HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet City Council - 10/28/2003CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
OCTOBER 28, 2003
X11
1:45 P.M. - Proclamation declaring October 28, 2003 as "David Casteel Day"
Proclamation declaring October 27 - 31, 2003 as "Equal Opportunity Week"
Proclamation declaring October 30, 2003 as "Weatherization Day 2003"
Proclamation declaring November 6 - 8, 2003 as "The Edgeworks 2003 International Short Film Festival
Days"
Proclamation declaring November 7 - 8, 2003 as "Toastmasters Days"
Proclamation declaring November 8, 2003 as "Arbor Day"
Human Relations Commission - 40" Anniversary
Swearing-in ceremony for newly appointed Board, Commission and Committee members
AGENDA
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1201 LEOPARD
OCTOBER 28, 2003
1:00 P.M.
PUBLIC NOTICE - THE USE OF CELLULAR PHONES AND SOUND ACTIVATED PAGERS ARE PROHIBITED IN THE
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS DURING MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
Members of the audience will be provided an opportunity to address the Council at approximately 5:30 p.m. or at the end
of the Council Meeting, whichever is earlier. Please speak into the microphone located at the podium and state your name
and address. Your presentation will be limited to three minutes. If you have a petition or other information pertaining to your
subject, please present it to the City Secretary.
Si ud. Desea dingirse al Concilio y cree qua su inglds as limifado, habri un intdrprete inglds-espar'iol an todas las juntas del
Concilio para ayudarle.
Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need auxiliary aids or services are requested to
contact the City Secretary's once (at 361-880-3105) at least 48 hours in advance so that appropriate arrangements can be
made.
A. Mayor Samuel L. Neal, Jr. to call the meeting to order.
B. Invocation to be given by Napoleon Johnson, Faith Mission Outreach.
C. Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States.
D. City Secretary Armando Chapa to call the roll of the required Charter Officers.
Mayor Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor Pro Tem Brent Chesney
Council Members:
Melody Cooper
Javier D. Colmenero
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
City Manager George K. Noe
Acting City Attorney R. Jay Reining
City Secretary Armando Chapa
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 2
E. MINUTES:
Approval of Regular Meeting of October 21, 2003.
(Attachment # 1 )
F. BOARDS & COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: (NONE)
G. EXPLANATION OF COUNCIL ACTION:
For administrative convenience, certain of the agenda items are listed
as motions, resolutions, or ordinances. if deemed appropriate, the City
Council will use a different method of adoption from the one listed, may
finally pass an ordinance by adopting it as an emergency measure
rather than a two reading ordinance; ormay modify the action specified.
A motion to reconsider may be made at this meeting of a vote at the
last regular, or a subsequent special meeting; such agendas are
incorporated herein for reconsideration and action on any reconsidered
item.
H. SPECIAL DISCUSSION:
Storm Water Capital Projects Funding Options (Attachment # 2)
CONSENT AGENDA
Notice to the Public
The following items are of a routine or administrative nature. The Council has
been furnished with background and support material on each item, and/or it
has been discussed at a previous meeting. All items will be acted upon by one
vote without being discussed separately unless requested by a Council
Member or a citizen, in which event the item or items will immediately be
withdrawn for individual consideration in its normal sequence after the items not
requiring separate discussion have been acted upon. The remaining items will
be adopted by one vote.
CONSENT MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES AND ORDINANCES
FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS:
(At this point the Council will vote on all motions, resolutions and ordinances not
removed for individual consideration)
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 3
3. Motion appointing Melody Cooper to the Corpus Christi
Reinvestment Zone Number Two Board of Directors and
reappointing the current members all to a term ending November
1, 2005. (Attachment # 3)
4. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
a construction contract with Ray's Welding Service, of Corpus
Christi, Texas in the amount of $84,991.35 for the
Renovation/Development of Existing Parks, Phase 2: Los
Encinos Park, Oak Park, Surfside Park, and West Guth Park.
(BOND ISSUE 2000) (Attachment # 4)
5. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
a consultant contract with Coym, Rehmet and Gutierrez
Engineering, of Corpus Christi, Texas for an amount not to
exceed $138,990 for the Wastewater Lift Station located at
Cimarron and Yorktown. (Attachment # 5)
6. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
a geotechnical investigation contract with Kleinfelder, of Corpus
Christi, Texas in an amount not to exceed $33,400 for the
Professional Minor League Baseball Stadium. (Attachment # 6)
7. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
Change Order No. 12 (Entrance Roadway) with Bay, Ltd., of
Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $823,964.21 for the
Corpus Christi International Airport Roadway and Parking Lot
Improvements Phase 2. (Attachment # 7)
8. Ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to
execute a lease agreement with Ability House, Ltd. doing
business as Lighting Connect, of Corpus Christi, Texas for the
operation of wireless internet services at the Corpus Christi
International Airport at no charge to the City of Corpus Christi or
those who utilize the wireless internet service, for a period not to
exceed one year, with the option to extend for four additional one
year terms. (Attachment # 8)
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 4
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
9. Second Reading Ordinance - Authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to execute a five-year lease with Landry's Seafood and
Steakhouse -Corpus Christi, Inc., to operate a restaurant on the
Peoples Street T -Head in consideration of payment of the greater
of $6,000 per month or 2.75% of monthly gross sales, whichever
is greater. (First Reading - 09/30/03) (Attachment # 9)
10. Second Reading Ordinance - Authorizing the City Manager or his
designee to execute a lease agreement with the United States
through its General Services Administration forthe Transportation
Security Administration for use of space at the Corpus Christi
International Airport in consideration of payment of rent at an
annual rate of $66.71 per square foot for a term of fifty-four
months with the option to extend for an additional fifty-four
months. (First Reading - 09/30/03) (Attachment # 10)
J. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (2:00 P.M.)
ZONING CASES:
11. Case No. 0903-02, Mircea Moody: A change of zoning from a
"R-1 B" One -Family Dwelling District to an "AT" Apartment Tourist
District on Padre Island - Corpus Christi, Section E, Block 2, Lots
6,7,8, and 9, located east of Aruba Drive and 100 feet south of
Running Light Drive. (Attachment # 11)
Planning Commission and Staffs Recommendation: Approval
of an "AT" Apartment Tourist District.
ORDINANCE
Amending the Zoning Ordinance upon application by Mircea
Moody by changing the zoning map in reference to Section E,
Block 2, Lots 6,7,8, and 9, Padre Island - Corpus Christi from "R-
113" One -Family Dwelling District to "AT" Apartment Tourist
District; and amending the comprehensive plan to account for any
deviations from the existing comprehensive plan.
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 5
12. Case No. 0903-03. South-Vest. Inc.: A change of zoning from an
"A-1" Apartment House District to a "R-1 C" One-Family Dwelling
District on Gugenheirn and Cohn Farm Lots, being 1.290 acres
out of Lots 9 and 16, located west of Cliff Maus Drive and 350
feet south of Rockford Drive. (Attachment # 12)
Plannina Commission and Staff's Recommendation: Approval
of the "R-1C. One-Family Dwelling District.
ORDINANCE
Amending the Zoning Ordinance upon application by South-Vest,
Inc. by changing the zoning map in reference to Gugenheim and
Cohn Farm Lots, being 1.290 acres out of Lots 9 and 16, from "A-
1" Apartment House District to "R-1C. One-Family Dwelling
District; and amending the comprehensive plan to account for any
deviations from the existing comprehensive plan.
13. Case No. 0903-04C. City of Corpus Christi: A change of zoning
from an "1-2" Light Industrial Districtto an "A-2" Apartment House
District on Meadow Park Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 19 and 20,
located east of Cheyenne Street and 300 feet south of Agnes
Street. (Attachment # 13)
Plannina Commission and Staff's Recommendation: Approval
of the "A-2" Apartment House District.
ORDINANCE
Amending the Zoning Ordinance upon application by the City of
Corpus Christi by changing the zoning map in reference to
Meadow Park Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 19 and 20, from "1-2"
Light Industrial District to "A-2" Apartment House District; and
arnending the comprehensive plan to account for any deviations
from the existing comprehensive plan.
K. PRESENTATIONS:
Public comment will not be solicited on Presentation items.
14. Juvenile Assessment Center, FY 2003 Annual Report and
Funding Update (Attachment # 14)
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 6
L.
REGULAR AGENDA
CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS. RESOLUTIONS. AND ORDINANCES:
15. Consideration of an appeal filed by Joe McComb regarding Plat
No. C0903100-NP44, Los Encinos Industrial Sites, Block 1, Lot
1 (Final - 3.543 acres), located at the southwest corner of
Greenwood Drive and Holly Road. (Attachment # 15)
16.a. Ordinance appropriating $546,500 in unappropriated interest from
the Water Capital Improvement Projects Fund No. 4082 (1995
Revenue Bond) for the design, implementation, and evaluation of
an Automated Meter ReadinglWireless Broadband Network Pilot
Project for the Water and Gas Services Departments; and
amending FY 2002-2003 Capital Budget adopted by Ordinance
No. 025144 to increase appropriations by $546,500.
(Attachment # 16)
16.b. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
a contract with PTI/RAM Technologies, of Washington, D.C. in
the amount of $1,093,000 to provide consulting services for the
design, implementation, and evaluation of an Automated Meter
ReadinglWireless Broadband Network Pilot Project. (Attachment
# 16)
17.a. Resolution authorizing the City Manageror his designee to accept
a Regional Facility Planning Grant in the amount of $500,000 and
execute a contract with the Texas Water Development Board for
the development of a Regional Facility Plan for the Planning Area,
including a Large-Scale Seawater Desalination Demonstration
Project in Corpus Christi. (Attachment # 17)
17.b. Ordinance appropriating $500,000 from the Texas Water
Development Board in the No.1 052 Water Grant Fund to develop
a Regional Facility Plan for the Planning Area, including a Large-
Scale Seawater Desalination Demonstration Project.
(Attachment # 17)
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 7
18. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute
Amendment No. 1 to an engineering services contract with
Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc., of Houston, Texas in an amount not
to exceed $500,000 for a Regional Water Facility Plan, including
a Large-Scale Seawater Desalination Demonstration Project
(Barney Davis Demonstration Desalination Plant).
(Attachment # 18)
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
19. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute ~.
an engineering services contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc., of .
Fort Worth, Texas in an amount not to exceed $116,100 for
Garwood Water Supply Pipeline Routing Plan, Phase 1 services.
(Attachment # 19)
M. PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE AUDIENCE ON MATTERS
NOT SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA WILL BE HEARD AT
APPROXIMATELY 5:30 P.M. OR AT THE END OF THE
COUNCIL MEETING. WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. PLEASE
LIMIT PRESENTATIONS TO THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL DURING THIS
TIME PERIOD, PLEASE SIGN THE FORM A T THE REAR OF
THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, GIVING YOUR NAME, ADDRESS
AND TOPIC.
(A recording is made of the meeting: therefore, please speak into the
microphone located at the podium and state your name and address. "you
have a petition or other information pertaining to your subject, please present
it to the City Secretary.)
Si usted se dirige a lajunta y cree que su ingles es limitado, habra un interprete
ingles-espanol en la reuni6n de la junta para ayudarle.
PER CITY COUNCIL POLICY, NO COUNCIL MEMBER, STAFF
PERSON, OR MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE SHALL
BERA TE, EMBARRASS, ACCUSE, OR SHOW ANY
PERSONAL DISRESPECT FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE
STAFF, COUNCIL MEMBERS, OR THE PUBLIC AT ANY
COUNCIL MEETING. THIS POLICY IS NOT MEANT TO
RESTRAIN A CITIZEN'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 8
N. EXECUTIVE SESSION:
PUBLIC NOTICE is given that the City Council may elect to go into
executive session at any time during the meeting in order to discuss
any matters listed on the agenda, when authorized by the provisions of
the Open Meeting Act, Chapter 551 of the Texas Govemment Code,
and that the City Council specifically expects to go into executive
session on the following matters. In the event the Council elects to go
into executive session regarding an agenda item, the section or
sections of the Open Meetings Act authorizing the executive session
will be publicly announced by the presiding office.
20. Executive session under Texas Government Code Section
551.071 regarding City of San Benito v. PG&E Gas Transmission,
Texas Corporation et ai, No. 96-12-7404-A, 107th District Court,
Cameron County, Texas; the remaining related claims of the City
of Corpus Christi; and similar claims of the City of Corpus Christi
against other similar entities, with possible discussion and action
in open session.
O. REPORTS:
The following reports include questions by Council to Staff regarding
City policies or activities; request by Council for information or reports
from Staff; reports of activities of individual Council members and Staff;
constituent concems; current topics raised by media; follow-up on Staff
assignments; scheduling offuture Council meetings and activities; and
other brief discussions regarding city-related matters.
21. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
*
Upcoming Items
22. MAYOR'S UPDATE
23. COUNCIL AND OTHER REPORTS
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
Agenda
Regular Council Meeting
October 28, 2003
Page 9
P. ADJOURNMENT:
POSTING STATEMENT:
This agenda was posted on the City's official bulletin board at the front entranc~
to City Hall, 1201 Leopard Street, at .;l: 00 p.m.,Qr..m10.ev d
2003.
(kMOJ,fLo ~p4 J
Armando Chapa M../
City Secretary
NOTE:
The City Council Agenda can be found on the City's Home
Page at www.cctexas.com after 7:00 p.m. on the Friday
before regularly scheduled council meetings. If technical
problems occur, the agenda will be uploaded on the
Internet by Monday morning.
Symbols used to highlight action item that implement
council priority issues.
CITY COUNCIL
PRIORITY ISSUES
(Refer to legend at the end of the
agenda summary)
.
~
[i
,-
6
(()
Ii!
2003 CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
Charter Revisions
Legislative Agenda
Increased CVB funding
Trashy Neighborhoods
Master Drainage Plan
Garwood Water
New Funding Sources for Inner City Improvements
Improved Permitting Process
NEW PRIORITY ISSUES
1I!t
II
rill
~.,'~,:, :>
.tv
~
M
Long-Term Revenue Picture
Bond 2004
Downtown Revitalization
Skate Park
Storm Water Drainage District
18
WIiJ
III
[..~.........
':. ','
,'<
II.."."
. .1::
==
ADA Compliance
Park Master Plan
Communication with Other Taxing Entities
Review of Sexually Oriented Businesses Ordinance
Call Center
I NEW PRIORITY INITIATIVES AND ISSUES
City staff will develop and present to City Council action/implementation plans for the following priority
areas:
o Desalination Pilot Project
lJ
*Code Enforcement in Trashy Neighborhoods
A *Employee Classification Study
~
..
Ma ster Drainage Plan
Garwood Water
~ *NewGolfCourse
m
s
;:-
[IJ
~
~
*Charter Revision with Specific Charge(s)
*More Funding for Economic Development
*Fire and Police Contracts
New Funding Sources I Plan for Inner City Improvements
. Improve Permitting Process (online I customer service)
. Padre Island Development Plan
~
1;1
Downtown I South Central Development Plan (marina, t-heads, breakwater)
Housing Emphasis I Process (older neighborhoods, working class neighborhoods)
r= uRoad Projects
I
Southside Traffic Plan
2001-2002
CITY COUNCIL GOALS
AND
PRIORITY ISSUES
. CONTINUING PRIORITY ISSUES
Nmort I Seawall I Conv,,!ntion Center I Arena
. Continue quarterly reporting process for these initiatives.
'86 Bond Issue Improvements
. Update status on Senior Centers.
. Provide communication on completion of these projects (e.g. "Report to the Community").
. Continue community involvement on issues such as Leopard Street improvements.
Privatization I Re-Ensrlqeerin2
. Clearly define "privatization" and "re-engineering."
. Make decisions regarding privatization and re-engineering in the next 12-24 months, with
discussions within 90 days.
. Establish process to identify what services can and cannot be privatized.
. Continue focus on park maintenance.
Finance
. Maintain the 5-year forecast model.
. Review the August 1 budget adoption deadline.
Crime Control and Prevention
. Continue implementation of the Community Policing initiative.
. Establish date for Crime Control and Prevention District election.
. Continue City participation in Youth Opportunities United and other youth crime initiatives,
Emolovee Health Care
. Address concerns related to employee compensation and benefits, including health insurance.
. Work to coordinate Police and Fire health benefits with those of other City employees
Economic pevelooment Sales Tax
. Establish election date.
Storm Water Utilib'
. Reconsider implementation plan for a Stonn Water Utility.
Paekerv Channel
. Continue quarterly reports on the progress of the T1F and Beach Restoration Project.
Landfdl
. Continue to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of operations.
. Examine alternatives for solid waste management system, including privatization.
Internet
. Continue regular updates and expansion of the City's web site, including individual council
member web pages.
. Establish target date for online pennitting process.
. Communicate brush pickup via e-mail.
CDDG
. Continue active role.
Frost Dank Duildin!!
. Lease and complete renovation
Annexation Plan
. Implement current island annexation plan
ADA Transition Plan
. Develop and approve ADA Transition Plan within 90 days.
Redlstrietin!!
. Develop Council-approved redistricting plan for the City of Corpus Christi
Industrial Distriet Contraet
. Review Industrial District contracts and detennine date for approval
Couneil Aetion Items
. Staff completes action requests in a timely manner.
ptv I Countv Health Issues
. Continue discussions with County to detennine structure and process for the most effective
and efficient delivery of health services
Marketgt!! of CC Museum aDd Columbus Shius
. Continue to develop marketing plans for the Museum of Science and History and the
Columbus Fleet
Relationships with Other Governments
Development Initiative Packages
*Park Rehabilitation
*Leopard Street Curbs and Gutters
Economic Development Summit and Post-Summit Meetings
Agnes-Laredo Corridor Market (studies, plans)
*Solid waste I Pickup
Base Closures
"Northwest Library
Northside Development Plan
Traffic Controls (channeling, studying on/off ramps on SPID)
*Five Points Ambulance
Effiuent Plan for Leopard Medians
RTA-Public Improvements
Arts and Sciences Park Plan
Budget Item
.. Capital Improvement Program Item
1
MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - 2: 10 p.m.
PRESENT
Mayor Samuel L. Neal Jr.
Mayor Pro Tern Brent Chesney
Council Members:
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper (Arrived at 6:30 p.m.)
Henry Garrett
Bill Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
City Staff:
City Manager George K. Noe
Senior Assistant City Attorney Doyle Curtis
City Secretary Armando Chapa
Recording Secretary Rebecca Huerta
ABSENT
Acting City Attorney Jay Reining
Mayor Neal called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers of City Hall. The
invocation was delivered by Mayor Neal and the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag was
led by Council Member Kelly. 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 October 14, 2003. A
motion was made and passed to approve the minutes as presented.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal called for consideration of the consent agenda (Items 2-18). Council members
requested that Item 5 be discussed. There were no comments from the audience. A motion was
made and passed to approve Items 2 through 18, constituting the consent agenda, except for Item 5,
which was pulled for individual consideration. City Secretary Chapa polled the Council for their
votes as follows:
2. ORDINANCE NO. 025525
Ordinance appropriating $7,500 from the Corpus Christi Chamber of Commerce Foundation
in the No. 1067 Park and Recreation Grants Fund for the funding of data collection and
analysis activities at the Juvenile Assessment Center.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed with the following
vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye";
Cooper was absent.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 2
3. MOTION NO. 2003-372
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a construction contract with
Elite Construction, of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $ 130,000 for the Oso Water
Reclamation Plant Aeration (East) Basins Structural Improvements.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
4. MOTION NO. 2003-373
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a consultant contract with
Colwell & Associates, of Corpus Christi, Texas for a total fee not to exceed $360,639 for the
Oso Water Reclamation Plant Electrical/Alternate Power Facility Upgrade.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
6. MOTION NO. 2003-375
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a consultant contract with
HDR Engineering, of Omaha, Nebraska for a total fee notto exceed $236,332 for the Wood
River Lift Station and Force Main Upgrade.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
7. MOTION NO. 2003-376
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order No.2 with
Fairbairn Electric, of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $29,269.46 for the Holly Road
Pump Station Miscellaneous Electrical Improvements Project.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
8. MOTION NO. 2003-377
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order No. 1 to the
construction contract with McAllen Construction, Inc. of McAllen, Texas in the amount of
$33,800 for the Kinney Street Storm Water Pump Station 2003.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 3
9. MOTION NO. 2003-378
Motion authorizing the City Manger or his designee to execute a lighting contract with
American Electric Power Company in the amount of $80,099 for the installation of new
continuous street lighting on Ocean Drive, (south half of Spur 3 - Phase 1 - Part A)
between a point south of the bridge east of Alameda Street to a point just south of Sand
Dollar Boulevard, at Texas A & M University - Corpus Christi.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
10. MOTION NO. 2003-379
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute Change Order No.4 with
Moorhouse/Beecroft, Joint Venture, LLC, of Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of
$142,059 for repair of the existing Convention Center Cooling Tower Structural Support
System.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
II.a. ORDINANCE NO. 025526
Ordinance appropriating $199,764.66 from the No. 1020 General Fund Municipal Court
Technology Fee for Informix Database Dell computers, XML module and IP telephones
for the Municipal Court; and amending FY 2003-2004 Operating Budget adopted by
Ordinance No. 025394 to increase appropriations by $199,764.66.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
11.b. MOTION NO. 2003-380
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a twelve-month database
maintenance agreement with Keene Information Systems, Inc. ofKaty, Texas in the amount
of$29,110 in accordance with the State's Cooperative Purchasing Program.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 4
12. MOTION NO. 2003-381
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute an annual software
maintenance renewal with ESRI, Inc., of Red lands, California in an amount not to exceed
$39,149.34 for the ESRI suite of application software for the City's Geographic Information
System.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
l3.a. MOTION NO. 2003-382
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to accept grant funding in the amount
of$48,401 from the Texas Department of Transportation for a Driving While Intoxicated
(OWl) Selective Traffic Enforcement Project (STEP) in the Police Department for overtime
OWl enforcement and to execute all related documents.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
l3.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025527
Ordinance appropriating $48,40 I from the Texas Department of Transportation for funding
of the Driving While Intoxicated (OWl) Selective Traffic Enforcement Project (STEP) in
the No. 1061 Police Grants Fund.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
14. RESOLUTION NO. 025528
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to submit a Coastal Management
Grant application to the Coastal Coordination Council in the amount of $15,000 for a
feasibility study on Bay Debris Catchment Systems in the stormwater outfalls that are
located in the Corpus Christi Marina with a City match of $15,000 from the Marina Fund
No. 1058 for a total project cost of $30,000.
The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 5
15.a. RESOLUTION NO. 025529
Resolution authorizing the City Manager or his designee to accept a grant in the amount of
$91,523 from the Texas Department of Health to fund the elimination and control of
tuberculosis in Nueces County.
The foregoing resolution was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
15.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025530
Ordinance appropriating a grant in the amount of$91,523 from the Texas Department of
Health to fund the elimination and control of tuberculosis in Nueces County in the No. 1066
Health Grants Fund.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
16. ORDINANCE NO. 025531
Ordinance abandoning and vacating a 100-square foot portion of a IO-foot wide utility
easement in Lot 64, Block 2, Crestmont Unit lOR Subdivision; requiring the owner, Alonzo
Cantu, to comply with the specified conditions and replat the property within 180 days at
owner's expense.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
17.a. MOTION NO. 2003-383
Motion approving the reimbursement application submitted by So-San Corporation, of
Kitchner Ontario, Canada, owner and developer of Victoria Park, Units 6 and 7 Subdivisions
for the installation of743 linear feet ofa 12-inch PVC water grid main.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 6
17.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025532
Ordinance appropriating $22,536.36 from the Water Arterial Transmission and Grid Main
Trust Fund No. 4030-21805 to reimburse the developer for the installation of743 linear feet
of a 12-inch PVC water grid main to develop Victoria Park, Units 6 and 7.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
17.c. ORDINANCE NO. 025533
Ordinance authorizing the City Manager or his designee to implement the Street
Construction Participation Agreement between the City and So-San Corporation in the
amount of $11 ,064.06 for construction of street improvements to Oso Parkway.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
18. ORDINANCE NO. 025534
Amending the Zoning Ordinance by revising Article 20, "1-2" Light Industrial District
regulations by adding Subsection 20-3 Objectionable Use; authorizing storage of explosives
used for perforating or fracturing (fracing) oil and gas well casing only upon approval of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment and issuance of Federal Explosives Permit and City Fire
Marshal Permit. (First Reading - 10/14/03)
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott,
voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 5 regarding the Meadowbrook area drainage
improvements. Council Member Scott asked ifthis was the solution to the flooding problem in the
Meadowbrook area. City Engineer Angel Escobar replied that there were three phases to this
project. The first phase involved the clearing off of underbrush that did not allow the water to flow
through. The second phase involved a number of improvements up to Airline Road. The third
phase, the portion which was now being addressed, involved the installation of a 6 X 10 box that
would extend from Lum Street to Airline Road. Mr. Escobar noted that the results of the hydraulic
studies indicated the need for more improvements between Belmeade and Airline Road because a
concrete channel was cracking and showing distress. In addition, Mr. Escobar stated that additional
work has been included inside the Meadowbrook subdivision itself that would allow the inlets and
the pipes to go into the subdivision, eliminating the need for a fourth phase of the project. Council
Member Scott asked that staffkeep the residents of the Meadowbrook area informed about the status
of the project, especially of the fact that staff had found a way to expedite the work by eliminating
Phase 4. He made special note ofthe construction completion date of December 20, 2004.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 7
5. MOTION NO. 2003-374
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a consultant contract with
LNV Engineering, of Corpus Christi, Texas for a total fee not to exceed $232,355 for the
Meadowbrook Subdivision Area Drainage Improvements.
The foregoing motion was passed and approved with the following vote: Neal, Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Cooper was absent.
*************
Mayor Neal referred to the presentations on the day's agenda. The first presentation was
Item 19 regarding Work-Force 1. Ms. Irma Caballero, Chairperson of the Work-Force 1 Board,
provided an overview of the program. She said that the program had recently changed its name from
the Coastal Bend Workforce Development Corporation board to Work-Force 1 in an effort to be
more responsive to community needs by focusing on the work force. She noted that this was a
federally funded program that managed and evaluated workforce employment training in a 12-
county region. Ms. Caballero stated that the Mayor and 11 other chief elected officials appointed
34 members (15 city appointments) to the Work-Force 1 Board to oversee all services. Ms.
Caballero said that there were five major Work-Force 1 centers throughout the region, in Kleberg,
Beeville, Corpus Christi, Sinton and Alice. She said that the sites provided comprehensive
employment and training services.
Ms. Caballero provided a number of statistical data on FY 2003 services (July 1,2002
through June 30, 2003). She said that the total number of employment and job training customers
served in FY03 was 68,874. Of that total, 50,742 were served in Nueces County and 560 were
youth. However, Ms. Caballero explained that Work-Force I estimated that 30% of the 50,742 were
adults between the ages of 17-21. She said that the total number of child care customers served was
9,498. In sum, Mr. Caballero stated that Work-Force 1 served a grand total of 78,372 customers in
FY03.
Ms. Caballero stated the FY03 budget was approximately $33 million for the entire 12-
county region. Of that amount, approximately 47 percent, or approximately $15 million, was spent
in Nueces County. She said that a University of Texas study has documented a 308 percent return
on investment over three years for every dollar spent by Work-Force 1.
Ms. Caballero reported that the board held a workshop to detennine the strategic emphases
for the program. The first area of emphasis was to continually improve access to services through
transportation, technology, child care and center operations. The second emphasis was to
continually improve the quality of services to customers through the following: determining
employer needs and developing customer-driven services to meet those needs; and facilitating
greater involvement of employers with education entities and workforce development services. Ms.
Caballero stressed that the program has changed its priorities to focus on determining employer
needs as opposed to serving clients. She said it was crucial to determine the employer needs to find
out how best to train their clients.
Ms. Caballero stated that another area of emphasis was taking a proactive role in regional
. Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 8
economic vitality through the following: being the catalyst in regional economic and workforce
development initiatives; and creating partnerships with other entities to improve the regional
economic climate. Finally, she said that the board aspired to build organizational strength,
effectiveness and visibility through improved communications with chief elected officials and a
continuous focus on long-term vision and strategic thinking.
Mr. Oscar Martinez, President and CEO of Work-Force I, presented demographics on the
current labor market. First, he provided statistics on the number of unemployed in the coastal bend
region. He said that the labor force for the region was comprised of approximately 254,000
individuals. He noted that within the last three months of2003, there had been a reduction in the
number of unemployed. In June 2003, there were approximately 20,000 unemployed individuals
in the region, translating into a 7.8 percent unemployment rate. He said the number has since
decreased to 17,000, or a unemployment rate of 6.7 percent, as of September. Council Member
Scott asked if the decrease could be attributed to seasonal hiring. Mr. Martinez replied that seasonal
hiring was a factor because many of the positions gained were due to the start of the school year.
Mr. Scott asked for the difference in the numbers between September 2002 and September 2003.
Mr. Martinez replied that an additional 2300 jobs were created in Corpus Christi in September 2003.
He said that the board was mainly interested in seeing the unemployment rate continue to decline.
Mr. Martinez reported that for the first time, the Corpus Christi Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA) has crept out of the bottom one-third of major metropolitan areas in terms ofunemployment.
For the first time in many months, he said Corpus Christi is at least comparable to the State of Texas
unemployment rate, 6.5 percent. Historically, the city has been below the state average. He said
that Texas and the Corpus Christi MSA, however, were below the national average for
unemployment. He added that the Corpus Christi MSA is comprised ofNueces County and San
Patricio County, and is composed of approximately 178,000 individuals in the labor force. He said
that the Corpus Christi MSA constitutes 74 percent of the entire region.
Mr. Martinez provided statistics on Work-Force I expenditures by program for the region
in FY 03. Of their 18 different programs, he said funds were being spent in the following areas:
adult services - 22 percent; youth services - 14 percent; child care - 43 percent; and welfare reform -
21 percent. In response to Council Member Colmenero's question, Mr. Martinez said child care
services were offered by the child care providers available in the region, but were funded by Work-
Force 1. The program benefitted those individuals seeking employment, training and/or are
transitioning off welfare. Regarding welfare refonn, Mr. Martinez said the area has seen a
reduction of over 1,000 individuals from the welfare rolls in the last year. Mr. Colmenero asked if
this was an indication that the state's welfare-to-work program was working. Mr. Martinez replied
that in a sense, it was working because people were coming off the welfare rolls. However, he said
that it was important to ensure that these individuals remained employed to prevent recidivism.
Council Member Noyola asked for data on reduction of the welfare rolls for Nueces County or
Corpus Christi if available. Mr. Martinez said he would send him the data.
Mr. Martinez provided statistics on expenditures by program for Nueces County. He said
they were quite similar to the regional statistics. He pointed out that expenditures for welfare refonn
in Nueces County were 13 percent of the budget, while the same expenditures were 21 percent for
the region. He attributed the difference to an initiative to expand welfare refonn services to the rural
counties. However, he said the initiative has ceased and from this point forward, all welfare refonn
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 9
services will be distributed equally among the region as much as possible.
Council Member Scott asked how the child care services program worked. Mr. Martinez
replied that Work-Force I worked with the existing child care industry in the region and in the city.
Those centers willing to accept client referrals would sign an agreement. When an individual came
to the work force center and was deemed eligible for child care assistance, they would be provided
a list of centers that would provide child care for a subsidized amount. The child care center would
bill Work-Force I for child care services for their clients, and would receive payment directly from
them. Mr. Martinez stressed that the client was free to choose which daycare they wanted to use.
He also said that if a client was ineligible for subsidized services, Work-Force I would provide them
a list of quality daycare centers. Council Member Scott asked how many families were receiving
services. Mr. Martinez answered that regionwide, the number of children receiving services was
close to 10,000. He said that each family was estimated to have 2.5 children. Council Member
Scott imagined that most of the clients were single-parent families, which Mr. Martinez confirmed.
Mr. Martinez added that the biggest barriers to employment in the region were lack of child care and
transportation.
Mayor Neal remarked that the Work-Force I program has drastically changed its emphasis
for the better over the past few years to address the child care, transportation and training issues that
keep single parents from being gainfully employed. He thanked City Secretary Chapa for his
assistance in changing the focus of the board.
Mr. Martinez then reported on the number of customers served in the regional work force
centers in 2002. He said over 78,000 individuals were served, and of this amount, 53,675 received
employment services. Mr. Martinez said employment services consisted mainly of matching a
person with ajob. He noted that the Nueces County statistics mirrored the regional results. He said
that training and job readiness services tended to be more specific and cost-intensive. Council
Member Colmenero asked Mr. Martinez to describe the basic characteristics of a typical customer.
Mr. Martinez replied that the clients tended to have low educational attainment, lack of work
experience, and were single parents, based on his experience in the industry.
Council Member Garrett asked about available child care for individuals who had to work
nights. Mr. Martinez answered that this problem would be addressed if sufficient numbers of child
care providers expanded their hours of services. He added that there are providers with expanded
hours, but their locations may be inconvenient for the parents.
Mr. Martinez named the following current initiatives that Work-Force 1 currently has
underway: youth mentoring program; economic and labor market analysis for businesses; training
funds contracted directly to businesses to meet, improve productivity, wage levels andjob retention;
upgrade the infrastructure of all work force centers; pilot drug testing for job seekers referred to
employers; development of region-wide literacy strategy; development of a business services team
at each workforce center; aggressive need for grant funds to support community needs; marketing
of the workforce development system to community leaders, businesses and job seekers; and
continued privatization of services historically operated by government agencies.
Mayor Neal asked Ms. Caballero to explain how members are appointed the board. Ms.
Caballero replied that the state provided very specific guidelines for the board composition, saying
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 10
that a certain percentage of the board members must represent certain categories, such as private
sector, education and labor. In addition, the board members had to reflect the ethnic diversity and
gender of the population in the 12-county region. She said that it is difficult at times to maintain this
balance. If the board does not meet these requirements, the state will decertify the board and not
allow them to work. Mayor Neal again thanked Work-Force 1 for their change in focus. Mayor
Neal asked Mr. Chapa to arrange for reports from Work-Force 1 at least once a quarter.
Council Member Scott asked how people are referred to Work-Force I. Mr. Martinez said
that much of the business was word-of-mouth, a historical marketing program. He said Work-Force
1 will be increasing its efforts to market their services, possibly by using their contractors for help.
Council Member Scott discussed the lack of child care as a barrier to gainful employment for many
single mothers. Mr. Martinez agreed, saying that Work-Force I was providing assistance in this
area.
Council Member Colmenero asked if the current funding level was proportionate to the needs
in the community. Mr. Martinez replied negatively, saying that the funding was decreasing. He said
that one of the biggest challenges facing Work-Force I was to partner with other organizations with
similar goals to combine resources. Mayor Neal asked Mr. Martinez to remember the Army Depot
when developing partnerships.
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and referred to Item 21, a presentation on the
Neighborhood Initiative Program. Assistant City Manager Margie Rose stated that to move the
project forward, a project manager needed to be appointed. She announced that Ms. Yvonne Haag
had been named the project manager for the program.
Assistant City Manager Rose provided a brief background on the program. She reminded
the Council that a successful pilot program was initiated in the Cunningham and Chula Vista
neighborhood in April - July 2003. She said the Council had approved that the inclusion of the
program in the FY 2003-2004 budget under the Livable Neighborhoods Project. Ms. Rose reviewed
the organizational chart for the program.
Ms. Rose reviewed the following benefits of the program: the Neighborhood Operation
Cleanup (NOC) provides support in the form of staffing and resources; eliminates service
duplication; assists in the coordination efforts of various city services; tangible results at the
neighborhood level; customer service oriented; and customized to project area and resident
concerns.
Ms. Rose discussed the time line for the implementation process. Between September 2003
and July 2004, she said the following tasks were completed: hire needed staff; purchase necessary
equipment; training and staff development; establish a selection committee; site recommendation;
and action plan. Regarding the action plan, Ms. Rose said that before the city would go into any
neighborhood, a pre-assessment period would take place in which the project manager and the
department heads would identify departmental issues in a proposed neighborhood. The next step
would be to schedule a neighborhood meeting. She said the meeting would be held within the
project area; identify resident issues and concerns; and introduce key contacts and city staff.
Regarding the Clean-Up process, Ms. Rose described the following steps: develop a
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page II
customized action plan; establish a command post; a concentrated three week clean-up period; and
utilize many city resources. Ms. Rose stated that once the clean-up period was over, a post
assessment and evaluation period would begin, consisting of the following steps: resident input into
project; establish city contacts in Neighborhood Services; and empower residents with the
knowledge and tools available to assist them everyday.
Assistant City Manager Rose named the five neighborhoods being recommended for clean-
up this year StapleslCrosstownl Agnes/Morgan, Agnes/Leopard/Crosstown/Port,
Williams/Everhart/Holly/Staples, WhitakerlMcArdlelRicki/Whitaker and HerminelNAS
CC/SPIDlFlour Bluff Drive. She provided the anticipated time lines for each of the clean-ups.
In conclusion, Ms. Rose stated that the goals were to establish and maintain communication
with residents; empower residents with the tools and knowledge to maintain long term change; and
continual transformation of Corpus Christi one neighborhood at a time.
Council Member Colmenero spoke in support of the program. He asked if the three-week
clean-up process was workable. Ms. Rose replied that staff believed it was a workable time period,
and said that this same process was used successfully in the Chula Vista area. Noting that the solid
waste department was transitioning into full automation, he asked how the solid waste fleet was
going to be used in this program. Mr. Jim Davis, Director of General Services, replied that two self-
loading brush trucks were going to be purchased for the program. He said the city did not have the
ability to augment the effort using existing equipment because the trucks were being used by solid
waste.
Council Member Kelly remarked that this program seemed similar to another effort that had
taken place around Lamar Elementary School. He felt that to sustain the improvements in the
neighborhood, the city needed to increase the owner occupancy rates and perhaps be more
aggressive about building on the infield lots. He asked if the program would be educating the
residents on home ownership programs and put them in contact with builders who could construct
homes at a reasonable price. Ms. Rose responded affirmatively, saying that the Neighborhood
Services department would play a key role in educating the residents on these resources. In response
to Mr. Kelly's question, City Manager Noe said one of the goals was to find ways to acquire vacant
or abandoned lots that were a maintenance nuisance and make them available for redevelopment.
Council Member Kinnison asked how the city could maintain the improvements in the
neighborhoods after the clean-up was over. Assistant City Manager Rose replied that one of the
objectives was to develop a follow-up process to reevaluate the area, and educate the residents on
how to further help them maintain the improvements over time. Ms. Rose added that code
enforcement would playa important role in maintaining the improvements as well. Council Member
Kinnison emphasized that an effective follow-up program was essential to maintaining the
improvements in the long-term. City Manager Noe commented that the city has continued to
monitor the Chula Vista area with code enforcement officers and directed patrol officers. He said
staff has been amazed at how active the residents have been in maintaining the area over time. He
said the residents in the pilot area now know that they can turn to the code enforcement officers and
directed patrol officers for help, and that the city will respond.
Council Member Noyola spoke in support ofthe program. He noted that Area 2 did not
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 12
include many residential areas. Further down on Port Avenue, going toward Morgan, he said there
were a number of streets (Mary, Dunbar and Marguerite) with a high level of drug trafficking and
prostitution. He suggested that staff extend the area to include these residential streets.
Council Member Scott asked if the schools were being involved in the process. Capt. John
Houston, supervisor of the Directed Patrol Officers (DPO), replied that the DPOs were initially
assigned to the 17 middle schools in the city. Once the program began, he said that the DPO
assignments were broken down further to the elementary school level, because the elementary
schools seemed to have a greater connection with the neighborhoods. He said that the DPOs would
continue to use the elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, depending on the needs
of that particular neighborhood.
Council Member Scott asked if there was high unemployment in these neighborhoods, and
ifso, perhaps the residents could be informed about the Work-Force 1 program. City Manager Noe
replied that staff would look for any opportunities to link service providers into the system to help
the residents.
Council Member Kelly asked if the city would be able to expand the DPO program to assign
an officer to each of the middle school districts in the foreseeable future. Capt. Houston replied that
he had combined the bike officers, DPOs and moped officers to enhance the community policing
efforts. He said that his officers continued to monitor the areas after the clean-up was completed.
Police Chief Pete Alvarez added that a lack of resources made it difficult to increase the number of
DPOs at this time. However, he said seventy additional police officers were being added to the bike
patrol to increase the community policing effort. He said eventually, the plan was to convert the
beat officers for each area into DPOs.
Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda and referred to Item 20, a presentation by the Corpus
Christi Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB). Mr. David Prewitt, Chairman of the CVB Board,
provided a quarterly update. He thanked Mr. Joey Jarreau, Interim CEO, for his leadership during
this transitional period. He also recognized the members of the CVB Board and staff who were
present.
Mr. Prewitt remarked that a strong theme for this year would be accountability. He
commented that the Council had provided additional funding for the CVB, and in return the CVB
wanted to demonstrate how the additional funds were being used effectively. As a result from the
feedback the CVB had received from the Audit Committee, Mr. Prewitt stated that the CVB has
focused on changing to the way they presented information to the Council to tnake it more
meaningful and concise. In addition, the CVB will look at opportunities to partner with the city to
save costs and effort.
Mr. Prewitt discussed an initiative from the International Association of Convention &
Visitor Bureaus (IACVB) to standardize performance measurement. He said the association was
in the process of adopting this initiative, which included the following performance measurement
standards: bureau uniform system of accounts; convention market definitions; convention and
tourism sales productivity; and bureau return on investment calculation.
Mr. Prewitt also discussed the results so far of their study of the potential cost savings that
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 13
could be gained from partnering with the city. In the area of AccountinglLegal professional
services, they determined that there was no feasible savings from payroll service. In the areas of
Capital Equipment, Computer Supplies, EquipmentJRepairs/Maintenance, Utilities, Telephones and
insurance, Mr. Prewitt said determinations had not been made yet because additional city research
needed to be completed. He did note that it had been determined that there were no feasible savings
from group purchasing of water. He said they anticipated obtaining answers within the next 90 days.
With regard to their visitor centers, Mr. Prewitt presented data on the visitor count for each
facility. He remarked that there was basically a flat pattern for all facilities, but he commented that
it appeared that consumers where finding alternative ways to obtain travel information. He said the
number of web site hits indicated that potential consumers were gathering information before they
came to town. Mr. Prewitt pointed out that the visitor count for the Padre Island visitor center was
down, and he attributed the decrease to the construction taking place in the area. Council Member
Kinnison commented that he thought the Island's occupancy numbers had actually increased for this
period. Mr. Joey Jarreau, Interim CEO of the CVB, replied affirmatively. He said that the amount
of construction made it difficult for visitors to find and use the Island visitor center. He said that the
decrease in visitors was directly tied to the level of construction. With regard to the 1-37 visitor
center, Council Member Kinnison asked if there was a way to determine if visitors were going to
Corpus Christi or the Valley. Mr. Jarreau answered that the CVB had a report with this information,
and would e-mail it to him today. Mr. Prewitt added that the CVB was also studying the possibility
of changing the centers's hours of operation, if it was determined that they would attract more
visitors.
With regard to hotel/motel occupancy percentages, Council Member Colmenero noticed that
there was a spike in occupancy rates in August 2003, and asked why. Mr. Prewitt replied that the
spike could be associated with the later start of the school year. He said that the average hotel/motel
occupancy rate in Corpus Christi last year was 57.1 percent. By comparison, he said a healthy hotel
market is considered to be between 60 to 65 percent. He acknowledged that the hotel market has
seen slight growth, but compared to other cities competitive with us, Corpus Christi was in the
middle of the pack in terms of performance. Mr. Prewitt stated that limited service growth, where
the city sees most of its growth, does not enhance the city's performance.
Regarding the CVB's web site performance, Mr. Prewitt said that the site has seen a
considerable amount of growth in the number of visitors since its inception in 2000-0 I. He also
briefly discussed the convention sales bookings and priorities. With regard to the convention sales
priorities, he mentioned the following: continue to focus on telemarketing (605 calls in two months);
begin movement into sports marketing (arena); 100 percent of sales staff trained in signature sales
training for CVBs (60 percent of total stafi); and continued emphasis on Texas Associations. He
also mentioned their efforts in the international market.
Council Member Kinnison asked for more information on sports marketing. Mr. Dan Viola,
CVB board member and Director of Athletics for Texas A&M University- Corpus Christi, replied
that the new arena would create opportunities to hold college basketball, baseball and UlL
tournaments in the city. Mr. Kinnison asked if the CVB had arranged to work with SMG, the firm
managing the new arena for the city. Mr. Jarreau replied that the CVB has already had several
meetings with Marc Soliz, the new manager of the arena. He said that the biggest challenge so far
was to have SMG put a booking policy in place for the Rayz and the Islanders basketball to finalize
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 14
the schedule.
Council Member Scott asked about the market for nature tourism. Mr. Prewitt replied that
eco-tourism was an area of interest. He noted that this type of tourism was regional, not local, but
said that the CVB was still making efforts to attract this market.
Mr. Bill Pettus reported on the CVB's sales and marketing initiatives. He discussed the
partnership between the CVB and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce for a Mexico Marketing
program. Their total revenues this year were $83,225 and estimated expenses are $83,195. He said
the Hispanic Chamber had created a Mexico Marketing Committee to dovetail their marketing
efforts with the CVB.
Mr. Pettus stated that for 2003-2204, the Mexico Marketing Media Plan consisted of 11
publications, 63 insertions and 16 State of Texas Co-op insertions. He said that the Convention and
Visitors Bureau Visitors Media Plan consisted of 29 publications and 77 insertions for 2003-04,
focusing primarily on the 250-mile driving radius. The Convention Media Plan consisted of 19
convention publications and 46 insertions. He said that the two main criteria for the selected
publications was if they were going to do an editorial feature on Texas and if there was a new
facilities guide. He also discussed the Co-op Plan, which included 7 publications and 16 available
Co-op insertions. He stated that the partnership contribution goal for the Co-op plan was $250,000.
He also mentioned the Lamar Town Program for an Outdoor Campaign effort. He said the program
would purchase seven boards on behalf ofthe city, for a eVB production cost of$9,81 O. Mr. Pettus
stated that the CVB had purchased an additional, 14x48 board in San Antonio at 1-37/281 north of
the Alamodome. He said that 85,000 people were anticipated to view the board.
Mr. Pettus provided the results of the Advertising Conversion Study. Of the inquiries made
in the city's top five markets (Dallas, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Austin and Lufkin), 34 percent
ration of the inquiries were converted into actual visitors of the city. He said that this amounted to
$83 per dollar spent on advertising in terms of return on investment.
Mr. Prewitt discussed the status of the eVB CEO search. He said that the CVB was going
to identify the finalist candidates on October 22, and on November 2-4 would be holding on-site
interviews with the finalist candidates. He invited the Council to meet with candidates as well.
Finally, Mr. Prewitt discussed the following elements of the CVB's action plan for the next
90 days: complete CEO search; institute IACVB measurement standards; implement cost savings
with city staff; track, review, and adjust Visitor Center hours of operation; continue regional
approach specifically with Eco- Tourism efforts; and review additional revenue sources - i.e.
memberships. Council Member Kinnison asked if the CVB had discussed any efforts to increase
the hoteVmotel tax rate through legislative approval. He asked what the current rate was, and Mr.
Prewitt replied that it was 15 percent. City Manager Noe replied he thought the city was at the
maximum rate allowed by statute, but he did know of a number of cities that had gotten special
legislation to increase the rate. Council Member Kinnison suggested that if the city was to consider
this option, they needed to do it now before the 2005 legislative session.
*************
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 15
Upon request by Council Member Kinnison, Mayor Neal deviated from the agenda. Council
Member Kinnison made the following motion, seconded by Council Member Noyola:
25.5. MOTION NO. 2003-385
Motion to reconsider the motion made by Council Member Scott, seconded by Council
Member Kelly on October 14,2003, regarding the zoning change requested by Robert and
Dahlia Schulte in reference to Lot 2, Markamay Estates to further amend the zoning
ordinance to say that the City Council finds that the requirements of Section 25-A-I.03 and
25A-4.03 are satisfied and grant a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a Bed and Breakfast Home
with Special Events on Lot 2, Markamay Estates, subject to a site plan and 12 conditions;
and subject to the following two additional conditions:
1) applicants must give the City's Code Enforcement Officer 48 hours notice prior to
each event;
2) if any condition is violated, the SUP can be revoked upon review by the Judge of the
Code of Enforcement (Environmental) Municipal Court acting as a hearing officer.
Mayor Neal stated that he had asked for a legal opinion on whether the Council could
reconsider this item since the Council passed a portion of the request and defeated another zoning
request, which would normally require that the applicant wait one year to reapply. He said that he
had also asked for a legal opinion on whether the case would have to be heard by the Planning
Commission first before the Council could reconsider it. Mr. Kinnison said that if the motion to
reconsider passed, he would make another motion to table the item until November 11,2003.
Mr. Michael Gunning, Director of Planning, said that the Council did not have to revisit the
issue on the Bed and Breakfast Home because it was already approved. He said that the second part
ofthe request, the special permit for special events, could be reconsidered. He said that the case did
not have to go back to the Planning Commission because it was not a continuation of the public
hearing. If the motion to reconsider passed, then the item would be placed on the agenda as a
regular agenda item. He said that public comment would be allowed on the item, but another public
hearing would not be opened. He stated that as a courtesy, staff would notifY all the property owners
within 500 feet that the special use permit for special events portion of the applicant's request was
going to be reconsidered on November 11,2003.
Mayor Neal asked if the individuals residing outside of the 500 feet area who had signed a
petition were also going to be notified. Mr. Gunning replied that the city could place an ad in the
public notice section of the newspaper. In addition, he said he could contact some of the key
individuals in the petition drive to advise them that the case was going to be reconsidered.
Assistant City Secretary Juarez polled the Council for their votes as follows: Chesney,
Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye"; Neal voting "No"; Cooper
was absent.
Council Member Kinnison made a motion to table the item until November II, 2003,
seconded by Council Member Noyola. Assistant City Secretary Juarez polled the Council for their
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 16
votes as follows: Chesney, Colmenero, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye";
Neal voting "No"; Cooper was absent.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mayor Neal referred to Item 22, a presentation on the reuse of the Memorial Coliseum. City
Manager Noe stated that today's presentation was in response to the Council's request to secure
additional information on the status of the coliseum site. He said during the last discussion, the
building was found to be structurally sound. He said the list of alternative uses for the facility
seemed to duplicate those that would be taking place in the convention center/arena complex or
other city facilities. Mr. Noe commented that the cost of renovation was estimated to be between
$3.2 and $4.4 million. He noted that the Coliseum was currently operating at a $400,000 loss that
was being subsidized from the hotel/motel occupancy tax.
Mr. Noe stated that the Council had asked staff to research the property status to identifY
encumbrances or limitations, and to prepare more specific estimates on demolition costs. With
regard to property status, City Manager Noe stated that complete title research had been performed,
indicating that there were no encumbrances or limitations on the site. He stated that the park
property existed south of the site, but was not the subject site that had been previously identified.
With regard to the demolition estimates, City Manager Noe said that complete demolition,
including the foundation, would cost approximately $420,000. Demolition of the structure only
would cost $200,000 and partial demolition (non-load bearing walls only) would cost $120,000.
Mr. Noe said the alternatives for the reuse ofthe facility included the following: permanent
city use; temporary (holding) city use; and private sector development/redevelopment, including
retaining and reuse of all or part of the structure or demo structure for a clean site.
City Manager Noe stated that staffhad made the following conclusions: substantial property
(9.8 acres) on bayfront; no significant city use; substantial cost to operate or renovate; and private
sector development/redevelopment should be explored. Regarding the redevelopment process, Mr.
Noe said that the traditional process has yielded unsatisfactory results (e.g. competitive RFP). By
contrast, the alternative to sell the property provided no city control. Thus, he recommended that
the Council allow staff to identifY an alternative process for securing capable private development
and a reuse plan acceptable to the community. Once staff had identified the process, he said that
staff would bring it back for Council approval prior to initiation.
Council Member Chesney asked how long it would take staff to identifY the process and
bring the information to the Council for approval. City Manager Noe replied that it would take
approximately 30-45 days to identifY what other cities have done to find redevelopment partners,
find a compatible model for the city's needs, and develop the appropriate documents (e.g. request
for information). Council Member Chesney clarified that staff's recommendation was to identifY
a process only, not make the decision whether to develop or tear down the facility. Mr. Noe replied
affirmatively. Mr. Chesney stated that many members of the community had voiced their concerns
that the process not be dragged out, and had also requested the opportunity for public input. He said
he was comfortable with this time frame. He then asked how long it would take before staff could
make a recommendation on the final fate of the facility. Mr. Noe replied that the process could take
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 17
36 months because it would involve finding a good developer able to fund the project and create a
definitive plan. Council Member Chesney asked if the process would include opportunities for
public comment before a final recommendation was made. City Manager Noereplied affirmatively.
Council Member Chesney asked how the plans for the coliseum would tie in with the South
Central Development Plan. City Manager Noe answered that it tied in well because the Planning
Commission was going to consider the South Central Development Plan within the next few weeks.
He said that an active discussion was taking place now on development plans for the south central
area, and the coliseum discussion was well-timed.
In response to Council Member Chesney's question, Mr. Gunning replied that the marina
area had not been the focus of the stakeholders group plans because of the ongoing negotiations with
Landry's. Now that the Landry's negotiations have ceased, he said that there has been a
reintroduction of plans for the marina to be incorporated in the plan.
Council Member Kelly asked if"mothballing" the facility was an option. City Manager Noe
replied that it was a risky option, because the building could fall into disrepair and thus be harder
to reuse. City Manager Noe said that he could provide a minimal maintenance cost for mothballing
the facility if the Council wished to consider this option.
Council Member Chesney asked if there were plans to survey visitors to find out what they
would like to see in the downtown area. Mr. Joey Jarreau said that the CVB had plans to do this
kind of survey. In response to Mr. Chesney's question, City Manager Noe replied that the local AlA
chapter had planned a 12-hour charette, or design session, to discuss the Shoreline Realignment
project. Council Member Kelly asked if there would be any emphasis on cost. Mr. Gordon
Landreth, local architect, stated that it was a brainstorming session more than anything else. Council
Member Noyola asked if local architects were the only participants. Mr. Landreth replied
affirmatively.
A discussion ensued over whether the Council was deciding to reuse the building or
demolish it by approving staff's recommendation. City Manager Noe replied that the Council said
they were in favor of private development or redevelopment of the site at a prior meeting. He said
that the developers may propose retaining or reusing all or part of the structure or demolishing the
site. Therefore, he asked that the Council be flexible at this point until a process and proposals are
ready for review. Council Member Colmenero expressed his concern that the developer integrate
the site appropriately with the overall plan for the bayfront area. City Manager Noe agreed.
City Manager Noe advised the Council that they would need to make a decision to either put
the facility up for private development or hold the structure for city use within the next 30-45 days.
He did not think it would be wise to enter into negotiations with private sector developers unless we
were truly committed. Council Member Scott asked about the possibility of using the site or the
adjacent park land for a trolley system transfer station. City Manager Noe replied that it would be
an interesting alternative ifthe a transfer station could be incorporated into the development.
Council Member Noyola asked why the decision needed to be made so quickly. He asked
that information on the coliseum be placed on the city's web site for public input. He preferred that
the city wait a few weeks to obtain more input from the public before making a decision.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 18
After a brief discussion, the Council authorized City Manager Noe to proceed with staff's
recommendation.
*************
Mayor Neal called for petitions from the audience. Mr. Lamont Taylor, 1517 Van Loan, and
Ms. Carol Flowers, 1815 Peabody, spoke regarding the illegal drug problem in the Hillcrest area.
Ms. Priscilla Leal, 4738 Cheryl, and Mr. Rolando Perez Garza, 2854 Alvin, spoke regarding the
drainage problem in the Sunnybrook and Manshiem area. Mr. Gene Bruner, 324 S. Naylor, spoke
regarding the problem with lawn care businesses using blowers to put grass clippings into the storm
drains.
*************
Mayor Neal referred to Item 23, and a motion was made, seconded and passed to open the
public hearing on the following item:
23.a. Public hearing to consider abandoning and vacating a 2.656 acre tract of a dedicated 80- foot
wide undeveloped public street right-of-way being out of a 5.17 acre road dedication, out of
the North one-half of Section 31, Laureles Farm Tracts.
There were no comments from the audience. A motion was made, seconded and passed to
close the public hearing. Assistant City Secretary Juarez polled the Council for their votes as
follows:
23.b. ORDINANCE NO. 025535
Ordinance abandoning and vacating a 2.656 acre tract of a dedicated 80-foot wide
undeveloped public street right-of-way being out of a 5.17 acre road dedication, out of the
North one-half of Section 31, Laureles Farm Tracts; subject to compliance with the specified
conditions.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Cooper, Garrett, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting "Aye";
Kelly and Colmenero were absent.
Mayor Neal referred to Item 24, and a motion was made, seconded and passed to open the
public hearing on the following zoning case:
Case No. 0903-01. Michael Thomas Yarbrough: A change of zoning from an "R-IB" One-
family Dwelling District to at "B-1" Neighborhood Business District on Yarbrough
Addition, Lot I, located west of Airline Road and 285 feet south of Holly Road.
Assistant City Secretary Juarez said the Planning Commission and staff recommended the
approval of the "B-1" Neighborhood Business District.
No one appeared in opposition to the zoning change. Mr. Chesney made a motion to close
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 19
the public hearing, seconded by Mr. Scott, and passed. Ms. Juarez polled the Council for their votes
as follows:
24. ORDINANCE NO. 025536
Amending the Zoning Ordinance upon application by Michael Thomas Yarbrough by
changing the zoning map in reference to Lot I, Yarbrough Addition from "R-IB" One-
Family Dwelling District to "B-1" Neighborhood Business District; and amending the
comprehensive plan to account for any deviations from the existing comprehensive plan.
An emergency was declared, and the foregoing ordinance was passed and approved with the
following vote: Neal, Chesney, Cooper, Garrett, Kelly, Kinnison, Noyola and Scott, voting
"Aye"; Colmenero was absent.
*************
Mayor Neal opened discussion on Item 25 regarding the master plan for Shoreline Boulevard
and the Bayfront. City Manager Noe stated that the idea to eliminate the medians on Shoreline Blvd.
and create a greenspace to create a park property was not new. He said that the development had
been discussed as part of the South Central Area Development Plan. As a result of a discussion that
took place at the September 23, 2003 council meeting, he said that the idea to realign Shoreline
Boulevard resurfaced due to the impact of the seawall construction project. He said that the
construction would alter the traffic flow on Shoreline Boulevard, in essence realigning it as had been
proposed.
Mr. Noe reported that the proposed Shoreline Boulevard Master Plan would contain the
following elements: study of the complete length - from the Museum to Holiday Inn Emerald
Beach; consider opportunities to move park space to water side; downtown partnership; and proposal
from centerlarena team (TVS/Sasaki). Mr. Noe stated that potential partners for funding the master
plan would be the city, Downtown Management District (DMD), the Port of Corpus Christi,
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
Regarding the project cost, Mr. Noe explained that staff was working with TVS/Sasaki, who
initially proposed that the project would cost $50,000. However, Mr. Noe said that it did not include
funding for subconsultants in the areas of traffic analysis, nor did it include much public
participation. Assuming these additional expenses, Mr. Noe said that staff was estimating that the
cost come be as high as $100,000. He said that the city's share was estimated to be $20,000,
assuming that the city was able to secure five partners.
Mr. Noe discussed the construction estimates, assuming construction from the Museum to
Williams Street. He said that staff has completed cost estimates under two scenarios. Scenario I
would assume two-way traffic on Shoreline Drive for the entire length at an estimated cost of $7.2
million. He noted that these were engineering estimates only, meaning that only minimal
landscaping and upgrades were included. Scenario 2 assumed one-way traffic, similar to the
temporary realignment taking place on Shoreline Drive as a result of the seawall reconstruction
project. He said the estimated cost for Scenario 2 was $3.5 million.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 20
In conclusion, Mr. Noe stated staWs recommendation was to authorize them to work with
the DMD and other potential partners to fund the development of the Shoreline Boulevard Plan,
including a substantial amount of citizen participation in the design contract. He said that staff
would bring the design contract back for Council approval once all the signatories and the final RFP
are complete.
Mr. Noe introduced Mr. Gordon Landreth, Chairman of the DMD's Bayfront Enhancements
Committee, to comment. He stated that the DMD has examined previous plans for development as
well as participated as stakeholders in the South Central Development Plan. He said that the DMD
strongly supported the concept of a bayfront park development. As an organization, he said they
feel that the project must move forward, and would be offering their support both financially and
vocally. Thus, Mr. Landreth stated that the DMD had voted to offer financial support in the amount
of $20,000 to go toward the cost of a professional study to develop the bayfront. He said that the
DMD does not have its own plan; rather, they have a vision for the bayfront. Mr. Landreth said the
DMD believed that there were other entities willing to support this effort as well.
Council Member Scott asked if staff had a cost estimate to add the section of Shoreline
Boulevard in front of the federal courthouse and convention center. City Engineer Escobar replied
that the estimate was $980,000, using figures from a year ago. Council Member Scott asked if there
had been any discussions on slowing the speed of traffic. City Manager Noe answered that the
primary goal was to make the area more pedestrian friendly, so slowing the speed of traffic would
be appropriate in the discussion. Council Member Scott asked if TVS/Sasaki had any local
participation. City Manager Noe replied that Mr. Raymond Gignac was the local partner in the
group.
Council Member Cooper asked about plans for substantial public input. City Manager Noe
replied that the original plan called for a number of community workshops to take place for two days
at the beginning of the process. However, Mr. Noe stated that a second set of community workshops
needed to be scheduled after an initial master plan was prepared. Council Member Cooper
suggested that staff plan even more community workshops.
Council Member Colmenero spoke in support of the redesign of Shoreline Boulevard and
the bayfront area. Council Member Noyola also spoke in support of the plan, but he wanted to
ensure that the project would come to a public vote. Mr. Noe replied affirmatively, saying that he
could not think of any other way to fund the project other than through Bond 2004.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21,2003 - Page 21
There was no public comment. Assistant City Secretary Juarez polled the Council for their
votes as follows:
25. MOTION NO. 2003-384
Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to negotiate an agreement with the
Downtown Management District and other appropriate agencies to jointly fund a
professional services contract to develop a master plan element for Shoreline Boulevard and
the Bayfront and prepare the necessary agreements and contracts for City Council approval.
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 announced the executive sessions, which were listed on the agenda as follows:
26. Executive session under Texas Government Code Section 551.071 regarding Kourtney
Hancock vs. Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. and the City of Corpus Christi, Cause No. 02-1169-
B, I 17th District Court, Nueces County, Texas, with possible discussion and action in open
sessIOn.
27. Executive session under Texas Government Code Sections 551.071, 551.072 and 551.087
regarding the South Wharf Project in the Corpus Christi Marina with possible discussion and
action related thereto in open session.
The Council went into executive session.
*************
The Council returned from executive session. Mayor Neal called for the City Manager's
report. City Manager Noe asked Assistant City Manager Ron Massey to brief the Council on the
reservoir system. Mr. Massey reported that the water north of Tilden has crested and is on the
decline. He said that the water level in Choke Canyon has been used effectively as a kind ofbuffer.
He noted that Bluntzer was close to cresting. Council Member Kelly asked how quickly the water
level would decrease. Mr. Massey answered that it would decrease slowly, adding that estimates
are that higher flows will continue to be seen for approximately two weeks. Mr. Kelly asked how
high above flood stage the water had reached this time. Mr. Massey said that the water level was
at least 10 feet over in Bluntzer.
Mr. Kelly asked what would be involved in trying to resolve the flooding issue. Mr. Massey
replied that the federal government's approach to dealing with the flooding was to buyout the
properties along the river, basically in the flood plain, and relocate those individuals. Mr. Massey
added that most of the properties in question were in the county areas. Mr. Kelly commented that
he did not believe this would be a popular idea. Mr. Massey agreed, but said that the options were
limited since it was difficult to build another dam or increase the volumes of the existing dams. He
said ultimately, the least expensive option was to buyout the properties in the low lying areas.
Minutes - Regular Council Meeting
October 21, 2003 - Page 22
City Manager Noe reported that staff held a meeting with the school superintendents in the
area in preparation for the Council's proposed Education Summit. He said the summit was in the
planning stages and the meeting went very well. He said the Council should have received a copy
of the adopted budget. Also, this Thursday from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at Fannin Elementary
School, a project neighborhood meeting was scheduled for the Home Road! Ayers Street! Kostoryz
Street improvements project. Mr. Noe said that next Thursday, staff was planning a special
recognition for Mr. David Casteel from TxDOT, who would be leaving the city at the end of the
month. At next week's Council meeting, he stated that the Council would be hearing a detailed
discussion on the storm water capital projects and funding. He said that a joint meeting with the
Crime Control and Prevention District was scheduled at 12:00 p.m. at the November II, 2003
council meeting.
There were no Council concerns and reports.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Mayor Neal adjourned the
Council meeting at 7:20 p.m. on October 21, 2003.
*************
2
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
October 28, 2003
AGENDA ITEM:
Storrn Water Capital Project Funding options
STAFF PRESENTER(S):
Name
1. Mark L. McDaniel
Title/Position DeDartment
Executive Director of Support Services
ISSUE:
Corpus Christi has substantial Storm Water Capital needs totaling over $90 rnillion
dollars. The City Council has established long-terrn funding options for drainage
needs as a council priority issue. As a supplernental funding source for drainage
irnprovernents, Staff is recornrnending a monthly storrn water fee to be assessed to
utility customers and property owners within the city lirnits. The recomrnendation is
outlined in this presentation.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
No forrnal action is required.
FUTURE ACTION: Adoption of Ordinance establishing a storrn water fee to address
the storrn water (drainage) needs of the City.
~;c:j J
Executive Director of Support Services
Copy of PowerPoint Slides X
Storm Water Funding Approaches X
Schedule of Funding Options X
Survey of Texas Cities X
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Since 1989, the City of Corpus Christi has funded Storm Water operations through Water
Fund resources. A customer's water consumption bears no relationship to the demands
placed on the storm water drainage system. Demands placed on the drainage system are
related to the quantity and quality of runoff from a property.
The Texas Municipal Drainage Utilities Systems Act was amended in 1989 to provide
enabling powers to all municipalities for utility formation. Numerous cities have already
established storm water drainage utilities to support their drainage programs. Storm Water
utility establishment is the most equitable means of allocating storm water costs because
rates will be related to drainage.
From 1995 to date, several attempts have been made to establish a Drainage Utility. At a
Storm Water Management City Council Workshop held on November 18, 2002, the Office
of Management & Budget presented several funding options for Council to consider. On
May 6, 2003 at the City Council Retreat, long-term funding of storm water management was
identified as a Council Priority Issue.
In order to address the obvious and serious storm water needs of the community, a
consistent and reliable long term source of funding is essential - particularly in light of
significant capital improvement needs in this area. Ofthe funding options presented at the
retreat, staff continues to believe the most viable option for long-term funding of storm water
needs is the establishment of a storm water fee.
Prior City Council Action:
12/14/93:
07/18/95:
09/12/95:
11/28/95:
04/16/96 :
07/23/96:
06/17/97:
5/99:
6/22/99:
9/99:
5/2001:
2/2002:
11/18/02:
1i28/03:
1/28/03:
5/6/03:
City Council passed a resolution directing the City Manager to initiate steps to establish a
drainage utility and design a utility fee.
City Council adopted a resoiution directing the scheduling of a public hearing on creation of a
drainage utility.
City Council passed a resolution canceling the public hearing on the proposed drainage utility
scheduled for September 12, 1995.
City Councii appoints 9-member Drainage Utility Ad Hoc Committee with a mission to
recommend a service level plan for drainage services and a schedule of rates and charges
that would provide the revenues necessary to support that level of service.
Committee's motion to send mission statement back to City Council for clarification scheduled
on April 16, 1996 City Council agenda; City Council passed a motion to instruct drainage utility
Ad Hoc Committee to come back to the Council with a recommendation on an equitable
drainage utility rate structure for City customers and to include any other recommendations
the committee may make.
Drainage Committee presented its recommendation to the City Council not to establish a
drainage utility; Council took no further action.
City Council passed an ordinance establishing an 11-member Storm Water Management
Advisory Committee to advise to Council on activities related to the City's NPDES permit; the
Committee was to be abolished on June 17, 1999.
Council identified priority issue which included establishing a Drainage Utility and staff
prepared an action plan proposing initiation of charges for April 2000.
Council amended ordinance establishing Storm Water Management Advisory Committee
(SWMAC) to continue the Committee's existence and include an additional duty - to advise
Mayor and Council on establishment of a drainage utility.
Staff prepared a summary survey of services and fees and a presentation highlighting a
revenue neutral approach in developing a Storm Water Drainage Utility and fees based on lot
sizes and not water usage or impervious surface.
Council identified a Storm Water Utility as one of its continuing priority issues.
SWMAC submitted storm water funding option recommendations to Council. The decision
was made to defer action on funding untii findings of the Drainage Master Plan were
completed.
Storm Water Management City Council Workshop held. Proposed Master Plan Policy and
funding options presented to City Council.
Council passed a resolution tentatively approving Storm Water Management Policies.
Staff presented Council $5 million and $20 million drainage CIP project listings.
Council identified new priority issue to establish long-term storm water funding and retain the
existing Master Drainage Plan as a priority issue.
RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE FEE STRUCTURE
As reflected in the attached survey of Texas cities with storm water drainage fees, there
are a variety of methods used to assess a fee. Over half of cities or towns with drainage
fees assess a monthly fee based on impervious area. Other cities such as Dallas assess
based on lot size. Across the State, monthly fees for residents range from a flat $.50 in
Fort Worth to Dallas' $13.88 for a residence with over 43,600 square feet. Fees for
commercial properties range from Fort Worth's $.50 for small parcels to Arlington's $390
monthly fee for property over 1,000,000 square feet.
Given the wide range of fees and methods, Staff developed several options to calculate a
fee which are detailed in the attached schedule. Staff is recommending Option 50 a
combination method which should be less onerous to our citizens in terms of cost and
should be easier to administer and maintain. Following is the recommended fee structure:
No. Meters Ratelmonth RevenueNear
ICL Residential
Single Family and
Duplex
71,375 $1.20 $ 1,027,800
No.
Parcels/Lots Rate/month RevenueNear
ICL Commercial
< 10,000 sq. ft. 7,468 $3.00 $ 268,848
10,001 -20.000 sq.
ft. 1,679 $6.00 $ 120,888
20,001 -40,000 sq.
ft. 1,209 $8.00 $ 116,064
> 40,000 sq ft. 1,988 $10.00 $ 238,560
sub total 12,344 $ 744,360
Total 12,344 $ 1,772,160
The estimated annual revenue of $1,772,160 will fund approximately $21.3 million in
capital projects. This is comparable to approximately a 2% increase in the current utility
rate for FY 03-04. Should the Council decide to fund more than $21.3 million in projects
annually, the storm water fee could be adjusted incrementally.
Fees would be assessed to utility customers or property owners of record. Billing would be
handled through our HTE utility billing system. Vacant, unimproved property would not be
assessed at this time and is not reflected in the above revenue estimate.
2% Rate increase =
$1,627,000/year in revenue
$19.5 Million in Project Capacity
X
Funding through issuance of G.O. Bonds
2 cent increase in general property tax =
$1,789,0001year in revenue
$21.5 Million in Project Capacity
2 cent in District property tax =
$2,124,000/year in revenue
$25.5 Million in Project Capacity
Funding through Drainage Utility Fee
See attached Storm Water Drainage Fee Options Worksheet
STORM WATER DRAINAGE FEE OPTIONS
Total 115,243 E 1,764,634 .:::Total $ 1,772,160
No. Parcels/Lots
Ratelmonth
RevenuefYear
ICL Commercial
# of Parcel/
Type of Customer
# of Meters
Rate/Month
TotalNear
Parcel/Lot size
Lots
Rate/Month
Total/Year
ICL
1,679
$
6.00
EReslden0al
120,888
20,001 -40,000 sq. ft.
1,209
Residential -Single
70,841
$ 1.00
$ 850,092
?< 10,000 sq. ft.
55,832
1.00
669,984
Family
238,560
sub total
12,344
1>10,000 sq. ft.
16,907
2.00
405,768
Duplex
894
3.00
32,184
72,739
1,075,752
Commercial
7,439
10.00
892,680
Commercial
6,531
Multiunit
41
Restaurant
351
"Commercial
Hospitals
40
<10,000 sq. ft.
7,468
$ 3.00
268,848
Schools
152
10,001 -20,000 sq. ft.
1,679
6.00
120,888
Churches
315
: 20,001 - 40,000 sq. ft.
1,209
8.00
116,064
Large Vol. Users
3
". > 40,000 sq, ft.
1,988
10.00
238,560
12,344
744,360
Total
71,735
S 1,774,966 .,,.;i
Total
85,083
11,820,112
E�OI'I SC
Cd tt
un
: 7:281 d 1f ............
118
CotlManatlattofEA.adW
11:dif0esae8 G11 a Lvt
66
Type of Customer
# of Parcels/Lots
Rate/Month
TotalNear
Residential -Single
83,053
$ 0.50
498,318
No. Meters
Ratelmonth
RevenueNear
Family
ICL Residential
Duplex
539
2
12,936
Single Family and Duplex
Commercial
31,651
3.30
1,253,380
71,375
$ 1.20
$ 1,027,800
Total 115,243 E 1,764,634 .:::Total $ 1,772,160
No. Parcels/Lots
Ratelmonth
RevenuefYear
ICL Commercial
< 10,000 sq. ft.
7,468
$
3.00
$
268,848
10,001 -20,000 sq. ft.
1,679
$
6.00
$
120,888
20,001 -40,000 sq. ft.
1,209
$
8.00
$
116,064
> 40,000 sq ft.
1,988
$
10.00
$
238,560
sub total
12,344
$
744,360
Total 115,243 E 1,764,634 .:::Total $ 1,772,160
STORM WATER DEPARTMENT
City of
=c =us
�h
SURVEY OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE FEES
SINOLEFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
CITY
RESIDENTIAL
MONTHLY
CLASS
MONTHLY
COMMENTS
CONTACT
CLASS
RATE
RATE
*ABILENE
ALL
$ 1.85
ALL
$.00097/SF-IA
$10/MONTH MAX. - RESIDENTIAL
Ms. Cassie Hughes
$I00/MONTH MAX. - COMMERCIAL
Phone # 915-676-6294
ALLEN
ALL
$ 2.75
ALL
$18.72/ACRE
$2.75'MONTH MIN. CHARGE
Mr. Dennis Abraham
Includes Mufti -Pam
$50.00/MONTH MAX. CHARGE
Phone # 972-727-0167
0-10,000 S.F. - IA
$ 6.50
10,001-50,000
$ 13.00
50,001-100,000
$ 19.50
ARLINGTON
ALL
$ 1.30
100,001-200,000
$ 39.00
MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENTS
Ms. Cindy Jackson
200,001-350,000
$ 78.00
BILLED AT $0.651UNIT/MONTH
Phone # 817-059-6550
350,001-700,000
$ 130.00
700,001-1,000,000
$ 260.00
>1,000,000 S.F. - IA
$ 390.00
AUSTIN
ALL
$ 5.79
ALL
$94.62/SF-IA
Ms. Cassandra Alexander
Phone # 512-974-1492
CORPUS CHRISTI
0-5,000 S.F
$ 1.75
5,001.10,000
$ 2.83
RESIDENTIAL RATES ARE
DALLAS
10,001-21,800
$ 4.11
ALL
$0.055/100SF-IA
BASED ON LOT SIZE AS
Mr. Jim McCaghren
21,801-43,600
$ 7.20
OUTLINED BY TIERS
Phone # 214-670-3107
>43,600 S.F.
$ 13.88
ALL
$10.00/MONTH
APT COMPLEX/UN IT
$.50/MONTH
COMMERCIAL MULTI -UNIT
$20.00/MONTH
FT. WORTH
ALL
$0.50/MONTH
INDUSTRIAL
$35.00/MONTH
Environmental Protection Fee
Mr. Clarence Reed
RESIDENTIAL DUPLEX
$1.00/MONTH
MUNICIPAL
$.75/MONTH
Phone # 817-871-5465
NON-PROFIT
$.75/MONTH
'These rates are curran being ed. If app roved, they will became effective on October 1, 2003.
SURVEY OF STORM WATER DRAINAGE FEES
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL
CITY
RESIDENTIAL
MONTHLY
CLASS
MONTHLY
COMMENTS
CONTACT
CLASS
RATE
RATE
D-7,000 S.F.
$ 1.20
RESIDENTIAL RATES ARE
GARLAND
7,001-10,000
$ 2.40
BASED ON LOT SIZE OR
Mr. Phillip Welsch
>10,000 S.F.
$ 3.60
ALL
$0.06/100 SF -IA
ZONING CLASS (SF7,SF8). ONLY
Phone # 972-205.2189
CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS ARE
EXEMPT.
0-10,000 S.F.(LOT)
$ 2.63
MULTI -FAMILY APARTMENTS
**IRVING
<5,000 S.F.
$ 0.85
10,001-20,000
$ 5.26
BILLED AT $0.0035/YR/S.F.
Ms. Karon Slddall
>5,000 S.F.
$ 1.18
20,001-40,000
$ 10.52
TOWNHOUSES 8 DUPLEXES
Phone # 972-721-2772
>40,000 S.F. LOT
$0.00351YR/S.F.
CHARGED $0.85/MONTH/UNIT
<10,000 S.F.
$ 7.00
Mr. John Porter
LAREDO
ALL
$ 0.75
10,000-40,000
$ 20.00
Mr. Lucky Roncinske
>40,001 S.F.
$ 40.00
Phone # 956-7941650
Ms. Patty Enriquez
LUBBOCK
PER WATER METER
$ 4.99
PER WATER METER
$33.12
Phone # 806-775-3160
MESQUITE
ALL
$ 3.00
ALL
$0.050/100 S.F.-IA
NO EXEMPTIONS
Mr. D. J. Brouwer
Phone # 972-216-6432
R6 -T $.96
NORTH
R4 -SD $1.14
RICHLAND
R -5-D $1.14
Mr. Lance Barton
HILLS
PER LOT
R8 $1.44
PER ACRE
$19.26
phone # 817-427-6400
R3 $2.22
R2 $2.58
R1 $3.42
0.1749 S.F.
R1 $2.25
RESIDENTIAL RATES ARE BASED
Mr. Michael Arthaud
PLANO
1750-3450 S.F.
R2 $3.30
ALL
$0.056/100 S.F.-IA
ON BUILDING FOOTPRINT SIZE
Phone # 972-941-5267
>3450 S.F.
R3 $4.25
AS OUTLINED BY TIERS
0-21,999 S.F.
$ 12.83
RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL
SAN
0-4999 S.F.
$ 2.25
22,000-43,999
$ 35.10
RATES ARE BASED ON LOT SIZE
ANTONIO
>5,000
$ 2.98
44,000.86,999
$ 62.91
Ms. Yvonne Cruz
87,000-131,999
$ 108.42
APARTMENT AND PUBLIC LANDS
Phone # 210-7047060
>131,999 S.F.
$ 239.54
HAVE DIFFERENT RATES
"Irving - City anticipates approval of a 10% increase across the board in September 2003 - effective date is undaterrnined.
City of Corpus Christi
Storm Water Capital Projects
Funding Options
October 28, 2003
Existing System
• 100+ Miles Major Drainage Ditches
• 700+ Miles Minor Drainage Ditches
• 600+ Miles Underground Storm Pipe
• 1800+ Miles Curb & Gutter
• 2500+ Acres Drainage & Street ROW
Mowing
• 18,300+ Storm Inlets
• 6000+ Manholes
• 3 Pump Stations
• 23 Storm Gates
• 5 Storm Surge Protection Levee Gates
• 107+ Bridges 2
Existing System Components
Streets, Curbs & Gutters
Receiving Waters
(Creeks & Bays)
Inlets & Laterals
Major Open Channels
Pump Stations - Downtown
Minor Open Ditches
Major Underground
Box Structure 3
Funding
Storm Water
Improvements
& Services
Ell
Council Action Regarding
Drainage Funding
• Deliberation since 1993
• Re -affirmed as a Council Priority in 2001
• Funding options revisited in 2002
• Further consideration per current
Council Action Plan in October 2003
Storm Water Funding Needs
• Existing Storm Water CIP Projects — currently
over $90 million
— Based Upon Existing Policy/Standards (LOP)
— Pending consultant's revised cost estimates
— Not All Inclusive
— City/Developer Participation in New Development -
Pending
• Operation & Maintenance and Permit Compliance
— $7.7 Million /yr. (FY 2003-04)
Funding Approaches in Other Cities
Sampling of Cities with a
Drainage Fee:
•
Allen
• Laredo
•
Arlington
• Lubbock
•
Austin
• Mesquite
•
Dallas
• Irving
•
Ft. Worth
• Plano
•
Garland
• San Antonio
•
Houston
•
N. Richland
Hills
•
Abilene
Sampling of Cities/Counties
Within a Drainage District:
• Beaumont
• Galveston
• Lake Jackson/Brazosport
• Pasadena
• Port Arthur
• Texas City
• Nueces County — Districts 2&3
Funding Approaches
1. Continue Funding through Combined Utilities
ater) Rate Adiustments
2. Formation of a Drainage District
I General Obligation Bonds/Bond Election
(Bond 2004 &beyond)
4. Adoption of Impact Fees
5. Adoption of Drainage Utility/Fee
U.
1. Continue Funding through
Combined Utilities (Water)
• 2 % rate increase =
• $1,627,000/year in revenue
• $19.5 Million in project capacity
(2004)
E
2. New Drainage District
• To Encompass City Limits &
Industrial District Only —
• Approx $ 2,124,000 /year in revenue
for every 2 cent in property tax
• $25.5 Million project capacity
10
3. G.O. Bonds
Capital Improvements Only —
• Approx $1,789,000 /year in revenue
for every 2 cent on property tax rate
• $21.5 Million project capacity
11
4. Impact Fees
• Not Recommended
• Only tends to address new
development
• Oriented towards very high
construction growth
• Difficult to administer
12
5. New Drainage Utility Fee
(Recommended)
• Capital Improvements Only —
• Generating approximately $1,765,000 -
$1, 820,000/year in revenue depending
on option
• $21.2 -$21.8 Million project capacity
13
Drainage Utility Fee Options
Based on:
• SA -Meter connections
• SB -Parcel /Lot Size
• SC - Land Use /Zoning (residential vs.
commercial)
• 5D - Combination of 5A & 5B
14
5A - Based on Number of Meters
(Inside City Limits)
• Fee Structure (Monthly)
— Residential Single Family - $ 1.00
— Duplex - $3.00
— Commercial - $10.00
— Generates $4, 774,956 in annual revenue
(equivalent of approximately 2% on Combined
Utility rates)
15
5B - Based on Parcel/Lot Size
(Inside City Limits)
• Fee Structure (Monthly)
— Residential /Duplex
—<10,000 sq. ft - $ 1.00
—>10,000 sq. ft. -$ 2.00
— Commercial / Other
—<10,000 sq. ft. — $3.00
— < 101001 — 201000 sq. ft. — $6.00
—<20,001 — 40,000 sq. ft. — $8.00
—<40,000 sq. ft. — $10.00
— Generates $1,820,112
in annual
revenue (equivalent
of
approximately 2% on
Combined
Utility rates)
16
5C - Based on Land Use/Zoning
(Inside City Limits)
• Fee Structure (Monthly)
— Residential Single Family - $ .50
— Duplex - $2.00
— Commercial / Other - $3.30
— Generates $1,764,634 in annual revenue
(equivalent of approximately 2% on Combined
Utility rates)
17
5D - Combination of Options
SA & SB (Recommended)
• Fee Structure (Monthly)
— Residential / Duplex - $ 1.20/ meter connection
— Commercial /Other - $3.00 - $10.00, depending
upon lot size, capping at >40,000 square feet
— Generates $1,772,160 in annual revenue
(equivalent of approximately 2% on Combined
Utility rates)
m
Implementation of Option SD
— Residential Customers would be billed on monthly
utility bills
— Commercial Customers would be billed on
monthly utility bill or on separate bill depending
on property ownership
— Only developed/improved property subject to fee
— Fee would be capped at $10.00 per month on
commercial /$1.20 per month on residential
19
Proposed Fee Structure
I ,772,160
C
Rate
R,(- (%Hue
No. of
per
pe r
ICT B._.:'Residential
Single Family and
D11plex
71,375
.?
L8
1
7,8�®q0
�$^ o. of
f/§f '$( §
�.�'. _J .� ft S. t1gR. E�
��$'-gyp 0d (,
8 C�Y.celsl lots
10,000 sq. ft.
71,468
3.00
S
48
268,848
10,0()1 -20,000 sq. ft.
1,679
6.00
S
1 x109888
20,001 .40,000 sq. ft,
11209
8.00
S
116,064
> 40,000 sq ft.
11988
1 OM
S
238,560
sub total
121344
S
744,360
I ,772,160
C
Next Steps?
• Adoption of Capital Budget and Long -Range
CIP ... December 2003
• Proposed New Fee ... FY 04/05 Budget Cycle
... effective August 01, 2004
• Adoption of Storm Water Policies..... August 2004
— Address:
• Level of Protection (LOP)
• City/Developer Participation
21
Questions
22
3
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
AGENDA ITEM: Motion appointing Melody Cooper to the Corpus Christi Reinvestment
Zone Number Two Board of Directors and reappointing the current members all to a term
ending November 1, 2005.
The following members are currently serving on this Board: Samuel L. Neal., Jr., Javier
Colmenero, Brent Chesney, Rex Kinnison, John Longoria, Jesse Noyola, and Mark Scott.
ISSUE AND BACKGROUND: The Board's main duties are to prepare and adopt a project
plan and reinvestment zone financing plan for the Zone and submit such plans to the City
Council for its approval.
The Board consists of fifteen (15) members with two-year staggered terms. The city
Council has the authority to appoint at least ten (10) members of the board. The remainder
of the members shall be comprised of appointees from the respective governing bodies of
eac taxing unit in the Zone other than the City. Each governing body may appoint one (1)
member to the board but may waive its right to appoint a director if desired. The Nueces
County Hospital District, Del Mar College, Nueces County and the Flour Bluff Independent
School District have chosed to appoint members to this board. The board shall exceed
fifteen (15) members if necessary for the City Council to make said ten (10) appointments.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On May 21, 2002, the City Council passed a motion
appointing seven members to the board: Javier Colmenero, Brent Chesney, Rex Kinnison,
John Longoria, Samuel L. Neal, Jr., Jesse Noyola, and Mark Scott. Terms will expire on
November 1, 2003.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends that the Council
appoint members to this Board so that the Board may preside over a meeting tentatively
scheduled for November, 2003.
A~
City Secretary
4
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: October 28, 2003
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to award a construction
contract to Ray's Welding frorn Corpus Christi, Texas in the amount of $84,991.35
for the RenovationlDevelopment of Existing Parks, Phase 2 at the following
locations: (Bond Issue 2000)
. Los Encinos Park,
. Oak Park,
. Surfside Park, and
. West Guth Park
ISSUE: As part of a Bond Issue 2000 package, on November 7,2000, city residents
approved a proposition for the renovation/development of nine city-wide parks. This
project is utilizing costs savings and interest earnings to provide additional park
enhancements to four of the approved parks.
FUNDING: Funding is available through the Park & Recreation Capital Improvement
Program.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the
construction contract so a construction contract may be awarded and work may proceed.
/"
~ iJo~
L.cJ'--B id Ondrias
\) Acting Director of Park & Recreation
I~~ j;~trL
Jl(ngel R. Escobar, P. E.,
Director of Engineering Services
It? /uAn
.
Additional Support Material:
Exhibit "A" Background Information
Exhibit "B" Project Budget
Exhibit "C" Bid Tab Summary
Exhibit "0" Location Map
H:\HOME\l YNDAS\GEN\PARKS\Bond Issue 2000 Pmiects\Rflnovations of Exislina Parks - PHASE 2\Memo.OOC
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to award a
construction contract to Ray's Welding from Corpus Christi, Texas in the
amount of $84,991.35 for the RenovationlDevelopment of Existing Parks,
Phase 2 at the following locations: (Bond Issue 2000)
. Los Encinos Park,
. Oak Park,
. Surfside Park, and
. West Guth Park
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
1. November 14. 2000 - Ordinance canvassing returns and declaring the results ofthe
Special Election held on November 7, 2000, in the City of Corpus Christi for the
adoption of seven propositions; adoption and levying a sales and use tax pursuant
to Section 4A of The Development Corporation Act as approved by the voters in
Propositions 4 and 5 (Ordinance No. 024269).
2. Januarv 30. 2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute
an engineering services contract in the amount of $37,500 with Shiner, Moseley and
Associates for the Renovation and Development of the following Existing Parks:
. Los Encinos Park
. Parker Park
. South Bluff Park
. St. Andrews Park (Motion No. 2001-029).\
3. Januarv 30.2001 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute
an architectural services contract in the amount of $50,01 0 with Bright + Dykemas
Architects, I nc. for the Renovation and Development of the following Existing Parks:
. Labonte Park
. Oak Park
. Surfside Park
. West Guth Park (Motion No. 2001-030).
5. Januarv 15. 2002 - Ordinance approving the FY 2001-2002 Capital Budget
(Ordinance No. 024730).
PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
1. October 18. 2000 - Distribution of Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No. 2000-08-
(Public Health and Safety, Parks and Recreation, Street Improvement Projects) to
73 local architectural and engineering firms.
2. November 10. 2000 -Addendum NO.1 to the Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2000-08 - (Public Health and Safety, Parks and Recreation, Street Improvement
Projects) to 73 local architectural and engineering firms.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of 2
H:\HOME\L YNDAS\GEN\PARKS\Bond Issue 2000 Projects\Renovations of Existing PsrXs - PHASE 2\BACKGRQUND.doc
4. Januarv 10. 2001 - Addendum NO.2 to the Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2000-08 - (Public Health and Safety, Parks and Recreation, Street Improvement
Projects) to 73 local architectural and engineering firms.
5. Mav 14, 2003 - Administrative approval of a small engineering agreement with
Dykemas Architects in the amount of $12,000 for the Renovation/Development of
Existing Parks, Phase 2.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: On Tuesday, November 7, 2000, the City of Corpus Christi
held an election to consider a number of ballot propositions to fund major capital
improvements for the community, Bond Issue 2000. The Bond Issue 2000 package
includes $30.8 rnillion in projects to be funded from ad valorem property taxes (a General
Obligation Bond Issue) in Public Health and Safety, Parks and RecreationlMuseum, and
Street Improvement projects. Proposition No.3 Parks and Recreation and Museum
Improvements includes improvements to renovate and develop existing parks city-wide.
Due to cost savings on Bond Issue 2000 Park projects, additional improvements will be
completed at voter-approved park locations. The proposed project consists of making
additional improvements to city parks to provide for improved ADA compliance, safety
enhancements and replacement of deteriorated park equipment.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project consists of furnishing and installing (in four existing
parks within the City) play structures, covered shelters, picnic tables, barbeque pits, trash
containers, concrete trail additions and improvements and parking lot improvements with
hot-mix asphaltic concrete (all to current A.D.A. standards), at the locations indicated and
in accordance with the plans, specifications and contract documents
BID INFORMATION: The project consists of a Base Bid and one deductive alternate.
The city received proposals from eleven (11) bidders on October 1, 2003. (See Exhibit
"C".) The bids ranged from $74,289.50 to $156,305.00. Two proposals were deemed non-
responsive due to invalid bid bonds. Bridges Specialties of Sandia, Texas was the
apparent low bidder, but their bid bond did not correctly identify the project. The legal
department deemed their bid non-responsive and therefore concluded that they were not a
responsive bidder. Ray's Welding Services of Corpus Christi, Texas was determined to be
the lowest qualified bidder.
The Engineer's estimated construction cost for this project is $106,000. The City staff
recommend that based on lowest responsive bid, the full Base Bid be awarded in the
amount of $84,991.43 to Ray's Welding Services of Corpus Christi, Texas for the Phase 2
Renovation and Development of existing parks at Los Encinos Park, Oak Park, Surfside
Park, and West Guth Park.
CONTRACT TERMS: The contract specifies that the project will be completed in 120
calendar days, with completion anticipated by March 2004.
FUNDING: Funds for this project are available in the FY 2002-03 Park & Recreation
Capital Improvement Budget.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 2 of 2
H:\HOME\l YNDA$\GEN\PARKS\Bond Issue 2000 Projecls\R6f1ovations Of Existing Parks - PHASE 2\BACKGROUND.doc
RENOVATIONIDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING PARKS, PHASE 2
LOS ENCINOS PARK
OAK PARK
SURFSIDE PARK
WEST GUTH PARK
PROJECT BUDGET
October 28, 2003
FUNDS AVAILABLE:
Ipark 2001 CIP Bond Fund
ESTIMATED
BUDGET
I $ 112,491.351
FUNDS REQUIRED:
Construction Cost (Ray's Weldino Services) $ 84,991.35
Construction Continoencies 8,500.00
DesiQn Consultant 12,000.00
EnQineerino Reimbursements 2,500.00
Construction Inspection 2,000.00
Administrative Reimbursements 1,000.00
Incidental Expenses (Printing, Advertising, etc.).................................. 1,500.00
Total..................................................................................................... $ 112,491.35
EXHIBIT "B"
Page 1 of 1
TABULATION OF BIDS Page 1 of 3
DEPARTMENT OF ENSIBRERII7O - CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEEAS
TABULATED BY. "gal R.Racobar, P.E., Director of Engineering Services
DATEt Wednesday, October 1, 2003 TIME OF COMPLETION: 120 Calendar Days ENOINEXR-9 ESTIMATE, $106,000
Renovation/Development of Existing Parke
Phase 2: Los Encinos Park, Oak Park, Surfside
Park set Guth Park - #3256-3257-3258-3259
ITEM DESCRIPTION OTT. UNIT
*Ray's Welding Service
5746 Leopard St.
C.C. TX 78408
assesses
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Camrett Corporation
3636 S. Alameda, Ste. B
C.C. TX 78411
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
R.S. Parker Construction
455 Hereford
C.C. TX 78408
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Tame. -Pearson Const. Inc.
710 Buffalo, Ste 412
C.C. TX 78401
assesses
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A-1
Covered Shelter
3
EA
$10,000.00
$30,000.00
$8,863.00
$26,589.00
$8,500.00
$25,500.00
$10,108.00
$30,324.00
w/foundation, integral
table and benches, BBQ Pit,
.,.
and Detached trash
container
A-2
Concrete trail improvements
22
SY
$136.36
$2,999.92
$54.00
$1,188.00
$55.00
$1,210.00
$37.00
$814.00
Subtotal Items A-1 thru A-2
832,999.92
527.777.00
$26.710.00
$31.138.00
B-1
Concrete trail improvements
162
SY
$92.59
$14,999.58
$54.00
$8,748.00
58.748.00
$50.00
$8,100.00
$8,100.00
$104.00
$16,848.00
$16.848.00
C-1
Subtotal Items 8-2
Parking Lot Improvements
1
LS
$13,000.00
514.999.58
$13,000.00
$31,400.00
$31,400.00
$35,640.00
$35,640.00
$35.640.00
$30,952.00
$30,952.00
530.952.00
D-1
Subtotal Items C-1
Play Structure Type "A"
1
EA
$18,000.00
513.000.00
$18,000.00
$20,520.00
$31.400.00
$20,520.00
$24,350.00
$24,350.00
$21,283.00
$21,283.00
w/mulch and curb and bench
D-2
Concrete trail improvements
409
SY
$14.65
$5,991.85
$45.00
$16,405.00
$45.00
$18,405.00
$34.00
$13,906.00
Subtotal Items D-1 thru 1-2
923.991.85
$38.925.00
$42.755.00
$35.189.00
Total Base Bid (Parte A -B-
.C --R)
$84.991.35
$106.850.00
$113,205.00
5114.127.00
TOTAL BASE DID LESS PART A
(PARTS B -C -D)
*951,991.43
$79.073.00
$86.495.00
$82.989.00
*Contractor has rounded off total extensions to dollars only, if cents are part of unit price, total extensions moat include cents.
**Non -Responsive bids are listed last and only for informational purposes, with explanation why it was non-responsive foot note.
TABULATION O7 BIDS Page 2 of 3
DEPARTMENT 01 monteERxBO - CITY O1 CORPUS CRRISTI, TEYAB
TABULATED SY, Angel R.Eacobar, P.E., Director of Engineering Services
DATE. Wednesday, October 1, 2003 TIRE OF COMPLETION. 120 Calendar Days EEGINRSt'8 ESTIMATR. $106,000
Renovation/Development of Existing Parke
Phase 2: Los Encina Park, Oak Park, Surfside
Park est Guth Park - #3256-3257-3258-3259
ITS[ DESCRIPTION QTY. MaT
DMB Construction
P. 0. Box 71116
C.C. TX 78467
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
Sal Con Inc.
P. 0.. Box 71771
C.C. TX 78467
OBIT PRICE ANDU"
*Elite Construction
5414 Pressler
C.C. TX 78413
UNIT PEKE AMOUBT
-Barcom Commercial
1710 Padre Isl Dr, Ste.B
C.C. TX 78416
050010100
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
A-1
Covered Shelter
3
EA
$9,168.00
$27,504.00
$10,500.00
$31,500.00
$10,065.00
$30,195.00
$10,090.33
$30,270.99
w/foundation, integral
table and benches, BBQ Pit,
..,
and Detached trash
container
A-2
Concrete trail improvements
Subtotal Items
22
SY
$76.50
$1,683.00
$74.00
$1,628.00
$231.82
$5,100.04
$108.00
$2,376.00
B-1
A-1 thru A-2
Concrete trail improvements
8ubtetal Items
162
SY
$81.20
529.187.00
$13,154.40
$74.00
$33.128.00
$11,988.00
$67.90
$35.295.04
$10,999.80
$108.09
$32,646.99
$17,510.58
C-1
H-2
Parking Lot Improvements
Subtotal Items
1
LS
$27,590.00
513.154.40
$27,590.00
$35,410.00
911.988.00
$35,410.00
$58,000.00
910.999.80
$58,000.00
$31,691.00
$17.510.58
$31,691.00
D-1
C-1
Play Structure Type -A-
1
EA
$27.590.00
535.410.00
$58.000.00
$31.691.00
./mulch and curb and bench
$31,263.00
$31,263.00
$30,000.00
$30,000.00
$14,137.00
$14,137.00
$35,066.00
$35,066.00
D-2
Concrete trail improvements
ERbiotal Itams D-1 thio D-2
409
SY
$77.20
$31,574.60
$62,837.80
$68.00
$27,812.00
$57.812.00
$67.90
$27,771.10
$41.908.10
$91.29
$37,337.61
$72.403.61
Total Base Bid (Parts A -B-
¢p)
$132.769.20
$138.336.00
$146,202.94
$154.252.18
TOTAL BA88 SID L888 PART A
(PARTS B -C -D)
$103.582.20
5105.210.00
*5110.907.90
*$121.605.19
*Contractor has rounded off total extensions to dollars only, if cents are part of unit price, total extensions must include cents.
*-Non-Responsive bids are listed last and only for informational purposes, with explanation why it was non-responsive foot note.
TABULATION 07 BIDS - Page 3 of 3
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING - CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
TABULATED B?+ xngal R.Eacobar, P.E., Director of Engineering Ssz Picea
DATE, Wednesday, October 1, 2003 TIME OF COMPLRTION, 120 Calendar Days ENOINEER'8 BSTIIIATE, $106,000
Renovation/Development of Existing Parke
Phase Z Los Bncinos Park, Oak Park, Surfside
Pare West Guth Park - #3256-3257-3258-3259
Maltby Builders, Inc.
P. O. Box 5083
Kingsville, TX 78364
I UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
!•MAC Inc.
P. O. Box 3251
Austin, TX 78764
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
"*Sridges Specialties
744 FM 1540
Sandia, TR 78383
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
UNIT PRICE AMOUNT
ITRN
DESCRIPTION
QTY.
UGIT
A-1
Covered Shelter
3
EA
$9,610.00
$28,830.00
$14,000.00
$42,000.00
$5,377.00
$16,131.00
$0.00
w/foundation, integral
y
table and benches, BBQ Pit,
and Detached trash
container
A-2
Concrete trail improvements
22
SY
$57.00
$1,254.00
$65.00
$1,430.00
543.430.00
$113.00
$2,486.00
518.617.00
$0.00
$0.00
B-1
Subtotal Items A-1 thxu A-2
Concrete trail improvements
162
SY
$58.00
$30.084.00
$9,396.00
$75.00
$12,150.00
312.150.00
$47.50
$7,695.00
$7.695.00
$0.00
$232
C-1
Subtotal Items B-2
Parking Lot Improvements
1
LS
$71,700.00
$9.396.00
$71,700.00
$37,140.00
$37,140.00
$37.140.00
$22,900.00
$22,900.00
$22.900.00
$0.00
$0.00
D-1
Subtotal Iter. c-1
Play Structure Type "A"
$71.700.00
$0.00
w/mulch and curb and bench
1
RA
$21,340.00
$21,340.00
$37,000.00
$37,000.00
$7,695.00
$7,695.00
D-2
Concrete trail improvements
Subtotal Item D-1 thru D-2
409
SY
$58.00
$23,722.00
545.062.00
$65.00
$26,585.00
$63.585.00
$42.50
$17,382.50
$25.077.50
$0.00
$2..00
Total Base Bid (Parts A -B-
C=2)
$156.242.00
8156.305.00
574.289.50
$23.0
TOTAL BASE BID LESS PART -A
(PARTS B -C -D)
8126.158.00
**8112,875.00
**855.672.50
90.00
—Non -Responsive bids are listed last and only for informational purposes, with explanation why it was non-responsive foot note.
NAC Inc. - wrong bid date on Bid Bond.
Bridges Specialties - wrong project name on Bid Bond.
\ /'/projeet \ eounei/exhibits \exhJ256,5 7,58. 59. dw
rll6!4
WfST GUTH PARK
OAK PARK
~
N
SURFSIDE PARK
. "
CORPUS CHRISTI BAY
GULF OF
MEXICO
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT No. 3256,3257,3258,3259
EXHIBIT "D"
RENOVA TION I DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING PARKS
PHASE 2 (Bond Issue 2000 Project)
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE:l0/21/200J
~
--
- -
- -
5
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 28, 2003
SUBJECT: Wastewater Lift Station located Cimarron and Yorktown
(Project No. 7285)
AGENDA ITEM: Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a
consultant contract with Coym, Rehmet & Gutierrez Engineering for a total fee not to
exceed $138,990 for the Wastewater Lift Station located at Cimarron and Yorktown.
ISSUE: The construction of a new lift station near the intersection of Yorktown and
Cimarron is necessary to accommodate projected flows from a large portion of Sewer
Planning Area No. 28. A new site is proposed for improved maintenance access and
safety. Modifications to the adjacent gravity sewer lines and construction of a new force
main are also included in the project. The proposed project includes the preliminary phase,
design phase, bid phase, and construction phase for the required improvements. This item
requires City Council approval.
FUNDING: Funding is available from the FY 2002-2003 Wastewater Capital Improvement
Budget.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the motion as presented.
~'- ~/~:>):>~ . 7',f- . (~/z?/o>
Foster Crowell~{! ~gel R. Escobar, P. E.,
Director of Wastewater Department I Director of Engineering Services
Additional SUDDort Material:
Exhibit "A" Background Information
Exhibit "B" Contract Summary
Exhibit "C" Location Map
H:\USERS2\HOMEWElMAR\GEN\WASTEWAn7265\CONSUL TANT AGENDA\AGENDA MEMO
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Wastewater Lift Station - Cimarron and Yorktown
(Project No. 7285)
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION:
1. December 17, 2002 - Approval of the Fiscal Year 2002-03 Capital Improvement
Budget for $299,913,200 (Ordinance No. 025144).
PRIOR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
1. Februarv 20. 2002 - Distribution of Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No. 2002-01
(Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42 engineering
firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
2. March 13.2002 - Addendum NO.1 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
3. March 15, 2002 - Addendum NO.2 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
4. March 26, 2002 - Addendum NO.3 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
5. March 28, 2002 - Addendum NO.4 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No.
2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to 42
engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
6. April 11. 2003 - Letter Of Notification NO.1 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
No. 2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to
42 engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
7. April 17. 2003 - Addendum NO.1 to the Letter Of Notification No. 1 to the Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas
Improvement Projects) to 42 engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
8. April 25. 2003 - Addendum NO.2 to the Letter Of Notification NO.1 to the Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas
Improvement Projects) to 42 engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
9. Auaust 4. 2003 - Letter Of Notification No.2 to the Request for Qualifications (RFQ)
No. 2002-01 (Aviation, Street, Water, Wastewater, Gas Improvement Projects) to
42 engineering firms (28 local and 14 out-of-town).
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approval of a construction contract to complete the subject project.
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 1 of2
H\USERS2\HOME\VElMARIGENIWASTEWAn7285\ CONSULTANT AGENDA\.A..GENDA BACKGROUND
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This project includes the construction of a new lift station near
the intersection of Yorktown and Cimarron to accommodate projected flows from a large
portion of Sewer Planning Area No. 28. A new site is proposed for improved maintenance
access and safety. Modifications to the adjacent gravity sewer lines and construction of
a new force main are also included in the project. The proposed project consists of
preliminary, design, bid, and construction phase services for the required improvements.
CONTRACT SUMMARY/FEE: A contract summary and fee is attached as Exhibit "B".
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 2 of 2
H:\USERS2\HOME\VELMAR\GEMWASTEWAT\7285\ CONSULTANT AGENDAIAGENDA BACKGROUND
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Wastewater Lift Station - Cimarron & Yorktown
(Project No. 7285)
1. SCOPE OF PROJECT
This proiect includes the construction of a new lift station near the intersection of
Yorktown and Cimarron to accommodate proiected flows from a la":Je portion of Sewer
Planning Area No. 28. A new site is proposed for improved maintenance access and
safety. Modifications to the adiacent Qravity sewer lines and construction of a new force
main are also included in the nroiect.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Engineer hereby agrees, at its own expense, to perform design services necessary
to review and prepare plans, specifications, and bid and contract documents. In addition,
Engineer will provide monthly status updates (project progress or delays, gantt charts
presented with monthly invoices) and provide contract administration services to complete
the Project. Work will not begin on Additional Services until requested by the Engineer
(provide breakdown of costs, schedules), and written authorization is provided by the
Director of Engineering Services.
3. PROJECT SCHEDULE
DAY DATE ACTIVITY
Monday November 24, 2003 Begin Design Memorandum
Monday January 26, 2004 Submit Design Memorandum
Monday February 9, 2004 Begin Design Phase
Begin Site Acquisition
Friday April 9, 2004 60% Submittal
Friday April 23, 2004 City Review
Friday May 28, 2004 100% Submittal
Friday June 11, 2004 City Review
July 5 and 12, 2004 Advertise for Bids
Monday (2) Complete Site Acquisition
Tuesday July 20, 2004 Pre-Bid Conference
Wednesday August 4, 2004 Receive Bids
Tuesday August 17, 2004 Award Construction Contract
Monday September 13, 2004 Begin Construction
Monday March 14,2005 Construction Complete
EXHIBIT "B"
Page 1 of2
H:\USERS2\HOME\VELMAR\GEN\WASTEWAT\72S5\CONSUL TANT AGENDA\CONTRACT SUMMARY
4. FEES
Fee for Basic Services
1. Preliminary Phase $14,600.00
2. Design Phase 66,650.00
3. Bid Phase 3,500.00
4. Construction Phase 14,850.00
Subtotal Basic Services Fees 99,600.00
Fee for Additional Services (Allowance)
1. ROW Acquisition Survey (AUTHORIZED) 3,750.00
2. Topographic Survey (AUTHORIZED) 3,380.00
3. Environmental Assessments TBD
4. Construction Observation Services 26,000.00
5. Start-up Services 1,660.00
6. Warranty Phase 1,750.00
7. Provide SCADA Documentation 2,850.00
Sub-Total Additional Services Fees Authorized 39,390.00
Total Authorized Fee $138,990.00
EXHIBIT lOB"
Page 2 of 2
H;\USERS2\HOME\VELMAR\GEN\WASTEWAT\72BS\CONSUl rANT AGENDA\CONTRACT SUMMARY
H: \Home \Mproject\ Councilexh \exh 7285.dwg
NUECES BAY
~
N
'-/
""
::>
w
""
:;
w
o
~
CORPUS CHRISTI BAY
8EIJl
F.M. 43
PROJECT LOCA nON
OSo
PROJECT No. 7285
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT "e"
WASTEWATER LIFT STATION LOCATED
AT CIMARRON AND YORKTOWN
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
PAGE: 1 of 1
~
--
- -
- -
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
DATE: 10-17-200J
6
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
October 28, 2003
SUBJECT: Professional Minor League Baseball Stadium - Project No. 4310
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a geotechnical
investigation contract in an amount not to exceed $33,400.00 with Kleinfelder of Corpus
Christi, Texas for the Professional Minor League Baseball Stadium.
FUNDING: Funding will be supplied by the Corpus Christi Business and Job Development
Corporation (4-A Board). 4-A Board proceeds do not require appropriation.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the motions as presented.
/"
VI( ~~ /~J/n
~g I R. Escobar, P. E.
Director of Engineering Services
ADDITIONAL SUPPORT MATERIAL
Exhibit A. Background Information
Exhibit B. Contract Summary
Exhibit C. Site Map
H:\HOME\KEVINS\GENIBasebaIIIAEPMMemo.doc
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The contract provides for the geotechnical investigation and analysis
necessary to design and construct a professional minor league baseball stadium. These services
are necessary to provide information needed to design the foundation of the stadium. The
investigation and services are limited to the actual site ofthe stadium.
The stadium will be configured to "AA" standards with a capacity for 6,000 attendees. The project
will be located on the site of the current cotton compress warehouses owned by the Port of Corpus
Christ west of the Harbor Bridge (U. S. 181). See Exhibit C. The facility will front on Port Avenue
with parking to be provided west of the site by the Port of Corpus Christi. Additional parking is to be
developed south of the site. The site will include approximately 300 parking spaced forV.I.P and
team use. The City is committed to construction of the facility in the amount of $15,000,000. This
amount includes the extension of Tancahua to Port Avenue.
GEOTECHNICAL SELECTION: Kleinfelder has an extensive history of providing geotechnical
and materials testing services in the local area. Kleinfelder was operating as Trinity
Engineering - TETCO until recently. The local office possesses good familiarity with the area
and soil conditions. HKS and Wilson Kullman McCord requested the geotechnical investigation
be assigned to Kleinfelder based on their prior working experience and the qualifications of
Kleinfelder's local staff engineers.
INVESTIGATION: The investigation will provide information about the geology and subsurface
conditions necessary to provide foundation and pavement design and construction
recommendations. Several shallow borings with a depth of approximately 15-feet will be made
inside the warehouses. The use of shallow borings is necessary due to the limited overhead
clearance that requires the use of a small drill rig. An additional eight borings will be made
outside the warehouses to a depth of 80-feet. This requires the borings to be 40 to 50-feet
from the proposed location of the actual seating bowl and main grandstand structure which is
deemed acceptable.
The investigation will include laboratory tests to characterize the physical properties of the soil.
All field and laboratory work will be supervised by Kleinfelder's project engineer. The results of
the field exploration and laboratory tests will be used in the analyses to provide the basis of
their recommendations. The results will be submitted in a formal written report to the City.
PRIOR ACTIONS: The 4-A Board has approved the project and issued a re-imbursement
resolution which allow expenditures to be reimbursed by the forthcoming bond sale for the project.
FUNDING: Funding is provided by proceeds administered by the 4-A Board. The City acts as the
agent on behalf of the 4-A Board. Funding will be advanced from the 1/8 cent sales tax pending the
issuance of bonds by the Board. The Board has approved a reimbursement resolution to permit
repayment of expenditures.
II EXHIBIT A I
Page 1 of 1
H:IHOMEIKEVINSIGENIBaseballlgeotechnicaIIGeotechBkgExhA.doc
EXHIBIT B
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Introduction: The City of Corpus Christi (City) is planning for construction of a new ballpark for a
Division IT semi-professional team at a site located at the Port of Corpus Christi. The site, currently
occupied by two large warehouses, includes slightly more than 11 acres of property, not including at-
grade parking. The facility will include a seating bowl that will accommodate 6000 seats, stadium
suites, concessions rooms, a press box, clubhouse, and other amenities associated with development
of the stadium.
We understand that the playing field will be placed directly on the existing warehouse floor
elevation. The plan for new construction includes demolishing the superstructure of the warehouses
and leaving their foundation systems and floor in place. This will require that several feet of new fill
be placed in the alley between the warehouses to raise this area to playing field elevation.
The playing field system, typically, includes about 18 to 24 inches of gravel, sand, internal drains,
and the playing surface sod. Some or all ofthe Seating Bowl is proposed to be cast-in-place concrete
on-grade. This will require the addition offill soil to create the slope of the bowl. The upper portion
of the Seating Bowl may be structured concrete.
The majority ofthe stadium block will be one-story cast-in-place structure to create usable space at
street level and an elevated Main Concourse. Portions of the one-story concrete structure will have
additional structures built above it. Two-story structural steel framing will create the Stadium Suites
and Press Box plus its roof. Other one-story structures such as concession stands, restrooms, and
ticket booths may be built of load bearing CMU walls with metal deck roofs. One area of the
outfield Concourse will have a swimming pool built within the one-story concrete structure.
We understand that estimated maximum column loads associated with the construction are:
DOne-story cast-in-place concrete structures - 250 kips (possibly more at the swimming pool)
DOne-story CMU buildings on top of one-story concrete structure - 300 kips
o SuiteslPress Box building on top of one-story concrete structure - 500 kips
The intent of this :investigation as described herein is to provide the owner and their :design
consultants with information about the geology, and subsurface soil conditions, and to provide
foundation and pavement design and construction recommendations.
630YPGlOO/CCH3PlOO
P.d?YllW~)' ~risti, Texas 78469
Page I ofS
(3611854-4774 . (361) 854-4924 fax
October IS, 2003
EXHIBIT B
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Exploratory Borings: We understand that the site was developed many years ago (at least 50 years)
with the present warehouses by the Port of Corpus Christi. As part of the site development the land
surface was raised will dredge spoil materials. After placement of the dredge spoils, the area was
"capped" and construction of warehouses was begun with placement of additional fill and shallow
foundation systems. Review of available geologic mappings of this area indicate that the dredge spoils
should be underlain with alluvium and island barrier deposits ofthe Beaumont Formation.
We concur with the number of exploratory borings requested by IlKS. However, because oflimited
overhead clearance and access due to the warehouses, the boring will be located outside the
warehouses. This will require that some borings be moved about 40 to 50 feet from ilie proposed
locations, which in our opinion is acceptable.
To evaluate the existing fill material below the warehouses floors and evaluate subgrade conditions for
the new parking lot, we propose iliat several shallow interior borings be conducted within the
warehouses. These borings will be drilled and sampled with drill rig mounted on a I-ton pickup that
has low overhead clearance requirements.
In summary we propose that the field exploration program include a total of 16 soil borings at the site
to explore subsurface soil and groundwater conditions. The schedule of soil borings along with the
proposed boring depths is provided below.
Boring Location Proposed Number Proposed Depth of Borings
of Borin s ft.
Exterior Borings 8 80 ft. each
Interior Borin 8 10 to 20 ft. each
The depth to groundwater will govern the depth of interior borings. These borings
will be extended to to of oundwater and ilien terminated.
Each hole will be plugged wiili cuttings to a depth of about IS feet upon completion. The top IS feet of
the borehole will be grouted with a cement-bentonite-water mixture. We will make short-term
observations for ground water during the drilling operations. The observations will be made during
drilling and sampling and then some 10 to IS minutes after water is initially enc01.lIltered. This
investigation in no way should be considered as a comprehensive ground water exploration.
The exterior soil borings will be drilled using our truck -mounted drill rig. The interior borings, due to
limited overhead clearance, will be drilled using a I-ton pickup mounted rig. We plan to recover
undisturbed samples of cohesive clay soils for laboratory testing and analysis. Standard Penetration
tests (SPT) will be conducted in non-cohesive soils and "soft" cohesive soils that cannot be sampled
using thin-walled tube samplers. All recovered samples will be properly labeled, wrapped, and sealed.
All samples will be returned to our laboratory where they will be reviewed and representative samples
selected for testing.
630YPGlOO/CCIDPlOO
p.O~~OO3, ~<l!Iiristi, Texas 78469
Page 2 of5
(361) 854-4774 . (361) 854-4924 fax
October 15,2003
EXHIBIT B
CONTRACT SUMMARY
1
We will provide a graduate geologist to coordinate the ijeld operations and to log the borings in the
field. This will help to expedite completion of the field operations.
Laboratory Testing: The recovered soil samples will be tested in our laboratoryusingthe following
tests intended to characterize the soil physical properties. This information is required for our
analysis of foundation and pavement support systems.
o Atterberg Limits Test (liquid limit, plastic limit and plasticity index)
o Percent Passing #200 Sieve
o Moisture Content
o Unit Dry Weight
o Pocket Penetrometer Consistency
o Unconfined Compressive Strength
. 0 Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear Strength
o One-Dimensional Consolidation
o Sulfate and Chloride Content
o Soil Box Resistivity and pH Test
Engineering Analysis, Recommendations, and Report: Our project engineer will supervise the
field and laboratory investigations and prepare the geotechnical engineering report. All the results of
the field exploration and laboratory tests will be used in our analyses and provide the basis for our
recommendations. We will provide the results of our investigation in a formal written report. The
report will include a boring location plan, boring logs and laboratory test results. The report will also
describe our analyses and evaluations of potential foundation systems based on the particular soil
conditions encountered at the site. The information requested in the HKS letter dated October 13,
2003 will be provided in the report.
Recommendations to be provided in the report includes the following:
o Suitable foundation system(s), recommended bearing depth and bearing pressures,
settlements, and construction considerations.
o Slab-on-grade construction, including sub grade preparation to reduce movements to
acceptable levels.
o Bearing capacity and settlement potential of typical embankment fill for bowl seating.
o Backfill requirements and lateral earth pressure values for retaining walls, both active and
passive earth pressures.
o Potential movements due to expansive soils and means of reducing those movements.
o Drainage considerations for below ground slabs.
o Information for consideration of seismic design.
o Corrosion potential of buried steel/metal and concrete components.
o Earthwork recommendations.
o Pavement recommendations including pavement subgrade preparation, pavement material
properties, and section thicknesses for both flexible (asphalt) and rigid (concrete) pavements.
630YPGlOO/CCH3Ploo
P.O~~'~iltPiristi, Texas 78469
Page 3 of5
(361) 854-4774 . (361) 854-4924 fax
October 15, 2003
EXHIBIT B
CONTRACT SUMMARY
We will provide a total of three copies of the geotechnical report for each project. Construction
documents (plans and specifications) will be reviewed to confirm that the recommendations
contained in the report have been properly interpreted and incorporated into the project design.
Schedule: We are prepared to begin the work within two to three working days after receiving a notice
to proceed assuming favorable weather conditions and the borings locations are accessible to our truck
mounted equipment. Prior to commencing the field work, locations of underground utilities below the
site should be determined. It should be noted that this process takes a minimum of two [2], but usually
three [3], working days to complete.
Once underground utilities are located, we will begin the soil borings. The following is a summary of
the anticipated schedule.
Task Scbedule
Field Operations 8 working days(l)
Laboratory Testing 7 working days('2X3)
Verbal Recommendations 5 working days('2)
Final Reoort 2 to 3 weeks(2)
Notes: (1) From the time underground utilities are located.
(2) From the time field operations are completed.
(3) Except for consolidation testing which will take up to 13
dayS to complete.
Estimated Cost: The total estimated cost of our work is $33,400. We will complete our assignment
as we now understand the scope for this lump sum fee. We will not exceed this estimate total unless
the project work scope changes and unless written authorization is received. If services beyond our
above stated scope are requested, they will be performed at the rates provided in Attachment B. This
fee includes location of the borings at the site and coordinating an underground utility search at each
site. The fee assumes that the boring locations will be accessible to our truck mounted drilling rig and
support vehicles and that these vehicles can negotiate the site under their own power without
assistance.
Surveying and Access to Boring Locations: The fee estimate above aSSUmes that the owner will
provide right-of-access to the property and that the site is accessible to our truck mounted drill rig.
This fee estimate assumes that our truck mounted drill rig and support vehicles can negotiate the
sites under their own power without assistance. Borings will be located in the field by measuring from
existing site features (buildings, property comers, etc.) and estimating right angles.
630YFGlOO/CCH3PlOO
P.ocftllNi~~. ~fr~risti. Texas 76469
Page 4 of5
(361) 654-4774 . (361) 654-4924 fax
October 15, 2003
EXHIBIT B
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Description
Unit Price Fee
1.0 Field Exploration Services
1.1 Mobilization and De-Mobilization of Truck Mounted
Drill Rig, Crew and Support Vehicles
1.2 Drilling and Sampling Charges
a.) 0 to 50 ft.
b.) 50 to 100 ft.
$180.00 lump sum
1.3 Borehole Grouting
1.4 Subcontract Services (If Necessary)
$12.50 per foot
$16.50 per foot
$2.00 per foot
Cost + 20%
2.0 Laboratory Testinl!
2.1 Atterberg Limits Tests
2.2 Percent Passing #200 Mesh Sieve
2.3 Moisture Content, only
2.4 Unit Weight and Moisture Content
2.5 Pocket Penetrometer Consistency
2.6 Unconfined Compressive Strength
2.7 Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial Shear
2.8 One Dimension Consolidation
2.9 Sulfate & Chloride Content
2.10 Soil Box Resistivity & pH
$60.00 each
$26.50 each
$8.50 each
$26.50 each
No Charge
$26.50 each
$50.00 each
$500.00 each
$75.00 each
$160.00 each
3.0 Enl!ineerinl! and Technical Services
3.1 Senior Geotechnical Engineer (p.E.)
3.2 Staff Geologist
3.3 Draftsman/Computer Operator
3.4 Administrative Assistant
$100.00 per hour
$65.00 per hour
$40.00 per hour
$42.00 per hour
The unit prices stated above will apply for the work scope described in Attaclunent A. We will not
perform additional work outside the present work scope without prior consultation and approval.
Subcontract services, if necessary, will be charged at cost + 20%.
630YPOlOO/CCH3Ploo
CoovriRht 2003, Kleinfelder
P.O. BOx '1293 . Corpus Christl, Texas 78469
Page 5 of5
(361) 854-4774 . (361) 854-4924 fax
October 15, 2003
File : \t.lproject\councilexhibits\exh4310.dwg
PROJECT
LOCA nON
~
N
NUECES BAY
AGNES
'"
~ CORPUS ~
OlRISTI "
INTERNATIONAl ~ ....
AIRPORT
CORPUS CHRISTI BAY
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
PROJECT SITE
.
CORPUS CHRISTI
BAY
.
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT "G"
CITY PROJECT No. 4310
CITY OF CORPUS CHRIST/, TEXAS
PAGE: 1 of 1
DA TE: 10 28 2003
~
--
- -
- -
- -
PROFESSIONAL MINOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL STADIUM
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMfNT OF fNGINffRING SfRV/CfS
7
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
October 28, 2003
SUBJECT: Corpus Christi Airport Roadway and Parking Lot Improvements Phase 2
(Project No. 1019)
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Change Order No. 12
(Entrance Roadway) with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of $823,964.21 for the Corpus Christi
International Airport Roadway and Parking Lot improvements Phase 2.
FUNDING: Funds for this project are available Airport and Storm Water Capital Project
Funds.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the motion as presented.
(
~/~-e~
Dave Hamrick
Director of Aviation
1~ >!~ ~A~~
-,;fgi . Escobar, P.E.
Director of Engineering Services
Additional Support Material
Exhibit A: Background Information
Exhibit B: Change Order Summary
Exhibit C: Location Map
H:\HOMEIKEVINS\GEN\AIR\98IMPRVNUandside\^C012Memo.doc
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The project was divided into phases to ensure funding would be adequate to address the
work required. Subsequent events of September 11 and the resulting changes in security
regulations required the modification of the plans to allow the utilization of short-term
parking and the rental car parking lots. Phase 1 of the project encompassed the loop
roadway, service roads, additional parking, improved lighting, and landscaping. The
entrance roadway which was to part of the
CHANGE ORDER:
Phase 2 was originally designed to provide an urban roadway section with curb, gutter, and
underground drainage and landscaping. A decision was made to conserve capital funds so
they could be reserved for business and economic development opportunities as they arise
at the Airport. Phase 2 will reconstruct International Drive between S. H. 44 and the Loop
Roadway. The reconstruction will include base base repairs and an overlay of new
pavement. The Change Order provides for increased funding of landscape improvements.
The current pattern of surface drainage swales will be maintained. The culverts that cross
under International Drive will be replaced with larger culverts to accommodate future
drainage improvements and additional development.
PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION: Prior Council Action:
March 24. 1998 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount
of $129,000 with Russell-Veteto Engineering, Inc. (M98-088).
Auqust 25. 1998 - Resolution approving the financial feasibility plan to fund the 5-Year
Capital Improvement Program for CCIA, including the Terminal Reconstruction
program (Res. 023426).
March 30. 1999 - Approval of recommended Terminal Reconstruction and Landside
Development concept at CCIA (M99-089).
Julv 20. 1999 - Adoption of the Capital Budget (Ord. 023703), including Landside Roadway
System - Entrance Road and Parking Lot Improvements projects (Airport CIP
Projects No.7 & 10).
November 30. 1999 - Motion approving Amendment NO.2 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of
$385,000 for engineering services associated with the roadway/parking lot
improvements (M99-414).
December 18. 2001 - Approval of the roadway/parking lot design for Corpus Christi
International Airport (M2001-482).
Januarv 15. 2002 - Adoption of the Capital Budget (Ord. 024730), including Landside
Roadway System - Entrance Road and Parking Lot Improvements projects (Airport
CIP Projects NO.4 & 5).
January 29. 2002 - Motion approving Amet;1dment No.6 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of
$146,150 for engineering services associated with revisions of construction
EXHIBIT A
Page 1 of3
H:\HOME\KEVINS\GEN\AIR\98IMPRVN~andslde\^C012BkgExhA.doc
documents for the roadway/parking lot improvements to address FAA security
regulations (M2002-037).
Julv 9. 2002 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to award a
construction contract in the amount of $6,541,301.99 with Berry Contracting, LP
(dba Bay Ltd.) for the Corpus Christi International Airport Roadway and Parking Lot
Improvements, Phase 1 (M2002-199).
October 8. 2002 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment NO.1 to the
contract for construction materials testing, laboratory and inspection in the amount
of $40,062 with PSI. (M2002-338).
December 17. 2002 - Motion approving Amendment No.8 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of
$165,665 for engineering services associated with Corpus Christi International
Airport roadway and parking lot modifications for long term covered parking
improvements (M2002-414).
April 8. 2003 - Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Change
Order NO.6 in the amount of $87,208.84 with Berry Contracting, LP (dba Bay Ltd.)
for modifications of fences, waterlines, detours, road repairs, inlets and other
modifications for the Airport Roadway and Parking Lot Improvements, Phase 1
(M2003-138).
Prior Administrative Action:
June 28. 1998 - Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the contract with Russell-Veteto
Engineering, Inc. to reduce construction phase services and the authorized contract
fee by $5,400 for a new total of $123,600.
February 9.2000 - Approval of contract with Professional services Industries, Inc. (PSI) in
the amount of $13,185 for geotechnical engineering and testing.
Mav 2. 2000 - Approval of Amendment Nq. 1 to the contract with Professional services
Industries, Inc. (PSI) in the amount of $959 for geotechnical engineering and
testing.
October 27.2000 - Approval of Amendment No.3 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of $6,965
for investigation of additional parking lot lighting.
December 29. 2000 - Approval of Amendment NO.4 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of
$14,990 for revision ofthe construction phasing plan.
January 17. 2002 - Approval of Amendment No. 5 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of
$24,177.62 for preparation of conceptual alternatives and presentation materials to
address revised FAA security requirements.
Auqust 20. 2002 - Approval of Amendment No. 7 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of
$10,000.00 for preparation of conceptual layouts of the covered parking lot and
underground drainage for the entrance road.
Auqust 28, 2002 - Approval of a contract with PSI in the amount of $21,270 for
construction materials, laboratory inspection and testing services.
September 23. 2002 - Approval of Change Order NO.1 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of
$0.00 to clarify wage rate determination.
November 8. 2002 - Approval of Change Order No.2 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of
$24,514.63 for additional demolition, disposal of fuel contaminated soil,
environmental delays, and acceleration to complete Phase 1 by October 25, 2002.
EXHIBIT A
Page 2 of 3
H:\HOME\KEVINS\GEN\AIR\98IMPRVN~andside\^C012BkgExhA.doc
November 19, 2002 - Approval of Change Order No.3 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of
$24,275.00 to provide new parking lot cross section for rent car lot in lieu of
pavement repairs and overlay.
January 29. 2003 - Approval of Amendment No. 9 with RVE, Inc. in the amount of
$23,500.00 for additional construction phase services, modification of pavement
design, and runway end drainage/grading modifications.
March 7. 2003 - Approval of Change Order No.4 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of
$24,342.02 for removal stabilized material, wet material from work area, additional
moisture barrier and waterproofing, additional storm water junction boxes, and water
line modifications.
March 31. 2003 - Approval of Change Order No. 5 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of
$24,604.43 for temporary paving, cement base stabilization, additional hot mix
asphaltic concrete paving, and pavement repairs.
April 28. 2003 - Approval of Change Order No. 7 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of
$24,656.97 for temporary paving, repair of wet base, additional fencing, additional
paving, and one additional fire hydrant.
April 30. 2003 - Approval of Change Order No. 8 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of
$24,871.95 for additional east entrance to parking lot.
Julv 3.2003 - Approval of Change Order NO.9 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of $24,090.49
for secondary subgrade stabilization, electrical ductbank and conduit, exit plaza
data/voice communication, mobilization for out of sequence utility work, and
additional fencing.
Julv 9.2003 -Approval of Change Order No. 10 with Bay, Ltd. in the amount of $23,700.00
for additional subgrade work in Signature parking lot.
Auqust 15. 2003 - Approval of Change Order No. 11 with Bay, Ltd. in the net amount of
$22,966.69 for modification of conduit systems, revenue/access systems, parking
lot lighting, deletion of storm drains, add 18" drainage line, pavers for handicapped
ramps, toll building carpet, communications rack at toll plaza building, roof drain
connectors, modification of parking lot inlet transitions, and concrete paving at
access control.
FUTURE COUNCIL ACTION: Council will be requested to act on the following items:
. Award of change orders that may be necessary during the entrance roadway
reconstruction;
. Award of a construction contract for covered parking; and
. Award of a contract for engineering inspection, laboratory and materials testing
services.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the motion as presented.
EXHIBIT A
Page 3 of 3
H:\HOME\KEVINS\GEN\AIR\98IMPRVN~andslde\^C012BkgExhA.doc
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
CHANGE ORDER SUMMARY SHEET
August26,2003
PROJECT: CCIA ROADWAY & PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT NO: 1019
APPROVED: BY CITY COUNCIL ON 7/9/02 BY MOTION NO: M2002-199
CONTRACTOR: BAY, L TO.
P.O. BOX 9908
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78469
TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT......................
25% Limit Amount..........................................
Change Order NO.1 (9/23/02) .......................
Change Order NO.2 (11/8/02) .......................
Change Order NO.3 (11/19/02) .....................
Change Order No.4 (2/26/03) .......................
Change Order No.5 (3/21/03) .......................
Change Order No.6 (3/24/03) .......................
Change Order No.7 (4/28/03) .......................
Change Order NO.8 (4/30/03) .......................
Change Order NO.9 (7/3/03) .........................
Change Order No. 10 (7/9/03) .......................
Change Order No. 11 (8/15/03) .....................
Change Order No. 12 (10/28/03) ..................
Total..........................................................
H:\HOME\KEVINS\GEN\AIR\98IMPRVN~andside\^C012SumExhB.doc
$6,541,301.99
1,635,325.50
0.00
24,514.63
24,275.00
24,342.02
24,604.43
87,208.84
24,656.97
24,871.95
24,090.49
23,700.00
22,966.69
823,964.21
1,129,195.23 = 17.3% < 25%
File : \Mpro 'ect\councilexhibits\exh 1019.dwg
1000 INTERNATIONAL DRIVE
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
Son Patricia County
F.... 62<4
~ ~
~
f iii
~ ~ ~
~ 12
N ~ I!l
~
2
y
HWY ..
NUECES BAY
I
~
CORPUS
CHRISTI
BAY
12
;!O
~
PROJECT LOCA nON
~
~
LOGA nON MAP
NOT TO SCALE
<>l>
HWY 44 (AGNES ST)
:\
i
! \
i]L_-
[J
~
AIRPORT ENTRANCE ROADWA Y
N
mj
"
lID
AIRPORT PARKING LOT
AIRPORT TERMINAL
SITE LAYOUT
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT "e"
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE; 10 23 2003
~
--I
- -
- -
-"-
CORPUS CHRISTI AIRPORT ROADWAY AND
PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS PHASE 2
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES
8
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: 10/28/03
AGENOA ITEM:
Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a lease agreement with Ability
House, LTD., DBA Lighting Connect, for the operation of wireless internet services at the Corpus
Christi International Airport at no charge to the City of Corpus Christi or those who utilize the wireless
internet service, for a period not to exceed one year, with the option to extend for four additional one
year terms; and declaring an emergency.
ISSUE:
This will provide a wireless internet service for the customers at our airport seven days per week
between the hours of 5:00am and 11 :OOpm (CST).
REQUIREO COUNCIL ACTION:
All Ordinances require Council consideration for approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
None
FUNOING:
N/A
CONCLUSION ANO RECOMMENOATION:
Staff recommends adoption of the wireless internet agreement.
n_ ~.,./,...
Department Head Signature
Attachments:
Background Information with Lease Summary
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
10/28/03
Airport staff has received numerous requests from the traveling public for wireless internet service.
Ability House, Ltd., DBA Lightning Connect, a Corpus Christi company, approached the airport and
offered to provide the service at no charge to either the City or those who utilize the service such as our
customers, tenants, and others. The agreement is for one year with four one year extensions. The
standard lease clauses concerning nondiscrimination, assignment, insurance and termination are
included as part of the agreement. Staff is also working on an additional agreement with a company that
will provide limited (restricted line-of-sight) wireless service as well as hard-line computer internet
access, power and charging facilities.
AGREEMENT FOR WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICES
AT THE CORPUS CHRISTI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Corpus Christi, a Texas home-rule
municipal corporation, ("City") and Ability House, Ltd. DBA Lightning Connect, ("Provider").
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City owns and operates the Corpus Christi International Airport
("Airport"); and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that wireless internet service is appropriate in the
passenger holding area of said Airport; and
WHEREAS, Provider has offered to operate wireless internet services at said Airport.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the rentals, undertaking and covenants recited
herein, the parties covenants as follows:
1. Premises. The City agrees to grant Provider the right of entry and access, across,
over and within the Airport's property and premises for the installation and maintenance of
antenna required for fixed wireless internet service in the passenger holding area as shown on the
attached and incorporated EXHIBIT "A" hereinafter called ("Premises").
City retains the right to require Provider to physically adjust, relocate, or remove
equipment, within reason at its own expense. The Director shall give the Provider sixty (60)
days advance notice of any such move if possible. Airport will direct and approve the
installation work done by Provider and its authorized personnel, in order to assure that all work
is done in a manner that is satisfactory to the Airport. Provider warrants that it will install related
equipment in accordance with good engineering practices and industry standards.
2. Term. The term is for one year, commencing upon City Council approval, with
the option to extend for four additional one year terms, upon the written approval of the City
Manager, or his designee, ("City Manager") and an authorized representative of Provider.
3. Consideration. Provider agrees to the above stated service at no charge neither to
the City or those who utilize the wireless internet service.
4. Use of Premise. Provider may install, maintain, operate, repair, and remove
wireless internet equipment providing wireless intemet access to occupants of the passenger
holding area subject to compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and
regulations.
The Director may adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the use of
the Airport, Terminal, and related facilities which Provider agrees to obey and observe.
5. Facilities and Services Provided By City.
The City Shall:
A. Keep in good condition and repair the roof, the exterior face of all exterior walls,
the foundation, and the major building system (plumbing, electrical, and
mechanical) of the Terminal.
B. Provide adequate heat, air conditioning, and ventilation volume.
C. Maintain and repair utility, heating and air conditioning systems supplied by the
City.
D. Provide finished floors.
E. Extend to Provider the same fire and police protection and other services extended
to other tenants.
F. Ensure that access to Provider's Premises complies with all applicable provisions of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as it may be amended from time to
time.
6. Services and Equipment furnished by Provider.
The Provider shall:
A. Provide, furnish, construct, install and maintain at its own expense all antenna
equipment related to providing a wireless internet environment in the passenger
holding area which may include antennas, masts, wires, cables and other wireless
communication devices. All equipment furnished and installed by Provider remains
the property of Provider during this Agreement and does not become real property
or a part of the terminal, regardless of whether or by what means it is or may be
attached or affixed to the Terminal.
B. Provide wireless internet access services within the Premises seven (7) days a week
from SAM to 1 1 PM, Central Standard Time.
7. Nondiscrimination. Provider, in exercising any of the rights or privileges herein
granted to it, must not on the grounds of race or national origin discriminate or
permit discrimination against any person or group of persons in any manner
prohibited by Part 15 of the Federal Aviation Regulations. The City is hereby
granted the right to take such action, anything to the contrary herein
notwithstanding, as the United States may direct to enforce this nondiscrimination
covenant.
2
8. Trademarks/Signs. Provider may operate the Premises under any trademark, logo or
service mark permitted by applicable laws or regulations.
9. . Assignment/Subletting. This Agreement must not be assigned, transferred, pledged
or otherwise encumbered, without the prior written approval of the City. Provider shall not sublet
the use or operation of any part of the Premises, nor utilize the Premises for any purpose other
than set out in Section 4, without the prior written approval of the City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Provider, upon written notice to the Director of
Aviation, may sublet the Premises, or assign or transfer this Agreement, to a corporation or
financial institution with which it may merge or consolidate or to any parent, affiliate or
subsidiary of the Provider.
10. Insurance. Provider must acquire and maintain General Liability coverage with
minimum limits of $1,000,000 Combined Single Limit during the term of this agreement. The
City of Corpus Christi must be named as an additional insured on said policy. General Liability
policy must not be cancelled, non-renewed or materially changed without thirty (30) days written
notice of to the City of Corpus Christi, Director of Aviation.
The amount and types of coverage may be revised by the City's Risk Manager on an annual
basis. The Risk Manager will notifY Provider of any change in the amount or type of coverage 90
days prior to any anniversary date of this Lease. Certificates, or other evidence of insurance
coverage required of the Provider in this Article, must be delivered to the Director in form and
content satisfactory to the City's Risk Manager. At least-thirty days (30) prior to the expiration of
any such policy, the Provider must submit to the City's Risk Manager and the Director a
certificate showing such insurance has been renewed or replaced. If such coverage is canceled or
reduced, the Provider must, within thirty (30) days after the date of such written notice from the
insurer of such cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with the City's Risk Manager a
certificate showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or provided through another
insurance company or companies.
Protection against loss by fire or other casualty to the contents of the premises is not
City's obligation. Provider understands and agrees that the minimum limits of the insurance
herein required may become inadequate, and the Provider agrees that it shall increase such
minimum limits upon receipt of notice in writing from the City's Risk Manager. City's Risk
Manager may take note of indemnification awards being granted by the courts and direct an
increase in the minimum limits of the insurance requirements at any time during the lease term,
such increases, ifany, will be limited to ten (10%) percent of the rate in effect at the time of the
!Dcrease.
Provider must provide for the prompt and efficient handling of all claims for bodily
injury, property damage or theft arising out of the activities of Provider under this Agreement.
Provider agrees that all such claims, whether processed by Provider or its insurer either directly
or by means of an agent, will be handled by a person or representative of the Provider.
If at any time the Provider fails to obtain the insurance as required herein, the City may
obtain such insurance by taking out policies with companies satisfactory to the City's Risk
3
Manager. The amount of the premiums paid for such insurance by the City must be payable by
the Provider to the City with the installment of rent thereafter next due under the terms of this
Agreement, with interest thereon at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum
11. Indemnity. Provider must indemnify and hold Landlord, its officers, agents, and
employees ("lndemnitees") harmless of, from, and against all claims, demands, actions,
damages, losses, costs, liabilities, expenses, and judgments rec:overed from or asserted
against Indemnitees on account of injury, death or damage to person or property to the
extent any such damage or injury may be incident to, arise out of, or be caused, either
proximately or remotely, wholly or in part, by an act of omission, negligence, or
misconduct on the part of Provider or any of its agents, servants, employees, contractors,
patrons, guests, licensees, or invitees when any such injury, death or damage may in any
way arise from or out of the improvement(s) located by Provider on the Premises herein,
or out of the use or occupancy of any improvement(s) by Provider.
These terms of indemnification are effec:tive whether such injury ,death or damage may
result from the sole negligence, contributory negligence, or concurrent negligence of
Indemnitees, but not if such damage or injury results from gross negligence or willful
misconduct of Indemnitees.
Provider covenants and agrees that if Indemnitees are made a party to any litigation
against Provider or in any litigation commenced by any party, other than Provider relating
to the Agreement, Provider shall defend Indemnitees upon receipt of reasonable notice
regarding commencement of such litigation, with an attorney approved by Indemnitees.
12. Termination.
1. By City: In addition to any other termination rights contained in this Agreement,
the agreement is subject to termination by City in the event anyone or more of the following
events occur:
A. Cessation of operations by Provider hereunder.
B. Non-performance of any covenant of this Agreement, and failure of Provider to
remedy such breach or diligently pursue remedy within five (5) days, after Director
sends Provider written notice of the existence of said breach.
C. Provider becomes permanently deprived of the rights, powers and privileges
necessary to the proper conduct of its operations at the Premises.
D. If Premises are damaged by fire or other casualty, City may terminate this
Agreement.
E. Thirty (30) days after giving written notice of termination to the Provider.
4
2. By Provider: In addition to any other termination rights contained in this
Agreement, this Agreement is subject to termination by Provider in the event anyone or more of
the following events occur:
A. The permanent abandonment or closure of the Corpus Christi International Airport
as an air terminal.
B. The lawful assumption by the United States Government, or any authorized agency
thereof, of the operation, control or use of the Airport, or any substantial part or
parts thereof in such a manner as to substantially restrict Provider there from for a
period in excess of ninety days.
C. Issuance by any court of competent jurisdiction of an injunction in any way
preventing or restraining the use of the Airport, and the remaining in force of such
injunction for a period in excess of ninety days.
D. The default by the City in the performance of any covenant or agreement herein
required to be performed by the City, and the failure of the City to remedy such
default within ten (10) days after written notice by Provider to Director to remedy
the same.
E. Thirty (30) days after giving written notice of termination to the Director of
Aviation.
3. Removal of Equipment upon Expiration or Termination. Upon termination or
expiration of this Agreement, Provider may remove all removable fixtures and equipment
installed by Provider, so long as Provider removes same within thirty (30) business days after
termination or expiration of the Agreement. Any damage to the Premises caused by Provider's
removal of its property must be repaired within fifteen (15) business days after the removal by
Provider, at Provider's expense, and to the satisfaction of the Airport.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Provider fails to remove its removable fixtures and equipment
within thirty (30) days from the date of termination or expiration of this Agreement, then the
Airport may take title to the said property and sell, lease or salvage the same, as permitted by
law. Any net expense the Airport incurs in disposing of the property must be paid by Provider
within ten (10) days of the Airport's written demand therefore. The Airport will provide
Provider with a written itemized breakdown of the costs recaptured, if any, by the sale, lease or
salvage of the property, and the balance due, which must be paid by Provider upon receipt of
said itemized breakdown.
5
13. Notices. All notices, demands, requests, consents, approvals, authorizations, offers,
agreements, appointments or designations under this Agreement by either party to the other shall
be in writing and shall be sufficiently given and served upon the other party if sent by certified
mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed to the parties set forth below:
City:
City of Corpus Christi
1000 International Dr.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78406
Attention: Director of Aviation
Provider:
Ability House, Ltd.
DBA Lightning Connect
P.O. Box 271597
Corpus Christi, TX 78427-1597
Attention: Mr. George Hudson, CEO
Phone: 361-991-2194
Fax: 361-779-2769
Either party may from time to time designate, by notice to the other, which shall then
become a new address of the party who shall give such notice.
14. Attorney's fees. If there is any legal or arbitration action or proceeding between the
City and the Provider to enforce any provision of this Agreement or to protect or establish any
right or remedy of either the City or the Provider hereunder, the unsuccessful party to such action
or proceeding will pay to the prevailing party all costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees (including allocated costs of Provider's or City's in-house attorney) incurred by
such prevailing party in such action or proceeding and in any appearance in connection
therewith, and if such prevailing party recovers a judgment in any such action, proceeding or
appeal, such costs, expenses and attorney's fees will be determined by the court or arbitration
panel handling the proceeding and will be included in and as a part of such judgment.
