Loading...
1977 02 16 WS Minutes6169 MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN February 16, 1977 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in a work session, Wednesday, February 16, 1977, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall. The following members were in attendance: Jody Lander Councilman Jack Kimmons Councilman Ted Kloesel Councilman Mary E. Wilbanks Councilwoman Emmett Hutto Councilman Allen Cannon Councilman Tom Gentry Mayor Fritz Lanham City Manager Neel Richardson City Attorney Eileen P. Hall City Clerk Dan Savage Assistant City Manager Mayor Gentry called the meeting to order in the Conference Room, but due to the crowd present, the meeting actually convened in the Council Chamber. After the hearing on the West District Sewage Treatment Plant on January 27, 1977, the Administration requested that Langford Engineering, Inc., Consulting Engineers to the City of Baytown, develop cost estimates to discharge treated wastewater from the proposed treatment facilities near Interstate Highway 10 to the San Jacinto River in lieu of Spring Gully (i.e. Burnett Bay). The consulting engineers have been in contact with State and Federal agencies and have prepared information in this regard for Council's consideration. Langford Engineering has prepared and presented a written re- port for Council's consideration, but since Council did not have time to review this report, Ivan Langford, Jr. was present to re- view the report with Council. In their study to obtain cost esti- mates, the consulting engineers determined: 1. That the EPA may consider funding the alternate route if Council determines that this route would be in the best interest of the City. 2. That the most cost - effective plan (including considera- tion of the effect of the discharge on the proposed receiving water course) would be discharging into Burnet Bay via Spring Gully from the Interstate Highway 10 site. The City Council has the prerogative to determine based on both technical and non - technical information presented at the public hearing that an alternate plan is the most cost - effective. In this case, that would be discharging into the San Jacinto River in leiu of Spring Gully. 3. That after consideration of all factors and citizen's in- put, the City Council should determine that the treated waste- water discharge should be routed to the San Jacinto River, then the choice of sites previously considered (existing Lake- wood Sewage Treatment Plant, east of Bayway Drive, or Inter- state Highway 10 at Spring Gully) would automatically be limited to the Interstate Highway 10 site as the most cost - effective alternate plan. The engineers feel that the best alternate 6170 Minutes of a Work Session - February 16, 1977 route would be down Interstate Highway 10 on the north side since effluent from this proposed facility would discharge into the San Jacinto River on the north side of the Inter- state Highway 10 bridge. For this reason, the plant will be designed for an effluent quality of 20 mg /1 B.O.D. and 20 mg/ 1 T. S. S. in lieu of the 10 mg /l and 15 mg /l respectively for a Spring Gully discharge. This point of discharge would be in segment 1001 of the San Jacinto River Basin. By going in north of the bridge, the pipeline could go in through a bluff so that the line could terminate at the edge of the river; otherwise, by going in south of the river bridge, the city may have to build on out to the water just to get the pipe covered which would be expensive construction. Also, on the south side between the Interstate Highway 10 and Market Street Bridge, people use this area to fish from and launch boats. Also, when crossing interstate highways, the pipe must be intercased from right of way to right of way line and the same is true of entrance and exit ramps. There are six entrance and exit ramps on the south side and only two crossing on the north side. In both cases, going south or north, the CIWA faciliites would have to be crossed. The consulting engineers have also spoken with representatives of CIWA who state that there would be no problem as far as crossing CIWA pipe. The Texas Highway Department has been contacted and there is no problem with lo- cating the line within their right of way as long as the city stays close to the property line. The only land acquisition that the city may be faced with would be at the point of dis- charge where the pipe would be turned somewhat northwest to get into the bluff. Assuming that the EPA would agree to fund the alternate route, the city's share would increase by $86,000.00 to a total of $1,257,550.00. However, if the EPA should refuse to fund the alternate route, the city would have to assume the cost of $1,580,950.00 which would be an increase of $410,000.00 to the city over the original amount of $1,171,250.00. The posibilities of receiving funding from the EPA are very good, but EPA will not make a determination until all the facts are presented. EPA does give very strong consideration to input from the public which is the reason for holding a public hearing. The City Council may elect to go ahead and adopt the Facility Plan to go to Burnett Bay through Spring Gully. However, the city would be looking toward a big word battle when it is time to obtain a waste discharge permit because at that time there will be a public hearing, and at that time the Texas Water Quality Board could very well refuse the city a permit due to citizen opposition. Then, there would be no doubt as to what the most cost - effective plan would be - -the alternate plan to discharge into the San Jacinto River. If this were to happen, then the city will have lost a con- siderable amount of time because certain procedures would have to be re- instituted. Therefore, it appears that the most timely man- ner in which to proceed and still leave options open to the city would be to adopt a resolution at the next Council meeting which would adopt the Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment Survey for the West Sewer District with the necessary changes with regard to the alternate route and go ahead and submit the Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment Survey to the Texas Water Quality Board to be processed and forwarded to the EPA for consideration. Usually, the EPA will accept the recommendation of the Texas Water Quality Board. All the technical information will be prepared by the next Council meeting and upon Council approval can be for- warded to the Texas Water Quality Board. Since according to the enforcement order, the City of Baytown is to be on stream and have all problems solved by December 31, 1978, which is a very tight time schedule, the city must consider the 6171 Minutes of a Work Session - February 16, 1977 options in the event the EPA refuses to fund the alternate route. In that event, the City could issue certificates of obligation, which will probably be necessary regardless, since the City will not have the money for the original $1,171,250.00. It appears that the City will have available $826,000.00 or possibly $80,000.00 to $90,000.00 above the $826,000.00 to expend toward these improve- ments. These certificates of obligation would be retired just as bonds are retired. The reason for the possible $80,000.00 to $90,000.00 more is that when Council approved the change order to the existing contract, the EPA and Water Quality Board also ap- proved that change order, but the City is not assured that these agencies will actually fund that change order. They have indicated they will fund that change order if funds are available. Revenue Sharing Funds could be used for this purpose and if there are extra funds in the budget, this money could be used. The penalty if the City does not meet the December 31 deadline is $1,000.00 per day. Mr. Langford said that he did not know of any group that had been assessed this penalty, but that the City of San Antonio had been assessed $30,000.00 for a violation that had been occurring for a long period of time. If the City can begin construction to show that it is working toward compliance, then the enforcement group will usually grant an extension, but if construction has not begun, then the City could be in real trouble and have to expend from $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 to keep the process moving. The consulting engineers recommended that the resolution be drafted so that the governmental agencies involved would know that in response to citizens' participation and in the best interest of the City, the City Council of the City of Baytown determined that the alternate route would be the best alternative. Mr. Langford pointed out that the important thing at this time would be to get the Step 2 grant because this is the grant that allows the City to complete plans and specifications. It is reasonable to assume that once this is accomplished'in an orderly and timely manner, that the City will be funded under Step 3 which is the actual construction money. Council inquired of the citizens in the audience (approximately 100) if there was anyone present who would oppose the discharge of effluent into the San Jacinto River. No one present was opposed to this alternate route. Council asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the next Council meeting so that Council would be able to consider either route. By that time, Council should have some response from Congressman Eckhardt, who will be reporting to Council con- cerning his findings regarding the City's chances of having the alternate route funded. Mr. Lanham, City Manager, said that two resolutions would be prepared - -one, approving the Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment Survey as is, and the other, approving the Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment Survey with the alternate route. There being no further business to discuss, the motion was made and duly seconded to adjourn. The vote was unanimous to adjourn. EILEEN P. HALL, City Clerk