1980 03 27 CC Minutes00327 -1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
March 27, 1980
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in regu-
lar session on Thursday, March 27, 1980, at 6:30 p.m. in the
Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the following
members in attendance:
Fred T. Philips
Jimmy Johnson
Ted Kloesel
Mary E. Wilbanks
Eileen Caffey
Allen Cannon
Emmett 0. Hutto
Fritz Lanham
Dan Savage
Scott Bounds
Eileen P. Hall
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilwoman
Councilwoman
Councilman
Mayor
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hutto and the invo-
cation was offered by Councilwoman Wilbanks.
Minutes
Councilman Philips moved for approval of the minutes of the
regular meeting of March 13, 1980; Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded
the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel,
Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Receive Petitions
Dennis Caputo, Vice President of the Country Club Associa-
tion, presented a petition to Council with 1,000 signatures of
residents of Baytown. The petition pointed out their concern
about storm water flooding in Baytown that has grown as a result
of recent flooding in Allenbrook, Country Club Oaks, and Craig -
mont as well as other subdivisions within the community. Goose
Creek, Slapout Gully, Cedar Bayou and their tributaries have
demonstrated that they are already at or very near their maximum
storm water carrying capacity during prolonged heavy but not
infrequent rains. Future developments, like the expansions of
West Town Shopping Center and Quail Hollow, along with major new
construction, like the San Jacinto Mall and the proposed General
Homes development, will all significantly increase the storm
water run -off into these creeks and bayous unless corrective
action is taken. This could erode the existing tax base and lead
to the deterioration of neighborhoods. To prevent the flooding
of the established neighborhoods within Baytown while insuring
that the community will continue to grow, the citizens petition
City Council to develop and implement such ordinances as may be
necessary to insure that all major developments or expansions,
whether industrial, residential, commercial or municipal be
designed and built in such a manner to insure that they neither
cause nor contribute to flooding in the city.
Air. Caputo explained that many are referring to the 1980's
as a decade for development in Baytown but it could be a decade
for disaster. In recent years, flooding has become a major
concern here in Baytown and all along the coast. Last year, over
$200 million dollars for flood damage was spent in Harris County
00327 -2
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
alone, which is more than all the damage due to flooding in the
United States in 1978. Baytown was more fortunate than most.
There can no longer be a doubt that paving and roofing over the
watersheds has been a primary contributor to the flooding problems
along the Gulf Coast. Baytown is surrounded on three sides by
water. The only avenue for growth is to the north and into the
very watersheds that we have grown to depend upon to retain
rainwater and prevent flooding in our community. Baytown is
growing into these watersheds at a "phenomenal" rate according to
the City Planning Commission. Mr. Caputo explained that the
emphasis is placed on the word "major," because the citizens do
not want to unduly handicap the individual building of a house or
a single store. The citizens realize that this is not a simple
issue but at stake are homes, the possible loss of a significant
tax base to the City, and the growth of Baytown itself. A recent
study for the Baker Road Baptist Church has shown that the popu-
lation within a one mile radius of Garth and Baker Roads will be
over 20,000 by 1985. This was before the San Jacinto Mall was
announced which will only increase the development in this area.
Goose Creek is already at its maximum carrying capacity and
doubling the amount of water could cause the flooding of over 500
homes. The same situation exists on nearly every creek and bayou
in Baytown. Mr. Caputo felt that Baytown can grow and prosper
without flooding the established neighborhoods, if the City
Council acts now. The techniques for flood prevention are not
new. Greenbelts and parks can be used as retention ponds.
Parking lots and rooftops can be designed to hold back runoff
beyond what would normally come from the undeveloped land until
the danger of flooding has passed. Porous pavement allowing
water to soak into the soil is now being used at the Woodlands.
Paved areas can be broken up with areas of grass and trees to
impede the flow of runoff.
The citizens recognize that nothing in this world is free.
It can cost $200 or more per lot and require setting aside 3% of
the land for an adequate storm water retention system for a
development of single family homes. However, a retention pond on
green belt areas can be used as an asset by the developer to
increase the value of the property he is selling if it is prop-
erly designed. Who should pay these costs? In those areas where
such ordinances have been passed, the developer and the community
share in the cost over 25% of the time. This is the way the
citizens of Baytown think it should be done in Baytown. Such
avenues as reduced taxes or fees, and the City participating in
studying the impact of a new development are some means of
sharing the costs.
If an ordinance is not enacted quickly, the costs to the
established community, to those who have helped Baytown grow over
these many years, will be far greater than the costs to the
developer. The loss of a home can represent the loss of a life-
time of savings and it represents a loss that a dollar figure can
never be put on. Because of the importance of this issue, the
citizens recommend that a blue ribbon panel be established to
assist in developing this ordinance. The panel could consist of
the City Attorney, member of the Council and a member of City
Administration, representative from the community and a represen-
tative of realtors and developments in the community and an
outside expert familiar with the techniques and alternatives
available.
Such an ordinance properly developed can help rather than
impede Baytown's growth. Baytown can become a leader in pro-
tecting its citizens while encouraging responsible growth. It is
important to realize that such an ordinance will not solve
existing flooding problems but it can help prevent new ones.
Councilman Johnson moved to accept the petition; Councilman
Kloesel seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel,
Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
00327 -3
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that in addition to accepting
the petition, she would like to respond to Mr. Caputo's sugges-
tion of having a blue ribbon panel set up on this. She felt that
in this group of people, the Council might want a representative
from the Planning Commission. This detail might be turned over
to the Administration and let them come back to Council at the
next meeting so Council can decide how the Council wants to
approach the matter.
Mayor Hutto recognized Jack Walker, a member of the Lakewood
Civic Association, who concurred with Mr. Caputo's statement.
Mr. Walker stated that Spring Gully is going to have to become a
major artery for flooding in that area. It is going to require a
major overhauling to bring Spring Gully up to standard in order
to drain that portion where a new housing development is pro -
posed. Mr. Walker ended his presentation by suggesting that a
member of the Harris County Flood Control District serve on the
proposed blue ribbon panel.
Councilman Philips requested that the Administration have a
committee ready to be named at the next Council meeting and also
that the Administration draft for that next meeting a resolution
which will formalize that group and charge it with a responsibi-
lity to do that necessary study work to bring to the Council at
the earliest possible date.
Mayor Hutto recognized Mr. L. R. Koleen, a gentleman who
lives on Cedar Bayou Road that is experiencing flooding problems.
He stated that the railroad tracks are holding water back on
Cedar Bayou Road because there are not enough culverts to handle
the flow of water during heavy rains. He felt that if the rail-
road company would come out and improve the culverts, this would
help alleviate many flooding problems in that area. He also
stated that he has gotten water in his home twice.
Councilman Kloesel stated that he felt this is an emergency
situation and requested that the Administration identify those
areas that are flooding and then the Council needs to notify the
railroad and ask them to correct the situation.
Councilman Cannon stated that he had spoken with Mrs.
Rhodes today and he had been in touch with Mr. Lanham, and the
City was not aware that residents on Cedar Bayou Road had gotten
water in their homes. He stated that the Council had set priori-
ties and tried to solve problems in areas where residents had
gotten water in their homes. Council did not set priorities in
this particular area because Council was unaware of the bad
situation there.
Mrs. Rhodes inquired as to what is the procedure when a
person is experiencing problems. Mr. Lanham explained that a
citizen should contact the City Manager's office.
Mayor Hutto recognized a lady from the audience who ex-
plained that she cannot stay in her home because she does not
have any sanitary sewer service due to the high water. Council -
man Philips explained that this is a high priority item and
requested that the City Manager check into this and report back
to Council. Councilman Philips also requested that Norman Dykes,
City Engineer /Director of Public Works, take a look at the
culvert on Cedar Bayou Road and report back to Council.
City Manager's Report
Civics Day - On March 20, 1980, Robert E. Lee High School
students held Civics Day. The students participating served as
council members and in various administrative positions. The
students that were in the audience and their instructor were
introduced. Sterling High School has scheduled Civics Day for
Thursday, April 10, 1980. The students will serve as council
members and also in various administrative positions.
Run -off Election - Council set a tentative date for the run-
00327 -4
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
off election, if one is necessary, for Tuesday, April 22, 1980.
Formal action will be taken on April 10, 1980.
Houston Lighting & Power - The Administration has received a
letter from Houston Lighting & Power regarding the change in base
cost and fuel cost for the month of April, 1980. The base cost
is being reduced from $25.46 to $20.20 for 1,000 kilowatt hours.
That reduction is a result of the rates that have been approved
by the Public Utilities Commission. Houston Lighting & Power
will be refunding any over - collection with interest to its cus-
tomers. There also was a reduction in fuel cost. Fuel cost in
January was $24.05 for 1,000 kilowatt hours and that amount has
been reduced to $21.94. Total reduction is approximately $6.00.
Entex - The Administration has placed at the Council table a
copy of the document that Entex has filed with the City, indi-
cating intent to change the rates for small commercial and resi-
dential customers by $.17 per month. It would be an increase in
the base rate and it would apply to everyone and would cost each
customer $2.04 per year. With that increase, it is not necessary
for the Council to hold a formal public hearing but it is neces-
sary for the Council to take action. The last time this was
considered, an article was placed in the paper that Council would
be considering an item in this regard.
Mayor Hutto stated that from lack of citizen interest in
past rate hearings, he did not feel it would be necessary to hold
a formal hearing.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Scott Bounds, City
Attorney, explained that Entex is regulated under the Public
Utilities Commission Regulatory Act by the Railroad Commission
and the City of Baytown does not have a cost of service adjust-
ment clause for gas rates. Entex does have an automatic cost of
service clause with other municipalities and with the Railroad
Commission for certain areas. This time, each year, Entex up-
dates their revenue figures that they have on file with the
Railroad Commission and through the update, they are levying the
cost of service adjustment of 170 in the Texas division. The
City of Baytown does not have the cost of service adjustment but
it is necessary to change the rates after review. The total
impact of the rate increase for Baytown, over the year, would be
approximately $29,000. Mr. Bounds felt that it is consistent
with the package that they had filed with the Railroad Commission.
Councilman Philips inquired if it would be possible, by a
telephone call to the Railroad Commission, to ask if this in-
crease that has been filed by Entex in their offices, is in line.
Mr. Bounds explained that the City can compare it with rates
charged in other areas.
Councilman Philips felt that this would give the City a
checkpoint and would satisfy the citizens in Baytown that they
are paying comparable to other areas. Mr. Bounds felt that this
cost of service adjustment is modest compared to other areas for
Entex service.
Mr. Lanham explained that the Administration will get Coun-
cil this information.
Public camping - At the last meeting, the Administration was
asked about ordinances regarding public camping. The ordinances
that the city has, relative to living in travel trailers, does
not apply in this case, where a bus is parked on Goose Creek with
persons camping. The Administration felt that in order to make
these ordinances applicable, the City would need to broaden the
definition of a travel trailer. The present ordinances specifi-
cally provide that no travel trailer shall be used or occupied as
a residence except in a licensed mobile home park. An item in
this regard will be placed on the next Council agenda..
Cedar Bayou Stream - At the last meeting, Council inquired
about a possibility of widening Cedar Bayou Stream. The Adminis-
tration contacted the Corps of Engineers regarding this and they
00327 -5
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
indicated that a benefit analysis on widening is difficult unless
some industrial development is involved. They indicated it is
very difficult to quantify widening for purposes other than for
industrial development. They also indicated that it takes the
Corps of Engineers a very long time to accomplish anything. Mr.
Lanham stated that the Administration will continue to gather
information on this. It appears there may be increased use of
Cedar Bayou based on applications for dredging permits.
Department of Housing and Urban Development - Community
Development Block Grant Program - The Administration was visited
by a representative of HUD last week on the City's Community
Development Program. This program is monitored on an annual
basis. The representative reported to the Administration that
HUD is pleased with the target areas selected for the Community
Development Program and with what progress has been made. The
representative encouraged the City to concentrate its efforts on
small areas to make a greater impact, rather than spreading the
City's efforts over a large area.
Texas Department of Highways and Public Transportation - The
Administration had been notified by the Texas Department of High-
ways and Public Transportation that they propose to take bids in
May on the signal work they are scheduled to do in Baytown. The
signals involved are Main at Bob Smith, Main at Cedar Bayou, Main
at Midway, Main at Park, Main at Williams, and Main at James.
All of these intersections will be modernized and interconnected.
Another intersection that will be included is Pruett at Williams.
When this signal is improved, it will be interconnected to the
Pruett system.
Councilman Kloesel stated that he would like to conduct a
visit and inspection tour with representatives of the Department
of Housing and Urban Development when in Baytown again. He felt
there are some things that the City has experienced in this
project that HUD needs to set in their guidelines. He further
stated that approximately two weeks ago he went on a tour with a
citizen that had previously lived in one of the areas that was
included under the Community Development funds. One of the areas
included had culverts put in, but the culvert would not accept
any drainage.
Drainage - City forces - McKinney Road project, Crosby Cedar
Bayou Road project, Tri -City Beach Road project, Allenbrook III
project and the enlargement of the storm sewer box inlets have
all been completed; East Schreck project - 50% complete; Allen -
brook II project - 98% complete, and Massey Tompkins Road - 1570
complete.
Drainage - Harris County Flood Control District - HCFCD has
ordered pipe for the additional crossing of the Flood Control
Ditch under Kilgore Road. The HCFCD is scheduled to open its
maintenance office on North Main Street on April 7, 1980.
Questions and Comments Regarding City Manager's Report
Councilman Philips felt that the City is making such good
progress on the drainage items that again the City should look at
its list and re- examine the priorities and budget. He felt that
the City has made good progress in the past and now the City will
be able to set new priorities.
Mr. Lanham explained there will be other areas that will
need to be looked at as a result of the heavy rains that occurred
today.
Councilwoman Wilbanks inquired about the new police vehicles
that were delivered today. Mr. Lanham explained that the vehi-
cles were delivered but were not driven from Houston by Baytown
police officers.
Councilman Johnson inquired if the Administration had
00327 -6
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Aiarch 27, 1980
received any feedback in regards to the center lane at the inter-
section of Cedar Bayou and Highway 146. Mr. Lanham explained
that the person he had spoken with at the state level has asked
that the entire roadway be overlayed.
Councilman Johnson commented that a statement in the news-
paper with regard to the demolition of the old Rexall building
which indicated the City of Baytown is responsible for the upkeep
of buildings on Texas Avenue was incorrect.
Councilman Philips stated that the City has gone to a lot of
expense and trouble to set the lights so that they are timed to
conform to set traffic limits, but on the streets where he
travels, the lights seem to change. He inquired if the sequence
on the lights is subject to drifting. Bill Cornelius, Director
of Planning and Traffic, explained that the Pruett system varies
because there is a 20 mile per hour speed zone because of the
school. That is the only one designed to change during school
hours. North Main system has not been put on a timed system.
Decker Drive and Highway 146 signals are on a timed system and
they do not drift.
Councilman Johnson stated that with regard to school zones,
he felt that it would be nice if the school zones could be set
from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m, and 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. He stated that he
travels through several school zones through several cities, and
the school zones set for two -hour intervals work very well.
Mr. Lanham explained that the Administration can take this
suggestion to the Traffic Committee. Council concurred.
Mayor Hutto also requested that the Administration go back
to the School Administration with regard to getting one speed on
the section of Baker Road between Garth and North Main.
Councilman Kloesel commented that he has had three citizens
from the East Baytown area requesting that the Traffic Commission
consider making Indiana and Michigan or any of the streets in
that area one -way streets. He further stated that in talking
with the fire department, the firemen are concerned about their
ability to move an emergency vehicle through that area. The
alleys are still blocked and suggested that the police department
warn people about blocking alleys.
Ordinance - Awarding Contract for Construction of Ramp at
Community Building
Council authorized the Administration to take bids for the
construction of a ramp at the Community Building. Four bids were
received. The low bid was from Riggs Construction in the amount
of $6,375.60. Jan Lammers, architect for the City of Baytown,
stated that these bids were reflective of what has been happening
around the community. Mr. Lammers recommended the bid be awarded
to the low bidder. The Administration concurred with that recom-
mendation.
Councilman Kloesel moved that Riggs Construction be awarded
the bid for construction of a ramp at the Community Building;
Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel,
Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 2858
AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RAMP AT
THE COMMUNITY BUILDING TO RIGGS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY FOR THE SUM
OF SIX THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY -FIVE AND 60/100 ($6,375.60)
DOLLARS.
00327 -7
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
The bid tabulation is attached as Attachment "A."
Ordinance - Authorizing Publication of Notice to Bidders and
Notice of Intention to Issue Certificates of Obligation
for Water Line to Gentry School and for Sanitary Sewer
Trunk Line in East Wastewater District
The City Council has initiated projects involving the in-
stallation of an oversized water line to Gentry School north of
the city limits and the construction of the East District sani-
tary sewer trunk line. In order to finance these two projects,
it will be necessary to issue certificates of obligation totaling
$1,100,000. Of this total, $100,000 in certificates of obliga-
tion would be used to finance the City's portion of the water
line to Gentry School. A total of $1,000,000 would be used to
supplement 1975 bond funds in financing the cost of the East
District trunk sewer line. These figures are based on the
engineer's estimate of the cost of the projects.
Tom Masterson, representative from Underwood, Neuhaus and
Company, explained that the amount that the City is anticipating
is $1,100,000 for the two projects. Mr. Masterson explained that
the level of interest rates are very high and under these condi-
tions, the City needs to be as innovative as possible. Mr.
Masterson suggested that the City attempt to retire these certi-
ficates of obligation over a ten -year period of time. The logic
there being, if you are going to pay very high interest rates, it
is better to get those bonds paid off and not pay on them for
many years as the City has done when bonds were sold at lower
interest rates. General obligation bonds have been retired over
a twenty -year period, traditionally in Baytown, but Mr. Masterson
suggested that the pattern be broken in order to try to sell
these bonds over a ten -year period and to avoid paying high
interest rates over a long period of time. He explained that he
will also try to get the certificates sold, even though they have
a ten -year maturity, hopefully with a five to six year redemption
privilege. At least the City will have an opportunity should
interest rates decline in the next few years to redeem those
bonds that still remain outstanding, pay them off and re -issue at
lower rates of interest. Mr. Masterson anticipated that if the
City had to sell these bonds today, they would sell at approxi-
mately 8 -3/4% and that could change every day. Bond markets are
not the only markets, the stock market was also off today.
Mr. Lanham inquired that rather than advertising as usually,
what is Mr. Masterson proposing? Mr. Masterson explained that
with Council's permission, it can be done one of two ways. It is
a relatively small amount and it can be done as it has been done
in the past and prepare notice of sale and send it out, and
advertise for bonds and attract competitive bidders. Recently,
most of the bonds that have been sold have not received competi-
tive bidding, simply because there has been so little interest in
municipal bonds in general. Mr. Masterson suggested that in
keeping with the shortened maturity schedule and the shortened
option of redeeming the bonds, that the City consider finding a
bank or a financial institution to purchase these bonds.
Councilman Philips stated that this whole situation makes
him have second thoughts about holding this until a later date
because things might improve.
Councilman Cannon stated that on the money market, it might
be but on the construction cost, the City will be running a
higher risk.
Councilman Philips felt that it will probably tend to go
hand in hand, the cost of money sets the cost of construction
because contractors borrow all the money for operations.
Councilman Kloesel inquired if the interest rates might go
down in the future. Mr. Masterson stated that it is his opinion
that interest rates are near their peaks, but that he does not
see an end to the inflationary cycle or a significant improve-
00327 -8
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
ment.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham explained
that the East District Trunk Sewer is to relieve overloaded
conditions in a couple of areas -- Whispering Pines and Chaparral
Village. He further stated that he felt that this is a case of
Council's best judgment since construction costs have gone up and
the City has not benefited from delay in the past.
Councilman Philips stated that the interest rates have just
taken a jump in the bond market. Mr. Masterson explained that
the bond market turned down in the first week in October drama-
tically and then stabilized from November through January and
then cratered.
Councilman Philips inquired if Mr. Masterson would advise a
"wait and see" posture for perhaps thirty days. Mr. Masterson
stated that if Council wants him to combine his views on interest
rates with views on construction costs, his view would probably
be to suggest that Council go ahead and sell the certificates of
obligation. He further stated that even though interest rates
may be near peaking, he does not anticipate a significant re-
versal for probably six months or more which would mean inflation
will eat up any savings that the City might make on interest
rates.
Councilman Johnson moved for the adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Kloesel seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel,
Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
00327 -9
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
CERTIFICATE FOR ORDINANCE
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTIES OF HARRIS AND CHAMBERS §
CITY OF BAYTOWN §
We, the undersigned officers of the CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS (the
"City "), hereby certify as follows:
1. The City Council of
the 27th day of March, 1980,
within the City, and the roll
cers and members of the City
Emmett 0. Hutto
Ted Kloesel
Jimmy Johnson
Eileen Caffey
Allen Cannon
Fred T. Philips
Mary E. Wilbanks
Eileen P. Hall
the City convened in regular meeting on
at its regular meeting place thereof,
was called of the duly constituted offi-
Council and the City Clerk, to -wit:
Mayor
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Clerk
and all of said persons were present, except the following absentees:
none , thus constituting a quorum.
Whereupon, among other business, the following was transacted at said
meeting: a written
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE
CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 1980
(the "Ordinance ") was duly introduced for the consideration of the City
Council and read in full. It was then duly moved and seconded that the
Ordinance be adopted;•and, after due discussion, said motion, carrying
with it the adoption of the Ordinance, prevailed and carried by the fol-
lowing vote:
AYES: All members of the City Council shown present above
voted "Aye ".
NAYS: None.
2. That a true, full and correct copy of the Ordinance adopted at
the meeting described in the above and foregoing paragraph is attached
to and follows this certificate; that the Ordinance has been duly recorded
in the City Council's minutes of said meeting; that the above and fore-
going paragraph is a true, full and correct excerpt from the City Council's
minutes of said meeting pertaining to the adoption of the Ordinance; that
the persons named in the above and foregoing paragraph are the duly chosen,
qualified and acting officers and members of the City Council as indicated
therein; that each of the officers and members of the City Council was
duly and sufficiently notified officially and personally, in advance, of
the date, hour, place and subject of the aforesaid meeting, and that the
Ordinance would be introduced and considered for adoption at said meeting,
and each of said officers and members consented, in advance, to the
holding of such meeting for such purpose; that said meeting was open to
the public as required by law; and that public notice of the date, hour,
place and subject of said meeting was given as required by Vernon's
Article 6252 -17, as amended.
SIGNED AND SEALED this 27th day
City Clerk
(SEAL)
of March, 1980.
la"1100 _ A
00327 -10 '
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
ORDINANCE NO. 2859
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS,
CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 1980
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTIES OF HARRIS AND CHAMBERS §
CITY OF BAYTOWN §
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS
(the "City "), deems it advisable to issue Certificates of
Obligation of the City in accordance with the notice herein-
after set forth; therefore
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN,
TEXAS:
Section 1. The facts and recitations contained in the
preamble of this ordinance are hereby found and declared to
be true and correct.
Section 2. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and
directed to cause to be published in the manner required by
law a notice of intention to issue Certificates of Obligation
in substantially the following form:
N
00327 -�11
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City
of Baytown, Texas (the "City "), will meet in the City Hall,
City of Baytown, Texas, at 6:30 p.m. on April 24, 1980, to
adopt an ordinance authorizing the issuance of the City's Cer-
tificates of Obligation, payable from City ad valorem taxes
and revenues of the sanitary sewer system of the City, in the
maximum aggregate principal amount of $1,100,000, bearing in-
terest at any rate or rates, not to exceed the maximum interest
rate now or hereafter authorized by law, as shall be determined
within the discretion of the City Council, and maturing over a
period of years not to exceed twenty (20) years from the date
thereof, for the purpose of evidencing the indebtedness of the
City for all or any part of the cost of extending and improving
(1) the sanitary sewer system of the City (a maximum principal
amount of $1,000,000 of Certificates of Obligation to be issued
for this purpose) and (2) the waterworks system of the City (a
maximum principal amount of $100,000 of Certificates of Obliga-
tion to be issued for this purpose), respectively, and the cost
of professional services incurred in connection therewith.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE CITY, this
27th day of March, 1980.
(SEAL)
/s/ Eileen P. Hall
City Clerk
CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS
00327 -12
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Section 3. The notice set forth in Section 2 above shall
be published once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper which is of general circulation in the City, the date
of the first publication to be not less than fourteen (14) days
prior to the date tentatively set in said notice for the passage
of the ordinance authorizing the issuance of such Certificates
of Obligation.
Section 4. The Mayor, City Clerk, and other officers of
the City are hereby authorized and directed to do any and all
things necessary or desirable to carry out the provisions of
this ordinance.
Section 5. This ordinance shall take effect immediately
upon its passage.
Section 6. It is hereby officially found and determined
that the need of the City for such financing creates an emer-
gency and an urgent public necessity for the holding, at the
scheduled time, of the meeting of the City Council at which
this ordinance is adopted and for the adoption of this ordi-
nance; and the NOTICE OF MEETING relating to said meeting and
heretofore posted by the City Clerk, and the posting thereof,
are hereby authorized, approved, and ratified.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 27th day of March, 1980.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS
(SEAL)
Mayor
CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS
00327 -13
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Councilman Philips stated that he would like to encourage
the short term redemption period. Mr. Masterson explained that
with respect to the manner of selling these bonds, what is Coun-
cil's preference? Would Council like for Mr. Masterson to work
out something with a financial institution to purchase the bonds?
Mr. Lanham explained that would be his recommendation. Council
requested that Mr. Masterson negotiate the best deal possible
for the City.
Ordinance - Amending the Wrecker Ordinance to Alter the
Composition of the Wrecker Committee
Presently, the Wrecker Committee is composed of three citi-
zens not in the wrecker business, the Chief of Police, and a
representative of the Baytown Wreckers Association. There have
been cases in the past several months where both the Chief of
Police and the representative of the Baytown Wreckers Association
had a conflict of interest. At the last meeting, Council in-
structed the Administration to prepare an ordinance which would
change the makeup of that committee to five citizens not in the
wrecker business. The proposed ordinance abolishes the present
wrecker committee and establishes initial terms of office for
three members for one year and two members for two years. All
terms will begin in April and all succeeding appointments will be
for two - years. Mr. Lanham also stated that Council can reappoint
the citizen members of the present committee if Council so
wishes. The Administration recommended approval of the ordi-
nance.
Councilman Cannon moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilwoman Caffey seconded the motion.
Councilman Kloesel stated that he has reservations about the
proposed ordinance because he felt that the people in the wrecker
business, despite the problems, should be allowed to serve on the
committee. If there is a possibility of a conflict of interest,
he felt those members that have a personal or business conflict
should abstain from voting. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Wilbanks,
Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Councilman Kloesel
ORDINANCE NO. 2860
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6, "AUTO WRECKERS AND TOWING VEHI-
CLES," OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO RE-
STRUCTURE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CITY COUNCIL WRECKER COMMITTEE.
Ordinance - Amending Section 14 -3, Commercial Refuse, of the Code
of Ordinances, With Regard to Collection of Brush
Councilman Kloesel requested that an item be placed on the
agenda to consider amending Section 14 -3 of the Code of Ordi-
nances pertaining to the collection of trees and brush. Council-
man Kloesel stated that he had a conversation with a gentleman
this evening who is interested in this item, but will not be able
to attend the meeting due to the bad weather. Therefore, Coun-
cilman Kloesel asked that Council delay action on this item until
the next meeting. He stated that he is interested in changing
the ordinance to permit a homeowner to select someone to assist
him in trimming his trees and have the trimmings picked up by the
City.
Mr. Lanham explained that the proposed ordinance would
change the definition of "commercial" to mean any person engaged
in the occupation or work of cutting trees on a full or part time
basis and who actively solicits such business by advertising or
other means. The proposed ordinance would mean that a homeowner
00327 -14
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
could hire their neighbor to help them trim their trees and the
City would pick the limbs up. What the Administration is trying
to do in the proposed ordinance is to clearly define "commercial"
as those who are in that business on a full time or part time
basis and not someone who helps their neighbor.
Councilman Kloesel inquired if the Administration would con-
sider word of mouth soliciting as advertising. Per. Lanham ex-
plained that if there is a person going from house to house and
telling people that he is in the business of trimming trees, this
ordinance would define that individual as being a commercial
operator.
Councilman Kloesel moved for adoption of the ordinance.
Councilman Cannon stated that if a commercial hauler or tree
trimmer violates the proposed ordinance, is it covered by a
violation in the Municipal Court? Mr. Bounds explained that it
would not be and the City would simply refuse to pick up the
brush. Councilman Cannon inquired if any more meaning could be
put into this ordinance to state that any violation by a commer-
cial tree trimmer would be subject to a fine. Mr. Bounds ex-
plained that this could be included but he would have to redraft
the ordinance. Mr. Lanham felt that it would be a good idea to
have that provision in the proposed ordinance because now the
homeowner is solely responsible. By putting that provision in
the ordinance, it would put more responsibility on the commercial
operator.
Councilman Cannon requested that action be delayed on this
item to allow time to provide for a penalty clause; Council
concurred.
Ordinance - Awarding Bid for Purchase of Front End Loader / Backhoe
Six bids were received for the purchase of three front end
loader /backhoes for the Public Works Department. The low bid was
submitted by Case Power & Equipment Company for a total cost of
$63,265.98. The agenda packet included a letter from a repre-
sentative of Case Power & Equipment Company relating to their bid
concerning tires specified in the City's specifications. The
City specified that the rear tires were to be sized 18.4 x 24, 8-
ply. The bid document that was filled out by Case Power and
Equipment Company indicated that they would supply tires 17.5 x
2x. Case Power & Equipment Company indicated that 2x was a
typographical error and they indicated that the tire size should
have been bid as 17.5 x 25. Later, it developed that the engi-
neers that worked for Case Power & Equipment Company informed
their salesman that 17.5 x 25 tire could not be placed on this
tractor. The Administration was told and it is their feeling
that should Case Power & Equipment Company be able to supply 17.5
x 25 tires, it would exceed the City's specifications. The
City's bid invitation to bidders states that a bidder must meet
or exceed specifications. Case Power & Equipment Company indi-
cated in their letter that they will actually supply 18.4 x 24
tires as called for on the specifications on all three units bid
to the City of Baytown at the price bid.
Councilwoman Wilbanks absent.
Councilman Johnson stated that in regard to the memorandum
from Dan Savage concerning backhoe maintenance costs, it looks as
if the City has experienced good luck with John Deere backhoes
and the cost per hour looks very reasonable. He inquired if it
would be to the City's advantage, maintenance -wise, to stay with
John Deere. Richard Hare, Assistant Director of Public Works,
explained that John Deere is a good tractor but felt that Case
will be sufficient. The Administration recommended approval.
Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Kloesel seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel,
Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 2861
00327 -15
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF CASE POWER & EQUIPMENT FOR THE
PURCHASE OF THREE FRONT END LOADER /BACKHOES AND AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF THE SUM OF SIXTY -THREE THOUSAND TWO HUN-
DRED SIXTY -FIVE AND 98/100 ($63,265.98) DOLLARS.
The bid tabulation is attached as Attachment "B."
Ordinance - Awarding Contract for 1980 Street Improvement Program
Four bids were received for work on the 1980 Street Improve-
ment Program. Contractors were asked to bid on base bid and an
alternate. Brown and Root of Houston submitted the low base and
alternate bids. The alternate bid provides for the installation
of polypropylene fabric reinforcement on those streets that are
being overlayed and the short portion of Bayway Drive that is
being reconstructed. This fabric reinforcement is designed to
act as a moisture barrier and should add to the life of the
street improvements. The City has on hand in the budget $425,000
for this work. The base bid is $372,610.20 and the alternate bid
totals $385,803.60. If the City adds a contingency of 10% to the
$385,803.60, that amounts to $425,000. The Administration recom-
mended approval of the ordinance which awards the bid for the
1980 Street Improvement Program to Brown & Root and selects the
alternate bid which totals $385,803.60.
In response to a question from Council, Mr. Dykes explained
that the polypropylene fabric reinforcement will only be used on
those streets that are being overlayed. Council felt that by
using this reinforcement fabric, if it works, will save the City
money in the future.
Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel,
Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 2862
AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE 1980 STREET IMPROVE-
MENT PROGRAM TO BROWN & ROOT, INC.; MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
Bid tabulation is attached as Attachment "C."
Councilman Philips stated that last Tuesday night, at the
League of Women Voters forum, there was a strong plea that the
City survey Beech Street. There was a gentleman at that meeting
that was asking the candidates for some help and Councilman
Philips told the gentleman that he would bring this up before
Council and request that a survey be made of Beech Street because
the traffic on that street has increased due to the new church.
Councilman Cannon commented that Council has discussed this
before and the problem that the City keeps running into in trying
to extend Beech Street over the railroad track is that that area
is used as a switching yard. This would make it difficult for
the City to obtain right of way from the railroad.
Councilman Philips inquired if the street could be widened.
Mr. Lanham explained that the street could be constructed with
curb and gutter.
00327 -16
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
After much discussion, Council requested that the Adminis-
tration contact HL &P to determine if some solution could be
reached to improve Beech.
Ordinance - Authorizing Execution of Mutual Aid Fire Protection
Agreement
Council has received a copy of a letter from V. E. Rogers,
Fire Chief of the City of Houston, indicating that a number of
cities in Harris County have expressed an interest in formalizing
their mutual aid agreement. He also provided the Administration
with the proposed mutual aid agreement and under the terms of
this agreement, each party shall be responsible for its own costs
and expenses. Fire service officers responding to a requesting
party will be placed under the command of the requesting party.
Civil liability will remain with the governmental unit that would
be responsible for the liability if the agreement were not in
effect. The providing party shall only dispatch equipment which
is not otherwise required to meet the providing party's needs.
The Administration recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilman Kloesel moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel,
Caffey and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 2863
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN APPROVING
AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO
AN AGREEMENT FOR MUTUAL AID FIRE PROTECTION, MAKING CERTAIN
FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
Ordinance - Establishing Speed Zone on Decker Drive
At its last meeting, the Traffic Commission approved a
motion to reduce the speed limit on Decker Drive between Rolling -
brook and Baker Road from 55 miles per hour to 45 miles per hour.
The Administration recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilman Johnson stated that he read an article in this
regard in the newspaper and at the time that he served on the
Traffic Commission, he had made the statement to Council that
many times, the majority of the members of the commission cannot
attend the meeting, and then only two or three members voted on
an item. At this particular Traffic Commission meeting, only two
members voted on this item. Councilman Johnson did not feel that
an item should be brought to Council when only two members voted
on an issue and therefore, he felt he could not support this
change. He further stated that he saw no reason to change the
speed limit because at peak periods, no one will be able to drive
55 m.p.h. or 45 m.p.h., and felt the volume of traffic will take
care of the speed limit.
Councilman Philips stated that the City has just gone to a
great deal of expense to have the lights timed and the State
Department of Highways and Public Transportation has finally ac-
complished that and saw no basis for the change.
Councilman Cannon stated that he wanted to hear the reasons
for the change. Bill Cornelius, Director of Planning and Traffic,
explained that the reason for the request was the fact that a
person cannot drive 55 m.p.h. even during the off -peak hours
unless late at night to make the signals.
Mayor Hutto inquired if some of the lights on Decker Drive
could be put on blinking after certain hours. Mr. Cornelius ex-
00327 -17
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
plained that with the present equipment this could not be done
unless additional equipment was added.
Mayor Hutto suggested that the speed limit be set to 45
m.p.h. from Garth Road to Baker Road. He felt that the speed
limits should be uniform.
Councilman Philips stated that the City has a speed trap if
a motorist is traveling south on Decker Drive, because the speed
limit drops from 55 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. There is no change in
the density of traffic and there is no change in the road and no
reason for a sudden decrease in speed.
Councilman Kloesel moved that the speed limit from Garth
Road to Rollingbrook Drive be set at 45 m.p.h.; Councilman
Philips seconded the motion.
At the present time, the speed limit from Garth Road to
Airhart is 35 m.p.h.; from Airhart to Rollingbrook is 45 m.p.h.
and Rollingbrook on out is 55 m.p.h.
Councilman Cannon stated that he has a problem with Park
Street traffic because it is difficult to turn off Park Street
onto Decker Drive because there is a yield sign. The vote
follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Councilman Cannon
ORDINANCE NO. 2864
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT OF 45 MILES
PER HOUR FOR MOTOR VEHICLES ON A PORTION OF DECKER DRIVE BETWEEN
ROLLINGBROOK DRIVE AND GARTH ROAD; PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PENALTY
OF TWO HUNDRED AND N01100 ($200.00) DOLLARS; AND PROVIDING FOR
THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Ordinance - Establishing a No Parking Zone on Highway Boulevard
A few years ago when J. J.'s Club was opening, parking was
prohibited on the east side of Highway Boulevard for the entire
length. Later, it was changed and parking was permitted on the
north 191 feet. This is the portion that is across the street
from the businesses located on Highway Boulevard. Parking is
prohibited across from the residences. At the recent meeting of
the Traffic Commission, property owners fronting on Highway
Boulevard requested that the 191 feet of parking on the east side
of Highway Boulevard be made into a no parking zone. The Traffic
Commission recommended approval.
Mayor Hutto stated that he had received a call this after-
noon from a gentleman that indicated he was representing the
owner of this establishment, who no longer desired that parking
be prohibited.
Council postponed taking action on this item.
Ordinance - Authorizing the City to Enter into Agreement with
Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District to
Offer a Reward for Arson Related to Fires at San Jacinto
Elementary and Baytown Junior Schools
State law authorized the City to issue a reward up to $250
for information leading to the arrest and conviction of indi-
viduals involved in arson. The Goose Creek Consolidated Indepen-
dent School District would like to enter into an agreement with
the City of Baytown to increase this reward to a total of $1,000
for information relating to the fires at San Jacinto Elementary
and Baytown Junior Schools. Under the terms of this agreement,
00327 -18
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
the school district will agree to pay all costs incurred by the
City for a reward between $250 and $1,000 if a person should be
charged and convicted of arson with respect to these two schools.
Under the terms of this agreement, an arrest and final conviction
must be made by December 23, 1980.
Councilman Philips inquired if the City is limited by law to
offer a reward of $250. Mr. Bounds explained that he does not
know, but would have to go back to state law and research this,
but by statute, the City is only authorized to offer up to $250.
Councilman Philips stated that he would be interested in
matching the school district's reward.
Councilman Johnson inquired if there was any particular
reason that the school wants to enter into an agreement with the
City? Mr. Lanham explained that the school would like for the
City's investigators to be responsible for administering the
reward.
Mayor Hutto felt there are two things wrong with the agree-
ment. First, the reward is not sufficient and secondly, the
agreement states that the reward is payable only after the in-
formation leading to the arrest and conviction.
Councilman Cannon absent.
Councilman Kloesel stated that usually rewards have these
provisions.
Chief Turner stated that he agrees with the Mayor concerning
the conviction. If the grand jury feels that the evidence is
enough to indict the people, this should be enough evidence to
pay the reward.
Councilman Philips felt that the City should increase the
reward.
Mr. Bounds stated that if Council would like to postpone
action on this item until later in the meeting, he would be glad
to check the City's authority to increase the reward.
Ordinance - Authorizing Final Payment to Banda, Condon & Hudson,
Inc for Completion of Enlargement of Storm Sewer Box Inlets
Banda, Condon & Hudson, Inc. have completed work on the en-
largement of storm sewer box inlets in the Craigmont, Country
Club and Allenbrook subdivisions. This work has been inspected
and approved by the City Engineering Department and they have
recommended approval. The original contract provided for 65 in-
lets; however, 56 were actually constructed. It was necessary to
make some of the box inlets larger than what the Administration
originally planned; therefore, more material was required. The
reason some inlets were deleted from the original plan was that
they would drain a very small area. Most of the inlets deleted
were in the Country Club area. The Administration discovered
that these inlets were served by a 15 -inch line, so the City
could not have increased the capacity of the line by enlarging
the inlets. The Administration recommended approval of the final
payment, but the Administration would like to withhold $2,500
until the lids that the contractor placed on the box inlets are
changed. The present lids are one -half inch less in diameter
than required.
Mayor Hutto inquired if the cleanup work is sufficient.
Councilman Philips stated that he drove by these areas this
morning and there seems to be a rough area on Fairway Drive that
needs smoothing and also a large concrete chunk is laying out in
the open area that needs to be removed.
Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 2865
00327 -19
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE ENLARGEMENT OF STORM
SEWER BOX INLETS BY BANDA, CONDON & HUDSON, INC. FINDING THAT THE
IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT;
ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE;
AUTHORIZING THE FINAL PAYMENT TO THE SAID BANDA, CONDON & HUDSON,
INC. AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Mayor Hutto declared a ten minute recess.
Ordinance - Authorizing the City to Enter into Agreement with
Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District to
Offer a Reward for Arson Related to Fires at San Jacinto
Elementary and Baytown Junior Schools
Mr. Bounds felt that the City Council would have the autho-
rity to increase the amount of the reward. However, he suggested
that the City leave the reward as being based upon the arrest and
conviction until he has a little more time to establish what
increased liability the City might have by basing it on some
other means. In other words, if it is based upon the arrest and
conviction of a person, the City would have fairly limited
liability of whatever amount that the City sets the reward. If
it is based upon indictment or some other fact, then it might
increase the City's liability without getting to the real offen-
ders. He stated that he needs to look at the possible problems
that might arise there. In the meantime, the City would have to
rely upon the final conviction of the individual arrested for the
crime. Mr. Bounds felt that it is up to Council as to what they
would like to do. The school board had approved this agreement
and sent it to the City for its approval. If the City wants to
amend the terms of the agreement, the City might want to make it
clear. Mr. Bounds suggested that the Council might want to
address the problem of potentially setting a policy for offering
a separate reward for every arson that is committed in the City.
Mayor Hutto asked that the Administration indicate to the
school that the City Council is desirous to increase the reward
to $2,000 and ask if the school district would be interested in
paying $1,000 of that amount. He also asked that the Administra-
tion come up with a favorable ruling for making the reward
payable upon indictment.
In response to a question from Councilman Johnson, Mr.
Bounds explained that the cut -off date in the ordinance is based
upon the time in which the charges would have to be filed on the
individual to get a conviction. That would be a statute of limi-
tation.
Resolution No. 723 - Approving the Plans and Specifications for
Communitv Development Proaram Projects in Bavtown
Council received a copy of the letter from Mary Alford,
Program Specialist for Harris County Community Development
Agency. In her letter, Ms. Alford requests that City Council
approve the plans and specifications for the 1978 Community
Development Program. Projects include street improvements, curb,
gutter and storm sewers for Avenues J, K, and L, and Dorris
Street from Loop 201 to Airhart. The estimated cost of these
projects is $380,000. The specifications include an alternate of
$31,000 for sidewalks.
Councilman Kloesel moved for adoption of the resolution;
Councilwoman Caffey seconded the motion. The vote follows:
00327 -20
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
RESOLUTION NO. 723
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN APPROVING
THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 1978 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM AND REQUESTING HARRIS COUNTY TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS ON THE
PROJECTS WITHIN THE PROGRAM.
Consider Request of Stanley Nelson with Regard to Bus Service
Stanley Nelson requested permission from Council to permit
him to operate a public bus transportation system. The City of
Baytown is growing, and Loop 201 and the San Jacinto Mall will
soon be completed. The tunnel, ferry and the highways are over-
loaded with cars. Elderly and handicapped find it hard to move
around Baytown. Many people have moved from this area because of
these problems -- transportation and traffic. Some people have
moved to La Porte to get on the other side of the tunnel and some
people have moved as far away as Houston. Not only will a
transportation system help the traffic problem, but it will also
help the business men and women of Baytown. Mr. Nelson explained
that he had performed a small survey in and around Baytown, and
found that out of 100 people, 40% of those who work felt that
they would ride a bus to work if it were available; 46% of non-
workers, mostly housewives and elderly people, felt that they
would take a bus shopping into Baytown or Houston if it were
available. He further stated that 90% of all the people he had
surveyed felt that the Baytown area needs a bus system. These
buses would also be in service in the event of flood or emergen-
cies. Mr. Nelson further stated that he felt by starting now,
the bus company could grow with the City as the City is now
growing.
Mayor Hutto inquired if Mr. Nelson was looking for a fran-
chise or what is his wishes from the Council. 14r. Nelson ex-
plained that in order to get a small business loan, a person has
to have a permit to operate buses within the City. This is the
first requirement.
Mr. Bounds explained that Mr. Nelson was directed to his
office when he was inquiring about the possibility of operating
a bus service and he was wondering if the City had any franchise
requirements on a bus service in the City of Baytown. Mr. Bounds
explained that at that time, he informed him that the City Coun-
cil does not have an ordinance franchising public transportation
of that type. The City does have a taxicab ordinance which fran-
chises the taxicab company, but it is fairly specifically drawn
and does not address a bus service. To the extent that Mr.
Nelson may be operating a bus system between Baytown and other
cities, an inter -urban type company, he would be licensed and
regulated by the Railroad Commission in the State of Texas. The
city does have franchise powers over bus companies and cities can
control and regulate bus companies as a governmental function.
This regulation could include franchising the company and the
city may require owners of motor buses to carry bond insurance,
and other evidence of financial responsibility. The city can
regulate the routes, passenger stations, stops and service of bus
companies to the extent that where city regulations would con-
flict with the regulatory authority of the Railroad Commission on
inter -urban routes, the Railroad Commission rules would govern.
Mr. Bounds further explained that when Mr. Nelson approached
him about the bus service, he suggested that the matter would
need to be referred to City Council for general guidance as to
whether the city wishes to regulate the bus service of the type
that Air. Nelson was describing and if so, to what extent.
N
00327 -21
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Councilman Johnson inquired if Mr. Nelson intends to go into
other cities immediately or was he just interested in the imme-
diate Baytown area. Mr. Nelson explained that his thoughts were
to have an express from Baytown to Houston and an express out to
Highway 225 during the early morning hours. This would be to
lower the traffic problem. During the day, from 9:00 a.m. to
3:00 p.m., they would be working with the people doing shopping
in Houston and bringing people from the Crosby, Barrett Station
and Highlands area into Baytown for shopping.
Councilwoman Caffey inquired if
hourly route, and would there be bus
tions. Mr. Nelson explained that it
further stated that his company will
buses that are already designed for
small, but it can grow with the city
Mr. Nelson planned an
stops at different loca-
would be on a schedule. He
start out with two or three
the handicapped. It would be
as the needs grow.
Councilman Kloesel stated that he felt approval should be
granted and then the Council should consider an ordinance on
insurance and liability of the standard type. He felt that at
the present time, the Council could approve Mr. Nelson's request
and he could go ahead with his plans to obtain a small business
permit.
Mr. Nelson stated that in making application to the Railroad
Commission, a person has to have insurance before the process can
be started. In the planning stages, the Small Business Admin-
istration looks into the matter and before they support an appli-
cant, they will approve the plans.
Mr. Bounds stated that it would probably suffice for the
City to draft a statement to the effect that the City does not
regulate bus service. Mr. Lanham felt it would be good to indi-
cate in the letter that the Council has considered Mr. Nelson's
request.
Councilman Johnson moved that the Council grant approval of
Mr. Nelson's request; Councilman Kloesel seconded the motion.
The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Resolution No. 724 - Authorizing the City to Apply for a Federal
Bicycle Program Grant
Council has received a copy of a memorandum from Anne
Murphy, Transportation Planner, regarding a bicycle grant pro-
gram. In her memorandum, Ms. Murphy points out that the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1978 provides funds for federal
bicycle grant programs. Total cost of the project is estimated
to be $2,000. The City would have to provide approximately $500
of the total cost of the $2,000 for this work. There would be
two steps involved in the bicycle grant program. The first
involves the development of the bicycle map which would show the
possible bicycle routes in the city and the second step would be
the preparation of a multi -media education program to encourage
safe bicycling. This could be used with school groups or adults
that are interested in bicycling. It would be available to the
public on request and work would be done by the City staff. Air.
Lanham explained that the city has a great deal of interest on
the part of bicyclists who have designated some routes in Bay-
town. At one time, the city had funds allocated to build a hike
and bike trail, but the City was not able to obtain right of way
along county flood control ditches. Mr. Lanham felt that this is
a step towards providing some assistance to those people that
would like to ride their bicycles, either for recreation or for
going to work.
00327 -22
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - march 27, 1980
Councilman Kloesel moved for adoption of the resolution.
Councilman Philips stated that he has some concern that the
City does not set up motor bike raceways. He stated that he
would like whatever action taken to stipulate bicycling and not
motorcycling. Otherwise, the whole concept would be destroyed.
Councilman Johnson seconded the motion.
Mayor Hutto stated that the city has a great opportunity to
include a hike and bike trail in the construction of adding two
more lanes to Baker Road.
Councilman Kloesel stated that along with this, Baytown has
a bicycle organization and when these streets are going to be
designated as bike trails, the City should contact the bicycle
organization. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
RESOLUTION NO. 724
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS,
AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND TRAFFIC TO MAKE APPLI-
CATION FOR A BICYCLE GRANT.
Resolution No. 725 - Authorizing Transfer of Funds from General
Fund Contingency Account to Police Department Budget for
Revisions to Jail
The City of Baytown has a contract with Harris County for
jail services which currently provide for payment of $62,000 to
the City for taking care of county prisoners. Inasmuch as the
City has that contract, the city is subject to the requirements
of the Texas Commission on Jail Standards. An inspection is made
of the city's jail once a year and each time a list of deficien-
cies is drawn. The jail was built before these standards were
adopted by the commission and would not apply if the jail were
not used to house county prisoners. The standards apply because
the city is keeping county prisoners. The city can accomplish
many of their recommendations without the expenditure of funds
but there are certain things such as installation of tables,
seating in the cells, installation of plumbing in the holding
cells, and the construction of a two hour fire door that require
the expenditure of funds. The estimated cost of these structural
improvements that the city needs to make in order to satisfy
these requirements is approximately $8,000. The police depart-
ment does not have these funds in the current budget. Mr. Lanham
further explained that prisoners that the city officers arrest
who are charged with a felony can be kept in the city jail, but
without the contract to house county prisoners, the city would
have to transport those prisoners to Houston. Even if the City
did not house county prisoners, the city's cost would not be
reduced a great deal because the city would still need the same
number of jailers.
Councilman Philips inquired if the city has a sprinkler
system in the cells. Chief Turner explained that the jail does
not have a sprinkler system but does have fireproof construction
and smoke alarms.
Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the resolution;
Councilman Kloesel seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
00327 -23
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
RESOLUTION NO. 725
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TRANSFER EIGHT
THOUSAND AND NO 1100 ($8,000.00) DOLLARS FROM BUDGET ACCOUNT NO.
0101 -13 -0200, "CONTINGENCIES," TO POLICE ACCOUNT NO. 0201 -09-
0100, "BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS."
Consider Policy on Use of City Easements
At the last meeting, the Council asked that the Administra-
tion research the ordinances and report back to Council on City
provisions related to drainage easements. Mr. Lanham explained
that Mr. Bounds will report to Council in this regard and also
the Administration would like to discuss with Council, a policy
in this regard. Mr. Bounds explained that at the present time,
the City does not have a formal policy regarding use of city -held
property. There are some ordinances that the City has that
collaterally affect the matter. Section 27 -46 of the subdivision
ordinance provides that minimum building lines for residential
property in subdivisions shall be fifteen feet in front and ten
feet on the side or corner lots, and five feet on the side of
interior lots. With respect to the back property lines, that
would be governed by Section 7.51 of the Building Code which
establishes a fifteen foot rear building lot line with the ex-
ception of garages. A person can build a garage up to five feet
of the rear property line. That applies in residential areas.
This section also makes exceptions for carports. A person can
construct a carport that is open on three sides up to three feet
of the property line. As a general rule, commercial buildings
may be built up to the property line. Commercial buildings
adjacent to residential property must be set back at least five
feet if within ten feet of a residential structure. Certain
areas of the City have also been designated as a fire district
and in those areas, portable buildings and other structures not
adequately fireproofed are either prohibited or must be set back
a certain distance from the property line. The building setback
requirements apply to all buildings. A building is defined by
the Building Code as, "a structure built for the support, shelter
and closure of persons, animals, chattels or property of any kind
which has enclosing walls for at least 50% of its perimeter." In
other words, it has to be an actual building. A patio, swimming
pool and a fence are not considered buildings under the City's
building code. They can be built up to the property line in
residential areas. You can build a swimming pool up to the
property line. Patios commonly go up to the side lot lines
because these are not buildings. A building permit is required
for construction because these are structures, but they are not
technically a building. Therefore, they may be constructed up to
the owner's property line. Presently, the City does not require
a building permit for the construction of fences. Fences are
generally placed along an owner's property line. The City does
not have a policy allowing owners to fence in City easements.
The City, however, only actively seeks to keep certain easements
clear. In particular, the City's Subdivision Ordinance No. 2747
provides that an easement used for drainage by open ditch shall
be kept clear of fences, buildings, plants and other obstruction.
The City has to have access in and out of certain easements which
requires no fences may be erected, but when there is no clear
need for a constant ingress or egress or for drainage, the City
does not oppose fencing easements. City property is held in two
different types of ownership. The City either owns the property
in fee simple or the City has an easement interest in the prop-
erty. If the City has a fee simple interest in the property, it
is the owner of the property and has the sole right to use the
land subject only to easements granted to other parties. If the
City has only an easement interest in the property, then the City
merely has the right of full use of the land not inconsistent
with the purpose of the easement. There is no law that is going
to help the Council as far as setting up a clear policy on when
an easement use is inconsistent with the owner's right. In fact,
the law is that it is a question of a fact for jury as to what
may be considered a proper and reasonable use of the easement by
00327 -24
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
the owner and by the easement holder. In other words, a person
is almost forced into a case by case evaluation on what is the
easement being held for by the City and what does the owner want
to use the property for, and are those two uses inconsistent. It
is often difficult to determine if the City's interest in prop-
erty is an easement or if it is a full fee simple estate. The
term "right of way" is often used to characterize both types of
ownership. The term "right of way" is of little use in char-
acterizing what type of interest the City has. Generally, the
City receives only an easement in a tract of property dedicated
by a plat to it for a public purpose. The abutting property
owners retain fee simple interest to the center of the dedicated
right of ways including streets. The City generally may acquire
fee simple interest to property either by outright purchase of
the property, by condemnation, or by an expressed gift of fee
simple interest. An easement in public lands may not be created.
An individual citizen does not acquire interest in City property
by continued non - permitted use. In other words, if an individual
fences in a City easement or fences in City property, he acquires
no interest in that land over time. There is not an adverse
possession statute that runs against a City or a public body.
Generally, also a private citizen has no individual right to use
property owned by the City. In other words, just because an
individual lives adjacent to property held or owned by the City,
does not mean that that individual has the right to use that
property. Only the City has the right to use that property for
City interest. Mr. Bounds felt that this explained the law under
which the City is operating when establishing a policy for use of
easements. It is going to be difficult in all cases to define
how an easement can be used. This would have to be considered on
a case by case basis.
Mr. Lanham suggested that the City have a policy on ease-
ments to prevent problems in the future in solving cases such as
Mr. Morgan's problem.
Mr. Bounds explained that if you look at the actions of the
City in particular cases, the City has attempted to follow the
policies set out by common law. To the extent that the City
would try to formulate a policy, Mr. Bounds felt that the City
has just started a guideline. He felt that the City is going to
have to distinguish between the two types of property interest,
between the easements and the fee simple interest. Sometimes it
is going to be difficult to determine which of those two inter-
ests the City has in the property. It will be difficult to
classify which policy a particular property should come under.
For easements, the general rule is that the owner cannot do
anything inconsistent with the purposes for which the easement
was granted to the City. An owner may fence an easement if it is
not used for ditch drainage. Generally on easements, the City
would allow the easement to be fenced. Mr. Bounds further stated
that as a general rule, the City would also say that owners may
not construct a building on top of an easement. A building would
be a structure that would be potentially damaged if the City
would have to go in and do work in the easement. On the fee
simple interest, the general rule there is that no one can use
the property but the City. The City would have to deal with any '
exceptions to that on a case by case basis.
Mr. Lanham felt that in the future, the City needs to try to
avoid getting in the position of allowing an easement to be used
for access. This is what has happened in the case on Tenth
Street. Mr. Lanham stated that on Tuesday, Mr. Morgan brought in
a request for permission to use the side of easement across from
his property adjacent to the property in back of him for access.
Mr. Lanham explained the policy that Mr. Bounds was just talking
about would not permit this request.
In response to a question from Mr. Lanham, Mr. Bounds
explained that the Council might want to combine this with the
policy on selling City property and this could be considered at
the next Council meeting. Mr. Lanham explained that it probably
would not be necessary to have an ordinance but a policy state-
00327 -25
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
ment for the minutes would suffice. The Administration will come
back to Council at the next meeting in this regard.
Consider Installation of a Sidewalk in the Vicinity of Garth and
Park
At the last meeting, Busch, Hutchison & Associates presented
the plans and specifications for the proposed Park Street Im-
provements. At that time, Mayor Hutto suggested that considera-
tion be given to constructing sidewalks for the Centennial Square
apartments down to Park Street. Council received a copy of a map
showing possible areas of sidewalk construction that might be
undertaken in conjunction with the Park Street Improvements. One
would be the construction of sidewalks along Gresham Street from
the Centennial Square Apartments over to Garth Road and then
south on Garth Road to Park Street. The estimated cost of this
is $11,400. It is based on 1,140 linear feet at $10 per linear
foot.
Councilman Kloesel suggested that the sidewalks be done
under property owners assessment. Mr. Bounds explained that he
would have to check the policy on paving assessment, but he felt
that it could be an assessment project if it were included as
part of the Park Street Improvements project. The City would
have to show that it was an enhancement to the abutting property.
Mr. Bounds further stated that the portion of the sidewalk that
would be on Garth Road, before beginning construction, the City
would have to go through the assessment procedure.
Mayor Hutto stated that he would like to build the sidewalk
without the participation of the property owners, because this
would be penalizing property owners.
Mr. Lanham explained that the $11,400 figure includes side-
walks all the way down Garth Road to the Texas Super Foods park-
ing lot. The City also has an estimate for building a sidewalk
along the south side of Park Street from Garth Road to the drive-
ways at the Graywood Shopping Center and the estimated cost of
that portion is $9,650.
Councilman Philips inquired if this work could be done with
City forces. Mr. Lanham explained that at the present time, the
City has more concrete work than the City forces can do, and City
forces are not experts in sidewalk work.
Mayor Hutto felt that this could be included in the Park
Street Improvements. Mr. Lanham explained that this could be
included in the Park Street improvement project and the City
could then charge it to the bond funds.
Councilman Kloesel stated that as a policy matter, he felt
that any sidewalk construction that the City is doing, the City
should look at property owners participation. He felt that the
sidewalks would enhance the value of the property and certainly
be to the property owner's advantage.
Mayor Hutto felt that it would be a good investment if the
City could construct the sidewalks with bond funds as part of the
Park Street improvements.
Councilman Kloesel inquired if the City is being fair
because there are many areas that need sidewalks who have elderly
people in the surrounding areas.
Mayor Hutto requested that the Administration work on this
with the stipulation that the owners of the apartment complex
build a sidewalk from the complex to the city sidewalk.
Mr. Lanham felt that the sidewalk could be added to the
plans on Park Street Improvements as an alternate.
Councilman Philips moved that the City revise the plans on
00327 -26
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - March 27, 1980
Park Street to include sidewalks as shown on the sketch as an
alternate; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote
follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Councilman Kloesel
Ordinance - Authorizing the City Attorney to ?flake an Offer to
Purchase an Easement for Drainage Purposes in Allenbrook
Section II
This will be discussed during executive session.
Recess and Reconvene
Mayor Hutto recessed the open meeting into executive session
to discuss personnel matters. When the open meeting reconvened,
the following business was transacted:
Consider Appointments to Urban Rehabilitation Standards Review Board
Councilman Philips moved for the appointment of Erwin W.
Froehner, and the reappointment of Libby Weisinger and John
Sylvester to the Urban Rehabilitation Standards Review Board;
Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consider Appointment to Clean City Commission
Councilwoman Caffey moved for the appointment of Eva Smith
to fill the vacancy left by Dr. James Lewis on the Clean City
Commission; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote
follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel
and Caffey
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Adj ourn
With no further business to be transacted, Mayor Hutto
adjourned the meeting.
kj)� a n Q fn=--, PQ-� -)
Karen Petru, DeputY City Clerk
APPROVED:
Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk
IF
Attachment "A"
THIS L.AMMEl4S PARTNIEERSHIP
ARCHITECTS & PLANNERS A.I.A.
OPAWER 600 7150 E. TEXAS AVE.
BAVTOWN, TEXAS 771520 ( 793 7 427 -9737
March 27, 1980
BID TABULATION
THE CITY OF BAYTOWN HANDICAPPED ACCESS RAMP
1. RIGGS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
P.O. Box 458
Dayton, Texas 77535
2. MC CONNELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
P.O. Box 38
414 W. Main
Baytown, Texas 77520
3. H.B. HAMILTON CONSTRUCTION CO.
908 flassey Tom^', i ns Road
Baytown, Texas 77520
BASE BID: $ 6,375.60
DAYS: 30
BASE BID: $ 6,458.00
DAYS: 30
BASE BID: S 8,700.00
DAYS: 30
4. MOORE & MOORE GENERAL CONTRACTORS BASE BID: S 9,440.00
530 South Broadway
La Porte, Texas 77571 DAYS: 20
a�
U
td
+�
m
TITLE= FRONT END LOADER /BACKIlOE' S
BID � March 18, 1980 - 9:30 a.m.
DATE
GITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION
NET IOTA L
-- -- � i t ,— �-, � i C
CRSE POWER � EQUIPT.
JIM BALL INTER.
USTANG TRACTOR
ALVIN IMPLEMENT
-rE>w
�, TY
DESCRIPTION .
uNIT EXTENDED
UNIT EXTENOEO
UNIT ND O
UNIT EXTEND
UNIT EX NOEO
1.
3 each
FRONT END LOADER /BACKHOE'S per
specifications
$21,088.
6
21,290.
522,775.
0
$22,800.
0
$63,265.98
$63,870.90
$68,325.00
$68,400.00
MAKE S MODEL:
Case 580
Int'1 26
JCB 3C
Case 580
DELIVERY A.R.O.
3 - 4 da
s
10 days
14 day
7 days
GROSS TOTAL
NET IOTA L
-- -- � i t ,— �-, � i C
. � � � CITY O F BA YTO Vi/I\I
TlTLE� FRONT END LOADER /BACKHOE'S CONT: B10 TABULATION
BID
DATE=
TEM
QTY
DESCRIPTION
w
UNNIT
EXTENDED
UNIT
EXTENOED�
UNIT
XT NDED
UNIT
EXTENDED
UNIT
EX NDED
1,
3 each
FRONT END LOADER /BACKHOE'S per
specifications
$22,571.
O
$24,111.
0
$67,713.00
$72,333.00
MAKE b MODEL:
JD 310A
Ford 55
DELIVERY A.R.O.
30 - 45
days
90 - 12
days
GROSS TOTAL
LESS DISC.
NET IOTA L
r1 cl !� /r-nv
� ��
.. CITY OF-' BAYTOWN
TITL E:101= .:0 StrceC Improvement I'ro,:ram BID TABULATION
BIG: 80a -52
DATE; 'larch 24, 1980 - 10:00 a.m.
Houston Houston Houston Stafford
__ Brown & Root SKRLA Able Services LEM Construction
i Ei-0 QTY DESCRIPTION UN17 E NOE0 v ":'T EXT NI
ENOE0 UNIT �XT NOEv UT tt EX7E.N
Ex:E +%s:cJ �
f RICE' a t r F I
PROPOSAL:
1 ( 3,489 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete, com-
i
' Tons i plete in place $ 37.00 $129,093.00 $ 38.00 $132,582.00 $ 42.00 $146,538.00 S 40.00 $139,560.00 ,
2 7,338 ; Asphaltic material, prime coat &
Gals ! tack coat, complete in place 1.10 1 8,071.80 1.20 8,805.60 1.25 9.172.50 1.30 9,539.40 f
3A 17,745 ' 11%VConSLruct existing base to a j
+ `.l'. depth of 8" including; cement & iI
Cement stabilization, complete I I !
F in p.lace 3.30 58155b'.50 3.30 58,558.50 4.25 75,':! +.25 5.25 93,161.251
3B 13,723 1%vconstruct existing base to u I
i
S.Y. depth o: 10" including cement & i
cement stabilization, complete
I in place 3.70 50,775.10 3.75 51,461.25 4.50 51,753,50 5.60 j 76,848.80
4 ? 1,438 I Crushed limestone material, com- +
Tons plete in place 17.85 25,668.30 15.00 ; 21,570.00 21.00 30,198.00 17.75 25,524.50
I '
a •5 5,340 Concrete sidewalk & /or driveway, 1 j
� S.F. f as per specifications, complete
I ; in place 2.10 11,214.00 4.00 21,360.00 2.50 13,350.00 3.10 ; 15,554.001 ;
6 I 4,153 Concrete curb & gutter, complete I i
in place 7.70 31,978.10 8.50 35,300.50 9.50 39,453.50 11.60 ' 48,174.80
GROSS 7"OT L
LrJ DjSC. t r
NET - -,- -,1 4 L
� �'�"i E�p 195(` Streot Impravcmcnt Pror,ratn
B ! 0� ��, ; -5z
DATE- af:,, -�•h -� �� , t ��:;u - I c) : a0 :, . ttt .
G! TY 0 F BA YTO l�/!V
810 TA BULaT! ON
Houston ltottston Houston
_
�T��v�
QTY
DESCRlPTlOf'V
[3rown « i:oot
SK):LA _
11Nrl' EXTENDED
Able Scr_vices
U�Jl�� cX RNDEG
RNl:
t ! complete in place
40.00
200.00
80.00
�EXTENpEO
150.00
750.OUr 45.00 225.00
7 ? 370 L. F.; Concrete curb, complete in place
$ 1.60
$ 592.f.'0
$ 7.00
$ 2,590.00
S 6.00
{S 2,220.
�
complete in place
110.00
1,650.00
125.00
1,875.00
i
g 740 S.F.i Co ^crete valley gutter, complete
3,000.00 190.00 2,850.00
I
�°
�
� in place
6.00
4,440.00
3.95
� 2,923.00
4.00
2,960.
� �
g
i
' j � castint, to ,, ^,rade, complete in
9 708 C.Y.s Remove miscellaneous concrete,
�
�
f
place
• ;complete in place
3+.80 i
24,638.40
58.00
t 41,064.00
30.00
i 21,240.
i
I
�
1
IO 1,185 C.Y.! Salvage &reuse existing base
i
-0-
-0-
�
-0-
y
• !material to a depth shown on
i
I6 I7G Cement stabilized sand or shell
!
• � plans, complete in place
6.90
8,176.50
10.00
11,850.00
7.60
� 8,295.
�
cement, co ^tplete in place
22.00
3,S72.00�
11 575 C.Y. Excavation, complete in place
5.90
3,392.50
10.00
j 5,750.00
8.00
4,600.
a
Stafford
t,1:�1 Construction '
UNIT FX'Et�CE�J UNr7 ((cx ; C;vu;....'
pR:rF �sr.�c FR;CF 1 ca1�•
- - - , ��
S 5.50 �S 2,035.00
4.75 3,515.00
i
i
38.00 26,904.00
4.75 � 5,628.75
7.20 4,140.00
r
12 5 I'sact� Adjust water valve box to trade,
�
t ! complete in place
40.00
200.00
80.00
400.00
150.00
750.OUr 45.00 225.00
i
I3 � 15 Each�Adjust manhole casting to grade,
�
complete in place
110.00
1,650.00
125.00
1,875.00
200.00
3,000.00 190.00 2,850.00
I
�°
!
I4 ! 2 Eac'r� Adjust bcx inlet with manhole
� �
g
i
' j � castint, to ,, ^,rade, complete in
�
f
place
5LO.UO
1,U4U.UU
63U.UU
1,Z6U.U(} �
/,UU.UU
I BUU.U(1� 440.UU i SSU.UI}
'
1
i5 � U i:acir Rework sidewalk for wheelchair
�SUOU.UU
4 1
�
�
ramp
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0- 525.U0 -0-
i
I6 I7G Cement stabilized sand or shell
�
�
�
1
ions to a depth of 4" includin; the
�
cement, co ^tplete in place
22.00
3,S72.00�
26.00
4,57G.OU �
?S.f}0
� +, /;00.0(' 27.0(1 i •`,,75?.0(1
�
�
a
GF�OSS TO �'A L
Lr=SS OlSC.
i
�,ET TOT�,L
� � �� �:®1980� Street Improvement program
8lD� so3 -52 _ _ __
DaTE� `larch 24, 1980 - 10:00 a.m.
� t�Vil QTY � DESCRIPTIGN
17 � 250 � Hot Piix Asphaltic Concrete on
iTons l "larket St., three 2.5 inch lifts,
� � complete in place .
. ! �
pROPUS�IL - �1L,1'El:`�.1TL•'
1 � 3,489 i Hot Mix Ashpaltic Concrete, com-
Tons � plete in place
2 � 5,499 � Asphaltic material, prime coat
Gals ( & tack coat, complete in place
1
CITY O F BAYTOlNIV
B1D TABULATION
Houston Houston Houston Stafford
Brown & Root _ SKRLA _ Ahle_SGrvj.ceG ..__ LL'�i Construction i
UN17 EXTFNDEQ UNIT EXTENDED UNfT EXTchDEO UNIT ! aiE:�DEO UNIT Ek'rtt��t, d
Rr !�' :r � � e �
r
1
� � f
j
$ 37.00 t$ 9,250.OU $ 45.00 $ 11,250.OU 50.00 $ 12,5UU.U0 58.00 �$ 1�i,500.0U
! ` �
i _ � �
!$372,610.20 $413,175.35 � $436,646.75 $474,792.50 �
i
t - �- t
I
I
i
S 37.00 5129,093.0
1.10 � 6,048.9
I
I
�$ 38.00 $132,582.00 $ 42.00 $146,538.00 $ 40.00 ;5139,560.00
1.2 � 6 873.75 1.30 s 7 148.70
1.20 6,598.80 5 ,
3A !17,745 ! Reconstruct existing base to a �i
� S.Y. 3 depth of 8" including cement & } �
1 � cement stabilization, complete �
Iin place 3.30 58,558.50 3.30 58,558.50 � 4.25 75,416.25 5.25 � 93,161.25
• 3B X13,723 � Reconstruct existing base to a
' � de th of 10" including cement & i � j
S.Y. p
cement stabilization, compiete j
in place 3.70 50,775.10 3.75 51,461.25 4.50 61,753.50. 5.60 � 76,848.80
4 1,438 Crushed limestone material, com-
Tons plete in place 17.85 25,668.30 IS.OU 21,570.00 21.00 30,198.OG� :7.75; 25,52';.50
GROSS TO � "� �. �� - - - - - --
L �' SS
DISC.
Iti'` �' T�JT�,I
i
:
I
I
1
I
TlTr E:� 95!1 Street Improvement Program
8 I D� 803 -52
DATE; 1`tarch 24, 1980 -- 10:00 a.m.
r c:i�?� QTY � D� SCRlPTlON
I I
5 � 5,340 � Concrete sidewalk & /or driveway,
S.F. i a.s per specifications, complete
' � in place
i j
6 � 4,153 i Cc�ncretc curh S gutter, complete
l.. I� . 1 in rl:u:r
'i7(1 I.. i� � C.�u��rcC�• rurh. conthl��LC itl hlacc
g 7!,U ; Ccmc:r�•Cc v;tllcy );uCCCr, ccmthleL-c
l.. l'. I In j�1.1C1:
g 705 � l:er.�ove nti�cellzneous concrete, i
� C.Y, i complete in place
•
10 j I, 185 j Salvage &reuse existing base
'al to a de th snown on
C.Y. � maters p
i I plans, complete in place
I
11 i 575 C.Y.} Excavation, complete in place
.12 i 5 Eacnl Adjust water valve box to grade,
� j � co�tplete in place
i
13 � 15 Each rldjust ^ianhole casting to grade,
Icor.�pletc in Pl..zce
ti
G+�OSS TO i � L �
Lr� /'� • C �:
yy►► •
- L ♦~i v � 1 .... .J. _
•
r r l /n�
� i
')
c�TY o� eAYTOtivN
EslD TABUL�T10iV
Houston Houston Houston Stafford
•
Brown &Root SKRLA Able Services ELA1 Construction :
l�N1T EXTCNDE�?� UN.`+ EXTENDED UfVIT �XTcNDEO Uh'�T � Eh-`�+ _`''` (,�,Y�7 Ea'TEN�cJ �
-- -- '
$ 2.10 �$ 11,214.00 $ 4.00 �S 21,360.00 $ 2.50 $ 13,350.00 S 3.10 :s 16,554.00
(I
i
7.70 4 31,975.10 8.50 � 35,300.SU 9.50 � 39,E +5:1.50 11.60 4S,li!►.hU i
! � �
i � ,
1.60 � 5').'..UU 7.00 � ?,500.00 G.00 i 2,2'?0.00� 5.5O �.UJS.QO � c
i �
6.UU 4,44U.OU� 3.95 2,923.00 � 4.OU 2,960.00 4.7�i 3, 5IS.UO � f
� 444
I ( j t
' i
34.80 I 24,638.40 58.00 ; 41,06!r.OU 30.00 21,240.00 38.00 � 26,904.00
J !
I
i I I
6.90 i 8,176.50 10.00 11,850.00 7.00 8,295.00 4.75 � 5,628.75 ` `
f
5.90 3,392.50 10.00 I 5,750.00 8.00 4,600.00 7.20 j 4,140.00
� � �
I i i
I
40.00 200.00 80.00 400.00 � 150.00 750.0(` 45.00 I 225.00 � �
t
x � �
110.00 1,650.00 125.00 1,875.00 ?.00.00 3,000.00 190.00 � 2,850.C:�
� �
� � � � ;.
'ass -- :O..�rrcvett+�'�'• -""_ - _ - .+���.lsce n. �o�- •- ���a.�s -.' ;
� i.T�E� 1950 Street Improvement Pro�r.�tm
B j �: 803 -52
(�� T �. :larch 24, 1930 - 10:00 a.m.
�,'TE�E�I QTY { DESCRIPTIO,'V
14 '• 2
1'..1cli
s
15 ! 0
l;;�cli
1G 176
�� (�nS
I7 I3,530
S �'
...
18 � 250
j Tons
I
19 � 2,763
C1TY OF BAYT0�1/111
B!D TABULAT1OIV
Houston - Houston Houston
Brown &Foot SKRLA __ tlble Services
UNI,- EXT�tipEO 11Nr7 ExTE�tiOEU T�vr; j �X'TEN
�R10E FR10E ?RICE FR1CF PR1CF I AR1(
Stafford
Lit Constructio:�
(1niIT � ��'• �'Y� tL�
p ' � p1..`i.L.
FP1C� � �'��' '
1.10 3,039.30 1.20 3,315.50 2.00 5,346.00 1.50 i 4,144.50
b
$385,803. b0; x$424,432.15 � $453,224.00 1$507,665.305 �.
: r
� I j
� �t
� ! � �
p �
� � � � t � ,
._...,_,.._,-- m�wsmmr c_...
GROSS TO SAL x �'� -�`` �:.�u,.an..,g�� ". "��.
(`�t�r �
i
._...... �o..�l.. <
. _,.�
Adjust box inlet with manhole
�
i
'
' i
j c.ltitlIlt; to l;rade, contplel-e in
�
'$
�
place
$520.00
$ 1,040.00
$630.00
I,2GO.QU
:;400.00
$ SUO.OU
$440.00 �$
SSU.OU
RCwc�rk s icicwalk I'or wheciclizir
;
rani �
' i
-o-
f -o-
-o-
-o-
Sono.00�
-o-
�
5:.5.00
-U-�
� 1
f
Cement stabilised sand or shell tc
! �1
i
a depth of 4" including the ce-
t �
�
1
i Went, complete in place
22.00
� 3,372.00ZG.00
�
4,576.00
25.00
4,400.00
27.00:
� +,752.00
i
Polypropylene rabric reinforce-
I
t
I
j
ment in accordance with plans &
�
}
�
�
�
�
specifications, complete in place
.90
12,177.00=
.75
I0, 147.50
1.00
13,530.00
2.30 �
31,119.OU�
s
;
�
�
;Hot :iix Asphaltic Concrete on
�
j�tarket St., three 2.5 inch lifts,
1
; t
i complete in place
37.00
� 9,250.00
45.00.
11,250.00.
50.00
12,SOQ.00
58.00 j
14 500.00
�
i
t
Asphaltic material tack coat
'
�
j a
1.10 3,039.30 1.20 3,315.50 2.00 5,346.00 1.50 i 4,144.50
b
$385,803. b0; x$424,432.15 � $453,224.00 1$507,665.305 �.
: r
� I j
� �t
� ! � �
p �
� � � � t � ,
._...,_,.._,-- m�wsmmr c_...
GROSS TO SAL x �'� -�`` �:.�u,.an..,g�� ". "��.
(`�t�r �
i
._...... �o..�l.. <
. _,.