Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Capital Improvement Advisory Committee - 06/22/2023 MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AMERICAN BANK CENTER-ROOM 225 HARBORVIEW 1901 SHORELINE BLVD JUNE 22, 2023 11:30 A.M. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Moses Mostaghasi-Chairman Alex Harris Coretta Graham-Vice Chairman JJ Hart Tricia Aitken Ann Mahaffey Bart Braselton Eli McKay Rudy Garza, Jr. Melody Nixon-Bice Hailey Gonzalez Chad Skrobarczyk Jonathan Gonzalez Trey Summers Velda Tamez I. Call to Order/Roll Call The meeting was called to order by Chairman Mostaghasi at 11:56 am and a quorum was established to conduct the meeting with members JJ Hart and Trey Summers absent. II. Public Comment: None. III. Approval of Minutes: May 18, 2023. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Graham to approve the minutes and seconded by Member Braselton. The motion passed. The Vote: All Aye. IV. Approval of Absences: May 18, 2023: Chairman Mostaghasi, members Braselton, Garza, Jonathan Gonzalez, Mahaffey and Skrobarczyk. A motion was made by Vice Chairman Graham to approve the absences and seconded by Member Garza. The motion passed. The Vote: All Aye. V. Brief Review of May 18, 2023 meeting: • Stormwater Master Plan Review • SharePoint access issues • Concerns, suggestions, remarks Brett Flint, Pape Dawson, briefly discussed SharePoint Access issues. Mr. Flint asked the members to please provide their comments on the Stormwater Master Plan. August 17 is the second meeting to discuss the impact fees and coincides with the Mayor’s State of the City address. Chairman Mostaghasi opened for comment to discuss a new time to meet on August 17. The Mayor’s State of the City is located in the ABC. The CIAC meeting will be held in the Corpus Christi Museum of Science and History. Majority agreed with the time change of 1:30-4:30 pm. VI. Discussion or Possible Action: CIAC Water Master Plan Review. Agenda: • Planning & Impact Fee Process • Existing Water System • Projected Development • Next Steps Planning and Impact Fee Process: • Planning, analysis, policy, adoption Water Master Plan Steps: • Project future development with land use • Simulate future growth with hydraulic water model • Review existing water infrastructure needs • Plan for any additional future improvements Flow/Usage Development: • Consistent growth/land use projections • Water and wastewater demand coordination • Allocate water demand growth to existing model Water Master Plan Impact Fee Project Categories: • Water Source and Supply Line • Water Treatment • Distribution System Master Plan Impact Fee CIP Next Steps: • Refine Project List • Project Construction Costs • Capital Improvements Plan Report • Public Meeting Kim Keefer, Pape Dawson, discussed the amount of work to be done approving the master plans and how the plans will be funded. Please provide comments for the process of implementing funding models. A schedule was provided with legal updates for Public Hearings scheduled for agreeing that the land use and populations projections are correct; and then Water, Wastewater, Stormwater, and Roadways. Funding mechanisms will be discussed for the Master Plan, whether it be the impact fee or something else. Roadways and Stormwater will be together and Water and Wastewater will be done together. After that, they will move forward to recommendations to City Council. State Law process requires the Master Plan to be reviewed on a regular basis. Scott Harris, LAN, spoke regarding the Water Master Plan and the CIP modeling work that has been done and this is in line with the water model. The agenda includes Planning & Impact Fee Process, Existing Water System, Projected Development, Master Plan Impact Fee CIP, and the next steps. Lisa Lattu, LAN, spoke regarding the proposed projects as part of the Water Master Plan Impact Fee CIP. Many projects are already in the works. Discussion will be about the projected development and the meat of the projects. Future development projections are based on the land use. The water that goes through the system does enter the wastewater system. The hydraulic model was used to project growth. Most of the water supply comes from the surface water. All of the water comes into O.N. Stevens, treated, and sent back out to the city. Growth projections were placed into the water model to show were increases were needed. A member asked for clarification on the projected growth, projecting 200 homes being built in Calallen over the next 10 years. There is a point where the land use had to freeze. A member stated they did 500 lots in London, and the projection is only 1100 homes in the next 10 years. Ms. Keefer stated it goes back to the beginning of the project, and roadway projections. That numbers were bounced against the AEP and if that is not right now, they will address it. They looked at existing and future land use; vacant or agriculture; and that was assumed to be the growth. Southside is projected at 9,000 in 10 years. The MPO may not have a handle on London or Calallen. There are three different water districts in Calallen. London is way under on projections. London would have at least 6,600 homes. The 7% growth is probably not correct. The memo will be adjusted accordingly. Discussion was held regarding the shared files access. Members prefer a PDF as opposed to a link. A member asked about getting more industrial and a desalination plant, and our water use will increase. Some industries use treated water and some use raw water. That raw water process is handled separately. Ms. Keefer stated the city divides its water into two categories; existing large volume users and industrial. New large volume users are being anticipated. It changes every day. A decision was made to put general uses along the bay. Some industrial users want desalination, some don’t. It’s a moving target. If the city had an impact fee, the large volume users would pay an impact fee. If a user is in the ETJ, they would pay the impact fee. A member asked if they are allowed to set a different rate for large volume users compared to average citizens. Ms. Keefer stated the way the rate is set is the cost of improvements divided by the gallons used typically; or all single-family homes will use the same amount of gallons; Large volume users; they would take the total request for flow, divided by a similar number of houses, and that is what they would pay in an impact fee. When we get to the implementation of the impact fee, this will be discussed. The committee will be part of the implementation plan presented to council. The city council can change the recommendation. The CIAC committee cannot change the city council’s decision. It can be reviewed and be re-evaluated at a later time and make recommendations to city council. Meetings can still be held, but not needed as frequently. Ms. Lattu continued with the presentation. The water master plan impact fee CIP is made from several sources: Water Source Supply Line, Water Treatment, and Distribution System. A member asked about three or four different options; maybe a second pipeline or massive redo of the Mary Rose pipeline; if the city determines we do not have enough water or pressure, would impact fees pay for this? Ms. Lattu said the impact fee can be tied to growth; only the tiny portion; most are part of the water system efforts to maintain the existing use. A discussion was held regarding water services to the CCN areas. Ms. Lattu discussed the remaining project processes and costs. A breakout session was held. After the breakout, discussion was held regarding CCN, impact fees, population growth in London and Calallen, water distribution, and boundaries of CCN and water lines. The project list will be refined and Public Hearings scheduled. VII. Director’s Report: Chairman Mostaghasi requested members be provided with a hard copy of the presentations for every meeting. Al Raymond stated we will provide copies and presentations will continue to be sent a week prior to the meeting. Presentations are preferred to be sent via PDF. VIII. Future Agenda Items: Chairman Mostaghasi discussed the schedule for future meetings and recommended the dates for the impact fee portion be moved to consolidate all four meetings regarding master plans and would like to break up the meetings so each one gets their own meeting to review the updates and corrections. Al Raymond, Director of Development Service, stated it is reasonable to regroup and share the comments and review changes. Community Engagement will begin as planned. Mr. Raymond agrees a meeting to review all plans is a good idea to confirm comments were picked up. Looking at all the service areas and fees could be very challenging; the plans were separate in the past. The goal is to finish the plans by the end of the year. Mr. Raymond discussed the future meetings to accomplish this goal. It would help to do two meetings a month. Everyone needs to have a reasonable understanding of the process to present to council. One meeting for each master plan is a great way to do it, or double up in months. A member asked about the comments and the drawings that everyone had input on. Mr. Raymond stated yes, that is the plan to review the revisions. Three meetings would be added. A member stated he would like to review and discuss one more time. Mr. Raymond stated July 20 would be a recap of the last four months. If we can’t double up on meetings, we would go into 2024. August will be the time to plan for more meetings. A member asked if we recap in July, at the next meeting would we use the 30 days in between for outreach. Mr. Raymond stated the outreach would be done after the July meeting. A member stated should we not have a meeting in August, so outreach could be completed, and meet again in September. The CIAC group will see any changes made during outreach. We can meet in August to discuss outreach results. There will be time to review before presenting to council. Members discussed the suggested meeting revision. A Motion was made by Chairman Mostaghasi to alter the schedule to have one meeting per month and to push the CIAC fee structure portion to August 17 and recap on July 20 to allow the city to suggest dates moving potentially into February. Seconded by Vice Chairman Graham. Roll Call Vote: Aye: Chairman Mostaghasi, Vice Chairman Graham, Members Braselton, H. Gonzalez, J. Gonzalez, Harris, Mahaffey, and Skrobarczyk. Nay: Members Aitken, McKay, Nixon-Bice, and Tamez. The motion passed. A member stated they wished to see all service areas in Master Plan options, one being the industrial area. A member stated to review the Master Plan via a PDF presentation for all to review at the same time. Mr. Raymond asked if the members wanted to see the comments or do they trust the revisions to be made as discussed. Public Comment: John Tamez, 823 Kinney said he wanted to thank the committee for all the hard work and time spent on the master plans. Development is happening quickly and we need to move quickly. IX. Adjournment: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 2:47 pm.