HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 02/24/2004I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of the Corpus Christi City Council of February 24, 2004, which were approved by
the City Council on March 2, 2004.
WITNESSETH MY HAND AND SEAL, this the 2nd day of March 2004.
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
SEAL
MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT
Mayor Samuel L. Neal Jr.
Mayor Pro Tem Mark Scott
Council Members:
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero (Arrived at 9:05 a.m.)
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Citv 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 Edward Garcia of South Bluff United Methodist Church and
the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag was led by Council Member Scott. 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 February 17, 2004. A motion was made and passed to approve the
minutes as presented.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal called for consideration of the consent agenda (Items 2-8). Mr. Kinnison
requested that Item 6 be discussed. There were no comments from the audience. A motion was
made and passed to approve Items 2 through 8, constituting the consent agenda, except for Item 6,
which was pulled for individual consideration. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their
votes as follows:
2. MOTION NO. 2004-064
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order No. 7 with
Fulton Coastcon, Joint Venture, of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $81,589 for the
Multi -Purpose Arena for various architectural, electrical, and mechanical modifications.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Colmenero was absent.
T..
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 2
3. MOTION NO. 2004-065
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order No. 8 with
Moorhouse/Beecroft, Joint Venture, LLC, of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of
$665,411 for the Convention Center Expansion and Rehabilitation for mechanical, structural,
and other modifications.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Colmenero was absent.
4. MOTION NO. 2004-066
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 2 to a
Contract for Professional Services with LNV Engineering, of Corpus Christi, Texas in the
amount of $234,800 for the Mansheim Area Drainage Improvements Project, Phases 2-A
through 6-A.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Colmenero was absent.
5. MOTION NO. 2004-067
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a one year contract with
Maximus, Inc., of Dallas, Texas in the amount of $39,000 for the preparation of a Full Cost
Plan and an A-87 Cost Allocation Plan.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Colmenero was absent.
7. FIRST READING ORDINANCE
Amending Article 1, Chapter 38, Code of Ordinances, relating to Parade Vendor Permits;
and providing for penalties.
The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following
vote: Neal, Chesney, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye";
Colmenero was absent.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 3
8. ORDINANCE NO. 025661
Amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 29 regarding Municipal
Court Building Security Fund and Security Fee; by amending Section 29-48 to reflect
changes in State Law pertaining to the use of the Municipal Court Building Security Fund;
and providing for penalties. (First Reading 02/17/04)
The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following
vote: Neal, Chesney, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye";
Colmenero was absent.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 6 regarding the State Highway 44 - Clarkwood Road
project. Mr. Kinnison asked if this project was already funded. City Engineer Angel Escobar
replied affirmatively, saying that the Texas Department of Transportation had issued the
construction contract for the bypass project. He said the city was responsible for relocating the
water lines and sewer lines in the construction area, which would be funded through the utility fund.
Council Member Scott asked when the project was scheduled for completion. City Engineer Escobar
estimated that the project would take a year and a half to complete. City Secretary Chapa polled the
Council for their votes as follows:
6. RESOLUTION NO. 025660
Resolution recognizing public necessity of acquiring utility and construction easements for
the State Highway 44 - Clarkwood Bypass Utility Adjustments Project, No. 8478 for utility
and other municipal purposes; and authorizing acquisition by means of negotiations or
eminent domain proceedings by the City of Corpus Christi or its agents in acquiring said
easements.
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 an
update on the Downtown Streetcar System (Trolley) study. Ms. Linda Watson, Director of the
Regional Transportation Authority, provided a brief overview of the project. Regarding the
Environmental Assessment Work Program, Ms. Watson stated that the following steps in the process
had been completed: management plan; purpose and need statement; public participation plan; and
screen alignment / technology options. She said there were a number of steps in progress, including
the following: alternatives refinement; environmental analysis; transportation impacts; cost and
financial analysis; and implementation of the public participation plan. She said the next steps in
the process were to conduct an alternatives evaluation and to prepare the environmental assessment.
Ms. Watson said the R.T.A. has narrowed the proposed locations for the trolley to two
options: a Water Street/Chaparral Street route and a Shoreline Boulevard route. She noted that a
route to the Memorial Coliseum was being considered, but would ultimately depend on its cost. Ms.
Watson stated that a preliminary Environmental Impact Analysis has been conducted for both
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 4
proposed alignments, and no major obstacles have been found so far.
Ms. Watson reported that the estimated preliminary capital cost for the project is $30 million
for an Ortiz Center to Staples Street station route, and an additional $10 million for a route extension
to the Memorial Coliseum. She listed a number of potential funding partners. At the federal level,
Ms. Watson said the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) were potential partners. She noted, however, that the extent of the federal funding would
not be known until the T-21 legislation for transportation was reauthorized by Congress. Ms.
Watson stated that there were state, regional, RTA and local/private sources for funding that could
also be utilized. She said their research has demonstrated that in similar projects throughout the
country, the funding was obtained using many small sources.
