Loading...
1980 04 10 CC Minutes00410 -1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN April 10, 1980 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in regu- lar session on Thursday, April 10, 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 T.ianager Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Clerk The meeting was called to order by Mayor Hutto and the invo- cation was offered by Councilman Cannon. Minutes Councilwoman Wilbanks moved for approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of March 27, 1980; Councilman Philips sec- onded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Receive Petitions None. City Manager's Report Civics Day - On April 10, 1980, Sterling High School stu- dents held Civics Day. Approximately 130 students participating served as Council members, in various administrative positions and in various job classifications. In the afternoon, a mock city council meeting was held. IV. C. Smith, a representative of the Goose Creek Consolida- ted Independent School District, who is responsible for the handling of the program, was present. Mr. Smith stated that the students appreciated the opportunity to be involved with the City in their Civics Day roles. Keep America Beautiful Day - April 26, 1980 is Keep America Beautiful Day in Baytown. The Clean City Commission and the Beautify Baytown Association are sponsoring this event and various City departments will be cooperating with various com- munity organizations on this day. Harris County Fire Marshal - Council received copies of a letter from the County Fire Marshal regarding the fire contract that the City changed and sent back to the County. An opinion from an assistant county attorney indicates that the contract cannot be approved because the Commissioners Court has not autho- rized the increased amount to be paid to the City of Baytown. 00410 -2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Councilman Philips felt that the contract should be taken before the Commissioners Court. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham explained that the County has a formula which the contract has been based on and he felt this would be the amount budgeted. However, the formula amounts are not realistic for all areas of the County; therefore, Mr. Lanham inquired if it would be permissible for the Administration to prepare a resolution for Council consideration at the next meeting requesting that the next county budget be increased to reflect more realistic costs; Council concurred. East District Trunk Sewer - Bids have been advertised for the East District Trunk Sewers. These bids will be coming in on May 14, 1980. The Administration expects to present those bids to Council at the Council meeting following that date. Ward Road Storm Sewer Project - Bids have been advertised for the Ward Road Storm Sewer Project and those bids are due on April 29, 1980. Federal Budget Cuts - The Administration has received many letters and other information from the Conference of Mayors and National League of Cities and other agencies speculating on how the President's proposed budget cuts will impact cities. The Administration sent copies to Council of a newspaper story indi- cating that sewer funds will drop as a result of this change. Mr. Lanham briefly reviewed some of the provisions of the new budget that could have an affect on Baytown. General Revenue Sharing, based on the President's recommendation, would not affect Baytown. The President has recommended a reduction of 2.3 billion dollars in the state portion of the general revenue sharing program. This would not affect cities in Texas. At present, Congress has not concurred with the President's recom- mendation; therefore, the President's recommendations could be altered. No cuts were recommended in the basic Community Devel- opment Block Grant Program. There were recommendations for reduction in the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is the fund from which park grants are requested. On wastewater treat- ment plant construction, there is the indication that FY80 funds under Environmental Protection Agency Wastewater Treatment Faci- lities Construction Grant Program will be held back. This will have the effect of reducing outlays in FY81, by 95 million dollars and will also slow down the construction of these faci- lities in some major metropolitan areas. After Congress finally acts, it will take some time for new regulations to filter down to the states and municipalities. There is no way of knowing at this point whether this will have an effect on the City's West District construction. Mr. Lanham felt it would not because he did not believe it was in FY81 funds but in FY79 or FY80 funds. There are proposed cuts in the CETA budget. Those are the programs that the City is involved in that could be affected by the proposed cutbacks. Railroad Crossing on Decker Drive and Baker Road - Repairs are underway on railroad crossings on Decker Drive and Baker Road. ' Bay Area Heritage Society - The Bay Area Heritage Society is sponsoring a very special program on April 29. Wanda Orton is going to give a program on the "Big Four of the Bay Shore." The "Big Four of the Bay Shore" are Sam Houston, Ashbel Smith, David G. Burnet and DeZavala. All of these people lived in the Baytown area at one time. This will be held on April 29 at 7:30 p.m. at the Historical Museum. Harris County Mayor's and Councilmen's Association - Council received an announcement of the HCPSCA's meeting for Thursday, April 17, 1980. Noise Control - Councilman Philips stated that several weeks ago, Council had talked about getting an effort underway to compile and bring together some noise ordinance information. Mr. 00410 -3 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Lanham explained that the Administration has received a stack of information from EPA which is being studied and a recommendation will be brought to Council at a later date. Comprehensive Drainage Report - Norman Dykes, City Engineer, presented an updated status report on City of Baytown drainage projects. A copy of that report is attached to the Minutes as Attachment "A." During the discussion, Council indicated that Item No. 4, which deals primarily with alleviating street flooding on Texas Avenue, should be reconsidered by Council at some point in time before work begins on that project. The Council is concerned that there are areas of the City where homes are being flooded. Said areas are not included in the priorities because the Admin- istration and Council were unaware of the problems being exper- ienced at the time the priorities were established. Councilman Kloesel suggested that the salary of the opera- tors in the Public Works Department should be scrutinized care- fully because he felt that this may be a problem with turnover. Questions and Comments Regarding City Manager's Report