Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 7F - Memo
Item 7F 19 CI- 'Y OF SOUTHLAKE MEMORANDUM March 31, 2026 To: Alison Ortowski — City Manager From: Daniel Cortez, AICP — Director of Economic Development & Tourism Subject: 1st Reading of CP26-0003: Ordinance No. 1034A, Amendment to the City of Southlake Wastewater Master Plan, an element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan Action Requested: Consider 1st Reading approval of Ordinance No. 1034A, adopting the City of Southlake's Wastewater Master Plan as an element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan. Background Information: The Southlake Comprehensive Plan Southlake's Comprehensive Plan is the community's long-range policy roadmap, the document that guides how the City grows, invests, and sustains infrastructure over time. It is structured under the City's Strategic Management System that connects the community's vision and goals to the City's department work plans, operational budgets, and capital improvement program. The Comprehensive Plan does not operate in isolation; it is a living framework that ties together distinct but interrelated elements covering land use, mobility, parks and open space, economic development, and public infrastructure, including the City's utility systems. Each element of the Comprehensive Plan is developed through an intentional process: discovery and data validation, community and committee engagement, formal board and commission review, and final Council adoption. Once adopted, an element becomes the governing policy reference for the subject area it covers shaping how staff evaluates decisions, how resources are prioritized, and how the City communicates with the community about its responsibilities and intentions. The three utility master plans being proposed for adoption, the Stormwater, Water, and Wastewater Master Plans, are all adopted as elements of the Comprehensive Plan. They translate the Plan's long-range vision for infrastructure stewardship, stability, and maintenance into practical direction for how each utility system is managed, maintained, and reinvested in over time. Page 1 Comprehensive Planning in Southlake Today Southlake's wastewater collection system is a critical public utility that has supported the community's growth from a rural, septic-dependent area into a fully planned, nationally recognized city. Over decades, the City invested in building out a municipal wastewater collection network capable of serving a growing population and a diverse commercial base extending gravity mains, constructing lift stations, coordinating with regional treatment partners, and managing downstream conveyance through the Trinity River Authority (TRA) system. For most of that history, wastewater investment was shaped primarily by growth extending service to new areas, adding lift stations to serve topographically challenging development, and managing the downstream consequences of an expanding community. That era has largely passed. As Southlake approaches buildout, the nature of the waste challenge has fundamentally shifted. The question is no longer primarily, "Where do we need to add collection capacity?" It is, "How do we sustain, maintain, and reinvest in the system we already have and how do we manage wet- weather risk as the system matures?" This transition from a system expansion focus to a system resilience and stewardship focus is the defining context of the Wastewater Master Plan. In a near-buildout community, long-term wastewater performance is determined less by new infrastructure construction and more by the discipline of proactive maintenance, targeted inflow and infiltration (1/1) reduction, risk-based asset management, and development coordination that protects the system's long-term reliability and maintainability. The Wastewater Master Plan is built around this reality, establishing the policy framework, performance expectations, and investment priorities that allow Southlake to protect what it has built, reduce avoidable wet-weather risk, and sustain reliable wastewater service for the community it serves today and through buildout. The Wastewater Master Plan The Wastewater Master Plan is adopted by ordinance (Ordinance No. 1034A) as an element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan. The document is a comprehensive, stand-alone plan grounded in the Wastewater Modeling Study prepared by Freese and Nichols that establishes the City's updated policy direction, service expectations, and implementation framework for wastewater system management as a core public service. The Wastewater Master Plan helps implement the Comprehensive Plan's vision by translating broad community goals into practical utility policies, service expectations, and investment priorities, ensuring wastewater decisions remain coordinated with development and redevelopment Page 2 activity and aligned with long-term maintainability and risk reduction outcomes. Specifically, the plan provides the policy foundation for: • Wastewater service expectations, levels of service, and performance management practices. • Asset management foundations and development of the Wastewater Infrastructure Asset Management Plan. • Inflow and infiltration reduction and system integrity program direction, including Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Study (SSES) prioritization and outreach practices. • Development and redevelopment coordination expectations that protect system performance and long-term maintainability. • Long-range funding, capital planning, and partnership strategies supporting lifecycle reinvestment and reliability. A central implementation feature of this plan is the development of a formal Wastewater Infrastructure Asset Management Plan. This program will provide the City with the structured framework needed to inventory assets, assess condition and criticality, apply risk-informed renewal planning, and align capital programming with documented service needs and lifecycle obligations. Upon adoption, the Wastewater Master Plan becomes the Council-recognized policy basis for wastewater system decision-making across the organization. The Wastewater System Wastewater service is one of the most fundamental and least visible infrastructure services the City provides. Residents experience it primarily through what doesn't happen: no backups, no overflows, no odors, no service disruptions. Maintaining that consistency in a near-buildout system requires proactive stewardship of aging assets, disciplined wet-weather response, and program accountability that is not always visible but is essential to public health, environmental quality, and community quality of life. The City's wastewater collection system is a citywide network of pipes, structures, and pump stations that functions as a coordinated conveyance chain moving flow from neighborhood-scale lines into larger interceptors, through lift stations where topography requires it, and ultimately into regional infrastructure managed by the Trinity River Authority. The system serves the entire community and is organized around two primary basin contexts. Page 3 The Central Basin covers the largely built-out southern and central portions of the city and connects to TRA's Central Basin treatment infrastructure. The Denton Creek Basin (North Service Area) covers the northern portions of the community, where remaining growth potential, septic-to-sewer transition opportunities, and wet-weather sensitivity are most concentrated. In the North Service Area, all flows are conveyed to the TRA Kirkwood Lift Station which has a firm capacity of 6.05 MGD and then transported via a 30/24/20-inch force main to the TRA Denton Creek Regional Wastewater System treatment plant. This downstream dependency is significant: local collection performance and regional conveyance capacity work together to define overall system reliability, which is why wet-weather peak management and 1/1 reduction are central priorities of this plan. At a high level, Southlake manages over 225 miles of wastewater lines, more than 4,170 manholes, 12 lift stations, and a system that generates over 2.1 million gallons of wastewater per day. Pipe sizes range from 2 to 27 inches, reflecting the transition from neighborhood-scale collection to larger trunk and interceptor corridors. The system includes gravity mains, trunk lines and interceptors, lift stations, force mains, and associated manholes and cleanouts — each playing a distinct role in the conveyance chain and each carrying different consequences if it underperforms or fails. Not all properties within Southlake are currently connected to the municipal collection system. Some areas primarily near the northern and western edges of the service footprint continue to rely on private septic systems. These service gaps represent a strategic planning consideration that requires evaluation based on feasibility, community interest, constructability, and performance implications rather than a uniform conversion commitment. Technical Foundation The Wastewater Master Plan is grounded in the Wastewater Modeling Study prepared by Freese and Nichols, which builds upon the City's 2012 Wastewater Master Plan, prior flow monitoring work, and operational experience accumulated over years of managing the collection system through wet and dry weather conditions. The modeling effort used InfoWorks ICM to develop a calibrated hydraulic model of the wastewater system incorporating gravity lines, force mains, lift stations, and downstream interface conditions and evaluated system performance under both existing and future buildout flow scenarios. Dry-weather model calibration was grounded in flow monitoring data from May 2018, and wet-weather calibration used storm monitoring data from December 2017. The NOAA Atlas 14 5-year, 6-hour design storm was selected as the standard wet-weather evaluation basis, providing a Page 4 consistent and meaningful stress test for system performance comparisons across basins and over time. Key technical findings from this work inform the plan's priorities and policy direction. Under existing conditions, system constraints tend to concentrate where multiple stressors overlap, wet-weather inflows increase rapidly, downstream conveyance has limited margin, and certain segments or lift stations serve as shared pathways for large contributing areas. Wet-weather performance mapping reveals that surcharge patterns often reflect downstream bottlenecks propagating upstream rather than isolated local deficiencies, which is why the plan emphasizes a basin-level, bottleneck-relief approach to capital sequencing. Looking toward buildout, the primary risk is not that flows will overwhelm the system overall it is how incremental growth and potential septic-to- sewer transitions will affect peak wet-weather margin at key lift stations, trunk lines, and downstream interfaces. At buildout without septic incorporation, the North Service Area is projected to generate peak wet- weather flows of approximately 6.47 MGD. At buildout with septic incorporation, that figure increases to approximately 7.35 MGD compared to the TRA Kirkwood Lift Station's firm capacity of 6.05 MGD. This relationship between projected buildout peak flows and downstream firm capacity is the defining planning tension of the Wastewater Master Plan, and it makes 1/1 reduction and system integrity work not merely preferable but essential to sustaining service levels cost-effectively. RDII (rainfall-derived inflow and infiltration) basin screening is a key output of the technical work, categorizing basins by wet-weather sensitivity so the City can focus SSES investigation and rehabilitation resources where they will produce the greatest reduction in peak flow stress. The plan uses this basin screening as a foundational prioritization tool directing field investigation before major capital commitments and confirming that performance improvements justify the cost before scaling rehabilitation programs. How the City Manages the Wastewater System Day-to-day wastewater system operations span a wide range of responsibilities that occur continuously and year-round. At the most fundamental level, City staff maintain and operate the collection system conducting proactive cleaning and maintenance of gravity