Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 01/31/2006I 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 January 31, 2006, which were approved by the City Council on February 14, 2006. WITNESSETH MY HAND AND SEAL, on this the 14th day of February, 2006. Armando Chapa City Secretary SEAL PRESENT Mayor Henry Garrett Mayor Pro Tem Bill Kelly Council Members: Brent Chesney Melody Cooper Jerry Garcia Rex Kinnison John E. Marez Jesse Noyola Mark Scott MINUTES CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS Regular Meeting January 31, 2006 — 10:00 a.m. City Staff: City Manager George K. Noe City Attorney Mary Kay Fischer City Secretary Armando Chapa Mayor Garrett called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The invocation was delivered by Reverend Keith Wyatt of First United Methodist Church and the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag was led by Council Member Kinnison. Mayor Garrett called for approval of the minutes of the regular Council meeting of January 24, 2006. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve the minutes as presented. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett called for consideration of the consent agenda (Items 2-18). City Secretary Chapa announced that Council Member Noyola would be abstaining from the vote and discussion on Items 14, 15, and 16. City Manager Noe announced that Item 8 was being withdrawn by staff. Council members requested that Item 13 be pulled for individual consideration. There were no comments from the public. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to approve Items 2 through 18, constituting the consent agenda, except for Item 13, which was pulled for individual consideration. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 2 a. MOTION NO. 2006-023 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to accept additional grant funding in the amount of $8,350 from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, to support the Police Department's role in the Texas Coastal Corridor Initiative in the Houston High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31: 2006 — Page 2 2.b. ORDINANCE NO. 026624 Ordinance appropriating $8,350 in the No. 1061 Federal/State Grants Fund from the Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy to support the Police Department's role in the Texas Coastal Corridor Initiative in the Houston High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 3.a RESOLUTION NO. 026625 Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to accept an amendment to a grant from the Department of State Health Services in the amount of $88,174 for personnel costs to provide essential public health services. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 3 b. ORDINANCE NO. 026626 Ordinance appropriating an amendment to a grant from the Department of State Health Services in the amount of $88,174 in the No. 1066 Health Grants Fund for personnel costs to provide essential public health services. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 4.a RESOLUTION NO. 026627 Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to accept a grant from Texas Parks and Wildlife Recreational Trails Program in the amount of $100,000 in the No. 1067 Parks and Recreation Grants Fund for construction and resurfacing of the recreational trail at West Guth Park, with a $25,000 match from the Fund 4720 Community Enrichment Fund. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 4.b. ORDINANCE NO. 026628 Ordinance appropriating a $100,000 grant from Texas Parks and Wildlife Recreational Trails Program in the No. 1067 Parks and Recreation Grants Fund to fund construction and resurfacing of the recreational trail at West Guth Park by August 31, 2008. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. 026629 Ordinance appropriating $500 donation from Wal-Mart in the No. 1067 Parks and Recreation Grants Fund to be used as a cash match for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Recreational Trails Program. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". MOTION NO. 2006-024 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with Garrett Construction, of Ingleside, Texas in the amount of $879,943.90 for Base Bid "A-, Base Bid "B" and Alternate Bid 1 for the Mary Carroll Channel Drainage Improvements, Phase 2. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney. Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 7 MOTION NO. 2006-025 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with Australian Courtworks, Inc., of Brandon, Mississippi in the amount of $535,600 for the HEB Tennis Center Improvement Project (Bond 2004) and the West Oso Tennis Courts (CDBG). The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 8.a WITHDRAWN 8.b. WITHDRAWN Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 026630 Resolution recognizing the public necessity of acquiring street right-of-way easements for the Rodd Field Village Public Improvement District, Projects 7243/8417, for street improvements and other municipal purposes in connection with the project; and authorizing acquisition by means of negotiations or eminent domain proceedings by the City of Corpus Christi or its agents in acquiring said right-of-way. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 10. MOTION NO. 2006-026 Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a Bridge Construction Deferment Agreement with The Lakes at King Estates, Inc., (Developer), in the amount of $28,783.91 for the Developer's share for future construction of a public bridge over a drainage channel to serve The Coves at Lago Vista subdivision located south of FM 2444 (South Staples Street) and west of Oso Creek, in accordance with the Platting Ordinance. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 11. MOTION NO. 2006-027 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Amendment No. 1 to the professional services contract with MAXIMUS, Inc., ERP Solutions Division, of Rancho Cordova, California in the amount of $25,000 for a total re -stated fee not to exceed $50,000 for additional project management, systems analysis and computer programming services to maintain the PeopleSoft Financials module. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 12. ORDINANCE NO. 026631 Ordinance appropriating $51,226.53 from the Fund Balance Reserves in Municipal Information Systems Fund No. 5210 provided by Intel Corporation for Digital City project support; amending FY 2005-2006 Operating Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 026385 by increasing appropriations by $51,226.53. An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 5 14. FIRST READING ORDINANCE Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Supplemental Agreement No.1 to Federal Aviation Administration Lease No. DTFA07-04-L-00560 eliminating all references to the Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) and adding 0.15 acre of land for the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) serving Runway 17. The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper. Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Noyola abstained. 15. FIRST READING ORDINANCE Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Supplemental Agreement No. 1 to Federal Aviation Administration Lease No. DTFA07-98-L-01123 eliminating all references to the Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) and adding 0.25 acre of land for the Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) serving Runway 13 and 0.64 acre for the PAPI serving Runway 31. The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Noyola abstained. 16. FIRST READING ORDINANCE Authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Lease No. DTFASW-06-L- 00118 with the Federal Aviation Administration for 2.8747 acres of land located at the Corpus Christi International Airport, for a term ending on September 30, 2025, for the construction and operation of a Digital Airport Surveillance Radar (DSAR-11) site. The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Noyola abstained. 17.a. ORDINANCE NO. 026632 Amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 2 regarding Cable Communications Commission. (First Reading 01/24/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". 17.b. ORDINANCE NO. 026633 Amending the Code of Ordinances, City of Corpus Christi, Chapter 55 regarding rules and procedures for public access cablecasting. (First Reading 01/24/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 6 18. ORDINANCE NO. 026634 Amending the 1961 Master Plan for Storm Drainage for the Area South and West of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas to extend Master Channel 27 from Airline Road west to Cimarron Boulevard and reconfigure Master Channel 27 drainage basin. (First Reading 01/24/06) The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its second reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye" Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 13 regarding the renaming of Sunnybrook Park to Mike Zepeda Park. Mayor Garrett asked Director of Parks and Recreation Sally Gavlik to provide more information on the park. Ms. Gavlik reported the park was located at 3010 Sunnybrook; it was previously named South Side Park. She said the Corpus Christi Barrios Association had requested that the park be renamed in honor of Mr. Mike Zepeda, a community activist. The Park and Recreation Advisory Committee had approved the request. In addition, notices were sent to area residents advising them of the request and signage was erected at the park to see if there was any opposition. She stated that Ret. Lt. Commander Juan Garcia was present on behalf of the Corpus Christi Barrios Association. Mayor Garrett called for public comment. Ret. Lt. Commander Juan Garcia, 4913 Kerrville, representing the Corpus Christi Barrios Association, spoke in support of renaming Sunnybrook Park in honor of Mr. Mike Zepeda, citing Mr. Zepeda's involvement in civil rights issues and his decorated military service. Mayor Garrett, Mr. Noyola, Mr. Marez, and Mr. Garcia also spoke in support of renaming the park in honor of Mr. Zepeda, citing his lifelong commitment to civil rights issues. Mr. Marez and Mr. Garcia expressed concern, however, that Sunnybrook Park was in need of improvements, and asked staff to address the problems. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 13. FIRST READING ORDINANCE Waiving the 60 -day waiting period and publication of legal notice; renaming the park at 3010 Sunnybrook from Southside Park to Mike Zepeda Park. The foregoing ordinance was passed and approved on its first reading with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye". ************* Mayor Garrett deviated from the agenda, and opened discussion on Item 22 regarding the proposed location of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant at the Flint Hills Farm site. City Engineer Angel Escobar introduced the team members who would be assisting him with the presentation as follows: Assistant City Manager Ron Massey, Wastewater Superintendent Foster Crowell, and Mr. Govind Nadkarni with MEI Govind/Maverick Engineering. Mr. Escobar explained staff was finalizing the site selection process for the new Wastewater Treatment Plant, and was seeking Council approval to continue with the land Minutes - Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 - Page 7 acquisition for the recommended site. In addition, staff would provide an update on the Broadway Diversion project. Mr Escobar provided a brief history on the City's actions regarding the Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant from March 18, 1997 to June 28, 2005. He highlighted a Council directive made on January 29, 2002 that amended the 1997 Implementation Plan to prohibit the diversion of flows to the Greenwood Wastewater Treatment Plant and to rule out the option of constructing a new plant at the existing Broadway Plant Site (Site 12 in today's presentation). In addition, staff considered a number of potential sites in the industrial area along the Ship Channel as follows: Site 1 - PCCA Military Staging Site; Site 2 - Kerr McGee Property; Site 2A - West Broadway at Sam Rankin; and Site 3 - CITGO Port Avenue Terminal. Of these sites, staff selected the CITGO Port Avenue Terminal Site for further evaluation. He said Site 4, the Flint Hills Resources Tank Farm Site, became available in November 2004. Mr. Escobar said the Council held two closed sessions regarding the site selection in March and June 2005. Subsequently, staff made preliminary contact with Flint Hills in April 2005. Staff also met with the Hillcrest Area Residents between August and October 2005, including a site visit to Whitecap Wastewater Treatment Plant on Padre Island. Consequently, Mr. Escobar reported that the citizens submitted a petition with more than 400 signatures. The Hillcrest Residents Association asked staff to review additional sites, and to review the previously evaluated sites. Mr. Escobar described the site selection process in more detail. In evaluating new plant sites in the industrial area. staff used the following criteria: any available vacant land south of the ship channel; any available sites north of the ship channel; a cost comparison of sites; and a site selection matrix. Mr. Escobar stated the following industrial sites were reviewed as follows: Site 1: PCCA Military Staging Yard; Site 2: Kerr McGee Property; Site 2A: West Broadway at Sam Rankin; Site 3: CITGO Port Avenue Terminal; Site 4: Flint Hills Resources Tank Farm; Site 5: PCCA Property - North Side; Site 6: Texas LeHigh Cement Plant; Site 7: PCCA Property - West of Nueces Bay PP; Site 8: Koch Pipeline Terminal - North Side; Site 9: CITGO - Palm Drive Site South Side; Site 10: Citgo Oak Park Site; Site 11: Elementis Site - next to Tule Lake Lift Bridge; and Site 12: Existing Broadway Wastewater Treatment Plant Site. He displayed a map depicting each of the evaluated sites. Mr. Govind Nadkarni with MEI Govind discussed the process of elimination staff used to create the final list of recommended sites. The following sites were eliminated from the list after preliminary screening: Site 1: PCCA Military Staging Yard; Site 2: Kerr McGee Property; Site 9: CITGO-Palm Drive South Side; Site 10: CITGO Oak Park Site; and Site 11: Elementis Site - next to Tule Lake Lift Bridge. He reviewed the reasons why each site was removed from the list. Mr. Nadkarni said staff then conducted a detailed evaluation of the remaining eight sites as follows: Site 2A, Site 3. Site 4. Site 5, Site 6. Site 7, Site 8, and Site 12. He displayed detailed maps of the eight sites. Mr. Nadkarni reviewed a chart illustrating the estimated construction timelines for each of the sites. He noted that the length of the construction timeline was dependent upon the extent of the project. He noted, for example, that Site 3, the CITGO Port Ave. Terminal Project, had a longer construction timeline because it required the demolition of tanks, piping, and electrical power system plus the construction of a new tank, and also required wetland Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 8 mitigation prior to site cleaning and construction. Site 4, the Flint Hills Resources Tank Farm, on the other hand, had a shorter timeline because the site was already cleaned and all the tanks had been demolished. Mr. Kelly asked why the site acquisition and environmental assessments were estimated to take longer for Site 3 than for Site 4. Mr. Nadkarni replied that the site acquisition for Site 3: CITGO was estimated to take longer because staff needed to negotiate the demolition and subsequent relocation of the tanks. Site 3's environmental assessment was also estimated to take longer because of the wetland mitigation required since the CITGO site was adjacent to the salt flats. Mr. Nadkarni reviewed a cost comparison chart for the eight remaining sites. He pointed out that the cost estimates were comprised of the following items: site acquisition and rights-of- way; modifications to Resaca Lift Station; 30" C905 DR18 Force Main; directional drilling, steel casing, and Insituform liner; access road construction; effluent outfall line construction and easement; and 8.0 MGD ADF treatment plant construction cost. Mr. Escobar added that the new wastewater plant would be designed for 8.0 MGD with a peaking factor of five during rain events, providing a total capacity of 40 MGD per day, considerably more than the Broadway Plant's existing capacity. Mr. Nadkarni also reviewed a cost comparison chart with a 20 -year life cycle. The total 20 -year life cycle cost was estimated using direct and indirect capital costs and annual operation and maintenance (0 & M) costs. Mr. Kelly asked why the capital costs varied from site to site if the plan was to build the same plant regardless of the location. Mr. Nadkarni replied the cost of transporting the water from the Resaca Lift Station to the ship channel drove the cost differences. Mr Kelly asked why the annual 0 & M costs for Sites 4 and 12 differed by $200,000 when both sites were located on the south side of the ship channel at relatively the same distance from the Resaca Lift Station. Mr. Nadkarni replied that Site 4 was closer to the Resaca Lift Station than Site 12, thereby reducing the operating costs for the Resaca Lift Station. In addition, he said the power costs alone were $195,000 for Site 12 and $105,000 for Site 4. Mr. Kelly pointed out that according to the cost comparison chart, Site 3 CITGO was less expensive to operate than Site 4 Flint Hills. Assistant City Manager Massey replied affirmatively, noting the cost difference was $20,000 because Site 3 was slightly closer to the Resaca Lift Station than Site 4. Mr Kelly stated that locating the new wastewater plant north of the ship channel was significantly more expensive because it would require drilling under the ship channel. He noted that the city was currently laying new pipe under the ship channel for another project, and asked what the cost was to run pipe under the channel. Mr. Nadkarni stated the pipe being installed for the ship channel project was a 16 -inch pipe. He said the Broadway Plant was currently treating 90 percent of the sewage from the south side of the ship channel and 10 percent from the north side. If the city chose a location for the new wastewater treatment plant on the north side, then two 30 -inch lines would have to be installed to transfer the sewage to the south side. Mr. Kelly replied that he understood the most expensive part of laying pipe was digging the trench. Mr. Nadkarni replied the ship channel project involved directional drilling 80 feet below the ship channel. Mr. Kelly asked if the city were to combine the ship channel project with the new wastewater treatment plant site, then what type of cost savings could the city expect to see on the cost of directional drilling to locate north of the channel. Mr. Escobar replied he would provide the costs later. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 9 Mr. Chesney noted that the 20 -year life cycle costs for Site 3 (CITGO) and Site 4 (Flint Hills) were comparable, but Site 12 (New plant at Broadway Site) was significantly more expensive than Site 4. He asked Mr. Escobar if the cost estimates were accurate. Mr. Nadkarni replied Site 12's construction costs were higher because the existing plant had to remain operational while the new construction was phased in, a much riskier and expensive process. Mr. Chesney stated that while one could make an argument in favor of the CITGO site over the Flint Hills site, he said the cost estimates for Site 12 (New plant at Broadway site) seemed to eliminate it as a viable site Mr. Noyola spoke in favor of the Site 12 location, saying that the City had successfully completed the Airport improvements while maintaining operations. While the total project cost was probably more expensive, Mr. Noyola felt Site 12 was the best choice. Mr. Noyola asked how many homes were located within 500 feet of the Flint Hills site. Mr. Nadkarni responded that one home was located approximately 515 feet from the site, but it appeared to be unoccupied. Mr. Escobar added that the TCEQ required that the processing units be at least 150 feet from the property line of the subject site. The city planned to ask the TCEQ for a waiver, however, to place the treatment units at the far rear of the subject property, increasing the distance from the residence to over 600 feet. Mr. Chesney asked how far the units were from the heart of the Hillcrest neighborhood. Mr. Escobar replied that if the TCEQ approved the waiver, the units would be an additional 120 feet from the residences. Mr. Garcia asked for the direction of the prevailing winds in the area. Mr. Escobar replied the prevailing winds were to the east, away from the neighborhood. Mr. Noyola asked for the distance between the CITGO site and the Hillcrest area. Mr. Escobar replied the distance from the CITGO site to Hillcrest was approximately 1,400 feet. Mr. Kinnison commented that upon reviewing the construction timeline, the Flint Hills site seemed to be the most expedient to build. He asked staff to comment on the significance of this advantage. Mr. Foster Crowell, wastewater superintendent, replied time was a tremendous factor because the Broadway Plant was old and unpredictable. Construction delays could place the city at risk for a TCEQ violation with an expensive fine. Mr. Massey added that because of past overflow incidents, the TCEQ had entered into a consent agreement with the city that allowed for more discharges than permitted during heavy rains. The new plant could handle up to 40 MGD; the current plant had a permit capacity of 20 MGD, but operationally could only handle 18 MGD during a peak rain event. Repeated overflows could lead to a consent decree in which the city would be forced to commit to replace the plant within a certain time dictated by the TCEQ Thus, Mr. Massey said the sooner the Broadway Plant was replaced, the better. In summary. Mr. Noe identified three risks the city could face with construction delays. First, the city could face costly repairs to the current facility that might be avoided by replacement. Second, the city was at risk for TCEQ penalties for failing to meet operating requirements. Third, the TCEQ could take control of the process, forcing the city to build on a schedule that was not advantageous. In response to Mr. Kelly's question, Mr. Escobar said the present cost of the two, 12 -inch wastewater lines going under the ship channel was $1.38 million. He said one line was already installed, and the second line was bored and would be installed by the end of the week. Two Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 10 additional 16 -inch water lines had not been bored yet. Mr. Kelly asked for the cost to install the larger pipes needed for a wastewater plant. Mr. Escobar replied the amount would be the difference between the $1 38 million and the $9 million to install 30 -inch pipes. Mr. Kelly was emphatic that if the city had combined the two projects, then the city would have realized a cost savings. City Manager Noe replied that Mr. Escobar has consistently maintained that there were no real savings from deferring this project. Mr. Marez spoke against the Flint Hills site because it was too close to the Hillcrest area, and he did not want to subject the residents to the sights and smells associated with a wastewater treatment plant. He spoke in favor of the CITGO site because it was farther away. Mr. Nadkarni replied that the Whitecap Wastewater Treatment Plant on Padre Island was an example of a wastewater plant that was successfully located within close proximity to a neighborhood. He said new plants had advanced technology that controlled odor problems and other nuisances, and the plants were nicely landscaped so as not to detract from the neighborhood. Mr. Scott asked how far the Whitecap Plant was from the nearest residence. Mr. Escobar replied that the distance from the front gate of the plant to the corner of the first home was 316 feet. Mr. Nadkarni reviewed the site selection matrix that rated the sites on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being the most desirable. The sites were rated on a number of criteria, including the following: land acquisition, land geometry, future expansion, social concerns, 0 & M cost, and constructability. Mr. Scott asked Mr. Nadkarni to discuss why the CITGO site was rated low for future expansion while the Flint Hills site was rated much higher. Mr. Nadkarni replied the Flint Hills site had more room for expansion because of its site configuration. The Flint Hills site was more rectangular, while the CITGO site was more oddly shaped. In addition, the CITGO site had a number of land acquisition issues, including a wetlands mitigation, that could delay a future expansion. Mr. Kinnison asked how imminent an expansion was. Mr. Escobar replied that the city had planned for 20 years, but if there was a large influx into the area or if the TCEQ required a more stringent effluent standard, then the city might have to expand the plant sooner. Mr. Kinnison asked how the $3.4 million cost difference between Site 3 and Site 4 would translate into utility rate increases. Assistant City Manager Oscar Martinez replied that in the wastewater fund, every additional $1 million in revenue would require a rate increase of 2.5 percent. He pointed out, however, that capital costs were incurred and paid out over a longer period of time. Mr. Kinnison asked if the city was projecting 5.5 percent rate increases, then what would the utility rate model generate to coup the $3.4 million. Mr. Martinez replied the utility rate would increase to 8 percent. Mr. Noe pointed out that the costs were 20 -year costs in present value, and would translate into a $300,000 increase a year over 20 years. He said staff would provide a more accurate number later. Mr Escobar discussed the benefits of the Flint Hills site as follows: favorable property acquisition; no change in permit requirements; potential effluent re -use; site preparation; asset value existing site; TCEQ buffer of 150 feet from nearest treatment unit was met along site's South property line; and the nearest residential lot was over 500 feet from the treatment units. Consequently, staff's recommendation was to proceed with the purchase of Flint Hills Tank Farm site (Site 4) for the new wastewater treatment plant site. If approved, staff would begin assembling a team to assist with negotiations to purchase the property, and to address issues specific to the land purchase. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 11 Mr. Noe reemphasized that the key issues driving staff's recommendation were the cost difference and the risk in delaying the construction of a new plant. In response to Mayor Garrett's question, Mr. Massey replied the difference between the construction guidelines for the CITGO and Flint Hills sites was 15 months. The CITGO site was estimated to take longer due to additional environmental work and relocation of the gas facilities. Mr. Noyola spoke strongly in favor the CITGO site because he felt it was a better choice for the community. He asked if the timelines could be condensed if necessary. Mr. Escobar answered affirmatively. Mayor Garrett called for a brief recess to present proclamations. ************* Mayor Garrett called for petitions from the audience. Sirfrederickvon U.S.A. King 7th 1510 Ramirez, asked if the city planned to attract two Mexican airlines that ceased operating in DFW airport to the city's airport. ************* Mayor Garrett reopened the discussion on Item 22 regarding the site selection for the new wastewater treatment plant. Mr Andrew DuArte Sr., 203 Van Loan, presented a PowerPoint presentation on behalf of the Hillcrest Residents Association. He said the residents preferred to locate the wastewater treatment plant to the north of the ship channel, but if the site had to be south of the channel, they strongly preferred the CITGO site to the Flint Hills site. The following individuals spoke in favor of the CITGO site: Henry Williams, 2422 Summers Street; Jerome Bradford; Joel Mumphord; Lamont Taylor, 1701 Stillman; Carolyn Moon, 4902 Calvin; Bill Martin; Daniel Pena, 2813 Holmgren; Arthur Lee Lane with the St. Matthew Missionary Baptist Church, 1101 Waco; Danny Noyola, 4410 Acushnet; and Marvin Leary, 105 Hawthorne. Mr. Abel Alonzo, 1701 Thames, commented that the Council needed to the decision that would favor the majority of the community, and advised them not to be swayed by sentiment. Mr. Kelly spoke in favor of the CITGO site, and made a motion to direct the City Manager to enter into negotiations with CITGO for the location of the new wastewater treatment plant, seconded by Mr. Noyola. In response to Mr. Scott's question, Mr. Escobar replied that both the CITGO and Flint Hills sites would be affected by the 100 -year flood plain. The treatment plant units would be placed on top of the earth with a current elevation of eight feet. He said the walls of the units would be elevated to 26 feet, placing them above the flood plain. Mr. Scott asked questions about the wetlands mitigation, land acquisition issues, and tank relocation related to the CITGO plant. He said he had not heard any complaints about the Whitecap Wastewater Treatment Plant, which was in his district, and was much closer to residences than the proposed plant. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 12 Mr. Chesney said he had too many unanswered questions regarding the CITGO site to support it. He said he would like to narrow the choices to the CITGO site and the Flint Hills site, but wanted staff to further examine the variables related to CITGO and then report to the Council. Mr. Massey replied that staff was concerned about the uncertainties related to rebuilding and removing the operational tanks and land acquisition issues for the CITGO site. Mr. Noe added staff could obtain figures regarding these issues by negotiating with CITGO, but he was reluctant to engage in this conversation unless the city was truly going to construct the plant there. He noted that the CITGO site was part of their current operations, while the Flint Hills site was open. Mr. Kinnison stated that upon reviewing the material, he was in favor of the Flint Hills site. He asked, however, whether it was realistic to believe that staff could negotiate with CITGO regarding the feasibility of the site and report in 30 days. Mr. Noe replied that it was not realistic, especially regarding the wetlands issues. He said the Council could ask staff to pursue the CITGO site and report on their progress in 60 or 90 days, but he could not guarantee that they could obtain all the information by then. Ms. Cooper expressed concern that the CITGO site would take 19 months longer to construct than the Flint Hills site because it would expose the city to unnecessary risk. She was also concerned about the environmental issues related to the CITGO project. Mr. Chesney stated that if he had to vote today, he would vote in favor of the Flint Hills site because there were too many uncertainties regarding the CITGO site. He was willing, however, to delay the decision for 30 days to clarify the uncertainties. Mr. Massey stated that staff could speak with CITGO again to try to obtain a better idea about the issues and to confirm estimated timelines. He did not know, however, how quickly CITGO could obtain approval to continue discussing the matter with the city. Mr. Kelly made a motion to amend his previous motion as follows: Motion to direct the City Manager to engage in preliminary discussions with CITGO and Flint Hills and any ancillary entities and report to the Council in 30 days regarding the location of a wastewater treatment plan on Site 3 or Site 4, eliminating as many variables as possible, seconded by Mr. Chesney. Mr. Garcia spoke in support of Mr. Kelly's motion. He said the additional information would help the Council make a decision as soon as possible. Mr. Marez spoke in support of the CITGO site, but said he did not wish to delay the decision any longer because the Council had all the information it needed to make a decision. He wanted to vote on the matter today. Mr Kinnison asked for clarification that when staff reported back to the Council in 30 days, the Council would make a final decision. The Council concurred. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 13 22. MOTION NO. 2006-028 Motion to direct the City Manager to engage in preliminary negotiations with Flint Hills and CITGO and any ancillary entities and report to the Council in 30 days regarding the location of a new Wastewater Treatment Plan on Site 3 or Site 4, eliminating as many variables as possible. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Cooper, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Marez voting "No". Mayor Garrett called for a brief recess. ************* Mayor Garrett referred to Item 19, a quarterly report from the Corpus Christi Economic Development Corporation. City Manager Noe replied the presentation was being withdrawn by staff and would be rescheduled. ************* Mayor Garrett referred to Item 20, a status report on the Bayfront Development Plan Phase 1. Assistant City Manager Ron Massey introduced Mr. Raymond Gignac and his team, who would be making the presentation. Mr. Gignac briefly reviewed the status and schedule for the Phase 1 of the Bayfront Development Project. The Council approved the Bayfront Master Plan in summer 2004, and the voters approved the funding for Phase 1 of the project in the November 2004 bond issue. Phase 1 extended from IH -37 to the arena and art museum. He said the city entered into a contract with the design team in August 2005. As part of their contract with the city, Mr. Gignac reported that the design team was assigned the following tasks: provide updates to the Master Plan; develop SEA Town design guidelines; complete Phase 1 preliminary design (April 2006); and complete Phase 1 contract documents (2006). Mr. Gignac displayed a diagram of the 2004 Bayfront Master Plan programming, composed of the South Waterfront, the Marina, Downtown, and the North Waterfront. The North Waterfront Park was included in the Bayfront Master Plan Phase 1. Mr. Gignac reported on a number of recent developments that required adjustments to the Master Plan. The Art Museum of South Texas expansion, commonly known as the Legorreta building, was nearly complete, but it had encroached slightly into the original Master Plan space. The design team studying how to incorporate the area into the other design elements area, like the Water Gardens and museums, and how to provide public access and parking to the area. In addition, Mr. Gignac stated that TxDOT was planning to replace and realign the Harbor Bridge. He asked Mr. Alan Ward with Sasaki Associates, a design team member, to elaborate. Mr Ward introduced the rest of the design team as follows: Kevin St. Jacques with Wilbur Smith, Kevin Gordon with TVS; and Tom Doolittle with Sasaki. Mr. Ward stated that the proposed Harbor Bridge realignment would have a profound effect on the North Bayfront, allowing for the potential expansion of street grid to the west and Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 14 creating new access. The eventual relocation of the Harbor Bridge could lead to a new redevelopment in the area, including commercial and urban residential development. Additionally, he said the realignment would improve the linkages to Whataburger Field and the Ortiz Center. Mr. Ward discussed the incorporation of the SEA Town concept, a parallel planning effort to create an overall identity for a collection of destination points in the downtown/North Beach area. The design guidelines included streetscape, wayfinding, and signage to assist visitors in finding the destinations. He said the design team met with the stakeholders this morning, and they felt the Bayfront Master Plan area should be included in the larger SEA Town vision. He also said that by extending the streetscapes and wayfinding efforts to the north, the average 7,000 beachgoers could become more aware of the SEA Town attractions south of the ship channel, such as the Art Museum and Heritage Park. Mr. Ward then showed samples of the proposed SEA Town logo and directional signage, which would be expanded into a comprehensive system with visitor information kiosks, and interpretative signage, modeled after Baton Rouge. Mr. Ward discussed the Bayfront Park Phase 1 design in more detail. He emphasized that the design team held extensive public meetings to gauge and refine the proposed features. He said the public meetings yielded the following suggestions for programming: interactive fountains, concessions/vendors, shade and wind shelter, entertainment venues, and recreational uses. He said the public clearly wanted the park to be more than a beautification project. Mr. Ward stated that the design team studied the Bayfront's microclimate, noting that the winds came from different directions at different times of the year. He said the design incorporated wind screen zones where visitors could find shelter from the wind on most days. Mr. Ward displayed conceptual drawings of the Phase 1 Shoreline Boulevard re- alignment He noted that the present median remained in place from the Selena Auditorium to IH -37 to provide good access and a drop-off area for the federal courthouse. From IH -37 to the west, the lanes were combined and shifted westward. Moreover, he said adjustments were made to the road by the barge docks while retaining curbside parking on both sides of Shoreline. He discussed a number of improvements near the Barge Dock and new Art Museum drop-off, as well as a harbor edge promenade to the Ortiz Center. He also displayed conceptual drawings of proposed landscaping in the arena, convention center, and art museum area. Mr. Ward described plans for an interactive water feature located near the end of Resaca Street and the arena. He said the water feature acted like a beach by allowing visitors, especially children, to play in the water. A food and beverage kiosk and restrooms would be located adjacent to the area on the right. Mr Ward described the planned performance space, located on Shoreline Drive near the end of Fitzgerald Street. A raised stage off of Fitzgerald Street would face a large lawn area that could be adapted for performance use, accommodating an audience of 2,000 to 2,500 people. By closing Shoreline Drive adjacent to the park, an even larger crowd of 3,500 people could be accommodated. Mr. Ward displayed conceptual drawings for the Cafe Pavilion Gardens area, located between the ends of Palo Alto and Power Streets along Shoreline Boulevard. The garden area would include a series of windbreaks and an arbor to provide shelter, and a cafe for refreshments. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 15 Finally, Mr. Ward discussed the final aspect of the Phase 1 plan, the IH -37 transition zone where a potential "arrival icon" could announce the visitors' arrival to the waterfront. He said this would be part of the next phase of study. Mr. Ward provided a somewhat limited list of suggested plant materials that could survive along the waterfront, including trees, shrubs, and groundcover. He also briefly described a night lighting scheme for the Bayfront Park area. In conclusion, Mr. Ward stated the design team was at the midpoint of the preliminary design phase, but had set in place the key elements of the plan at this point. He asked Mr. Gignac to cover the roadway alignment plans for the Bayfront Park. Mr. Gignac reported that the design team met with various stakeholders in the area about the proposed Shoreline Boulevard road realignment, including the federal courthouse, city traffic engineers, the police traffic division, and SMG. He referred to a conceptual drawing of the existing roadway, comprised for a 41 -foot roadway with six travel lanes, divided by an 80 foot median. The team was proposing to realign the road to create a 17 -foot walkway, 102 -foot parkland area, a 14 -foot parking lane with four 12 -foot travel lanes (two traveling north, two traveling south), and an 8 -foot parking area. Mr. Gignac stated the road could be realigned before a major event (approximately 12 a year) to transform the parking lane into a bus lane, make three northward lanes, and one southward lane. After a major event, the road could be realigned to allow three northward lanes, one southward lane, and a one northward bus lane. Mr. Gignac also discussed the proposed roadway realignment during a festival, noting that removing the median on Shoreline made the area more flexible for outdoor festival planning. In conclusion, Mr. Gignac stated the next steps in the Bayfront Park Phase 1 design process were to obtain feedback from the Council, hold more public meetings, and complete the design development. He also mentioned that every aspect of the park design would be accessible to persons with disabilities. Mayor Garrett asked for a project timeline. City Engineer Escobar stated that at this point, the design team was holding public meetings with citizens and stakeholders, and was also seeking the Council's comments today. The designers would incorporate any meaningful suggestions and then begin the final project design. Mr. Gignac added that the design team would like to complete the design by the end of April 2006. The team would work through bid documents during the summer, and then go out for bids and begin construction in the fall. Mr Scott asked if the city had sufficient funding to complete Phase 1 of the project. Mr. Gignac said the city had $10 million in bond funding available. He said the design team would obtain an engineering survey and cost estimates for the entire North Waterfront Area. Once the cost estimates were complete, the city would decide which of the plan elements to fund in Phase 1. He said the design team would ask Sasaki Associates to research any alternate funding through grants or philanthropy. Mr. Noe stated that the design team met with a number of major property owners in the area to stimulate a discussion. Mr Marez spoke in support of plan, especially the planned landscaping around the seawall and arena. He commended the team for getting the public to buy into the plan with the extensive schedule of public meetings. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 16 Mr Noyola spoke in support of the plan, but asked Mr. Gignac to hold the public meetings at sites throughout the community, like schools, rather than only at City Hall. Mr. Gignac said he would be happy to take the presentation to the road. Ms. Cooper spoke in support of the plan, saying the presentation was fantastic. Mayor Garrett asked if the Bayfront Plan incorporated the marina improvements. Mr. Gignac said the plan did not specifically incorporate the marina improvements, but the team hoped the design would set the stage for other improvements. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 21 regarding the formation of the CC Digital Community Development Corporation. Mr. Ogilvie Gericke, director of Municipal Information Systems (MIS) introduced the team members who would be making the presentation as follows: Dr. Costis Toregas with PTI; Adrian Herbst with Bailer Herbst Law Group; Jimmy Bray, Attorney -at -Law; and Brian Anderson with Next Step Consulting. Dr Costis Toregas with PTI provided a brief overview of the WiFi project. He said as the network capacity expands, the WiFi system would the city to provide more efficient governmental services, promote economic development for the community, and heal the digital divide by making Internet service more accessible to all. He discussed the private sector's important role as a partner, co -investor and technology provider. Moreover, he announced a roundtable event to be held in February 2006 in which IBM and Intel would discuss international and global perspectives for economic development in the city. Texas A&M University -Corpus Christi and Del Mar College would also be asked to participate. In addition, Dr. Toregas discussed the city's global leadership in WiFi effort, mentioning a number of awards received from the Center for Digital Government, W2I, and the United States Conference of Mayors. Finally, he commended the city for their efforts to date, and encouraged the Council to approve the new corporation. Mr. Adrian Herbst with the Bailer Herbst Law Group provided an overview of the municipal legalities involving WiFi. He briefly discussed the roles of local government in the WiFi effort as a facilitator, regulator, and provider. In addition, he discussed federal legislation regulating the WiFi effort, such as the Federal Cable Act and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided for continuing local authority, encouraged competition and new entrants, and sought to remove barriers that would restrain new services and competition. Mr Herbst stated that recent changes, however, have erected barriers to entry. He said access to programming was being protected through anti-competitive behavior from incumbents. Additionally, he said advanced services had not been defined, so it was uncertain what entities regulated which services. Finally, he said federal and state barriers were being explored in Congress and the Federal Communications Commission. Mr Herbst mentioned that Texas and other states had discussed legislation to limit local government regulations of wireless services. In addition, he said the FCC and Congress were conducting a number of proceedings that could impact the municipal operation of WiFi, positively or negatively. Consequently, he said the city needed to continue to monitor legislative and other legal developments to preserve the community's needs and legal rights. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 17 Mr. Jimmy Bray, Attorney at Law, discussed the creation of the CC Digital Community Development Corporation. a non-profit local government corporation. Staff was recommending the creation of the corporation by resolution to carry out the public purposes of the network as follows: improving delivery of city services at a reduced cost; and promoting economic prosperity and jobs. The Council was also being asked to approve the corporation's articles, bylaws, and amendments He highlighted a section of the resolution that stated that the participation of partners would multiply network benefits. Mr. Bray described the composition of the corporation's board of directors. The City Council would appoint the five -member board of directors to four-year staggered terms. Each director had to be a resident of the city, and would serve at the discretion of the Council. He said temporary directors were named in the bylaws and would serve until permanent directors were appointed in May 2006. Initially, city staff would serve as officers, including the City Manager as the Chief Executive Officer. Under state law, he said the Council could assume the powers and duties of the corporation at any time, or dissolve the corporation. Finally, Mr. Bray stated that the Corporation was required to form an advisory committee of stakeholder groups to obtain input in the design and operation of the network. Mr. Brian Anderson with Next Step Consulting spoke regarding the draft business plan. He said the team took a conservative approach, developing a plan that would provide both government services and commercial services. The plan made the following revenue assumptions regarding government services. First, the corporation would repay $5.9 million in infrastructure capital investment. Second, the cost savings from wireless applications such as the Automated Meter Reading and Automatic Vehicle Location were incorporated. Third, the city planned a budget transfer of $2,751,000 annually for service support with no cost increases over five years. Mr. Anderson discussed the plan's revenue assumptions for commercial sales. They anticipated that 80 percent of the revenues would come from the ISP service program. The proposed ISP fee structure was as follows: $150,000 per annum for large providers (Earthlink, AOL, Yahoo, etc.); $15,000 per annum for small providers (Awsomenet, etc.); and $5 per subscriber per month. He said the household subscribers were projected to grow conservatively from 5,000 to 22,042 over five years. Mr. Anderson projected that 15 percent of the commercial sales revenues would come from advertising. He said households view approximately 750 or more web pages per month. Household members will "click" on an ad one percent of the time, and the ads will pay an average of $0.25 per click. Mr. Anderson stated that 15 percent of commercial revenues would be obtained through E -Commerce services. Businesses would pay a $250 monthly fee to access store and marketplace application services. Subscriptions were anticipated to grow from 15 to 60 over five years Finally, Mr. Anderson said five percent of commercial revenue was projected