Loading...
1981 12 10 CC Minutes11210 -1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN December 10, 1981 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in regular session on Thursday, December 10, 1981, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chember of the Baytown City Hall with the following attendance: Fred T. Philips Jimmy Johnson Perry M. Simmons Mary E. Wilbanks Roy L. Fuller Allen Cannon Emmett 0. Hutto Fritz Lanham Larry Patterson Randy Strong Eileen P. Hall Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilwoman Councilman Councilman Mayor City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Clerk The meeting was called to order with a quorum present and the invocation was offered, afterwhich the following business was transacted: Minutes Councilman Fuller moved for approval of the minutes for the Council meeting held November 24, 1981; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Receive Petitions A petition which had been executed by 174 city employees had been submitted to the Administration. The petition requested that consideration be given to withdrawal from the Social Security program with the understanding that two years advance notice in writing must be given. The petitioners requested that City Council accept the petition and refer same to the City Manager for appointment of a committee to study and recommend possible alternatives to the Social Security program for both city and employee contributions. Mr. Lanham stated that the law requires that two (2) years notice be given prior to an entity withdrawing from the social security program. During that time, the study referenced in the petition can be performed and a final determination made. The city would not be required to withdraw at the end of two (2) years if the decision is made to remain in the program. 0 Councilman Johnson moved to accept the petition and refer same to the proper committee; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. 11210 -2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Mr. Lanham clarified that the motion is that the Adminis- tration be authorized to notify the proper federal agency that two years from January 1, 1982, the present plan is to withdraw from the social security program. He stated that he was certain that during the two years there would be a number of meetings, a great deal of study and if Council desires, a vote before any kind of final determination. The City Attorney explained that if the city gave its written notice this month, the city would be out of the program by the end of 1983. If the written notice is mailed in January, 1982, the two -year period will be up in January, 1983 and the city would not be out of the plan until the end of 1984. The recourse if the city determines not to pursue the issue is to notify the proper authorities of that decision. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None City Manager's Report Sick leave - The Administration has reported to Council from time to time concerning reduction in sick leave usage by City employees. Approximately one year ago an improvement was announced. Since that time, sick leave usage has improved further. During the third quarter of this year, sick leave usage was down to 1.78 %; for the entire year the percentage is 2.37 which is below last year. Baker Road - Council had requested that the Administration be in contact with the contractor on Baker Road and the county concerning the possility of getting at least a portion of Baker open to traffic. The Administration has been informed that Baker will be open from North Main to a point west of Garth Road prior to Christmas. Drainage - Singleton Road project is eighty -five (85 %) percent complete; North Main from Cedar Bayou Lynchburg to East Baker has been completed; West Main is approximately ninety -five (950) percent complete; Massey Tompkins Road project which involves cleaning ditches and enlargement of drainage pipes from Crosby Cedar Bayou to Raccoon is approximately ten (10 %) percent complete; Brownwood Drive dirt berm is about thirty -five (35 %) percent completed. Sliplining - The contractor on Phase III of the 1981 Sliplining Program is awaiting delivery of pipe and expects to begin work after the first of the year. Water line in vicinity of Thompson Road - The contractor will begin work on Monday, December 14. Community Development - Carver Street - The contractor is eighty -five (850o) percent complete with storm sewer and has completed all water distribution improvements. Excavation has been completed in front of Carver Jones School. The total project is about twenty -five (25 %) percent complete. 0 1980 Street Improvement Project - All streets have been completed, but there was a change order adding curb and gutter work in Tejas Park which is about fifty (50%) percent complete. Cleanup work remains for the entire project. 11210 -3 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Questions and Comments Regarding City Manager's Report Councilman Fuller commented that on Baker Road the esplanade needs more forming and all of that dirt is clogging the gutters on both sides. He felt that the contractor needed to clean the gutters. Councilman Johnson requested that the drain at the intersection of Texas Avenue and Gaillard be unclogged. Mayor Hutto requested, with Council approval, to have an item placed on the next agenda regarding truck traffic on thoroughfares and streets. Council voiced no objection. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Preserving Land Owned by the City of Baytown in the Immediate Vicinity of Sterling Municipal Library for Library Use The Administration, in accordance with Council directive, had prepared an ordinance for Council consideration, preserving land owned by the City of Baytown in the immediate vicinity of Sterling Municipal Library for library use. The Administration recommended approval of the ordinance. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3279 AN ORDINANCE RESTRICTING THE USE OF CITY PROPERTY ADJOINING STERLING N[UNICIPAL LIBRARY TO LIBRARY RELATED PURPOSES; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Representatives of Citizens Bank and Trust Will Appear This item was withdrawn prior to the Council meeting. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Contract for 14est District Sewage Conveyance System and Effluent Force main Ten bids were received on December 1, 1981, for con- struction of West District Sewage Conveyance System and Effluent Force Main. The bids in order from low bid to high follow: BIDDER AMOUNT McKey Construction & Equipment Inc., LaPorte, Texas $ 1,063,411.50 Texas Sterling Construction, Inc. Houston, Texas 1,134,907.00 Anselmi & DeCicco, Inc. Maplewood, New Jersey 1,184,817.00 Mar -Len, Inc. Baytown, Texas 1,198,680.00 (Bid tabulation continued on Page 11210 -4) 11210 -4 Minutes of the Regular 'Meeting - December 10, 1981 BIDDER Sabine Consolidated, Inc. Port Arthur, Texas Reliance Construction, Inc. Houston, Texas Boring & Tunneling Company of America Houston, Texas D. R. Crane, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma Jalco, Inc. Houston, Texas BRh Company, Inc. Houston, Texas AMOUNT $ 1,227,373.00 1,306,890.00 1, 368, 890. 00 1,412,650.00 1, 593, 564. 00 1,832,091.00 The consulting engineers, with Administrative concurrence recommended that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, McKey Construction & Equipment, Inc. for $1,063,411.50. This bid is below the engineers estimate of $1,262,000. Award of the bid would be contingent upon approval of EPA since this project is partially EPA funded. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Streeter with the firm of Langford Engineering, Consulting Engineers on the project, stated that McKey Construction has performed work for the City of Baytown in the past in a satisfactory manner. From all information, McKey Construction & Equipment, Inc. is a very reputable contractor. Councilwoman Wilbanks moved for adoption of the ordinance, awarding the contract for West District Sewage Conveyance System and Effluent Force Main to McKey Construction & Equipment, Inc. Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3280 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF MCKEY CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPMENT, INC., FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WEST DISTRICT SEWAGE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM AND EFFLUENT FORCE PLAIN -- CONTRACT NO. 4; AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACTING OF INDEBTEDNESS BY THE CITY FOR THE SUM OF ONE MILLION SIXTY THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED ELEVEN & 50/100 ($1,063,411.50) DOLLARS. Consider Request to Transfer Permits for Taxicab Service Mr. Gordon Hart was present and requested of Council that he be allowed to withdraw the request to transfer permits for taxicab service since the persons he would be transferring to had indicated an inability to accept the offer. Mr. Hart stated that the company would continue to be operated as in the past. Council had no objections. 11210 -5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Consider Preliminary Engineering Report for Extension of Rollingbrook Drive Johnnie Busch, Consulting Engineer on the Rollingbrook Drive Extension Project, was present to review the preliminary report on that project with Council. This proposed facility has been in planning for a number of years and the engineers have recommended no significant alignment changes. The City of Baytown's Planning Department has recommended that a "continuous left - turn" facility be utilized for this project. The consulting engineers concurred in that recommendation because roadways separated by continuous left turn lanes, such as Park and Garth, have proved to be safe, effective traffic movers and provide much better access to abutting properties. The project includes the construction of a bridge over Goose Creek Stream which bridge will contain a fenced sidewalk on each side. The engineers are recommending that necessary right of way be acquired to construct a portion of needed drainage ditch as part of this project. The ditch will serve as an outfall for a portion of the storm sewer associated with the roadway construction. It will provide drainage to an undeveloped area north of the project which otherwise could not be properly drained. It will facilitate the drainage of Rollingbrook Drive and adjacent property. At some future date, this drainage facility could be extended to Baker Road to intercept some of that rainfall runoff that is captured by the large box culvert now in place and route it around some of the more built up sections along Goose Creek Stream which will help the surge flow of those areas. fir. Busch stated that the engineers do feel strongly that the drainage work is necessary and urge Council approval of this concept. The estimated cost for the Rolling - brook Drive Project is $3,374,800.00, with additional costs of $110,000 for the drainage plan plus undetermined right of way costs. It will be necessary to acquire 8 acres right of way for construction of Rollingbrook Drive and 6 acres right of way for outfall drainage ditch. Mr. Lanham, in response to explained that what the Adminis approval of the general concept will contact the property owner the property owner would prefer of the drainage ditch. an inquiry from Council, tration is seeking is Council and later, the Administration to determine which approach with regard to construction In response to inquiries from Council regarding possible participation by the county, Mr. Busch stated that the portion north of Rollingbrook Drive is not critical to the construction of Rollingbrook Drive. The portion south of Rollingbrook Drive is necessary appurtenance to Rollingbrook Drive and if Council desires to postpone the development of drainage plans north of Rollingbrook Drive to some later date, this would not affect the function of drainage along Rollingbrook Drive. Mayor Hutto pointed out that the county has a bond election to be considered shortly and perhaps this could be included in that bond election. Another possibility would be to construct a storm sewer along Rollingbrook and carry the water directly to Goose Creek; however, the proposed drainage improvement would be more economical because of the large area that must be drained. To accomplish proper drainage of this large area, it would be necessary to construct very large drainage structures which costs would exceed the cost of the drainage ditch several times. 11210 -6 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Mayor Hutto suggested that Council authorize the Administration to talk with the county concerning the portion north of Rollingbrook. Council voiced no objection. Mr. Busch explained that the reason for recommending a continuous left turn movement on the structure is medians are not as safe nor as effective in movement of traffic. Mr. Lanham explained that the Administration is presently requesting Council approval of the concept, afterwhich the property owner will be contacted and the Administration will report back to Council. Councilman Johnson moved to authorize the Administration to contact the property owner utilizing the proposed concept in those discussion; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Abstained: Councilman Philips Hold Public Hearing on Houston Lighting and Power Company Rate Request (7:00 p.m.) Rlayor Hutto opened the public hearing regarding the request of Houston Lighting and Power Company for rate increase. He allowed time for all those present desiring to testify to sign the register since that register provides the order those desiring to speak are called. Mayor Hutto explained that Houston Lighting and Power had filed a rate increase request which would result in a system -wide revenue increase of approximately $248,000,000. The City of Baytown has jurisdiction over utility rates within the city limits and the public hearing is for the purpose of providing City Council information and evidence to make a determiniation as to the rate that Houston Lighting and Power Company may charge. After hearing from Houston Lighting and Power Company and the city's consultant, Council will welcome any additional testimony from those desiring to testify. mayor Hutto administrered the oath to Mr. Jim F. Schaefer, District Manager with Houston Lighting and Power Company. Mr. Schaefer reviewed the rate case pending before Council as follows: In July, 1981, Houston Lighting and Power Company filed with the Public Utilities Commission of Texas, the City of Baytown and the other 84 cities that are in this service area a system -wide rate increase for the amount of $248,000,000. During the ensuing months the eight volume package that was provided the City of Baytown, PUC and other cities was studied by the PUC staff. Sepember 17 and 18, 1981, HL &P met with PUC staff and various intervenors in the rural case and reached a settlement providing for a system -wide increase of $189,000,000. The PUC hearings examiner issued an order or report adopting that settlement and on October 15, 1981, the three commissioners signed the final order and made rates effective based on that $189,000,000 settlement. 11210 -7 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 HL&P filed with the City of Baytown and other cities on November 9 a bond to place those rates into effect. Of the 85 incorporated cities which HL&P serves, 4 have passed some other form of ordinance than recommended by PUC. On December 3, a pre- hearing conference was held in the commission office in Austin and in those cities, interim rates were placed in effect. There will be a full -blown hearing before the commission on January 27. Houston Lighting and Power Company's request of Council was that Council adopt the recommendation of the PUC in the rural rate case. Some of the major points in that rate case which are important are that the actual increase amount was $189,144,000 or 7.19% of the staff adjusted test year total revenue which ended March 31, 1981. There was an increase in the overall residential rates of $84,865,000 or 11.1% increase in the residential category. Rate of return on common equity was 16.25 %; included in the rate base was 73% of construction work in progress or approximately 881.8 million dollars. Franchise fees continue to be surcharged to the cities and is not included in the base rate as in past years. The rate design also reflected residential category for those who utilize less than 750 KWH or less during the summer billing months. Mr. Schaefer ended his comments by stating that the agreement that was reached with the commission was signed by the intervenors and he named those entities who acted as intervenors. Randy Strong, City Attorney, mentioned that Council had been furnished a copy of the letter from Joy Warren with Touche Ross & Co., rate consultants for the City of Baytown, which letter summarizes their recommendation. Also, at each Council place was a copy of Houston Lighting and Power Company Application to Increase Rates Summary of Consultant Recommendations which the City Attorney requested be included as part of the record. A copy of the letter from Ms. Warren, along with a copy of the report is attached to the minutes as Attachments "A" and "B" respectively. Joy D. Warren was sworn by Mayor Hutto and reviewed the report which recommended a rate increase of 5.2% or $134,984,000 which is $58,252,000 less than PUC staff recommenda- tion. Mayor Hutto inquired if there were other persons present who desired to testify. There was no indication that anyone else desired to speak; therefore, Mayor Hutto closed the hearing. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Establishing Rates for Electric Service Provided by Houston Lighting and Power Company The legal staff had prepared two ordinances - -one would adopt the rate established by PUC and the other would adopt the rate recommended by Touch Ross & Co. which are the rates that Houston and 34 other cities have adopted. Council is required to adopt a rate ordinance by January 7 or the rates that Houston Lighting and Power Company originally requested will become effective. Councilman Philips moved to adopt Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -2A which would establish the rate adopted by the PUC. 11210 -8 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Randy Strong, City Attorney, explained to Council that the ordinances speak to rate increase, as well as rate design and Council would need to indicate which rate design is to be adopted. The rate design is simply spreading the increase amongst various classes of rate payers. The ordi- nances adopt rate designs. Therefore, in each case, by adopting the ordinance, Council will be adopting the rate design set forth in the packet behind the ordinance. The Touche Ross design utilizes the same design as the company recommended, but with different figures. Councilman Philips stated that Touche, Ross study was to assure that a "bottom line" figure had been achieved and once that has been accomplished, he felt that there was little point in going any further, other than to set what percentage would be acceptable. Going beyond that would not be getting at the cost for electricity, but different ways of distributing it which is open to all kinds of variations. He stated that the 7.2% rate increase is consistent with the PUC which has decreased the original request of Houston Lighting and Power Company by some $50,000,000. He felt that firms like Touch Ross have done much to point out certain inequities and cause HL &P's request to become more reasonable and at this particular time the 7.2o represents a realistic reduction. The city attorney pointed out that because the cities of Houston and Baytown did not participate in the hearing before the PUC on the rural rates, none of the Touche Ross recommendation has been before the Public Utilities Commission at this time. The motion died for lack of second. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Strong stated that if the Touche Ross recommendation is adopted, probably HL&P will file an appeal to the PUC and request an interim rate equal to the $189,000,000 increase granted, pending actual hearing on the merits. The City of Houston rate decision has been appealed. The PUC has granted an interim rate and scheduled a hearing on the merits for January 27. Therefore, if Council should adopt the Touche Ross recommendation, HL&P will probably file its appeal tomorrow and Baytown will probably be consolidated with Houston and be in Austin, January 27. Councilman Johnson moved to adopt Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -10 -2B which ordinance adopts the recommendation of Touche Ross & Co.; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Abstained: Councilman Philips ORDINANCE NO. 3281 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES TO BE CHARGED BY HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY IN THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR SUCH RATE SCHEDULES; PROVIDING CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH RATE SCHEDULES MAY BE 11210 -9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 CHANGED, MODIFIED, AMENDED OR WITHDRAWN; CONTAINING FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT; REPEALING ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR PART OR PARTS THEREOF WHICH MAY BE IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consider Appeal of John Haesly Company From Decision of Baytown Planning Commission Regarding West Town Shopping Center -- Phase Two Mayor Hutto reminded those present that Council has adopted a policy which allows the presiding officer to request a spokesman be chosen from a group of persons who wish to address the Council on the same subject. This policy is to avoid repetitious presentations and allow the Council to proceed in an orderly manner with its business. Mayor Hutto stated that if any group present wished to have a different representative to present different issues, that group would certainly be free to do so. However, Council requested that those representatives be limited and that representatives refrain from repeating each other in their presentations. Mr. Cletus Davis with the firm of Boswell, O'Toole, Davis & Pickering, Attorneys at law, was present as representative of Haesly - Kinghorn Partnership No. 2 which is owned by John Haesly and Allen Kinghorn. The Haesly - Kinghorn Partnership owned the property located at Decker Drive and Fairway Drive, which development is planned Phase II of West Town Shopping Center. The same partnership developed Phase I. Mr. Davis stated that he would like to provide Council with a history of the acquisition of the land and then provide an overview of material that is to be presented through witnesses present. First of all, this tract of land was put under option to purchase back in 1979. Extensive work was done to set out conditions in that earnest money contract to make certain that an orderly approach was being made to the development of the second phase of this shopping center. For example, the seller of the property was required to make certain that adequate water and sewer facilities were available from the City of Baytown to serve the property for its proposed use. In addition, financing requirements were set out so that the partnership could work with the lending institutions to line up financing before the property was purchased and soil analysis were performed. The partnership worked very closely with the City Planning Commission on the layout to make certain that the development was acceptable to the city and the City Planning Commission. In 1980, the developer appeared before the City Planning Commission. The layout was approved with no objections to the curbcuts on Fairway Drive. The developers had difficulty due to the financing market for shopping centers to get the plat in for final approval before the City Planning Commision in the alloted time. Therefore, the developers postponed until May, 1981 when they appeared before the Planning Commission again with their layout. In dealing with financing for the project, one of the requirements was that the City Planning Commission approve the project before the construction lenders would even allow the developers to sign the note and begin. Therefore, that was a very key point which the developers relied upon in May, 1981, when this was approved not only by the City Planning Commission but all other departments of the City of Baytown which are involved in development of shopping centers. 11210 -10 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 The land was purchased in August, 1981. Permanent financing and construction financing had been secured and an $8,000,000 note had been executed for this development. In November, the developers went before the Planning Commission again for final approval of the layout. They already had construction contracts and all the permits required by the City of Baytown and other governmental entities to move forward with this project. At that time the City Planning Commission made final approval of the development of the center except for the number of curb cuts that would be permitted on Fairway Drive. The hearing was set off for an additional week and the developers appeared again before the City Planning Commission. At that time the citizens of Country Club Oaks Subdivision appeared and the City Planning Commission reversed its position and cancelled the project and would not approve it due to the one controversy of providing access to Fairway Drive. That is when the developers appealed to City Council. The developers were present to present information in order to help Council make a decision and to establish the serious financial difficulty that the partnership will be in by the fact that the City Planning Commission reversed its approval. Denial of access to Fairway will make the shopping center development unattractive to a number of the tenants that have already signed leases. The developers had a traffic survey made by an independent consultant to determine the impact of the traffic that would be created by the development of this center. Testimony will also be presented by the architect who worked closely with the City and the Planning Commission to meet all requirements necessary to move forward on the project. Before Mr. Davis called the first person to testify, he inquired if Council had any questions of him. In response to an inquiry from Council regarding lack of financing as a direct result of non - access to Fairway, Mr. Davis stated that the developers have a construction loan presently in place for $8,000,000 and if the access is denied on Fairway, there is serious concern that the prime tenant, TG &Y Stores, which tenants lease is a condition of the financing, may terminate their lease because of the change of the plan. If this should occur the developers bank note would be in default, their permanent loan would be in default -- that's how serious it is for the developers. Mayor Hutto inquired if the Planning Commission had given preliminary approval in May or whenever it was? Mr. Davis responded that in May, 1981 preliminary approval was received which was the key that the construction lender relied upon. Mayor Hutto inquired what motivated the Commission to reverse itself some 6 -8 months later? Was it the same plat? Mr. Davis responded that it was the same plat and indicated that the architect on the project could provide more detail. Councilman Fuller inquired if elevations were presented at the time of preliminary approval? Mr. Davis responded that was presented and that the pr commission was interested in the building, drainage, etc. engineering and elevation was The flood plan, drainage plan plat process. he thought that a plat plan imary thing which the planning -- the preliminary layout of Therefore, he felt that both presented to the commission. and everything is part of the 11210 -11 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Mayor Hutto pointed out that the Planning Commission has had a month to study this to arrive at a decision and this is the first opportunity that Council has had to go into the details of the situation. Mr. Davis requested that he be allowed to call Mr. John Haesly who has been in real estate development for the past 20 years and in the Houston area for the past 15 years. Mr. Haesly has been responsible for the development of a number of shopping centers in the Houston area. As a result he is well qualified to tell about the kind of attitude the typical shopping center tenant will have when considering flow of traffic and access availability to abutting public thorough- fares. Mr. John Haesly stated that he had been involved in the City of Baytown for a number of years. Phase I of West Town Shopping Center was completed several years ago and during the course of that development, the logical evolution of properties on Decker Drive would be continued expansion of retail on this property. Therefore, the planning on this project has been in place for some period which could be a long as five years. When the option was taken to purchase the property which the total option period was about twenty - one months, the developers were faced with the most difficult financial period of time in the history of the real estate industry. However, the developers still felt like this development was a development that would contribute signifi- cantly to life style of the people who reside in Baytown. Although there were economic hardships, the developers did arrange financing in the amount of $8,000,000. The key to a package like that is predicated on the income stream that the particular property is likely to produce. In Phase I, a lease was signed with TG &Y Stores for 15,000 square feet over five years ago. Due to circumstance at that time which is not significant to mention now, the decision was made not to build that store. Today, the financing is keyed to the presence of the 60,000 square foot TG &Y store. Due to the peculiar configuration of the site, a merchandising plan had to be developed which would appeal to retailers that would permit maximization of the utilization of Decker Drive exposure. As the development progresses, the overall development plan is going to present probably one of the outstanding community centers in the country for the City of Baytown to enjoy. Mr. Haesly mentioned that he had traveled extensively in the last 15 years to cities which are comparable to Baytown and for a city the size of Baytown to have a complex of this size so stratigically located with such convenience to its citizenry is an outstanding opportunity for the city to have. Mr. Haesly mentioned that in the negotiations with tenants generally leases are long -term for major tenants and short -term for smaller stores. Major tenants are looking at the economic situation of the property for 20 -25 years. Mr. Haesly stated that if he had to retreat today and go back and redefine access to the property, it might precipitate a situation where the total economic value of the property would diminish and he would be in default to major borrow- ings presently secured. Therefore, there is absolutely no way to measure the total significance of having major tenant leases cancel. Approximately $2,000,000 has been expended on the purchase of land and the employment of professionals to assist in the design of the property. If an error has been made, it was that a traffic consultant was not hired to begin with; however, a traffic consultant has been engaged who will be part of the program tonight. One of the major 11210 -12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 problems with the development has always been flood water which accumulates on the property. A consulting engineer from Houston has been retained to work closely with Harris County Flood Control, county engineers and city engineers. A masterful plan has been devised to take care of waters, both sanitary and flood or rain type waters. Also, the developers have gone to extreme degrees of labor to try to achieve a suitable mix of proposed tenants in order to complement the first phase of the development. Studies show that this property when developed will produce revenues to the City of Baytown from ad valorem taxes probably in excess of $60,000 per year and will generate sales in excess of $30,000,000 per year of which sales taxes will be collected. Employment that will be afforded by the project in the construction effort will probably involve the discharging of about $3,500,000 in labor and employment long -term over the life of the property with approximately 30 merchants and 150,000 square feet of floor space will probably employ 200 -225 people - -long term. Mr. Haesly emphasized that the partnership is not a stranger to Baytown. He stated that he was proud of the development that has been developed to date and he feels that the proposed development will be an asset to the city. The development will serve upwards of 30,000 and should have an economic life in excess of 30 years. He also emphasized that the developers definitely need access to Fairway Drive to continue the orderly development of the property. With this in mind, the developers have engaged within the last two weeks a national firm of traffic consultants and have obligated themselves financially to develop a study that hopefully was done with enough care to define present day problems and possible solutions. At that point, Mr. Haesly requested that `.4r. John Zegeer report on the findings of the traffic study. Mr. John Zegeer is with the firm of Barton - Aschman Associates Inc., traffic consultants with offices throughout the United States. Mr. Zegeer is a registered engineer and has performed extensive work in traffic studies and shopping centers. He has performed traffic studies for cities for varying types of developments and he and his firm have made a detailed study in and around the Phase II development. `4r. Zegeer summarized the traffic report which was prepared on the Phase II project. Mr. Zegeer had prepared a map which depicted the exact location of the project which is located in the vicinity of Decker Drive and Baker Road. He stated, pointing to the map, that on the left hand of the map are two red lines which indicate Decker Drive. Decker Drive or Spur 330 is a street which links with IH -10 on the north. He also pointed to the intersection of Decker with Baker Road. Baker Road is currently under construction as a county construction project on the north side of the existing Phase I development. Baker Road crosses Goose Creek and east of there the construction has primarily been completed, but the roadway has not yet been opened to traffic. Fairway Drive is an east /west street which forms the northern boundary of the Country Club Oaks Subdivision. Goose Creek was shown in green on the right hand side of the map and Phase I which exists today at the corner of Baker and Decker was shown by large green Roman Numeral I, that is the center which contains a Safeway Store, Bealls and a Firestone Dealership. The 11210 -13 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 project proposed for development as a shopping center is called Phase II Development at the northeast corner of Decker and Fairway Drive. East of that project site is Pumphrey Elementary School and north of the project site is West Lodge Apartment Complex. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Zeeger stated that the two parcels (Phase I and Phase II) do abut one another and he pointed to the common boundary. With that brief overview of the area in question, Mr. Zeeger stated that his firm was retained to do a traffic impact analysis of the anticipated traffic demands that would be generated by the Phase II development. In doing so, he emphasized that the consultants were not hasty in just looking at the site and forming opinions by "shooting from the hip." He further stated that there are times when this may happen, but his firm understood the magnitude of the problem and the serious concern that existed in the city. For that reason extensive surveys were performed to determine exactly what the existing conditions are and to project future demands that are going to occur in the area. A series of turning movement counts during peak periods, both morning and evening at major intersections in the area were taken. Existing driveways into and out of the existing Phase I development along with delivery vehicles were counted. Both pedestrian and vehicular counts across Fairway Drive were made in the vicinity of Pumphrey Elementary. In addition to that the consultants held meetings with representatives from the county, state and City of Baytown to apply any existing and future roadway improvements, and utilized previous traffic counts to confirm that the data collected by Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. was accurate. With that data at hand, future impact of the development was analyzed. The traffic consultants findings are summarized as follows: 1. Traffic congestion; 2. Pedestrian /vehicular conflicts in the vicinity of Pumphrey Elementary School; 3. Delivery vehicle access into and out of the Phase II development. With regard to traffic congestion, the traffic consultants analyzed the levels of traffic utilizing the major intersections in the vicinity during both morning and evening rush hours. Everyone has their own conception of what is congestion and how much of a backup we are willing to experience at any particular intersection. In the traffic engineering profession an objective set of evaluation measures have been developed which can be applied to a number of varying situations to determine in an objective manner how congested a given situation is. In applying these measures, the size of the city and density of the area are considered. Persons in rural areas, for example, are not willing to tolerate the level of congestion in downtown Houston. On the other hand, people who live in Baytown would be able to tolerate more congestion than those persons who must commute in Houston. In this particular care, utilizing the count, the traffic consultants were able to conclude that at the intersection of Baker /Decker and Fairway /Decker during both peak periods, the intersections are currently working at an acceptable level of service. In fact, what was found is that the amount of delay at those intersections is fairly common during peak periods throughout many areas that experience rush hour traffic, but that in itself is not enough infor- mation. What the traffic consultants attempted was to 11210 -14 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 determine how those intersections would be affected by the development of Phase II. Counts throughout the country have been made of centers of this size, including this particular area of the country to determine accurately how traffic will travel to and from centers like this and the volume. Using that information and also using information collected from Phase I development, the traffic consultants were able to forecast future traffic volumes and there will be an increase. The traffic consultants, utilizing the techniques mentioned, were able to determine if driveways to provide auto access onto and off of Fairway Drive were not allowed for employees and patrons of the Phase II center, the traffic volume leaving the center (all who would be forced to turn right northbound Decker Drive) would overload the Baker /Decker intersection during the evening rush hour. It would continue to work at an acceptable level of service during the morning rush hour, but during the evening, the level of service would be beyond acceptable standards for a city of Baytown's size with the existing roadway design. What that means is it would be required to have the northbound lane of Decker Drive widened in advance of the Baker /Decker intersection. There would be necessity for a three -lane section in order to provide capacity to move the normal volume of vehicles which would want to move through that intersection during evening rush hour. Therefore, there could be a negative impact in that sense due to not providing access on Fairway Drive. If there were access along the site boundary on Fairway Drive, enough of the traffic could be siphoned off from Decker Drive by the traffic being able to turn right out of the center and turn left at the Fairway Drive crossover to travel outbound onto Decker. As a result of the pressure being taken off the Baker /Decker intersection, that intersection would continue at the same level of service, not to say that the volume would not increase - -it would, but the increase would not be nearly as great and would not be beyond the limit of what is currently being accepted. The traffic consultants also considered increase in volume which could be expected on Fairway Drive which is obviously a concern. Fairway Drive is a collector street which forms the boundary of a residential subdivision and connects arterial or major streets -- Decker Drive and Baker Road. As a collector street, there are standards which are accepted in the profession for volumes which are acceptable. Given the forecast of utilization of Fairway Drive after the center opens the traffic consultants found that the volume in the heaviest directions during the heaviest hour of a normal week day would still be well below that common standard for traffic volume congestion. That is to say that the amount of backups, stopping or waiting time for the people within the subdivision would be no greater or not significantly greater than what is being experienced now. With regard to pedestrian /vehiclar conflicts as they relate to the elementary school, the traffic consultants conducted counts throughout the morning peak periods and the afternoon peak periods and talked extensively with the crossing guards in that area and made observation to determine the situation. The consultants considered the additional traffic which the opening of the center would generate with cuts on Fairway. The traffic consultants observed that school begins after most of the heavy rush hour traffic has completed. School opens at Pumphrey Elementary School at 8:30 a.m. The highest hour for rush hour traffic in this vicinity of Baytown is 6:45 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. The heaviest volume of children crossing Fairway Drive is 8:15 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. In fact, the traffic consultants observed that the 11210 -15 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 volume of children crossing is somewhere less than 10 children. Most children are transported to school by bus, van or private automobile. In the evening rush hour, after school is dismissed, the volume of children crossing Fairway Drive is much greater. The volume ranges somewhere between 20 -60 children, depending on the day of the week and the activities being held in the area. During the evening period, the outbound flow of children occurs between 3 :30 p.m. and 3:45 p.m. Vehicular traffic using Fairway Drive at that time is quite low. The highest hour of activiity occuring on week days with vehicular traffic is between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Therefore, there is no meshing of pedestrian /vehicular traffic. An analysis of the existing activity of delivery vehicles to the Phase I development was also performed, as well as statistics from other developments of this size throughout the country. First, the consultants found that there were no three -axle trucks using Phase I development, but this will not be the case all the time. There will be semi- trailers using the Phase II development, but the only tenant anticipating the use of three -axle trucks is TG &Y, the store which requires the heavy delivery of goods. The great majority of delivery vehicles (well over 90010) would consist of two types -- two -axle trucks and vans. Most deliveries will be occurring from IH -10 or from the northwest down Decker Drive. For that reason, the need for access for delivery vehicles off Fairway Drive is oriented to getting to and from Decker Drive. The engineers found during the study that there would be additional traffic generated as a result of the shopping center and from traffic congestion standpoint, it would be preferable to provide access directly onto Fairway Drive to obviate the need for widening Decker. Because of the timing of school activities and major truck service activities with access to the crossover at Fairway Drive, the impact with regard to vehicular conflict and in terms of truck service conflict would be negligible as it relates to the area east of the shopping center. Mr. Zegeer presented a full report of the traffic study for the record which is attached to the minutes as Attachment "C . It In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Zegeer stated that everyone does not leave the shopping center at one time, but a large enough volume leaves during rush hours (home to work hours) so that that amount of traffic added to the normal home to work traffic does create an impact on the roadway system. The intersection of Decker /Baker today is working at an acceptable level of service, but enough traffic would be added to that intersection in the future with no curb cuts on Fairway so that it would begin to break down. The amount of congestion would be unacceptable to the majority of individuals using Decker Drive which would be the reason that Decker would need to be widened at that intersection. Again in response to Council, Mr. Zegeer stated that consideration has been given to requesting a cut on Decker between Phase I and Phase II development of West Town. He stated that a number of situations like this have been analyzed in other areas, Highway 1764 in Texas City, on the North Belt near Intercontinental Airport; therefore, the firm is familiar with this kind of situation and the effect of median crossovers. In the firm's opinion closely spaced 11210 -16 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 median crossovers are not safe and in terms of providing for the public good, Council would be well advised to limit closely spaced crossovers. In the firm's opinion, the volume of traffic leaving the center during evening rush hour that would desire to make a crossover at this mid -point and turn left against that southbound traffic would create a dangerous situation and in fact, would not provide enough capacity so that they could blend in with the flow of traffic moving southbound. As a result, the consultants fear the possibility of traffic backing up across the northbound lane. Councilman Cannon pointed out that the same thing would happen at Fairway. Mr. Zegeer responded that the reason the same thing would not happen at Fairway is because of the well -timed signals that exist today. Traffic signals are located in certain locations to provide safety. The volume of traffic today onto and off of Fairway is sufficient to warrant a signal. There are standards which are used by traffic engineers to make that determination. The signal at Decker and Fairway is timed to allow sufficient time for Fairway traffic to exit safely and this was taken into account by the consulting engineers with regard to added traffic from the proposed Phase II development. In response to what extra traffic and heavier traffic would do to the condition of Fairway Drive, Mr. Zegeer explained that the section of Fairway along the south side of the center could easily handle added flow; however, whether the street will break up in the future, the engineers could not say. The section of Fairway Drive along the site could handle some delivery vehicles. From questions by Council, Mr. Zegeer established that there would be internal travel possible between Phase I and Phase II. The developer is putting in place a driveway which will connect the two phases in the back where deliveries are made. Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that the internal traffic flow is very significant and was not mentioned in the traffic consultant's summarization. Mr. Zegeer stated that the firm has not performed a detail study of all the aspects of internal flow, but just looking at it from the beginning based on the plat plans which his firm has reviewed, the design is basically safe design which would allow distribution along the driveways so that everyone is not bunched up at one location. Councilwoman Wilbanks mentioned that if the traffic is allowed to flow through, the Baker and Decker intersection would operate just as it does now as delivery service traveled on in to Phase II. Mr. Zegeer responded that it is possible that a number of delivery vehicles would use the existing access off Baker to get to the Phase II development, but not all of them will opt to do that. Councilman Simmons inquired since the developers have access to Phase I, why couldn't access from Phase I to Phase II be utilized without the necessity of access to Fairway? 11210 -17 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Mr. Zegeer suggested that perhaps this could best be answered as a marketing or from a development standpoint. He stated that what his firm had attempted to do was to analyze the truck activity and the demands which are expected to be generated. Mr. Davis responded that the Haesly - Kinghorn Partnership is not the owner of Phase I; therefore, if the owner of Phase I found that all of the service vehicles were coming across his property, there may be an objection. Mr. Haesly developed Phase I and sold it. Mr. Zegeer in response to Council stated that what the traffic consultants had used to analyze traffic congestion was based on peak hours of the day. During the morning rush hours, the total traffic generated into and out of the Phase II center will be approximately the same as that generated into and out of the Phase I center today. During the evening rush hour, traffic generated at the new center is going to be somewhere between 10 -15% higher than that which is being generated at the existing center. The next person to testify on behalf of the developer was Mr. Robert C. Postle, registered architect, who has worked very closely with the City Planning Commission and various departments of the City of Baytown. Mr. Postle has been in the architectural field for the past 20 years. He is currently employed with Archi- Systems Southwest, Inc. and has been intimately involved in shopping center development, design and construction. Mr. Postle reported to Council that in 1979 the project was initially thought about and designed with a different system than what is currently shown and what was subsequently submitted for approval. The first plan had more driveway access to Decker Drive and also more driveway access to Fairway Drive. On the initial plan, six driveways were shown onto Decker and four driveways onto Fairway. The plan was submitted in Feburary, 1980. Preliminary approval was gained from the City Planning Commission March, 1980. For a number of reasons, the developers did not pursue the plan, the plan was revised based on certain requirements which were set forth by governmental authorities and further studies performed concerning the drainage situation in the area. Size of pavement was reduced, as well as certain access sizes. With the new plan, two accesses were provided to Fairway Drive and all the parking adjacent to the pavement to Fairway was deleted across the 120 foot easements along that area, and accesses to Decker Drive were decreased from six to three. The three driveways were submitted to the Texas Highway Department and their approval was gained in February, 1981 After that approval was gained, the plat was submitted to the City Planning Commission again for preliminary approval since it was a revised plan time had elapsed on the original plan. The plan was presented May, 1981 and preliminary approval was granted by the City Planning Commission to further proceed with the project as far as engineering studies were concerned and complete plans for final submission. This was done and the final plan was submitted, along with drainage, sanitary sewer, water and fire lane easements on November 2, 1981. Final approval was withheld pending resolution of the two driveways to Fairway. As far as the engineering studies, drainage, sanitary system, water systems, these were approved by the City Engineering Department. The drainage and sanitary effluent for this project flows along an easement behind the apartments to Baker Road. After the November 2, meeting with the City 11210 -18 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Planning Commission, the developers attended the next Planning Commission meeting, November 16 and due to extenuating circumstances the Planning Commission disapproved the site plan as presented. At this particular time, the developers requested and gained approval to proceed with the development as far as earth, storm drainage systems, and underground systems which are being installed at the present time on site. Mr. Postle stated that hopefully Council's decision will not affect the on -going of the project. Mr. Davis summarized the facts that he felt were the basic issues involved in the hearing. He stated that the basic issue is that it is a fundamental principle of real property law which has been upheld by the courts. The majority of decisions in every state in the Union and that relates to a man's right who owns property to have access to a public street. The court decisions have been consistent throughout the United States that when you buy a tract of land and there is a public thoroughfare that runs along that tract of land that you have a right to gain access to that land. The courts have further stated that this right is not just a mere privilege but it is a property right and an appurtenant which is a part of the land. Before any govern- mental entity is permitted to take that right away from the landowner, he must be paid just compensation for that right. The courts go on to say that when you have a situation where a governmental entity will attempt to restrict access of the property owner to the public thoroughfare, it can only do so when it is in the public interest where there is a severe condition that needs to be dealt with. He continued that the developers' case has been presented on fact, not emotion. Information had been presented establishing that not only will it cause severe economic hardships to John Haesly and his partner if access to Fairway Drive is denied, but the loan will be put into default. Mr. Haesly has construction contracts that are underway now because he relied in good faith on preliminary approval. In May, whenever this approval was granted, access to Fairway Drive was approved. Now, he is caught in this dilemma with an $8,000,000 loan which he has personally signed. Mr. Haesly has been denied access when evidence has been presented from an expert, independent traffic consultant that it will actually cause additional load and congestion at the intersection of Decker /Baker unless access to Fairway (curb cuts) are approved for the second phase of the development. Further information was presented that there will be no pedestrian /vehicular conflict for the school and that the level of additional traffic that would be added to Fairway would be an acceptable level. For these reasons, Council was urged by Mr. Davis to vote to overrule the Planning Commission's decision to deny permit to move forward on this development and to deny access to Fairway. Council inquired if Mr. Haesly or his attorney had been in contact with TG &Y to determine if they would renege on the agreement or if there is any evidence of that fact. Mr. Davis responded that TG &Y had not been contacted because until this hearing was resolved the partnership didn't want to bring this matter to anybody's attention. Mr. Davis stated that if Council turned down the plat and denied the development from going forward with construction, the developer would be in immediate default with the construction lender. Mr. Davis emphasized that the Planning Commission had reversed its previous decision to approve the project. 11210 -19 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 The developer had received final approval subject to resolution as to how many curb cuts had been granted on Fairway, but at a subsequent appearance before the Planning Commission the Commission voted to deny the entire project. For this reason, the developer is appealing to City Council. Mr. Davis stated that he had some serious concerns whether TG &Y would ratify their lease without the curb cuts on Fairway. The lease was entered into based on preliminary plat approval which showed the curb cuts on Fairway. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Hutto regarding whether an effort had been made on the part of the developer in the interim period between approval of the Planning Commission subject to resolve of the curb cuts controversy and final disapproval to resolve the matter, Mr. Davis stated that the developer tried to negotiate. Also, Mr. Davis stated that all governmental regulations had been met and that the only problem with approval of the plat was the curb cuts on Fairway Drive, other than that there were no problems with the plat. In response to Mayor Hutto's inquiry if there was room for a compromise on the curb cuts, Mr. Davis stated that he felt that there was none because of the difficulty of develop- ing the project without access to Fairway. He stated an example that McDonald's would not take a lease in the front part of the property without access. The developer would have to go to TG &Y to solicit their approval and without that accessibility, there is a real question whether TG &Y will ratify the agreement. Councilwoman Wilbanks suggested that the developers could explore the possibility of contracting with the owners of Phase I to obtain access. Mr. Davis stated at this point that possibility had not been explored. Leon Cox, member of Baytown Planning Commission, was recognized by Mayor Hutto. Mr. Cox verified that the Planning Commission did refuse approval for Phase II, West Town Shopping Center. He verified that on November 2, the developers were given final approval subject to the two curb cuts. The reason this was done was to give the developers a couple weeks to work with the people in the subdivision to reach some type compromise. He stated that the developers have met every engineering standard that has been requested of them. They have met all of the provisions of the various codes and they should not be denied their rights. However, the Planning Commission did turn the plat down because of the problem with the curb cuts with the possibility of having 18 wheelers on Fairway Drive. Mr. Cox stated that he felt that the project should be approved and that a compromise should be worked out so that one -way access is provided the developer to Fairway Drive. Mr. Cox felt that this could be worked out if the people of the subdivision would work with the developer. Mr. Cox stated that he felt that Council should give approval for the developer to continue with the project, but with some type compromises as far as entrance to and exit from Fairway Drive. Mayor Hutto requested that the City Manager read a letter from Superintendent Johnny Clark, Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, regarding this matter. That letter is attached to the minutes as Attachment "D." 11210 -20 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Mr. Ken Bartz, 4800 Country Club View, was recognized by Mayor Hutto. Mr. Bartz presented a petition from the Country Club Civic Association with 465 signatures, opposing curb cuts on Fairway Drive (a copy of said petition is on file in the City Clerk's Office). Mr. Bartz stated that he had no experts to testify. The only persons he had to witness were residents of the area. Mr.. Bartz stressed that the residents want to protect the neighborhood and maintain the value of the neighborhood. Ultimately, the residents want to assure the safety of the neighborhood. Mr. Bartz stated that he did not question the credentials of the traffic expert or the data, but he did request that Council review the data very carefully. He pointed out that the survey was taken during the last two weeks of which one was Thanksgiving holidays. He inquired if this week would be representative of a usual amount of traffic on Fairway with the holiday and hunting season in progress. He stated that the consultant had not produced any figures as to what the traffic flow is. The traffic on Fairway Drive in a 1978 survey was something close to 10,000 cars a day. Would the figures that the traffic consultants presented substantiate that? Mr. Bartz stated that the representatives of the subdivision have had four meetings with the developers of this particular shopping center. The Country Club Oaks Civic Association has been interested in the curb cuts on Fairway Drive since sometime in the spring, 1980. It was clear at that particular time that the association opposed these curb cuts. An agreement was reached that the developers would not proceed further until making further contact with the association. The developer then went from 1980 to 1981 and with no further contact with representatives of the association, the developers requests approval from the Planning Commission. During the summer months, the association had a change in officers and contact with the developer was overlooked. As soon as the association discovered that approval for the development was being sought, representatives of the association appeared before the Planning Commission to secure a delay. The Planning Commission granted a delay subject to meeting with the developers to resolve problems regarding curb cuts. A meeting of the association and developers was held but no compromise was reached. At the next meeting of the association, the developers were present and again the association explained its point of view - -the safety of children, increased.traffic and the fact that the large trucks will tear up the roadbed. The association felt that if one truck were to see that the route was being utilized others would follow suit. At this meeting with the association, the developer said that he must have the curb cuts with what the association could see as no real justification. The association felt that in this particular center between Phase I and Phase II there are interconnecting roads with ways to get trucks into the center and out. The association proposed an alternative where trucks could get in and out without any real additional costs. However, the developer found this to be unacceptable which resulted in the developers and the association appearing before the Planning Commission a second time. At that time one of the things that the Planning Commission wanted was the alternate solution to curb cuts on Fairway. The association kept inquiring where was the crushing need for the two curb cuts onto Fairway. At that time it was discovered that apparently there exists a letter to the stores that are 11210 -21 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 going to occupy that site that access to Fairway Drive would be available for the convenience of Country Club Subdivision. Yet, for one year ahead of that and consistently, the developers have been told the people of the subdivision do not want the curb cuts. Mr. Bartz submitted that it is obvious that there is a common boundary between the two phases, yet the developer is speaking of his rights. What about the rights of the people who reside in the subdivision? The people who reside there have helped to develop that area. They are the people who own that land and who contribute to it. They are the people who have always attempted to beautify that area and keep it good. The people who reside there are law abiding citizens. The developer has not performed any work on that land for 2- 3 years. Now, he comes in and begins to talk about his rights. He does have rights. If he did not have access to any major roads, that would be different, but look at that site, two - thirds of the developers' land has access to roads that are four lanes. Now, the developer is looking at Fairway and saying that he should have access. The question is why? Could it be because of that letter? In the spirit of compromise, the association has offered to go to TG &Y, to write a letter saying that the developer is in a bind because of this and that the people in Country Club Oaks (800 families) are willing to suffer the inconvenience to go around to enter the subdivision. The people are willing to do this in order to maintain Fairway Drive as it was originally intended as a residential road that is safe for the area with a school nearby. Mr. Bartz ended his presentation by pleading with Council to join the association, the superintendent of the school system and the Planning Commission and refuse this request for curb cuts. He requested to have three more people of the organization recognized. In response to an inquiry from Council regarding possible compromise, Mr. Bartz explained that none of the stores front Fairway Drive and if the design is considered, there is a U- shaped curve so that one of the entrances could be used for truck traffic and have a turn around for the trucks to come right back. Mr. Bartz emphasized that upon being questioned by the Planning Commission concerning the common boundary between the two phases, the developers responses have always been vague. He also mentioned the fact that the developer has been preparing the site which seems strange if indeed his borrowing is in jeopardy. Mayor Hutto recognized Dennis Caputo, resident of Country Club Oaks and former Vice - President of Country Club Oaks Civic Association. Mr. Caputo mentioned that he felt the main concern should be the safety of the children in the community. Mr. Caputo requested that the memorandum from Dr. Bartz to the Mayor and Council be included as part of the minutes. That memorandum is included as Attachment "E." Air. Caputo stated that before the Planning Commission Mr. Haesly had testified that they did have right of way across Phase I and Phase II. He also pointed out that the traffic study which was performed was done in two weeks during a time when there was much rain in Baytown. How many children did not walk to school because of the rain? Another interesting point was that the count was taken during a time when there were no sports activities being conducted. There are a number of children who utilize the playground after 11210 -22 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 school hours. As a matter of fact, the civic association was so concerned that the traffic commission was petitioned to place no parking signs along Fairway Drive. The traffic consultants seemed to have missed this fact. Another point that seemed to have been overlooked in the study was that in Baytown, there are a great number of shift workers which one shift is changed at 3:00 p.m. Yet, the consultants did not indicate a peak load on Fairway Drive at 3 :00 p.m. Another point of the report questioned by Mr. Caputo was that opening of the shopping center would not impact school traffic because the children would be going to school between 8 :00 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. What time will the shopping center personnel be traveling to work? He also mentioned the traffic consultants statement that there is a significant traffic problem and the suggestion that one way to alleviate that problem is to turn some of this traffic onto Fairway Drive. The traffic study did not speak to internal traffic flow within the two phases. He stated the study may be excellent as far as it went, but he doubted whether the study was carried far enough. With regard to the terminology "acceptable risk," Mr. Caputo submitted that with regard to the safety of the children of the area, what is an acceptable risk? Especially, since the report did not speak to the fact that the school ground is utilized as a playground. Mr. Caputo requested that Council take special note in its decision for the safety of the children. He pointed out the fact that the developer had already indicated to the Planning Commission that he has or would have nine major accesses /exits to the shopping center which fronts on two major highways. The developer has indicated that he desires to put in the curb cuts on Fairway Drive for the convenience of Country Club Oaks residents. The petition speaks to what the residents feel about the convenience of curb cuts on Fairway. The developer would put commercial vehicles on Fairway Drive which street is not designed to handle such vehicles. The developer has not addressed safety this evening. The developer is interested in convenience for his tenants. Mr. Caputo ended his presentation by reminding Council that its first and foremost responsibility is to provide for the safety of the citizens of Baytown. Mayor Hutto recognized John McGill, 5112 Arrowhead Drive, who stated that he had the distinction of residing directly on Fairway Drive. More pointedly in this case, Per. McGill resides directly across from Pumphrey School which makes him more knowledgable in terms of making certain observations. One of the areas not covered that concerns Mr. McGill is that the traffic counts were made during busy times of the day. However, an area that was not covered is after dark when Fairway is utilized as a drag strip on occasion. Living directly across from the school, Mr. McGill questioned to some extent that a maximum of 60 children cross that street on a daily basis with an enrollment of several hundred in the school He stated that those who live in the area are concerned about property values based on the impact of this development. He stated that the curb cuts on Fairway Drive would mean additional traffic on Fairway Drive which would only detract from property values and from the peace and tranquility that the residents of the subdivision would like to enjoy. Personally, he stated that he is unequivocally opposed to increasing the traffic by one additional car if if could be avoided. He stated that he does not want to avoid progress. This country is based on free enterprise which the developers represent as well as the residents of the subdivision. However, when a great 11210 -23 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 number of people are involved as in this particular case, these people deserve to be heard and to be strongly taken into consideration. The residents of the subdivision do feel a definite threat from a number of standpoints whether that be property values, life of children or the peace and quiet of the subdivision. Mayor Hutto recognized Joe Floyd, 5100 Arrowhead, which is four houses down from Fairway Drive. Mr. Floyd stated that he could only second what the two gentlemen before him had stated. He stated that he has had two children who have attended Pumphrey:School and on his block along in years past there were six children who walked to school. He mentioned that he has a daughter who will be attending Pumphrey several years from now and it concerns him that she will have to walk across Fairway Drive with the increased traffic. Mr. Floyd stated that although he is not an expert, every morning and each evening on the way home, he observes that Fairway is a heavily traveled street already which is difficult to get onto. Mr. Floyd stated that there are approximately 100 homes within one block of Fairway Drive. Some of these homes have drivways which back out onto Fairway and any increase in traffic along Fairway will cause these residents considerable problems in that regard and almost without a doubt will have a drastic effect on property values. This will certainly be the case for those who live on Fairway and probably will have a domino effect on down the street into the subdivision. He could not say exactly the value that would be represented, but indicated that Council could see that the residents also have a sizeable amount of value to consider. The homes which are owned in Country Club Oaks are major investments for most of the residents and when you are talking about loss of property values, this is a significant blow to the residents' net worth. He emphasized that property values are not anywhere near as important as the safety of the children. The safety of the children is uppermost. Mr. Floyd requested that Council uphold the denial of the Baytown Planning Commission for approval of the development based on the curb cuts on Fairway Drive. Mayor Hutto inquired of Mr. Bartz if he felt that there is a middle ground that could be reached to resolve this matter. Mr. Bartz responded that at this point the civic association feels that they are opposed to any curb cuts on Fairway Drive because of the positions stated to Council. Mr. Bartz stated the situation is that there is a common boundary (Fairway Drive) between the development and the subdivision. The residents of the subdivision welcome progress, but in this particular case there is no spirit of give and take. There are no laws to protect this boundary to make it safe for the children, or provide an economical boundary to allow for conduct of business or to protect the beauty of the residential area. Mr. Bartz stated that the residents of Country Club Oaks feel that that can be in this particular case and further more the residents strongly believe that that can be had without curb cuts. It would take a little bit of give on the part of the developer. Mr. Bartz stated that the association has met with the developers and the association feels that the developers feel that they do not need to compromise with the people of the subdivision. The 11210 -24 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 people of the subdivision are not against this development. The assocation has taken the position that the developers case for curb cuts is extremely weak. The association is willing to help the developers by meeting with the tenants and tell those tenants that the residents will patronize those stores. If the development were in place and Country Club refused to patronize the stores, the center would be in trouble. The residents of Country Club do not want to do that now, nor will they want to do that in the future. Mr. Bartz ended by saying that if there were to be a meeting right now the postions have polarized and the group would say no compromise. However, he further stated that if the developer would indicate a genuine interest in resolving the problem, there could be committees of the association form to suggest alternatives and attempt a compromise. Mr. Bartz did emphasize that the developer would have to show good faith in this endeavor. Mayor Hutto inquired if Mr. Davis had any rebuttal or further testimony. Mr. Davis stated that the intent of the developers was to submit facts to aid in Council's decision making and if there were additional questions that Council would like to ask the developers or their representatives to please feel free to do so. Mr. Haesly stated in response to a suggestion from Council that he discuss the matter with TG &Y that he had contact TG &Y and there is obsolutely no question that the lease document currently in existence with TG &Y is totally conditioned on access off Fairway Drive. Mr. Haesly further responded that the developers had received a pledge from TG &Y to do certain things over a long -term lease which base became an integral part of the financing on the program. Therefore, if Mr. IIaesly were forced to go back and renegotiate all the leases, this will affect the projected income stream of the property which will then in turn affect the willingness of the people from whom the money was borrowed to continue lending the money under the conditions of the docoments in existence. Currently, Mr. Haesly has borrowed approximately $2,000,000 of the proposed $8,000,000 that will be invested here. Frankly, the rate of interest at which this money was secured is 2.50 points over prime which is somewhere close to 18a. Therefore, on an annual basis if this development is stopped at this time, there is a $2,000,000 debt to service which is $360,000 per year or $1,000 per day. If he were to go back now to attempt to renegotiate major leases with 7 -8 tenants bearing in mind it took 21 months to get to this point, it would cost in excess of $500,000. He felt that he would never make it to that point because his lenders would foreclose on the property. He would be in default of his loan. Ile has a projected loan development period of twenty -four months which is in its 6 -7 month. Therefore, he has approximately eighteen months to complete the project. In response to an inquiry from Council as to the reason Mr. Haesly began without final approval, Mr. IIaesly explained that it is a very common practice in the industry. There were no indications given that there would be no access to Fairway Drive. Preliminary plans were approved. At one time in the development process, access rights were approved on Fairway Drive which involved four drives. Since that time the drives have been reduced to two with all parking off Fairway Drive removed and that area will now be dedicated as a landscapped area. The closest building to Fairway Drive is about 120 to 130 feet away. 11210 -25 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 The next point raised by Council was if the buildings are going to be 120 to 130 feet away, why not have an access road back there to service the backs of the stores? Mr. Zegeer responded that the truck service and other deliveries most of which are the smaller vehicles could use any of the driveways into and out of the center. However, it is common practice in the industry to attempt to separate delivery vehicles from private automobiles, both patrons and employees for safety reasons. If a drive was provided off Decker, the delivery vehicles then have to get to the back of the center. The site would be changed in such a way so that distance between the vehicles and separation of the vehicles could not be provided on the site. With the proposed development that would not be a workable system from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Zegeer stated that he could sit down with Council and explain the problem in detail, but it was very difficult to do so without the dimensions and turning radii. Councilman Johnson stated that he felt that some sort of compromise could be reached and there was no point in further discussion. Mayor Hutto called a ten - minute recess. When the meeting resumed, Councilman Philips moved that Council adopt the motion to concur with Planning Commission's decision in approving the development plans with the exception that no cuts be allowed on Fairway Drive. This is in recog- nition of the strong emphasis which has been made on the safety of children and residents in the addition, the threat to property values, the fact that orderly growth and the quality of life is a serious factor. Also, it is evident that the property is accessible to both the west and the south and therefore, there is adequate access. Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. Councilwoman Wilbanks inquired upon final action of Council if it would be necessary for the developers to resubmit a plat if Council approved changes. The City Attorney responded that the best way to proceed would be for the developers to resubmit a plat with the amendment shown which would allow the developers to continue with the project and would leave them free to file any appellate action. If no final plat is filed, no building permits will be issued. Therefore, the developers really do need to resubmit an amended plat. The City Attorney clarified further that what Council is proposing is to approve a plat with those changes on it and all the developers need to do is to submit the instrument so the city will have it in the records because if Council votes for the motion, the plat is being approved with the changes. Councilwoman Wilbanks surmised that in effect, the plat will not go back to the Planning Commission, but it will be a matter of record that the developers submit it to the city. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 11210 -26 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Report from Committee appointed by Council - November 24, 1981 Councilman Johnson reported as follows: "Mayor Hutto, members of the City Council, citizens of Baytown, I would like to submit a report from the Committee appointed by our meeting on November 24, to promote better communications between the City of Baytown and its Hispanic community. This committee was formed because of misrepresentation of Mexican culture, and the crime rate of illegal aliens in Baytown. After three meetings of this committee comprised of Police Chief Bo Turner, Assistant Police Chief Wayne Henscey, Assistant City Manager Larry Patterson, Ms. Dene Vara, Ms. Hilda Martinez, Ms. Janie Pequeno, Mr. Sam Montemayor and myself, we feel the following facts should be stated. First, and perhaps foremost, members of this committee and the citizens of Baytown be they white, brown or black, share an American culture, though our individual orientations and /or socialization may differ. Ethnic cultures do not promote crime. In Mexico or here in Baytown, working women are respected members and professionals of their communities. There are no statistics or text that indicate that in Mexican culture working women are considered prostitutes. Though all crime is a problem to the City of Baytown, the crime rate by illegal aliens in the crime categories of murder, attempted rape and drug dealing represent a minute portion of those crimes. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, this committee in meeting hopes that by sharing this information we have promoted a better understanding and unity between all citizens of this community. Though the plight of the illegal alien is one which generates mixed feelings, hopefully we will all come to see these individuals as human beings with human strengths and frailties." Mayor Hutto, as Mayor of Baytown, thanked the committee for the manner in which the assignment was undertaken. Councilman Johnson responded that he too wanted to concur with Mayor Hutto and stated that the committee had some very productive meetings and that he really did enjoy getting to know and work with these people. Hilda Martinez Will Appear Isis. Hilda Martinez stated that she has resided in Baytown for 29 years and that she was present, not only as spokesperson for the coalition, but also for herself. She stated that when she first addressed Council regarding a matter of serious concern to her and the coalition, events took place which they did not anticipate. Looking back and working with the committee has just made the Mexican- American community more aware of the importance of their obligations and privilege to participate in city government. In the future, there will be more participation from the group and the group plans to be very active in future elections. 11210 -27 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Ms. Martinez expressed her appreciation to Councilwoman Wilbanks and Councilman Johnson for their involvement and responsiveness. The coalition will be an organized group by the beginning of 1982 which group will continue efforts for better under- standing, closer communications and involvement in the community and city government. Ms. Martinez ended her presentation by inviting City Council and all those present to the season's first posada which the Mexican - American Women's Club is sponsoring. The posada will be held Wednesday, December 16 at 7:00 p.m. at the Bicentennial Park. Ms. Janie Pequeno Will Appear Ms. Janie Pequeno is a member of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, but appeared at this particular time in her own behalf to express her views. She thanked Councilwoman Wilbanks for expressing interest in the cause of the coalition, in that she was the Council person who took the first step so that the committee could be formed and begin its task of promoting better communication. Also Pis. Pequeno stated that Councilman Johnson who was on the citizens committee acted as a true representative of the people. He understood and was willing to expend his time and efforts to help resolve the problem. He conducted himself in a calm, patient manner which are qualities which should be possessed by those running the city's government. Ms. Pequeno stated that the findings of the committee by no means have settled all the misconceptions of the Hispanic community. Only one has been resolved--misrepre- sentation of Mexican culture. No longer will the Hispanic community remain dormant when problems arise. Through the coalition the Hispanic community now has a voice. Ms. Dene Vara Will Appear Ms. Dene Vara appeared as representative of the Coalition of Concerned Citizens, as well as herself. Ms. Vera stated that in the last month and one -half the concerned Hispanics of the city came upon a situation that they felt was of vital importance. They felt that it needed to be dealt with quickly and in a professional manner. Upon bringing that problem to Council, the group felt that by appearing a second time, the Council felt that the group was abusing its privilege to appear before the Council. The group feels that the reason the problem has existed for so long without being resolved is not the fault of the Coalition, but the fault of the Council, the Mayor, City Manager and the Baytown Chief of Police, who the Coalition feels attempted to cover up the Chief's carelessness and irresponsibility by not trying to deal with this in a public and professional manner. Ms. Vara stated that the Coalition feels that the Chief's statements were completely personal and they feel that biased unsubstantiated statements such as those should not be made by important members of the city government. Council is elected to represent the concerns of all the citizens of Baytown and should not single out any one group. Ms. Vara thanked those individuals who acted as responsible public servants in hearing the issues of Baytown's Hispanic citizens. In particular, Ms. Vara thanked Councilwoman 11210 -28 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Wilbanks who took the initiative at the last Council meeting and responded to the coalition's request for recognition. By taking this initiative, Councilwoman Wilbanks helped establish a committee to determine the true facts of these issues and settle any misunderstandings of public servants toward the Hispanic community. Through this committee there has been a beginning of understanding towards these issues and many more. Councilman Johnson, Larry Patterson and Assistant Chief Henscey did a tremendous job in helping to achieve this. Ms. Vara also thanked Councilman Philips for going on record at the last Council meeting on behalf of the coalition. Ms. Vara stated that the coalition and herself have become aware of policies and procedures for participating in City Council meetings. She stated that she has made the effort to bridge any cultural differences and challenged Council to do the same. Ms. Vara stated that she is a life- long resident of Baytown and that she has never felt any kind of division between the Hispanic community and the non- Hispanic community. She stated that she feels Baytown is a fine town where children can be reared to be healthy and responsible adults. Its. Vara closed her statements by saying that while the committee may be terminiated, the coalition is not terminated. Many Hispanic men and women will be working to register Hispanics to become active voters. She emphasized that if Council refused the coalition their rights to come to the Council with their opinions and problems to be dealt with in a fair manner, they will make full use of those rights at the polls on election day. Sam Montemayor Will Appear Mr. Sam Montemayor thanked Ms. Martinez, Ms. nequeno and GIs. Vara for their stand on these issues. Mr. Montemayor stated that the findings of the committee are before Council, but the question is what are you, as elected officials going to do with these findings? Will the matter be pursued to make certain that no present or future Baytown City employee makes such unsupported accusations and unjustified derogatory remarks? Will there not be consequences to suffer by those who of their own choosing, unsupported by fact, unjustly degrade and verbally rape people in the community or will you file the committee report away never to be seen again? If the latter is true, then ladies and gentlemen, probably the coalition will be back in these chambers with the same problem very soon. Mayor Hutto stated that just a few weeks ago several differences of opinion seemed to exist between the city and the city's Hispanic citizens, but because of the coalition's efforts and the input from coalition members as concerned citizens, those differences have either been resolved or there has been created a vital communication process that will help all to resolve differences that might be encountered in the future. Again, Mayor Hutto thanked the group for its efforts as a committee. Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that she personally appreciated the kind support in mentioning her name in the comments made before Council, but it was the efforts on the part of the coalition which brought results. She encouraged the group to continue that participation. She stated that she happened to be the one to respond on this issue, but there are seven persons seated on Council with each tuning in on different needs of different people and it works when everyone works together; therefore, the coalition's part is very significant in that process. 11210 -29 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Councilman Philips stated that he felt this to be an unusual occasion and he wanted to reflect that Councilwoman Wilbanks has said that maybe sometimes citizens feel that Council is not responding as it should. However, Council works as a team and sometimes they really don't know what to do and time is their best friend, not that Council is trying to put anyone off, it's just that Council is hoping that something will percolate out and the best decision will come up. Councilman Philips stated that Refugio Martinez and his efforts to bring the cleanup program into focus was great. The coalition brought another problem to Council and Council responded. He stated that he hoped that the group did not feel that they could not come to Council with a problem. Councilman Johnson thanked the group for their kind remarks concerning his participation. Consider Proposed Resolution No. 799, Approving Petition to City of Baytown for Annexation of Land to Lake Municipal Utilitiy District The Administration has received a request from the developer of Lake Municipal Utility District to annex a parcel of land adjacent to the district. In as much as that parcel is in Baytown extraterritorial jurisdiction, another city or water district cannot annex without Baytown's approval. If Baytown gives its approval, however, Baytown would not be able to annex this small parcel in the future unless the entire district is annexed. The disadvantages to Baytown are that not only would the property itself not be included on the tax roll, but there would be no sales tax revenues from any development on the property. There could be other cases of property along IH -10 which utility districts may want to annex; therefore, what Council determines with this parcel could establish a precedent. In response to an inquiry from Council, Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works /City Engineer, stated that the city can provide water service to the parcel and sewer service would be available on the south side or the city could contract with the MUD to provide service. Mr. Lanham in response to an inquiry from Council stated that the owners of the parcel do have the right to be annexed by the city if they so desire. Mr. Lanham suggested that the Administration could inform the owners of the parcel that Council's thought is that the City may want to annex that parcel in the future. Council had no objection. Councilman Philips requested that the Administration develop some of the details of this situation. What are the advantages and disadvantages? Mr. Lanham stated that the Administration would report back to Council. 