2024 09 26 CC Minutes WS MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
September 26, 2024
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in a Work Session on Thursday, September
26, 2024, at 5:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber of Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street,
Baytown,Texas, with the following in attendance:
Laura Alvarado Council Member
Sarah Graham Mayor Pro Tem
Kenrick Griffith Council Member
James Franco Council Member
Jacob Powell Council Member
Mike Lester Council Member
Jason Reynolds City Manager
Scott Lemond City Attorney
Angela Jackson City Clerk
John Stringer Sergeant at Arms
Mayor Pro Tern Sarah Graham convened the September 26,2024 City Council Work Session with
a quorum present at 5:34 P.M. All members were present.
1. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tern Sarah Graham announced citizens signed up to speak.
Harvey Ponder,6403 Crosby Cedar Bayou Road,stated,"I'm glad to be back in front of all of you,
again. Since we were annexed in 2017,my taxes have increased dramatically.At a previous Coun-
cil meeting, I was told of the benefits of being inside the City limits,permits, voting, inspections
and the library; stuff like that. Well, the permit and code inspections, I have to pay for those any-
way. So that's not really a benefit, I still have to pay for it. When I had some electricity stuff done,
I had to pay for the inspector to come out. So, I get to vote,but voting is a right.You get to vote if
you live in town and I get to just come in here and see you all every now and then. The City is in
dire financial straits, I think we can all agree to that. The best way to save money is not spend
money."
James Kaminski, 623 Lauren Lane, stated, "Back when we were annexed in 2017 at one of the
meetings with the previous Mayor, they stated it was not a good investment for the City. It would
take many years to recoup the money,just from taxes toward the work they're going to do. The
work was never done. This disannex would not create a bunch of other people wanting to be dis-
annexed, because the group that I'm in, that portion nothing was ever done. Other portions that
were annexed in the past, present and future, after I was annexed,they do have water lines put in,
they have had sewer lines put in. We have had nothing put in. It took three months for the City to
turn around and give me a tax bill and rush that through beating the deadline to where we could
vote. I don't understand what the holdup is to let us go. I don't want any money back. Just let me
go and I don't have to pay anymore."
City Council Work Session Minutes
September 26,2024
Page 2 of 5
Linda Miks,6427 Crosby Cedar Bayou Road,stated,"We were annexed in 2017,right at the midst
of Hurricane Harvey, which of course, thank God, we don't have another hurricane but somebody
else is. You all rushed us through so they didn't need to have a vote to get us in the City. Which
we all admit was; well, I'll say it was a crock. There you go. Originally, when we were annexed,
there was a plan of services in place and now there's not. I had a private meeting at the end of April
with Mr. Franco,the Mayor, I believe it was Mr. Powell and one other per-son I believe was from
the Planning and Zoning. We asked several questions about the disannexation and at the end of
the meeting, the last thing I took away was the Mayor said, "We do not have the $18 million to
give you all services, that really nobody wants." Well, I really don't have the tax money at this
point either. My husband was laid off and my son is struggling and he lives next door. So, I would
like my money back. I'd say fine, without it,but I know my son would like his money back if you
disannex us. But I'm asking to be disannexed. I have no services out there. I am out in left field
and nobody supports us. I can't even get the City to mow the grass across the street. They did one
time. I'm sorry,I mowed my yard a lot more than one time.They had to do it.They did it whenever
someone reported West Nile in our area, I'm sorry. That's negligence on the City's part. That's
really all I have. I want to be disannexed,please."
2. DISCUSSIONS
a. Discussion regarding disannexation procedures and the current status.
Planning and Development Services Director Martin Scribner,stated,"So as most of us are aware,
in 2017,just before there was a change in the state annexation law,the City annexed several areas
adjacent to the City with a requirement to provide public services to those areas compliant with
the statute within a certain amount of time. A few months ago, several residents in those areas,
brought their concerns to City Council, many of whom you've heard from tonight. They asked to
be disannexed from the City. According to state law certain property owners have the right to
petition the municipality for disannexation, if they feel that they've not been provided with the
services they were promised under the annexation. In general,those services include water,sewer,
Fire, Police, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and a handful of others. Earlier this year, City
Manager Jason Reynolds spoke about needing more time to do some research in the process and
the requirements of disannexation. So, several staff members including legal, public works, plan-
ning and development and the City manager's office have spent the past few months really re-
searching the petition requirements,the process that needs to be followed,the criteria for granting
such a request and the specifics of each annexation area from 2017. After extensive research, our
legal team found that under Chapter 43 of Texas Local Government Code, there are some very
specific petition requirements and criteria. According to this regulation, at this point, the City has
not received any qualifying petitions. If the City does receive a qualified petition in the future,the
petition would then go before the City Council to determine on whether or not the property meets
the criteria for disannexation from the City. Regarding the 2017 annexation areas, initial reports
from the residence included issues like the ability to vote in City Elections, Police, Fire, EMS,
Animal Shelter Response and Trash Services.They were having issues with those services.Where
those issues existed, staff has been working to resolve them through coordination with the county
and by adjusting some errors that we found in the electronic mapping system. Based on the initial
review of the adopted service plans,the criteria found in the statute and current services are being
provided. It is Staffs opinion that the City has met the service level requirements in four of the
five areas that are in question tonight. For the sake of this conversation, let's focus on two more
City Council Work Session Minutes
September 26,2024
Page 3 of 5
notable services,mainly water and sewer. I'm going to show you some maps that go over the five
areas that were finalized annexed in November of 2017. The first area,we're going to call this area
number 1, on the screen, is approximately 768 acres, along the south side of I-10. What you're
looking at,the red outline is the property that was annexed altogether.The green line is your sewer
mains and the blue line is your water mains. As you can tell by those green and blue lines, sewer
and water lines are available in this area. So, this one is met. I could always come back to these
after we're done if we need any reference. Area number 2 is about 144 acres,just south of I-10,
east of Cedar Bayou Road along Needlepoint Road.This does also show water and sewer available
in the area. Area number 3 is approximately 101 acres that flanks Crosby Cedar Bayou Road be-
tween Massey Tompkins Road and Blue Heron Parkway. Again, sewer and water mains are avail-
able or reasonably close so as to be accessed. Although staff has discovered that there is an
easement issue in this annexation and that Public Works has already begun the process of fixing
that easement issue. Area number 4 is approximately 107 acres,just north of I-10,on the west side
of John Martin Road. Sewer and water mains are shown again here and have access. Now area
number 5 is approximately 298 acres, extending along Barkley Road from Cedar Bayou Lynch-
burg Road,all the way up to I-10.There is a little leg that goes up Barkuloo Road,just on the right-
of-way. While portions of this area do have ready access to sewer and water, such as the properties
that have frontage on North Main or on Cedar Bayou Lynchburg Road. It does appear that other
portions may not have the same availability. It's assumed that these utilities would be extended
when development happens in the future.With that,if the City receives a qualified petition for any
of these areas,particularly area number five, Council would have to make the determination if the
level of service is comparable to other similar areas in the City, based on the criteria defined by
the statute. With that staff is here to answer any questions."(Exhibit A)
Council Member James Franco, stated, "To clarify, looking at the maps, Mr. Kaminski, Ms. Miks
and Mr. Ponder are located in annexation 5."
Mr. Scribner has clarified on the map the sewer lines, the green running down Main Street, but
where you see little breaks in the green, you'll see the blue because the green line is on top of the
blue water line that also runs down North Main. Also, the orange line along Cedar Bayou Lynch-
burg is part of the water main as well. It was just coded a different color because, of the material
that the line is made out of.
City Manager Jason Reynolds, stated, "To be very clear, this area right here is not reasonable to
expect the citizens to connect to these lines. Because, they have to cross multiple property lines.
This is the one where things are questionable because it is not a reasonable expectation for the
residents to connect to these water and sewer lines."
Council Member Jacob Powell thanked Mr. Scribner, for providing this information and asked.
"So,its split up into five areas here?Just for my information,were these five separate annexations
or one? Also, can these annexations petition combined or would they have to do so individually?"
Mr. Scribner, responded, "Five separate annexations that were all run through the process at the
same time,but they are 5 separate applications. Each one of these obviously includes several prop-
erties that maybe multiple properties owned by different owners. They were just part of the same
petition."
City Council Work Session Minutes
September 26,2024
Page 4 of 5
City Attorney Scott Lemond provided an answer for Mr. Powell regarding petition applications.
"Each annexation stands alone. So, the residents in that annexation area would have to petition.
They couldn't combine from other annex areas and they couldn't try to petition people in other
annexed areas or other areas of the city."
Mayor Pro Tern Sarah Graham, thanked all the staff for putting together the presented slides, but
had a couple of questions. "You mentioned that one of the bullet points was that the City has not
received a qualifying petition. I know that we've had several of the same families come repeatedly
to share with us information regarding the request for disannexation. What exactly have we re-
ceived, specifically, from these annexed areas?"
Mr. Lemond responded, "We have not received anything formally, other than the meetings that
have been had and the residents who have spoken at City Council meetings. There was a letter that
was received from a lawyer but that letter was not a petition."
Ms. Graham, inquired if the City had a standard set in place for reference to the distance of resi-
dence to sewer and water lines.
Mr. Lemond, responded, "There is no set definition and I don't want to contradict Mr. Reynolds,
but speaking as the City's Attorney,reasonableness is something that, in the first instance Council
would determine and in the second instance a court would determine.The criteria under which you
make that determination, is whether the annexed area, as a whole receives a comparable level of
services to another area within the City with similar density, topography and land use."
Ms. Graham, asked a question regarding a specific property on the far west side, "It looks like
there's a property right near Hunt Road and Crosby Cedar Bayou, is that what I'm seeing? I know
it's a very little driveway area. Do you know if that's a property that someone lives in?The reason
I'm asking is I don't know if they've even come to a meeting. That seems very far away from the
ability to tap in to the city sewer and water."
Council Member Laura Alvarado expressed importance of standard specifics regarding property
distance from City sewer and water lines, "When they were annexed in, part of the guidelines at
that time was that if they were too far and it would be too expensive for them to tap in. I'm going
by recollection, that they had the option to keep their well and their sewer so, they did not. Many
didn't want to tap in. I'm not saying these individuals didn't just in general, many did not want to
tap in because they were fine with their well and their sewer and wanted to keep that. We allowed
them to do that, the City said, that's fine, we're not going to force you to tap in. There was a
stipulation that if your well went down or your septic went down more than 50% and has to be
repaired, then you would be made to tap in. But, the circumstances there was no real way for the
City to like oversee that and be going house-to-house, asking hey is your well working? Is your
septic working? Have you repaired it? Do you need repairs? There wasn't that type of oversight
available and would not be available. So, we were just going to leave it up to the residents to be
able to repair their sewer and water. If someone came up to the City and said; hey, my well went
down this is how much it went down. Then at that time, yes, the City would say, this is what you
need to do. So that was already made clear at the time of annexation. We realized that you may
not be 5 feet, 10 feet where you may not be able to tap in, but you may continue to use your well
and septic. That's what I do recall from that annexation."
City Council Work Session Minutes
September 26,2024
Page 5 of 5
Mr. Scribner confirms the statement from Ms. Alvarado with,"That's how we handle requests like
that. Basically, called a non-conforming use, as long as they're continuing use of what they had
before, they're not required to tap in until they go and build something that requires more.
Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Graham, expressed appreciation for the dedication of staff and the citizens
coming to speak on this item.
3. ADJOURN
With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Graham adjourned the
September 26, 2024, City Council Work Session at 5:56 P.M.
A u }yb iti
Angela Jac on, City' ,lerk %` L
City of Baytown s`
EXHIBIT A
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
5805 N LAMAR BLVD • BOX 4087•AUSTIN,TEXAS 78773-0001
P 512/424-2000 �\I"4,i
E X\�
,�,• .1
www.dps.texas.gov
AT A,
STEVEN C.McCRAW COMMISSION
DIRECTOR STEVEN P.MACH,CHAIRMAN
WALT GOODSON NELDA L.BLAIR
FREEMAN F.MARTIN DAN HORD III
JASON C.TAYLOR LARRY B.LONG
DEPUTY DIRECTORS STEVE H.STODGHILL
July 10, 2024
Flock Safety Sent via email:
Mark Smith, General Counsel
1170 Howell Mill Road NW, Suite 210
Atlanta,Georgia 30318
RE: Cease and Desist; Operating as a Private Security Officer/Business without a License
Mark Smith,Flock Safety:
It has been reported to the department that you have operated as a private security officer/business
without a license. This letter is to notify you that under Texas Occupations Code § 1702.101,
1702.102, 1702.104 and 1702.221, an individual/business must be licensed to perform any duties
regulated under the Private Security Act.
If you are exercising any function regulated under the private security act, you must immediately
cease and desist this activity until you are properly licensed. Information about how to apply for a
license can be found on the department's website: https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/private-
security/application-instructions-and-examples. If you have questions about whether your activity
requires a license or information disputing this report,please contact us at [contact information].
During a meeting with you on June 27, 2024, these issues were discussed. It is our understanding
that you are currently in the process of obtaining the appropriate private security licenses. Please let
us know if there is anything we can do to assist Flock Safety becoming compliant.
If you continue to operate without a license, the department may take additional action including
pursuing civil penalties and referring the matter to the local prosecutor for possible criminal action.
Sincerely,
RSD Management
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
COURTESY•SERVICE•PROTECTION
.010`per. Te xas D P S
ygiit=i;, 09/16/2024
Region 6 - Austin, TX - Travis Co - PS - Operating without a license - Flock
Safety
RSD Supplemental Report
Created: 08/08/2024 08:32 AM CDT
Last Updated: 08/09/2024 07:36 PM CDT
Case Numbers: 2024-0673978(Alarm Monitor)
Case Reference 2024-0673978-00002
Number(s):
Program: PSP
PSP Violation •
PSP Violation: Operating without license- OCC. 1702.101 - 1025; 1702.388
Associated Flock Safety
Licensee:
i
Document Details:
On April 17, 2024, Senior Program Investigator(SPI)William Molloy was assigned to conduct an
investigation of Flock Safety(unlicensed) for operating without a license, under SPURS case number
2024L-RSD6-50122946. On May 8, 2024, this investigation was concluded, finding Flock Safety in
violation of Texas Occupational Code(OCC) §1702.102 (a).
FINDINGS indicated that Flock Safety was in violation of.
• Texas Occupational Code(OCC) §1702.102 -conducting alarm installer services without a
license.
DETAILS
1. On April 17, 2024, SPI Molloy was assigned to conduct an investigation of Flock Safety
(unlicensed) for operating without a license,under SPURS case number 2024L-RSD6-
50122946. ,
2. A review of the lead reflected that Flock Safety was installing security camera systems-License
Plate Recognition(LPR) for Home Owner Associations(HOA)and parking lots throughout the
state of Texas.Attachment(A).
3.Texas Online Private Security(TOPS)records confirmed that Flock Safety was not a licensed
private security business.
4. SPURS records reflect that in 2021, the department investigated an identical complaint, finding
Flock Safety in violation of performing alarm installer services without a license.This
1/3
•
investigation was submitted into SPURS under case#2020I-RSD6-50062242.
5. Prior to SPI Molloy's involvement, Flock Safety General Counsel Mark SMITH provided a
detailed description of the contracted services provided to their Texas clients,which included
installing cameras in residential areas and at big box stores, such as Home Depot parking lots, to
gather vehicle license plate data,which is defined as an alarm installer activity, per OCC
§1702.105—a person acts as an alarm systems company if the person sells,installs,services,
monitors, or responds to an alarm system or detection device. However, SMITH claimed that the
Flock Safety cameras are not used for private security or surveillance.
6.The departments Senior Policy Analyst reviewed statements and other investigative details and
determined that Flock Safety equipment meets the definition of an alarm system, per OCC
1702.002 (1)(C) -an alarm system is a television camera or still camera system that records or
archives images of property or individuals in a public or private area of a residence or business.
For additional details, refer to attachment(A).
7.A review of the Flock Safety website(https://www.flocksafety.com/)further indicates that the
business is providing security services,by making the following statements;
a. Help deter criminals.
b. Flock Safety provides a customizable solution to proactively deter and solve crime in
neighborhoods while giving residents peace of mind.
c.We help eliminate crime.
d.We exist to eliminate crime and keep your community safe. Our holistic public safety
platform is comprehensive and intelligent—that means you have the actionable evidence
you need to solve, deter and reduce crime across neighborhoods,schools, businesses and
entire cities.
e. By layering powerful evidence like LPR and live video—you have the tools and
intelligence you need to make progress on improving the safety and security of your
community and assets.
f. Flock Safety helps HOAs improve neighborhood security.
g. Colorado Neighborhoods Using Flock Safety to Reduce Crime. —It's not your typical
neighborhood fixture,but people who live in the Bel Air Estates in Aurora believe the two
towering light poles that stand watch over the entrance to their community will help keep it
safe.
h.These website images can be referenced on attachment(B).
8. SPI Molloy determined that the primary purpose of a client to contract said services is to perform
security services to deter and/or assist law enforcement investigate criminal activity; and found
Flock Safety in violation of OCC §1702 (a)—Security Services Contractor License required:
Scope of License. Unless the person holds a license as a security services contractor, a person
may not:
(1) act as an alarm systems company, armored car company, courier company, guard company,
or locksmith company;
(2) offer to perform the services of a company in Subdivision (1); or
(3) engage in business activity for which a license is required under this chapter.
Attachments
(A)Copy of Lead
(B)Copy of Website Images
2/3
Attachments:
(B)Copy of Website Images.pdf
(A)Copy of Lead Flock Safety.pdf
Flock Safety.Cease and Desist Letter.pdf
DescriptionlComments: Cease and Desist Letter
Related Entities:
Flock Safety-Suspect in
Name: Flock Safety Suspect in
08/08/2024 08:32 AM CDT - *
Address: 1160 Howell Mill Rd NW Connected to
Atlanta, Fulton County * *
GA 30318
United States of America
3/3