Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett to inventory alley‑abutting screening walls; council weighs repair, replacement and funding options
Summary
City staff selected DCCM to inventory and assess screening walls that abut alleys (about 11,600 linear feet). Consultants will return condition assessments in two phases (Group A due Jan. 8; Group B due Feb. 12). Council debated 'like‑for‑like' repairs, alternative materials, and funding scenarios including debt, pay‑as‑you‑go and use of general fund reserves.
Following public comment from residents of Lake Bend Estates, Rowlett City staff on Dec. 15 presented a plan to inventory and assess alley‑abutting screening walls and offered high‑level cost and funding scenarios for council direction.
City Manager David said staff selected the engineering firm formerly known as Binkley Barfield (doing business as DCCM) to produce a condition index and repair recommendations for walls that abut alleys. Group A — five priority locations including Lake Bend Estates, South Bay Estates, Kimball Estates and Lake Highlands — is scheduled for delivery on Jan. 8; the remainder (Group B) is due Feb. 12.
David told council the assessment scope identifies about 11,600 linear feet in the initial inventory. Staff provided three illustrative replacement cost points pulled from market experience: single‑width masonry brick at roughly $600 per linear foot, precast concrete panels at approximately $575 per linear foot, and vegetative screening at about $195 per linear foot. Removal of existing wall was estimated to add roughly $75 per linear foot.
Two residents urged prompt replacement of heavily deteriorated sections. “We are encouraged as we anticipate positive and promising news regarding the replacement of our wall,” said resident Shannon Bandle, speaking for neighbors in Lake Bend Estates. Bandle and others asked the council to prioritize safety and permanence where walls pose hazards.
Councilmembers debated whether to require replacement “like for like” (masonry replaced by masonry) or allow alternative materials in places where original construction was substandard. Several members favored a phased, prioritized approach that repairs imminent hazards first and uses the assessment to set a longer‑term program for uniformity and funding. Council discussed three funding approaches staff presented: a one‑time 20‑year debt issuance at the high‑end estimate (staff corrected an earlier arithmetic example and cited an adjusted program magnitude), a pay‑as‑you‑go approach of roughly $2 million per year, or use of general‑fund reserves or a mix of deferred projects to limit rate impacts.
No final policy decision or vote was made. Staff requested council guidance on whether the assessment should include sections of wall that transition onto private property (such as subdivision entrance features), and they will return with the DCCM reports, prioritization and cost recommendations for council action.