mains, manholes, and lift stations; monitoring lift station performance through SCADA; responding to service requests and field reports of backups or unusual conditions; and conducting post-storm inspections during and after wet-weather events to document system response and identify emerging problem areas. Page 5 Lift station operations are a particularly critical day-to-day responsibility. With 12 lift stations concentrated primarily in the Denton Creek Basin, the City maintains a continuous operational readiness posture monitoring wet well levels and pump performance, maintaining redundancy where feasible, ensuring backup power capability at critical stations, and maintaining clear protocols for wet-weather response and escalation. Lift station failures or reduced capacity during peak wet-weather events can affect large upstream service areas quickly, which is why operational readiness is treated as a reliability strategy rather than a reactive function. The City's regulatory environment shapes ongoing compliance obligations as well. TCEQ establishes baseline criteria for collection system performance including wet-weather conveyance expectations, lift station design criteria, and the standards used to evaluate surcharge risk and sanitary sewer overflow prevention. Southlake must also maintain coordination with the federal Clean Water Act framework, which reinforces the importance of overflow prevention and receiving water protection through sound utility stewardship. Regional coordination with TRA around downstream conveyance assumptions, capacity conditions, and operational expectations is an additional ongoing obligation because local system reliability is directly tied to downstream firm capacity and how well both systems are managed under peak wet-weather conditions. The City also maintains an established Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) program governed by Ordinance 914 and supported by a FOG Policy Manual addressing commercial food service establishment requirements. This program requires grease traps to be cleaned at least every 90 days, establishes standards for registered liquid waste haulers, and provides outreach to residents and businesses on best practices for preventing grease accumulation in sewer lines. FOG management is one of the most direct and practical connections between customer behavior and wastewater system reliability, and the plan treats it as an integral part of the City's broader community partnership strategy. Committee Input The Corridor Planning Committee provided directional guidance at the February 10, 2026 session focused on Water and Wastewater. A copy of that committee report can be found attached to this memo. Plan Adoption The adoption process is designed to reinforce transparent, community- informed planning. Southlake advanced the plan through a sequence of public meetings and board and commission reviews to build understanding, gather feedback, and refine plan direction before formal action is taken. Upon adoption, the Wastewater Master Plan becomes an adopted element supporting the Comprehensive Plan and provides policy direction that guides wastewater service expectations and performance Page 6 management; asset management foundations including development of the Wastewater Infrastructure Asset Management Plan; 1/1 reduction and system integrity program direction; development coordination expectations; and long-range funding, capital planning, and partnership strategies supporting lifecycle reinvestment and reliability. Plan Policy Statements The Wastewater Master Plan establishes 17 policy statements organized across six focus areas. These policies are the formal, adopted direction that will guide how staff evaluates maintenance needs, capital improvement priorities, development review, regulatory compliance, and public communication after adoption. Asset Management & Reinvestment (AM) • AM1. Manage the wastewater system as a long-life public asset by prioritizing preventive maintenance, renewal, and replacement based on Iifecycle needs rather than reactive repair alone. • AM2. Establish and maintain a formal wastewater asset management program that includes asset inventory, condition and criticality assessment, and risk-informed renewal planning to guide annual budgets and multi-year capital programming. • AM3. Prioritize wastewater investments using a consistent, transparent framework that considers public health, service reliability, consequences of failure, and operational risk, with reinvestment becoming an increasing focus as Southlake approaches buildout. Levels of Service & Performance (LS) • LS1 . Define clear wastewater levels of service that guide planning, operations, and investment decisions, emphasizing reliable conveyance, minimized backups/overflows, and dependable wet- weather performance. • LS2. Use a consistent, systemwide planning basis for evaluating capacity and wet-weather performance so decisions are comparable across basins and over time. • LS3. Improve reliability over time by routinely evaluating system performance, identifying recurring drivers of service disruption, and adjusting maintenance and capital priorities based on documented results. Page 7 Growth, Development & Buildout Readiness (GD) • GD1. Plan and phasing strategic wastewater improvements to support long-term buildout conditions while avoiding unnecessary overbuilding, using sequencing and timing to match demonstrated need. • GD2. Require new development and redevelopment to demonstrate adequate wastewater capacity and infrastructure compatibility and to mitigate system impacts through appropriate upgrades, timing, or participation in required improvements. • GD3. Pursue opportunities to simplify wastewater operations and reduce long-term risk and cost such as targeted system reconfiguration or consolidation when supported by engineering evaluation and lifecycle benefit. Resilience, 1/1 Reduction & System Integrity (RS) • RS1. Advance a sustained inflow and infiltration reduction program through targeted investigation and rehabilitation, focusing on areas with recurring wet-weather impacts and the greatest risk-reduction potential. • RS2. Use appropriate field evaluations and system assessments to confirm suspected problem areas and refine project scope, sequencing, and expected outcomes before major capital commitments. • RS3. Implement an education-first public outreach program on private- property 1/1 prevention, including verifying cleanout caps are present and sealed and preventing stormwater sources from connecting to the sanitary system. Septic-to-Sewer Transition (ST) • ST1. Maintain the City's general approach to septic-to-sewer transition while recognizing that conversion cost and physical feasibility vary by location, extending service where practical and cost-effective and considering alternative solutions where connection is not feasible. • ST2. Evaluate septic-to-sewer incentives only when they are targeted, clearly justified, and substantial enough to influence homeowner decisions while remaining fiscally responsible and aligned with long- term planning priorities. Financial Sustainability (FS) • FS1. Fund the wastewater utility in a financially resilient and transparent manner by aligning budgets, reserves, rates/fees, and Page 8 capital planning with lifecycle needs and long-term service expectations. • FS2. Treat renewal and replacement as a planned, ongoing obligation integrated into annual budgeting and capital programming so the system remains dependable without relying on crisis-driven spending. • FS3. Pursue grants, partnerships, and cost-effective delivery strategies when they strengthen long-term system performance and reduce the burden on ratepayers while maintaining accountability for outcomes. Financial Considerations: There are no inherent costs associated with developing the plan element as it was developed internally. Any financial considerations will be considered upon implementation of the plan on a case-by-case basis through the Capital Improvements Plan or budget process. Strategic Link: The comprehensive plan primarily falls under the "Infrastructure & Development" Focus Area. Board Review: The Planning Corridor Committee provided direction on the development of these plans which were all open to the public, held on the following dates: • January 13, 2026 • January 28, 2026 • February 10, 2026 Citizen Input/ SPIN: A SPIN Town Hall Forum was held on March 2, 2026, at 5:00 PM. Staff has provided a summary of that meeting report attached to this memo. Planning & Zoning Commission: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended Approval (5-0) of this item on March 5, 2026, meeting subject to the staff report dated February 27, 2026. Staff Review: The Public Works and Planning & Development Services Departments have reviewed the proposed plans. Staff Recommendation: Recommend approval of Ordinance No. 1034A, adopting the City of Southlake Wastewater Master Plan, an element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives: Recommend modifications to the proposed Wastewater Master Plan. Page 9 Attachments: Corridor Planning Committee Reports • January 13, 2026 • January 28, 2026 • February 10, 2026 SPIN Town Hall Meeting Report Draft Ordinance No. 1034A: Wastewater Master Plan Staff Contacts: Daniel Cortez (817) 748-8039 Page 10 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 53 - January 13. 2D26 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main t_, SouthiaKe, Texas 76092 City Council Chambers 1N ATTENDANCE: • City Council Members: Frances Scharli, Kathy Talley, Austin Reynolds • Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Michael Forman, Michael Springer, Gina Canneva, David Cunningham • Other Committee Members; Dr_ Magdalena Battles • City Staff: Dennis I illough, Daniel Cortez, Lauren LaNeave, Jeff Ginn, Ryan Firestone AGENDA ITEMS: 'I. Call to Order. . Administrative Comments. 3. Overview of the Comprehensive Plan update pmcess_ 4. Review and discuss Storm water, Water, and Wastewater Comprehensive Plan Elements 5. AdjoLimment MEETING OVERVIEW: On January 13, 2026 the SouthIaKe Corridor Planning Committee held their 53'6 meeting. The Committee was sent a packet of materials prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the session. A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was advertised on the City's website_ The following meeting report focuses on discussion points made during the meeting by mernbers of the Committee, public and City staff_ This report is neither verbatim nor does it represent official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting_ Interested parties are strongly encouraged to fallow development cases through the process. Please visit Cityof outhiake_comYlanning for more information_ Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item 46 Page 1 ITEM 44 DISCUSSION — Review and discuss torrnwater, Water. and Wastewater Comprehensive Plan elements Staff presentation: Daniel Cortez • Comprehensive Plan Elements • How are the plans aligned Committee role • Policy framework considerations • What should the policy consider' • Example policy considerations • Plan adoption process • What are utility master plans? • Water system focus • Wastewater system focus • torrn ater and drainage focus • What to expect' • Communication Public engagement Questions for Staff Michael Forman: Can you clarify with the audience what the meeting on the 28th will involve' Daniel Cortez: Yes, we will start looking at the process and provide the Corridor Ccrnrnittee background, context, and data as it specifically relates to the Stormwater Master Plan_ o, that is when we will get into the fine details and ask for policy questions from this committee and the way it will work, I kind Df ran through this presentation today, but will also have assistance from our Public Works team going through some of the data and explaining some of the details and then ask you guys essentially a Policy direction question of what direction you would like us to go. Michael Forman: Then water and wastewater will came back to this committee as well? Daniel Cortez: That'll be subsequent to that meeting as well in early February. Michael Forman: Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #6—Page 2 And then will all