to come from other revenues such as E -learning, and was estimated to grow from $5,000 to $38,000 over five years. In summary, Mr. Anderson listed a number of business development opportunities that could exceed projections. He said that dial-up ISPs, online advertising, E-commerce revenue, and the emergence of new video and music services would increase the demand for broadband. He then displayed a five-year revenue projections chart, projecting $3.2 million in Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 18 Year 1 and $5 million in Year 5. In Year 1, the city was mainly subsidizing the program, but by Year 5, the split was 50 percent government and 50 percent commercial. He noted that the projections did not include any funding from other governmental entities that would use the system, such as the school districts or Nueces County. In conclusion, Mr. Gericke stated that the next steps in the process were to seek Council approval during late February 2006 to enter into a contract with corporation and approval of the business plan. Ms. Cooper spoke in support of the proposed plan. She asked the team not to sacrifice the community's needs to seek economic gains. While it was impossible to predict the effects on any future legislation on the city's ability to generate revenues, she emphasized the importance of developing local partnerships with businesses and the citizenry. Mr. Kinnison asked when the roundtable discussion would be held. Mr. Noe replied the roundtable was scheduled to take place on February 22 at Texas A&M University -Corpus Christi. He said the Council would be invited to the event. Mr. Kinnison noted that the resolution included the appointment of temporary directors. He said he preferred to see city staff appointed to these positions initially until the Council could appoint the permanent directors, preferably before May. He said he would like to see a more diverse group of representatives from the business and technology communities. City Manager Noe explained the board of directors were subject to Open Meetings Act requirements, which could present a problem if staff members were appointed to the board. If three staff members happened to be in a room together, for example, it would constitute a quorum of the board and may lead to a violation. Thus, staff felt it was more prudent to recommend a group of temporary directors who were involved in economic development. Mr. Kinnison was still opposed to staff's recommendations for temporary directors because he did not feel they were the most qualified to plan the WiFi marketing plan. He asked the Council to postpone the appointments if possible. Mr. Kinnison also asked if staff could prepare a detailed analysis of the $2.75 million budget transfer for the next WiFi discussion. City Manager Noe answered affirmatively. He also asked for more details on the ISPs. Mr. Garcia concurred with Ms. Cooper's statement that staff should put the community's needs first, not economics. He also asked Mr. Herbst for a brief update on current legislation regulating local control over cable and Internet. Mayor Garrett called for public comment, and there was none. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 21. RESOLUTION NO. 026635 Resolution approving formation of the CC Digital Community Development Corporation, and approving its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison, Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31. 2006 — Page 19 Mayor Garrett opened discussion on Item 23 regarding the proposed re -use of the Memorial Coliseum. Assistant City Manager Oscar Martinez reported that the Council had identified downtown revitalization as one of their priority areas during the May Council retreat. Specifically, the Council directed staff to identify a re -use development plan for the coliseum by the end of the year. In July 2005, staff mailed 56 Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to local and nationwide developers. He stated that seven companies responded, but of these three companies, Busch Entertainment, Glenn Lyons, and Captain Jack Little, declined to submit a Request for Proposal (RFP). Subsequently, the remaining four companies were eligible to continue with the RFP process as follows: LandLord Resources, NRP Group, TRT Development Company, and Wisznia Associates. Mr Martinez discussed the RFP requirements in more detail. He said the proposers were asked to describe their core competency; provide a general description of the project concept, encourage economic development; address community needs and encourage re- development of the surrounding area; describe how they would memorialize the heritage of the building and plaque; and explain the estimated cost and projected revenues for the project, among many other requirements. By contrast, he emphasized that the RFP did not pre- determine the type of project to be submitted. Mr Martinez reported on the four proposals that were submitted. First, LandLord Resources did not submit a proposal; rather, they suggested that the City provide them an opportunity to facilitate and manage the process. Second, the NRP Group proposed the construction of Vista de la Bahia, a 231 multi- family community adjacent to a newly adapted re -use of the Memorial Coliseum. They proposed deconstructing the coliseum, removing the roofing, walls, interior, floor slabs, seating and a portion of the frame to transform the area into an outdoor public venue. They proposed to re -use the plaque and place it in a prominent place. The estimated project cost was $33 million. The NRP Group was requesting tax abatements for the term of the lease. Third, the TRT Development Company proposed a "Boardwalk by the Bay" family entertainment center, including a 100 -foot Ferris wheel designed to draw visitors to the Bayfront. The entertainment center would include state-of-the-art rides, attractions, restaurant, concession, and retail facilities. An amphitheater with seating and an open space for small concerts and performances was also planned. Finally, TRT proposed memorializing the plaque in an amphitheater, or offered to provide the City with $25,000 to relocate the plaque in an appropriate site adjacent to the project. The estimated project cost was $30 million. Mr. Martinez said TRT was fully funding the project, and the city would share 50/50 in the cash flow from the project once they had recaptured their costs. In addition, they requested the City's assistance in applying for an Enterprise zone. Finally, they anticipated completing the project in 21 months. Fourth, Wisznia Associates proposed a "Paseo del Mar" development, a mixed-use concept retaining the coliseum structure for use as a gourmet grocery store, with a 4,000 square -foot nightclub. They also proposed constructing an additional 65,000 square -feet of retail in four building blocks paralleling the waterfront with 60 apartments, averaging 900 square -feet each, above the retail space. Other features included an axis wind turbine and a boardwalk Wisznia Associates offered to memorialize the heritage of the building by retaining the coliseum. The estimated project cost was $30 to $36 million. Mr. Martinez stated that the RFP evaluation process consisted of a four -tiered review, including an administrative review conducted by the Purchasing department to ensure that Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 20 proposals met the RFP requirements for timeliness, content and format. A second review was conducted using the design team for the Bayfront Master Plan (Phase 1) to determine if the projects were consistent with the goals and objectives. PFK Consulting conducted a third assessment of the proposals, focusing on the technical aspects. Finally, the city team, comprised of representatives from key departments, made the fourth assessment. Mr. Martinez reported that PKF ranked the TRT Development as the top proposal because of their financial strength and the project's potential to attract business and to establish the city as a convention and leisure destination. They ranked NRP second, and Wisznia lowest. The Bayfront Master Plan design team ranked the TRT's Boardwalk by the Bay as the top proposal because it will serve as a draw to the area and create spin-off opportunities for pedestrian -focused development. They commented that the housing -based proposals bring smaller quantities of visitors, and are less flexible to respond to changing market conditions. Finally, Mr. Martinez said the city team reviewed the proposals, considering the input from the consultants and ranked the proposals highest to lowest. They considered a number of key factors in their decision as follows: consistency with the Bayfront Master Plan and the South Central Area Development Plan; public use/memorialization of veterans; opportunity for economic growth; flexibility in adjusting elements of the plans; the current market; and the proposer's financial strength. Consequently, the city team recommended that the Council authorize the City Manager to enter into negotiations with TRT Development group for the re- use of the Memorial Coliseum area. Mr. Martinez displayed a composite scoring matrix Including the scores of the design team, city team, and PKF. Ms. Cooper was strongly opposed to the TRT proposal because it was too similar to the Landry's proposal that had caused such a public outcry several years ago. She pointed out that the Ferris wheel in the Landry's proposal was especially controversial, and she could never support the TRT proposal as it stood. She chastised staff for ranking the TRT proposal as the top proposal based on this past experience. She ranked the Wisznia Associates proposal as the top proposal. Mr. Martinez replied the goal of the RFP process was to identify the objectives to be achieved, not the uses. He said staff was asking for an opportunity to negotiate with TRT to se if their proposal can become acceptable to the Council. Ms. Cooper answered that she could not see how staff could make the proposal acceptable to the public, and she found this recommendation very disturbing. Mr. Martinez pointed out that the TRT proposal's lease terms were much more favorable to the city than Landry's proposal. Ms. Cooper stated that her concern was with the aesthetics of the project, not the financials. Mr Chesney stated that it was unfair to compare the TRT proposal to the Landry's project. He said TRT was offering to spend $30 million of its own funding for the project, and he felt it was a phenomenal plan. While he was unsure about the Ferris wheel, he thought the planned festival site and entertainment were worthy of consideration. He also suggested that an ice skating rink could be added to the plan. He thanked staff and the rest of the evaluation team for their efforts, and he agreed with their rankings. He felt the Wisznia plan did not have strong financials. Mr. Scott commented that during the Landry's controversy, the city was criticized because it did not have a master plan for the Bayfront area. Now, the city did have a Bayfront Master Plan, and the plan included a festival site. He thanked TRT for offering to spending $30 million of its own money for the project. He acknowledged, however, that the plan was similar to the Landry's proposal, especially the Ferris wheel. He said other landowners in the area would Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 21 have a view of the Ferris wheel. Thus, he asked that the Ferris wheel be removed from the plan if at all possible. Mr. Kinnison thanked staff for carrying out the stated purpose of the RFP. He felt the Wisznia proposal was not economically feasible, and did not really memorialize the area. He asked staff to meet with the Council before engaging in negotiations to find out what the issues were before making a deal In conclusion, he concurred with staff's recommendations. Mr. Noyola spoke in support of promoting housing developments in the downtown area. While he liked TRT's financial strength, he was uncertain whether their proposal truly memorialized the coliseum. He also thought the city should seek public input on their proposal before pursuing it. He preferred to keep the coliseum intact rather than tear it down in case it was needed, and spoke in support of repairing the facility. Mr Garcia spoke in support of staff's recommendations. He asked Mr. Raymond Gignac, a design team member, for his thoughts regarding the TRT project. Mr. Gignac replied that while the TRT proposal was not exactly what they had envisioned for the Bayfront, they felt nevertheless that the proposal promoted a public use and that it was in the spirit of the Bayfront Plan. Mr. Garcia stated that all three proposals were excellent, but he felt that the TRT proposal was a good starting point for negotiations. Mr. Marez spoke in favor of obtaining more public input on the proposals. He said the public had expressed concern about how the city planned to memorialize the coliseum and area veterans. He spoke in favor of retaining the coliseum building, and possibly moving the plaque to Sherrill Park. Ms. Cooper stated that she appreciated TRT's desire to invest in our community, but felt it was premature for the city to enter into negotiations today without seeking public input. She wanted TRT to provide more information on what they meant by an entertainment park, and she wanted them to omit features she found offensive, like the Ferris wheel. Mayor Garrett stated that the Bayfront Master Plan had included an extensive public input period. Although he did not feel the community would support a Ferris wheel, he understood from staff that the aspects of the plan were negotiable. He spoke in support of obtaining public input on the proposals. He said he would like to see quality retail shops and entertainment, and an appropriate memorial. He spoke in support of the TRT proposal, emphasizing that he did not want the decision to drag out for months. A discussion ensued about the nature of the negotiations. Mr. Kinnison asked if a closed session could be held on the issue before staff began negotiations. City Attorney Fischer answered affirmatively. Mayor Garrett wished to minimize any closed sessions on the issue because he wanted the process to be as transparent as possible. Mr. Noe replied that from business standpoint, the RFP process rendered the negotiations as straightforward as possible. Mayor Garrett asked for public comment. Mr. Peter Kending with Air Czar, a Bayfront helicopter operator, asked for an extension to his contract so he could continue to use the Memorial Coliseum grounds as a landing spot during the negotiation period. Mr. Noe replied that staff would discuss the matter with him. Minutes — Regular Council Meeting January 31, 2006 — Page 22 An unidentified gentleman, representing the Buena Vista project being developed between Water Street and Shoreline Boulevard, stated an amusement park development would kill his project. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their votes as follows: 23. MOTION NO. 2006-029 Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to enter into contract negotiations with the selected proposer regarding the proposed re -use of the Memorial Coliseum. The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Garrett, Chesney, Garcia, Kelly, Kinnison. Marez, Noyola, and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper voting "No". * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mayor Garrett called for the City Manager's report. City Manager Noe announced that the City Hall in the Mall event would be taking place this Saturday. Mayor Garrett asked staff to revisit the city's liveaboards policy. Mr. Noyola asked staff to inform the West Oso ISD superintendent and athletic director about the status of the West Oso tennis court repairs. He also asked for information how the city fines citizens for brush pick-up violations. Mr. Kinnison asked for a hotel/motel tax revenue report structured like the sales tax revenue month by month report. He also asked if the city was still using tippers despite the implementation of the automated trucks. Mr. Noe replied the city still used tippers in some neighborhoods if appropriate or if an automated truck was in disrepair. There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Garrett adjourned the Council meeting at 4:45 p.m. on January 31, 2006.