Regarding the magnitude of the funding, Ms. Watson said there were two likely funding
splits. In the first scenario, the funding would be an 80/20 split - 80 percent federal and 20 percent
non-federal share. She said the 80 percent federal share (approximately $24 million) could be
comprised of an FTA Small Start grant and a FHWA TEA grant. The 20 percent non-federal share
could be comprised of five percent from the state ($1.5 million), ten percent ($3 million) from the
RTA, and the remaining five percent ($1.5 million) from local and regional funding sources. In the
second scenario, the funding would be a 50/50 split - 50 percent federal ($15 million) and 50 percent
non-federal share. Ms. Watson said the 50 percent non-federal share would be comprised of 12.5
percent ($3.75 million) from the state, 25 percent ($7.5 million) from the RTA and the remaining
12.5 ($3.75 million) percent from local and regional sources. The cost estimates provided are for
the $30 million project without the extension to the Memorial Coliseum.
Ms. Watson discussed the potential federal sources of funding in more detail. She said the
FTA offered two grants that could be applied to the trolley project, the New Starts grant (Section
5309) and the "Small Starts" grant. She said projects calling for no more than $25 million in federal
funding would be eligible for the "Small Starts" grant, which required much less environmental
analyses and detailed studies. She said it was important to try to qualify for the "Small Starts" for
this reason.
Ms. Watson stated that another potential source of federal funding was the Renewal
Community program. She mentioned that since the downtown area has been designated as a
Renewal Community and is eligible for federal tax incentives, the program requires the state to give
priority for state funding to projects in the area.
Ms. Watson reviewed a number of potential state sources of funding, including the Texas
Emissions Reduction Program (TERP) and the State Infrastructure Bank Loan Program. Finally,
she said the potential regional and local sources included the existing RTA transit sales tax, the Port
of Corpus Christi, and the City of Corpus Christi. She said the City of Corpus Christi could offer
a local match in many ways, including cost-sharing of roadway improvements, street improvement
funds, the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), a Tax Increment Finance District (TIF), the existing
1 /8th percent Economic Development Sales Tax, and parking revenues. She stressed that these were
merely suggestions, and the RTA was not advocating that all or any of these options be available
for this project.
Ms. Watson said the next step in the project was to make a case for the FTA regarding the
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 5
following issues: cost-effectiveness; determine whether the project cost was within the FTA "Small
Starts" limit; determine if there was a reasonable expectation of securing matching funds; and
determine if there was an opportunity for immediate as well as long-term benefits. In addition, Ms.
Watson said the consultants were refining the capital cost estimates and working with project
partners to identify key potential funding sources and implement a funding strategy. She also said
the consultants would be comparing the two alternative trolley routes versus the consequences of
not building a trolley at all, based on the following criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, financial
feasibility and equity.
Regarding the public involvement plan, Ms. Watson said the plan was intensive and was
scheduled to last for three months. She said the goal of the project was to obtain significant public
input for the RTA Downtown Transportation Study Environmental Assessment to justify the need
for the project to the federal government to qualify for federal funds. Ms. Watson stated that the
RTA had created a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) composed of 80 individuals in the
community from various backgrounds who had an interest or worked in the downtown area.
Ms. Watson reported that the key messages for the projects were as follows: there will be
increased traffic that requires immediate response, with the growth in venues and attractions along
the bayfront; the downtown transportation study is part of a coordinated, comprehensive planning
process for transportation options in the central business district; a solution is needed to reduce
traffic congestion along the bayfront and to minimize vehicle emissions to maintain the quality of
air; and there is a need to connect points of interest in the uptown and downtown business district
with attractions and businesses along the bayfront.
Ms. Watson reviewed the public involvement plan objectives. She said the first objective
was to maintain and increase the active involvement of the Project Partners Group and the Project
Advisory Committee. The second objective was to broaden the input from target audiences during
this phase of the project. To this end, Ms. Watson said the RTA planned to update and expand the
stakeholder database for use in mailings, web surveys and the like. She said they also planned to
design and produce supporting materials as follows: develop a website; produce an informational
brochure and fact sheet; produce a newsletter for two distributions; give media interviews; and
produce public service announcements for public meetings (PSAs). In addition, the RTA planned
to continue dialogue with public officials and other interested individuals and groups; identify and
communicate with under -represented groups. Finally, the third objective was to conduct meaningful
public meetings (May through June) and public hearings (early July) on the Downtown
Transportation Project as measured by attendance, content analysis of audience comments and
evaluation surveys of audience participants.
Ms. Watson briefly reviewed the environmental assessment schedule. In conclusion, she said
the next steps were to hold the next public advisory committee meeting on March 31; review the cost
and ridership estimates, and traffic analysis; and review the evaluation of alternatives.
Regarding the proposed Water Street/Chaparral Street route, Mr. Scott asked why the route
had to loop through the Staples Street station. Ms. Watson replied that the loop was necessary for
several reasons. She said the loop passed by large parking garages and surface parking areas for
individuals seeking shuttle bus services during special events. In addition, she said that to qualify
for federal funds, the route must connect with the RTA's current system. She said the Staples Street
-r
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 6
station is the RTA's major transfer station. Mr. Scott asked if the RTA could construct a new
transfer in the Memorial Coliseum area, and thus eliminate the Staples Station loop. Ms. Watson
replied that this would increase costs considerably. She also suspected that there would not be a
significant amount of ridership to the Memorial Coliseum.
Mr. Scott asked if there was a running dialogue about locating a stop at the Bayfront Arts
and Sciences area. Ms. Watson answered that there wasn't enough public input at this time to gauge
public support or opposition. Mr. Scott commented that the route going from Shoreline to I-37 to
the Convention Center was not selected as one of the two final options. Ms. Watson replied that a
hybrid of the two routes was possible once the study was complete. Mr. Scott stated that he felt the
community would be more receptive to a route that would go down Shoreline north of I-37 and then
down Water Street south of I-37.
Mr. Garrett inquired about the ridership of the current rubber -tire trolley. Ms. Watson
answered that the current trolley route was one of the highest ridership routes, averaging between
600 to 800 riders a day. Mr. Garrett asked if it was similar to the proposed routes. Ms. Watson
replied that the routes were different because the rubber -tire trolley circulated mainly in the
downtown area. Mr. Garrett asked if the rubber -tire trolley would be discontinued if the electric
trolley was approved. Ms. Watson replied affirmatively, but stated that they might continue service
over the bridge to North Beach.
Mr. Chesney stated that he was in favor of the Water Street/Chaparral Street route because
it would be a nice boost for the area. He said he felt the Shoreline Boulevard area was generally in
good condition and did not need the same attention. He asked if an alternative could be to keep the
current rubber -tire trolley's Shoreline Boulevard route while concurrently running the new electric
trolley on the Water Street/Chaparral Street route. Ms. Watson answered that due to cost, the RTA
would prefer to have only one trolley system in place.
Mr. Kinnison asked if the rubber -tire trolley was free. Ms. Watson replied affirmatively.
Mr. Kinnison asked if the riders transferring to the new electric trolleys from the Staples Street
station would be charged an additional fee, or if the current practice of not charging an extra fee
would still apply. Ms. Watson replied that the RTA was awaiting the results of the cost analysis
before making a decision. Mr. Kinnison noted that the construction on the trolley was estimated to
be complete in 2007. He asked when the construction would begin. Ms. Watson answered that the
construction could begin as early as next fall.
Mr. Noyola stated that he agreed with Mr. Kinnison that the trolley should run on Shoreline
Boulevard by the federal courthouse, arena and the baseball stadium. He asked if the maintenance
costs for the Shoreline route would be higher because of its proximity to the water. Ms. Watson
answered that she had been informed that the maintenance costs would be no different from the
Water Street route.
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and referred to Item 11, the second quarter update on
the city's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plan. Mr. David Ramos, Director of
the Human Relations department, reported on the progress of addressing accessibility and barrier
removal issues in the following areas: public facilities, programs, site development, outreach,
citywide curb ramps, and individual curb ramp requests.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 7
Regarding public facilities, Mr. Ramos stated that the improvements are being implemented
through the city's Engineering Services department. He said the public facility sites include city
hall, the libraries, the health department, streets and solid waste, recreation centers and senior
centers. He said an A&E consultant was currently working on the preparations for the barrier
removal projects. In January 2004, Mr. Ramos stated that the city reviewed the design phase and
were submitting the construction plans to the Texas Department of Licensing and Review. Mr.
Ramos reported that the bid release preparation was ongoing.
Mr. Ramos also reported on the progress of improvements to programs taking place in the
libraries, museum, closed captioning and various customer service areas. Regarding the libraries,
Mr. Ramos said staff has conducted a site visit and held meetings with library staff to discuss ways
to improve accessibility in the book aisles for customers to retrieve materials. He said staff would
provide other assistance for the libraries including gathering manufacturer information and
specifications.
Regarding the museum's programs, Mr. Ramos reported that script development and other
preparations are underway to produce recordings of exhibits in an alternate format to allow
customers with visual impairments to participate in an audio tour through handheld audio devices.
Regarding closed captioning, Mr. Ramos stated that staff is working with the city's
contractor to modify the tape production process to allow for closed captioning of the Cityscape
tapes. He said the target completion date for the project is April 2004. He also said staff was
making preparations to add closed captioning of regular Council meetings aired live. He said a
Request for Proposals (RFP) has been developed, and staff is currently researching the list of
contractors approved by the state for live closed captioning. He said the projected turnaround time
upon contract reward and site visit is approximately seven weeks.
