Recycle - City of Rockport

Transcription

CITY OF ROCKPORT
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORKSHOP MEETING
1:30 p.m., Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Rockport City Hall, 622 East Market Street
NOTICE is hereby given that the Rockport City Council will hold a Special Workshop Meeting on
Tuesday, April 12, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. at the Rockport City Hall, 622 E. Market, Rockport, Texas.
The following subjects will be discussed to wit:
I.
CALL TO ORDER.
II.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
A. Presentation and general discussion of the Aransas County Integrated Stormwater
Management Plan Capital Improvement Plan project prioritization by Craig Thompson, P.E.
of Naismith Engineering, Inc.
B. Presentation and general discussion of a proposed Land Disturbance Activity Ordinance by
City Engineer Jim Urban, P.E., Urban Engineering, Inc.
C. Presentation and general discussion on proposal by Allied Waste Services to amend the
current contract agreement for the transition from manual collection to automated waste and
recycling collection services within the City’s service area.
D. Update, presentation and general discussion of revised Annexation Policy Map dated
4/12/2011 with (1) addition of Area “Z”, and (2) boundary modifications to Areas “D”, “K”,
and “J”.
III.
ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE
This facility is wheelchair accessible and accessible parking spaces are available. Requests for accommodations or interpretive
services must be made 48 hours prior to this meeting. Please contact the City Secretary’s office at 361/729-2213 ext. 225 or FAX
361/790-5966 or E-Mail [email protected] for further information. Braille Is Not Available. The City of Rockport
reserves the right to convene into Closed Session under Government Code 551.071-551.074 and 551-086.
City of Rockport, Texas
April 12, 2011 City Council Workshop Agenda
Page 1 of 2 Pages
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Special Workshop Meeting: Tuesday, April 12, 2011
AGENDA ITEM “A”
Presentation and general discussion of the Aransas County Integrated Stormwater Management
Plan Capital Improvement Plan project prioritization by Craig Thompson, P.E. of Naismith
Engineering, Inc.
SUBMITTED BY: City Manager Thomas J. Blazek
APPROVED FOR AGENDA: TJB (8)
SUMMARY: This presentation will discuss the prioritization of projects in the Aransas County
Stormwater Management Capital Improvement Plan.
BACKGROUND:
Attached are:
-
Aransas County Integrated Stormwater Management Plan Capital Improvement Plan
dated April 4, 2011.
-
Memorandum from the Stormwater Management Advisory Committee to Aransas
County Commissioner’s Court dated April 4, 2011.
-
Proposal from Technical committee on procedure to evaluate and implement improved
drainage or preservation of drainage in a flood drain area (Blue Corridor) in CIP projects
(undated).
ARANSAS COUNTY
INTEGRATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
RECOMMENDED PROJECTS
A. Griffith Street Watershed
1. Improve Ivy Lane crossing and channel improvements to crossing at FM 1069.
2. Construct channel for flow from Griffith St. to FM 1069.
3. Replace crossing under FM 1069 and Cape Valero road with 8’ X 4’ Box Culvert
and improve outlet Channel.
B. Poinciana/Weeping Willow Watershed
1. Improve roadside channels and construct crossing along Poinciana St. and
Weeping Willow St.
2. Construct outfall channel from Weeping Willow to major drainage slough east
of FM 1069 and crossing driveway with 2-5’ X 3’ Box culverts.
C. Club Lake Watershed (Poinciana 3)
1. Construct outfall from Club Lake to crossing under FM 1069 and continue
channel to tidal flats near Port Bay.
D. Southwest 1069 Watershed
1. Construct additional 7’ X 3’ Box Culvert under FM 1069 near Armstrong Road
and outfall channel to tidal flats near Port Bay.
2. Replace crossing at FM 1069 & Johnson Road with 6’ X 3’ Box Culvert and
construct outfall channel to tidal flats near Port Bay.
E. Northeast Aransas Pass Watershed
1. Replace existing conduits from end of channel at N. McCampbell Rd and Stapp
Ave. to SH 35 Business crossing with 3-6’ X 3’ Box Culvert.
F. Southeast 35 Watershed
1. Construct/improve roadside and outfall channels along Moore Ave. and N.
McCampbell and replace crossings.
2. Construct 2-7’ X 3’ Box Culvert under railroad at Channel A
G. Estes Flats Watershed
1. Replace crossing under SH 35 Business with 3-4’ X 2’ Box Culverts and
construct/improve channel to Aransas bay
2. Construct/improve outfall from large pond between Walker Rd. and Nell Ave.
to SH 35 Business, including crossing under Estes Dr with 2-4’ X 2’ Box Culvert.
3. Construct/Improve roadside channel along Nell Ave. to connect to pond
between Walker Rd. And Nell Ave.
1
H. Copano Heights Watershed
1. Construct Channel from SH 35 Bypass to/across FM 1781 (North of Copano
Heights)
2. Construct channel from SH 35 Bypass to/across FM 1781 (South of Copano
Heights)
3. Construct series of channels from Rattlesnake Point Rd to the south toward
Cape Valero wetlands.
4. Acquire large excavated pond north of Eller Ln.
I. West 3036 Watershed
1. Construct/improve channel drain area west of Rockport Country Club.
2. Construct/improve channel to convey runoff from SH 35 Bypass to existing
crossing at FM 1781.
3. Replace existing crossing at FM 1781 with 2-7’ X 3’ Box Culverts and improve
existing channel to pond.
4. Construct channel from area south of FM 1781 to pond.
5. Construct/Improve channel from Rattlesnake Rd to pond.
6. Acquire existing pond west of FM 1781 regional WQ/Detention.
J. Spanish Woods Watershed
1.
2.
3.
4.
Install 2-42” RCP at Spanish Woods Rd.
Replace 3-36” HDPE pipes under Sanctuary Rd. with 3-5’ X 3’ Box Culvert
Acquire property east of FM 1781 for WQ facility
Widen and slope stabilization of channel in TxDOT right-of-way.
K. Southeast Lamar Watershed
1. Construct shallow swales and replace underground pipes to drain ponding from
Fire Station on Hagey Dr. across Palmetto.
2. Construct/improve shallow swales to drain ponding between 4th St. and 8th St.
across Palmetto to pond north of 4th St.
3. Construct/improve shallow swale to drain ponding between 8th St. and 12th St.
across Palmetto to roadside channel along 8th St.
L. South Central Lamar Watershed
1. Construct/improve channels to convey runoff from Holiday Beach pond to
existing channel.
2. Construct shallow swale to drain ponding along 12th St.
3. Acquire property east of SH 35 for WQ and habitat protection
4. Construct channel from SH 35 west to tidal flats.
M. Palm Harbor Watershed
1. Construct channel north of Palm Harbor to bay.
2. Construct pond south of Palm Harbor.
2
N. Mesquite Bypass (Tule 1)
1. Construct 5’ X 5’ Box Culvert in Mesquite Right-of-Way.
O. Tule Creek West (Tule 2 & 3)
1. Construct sedimentation pond.
2. Upper creek widening and slope protection.
P. Tule Creek North (Tule 4)
1. Construct water quality controls and habitat enhancement on 10 ac. Site
between Henderson St. and Palmetto St.
Q. Tule Creek East (Tule 5)
1. Improve pond and marsh area east of SH 35 Business.
U. Transfer Station (Tule 6)
1. Construct runoff containment facility at transfer station.
3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COhhIIISSIONERS' COURT
FROM:
STOmZWATER L k U A G E h f E N T ADTTISORY C0MhII'T"T'EE
SUBJECT: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
DATE:
4/4/2011
CC:
COUNTY ENGINEER, CITY O F ROCIG'ORT
The Stormwater Management Advisory Committee (SWh4AC) met on March 24, 2011 for the
purpose of identifjing, prioritizing and recommending an ordered list of projects that the County should
adopt as their Capital Improvement Project (CIP) plan. The SWMAC recommends that process for
undertaking these projects should b e p at the earliest opportunity. The methodology for prioritizing
these projects began with a list of reconmended projects from Naisrnith Enpeering, Inc., review of said
list by County staff, preliminary ranking from the Technical committee and final ranking by the SW/ThWC.
Criteria used in prioritizing the projects gave flooding issues a greater weight, but also considered
environmental and ecological issues. An estimated cost of construction and land acquisition for each
project is included. However, The basis of these estimates is a conceptual in nature and actual cost wdl
vary. The prioritized list of projects the S\X%fAC recommends is as follows:
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
TOTAL
Poinciana1Weeping Willow
Mesquite Bypass
South Central Lamar
Griffith Street
.
Palm Harbor
West FM 3036
Estes Flats
Southeast Lamar
Club Lake
Copano Heights
Spanish Woods
$
8,367,595
The SWMAC also identified several projects that are good candidates for Federal and/or State grants.
It is recommended that the County seek hnding through grant opportunities for the following project:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Tule creek West Marsh Sediment Pond & Habitat Enhancement
Upper Tule Creek West
Tule Creek North
Tule Creek East Marsh
Transfer Station Pollutant Containment
Proposal froin Teclmical committee on procedure to evaluate and impleineill improved
dl-ainageor preservation of drainage in a flood drain area (Bluc Corridor) in CIP projects
Principles
1. preserve or restore ec.ologic-a1integrity and natural drainage from u p l a ~ ~ dtos the
bays in a pa~ticulardrainage COI-ridor
2. Retain first flush(smaI1 rainfalls) up to 2yea.r level events with minimal runoff tto
recharge groundwater and remove pollutants (maximize infi Itration)
3. encourage natural sheet flo\v of excess runoff rather than channelization with
rapid runoff o f all s t o m events
Sequence
-- -1-:- - - B e k e ~ l l r nor
a jnatural-drainage-conidors~littrengineering~-tooi~-at3,~~0;2-5;-and 100 y ~flood
.
l e ~ ~ e(done)
ls
2. Define five (5) highest priority drainage basins or coiridors thal nee-d immediate
atleption based 011 documei~tedprior flooding problems or poten~ialfor future
extensive infrastructure damage. (should be approved by M a c h 30.)
3. Evaluate the CIP recommendations from NEI (prinlarjly trenching, cul veils,
outfalls) along propee- line e.asements or across roadways in the "Bl u c
Con-idors"
4. Develop a partial list o f possible lesser expensive or better possible alternate
solutions within context of above Principles
5. I-iave public meeting of persons living in the respective flood plain or sheet flow
corridors with SWMAC, Tech committee, NEI, and County Enginceer to:
a educate stakeholders about their presence in a "Blue Corridor"
b. explain ways county can help individual stakeholder propert~lowners 10
achieve best solution for themselves and all their neighbors, up and down
the watershed'by utilizing the corridors
c . get landowner c-ooperation
d. get landowner/ stakeholder input into developing desired solutions
6. Expandievaluate suggested alternatives, if they evolve, with analysis of cost and
impacts within $e watershed
7- Tech. Comn:ittee evaluation of recommended alternatives: if any
8. Conduct second public meeting for stakeholders, landowners for input on
proposed recommendations after some individual negotiations
9. Forward revised fina1 SWMAC recommendation to commissioner's court for
approval and hnding of action plan..
10. Implement recommended projects for thearea
Move to n e x t 5 projects using the priority rankings using above as models, etc.
Action Plans would include needed imnprovements, cost estimates, defmed drainage
easements, flood plain preservation or conservation easements, and requirements for
building or alterations in the flood plain. County could trade work or other
considerations for obtaining needed restrictions or easements outside the usual draillage
easement (or, if no routine maintenance is needed with the restrictio~~s
in place, a
dedicated maintenance easement inay not be needed in some cases.)
SPANISH WOODS WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Place additional 2‐42" RCP across Spanish Woods Rd. Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
42" RCP
120
LF
$160.00
$19,200.00
Pavement Repair
600
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$12,000.00
2
EA
$7,000.00
$14,000.00
Standard End Treatment
Project Construction Cost ‐
$45,200.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Remove existing Pipes and replace with 3‐5'x3' Box across Sanctuary Dr.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
5'x3' Box Culvert
180
LF
$300.00
$54,000.00
Pavement Repair
500
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$10,000.00
2
EA
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
$84,000.00
WEST 3036 WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Place channel in additional added drainage area from western Rockport Country Club property.
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
2' Deep V‐Section Channel
Description
1,700
LF
$10.00
$17,000.00
30' Easement Acquisition
2.5
Acres
$20,000.00
$50,000.00
Tree Removal / Land Clearing
1.0
Acres
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$77,000.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Place channel from SH 35 bypass to FM 1781
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
3,800
LF
$35.00
$133,000.00
3.5
Acres
$20,000.00
$70,000.00
3.5
Acres
$10,000.00
$35,000.00
$238,000.00
PROJECT NO. 3 ‐ Remove existing Pipes and replace with 2‐7'x3' Box across FM 1781 and improve existing channel to large excavated pond
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
7'x3' Box Culvert
120
LF
$400.00
$48,000.00
Pavement Repair
750
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$15,000.00
2
EA
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
Improve existing channel
1,300
LF
$10.00
$13,000.00
$96,000.00
PROJECT NO. 4 ‐ Drainage Improvements from area north of Rattlesnake Road
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
18" RCP
50
LF
$60.00
$3,000.00
Pavement Repair
100
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$2,000.00
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
1,500
LF
$10.00
$15,000.00
0.7
Acres
$20,000.00
$14,000.00
$38,000.00
PROJECT NO. 5 ‐ Drainage outfall from area south of FM 1781
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
18" RCP
60
LF
$60.00
$3,600.00
Pavement Repair
100
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$2,000.00
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
1,800
LF
$10.00
$18,000.00
0.9
Acres
$20,000.00
$17,400.00
$45,000.00
COPANO HEIGHTS WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Place channel from SH 35 Bypass to/across FM 1781 (north of Copano Heights Subdiv.)
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
4,000
LF
$10.00
$40,000.00
2.8
Acres
$20,000.00
$55,000.00
3' Deep, 20' Bottom Trap. Channel
600
LF
$80.00
$48,000.00
1.0
Acres
$20,000.00
$20,000.00
7'x3' Box Culvert
360
LF
$400.00
$144,000.00
Pavement Repair
1,000
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$20,000.00
4
EA
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
2.8
Acres
$10,000.00
$27,500.00
600
LF
$10.00
$6,000.00
$400,500.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Place channel from SH 35 bypass to/across FM 1781 (south of Copano Heights Subdiv.)
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
3,000
LF
$40.00
$120,000.00
4.1
Acres
$20,000.00
$82,000.00
5'x3' Box Culvert
120
LF
$300.00
$36,000.00
Pavement Repair
600
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$12,000.00
2
EA
$8,000.00
$16,000.00
1,800
LF
$10.00
$18,000.00
$284,000.00
PROJECT NO. 3 ‐ Place channel from western portion of FM 1781 to Cape Valero Road
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
2,500
LF
$10.00
$25,000.00
1.8
Acres
$20,000.00
$35,000.00
1,800
LF
$110.00
$198,000.00
3.3
Acres
$20,000.00
$66,000.00
1,600
LF
$260.00
$416,000.00
17.8
Acres
$20,000.00
$356,000.00
6,000
LF
$20.00
$120,000.00
Project Construction Cost ‐ $1,216,000.00
GRIFFITH STREET WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Improve Ivy Lane Crossing and channel improvements to FM 1069
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
18" RCP
75
LF
$60.00
$4,500.00
Pavement Repair
250
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$5,000.00
2
EA
$3,000.00
$6,000.00
1,800
LF
$20.00
$36,000.00
1.3
Acres
$20,000.00
$25,000.00
1,000
LF
$43.00
$43,000.00
1.4
Acres
$20,000.00
$27,600.00
$147,100.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Develop channel from Griffith Street to FM 1069 (south of Elementary School)
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
2,200
LF
$20.00
$44,000.00
1.5
Acres
$20,000.00
$30,000.00
24" RCP
50
LF
$80.00
$4,000.00
Pavement Repair
250
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$5,000.00
2
EA
$4,000.00
$8,000.00
$91,000.00
PROJECT NO. 3 ‐ Remove and replace Box Culverts across FM 1069 and Cape Valero Road and improve existing channel
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
8'x4' Box Culvert
120
LF
$560.00
$67,200.00
Pavement Repair
1,500
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$30,000.00
4
EA
$13,000.00
$52,000.00
4,000
LF
$10.00
$40,000.00
5.5
Acres
$20,000.00
$110,000.00
Improvements to Existing Channel
$299,200.00
POINCIANA/WEEPING WILLOW WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Roadside Channel Improvements and Crossings along Poinciana Street and Weerping Willow
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
18" RCP
90
LF
$60.00
$5,400.00
6
EA
$2,000.00
$12,000.00
Pavement Repair
800
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$16,000.00
24" RCP
60
LF
$80.00
$4,800.00
2
EA
$4,000.00
$8,000.00
12,500
LF
$10.00
$125,000.00
Roadside Channel improvements
$171,200.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Outfall channel improvements from Weeping Willow to major drainage slough east of FM 1069 with private drive crossing
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
2,000
LF
$10.00
$20,000.00
1.4
Acres
$20,000.00
$27,600.00
2' Deep, V‐Section Channel
750
LF
$20.00
$15,000.00
0.4
Acres
$20,000.00
$8,000.00
2,500
LF
$40.00
$100,000.00
2.3
Acres
$20,000.00
$46,000.00
1,500
LF
$64.00
$96,000.00
1.7
Acres
$20,000.00
$34,000.00
5'x3' Box Culvert
50
LF
$300.00
$15,000.00
Pavement Repair
200
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$4,000.00
2
EA
$7,000.00
$14,000.00
2.5' Deep, 20' Bottom Trap. Channel
$379,600.00
PROJECT NO. 3 ‐ Club Lake outfall channel improvements
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
5,600
LF
$36.00
$201,600.00
6.8
Acres
$20,000.00
$136,000.00
3.6
Acres
$10,000.00
$36,000.00
2.5' Deep, 10' Bottom Trap. Channel
$373,600.00
SOUTHWEST 1069 WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Additional ROW Acquistion and Roadside Channel Improvements along Murphy, Armstrong, Smith and Johnson Roads
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
9.2
Acres
$20,000.00
$183,600.00
Utility Relocation/Tree Clearing
40,000
LF
$20.00
$800,000.00
Roadside Channel improvements
40,000
LF
$10.00
$400,000.00
20' ROW Acquisition along the 4 Roads
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Additional Box Culvert for FM 1069 crossing near Armstrong Road with outfall channel improvements
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
7'x3' Box Culvert
30
LF
$400.00
$12,000.00
Pavement Repair
450
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$9,000.00
2
EA
$7,000.00
$14,000.00
6,000
LF
$110.00
$660,000.00
9.6
Acres
$20,000.00
$192,000.00
$887,000.00
PROJECT NO. 3 ‐ Remove and replace box culverts crossing FM 1069 near Johnson Road with outfall channel improvements
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
6'x3' Box Culvert
60
LF
$36.00
$2,160.00
Pavement Repair
600
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$12,000.00
2
EA
$10,000.00
$20,000.00
3,400
LF
$60.00
$204,000.00
3.9
Acres
$20,000.00
$78,000.00
$316,160.00
NORTHEAST ARANSAS PASS WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Remove and replace Box Culverts from the end of the Channel at N. McCampbell St. and Stapp Ave. to the SH 35 Business crossing
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
5,100
LF
$360.00
$1,836,000.00
Manholes
4
EA
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
Headwall
1
EA
$16,000.00
$16,000.00
Pavement / Curb Repair
1
LS
$40,000.00
$40,000.00
6'x3' Box Culvert
SOUTHEAST 35 WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Remove and Replace crossing pipes under Moore Ave. and N. McCampbell St. as well channel improvements along Moore Ave.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
18" RCP
60
LF
$60.00
$3,600.00
18" Standard End Treatment
4
EA
$2,000.00
$8,000.00
5,600
LF
$10.00
$56,000.00
200
LF
$80.00
$16,000.00
24" Standard End Treatment
6
EA
$3,000.00
$18,000.00
3'x2' Box Culvert
60
LF
$200.00
$12,000.00
3'x2' Headwall
2
EA
$6,000.00
$12,000.00
Pavement Repair
1,550
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$31,000.00
2,500
LF
$27.00
$67,500.00
Roadside Channel Improvments
24" RCP
$224,100.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Add crossing under Railroad
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
7'x3' Box Culvert
220
LF
$400.00
$88,000.00
Railroad Repair
1
LS
$50,000.00
$50,000.00
2
EA
$7,000.00
$14,000.00
$152,000.00
ESTES FLATS WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Remove and Replace crossing pipes under SH 35 Business with outfall channel improvements
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
4'x2' Box Culvert
150
LF
$160.00
$24,000.00
Pavement Repair
750
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$15,000.00
2
EA
$8,000.00
$16,000.00
2,200
LF
$20.00
$44,000.00
Existing Channel Improvments
$99,000.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Remove and replace crossing pipes under Estes Drive with outfall channel improvements to SH 35 Business
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
4'x2' Box Culvert
120
LF
$260.00
$31,200.00
Pavement Repair
500
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$10,000.00
4
EA
$7,000.00
$28,000.00
2,650
LF
$40.00
$106,000.00
2.4
Acres
$20,000.00
$48,600.00
$223,800.00
PROJECT NO. 3 ‐ Channel Improvements along Nell Drive
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
24" RCP
50
LF
$80.00
$4,000.00
Pavement Repair
200
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$4,000.00
2
EA
$4,000.00
$8,000.00
1,950
LF
$20.00
$39,000.00
1.3
Acres
$20,000.00
$26,800.00
$81,800.00
SOUTHEAST LAMAR WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Drainage Improvements from existing Fire Station on Hagy Dr. to/across Palmetto Road
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
0.5
Acres
$20,000.00
$10,000.00
Shallow/low‐flow swale
1,900
LF
$10.00
$19,000.00
18" RCP
1,000
LF
$60.00
$60,000.00
2
EA
$20,000.00
$40,000.00
Pavement Repair
150
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$3,000.00
0.9
Acres
$10,000.00
$9,000.00
20' Easement Acquisition Standard End Treatment
$141,000.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Drainage Improvements from 8th Street across Palmetto Road to 4th Street
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
0.3
Acres
$20,000.00
$6,400.00
1,400
LF
$10.00
$14,000.00
18" RCP
50
LF
$60.00
$3,000.00
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
Pavement Repair
150
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$3,000.00
0.6
Acres
$10,000.00
$6,000.00
20' Easement Acquisition Shallow/low‐flow swale
$36,400.00
PROJECT NO. 3 ‐ Drainage Improvements from 12th Street across Palmetto Road Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
0.6
Acres
$20,000.00
$11,400.00
1,250
LF
$10.00
$12,500.00
18" RCP
50
LF
$60.00
$3,000.00
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
Pavement Repair
150
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$3,000.00
0.6
Acres
$10,000.00
$6,000.00
$39,900.00
SOUTHCENTRAL LAMAR WATERSHED
PROJECT NO. 1 ‐ Roadside channel improvements from Holiday Beach (east) pond to exisitng SH 35 crossing
Description
Shallow/low‐flow swale
24" RCP
Pavement Repair
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
1,700
LF
$20.00
$34,000.00
100
LF
$80.00
$8,000.00
4
EA
$3,000.00
$12,000.00
500
Sq. Ft.
$20.00
$10,000.00
$64,000.00
PROJECT NO. 2 ‐ Drainage Improvements from Bee Tree Circle to the west and into existing pond
Description
Quantity
Unit
Unit Price
Cost
1.7
Acres
$20,000.00
$33,000.00
3,000
LF
$10.00
$30,000.00
18" RCP
30
LF
$60.00
$1,800.00
2
EA
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
Pavement Repair
p
150
Sq. Ft.
q
$20.00
$
$3,000.00
$ ,
1.0
Acres
$10,000.00
$10,000.00
$81,800.00
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM “B”
Presentation and general discussion of a proposed Land Disturbance Activity Ordinance by City
Engineer Jim Urban, P.E., Urban Engineering, Inc.
WORKSHOP: March 22, 2011
SUMMARY:
This presentation was requested by a council member. Attached is the proposed ordinance Mr.
Urban presented to the City Council on March 22, 2011
City of Rockport Land Disturbance
Activity Permit Ordinance.
(Revision – March 21, 2011)
Table of Contents
Section 1. General Provisions
Section 2. Definitions
Section 3. Land Disturbance Activity Permit Application Requirements
Section 4. Waivers to Stormwater Management requirements
Section 5. General Performance Criteria for Stormwater Management
Section 6. Requirements for Stormwater Management Concept Plans
Section 7. Requirements for Stormwater Management Plans
Section 8. Construction Inspection
Section 9. Enforcement and Penalties
Section 1.
General Provisions
1.1.
Findings of Fact
It is hereby determined that:
Land development projects and associated increases in impervious cover alter the hydrologic
response of local watersheds and increase stormwater runoff rates and volumes, flooding, stream
channel erosion, and sediment transport and deposition;
This stormwater runoff contributes to increased quantities of water-borne pollutants, and
stormwater runoff, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution, can be controlled and minimized
through the regulation of stormwater runoff from development sites.
Therefore, the City of Rockport establishes this set of water quality and quantity policies
applicable to all surface waters to provide reasonable guidance for the regulation of stormwater
runoff for the purpose of protecting local water resources from degradation. It is determined that
the regulation of stormwater runoff discharges from land development projects and other
construction activities in order to control and minimize increases in stormwater runoff rates and
volumes, soil erosion, stream channel erosion, and nonpoint source pollution associated with
stormwater runoff is in the public interest and will prevent threats to public health and safety.
1
1.2. Purpose
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish minimum stormwater management requirements
and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety, and welfare of the public
residing in watersheds within this jurisdiction. This ordinance seeks to meet that purpose through
the following objectives:
(1)
minimize increases in stormwater runoff from any land disturbance activity in order to
reduce flooding, siltation, increases in stream temperature, and streambank erosion and
maintain the integrity of stream channels;
(2)
minimize increases in nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from land
disturbance activity which would otherwise degrade local water quality
(3)
reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution,
whenever possible, through stormwater management controls and to ensure that these
management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to public safety.
1.3. Applicability
This ordinance shall be applicable to all land disturbance activities, unless eligible for an
exemption or granted a waiver by the City of Rockport under the specifications of Section 4 of
this ordinance.
To prevent the adverse impacts of stormwater runoff, the City of Rockport has developed a set
of performance standards that must be met when land disturbance activities are proposed. These
standards apply to any construction activity disturbing 1,500 or more square feet of land. The
following activities are exempt from these stormwater performance criteria:
(1)
Developments that do not disturb more than 1,500 square feet of land, provided they are
not a part of a larger common development plan;
(2)
Repairs to any stormwater treatment practice deemed necessary by the City of Rockport.
1.4.
Compatibility with Other Permit and Ordinance Requirements
This ordinance is not intended to interfere with abrogate, or annul any other ordinance, rule or
regulation, stature, or other provision of law. The requirements of this ordinance should be
considered minimum requirements, and where any provision of this ordinance imposes
restrictions different from those imposed by any other ordinance, rule or regulation, or other
provision of law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose higher protective standards
for human health or the environment shall be considered to take precedence.
1.5.
Severability
If the provisions of any article, section, subsection, paragraph, subdivision or clause of this
ordinance shall be judged invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such order of judgment
shall not affect or invalidate the remainder of any article, section, subsection, paragraph,
subdivision or clause of this ordinance.
2
1.6.
Development of a Stormwater Design Manual
The City of Rockport will furnish additional policy, criteria and information including
specifications and standards, for the proper implementation of the requirements of this ordinance
and shall provide such information in the form of a Stormwater Design Manual.
This manual will include a list of acceptable stormwater treatment practices, including the
specific design criteria and operation and maintenance requirements for each stormwater
practice.
Section 2.
Definitions
“Applicant” means a property owner or agent of a property owner who has filed an application
for a stormwater management permit.
“Building” means any structure, either temporary or permanent, having walls and a roof,
designed for the shelter of any person, animal, or property, and occupying more than 100 square
feet of area.
“Channel” means a natural or artificial watercourse with a definite bed and banks that conducts
continuously or periodically flowing water.
“City of Rockport” means the City Council of the City of Rockport or their designated
representative.
“Dedication” means the deliberate appropriation of property by its owner for general public use.
“Developer” means a person who undertakes land disturbance activities.
“Fee in Lieu” means a payment of money in place of meeting all or part of the stormwater
performance standards required by this ordinance.
“Impervious Cover” means those surfaces that cannot effectively infiltrate rainfall (e.g.,
building rooftops, pavement, sidewalks, driveways, etc).
“Infiltration” means the process of percolating stormwater into the subsoil.
“Land Disturbance Activity” means any activity which changes the volume or peak flow
discharge rate of rainfall runoff from the land surface. This may include the grading, digging,
cutting, scraping, or excavating of soil, placement of fill materials, paving, construction,
substantial removal of vegetation, or any activity which bares soil or rock or involves the
diversion or piping of any natural or man-made watercourse.
“Landowner” means the legal or beneficial owner of land, including those holding the right to
purchase or lease the land, or any other person holding proprietary rights in the land.
“Maintenance Agreement" means a legally recorded document that acts as a property deed
restriction and which provides for long-term maintenance of stormwater management practices.
“Major Land Disturbance” means a land disturbance activity associated with all uses other
than a single family residence and land disturbance activity on a single family lot disturbing
10,000 square feet of land and greater or when the impervious cover will be 50% or greater than
the total lot area.
“Minor Land Disturbance” means a land disturbance activity on a single family lot which
disturbs less than 10,000 square feet of land and when the impervious cover will not exceed 50%
of the lot area.
3
“Nonpoint Source Pollution” means pollution from any source other than from any discernible,
confined, and discrete conveyances, and shall include, but not be limited to, pollutants from
agricultural, silvicultural, mining, construction, subsurface disposal and urban runoff sources.
“Off-Site Facility” means a stormwater management measure located outside the subject
property boundary described in the permit application for land development activity.
“Redevelopment” means any construction, alteration or improvement exceeding 5,000 square
feet in areas where existing land use is high density commercial, industrial, institutional or multifamily residential.
“Stop Work Order” means an order issued which requires that all construction activity on a site
be stopped.
“Stormwater Management” means the use of structural or non-structural practices that are
designed to reduce stormwater runoff pollutant loads, discharge volumes, peak flow discharge
rates and detrimental changes in stream temperature that affect water quality and habitat.
“Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs)” means measures, either structural or nonstructural,
that are determined to be the most effective, practical means of preventing or reducing point
source or nonpoint source pollution inputs to stormwater runoff and water bodies.
“Watercourse” means a permanent or intermittent stream or other body of water, either natural
or man-made, which gathers or carries surface water.
Section 3.
Land Disturbance Activity Permit Application Requirements
3.1.
Permit Required.
No land owner or land operator shall receive any of the building, grading or other land
development permits required for land disturbance activities without first meeting the
requirements of this ordinance prior to commencing the proposed activity.
Unless the proposed construction activity is specifically excluded by this ordinance, any land
owner or operator desiring a permit for a land disturbance activity of 1,500 square feet or larger
shall submit to the City of Rockport a permit application on a form provided for that purpose.
3.2.
Application Review Fees
The fee for review of any land disturbance activity permit shall be established by the City of
Rockport. All of the monetary contributions shall be credited to a local budgetary category to
support local plan review, inspection and program administration, and shall be made prior to the
issuance of any building permit for the development.
3.3.
Application Procedure
Applications for land disturbance activity permits must be filed with the City of Rockport on
any regular business day.
(1)
Minor Land Disturbance Activity Permit: (Single Family Structures Disturbing less than
10,000 Square Feet of Land and having less than 50% impervious surface on the lot)
a.
Two copies of the stormwater management concept plan and the plan review fee.
Within 10 business days of the receipt of a complete Stormwater Management
4
(2)
Concept Plan, the City of Rockport shall inform the applicant within 10 business
days whether the application is approved or disapproved.
b.
If the stormwater concept plan is disapproved, the applicant may revise the
stormwater management concept plan. If additional information is submitted, the
City of Rockport shall have 10 business days from the date the additional
information is received to inform the applicant that the plan is either approved or
disapproved.
c.
Once approved the applicant must pay a $250 water quality capital impact fee and
the City of Rockport will promptly issue a Minor Land Disturbance Activity
Permit.
Major Land Disturbance Activity Permit: (All Other Uses Other than Single Family and
Single Family Disturbing 10,000 Square Feet or more of land or having 50% or more
impervious surface on the lot.)
a.
Initial Submission Requirements
i.
Two copies of the Stormwater Management Concept Plan prepared to
meet Section 6 of this ordinance and the plan review fee.
ii.
Within 10 business days of the receipt of a complete Stormwater
Management Concept Plan, the City of Rockport shall inform the
applicant whether the application is approved or disapproved. If the
stormwater concept plan is disapproved the applicant may revise the
stormwater management concept plan. If additional information is
submitted, the City of Rockport shall have 10 business days from the date
the additional information is received to inform the applicant that the plan
is either approved or disapproved. Once approved the applicant may
submit the Stormwater Management Plan in accordance with the
submission requirements below.
b.
Final Submission Requirements
i.
Two copies of the Stormwater Management Plan prepared to meet Section
7 of this ordinance, a maintenance agreement prepared to meet Section 7.3
of this ordinance and the review fee.
ii.
Within 20 business days of the receipt of a complete Stormwater
Management Plan, the City of Rockport shall inform the applicant
whether the application is approved or disapproved.
iii.
If the Stormwater Management Plan or Maintenance Agreement is
disapproved, the applicant may revise the stormwater management plan or
agreement. If additional information is submitted, the City of Rockport
shall have 20 business days from the date the additional information is
received to inform the applicant that the plan and maintenance agreement
are either approved or disapproved.
iv.
Once approved and if fees in lieu of Stormwater Management Practices
are described in the approved plan, then the applicant must pay the fees
and the City of Rockport will promptly issue a Major Land Disturbance
Activity Permit
5
3.4.
Permit Duration
Permits issued under this section shall be valid from the date of issuance through the date the
City of Rockport notifies the permit holder that all stormwater management practices have
passed the final inspection required under permit condition.
Section 4.
Waivers to Stormwater Management Requirements
4.1.
Waivers for Providing Stormwater Management
Every applicant shall provide a stormwater management plan as required by this ordinance,
unless a written request is filed to waive this requirement. Requests to waive the stormwater
management plan requirements shall be submitted to the City of Rockport for approval.
The minimum requirements for stormwater management may be waived in whole or in part upon
written request of the applicant, provided that at least one of the following conditions applies:
(1)
It can be demonstrated that the proposed development is not likely to impair attainment
of the objectives of this ordinance.
(2)
Alternative minimum requirements for on-site management of stormwater discharges
have been established in a stormwater management plan that has been approved by the
City of Rockport and the implementation of the plan is required by local ordinance.
(3)
The City of Rockport finds that meeting the minimum on-site management requirements
is not feasible due to the natural or existing physical characteristics of a site and
provisions are made to manage stormwater by an off-site facility. The off-site facility is
required to be in place, to be designed and adequately sized to provide a level of
stormwater control that is equal to or greater than that which would be afforded by onsite practices and there is a legally obligated entity responsible for long-term operation
and maintenance of the stormwater practice.
(4)
Non-structural practices will be used on the site that reduces: a) the generation of
stormwater from the site, b) the size and cost of stormwater storage and c) the pollutants
generated at the site. These non-structural practices are explained in detail in the current
design manual and the amount of credit available for using such practices shall be
determined by the City of Rockport.
4.2 Downstream Impacts
In instances where one of the conditions above applies, the City of Rockport may grant a waiver
from strict compliance with these stormwater management provisions, as long as acceptable
mitigation measures are provided. However, to be eligible for a variance, the applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City of Rockport that the variance will not result in the
following impacts to downstream waterways:
(1)
Deterioration of existing culverts, bridges, and other structures;
(2)
or degradation of biological functions or habitat;
(3)
or accelerated streambank or streambed erosion or siltation;
(4)
or increased threat of flood damage to public health, life, or property.
6
4.3 Mitigation Measures
Furthermore, where compliance with minimum requirements for stormwater management is
waived, the applicant will satisfy the minimum requirements by meeting one of the mitigation
measures selected by the City of Rockport. Mitigation measures may include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1)
The purchase and donation of privately owned lands, or the grant of an easement to be
dedicated for preservation and/or reforestation. These lands should be located adjacent to
the stream corridor in order to provide permanent buffer areas to protect water quality
and aquatic habitat,
(2)
The creation of a stormwater management facility or other drainage improvements on
previously developed properties, public or private, that currently lack stormwater
management facilities designed and constructed in accordance with the purposes and
standards of this ordinance,
(3)
Monetary contributions (Fee-in-Lieu) to fund stormwater management activities such as
research and studies (e.g., regional wetland delineation studies, stream monitoring studies
for water quality and macroinvertebrates, stream flow monitoring, threatened and
endangered species studies, hydrologic studies) and monitoring of stormwater
management practices.
4.4.
Fee in Lieu of Stormwater Management Practices.
Where the City of Rockport waives all or part of the minimum stormwater management
requirements, or where the waiver is based on the provision of adequate stormwater facilities
provided downstream of the proposed development, the applicant shall be required to pay a
stormwater capital impact fee in an amount as determined by the City of Rockport. When an
applicant obtains a waiver of the required stormwater management, the monetary contribution
required shall be in accordance with a fee schedule (unless the developer and the City of
Rockport agree on a greater alternate contribution) established by the City of Rockport, and
based on the cubic feet of storage required for stormwater management of the development in
question. All of the monetary contributions shall be credited to an appropriate capital
improvements program project, and shall be made by the developer prior to the issuance of any
building permit for the development.
4.5.
Dedication of land
In lieu of a monetary contribution, an applicant may obtain a waiver of the required stormwater
management by entering into an agreement with the City of Rockport for granting of an
easement or the dedication of land by the applicant, to be used for the construction of an off-site
stormwater management facility. The agreement shall be entered into by the applicant and the
City of Rockport prior to the recording of plats or, if no record plat is required, prior to the
issuance of the building permit. The dedication of an easement or land under this provision shall
be in addition to that required to meet other dedications authorized under the platting ordinance.
7
Section .5
General Performance Criteria for Stormwater Management
Unless judged by the City of Rockport to be exempt or granted a waiver, the following
performance criteria shall be addressed for stormwater management at all sites:
(A).
All site designs shall establish stormwater management practices to control the peak flow
rates of stormwater discharge that exceed a weighted C value of .30 associated with
specified design storms. These practices should seek to utilize pervious areas for
stormwater treatment and to infiltrate stormwater runoff from driveways, sidewalks,
rooftops, parking lots, and landscaped areas to the maximum extent practical to provide
treatment for both water quality and quantity.
Section 6.
6.1.
Requirements for Stormwater Management Concept Plans
Stormwater Management Concept Plans can be prepared by a professional or a qualified
non-professional.
6.2.
Stormwater Management Concept Plan Requirements
A stormwater management concept plan shall be required with all permit applications and will
include sufficient information to evaluate the characteristics of the project site, the potential
impacts of all proposed development of the site on the water resources, and the effectiveness and
acceptability of the measures proposed for managing stormwater generated at the project site.
The intent of this conceptual planning process is to determine the type of stormwater
management measures necessary for the proposed project. To accomplish this goal the following
information shall be included in the concept plan:
(1)
A map (or maps) indicating the location of existing and proposed buildings, parking
areas, proposed structural stormwater management and sediment control facilities
(2)
Sufficient analysis to show that the proposed stormwater management measures are
capable of controlling runoff from the site in compliance with this ordinance and the
specifications of the Stormwater Design Manual.
(3)
A written description of the required maintenance burden for any proposed stormwater
management facility.
Section 7.
Requirements for Stormwater Management Plans
7.1.
Site Design Feasibility
Stormwater management practices for a site shall be chosen based on the physical conditions of
the site. Among the factors that should be considered:
(1)
Topography
(2)
Maximum Drainage Area
(3)
Depth to Water Table
(4)
Soils
8
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Slopes
Terrain
Hydraulic Head
Location in relation to environmentally sensitive features
Applicants shall consult the Stormwater Design Manual for guidance on the factors that
determine site design feasibility when selecting a stormwater management practice.
7.2.
Conveyance Issues
All stormwater management practices shall be to the greatest extent practical designed to convey
stormwater to allow for the removal of pollutants and reduction in flow velocities. This shall
include, but not be limited to:
(1)
Maximizing of flow paths from inflow points to outflow points
(2)
Protection of inlet and outfall structures
(3)
Elimination of erosive flow velocities
(4)
Providing of under drain systems, where applicable
The Stormwater Design Manual shall provide detailed guidance on the requirements for
conveyance for each of the approved stormwater management practices.
7.3.
Maintenance Agreements
All structural stormwater practices shall have an enforceable operation and maintenance
agreement to ensure the system functions as designed. This agreement will include any and all
maintenance easements required to access and inspect the stormwater treatment practices, and to
perform routine maintenance as necessary to ensure proper functioning of the stormwater
treatment practice. The form of the agreement will be subject to the City of Rockport approval.
7.4.
Non-Structural Stormwater Practices
The use of non-structural stormwater treatment practices is encouraged in order to minimize the
reliance on structural practices. Credit in the form of reductions in the amount of stormwater
that must be managed can be earned through the use of non-structural practices that reduce the
generation of stormwater from the site. These non-structural practices are explained in detail in
the design manual and applicants wishing to obtain credit for use of non-structural practices must
ensure that these practices are documented and remain unaltered by subsequent property owners.
7.5.
Stormwater Management Plan Application Requirements
If a Stormwater Management Plan is required under section 3.3.2 of this ordinance it must be
prepared by a professional and it shall include the information provided in the stormwater
management concept plan as well as the following additional information.
(1)
A map (or maps) indicating the location of existing and proposed buildings, roads,
parking areas, utilities, existing and proposed structural stormwater management and
sediment control facilities. The map(s) will also clearly show proposed land use with
9
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
tabulation of the percentage of surface area to be adapted to various uses; drainage
patterns; locations of utilities, roads and easements; the limits of clearing and grading;
Sufficient engineering analysis to show that the proposed stormwater management
measures are capable of controlling runoff from the site in compliance with this
ordinance and the specifications of the Stormwater Design Manual.
A written or graphic inventory of the natural resources at the site and surrounding area as
it exists prior to the commencement of the project and a description of the watershed and
its relation to the project site. This description should include a discussion of soil
conditions, ground cover, topography, wetlands, and other native vegetative areas on the
site. Particular attention should be paid to environmentally sensitive features that provide
particular opportunities or constraints for development.
A written description of the required maintenance burden for any proposed stormwater
management facility.
Contact Information: The name, address, and telephone number of all persons having a
legal interest in the property and the tax reference number and parcel number of the
property or properties affected.
Topographic Base Map: A 1" = 200' topographic base map of the site which extends a
minimum of 50 feet beyond the limits of the proposed development and indicates existing
surface water drainage including streams, ponds, culverts, ditches, and wetlands; current
land use including all existing structures; locations of utilities, roads, and easements; and
significant natural and manmade features not otherwise shown.
Calculations: Hydrologic and hydraulic design calculations for the pre-development and
post-development conditions for the design storms specified in this ordinance.
Soils Information: If a stormwater management control measure depends on the
hydrologic properties of soils (e.g., infiltration basins), then sufficient soils data shall be
submitted to determine the soils ability to meet the design.
Maintenance and Repair Plan: Structural stormwater management facilities shall include
detailed maintenance and repair procedures to ensure their continued function. These
plans will identify the parts or components of a stormwater management facility that need
to be maintained and the equipment and skills or training necessary. Provisions for the
periodic review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the maintenance program and the
need for revisions or additional maintenance procedures shall be included in the plan.
Vegetation plan: The applicant must present a detailed plan for management of
vegetation at the site after construction is finished, including who will be responsible for
the maintenance of vegetation at the site and what practices will be employed to ensure
that adequate vegetative cover is preserved.
Maintenance Easements: The applicant must ensure access to all stormwater treatment
practices at the site for the purpose of inspection and repair by securing all the
maintenance easements needed on a permanent basis. If the City of Rockport deems
necessary permanent easements will be recorded with the plan and will remain in effect
even with transfer of title to the property.
Maintenance Agreement: The applicant must execute an easement and an inspection and
maintenance agreement binding on all subsequent owners of land served by an on-site
structural stormwater management measure.
10
7.6.
Performance Bond/Security
The City of Rockport may, at its discretion, require the submittal of a performance security or
bond prior to issuance of a permit in order to insure that the stormwater practices are installed by
the permit holder as required by the approved stormwater management plan. The amount of the
installation performance security shall be the total estimated construction cost of the stormwater
management practices approved under the permit. Provisions for a partial pro-rata release of the
performance security based on the completion of various development stages can be done at the
discretion of the City of Rockport.
Section 8.
Construction Inspection
8.1.
Notice of Construction Commencement
The applicant must notify the City of Rockport in advance before the commencement of
construction. Regular inspections of the stormwater management system construction shall be
conducted by the staff of the City of Rockport or their designee. All inspections shall be
documented and written reports prepared that contain the following information:
(1)
The date and location of the inspection;
(2)
Whether construction is in compliance with the approved stormwater management plan
(3)
Variations from the approved construction specifications
(4)
Any violations that exist
If any violations are found, the property owner shall be notified in writing of the nature of the
violation and the required corrective actions. No added work shall proceed until any violations
are corrected and all work previously completed has received approval by the City of Rockport.
8.2.
As Built Plans
“As built” plans are required for all structural stormwater management facilities depicted in the
approved stormwater management plans. The plan must show the final design specifications for
all stormwater management facilities.
8.3.
Vegetation and Stabilization Requirements
Any area of land from which the natural vegetative cover has been either partially or wholly
cleared or removed by development activities shall be revegetated within ten (10) days from the
substantial completion of final construction or grading. This provision does not relieve the
applicant of temporary measures required under the TCEQ SWPPP program. The following
criteria shall apply to revegetation efforts:
Any area of revegetation must exhibit survival of a minimum of seventy-five percent
(75%) of the cover crop throughout the year immediately following revegetation.
Revegetation must be repeated in successive years until the minimum seventy-five
percent (75%) survival for one (1) year is achieved.
11
Section 9.
Enforcement and Penalties.
9.1.
Violations
Any development activity that is commenced or is conducted contrary to this Ordinance may be
restrained by injunction or otherwise abated in a manner provided by law.
9.2.
Notice of Violation
When the City of Rockport determines that an activity is not being carried out in accordance
with the requirements of this Ordinance, it shall issue a written notice of violation to the owner
of the property. The notice of violation shall contain:
(1)
the name and address of the owner or applicant;
(2)
the address when available or a description of the building, structure or land upon which
the violation is occurring;
(3)
a statement specifying the nature of the violation;
(4)
a description of the remedial measures necessary to bring the development activity into
compliance with this Ordinance and a time schedule for the completion of such remedial
action;
(5)
a statement of the penalty or penalties that shall or may be assessed against the person to
whom the notice of violation is directed;
(6)
a statement that the determination of violation may be appealed to the municipality by
filing a written notice of appeal within fifteen (15) days of service of notice of violation.
9.3.
Stop Work Orders
Persons receiving a notice of violation will be required to halt all construction activities. This
“stop work order” will be in effect until the City of Rockport confirms that the development
activity is in compliance and the violation has been satisfactorily addressed. Failure to address a
notice of violation in a timely manner can result in civil, criminal, or monetary penalties in
accordance with the enforcement measures authorized in this ordinance.
9.4.
Penalties
In addition to or as an alternative to any penalty provided herein or by law, any person who
violates the provisions of this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine of not to exceed
Dollars ($xx). Such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each day during which the
violation occurs or continues.
9.5. Restoration of lands
Any violator may be required to restore land to its undisturbed condition. In the event that
restoration is not undertaken within a reasonable time after notice, the City of Rockport may
take necessary corrective action, the cost of which shall become a lien upon the property until
paid.
9.6.
Holds on Occupation Permits
12
Occupation permits will not be granted until corrections to all stormwater practices have been
made and accepted by the City of Rockport.
Approved by: _________________________________ Date ___________________
13
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM “C”
Presentation and general discussion on proposal by Allied Waste Services to amend the current
contract agreement for the transition from manual collection to automated waste and recycling
collection services within the City’s service area.
SUMMARY: Allied Waste Services is proposing a once a week automated trash collection
service with 95 gallon trash containers “totters” and continue once a week recycling also
automated with a 95 gallon totter. See attached letter.
BACKGROUND: The current contract with Allied Waste Services was entered into in July
2007 for a period of five years and would expire in July 2012.
FISCAL ANALYSIS: The per-household cost would be reduced (see letter) due to the
elimination of one trash pickup each week and the current pickups require three people where the
automated truck is operated by one. Per Allied Waste Services’ letter, if City Council approved
this change in services, a new five year contract from the date of acceptance would be required.
Allied Waste (W).doc
Page 1 of 1 Pages
April 7, 2011
City of Rockport
622 E. Market St.
Rockport, TX. 78382
Dear Mayor, City Staff, and City Council,
As you know, the management of solid waste is one of the most important issues facing
municipal officials. Everyday local officials and service providers are seeing new
challenges. The cost of equipment, labor and operations continues to increase over the
years. Additionally, disposal rates continue to increase and transfer stations play a more
important role in the successful management of solid waste.
Republic Services, the parent company for Allied Waste is uniquely positioned to assist
you with effective recycling and waste collection services. We have extensive expertise in
waste collection, recycling services, transfer, and disposal. Our company commitment is to
increase the waste diversion by capturing more recyclables from our municipal residences
to benefit the community and the environment.
Over the past several years, Republic has been transitioning more and more manual
collection routes to automated waste and recycling collection services.
Automation of waste collection services is a proven technological advancement. Just last
year, Republic Services successfully converted more than 400 routes in 130 communities to
automated waste collection service.
There are many benefits associated with automation of the waste collection process. For
starters, and perhaps most important to you, is the upgrade of service for your citizens.
Fixed lid, wheeled carts not only provide a uniform appearance on collection day, they
also reduce blowing trash, odors, animal scavenging and other health concerns.
Residents love the carts which are easy to roll and control.
You will see a tremendous improvement in the aesthetics of a community when
automated services are implemented. Gone are mismatched containers, bags and other
unsightly set-outs. Residents are saved the hassle and expense of providing their own
containers. In addition, the recycling process by the resident is simple by allowing
comingled recyclables to be placed in one Toter vs. several bins. This also eliminates the
need to place the recyclables in plastic bags before placing them in the Toter.
Automating recyclable collection has the same results. As a matter of fact, many
communities find that automating refuse collection can also drive recycling efforts.
Automated recycling collection that provides residents with a convenient wheeled cart for
recyclables, as well as one for refuse, and makes it easier for residents to recycle more.
Another benefit of automation is safety. At Republic, safety is our number one priority
and automation is proven to be safer and results in fewer injuries and reduced workers’
compensation claims.
From an environmental sustainability standpoint, automation makes the most sense. Full
automation is the most efficient means of refuse collection.
Republic wants to be your environmental services partner. Our hauling operations across
the United States are reporting that many progressive communities are moving toward
automation as the safest, most cost effective and best program for residents.
We are 100% committed to making sure that all waste and recyclables are collected and
managed in an environmentally sound manner.
Republic Services is working hard to maintain our reputation as the best provider of quality
environmental services to municipalities. When you need reliable and flexible waste
services, we are ready, willing and able to help. Most importantly, we understand your
needs and believe that we can assist you in achieving your sustainability goals. We have a
great team of professional people who are committed to providing you with the services
you need to get the job done right.
We are confident that we can provide you with a more efficient and environmentally
friendly system. We look forward to working with you.
Please contact me if you have any questions or desire additional information about
automated collection of waste and recyclables.
Sincerely,
Mike Reeves
Municipal Marketing Manager
Corpus Christi & Surrounding
[email protected]
361-549-3097 cell
Pricing Grid City of Rockport
(1X Res)+(EOW Rec)
$16.93
(1X Res)+(1X Rec)
$19.57
(2X Res)+(EOW Rec)
$24.97
Current Service
$19.07
Terminology:
X= Frequency of curbside pick-up per week
EOW= Every Other Week pick-up
Res= Residential Toter
Current Service= 2X Res “No Recycling”
Rec= Recycling Toter
**Proposed pricing pending final corporate approval
•
•
•
•
•
•
Each resident would be issued (02) 96 Gallon Toters (carts), one for waste, and
one for recyclables. Each additional Toter will be $10 per month as applicable.
All waste items must be placed in the Waste Toter with the exception of bulky
and brush.
Small, manageable brush may be placed in the Waste Toters each week if the lid
can close.
Brush/Bulky items will be collected once per month, per resident, in sections.
Brush must be cut and bundled by resident and should be no more than 3 ft in
length and 40 lbs per bundle
Waste & Recycle Toters must be placed at curbside on day of pick-up by 7am.
Recycle Bank•
•
•
Each resident will receive rewards via Recycle Bank upon the city engaging in
recycling services provided the resident enrolls.
Each route will accumulate points based on weight which are distributed amongst
the residents in that area once they enroll in the Recycle Bank program.
Points can be redeemed via the www.recyclebank.com/rewards and can be
used at various restaurants, grocery stores, and movie theaters (vendors may
change and vary per area)
Service Term•
We will require a 5 year extension on the term of service upon commencement
due to the operational and capital investments.
Automation..it’s for you!
Automated waste collection
and recycling services
Mike Reeves
361-549-3097
Corpus Christi and Surrounding
Automated Collection of Waste and Recyclables
Topics to Cover
Introduction to automation
How does automation work
The components of an automated system
The cart
The truck
Benefits of automation
Is automation right for the community?
Automation - General

Easier for residents
Cleaner for the neighborhood
Carts are easy to use
The carts hold a lot
Safer for the resident and the worker
Promotes recycling
People love it
History of “automated” service
Automation was
first started in the
early 1970’s by
the City of Phoenix.
History of “automated” service
Today, automated refuse equipment makes up at least 16 percent of
all new refuse collection vehicles sold in the United States.
Benefits of Automated Collection
There are many benefits
associated with automation…
Enhance Service Delivery
Upgrade of service to the
customer.
Carts are easy to use
No blowing litter or
ripped bags
Residents are saved the
hassles and expense of
providing their own
containers.
Higher Recycling Rates
Many communities find that automating refuse
collection can also drive recycling efforts.
Safety
Automation is safer for the customer
and the worker
Cart is easy to move (no dragging or lifting
trash cans)
Sustainability
Full automation is the most efficient means of
refuse collection
Other Benefits
Cleaner
Safer
Less injuries
More recycling
Reduced Employee Turnover
Disadvantages of Automated Collection

High upfront costs
Higher maintenance on vehicles
Need for customer education and training
Automation…it’s right for you!
Automation is your best choice for the
management of solid waste.
In community after community we have been
able to prove that automation is the best choice.
The equipment
The truck
The equipment
Carts
Senior citizens love the carts…
Easy to handle!
The equipment
Cart Size
Carts have 96 gallon
capacity.
Ample space for weekly
service
Community Education and Training
Education is critical to the implementation
of a successful program.
Conclusion
Automated is a excellent choice for your
community
It’s better, safer, cleaner, more efficient and a
proven success.
People love it.
Allied Waste and Republic are now
one company
About Republic Services…
Company Overview

Leading provider of solid waste and recycling services
22,000 vehicles
16,000 Collection vehicles
6,000 pickups and service vehicles

192 Landfills
223 Transfer Stations
376 Hauling Operations
79 Recycling Facilities
Exceptional Service
Serving more than 2,800
municipalities in 40 states
Company Overview

31,000 employees
$19,540,300,000 in assets
Fortune 500 Company
Publicly traded on the NYSE.
Widely recognized as the most financially
stable company in the industry.
Local Team

Robert Bradley-General Manager
Brian Cornelius-District Sales Manager
Dennis Chapa- Operations Manager
Karen Taylor-Inside Sales Coordinator
Rey Medrano-Residential Route Supervisor
Nick Barrera-Commercial Route Supervisor
Larry Kelly-Industrial Route Supervisor
Todd Muenster-Special Waste
Our Services

Residential Waste Collection
Commercial Waste Collection
Residential Recycling
Commercial Recycling
Roll-off
Bulk collection services
Recovered materials processing
Industrial refuse collection
Proven Start-Up Experience

Experience
A solid plan that works
Local base of operations
Local experienced employees
Local supervisors and managers
The Republic Advantage
Proven experience to successfully implement solid
waste services…right from day one.
Existing base of operations with the most
experienced team ready, willing, and able to serve.
Storm and natural disaster preparedness and
responsiveness.
A Strong Business Partner

Solid Assets
Proven Track Record
Excellent Resources
Investment grade ratings from Moody’s and
Standard & Poor’s
Our Strengths
Local company with proven experience
We have the strongest and most experienced
local management team
Competitively priced
Financial strength
Quality of service
Customer Service- 361-698-5000
Your Environmental Partner
Beyond the Curb
The ECOnomics of
Single Stream Recycling
Mike Reeves, Municipal Marketing Manager
Authored by Cheri Reynolds
An Environmental Partner You Can Count On
Company Overview
Republic Services – One of the Nation’s Leading Providers of
Environmental Services
•
•
•
•
•
•
78 Material Recovery Facilities
213 Landfills
74 Landfill to Gas Energy Plants
1st Flexible Solar Landfill Cap
3.3 Million Tons Per Year Recycled
Nearly 1000 Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Purpose of the Presentation
To create an understanding of the benefits of your recycling
program to the community, the environment and the economy.
Why Should You Recycle?
• To be good stewards of the environment for our future
generations.
• Recycling is the right thing to do for the environment.
• Saves natural resources
• Saves energy
• Produces fewer air emissions
• Prolongs the life of local landfills
• Waste diversion can create cost savings.
What do we throw away?
Daily Waste Production
Europeans 3.5 lbs Americans 4.6 lbs
Americans throw away enough paper a year to build a wall 12 feet tall from NY to LA
*EPA – February 2009
Recycling Participation
The largest percentage of what we throw away each day,
can be recycled. So why don’t we recycle more?
The days of sorting
recyclables are over.
Recycling is easier than
people think!
What is Single Stream Recycling?
This means that all recyclable material is collected together. If
your paper will tear and is free of food and drink…it’s recyclable.
No sorting necessary…no removing paper clips or staples. Just
simply add your empty plastic, aluminum and steel containers.
Now you’re recycling!
What could be easier?
What can be Recycled?
Clean Dry Paper
More Recyclables
Flattened cardboard boxes
Chipboard
More Recyclables
Empty Plastic Container #1-7
More Recyclables
Empty Aluminum Cans
Empty Steel Cans
What Cannot Be Recycled?
Commonly
Received Items
Food Waste
Pizza Boxes
Garden Hoses
Tissue Products
Food Wrap
Aluminum Foil
Styrofoam
Coat Hangers
Rubber Balls
Plastic Grocery
Bags
Disposal costs triple once these materials reach the MRF
Closing the Loop
Products
are
bought to
use in
your
HOME
Your Home
Your Recyclables
The materials are
shipped to
companies to be
made and sold as
new products
Material Recovery Facility
Recycle Truck
Here are some new products you can rebuy!
Not a Tree-Hugger? What are the ECO-nomic Facts?
ECO
nomics of Recycling
ECOnomics
So what are the true economic benefits of a comprehensive
Recycling Program?
•
Waste diversion can create cost savings through eliminating
disposal costs.
•
Even with market fluctuation, recyclable commodity values help
offset man-hours, equipment and transportation costs of the
collection process.
•
Prolonging the life of the landfill will positively impact overall waste
costs now and in the future.
ECO
nomics of Recycling
ECOnomics
The recycling industry effects the economy on a local, state
and national scale.
•
The recycling industry contributes to the economy through the
creation of jobs.
•
•
Recycling creates 5 times as many jobs as landfilling.
•
Nationally, the recycling and reuse industry consists of
approximately 56,000 establishments that employ over 1.1 million
people, generate an annual payroll of nearly $37 billion.
Generating $12.9 billion dollars in Federal, State and Local Tax
Revenues
*EPA- Communicating the Benefits of Recycling
An
An Environmental
Environmental Partner
Partner You
You Can
Can Count
Count On
On
What Can You Do?
Learn to PreCycle – The practice of reducing waste by avoiding
bringing items into your home or business which will generate
waste.
•
Reduce – Avoid excess packaging by buying in bulk or products that
are concentrated.
•
Reuse – Buy durable, reusable products and avoid disposable
containers. Share or trade items with friends and co-workers that
you no longer need.
•
Recycle – Learn the acceptable items in the recycling program for
your area. Choose products that come in recyclable containers
•
Rebuy – Don’t break the loop, make sure to buy products made
with recycle content.
An
An Environmental
Environmental Partner
Partner You
You Can
Can Count
Count On
On
Questions?
Mike Reeves
Corpus Christ & Surrounding
[email protected]
CITY OF ROCKPORT
Special Workshop Agenda: Tuesday, April 12, 2011
AGENDA ITEM “D ”:
Update, presentation and general discussion of revised Annexation Policy Map dated 4/12/2011
with (1) addition of Area “Z”, and (2) boundary modifications to Areas “D”, “K”, and “J”.
SUBMITTED BY:
Building & Development Director Mike Henry;
City Secretary Irma Parker.
APPROVED FOR INCLUSION ON AGENDA: TJB (8)
SUMMARY: At the Strategic Planning Retreat held in January, 2011 several annexation issues
were discussed including: (1) possible trade of ETJ with Town of Fulton for the City to be able
to annex the entire county airport; and (2) Status of Colonia projects in Area K, D and J with
lines possibly re-drawn due to land purchases by the City and other possible changes due to ongoing and completed colonia projects. Changes and updates were made by the consultant and
noted in the attached Annexation Policy Map. Staff is finalizing Service Plans for Annexation
Areas “D”, “E”, “K”, and a new area to be known as Area Z which comprises 508 acres. Should
this area be annexed, the City’s ETJ boundary will be extended westward and southward beyond
F.M. 1069 and F.M. 188.
Along with Area Z (see Attached) there are existing areas in and around the so called “donut
area”. This “donut area” lies between Verne Street and Highway 35 bypass, and north and south
of F.M. 1069 (Market Street). Specific areas of interest at this time include Areas D, K and some
portions of Area J. Area J is a subject area but newly purchased property within Area J by the
City now places said property in the “exempt” status and can be annexed at anytime. In addition,
areas in and around Area J have been identified as “Colonia Areas” and are also exempt from
being on an annexation plan.
Another area that is exempt from an annexation plan is Area K, which is a known Colonia.
These Colonia areas are identified through the Aransas County Colonia Plan study, 2003 – 2005,
conducted by Grantworks, Inc.
Last but not least is Area E (See Attached). This area consists of 167 acres and is adjacent to the
Intracoastal Canal. This area is an exempt area and should be annexed as it includes property
that was bisected by annexed Area B.
These areas are identified on the City’s annexation study plan (attached) as prepared by the
planning firm of Freese & Nichols, Inc. Also included is the Prioritized Growth Area chart
showing present and future annexations and associated land statistics.
Due to the changes and updates made by the Consultant at the direction of Staff, Areas D, K, and
J have significantly changed. After approval of the Annexation Policy Map at a future Council
Meeting, new metes and bounds descriptions and maps will be ordered for each of those Areas
that have changes. Staff will again proceed with updated Service Plans.
Annexation.doc
Page 1 of 2 Pages
BACKGROUND: The City’s last annexation occurred in September of 2010 and was known as
Area X. The City now stands at 17.78 square miles or 11,381 acres.
Annexation.doc
Page 2 of 2 Pages
CO
ER
PP
RATTLESNAKE
CO VE
O
LID
PIN
LING
IL
TA
L
IA
QU
W SPECKIED TROUT
D
RE D
A
HE
B
E SPECKIED TROUT
A
SALT LAKE
RATTLESNAKE POINT ROAD
POMPANO
ALLEN M PARKS
Y
W
ING
ER
ISP
WH
U
CL
BL
E
AK
MA
TA
CA
RE
SA
RE
D
D EN
DEA
CORAL
COLONY
1781
CATALINA
BERMUDA
ME
McLester
PERRY
JONES
CATALINA
1781
35
FUR
ELM
CEDAR
DOGWOOD
BIRCH
APPLE
WT
ERR
ACE
RED
BIR
D
ISTI
ALA
CA
1069
begin ramp
COPANO HEIGHTS
DO M
TED FORD
HILL
0.5
SWE
ET B
AY
CHA
CH
MAL
LAR
D
TEA
L
SEA GULL
WEST TERRACE
DS
OO
IBIS
HERON
12T
H
6T H
9T H
CO VE HA
RBOR
1781
2165
ROME
CEDAR
ORLEANS
KELLY
4T H
CO R
PUS
CHR
KRE
STA
WHITE WING
12T
H
L
B35
IT
Y
8T H
C
e
3036
0.6
ORLEANS
LAUREL
1.4
Ba yo
u
PASO
MADRE
SAN LE
ANNA
SANTA
CLARA
LI M
SWEE
T MAY
LIVE OA
K
ST
A
3036
AU
GU
PALM
35
SIERRA
WOOD
S
PALO PIN
TO
BARCEL
ONA
EL CID
POQUITO
35
2165
JAM
ES
B35
L
KIN
G
70
B35
L
1069
Pk
AIRPORT
RD
WISHER
T
LO NE ST
AR
MYRT LE
EL
MILLER
LOOP
ARANSAS
COUNTY
AIRPORT
MYRTLE
PRAIRE
PEACHTREE
CHERRY
HILL
CACTUS
TRAYLOR
SWEET
BAY
PIRATE
BROADWAY
OAK TREE
SABINAL
CEDAR
ORLEANS
NOPAL
70
DANA
SHADYSIDE
LINDEN
ALAMITO
TERN
CEDAR RIDGE
MARI
ON
MESQUIT
E
CHAPAR
1.4
CHAMPIONS
INVENRARY
MAPLE
ARY
S
BAY
RAY
HAC
KBE
RRY
MUR
0.4
LAUREL
LIBERTY
ST M
WH
ARF
MAIN
MIMOSA
CONCHO
CORNWALL
NORTH
0.3
HAC
KBE
RRY
1ST
2ND
3RD
KIN
G
LAM
AR
MO
CKIN MURR
AY
GB
IRD
ELO
UIS
E
IT
COPANO
VILLAGE
OLY
MPIC
Pop 4,753
ROCKPORT
Memorial
Park
LINDEN
ALAMITO
CHERRY
CEDAR
SABINAL
ORLEANS
NOPAL
MIMOSA
LIBERTY
LAUREL
CONCHO
CORNWALL
MAR
KET
BAY
MO
RGA
N
HAC
KBE
RRY
KIN
G
LAM
AR
1ST
2ND
3RD
4T H
5T H
u
Ba yo
MAPLE
RO
YA
L
LAGUNA
VISTA
MAY
Pop 763
CHAPAREL
LAUREL
MESQUITE
Fulton
Cem
FULTON
35
JOHN D
WENDEL
L
L
B35
LOOP
Rockport
h
Be ac
1781
Fulton
Mansion
State
Historical
Park
TRAYLOR
BROADWAY
FULTON
PALMETTO
PK
TIMBER
LANE
HENDERSON
TULE
CO LO
Cem
RAD
O
JOH
NSO
N
rt
po
GLASS
PICTON
BAY
ck
Ro
35
ROCK PO RT
ELL
ER
IVY
LAZ
Y
FIT
H
35
WIL
DW
OO
D
MYR
T LE
NT
LA
BAY
NG
LEA
RO
F
W
WAY
SID
E
GRE
ENW
AY
GR
IF
16T
H
JIMS SM
OKEHOU
SE
Tu rtl
Tr out
1
2.
1069
12T
H
JACK RABBIT
BALDERREE
FR
IEN
D
PO
RT
0.3
9
ST
FR
AN
CIS
LAMAR
FR
EE
ZE
ME
R
PA
LM
JA
M
2.4
CA
PE
VE
LE
RO
6
. E1R0
UIS
FR.M
C
E
BIS
HO
P
D
ND
WIN
SE
Cu t
imits
E
G
HE
LL
SP
RIN
RA
C
VE
RC
IE
LA
ND
Little
re ez e
Se ab
Pa rk
Copano Bay
State Fishing Pier
CITY
KE Y A LL EG RO
A
rt C ity L
V
IN
ST
DU
NE
LL
ESTES
ESTES
Aransas
Bay
B
I
HA
I LE
Y
ES
TE
S
FLATS
LIMIT
Í
NORTH
Y
A
B
S
A
A
N
S
Y
R
A
Rockport City Limits
Annexation Policy Areas
Y
A
R
A
N
S
A
Miles
1
0.5
0
City of Rockport
Aransas County, Texas
B
S
L
35
1.5
L
B35
A
Rockpo
LU
B
MA
CK
188
S
O
PO
R
TB
AY
C
1069
LE
E
MA
CK
S
Fulton ETJ
O
A
N
TR
AC
OA
ST
AL
W
AT
ER
W
AY
IN
GU
LF
Q
RO
AD
RE
ST
Little
Bay
Little
Bay
HIL
LC
270 Ac.
A
1,234 Ac.
3.3
BEACH
2ND
BEACH
CASTERLINE
G
7TH
DAVID
LOOP
11TH
FULTON
3RD
4TH
SCOTT
9TH
RATH
398 Ac.
S
LADY CLAIRE
RU LADY CLAIRE
BY
OMOHONDRO
GL
AS
S
TL
E
BA
Y
A
WOOD
5TH
LI T
N
R
ALLEN
6TH
A
RO
UT
E)
MOORE
R
(A
LT
ER
NA
TE
403 Ac.
D
PATTON
Aransas
Bay
2.4
LIM IT
3.4
PATTON
172 Ac.
ST. PETER
10TH
JENKINS
A
MOLINE
F
AUSTIN
CIT Y
RT
ANN
WA
TER
INTRACOA
STAL
MAGNOLIA
AUS
TIN
W
AT
ER
W
AY
FUQUA
LIVE OAK
CHURCH
LIVE OAK
PEARL
61 Acres
RACINE
K
IA
MAG
NOL
MAT
HIS
1.7
CH
CHU
R
O AK
0.7
100 Ac.
LITRON
0.
5
GACON
PEA
RL
GULF
VERNE
193 Acres
MAGNOLIA
D (Colonia)
FUQUA
TE
ROCK
PO
90 Ac.
H
DOUGHTY
MAT
HIS
BRO
N
MAT
HIS
PEAR
L
VER
NE
KOS
SUT
H
RACINE
WO OD
SPAINISH
KOSSUTH
A
FUQ
U
1.6
YOU
NG
ANN
GHT
Y
DO U
VERNE
TERRY
411 Ac.HOOD
LORENA
TER
RY
YOU
NG
W
LI VE
Aransas Pass ETJ
1.0
188
SH
AV
ER
N
A
YOU
NG
TJ
D (Park)
A
D
N
A
72 Ac.
tE
po
r
STANLEY
E
167 Acres
FUQ
U
ROWE
I
S
L
L
Y
E
0.8
ck
J (Colonia)
BURTON
Ro
567 Acres
STEART
SAM
MY
HEN
DER
HAR
SON
DEE
L
HO O
D
TER
RY
GHT
Y
0.6
156 Ac.
J
WO
RTH
HICKORY
906 Acres
OAK
DAL
LAS
SAM
MY
HEN
DER
SON
HAR
DEE
T
L
L
DO U
GHT
Y
KOS
SUT
H
D
PINE
I
M
280 Acres
RO
CK
A
T
Y
DO U
SPARKS
J (Non-Exempt)
Copano
Bay
1.9
REDWOOD
FOR
T
U
MIRAMAR
252 Ac.
TO N
IO
SAN
AN
KEY
Es
tes
PO
R
McLESTER
642 Acres
imits
ity L
rt C
kpo
Ro c
EGR
ET
WAR
B LE
R
RAV
EN
MON
Co
ve
SPARKS
2.6
554 Acres
A
E
OAK
DAL
SALT LAKE RD
A
T
O
ME
DO M
FIT H
OAK
SUN
SET
LAZ
Y
3.8
U
Salt
Lake
JANECEK
763 Acres
GRIF
L
CEN
Z
Annexed
Area N
474 Acres
S
TJ
318 Ac.
S
712 Acres
ALE
X AN
DER
WAY
1,329 Acres
N
kpo
rt E
I
Ro c
HO LLY
AN
A
BUFFOLD HEAD
V
E
Annexed
Area X
1,225 Acres
276 Acres
S
FRA T
NCIS
Exempt (Colonia Land)
P
TEAL
252 Ac.
LAKEVE
N
WEE
PING
W
ILLO
W
DOVE
R
L
BALL
Exempt (Government land)
U
A
N
P
Exempt
N
IANA
POINN
NC
A
OW
W IL
K
I
WA
LK
ER
C
Annexed
Area B
579 Acres
A
P
WE
EP
ING
5.0
S
Non-Exempt
O
508 Acres
E
Recently Annexed
Z
March 2011
Legend
5.3
S
EXHIBIT “A”
FIELD NOTE DESCRIPTION
ANNEXATION AREA “Z”
BEING THE DESCRIPTION OF 509 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, BEING OUT OF
THE CHARLES S. ZENN SURVEY A-226, ARANSAS COUNTY, TEXAS, WITH SAID 509
ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BY
METES AND BOUNDS AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCE at a point at the intersection of the Southerly R.O.W. line of Eighteenth Street
with the Easterly R.O.W. line of Texas State Highway No. 35 Relief Route, with said point being
the Northwest corner of Lot 118, Block 249, Foor and Swickheimer Subdivision as shown by
plat of record in Volume 1, Page 28, Plat Records of Aransas County, Texas; THENCE, in a
Southwesterly direction and following the Easterly R.O.W. line of Texas State Highway No. 35
Relief Route a distance of approximately 975 feet to a point for the common corner of Lot 119,
Block 249, Foor and Swickheimer Subdivision and Tract 33 of the Abernathy Tracts out of the
Charles S. Zenn Survey A-226 with said point being the NORTHEAST corner and PLACE OF
BEGINNING of this description;
THENCE, continuing in a Southwesterly direction along and with the Easterly R.O.W. line of
Texas State Highway No. 35 Relief Route a distance of approximately 4680 feet to a point on the
common line of the D. W. Grant 447.796 acre tract conveyed under Clerk’s File No. 234613,
Property Records of Aransas County, Texas, and the R. S. Barns, LLC 31.23 acre tract conveyed
under Clerk’s File No. 279992, Property Records of Aransas County, Texas, with said point
being an Interior corner of this description;
THENCE, in a Southerly direction along and with the said common line of the D. W. Grant
property and the R. S. Barns, LLC property a distance of approximately 1378 feet to a point on
the Southerly R.O.W. line of Lamar Drive, a platted County R.O.W. as shown on the Burton and
Danforth Subdivision plat recorded in Volume 1, Pages 62 & 63, Plat Records of Aransas
County, Texas, with said point being the SOUTHEAST corner of this description;
THENCE, in a Westerly direction along and with the Southerly R.O.W. line of Lamar Drive a
distance of approximately 950 feet to a point at it’s intersection with the Southerly R.O.W. line
of Texas State Highway No. 35 Relief Route for an Exterior corner of this description;
THENCE, in a Northeasterly direction along and with the Easterly R.O.W. line of Texas State
Highway No. 35 Relief Route a distance of approximately 300 feet to a point for an Interior
corner of this description with said point being the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of the
T. P. McCampbell Subdivision as shown by plat of record in Volume 1, Pages 3 & 4, Plat
Records of Aransas County, Texas;
THENCE, in a Westerly direction and crossing Texas State Highway No. 35 Relief Route and
along and with the most Northerly line of said T. P. McCampbell Subdivision and the Southerly
Annexation AREA Z Metes & Bounds.doc
Page 1 of 2 Pages
line of said D. W. Grant property a distance of approximately 3835 feet to a point for the
Southwest corner of said D. W. Grant property and the SOUTHWEST corner of this description;
THENCE, in a Northerly direction along and with the Westerly line of said D. W. Grant Property
a distance of approximately 2400 feet to a point for the common corner of the D. W. Grant
Property and the Southwest corner of an 80 acre property conveyed to Leroy Young under
Volume I-3, Page 255, Deed Records of Aransas County, Texas with said point being an Exterior
corner of this description;
THENCE, in an Easterly direction along and with the common boundary line of the said D. W.
Grant Property and Leroy Young Property a distance of approximately 2700 feet to a point for
the Southeast corner of said Leroy Young Property and an Interior corner of this description;
THENCE, in a Northerly direction along and with the Westerly boundary line of the D. W. Grant
property a distance of approximately 2845 feet to a point for the most Northerly Northwest
corner of the said D. W. Grant Property and the NORTHWEST corner of this description;
THENCE, in an Easterly direction along and with the Northerly boundary line of the D. W.
Grant property a distance of approximately 3510 feet to a point for the Northeast corner of the D.
W. Grant property and the Northwest corner of a 9.056 acre tract conveyed to H. A. Brundrett,
Trustee of the Brundrett Revocable Trust out of part of Tract 30 and all of Tract 31, Abernathy
Tracts and filed under Clerk’s File No. 312405, Property Records of Aransas County, Texas with
said point being an angle point of this description;
THENCE, in a Southeasterly direction along and with the common Northerly line of the
Abernathy Tracts and the Southerly line of the Sartain and Montgomery Subdivision as shown
by plat of record in Volume 1, Page 34, Plat Records of Aransas County, Texas and crossing
Texas State Highway No. 35 Relief Route a distance of approximately 1090 feet to the PLACE
OF BEGINNING and containing 509 acres or 22,175,895 square feet or of land, more or less.
2010 Field Notes/Area_Z.doc
Annexation AREA Z Metes & Bounds.doc
Page 2 of 2 Pages
Prioritized Growth Areas
Map Area
Year
Previous
Unused Acres Total Eligible
Up to 20%
Acres
10% Acres
1999
-
-
2000
848.30
-
2001
899.20
2002
899.20
2003
899.20
2004
899.20
2005
% of
City
Limits
Actual or
Planned
Annexation
Acres Not
Inc. In %
(§43.055)
Remaining
Acres
New City
Limit Total
Notes
0%
-
-
-
8,483.00
Base Year
848.30
10%
509.00
-
339.30
8,992.00
4 Annexations
339.30
1,238.50
14%
-
-
1,238.50
8,992.00
1,238.50
2,137.70
24%
-
-
2,137.70
8,992.00
1,798.40
2,697.60
30%
-
-
2,697.60
8,992.00
1,798.40
2,697.60
30%
-
-
2,697.60
8,992.00
899.20
1,798.40
2,697.60
30%
-
-
2,697.60
8,992.00
2006
899.20
1,798.40
2,697.60
30%
551.00
-
2,146.60
9,543.00
2007
954.30
1,908.60
2,862.90
30%
-
-
2,862.90
9,543.00
2008
954.30
1,908.60
2,862.90
30%
-
-
2,862.90
9,543.00
-
2,862.90
9,543.00
911.90
11,821.00
* Add J, L to the annexation plan
2009
954.30
1,908.60
2,862.90
30%
B, N, X
2010
954.30
1,908.60
2,862.90
30%
2,278.00
D, E, K, Z
2011
1,182.10
911.90
2,094.00
18%
908.00
-
1,186.00
12,729.00
** Add U, S to annexation plan
A, C, G, M, T
2012
1,272.90
1,186.00
2,458.90
19%
2,313.00
-
145.90
15,042.00
*** Add V, P to annexation plan
J, L
2013
1,504.20
145.90
1,650.10
11%
1,473.00
-
177.10
16,515.00
U, S
2014
1,651.50
177.10
1,828.60
11%
1,354.00
-
474.60
17,869.00
I, H, V, P
2015
1,786.90
474.60
2,261.50
13%
1,923.00
-
338.50
19,792.00
F, Q
2016
1,979.20
338.50
2,317.70
12%
1,637.00
-
680.70
21,429.00
2017
2,142.90
680.70
2,823.60
13%
-
-
2,823.60
21,429.00
2018
2,142.90
2,823.60
4,966.50
23%
-
-
4,966.50
21,429.00
2019
2,142.90
4,285.80
6,428.70
30%
-
-
6,428.70
21,429.00
2020
2,142.90
4,285.80
6,428.70
30%
-
-
6,428.70
21,429.00
DRAFT:
-
2 Annexations
3/28/2011
Growth Management Study 2009
Page 1 of 1
327.00
Areas O and R subject to BL Agreements