Loading...
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. * * * * * * * * * * * * *