AMENDED

 

 

CITY OF LAREDO

WORKSHOP

M2007-W-10

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1110 HOUSTON STREET

LAREDO, TEXAS 78040

NOVEMBER 26, 2007

5:30 P.M.

 

I.          CALL TO ORDER

 

            With a quorum present, Mayor Raul Salinas called the meeting to order.

 

II.        PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

 

            Mayor Raul G. Salinas led in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

III.       ROLL CALL

 

            In attendance:

 

            Raul G.  Salinas,                                                                       Mayor

            Mike Garza,                                                                             Council Member, District I

            Hector Garcia,                                                                          Council Member, District II

            Michael Landeck,                                                                     Council Member, District III

            Johnny Amaya,                                                                         Council Member, District IV

            Johnny Rendon,                                                                        Council Member, District V

            Gene Belmares,                                                                        Mayor Pro Tem, District VI

            Juan Chavez,                                                                            Council Member, District VII

            Gustavo Guevara, Jr.,                                                               City Secretary

            Carlos Villarreal,                                                                       City Manager

            Cynthia Collazo,                                                                       Deputy City Manager

            Horacio De Leon,                                                                     Assistant City Manager

            Jesus Olivares,                                                                          Assistant City Manager

            Raul Casso,                                                                              City Attorney

 

            Motion to excuse Cm. Ramirez.

 

            Moved:  Cm. Rendon

            Second:  Cm. Garcia

            For:     6                                               Against:  0                                            Abstain:  0

 

            Cm. Garza was not present.

IV.       MINUTES

 

            Approval of the minutes of September 13, 2007, September 17, 2007 and September 21,        2007.

 

            Motion to approve.

 

            Moved:  Cm. Rendon

            Second:  Cm. Amaya

            For:     6                                               Against:  0                                            Abstain:  0

V.        COMMUNICATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS

 

            Recognitions

 

            None.

 

            Communiqués

            Training on the new Bosch Microphone voting system recently installed at the City Council         Chambers.

 

            George Aguirre and  Jeff Edwards, employees of Musack, both gave an exclamation to City

            Council on how to use the newly installed voting system. 

 

            Mayor Salinas read the following letter which was addressed to Robert D. Marcus from            Time Warner Cable:

 

            “Re:  NFL Network on Time Warner Cable in Laredo, Texas

 

            Dear Messrs, Bornstein and Marcus:

 

            The City of Laredo is concerned that your companies’ inability to reach and agreement will          deprive our citizens of the chance to see the Cowboys, and in particular the game scheduled    for this Thursday, November 29.  Time Warner and the NFL network appear to have been      at an impasse since October.  With this key game now only a few days away, both     companies are about to miss an opportunity to provide a highly valued service to their             customers. 

 

            We strongly recommend that you consider carrying Thursday’s game on the basic tier in   Laredo, so that all subscribers, both analog and digital, can see it.  Obviously a long-term       solution is needed as well.  But an immediate agreement as to this particular game would        avoid frustrating your customers, yet allow you to continue working on a long-term deal.           The City, for its part, would be prepared to waive any notice requirements or remove an     other administrative roadblocks in our power to ensure that Thursday’s game can be shown in Laredo. 

 

            Our concern is first and foremost for our subscribers’ ability to watch what they choose    and to choose what they watch.  We have no interest in trying to tell you how to manage                       your businesses.  But we encourage you to work toward a solution that enables all Laredo    citizens to see the NFL games if they wish.  From this standpoint, making the games     available only as part of a high-priced tier or package is undesirable.  So is making them   available only to digital, not analog, subscribers.  In this, as in all your operations, the      quality of your service to your customers – our citizens – should be the key.

 

            The City would be happy to host a meeting between your companies in Laredo, if that       would help resolve your differences.  Sometimes it may be useful to have a neutral third           party present, and to meet in a place close to the citizens who are directly affected by your        actions.  If so, we would be glad to play that role.  In any case, we urge you to work for a      quick resolution of this carriage dispute, and not to hold our citizens hostage to your             respective negotiating strategies.

 

            Very truly yours,

            Raul G.  Salinas, Mayor”

 

            Citizen comments

            None.

 

VI.       MOTION

 

            1.  Motion to direct the City Manager to prepare a resolution by the City of Laredo on the

                 intent to enter into a tax abatement agreement with Topaz Energy Group; pending

                 submittal of application.

 

                 Motion to approve and amend the motion to authorize the City Manager to prepare and            execute the letter of intent of and the resolution and for it to be presented to Council at          the next meeting.

 

                 Moved:  Cm. Garza

                 Second:  Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares

                 For:  7                                             Against:  0                                            Abstain:  0

                 Barbara Clemenhagen, Vice President of Commercial & External Relations and Eric                              Geisler, Director of Business Incentives Advisory gave the following presentation:

 

                 Topaz Power Group, LLC

                 Potential Energy Infrastructure Project

                 For City of Laredo, Webb County

 

                 Overview of Topaz Power Group and Current Assets

 

                 Topaz Power Group is a Texaas-based independent power producer owned by                                    Carlyle/Riverstone Holdings.  Originally formed in 2004 with the acquisition of non

                 power plants in Texas, Topaz focuses on the development, operation, and asset

                 management of power generation assets in Texas and across the United States.

 

                 In July 2006, Carlyle/Riverstone Global energy and Power fund III, L. P. acquired

                 facilities, including the Laredo plant, from Sempra Energy (forming Topaz II).

 

                 The company will continually assess whether to hold, sell or invest in these assets. 

                 Topaz also continues to analyze new investment opportunities in Texas and around the

                  world.

 

                 Laredo Power Plant

 

                 Laredo plant currently operates under a Reliability Must Run (“RMR”) agreement with               ERCOT.

 

                 However, ERCOT anticipates terminating the RMR agreement in 2010.

 

                 The opportunity exists for Laredo, Webb County and Topaz to work together to enhance

                 the electric capacity and reliability for current and future residential, commercial and,

                 especially, industrial customers in Laredo and Webb County.    

 

                 However, Topaz investors have strict ROI targets that need to be met in order for the                            project to go forward.  If this project is not approved, the plant will be shut down and

                 mothballed in 2010. 

 

                 A very unique opportunity to acquire two General electric LMS 100 peaking units

 

o       Units are ideally suited to be a load pocket like Laredo

o       If construction begins in late 2007, Topaz could have units online by Summer 2008

o       New units could be well positioned to provide power when it is critically required and

o       continue to provide Laredo with reliable power for decades.

 

                 GE’s first production LMS100 aeroderivative gas turbine package recently completed                           assembly at the Houston, Texas manufacturing facility and ready for delivery

 

o       Laredo would be one of only two locations in the United States with this technology

o       Far more efficient, generating > 20 megawatts more than old units

o       Quick start capability – 10 minutes vs. 8 – 11 hours

o       Much lower emissions

 

                

Pollutant

Laredo 1-3 Permit Limits

Laredo 1-3 Actual Emissions

Laredo Peaking 4-5 Permit Limits

NO(x)

1599.8

828.7

116.8

CO

386.1

361.1

99.2

VOC

989.0

23.7

29.0

SO(2)

3972.5

2.6

10.4

PM

298.6

72.5

53.4

PM (10)

298.6

72.5

53.4

 

                 Notes:  Laredo 3 has NSR permit (No. 456) and the permit limits above include an     

                 average of the Max Allowable Emission Rate Table that is part of the permit.

 

                 Laredo 1 – 2 are grandfathered units (built before implementation of TCAA) and

                 therefore the permit limits are the max potential to emit (nameplate heat input rate times

                 appropriate emission factors).

 

                 Potential Economic Impact (from Texas A & M study)

 

o       Potential new capital investment:  up to $145,000,000\

o       Estimated annual impact to UISD:  $1,000,000

o       Retain 6 – 10 high-paying jobs and create an estimated 75 new permanent indirect jobs created through suppliers, etc.

o       Estimated 250 temporary construction jobs

o       Estimated director annual impact (local purchases, etc.) $9 million

o       Estimated total indirect economic impact of $101 million

 

                 Recap of Project Benefits

 

                 Long-term capital investment

                 $1,000,000 in UISD annual property tax revenue

                 Assets will be on city tax rolls long after the abatement

 

                 New Technology

                 Long-term electric reliability

                 Much lower emissions

                 Quick start capability

 

                 Economic Impact

                 Estimated annual local impact $9,000,000 (local suppliers, etc.)

                 Estimated 75 indirect jobs created

                 Ability to attract high-tech industrial companies

           

                 Council Consideration

 

                 Investment decision will be heavily influenced by financial impact of state/local                         

                 Incentives

 

                 We have already received formal incentive commitments fro other communities under

                 consideration.

 

                 Request a commitment from the City of Laredo and Webb County for incentives (e.g.

                 MOU or resolution stating amount/level of abatement.

 

                 ASAP

 

                 Topaz’s capital committee is currently evaluating all projects and will be making

                 investment decisions on December 10th. 

           

                 Carlos Villarreal, City Manager, stated that the Utilities Director has reviewed the pilot

                 project and it has a lot of promise.  He recommended additional time for staff to return to

                 City Council with recommendations.  The technology will have a positive affect to the                 City of Laredo.  He explained that he would like to return to City Council with sight and

                 funding possibilities. 

 

                 Cm. Landeck asked that the City Manager to consider both possibilities including the

                 cost of the treatment and the cost of bringing the water down.

 

                 Motion to instruct City Manager to negotiate on a pilot plan project for converging                     sludge and solid waste into ethanol and treatment of brackish water. 

 

                 Moved:  Cm. Garcia

                 Second:  Cm. Garza

                 For:     7                                          Against:  0                                            Abstain: 0

 

                 Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares informed City Council that the City may be able to set up

                 the pilot program through the well at Santa Isabel which produced brackish water below

                 the water.    

 

                 Tomas Rodriguez, Utilities Director, confirmed that the City of Laredo does have

                 brackish water.

 

                  Motion to instruct the City Manager to enter into a discussion with Texas A & M                       Department of Chemical Engineering to consider the possibility of converging sludge

                  and solid waste into ethanol and treatment of brackish water.   

 

                  Moved:  Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares

                  Second:  Cm. Garcia

                  For:     7                                         Against:  0                                            Abstain:  0            

 

VII.     STAFF REPORTS

 

            2.  Discussion with possible action regarding the licensing, regulations, enforcement

                 policies and procedures of 8-liners and any other items incident thereto. 

 

                 Richard Raymond, State Representative, gave a comprehensive report explaining that              

                 the Texas Constitution prohibits gambling but allows municipalities to regulate the laws

                 concerning eight liners and entertainment devices.  He explained that if an establishment

                 issues more than five dollars it is considered gambling and they are breaking the

                 law.  He further explained that the voters of Texas can change the Constitution with 2/3rd

                 of the legislature; however, establishments like Peter Pipers will no longer be able to

                 operate.  He acknowledged that there are establishments throughout Laredo that are

     breaking the law and further agreed that they must be stopped.  He noted that he would             be available to assist the City of Laredo and the County officials.  He made several

     suggestions, including implementing a law that would charge violators with a felony

     instead of a misdemeanor and they would not have the ability to open another   

     establishment. 

           

                 Keith Selman, City Planner, stated that the eight liners are currently allowed in the B-4               zoning designations; however, there is a distance requirement from schools, churches,

     and residences.  He noted that the City Council agreed to a revision that changed the                             measuring mechanism and essentially deregulated it which reduced the distance                       requirement from residences and other residential zoning designations.

 

                 Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares advised that the intent was not to allow them to be closer           to residential areas but to measure differently. 

 

                 Keith Selman, City Planner, advised that one of the provisions of the conditional use

     permit is that the applicant must conform with the provisions of an ordinance and by

     loosening the terms of distance requirement it made it more flexible for the applicant to    

     receive a conditional use permit under a B-3 zoning.   

 

                 Cm. Garza asked if the City of Laredo audits the eight-liner businesses.

 

                 Erasmo Villarreal, Building Director, explained that the City of Laredo staff does

quarterly checks on the permits to make sure that they have not increased their number    

of machines as opposed to what was initially reported during the application processes.     

 

Raul Casso, City Attorney, advised City Council that the permitting fee must have a    

rational relationship to the actual cost of enforcing or issuing the permits.  He continued to say that the City of Laredo is discussing the possibility of creating an enforcement team which would require additional resources.  Once the City establishes what the enforcement mechanism will cost, they can raise the permit costs or fees accordingly. If the fees are raised without any reference to what it actually costs, the City could be in trouble.  He mentioned that there is a request to allow the city to revisit the permitting process.  He suggested that there be a relationship to the costs otherwise the City could be charged with a punitive act with no basis.  

 

Keith Selman, City Planner, suggested implementation of a license process which would   allow the City of Laredo to create a dated application.  The application process would be a registration of the operator which would include a background check and fees and would not be transferable to another person.

 

Motion to instruct staff to bring back to Council an amendment to the zoning ordinances that include the reestablishment of the previous distance provisions, the prohibition  of used permits for these establishments, and an amortization  to the existing permits that are legal non-conforming. 

 

                 Moved:  Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares

                 Second:  Cm. Landeck

     For:     7                                          Against:  0                                            Abstain:  0

                

            3.  Discussion with possible action on the proposed Parkland Dedication Ordinance.

 

                 Miguel Pescador, Parks and Recreation Director, reported that there has been a two year         process for the ordinance draft.  He noted that along the two year process the department

                 has been through different boards, commissions, and City Council.  He stressed the need           of initiating a park dedication ordinance but staff needs direction as to what the criteria

                 might be.  He gave the following presentation:

 

                 Park Dedication Ordinances Provisions

 

                 (Comparison of other Cities)

 

 

 

                 Austin

 

                 Purpose:  A subdivider of a residential subdivision shall provide for the parkland needs               of the residents by the dedication of suitable land for park and recreational purposes.

 

                 Land Dedication 0 5 acres for 1,000 residents, determined by formula 5 (# of units)                  (residents per unit) / 1000 = Acres of parkland 

 

                 Credits for previous dedication – 50% credit for privately owned and maintained park                           and recreational facilities; 100% credit for private parkland in subdivision located

                 outside the city limits, if subdivider agrees to dedicate the parkland to the city when the

                 city annexes the subdivision.

 

                 McAllen

 

                 Purpose:  Neighborhood and community parks and recreational facilities are those

                 facilities providing for a variety of recreational opportunities within convenient distances

                 from a majority of the residences to be served thereby. 

 

                 Land Dedication:  5 acres for 1,000 residents

                 Fee in Lieu of Land:  $450 per DU

                 Park Development fee:  $700 per DU

                 Park Development Option in Lieu of Fee:  In lieu of payment of the park development               fee, the developer/owner of a property may propose to convey to the city a fee simple of

                 real property in an area of not less than one acre

 

                 El Paso

 

                 Purpose:  To insure that any need for parkland which arises from new development is              

                 satisfied by the developers as part of the new development, so that those who generate

                 the need contribute their proportionate share to alleviating the need.

 

                 Land Dedication:  1 acre per 200 DU 1.6 ac per 1,000 residents in single family or

                 1 acre per 425 DU 1 acre per 1,000 residents for multi-family

 

                 Fee in Lieu of Land:  $300 per DU or $145 per DU

 

                 Credits for previous dedication: A-B= C

 

                 “A” is the amount of parkland dedicated or deeded to the city in total acres; “B” is the                           amount of subsequent parkland acreage required to be deeded to the city; and “C” is the

                 amount of parkland credit available from the parkland dedicated or deeded. 

 

                 Eagle Pass

 

                 Purpose:  Recreational areas in the form of public parks are necessary and benefit the                            well being of the citizens of Eagle Pass

 

                 Land Dedication:  8.0 (# of units) (Persons/Units)/1000 = acres to be dedicated; parkland

                 will be dedicated  at a rated of not less than 8 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents or an

                 equivalent ratio.

 

                 Fee in Lieu of Land:  $575 per DU for Single Family or $375 per DU for Multi-Family

 

                 Corpus Christi

 

                 Purpose:  To provide recreational areas in the form of neighborhood parks as a function

                 of the subdivision of land for residential uses and site development in the City

 

                 Land Dedication:  1 acre per 230 DU for Single Family or 1 acre per 260 for Multi.

                 Fee in Lieu of Land:  Set from time to time by resolution by City Council

                 Park Development Fee:  Set by resolution of the City Council sufficient to provide for                            development of the land to meet the standards for a neighborhood park to serve the

                 subdivision.

                 Park Development Option in Lieu of Fee:  An applicant has the option to construct the               neighborhood park improvements.

                 Credits for previous dedication:  If a dedication requirement arose prior to the effective              date of the UDC, shall be controlled by the public open space dedication requirements in

                 effect at the time such obligation arose, except that additional dedication shall be

                 required if the actual density of the structures constructed upon the property is greater

                 than the former assumed density.  Additional dedication shall be required only for the

                 increased in density. 

 

                 San Antonio

 

                 Purpose:  Parks and open space should provide focal points for new communities.

 

                 Land Dedication:  1 acre per 70 DU and 5 acres for 1,000 residents for single family and

                 1 acre per 114 DU or 3 acres for 1,000 residents for multi-family.

 

                 Fee in Lieu of Land:  Determined by formula (AxV) =+ D=M; A = the amount of land               required for dedication; V = fair market value (per acre) of the property to be

                 subdivided; D = average development cost; M = number of dollars to be paid in lieu of

                 dedication of land.

 

                 Park Development Fee - $250 per DU

                 Credits for Previous Dedication – Yes, based on set criteria in the UDC

 

                 Current Draft by Committee for Laredo

 

                 Purpose: To provide recreational areas in the form of neighborhood parks as a function

                 of the subdivision of land for residential uses and site development in the City.

                

                 Land Dedication 1 acre per 256 DU and 1 acres for 1,000 residents for single residents            or 1 acre per 256 DU or 1 acres for 1,000 residents for Multi-Family.

 

                 Fee in Lieu of Land – 1 acre equivalent to 45,000

                 Park Development Fee - $314 per DU

                 Park Development Option in Lieu of Fee – Yes based on set criteria

 

                 Credits for previous dedication – Credit shall be given for land dedicated in accordance             to the Green Space Preservation Ordinance.  Parkland credits may be sold for

                 transferred:  Full credit if receiving project is within a 2 mile radius of the original

                 project boundary from which the credit originated. 

 

                 Recommended by Staff for Laredo

 

                 Purpose: To provide recreational park area for the city by including parkland dedication             and development in the residential plat for a subdivision or building permit approval

                 process.

 

                 Land dedication – 5 acres for 1,000 residents

                 Fee in Lieu of Land:  Calculated by multiplying the number of acres of parkland                         required to be dedicated by the average value of an acre of land in the subdivision.

 

                 Park Development Fee - $718 per DU for single family or $519 per DU for multi-family.

 

                 Park Development Option in Lieu of Fee – Option for developer to construct a public                           park to conform to city standards and dedicate it to the city.

 

                 Credits for previous dedication:  Credits shall be given for land dedicated in accordance             to the Green Space Preservation Ordinance.  Parkland credits may be sold or transferred: 

                 Full credit originated.  Half (1/2) credit if receiving project is outside a 2 mile radius of

                 the original project boundary from which the credit originated. 

 

Kevin Connor, Landscape Architect for Carter Burgess, noted that during their research   they tied everything back to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.  He said that the current desired level of service for all types of parkland within the City of Laredo is actually a total of 11 acres per 1,000 people.  He explained that going forward for the parkland dedication ordinance the company used five acres per 1,000 mainly because they did not consider catching up over portions of the City of Laredo.  He noted that they considered the new parks and subdivisions.  In terms of land requirements, they used the 2000 census figures of 176,000 people.  In terms of the park acquisition that is the required parkland dedication in acres multiplied by the evaluation per acre tied to the county tax rolls. 

 

Javier Martinez, Planning and Zoning Commission member, spoke positively of the committee and their efforts of creating an ordinance that would be conducive for the City of Laredo.  He recommended a one acre per thousand for neighborhood parks.  He added that they worked tirelessly to put together recommendations for City Council. 

 

                 Rolando Ortiz, member of the Parks Ordinance Committee, stated that he agreed with

                 Javier Martinez.  He added that the national average is one acre per thousand.    

                

Cm.  Landeck said that the dedication for the one acre per 1,000 came from the   understanding it is for neighborhood parks and the 5 acres per 1,000 for community parks. 

 

Jesus Ruiz, Ruiz Homes, expressed his dissatisfaction with the City of Laredo Parks &     Recreation Department; more specifically Miguel Pescador, Parks Director.  He said that the director did not consider the tireless hours that the committee worked implementing a new ordinance because it stayed the same as what Carter Burgess had presented.  He also said that he had a difficult time retrieving copies of the draft from City staff.  He also complained that he was not invited to the current workshop.  He discussed their plans for the ordinance and noted that the problem for the City of Laredo is that the City is land rich but cash poor.  He continued to give a comprehensive report on the recommendations of the Parks Dedication Committee.

 

Remy Salinas, Park Dedication Committee member, said that he was very disappointed with the final results from the committee.  He too discussed the different figures recommended by the committee. 

 

                 Rolando Navarro, Planning and Zoning Commission , gave a history of the what                        happened at the Planning and Zoning level.   He was concerned with the fact that there         was going to be a change in the process.

 

Cm. Landeck sensed a lack of communication and asked if the City was requesting a neighbor park ordinance or a general park ordinance. 

 

Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares explained that the current ordinance that Council has    

before them will be placed on the Monday agenda as an ordinance and it has to have a

public hearing for its introduction in essence addresses the issue of the exaction. The

City of Laredo has a mechanism for that exaction today which is called the annexation   

agreement that calls for new plats.  In that mechanism, the City is getting one acre per   

hundred dwelling units and or two acres per 1,000 residents or two for 256 and in lieu of

you we can currently get 35,000.  There are no development monies coming in.  Part of  

the problem that he  saw is that the City is becoming land rich and cash poor to be able

to develop.  He continued by saying in District V there were over 20 plus acres that are undeveloped because there is no money for development.  He added that this ordinance will allow the City to have a fair balance.  He agreed that it donates less land but also gives $80,000 for development. The other issue is that the ordinance encompasses not just the neighborhood parks it gives by definition what the other parks should look like.  It also gives a summary of  size objectives, services objectives, locations objectives, etc. and also the elements that should go into each of these.  The master plan is going to significantly impact what the developer brings to the table.  It also significantly impacts what the city brings to the  table in effort to create not just a neighborhood park but a linear park system that runs across our creeks as well as creating the metropolitan or community parks.

 

Dr. Landeck concurred with Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares in that fact that there are a lot   

of excellent additions and clarifications in the current ordinance being presented. 

 

Cm. Garza suggested amending the ordinance by requiring a 50/50 on the detention    

requirement and the percentage of grade deviation amended to 50% of the land.   

 

Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares said that he would like to make a motion to bring forth    

this committee drafted park dedication ordinance with the two amendments that Cm.

Garza just mentioned which is the 50/50 for the drainage areas and the area no greater

than 75 percent?

 

                Moved:  Cm. Belmares

                Second:  Cm. Amaya

                 For:     5                                          Against:  2                                            Abstain;

                                                                        Cm. Landeck

                                                                        Cm. Chavez

 

            4.  Discussion with possible action on a pilot project for converting sludge and solid waste

                 into ethanol and treatment of brackish water.

 

                 Mark Holtzapple, Texas A & M Department of Chemical Engineering, gave the

                 following presentation:

 

                 Common desalination technologies

 

Reverse osmosis

           

                 Multi-stage flash evaporators

                

 

Comparison of Alternatives*

 

Technology

Capital cost

Water Cost

Thermal Energy

Reverse osmosis

1035-1655

0.64-1.98

42-71

Multi-stage flash evaporators

1598-2269

0.77-1.84

173-318

Vapor Compression

894-1322

0.46-2.50

42.71

Advanced

620-884

0.38-0.49

31-54

 

Technology

Robust

Extensive Pretreatment

Water Recovery

Reverse osmosis

No

Yes

Low

Multi-stage flash evaporators

Yes

No

High

Vapor Compression

Yes

No

High

Advanced

Yes

No

High

 

Technology

Water Quality

Maintenance Cost

High Feed Salinity

Reverse osmosis

<500 ppm

High

No

Multi-stage flash evaporators

<30 ppm

Low

Yes

Vapor Compression

<30 ppm

Low

Yes

Advanced

<30 ppm

Low

Yes

 

                

                 Economics of Advanced Vapor-Compression Desalination

                 Assumptions

                 Inlet concentration = 1.5 g/kg = 1,500 ppm

                 Outlet concentration = 35 g/kg = 35,000 ppm

                 Recovery = 95.9%

 

Capital Cost 10,000,000 gal/day

 

                 Film-wise condensation

                

Latent heat exchanger

4000 Btu/(h-ft2.0 F) 83,000 ft 2

$3,830,000

Compressor

23,400 ft3/min, 3730 kW, compress ratio – 2.46

$700,000

Electric motor

3885 k W (electricity)

$150,000

Sensible heat exchanger 1

963 Btu/(h.Ft2.0f), 373,000ft2

$2,780,000

Sensible heat exchanger 2

963 Btu/(h.ft2.of), 47,000 ft2

$470,000

Pump w/motor

8000 gal/min,140 psi

$35,000

Degassing unit

Stripper column w/vacuum pump

$94,000

 

Total Equipment

$8,060,000

 

Lang Factor

X3.68

 

Fixed Capital Investment (FCI)

$29,700,000

 

Drop-wise condensation

 

Latent heat exchanger

25,000 Btu/(h-ft2-of), 61,280 ft2

$612,800

Compressor

23,400 ft3/min,3730 kW, compress ratio = 2.46

$700,000

Electric motor

3885 kW (electricity)

$150,000

Sensible heat exchanger 1

963 Btu/(h-ft2-of) 373,000 ft2

$2,780,000

Sensible heat exchanger 2

963 Btu/h-ft2-of) 47,000 ft2

$470,000

Pump w/motor

8000 gal/min, 140 psi

$35,000

Degassing unit

Stripper column w/vacuum pump

$94,000

 

Total Equipment

$4,841,800

 

Lang Factor

x 3.68

 

Fixed Capital Investment (FCI)

$17,800,000

 

Water Cost 10,000,000 gal/day

Film-wise condensation

 

Electricity

0.648

2,365,200

Labor

0.137

500,000

Bond

0.529

1,932,027

Maintenance

0.325

1,188,000

Insurance

0.057

207,900

Total

1.696

6,193,127

Brine injection (2.66/thous gal)

0.114

416,234

Total

1.810

6,609,361

 

Drop-wise condensation

 

Electricity

0.648

2,365,200

Labor

0.137

500,000

Bond

0.317

1,157,915

Maintenance

0.195

712,000

Insurance

0.034

124,600

Total

1.331

4,859,715

Brine injection (2.66/thous gal)

0.114

416,234

Total

1.445

5,275,949

 

                 Advanced Vapor-Compression Features:

 

                 Sheet-shell heat exchangers

                 High pressure operation

                 Low pressure drop

                 Low manufacturing cost

                 Internal agitation to promote good heat transfer and cleaning

                 Drop-wise condensation (high heat transfer coefficients)

 

                 Gerotor compressor

 

                 High efficiency

                 Handles two-phase flow

                 Low cost

 

 

 

 

                 Advanced process configurations

 

                 Countecurrent arrangement recovers water at low salt concentration

                 High temperature requires less compression energy for same  (pyramid) T

                 Operates at high pressures to reduce compressor size

 

                 Plate arrangement

 

                 Key features:

 

                 Contained in high-pressure vessel

                 Staggered baffles

                  Constant velocity

                  Push noncondensibles to end

                 Low pressure drop

                 Thin sheets

                  Lower material costs

                  Less resistance from the metal

                  Easier to form

                 Leakage

                 Steam to salt – okay

 

                 Advanced Vapor-Compression Features:

 

                 Sheet-shell heat exchangers

                 High pressure operation

                 Low pressure drop

                 Low manufacturing cost

                 Internal agitation to promote good heat transfer and cleaning

                 Drop-wise condensation (high heat transfer coefficients)

                 Gerotor compressor

                 High efficiency

                 Handles two-phase flow

                 Low cost

                 Advanced process configurations

                 Countercurrent arrangement recovers water at low salt concentration

                 High temperature requires less compression energy for same T

                 Operates at high pressures to reduce compressor size

 

                 Summary

 

                 Low capital cost

                 -$1.78 to $2.97/daily gallon

                 Low water cost

                 -$1.45 to $1.81/thous gallon

                 -$0.97 to $1.21/thous gallon

                 -$0.73 to $0.91/thous gallon

                 -$0.48 to $0.60/thous gallon

 

 

                 Low maintenance

                 Robust

 

                 Move-Forward Plan

 

                 Approximate Costs

 

                 Pilot Plant (50,000 gal/day)

                 Equipment $500,000

                 Operating/test $500,000 (one year)

 

VIII.    EXECUTIVE SESSION

 

            The City Council hereby reserves the right to go into executive session at any time during           this public meeting, if such is requested by the City Attorney or other legal counsel for the       City, pursuant to his or her duty under Section 551.071(2) of the Government Code, to           consult privately with his or her client on an item on the agenda, or on a matter arising out         of such item.

           

            5.  Request for Executive Session pursuant to pursuant to Texas Government Code Section

                 551.076 to deliberate the deployment of security personnel or devices and specific

                 occasions for implementation regarding the policing of 8-liner redemption machines, and

                 return to open session for possible action.

 

                 Motion to go into Executive Session pursuant to pursuant to Texas Government Code                           Section 551.076 to deliberate the deployment of security personnel or devices and

                 Specific occasions for implementation regarding the policing of 8-liner redemption

                 machines, and return to open session for possible action.

 

                 Moved:  Mayor Pro Tempore Belmares

                 Second:  Cm. Rendon

                 For:      7                                         Against:  0                                            Abstain:  0

 

                 After Executive Session Mayor Salinas announced that no formal action was taken.

 

IX.       ADJOURNMENT

 

            Motion to adjourn.

 

            Moved:  Cm. Garza

            Second:  Cm. Landeck

            For:     7                                               Against:  0                                            Abstain:  0