Mr. Lanham explained that the opinion with regard to the project Commission. Councilman Cannon inquired if City can legally do concerning the at Rollingbrook and Garth; the Adm this. City Attorney is working on an pending before the Planning there is any thing that the unfinished apartment complex inistration will check into Councilman Kloesel requested that the Police Department keep a close watch on controlling litter problems in City parks since with improved weather, park facilities usage will increase. Councilman Johnson inquired about the ordinance in regards to public camping. Mr. Lanham explained that the Administration had a draft of an ordinance, but it was too broad. Therefore, the Administration is still working in this regard. Councilman Johnson requested that the Administration check the problems being created at the intersection of Elvinta and Bowie School Drive where the contractor failed to place aprons. Also, on Cedar Bayou Road, the pavement has worn away, creating two large holes on the edge of the pavement. Resolution No. 726 - Canvassing Results of April 5, 1980 Muni- cipal Election Council canvassed the returns of the Municipal Election held on April 5, 1980, for the purpose of electing council members from the respective District Nos. 1, 4, and 5, which reflected the following: FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 1 Francis Portis 854 votes Perry M. Simmons 1,142 votes Paul R. Henderson 556 votes FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 4 Jimmy Johnson 1,975 votes FOR COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 5 Allen Cannon 1,766 votes W. Audrel Vinson 577 votes Councilwoman Caffey moved for adoption of the resolution; Councilman Kloesel seconded the motion. The vote follows: 00410 -4 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 726 A RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE RETURNS OF THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING THREE (3) COUNCILMEN FROM THE RESPECTIVE DISTRICTS NOS. ONE (1), FOUR (4), AND FIVE (5) TO SERVE REGULAR TWO YEAR TERMS; DECLARING THE RESULTS OF SAID ELECTION; FINDING THAT NOTICE OF SAID ELECTION WAS DULY AND PROPERLY GIVEN AND THAT SAID ELECTION WAS PROPERLY HELD AND THE RETURNS THEREOF MADE BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. Administer Oaths of Office to Newly Elected Council Members Alternate Municipal Judge Roy Fuller administered Oaths of Office to the newly elected Council members Councilmen Johnson and Cannon. Ordinance - Calling Run -Off Election for April 22, 1980 The proposed ordinance calls for a run -off election for April 22, 1980 for the Council District No. 1 position. Francis Portis and Perry Simmons will be the run -off candidates. Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 2866 AN ORDINANCE ORDERING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 1980, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A COUNCILMAN FROM DISTRICT NO. ONE (1); DESIGNATING THE PLACES AND MANNER OF HOLDING SAID ELECTION; PRESCRIBING THE HOURS; PROVIDING FOR A CANVASSING BOARD FOR ABSENTEE BALLOTS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE POSTING AND PUBLICATION OF NOTICE. Arthur Morgan Will Appear Arthur Morgan requested not to appear. Consider Tax Assessment Policy This was discussed in a work session earlier. The two questions that the Administration would like Council guidance on are: (1) Whether to continue the reappraisal program that the City embarked on this past year, and (2) Whether to change the assessment ratio from the current 500 to 1000. Beginning in 1981, the City must change to the 100010 assessment ratio but is not required to do this as of January, 1980. It is the Adminis- tration's feeling that if the City is to continue the appraisal program, the City should delay changing the assessment ratio until January, 1981. The Administration recommended that the City continue the reappraisal program. Councilman Philips moved that the City continue the re- appraisal program; Councilwoman Caffey seconded the motion. Councilwoman Wilbanks absent. 00410 -5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Mr. Lanham pointed out that since Council is not taking action on the assessment ratio, this indicates that the City will continue at the 50% ratio. No further action was taken. Ordinance - Authorizing Entex, Inc. to Increase Rates for Resi- dential and Commercial Gas Service Entex, Inc. has filed a rate request with the City of Bay- town for a 170 monthly increase in rates for residential and com- mercial gas service. Entex is seeking this rate increase from all of its customers in the Texas Coast Division. Dick DeSalme, District Manager for Entex, explained that this is not a general rate increase but an annual cost of service increase. If these rates are approved, the effective date will be May 1, 1980. The residential minimum bill will be increased from $4.97 monthly to $5.14 monthly. The small commercial bill will be increased from $5.47 monthly to $5.64 monthly. This adjustment is needed to recover the increase in Entex's operating expenses for 1979 over 1978. Last general rate increase Entex had with the City was filed in December, 1976. As shown in Exhibit 5 in the blue book, the cost of service is figured by comparing the 1978 cost of ser- vice per customer to the 1979 cost of service per customer, as indicated by a sworn statement to the Texas Railroad Commission. The 1978 cost of service per customer was $70.85, and the 1979 cost of service per customer was $72.85 per year or an increase of $2.00 per year per customer or 170 per month. Based on Entex's average bill, which is $26.00 or $27.00 a month, if that 170 increase is approved, it will be approximately one -half to one percent increase on a customer's bill. Mr. DeSalme also pointed out that 17¢ per customer is identical to rates being filed for in other cities in the Texas Coast Division with the exception of Seabrook and Lake Jackson, where Entex had just recently obtained minimal increases. Mr. DeSalme explained there are 56 cities in the Texas Coast Division and out of these 56 cities, there are 34 cities that have the automatic cost of service clause which means that these rates will automatically go into effect on May 1, 1980. In 13 cities, in which Baytown is included, there is not an automatic cost of service clause. Councilman Philips inquired as to how the rates here in Bay- town compare with other cities. Mr. DeSalme explained that earlier in the week, he presented this information to the Admin- istration, but since that time, he obtained information from two other cities that are more comparable to the size of Baytown. 8,000 CUBIC FEET 12,000 CUBIC FEET Irving Residential $24.25 $35.68 Mesquite Residential 25.20 36.30 Councilman Cannon inquired if these costs reflect only cost of providing the service? Mr. DeSalme responded that the com- parisons provided include total costs. Councilman Cannon stated that both Irving and Kaufman, Texas are in the Dallas area, and the costs are significantly lower than in the Baytown area. Is the difference in the gas itself or delivery of the gas? Mr. DeSalme explained there are a number of reasons why the rates would never be the same. There are two main factors: One is the cost of gas. Entex pays $2.52 per 1,000. This is what Entex pays the pipeline supplier. The three cities in the Dallas -Fort Worth area pay $2.04 per 1,000. 00410 -6 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Councilman Philips inquired if those rates are set by the federal government. Mr. DeSalme explained that those rates are set by the Railroad Commission. In regard to ?2.04 and $2.52 on the City gas prices, there are a number of factors involved such as contract negotiation with pipeline companies. In recent years, companies in this area have had to renegotiate at higher prices. Another example would be to take a gas distribution company that has a combination of intra -state companies and interstate companies selling gas to that distribution company. Mr. DeSalme explained that the gas that the Texas Coast Division buys comes from intra -state companies. Mr. DeSalme also indi- cated that Entex adjusts their rates twice a year based on the pipeline supply prices. Another factor involved is in the last four or five years, the Dallas -Fort Worth area has had some very severe curtailment problems. Councilman Cannon inquired if $2.52 is average cost. Mr. DeSalme explained this is an average cost. He further explained that Entex's two primary suppliers are Houston Pipe Line Company and United Texas Transmission. Both companies are infra -state companies. The weighted average cost is $2.52. Mr. DeSalme also explained that he does not feel that Entex will see a rapid in- crease in City gate rate prices in this area but the scenario looks different in the Dallas -Fort Worth area and the East Texas area. Councilman Philips stated one thing that the Council has to think about is continued guaranteed supply. Mr. DeSalme passed out to Council a hand -out sheet which is another indication why the City would find some differences in the rate schedules even if the cost of gas to the City gate station were exactly the same. Most of the gas utility companies throughout the United States have a measuring device called a HDD, which is a heating degree day. '"his is used on a yearly basis to gauge what type of winter was experienced. Mr. DeSalme felt that anytime the temperature is 65 degrees or less, most people will be using heat. This is how Entex measures what type of winter was experienced. Mr. DeSalme gave examples of various heating degrees days. In response to another question from Council, Mr. DeSalme explained that the way the rates are set up, the more cubic feet of gas a customer uses, the cheaper the cost. Councilman Philips stated that Baytown is 33% lower in heating costs than the Dallas -Fort Worth area. Mr. DeSalme, in response to a statement that there is an abundance of natural gas in this area, concurred, but pointed out that due to this abundance much competition is created. In the Houston market, there are a greater number of industries burning natural gas which means that much of the industries are subsidi- zing residential and small commercial rates. If there were not any industrial customers, these rates would be a great deal higher. Councilman Philips stated that he had received some calls from elderly persons who are on fixed incomes expressing a deep concern about the rising cost of fuel. He felt that this is something that needs to be recognized that everytime the rates go up, these people feel it but at the same time, Council has to look at the rate increase that Council is being asked to review and if that rate increase is modest and within guidelines. He felt that Council has to look at both sides and recognize that Baytown is a City that needs gas and make sure that price in- creases are warranted. He felt that this increase is well within the inflationary spiral that all are experiencing. The Adminis- tration recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilman Cannon moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. 00410 -7 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Councilman Kloesel inquired as to Entex's expansion? Mr. DeSalme responded that as far as expansion, Entex is expanding as fast as any utility company in the area, but that this particular increase is based on operating expenses that Entex incurred in 1979. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 2867 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS; DETERMINING AND FIXING THE SCHEDULES OF RATES TO BE CHARGED BY ENTEX, INC. IN THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, FOR NATURAL GAS AND NATURAL GAS SERVICE FURNISHED BY IT TO RESIDEN- TIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSUMERS; FIXING THE EFFECTIVE DATES OF GAS RATES PRESCRIBED IN THIS ORDINANCE; MAKING MISCELLANEOUS PROVI- SIONS AND REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT. Consider Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorize Adver- tising For Bids For 1979 Community Development Projects The City has been given a deadline by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to get some of the Community Devel- opment money spent. The City must have $250,000 spent by the end of June. The City's Engineering Department has developed the plans for improvement to Cedar Street from Harbor to Airhart. The improvement will be a 39 foot wide concrete street with curb and gutter, and sidewalks. The estimated cost is approximately $250,000. These plans have been reviewed by the Community Devel- opment Advisory Board and they recommended approval. Ed Shackelford, Office Engineer, presented the plans and specifications to Council. Cedar Street serves as a collector street for that area. Mr. Shackelford explained that most of the street will drain toward the middle of the street to an existing storm sewer system that goes into an outfall pipe, which pipe travels down Oklahoma, and then out into the bay. The other half will drain to Airhart and into an existing drainage ditch which the City will deepen prior to the project being completed. Mr. Lanham stated that this is being built so that those intersecting streets can be paved and tied into this street. Mr. Shackelford further explained that each intersection will have four box inlets with six foot throat openings that will be graded to fall into the inlets. Councilman Philips inquired if the sidewalks will be wide enough for bicycles. Mr. Shackelford explained there will be wheelchair ramps at each street and sidewalk intersections. Mr. Lanham explained that the City is being required to do that in all building construction. ", In response to another question from Council, Mr. Shackel- ford explained that the pavement will be 29 feet wide on Cherry, Pine, Cypress and Magnolia. The reason for the drop in width is that these four streets are not major thoroughfares. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Lanham explained that streets that are classified as residential are 29 feet, col- lector streets are 39 feet, and thoroughfares are 44 feet and up. Mr. Lanham explained that the City plans to do work to these other streets wtih 1980 monies. The Administration recommended approval of the plans and specifications and requested permission to advertise for bids. Councilwoman Caffey moved for approval of the plans and specifications and authorized the Administration to advertise for bids; Councilman Kloesel seconded the motion. The vote follows: 00410 -8 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1080 Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Ordinance - Establishing Policy For Extension of Water and Sewer Lines The Administration was not ready to act on this item. Ordinance - Establishing a Policy for Abandonment, Use, and Disposition of City Property Council received a copy of two memorandums and a copy of a proposed ordinance relating to a policy for use, sale and aban- donment of City property. Mr. Bounds stated that the first memo- randum was dealing with the use of City easements, which briefly summarizes some statements that he made to Council at the last meeting. Mr. Bounds explained that on the last page of that memorandum, he attempted to establish a policy for use of City property. The owner of the underlying fee simple interest to the property may do anything not inconsistent with the purposes for which the City easement was obtained or granted. In particular, the owner of the underlying fee simple interest may fence his portion of the City easement, provided that the easement is not used by the City on a regular basis for ingress or egress, and provided that the easement is not used for open ditch drainage. The owner may not construct a permanent building or structure on a City easement, and this policy is not in lieu of any other City regulations regarding the use of public rights -of -way. As far as the use of City property that City owns in fee simple, the general rule would be that no one may use City property without the written permission of Council or the City Manager. Mr. Bounds explained that after he had finished trying to formalize the policy that Council had asked that the Administra- tion address its attention to, he also decided to make the ordi- nance comprehensive and address the problem of abandonment of City easements. Mr. Bounds explained Council had received a copy of a memorandum dealing with a problem of abandoning City ease- ments which points out that if property is dedicated to the City, that the City has only an easement in that property for the purposes for which it was dedicated and that the City cannot interfere with any private easement rights granted in the dedi- cation and that if the City attempts to abandon property in which there are private easement rights, the City risks condemning the private easement interests of the abutting property owners to use the property. With the legal considerations set out in the memorandums in mind, the Administration prepared an ordinance for City Council to control the abandonment, use and disposition of City real property. The ordinance adopts in two sections, two new articles to Chapter 26. The first article deals specifically with the abandonment of streets and alleys, with the abandonment of City easements and with the sale and rental of City land. In Exhibit "A" of the proposed ordinance, Article IV, Council will note that in Section 26 -50, it first addresses the policy of the City with regard to the abandonment of property where the City has the consent of all the abutting land owners. If the city makes incumbent upon the applicant in a situation where they want to acquire property from the City or they want the City to abandon an easement, to get the permission of all the affected abutting landowners. If they get that permission on a voluntary basis, the City will release property. Subsections (c) -(f) of the Section 26 -50 address the problem where you do not have an agreement by all of the property owners to an abandonment of an alley. In that case, the City would hold a public hearing after giving notice to all of the property owners affected and after the public hearing, could make a decision to abandon or vacate the street or alley depending upon the facts that will come out at the hearing. Section 26 -51 deals with the abandonment of City easements not used for access which would upon payment of a set 00410 -9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 fee or appraised market value of the easement provide that the City would be able to quitclaim to owners of abutting property easements abandoned. Exhibit "B" of the ordinance establishes the policy for building on utility easements. It sets forth the general rule that it shall be unlawful for any person to build, erect, or construct, or cause to be built, erected or constructed, any building, structure, or edifice for any use or occupancy upon any easement of the City without first procuring a written permit to do so from the director. It sets forth the general guidelines and information that the director would need in determining whether to grant the permit. If the permit is refused, it can be appealed to the City Council and the City Council would make a decision on a case by case basis. Mr. Bounds stated that basically what the Administration had attempted to do is to provide in writing a policy to deal with some of the problems that come before Council dealing with the use and sale of City properties and easements. Mr. Bounds stated that it is a lengthy document but he also provided some of the forms that would be used in connection with the administra- tion of the ordinance. Air. Lanham explained there are several cases each year of people asking that streets or portions of streets be closed. As a rule, these are not streets that have been opened but they were part of a plat that may have been platted 30 or 40 years ago. In many cases, it is to the community's benefit that the requests be granted to close these areas so that the land can be developed. The Administration recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilwoman Caffey seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 2868 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE ABANDONMENT, USE, AND DISPOSITION OF CITY REAL PROPERTY; MAKING VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVI- DING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Ordinance - Prohibiting Commercial Refuse and Brush Pickup Council members Johnson and Kloesel absent. At the last meeting, an item was placed on the agenda to amend the City's ordinance relating to brush and trash pickup to define "commercial operators" more precisely. No action was taken on that proposed ordinance so that a provision could be added to make it an offense to place tree limbs resulting from commercial cutting out for pickup by the City. The Administra- tion recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilwoman Caffey moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Councilman Johnson back. 00410 -10 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 ORDINANCE NO. 2869 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROHIBIT PICK UP OF COMMERCIAL REFUSE OR SPECIAL ITEMS RESULTING FROM ACTIVITIES OF A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN DIRECT CONFLICT; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWO HUNDRED AND N01100 ($200.00) DOLLARS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Ordinance - Authorizing Final Payment to R & L Construction Company for Construction of Concrete Channel in Allen - brook Section I R & L Construction Company has completed work on the con- crete channel in Allenbrook Section I. This work has been in- spected and approved by the City Engineering Department. Total contract cost is $14,142.31. Final payment in the amount of $4,817.71 remains to be paid. The Administration recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 2870 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ACCEPTING CONSTRUCTION OF A CONCRETE CHANNEL IN SECTION 1 OF ALLENBROOK SUBDIVISION BY R & L CONSTRUC- TION COMPANY FINDING THAT THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT; ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER'S CERTI- FICATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE; AUTHORIZING THE FINAL PAYMENT TO THE SAID R & L CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Ordinance - Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Contract for Senior Citizen Taxi Service Grant Funds Last fall, the City Council authorized the Administration to make application for grant funds from the Areawide Agency on Aging to continue funding the Senior Citizens Taxi Program. The grant application has been approved. The proposed ordinance authorizes the Mayor to execute a contract for the Senior Citi- zens Taxi Program grant fund. When Council approved the 1979 -80 budget, the Administration was not sure that the City would receive this grant so the Administration put $27,000 in the budget for this service. Now that the City has received the grant, the City will only have to use $7,000 - $8,000 for the local share. The Administration recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilwoman Caffey seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 2871 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS' TAXICAB PROGRAM; MAKING VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE. 00410 -11 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Ordinance - Awarding Contract for Park Street Improvements Council received a copy of a letter from Jim Hutchison, representative of Busch, Hutchison & Associates, and also a tabu- lation of the five bids received for the Park Street Improvement. This project is to be an assessment paving project. The Admin- istration felt that the City received very good bids. Mr. Hutchison explained that five bids were received for the Park Street Improvements with Marathon Paving and Utility Company being low bidders at $535,532.50 which is well within the avail- able bond funds. Marathon Paving and Utility Company had recently completed the Wye Drive, Lynchburg Road and Ashleyville Street paving projects. Mr. Hutchison felt the bid to be a good bid and recommended acceptance of the low bidder. The Administration recommended that the sidewalks not be a part of this contract but that separate bids be taken for the sidewalks. Mr. Hutchison explained that at the last Council meeting, it was decided to add the proposed sidewalks along Gresham, Garth and Park Streets to this contract. However, considering Bid Item No. 35 for 4" concrete sidewalks, where the additional work would be added, the price is $3.00 per square foot. Mr. Hutchison explained that it was the engineer's estimate for the additional cost of sidewalks to be made at $2.50 per square foot. There- fore, Mr. Hutchison recommended that the sidewalks not be added to this project, but that separate bids be taken on this work later when the paving work is completed. In response to a question from Councilman Philips, Mr. Lan- ham explained that the bids were coming in and there was not time to send out an addendum to actually include the sidewalks in the bids. Councilman Johnson inquired as to how will the assessment relate to the project and is the property owners' share included in the bid? Mr. Lanham explained that the property owners' share is included in the bid and the City has an appraiser that is determining the enhancement to the abutting property. The City will notify all of the property owners of a Hearing of Benefits that will be held at the first Council meeting in May. The property owners will have an opportunity to come before the Council to agree or disagree with the recommendation of the ap- praiser. After the hearing, the Council determines what the assessment will be against each property owner. Councilman Johnson stated that he had spoken with a gentle- man who had told him that Baker Road is a county road and that perhaps the county would allow the City some money to do the topping of Park Street. Mr. Lanham explained that the county has not been maintaining Park Street and did not believe that Park Street was on the list of streets that the county maintains. There is no requirement that the county maintain any street inside the city limits of Baytown. Mayor Hutto stated there is a question in his mind about assessment on a project such as the Park Street improvement when all of the citizens of Baytown will be using this street. There is no question that it will enhance the value. Councilman Cannon stated that it does create a problem for abutting property owners because they will have to pay out some money but by the same token, the citizens of Baytown, as tax- payers, would not be treated justly if the property is enhanced by the pavement. Mayor Hutto pointed out that the abutting property owners will have to pay twice because they will have to pay higher taxes, as a result of the enhancement to the property, plus payment of the assessment. Councilman Johnson inquired as to how will the appraiser 00410 -12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 know and predict whether this will enhance a man's property value. Councilman Cannon stated that the Council has this discus- sion each time there is to be a paving assessment project, but it is a good discussion. The law made that provision and if it does not enhance the value, the Council cannot legally do it. Councilman Kloesel back. Mr. Lanham explained that on past assessment projects, the property owners' share has been a small percentage of the total cost. Mr. Lanham explained that this is the way that this pro- cedure has been handled since 1958. Councilwoman Wilbanks back. Councilman Cannon pointed out that in the past, the ap- praiser has presented the Council with enhanced value which Council has reduced. Mayor Hutto stated that the Council has had this policy in effect for years and felt that the Council needs to grow up and do away with the policy. Councilman Kloesel stated that he a good approach. Perhaps the abutting like this approach, but the Council is to build more thoroughfares in Baytown for the thoroughfares in other ways th projects. strongly defends this as property owners do not going to have to continue and the City cannot pay in through assessment Mayor Hutto stated that he does not know if it was generally known that the Park Street improvement would be an assessment project. The Administration recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilman Kloesel moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Bounds explained that an assessment ordinance will be presented to the Council at the May 8, 1980 council meeting. It would be an ordinance that would be levying assessment for all of the individual properties. Councilman Philips stated he had a problem with the amount of overrun that the City can allow. It states that the contract price may not be increased by more than 25010. Councilman Philips stated that he would like to have the 25% reduced to loo as a matter of budgetary control. Councilman Kloesel stated that he would be willing to include that in the motion. Mr. Bounds stated the provision is there to give the city manager the authority to authorize the normal change orders less than 5%. The 25% limitation is imposed by state law and that is the maximum that the City would be allowed by state law. Coun- cilman Philips stated that he would like to go less than the maximum because he felt that 10% is adequate. Mr. Lanham explained that the only time this has been used in paving contracts is if the City added a street to the job, and this gives the City Council flexibility to do that. Mayor Hutto inquired if the contractor will close Park Street anytime during construction. Mr. Hutchison explained that the consulting engineers had not discussed this with the contrac- tor but felt that it would be impossible for the contractor to close Park Street completely. He felt that the contractor will probably work the project in sections. Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that preceeding the motion and second, Council has been discussing whether to continue this as 00410 -13 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 an assessment project. Mayor Hutto stated that the project currently is set up as an assessment project and when the ap- praiser makes the appraisal, the Council will hold a hearing and at that time the Council can take action. Councilwoman Wilbanks stated the ordinance would be awarding the contract. She felt that it seems backwards for the Council to award the contract and then decide how the finance arrange- ments will be handled. In response to a statement made by the Mayor, Mr. Bounds ex- plained that Council can authorize execution of the contract because funds are available to pay the full cost of the contract. The reason that the Council traditionally awards the contract and then hold the assessment hearing is so that the City Council is fully aware of the full cost of the project at the time that the assessment hearing is held. Council can levy up to 90% of the assessment of the cost of the project against the abutting property owners. By entering into the contract prior to the assessment hearing, Council fixes the cost that the Council is having an assessment hearing over. In response to a comment from Councilwoman Wilbanks, Mr. Bounds explained that the Council had previously adopted resolu- tions authorizing this as an assessment project. Mr. Bounds ex- plained that the only provision that the proposed ordinance makes with regard to the assessment project is that it prohibits the contractor from beginning work until after the assessment hear- ings are held. Councilman Kloesel stated that in his motion, it was his feeling for the Council to go ahead with the assessment policy and at some other point in time, the Council can take a different turn on this. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 2872 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF BUSCH, HUTCHISON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE PARK STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AWARDING THE CON- TRACT FOR SAID PROJECT TO MARATHON PAVING AND UTILITY CONSTRUC- TORS, INC. FOR FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY -FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY -TWO AND 50/100 ($535,532.50) DOLLARS; DIRECTING THAT NO WORK BE STARTED ON SAID PROJECT UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE ASSESS - MENT PROCEEDINGS; MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The tabulation is attached to the Minutes as Attachment "B." Ordinance - Awarding Bid for Complete Light Pole Replacement at the Baytown Sports Complex One bids was received for replacement of a light pole at the Baytown Sports Complex. Baytown Electric Corporation submitted the only bid at a total cost of $3,130. 1980 Revenue Sharing funds will be used for this purpose. The Administration recom- mended approval of the ordinance. Councilwoman Wilbanks moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: Councilman Philips 00410 -14 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 ORDINANCE NO. 2873 AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR A COMPLETE LIGHTPOLE RE- PLACEMENT AT THE BAYTOWN SPORTS COMPLEX TO BAYTOWN ELECTRIC COR- PORATION FOR THE SUM OF THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY AND N01100 ($3,130.00) DOLLARS. Bid tabulation is attached to the Minutes as Attachment "C." Resolution No. 727 - Creating Drainage Study Committee At the last Council meeting, Council received a petition submitted by members of seven civic associations requesting that a study committee be formed to address the City's needs regarding flood control and drainage improvements. The proposed resolution creates a Drainage Study Committee appointed by the City Council, comprised of seven members including representatives of the City Council, citizens' representative, representatives of the City Planning Commission, the City Engineer, and the City Attorney. This study committee is charged with presenting a report to the City Council by July 1, 1980. Mr. Lanham explained there may be a need for funds for this committee if they should want to hire any engineering help. This could be handled by a transfer of appropriation at a later date from the contingency fund. Councilman Philips felt that this committee has a sunset life and the main goal set forth is to get the job done cor- rectly. He felt that the Council should support it to the extent that the City should receive some professional help and not just come up with an inadequate proposal. Councilman Kloesel felt that the committee can make recom- mendations and come to the Council if they feel engineering work is necessary. He further stated that he is not interested in the committee conducting a drainage study. The Administration recom- mended approval of the resolution. Councilwoman Wilbanks moved for adoption of the resolution; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 727 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CREATING THE DRAINAGE STUDY COM- MITTEE; DEFINING ITS PURPOSES AND POWERS; MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Ordinance - Authorizing Payment of Claims Relating to Sanitary Sewer Line Easement Study This item will be discussed in executive session. Consider Request of Curtis Thompson for Water and Sewer Service Outside of City Limits Council received a copy of a letter from Curtis Thompson re- questing water and sewer service outside the city limits on Busch Road. The Administration recommended approval of the request. Councilman Johnson moved to accept the recommendation of the Administration; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 00410 -15 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Recess and Reconvene Mayor Hutto recessed the open meeting into executive session to discuss personnel matters and acquisition of land. When the open meeting reconvened, the following business was transacted: Ordinance - Authorizing Payment of Claims Relating to Sanitary Sewer Line Easement Study Mr. Bounds explained there are two ordinances authorizing settlement of claims relating to sanitary sewer right -of -way and making various provisions related thereto and providing for the effective date. The City Manager is authorized to settle the claim of Mrs. J. M. Harvey in the amount of $500 and the claim of Mrs. J. T. Bailey in the amount of $750 for damages to property on, along, or near a sanitary sewer line behind residences fronting the 2200 block of West Main Street. Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilwoman Caffey seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 2874 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF A CLAIM RELATING TO SANI- TARY SEWER RIGHT -OF -WAY; MAKING VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATED THERE- TO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ORDINANCE NO. 2875 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF A CLAIM RELATING TO SANI- TARY SEWER RIGHT -OF -WAY; MAKING VARIOUS PROVISIONS RELATED THERE- TO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Consider Appointments to Drainage Study Committee Councilman Philips moved to appoint Norman Dykes, Scott Bounds, Dennis Caputo, Perry Walker, David Cox, Clary E. Wilbanks, and Delmas A. Smith to the Drainage Study Committee. Included in the motion was that the Chairman be Delmas A. Smith and that the Council set the first meeting to be April 15, 1980, at 4:00 p.m.; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks, Caffey and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Appointments to Council Wrecker Committee Council was not ready to act on this item. Consider Bayshore Constructors, Inc. versus City of Baytown The Administration requested permission of Council to autho- rize the City Attorney to appeal the action taken in the case of Bayshore Constructors, Inc. versus City of Baytown. Councilman Johnson moved that the City of Baytown appeal the court case Bayshore Constructors, Inc. versus City of Baytown and that the maximum amount of money to be spent toward this end be set at $10,000 without coming back to Council; Councilman Kloesel seconded the motion. The vote follows: 00410 -16 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - April 10, 1980 Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Kloesel, Caffey and Cannon Nays: Councilwoman Wilbanks Mayor Hutto Adjourn With no further business to be transacted, Mayor Hutto adjourned the meeting. Ka r n Petru, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk attachment "A" M E M O R A N D U M April 10, 1980 TO: Fritz Lanham, City Manager FROM: Norman Dykes, City Engineer /Director, Public Works SUBJECT: Drainage Priority List Update The projects to be financed with 1975 Bond Funds are as follows: Percent Priority Project Description Complete Cost 1 E. Ward Rd. Add additional storm sewer 0 $2520000.00(1) pipe & box inlets 2 Ward Rd. & Construct additional storm 0 * 40,900.00 Kilgore Rd. sewer system intersection 3 E. Fayle & Engineering study required 0 * 5,000.00 Danubina Engineering & Contingencies 159,935.00 TOTAL $457,835.00 I also recommend that the $567,800 that is available in our 1979 -80 budget and in the Revenue Sharing Budget which was designated for drainage work by contract forces and City forces be allotted to the following projects. 1 Craigmont, Reconstruct & enlarge 100 $100,761.37 Allenbrook, inlet boxes & Country Club Sub- divisions 2 E. Shreck Construct storm sewer 50 * 28,000.00 system 3 St. James Construct outfall ditch 0 ROW House, Bay- from Baker Rd. to Bayway 30,000.00 way Dr. - Dr. (pipe) Baker Rd. ditch 4 W. Texas Construct additional storm 0 * 150,000.00 Ave. drain- sewer system age project 5 Dwinnel & Colby Enlarge box inlets 0 5,000.00* (1) Engineer's estimate * Denotes estimated cost SUBJECT: Drainage Priority List Update 4/10/80 M A J O R - C I T Y F 0 R C E S Percent Priority Project Description Complete Cost 1 Hollaway Construct ditch along east 100 $ 10,283.00 Addition side of RR & install two sets of 36" pipes under Massey Tompkins Rd. 2 Greenwood Enlarge & construct addi- 100 18,413.00 Dr. drain- tional storm sewer system age project 3 Parkridge Install 36" storm sewer 98 10,000.00* Bend Sub- system in easement on division Hillhurst Dr. 4 Allenbrook Construct outfalls from 100 14,132.00 Allenbrook Dr. to Goose Creek 5 Arrowhead Extend storm sewer system 100 3,444.00 Dr. & build box inlets 6 Cobblestone Extend existing storm 100 7,857.00 Ln. sewer system 7 Azalea Construct storm sewer 98 3,000.00 Dr. system to flow water to the north 8 N. Holly Construct storm sewer sys- 0 12,000.00 Dr. tem in outfall ditch be- tween N. Holly & N. Bur- nett (4001, 30" pipe) 9 First St. Storm sewer system on 0 16,000.00 west side from Sterling to W. Republic 10 Allenbrook Install two 24" outfall 100 3,922.00 III pipes M I N 0 R - C I T Y F O R C E S 1 Steinman Clean ditches 100 2,551.00 2 Crosby -Cedar Clean ditches - both sides 100 33,605.00 Bayou from Massey Tompkins to outfall 2 3 UNIT PkICES BIO FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT ON PARK STREET FROM PRUETT STREET TO GOOSE CREEK STREAM -JOB No. - 79 -1530 (Item MARATHON PAVING BROWN & ROOT, INC. BAYTEX CONSTRUCTION ANGELS EQUIPMENT No. Item uantit Unit Unit Pa ce Tota Unit Pa ce Tota Um t Price � Total Unit Pace Total 1. 5' Storm Sewer Inlet Com lete -in- lace 6 Each $ 700.00 $ 4200.00 $ 860.00 $ 5160.00 $ 1000.00 $ 6000.00 $ 1100.00 $ 6600.00 2. Extra Depth 5' Storm Sewer Inlet 2 V.F. 100.00 200.00 90.00 180.00 100.00 200.00 250.00 500.00 � 3. 10' Storm Sewer Inlet Com lete -in- lace 4 EacR 1000.00 400.0.00 110U.Q0. 440Q.OQ 13QO..QQ 5200.00 1500.00 6000.00 4. Extra Depth 10' Storm Sewer Inlet 4 V.F. 100.00 400.00 105.00 420.00 150.00 600.00 250.00 1000.00 �! 5. Re -align or reconstruct E =I existin Inlet 4 Each 900.00 3600.00 1575.00 6300.00 1500.00 6000.00 900.00 3600.00 N a�i 6. 8'x8' Concrete Box Culvert Lump � Extension Cam lete -in- lace 1 Sum 2000.00 2000.00 8925.00 8925.00 9500.00 9500.00 7000.00 7000.00 U N 7. 18" R.C.P. Storm Sewer C -76 � C.1 III Type "A" Backfill • Com lete -in- lace 160 L.F. 45.00 7200.00 31.50 5040.00 30.00 4800.00 38.00 6080.00 8. 24" R.C.P. Storm Sewer C -76 I C1. III Type "A" Backfill I Com lete -in- lace 25 L.F. 51.00 � 1275.00 33.60 840.OQ 34.00 850.00. 41.00 � 1025.00 � 9. 24" R.C.P. Storm Sewer C -76 � C1. ITT Type "D" Backfill Com lete -in- lace 100 L.F. 46.00 4600.00 19.95 1995.00 26.50 2650.00 30.00 � 3000.00 10. 30" R.C.P. Storm Sewer C -7.6 C1. III Type "D" Backfill j Com lete -in- lace 30 L.F.' 53.00 1590.00 27.30 819.00 31.00 930.00 34,00 � j020.00 UNIT PRICES BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT ON PARK STREET FROM PRUETT STREET TO GOOSE CREEK STREAM -JOB No. - 79 -1530 (Item MARATHON PAVING BROWN & ROOT, INC. � BAYTEX CONSTRUCTION ANGELS EQUIPMENT too. Item uantit Unit Unit Pa ce Tota Unit Price Tota Unit Price Total Unit Price Tota 11. 48" R.C.P. Storm Sewer C -76 C1. III Type "B" Backfill E Com lets -in- lace 30 L.F. $ 88.00 $ 2640.00 $ 65.10 $ 1953.00 $ 90.00 $ 2700.00 $ 92.00 $ 2760.00 60" R.C.P. Storm Sewer �12. C -76 C1. IIIType "D" Backfill, Complete - in- lace 570 L.F. 101.00 57570.00 89.25 50872.50 103.50 58995.00 86.00 49020.00 j3, 60'� R.C.p.Storm Sewer C -76 C1. I��x�� Txpe "6 -" Backfill � Complete�i�n� place 260 L.F. 108.00 28080.00 105.00 27300.00 117.00 30420.00 110.00 28600.00 �14. 24" Galv. 16 ga. Asphalt coated C.M.P. Type "D" Backfill, Complete -in- lace 35 L.F. 52.00 1820.00 31.50 1102.50 29.00 1015.00 50.00 1750.00 i15, Remove, Salvage and Haul Existin 36" Storm Sewer 30 L.F. 15.00 450.00 21.00 630.00 18.00 540.00 20.00 600.00 I (16. Cement stabi1i�zed Sand as directed by the Engineer I Com lets -in- lace 50 Ton 20.00 1000.00 26.25 1312.50 20.00 1000.00 21.00 1050.00 117. Adjust Existing M.H. to New Grade 2 Each 150.00 300.00 130.00 260.00 230.00 460.00 750.00 1500.00 I18. Junction Box, Complete -in- Lump lace, Sta. 37 +60 7 Sum 5000.00 5000.00 3150.00 3150.00 6700.00 6700.00 7000.00 7000.00 19. Junction Box, Complete -in- Lump lace Sta. 38 +50 1 Sum 3500.00 3500.00 4200.00 4200.00 6700.00 6700.00 7000.00 7000.00 0. Adjust Water Meter to New Grade 1 Each 50.00 50.00 52.00 52.00 350.00 350.00 50.00 50.00 UNIT PRICES BIO FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT ON PARK STREET FROM PRUETT STREET TO GOOSE CREEK STREAM -JOB No. - 79 -1530 Items MARATHON PAVING BROWN & ROOT, INC. BAYTEX CONSTRUCTION ANGELS EQUIPMENT t�o.l Item uantit Unit Unit Price Tota Unit Price Tota Unit Pa ce ota Unit Price Tota I' 21., Remove, Salvage and Haul i " Existin 12" Water Line 250 L.F. $ 8.00 $ 1920.00 $ 13.00 $ 3120.00 $ 4.00 ;$ 960.00 $ 10.00 $ 2400.00 22.j Cut Plug and Clamp Exist , 12 Water Line � 1 Each 250.00 250.00 420.00 420.00 250.00 250.00 .50.00 .,50.00 23., Remove miscellaneous Concrete 100 C.Y. 50.00 5000.00 38.(10 3800.00 35.00 3500.00 200.00 20000.00 24.� Relocate Fire Hydrant .Com lete -in- lace 2 Each 1500.00 3000.00 945.00 1890.00 650.00 1300.00 160.00 - 320.00 c 25. �6" A.C. C1. 150 Fire Hydrant � Lead, Com lete -in- lace 20 L.F. 20.00 400.00 21.00 420.00 14.00 280.00 25.00 500.00 26. Salvage, Load and Haul Existing Flexible Base Truck Measurement 2000 C.Y. 6.00 12000.00 5.00 10000.00 3.20 6400.00 10.00 20000.00 ump 27. Roadwa Excavation 1 sum 30000.00 30000.00 36525.00 36525.00 52000.00 52000.00 44000.00 44000.00 28. Lime Stabilized Subgrade Com lete -in- lace 16250 S.Y. 1.75 28437.50 2.10 34125.00 2.00 32500.00 4.00 � 65000.00 29. 10" Reinforced Concrete Approach Slab, Complete - M in- lace 60 S.Y. 25.00 1500.00 42.30 2538.00 36.00 2160.00 63.00 3780.00 30. 7" Reinforced Concrete Pavement, Complete -i'n- j lace 15900 S.Y. 17.00 270300.00 19.60 311640.00 19.50 310050.00 18.00 � 286200.00 31. 6" Reinforced Concrete Curb Com lete -in- lace 6900 L.F. 2.00 13800.00 1.55 10695.00 1.90 13110.00 3.00 � 20700.00 32. Paving Header, Complete -i�n- lace 250 L.F. 5.00 1250.00 8.50 2125.00 4.50 1125.00 10.00 2500.00 UNIT PRICES BID FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRETE PAVEMENT ON PARK STREET FROM PRUETT STREET TO GOOSE CREEK STREAM -JOB No. - 79 -1530 Item i tao. Item uantit Unit MARATHON PAVING BROWN & ROOT, INC. � BAYTEX CONSTRUCTION ANGELS EQUIPMENT Unit Price Tota Unit Pa ce Tota Unit Price Tota Unit Pa ce Tota 33. Saw Cut Exist. Concrete Pavement 100 L.F. $ 5.00 $ 500.00 $ 5.40 $ 540.00 $ 3.00 $ 300.00 6.00 600.00' 34. Beam Guard Rail, Wood Posts Com lete -in- lace 120 L.F. 25.00 3000.00 36.80 4416.00 19.00 2280.00 60.00 7200.00 35. 4" Concrete Sidewalk Com lete -in- lace 400 S.F. 3.00 1200.00 1.90 760.00 3.40 1360.00 3.00 1200.00 ,36. 6" Reinforced concrete Drive - lete -in- lace 300 S.Y. 30.00 9000.00 20.50 6150.00 24.00 7200.00 39.00 11700.00 wa ,Com �37. Compacted Limestone Base, � Thickness as directed by the Engineer, Complete -jn- lace 200 Ton 25.00 5000.00 22.10 4420.00 23.00 4600.00 43.00 8600.00 X38. Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete, Thickness as Directed by the En ineer Com lete -in- lace 40 Ton 50.00 2000.00 49.00 1960.00 48.00 2320.00 100.00 4000.00 ,39. Road shell or limestone for temporary crossings, drive- � way repair as directed by the Engineer, Delivery ticket basis, Com lete -in- lace i 500 Ton 15.00 7500.00 21.00 10500.00 19.50 9750.00 25.00 12500.00 TOTAL BIDS $535532.50 $510955.00 $597055.00 $646405.00 ADDITIONAL BIDS: LEM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - $648,720.00 TlTLF': COMPLETE LIGHTPOLE REPLACEMENT B 1 D= soa -sa '� DATF: 4 -2 -9Q - 9 � �� a - m_ QTY i DESCRlPTlON CITY OF 6AYTOUVf� B!D TA BULAT1O�1 BAYTOWN ELECTRIC UNIT EXiENDEO UNfT != 7(TENOEO UNf 1 ! � COMPLETE LIGHTPOLE REPLACEMENT � x$3,130.00 DELIVERY: � 30 day Four (4) company's were mailed � I � - specifications GROSS IOTA L LESS DISC. NF_T TOTAL ni rt!C1�V 0 UN17 i EXTENOEO 0 UNIT I EXTENOEO 1