Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000 01-17 Special Called Workshop Meeting
1. 2. 3. 4. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CALLED WORKSHOP MEETING OF LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 17, 2000 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Norman Malone at 6:00 p.m. Members of City Council Present: Counciipersons Guy Sutherland, Chuck Engelken, Peter Griffiths, Alton Porter, Deotis Gay, Charlie Young, Jerry Clarke, and Mayor Norman Malone. Members of Council Absent: Howard Ebow Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City Manager Robert T. Herrera, City Attorney Knox Askins, Assistant City Manager Sohn Joerns, Assistant City Manager Jeff Litchfield, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Director of Planning Doug Kneupper, Police Chief Richard Reff, Director of Public Works Steve Gillett, and Director of Parks & Recreation Stephen Banr. Others Present: Dr. & Mrs. Mock, N.A. Shepherd, Nancy Webb, Fran Strong, Ms. & Mrs. Young, Mr. & Mrs. Muston, Mr. & Mrs. Ayo, Tam Deene, Ray Key, Jim & Katheron Phillion, Baxter Stanley, Jack Oliphan, Sonny Payne, Pat Ryon, Charles Doize, R.L. Guiliett, O.W. Shaffer, and a number of citizens. Councilman Alton Porter delivered the Invocation. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL. 1) N.A. Shepherd - 202 Sylvan -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 2) Ray Key - 228 Cypress Street -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 3) Jim and Katherine Phillion - 229 Jefferson -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 4) Baxter Stanley - 231 Forrest -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 5) Jack Of iphant - 101 Garfield -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 6} Pat Muston -117 Garfeed -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 7} Sonny Payne - 3 Bayshore -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 8) Nancy Webb - 10 Pine Bluff- In favor of street endings on Galveston Bay. 9} P.J. Mock - 219 sylvan -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 10) Pat Ryon - 206 Garf eld -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 11) Charles Doize - 211 East Fore -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 12) R.L. Guiilett - 215 Garfield -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. 13} O.W. Shaffer - 505 Shady Lane -flooding in area wants county to be able to get in park and fix drainage. 14) Coco Layne - 214 Sylvan -Opposed to street endings on Galveston Bay. The special called workshop meeting was called to order by Mayor Norman Malone at 6:10 p.m. • City Council Minutes -January 17, 2000 -Page 2 Council addressed item 4B first due to the number of citizens present to speak on this matter. B. DISCUSS STREET ENDINGS ON GALVESTON BAY Listed below are the eleven streets which dead end into Galveston Bay: Lobit Street Holmes Street Cypress Street Jefferson Street Sylvan Street Forest Street Garfield Street Hazel Street Oakhurst Street S. "Y" Street Bayshore @ F This item was discussed at length and Council provided staff with the following direction. Council does not want staff to move forward with any of the proposals presented. However, there may be some merit in particular cases and the City should look at each individual case as they may come up in the future. This matter will not be pursued any further by the City at this point. If any resident has a particular request for a particular street ending, they need to contact the City regarding their special request. If the City receives an application to close a street/alley, all residents within 500 feet will be contacted. 6:35 Mayor Malone closed the workshop to take afive-minute break. 6:45 Mayor Malone reopened the workshop meeting. A. .Discuss La Porte Area Water Authority right to purchase additional water capacity from the City of Houston. Staff recommended that the Authority purchase an additional 0.6-MGD of Production Capacity ($191,767), and an additional 1.97 MGD of Pumping Capacity ($253,933). Additionally, upgrade costs for the existing facility for the Authority will total $563,378. This results in a total estimated cost to the Authority of $1,009,078. This cost will be offset by Rebate Costs for is remaining share of excess capacity. It is recommended that the Authority set the price of Excess Capacity at $0.85, and authorize the General Manager to negotiate f rm option agreement(s) for the sale of 3 million gallons per day. Additionally, authorize the General Manager to negotiate a new contract with Houston to purchase an additional 0.6-MGD of Production Capacity and an additional 1.97 MGD of Pumping Capacity. C. Discuss Traffic Hump Policy - S. Gillett. At this time there will be no changes to the traff c hump policy. However, the results of the traffic hump studies that assist them in targeting areas where there is a speeding problem. • • City Council Minutes 1-17-00 -Page 3 D. Discuss Fairmont Park Refuge Lanes - D. Kneupper. With regards to the City's request for turn lanes along Fairmont Parkway, the Council directed staff to move forward working with the County on this project. 5. The special called workshop meeting was adjourned by Mayor Norman Malone at 9:40 p.m. 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS City Manager Robert T. Herrera reminded Council of the following events: A. Chamber of Commerce Installation Banquet -Sylvan Beach Pavilion -January 27, 2000 7. COUNCIL ACTION Councilpersons Clarke, Young, Gay, Porter, Griffiths, and Sutherland brought items to Council's attention. 8. EXECUTIVE SESSION -PURSUANT TO PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, CHAPTER 551.071 THROUGH 551.076, AND 551.084, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, - (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, DELIBERATION 9. REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT OR DONATION, PERSONNEL MATTERS, CONFERENCE WITH EMPLOYEES DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES, OR EXCLUDING A WITNESS DURING EXAMINATION OF ANOTHER WITNESS IN AN INVESTIGATION) There were no items to be discussed in Executive Session. 10. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEMS CONSIDERED IlV EXECUTIVE SESSION Due to no Executive Session, there was no action taken. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before Council, the Regular Meeting was duly adjourned at 9:55 PM. Respectfully submitted, ` ~n /~~~~ ,1~~~~~~ Martha Gillett ~ C'~t ~ ~ f'y17~ City Secretary Passed and approved on this 24th day of January 2000. Norman L. Malone, Mayor ~ ~ a ® i IlZEPORT TO THE LPAWA Regarding Proposed Expansion of Southeast Water Purification Plant and Related Contract Issues ~s~.~r I . ~~N~ Robert T. Herrera General Manager LPAOVA • E~CUTIVE Surv~av~ARY The City of Houston and its Consultant, Camp Dresser 8t McKey (CDM) have been evaluating the expansion of the Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP) for the past several months. The Study has centered on the improvements necessary to increase firm capacity from 80 MGD to 120 MGD. The prc~osed expansion will primarily involve the upgradc of existing plant structures and equipment. Additionally, the repair and upgrade of the existing facility at cun~ent capacity is also planned. Our current contract with Houston allows the LPAWA to participate in any proposed plant expansion based on our current percentage of ownership. Along with the proposed expansion, the City of Houston is proposing new contracts for the Co-Participants, with new contract features designed to simplify administration of the Contract, as well as give the Co-Participants more voice in the operation of the Southeast Water Purification Plant. Finally, the new contract documents any revised ownership percentages of the Co-Participants. With additional capacity available, the La Porte Area Water Authority Board will determine if, and to what degree, the Authority will participate. The ~ Authority has contractual rights and prior "imbedded" costs associated with the planned upgrade. Therefore, should the Authority not purchase all eligible capacity, the Board must set a price for these rights, so other Co-Participants may purchase additional capacity. These decisions will be based on projected water demands and the historical purchase price of existing capacity. Because the Authority recently purchased 3 MGD from Galveston, we are recommending only minor participation in the upgrade (0.6 MGD Production Capacity and 1.97 MGD Pumping Capacity). This leaves 3 MGD in Excess Capacity ,available for other co- participants. It is recommended that the Authority set the price of this Excess Capacity at $0.759735 per gallon, and authorize the General Manager to negotiate agreement(s) for the sale of 3 million gallons per day. Additionally, authorize the General Manager to negotiate a new contract with Houston to purchase an additiona10.6-MGD of Production Capacity and an additional 1.97 MGD of Pumping Capacity. The following report addresses these issues in more detail and provides the basis for our recommendations. LA ~PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITX P~tOPOSED SEWPP CONTRACT INTRODUCTION The City of Houston and its Consultant, Camp Dresser & McKey (CDM) have been evaluating the expansion of the Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP) for the past several months. The Study has centered on the improvements necessary to increase firm capacity from 80 MGD'to 120 MGD. The proposed expansion will primarily involve the upgrade of existing plant structures and equipment. Additionally, the repair and upgrade of the existing facility at current capacity is also planned. PROPOSED CONTRACT In order to allocate capacity and costs to Participants, as well as revise language to improve the contract for all parties, a new contract is being developed to address these issues. A proposed contract was presented to all Participants in September. After review, the Participants met in La Porte on November 3, 1999 to discuss the issues without the City of Houston present. A list of changes and/or clarifications was presented to Houston the following week. A subsequent meeting was held and Houston agreed to most of the Participants' suggestions. The following is a list of major differences between the existing and proposed Contract. 1. Flow restriction devices change from allowed to mandatory. However, at the suggestion of the Participants, these remote-controlled devices would only be activated if certain trigger conditions were met. The Participants' Advisory Committee will develop the triggers. 2. Excess Production and Pumping fees are eliminated from the Contract at the request of the Participants. 3. O&M costs will be based on an annual budget, and with quarterly progress reports. This will result in a fixed cost for one year. 4. Establishes a contingency fund of $1 million maximum, and based on 2.5% of annual budget. Paid through O&M. This fund would be used to make major repairs and modifications. It would also earn interest. 5. The payment plan for the repair and upgrade includes up-front payment to be held by Houston (interest paid) or independent escrow fund that Houston could draw. "Catch-up" will not be an option. 6. The delivery point varies with each contract. At the suggestion of the Participants, Houston agreed to the Point of Measurement. This is what is in current LPAWA contract. 7. City of Houston indirect overhead would be fixed at 9% (historical) rather than adjusted quarterly. Direct costs would be billed directly. 8. Houston would be defined as the "Managing Participant" instead of "Managing Owner". 2 9. Houston's role in managing the allocation of water capacity from the proposed upgrade is limited to ensuring that only water capacity available is allocated, and acting as the "accountant" in terms of water capacity. Participants will determine the value of all vyater capacity rights bought and sold. 'This is discussed later in this Report. 10. Much discussion regarding the proposed' Operating Advisory Committee. Houston has agreed that Participants elect chairman. Additionally, any contracts that Houston will be see!~ng reimbursement from Participants will include one or more representatives from the Advisory Committee as non- voting observers. The representative(s) would report back to the full Advisory Committee.. The Contract, as revised, should be acceptable to the Authority. The timetable anticipates signed contracts back to Houston by March 1, 2000. COSTS Costs associated with the new contract are found within four basic components, and are st~*nm~*+~~d on Table 1. Table 1-Costs DESCRIPTION Upgrade/Repair Existing Facilities Upgrade from 80 MGD to 120 MGD ; Additional Pumping Capacity Excess Capacity (Proposed by Houston) COST PER GALLON $0.078247 $0.319612 $0.128900 $0.566317 The fast is the upgrade and repair of the existing facility to comply with current regulations, as well as modernization of certain components, especially electronics. Additionally, several improvements to the existing design that are not associated with the proposed expansion are included in these costs. The current estimate for the repair/upgrade is $0.078247 per gallon of capacity, or $563,378 for the 7.2 MGD owned by the Authority. This cost is paid regardless of participation in the proposed expansion. The second component is the cost of upgrading the plant from 80 MGD to 120 MGD. These modifications are needed to establish a firm capacity of 120 MGD. Only those Participants that desire additional capacity will pay these costs. Additional Production Capacity will cost an estimated $0.319612 per gallon. The third component cost, Additional Pumping Capacity, will be required to reestablish the ratio of Production to Pumping Capacity to 125%. Additional Pumping capacity will cost an estimated $0.1289 per gallon. The final cost component involves the purchase of capacity in excess. of current percentage of ownership. Because the Authority owns 7.2 MGD, it is entitled to purchase 3.6 MGD of additional capacity. Should the Authority desire to purchase capacity in excess of 3.6 MGD, a Rebate Capacity charge would be payable, in addition to the Production Capacity costs outlined above. The City of Houston estimates this cost at $0.566317 per gallon. It appears that the Authority will probably purchase less than its entitled share. The proposed rebate per gallon would be paid directly from the purchaser to the Authority. Houston's Consultant figured this cost as the average cost per gallon of the original buy- in and the upgrade cost. However, the Authority recently purchased 3 MGD from the City of Galveston at approxunately $1.13 per gallon, and will be required to pay an additional $0.078247 per gallon to upgrade that capacity. Because the additional upgrade costs are only paid by holders of existing production capacity, this cost must be added to the original purchase price of $1.13 to determine the cost paid. This totals $1.208247 per gallon for the total cost of the 3 million gallons purchased from Galveston. To determine the actual value of the rebate per gallon, the cost to purchase additional Production Capacity ($0.319612) and Pumping Capacity ($0.128900) is subtracted from the total original cost of $1.208247, for a total proposed rebate of $0.759735 per gallon (See Table 2). TABLE 2. -REBATE CAPACITY Original Cost per Gallon $1.13. Upgrade Existing Production .078247 Total Original Costs $1.208247 Less Production Expansion Cost Per Gallon ($0.319612) Less Pumping Cost Per Gallon 0.128900 Total Rebate Capacity Cost Per Gallon $0.759735 Any Participant that desires to purchase additional capacity in excess of its current percentage of ownership must pay this cost to Participant(s) that have additional capacity rights that it does not intend to exercise. Currently, the Cities of Pasadena and Friendswood, as well as the Clear Lake City Water Authority, have indicated an interest in up to 3 Million gallons of additional capacity needs in excess of their current percentage of ownership. 4 ® • PROJECTED CAPACITY DEMANDS The Consultant has indicated that the total demand for the new capacity is 43 MGD, but only 40 MGD will be available. To date, three (3) Participants have expressed a desire to obtain . an option on .excess Authority capacity. Should the Authority have excess capacity to sell, the price, as indicated by the new proposed Contract, is subject to negotiation. The La Porte Area Water Authority currently owns 4.2 MGD, with an additional 3 MGD available by August 2001. With a total capacity of 7.2 MGD, the Authority can meet its average daily demand, with a 2% growth rate, through 2040, and peak daily demand through 2025. Current demand (including groundwater usage) averages 3.6 MGD, with peak day at 4.5 MGD (See Table 3). TABLE 3 - LPAWA WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS FLOW TYPE 2000 2002 2010 2020 2025 2030 2040 Daily Average 3.302 3.447 4.025 4.907 5.417 5.981 7.291 Daily Peak 4.513 4.710 5.501 6.706 7.403 8.173 9.964 Purchase of the Authority's percentage share of the expansion would cost $2,711,630, and would supply the Authority's average daily demand beyond 2050. However, the additional capacity would also result in 50% increase in OBtM, emergency repair, and overhead costs that are allocated according to the percentage of ownership. These additional costs would be paid for over 25 years before the additional capacity is needed. With the transfer of the 3-MGD from Galveston to the Authority scheduled in August 2001, the need for additional capacity is approximately .6 MGD. This additional capacity will ensure that the Authority can meet its peak daily demand without exceeding its capacity. Additionally, the increased maintenance costs would only increase approximately 7%, and the Authority would have capacity beyond 2030. Original pumping capacity at the Plant totaled 225 MGD. The Expansion Study performed by the Consultant indicated that the firm pumping capacity, defined as the capacity after failure of the largest single pump, is 200 MGD, a reduction of 25 MGD. There are no plans to upgrade the pumping facilities to increase this capacity. The Authority originally purchased 5.25 MGD of Pumping Capacity, or 2.33% of Pumping Capacity, to provide for 125% of Production Capacity for peaking purposes. Pumping Capacity purchased from Galveston totals 3.50 MGD, or 1.56% of Pumping Capacity. Together with Galveston's share, the Authority owns 3.89% of the Plant's original Pumping Capacity, or 8.75 MGD. With the reduction in Pumping Capacity from 225 to 200 MGD, the Authority's 3.89% share is reduced to 7.78 MGD. In order to regain Pumping Capacity of 125% of Production Capacity, the Authority will need to buy additional Pumping capacity, at an estimated cost of $0.1289 per gallon. Should the Authority not purchase any additional Production Capacity, it will need to purchase 1.22 MGD of Pumping Capacity, at an estimated cost of $157,258. Should the Authority purchase an additional .6 MGD of Production Capacity, it will need to purchase 1.97 MGD of Pumping Capacity, at a cost of approximately $253,933 (Table 4). Table 4 -Pumping Capacity Analysis Original~MGD New MGD Percentage Total Pumping Capacity 225 200 100 Original LPAWA With Galveston 5.25 4.56 2.33 8.75 7.78 3.89 Pumping Capacity at 125% of Production Capacity Current Production Pumping Total Required Additional Required 7.2 MGD 7.78 MGD 9.0 MGD 1.22 MGD 7.8 MGD 7.78 MGD 9.75 MGD 1.97 MGD RECOMI~~NDATION It is recommended that the Authority purchase an additional 0.6-MGD of Production Capacity ($191,767), and an additional 1.97 MGD of Pumping Capacity ($253,933). Additionally, upgrade costs for the existing facility for the Authority will total $563,378. This results in a total estimated cost to the Authority of $1,009,078. This cost will be offset by Rebate Costs due and.payable to the Authority for is remaining share of excess capacity. Should the Authority sell its remaining share of 3 MGD for the suggest price of $0.566317 per gallon, it would realize a net rebate of $689,873 (See Table 5). Should the Authority sell its unused share for $0.759735 per gallon; it would realize a net rebate of $1,270,127 (See Table 6). 6 Table 5 -Costs with COH Calculated Rebate DESCRIPTION GALLONS COST/GAL TOTAL COST Upgrade/Repair Existing Facilities 7,200,000 $0.078247 $ 563,378 Upgrade from 80 MGD to 120 MGD 600,000 $0.319612 $ 191,767 Additional Pumping Capacity 1,970,000 $0.128900 $ 253,933 Excess Capacity ~ 3,000,000 $0.566317 j$1.698.951) Net Cost ($ 689,873) Table 6-Costs with CLP Calculated Rebate DESCRIPTION GALLONS COST/GAL TOTAL COST Upgrade/Repair Existing Facilities 7,200,000 $0.078247 $ 563,378 Upgrade from 80 MGD to 120 MGD 600,000 $0.319612 $ 191,767 Additional Pumping Capacity 1,970,000 $0.128900 $ 253,933 Excess Capacity 3,000,000 $0.759735 j$2.279.205 Net Cost ~ ($1,270,127) It is recommended that the Authority set the price of Excess Capacity at $0.759735, and authorize the General Manager to negotiate firm option agreement(s) for the sale of 3 million gallons per day. Additionally, authorize the General Manager to negotiate a new contract with Houston to purchase an additiona10.6-MGD of Production Capacity and an additiona11.97 MCrD of Pumping Capacity. 7 11/16/99 17:28 ~81 488 6644 CLC RATER A~ CLEAR LAKE CITY WATER A CITY MANAGER'S , OFFICE ~. • ~1 900 Bay Area Boulevard • Houston, Texas 77038.2811488-1164 • FAX 281 /488-3400 November 15, 1999 Via Facsimile 28L-471-71 R ~~ `~ Mr. Robert Herrera, City Manager ~ NOV 16 1999 City of La Porte .t P.O. Box 1115 LaPorte, Trxas 77572-1115 PL'~LIC ~®~g~~S Re: Offer to Purchase Capacity from Southeast Water Purification Plant Dear Mr. Herrera: Based on cuxxent representations from the City of Houston, the Cleaz Lakc City Water Authority will be unable to purchase the entire amount of capacity it desires in the next expansion increment of the Southeast Water Purification Plant. It is our undcrstaz~ding that the City of La PortdLa Porte Water Authority has available to it an additional increment of some 3 MGD in capacity. The Clear Lake City Water Authority would like to purchase I.s MGD of the LaPorte capacity. At your soonest possible convenience, please let me know whether La Porte is interested in selling the requested amount of capacity to the Clear Lake City Water Authority and under what terms and conditions such purchase and sale could be consummated between the parties. t want to thank you in advance for you courtesy and consideration of this request. Sincerely, Wilbert 7. olbert, General Manager Clear Lake City Water Authority ~ 002/002 D ~C~C~~N1C~_ NOd 1 6 1999 cc: Via Facsimile 281-867-0892 Steve Gillette December 13, 1999 Mr. Robert Herrera, City Manager City of La Porte 604 W. Fairmont Pazkway La Porte, TX 77571 Deaz Bob: City of Frien ~~ ~. DEC ~f;. 171999 fr` .,; ja ~~ I~ i ~ ~ L'i is ~ 1` _^ i ~~~- ----,;; ~l SAN®® i ___ ~- uU ~'r Can N~..i A ~-r: J • OFrtCr _ . J"L c~CT Friendswood is interested in purchasing any additional water that may be available from your city or entity. Our interest is for two reasons. First, the city is growing at a considerable rate, and our needs for the build out of our community aze greater that the existing supply of surface water. Currently, Friendswood has a capacity in the Southeast Water Purification Plant (SEWPP) of 3 MGD. We estimate the city will require 10 MGD of surface water for build out. It will be in the city's long- term best interest to acquire as much capacity now as possible to meet the demands of growth. Second, the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District has amended their Regulatory Plan. Friendswood is in Area 2 of and will be required to utilize surface water on a ratio of 80:20 surface water to ground water beginning January 1, 2001, unless a certified Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) is in place. One of the conditions of a certified GRP is that the city have surface water capacity in place to meet those requirements. It is imperative we have sufficient surface water capacities to meet the demands of growth and the requirements of the Subsidence District. Our request to purchase surface water capacity from you is critical. Please let us know if you have water to sell, the amount, and the cost as soon as possible. We will be happy to meet with you at your convenience to further discuss the matter. 9i0 South Friendswood Drive •Friendswood, Texas 77546-4856 (7i3) 996-3200 Fax (7i3) 482-3722 • • Mr. Robert Herrera Page Two December 13, 1999 We look forwazd to your favorable reply to our request. Sincerely, ~ ~ Ronald E. Cos City Manager REC/tsm Cc Mayor and Councilmembers Director of Public Works • ® • city of La P®rte Interoffice IViernorandum To: ayor and City Council Members From: eff Litchfield, Assistant City Manager and Directo of ace Stephen Barr, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: January 12, 2000 Subject: Street Endings at Galveston Bay -Workshop Presentation At Monday's Workshop meeting, we will present a report that reviews existing street endings and ultimately make a recommendation that selected street endings be improved by adding certain park amenities. We have obtained a legal opinion from Mr. Askins regarding the use of the properties and a copy of his letter is attached. As part of our recommendation, we are proposing the street ending at Bayshore and F Street be improved. This street ending is in the Pine Bluff Subdivision. We have contacted the two adjacent property owners regarding this proposal. We have received different responses to our proposal. One property owner is Mr. Sonny Payne (owner of Happy Cajun). He indicated he is opposed to any improvements which would attract people to the right of way. The other property owner is Mr. Robert Wells. He is in favor of turning the site into a park. He feels it is being used as a park anyway so why not make it a nice one. L_-I • ASKINS & ARMSTRONG, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 702 W. FAIRMONT PARKWAY P.O. BOX 1218 LA PORT E, TEXAS 77572-1218 KNOX W. ASKINS JOHN D. ARMSTRONG CHARLES R. HUGER. JR. BOARD CERTIf IED CIVIL TRIAL LAW TfXAS BOARD O~ LCOAL 9PECIA LI2 ATION CLARK T. ASKINS December 6, 1999 Mr. Robert T. Herrera City Manager City of La Porte . Stephen Barr irector of Parks & Recreation City of La Porte Re: Street-End Parks Gentlemen: TELEPHONE 281 471-1886 TELEGOPIER 281 471-2047 You have requested my opinion on the issues of whether the City of La Porte may use certain street-ends which dead end into Galveston Bay, as City parks; and, whether the City of La Porte can sell the un-open street right-of-ways dead ending into Galveston Bay, and use the proceeds to develop the remaining street-end parks. Use of Street-Ends for• Parks The various plats which have created the subdivisions in question, and dedicated the streets and alleys in said subdivisions, have dedicated said streets and alleys for public use, including ingress and egress for vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and for use~of the surface and subsurface by public utilities of the City of La Porte, and those public utilities franchised by the City of La Porte. In my opinion, the development and use of these areas in the manner described in Mr. Barr's memo of September 16, 1999, as, a rest and observation area for pedestrians, is not inconsistent with the public dedication of the described streets which dead end into Galveston Bay. In developing these areas, due consideration needs to be given to any existing use of these street-ends, for access by the abutting property owners. My opinion assumes that the street-ends are not being so used at this time, by the abutting property owners. In the development of these areas, an on the ground survey should be conducted to establish the mean vegetation line, which is the property line between the City of La Porte and the State of Texas, and the street right-of-way lines, to make certain that all improvements are within the street rights-of way. Safety and security issues should be addressed, as on any public park, and adequate lighting provided. City of La Porte December 6, 1999 Page 2 .SKINS & ARMSTRONG, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW As we~discussed, I think it would be wise to have informal public hearings on each street-end to be developed. Possible Sale of Street-End Rights-of-Wav The vacating, abandoning, and closing of streets and alleys in the City of La Porte, is governed by Chapter 62 of the Code of Ordinances of .the City of La Porte, which, in turn, is closely modeled upon applicable provisions of state law. On the street- ends which the City determines not to develop as parks, I would suggest that the City contact the abutting property owners on each side, to determine whether they would be interested in having the City vacate, abandon and close the applicable street right-of-way, under the terms and provisions of the City Code of Ordinances. Of course, the City could not compel the abutting owners to purchase the property, if they did not wish to do so. Assuming that one or both abutting property owners of a street-end, elect not to petition for the abandonment of such street-end right- of-way, you have requested my opinion as to whether the City could sell this right-of-way to third parties. The streets in question were all created by dedication in subdivision plats, which are recorded in the Harris County Clerk's office. The City of La Porte does not own the fee, or entire title to these streets, but rather, owns an easement, which is superimposed upon the fee simple title, which easement is for public purposes, as stated above, for ingress and egress by vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and for use by public utilities. This easement exists on the surface, the immediate subsurface, and the immediate aerial area above the surface. When the City Council, pursuant to the terms of Chapter 62 of the Code of Ordinances, vacates, abandons, and closes a street right-of-way, the legal effect is that the City is vacating its easement, which then perfects the fee simple title of the abutting property owners. This is measured to the center line of the street, with each abutting property owner then acquiring full fee simple title to the one-half portion of former street right-of-way which abuts its property. Therefore, it is my opinion that the City of La Porte has no interest to sell to any third party, other than the sale of its street right-of-way easement by abandonment proceedings, to the abutting property owners. See Section 69-35, subparagraph (2), Code of Ordinances, City of La Porte. City 'of La Porte December 6, 1999 Page 3 .SKINS & ARWISTRONG, P. C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Please let me know if I can be of further service in this matter. Y Your~ery truly,;'' ,~ J ' ~ ~/ // f ~ r ~ '...