03-28-16 Regular Meeting of La Porte City Council

Browse Search

REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Appropriation Agenda Date Requested: March 28, 2016 Source of Funds: ______N/A___________ Requested By: Tim Tietjens Account Number: ______N/A__________ Department: Planning Amount Budgeted: _____N/A___________ Report: ___Resolution: _X_Ordinance: ___ Amount Requested: ____N/A__________ Budgeted Item: YES NO Exhibits: Resolution GCCPRD Slide SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION After Hurricane Ike, the SSPEED Center (Severe Storm Prediction, Education and Evacuation from Disasters), studied and proposed two structural alternatives in 2011, known as “Centennial Gate,” to protect certain areas from storm surge. Several Bay Area communities united to take the position that such a concept would not only fail to protect our communities, but would exacerbate flooding and storm surge damage. Several Bay Area communities followed La Porte’s lead by utilizing language from our resolution. Since that time, the Gulf Coast Community Protection and Recovery District was formed to analyze different options with the intent of better protecting our communities and the major petrochemical complexes surrounding the Houston Ship Channel and Galveston Bay that are critical for supplying fuel and power to much of the nation. The three stage planning process to provide a plan for funding and implementation is currently winding up phase two, wherein alternatives have been generated for discussion and consideration. The two major alternatives generated for Galveston Bay region are 1) the creation of a coastal spine which would protect the entirety of Galveston Bay (formerly known as the Ike Dike, now known as CR#1), and 2) the creation of an extension to the Texas City Levee system which would exist within State Highway 146, and would terminate at State Highway 225 (now known as CR# 2). The CR#2 alternative is similar to the Centennial Gate concept in that it fails to provide any protection for areas seaward of State Highway 146. However, unlike the Centennial Gate, CR#2 even fails to protect the upper parts of the Houston Ship Channel west of the Fred Hartman Bridge. The attached resolution both declares support for CR#1 and opposes CR#2. Also attached is a map from the Phase Two Report of the GCCPRD which shows the alignment of the two alternatives. Additionally, a Benefit Cost Analysis contained in the Phase Two Report also shows that CR#1 has a score that is roughly one-half as beneficial as the CR#2 alternative. Given the total cost of damage if another Hurricane IKE level storm were to make landfall, the Benefit Cost Analysis between the two alternatives seems hard to validate, particularly when most of the IKE storm surge damage was east of State Highway 146. Either option will require a coalition of public money, industry investment and federal funds that, at this time, are still unfunded. Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution.