Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Capital Improvement Advisory Committee - 07/20/2023 MINUTES - REGULAR MEETING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AMERICAN BANK CENTER-SELENA REHEARSAL HALL 1901 SHORELINE BLVD JULY 20, 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 12:00 pm and a quorum was established to conduct the meeting with Vice Chairman Graham, members Mahaffey and Summers absent. II. Public Comment: John Tamez II, 6040 Ocean Drive stated he wondered what the Master Plan is and how to make the city grow. Ocean Limas, 907 S. Birch Avenue stated he is wondering what and how is the water master plan helping growth. III. Approval of Minutes: June 22, 2023. A motion was made by Member McKay to approve the minutes and seconded by Member Tamez. The Vote: All Aye. The motion passed. IV. Approval of Absences: June 22, 2023: Members Hart and Summers. A motion was made by Member Harris to approve the absences and seconded by Member Jonathan Gonzalez. The Vote: All Aye. The motion passed. V. Brief Review of June 22, 2023 meeting: • Water Master Plan Review • SharePoint access issues • Concerns, suggestions, remarks Member noted they could not access the SharePoint portal. Kim Keefer and Brett Flint discussed the above issues. VI. Discussion or Possible Action: 2 Master Plans Review: Pape-Dawson presented the components of the Land Use Plan and Assumptions and each of the Master Plans. A review of the original presentations, comments made by the committee, responses to these comments and final plans were presented. Pape- Dawson presented in the following order: land use, traffic, water, wastewater, stormwater. Kim Keefer stated this is the first milestone for the committee regarding acceptance and recommendations for land use and four master plans. Per Chapter 395 in State Law, if you decide to recommend impact fees, it means you agree with the land use assumptions and the master plans. If you do not, the master plans are still very important to the city. It is an updated roadmap for how land use, traffic, water, wastewater, stormwater, and roadways are handled for the city. Each item will be discussed and reviewed one at a time. The city has Area Development Plans anticipating growth; reviewed Traffic Analysis Zones and what will happen with trips on the road. Reviewed the city’s current and future land use and changes/growth that may occur. Land Use, ADP, and Traffic were all reviewed. Ms. Keefer discussed the comments from the members; no development in the AICUZ; low density in the 100-year flood point; airport only showed one large parcel that will not be developed; minor adjustments in the downtown area; new AICUZ areas; took some vacant areas out of the plan; minor adjustments made in Flour Bluff and Northwest area. Pape-Dawson looked at household growth rates over the next ten years. There were 5,000 in the London area, and it’s more like 1,100; figure changed to 3,000. London growth rate went from 7% to 10%. Over all, the city will grow to the tune of 1.4% via households. Employees for 2021-2031 is about a 1% growth for the land use. Does not include large volume customers. All four master plans use the same land use assumptions for ADP growth, AICUZ, and 100-year flood plain. Ms. Keefer opened for discussion. Portions of the London area are outside the city limits. Providing water, wastewater, and stormwater outside the ETJ is allowed by Chapter 395. Roadway is not included if you go down the route to impact fees. Can proceed with master plan, but funding mechanisms need to be included. If all of the assumptions change, that needs to be reviewed within the four master plans. The committee could review the master plans at a minimum of every five years, or more often if required. 9,000 households in the south side is aggressive; discussion was held if 9,000 was a good number. London and south side revisions will change the master plans if lesser populations are submitted. Over all the numbers are correct, just in the wrong spot; and need to decide if the change is going to be made for it will ripple through all the master plans. Ms. Keefer asked if the committee wanted to move population between South Side and London or leave as is. A motion was made by Member Braselton to approve the (land use assumptions) population growth and employee numbers as is; seconded by Member Garza. The vote: All Aye. The motion passed. 3 Justin Clark started the Roadway Master Planning process. All of service areas cannot be larger than six miles. The areas are broken up into 21 areas inside the city limits. Boundaries for city limits were established on the January 2023 boundaries as the base. The number of trips for the transportation master plan were reviewed for the volume and the geometry and classification. Existing and future volume of transportation were also reviewed. The capacity has been updated and doubled. A member discussed they would like a cost/benefit analysis. The 21 individual service areas were reviewed along with the recommended projects for each service area: roadway widening projects; new roadways; intersection projects. Maintenance is not included in the plans, or repurposing projects; only vehicle trips over the next 10 years, new vehicles added to the system. 53 comments were summarized and discussed. Pape-Dawson removed some projects based on the comments and recommendations. Roadways were realigned to match current and future plats. Intersection projects were added as needed to support growth and flow. All 21 service areas were reviewed and added up the total project cost by type. C1-C3 connector roadways; Parkway P1; RA3 rural arterial; Arterial A1, 2, and 3 (larger roads). Cost has come down based on city comments and member comments. Project cost is based on all the recommendations presented. The cost would be a percentage of the total cost in the gross share area. There is a process to get to the master plan impact fee; it’s not a sum of the cost of all the recommended services areas. Discussion was held on the different roadway identifications. Costs were based on current bid projects and requirements in the IDM and applied to different roadway types. Pape-Dawson is asking CIAC that the group of projects by roadway types be approved via the master plan. The itemized cost will be determined at later time and incorporated in the master plan. Master Plans go to the Planning Commission first, then Council. Master Plans are a snapshot in time. The committee can review the master plans anytime they want but not less than five years. Votes are needed on the Land Use, Master Plan, and associated CIP. (Member Braselton made a motion to review comments for each master plan at the conclusion of the presentation for that master plan, seconded by Member McKay. The vote: All Aye. The motion passed.) Ms. Keefer presented the Water Master Plan; source and supply, treatment, and distribution. Reviewed projects to date, the CIP, and Regional Water Plan. Pape-Dawson put 10 years of water improvement into the model. Supply: subject to drought, contamination, and interruption. All of the water goes to the Owen Stephens water plant. The projection needed is 107 in 2021. 2021-2036 the growth isn’t that great; 1.4%/year. Projected water plans do not include huge volume users. Corpus is primed for large volume users. Comments outside the CCN Service Area (Certificate of Convenience and Necessity). Members wanted more information on the projects and how desalination would affect the plans. If no desalination, water source is good. Diversity of water sources is needed. Lack of water sources affects growth. Development of new water sources is not included in the master plan. Pape-Dawson pulled out the distribution projects that were not appropriate. Projects are slated to bring Owen Stephens to a more reliable system. Discussed changes in the distribution system. This service area can go outside the city limits. Ms. Keefer presented Wastewater. The city has six wastewater treatment facilities. There are 105 lift stations in the city. The city is under a consent decree where there are pipes up to 60 inches, there are times when sewer escapes the system. The city is taking measures to identify the problems and correct the problems. If a project is put in that solves an SSO and provides for growth, this could be included in the impact fee. Per TCEQ if the demand hits 75% it needs to 4 expand. Members discussed updated comments that were made on the drawings. To get to the ultimate flows, it will be $9,000,000. Stormwater: Jake Powell discussed eight watershed areas. Only Oso Creek would be included in the impact fee conversation as one single service area. Mr. Powell talked about mitigation, HH models, and 10-year storm; the numbers they used are a risk assessment. Cost/benefit analysis was completed and is being refined daily. The type of stormwater in the developed areas are 1–48-inch pipe, needs to be larger; culverts should be enlarged, too. Channel projects in areas with risk-can they widen the channels and reduce concrete; can they combine channel and culvert improvements; detention was also discussed. They are refining models and accounts. There are industrial areas that look like they are flooded; specifically, around the Port. A lot of things that looked like buildings were batter tanks; not flooding. Comments about flooding around London were discussed and yes this flooding was considered in the model. There are no projects in downtown because there are pump systems; and the downtown area looks good for the portions they reviewed. They are working with the county and their engineers for Oso Creek. Water may be diverted from Oso Creek to Laguna Madre; that is a discussion with the city. Pape Dawson is coordinating with the Planning Department. They are still refining the price. Areas around Cimmaron where the ditches are constrained; can’t be done without significant environmental permitting. The master plan will assume that area will be cleared out. There are detention requirements and as part of the process they are looking at the manual for detention regulations. The map didn’t include the island because they are not proposing any projects in that area. They are looking at projects/dollars that fit within the 10-year plan. They are still finishing the master plan for stormwater. Detention will be required for development in Oso area. Detention rules need to be clarified; it is related but not dependent on the master plan. They are not proposing regional detention that keeps everyone from having to do detention. Detention is part of a different conversation, related but not included with CIAC. Pape-Dawson is bringing the detail to CIAC to make the decision. They don’t know the limits of the detention rules. They will show where detention should be and that could be eligible for an impact fee. Other funding needs to be found if not included in the impact fee. Communication needs to happen to answer the detention questions; off line meetings. There is more to do before they ask for a vote on stormwater. The city is funding dredging; the funding has been approved by Council. Public ponds are not paid for by impact fees. Discussion continued regarding ponds, ditches, impact fees, and building to code. In the next two-three weeks we can start having these discussions. We should not vote on stormwater until we have all the information. Chairman Mostaghasi did a recap of the meeting and comments that were discussed and the voting process for the master plans. Member Garza made a motion to approve the Water Master Plan and was seconded by Member Braselton. The vote: All Aye. The motion passed. Ms. Keefer reviewed the maps and CIP cost sheets for wastewater projects. Comments are due to Pape-Dawson by July 31. Director’s Report: August 17: Finish up stormwater, roadways, and wastewater. VII. Future Agenda Items: None. VIII. Adjournment: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 3:33 pm.