15. Sponsor Assurance. This agreement is subject to the terms of any Sponsor's
Agreements between the City and the Federal Aviation Administration.
6
16. Entirety clause. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the City
and Provider. Each party who signs this Agreement by his signature stipulates that all actions
necessary to authorize this Agreement have been taken.
Signed on
,2003
A TrEST:
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa, City Secretary
George K. Noe, City Manager
Approved as to legal form this
day of
.2003.
By:
John P. Burke, Jr.
Assistant City Attomey
For City Attorney
PROVIDER:
ABILITY HOUSE, LTD.
DB:t:;'G roNNFLT
By: ;:,~
Name: George T. Hudson
Title: Manager / CEO
7
AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO EXECUTE
A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH ABILITY HOUSE, LTD., DBA LIGHTING
CONNECT, FOR THE OPERATION OF WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICES
AT THE CORPUS CHRISTIINTERNA TIONAL AIRPORT AT NO CHARGE
TO THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI OR THOSE WHO UTILIZE THE
WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED ONE
YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR FOUR ADDITIONAL ONE
YEAR TERMS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to execute a
Lease Agreement with Ability House, Ltd., d/b/a Lighting Connect, for the operation of
wireless internet services at the Corpus Christi International Airport at no charge to the
City of Corpus Christi or those who utilize the wireless internet service, for a period not
to exceed one year, with the option to extend for four additional one year terms.
SECTION 2. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council members, copy
attached, the City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the need for
imrnediate action necessary for the efficient and effective administration of City affairs
and (2) suspends the Charter rule as to consideration and voting upon ordinances at
two regular meetings so that this ordinance is passed upon first reading as an
emergency measure this the _ day of , 2003.
Attest:
The City of Corpus Christi
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED:
October 22, 2003
. ~
Joh P. Burke
istant City Attorney
for City Attorney
Ability House dba LC -l-yr lease.wpd.sr
9
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: 9/30/2003
AGENDA ITEM: An ordinance authorizing the City Manager or the City Manager's
designee to execute a five-year lease with Landry's Seafood and Steakhouse-Corpus
Christi, Inc., to operate a restaurant on the Peoples Street T-Head, in consideration of
payment of the greater of $6,000 per month or 2.75% of Monthly~gross sales, whichever
is greater; providing for severance; and providing for publication.
ISSUE: Council must approve the authorization for the City Manager or the City Manager's
designee to execute a five-year lease with Landry's Seafood and Steakhouse-Corpus
Christi, Inc. to operate a restaurant on the Peoples Street T-Head, in consideration of
payment of the greater of $6,000.00 per month or 2.75% of rnonthly gross sales, whichever
is greater. A copy of the lease is on file with the City Secretary.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorization of Lease Renewal
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: A previous lease was approved by City Council on
6/10/1997
FUNDING: N1A
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Landry's Seafood and Steakhouse -Corpus
Christi has been a model tenant. It is City Staff's recommendation that the City Council
approve the renewal of a five-year lease with Landry's Seafood and Steakhouse-Corpus
Christi, Inc.
~
David Ondrias, Acting Director
Park and Recreation Department
Attachments:
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
(Additional Background) Landry's Restaurant is a floating restaurant built on a barge made
of steel. Their Landry's upkeep and landscaping are first class and have beautified that
sector of the marina, The communication of Landry's management staff and city staff has
been exceptiQ!l~J.in cooperation. This restaurant is located on the Pe_oples $treetT:Head
north end and creates a great deal of tourism/visitors on this T-Head. Traffic flow is high
on weekday nights and all of the weekend. Landry's has operated this restaurant since
1991 successfully. Landry's have consistently paid all revenues owed to the city in a timely
manner.
AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY MANAGER'S
DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A FIVE-YEAR LEASE WITH LANDRY'S
SEAFOOD AND STEAKHOUSE-CORPUS CHRISTI, INC., TO
OPERATE A RESTAURANT ON THE PEOPLES STREET T-HEAD,
IN CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT OF THE GREATER OF $6,000
PER MONTH OR 2.75% OF MONTHLY GROSS SALES, WHICHEVER
IS GREATER; PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE; AND PROVIDING
FOR PUBLICATION.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI, TEXAS, THAT:
SECTION 1. The City Manager or the City Manager's designee is authorized to execute
a five-year lease with Landry's Seafood and Steakhouse-Corpus Christi, Inc., to operate
a restaurant on the Peoples Street T -Head, in consideration of payment of the greater of
$6,000 per month or 2.75% of monthly gross sales, whichever is greater. A copy of the
lease is on file with the City Secretary.
SECTION 2. Publication of this ordinance will be made in the legal section of the official
publication of the City of Corpus Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Cor-
pus Christi, Texas.
SECTION 3. If, for any reason, any word, phrase, clause, paragraph, subdivision, or
section of this ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by final judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction, it does not affect any other word, phrase, clause, paragraph, sub-
division, or section, for it is the definite intent of the City Council that every word, phrase,
clause, paragraph, subdivision, or section of this ordinance be given full force and effect
for its purpose.
H:\lEG-OIR\elizabeth\Dept Flles\EH Ordinances\EHord.14Q.wpd
10
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: September 30, 2003
AGENOA ITEM:
An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager. or his designee, to execute a lease agreement with the
United States through its General Services Administration for the Transportation Security
Administration for use of space at Corpus Christi International Airport in consideration of payment of
rent at an annual rate of $66.71 per square foot, for a term of fifty-four months with the option to extend
for an additional fifty-four months; providing for publication.
ISSUE:
The General Services Commission (GSA) desires to lease office space in the Terminal for the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for staff personnel to administer directives governing U.S.
Airports. The Airport will provide 6,993 square feet of office space which will provide $2,162,689 over
the lease term for the Airport. There is an option to extend the lease which would provide an additional
$1,648,738 to the Airport fund if the option is exercised.
REQUIREO COUNCIL ACTION:
All Resolutions and Ordinances require Council approval.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
October 29, 2002:
Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a short term lease for a period not
to exceed one year between the City of Corpus Christi and the General Services Administration (GSA),
acting for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), for approximately 6,710 square feet of
rentable office space. Ordinance #025076
January 14, 2003:
Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment NO.1 to the lease
agreement between the General Services Administration (GSA), acting for the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) and the City of Corpus Christi by increasing their current rentable office space of
6.710 square feet by 283 square feet for a total of leased space to 6,993 square feet; and declaring an
emergency. Ordinance #025169
FUNOING:
N/A
CONCLUSION ANO RECOMMENOATION:
Tho I\j'port """, ,- "doo '0 fficommoo' 'pp~", of Ihi, ,~" " lho Jrr 8, 2003 boo" .
m~ti"g. S"ff "commoo', .ppro,,' of "" 0'''00"'' " p"""I,, ~ 9ff A
-'- tl
Department ead Signature
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Background
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Aviation Department was approached by the newly formed Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) in September, 2002 with a request to provide approximately 6,000 square feet of office space for
them. The Airport agreed to lease space in the former Tower building until space could be built for
them in the new terminal facility.
TSA and Airport staff began working on plans for office space in the new terminal. Concurrently,
Airport staff was working with General Services Commision (GSA) to formulate a lease for this space.
After several meetings and negotiations, staff was able to formulate a lease acceptable to GSA, TSA,
and Airport.
The new space is located on the first and second levels of the Airport terminal and is 6,993 square feet
of office space including training and conference rooms. It will be included in the last phase of the
terminal project for buildout.
Included in the rental rate is a base rental rate of $44.11 plus $22.41 per square foot for the cost of
building the shell and tenant improvements. We will receive $705,209 for the shell buildout and
improvements over the first 54 months of the lease which will cover the cost of the improvements to the
Terminal building for TSA. Funds from the 2000 Bonds for the Terminal Project will be used to pay for
the improvements for this additional terminal space.
The build-out is estimated to be complete by the end of the year. Once TSA occupies the new space,
the tower building will be scheduled for demolition early next year.
AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE,
TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE UNITED
STATES THROUGH ITS GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION FOR USE OF SPACE AT
CORPUS CHRISTI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT IN
CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT OF RENT AT AN
ANNUAL RATE OF $66.71 PER SQUARE FOOT, FOR A
TERM OF FIFTY-FOUR MONTHS WITH THE OPTION TO
EXTEND FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIFTY-FOUR MONTHS;
PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute a lease
agreement with the United States through its General Services Administration for the
Transportation Security Adrninistration for use of space at Corpus Christi International
Airport in consideration of payment of fees that total an annual rate of $66.71 per
square foot, for a term of fifty-four months with the option to extend the term for an
additional fifty-four months.
SECTION 2. Publication will be made in the official publication of the City of Corpus
Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
11
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING (City Council Action Date: October 28, 2003)
Case No.: 0903-02. Mircea Moodv: A change of zoning from an "R-lB" One-family Dwelling District
to an "AT" Apartment Tourist District on Padre Island - Corpus Christi, Section E, Block 2, Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9,
located east of Aruba Drive and 100 feet south of Running Light Drive.
Planninl! Commission and Staff's Recommendation (09/24/03): Approval.
Requested Council Action: Approval of the "AT" District.
Purpose of Reauest: For the development of eight (8) townhomes.
Summarv: The applicant has requested a change of zoning from a "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District to an "AT"
Apartment Tourist District in order to construct townhouses. The subject property consists of four (4) platted lots,
totaling a 0.884-acre area. Construction of eight (8) townhouses is proposed on the subject property. Each
townhouse is planned as a 2-story unit with 1,500 square feet. The subject property is within the Padre Island
Section E subdivision and is included within the Master Development Plan of Padre Isles.
The subject property was annexed in 1989 and was automatically zoned a "R-lB" District at that time, as required
by Article 31. Newly Annexed Territory of the zoning ordinance. During the annexation process, reference was
made in the adopted ordinance that consideration for rezoning of Section E, containing the subject property, should
take place within sixty (60) days of the annexation. The ordinance further stated that the rezoning should reflect the
Master Development Plan of Padre Isles. The subject property is a fraction of the last remaining "R-lB" District
property in the immediate area. Excluding the subject property, fifty-four (54) lots are zoned "R-IB" within Padre
Island Section E subdivision. North of Section E are lots zoned an "AT" District with scattered multi-family
development. To the east of Section E across Leeward Drive is "AT" District property developed with
condominiums and multi-family dwellings. South of Section E is undeveloped "B-2" District property. Canals and
waterways abut the west boundary of Section E and are zoned with a "R-IB" District.
Based on the directive of the 1989 ordinance and the Master Development Plan of Padre Isles, consideration to
rezoned the subject property from a"R-IB" District to a "AT" District should be given. The proposed "AT" District
on the subject property would be the initial extension of the "AT" District north and east of Section E.
Applicant's Position: The applicant concurs with Planning Conunission and Staff's recommendation.
Notification: Of the twenty-one notices mailed to the surrounding property owners, three (3) were returned in favor
and none in opposition. The 20% rule is not in effect. This case is considered noncontroversial.
fi/~f1I4
Michael N. Gunning, AICP ~
Assistant Director of Development Services/
Director of Planning
MG/FGM/er
Attachments:
I) Zoning Report
2) Comments Received
2) Planning Conunission Minutes
3) Ordinance
H,IPLN-DIRIERMA \ WORD\AGENDMEM\2003\0903-02AGENDAMEMO.DOC
CITY COUNCIL
ZONING REPORT
Case No.:
Planning Commission
Hearinl! Date:
0903-02
September 24, 2003
Map No.:
E20B
Applicant:
Mircea Moody
Le!!al DescriptionlLocation:
Padre Island - Corpus Christi, Section E, Block 2, Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, located east of Aruba Drive
and 100 feet south of Running Light Drive.
Area of Request:
.884 acres (38,500 square feet)
Lot(s) Area:
Same as above.
Current Zonin!!::
"R-IB" One-family Dwelling District
Request:
"AT" Apartment Tourist District
Current Use of Property:
Townhomes.
Purpose of Request:
Development of eight (8) townhomes.
Zoning Change Requested Due
to Notice of Violation:
Not applicable.
Adjacent Zonin!!:
All directions - "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District
Zoning Report
Case No. 0903-02 (Mireea Moody)
Page 2
Adjacent Land Use:
All directions - Vacant lots.
Number of Residential Units Allowed:
"R-IB" - 6 units (7.26 dwelling units per acre)
"AT" - 38 units (43.56 dwelling units per acre)
Estimated Traffic Generation:
Single-family residence (detached) - 10 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling unit x 6
dwelling units = 60 average weekday vehicle trip ends.
Townhomes - 5.86 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling unit x 38 dwelling units = 222
average weekday vehicle trip ends.
Adjacent Streets/Classification:
a) Aruba Drive - local
b) Running Light Drive -local
Ri!!ht-of-Way Desi!!n
Current:
a) 60-foot right-of-way with 42-foot back-to-back paved section.
b) 60-foot right-of-way with 42-foot back-to-back paved section.
Planned:
a, b) Same as current.
Traffic Count (24-bour, weekday, non-directional):
a, b) Not available.
Zonin!! Hjstory of Property:
During the past five (5) years there has not been any change of zoning on the subject property.
Recent Surroundin!! Zonin!! Cases:
During the past five (5) years there has not been any change of zoning on surrounding properties.
Zoning Report
Case No. 0903-02 (Miree. Moody)
Page 3
Planninl!: Staff Analvsis:
. General Characteristics and Background: The applicant has requested a change of zoning
from a "R-IB" One-family dwelling District to an "AT" Apartment Tourist District in order
to construct townhouses. The subject property consist of four (4) platted lots, totaling a
0.884 acre area. Construction of eight (8) townhouses are proposed on the subject property.
Each townhouse is planned as a 2-story unit with 1,500 square feet. The subject property is
within the Padre Island Section E subdivision and is included within the Master
Development Plan of Padre Isles.
The subject property was annexed in 1989 and was automatically zoned a "R-IB" District
at that time, as required by Article 31. Newly Annexed Territory of the zoning ordinance.
During the 'annexation process reference was made in the adopted ordinance that
consideration for rezoning of Section E, containing the subject property, should take place
within sixty (60) days of the annexation. The ordinance further stated that the rezoning
should reflect the Master Development Plan of Padre Isles. The subject property is a fraction
of the last remaining "R-IB" District property in the immediate area. Excluding the subject
property, fifty-four (54) lots are zoned "R-lB" within Padre Island Section E subdivision.
North of Section E are lots zoned an "AT" District with scattered multi- family development.
To the east of Section E across Leeward Drive is "AT" District property developed with
condominiums and multi-family dwellings. South of Section E is undeveloped "B-2"
District property. Canals and waterways abut the west boundary of Section E and are zoned
with a "R -lB" District.
Based on the directive of the 1989 ordinance and the Master Development Plan of Padre
Isles, consideration to rezoned the subject property from a"R-IB" District to a "AT" District
should be given. The proposed "AT" District on the subject property would be the initial
extension of the "AT" District north and east of Section E.
. Potential Housing Density: The "R-IB" District permits a density of 7.26 dwelling units per
acre or 6 units on the subject property. The "AT" District permits a density of 36.30
dwelling units per acre or 38 units on the subject property.
. HeiclltlBuIklSetbacks/Etc.: Buildings in the "R-lB" District are limited to a height of35 feet,
not to exceed three (3) stories. The front setback in the "R-lB" is twenty-five (25) feet and
side and rear yard not less than five (5) feet. The "AT" District requires a front yard setback
of not less than 20 feet. Side and rear yard setbacks for single-family and duplex uses are
five (5) feet each and ten (10) feet each for one-story multi-family structures, plus five (5)
feet for each additional story not to exceed thirty (30) feet. Other uses in the "AT" District
require a minimum often (10) feet for each side and rear yard setback.
. Signage: The "R-lB" District allows one (I) bulletin identification sign not to exceed thirty
(30) square feet. Wall signs in the "AT" District are permitted to have sixty (60) square feet
in area and properties with more than I 00 feet of street frontage are allowed one additional
Zoning Report
Case No. 0903-02 (Mircea Moody)
Page 4
square foot of sign area for each linear foot over 100 feet up to a maximum of 260 square
feet. One freestanding sign with an area of sixty (60) square feet and a height of twenty (20)
feet is permitted.
. Traffic: The proposed townhouse development is estimated to generate approximately 222
average vehicle trip ends. Residential vehicle access is provided along a local street and
such traffic will not adversely impact the area.
Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.)
a) The requested "AT" District is consistent with the zoning pattern of adjacent subdivisions
to the north and east that are zoned "AT".
Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.)
a) None.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval.
Attachments:
Zoning Map
H ,IPLN-DIR\ERMA \ WORDIZONRPTS\090J-02CCREPORT DOC
.
.
'- -""'--
Sep 4, 2003 - AS
~OO 200
CASE 20903-02
300
I
~ Subject property
~ Owners within 200 feet listed on attached ownership list
~
- -
.
.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
FROM NOTICES MAILED
Case No. 0903-02
Mircea Moody
. - FAVOR
X - OPPOSED
(Note: The listed numbers correspond to the attached map.)
I. Notices returned from within the 200-foot notification area:
Favor:
2) Asset Max, L. P., Doug Shaw, P. O. Box 114, Ellis, Kansas
No written comment.
3) CMS Construction Services, 8712 S. Ainsworth, Tacoma, W A 98444
No written comment.
13) Richard P. Hessee, 111, 6901 SPID, Ste. 103A, #336 78412
"We have six lots on RUlll1ing Light. We believe this zoning would be best use."
Opposition:
None.
11. Responses received from outside the 200-foot notification area:
Favor:
None.
Opposition:
None.
III. Responses received from owners/applicants of subject area:
Favor:
None.
Opposition:
None.
H :IPLN-DIR IERMA I WORDlCOMMDA T A I0903-02COMMENTS.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2003
New Zoning
903-02 Mircea Moody
REQUEST: "R-IB" One-family Dwelling District to an "AT" Apartment Tourist District
on property described as Padre Island - Corpus Christi, Section E, Block 2,
Lots 6, 7, 8 and 9, located east of Aruba Drive and 100 feet south of Running
Light Drive.
Ms. Goode-Macon presented a computerized slide illustration of the subject property and
the surrounding area. The applicant has requested a change of zoning from a "R-IB" One-family
dwelling District to an "AT" Apartment Tourist District in order to construct townhouses. The
subject property consist of four (4) platted lots, totaling a 0.884 acre area. Construction of eight
(8) townhouses are proposed on the subject property. Each townhouse is planned as a 2-story
unit with 1,500 square feet. The subject property is within the Padre Island Section E subdivision
and is included within the Master Development Plan of Padre Isles.
The subject property was annexed in 1989 and was automatically zoned a "R-IB"
District at that time, as required by Article 31. Newly Annexed Territory of the zoning
ordinance. During the annexation process reference was made in the adopted ordinance that
consideration for rezoning of Section E, containing the subject property, should take place
within sixty (60) days of the annexation. The ordinance further stated that the rezoning should
reflect the Master Development Plan of Padre Isles. The subject property is a fraction of the last
remaining "R-l B" District property in the immediate area. Excluding the subject property, fifty-
four (54) lots are zoned "R-IB" within Padre Island Section E subdivision. North of Section E
are lots zoned an "AT" District with scattered multi-family development. To the east of Section
E across Leeward Drive is "AT" District property developed with condominiums and multi-
family dwellings. South of Section E is undeveloped "B-2" District property. Canals and
waterways abut the west boundary of Section E and are zoned with a "R-IB" District.
Based on the directive of the ]989 ordinance and the Master Development Plan of Padre
Isles, consideration to rezoned the subject property from a"R-]B" District to a "AT" District
should be given. The proposed "AT" District on the subject property would be the initial
extension of the "AT" District north and east of Section E.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. There were 21 notices mailed to
property owners within a 200-foot radius of which three (3) were returned in favor and none (0)
were returned in opposition.
Public hearing was opened.
Richard Hessey, owns six-lots in the area, supports the rezoning request.
Paul Lozek, represents the applicant, asked the Commission to concur with Staffs
recommendation and forward a recommendation for approval.
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2003
Case No. 0903-02 (Mircea Moody)
Page 2
Public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Smith stated that he drove by the subject property and added that he
supported the request.
Motion by Smith ,seconded by Stone, to forward a recommendation for approval Motion
passed with Mims and Salazar being absent.
Page 1 of 3
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UPON APPLICATION BY
MIRCEA MOODY BY CHANGING THE ZONING MAP IN REFERENCE
TO SECTION E, BLOCK 2, LOTS 6,7,8 AND 9, PADRE ISLAND -
CORPUS CHRISTI, FROM "R-1Bn ONE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT
TO "A-Tn APARTMENT HOUSE DISTRICT; AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY DEVIATIONS
FROM THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded to the City Council its reports and
recommendations concerning the application of Mircea Moody for amendment to the
City of Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map;
WHEREAS, with proper notice to the public, public hearings were held on Wednesday,
September 24, 2003, during a meeting of the Planning Commission, and on Tuesday,
October 28, 2003, during a meeting of the City Council, in the Council Chambers, at
City Hall, in the City of Corpus Christi, during which all interested persons were allowed
to appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this amendment would best serve
public health, necessity, and convenience and the general welfare of the City of Corpus
Christi and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, is
amended by changing the zoning on 0.884 acre of Section E, Block 2, Lots 6,7,8, and
9, Padre Island - Corpus Christi, located east of Aruba Drive and 100 feet south of
Running Light Drive, from "R-1 B" One-family Dwelling District to "A- T" Apartment House
District. ( Map E20B)
SECTION 2. That the official Zoning Map of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, is
amended to reflect the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance made by Section 1 of this
ordinance.
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Corpus Christi,
Texas, approved on the 27th day of August, 1937, as amended from time to time,
except as changed by this ordinance and any other ordinances adopted on this date,
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. That to the extent that this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
represents a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan is
amended to conform to the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by this ordinance.
H:\LEG-DIR\JOSEPHIZONING\0903-02REGULAR.DOC
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance
are hereby expressly repealed.
SECTION 6. That publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of
Corpus Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
SECTION 7. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council members, copy
attached, the City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the need for
immediate action necessary for the efficient and effective administration of City affairs
and (2) suspends the Charter rule as to consideration and voting upon ordinances at
two regular meetings so that this ordinance is passed upon first reading as an
emergency measure on this 28th day of October, 2003.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED 1O~ 2 Z- 2003
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor, The City of Corpus Christi
By: ~I~
Josep Harney
Assistant City Attorney
For City Attorney
H:\LEG-DIRIJOSEPHIZONING\0903-02REGULAR.DOC
12
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING (City Council Action Date: October 28, 2003)
Case No.: 0903-03. South-Vest. Inc.: A change of zoning from an "A-I" Apartment House District to
an "R-IC" One-family Dwelling District on Gugenheim and Cohn Farm Lots, being 1.290 acres out of Lots 9
and 16, located west of Cliff Maus Drive and 350 feet south of Rockford Drive.
Planninl! Commission and Staff's Recommendation (09/24/03): Approval.
Requested Council Action: Approval of the "R-IC" District.
Purpose of Reauest: For the development of an II-lot, single-family subdivision.
Summary: The applicant has requested a change of zoning from "A-I" Apartment House District to a "R-IC" One-
family Dwelling District in order to develop an II-lot single-family residential subdivision. Housing proposed for
the site will range from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet with a mixture of one and two story designs. Minimum lot size
permitted in the "R-IC" District is 4,500 square feet, whereby the "A-I" District requires a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet. The "R-IC" District density is 9.68 units per acre or 12 units on the subject property, as
compared to the "A-I" District at 21.78 units per acre or 28 units.
North, south and west of the subject property is undeveloped "A-I" District property that is owned by the owner of
the subject property. The owner of these tracts intends to develop the remaining "A-I" District as a "R-IC" District
subdivision, providing the subject site results in a favorable venture. Across CliffMaus Drive is a city park and a
single-family subdivision zoned a "R-IB" District.
The subject property has access along CliffMaus Drive that is designated as a collector, but only has a 50-foot right-
of-way. Currently, a segment of Cliff Maus Drive is being improved under an approved CIP program from Old
Brownsville Road to Rockford Drive. Future improvements to Cliff Maus Drive are listed in the long-range CIP
program and are noted by staff as being priority one (I). Each future segment is identified as Phase 2 from Old
Brownsville Road to Bear Lane and Phase 3 from Rockford Drive to SPID. A favorable vote of the City Council to
include Phases 2 and 3 within a CIP program is needed along with a vote of the citizens for the Bond.
The Westside Area Development Plan's adopted future land use map reconunends the area to develop as light
industrial property. However, with the development of single-family residences to the east, across CliffMaus Drive,
the "R -I C" District can be supported.
Aoolicant's Position: The applicant concurs with Planning Connnission and Staff's reconunendation.
Notification: Of the twenty-two notices mailed to the surrounding property owners, one (I) was returned in favor
and none in opposition. The 20% rule is not in effect. This case is considered noncontroversial.
d~{1!cp~
Assistant Director of Development Services/
Director of Planning
MG/FGM/er
Attachments:
I) Zoning Report
2) Conunents Received
2) Planning Commission Minutes
3) Ordinance
H:\PLN-DIRIERMA \ WORDIAGENDMEM\2003\0903-03AGENDAMEMO.DOC
CITY COUNCIL
ZONING REPORT
Case No.:
0903-03
Planning Commission
Hearine Date:
September 24, 2003
Map No.:
J14C
Applicant:
South-Vest, Inc.
Leeal DescriptionlLocation:
Gugenheim and Cohn Farm Lots, being 1.290 acres out of Lots 9 and 16, located east ofCliffMaus
Drive and 350 feet south of Old BrownsvilIe Road.
Area of Request:
1.290 acres
Lot(s) Area:
Same as above.
Current Zonine:
"A-I" Apartment House District
Request:
"R-I C" One-family Dwelling District
Current Use of Property:
Undeveloped land.
Purpose of Request:
II-lot single-family subdivision.
Zoning Change Requested Due
to Notice of Violation:
Not applicable.
Adjacent Zonine:
North, South, West- "A-1" Apartment House District
East - (across CliffMaus Drive) " R-IB" One-family Dwelling District
Adjacent Land Use:
North, South, West - Undeveloped land.
East - (across CliffMaus Drive) City park and single-family residences.
Number of Residential Units Allowed:
"R-1C" -12 units (9.68 dwelling units per acre)
"A-I" - 28 units (21.78 dwelling units per acre)
Zoning Report
Case No. 0903-03 (South-Vest, Inc.)
Page 2
Estimated Traffic Generation:
Single-family development - 10 average weekday vehicle trips per dwelling unit x 12 dwelling units
= 120 average weekday vehicle trip ends.
Multiple Dwellings - 6.47 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling unit x 28 units = 181
average weekday vehicle trip ends.
Adiacent Streets/Classification:
a) Cliff Maus Drive - collector
Rieht-or-Way Desien
Current:
a) 50- foot of right-of-way with a 28-foot back-to-back paved section.
Planned:
a) 65-foot of right-of-way with a 41-foot back-to-back paved section.
Traffic Count (24-hour, weekday, non-directional):
a) None available.
Zonine History or Property:
There has not been any rezoning of the property within the past five (5) years.
Recent Surroundioe Zonine Cases:
None.
Plannine Staff Analysis:
. General Characteristics and Background: The applicant has requested a change of zoning
from "A-I" Apartment House District to a "R-IC" One-family Dwelling District in order to
develop an II-lot single-family residential subdivision. Housing proposed for the site will
range from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet with a mixture of one and two story designs.
Minimum lot size permitted in the "R-IC" District is 4,500 square feet, whereby the "A-I"
District requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet. The "R-l C" District density is
9.68 units per acre or 12 units on the subject property, as compared to the "A-I" District at
21. 78 units per acre or 28 units.
North, south and west of the subject property is undeveloped "A-I" District property that is
owned by the owner of the subject property. The owner of these tracts intends to develop the
Zoning Report
Case No. 0903-03 (South-Vest, Inc.)
Page 3
remaining "A-I" District as a "R-IC" District subdivision, providing the subject site results
in a favorable venture. Across Cliff Maus Drive is a city park and a single-family subdivision
zoned a "R-IB" District.
The subject property has access along Cliff Maus Drive that is designated as a collector, but
only has a 50-foot right-of-way. Currently, a segment ofCliffMaus Drive is being improved
under an approved CIP program from Old Brownsville Road to Rockford Drive. Future
improvements to Cliff Maus Drive are listed in the long range CIP program and are noted
by staff as being priority one (I). Each future segment is identified as Phase 2 from Old
Brownsville Road to Bear Lane and Phase 3 from Rockford Drive to SPID. A favorable vote
of the City Council to include Phases 2 and 3 within a CIP program is needed along with a
vote of the citizens for the Bond.
The Westside Area Development Plan's adopted future land use map recommends the area
to develop as light industrial property. However, with the development of single-family
residences to the east, across Cliff Maus Drive, the "R-IC" District can be supported.
. Potential Housing Densitv: The "A-I" District permits a residential density of 21.78
dwelling units per acre or 28 units on the subject property. In a "R-l C" District, residential
development is limited to a density of9.68 units per acre or 12 units on the subject property.
Approval ofthe "R-lC" District would reduce the potential number of residential units in
the area.
. Height/Bulk/Setbacks/Etc.: The "R-I C" District require a front yard setback of twenty (20)
feet and side yards of five (5) feet. Height of structures in the "R-I C" District are limited to
26 feet. Front setback requirement in the "A-I" District is twenty (20) feet with a side and
rear setback of five (5) feet, plus five (5) feet for each story over one story, but not to exceed
thirty (3) feet. Height of structures in the "A-I" District is limited to 45 feet.
. Silmage: The "R-I C" District permits monument church bulletin boards and identification
signs not to exceed a total of thirty (30) square feet. With the subject property containing
more than 100 feet of street frontage, the "A-I" District would allow either one-wall sign
with a sign area of forty (40) square feet or one ground or freestanding with a sign area of
forty (40) square feet, with a height often (10) feet and requiring a setback often (10) feet.
Traffic: The requested "R-l C" District reduces the density of residential development and
would in turn reduce the amount of potential traffic generated by an "A-I" District
development. The subject property has access along CliffMaus Drive that is designated as
a collector, but only has a 50-foot right-of-way. Currently, a segment of Cliff Maus Drive
is being improved under an approved CIP program from Old Brownsville Road to Rockford
Drive. Future improvements to CliffMaus Drive are listed in the long range CIP program
and are noted by staff as being priority one (1). Each future segment is identified as Phase
2 from Old Brownsville Road to Bear Lane and Phase 3 from Rockford Drive to SPID. A
favorable vote ofthe City Council to include Phases 2 and 3 within a CIP program is needed
along with a vote of the citizens for the Bond.
Zoning Report
Case No. 0903-03 (South-Vest, Inc.)
Page 4
Pros: (Ideas in support of the request.)
a) The proposed single- family development is consistent with the residential development to
the east, across CliffMaus Drive.
Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.)
a) The requested "R -1 C" District is inconsistent with the adopted W estside Area Development
Plan's recommended land use.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval.
Attachment:
Zoning Map
H ,IPLN-DIR\ERMA I WORDIZONRPTSI0903-1J3CCREPORT.DOC
A-I
CE PLAZA
ST. MARTIN'S l
2 R-IB
<(
:::E
lL
'"
1-2
. WESTHAVEN
GUGENHEIM AND COH
2
18 2
A-I ~ 19 2
Cl
~ 20 2
!l: 21
w 2
<:!l
22 2
10
2 11 2
3 12 w 3
>
lE
13 Cl .
. 1
Cl
5 1. ...J 5
W
~ 6
6 15 w
1-2 d
7 16 7
8 17 8
9 18 9
~
- -
'lo.I-.,..._~
Sep 8, 2003 - AS
~OO 290 3pO
CASE 20903-03
~ Subject property
~ OWners within 200 feet I isted on attached ownership list
COMMENTS RECEIVED
FROM NOTICES MAILED
Case No. 0903-03
South-Vest, Inc.
. FAVOR
X - OPPOSED
(Note: The listed numbers correspond to the attached map.)
1. Notices returned from within the 200-foot notification area:
Favor:
17) Bobbie J. Kellough, 1809 Glenfield Dr.
No written comment.
Opposition:
None.
II. Responses received from outside the 200-foot notification area:
Favor:
None.
Opposition:
None.
III. Responses received from owners/applicants of subject area:
Favor:
None.
Opposition:
None.
H:\PLN-DIRIERMA \ WORDICOMMDA T A I0903.03COMMENTS.DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2003
903-03
South-Vest, Inc.
REQUEST:
"A-I" Apartment House District to "R-IC" One-family Dwelling District on property
described as Gugenheim and Cohn Farm Lots, being 1.290 acres out of Lots 9 and 16,
located east of Cliff Maus Drive and 350 feet south of Old Brownsville Road.
Ms. Goode-Macon presented a computerized slide illustration of the subject property and the surrounding
property. The applicant has requested a change of zoning from "A-I" Apartment House District to a "R-IC" One-
family Dwelling District in order to develop an II-lot single-family residential subdivision. Housing proposed for
the site will range from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet with a mixture of one and two story designs. Minimum lot size
permitted in the "R-IC" District is 4,500 square feet, whereby the "A-I" District requires a minimum lot area of
6,000 square feet. The "R-IC" District density is 9.68 units per acre or 12 units on the subject property, as
compared to the "A-I" District at 21.78 units per acre or 28 units.
North, south and west of the subject property is undeveloped "A-I" District property that is owned by the
owner of the subject property. The owner of these tracts intends to develop the remaining "A-I" District as a
"R-IC" District subdivision, providing the subject site results in a favorable venture. Across Cliff Maus Drive is a
city park and a single-family subdivision zoned a "R-IB" District. The Westside Area Development Plan's adopted
future land use map recommends the area to develop as light industrial property. However, with the development of
single-family residences to tbe east, across CliffMaus Drive, the "R-IC" District can be supported.
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request. There were 21 notices mailed to property owners
within a 200-foot radius of wbich none (0) were returned in favor nor opposition.
Public hearing opened.
John Hernandez, applicant, stated that he wants to develop 11 homes on the property.
Public hearing close.
Motion by Amsler, seconded by Zamora, to forward a recommendation for approval. Motion passed witb
Mims and Salazar being absent.
Page 1 of 3
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UPON APPLICATION BY
SOUTH-VEST, INC. BY CHANGING THE ZONING MAP IN
REFERENCE TO GUGENHEIM AND COHN FARM LOTS, BEING 1.290
ACRES OUT OF, LOTS 9 AND 16, FROM "A-1" APARTMENT HOUSE
DISTRICT TO "R-1C" ONE-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT; AMENDING
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY DEVIATIONS
FROM THE EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded to the City Council its reports and
recommendations concerning the application of South - Vest for amendment to the City
of Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map;
WHEREAS, with proper notice to the public, public hearings were held on Wednesday,
September 24, 2003, during a meeting of the Planning Commission, and on Tuesday,
October 28, 2003, during a meeting of the City Council, in the Council Chambers, at
City Hall, in the City of Corpus Christi, during which all interested persons were allowed
to appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this amendment would best serve
public health, necessity, and convenience and the general welfare of the City of Corpus
Christi and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, is
amended by changing the zoning on 1.290 acres out of Lots 9 and 16, Gugenheim and
Cohn Farm Lots, located east of Cliff Maus Drive and 350 feet south of Old Brownsville
Road, from "A-1" Apartment House District to "R-1C" One-family Dwelling District, as
shown on the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 2. That the official Zoning Map of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, is
amended to reflect the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance made by Section 1 of this
ordinance.
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Corpus Christi,
Texas, approved on the 27th day of August, 1937, as amended from time to time,
except as changed by this ordinance and any other ordinances adopted on this date,
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. That to the extent that this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
represents a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan is
amended to conform to the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by this ordinance.
H:\JOSEPHIZONINGl0903-03REGULAR.DOC
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance
are hereby expressly repealed.
SECTION 6. That publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of
Corpus Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
SECTION 7. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council members, copy
attached, the City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the need for
immediate action necessary for the efficient and effective adrninistration of City affairs
and (2) suspends the Charter rule as to consideration and voting upon ordinances at
two regular meetings so that this ordinance is passed upon first reading as an
emergency measure on this 28th day of October, 2003.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor, The City of Corpus Christi
2003
Joseph Harney
Assistant City Attorney
For City Attorney
H:\LEG-DIRIJOSEPHIZONINGI0903-03REGULAR.DOC
Page 3 of 3
Corpus Christi, Texas
day of
,2003
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Corpus Christi, Texas
For the reasons set forth in the emergency clause of the foregoing ordinance, an
emergency exists requiring suspension of the Charter rule as to consideration and
voting upon ordinances at two regular meetings. I/we, therefore, request that you
suspend said Charter rule and pass this ordinance finally on the date it is introduced, or
at the present meeting of the City Council.
Respectfully,
Respectfully,
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor, The City of Corpus Christi
Council Members
The above ordinance was passed by the following vote:
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Brent Chesney
Javier D. Colmenero
Melody Cooper
Henry Garrett
William Kelly
Rex A. Kinnison
Jesse Noyola
Mark Scott
H:ILEG-DIRIJOSEPHIZONINGI0903-03REGULAR.DOC
.
.
SOUTH_VEST- 0903-03
Brister Surveying
4630 Janssen Drive
Corpus Christi, Texas 78411
361-548-9410
FIELD NOTES
Survey of 1.290 acres of land out of Lots 9 and 16, Section 5, Range VIII,
Gugenheim and Cohn Farm Lots, located in Nueces County, Texas, recorded in
Volume A, Page 53, Map Records of Nueces County, Texas, and being described
by metes and bounds as follows:
Commencing at 5/8-inch iron rod on the west right of way of Cliff Maus Drive and
the northeast corner of Gabriel Terrace Unit 3 as shown in map or plat recorded
in Volume 35, Page 88, Map Records of Nueces County.
Thence South 0013'40" West, with west right of way of Cliff Maus Drive, 165.16
feet to the Point of Beginning.
Thence continuing South 0013'40" West, with west right of way of Cliff Maus
Drive, 543.31 feet, to a point.
Thence with a curve to the left, a length of 23.56 feet, a radius of 15.00 feet and an
internal angle of 900 to a point.
Thence North 890 46'20" West, 75.03 feet to a point.
Thence with a curve to the left a length of 15.67 feet, a radius of 10.00 feet and an
internal angle of 900 to a point.
Thence North 0013'40" East, 543.31 feet, to a point.
Thence with a curve to the left a length of 15.67 feet and a radius of 10.00 feet and
an internal angle of 900 to a point.
Thence South 890 46'20" East, 75.03 feet to a point.
1
,~
~rSJ
..:,.~'" '\'\.
" ~'\..
SOOOOI'40"W
434.28
N
165.16
NOO013'40"E 543.31
'" '''"' ','- ,", """, " "', "" " "', "
" ""-. '" """- --'- "" "'-. " '-'- " --', " '-.
"", .'. . ". '. ...... "-. "AA 0PQSED., R.:I-c. ' ',', ",,",
" ", .', ". " ""'. "- "AREA.,.",.............., ""'.. ''',''
, ". , .... '-., ""'. ""'-', " ",', , "
, '-, "" '-.'- "'. , ""'.... ""' , '. ...
Sooo13'40'W 543.31
~ CllFF-MAUS ~R1VE j
tI:l
oc
VI \0
Vol J:
0\ oc
8 ~
trl
N89046'20"W
75.03
10.0R
1O.OR
S89"46'20"E
75.03
OR
g
SOoo13'40'W
165.16
15.0R
SCALE = 1" = 80'
13
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING (City Council Action Date: October 28,2003)
Case No.: 0903-04C, City of Corpus Christi: A change of zoning from an "1-2" Light Industrial
District to an "A-2" Apartment House District on Meadow Park Subdivision. Block 3, Lots 19 and 20, located
east of Cheyenne Street and 300 feet south of Agnes Street.
Planninl! Commission and Staff's Recommendation (09/24/03): Approval.
Requested Council Action: Approval of the "A-2" District.
Purpose of Reauest: For residential zoning compliance in order to apply for CDBG Housing Program
Snmmary: The City of Corpus Christi on behalf of the owners of the subject property has requested a change of
zoning from an "1-2" Light Industrial District to an "A-2" Apartment House District. The purpose of the rezoning is
to bring two (2) lots with non-conforming single-family structures into zoning conformance, in order for the owners
to initiate and continue application for CDBG loans. The owner of Lot 19 is requesting assistance through the City
of Corpus Christi Housing and Community Development Department for a Single Family Demolition and
Replacement Loan. This loan program assists homeowners whose structures are deteriorated beyond repair with
demolition and reconstruction of a new house. The owner of Lot 20 is considering applying for a home repair loan
through another City program.
Both lots are located along Cheyenne Street that is desiguated as a local street. Due to the street system having a 50-
foot right-of-way, industrial zoning is not preferred along this type of street design. Industrial zoning is ideal along
roadway systems with a minimal right-of-way of80-feet, in order to manage the heavy load vehicles.
The existing "1-2" District from Agues Street southward was placed along this corridor prior to 1965. It was the
intent to utilize this district as a long-range planning tool in encouraging the grouping of small lots into large parcels
for industrial purposes along the Agnes Street corridor. Since that time, individual lots with primary access along
Agnes Street have primarily combined laterally as a single use property. However, the intent to group lots zoned
"1-2" along the local street system as part of premises fronting Agues Street has not occurred fully. Instead, lots
fronting the local street systems that feed into Agnes Street have slowly transformed to individual business and
industrial uses.
North of the subject property is an "1-2" District developed with single-family residences and further towards Agues
Street an automotive repair center. To the south is an "A-2" District that is developed with single-family residences
and contains a few scattered vacant lots. East of the subject property is a tire repair shop within an "1_2" and "A-2"
District. Across Cheyenne Street from the subject property is "1-2" District property developed with single-family
residences.
The Westside Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends the area to maintain its industrial
classification. However, the HA_2" District can generally be supported since it is an extension of the existing "A-2"
District to the south, is located along a local street and single-family residences are located north, south and west of
the subject property.
Applicant's Position: The applicant concurs with Planning Commission and Staffs recommendation.
Agenda Memorandum
Case No. 0903-04C (City of Corpus Christi)
Page 2
Notification: Of the thirty-five notices mailed to the surrounding property owners, one (I) was returned in favor
(being the owner of Lot 20, and none in opposition. The 20% rule is not in effect. This case is considered
noncontroversial. .M~ A
Michael N.~ng~Cp
Assistant Director of Development Se
Director of Planning
MGIFGM/er
Attachments:
I) Zoning Report
2) Comments Received
2) Planning Commission Minutes
3) Ordinance
RIPLN-DIRIERMA \ WORDIAGENDMEM\2003\09Q3-Q3AGENDAMEMO.DOC
CITY COUNCIL
ZONING REPORT
Case No.:
0903-04C
Planning Commission
Hearine Date:
September 24, 2003
Map No.:
Jl4B
Applicant:
City of Corpus Christi
Leeal DescriptionlLocation:
Meadow Park Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 19 and 20, located east of Cheyenne Street and 300 feet
south of Agnes Street.
Area of Request:
0.34 acres (15,000 square feet)
Lot(s) Area:
Same as above.
Current Zonine:
"1-2" Light Industrial District
Request:
"A-2" Multiple Dwelling District
Current Use of Property:
Two (2) lots with single-family residences.
Purpose of Request:
Residential zoning compliance in order to apply
for CDBG Housing Program
Zoning Change Requested Due
to Notice of Violation:
Not applicable (Non-conforming uses).
Adiacent Zonine:
North, West - "1-2" Light Industrial District
South - "A-2" Apartment House District
East - "A-2" Apartment House District and "1-2" Light Industrial District
Adiacent Land Use:
North, South, West - Single-family residences.
East - Tire repair and storage business.
Zoning Report
Case No.0903-04C (City of Corpus Christi)
Page 2
Number of Residential Units Allowed:
"1-2" - Permanent or temporary housing or lodging is not permitted except for caretaker's quarters.
"A-2" - 12 units (36.30 dwelling units per acre on 0.34 acres)
Estimated Traffic Generation:
Multiple Dwellings - 6.47 average weekday vehicle trip ends per dwelling unit x 12 units = 77
average weekday vehicle trip ends.
General light industrial- 51.80 average weekday vehicle trip ends per acre x 0.34 acres = 17 average
weekday vehicle trip ends.
Ad i acent Streets/Classification:
a) Cheyenne Street - local.
Ri!!M-of-Way Desi!!n
Current:
a) 50-foot right-of-way with a 24-foot back-to-back paved section.
Planned:
a) Same as current.
Traffic Count (24-bour. weekday. non-directional):
a) Not available.
Zonin!! History of Property:
There bas not been any rezoning of the property within the past five- (5) years.
Recent Surroundin!! Zonin!! Cases:
There has not been any rezoning of surrounding property within the past five-(5) years.
Plannin!! Staff Analysis:
. General Characteristics and Background: The City of Corpus Christi on behalf of the owners
of the subject property has requested a change of zoning from an "1-2" Light Industrial
District to an "A-2" Apartment House District. The purpose ofthe rezoning is to bring two
Zoning Report
Case No.0903-04C (City of Corpus Christi)
Page 3
(2) lots with non-conforming single-family structures into zoning conformance, in order for
the owners to initiate and continue application for CDBG loans. The owner of Lot 19 is
requesting assistance through the City of Corpus Christi Housing and Community
Development Department for a Single Family Demolition and Replacement Loan. This loan
program assists homeowners whose structures are deteriorated beyond repair with demolition
and reconstruction of a new house. The owner of Lot 20 is considering applying for a home
repair loan through another City program.
Both lots are located along Cheyenne Street that is designated as a local street. Due to the
street system having a 50-foot right-of-way, industrial zoning is not preferred along this type
of street design. Industrial zoning is ideal along roadway systems with a minimal right-of-
way of 80- feet, in order to manage the heavy load vehicles.
The existing "1-2" District from Agnes Street southward was placed along this corridor prior
to 1965. It was the intent to utilize this district as a long-range planning tool in encouraging
the grouping of small lots into large parcels for industrial purposes along the Agnes Street
corridor. Since that time, individual lots with primary access along Agnes Street have
primarily combined laterally as a single use property. However, the intent to group lots zoned
"1-2" along the local street system as part of premises fronting Agnes Street has not occurred
fully. Instead lots fronting the local street systems that feed into Agnes Street have slowly
transformed to individual business and industrial uses.
North of the subject property is an "1-2" District developed with single-family residences and
further towards Agnes Street an automotive repair center. To the south is an "A-2" District
that is developed with single-family residences and contains a few scattered vacant lots. East
of the subject property is a tire repair shop within an "1-2" and "A-2" District. Across
Cheyenne Street from the subject property is "1-2" District property developed with single-
family residences.
The Westside Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends the area to
maintain its industrial classification. However, the "A-2" District can generally be supported
since it is an extension of the existing "A-2" District to the south, is located along a local
street and single-family residences are located north, south and west of the subject property.
. Potential Housing Densitv: The "1-2" District does not permit any permanent or temporary
housing or lodging, except for a caretaker's quarters. An "A-2" District permits a density of
36.30 dwelling units per acre or 12 units on the subject property.
. Heicl1t/BuIklSetbackslEtc.: The "1-2" District requires a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet
and no required side or rear yard setback unless adjacent to a residential district where a
setback of ten (10) feet is required from that residential adjacency. The "1-2" District does
not limit building heights. Building heights in the "A-2" District are limited to 60 feet not
to exceed four (4) stories. A "A-2" District requires a front yard setback of twenty (20) feet
with a side and rear yard setback five (5) feet each for single-family and duplex uses and ten
Zoning Report
Case No.0903-04C (City of Corpus Christi)
Page 4
(10) feet each for the first floor plus five (5) feet for each additional floor for multiple- family
uses.
. Signage: Wall and freestanding signs in the "1-2" District are unlimited provided the signs
are located behind the front yard. If a freestanding sign is located within the required front
yard of twenty (20) feet, the sign is limited to one sign per street frontage with a sign area of
forty (40) square feet and a height of 25 feet. The "1-2" District also permits off-premise
signs (billboards). The "A-2" District is limited to one (I) thirty (30) square feet
identification sign.
. Traffic: The subject property has access along a local roadway, Cheyenne Street. An "A-2"
District is preferred along a local street rather than the existing "1-2" District that normally
generates large truck traffic.
Pros: (Ideas in support ofthe request.)
a) Cheyenne Street is designated as a local street, whereby an "A-2" District is preferred rather
than an "1-2" Light Industrial District that normally generates large truck traffic.
b) The requested "A-2" District is an extension of the "A-2" District to the south.
Cons: (Ideas in support of maintaining the current zoning.)
a) The Westside Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends the area develop
as light industrial.
Staff Recommendation:
Approval.
Attachments:
Zoning Map
H ,IPLN-DIRIERMA IWORDIZONRPTS\200310903.()4CCCREPORT.DOC
.
.
I I
ADELE H. WElL TRACT
I
I
AGNES STREET
1 13 1 11 10 1 l' 1, 12 11 1C 15 " ~ 2 11 I~ 1 1 1: 1; 11 1 48 47 48
,. II ')
........... "-
9 G16'-- l.E 16 I' -9 45
15 9 16 1\
33
16 8 17 [!!] [E] @ 8 44
8
17 7 18~ 7 13 3lJ!1 Q 7 43
18 5 6 '9~ [E.J ~ ~~ G IT! 2 6 42
4
19 5 2~ l1!.I llil I [2] 5 41
~ [!] UJ 40
20 4 21 31 21 4
21 3 22 ~2 ~ II1Bl 22 [!] ) . r 51! ,..., ^:;..,,, 39
22 23 I'\. l.EJ 1,9 Il: I-LG 23 2 38
2
23 1 24 '@. L2~ W 24 1 37
2'
I 36
'3 '2 13 12 13-~ " 12 13 12 35
~ 11 14 l' 14 11 14 11 34
,-
f<- IIj 10 15 10 .... 15 '0 15 10 33
w
9 w 16 9 16 9 32
16 9 16 DO
....
17 8 17 8 111 17 8 17 8 31
.
18 7 t 18 13 7 w 18 7 18 15 7 30
12 z 4
19 6 , 19 6 Z '9 6 19 6 29
w
>-
20 5 20 5 w 20 5 20 5 28
J:
l.) 21 4 21 4 27
21 . 2' .
22 3 ~~-" 3 22 3 22 3 26
a
^ 23 0 I 2 25
~
--
- -
- -
'-"'-"'--
Sep B. 2003 - AS
~OO 2?O
300
I
CASE Z0903-04C
~ Subject property
~ Owners within 200 feet listed on attached ownership list
.
.
COMMENTS RECEIVED
FROM NOTICES MAILED
Case No. 0903-04C
City of Corpus Christi
. FAVOR
X - OPPOSED
(Note: The listed numbers correspond to the attached map.)
1. Notices returned from within the 200-foot notification area:
Favor:
None.
Opposition:
None.
II. Responses received from outside the 200-foot notification area:
Favor:
None.
Opposition:
None.
III. Responses received from owners/applicants of subject area:
Favor:
. Leonardo G. Martinez, 126 Cheyenne (owner of Lot 20, subject property)
No written comment.
Opposition:
None.
H:IPLN-DIRIERMA \ WORD\COMMDA T A \090J-04CCOMMENTS. DOC
Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2003
0903-04C
City of Corpus Christi
REQUEST:
"1-2" Light Industrial District to "A-2" Multiple Dwelling District on property described as
Meadow Park Subdivision, Block 3, Lots 19 and 20, located east of Cheyenne Street and 300
feet south of Agnes Street.
Ms. Goode-Macon presented a computerized slide illustration of the subject property and the surrounding
area. The City of Corpus Christi on behalf of the owners of the subject property has requested a change of zoning
from an "1-2" Light Industrial District to an "A-2" Apartment House District. The purpose of the rezoning is to
bring two (2) lots with non-conforming single-family structures into zoning conformance, in order for the owners to
initiate and continue application for CDBG loans. The owner of Lot 19 is requesting assistance through the City of
Corpus Christi Housing and Community Development Department for a Single Family Demolition and Replacement
Loan. This loan program assists homeowners whose structures are deteriorated beyond repair with demolition and
reconstruction of a new house. The owner of Lot 20 is considering applying for a home repair loan through another
City program.
Both lots are located along Cheyenne Street that is designated as a local street. Due to the streel. system
having a 50-foot right-of-way, industrial zoning is not preferred along this type of street design. Industrial zoning is
ideal along roadway systems with a minimal right-of-way of 80-feet, in order to manage the heavy load vehicles.
The existing "1-2" District from Agnes Street southward was placed along this corridor prior to 1965. It
was the intent to utilize this district as a long-range planning tool in encouraging the grouping of small lots into large
parcels for industrial purposes along the Agnes Street corridor. Since that time, individual lots with primary access
along Agnes Street have primarily combined laterally as a single use property. However, the intent to group lots
zoned "1-2" along the local street system as part of premises fronting Agnes Street has not occurred fully. Instead
lots fronting the local street systems that feed into Agnes Street have slowly transformed to individual business and
industrial uses.
North of the subject property is an "1-2" District developed with single-family residences and further
towards Agnes Street an automotive repair center. To the south is an "A-2" District that is developed with single-
family residences and contains a few scattered vacant lots. East of the subject property is a tire repair shop within an
"1-2" and "A-2" District. Across Cheyenne Street from the subject property is "1-2" District property developed
with single-family residences.
The Westside Area Development Plan's future land use map recommends the area to maintain its industrial
classification. However, the "A-2" District can generally be supported since it is an extension of the existing "A-2"
District to the south, is located along a local street and single-family residences are located north, south and west of
the subject property.
Staff recommends approval.
Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing
was closed.
Motion by Smith, seconded by Zamora, to forward a recommendation for approval. Motion passed with
Mims, and Salazar being absent.
Page 1 of 3
AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UPON APPLICATION BY CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI BY CHANGING THE ZONING MAP IN
REFERENCE TO MEADOW PARK SUBDIVISION, BLOCK 3, LOTS 19
AND 20 FROM "1-2" LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO "A-2"
APARTMENT HOUSE DISTRICT; AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR ANY DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has forwarded to the City Council its reports and
recommendations concerning the application of City of Corpus Christi for amendment to
the City of Corpus Christi Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map;
WHEREAS, with proper notice to the public, public hearings were held on Wednesday,
September 24, 2003, during a meeting of the Planning Commission, and on Tuesday,
October 28, 2003, during a meeting of the City Council, in the Council Chambers, at
City Hall, in the City of Corpus Christi, during which all interested persons were allowed
to appear and be heard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that this amendment would best serve
public health, necessity, and convenience and the general welfare of the City of Corpus
Christi and its citizens.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, is
amended by changing the zoning on Block 3, Lots 19 and 20, Meadow Park
Subdivision, located east of Cheyenne Street and south of Agnes Street, from "1-2" Light
Industrial District to "A-2" Apartment House District. (Map J14B)
SECTION 2. That the official Zoning Map of the City of Corpus Christi, Texas, is
amended to reflect the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance made by Section 1 of this
ordinance.
SECTION 3. That the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map of the City of Corpus Christi,
Texas, approved on the 27th day of August, 1937, as amended from time to time,
except as changed by this ordinance and any other ordinances adopted on this date,
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 4. That to the extent that this amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
represents a deviation from the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan is
amended to conform to the Zoning Ordinance, as amended by this ordinance.
SECTION 5. That all ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance
are hereby expressly repealed.
H:\LEG-DIRIJOSEPHIZONINGI0903-04CREGULAR.DOC
Page 2 of 3
SECTION 6. That publication shall be made in the official publication of the City of
Corpus Christi as required by the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi.
SECTION 7. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council rnembers, copy
attached, the City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the need for
immediate action necessary for the efficient and effective administration of City affairs
and (2) suspends the Charter rule as to consideration and voting upon ordinances at
two regular meetings so that this ordinance is passed upon first reading as an
emergency measure on this 28th day of October, 2003.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED~ 2L
Josep~e~~
Assistant City Attorney
For City Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor, The City of Corpus Christi
2003
H:\LEG-DIRIJOSEPHIZONING\0903-04CREGULAR.DOC
14
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
PRESENTATION
AGENDA ITEM: Juvenile Assessment Center FY 2003 Annual Report and Funding Up-
Date.
STAFF PRESENTER(S):
Name
1. David Ondrias
2. Linda Hodge
3. Deanie King
4. Mariah Boone
Title/Position
Acting Director
Assistant Director
Municipal Juv. Judge
JAC Superintendent
DeDarbnent
Park & Recreation
Park & Recreation
Municipal Court
Park &Recreation
ISSUE: The Juvenile Assessment Center FY 2003 Annual Report contains important data
on the youth of our community, program outcomes and on the funding challenges faced
by the Juvenile Assessment Center.
BACKGROUND: The Council has been provided with copies of the JuvenHe
Assessment Center FY 2003 Annual Report.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: No Council action required.
~ :JJod~
LInda Hodge
Assistant Director for Programs
Park and Recreation
Additional Background D
Exhibits D
�r of earpm C111rUli
Feasi0n
Discover
the enefits... ,M
Juvenile
�i/y/nterne�ion
ToPi�uentDe/InQaency
Program rded through the
Corpus ChrCrime Control and
Prevtion District
z
1
Juvenile ORenders
Patterns of Behavior
15% of all juvenile
offenders commit 75%
of all violent offenses
nationally. This follows
a predictable pattern in
their offense career...
Juvenile ORenders
Patterns of Behavior
. More aggressive than peers
by age 4.
. Behavior problems in the
primary grades at school.
3
4
2
. ,
," '. r' \
,i4ts~I;
.j . 5.'
.. 40 wQ'1 .
.~i/ t 20
',' ~, .>'i
<<."''2::" ~.".
Q;,: ..-
\
\
Juvenile Unenders
Patterns of Behavior
. Between the ages of 9 and
12, youth begin to commit
status offenses (Examples:
truancy, curfew violation).
. If juvenile offenders do not
receive services at this time,
they will go on to commit
violent offenses by age 14.
lJ Br aking the
Cv Ie of Delinauenev
The JUVENILE
ASSESSMENT CENTER
provides an opportunity
for early intervention
through case
management services.
5
6
3
I success>
Juvenile Assessment
Center
Preventing Delinquency
- -- ------
- ----
. Services include
comprehensive case
management to 3,388
at-risk youth and their
families since it opened
in September of 1999.
. The cycle of delinquency
was broken in the great
majority of these cases.
Juvenile Assessment
Center
Preventing Delinquency
. Gained the attention of the
Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention
in Washington.
. The JAC has been used as
an international model.
7
8
4
Corpus Chri' ti
---
2003
Juvenile Assessment
Center
. Was one of the three projects
highlighted in the City of Corpus
Christi's winning proposal to be
designated an All-America City
. Municipal Juvenile Court Judge
Deanie King traveled to
Washington D.C. to represent
the Juvenile Assessment Center
Juvenile Assessment
Center
Background
. Funded by the Corpus
Christi Crime Control and
Prevention District.
9
10
5
Juvenile Assessment
Center
Background
,-- ------------.... -----
_ . Obtained a Title V
~ Delinquency Prevention
. ~ Grant that provided funds
\ needed to hire a Municipal
Juvenile Judge and four case
\ managers in addition to the
\'\ two Crime Control-funded
I case managers.
11
baC\(
.'-00\> Juvenile Assessment
sCPQ .... ........... Center
. ttendance Outcomes
. 0 ense Outcomes
12
6
bac~
to
5C"00\
School Anendance
Outcomes
,
lsuccess Returned over 836 children
\ to school for a total of
\
\ 50,123 ADA-eligible days
\ during FY2003, keeping
\ them off the streets and
11\ saving local school districts
5\ $1,408,957 in ADA funding.
i 13
School Anendance
Outcomes
For Youth Receivinq
Case Management "Services
PRE-CASE
MANAGEMENT
AlTENDANCE
. 143 Good
I success> . 94 Fair
. 173 Poor
POST-CASE
MANAGEMENT
AlTENDANCE
. 256 Good
. 99 Fair
. 42 Poor
14
7
Juvenile Assessment
Center
Offense Outcomes
- __ ____u______
I success> · 82% of the youth processed
--- \ through the JAC committed
\ no additional offenses of any
\ kind, however minor, after
\ JAC intervention.
,
\
\
\
\
\
I
Success)
~
\
[SUccess)
15
Juvenile Assessment
Center
Offense Outcomes
. 90% of the youth processed
through the JAC committed
no delinquent offenses after
JAC intervention.
. The JAC processed only
87 repeat offenders out
of 1,280 intakes, for a rate
of only 8.1%.
16
8
Onense Outcomes
For Youth Receiving
Case Management Services
PRE-CASE POST-CASE
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
OFFENSES OFFENSES
\
. \ 229 No Priors
...... . 1161 Status Offender
Success :> . 1\79 Delinquent,
/ ',Non-Violent
. ~1 Delinquent,
i Violent
348 No Offenses Post
25 Status Offender
19 Delinquent,
Non-Violent
8 Delinquent,
Violent
17
pa ners in Preventing
Delnauenev
The MUNICIPAL JUVENILE
COURT refers juvenile
offenders to the JAC for
assessment and/or case
management.
18
9
Municipal Juvenile coun
, Preventing Delinquency
\; ~------------
\
\
. Court orders status
offenders and other early,
pre-delinquent offenders to
be assessed and/or enter
the case management
program at JAC.
19
Municipal Juvenile coun
Preventing Delinquency
. Opened in October of
2001.
. Municipal Court obtained
a Juvenile Accountability
Incentive Block Grant to
complete funding for the
Municipal Juvenile Court.
20
10
Through a research-based,
data driven, outcome-
focused approach, the JAC
has been a tremendous
benefit to the families in our
community.
21
. Title V funding stream ceases to exist after
July 0 2004 ($250,000)
. JAIBG f nding stream reduced by 25%
. Manyof he valuable programs that partner
with JAC re closing their doors or no
longer ab to provide services due to cuts
in other F deral and State programs
22
11
\
,
,
,
The JAC is searching for ways
\ to continue to fund the Title V-
,
\ funded case manager positions
\
\ and to find and support
'\ services that can still help poor,
, at-risk children in our
\ community
23
Juvenile
rlnting DlJlinqulJncy
'lie/its Everyone
rJr CommunitY.
This service i proves the quality of life-creating an
environment 0 attract economic development for
business an favorable conditions for residents.
24
12
, ,
~CitYOf '
.'1 Corpus
=- :::: ChrIsti
~
R~r.atlon
\
,
,
,
\
13
THE JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER
FY 2003 ANNUAL REPORT
.
Report prepared and submitted in August, 2003 by:
Mariah Boone, LMSW
Juvenile Assessment Center Superintendent
,
Loretta Witten, JAC Administrative Assistant
Debra Garcia, JAC Case Manager
Michelle McKenna, JAC Case Manager
,
Julie Ramon, JAC Case Manager
Leticia Duarte, JAC Case Manager
Richard Alford, JAC Case Manager
Angela DeLaRosa, JAC Case Manager
Manuel Salazar, JAC Intake Specialist
Maria Silgero, JAC Intake Specialist
Ariza Guzman, Student Volunteer
Suzanne Reyna, Social Work Intern
City of Corpus Christi Park & Recreation Department
226 Enterprize Parkway, Suite 104
Corpus Christi, Texas 78405
Fiscal Year 2003
Juvenile Assessment Center
The Juvenile Assessment Center:
FY 2003 ANNUAL REPORT
Prol!ram Summarv
The Juvenile Assessment Center of the City of Corpus Christi Park & Recreation
Department opened its doors in September 1999 as a new program funded by the Corpus
Christi Crime Control and Prevention District and designed to decrease juvenile crime in
Corpus Christi by providing assessment and case management services to juveniles at-
risk of delinquency and to their tiunilies. The center serves as a temporary holding
facility for juveniles arrested by law enforcement for violations of the daytime or
nighttime curfews or for truancy. While held at the center, juveniles are invited to
participate in an intake and assessment process and are given information about services
in the community that can help them with their needs. Juveniles are released to their
parents, Who are also invited to participate in the assessment process and who also
receive referrals to community services. Juveniles at-risk of delinquency and their
.
families are offered three months of free and comprehensive case management services to
assist them with their problems and sometimes are ordered into case management as Ii
condition of deferred adjudication or of probation by the Juvenile Municipal Court. If a
family is participating in case m~nl\gement, a case manager from the Juvenile
.Assessment Center will meet regularly with the fiunily to plan problem-solving strategies
and to monitor the mmily's progress. Case managers help families connect with and
follow through with needed services in the community. At the end of three months, the
juvenile's family and a case manager from the Juvenile Assessment Center decide if their
case can be successfully closed or if there is a need for case management services to
continue. The Corpus Christi City Marshall's Office provides on-site law enforcement
during the center's intake hours in the daytime and at night. The center employs a
professional staff of case managers and intake specialists, as well as support staff.
Additionally, a wide variety of youth agencies in the Coastal Bend reposition staff at the
center. These agencies include: the Corpus Christi Independent School District, Flour
B1uffIndependent School District, Calallen Independent School District, Tuloso-Midway
Independent School District, the Nueces County Juvenile Justice Center, Planned
Parenthood, and the Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse... The Juvenile Assessment
Center also has a progrwn in which college students in related fields do internships
working at the center.
Fisco1 Y"",2003 .
Juvenile Assessmeat Center
2
Historv
The Truancy Reduction Impact Program (TRIP) was a project of the Coastal Bend
Alliance for Youth (CBA Y) aimed at addressing the problems of truancy and juvenile
crime in Corpus Christi. The idea of TRIP came about through community concerns
expressed in meetings and forums addressing youth-related issues, and through evidence
found in school, law enforcement and juvenile justice files and intervention activities.
The RE. Butt FolUldation contributed'the start-up funds for TRIP, the YMCA donated
space in its downtown facilities for the program and the TRIP Center opened its doors in
January of 1993. Local youth services professionals agree with the philosophy of early
intervention for at-risk children before they become school dropouts and before they
enter the juvenile justice system. The consensus of this group is that the investment of
our collective energies in addressing truancy and other status offenses such as curfew
violation will have a definite impact in our community as it relates to issues such as youth
crime, substance abuse and dropout rates. In keeping with this consensus, the Corpus
Christi Police Department opened the Corona Curfew Center in 1996 to serve juveniles in
. violation of the nighttime curfew and thus curb the tide of nighttime juvenile crime as
well.
TRIP, because of its interactive process with law enforcement, schools and social
services, was well equipped to address youth problems as they were occurring. Data
showed that juvenile crime decreased in Corpus Christi after TRIP's inception, and
attendance in area schools increased. TRIP became a much-sought-after national model,
providing information on replicating the program to communities across the nation.
TRIP was the forerunner and model of all other truancyicurfew centers in Texas. It was
cited as a model program in the report of the Texas Commission on Children and Youth
and in the U. S. Department of Justice Community Policing Information Access Guide.
Corpus Christi saw even further decreases in juvenile crime after the opening of the
Corona Curfew Center.
TRIP and the Corona Center meant for years to join together into one prOgram so that
night-time curfew violators could receive the same services given to day-time curfew
violators in a central location. Case mllnagement, an important element always needed
by both, would be part of this new program if fhnding could be found. Fortunately, the
Corpus Christi Crime Control and Prevention District included funding for the new
program in its five-year plan and the Juvenile Assessment Center opened its doors on
September 2nd, 1999.
Fiscal Year 2003
JuvenDc Asscssmeot Celater
3
StaffiDI!
The Juvenile Assessment Center currently has the following positions budgeted: a
superintendent, an administrative assistant, 2.6 intake specialists and 6 case managers.
Four of the case managers are funded through a Title V Delinquency Prevention Grant
thai is in its last year. All other positions are funded by the Corpus Christi Crime Control
and Prevention District.
Court Partnerships
During the Juvenile Assessment Centc;r's first year of operation, it became evident that
few of the fumilies whose children scored most at risk for delinquency when assessed
were willing to voluntarily participate in case management. The children most at risk for
delinquency were being carefully identified and services were being offered but, because
most of the families were not accepting the services, most of those children remained at
risk. In the second quarter of the Juvenile Assessment Center's second year of operation,
the Juvenile Assessment Center entered into a partnership with the Corpus Christi
Municipal Court and several Nueces County Justices of the Peace to correct this problem.
Municipal Court Judges and Justices of the Peace began ordering truants and curfew
violators into case management at the Juvenile Assessment Center as their sentence or as
. a condition of deferred adjudication. It quickly became evident that this was a valuable
partnership, as it could make sure that at risk juveniles would receive needed services and
could give the Courts a way to monitor compliance with judicial orders. Before this
partnership, the court had little way to track cases and compliance. With the forging of
this partnership, the case managers could serve as municipal-level probation officers of a
sort.
Title V
The only continued difficulty in getting at risk youth connected to needed services was
staffing. With only three judges to hear all of the municipal-level cases in the city, the
Municipal Court had truancy cases that were over two years old still waiting to go to
Court. . When such old cases get to Court, .they often are dismissed. Because of this, case
management numbers at the Juvenile Assessment Center relilained lower, in its second
year of operation than they would have been if the Court had been able to hear current
cases. Since the Juvenile Assessment Center had only two case managers, ho:wever, it
would not have been able to bandle the volume of court referrals it would have gotten if
there had not been a backlog. The answer to this dilemma was funding for more staff.
The Juvenile Assessment Center wrote a grant requesting Title V Delinquency
Prevention funding from the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office for the
Pre-Delinquency Court and Case Management Project. This would allow the Municipal
Court to hire a full-time judge to hear only juvenile cases. It would also allow the
Juvenile Assessment Center to hire four more case mAnagers, for a total complement of
six. Having a Municipal Court Judge devoted to entirely juvenile cases would eliminate
the backlog of juvenile cases at Municipal Court, and having more case managers would
allow the Juvenile Assessment Center to provide services to the youth referred by the
CoUrts. The grant was awarded to the City in July of 2001. The Municipal Court also
Fiscal Year 2003
Juvenile ASS:iIMCDt Center
4
received a Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant which allowed it to set up an
entire Municipal Juvenile Court housed next door to the Juvenile Assessment Center.
The new Municipal Juvenile Court opened in October of 2001. The four new case
managers were added to the Juvenile Assessment Center at that time, for a total of six
case managers. The Municipal Juvenile Judge began ordering municipal-level offenders
to be assessed at the Juvenile Assessment Center and also began ordering juveniles into
the case management program at the Juvenile Assessment Center. Due to these referrals
from the Court, intakes at the Juvenile Assessment Center doubled and all six case
managers began carrying full caseloads at all times. This process has greatly improved
productivity over the last two years lIl}d has allowed many more at-risk youth and their
families to receive the services they need to avoid delinquency and become productive
members of the community.
The City's FY 2004 will be the last year that Title V funding is available. Without
another source of funding, the community may lose these valuable services. During the
FY 2004, every effort must be made to find financial support that will maintain' these .
services for Corpus Christi families. The Juvenile Assessment Center model has worked
in Corpus Christi and must be maintained for this work to continue. .
.
The Population
The Juvenile Assessment Center processed 1280 intakes during FY 2003, which
accounted for a total of 1067 actual children when adjusted for repeaters. A summary of
the types of offenses committed by these 1067 children prior to their contact with the
Juvenile Assessment Center follows:
Very delinquent with violent offenses: 66'
Very delinquent with non-violent offenses: 219
Status Offenders: 130
No priors: 652
The above summary illustrates that the majority (782) of children being brought to the
Juvenile Assessment Center are part of the desired target population, those who are still
status offenders or who are committing their first offense, for whom delinquent behavior
can be prevented with proper intervention. The 285 other children brought to the center
have already begun to engage in highly delinquent behaviors and require intervention to
break the cycle of delinquency and prevent further crimes. The Juvenile Assessment
Center provides services that can be of assistance to both groups of offenders in the form
of case management, intake and assessment, crisis intervention and referrals.
Fiscal Year 2003
Juvenile Aiseasmeot Center
5
CASE MANAGEMENT PROCESS.
Letter offering case management services goes out to
parent/guardian of juvenile who has been processed
through center. Iffamily has a phone, case manager calls
family within one week of sending letter and extends
offer of case management services again.
I
Files of families who decline case
management services will be closed by 'case
I1lllI1lIl!er & filed with inactive files.
Initial Appointment
. Juvenile fills out POSIT assessment & parent fills out POSIP
assessment if this was not done at intake.
. Case manager collects data needed for . complete psychosocial
assessment.
. Case manager fills out Y outh/Parent Assessment of Family
Strengths and Obstacles with fumily.
. Glse manager and fumily put together case management plan
with clearly stated goals, objectives, strategies and out-come
measures for case management -
. Case manager obtains signed Release of Information Form from
juvenile & parent in order to communicate with service
providers.
A Municipal or JP Court Judge
orders a child into case
management at JAC.
\
+
When a family accepts case management
services, case manager sets up
appointment to meet with them.
Case manager has contact with family at least once every two weeks
to monitor progress towards goals. Case manager also has contact
with service providers to which family has been referred at least every
two weeks to monitor progress towards goals. Changes are made in
services as needed.
After 3 months of case
management, case manager
. & 1funily determine if
goals. have been met,
juvenile takes POSIT
Follow-Up & parent re-
takes POSIP. If juvenile
still scores high-risk in any
category &Jor goals have
not been met; a new case
management plan will be
formulated & the process
will begin again. If case is
court-ordered, judge is
informed that family has
not met the conditions of
the court order.
With assistance from day intake worker & NCJJC, case manager keeps
track of juvenile's grades, attendance and offense record.
+
After 3 months of case management, case manager & family
determine if goals have been met, juvenile takes POSIT
Follow-Up & parent re-takes POSIP. If goals have been met
& juvenile no longer scores high-risk in any POSIT/POSIP
category, case manager & family close case. If case is court-
ordered, judge is informed that family has met the conditions
of the court order.
F sco1Year2003
luveoile AnclJmont Center
6
A summary of the Juvenile Assessment Center's case management activities from
August, 2002 through July, 2003 follows:
Tot~1 number offumilies who have accessed case management services: 528
Case Management Service Events:
Phone contacts: 3119
Office Visits: 1888
School visits: 523
Home Visits: 212
Psychosocial Assessments: . 482
Y outhIFamily Assessments of Strengths/Obstacles: 482
Case Management Plans: 482
Number of cases closed: 400
Disposition at closure:
Successful: 317
Client Could Not Be Located: 14
Client Discontinued Services: 64
. Closed Due To Long-Term Placement of Juvenile. Treatment: 3
Closed Due To Long-Term Placement of Juvenile - Incarceration: 2
Pre-Case Management Attendance
Good: 143
Fair: 94
Poor: 163
Not Available: 0
Post-Case Management Attendance
Good: 256
Fair: 99
Poor: 42
Not Available: 3
,
Pre-Case Management Offense Type .
No Priors: 229
Status Offender: 61
Delinquent, Non-Violent: 79
Delinquent, Violent: 31
Post-Case Management Offense Type
No Offenses Post: 348
Status Offender: 25
Delinquent, Non-Violent, 19
Delinquent, Violent: g.,
Of youth receiving case management, number of referrals to:
La Raza Counseling Center:
NCJJC Prevention Unit:
MHMR Youth Services:
Palmer Drug Abuse Program:
Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse:
Spolm Memorial (psych. triage):
Anger Management :
Planned Parenthood:
Spolm Hospice (grief counselor):
Women's Shelter:
34
28
28
2
5
14
37
82
3
I
Fiscal Year 2003
Juveailo Assessmont Cooter
7
Family Counseling Services: 48
Turning Point Counseling Services: 101
Texas Workforce Commission: 2
Shoreline: 6
Drug Testing: 75
Arlington Heights Food Pantry: I
WlC: 10
Texas Dept. of Human Services: 9
Catholic Social Services: I
City-County Health Dept.: 1
ALC - GED Program: 3
Ring of Champions: 115
Psychologist: 14
Psychiatrist: 12
Child Protective Services: 14
School Counselor: 17
Padre Behavioral Hospital: 5
TAMU-CC L.I.F.E. Program: 30
Job Corps: 2
La Raza GED Program: 2
. T AMU-CC Family Night Out: 13
FCS CHOICE Living Program: 15
Dispute Resolution: 1
Nueces Co. Children's Advocacy Center: I
Park and Rec. Summer Recreation/Gym: 4
Of parents participating in case 1tijIll1Igement, number of referrals to:
La Raza Counseling Center:
NCJJC Prevention Unit:
MHMR Youth Services:
Palmer Drug Abuse Program:
Council on Alcohol & Drug Abuse:
Spohn Memorial (psych. triage):
Anger Management:
Planned Parenthood:
Spohn Hospice (grief counselor):
Women's Sheher:
Family Counseling Services:
Turning Point Counseling Services:
Parenting Classes:
Catholic Social Services:
Tuff Love for Parents:
Psychologist:
TAMU-CC Family Night Out:
Family Forward Counseling:
14
29
6
3
2
3
4
4
3
6
65
63
6
5
7
6
19
1
Fiscal v.... 2003
Juveo.iJc Assessment Center
,
8
Intake and Other JAC Services - 2003
Referrals are provided to not only the families who accept case management, but also to
all families processed through the center. The intake specialist on duty refers each family
of a juvenile processed through the center to the appropriate school and judicial personnel
who will be handling their juvenile's offense, as well as to any other services in the
community for which their assessment or just discussions may have indicated a need.
Additionally, school attendance and juvenile offenses are tracked for every child brought
to the center.
A summary of additional referrals giv~n to children and families as a result of the intake
process during the 2003 Fiscal Year follows:
La Raza Counseling Center:
NCJJC Prevention Unit:
MHMR Youth Services:
Palmer Drug Abuse Program:
School Guidance Counselor:
Family Outreach:
. Job Corps:
Planned Parenthood:
Family Counseling Services:
Turning Point Counseling Services:
Texas Workforce:
Council on Alcohol & Drug Abuse:
Ring of Champions:
Mentoring Programs:
Literacy Program:
Anger Management:
TAMS:
Women's Support Group:
CIllP:
MHMR - Robstown:
WIC:
Medicaid:
Health Dept.:
Tutoring:
MELD:
Legal Aid:
Park & RecreationIVolunteer Opportunities:
Parenting Classes:
OED:
Boys & Girls Club:
Hope House:
STSARS:
101
10
17
16
63
4
26
19
115
76
9
10
1
108
2
21
I
I
2
1
1
1
4
13
3
1
10
2
4
1
1
1
,
Fis<:al Year 2003
~uv..Ue Assessment Ceoler
9
A summary of non-case management service event totals from August 2002 through July
2003 follows:
Total # of Intakes 1280
Total # of Referrals 1280+
Total # POSIT Assessments 1111
Total # POSIP Assessments 982
Total # of ParentlGuardian 1280+
Communications .
Total # of School 1280+
Communications
# of Community 190
Meetin2SIPresentations
Outcomes
.
. 898 children (975 intakes) were processed through the Juvenile Assessment Center
during the part ofFY 2003 that coincided with the 2002-2003 school year. Of those
children, 836 were returned to school after their violation.
. The school attendance of these children following JAC intervention equaled a sum
(for area public schoolchildren only) of 50,123 ADA-eligible days, saving Corpus
Christi and Robstown school districts approximately ~1,408,957.53 in ADA funding.
. The Juvenile Assessment Center processed only 87 repeaters out of the 1280 intakes
(1067 children) processed during FY 2003. This is a JAC recidivism rate of 8.1%.
This rate is down from the JAC recidivism rate. of 9% in FY 2002.
. Of the 1067 children processed through the .Juvenile Assessment 'Center, 885
committed no additional offenses of any kind, however minor, afler JA~ intervention.
. Of the 1067 children processed through the Juvenile Assessment Center, 967
committed no delinquent offenses after JAC intervention. This means that JAC was
successful in preventing delinquency over 90% of the time.
Attached are the detailed Attendance Tracking, Juvenile Offense Tracking and Statistical
Reports of the Juvenile Assessment Center for FY 2003.
Fiscal Year 2003
Juvenile Assessment Center
10
.
Fiscal Y.... 2003
JUVENILE ASSESSMENT CENTER
2002 - 2,003 School Year
School Attendance Tracking Report
Juvenile Ar~ Conler
,
11
Summary of Juvenile Assessment Center
School Attendance Tracking
August 2002 through May 2003
Total # intakes:
Total # juveniles processed:
Total # juveniles JAC returned to school after violation:
Total # juveniles not enrolled in school at JAC intake:
Total # juveniles for whom JAC was unable to track attendance:
Total # ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing.:
CCISD: 4,1919
CISD: 1,936
FBISD: 3,182
RISD: 80
TMISD: 1,130
WOISD: 1,876
.
Total: 50,123
Approximate amonnt of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts ($28.11 a day)
CCISD:
CISD:
FBISD:
RISD:
TMISD:
WOISD:
$ 1,178,343.09
$ 54,420.96
$ 89,446.02
$ 2,248.80
$ 31,764.30
$ 52,734.36
S 1,408,957.53
Total:
Fiscal You 2003
luvenDe Assessment Center
975
898
836
52
107
12
Corpus Cbristi Independent Scbool District Scbools
Juvenile Assessment Center School Attendance Tracking
Carroll Hie:h School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
KiDe: Hie:h School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Miller Hie:h School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. of students that could not be tracked
.
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC p~cessing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Moodv Hie:h School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Rav Hi2h School Total # of StudfDts
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Fisool Year 2003
Juvenilo Aascssmont Center
79
73
.6
5325
$149,685.75
59
55
4
4506
$126,663.66
77
73
4
4701
$132,145.11
82
80
2
4348
$122,222.28
97
92
5
6153
$172,960.83
13
Corpus Christi Independent School District Schools (Cont.)
Adult Learnln2 Center Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Alternative Bilzh School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Student Learnln2 and Guidance Center Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to sehool after violation
.. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
,
Fiscal Year 2003
Juvenile Assessment Center
5
3
2
N/A
Unknown
5
3
2
130
$3,654.30
65
58
7
2033
$57,147.63
14
Corpus Christi Independent &hool District &hools (Cont.)
Baker Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Browne Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC effurts
Cullen Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. . # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC effurts
Cunninl!ham Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Driscoll Middle School Total # of Students.
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post lAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Fiscal Year 2003
Juv..U. Assessment Center
23
23
o
1453
$40,843.83
33
29
4
1461
$41,068.71
7
7
o
565
$15,882.15
19
13
6
646
$18,159.06
24
20
4
1103
$31,005.33
15
Corpus Christi Independent School District Schools (Cont.)
Grant School Total # of Students
. . # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Haas Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Hamnn Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. . # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Kame Middle Sehool Total # ofStndents
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Martin Middle School Total # of Students.
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
FiIcal Year 2003
Juvenile Assessment Center
15
14
I
1428
$40,141.08
I
I
o
30
$843.30
27
26
1
1698
$47,730.78
10
9
I
776
$21,813.36
26
23
3
1648
$46,325.28
16
Corpus Christi Independent School District Schools (Cont.)
Soutb Park Middle Scbool Total # of Students
. . # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Wynn Seale Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to sch901 after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Allen Elementary Scbool Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
.
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Centrid ParkE1ementarv Scbool Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Total # of Students
Coles &lementarv School
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
,
Evans Elementarv School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Fiscal Ycar2003
luvenile Assessment Center
15
14
I
773
$21,729.03
30
29
I
2054
$57,737.94
1
1
o
174
$4,891.14
1
I
o
65
$1,827.15
3
2
1
N/A
Unknown
I
1
o
25
$702.75
17
Corpus Christi Independent School District Schools (Cont.)
Garcia Elementary School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Gibson Elementary School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Houston Elementary School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Kostoryz Elementary School . Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
,
Lozano Elementary School Total t# of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
MenKer Elementary School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Fiscal Yeor 2003
Juvenile Assessmeot Center
;~"...~...r:'"''''''
-,-,.., -~~~
".
I
o
I
N/A
Unknown
I
I
o
128
$3,598.08
2
1
1
82
$2,305.02
I
I
o
I31
$3,682.41
2
2
o
194
$5,453.34
I
1
o
68
$1,911.48
18
Corpus Christi Independent School District Schools (Cont.)
Moore Elementarv School Total # of Students
. # of students lAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post lAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through lAC efforts
Sanders Elementarv School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post lAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through lAC efforts
Wilson Elementarv School Total # of Students
.
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post lAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Y caaer Elementarv School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation,
. # Of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
,
Total # ADA-eligible days attended post JACproeessing:
Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts:
Fisoa1 Year2003
JuvcnDe AIlUSfl1CQt Center
2
2
o
88
$2,473.68
I
o
I
N/A
Unknown
1
1
o
133
$3,738.63
1
o
1
N/A
Unknown
4t,919
$1,178,343.09
19
Calallen Independent School District Schools
Juvenile Assessment Center Scbool Attendance Tracking
Cal8l1en Hi2b School Total # of Students
.. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Calallen Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Total # ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing:
.
Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved tbrougb JAC efforts:
,
FlsceI Y car 2003
JuvenDe Assessment Center
18
13
5
1294
$36,374.34
9
8
1
642
$18,046.62
1936
$54,420.96
20
Flour Bluff Independent School District Schools
Juvenile Assessment Center Scbool Attendance Tracking
Flour Bluff Hi2b Scbool Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Flour Bluff Junior Hi2b Scbool Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Flour Bluff Intermediate Scbool Total # of Students
. . # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Total # ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processIng:
.
Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts:
,
Fis<al Vcar2003
Juveaile Assessment Center
26
23
3
2143
$60,239.73
10
10
o
900
$25,299.00
I
I
o
139
$3,907.29
3182
$89,446.02
21
Robstown Independent School District Schools
Juvenile Assessment Center School Attendance Tracking
Robstown Hilfh School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Seale Junior Hilfh Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
.
Total # ADA-eUgible days attended post JAC processing:
Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts:
,
Fiscal Y_2003
Juvenile As,es~ Ceoter
4
3
I
N/A
Unknown
I
1
o
80
$2,248.80
80
$2,248.80
22
Tuloso-Midway School District Schools
Juvenile Assessment Center School Attendance Tracking
Tuloso Midwav Hilfh School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Tuloso-Mldwav Middle School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
. Total # ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing:
Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts:
,
Fiscal Y _ 2003
JuvcaiJe Assessment Center
14
12
2
929
$26,114.19
5
4
I
201
$5,650.11
1130
$31,764.30
23
West 050 Independent School District Schools
Juvenile Assessment Center School Attendance Tracking
West 080 Hilfh School Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC effurts
West Oso Middle School Total # of Students
. # ofstndents JAC returned to school after violation
. # of stndents that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC effurts
West 080 Intermediate School Total # of Students
. . # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Total # ADA-eUgible days attended post JAC processing:
.
Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts:
,
Fiscal Y_ 2003
JuveoileAlSellmcnt Carter
17
IS
2
863
$24,258.93
10
9
1
630
$17,709.30
5
5
o
383
$10,766.13
1876
$52,734.36
24
Other Schools
Juvenile Assessment Center School Attendance Tracking
Non-Nueces County Schools Total # of Students
. Number of Schools
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Corpus Christi Academv Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
.
Glory Full Gosoel Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
. # of ADA-eligible days attended post JAC processing
. Approximate amount of ADA dollars saved through JAC efforts
Incarnate Word Academy Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
,
La Raza Academy Total # of Students
. Middle School (13). High School (19), GED (4)
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
Fiscal Y_2OO3
JuvCllile AssessmeIIt Center
26
24
13
13
N/A
Unknown
11
7
4
N/A
Unknown
1
1
o
N/A
Unknown
3
3
o
36
36
27
9
2S
Other Schools (Cont.)
Nueces County JJAEP Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
Richard Milburn Academv Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be traCked
GED Pro2rams (not includin2 La pnA) Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
.
Home-School Students Total # of Students
. # of students JAC returned to school after violation
. # of students that could not be tracked
,
FiscoI Yeor2oo3
Juvenile Anenmmt Center
26
13
13
o
10
8
2
1
1
o
4
o
4
Juvenile Assessment Center
2002-2003
Juvenile Offense Tracking Report
Number Of Offenses Committed By Juveniles Prior to JAC Intervention: 995
Number Of Offenses Committed By Juveniles Post JAC Intervention: 356
Juvenile Assessment Center
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
o
i
i I
,
: ..........'
I , ~J.1o__[
Offenses A'ior To .lAC Offenses FIlst .lAC
~tervention: ~tervention:
Offenses Prior to JAC Intervention:
.
Juveniles with No Prior Offenses: 652
Juveniles with Status Offenses: 130
Delinquent Juveniles with Non-Violent Offenses: 219
Delinquent Juveniles with Violent Offenses: 66
Offenses Post JAC Interventiou:
Juveniles with No Offenses Post:
Juveniles with Status Offenses:
Delinquent Juveniles with Non-Violent Offenses:
Delinquent Juveniles with Violent Offenses:
885
82
83
17
,
C>>rfensn Prtor To JAC InterwnUon: orr...... PoRJac 1IMrYentIon:
700 1000
600 800
500 600
400
300 400
200 200
100
0 0
U II HI ~il U II HI ~il
Fiscal Yeer 2003
Juvenile Assessment Center
27
Offenses Prior To JAC Intervention
Status Offenses Number of Offenses
(Juvenile History Prior to JAC Intake)
Daytime Curfewffruancv 35
Nighttime Curfew 4
Failure to Attend School . 163
Disruption of School . 20
Expelled from AEP 10
Runaway 280
Non-Violent Offenses Number of Offenses
(Juvenile History Post JAC Intake)
Disorderlv Conduct 19
Criminal Mischief 23
Criminal Trespass 15
Unauthorized Use ofa Vehicle 5
Graffiti 7
Harassment 0
DrI12-related Offenses 86
Theft/BurgIary 95
Unlawful Telecommunications Device 6
Obstruction Retaliation I
False Alarm/Reoort . 6
Interfere with Public Servant 3
Evadin2lResisting Detention or Arrest 28
Contempt ofMatzistrate 79
Violation of Probation 37
Bail JumDing 1 '
Violent Offenses Number of Offenses
(Juvenile RistON Prior to JAC Intake)
Assault Cause Bodilv Iniuries 26
Assauh Offensive!Provocative Nature 12
Terroristic Threat 21
Weapon Offense (some overlap with assault offenses) 3 ,
Sexual Offense 3
Robbery 5
Arson 2
Fiscal Yeor2oo3
JuveoUc Aucssment Center
28
Offenses Post JAC Intervention
Status Offenses Number of Offenses
(Juvenile History Post JAC Intake)
Davtime Curfewffruancv 12
Nil!:httime Curfew 6
Failure to Attend School 104
Disruption of School 4
Expelled from AEP 6
Runaway 56
Non-Violent Offenses Number of Offenses
(Juvenile Historv Post JAC Intake)
Disorderly Conduct 12
Criminal Miscbjef 5
Criminal TreSPaSS 12
Unauthorized Use ofa Vehicle 6
Graffiti 1
Harassment 0
Dru~-related Offenses 27
Theft/B 13
Unlawful Telecommunications Device 0
Obstruction Retaliation 0
False AI rt 0
Interfere with Public Servant 1
EvadinWResistin~ Detention or Arrest . 11
Contempt of Magistrate 40
Violation of Probation 17
Bail JumPin2 1
Violent Offenses Number of Offenses
(Juvenile Historv Post JAC Intake)
Assauh Cause Bodily Iniuries 6
Assauh Offensive/Provocative Nature 3
Terroristic Threat 9
Weapon Offense (some overlap with assault offenses) 4
SexwlI Offense 0
Robberv 0 ,
.
Arson 0
,
Fiscal Yeor2oo3
Juvenile Assessment Center
29
Juvenile Assessment Center
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
PARK AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Annual Statistical Report
August 2002 - July 2003
Total number of Intakes: 1280 Day: 113
Night: 313
Court: 854
Total Number of Juveniles: 1067
Age Range: 10-18 Male; 606
Female: 461
.
Ages:
10: 6
11: 18 Mean Age: 14.93
12: 64 Median Age: 16.5
13: 111 Modal Age: 16
14: 181
15: 236
16: 282
17: 167
18: 2
Ethnicity: African-American: 73 Hispanic: 803 ,
Anglo: 186 Nat. American: 2
Asian: 3
Grode Level:
3rd : 1 9th : 305
4th : 5 10th : 206
5th : 19 11th : 128
6th : 72 12th: 19
7th : 125 GED/Other: 2
8th : 185
FlscalYeor2oo3.
Juvenile Assessment Center
30
High Schools:
ALC: 4 Holmes: 1 Pace: 1
Alternative: 3 Home School: 3 Ray: 110
Banquete: 1 Incamate Word: 2 Richard Milburn: 16
Calallen: 19 JJAEP: 4 Robstown: 4
Carroll: 84 King: 66 Sinton: 5
Corpus Christi Academy: 10 La Raza: 15 Skidmore-Tynan: 1
Flour Bluff: 28 Mathis: 3 SLGC: 17
George West: 1 MemOrial (Victoria): 1 Taft: 2
Glory Full Gospel: 1 Miller: 85 Tuloso-Midway: 14
Gregory Portland: 5 Moody: 95 West 080: 18
Harlingen South: 1 Orange Grove: 1 Not Enrolled: 37
MlddIe Schools:
Baker: 29 Grant: 15 Mayde Creek: 1
Banquete: 1 Gregory Portland: 2 Odem: 1
'Belville: 1 Haas: 10 Robstown Seale: 1
Bishop: 1 Hamlin: 31 Rockport-Fulton: 1
Browne: 35 Home School: 1 SLGC: 22
Calallen: 10 Incamate Word: 1 South Park: 17
Cullen: 13 . JJAEP: 4 St. Plus: 1
Cunningham: 22 KafflEl: 10 Tuloso-Midway: 6
Driscoll: 30 La Raza: 11 West 080: 12
Flour Bluff: Leon Taylor: 1 .
12 Wynn Seale: 31
Forest Oak: 2 Martin: 29 Not Enrolled: 13
Fiscal Yeor 2003
JuvenDc Asscssuat Center
31
Pick-Up Times:
8 am-9 am: 0
9 am-lO am: 6
10 am-ll am: 12
II am-12 pm: 34
12 pm-I pm: 32
1 pm-2 pm: 26
2 pm-3 pm: 23
.
Released To: Both Parents: 8
CCPD Transported: 25
Father: 59
Grandparents: 20
La Raza: 30
Mother: 211
II pm-I2am: 21
12 am-I am: 61
1 am-2 am: 78
2 am-3 am: 60
3 am-4 am: 33
4 am-5 am: 32
5 am-6 am: 8
Other: 20
Paroren7o~tionOfficer:2
Sibling: 9
Step Father: 7
Step Mother: 5
Aunt/Uncle: 30
ST A TISTICS FROM THE INT AKE LOG
. WEEK No. of Students Peak Day
1. 5 Friday
2. 10 Thursday
3. 9 Saturday
4. 4 Monday/Thursday/Friday/Saturday
5. 9 Tuesday
6. 8 Friday
7. 4 S~day
8. 12 Friday
9. 6 Sunday
10. 8 Thursday
11. 18 Saturday
12. 14 Tuesday
13. 4 Wednesday ,
14. 5 Friday
15. 7 Wednesday
16. 10 Friday
17. 4 Saturday
18. 11 Friday
19. 6 Saturday
20. 4 Friday/Saturday
21. 3 Friday
22. 16 Saturday
23. 2 Wednesday/Saturday
24. 8 Friday
25. 8 Friday
26. 15 Tuesday
FiscoIYeor2003 Juvenile Assessment Center 32
27. 7 Thursday / Friday
28. 4 Tuesday / Thursday / Friday / Saturday
29. 8 Friday
30. 8 Sunday
31. 4 Friday
32. 9 Saturday
33. 7 Friday
34. 3 Friday
35. 10 Monday
36. 5 Friday
37. 5 Saturday
38. 13 Friday
39. 13 Saturday
40. to Friday
41. 12 Friday
42. 18 Saturday
43. 8 Tuesday
44. 14 Friday
45. 13 Monday
46. 4 Saturday / Sunday
. 47. 7 Thursday
48. 4 Saturday
49. 6 Friday
50. 7 Tuesday
51. 7 Friday
52. 10 Friday/Sunday
PEAK DAY: Friday
ST A TISTICS FROM THE STUDENT INT AKE FORM
ChUd lives with:
,
Both Parents:
Mother:
Mother/Step-Parent:
Father:
Father/Step-Parent:
329
429
127
69
20
Step-Parent:
Other:
I
92
Fiscal Yeor2003
JuvenUe Assessment Center
33
REPEAT OFFENDERS
Total Number of Repeat Offenders from August 2002 - July 2003: 87
Two (2) Times: 76
GENDER
Male:
Female:
ETHNICITY
41 Hispanic: 61
35 Anglo: 9
African-American: 6
In the following schools:
ALC: 1
. Baker: 1
Bishop; 1
Browne: 2
Calallen: 1
Carroll: 5
Cullen: 3
Driscoll: 5
Flour Bluff: 3
Three (3) Times: J.Q
GENDER
Male: 7
Female: 3
Grant:
Hamlin:
Home:
JJAEP:
King;
La Raza:
Lanier:
Lozano;
Martin:
ETHNICfIY
Hispanic: 9
African! American: I.
In the following schools:
Cunningham: 1
JJAEP: 1
Four (4) Times: 1
GENDER
Male: 0
Female: 1
ETHNICITY
Hispanic: 1
In the following schools:
Cunningham: 1
Fiscal Yeor 2003
1
2
1
1
5
4
1
1
1
Miller:
Ray:
JuvenUe AueBS~ Center
GRADE AGE
4: I
6: 3 11: 1
7: 12 13: 12
8: 16 14: 9
9: 21 15: 18
10: 15 16: 22
11: 7 17: 14
12: 1
Miller;
Moody;
Ray:
Richard Milburn:
Robstown-Ortiz:
SLGC:
Tuloso-Midway:
Wynn Seale;
GRADE
7: 1
8: 1
9: 5
10: 3
AGE
14: 2
15: 3
,
16: 5
3
5
GRADE
8: 1
AGE
15: 1
8
6
7
2
1
11
1
1
34
QuestWns:
"What is your nudn interest in life?"
I don't know · RISKS · Nothing · To graduate from school and go to TeJtas University
also go to the WNBA · Work-School.&Tennis · To graduate school * Sports · To
become an EMT · Mambo and my brothers and sister and my dad · To flovv. To be an
FBI * Going to school * To graduate and live life * Playing Football * Me, myself, and
Laura * Basketball * Horses · Girls · Rapping!Making beats.. Feel great about; I did
something with my life. · To get through college and hopefully one day become a nurse.
· Marine Biology · Success in school, be somebody in life · Sports and my family * My
family * To be a basketball player * My brothers, sisters and Mom * Finish high school.
Surf and become pro in either skateboarding or surfing.. To live forever · To live
forever * I do not know · Dog's · Just to have a good life · To succeed in school, ,
graduate, make babies and have a good job to support my babies. * My family is
important. * Stay alive and have fun while I am YOuDg.. To finish school and go to
college ... To become the best example fur people to look up to. Also, I would like to be a
Physical Therapist * Having money when I grow up. * To go to college and get a good
job and support my family * Right now, to do good in schooL * Supporting my baby *
Fiscal Yeor 2003
Juvenile Assessment Center
3S
Draw * Being a model, lawyer, doctor. * Makmas, don't know. * To do good. * Having
fun. * To become successful. * To get away from trouble and have the cops leave me the
heck alone. * Living everyday * Catholic charities * Play, private. 1 hate school and I
don't like to work. * Theater * Make my mom proud. * Being a successful person * To
support my daughter * Designer or softball for'now. * To graduate from school and
coiltinue in college and then become a lawyer (defense) * Not to be bad anymore because
it ain't worth nothing. * To be a welder * To be a nurse * To have a good job and give my
baby everything she wants * Working on cars and driving * A career in singing and
choreographing * To do anything to make my parents proud. * To make money * When
I was going to Ray 1 was in ROTC. 1 was going to get in the NAVY. * I want to be a
cop. * To finish school and join the A4' Force * Succeed in school * Family * Music,
Education * To be a teacher * My goals * To play sports and be a normal kid.
* To have fun and enjoy it safely. * So I can grow up and make my family proud of me
because of what I became. * To be a Airfofce Pilot. * Be a counselor * To survive in this
fudged up game. * Ride my bike * To get a good education * To go to Sam Houston
college and major under business. * To do my best at everything * Skateboarding, BMX,
Music, School * Nothing, "I like to play football" * Sports * Tattoo Artist or Auto
Collision and repair * Stand up comedy * To be a teacher that teaches the small kids. *
My main interest in life is to be a good person * A pediatrician, a doctor for kids. Video
games * Being a truck driver * Band, Skating * Don't have one * Have not decided *
. Help others * I would like to be a mechanic * To be a doctor or a nurse * Living with
my Mom & Dad. * My interest in life is to get a car and a real good job. * My kids *
To never stop bruiting.
"q you had a choice between attending school, working, or doing both, which would
you choose'!"
School:
Work:
Both:
Blank:
82
81
203
31
Neither:
"These family members work:"
Both Parents: 79
Father: 49
Father/Other: 5
Father/Step-Parent: 6
Father/Step-ParentlOther: 3
Mother/Father/Other: 8
Mother/Father/Step-Parent: 16
Mother/Father/Step-Parent/Other: 3
Mother:
Mother/Other: '
Mother/Step-Pareirt: '_
Step-Parent:
Step-Parent/Other:
Other:
Juvenile Does Not Know:
No One Employed:
Fiscal Yeor 2003
Juvenile Assessment Center
29
89
17
30
18
2
32
60
9
36
"What would you like for school to offer you that you are not getting now?"
Driver's Ed" Respect" Go to class whenever I can .. Work program .. Money" Help me
out more, explain more better" A school can offer me a scholarship and more or higher
knowledge" More math" Some well discipline" There is nothing they can offer me ..
Dress code/Better teachers" Passes up with your age .. Gymnastics" I'm happy with
what I'm learning" I want to be able to eat outside ofthe school" Trust" Dress how you
wanna dress" Better food for lunch" Better teachers" A good job to rely on and good
pay." Wrestling team" Nothing from the school. .. Nothing because my school is the
most liked school and everything is simple for us. .. To offer better one on one teaching.
.. Work program .. Nuttin .. Time to dq what we wanna do. .. A choice of what class you
wanila be in at that time. .. More time to chill less time to study. .. Teach me more of
everything. * Money, less time doing working and more time chilling with friends. .. To
get out earlier and more food. .. Money and less time doing work" Getting my ring. "A
class that teaches you the style fashion people like to wear! .. More interesting education
topics." Nothing really because I'm already taking law enforcement classes in school. ..
More teaching about peer pressure and what happens" More attention from the teachers
.. Nothing, I just don't like being around a lot of people. .. More help on my work and
education of the laws. .. To let me stay home. I would like it to offer P.E. cause we don't
have P.E. .. Not as strict of teachers .. A computer (Dell) .. To niake class more
.interesting." Teachers who are willing to teach without getting upset cause a student
doesn't understand" Workshop, Mechanic" Better education" More involved teachers
.. Better attention inside & outside of school .. More music education" To help pass ..
Nothing really. I think that I learn enough at school. .. Respect!!! .. I like it like it is. .. To
put me back in 11 th grade. .. Going to school half school time and a part time job. · To
let me express myself. Scouts (For sports) · Nothing, "Do not like school" · No more
dress code · Well they basically have everything there. .. Animals · Someone to talk to
that helps you with your problems · To start a BMX team .. .To go up one grade so that I
would not be so fur behind. .. Another chance to be better.. Martial arts class · Better
computers. To make school fun. · Get out at 3:00p.m. Not 3:10p.m. · A guitar class ·
Another chance · Big gym · I think that kids at Miller should wear shoes. · Medical
classes · Real Teachers that can teach.
"Where do you see yourself fIVe years from now?"
,
In college · Getting a job that makes me look good" No where that I could think of. In
college, playing basketball · Pro Tennis Player · Either a singer, dancer or actor ..
Getting out of school! .. Being an EMT; saving lives" On stage .. Prison" Being a
computer technician · Big ballin · Playing football, working out · Working behind a
desk" Working with a life" My record" A millionaire .. On a microphone/Refineries ..
Living very comfortable" Hopefully still in college and working still · At a office
helping others · Graduation · In California · A mother. Somewhere in California ..
Too short to tell.. Attending college · In School · Hopefully in college. ·
Working at a refinery making good money. · Wealthy · Hopefully with a better job and
married with a tiunily. .. In college or having a 1iuniJy .. Working · In College · Still
working · One of the following, mode~ lawyer or doctor. .. ChiIlen at home.. Owning
my own auto body shop. · With.a 5 year old son/married. · Working making a life ·
Living my life with no struggles" With a Mustang · In high school. · In an auto body
Fi"",IYeorZOO3
JuvcnDe Assos:smeot Center
37
shop * Already have a degree to make or design clothes * Maybe airforce/2 years college
* In college working for a medical degree. * An OBGYN * Having my own auto shop *
From the path I am going, maybe dead or in the pen (Prison) * See self dead because I am
frustrated with myself. * Working & having my own place * Have a big house. * Dead *
In hiw school * Working in an office in N.Y.C. * Working probably trying to support a
future fiunily * Probably locked up, cops always messing with me. * Game Warden *
Have a good job finish school and get the car I have been wanting. * No where * Rich *
Working take care of kids. * School or own a mcer shop for trucks and cars * At a school
earning my degree to be a neonatal nurse. * Attending college to be a lawyer * Go to the
Navy * Hopefully working and skating.
.
"What are the consequences you may have to face in the future for violating curfew
and/or not going to school now?"
I'm not going to do it again. * Fines, parents getting arrested. * I don't know. * Moving
back with my mom * I could not get ajob, I could get tickets, and I could be stupid. *
Probation and community services. * Nothing because I have it all * Not going out at
night. * Losing filith by my fiunily, jeopardizing my future in sports and school. * I don't
know it's never going to happen again. * Locked up. * Going to jail or a ticket. * I go to
school it was just this time. * Going to boot camp and not being able to see my little
. brother. * Getting in trouble with my parents. * No consequences, because I'm going to
schooL * Going to jai~ paying fines. * Having a record, maybe have bad credit. *
Probation or fine * Not being trusted. * Not being eligible for college. * My parents, I
might loose my job as well. * Get in trouble with the law. * Getting Locked up * I go to
school on Monday * Probably 8 months in boot camp. * Imprisonment * A ticket, I don't
really know. * Jail time, I don't have _ * Citation, or getting hurt. * Fines, Juvenile *
Not finishing on time and a lot of tickets to pay. * I'm going to be a nobody and I don't
want that for me. * Be put in jail * A bad record or a bad resume for a job. * Pay my
tickets for curfew violation * I will get suspended * Proliably get weeks, months of
grounded, a.-:.. woupen. * A fight with my fiunily * Nothing cause I always go to class
except for now. * Community service or prohation. * Charges, not getting education, JJC
* Get caught by the cops * 1 won't be able to attend college * Pay too many tines! Hell
NO!! * That this will always be on my record. * I know I'm going to loose my mom's
trust something that s important to me and -it is going to stay on my record SQIllething that
is not good for me because it will inflict with mym * My grandma doesn't know that I
drank today but I don't drink and now I am going to get in trouble and maybe will have to
go back to San Antonio. * Having no money, Bumming money from my parents, no life.
* Maybe getting kicked out of school, I promise to never do it again. * When I am now
and not getting everything that I want cause I have no good job * My mom or parents
wnuld beat me which they are going to do today. * I would not know my consequences. *
It would take me longer to get a job. * Prison * Go to boot camp * You can get locked up
and get into trouble * Not having a job or being homeless. * My last name and my past
family who marked me for life * That I have to pay a ticket or go to some classes or
something. * I could become stupid and I could go to jail. * I will move to California
with my dad and loose all trust with my mom * Getting in trouble with the police and
getting in trouble with curfew again. * I would probably have to move away. * Unsure
* Fine, and possible time in juvenile facilities. * Going to court and being on probation
Fiscal Yeor 2003
Juvenile Asscssmcmt Center
38
>I< When I have kids of my own. >I< I may end up where I am now and for not going to
schoo~ It will be hard to find work. >I< A situation of going to JJC * I have no clue. *
Being in here again >I< Consequences-not going out for a long time. * Court and bigger
fmes >I< Having no food or shelter >I< I really don't know, but hopefully 1 don't have to deal
with these things. >I< I told you, I don't even leave, 1 also go to school * TYC or Bootcamp.
"lfyou had the opportunity to change anyth;ng;n life, what would you change?"
I wouldn't change anything. >I< What happened to me today. >I< Nothing * Don't know! >I< I
would change all the trouble I got into. >I< My whole life * Wars, I would like everyone to
treat me like I treat them (good & respect) * I would change how many people act in the
world along with some laws. * Some of the choices I make. >I< Don't listen to my mom. *
My having to disrespect everyone. * What happened today leaving school fur a car part. >I<
My record * What is happening now. * Not to leave school again. * Not smoking
marijuana and wish my brother was still here. * My life >I< Getting caught for curfew,
going to court for truancy. * Everything * My whole life. * Getting this ticket right now.
* Tonight, 1 would have stayed home. * I will change 1,000010 * My looks * Make friends
* To get my parents back together. * NADA * Me and Life. * Me ever skipping or
.running away, but the first I would change is having my grandmother past away. * This
situation * My freshman year of High School. * Yes, because it could have been at home
safe. * No, because it happened already. * Not going out till I'm 17 * I would do anything
possible such as serve the community or pray. * I do not think so. * I wish I wasn't alive.
* 1 would change the way I am and do good. >I< The situation I'm in right now. I wouldn't
of skipped. * Not going to a Circle K >I< Finish School * Gangs * Not to stay out late. *
Going through the park tonight * Living in Corpus Christi · Cops invading peoples
personal life for no reason. * Straighten out my life. * Go to church with my mother and
father. * Wait till my friends mom called my cell or check to see my friends, friend have
an J.D. * Never violate this rule again. * Not right now but in the future I won't go with
friends, I'll just call her. * Think about the things I do and decide 0Ii. * To stay in school
and become an RN * Start listening to my parents more. * No, because when I leave for a
while all I get the cops called on me.. * Beclluse it's not my fauh and I cannot change it. *
I am if I get another chance. >I< My Attitude * I would want to change the- way I act. *
My laziness, my behavior * I would change all the violence. * I would probably not want
to be here. * I would change to go back to school. >I< My family! * All oftiie bad things I
have done in the past * My last name >I< My record * I would change the madness
between my Mom & Dad. >I< Going to party and violating curfew for a girl * This
moment * My house. * My hair color >I< For there to be no problems, world peace * I
would have not gotten in the car. * Nothing, I love my family and friends. I would only
want to change this night. * My procrastination * Never to fail so many times. * Because
we were driving around * Because we were going to go back to my friends house and we
went on the wrong side of a one way street >I< Had no ride home. >I< I don't want to change
my life * The relationship between pets. * I would change the filet that I skip school. >I<
The filet that I stayed out way past my curfew * My attitude and my ability to think
before I act. * My aunt's death. * Nothing really my life is pretty great >I< My record * I
would change my attitude. * Not to have gotten kicked out of school * Where I live, too
many people are always there. * My family's deaths * Being depressed * I like the way
Fiscal Yeor 2003
Juvadle An' cJJmrDl Center
39
God made me. * The way people make fun of my sister * Me not going to school * The
decision I made tonight * Changing these tickets and getting in trouble with the law. *
Getting pregnant * My grandma's death * TIle place 1 am right now. I would have made
the right choice * The way life is.
"Is there anything you can do to make that change happen?"
Yes:
No:
"WhQ/?"
190
196
Maybe: 17
Blank: 23
Start going to school. * Don't get in trouble. * Straighten out my life. * Nothing * My
dad's work * Stop violating curfew. * Start going to school every day. * Yes, because I
could have been at home safe. No, because it happened already. * Go back to school. *
Not go with my friend. * I will start listening to my parents: * Hope school starts soon. *
My life * Stay at home again. * Think before acting, have patieqce. * Over power my
mind (is what I could think of) * Make better choices. * Not going out till I'm seventeen.
* Stand up to the law. * Oh 1 am going to follow through with he court order and get it
over with. * I can stop talking back and keep my mouth shut. * To stay in school and
. become an RN . * Go to church with my mother and futher. * For me and my mom to
move and not tell no one. * Because its already happened and what's done is done. *
Different friend's and not do any favors for friend's. * Be more supportive and try to
understand why she is never home. * I could nm for President and try to become the first
Black President ever. * Yeap, try harder not to mess up. * Wait till my friend's mom
called my cell or check to see my friend's, friend have an I.D. * My Mom and Dad
"Which of these levels of school is the highest level that your parents jinished?"
MOTHER
Elementary School:
Jr. HighlMiddle School:
High School:
Jr. College:
CollegelUniversity:
Juvenile Does Not Know:
Blank:
6
55
218
51
35
56
5
FATHER
Elementary School:
Jr. High/Middle School:
High School:
Jr. College:
CollegelUniversity:
Juvenile Does Not Know:
Blank:
8
36
. 168
3>4
~1
138
11
Questions for Students Violating Nigbt-Time Curfew or Day-T}me
Curfew... When Not Enrolled in School
"Why do you violate curfew?"
Go to friend's aunt's house ~ Stay the night at a cousin's house * Don't know * It just
happened * I was not thinking ahd was going to one of my relative's house; to see him * I
FiscoI Yeor2003
JuvenUe Assessment Center
40
was going to see my friend who is moving tomorrow'" To go bowling, walk to friend's
house to spend the night'" Because I want to'" 1 don't attempt to but it just happen'" My
first time ! I was on my way home and I was late'" Asked for a ride and got in the mix
with something 1 did not know about'" Think weird'" It was just this once, I don't ever
violate curfew'" I didn't know that there was curfew when school was not in'" I was at a
dance, on way back home, stopped to get something to eat, ran after boyfriend to get cell
phone'" I don't want to be home'" 1 was picking my friend up to take him to my house ...
Because strangers think they can control your life, that's BULL'" I was hungry I was
going to pick up a friend's clothes from his house because 1 wanted to see his new house
... I wanted to visit my aunt'" Because I feel like it ... I don't, this is my first time. ... I don't
mean to. ... Because 1 was going to a fri.ends house for a car part. ... People are not amused
at being home all night. So me and my girlfriend, cousin and homeboy always cruise
everywhere and cops always get to bother people who are harmless worrying about
curfew and not a real crime. ... Because 1 was trying to get a ride home since my friend
didn't have a car. ... I didn't know the curfew time in Annaville. ... To be with my friends
but the way it ended for me for the night. ... Because I was at a friends house and I
decided to come home early. ... Because it was a mistake and I shouldn't have been out
past my curfew. ... I was out that late because we were in the field for so long.'" I have
things to do. ... I was troubled and I started · I went to a concert.'" I didn't know that
there was a curfew for the park ... Need a ride home.'" Visiting Grandma'" Because there
. is nothing else to do. ... Getting a ride home.'" Because my parents trust me and allow me
to spend time with my friends. ... Don't have a reason ... I'm not really sure, it was just a
first time thing and I never thought it was going to end like this.'" Spending night at
friends house. ... Didn't mean to because we were coming from a quince!. I just wanted
to be with my friends an I never thought I would get caught. ... I don't mean to I just
didn't have a ride home at the time.'" My friends all went and I decided to go along with
them. ... I was at a house and did not think it would be a violation inside" I never do but I
just did this time in a long time because I was hanging out with my boyfriend. ... I was
visiting a friend ... I went to go get something to eat. ... We were watching a movie "Men
in Black IT" at Sunrise Mall and we found a wallet in the floor. After the police told me to
give it back ... Spend time with brother'" I was at a concert ... I was with my brother ...
Because I was with a girl. ... I was just going to lIEB real quick (Trying to find a 24 hour
one)'" I didn't mean to. I was just taking a walk cuzI was mad.'" I was scaredofa guy
knocking at my door.'" Was with cousin (18), he picked him up. ... Because 1 stayed for
Midnight bowling. ... I didn't mean to violate curfew just giving my brother a ride. ...
Because my girlfriend's mom was going to hit her.'" I didn't know it was tl1at late. I was
heading home after we got a drink at the store. ... Cause 1 wanted to talk to a friend ...
Because a friend needed a ride somewhere (emergency!) ... I was doing a mvor for a good
friend. She had told me it was an emergency. ... I had just gotten to a good friends house
and they pulled me over. ... I violate curfew because I am with my brother riding around
and lose track of time. ... I was getting driven home from a concert, the driver was
speeding'" Bowling, I didn't notice time. ... I wasn't trying to violate curfew. I was trying
to get home from Del Mar. ... Cause I had to see a doc. ... Stupid ... Because I was doing a
job playing guitar. ... Because we were riding in my friend's mom's car then we got pulled
Over. ... Bored, jogging before curfew · I was at a wedding, changed over at the wedding
(North Shore Country Club) left with sister because she was taking me home. ... I was not
because I was with a 21-year-old. ... My friend locked his keys in his car and me and my
FiscoI Yeor 2003
Juvenile Assessment Ccntor
41
friend went to give him his extra keys. '" My sister and her boyfriend had me out. We
were going to her house. '" This is my first time violating curfew and last.
"What do you usually do when you violate curfew?"
Stay the night at fiunily member's house'" Don't know! Never happened before'" Driving
'" Visit my cousin and eat or go to the movies'" Sometimes sports hold me up after
curfew'" Just ride in a car * Stay where 1 am '" Something's * I don't, 1 am usually at
home staying out of trouble * Chill * Go to the store or go home * Stay up'" It was for
my brothers going away party * Go and eat at Whataburger and then go home '" Never
have violated, curfew'" 1st time'" Don) worry about it, I'm not your child'" Go see my
grandma and to the mail * Be home at 12:00'" Nothing, because I've never violated
curfew. * Drive around. * I have never violated the curfew. '" Party '" 1 do not know. *
First time-go to friend's house '" Just go to get something to eat and get pulled over or
just walk to the store and get stopped. '" Try and find a ride home. '" I do not ever violate
curfew, I don't usually stay out this late. '" Drive around with a friend '" I do not violate
curfew, this is the first time. '" I don't usually "Violate Curfew" * At Doctor's office or at
home. '" Get caught & nothing much. '" Go to concert. '" Be here. '" I never violate till
. now ya'll say. '" Walking home'" Important things. '" Get sent home. * Go to parties or
hang out with my friends'" See this I've never done, sometime I'll go eat some food from
. Whataburger at about 11 or something. '" This is my first time for night curfew SO come
here! '" I only had been to a friends house. '" I never done it before and in Brownsville,
where I live we don't have curfew. '" Just hang out and not usually drink. '" I've been
caught one time, and I was with a friend driving. '" I usually don't but when I do, I'm
. outside my porch with my friends talking. '" I have never violated curfew before. Walk
home from the mall. Sunrise mall '" Suffer the consequences'" Go to Cousins house.
'" I have never done it too often so,l'm not too sure. Usually go to a friend's house. '" I do
not because I never get caught by anything. I guess I won't do it again. '" I never violated
curfew, today I did because it was an emergency. '" Try to get to one of my relative's
house as fust as I can ! '" Stay don't run '" Pay my fine, and do community service '" I am
usually riding around with my brother. '" Go right home. '" Well, this is like one of the
first times I have violated curfew'" Stay home or I have doctor's appt. '" Going to get my
sweater '" Get sad and mad and start to cry sometimes'" This is my second, I don't do it
that often '" I've never violated my night time curfew. '" Get a long talk and get in trouble
with grandma. '" I don't know I've never violated curfew '" I get scared and don't know
what to do. '" I go home. Most of the time I'm with fiunily but I'm always on my way
home. '" Wish I would of stayed home.
Questions for Students Skipping School:
"Why do you skip school?"
Because my friend did not want to stay in school to go to her boyfriend and I went along.
'" Because of girls and to have fun. '" I don't skip school'" To apply for a job. '" First time
fiscal Y eor 2003
Juvenile Ass l !.th;nt Center
42
this year to get a part for my car. * I did not skip schoo~ I was helping the two girl's from
getting into a fight. * Because it gets boring * I don't like to be around a lot of people,
because of anxiety, I get nervous easily. * For the Doctor * Swimming, go back to school
at 3:30p.m. * Because somebody wants to kick my ass and I really don't know. * Don't
like school and teachers, I hate them. * 1 don't like school * 1 am troubled. I had things on
my mind. * I've never skipped school. * Cuz I don't want to go. * Not in school *
Important or emergency * Because it's not like I'm gonua pass the 1st 6 weeks anyway
and because it's boring. * To avoid the people who pick on me. * Missed the bus. * I
have nothing better to do. * I did not skip school. I got to school and I was on my way to
class and a cop stopped me and said; you are going to ISS. That's when I said "no"
because, 1 didn't know what was goin& on so 1 left school. * To eat some real food. *
This is my first time, I never thought 1 would get caught. * Cause 1 woke up late and the
haby was a little sick, and you can't bring her to the daycare sick. * Because when I go to
schoo~ I seem to get in trouble and bored * Cause I don't like school!
* I've never really skipped school. I would do it because someone will pick on me or I'm
in trouble and I don't want to tell my parents. * Because I don't like Carroll * Went with
"hushand"/boyfriend" * Because ROTC is boring and 1 was going to miss class, so 1 will
miss school. * Because I'm mad and don't wanna go or I'm depressed and I don't want to
do anything. * I went to get some of my school supplies at home * Because it was the
last day till Thanksgiving. * We were not going to do anything in school. * So my Mom
. and Dad would not find out I was suspended. * Because I was suspended · I dOll't know I
haven't skipped before. Boring * Cuz I am a drop out. * Because I work and it is tiring.
* I don't know, I just did not feel like going * Don't like being around a lot of people.
"What do you usuolly do when you skip school?"
This is my first time looking for ajob * Go to the locker room and sit there, or leave to a
friend's * I do not know because I do not skip school * Be with girlfriend * N/ A I don't
skip school * First time-go to friends house. * You will get in big trouble with the
principal. * When I am tired from work * Hang out in restroom * Go places or get
caught. * Stay at home. * Walk around. * I go eat because I don't like the cafeteria food.
/ Usually when I do not go to schoo~ I sleep. * Stay at home with my baby. * Hangout
with my friends or walk around till school out. * Well, I don't do nothing-cause I don't
skip. * Ride around on the bus. * Just walk around * Go to Staples Station. *, Whatever
comes to mind. * Listen to music, go eat, go places. · Walk around * So my mom doesn't
fmd out I was in trouble. * Go to a friend's. Someone who doesn't go to school and stay
with them. * Stay home play games.
"Do your friends encourage you to violate curfew/skip school?"
Yes:
38
No:
376
Blank:
12
Fiscal Yeor 2003
Juvenile ASIC' Mol pC" CeDter
43
Qllestions for Students NOT ENROLLED in School:
"What factor(s) haslhave contributed to your non-enrollment?"
Lack of interest:
Principal:
Teacher(s):
I
o
o
Parent(s):
Blank:
o
49
"How long have YOIl been out of school?"
One-Week:
Two-Weeks:
Five-Weeks:
1
3
1
.
Two-Months:
Four-Months:
Six-Months:
1
1
1
One Year: 5
Onel!2 Year: 1
Two Years: 1
Blank: 35
"Do YOIl plan on going back?"
Yes:
11
No:
5
Blank:
34
.
"qyou tkJ not want to go back, would you be interested in obtaining a G.E.D.?"
Yes:
12
No:
4
Blank:
34
"Whtll are you doing now?"
Looking for work, try to get enrolled in school at CCISD · Going back to school · Odd
jobs or jobs as they come. · Getting my GED.. Trying to check into Del Mar for GED
classes · Writing.
,
Fiscal Yeor 2003
Juvenile "',---nt Center
44
Statistics/rom the PROBLEM ORIENTED SCREENING INSTRUMENT FOR
TEENAGERS (POSI1)
NUMBER OF JUVENILES WHO DID NOT TAKE THE POSIT: 169
A. Substance Use/Abuse:
Low Risk: 738 Middle Risk' 329 High Risk: 44
B. Physical Health:
Low Risk: 572 Middle Risk: 348 High Risk: . 191
C. Mental Health:
Low Risk: 497 Middle Risk: 374 High Risk: 240
D. Family Relationships;
Low Risk: 438 Micfdle Risk: 390 High Risk: 283
E. Peer Relationships:
Low Risk: 484 Middle Risk: 523 High Risk: 104
.
F. Educational Status;
Low Risk: 338 Middle Risk: 435 High Risk: 338
G. Vocational Status;
Low Risk: 369 Middle Risk: 184 High Risk: 558
H. Social Skills;
Low Risk: 371 Middle Risk: 394 High Risk: 346
L Leisure/Recreation:
Low Risk: 386 Middle Risk: 379 High Risk: 346
J. Aggressive ,
BehaviorlDelinquency:
Low Risk: 427 Middle Risk: 600 High Risk: 84
FiscoIYeor2oo3
Juvenile Assessment Center
45
Statistics from the PROBLEM ORIENTED SCREENING INSTRUMENT FOR
PARENTS (pOSIp)
NUMBER OF PARENTS WHO DID NOT TAKE THE POSIP: 298
A. Substance Use/Abuse:
Low Risk: 732 Middle Risk: 216 High Risk: 34
C. Mental Health:
Low Risk: 546 Middle Risk: 304 High Risk: 132
D. Family Relationships:
Low Risk: 449 Middle Risk: 393 High Risk: 140
. E. Peer Relationships:
Low Risk: 616 Middle Risk: 311 High Risk: 55
J. Aggressive Behavior/Delinquency:
Low Risk: 461 Middle Risk: 458 High Risk: 63
,
FiscalYeorZ003
Juvenile Assessment Center
46
15
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date:
October 28. 2003
AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of an appeal filed by Joe McComb regarding Plat No. 0903100-NP44, Los Encinos Industrial
Sites, Block 1, Lot 1 (Final- 3.543 Acres) located at the southwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Holly
Road.
ISSUE:
The applicant in appeal of his plat has maintained the following:
1) The subject property is legally platted and a replat is not required;
2) Opposed to the dedication of 7.S feet of right-of-way for Greenwood Drive; and
3) Opposed to payment of the required water and wastewater acreage fees.
Approval of the appeal relating to required street dedication and payment of acreage fees would establish
a prececlent for other owners/developers to file appeals that would undermine the City's adopted Urban
Transportation Plan and acreage development fee requirements; this would also jeopardize the trust
accounts that are funded by these fees and are used to reimburse developers for off-site improvements
for extension of water and wastewater lines to their properties.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
A motion to approve or deny appeal, or any part thereof, relating to the right-of-way dedication and
waiver of acreage fees.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Approval of water acreage fees and the Trust Accounts, June 23, 1982
(Ordinance 17092)
2) Approval of wastewater acreage fees and the Trust Accounts, November 24, 1982
(Ordinance 17396)
2) Adoption of the Corpus Christi Urban Transportation Plan, March 25, 2003
CONCLUSION:
1) Requirement to Plat - The issue of whether a plat is required is not debatable. Based on the
review of City legal counsel referencing state law, the Platting Ordinance, and the City Charter,
the subject property Is clearly the remainder of a portion of the platted Bohemian Colony Lands
filed for record In the Nueces County Clerk's office on June 6, 1909. Therefore, a plat of the
subject property Is required.
City Council Agenda Memorandum
October 28, 2003
Page 2
2) Right-of-Way Dedication - Adherence to required street dedications per the adopted Urban
Transportation Plan is critical to the City's ability to obtain right-of-way for future street widening
improvements to increase road capacities.
3) Acreage Fees - The acreage fee system is a fair and equitable process that provides for the
extension of water and wastewater lines with private sector dollars. This is the developer's fair
share of development costs that also aliow reimbursement to developers for extension of water
and wastewater lines to their properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of a motion to deny the plat appeal.
t
Michael N. G nning, AICP, Assistant D' ector
Development Services/Planning Dire or
Iw
Attachments: Appeal Letter Dated October 9, 2003
Appeal Letter Dated October 13, 2003
Exhibits 1 - 4
Staff Review Dated September 17, 2003
Staff Plat Recommendations Dated September 24, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes Dated September 24, 2003
Planning Commission Minutes Dated October 8, 2003
Planning Commission Notes from October 8, 2003 meeting
(H:WORD\PLNR\SHARED\PLATS\FORMS\AGENDAMEMORANDUM.McComb.DOC)
BACKGROUND
Mr. McComb submitted his initial letter of appeal to the City Secretary's Office on October 9, 2003. At
Staff's request, a second letter of appeal was submitted on October 1S, 2003 clarifying the specific
requirements to which he was in opposition. (Attachments 1 and 2) The requirements were listed as
follows:
1) Reauirement to Plat
Mr. McComb maintains that once a property is platted it cannot be 'unplatted". In referencing
the plat appeal letter dated October 13, 2003, reference was made to two properties platted in
1959 and 1972. The first property known as Las Palmas Subdivision, Unit I containing 40.7
acres, was filed for record in 19S9 and In 1960 renamed Los Encinos Subdivision Unit I. The
second tract of 3.5S0 acres, known as Los Encinos Industrial Sites, Lot 2, Block 1 was filed for
record in 1972. Neither of these plats included Mr. McComb's property (refer to map exhibits
1-4). The property in the plats for Las Palmas and Los Encinos and Mr. McComb's unplatted tract
of 3.543 acres came out of the original Bohemian Colony Lands platted in 1909.
Although Bohemian Colony Lands was once legally platted, as properties were sold by metes and
bounds, some of which were subsequently platted, this parceling of lands left the remainder of
the Bohemian Colony Lands unplatted. Because the property lines of the original plat were
changed through the sale of land, the remaining Bohemian Colony Lands' boundaries no longer
coincide with the legal description in the original plat.
Mr. McComb's property is described on his proposed plat as a 3.S43 acre portion of an 11.939
acre tract platted as Las Palmas. This, however, is incorrect in that Mr. McComb's property and
the adjacent 1972 Los Encinos plat are out of the Bohemian Colony Lands, Lot 1, Section 6. The
description on its face, as shown on the proposed plat, clearly indicates the property as being the
remainder of an original plat, whether it be Las Palmas or Bohemian Lands.
Los Encinos Industrial Sites, Lot 2, Block 1 - This subdivision was referenced in the appeal letter
as being referred to by staff as an illegal plat. Staff was trying to convey that subdivision of land
(5 acres or less) by metes and bounds within the city limits is an illegal subdivision of land under
State law and the Platting Ordinance. Even though subdivision of land (5 acres or less) by metes
and bounds deed is In violation of the Local Government Code and the Platting Ordinance,
County Clerks are required to record these metes and bounds deeds in the County Deed Records.
The City does not always have an opportunity to get the original owners to join in the plats of
property that was previously illegally subdivided. As a result, the focus has been on the property
owner filing a plat in order to develop the land. By City Charter, no permits shall be issued for
properties that are not legally platted. This means owners who want to develop their land must
eventually plat. The 1972 plat referenced by Mr. McComb is a legal plat in all respects.
2) Rlaht-of-Wav Dedication
Staff inadvertently omitted the required street dedication of 7.5 feet in the September 17 and
September 24 reports. (Attachment 3 and 4) Staff did verbally inform the engineer on
September 19 that there was a required 7.5 feet dedication off of Greenwood Drive.
Greenwood Drive is a designated arterial that currently has an aD-foot right-of-way cross section
that was in recent years improved to its full street section. The Corpus Christi Urban
Transportation Plan, adopted on March 25, 2003 increased the Greenwood Drive right-of-way by
15 feet from 80 feet to 95 feet. The Clty's practice is to take the required street dedications
equally off both sides of the street. Therefore, Mr. McComb's plat was required to dedicate 7.5
feet.
The 95-foot right-of-way on Greenwood Drive was needed to accommodate traffic increases that
reasonably could occur over the next five to ten years. The City's north-south arterials (5.
5taples Street, Everhart Road, and Weber Road) serving the southside between Saratoga
Boulevard and South Padre Island Drive are experiencing heavy congestion during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours. Greenwood Drive could ultimately become another S. Staples Street, Everhart
Road, or Weber Road if the City did not increase the right-of-way to accommodate additional
lanes at some point in the future.
A waiver of the 7.5 foot right-of-dedication required for Greenwood Drive sets a precedent for
other developers to submit similar appeals on any required dedication without a public hearing to
amend the Transportation Plan.
3) Acreaoe Fees
Acreage fees are collected from the developer at the time of platting based on the plat acreage
or number of lots, whichever is the greater fee. The acreage fee is collected only one time on
the land being platted and would not be assessed again if future re-subdividing were to occur.
These fees are put in trust accounts.
Mr. McComb is requesting that City Council waive the required acreage fees totaling $7,852.00 of
which $3,678.00 is for Water and $4,174 for Wastewater. Acreage fees must be paid before a
plat can be recorded in the Nueces County map records. A plat is not conSidered legal until it
has been recorded. The water acreage fees are deposited into the Arterial Transmission and Grid
Main Trust Fund and the Distribution Main Trust Fund for reimbursement to developers for
waterline extensions. The wastewater acreage fees are deposited into the Sanitary Sewer Trunk
Line Trust Fund and the Sewer Collection Line Trust Fund for extension of Sanitary Sewer Lines.
These trust funds are private sector monies dedicated solely for reimbursement of developers
costs for installation of water and sanitary sewer line extensions.
The acreage fees were created in 1982 as a result of the work of an Off-Site Utility Committee
consisting of City Staff and private developers and Chaired by Gene Watson. Acreage fees for
both water and wastewater was considered the most equitable method for developers to pay
their fair share for extension of water and sanitary sewer lines in order to move projects forward.
The reimbursements to developers for installation of water and wastewater infrastructure made it
economical for them to build. Otherwise, the developers would have to wait for the City, through
a bond program, to fund capital improvements or front the entire cost themselves. In either
case,the growth potential for the City would have been severely diminished.
The reimbursement to developers through the acreage fees trust funds made extension of water
and wastewater lines financially feasible; and benefited the City by bringing utility service to
other undeveloped properties, which in tum were also able to plat and pay acreage fees because
the utilities were in place.
Mr. McComb's property has existing water and sanitary sewer service. He did not have to pay for
the design and installation of these improvements. The acreage fees are equitable, and Mr.
McComb should pay the assessed amount of $3,678.00 for water and $4,174.00 for wastewater,
which totals $7,852.00
Page 3
Financial Imoact on Trust Funds
The waiver of acreage fee payments for water and wastewater sets a precedent for any
owner/developer to seek similar relief from City Council and potentially could jeopardize the Trust
Fund balances which developers rely upon for reimbursement of water and sanitary sewer line
extensions. Without this funding source, development projects would possibly be put on hold
until such time the City could fund water and sanitary sewer fund infrastructure through a Bond
Program.
The matrix below shows the fund balances for all Trust Funds as well as the 10-year and 8-year
average annual contributions and reimbursements as of July 31, 2003. The total for all Trust
Fund balances is $7,588,246.00. The average annual conbibutions for all Trust Funds is
$722,130.00. The average annual reimbursements to the developers for all Trust Funds is
$232,528.00.
Balance @ 7/31/03
10 year avg annual
contributions
10 year avg annual
reimbursements
8 year avg annual
contributions
8 year avg annual
reimbursements
Funds have been
transferred from SS Trunk
Line to Collection Line Trust
over the years to make up
the difference.
2003 numbers are not fully
closed - interest earnings
not credited to Sanitary
Sewer balances.
Acreaoe Fee Increases
Water Water Sanitary Sewer Sanitary
Transmission Distribution Main Trunk Line Sewer
& Grid Main Trust Trust Collection
Trust Line Trust
209010-4030 209020-4030 250410-4220 250420-4220
1,396,924 721,972 4,975,696 493,654
181,726 38,259
122,730 3,919
442,686 59,459
845 105,034
Mr. McComb's appeal letter also referenced the change in requirements that increased the
wastewater acreage fees $496.00. On September 17, 2003 the Planning Staff Review report
submitted to Mr. McComb's engineer indicated the wastewater acreage fee would be $3,678.00.
The fee should have been $4,174 based on the fee increases that went into effect on August 25,
2003. Unfortunately, there was an oversight by staff.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
On February 22, 2000, Mr. Joe McComb, purchased a 3.543 acre tract of land located at the southwest
comer of the intersection of Holly Road and Greenwood Drive. Mr. McComb believed that he purchased
platted property. In early September 2003, Mr. McComb applied for and was denied a building permit for
his moving and storage business because the property was not platted.
Subsequently on September 8, 2003, Mr. McComb submitted a plat application, application fees, and a
proposed plat for Los Encinos Industrial Sites, Block 1, Lot 1.
Planning Commission tabled the plat on September 24 (Attachment 5) to the October 8 meeting to allow
Staff opportunity to review the street dedication and acreage fee requirements with the owner.
On October 8, 2003, the Planning Commission denied the plat by a 4 to 3 vote (Attachment 6).
A corrected plat depicting the required 7.5-foot Greenwood Drive dedication was never submitted as
required by Ordinance.
O't-IO-ZOOl OZ,4Zpm From-CITY OF CC CITY SECRET~RYS OFFICE
+161 8101111
T-ZIl P OOZ/OOG F-G61
ATTACHMENT 1
October 9. 2003
McCOMB
RELOCATION SERVICES
Uf"b{ished - 1940
Mr. Armaado Cbapa
City Secnwy
City of CoIpus Christi
P. O. BWl 9277
COIpUfi Cltri5li, Texas, 78469-9277
lfAND Dt:I.IVRRIlD ON
THlIRSDA. Y. OCTOBER 9. 2003
RE; Regular Planning Commission Meeting (Wednesday - October 8. 2003)
Agenda Item II A I. c 090310Cl-NP44
Los Encinos Industrial Sites. BlOCk 1. Lot 1 fRnal- 3.543 Acresl
Located at the southwest comer of Greenwood Drive and Holly Rood.
Dear Mr. Chapa,
P1ease aa:ept this .. my official request 10 file an appeal Wlder SECTION XIII - APPEAL (Ordinance No. 23017. 07/29/97) and
(Ordinan~ No. 25455, 01126103) OIl lite above plat appJJcatioD. My IIJlPCla! Is based OIIlbe pnMsiOll stafeclin the SECTION xm -
APPEAL that reads:
"Any subdivider not satisfied with the ruling of the Plmming Commission. shall h(lVe the righr to appeal
Sl/Ch rulings or QecisiollS to the City Council of the City of Corpus Christi by giving wrinen notice to the
City Secretary within fifteen (IS) days qfter the final hearing before the Plcmni1lg Commissw1I. "
The final Planning ClBIlIDission hcariD& was held 011 Wednesday. Ocfobcr 8, 2003.
I would IIJlPRclate ha\'ing this request for an appeal placed IlII the earliest available City Council agenda fur CllIISideratillll.
At the Planning Commission mcd:iDg, Mr. Michael Gumting admed me that lbe "fee for procusi/lf an appeal" is $50.00. Enclosed
pi..... find my chedt number IS 169 dated 1010912003 in the amount ofS50.00 to....... the proc:esslDg fi:c.
Please ad.;se me when this will be presatted to tlte City CouncillOr coasideratioIl so that 1 c:an atTallge my &d1edule to attencl.
Thank you fur your prompt 811etttiOl1 to this matter.
Slncerv; ~
~d::.l1mb
[M !.fr.M_a......
~orPluaiD&lOd~
CilyofCapusCllrisli
P.O._9277
CoopuChmIi, T_. 7_
~.doe
P. O. Box 1678 Corpus Christi, Texas, 78403
[Ph)361/888-S907 [fitxJ361/8ll8-<697S (email)IIICtOIIIbrdo@h.OOIlI
ATTACHMENT 2
McCOMB
RELOCATION SERVICES
Established - 1940
October 13, 2003
Mr. Harry Power
Development Services Department
Planning Section
City of Corpus Christi
P. O. Box 9277
Corpus Christi, Texas 78469
RE: Your fax dated October 13. 2003 relatlna to mv APPEAL OF:
Regular Planning Commission Meeting (Wednesday - October 8, 2003)
Agenda Item II A 1. c 09031OQ-NP44
Los Encinos Industrial Sites, Block I. Lot 1 (Final- 3.543 Acres)
Located at the southwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Holly Road.
Dear Mr. Power,
I was taken aback by your fuxed request, which in part states: "We are in receipt of your off",ial appeal letter addressed to the City
Secretary. In that letter you indicated that the ordinances are for the appeal procedure, however, you are not specific as to what in
particular you are appealing. "
My appeal is based on the Planning Commission's denial to: (I) recognize that the property in question is already platted and (2) the
Planning Commission's denial 10 approve the pIal submitted by Coym, Rehmet & Gutierrez Engineering, Inc.
Let me restate the fuets thaI were presented at the Seplember 24, 2003 Planning Commission meeting and the October 8, 2003
Planning Commission meeting.
(A) The property was platted in 1959 and recorded on January 12, 1960 VOL 22 PAGE 94 as LAS PALMAS
SUBDIVISION UNIT I.
(B) LAS PALMAS SUBDMSION UNIT I was renamed LOS ENCINOS SUBDMSION on June 20, 1960 and recorded
on July 8, 1960 VOL 895 PAGE 29.
(C) The property was RE-PLATTED in July 1972 and recorded on July 25, 1972 VOL 38 PAGE 200.
I aooreciate vour honestY in acknowledl!ine the fuet. for the record al the October 8. 2003-Plannine Commission meetine. Ihal the
1972 RE-PLA T that was approved and recorded in 1972 was, and is. illeeal. I
It is this illegal re-plal of the property thaI the staff now takes the position that the property is not platted.
It is this position that I totally disagree with and constitules the basis for my appeal as staled in (I).
As I stated at both Planning Commission meetings, I understand thaI a property can be re-platted, however I do not agree that are-plat
constitutes an UN-PLAT or renders an existing, recorded plat, non-existing. Bv definition. in order to RE-PLAT there mnst be an
existinl! PLAT.
Second, in order to get before the planning commission to resolve this matter I was required to submit a plat for consideration and pay
a platting tee 0[$341.00, which I did on September 8, 2003 with a cashier's check.
RECEIVED
P. O. Box 1678 Corpus Christi, Texas, 78403
(Ph]36 1'888-5907 [IDj361111884975 [email]rnccornhrelo@hotmai1.rorn
OCT 1 5 2003
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
McCOMB
RELOCATION SERVICES
Established - 1940
PAGE 2
HI' Yourfax dated October 13 2003 relatina to mv APPEAL Of:
Regular ~)ionning Commission Iv\eetin9 jWednesdoy - October- 8, 200J)
p..,gendo 11em il Ale 0903100-i'H'44
Los Encinas IndustriulJ.ites BlockJL.L_Qt 1 IFinal ::-.)..543 Acresl
Located oj the southwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Holly Rood.
Coym, Rehmet & Gulierrez Engineering, Inc. submitted a plat for consideration. After staff review of the plat, on September 17, 2003
a lisl of several items was given to the engineer to be changed on the submitted plat. One requirement was a $3,678.00 "Water
Distribution System acreage fee" and another was a $3,678.00 "Wastewater System acreage fee." (Total $7,356.00)
Then on Seplember 24, 2003 another lisl of ilems was given to the engineer 10 be included in the "revised" plat. Again there was a
$3,678 "Water Distribution System acreage fee" and a $4,174 "Wastewater System acreage fee. " (Total $ 7,852.00)
In addition, a verbal request was given 10 the engineer by city staff for an additional 7.5 fuel of "right of way" on Greenwood Drive
was required because of a newly adopted Master Transportation Plan. This was the firsl time the engineer or I had heard about the new
Master Transportation Plan.
These three items are the ones I strongly oppose and constitute the basis for my appeal as stated in (2). The other items on the list I
will be happy to negotiate if necessary.
I trust this will help clear up any lack of understanding of the basis of my appeal.
On Monday, October 13,2003 I received a copy of a letter from Mr. Armando Chapa, City Secretary to Mr. George K. Noe, City
Manager advising him of my appeal and requesting the appeal be placed on the October 21, 2003 council agenda.
I also received a phone call on Monday, October 13,2003, from Mr. Michael Gunning stating he also received Mr. Chapa's letter. Mr.
Gunning stated he could not have his appeal team in place for a presentation on October 21, 2003 and asked me if! would have any
objection to moving the appeal to the October 28, 2003 council agenda. Mr. Chapa also called 10 advise me of the date change al the
request of Mr. Gunning.
We agreed thaI the October 28, 2003 date was acceptable to both of us; however. time is of the essence, and I need to get this resolved.
I must make a decision as to move forward or cancel my project based on the resolution of this matter. This has already cost me a two
month delay.
If you have addilional questions or need additional information please give me a call.
Sincerely,
I~
Cc: Mr. George K. Noe, City Manager
Mr. Annando Chapa. City Secrelary
Ms. Margie Rose, Assistant City Manager
Mr. Michael Gunning. Assistant Director of Development Services & Planning
Mr. Jay Reining, Acting City Attorney
Coym, Rehmet & Gutierrez Engineering. Inc.
RECEIVED
P1atGreenwoodHoI1y2.doc
P. O. Box 1678 Corpus Christi, Texas, 78403
[ph]361/888-5907 [faxI361/888-4975 [email]mccombrelo@holmail.com
OCT 1 5 2003
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
N.MoGel> : armor
fFY4 p;Mw
a m a a m
rte—
uMer.o
wwkman et Ey HII, =^ . ety N tbrnu Clot. roar tet. _ by ar M
al.lmAaBN OsMr. P).. RYLB.
a IM1M.xNaE r.mm
U txyup ar.Bae
III IU wU11W N
Yvbel _m.
u .u. Envy nark
�' }}Y114 ��naaYYPeeIaMNWI.kgrrgr, J. Em4r eyt111 4N IM Iarapl l map ab P^NM Irom
!miMY.M mMyiMAMwl �wuwaWrW� Yraotbo PUitMI YU>.Ngla ataya tialWartael. aa6
:amm. YYmallCullvra 6ll.wri4 la¢
1 tl Y 4
�q.EB:.Md3
N w
Rei:NN ag1�M1 y u. pnml.. er no.1.B at na cnr N brPa• arMu, r...a lex—sr ar
ntNa(, . G , Wnala N P a.c
1. 9EMM RASIS OF THE SMEY IS THE SIXTTHWEST
UNE OF THE 1192 APRE TIWT
2. CWrNNS TOTAL 154.4202 SOUPRE FEET.OR 3545 ACRES
3. TH6 %pP€RTY UES IN Toll£ C AS �R
THE EMTM7 INSURANCE RNE MMI
C9MMNMTY P L MLMOER 485464 0356 C
4ATEO ANY IaM5
W;: TRE REOE W WATERS FCR STORM WATERS FROM THIS.
PR6PERT/-IS'THE 250 CREEK. BASIN.THE RECENING
WATERS PRE GASSN'`lEB Br THE TCEC A.S HAVING
'£XgEPTAJI'ML' AWC UFE.
n ^J
Tom' T
00
,_l r
u F �
HOLLY ROAD (120' R.O.W.)
______________ r
BLOCK 1 LOT 1
3.W ACRE TRACT
L-
w
® mij SEEEL/Be
------------
m.m
KU WE EIY'
BELL SIE
vpeEa.Iva
MICI.
_ _ _
Fm.W JTEEL IpJ —.—. ._._ mOYYYILE EIfEKMI _——
�- ..ql
______SYnyn EuEk€M__
-- -r —= — - NM ----------------- ----------------------------------38195`
I 1 OS I;NCIVO!, SUI2UIVItiUIV
25.;2 .1C 121 1NDLBT127A1,'1'iL1C'1'
I � I
RECEIVED
CORRl6 CFIAI9
stroe�, a.
�Belt�ecgn ; m
LOS ENCINO$ INDUSTRIAL SITES '
OT 1
LT � j/ �,■�y BTS' �..
, BLOCKI 3IT
Survey plot of a 3543 -acre Jrgd d':torA as 6esgrfeed In a deed to Joe McCome
In DC NwM • 2�77Q7.0fffaldN%Wds NUeaee Cw*.Texas and oeing a Mardon a
9 e Irgct platted as Me NoO&vst eTM of Los Palmas Subdlvlslon as receded fn Volume
22.Poge MOM Rawda Nudrks Cw*.TeXes.ttw name Wng ctvrV d to las Endnas +w
u Nlslon N' deed recorded In Volume M. Pave 28.Dwd Receds NueCee Cwnty,Texas. wy
0.7. ruf
vECIavI•m r.Iwr
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF NUECES
FOR
THIS THE dG DAY OF 19yA.
STATE OF TERAS
COUNTY OF NUECES
.0106EFORE ME, :THE
�P�15�STj ITLECOMPANY
NAINA t, MILES. vI.CE PRESIDENT
SHE
IIUKEEII iMY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE THIS df -DAY OF
NOTAHY PUS IC IN AND FO NUECES COUNTY,
STATE OF TEXAS .TEXAS..
COUNTY OF NUECES
w
I
B
D
I
STATE OF TIME
COUNTY OF NUECES
THIS'FINAL PLAT OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY WAS APPROVED BY THE "NINO COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXASI PROVIDEp, HOWEVER, THIS APTJ VAL SHALL BE INVALID MIO
WILL UNLESS THI��-S��� F,,,YYYLAT BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK WITHIN SI IO S NER fTER.
Cj
THIS THE — MY DF
COUNTY OF NUECES . 7:. /)/
L
CERTIFY TMRS. HENRY E. GOUGER, CLERK OF THE COUNTY COURT IN AIM FOR SAID COUNT& DO HEXETMY ITS
IMT TILE FOREGOING INSTRUMEEITED T DATHE YS" DAY OF R 1 I
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION, NAS FILED FOR RECORD IN MY OFFLINE J,B_ DAY OF
19)t -.,AT dRy
:AZD'CLOCKN„ND ADULY RECORDED THE 1L DAY OF AE— . I'mo At
WITNESS MY NAI® AM SEAL OF THE COUNTY COURT OF SAID COUNTY AT OFFICE IN CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS, TWO DAY AND YEAH NST WRITTEN.'
By'
Ja a D•PY_ MRS. -'AYuYry . eG.6Ure
f COUNTYCLERK
NUECES COUNTY. TFEAB �1....FA
FILED
fILEp FOR
RECORDi
AT ZAL&J-J)'CLOCK-A-M.
'410 —4 Ai . 1911.
NIS. HENRY E GOUGER / FLAT --OF
--•. •-- �..� • .,IkA ..��. ..• w au wu CLERK COUNTY COURT
CORNERS AS .SHOWN AM TO COMPLETE SUCH OPEMTiON4 NITXOUT pEG � �_^ NU ES COUNTY, %%ENAg O
THIS THE" DAY OF A& 1911 r ` r{'G._.. /._.,-t-�> .9-2
MARLAN R NEI' BY:
TEXAS LICENSE N3I293 OVUTY �_-_�-
STATE OF TEXAS WS_ FNrlN0.q INDI&TRIAL SITES
COUNTY OF NUECES S -gr5 9iQ�CRE3 our OF LOT 1. SECTION 6, BOHEMIAN COLONY
THIS FINAL PLA{OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY APPROVED - AY TME DIRECTOR OF ENGINE LNG NNI 2 LANDS AS RECORDED IN VOLUME A, PAGE 48. MAP RECORDS, NUECES
SERVICES OF THE PITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. TEXAS.COUNTY, TEXAS, AMO ALSO BEING OUT OF AN 11.92 ACRE INWSTRIAI
THIS THE Jk DAY OF AM 4, ST 192&. TRACT OUT OF Los ENCINO$ SUBDIVISION AS RECONNEG IN VOLUME Z
0 OF E 61 1 SERV CEl PAGE 94. NAP RECORDS. NIECE( COUNTY. TEXAS, AM ALSO DESCRIBI
wnswm.nw IN VOLUME 895, PAGE 28, DEED RECORDS, NUECES COUNTY. TEXAS.
y..�w
,.il
rmm' aU• L mm'
SInR RRW �.
61t
o
v. �
'iyIpa.�b R
T(pip'IMM R.Wm'
pG srtan f
(Pmll °F ni65 mYM1 R W¢f �
MIf fM1R niTK wlYW flm°IrX11Y ,yMp{p mMfi°ILmIK IX t11154f1\L 0.n R11kL iitntl 1mM11fI4 MWa1PoMMfMmi %.4 Mnm WITLY Mii Mfi WYY 1V(W
plpLa YR16 OFM(fM1 iF ((MX[IWST.RMf•°II Ml3.i KY y(Upira Wf(YYM m\C•IS\1NM4pry6mllm OfKflTif4KTL L_KYR t JmmH Y1nI444fWYMWf1Ym 6N'
ffl Mfl•{{CL Mw12l�OkrR "�•� f!! WPK mtl
t fR f111f J^m
!
aml•�R1K� C� }. ffOliim' \ � JIfLYLi
io W
='
R m46f
it I M MCl KmfA KMmmr KmCMWtK rKf[MC 3RR iRW
KLm.rR mL�• n al• ! m lima s•KT m mac wo Kw mon llmllar\m r• rry sraf! \or M! m frs fomTw(
9G(KG IY
_
sTli i Rr
Wr M YRY K m111C11K1f\1 MCYa
room taam Iwu'��\TEc rtnuz_amvs_ War.MmYLGM tlAy ad m Ra{YI WTiV M M f°YLY°M•
amrvS
T Ai
ae
\o swGar\YKJnI••rrmap *\aA
m mum�wx -. um.—A.mfKsm Kf\mWmR uKKr Kmo vml Yr KsalYtW nresW(ffWcrn
Wf�o 11IMT. mLY
']
rtmmn�s Wmvm srmwnnm sRas arty,
aro wrel°mp1ir rxm rvuia6Kwmn nSw
immprTGMw,Tamr LKr 5Yrt54a mm4. mrmafz ,rmmWl.R Yml prtm .i-.
11�
amTr }".: rIYNLYG m_•_amlKM m sue M�vJ'�Laf s Wm•f•.Ym
mmv mmT R 1m6f vmm, �
lMR ]
ri
1�
...
dhy(�
_
mo sa
•.1
—os ae ei P• %.
LMmef+P�sJr.°�°.'
.A
f`f
,.il
o
ry aw
If
io W
='
_
sTli i Rr
»
hr
ae
m •� a
^'
rw WY2 P.R Kmn rfmlN MT K M mai.
m\mrm Rmlrm ni wain ss`rfOmON,�
IR
a; N 11
«Ila alM-0
mGsOLs
lr,—. K amml.TGW5Kt 11YVt W1\i L•��""_
b N
1 1
bl ry
pry
O
X M Ib
N
II ^ i
m a
n r lu
%I u•
L.1.1('
L.IK.af T M.W
I
I
KL YYrm•n5ls Klr\wwrt MTMaemLm xKs rw nR'
MGwmaRaW MwYL R•1KVAy1lmTM WNNI5 n51mYWfO
on
ry a
II
_I m
j3
m Ib W
m
" ry
I m- •
+ O A
_ #
# d
a. i.lY Md] O. 1N.}!'
L T.
•IMY D{.tl'
I
aLn'Imlfm'wtnmGaAMWLILMLWF•w1fYGlVt i\mIPLmK l61
i wmlL MrtN W WYK1T11aT •KT. mwfmin fwLVlll"
gmmar \m SOm WXYR MTYYGY(G{idRO MIGM KYR
1 43] ''.
m a'
• ry
_
IS
_
I
�1N•.1KRTKlI�O IKLyimmLOxgq4W1QR4i 6i wLOIMf 9iW6�YR
_ •T.
.'
m y b; N
m ;a
# N
m a
a ry a
u li
iK mL RtmwNDL11w613_K 6 GLfAA
J [
I
-
H
=;a
al N
❑ n
X�� II ;X
r
ap
'll'IY/i
9
iia-a'I
a I; a; II
u ;b
X w
•° I'
N IIS
a
X =
I
Kr
_. 1"
all p
m
9 s;
e ;0
9i .°l uy S
a ml'
8
%
,1
1 J
n.R RTLui
rtr
Yi°R M.ly4 WmirriLmrKx
miK�Kami°�GG°m°MX s T
n
°(wvr
L-_Zy3
u w
• ^'
r
mwOi+AG t�•rT'•iawr�plmW
_ _L)2
'
6
Y
�Y
°Ww�KL°X KRa mYYYIWSYR RL6.Mnl
u
Tit
�,
%; N II n
911 m
Y ��.....
•.
d
'u
�+•'f
b
ry I m ;:
%j r
�g �u.)
5
�i
r
n. a
C
I I
SI "m' NIS
SI
GeF2 ••
z
5
�
^
IS
�
�sTGrw(L5
_
b; m
m b 911 A
0
%
XI �`
0 X
I I
X A 9
.I �
"1 Ixtl
i
6
`VRLILa •LLMLL. M K[fImXL R M KRW Yfr4 \w°[ml[
K RmaV 6a Tm YL Yi \ mYWWIi{M. Yml IGIf W 6-
%
I r�X
rWry
N n:
x
III
q
M TKt TGa AA.=Ulmor
r R k�iM M wIPT°ifM1m W TW50[miV
Yi�mmi RGflmsw
i
m
rya A
r.
X
�,
r m J•.
d•
al
Lm5 u•w rou
/�}� Gs/__. iiz... __ Nom._ -
I> J1
N "
�''�"'. rvvm•MI P
y
.sf4R,.(ne ami f.rmK \�m.rw
r_
-
%♦ I I
a :I
"I a I I
a I'
S d
1 I•
\Kr m
LYu+\ •
L
S
i
, ...In•w°ieGf
/ z
19
IX
IIS
a K (!
8/k.�pL
� i
,L
aC
5Mi �..,
mKV RLGLsm
a
7
g
MuamlGLw tw mrLmamLLr
ry la
I„
4..
e" RL
/'T/
anG\mam M wm w dLfr( mw°GmmiLlnlsrtV ew�niomG4 mSKrLus
\KYL•LGLff• w P•IIKT M Lm W M 1R K M L0
IfJllm yww4 KtlLI\lOY \ LLIG MT K GtimlpM W1f
:a=19e
r-
Sum WOXfTYm W� bfaea rG WXvmTeK
W wM lYtlfr TG15w\6
Jn
•
1• n
Jn
_
Ye
u�_
.2—Al
MCKw LLamHw
lV WIi a4O 4Y wKL XL TIIY MJ)Li. KYR
IN.
-
..<
K � CL aY �
_.. -.
_-
_-_. ._
G0. L °P •
y._
-..wm84A
ImL
^ —�v�Ca
iY
t
k
Yd•^� ."C'+M'
Tf Lb OO' G
Y3 mW
"T V
uw.0 >a���T
uaaati- Klmr tKwi fK
R int f v
L
'^! �
N°�J�
LGIrGPu xnriM1.
luK. arrt. aar.
�
r ;yam �
�' t
P t
' yY` t
t�
o
W e ®KPM1 LM WYfaYm mK ltlM
°Gala iLSY •Ru M WWi1L fIYLW KM GYIx¢
.'
"}} /
�- �T
T
S -
u•mRmYR m•nM1rMpmp
vmJxw ems awvu
pLAYXIMa IaEPT.
' T�
.M.�• LS .yS6 "L QS. ` CLRQ++
S
�c`
S
5p ry0 }KL RfML KL \LWLWTLLY w'KIOYM
O1KYY5i \KM
Sf�
V' P�S�
4L 4YIX (wI4GLi , W
4-
WLIbS:R•tlRGT, p�m`L•6TI
liGT.
T.
�.->)MTm.Vm••.1-
•
'
X
UBDI[JI
ID
cl�pkiH3�p� OFD0719•ACRES 81FT OFIAT I •SKCION 6'yf:
89[WN�LtgnWF6AN65M�CF�LWMY•TB IIS
m W ° m m em
m• W J+ =L _v.i.
MI'LL.
zevuxwF"
4�-q- i^"'"4`..-'•'9'" "a."' c..�•'.GIr
TO A. ANDERSON TRUST[{
.
—
..+.•ea:
a'
OOLOSTON HOLAES (IAUNRO6
LNGYmFH.
.09SLTx•
5@VTFA5ERy1999 v
_
I EXHIBIT 41
---r-
- !--.-...-----:-.--c--~~-..-.--~.
48
----;
,,-',<
I Bohemian Colony Lands. Seclion 6. Lot 1 I
"'{
;-
,
I
L
-4
1
PLA.T OF ,TJ:
SeWIMIAN G..~"'; LA'-S
,,1~::..:,::"
"-.-.......7.~.....n
rT"o'..'...y..a."....,;--~....1J
s..-.~"" _,.....,.,~.......J..._~
dttl-~~
,........
".,....... ,.,., .~. ~..
\;~1r
-_.~._.,-~-----
l._.... ,,,,
" ,If
.
)\
. ,
,
'J
ow,,~o <:1_.'
S. L.KOS TORYZ
.'
......
. ~\~(h~
l\, 1.\.
--~ ,:/.,.\
?l//
.:.__~r~
,~.
1~.....fiiSo_,~....l-Ilioz.-c..... ..",..Pf.t~_....,..,"" --.....
z...._J ,,1_._ .~..! ..".....I41'(,d. A~.Ip.,.i. ,....~Mft.......I J:~I
~~_....;"". _.IJ-,~-'-f-' $o.#,__l,,,..ftll,..fl_..../W.i..,1d it
_,......~..'.......Mt_..r-,.......,'..,'-to.o. ..J",,,i#...~M'"
1...........,__..f4#_$_-' ~_"'-..~_/h~J-rli~U.-'W"
_...._ ___..._lIl..Pf.e. loo,u.~I,.I..____h~'''' ...,Ao<!.
,..01-"1........ "......._...l.h." _. __ .(fAi.I_",J."".'w,"f
~"'''''''_<M4'7~I",._~_.(hMl'''''- _II~.
n"~"_~""-i..._~....r~"I<"'''''
"r.r~ .... n-...
_1:--.,..-
..,......,..._'..I~ _,.....,. ~'~...r.-.....~ .,__,.1 l-.KU.T""'I'Y....
c-~... '" ....;;i>~u,.A.04.....~.. ",'~"~ J.."'..~"...___/.,lJ-r(."'. llt"tJ,u1t"M
"~J.IW.,,..r,..... _ol ,~;rd,,'./j..., IA_ .J.I~"'A
,,_.;....,..~"c_.t_l-t...llr.. tH~ & ....,..,t:~
Q. w .B..:...;o--l~ .
~ .....-.......-."'..
,.
_.",..".....'-'-."'._~"..."'-,..-"',."".."..-.._--=-
t'--"~.~~
.~
I-
I
,
i
S~,. ~T_ ~ ~,;,t. "l .
cr.rr ., Molk_ I . ~'cJ.l,(Il1:-.c.9>f "M .
.?i, ~~7A",,~, . j:f; ~:If.I'e'''':I. -":1 !J:;::7"e~~u:,~t/. ::;";/"}:'!t/JI1,.4
($I..,,, _...v,.,)'.I,__ "..'" ".;/ ":!..Mc"1t.,,,/f 'I{,4t....... ",/tnii'
, . ""1.f' ~'j /,07
~'.. . .,(d-'.f'-.-
, ,........)' r. .~...... C.~ff'",r'If<l'
KH;'r/NI;..~.i,'B-... 'I,.. ,p',c~"
""''''.'''.....",.,~12q
l5 'f.r-
OIIolo(e. . ~...n-It.
L
:'"''
,~
~J
,
. . '.,'
:~;
Planning Staff Review
September 17, 2003
Page 2
ATTACHMENT 3
(emailed to developers, engineers/surveyors on September 12, 2003)
3. 0903100-NP44
Los Encinos Industrial Sites. Block 1. Lot 1 (Final - 3.543 Acres)
Located at the southwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Holly Road.
Owner - Joe McComb
Engineer - Coym, Rehmet & Gutierrez Engineering
1. Water Distribution System acreage fee. ($3,67B.00)
2. Wastewater System acreage fee. ($3,67B.00)
3. Require a Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
4. Indicate recording information for the 2l-foot CP&L easement.
S. Indicate recording information for the 20-foot drainage easement.
6. Show the Lot lines between Lots 1 through 4 in Block A to the south.
7. Correct the acreage shown in General Note 1.
8. Increase the 10-foot utility easements to 15 feet along the east and west property lines.
9. Change the approval certificate to reflect approval by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24, 2003
page 3
ATTACHMENT 4
(emailed to developers, engineers/surveyors on September 19, 2003)
d. 0903100-NP44
LOS ENCINOS INDUSTRIAL SITES, BLOCK 1. LOT 1 (FINAL - 3.543 ACRES)
Located at the southwest corner of Greenwood Drive and Holly Road.
Owner - Joe McComb
Engineer - Coym, Rehmet & Gutierrez Engineering
The owner proposes to plat the property to conform to City Codes in order to obtain building permits and
connections to utilities for an industrial use. This property comes out of land previously platted in 1959.
1. Indicate recording information for the 21-foot CP&L easement.
2. Indicate recording information for the 20-foot drainage easement.
3. Show the lot lines between Lots 1 through 4 in Block A to the south.
4. Correct acreage shown in General Note 1.
5. Increase the lO-foot utility easements to 15 feet along the east and west property lines.
6. Change the approval certificate to reflect approval by the Planning Commission.
7. In Generai Note 4, include the word "not."
8. Indicate Block G, Lot 1 to the south along with its recording information, 20-foot yard requirement,
and a 10-foot utility easement.
Utility infrastructure plat requirements for plans and construction, as well as development fees, are not
subject to Planning Commission approval, but are requirements for compliance prior to recordation of the
plat. These reauirements are Dresented for Plannina Commission information on Iv.
1. Require a Storm Water Quality Management Plan.
2. Water Distribution System acreage fee. ($3,678.00)
3. Wastewater System acreage fee. ($4,174.00)
^TT^CHMENT 5
Approved Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2003
0903100-NP44
Los Encinos Industrial Sites. Block 1. Loll iFinal- 3.543 Acres)
Localed allhe southwesl comer of Greenwood Drive and Holly Road.
Mr. Saldana staled Ihat the staff has not received informalion regarding the pial for approval. Slaff
recommends a continuance for two weeks.
Chairman Berlanga opened the public hearing. No one appeared in favor or opposition. Public hearing
was closed.
Mr. Gunning acknowledged Mr. Joe McCombs entrance into the Council Chambers and asked Ihal the
Commission fe-open the public hearing.
.
Richter enlered at 5:35 p.m.
Molion by Zamora, seconded by Pusley, 10 re-open the public hearing.
Public hearing re-opened.
Mr. Joe McComb, owner of Ihe properly, provided information regarding his research about Ihe subjecl
properly and staled that he was told thaI his properly is nol platted. He provided a plat from the courthouse
dated January 1960. Mr. McComb asked why he needed 10 replat his properly is the properly had already
been platted. He also expressed concern regarding the necessity for a 7.5-fool right-of-way dedicalion
required as outlined in the Transportalion Plan.
Mr. Miguel Saldana, City Planner, explained that Ihe pial shown by Mr. McComb was recorded as a
separale and individual plat. The pIal Mr. McComb presenled was no longer valid al that point. There was
a piece of property was replatted and as a result the remaining portion of the area was considered as
unplatted properly.
Mr. McComb expressed concern regarding the city collecling for Ihe original plat, Ihe individual replal, and
fees from him for replatting the remainder of Ihe properly. Mr. Gunning explained Ihal acreage fees were
not collecled unlil 1981 and thaI fees would not have been collecled on Ihe portion recorded in January
1960. He added Ihal acreage fees are assessed with Ihe land and are assessed one lime. Mr. Gunning
explained thaI acreage fees are nol city dollars, but are placed in lrusl fund for reimbursemenl 10
developers.
Mr. Saldana explained that the 7.5-foot row is a requirement for Greenwood 95 foot width and 'l2 is 47.5
feel and in order for 1/2 oflhe righl of way, he needs 7.5 feet.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion by Zamora, seconded by Richter, to continue for two weeks. MOlion passed wilh Mims and
Salazar being absent.
ATTACHMENT 6
Approved Planning Commission Minutes
October 8, 2003
c. 0903100-NP44
Los Encinos Industrial Sites. Block I. Lot I (Final- 3.543 Acres)
Located at the southwest comer of Greenwood Drive and Holly Road.
Mr. Power stated that the plat was continued from the previous Planning
Commission meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to meet with Staff to
discuss acreage fees the required street right-of-way dedication and to verify that
a replat was required. Mr. Power met with the applicant and explained that that
acreage fees were a required by ordinance if fees had not been previously
collected on the subject property. He provided the applicant two options to
proceed with the plat: I) the applicant could proceed with the plat as submitted
at which time Staff would recommend denial and the applicant could appeal to
City Council; 2) the applicant could make necessary changes to the plat and pay
acreage fees for approval. Applicant could appeal the plat requirements to City
Council ifhe submits a written letter of appeal to the City.
See attached document regarding comments made on legality of
plat adjacent to subject property.
Public hearing was opened.
Joe McComb, applicant, stated that he believes his property is platted and
therefore acreage fees should not be required. He asked the Planning
Commission to approve the plat as submitted, waive the acreage fees, and forward
a recommendation for approval.
Discussion ensued regarding dedication of land as per the Transportation Plan.
Mr. McComb requested the City to purchase his property as opposed to
dedicating the property.
Public hearing was closed.
Motion by Smith, seconded by Zamora, to deny the plat as submitted. Motion passed
with Pus ley, Richter, and Salazar voting "Nay"; Berlanga, Mims, Smith, and Zamora
voting "Aye"; and Amsler and Stone being absent.
Notes ~ Joe McComb Plat
October 8. 2003 PC Meeting
Page I
Planning Commission Notes Regarding Joe McComb's Plat
(Los Encinos Industrial Sites, Block I, Lot I)
October 8, 2003
Commissioner Salazar: This was one big lot at one time?
Harry Power: This was originally part of an 11.9 acre tract.
Commissioner Salazar: And the guy decided to plat right in the middle of it?
Harry Power: Approximately 1/3 was resubdivided out of the middle of three equal
parts. Basically, that part was resubdivided in 1972 leaving the east and west end
unplatted.
Commissioner Salazar: So, when this guy platted the ordinance required that all three be
platted.
Harry Power: It was a violation ofthe code, yes, sir.
Chairman Berlanga: Say that again, Harry.
Harry Power: It was a violation of the ordinance at the time it was split up by metes and
bounds. When it occurred? I would have to go back to the records to see how long it
occurred before 1972. It may possibly have occurred before annexation. That particular
subdivision was platted in 1959 and was not annexed into the city until September of
1962. That division could have occurred prior to 1962.
**********
Commissioner Pusley: You said something there a while ago. You said that a piece of
property could become unplatted if a parcel was platted illegally.
Mr. Gunning: Well, actually, I don't want to use the term "illegally", but it is in violation
of our city charter and also [the state] Local Government code. You cannot subdivide
properties within the corporate limits of the city by metes and bounds.
Commissioner Pusley: And this was done by metes and bounds.
Mr. Gunning: There probably was a metes and bounds description associated with it
because when you are subdividing [and] taking 3.5 acres out of an II acre tract, you have
to define the property lines and the only way to do that is by metes and bounds.
Commissioner Pusley: So, Mr. Power, again when was this replat done on the three
acres?
Notes - Joe McComb Plat
October 8, 2003 PC Meeting
Page 2
Harry Power: The replat was done in 1972. There would have been a requirement for
replatting of all of it in the ordinance at the time. That's why I say the ordinance was
violated. If I may go further to answer your question, under the Platting Ordinance
Section 4 Design Standards, and subsection E Lots, Paragraph 4 makes a reference to the
sale of property or unplatted property "Upon sale of all or any portion of the platted
property to any person or persons other than the City of Corpus Christi or it's successor
or the CC Housing Authority or its successor, the grantor shall thereupon replat all of the
property originally platted to fully conform with all of the requirements of the Platting
Ordinance." When this does not occur, it is a violation of the ordinance, but it occurs. It
happens.
Commissioner Pusley: So, you're saying that the replat that was done in '72 was done in
violation of the ordinance.
Harry Power: Yes, sir.
Commissioner Pusley: So why are we still honoring that replat if it was done III
violation?
Harry Power: The original replat out of the center was done in compliance with the
ordinance at the time. And as I said in all probability it had been divided by metes and
bounds, even prior to annexation into the city. It is just like the 1972 plat, if! had a way
to go back and there is no telling how many times the property that Mr. McComb was
buying has changed hands since 1972.
* * * * * * * * *
16
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: 10/28/2003
AGENDA ITEM:
A) Ordinance appropriating $546,500 in unappropriated interest from Water CIP Fund No.
4082 (1995 Revenue Bond) for the design, implementation and evaluation of an
automated meter reading/wireless broadband network pilot project for the Water and
Gas Services departments.
B) Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract with
PTI/RAM Technologies of Washington, DC in the amount of $1,093,000 to provide
consulting services for the design, implementation and evaluation of an automated
meter reading/wireless broadband network pilot project.
ISSUE: The City contracted with Public Technology, Inc. to assist with the development of
a strategy and specific recommendations for the pursuit of an automated meter reading
solution. A Request for Proposal is now needed to enable staff to develop, implement and
evaluate an automated meter reading/wireless broadband network pilot project. PTI/RAM
Technologies and the City have reached an agreement to provide the necessary consulting
services for this project.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION:
A) Approval of Ordinance appropriating $546,500 in unappropriated interest earnings from
Water CIP Fund No. 4082; amending the FY 2003-2004 Capital Budget adopted by
Ordinance No. 025144. To increase appropriations by $546,500 for the execution ofthe
consulting contract.
B) City Council approval is required for expenditures over $25,000 or those requiring an
appropriation.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved purchase of the ITRON handheld
meter reading system on August 26, 2003.
FUNDING:
Amount Budgeted
$1.093.000
Source of Funds
550950-4082-00000-200465 $ 546.500.00
550950-4550-00000-200465 $ 546.500.00
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance
and motion as presented.
O.(;'-.o=,:ex=
Ogilvie F. Gericke, P.E.,
Director of Information Technology
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Numerous issues are facing the City's meter reading activity today. First, the existing
manual meter reading system is expensive and does not support good customer service.
Secondly, legislation requires individual metering for multi-family dwellings, apartments and
trailer parks. Thirdly, the City's aging meter infrastructure is being considered for a
significant upgrade.
It was therefore prudent to evaluate if an Automated Meter Reading solution may be more
cost efficient when compared to the current manual system. Public Technology, Inc. was
hired to assist staff in this assessment and with the development of a strategy and specific
recommendations for the pursuit of an Automated Meter Reading solution.
We completed this task and the projected cost estimates, with corresponding savings
opportunities, indicated that Automated Meter Reading should be considered a viable
alternative and that sharing of infrastructure with other wireless systems is also desirable. A
presentation to this effect was made to City Council on July 15, 2003.
ORDINANCE
APPROPRIATING $546,500 IN UNAPPROPRIATED INTEREST FROM
WATER CIP FUND NO. 4082 (1995 REVENUE BOND) FOR THE
DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION OF AN AUTOMATED
METER READINGIWIRELESS BROADBAND NETWORK PILOT
PROJECT FOR THE WATER AND GAS SERVICES DEPARTMENTS;
AMENDING FY 2002-2003 CAPITAL BUDGET ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 025144 TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS BY
$546,500; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That $546,500 in unappropriated interest from Water CIP Fund No. 4082
(1995 Revenue Bond) for the design, implementation and evaluation of an automated
meter reading/wireless broadband network pilot project for the Water and Gas Services
departments.
SECTION 2. That FY 2002-2003 Capital Budget adopted by Ordinance No. 025144 is
amended by increasing appropriations by $546,500.
SECTION 3. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council members, copy
attached, the City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the need for
immediate action necessary for the efficient and effective administration of City affairs
and (2) suspends the Charter rule that requires consideration of and voting upon
ordinances at two regular meetings so that this ordinance is passed and takes effect
upon first reading as an emergency measure this the _day of ,2003.
ATTEST
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
Approved October 16, 2003
;t~~
Lisa Aguilar
Assistant City Attorney
for City Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
17
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: October 28. 2003
AGENDA ITEM:
A. Resolution authorizing the City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, to accept a Regional
Facility Planning Grant in the amount of $500,000 from and execute a contract with the Texas
Water Development Board for the Development of a Regional Facility Plan for the planning area,
including a large-scale seawater desalination demonstration project in Corpus Christi.
B. Ordinance appropriating $500,000 from the Texas Water Development Board in the No. 1052
Water Grants Fund to develop a Regional Facility Plan for the planning area, including a large-
scale seawater desalination demonstration project and declaring an emergency.
ISSUE: The Texas Water Development Board awarded $500,000 for the City to determine the
feasibility of developing a large-scale desalination demonstration project. The City is contributing
an in-kind match of $230,000 for a total project cost of $730,000. This grant must be accepted by
October 31, 2003 as a first step in meeting the time-line set by the Governor's Desalination
Demonstration initiative.
REQUIRED COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of the Motion as presented.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
. October 25, 2002 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to respond to the Governor's
Seawater Desalination Demonstration Initiative.
. February 11, 2003 - Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an engineering services
contract with Turner Collie and Braden Inc. of Houston, Texas in an amount not to exceed
$227,000 for technical support services associated with the Barney Davis Desalination Plant
Project.
. August 18, 2003 - Resolution authorizing the City Manager to submit a Regional Facility
Planning Grant application in the amount of $500,000 to the Texas Water Development Board
for the development of a large-scale seawater desalination demonstration project in Corpus
Christi with an offer to provide an in-kind match valued at $230,000 for a total project cost of
$730,000.
FUNDING: Funding is provided by the grant offer by the Texas Water Development Board.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the motion as presented.
~~~
Ronald F. Massey
Assistant City Manager
BACKGROUND INFORMA lION
On April 29, 2002, Governor Perry announced his initiative to develop a demonstration seawater
desalination project and tasked the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) with creating and
implementing the process.
In July 2002, the TWDB published a draft Request for Statements of Interest (SOl) and received
public comment. On September 18, 2002, the TWDB issued a Request for Statements of Interest
with a response date of November 1, 2002.
On October 25, 2002, the City Council passed a resolution authorizing the City Manager, or his
designee, to respond to the Governor's Seawater Desalination Demonstration Initiative. On
November 1, 2002, the City responded to the Governor's initiative by submitting a SOl.
A total of 10 SOl's were submitted to the TWDB. Four of the project sites were located in the
Corpus Christi service area. The City's SOl, was one of three projects selected and included in the
TWDB report entitled Large-Scale Seawater Desalination in Texas which was delivered to the
Governor on December 17, 2003. The three projects recommended to proceed towards
implementation were the Poseidon/Brazos River Authority proposal located in the City of Freeport
at the Dow Chemical Complex, the City of Corpus Christi proposal at the Barney Davis power plant
in Flour Bluff, and the Port of Brownsville proposal at the Brownsville Ship Channel. The Freeport
project was considered to be the most fully developed and recommended to begin pennitting and
design activities, while the City of Corpus Christi and Port of Brownsville projects were considered
viable and recommended to conduct feasibility studies of a regional water supply nature and include
enhancements to their original proposals. The TWDB recommended fonning a steering committee
with representatives from State resource agency and educational institutions; Planning Groups;
membrane manufacturers; and the US Department of the Interior-Bureau of Reclamation to identify
and guide research at the Freeport site's proposed Membrane Research Center of Excellence. The
TWDB recommended that the Legislature appropriate $1,500,000 to their Research and Planning
Fund so that they could issue grants for preparing regional water-facility planning and feasibility
studies for the three proposed seawater desalination projects. Additionally, the TWDB
recommended lifting the State-imposed caps on use of Private Activity Bonds available through the
Bond Review Board for State and Local entity use and other recommendations related to Private
Activity Bonds.
On February 11, 2003, the City Council passed a motion authorizing the City Manager to execute
an engineering services contract with Turner Collie and Braden Inc. of Houston, Texas in an amount
not to exceed $227,000 for technical support services associated with the Barney Davis
Desalination Plant Project.
In response to the TWDB recommendation and with the Governor's support, HB 1370 was
introduced by Representative Luna during the 78th Legislative Session and immediately passed into
law. HB1370 amends Subchapter C, Chapter 16, Water Code by adding Section 16.060 which
requires the Texas Water Development Board to undertake or participate in research, feasibility and
facility planning studies, investigations and surveys to develop a seawater desalination
demonstration project in the state. Additionally, Representative Luna was successful in adding
Rider #16 to the State Appropriation Bill, which contained $1.5M for the studies. The City
cooperated in all aspects of this initiative with Mr. Lucas Myers, Chief Legislative Officer for
Representative Luna.
The TWDB is required by HB 1370 to prepare a report on the progress of the implementation of
seawater desalination activities in the State and forward it to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than December 1st of each even
numbered year. The report will contain the results of Board studies and activities related to
seawater desalination; identification and evaluation of research; regulatory, technical, and financial
impediments to the implementation of seawater desalination projects; evaluation of the role the
State should play in furthering seawater desalination projects; the anticipated appropriation from
general revenues necessary to continue investigating seawater desalination activities; and a
requirement that the TWDB pursue Federal sources of funding for desalination projects in the State.
The first report is due on December 1, 2004.
On July 17, 2003, the TWDB met with the three SOl proponents to announce the availability of
grants to each location. Funds would be available through existing Regional Facility Planning
Grants through the completion of the required application by August 29, 2003. The main
requirements of the TWDB's application are to provide general planning & system information;
written assurances and proof of public notification; a resolution; a description of in-kind services to
be provided and a task and expense budget.
On August 18, 2003, City Council authorized the City Manager to submit a Regional Facility
Planning Grant application in the amount of $500,000 to the Texas Water Development Board for
determining the feasibility of the development of a large-scale seawater desalination demonstration
project in Corpus Christi with an offer to provide an in-kind match valued at $230,000 for a total
project cost of $730,000. The in-kind match would consist of applicable results of engineering
studies completed for the Padre Island desalination facility. Specific results that would be used are
information related to the treatment processes, and by-product handling options; public information
activities for the Padre Island Desalination Facility; and any other activities that are directly related
to investigating a large-scale seawater desalination facility.
On September 17, 2003, the City's application for the $500,000.00 Grant was considered and
approved by the TWDB. If the City wishes to accept the grant, they must do so by October 31,
2003. Acceptance of the grant will enable the City to begin work on the Regional Facility Planning
report for the Barney Davis desalination facility. A draft of the City's Regional Facility Planning
report will be due by June, 2004. The final report is due in September 2004, in time for the Board's
December 1, 2004 reporting deadline to the Legislature. The Regional Facility Plan will be required
to contain information on the planned customer base; water source options; the review process
chosen to select those options; a breakdown of treatment and disposal processes; project structure;
and implementation issues and financing options.
RESOLUTION
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER, OR THE CITY MANAGER'S
DESIGNEE, TO ACCEPT A REGIONAL FACILITY PLANNING GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000 FROM AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT
WITH THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN FOR THE
PLANNING AREA, INCLUDING A LARGE-SCALE SEAWATER
DESALINATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT IN CORPUS CHRISTI
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, is authorized to accept
and execute a contract for a Regional Facility Planning Grant from the Texas Water
Development Board in the amount of $500,000 for the development of a Regional
Facility Plan for the Planning Area, including large-scale seawater desalination
demonstration project in Corpus Christi. The City's match for this grant is an in-kind
match of $230,000, for a total project cost of $730,000.
SECTION 2. The City Manager, or the City Manager's designee, may reject, alter or
terminate the grant.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED: This 24th day of October, 2003.
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
Doyle . urtis
Chief, ministrative Law Section
For R. Jay Reining
Acting City Attorney
R33727E1.doc
ORDINANCE
APPROPRIATING $500,000 FROM THE TEXAS WATER
DEVELOPMENT BOARD IN THE NO. 1052 WATER GRANTS FUND TO
DEVELOP A REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN FOR THE PLANNING AREA,
INCLUDING A LARGE-SCALE SEAWATER DESALINATION
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That $500,000 from the Texas Water Development Board is appropriated
in the NO.1 052 Water Grants Fund for to develop a Regional Facility Plan for the
Planning Area, including a large-scale seawater desalination demonstration project.
SECTION 2. That upon written request of the Mayor or five Council members, copy
attached, the City Council (1) finds and declares an emergency due to the need for
immediate action necessary for the efficient and effective administration of City affairs
and (2) suspends the Charter rule that requires consideration of and voting upon
ordinances at two regular meetings so that this ordinance is passed and takes effect
upon first reading as an emergency measure on this the day of
,2003.
ATTEST:
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Armando Chapa
City Secretary
APPROVED: This 6th day of October, 2003:
R~9-/
Acting CI y Attorney
Samuel L. Neal, Jr.
Mayor
R33727F1.doc
STATE OF TEXAS
1WDB Contract No. 2004-483-
COUNTY OF TRAVIS
Research and Planning Fund
Regional Facility Planning
City of Corpus Christi
THIS CONTRACT, (hereinafter "CONTRACT"), between the Texas Water Development
Board (hereinafter "BOARD") and the City of Corpus Christi (hereinafter "CONTRACTOR (S)"),
is composed of two parts: Section I. Specific Conditions and Exceptions to the Standard
Agreement and Section II. Standard Agreement. The terms and conditions set forth in Section I
will take precedence over terms and conditions in Section II.
SECTION I. SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
TO STANDARD AGREEMENT
ARTICLE I. DEFINITIONS: For the purposes of this CONTRACT, the following terms or
phrases shall have the meaning ascribed therewith:
A. BOARD - The Texas Water Development Board, or its designated representative
B. CONTRACTOR (S) - City of Corpus Christi
C. EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR - The Executive Administrator of the Board or
his designated representative
D . PARTICIPANT (S) - City of Corpus Christi
E. REQUIRED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (S) - N/A
F. REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN - Regional Water Supply Facility Planning
G. BOARD APPROVAL DATE - September 17,2003
H. PLANNING AREA -Includes Aransas, Bee, Brooks, Duval, Jim Wells, Kenedy,
Kleberg, Live Oak, McMullen, Nueces, and San Patricio Counties. The project
area is more specifically defined in Exhibit A (the original grant application).
I. DEADLINE FOR CONTRACT EXECUTION - December 17, 2003
J. CONTRACT INITIATION DATE - September 17, 2003
K. STUDY COMPLETION DATE - July 31,2004
L. FINAL REPORT DEADLINE - September 30, 2004
M. TOTAL STUDY COSTS - $730,000
N. BOARD SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS - Not to exceed $ 500,000 or
68.49% of the total study costs or individual voucher submission
O. LOCAL SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS - $0 in cash and $230,000 in
in-kind services or 31.51% percent of the total study costs or individual voucher
submission
P. VOUCHER SUBMISSION SCHEDULE - Monthly
Q. OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO STANDARD
AGREEMENT OF THIS CONTRACT -
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this CONTRACT to be duly executed in
multiple originals.
THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
William F. Mullican, III
Deputy Executive Administrator
For Planning
Date:
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
Ronald F. Massey
Assistant City Manager
Date:
SECTION II. STANDARD AGREEMENT
ARTICLE I. RECITALS
Whereas, the CONTRACTOR (S) applied to the BOARD, Austin, Texas for a planning grant to
develop a REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN;
Whereas, the CONTRACTOR (S) and PARTICIPANT (S) will commit cash and/or in-kind
services to pay for the local share of this planning project;
Whereas, the CONTRACTOR (S) is the entity who will act as administrator of the BOARD's
planning grant and will be responsible for the execution of this contract;
Whereas, on the BOARD APPROVAL DATE, the BOARD approved the CONTRACTOR (S)'s
application for financial assistance;
Now, therefore, the BOARD and the CONTRACTOR (S), agree as follows:
ARTICLE II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED
1. Services and activities provided under this CONTRACT shall be in strict accordance with
requirements of the Texas Water Code, Chapter 15; associated rules of the Texas
Administrative Code, Chapter 355, Sections 355.1-355.11, Subchapter A; Exhibit A, the
original grant application, which is incorporated herein and made a permanent part of
this CONTRACT; and this CONTRACT.
2. The CONTRACTOR (S) will prepare a REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN for the PLANNING
AREA, as delineated and described in Exhibit A, according to the Scope of Work
contained in Exhibit B. The CONTRACTOR (S) will consider BOARD population and
water use projections, and if not used in the REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN, provide an
explanation of why not used. Where applicable, the CONTRACTOR (S) will develop
water conservation plans according to Texas Administrative Code, Chapters 363.15,
363.71,375.37, and 375.101.
3. The CONTRACTOR (S) will establish formal, direct, and continuous liaisons with all
cities, counties, councils of governments, river authorities, regional water planning
groups designated under Texas Water Code 316.053 and 31 Texas Administrative Code
3357.4, and all applicable state agencies, federal agencies, and other governmental
entities in the PLANNING AREA, and all entities providing water and/or wastewater
service in the PLANNING AREA for the purpose of coordinating the scope of work and
REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN with all existing studies, plans, or activities for the purpose
of providing information and obtaining available data for the development of the
REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN.
4. The CONTRACTOR (S) will coordinate the REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN with the
existing plans and policies of the entities listed above, the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality (TCEQ), and any other affected entities.
5. The CONTRACTOR (S) will hold coordination meetings with the PARTICIPANTS,
consultants, local entities, the TCEQ, the BOARD, and any interested parties at the
commencement of the project, at 50% completion, following the STUDY COMPLETION
DATE but before the FINAL REPORT DEADLINE, and when deemed necessary by
either the BOARD or the CONTRACTOR (S) to discuss the status of the REGIONAL
FACILITY PLAN. The CONTRACTOR (S) will solicit input and comments from the
affected public on the draft final report and consider such input and comments for
incorporation in the final report.
ARTICLE III. SCHEDULE, REPORTS, AND OTHER PRODUCTS
1. The CONTRACTOR (S) has until the DEADLINE FOR CONTRACT EXECUTION to
execute this CONTRACT and to provide acceptable evidence of REQUIRED
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS and the CONTRACTOR (S) ability to provide the LOCAL
SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR for
approval or the BOARD'S SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS will be rescinded.
2. The term of this CONTRACT shall begin and the CONTRACTOR (S) shall begin
performing its obligations hereunder on the CONTRACT INITIATION DATE and shall
expire on the FINAL REPORT DEADLINE. Delivery of an acceptable final report prior to
the FINAL REPORT DEADLINE shall constitute completion of the terms of this
CONTRACT.
3. The CONTRACTOR (S) will complete the Scope of Work and will deliver seven (7)
double-sided copies of a draft final report to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR no later
than the STUDY COMPLETION DATE. The draft final report will include the scope of
work; a description of the research performed addressing, at a minimum, all the
elements listed in Exhibit E, Minimum Report Elements; the methodology and materials
used; any diagrams or graphics used to explain the procedures related to the study; any
data collected; an electronic copy of any computer programs, maps, or models along
with an operations manual and any sample data set(s) developed under the terms of this
contract; analysis of the research results; conclusions and recommendations; a list of
references, a Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables, an Executive Summary,
and any other pertinent information. After a 30-day review period, the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR will return review comments to the CONTRACTOR
4. The CONTRACTOR(S) will consider incorporating comments from the EXECUTIVE
ADMINISTRATOR and other commentors on the draft final report into a final report. The
CONTRACTOR(S) will include a copy of the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR's
comments in the final report. The CONTRACTOR(S) will submit one (1) electronic copy
of the entire FINAL REPORT in Portable Document Format (PDF), one (1) unbound
camera ready original, and nine (9) bound double-sided copies of the final report to the
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR no later than the FINAL REPORT DEADLINE. The
CONTRACTOR(S) will submit one (1) electronic copy of any computer programs or
models and an operations manual developed under the terms of this CONTRACT. After
a 30-day review period, the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR will either accept or reject
the final report. If the final report is rejected, the rejection letter sent to the
CONTRACTOR(S) shall state the reasons for rejection and the steps the
CONTRACTOR(S) need to take to have the final report accepted and the retainage
released.
5. The CONTRACTOR (S) will submit progress reports with submittal of vouchers
according to the VOUCHER SUBMISSION SCHEDULE. Progress reports shall be in
written form and shall include a brief statement of the overall progress made since the
last status report; a brief description of any problems that have been encountered during
the previous reporting period that will affect the study, delay the timely completion of any
portion of this CONTRACT, inhibit the completion of or cause a change in any of the
study's products or objectives; and a description of any action the CONTRACTOR (S)
plans to take to correct any problems that have been encountered.
6. The EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR can extend the COMPLETION DATE and the
FINAL REPORT DEADLINE upon written approval. The CONTRACTOR (S) should
submit a written request to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR at least thirty (30)
working days prior to the COMPLETION DATE or thirty (30) days prior to the FINAL
REPORT DEADLINE for an extension to the respective dates and explanation of why
the deadlines have not been met.
ARTICLE IV. COMPENSATION, REIMBURSEMENT AND REPAYMENT
1. The BOARD agrees to compensate and reimburse the CONTRACTOR (S) in a total
amount not to exceed the BOARD'S SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS for costs
incurred and paid by the CONTRACTOR (S) pursuant to performance of this
CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR (S) will contribute local matching funds in sources
and amounts defined as the LOCAL SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS. The
BOARD shall reimburse the CONTRACTOR (S) for ninety percent (90%) of the
BOARD's share of each invoice pending the CONTRACTOR (S)'s performance,
completion of a Final Report, and written acceptance of said Final Report by the
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR, at which time the BOARD shall pay the retained ten
percent (10%) to the CONTRACTOR (S).
2. The CONTRACTOR (S) shall submit vouchers and documentation for reimbursement
billing according to the VOUCHER SUBMISSION SCHEDULE and in accordance with
the approved task and expense budgets contained in Exhibit C to this CONTRACT. At
the discretion of the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR and upon written memorandum to
the contract file, the CONTRACTOR (S) has budget flexibility within task and expense
budget categories to the extent that the resulting change in amount in anyone task or
expense category does not exceed 35% of the total amount authorized by this
CONTRACT for the task or category to be changed. Larger deviations shall require a
formal contract amendment. For all reimbursement billings including any subcontractor's
expenses, the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR must have provided written approval of
REQUIRED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (S) and contracts or agreements between the
CONTRACTOR (S) and the subcontractor. The CONTRACTOR (S) is fully responsible
for paying all charges by subcontractors prior to reimbursement by the BOARD.
3. The CONTRACTOR (S) and its subcontractors shall maintain satisfactory financial
accounting documents and records, including copies of invoices and receipts, and shall
make them available for examination and audit by the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR.
Accounting by the CONTRACTOR (S) and its subcontractors shall be in a manner
consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.
4. By executing this CONTRACT, the CONTRACTOR accepts the authority of the State
Auditor's Office, under direction of the legislative audit committee, to conduct audits and
investigations in connection with any and all state funds received pursuant to this
CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR shall comply with and cooperate in any such
investigation or audit. The CONTRACTOR also agrees to include a provision in any
subcontract related to this contract that requires the subcontractor to submit to audits
and investigation by the State Auditor's Office in connection with any and all state funds
received pursuant to the subcontract.
5. A progress report and the following documentation which documents the TOTAL STUDY
COSTS for reimbursement by the BOARD to the CONTRACTOR (S) for the BOARD'S
SHARE OF THE TOTAL STUDY COSTS shall be submitted by the CONTRACTOR (S)
to the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR for reimbursement billing:
A. Summary of total expenses incurred including the following information:
(1) Contractor's Vendor Identification Number;
(2) lWDB Contract Number;
(3) Total expenses for the billing period; beginning (date) to ending (date);
(4) Total In-kind services;
(5) Total Services for this period;
(6) Less Local Share of the total study costs for the billing period;
(7) Total BOARD's share of the total study costs for the billing period;
(8) Amount of retainage to be withheld for the billing period;
(9) Total costs to be reimbursed by the BOARD for the billing period; and
(10) Certification, signed by the CONTRACTOR(S) authorized representative,
that the expenses submitted for the billing period are a true and correct
representation of amounts paid for work performed directly related to this
contract.
B. For direct expenses incurred by the CONTRACTOR(S) - documentation
showing the tasks that were performed; the percent and cost of each task
completed; a total cost figure for each direct expense category including labor,
fringe, overhead, travel, communication and postage, technical and computer
services, expendable supplies, printing and reproduction; and
C. For direct expenses incurred by the CONTRACTOR(S) for outside consulting
services -- copies of invoices to the CONTRACTOR(S) showing the tasks that
were performed; the percent and cost of each task completed; a total cost figure
for each direct expense category including labor, fringe, overhead, travel,
communication and postage, technical and computer services, expendable
supplies, printing and reproduction; and the total dollar amount due to the
consultant; and
D. For travel and subsistence expenses, including such expenses for
subcontractors --
(1) names, dates, work locations, time periods at work locations, itemization of
subsistence expenses of each employee, limited, however, to travel
expenses authorized for state employees by the General Appropriations Act,
Tex. Leg. Regular Session, 2001, Article IX, Part 5, as amended or
superseded;
(2) other transportation costs - copies of invoices covering tickets for
transportation or, if not available, names, dates, and points of travel of
individuals; and
(3) all other reimbursable expenses - invoices or purchase vouchers showing
reason for expense with receipts to evidence the amount incurred.
5. If the project is not constructed, CONTRACTOR agrees to pay back to the Board the
specified percentages of the regional planning grant in accordance with the provisions of
Sec.355.1 O(f-i) of the Board rules, Exhibit D, unless the REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN
prepared by the CONTRACTOR determines that a regional project is not feasible and is
not recommended in the REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN report.
ARTICLE V. OWNERSHIP, PUBLICATION, AND SUBCONTRACTING
1. The BOARD shall have unlimited rights to technical or other data resulting directly from
the performance of services under this CONTRACT. It is agreed that all reports, drafts
of reports, or other material, data, drawings, computer programs and codes associated
with this CONTRACT and developed by the CONTRACTOR(S) or its subcontractors
pursuant to this CONTRACT shall become the joint property of the CONTRACTOR(8)
and the BOARD. These materials shall not be copyrighted or patented by the
CONTRACTOR (S) or by any consultants involved in this CONTRACT unless the
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR approves in writing the right to establish copyright or
patent; provided, however, that copyrighting or patenting by the CONTRACTOR (8) or
its subcontractors will in no way limit the BOARD's access to or right to request and
receive or distribute data and information obtained or developed pursuant to this
CONTRACT. Any material subject to a BOARD copyright and produced by the
CONTRACTOR (8) or BOARD pursuant to this CONTRACT may be printed by the
CONTRACTOR (8) or the BOARD at their own cost and distributed by either at their
discretion. The CONTRACTOR (8) may othelWise utilize such material provided under
this CONTRACT as it deems necessary and appropriate, including the right to publish
and distribute the materials or any parts thereof under its own name, provided that any
BOARD copyright is appropriately noted on the printed materials.
2. The CONTRACTOR (8) agrees to acknowledge the BOARD in any news releases or
other publications relating to the work performed under this CONTRACT.
3. No work herein called for by the CONTRACTOR (8) shall be reimbursed for expenses
by the BOARD to the CONTRACTOR (S) without prior written approval by the
EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR of the contract or agreement between the
CONTRACTOR (8) and its subcontractor. Each subcontract or agreement shall include
a detailed budget estimate with specific cost details for each task or specific item of work
to be performed by the subcontractor and for each category of reimbursable expenses.
The subcontracts shall conform to the terms of the Contract and include provisions that
require subcontractor compliance with BOARD rules. The CONTRACTOR (8) must also
adhere to all requirements in state law pertaining to the procurement of professional
services.
ARTICLE VI.
AMENDMENT, TERMINATION, AND STOP ORDERS
1. This CONTRACT may be altered or amended by mutual written consent or terminated
by the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR at any time by written notice to the
CONTRACTOR (S). Upon receipt of such termination notice, the CONTRACTOR (S)
shall, unless the notice directs othelWise, immediately discontinue all work in connection
with the performance of this CONTRACT and shall proceed to cancel promptly all
existing orders insofar as such orders are chargeable to this CONTRACT. The
CONTRACTOR (8) shall submit a statement showing in detail the work performed under
this CONTRACT to the date of termination. The BOARD shall then pay the
CONTRACTOR (S) promptly that proportion of the prescribed fee, which applies to the
work, actually performed under this CONTRACT, less all payments that have been
previously made. Thereupon, copies of all work accomplished under this CONTRACT
shall be delivered to the BOARD.
2. The EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR may issue a Stop Work Order to the
CONTRACTOR (S) at any time. Upon receipt of such order, the CONTRACTOR (S)
shall discontinue all work under this CONTRACT and cancel all orders pursuant to this
CONTRACT, unless the order directs otherwise. If the EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR
does not issue a Restart Order within 60 days after receipt by the CONTRACTOR (S) of
the Stop Work Order, the CONTRACTOR (S) shall regard this CONTRACT terminated
in accordance with the foregoing provisions.
ARTICLE VII. NO DEBT AGAINST THE STATE
1. This CONTRACT and Agreement shall not be construed as creating any debt by or on
behalf of the State of Texas and the BOARD, and all obligations of the State of Texas
are subject to the availability of funds. To the extent the performance of this
CONTRACT transcends the biennium in which this CONTRACT is entered into, this
CONTRACT is specifically contingent upon the continued authority of the BOARD and
appropriations therefor.
ARTICLE VIII.
LICENSES, PERMIT, AND INSURANCE
1. For the purpose of this CONTRACT, the CONTRACTOR (S) will be considered an
independent contractor and therefore solely responsible for liability resulting from
negligent acts or omissions. The CONTRACTOR (S) shall obtain all necessary
insurance, in the judgement of the CONTRACTOR (S), to protect themselves, the
BOARD, and employees and officials of the BOARD from liability arising out of this
CONTRACT. The CONTRACTOR (S) shall indemnify and hold the BOARD and the
State of Texas harmless, to the extent the CONTRACTOR (S) may do so in accordance
with state law, from any and all loses, damages, liability, or claims therefore, on account
of personal injury, death, or property damage of any nature whatsoever caused by the
CONTRACTOR (S), arising out of the activities under this CONTRACT.
2. The CONTRACTOR (S) shall be solely and entirely responsible for procuring all
appropriate licenses and permits, which may be required by any competent authority for
the CONTRACTOR (S) to perform the subject work.
ARTICLE IX. SEVERANCE PROVISION
1. Should anyone or more provisions of this CONTRACT be held to be null, void, voidable,
or for any reason whatsoever, of no force and effect, such provision( s) shall be
construed as severable from the remainder of this CONTRACT and shall not affect the
validity of all other provisions of this CONTRACT which shall remain of full force and
effect.
ARTICLE X. CORRESPONDENCE
All correspondence between the parties shall be made to the following addresses:
For the BOARD:
Mr. William F. Mullican
Deputy Executive Administrator
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13231, Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711-3231
Attention:
Research and Planning Fund
Grants Management Division
For the CONTRACTOR(S):
Mr. Ronald F. Massey
Assistant City Manager
Public Works and Utilities
City of Corpus Christi
P. O. Box 9277
Corpus Christi, TX 78649-9277
EXHIBIT A
ORIGINAL GRANT APPLICATION
EXHIBIT B
SCOPE OF WORK
See Pages B-1 thru B-9 of Exhibit A
EXHIBIT C
TASK BUDGET
Task Description Amount
1 Site Selection $112,000
2 Byproduct Management 88,787
3 Combining Seawater & Brackish Water 75,637
4 Identify & Assess Potential Partnership Arrangements 136,576
5 Identify & Assess Water Transfers 81,000
6 Identify & Assess Power Sources 34,000
7 Identify & Assess Project Funding & Project Development 46,000
Alternatives
8 Develop Life Cycle Cost Model 17,000
9 Draft & Final ReDort 139,000
TOTAL $730,000.00
EXPENSE BUDGET
Category Total Budget Subcontractor
Salaries and Waqes' $58,095
Frinqe< 23,238
Travel 10,000
Subcontractor $500,000 300,000
Other Expenses" 7,000
Overhead' 78,429
Profit 23,238
Total $500,000.00
1 Salaries and Waoes is defined as the cosl of salaries of engineers, draftsmen, stenographers, surveymen, clerks, laborers,
etc., for time directly chargeable to this contract.
2 Frinoe is defined as the cost of social security contributions, unemploymenl, excise, and payroll taxes, employment
compensation insurance. retirement benefits, medical and insurance benefits, sick leave, vacation, and holiday pay applicable
thereto.
'Other Expenses is defined to include expendable supplies, communications, reproduction, postage, and costs of public
meetings directly Chargeable to this CONTRACT.
4 Overhead is defined as the costs incurred in maintaining a place of business and performing professional services similar to
those specified in Ihis conlract. These costs shall include the following:
. Indirect salaries, including that portion of the salary of principals and execulives thaI is allocable 10 general supervision;
. Indirect salary fringe benefits;
. Accounting and legal services related to normal management and business operations;
. Travel costs incurred in the normal course of overall administration of the business;
. Equipment rental;
. Depreciation of furniture, fixtures, equipment, and vehicles;
. Dues, subscriptions, and fees associated with trade, business, technical, and professional organizations;
. Other insurance; Rent and utilities; and Repairs and maintenance of furniture, fixtures, and equipment
Exhibit D
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING
Texas Administrative Code Sections 355.1 - 355.11
These rules are adopted under the authority of Texas Water Code, Sections 6.101 and the
Texas Water Code, Chapter 15, Subchapter F, which require the board to adopt rules
necessary to carry out the powers and duties of the board and of various programs of the
research and planning fund.
~355.1. General. This subchapter shall govern the board's use of the research and planning
fund to provide money for water research, flood control planning and regional facility planning.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective February 11, 1999
~355.2. Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in this subchapter, shall have
the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Words defined in the
applicable provisions of the Texas Water Code, Chapter 15, and not defined here shall have the
meanings provided by such chapter.
(1) Flood protection planning - The process of developing the means of providing protection
from flooding through structural and non-structural measures.
(A) Planning for flood protection includes studies and analyses to:
(i) determine and describe problems resulting from or relating to flooding;
(ii) determine the views and needs of the affected public
relating to flooding problems;
(iii) identify potential solutions;
(iv) estimate benefits and costs of potential solutions, including
structural and non-structural measures;
(v) recommend feasible solutions to flood protection problems; and
(vi) determine that any proposed solutions are consistent with
appropriate regional or statewide plans and relevant laws and regulations.
(8) Planning, as herein defined, does not include those activities directly
related to the preparation of applications for state or federal permits or other
approvals, activities associated with administrative or legal proceedings by
regulatory agencies, nor preparation of engineering plans and specifications.
(2) Regional facility planning for water resources - The process of identifying existing and
potential problems, problem solutions and their relative costs and benefits, and
recommending the most feasible solution(s) for regional water supply or wastewater
facilities, except to the extent that such matters are being or have been studied under
Texas water Code, ~16.053. Planning, as herein defined, does not include those
activities directly related to the preparation of applications for state or federal permits or
other approvals, activities associated with administrative or legal proceedings by
regulatory agencies, nor preparation of engineering plans and specifications.
(3) Research - Scientific activities that are undertaken to address practical problems rather
than to expand the frontiers of knowledge. Research can include development, which
refers to activities undertaken to solve the technical problems involved in bringing a new
product or process into production. Research may include regional water quality
assessments performed by river authorities pursuant to the provisions of the Texas
Water Code, ~26.0135 and ~26.178.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective February 11, 1999
~355.3. Legal and Fiscal Information. As funds become available, and needs are identified,
the executive administrator will publish notice in the Texas Register requesting applications from
eligible applicants for grants in one or more of the three categories. Applicants shall submit
application(s) in the form and in the manner prescribed by the executive administrator. The
executive administrator may request additional information needed to evaluate the application,
and may return any incomplete applications. Applicants may also submit and the executive
administrator may also consider applications at any time, depending on availability of funds and
demonstrated need.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective February 11, 1999
~355.4. Eligibility. Any person may apply for research grants, but only political subdivisions
may apply for flood control and regional facility planning grants. Funding of projects shall be at
the discretion of the board from funds in the research and planning fund.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective February 11, 1999
~355.5. Criteria. Applications will be evaluated by the executive administrator, considering, at
a minimum, the following criteria.
(1) Research project evaluation criteria for unsolicited applications:
(A) relationship of project to current needs for water resource research;
(B) description of the proposed research project;
(C) approach to organizing and managing the research project;
(0) detailed estimate of the cost of the proposed research project;
(E) estimated time required to complete the research project;
(F) ability to perform the research and complete the project;
(G) potential economic impact; and
(H) environmental enhancement and conservation impact.
(2) Research project evaluation criteria for solicited applications:
(A) description of the proposed research project;
(B) responsiveness of the application to the request for proposals for
requests for qualifications;
(C) approach to organizing and managing the research project;
(0) detailed estimate of the cost of the proposed research project;
(E) estimated time required to complete the research project; and
(F) ability to perform the research and complete the project.
(3) Flood control planning project criteria:
(A) degree to which proposed planning duplicates previous or ongoing flood plans;
(B) project service area is regional versus local;
(C) history of flooding in project area;
(0) participation in National Flood Insurance Program;
(E) project organization and budget; and
(F) scope and potential benefits of project.
(4) Regional facility planning project criteria:
(A) degree to which proposed planning duplicates previous or ongoing plans;
(B) regional nature of project;
(C) conformance to certified water quality management plans;
(0) adequacy of water conservation plan and commitment to water conservation;
(E) project organization and budget;
(F) scope and potential benefits of project;
(G) the degree to which the regional facility planning is consistent with an
approved regional water plan for the area in which the political subdivision is
located; and
(H) ability of a recipient of funds to repay the assistance if a project is not
constructed according to g355.1 O(f) of this title (relating to Funding Limitations).
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective September 11, 2002
~355.6. Board Consideration of Projects. The executive administrator will submit
recommended projects to the board, to be scheduled on the agenda for board consideration at
the earliest practical date. The applicant and other interested parties known to the board shall
be notified of the time and place of such meeting.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
~355. 7. Action of the Board on Projects. At the conclusion of the meeting to consider the
project, the board may resolve to approve, disapprove, amend, or continue consideration of the
application. Approval action shall include specification of a commitment period during which
applicant must enter into a contract, and demonstrate matching funds availability, after which
time the commitment shall expire, unless a time extension is granted by the board.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
~355.8. Notice Requirements. For flood protection and regional facility planning projects,
applicants must notify all cities, counties, non-profit water supply corporations, regional planning
agencies, regional water planning groups and all districts and authorities created under the
Texas Constitution, Article III, Chapter 52, or Article XVI, Chapter 59, in the planning area by
certified mail that an application for planning assistance is being filed with the board. The notice
shall include the name and address of the applicant and the name of the applicant's manager or
official representative; and brief description of the planning area; the purposes of the planning
project; the board's name, address, and the name of a contact person with the board; a
statement that any comments must be filed with the executive administrator and the applicant
within 30 days of the date on which the notice is mailed. Prior to action by the board, the
applicant must provide one copy of the notice sent to affected political subdivisions, a list of the
political subdivisions to which notice was sent, and the date on which the notice was sent. The
board may not act on such application before the end of the 3()"day notice period unless all
political subdivisions to which notice is required to be sent agree in writing to waive the notice
period.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective February 11, 1999
S355.9. Contracts. The board may authorize the executive administrator or his designee to
enter into contracts with persons or political subdivisions, within available funds. Such contracts
shall include:
(1) a detailed statement of the purpose for which the money is to be used;
(2) the total amount of money to be paid from the research and planning fund under the
contract;
(3) the time for completion; and
(4) any other terms and conditions required by the executive administrator or agreed to by
the contracting parties.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective February 11, 1999
~355.10. Funding Limitations.
(a) Grants for regional facility planning and flood control planning shall be limited to 50% of
the total cost of the project, except that the board may supply up to 75% of the total cost
to political subdivisions which have unemployment rates exceeding the state average by
50% or more, and which have per capita income which is 65% or less of the state
average for the last reporting period available.
(b) In-kind services may be substituted for any part of the local share, if such services are
directly in support of the planning effort, are properly documented, and approved in
advance by the board.
(c) Up to 100% of the cost of research projects may be provided by the board.
(d) Funds will be released only as reimbursement of costs actually incurred for approved
activities.
(e) Grants in excess of 75% for regional facility planning or flood control planning will be
provided if authorized by specific legislation or legislative appropriation language.
(f) The board may condition grants for regional facility planning to require that the recipients
agree in the contract for assistance, and by the execution of any other documents
necessary to secure such agreement, to pay back to the board the following specified
percentages of the grant if construction on a project described by the regional facility
planning grant is not begun within the following specified times:
(1) if construction is not begun within six years of the time the executive
administrator notifies the grant recipient that the agency has closed the account
for the grant, the recipient shall repay to the board 25% of the amount of the
grant;
(2) if construction is not begun within seven years of the time the executive
administrator notifies the grant recipient that the agency has closed the account
for the grant, the recipient shall repay to the board an additional 25% of the
amount of the grant;
(3) if construction is not begun within eight years of the time the executive
administrator notifies the grant recipient that the agency has closed the account
for the grant, the recipient shall repay to the board an additional 25% of the
amount of the grant; and
(4) if construction is not begun within nine years of the time the executive
administrator notifies the grant recipient that the agency has closed the account
for the grant, the recipient shall repay to the board an additional 25% of the
amount of the grant.
(g) Repayment under subsection (f) of this section shall occur no later than within the
entity's first fiscal year following the date on which each repayment obligation is
triggered.
(h) For the purposes of subsection (f) of this section, construction will be considered to have
begun when:
(1) an entity closes a debt issuance that will fund a project that the executive
administrator verifies is substantially the same as the project recommended in
the regional facility planning grant report; or
(2) the effective date of a contract for the construction of a project the executive
administrator verifies is substantially the same as the project recommended in
the regional facility planning grant report, if the project costs are not funded by a
debt issuance.
(i) If the regional plan determines that a regional project is not feasible, repayment will not
be required under the provisions of subsection (f) of this section.
Adopted effective October 11, 1991
Amended effective September 11, 2002
Exhibit E
Minimum Report Elements
I. Executive Summary
II. Customer Base Determination
a. Alternative service areas
b. Recommended service area
c. Description of need for the project
d. Anticipated customer support
e. Water trade-offs opportunities and recommendations
III. In-take Facilities
a. Alternatives considered
b. Analysis
c. Recommendation
IV. Pre-treatment Facilities
a. Alternatives considered
b. Analysis
c. Recommendation
V. Treatment Facilities
a. Alternatives considered
b. Analysis
c. Recommendation
VI. Concentrate management
a. Alternatives considered
b. Analysis
c. Recommendation
VII. Transmission
a. Alternatives considered
b. Analysis
c. Recommendation
VIII. Permitting Requirements
IX. Project Financing and Implementation
a. Alternative project delivery methods considered
b. Analysis
c. Recommendation
d. Project financing alternatives/requirements
e. Project time line
X. Other Recommendations
18
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: October 14. 2003
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 1 to
an engineering services contract with Turner Collie & Braden, Inc., of Houston, Texas in
an amount not to exceed $500,000 for a regional water facility plan, including a large-
scale desalination demonstration project (Barney Davis Demonstration Desalination
Plant) (Project No. 8463)
FUNDING: Funding is available from the Water Grant Fund previously appropriated.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the motion as presented.
ft>(L-
~ ~/ (p/iJrb
'Angel R. Escobar, P.E. Date
Director, Engineering Services
Attacl:lrl1ents:
Exhjblt A: BackgrouDd Information
Exhibit B: Contract ~ummary
Exhibit C: Location Map
H:IHOME\KEVINS\GENIWA TERIDESALlNA\BameyDavis\2003\AgendaMemo.doc
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Barney Davis Demonstration Desalination Plant (Project No. 8463)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The City was one of three entities to be funded through the Governor's desalination
initiative. The Texas Water Development Board completed the necessary actions to
award the grant. The City must accept the grant prior to November 1, 2003. The
agenda items necessary to complete the acceptance and appropriate the grant
proceeds was presented earlier at this Council meeting.
CONSULTANT SELECTION:
Turner Collie Braden (TCB) was instrumental in providing the necessary assistance to
secure the grant. They are the most familiar with the tasks necessary to proceed with
the project. Local sub-consultants include RVE Engineering, LNV, BHP, and Olivarri
Associates.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project tasks include finalization of site selection, environmental and economic
feasibility, raw water supply and cost impacts, evaluation of alternative power sources,
environmental and permitting requirements, project funding and delivery methods. A
contract summary is attached providing a more complete description. See Exhibit B.
FUNDS:
The TWDB is providing a grant in the amount of $500,000. The local match will be met
by work associated with the Padre Island Desalination project. Some of the work
associated with the Padre Island project can be directly applied toward this project.
H:\HOMEIKEVINSIGENIWATERIDESALlNAIBarneyDavis\2003\AgendaBkgExhA.doc
CONTRACT SUMMARY
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Amendment NO.2 - The Consultant's services will include basic research, documentation and technical
support necessary to ensure the Regional Facility Plan and desalination demonstration project are feasible
on an economic, environmental, financial, and technical basis. The objectives of the Large Scale
Desalination Demonstration Project Feasibility Study are to:
. Select a site for the location of the desalination facility
. Develop the desalination concept design in sufficient detail to determine project environmental
and economic feasibility.
. Identify and evaluate issues concerning the impacts of the alternative sources of raw water on
process design and cost.
. Estimate the quantity and quality of process residuals such as pretreatment residuals and the
reverse osmosis byproduct streams and recommend alternative residuals and byproduct
management options
. Identify and evaluate alternative power sources.
. Develop facility plot plans to feed into evaluation of alternative sites.
. Determine environmental constraints and permitting requirements
. Identify research opportunities for collaborative research to enhance the project.
. Evaluate project funding and delivery methods.
Section II. Scope of Services is amended by additional of Section E. Phase III to read:
E. Phase III. - the Consultant will meet with City staff as needed and complete the following tasks:
Task 1 Site Selection: The Consultant will define siting requirements and limitations
The Consultant will evaluate the Barney Davis site including the desire of AEP to sell the property
along with several other power plant sites in Texas. The evaluation will include an analysis of the
uncertainty of site ownership and the encumbrances that a potential desalination facility would
pose to potential buyers. The feasibility study will include an evaluation of the Barney Davis site
and up to two additional sites in the Corpus Christi area for a potential desalination plant location.
The evaluation will include the following sub-tasks:
a. Site criteria and requirements. The Consultant will define source water requirements, a
generic facilities layout and an overall site area requirements for:
. primary treatment process facilities;
. residuals processing, support facilities;
. buffer zones;
. proximity to suitable source waters;
. end users; and
. byproduct water management options.
The Consultant will include pre-treatment requirements in the determination of the site
requirements. The Consultant will include a determination of the availability of ambient
temperature or warm (cooling water) raw water sources in the definition of site requirements.
b. Identification of potential sites meeting the site requirements criteria identified in sub-task A.
The Consultant and City staff liaison will select up to three sites for further evaluation based
on preliminary screening of the. Potential sites may include the Barney Davis site, raw land,
co-siting with existing industrial users of desalted water, and co-siting with synergistic industry,
utility, environmental, research, or other joint uses.
C. Determination of site-specific environmental issues. The Consultant will:
. determine site specific environmental issues that may affect the overall feasibility of each
site;
Exhibit B
Page 1 of 5
H:\HOME\KEVINS\GEN\W A TER\DESALINA\8ameyDavis\2003\AgendaContractSumExhB.doc
. discuss environmental issues with the appropriate entities to identify the issues that must
be addressed prior to beginning the implementation of a desalination
facility;
. identify potential "fatal flaw" environmental issues that may prevent project
implementation at one or more of the sites.
d. Evaluation of potential for joint research and other uses. The Consultant will evaluate the
proposed desalination facility sites in terms of joint research, uses, and evaluate the possible
environmental and cost impacts that multiple users of the desalination site might have on the
project.
e. The Consultant will develop cost information for development of each of the evaluated sites.
f. The Consultant will develop a primary site recommendation and up to two alternate sites. All
sites identified as potentially acceptable in this task will be carried forward in the evaluation.
Task 2: By Product Handling: Selection of Primary Treatment and Concentrate Disposal Processes -
The Consultant will:
Evaluate raw water sources for each site to determine the impact on the process selection and on the
process residual and byproduct streams. The evaluation of source waters will include variability in
terms of dissolved solids, salinity, temperature, and turbidity. Sources to be evaluated include
seawater, groundwater, and water from the Laguna Madre.
Select pretreatment processes and treatment processes for each site for a detailed evaluation.
Source waters that may be evaluated in detail include seawater from the Gulf of Mexico, Nueces Bay
and Laguna Madre; bank filtered seawater through an existing or constructed bank filtration system;
and a blend of seawater with brackish groundwater.
Evaluate the residual solids and byproduct water from pretreatment and treatment processes on the
basis of environmentally impacts and acceptability.
Develop a cost estimate for pretreatment residual processing and include the cost for use in cost
modeling. It is anticipated that this will not include exhaustive studies evaluating alternative
pretreatment residuals processing.
Evaluate potential byproduct management options for each site including::
. Direct discharge to the Gulf, Laguna Madre, or Nueces Bay
. Deep well injection
. Discharge to POTW
. Evaporative lagoons
. Mechanical evaporators with or without crystallizers.
The Consultant will complete the following sub-tasks are proposed.
. Determine baseline and design raw water conditions at each of the sites under consideration.
. Select and recommend appropriate pretreatment and desalination processes for each of the site
and estimate the quantity and quality of the process residual streams. Research partners that will
be contacted in this analysis and selection process include the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Texas A&M University Corpus Christi, and the University of Texas Marine Science Institute at Port
Aransas.
. Identify site-specific management options and develop cost and environmental issues that need to
be addressed for each option at each site.
. Contact local, regional, state, and federal stakeholders and discuss the proposed process residual
management options. Based on these discussions and knowledge of the area, itemize issues that
must be addressed for project implementation and discuss mitigation requirements and options
with stakeholders.
. Assess the environmental feasibility of the treatment and process residuals flow stream
alternatives for each site.
Exhibit B
Page 2 of 5
H:IHOMEIKEVINSIGENIW A TERIDESALlNAIBameyDavis\2003\AgendaContractSumExhB.doc
. Describe the likely impacts on use of this source on other water resources including other
management strategies.
. Develop a cost database for the capital, operations and maintenance costs for the recommended
processes at each site.
The information from the USBOR and the universities, as well as the information developed in the City of
Corpus Christi's study of brackish groundwater desalination on Padre Island will be used as baseline work
and evaluated prior to any further work being done. The additional work that is done in this scope of
services will build upon and further refine the initial work in these studies as appropriate.
Task 3 Seawater/Brackish Groundwater Blending - The Consultant will:
Evaluate the impacts of blending of seawater with brackish water as either a raw water source or as a
dilution technique for the disposal of process residual streams as means to significantly reduce project life
cycle costs and lessen potential environmental impacts. The evaluation will include an analysis of the
reduction of raw water total dissolved solids and the potential to enhance the desalination recovery at
reduced operating pressures. The evaluation will include an analysis of the reduction in the size of the
pretreatment process and capital cost versus pretreatment of seawater surface water alone. Specific
sub-task will include:
. Identify the availability of groundwater in terms of both quantity and quality in the vicinity of each of
the sites under consideration.
. Assess the impacts of blending available groundwater with the seawater sources in terms of
quality and treatability.
. Identify the costs of developing available groundwater sources, including delivery to the treatment
plant or residual processing sites.
. Identify the cost implications on blending available water sources on the primary and residual
treatment processes.
Task 4: Identification and Assessment of Project Partnerships - The Consultant will:
Identify stakeholders and partnering opportunities. The identification will include an evaluation of project
perception, assist in project acceptance, and potentially reduce overall project costs. The following sub-
tasks are identified: '
. Identify project stakeholders that may be interested in project partnerships. Contact these
stakeholders to determine their concerns that could be addressed through cooperative efforts or
research programs.
. Identify research projects that could enhance the overall demonstration project.
. Identify potential research partners from the water treatment industry, academia, and government
agencies. Contact each of the identified entities to determine levels of interest in partnering on the
project.
. Develop partnering scope documents with interested entities and obtain letters of interest in
project partnering opportunities.
Task 5: Water Transfers - Identification and Assessment of Potential Customers - The Consultant will:
. Contact large users of water in the Coastal, Lower Rio Grande Valley, South Central and Lower
Colorado Planning regions to discuss the potential use of water produced or otherwise made
available from the Large Scale Desalination Demonstration Project. Discussions will include the
determination of the conditions and costs under which these entities may be interested in
obtaining available water. These potential customers may include the City of Laredo, the San
Antonio Water System, the Lower Colorado' River Authority, the Canyon Regional Water Authority,
Aqua Water Supply Corporation, the City of San Marcos, and possibly other smaller interests in
Hays and Williamson Counties.
. Contact major industrial users of water that further treat the water supply using desalination
techniques to determine the level of interest and the conditions under which they would be willing
to use water from the Large Scale Demonstration Desalination facility.
. Develop a water transport cost model to assist in determining the cost of transporting or diverting
water to potential customer. The cost model will include both the additional cost to build the
Exhibit B
Page 3 of 5
H:\HQME\KEVINS\GEN\W A TER\DESALI NA\8ameyDavis\2003IAgendaContractSumExhB.doc
conveyance infrastructure but also identify potential cost savings associated with reduced
operating costs of transporting water to Corpus Christi if applicable under certain scenarios. Costs
of water will be expressed in cost per 1000 gallons of water produced by the plant, and costs per
1000 gallons for delivery to the intended destination.
. Address potential benefits to upstream water users resulting from desalination in the Corpus
Christi area. This would be a qualitative assessment that would list advantages and
disadvantages to upstream water users in those basins from which Corpus Christi has firm yield
rights, namely the Nueces and Colorado basins.
. Develop draft agreements that would reflect the condition and structure that would be required to
implement transfer to interested entities.
Task 6: Identify and Assess Power Sources - The Consultant will:
. Determine the base power load and range of power requirements anticipated for the planning
horizon of the desalination facility.
. Continue discussions with the Owners of the Barney Davis Power Plant concerning their
continued operations, co-locating a desalination facility on their site, or alternatively, discussing
the sale of the site and their existing intake and discharge permits for use by the desalination
facility.
. Identify other potential site uses and contact potential co-purchasers or users of the site, if sale of
the Barney Davis site is potentially viabie,.
. Identify other power plant locations that may be suitable for co-location of a desalination facility
and initiate discussions concerning the long-term joint use of the site and site amenities.
. Evaluate the construction of a new power supply source that will serve the desalination facility.
. Determination the location, availability and cost of a second, or standby power source in the event
of a failure of the primary power source.
. Perform a desktop study of the applicability of alternative power sources such as wind-generated
power along the southeast Texas coastline.,
. Based on the investigations and evaluations, determine the likely power cost structure that will be
available to the desalination facility. This cost structure will be used in the cost model to
determine the operating and life cycle costs of the desalination facility.
Task 7: Assessment of Project Funding and Development Alternatives - The Consultant will:
Identify the existing (conventional) water system funding techniques applicable to the State of Texas,
review project funding and development programs used in other areas, and potentially consider new
paradigms for project funding and implementation in the water industry, after all the technical and
environmental feasibility analyses are completed. The following sub-tasks will be completed by the
Consultant:
. Define multiple project funding and delivery options. Although additional and specific alternatives
will be developed under this task, the following areas will be developed as a minimum:
o Conventional engineering design - contractor bid and construction
o Design - Build - Operate
o Private Funding
o Creation of a separate Private Water Authority
o Partnerships with Private and Public Research and Development entities
o Public Funding Support
. Provide a discussion of the advantages and, disadvantages to the identified funding and project
development options and identify regulatory actions or contractual requirements that will need to
be in place to implement the identified procurement or project development structures.
. Identify project cost impacts that will result as a condition or implementation of the above
procurement and project development concepts. The cost model identified in Task 8 will
incorporate the recommended funding and development option..
. Seek potential construction management partners and develop the technical portions of draft
agreements for developing and managing a desalination facility.
. Explore ability of existing authorities to perform all or portions of a design build process.
Task 8. Life Cycle Cost Model including funding shortfalls and the need for supplemental funding. The
Exhibit B
Page 4 of 5
H:\HOMEIKEVINSIGENIW A TERIOESALlNAIBarneyDavisl2003\AgendaContractSumExhB.doc
Consultant will:
. Assemble costs of the various optional treatment and management processes
. Determine current cost of funds through public and private sources.
. Assemble cost indexes of estimated prices of natural gas and other items that impact the
operational cost of the facilities.
. Work with City staff to determine the life cycle cost of current facilities and treatment processes,
as well as raw water conveyance systems.
. Develop life cycle costs for each source of water to the Corpus Christi system
. Develop life cycle costs for the alternative desalination facilities proposed, and at each of the
potential locations. It is anticipated that no more than three sites will be evaluated, and no more
than two options per site will be included in the economic model.
o Perform sensitivity analyses with the model to determine the relative sensitivity of the various
factors affecting the facility, such as raw water salinity, raw water turbidity, cost of natural gas
and/or electrical power depending upon the option chosen. This analysis will also include the
potential revenue streams from contract sales of City water
. Develop curves showing the comparison of current city sources versus the various desalination
facility alternatives and determine the amount of additional support needed to make the
desalination facilities revenue neutral to the City.
. Provide economic model for City review and use.
Task 9. Draft and Final Report - The Consultant will:
. Assemble the results of each of the investigations noted above into a draft report.
. Provide one unbound original report copy and 5 bound copies of the draft report for TWDB review.
. Conduct public meeting at 90 percent completion stage to present results of the study and receive
comments from the general public.
o Respond to comments from the general public, City staff, and the Texas Water Development
Board. Make changes to the draft report as appropriate and provide explanations where
requested changes are not made.
. Include copies of requested changes, comments, and all responses in the appendix to the report.
. Produce 10 copies of the final report for the City plus one CD containing all digital files for the City,
plus one camera ready original and one unbound original, 9 bound originals, and a CD with all
digital files for the Texas Water Development Board.
Summ
arv of Fees:
Task I DescriDtion Fee
II.A I Phase 1 - Proiect Structure / Lenislative Needs $45,000
Phase 2
II.B.1 Identification & Meetinas with GCOs $39,000
II.B.2 Identification of Customers and Market $33,000
II.B.3 Costs Uodate and Financial Analvses $41,000
II.BA Fundina Reauest for TWDB - $31,000
II.B.5 Construction, Manaaement, & ODeration Alternatives $38,000
-- Phase 2 Subtotal $182,000
Orlnlnal Contract $227,000
Amendment No.1 --
1I.E.1 Site Selection $112,000
1I.E.2 Bv Product Handling $46,000
II.E.3 Seawater/Brackish Groundwater Blendinn $52,000
II.EA Identification/Assessment of Proiect PartnershiDs $83,000
II.E.5 Water Transfers $81,000
11.E.6 Identify and Assess Power Sources $34,000
1I.E.7 Assessment/Proiect Fundinn Develonment Alternatives $46,000
11.E.8 Life Cvcle Cost Model $17,000
II.E.9 Draft and Final Reoort $29,000
Amendment 2 Subtotal $500.000
Total $727,000
H:\HOME\KEVINS\GEN\W A TER\DESALlNA\BameyDavis\2003lft.gendaContractSumExhB.doc
Exhibit B
Page 5 of 5
\ Mproject \ councilexhibits \ exh846J. dwg
SAN PATRICia COUNTY
~
N
NUECES BAY
i
~
~
AGh(S
F a _ ~
S! ~ INWIIAW"AL ~
CORPUS CHRISTI BAY
~
~
.
Nueces County
I
.
.
~
~
~
......
PROJECT LOCA nON
LOCATION MAP
NTS
PROJECT # 8463
EXHIBIT "C"
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT ~
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES ~
PAGE: 1 of 1 _ _
- -
- -
DATE: 02/11/200J _ _ -
BARNEY DAVIS DEMONSTRATION
DESALINATION PLANT PROJECT
19
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA MEMORANDUM
City Council Action Date: October 28. 2003
AGENDA ITEM:
Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an engineering
services contract with Freese and Nichols, Inc., of Fort Worth, Texas in an amount not
to exceed $116,100 for Garwood Water Supply Pipeline Routing Plan, Phase 1
services. (Project No. 8424)
FUNDING: Funding is available from the Water CIP Fund (Commercial Paper).
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A provalofth motion as presented.
el R. Escobar, P.E.
irector, Engineering Services
3
Eduarao Garafia,
Director, Water Se ces
f
A~clJments:
Exhibit A: BackQrouDd Information
ExhlDlt B: Contract summary
Exhibit C: Location Map
H:\HOMEIKEVINSIGENIWA TERIGarwoodlAgendaMemo.doc
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SUBJECT: Garwood Water Supply Pipeline Routing (Project No. 8424)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
A pipeline is necessary to deliver water purchased from the Garwood Irrigation
Company to Corpus Christi. The development of a routing plan involves a number of
complex tasks prior to the design and construction of the pipeline. Phase 1 services
provides for the Consultant to proceed with a screening study of delivery options. This
will allow the City to evaluate various delivery options prior to proceeding with a detailed
study.
GARWOOD WATER RIGHTS:
In September 1992, the City of Corpus Christi entered into an option agreement for the
purchase of up to 35,000 acre-feeUyear from the Garwood Irrigation Company. The
Garwood Irrigation Company (Garwood) held the most significant senior water right in
the Lower Colorado River Basin, with a priority date of November 1, 1900.
This water right authorized the diversion of 168,000 acre-feeUyear from the Colorado
River at a maximum rate of 750 cfs, or 1,488 acre-feet per day. Most of Garwood's
service area lies outside the Colorado River Basin, and currently uses a large part of its
right for irrigation of land that is located in the Lavaca-Navidad River Basin. In 1993, the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) authorized an
amendment to Garwood's water right that allows for the use of 35,000 acre-feet of its
right to be used for municipal and industrial purposes.
On October 7, 1998, the TNRCC approved the City of Corpus Christi's purchase of the
35,000 acre-feeUyear from the Garwood Irrigation Company, herein referred to as the
Garwood Purchase. The amendment of the certificate of adjudication authorizes the
City of Corpus Christi to divert 35,000 acre-feeUyear from the Colorado River for
irrigation, municipal and industrial purpose at a rate not to exceed 150 cfs. The
certificate also subordinates the 35,000 acre-feeUyear to the remaining portion of the
original Garwood Irrigation water right by giving it a priority date of November 2, 1900.
CONSULTANT SELECTION:
The City solicited a request for proposals for the Garwood Routing Plan. Eight firms
responded and submitted proposals. Three firms were short listed and interviewed.
The firm of Freese and Nichols, Inc. was deemed to offer the best approach and was
deemed most qualified to perform the required services. The responding firms were:
H:IHOMEIKEVINSIGENIWA TERIGalWoodlAgendaBkgExhA.doc
. Black & Veatch Corporation - Short Listed
. Freese & Nichols - Short Listed
. HDR Engineering - Short Listed
. Brown & Root Services
. Carter & Burgess
. Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
. Smith, Russo & Mercer
. Turner, Collie, Braden, Inc.
CONTRACT DESCRIPTION:
The development of the pipeline involves a large number of complex variables. The
contract was developed utilizing a phased approach reflecting major decision points.
Major variables include alternative delivery options, routing, potential partnerships,
environmental issues, and permitting. This allows the City and Consultant to have a
better definition of the scope of services and associated fee requirements for each
phase. The major phases are:
. Phase 1 - Screening Study of Delivery Options
. Phase 2 - Detailed Study of Delivery Options
. Phase 3 - Pipeline Route Study
. Phase 4 - Pipeline Surveying, Easement Acquisition, and Permitting
. Phase 5 - Pipeline Topographic Survey and Preliminary Design
. Phase 6 - Final Design Phase
. Phase 7 - Bid, Award, and Construction
A contract summary is attached. See Exhibit B.
H:IHOME\KEVINS\GEN\WA TERIGarwoodlAgendaBkgExhA.doc
Exhibit B
Contract Summary
Phase 1 . Screening Study of Delivery Options: The objective of this phase is to study up to seven
options, and choose the preferred two or three options for more detailed study. Phase 1 includes brief
studies of alternate delivery concepts, including the following:
1) Alternate Pump Station Intake locations along the Colorado River or in existing irrigation canals
2) Alternate Delivery Method of Operations. Method of Operations may include peak pumping from
the Colorado River, the use of off-channel storage, or other concepts.
3) Alternate Partnership Scenarios, such as a combined system where Corpus Christi and other
water providers form a partnership or a system wholly owned by Corpus Christi.
Task 1: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will gather and review previous studies from Corpus Christi,
Lavaca-Navidad River Authority (LNRA), and others. CONSULTANT ENGINEER will gather existing
aerial mapping and topographic mapping.
Task 2: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will attend a kick-off meeting to discuss the project and begin
the studies. CONSULTANT ENGINEER will prepare five or more delivery options for discussion at
the meeting. The Consultant Engineer will evaluate the following delivery options:
1) Delivery of water at a peak diversion rate directly from the Colorado River to the Mary Rhodes
Pipeline. The peak diversion rate may require a larger diameter pipeline than other options.
2) Delivery of water at a uniform annual rate to the Mary Rhodes Pipeline utilizing an off-channel
storage facility near the Colorado River Diversion Site and a high capacity intake pump station on
the Colorado River. The uniform annual rate may allow a smaller diameter pipeline between the
off-channel storage facility and the connection to the Mary Rhodes Pipeline.
3) Delivery of water at a uniform annual rate from the Colorado River to the connection at the Mary
Rhodes Pipeline. This concept would require peaking out of Lake Corpus Christi and/or Lake
Texana.
4) Delivery of water at a uniform annual rate and store the water in Lake Texana. This option may
require a revision to the Corpus Christi Garwood Water Rights and coordination with US. Bureau
of Reclamation and other agencies.
5) Create a partnership with LCRA or other water providers and, construct a system to serve Corpus
Christi, LCRA and/or others.
6) Up two additional delivery options as may be determined.
Task 3: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will provide a brief evaluation of the delivery options to select
the two or three preferred options. The selection criteria and relative importance of each criterion will
be determined in conjunction with the City of Corpus Christi. The selection criteria may include the
following:
1) Requirements for facilities: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will determine the capacity and location
of pump stations, off-channel storage, and pipelines for each option. The capacity of the facilities
will be based on the "Reservoir Operating Plan Update and Flood Release Model Study," as
prepared by HDR Engineering, or other studies as Corpus Christi so chooses.
2) Estimated Construction Cost: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will provide our opinion of probable
construction cost for each option.
3) Land Cost: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will provide our opinion of probable land cost for each
option based on a brief review of data from the tax appraisal district in the area.
4) Environmental Conflicts: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will provide a brief investigation of the
relative differences in environmental conflicts for the proposed facilities associated with each
option.
5) Ease of Permitting: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will provide our opinion of the relative differences
in the difficulty of obtaining permits for each option.
6) Flexibility: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will evaluate the flexibility of each option to be adaptable
into a combined system with multiple partners.
Task 4: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will prepare a draft report summarizing the results of Phase 1.
The report will include recommendations for the two or three preferred delivery options.
CONSULTANT ENGINEER will provide ten copies of the draft report to the City.
Task 5: After review by Corpus Christi, CONSULTANT ENGINEER will meet with Corpus Christi to
receive comments on the draft report. CONSULTANT ENGINEER will then address the comments
and issue twenty copies of the second draft of the report to the City.
Task 6: CONSULTANT ENGINEER will present the report in a meeting with the City Council.
CONSULTANT ENGINEER will revise the report as appropriate and issue twenty copies to the City.
Phase 2 - Detailed Study of Delivery Options
Phase 2 will include a more detailed evaluation of the preferred options from Phase 1. The
objective of Phase 2 is to determine the following:
1) Location of the intake pump station
2) Capacity of the delivery system
3) Feasibility of off-channel storage in the project
4) Potential of including other partners on the project
Phase 3 - Pipeline Route Study
Phase 3 includes a detailed evaluation to select a final route to begin surveying and easement
acquisition. Phase 3 will include an evaluation of two or more alternate pipeline routes. One
alternate route will be recommended for approval. Phase 3 will also include updates on the
project construction cost and permit requirements.
Phase 4 - Pipeline Surveying, Easement Acquisition, and Permitting
Phase 4 will include property surveys of the chosen route, preparation of easement documents,
easement acquisition, environmental studies to support permit applications, environmental permit
applications, and acquisition of environmental permits.
Phase 5 - Pipeline Topographic Survey and Preliminary Design
Phase 5 includes topographic surveys of the pipeline route and off-channel storage site (if any).
Phase 5 also includes preliminary design of the facilities and preparation of the preliminary design
report. Phase 6 will proceed after approval of the preliminary design report.
Phase 6 - Final Design Phase
Phase 6 will include final design and preparation of the bidding documents for the construction
phase
Phase 7 - Bid, Award, and Construction
Phase 7 will include bidding, award of bids, construction, testing, and startup of the facilities.
Proposed Project Schedule:
DAY DATE ACTIVITY
Tuesday October 28, 2003 Notice to Proceed
Friday March 26, 2004 Delivery of Phase 1 Draft Report
Friday April 30, 2004 Delivery of Final Report
Summarv of Fees:
Description Fee
IA1 Screenina Studv of Deliverv Oations $116,100.00
1.A.2 Detailed Studv of Delivery Options TBN
I.A.3 Pipeline Route Studv TBN
I.A.4 Pipeline Survevino, Easement Aceuisition,' and Permittino TBN
IA5 Pioeline Topoeraphic Survey and Preliminarv Desien TBN
1.A.6 Final Desion Phase TBN
I.A.7 Bid, Award, and Construction TBN
Total $116,100.00
Mpro ject \ councilexhibits \ exhB424. dw
~
N
..ON'
GULF OF MEXICO
CIP PROJECT No. 8424
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT "e"
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. TEXAS
PAGE: 1 of 1
DATE: 10/28/2003
~
--
- -
~-~
GARWOOD WATER SUPPLY PIPELINE
ROUTING PLAN, PHASE 1 SERVICES
CITY COUNCIL EXHIBIT
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING SERVICES