Loading...
Item 4FItem 4F Ordinance No. 950, 1st Reading, Adjust Southlake’s northeast city boundary adjacent to the City of Grapevine in the area of the westbound State Highway 114 frontage road and Park Boulevard Grapevine/Southlake Proposed Boundary Adjustment Background Information Proposal Fiscal Issues Legal Issues Options Discussion Topics Proposed Boundary Adjustment Sanitary Sewer Issues Sanitary Sewer Service Provision Simmons Service Area Grapevine Plaza Simmons Service Area Vicinity Map Sanitary Sewer Provisions Simmons Service Area Sept. 1998 Agreement Grapevine & Southlake 10-Year Agreement – Expired September 2008 Grapevine to serve 40 Southlake residential lots Southlake to serve 40 Grapevine residential lots Current Status of Agreement Investigation yields 36 Southlake lots served by Grapevine Need to be able to serve all of the area (50 lots) Septic service not an option for lots in floodplain Current Sewer Accounts Simmons Forest & Rainforest Vicinity Lots currently being developed GRAPEVINE Grapevine Plaza Addition Vicinity Map Sanitary Sewer Provisions Grapevine Plaza Addition June, 1990 Agreement 5-year term Grapevine provides sewer to: Lots 1-3 Grapevine Plaza Addition (Blockbuster, Cici’s Pizza, etc) Current Status: Expired Grapevine still providing service Kimball Avenue Construction Budget Total Construction Budget 2007 Cost $8,870,000 Grapevine Share 50% of cost from Shady Lane to Dove Road Based on actual cost at time of construction 2007 Cost $2,000,000 Proposed Agreement Terms Sewer Agreement for Simmons Service Area (99 years) Adjust boundary to eliminate out parcels Inter-local agreement for construction of Kimball per Southlake MTP (GV cost = $2,000,000) Share cost of emergency water connection/ meter at Austin Oaks entrance Grapevine to purchase Southlake water line (reduced for age = $28,575) Agree to future Nolen Drive connection Proposal Pros & Cons Sanitary Sewer Service Provision Tax Issues Public Safety Service Redevelopment Considerations Proposal Pros and Cons – Sewer Service PROS Construction Cost Avoidance ($1,185,000*) Not required to construct 2 lift stations and force mains Reallocate Utility Fund CIP budgeted dollars Maintenance & utility cost avoidance ($77,200/yr) Could serve remaining developed and undeveloped lots CONS Service to Southlake residents provided through interlocal agreement * 2007 Costs Simmons Service Area Cost to Sewer Requires Use of Lift Station Construction of New Lift Station Use of Existing Grapevine Lift Station Requires construction of Force Main Probable cost $605,000 (2007 Cost) New Agreement w/ Grapevine for use of Lift Station Sanitary Sewer Service Map of Simmons Forest Addition Grapevine Plaza Cost to Sewer Sewer back to the west (Gateway Plaza) Probable Cost $580,000 (2007 Costs) Requires SH 114 bore Requires TxDOT utility permit Sanitary Sewer Service Map of Grapevine Plaza Proposal Pros and Cons – Fiscal Issues PROS Tax revenues in the study area are limited Clarifies confusing tax allocation & collection CONS Permanent adjustment to boundary Concedes future tax revenue OTHER Financial payback period Assumes $1.2 – 1.4 million 20 years at 5% Pay back period = 39 years Fiscal Issues Cost Avoidance for Sewer Service Capital Cost $1,185,000 O & M Cost ($77,200 x 20 yr) $1,544,000 Cost Participation on Kimball Avenue Grapevine Share $2,000,000 Total Fiscal Benefit $4,729,000 Proposal Pros and Cons – Public Safety PROS- Proposed boundary preferred to lessen confusion Little to no impact on DPS issues Fire & EMS Calls 2002-2007 = 31 total (See chart) Fire & EMS Calls Proposal Pros and Cons – Public Safety (cont.) Police -5 Businesses Police Calls 2006-2007= 22 total (See Chart) Cons - None Police Calls Proposal Pros and Cons – Redevelopment PROS Likely no near-term redevelopment Difficult due to one owner of both Grapevine & Southlake portions Potential future cloverleaf at intersection, reducing redevelopment ease of access CONS Potentially fast-food along access road in future, but unlikely due to not being on SH 114 frontage road Legal Requirements Ordinance 950, Interlocal Agreement - legal process for boundary adjustment Interlocal Agreement for construction of Kimball Road Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement – Simmons Service Area Options Approve Ordinance 950 and proposed agreement Modify proposed agreement Reject agreement; Install Southlake sewer Questions Proposed Parcel Areas Proposed Boundary Adjustment Adjustment Area Grapevine Proposal “Continue sewer service to Southlake as needed, with agreed upon limits, in the event a boundary adjustment could be mutually agreed upon.” Other Issues Grapevine to purchase residual value min Grapevine Plaza water line Grapevine and Southlake to split cost of emergency water connection Grapevine to agree that Southlake can connect Nolen Drive Background Information