|
AMENDED CITY OF WORKSHOP M2007-W-10 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER With
a quorum present, Mayor Raul Salinas called the meeting to order. II. PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE Mayor
III. ROLL CALL In
attendance: Raul
G. Mike
Garza, Council
Member, District I Hector
Garcia, Council
Member, District II 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., Horacio
De Leon, Assistant
City Manager Jesus
Olivares, Assistant
City Manager Raul
Casso, 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 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 Dear Messrs,
Bornstein and Marcus: The City of We strongly
recommend that you consider carrying Thursday’s game on the basic tier in 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 The City
would be happy to host a meeting between your companies in Very truly
yours, Raul G. Citizen comments None. VI. MOTION 1. Motion to direct the City Manager to
prepare a resolution by the City of 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 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 management of
power generation assets in In July 2006, Carlyle/Riverstone Global energy and Power fund III, L. P.
acquired facilities,
including the The company will continually assess
whether to hold, sell or invest in these assets. Topaz also continues to analyze new
investment opportunities in world. However, ERCOT anticipates terminating
the RMR agreement in 2010. The opportunity exists for the electric capacity and reliability
for current and future residential, commercial and, especially,
industrial customers in 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 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 GE’s first production LMS100 aeroderivative gas turbine package recently completed assembly at the o
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
Notes: average of the
Max Allowable Emission Rate Table that is part of the permit. 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 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 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 the water. Tomas Rodriguez, Utilities Director,
confirmed that the City of brackish water. Motion to instruct the City Manager to
enter into a discussion with Texas A & M Department of Chemical 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 of the legislature; however,
establishments like Peter Pipers will no longer be able to operate. He acknowledged that there are
establishments throughout breaking the
law and further agreed that they must be stopped. He noted that he would be available to assist the City of 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 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 Keith
Selman, City Planner, suggested implementation of a license process which
would allow the City of 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) 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.
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
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.
Purpose:
Recreational areas in the form of public parks are necessary and
benefit the well being of the citizens of 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 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.
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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 following presentation: Common desalination technologies Reverse osmosis Multi-stage flash evaporators Comparison of Alternatives*
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
Drop-wise condensation
Water Cost 10,000,000
gal/day Film-wise condensation
Drop-wise condensation
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 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 |