Finally, Mr. Ramos briefly discussed improvements to program accessibility for various
customer service areas. He said plans and preparations are underway to provide information on
basic customer services in an alternate format for those customers who are hearing-impaired or
vision -impaired. He said, for example, there would be a library of informational CDS for audio use
or for use on a personal computer. Additionally, he reported that there is an ongoing effort to ensure
that accessible customer service and program participation is not compromised within internal and
departmental policies and procedures. He said the Human Relations department, Museum and Park
and Recreation departments were undergoing a comprehensive review now.
Mr. Ramos discussed another focus area for improvements known as site development. He
said this was an area requiring special training for staff through the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation's (TDLR) Accessibility Academy. He stated that preparations are underway to
enroll the city's building inspectors and commercial plan reviewer in the academy during the third
quarter.
Regarding outreach, Mr. Ramos stated that this area focused on the promotion of
accessibility awareness. He said staff has conducted three awareness training sessions for front-line
employees during this quarter, and is preparing for additional accessibility training for mid-level
employees. In addition, he reported that staff is developing action plans for public awareness
formats, PSAs and other awareness materials.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 8
Finally, Mr. Ramos discussed the progress on the implementation of citywide and individual
curb ramps requests. He said the citywide curb ramp projects are scheduled in the 2004 Bond
program, subject to voter approval in the November 2004 election. With regard to individual curb
ramp requests, he said citizens had submitted several requests prior to the final adoption of the
transition plan. He said the bid process for these requested curb ramps has been completed through
Engineering Services. He said a recommendation on the construction contract for these individual
curb ramp requests is anticipated in February 2004.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 12 regarding a construction contract for ADA
compliance at various sites. City Engineer Escobar reported that these projects were funded through
CDBG funds. He said this was the first of three project phases to address curb ramps and ADA
accessibility in these areas. There were no comments from the audience. City Secretary Chapa
polled the Council for their votes as follows:
12. MOTION NO. 2004-068
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with
Nuway International, Inc., of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $224,310.33 for
American with Disabilities Act Compliance at Various Sites - Phase 1 at the following
locations:
* Individual Requests
* Mary Grett School Area
* Memorial Hospital Area
* Spohn Hospital Area
* Tarlton between Port and Ayers
* Poenisch and Ropes Park
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 13 regarding the lease for the baseball stadium. City
Secretary Chapa announced that Mr. Kelly was abstaining from the vote and discussion on this item.
City Manager Noe said the first part of the item would substitute the draft of the lease the Council
had passed on first reading with the latest draft of the lease. He said most of the changes were minor
technical changes and clarifications. The third part of the item was a non -relocation agreement that
would give the city additional assurances that the team would remain here and comply with the
lease. Mr. Noe said the last document to be completed was between the city and the Port of Corpus
Christi for parking. There were no comments from the audience. City Secretary Chapa polled the
Council for their votes as follows:
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 9
13.a. MOTION NO. 2004-069
Motion to amend prior to second reading by substituting an amended long-term lease with
round Rock Baseball, Inc., to manage and operate a baseball stadium.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Kelly abstained.
13.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025662
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. (First Reading 01/27/04)
The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading as amended with
the following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kinnison, Noyola and
Scott, voting "Aye"; Kelly abstained.
13.c. MOTION NO. 2004-070
Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a non -relocation agreement by and between
the City of Corpus Christi, Texas and Round Rock Baseball, Inc.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Cooper, Garrett, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Kelly abstained.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal announced that pursuant to Section 551.071 of the Texas Government Code, the
City Council would go into executive session for legal advice related to landfill permitting issues,
with possible discussion and action in open session.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Council returned from executive session. Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 14
regarding landfill operating issues. Assistant City Manager Ron Massey provided a brief summary
of the actions on the landfill issue to date. He said the Solid Waste department had made
presentations on May 21, 2002, August 27, 2002 and December 16, 2002 regarding the status of
landfill expansion plans and the development of the Cefe Valenzuela landfill. Mr. Massey stated
that today's discussion would focus solely on the landfill location, assuming that the city would
operate the landfill. He said the city could re-examine the feasibility of private operation of the
landfill at a later date.
Mr. Massey reviewed a chart illustrating the relationship between landfill revenue and
tonnage. He noted that in 1997-98, the amount of tonnage received was about 550,000 tons annually
and the revenue stream was approximately $10,000,000. In 1999-2001, Mr. Massey commented that
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 10
there was a tremendous drop in tonnage and revenues caused by the opening of the El Centro
landfill. He said the city was able to stabilize the situation by instituting put -or -pay contracts and
the municipal solid waste service charge (MSWSC).
Mr. Massey discussed the landfill capacities in the area today. He said the J.C. Elliott
landfill had approximately 3.5 years of life left, assuming the current volume of 419,000 tons per
year. The El Centro landfill has approximately 45 years of life, assuming 200,000 tons per year.
Finally, the Cefe landfill is estimated to have 100 years of life, modeled at 500,000 tons per year.
Mr. Massey covered the effects of an additional permitted landfill. He said an additional
landfill could potentially divide the waste stream further, negatively affecting city revenues. He said
a new landfill could result in a number of public concerns, including environmental, social and
economic issues. These concerns could be detrimental to the successful permitting of a new facility.
Mr. Massey said that the J.C. Elliott landfill would be near closure before an additional landfill
could be permitted and operational.
Mr. Massey stated that Mr. Jeff Kaplan, Director of Solid Waste, would be presenting two
options for the Council's consideration. Mr. Kaplan discussed Option A, the expansion of the J.C.
Elliott landfill. He stated that the current permitted volume capacity of the Elliott landfill was
16,210,000 cubic yards on 313 acres. As previously mentioned, the estimated remaining life of
Elliott was 3.5 years. He said the estimated time frame for a lateral expansion of the Elliott landfill
was 36 months, based on the worst-case scenario. He said the projected capacity was 6,700,000
cubic yards on 102 acres (22 acres owned by the city and 80 acres owned privately). He said the
expansion would extend the life of the Elliott landfill by 10 years.
Mr. Kaplan said the estimated 10 -year capital costs for the J.C. Elliott expansion between
FY 2004-05 and FY 2012-13 was $20.5 million. He also reviewed the summary pro forma for the
expansion. He highlighted that until FY 05-06, the put -or -pay contracts would continue because
they were tied to the existing life of the Elliot landfill (3.5 years). Thus, the assumption was that the
landfill would maintain the current annual tonnage of 419,000 tons. After FY 07-08, Mr. Kaplan
said staff was assuming a reduction in tonnage to 225,000 tons because of the cessation of the put -
or -pay contracts, and subsequent redirection of waste to other disposal sites in the area. He said
there would be a corresponding increase in the municipal solid waste service charge (MSWSC) fee
to recapture the lost revenues. In FY 2012-13, Mr. Kaplan estimated that the MSWSC could
increase to $54.92.
Mr. Kaplan discussed Option B, the opening of the Cefe Valenzuela landfill. He said the
Cefe landfill was comprised of 2,273 total acres. Initially, he proposed developing only two units
of the land: Unit 1 - 205 acres with 27,722,000 cubic yard capacity; and Unit 2 - 605 acres with
102,751,000 cubic yard capacity. Mr. Kaplan stated that the infrastructure development would take
approximately 24 months. He said Unit 1 would be on line with first Sector construction completed
and ready for waste six months prior to the closing of the J.C. Elliott landfill.
Mr. Kaplan stated that the projected 10 -year capital costs for the Cefe landfill between FY
04-05 and FY 12-13 was $26,330,000. He noted that there would be costs incurred from closing the
J.C. Elliott landfill. He also reviewed the summary pro forma for the transition from J.C. Elliott to
the Cefe landfill. He noted that under Option B, staff was still assuming that the put -or -pay
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 11
contracts would cease in FY 07-08, leading to a subsequent loss in tonnage and revenues. He
highlighted that the proposed MSWSC fee in FY 12-13 was $54.59, slightly lower than the projected
amount for the Elliott landfill.
Mr. Kaplan reviewed a graph illustrating the landfill capital investment for both the Elliott
landfill and the Cefe landfill. He noted that the capital costs for the Cefe landfill spiked around
2005, but then stabilized and became slightly less than those incurred by Elliott. Most importantly,
Mr. Kaplan stated that if the Council were to decide to expand Elliott, they would just be deferring
the capital cost for Cefe because it would still need to opened in 10 years.
Mr. Kaplan referred to a series of graphs. The first graph compared the landfill expense
between Elliott and Cefe. He noted that the separation between the two was less than $500,000.
The second graph depicted the landfill revenue comparison showed similar results. Finally, the third
graph depicted the annual disposal fee increase required to maintain net revenue, saying that the two
options differed by only 40 cents.
Mr. Kaplan reviewed the pros and cons if the city decided to expand the J.C. Elliott landfill
(Option A). He mentioned the following "pros": lower initial investment costs than the Cefe
landfill; adds ten years of landfill life; and increases the likelihood of extending put -or -pay contracts.
He noted the following "cons": possibility of contested permit application; delays could result in
existing disposal capacity being exhausted before expansion is complete; continues landfill
operations within city limits and in close proximity to airports; defers move and large initial
investment to Cefe to 2014; and delayed opening of Cefe could impact approved permit.
Mr. Kaplan also reviewed the pros and cons if the city decided to open the Cefe landfill
(Option B). He mentioned the following "pros": resolves long-term disposal issues; increased
landfill efficiency after initial investment; increased flexibility to operating procedures; and supports
Westside development and aviation operations. He noted the following "cons": requires capital
investment to open and develop through the first ten years; requires permitting and development of
transfer station; and no guarantees on volume of tonnage to be supplied.
Mr. Kaplan discussed the following future actions that would need to be taken regardless of
which option the Council chose: execute contracts; make decision on RFP; expand/extend contracts;
expand recycling; and contract all waste in city limits.
In conclusion, Mr. Kaplan stated that staff's recommendation was to develop the Cefe
Valenzuela landfill because it was in the best interests of the city over the long term.
Mayor Neal observed that there is a perception in the community that the city uses the fees
from the solid waste services as a way to increase revenues. In reality, Mayor Neal said that if solid
waste services was an enterprise fund like other city utilities, bearing their own administrative costs,
insurance costs and the like, then they would lose money. Assistant City Manager Mark McDaniel
agreed, saying that solid waste services is subsidized by the general fund.
Mr. Kelly inquired about the closing costs for the Elliott landfill under Option A. He asked
why the $3.9 new closure costs were necessary. Mr. Kaplan explained that the new closure costs
were for the new cells to be developed in Option A that would need to be closed in 10 years. Mr.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 12
Kelly asked why under Option B, the closure costs for the first phase of Cefe was estimated at $1.1
million. Mr. Kaplan said that the closure requirements for a new landfill can be stretched out over
time, unlike at J.C. Elliott. He noted that it appeared that it was going to cost $6 million more at
Cefe than at Elliott to buy 10 years of landfill capacity. Mr. Massey replied affirmatively, saying
that there were more infrastructure development needs at Cefe than at Elliott. Mr. Kelly stated that
it wasn't clear to him why staff was recommending Cefe if it appeared to be more costly. Mr.
Massey said that the cost for burial at Cefe over the long run would be lower than at Cefe, even
though a transfer station had to be constructed. Mr. Kelly asked Mr. McDaniel if there was any
value to delaying the cost of opening Cefe. Mr. McDaniel answered negatively.
Mr. Kelly asked if the permit at Cefe would expire if it wasn't used. Mr. Massey replied that
under current rules, they would not expire. But he said there was a concern in the environmental
area about permits that were not executed. First Assistant City Attorney Jay Reining added that
there has been a recent proposal to the TCEQ commissioners to put limits on solid waste permits if
they were not developed within five years. The TCEQ deferred the issue, but one of the
commissioners stated publicly that he was in favor of limits on permits.
Mayor Neal called for a brief recess to present proclamations. He asked to continue the
discussion on the landfill after public comment.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Council returned from recess. Mayor Neal called for petitions from the audience. Mr.
Sirfrederickvonusa King 7th, 905 Cleveland #4, spoke regarding ongoing problems with his gas bill.
*************
Mayor Neal resumed the discussion on landfill issues. Mr. Scott asked how the increase in
the municipal solid waste service charge would translate into a constituent's monthly bill. Mr.
Massey answered that under Option B (opening Cefe), the cost would translate to a $4.71 increase
per month cumulatively over 12 years. Under Option A (expansion of Elliott), the cost would be
$4.82 per month cumulatively over 12 years.
Mr. Garrett how long an RFP could stay open. Mr. Reining replied that it could stay open
until negotiations ended.
Mr. Scott asked how long it would take to initiate and complete another RFP process. Mr.
Kaplan replied that it would take approximately six months.
Mr. Colmenero inquired how long it would take if the city were to negotiate another RFP.
Mr. Kaplan replied that in his experience, most contracts take between nine to 12 months to
negotiate once the RFP process is over.
Mr. Chesney asked Mr. Reining to explain the legalities of negotiation in the RFP process.
Mr. Reining answered that when the city issued a Request for Proposals, they reviewed the
submissions and then selected the best qualified proposer. Then, the city would negotiate with the
proposer to reach an agreement. If the city was not able to reach an agreement with the proposer,
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 13
they had two options. He said they could cease negotiations with the proposer, and then commence
negotiations with the second-highest scoring proposer, or the city could cancel the RFP altogether
and issue a new one. Mr. Reining emphasized, however, that the city could not engage in
negotiations with another party until the negotiations with the proposer were complete. Mr. Chesney
asked Mr. Reining to provide him a copy of the state law regarding RFPs. Mr. Chesney asked if it
was likely that the city would reach an agreement with the party they are currently negotiating with
for private operation of the landfill. Mr. Reining replied that there was a good possibility that the
city could reach an acceptable agreement.
Mr. Massey added that he senses that there is a concern in the community that the city needs
to operate the landfill, rather than a private company. He said that when the city initially awarded
the RFP to BFI, they were not operating any landfills in the area. Now, since BFI is operating El
Centro, Mr. Massey said there is a concern that there would be only one operator in the area, leaving
local businesses with no choices. Mr. Chesney replied that he thought BFI would still have to work
with its customers. He also said that he felt that the city should privatize landfill operations. City
Manager Noe noted that there are many places where the municipalities are not involved in landfill
operations. He said the key for success was to have multiple private sector operators to prevent a
monopoly on landfill services.
Mr. Noyola asked how soon the city could have the Cefe landfill ready for operation. Mr.
