Arlington considers tigher rules for gas-drilling

BY ROBERT CADWALLADER - Special to the Star-Telegram - April 13, 2010

ARLINGTON -- With natural-gas drilling on the rise, the Planning and Zoning Commission will look at higher road-damage fees, tighter time limits and other measures to buffer the industry's impact on the city.

The commission meets in a 4 p.m. work session today at City Hall, 101 W. Abram St., to consider what would be the third major revision of the 2003 gas well ordinance.

The commission plans to vote next week on final recommendations to the City Council.

"This is one of the main drilling hubs in the Barnett Shale," Mayor Robert Cluck said.

"There is more urban drilling now. We're closer to structures -- homes, churches -- than we ever have been."

The city has received 210 permit applications since 2006, when its first seven wells were drilled. The city so far has approved permits for 163 wells, of which about 130 have been drilled, said Darren Groth, Arlington's gas well inspector. The increase in drilling points to the need for further strengthening of the ordinance, he said.

Suggested changes include:

Charging more to cover most costs for road damage caused by heavy trucks of drilling and pipeline companies. The city used to charge about $200 per well but has gradually increased that to $480. That's still far short of the minimum $5,000 charged by the city of Mansfield, Groth said.

Limiting the time that companies can drill at a site after receiving a specific-use permit. Currently, they have up to one year to drill the first well but no limits on drilling subsequent wells.

Notifying more people when gas-drilling companies apply for permits. For a specific-use permit, the city mails notices to people living within 200 feet of the site. But in the next stage -- the drilling permit application, in which remaining details are addressed before the council -- notices are mailed to residents within 600 feet.

That means a lot more people are hearing about the project after the drilling basically has been approved. However, Cluck said that's not too late to voice concerns to the council, which can deny a drilling permit even if it meets city requirements.

In written statements to city staff, several energy companies voiced concerns about some recommendations. For example, they said limiting the time for drilling subsequent wells on the same site -- an effort to speed up drilling -- could have the opposite effect if a company misses a deadline and has to go back through the permitting process.

Councilwoman Sheri Capehart said she got an earful of gas-drilling concerns at a town hall meeting she hosted last week.

Many residents said the city needs to do more to monitor compliance with landscaping, trucking hours, noise limits and other stipulations in drilling permits. They noted that the city has only one gas well inspector.

Others suggested increasing the percentage of property owners who must sign waivers before a company can drill within 600 feet of residences. They also want fines for well-related violations raised beyond the standard $2,000 for most ordinance infractions.

"I just want us to do this right," Capehart said. "I'm not anti-gas wells, because I think a lot of people benefit. But I want us to do it appropriately and with a vision of what this means to our future."

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/13/2112329/arlington-considers-tighter-rules.html#ixzz0l62S3VDd

What Faith Chatham wants to see "tweeked" in Carona's Rail Financing Bill

By Faith Chatham - DFWRCC - March 20, 2009
Financing passenger rail in Texas is one of the few true cures for gridlock and improvements to air quality in the DFW region. Congestion pricing and market valuation on tolled HOV lanes and toll roads will not cure gridlock or improve air quality. Getting cars off the roadways is a much better plan.

Arlington, Texas, in the center of the DFW Region, is the largest city in the USA without mass transit. Over 60% of the residents of Arlington work outside of the city and it is estimated that over 70% of those who work in Arlington reside outside of the city. Except fora pilot program for commuter bus service from two park and ride lots in Arlington to Fort Worth, every worker is dependent upon private automobiles for commuting to and from work. A similar scenario exists in neighboring Grand Prairie.

The Dorothy Spur runs through the downtown business/entertainment districts of both cities. That rail line is currently devoted entirely to freight transportation and a few Amtrak trains a day, none of which actually stop in either Arlington or Grand Prairie. Some freight is switched to feeder tracks in the Great Southwest Business District, but passengers are not allowed to board or exit any passenger train which passes through either of these cities.

Senator Carona authored SB942, a local option transportation bill, in an attempt to generate a source of funding for passenger rail which voters in each county can approve or reject to address regional rail needs throughout the state. SB942 needs a serious overhaul before it is voted on by the Senate or Texas Legislature. Two other rail financing bills, one by Sen. Truitt and one by Sen. Villarreal have been filed. Terry Hall of T.U.R.F. favors Senator Villarreal's version.

I am personally very interested in seeing a tighter, more precisely worded rail financing bill passed by both houses of the Texas Legislature. Current vague wording in all versions before the Senate present pittfalls.

Here is Faith Chatham's Wish List or list of "tweeks" for Rail Infrastructure Financing Bills:
1. Caps on potential taxes or fee increases should be lower. Currently many are so high that voters will reject all options because they vehemently object to the potential high cost of one or more potential options. The cap on proposed increase in vehicle registration or vehicle sales tax fees should be clearly stated and LOW ENOUGH THAT IT WILL BE ACCEPTABLE TO VOTERS!
2. Proposed tax increases should be tied to specific rail projects.
3. The bill(s) should clearly state that income generated from the tax or fee increase MUST be applied to the SPECIFIC PROJECT approved by the voters.
4. Instead of voter approval being optional, the language of the bill(s) must stipulate that the VOTERS MUST APPROVE THE TAX INCREASE FOR THE SPECIFIED PROJECT before public funds are spent on planning, environmental or construction of a proposed rail line or facility.
5. All bills must eliminate the requirement that citizens gather 10% of the signatures in that region of voters in the last governor's election before citizens are given opportunity to vote on the rail option. Instead, as stated in number 3, the language MUST STIPULATE CLEARLY that proposed increase in existing fees or taxes or imposition of new fees or taxes for proposed rail infrastructure projects be presented to the voters for approval before public funds are spent on proposed rail projects.
6. Passenger rail projects funded under these bills may not impose "congestion pricing" or "market pricing" on passenger rail tickets.
7. All fees or fee (tax) increase imposed on passenger vehicles under this act must also apply to commercial vehicles. Current bills exclude commercial vehicles from most proposed new taxes (fees).
8. When new fees (taxes) are presented to the voter, the bill should stipulate that there must be a sunset for the taxes stipulated in the wording on the ballot, clearly stating what specific project the funds are for and that they cannot be transferred to any other project without voter approval.
9. There should be a sunset in the bill for the expiration of the provisions of the bill stipulated in the language of the bill. After ten or twenty years, the taxpayers should be given opportunity to decide if these special financing options are the best options for their communities at that time.
10. There should be a cap on proposed fares for passenger rail funded under these options presented clearly in the language on the ballot when these options are presented to the voters.
11. There should be a sunset on particualar taxes when a sufficient income is generated to retire the construction debt for the project. Maintenance cost should be generated by passenger fees.
12. The language of the bill should allow muncipalities and districts within a county to vote on accepting or rejecting these options. Many Texans discount the overall economic drain air pollution has on each person. When voting to "tax" themselves more for rail, many will think only in terms of whether they personally will use the rail. The bill needs to allow municipalities within a county to exercise the funding options through approval by the voters in their municipality as well as counties to use the option through approval by the majority of the voters in the county.
13. All exemption should be defined in the text of the bill so it does not impose too great a burden on the middle class.
14. Public transit authorities should not have to operate on the same terms as potential private partners in competing for these contracts.

Local area mayoral and council seats up for May 10th Election

The Dallas Morning News - Sunday, February 10, 2008

Here's a look at other selected mayoral and council seats up for election May 10:


•Arlington: Four of the nine council seats are up for election. Veteran at-large members Steve McCollum and Ron Wright, the mayor pro tem, have said they don't intend to run. The other incumbents up for re-election are Mel LeBlanc and Sheri Capehart.


•Duncanville: The balance of power could shift if the mayor's seat or the District 2 council seat changes hands. Mayor David Green and District 2 council member Scott Cannon routinely vote together when the council splits 4-3. Both plan to run again, as does one of their opponents, District 4 member Deborah Hodge.


•Flower Mound: Mayor Jody Smith is expected to seek a third term. In Place 2, Planning and Zoning Board member Steve Dixon is running, and incumbent Al Filodoro has indicated he probably will, too. In Place 4, incumbent Laurie Long isn't running; Planning and Zoning Board member Jean Levenick is expected to run.


•Garland: The council seats held by Douglas Athas in District 1, Laura Perkins Cox in District 2, Larry Jeffus in District 4 and Jackie Feagin in District 5 are up for election. All four incumbents are expected to run again.


•Grand Prairie: District 1 council member Lee Herring has said he won't run again. At-large member Ruthe Jackson and District 3 member Bill Thorn have said they will.


•Highland Village: Mayor Dianne Costa faces a challenge from Fred Busche, who left the council last year because of term limits. The two have sparred in the past over development projects at the FM2499-FM407 intersection. Two open council seats also are up for election: In Place 2, Don Combs can't run because of term limits, and in Place 6, Scott McDearmont has said he won't run again.


•Lancaster: Five-term Mayor Joe Tillotson's decision not to run has prompted District 5 council member Clyde Hairston to declare for the seat. The District 2, 4, 5 and 6 seats will also be up for election.


•Lewisville: Two council seats are up for election. Place 1 representative Lathan Watts plans to run again, and Place 3 incumbent Greg Tierney said he's leaning toward doing so. No challengers have surfaced.


•Park Cities: The mayors and all council seats are up for election. In University Park, all the incumbents but Harry Shawver (term limits) can run again. In Highland Park, Mayor Bill White and council members Andy Smith and Webber Beall face term limits, but Gail Madden, George Reynolds and Bruce "Smokey" Swenson are eligible to run again.


•Plano: Three council seats are up for election. Incumbents Loretta Ellerbe in Place 3 and Harry LaRosiliere in Place 5 are seeking re-election. In Place 1, term limits will keep Shep Stahel from running again.


•Rockwall: Three council seats will be on the ballot. Incumbents Stephen Straughan in Place 2, Cliff Sevier in Place 4 and Margo Nielsen in Place 6 have said they plan to seek re-election.
Read more in the Dallas Morning News

Dallas lawmaker stalls funding for Fort Worth's river project - A Trinity tug of war

By MARIA RECIO - Star-Telegram Staff Writer - Oct. 17, 2007

Much of the area to the northwest of downtown Fort Worth would be redeveloped as part of the Trinity River Vision. The $435-million project would create an urban waterfront on the Trinity, opening it to recreation, green spaces, and residential and commercial development.

WASHINGTON -- For the first time in seven years, Congress has approved a massive $23.2 billion water projects bill that includes years of backed-up requests for flood control projects and improvements to rivers and harbors by the Army Corps of Engineers.

The bill includes funds for an $80 million Johnson Creek restoration project in Arlington, but there is something missing from Tarrant County's wish list: funding for a key aspect of Fort Worth's Trinity River Vision project. That's the city's $435 million showcase effort to redesign itself by creating an urban waterfront on the Trinity River, opening it to recreation, green spaces and residential and commercial development.

The tangled tale involves some political miscalculations, confusion over the changing nature of the project and the always baffling congressional funding process.

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, the central figure in the case, has worked tirelessly to promote the project in recent years. But this year she ran into a formidable obstacle: Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Dallas, the new chairwoman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee.

The roadblock put up by Johnson is unlikely to stall Fort Worth's project for long. But it's a reality check and a reminder that nothing is certain in Congress and that local opposition to a local project can make things more difficult. Tarrant County Democrats oppose the project, and they are taking their complaints to new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Granger and others pushing for Trinity River Vision are confident that they will prevail and get full funding for Fort Worth's signature project.

Project history

Beginning in 2000, Granger, a former Fort Worth mayor, used her position on the House Appropriations Committee to direct funding, initially in small amounts, for environmental studies on the Trinity River project. Then, in 2004, after a water resources bill collapsed, she bypassed regular channels and obtained congressional authorization of $220 million for the Central City project, which is the Corps of Engineers' name for the flood control work in Fort Worth.

Granger's 2004 move was something of a coup because she succeeded in getting the Central City project "authorized" on an appropriation bill.

Congressional committees are split into authorizing panels, which set policy and overall funding levels, and the appropriations committee, which amounts to check-writers who direct the specific annual amounts that agencies can spend.

Members zealously guard their turf, as Granger discovered this year.

Johnson, who became chairman in January after the Democrats won control of Congress, blocked Granger's request for an authorization for the full cost of the Central City project, which incorporated $27.3 million for a neighboring project called the Riverside Oxbow. Under the plan, flood controls involving costly easements in west Fort Worth could be replaced by diverting water to the 600-acre Riverside Oxbow, which includes a dry bend of the Trinity in east Fort Worth.

But Johnson did not consider the Fort Worth Central City project to be one that was already in the works for Corps funding. Rather, she declared it would be considered a new project.

"We had taken a vote on our committee and unanimously said we would not consider any new projects," Johnson said in an interview. "We'll consider it when we start a new bill."

Johnson said that work will begin shortly on a new bill, assuming that the current water projects bill becomes law. Congress appears to have the votes to override a threatened veto from President Bush, who believes the bill is too costly.

Granger said she talked to Johnson about the Central City project in March, although the Dallas Democrat said, "I wasn't even aware of it until the day we were doing a mark-up," or vote, on the water projects bill.

Help from Hutchison

Stymied on the House side, Granger turned to Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, who inserted $247 million for the project in the Senate version of the bill -- the amount approved in 2004 plus the $27.3 million for the Riverside Oxbow.

When the bill went to a conference committee this summer to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills, Johnson again opposed the Trinity project and the funding was removed in the final conference even though the overall bill grew from $14 billion in the Senate and $15 billion in the House into a $23 billion projects bill.

"That was a problem on the House side," Hutchison said in an interview. "We definitely tried and Kay [Granger] tried very, very hard to get it in." Neither Hutchison nor Granger was on the conference committee.

Johnson, for her part, said, "I didn't want to add any new projects" and said she had the support of the leaders of her panel in the negotiations.

Johnson was successful in securing funds for her own Trinity River project in the bill: $298 million in authorization for flood control, wetlands and bridge modifications for Dallas' Trinity River Corridor. The Dallas project is separate from Fort Worth's but one House aide said that Johnson was clear "that there would be one Trinity River project" in the bill.

Johnson also did not block the $80 million Johnson Creek project in Arlington.

By Aug. 1, when the House passed the conference report bill on water projects, Granger was already looking ahead to next year's Water Resources Development Act. The conference report did not include the Central City funding and could not be amended on the floor.

In August, Granger brought Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, to tour the project area.

"I have a very strong commitment to put it in whatever measure I can," Mica said Wednesday in the Capitol. "I guess there was some conflict with Ms. Johnson." Of the project, he said, "It makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. Hopefully, we can get a meeting of the minds and get it in the next measure."

Granger was upbeat in a recent interview. "It will be in the second WRDA bill," she said of the Fort Worth project.

"I don't consider it a setback," she said. "The next WRDA bill won't be so huge," making it more likely the project could stay in.

As for Johnson, Granger said, "She had a briefing -- absolutely." And the Central City project, said Granger, "is not a new start."

Although Granger stressed that the entire $435 million Trinity River Vision project, which splits costs 50-50 between federal and local sources, will have to be authorized "at some point," she said the Corps will continue to get funding for it through the appropriations process.

"I'm not worried about it," said Granger, noting the project is ahead of schedule. "We're in fine shape. There's no concern."

In the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2008, House-passed bills include $8 million for construction, $1 million for bridge construction and $550,000 for economic development for Central City Fort Worth. The levels will still have to be negotiated with the Senate.

JOHNSON CREEK

The Tarrant County project that did receive funding in the recent water bill is the new Johnson Creek restoration project that has been more than a decade in the works. The project, expected to start soon, will help stabilize creek banks, add trails and other recreational amenities, and a new pedestrian bridge between the new Cowboys stadium and the future Glorypark development. Local officials have said the total cost of the project is expected to be $50 million. But the water bill said the overall cost is $80 million, with as much as $52 million coming from the federal government.

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Eastbound I-30 access at Collins closed for bridge inspection

By MITCH MITCHELL - Fort Worth Star Telegram - Sun., Aug. 12, 2007