING THE SOUTH CENTRAL AREA
DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION
021169, MAY 21, 1991, AND AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 022166,
FEBRUARY 28, 1995; AMENDING RELATED ELEMENTS OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDING THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION.
The City Charter requires the City to maintain a Comprehensive Plan for all areas of the
City and its five-mile Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. The South Central Area Development
Plan was originally adopted by City Council in 1991 and its transportation element updated
in 1995. An update to the Plan is needed as a number of significant changes are occurring
in the South Central Area (downtown, bayfront, uptown and surrounding areas) and the
City Charter requires that Comprehensive Plans be periodically updated. The purpose of
the Plan is to assure a coordinated and comprehensive approach to city actions consistent
with the City's vision for development and redevelopment of the area. The overall goal of
the South Central Area Development Plan is to encourage redevelopment of the central
city in the most efficient and comprehensive manner for the benefit of the citizens of
Corpus Christi.
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
Approval of an Ordinance on first reading.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
City Council Adoption of the South Central Area Development Plan May 21, 1991; Update
to the Plan adopted on February 28, 1995 (See Attachment I: Background Information)
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the Planning Commission recommended Plan.
"-B. A. Baile~'AIC~
Director of D'~et6pment Services
Mich~ei N. Gunning,~
Assistant Director of Development
Services
Attachments:
Attachment I:
Attachment Ih
Attachment II1:
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Background Information
List of Meetings which Addressed the Draft Plan
City Council and Planning Commission Recommended Changes to the
Draft Plan
IV: Agenda, Minutes and Citizen Comments of Special Planning
Commission Meeting - January 22, 2004
V: Advisory Committee Minutes
VI: PowerPoint Presentation
VII: Draft South Central Area Development Plan - February 10, 2004
VIII: Ordinance Adopting the South Central Area Development Plan: an
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
ATTACHMENTI
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Subject:
South Central Area Development Plan: an Element of the Corpus Christi
Comprehensive Plan
History: The 1986 revisions to the City Charter requires the City to maintain an up-to-date
Comprehensive Plan. The Charter also requires the Planning Commission and City
Council to hold a public hearing prior to adoption of any element of the Comprehensive
Plan. On May 21, 1991 the City Council adopted the first development plan for the South
Central Area. Several significant features of the 1991 Plan have been implemented since
its adoption, most notably the realignment and beautification of IH-37 between Shoreline
Boulevard and Mesquite Street, the restoration of the Historic 1914 County Courthouse,
the realignment of Lawrence Street at Shoreline Boulevard, and the location of the new
arena in the central area.
Planning Process: The planning process approved by the City Council in January 2003
called for an updated Plan to be ready for City Council approval before the end of 2003. A
key element of the planning process was the formulation of a detailed list of issues
(Appendix A of the Plan) to be addressed by residents, business owners, and developers
in the South Central area. The ad hoc South Central Stakeholders Group was formed to
provide feedback to issues and initial drafts of the Plan. Staff met with the Stakeholders
Group on seven occasions between May and September (See Attachment II - List of
Meetings held on the Plan).
In addition, the draft South Central Plan was presented for review, comment and
endorsement to the City's Transportation, Park, Museum, and Watershore Advisory
Committees. On November 19th, the Planning Commission conducted the second public
hearing on the Plan and recommended City Council adoption with a number of revisions to
the draft Plan.
On December 9, 2003, Staff presented the draft South Central Plan to City Council. City
Council made two revisions to the Plan (See Attachment III). In addition, the City Council
recommended that a public meeting be conducted to get more community input on the
draft Plan.
On January 22, 2004, the Planning Commission conducted a special community meeting
at the Bayfront Convention Center. The meeting was attended by approximately 150
citizens. In addition to Development Services Department staff, a number of other
Departments were represented at the public meeting including Engineering Services, Park
Draft South Central Area Developn'tent Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
and Recreation, Budget and Management, Museum, and Public Relations. All citizens who
attended the meeting were invited to speak to the group and / or visit with individual staff
members concerning their comments on the South Central Area Development Plan.
Attendees were also invited to submit written comments on prepared note cards.
Public notices for the meeting included direct mailings to over 150 individuals and groups
and posting of notices in numerous public facilities including City Hall, all city libraries,
CCISD lobby, CC Museum of Science and History, and ail Senior Centers. Several
organizations e-mailed notices to their members including the Downtown Management
District, the local American Institute of Architects, the League of Women Voters, and the
Livable Communities Initiative. In addition all tenants of the City Marina received e-mail
notices. The meeting was covered in advance and well reported by the Caller Times,
several radio and TV stations and posted on the City's website.
A follow up public hearing was conducted by the Planning Commission at their regularly
scheduled meeting of January 28, 2004. At the meeting, the commission reviewed public
comments, suggested several changes to the draft Plan (See Attachement III) and
recommended City Council adoption. The Planning Commission lauded stafffor its efforts
in formulating the Plan.
Plan Mission Statement
The mission of the South Central Area Development Plan is to facilitate redevelopment of
the South Central Area over the next 25 years for creating a thriving central area
community in which to live, work, play, raise a family, invest and visit. The City will focus on
implementing the City's South Central Area Development Plan in order to promote a
vibrant central business district, revitalized inner city residential neighborhoods, and
expanded economic opportunities, more choices for recreation activities, and cultural
entertainment within the area.
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
Attachment II
List of Meetings which Addressed
the Draft South Central Area Development Plan
1. Stakeholder Group Meetings
May 8, 2003
May 22, 2003
June 12, 2003
July 10, 2003
July 31, 2003
September 11, 2003
September 25, 2003
2. Water-Shore Advisory Committee
October 2, 2003
October 15, 2003
November 6, 2003
3. Park Advisory Committee
October 8, 2003
October 15, 2003
4. Transportation Advisory Committee
October 27, 2003
5. Museum Advisory Committee
January 8, 2004
6. Planning Commission
October 22, 2003
November 5, 2003
November 19, 2003
January 22, 2004
January 28, 2004
7. City Council
December 9, 2003
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
ATTACHMENT III
CITY COUNCIL REVISIONS DURING DECEMBER 9, 2003 PRESENTATION
1. Revised policy statement E.2- Festival Park (Page 30):
Heritage Park has been included as a possible festival site location.
2. Revised policy statement G.2- Strategic Action Committee (Page 42):
Regarding the proposed Strategic Action Committee for implementing the plan
recommendations, Commercial Realtors have been added to the list of specialist that should
be included on the Strategic Action Committee.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE
DECEMBER 9, 2003 DRAFT SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RECOMMENDED AT REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JANUARY 28, 2004
1. Insert a new policy statement in the Land Use Section (Page 14):
Policy Statement B.2
The highest priority for creation of activities on the bayfront are activities that benefit
the citizens of Corpus Christi and that take advantage of the unique natural amenities
of the bayfronh including wind, water and temperate climate.
2. Reword Policy Statement B.4 in the Land Use Section (Page 14):
Policy Statement B.4
B,~',:!e~'ard. Create economically viable incentives for promoting development of new
tourist oriented uses on private properties fronting Shoreline Boulevard~ within 90
days of adoption of this plan~ The highest and best use ofthese prlme properties is tourist-
related and residential uses - not office or non-tourism related business uses. These prime
properties should be developed with high-rise hotels and residential uses with tourist related
retail uses occupying a majority of the ground floor. Drive-throughs and similar non-tourist
uses should not be permitted on Shoreline Boulevard or the V2 block nearest the bay along
side streets.
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
3. Insert a new policy statement in the Transportation Section (Page 27):
Policy Statement C.13
Promote multi-model transportation~ including bike paths and bike parking.
4. Insert a new policy statement in the Economic Development Section (Page 29):
Policy Statement D.10
The expanded Convention Center and new Arena will be a maior economic stimulus
to the regional economy by bringing in revenue from outside the region. The
primary, goal for the Convention Center and Arena is to operate continuously to
host conventions or other events.
5. Insert a new policy statement in the Economic Development Section (Page 29):
Policy Statement D.11
The City will explore renovation and adaptive reuse of the coliseum. Renovation
appears to be a very cost effective approach as some cost estimates for renovation have
been estimated at $4 to $5 million as opposed to new construction that could cost $20
million or more.
6. Insert a new policy Statement in the Economic Development Section (Page 29):
Policy Statement D.12
Coordinate with Texas A&M University to create a new off-site campus with
student housing in or in close proximity to the South Central Area.
7. Revise Policy Statement E.1 in the Public Services Bayfront Park Section (page 30):
Policy Statement E.1
The City, in partnership with the Downtown Management District, the Port of Corpus
Christi, the Regional Transit Authority and the Metropolitan Planning Organization
will conduct a special community,vide planning process to determine the most
acceptable manner in which to create a bayfront park. A fixed rail trolley with
overhead electrical lines should not be located on the bayfront. Shoreline Boulevard is a
formidable barrier to pedestrians attempting to cross the six travel lanes from downtown to
the bayfront especially during times of large festival events. In addition, large festival events
either block through traffic or reduce the City's ability to operate large convention and arena
events.
The special study objectives are:
· Identify the best location for a permanent festival site;
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
Determine the feasibility of reducing Shoreline Boulevard from six travel lanes to
four taking into account existing and future traffic levels and street improvement
projects;
Determine if traffic calming devices including reduced speed limits and demarcated
pedestrian crossings on the travel lanes should be planned on shoreline Boulevard;
Address the possibility of using Water Street as a relief route for downtown
commuter traffic;
· Make signalized pedestrian crossings one cycle;
· Illustrate the visual impact of views from Shoreline Boulevard to the bay;
Consider the AIA's 2003 concept plan to create a bayfront park, as well as other
plans which have been considered over the last twenty years, e.g. Bayfront Activities
Committee (1985), the Gateway Project of 1996-97, etc.;
Implement a community consensus building process to determine the most acceptable
bayfront park design.
8. Revised Policy Statement E.15 in the Public Services Marina Section (Page 32):
Policy Statement E.15
Protect and promote the Marina primarily for marina uses. Enhanced marina facilities
will include expansion and improvement of the existing Marina facilities. Improvements
should include additional boat slips, both large and small berths, transient and charter boat
slips, restrooms with showers, pump out station and holding tank, fueling station, a ship's
store, laundry, marina offices, etc. A more comprehensive and detailed capital improvement
project list is listed in the Capital Improvements Chapter F.
9. lnsert a new policy Statement in the Public Services Marina Section (Page 33):
Policy Statement E.21
Extend the marina breakwater southward to create a protected sailing area in front
of McGee Beach~ Emerald Beach and Cole Park.
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
ATTACHMENT IV
Agenda, Minutes and Citizen Comments
Special Planning Commission Meeting
On January 22, 2004
AGENDA
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Thursday - January 22, 2004
Bayfront Convention Cenler Room 203b
6:00 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS:
David Berlanga, Chairman
Shirley Mims, Vice Chairman
Neill F. Amsler
Michael Pusley
Elizabeth Chu Richter
Etoy H. Salazar
Richard Smith
Bryan Stone
Robert Zamora
STAFF:
Barbra Bailey, A1CP, Director of
Development Services
Michael N. Gunning, AICP, Assistant
Dir. of Development Serv./Planning Section
Margie C. Rose, Assistant City Manager
Joseph F. Harney, Assistant City Attorney
Robert E. Payne, A1CP, Senior City Planner
Mic Raasch, AICP, City Planner
Willie Pulido, City Planner
Scott Dunakey, City Planner
Si usted quiere dirigirse a la comision y su ingl6s es limitado, habrfi un interprete de espafiol a
ingl6s en la junta para ayudarle.
5:30 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
DOORS OPEN WITH STAFF AVAILABLE FOR
QUESTIONS
II. 6:00 P.M. - 6:05 P.M. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman's opening remarks and introduction of
Stakeholders Group
Ill. 6:05 P.M. - 6:40 P.M. PRESENTATION OF THE DRAFT SOUTH
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
IV. 6:40 P.M. - 7:00 P.M.
BREAKOUT QUESTIONS AND FEEDBACK TIME
During the "break-out questions and feedback" time,
people will be able to go directly to staffed information
tables to find out more about how the Plan addresses:
A. Environment, Land Use and Transportation;
B. Park and Recreation including bayfront and marina
areas;
C. Utilities and Capital Improvements;
D. Economic Development;
E. Planning History.
(Over)
· "Special Planning Commission Meeting - January 22, 2004
South Central Area Development Plan
.January 16, 2004
V. 7:00 P.M. - 8:30 P.M. REGROUP FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS AND
SUGGESTIONS
V. 8:30 P.M.
ADJOURNMENT
POSTING STATEMENT:
This agenda was posted on the City's official bulletin board in the Leopard Street entry foyer,
1201 Leopard Street at AM/PM on ,2004.
Michael N. Gunning, AICP
Assistant Director of Development Services/
Planning Section
Minutes of
Planning Commission Public Hearing
South Central Area Development Plan
Bayfront Plaza Convention Center, Room 203B
January 22, 2004
CALLTO ORDER
The public meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. A quorum was declared with Commissioners
Berlanga, Mims, Pusley, Salazar, Stone and Zamora being present; Commissioners Amsler, Richter, and
Smith being absent.
Chairman Berlanga informed those in attendance that the Draft South Central Area Development
Plan has been presented to several City committees and recognized the stakeholder group which was
instrumental in the creation of the plan. Chairman Berlanga added that the plan would be presented to City
Council on February 10, 2004.
With regard to the public meeting, Chairman Berlanga explained that the public would be able to
discuss specific topics with City Staff during a breakout session. He introduced Michael N. Gunning,
Assistant Director of Development Services/Planning who presented a computerized slide illustration of the
plan and explained its components. Mr. Gunning stated that the plan is a policy plan for development in
the downtown area.
After the presentation by Staff, the public was invited to meet with city Staff at the rear of the
room to ask questions and provide comments. Meeting reconvened at 7:17 p.m.
The public was invited to provide comment for the record.
Johnny Cotton, 410 Peoples, stated that he was excited about the overall concept, but addressed
certain issues such as the Coliseum being preserved. He expressed concern about demolishing old
buildings. He stated that he was interested in the bayfront area which would support the design. Mr.
Cotton also added the trolley idea needs to be examined and overhead lines for the trolley should be
clarified and aesthetically reviewed.
Michael McCutchon, 203 Jackson, stated he has brought regattas to the town. Mr. McCutchon
referenced Policy Statement D-2 as a concern. He stated "residential and hotel" uses are not appropriate in
the area. There is other vacant land that could be used. Mr. McCutchon stated the other uses would be
appropriate as long as the marina uses are preserved.
Marcie Taylor, 5 Hewit~ Drive, expressed similar concerns as Michael McCuthon. She added that
she was also concerned about the lack of parkland. With regard to the seawall, Ms. Taylor was concerned
about the benches on the seawall which block the view of the water. Traffic around the arena is another
concern. She stated she would like access to the Art museum.
Leon Loeb, 924 N. Chaparral, provided written comments. Mr. Loeb stated he has been in the
downtown area since 1978. He referenced Area C emphasizing rehabilitated buildings and suggested the
City research the feasibility of modular housing for infill development. Mr. Loeb stated developers do not
believe the downtown area is profitable and expressed concerned that the plan did not address the urban
residential and general tourism industry.
Kevin Latone, General Manager of Omni Hotel/T. R. Tate Development, stated his concerns were
based on the limitation or lack of use proposed for office development as being non-tourism. One
Shoreline Plaza offers opportunity for hotels, i.e. revenue. Mr. Latone suggested expansion of McGee
beach to the downtown area could be catalyst for economic development. He added he was opposed to the
hotel-motel tax which being maintained once the new arena and Convention Center expansion are
completed.
Planning Commission Public Meeting
Januar) 22, 2004
Page 2
Gretchen Arnold stated she was glad to see that the plan focused on multi-modal traffic. The plan
should identify specific improvements for bicycling in the area.
Tracy Carrillo, Executive Director of the Coastal Bend Bays Foundation, stated the plan needed to
address protection of bay waters. Ms. Carrillo states she appreciated the Storm Water language in the plan,
and that the language also needed to be in the Storm Water Master Plan. She added that the Shoreline
Boulevard realignment needed to accommodate the traffic issue and parkland should be identified as
conservation easement.
Brooke Sween-McGloin, participant in the South Central Area Development Plan stakeholder
group, stated she was supportive of the plan. Ms. Sween-McGloin addressed the Colisuem issue and
requested that the arena should focus on outside conventions, not local. She suggested smaller functions,
such as family parties and weddings, could be held at the coliseum. The trolley is an important issue, and
location is critical because there are safety issues and the trolley should serve a double loaded corridor.
Ms. Sween-McGloin stated she was in favor of the trolley line along Chaparral and Water Street not
Shoreline Boulevard.
Vince Dermis, 4501 Gollihar Road, stated that water is the most valuable asset. Another asset is
the wind which is valuable to sailors. He stated $4 million was received fi.om three regattas last year and
presented a proposal for the breakwater to be extended to Cole Park creating a day-sailing area and
bayfi'ont park expansion.
Johnny French, 4417 Carlton, stated that breakwater could be extended south to protect McGee
Beach. He also suggested that the marina be treated as a park for the landmasses and opposed theme park
development.
Jose Flores, 717 Mohawk, addressed Policy C.I 1 and expressed concern that the grass park being
proposed in fi.ont of seawall would be dangerous to pedestrians and requested that it be relocated.
Bill Grady, 330 Aberdeen, requested that City Staff preserve the bayfront and marina. He
expressed concern with Chaparral Street area was being abandoned. Mr. Grady stated that the City of
Baltimore provided incentives for developers to move downtown. The attraction was mainly to college
students and affluent persons.
Frank Hanklns, 721 Crestview, stated that the marina landmasses does not need anything else put
on them.
Connie Valid, 302 Wavefly, agreed with previous speakers, Mr. French, Ms. Sween-McGloin,
Mr. Flores, and Mr. Hankins. She added she was opposed to overdone landscape and added that the current
bike paths are dangerous.
Rick McCabe, 3706 Panama, stated Texas A & M University was considering extending it's
location to the central area for dolms or university village. He requested that the bayfront and skyline be
protected.
Van Huseman, 600 Building, stated city staff should consider moving small businesses to the
waterfront. He stated the plan has too much of everything, lacks a simple theme and funding sources. The
plan should address the needs of local citizens.
Roy Pell, 5022 Rasputen Court, stated that if a consensus is needed behind the central theme, it
will not happen. He asked the Commission to focus on long range and forward a recommendation to
approve the plan to City Council.
Chairman Berlanga thanked the public for participating in the public meeting and expressing their
comments to City Staff regarding their concerns. He reiterated that the City Council would be acting on the
plan on February 10, 2004.
PlanningCommissionPublicMeeting
January 22,2004
Page 3
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. (~/r) ~
Michael N. Gunning, AICP ~] ~q~ ~ ~ ~.~ Lucind~P. Beal
Assistant Director of Development - -
Recording Secretary
Services/Planning
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
CITIZEN COMMENTS ON
THE SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
1. E-mail from Dr. Grady Blount (member of Museum Advisory Committee)
2. Comments from Mr. Leon Loeb
3. Suggestions and Recommendations from Mr. Trian Serbu
4. Comments from Mr. Johnny French
5. Comments from Ms. Cathy Barnard
6. Comments from Mr. Peter Higgins, Sr.
7. Copies of written comments provided at the Public Meeting on January 22, 2004
Robert Payne - Long term plan on port e~n_tran_ce ........ P~gei I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Grady Price Blount" <blount@sci.tamucc.edu>
<bobp@cctexas.com>
1/9/04 3:48:55 PM
Long term plan on port entrance
Bob:
It was good to meet you and share the presentation you and Michael made to
the CC Museum Board yesterday.
I took the liberty of grabbing one of your base maps to illustrate the point
I was trying to make yesterday. Take a look at the attached file
"b]ount_plan.jpg" to see what I'm talking about. I edited your base map to
show what I describe below.
Basically you have TxDOT dig an auto tunnel at the south end of where the
Nueces Bay causeway is now. That becomes the new entrance to the port by
opening up an area of existing dredge spoil on the northshore of the current
ship channel.
Then you can do a couple of things:
1) Fill and reclaim the land between the Museum and the Aquarium.
2) Remove the Harbor Bridge
3) Extend the Crosstown freeway across the west side of North Beach.
4) Remove the 1-37 "gateway which cuts downtown in half.
5) The area in front of the Ortiz Center is now segregated from the
remainder of the Port and could be set up as a berthing area for cruise
ships.
In the end, all of downtown Corpus is reconnected. We could even extend the
seawall all the way to North Beach.
To me, though I recognize this as a very expensive long-term project, it
seems to hold the potential for transforming and integrating downtown.
-Grady Price Blount
posted by:
Grady Price BIount, Ph.D., Chair
Department of Physical and Life Sciences
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
=================================
**Scanned by McAfee WebShield e500 Appliance**
CC: "Rick Stryker" <ricks@cctexas.com>
Robert Payne- Commen~ On Draft $CADp .... ?~ge 1 I
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
"Leon Loeb" <lloeb@landlord-resources.com>
<bobp@ci.corpus-christi.tx. us>
1/20/04 5:18:53 PM
Comments on Draft SCADP
Bob, here is the letter I said that I would write ... hope it is of some
use.
Leon
921 NORTH CHAPARRAL, SUITE 100. CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78466-6950
(361) 857-8991 ' FAX (361) 881-9797
Janua~ 20,2004
Robert E. Payne
Senior Planner
City of Corpus Christi
1201 Leopard Street
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
RE: South Central Area Development Plan
Dear Bob;
Last month, I promised you some comments on the South Central Area Plan,
and here they are. First, I appreciate and recognize the immense amount
of hard work and public involvement which has gone into this effort. Of
course, as comments, I am going to focus on the matters which don't
correspond to my view of the status quo or appropriate policy for future
action, and omit my comments on the points with which I concur. Please
don't take that as a preponderance of criticism; it's just most
efficient. I agree with most of the statements in the Plan,
Robert Payne - Comments on Draft SCADP . Page 2 ,
The Draft Plan builds upon erroneous premises:
In order to be accepted as useful, any plan must be grounded in reality.
The premises must agree with reality as perceived by the political
decision makers and their constituents. A number of folks would take
issue, and in my view rightly so, with the following statement on page 7
of the draft:
Over the last 10 to 15 years the downtown has emerged from a period of
deterioration and loss of downtown residential and commercial usage to a
healthy and attractive area for new entertainment, commercial, hotel and
office businesses. In the last five years, the downtown has experienced
several new residential redevelopments that are now in high demand. A
series of proactive City Councils, the Downtown Management District and
aggressive downtown property owners are largely responsible for the
resurgence of the Downtown. Some of the small and
large successes over that last 15 years which are now building the
momentum for redevelopment in the downtown include:
· Several major public projects approved by voters in 2001 include:
{{ Convention Center Expansion
{{ New Multi-purpose Arena
{{ New Baseball Stadium
{{ Seawall Repairs
{{ Marina Improvements - includes renovation of bulk heading, slip
repair and additional large boat slips
· Night life entertainment, i.e. restaurant and night club development
in Downtown
· Small retail shops development primarily located on Chaparral Street
· Concrete Street Amphitheater
· Recreational Development of McCaughn Park and old City Hall Site
· Miradores on Seawall
· Selena Memorial
· New Federal Courthouse
· Gateway realignment and landscaping at 1-37 and Shoreline Boulevard.
· Downtown Lighting with retro style lighting standards
Robert Pay_n~ - Com_ments on Draft SCADP ......... P_age
· Corpus Christi Art Center Expansion
· South Texas Art Museum Expansion
· Solomon Ortiz tnternational Center
· Asian Cultures Museum
· Museum of Natural History expansions including the Columbus Fleet
exhibit
· Regional Transportation Authority's Downtown Trolley Cimulator and
Harbor Ferry Systems
· Renourishment of McGee Beach [1]
Would everyone who thinks that the planning area is "a healthy and
attractive area for new entertainment, commercial, hotel and office
businesses" please stand up? There are many who would dispute the
assertion that in recent years the "night life entertainment" and the
"small retail shops" have been in resurgence; rather, they appear to be
in retreat. The overwhelming bulk of capital investment over the past
15 years has, in fact, been public dollars, and it has yet to attract
significant levels of new private capital investment to the planning
area.
Downtown is generally pemeived to be in profound need of attention, and
rather than adding to momentum which is already building, we need to
work to reverse a slide into further deterioration. Recognizing this and
making it a focus of policy is elemental to creating a plan which will
be at all useful. These opening words would encourage an informed reader
to put the document down and waste no more time. I'm sure that we all
have higher aspirations that that, so please consider redrafting the
section to reflect a situation that is more consistent with observation.
The Draft Plan fails to focus on what is needed to attract private
investment capital:
There are many facets to the problems of our Downtown, but the obvious
integration of all of these is that Downtown is perceived by people with
capital to invest as being an unsafe and unprofitable place to invest
their money. When I get up in the morning, I have the choice of what to
do with my time and money. I tend to choose projects that look like
they'll be fun and profitable, with a minimum of hassle and risk. If we
expect Downtown to redevelop, we must measure each public action on the
scale of its success in increasing the prospect of profitability and
decreasing the perception of risk of downtown investment. There is not
a recent history of profitable downtown development, nor is there
, Rob~e_~ Payne ~ Comments on Draft SCADP Page4~
significant growth in demand for residences, offices, and retail space.
Without significant new demand in the market, it is difficult for
Downtown to grab market share.
The Draft Plan fails to demonstrate plausibility:
Planning for redevelopment is inherently more complex and detailed that
planning for peripheral growth of a city. On the edge of the urban
space, growth either occurs or it doesn't. Undeveloped areas remain
undeveloped, and the rate of expansion isn't the metric of success..
Redevelopment planning is inherently more concerned with the rate of
growth and the potential for the planning area to mature in the fashion
envisioned. Failure of the market to provide absorption of redeveloped
urban space spells failure of implementation. Therefore, it is essential
to test the plausibility of a redevelopment plan (and its associated
activity and density expectations) against market metrics to gauge the
plausibility of the strategy's success. What, in quantitative terms,
does the "future land use plan" (and terms such as "much higher density
and intensity") imply for changes in population, employment, building
space utilization, parking, economic activity, and infrastructure?
Within the context of local economics and demographics are these results
plausibly achievable? Can adequate public services be supplied to
support them? Nobody in business embarks on a project without estimating
what "market share" is required to achieve success. What market share
does Downtown need to redevelop in the hoped-for format?
The Draft Plan is not sufficiently specific:
Our downtown is small when considered in the context of major urban city
centers, but large in the context of what our citizens consider walkable
neighborhoods. If sufficient critical mass is to be created to define an
altered sense of place, then policy statements alone don't suffice, and
there is a need to be location specific in planning and the structuring
of regulation and incentive. Existing fixed facilities and activity
patterns must be accommodated and leveraged.
The Draft Plan suggests an attempt to mix incompatible development
styles:
The Plan should be more clear on whether it's direction is the
redevelopment of the South Central Area as a "24/7 neighborhood in which
people live, work, learn, and play" or whether its emphasis is the
addition of "tourist attractions." The American urban landscape sorely
lacks evidence of their compatibility, Some areas attract visitors
because they have "tourist attractions," major facilities which
themselves draw visitors. Examples would be the area around Walt Disney
World in Florida, Las Vegas, etc, On the other hand, communities such
as Santa Barbara, Santa Moeica, and Malibu. California and Naples, Coral
Gables, and Coconut Grove, Florida attract visitors because they are
themselves attractive in the lifestyle and amenities they offer;
Robert Payne - Comments on Draft SCADP iPage ~
visitors come to participate in that local lifestyle. I can't think of
an example of the type of neighborhood envisioned by the draft Plan
chock up against a major tourist attraction (or, for that matter, a
festival site.) We need to look no farther than Corpus Christi Beach to
see the effectiveness of two of Texas' most popular tourist attractions
at creating an attractive neighborhood.
Similarly, there's not much evidence that major public facilities such
as convention centers, arenas, and major performance venues do much good
for their surrounding neighborhoods. The BASP has thirty years under
its belt, and hasn't done much for Irishtown, so far.
My own opinion is that we should focus on the lifestyle aspect, rather
than more "tourist attractions".
The Draft Plan advocates that the City compete with private sector
developers:
For an investor looking for a safe and profitable place to put capital,
the prospect of conversion of Heritage Park to rental retail and
commercial space, and its expansion to the West for more of the same,
isn't exactly warming. If the City's aim in to attract private
investment, making a policy of converting publicly owned real estate to
competitive rental property isn't a good start. Perhaps providing more
incentive for Heritage Park to be used for nonprofit organizations would
be better.
The Draft Plan expresses an unrealistic role for "Urban Design
Standards":
Design Standards for public improvements can give an area a sense of
unity, and should be implemented and encouraged. The Bluff Balustrade,
the Seawall, and the Miradores provide a historical pattern from which
to work. Uniform architectural standards for private development work
in Santa Barbara, where there is a historical architectural vernacular
and where the standards have been in effect throughout recent history; I
doubt that in Corpus Christi, they would be at all useful. We have no
historical vernacular worthy of the name, so imposition of architectural
design standards will certainly deter capital investment and probably
result in a "stage set" look in whatever might be built, and would be
viewed by investors as another hurdle to successful development.
The Draft Plan ignores the economics of land use and parking, and
attempts to substitute regulation for a market:
Given all of the other needs of downtown, it's difficult to understand
i R?bert Payne~- _Comments_ on D_raft SCADp Pa§~
why the excessive use of lots for surface parking is a problem worth
addressing directly. The presence of surface parking in the Downtown
area is a consequence (not a cause) of the need for redevelopment and
indicates several things. First, that there isn't sufficient demand for
either land or parking to justify the cost of parking structures.
Parking structures become economically feasible only when land prices
(per parking stall) exceed the cost of parking structures, and when
shortage of land and parking communicate the need. Surface parking may
well be the highest and best use (that is, the use that affords the
owner the prospect of the highest long-term economic return.) It
doesn't seem likely that the construction of additional parking
structures would make more land available for development at lower
prices, because the utilization (and economic value) of surface parking
already doesn't support owners' notions of value. Those notions are
related to the proximity of downtown to the bay, and not to any rational
integration of the economics of downtown real estate.
The Draft Plan implies that the use of Mass Transit is an independent
goal, and not a tool in the redevelopment process:
Other things being equal, mass transit is a good thing. Where it makes
sense for folks to use it, they do. if it increases their convenience or
significantly reduces cost, they might get on board. In the new cities
of the American West, designed and built (like Corpus Christi) in the
image of the automobile, mass transit remains the crutch of the
mobility-impaired and the mobility-deprived, and few others. In the
redeveloped Downtown we envision, there may be a need or desire for
short-trip transit within the immediate neighborhood; after all, Corpus
Christi isn't really a great place to be outside on all but about 75
days per year. But a number of policy statements begin to sound as
though transit is a solution looking for a problem. For example, there
is not much evidence that short-transit-trip park-and-ride finds much
favor outside the environs of major amusement parks. Remember, the goal
is to plan for the success of the redevelopment as a whole, and not for
the success of transit within it. By making the use of transit a
priority, we may be sacrificing the success of the redevelopment program
in the interest of a political cause. In Downtown Corpus Christi we are
not going to create or support transit demand by limiting parking and
increasing its cost. More likely, the effect will be to reduce
parking-dependent activity.
The Draft Plan proposes a disturbing rezoning:
I'm not a Shoreline Boulevard landowner, but I'm still disturbed by
Policy Statement B.A. 1. which proposes to establish a new zoning
district along Shoreline Boulevard, excluding office buildings and other
"non-tourism related business uses." The concept of "highest and best
use" is an economic one, and not a determination for the City of Corpus
Christi to make. "Most desirable use" is another matter, but even so,
given the current utilization patterns, one would be hard-put to explain
how more desirable tourism and residentially oriented uses are being
squeezed out of the vacant land between Shoreline Boulevard and Water
Robert Pa~yne - Comments on Draft SCAD?
Street. I don't think that the City wants to face the consequences of
what may be compulsory "down-zoning" of Shoreline Blvd. property. By the
way, many parents think that a drive-through fast food restaurant is, in
fact, a "tourist facility!"
The Draft Plan has an unrealistic approach to signs:
Remember that we are dealing with an area in which commercial success
isn't a foregone conclusion; While we all agree that the aesthetics of
the streetscape are important, remember that:
signage is often the only consistent advertising program that
the small retailer or restaurateur can afford;
a plethora of non-uniform signs communicates vibrancy and
activity (something we want to do) and;
the mixed-use urban villages which are the prototypes for Corpus
Christi's downtown redevelopment didn't have much (if any) sign control.
The Draft plan is overprotective of an obsolete street grid:
Think about it; what's magical about the 300' x 300' grid-iron street
pattern we have downtown? Serious redevelopment may require some
projects larger than one block, and do we want, as a matter of policy,
to foreclose the possibility of contiguous tracts of larger than 1.8
acres (a miniscule suburban site)? Once again, let's maximize the
opportunity for successful economics!
The Draft Plan expresses conflicting goals for the Irishtown district:
B.A.22 advocates the creation of a special zoning district North if 1-37
and East of US 181 ("lrishtown") for the encouragement of "high-density
visitor/tourist related uses." Is this consistent with the actual uses
enumerated (bed and breakfast, tourist shops, handy craft shops, art
galleries, sidewalk cafe's, etc) and, is it consistent with maintaining
an in-scale relationship with the surviving historic buildings in the
area and in Heritage Park?
The Draft Plan fails to address required code changes to support infill
residential development in Area "C":
Area "C" contains a large number of isolated single-family [ors.
Redevelopment of these lots in an economically feasible manner may
require the use of high-quality manufactured housing to obviate site
security problems encountered. Given the Iow total project value,
margins are thin, and theft from a construction site can wipe out the
builder's profit margin. Code changes are needed to promote infill
building.
The Draft Plan suggests too much non-water-dependent development in the
Robert Payne - Comments on Draft SCADP _ __ _ Range_8:~- ~
Marina:
The Marina can accommodate boats, amenities for boaters and park users,
and very little else. There aren't many good examples of Marinas which
also accommodate extensive restaurant and entertainment uses. The one
possibility to implement such a plan is the plan to join the two T-heads
into one landmass and remove the Stem of Lawrence.
The Draft Plan places insufficient emphasis on the value of live-aboards
in the Marina:
People living on boats is the fastest, cheapest, and lowest risk way to
build a downtown residential population. The additional infrastructure
investment is miniscule, compared with conventional housing of any kind,
and the resident's investment can be relocated if the location doesn't
turn out to be as good as expected.
The Draft Plan ignores economic reality is boat slip rent levels:
Slip pricing should be dictated by the local market, and not arbitrarily
tied to the "gulf coast." Supply/Demand factors, cost of sites, and
attributes of location vary substantially along the coastline from
Brownsville to Key West. Boat slip rentals shouldn't be "subsidized,"
but neither should they be higher than is dictated by local (Rockport to
Laguna Madre) competition.
One important Marina suggestion:
Any new Marina office should be located and constructed for all-weather
operation, so that storm preparations can focus on Marina (and not
office) tasks.
Thank you for making such a great start at this plan. I appreciate the
chance to make my suggestions, and I hope that they are of some use. Our
Downtown deserves the best planning we can muster, but ultimately the
test of that planning will be the extent to which we can attract the
private capital that makes a plan into reality. If I could make any
single point on in this discussion, it would be for the City to be
acutely sensitive to the factors that affect profitability and risk as
seen by a potential investor. That is the information that will make
this plan, and Downtown, succeed or continue to fail.
i R_°berl Payne.£~_°mments on Draft SCAD?
Sincerely,
Leon Stephen Loeb
LSUhos
[1] Italics are used to identify material quoted from the Draft South
Central Area Plan,
**Scanned by McAfee WebShield e500 Appliance**
CO: <Wayne@clarealtors.com >
SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SUGGESTIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Use robber tire trolleys - much greater flexib'flity and huge cost savings over fixed
track trolleys.
2. Keep Lawrence St. stem - provide additional 24 large boat slips, Keep water access
between T-heads for boat safety.
3. Relocate Columbus ships - create a Columbus Pavilion and ,*,ailing center at existing
Memorial Coliseum. Provide day sailing on Columbus ships. Create a sailing school
4. Keep two way traffic around Art Center - avoids narrow right of way behind gat
Center. Provides better traffic handling around Marina.
5. Remove parking lot between Coliseum and Sherril Park - provides the only large
green space available.
6. Protect and enhance the integrity of Heritage Park.
Trian Serbu
14310 Playa del Rey
Corpus Christi, 78418
Rob~.~t.~aYne - Fwd: Draft Sou? Central A~e~a Deve_lopment Pla_n_ ..... ~ ...... Page
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Michael Gunning
Payne, Robert
1126104 11:08:30AM
Fwd: Draft South Central Area Development Plan
Michael N. Gunning, AICP
City of Corpus Christi/Development Services
Assistant Director of Development Services/
Director of Planning
2406 Leopard Street
P.O. Box 9277
Corpus Christi, TX 78469
* office (361) 826-3570
* fax (361) 826-3590
* e-mail: michaelg@cctexas.com
web: www.cctexas.com
>>> George Noe 1/25/2004 10:52:43 AM >>>
>>> "JFrench" <ifrench~stx.rr.com> 1/23/2004 4:18:22 PM >>>
Dear Mr. Noe:
Please forward this message to Mr. Gunning. I was unable to obtain his email address.
Dear Mr. Gunning:
This expands upon my comments on the Draft South Central Area Development Plan (Plan) at the
January 22, 2004 public hearing.
The City of Corpus Christi should feel fortunate for having such large landmasses, including the L-Head,
T-Heads, and barge dock, in its marina because many of their amenities are today considered non-water
dependent and, as such, very difficult to permit under existing federal regulations. In particular, the
abundant parking spaces, marina offices and yacht club are now almost unheard of in an application for a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers section 10/404 permit. If plans for facilities identical to those currently in
the marina were submitted for review today, state and federal commenting agencies, citing several
long-standing regulations, would undoubtedly recommend not only compensation for unavoidable
environmental impacts, but also the avoidance of others through the removal from the plans of almost all
the buildings and parking spaces on the landmasses. Citing its own regulations regarding impediments to
navigation, I expect the Corps would deny the application unless the landmasses were shrunk to eliminate
those things not essential to a safe and efficient harbor, which is what a marina really is.
The Plan makes note of the needs to improve and expand the marina essentials, like berthing spaces, to
account for anticipated growth of waterborne tenancy, and even observes at Policy Statement E. 16 "that
the existing landmasses are the most expensive, in terms of land value, surface parking lots on the Gulf
coast." Whether this economic valuation is correct or not, it underscores the need to plan for a time when
both the water and the landmasses in the marina are stretched to their capacities by the growth of
water-related uses alone, for it will cost far more to replace the marina with another later than to exclude
retail outlets, restaurants, Ferris wheels, and condominiums from it today. Let the marina be a marina.
A basic flaw in many of the Plan's assumptions is that it treats the marina like any other piece of
developable real estate, when it is in fact an aquatic park. The Plan recognizes that other parks in the
South Central Area, like Blucher Park and the running water "brook" connecting the Art Museum and the
~obe~?ayne - Fwd: Draft South Central Area Development Plan . ?a~e 2~
Water Garden, must be treated differently from other City properties, depending upon the special
amenities they provide the public, and takes pains to preserve their characters from intrusive
developments. One could put a McDonalds in the middle of that brook, just as it could in Blucher Park,
but no amount of revenue thus generated would make up for the aesthetic and environmental losses. By
the same token, no one expects city parks to be revenue neutral. Parks don't "pay their way" in dollars,
but in other coin essential to human well-being, such as relief from the otherwise urban surroundings.
Marinas are parks that provide opportunities to get away from the urban existence in a particularly rare
way, for we have only a handful in this area that permit escape on a water craft, compared to the dozens
of other city parks with terrestrial themes. By all means, charge reasonable fees to recreate at the marina,
but do not ever expect the marina to provide direct economic benefits worth a fraction of its intangible
benefits to the citizens. Let the marina be a marina.
The Plan mentions specific things which are not compatible with a healthy marina. Several of its drawings
still show a landmass at the marina's southern end where South Wharf was proposed. I've spoken out
before and written again in this message about how inconsistent its proposed non-water dependent
facilities would be with current regulations. On page 38, the Plan calls as soon as possible for a master
plan for the marina's North Basin to take advantage of dredged material from the deepening of the Corpus
Christi Ship Channel for improvements such as new land masses, cruise ship berthing, beaches, and
anchorage for large watercraft. Depending onthe details, parts of these improvements mightor might not
be considered water dependent, but it's apparent that neither the land masses nor the beaches are
needed at this time. Furthermore, the marina does need a site to dispose of dredged material from its
own maintenance, so I recommend adding nothing to this burden by importing spoil from the ship channel
The master plan for the North Basin might do better to consider using the marina maintenance material
and/or the material from dredging a berthing or anchorage to create a marsh around Sundown Island on
the Basin's eastern edge. The Plan also recommends placing a barge-mounted stage and the Columbus
Fleet in the marina. The first isn't water-dependent, and the second isn't necessary or appropriate when it
can serve the same purpose on land, as one ship currently demonstrates at the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park. Let the marina be a marina.
I recommend the costly sands of McGee's and Emerald Beachs be protected by moving and extending
the southern end of the marina breakwater even farther than shown in the drawings produced by the AIA
charette. Let the marina be even bigger.
This concludes my comments on the Plan. Thank you for the opportunity to provide them.
Johnny French
4417 Carlton Street
Corpus Christi, TX 78415-5211
853-9331
**Scanned by McAfee WebShield e500 Appliance**
! Rebert_Pay--n_e_7. Fwdi~0--Uth C__enti~l Area DeveloPment Pi~n comment Form Page!
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Susan Cable
Barbara Bailey; Margie Rose; Michael Gunning; Robert Payne
1/27/04 10:44:47 AM
Fwd: South Central Area Development Plan Comment Form
>>> <SusanC@cctexas.com> 01/27/04 10:20AM >>>
The following is the contents of a form submitted on 27-Jan-04 at 10:20 AM:
EMAIL: SusanCC, cctexas.com, FVlady
RECIPIENT: SusanC~,cctexas.com
SUBJECT: South Central Area Development Plan Comment Form
COMMENTSORSUGGESTIONS: I support the City's efforts at planning for the future of the South Central
Area, including downtown and the Bayfrent. I agree with your desire to promote this area for a mix of
residential, tourism, recreation, and commercial/office development.
I have one specific request. Please do not reduce the capacity of Ocean/Shoreline to move vehicles into
and out of the downtown area. This waterfront route is the main avenue of access to our downtown from
the island, the residential areas east of Alameda, and Texas A&M. It is used by thousands of residents on
a daily basis, and to bring our residents into the area for an evening of recreation. With the opening of the
ballpark and the new arena, local demand for access to the downtown and bayfront should increase.
I support more parkland, but not if it promotes traffic congestion and limits access to our downtown.
Any rerouting of traffic along Shorline must preserve at least three lanes of traffic in each direction and
limit the number of stop lights between the colliseum and I 37 access. We must be able to move people
efficienty into and out of our city. Public trolleys are fine, but a person from the island can't use the
downtown trolley to travel to his office or reach the new ballpark. Traffic can be routed away from the
water, but it must be routed somewhere. We must preserve our distinction of having the Feast traffic
congestion of any major city even as we improve our downtown area. Let's not make the same mistakes
that Austin has made... If you block the streets, the cars do NOT go away.
Thank you for your consideration.
NAMEOFCITIZEN: Cathy Barnard
ADDRESSOFCITIZEN: 7201 Sandpiper Circle
Corpus Christi, TX 78412
PHONEOFCITIZEN:
(This email was sent from the ip address: 65.203.178.2)
**Scanned by McAfee WebShield e500 Appliance**
Ci o Co us Christi Ba ront Public Forum
1/22/04
1) Implement an ordinance pertaining to acceptable standards
for managing and maintaining real estate in our community.
Old and dilapidated building in our city, boarded windows,
broken windows trash not being addressed. All issues
pertaining to the loss or depletion of property values to the
entire city. ~ ~c~ ~'~ ~,W/ ////e~//~/~ ,~ c,,~,~-,.~ ,t~.
2) Design several areas in the Bay front for food courts and
cantinas so tourist and local people can visit and enjoy the
beauty of our city.
3) Fountains and waterscapes are not only beautiful but
relaxing adding to our bay front scenic view.
4)
5)
6)
City of flying beauty (NAS). Introduce a kite day gala
weekend. This is designed for families and singles people all
over to come and see our City. The City and local business
as well as national radio. Television and sponsors can grab
and welcome new faces and income to our economy.
Toll road from Padre Island to 77 or 37 for commercial
traffic to relives the pressure from S.P.I.D.
Implement during spring break and sea sculptures a $2.00 fee per car
if they don't have a yearly pass.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Comment: t~zM~L ~x~'t~ ~'~.~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ 0~ ~
Plcasc provide your writlen comment and submit to City Staff at any information tablc.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Please provide your writlen comment and submi! 1o City Staff al any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
(/ ! ~
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Stag at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
South Central .Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
N a me: ~f~J~
Comment:
Address:
Please provide your ~i.en commenl and submit to Ci~ Staff at any info~ation table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Name... ~ ~-----~'~
Comment:
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Comment: ~'l) KIO ~ ~lg~ ~f~ ~ ~)/'- ~ ~ 0v'
p~as'~o~ide y~o'ur"'~'t~n~n~rh~ht and submit to C,ty Staff a'f any informaOon xame.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Comment: 1) Jn~J/..'J'O' ~,u~,~ ~ ig~,~/L - ~
Please provide your ~uen comment and submit to CiW Staffat any info~ation table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Name:
Comment:
Please pro. de your ~en qomment and submit to
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Name:
Please provide yo~ ~en comment and submit to Ci~ Staff at any info~ation
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Comment:
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Ck.~,~ ', 'C~c>.., ~.,(',, ,j ~','~ a,. 0 ',~ ~ ' '"
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Name:
Address:
Coml lentl
Please pi-ovide your written commenl and sub~'~ City Staff at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Comment:
Please provide your ~nen comment 1fid subm~ to Ci~taff at an~nfo~ation table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Comment:
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staffat any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Comment:
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staffat any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Name: /' C,~ Address: i ~ ~ /[lJ ~'fJ
Comment: -~/~, ~f~L/, ~ if';~-~O~ ~-{'~'/d-~)/.,~ /~.~4.~
~ . I . - / · , '/ .' .., : ,, 2 ' '.
Please prowae your wntlen comment ann suo~lt lo a]W Stall at ~ny ~mo~auon t~e.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Address:
· !
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Nnme:
i~mment: ~//n) ~
Address:
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
~ ;:~/:~v"~i~'"
Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Name: --~l-~ OE' ~'~'~qmR<~ Address: ~<~O g-
',/oCt ICiCleS,..~ xIOU~.
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any
s0~th Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form .~'~ ..~
Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Please provide your
written comment and submit to City Staff at'any information table.
~ S0Uth Central A. rea Development Plan ·
~,~ i~ ?:.ii-~!!:,~ 'PUblic Meeting (Janua~ 22~ 2004):
Comment Form ::
Name:
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
NameY~O~/-"~--'~'h Address: ~--~ ~~
Please provide your written comment and submit to City Staff at any information table.
South Central Area Development Plan
Public Meeting (January 22, 2004)
Comment Form
Name:
/
Comment:
. Please provide your ~tte$ comment and~p~it to Ci~ Staff at any info~tion table.. /
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
ATTACHMENT IV
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES
PARK AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Special Called Meeting
October 15, 2003, 5:00 p.m.
City Hall - Basement Training Room
1201 Leopard St., Corpus Christi, TX
Members Present
Members Absent Staff Present
Gloria Aguilar
Anne Baker
Sandra Billish
Clifford Bost
Davie Cissna
Gregory Perkes
Maria Ramos
Megan Welch
Karen Woodard
Dorrinda Garza
Rome Gregorio
Margie Rose
David Ondrias
Linda Hodge
K Chute
II.
III.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair, Sandra Billish called the meeting of the Park and Recreation
Advisory Committee to order at 5:05 p,m.
Because of lack of quorum Roy Peil, Chairman of the Water/Shore Advisory Committee, did
not call their portion of the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS: The recording secretary called the membership roll for the Park
& Recreation Advisory Committee and announced that a quorum was present.
PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE SOUTH CENTRAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN by Robert Payne and Mic Raasch of the City's Planning
Department.
(Greg Perkes arrived at 5:15 pm.)
At 5:42 p.m. Roy Pell, Chairman of the WatedShore Advisory Committee announcedJha~due
to a lack of quorum the Water/Shore Advisory Committee portion of the meeting would not be
held.
The Park & Recreation Advisory Committee received the PowerPoint presentation and
handout titled, Discussion of the South Central Area Development Plan Capital Improvements.
Discussion was held with questions asked and answered.
(Maria Ramos left at 6:03 pm. Anne Baker left at 6:10 pm. Megan Welch left at 6:12 pm.)
Greg Perkes made a motion to endorse the concepts pertinent to the Park & Recreation
Department of the South Central Area Development Plan with the following considerations
made to the handout dated October 15, 2003, titled Discussion of the South Central Area
Development Plan Capital Improvements:
>delete the Long Term Projects suggestion of joining the T-heads and eliminating the stem of
the Lawrence St. T-head.
>delete item #1, regarding traffic control, of the Long Term Projects from the Park &
Recreation section.
>In the same section, item #4, strike the word 'passive' from the recreation park improvements
for Blucher and South Bluff Parks.
>In the same section, item #5, strike the word 'purchase' and use the following, 'possible
expansion of land and connection of' Blucher Park to South Bluff Park emphasizing ADA
compliance and overall maintenance of the area'.
IV.
>The South Bluff Park area could host a small Festival Site.
>Concern is expressed regarding the McGee Beach Amphitheatre.
Clifford Bost seconded. The motion passed.
Michael Gunning, Director of the Planning Department, along with Robert Payne and Mic
Raasch expressed their appreciation for the committee's efforts toward their recent project
presentations.
Clifford Bost expressed concern with the ADA requirements and the City's accommodations.
He requested an agenda item to discuss this topic.
ADJOURNMENT:
Davie Cissna made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:04 p.m. Gloria Aguilar seconded.
The motion passed.
