Loading...
1966 08 01 CC Minutes, Special9172 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN August 1, 1966 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in special session on Monday, August 1, 1966 at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Room of the City Hall with the following members in attendance: Patrick Ball Clem Al. Massey Don M. Hullum A. M. Braswell Albert Fanestiel Raymond T. Donnelly Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilman Seaborn Cravey Mayor Fritz Lanham City Manager George Chandler City Attorney Edna Oliver City Clerk The Mayor called the meeting to order, the Invocation was offered, afterwhich the Mayor expressed his appreciation for those interested in the affairs of the City by attending this special session which the Council has called to consider the request of the Missouri- Pacific Railroad Company - to cross certain streets in.Baytown to build a spur track to the U. S. Steel site in Chambers County. He assured those attend- ing the meeting that the City Council had not, at this point, committed itself to any plan for or against, but was aware that the Council must decide upon granting permission to cross streets in Baytown -as proposed or reach some agreement upon the conditions under which consent will be granted as it has been pointed out by persons high in the U. S. Steel organization that the construction of the steel mills here is contingent, to some degree, upon the Mopac Company being able to construct tracks into its plant site. ,Mayor Cravey also referred to the notice given Missouri- Pacific by Southern- Pacific that, if the route is changed in any manner, they will carry them back to court.. If this, is true, Southern- Pacific is rendering a disservice to the people of Baytown, and putting the City Council in a very awkward position. J. A. Austin, Vice President MPRR - Houston Alayor Cravey introduced J. A. Austin, Houston Vice - President of the MPRR, who gave a brief review of the activities of the Company regarding the installation of an industrial lead track to serve U. D. Steel. His first knowledge of the proposed con- struction was December 9, 1965 when officials of R. S. Steel announced their intentions* of building a plant near Baytown. He referred to the 1956 announcement of Jones & Laughlin, to build a plant at or near this same site, the survey that was conducted at that time by the MPRR for a possible route from Baytown to the site along Cedar Bayou but plans were abandoned when Jones & Laughlin announced its intention to withdraw plans for the proposed construction. In January, 1966 ,Mr. Austin was contacted by home office officials and told that U. S. Steel had asked that %1PRR serve the site along with SPRR; May 27, 1966 met in Pittsburg with representatives of U. D. Steel to talk about the proposed route, given authorization to make an announcement of the results of the meeting; instructed to return to Houston and work out final plans; arranged a meeting with Baytown City Officials to discuss future plans of the MPRR in relation to Baytown and the same day the meeting was held SPRR filed a petition in Federal Court to enjoin MPRR in moving ahead with any construction. The MPRR then prepared facts and figures on the cost of constructing the railroad into the site; went into Federal Court to defend its position to build a spur track, not a lead track, into the site. Had the MPRR plans included a lead track, it would have had to gone to ICC to receive a certificate which would have resulated in a possible one -year delay in construction plans. U. S. Steel officials announced publicly they could not afford the delay required to go to ICC; Jure 30, 1%6 Federal Judge denied the SPRR petition, ruled MPRR was not building an exten- sion of line and denied their petition for the injunction. Immediately after this denial, he arranged a meeting with the City Council and members of the Baytown Chamber of Commerce at which meeting r.he Company was asked to study alternate routes - (1) route which would break off the SPUR line south of Interstate Highway 10 in an easterly direction crossing the SPRR; (2) explore the possibilities of using the SPRR from the point where the tracks join into the U. S. Steel area; (3) to explore a southern route breaking off at 4173 Goose Creek, going South cross Main Street down through the oil field. The second pro- posal was abandoned because U. S. Steel refused to consider one track outlet into the plant site; objectional features were found in the other routes and the MPRR officials are of the opinion that they have selected the best feasible route as submitted in the original proposal. fie concluded his remarks by stating that he and other Company officials would try and answer any questions presented. Discussion Councilman Braswell asked for estimates of cost. (A) original proposal 3.89 miles ■ ! of track at a cost of $1,300,000 west edge of U. S. Steel site; (B) Northern route 12.88 miles of track at a cost of $1,309,000; (C) Southern route 5.31 miles of track at a cost of $1,959,000 - grade separation provided State Highway 146 crossing and possibly Tri -City Beach Road crossing. W. J. Still, 1212 Layton, southern route seemed most feasible - no thickly populated subdivisions involved - property ouem in Harper and Wynnewood Additions have no chance to recover loss while the railroad company has the opportunity through service to steel mill. Lamar Kelley, 205 Danubina, asked for a statement from representatives of the SPRR on the validity of the rumor that if MPRR changes its routing as proposed, SPRR will carry them to court. Joe Bartz, Southern Pacific Public Relations representative, replied that he knew of no such comment being made - in his opinion the City of Baytown must rule on its decision on the basis of the widence that it has and not on something attributed to another party - down to find out the basis for the statement. Councilman Ball asked Mr. Bartz if it were not true that SPRR has appealed the temporary injunction to which Mr. Bartz replied that it is considering an appeal - has not been filed. Benn Stovall, 112 E. Nazro, asked Mr. Austin how many property owners in Harper and Wynnewood Addition have been contacted personally by a representative of the Company to which Sir. Austin replied that no contacts have been made because the efforts would be premature since it is not known if the proposed route will be approved by the Council. Mr. Bond, local realtor, has been engaged to do this contact work but it is now known if he has made any contacts. R. I. Martin, 816 Sunset, asked the number of trains per day and Mr. Austin gave projected figures for outbound and incoming traffic as follows: Outbound tons 1,000,000 Aver. Outbound per day 15 plus 40% empty equip - 21 total Outbound tons 3.000,000 Aver. Outbound per day 45 plus 40% empty equip - 63 total Outbound tons 6,000,000 Aver. Outbound per day 90 plus 40% empty equip - 126 total Inbound movement of loads and empties via rail lines should be approximately equal to outbound movement and for the foreseeable future up to 6 million tons of production service provided will not exceed two trains each direction daily at speed of 15mph. Ferd Geyer, 116 Nazro Street, asked the amount of right -of -way width proposed to which Mr. Austin replied 50 -feet through subdivisions, 100 feet through Ashbel Smith property and 200 feet approaching Cedar Bayou. Councilman Braswell stated that the disruption of traffic would be felt on more streets than has been mentioned and favored the southern route, crossing West Main on an overpass thus avoid crossing any street east of Goose Creek, the railroad will be much closer to possible bay outlets. Clarence Baker, Chief Engineer, reported that different routes had been under study as it has been his assignment to conduct a survey and select the most feasible route to serve the area, doing the least damage and causing the least disruption both in 1956 and in the presnet request. His prime assignment has been to locate and build railroads; after the study has been made, knowing the conditions required to build a railroad that will carry the tonnage that this railroad will be required to carry, in his opinion the route that MPRR has selected is the best route, the shortest route, will cross the least number of streets and has the best subgrade b support a railroad. The southern route goes through the low -lying areas, crossing Goose Creek, the slue that goes into Cedar Bayou and that type of ground will not support a railroad. Fero Geyer, 116. Nazro, reported upon a conversation he recently had with the Manager of the Baytown Chamber of Commerce and was told that within 15 -years this proposed steel complex would be one of the largest in the United States. If this statement if true, more than two or three trains a day will be required to service the demands of such an industrial complex. 4174 Dr. Robert Hill suggested the MPRR going the same route as the SPRR. He proposed the rural route along Cedar Bayou. J. A. Austin agreed that MPRR could go this route now with less property damage in relation to homes but he had seen a comphrehensive planning map for Baytown which provided for future development in the northern perimeter. Councilman Don Hullum the present Council is concerned not only about the present but the future; does not want Baytown to become as Beaumont which is faced with the problem of elevating tracks over streets or streets over tracks at the tax - payers expense to solve some of the problems which Baytown could be faced with under the original pro- posal; not against progress, not against U. S. Steel, but if U. S. Steel does not come to Baytown will not be because the Council or the citizens of Baytown did not want them but because MPRR was either, unable or unwilling to try and give them the service. He has listened to the problems involved and speaking for himself, and not an opinion of the Council, thinks that any route through city limits of Baytown will have to be a mutual agreement and not a one -way street as has been proposed here tonight. . . Councilman Donnelly pointed out that it was mentioned that the northern route would cross five streets and presently the MPRR corss nineteen (197 streets in Baytown. Not proposing the company abandon its present trackage because of its customers along the track, but a northern route would be more feasible since it would cross five rather than some twenty -four (24) streets in the original proposal. Councilman Massey asked if the northern route to the plant site was of any significance in relation to mileage to Houston the terminal point; other alternate routes also. Dr. Walmsley introduced petitions, with 102 signatures, from residents of Roseland Oaks Subdivision petitioning the Baytown City Council to disapprove any requests for railroad right -of -way that would lie within one mile of the limits of the-subdivision. Councilman Donnelly moved to accept the petitions as presented. Councilman Braswell seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Councilmen Ball, Massey, Hullum, Braswell, Fanestiel and Donnelly. Mayor Cravey Nays : None Andrew Lannie - Resolution Andrew J. Lannie, President of the Roseland Oaks Civic Association, introduced and read a resolution of the Roseland Oaks Civic Association which by a majority vote of the number present at a special meeting Friday, July 29, 1966, resolve that the Association go on record in appeal to the City Council of the City of Baytown; and Missouri Pacific Railroad; to build the proposed spur into the U. S.'Steel Property parallel to Interstate Highway 10 into Chambers County, and continue'South on to' U. S. Steel Site. Councilman Donnelly moved to accept the resolution as submitted. Councilman Braswell seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: 'Councilmen Ball, Massey, Hullum, Braswell, Fanestiel and Donnelly. Mayor Cravey , Nays: None After some further discussion, Councilman Donnelly moved to instruct the City Manager to invite representatives of Southern Pacific RR, Missouri Pacific RR, U. S. Steel, Baytown Chamber of Commerce and interested petitioners of Roseland Oaks, Wynnewood, Harper and Lawndale Additions to a joint meeting with the City Council for the purpose of discussing the how & why of the request in order to determine if there are or are noL areas to negotiate a feasible compromise on the routing of the aMopac spur track to service U. S. Steel. Councilman Ball seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Councilmen Ball, Massey, Hullum, Braswell, Fanestiel and Donnelly. Mayor Cravey Nays: None 4175 Petitions - Ferd Geyer Harper Addition. Wynnewood and adjacent Subdivisions Mr. Geyer, speaking for the Wynnewood. Harper, Lawndale and Lamar Courts subdivision submitted petitions, bearing 134 signatures, asking the City Council to oppose the planned spur extension of the MPRR through the southeast section of the city and in place of such plan to offer the MPRR the privilege of crossing city streets in the part of a spur on the north side of the city. which would parallel the south edge of Interstate Highway 10 and continue east into Chambers County thereby reaching the planned U. S. Steel manufacturing complex. Councilman Braswell moved to accept rthe petitions as presented. Councilman Donnelly seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Councilmen Ball, Massey, Hallam, Braswell, Fanes.tiei and Donnelly. Mayor Cravey Nays: None Councilman Braswell once again urged the MPRR to look at the Southern route as he was of the opinion that the company would not have trouble getting through the area in question. Councilman Ball supported Councilman Braswell in his proposed routing due to the comprehensive planning for the north section of the city limits. Recess With some further discussion, the motion was made and seconded that the meeting recess until Monday, August 8th at which time the discussion will be resumed with hopes of a solution as proposed by the motion of Councilman Donnelly. (�� Ir l l�lAl w l Edna Oliver, ity C1� erk r r