Massey replied that it could be ready in two years, but it would be preferable to delay the opening
as long as possible because of the capital expense. Mr. Noyola stated that he could not support the
expansion of the J.C. Elliott landfill to the north because it would be detrimental to his district. He
noted that the expansion would abut the existing Grand Stands ballfield in the area. Mr. Massey
added that the expansion of the Elliott landfill could potentially interfere with long-term aviation
and business interests in the area as well. City Manager Noe added that the expansion of Elliott was
not preferable to the Navy either, since they had an interest in developing the area as well.
Mr. Garrett stated that he did not think it was wise to have one company operate both of the
major landfills in the area. He was concerned that this situation would have a detrimental effect on
private haulers. Mr. Massey replied that staff intended today's discussion to focus on the location
of the landfill. He said the privatization issue could be discussed at another time.
Mayor Neal called for public comment on Item 14. Dr. Bryan Gulley, 2709 Chapelview
Drive, spoke regarding an alternate plan to address the landfill issue. He introduced his partner, Mr.
Phillip Hurst, and Mr. Mike Stringer, his engineering consultant. He said he and his partners owned
property west of Elliott and had acquired an additional 530 acres of property near Elliott. Dr. Gulley
stated that this property, located outside of the city limits and west of Elliott, was an ideal location
for a Type 1 landfill. He said the neighboring properties were not suited to residential development.
He also stressed that he wanted to give the permit and the landfill to the City of Corpus Christi. He
said he was working with a partner who could operate the landfill as well.
Mr. Scott asked why Dr. Gulley hadn't submitted a proposal during the RFP process in 2002.
Dr. Gulley said they did not acquire the additional 530 acres they needed to qualify for a Type 1
landfill until August 2003. Mr. Scott asked if Dr. Gulley had a permit. Dr. Gulley replied
negatively, but said he had contracted with a company that would help him acquire the permit
quickly if he had an agreement with the city.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 14
Mr. Kelly asked if Dr. Gulley was offering a package deal for the land and the landfill
operator. He noted that staff had intended to segregate the issues into location and operator. Dr.
Gulley said that he had an obligation to include their private operator in the negotiations, and he also
felt his operator could provide the services most efficiently. Dr. Gulley said he would like to submit
a proposal for the Council's consideration.
Mr. Chesney asked if it would be legal for Dr. Gulley to enter into negotiations with BFI to
see if they could make a deal. Mr. Reining replied that if BFI wanted to add an option to provide
services on Dr. Gulley's proposed site, the city could consider it under the current RFP. However,
Mr. Reining said staff would need to look at the proposal closely.
A discussion ensued over whether Dr. Gulley's proposal was viable. City Manager Noe
stated that the city had already invested almost $9 million in the Cefe Valenzuela landfill, and it was
already built into the city's current debt service.
Mr. John Torrey, 7253 Yaupon, and Mr. Jim Lotspeich, 1991 Hwy. 35, asked the Council
to consider Dr. Gulley's proposal.
Mr. Scott spoke in favor of considering Dr. Gulley's proposal. He asked if it would be
possible to look at his proposal without issuing another RFP, subsequently delaying a decision for
six months. Mr. Reining answered negatively.
Mr. Colmenero and Mr. Noyola also spoke in favor of considering Dr. Gulley's proposal.
They felt they owed it to the citizens to review the proposal because it could save the city money.
Ms. Cooper stated that it was too late to change the plan now. She spoke in favor of Option
B, opening the Cefe Valenzuela landfill. She felt it was unwise and a waste of resources to choose
another plan because of the $8 million investment the city has already made in the Cefe landfill.
Mr. Chesney was in favor of delaying action on this item for two weeks to see if Dr. Gulley's
proposal could offer an alternate landfill site. He noted that the city should not stop its negotiations
with BFI; rather, he proposed that Dr. Gulley negotiate with BFI directly to see if they could come
to an agreement.
Mr. Kinnison noted that staffs estimates in their recommendations reflected the worst-case
scenario. He said that if the city had an agreement with BFI, they would guarantee a certain amount
of tonnage as a key aspect of the deal. He said once the guaranteed tonnage was included in the
model, the prices would plummet. Mr. McDaniel agreed with his statement.
Mayor Neal asked Dr. Gulley a number of questions about his proposal. In response to his
questions, Dr. Gulley said that he owned 750 acres, but would initially sell 482 acres to the city at
a cost of $1.7 million. He was uncertain what the life of the landfill would be because it was
dependent on various factors, but estimated that it would have a 30-40 year life. Mayor Neal asked
what the city would do once the landfill was at capacity in 35 years. Dr. Gulley replied that he could
sell the city the remainder of the land. Mayor Neal stated that the city was being asked to evaluate
a last-minute, incomplete offer and compare it with staff's recommendation, a 100 -year capacity
landfill site that was fully permitted. He said it was impossible to make an "apples for apples"
r
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 15
comparison between the two proposals.
