1977 02 16 WS Minutes6169
MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
February 16, 1977
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in a work
session, Wednesday, February 16, 1977, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber of the Baytown City Hall. The following members were in
attendance:
Jody Lander Councilman
Jack Kimmons Councilman
Ted Kloesel Councilman
Mary E. Wilbanks Councilwoman
Emmett Hutto Councilman
Allen Cannon Councilman
Tom Gentry Mayor
Fritz Lanham City Manager
Neel Richardson City Attorney
Eileen P. Hall City Clerk
Dan Savage Assistant City Manager
Mayor Gentry called the meeting to order in the Conference
Room, but due to the crowd present, the meeting actually convened
in the Council Chamber.
After the hearing on the West District Sewage Treatment Plant
on January 27, 1977, the Administration requested that Langford
Engineering, Inc., Consulting Engineers to the City of Baytown,
develop cost estimates to discharge treated wastewater from the
proposed treatment facilities near Interstate Highway 10 to the
San Jacinto River in lieu of Spring Gully (i.e. Burnett Bay). The
consulting engineers have been in contact with State and Federal
agencies and have prepared information in this regard for Council's
consideration.
Langford Engineering has prepared and presented a written re-
port for Council's consideration, but since Council did not have
time to review this report, Ivan Langford, Jr. was present to re-
view the report with Council. In their study to obtain cost esti-
mates, the consulting engineers determined:
1. That the EPA may consider funding the alternate route
if Council determines that this route would be in the best
interest of the City.
2. That the most cost - effective plan (including considera-
tion of the effect of the discharge on the proposed receiving
water course) would be discharging into Burnet Bay via Spring
Gully from the Interstate Highway 10 site. The City Council
has the prerogative to determine based on both technical and
non - technical information presented at the public hearing
that an alternate plan is the most cost - effective. In this
case, that would be discharging into the San Jacinto River in
leiu of Spring Gully.
3. That after consideration of all factors and citizen's in-
put, the City Council should determine that the treated waste-
water discharge should be routed to the San Jacinto River,
then the choice of sites previously considered (existing Lake-
wood Sewage Treatment Plant, east of Bayway Drive, or Inter-
state Highway 10 at Spring Gully) would automatically be limited
to the Interstate Highway 10 site as the most cost - effective
alternate plan. The engineers feel that the best alternate
6170
Minutes of a Work Session - February 16, 1977
route would be down Interstate Highway 10 on the north side
since effluent from this proposed facility would discharge
into the San Jacinto River on the north side of the Inter-
state Highway 10 bridge. For this reason, the plant will be
designed for an effluent quality of 20 mg /1 B.O.D. and 20 mg/
1 T. S. S. in lieu of the 10 mg /l and 15 mg /l respectively
for a Spring Gully discharge. This point of discharge would
be in segment 1001 of the San Jacinto River Basin. By going
in north of the bridge, the pipeline could go in through a
bluff so that the line could terminate at the edge of the river;
otherwise, by going in south of the river bridge, the city may
have to build on out to the water just to get the pipe covered
which would be expensive construction. Also, on the south side
between the Interstate Highway 10 and Market Street Bridge,
people use this area to fish from and launch boats. Also,
when crossing interstate highways, the pipe must be intercased
from right of way to right of way line and the same is true
of entrance and exit ramps. There are six entrance and exit
ramps on the south side and only two crossing on the north
side. In both cases, going south or north, the CIWA faciliites
would have to be crossed. The consulting engineers have also
spoken with representatives of CIWA who state that there would
be no problem as far as crossing CIWA pipe. The Texas Highway
Department has been contacted and there is no problem with lo-
cating the line within their right of way as long as the city
stays close to the property line. The only land acquisition
that the city may be faced with would be at the point of dis-
charge where the pipe would be turned somewhat northwest to
get into the bluff.
Assuming that the EPA would agree to fund the alternate route,
the city's share would increase by $86,000.00 to a total of
$1,257,550.00. However, if the EPA should refuse to fund the
alternate route, the city would have to assume the cost of
$1,580,950.00 which would be an increase of $410,000.00 to the
city over the original amount of $1,171,250.00. The posibilities
of receiving funding from the EPA are very good, but EPA will not
make a determination until all the facts are presented. EPA does
give very strong consideration to input from the public which is
the reason for holding a public hearing.
The City Council may elect to go ahead and adopt the Facility
Plan to go to Burnett Bay through Spring Gully. However, the city
would be looking toward a big word battle when it is time to obtain
a waste discharge permit because at that time there will be a
public hearing, and at that time the Texas Water Quality Board
could very well refuse the city a permit due to citizen opposition.
Then, there would be no doubt as to what the most cost - effective
plan would be - -the alternate plan to discharge into the San Jacinto
River. If this were to happen, then the city will have lost a con-
siderable amount of time because certain procedures would have to
be re- instituted. Therefore, it appears that the most timely man-
ner in which to proceed and still leave options open to the city
would be to adopt a resolution at the next Council meeting which
would adopt the Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment Survey
for the West Sewer District with the necessary changes with regard
to the alternate route and go ahead and submit the Facility Plan
and Environmental Assessment Survey to the Texas Water Quality
Board to be processed and forwarded to the EPA for consideration.
Usually, the EPA will accept the recommendation of the Texas Water
Quality Board. All the technical information will be prepared
by the next Council meeting and upon Council approval can be for-
warded to the Texas Water Quality Board.
Since according to the enforcement order, the City of Baytown
is to be on stream and have all problems solved by December 31, 1978,
which is a very tight time schedule, the city must consider the
6171
Minutes of a Work Session - February 16, 1977
options in the event the EPA refuses to fund the alternate route.
In that event, the City could issue certificates of obligation,
which will probably be necessary regardless, since the City will
not have the money for the original $1,171,250.00. It appears
that the City will have available $826,000.00 or possibly $80,000.00
to $90,000.00 above the $826,000.00 to expend toward these improve-
ments. These certificates of obligation would be retired just as
bonds are retired. The reason for the possible $80,000.00 to
$90,000.00 more is that when Council approved the change order to
the existing contract, the EPA and Water Quality Board also ap-
proved that change order, but the City is not assured that these
agencies will actually fund that change order. They have indicated
they will fund that change order if funds are available. Revenue
Sharing Funds could be used for this purpose and if there are
extra funds in the budget, this money could be used. The penalty
if the City does not meet the December 31 deadline is $1,000.00
per day. Mr. Langford said that he did not know of any group
that had been assessed this penalty, but that the City of San
Antonio had been assessed $30,000.00 for a violation that had
been occurring for a long period of time. If the City can begin
construction to show that it is working toward compliance, then
the enforcement group will usually grant an extension, but if
construction has not begun, then the City could be in real trouble
and have to expend from $100,000.00 to $200,000.00 to keep the
process moving.
The consulting engineers recommended that the resolution be
drafted so that the governmental agencies involved would know that
in response to citizens' participation and in the best interest of
the City, the City Council of the City of Baytown determined that
the alternate route would be the best alternative. Mr. Langford
pointed out that the important thing at this time would be to
get the Step 2 grant because this is the grant that allows the
City to complete plans and specifications. It is reasonable to
assume that once this is accomplished'in an orderly and timely
manner, that the City will be funded under Step 3 which is the
actual construction money.
Council inquired of the citizens in the audience (approximately
100) if there was anyone present who would oppose the discharge of
effluent into the San Jacinto River. No one present was opposed
to this alternate route.
Council asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the
next Council meeting so that Council would be able to consider
either route. By that time, Council should have some response
from Congressman Eckhardt, who will be reporting to Council con-
cerning his findings regarding the City's chances of having the
alternate route funded. Mr. Lanham, City Manager, said that two
resolutions would be prepared - -one, approving the Facility Plan
and Environmental Assessment Survey as is, and the other, approving
the Facility Plan and Environmental Assessment Survey with the
alternate route.
There being no further business to discuss, the motion was
made and duly seconded to adjourn. The vote was unanimous to
adjourn.
EILEEN P. HALL, City Clerk