three of those go to SPIN together or do they each go to a separate SPIN? Daniel Cortez: We'll go ahead and take them all to SPIN together that'll be the easiest way for all of us to make sure that we don't compartmentalize anv of the infrastructure plans_ Michael Forman: Once all three of those collectively go to SPIN, sa abviously we have citizen feedback at SPIN for the comprehensive plan, then we'll have citizen feedback from that paint when it gees to P&Z, and then we'll have citizen feedback again at the council stage_ On all three stages, collectively, wastewater, water, and stormwater will be combined at that point. True? Daniel Cortez: That's correct. They will be adopted by separate ordinances, but they'll all be heard together_ They'll need to act as one unit_ Austin Reynolds: I just had one thing to add from a perspective standpoint that I always think content is really, really helpful in forming decisions, of course, and not just the one issue that we're talking about today_ When I think about a detention pond or a creek or something like that, and a creek can have several layers of capacity where it starts off really small, larger, larger, larger, right?And oftentimes when a subdivision is built, you know, the creek capacity or the detention capacity is built for the future build out of the entire area, right's And so when that first subdivision is built, it's maybe 10° full on a 100 year flood day, 10years later, a couple other subdivisions are built. Now it's 40, 50%full on a 100 year flood situation and the original design of the drainage of that was intended for it to get to 50° or 30% or 90° or whatever it is_ And then you get to full build out where it's at full capacity of what it was intentionally designed for using the land use plan. So my desire is that as we go through drainage and things like that is to look at what did we think full capacity would have been in that detention pond or creek level an the 100-year flood, and then what is it now in reality? So then we can know whether it ended up being undersized, or if it's right sized, or it needs to be upsized, or things like that. Sometimes we can look at a creek or a detention pond like 30 years ago and say it never got above 10 feet, now it's at 30 feet. We11, it's always designed to go to 30 feet once you're at full build out but knowing that it did in fact get to 30 and not 45. Does that make sense? Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #5—Page 3 Daniel Cortez: Yeah, absolutely. And you bring up a good point, and we'll talk about this at the next corridor meeting, but you know a lot of our infrastructure requirements have changed over time, right" outhlake from the 90s is not definitely what the requirements are today. So this kind of goes to your point that things evolve, things change and so we'll definitely address that and provide context for that_ Frances Scharli: Austin, to your paint, to piggyback on what you just said, my concern is that we hear a lot about drainage problems in the city and my concern is that we have erred on the side of not enough capacity_ I want to make sure that we don't ignore that in this process because we hear it all the time and I don't think it's just people worried because they just had a hundred-year rain. We see it in lots of different venues and lots of different areas. I personally am concerned abc)ut our calculations in that they're insufficient_ So. I want to revisit that. Austin Reynolds: It's a fair point because we are hearing about it and it's just, that's why I'm saying having that empirical data to be able to say, we thought it full build out, it would get to whateverr 80 full. It actually ended up being 9 ° full_ Should we upsize it? Should we not? Is there other more development to come to then add to that? Or did we plan for it to be 30% and it's 2 5%r so it's over capacity, it's well capacit}r_ I'm thinking of the wrong word, you get what I'm saying_ It's designed correctly, sufficient, thank you. I just think having that empirical data is helpful so that when we have those concerns, we can say, it's behaving like it's designed or it's under capacity and we're going to fix that or it's sufficient_ Daniel Cortez: Yes, these meetings in the d irection that the corridor committee provides to us will give us that rationale to sit there a.nd dig deeper into finding solutions to some of these challenges- Michael Forman: o just to be clear, Daniel, when we get to spin with the comprehensive plan there will be specific projects identified_ Daniel Cortez: We won't necessarily get into, we'll have areas identified within the city, but the projects themselves, that really happens through the Capital Improvements Program. 8o, this Southlake Corridor Planning Coirmittee Item 96—Page 4 process here, this is going to give us the direction and the policy direction that we need in order to how we prioritize certain projects, what we need to look at_ I was just speaking with the gentleman just earlier, and we may have 100 million worth of problems here within the city or challenges that we have, but only a limited budget, right? Haw do we prioritize some of those projects moving forward? So, this will give us the policy direction from not just this corridor committee, but also P&Z and the City Council on hovel we need to tackle a lot of the challenges that we have within the community and some of it will be obviously development related_ Some of it will be things that we can go ahead and implement pretty quickly. I'm just thinking out laud here, but certain development regulations, especially if it's just ordinance related with new construction coming into the community we can address those a little bit mare proactively than maybe some of the immediate infrastructures that the city needs to go in and implement ourselves_ Frances Scharli: The only other question I have is that I'm a little concerned about how a SPIN meeting is going to deal with three aspects and I hope we stay open to if there's a lot of community interest, like right now I know there's a ton of interest in drainage, and I think that might take one whole SPIN meeting. So, I think we need to stag open to the fact that we may need to have more than one SPIN meeting and maybe it should be based on level of interest, but I definitely want to snake sure we have plenty of opportunity for the community to give their input- Da n i e I Cortez: Yes, ma'am. Austin Reynolds: Is the intent of the SPIN meeting for information gathering or information distribution? Dan iel Cortez: Both_ So, we're going to host it_ It's been some time since we've hosted this, but we'll kind of set it up as an open house_ There'll be a couple of hours prior to the actual meeting, the actual presentation,. where we'll have staff outside going through some of the maps, going through some of the specifics, and more importantly, going through some of the policy direction that we've already received from this committee, so we'll be taking some of their feedback as well. And so by the time we actually get to PNZ, we're also updating the PNZ as well on what some of the feedback that we've heard. If there's any modifications to the policy statements that want to be made, we can go ahead and make those corrections at PNZ or even moving forward at City Council as well Southlake Corridor Planning committee Item #6-Page 5 Austin Reynolds: Okay so SPIN won't be at a stage where it's, we're telling, we're telling South Lake what we're going to do_ This is where we are_ This is where we've been._. Daniel Cortez: The whole purpose of this comprehensive plan, we're not going to find the solutions to everything here today. This is strictly policy direction from the governing body. Austin Reynolds: Yeah, no, 1 just I wanted people to hear that it's SPIN is not the final product that we're pushing on you_ It's still information gathering and it's still a collective process_ Daniel C Drtez: Yeah, the final prodrlct will be months in the making. Once we have a good policy established, move forward, all of this will end up translating, as I showed previously, into a lot of our de p a rti-ne nta I work plans and operational C IP. That's really where the rubber meets the read in a lot of these things, but we'll see a little bit mare of that_ SD, an exam pie of departmental work plans is ordinance adoptions that we'll go ahead and implement that'll have some regulatory ability over development. Kathy Talley: I like that you make a great point, Francis and Austin_ I mean, I think we need to be able, be prepared, willing, and able to add a spin meeting or add some informational meetings or something, just in case, based on the feedback and based on the pubiic input, I think that's a great idea. Michael Farman: Not to get into specific projects, because I understand that's not what we're here about, but I know that we meet a group like this. Well, in fact, several of my planning and zoning commissioners are on the Capital Improvement Advisory Committee, and I know that we meet every year or so on that . o, far those in the audience that wish to find out about specific projects in their area that are already addressed in the capital improvement, where would they go? Daniel Cortez: They could reach out to the names that you see here on your screen, myself included, the city council is actually even going through right now through their adoption of the capital improvements program for this coming year_ So, the council, 1 believe, at the Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item 96—Page 6 next meeting? February 3rd work session, wre'II actually get into the nuts and bolts of some of the specific projects. Now, it is important to understand that that's a separate thing going on than this comprehensive planning process. This is the policy that'll be moving forward. This will have a greater impact at next year's capital improvements program. Michael Forman: And that's where my next point was_ Ultimately, what you guys gather from council and P&Z this year on polio}wind up getting implemented next gear in capital improvements. o, it's important if a citizen has an opinion on a specific project while it might not be addressed this yearn to g ive input on that area of the city, because ultimately it's going to be not only a part of the policy, but a capital improvement_ Daniel Cortez: That's correct. Michael Farman: o you're expecting probably P&Z in March, and to be clear, tharil be the first vote on any of the policy considerations that are being considered. Daniel Cortez: That's correct, sir. Michael Forman: And then council will have it, and remind me, does council get it once or twice' Daniel Cortez: Twice. Michael Forman: Okay so plenty} of opportunities for input where a vote will be taken and then also it's spin before it ever gets to a vote at P&Z_ Dina Cannova: What is the frequency that this comprehensive plan is updated' Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #6—Page 7 Daniel Cortez: o these plans are updated with some level of frequency because there's a lot of studies that we do on the interim, but usually a lot of that we have elerents such as land use, that we address more frequently because that's an ever-evolving situation_ Parks, as we look at parkland, mobility as well, because those tend to be the elements that we have within the corn pre hensive plan that need updating_ There's others as well, health and wellness, economic development, that don't require attention as frequently, so they're not updated. Right now, obviously, as some of the board members have been indicating, you know, there's some drainage concerns. S o, it's an opportune time far us to go ahead and take a look at it, but if my memory serves me right, the last study we even did that addresses some stormwrater specifically was back in 202 2, which we'll get into more detail here at the next meeting. Gina Dannova: Okay, so this is kind of piecemealed over time on an as-needed basis, this plan_ Daniel Cortez,. Yeah. Michael Forman: I had just one final question_ The January 28th meeting, a little bit of an unfair question, however, so, stormwvater will be on that meeting agenda. Do we have any idea if there are other agenda items at this point? Dennis Killough: Yes, Chainnan I'm expecting two to three items at this time_ Michael Forman: Typical development type agendas? Dennis Killough: Yes_ Michael Forman: And just so for the audience to understand, not only will this come forward, storm water, in a little bit more detail, but there'll be several other items which wrouId be the typical development items that come forward_ So, let's say somebody brings in a project, wants to put a building in some location, there will be specific comments about that project Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item #b-Page 8 from everybody up here. I like the landscaping, I don't like the orientation of the buildings, all kinds of detail like that to give the developer feedback, and then it will go through the process as well, but once again, there's no votes at Corridor Committee. This was simply lined up as a process by prior mayors and council to provide feedback to developers and quite frankly, if a project comes in and the people up here don't like it, oftentimes they tell the developer and it never sees the light of day and never makes it the P&Z. So, it's meant to streamline #1 and then #2, give the citizens an opportunity to hear things early, early on_ That's all the comments I have and I guess we're adjourned if that's it. STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWN TO COMMITTEE: Southlake Corridor Planning committee Item #6—Page 9 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 54— January 28, 2026 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main St., Southlake, Texas 76002 City Council Chambers IN ATTENDANCE: • City Council Members: Randy Robbins, Frances SchaHi, Kathy Talley, ALIStin Reynolds • Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Daniel Kubiak, Michael Forman, David Cunnigharn • City Staff: Dennis Killough, Jenny Crosby, Daniel Cortez, Cyndi Cheng, Ryan Firestone, Jeff Ginn, Lauren LaNeave AGENDA ITEMS: 1. Call to Order. 2_ Administrative Comments. 3- Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed office and warehouse development on an approximately B-1-acre property located at 2185 E- Bouthlake Boulevard- 4. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding site plan improvements for Pottery Bam located at 1440 Civic Place- s. Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed Westin Event Venue Addition located at 12DD E- SH 114- 6- Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed 21-acre mixed- use development, including commercial and residential uses, and an alternative all- residential development plan for property located at 600-634 Davis Boulevard. 7- Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed residential development to include 11 single-family lots and located at 940-1050 S. Carroll Ave. and 1000-1 D40 Breeze Wad- 8_ Review, discuss, and make recommendations regarding a proposed realignment of tutu single-family lots located at 1275 and 1285 Shady Oaks Drive. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Storrnwater Masker Plan Meeting#54—Ja n ua ry 28,2026 Page 1 9_ Overview of the Stormwater Master Plan, an Element of the SouthlaKe Comprehensive Plan. 10_Adjoumrnent_ MEETING OVERVIEW: On January 28,2026, the SouthlaKe Corridor Planning Committee held their 5e meeting_ The Committee was sent a packet of rn ate riais prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the session_A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was advertised on the City's ebsite_ The following meeting report focuses on discussion points made during the meeting by members of the Committee, public and City staff_ This report is neither verbatim nor does it represent official meeting minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting_ Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow deveIoprnent cases through the process. Please visit Cityof South lake_com/PIanning for more information ITEM #9 DISCUSSION — Overy iew of the Storm ater Master Plan, an Element of the outhlake Comprehensive Plan. Staff presentation: Daniel Cortez • Comprehensive Plan Elements • How are the plans aligned • Committee role • Policy framework considerations • VVhat should the policy consider? • Example policy considerations • Plan adoption process • What are utility master plans? • Water system focus • Wastewater system focus • Stormwater and drainage focus • What to expect? • Communication • Public engagement Questions for Staff Daniel Cortez Southlake CorridorPlanning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454—Jan ua ry 28,2026 Page 2 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Council and Commission_ I'm happy to finally kick off this utility plan process with this committee- Tod ay, I want to revisit what this process means far us and where we are starting. We are now touching the plan elements related to the comprehensive plan_ Council is used to seeing plan elements connected to the City's Strategic Management System, and this should be viewed in a similar way. It's important to be clear that we are not engineering solutions today. Instead, we'll be asking policy-level questions—generally yes-or-no questions—that will guide staff direction_ From those answers, staff will draft policy statements_ Those statements will be shared during upcoming SPIN open houses and will incorporate feedback from residents, Planning &Zoning, and City Council_ Think of this as creating a stormwater strategy map forthe City. Tonight, we'll cover background, context, and data—how drainage basins function, F E M A and N F I P requirements, and state permits_ We'll also discuss what our infrastructure looks like today and what it could look like_ Then we'll shift into policy discussion_ The purpose tonight is to review regulatory and financial considerations, provide a high- level overview of stormwater management, summarize prior studies from the last five to ten years, and address resident concerns. Throughout, we'll pause for policy discussion and seek yourfeedback_ At the highest level, stormwater management has four jobs: 1_ Convey water safely so it doesn't overwhelm streets, homes, or infrastructure _ Store water to manage peak flows 3_ Mitigate risk, recognizing hazards vary across the city 4_ Protect water quality from sediment, ails, nutrients, and pollutants Each paIicy question tonight ties back to one or more of these jabs_ The overall intent of stormwater management is simple: soak it in, slow it down, and spread it out. Speeding up stormwater is often not desirable. Our City Engineer, Jeff Ginn, will expand on that shortly. With that, I'II turn it over to our Director of Public Works, Lauren Laneve, to walk through regulatory and financial considerations_ Lauren LaNeave Southlake Corrido r Plann ing Committee Item#9—Starmwater Masker Plan Meeting 454—January 28,2026 Page 3 Thank you, Daniel_ We'll start with the fundamentals—regulatory and financial considerations. These are the boundaries within which any policy goals must operate. Stormwater management in Southlake is governed by multiple layers: federal, state, and local requirements, along with practical constraints of the built environment. Some requirements are mandatory; others allow flexibility. The policy questions we ask tonight help define where that flexibility exists. outhlake's st,ormwater planning evolved with the city's growth. Key milestones include: ■ 1999: First subdivision ordinance requiring drainage studies • 1990 (ordinance 482): Formal storm drainage policy 1994 (ordinance 605): Foundation of current drainage standards 2023 (ordinance 1268): Post-construction storm ater Ordinance with ongoing maintenance requirements Today's system operates under M 4 permits, FEMA floodplain regulations, U_ _Army Corps jurisdictional waters, Texas Water Code, and local ordinances. A frequent concern is responsibility. The City maintains public drainage infrastructure—inlets, culverts, and systems in public rights-of-way or improved easements. Property owners and HOAs are responsible for private drainage systems, including natural channels and unimproved easements. That includes debris remoValr erosion repair, and vegetation management. A policy question for the committee is whether this division of responsibility should be revised_ Our M4 (permit requires public education, illicit discharge enforcement, construction runoff control, post-construction managements and annual reporting to the state_ Policy Question #1: Should the City consider changes to its stormater enforcement approach? Daniel Kubiak Does anyone avant to jump in? Is there a city recommendation, or examples of how enforcement might change? Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454—January 28,M26 P age 4 Lauren LaNeave Enforcement varies widely by city. SouthIaKe takes a customer service—first approach_ For minor issues, we educate first and escalate only if issues persist. More egregious violations—like illegal dumping—trigger enforcement immediately. The question is whether that approach is sufficient or whether the City wants to became more proactive, which would require additional resources. Austin Reynolds think education is key- I'd bet 90% of residents don't knowv their HOA is responsible for detention ponds. People only find out when it's expensive_ If maintenance had been ongoing, costs wouldn't be so high. Tracking HOA maintenance—even lightly—could help prevent downstream impacts_ Kathy Taller I strongly agree. HOAs often don't understand permitting or storm ater responsibilities, and residents certainly don't. 1 didn't even know draining a pool into the street was an issue_ Education supports our customer-first culture. David Cunningham There's also an awareness problem_ New property owners mar not know they have drainage easements or responsibilities_ This is common in older areas, especially in the west_ Education and disclosure are critical_ Randy Robbins Education is good, but does enforcement have enough teeth? Do we actually have the authority and effectiveness to make changes when issues persist' Lauren LaNeave Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454-January 28,2026 Page 5 Currently, enforcement is mostly reactive_ Proactive inspections would require evaluating staffing and resources_ Frances Scharli I hope we're also looking at what the City can da better. Development has increased runoff, and while formulas say it should balance, residents don't always see that. We need to examine both HOA and City responsibilities. Daniel Cortez That's a great point. Several upcoming policy questions focus on City operations and responsibilities. We structured the presentation to avoid overwhelming you all at once. Daniel Kubiak And of course, additional resuRs usually require additional resources_ Lauren LaNeave Exactly. Any policy recommendations will include an evaluation of required resources. Frances Scharli When was the last stormwater fee increase? Lauren LaNeave 2008. Daniel Kubiak Okay, let's move on- So athlake Corridor Planning Committee Item 49—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454—Jan uary 28,2026 Page 6 Lauren LaNeave Public education is part of our M4 permit. What I'm hearing is that the committee supports increasing education efforts beyond minimum requirements. Randy Robbins My concern is that if we study everything, the cast will be astronomical_ You mentioned that we tend to be mare reactionary in our approach. Does staff already have—probably through a team approach—an anecdotal understanding of where the issues currently are and where they're likely goirig to be? We probably have staff who are bright enough to identify problem areas without paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for a study_ Can we start addressing those issues anecdotally? Say, "This area is going to be an issue aver the next 18 months due to development-row do we mitigate that risk now?R Inslead of studyi rig it just to confirm what we already Know and ending up six months behind because we studied first rather than acted. Jeff Ginn To Lauren's point about the models we have: there is a model for each watershed that shows flood-prone areas under current infrastructure_ The concern comes when we get into public-private improvement areas. Every time we upgrade a critical drainage structure, we are required by FEMA regulations to do a deeper model to evaluate upstream and downstream impacts. That process does take time. Determining the scope and extent of improvements helps narrow down long-term capital costs_ Daniel Kubiak Any other comments or questions on this' Frances Scharli I knowv I've been advocating for a study, but if we already know there are high-risk flood areas, not addressing theirs doesn't make sense either. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—Ja nua ry+28,2026 Page 7 Is there a way to take the information we already have, look at the whole system, and make future decisions? If we know an area is flooding and we're not addressing it, that doesn't make sense. Jeff Ginn That's a great question. The North White Chapel Bridge Improvements study evaluated the entire Kirkwood watershed basin. That study identified several additional CIP projects that are now under design or planning- When we design major drainage infrastructure, we often take that opportunity to model the entire watershed and identify+ other areas for the five- and ten-year C I programs_ The question becomes whether we only look at public infrastructure or also include private drainage easements. Daniel Kubiak HopefuIlyr the moving target settles down as the city approaches 90% build-out- Some areas are more built out than others, but hopefully things won't change drastically+ over time_ As new development applications come in, a comprehensive viewpoint should help us address issues consistently. Lauren LaNeave This question gets at development standards and ordinances_ If a property is developing in oir near a floodplain, there are already additional requirements. The policy question is whether the city wants more stringent or adjusted standards for higher-risk areas_ We do know where floodplains are—federal and state governments recognize them as well Daniel Kubiak Anyone want to weigh in? Southlake Corrid o r Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454-Jan ua ry 28,2026 Page 8 Frances Scharli When you're doing a study like the White Chapel Bridge, how do you weigh that against problems elsewhere in town? How does staff determine which problems get attention? Lauren LaNeave Prioritization is driven primarily by public safety. On the map ,Jeff showed: low-water crossings highlighted in yellow are priority areas, such as Continental Boulevard. The North White Chapel Bridge was replaced because it was a low-water crossing- When prioritizing CIP projects, we look at public safety, readiness to move forward; land ownership, funding availability, and feasibility. Some projects stall due to properly acquisition challenges or unwilling easement dedication- Many factors go into prioritization- Daniel Kubiak Anything else on this item? Lauren LaNeave The next question addresses proactive planning versus reactive response- Should the city establish a regular cadence for watershed studies rather than conducting them ad hoc? This would help validate assumptions, refresh priority lists, and support long-term stor nwater planning- Daniel Kubiak Based on tonight's discussion, I think yes- Lauren LaNeave That's what I'm hearing- So ut h la ke Corridor Planning Committee Item 49—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting#54—January 28,2026 Page 9 Austin Reynolds I think this couid dovetail with eariler comments_ Perhaps every two orthree years, the city should remind HCA boards of maintenance responsibilities and require reporting, including detention pond dredging. Frances Scharli The city should also take ownership of its own projects, not just private ones. Lauren LaNeave Moving on to 4uestion 7: Should the city explore opportunities to address impervious coverage through limits, mitigation requirements, or incentives" Austin Reynolds I'm not as concerned about impervious coverage itself as long as runoff is properly detained and modeled for full build-out—both upstream and downstream, including neighboring cities_ David Cunningham Isn't the developer required to release runofr at the same rate as undeveloped land' Lauren LaNeave lies, they must meet existing conditions prior to development_ David Cunningham Then impervious coverage is indirectly regulated_ If runoff exceeds undeveloped conditions, the developer must detain it_ Especially given existing drainage issues, restrictions are appropriate. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454—January 28,2026 Page 10 Frances Scharli e have drainage problems, which tells ine our ordinances need to be reviewed_ If there weren't problems, this wouldn't be an issue_ Randy Robbins Are we talking proactive or retroactive? Going back and fixing existing development is unrealistic_ I'm fine with moving forward, but retroactive changes would be very difficult_ Lauren LaNeave The intent is forward-looking_ Retroactive fixes would be challenging_ Daniel Kubiak We used to recommend alternative driveway materials_ Perhaps we could incorporate recommendations—not requirements for more permeable options_ Dennis Killough That's a viable policy direction_ The city already allows permeable paving and provides stormwater fee discounts, though uptake has been limited. Daniel Kubiak Maybe those incentives could be enhanced_ Lauren LaNeave Next question: Should the city modernize ordinances to align more closely with regional practices? South lake CorridorPlanning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454—January 28,2C26 Page 11 Daniel Kubiak e should see what neighboring cities are doing that works or doesn't. We're not alone in these issues_ Lauren LaNeave Last policy question: Should documented resident drainage concerns carry more weight in capital project prioritization? David Cunningham That would be difficult_ Life safety should be first, property damage second_ Individual complaints are hard to weigh objectively. Randy Robbins Resident concerns matter, but irlany issues are on private property, which limits what the city can do. Frances Scharli e pride ourselves on service. Ignoring resident concerns would be contrary to that_ We should have criteria to evaluate them_ Daniel Kubiak Resident concerns should be a variable, but data-driven analysis must lead_ If ifs a major pro blemr the data will show it. Daniel Cortez Staff will now develop the plan based on this feedback_ Policy statements will be refined and brought to SPIN, Planning & Zoning, and City Council- So LFthlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Master Plan Meeting 454—Jan uary 28,2026 Page 12 The next meeting is February 10 and will cover water and wastewater. SPIN meetings are televised, and materials will be avaiIable on southIakecomppIan.com. STAFF PRESENTATION SHOWN TO COMMITTEE: Soukhlake CorridorPlanning Committee Item#9—Stormwater Masker Plan Meeting#54—Jan uary 28,2026 Page 13 Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Meeting Report Meeting 55— February 10, 2025 MEETING LOCATION: 1400 Main St., Southlake, Texas 76092 City Council Chambers IN ATTENDANCE: • City Council Members: Kathy Talley • Planning & Zoning Commission Members: Michael Forman, David Cunnigharn, Michael Springer City Staff: Dennis Killough, Jenny Crosby+, Daniel Cortez, Cyndi Cheng, Ryan Firestone, Jeff Ginn, Lauren LaNeave AGENDA ITEMS: 1_ Call to Order_ 2_ Administrative Comments. 3. Overview of the Water Master Plan, an Element of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan. 4. Overview of the Wastewater Master Plan, an Element of the SaLltlhlake Comprehensive Plan. 5. Adjournment_ MEETING OVERVIEW: On February 10, 2026, the Southlake Corridor Planning Committee held their 551h meeting_ The Committee was sent a packet of materials prior to the meeting that were to be discussed during the session_ A meeting agenda was posted, and the meeting time was advertised on the City's webs ite_ The followvinp meeting report focuses on discussion points made during the meeting by members of the Committee, public and City staff_ This report is neither verbatim nor does it represent official meeting Southlake Corrid o r Pla nn ing Committee Item#3—Water Masker Plan Meeting#55—February 10,2026 Page 1 minutes; rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials, City staff, and the public of the issues and questions raised by the Committee, City staff, and any attendees of the meeting_ Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow development cases through the process. Please visit Cityof Southlake_com1Planning for more information ITEM #3 DISCUSSION — Overview of the Water and Wastewater Master Plan, an Element of the SouthlaKe Comprehensive Plan. Questions for Staff Water Policy Question 1: Should long-term maintenance and reinvestment become a primary focus as we approach build-out? Michael Foreman: It seems like the answer is yes— especially given aging infrastructure. Michael Springer: Water and sewer reliability are essential_ Residents expect it_ Kathy Talley: e should prioritize aging lines and high-risk areas. Water Policy Question 2: How should the City balance education and enforcement in water conservation's Kathy Talley: Education first_ Residents respond well to that_ Michael Foreman: oininercial properties may require stronger enforcement. Michael Springer: Can we use electronic meters to issue warnings before citations? Lauren Laneave: That would require a policy changer but the tools exist_ David Cunningham: HOAs are frequent violators_ That should be addressed. Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#3—Water Master Plan Meeting#55—February 10,2026 Page 2 Wastewater Policy Question 1: Should the City adjust its approach to transitioning septic to sewer? Michael Foreman: The current approach seems reasonable. Michael Springer: As a septic homeowner, conversion is expensive_ Incentives would need to be substantial_ Kathy Talley: Some areas physically cannot connect_ It should remain cost-effective and practical_ Wastewater Policy Question : Should recapitalization became a greater focus as we approach build-out' (General agreement in favor_) Southlake Corridor Planning Committee Item#3—Water Master Plan Meeting#55—February 10,2026 Page 3 SOUTHLA14CE SPIN MEETING REPORT SPIN Item Number: SPIN2026-01 City Case Number: CP26-0001, CP26-0002, CP26-0003 Project Name: Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Master Plans SPIN Neighborhood: City-wide Meeting Date: March 2, 2026 Meeting Location: 1400 Main Street, Southlake, TX City Council Chambers Total Attendance: 24 Hosts: Ryan Firestone City Staff Presenting: Daniel Cortez, Lauren LaNeave, Jeff Ginn City Staff Present: Ryan Firestone (Assistant to the Director, Planning and Development Services), Daniel Cortez (Director of Economic Development and Tourism), Lauren LaNeave (Interim Director of Public Works), Jeff Ginn (City Engineer) Forum Summary: Staff Presentation ` } L E �='I'll ll� Y Via, (p•$yq ' tf R �^. r Ir SPIN Town Hall Open House MARCH 2, 2026 SOUTHLAKE Comprehensive Plan \\\\ { Ali © a .�� THE k oes�� S'g°SA�h9 COMPREHENS11 . • r I' WATER, WASTEWATER,AND STORMWATER PLAN G 9 a Q � n .2 FUTURE COMPREHENSIVE i R• ,•� :. .--.. (LAND PLAN MOBILITY USE ELEMENTS PARKS,RECREATION fT�� AND OPEN SPACE SOUTHLAKE v Youth 4D,� Comprehensive P}an HOW ARE PLANS ALIGNED? Z d' CITIZEN& STRATEGIC VISION, OPERATIONAL DEPARTMENT CUSTOMER MANAGEMENT GOALS,AND PLAN &CAPITAL WORK PLANS RESULTS FEEDBACK SYSTEM OBJECTIVES ELEMENTS BUDGET OPERATIONS POLICY IMPLEMENTATION REGULATORYWHAT SHOULD POLICY CONSIDER? SOUTHLAKE PUBLIC PRIVATE ��,� - � � i r f:.. � _ � � _ ram, .'� '�,'��' ":.•' �i� i i is •{w' � A y } . � :L II■■I '�r � n PO '.. �r � 471, ''tea �J %//, _f- •• �� WATER MASTER PI..�'�� STORMWATER MASTER PLAN - WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN •4'..•�.y M—M r $., WHAT ARE UTILITY MASTER PLANS?