Loading...
Item 4F Audio1 SKY – Want to visit with your this evening about a proposal we have received from the City of Grapevine and allow you to seek the advice of the City Attorney regarding it. We would ask that we be able to make the entire presentation before we begin discussion, because this is a story that needs to fully unfold for a complete understanding of the issues. Our purpose this evening is not to come to a conclusion on the details of a potential agreement, but to gauge your interest in it. 2 SKY 3 Replace with new picture 4 BP The issues we will be examining this evening are related to working with the City of Grapevine –who is providing sanitary sewer to certain portions of Southlake. We are going to walk you through our current arrangement with Grapevine and discuss how we move forward. I’d like to ask Gordon Mayer to brief you on sanitary sewer issues. 5 BP– Simmons Forest Addition is located in the Northeast portion of the City. It is located east of N. Kimball, east of Shady Lane and North of SH 114. The area is located just west of Jones Branch. The closest lift station is the Shady Lane Lift Station. Due to the flow line elevation of the Shady Lane lift station, it does not provide sewer service to this area. In order to sewer this area, a new force main would be required to be constructed from a low point (new lift station required) that would allow the sewer effluent to be pumped back to the Shady Lane Lift Station. 6 BP– In 1998, An agreement between the two cities was executed for the purpose of providing mutual sewer service to the other city. Southlake has constructed a line and serves into a Grapevine Lift Station. Each city was to provide other with service for 40 lots. Grapevine has never taken advantage of providing sewer service from Southlake. They do not plan to take advantage of sewering any of the Grapevine properties under this agreement into Southlake. Grapevine currently provides sewer service for 35 Southlake lots. The agreement as executed expires in September of 2008 and Southlake must have its sewer removed from the Grapevine system by that date under the terms of the agreement. Grapevine records indicate that Southlake has reached the 40 lot limit. Southlake has performed an investigation and is preparing letter to document lots current served under the agreement. Additional undeveloped lots will require some type of sewer service as a portion of these undeveloped lots are located in the floodplain. 7 BP– The purpose of this map is to give you a feel for the sewer situation in the area. The green lots indicate those with sewer accounts. The pink (salmon) colored lots indicate those lots on a private septic system. The yellow lots are vacant. 8 BP-- The next area we want to discuss with you is the Grapevine Plaza addition, which is a part of the Albertson’s shopping center. As you recall from the first slide, this is where our city limits bisect the shopping center tract. Grapevine Plaza Addition is located on the extreme northeast side of the city. It is a small section of the city separated from the remainder of the city by SH 114. This area is located immediately contiguous to and west of Park Blvd and north of Northwest Highway. 9 10 GM – The 2 nd sanitary sewer agreement that is part of the discussion this evening is the agreement to serve the Grapevine Plaza Addition (BlockBuster, Cici’s Pizza, etc.) This agreement was executed in June of 1990 and had a term of 5 years. This agreement is expired and Grapevine continues to provide Sanitary sewer service for this area today. 11 12 13 14 SKY – Staff has evaluated this proposal and has identified key issues as shown on the screen. I’m going to ask the Directors of these operational areas to walk you through the pros and cons in each of these areas. 15 GM – Now, I’d like to give you the Public Works perspective of entering into this agreement with the City of Grapevine. If Southlake were to enter into this NOT agreement, the City of Southlake will be required to provide sanitary sewer service to the Simmons Forest Addition and the Grapevine Plaza Addition. Together, these improvements are estimated at $1,185,000. Staff proposed an expenditure of $350,000 for the Simmons Addition in the upcoming CIP that is before you this evening. If you were to approve the proposed agreement with the City of Grapevine, this money could be reallocated to another of the city’s utility needs. If the Cities were to approve this proposed agreement, the city would forego the additional costs of maintaining 2 new lift stations and force mains for these areas. Another benefit of entering into this agreement would be the ability to immediately provide sanitary sewer service for the remaining undeveloped properties of the Simmons Forest Addition. The one negative that could be perceived is that sanitary sewer service will be provided to our residents by another city 16 GM -- Discuss sewering Simmons Forest Addition Requires construction of Force Main Estimated Cost -$605,000 Based upon continued use of Grapevine lift station through new agreement. 17 Map of Simmons Addition Show how sewer would flow and be pumped back up the hill and flow to Shady Lane Lift Station. 18 Requires construction of new lift station and force main. Cost is estimated at $580,000 Will require TxDOT utility permit to bore SH 114. Turn over to Sharen Jackson for a discussion of tax issues. 19 Map pf Grapevine Plaza Addition Show how flow would be pumped back to Gateway Lift Station. 20 SJ – Discuss pros and cons When finished, turn over to Greg Last to discuss the pros and cons of redevelopment possibilities. Annual Tax Revenue --$56,769 Real Property --$14,637 Personal Property --$1,887 Sales Tax (estimated) --$40,244 21 22 JCB -- To lessen confusion for Fire, EMS and Traffic Enforcement, it is preferred that the boundary be placed so that the frontage road for SH 114 be totally within the City Limits of Southlake. Redrawing of the boundaries will actually have little or no impact on public safety issues; and in fact will create a decrease in the calls for public safety calls for service. Below are the various types and numbers of calls for service experienced by our public safety staff over the last 5 years: 23 JCB -- To lessen confusion for Fire, EMS and Traffic Enforcement, it is preferred that the boundary be placed so that the frontage road for SH 114 be totally within the City Limits of Southlake. Redrawing of the boundaries will actually have little or no impact on public safety issues; and in fact will create a decrease in the calls for public safety calls for service. Below are the various types and numbers of calls for service experienced by our public safety staff over the last 5 years: 24 SW / GL – PROS •The retail center is in pretty good shape and we think it unlikely that the Blockbuster Building would be torn down and redeveloped any time soon. •If the SL portion were owned by a separate developer, he would be more likely to pursue pad development which would likely have a detrimental impact on the property behind the pads. As one owner, the likely scenario would be a larger retail center, probably with just parking in the SL portion, as it was originally done. •TXDOT would likely consider a cloverleaf interchange at the intersection of SH 114 and Northwest Highway in the future. This configuration would further limit access for potential redevelopment. CONS •A potential redevelopment scenario would be to rebuild the retail building on the corner of Park and Northwest Parkway and potentially add fast-food pads along the SL portion of the property along SH 114. I think this is still unlikely though because the uses would not actually be on the SH 114 frontage road, but rather the access road some distance from the highway. Trip counts would not be high enough to attract fast food users to that location. SKY -We can’t ignore the future tax revenue from the re-development……..if possible I think we should analyze the difference in revenues 25 EAT – Allen Taylor discusses the legal issues 26 SKY – As you consider this item, there are four options as noted on the slide. Review them with Council. 27 SKY – At this point, we will entertain any questions. Please remember that this item has been posted under the “seek advice of the city attorney” exemption, so we should try to focus on the legal issues. 28