-~Z~ 'Knox W. Askins City Attorney City of La Porte RWA:sw Report on Street Endings at Galveston Bay ~Deff Litchfield, Assistant City Manager Stephen Barr, Director of Parks ~ Recreation January 17, 2000 • Street Ends Report, page 1 City of La Porte Re~OOrt on Street Endings at Galveston Bay January 17, 2000 Executive Summary The City of La Porte is faced with several opportunities and challenges that do not exist in other communities. One of those differences is the street right of ways that end in Galveston Bay. Over the years, several of these right of ways have been closed (for a fee) and have had the use revert back to the adjacent property owner. Currently, there are eleven locations in the City where a street right of way dead ends into the Bay. We have been asked to inventory and review these street endings to see what useful purpose they might serve. The result is a proposal to develop several of the street ends that dead end into Galveston Bay on the East Side of La Porte, as small mini-parks to enhance bay access for citizens of La Porte. The proposal includes several sites that are in close proximity, and would not be practical for development as parks, but would receive some improvements, or City right of way could be negated to the adjoining property owners. This report outlines existing conditions, what we hope to accomplish, an estimate of the costs to implement, and the timing and implementation, should Council choose to approve this course of action. A. Existing Condlitions A list of the eleven streets which dead end into Galveston Bay, as well as brief comments, is shown below. 1. Lobit Street - 60' R.O.W., fenced on both sides (as recorded) 2. Holmes Street - 60' R.O.W., fenced on both sides (as recorded) 3. Cypress Street - 80' R.O.W., fenced on both sides, excessive concrete rip-rap has been placed on this site -fences may be encroaching on right of way (as recorded) 4. Jefferson Street -100' R.O.W., no fences (as recorded) 5. Sylvan Street - 80' R.O.W., street ends in cul-de-sac; limits possibilities (as recorded) 6. Forest Street - 80' R.O.W., street ends in cul-de-sac; limits possibilities (as recorded) 7. Garfield Street - 100' R.O.W., divided street ends in cul-de-sac; limits possibilities (as recorded) 8. Hazel Street - 80' R.O.W., street ends in cul-de-sac; limits possibilities (as recorded) 9. Oakhurst Street -this site has a stepped right of way; 40' R.O.W. on west side of site; 80' R.O.W. on water side of site -fences may be encroaching on to right of way (as recorded) 10. S. "Y" Street - 40' X 80' stepped' R.O.W., fenced on both sides (as recorded -plat illegible, used HCAD reference) 11. Bayshore @ "F" Street - 40' R.O.W., fenced on both sides (as recorded). Street Ends Report, page 2 The properties are currently being utilized almost exclusively by the adjacent property owners as parking lots for their personal vehicles. The sites are currently maintained at a fairly low level; in particular, the Cypress Street end is inaccessible for maintenance at the shoreline, due to the concrete riprap that was deposited at some point in the past. ~oe eloped ~v~de o'er Street End L~cati~ns Street Ends Report, page 3 ~. What We Hope to Accomplish As far back as 1989 there have been informal discussions to utilize some of these street ends as passive mini parks, serving the immediate neighborhoods. The usage of these as parks would have to be primarily as neighborhood mini-parks due to the lack of available parking for guests. Residents in the immediate walking distance would receive the most benefit from the proposed parks. Also, because the sites are clustered in three groups, it doesn't make sense to turn all of them into park sites. The current Comprehensive Plan Update will indicate a shortage of small mini-parks of less than an acre in size, designed to serve individual communities in the City of La Porte. The 1993 Bayfront Master Plan advocated the recreational potential for the use of street ends, both as waterways and as passive recreational sites, to provide additional bayfront access for citizens of La Porte. In addition, the Visions '89 Committee Report indicated the need to "...facilitate the access to the City' bay front area, by identifying concepts that will promote and develop this spectacular resource." A consideration for the retained sites is that the shorelines must be modified to create asemi-permanent bay frontage that will require minimum maintenance. There are several uses that can be contemplated. For example, the Garfield site has a fishing pier attachment that could be retained for use by the community. Its origin is unknown but there is apparently a homeowner's group in the area that maintains the property on an informal basis. There is also the need to work on the Cypress St. end. Whether it is retained as a park or closed to adjoining property owners, the existing riprap needs to be removed to allow bay access for maintenance, which will entail some cost to the City. These properties have been traditionally maintained by the Public Works Department as rights of way, or by adjacent property owners. Shoreline erosion has been an issue for a number of the site in the past and is a concern for future use. Most of the sites are quite narrow (40' or 60' R.O.W.) making parking as a parksite somewhat a problem. Most of the sites are fairly shallow (+/- 60' to 80') of useable property, which limits the type of development that can be accomplished. The sites are also clustered in three groups, with the central group having six of the eleven sites. In visiting with the City Attorney, we find the City can use the right of way for the benefit of the public. The street ends could only be closed to the adjacent homeowners by following the street and alley closing procedure. ® • Street Ends Report, page 4 Recommendation • Develop six sites over a period of 5 to 6 years. • obtain a legal opinion regarding the legality of using rights of way as parks (completed) • Obtain permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Texas General Land Office for shoreline modification. • Develop the street ends as parks, according to a fairly standardized plan, discussed below. • Start with the Bayshore @ F Street (Pine Bluff) Right of Way first (Number 11 on the list). The Street Ends to be developed are shown below as they currently appear: 1. Lobit Street, shown below • Street Ends Report, page 5 4. Jefferson Street, shown below ~I hlI'I~ 1vI ' R ~ till ~`~J IAi it ~ II d ~ ~(• N Ilul ~ ~j t _ i ~ ~#Sr f5a II~~ rsl+, 4a, it f F i I _ k ~~ xllt99~ ~{'-0P ~ I~ ~t,'* [z ~$ I,.k I - i~t.~I ~17~.1 ~ 1 I aI ' ~ ~ .i ~ ~ ' ~alil'3 Fryl~7 11 ~ 1 1 f•~ 7 ~ # ~ ~~IJ t~ ~~4 4 1~~ I~ t (~1 ~ I 1 I i I, ' [ C ~ r~t ~41.r Ilry ~I+ ti j. i ~ i i. 1 I r+-.i yr WF' ~~1111 ~ 1 ._1 ~l ri A ~ F I I ,i _: i J; I I Ii 1_,f i 1 _- it i , ~ I I ... i i iG i I I ~i l I ' ~11C. y-.' y alb, .y .. . f .;~..~,_ ..~ y. ...._. r~.. ,; . :. ,.:, .,. _ ,_ _...._...., _. ~ .. Y~. .. .~ :. ... . .. ,.. '. ~. '..::.. a t 1'.~: .. awn ,~~:• ~~Sn .. . ky ''1•:' rr .. 1.• ' o 6. Forest Street, shown below ® • Street Ends Report, page 6 7. 9. Garfield Street, shown below Oakhurst Street, shown below ~~ `~_ -~`~` ~ ~~•'~ ~^^ • Sul ~' µ t N _ •f 5 , i-, ,, .1, ~.~ K~.. t x K. ' . ' ' .. .. •~ +i:, r~l~ .~ J .~ ,, ~..:. . , . r'J9 . I.. ., " ~~ 4 'F `# . ~.A, i it g ~ 9r ... ' • r a ~ aeq... .'..mow ~~ %~+ ~ -1 * Garfield Street End is already semi-developed, apparently by a homeowner's group or the adjacent property owners, as a park; it is well maintained by private forces and has a small pier attached. • Street Ends Report, page 7 11. Bayshore @ "F" Street, shown below _.... { The remaining sites 2, 4, 5, 8, & 10 could be closed to the adjacent property owners, or the City could continue to provide low level maintenance for them. The proposed configuration for park development for these sites is as follows: • shoreline modification • one handicapped and one regular parking spot • a decorative fence with gate access • park service equipment (i.e. picnic table and shelter or gazebo, barbeque pit, trash receptacle) • small 10' wide deck at water's edge • walkway (crushed granite or concrete) from parking area to deck or to shelter Street Ends Report, page 8 C. Estimated Cost to Implement Staff has reviewed the sites and had preliminary discussions with the Pine Bluff community regarding the Bayshore @ F Street site (#11 above). Staff met with a group of citizens on two occasions in October and November 1999 to discuss the issue and receive their input regarding the potential for a park at this location. Staff developed a cost estimate based on the above standard as follows: Parking Spaces 2 @ +/- $1,200 ea. $2,400.00 Shoreline Modification +/- 5,000.00 10' Wooden Deck at shoreline 32 I.f. @ $ 15 per I.f. 480.00 4' Sidewalk 40 I.f. @ $ 8 per I.f. 320.00 Wooden decorative fence 50 I.f. @ $10 per I.f. 500.00 Decorative Archway 250.00 Park Benches 3 @ $175 ea. 525.00 Waterline, Drinking Fountain and Hose Bib 400.00 Either 16' Park Gazebo 9,000.00 ®r Picnic Shelter (like Seabreeze) 5,000.00 Picnic Table 530.00 Trash Receptacles 2 @ $175 ea. 350.00 3" Caliper Tree, planted 45.00 Shrubs, planted + bed prep. 8 @ $10 ea. 80.00 Fountain Grass 16 @ $2.25 ea. 36.00 Contingency 2,500.00 ''*Total, with Gazebo and no Picnic Shelter $22,416.00 *Total, with Picnic Shelter and no Gaze bo $18,416.00 Staff discussed the possibility of neighborhood involvement and a possible joint venture arrangement for development with the community group. They were interested in informal assistance for the project, for example litter pickup or other assistance, but were hesitant to commit to a formal arrangement that would require a financial commitment on their part to develop the site. If the project is approved, the community representatives suggested Pine Bluff Park as a suitable name for the new park. * These are estimated costs based on prior purchases or staff research; most costs are contracted costs, some are force account (i.e. landscape, and waterline). Shoreline modification is based on $125 per linear foot, which may be somewhat steep for riprap modification, but there may be some work required to match with neighboring properties. Bulkheading will be much more expensive (+/- $250 per linear ft.). • S[ree[ Ends Report, page 9 Pictured below is an overhead rendering of the site, showing what it could look like with the proposed amenities as outlined above: To get an idea about what the proposed parks may look like, here is a picture of McHale Park in Seabrook. It is located at the intersection of Toddville Road and Waterfront Road, just east of the Kemah Bridge. .. _ . r ~..., _ _... .,. _.f..~ ...~:..... . ~ ,, _ . . . ,, ^ ,i , ~~ M1., f ., Street Ends Report, page 10 . -, _~_ This park is at the dead end of Waterfront Drive on approximately a 60' right of way, and about 175' deep. It has abird-viewing platform instead of the proposed picnic facilities we are contemplating, but is essentially the same type of development. ®. Timing and Implementation Staff would propose, with Council approval, to proceed with the project, starting with the Bayshore Drive @ F Street site. This is the southernmost site and, since there is already established interest in the project, it would make sense to begin here. The anticipated cost of development for this site as outlined above is $+/- $25,000 (allowing for contingencies). Larger sites would require additional funding to accommodate longer shorelines, etc. We would propose to develop the Bayshore at F Street site this year and one site per year thereafter, for the next five to six years, to develop the six proposed park sites. Moving northward in orderly progression, these new parks would provide additional access by each surrounding community. We do not anticipate the need for additional staff requirements as a result of this proposal. Parks Maintenance staff was increased in the current fiscal year and these additional positions should be sufficient to absorb these sites into our normal maintenance operations for the next five years, all other things being equal. E. Closing This street end parks proposal, if adopted and if successful, will enhance the recreational opportunities for citizens of La Porte. It should enhance property values in the areas. There may be some negativity, particularly from adjacent neighbors who are used to treating the property as their own. In light of the ongoing problems of accessibility and erosion, this proposal offers a viable solution that might be in the best interests of the City of La Porte and moves it forward toward the goals set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and other visionary documents mentioned above. C - V~•~ • To: Mayor and Council Fr®rn:Steve Gillett, Director of Public Works CC: Robert T. Herrera, City Manager John Joerns, Assistant City Manager ®ate: 01 /11 /00 fie: Traffic Hump Policy Attached for your consideration is a summary of Traffic Hump policies with the cities of Houston, Pasadena, Deer Park and Baytown. Additionally, please find a summary of traffic hump requests in the City of La Porte and their disposition since the Policy was approved in August 1998. This topic will be discussed at the January 17, 2000 workshop meeting. If I can answer any questions, please advise. ® Page 1 ® • TI~FIC ]FIUNIP STATISTICS POLICY COMPARISON City of Houston -Requires traffic study - 85`h percentile speed must meet or exceed 35 mph. This was changed from 30 mph in October 1998. City of Pasadena -Requires traffic study - 85`h percentile must meet or exceed 35 mph. City of Deer Park -Requires traffic study - 85`h percentile must meet or exceed 5 mph over~osted or prima facie speed limit. Note -speed limits on residential streets 20 mph. If 85 percentile less than 25 mph, it may be installed if funded by residents. Baytown -Original policy required 85`h percentile of 35 mph for city to fund. If less than 35 mph, it may be installed if funded by residents. Moratorium put in place January 1, 1997. City hired traffic engineer (in-house) to develop comprehensive Traffic Calming Policy, which includes traffic humps as an option. To be considered for the Program, the 85`h percentile must meet or exceed 10 mph over the posted speed limit. For a typical residential street, the 85~' percentile must be a minimum of 40 mph. • LA PORTE TRAFFIC HUMP REQUESTS AUGUST 1998 -CITY COUNCIL APPROVES TRAFFIC HUMP POLICY OCTOBER 1998 -THREE TRAFFIC HUMP REQUESTS - NO HUMPS INSTALLED Myrtle Creek Drive -INELIGIBLE Emergency Route Bayside Drive - INELIGIBLE County Road Sparrow - Failed to return petition APRIL 1999 -FIVE TRAFFIC HUMP REQUESTS -ONE HUMP INSTALLED South Blackwell - 85th percentile 32.1 mph Hillsdale 85th percentile 30.35 mph Crestway 85`h percentile 36.6 mph Bandridge 85th percentile 29.23 mph Roseberry 85`h percentile 30.38 mph OCTOBER 1999 -FIVE TRAFFIC HUMP REQUESTS - NO HUMPS INSTALLED Glenmeadows Dr. INELIGIBLE Emergency Route Antrim 85`h percentile 28.32 Creekview 85th percentile 31.50 Parkcrest Failed to return petition Sugar Creek Failed to return petition SUMMARY 13 APPLICATIONS TO DATE (ONE) 1 INELIGIBLE COUNTY ROAD (TWO) 2 INELIGIBLE EMERGENCY ROUTE (THREE) 3 NO PETITION RETURNED (SIX) 6 DID NOT MEET 85TH PERCENTILE OF 35 MPH (ONE) 1 INSTALLED ONE OF SEVEN STREETS APPROVED UNDER CURRENT POLICY. 1. Crestway IF 85TH PERCENTILE REQUIREMENT CHANGED FROM 35 MPH TO 30 MPH, FIVE OF SEVEN STREETS WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED 1. Crestway 2. South Blackwell 3. Hillsdale 4. Roseberry 5. Creekview CJ • EXHIBIT A CITY OF LA PORTE TRAFFIC HUMP POLICY TRAFFIC HUMP INSTALLATION POLICY AND GUIDELINES A. FINDING OF PURPOSE Residential neighborhoods are adversely impacted by prevalent occurrences of excessive speed. Traffic humps can be an effective and appropriate device for safely reducing vehicle speeds on certain types of streets when installed in accordance with the provisions of this policy. B. GENERAL In order for traffic hump installations to be effective, they should be located selectively in accordance with defined traffic engineering criteria for the purpose of alleviating documented speeding problems. Proper installation will also minimize driver frustration and encourage safe driving practices. This policy promotes reasonable opportunities for residents and property owners most affected by a proposed traffic hump to participate in the process that leads to its installation. C. DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF INTERPRETATION '°RPPLICANT°' refers to the designated representative for the residents petitioning for installation of the traffic hump. °tAPPLICATION" for traffic humps includes the petition. "DIRECTOR" refers to the Department head appointed by the City Manager to administer this Policy. '°IAW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS" include dwellings in single-family houses, townhomes, duplexes, triplexes and fourplex structures. °ONEIGHHORHOOD" is that area adjoining the street which either fronts on the street or adjoins the street, with or without direct driveway access. "PRIM~,RY ROUTE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES" refers to a route that is heavily used by police, fire, emergency services and other emergency response vehicles due to the proximity of the emergency vehicle facility. "SPEEDS" are 85th percentile speeds as determined by a City- conducted or supervised traffic engineering study according to accepted traffic engineering practices. ® • D. 0°STREET" refers to the street length that must be petitioned. It is a 400-foot segment generally centered on the proposed location of the hump(s), or the length of the block, whichever is greater. If the 400-foot segment extends into any part of an adjacent block, it includes the entire length of the adjacent block, unless separated by an intervening thoroughfare, traffic signal, stop sign or offset intersection. °'TRAFFIC ~I[~°° is a geometric design feature of a roadway, consisting of a raised area in the roadway pavement surface extending transversely across the pavement, the primary purpose of which is to reduce the speed of vehicles travelling along that roadway. All other terms are as defined in the City Code of Ordinances. ELIGIBILITY REQUIRII~NTS All of the following criteria must be satisfied for a street to be considered eligible for traffic hump installation: 1. Property Usage: The properties located within the neighborhood where the traffic hump is proposed must be primarily developed for, and used as, low-density residential dwellings. 2. Operational Characteristics of the Street: a. The street must be used to provide access to abutting low-density residential properties (local residential street) and/or to collect traffic for such streets (residential collector). b. c. d. e. f. There must be no more than one moving lane of traffic in each direction. Traffic volumes must be less than 3,000 vehicles per day. The street must have a posted or prima facie speed limit of 30 miles per hour or less, as determined in accordance with State law. The 85t" percentile vehicle speeds must equal or exceed the speed criteria of 35 miles per hour. The street must not be an identified primary route for emergency vehicles. These routes are subject to change. ® • 3. Geometric Characteristics of the Street: a. The street must have adequate sight distances to safely accommodate the traffic hump as determined by the Director. i. All traffic humps are to be marked as provided for in the Texas manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices supplemented with signage and markings as the Director deems necessary and appropriate. b. The' street must not have curves or grades that prevent safe placement of the hump(s). Humps may be located on streets that contain curves and/or grades, but the hump itself must not be located within a horizontal curve, or on a vertical grade greater than 8~ or on their immediate approaches. c. The street must be paved. If no curbs are in place, a specific design must be used to prevent vehicle run-arounds. E. GENERAL PROCEDURES The following procedures are to be followed in determining the eligibility of a traffic hump installation and having the installation approved or denied. 1. Requests for traffic hump installations will be received twice per year, from October 1 to October 30 and April 1 to April 30 in the office of the Director. 2. A written request for the installation must be submitted by at least three (3) residents (Applicant) to the Director. 3. Upon receipt of the request, the Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the street is eligible for consideration under established eligibility requirements, using available transportation data. Traffic counts and speed studies will not be performed at this time. a. If the street is determined not to be eligible, the Applicant will be notified in writing by the Director, stating the reason for denial. The decision of the Director is final. b. If the street is determined to be eligible for consideration, the Director will arrange a meeting with the Applicant and affected residents to define the petition area and the approximate traffic hump(s) location(s). At this meeting, the Director • and the Applicant will review the petition and other requirements. The Director will also provide at least one copy of the petition form, which must be used. c. The City will give notice that traffic humps are under consideration through the use of door hangers, local newspaper announcements and other means to ensure that affected residents are aware of the proposed installation(s). 4. The petition must document that a minimum of two-thirds of the Yiouseholds in low-density residential dwellings in the neighborhood support its installation. a. The signature of only one adult member of each household will be counted on the petition. d. The petition must include the address of each person signing the petition. e. By signing the petition, residents give advance approval to installation of traffic humps in front of their property, together with necessary signage and no parking requirements. This provision will be prominently stated on the petition form. 5. The Applicant must submit a petition on forms provided by the Director. a. Upon receipt of the petition, the Director will verify that the petition is adequate. i. If the Director determines that the petition is not adequate, a written notification of that determination will be provided to the applicant, explaining the inadequacy. 6. After verification of the petition, the Director will conduct the necessary traffic engineering studies to determine the traffic volumes and 85th percentile speed, and solicit comments and recommendations of other agencies, which may be impacted by the proposed traffic hump installation. a. Such agencies may include, but are not limited to, La Porte ISD, La Porte Police and Fire Departments, La Porte EMS, and La Porte Public Works Department. b. Traffic engineering studies will be conducted for a minimum of a twenty four-hour period. The applicant will be encouraged to indicate a weekday or weekend preference for the traffic study to be performed. c. Unless the Director determines that the original count did not represent normal conditions or in case of malfunction of the traffic counting device, recounts will not be performed for a period of one (1) year. 7. The Director will consider the comments, recommendations and results of all studies for determination as to whether the street is eligible for traffic hump installation. a. If the street is determined not to be eligible, the Applicant will be notified in writing of the decision, stating the reason for denial. The decision of the Director is final. b. Denied requests may not be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year. c. If the street is determined to be eligible, the street will be placed on a list of streets eligible for traffic hump installation. d. Approved traffic hump requests will be installed as permitted by the available budget. Should funds not be available, the installation will be placed on a list for up to three (3) years. F. TRAFFIC HUPRP LOCATION 1. The Director will determine the final location of all traffic humps in accordance with the guidelines of this Policy and safe traffic engineering principles. 2. Traffic humps may be located in front of residences that have signed the petition. Traffic humps will not be placed in front of residences that have not signed the petition, unless the Applicant secures written permission from the affected resident. 3. Subsequent occupants of homes where traffic humps have been placed may not request their removal, except as outlined in Section G. of this Policy. 4. The street must have adequate sight distances to safely accommodate the placement of the traffic hump as determined by the Director. 5. Traffic humps will normally be placed between 200 and 600 feet apart. Other spacing may be used based upon engineering judgement. The following guidelines will be considered when determining traffic hump placement. a. On single, short blocks (300 to 500 ft), a single hump positioned near midpoint is usually sufficient. b. On single blocks of moderate length (500 to 1,000 ft), a two-hump configuration is adequate. c. On long blocks (over 1,000 ft), three or more humps may be necessary. d. On lengthy continuous street segments or for humps provided over a series of blocks, interior humps may be placed 400 to 600 feet apart. e. Traffic humps shall not be located in front of a driveway or within 100 feet of an intersection. 6. Traffic humps should not be located over, or contain, manholes or storm sewer inlets or be located adjacent to fire hydrants. For humps located near drainage inlets the hump should be placed just downstream of the inlet. 7. The advantage of existing or planned street lighting should be considered when determining hump locations. 8. Placement of no-parking signs within 50 feet of traffic humps may be necessary to ensure warning signs are visible. G. TRAFFIC HUMP REMOVAL AND ALTERATION The City Council may authorize removal or alteration of traffic humps. With the exceptions stated herein, the process for traffic hump removal or alteration by residents is the same process for installation. 1. A petition to remove a traffic hump may not be submitted within one year of the installation. 2. The City of La Porte may initiate removal or alteration of traffic humps with final approval by the City Council. H. DESIGN STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES The Director shall prepare and maintain current design standards and installation procedures for traffic humps in accordance with this policy. I. REASSESSMENT The City staff will reassess this Policy on an annual basis for three years from the effective date of adoption of this policy. The first reassessment is due one year after the installation of the first traffic hump under the provisions of this policy. • D CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP January 17, 2000 TURNING LANES ALONG FAIRMONT PARK1lVAY Table of Contents: Executive Summary 2 Exhibit Showing Turning Lanes Harris County Internal Memorandum Analysis and Recommendations From County Traffic Study 6 • T~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~®~~ ~~~iT ~~~Ri~®~~ ~~~~~~~ ~3teCl8tlbe ~a,@0'i'EI'll'1~1'y On February 22, 1999, the City sent a letter to Commissioner Fonteno requesting the installation of turning lanes along Fairmont Parkway at various locations. The request identified 15 locations and extended from Driftwood to Luella. The letter also stated the City would agree to contribute for the installation of these turning lanes. On April 27, 1999, Harris County authorized the Engineering firm of Binkley & Barfield to investigate and prepare a report regarding the City's request for turning lanes. Binkley & Barfield performed the study and delivered a report to Harris County in mid-September, 1999. Of the 15 locations identified in the City's letter, the Engineer's report recommends installation of turning lanes at 6 locations (see attached exhibit). The total estimated cost to install the 6 turning lanes is $396,000 which includes engineering fees and modifying the traffic signal at Farrington. Initial conversations with James Clark at Harris County Precinct 2 have indicated the County would pursue a 50/50 cost share with the City making our estimated contribution $198,000. The criteria the Engineers used in their report involves traffic volumes along Fairmont Parkway, turning movements at each of the intersections, and vehicle accident information. The results of the report, for the left-turn lanes, are based on left-turn volume and opposing through volume. The right-tum lanes were evaluated based on the volume of right turns versus adjacent volume. Hone of the intersections warrant right-turn lanes based on this criteria. In addition to turn lanes at major intersections, turn lanes into development areas have been handled in an apparently inconsistent manner. The United Methodist Church just west of Underwood has requested the County to consider installation of a right-tum lane and a crossover at their entrance. The County has agreed to the installation but is asking the church to contribute $55,000 towards construction. The Fairmont Oaks Apartments (currently under constnaction) agreed to a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation to install aright- turn lane at their main entrance. Although the developer stated he would cover all construction costs, the County's response is that the installation of a turning lane would present significant safety issues and the County would not support construction of a turning lane. Recently, the school district has constructed a new driveway leading from Fairmont Parkway into the Reid Elementary campus. The initial plans submitted to the City showed aright-turn lane being installed as part of the driveway project. The District's engineer (CLR) has been told by the County that aright-turn lane at his location is not warranted. Based on this seemingly inconsistent application of policies for turning lanes and traffic safety features, City staff will work with Harris County to gain a better understanding of their policies relating to traffic safety. This will allow us to better communicate with our development community when these issues do arise. With regard to the City's request for tum lanes along Fairmont Parkway, the option that is available to the City would be to move forward with the 50/50 proposal for the 6 turning lanes that the County supports. The City's contribution of $198,000 could come from a combination of $50,000 that has already been set aside for turn lanes plus $148,000 from the Transportation and Other Infrastructure Fund which has a sufficient balance of approximately $1.3 million to cover his project. nth Council's approval, administration will send a letter to Harris County demonstrating our agreement with the 50/50 cost sharing approach for the 6 recommended turn lanes. Ultimately, an Interlocal Agreement with the County will be prepared which will fully outline and limit the City's responsibility for this project. In addition, administration will negotiate for less City participation for the left-turn lane at Luella. This is due to previous County construction which will undoubtedly make this location more expensive. ~ ~; aooM~iaa .~ z J Q 00 NOll 0~ a ~ u 'Oa MltldAtl6 a = d z OOOMa3mdfl a o ~_ o 0 z w f o o " ' ~I p ® _ W W ~ O ~ W V o N N W ~~ Q ~r~ J ~ ~ I rrrem I~ARRIS C ~~TTY • DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: 15 September 1999 TO: Elmo Wright, Pct. 2 Chief of Staff 1001 Preston Avenue Seventh Floor Houston, Texas 770Q2 (.713) 755-5370 RECEI~fIED SEP 2 7 1999 GENOA RE® BLUFF CC: Jackie L. Freeman Traffic Deborah M. Vaughn Central File Robert L. Castille d~~ FROM: Andrew C. Mao, P. E. Manager of Traffic and Transportation Group SUBJECT: Fairmont Parkway from Luella Boulevard to Drifttwood Drive Traffic Engineering Study for Left Turn Lanes Pursuant to your request, a traffic operation and safety analysis vas performed under the On-Call Traffic ,Engineering Services Agreement. Enclosed please find a copy of the Traffic Engineering Study prepared by~Binkley ~ Barfield, Inc. We concur with _ _ the study recommendation on Page 6, stating that left turn lanes be constructed on Fairmont Parkway as follows: Eastbound Left Turn Lane at Luella Boulevard Eastbound Left Turn Lane at Broolavood Drive Eastbound Left Turn Lane at Wilmont Drive Eastbound Left Turn Lane at Farrington Boulevard Westbound Left Turn Lane at Bayparlc Road Eastbound Left Turn Lane at Driftwood Drive The preliminary estimated cost of the recommended improvements is $270,000.00 for construction of lanes, $40,000.00 for signal modifications at Farrington Boulevard, $36,000.00 for basic engineering services, and $50,000.00 for additional engineering services. Should you need additional information, please advise. 2 3 [ G ~ 0~ ' ACM/CC%mmm . ~~ Attachment: Traffic Engineering Study Report /~ _ I`~~° / g:\cL•ua4iocvkec~opcnpo~~.ranxnuc\~r.~us•f•~iniic tun- Innrs.dc~c I. INTRODUCTION The preparation of this report was authorized by .letter from the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, Engineering Division, Traffic and Transportation Section providing Notice-To-Proceed as of Apri127, 1999 based~on P.O. No. 037802. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Fairmont Parkway to determine if left and right turn lanes are required on Fairmont Parkway for the following intersections: Driftwood Drive, Cottonwood Drive, Baypazk Road, Farrington Boulevard, Wilmont Drive, Brookwood Drive, Somerton Drive, and Luella Boulevard The scope of work shall include a field investigation, photographs, 24-hour approach counts, left and right turning movement counts, operating speed of the major road, and 12-month accident history. The project is located in southeast Hams County as shown on the Vicinity Map, Exhibit 1. II. EXISTING CONDITIONS A. FACILITIES • Fairmont Parkway is a divided four-lane asphalt road with roadside ditches and an esplanade ditch, aligned primarily east and west. The study area is between Luella Boulevazd to the west and Driftwood to the east. Fairmont Parkway is adequately mazked with painted lane lines throughout the project. The development within the azea consists of single family residential to the north with some light commercial at some of the approaching intersections and no development or heavy industrial to the south. The intersection of Fairmont Parkway at Farrington Boulevazd is signalized. Ail other intersections are side street stop sign controlled. A layout of the project limits is shown on the Project Layout Map, Exhibit 2. LuelIla Boulevard consists of a four-lane concrete boulevard with curb and - gutter. The existing traffic control at Luella Boulevard and Fairmont Parkway consists of a stop sign on the southbound approach. Luella Boulevard is marked with painted lane lines which show some deterioration. The development within the area consists of the Pasadena Fair Grounds' entrance to the south and no development in either quadrant to the north. The closest signalized intersections aze Red Bluff Road approximately 0.75 • miles to the west and Farrington Boulevard approximately 2.75 miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit 3. Included in Appendix A are photogra hs of the intersection. p Somerton Drive consists of a two-lane concrete roadw ay with curb and gutter. The existing traffic control at Somerton ;Drive and Fairmont Parkway consists of a stop sign on the southbound approach. The only pavement mazking on Somerton Drive is a painted stop bar. The Page 1 development within the area consists of single family residential to the north. The closest signalized intersections are Red Bluff Road approximately 0.95 miles to the west and Farrington Boulevard approximately 2.5~ miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit 4. Included in Appendix A aze photographs of the iatersection. Brookwood Drive consists of a two-lane concrete roadway with curb and gutter. The existing traffic control at Brookwood Drive and Fairmont Parkway consists of a stop sign on the southbound approach. The only pavement marking on Brookwood Drive is a painted stop baz. The development within the area consists of single family residential to the north. The closest signalized intersections are Red Bluff Road approximately 1.10 miles to the west and Farrington Boulevard approximately 2.40 miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit S. Included in Appendix A are photographs of the intersection. Wilmont Drive consists of a two-lane concrete roadway with curb and gutter. The existing traffic control at Wilmont Drive and Fairmont Parkway consists of a stop sign on the southbound approach. The only pavement marking on Wilmont Drive is a painted stop bar. The development within the azea consists of single family residential to the north. The closest signalized intersections are Red Bluff Road approximately 3.13 miles to the west and Farrington Boulevard approximately 0.37 miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit 6. Included in Appendix A are photographs of the intersection. ~arrungton Boulevard consists of a four-lane concrete boulevard with curb and gutter. The existing traffic control consists of a full actuated traffic control signal. Pavement markings on Farrington Boulevard consists of painted lane lines, raised pavement markers and a painted stop bar. The development within the area consists of light commercial in the north two quadrants and single family residential to the north. The closest signalized intersections are Red Bluff Road approximately 3.5 miles to the west and Bay Area Boulevard approximately 1.9 miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit 7. Included in Appendix A are photographs of the intersection. B~y,,park Road consists of a two-lane asphalt roadway with roadside ditches. The existing traffic control at Baypark Road and Fairmont Parkway consists of a stop sign on the northbound approach. All approaches are adequately marked with painted lane lines and a painted stop bar on Baypark Road. The development within the area consists of light commercial on the north side of Fairmont and industrial in the south two quadrants. The closest signalized intersections are Farrington Boulevazd approximately 0.55 miles + ~ Page 2 Hinkley & Barfield, Inc. Consulting Engineers 4 to the west and Bay Area Boulevard approximately 1.35 miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit 8. Included in Appendix A are photographs of the intersection. Cottonavood Drive consists of a two-lane concrete roadway with curb and gutter. The existing traffic control at Cottonwood Drive and Fairmont Parkway consists of a stop sign on the southbound approach. The only pavement marking on Cottonwood Drive is a painted stop bar. The development within the area consists of single family residential to the north and no development to the south. The closest signalized intersections are Farrington Boulevard approximately 0.65 miles to the west and Bay Area Boulevard approximately 1.25 miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit 9. Included in Appendix A are photographs of the intersection. Driftwood Drive consists of a two-lane concrete roadway with curb and gutter. The existing traffic control at Driftwood _Drive and Fairmont Parkway consists of a stop sign on the southbound approach. The only pavement marking on Driftwood Drive is a painted stop bar. The development within the area consists of single family residential to the north and no development to the south. The closest signalized intersections are Farrington Boulevard approximately 0.9 miles to the west and Bay Area Boulevard approximately 1.0 miles to the east. A layout of the existing intersection is shown on the Existing Conditions, Exhibit 10. Included in Appendix A are photographs of the intersection. B. TRAFFIC Mechanical traffic counts for Fairmont Parkway were recorded during a 24- hour period for eastbound and westbound movements on Tuesday, May 18, 1999. The detailed tabulation of these counts aze included in Appendix B and summarized below. Refer to the Project Layout Map, Exhibit 2 for the location listed. TOTAL APPROACH COUNTS EB WB Location 1 - 11,995 Location 2 15,003 - Location 3 - 18,903 Location 4 - 16,113 Manual turning movement counts were recorded at each of the intersections for the appropriate left or right turn and are ~ included in the following table. Page 3 Binkley & Barfield, Inc. Consulting Engineers 1•'AIRMOle1T PARKWAY TURNING MOVEMENT CO~JNTS 4.15 am 4.30am TIt12E 4.45am 5.O Oam 5•l~am 5.3 0am 5.45am6 .OOam Luella Boulevard Westbound RT 13 11 15 7 9 22 12 12 Eastbound RT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastbound LT 17 17 24 21 31 27 18 19 Somenon Drive Westbound RT 3 1 1 3 4 2 1 3 Brookwood Drive Westbound RT 7 9 4 6 5 8 10 8 Eastbound LT 18 18 22 15 27 28 26 25 Wilmont Drive _ Westbound RT 10 17 21 19 34 29 28 19 Eastbound LT 5 11 12 17 9 19 14 ~ 22 Farrington Boulevard Eastbound LT 21 20 19 1~ 31 23 28 17 Cottonwood Drive Westbound RT 6 5 2 4 7 0 3 1 Driftwood Drive Westbound RT 23 32 33 26 40 ~ 43 49 32 Eastbound LT 26 29 28 37 23 47 27 28 6.45 am 7.OOam TIl~ 7.15am 7.30am 7.45am 8.O Oam 8.15am8 :30am Bay„park Road Westbound LT 20 38 19 26 17 37 28 13 Eastbound RT 32 43 30 28 21 30 26 18 No pedestrian traffic was observed at any of the intersections and there aze no pavement mazkings delineating pedestrian crossings. There are no •.