Mr. Mike Stringer, 1065 Potomac, Dr. Gulley's consulting engineer, said there was legal
precedent in the State of Texas regarding solid waste issues which would allow the city to consider
Dr. Gulley's proposal without issuing a new RFP. Mr. Reining said he was familiar with the case,
but the city historically did not review major proposals behind closed doors. He said it was not the
city's practice to "sole source" major proposals.
Mr. Kelly stated that BFI has won the right to negotiate with the city on the landfill
operation. However, he said the city has not made a commitment yet on a landfill site. He said he
would like to consider Dr. Gulley's proposal because it had the potential to save the city money.
He made a motion to table the vote on this item until March 23 to see if Dr. Gulley could come to
an agreement with BFI. Mr. Chesney seconded the motion. Mr. Noyola commented that Dr. Gulley
had not indicated that he was willing to work with BFI. Mr. Kinnison stated that he was not at all
sure that BFI would be willing to speak with Dr. Gulley or vice versa. Dr. Gulley stated that he
would seek a legal opinion stating that the city had other options to could consider their proposal
besides what staff was presenting. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes on Mr.
Kelly's motion as follows: Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye";
Neal, Cooper and Kinnison, voting "No". The motion carried.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and referred to Item 10, a second construction update
on Packery Channel. Mr. Tom Utter, Special Assistant to the City Manager, stated that City
Engineer Escobar would provide a brief construction update. Then, Mr. Rene Truan, Deputy
Commissioner of the General Land Office, and Col. Leonard Waterworth with the Corps of
Engineers, would make brief comments.
City Engineer Escobar reported that Reach No. 2 (SH 361 Bridge to Intercoastal waterway)
was 65 percent complete. He said the construction on Placement Area No. 1 was almost complete.
He noted that the dredge fill was coming from Reach No. 2. He stated that in Placement Area 2,
the construction of the containment levee was in progress, and the dredge fill was coming from
Reach No. 1. He said the dune mitigation and planting was complete.
Mr. Escobar noted that on February 17, 2004, the Corps of Engineers had delivered a check
for $1,250,000 to the Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries for Shamrock Island mitigation. He said the
utility casing installation was complete for both the force main and the sand by-pass system.
Mr. Escobar stated that the jetty stone mining, stockpiling and inspection is underway in
Marble Falls, TX. He said the stones will be trucked to the Rincon storage area in March 2004, and
ranged in size from 7.5 to 12.5 tons each. He said the stones would create the jetty.
Mr. Escobar reported that the boat ramp plans were 100 percent complete and have been
submitted to the Corps of Engineers for review and approval. Finally, he provided a brief
construction time schedule. He said as of February 2004, the project was 12 percent complete and
ahead of schedule. The estimated completion date was August 2005.
Mr. Rene Truan, Deputy Commissioner of the General Land Office, spoke in support of the
-T
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
February 24, 2004 - Page 16
Packery Channel project, particularly the mitigation of Shamrock Island. He thanked the Coastal
Bays and Estuaries program, city staff, the Mayor and Council, the Corps of Engineers, and other
resource agencies for their work on this project.
Col. Leonard Waterworth with the Corps of Engineers (COE) provided a financial update
on the Packery Channel project. He introduced a number of key members of his staff. He said the
project was going extremely well. He said that as ofJuly 30, 2003, the COE executed a contract for
$21 million with Kingfisher Marine in a joint venture. As of January 2004, he said the COE has
spent $2.6 million on the project.
Col. Waterworth discussed a number of financing issues. He said that the COE had
requested $5 million for the project in 2004. However, due to federal budget constraints, the Corps
received $2.3 million. He said he had to use rollover funds to spend the $2.6 million to date. To
complete the project in FY 2004, the Corps would need $6 million. He said if the Corps was not
able to secure these funds, they would borrow from other projects in the district for the Packery
Channel project. In FY 2005, he said the Corps would need $11.6 million to complete the project.
To obtain this funding, Col. Waterworth asked the Council for their assistance. He noted that the
hardest part of the project, the authorization, had been achieved. Now, Col. Waterworth said the
challenge was to obtain the funding in a timely fashion.
Mayor Neal presented proclamations to Col. Waterworth, Mr. Herbie Maurer and Mr. Carl
Anderson to thank them for their efforts in furthering the project.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal called for the City Manager's report. City Manager Noe reported that on
Monday, March 1 at 10:00 a.m., a ceremony would be held at the baseball stadium site in
recognition of the naming of stadium. He noted that at next Tuesday's meeting on March 2, there
would be agenda items on water issues, a presentation on the Velocity Games. He stated that the
Council had decided to cancel the March 9 and March 16 meetings due to Spring Break. On March
23, he said there would be agenda items on the bond sale for the baseball stadium and the
continuation of the landfill discussion.
Mayor Neal called for Council concerns and reports. There were none.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Neal adjourned the
Council meeting at 2:52 p.m. on February 24, 2004.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *