The irony wasn't lost that no sooner did the Weatherford City Council begin discussing storm water drainage options than the clouds opened up and began to pour in Parker County.
In a work session Jan. 24, council members were briefed by Terry Hughes, director of capital transportation projects, on drainages issues that have faced the city for years as well as possible funding options to address it.At a work session on Dec. 13 James Hotopp, director of water/wastewater and Assistant City Manager Sharon Hayes briefed the council on drainage issues city wide."At that meeting, council asked that we bring back a list of other drainage projects, the general cost, and some funding mechanism," Hughes said. Hughes then referenced a map that pointed out more than 20 locations of drainage problems, many that pre-date the current council and administration. He then presented a estimated cost analysis based on conceptual solutions that include no engineering."Add all of these together and you're looking, low side $7 million and on the high side, $11 million," Hughes said. "The amount of funding spent on drainage projects over the last two years has varied from $35,000 to $100,000; this year we have $100,000 to address drainage issues."He then offered three funding options, the first was to set aside funds each budget year which what the city currently does.Second, place the projects on a bond initiative for the voters approval. The cost would have to be refined however due to engineering expense."We could fix one problem and cause a different problem downstream," Hughes said. "We don't have a overall analysis of our system; we don't even have inventory of the complete drainage system of the City of Weatherford, some of it dates back to the 20's."Third, develop a Storm Water Utility, (SWU)."The state authorizes a municipality to establish a 'Municipal Drainage Utility System'," Hughes said. "The City of Weatherford began the process of developing a Storm Water Utility program in 2007 but it was placed on hold in 2008 due to budget issues."He said that a SWU establishes an equitable user fee, based on impervious area for both residential and commercial use. It also provides a dedicated and stable funding source to address maintenance and capital drainage issues.Some of the cities utilizing a SWU program in the area include: Azle, Benbrook, Colleyville, Grapevine, Keller, Mansfield, Saginaw and Southlake."The average cost in North Texas is $3.84 per month for residential and $30.13 per month, per acre for commercial," Hughes said.City Manager, Jerry Blaisdell said that the drainage issue was "complicated" and created as a result of a number of issues. Councilman Craig Swancy agreed."It's difficult to say the least," Swancy said. "I would be interested in looking at options from SWU to what we can address immediately."Councilman Jeff Robinson asked Hughes how long it would take to develop a master plan to address these issues and Hughes replied as much as a year."Too me, instead of a patch, this gives us a real direction to go long-term," Robinson said.Councilwoman Heidi Wilder said prioritizing would be a good start."I would like to take a look at the projects we have slated for this year and see if we can re-prioritize...to assist some of the citizens with this problem," Wilder said. "Secondly, I would like to follow the direction of using the rate system in proceeding forward as a long-term opportunity to continue solving drainage problems in the future."The council chamber was packed with several concerned citizens that were given the opportunity to express their concerns with drainages issues around their property.Bobby Francisco said it wasn't a drainage issue but a flooding issue around his home."It's bad," Francisco said. "If something doesn't happen quick we're going to start having foundation problems. You as city council members; you have this golden opportunity to right a wrong. It's not your fault, but something somewhere along the line, got messed up and here you have this great opportunity to serve members of this city."Lisa Sullivan echoed similar sentiments as she presented the council a petition that consisted of 250 names out of 275 homes represented in the Briarwood Subdivision."Future construction and development is being approved and moving forward, but flood control along the development is not," Sullivan said. "Logically it seems consequence goes along with actions. It looks as though this problem is city wide and not favorable for the community."Wendy Walling also voiced concern."If something isn't done for flood control - long term, when that development upstream of my house gets developed, it's not a matter of if I'm going to get flooded, but when," Walling said.The council agreed to continue looking into the issue.Lance Winter, 817-594-9902, ext. 102Have more to add? News tip? Tell us