• sidewalks along any of the project azea. C. SPEED The posted speed on Fairmont Parkway is ~ 4~ mph, both eastbound and westbound, between Red Bluff Road and Somerton Drive then turns to 5~ mph east of Somerton Drive in each direction. The posted speed on each of f Page 4 Binkley & Barfield, Inc. Consulting Engineers the intersecting streets is 30 mph. The average speed of traffic on Fairmont Parkway was determined to be 60 mph. This operating speed was determined from driving within platoons of cars. D. ACCIDENT DATA Information on accidents within the project azea was requested from the Texas Department of Public Safety. No accident reports were received for Wilmont Drive and Baypazk Road. At Luella Boulevazd, Somerton Drive, Brookwood Drive, Farrington Boulevazd, Cottonwood Drive, and Driftwood Drive several accident reports were received for the previous twelve-month period. The majority of these accidents were a result of failure to yield right of way to crossing traffic. Related accident data includes reaz end collisions involving vehicles attempting to make a left or right turn from each approach of Fairmont Pazkway onto the intersecting streets. Farrington Boulevazd has the most siQnifiicant number of accidents involving a vehicle attempting to make a left turn from the eastbound approach of Fairmont Parkway. A collision diagram for this intersection is included as Exhibit 11. Copies of all the accident reports are included in Appendix C. III. ANALYSIS A left and right turn analysis, based on the Transportation Reseazch Boazd "Highway Capacity Manual" and U.S. DOT "Traffic Control Devices Handbook" was performed for these intersections. The warrants were based on collected accident and volume data. Copies of the Left Turn Warrant Evaluations aze included in Appendix D and summarized below. LEFT TURN WARRANT EVALUATION INTERSECTING STREET DIRECTION RESULT 1 Luella Boulevazd Eastbound Left Turn Satisfied b Volume 2 Brookwood Drive Eastbound Left Turn Satisfied b Volume 3 Wilmont Drive Eastbound Left Turn Satisfied b Volume 4 Farrington Boulevazd I Eastbound Left Turn Satisfied by Volume & Accidents 5 Ba azk Road Westbound Left Turn Satisfied b Volume 6 Driftwood Drive Eastbound Left Turn Satisfied b Volume These results aze based on the peak hour left turn volume and opposing thru volume. This analysis indicates that all six locations on Fairmont Pazkway warrant a left turn lane due to opposing volume or a combination of opposing volume and an excessive number of accidents for a twelve month period. Page 5 Binkley & Barfield, Inc. Consulting Engineers The right turn lanes were evaluated based on the volume of right turns versus adjacent volume. The criteria used is 300 vph for the right turn lane and 300 vphpl for the adjacent lane. None of the intersections warrant right turn lanes based on this criteria. Also, there were no reported accidents that could have been avoided with the installation of a right turn lane. IV. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that left turn lanes be installed on Fairmont Pazkway at the intersections of Luella Boulevazd, Brookwood Drive, Wilmont Drive, Drftwood Drive, Farrington Boulevard and Baypazk Road. Signal modifications will also be required at Farrington Boulevard to include a left turn signal on Fairmont Parkway and timing adjustments. V. COSTS Traffic signal modifications at Farrington Boulevard should cost approximately $40,000..00 and the installation of six left turn lanes on Fairmont Pazkway should cost approximately $270,000.00. These costs are based on construction within the next 12-months. Page 6 Binklep & Barfield, Inc. Consulting Engineers Jr11-1-1 1 -~V•JL 11' ~~ ..~~~ . _____ ...__. - _ - . 55 Waugh Drive • Fbus6on. Y~77007 • CIT31968~1661 I~'_ ~. To: Martha Gillett Kirby Inland Marine, Inc. From: Steve Valerius Froc 281/842-1839 P~+onc~ 7131868-6406 01/17/00 Pages: 1 + Cover ®~ Ms. Gillett:: Please distribute the foilovuing letter to the Mayor, Ciiy Manager and City Counal Members. Thank yoz, for your assistance. Sieve Vaterius J H(`I-1 i`~_1'~J~' 1-{ • _b 1"IULL 1 IaiUUL~ 'JF'ILCR l UJ i t..~ Gov o-ten.. 1 . L~• LL Steven P. Valerius 140 Hazel Avenue La Porte, TX 77579 January 17, 2000 To: Mayor Norman Malone cc: La Porte City Council Members: Mr. Jeny Clarke Mr. Howard Ebow Mr. ChucCc Engelken Mr. Deotis Gay Mr. Peter Griffiths Mr. Alton Porter Mr. Guy Sutherland Mr. Charlie Young City Manager, Robert Herrera Via Telefax No: 281/842-1839 Re: Street Endings on Galveston Bay I am adamantly opposed to the development of the abandoned street endings on Galveston Bay. Any sort of City development would drastically effect adjoining property values, which are some of the highest residential values in the City_ Most of these "endings" are too small for any meaningfully sized public use and there is no parking available for virtually any of them. In most cases, maintenance of these °endings" has been assvrned by adjoining landowners and, in many cases, they have paid to rip-rap the shoreline and landscape. There is no safe way to access the water except to climb over the rip-rap in almost all cases. With the acquisition of the new park, public access to the Bay should have been addressed. Action to "develop" these street endings would cost the City considerable money on new maintenance costs. decreased property values and expose the City to liabilities for personal injuries. Sincerely, Steve Valerius TbTAL P. ~3=' Speed Humps • 85 th. percentile @ 35 miles / hr. -means that 85 % of traffic is exceeding the speed limit by 5 miles / hr. -This "triggers" the necessity of speed humps. If you use the 85'". percentile at 30 miles / hr. (the legal speed limit) then if 85% of the traffic is going the legal speed limit this will "trigger" the necessity of speed humps. Why would you want to restrict traffic if the overwhelming majority is obeying the law ? Aren't you actually promoting lowering the speed limit ? Right-of--way street endings into the bay - mini-parks We just opened a $ 1,500,000.00 bayfront park ! This is going to create a serious parking problem for the residents of these areas. There is at least one (1) existing pier at the end of one of these right-of--ways. This is a membexs only pier that accesses through a public right-of--way, what is the policy going to be in this (these) cases ? This is going to be expensive ! ~- R - . - ~(C-; - ----- _ ----- -- - - --- ,I _ -- ----- - j~ -- -- ~Y1DO~~esS __ - - -a - - -- - _ ___ _ - - - l _ _. __ - - - i. --- __.. Iy /~ ~ p - -- __ . - - -- - - - - _ ~ Fri! CL(~ _. ~~"~o _C9t~cv 7`~G~GC. 77S7f....: - -- --- ---- - - - - - - o----- 3 - - -- ~/ ~ - - - - - - - - -~- -- -- Vii/ ~s>_ ~.~~~~?- - __ ~~ --- - .- _ - ------0- - - -~- --- _--- - - -/ -- - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -- ---- ,~`~ P - . _ _.. ~~ Date: ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ Name: i~~ ~ ~r-- Address: ~~ City, State, Zip: r---- _ ~ ~7 ~ 7 :7 Subject on which I wish to speak: w A __ n ® • Date: Name: /7 ~ a J~~ V l[ /d~+~ Address: ~~ ~O / ~~ ~~ City, State, Zip: r~ ~ ~ ~~ l~ ~~~ Subject on which I wish to speak: r ~,~ ~ ~ _- Date: • Name. F~r~ SF~/ Address: Z3 / ~~5~ ,~-< City, State, Zip: ~v~ %~ Subject on which I wish to speak: ~ Z ~~ ~ Date: f f ~~ Name: Address: ~.2R City, State, Zip: ~o ti~~~ I ~~ s ~ Subject on which I wish to speak: Ue~ Date: Name: ~//7 /~D • ~~~ Address: C ~~~ r ~~ City, State, Zip: ~Q 77 ~7/ Subject on which I wish to speak: ~ ~~~~~~~ • Date: /- /7- ~CYo Name: Address: ~©~ S/~ya.2. City, Sta ,Zip: _ ~a o~~~ ~~ 77s`7/ Subject on which I wish to speak: Lei ~PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY Ie City of Houston's Southeast Water Purification Plant Expansion A. Increase from 80 MGD to 120 MGD 1) Upgrade of existing plant structures and equipment .2) Repair and upgrade current capacity B. New Water contract with their clients (co-participants) 1) Simplify administration and billing. 2) Provide co-participants with more voice. 3) Revise equity ownership percentages. C. La Porte Area Water Authority Board -Decisions 1) Participate at a limited level of the proposed expansion and purchase additional water capacity? a) How much? b) How will they pay for it? 2) If decision is not to participate, then what amount of contracted increase can be sold (brokered) to others? a) How much do they sell? b) What value do they place on the excess water? c) Recommend a price to set on any excess capacity. d) Negotiate the sale with interested political entities. (1) City of Friendswood (2) City of Pasadena (3) Clear Lake Water Authority (4) Others? DO. Water Availability - LPAWA Currently, we own 4.2 MGD August 2001 (additional) ~ 3.0 MGD TOTAL without participating with expansion 7.2 MGD Eligible for additional 3.6 MGD TOTAL Sources 10.8 MGD Recommendation -Sale 3.0 of 3.6 MGD (3.0 MGD *~` TOTAL Available 7.8 MGD Water Usage Projection - 2% Growth Over 40 Mears FLOW TYPE 2000 2002 2010 2020 2025 2030 2040 Daily Average 3.302 3.447 4.025 4.907 5.417 5.981 7.291 Daily Peak 4.513 4.710 5.501 6.706 7.403 8.173 9.964 Water Usage Projection - 2.5% Growth Over 40 Years FLOW TYPE 2000 2002 2010 2020 2025 2030 2040 Daily Average 3.302 3.469 4.227 5.411 6.122 6.926 8.866 Daily Peak 4.513 4.741 5.777 7.395 8.367 9.466 12.118 * Does not include use of 10% ground water entitled for pumping, nor do the numbers include ground water~credits from the Subsidence District. ** We are not selling capacity; we are selling only the right to buy additional capacity. Financia6 Impact of Recommendation A. B. Proposed Cost to LPAWA to Participate with Plant Expansion 1) Buy additional 3.6 MGD 2) Upgrade /repair existing facilities 3) Additional pumping capacity TOTAL Recommended Action 1) Buy 0.6 MGD 2) Upgrade /repair existing facilities 3) Additional pumping capacity SUBTOTAL 4) Broker the sale for the right to buy 3.0 MGD, which will be made available from upgrade and negotiate sale at $ .85 per gallon Net Result After Transaction $ 1,150,603.00 563, 378.00 612,275.00 $ 2, 326, 256.00 191,767.00 563,378.00 253, 933.00 $ 1, 009, 078.00 X2,550,000.00) $ (1, 540, 922.00) ~ ~ I@/. La Porte Area Water Authority Recommendation A. Purchase additional 0.6 MGD of production capacity - $ 192,000.00 B. Purchase and additional 1.97 MGD pumping capacity - $ 254,000.00 C. Participate with upgrade costs for existing facility - $ 563,378.00 D. Sell 3.0 NIGD of the right to purchase excess water capacity E. Set the price of excess capacity at $ .85 per gallon F. Negotiate the sale of excess water capacity to other political entities and use these proceeds to pay for items A, B, and C above. Consider how to rebate an amount from the sale of this transaction