--- WATER SYSTEM • System inventory • Existing conditions OVERVIEW • Demand projections •:• - Hydraulic modeling - System deficiencies • Level of service • Capital improvements i (CIP) • Asset management • Operations& maintenance • Implementation & funding WATER MASTER PLAN WHAT WE MANAGE T � MII..ES OF WATER SINE f=IRE HYDRANTS �� � WATER SERVICE WATER STORAGE ACCOUNTS TANKS cJ N W Cagle Mountaln Lake Pipeline& Lake Bridgeport Facilities in C4,dar Creek Lak Fort Worth Richiand-Chambers Lake a � Miles of Water Interconnects x LP 0- � J IIIII� IIIII� Water puallty Is City of 5outhlake City o}Southlake ragulated by TCEQ periodically tests to has 21 mlllian gallons W � (Texas Commissiory oar ensure water quality or atOrage Environments!puaYry) CITY OF SOUTHLAKE EXISTING WATER SYSTEM al Z�' .. [9 SOEJTHL.AKE x Y rMIF ■ i, k c . • • • • FIgu Sq:ele t,d Smr K R,quirem,aVR da;,,Ikmv Pr, u,,Alm,) Ft2urr Y2',El,a9adS—p Re Wire—tjR--.dad-IWChPmssure N—) s.o Oove Rd E5T 1.5MG h 6KMtMnie{Perk EST 2-5 MG x5 Miron NEST ISM6 Fler,nu ESr 150 h1G S Enst' Tolal=1.'A MG �A R3 Z I.o — — 2 0.5 1 a o.o 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2C30 ID3I 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2033 tom 2090 2U23 2020 3025 2025 2021 2023 2029 2030 20 2 2032 2033 N.M35 2R M0 2M]039 IM I e Fr �TCEC1 Storage Requirement=190 gallcan �FNI❑esign Criteria• �Elevatetl Storage Capacity WASTE— System inventory - Existing conditions WATE 11 - Flow projections Wet-weather impacts SYSTEM (',`' � v�)- - Collection system FOCUS modeling Capacity constraints - Regulatory compliance • Capital improvements (CIP) Asset management Implementation& funding WHAT WE MANAGE ft 225 + el 12 MILES OF WASTEWATER LIFT STATIONS LINE ■� 2.lm + 49170+ �`•,� GALLONS OF WASTEWATER MANHOLES GENERATED PER DAY ■ rr � . WHERE OUR WASTEWATER � i O O O —� Trinity River Authority cf Texas 400 ■ a Legend w a Manholes Streeh . •�� y peawufs ........Caurty Baun�.y u Fm 5t ad— p SmhlJq OW lMlts A.PeI a bcen4N Wk�Grapevine Plug V31re Ady en[City fl.—,dry Slfldlkr IIIICs r • _ V/ulawaW line........ .. ............. :� � 0 7pp p Eton Creek Bann . .... ---1. r•� M t,- U T..[antral Basic Wes[eVveteY line -. •--..... j Tander'to TRA Den— Unknown watewater �C-k Ma, N 7f,'WL7 1 u"e M TPA SIao n % i_ _TPA&q Bear C—* � I i . t'J 1fi ` - fntercepta f �h'13 t - N-75 � � JJ-}2 " r. 3 ya LIFT STATION FLOW COMPARISON STORM • Watershed context • System inventory WATER & »--��-� Existing conditions .,...... ' Flood risk hotspots • k�; Hydrologic & .DRAINAGE � hydraulic modeling �, -�- k Culvert/channel FOCUS capacity • Water quality & MS4#. • Erosion & stream r= stability ,.. _ Capital =• r, improvements (CAP) � .,: t Operations & r 1 aintenance STORM WATER MASTER PLAN WHAT WE MANAGE t ��.� � CURB NFETS � �� 11�+ 13 MIFFS �F BMX CU �IIERTS k DENTON CREEK MIT zz a � a r y UiY UI Storm Sewer SQUTHLAKE Drainage Basins/ Watersheds DE [3N CREEK i Rrsnch ennemed]ri8ufuy x�xirxweea erne Scwlh FnrA ... SCafe-1-5 4500 wi Higglw a.en Bauch P„k C...9 � N4slJmes &arch JGI nEh lnoarwy nleu.y •...• eE-e re reef 8&B hroWeirye iimar CnN� rn—y roery . .9 ro g R.+. IOPig Beer ■ BIG BEAR CREE Box Culvert o Channel '`' ij Pipe > o—oi Drainage Basin Divide Y 100-Year Mood Plain r.. DENTO E'K A' V •y;11_�- a � W�E 4 i♦ 1 inch 4500 feel • F i�p4.. b •\` .j E 1 ,a 1 ■_ - BIjjG BEAR CREEK WHAT HAVE WE DONE? S. White Chapel Bridge Improvements N. White Chapel - Emerald to SH 114 (Ph 1 & 2} N. Peytonville at Raven Bend W. Highland Street CDS Improvements Dove Creek Trail CDS Improvements Timarron Creek and BB-8 Sanitary Erosion Protection N. White Chapel Bridge Improvements PREVIOUS STUDIES �. s.. 2016 FEMA/ NCTCOG 3 Risk MAP{Bear Creek Updated hydrologic/hydraulic datasets and mapping support information to Watershed Focus} better understand flood risk areas. 2020 Citywide 2D Rain- on-Mesh (ROM)Screening Produced flood depth grids and identified"hot spots" to help prioritize corridors and projects for deeper study. 2020 Drainage Master Plan (Critical Structures/ Assessed critical structures against City criteria (including freeboard) and —,; Crossings) identified deficiency locations and conceptual improvement needs. :s 2021 Kirkwood/Higgins rr, Watershed Study (Detailed Model+ Built refined hydrology/hydraulics, evaluated solution alternatives, and Alternatives) supported project planning in known problem areas. 2022 Stormwater Master Plan Phase 1 (Program+ Prioritization Framework) Established a framework for study prioritization, CIP ranking,criteria/policy review,and future phased implementation. .� J. - __ GY�pPVInP Kirk xood • �� branch Trih:i K [.r .w ... ._ g god 6::niCF �y5 '- South Fork � - 1 -.�r.• Qj•' _ Branch _ Y4; . ❑avc Lrcch '�r� - ry j 11 � ��S West Jones C� gidnw^ Southlake City Limits rit,ut,ry Trihutaiy h.�.� H5 f5f]Ej T; 7_ Major Watersheds U:in.,mld Trihut:rry` Creek _ i1 9H] J c- �ribi''''sd ,' • Emergency Response Locations �. ty . "'�• ,... Ta big 6r ?, 1. 'S Low Water Crossings ■ �^ �w z a Drainage Complaints s: AMIL - s I Aw er► I , REGULATORY & FINANCIAL ENVIRONMENT . 1 N 1 America'sREGULATORY OVERSIGHT EPA TCEQ - Safe Drinking - (Senate - Waterill __j L- __j 3) __j Public ■ . Drinking ChapterConservation Contingency Water Standards Plan (State) Plan JAC Title 30., • . FORT WORTH. WATER t WASTEWATER SUPPLY TREATMENT • Adoption and enforcement of water use • Implementation of industrial pretreatment restrictions requirements • Peak demand management requirements • Compliance with wastewater discharge • System capacity and operational limits standards • Monitoring, sampling, and reporting • Participation in regional conservation obligations efforts • Participation in regional conservation • Monitoring, metering, and reporting efforts requirements • Enforcement of prohibited discharge • Emergency coordination and response standards WHERE THE MONEY WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM GOES z DRIER UPLITY 7%CHARGES MISCELLANFDHS .�ed U•1o.6 INTEREST INCOME =1 Z IL Lu a.. um Bllu G 2.3% J W H i LOCAL REGULATORY STORM WATER MASTER PLAN FRAMEWORK _ City Charter MS4 Permit • : 1.4 Waters of the Texas Ordinance U.S. (Section Water Code No.605 and 404 Permitting) No. 1268 3 CITY PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBILITY RESPONSIBILITY PROTECTING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ` MAINTAINING ALL OTHER AREAS OF f O ❑ ® ® ` .THE DRAINAGE ` ❑ b EASEMENT - MAINTAINING PUBLIC _ � -rr INFRASTRUCTURE Y" } WITHIN DRAINGAGE EASEMENTS s COMMERCI W 42% H z Q W . _ W 0 > - ` H Z Z SIDENTIAL 55% W W � W � 0 W F- � a Lu - O .. 0 Z LEGAL SYSTEM POLICY & COMMUNITY AUTHORITY & INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSIDERATIONS GUARDRAILS MAINTENANCE PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAMMING �d F � Free Class � � �'�� DIY Download theSprinkler �`` , ' Repair a s 2025 POLICY OVERVIEW S-r�rM WATER MnSTER PLaN _ - y- WATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Service Reliability (SR) • SR1. Deliver safe, reliable, and consistent water service by prioritizing system integrity, redundancy where feasible, and proactive risk reduction in daily operations and long-range planning. • SR2. Safeguard public health and regulatory compliance through disciplined monitoring, documented operating practices, and continuous improvement in water quality protection and emergency response readiness. Asset Management & Reinvestment AM • AM1. Manage the water system as a portfolio of assets by maintaining a complete inventory and using consistent information on condition,performance, and criticality to guide decisions. • AM2. Prioritize long-term maintenance and reinvestment as Southlake approaches buildout by focusing renewal efforts on the oldest and undersized lines where applicable and addressing system constraints before they become failures. • AM3. Plan and deliver capital and renewal projects using lifecycle thinking evaluating long-term performance, maintainability,and total cost of ownership from design through replacement. WATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Financial Sustainability & Transparency (FS) • FS1. Fund the water utility in a financially resilient and transparent manner by aligning budgets, reserves, rates/fees, and capital planning with lifecycle needs and long-term service expectations. • FS2. Treat renewal and replacement as a planned, ongoing obligation integrated into annual planning so the system remains dependable without relying on crisis-driven spending. Conservation & Demand Stewardship (CD) CD1. Advance a conservation-first culture by making efficient water use a shared community value supported through education, practical guidance,and clear expectations in line with regional strategies and goals. • CD2. Prioritize education before enforcement by emphasizing outreach, coaching, and voluntary compliance, and using enforcement as a measured backstop when needed to protect community water stewardship goals. • CD3. Strengthen conservation outcomes by leveraging tools and partnerships such as customer usage insights, early anomaly notifications, and collaboration with HOAs and property managers to reduce avoidable waste. Data, Technology & Decision Support (DT) • DT1. Improve reliability and efficiency through disciplined data management and modern operational tools that support early detection, informed prioritization,and timely corrective action. WATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Levels of Service &_ Performance (LS) • LS1. Define and maintain clear levels of service for the water utility that reflect community expectations for reliability, water quality, response, and system performance using those expectations to guide planning and investment. • LS2. Manage the system to consistent service outcomes by routinely evaluating performance, identifying service risks, and directing maintenance and reinvestment to the areas that most affect reliability and customer experience. • LS3, Align operational practices, staffing, and capital programming with adopted levels of service to ensure the City can consistently deliver the standard of service it commits to providing. Growth, Development & System Protection (GM • GD1. Require new development and redevelopment to demonstrate compatibility with the City's water system capacity, operational needs, and long-term maintainability so growth does not shift avoidable risk or cost onto existing residents. • GD2. Ensure that water infrastructure associated with development is planned, designed, and constructed to support lifecycle performance and City maintenance standards, including coordination with long-range system plans and reinvestment priorities. WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Asset Management & Reinvestment (AM) • AM1. Manage the wastewater system as a long-life public asset by prioritizing preventive maintenance, renewal, and replacement based on lifecycle needs rather than reactive repair alone. • AM2. Establish and maintain a formal wastewater asset management program that includes asset inventory, condition and criticality assessment, and risk-informed renewal planning to guide annual budgets and multi-year capital programming. • AM3. Prioritize wastewater investments using a consistent, transparent framework that considers public health, service reliability, consequences of failure, and operational risk, with reinvestment becoming an increasing focus as Southlake approaches buildout. Levels of Service & Performance (LS) • LS1. Define clear wastewater levels of service that guide planning, operations, and investment decisions, emphasizing reliable conveyance, minimized backups/overflows, and dependable wet-weather performance. • LS2, Use a consistent, systemwide planning basis for evaluating capacity and wet-weather performance so decisions are comparable across basins and over time. • LS3. Improve reliability over time by routinely evaluating system performance, identifying recurring drivers of service disruption,and adjusting maintenance and capital priorities based on documented results. WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Growth. ❑evelor)ment & Buildout Readiness (GD) • GD1. Plan and phasing strategic wastewater improvements to support long-term buildout conditions while avoiding unnecessary overbuilding, using sequencing and timing to match demonstrated need. • GD2. Require new development and redevelopment to demonstrate adequate wastewater capacity and infrastructure compatibility and to mitigate system impacts through appropriate upgrades, timing, or participation in required improvements. • GD3. Pursue opportunities to simplify wastewater operations and reduce long-term risk and cost such as targeted system reconfiguration or consolidation when supported by engineering evaluation and iifecycle benefit. Resilience I I Reduction & System Integrity R5 • RS1. Advance a sustained inflow and infiltration reduction program through targeted investigation and rehabilitation, focusing on areas with recurring wet-weather impacts and the greatest risk-reduction potential. • RS2. Use appropriate field evaluations and system assessments to confirm suspected problem areas and refine project scope,sequencing, and expected outcomes before major capital commitments. • RS3. Implement an education-first public outreach program on private-property 1/1 prevention, including verifying cleanout caps are present and sealed and preventing stormwater sources from connecting to the sanitary system. WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Septic-to-Sewer Transition (ST) • ST1. Maintain the City's general approach to septic-to-sewer transition while recognizing that conversion cost and physical feasibility vary by location, extending service where practical and cost-effective and considering alternative solutions where connection is not feasible. • ST2. Evaluate septic-to-sewer incentives only when they are targeted, clearly justified, and substantial enough to influence homeowner decisions while remaining fiscally responsible and aligned with long-term planning priorities. Financial Sustainability (FS) • FS1. Fund the wastewater utility in a financially resilient and transparent manner by aligning budgets, reserves, rates/fees, and capital planning with lifecycle needs and long-term service expectations. • FS2. Treat renewal and replacement as a planned, ongoing obligation integrated into annual budgeting and capital programming so the system remains dependable without relying on crisis-driven spending. • FS3. Pursue grants, partnerships, and cost-effective delivery strategies when they strengthen long-term system performance and reduce the burden on ratepayers while maintaining accountability for outcomes. STQRMWATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS System Performance& Public Safety (SP) • SP1. Convey, store, and manage stormwater to protect life safety, public infrastructure, and property through proactive risk reduction and sound system performance practices. • SP2. Define and maintain clear stormwater levels of service for safety, reliability, and response, using these expectations to consistently guide planning, maintenance,and investment decisions. • SP3. Prioritize projects and actions first by life safety, followed by consistent, objective criteria that support defensible and repeatable decision-making. Asset Management & Maintenance AM • AM1. Manage stormwater infrastructure as a portfolio of public assets by maintaining an inventory, understanding condition and criticality,and applying risk-based maintenance and reinvestment. • AM2. Sustain reliable system function through proactive inspection, maintenance, and renewal of public inlets, culverts, channels,and drainage facilities. • AM3. Clearly define public versus private stormwater responsibilities and strengthen how the City communicates, supports, and verifies private maintenance obligations where those facilities influence public risk. STORMWATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Watershed Science Studies& Decision Support W5 • WS1. Ground watershed-based planning and stormwater investment decisions in technical studies that account for upstream and downstream impacts and overall system behavior. • WS2. Establish a regular program of technical stormwater and watershed studies, conducting at minimum one basin-level evaluation every other year sequenced by risk, to refresh priorities, validate assumptions, and support long-term capital planning. • WS3. Combine data-driven analysis with staff field knowledge to act early in emerging problem areas while ensuring major investments are supported by appropriate technical evaluation. • WS4. Explore enhanced planning and design evaluation in higher-risk flood areas based on technical study findings, recognizing that risk is not uniform across the city and standards may need to vary by context. • WSS. Regularly explore opportunities to improve the City's stormwater decision-support tools by evaluating, procuring, and/or participating in advanced watershed and infrastructure modeling platforms and regional collaboration studies as warranted, so staff can consistently quantify current and future development impacts, test system performance under defined storm events, and support knowledgeable, data-driven capital planning,and standards updates. Education,Compliance&Community Partnership (EC) • EC1. Prioritize education as the first step in stormwater compliance through expanded resident and HOA awareness of responsibilities, common violations, and practical maintenance steps, supported by fair and consistent enforcement where voluntary compliance is not achieved. • EC2, Enhance the City's stormwater public education program beyond baseline requirements to address documented awareness gaps and improve community understanding of risks,responsibilities,and prevention. STORMWATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Development & Redevelopment(DR) • DR1. Administer and enforce stormwater regulations requiring new development and redevelopment to demonstrate responsible management of impacts under full buildout conditions,consistent with applicable state law and City ordinances, including upstream and downstream considerations where applicable. • DR2. Advance iSWM-aligned practices by prioritizing approaches that mimic natural hydrology by soaking it in,slowing it down,and spreading it out through feasible low-impact and green infrastructure strategies. • DR3. Explore ordinance and development credit approaches related to impervious coverage and runoff mitigation to reduce cumulative impacts over time, while maintaining fairness and administrative clarity. • DR4. Update stormwater ordinances and technical standards to align with regional strategies where appropriate, recognizing stormwater is a watershed and basin issue that benefits from coordinated practices. Water Quality & Regulatory Stewardship(WQ) • W01. Protect surface water quality through consistent implementation of regional stormwater best management practices across municipal operations, construction activity, and post-construction responsibilities. • W02, Sustain compliance with MS4 and floodplain-related requirements while using the City's policy flexibility to exceed minimum standards when it measurably improves outcomes for residents and infrastructure. STORMWATER MASTER PLAN POLICY STATEMENTS Funding,Cost Responsibility& Partnerships(FN) • FN1. Explore sustainable funding strategies including rate/fee structure options every five years supported by appropriate financial analysis, so resources align with documented needs, risk, and long-term obligations. • FN2. Evaluate tiered and equitable funding approaches that reflect stormwater demand drivers and system impacts,while maintaining transparency,predictability, and administrative feasibility. • FN3. Pursue grants, interlocal partnerships, and cost-sharing opportunities especially for privately owned facilities that materially influence public risk while maintaining clear standards and accountability for outcomes. Customer Service & Prioritization Integrity (CS) • CS1. Incorporate documented resident drainage concerns as an input to prioritization through clear, objective criteria ensuring customer service informs decisions while data-driven risk and feasibility remain primary. WpL Yi 4P QUESTIONS? �s . Daniel Cortez: 817-748-8039 Lauren LaNeave: 817-748-8029 Jeff Ginn: 817-748-8100 Compre ensive Plan _k.') -2- SOUTH LAKECOMPPLAN.COM _ r A: So, Higgins Branch is federally regulated, so we do have models for that that show what the capacity is for that stream channel. Obviously, the flood plain is delineated through the FEMA studies that could be overbank. That would be what is considered the flood plain. I believe that there is floodway regulations all along Higgins Branch as well. So, that would handle the open channel capacity. What we study for culverts is mainly our critical drainage infrastructure. When we say culvert sizing for bridges, that is something we look at independently and then like I said with our Kirkwood branch study we are starting to combine them into one comprehensive model. We haven't done it for the other watersheds, but we have done it for Higgins Branch. Q: So, do you know if Higgins is Shady Oaks Drive? A: Shady Oaks Drive would be Southfork Kirkwood Branch. That is also in that Kirkwood/Higgins Branch study. There is the main branch Kirkwood, Southfork, and Higgins Branch. Q: It's not a culvert. There is water in it and the water is always flowing in it. A: It can be. There are different types of riverine streams. Some are intermittent and some are constant. Q: As far as capacity goes, my concern is that it has gotten very deep. The trees are falling into it, and it gets backed up with heavy rains. A: In terms of policy, what we would look at based off what I believe you are telling me is to make sure that we are evaluating a lot of these creek areas that may have debris and ensure they are clear. Q: Yes, thank you! So, it is being evaluated? A: We will ensure its integrated into the policy statement to make sure that we do that. Q: I think it would be helpful to define what you categorize as an emergency. Are there any specifications around that? What might be an emergency to me might not be for you. A: We will definitely look at making sure we have a clear definition within the master plan itself and it may be a situation where we have to consider with Council in terms of what is considered. So, we are talking emergency, but when we look at Stormwater in particular, water on a property traditionally, even as federal guidelines look at, is not necessarily defined as an impact on a property. It's when water actually enters any kind of physical structure that it becomes more of an impact. So, water on a property as it stands today is not necessarily an emergency as far as the city is concerned especially if it's within a dedicated easement. Q: So, it has to flood my house or kill someone before it is considered any emergency? A: Well no ma'am, we will need to define that in greater detail, and we will go ahead and do that through policy. Q: When do you decide to put in culverts or reinforcements, especially for creeks and where there is water flow. A: So, there is a couple of mechanisms that that traditionally happen and that is usually done with private development within the city and the second aspect is that studies and analysis are done throughout the city. That's when we evaluate the current system in which it's at and the impacts that the development has had on it. After that point, that's when it gets placed into our Capital Improvements Program and it is done on a 5-year basis because as you can imagine a lot of these projects are not inexpensive, they are millions of dollars. So, with the limited funds we need to sit there and prioritize the greatest risks so that is what we effectively end up doing and that's what we do through the CIP. Q: And you haven't necessarily been doing the every 5 year review of the fee? A: Correct, I believe the last time we looked at the fee structure was 2008. The last time it was changed was 2008, but it was last looked at in 2021 or 2022 I believe. Q: So, there is no regular inspection then associated improvements on an ongoing basis, that's what you are proposing for the future? A: Right, so essentially what the statement policy is telling us to do is, go ahead and sit there and establish regular cadence for evaluating the rate structure based off existing conditions and the knowledge we end up getting from the past. We say 5 years because 5 years is a good amount of time for us to get a really good analysis and studies of our watersheds and subsequently of our rate structure. Q: What does MS4 represent? A: Municipal Separate Stormwater System Q: You mentioned to protect life safety and property, so again that could be clarified because I have been coming for a long time saying that there is flooding, and it's not just water coming into the property it is coming in very fast, and I think velocity and depth are something that should be considered. So, being more specific about some of these requirements I think would be helpful. If you are going to protect property, things like reinforcing stream banks and preventing stagnation and working with the homeowners on these issues I think would be very helpful because right now it is very unclear who is responsible for what, even though there are some guidelines and I think you can stand on regulations and standards are outdated and haven't been review. More collaboration with HOAs would be great. And then documentation and record keeping because I have brought examples of violations and you hold me to a very high standard and there have been obvious violations. The city's response has been we don't have any record of that or documentation and so I think as a city that is absolutely vital. Additional wording around when there are incidents it will be followed up and there will be accountability. A: Excellent, thank you so much. Q: What is the timeline of the Stormwater plan to go into effect and the specifics you are going to put into place? A: So, as far as adopting the policy, this is scheduled to go to Planning and Zoning this Thursday, but like I said it's meant to be an organic document, so any feedback we get here within the next month we will definitely incorporate it. It is scheduled to go to City Council in April. Now, remember that this isn't the solution to everything. This is directing staff to go find the solutions to a lot of the things that are of particular interest to our residents here. If it is adopted in April, the implementation starts the day after. We will start figuring out and organizing our work plans accordingly to meet the needs of the community. Q: Okay, but you don't have anything specific that you are going to be putting into place as of yet? A: In terms of capital projects, I would encourage you to look at our Capital Improvements Program because that is stuff that we are currently funding and it gives a good timeline on specific projects as they occur. Q: Can you define what the city's responsibility, as far as stormwater control, as well as what a resident's responsibility is going to be? A: My understanding of the way stormwater works per state law, as far as I am aware of, is the city's responsibility is to protect public infrastructure. So, when we think about streets that is within the public realm so we would be responsible for protecting that. Anything that is effectively within private property, whether that be HOA or private resident, that would be their responsibility. Now that is not to sit here and say that the city couldn't collaborate on some improvements. If we get some direction from Council to move forward in that capacity, then that's what the city will do. As far as what the state tells us in terms of who is responsible for what, it says that the city is responsible for the public side of things and anything on private property is what the private owner is responsible for. Q: So, the water runoff is not water running off of my property it is water running off of all the new establishments. You have older culvert ditches that are not designed for constant water flow and also to the individual roads going down the neighborhood, which are 4-6-inch pipes that are collapsing and then you have sinkholes that are in people's yards. So, what I am saying to you is this problem is generated from the new improvements of the city but not considering what the effect is going to be downstream and the effect is where I have a 60-foot to 90-foot wide stream that flows heavily that is tearing up the embankment and going towards my barn, it is cutting out a new path. I have reported this about 4 times; I have brought plenty of evidence and a plat plan and I don't hear anything back. That is more than my capacity and what I should be responsible for because I am not generating any of the water. The water is running through my property in what is considered an easement. So, that is something that needs to be considered because what you do upstream needs to be thought of how are you going to improve that infrastructure to handle that capacity of water because it is beyond it. A: The way the policy statements are worded right now is to ensure that the city is considering not just downstream but also upstream impacts to the infrastructure that we end up installing. Q: I think this gentleman summarized a lot of my thoughts, but I think when we are looking at plans, when you say the resident is responsible, I believe when he said that when the city is approving a project that creates more water or diverts water coming towards existing properties, I think that is the responsibility of the City. I think the city needs to take the onus have responsibility of the plans they approve. I don't know if or how that can be put into the plan, but I think that upstream thinking needs to be put on our city because we have so many people being effected by this. I think the Brumlow project that you approved for the residential tract. Not to mention all the other stuff going, that is in a flood plain and I guess FEMA has to do work on that first or has to approve stuff, but y'all have to approve it and if that isn't done correctly then we are all going to suffer. A: We will definitely incorporate your sentiments and thoughts into it and make sure the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council consider it when they adopt the policy statements. Q: I have been told by Building Inspections that they calculate the amount of flow by a formula, but they can never come up with the gallons per minute that they use when they say how much runoff is coming off a roof or establishment. The engineer uses a formula and I want to say that it is outdated because it is not current. A: Well, again the policy is to make sure we update all our Ordinances to reflect current conditions vs the conditions that were previously adopted whether that be 10, 15, or 20 years ago. Q: The question of who has ownership of this property for maintenance purposes and what we got out of today's meetings and previous meetings was if you have any infrastructure in there, if there is a pipe, then the city is responsible for maintaining that pipe and not letting it get washed out. But, the easement that the city owns that they got from the individuals is no longer maintainable by the previous owner. Now if the City has the maintenance of the erosion on a sewer easement and everybody says we don't have to worry about the dirt, we have to worry about the pipe that is in the dirt. In a public meeting 2 or 3 years ago that question came up with Mr. Taylor, the City attorney, and why is that the homeowner is responsible for maintaining this easement and he said the homeowners are not responsible for maintaining that easement. That infrastructure pipe was being included in the dirt that protected that property. Now on the Jones Branch, the city has come in and protected the easement on a piece of property addressing the fact that there is a pipe in there that can't be eroded. In the meetings like this we say all we have to do is protect the infrastructure and the homeowners have the responsibility of the easement. There has to be clarification on this. The city attorney said one thing in a meeting and Mrs. LaNeave was there, the Mayor was there, 5-6 homeowners were there and ever since that time the City has been avoiding the maintenance of that easement even though the city attorney said the homeowners weren't responsible. That's all I have, but there has to be more clarity other than you guys saying one thing, Public Works, saying one thing , and the city attorney saying another. Q: I just want to say that I agree with all of these statements and that there really is no word about easements in your policy and if you have that included under infrastructure. It is your easement and it is my property. The understanding we had when we purchased it with an easement was that it was not going to be used for the type of drainage that it is being used for and for almost 10 years there was no water at all. Now all of sudden having raging rivers in your backyard and not being considered a problem. It may even be worth reviewing this standard to say we need to do something. I think there needs to be a lot more protection and help for us where we have easements and the policy needs to address it specifically. A: Yes ma'am. SPIN Meeting Reports are general observations of SPIN Meetings by City staff and SPIN Representatives.The report is neither verbatim nor official meeting minutes;rather it serves to inform elected and appointed officials,City staff,and the public of the issues and questions raised by residents and the general responses made. Responses as summarized in this report should not be taken as guarantees by the applicant. Interested parties are strongly encouraged to follow the case through the Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by City Council. ORDINANCE NO. 1034A AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN AS AN ELEMENT OF THE SOUTHLAKE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. WHEREAS, a Home Rule Charter of the City of Southlake, Texas, was approved by the voters in a duly called Charter election on April 4, 1987; and, WHEREAS, the Home Rule Charter, Chapter XI requires an update to the City's comprehensive plan elements, WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that the Wastewater Master Plan is an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the Wastewater Master Plan has been formulated with adequate public input, WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed that the recommendations in the Wastewater Master Plan herein reflect the community's desires for the infrastructure of the City, WHEREAS, the City Council has deemed it is in the best interest of the public's health, safety and welfare to establish a policy framework for wastewater infrastructure as it pertains to its operation, maintenance and investment within the Wastewater Master Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS, THAT: Section 1. All of the findings in the preamble are found to be true and correct and the City Council hereby incorporates said findings into the body of this ordinance as if copied in its entirety. Section 2. The statements in `Exhibit 1' are hereby adopted as the Wastewater Master Plan of the Southlake Comprehensive Plan. Section 3. The different elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as adopted and amended by the City Council from time to time, shall be kept on file in the office of the City Secretary of the City of Southlake, along with a copy of the ordinance and minute order of the Council so adopting or approving the same. Any existing element of the Comprehensive Plan which has been heretofore adopted by the City Council shall remain in full force until amended by the City Council as provided herein. Section 4. This ordinance shall be cumulative of all provisions of ordinances of the City of Southlake, Texas, except where the provisions of this ordinance are in direct conflict with the provisions of such ordinances, in which event the conflicting provisions of such ordinances are hereby repealed. Section 5. It is hereby declared to be the intention of the City Council that the phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this ordinance shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this ordinance, since the same would have been enacted by the City Council without the incorporation in this ordinance of any such unconstitutional phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section. Section 6. The City Secretary of the City of Southlake is hereby authorized to publish this ordinance in book or pamphlet form for general distribution among the public, and the operative provisions of this ordinance as so published shall be admissible in evidence in all courts without further proof than the production thereof. Section 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication as required by law, and it is so ordained. PASSED AND APPROVED on the 1st reading the 7' day of April, 2026. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY PASSED AND APPROVED on the 2nd reading the 21St day of April, 2026. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY SECRETARY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: CITY ATTORNEY DATE: ADOPTED: EFFECTIVE: