title
Minutes from the special called Public Works Committee meeting on August 10, 2006.
body
Public Works Committee Minutes
Special called meeting
Thursday, August 10, 2006
1:00 p.m.
Members present: Jimmy Ashley, Darrel Dover, Alec Farmer and John Street. Councilmen Moore and Province were unable to attend.
CARTER & BURGESS PRESENTATION
Mr. Burt Weathersbee and Ms. Nancy Gambill from Carter Burgess gave a presentation concerning the final draft of the pilot drainage study. Mr. Weathersbee explained when they first discussed doing a study it was decided to only study certain creeks as opposed to the whole city. He added they were able to compare their models against past studies with information from the Corps of Engineers and FEMA. He noted if they had been able to calibrate their models it would have compared information to a natural event as opposed to matching your information to another study like they had to do. Mr. Weathersbee discussed the flows they came up with and explained they looked at the watersheds for each of the creeks to come up with their engineering parameters that produced the flows. He noted there were times in the upper reaches of the creeks the study’s flows were higher than the Flood Insurance and Corps studies, for example Whiteman’s Creek at Highland Drive near the Kohl’s site. He explained differences between studies are normal, so they don’t get concerned unless their numbers turn out three times higher than previous studies. Councilman Farmer questioned why the flow for Whiteman’s Creek at Highland decreased, noting in January, 2005, Carter Burgess reported the flow would be 2,263 and now the flow is down to 1,499. Mr. Weathersbee explained they adjusted some of their parameters and that the January, 2005, numbers were just preliminary. Councilman Farmer questioned when the Corps of Engineers 100-year study that Carter Burgess compared their number to was done. Ms. Gambill stated she believes the information she received from Mr. Roger Lyons was from the 1980s, but she was not positive. Councilman Farmer questioned why the information is so old since the Corps was doing a study for the City back in 2000 or 2001. Mr. Teddy Hooton stated the Corps did a study on Whiteman’s, Higginbottom and Turtle Creeks, but he didn’t think the Corps updated any hydrology with that study. Ms. Gambill stated Mr. Lyons indicated to her that the hydrology, which is the flows, did not change between their project’s planning to project completion that was going to go into to their LOMR. Mr. Weathersbee added the study was for water surface elevations, but did not update the flows. Mr. Mike Cameron questioned whether Corps numbers came from the post-construction impact after studying the various creeks. Ms. Gambill stated that in her conversations with Mr. Lyons it was her understanding they did not change their hydrology numbers pre-project development to post-project development. Mr. Cameron questioned how they could come up with maps that show shrinking floodplains if they didn’t do hydrology. Ms. Gambill stated they did do hydrology, but they didn’t change what would’ve been a CLOMR or preliminary design to what was submitted as a LOMR in 2003. Mr. Hooton added the shrinkage could’ve come from the improvements made to the ditches. Councilman Dover questioned what year hydrology they used in their study. Ms. Gambill explained she thinks the hydrology they used was from the late 1980s or early 1990s. Councilman Dover then questioned what the span was between the Corps’ hydrology and the report. Ms. Gambill stated they were submitting a LOMR in 2003. It was questioned why the Corps quit submitting the LOMR. Mr. Weathersbee stated Mr. Lyons indicated they didn’t have funding for the project because it wasn’t a priority at the time. Mr. Hooton added the Corps also had a lot of problems with the independent workers on the projects.
Mr. Weathersbee explained that in relation to the discharges a lot of the data is also being used in the CTP Project that will help produce the new FEMA maps. He added their hydrology has been reviewed by FEMA and they have received comments, but nothing that would substantially change the data. Mr. Cameron questioned whether the City reviewed the hydrology before it was sent to FEMA. Mr. Weathersbee stated the hydrology information was reviewed by the City in the draft and final form. Mr. Cameron questioned when the information went to the FEMA reviewer. Ms. Gambill stated the information was received by them on January 20, 2006. Mr. Cameron then questioned whether it was reviewed by the City. Ms. Gambill stated their contract did not state that was necessary, so the information was not reviewed by the City before going to FEMA. She added at the same time it went to FEMA it also came to the City. Councilman Farmer stated the purpose of the pilot study was so the City could address and fix problems before going to FEMA. Discussion was held regarding how the CTP Project started after the pilot study began. Councilman Farmer explained the problem is the pilot study took longer than expected and because of the CTP deadlines the City doesn’t have time to fix problems to make the improvements before they become part of the new flood maps. He added the Council was just trying to fix problems and not make more problems. Mr. Weathersbee stated that for the pilot study area there’s only a few areas where the floodplain is wider than the floodplain for FEMA. Councilman Farmer explained the Carter Burgess contract from 2003 states in Task 201 that the accuracy of calibration will be within ½ foot of existing Base Flood Elevation (BFE). Mr. Weathersbee stated that what they strive for. He added their numbers are different because a lot of factors changed, for example they have more precise topography than what was previously used.
Mr. Cameron questioned where the HEC-2 data came from used in the cross section data shown in their presentation. Mr. Weathersbee stated it was from the effective model from FEMA. Ms. Gambill added it was whatever data was available including LOMRs. Mr. Cameron questioned how many LOMRs were included. Ms. Gambill stated only 3 LOMRs were detected. Mr. Cameron stated he believes there are 23 LOMRs on file at the courthouse. Mr. Cameron then questioned if they will define the LOMRs and CLOMRs and the areas that are impacted by them. Mr. Weathersbee stated there will be a public process before the maps get processed in the CTP phase. He explained they held a public involvement process to see the maps. He added they did not send out notification to property owners, but notices were published in the paper. Councilman Farmer stated he didn’t think they showed maps at the public hearing that showed the floodplain without improvements. Councilman Dover stated that ideally the pilot study should have been completed addressed and improvements made before the CTP Project was started. He added what has happened is that Carter Burgess is working on two projects, in one project with Carter Burgess is working with the City to solve problems and in the other project they’re working with FEMA to tell them what the City’s problems are. He then questioned whether they will be able to make recommendations from the pilot study today. Mr. Weathersbee stated they are ready to give the committee their recommendations. Councilman Dover questioned whether the City will have time to do the projects before FEMA changes the flood maps. Ms. Gambill stated the City does not have time to get the projects completed before the maps are done. Councilman Dover asked whether the CTP Project could be slowed down to allow time to do the projects. Ms. Gambill explained the City would have to discuss that with FEMA. Mr. Weathersbee stated the City could still go ahead with the projects and still change the maps. It was explained the maps could still be changed through the CLOMR and LOMR process, which would cost the City money. Councilman Dover questioned at what point they realized the CTP Project would be done first and whether they let anyone in the City know about the potential problem. He added no one told them the pilot study would be done first and the City wouldn’t have time to finish the projects before the flood map changes. Mr. Weathersbee explained there was knowledge that there was an issue but he did not know how high up the ladder that went.
Councilman Farmer questioned who made the decision to not put out the maps at the public hearing that would show the actual effects if the improvements aren’t in place. Mr. Weathersbee stated it was a collaborative decision between them and the City. He added there was a concern that some people would be shown to be in the floodplain that weren’t previously in it and whether it was the right time to come out with that information yet. Councilman Dover why someone made the determination to hold that information from the public. Mr. Weathersbee explained he doesn’t think it was a matter of holding the information at the meeting, rather more of a worry of when the right time is to present it. Mayor Formon stated he thought it was because there was some dispute over whether the information was correct. Mr. Hooton added there was still a chance to get some improvements in the ground that could have affected the outcome of the maps. Councilman Dover expressed his concern over not giving the public all the facts. Councilman Farmer stated the maps had to have been final if they held a public hearing. Ms. Gambill stated the maps aren’t official until they’re approved by FEMA. She added the City has the maps for planning purposes. Councilman Farmer clarified private developers can’t use their information, but the City can refer to it for planning purposes. Ms. Gambill agreed.
Councilman Farmer questioned when the appeal process with FEMA will begin. Ms. Gambill explained the appeal process will start after the maps are official and released to the whole county. Councilman Farmer then questioned when that was scheduled to happen. Ms. Gambill explained until the Jonesboro study is finished, they are unsure when that would take place. Councilman Farmer asked if they had any control over the maps. Ms. Gambill stated that’s not what she’s saying because of FEMA involvement. Mr. Weathersbee stated the City could make their case to FEMA and possibly make an impact Mr. Cameron questioned what activity they’re currently on in the CTP Project. Ms. Gambill stated their hydrology is into FEMA and pending approval. She added hydraulic analysis is occurring but independent review of hydrologic analysis by FEMA reviewer Mr. Michael Baker has to be finished. Mr. Cameron questioned whether the information sent to Mr. Baker has been reviewed by the City staff. Ms. Gambill stated the information has not been reviewed by City staff. Mr. Cameron stated he thinks the City needs to review the hydrology before it is sent to FEMA. Ms. Gambill explained the City would need to speak with FEMA to discuss another review of the information. She added the City has been sent at least an information notebook with flow summaries every time they sent information in to FEMA. Mr. Cameron asked when they sent the hydrologic analysis to FEMA. Ms. Gambill stated she they sent the hydrology to FEMA in January, a response to comments in March and another response to comments this month.
Mr. Weathersbee then presented the committee with their floodplain maps of Higginbottom Creek and Turtle Creek. Councilman Farmer questioned whether the 90-day appeal process was scheduled to start next month. Mr. Hooton stated that was the original schedule, but they’re behind. Ms. Gambill added an appeal is only allowed on a technical basis. Councilman Dover questioned whether an appeal can be given to allow for improvements. Ms. Gambill explained improvements would be a technical basis. Councilman Farmer explained the City is in the project of contracting 12 projects that will probably affect some of the flows. Councilman Farmer questioned what happens before the preliminary maps are released and the 90-day appeal process can start. Mr. Weathersbee stated the hydrology and hydraulics are finished before the preliminary maps are made. He added they’re still on hydrology. Councilman Dover questioned whether the pilot study is finished. Councilman Farmer stated the City hasn’t approved the pilot study yet. Mr. Cameron stated the City hired Mr. Bernie Auld to review the hydrology, but since it’s already been sent to Mr. Baker there would be a hold-up before the hydraulic analysis so Mr. Auld can catch up.
Mr. Weathersbee explained for their floodplain with Turtle Creek they took factored in an ultimate floodplain with fully urbanized flows. Councilman Farmer questioned what the actual floodplain is now. Mr. Weathersbee stated they don’t have that map in their presentation, but it is in the study. Discussion was held regarding their flood maps without improvements. Councilman Dover clarified Carter Burgess draws up the maps and all FEMA does is approve them. Mr. Weathersbee agreed. Councilman Dover then clarified the maps were drawn before the public hearing, but were not shown to the people. Mr. Weathersbee stated that was correct. Mr. Cameron questioned when the floodways come back in. Mr. Weathersbee explained floodways are not part of the pilot study. Mr. Cameron then questioned whether the City will see the maps with the floodways before they’re sent to Mr. Baker. Ms. Gambill stated their current contract does not have review by the City on the data; rather the data is to be sent into FEMA and reviewed. Councilman Farmer noted the current contract also stated the pilot study would be done by December 31, 2005. Mr. Weathersbee explained their report with recommendations was turned in during November of 2005. He added the June, 2005, version had the draft maps, but the September, 2005, version had what they consider to be the final maps. He noted the final report was out in September of 2005, but they got it to the City in November of 2005. Mr. Cameron questioned when the public hearing was held. Councilman Farmer explained the hearing was held in May, 2006. Discussion was held regarding the $17 million recommendations they made in the study. Councilman Farmer added the recommendations were published in the paper. Mr. Keith Inman stated he wrote it in a story after the May, 2006, public hearing. Councilman Dover explained the recommendations were never brought before the Public Works Committee or City Council for discussion or review. Councilman Dover questioned how they could have the hydraulics done for the pilot study but not for the CTP Project if the same hydraulics is being used. Mr. Weathersbee stated there will be a round of review where changes could be made.
Chairman Street questioned how much it would cost to have the floodmaps revised and done again after the projects are done. Councilman Farmer explained a city-wide LOMR is what Chairman Street is talking about doing. Mr. Weathersbee stated he does not know the cost and he’d have to get back to the committee with that. Chairman Street questioned whether that was an option for the City if a lot of flood work is done in the next few years. Mr. Weathersbee stated the City could take to FEMA and work something out like that. Mr. Cameron questioned whether Carter Burgess would support the proposal if the City were able to ask for more time from FEMA. Mr. Weathersbee stated it’s up to FEMA but he doesn’t think there would be a problem with that. Mr. Cameron stated the City is at a good point for everyone to agree on hydrology and the City to proceed with improvements before going on to hydraulic analysis. He questioned whether that would be something they could do. Mr. Weathersbee stated he thinks it’s possible, but FEMA has their own agenda. Ms. Gambill stated she doesn’t think FEMA’s schedule could be held up.
Councilman Dover questioned why this presentation wasn’t done last year in September if that’s when the report was done. Mr. Weathersbee explained he could not answer that. He added they had the information in, but could not answer why they couldn’t present it sooner. Chairman Street noted Mr. Claude Martin reported today, August 10th, was the soonest Carter Burgess could get the presentation done. He then questioned who scheduled the presentation. Mr. Weathersbee stated there have been other dates that were kicked around, but he was told there were some conflicts at those times. Chairman Street stated there is no conflict that could’ve held up the meeting and no one ever contacted him about setting up the presentation. Councilman Dover noted at almost every meeting they ask what the status is of the study and they’re told that it’s still a work in progress. Mr. Hooton questioned why the public hearing was held in May and not sooner. Ms. Gambill stated she’s not sure why it was held in May. Mr. Cameron questioned why it was stated that preliminary maps were used at the public hearing in May, 2006, if the final study was done in September of 2005. Mr. Weathersbee explained the concern was over the existing maps in the study possibly being changed. Councilman Dover questioned why the old maps were used in the public hearing instead of the final maps Carter Burgess prepared to give to FEMA. Mr. Weathersbee stated he could not answer that because he doesn’t make the City agenda. Ms. Gambill stated the maps at the public hearing showed what the floodplain could look like with ultimate conditions and all the improvements made. Councilman Dover noted the maps represent events that probably will not happen.
Mr. Cameron questioned how hard it would be to make a map of the City’s current floodplain and show what improvements need to done. Mr. Cameron explained the maps should show the current floodplain as they’re going to report to FEMA and apply improvement suggestions to the maps to show what needs to be done and what the effects will be of the improvements. Mr. Weathersbee stated it would be a large exercise, but they could work with the City to make maps showing what is wanted to be seen.
Councilman Farmer questioned when they anticipate the appeal process to begin. Councilman Dover questioned when the county would be done with their data. Ms. Gambill stated the county is finished; they’re just waiting on Jonesboro to be done. Mr. Weathersbee stated he couldn’t see it starting before the end of the year. Ms. Gambill added it would likely be next spring before the appeal process started. It was explained the City has approximately six months to get projects done to change the maps.
Mr. Cameron presented a list of tasks that could possibly slow the process down. First, he suggested if there is a FEMA deadline then the City should meet with FEMA to see what can be done to extend the deadline. Secondly, he suggested when Carter Burgess receives the hydrology information currently being reviewed by Mr. Baker to give the information to BA Engineering for review. Thirdly, he suggested Carter Burgess creating a map show what they’re going to turn into FEMA and to work with the City to make some reasonable recommendations in addition to the projects that have already been started.
Mayor Formon questioned whether there is a deadline for CTP. Mr. Weathersbee stated the deadlines he’s heard of are more internal deadlines for FEMA. Discussion was held regarding if there is someone to contact regarding the deadline. Mayor Formon questioned whether Carter Burgess’ contract with FEMA has a deadline. Ms. Gambill explained there is another office working on that and they’re sending in reports explaining their progress. She added their deadline to FEMA was December 31st, but they’re still waiting on the Jonesboro data. She further explained it’s possible that FEMA could come back and say they’re no longer waiting for Jonesboro and give the City the 1991 maps back. Mr. Cameron questioned whether FEMA would take their money back. Mr. Weathersbee stated he has not heard of FEMA doing that. It was explained Carter Burgess’ deadline was September 30, 2005, but they’re behind on that. Mr. Cameron explained if the City could slow down the CTP project the City could file a LOMR on the Turtle Creek Mall to get the 400 or 500 people out of the floodplain.
Councilman Dover questioned where the City needs to proceed from here. Mr. Weathersbee explained he wanted to make the City aware of the projects they recommended. He added that by performing some of the projects it could potentially increase the flow downstream to other people. He stated they looked at detention ponds at the downstream end of the system. Councilman Dover questioned whether the ponds could be upstream. Mr. Weathersbee explained they looked into putting 25 to 30 smaller ponds upstream, but the City agreed to put the ponds at the bottom end. Mr. Cameron questioned what City official decided that. Mr. Weathersbee stated the decision was made in a meeting that was held in the Mayor’s office around April, 2005. Mr. Cameron then questioned why the ponds would be made at the bottom end. Mr. Weathersbee explained it was because the spots they had picked out for detention could have been otherwise developed. It was questioned who was at the meeting. Mr. Weathersbee noted City staff was there, as well as some committee members. He added he thought Councilman Farmer was invited to the meeting. Councilman Farmer disagreed saying he was not invited to the meeting. Mr. Weathersbee corrected himself saying Councilman Farmer was not at the meeting. Discussion was held regarding the spots that were looked at for detention ponds. Councilman Farmer explained he thought the detention ponds were in Carter Burgess’ contract, which is why he had previously made the recommendation to have someone else look at the Carter Burgess recommendations for feasibility. Mr. Cameron questioned when they first thought about putting the numerous detention ponds around town. Mr. Weathersbee stated it was in March or April of 2005. Mr. Cameron questioned who told Carter Burgess not to put the detention ponds around town, rather to go with the two big detention ponds. Mr. Weathersbee stated it was in the meeting in April, 2005, with Engineering staff, Mayor Formon and Mr. Brian Wadley. He further explained the discussion started after they showed the City staff at the meeting how big the ponds were going to be and the area it would take up. Mr. Cameron questioned who would be helped by the detention ponds downstream. Ms. Gambill stated the ponds would help the City from adversely affecting any property downstream. Mr. Weathersbee added that to help the people upstream more improvements would need to be made.
Mayor Formon suggested proceeding with Mr. Cameron’s recommendations. He added he does not recall the meeting where it was decided to go with two big detention ponds. He stated he did recall a discussion about a large detention pond near Home Depot, but the proposed pond was too big to proceed with.
Councilman Dover stated he thought Carter Burgess was hired to fix problems up to a specific date in time and the City would take responsibility from that date on. He added they’re proposing things that are fully developed instead of what the situation was at the time of the study starting. Councilman Farmer noted the Stormwater Committee had a goal of developers carrying their water plus ten percent, which would total 110%. Councilman Dover added the City is starting to make developers take care of their water for the future, while the City is going back and taking care of past problems. Mr. Weathersbee stated the idea of individual detention came out a while after the study started. Mr. Cameron noted that’s why Carter Burgess was asked to make the stormwater manual so problems would be kept from getting worse.
Discussion was held regarding whether Carter Burgess has met their contract obligations. Councilman Farmer stated that he thinks Carter Burgess has fulfilled their contract. He added the City had bad negotiating on their part, but Carter Burgess has done what the contract asked for.
Ms. Gambill summarized what Carter Burgess is to do. First, she explained Carter Burgess is to talk with FEMA and figure out if there’s a deadline and possible ways to extend it if needed, then report that information back to Mr. Hooton, Mr. Martin, Mayor Formon and whoever else is needed to be contacted. Mr. Cameron stated the City should contact FEMA. Mr. Weathersbee explained they could contact FEMA or work with the City to contact FEMA, whichever the City wants. Ms. Gambill added they are not working with anyone else in FEMA except Region 6. Mr. Cameron recommended the City contact Region 6, but added Mayor Formon will have to make the decision. Secondly, she explained Carter Burgess will pass on the hydrology information to the City for review after they have received it back from FEMA. Thirdly, they will create a realistic map. Mr. Cameron added the map should be of their proposed map, showing the 25 to 30 detention ponds that were previously done away with. He added the maps should also show the 11 to 12 projects that the City has contracts on. Councilman Farmer noted one map should show existing conditions if nothing is done. Ms. Gambill stated the coordination could be difficult to show the projects and detention the way the City wants. Mr. Cameron explained they should start off with showing the proposed map as they will send it to FEMA, and add the detention ponds and projects. Councilman Farmer questioned whether this work would be in addition to the original Carter Burgess contract and noted the City has hired someone else to take care of that work. Mr. Weathersbee stated the new analysis would have to be done to make the maps and an amendment would need to be done. He added they are familiar with the data and could be more efficient with it since it’s their data. He noted he’ll have to get back with the committee as to a price for the extra work. Chairman Street asked for Mr. Weathersbee to submit a proposal to Mayor Formon for the cost of the extra work by next week.
Discussion was held regarding the stormwater ordinance that was just passed. Councilman Farmer questioned whether a permit was needed to do stockpiling on construction sites. Mr. Jeremy Bevill stated the ordinance reads “construction activity” so it depends on what is defined as construction activity. Councilman Farmer noted there is no definition for construction activity. Mr. Cameron questioned how they’re presently defining construction activity. Mr. Bevill explained the exemptions are spelled out and stockpiling is not included in the exemption list, so it’s not exempted. Mr. Cameron stated they cannot meet the grading requirements for stockpiling because he doesn’t know how big the stockpile will be, the width or length, or any other type of dimensions. He then questioned how anyone is supposed to stockpile anything. Mr. Hooton suggested submitting a plan with estimated dimensions and if it goes over, then to modify the plan. Councilman Farmer questioned who is requiring the ADEQ permit. Mr. Bevill explained ADEQ requires the permit. Councilman Farmer then questioned whether the staff thinks the policy is good or not. Mr. Bevill stated he thinks the policy could be improved. Mr. Hooton also stated that stockpiling is not listed as an exemption, but should be listed as one. It was suggested to have something done before the next meeting to address the issue with stockpiling. Mr. Cameron also suggested changing the requirements for detention ponds. He explained if only 4 foot detention ponds are made then nothing will be accomplished. Councilman Farmer stated they were talking about just requiring it in residential areas because of children. Mr. Cameron noted children can drown in 4 foot of water and the slop is the controlling factor, not the depth.
Mr. Hooton discussed a recent purchase order. He explained a water line needs to be relocated on a drainage project. He added the relocation will cost the City $24,645. He further explained that Mr. Steve Kent told him they could go ahead with the purchase order without Council approval. He stated he wanted to let the committee know about the purchase order because it was over the $10,000 limit.
Chairman Street asked if Mr. Hooton had received the legal description from Mr. Clifford Toney. Mr. Hooton explained he’d received it, but has not had time to get it surveyed.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.