David Ondrias, Acting Director
Park and Recreation
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
Minutes
Regular Meetinq
Water/Shore Advisory Committee
Thursday, October 2~ 2003
Members Present: Tom Anderson (Vice Chairman) (1), Alan Dinn, Dr. Oscar Garcia, Dan
Leyendecker, Dr. Joanna Mott and Roy Pell (Chairman)
Members Absent: Grant Fergeson (1), Steve Moody (1) and Terri Nicolau (1)
Staff Present: Margie Rose, Assistant City Manager, David Ondrias, Acting Director of
Park & Recreation, Peter M. Davidson, Marina Superintendent, Rene Garza, Marina Field
Supervisor and Benita Brunner, Management Aide
South Central Area Development Plan - Mr. Payne requested the Committee's endorsement of the
South Central Area Development Plan which is used to guide other aspects of Capital Improvements,
maximize market opportunities, ensure adequate public facilities, remove barriers to redevelopment,
infrastructure, etc. He reported that in keeping with the established timetable, the Planning
Commission will receive public input at other public hearings scheduled in October, November and
December. Mickey Raasch, Project Planner, commented with regard to the executive summary and
draft plan which address key issues (provision of adequate infrastructure; Marina redevelopment;
fostering downtown residential re-development; Capital Improvements Program; creation ofbayfront
park; improvement projects; beautification of Coopers Alley L-Head; and policy statements
including appropriate use of landmasses. Discussion followed regarding addressing an architectural
theme; making policy statements stronger by using "will" instead of"should"; need for stronger
overall economic development to attract visitors/citizens to downtown/Marina area; need to ad&ess
promotion of boating events and acquiring required amenities to do so e.g. convenience stores; TIF
District; need to embellish section in order to address how relocation of the Corps of Engineers
offices and issues relative to the Nueces County Courthouse are considered economic development;
revising the existing (South/North Basin) list to distinguish between what will be
maintenance/upgrade to current facilities and development required to attract more tourism, boating
events, etc.; need for statement(s) requiring promotion/support for national/international boating
events; having a separate Marina economic development package to include additional slips, sailing
facilities, and expanded work/haul out area that is privately operated, expanded fuel station to
include a ship store, pump out facilities, restaurant/grill, convenience store; seeking a restaurant for
the L-Head; and omitting the need for a swimming pool. Discussion followed regarding the
Committee wanting to delay further action in order to see the further revised plan, established
timelines and having a special called/joint meeting in order to further address the plan. Chairman
Pell suggested that members should submit their comments regarding the plan to Mr. Payne as soon
as possible.
FROM :TRAFFIC ENGINEERING FP~X NO. ;56188~5545 Feb. 02 2084 12:l?PM P2
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMM~ I itE
MZNUTES
(Meeting of October 27, 2003)
Mo~bera Pret~nt
· Pre~ent
Anthony Ale~andm and Grace Made Gonzales
camm TO ORDER- ~r~ce Chairperson Sher, in the absence a~ Chair~n Alejandm, c~Bed meeti~ to
order at 1:35 p.m.
APPROVAL OF '*HXNUTES" - Vice Chairpers~ Shem' oalled for approval of mlnut~es I'm
September 22, 2003. MoUofl made and seceded to approve minutes as presented,
HOHTtlLY TRA~C FATAL.rl7 REPORT (ATTACHMENT 'A~ - Capt. MacDonak~
been a b~b~d af twenty-two (22) fatalities to date.
[ATTACHMENT
A~ up 3%;
In response to Mr. Sher's request for DWI laws Ulat have c
September 1~ 2003:
Capt. IV~ld stated that fines for first offense Is ! for the next three
(3) years; 2n" offense Is $2000/year for driver'~ lime (3) y~ars and third offefme;
$3000 for the next three years, is a definite ir)crease fn minor
DUI. Minor profile for DUI Is 19 - 20 yeas This a major problem throughout the city and
surrounding counties.
RECOGNIl'~ON of Audience/Public
not scfleduled on Agenda.
Mr. Brant Moore v
propased tmlllc
In ear~
Phase 2~
;llomline Boulevard Traffic Re-routing on Seawall -
Shiner Moselay and A~dates, Inc. gave a brief ~ on Ute
cor~ schedule for the Seawall Rein Project.
:he overall seawall project schedule which began in latter 2000 and ends
condlUons were shown and Phase I of the Traffic Control Plan.
Plan General Schedule was shown along with tile Pl~se 3 TralT~
entire seawall reconstruction Ixoject;, time/co~c and safety Issues incorporated into
Plan and finally the acceptance of overall TCP enables final design and
remain on schedule.
Motion made by Mr. Foster, seconded by Mr. Seiler to endorse the Seawall Project. Motion
passed.
FROM :TRAFFIC ENGINEERING FAX NO. :56188~55~5 Feb. 0~ ~ 12:1?PM P5
Staff recommendation to approve Harb~ Bridge Bicycle Event for September, 2004
if all cc~ttlons are met.
Ms. G~ub.],en Arnold representing the Coq~s Chr~ Chamber of Corzner~ and Taxa5 ASd~
University Tarpon Foundation Bicycle Event stated that the event Is to take place Saturday,
September 25, 2004 in c~xljunction with Bayfest. The event vail begin and end at Bayfront
Plaza/Visitor Center area with two ~cles: 2S mile Ocean Drive b~n:le ride and 65 mile Bay Tour
bicycle ride. The following isa I~ of requirements induded as part of the Parade Permit for this
event: Complete Implementation of the TxOOT/City Traffic Control Plan; Hire an approved
con~'actor to se( our the traffic control devices on b~ bridges - Nueces Bay Causeway and .1FK
Causeway and SH 361; Pay 50% police overlJme. Pmhibrc suppor~ vehicles (chase vehicles) from
stopping or delaying trafr~: on the bridge or causeway exce~ to pick up injured bicyd~ or non-
functional bike; require all paKcldpants to use helmets; require co~ medical emergency
vehicles to pa~ol route; require minimum age of participants to be 16 years or older to part,pate
in the 65 mile Bay Tour and General Uablllty Insurance $1,000,00 minimum limit. CiLy to be
named addlUonal Insured. Waivers are required to be signed by each partidpant~ Waiver form
will sl~te that city and TxDOT are to be held ha~nh~ss.
Hot,on made by Mr. To~es, seconded by Mr. Seller to approve Harbor Brklge Blcyde Went w~l
atl co~ditJons to be met. Motion passed.
Endomement of SouUt Central De~etopment Plan (Dowl~own Area) - An dement of
the Comprehen~ive Plan
Mr. Bob Payne, Planner wl~ the City's Ptanning Department stated that the in~ p~anning and
design should be consistent with the Comprehens~e ~lan. Promote a unkquely albactive atmosphere
for small and la~ tourist attraddons. Empha~ze conflict-flee pedestrian con~lc~ and pathways
to enhance connectJons betweerl downtown and uptown, the ba~ront and ~ Bayfrc~t Arts and Science
and future land uses ~ emphasis on unifying the dcaat~own, uptow~ bayfront, the Baytlont Nts and
5den~ Park (~ASP), Texas S'mb, Aqua,urn Cr~A), and the expanding c~mmercial/publ~complex at the
Port of Corpus ChrisU. preserve a~d enhance public a,~e~. __s and recreational opportuniUes along the
Bayfmnt. Haximize redevelopment opportunities for the Central Business District, ~ BASP, and the
Part. Encourage a high level of urban design czmsiste~T and c~-~trucUo~ standards for public s pace~
and fad#Ues to promote reskle~tlat and touriri-oriented development. Recognize the unique role c~ the
Dowr. b:~m Management Dist~ct and the Regional TransportatJon Authority In promoting developing and
enhandng the _,~:~__nomy of the Downtown and encourage a dynamic proce~ gNing great latitude in
mar~ging its area of resl~ndrality.
HoUon made by Mr. Seller, ~oonded by PV, C Ba~neit to endorse ¢lraft plan for Downtown Area W~
inclusions suggested by Committee.
VX, DXSCUSS~ON XTEHS -
None scheduled for this month
CITY TRAFFZC ENGZNEER'S REPORT
Curtis Clark I~jve/South 5tal~es Street PetltJon * Des~n Engineer Mary Frances Tentiente stated
stuff rece peueon handed out to Comma ee du ng mee ng. ResklentS/Buslnesses
relayed their frustrations to Staff, who in turn have asked traffic e~gineerlng to conduct studie~
wh~h expect to be eonduded in mkl- November, 2003. She furlJ~er staled South Simples b
presently under construcUon to be extenc~ed to Williams and is part of futura subdivision
development
Mr. SeiJer asked that Staff present to the TAC Committee findings of the South Staples/Curtis
Clark Drive study.
c~P ~t~ ~ pdor~es - Follow-up on expressed interest to Involve and IncJude the TAC Input in
City of Corpus Christi
January 20, 2003
To~
David Berlanga
Planning Commission
From:
Rick Stryker
Museum of Science and History
Subject: Feedback on the South Central Development Plan
Michael Gunning, Director of City Planning and Senior Planner Bob Payne presented
the South Central Development Plan to the Museum Advisory Committee on January
8, 2004. The Committee asked that I forward their concerns and input to Mr.
Gunning and the Planning Commission.
A. Parking
1- Parking for the Museum is inadequate. Of greatest concern is the need to replace
bus parking which was largely eliminated by the Ortiz Center Development.
2- The Committee expressed the concern that parking capacity on the Barge Dock
was sharply reduced due to the access provided for RTA buses connecting to the
Water Taxi stop. This further erosion of parking in the area is not good.
B. Street Access
1 - The Port of Corpus Christi has developed a plan that would eliminate the traffic
circle in front of the Museum. This elimination would make bus access to the
Museum more difficult, especially school buses whose final destination is the
Museum.
2- Vehicular access to the Museum was further reduced with the elimination of traffic
under the convenlion center. Vehicular access from Shoreline through the
Watergarden and two-way traffic on Mesquite east of the old courthouse should be
restored. Also, improvements to Port are needed to allow better access.
3- The plan calls for placing greater emphasis on Brewster (over Resaca) as the
connection between Shoreline and Chaparral. Without careful planning including
signage, street reconfiguration, etc, route changes will make it even more difficult for
tourists to find the museums.
C. Connection to Corpus Christi Beach
Consideration ought to be given, long term, to changing the Port entrance to Nueces
Bay, making it possible for there to again be a land connection to Corpus Christi
Beach.
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
ATTACHMENT VI
POWER POINT PRESENTATION
Draft South Central Area
Development Plan
an Element of the Corpus Christi Comprehensive Plan
Presentation Outline
Summary of January 22, 2004 Meeting
• Location
• Attendance
• Public Comments
rm Follow up Planning Commission Public Hearing
and Action on January 28, 2004
Commission Recommended Changes to the Draft
Plan
February 10, 2004
Draft South Central
Area Development Plan 2
Community Meeting
Bayfront Convention Center with approximately
150 People attending.
Engineering, Park and Recreation, Management
and Budget, Development Services, and several
other Departments were represented.
0 An interactive meeting format
Public Comment
February 10, 2004
Draft South Central
Area Development Plan 3
Community Meeting
Bayfront Convention Center with approximately
150 People attending.
Engineering, Park and Recreation, Management
and Budget, Development Services, and several
other Departments were represented.
0 An interactive meeting format
Public Comment
February 10, 2004
Draft South Central
Area Development Plan 4
Recommended Changes to the Plan
1, POLICY STATEMENT B.2 — PLANNING
AREA A (Page 14):
The highest priority for creation of activities on the
bavfront are activities that benefit the citizens of
Cornus Christi and that take advan
e of the
unique natural amenities of the bayfront, inclu
wind, water and temperate climate.
February 10, 2004
Draft South Central
Area Development Plan 5
Recommended Changes to the Plan
2. Reword Policy Statement BA — Area A
Boalevard Create economically viable
incentives for promoting development of
new tourist oriented uses on private
properties fronting Shoreline Boulevard,
within 90 days of adoption of this plan.
of these prime properties
tourist -related
residential uses.
Draft South Central
February 10, 2004 Area Development Plan
Recommended Changes to the Plan
3. Insert a new policy statement in the
Transportation Section (Page 27):
Policy Statement C.13
Promote multi -model transportation,
including bike paths and bike parking
Draft South Central
February 10, 2004 Area Development Plan 7
Recommended Changes to the Plan
+ 4. Insert a new policy statement in the
Economic Development Section (Page 29):
Policy Statement D.10
The expanded Convention Center and new
Arena will be a major economic stimulus to
the resional economi
in
revenue from outside the region. The
primary goal for the Convention Center
and Arena is to operate continuously to
host conventions or other events.
Draft South Central Mirld
February 10, 2004 Area Development Plan 8
Recommended Changes to the Plan
Insert a new Dolicv statement in
Economic Development Section
Policy Statement D.11
renovation
Renovation
vs new construction appears to be a very cost
effective approach as some cost estimates for
renovation have been estimated at $4 to $5
million as opposed to new construction that
could cost S20 million or more.
February 10, 2004
Draft South Central
Area Development Plan
Recommended Changes to the Plan
6. Insert a new policy Statement in the
Economic Development Section (Page 29):
Policy Statement D.11 )
Coordinate with Texas A&M University to
create a new off-site campus with student
housing in or in close proximity_ to the South
Central Area.
February 10, 2004
Draft South Central
Area Development Plan 10
Recommended Changes to the Plan
7. Revise Policy Statement E.1 in the Public
Services Bayfront Park Section (page 30):
An additional sentence is proposed to be
added to Policy Statement E.1
A fixed rail trolley with overhead electrical
lines should not be located on the bayfront.
Related
• bullet ■ be
deleted
••
i
wi , •
�k
February 10, 2004
Draft South Central
Area Development Plan 11
Recommended Changes to the Plan
8. Insert a new policy Statement in the
Public Services Marina Section (Page 33):
Policy Statement E.21
Extend the marina breakwater southward
to create a protected sailing area in front of
McGee Beach, Emerald Beach and Cole
Park.
Draft South Central
February 10, 2004 Area Development Plan 12
Draft South Central Area
Development Plan
an Element of the Corpus Christi Comprehensive Plan
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
ATTACHMENT VII
DRAFT SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN -
FEBRUARY 10, 2004
SOUTH CENTRAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
An Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
Draft Update
February 10, 2004
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page I11
SOUTH CENTRAL
AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Supersedes the Plan
approved by City Council
Ordinance 022166, February 28, 1995, which amended the original Plan adopted by
City Council Resolution #021169, on May 21, 1991
The preparation of this document was financed in part by a Community Development Block Grant from the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and a Metropolitan Planning Organization
grant from the Federal Highway Administration.
Corpus Christi City Council
2003
Mayor Loyd Neal
Melody Cooper Jessie Noyola
At Large District 3
Henry Garrett Javier Colmenero Rex Kinnison
At Large District 2 District 5
Brent Chesney Bill Kelly Mark Scott
At Large District I District 4
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page IV
Shirley Mires, Vice chair
Robert Zamora
Corpus Christi Planning Commission
November 19, 2003
David Berlanga, Chairman
Elizabeth Chu Richter Eloy Salazar
Richard Smith Bryan Stone
Nell[ F. Amsler
Michael Pusley
South Central Area Stakeholders Group
Norma Urban
Bunny Arnim
Brad Lomax
Gordon Landreth
Tim Clower
Wayne Lundquist
Dusty Durrill
Larry Urban
Elizabeth Chu Richter
Brooke Sween-McGloin
David Seller
Tom Niskala
Greg Brubeck
Bert Quintanilla
Roy Pell
Linda Hodge
Neill Amsler
Mohammad Farhan
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 1
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 2
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 4
POPULATION AND EXISTING LAND USE ......................................................................... 5
PLANNING PROCESS ............................................................................................................. g
STAKEHOLDER AND CITIZEN INPUT ................................................................................ g
PLANNING ISSUES ................................................................................................................. 9
MISSION STATEMENT ........................................................................................................... 9
PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 9
A. ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................. 12
B. LAND USE ............................................................................................................................ 13
AREA A: BAYFRONT AND DOWNTOWN LAND USE POLICIES ................................. 14
AREA B: UPTOWN OFFICE AND GOVERNMENTAL CENTER ..................................... 20
AREA C: SOUTH BLUFF AREA ........................................................................................... 21
C. TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................................ 24
D. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................ 2g
E. PUBLIC SERVICES .............................................................................................................. 30
PARKS ..................................................................................................................................... 30
BAYFRONT PARK .............................................................................................................. 30
FESTIVAL PARK ................................................................................................................ 30
BLUCHER AND SOUTH BLUFF PARKS ......................................................................... 31
BLUFF BALUSTRADE ....................................................................................................... 32
DOWNTOWN PARKS ......................................................................................................... 32
MARINA ............................................................................................................................... 32
PUBLIC FACILITIES .............................................................................................................. 33
UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................ 34
WATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................................. 34
WASTEWATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 34
STORMWATER SYSTEM ............................................................................................... 34
OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ........................................................... 35
F. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS ................................................................................... 36
UTILITIES ............................................................................................................................... 36
MARINA .................................................................................................................................. 36
SHORT RANGE NEEDS ..................................................................................................... 36
MEDIUM RANGE PROJECTS ........................................................................................... 37
LONG RANGE PROJECTS ................................................................................................. 38
NORTH BASIN .................................................................................................................... 3g
BAYFRONT ............................................................................................................................. 38
PARK AND RECREATION .................................................................................................... 39
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .............................................................................................. 39
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ...................................................................................... ,40
TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT ................................................................................... 40
G. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................ 42
South Central A rea Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 3
FIGURES
FIGURE 1: SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN STUDY AREA ................... 5
FIGURE 2: EXISTING LAND USES 1N THE SOUTH CENTRAL AREA ............................... 6
FIGURE 3: SUB-AREA BOUNDARY MAP ............................................................................ 11
FIGURE 4: FUTURE LAND USE .............................................................................................. 13
FIGURE 5: PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN .......................................... 19
FIGURE 6: FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLAN .................................................................. 25
TABLES
TABLE 1: 2000 CENSUS POPULATION AND HOUSING ......................................................5
TABLE 2:2002 EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGE ................................................................. 7
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: ISSUES REPORT ........................................................................................... :.. 44
APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL PLANS AND STUDIES ........................................................... 57
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 4
South Central Area Development Plan
INTRODUCTION
The Comprehensive Plan is mandated by the City Charter.
It requires the City Council to "...establish comprehensive
planning as a continuous governmental function in order to
guide, regulate, and manage future development..." and,
that "all city improvements, ordinances, and regulations
shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan."
The Comprehensive Plan is a product of various plan titles
such as Policy Statements, Area Development Plans,
Capital Improvement Programs, and Master Utility Plans.
The comprehensive planning process is a means whereby
citizens and community leaders guide community
development. The Comprehensive Plan, by definition, is
general, long range, and broad in scope. To help formulate
the Comprehensive Plan, City Council divided the city and
its environs into 10 Area Development Plan (ADP) study
FLOUR
VIOLET BLUFF
WEST
SIDE
~, I~USTAN6
SOIJTHSIDE 'ADRE
iSLAND
Development plans for these areas will help resolve basic issues such as zoning and platting of properties,
allocation of public services and facilities contained in the Capital Improvement Programs, and other area
specific issues. In any case, follow-up programs are needed to implement the many policies in the Plan.
Implementation of these plans will help assure the most appropriate land development and provision of public
services.
Coordination of the Capital Improvement Plan, various Area Development Plans, and day-to-day actions of
line agencies responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Plan, will result in more cost effective
development and tax dollar savings.
The South Central Development Plan Area, located south of the ship channel, was originally part of a larger
CenO'al ADP area which included the Corpus Christi Beach area north of the ship channel. The "Central Area"
was separated into "north" and "south" study areas to expedite formulation of a plan for the Corpus Christi
Beach area when the Texas State Aquarium was being planned for development.
The South Central study area embraces the downtown, uptown, waterfront, and is bordered by the Ship
Channel to the north; Corpus Christi Bay to the east; Morgan Avenue to the south; and Crosstown
South Central Area Development Plan
February i O, 2004
Page 5
Expressway/West Broadway to the west. (Figure 1). Historically, this area has been the most planned area of
the City. A bibliography of many of these plans is attached to the South Central Area Development Plan as an
appendix.
FIGURE 1: SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN STUDY AREA
Plnn
.,~Oorpus Ch*lstl Ship Channel
Corpus
Christi
· Studg Area
Bounda Nlap
POPULATION AND EXISTING LAND USE
According to the 2000 Census, the South Central area contains 7,270 residents and 3,111 housing units. The
South Central area has experienced a significant decline in population over the last 40 years. In addition, the
area has experienced a major exodus of retail businesses since the 1970s. The original South Central Area
Development Plan (1991) identified the decline in resident population and retail businesses as major areas of
concern.
TABLE 1:2000 CENSUS POPULATION AND HOUSING
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Population 12,567 9,020 8,312 7,906 7,270
Housing Units 5,072 3,895 3,591 2,941 3,111
South CentralAreaDevelopment Plan
February 10,2004
Page 6
FIGURE 2: EXISTING LAND USES IN THE SOUTH CENTRAL AREA
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 20~4
Page 7
TABLE 2:2002 EXISTING LAND USE ACREAGE
Land Use Acrea~le %
Low Density Residential 127.0C 11°/,
Medium Density Residential 78.3.' 7°/,
High Density Residential 8.2.~ 1o/
Professional Office 65.2; 6%
Commercial 165.60 15%
.ight Industrial 15375 14%
-leavy Industrial 4.91 0%
~ark 36.86 3%
~ublic Semi Public 199.93 18%
3rainage Corridor 4.10 0%
:~ight of Way 17.72 2%
Vacant 243.63 22%
rotal 1,105.33 100°A
Over the last l0 to 15 years the
downtown has emerged from a period
of deterioration and loss of downtown
residential and commercial usage to a
healthy and attractive area for new
entertainment, commercial, hotel and
office businesses. In the last five
years, thc downtown has experienced
several new residential
redevelopments that are now in high
demand. A series of proactive City
Councils, the Downtown Management
District and aggressive downtown
property owners are largely
responsible for the resurgence of the
Downtown. Some of the small and
large successes over that last 15 years
which are now building the
momentum for redevelopment in the
downtown include:
· Several major public projects approved by voters in 2001 include:
O Convention Center Expansion
O NewMulti-purpose Arena
o New Baseball Stadium
o Seawall Repairs
o Marina Improvements - includes renovation of bulk heading, slip repair and additional large boat
slips
· Night life entertainment, i.e. restaurant and night club development in Downtown
· Small retail shops development primarily located on Chaparral Street
· Concrete Street Amphitheater
· Recreational Development of McCaughn Park and old City Hall Site
· Miradores on Seawall
· Selena Memorial
· New Federal Courthouse
· Gateway realignment and landscaping at 1-37 and Shoreline Boulevard.
· Downtown Lighting with retro style lighting standards
· Corpus Christi Art Center Expansion
· South Texas Art Museum Expansion
· Solomon Ortiz International Center
· Asian Cultures Museum
· Museum of Natural History expansions including the Columbus Fleet exhibit
· Regional Transportation Authority's Downtown Trolley Circulator and Harbor Ferry Systems
· Renourishment of McGee Beach
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 8
Other significant projects that may come to fruition are economic development of the marina landmasses,
the South Wharf Project proposal, relocation of the Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the
replacement of Harbor Bridge.
PLANNING PROCESS
The planning process for the South Central Area Development Plan consists of the following steps:
1. Staff formulates planning process and schedule for plan update and begins inventory of land use,
infrastructure, etc.
2. Creation of South Central Plan Stakeholder Group consisting of Downtown Management District,
business and property owners and private and public entities with significant interests in Central
Area and City Staff.
3. Staff and Stakeholders Group identifies issues of concern in the South Central area and produces
Issues Report.
4. Staff drains Plan to address issues of concern.
5. Staff presents draft Plan to Stakeholder Group and respective City Committees and other
interested organizations for input.
6. Staff revises draft Plan based on input received.
7. Staff presents draft Plan to Stakeholder Group for review and comment. Staff revises draft Plan
based on Stakeholder Group input.
8. The draft Plan presented to Planning Commission for public hearing input. The Planning
Commission may recommend revisions to draft and then recommends City Council approval of
Plan.
9. The revised draft Plan presented to City Council for public hearing input. The draft Plan revised
based on recommendation by Council and Plan is approved.
STAKEHOLDER AND CITIZEN INPUT
A primary goal of the planning process is to obtain input from citizens interested in the South Central Area and
from stakeholder groups. Stakeholder groups and professions that have been involved in the planning process
include:
Downtown Management District
Chamber of Commerce
Regional Transportation Authority
Convention and Visitors Bureau
Port of Corpus Christi
Metropolitan Planning Organization
Landmark Commission
Water Shore Advisory Committee
Architects
Engineers
Commercial Realtors
Restaurateurs
Property Owners
Residents
City Staff e.g. Engineering Services, Park and Recreation, Marina, Public Works (Utilities),
and Development Services.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 9
PLANNINGISSUES
The identification of the major issues related to the South Central Area was primarily derived from several
meetings with the Stakeholders Group. The Issues Report (Appendix I) identifies the major issues determined
by the Stakeholders Group. Staff used those issues as a primary basis in formulating the draft South Central
Area Development Plan.
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of the South Central Area Development Plan is to facilitate redevelopment of the South Central
Area over the next 20 years for creating a thriving central area neighborhood community in which to live,
work, play, raise a family, invest and visit. The City will focus on implementing the City's South Central Area
Development Plan in order to promote an exciting central business district, revitalized inner neighborhoods,
expanded economic opportunities, and many more choices for recreation and entertainment, from outdoor
activities ranging from sports to cultural events with in the area.
PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The guiding goals and objectives for the entire City, ETJ, and all Area Development Plans including the South
Central Area are contained in the Policy Statements adopted by the City Council in 1987.
The policies encompassed by this Plan address not only current issues, but needs that the City and South
Central residents, property owners, and businesses perceive will become pressing in future years. Recognizing
that not all suggested implementations will take place immediately, it is important to foresee and note problems
and opportunities, and develop a long term strategy to address them.
The goals, objectives, and policies of this plan are consistent with the Bayfront Plan adopted in 1982 and
amended in 1984, and the Project Plan for Reinvestment Zone No. 1 adopted in 1983. This plan supersedes all
previous City plans for this area except for the Reinvestment Zone Project Plan which shall remain in force
until State law provides for the termination of Reinvestment Zone No. 1. In addition, this plan is an update to
the original South Central Area Development Plan adopted May 21, 1991 and later updated in February
28,1995.
Key goals, objectives, or policies of the Plan are printed in bold print. However, for a full understanding of
each policy statement, refer to the entire text of that policy statement.
The specific goal of the City and South Central Area Development Plan is to promote the South Central Area
as a place of great vitality, with a mix of educational, residential, retail, office, service, government, arts and
cultural, and entertainment development. The health and vitality of the area can contribute in a major way to
the city, its local and regional image, and quality of life. It is a place where residents can live, work, learn, and
play in the same neighborhood. A fully revitalized South Central Area will need a resurgence of residential
and retail development activity. While a resurgence of retail activity has occurred during the last decade,
resident population growth is needed to sustain and fully realize the retail commercial development potential in
the central business district.
Principal objectives of the Plan include:
· Sufficient Infrastructure Capacity Infrastructure planning and design should be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan. Foremost of the principal objectives determined during the planning
process was the critical need to continue immediate and short term improvements to the downtown
stormwater system to prevent a repeat of the damages to businesses which occurred during several
rain events in 2002. Other critical infrastructure needs include significant improvements to the
wastewater and street systems.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 10
24/7 Neighborhoods - Promote a uniquely attractive atmosphere for small and large-scale tourist
attractions. Propose appropriate land use, with emphasis on increasing residential density and business
intensity in the Central Business District.
Pedestrian Friendly District - Emphasize conflict-free, ADA accessible pedestrian district to
enhance connections between downtown and uptown, the bayfront, the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park, and outlying areas, and maximize use of public areas. Create shade from sun and shelter from
wind through structures, trees and palm plantings, and landscaping on private property and in public
right of way.
Transportation network - Design transportation network and services to serve existing and future
land uses with emphasis on unifying the downtown, uptown, bayfront, the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park, Texas State Aquarium, and the expanding commercial/public complex at the Port of Corpus
Christi. Promote efficient use of existing parking facilities balanced and coordinated with enhanced
transit services and other intermodal choices in the Central Business District, Bayfront Arts and
Science Park, and the Bayfront.
Parks and Recreation - Preserve and enhance public access and recreational opportunities along the
Bayfront. Enhance public spaces and pedestrian movement in the area between 1-37 and the ship
channel, and establish a clear and functional entryway to the Bayfront Arts and Science Park (BASP).
Develop a Festival Park (or Parks). Expand Heritage Park to the east and west and promote pedestrian
movement to, and through, the park grounds free from vehicular conflict.
Economic Development - Maximize redevelopment opportunities for the Central Business District,
the BASP and the Port. Provide for economic development and expansion of the existing Marina
possibly including a public beach, cruise ship berths, anchorages, and commercial development in the
North Marina.
Unique Quality of District - Encourage a high level of urban design consistency and construction
standards for public spaces and facilities to promote residential and tourist-oriented development.
Incorporate urban design elements which are sensitive to the large number of historic structures and
districts in the CBD (e.g. Bluff Balustrade, the historic 1914 County Courthouse, Furman Avenue,
and Downtown) and the Bayfront.
Downtown Management District - Recognize the unique role of the Downtown Management
District, Regional Transportation Authority and Port of Corpus Christi in promoting development and
enhancing the economy of the Downtown and encourage a dynamic process giving great latitude for
these entities in managing their areas of responsibility.
Since the late 1980s the Central Business District has experienced a revival that is continuing today. The City
is committed to continuing this revival and making the Central Business District of the future a place of major
public and private facilities of the highest quality.
This Plan is a proactive redevelopment strategy, to maximize market opportunities, assure adequate public
facilities, and remove barriers to redevelopment. Capitalizing on the market potential of the Central Area, the
City's role must not be only one of regulator, but one of partner and active participant. The key to this role is to
achieve community consensus on what should occur in the area, then to aggressively pursue this common
vision.
Many of the detailed policies in the following sections related to the entire study area while some of the policy
statements pertain to one of the sub Areas illustrated on Figure 3.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 11
FIGURE 3: SUB-AREA BOUNDARY MAP
A
IF--1
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 12
A. ENVIRONMENT
POLICY STATEMENT A.I
Pollution prevention devices should be incorporated into stormwater outfalls to capture
floating debris, sediments and other pollutants before entering the Bay system. Dozens of
stormwater outfalls are located along the bayfront which deposit large volumes of floating debris
and other urban pollutants along the seawall, beaches and shoreline areas.
POLICY STATEMENT A.2
All public and private construction should be in accordance with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Compliance with these standards will ensure continued availability
of flood insurance to the community through the National Flood Insurance Program.
POLICY STATEMENT A.3
While preserving or increasing drainage capacity, the City will protect the flowing stream in
Blucher Park which is overwhelmed during major rain events. Stonnwater retention or
detention facilities will be needed for drainage improvements in this area. They will not cause higher
water levels in the park than presently experienced and will shorten the time of flooding. Where
ever possible, the perennially flowing stream should be retained in its natural state and any
channelization should be minimized.
POLICY STATEMENT A.4
Maintain the one-mile minimum distance from the shoreline for any petroleum drilling
operations.
South Central A rea Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 13
B. LAND USE
POLICY STATEMENT B.I
The City Council hereby adopts the Future Land Use Plan map and the accompanying text
as a guide for future land use decisions (see Figure 4). Thc intent of the future land use and
development plan is to encourage high intensity mixed use development and civic oriented
development of the highest order within the South Central Area. Thc plan provides guidance for
future land use including rezoning, platting, fiscal management, and capital improvement planning.
Specific policies for the various South Central Areas are grouped into sub-areas as illustrated in
Figure 3.
FIGURE 4: FUTURE LAND USE
IIIIII
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 14
AREA A: BAYFRONT AND DOWNTOWN LAND USE POLICIES
POLICY STATEMENT B.2 - PLANNING AREA A
The highest priority for creation of activities on the bayfront are activities that benefit the citizens of
Corpus Christi and that take advantage of the unique natural amenities of the bayfront, including wind~
water and temperate climate.
POLICY STATEMENT B.3 - PLANNING AREA A
Promote a mix of tourist, retail, entertainment, residential, and civic uses in the Bayfront and
Downtown Business District. The City should encourage a much higher density and intensity of uses than
currently exists in Planning Area A. Development potential for Area A, will depend on a mutually supportive,
planned, and coordinated effort between private development and public service entities, of which the
provision of adequate utility infraslructure has become of paramount importance (See Public Service Section).
Special lighting, signage, landscaping, and street furniture should be used to help visually and functionally
integrate public and private development projects.
POLICY STATEMENT B.4 - Planning Area A
economically viable incentives for promoting development of new tourist oriented uses on private
properties fronting Shoreline Bouleva rd~ within 90 days of adoption of this plant The highest and best use
of these prime properties is tourist-related and residential uses - not office or non-tourism related business
uses. These prime properties should be developed with high-rise hotels and residential uses with tourist-
related retail uses occupying a majority of the ground floor. Drive-throughs and similar non-tourist uses
should not be permitted on Shoreline Boulevard nor the ½ block nearest the bay along side streets.
POLICY STATEMENT B.5 - Planning Area A
Increase the number of housing units and achieve higher housing densities in the Downtown Area.
Incentives should be established, including financial and regulatory, to promote significant increases of quality
residential development and compatible mixed uses in the CBD and surrounding residential neighborhoods
e.g. conversions to lo~ apartments, specialty grocery stores, "liveaboard" facilities in the marina, and other
residential serving uses and to create a sense of community in the Central Area.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 15
POLICY STATEMENT B.6 - Planning Area A
Pursue designation of Downtown as a targeted area within the Corpus Christi Housing Finance
Corporation's Mortgage Credit Certificate Program if Federal requirements can be met. This would
eliminate the first time buyer requirement and increase the home purchase price limitations.
POLICY STATEMENT B.7 - Planning Area A
Encourage the Downtown Management District and City Staff to develop residential loan guarantee
program proposal. The proposal should include possible foundations that could provide seed money and
guidelines for guaranteed loans.
POLICY STATEMENT B.8 - Planning Area A
In order to create a significant resident population in the area, the City should consider incentive
programs making residential development and redevelopment more attractive to property owners. Such
program might provide Community Block Grant Funds (CDBG) for low interest loans, tax credits, etc. where a
property owner agrees to rehabilitate a vacant building, with 25% percent of the building rehabilitation devoted
to new downtown residential units.
POLICY STATEMENT B.9 - Planning Area A
The 1-37 corridor from the Crosstown Interchange to Shoreline Boulevard is the most important
entrance to the City and should be as aesthetically appealing as possible. Recent improvements including
the construction of the new federal Courthouse and the landscaping of the realigned I-37 boulevard have begun
the process to visually improve this important gateway entrance to the City, the Bayfront, and the Central
Business District. However, remaining improvements which should be targeted for implementation include
the following.
· Deteriorating buildings along this entryway should be repaired, rehabilitated, or removed in order to
make way for redevelopment (the restoration of the historical 1914 county courthouse is certainly a
significant improvement);
· Billboards should be removed;
· The City's organization seals should be more tastefully presented or removed; and
· Heavy landscaping should be added within the 1-37 right-of-way and existing landscaping should be
properly maintained.
POLICY STATEMENT B.10 - Planning Area A
Expand Convention Center grounds and take advantage of its bayfront location by creating a bayfront
public park and plaza south of the Convention Center on Shoreline Boulevard medians and the Barge
Dock. Creation of this public park plaza will complement the Convention Center expansion, the arena,
enhance new hotel development on adjacent vacant lands and create a location for small festivals.
POLICY STATEMENT B.I1 - Planning Area A
Trees and landscaping will be designed as a critical component of all roadway projects in Area A. Trees
and other plantings will be properly coordinated with utilities to avoid conflicts and competition for limited
tmderground space on city-owned properties and right-of-ways. The city will fully consider the significant
value of trees for shading pedestrians when resolving infrastructure conflicts; and plant appropriate tree species
on public rights-of-way that maximize planting potential while protecting the safety of the public.
POLICY STATEMENT B.12 - Planning Area A
Establish grand entt:ance features, i.e., special signage, landscaping, sculpture, fountains, etc., at key
entrances to the BASP and improve the entranceways leading to Resaca and Chaparral Streets. Grand
entrance features are similar to "gateways" except gateways will use more land and be larger in scale.
POLICY STATEMENT B.13 - Planning Area A
Develop a pedestrian walkway along the bayfront between the barge dock and the Solomon Ortiz
International Center. The walkway would provide a special pedestrian way, or linkage, between barge dock
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 16
and sea wall, to Solomon Ortiz International Center. Other special pedestrian ways should connect the bayfront
with Heritage Park, festival areas, the BASP, and Solomon Ortiz lntemafional Center. These pedestrian ways
would be constructed with attractively designed and consistent pavement, lighting, landscaping, and public
signage.
POLICY STATEMENT B.14 -Planning Area A
Enhance the seawall with special pavers or concrete imprinting, landscaping, increased lighting on
steps, and creation of shade.
POLICY STATEMENT B.15 - Planning Area A
Expand Heritage Park to the east side of Chaparral Street and to the west, up to the U.S. 181 right-of-
way, between Fitzgerald and Hughes Streets with similar historic structures that exist in Heritage Park.
This expansion will buffer Heritage Park from any future multilevel developments on the remaining portion of
those blocks to the east. This will also create a more attractive entrance to the Bayfront Arts and Science Park.
However, care should be taken that historic structures are not removed from original sites unless the structure
is threatened by demolition.
POLICY STATEMENT B.16- Planning Area A
Promote visitor-oriented commercial activities including bed and breakfast uses, restaurants, coffee
shops, gift shops, art galleries, and artisan working areas in Heritage Park. Activities thru generate
significant amounts of traffic and activity both from out of town visitors and residents are most desirable for
this strategic location so that a high level of liveliness and interest is generated.
· The first priority for obtaining greater use within the area should be to encourage high-quality local
cultural restaurants (Mexican, Greek, German, Irish, etc.).
· The City should aggressively encourage leases for gift shops, art galleries, artisan working areas and
studios, and art and handicraft sales, etc.
· Rental monies from Heritage Park activities should be used for the improvement of Heritage Park.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 17 - Planning Area A
To promote views of Heritage Park and the Arena from Shoreline Boulevard plant palm trees on thirty foot
centers along both sides of Resaca Street between Chaparral Street and Shoreline Boulevard.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 18 - Planning Area A
Encourage development of parking structures to avoid costly surface parking lots on high value
downtown properties. Outright prohibition of surface parking or monies in lieu of required parking are two
options that should be considered. Monies in lieu of should be used for creation of parking structures. In all
cases in the Central Business District, the first floor of any parking garage should be constructed to ultimately
provide mixed commercial/office uses. In addition, a balance must be achieved between personal use vehicle
parking, pricing controls, and a public transit system designed to minimize congestion and provide flexible
movement of people to multiple destinations and ara'actions on the same trip.
POLICY STATEMENT B.19 - Planning Area A
Consistent, high quality, metal halide and pedestrian-scaled lighting should be standardized along the
Bayfront areas to tie the public waterfront and central business district together and provide high
quality illumination. The "peach" colored lighting used in much of the marina does not emit a quality light
conducive to the tourist oriented marina and bayfront, nor is it consistent with the new lighting downtown.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 20 - Planning Area A
The City will encourage pedestrian friendly retail, restaurant, and entertainment uses along street
frontages combined with multi-family residential, hotel, office uses and parking garages on
aboveground levels.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 21 - Planning Area A
Public and private signage requirements should promote a coordinated and cohesive design theme.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 17
Consideration should be given to minimizing the number and size of allowable signs and allowing limited-
sized monument-type signs within the required setbacks. Where no setback is required, signs overhanging the
sidewalk are permissible. Billboards and portable signs should be prohibited.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 22 - Planning Area A
Replacing existing non-landscaped parking areas with public/private plazas and seating areas will be
encouraged in combination with a reduction of required parking. Public/private plazas and seating shall
contain landscaping, special light standards, fountains, and decorative paving materials.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 23 - Planning Area A
Urban Design guidelines will be developed for the following areas of the Central Business District:
· Pri~nary Entryways to the Bayfront Business District, the Bayfront, the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park (i.e. IH-37, Twigg Street, Leopard Street, Agnes/Kinney Street, Chaparral Street and Port
Avenue).
· Along Shoreline Boulevard and Ocean Drive.
· All development and improvements in the Marina and on the Bayfront.
· Along the Bluff Balustrade.
· Bayfront Arts and Science Park.
· Central Business District (Downtown and Uptown)
POLICY STATEMENT B. 24 - Planning Area A
Elements that will be considered for inclusion in any urban design guidelines for the CBD:
· Higher density mixed-use development
· Mixed-use compatibility
· Pedestrian/cyclist amenities including bike racks, lighting, shade trees, landscaping, street furniture,
sidewalk widening and texturing, grating, etc. for private and public development for pedestrian
comfort
· Architectural and design controls including greater signage control, site plan review, etc.
· Public and private parking lots
· "Compact" parking spaces and shared parking uses/sites for multi-modal transit facilities to
accommodate parking and transfer people to multiple destinations
· Prohibition of street closures and skywalks affecting the original grid street network in the downtown,
uptown, Old lrishtown, BASP, and the area to the west of Shoreline Boulevard in the general vicinity
of the Coliseum and Sherrill Park in order to promote a healthy pedestrian environment
· View corridors maximizing views to the Bay
· Great Streets Program
· Requirements for provision of retail/restaurant uses for a majority of street level frontages of new and
restored buildings
· Restrictions or prohibitions on dumpsters, chainlink fencing, utility units, and other unsightly,
utilitarian facilities along ground floor street frontages.
· Relocation of traffic control boxes/panels to underground or to less visible locations.
· Develop a master plan for public art
POLICY STATEMENT B. 25 - Planning Area A
The City will create a special zoning district for thc area north of 1-37 and east of U.S. 181, to encourage
high-density visitor/tourist related uses.
Objectives for the area include:
· Reduction in the amount of parking required for preferred uses and pedestrian amenities and public
plazas;
Preferred uses will include bed and breakfast, tourist shops, handy craft shops, hotels, motels,
restaurants, museums, art galleries, sidewalk cafes, arenas, convention centers, festival areas, etc.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 18
Minimum and maximum setbacks to create storefronts along the street.
Signage - controlled, tow level
Reduction of billboards in the South Central Area especially the primary gateway into the CBD and
the bayfront, that is, 1-37.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 26 - Planning Area A
The City, in conjunction with the Downtown Management District, will propose changes to the sign
ordinance in "B-5" and "B-6" zoning districts. The sign requirements for these districts should be carefully
reviewed and changed to conform with the intent of the South Central Area Development Plan. The sign
changes should help ensure development of an attractive and appealing atmosphere in the downtown area. At a
minimum City regulations for the area should:
a. Prohibit off-premises signs (billboards).
b. Require signs to be oriented and scaled for pedestrian traffic.
Allowed signage should be calculated in proportion to linear feet of lot frontage, total building or site
size.
do
Allowing projecting or fin signs located in the public right-of-way, provided they do not extend
beyond the curb.
e. Allow wall signs.
f. Prohibit portable signs.
Control banner signs according to a standardized design and restrict to a temporary time period
related to special events.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 27 - Planning Area A
The highest priorities for installation of new public art projects are at:
a. 1-37 at Shoreline Boulevard;
b. La Retama Park;
c. Shoreline Boulevard in front of the Arena;
d. L Heads and T Heads;
e. Artesian Park; and
f. Bayfront Park.
These are very important gateways/entrances to the downtown area. Prominent, enlivening art should be made
at these locations with the help of grant money and private donations.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 28 - Planning Area A
Relocation of the Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant is a high capital improvement priority. Once
the Plant is relocated out of the area, and any remediation completed, the site should be redeveloped with a
public use supportive of the City's downtown redevelopment goals. Potential uses include, but are not limited
to, parking, festival park, executive mini golf course, etc. The Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant serves
the Downtown Area, surrounding neighborhoods, and provides an essential function for development in the
area. However, the Broadway Treatment Plant, in it current location, and as the downtown redevelops will
become a detriment to reinvestment of surround properties.
POLICY STATEMENT B.29 - Planning Area A
The City will pursue construction of strategic pedestrian linkages in the downtown, the marina,
bayfront, the BASP, the Port's Cruise Ship Terminal. Pedestrian linkages will be heavily landscaped and
include sidewalk widening, special sidewalk pavers or concrete imprinting, festive lighting, street furniture,
public art, fountains, and small plaza areas along the routes. See Figure 5: Pedestrian Corridor Improvement
Plan.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 19
FIGURE 5: PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Corridors
with
Existing end Proposed
]:n~pra~Vements
L ndmerks
[$ - One Sho~.,li~ t~loz~
L~- La ~uinte Inn
Ws - Water St.
R~taurants ~
CO -
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 20
POLICY STATEMENT B. 30 - Planning Area A
The City will encourage the long-term conversion of industrial business uses between the Broadway
Wastewater Treatment Plant and US 181 to convert to visitor oriented or public uses.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 31 -Planning Area A
The City will work with the Port of Corpus Christi and the Union Pacific Rail Road to restrict storage of
tank cars along West Broadway Street (between Port Avenue and Tancahua Street). Trackage in this
area is used for storage of box and tank cars and is an incompatible use and potential safety hazard with the
future use of the Wastewater Treatment Plant site, the Washington-Coles neighborhood and Concrete Street
Amphitheater.
AREA B: UPTOWN OFFICE AND GOVERNMENTAL CENTER
POLICY STATEMENT B.32 - Planning Area B
Promote the Uptown Office Area as the City's premier location for mid- to high-rise office development.
The existing concentration of high-rise office towers, between the bluff and Tancahua Street, and thc extensive
governmental and quasi-public complex adjacent to the Nuccus County Courthouse and City Hall, could
efficiently serve as thc nucleus of a more expansive regional office district.
Within this Uptown Office District there are a number of historic or potentially historic properties located on
Leopard Street. Preservation of meritorious properties on Leopard should be pursued and efforts taken to
minimize negative impacts of non-historical properties which are immediately adjacent.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 21
AREA C: SOUTH BLUFF AREA
POLICY STATEMENT B.33 - Planning Area C
Redevelopment within the Low- to Mid-Rise Professional Office and Residential areas of Area C, (see
the Land Use and Development Plan, Figure 2) should be encouraged as long as the redevelopment does
not detract from the residential neighborhood. Much of this area is used for single-family or multi-family
residential or for professional offices. Professional office uses are generally compatible with single- and
multi-family development in this area. Neighborhood serving commercial uses of Iow intensity may be
considered for the area however, 24-hour commercial uses, bars or clubs should not be allowed.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 34 - Planning Area C
The existing industrial development in Planning Area C, should not be expanded in area.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 35 - Planning Area C
The commercial strips on Staples Street and on Morgan Avenue should not extend any farther into the
adjacent residential areas than displayed on the Future Land Use Plan.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 36 - Planning Area C
Continue to protect the residential neighborhoods from encroachment of non-residential uses.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 37 - Planning Area C
The Landmark Commission should evaluate areas in the South Central area for "historic district"
designation and a property owner incentive program for areas to be designated historic. An incentive
program encouraging property owners to preserve and restore designated structures should be developed.
Restoration should allow for contemporary use and emphasize restoration of property exteriors.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 38 - Planning Area C
The City should establish historic preservation incentive programs to encourage property owners who
are willing to restore historic structures. Such programs may include tax abatements, freezes on taxes, low
interest loans for restoration, etc. These incentive programs create a greater public awareness of historic
properties and provide a modest reward for property owners who wish to participate. Some cities have used
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 22
annual events/tours of historic homes and districts and historic plaques to educate the public and generate
interest in historic preservation. Examples of historic districts which could be focused on include Furman
Avenue, Upper Broadway, Leopard Street between Port Avenue and the Bluff, Downtown, and Old lrishtown.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 39 - Planning Area C
Establish development regulations to protect designated views from public rights-of-way and, to
enhance scenic corridors and gateways. View corridors are defined as streets where the City wishes to
preserve clear site to a natural or man-made feature. Those features might include the bay, harbor bridge, or an
historic home, etc. Primary emphasis is on the view from the corridor to the point of interest with secondary
emphasis on the attractiveness of the corridor.
Scenic corridors are defined as streets where the City wishes to enhance highly traveled streets or entryways.
The primary emphasis is on providing an attractive view from a vehicle or pedestrian passing.
Gateways give a sense of place marking passage from one area to another. Important gateways in the South
Central area include:
1-37 and the Crosstown Expressway;
· 1-37 and Shoreline Boulevard,
Shoreline Boulevard and Kinney Street;
· Shoreline Boulevard and Furman Avenue;
Shoreline Boulevard and Resaca;
· 1-37 and Chaparral/Mesquite Streets; and
· Agnes/Laredo and Tancahua/Carancahua Streets.
Major landscaping, sculpture, and lighting are appropriate at gateways. When these improvements are made
they create a distinct and memorable place.
Design objectives along view and scenic corridors include:
Development adjacent to these scenic corridors will be required to provide a higher standard of
landscaping than for non-scenic corridor streets. The City's Landscaping requirements in the Zoning
Ordinance should be changed to require all street yards for multi-family, public-semi public, business
and industrial uses to provide a minimum of 0.04 points of landscaping per square foot where
property is developed adjacent to a designated scenic corridor. Note: street yards are areas between
structures and the street right-of-way.
· Along the seawall creation of shade either through plant massing or shade structures is a high priority;
· Private and public signage of all types should have stringent design controls consistent with the
tourist and recreational theme of the Bayfront. Public signage should be standardized and billboards
and portable signs should be eliminated;
· Utilities should be placed underground;
· The City should establish a facade restoration program for designated corridors; and
· Public art projects could be placed at gateways and strategically located in scenic corridors, consistent
with the Municipal Arts Commission's public art guidelines/plan.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 40 - Planning Area C
Promote pedestrian activity at street level throughout the South Central Area (see Figure 5.) The highest
priority pedestrian corridors include the following. See Section F - Capital Improvements for more detail.
Shoreline Boulevard from the Solomon Ortiz International Center to Cole Park;
Water Street between 1-37 and Coopers Alley;
Peoples Street, Lawrence Street, and Coopers Alley between the Bluff and the marina landmasses;
Resaca Street between Shoreline Blvd. and Chaparral Street;
Chaparral Street from the Ship Channel to Coopers Alley;
Twigg Street between Shoreline Blvd~ and Mesquite Street;
Concrete/Belden Street, between Water Street and its dead-end west of North Tancahua Street; and
South Central Area Development Plan
February I0, 2004
Page 23
· Leopard Street between the Bluff and the Crosstown Expressway;
POLICY STATEMENT B. 41 - Planning Area C
Pedestrian corridors should link points of interest in the area, such as tourist destination points,
historical, recreational, cultural, and retail activities. The Park and Recreation Deparlment should have
jurisdiction over public amenities and maintenance in these corridors. Design objectives for these corridors
should include:
· Functional and attractive paving materials required on all pedestrian corridors. The City should
determine the types of paving materials that would comply with this policy.
· Coordinate mass transit services with pedestrian corridor improvements (i.e., assure corridor
improvements are placed at bus stop locations and lead up to any water taxi, or high speed water
terminals).
· Construct greater pedestrian amenities such as sidewalk widening, unified lighting and street
furniture, drinking fountains, storefront awnings, and shade structures, pedestrian "bump-outs", and
public informational signage especially for the pedestrian.
· Make all pedestrian improvements in the CBD compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act
POLICY STATEMENT B. 42 - Planning Area C
Pedestrian improvements such as "bump-outs" at street intersections, sidewalk widening, street trees,
etc. (See Policy Statements B.40 and B.41) should be prioritized for construction in the Central Business
District. The construction of these pedestrian improvements will address the core of needed pedestrian
connections along the Bayfront, from Uptown through Downtown to the marina landmasses, along Water and
Chaparral Streets, and on Resaca Street at the Arena and Heritage Park.
POLICY STATEMENT B. 43 - Planning Area C
The City's Zoning Ordinance and Codes should continue to prohibit sexually oriented businesses from
operating in the South Central Area.
C. TRANSPORTATION
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 24
POLICY STATEMENT C.I
The City Council adopts Figure 6 as the guide for future transportation decisions in the South
Central area. The transportation network of this Plan constitutes an amendment to the City
Transportation Plan. Those changes requiring state or federal funding will be submitted for review
and included in the Metropolitan Planning Organization Urban Transportation Plan. Changes to the
City Transportation Plan include the following.
a) Extend North Staples Street as a collector street (CI) between West Broadway and Fitzgerald
Street
b) Designate Fitzgerald Street as a collector street (C1) between North Shoreline Boulevard and US
181
c) Extend Mesquite Street as a collector sweet (C 1) between Brewster Street and Port Avenue
d) Delete Brewster Street as a collector street between Chaparral Street and Tancahua Street
e) Designate Cooper's Alley as a collector street (CI) between Tancahua Street and Shoreline
Boulevard
POLICY STATEMENT C.2
A parking control policy with pricing controls recognizing the real costs of parking in the area
and an equitable balance with transit services should be established. The underlying premise that
the more economical parking is provided the less likely that transit services can be prudently
provided.
POLICY STATEMENT C.3
To ensure pedestrian safety, create a Shoreline Boulevard operations plan for temporary
closure of travel lanes during large festival events such as Buccaneer Days and Bayfest.
POLICY STATEMENT C.4
The City will pursue with TxDOT the relocation of the Power Street off-ramp from US 181
directly to Belden Street. As presently configured this off-ramp has a very short deceleration lane
and a dangerous 90 degree turn onto Tancahua Street. TxDOT should evaluate the feasibility of
extending this ramp to Belden Street and closing the current ramp at Power Street.
POLICY STATEMENT C.5
Public signage for East Port Avenue and the U.S. 181 on-ramp north of Belden Street should be
improved to make the public better aware of these streets as secondary routes to and from the
Bayfront Arts and Science Park (BASP).
POLICY STATEMENT C.6
Policy objectives in descending order of priority for street improvements should be projects
which will:
a) Facilitate pedestrian and muttimodal access.
b) Facilitate access to and along the bayfront;
c) Minimize right-of-way to promote high intensity downtown uses and provide for flexible and innovative
redevelopment opportunities;
d) Facilitate access to the Bayfront Arts and Science Park area including Solomon Ortiz International
Center; and
Facilitate creation ora traffic control center to better manage traffic during high use events.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 25
FIGURE 6: FUTURE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
SoutO Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 26
POLICY STATEMENT C.7
The following is a prioritized list of transportation improvement projects which meet policy objectives:
Improve traffic control throughout the plan area with "real-time" traffic responsive signal and
pedestrian activated controls.
· Shoreline Boulevard See Bayfrunt Park Policy (E.I) in Public Services section.
Creation of designated park and ride locations in the downtown and uptown areas for shuttling to
the BASP, Marina, and other downtown attractions and the Port of Corpus Christi.
Extension of Shoreline Boulevard as a controlled access drive (for transit vehicles, etc.) to connect
with Chaparral Street in the BASP. The conceptual master plan for the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park envisions the extension of Shoreline Boulevard northward into the Water Garden area and
terminating at Chaparral Street. This design would have a positive resolution to the dead end of the
existing North Shoreline Boulevard and provide vital access to the future economic development of the
Corps of Engineers site.
However, the design comes with several issues which would need to be resolved. The running water
"brook" which connects the Art Museum to the Water Garden should not be broken. Since the Water
Garden and its "brook" connection was paid for by the Museum, any extension of Shoreline Boulevard
should include participation in the planning and design by the museum.
· Street improvements necessary for baseball stadium, arena and BASP access.
Enhanced public transportation system, including but not limited to a fixed alignment streetcar
system. This system will provide improved opportunities for park and ride services to various
destinations to the downtown, marina, BASP, and Port and city connectivity via the RTA's Staples
Street Station. A fixed alignment streetcar system will provide an economic stimulus and, with its
unique features, a regional attraction.
Extend Tancahua Street northward to Harbor Drive. This extension is needed to provide enhanced
access to the Port's Solomon Ortiz International Center and proposed new baseball Stadium.
POLICY STATEMENT C.8
The City's Traffic Engineering Division in cooperation with the RTA shall establish a parking
monitoring and management program to assure sufficient parking availability as the South Central area
becomes more intensively developed. This monitoring program shall apply to all areas zoned B-6 (no
parking is required in B-6 zones) and other areas deemed appropriate by the City. Currently, there is an
oversupply, or "under demand" of available parking in South Central Area due to the high percentage of vacant
buildings. As these vacancies diminish and the need for additional parking arises, Staff will make
recommendations to the City Council regarding specific parking projects and programs to meet the need.
a) Emphasis shall be placed on encouraging the private sector to work out agreements with adjacent uses to
share parking.
b} Improve signage to public parking lots in the South Central area.
C) The City will support the provision of public satellite park and ride lots.
POLICY STATEMENT C.9
The City in partnership with the RTA shall conduct a feasibility study to determine the most effective
combination of on and off-street parking and RTA transit services with regard to serving the Bayfront
Arts and Science Park including the arena and baseball stadium, the Central Business District (CBD),
and marina development (existing and potential). Large increases in public parking in the vicinity of the
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 27
arena and convention center may have significant negative impacts on enhanced transit services planned to
serve these facilities. Any increase of additional public parking in the area should be critically analyzed in
relationship to RTA's proposed enhanced transit services to serve the area. Parking metering expansion and
premium pricing for on-street parking in vicinity of BASP should be considered in conjunction with this
overall scheme to encourage transit usage.
POLICY STATEMENT C.10
The grid arterial system in the CBD should be preserved as much as possible. Street closures should be
minimized in the CBD so that the grid system's efficiencies for serving high intensity land uses will be
maintained
POLICY STATEMENT C.I 1
The City will conduct a feasibility study to investigate the feasibility of reverting one-way streets to two-
way streets in the downtown. This study will consider the use of head-in parking to slow traffic and make it
easier for motorists to get out of their cars and enjoy and benefit from the "downtown experience"
POLICY STATEMENT C.12
The City will continue to support and participate in studies that address the need for a new higher
bridge over the ship channel to accommodate larger ships. The City will also ensure that sufficient future
ingress and egress is provided to the CBD from the new Harbor Bridge. Landscaped public rights-of-way at
each ingress and egress points will be required. Reuse of the existing U.S. 181 bridge right-of-way will be
considered for a new entrance/exit near the BASP.
POLICY STATEMENT C.13
Promote multi-model transportation~ including bike paths and bike parking.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 28
D. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
POLICY STATEMENT D.I
Establish a continuous funding source and foster multiple partnerships for on-going capital
improvements in the Central Business District. Possible funding mechanisms include tax
increment financing, public improvement district, tax abatement / credits, or similar mechanisms.
The TIF funding mechanism has contributed approximately one million dollars annually for the last
20 years to pay for construction of the Texas State Aquarium. If another TIF District is established
these monies would bc targeted for improvements in downtown and on thc bayfront, if it is not
feasible to establish another TIF District then some other funding mechanism such as a public
improvement district may be appropriate to provide a continuous source of funds for needed
improvements in thc Central Business District. In addition, multiple partnerships should include the
Port of Corpus Christi, Regional Transit Authority, Nueces County, Metropolitan Planning
Organization, Corpus Christi Independent School District, Downtown Management District, etc.
POLICY STATEMENT D.2
Promote development of the marina landmasses with public/private joint ventures for retail,
restaurant, entertainment, park, marina, residential, and/or hotel uses to generate monies for
debt retirement of bonds used for construction of public facilities in the marina. It is clear that
the significant demands for public improvements in other areas of the City balanced with scarce
municipal funds available for debt retirement, funding for larger marina improvements may be best
achieved through joint public/private ventures in the marina. This strategy serves at least two
purposes. This funding mechanism provides 1) a mechanism to pay for needed marina
improvements, and 2) new private development which injects renewed life and economic vitality
and appeal into the marina. Such programs have been successful in other waterfront communities
across the country which have found ways of revitalizing their waterfront areas.
POLICY STATEMENT D.3
Marina boat slip rental rates should be assessed at least every two years and should be set at a
level that is at least the median amount charged by gulf coast public and private marinas.
Currently, marina boat slip rental rates are some of the lowest found in comparable marinas on the
gulf coast. Marina slip rentals play a fundamental or even a critical role in paying for marina
operations, marina maintenance, and marina capital improvements.
POLICY STATEMENT D.4
To assure a sufficient supply of revenue producing marina boat slips, begin design for
additional boat slips in the marina when the marina is 75% of capacity. Construction on new
slips should be completed when the existing marina slip rentals are at 95% of slip rental capacity.
POLICY STATEMENT D.5
Public/private ventures and public projects in the South Central Area including the marina
should be designed and located according to the following criteria.
a) Provides a public service or function that directly benefits the general public.
b) Provides recreational, entertainment, retail, and/or other visitor and pedestrian-oriented
types of activities available to the general public. A majority of ground floor uses should
be of these visitor and pedestrian-oriented uses. These public uses should be accessible to
the general public during peak daytime and evening hours and throughout the week.
c) Improves the visual quality of the area.
d) Leverages more private sector investment than public monies invested.
e) Combines disjointed uses to form a cohesive environment where uses can interact and
benefit from their relationship to one another.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 29
POLICY STATEMENT D.6
In order to promote a significant resident population in the area, the City will provide a full range of
incentive programs to make residential redevelopment more attractive to property owners and
developers. Such programs might include Community Block Grant Funds (CDBG), Renewal Community
incentives, tax abatements, etc. and revisions to the Building Code to reduce obstacles and barriers to adaptive
reuse of existing buildings for residential purposes.
POLICY STATEMENT D.7
Promote the arts and cultural resources in the downtown to be engines of economic development
through strategic funding and other forms of assistance. Many cities across the country have established
successful arts and cultural programs and facilities as quality of life resources for the local citizenry as well as
significant tourist attractions. Some of the more successful examples include the Torpedo Factory Art Center
in Alexandria, Virginia; the Louisiana Artworks in New Orleans; the Denver Performing Arts Complex in
Denver; the West End Historic District and the Deep Ellum entertainment district in Dallas: and the Blue Star
District in San Antonio. These successful programs and projects have created outstanding venues and
incubator programs for the display of local/regional visual art forms and performing artists which otherwise
would not have been available. In many cases older historic buildings and even entire historic districts have
been put into productive use by creating art and cultural districts rich in a variety of entertainment and
educational opportunities. Examples of assistance include limited property tax abatement, CDBG funding, and
historic preservation funding assistance. Areas in downtown which may have potential in the creation of an
arts and cultural district include in the vicinity of:
a) Heritage Park/Old Irishtown;
b) the old Frost Bros./Lichtenstein Building;
c) the Ritz Theater;
d) the Kress Building (the emerging "K-Space" visual art project currently operates on the 3~d floor); and
e) the old Montgomery Ward Building on Peoples Street.
POLICY STATEMENT D.8
The City will work closely with the Downtown Management District.to revitalize and redevelop the area
in and adjacent to the District's Boundaries. In order for the Downtown to become more economically
successful and to provide more quality of life experiences for the general public, it is appropriate for a private
non-profit organization to focus on the vision for Downtown and implementation of that vision.
POLICY STATEMENT D.9
Relocate the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers office to a site away from the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park (BASP). This current use docs not complement the BASP location and is an inappropriate use of this
strategic site. Promote development on the BASP site with a public/private joint venture for retail, restaurant,
entertainment, and howl development to capitalize on unique views and prime bayfront and harbor location.
Policy Statement D.10
The expanded Convention Center and new Arena will be a maior economic stimulus to the regional
economy by bringing in revenue from outside the region. The primary goal for the Convention Center
and Arena is to operate continuously to host conventions or other events.
Policy Statement D.11
The City will explore renovation and adaptive reuse of the coliseum. Renovation appears to be a very cost
effective approach as some cost estimates for renovation have been estimated at $4 to $5 million as opposed to
new construction that could cost $20 million or more.
Policy Statement D.12
Coordinate with Texas A&M University to create a new off-site campus with student housing in or in
close proximity to the South Central Area.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 30
E. PUBLIC SERVICES
PARKS
BAYFRONTPARK
POLICY STATEMENT E.I
The City, in partnership with the Downtown Management District, the Port of Corpus
Christi, the Regional Transit Authority and the Metropolitan Planning Organization will
conduct a special communitywide planning process to determine the most acceptable
manner in which to create a bayfront park. A fixed rail trolley with overhead electrical lines
should not be located on the bayfront. ShoreIine Boulevard is a formidable barrier to
pedestrians attempting to cross the six travel lanes from downtown to the bayfront especially
during times of large festival events. In addition, large festival events either block through traffic
or reduce the City's ability to operate large convention and arena events.
The special study objectives are:
· Identify the best location for a permanent festival site;
· Determine the feasibility of reducing Shoreline Boulevard from six travel lanes to four taking
into account existing and future traffic levels and street improvement projects;
· Determine if traffic calming devices including reduced speed limits and demarcated
pedestrian crossings on the travel lanes should be planned on shoreline Boulevard;
· Address the possibility of using Water Street as a relief route for downtown commuter traffic;
· Make signalized pedestrian crossings one cycle;
· Illustrate the visual impact of views from Shoreline Boulevard to the bay;
Consider the AIA's 2003 concept plan to create a bayfront park, as well as other plans which
have been considered over the last twenty years, e.g. Bayfront Activities Committee (1985),
the Gateway Project of 1996-97, etc.;
· Implement a community consensus building process to determine the most acceptable
bayfront park design.
FESTIVAL PARK
POLICY STATEMENT E.2
Develop a permanent festival park. The need for a permanent festival park (or parks) is obvious because of
the success of Bayfest and Buccaneer Days carnival and other smaller festivals. However, due to unique
characteristics of these festivals and their current sites several safety and efficiency of use issues have come to
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 31
the forefront. The new arena is under construction and scheduled to be completed in late 2004. The arena and
convention center expansion projects are being constructed over the west portion of North Shoreline Boulevard
north of Resaca Street, And the federal courthouse has imposed restrictions on festivals on the Shoreline Blvd.
median in front of it.
With these two portions of Shoreline Blvd. eliminated fronl effective use for festivals such as Bayfest, the area
along North Shoreline Boulevard between Power Street and the Convention Center may not be large enough to
accommodate large festivals effectively. Alternative sites should be analyzed and a plan devised to develop a
permanent festival site or sites. More than one festival park may be justified. One site could be for Iow impact
type events and the other could be for high impact festivals. Possible sites include: 1) the medians north ofl-
37; 2) the Coliseum and adjoining parking lots and parks; 3) on what will become available land when the
Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plan is relocated in conjunction with the adjacent Concrete Street
Amphitheater; 4) the Kerr-McGee Tract; 5) South Bluff Park, Heritage Park/BASP; or 6) Corpus Christi Beach
Park.
POLICY STATEMENT E.3
Provide a much higher degree of maintenance of the landscaping improvements along IH-37 between
the Crosstown Expressway interchange and the Bayfront. The significant landscaping installed at the
Crosstown/l-37 interchange and the US 181/1-37 interchange in the late 1990's are not receiving proper
maintenance, especially when taken into the context of the highest traveled gateway into the City.
POLICY STATEMENT E.4
Additional shade structures, lighting, trash receptacles, bicycle lanes, informational signage and kiosks,
water fountains, and widened sidewalk should be provided on the seawall and adjoining walkway.
POLICY STATEMENT E.5
The Park and Recreation Department will determine the feasibility for an amphitheater on the steps of
the seawall with a stage floating in the marina or located on McGee Beach.
POLICY STATEMENT E.6
Identify and provide high priority public facilities for McGee Beach e.g. outdoor showers, public toilets
with high frequency of maintenance, shade structures, etc. The restrooms located at the base of the
breakwater are in need of substantial repair and regular maintenance and additional facilities.
BLUCHER AND SOUTH BLUFF PARKS
POLICY STATEMENT E.7
Improvements to Blucher and South Bluff Parks will be included in the Capital Improvement Program.
Blucher Park is a City-designated wildlife sanctuary which restricts the amount of improvements that can be
placed in the Park. However, environmentally sensitive improvements are needed such as marked birding
trails, selective landscaping, and the old railroad bridge restored as an historic landmark. South BluffPark has
several recreational facilities serving the surrounding neighborhoods and the City in general. Additional
improvements such as playground equipment and improved lighting are needed.
POLICY STATEMENT E.8
The City will continue to pursue the expansion and connection of Blucher Park to South Bluff Park.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 32
BLUFF BALUSTRADE
POLICY STATEMENT E.9
The City in conjunction with the DMD will pursue the creation of public plazas along the Bluff
Balustrade, Upper Broadway, "Middle" Broadway at Starr Street, and La Retama Park. The Bluff
Balustrade ("Broadway Bluff")is only one often National Register properties in the City. This facility needs
to be protected and supported with compatible improvements recognizing the historical integrity of this unique
man-made resource. By the same token, War Memorial Park/Spohn Park due to the sacredness of the
memorial should not be altered by a plaza.
POLICY STATEMENT E.10
The City in conjunction with the DMD will pursue ADA accessibility and retail uses in the Bluff Tunnel.
This unique resource has much potential to provide cost effective ADA accessibility from above to below the
Bluff, as well as opportunities for limited commercial activities since it included commercial uses up until the
time the tunnel ~vas closed in the mid-1970's.
DOWNTOWN PARKS
POLICY STATEMENT E. I1
Develop a series of highly usable and pedestrian friendly parks in the Central Business District to serve
the resident population's needs. South Bluff, McCaughn, La Retama and Artesian Parks are likely
candidates.
POLICY STATEMENT E.12
Develop along the seawall an amphitheater with a "floating stage" in the marina and/or a permanent
stage on McGee Beach for regular entertainment venues to increase variety of activities on bayfront.
The steps of the seawall would serve as seating area for attendees of performances.
POLICY STATEMENT E.13
The Park and Recreation Department willdevelop public lighting, signage, landscaping, and street
furniture of a special design theme establishing McGee beach and McCaughn Park as a safe and
uniquely attractive urban beach and park. Any adjacent private development should be required to install
compatible features and lighting to achieve similar lighting levels and types.
MARINA
POLICY STATEMENT E.14
The potential of the marina will be maximized as a major destination to draw more visitors to the
waterfront zone and the downtown area, from the metropolitan area and the City's tourist marketing
area. A diverse and vital marina is key to a revitalized downtown and successful convention center. The
recommendations of this Plan seek to identify and stimulate future growth, vitality, and economic development
in the Marina for a wide spectrum of uses. Redevelopment objectives should include the addition of
restaurants, retail activities, and public park and recreational uses and enhanced marina facilities and services
to attract more people by providing more variety, color, life and activities to choose from.
POLICY STATEMENT E.I 5
Protect and promote the Marina primarily for marina uses. Enhanced marina facilities will include
expansion and improvement of the existing Marina facilities. Improvements should include additional boat
slips, both large and small berths, transient and charter boat slips, restrooms with showers, pump out station
and holding tank, fueling station, a ship's store, laundry, marina offices, etc. A more comprehensive and
detailed capital improvement project list is listed in the Capital Improvements Chapter F.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page $3
POLICY STATEMENT E.16
The area devoted to parking lots on the T and L-heads (landmasses) as permanent uses should be
balanced with the need to provide park and open space uses. It has been observed that the existing
landmasses are the most expensive, in terms of land value, surface parking lots on the Gulf coast. Existing
parking areas on the landmasses should be balanced with the need to provide park and open space for use by
the general public. Additional demand for parking to serve increased retail/restaurant and marina development
should be provided by on-street parking on Shoreline Boulevard and downtown, and parking garages in the
Central Business District with enhanced linkages via transit services and pedestrian corridors.
POLICY STATEMENT E.I 7
Linkages to the landmasses from remote parking areas in the CBD should be significantly enhanced
with transit service and pedestrian corridors. The landmasses should be used more efficiently for
pedestrian oriented retail/restaurants and public park, recreation and marina uses. Much of the existing parking
on landmasses can be used in the interim until alternative parking/transit service is provided for restaurant and
retail uses. The ultimate use of the landmasses should be predominately for pedestrian friendly uses with
strong transit and pedestrian linkages to downtown parking. Enhanced transit service should be required as a
condition of doing commercial business on the bayfront by any private development.
POLICY STATEMENT E.18
The Cooper's Alley landmass will be improved with more pedestrian friendly amenities and
landscaping. The L-head beyond the stem is totally paved and primarily devoted to automobiles or boat
service areas. It is devoid of any green open space and is visually unappealing. Even though the function of
the L-head landmass is primarily a marina service area, it should be landscaped to visually soften its image and
made more attractive.
The boat storage area located on the L-head would be ideally relocated to an off-site location, however, a less
conspicuous location on the L-head with attractive screening may be acceptable. In addition, the boat ramp
and associated parking area devoted to vehicles with boat trailers should be relocated to the north side of the L-
head to reduce congestion at the terminus of the L-head access stem and the bait shop.
POLICY STATEMENT E.19
The City Code will be amended to permit "liveaboards" in the marina only when minimum
improvements and services are provided to serve them. Minimum services needed to serve this population
include a ship's store and a bathhouse with showers and restrooms. This innovative concept will enhance
security of the marina by adding the presence of people on a 24 hour basis in the marina.
POLICY STATEMENT E.20
Extend the concrete cap and add attractive metal halide lighting on the breakwater to the fairway
opening. This will significantly expand an existing publicly accessible artificial shoreline for viewing and
fishing and add a very attractive waterfront feature at night with appropriate lighting.
Policy Statement E.21
Extend the marina breakwater southward to create a protected sailing area in front of McGee Beach,
Emerald Beach and Cole Park.
PUBLIC FACILITIES
POLICY STATEMENT E.22
Public amenities should be provided throughout the bayfront to make a more attractive and
"people-friendly" activity center. These amenities should include design-integrated shade structures,
street furniture, heavy landscaping, public parking, public restrooms, recreational facilities, drinking fountains,
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 34
water features, attractive metal halide lighting, and pedestrian oriented informational signage. This would
create a much more attractive "front door" to the City and provide needed pedestrian facilities.
POLICY STATEMENT E.23
The Corpus Christi Independent School District should be lobbied to retain the George Evans
Elementary School, and the Corpus Christi Catholic Diocese to retain Central Catholic Elementary
School, to serve existing and future residents' children. Retaining existing schools to serve the South
Central Area is a critical element of fostering residential development in the South Central Area.
UTILITIES
WATER SYSTEM
POLICY STATEMENT E.24
The City will conduct critical analysis and needs assessment of the water distribution system in the Plan
area for potable water and fire protection needs. This assessment should include a long-range
improvement program which addresses not only existing and imminent uses, but projected long-range uses
according to the proposed Land Use and Development Plan.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
POLICY STATEMENT E.25
The City will conduct critical analysis and needs assessment of the wastewater system in the Plan area.
This assessmentshoutd include along-range improvement program which addresses not only existing
and eminent uses, but projected long-range uses according to the proposed Land Use and Development Plan,
and specially the redevelopment of the marina.
POLICY STATEMENT E.26
Remove silt and debris in the existing main trunk sewer in Water Street from Resaca to Furman Streets.
This trunk was installed approximately 50 years ago and has never been cleaned.
POLICY STATEMENT E.27
Determine the feasibility of providing treated wastewater (graywater) to the large expanse of (public and
private) landscaped areas in the CBD. If found to be feasible, graywater should be provided to these very
expansive landscaped areas.
STORMWATER SYSTEM
POLICY STATEMENT E.28
Significant stormwater system improvements will be implemented as soon as possible to protect the
downtown area from localized rain event flooding. The City will conduct a critical analysis and needs
assessment of the stormwater system in the plan area. Some of the stormwater system problems include
siltation of pipes, inadequate design and sizing of stormwater lines, and deterioration of lines. This issue was
determined by unified consensus of the Stakeholders Group to be the single most important short range issue
for the Downtown area. The Group felt that the City should do everything possible to prevent the reoccurrence
of the damages and loss o£business due to the flood events of 2002.
POLICY STATEMENT E.29
The City should establish long-term monitoring and maintenance programs for the stormwater and
wastewater system and establish best management practices to keep the systems in good working order.
South Central A rea Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 35
OTHER PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES
POLICY STATEMENT E.30
Consolidate electrical, fiber-optic, cable TV, telephone, and other compatible utility lines into shared
conduits to minimize the many utility cuts incurred in the Central Business District. This will provide for
a much more efficient and cost effective manner for the provision of these type of services.
POLICY STATEMENT E.31
The City should initiate programs to deal more effectively with the transient and homeless population
and facilities in the South Central Area and adjacent area. The private agencies and organizations which
provide services and facilities to the transient and homeless population are in serious need of governmental
assistance. Innovative programs and services have been provided by other cities to assist in this important
social service.
POLICY STATEMENT E.32
Additional sources of funding should be aggressively pursued for the continuation of restoration and
adaptive reuse of the 1914 Historic Nueces County Courthouse. This prominent public building has sat
vacant and deteriorated at the entrance to the City and Bayfront for over 25 years. The first phase of
restoration began in the fall of 2003.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 36
F. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
UTILITIES
Additional stormwater system improvements are needed as soon as
possible to protect the downtown area from heavy localized rain event
flooding. Some of the stormwater system problems include siltation
of pipes, inadequate capacity of stormwater lines and pump stations,
and deterioration of drainage pipes and boxes.
NOTE: Utilities item 1. was determined by unified consensus of the
Stakeholders Group to be the single most important short-range issue for the
Downtown area.
2. Critical analysis and needs assessment of the water distribution system
in the Plan area for existing and future potable water and fire
protection demand.
3. Critical analysis and needs assessment of the wastewater system in the
Plan area for existing and future wastewater demand.
4. Relocate, expand and improve the efficiency of the Broadway
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
MARINA
Enhanced marina facilities should include expansion, improvement and
replacement of existing Marina facilities. Improvements should include new
Marina Offices, additional boat slips, both large and small berths, transient boater
slips and restrooms with showers, pump out station and holding tank, fueling
station, a ship's store, laundry, etc. A more comprehensive and detailed capital
improvement project list is listed below.
SHORT RANGE NEEDS
The following projects are grouped by highest priority to produce the highest
quality of services and facilities for the marina. The time frame to implement
these improvements realistically should be within the next two to three years.
These improvements and maintenance of these facilities should be of the highest
quality in order to accommodate large yachts and vessels. Quality facilities and
services will be rewarded with positive referrals. A more comprehensive and
detailed capital improvement project list is listed below.
· Relocate and expand boat ramp to northwest quadrant of L-head
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 37
· Boaters' Facilities and Public Restrooms on all landmasses (including boaters'
restrooms with showers and lounge, laundry facilities, lockers, etc.)
· Four new piers with 240 boat slips and approximately 48 large boat slips on Peoples
Street T-head
· Marina adnfinistration office, with public restrooms, conference center, weather and
sailing plan center, meeting facilities with television and satellite systems, and
landscaping and lighting improvements
· Boater's center with fuel station, pump-out facility, snack store and ship's store,
lounge, sail library, internet access, sailing promotion, and education center
· Piling existing slip repair and replacement
· Trash and litter dump sites
· Security cameras and electronic gate controls
· Landscaping entire marina
· Lighting for security and special events
· Sanitary pump-out boat and cart
· Cable and satellite television at slips
· Water toy area
· Shade structures, picnic tables, barbecue grills
· Extend concrete cap on breakwater to the fairway opening and provide attractive
pedestrian-scaled, metal halide lighting.
MEDIUM RANGE PROJECTS
The following projects are needed for the marina, however, are not as urgent as the above
listed projects. They are medium range in timing (3 to 5 years out) and are generally needed
to create more tourism and visitor activity such as national and international boating events,
hosting of "tall sailing ships", and major restaurant and retail development.
· Relocation and berthing of the Columbus Ships in the marina as a tourist
attraction
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 38
Boat sales office and showroom with retail and sailmaker, etc.
Improvements to existing slips
New state of the art boat repair and haul out facility, dry stack storage facility
with large boat ramp for large events, and facilities for full service
sailmakers, riggers, electricians, painters, boatwrights, etc.
R-pier replacement, 128 covered slips
Dry boat storage
Parking improvements and asphalt overlay
Seafood Market/Fisherman's Wharf and permanent mooring for shrimp boats
Anchorage area tbr visiting boats
LONG RANGE PROJECTS
· Dredging of the marina
NORTH BASIN
Establish a master plan for the ultimate development of the north basin (generally north of
Peoples Street Breakwater). The master plan should be done as soon as possible to
determine if dredge from the ship channel deepening will be needed for Corpus Christi
Marina improvements. Possible improvements could include new land masses, cruise ship
berthing adjacent to the Ship Channel, beaches, anchorage for large water craft, etc.
BAYFRONT
The following projects are proposed for the bayffont. All of these projects should be
compatible with the architectural elements of the seawall i.e. steps, cap, Miradores, and
benches.
Additional shade structures, lighting standards and type of lighting, trash
receptacles, bicycle lanes, informational signage and kiosks, and water
fountains should be provided on the seawall and adjoining walkway.
Provide additional McGee Beach facilities, e.g. public showers, public toilets
with high frequency of maintenance, shade structures, replacement of
concession building and restrooms
Develop a small amphitheater utilizing the seawall steps with a stage floating
in the marina and/or on McGee Beach for regular musical venues/sports
events to increase variety of activities on bayfront.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 39
PARK AND RECREATION
Expand Convention Center grounds and take advantage of its bayfront location
by creating a bayfront public park and plaza south of the Convention Center on
Shoreline Boulevard medians and the Barge Dock.
Recreation park improvements for Blucher and South Bluff Parks.
Possible expansion and com~ection of Blucher Park to South Bluff Park.
Develop public plazas on the Bluff Balustrade and improvements to Upper
Broadway and La Retama Park.
Place public art at:
· 1-37 at Shoreline Boulevard;
· La Retama Park;
· Shoreline Boulevard in front of the Arena and expanded Convention Center;
· Bayfront landmasses;
· Artesian Park; and
· Bayfront Park
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Promote development of the marina landmasses with public/private joint
ventures for retail, restaurant, entertainment, park, marina, residential, and/or
hotel development to capitalize on the unique views and prime bayfront location.
Establish a Tax Increment Financing District or equivalent mechanism to provide
financing for capital improvements in the South Central Area Development Plan.
Relocate the Army Corps of Engineer Offices to a site away from the Bayfront
Arts and Science Park. Promote development with a public/private joint venture
for retail, restaurant, entertainment, and/or hotel development to capitalize on the
unique views and prime bayfront and harbor location.
Additional sources of funding should be aggressively pursued for the restoration
and adaptive reuse of the 1914 Historic Nueces County Courthouse.
South Central A rea Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 40
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1. Pollution prevention devices at all stormwater outfalls along the bayfront to
capture stormwater debris and reduce pollution in the bay waters especially at the
Marina.
2. Drainage improvements within Blucher Park to prevent periodic wash out of the
Blucher Park stream and adjacent wildlife habitat.
AMENITIES AND LANDSCAPING
Contract with a nationally recognized urban designer to provide comprehensive
urban design guidelines for downtown, uptown, the BASP, the bayfront, and the
marina.
2. IH-37 landscaping improvements need a higher degree of maintenance between
the Crosstown Exchange and the Bayfront.
3. Establish grand entrance features to the Bayfront Arts and Science Park at
Resaca Street and Shoreline Boulevard and Chaparral Street and 1-37.
4. Develop a pedestrian walkway along the bayfront between the barge dock and
the Solomon Ortiz International Center.
5. Enhance the seawall with special pavers or concrete imprinting, landscaping,
increased lighting on steps, and creation of shade.
Install consistent, high quality, metal halide lighting in the Marina including the
breakwater, to tie the public waterfront and downtown together and provide high
quality illumination.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRANSIT
Create a Shoreline Boulevard operations plan for temporary closure of travel
lanes during large festival events such as Buccaneer Days, etc. to ensure
pedestrian safety.
Construction of pedestrian "bump-outs", sidewalk widening, planting of street
trees, etc per Policy Statements B.C.6, B.C.7, and B.C.8. The construction of
these pedestrian improvements will address the core of needed pedestrian
connections in the Central Business District, on the bayfront, and the Bayfront
Arts and Science Park. Construction of all pedestrian corridors shall be in
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
South Central Area Development Plan
February I0, 2004
Page 41
Commission a transportation study to determine the feasibility of changing
one-way streets downtown to two way for the purpose of creating better
interconnectivity and enhanced access to storefront business in the
downtown.
Improve public signage for East Port Avenue and the U.S. 181 on-ramp north
of Belden Street should be improved to make the public better aware of these
streets as secondary routes to and from the Bay Front Arts and Science Park
(BASP).
Improve traffic control throughout the plan area with "real-time" traffic
responsive signal and pedestrian activated controls.
Creation of designated park and ride locations on the edge of the downtown
for shuttle to the BASP, Marina, and other attractions in the downtown
Extension of Shoreline Boulevard to connect with Chaparral Street in the
BASP.
Improve access from U.S. 181 (Harbor Bridge) to Padre Street (1-37 frontage
road.)
Street improvements necessary for baseball stadium, arena and BASP access.
Extend Staples Street to Fitzgerald Street after the Broadway Treatment Plant
is relocated.
Enhanced public transportation system, including but not limited to a fixed
alignment streetcar system.
12. Relocation of the Power Street off-ramp from US 181 to Belden Street.
Sou~ Cen~alArea Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page42
G. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
POLICY STATEMENT G.I
This Plan constitutes the primary guide for the development and
redevelopment of the South Central Area. The Plan provides the overall basis
for which the City makes determinations concerning zoning, capital
improvement projects and programs such as street improvements, park and
marina improvements, and infrastructure improvements, and to a somewhat
lesser degree building code issues.
POLICY STATEMENT G.2
A Strategic Action Committee will be established by the City to implement
this Plan. This group should consist of entrepreneurs and property owners with
businesses or property located within the South Central area, professional
architects and engineers, commercial realtors, at-large citizens who have no
financial interest in the Area, and representatives from governmental agencies
which provide services to the Area, and representatives from the applicable City
advisory committees, e.g. Watershore, Parks, etc. The primary charge to this ad
hoc group is to aggressively pursue the implementation of this Plan. The
committee shall develop specific strategies for implementation of the Plan with
specific timelines to implement the respective strategies and a clear
determination of which agency or individual is responsible to implement specific
projects or programs. The highest priority projects for the Strategic Action
Committee include:
South Central Area Development Plan projects to be recommended for
inclusion in the next City Bond Program;
· Implementation of sustainable new or additional funding sources for
Central Business District improvements, i.e., Tax Increment Financing
District, Public Improvement District, increase in marina slip rental rates
to upper range of coastal marinas, or other mechanisms to fund projects.
Identified funding sources should be in place within 12 months of
adoption of the South Central Area Plan;
· Final resolution of the "Bayfront Park" including funding for
improvements and construction, if any is required.
· Annual input into the City's Capital hnprovements Program.
South CentralArea Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page43
APPENDIX A: ISSUES REPORT
Sou~CentrnlArea Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page44
APPENDIX A: ISSUES REPORT
Introduction
A comprehensive plan is a long-range planning document that cities use to provide a guideline for the future
use of public and private properly (zoning and subdivisions) and as a guideline for the location of capital
improvements, such as roads, utility lines, and other public infrastructure. The Corpus Christi City Charter,
approved by voters in 1986, mandated that the City would have a comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive
Plan and amendments to it are reviewed by the City Planning Commission and approved by the City Council.
The Charter also required that any plan element must have ample opportunity for public citizen input.
Background
In 1987, City Council approved the first phase of the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan, the
Corpus Christi Policy Statements. The Policy Statements document is a broad policy document including
goals, objectives and policies regarding long-range growth and development of the City. The Policy
Statements contain development policies on land use, transportation, public services, economic development,
and protection of the environment.
The second phase of the development of the City's Comprehensive Plan is the formulation of more detailed
area plans for each large geographic area of the City. Since the adoption of the Policy Statements, 11 Area
Development Plans have been adopted by the City. The original South Central Area Development Plan was
adopted in 1991. Since 12 years has lapsed since the original plan was adopted and numerous changes have
occurred in the South Central area, the need for the current plan update is apparent.
Attached is the planning process (Exhibit A) for the update of the South Central Area Development Plan. As
part of the process, an informal stakeholders group composed of public and private business leaders was
formed to meet with staff and suggest planning issues to be addressed in the Plan update.(Exhibit B) After
four meetings with the Stakeholder Group, staff developed this Issues Report. (Exhibit C) The Report was
then submitted to the Stakeholder's Group for review and comment. After making Stakeholder revisions, the
Issues Report will be presented to the City Planning Commission.
The next step in the process will be for Staff and the Stakeholders Group to use the issues report as a basis for
updating of the South Central Area Development Plan, taking into account the identified issues. The draft Plan
will be presented to appropriate City Boards and Committees for review and comment. Staff will incorporate
suggestions into the draft Plan and then submit the dral2 Plan to the Planning Commission for public comment
and public hearings. Recommendations by the Planning Commission will be incorporated into the draft Plan
and then submitted to City Council at a public hearing for final approval.
Environment
Flood Hazard Areas - Much of the area below the uptown bluff is located in designated Flood Hazard Areas.
The area bayward of the seawall including the Marina is within in a velocity zone. Areas within velocity or
"V"- zones are subject to damaging wave action of greater than three feet in addition to the base storm
elevation during a 100-year flood. Special care must be taken for all improvements bayward of the seawall to
minimize damage by storm surges from the bay.
Areas of very low elevation landward of the seawall and below the bluff are protected from storm surges by the
14-foot high seawall. These low areas are located in the FEMA "B"- zone (100 to 500 year flood), generally a
very low risk flood area. However, because of these very low elevations below the bluff development is also
dependent on the downtown drainage and pump system to keep those areas from flooding. In 2002 numerous
businesses flooded twice during localized downpour rain events during the summer and fall. This has caused a
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 45
significant upgrade of the area's drainage system to be included in the short range portion of the City's Capital
Improvement Program
Issue: (See Stormwater issue under the Utilities section).
Water Quality of Bayfront - Stormwater draining into the bayfront marina and Magee and Emerald Beaches
are impacted by downtown runoffpollutants i.e., trash, litter, street pollutants, etc.
Issue: There are dozens of stormwater outfalls along the seawall and the beaches of the Plan area that
deposit floating debris along the seawall at the corners of the T and L-Heads is evidence of this issue.
Wetlands - The only wetlands within the Plan area are located within the natural drainageway in Blucher
Park.
Issue: Blucher Park Improvements.
Existing and Future Land Use
High intensity mixed use development (residential and commercial) and civic oriented development of the
highest possible character is the vision for the South Central area. High visibility corridors might include.
Issue: Provision of amenities for high-density developments and along high visibility corridors such
as Shoreline Boulevard, IH-37, and connecting streets to the Bayfront Arts and Science Park.
Issue: Future land use for the Port area immediately west of the Harbor Bridge.
Issue: Most appropriate use of the abandoned Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant site.
Housing -
Issue: Incentives to promote significant increases of quality residential development
and compatible mixed uses in the CBD and surrounding residential neighborhoods
e.g. conversions to loft apartments, specialty grocery stores, and other residential
serving uses.
Issue: Future use of residential areas west, northwest, southwest, and south of the
CBD.
Issue: Incentives to a create sense of conunanity in the Central Area.
Issue: Identification of obstacles to redevelopment in the Central Area.
Issue: Reduction or elimination of residential parking requirements.
Urban Design Guidelines and Zoning
Urban design is a term used to define how a community manages the physical and visual character of its built
environment. Urban design has become an increasingly dominant issue in the South Central Area in response
the City's desire to promote quality development in the City's most visible and accessible tourist district. The
South Central A rea Development Plan
February I0, 2004
Page 46
design quality of the built environment can have a profound effect on the economic and social health of a city.
For example, the landscaped pedestrian intersection improvement along Chaparral Street, the new street
lighting installed by the Downtown Management District throughout downtown and the landscaping and
sidewalk improvements on Peoples Street help create a "sense of place". A high quality visual environment is a
fundamental requirement to attract long-term, high-quality investment.
While the City has had some successes in creating public improvements with a unique high quality and
character, the City has not adopted a set of Urban Design Guidelines to assure a consistent theme and high
quality for public and private development.
Issue: Possible areas of the CBD that should be subject to Urban Design guidelines:
· Primary Entryways to the Bayfront Business District, the Bayfront, the Bayfront
Arts and Science Park (i.e., Port Avenue, IH-37, Twigg Street, Leopard Street, and
Agnes/Kinney Street).
· Along Shoreline Boulevard and Ocean Drive.
· All development and improvements in the Marina and on the Bayfront.
· Along the Bluff Balustrade.
· Bayfront Arts and Science Park.
· Central Business District (Downtown and Uptown)
Issue: Elements that could be considered for inclusion in any urban design guidelines: · Higher density mixed-use development
· Mixed-use compatibility
· Pedestrian amenities including lighting and landscaping for private and public
development
· Greater signagecontrol
· Architectural controls including preservation of historic facades and structures
· Public and private parking lots
· Compact parking spaces
· View corridors
· GreatStreets Program
Neo-traditional development is characterized by medium to high density, mixed use,
pedestrian friendly design and amenities, small front yard setbacks, storefronts, narrow
streets and urban design guidelines.
Issue: The Plan may contain policies on where "neo-traditional" development in South
Central inner neighborhoods would be appropriate.
Issue: Reduction of billboards in the South Central area.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 47
Historic Preservation -
Issue: Incentives for preservation and facade restoration.
Zoning and Development
Existing zoning district requirements and zoning district boundaries within the Central Area should be
critically analyzed to assure that zoning will complement and encourage redevelopment of the area.
Issue: Implementation of South Central objectives in the Unified Development Code.
Issue: Rezoning requests and building permit approval contingent upon adequacy of infrastructure to
handle the additional intensity of development.
High-rise development on Shoreline Blvd.
issue: Establishment of"visual corridors" to protect views from the lower mid-rise development west
of Water Street to the bayfront.
Economic Incentives
Issue: Provision of a full gamut of financial assistance to prospective development in the Central
Business District, e.g., tax increment financing, renewal community tax incentives, tax abatements,
etc.
Transportation
Three freeways, Interstate 37, U.S. 181, and the Crosstown Expressway serve the Central Area. Five arterial
streets serve the area including: Staples, Morgan, Leopard, Agnes/Laredo and Shoreline Boulevard. The
Regional Transit Authority has made a substantial investment in the South Central Area including: the Staples
Street Station; Substations at Water Street/Schatzell, Lawrence/Chaparral Street, LeopardFFancahua Street;
Water Taxi service stations at the Barge Dock and the Peoples Street T-Head.
Shoreline Boulevard -
Issue: Determination if a bayfront park through a specific community wide planning process is
feasible.
Issue: Reduction of traffic lanes on Shoreline Boulevard and traffic management techniques.
Water Street -
Issue: Pedestrian improvements on Water Street to enhance this highly traveled and highly visible
corridor e.g., landscaping, pedestrian bump-outs, transit stations, unified lighting, etc.
Terminus of North Shoreline Boulevard The conceptual master plan for the new arena, the expanded
convention center and the surrounding area envisions the extension of Shoreline Boulevard northward into the
Water Garden area terminating at Chaparral Street. This design would have a positive resolution to the dead
end of the existing North Shoreline Boulevard. However, the design comes with several issues which would
need to be resolved.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 48
The running water "brook" which connects the Art Museum to the Water Garden would be
broken, visually and physically separating the Museum from the Water Garden. Since the
Water Garden and its "brook" connection was paid for by the Museum, any extension of
Shoreline Boulevard should include participation in the planning and design by the museum.
Issue: Vehicular and pedestrian circulation at the Bayfront Arts and Science Park (BASP).
New Harbor Bridge -
Issue: Future access to the CBD from the new Harbor Bridge and reuse of abandoned sections of the
old Harbor Bridge right-of-way.
Transit Services, Parking and Other Facilities - The Central Area due to its high-density development, with
high concentrations of employment and government centers and the city's primary tourist attractions and
accommodations, has the highest demand for transit services. The new arena, baseball stadium, and the
expanded convention center will add significantly to the demand for transit services in the ama. The RTA is
currently analyzing all feasible options to significantly enhance public transit services in the area.
Issue: Determining the most effective combination of on and off-street parking and RTA services
with regard to serving the Bayfront Arts and Science Park and the Central Business District (CBD).
Issue: Zoning requirements consistent with plan objectives for parking and enhanced
transit services.
Issue: Provision of public parking vs. reliance on transit services.
Issue: Parking metering expansion and pricing.
Downtown/Uptown Grid Network -
Issue; Preserving the grid arterial system in the CBD.
Issue: Criteria and justification for street closures.
Sidewalks -
Issue: Maximizing pedestrian connectivity between the Bayfront/Downtown/Uptown and Bayfront
Arts and Science Park.
Issue: Pedestrian comfort improvements in the Bayfront/Downtown/Uptown and Bayfront Arts and
Science Park.
Public Services
Utilities - Rehabilitation of aging and undersized infrastructure in the Central Business
District.
Water
Issue: Identification of water distribution system improvements for the Central Area.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 49
Wastewater
Issue: Identification of wastewater distribution system improvements for the Central Area.
Stormwater - Sea Wall Improvements Phase One (Art Museum to Power Street) of four phases is
approximately 50% completed with completion of this phase projected by November 2003. All of the
remaining phases are projected to be completed by Fall of 2006. These repairs should provide adequate
protection from storm surges for 60 to 70 years.
To protect against localized flooding such as occurred in 2002, additional drainage improvements including
significant upgrades to the pump stations and drainage boxes and piping in the downtown area will be needed
in the short to medium term. Many of the stormwater lines in the area are also very old and are in an advanced
state of deterioration and/or not providing the necessary capacity due to inadequate sizing or blockage due to
buildup of silt.
Issue: Stormwater system improvements to protect the Central Area from localized flooding.
Issue: Long-term maintenance for the South Central storm water system.
Issue: Best management practices for storm drainage in the South Central Area.
Natural Gas
Issue: No issues identified.
Other Utilities -
Issue: Enhancement, coordination, and consolidation of private utility providers in public easements
and right-of-way.
Parks
Bayfront Park -
Issue: Creation ofa bayfront park and associated Shoreline realignment.
Magee and Emerald Beach - The current beach renourishment project will create significant widening of
Magee and Emerald beaches.
Issue: Identification of high priority beach facilities, e.g. public showers, public bathrooms, etc.
Blucher and South Bluff Parks -
Blucher Park is a City-designated wildlife sanctuary and only minimal brick and mortar improvements can be
constructed in the Park.
Issue: Park improvements to Blucher and South BluffParks.
Issue: Expansion and connection of Blucher to South Bluff Park.
Bluff Balustrade -
Issue: Bluff Balustrade, War Memorial Park and La Retama Park improvements e.g.,
opportunity for public plazas.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 50
Bayfront
Recreational amenities
Marina
Issue: Specific public purpose redevelopment objectives.
Issue: Marina liveaboards.
lssue: Expansion of the existing Marina.
Festival site location The new arena is under construction and scheduled to be completed in late 2004. The
area along North Shoreline Boulevard between Power Street and the Convention Center may not be large
enough to accommodate Bayfest and other possible festivals.
Issue: Permanent festival park location and facilities.
Public Facilities
Public facilities -
Issue: Bayfront public facilities such as public parking, public restrooms, recreational facilities, shade
structures, etc.
Issue: Retaining public schools to serve the South Central Area.
Historic Nueces County Courthouse - This prominent dilapidated building at the entrance to the City and
Bayfront has been a source of much debate over the last 25 years. Restoration is scheduled to begin in the fall
of 2003.
Issue: Additional sources of funding and adaptive reuse.
Public Safety
Shoreline Boulevard and Pedestrian Crossings -
Issue: Pedestrian safety for crossing of Shoreline Boulevard: between the Coliseum and the Seawall
during the Buccaneer Days carnival; across fi.om Shoreline Hotels primarily located at Twigg,
Peoples, and Lawrence Streets.
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 51
EXHIBIT A: Revised Process Schedule 6-17-03
Planning Process and Schedule 2003 Dates
Initiate dialog meetings with the Downtown Management District
(DMD) Long Range Planning Committee (LRPC). to ident!f~' downtown isz:ze: and to ~.[.~,~y a "vision" for the dc'
Series of meetings with the Stakeholder Group to identify
development issues and possible alternative courses of action, mad
refine thc "dc:;'ntown :'i:!c':". Stakeholders may include the DMD,
Chamber of Commerce, RTA, TXDOT, CCISD, Convention and
Visitors Bureau, Port of Corpus Christi, Economic Development
Corporation, Convention Center/Heritage Park, Metropolitan
Planning Organization, Coastal Bend Bays and Estuary Program,
May thru July
A Downtown Issues Report will be presented to the Planning
Commission. Staff will also forward an informational report to the
City Council containing the issues identified by the Stakeholders
Group.
Staffwill formulate a complete the draft update to the South Central
Area Development Plan by addressing the issues identified in the
Issues Report. The Stakeholders will review and suggest changes to
the draft plan. Staffwill revise the draft plan as necessary.
June/July August
July thru August
Staff will review the Draft Plan and Stakeholder changes with City
Management. After an)'
forwarded +^ +h~ City ~' ..... ;' as :.r ....,:~. r.~ act!ch required at
Planning Commission presentation of the draft plan and the
Commission provides comments and suggestions.
Staff presents the Draft Plan to z~keho!derz: the DMD Long Rang
Planning Committee, Landmarks Commission, RTA, Water Shore
Advisory Board, Park and Recreation Advisory, Transportation
Advisory Committee, etc.
AugusffSeptember
September
September - October
9.
10.
Planning Commission public hearing/action.
City Council presentation.
City Council public hearing and approval.
November
November
December
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 52
EXHIBIT B: Invitation Letter to Stakeholders
April 29, 2003
Subject:
Invitation to participate in an ad hoc committee to identify South Central (Central Business
District) planning issues
The City Council has placed a high priority on undertaking a comprehensive update of the South
Central Area Development Plan adopted in 1991. An updated plan is needed to address
expansion of the Convention Center, construction of the Arena and baseball stadium and
development of the marina. Additionally, the City Charter requires periodic updating of
Comprehensive Plans.
The purpose of this letter is to invite you to participate in the South Central Stakeholders Group
(SCSG). The City is forming a Stakeholder Group of 10 - 20 members from various segments
of the Central Business District (CBD). We anticipate that the SCSG will meet no more than
three times in the coming months to discuss and identify Central Business District planning
issues. Each meeting will last approximately one and a half hours. The first two meetings will
be informal exchanges of ideas on Central Business District (CBD) planning issues and general
brainstorming on how the area should develop. By the third meeting, staff will present a draft
Issues Report for the group to review. Staff will submit a final Issues Report based upon the
group's discussion to the Planning Commission in June or July. The Issues Report will be a
major basis Staff uses to formulate policies for the draft plan to be presented and public hearings
held with the Planning Commission this summer.
The Stakeholder Group meetings will be held at City Hall, 1201 Leopard Street in the 6th floor
meeting room. The SCSG meeting schedule is as follows:
Meeting 1 - Thursday, May 8, 2003, 6:00pm - 7:30pm
Meeting 2 - Thursday, May 22, 2003, 6:00pm - 7:30pm
Meeting 3 - Thursday, June 12, 2003, 6:00pm - 7:30pm
South CentralAreaDevelopment Plan
February 10,2004
Page 53
Your participation in this process is a great opportunity to help steer the City in the right
direction concerning Central Business District redevelopment. Staff will be contacting each of
you to determine if you would like to participate in the SCSG. If you have any questions about
this letter, feel free to call Bob Payne, Senior Planner, or Mic Raasch, City Planner, at (361)
880-3560.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of participating in these very important
stakeholder meetings for the South Central Area Development Plan.
Sincerely,
George K. Noe
City Manager
CC
Margie C. Rose, Assistant City Manager
Art Sosa, Director of Development Services
Michael Gunning, Assistant Director of Development Services / Director of Planning
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 54
EXHIBIT C: Issues Identified by Stakeholders Group
South Central Stakeholder Group
May 22, 2003
Ranking Assets and Strengths
A = High
t;= Medium Assets and Strengths
C = Low (Ranked by Highest Number of Listings)
A ~ayfront ... Unique
A vlarina Development
A nfrastructure... Facilities Development
B tistoric Buildings...Connection to Past & Tourism $
B ~ort and Ship Channel...Partnership Opportunities
B [vailabilit¥ of Vacant Land and Bldgs. For Development
B )iversity of Uses
B Vlarina... Activity
B ~lluffBalustrade and Seawall...Opportunities for Unique Overlooks
B 3rid Transportation System...Choices of Development and Mobility
B Business District on the Water
B Views...Protect
B Concentration of Cultural Elements in Bayfront Arts and Science Park
B City Officials...Concerned with and Aware of Value of Area and Priorities
C Natural Beauty (of Bay)
C Lack of Traffic Congestion
C Climate
C Environment
C Relaxed/Casual Nature
C Directed Patrol Officers
C Access to Waterfront
C Hotels.~ .Generate Revenue
C gntertainment...24/7 Attractions
C [bundance of/and Quality of Vacant Properties...Opportunity for City to Guide development
C )cean Drive/Shoreline Boulevard View...Unique Recreational Opportunities
C )owntown Management District...Willing to Tax Self for Betterment of Area
C >h~ps/Port Economic Opportumt es Fun to Watch Ships
C ~.enewal Community Program
C ~ar~est Concentration of Restaurants
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 55
Issues and Challenges
Ranking
-- High
[~= Medium Issues and Challenges
= Low (Ranked by Highest Number of Listings)
~.ging Infrastructure:
A - Very Expensive to Repair/Rehabilitate
· Creates Problems
- Not Designed to Modern Standards
· Substandard Sidewalks
A Lack of Residential Units
A Lack of Pedestrian Comforts...Including Public Transit Facilities and ADA Compliance
A Derelict Buildings
B Eommuter Traffic along Seawall
Multi-modal Transportation Facilities
B - Drop offand Pick up (Water Taxi)
B ~qew Harbor Bridge
Shoreline Boulevard:
B - Public Safety Concerns
· Green Space Connection to Waterfront
B Lack of Connectivity between Port and Downtown and Uptown
Need to Retain Schools in Area
B - Necessary to Retain/Attract Residents
B Historic Courthouse - Poor Condition
B Lack of Parking - Nowhere to put Cars
B Special Events...Location and Frequency
Socioeconomic Conditions/Vacant Buildings
C - Deters Population Growth
C Limited Access to Some Areas
C Vacant Property (Absentee Owners)
C ]['raffic Flow - Exitin[; Area
C Climate: Heat, 'Wind and Shade
C Urban Desi~;n - Enhance Aesthetics
C Lack of Color - Make Bolder
C Concert Noise
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 56
Ideas and Visions
Ranking
~. = Iligh
[~= Medium Ideas and Visions
Z = Low (Ranked by Highest Number of Listings)
Residential/Mixed Uses - Variety of Opportunities
A e.g. Loft Apartments, "Liveaboards", etc.
A Make Downtown, Uptown, and Bayfront to Port Area More Accessible to Pedestrian and Public
Transit Users with Trees and Lighting
A New and Improved Transit Services - Help Move People (more efficiently) ~ e.g. Trolley
A Creation of Economic Incentives: Tax Abatement, Tax Increment Financing, etc.
A World Class Marina
B Upgraded and Rehabilitated Infrastructure
B ~andscaping/Signage - Beautification
Jpper Broadway Developed as Public Terrace Plaza with Cafes,
B ~,etail, etc.
B 'reservation of Existing Residential Neighborhoods
B ~elocate Commuter Traffic Away from Bayfront
B ~ehabilitate Vacant Structures
C 'arking Garages - Coordinated with Transit System
- with Ground Level Retail (along street frontages)
C ~evitalization of Existing Architecture
C ~.ctivities to Attract People
C Enhance Accessibility to Bayfront
C Zreate Safe Bayfront Park
C Zreate Festival Facility
C Attract a Convention Center Hotel (Encourage Economic Activities)
C Fhis Plan to be Used as a Tool to Create a Vision
C Enhance Accessibility to Bayfront - Improve Port Avenue
C Dual Use Opportunities for 24/7 Activities
C Expanded Entertainment Opportunities
C Widen Sidewalks (in Downtown)
C Park and Open Space Enhancements
C Higher Education and Housing Opportunities (Satellite Campus)
C T-Head Development
C Need to Focus on Downtown as Economic Engine
Adaptive Reuse of Coliseum - Passive Uses with Arts and Crafts
C Not Rides, etc. - Will Create New Activity Node
Soutb Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 57
APPENDIX B: HISTORICAL PLANS AND STUDIES
South Central Area Development Plan
February 10, 2004
Page 58
A comprehensive list of studies, plans, and reports concerning the Central Study Area was prepared as part of the
original 1989 South Central Plan and has been at~ached to the following list. Since 1989, the following is a list of
land use studies pertaining to the South Central Plan that have been developed by the City or other agencies:
1991 South Central Area Development Plan adopted by City Council on May 21, 1991. The first
adopted comprehensive plan element specifically for the downtown area adopted by City Council since the
1956 Corpus Christ Comprehensive Plan.
Est. 1991 Heart of Corpus Christi Vision Plan an urban design follow up to the South Central Area
Development Plan. The Vision P}an contains a number of public and private property recommendations
pertaining to streetscape and park/plaza enhancements.
t996 Corpus Christi Community Cultural Plan accepted by City Council in 1996. A blue print for
community cultural development offering recommended goals and implementation strategies to guide
public and private sectors.
June 1996 Vision 2000 - a grassroots visioning process undertaken by citizens committees over a two year
period from 1994 thru 1996. The process included input citizens and a number of public agencies
including the City of Corpus Christ and a number of town hall style meetings and workshops.
October 1998 Waterfront Master Plan for Cargo Docks I and 2 for the Port of Corpus Christi. This plan,
consistent with the South Central Area Development Plan, addressed the adaptive reuse and
redevelopment of industrial docks to tourist oriented developments next to the Bayfront Arts and Science
Park. This plan area encompasses the Solomon Ortiz Center and proposed baseball stadium.
October 2003 AIA's Bayfront Plan an intensive one day charette of AIA members to illustrate a
recommended bayfront park concept.
Draft South Central Area Development Plan
City Council Public Hearing 02-10-04
February 10, 2004
ATTACHMENT VIII
ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
AN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI("THE CITY")BY ADOPTING THE REVISED
SOUTH CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES ON THE DOWNTOWN, UPTOWN, BAYFRONT,
BAYFRONT ARTS AND SCIENCE PARK AND SURROUNDING
AREAS FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, FUTURE
LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC SERVICES, AND
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; RESCINDING THE SOUTH
CENTRAL AREA DEVELOPMENT PLAN PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED BY RESOLUTION 021169, MAY 21, 1991, AND
AMENDED BY ORDINANCE 022166, FEBRUARY 28, 1995;
AMENDING RELATED ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN INCLUDING THE URBAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded to the City Council its
reports and recommendations concerning the amendment of the South Central
Area Development Plan, an element of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Corpus Christi;
WHEREAS, with proper notice to the public, public hearings were held on
Wednesday, November 19, 2003, during a meeting of the Planning Commission,
and on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, during a meeting of the City Council of the
City of Corpus Christi, during which all interested persons were allowed to
appear and be heard;
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that these amendments would best
serve public health, necessity, and convenience, and the general welfare of the
City of Corpus Christi and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the South Central Area Development Plan (a part of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas), including the
Introduction, Policy Statements, Figures, Tables and all other elements and pads
of the South Central Area Development Plan, are hereby adopted as an integral
part of the Comprehensive Plan to read as shown in Exhibit "A" attached and
incorporated by reference.
SECTION 2. That the South Central Area Development Plan adopted by City
Council Resolution 021169, May 21, 1991, and amended by Ordinance 022166,
February 28, 1995, are hereby rescinded.
SECTION 3. That to the extent the amendments made by this Ordinance
represent a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan,
including the Urban Transportation Plan, is amended to conform to the
amendments made by this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. That the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas
as amended from time to time, except as changed by this Ordinance and any
other ordinances adopted on this date, remains in full force and effect.
SECTION 5. That any ordinance or part of any ordinance in conflict with this
ordinance is expressly repealed by this ordinance.
SECTION 6. The City Council intends that every section, paragraph, subdivision,
clause, phrase, word or provision of this ordinance shall be given full force and
effect for its purpose. Therefore, if any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause,
phrase, word or provision of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by
final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, that judgment shall not affect
any other section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word or provision of
this ordinance.
SECTION 7. Publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of
Corpus Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
reading on this the
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenere
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
day of
., 2004, by the following vote:
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on
this the . day of
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
,2004, by the following vote
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the
ATTEST:
day of
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
,2004.
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Approved /~¢~,~_? , 2004
For City Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
LIST OF
STUDIES, PLANS, AND
CONCERNING THE CENTI~AL STUDY A~EA
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
JkNUARY 4, 1989
1. Bayfront Development Plan, Hare and Hare, 1944-45.
Accepted.
Graphic Design for Bayfront including Shoreline Boulevard, and
four L and T-Heads.
2. .Heliport Location Study, Zoning and Planning Co~ission
1953-54. Staff study.
Proposed several alternative sites for the location of a
'heliport along the bayfront and in the downtown area. The
study strongly supported the creation of a landmas~ at the end
of what is now I.H. 37. As an interim heliport location the
study reco~ended what is now the median of I.H.'37. The
heliport today is located in the 'median of I.H. 37.
3. Comprehensive Plan for Corpus Christi Area, Harland
Bartholomew and Associates, 1953. Adopted.
~'~.e first and only Comprehensive Plan to be approved for
the City of Corpus Christi. Reviews origin of traffic
destined to the central business district (CBD), existing
_traffic patterns in CBD, and existing parking facilities.
study placed a great deal of emphasis on proposed parking.
The Plan recommended the following improvements along the
Bayfront.
· Bathhouse at McCaughan Park - Pedestrian tunnel udder
E. Shoreline connecting McCaughan Park to Water.
Build L-Head - Complete original plan for Marinas.
' Off-shore parkway - Original concept.
' Shrimp fleet -
harbor entrance.
Provide new accommodations at present
· Arts Commission To determine appropriateness and
adequacy of architectural design of buildings facing the
bay.
For Corpus Christi 5each the Plan recommended the
~emova] cf 5ascule Bridge crossing Proposed to replace
5ascu]e 5ridge with a gunnel under the harbor entrance. (The
tunae] later proved tc k.e unfeasible and the Harbor Eridge was
created in ~ts place.) The study also F~oposed to construct
highway lB1 west of Timon Blvd, where it now connects with the
Harbor Bridge.
North Beach Study, Price W. Armstrong, 1956. Accepted
* Build a wide and elevated recreational beach and a
protective seawall at North Beach.
* Protect the area by reinforcing and vegetating the
dune wall of Mustang, St. Joseph and Northern Padre
Islands.
5. CORPUS CHR~ST~, TEXAS Central Business District, A Panel
study by the Urban Land Institute, 1965. Accepted.
The study includes an examination of the existing
physical, economic, and social conditions within the City and
their direct or indirect influences on the Central Business
District. The study also reviews existing conditions within
the Central Area itself, identifying both problems and
opportunities. Recommendations provided in this study
include:
· Government Center , New office structures for the
County, Federal, City governments and the Department of
Education constructed as a new government center complex
immediately to the north of the retail core.
Blighted areas - Demolish and redevelop through the
~mplementation of a Federal Urban Renewal Program. :
· Major retail core Bounded by Water and Mesquite
Streets
between Schatzel and Lag una Streets. Refurbish through
removal of parking on a three block section of Chaparral
Street (between Schatzel and La_ouna Streets), sidewalk
widening, canopy construction, sign control,
beautification and other face-lifting techniques.
* Future traffic congestion Avoid traffic congestion
in the CBD through the construction of an off-shore
highway or alternative inland route.
6. corpus christi Beach Plan, corpus Christi
planning Commission, 1966. Adopted.
Eeach access and parking FIc. vide at
the beach.
One-way loop system Eur~sJde, Timon, and
Shoreline Boulevard.
Zoning and
five locations
North
7. Volume I and II, the Comprehensive Plan for Corpq~
christi, Harland Bartholomew and Associates, 1967. Consultant
report, Accepted.
The study identifies existing land uses, evaluates
existing utilities and discusses the overall existing
condition of the central area. It also includes a review of
the traffic conditions, parking facilities, public
transportation and pedestrian circulation. Recommendations of
the plan include:
* Government Center - Contains all major public
buildings for Federal State, County and City functions
and is located adjacent to the bluff near Leopard street
providing a connection between the uptown and dow%%town
areas, office space, small scale retail outlets and
service activities would surround the government center
forming the core of the central area plan.
* North of the central core, from I.H. 37 to the
Bayfront Science Park, a mixed use neighborhood of high
density residential, con~erce, and controlled industry.
* West of the central core area {above the Bluff)
existing commercial uses along Leopard street would
remain as a secondary commercial center. Redewelop the
residential neighborhood south of the Leopard as a medium
to high density residential area.
* South of the central core area, proposes a
high-density residential area in the neighborhood
surrounding Blucher and South Bluff Parks. In this sa~e
area below the Bluff, a small office and service
commercial center is proposed along Carancahua and
Tancahua Streets.
* Improvement of streets Addition of several new
connections, and a solution to the complicated movements
between uptown and downtown. A series of pedestrian
walkways is also proposed in the area opened by the
extension of Leopard Street to Shoreline Boulevard.
, Shopping mall Established on Chaparral Street
between Cooper and Schatzel Streets by closing the street
to vehicular movement. Appropriate amenities provid~d.
* Major tourist facilities - To be located in the
central area: a convention center complex, the marina,
and a new cultural center.
, Hotel, motel, and tourist complex - along
shoreline Boulevard. At the end of Shoreline Boulevard,
the present Cclisehun would be expanded into a convention
center. Shoreline would be relocated to the west side
3
of the Coliseum/Convention Center in order to facilitate
the improved recreational and tourist activities proposed
in the immediate bayfront and marina areas.
Marina should be enlarged.
* Off-shore highway concept.
* Restoration of North Beach - Enlargement of existing
parks, acquisition of additional open space, and the
development of tourist facilities to include sites for
motel or hotel operations, restaurants, cruise boats,
fishing piers, etc.
Residential development - Apartments.
* Regional park - North end of Corpus Christi beach.
8. Exploratory Evaluation, An Off-Shore Highway,
Bartholomew, 1967. Accepted.
Harland
This study considered the feasibility of an off-shore
highway in the Bayfront area, linking a series of man-made
islands.
9. Corpus Christi Bayfront Study, Sasaki, Walker, and
Associates, 1974. Accepted.
Discusses possibility of reviving downtown by creating a
mall with shops, restaurants, entertainment, small parks,
fountains etc. Recommends a bay to bluff connection via
Peoples Street.
* Shoreline Phased out as a main arterial to provide
a green park zone. Increase the amount of planting and
create defined pedestrian walkways.
· Ocean Drive Consider in light of University
expansion and increased tourist activity. An exclusive
bike path interconnecting parks on the shoreline is
highly recommended.
Peoples Street T-Head - Developed with bandshell.
* Corpus Christi Beach - new development would not
compete with the main downtown area. Low rise, high
density small scale, primarily residential.
· Fishermen's wharf - Tourist oriented complex/possible
ports of call for pleasure crafts at south end.
Beach parking and Boulevard access Acquire land
- 4 -
along east side of Highway 181 for public parking,
link parking areas to beach by pedestrian sidewalk and
develop old railroad right-of-way as green boulevard.
· Connection of bayfront beach to Nueces Bay across
the northern end of peninsula.
· Marina - At Rinccn Point.
10. Choices Facing Corpus christ%, Goals for Corpus Christi,
1975.--~ot Completed.
This goals program was the City's first concerted effort
to determine goals and objectives for the improvement of the
City. Extensive public hearings were held throughout the
community by a 150 member Goals Committee. The program
produced the above reference booklet which was actually a
questionaire used to determine the ,'choices" facing Corpus
christi. For numerous reasons the program was not completed.
11. Landmark Preservation Plan, Landmark Commission of the
City of Corpus Christi, 1977. Adopted.
plan establishes criteria for judging historical and
architectural significance. The plan also lists historic
sites which have recognized markers, sites approved for
markers by the Nueces County Historical Commission, and sites
suggested by various citizens of Corpus Christi. Plan is
implemented through the HC Historic zoning district and
Landmark Commission. It is applicable to Central Area Plan
due to the number of historic structures concentrated in the
area-
. CorpUs Christi peach, A Coastal Manacement Beach Access
~l_ot s~ud¥, Planning Department and Texas A&M UniversitY,
1977- Accepted.
* Timon and Surfside boulevards - Continue the theme of
Ocean Drive.
· Access to beaches Strictly pedestrian. These
walkways would accommodate necessary beach support
facilities, such as bathhouseS, restrooms and concession
stands, walks complimented with a system of bikeways and
roadways.
· Saltwater pool, or aquarium At Rincon park.
, Surfside park Located between high and moderate
density uses, provide passive recreational uses. Connect
to Rincon park via an elevated walkway.
· View corridors - Maximize G°od exposure to the
- 5 -
water amd a maximum number of potential sites for
development.
13. R/UDAT Corpus Christi, American Institute of Architects
1978. Accepted. ·
Study describes existing conditions within the central
business area, explains why these conditions exist, identifies
deficiencies and problems occurring in the central area and
proposes solutions that may help to revive the area. Suggested
solutions include:
* Develop a strong pedestrian connection with a Peoples
Street pedestrian mall from Leopard Street on the Bluff
to the Bay.
* Rehabilitate Lower Broadway, Water Street and other
appropriate locations. Provide a system of parking
structures to in commercial and Bayfront areas.
· Housing should be encouraged in a variety of types and
at higher densities.
* "Avenida" - Wlden, improve, and extensively landscape
an "Avenida" from the Do~zntown core area to the heart of
the Mexican-American community. A connection between the
downtown and west side area.
* Reserve the best sites along Shoreline Boulevard for
hotels, but restrict the size and placement of towers to
preserve the view to the water.
* Expansion of transportation systems along Shoreline
Boulevard.
Expand the marina
water taxi service should be provided.
14. Corpus Christi Beach Redevelopment Study, Planning
Department, 1978. Accepted. Completed for HUD-701 Planning
Assistance Grant.
Identified three factors that led to the decline of
Corpus Christi Beach as, 1) the erosion of the recreational
beach, 2) the destructive storm surges produced by hurricanes,
and 3) the loss of commercial exposure resulting from the
rerouting of U.S. 181 after the construction of Nueces Bay
Causeway and Harbor Bridge. Recommendations include:
' Corpus Christi Beach Park - Bath-houses, concessions,
observation decks, fishing piers, an amusement park, salt
15. Marina Development Pla~,
Accepted.
water swimming pool and large aquarium facility.
* Entertainment District - Southern portion of
Christi Beach.
* Waterfront shuttle between Corpus
the Bayfront.
* One way loop boulevard - Timon,
shoreline Boulevard.
SWA Associates,
Corpus
Christi Beach and
Surfside and
1981.
* Bayfront a3nenities Including landscape, lighting,
benches, bollard, trash receptacles, signing, pedestrian
plaza/crossing at Peoples Street and a median
closure/crossing at Starr Street along Shoreline
Boulevard.
* Gateway arrival point at shoreline Boulevard from the
area between I.H. 37 and Mesquite to Water Street zone.
* Development of a public on-the-water activity center
on the Peoples Street T-Head, which includes tour boats,
party boats, restaurants, waterfront shops, a maritime
museUm, and aquarium-
* City adoption of more efficient standards and
arrangement of boat slip construction and reduction of
area devoted to parking lots on landmasses.
16. Nueces County Historical-Architectural Preservation
pl_~an, ~ssociated Planners, and Turner, Rome and Boultingt~ouse,
1982. Accepted by Nueces County Commissioners Court.
Report documents the cultural resources existing in
Nueces County, placing emphasis on those properties or
districts that may qualify for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. Numerous sites in the central
area are identified in this report as historically
significant.
17. An Assessment of the ~teness and Feas~
us~_q~x Increment ~na--~n~ to aid ~-~-~ ~-~vi~izatisn of~
the Bay Front Area in Corpus Christi, TexaS, Trkla, Pett~grew,
A-11e---~and Payne, 1982. Accepted.
Findings and recommendations for the feasibility of Tax
increment Financing in the bayfront area.
15. B_ayfrcnt Plan, Planning Commission, Adopted 1982, a~nended
1984.
This document utilizes together information from past
plans, studies and reports for information on opportunities,
constraints and specific recommendations. It carefully
selects those proposals which work best together along
with existing improvements, to most beneficially utilize
the CBD and the bayfront. Goals, policies and strategies
were developed to accommodate the desired proposals.
The goals include:
* GOAL - Encourage and assist high density development
in the Central Business District consisting of a mixture
of professional offices, motels, hotels, housing and
specialty shops.
* GOAL - Monitor and improve pedestrian and vehicular
movement in the Central Business District, including
promotion of parking facilities.
· GOAL Improve appearance and access to Shoreline
Boulevard and Ocean Drive as major entrance to City.
* GOAL Promote hotels/motels along shoreline
while maintaining visual corridors for property located
west of Shoreline.
GOAL - Encourage additional land masses.
* GOAL - Expand activity in the Marina including boat
slips and commercial activity.
* Goal - Encourage and assist in the development of
Corpus Christi Beach primarily for hotel/motel facilities
and high density housing plus attendant public
facilities.
* Goal Improve public access, physically and visually,
to the full length of the beach and provide better
circulation patterns in the beach area, including
stronger transportation links across the ship channel.
19. Engineering Study and Recommendation for L-Head and
T-Head and Breakwater ~mprovements, Goldston Engineering,
/nc., 1982. Accepted and monies included in 1986 CIP.
Two part engineering study to identify the existing
conditions and problems relating to the T-Heads and L-Head
and recommendations for additional breakwater structures north
cf Peoples street T-Head.
20. Project P]an for Corpus Christi ReJnvestment Zone No.1,
Trkla, Pettigrew, Allen and Payne, Adopted 1983, amended
1987-
Plan describes existing uses and conditions, the
fra3nework for Reinvestment zone No. 1, Phased public
improvements, and an economic feasibility Study.
Plan describes existing uses and conditions, the
fra3nework for Reinvestiment zone No. l, Phased public
improvements, and an economic feasibility Study.
21. Multicultural Center, A Report from Community Unity,
community Unity, 1983. Accepted.
Plan identifies the purpose of the Multicultural Center
to provide space for cultural or ethnic activities, exchange
cultural viewpoints and recount historical events in Corpus
christi. Lists specific strategies to complete the Center.
22. S~tudy of Erosion at Corpus Christi Beach, Goldston
Engineering, Inc., 1983. Accepted
study discusses the pros and cons of an offshore
breakwater or a terminal groin to reduce the erosion problems
at CorpUs Christi Beach. The study recommends the offshore
breakwater as the best solution to the erosion problems. The
study states the if money is not available for the breakwater
then the groin should provide satisfactory results. The City
opted for the use of the groin.
23.
1985.
Task
~orpus Christi '90, Final Report~ Corpus christi '90,
Accepted.
Force I, cultuxe/Aits/La3%d~caping/paxks/Recxeati°n/~rina
* Staples Street staff incorporates the landscaping
of Staples Street into the capital improvement program.
* Design Committee - Areas of existing or potential
scenic value, of historical note, architectural merit, or
of interest to tourist will be placed in the D Zone and
subject to review by the Design Committee. The Committee
has the authority to require changes in appearance of
proposed building, structure, alteration or use of land
and impose conditions of development.
Develop the Marina and shoreline Boulevard areas with
amenities and people-use areas. The development will change
the shoreline 5oulevard and seawall areas to emphasize
people-friendly spaces in lieu cf the current thru traffic
usage.
- 9
* Shoreline circulation - Graphic Plan.
Design Committee See page 5
* Water/shore commission - Advise and make
recommendations to the City Council and the Planning
Commission regarding the development, use and
preservation of water/shore areas.
Coordinate I.H. 37 landscape with Shoreline landscape.
Develop the full recreational potential of Corpus Christi
Beach. Put in motion a process that will lead to optimum
development of public/private recreational and tourism
opportunities on Corpus Christi Beach.
Park on north end of C.C. Beach.
* Recreational vehicle park on the north boundary of
park.
Task Force II, Econc~xics, Business Development and Central
City Development.
* Low interest revolving loan Promote redevelopment
of downtown through construction and rehabilitation of
existing structures by the private sector.
Task Force VII, Tourism/Conventions.
· Multi-purpose arena Initiate action on a feasibility
study of a multi-purpose arena with additional exhibit
space to attract larger conventions.
· Private sector investors and merchants carry out the
expansion of high quality retail development along the
Bayfront and within the downtown area.
Horse and buggy rides on seawall.
24. Bayfront Activities Committee Ffnal Report~ Bayfront
ActiVities Committee (ad hoc committee of the Park and
Recreation Board). Accepted 1985, revised 1987.
The committee was established to analyze the bayfront
activity situation and recoJ,,~,ends which site or sites are best
suited to hosting such activities as they exist or as may be
expected to exist in the future. Two sites were selected
based cn accessibility, bayfront location, and acreage. The
sites included Bayfront Arts and Science Park/Shoreline
Medians and McCaughn Park/Coliseum/City Hall/$herrill
Park Area. The 1987 revision identifies the Bayfront Festival
- t0
park at McCaughn Park/Coliseum/City Hall/Sherrill Park Area.
25. The Feasibility of a New Arena and Multi-purpose
~, Kenneth Leventhal and Company 1985. Contracted for
and accepted by the south Texas Chapter of the Associated
General Contractors.
The report analyzed the feasibility of constructing an
arena and a replacement for Exposition Hall. The report
recommended locating the arena at Bayfront Plaza if more
detailed investigations indicate that an arena could be
incorporated satisfactorily with the Exhibit Hall. The report
also stated that "there does not appear to be any reason to
delay the construction" of the arena and the multi-purpose
building-
26. A Planning and Restoration Evaluation Study of the Bluff
BalUstrade, Retaining wall and Related Facilities Along Upper
an----d Lower Broadway Streets, Govind and Associates, Inc. and
J-ohn wright Architect, 1906. Accepted and monies included in
1986 CIP.
The Report includes the history and a description of
Balustrade and the other bluff facilities, investigation and
analysis on the existing condition of the facilities,
recommended plan for restoration, and cost estimates.
27. Analysis of Market Support for Dock One Market, Economic
Resear-~h Associates, 1987. Contracted for and accupted by the
port of Corpus Christi.
The report analyzed the existing and near term market
support for the proposed Dock One Market. The Dock One Market
concept proposed the conversion of two ~nner Harbor cargo
docks into restaurants, shops, galleries, and public areas.
However, the Report found that the proposed project would not
be feasible as envisioned, given the current and near term
market support and sales potential.
28. Historical Evolution Of Corpus christi Bayfront
1900-1987, (for Downtown Retreat) Corpus christi Area
Economic Development Corporation and Shiner, Mosley and
Associates, May 1987. Accepted.
Document produced as a reference for the May 1987
Downtown Retreat. Reviewed major planning issues addressed in
various reports and plans regarding Downtown.
29. pr____eject 2001 A StrategiC Planning Process Aimed
at Facilitating Decision-making, Port of Corpus Chris~i,
- 11 -
1987. Accepted by the Port.
Represents a formalization of the Port of Corpus
Christi's ...... traditional planning process into a strategic'
business plan in ldentlfylng new and different businesses,
technologies and markets the Port should create or utilize in
its long range plans of development and service.
30. Action Agenda 1987-1989, Corpus Christi City Council,
1987, reaffirmed 1988.
31. Downtown/Bayfront Data Collection "Fact Book,"
Parsons Brinkerhoff, 1988. Accepted by RTA.
Discusses historical'evolution of the Bayfront and
CBD from 1900 to 1987. Lists some of the studies and reports
created for this area in the past and the issues they
addressed.
32. Heart of Corpus Christi, Inc. Business Plan, Hyett-Palma,
Inc., October 1988. Accepted.
The Plan provides a two year action agenda for the
initiation and completion of projects in the area designated
as the Heart of Corpus Christi. It establishes a "focus
area" in which revitalization efforts are to be promoted. It
also prescribes specific actions and a time schedule for the
initiation and completion of these projects. Some of these
proposed actions are listed as follows
* Streetscape improvements throughout the "focus area";
* Developing design guidelines to set the standard of
quality for the rehabilitation and adaptive use of the
Downtown's older buildings in addition to targeted
rehabilitation and demonstration projects.
* Study to determine potential for privatization of
trash collection and street cleaning;
* Study to determine need to continue the one-way street
system in the "focus area"; and
* Designate historically significant buildings on the
National Register.
12 -
22
A 3oint National Training Capability (JNTC)
Using Existing Training Ranges
Update to
Corpus Chrfsti C~y Council
Feb. I0,, 2004
The South Texas Military Facilities Task Force has developed a proposal for joint use of
DOD facilities in six states with proximity to the Gulf of Mexico -- Texas, New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi and Florida. This concept is based on several realities
which have emerged in 21st Century DOD combat operations.
First, combat operations are being conducted by all four services fighting in the same
theater of operations.
Second, those combat operations are being conducted over greater distances and at longer
ranges from available land bases or carrier battle group locations.
Third, the inventory of bases and military assets in these six states offers a training venue
where the battlespace conditions noted above can be replicated.
Fourth, this four-service joint training can be conducted on 24 existing bases and facilities
without significant investment in either infrastructure or equipment.
This plan provides a Joint National Training Capability (JNTC) using
existing training ranges.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
1
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401 . Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
A Comparable 3oint Training Space
IRAN
So far, joint military operations in the 21 st Century have taken place over vast areas of
terrain.
Operations in Afghanistan required the Navy/Marine Corps team to extend its combat
power approximately 700 miles ashore from the Arabian Sea.
Operations in Iraq required similar extension of combat power.
Where in CONUS do we have a comparable training theater accessible to East Coast-based
military assets?
While we think of the states of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Mississippi
as a vast area, they are approximately the same size as the combat theaters in which the
United States is currently operating.
The distance from the Western Gulf of Mexico to the ranges at Fort Bliss and Whites Sands
Missile Range is approximately 605 miles approximately the same distances we were
required to travel in Afghanistan and Iraq.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 2
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Chdsti, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (36i) 537-1888
A 3oint National Training Capability
· A Secretary of Defense
directive calls for 25%
of future training to be
joint training
· States in the Gulf
Region provide an ideal
central U.S. venue for
joint training
· This regional venue can
provide assets for all
aspects of live~
constructive and virtual
training
States in the Gulf Region provide an ideal venue for a Central U.S. joint training area that
conforms to the directive to establish a Joint National Training Capability. With sea, land
and air battlespaces and ranges, this region is well suited to helping meet the Secretary of
Defense directive calling for 25% of future training to be joint training.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 3
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Projecting Power Ashore - Special Ops
Special operations units of all four branches have been operating in the same battlespace in
Afghanistan and Iraq. If they are going to fight together then there is a need for joint
training of these units.
In South Texas that training can be done by launching from the Navy's high-speed Joint
Venture HSV, which will be homeported at Naval Station Ingleside in 2004, and inserting
forces inland to the McMullen Range, a small portion of which is used by the Navy and Air
Force for day and night training using Mark 76 practice bombs. An intermediate objective
would be Alice-Orange Grove OLF serving as a hostile airfield.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 4
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Special Ops Training at McMullen Range
The Navy owns 7,825 acres in southwest McMullen County in association with the practice
bomb pilot training target range and DOD's South Texas Relocatable Over The Horizon
Radar (ROTHR) installation.
This is the the area of Texas historically known as the "Wild Horse Desert". It is Brush
Country with rough terrain and dry scrub vegetation. This facility is under the control of
the Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) who supports the proposed training activities
including the use of this property for live fire small arms training by joint special
operations forces.
The only civilian activity in the area is ranching and scattered oil field operations. This
isolated area is less than 100 miles from the Gulf. MH-60G and MH-53J craft could be
used for insertion, extraction and resupply of special operations teams carrying out
missions.
Existing lodge facilities on the property can provide overnight housing for 30 personnel.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military FaciliUes Task Force 5
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
State and Local Support
South Texas has been home to active DOD facilities for generations. There is strong public
support for the military and for training activities.
3NTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushelt (361) 537-1888 6
Mine Countermeasures Prepare
Littoral
O Tinker AFB
Fort Worth
C) NAS JRB
oAJ=B
Mine Countermeasure Assets Clear
Fleet Operations Area, C~annels,
Harbors and Shorelines
? 0
.loint Venture: Can Be Used For Mine
Warfare Command & Contro~ Plus
Development of Concept For High Speed
UFc and Support of Army Sl~yker Bdgades
and Joint Special Operations
The Mine Warfare Center of Excellence and the Commander, Mine Warfare Command are
based at NAS Corpus Christi and Naval Station Ingleside.
Surface, air and EOD mine countermeasures assets are available to work in existing littoral
warfare training areas.
The Gulf beaches on Mustang and Padre Islands are used during exercises for launching
mine hunting sleds towed by MH-53 helicopters stationed at NAS CC. This area is a
potential training site for Joint Logistics Over the Shore (JLOTS) by 370 TACOM.
The new HSV high speed vessel to be based at Ingleside in 2004 will provide a mine
warfare command and control platform as well as support other missions.
The 30, 60 and 90 foot water depth contour lines noted above in the existing mine training
area show the opportunity for additional shallow water training. This area is within the
three league control of the State of Texas. The Texas General Land Office has been a good
partner for mine warfare. The Texas Land Commissioner has seen this proposal and is
most supportive. (Note: He also serves as an officer in the Marine Corps Reserve).
Feb. 10, 2004
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Bringing Conventional Forces Ashore
Diversionary Amphibious
Force Travels Through
MItmfleld and On to Beach
The Corpus Christi Bay Area Military Complex provides several high-value exercise
targets (1) a military port (NSI), (2) a civilian port (Port of CC), (3) a waterside military
airport (NAS Corpus Christi), and (4) an inland military airfield (NAS Kingsville).
There are also 3,000 acres on Padre Island owned by the Texas General Land Office. This
land serves as a scenic buffer for the Padre Island National Seashore. An allowable use for
this property is DOD military training related to the Mine Warfare Center of Excellence.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico BHefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 8
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Chdsti, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Island Diversion Operation
ti/eh/des
Red Reaction
Convoy Moves
An expeditionary force conducts joint training including the breaching of offshore and
close inshore minefields. USMC amphibious vehicles come ashore and disembark infantry
at the dune line.
Infantry conduct an assault against aggressor personnel located in and behind the dune line
and establish defensive positions in dunes in order to draw the red reaction force at NAS
Corpus Christi onto the island.
Special operations forces call in a JDAM air strike on the 72-foot high Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway bridge, trapping the red reaction force on the island. With their mission
accomplished, the amphibious forces withdraw to the Gulf through the breached minefield.
Feb. 10, 2004
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Expeditionary Forces Capture NS]I:
Forces could be brought ashore at Naval Station Ingleside (NSI).
NS Ingleside could serve as a hostile port to be seized by expeditionary forces.
Naval Station Ingleside has 45 feet of water at the wharf and pier and can support any ship
in the fleet including a carrier battle group.
The Port of Corpus Christi owns 421 adjoining acres of land purchased for support of NSI.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Chdsti, 'IX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888 10
Forces Capture of Hostile Airfields
NAS Corpus Christi and NAS Kingsville could serve as hostile airfields to be captured as
final or intermediate objectives.
Expeditionary forces could transit via Corpus Christi Bay and thc Intracoastal Waterway
aboard amphibious vessels to NAS Corpus Christi.
JNTC Gulf of r4exico Briefing. South Texas Hilitary Facilities Task Force 11
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
NAS Corpus Christi Seized As
:Intermediate Objective
Once secured NAS Corpus Christi with its 8,000-ft runway would provide a base of
operations for attacking targets and air lifting forces to Fort Bliss, Fort Hood and Fort Polk.
NAS Corpus Christi could serve as a heavy lift site for tracked vehicles to be air lifted
inland and as a jumping offpoint for the capture of NAS Kingsville by helicopter and
mobile ground combat systems (LAV, LAV-AC, HMMWV) assault.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 12
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
NAS Corpus Christi Operating Areas
Available Waterfront
Staging Areas
NAS Corpus Christi has both beach and ramp access for LCAC operations moving
personnel and equipment from the sea to staging areas aboard the base. These staging
areas have both roadway and runway access.
These sites have been selected by the base commanding officer who supports the proposed
training operations.
'INTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 13
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
NAS Kingsville Seized As
Intermediate Objective
Military vehicles landing at NAS Corpus Christi would transit via existing all-weather
public roadways to simulate capture of NAS Kingsville and then secure the airfield for use
in the airlift of forces inland. Many of the roadways leading from NAS Corpus Christi to
Kingsville were build during World War Il to serve as military linkage between the bases.
They are all-weather, two-lane roads and approximate transportation infrastructure likely to
be found in real combat theaters.
JNTC Gulf of Hex{co Briefing. South Texas Hilitary Facilities Task Force 14
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushel{ (361) 537-1888
NAS Kingsville Training Space
Ground forces arriving to participate in the simulated capture of NAS Kingsville would
approach from U.S. Highway 77 and assemble at the South Field area outside the
boundaries of the air station. With helicopter support they would then make their assault
on the main field.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 15
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
NAS Kingsvill Staging Areas
Once secured, NAS Kingsville could provide a base of operations for attacking targets and
air lifting artillery (M777), light armored vehicles (LAV), Humvees (LAV-AT, HMMWV)
and personnel to inland battlespaces. NAS Kingsville has significant unused ramp space
and ample available areas for staging and operations.
Kingsville also provides an ideal site for detachments of Navy/Marine strike squadrons to
conduct joint close air support (JCAS) with special operation units at the McMullen Range
and with conventional Army units such as the 4th Infantry Division and the 1st Cavalry
Division at Fort Hood.
Both the Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA) and the base commanding officer have
indicated that such training would not materially impact their pilot training missions.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
16
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Bringing Resources Ashore
The Port of Corpus Christi was designated as a Strategic Deployment Port in 1998.
A total of 33 ships loaded with equipment sailed from the Port to the Iraqi theater in the
first five months of 2003.
1NTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. 5outh Texas Military Facilities Task Force 17
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Port of Corpus Christi Facilities
There are roll on/roll offdocks on both sides of the Corpus Christi Inner Harbor.
Interstate 37 and U.S. Highway 181 come to within blocks of these docks. On-dock rail
service is available and was used extensively in the 2003 deployment of the 4th Infantry
Division.
This photo was taken Feb. 10, 2003, of equipment being deployed to Iraq.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 18
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Port of CC as a Military Objective
A 2.2-million Banel Per Day
Pumping Station ~n ~l-aq
The Port of Corpus Christi is the nation's 6th busiest in terms of tonnage. Most of that
tonnage is petroleum and chemicals. The Inner Harbor area's "Refinery Row" presents a
high value but highly complicated objective. In future years expeditionary forces may be
called upon to protect and secure such an objective in oil producing regions of the world.
On the first day of the war in Iraq a high value objective was the pumping facility for the
Rumaylah oil fields with a capacity of 2.2 million barrels per day. It was code named "the
crown jewel." The station was the objective of the 1st Battalion 7th Marines but the point of
the effort came down to two Marine rife squads commanded by corporals.
The Port of Corpus Christi presents many opportunities for realistic training with similar
objectives. While training cannot take place on all of the properties which operate 24/7,
there are inactive facilities which can be adapted as both offensive and homeland security
objectives. The technological expertise exists in the area to make the exercises real world
relevant as to on and offshore oil and gas production, refining, petrochemical
manufacturing, terminals, pipelines, barges, tankers and the docks which support them.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 19
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Chdsti, TX 78401. Contact Gary Dushell (361) 537-1888
Moving For.c~..s From NAS. .
Corpus Chnst~ and NAS K~ngsvflle
Kiffiand AFB Cann°nrAFBo! ~ C~
/Missile Range
Moving forces from NAS Corpus Christi and NAS Kingsville to other parts of the JNTC
will require transports.
Sixteen C-5s from Lackland AFB could provide heavy lift to Fort Bliss via their 13,000-
foot runway or to either Holloman AFB or Roswell in the Fort Bliss area, or to Fort Hood's
Robert Gray Army Air Field.
There are 44 transport C-130s available at NAS JRB New Orleans, NAS JRB Fort Worth,
and Dyess AFB which could provide lift to Bliss, Hood or Polk.
There are eight C-17s at Altus AFB and there are C-17 capable landing strips located in the
Fort Bliss desert training ranges.
1NTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888 20
Joint Close Air Support in JNTC
Use Ranges in
JCAS Training
Including
JDAMs & JSOWs
Acres of Maneuver Space With
62,000 Acres of Live Fire Area
Existing ranges accessed from NAS Kingsville and from fleet assets in the Gulf provide a
variety of distance, terrain and friendly forces to train with. These four ranges combine to
allow for the realistic deployment of all strike weapons including JDAMs and JSOW.
Texas Air National Guard Fl6 from Lackland and Ellington could provide hostile attacks as
part of the training activity in McMullen County. The Alice-Orange Grove field would serve
as a secured forward operating base for Marine Cobra attack helicopters, putting them in
closer proximity to the training area.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Fadlities Task Force 21
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Chdsti, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
3CAS Center at NAS Kingsville
Why NAS Kingsville as the Joint Close Air Support Training Center?
NAS Kingsville has unused capacity in ramp space and real estate. Its current mission --
training Navy/Marine strike pilots - is compatible with JCAS training for operational
Navy, Marine and Air Force squadrons.
NAS Kingsville currently operates flight and ordnance simulators. Two Navy-owned or
controlled ranges in McMullen County are only 70 miles away with adequate space for
forward air controllers (FAC) and aerial liaison officers (ALO).
Attack aircraft can perform JCAS training with operational divisions at Fort Hood without
refueling.
JNTC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 22
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
Tngleside TS Ideal Homeport For
Coast Guard Coastal Patrol Vessels
Feb. 10, 2004
The region is proposing that the Coast Guard homeport up to five USCG PC-170 Patrol
Craft at Naval Station Ingleside.
These vessels will support homeland security missions, particularly protection of assets in
our region such as offshore oil and gas, major ports and critical shipping lanes, strategic
deployment centers and the Gulf Coast concentration of refining and petrochemical
industries.
Ingleside assets for this mission include:
· Meets USCG siting criteria
· Positioned to support strategic military deployment and international border drug
interdiction
· Proximity to operating areas such as waters offTexas-Mexico border
· Security and force protection in place
· Building space available
· Pier space committed
· Modem, full service military complex
· Strong pro-military community with extensive off-base housing
· Room for expansion - waterfront and landside
,1NYC Gulf of Mexico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Chdsti, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
23
City of Ingleside Will Fund New Pier
The City of Ingleside is prepared to assure that local and state funding is available to pay
for the new pier and associated infrastructure needed to support the patrol craft
homeporting. The City would pledge
3NTC Gulf of Hexico Briefing. South Texas iVlilitary Facilities Task Force 24
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Garf Bushell (361) 537-1888
we train as we fight-
has to be joint.
If we train as as we fight,
It has to be joint.
JNTC Gulf of 14exico Briefing. South Texas Military Facilities Task Force 25
Feb. 10, 2004 1201 N. Shoreline, Corpus Christi, TX 78401. Contact Gary Bushell (361) 537-1888
GARY BUSHELL
ATFORNEY & GOVERNMENT CONSULTANT
23dE SAN JACINTO BUILDING, SUITE 209 · 221 EAST 9TM STREET · AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701
Phone (512) 478-6661 · Fax (512) 478-6662 o Cell (512) 350-8652
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS · Phone (361) 537-1888 .. Fax (361) 814-2080
JNTC Gulf of Mexico
A Joint National Training Capability Using Existing Training Ranges
Briefings Conducted by Gary Bushell in behalf of the
South Texas Military Facilities Task Force - Mayor Loyd Neal, Chairman
August 16, 2002
Staff of U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
Dave Davis, Chief of Staff and Dave Stockwell,
Military Legislative Assistant
August 20, 2002
Major General Stanley E. Green, USA
Commanding General, Fort Bliss
Major General James Moloney, USA (ret)
Member of Texas Strategic Military
Planning Commission, El Paso, Texas
Texas State Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, Chairman
Texas Senate Committee on Veteran Affairs and
Military Installations
August 29, 2002
Rear Admiral John E. Boyington, Jr.
Chief of Naval Air Training
NAS Corpus Christi
September 3, 2002
Staff of Congressman Solomon Ortiz
(Mac King, Legislative Director and Military
Legislative Assistant)
September 6, 2002
Rear Admiral Paul J. Ryan
Commander, Mine Warfare Command
NAS Corpus Christi
September 12, 2002
Lieutenant General Dennis McCarthy,
Commander
United States Marine Forces Reserve
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 13, 2002
Staff of Commander
United States Marine Forces Reserve
September 19, 2002
Major General Kevin B. Kuklok
Assistant Deputy Commandant
for Plans, Policies & Operations
Headquarters Marine Corps
September 26, 2002
Lieutenant General Marc Cisneros, USA (ret)
Corpus Christi, Texas
September 30, 2002
Lieutenant Gen. H.G. "Pete" Taylor, USA (ret)
former Ill Corps Commander
Harker Heights/Killeen, Texas
September 31,2002
Kevin Gallagher, Deputy Project Director
Roving Sands, Fort McPherson, Georgia
October 1,2002
Major General James Livingston, USMC (ret)
Chairman, Governor's Military Advisory Committee
State of Louisiana
October 7, 2002
Admiral Robert J. Natter
Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet
U.S. Fleet Forces Command
Norfolk, Virginia
October 8, 2002
Colonel J. Michael "Mick" Bednarek, USA
Chief, Joint Training Group
Warfighting Center
United States Joint Forces Command
Suffolk, Virginia
October 10, 2002
Bill Ehrie, Chairman
Texas Strategic Military Planning Commission
October 16, 2002
Major Dan McGuire, USMC
Joint Training, G-3 TECOM
Quantico, Virginia
(Note: Had been sent brief by Headquarters
Marine Corps)
October 24, 2002
Captain Paula Hinger, USN
Commanding Officer
NAS Corpus Christi
Briefing Chronoloqy - JNTC Gulf of Mexico PaRe 2
November 14, 2002
Jack Hunt, President
King Ranch
Kingsville, Texas
December 9, 2002
Board of Directors
Corpus Christi Bay Chapter,
Navy League of the U.S.
Passed resolution of support
December 11, 2002
Larry DiRita, Special Assistant
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
Dr. David S. C. Chu
Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel & Readiness, and his deputy
Dr. Paul W. Mayberry
Rear Admiral Rubin B. Bookert
Deputy Director
Expeditionary Warfare (N-75)
Philip Grone, Principal Assistant
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Installations and Environment
(Note: action officer on BRAC 2005)
December 12, 2002
Rear Admiral Gary Roughead
Chief of Legislative Affairs
Depadment of the Navy
and Commander Kevin Miller
Pete Olsen, Chief of Staff
U. S. Senator John Cornyn
December 16, 2002
Board of Directors
Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce
Passed resolution of support
December 20, 2002
North Bay Military Task Force
San Patricio County
Passed resolution of support
January 2, 2003
Ruben Bonilla, Chairman
Port of Corpus Christi Authority
January 9, 2003
Board of Directors
Corpus Christi Regional Economic
Development Corporation
Passed resolution of support
January 16, 2003
Texas Strategic Military Planning Commission
Appointed by Governor Rick Perry of Texas
Expressed strong position of support
January 29, 2003
Cliff Johnson, Senior Advisor to
Governor Rick Perry, and
Logan Spence of Governor Perry's
Policy Office
February 3, 2003
Ambassador Anne Armstrong
and Tobin Armstrong
February 4- 10, 2003
Corpus Christi Port Authority Commissioners
February 18, 2003
State Senator Juan Hinojosa
Representing Nueces County
Expressed position of support
March 3, 2003
Jessica Ortiz
Assistant to State Senator Eddie Lucio,
Representing Kleberg County
March 5, 2003
Tom Tagliabue, Deputy Commissioner
Texas General Land Office
Has confirmed that Commissioner Jerry Patterson,
Texas General Land Office, is fully supportive
Mamh 6, 2003
South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
Passed strong resolution of support
March 7, 2003
County Judge Linda Lee Henry
McMullen County Judge
Mamh 13, 2003
Civilian Community - Delegation from the
Fort Hood area at Harker Heights, Texas
Mamh 17, 2003
Military Legislative Assistants to the
Texas Congressional Delegation
Washington, D.C.
Major Dan McGuire
Directorate of Transformation Training
U.S. Marine Corps, Quantico, Virginia
Briefing Chronoloq¥ - JNTC Gulf of Mexico Paqe 3
March 18, 2003
Major General James Battaglini, USMC
Director, Expeditionary Warfare, Office of
Chief of Naval Operations
Captain Dan Deputy, USCG
Chief, Cutter Forces
Operational Capability Director
U.S. Coast Guard HQ
March 19, 2003
Dr. Paul W. Mayberry
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness)
Wayne Arny
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Installations and Environment
Mamh 29, 2003
Southwest Region, Navy League of the
United States meeting in Corpus Christi, Texas
April 7, 2003
Captain Randy Young, Chief of Staff to
Commander, Mine Warfare Command
Ray Allen, Executive Director
Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Program, Inc.
April 16, 2003
Colonel Franklin C. Bohler, USA
U.S. Army Special Operations Agency
Chief Special Operations Division
Pentagon, Washington, D.C.
May 13, 2003
Major General Gordon C. Nash, USMC
Commander, Joint Warfighting Center
Director, Joint Training (JT)
U.S. Joint Forces Command, Suffolk, VA
May13, 2003
Commander Mike Hohl, USN
Live Training Support Branch (N73)
U.S. Atlantic Command, Norfolk, VA
May 13, 2003
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni
Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff
U.S. Atlantic Fleet, Norfolk, VA
May 14, 2003
U.S. Representative Chef Edwards
Member - House Appropriations Committee
May 14, 2003
U.S. Senator John Cornyn
Member - Senate Armed Services Committee
May14,2003
H.T. Johnson
Acting Secre~ry ofthe Navy
May 15, 2003
Vice Admiral Charles W. Moore
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
Fleet Readiness and Logistics (N4)
May 15, 2003
U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes
Member- House Armed Services Committee
May 15, 2003
Pete Geren
Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
May 15, 2003
Brigadier General Norman R. Seip, USAF
Deputy Director, Operations and Training
Department of the Air Fome
May 16, 2003
Major General Thomas S. Jones, USMC
Commanding General,
Training and Education Command
Marine Corps Combat Development Command
Quantico, VA
May 16, 2003
Gordon England
Deputy Secretary
Department of Homeland Security
Former Secretary of the Navy
June 13, 2003
Capt. Howard Thorp, Jr., USN
Director, Joint National Training Capability JW302
Received briefing and tour (with Gary Bushell) of
Fort Bliss by Major General Stanley Green, CG of
Fort Bliss, and representatives of Air Defense
Command, McGregor Range, White Sands Missile
Range, El Paso Chamber of Commerce and City of
El Paso
June 26, 2003
Corpus Christi Area Environmental Groups
Sierra Club
Texas General Land Office
Coastal Bend Bays & Estuary Program
Coastal Bend Bays Foundation
Coastal Conservation Association
Coastal Bend Land Trust
City of Port Aransas
Briefinq Chronoloq¥ - JNTC Gulf of Mexico Paqe 4
June 26, 2003 (continued)
Corpus Christi Area Environmental Groups
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
June 30, 2003
Corpus Christi City Council
July 6-7, 2003
Gen Michael W. Hagee, USMC
33rd Commondant of the Marine Corps
JNTC Brief and Tour of NAS-CC, NAS-Kingsville
and NS-Ingleside
CC-NAS
Corpus Christi, TX
July 14, 2003
CDR Mike UIIrich, USN
Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff
Training & Exercises (JTA)
U.S. Second Fleet
Norfolk, VA
CDR Harry Robinson, USN
Air Operations
U.S. Second Fleet
Norfolk, VA
CDR Scott Stearney, USN
Commander, Carrier Group 4
U.S. Second Fleet
Norfolk, VA
July 14, 2003
MG Joseph P. Stein, USAF
Director of Aerospace Operations
Air Combat Command
Norfolk, VA
COL William Minich, USAF
Director of Aerospace Operations
Staff
Air Combat Command
Norfolk, VA
COL Charles Hale, USAF
Chief, Ranges, Airspace & Airfields
Air Combat Command
Norfolk, VA
LCOL Kris Bucklew, USAF
Acting Chief, Exercises & Joint Ops.
Air Combat Command
Norfolk, VA
LCOL Paul Sadowski
Chief, Planning & Program Team
Air Combat Command
Norfolk, VA
July 15, 2003
MG Jack Davis, USMC
Deputy Commander
U.S. Marine Forces, Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
COL Larry Walker, USMC
Assistant Chief of Staff G3/5/7
U.S. Marine Forces, Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
Rod Buchanan, Director
Joint Training & Readiness
U.S. Marine Forces, Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
COL Bumgardner, USMC
Staff JAG
U.S. Marine Forces, Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
July 15, 2003
Thomas Crabtree, SES
Director, Fleet Training (N7)
U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
CAPT Joe Krenzel, USN
Dep. Director of Training (N7A)
U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
CAPT Mike Reedy, USN
Director of Live Training Support Branch (N73A)
U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
Anthony Reade (Tony) (Civilian)
Head, Range Team (N73A)
U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Norfolk, VA
July 16, 2003
Dr. Michael Bailey
Technical Director
U.S. Marine Corps Training & Education
Command
Norfolk, VA
Lee Viverette
Aviation Range Analyst
U.S. Marine Corps Training & Education
Command
Norfolk, VA
Briefinq Chronoloqv- JNTC Gulf of Mexico PaRe 5
September 3, 2003 Joseph Whitaker
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Installations and Housing
Department of the Army
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
September 3, 2003
Dr. Paul Mayberry
Deputy Under Secretary for Readiness, DOD
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
September 4, 2003
CAPT Tank Thorp, USN
Director, Joint National Training Capability
Joint Warfighting Center
Joint Forces Command
Suffolk, VA
October 7, 2003
RADM Barry M. Costello, USN
Chief of Legislative Affairs
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
MG Mitchell Stevenson, USA
Deputy Chief of Staff
Logistics and Operations (G3)
U.S. Army Material Command
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
Philip Wayne Grone
Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary
Installations and Environment
Department of Defense
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
Wayne Amy
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
Installations and Environment
Department of the Navy
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
Hansford T. Johnson
Assistant Secretary
Installations and Environment
Department of the Navy
(Former Acting Secretary)
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
RADM Christopher Weaver, USN
Commander, Navy Installations
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
October 7, 2003
MG James Battaglini, USMC
Director, Expeditionary Warfare Division
(N75)
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
Wadare Requirements and Programs
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
CAPT James Rennie, USN
Head, Mine Warfare Branch (N752)
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
RADM Mark Fitzgerald, USN
Director, Air Warfare Division (N78)
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations
Warfare Requirements and Programs
The Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
October 8, 2003
Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz (D-TX)
Member, House Armed Services Committee
Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Readiness
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
Rep. Ruben Hinajosa (D-TX)
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Chairman
House Armed Sen/ices Committee
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
Rep. Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Member
House Armed Services Committee
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
Briefinq Chmnoloqy- JNTC Gulf of Mexico Paqe 6
October 8, 2003
Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-TX)
Member
House Appropriations Committee
Defense Subcommittee
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
Rep. Joel Hefley (R-CO)
Chairman
Subcommittee on Readiness
House Armed Services Committee
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
Rep. Ciro D. Rodriquez (D-TX)
Member
House Armed Services Committee
Capitol Hill
Washington, D.C.
November 12, 2003
ADM William J. Fallon, USN
Commander
Fleet Forces Command/
U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Atlantic Fleet Headquarters
Norfolk, VA
RADM Brian M. Calhoun
Director for Operations, Plans & Policy
(N3/N5)
U.S. Fleet Forces Command
United States Navy
Norfolk, VA
CAPT Mike Reedy, USN
Director, Live Training Support Branch
(N73A)
U.S. Atlantic Fleet
Atlantic Fleet Headquarters
Norfolk, VA
December 19, 2003
Gen. Robert J. Reese
Commanding General
U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range
Rear Adm. Paul K. Arthur (Ret.)
Deputy to the Commanding General and
Technical Director'
White Sands Missile Range
White Sands, N.M.
December 19, 2003
Briefing for representatives of natural resource
agencies and South Texas environmental
community
January 6, 2004
Admiral Vern Clark, USN
Chief of Naval Operations
2000 Navy Pentagon
Washington, D.C.
January 7-8, 2004
Joint Training Initiatives Conference
Fort Hood, Texas
Hosted by
Gen. Thomas F. Metz
Commanding General
Briefinq Chronoloq¥- JNTC Gulf of Mexico Paqe 7
IS July2003
Dear Senator Hutchi~on,
A~ you may recall, when we met prior to my confirmation hearin~ last September, you asked
me to investigate the potential inclusion of Naval Station, Ingle~ide, TX M o~ Mm'ine Corps
~ralning plan. I am pleased to report that I was able to visit Naval Ai~ Station, Corlm~ Christi and
Naval Slafion, I~gleside week before l~t, July 6-7, 2003, and th.t ~le visit was ~deed a
productive one.
The ~x~alition'of bricfer~, led by Gary Bushell ~d Mayor Loyd Neal of C~rpu~ Christi, have
ob~o~ly ~ ~e~ pW~ f~ ~ini~g ~s~bi~fi~ a.~ ~ o~ou~ Dave S~ell
of yo~ ~ ~so p~patcd ~ ~e ~ion of ~c m~ of a ~inmg ~ ~~
m~h o~ Sou~ Text, ~d a~p~ me on a ha~c~ ~t o~ ~ ~eside ~.
~ ~sit prodded me ~ a much ~ ~din~ ofyo~ ~ fOJ ~s ~fi~ve ~d i~
jolt ~aining oppo~fi~ ~d ~a~ves for ~e ~& ~
The region has a great deal of potential for a force that needs large expaz~es oft~ining mca
in close proximity to the se~ A~ you lmow, one of the tenets of Marine Corps operational
doctrine it Operational Maneuver f~om the Sea (OMYTS), A~ a result, I have ~ked my ~.ff to
monitor the progress made on devcloping, a genuine eapabilily that ~ p~vidc me~ning:fUl
operational training opporttmities to the M~rhae~. I h~ve ~ m4ced them to examine how the
possible training opportunities presented within ~1~ ln~vleside-..Hood-Blis~ triangle might ~alfill
Marine Corps l~e-deployment and operational train;ng req~rcn~cnts.
I look for~rd to seeing you this weekend at thc chri~tefii~g of U.S.S. San Antony, a~d to
what I'm certain vAl~ be a grand occasion for you. the great states of Texas and Loul~ana, and
the United State~ Marine Corps.
Sineerejy, /
Co ' -- rpk2
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
Chairm~ Military ConsU'uction Subcommittee
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
Washington DC 20510
Briefinq Chronoloqy - JNTC Gulf of Mexico Paqe 8
OVFICE OF X~£ GOVERNOZ~
September 15, 2003
General Michael W. Hagee, USMC
Commandant of thc Marine Corps
Headquarters U.S. Marine Corps
#2 Navy Annex
Washington, D.C. 20380-1775
Dear General Hagee:
I was pleased to hear of your recent trip to the Corpus Christi Naval Air Station (NAS) and the
Ingleside Naval Station. My staff and I have reviewed the proposed Joint National Training
Capability, on which you received a briefing during your trip. I lend the full support of my
office to the concept.
As you are now aware, the State of Texas provides oulstanding training opportunities for four-
service combat operations. The deep-water capabilities of our coastal ports, the accessibility of
existing large military operating areas, and the availability of diverse joint training assets,
including 22 military installations in and around Texas, are just a few of the conditions that make
joint training in Texas a promising prospect. Considering the Marine Corps' high regard for the
doctrine of Operational Maneuver flora the Sea, I am very optimistic that this proposal will not
only provide the Department of Defense (DOD) an excellent joint training opportunity in 2004,
but could also fulfill the pre-deployment and operational training requirements of the U.S.
Marine Corps.
The Ingleside-Hood-Bliss triangle could provide thc U.S. Marine Corps with deep strike training
areas and joint training oppommifies. Fort Bliss possesses underutilized ranges and the largest
dedicated air space controlled by the DoD in the world. Fort Hood has excollent connectivity
and the most experience in digitalization of equipment and training assets in DoD. In addition, it
has 130,000 acres ofmanenver space, which includes 60,000 acres of live fire ranges. Ingleside
Naval Station, along with Corpus Christi NAS and Kingsville NAS, provide access to these
ranges and training areas from the sea.
I welcome the opportunity to work with you and your staff to make joint training in Texas for the
Navy and Marine Corps as realistic and productive as possible. Please feel fxee to contact me ifI
can help make this proposal a reality.
Thank you for your service to our great nation.
Sincerely,
RP:Isp
Texas Congressional Delegation
The Honorable Pete Geren, Office of the Secretary of Defense
'0!
JOINT TRAINING INITIATIVES
CONFERENCE
Kollm
AGENDA
7-8 January, 2004
DAY MINUS 1 CONFERENCE AGENDA
Tuesday, 6 Jan 04
Time (hrs)
Event
Briefer/Facilitator
1200 -UTC
Conference Area Set-up Fort Hood Officers Club Bldg 5764
DPTS, Others as necessary
1400-1700
Registration Keith Ware Hall Bldg 36006; Plaza Hotel Lobb
Mr. Randy Alston, DPTS
1800-2000
Registration Fort Hood Officers Club Bldg 5764
Mr. Randy Alston, DPTS
1800-2000
Conference No Host Ice Breaker Fort Hood Officers Club Bldg 5764
Mr. Randy Alston, DPTS
2000
Das Scheduled Activities Conclude
I Fr
'li(��
i
DAY 1 CONFERENCE AGENDA
Wednesday, 7 Jan 04
Timehrs
Event
Briefer/Facilitator
0800-0830
Late Re istration FHOC Bld 5764
Mr. Rand Alston, DPTS
0830-0845
Opening Remarks/Administrative Remarks
COL Paul Dvorak / Mr. Randy Alston,
DPTS
0845-0855
III Corps and Fort Hood Command Video Presentation
COL Paul Dvorak, DPTS
0855-0915
Welcome Remarks
LTG Thomas F. Metz, CDR III Corps and
Fort Hood
0915-0945
USJFCOM Brief
LTC (P) Michael Armstrong, JWFC LVC
JNTC
0945-1015
FORSCOM G3 Brief (projected)
MAJ Dave Harvey, G3 JNTC AO
1015-1030
BREAK
Conf, Area
1030-1100
ATSC Brief — Home Station of the Future JNTC Capabilities and Challenges
Mr. Bill Jones, ATSC
1100-1145
III Corps and Fort Hood Overview Brief— Range Division / G3 Exercises / BCTB /
AVN OPNS
COL Dvorak, DPTS/ Mr. Billy Piper,
Range Operations/ Mr. John Corathers, G3
Exercise/ Mr. John Diem, BCTB/ CW5
Ron Gemer, DAO
1145-1300
LUNCH
FHOC
1300-1320
Reassemble for Afternoon Tours of BCTB
Mr. Randy Alston, DPTS/ TMP
1300-1345
Overflight of Training Areas (selected individuals only)
CW5 Gerner, DAO/ Mr. Billy Piper, DPTS
1300-1320
Movement to LVC Complex CCTT Bldg 22027/22028
TMP
1320-1410
Tour LVC Complex
Mr. Dave Chambers
1410-1430
Movement to BCTC(Bldg 33009
TMP
1430-1520
Tour BCTC
Ms. Georgie McAteer
1520-1540
Movement to BSC(Bldg 4501
TMP
1540-1630
Tour BSC
Mr. Bill Nance
1630-1650
Movement to FHOC(Bldg 5764
TMP
1700-1800 No Host Social (FHOC-Legends) All
1800 Day 1 Schedule Concludes
INotes: Uomerence ractrttator: (-UL caul Uvorax; Uonterence Kecorders: 1130
DAY 2 CONFERENCE AGENDA
Thursday, 8 Jan 04
Time hrs
Event
Briefer/Facilitator
0800-0830
Guest Speaker: Mr. Gary Bushell, South Texas Military Facilities Task Force
Gary Bushell
0840-0920
Guest Speaker: Mr. Bill Jones, Army Training Support Center
Bill Jones
0930-1050
Discussion Topic A: Moving from Service -centric to Joint Training -Joint Context Training
Mr. John Corathers, III Corps G3 Ex.;
Opportunities
COL Dvorak, DPTS; LTC (P)
Armstrong, USJFCOM; LTC Tim
Porter, TRADOC, JCATD
Kent Klarner, FORSCOM
Purpose: Identify what joint context training relationships and opportunities are available
and can be nurtured to encourage greater joint/service community training avenues to
enhance/support JNTC near & long-term goals. Investigate issues and challenges faced by
installations, both local and regional, and the joint/service community to move from service -
centric to joint context training.
Output: Briefing of feedback and recommendations to CG and JTI participants on ways to
implement and enhance joint training opportunities & integrate infrastructures to
accommodate joint context training.
1100-1220
Discussion Topic B: LVC/Distributed Training Simulation/Stimulation
Mr. John Diem, Chief, III Corps G3
BCTB; Mr. Bill Jones, ATSC
Purpose: Investigate issues and challenges regarding the impact of achieving a regional,
global and multinational network of LVC/Distributed mission training & Sim/Stim
capabilities to enhance/supportjoint and service training across the four training domains
(Home Station, Deployed, Institution and CTC).
Output: Briefing of feedback and recommendations to CG and JTI participants on way
ahead to integrate, enhance and support LVC/Distributed Training & Sim/Stim capabilities
to accommodate joint context training.
1220-1330
Lunch (FHOC). Topic Leads Prep for Brief backs.
Discussion Topic leads
1330-1500
Discussion Topic Brief backs
Discussion Topic leads
1500 1
Conference Concludes
COL Dvorak, DPTS
Notes: Conference Facilitator: COL Paul Dvorak; Conference Recorders: TBD
How We Fight:
Validation of
the.loint Training Concept
By LTG Thomas F. Metz and LTC Christopher A. Joslin
"The lesson of this war [Afghanistan] is that effectiveness in combat will depend heavily on
jointness .... and achieving jointness in wartime requires building that jointness in peacetime."
-- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Jan. 31, 2002
Afghanistan's lessons of combining special-operations forces, fixed-wing
attack aircraft, near-real-time intelligence from national assets, regular Army
divisions and indigenous fighters were recently applied in Iraq this past
March and April.
In some cases, perhaps the techniques were more traditional, but in general the
emerging doctrine - coupled with evolving tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP)
- led military leaders to pursue ways in which to best inculcate these new forms of
joint military operations across America's armed services.
Each of the services already has well established mechanisms for training its forces: the
Army has its Combat Training Centers, the Navy has Top Gun, the Air Force uses Red
Flag, and the Marine Corps has its Air Weapons Training Squadron I.
However, all of these institutions emphasize service-specific capabilities, where
achieving "jointness" is more deconflietion of joint operations rather than integration
of multi-echelon, joint forces aernss distances comparable to realistic deployments.
We fight jointly, as joint task forces, so we obviously need to train the same way in
peacetime.
Our nation needs a joint national training capability (JNTC) to ensure our forces are
trained and ready to operate as a joint team in single-nation, unilateral and coalition
JTF operations.
It is also clear that this JNTC concept deserves a name that represents what it truly
could be, a Joint Air-Ground Center of Excellence, or JAGCE.
In June 2003 the Army's III Corps demonstrated a way to make the JAC~CE a reality.
Creating the Foundation
The current theater of operations in the U.S. Central Command's area of responsi-
bility (AOR) spans distances comparable to the entire Southwestern portion of the
United States and is generally within the 700 mile strike-distance of aireraft carriers.
The nature of CENTCOM's on-going operations includes forces from all services
with coalition joint task force (CJTF) headquarters located hundreds of miles from the
actual operations and in other partner countries.
The tempo and agility of these CJTF operations is unprecedented, involving national-
!evel intelligence gathering assets; special-operatioas forces; thousands ofaircral~ (includ~
mg attack fixed wing, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs); long-range
artillery rockets, missiles and cruise missiles; and conventional ground forces.
ARMY AVIATION 51 DECEMBER 31, 2003
21st Century Joint
M i ~erations
The goal of the JAGCE demonstration was to repli-
cate just this type of scenario with all services partici-
paring, using existing training facilities, and to identify
the additional requirements necessary to resource and
execute a capstone exercise that would prepare a JTF
for employment.
To achieve this objective, III Corps was given the mis-
sion to build a live, virtual and coustmctive scenario,
with the Army's I st Cavalry Division selected to partici-
pate in the live war-game field exercise.
To replicate the CENTCOM AOR and its vast dis-
tances, the Texas-based III Corps played host as a CJTF
headquarters at Fort Hood, and deployed both an avia-
tion brigade and a multiple-launch rocket system
(MLRS) artillery battalion to the Barry M. Goldwater
Air Force Range Complex located between the Yuma
Proving Grounds and the Gila Bend Air Force Auxiliary
Airfield in Arizona.
Fort Hood fielded the Army's Battle Command Systems
(ABCS) and provided the unique capabilities nor-
mally resident in a state-of-the-art Battle
Command Training Center (BCTC) and in a Cen-
tral Technical Support Facility, and provided the
necessary digital infrastructure, bandwidth capa-
bilities and linkage to all required simulations.
The Western Army National Guard Aviation
Training Site (WAATS) in Marana, Adz., provid-
ed the facilities to mate the ABCS and simulation
linkages with the Ist Cay. Div.'s 4th Brigade
(Aviation) tactical operations center. The WAATS
also provided instrumentation for the AH-64D
Longbow Apache aircraft and mounted on the
threat-array targetry.
MLRS-T equipped rocket launchem conducting
fire missions at Fort Hood were also linked into
the exercise.
Just like any rotation at a combat training center
such as the National Training Center or the Joint
Readiness Training Center, all friendly and
opposing forces were visible On the common
operational picture (COP) system~
This established a Joint Conflict and Tactical Sim-
ulation (lCATS)-based, CJTF-level simularion populat-
ed with an entire CJTF and scripted enemy force in the
BCTC, tied to brigade and battalion ABCSs.
JTFIHICON
I I I i
These systems include the Maneuver Control System
(MCS), the All Source Analysis System (ASAS), the
Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System
(AFATDS), the Air and Missile Defense Workstation
(AMDWS) and Combat Service Support Control System
(CSSCS), all operating in both Arizona and Texas.
The integration of these systems laid the architecture
for tying the virtual and constructive simulations to the
crewmembers of the Longbow aircraft and MLRS
launchers moving downrange and simulating engage-
ments with the ins~ammented targets.
With the exercise construct set and command-post
operations and simulation completed in May 2003, the
Bridging Event was set for execution in June.
The Bridging Event was a limited test of the exercise
system with the command-and-control assets at Fort
Hood and two configured AH-64D Longbow attack air-
craft deployed and flying in Arizona. These aircraf~ fired
ARMY AVIATION 52 DECEMBER 31, 2003
on an instrumented target vehicle and all events (both
firing and tracking) were captured on the command-and-
control systems at Fort Hood.
The JAGCE test linked echelon-above-corps assets to
find the enemy. It employed Longbow aimrat~ to fix tar-
gets and a combination of attack aircraft and rocket
artillery fires (hundreds of miles apart) to finish the tar-
get. Then virtual UAVs were used to assess the battle
damage, all real-time in the constructive simulation.
Results and Recommendations
The JAGCE demonstrated it can meet thc require-
ments for a JNTC. It verified the technical feasibility to
conduct operations from a designated set of locations, or
as a mobile capability deployable to various locatinns.
We must make it a reality to attain a peacetime training
process for preparing forces for how they fight. To get
III
JAGCE Bridging Event
Seam less Live Virtual
Constructive Integration -
there, we must do the following:
1. Establish and resource a JNTC program.
Thc U.S. Joint Fomns Command (USJFCOM) should
be thc nexus for establishing thc JNTC capability.
This would take the multi-service and joint service TTPs
already developed and published by the Air Land Sea
Application (ALSA) Center, combined with professional
observer-controllers taken from each of thc services'
existing training programs and USJFCOM, to form thc
core ora JNTC training program.
The opposing forces (OPFOR) could also come fi~om each
of ibc services' existing progvam~ and could be resoumed as
required to meet the JNTC schedule from their home stations.
2. Set the training venues.
Thc Bridging Event highlighted operating differences
among the services that have direct impact on each set*
rice's ability to effectively execute realistic training,
particularly in the environmental-as*
sessment process.
I'he mining areas must accommo-
date off-road land maneuver operations
that include tracked vehicles and rotary-
wing aircraR. They must also have the
logistical architecture to support signif-
icant fomc d~loyments. This includes
all classes of supply, bulk fuel, ammu-
nition-storage and transfer operations,
railhead down load and up load capabil-
ities, lina-haul ramps, and ground- and
air-certified ranges.
The communication tmnking sys*
tern for tracking instrumentation and
exercise control must exist or have re-
quirements identified and locations
surveyed.
3. Develop realistic training scenar-
ios with specific training objectives
tied to J'FIP.
The purpose is to train all partici-
pants ofa CJTF at all levels that repli-
cate anticipated mission requirements
in complex live-fire situations that
require the service participants to exer-
cise and work through the seams that
traditionally exist between the services
in current training workups. These
include cross-boundary fires; integrat-
ed close-air-support operations; decon-
fliction of indirect and direct fires;
integrated airspace command and con-
U-ol that exercises flexible airspace
control orders able to rapidly change to
meet changing tactical situations; inte-
grated intelligence and air-defense
systems incorporating Aegis, Patriot,
space and other national assets; appli-
cation of joint firepower; joint sup-
pression of enemy air defenses
(SEAD); joint theater missile defense;
"fratricide" reduction and prevention;
integration of speeial-operations
forces; and integrated battle command
and control systems.
ARMY AVIATION 53 DECEMBER 31, 2003
Training Audience
These scenarios should also include a transition from
hostilities to peace/stability operations. 4. Schedule the training.
Like each servicc schedules its major training events,
USJFCOM would scbedulc CJTF mining events tied to
deployment readiness during a worldwide training con~
ference, rcsourced by each service for all participants.
Evaluate, assess, and retrain.
For thc Bridging Event wc used, see thc Training
Audience at let~.
Conclusion
As warfare in thc 21st century looks to remain as tai-
lored joint fomes deployed to distant and wide-ranging
areas of operations, thc opportunity is upon us to create
a joint training capability that combines thc best of what
the services already ex(cute into a JAGCE that replicates
how we fight now and how wc will fight in the future.
USJFCOM can make this a reality with fomes, facili-
ties and technology that the Bridging Event helped to
demonstrate. As we reorganize and regenerate forces
returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, now is the perfect
opportunity to cOntinue the Joint National Training
Capability program.
LTG Thomas )7 Metz is the commanding general of the
Army's 111 Corps. LTC Christopher,4. Joslin is the exec-
utive officer for the 4th Brigade (,4viation), lst Cavalry
Division. Bath are stationed at Fort Hood, Texas.
ARMY AVIATION 54 DECEMBER 31, 2003
23
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
AGENDA ITEM: Overview of the Percent for Art Ordinance
STAFF PRESENTER(S):
Name Title/Position
Department
1. Linda Hodge
2. Ronnie Sepulveda
Asst. Director of Programs Park and Rec.
Recreation Superintendent Park and Rec.
OUTSIDE PRESENTER(S):
Name Title/Position
Organization
1. Deborah Fullerton Commission Chair ACC
2. Dr. Linda Avila Member of Commission ACC
ACC = Arts and Cultural Commission
ISSUE: Overview of the Percent for Art Ordinance
BACKGROUND: At the September 9, 2003, a council member requested to see
if the Percent for Art Program still served its purpose before going into the
Bond 2004 Program. The Arts and Cultural Commission will give an overview
of the Percent for Art Program, an update on current projects and answer
council's questions.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: None
Additional Background
Exhibits
t Head Sitka ure)
4
r"', 1?*
lip
jv
# � Y
�e
1
!
P t fi Ya
y/* r
3 w/
54
a
0
ME
{F
E
114
r
• Jf"a � mr1
r :aSs t y.. .
n
c
t
.� ...
woo
a
pa
..
.: . an..x '.. a:a
.i ::
.....,.
Yi'
.t'.e ri
.."Y r: •e. FvnY' 'tl�v
ME
{F
E
114
r
• Jf"a � mr1
r :aSs t y.. .
Public Art Reflects the
Local Environment
Pudic art at its best
reflects the local
environrrrent, cultural
values and artistic vitality
llwjof the community in
which it is placed.
Texas Stele
Jesus Moroles, 1992
C.C. City Hall
Public art enhances the quality of life for a city by
encouraging a heightened sense of place and
enhancing a community's prestige and visual quality.
Public art provides a significant boost to the local
economy, creates jobs, and celebrates communities
as a cultural destination.
The Rise of the Creative Class
"As creativity becomes more valued, the
creative class grows. The key to economic
growth lies not just in the ability to attract the
creative class but to translate that underlying
advantage into creative economic outcomes
in the form of new ideas, new high-tech
businesses and regional growth. it
- Richard Florida
Percent for Art Ordinance*
• Expands opportunities for citizens and cultural
tourists to experience art in public places.
• Recognizes the substantial economic benefits to be
gained through the provision of cultural amenities.
• Encourages the inclusion of works of art in private
developments in the City.
*Approved by Council, March 1987
a
The City's Role
• Includes Percent for Art
allocation in all city
construction projects over
$50,000
• Manages artist contracts
• Manages all related expenses
Portal Del Mar
Damion Priour, 1992
C.C. Airport
Arts &Cultural
Commission's Role
Serenading the Fishes
Stephen Gambill, 1996
Parkdale Public Library
ACC's Role:
To review all capital improvement projects
for eligibility and practicality in regard to:
• Projects meeting citizens' needs
• Impact on tourism
• Positive exposure to City
• Impact on arts & culture in community
• Benefits to individual projects
Swimmers at the Start, Basketball at the Net
Aloe Tile Works, 1998
Corpus Christi Natatorium and Gym
ACC's Role:
To confirm that monies have been allocated
to appropriate project accounts
• Project must be over $50,000
• Includes new construction or remodeling
of a building, parking facility,
park, arterial street, sidewalk,
or any portion thereof
Friendship Monument
Dr. Sherman Coleman, 1992
Shoreline and Lawrence St.
ACC's Role:
Select Ad Hoc Peer Panel to review & select art
Ad Hoc Peer Panel composed of:
• Two voting,representatives from neighborhoods surrounding the
artwork
• Two voting visual art professionals (artist curators, collectors,
designers, etc)
• Member of the Arts & Cultural Commission (vote in case of a tie)
• Non -Voting members include project design architect, one
departmental representative (department head or designee)
Use of Funds
ACC strives to be realistic with regard to what
projects should get art and what projects
should not, and will continue to follow this
reasonable approach in the future.
Streets
Small projects
Construction out
of public view
To maintain public art works for
future generations
Permanent Art Collection
There are 37
art pieces in our
. � no -
22
■
22 'Pieces
were paid for by
percent for Arts funds'
Aztec Wheel
Craig Gibbs, 1978
Coopers Alley & Mesquite
Permanent Art Collection
Untitled
Amanda Jaffe, 1995
Falcon Park
EI Circo Del Mar
Wade Buddy Tatum, 1995
Shoreline
Permane
if Ll '}I
k
t
1
•]1[:
Permanent Art Collection
Ring of Time
Judy Kracke, 1992
Winrock Park
Wind in the Sails
Kent Ullberg, 1983
Shoreline Dr.
Permanent
Collection
Orion's
Shoreline
Swimmer at the Start
Permanent
ion
All that Jazz ... is a Tree of Life
Sandi Stein
Oveal Williams Sr. Ctr.
Percent -for -Art
Current Projects
■ Convention Center/Arena
- 6 artists have been selected
■ Firestation #7
- Artist has been selected
■ Airport
- Artist will be announced soon
■ Baseball Stadium
-Ad Hoc Peer Panel recommended
A selection of the
Arena art work:
Atzlan
Michael Manjarris
Six and Seven Flowers
James Surls
A selection of
Arena art work:
Southwest Pieta
Luis Jimenez, 2004
Westfork
John Buck, 2004
Arts and Cultural Commission
Promoting Community Arts and Cultures
Performing Arts
Festival of the Arts
Sub grants for local�x'Visual Arts
�J3..tt, wnnia'"9 r
performing artists ; . Frs
5 �
24
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
AGENDA ITEM: (Caption/Title of Presentation as it should appear on the agenda)
Animal Care Services Update
STAFF PRESENTER(S):
Name
1. Dr. Micheal Silvers
2. Cherrie A. Stunz
3.
Title/Position
Director
Div. Manager
Department
Health
Animal/Vector
OUTSIDE PRESENTER(S):
Name
Title/Position
Organization
ISSUE: Update
BACKGROUND: None
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: None
Additional Background []
Exhibits []
(Department Head Signature)
Animal Care Services
Dr. Michael Silvers and Cherrie A. Stunz
Mission:
•Protect citizens from rabies
Apprehend stray, at -large, unwanted animals
•Enforce city and state laws
Priorities:
• animal bites
• vicious animals
stray/roaming
injured/rescue
domestic/wildlife emergencies
cruelty
animal nuisance (i.e., cats)
operation of humane facility
community education
adoptions
36,000 calls per year
Changes to
Services:
Dead animal pick-up
• Service provided for free; typically
charged at vet office
• BFI or Solid Waste will pick-up for a fee
Live traps
• Primarily targeting Opossums that pose
no health risk
• Services less than 1% of population
• Replace with education for
dealing with wildlife!
• Begin Quarterly Seminars with Texas
Parks and Wildlife
ACS Status: Administration
• Pet license accountability — previously
performed by Accounts Receivable
• Database
• Fiscal responsibility
• Ordinance Revisions
• Public education and outreach
L" MAI
err ,_ *rK
Ietgreed aa,
''gill III Ill
File Edit View Image Calors Help
n�ma ae ----Services
On the web...
Health
Animal Care
Winter/Holiday Health
Hazards for Animals
Lost Pet Hotline
Location and Hours of
Operation
Pet License
Meet Our Officers
Field Services & Rescues
Bioterrorism
Environmental Services
Health Education
Main Health Department
Satellite Clinical Services
Vector Control
Vital Statistics
WIC (Women / Infant/
Children)
Immunizations
CC International Airport
Convention Facilities
ANIMAL CARE
V
When you adopt a pet
from an animal
shelter, you not only
give a homeless
animal a second
chance...
you get a friend for
25
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
AGENDA ITEM: Council Update on specific Bond Issue 2000 Projects
STAFF PRESENTER(S):
Name Title/Position Department
1. 'Angel R. Escobar, P.E.
Director
Engineering Svcs.
OUTSIDE PRESENTER(S):
Name
Title/Position
Or.qanization
1. N/A
ISSUE:
This is a Council requested update on specific Bond Issue 2000 Projects including:
· Seawall Traffic Control Plan
· Remobilization of South Staples Street
· Status of Gollihar Road and Ayers Street
· Statusof Home Road
BACKGROUND: Work is rapidly progressing on several remaining Bond Issue
2000 projects. The construction progress is going to require traffic rerouting and
may prove to be of temporary inconvenience to the public in several locations across
town. This presentation will inform the City Council and public of the current status
of these major improvements projects. Details will include construction sequencing,
traffic control planning, and estimated completion times.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
None Required
(l~'&pa~rtment Head ~ignature)
26
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
AGENDA ITEM: Results of the 2003 Citizen Satisfaction Survey
STAFF PRESENTER:
Name
1. Cheryl A. Soward
OUTSIDE PRESENTER:
Name
1. Daniel J. Jorgensen, Ph.D.
2. Will Sherman
Title/Position
Director
Department
Public Information
Title/Position Or~lanization
AssL Professor TAMU-CC
of Public Administration
Research Assistant TAMU-CC
ISSUE:
The City's annual citizens' survey has been completed and the results are ready to
be released. The purpose of the survey is to allow citizens of Corpus Christi the
opportunity to confidentially report their attitudes toward city performance in key
areas.
BACKGROUND:
This is the third consecutive year that the City has conducted the Citizen Satisfaction
Survey. The survey rates citizens' attitudes and perceptions toward 34 service and
quality of life issues, their impressions of City employees, and how they feel about a
proposed 2004 Bond Issue. In addition to usual year-to-year comparison of results
and cross-tabulation of questions, new to this year's survey are questions regarding
the future of the Bayfront and how citizens get their information about what's going
on in City government. The City contracted with Texas A&M University - Corpus
Christi to perform the survey. The complete results are under separate cover.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
None. Survey results will be used for future planning purposes.
Cheryl A. ~oward
Director of Public Information
Additional Background x
Exhibits []
Performance and Preferences:
2003 Citizen Survey
Daniel J. Jorgensen, Ph.D.
Social Science Research Center
College of Arts and Humanities
Texas A&M -Corpus Christi
Purpose of Survey
■ To report attitudes towards performance
in:
— Public Safety
— Transportation
— Parks and Recreation
— Housing
— Social Services
2003 Citizen Survey
2
Overall Quality of Services
Weighted by gender
Very Poor Excellent
6% 12%
Fair
28%
Good
54%
2003 Citizen Survey
3
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Overall Quality of Services
Over Time
1994 1998 2001 2002 2003
2003 Citizen Survey
0
Highest Levels of Satisfaction
Table 3, Page 11
■ Fire Protection 89%
■ EMS 88%
■ Gas Service 86%
■ Water service 84%
■ Garbage collection 84%
■ Wastewater 81%
■ Library 77%
■ Police 76%
■ Water Conservation 73%
2003 Citizen Survey
5
Growth rates of
Positive Satisfaction
■ 27 City services show growth
■ Attracting new employers
■ Protection of water supply from
pollution
2003 Citizen Survey
.14%
6.67%
0
Low Levels of Satisfaction
(Table 6, page 14)
■ Attracting new employers 74%
■ Helping existing employers 69%
■ Street repair 59%
■ Maintaining property 55%
■ Controlling dumping 52%
■ Storm drainage 52%
■ Recreation programs 51%
■ Programs for youth 51%
■ New street construction 51%
2003 Citizen Survey
7
Results by Council District
■ Higher levels of dissatisfaction than
expected
— Districts 1, 21 3
• Emergency Medical Services
— Districts 1, 21 31 & 4
Storm Drainage
2003 Citizen Survey
Results by Age
■ Higher levels of satisfaction than
expected
— Ages 50 +
• Emergency Medical Services
• New Street Construction
• Water Services
• Art and Cultural Opportunities
• Attracting New Employers
• Helping Existing Employers
2003 Citizen Survey
N
Results by Age
■ Higher levels of dissatisfaction than
expected
— Middle Age (35-49)
• Recreational Programs
2003 Citizen Survey
10
Results by Income
■ Higher levels of satisfaction than
expected
— Higher Incomes
• Police Protection
• Fire Protection
— Lower Incomes
• Quality of Tap Water
• Recreational Programs
2003 Citizen Survey
11
Results by Income
■ Higher levels of dissatisfaction than
expected
— Higher Incomes
• Helping Existing Employers
• Attracting New Employers
• Requiring Properties to Meet Standards
— Lower Incomes
• Police Protection
• Fire Protection
• Keeping Citizens Informed
2003 Citizen Survey
12
Results by Income
■ Members of the $40,001 to $60,000
household income bracket show higher
levels of satisfaction than expected in
the two categories of
— Helping Existing Employers
—Attracting New Employers
2003 Citizen Survey
13
Results by Ethnicity
■ Higher levels of satisfaction than
expected
— Hispanic/Mexican American
• Garbage Collection
• Water Services
• Gas Services
• Utilities Billing
• New Street Construction
• Recreation Programs
• Program for the Elderly
• Attracting New Employers
• Helping Existing Employers Grow
2003 Citizen Survey
14
Results by Ethnicity
■ Higher levels of dissatisfaction than
expected
— White/Anglo
• New Street Construction
• Water Services
• Recreation Programs
• Programs for the Elderly
• Programs for Youth
• Attracting New Employers
• Helping Existing Employers
2003 Citizen Survey
15
Impressions of City Employees
■ Citizens who have contact with City
employees have strong positive
impressions of city employees (35%)
(Figures 6-9, pages 18-19)
Good 40%
Excellent 34%
Positive impressions of:
• Knowledge 67%
• Responsiveness 67%
• Courtesy
73%
2003 Citizen Survey
16
Bond 2004
■ Slight edge favoring improvements over
new facilities
2003 Citizen Survey
17
Bond 2004 - Imurovin2 Facilities
vor % Oppose % Neutral %
731 9 18
70
62 1 15i 23
60, 12, 28
59 15 26
58 _a 11 �3.1
58 11 31
56 ` 11 33
..__._. w wk....
531 11 36 {
_ 5_1 _ 14� 36a
2003 Citizen Survey
W.
I
Bond 2004 -New Facilities
Drainage
Libraries
Recreation Centers
�Swimming Pools
7rolley System
Police Substations
Senior Centers
Parks
Fire Substations
Athletic Fields
Favor % Oppose
% Neutral
%
6981
23
55
M
27
55
..........
16
29
531
19,
28
521
29
20
51117
32
501
14
36
481
21
31
47
19i
34
46
22
32
2003 Citizen Survey
19
Favor Bayfront Plan
2003 Citizen Survey 20
Favor a Bond Issue
2003 Citizen Survey 21
How Citizens Get Information
of Cases
Television 92
Newspaper 80
Friends & Family 32
Radio News 30
Tal k Radio23
CCTV ,..�,. x.m.,.15
Web Site 13
2003 Citizen Survey
22
Residents seem to be concerned
about quality of life issues such
as:
■ New employment opportunities
■ Economic development (bayfront
improvements)
■ Recreation facilities for juveniles and
senior citizens
■ Citizens tend to favor spending bond
issue proceeds to increase these quality
of life services in Corpus Christi
2003 Citizen Survey
23
Conclusions
■ The citizens of Corpus Christi feel that
the level of performance in City services
is "good" to "excellent" for the majority
of services delivered.
■ They tend to be positive about
performance, even on the lowest
ranking services.
2003 Citizen Survey
24
Questions?
Texas A&M University -Corpus Christi
The Island University
■ Social Science Research Center
College of Arts and Humanities
2003 Citizen Survey
25
N
J
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
February '10, 2004
AGENDA ITEM:
Review of Proposed FY 2004 Long-Range Street Projects and Bond 2004 Process
STAFF PRESENTER(S):
Name Title/Position Department
1. Mark L. McDaniel
2. ~,ngel R. Escobar, P.E.
3. Marlo Tapia
Assistant City Manager - Support Services
Director of Engineering Services
Acting Director- Management & Budget
ISSUE:
Funding for long-range capital needs will require issuance of voter-approved bonds.
In anticipation of a proposed Bond 2004 Program, Staff has compiled updated cost
estimates and timelines for long-range street projects. (see attached summary) The
City Council has expressed its commitment to formulate a Bond 2004 package to be
presented to the citizens in a November 2004 Election.
BACKGROUND:
This initial presentation is intended to provide the City Council with recently updated
cost estimates for long-range street projects. There is no current funding for any of
non-utility long-range projects detailed in the FY 2004 Capital Budget and Capital
Budget Improvement Guide. As per City Council directive, Staff will present
information detailing the proposed Bond 2004 process. The information will cover
bond package parameters such as dollar amount of package, affordability, project
management, market saturation and the impact on utility rates for utility relocations
associated with street improvements.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
Staff is requesting City Council direction in formulating a Bond 2004 Program.
'/~g~'l R. Escobar, P.E.
Director of Engineering Services
MarioTapia - t -
Acting Director of Management and Budget
Attachments:
Long Range Street Supplementary Budget
PowerPoint Slides
Page 1 of 3
2/6/2004
Version #1
* Higher priced option shown
LONG-RANGE STREET PROJECTS
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FEBRUARY
10, 2004
T
Seq #
PROJECT
STREETS
WASTEWTR
WATER STORM WTR
OTHER
TOTAL
NEW CONSTRUCTION
01
'Aaron Drive Extension
919,628
-
157,117
269,555
1,346,300
02
Bayfront Arts & Science Park Streets
3,950,887
8,281
8,281
213,051
4,180,500
03
* Cimmaron Blvd., Phase 1 - Saratoga to Yorktown
6,389,898
343,717
1,052,426
1,747,300
2,476,259
12,009,600
04
Cliff Maus Drive, Phase 2 - Old Brownsville Road to Bear Lane
802,524
235,575
150,919
847,682
2,036,700
05
Cliff Maus Drive, Phase 3 - South Padre Island Drive to Rockford Drive
1,057,234
228,653
221,586
461,627
1,969,100
06
Everhart Road, Phase 1 - Saratoga Blvd to Cedar Pass
4,496,694
510,201
604,972
603,633
_
6,215,500
07
Holly Road - Crosstown Expressway to Greenwood Drive
2,414,801
793,513
371,344
i
11340,642
4,920,300
08
Laguna Shores Road - Caribbean to SPID
10,895,601
1,455,824
318,704
2,082,065
2,261,488
17,013,682
09
McArdle Road Reconstruction - Nile to Ennis Joslin
3,183,959
562,984
248,027
1,456,080
-
5,451,050
10
Up River Road - Rand Morgan to McKenzie
4,464,809
228,292
1,589,708
3,232,691
9,515,500
11
Williams Drive - Staples Street to Rodd Field Road
6,915,270
1,330,532
834,629
9,990,069
19,070,500
12
Buddy Lawrence Drive - Leopard Street to IH 37
3,535,365
452,445
478,477
1,019,013
1
5,485,300
13
Ennis Joslin Extension - South of SPID to Rodd Field Road
11,929,221
6,020
1,341,709
5,272,850
1
18,549,800
14
Everhart Road, Phase 2 - Wooldridge Road to Saratoga Boulevard
3,513,765
454,068
406,836
544,011
4,918,680
15
Flour Bluff Drive - South Padre Island Drive to Glenoak Drive
8,050,252
873,721
498,659
1,613,668
11,036,300
16
Glenoak Drive - Flour Bluff Drive to Debra Street
3,870,086
974,404
600,359
2,136,151
7,581,000
17
Graham Road - Waldron Road to Laguna Shores Road
2,820,853
418,564
285,850
825,395
294,838
4,645,500
18
* Robert St. - Alameda St. to Ocean Drive
5,994,000
753,603
566,926
1,919,885
-
9,234,414
19
Sunnybrook Drive - Ayers Street to Kostoryz
3,405,670
465,338
1,369,718
35,524
5,276,250
20
Up River Road - IH 37 to Rand Morgan Road
11,842,335
1,194,885
17,915
4,965,165
-
18,020,300
21
iWaldron Rd. -Caribbean to Yorktown
4,242,043
631,192
204,909
985,956
-
6,064,100
22
'Wooldridge Road, Phase 1 - Staples Street to Airline Road
4,372,021
682,221
446,811
2,423,675
-
7,924,728
23
Yorktown Boulevard - Staples Street to Rodd Field Road
11,047,257
595,846
436,448
3,670,385
-
15,749,936
24
Airline Road - Saratoga Boulevard to Rodd Field
5,691,336
900,691
499,072
2,270,085
-
9,361,184
25
*AquariusSt.- DasMarinastoCommodores
1,140,717
256,125
281,243;
296,915
-
1,975,000
26
Carmel Parkway Extension - Staples Street to Gollihar Road
1,072,621
-
-
101,779
-
1,174,400
27
* Cimmaron Blvd., Phase 2 - Yorktown to Oso Parkway
5,783,698
968,301
2,200,589
1,563,862
10,516,450
28
Corpus Christi Beach Area Streets
15,980,613
3,452,755
2,791,931
2,865,201
-
25,090,500
29
Debra Street - Jamaica Extension - Caribbean to Hustlin Homet Rd.
2,680,186
601,487
267,079 !,
612,848
4,161,600
* Higher priced option shown
Page 2 of 3
2/6/2004
Version #1
* Higher priced option shown
LONG-RANGE STREET PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FEBRUARY 10, 2004
Ti
Seq #
PROJECT
I
STREETS
I
WASTEWTR
WATER
STORM WTR OTHER
TOTAL
NEW CONSTRUCTION Continued
30 Navigation Boulevard - Old Brownsville Road to Up River Road
13,965,091
19,035
686,406
5,838,668
20,509,200
31
Rodd Field Road - Sarato a Boulevard to Yorktown Road
10,469,144
214,367
2,365,243
13,048,754
32
Wooldridge Road Phase 2 - Airline Road to Rodd Field Road
3,238,421
713,603
364,885
1,870,391
6,187,300
33
Yorktown Boulevard, Phase 2 - Rodd Field Road to Oso Creek
9,298,168
595,827
687,185
5,210,647
15,791,627
34
Yorktown Boulevard, Phase 3 - Oso Creek to Waldron Road
10,110,850
568,814
414,251
4,202,204
15,296,119
NEW CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:
199,545,018
21,025,346 1
17,300,002
76,824,837
' 6,631,971
321,327,174
RECONSTRUCTION SPECIFIC LOCATIONS):
10,572,482
384,920
929,707
4,694,291
16,581,400
35
Alameda Street - Doddrid a to Parade
2,275,469
173,312
298,499
i 46,820
2,794,100
36
37
Ayers Street -Norton to Home
Doddridge Street - Ocean Drive to Staples Street
3,494,857
517,179
821,083
669,781
5,502,900
38
Gollihar Road - Kostoryz to Weber Road
3,696,265
577,602
768,768
5,076,465
10,119,100
39
Greenwood Drive - Home to South Padre Island Drive
4,599,125
1,466,182
676,684
1 638,009
7,380,000
40
Ocean Drive - Bayfront Convention Center to Buford
23,688,642
597,821
758,790
143,847
25,189,100
41
Ocean Drive -Buford to Ennis Joslin Road
24,368,517
2,244,487
230,958
690,910
27,534,872
42
Staples Street- IH 37 to Six Points
7,445,479
987,339
1,071,210
357,672
9,861,700
43
Staples Street, Phase 1 - Williams to Wooldridge Road
3,788,247
882,729
471,566
374958
2A
7,517,500
44
Staples Street, Phase 2 - Wooldrid a Road to Saratoga Boulevard
2,028,519
206,259
635,36458
4,003,400
45
Waldron Road - Purdue to Glenoak
1,923,816
276,399
-
85
3,305,900
46
Gollihar Road -Staples Street to Airline Road
3,120,329
1,402,477
425,94945
5,231,00047
Morgan Avenue -Port Avenue to Crosstown E resswa
2,354,505
229,710
339,69194
3,051,80048
North Port Avenue -West Broadwa to Mart n LutherKin8,016,700636639
782,43823
11,766,60049
Leo and Street, Phase 4 - Rand Mo an Road to Tuloso Road
6,329,745
470,386
1,208,73930
8,464,10050
Rand Morgan Road Reconstruction - IH 37 to McNorton, Phase 1
2,188,562
224,811
381,71809
3,656,10051
Rand Morgan Road Reconstruction - IH 37 to McNorton, Phase 2
3,036,004
-
-
96
6,709,700RECONSTRUCTION
SPECIFIC LOCATIONS TOTAL: 112,927,263
11,278,252
9,801,164593
158,669,272
* Higher priced option shown
Page 3 of 3
2/6/2004
Version #1
" Higher priced option shown
LONG-RANGE STREET PROJECTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
FEB UARY 10, 2004
Seq#
PROJECT
STREETS
WASTEWTR WATER
STORM WTRI
OTHER TOTAL
i
RECONSTRUCTION CITY-WIDE
52
Voluntary Pavin Program Petttions
i 7,000,000
490,000 420,000
1,330,000
9,240,000
53
Neighborhood Street Reconstruction
71,295,000
4,277,700 4,990,650
13,546,050
94,109,400
54
Collector Street Reconstruction
28,560,000
1,713,600 1,999,200
5,426,400
_ 37,699,200
55
Arterial Street Reconstruction
8,820,000
529,200 617,400
1,675,800
11,642,400
RECONSTRUCTION (CITY-WIDE) TOTAL:
115,675,000
7,010,500 8,027,250
21,978,250
152,691,000
OTHER STREET RELATED CONSTRUCTION
56
3�c
Ci Share of Street Construction in New Subdivisions (City-wide)
2,000,000
2,000,000
57
ICi ide Neighborhood Sidewalk Improvements (City-wide)
1 1,000,000
1,000,000
58
!Congestion Management Improvements
3,500,000
3,500,000
59
Downtown Area Sidewalk and Curb Improvements
16,409,933
842,847 824,784
484,136
18,561,700
60
Future TxDOT Participation
10,000,000
-
10,000,000
61
Guardrails / Pedestrian Bridges / School Zones (City-wide)
1,500,000
_
1,500,000
62
Street Lighting (City-wide)
3,000,000
3,000,000
63
Traffic Si nalization New & Upgrades
13,500,000
_
13,500,000
64
Hike -n -Bike Trail Enhancements
Bay Trail — Holly to Wooldridge
5,054
95,696
760,750
Bay Trail — Wooldridge to Oso Parkway
2,299,791
97,009
2,396,800
65
Purdue-'Hustlin Homet @ Waldron Road Intersection Realingment
2,172,053
121,047
2,293,100
66
'South Loo E resswa Right -of -Way Acquisition
500,000
500,000
67
ADA Curb Ramps - Arterial Streets
40,000,000
40,000,000
68
ADA Curb Ramps - Collector Streets
11,250,000
11,250,000
69
ADA Curb Ramps - Residential Streets
73,750,000
73,750,000
OTHER STREET RELATED CONSTRUCTION TOTAL:'
181,546,831
842,847 824,784
797,888 1184,012,350
TOTAL LONG RANGE STREET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM:
609,694,112
40,156,945 1 35,953,200 1 124,263,568
6,631,971 1 816,699,796
" Higher priced option shown
L,
9
Bond Categories /Projects
• Streets
— Arterial, Collector & Residential
• ADA Improvements
— Curb ramps and sidewalks
• Public Facilities
— Libraries, Museums, Coliseum, Other
• Public Health and Safety
— Training Facility, Fire Stations, Police Headquarters,
Police substations, Municipal Court facilities & Health
facilities
• Park and Recreation
— Golf Center, Tennis Center, Marina, Sports Facilities,
Master Planning & Neighborhood Parks
Proposed FY 2004 CIP Guide
Project Categories & Costs
• Streets -
• ADA Improvements
• Public Facilities -
• Public Health & Safety -
• Parks & Recreation -
Subtotal
• Storm Water -
Total
$4849694,000*
12590009000
7,421,000
33,190,000
99,286,000
$74995919000
21297249000*
$9629315,000
*Does not include related utility relocates.
Bond Sizing Considerations
Large vs. Small — Large Issue Up Front, or Approval of
Smaller Issues Every 4 Years
Affordability — Impact on Tax Rate & Structuring
Around Early Years
Project Management - Ability to Manage Project Volume
& Complete within 4 Year Cycle
Market Saturation — Amount of Work that the Local
Construction Market Can Handle
Utility Rates — Cost to Customers for Street Utility
Relocates & Drainage
Bond Rating/Interest Rate — Impact of a Large Issue
and Market Trends
Large vs. Small
Existing General Long -Term Debt - Annual Payments
$20,0001000
$18,000,000
$16,000,000
$14,000,000
$12,0001000
$10,000,000
$8,000,000
$6,000,000
$4,000,000
$2,000,000
$0
.� LO �O r� 00 G, O N M
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N �Nr N N N N N N N N N
* Large Issue Up Front, or Approval of Smaller Issues Every 4 years
Affordability
Assumes levelized payments
$120
$100
O
$60
$40
$20
$0
rr •
FY2004 FY2008 FY2012 FY2016
Note: Assumes 3% annual net growth in assessed values.
Affordability
Deferred/restructured payment
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
FY2004
FY2008
FY2012
FY2016
Note:
Assumes 3% annual net
growth in
assessed values.
$140
$120
$100
"I
$20
Proiect Management
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Market Saturation
Programmed Activity —Next 3 Years
• City of Corpus Christi -$321.4 million
• TxDOT Letting Schedule— $176.2 million
• Other
- Del Mar College
- Texas A&M University — CC
- School Districts
- Nueces County
- Private Development
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Utility Rates
Additional Utility Rate Adjustments for
Street Utility Relocates & Drainage
• Every $10 million equals a I % greater rate increase
Utility Rate Increases Already Programmed
6%
° 4.75% 4.75% 4.75%
FY03-04 FY04-05 FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08
E----------
___________________________________________________________________a._t - --
-------- ---- -------- -------------------------- -------- ----------- ------------ ---- ---- - -
-- -- # - - - --- --------- --- - -- — - --
-- -------------- .--------
------- -
-------------- -? — �x is
--------- ------ --------------- I- ---------- ----------------,-------- . —
irY,t -r�04 Elo:,nY,=r-cr L.F'.
Bond 2004
Process Considerations
— Citizen Involvement Process
• Public Hearings
• Town Hall Meetings in each District
• Other
Bond 2004 Tentative Timeline
- March, 2004 -
• Finalize Preliminary Project Candidates
— April, 2004 —
• Obtain Public Input/Refine Project Candidates
— June -July, 2004 —
• Council Finalizes Bond Election Projects
— August -October, 2004 —
• Public Information Effort
- November, 2004 -
• Bond Election
Bond 2004 Parameters
•Bond Sizing?
•Priorities of various categories?
• Critical/Mandatory Projects?
•Continue policies forfunding utility relocations?
28
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
January 27, 2004
AGENDA ITEMS:
(a) Review of Proposed FY 2004 Storm Water Supplementary Project Budgets
(b) Ordinance approving the FY 2004 Capital Budget in the amount of $173,624,300
ISSUE: The City of Corpus Christi's Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the City
Charter, requires the development of a capital improvement program and annual
capital budget. The City Council is required to approve the Plan and Capital Budget
annually. At the recommendation of Staff, the City Council agreed to defer approval
of the FY 2004 Capital Budget until a comprehensive cost analysis of recommended
storm water projects was completed by outside consultants. The cost analysis has
been completed and a summary is included for City Council review by separate
cover (Storm Water ClP Recommended Project List).
BACKGROUND:
The City Council received an introduction to the Proposed FY 2004 Capital Budget and
Capital Improvement Planning Guide on November 18, 2003. The Council had preliminary
discussions on the FY2004 Capital Budget and agreed to resume discussions upon
completion of further storm water project analysis. A public hearing to receive citizen input
was also held on November 18, 2003. The Proposed FY 2004 Capital Budget includes $35
million dollars to be allocated to candidate storm water improvement projects as detailed in
Exhibit B. A total of $55 million dollars over a five year period has been earmarked for
storm water projects. As anticipated, the cost for candidate projects exceeds available
resources. Consequently, Staff has prioritized recommendations in the Exhibit B. The
priorities are based on criteria such as mandates, potential for property damage, safety.
hazards, health and vector concerns and increased system capacity. (Exhibit A)
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
(a) Approval of storm water candidate projects
(b) Approval of 1at Reading of FY2004 Capital Budget Ordinance
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION:
2ND Reading of FY 2004 Capital Budget Ordinance
Bond 2004 Discussion
/v,/[n~'el R. Escobar, P.E.
· Director of Engineering Services
Mario Tapia
Acting Director of Management and Budget
Attachments:
Ordinance
Exhibit A - Criteria Ranking for Project PrioritJzatJon
Exhibit B - Storm Water Supplementary Budget
Exhibit C - Project Location Map
BACKGROUNDINFORMATION
The Proposed FY 2004 Capital Budget totals $173,624,300 and is categorized in the
following summary:
Airport $36,854,100
Park and Recreation 630,600
Public Facilities 21,980,000
Public Health & Safety 27,465,700
Streets ,8,137,400
Gas 1,608,500
Storm Water 35,050,000
Wastewater 20,247,000
Water 15,280,000
Water Supply $6,371,000
TOTAL $173,624,300
Utilities' Capital Proiects
The City Council approved a 6% rate effective August 1,2003, to fund $35 million dollars
in storm water projects in the Proposed FY 2004 Capital Budget. This is in addition to the
$5 million authorized in FY2003 a~d an additional $15 million proposed for FY 2005 thru
2007. This allocation of funds totals $55 million over a 5 year period and is reflected in the
Staff recommendation for storm water candidate projects.
The 6% rate increase also funds the capital projects in the other utilities as detailed in the
above summary.
General ObliRation Proiects
Proposed FY 2004 expenditures reflect anticipated expenditures for projects approved and
funded in the Bond 2000 Program and dedicated sales tax issues, Funding for proposed
long-range general obligation projects such as streets, parks, libraries and other public
facilities must be provided for by future bond issues.
"3'
Page 1 of 2
ORDINANCE
APPROVING THE FY 2003-04 CAPITAL BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF
$'173,624,300
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the 2003-04 Capital Budget in the amount of $173,624,300 is
approved. A copy of the 2003-04 Capital Budget is on file in the Office of the City
Secretary..
H:\LEG-DIR\Lisa\ORD3\Dec 9 capital budget.doc
Page 2 of 2
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melocy Cooper
Henr~ Garrett
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
readir g on this the day of ,2003, by the following vote:
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on this
the ___. day of
Samuel L Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javie~ D. Colmenero
Meloc, y Cooper
Henr~ Garrett
PAS~ED AND APPROVED, this the
ATTEST:
,2003 by the following vote:
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
day of
,2003.
Arma,~do Chapa
City Secretary
APPF:OVED:
Lisa ,~guilar
Assistant City Attorney
for City Attorney
Samuel L Neal, Jr.
Mayor
,2003
H:\LEG-DIR\Lisa\ORD3\Dec 9 capital budget.doc
29
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: February 10, 2004
AGENDAITEM:
Resolution approving the execution of business incentives agreement between the
Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation ("Corporation") and A.C
Distribution, Inc. to reimburse A.C. Distribution, Inc. for job Iraining expenses up to
$3,700 per new job created, to create at least 50 new jobs primarily employed to
serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of the City.
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute a project
agreement with the Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation
"Corporation" ) regarding administration of business incentives agreement between
the Corporation and A.C. Distribution, Inc.
ISSUE:
The Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation ("Corporation")authorized
an agreement between A.C. Distribution, Inc. for job training expenses on February 2,
2004. In order to fully execute the agreement, the City Council must pass a resolution
approving the contract between the Corporation and A.C. Distribution, Inc. In addition,
Council action is needed to enter into a project agreement with the Corporation to
administer the project.
BACKGROUNDINFORMATION:
The Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation (Corporation) is charged
with the responsibility of approving expenditures for funds generated by the Economic
Development tax, which was approved by the voters in November 2002. Funds generated
from this tax are allocated for the construction of a baseball stadium, affordable housing
programs and business incentives.
In 2003, the Corporation approved the Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Business
Incentives to business that create and retain jobs in the Corpus Christi Area. A.C.
Distribution submitted a proposal to the Corporation and the Corporation approved on
February 2, 2004 approximately $185,000 ($3,700 per employee) for training related
expenses on a reimbursement basis to enable A. C. Distribution to create and maintain at
least 50 new full-time jobs in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas.
A.C. Distribution purchased a San Antonio based company that produces large industrial
freezer systems, which are manufactured in Brownsville. A.C Distribution requested grant
funds from the Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation to move the
company and its manufacturing plant to Corpus Christi. The company will be part ora new
development located at Bear Lane and South Padre Island Ddve. Since this will be the
only company of its type in Corpus Christi, training employees to manufacture the new
freezer systems is essential to the success of the company. The freezer systems will be
sold nationally and internationally.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the resolutions
as presented.
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
Contract with A.C. Distribution
Project Agreement with Corporation
AGREEMENT TO GRANT BUSINESS INCENTIVES TO
A. C. DISTRIBUTION, INC.
FOR THE CREATION OF JOBS
This Agreement to Grant Business Incentives for the Creation of Jobs ("Agreement") is
entered into between the Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation
("Corporation") and A. C. Distribution, Inc., a Texas corporation ("A. C. Distribution").
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature in Section 4A of Article 5190.6, Vernon's Texas
Revised Civil Statutes (Development Corporation Act of 1979) empowered local
communities with the ability to adopt an optional local sales and use tax as a means of
improving the economic health and prosperity of their citizens;
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, residents of the City of Corpus Chdsti ("City")
passed Proposition 2, New and Expanded Business Enterprises, which authorized the
adoption of a sales and use tax for the promotion and development of new and
expanded business enterprises at the rate of one-eighth of one pement to be imposed
for 15 years,
WHEREAS, the 1/8 cent sales tax authorized by passage of Preposition 2 was
subsequently enacted by the City Council and filed with the State Comptroller of Texas,
effective April 1, 2003, to be administered by the Corpus Chdsti Business and Job
Development Corporation Board;
WHEREAS, the Corpus Chdsti Business and Job Development Corporation exists for
the purposes of encouraging and assisting entities in the creation of jobs for the citizens
of Corpus Christi, Texas;
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Board"), on May 5, 2003,
adopted the Corporation's Guidelines and Cdteda for Granting Business Incentives;
WHEREAS, Section 21 of the Development Corporation Act of 1979, requires the City
Council to approve all programs and expenditures of the corporation;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Corporation's Guidelines and Cdteda for
Granting Business Incentives on May 13, 2003;
WHEREAS, A. C. Distribution has submitted a proposal to the Corporation to request
business incentives of approximately $3,700 per new full-time permanent job created for
training related expenses on a reimbursement basis to enable A. C. Distribution to
create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus
Chdsti, Texas, pdmadly employed to serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of
the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in Section 38 (b) of the
Development Corporation Act of 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of
Corpus Chdsti, Texas that business incentives be offered to A. C. Distribution for
training related expenses on a reimbursement basis in order for A.C. Distribution to
AC Distribution12182003
Page 1 of 9
create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus
Christi, Texas, that will be employed to primarily serve a customer base outside a 50-
mile radius of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in Section 38(b)
of the Development Corporation Act of 1979.
In consideration of the covenants, premises, and conditions stated in this Agreement,
Corporation and A. C. Distribution agree as follows:
1. Effective Date. The effective date of this Agreement ("Effective Date") is the latest
date that either party executes this Agreement.
2. Term. The term of this Agreement is five years from the Effective Date.
3. Facility. A. C. Distribution agrees to consolidate operations in a new facility in the
5500 block of Bear Lane, Corpus Chdsti, Texas for the term of this Agreement.
4. Wage Requirement. In order to count as a job under this Agreement, the job must
pay wages as required in Section 38 (b) of the Development Corporation Act of 1979_.
5. Job Creation Qualification.
a. A. C. Distribution agrees to create and maintain a minimum number of 50 new
full-time (2,080 hours/year) permanent jobs at the Facility within three years of
the Effective Date. A full-time permanent job is one that provides at least 2,080
hours annually. The jobs shall be primarily engaged in serving a customer base
outside a 50-mile radius of the city of Corpus Chdsti.
b. A. C. Distribution agrees to maintain the new full-time permanent jobs created
under Section 5a of this Agreement throughout the remainder of the term of this
Agreement.
c. By January 15 of each year of this Agreement, A. C. Distribution agrees to
provide Corporation with a swom certificate by its corporate officer in charge of
personnel records certifying the following:
(i) the number of full-time permanent employees at the Facility as of
December 31 of the previous calendar year; and
(ii) the number of full-time permanent jobs which were created during the
previous calendar year, with houdy wage.
d. A. C. Distribution shall allow Corporation reasonable access to A. C.
Distfibution's personnel records to vedfy the job creation qualification.
6. Buy Local Provision.
a. A. C. Distribution agrees to use its best efforts to give preference and pdodty
to local manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, and labor, except where not
AC Distribution12182003
Page 2 of 9
reasonably possible to do so without added expense, substantial inconvenience,
or sacrifice in operating efficiency.
b. For the purposes of this section, the term "local" as used to descdbe
manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, and labor includes firms, businesses, and
persons who reside in or maintain an office within a 50-mile radius of Nueces
County.
7. Business Incentives Authorized. In consideration for creation and maintenance of
at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs at the Facility, the Corporation agrees to
reimburse A. C. Distribution $3,700 per new full-time permanent job created under this
Agreement, up to a maximum of 75 new full-time permanent jobs, for certain training
expenses identified on the attached Exhibit A, if the following conditions are met:
a. A. C. Distribution shall submit invoices to the Corporation for reimbursement
of costs expended by A. C. Distribution for training expenses identified on the
attached Exhibit A.
b. Each invoice must be submitted to Corporation within 30 days from date
services were performed.
c. Corporation shall pay the reimbursement amounts solely out of its sales tax
revenue collected dudng the term of this Agreement. Should the actual sales tax
revenue collected for any one year be less than the total amount of grants to be
paid to all parties contracting with the Corporation for that year, then, all
contracting parties shall receive only their pro rata share of the available sales
tax revenue for that year and Corporation shaft notbe liable to A. C; Distribution
for any shortage.
8. Warranties. A. C. Distribution warrants and represents to Corporation the following:
a. A. C. Distribution is a corporation duly organized, validly existing, and in good
standing under the laws of the State of Texas, has all corporate power and
authority to carry on its business as presently conducted in Corpus Christi,
Texas.
b. A. C. Distribution has the authority to enter into and perform, and will perform,
the terms of this Agreement.
c. A. C. Distribution has timely filed and will timely file all local, State, and
Federal tax reports and returns required by laws to be filed and all taxes,
assessments, fees, and other governmental charges, including applicable ad
valorem and employment taxes, have been timely paid, and will be timely paid,
dudng the term of this Agreement.
d. A. C. Distribution has received a copy of the Texas Development Corporation
Act of 1979, Art. 5190.6, Vemon's Texas Revised Civil Statutes, and
AC Distribution12182003
Page 3 of 9
acknowledges that the funds granted in this Agreement must be utilized solely for
purposes authorized under State law and by the terms of this Agreement.
e. If an audit determines that the funds were not used for authorized purposes,
A. C. Distribution agrees to reimburse Corporation for the sums of money spent
for purposes not authorized by law within 30 days written notice requesting
reimbursement.
f. There are no bankruptcy proceedings currently pending concerning A. C.
Distribution, nor are any such proceedings contemplated by A. C. Distribution, as
of the date of execution of this Agreement by A. C. Distribution.
g. The parties executing this Agreement on behalf of A. C. Distribution are duly
authorized by its Board of Directors to execute this Agreement on behalf orA. C.
Distribution.
9. Compliance with Laws. A. C. Distribution shall observe and obey all applicable
laws, ordinances, regulations, and rules of the Federal, State, County and City
govemments, as may be amended or enacted.
10. Non-Discrimination. A. C. Distribution covenants and agrees that A. C.
Distribution will not discriminate nor permit discrimination against any person or group of
persons, with regard to employment and the provision of services at, on, or in the
Facility, on the grounds of race, religion, national origin, marital status, sex, age,
disability, or in any manner prohibited by the laws of the United States or the State of
Texas.
11. Force Majeure. If the Corporation or A. C. Distribution are prevented, wholly or in
part, from fulfilling its obligations under this Agreement by reason of any act of God,
unavoidable accident, acts of enemies, rites, floods, governmental restraint or
regulation, other causes of force majeure, or by reason of circumstances beyond its
control, then the obligations of the Corporation or A. C. Distribution are temporarily
suspended during continuation of the fome majeure. If either party's obligation is
affected by any of the causes of fome majeure, the party affected shall promptly notify
the other party in writing, giving full particulars of the force majeure as soon as possible
after the occurrence of the cause or causes relied upon.
12. Assignment. A. C. Distribution may not assign all or any part of its rights,
privileges, or duties under this Agreement without the prior written approval of the
Corporation and City. Any attempted assignment without approval is void, and
constitutes a breach of this Agreement.
'/3. Indemnity. A. C. Distribution covenants to fully indemnify, save,
and hold harmless the Corporation, the City, their respective officers,
employees, and agents ("lndemnitees") against all liability, damage,
loss, claims, demands, and actions of any kind on account ot
personal injuries (including, without limiting the foregoing, workers'
AC Distdbution12182003
Page 4 of 9
compensation and death claims), or property loss or damage of any
kind, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with, or are
claimed to arise out of or be in any manner connected with A. C.
Distribution's activities conducted under or incidental to this
Agreement, including any injury, loss or damage caused by the sole
or contributory negligence of any or all of the Indemnitees. A. C.
Distribution must, at its own expense, investigate all those claims and
demands, attend to their settlement or other disposition, defend all
actions based on those claims and demands with counsel
satisfactory to Indemnitees, and pay all charges of attorneys and all
other cost and expenses of any kind arising from the liability,
damage, loss, claims, demands, or actions.
14. Events of Default. The following events constitute a default of this Agreement:
a. Failure of A. C. Distribution to timely, fully, and completely comply with any
one or more of the requirements, obligations, duties, terms, conditions, or
warranties of this Agreement;
b. The Corporation or City determines that any representation or warranty on
behalf of A. C. Distribution contained in this Agreement or in any financial
statement, certificate, report, or opinion submitted to the Corporation in
connection with this Agreement was incorrect or misleading in any matedal
respect when made; ............
c. Any judgment is assessed against A. C. Distribution or any attachment or
other levy against the property of A. C. Distribution with respect to a claim
remains unpaid, undischarged, or not dismissed for a period of 30 days.
d. A. C. Distribution makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors.
e. A. C. Distribution files a petition in bankruptcy, or is adjudicated insolvent or
bankrupt.
f. If taxes on the Facility become delinquent, and A. C. Distribution fails to timely
and propedy follow the legal procedures for protest or contest.
g. A. C. Distribution changes the general character of business as conducted of
the date this Agreement is approved by the Corporation.
15. Notice of Default. Should the Corporation or City determine that A. C. Distribution
is in default according to the terms of this Agreement, the Corporation or City shall notify
A. C. Distribution 'in writing of the event of default and provide 60 days from the date of
the notice ("Cure Period") for A. C. Distribution to cure the event of defaultl
AC Distribulion12182003
Page 5 of 9
16 Results of Uncured Default. After exhausting good faith attempts to address any
default during the Cure Period, and taking into account any extenuating cimumstances
that might have occurred through no fault of A. C. Distribution, as determined by the
Board of Directors of the Corporation, the following actions must be taken for any
default that remains uncured after the Cure Period:
a. A. C. Distribution shall immediately repay all amounts of reimbursements paid
by Corporation under this Agreement, with interest at the interest rate paid by the
City on its most recently issued general obligation bonds from date of expiration
of Cure Period until fully paid.
b. A. C. Distribution shall pay Corporation reasonable attorney fees and costs of
court to collect amounts due to Corporation.
c. The Corporation shall have no further obligations to A. C. Distribution under
this Agreement.
d. Neither the City nor the Corporation may be held liable for any consequential
damages.
e. The Corporation may pursue all remedies available under law.
17. No Waiver.
a. No waiver of any covenant or condition, or the breach of any covenant or
condition of this Agreement, constitutes a waiver of any subsequent breach of
the covenant or condition ofthe Agreement: - -
b. No waiver of any covenant or condition, or the breach of any covenant or
condition of this Agreement, justifies or authorizes the nonobservance on any
other occasion of the covenant or condition or any other covenant or condition of
this Agreement.
c. Any waiver or indulgence ofA. C. Distdbution's default may not be considered
an estoppel against the Corporation.
d. It is expressly understood that if at any time A. C. Distribution is in default in
any of its conditions or covenants of this Agreement, the failure on the part of the
Corporation to promptly avail itself of the rights and remedies that the
Corporation may have, will not be considered a waiver on the pad of the
Corporation, but Corporation may at any time avail itself of the rights or remedies
or elect to terminate this Agreement on account of the default.
18. Notices.
a. Any required wdtten notices shall be sent mailed, certified mail, postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
AC Distribution12182003
Page 6 of 9
A. C. Distribution:
A. C. Distribution
cio Mr. K's Heating and Air Conditioning
Attn: Kathy Baily
708 Cantwell Lane
Corpus Christi, Texas 78408
Corporation:
City of Corpus Christi
Business and Job Development Corporation
Attn: Executive Director
1201 Leopard Street
Corpus Chdsti, Texas 78401
b. A copy of all notices and correspondence must be sent the City at the
following address:
City of Corpus Christi
Attn.: City Manager
P.O. Box 9277
Corpus Christi, Texas 78469-9277
c. Notice is effective upon deposit in the United States mail in the manner
provided above.
19. Incorporation of other documents.
a. The Corpus Chdsti Business & Job Development Corporation Guidelines &
Criteda for Granting Business Incentives ("Corporation Guidelines"), adopted
May 5, 2003, are incorporated into this Agreement.
b. A. C. Distribution's application submitted to the Corporation for business
incentives ("Application") is incorporated into this Agreement.
c. If there is any conflict in the terms of these documents, the following order
controls: (i) This Agreement, (ii) Corporation Guidelines, (iii) Application.
20. Amendments or Modifications. No amendments or modifications to this
Agreement may be made, nor any provision waived, unless in writing signed by a
person duly authorized to sign agreements on behalf of each party.
21. Relationship of Parties. In performing this Agreement, both the Corporation and
A. C. Distribution will act in an individual capacity, and not as agents, representatives,
employees, employers, partners, joint-venturers, or a,s,~9ciates 0X gna another. The
amp oyees or agents of either party may not be nor be. ~ns.t,~e~,,to~,b,~.; .t'h~ employees
or agents of the other party for any purpose.
AC Distribution12182003
Page 7 of 9
22. Captions. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not a
part of this Agreement. The captions do not in any way limit or amplify the terms and
provisions of this Agreement.
23. Severability.
a. If for any reason, any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, provision,
phrase or word of this Agreement or the application of this Agreement to any
person or circumstance is, to any extent, held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable
under present or future law or by a final judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction, then the remainder of this Agreement, or the application of the term
or provision to persons or cimumstances other than those as to which it is held
illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, will not be affected by the law or judgment, for it
is the definite intent of the parties to this Agreement that every section,
paragraph, subdivision, clause, provision ;3hrase, or word of this Agreement be
given full force and effect for its purpose.
b. To the extent that any clause or provision is held illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under present or future law effective dudng the term of this
Agreement, then the remainder of this Agreement is not affected by the law, and
in lieu of any illegal, invalid, or unenforceable clause or provision, a clause or
provision, as similar in terms to the illegal, invalid, or unenforceable clause or
provision as may be possible and be legal, valid, and enforceable, will be added
to this Agreement automatically.
24. Venue. Venue for any legal action related to this Agreement is in Nueces County,
Texas.
25. Sole Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the sole agreement between the
Corporation and A. C. Distribution. Any pdor agreements, promises, negotiations, or
representations, verbal or otherwise, not expressly stated in this Agreement, are of no
force and effect.
Corpus Christi Business & Job Development Corporation
Name:
Title:
Date:
Attest
By:
Name:
Title:
AC Distdbu§on12182003
Page 8 of 9
A. C. Distribution, inc.
Attest://~~ ~
Federal Tax ID No.:
Corporate Seal:
The State of Texas
County of Nueces
Before me, r~ml L~ (Notary's name), on this
day personally appeared ~ ~. (Vl~Pr'~L_ President of A. C.
Distribution Inc., known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the
foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in the
capacity sated as the act of A. C. Distribution, Inc., a Texas corporation, for the
purposes and consideration expressed in the instrument.
Given under my hand and seal of office this the ~' day ofL~ , 2004.
Notary Pubhc ,n ah'd for the Stat~ of Texas
AC DistdbulJon12182003
Exhibit "A"
Authorized Training Expense List
Education
Instructor fees (in house employee or out sourced)
Tuition
Training Videos
Training Video Rental
Literature, books, and training materials
Skills Testing
Testing, Registration Fees
Literature, books, materials
On the Job Training
New employees gross wage while under the supervision of a trainer or supervisor.
Trainee(s) Lab time and Safety Meetings (if paid out to trainee(s))
Training Lab Instruments and Equipment
Volt Meters
Amp Meters
Temperature Probes
Air Flow Hoods
Blowers Doors
Data Logging Recorders
Velometers
Magnahelic Gages
Duct Testing Equipment
Air Sampling Instruments
Moiatur~ Meters
Test Panels and Equipment
Refrigerant Recovery Machines
Ox/Act Torches
Vacuum Pumps
Dial Indicators
Video Projector
Control Sof~tware
Laptop Computers
Desk Top Computers
Travel Related to Training
Airline Tickets
Hotel
Car Rental
Phone
Fuel
Daily Perdium
Other
Any other training related item or expense mutually agreeable to the Corporation's Executive Director and
A.C. Distfibution's authorized representative in writing.
BUSINESS INCENTIVES PROJECT AGREEMENT
This Business Incentives Project Agreement (" Project Agreement") is entered into
between the Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation ("Corporation")
and the City of Corpus Christi, Texas ("City").
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature in Section 4A of Article 5190.6, Vernon's Texas
Revised Civil Statutes (Development Corporation Act of 1979) empowered local
communities with the ability to adopt an optional local sales and use tax as a means of
improving the economic health and prosperity of their citizens;
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, residents of the City of Corpus Christi ("City")
passed Preposition 2, New and Expanded Business Enterprises, which authorized the
adoption of a sales and use tax for the promotion and development of new and
expanded business enterprises at the rate of one-eighth of one percent to be imposed
for 15 years,
WHEREAS, the 1/8 cent sales tax authorized by passage of Preposition 2 was
subsequently enacted by the City Council and filed with the State Comptroller of Texas,
effective April 1, 2003, to be administered by the Corporation's Board of Directors;
WHEREAS, the Corporation exists for the purposes of encouraging and assisting
entities in the creation of jobs for the citizens of Corpus Christi, Texas;
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Board"), on May 5, 2003,
adopted the Corporation's Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Business Incentives;
WHEREAS, Section 21 of the Texas Development Corporation Act of 1979, Art. 5190.6,
Vernon's Texas Revised Civil Statutes, requires the City Council to approve all
programs and expenditures of the Corporation;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Corporation's Guidelines and Criteria for
Granting Business Incentives on May 13, 2003;
WHEREAS, A. C. Distribution, Inc. ("A. C. Distribution") has submitted a proposal to the
Corporation to request business incentives of approximately $3,700 per new full-time
permanent job created for training related expenses on a reimbursement basis to
enable A. C. Distribution to create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs
in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, primarily employed to serve a customer base
outside a 50-mile radius of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in
Section 38(b) of the Development Corporation ACt of 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of
Corpus Christi, Texas that business incentives be offered to A. C. Distribution for
training related expenses on a reimbursement basis in order for A. C. Distribution to
create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus
Christi, that will primarily serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of the City of
A C Distribution Project Agreement.doc
Page 1 of 3
Corpus Christi, with wages as required in Section 38(b) of the Development Corporation
Act of 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation and A. C. Distribution have executed the Agreement to
Grant Business Incentives to A. C. Distribution & Uniform Service, Inc. for the Creation
of Jobs (Business Incentives Agreement).
In consideration of the covenants, promises, and conditions stated in this Project
Agreement, the Corporation and the City agree as follows:
1. Project Agreement to Implement Business Incentives Agreement. This Project
Agreement between the City and the Corporation is executed to implement the
Agreement to Grant Business Incentives to A. C. Distribution, Inc. for the Creation of
Jobs between the Corporation and A. C. Distribution.
2. Term. The term of this Project Agreement runs concurrently with the term of the
Business Incentives Agreement.
3. Services to be Provided by City.
a. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, shall administer funding
on behalf of the Corporation.
b. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, shall perform contract
administration responsibilities outlined in the Business Incentives Agreement for
the Corporation.
4. Appropriation of Funds. Any future payments by the City are subject to
appropriation of funds by City's Council.
5. Effective Date. The effective date of this Project Agreement is the latest date that
either party executes this Agreement.
6. Amendments or Modifications. No amendments or modifications to this Project
Agreement may be made, nor any provision waived, unless in writing signed by a
person duly authorized to sign agreements on behalf of each party.
7. Severability.
a. If for any reason, any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, provision,
phrase or word of this Project Agreement or the application of this Project
Agreement to any person or circumstance is, to any extent, held illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under present or future law or by a final judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction, then the remainder of this Project Agreement, or the
application of the term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, will not be affected by the
law or judgment, for it is the definite intent of the parties to this Project
A C Distribution Project Agreement.doc
Page 2 of 3
Agreement that every section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, provision, phrase,
or word of this Project Agreement be given full fome and effect for its purpose.
b. To the extent that any clause or provision is held illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under present or future law effective during the term of this Project
Agreement, then the remainder of this Project Agreement is not affected by the
law, and in lieu of any illegal, invalid, or unenforceable clause or provision, a
clause or provision, as similar in terms to the illegal, invalid, or unenforceable
clause or provision as may be possible and be legal, valid, and enforceable, will
be added to this Project Agreement automatically.
8. Captions. The captions in this Project Agreement are for convenience only and are
not a part of this Project Agreement. The captions do not in any way limit or amplify the
terms and provisions of this Project Agreement.
The City of Corpus Christi
George K. Noe
City Manager
Date:
Corpus Christi Business &
Job De~ opment Corporation
Date: I
Attest
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Approved as to Legal Form this 2nd day of February, 2004
Lisa Aguilar
Assistant City Attorney
for City Attorney
A C Distribution Project Agreement.doc
Page 3 of 3
BUSINESS INCENTIVES PROJECT AGREEMENT
This Business Incentives Project Agreement (" Project Agreement") is entered into
between the Corpus Christi Business and Job Development Corporation ("Corporation")
and the City of Corpus Christi, Texas ("City").
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature in Section 4A of Article 5190.6, Vernon's Texas
Revised Civil Statutes (Development Corporation Act of 1979) empowered local
communities with the ability to adopt an optional local sales and use tax as a means of
improving the economic health and prosperity of their citizens;
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, residents of the City of Corpus Christi ("City")
passed Proposition 2, New and Expanded Business Enterprises, which authorized the
adoption of a sales and use tax for the promotion and development of new and
expanded business enterprises at the rate of one-eighth of one percent to be imposed
for 15 years,
WHEREAS, the 1/8 cent sales tax authorized by passage of Proposition 2 was
subsequently enacted by the City Council and filed with the State Comptroller of Texas,
effective April 1, 2003, to be administered by the Corporation's Board of Directors;
WHEREAS, the Corporation exists for the purposes of encouraging and assisting
entities in the creation of jobs for the citizens of Corpus Christi, Texas;
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation ("Board"), on May 5, 2003,
adopted the Corporation's Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Business Incentives;
WHEREAS, Section 21 of the Texas Development Corporation Act of 1979, Art. 5190.6,
Vernon's Texas Revised Civil Statutes, requires the City Council to approve all
programs and expenditures of the Corporation;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Corporation's Guidelines and Criteria for
Granting Business Incentives on May 13, 2003;
WHEREAS, A. C. Distribution, Inc. ("A. C. Distribution") has submitted a proposal to the
Corporation to request business incentives of approximately $3,700 per new full-time
permanent job created for training related expenses on a reimbursement basis to
enable A. C. Distribution to create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs
in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, primarily employed to serve a customer base
outside a 50-mile radius of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in
Section 38(b) of the Development Corporation Act of 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of
Corpus Chdsti, Texas that business incentives be offered to A. C. Distribution for
training related expenses on a reimbursement basis in order for A. C. Distribution to
create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus
Christi, that will primarily serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of the City of
A C Distribution Project Agreement.doc
Page 1 of 3
Corpus Christi, with wages as required in Section 38(b) of the Development Corporation
Act of 1979; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation and A. C. Distribution have executed the Agreement to
Grant Business Incentives to A. C. Distribution & Uniform Service, Inc. for the Creation
of Jobs (Business Incentives Agreement).
In consideration of the covenants, promises, and conditions stated in this Project
Agreement, the Corporation and the City agree as follows:
1. Project Agreement to Implement Business Incentives Agreement. This Project
Agreement between the City and the Corporation is executed to implement the
Agreement to Grant Business Incentives to A. C. Distribution, Inc. for the Creation of
Jobs between the Corporation and A. C. Distribution.
2. Term. The term of this Project Agreement runs concurrently with the term of the
Business Incentives Agreement.
3. Services to be Provided by City.
a. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, shall administer funding
on behalf of the Corporation.
b. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, shall perform contract
administration responsibilities outlined in the Business Incentives Agreement for
the Corporation.
4. Appropriation of Funds. Any future payments by the City are subject to
appropriation of funds by City's Council.
5. Effective Date. The effective date of this Project Agreement is the latest date that
either party executes this Agreement.
6. Amendments or Modifications. No amendments or modifications to this Project
Agreement may be made, nor any provision waived, unless in writing signed by a
person duly authorized to sign agreements on behalf of each party.
7. Severability.
a. If for any reason, any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, provision,
phrase or word of this Project Agreement or the application of this Project
Agreement to any person or circumstance is, to any extent, held illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under present or future law or by a final judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction, then the remainder of this Project Agreement, or the
application of the term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those
as to which it is held illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, will not be affected by the
law or judgment, for it is the definite intent of the parties to this Project
A C Distribution Project Agreement.doc
Page 2 of 3
Agreement that every section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, provision, phrase,
or word of this Project Agreement be given full force and effect for its purpose.
b. To the extent that any clause or provision is held illegal, invalid, or
unenforceable under present or future law effective during the term of this Project
Agreement, then the remainder of this Project Agreement is not affected by the
law, and in lieu of any illegal, invalid, or unenforceable clause or provision, a
clause or provision, as similar in terms to the illegal, invalid, or unenforceable
clause or provision as may be possible and be legal, valid, and enforceable, will
be added to this Project Agreement automatically.
8. Captions. The captions in this Project Agreement are for convenience only and are
not a part of this Project Agreement. The captions do not in any way limit or amplify the
terms and provisions of this Project Agreement.
The City of Corpus Christi
George K. Noe
City Manager
Date:
Corpus Christi Business &
Job DeveLopment ~Corporation
Date: l /+
Attest
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Approved as to Legal Form this 2nd day of February, 2004
Lisa Aguilar
Assistant City Attorney
for City Attorney
A C Distribution Project Agreement.doc
Page 3 of 3
RESOLUTION
APPROVING THE EXECUTION OF BUSINESS INCENTIVES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CORPUS CHRISTI BUSINESS AND JOB
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ("CORPORATION") AND A. C.
DISTRIBUTION, INC. TO REIMBURSE A. C. DISTRIBUTION, INC. FOR
JOB TRAINING EXPENSES UP TO $3,700 PER NEW JOB CREATED,
TO CREATE AT LEAST 50 NEW JOBS PRIMARILY EMPLOYED TO
SERVE A CUSTOMER BASE OUTSIDE A $0~411LE RADIUS OF THE
CITY,
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature in Section 4A of Article 5190.6, Vernon's
Texas Revised Civil Statutes ("Development Corporation Act of 1979")
empowered local communities with the ability to adopt an optional local sales and
use tax as a means of improving the economic health and prosperity of their
citizens;
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, residents of the City of Corpus Chdsti passed
Proposition 2, New and Expanded Business Enterprises, which authorized the
adoption of a sales and use tax for the promotion and development of new and
expanded business enterprises at the rate of one-eighth of one percent to be
imposed for 15 years;
WHEREAS, the 1/8 cent sales tax authorized by passage of Proposition 2 was
subsequently enacted by the City Council and filed with the State Comptroller of
Texas, effective April 1, 2003, to be administered by the Corporation's Board of
Directors ("Board");
WHEREAS, Section 21 of the Development Corporation Act of 1979 requires the
City Council to approve all programs and expenditures of the Corporation;
WHEREAS, the Corporation received proposal from A. C. Distribution, Inc. to request
business incentives of approximately $3,700 per new full-time permanent job created for
training related expenses on a reimbursement basis to enable A. C. Distribution to
create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus
Christi, Texas, primarily employed to serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of
the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in Section 38 (b) of the
Development Corporation Act of 1979;
WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Corpus
Christi, Texas that business incentives be offered to A. C. Distribution for training
related expenses on a reimbursement basis in order for A.C. Distribution to create and
maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas,
that will be employed to primarily serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of the
City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in Section 38(b) of the
Development Corporation Act of 1979, ("Job Training Project");
Page 2 of 2
WHEREAS, the Board authorized execution of an agreement with A. C. Distribution for
the requested job training funds at the Board's meeting of February 2, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the
Corporation and the citizens of Corpus Chdsti, Texas that the proposed Job Training
Project and its associated expenditure be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The City Council approves the execution of a Business Incentives
Agreement between the Corporation and A. C. Distribution, Inc. to grant A. C.
Distribution, Inc., on a reimbursement basis, up to $3,700 per new job created. A
copy of the agreement is attached as Exhibit A.
A'I-rEST
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Samuel L Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Approved as to form: February 3, 2004
Lisa Aguil~
Assistant City Attorney
for City Attorney
HN-EG-DIR\Lisa~RES~Feb 10 A. C. Distribution Res.doc
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A
PROJECT AGREEMENT WITH THE CORPUS CHRISTI BUSINESS
AND JOB DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ("CORPORATION")
REGARDING ADMINSTRATION OF BUSINESS INCENTIVES
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CORPORATION AND A. C.
DISTRIBUTION, INC.
WHEREAS, the Texas Legislature in Section 4A of Article 5190.6, Vernon's
Texas Revised Civil Statutes ("Development Corporation Act of 1979")
empowered local communities with the ability to adopt an optional local sales and
use tax as a means of improving the economic health and prosperity of their
citizens;
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2002, residents of the City of Corpus Christi passed
Proposition 2, New and Expanded Business Enterprises, which authorized the
adoption of a sales and use tax for the promotion and development of new and
expanded business enterprises at the rate of one-eighth of one pement to be
imposed for 15 years;
WHEREAS, the 1/8 cent sales tax authorized by passage of Proposition 2 was
subsequently enacted by the City Council and filed with the State Comptroller of
Texas, effective April 1, 2003, to be administered by the Corporation's Board of
Directors ("Board");
WHEREAS, the Corporation received proposal from A. C. Distribution; Inc. to request
business incentives of approximately $3,700 per new full-time permanent job created for
training related expenses on a reimbursement basis to enable A. C. Distribution to
create and maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus
Christi, Texas, primarily employed to serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of
the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in Section 38 (b) of the
Development Corporation Act of 1979;
WHEREAS, the Board determined that it is in the best interests of the citizens of Corpus
Christi, Texas that business incentives be offered to A. C. Distribution for training
related expenses on a reimbursement basis in order for A.C. Distribution to create and
maintain at least 50 new full-time permanent jobs in the City of Corpus Christi, Texas,
that will be employed to primarily serve a customer base outside a 50-mile radius of the
City of Corpus Christi, Texas, with wages as required in Section 38(b) of the
Development Corporation Act of 1979,
WHEREAS, the Board authorized execution of an agreement with A. C. Distribution for
the requested job training funds at the Board's meeting of February 2, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to contract with the City to allow the City to administer
funding on behalf of the Corporation and perform contract administration
responsibilities.
Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The City Council authorizes the City Manager, or the City
Manager's designee, to execute a Project Agreement with the Corporation to
allow the City Manager or the City Manager's designee to administer funding on
behalf of the Corporation and perform contract administration responsibilities
associated with the Business Incentives Agreement between the Corporation and
A. C. Distribution, Inc. A copy of the Project Agreement is attached as Exhibit A.
ATTEST
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Approved as to form: February 2, 2004
Lisa Aguilar O
Assistant City Attorney
for City Attorney
H:~EG-DIR~isa'~RES\Feb 10 A, C. Distribution Proj Agmt Res.doc
A.C. Distribution, Inc.
A.C. Distribution, Inc.
■ About the Company
❑ Established in 2000 and operates five
well-established local mechanical
contracting and servicing businesses.
❑ Current conduct of businesses is within a
150 -mile radius.
❑ Employs 58 people.
A.C. Distribution, Inc.
■ Expansion
❑ Purchased San Antonio businesses that
manufactures and sells Modular Freezing
Systems.
❑ Plans to relocate the business and its
manufacturing plant to Corpus Christi.
❑ Create additional 50-75 job with an anticipated
average hourly wage of $17.50.
❑ Investment of $4,950,000 in the new facility.
Business Incentive Agreement
■ Job Creation and Wages
❑ Must create at least 50 jobs
❑ Must pay wages equal to or greater than the
prevailing wage for like positions per state law.
■ Terms
❑ Meet requirements of job creation within 3 yrs.
❑ Full term of agreement is 5 yrs.
■ Incentive .
❑ Reimburse for training costs of up to $3,700 per
new full-time employee ($185,000).
❑ Maximum Incentive: up to 75 new full-time
employees ($277,500)
30
CiTY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: February 10, 2004
AGENDA ITEM: (Caption as it should appear on the agenda)
A. Motion amending an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances Chapter 24, Human
Relations, by adding Article V, Discrimination Against Individuals With Disabilities,
establishing procedure and implementation; providing publication; providing for
severance; and providing for penalties, by substituting in its entirety; An ordinance
amending Sections 24-2, 24-4, 24-20, 24-21, 24-22, and 24-25 of the Code of
Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, by adding a member to the Human Relations
Commission, adding persons with disabilities to the classes of persons protected by
Chapter 24, Code of Ordinances, and clarifying the penalty provisions; and by adding
Article V, Discrimination Against individuals With Disabilities, Chapter 24, Human
Relations establishing procedure and implementation; providing publication; providing
for severance; and providing for penalties.
B. Second Reading - An ordinance amending Sections 24-2, 24-4, 24-20, 24-21, 24-22,
and 24-25 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, by adding a member to
the Human Relations Commission, adding persons with disabilities to the classes of
persons protected by Chapter 24, Code of Ordinances, and clarifying the penalty
provisions; and by adding Article V, Discrimination Against Individuals With Disabilities,
Chapter 24, Human Relations establishing procedure and implementation; providing
publication; providing for severance; and providing for penalties.
ISSUE: This is the Second Reading of a proposed ordinance amendment on disability non-
discrimination that the City's advisory board of the Committee for Persons with Disabilities
(CFPWD) had requested the City Council to consider to ensure persons with disabilities
have accessibility to public facilities, services, activities and programs by the City and/or
those parties that meet the definition of "financial assistance" under this proposed
ordinance. Also, the proposed ordinance would apply to privately-owned
businesses/organizations that serve the public.
Although training and public awareness of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
accessibility issues could potentially increase with a local non-discrimination ordinance, the
significance of this ordinance is to provide local enforcement and investigation of
inaccessibility issues through the City and/or those contracted for on behalf of the City. The
City's primary responsibilities would be administration, reseamh, investigation, enforcement
and monitoring of non-compliance under the ADA and this proposed ordinance
amendment.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council's approval is required for the City to accept the disability non-
discrimination ordinance amendment as proposed by the CFPWD.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
On July 22, 2003, the First Reading of this proposed ordinance amendment of disability
non-discrimination was passed, with the Second Reading deferred until the first City
Council Meeting in December 2003. The City Council gave City Staff and the Committee
for Persons with Disability (CFPWD) directives for additional information to address during
the interim period.
On December 8, 2003, the Second Reading was postponed per the Mayor and City
Manager for an additional sixty (60) days to allow for City Staff, the CFPWD and potentially
impacted groups to work on provisions toward agreement of the proposed ordinance. The
Second Reading was then scheduled for February 10, 2004.
FUNDING:
The estimated cost to begin implementation of the proposed disability non-discrimination
ordinance amendment is $63,244 for initial staffing. Funding of these estimated initial
implementation costs is not currently appropriated in the City's annual operating budget.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Addressing accessibility complaints/reasonable accommodations and providing technical
assistance on ADA related matters have been an ongoing function of the City. More
recently the City Council adopted the City's ADA Title II Comprehensive Evaluation and
Transition Plan in February of 2003. Also, in its greater commitment toward accessibility,
the City Council recommended that the City maintain ADA compliance as a high priority.
The CFPWD and City Staff have participated in community meetings and several special
meetings to discuss various ordinance-related issues toward improving the proposed
ordinance amendment. Through much input, time and resources, both the CFPWD and
City Staff have improved the document after several drafts and many ordinance-related
issues, including the current legal interpretation of this proposed ordinance's accessibility
requirements.
At this time, City Staff returns to the City Council with a more understandable document,
in terms of resolving areas of possible interpretation conflicts and establishing jurisdictional
parameters. Therefore, City Staff recommends that the improved proposed document be
considered for the ordinance's Second Reading.
L. David Ramos
Director of Human Relations
Attachments:
1. Proposed Ordinance Amendment of Disability Non-Discrimination, as revised.
2. List of Local Associations/Organizations for Public Input.
3. Summary of Public Comments related to the proposed ordinance amendment.
4. Survey of Other Cities.
BACKGROUNDINFORMATION
At its July 2003 Monthly Meeting, the Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD)
recommended by motion to submit its non-discrimination ordinance to the City Council for
consideration.
Since July 2003, the following efforts were made:
I. Gathering Public Input
A. The CFPWD set four (4) additional public meetings to give the public an
opportunity for public input. City Staff posted public notices in the Caller-
Times newspaper and on the City's website. The proposed ordinance was
made available for viewing at City Hall, the City public libraries and on the
City's website.
City Staff contacted twenty-nine (29) associations and organizations for
public input and to schedule discussion meetings with each group regarding
the proposed ordinance. Copies of the proposed ordinance were made
available to these associations and organizations. Nineteen (19) groups held
meetings with the City, in which some CFPWD Members also attended. In
all, 20 of these association/organizations provided public comments.
Additionally, these associations and organizations were invited to the
CFPWD's monthly meeting in January 2004 to learn of and receive copies
of the more recent revisions to the draft ordinance, as of January 7, 2004.
I1.
Collecting Related Information from Other Cities
City Staff contacted the top U.S. cities to survey for similar types of disability non-
discrimination ordinances. Of the 25 cities, 12 cities indicated that they have
disability non-discrimination ordinance language or contract language, whether in
one separate or multiple documents. Another six cities indicated that they do not
have this type of ordinance. The remaining seven cities did not provide a response,
II1.
Ordinance Review Meetings
After the last public meeting on November 4, 2003, the CFPWD met with City Staff
and sought suggestions for improving the ordinance document. The CFPWD held
six Special Meetings, with City Staff, to discuss possible changes to improve the
proposed ordinance and review the draft language.
A. Special Meeting of 11/10/03 - Review draft summary of public comments
and identify major concems and begin preparing for the proposed
ordinance's Second Reading.
B. Special Meeting of 11/17/03 - Members present considered some non-
substantive revisions. City Staff assisted by updating the CFPWD's draft
ordinance. The CFPWD also asked that City Staff bring any further
recommendations to the 12/2/03 meeting.
C. Special Meeting of 12/02/03 - CFPWD considered City Staff's
recommendations.
Regular Monthly Meeting of 12/03/03 - The Committee held further
discussion on the proposed ordinance and set another Special Meeting for
12/8/03 with City Staff for further discussion and consideration of
incorporating other possible changes.
Special Meetings of 01/06/04 and 01/26/04, following postponement of the
ordinance's Second Reading by the Mayor and City Manager- Progress was
made by the Committee and City Staff in improving the proposed ordinance
language.
Regular Monthly Meeting of 01/07/04 - Local associations and organizations
were invited and gave public comments/input on the more recent revisions
in the draft of 1/7/04.
ATTACHMENT I
Proposed Ordinance Amendment of
Disability Non-Discrimination
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING SECTIONS 24-2, 24-4, 24-20, 24-21, 24-22, AND 24-25 OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, BY
ADDING A MEMBER TO THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION,
ADDING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES TO THE CLASSES OF
PERSONS PROTECTED BY CHAPTER 24, CODE OF ORDINANCES,
AND CLARIFYING THE PENALTY PROVISIONS; AND BY ADDING
ARTICLE V, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES, CHAPTER 24, HUMAN RELATIONS, ESTABLISHING
PROCEDURE AND IMPLEMENTATION; PROVIDING PUBLICATION;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The list of articles at the beginning of Chapter 24 of the Code of
Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, is amended by adding Article V, to read as follows:
"Chapter 24 HUMAN RELATIONS
"Art. I. In General, §9 24-1 -- 24-19
"Art. II. Discrimination in Place of Public Accommodation, 99 24-20 -- 24-29
"Art. III. Discrimination in Housing, §§ 24-90 -- 24-79
"Art. IV. Discrimination in Employment, §9 24-80 -- 24-83
"Art. V. Discrimination Aqainst an Individual with a Disability, 99 24-90 -- 24-103"
SECTION 2. Section 24-2, Code of Ordinances is revised to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-2. Human relations commission; established; composition;
appointment, term and compensation of members; filling vacancies.
"(a) There is hereby established the "Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission."
Said commission shall consist of sixteen votinq members. Fourteen fcurtcc,q (14)
members will be appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city council.
"(1 ) One (1) member shall be in the business of selling dwellings.
"(2) One (1) member shall be in the business of renting dwellings.
"(3) Three (3) members will each serve a term of one (1) year, unstaggered, and
shall not be more than twenty (20) years of age at time of appointment.
"(4) The members shall be broadly representative of the total community, drawn
from various racial, religious, ethnic, or other groups.
R31502A1_l.doc
2
"(5) The c"'~'~';°°;"" °~'"" "'"" ~' ..... ~'lfteenth member~ will be the director of
the Coastal Bend Legal Services or a designated member of his/he~-the director's
staff.
"(6) The sixteenth member will be the chairperson of the Committee for Persons
with Disabilities.
"(b) The members of the commission shall serve without compensation. Members of
such commission, exclusive of thccc the members appointed under subsection (a)(3) of
this ct ........ ~- the chairpe son of the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities, and the member of the staff of the Coastal
Bend Legal Services, shall serve staggered terms of (3) three years. Initial appointment
of three (3) of the members shall be for one (1) year, three (3) of the members for two
(2) years, and three (3) of the members for three (3) years. Terms shall extend throu.qh
June 14 each year. The initial terms of the members in the business of sellinq and
rentinq dwellinqs shall end in 2000 and 2001, respectively.
"(c) The ' , representative from the Coastal Bend Legal Services and
the chairperson of the Committee for People with Disabilities; shall serve continuously
and shall not be subject to the appointment required under this section. Tcrmc cbc!!
,.~,11; .... ,4 ,.,.,,,~.;,,,., ,4,,,~llh.,,,~. Ch l! ~'"',4 ;"' onnn ,,,,,.i 290! ...... +;'"'~""
SECTION 3. Section 24-4(b), Code of Ordinance is amended by adding new
paragraphs (8) and (9), to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-4. Commission duties.
"(b) The commission is further authorized to:
"(8) Actinq throuqh the administrator, investi.qate all complaints received
re.qardin.q the failure of the City to provide accessible buildin.qs and proqrams or
to prevent discrimination a.qainst people with disabilities throu.qh its
administration of its ordinances and the manaqement of its proqrams and
properties, as required by applicable Federal and State laws and implementin.q
re.qulations. In carryinq out this activity, the Commission shall:
"a. Determine whether in its opinion the City has violated any applicable
Federal or State laws and implementinq requ at ons
"b. Recommend any remedies or reasonable accommodations that are
needed to remedy the situation.
"c. Report its find n.qs to the city mana.qer and city secretary.
R31502Al_1.doc
3
"d. Keep an active file on any complaint in which it finds that the char.qe
has some basis and shall, thmuRh its administrator, work with the
appropriate City official to end any discriminatory practices to the
satisfaction of the commission, to the end that the commission can satisfy
itself that the basis for the char.qe has been eliminated.
"e. File with each party receivinq a copy of its initial report any
supplemental reports of its findinqs as may be indicated until the file is
closed.
"(9) Acting throuqh the administrator, investigate all complaints received
regarding discrimination against qualified persons with disabilities by the owner
of any place of public accommodation, includinq the employees and aqents of
the owner, has unreasonably withheld any of the advantages, facilities,
programs, or services offered to the general public by a place of public
accommodation or failed to make a reasonable accommodation to the person
with a disability.
"a. Determine whether in its opinion there has been a violation of the
applicable Federal or State laws and implementinq re.qulations by the
place of public accommodation.
"b. Report its findinqs to the city manaqer and city secretary.
"c. Keep an active file on any complaint in which it finds that the charqe
has some basis and shall, throuRh its administrator, work with the
appropriate City official to end any discriminatory practices to the
satisfaction of the commission, to the end that the commission can satisfy
itself that the basis for the char.qe has been eliminated.
"d. File with each party receivinq a copy of its initial report any
supplemental reports of its findin,qs as may be indicated until the file is
closed."
SECTION 4. Section 24-20, Code of Ordinances, is amended by deleting the definition
for "disabled person," adding a new definition for "disability," and revising the definition
of "place of public accommodation," to read as follows:
"ARTICLE II. DISCRIMINATION IN PLACE OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
"Sec. 24-20. Definitions.
"For purposes of this Article II, Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, the
following words shall have the following meanings:
R31502A1_1.doc
4
"Disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limits one or more of the maior life activities of the individual; a
record of impairment; or bein.q reqarded as havin.q such an impairment
"a. Physical or menta/impairment means any physioloqical disorder or
condition, cosmetic disfiqurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or
more of the followin.q body systems: neurolo.qical; musculoskeletal; special
sense orqans; respiratory, includinq speech organs; cardiovascular;
reproductive, diqestive; qenitourinary; heroic and lymphatic; skin; and
endocrine; or any mental or psycholoqical disorder, such as mental
retardation, or.qanic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and
specific learninq disabilities.
"b. Maior/ife activities means functions such as carin.q for one's self,
performinq manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearin.q, speakinq, breathin.q,
learninq, and workinq
"c. Has a record of such impairment means a history of, or has been
misclassified as havinq a mental or physical impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities.
"d. Is reqarded as havinq an impairment means has a physical or mental
impairment that does not substantially limit maior life activities but that is
treated by a recipient as constituting such limitation; has a physical or
mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a
result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or has none of the
impairments defined above but is treated as havinq an impairment.
"Place of public accommodation means every business within the city, whether
wholesale or retail, which is open to the general public and offers, for
compensation, any product, service or facility. The term "place of public
accommodation" shall include, but not be limited to, all other places of public
accommodation, amusement, convenience, or resort to which the general public
or any classification of persons from the general public is regularly, normally, or
customarily invited. As used in this chapter, the term place of public,
accommodation does not apply to any facility or pro.qram owned or operated by
the Federal or State qovernments or political subdivisions of the State."
R31502A1_1 .doc
5
SECTION 5. Section 24-21, Code of Ordinances is revised to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-21. Policy.
"It is the policy of the city to encourage and enable mcntclly cr phyc!cclly ditch!cd
pecser~-individuals with a disability and all other persons regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, age, or religion to participate fully in the social and economic life of
the city, to achieve maximum personal independence, to become gainfully employed,
and to otherwise fully enjoy and use all public facilities, pre.qrams, and services
available within the city."
SECTION 6. Section 24-22, Code of Ordinances is revised to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-22. Discrimination prohibited.
"(a) Subject only to limitations and conditions established by law and applicable to all
persons, '- ......... h ....... ,.., ..... ~'"~"""" d!ccblcd persons with disabilities have
the same right as those who are not disabled to the full use and enjoyment of any public
facility, program, service, and place of public accommodation in the city as-set-leAh
,. ......... o under Chapter 121, "Participation in Social and Economic Activities" of Title
8 of the Human Resources Code, as amended, of the State of Texas.
"(b) To the extent required by Federal or State law, it It-shall be unlawful for any person
or any employee or agent thereof, within the city, to withhold from or deny any person,
because of race, color, sex, religion, age, disability, or national origin, any public facility
or any of the advantages, facilities, pro(~rams, or services offered to the general public
by a place of public accommodation."
SECTION 7. Section 24-25, Code of Ordinances is revised to read as follows:
"Sec. 24-25. Penalty for violation of Article II.
..... ,- ............................ ~..j .... z Any person violating any provision of this
article shall be punished by fine of ""
.......... n up to the maximum provided in section 1-6 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Corpus Christi ("City Code"). Violations of section 24-22(a) of this article ......
may also be forwarded to the appropriate governmental body to enforce and punish
such conduct to the extent and manner prescribed by ~applicable law."
SECTION 8. Chapter 24, Code of Ordinances, is amended by adding a new Article V.
to read as follows:
"ARTICLE V:DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY
"Sec. 24-90. Policy.
"(a) It is the policy of the City that no individual with a disability shall, on the basis of a
disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be
R31502At_1.doc
6
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity operated or contracted for by
the City, provided that such participation does not fundamentally alter the program or
activity.. The City will make every effort to make a reasonable accommodation to
individuals with a disability, consistent with the requirements of the applicable Federal
and State laws, and implementing regulations, includinq the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
"(b) It is the policy of the City that all persons and entities receivin.q financial assistance
from the City comply with all applicable civil ri.qhts laws and rules, including all of the
rules and requlations found in this chapter.
"(c) The City endorses the fundamental purpose behind the Americans with Disabilities
Act, which includes the removal of physical and non-physical barriers when readily
achievable, where applicable.
"(d) The City further endorses a public policy that businesses within the City's
iurisdiction must also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including the
removal of physical barriers whenever removal is readily achievable.
"Sec. 24-91. Definitions.
"As used in this Article, the following words and phrases have the following meanings:
"Auxiliary Aid includes: Services or devices such as qualified interpreters,
assistive listening headsets, television captioning and decoders,
telecommunications devices for deaf persons (TDD's}, videotext displays,
readers, texts on tape, materials in Braille, and large print materials. This list is
not exclusive and functional equivalents may be substituted for any auxiliary aid.
"FinancialAssistance means the receipt, from the City, of any specific grant,
loan, lease, contract (other than contracts for goods, insurance or guaranty, or
services upon payment of full and fair compensation or upon obtaininq a lease,
license, or use privilege agreement upon payment of fair market value or the
payment of fees required by City ordinance), or the use of City personnel or
property without the payment of fair market value or full and fair compensation.
"Qua/ified Person With A Disability means an individual with a disability who, with
or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of
amhitectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of
auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eliqibility requirements for the
receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a
public entity.
"Readily Achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out
without much difficulty or expense. Determining if barrier removal is readily
achievable is, by necessity, a case-by-case judqment. Factors to consider
include:
R31502A1_l.doc
"a. The nature and cost of the action.
"b. The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved; the number
of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources;
legitimate safety requirements necessary for safe operation, includinq
crime prevention measures; or any other impact of the action on the
operation of the site.
"c. The qeo.qraphic separateness and the administrative or fiscal
relationship of the site or sites in question to any parent corporation or
entity.
"d. If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation
or entity; the overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect tn
the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its
facilities.
"e. If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any Parent
Corporation or entity, includinq the composition, structure, and functions of
the workforce of the Parent Corporation or entity.
"Reasonable Accommodation means any chanqe or adjustment to the
service, activity or proqram for the known physical or coqnitive limitations
of an otherwise qualified person with a disability unless it can bP,
demonstrated that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship
on the operation of the proqram. Any particular chan.qe or adjustment
would not be required if, under circumstances involved, it would result in
an undue hardship.
"Sec. 24-92. Effect on other .qovernmental entities.
"Nothin.q in this article is intended to apply to any facility or program owned or operated
by the Federal or State qovernments or political subdivision of the State.
"Sec. 24-93. General prohibitions a.qainst discrimination.
"The Department of Justice's "General prohibitions against discrimination," 28 CFR
35.130, are adopted by the City and read as follows:
"'(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability,
be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,
pro.qrams, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination
by any public entity.
"'(b)(1 ) A public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not,
directly or through contractual, licensin,q, or other arrangements, on the
basis of disability--
R31502A1 _1 .doc
8
"'(i) Deny a qualified individual with a disability th~.
opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit,
or service;
"'(ii) Afford a qualified individual with a disability an
opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit,
or service that is not equal to that afforded others;
'"(iii) Provide a qualified individual with a disability with an
aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affordin.q
equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to qain the samP.
benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that
provided to others;
"'(iv) Provide different or separate aids, benefits, or services
to individuals with disabilities or to any class of individuals
with disabilities than is provided to others unless such action
is necessary to provide qualified individuals with disabilities
with aids, benefits, or services that are as effective as those
provided to others;
"'(v) Aid or perpetuate discrimination a.qainst a qualified
individual with a disability by providinq siqnificant assistance.
to an a.qency, orqanization, or person that discriminates on
the basis of disability in providin.q any aid, benefit, or servicP.
to beneficiaries of the public entity's pro.qram;
'"(vi) Deny a qualified individual with a disability the
opportunity to participate as a member of plannin.cl or
advisory boards;
'"(vii) Otherwise limit a qualified individual with a disability in
the enjoyment of any riqht, privileqe, advantaqe, or
opportunity enioyed by others receivinq the aid, benefit, or
service.
'"(2) A public entity may not deny a qualified individual with a
disability the opportunity to participate in services, proqrams, or
activities that are not separate or different, despite the existence of
permissibly separate or different pro.qrams or activities.
'"(3) A public entity may not, directly or throu.qh contractual or other
arran.qements, utilize criteria or methods of administration:
"'(i) That have the effect of subiectinq qualified individuals
with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability;
R3150ZA1_1 .doc
9
'"(ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeatinq or
substantially impairing accomplishment of the obiectives of
the public entity's program with respect to individuals with
disabilities; or
'"(iii) That perpetuate the discrimination of another public
entity if both public entities are subject to common
administrative control or are agencies of the same State.
'"(4) A public entity may not, in determining the site or location of a
facility, make selections--
"'(i) That have the effect of excluding individuals with
disabilities from, denyinq them the benefits of, or otherwise
subiectin.q them to discrimination; or
'"(ii) That have the purpose or effect of defeatinq or
substantially impairing the accomplishment of the obiectives
of the service, program, or activity with respect to individuals
with disabilities.
"'(5) A public entity, in the selection of procurement contractors,
may not use criteria that subject qualified individuals with
disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.
'"(6) A public entity may not administer a licensing or certification
program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with
disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor may a
public entity establish requirements for the proqrams or activities of
licensees or certified entities that subject qualified individuals with
disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability. The proqrams
or activities of entities that are licensed or certified by a public entity
are not, themselves, covered by this part.
'"(7) A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies,
practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to
avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public
entity can demonstrate that makinq the modifications would
fundamentally alter the nature of the service, proqram, or activity.
"'(8) A public entity shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that
screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or
any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally
enjoying any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can
be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service, program,
or activity being offered.
R31502Al_l.doc
10
'"(c) Nothing in this part prohibits a public entity from providinR benefits,
services, or advantaRes to individuals with disabilities, or to a particular
class of individuals with disabilities beyond those required by this part.
'"(d) A public entity shall administer services, programs, and activities in
the most inte.qrated settin.q appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals
with disabilities.
"'(e)(1) Nothinq in this part shall be construed to require an individual with
a disability to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or
benefit provided under the ADA or this part which such individual chooses
not to accept.
"'(2) Nothing in the Act or this part authorizes the representative or
.quardian of an individual with a disability to decline food, water,
medical treatment, or medical services for that individual.
"'(f) A public entity may not place a surcharqe on a particular individual
with a disability or any .qroup of individuals with disabilities to cover the
costs of measures, such as the provision of auxiliary aids or pro.qram
accessibility, that are required to provide that individual or .qroup with the
nondiscriminatory treatment required by the Act or this part.
'"(g) A public entity shall not exclude or otherwise deny equal services,
pro.qrams, or activities to an individual or entity because of the known
disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity is known to
have a relationship or association.'
"Sec. 24-94. Requirements to ensure City facilities, pro,qrams, and services are
accessible to qualified persons with disabilities.
"(a) No qualified individual with a disability will, because of inaccessibility to or
unusability of the City facilities, be denied the benefits of, be denied participation in, or
otherwise be subiected to discrimination under any proqram or service,
"(b) The City will operate its pro.qrams and services so that the pro.qrams and services,
when viewed in their entirety, are readily accessible to qualified individuals with
disabilities.
"(c) Each facility or part of a facility designed and constructed by or for the use of the
City or persons and entities receiving financial assistance must be desiqned and
constructed in a manner that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and
usable by persons with disabilities in compliance with ADA and re.qulatory standards,
including Texas Accessibility Standards of the Architectural Barriers Act.
"(d) Each facility or part of a facility that is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the
City or persons and entities receiving financial assistance must be altered in a manner
R3150ZA1_l.doc
11
that ensures that the facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by
persons with disabilities.
"(e) The City will not provide financial assistance to any entity or program that does not
comply with this Chapter.
"(f) This subsection does not require that every existing facility or every part of a facility
be made accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities.
"Sec. 24-95. Personal Devices and Services.
"(a} Nothing required in this Article includes, or may be construed to include, a
requirement that the City provide to individuals with disabilities personal devices, such
as wheelchairs, individually prescribed devices, such as prescription eyeglasses or
hearing aids; readers for personal use of study; or services of a personal nature
including assistance in eatinq toiletin.q or dressing.
"(b) Nothing in this Article requires the City to fundamentally alter its programs or
services.
"Sec. 24-96. Communications.
"(a) The City shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with
applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as
communications with others.
"(1) The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where
necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity conducted
by the City.
"(2) In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, the City
shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individuals with disabilities.
"(b) The City, and those receivinq financial assistance from the City, must provide
auxiliary aids and services as reasonable accommodations when they are necessary to
ensure effective communication with individuals with hearinq, vision, or speech
impairments.
"Sec. 24-97. Certificate of Compliance for Applicants for Financial Assistance.
"All applications for financial assistance from the City must certify on a form provided
by the Director that the applicant will operate its proqrams and services in compliance
with this Article.
"Sec. 24-98. Annual Evaluation by City.
"(a) The City will annually:
R31502A1_1 ,doc
12
"(1 ) Evaluate, with the assistance of interested persons, including people with
disabilities or organizations representinq persons with disabilities, the City's
current policies and practices.
"(2) Modify, after consultation with interested persons, includinq persons with
disabilities or or.qanizations representin.q persons with disabilities, any policies
that do not meet the requirements of this Article.
"(3) Take, after consultation with interested persons, includinq persons with
disabilities or or.qanizations representin.q persons with disabilities, appropriate
steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination that results from the failure to
adhere to this Article.
"(b) The City will maintain on file and make available for public inspection:
"(1) A list of the interested persons consulted.
"(2) A description of areas examined and any problems identified.
"(3) A description of any modifications made and of any remedial actions taken.
"Sec. 24-99. Adoption by the City of Designated Coordinator and Grievance
Procedure.
"(a) The City will desiqnate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with
this article.
"(b) The City will adopt .qrievance procedures that incorporates appropriate due process
standards and provides for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints alleqinq
any action prohibited by this Article.
"Sec. 24-100. Non-Discrimination Notice regarding Individuals with Disabilities.
"(a) The City will take appropriate and continuin.q steps to notify participants,
beneficiaries, employees, or applicants, includin.q those with impaired vision or hearinq,
and unions or professional organizations officially recoqnized by the City that the City
does not discriminate on the basis of disability.
"(b) The notification will include the identification of the individual and department
responsible for investiqatinq complaints of discrimination.
"Sec. 24-101. Administration.
"(a) The Director will serve as the City's focal point for coordinating the implementation
of this Article.
"(b) The Director will coordinate the implementation of any relevant new and existinq
laws and ordinances relating to the discrimination a.qainst persons with disabilities.
R31502A1_1,doc
13
"(c) The Director is responsible for:
"(1) CoordinatinR the investiqation and/or conciliation procedure outlined in Sec.
24-102, and assistin.q in resolvinq .qrievances to assure prompt solutions.
"(2) Preparinq and disseminatin.q information reqardin.q disability rights to the
public, City departments, and community agencies.
"(3) Researchin.q administrative policies and procedures to identify for City
management modifications required for accessibility to individuals with
disabilities.
"(4) Monitorin.q City activities related to individuals with disabilities and
conductinq periodic compliance reviews to assure that all City departments are
providinq services that are accessible to individuals with disabilities.
"(5) Recommendinq trainin.q proqrams to City departments to assure that City
services are available to the disability community.
"(6) Providin,q technical assistance and consultation to City departments in areas
related to accessibility as defined by law.
"(7) Assistinq in the development of Ion.q-ranqe planninq activities to accomplish
compliance with applicable laws and re.qulations.
"Sec. 24.102. General Enforcement Guidelines.
"(a) Any individual who has been discriminated a.qainst because of disability may file
with the Director a request to have the Director investigate the complaint of
discrimination.
"(b) If the Director receives a complaint against an agency of the Federal or State
.qovernments, or a political subdivision of the State, the Director will refer the
complainant to the appropriate authority.
"(c) Nothin.q in this Article creates a civil cause of action for damaqes aqainst the City or
precludes any aggrieved person from seeking any other remedy provided by law.
Nothin.q in this Article authorizes criminal enforcement of this article against the City, its
officers, employees, or a.qents.
"(d) Filin,q a complaint with the Director is not a prerequisite and does not bar the filing
of some other leqal complaint or the pursuit of any other remedy provided by law.
"(e) The pendency of a complaint before the Director does not bar any a.qRrieved party
from seekinq civil action, but a final iudqment in any civil action bars any further
investiqation of a pendinq complaint on the same alleged act of discrimination.
R31502A1_t.doc
14
"(f) In connection with any investiqation of a charqe filed under this article, the Director,
or an investigator designated by the Director, shall have access to, for the purposes of
examination, and the right to copy relevant evidence from any person or entity being
investiqated. This access to evidence is to be limited by applicable laws qoverninq the
investigation of civil rights claims.
"(.q) No person may knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly obstruct, or prevent
compliance with this Article or hinder or interfere with the performance of the proper
exemise of a duty, obligation, right, or power of the Director, the Director's
representatives, or other officials with duties, obliqations, ri.qhts, and powers established
by this Article.
"(h) Where appropriate, and when not in violation of conflicts of interest or other ethical
rules of the State Bar of Texas, the City Attorney may assiqn counsel to assist the
Director.
"(i) The City Manager may make administrative arranqements as are normal and
necessary for the functioning of the Human Relations Department.
"Sec. 24-103. Filin.q and Investigating Complaints of Discrimination A.qainst the
City.
"(a) Any individual with a complaint that the City has violated this Article may file a
complaint with the Director. The complaint must be filed on a form provided by the
Director, and must identify the entity or person(s) alleged to have committed th~,
discriminatory practice. In situations where the complainant's disability requires
assistance to submit a complaint, the Director will make reasonable effort to assist the
person in filinq a complaint. The Director must provide complaint forms and furnish
them without charqe to any person, upon request.
"(b) All complaints must be filed within 180 days followinq the occurrence of an alleqed
discriminatory practice.
"(c) As soon as practicable, but in no more than 15 calendar days, the Director must
meet with the complainant to discuss the complaint and possible resolutions. After
investiqation and within 15 calendar days after meeting with the complainant, th~.
Director must respond in writing, and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the
complainant, such as iar.qe print, Braille, or audio tape. The response must explain thP.
position of the City and offer options for substantive resolution of the complaint, if
appropriate.
"(d) If the response by the Director does not satisfactorily resolve the issue, the
complainant may appeal the Director's decision to the City Manager. The appeal must
be filed within 15 calendar days after receipt of the Director's response.
"(e) Within 15 calendar days of the appeal, the City Manager or the City Manaqer's
desiqnee must meet with the complainant to discuss the complaint and possibl~,
resolutions. Within 15 calendar days after the meetin.q, the City Manaqer or City
R31502A1_1.doc
15
Manager's designee must respond in writing, and where appropriate, in a format
accessible to the complainant, with a final resolution of the complaint.
"(f) All formal complaints received by the Director, the responses to the complaints and
the record of appeals to the City Manaqer must be retained by the Director for at least
three years.
"Sec. 24-104. Retaliation and Coercion.
"(a) The City and any person or entity receivinq financial assistance from the City may
not discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or
practice prohibited by this Article, or because that individual has made a charge,
testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investiqation, proceeding, or
hearinq under this Article or any applicable law, including the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
"(b) The City and any person or entity receivinq financial assistance from the City may
not coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or
enioyment of, or on account of the individual having exercised or enioyed, or on account
of the individual having aided or encouraqed any other individual in the exercise or
enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this article or the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.
"Sec. 24-105. Remedial or Voluntary Action.
"(a) If the outcome of an investiqation finds that the City has violated this Article by
discriminating aqainst a qualified person with a disability, the City Manaqer, or
designee, will take any remedial or voluntary actions appropriate and necessary to
rectify the problem.
"(b) All appeals of a ,qr evance must follow the City's established qrievance appeal
procedures.
"(c) If the outcome of an investigation finds that a person or entity hired by the City to
operate a City program or a person or entity receivinq financial assistance from the City
has participated in the discrimination, the City Manaqer, or desiqnee, may require th~,
person or entity receiving financial assistance from the City to take appropriate action to
rectify the problem.
"Sec. 24-106. City Council Status Reports.
"The Director shall submit an annual status report to the City Council that apprises the
Council on the implementation of this Article."
SECTION 9. If for any reason any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase,
word or provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by final
R31502A1_1.doc
16
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any other section,
paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word or provision of this ordinance, for it is the
definite intent of this City Council that every section, paragraph, subdivision, clause,
phrase, word or provision hereof be given full force and effect for its purpose.
SECTION 10. Publication shall be made one time in the official publication of the City of
Corpus Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
SECTION 11. A violation of this ordinance or requirements implemented under this
ordinance constitutes an offense punishable under Section 24-25 of the City Code of
Ordinances, as amended by Section of this ordinance.
R31502Al_l.doc
17
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
reading on this the day of ,2004, by the following vote:
Rex A. Kinnison
Melody Cooper
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on this
the day of
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Henry Garrett
,2004, by the following vote:
Rex A. Kinnison
Melody Cooper
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
Bill Kelly
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the
ATTEST:
day of ,2004.
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Approved as to legal form only this the 5~h day of February, 2004;
By:
Joseph F. Harney
Assistant City Attorney
For City Attorney
R31502Al_1.doc
ATTACHMENT II
List of Associations/Organizations
City of Corpus Christi
Proposed Non-Discrimination Ordinance
Local Associations and Organizations Contacted for Public Input
Name of Association
(Alphabetical Order)
Accessibility Coalition
American General Contractors
American Institute of Architects
American Society of Civil Engineers
Associated Builders and Contractors
Black Chamber of Commerce
Blind Leaders
BOMA-Building Owners and Managers Association
Builders Association of the Corpus Christi Area
CC Chamber of Commerce (Public Policy Task Force)
CC Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
CC Restaurant Association
Corpus Christi Independent School District
Consulting Engineers Council -Texas Corpus Christi Chapter
Council of Government
Del Mar College
Hard of Hearing Center (Consumer Board)
Hispanic Contractors
Hotel/Motel/Condo Association
Minority Business Council
MR Advisory Committee of MHMR
Nueces County
Regional Transportation Authority
RTA Advisory Board
Texas AM- Corpus Christi
TX Commission for the Blind
TX Society of Professional Engineers
Various Sport Leagues
Westside Business Association
ATTACHMENT III
Summary of Public Comments
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
7/17/2003 Public Meeting
1. Public Comment on why have this proposed non-discrimination ordinance instead of a Resolution by the City
Council.
2. Public Comment on the definition of disability.
3. Public Comment on who is being discriminated and who is not.
4. Public Comment about solutions.
5. Public Comment that some meeting attendees know the ADA and are trying to comply, so what is the goal of
this ordinance and who is the target.
6. Public Comment about losses and whose loss is it.
7. Public Comment that there is understanding about "holes in the net" but remarked that it is hard to understand
why another law is needed since the ADA has enforcement element.
8. Public Comment on what is to be done if a business is not accessible, and if this would mean litigation.
9. Public Comment on if this is a communication tool, what is being done for enforcement.
10. Public Comment on a restaurant as an example and about enforcement.
11. Public Comment on if the City will be going out looking for contractors who are not complying.
12. Public Comment on having a checklist for business to comply.
13. Public Comment on who will make judgment calls on compliance.
14. Public Comment that if the City is monitoring and policing than this is more than a communication tool.
15. Public Comment of appreciation of "readily achievable" but believes that p.2 #4 is opening up the City and
citizens to a lot.
16. Public Comment that anyone can claim any disability and this would be bad for tax payers and gave an
example of how believes that a person could "ridiculously" use the ordinance as it is.
17. Public Comment about any other city the size of Corpus having an ordinance like this.
18. Public Comment that in order to make this work in the community, the City will have to enforce.
19. Public Comment on if there is anticipation of lawyers participating in legal litigation.
20. Public Comment that people can already contact TX Dept. of Licensing and Regulations (TDLR) for non-
compliance.
WORKING DRAFT 1 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
7/172003 Public Meeting -Cont.
21. Public Comment about why it is needed to state compliance again locally when the State already has
something in place, yet acknowledges the we have to improve.
22. Public Comment about clarification that this ordinance applies to contractors that do not currently have a
contract with the City.
23. Public Comment on fears and concerns and believes that the City never complies with 504 but that the City
is totally responsible.
24. Public Comment that we should work together otherwise lawsuits will be brought.
25. Public Comment on toleration for many years and that the City is guilty.
26. Public Comment that City is doing, but it takes money.
27. Public Comment that people with disabilities represent 20 percent of the community.
28. Public Comment for more awareness and be more responsible.
29. Public Comment that this is like putting a gun to a person's head or else will sue.
30. Public Comment on if the City Code will change making City staff responsible to see that everything is ADA
compliant.
31. Public Comment about the final decision will be made by the City Manager and what if this decision differs
from the Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS).
32. Public Comment on why the City should prevent lawsuits if the state does not feel that it is important to do
so.
33. Public Comment for clarification that the day's discussions have included two separate ordinances: the
proposed non-discrimination ordinance and the accessibility chapter in the building code.
34. Public Comment of support on the proposed ordinance and that it is welcomed by the staff of Accessible
Communities Inc. and also ACI's consumer control board.
35. Public Comment that remedy could mean many things and not just a lawsuit.
36. Public Comment that mediation is a choice versus litigation and noted that the process through the US
Department of Justice DOJ is time-consuming of approximately two years.
37. Public Comment on the pros of this ordinance as being education, work out solution locally, and remedies for
both sides.
WORKING DRAFT 2 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizationstassociations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
7/17/2003 Public Meeting -Cont.
38. Public Comment of thanks to the Committee for Persons with Disabilities and City staff for showing
ex ectation to do the right thing.
7/24/2003 Public Meeting
1. Public Comment that the proposed non-discrimination ordinance is a target for the City and/or
contractors/lessors.
2. Public Comment on where does this ordinance go beyond the City, such as addressing fast food restaurants.
3. Public Comment on grievances on activities and services.
4. Public Comment that there appears to be no penalty on services, but yes on physical barriers.
5. Public Comment that a few things could be added to make the ordinance more clearer.
6. Public Comment in support of intent of ordinance, but not on the current draft.
7. Public Comment that the City should take a stand and show by example, and to do so not by mandate but by
encouragement.
8. Encouraged staff to have a formal mechanism to be in place.
9. Public Comment in favor of the proposed ordinance.
10. Public Comment about the scrutiny of this ordinance.
11. Public Comment on were every ordinance having to go through such close scrutiny.
12. Public Comment on the ground work and budgeting of staff.
13. Public Comment regarding budgetary impact and that every ordinance could be traced back to the budget.
14. Public Comment to not dissect the ordinance on the basis of why not do the ordinance, and not base it on
financial reasons and hopes that the determination on the ordinance is not made on cost.
15. Public Comment that there are holes or open areas in the ordinance and encouraged that the ordinance be
viewed from the perspective of persons with disabilities.
16. Public Comment that services by the City or contractors have gaps and Public Comment on how exactly
would it be handled by what mechanism.
17. Public Comment in offering to assist the Committee for Persons with Disabilities on this ordinance.
18. Public Comment for good results and thanks for good work.
WORKING DRAFT 3of24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizationslassociations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
7242003 Public Meeting - Cont.
19. Public Comment that Federal and State laws already exist so why do this locally, and believes that it is not
needed as a third level.
20. Public Comment of support of this ordinance and wants doors opened not closed.
812112003 Public Meeting
1. Public Comment that a restaurant chain's local establishment is an embarrassment [regarding accessibility for
persons with disabilities].
2. Public Comment that this proposed ordinance is preventative and also needed.
3. Public Comment on the need to remove architectual and program barriers.
4. Public Comment that passage of this ordinance would be proactive.
8/22/2003 Council of Government
Regular Meeting
1. Members were encouraged to also attend an upcoming public meeting to give input, due to the late meeting
hour. Officers mentioned possibly inviting the City back for any further discussion.
2. Public Comment that the ordinance could be used for punitive damages, as in Florida.
3. Public Comment to formally support the ordinance, however the day's discussion did not include the
ordinance as an agenda action item for the Council of Governments (COG).
4. A Resolution of Support on this proposed ordinance was later passed by the COG at its October 2003
meeting.
9/3/2003 Regional Transportation
Authority Board Meeting
1. During the public comments period of the board meeting's agenda, there was Public Comment of support of
this ordinance.
2. Public Comment on the board's willingness to collaborate with the City on projects for accessibility.
3. Public Comment on requirements and compliance for places of public accommodations.
5. Public Comment about the City of Corpus Christi's compliance and its facilities being accessible, while
enforcing this ordinance.
6. Regarding the City's transition plan, Public Comment about the duration to complete the citywide accessible
curb ramps.
7. Public Comment on having a mechanism in place for individual curb ramp requests.
WORKING DRAFT 4of24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT
PUBLIC INPUT
9/312003- Regional Transportation
8.
Public Comment of appreciation for efforts by City's ADA Coordinator, Mr. Ramos.
Continued Authority Board Meeting
9. A Resolution of Support on this proposed ordinance was later passed by the RTA Board of Directors.
9/3/2003 CC Area Builders
Association Members
1.
Public Comment on existing ADA compliance.
2.
Public Comment about modifying model homes for ADA compliance, and also those model homes that are
used
as offices, and associated expenses.
3.
Public Comment on prior information/interpretation that a builder received from a governmental agency
regarding model homes' ADA compliance; Public Comment on clarification per Department of Justice
determination.
4.
Public Comment expressing their desire to do the right thing and be in compliance.
9/4/2003 Westside Business
Association Members
1, Public Comment about why the protected class of "disability' was left out of the original ordinance's provision
for penalties.
2.
Public Comment on if there was a set number of employees that require a business to meet ADA
requirements.
3.
Public Comment on the dollar limit for renovations that triggers the ADA requirements.
4.
Public Comment about what the financial burden will be to the City and/or businesses.
5.
Public Comment on how an undue burden or financial hardship would be determined.
6.
Public Comment about businesses having to disclose financial information and about those documents
becoming public documents; Confidentiality concerns were raised about a business' right to privacy.
7.
Public Comment about alternatives, such as lawsuits, and the use of "financial burden" as an excuse, and on
available
funding sources.
8.
Public Comment that it would be good to see how many have used "undue burden" as an excuse in the past.
9/5/2003 CEC-Texas C.C. Chapter
Meeting
1.
Public Comment about the members' responsibilities regarding leased space.
2.
Public Comment about the requirements regarding auxiliary aids, and the impact of these on businesses.
3.
Public Comment on if there will be local ADA reviews.
WORKING DRAFT 5of24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
9/5/2003 CEC-Texas C.C. Chapter
Meeting - Continued
4. Public Comment on Page 2, Item 4: 7 of 8 members present voted to recommend deletion of Item 4 verbiage.
The concern was that the definition was too broad in scope. It was pointed out that this was straight out of the
ADA, but persons present Public Comment on if either it could be deleted or a different definition given.
Additional comment: 1, 2, and 3 are good, but wanted to know if it can be done without 4.
5. Public Comment regarding enforcement and the purpose of this ordinance and if this is the only way to do it.
6. Public Comment on what started this all and how much will it cost.
7. Public Comment on how much staff will work on this.
8. Public Comment on the fiscal impact to the City budget.
9. Public Comment on what jurisdiction does this cover.
9/4/2003 CC Restaurant
Association Board
Meeting
1. Public Comment on mediation/settlement locally through this ordinance's processes, and if the Department of
JusticeDOJ accepts such favorably.
2. Public Comment that the board is willing to include ordinance information in its newsletter.
3. Public Comment on fees for inspections regarding accessibility.
4. Public Comment that some board members are very familiar with the ADA and have provided consultations,
and wanted to know what more will this ordinance do than the ADA requires.
5. Further Public Comment on promotion/awareness.
6. Public Comment on examples of non-compliance in and of local restaurants.
7. Public Comment on triggering events for accessibility improvements and corrections, including TX Dept. of
Licensing and Regulations' (TDLRprocess and how to know if a business is in compliance or not.
8. Public Comment on examples of physical barrier removals, i.e.: restrooms, turnaround space.
9. Public Comment that it would also be good to contact architects regarding this ordinance.
10. Public Comment that board will share ordinance summary with its general membership.
11. Public Comment of compliance in smaller "mom/pop" businesses.
WORKING DRAFT 6of24 1 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
9/9/2003 Del Mar College Board of
Regents Regular Meeting
1. Due to time constraints, Del Mar College DMC will forward Public Comments.
9/9/2003 Meeting with Nueces
1. Public Comment about the meaning of the ordinance and suggested that comments come from others as well
County ADA Liaison
in the County who handle contracts.
9/10/2003 Hotel/Motel/Condo
1. Public Comment that this ordinance does not add more requirements but is adding another layer of
Assoc. Board Meeting
enforcement.
2. Public Comment on who handles (determines) exceptions to ordinance.
3. Public Comment on the benefit of having association members check with on compliance in advance of this
ordinance for protection and clarification on such as triggering events & possible violations.
4. Public Comment that smaller operators (businesses) may not have information/resources. (Information on tax
incentivesprovided.)
5. Public Comment on where this ordinance addresses Places of Public Accommodations.
6. Public Comment on forwarding this ordinance to Texas Hotel Lodging Association's Council and association
members.
9/10/2003 CC Hispanic Chamber of
Commerce
Ambassadors' Meeting
1. Public Comment of support and help for all citizens.
2. Public Comment on grandfathering for older establishments.
3. Public Comment on who is enforcing the ADA law now.
4. Public Comment on if there is an ADA complaint against a governmental entity, where does the money come
from to address (remedy), and is this from taxpayer dollars.
5. Public Comment on if this ordinance holds for (apply) to the City's programs also, after the person stated that
they experienced an inability to access a City swimming program at the Natatorium for her child who has a
cognitive disability; and on the availability of and meeting of accommodations, such as inyouth/recreation.
WORKING DRAFT 7 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
9/10/2003- CC Hispanic Chamber of
Continued Commerce Ambassadors
6. Public Comment that some disabilities are obvious, but other are not, such as mental disabilities.
7. Public Comment for copy of the ordinance itself, for possible Chamber Chairperson review.
9/11/2003 Public Meeting
1. Public Comment on ordinance regarding accessibility to festivals, carnivals andparades; such as "Buc Days"
2. Public Comment of interest in receiving copy of any public comments
3. Public Comment of support and movement in a positive direction.
4. Public Comment of support and where does local college fit in regarding this ordinance.
5. Public Comment about contracts with City and where the parties interlink.
6. Public Comment of providing an assurance, in contracting with City, that ALL areas are compliant.
7. Public Comment on enforcement of this ordinance.
8. Public Comment that relationship with the City does not change a party's ADA responsibilities.
9. Public Comment of clear goal/objective for facilities, then services, activities, programs and to what extent
being equal and meeting special accommodations.
10. Public Comment on broadness of #7 on page 4 and where located in the ADA.
11. Public Comment of lack of ADA awareness for some businesses.
12. Public Comment about any grandfather clause(s).
13. Public Comment that places (businesses) have the money for accessibility.
14. Public Comment of curb ramps and lack thereof around police department.
15. Public Comment on ideas/projects for juveniles and how to go about them.
16. Public Comment on how to get more information as a person using a wheelchair.
9/17/2003 Minority Business
Council Board Meeting
1. Public Comment of opinion that 2/3 of restaurants within City do not comply.
2. Public Comment about what happens to those who cannot prove accessibility.
3. Public Comment that fines could be cumbersome.
4. Public Comment on customers switching to another restaurant for greater accessibility.
WORKING DRAFT 8of24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizationslassociations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
9117/2003- Minority Business Council
Continued Board Meeting
5. Public Comment on clarification on restaurants being a public facility; Undue burden.
6. Public Comment for examples on why there is a need for this ordinance.
7. Public Comment on fine amounts.
8. Public Comment on what they need to know about this ordinance.
9. Public Comment about subcontractors in relationship to this ordinance.
10. Public Comment on contracts that are issued on an "as needed" basis to persons or businesses.
9122/2003 CC Black Chamber of
Commerce Board
Meeting
1. Public Comment about smaller "mom -pop" businesses and their ADA responsibilities.
2. Public Comment about accessibility in churches.
3. Public Comment about accessibility requirements for home -businesses.
10111/2003 Public Meeting
No public attendance.
1011312003 Various Sports League
Representatives
1. Public Comment on leagues by ages, facilities/field locations broken out by ages.
2. Public Comment on Participation/Evaluations in that normally any applicant is included. Exception: Football
must have a physical by a doctor, who states if the individual can play.
3. Public Comment that no one is turned down for little league. They even have helmets with masks and heart
padding covers.
4. Public Comment of not having started to build new concession stand and restrooms due to increased cost.
Have to do additional fund raising.
5. Public Comment about what type of access is needed; example of one League having 34 Acres and 21
fields, bridge access.
6. Public Comment on the type of and extent of accessibility needed when going out to the field.
7. Public Comment on the number of available fields (i.e.: percentage) needed for accessibility, including the
route, length of field, and both sides.
WORKING DRAFT 9of24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10/13/2003 Various Sports Leagues -
Continued Continued
8. Public Comment that there is no set schedule or location to fields, it various by age and group, etc.
9. Public Comment of having any kind of courtesy review of the facility, and getting guidance on what is
needed.
10. Public Comment on safety issue regarding having concrete/sidewalk on fields.
11. Public Comment that they do not have to pour sidewalk; possibly just make a level, cleared ground/path.
12. Public Comment on when there is a lot of rain, wet grounds do not allow for wheelchairs.
13. Public Comment that the grounds would be wet, muddy to any person attending.
14. Public Comment about the leagues being contacted or having representation when they [the Committee]
were developing the ordinance.
15. Public Comment about not having any league members on the Committee.
16. Public Comment on the Santa Fe League is in a City Park and 7 fields crowded at one end. When it rains,
parents watch from the sidewalk. Public Comment about this being a compliant. There are no designated
spots. One field was moved to an elementary school because the old field is under water. Public Comment
about whether the City will help the leagues or will they have to do it themselves.
17. Public Comment on whether the leagues are going to receive any funding on this or will it be at the league's
expense.
18. Public Comment that some of the leagues are very small and do not have much funding.
19. Public Comment that these are City properties and concerned about if one accessible restroom is enough
and the use of signage to direct people from the other non -accessible restroom.
20. Public Comment that the accessible restrooms that are kept locked, and concerned about how the leagues
could use these with or without City staff person present. Possibly someone [in the league] can have the
responsibility of unlocking and locking the restrooms. They are willing to help clean the restrooms.
21. Public Comment about lack of finance and lack of space being considered when looking at a situation.
22. Public Comment that one league was told to remove the skid -o -can.
23. Public Comment - Southside Little League is accessible, but the kickball, pop warner and soccer leagues
are 1/2 a mile away and are not accessible.
WORKING DRAFT 10 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10/132003 Various Sports Leagues -
Continued Continued
24. Public Comment on who is the decision maker on this and if the determination can change on a case -by -
case basis.
25. Public Comment about leagues being allowed a grace period to comply.
26. Public Comment on the effective date when the ordinance is implemented and for those contracts already in
effect.
27. Public Comment about Price Field's restroom is kept lock, but possibly the City could let them use the
restroom.
28. Public Comment on about Accessible Parking and the responsibility of enforcing it. Public Comment that in
the past, the Corpus Christi Police Department (CCPD) has not addressed it. Public Comment that they [the
leagues] cannot remove the violator and that it is not the leagues responsibility, but rather it should be CCPD.
29. Public Comment about having a grandfather clause.
30. Public Comment about the leagues being responsible for Auxiliary Aides, interpreters and TTY equipment.
31. Public Comment about the Press Box having to be accessible.
32. Public Comment on Parking lot problems, such as grass build up, no accessible parking, lines must be
clear, sign must be so high (or tickets will be dismissed), etc.
33. Public Comment about the feasibility of getting each field inspected, to see what is needed to be compliant.
34. Public Comment about the City sending information on the minimum requirements, something to start on
what the leagues are looking at [facing].
35. Public Comment that by conducting a study to identify all the deficiencies, we [the leagues] possibly could
apply for a federal grant to make the necessary changes. Bottom line - funds.
36. Public Comment about any ADA funds that the Leagues could apply for.
37. Public Comment that in the past, the leagues have been told they cannot use CDBG funds for cement,
black tops, etc. CDBG has some restrictions.
38. Public Comment on Little League safety issue that they cannot have concrete or sidewalks to close to the
field, etc.
WORKING DRAFT 11 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10113/2003 Various Sports Leagues -
Continued Continued
39. Public Comment that something is needed, a safe route - not a designated walk -way. Just a designated
area where reasonable, smooth path to get there. Need to be without barrier, a path free of holes.
40. Public Comment about the parking lots being in compliance and having to be paved all the way around to
the other fields.
41. Public Comment on having to level routes of some fields that were put in later than others. Need to look at
options and possibly schedule around it to assist with accommodation issues.
42. Public Comment that each league caters to group by field, age and group. The City needs to set some
monies aside for it.
43. Public Comment on compliance for level accessible routes in not having to build sidewalks if there is a flat
area, or make the area flat.
44. Public Comment that you need to do this on a one by one situation.
45. Public Comment about assessing locations for compliance through possibly appointments with the City and
then tell the league how long it has to comply. We will need Park and Recreation's assistance.
46. Public Comment about the timing issue and period of time for transition.
47. Public Comment about before the ordinance and how much time is available to fix this.
48. Public Comment that this is a great ordinance, but 60 days to fix any problems would be hard.
49. Public Comment about getting the leagues trained to do assessments, and comment that they are willing to
o for training.
50. Public Comment about what triggered this ordinance and if it was a complaint.
51. Public Comment on parking at tournaments, and comment on the need to consider issues that may arise
during tournaments.
10114/2003 MR Advisory Committee
of MHMR
1. Public Comment about how this ordinance is different from the ADA.
2. Public Comment on expanding summer programming [with City]. Public Comment on why this ordinance has
come and if it is to assure accessibility to programs.
3. Public Comment to clarify that this ordinance is not just for the City but also for those it contracts with.
WORKING DRAFT 12 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizationslassociations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10/142003- MR Advisory Committee of
Continued MHMR
4. Public Comment that reasonable accommodations should be done within regular programs; full spectrum of
responses to persons with disabilities wanting to participate in programs.
5. Public Comment that the City's Park & Recreation is making adjustments and moving in the right direction;
Public Comment on who to contact to work with on having a vehicle in place to act before complaints come in.
6. Public Comment about if modifications required, Le.: sidewalk, will passage of this ordinance make people do
something reasonable.
7. A Resolution of Support was later passed by the Nueces County MHMR Board of Trustees.
10/16/2003 CC Chamber of
Commerce's Public Policy
Task Force Meetinq
1. Public Comment about applying this ordinance to public utilities contracts with businesses, gasoline,
Downtown Business Zone; Because every business has a contract for utilities.
2. Public Comment about homes that are not for the public.
3. Public Comment on the term "contractors" and the need for clarification.
4. Public Comment that they understand the intent, but concerned about looking at it if a complaint is made.
5. Public Comment about extremely broad language without a clearer definition and any attempt to clean up
that language.
6. Public Comment that "contractor" could be defined and an example given of "Quid Pro Quo" on utility
verbiage.
7. Public Comment on why the ADA is not sufficient.
8. Public Comment about why is this at a higher standard than ADA.
9. Public Comment about who is considered to be a contractor, and if it applies when the City hires a lawyer,
business utilities, purchases gas, car washes, etc. Public Comment that it imposes standards on all. Public
Comment about what is considered to be outside of procurement; and possibly define procurement.
10. Public Comment that it might be better if some language could be added to definitions.
11. Public Comment on wording if providing services, then give some examples, such as the Arena, Home
Services, etc.
WORKING DRAFT 13 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizationslassociations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10/162003 CC Chamber -Public Policy
Continued Task Force
Continued
12. Public Comment on the impact this ordinance has on any home that is remodeled, and whether they all have
to be designed for persons with disabilities.
13. Public Comment about multiple dwellings.
14. Public Comment about first time home buyers.
15. Public Comment about home improvement loans.
16. Public Comment about Non -Profit Groups in that all types of things, such as the Jazz Society and those
receiving various monies must be accessible.
17. Public Comment that if going to have an ordinance, get rid of the ambiguity and have clearer definitions.
18. Public Comment about why we need this.
19. Public Comment about the reason of imposing another additional burden on the City.
20. Public Comment that there appears to be a lot of confusion; why we have not been making progress with
ADA; and knowing what are some examples of missing the mark.
21. Public Comment about whether this is to put the City in a proactive position for enforcement.
22. Public Comment about the City already having specific penalties in place for discrimination.
23. Public Comment on whether we already have a mediation process.
24. Public Comment about the number of time that we have to enforce or have they been enforced.
25. Public Comment on the reason of having to enforce it.
26. Public Comment on whether the present ordinance be modified.
27. Public Comment about knowing if the City gets DOJ funds for enforcement.
28. Public Comment that in theory, this ordinance is good, but does it put them in place as a mediator or having
to monitor for enforcement; Or do they have to go out and look for problems with each of them.
29. Public Comment about small businesses and if this requires that they have items such as TTY; and if this is
required, what would be the level of requirement.
30. Public Comment that what you are trying to accomplish is wonderful. But it may not be seen by the
community and businesses as such. They may think you are out to get them.
31. Public Comment in favor of a possible Public Education/Outreach Program.
32. Public Comment about why not just change the existing ordinance.
WORKING DRAFT 14 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10/1&2003 CC Chamber- Public Policy
Continued Task Force
Continued
33. Public Comment that it would be good to have some helpful books/fact sheets about ADA, the authority to
enforce and promote it, instead of a new ordinance. It might be difficult to get into all the unknown issues.
34. Public Comment that it might be better to get a separate Compliance Officer for only disability and ADA
related issues.
35. Public Comment on that would not appear to make it a higher level of requirement.
36. Public Comment about why we could not add disability to the existing enforcement clause.
37. Public Comment that this ordinance will make it more difficult and confusing for the City and others. Go at it
from a better information tool and go after it by looking at it from that perspective and be proactive.
38. Public Comment about how to move forward in a positive way without the negatives.
39. Public Comment on whether the goal is to affect change.
40. Public Comment about the current ordinance not having a penalty for disability related discrimination.
41. Public Comment that does not all City contracts have boiler plate language about compliance.
42. Public Comment that even if not in the contract, they would still have comply.
43. Public Comment about using the example of the Ice Rayz, and would it not be sufficient if we just changed
the existing ordinance.
44. Public Comment that if we just imposed language on penalties, this could deal with it.
45. Public Comment about whether the Human Relations Ordinance is referenced in contract language.
46. Public Comment that if this is passed, will it be referenced in contract language.
47. Public Comment on whether this will be enforced if this is done [passed].
48. Public Comment that if this would be generated by complaints, why wouldn't there be compliance. We could
still enforce it at the local level.
49. Public Comment about the ordinance's impact on a complaint if it is an employee who says or does
something inappropriately or in opposition to company or entities position regarding ADA accessibility, etc.
50. Public Comment that the City have an employee policy and/or orientation process to train staff on ADA
related issues.
WORKING DRAFT 15 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10/162003 CC Chamber- Public Policy
51. Public Comment on the need for close captioning for the Council Meeting, and whether a person with a
Continued Task Force
disability would really want to listen to the Council Meeting.
Continued
52. Public Comment on why a would a person with a disability want to go to a Doctor's Office or Dentist Office or
place of business, if they had to file a complaint in the first place to get the service. They could just go
somewhere else. They would not have to wait the one or two years for DOJ to make a determination.
10/17/2003 Accessibility Coalition
Regular Meeting
1. Public Comment on if the assurance form/language was yet available and deadline.
2. Public Comment on if persons with disabilities [citizens] can attend the City Manager's business meetings with
the various associations.
3. Public Comment on the City's position on Sec.24-84(a) - last part of sentence, regarding the difference(s)
between this and how the ordinance would apply to ANY entity that contract with the City.
4. Public Comment that the definition of "financial assistance" would not mean or apply to just any entity that
does business with the City.
5. Public Comment that this City position was not discussed with the Committee for Persons with Disabilities and
came up after the City Council presentation in July 2003.
6. Public Comment that if a business is not providing a service or program on behalf of the City or is not a Place
of Public Accommodation, then the ordinance should not apply.
7. Public Comment on about implication that this ordinance applies to "all entities and contractors" in having to
make all of their facilities comply, especially for those contractors whose facilities are not opened to the general
public.
8. Public Comment to reword language to clarify.
9. Public Comment about how this ordinance is more than the ADA.
10. Public Comment that the City's "what you should know" information sheet does not match the proposed non-
discrimination ordinance, and that City staff should just cite the ordinance language during its presentation
meetings in the community.
11. Public Comment to include education/awareness to increase dialogue.
12. Public Comment of support of this ordinance and intent of a Resolution of Support.
WORKING DRAFT 16 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
10/28/2003 CC Independent School
District's Sr.
Management
1. Public Comment about the intent of this ordinance.
2. Public Comment that this ordinance appears to repeat federal requirements.
3. Public Comment on how this ordinance relates to older versus new facilities.
4. Public Comment on programs and the difference for compliance if an organization does not have a contract
with the City.
5. Public Comment about if the ordinance applies only to that service/program that is under contract with the
City, or does the ordinance apply in a "wide open door" for that contractor's other programs, services, facilities,
etc.
6. Public Comment on the ordinance bringing "teeth" to what agencies should already being doing for
accessibility.
7. Public Comment on if the intent of the ordinance is to go beyond the ADA; including an example of on facility
having multiple sets of restrooms in that they all have to be accessible.
8. Public Comment on for the City's point of view in the ordinance applying to just the contracted organization's
one program or applies to all of the organization's programs and buildings.
9. Public Comment on if there is a willingness to amend the ordinance to change wording, as the school district
may have some suggestions.
10. Public Comment on enforcement and fines; what are the maximum fine amounts.
11. Public Comment that the District is sensitive and wants to be compliant, yet concerned about timeframe of
implementing the ordinance due to constraints of time and money.
12. Public Comment on once the ordinance is adopted, will there be any lead time or grace period to comply with
the ordinance requirements.
13. Public Comment to reiterate that the District wants to be compliant.
14. The District sent a letter as a statement of opposition to the proposed ordinance, (dated 11 /24/03).
15. Public Comment of already existing certain federal and state laws prohibiting public entities from
discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
WORKING DRAFT 17 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
CCISD - Continued
16. Public Comment that this proposed ordinance does not appear to create any new coverage in connection
with any aspect of the activities of local governmental units such as the school district.
17. Public Comment that the ordinance will not provide any new rights fro students or other individuals using the
District's activities/prog activities/prorams and that it could likely create new and costly burdens on the District.
18. Public Comment that the District is committed to complying with all existing state and federal laws on non-
discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
19. Public Comment that the ordinance should be revised to excluded those classes of entities that are already
thoroughly regulated by state and federal law, such as the District.
20. Public Comment requesting that governmental entities that contract with the City be excluded.
11/4/2003 Public Meeting
1. Public Comment of highly supporting the passage of this ordinance by a person who stated that they had
resented a document on accessibility to the City Council back in the late 1980's or early 1990's.
2. Public Comment of full support by CCISD for the rights of individuals with disabilities and compliance with the
ADA law.
3. Public Comment that CCISD is currently conducting a comprehensive study of its facilities and plans to
address accordingly; This proposed ordinance has been a benefit in that its highlighted the need to include an
ADA accessment.
4. Public Comment of support for compliance under Title II of the ADA.
5. Public Comment on the applicability of this ordinance to the school district and the potential of additional
litigation, costs and time expended in response to complaints and also the cost of complaints.
6. Public Comment that this ordinance is duplicative of Title II of the ADA and its enforcement, and therefore
respectfully requests that the ordinance be amended to create an exception for governmental entities that have
contracts with the City because Title If provides a comprehensive and sufficient avenue for enforcement.
7. Public Comment to applaud the CFPWD's and City's efforts in pursuing this ordinance, especially for private
entities that may fall through the loop holes in the ADA.
8. Public Comment that unsure if we have not address the issue of Corpus Christi's tourism dollars that includes
those coming from many older tourists. The aging population who are less able but do not consider themselves
as having a "disability" - just older; Since the body slowly loses ability as it ages, they [aging population] need an
accessible environment also.
WORKING DRAFT 18 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
111412003- Public Meeting - Continued
9. Public Comment that this ordiance benefits not only citizens but tourists also.
Continued
10. Public Comment to school districts and others that many parent do not know that the ordinance [existing
Human Relations Ordinance on the books] does not cover "disabilities"; parents of children and those with
disabilities know that the City's existing ordinance does not cover "disabili '
11. Public Comment that although there's knowledge of the ADA, it has been 13 year - even the City is not in
compliance yet.
12. Public Comment that the proposed ordinance needs to be done, it needs to show that Corpus Christi
supports its disabled citizens.
11/20/2003 RTA Advisory Board
1. Public Comment of being a proud member of the Committee for Persons with Disabilities and is a favorite
committee.
2. Public Comment to mention that the RTA Board of Directors had passed a resolution in support of the
proposed ordinance.
3. Public Comment commending the part that the City has taken on the proposed ordinance.
4. Public Comment in acknowleding that transportation service issues are important to the City's Human
Relations Director.
11/20/2003 Hard of Hearing Center's
Consumer Board
1. Public Comment that the Human Relations presentation and ordinance were "singing to the choir".
2. Public Comment on the importance of program accessibility for children with hearing loss/impairments.
3. Public Comment on whether businesses are willing to adhere to accessibility.
4. Public Comment on the minimum number of employees (15) that a business must have in order to fall under
the federal requirements of the ADA.
5. Public Comment about hiring persons with disabilities after the ADA was passed and possibly obtaining
statistics.
WORKING DRAFT 19 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
8/15/2003 Citizen Public Comment:
Telge
1. Public Comment on if the City identifies staffing levels and budget implications for all ordinances.
2. Public Comment on if the City provides mechanisms to generate revenue to support appropriate staffing
levels for other ordinances.
3. Public Comment that implementation of this ordinance, as all ordinances, should provide remedy and relief for
the public, as well as protection. If implemented correctly, it would not pose unreasonable administrative or
financial burden.
4. Suggested an annual budget for the City's Human Relations Department to implement this ordinance:
One additional staff person,100% dedicated to ADA & Ordinance education, compliance b resolution - $60,000
Printing of notices, educational sheets, hand-outs - $20,000
Training of City staff - $10,000
Mediation Fees (market rate) - $20,000
$110,000
5. Pubic Comment offerring a scenario of compliance and also non-compliance of a Place of Public
Accommodation that has a contract with the City.
6. Public Comment also offerring a draft remediation process to address a Place of Public Accommodation that
has a contract with the City.
9/18/2003 Citizen Public Comment:
Pursley
1. Public Comment on the definition of "City" versus "city".
2. Public Comment to make this ordinance a correct document to include all titles of the ADA.
3. Public Comment on what are the "areas" that need to be communicated to the community for areas of
accessibility.
4. Public Comment about the "need" for the non-discrimination ordinance.
5. Public Comment about what laws are we [the City] enforcing: ADA, TAS, and Chapter 11.
6. Public Comment that when the City levies a fine, it is doing enforcement.
WORKING DRAFT 20 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
9/18/2003 Citizen Public Comment:
Pursley - Continued
7. Public Comment that the City needs to adopt a code that addresses accessibility.
8. Public Comment about what the City of Austin is doing on this ordinance.
9. Public Comment on how Austin is enforcing Title III of the ADA legally.
10. Public Comment about if there is a real need for the non-discrimination ordinance.
11.Public Comment of wanting to know what standards are used for enforcement.
12. Public Comment that the best standard is Chapter 11.
9/19/2003 Citizen Public Comment:
McGovern
1. Public Comment to define the word "qualified" in Sec. 24-84 - Declaration of Policy.
2. In Sec. 24-84(b) on page 1, comment to add wording to the end of last sentence after "City": "in the most
integrated setting".
3. Public Comment to add word "recreating" to list of major life activities.
4. Public Comment to add a new section after definitions as "Sec. 24-86" entitled "Requesting Reasonable
Modifications or Accommodations" to discuss how the City will proceed and incorporate case law (Anderson)
and the statute under 28CFR35.
5. Public Comment to add the wording "extra staff' to list under the definition of Qualified individual with a
disability - after "practices".
6. Public Comment that the "readily achievable" test is not used in Title II - Public Entities but only Title III -
Places of Public Accommodations; for CC and other cities, barrier removal is decided by the Program Access
test (see 28CFR35.149,150).
7. Public Comment that under Communications, it imposes requirements for 911 systems too and it may be
appropriate to reference that in Sec. 24-86 Communications.
8. Public Comment that Sec 24-89 on undue burden does not seem to describe the text.
9. Public Comment that there should be some discussion about the transition plan after Sec. 24-91 regarding
identifying barriers and removal.
WORKING DRAFT 21 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
9/19/2003 Citizen Public Comment.
McGovern -Continued
10. Public Comment that under Sec. 24-92 on designated coordinator and grievance procedure that City
departments with significant public contact such as Police, Parks & Rec and others shall designate one
employee to coordinate departmental efforts to comply with this article.
11. Public Comment under the requirements to insure accessibility Sec.24-94(f) that if TAS has been certified by
USDOJ as being equal to or more stringent than ADAAG, this section is okay. If not, then ADAAG should be
reference too.
12. Public Commented that Sec.24-96 (g) is "good".
12/2/2003 American Institute of
1. Public Comment that this ordinance would be unfair to group private enterprise into a category that must
and 12/3/03 Architects - CC Chapter
comply with ALL of the same requirements that government entities do just because we do business with those
entities; This ordinance is just another step in that direction. Commented against the proposed ordinance
2. Public Comment dated 12/02/03 of not being in favor of passage of this ordinance as written.
3. Public Comment that ordinances are supposed to improve/create a better situation for some citizens, but
many times these ordinance have the opposite effect; They put up more barriers than they take down.
4. Public Comment that the ADA legislation has been in place over 10 years and has had a positive impact in
many areas. However, in looking closely at the legislation, you will find that the term"Disability" has a broad
meaning from both a physical and mental aspect.
5. Public Comment that the ADA legislation uses the term "accommodation" when it discusses how to address
the various circumstances that existing facilities must address to accommodate various types of disabilities.
6. Public Comment of dealing with these issues daily as an architect and can testify first hand that this legislation
has assisted a small group of folks with physical disabilities and a larger, broader group of mentally disabled
people.
7. Public Comment that there is currently federal law in place that addresses the same issues and provides
various means of remedies; and of the opinion that the city does not need another Ordinance that basically
covers the same area; If passed, there would be another level of government added that will just increase the
cost of operations.
WORKING DRAFT 22 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
12/2&3/03 Architects' Comments -
8. Public Comment that if the city wants to pass an ordinance, it should take the issue back to the committee
Continued
and develop a more in dept approach and take away the many gray areas in the ordinance. EX: Current
guidelines dealing with making buildings accessible for the physically handicapped are over 80 pages long and
there are still many gray areas that come under interpretation each day.
9. Public Comment that if the city wants to do the right thing, then more work is required prior to any passage of
an ordinance of this magnitude.
10. Public Comment the we understand the proposed ordinance to be an unnecessary piece of legislation due to
the current stringent requirements by the state, federal and city.
11. Public Comment that the present legislation in place adequately covers the needs of persons with
disabilities.
12. Public Comment that there are new IBC Building Code requirements and revised TX Dept. of Insurance
Windstorm requirements now in effect and would be a consideration in adding additional requirements.
13. Public Comment hoping that the City Council will not adopt this ordinance since it would appear to be
unnecessary in view of the voluminous ordinances and rules now in place.
1[7/2004 CFPWD Meeting with
1. Public Comment of suggested changes to the 01/0704 draft ordinance document to elaborate Sec. 24-101 to
new 117/04 draft copy.
indicate anyone may file a compliant not just a person with a disability; have as proactive not punitive.
2. Public Comment of suggesting that Sec. 24-98 to include tht the City promote "best practices'; showcase
those going beyond (compliance].
3. Public Comment of suggesting that mediation by a mediator outside of the City be added to Sec. 24-102
4. Public Comment of suggesting that Sec. 24-102 does not make reference to investigation only filing.
5. Public Comment about Sec. 24-104(C) as is equals a slap on the wrist; may include language on contracts
and contract renewals.
6. Public Comment of having readily available ADA specifications for businesses and non -profits.
7. Public Comment of supporting the 01/07/04 draft document "as is" since existing statutues already covers
other public entities].
8. Public Comment of supporting the new draft in that it gives the City enforcement for private entities.
9. Public Comment of supporting the new draft as presented on 1/7/04 and that there is no need for a disclaimer
[to Sec. 24-92].
WORKING DRAFT 23 of 24 2/5/2004
City of Corpus Christi
Draft Summary of Public Input on Proposed Non -Discrimination Ordinance
Working Document - Human Relations Department
The proposed ordinance of non-discrimination, to amend the existing Human Relations Ordinance, was recommended to the City Council by the
Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CFPWD), after resolutions of support by the CFPWD and the Corpus Christi Human Relations Commission.
This summary represents public comments received through interested citizens and organizations/associations, which had different levels of
knowledge of accessibility guidelines and how to address issues for persons with disabilities.
DATE SOURCE OF INPUT PUBLIC INPUT
1/7/2004 CFPWD Meeting with
new 117/04 draft copy.
10. Public Comment regarding the issue of Latchkey, both the City and school CCISD are required not to
discriminate, do so by negotiated contract and not under the umbrella of the proposed ordinance - additional
layer.
11. Public Comment about discrimination not just physical barriers, there already exists Title II of the ADA.
12. Public Comment that adding a disclaimer [to Sec 24-92] on top of ADA would be burdensome.
13. Public Comment acknowledging State laws and Texas Accessibility Standards (TAS) before the ADA.
14. Public Comment that if the laws on the books were properly enforced, such as ADA and TAS, then do not
need to have an additional ordinance.
15. Public Comment that if the TAS, ADA and this ordinance were side-by-side, 90% of most paragraphs in the
ordinance are already in existing laws; some not such as enforcement and education, as needed.
16. Public Comment that the document should address enforcement of the City's own.
17. Public Comment about enforcement needs the right type of person, one who knows what they are doing.
18. Public Comment about what to do if there should be written conflicts between this ordinance and the ADA.
19. Public Comment of wanting the updated document of 1/7/04 on the City's website.
20. Public Comment of about the need to monitor the assessment of fines and report on levied fines; concern for
small businesses versus larger businesses; fairly.
21. Public Comment of day-to-day work on sport league facilities done by volunteers but 95% of building belong
to the City, and now the [leagues] have to do ADA.
22. Public Comment of maybe the City should help the youth leagues with accessibility since they [leagues] do
not have much money.
23. Public Comment that just kids need accessibility, but so do parents with disabilities who are wanting to
attend the sports.
24. Public Comment of wanting the City to make suggestions for compliance [to the sports leagues].
25. Public Comment on Sec. 24-102 and the word "investigation" to possibly drop from the section title.
26. Public Comment on Sec. 24-102 (a) to clarify "person" is person or entity.
WORKING DRAFT 24 of 24 2/5/2004
ATTACHMENT IV
Survey of Other Cities
ADA NON DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE
SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOP 25 CITIES BY SIZE AND POPULATION
QUESTION POSED: DO YOU HAVE A NDO THAT ADDRESSES -ADA AND DISABILITY RELATED ISSUES?
QUESTION POSED: DO YOU HAVE CONTRACT LANGUAGE TO ENSURE ADA COMPLIANCE BY CONTRACTORS?
NOTE: BEGAN INITIAL CALLS TO CITIES ON JULY 17, 2003 AND CONTINUED WITH FOLLOW-UP CALLS
C/Ty TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
New York, NY 1 Unknown
RESPONSE
Left message. Responsependin .
CITy TOP CITY RANKING I ORDINANCE
Los Angels, CA 2 YES
RESPONSE
Ordinances in CRY Charter, under Admin. Code, Div. 8, Chap. 20
1. The City has some ordinances and coverage in this area.
2. They have contract provision in all city contracts about non-discrimination and the requirement to adhere to ADA.
3. The City has building and safety review Ian checks and inspections for compliance with CA state(Title 24 Code
Enforcement, which is stricter than ADA.
4. ADA compliance was made through funding by the General Fund.
5. Now the annual budget sets aside funding for "Additional ADA Work" as identified.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Chicago, IL 3 YES
RESPONSE
1. Human Rights Ordinance established in 1988 covering Fair Housing, Public Accommodation and Employment.
There are 13 other areas resently covered by ADA related ordinances or policies.
2. Additionally, ADA/rive III compliance language is in numerous location, they review all new construction plans and
advise on remodeling or modifications.
3. Contract Compliance - Yes, they have language in contracts requiring ADA compliance.
Revised: 11-25-03
ADA NON DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE
SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOP 25 CITIES BY SIZE AND POPULATION
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Houston, TX 4 NO - USE CITY POLICIES
RESPONSE
1. A City Policy (Policy Number 114), rather than an ordinance that covers employment only.
2. They have an Affirmative Action Office, that also addresses employment, EEO, and ADA training.
3. However, they created the Office of Inspector General, where discrimination complaints are referred.
4. Pending return call from Manager of Contracts Section of City Legal Department regarding Contract Language.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Philadel ha, PA 5 YES
RESPONSE
1. They have an ordinance that addresses Employment, Fair Housing, Public Accommodation, Programs/Services/Activities,
Building Code - Disability Review Committee who work with the Zoning Board, etc.
2. They have the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, which is enforced by the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission.
3. in addition to the Human Relations Department, they have an ADA Coordinator, a Cit Accessibility Compliance Office,
and a Mayor's Committee for Persons with Disabilities.
4. Many overlapping ordinances and/or executive orders, etc. pertaining to ADA related issues.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Phoenix, AZ 6 YES
RESPONSE
1. They do have Human Relations ordinances. Disability is inclusive. Additionally, me City Manager has issued letters and
regulations for internal processes, etc. They do consider undue burden factors.
2. They do not address ADA or Title III complaints, they are referred to the DOJ.
3. They do take fair housing and em to ment corn laints. They do comply with Title II and contracts ensure compliance.
4. Their building code is stricter than ADAAG.
5. They have a strong advocacy community, which has resulted in alternate formats of communication and information b
each department, inclusive of, but not limited to use of sin language, interpreters, braille, large print, etc.
6. There is an internal ADA Title I complaint process.
7. The City of Phoenix has a full time employeedicated to handlingrequests for information to be provided in braille and/or
alternate formats.
8. They have develo a "Disability Resource Pool" of various individuals who may or may not have cross disabilities, but
who have experience or expertise with cross disabilities. They are called in to assist with reviews, obtain input on various
ideas, projects, etc. They are utilized for training purposes.
Revised: 11-2503
ADA NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE
SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOP 25 CITIES BY SIZE AND POPULATION
CITY TOP CITY RANKING I ORDINANCE
San Diego, CA 7 NO - USE ADM. REGS / POLICIES
RESPONSE
1. They have Administrative Regulationsklicies pertaining to public accommodation and programs/services/activities
regarding accessibility. They have a Disabilities Services Department. They conduct reviews.
2. Federal and State compliance language in contracts. They have their own section on ADA Compliance in contracts.
They require completion of certification of com liance forms and they have similar fomes for all City leases, etc.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Dallas, TX 8 UNKNOWN
RESPONSE
Left Message. Respoonse pending.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
San Antonio, TX 9 NO - NOT SEPARATE ORD.
RESPONSE
1. They have incorporated ADA into their Code of Ordinances under the Building Code, Health Code, and sidewalk/
physical barrier issues.
2. They had looked at implementing an ordinance and had started to do it mirroring Austin's , but at the last minute
the said, no. The said this is alreadya law.
3. They include ADA compliance language in contracts. They always include language of compliance with federal, state
and local laws. Leases have verbiage on lessor responsibilities for compliance with ADA guidelines. The use boiler ate
language.
4. They do consider reasonable accommodations.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Detroit, MI 10 UNKNOWN
RESPONSE
Left Message. No res 9
rise - pending.
Revised: 11-75-03 3
ADA NON DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE
SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOP 25 CITIES BY SIZE AND POPULATION
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
San Jose, CA 11 YES
RESPONSE
1. Yes the City has a non-discrimination ordinance.
2. There is no policy or ordinance on third Deny cerltraclors.
3. They do have a Human Relations policy, whichaddressed Title VII, Disability, Em to ment, Fair Housingand Public
Accommodation.
4. The Council adopted a policy on City services, programs and activities to not discriminate against persons with disabilities.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Indianapolis, IN 12 YES
RESPONSE
1. Language throughout their ordinance discussin I non-discrimination in various places, including contracts, construction,
employment, purchases, etc.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
San Francisco, CA 13 YES
RESPONSE
1. They have numerous non-discrimination laws, but they just adopted the ADA.
2. Their State Law is more comprehensive than ADA, and that is the governing one that is used.
3. They definitely include disability verbiage in their contracts.
4. Their enforcement is largely complaint driven.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING L ORDINANCE
Jacksonville, FL 14 YES - LIMITED ORDINANCE
RESPONSE
1. There is a provision under the ordinance of a 90 day warning, then it is $100.00 per day after that. Ordinance 2002-889
2. They have an ordinance that requires all existing businesses must have accessiblearkin and an accessible route to
facilities and services.
3. Florida's Building Code is more stringent, at least parallel or more than ADA.
4. one of the latest ADA stepstupdates the City did was to purchase a braille embosser - now they can provide information
in an alternate format instantaneous) . This is of tremendous benefit to them, they got tired of having to outsource it and the
lengthly time delays.
5. They mainly follow state laws.
Revised: 11-25-03 4
ADA NON DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE
SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOP 25 CITIES BY SIZE AND POPULATION
CRY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Columbus, OH 15 UNKNOWN
RESPONSE
Left message. Return call and left message. Response pending.
CRY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Austin, TX 16 YES
RESPONSE
1. Corpus Christi utilized their ordinance to develop draft.
2. Mr. Ramos and Ms. Taylor -Butler went to Austin and met with various City represent ives regarding their ADA
Ordinance and enforcement.
3. The City of Austin's NDO was re -ADA.
4. They do have contract language and contract assurance for ADA compliance.
5. Annual mandatory meeting with Contractors to review contract compliance requirements.
6. They don't go out into the community - it is complaint driven. No formal complaints any inquiries.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING I ORDINANCE
Baltimore, MD 17 YES - NOT SEPARATE
RESPONSE
1. They do not have a separate ordinance for ADA related issues - it is all encom assin .
2. Housing - there is not a separate ordinance.
3. Address Public Accommodation by enforcement and investigations, and penaltlestremedles are accessed by H.R. Comm.
4. Language in contracts - no. The ordinance is standard - covers age, sex, race, disabilities, and sexual orientation.
5. No certificate of assurances. No different ste s in monitoring - just usual for all contracts.
CRY TOP CRY RANKING ORDINANCE
Memphis, TN 18 NO - USE CITY POLICIES
RESPONSE
1. They have a 221i2x for em to ees, under Title 1 and Title II, and are now in therocess of creatinga Transition Plan to
address Title II.
Revised: 11-25-03
ADA NONDISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE
SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOP 25 CITIES BY SIZE AND POPULATION
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Milwaukee, WI 19 YES
RESPONSE
1. The City's Ordinance is - Ordinance Section 109-9 of the City's Code of Ordinances.
2. Many separate areas, and they dont overlap. There is a City ADA Coordinator.
3. Contracts are overseen by Purchasing/Procurement Administration.
4. The City has an ADA Policy and they just worked on a new Diversity, Affirmative Action and EEO Ordinance.
5. The contract verbiaga has just been revised.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Boston, MA 20 YES
RESPONSE
1. They have a Human Rights Ordinance that covers 13 areas.
2. City's HR Ord. 2.76 H.R. Ordinance - number of sections. Section 2.76100 - Covenant for new contracts.
3. There is enforcement with the HR Commission and there are penafties.
4. Primarily complaint driven; Purchasing Dept. monitors contracts that covenant language is there.
5. Fairly well established in Civil Rights Laws - complaint driven. Federal ADA - U.S. DOJ doesn't go out to all businesses -
its complaint driven. To expect or imply the responsibility with inspection of everyone is not realistic. Consider DOJ.
6. In the process of proposing an ordinance re: removal of physical bartiers when readily achievable.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Washington, DC 21 UNKNOWN
RESPONSE
Called -left messy eesponse Dendin .
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Nashville -Davidson, TN 22 UNKNOWN
RESPONSE
Called - left message. Response pending.
Revised: 11.25-03
ADA NON DISCRIMINATION ORDINANCE
SURVEY SUMMARY OF TOP 25 CITIES BY SIZE AND POPULATION
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
EI Paso, TX 23 UNKNOWN
RESPONSE
Called - left message. Res onse ndin .
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Seattle, WA 24 1 NO - USE CLEAR ADA POLICIES
RESPONSE
1. They comply with ADA and there are clear Policies.
2. They have a unique department that provides services to specialized populations for the whole community.
3. City's Park and Recreation Department - Title II addressed.
4. They are being careful to ensure meeting and/or exceeding ADA.
5. Pending return call from the Office of Civil Rights and Legal Department.
CITY TOP CITY RANKING ORDINANCE
Denver, CO 25 NO
RESPONSE
1. They do not have a special ordinance. They address it b Title II of the ADA.
2. The have a Contract's Compliance Officer who does monitor -some of it is complaint driven. All contracts include
standard boiler plate language, in exam le:"must comply with Federal, State and Local Laws". Facilities are in compliance.
When they contract with anyone, they must be in compliance in programs, food, services, etc. Section 504 is included).
3. They recently revised various Court ordered programstservices to be accessible, in example: Court Ordered Therapy,
Driver's Education Program, to comply with provision of services, altemate formats, etc. Mostagencies are federal)
funded so they must comply anyway.
4. They have accommodations for services with the Police Department and Municipal Courts.
Revised: 11-25-03
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 24, HUMAN RELATIONS, BY
ADDING ARTICLE V, DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INDWIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES,
ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE AND IMPLEMENTATION; PROVIDING PUBLICATION;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI:
SECTION 1.
That the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 24, Human Relations
is amended by adding Article V, Discrimination Against An Individual With A
Disability to read as follows:
ARTICLE V: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST AN INDiVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY
Sec. 24-84 Declaration of Policy
(a)
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to bring about through fair, orderly
and lawful procedures, that no qualified individual with disability .~hall, on the ba~qig
of such disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity operated or
contracted for by the City.
It is further declared that such policy is established upon the recognition of the
inalienable fights of each qualified individual with a disability to participate fully and
receive the benefits of, all programs and activities of the City.
(c)
It is further recognized that the denial of such rights through considerations based on
disability is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the inhahitantg of the City
and constitutes an unjust denial or deprivation of such inalienable rights which is
within the power and responsibility of government authority to prevent.
Sec. 24-85 Def'mifions
For the purpose of this article the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly
indicates or requires a different meaning.
Auxiliar~ Aid includes: Services or devices as qualified interpreters, assistive listening
headsets, television captioning and decoders, telecommunications devices for deaf persons
(TDD's), videotext displays, readers, texts on tape, materials in braille, and large print
materials. This list is not exclusive and functional equivalents may be substituted for any
auxiliary aid.
Cit~ Manager means the City Manager of Corpus Christi or his/her designee.
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
1
Director means the Director of the Human Relations Department or his/her designee.
Disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; a record of
such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.
(1)
Physical or mental impairment means any physiological disorder or
condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more
of the following body systems: neurological; mnsculoskeletal; special sense
organs; respiratory (including speech organs) cardiovascular; reproductive,
digestive; genitourinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine. Mental
impairment also includes any mental or psychological disorder, such as
mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and
specific learning disabilities.
(2)
Ma/or life activities means functions such as caring for one's selfi performing
manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and
work'mg.
(3)
Has a record qf such impairment means a history of, or has been
misclassified as having a mental or physical impairment that substantially
limits one or more maior life activities.
(4)
Is regarded as having an impairment means has a physical or mental
impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but that is
treated by another as constituting such limitation. Being regarded as having
an impairment also means has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of
others toward such impairment; or has none of the impairments defined
above but is treated by others as having such an impairment.
Discrimination means any direct or indirect exclusions, distinctions, segregation,
limitation, refusal, denial, or any other differentiation in the treatment of an
individual or individuals with disabilities on account of a disability.
Facility means all or any portion of buildings, structures, equipment, roads, walks, parking
lots, or other real or personal property.
Financial assistance means any grant, loan, contract (other than procurement
contract or a contract of insurance or guaranty), or any other arrangement by
which the City provides or otherwise makes available assistance in the form off
funds; services of City personnel; or real or personal property or any interest in or
use of such property, including transfers or leases of such property for less than
CFPWD Non-Disc~ination Ordinance
2
fair market value or for reduced consideration; and proceeds fxom a subsequent
transfer or lease of such property if the City share of its fair market value is not
returned to the City.
Person with disabilities means any person who has a disability as defined in
"disability' above.
Oual!fied individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who, with
or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of
architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary
aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements of the receipt of
services or the participation in programs or activities provided by the City, or entities
using City facilities.
Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much
difficulty or expense. Determining if barrier removal is readily achievable is, by necessity,
a case-by-case judgment. Factors to consider include:
(1) The nature and cost of the action;
(2) The overall financial resources of the site or sites involved; the number of persons
employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; legitimate safety
requirements necessary for safe operation, including crime prevention measures; or
any other impact of the action on the operation of the site;
(3) The geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the site
or sites in question to any parent corporation or entity;
(4) If applicable, the overall financial resources of any parent corporation or entity; the
overall size of the parent corporation or entity with respect to the number of its
employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and
(5) If applicable, the type of operation or operations of any Parent Corporation or entity,
including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of the Parent
Corporation or entity.
Sec. 24-86 Communications
The City shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants,
participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as
communications with others.
(1)
The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary
to afford an individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in,
and enioy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity conducted by the
City.
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
3
Co)
(2) In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, the City
shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individuals with
disabilities.
The City and its contractors in considering reasonable accommodations must provide
auxiliary aids and services when they are necessary to ensure effective
communication with individuals with hearing, vision, or speech impairments.
Auxiliary aids that would result in an undue burden or in a fundamental alteration in
the nature of the goods or services are not required by the regulation.
Sec. 24-87 Prohibited Practices
The City in providing any aid, benefit, or service shall not, directly or through
contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability
¢i)
Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in
or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service.
(2)
Afford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in
or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded
others;
(3)
Provide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service
that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same
result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement
that provided to others;
(4)
Provide different or separate aids, benefits, or services to individuals with
disabilities or to any class of individuals with disabilities than is provided to
others unless such action is necessary to provide qualified individuals with
disabilities with aids, benefits, or services that are as effective as those
provided to others;
(5)
Aid or perpetuate discrimination against a qualified individual with a
disability by providing significant assistance to any agency, organization, or
person that discriminates on the basis of disability in provid'mg any aid,
benefit, or service to beneficiaries of the City's programs;
(6)
Deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate as
a member of planning or advisory boards and commissions;
(7)
Otherwise limit a qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of
any fight, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving an
aid, benefit, or service.
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
4
The City shall not deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to
participate in services, programs, or activities that are not separate or different,
despite the existence of permissibly separate or different programs or activities.
The City shall not, directly or through contractual or other arrangement, utilize
criteria or methods of administration that:
(1)
Have the effect of subjecting a qualified individual with a disability to
discrimination on the basis of such disability;
(2)
Have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing,
accomplishment of the objectives of the City's program with respect to
individuals with disabilities.
In determining the site or location ofa facihty, the City and its contractors shall not
make selections that:
(2)
Have the effect of excluding individuals with disabilities from, denying them
the benefits of, or otherwise subjecting them to discrimination under any
program or activity; or
Have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing the
accomplishment of the objectives of the service, program or activity with
respect to individuals with disabilities.
The City shall not administer a financial assistance program in a manner that subjects
qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of such disability,
nor may the City provide fmancial assistance to programs or activities that subject
qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of such dinahility.
(fl
The aid, benefit, or service provided under a program or activity receiving or
benefiting from City financial assistance includes any aid, benefit, or service
provided in or through a facility that has been constructed, expanded, altered, leased
or rented, or otherwise acquired, in whole or part, with City funds.
Sec. 24-88 Personal Devices and Services
Nothing required in this Ordinance is to include, or be construed to include, a requirement
that the City provide to individuals with disabilities personal devices, such as wheelchairs,
individually prescribed devices, such as prescription eyeglp~qnas or hearing aids; readers for
personal use of stud~ or services of a personal nature including assistance in eating toilefing
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
or dressing. Nothing in this Ordinance is to be construed as a requirement that a City service
be fundamentally altered.
Sec. 24-89 Undue Burden of Applicants for Contractual Financial Assistance
Integration of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of society is fundamental to
the purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Companies providing goods and
services to the public need to take certain limited steps to improve access to existing places
of business. This mandate includes the obligation to remove barriers from existing buildinEs
when it is readily achievable to do so. Readily achievable means easily accomplishable and
able to be carded out without much difficulty or expense. Removing ban'iers by constructing
a curb ramp, widening an entrance door, installing visual alarms, or designating an accessible
parking space is ot'ten essential to ensure equal opportunity for people with disabilities.
Because removing these and other common barriers can be simple and inexpensive in some
cases and difficult and costly in others, therefore a flexible approach to compliance should
be practical. A business or other private entity that serves the public must ensure equal
opportunity for people with disabilities.
The requirement to remove barriers in existing buildings applies only to a private entity that
owns, leases, leases to or operates a place of public accommodation. Further, barriers must
be removed only where it is readily achievable to do so. Readily achievable means easily
accomplishable and able to be carded out without much difficulty or expense.
A public accommodation must provide auxiliary aids and services when they are necessary
to ensure effective communication with individuals with hearing, vision, or speech
impairments. Auxiliary aids that would result in an undue burden or in a fimdamental
alteration in the nature of the goods or services are not required by the regulation.
If your business provides goods and services to the public, you are required to remove
bah'lets if doing so is readily achievable. Such a business is called a public accommodation
because it serves the public. If your business is not open to the public but is only a place of
employment like a warehouse or manufacturing facility, then there is no requirement to
remove barriers. Such a facility is called a commercial facility. While the operator of a
commercial facility is not required to remove barriers in existing facilities, you must comply
with the ADA Standards for Accessible Design when you alter, renovate or expand your
facility.
Sec. 24-90 Affidavit of Compliance by Applicants for Contractual Financial Assistance
An applicant for contractual financial assistance from the City, other than procurement
contract or a contract of insurance or guaranty, shall submit an assurance of compliance,
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
on a form specified by the Director, that the program will be operated in compliance with thia
chapter. An applicant may incorporate this assurance by reference in subsequent applications
to the City.
Sec. 24-91 Ci~, to Evaluate Itself Annually
(a)
The City shall annually:
(1) Evaluate, with the assistance of interested persons, including people with
disabilities or organizations representing persons with disabilities, its
current policies and practices and the effects thereof that do not or may not
meet the requirements of this article;
(2)
Modify, after consultation with interested persons, including persons with
disabilities or organizations representing persons with disabilities, any
policies that do not meet the requirements of this article; and
(3)
Take, after consultation with interested persons, including persons with
disabilities or organizations representing persons with disabilities,
appropriate remedial steps to eliminate the effects of any discrimination
that result fi:om adherence to these policies and practices.
(b) The City shall maintain on file and make available for public inspection:
(1) A list of the interested persons consulted;
(2) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and
(3)
A description of any modifications made and of any remedial steps
taken.
Sec. 24-92
(a)
(b)
City Adoption of Designated Coordinator and Grievance Procedure
The City shall designate at least one person to coordinate its efforts to comply with
this article.
The City shall adopt grievance procedures that incorporate appropriate due process
standards and that provide the prompt and equitable resolution of eomplalnta alleging
any action prohibited by this article.
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
7
Sec. 24-93 City's Non-Discrimination Notice regarding Individuals with Disabilities
The City shall take appropriate and continuing steps to notify participants,
beneficiaries, employees, or applicants, including those with impaired vision or
hearing, and unions or professional organizations holding professional agreements
with the City that it does not discriminate on the basis of disability. The notification
shall state, where appropriate, that the City does not discriminate on the basis of
disability. The notification shall also include an identification of the person and
department responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination.
If the City publishes or uses materials or publications containing general information
that it makes available to participants, beneficiaries, employees, or applicants, it shall
include in those materials or publications a statement of the policy described in
subsection (a) above.
Sec.24-94 Requirements to Insure Accessibility
No qualified individual with a disability shall, because of inaccessibility to or
unusability of the City or its contractors, facilities, be denied the benefits of, be
excluded from participation in, or othem4se be subiected to discrimination under any
program or activity to which this section applies.
Co)
The City and its contractors shall operate each program or activity to which this
section applies so that the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily
accessible to individuals with disabilities. This subsection does not require that ever~
existing facihty or every part of a facility be made accessible to and usable by persons
with disabilities.
Procedures will be adopted and implemented to ensure that interested persons,
including persons with impaired vision or hearing, can obtain information as to the
existence and location of services, activities, and facilities that are accessible to and
(d)
usable by persons with disabilities.
Each facility or part of a facility constructed by, on behalf of, or for the use of the
City or its contractors shall be designed and constructed in such manner that the
facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by persons with
disabilities in compliance with ADA and regulator~ standards.
Each facility or part of a facility which is altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the
City or its contractors in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the
CFPWD Non-Disc~ination Ordinance
8
facility or part of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by persons wi~h
disabilities.
Design, construction, or alteration of facilities in conformance with Texa~q
Accessibility Standards of the Architectural Barriers Act, Article 9102, Texas Civil
Statutes shall constitute compliance with this section.
Sec. 24-95 Administration
As a means of implementing and enforcing this article, the Director will serve as the City's
focal point for coordinating the implementation this article as well as coordinating the
implementation of any relevant new and existing laws and ordinances. The Director will
have the following responsibilities:
(a)
Coordinate the investigation and/or conciliation procedure outlined in Sec. 24-97 and
assist in resolving grievances to assure prompt solutions;
Prepare and disseminate information regarding disability rights to the public, City
departments, and community agencies;
Research administrative policies and procedures to identify for City management~
modifications required for accessibility to individuals with disabilities;
(d)
Monitor City activities related to individuals with disabilities and conduct periodic,
compliance reviews to assure that all City departments are providing services that are
accessible to individuals with disabilities;
Recommend training programs for various groups of the City organization in which
accessibility and employment related needs are provided to assure that all City
services are available to the disability community;
Provide technical assistance and consultation to all City departments in areas related
to accessibility as defined by law; and,
Assist in the development of long-range planning activities to accompli.qh
compliance.
See. 24-96 General Enforcement Guidelines
Any individual who believes that he/she has been discriminated against because of
his/her disability may file with the Director a request to have the Director investigate
and/or mediate Ms/her complaint.
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
Co)
(d)
Nothing in this article shall create a civil cause of action for damages against the City
or preclude any aggrieved person from seeking any other remedy provided by law.
Nothing herein shall authorize criminal enforcement of this article against the City
or its agents, employees, and officials.
Filing a complaint with the Director is not a prerequisite or a bar to the filing of some
other legal complaint or to the pursuit of any other remedy provided by law. The
pendency of a complaint before the Director shall not bar any aggrieved party from
seeking civil action, but a final judgment in any civil action shall bar any further
investigation of a pending complaint on the same alleged act of discrimination.
In connection with any investigation of a charge filed under this article, the Director
or designated investigator shall at all reasonable times have access to, for the
purposes of examination and the right to copy, any evidence of any person being
investigated or proceeded against that relates to the charge under investigation and
is not privileged as provided by law.
No person shall knowingly, intentionally or recklessly obstruct, or prevent
compliance with this azl/cle or hinder or interfere with the performanne of the proper
exercise of a duty, obligation, right or power of the Human Relations Department or
its representative, or other officials with duties, obligations, rights and powers
established by ordinance.
Where appropriate and not in violation of conflicts of interest or other ethical roles
of the State Bar of Texas, the City Attorney shall assign counsel to assist the Human
Relations Department in the performance of its functions. The City Manager shall
make such other administrative arrangements as are normal and necessary for the
functioning of the Human Relations Department.
Sec. 24-97 Filing/Investigation under Grievance on Accessibility City Policy G-7
The City of Corpus Christi strives to provide quality customer service to all persons,
regardless of race, color, religion, age, gender or disability. In the event any individual with
a disability has a complaint regarding accessing City services, pmgrams or activities, the City
of Corpus Christi has formulated a policy as a Title II Entity under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) to address such issues.
(a)
Any person who claims to have been injured by an activity prohibited by this article
may file a complaint with the Director of Human Relations. Such complaints will
be in the form established by the Director and shall identif~ the person(s) alleged to
have committed or alleged to be committing a discriminatory practice are based. In
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
10
lb)
situations where the grievant's disability requires assistance to submit a complaint,
the Director will make reasonable effort to assist the person in filing a complaint.
The City shall provide complaint forms and furnish them without charge to any
person, upon request.
All complaints must be filed within 180 days following the occurrence of an alleged
discriminatory practice. As soon as practicable, but no more than 15 calendar days,
the Director will meet with the complainant to discuss the complaint and possible
resolutions. Within 15 calendar days after meeting with the Complainant the Director
will respond in writing, and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the
complainant, such as large print, Braille, or audio tape. The response will explain the
position of the City and offer options for substantive resolution of the complaint.
If the response by the Director does not satisfactorily resolve the issue the
complainant may appeal the Director's decision to the City Manager. Such an appeal
must be filed within 15 calendar days after receipt of the response. Within 15
calendar days of the appeal, the City Manager or his/her designee will meet with the
Complainant to discuss the complaint and possible resolutions. Within 15 calendar
days after the meeting, the City Manager or his/her designee will respond in writing,
and where appropriate, in a format accessible to the Complainant, with a final
resolution of the complaint.
All formal complaints received by the Director, the responses to the complaints and
the record of appeals to the Human Relations Commission, shall be retained by the
City of Corpus Christi for at least three years.
Sec. 24-98 Filing/Investigation Places of Public Accommodation Procedure
(a)
Upon the filing or referral of a complaint as herein provided, the Director shall cause
to be made a prompt and full investigation of the matter stated in the complaint.
Provided, however, that before any charge becomes accepted for investigative
purposes the Director shall have personally reviewed with the charging party the
allegations contained therein and shall have determined that said complaint comes
within the provisions of this article. In the event such review results in the
lb)
determination that the charge does not come within the provisions of the article, the
charging party shall be given a clear and concise explanation of the reasons why the
complaint fails to come within the ordinance.
All complaints filed under this Section will proceed in accordance with the
procedures set forth in City Policy G-7; except:
(1) All determinations of the Director to whether discrimination occurred shall
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
11
be made as promptly as possible or no later than thel00th day after the date
the complaint is filed, or if unable to complete the investigation within the
100-day period, the Director shall notify the complainant and the
respondent in writing of the reasons for delay.
Appeals of the Director's decision will be to the Corpus Christi Hnman
Relations Commission. Such an appeal must be filed within 15 calendar
days of the receipt of the Director's decision. The Human Relations
Commission will conduct a hearing on the appeal during the next available
meeting. Complainants, and Respondents will have the right to appear in
person to explain their respective positions to the Commission.
See. 24-99 Retaliation or Coercion
(a)
The City and its contractors shall not discriminate against any individual because that
individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this article, or because that
individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an
investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this article or the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990.
Co)
The City and its contractors shall not coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with an?
individual in the exercise or eniownent of, or on account of his or her having exercised
or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individ,al
in the exercise or eniownent of, any right granted or protected by this article or the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Sec. 24-100 Remedial and/or Voluntary Action
If the outcome of the investigation process under Sec. 24-97 finds that a City program
or activity has discriminated against persons on the basis of disability in violation of
this article, the responsible program area shall take such remedial and/or voluntary
action(s) as may be appropriate and necessary to rectify the problem.
(b) All appeals of a grievance will follow established appeal procedures through the City
grievance accessibility procedure for program participants/citizens.
Where a City program or activity is found to have discriminated against an individual
on the basis of disability and where a contractor of a program area has discriminated,
the City Manager mag require either or both Parties to take appropriate action to
rectify the problem.
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
12
(d)
The City Manager may, where necessary to overcome the effects of discrimination,
require a City program or activiW to take corrective action that may include actions:
(1) With respect to an individual with a disability who no longer participates in
the City's programs but who were participants in the program when such
discrimination occurred; or
(2) With respect to an individual with a disability who would have been a
participant in the program had the discrimination not occurred.
(3) The City may take steps, in addition to any action that is required by this
article, to overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited
participation in the City's program or activity by qualified persons with
disabilities.
If the outcome of the investigation process under Sec. 24-98 finds that a place of
public accommodations has discriminated against persons on the basis of disability
in violation of this article, the person(s) violating shall be pun/shed by a fine of no
less than two hundred filly dollars ($ 250.00) nor mom than the maximum provided
in section 1-6 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Corpus Christi (''City Code").
Violations of Section 24-22(a) of Article 1I may be forwarded to the appropriate
governmental body to enforce such conduct to the extent and manner prescribed by
state law.
Sec. 24-101 Status Reports to the City Council
Annually after passage of this article, the Director shall submit to the City Council
a status report on the implementation of this article.
SECTION 2.
If for any reason any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word or
provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by final judgment
of a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any other section, paragraph,
subdivision, clause, phrase, word or provision of this ordinance, for it is the definite
intent of this City Council that every section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase,
word or provision hereof be given full rome and effect for its purpose.
SECTION 3. Publication shall be made one time in the official publication of the City of Corpus
Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
SECTION 4. Penalties are as provided in this ordinance and in Sec. 1-6 Code of Ordinances.
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
13
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the first time and passed to its second
reading on this the __
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
day of
,2003, by the following vote:
Rex A. Kinnison
Melody Cooper
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
That the foregoing ordinance was read for the second time and passed finally on
this the
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
day of
,2003, by the following vote
Rex A. Kinnison
Melody Cooper
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the
__ day of ,2003.
ATTEST:
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City SecretaW
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Approved as to legal form this the t/rp~ dayof
,2003;
By:
Joseph H~'ney
Assistant City Attorney
For City Attorney
CFPWD Non-Discrimination Ordinance
14
City of Corpus Christi
Proposed Ordinance on
Disability Non=Discrimination
February 10, 2004
• Seek more public input from potentially impacted
parties and interested organizations/associations.
• Seek more information from other cities.
• Seek City of Austin's experience, whose ordinance
was used as a model by the Committee for Persons
with Disabilities.
• Report on the "unknown" issues.
• Further assess the necessary resources and
implementation of the ordinance if approved.
• Provide funding option(s) if approved for
implementation.
City of Corpus Christi 1
• The Committee for Persons with Disabilities held four
monthly public meetings between August 2003 and
November 2003. The City posted notices in the CC Caller -
Times newspaper and on the City's website.
• The proposed ordinance was available for viewing at City
Hall, the City public libraries and on the City's website.
City Staff contacted twenty-nine associations/organizations,
of which 19 were able to meet for discussion.
• The associations/organizations were invited back to learn of
recent revisions to the draft ordinance on January 7, 2004.
• Approximately 388 public comments were received. There
was general support of not discriminating against persons
with disabilities. However on the proposed ordinance itself,
there were comments of both support and opposition.
City of Corpus Christi 2
• The top 25 U.S. cities, based on population, were contacted.
• Survey results reflect how each city responded to the
questions of: (1) "Does your city have a non-discrimination
ordinance that addresses ADA and disability related
issues?"and (2) Does your city have contract language to
ensure ADA compliance by contractors?"
• Of the 25 cities contacted:
12 Cities responded in the affirmative, whether having
a separate ordinance, having multiple ordinances, or
contract language provision(s) for accessibility.
6 Cities responded that they did not have this type of
ordinance; and
7 Cities did not return a response.
City of Corpus Christi 3
• The City of Austin, Texas adopted its disability non-
discrimination ordinance before the ADA law was enacted.
• In addition to the non-discrimination ordinance, the City
of Austin, TX includes contract language and contract
assurance for ADA compliance by contractors.
• The ADA Coordinator conducts annual meetings on
contract compliance requirements. These meetings are
mandatory for contractors' attendance.
• The City of Austin addresses non-compliance issues
through complaints. Since it is complaint driven, the City
of Austin does not physically seek non-compliant
contractors within its community.
• The ADA Coordinator responded that the City of Austin
has not experienced any formal complaints under Austin's
ordinance - only inquiries.
City of Corpus Christi 4
• It is unknown which businesses and entities would comply
with accessibility requirements. The City would obtain
assurances of compliance from those parties receiving
"financial assistance" as redefined in the proposed ordinance.
• The potential costs to businesses and entities to improve
accessibility and compliance could be determined through
individual assessments for accessibility compliance and those
related costs, on a case-by-case basis.
• Another unknown is the volume of inquiries/complaints,
based on disability, for local investigations and enforcement.
• Also unknown are the potential liability costs and possible
litigation costs to complainants and respondents, including
the City, as there is no local historical experience to base a
projection or trend.
City of Corpus Christi 5
• The proposed ordinance would amend the existing
Human Relations Ordinance, # 023411, and would be
administered by the Human Relations Department.
• The projected resources to begin implementation of the
proposed ordinance amendment would initially consist
of two additional staff in the Human Relations
Department, currently estimated at $63,244 annually for
one Compliance Officer and one Staff Assistant.
• The recommended funding source of these estimated
initial implementation costs is the General Fund.
City of Corpus Christi 6
How Would:.thc Propos , OrcJ,' . "auce ,be.,,Admi iste)red W.0
'Provi a Acces0 ty.
Through local education, investigations of
complaints and monitoring of contracts/agreements
for compliance within public facilities, services,
programs and activities by the City and those
operating such on behalf of the City.
Investigations and reviews for compliance
would be complaint -driven.
City of Corpus Christi 7
Through the efforts of both the CFPWD and City Staff, the ordinance
has been revised into a more understandable document.
The revised document addresses some of the public's comments and
input, such as:
• Incorporating language to clarify the City's jurisdiction in
applying/enforcing this ordinance.
• Establishing parameters for measuring accessibility.
• Resolving areas of possible interpretation conflicts.
• Redefining "Financial Assistance" to remove broad interpretation.
• Reformatting the document to more clearly reflect which
provisions applies to the City versus the public businesses.
• Clarifying that this ordinance is for cross -disabilities.
• Establishes discretion in assessing penalties for non-compliance.
City of Corpus Christi 8
For More Information:
Human Relations Department
(361) 880-3190