11210 -30 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Consider Shift Structure Change for Members of the Fire Suppression Division In the preface the Administration indicated that the City Administration, along with the fire department has researched shift structures of various fire departments of the state which research indicates that a majority of the fire department in cities of above 10,000 have a shift structure that provides for 24 hours on duty followed by 48 hours off duty. Of the cities surveyed, about 90% have that type arrangement. The Baytown Fire Department held an election and has indicated by a majority vote of about 61% that they would favor this type arrangement over the present arrangement which is three twelve hour days and three twelve hour nights with three days off. Of those voting, about 34% opposed the change and about 5% had no preference. The Administration feels that this type arrangement would not result in reduction of the quality of service and the Administration recommended approval of the shift change for members of the fire suppression division. The shift structure would be 24 hours on with 48 hours off. The shift change would be at 7:00 a.m. which is what it is now. Regarding sick leave, vacation, holiday usage and accural, one shift would be equivalent to two days which would represent no change. The change in shift structure would become effective January 1, 1982. Councilman Simmons inquired since this was an Administrative function, would this really require Council action? Mr. Lanham responded that in a change of this magnitude, the Administration would like to have Council approval. He mentioned that several years ago when a change was made for some of the public works staff to work a four day week, Council was asked to approve that change. Councilman Simmons moved to accept the Administration's recommendation; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. In response to Council inquiry, Mr. Lanham stated that the advantage of this shift structure is that travel time is reduced and the amount of travel. The change will not decrease nor increase manning or hours. However, the structure does group hours so that a man will never work both Saturday and Sunday and every third weekend the fireman will have the entire weekend off. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Selection of Consulting Engineers and Architects for 1981 Capital Improvements Program Mr. Lanham mentioned that Council in its work session had decided to delay the appointment of an architect, but had agreed to name engineers. Councilman Philips moved to award the water tower work to Bovay Engineering and other water line projects to Wayne Smith, roads, parks and drainage to Busch, Hutchison and sewers to Langford Engineering. Mr. Lanham mentioned that these awards will not include some of the small sewer and 11210 -31 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 water line projects that city crews may perform and would be subject to the Administration bringing contracts back to Council for consideration. Council concurred. Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Wilbanks, Fuller Mayor Hutto Nays: None Philips, Johnson, Simmons, and Cannon Consider Amending 1981 Capital Improvements Priority List - -Water Line Improvements In July, when Council approved priority list for improve- ments under the bond program voted in June, the water lines in Craigmont /Ponderosa area were to be changed out in the third year. However, since that time numerous water breaks have been experienced. Within the last six months there have been 13 breaks on Lorraine; 10 on Hemlock; 8 on Crestmont and 8 on Craigmont. The Administration is recommending that Council move the water lines in Craigmont /Ponderosa from the third year to the first year and that Wayne Smith be autho- rized to begin work on this. Funds need to be included in the next bond sale for this project. Councilman Fuller moved to accept the recommendation of the Administration; Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consent Agenda Mayor Hutto reminded Council that unless Council desired to remove an item from the consent agenda, Council would consider the entire consent agenda as one item. Mr. Lanham requested that Item "h" be deleted from the consent agenda since there was an error in bid specifications. As indicated in the preface, the Administration is recommending that "i" be rejected since only one bid was received and that bid was over budget. Item "k" was incomplete at the time the preface information was forwarded to Council. Tabulation was furnished each Council member on which recommendations of the Administration were circled. On Item 1, the low bidder is Carlon Meter Company and they do not meet specifications. The Administration recommended the next low bidder, Neptune Water Meter be awarded Item 1. The same is true on Item 2, the low bidder does not meet specifications and the Administration recommended Neptune. Items 3 & 4, low bidder does not meet specifications; therefore, the Administration is recommending the next low bidder, Carlon Meter Company. Rockwell International is low bidder and is being recommended for Items 5 & 6. Item 7, the low bidder is Rohan Company but their bid does meet specifications. Items 8, 9 & 10, low bidder or best bidder is Neptune. Item 9 reflects that Neptune is not low bidder; however, experience with the low bidder, Hersey Products has been poor. There has been difficulty getting delivery. Therefore, the Administration is recommending the next low bidder, Neptune. Item 11, Rohan is the low bidder. On 11210 -32 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Items 12, 13 and 14, Utility Supply is being recommended. Again, Item 14 is another case where Hersey is low and the Administration is recommending that the bid be awarded to Utility Supply the lowest and best bidder. Those are the recommendations of the Administration. Mayor Hutto voiced his opposition to Item "a." He stated that he did not see how Council could justify charging this $5.00 fee for that particular service. Mayor Hutto stated that if anyone would be interested in making a motion to remove this item from the consent agenda, he would vote against it and if not, then he would support the consent agenda. Mr. Lanham explained that the fee for death records is set by law, but on birth records it is not. All the charges are consistent with what the state is charging. In response to Council inquiry regarding the office estimates on "d" and "e," Bill Cornelius, Director of Planning and Traffic, explained that the employee now performing this task is new and was therefore, off on his estimates. The City of Baytown was unable to participate in the H- GAC purchasing program on the police vehicles because Baytown would not have been allowed to establish specifications needed for cars to be utilized in Baytown. The consent agenda was considered as follows with the exception of Item "h" which was withdrawn by the Administration: a. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -4, will amend Article VI, "Administrative Fees and Charges" of the Code of Ordinances to provide a new fee schedule for certified copies of birth and death records. Presently the City charges three (3) dollars for the first copy of each certificate and one (1) dollar for each additional copy. The fee has been in effect since January 1978. The new fee structure will charge five (5) dollars per copy for birth certificates, five (5) dollars for the first copy of a death certificate, and two (2) dollars for each copy thereafter, and five (5) dollars for each search of the files where a certificate of birth or death is not found or a certified copy if not made. This structure is consistent with that of the State of Texas. This will be effective January 1982. We recommend approval of Ordinance No. 11210 -4. b. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -5, will authorize the final payment for the construction of the Raccoon Drive Lift Station. The original contract was for the sum of $385,080.00. Two (2) change orders were authorized in the amount of $4,104.93 bringing the adjusted contract to $389,184.93. The work to date comes to $389,085.93 representing an underrun of $99.00. Tidal Construction has received payment of $368,699.68 bringing the amount of the final payment to $20,386.25. We recommend the final payment of $20,386.25 be paid to Tidal Construction, Inc. 11210 -33 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 C. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -6, will authorize the final payment for repair, sandblasting, and painting of Cedar Bayou Water Tower to Ore International. Ore International bid to sandblast and paint the interior and exterior of the tower at a cost of $11,750. They also bid to weld all pits found in the steel structure for $1.15 per square inch. We estimated for bid purposes 5,000 square inches to be welded. After sandblasting many more pits were uncovered bringing the total welding necessary to 19,750 square inches. Some seam welding was also necessary which costs $700. Total costs for these items is $35,162.50. A total of $56,027 is available in the 1980 -81 ($26,027 encumbrance) and 1981 -82 ($30,000) budgets for repair and painting of the water towers. We recommend the first and final payment be paid to Ore International. d. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -7, will award the rehabilitation contract for 1111 Turner. Five (5) bids were received. There was one no -bid. Prosper Brothers Construction submitted the low bid of $5,800. We recommend the low bidder, Prosper Brothers Con- struction, be awarded this contract. e. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -8, will award the rehabilitation contract for 217 Miriam. Six (6) bids were received. Prosper Brothers Construction submitted the low bid of $5,000.00. We recommend the low bidder, Prosper Brothers Construction, be awarded this contract. f. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -9, will award the low bid for the purchase of twenty -one (21) Police vehicles. Five (5) bids were received. River Oaks Chrysler Plymouth submitted the low bid of $179,085.06 ($8,527.86 per unit) with a delivery date of 120 days. The amount budgeted for this purchase was $198,000. We recommend the low bidder, River Oaks Chrysler Plymouth, be awarded this contract. g. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -10 will award the bid for the purchase of two 1/2 ton pickup trucks for Public Works and Parks Departments. Three (3) bids were received. Baytown Datsun submitted the low bid of $14,532. The amount budgeted for the purchase of these vehicles is $17,000. We recommend the low bidder, Baytown Datsun, be awarded this contract. i. Proposed Ordinan for fence repair Sports Complex. Industrial Fence This is over the this item. ce No. 11210 -12 will award the bid and replacement at the Gray One bid was received from Hurricane Company in the amount of $9,361. budgeted amount of $8,500 for 11210 -34 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 We recommend this bid be rejected and the project re -bid. j. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -13 will award the bid for the sale of the 300 Warner Swasey hydraulic excavator. Two (2) bids were received. Ike Hall, Inc. offered the highest price of $16,036. We recommend the acceptance of Ike Hall, Inc. purchase offer of $16,036 for the Public Works Department's 1976 Warner - Swasey Hydroscopic Telescopic Boom Excavator. k. Proposed Ordinance No. 11210 -14 will award the bid for the annual water meter contract. Seven (7) bids on fourteen (14) items were received. We will have a recommendation available at the Council meeting. Councilman Simmons moved for adoption of the Consent Agenda Items Nos. "a" through "k" with the exception of "h" which had been withdrawn by the Administration; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3282 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE VI, "ADMINISTRATIVE FEES AND CHARGES ", OF CHAPTER 2, "ADMINISTRATION ", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN SETTING NEW FEES FOR DEATH & BIRTH CERTIFICATES; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. ORDINANCE NO. 3283 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ACCEPTING CONSTRUCTION OF RACCOON DRIVE LIFT STATION; FINDING THAT THE WORK IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT; ACCEPTING THE CONSULTING ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE OF FINAL ACCEPTANCE; AUTHORIZING THE FINAL PAYMENT TO THE TIDAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. ORDINANCE NO. 3284 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ACCEPTING THE REPAIR AND PAINTING OF THE CEDAR BAYOU WATER TOWER BY ORE INTERNATIONAL, 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 ORE INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. ORDINANCE NO. 3285 AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 80 -03 -12 TO PROSPER BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR FIVE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED & N01100 ($5,800.00) DOLLARS. 11210 -35 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 ORDINANCE NO. 3286 AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR A COMMUNITY DEVELOP - MENT REHABILITATION PROJECT NO. 81 -04 -04 TO PROSPER BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR FIVE THOUSAND & N01100 ($5,000.00) DOLLARS. ORDINANCE NO. 3287 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF RIVER OAKS CRYSLER PLYMOUTH FOR THE PURCHASE OF 21 POLICE VEHICLES AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND EIGHTY FIVE & 06/100 ($179,085.06) DOLLARS. ORDINANCE NO. 3288 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF BAYTOWN DATSUN FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO (2) A TON PICKUP TRUCKS, AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF FOURTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO & N01100 ($14,532.00) DOLLARS. ORDINANCE NO. 3289 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF A 1976 WARNER- SWASEY HYDROSCOPIC TELESCOPING BOOM EXCAVATOR IN CONSIDERATION OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SALES PRICE OF SIXTEEN THOUSAND THIRTY SIX & N01100 ($16,036.00) DOLLARS. ORDINANCE NO. 3290 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF WATER METERS BY ACCEPTING THE BIDS OF NEPTUNE WATER METERS FOR ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 8, 9, & 10; CARLON METER COMPANY FOR ITEM NOS. 3 R: 4; ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL FOR ITEM NOS. 5 & 6; THE ROHAN COMPANY FOR ITEM NO. 7 & 11; AND UTILITY SUPPLY COMPANY FOR ITEM NOS. 12, 13 & 14; OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN BID NO. 3211 -15 AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT BY THE CITY FOR EACH ITEM AS SET OUT BELOW. For bid tabulations, see Attachments "F" through "J" respectively. Consider Appointments to Electrical Board Appointments will be made at the next Council meeting. Consider Appointments to Community Development Advisory Committee Appointments will be made at the next Council meeting. Consider Appointment of Municipal Court Judge and Alternate Appointments will be made at the next Council meeting. Recess Mayor Hutto recessed the open meeting into executive session to discuss contemplated litigation. When the open meeting reconvened, the following business was transacted: 11210 -36 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - December 10, 1981 Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing the City Attorney to Make an Offer on Behalf of the City of Baytown for Purchase of Hollaway Addition Outfall Drainage Fasement Mr. Lanham stated that the Administration is requesting Council authorization to make an offer for the purchase of an easement in the Hollaway Addition. Councilman Philips moved to adopt the ordinance, authorizing the City Attorney to make an offer on behalf of the City of Baytown for purchase of Hollaway Addition outfall drainage easement. Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3291 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO MAKE AN OFFER FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN FOR ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED & N01100 ($1,500.00) DOLLARS TO THE OWNERS OR OTIER PARTIES IN INTEREST FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN INTERESTS IN A TRACT DESCRIBED HEREIN REQUIRED FOR A DRAINAGE EASEMENT; REQUIRING THAT SUCH OFFER BE ACCEPTED WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS, DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INSTITUTE CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS IN THE EVENT SUCH OFFER IS REFUSED; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Appointment of Director of Personnel Mr. Lanham requested approval of the selection of Richard Hare as Director of Personnel at an annual salary of $25,500. Mr. Patterson interviewed ten applicants for the post and has recommended Mr. Hare. Mr. Lanham stated that he concurred with this recommendation. Mr. Hare has been Assistant Director of Public Works for the past two years and prior to that he was Administrative Assistant in the Public Works Department. Councilman Johnson moved to confirm the appointment of Richard Hare as Director of Public Works at an annual salary of $25,500. Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Adjourn There being no further business to be transacted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk Levels of Service (A in the morning hour and C in the evening peak hour). However, if no automobile access is provided on Fairway Drive, additional U -turn traffic will be forced to use the Decker Drive /Baker Road intersection and the resulting amount of congestion will create a Level of Service D condition during the eveninS rush hour. This will result in th need to widen the south approach of the Decker Drive /Baker Road intersection by providing an additional lane for left turning vehicles (from south -to- west). Therefore, not providing Fairway Drive access ft-r she Phase II development will require the widening of Decker Drive. Vehicle- Pedestrian Conflicts Travel between the Country Club Oaks subdivision and the Pumphrey Elementary School occurs across Fairway Drive after the morning rush hour and before the evening rush hour. The hour of highest street activity in the morning occurs between 6:45 and 7:45 AM. Most school children are transported to school by bus, van, or private auto. However, most of the children who do walk to school and cross Fairway Drive do so between 8:15 and 8:30 AM, when school begins. (During that period, five of the nine children who crossed Fairway Drive between 8:00 and 8:30 AM did so after 8:15 AM.) In the afternoon, classes end at 2:30 PM and 3:30 PM. A very small number of children cross Fairway Drive after 2:30 PM. However, between 3:30 and 3:45 PM, between 20 and 60 children cross Fairway Drive depending on the day of the week (see Table 5). These children have left the school area prior to the heaviest volumes of traffic activity (4:00 to 5:00 PM). The marked school crosswalk is patrolled by an adult school crossing guard who stops vehicles when children cross Fairway Drive. The numbers of pedestrians and Table 5 PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE VOLUMES ON FAIRWAY DRIVE(1) Pedestrian Existing Fairway Maximum Future Fair - Weekday. Crossing Drive Traffic way Drive Traffic Time Period Fairway Drive Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Westbound 7:30 - 8:30 AM 9 83 136 12003 150 (3) 3:30 - 4:30 PM 20 -60(2) 174 124 330 (3) 31 00) 4:00 - 5:00 PM 0 245 76 460 190 (1) Based on surveys conducted on December 2 and 3, 1981. (2) Based on discussions with school crossing guard and confirmed by personal observat ions. On Monday and Wednesday, the pedestrian volume is between 50 and 60 children from 3:30 to 3:45 PM. On Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday, the pedestrian volume is between 20 and 30 children from 3:30 to 3:45 PM. (3) Based on the existing relationship between the peak morning and evening hours versus these lower volume hours. 10 b BARTOWASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC T%-.o Allen Enter. Suite 26,10. Haustoi. Toni 77002 17 131 757 1 I?0 vehicles in the vicinity of the school which are regulated by the crossing guard are shown in Table 5. In addition, forecasts of future traffic volumes (after the Phase II development opening) are also shown. Based on observations of this particular site and based on experience in more extensive school crossing stud- ies, the small increase in automobile activity which could occur on Fairway Drive will not create a reduction in pedestrian safety at the Fairway Drive school crosswalk. Delivery Vehicle Activit The Phase II West Town development is planned to have a conventional service drive along the north and east sides of the site to provide deliveries to the rear of the retail buildings. Access to this service drive will be by way of one access point on Decker Drive and one access point on Fairway Drive. These two access points are required to allow for direct circulation onto and off the public street system. In addition, the great majority of the delivery vehicles serving the Phase II development will be traveling to and from the north on Decker Drive (north to Interstate Highway 10 and west to the Houston area). Thus, access to both Decker Drive and Fairway Drive will allow vehicles to use the Decker Drive cross -over at Fairway Drive for left turn movements. The delivery vehicle movements on Fairway Drive will therefore be on the section between Decker Drive and the east boundary of the site. To determine the types of delivery vehicles and frequency of deliveries anticipa- ted at the Phase II development, peak period surveys were conducted at the existing West Town shopping center. During the peak periods of traffic study, no multi -axle semi- trailer trucks were observed entering the site. All of the delivery vehicles were either two -axle trucks or delivery vans. It is anticipat- ed that the great majority of delivery vehicles to the Phase II development will also be smaller, two -axle vehicles. Only the T.G. & Y. store in the Phase II development is expected to require three -axle truck deliveries. During the highest hours of activity, 18 delivery vehicles were observed entering the Phase I site in the morning hour and 29 delivery vehicles were observed leaving the Phase I site in the evening hour. The major generator of deliveries in the Phase I development is the Safeway grocery store. Because the Phase II development will not have a grocery store, it is anticipated that the number of peak hour deliveries will be lower. As a result, deliveries to the Phase II development are anticipated to be primar- ily in two -axle trucks and delivery vans. They are expected to orient primarily to the north on Decker Drive in fewer numbers than are currently being observed at the Phase I development. As a result, the impact of truck activity on the section of Fairway Drive serving the Pumphrey Elementary School and the Country Club Oaks Subdivision should be negligible. In summary, an analysis of traffic volumes projected for the Phase II West Town development has shown that automobile access onto Fairway Drive is required to avoid the need for widening Decker Drive. The maximum increase in traffic that may occur on Fairway Drive as a result of the Phase II development will still be below the acceptable level for collector streets. In addition, it was found that the traffic impact on Fairway Drive and the truck activity on Fairway Drive will primarily be confined to the area west of the school and residential areas. L., 11 U BARTOWASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC Two Allen Center. Suite 2640, Houston. Texis !100217131 757 1120 am Attar.hrli(ML "U" GOOSE CREEK CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL D1STRiCT JOHNNY CLARK. SUPERINTENDENT BAYTOWN, TEXAS 77820 December 8, 1981 City of Ba} Loum Council P. 0. Box 424 Baytown, Texas 77520 Attention: Mr. Fritz Lanham, City Manager Dear Lady and Gentlemen: I understand that you will be considering, at your next meeting, the opening of a road off of Fairway Drive to service the 1Vesttown Shopping Center. Representing the best interest of the Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, I would like to ask that you not approve such a street. Jessie Lee Pumphrey Elementary School was located on Fairway Drive to serve a very densely populated residential area. Fairway Drive is the only street leading to Pim phrey School and is the major avenue of entrance to most of the single family residences located in the Pumphrey School zone. These factors have caused Fairway Drive to become an extremely heavily traveled street. Should additional traffic be added to Fairway Drive, the street would be a serious danger to our children - -both those who walk and those who ride - -as they travel to and from school. Among other reasons, schools are located in densely populated family areas for economical reasons. Transporting students by bus is extremely expensive; and, without a doubt, the cost will continue to escalate at a rapid rate. Pumphrey School is located so that many students may walk to and from school. If service vehicles are directed to Fairway Drive, it is possible that the District might be forced to provide additional busing for the safety of students. Too, it should be noted that commercial traffic presents more of a problem for students on a street than community residence traffic. Those in a neighborhood community feel a sense of responsibility for the neighborhood and especially for the safety of all the youngsters in the neighborhood. If commercial traffic uses Fairway Drive to serve Westtoin Shopping Center, the street will soon be identified as a commercial street.' The trucks and other commercial vehicles will not opt to use only that section of Fairway Drive between Decker Drive and the new Service Street. The vehicles will, without question, enter Fairway Drive from one direction and exit in the opposite direction while making a route. Fairway Drive will soon be Down as a commercial street and a school barrier street. When a school is separated from its community by a natural barrier or by a commercial barrier, it loses its neighborhood school concept. It no longer can serve the connnunity as effectively. Pumphrey School already suffers, somewhat, from this problem since on the "backside" it is separated from its community by Baker Street. A commercial street on the "frontside" would make Iumphrey virtually an island in that it would be City of Baytown Council -2- December 8, 1981 surrounded by commercial streets -- Decker Drive on one side, Baker Road on one side, Fainiay on one side, Baker and Fairway merging to form the fourth side, and this fourth side barrier reinforced by Goose Creek Stream. Please help the public schools by maintaining Fainiay Drive as a street for .a neighborhood rather than for commercial traffic. Jjc CC: Board of Trustees 2 hnerelny Clark, Superintendent Goose Creek C. I. S. D. Attachment "F" To: Mayor Hutto and Baytown City Council Froms Kenneth W. Bartz As president of the Country Club Oaks Civic Association, I wish to report our organization's strong opposition to the proposed construction of two curb cuts on Fairway Drive. These cuts have been requested by the developers of the West Town Shopping mall, Phase II. One of the cuts would be used by shoppers and the other would be used as a service entrance. Before explaining the basis of our opposition, I would like to make it clear to the Council that we are not opposed to the expansion of the shopping center, recognizing that commercial developments and residential areas must 'share some common boundaries. Also, with care and planning these boundaries.can and should serve the need of all parties involved. We oppose, and have been opposing, opening of curb cuts on Fairway Drive for the following reasons: 1. The curb cuts will increase the flow of traffic on Fairway Drive, a narrow street which is already overloaded. 2. The increased traffic load and the truck traffic (including 18- wheelers) from the service entrance will present an added safety hazard to the children at Pumphrey Elementary School, located on the boundaries of Fairway Drive and the shopping center. The truck or service entrance is located close to the school property. Children from Country Club Oaks and the surrounding apartments and neighborhood cross Fairway Drive throughout the school year. We submit that the increased danger to the children is too high a price to pay for curb cuts. 3. The roadbed of Fairway Drive is not designed to handle truck loads, and its use by such vehicles will only cause further deterioration requiring frequent and costly mainterioance by the city. 4. The incresed traffic load and the truck traffic can only serve to have an adverse effect on the real estate values of the residential properties bordering on Fairway Drive. Should this begin, a domino effect could result, lowering the property values- - and taxes - -of a major portion of our subdivision. 5. The narrow width of Fairway Drive significantly restricts even the maneuverability of school buses. Imagine the problems 18- wheelers will have as they attempt to negotiate turns on Fairway Drive. 6. The real need for curb cuts on Fairway Drive does not exist. The shopping center expansion has three cuts on Decker Drive, one of which could accommodate service trucks. They could also enter on Baker Road -- scheduled soon to be a divided four -lane road - -using the service road facilities of Phase I of the shopping center. To emphasize our opposition to these curb cuts, I will have at the Council meeting a petition bearing the names of 460 residents of Country Club Oaks. Our total membership is about 600.' I would estimate that with additional effort another 50 -100 names could be added to the list. Taking into consideration the number their concerns, I ask the Council to the city planning commission by reje curb cuts on Fairway Drive. We look cooperation in protecting the safety community. of people involved and uphold the findings of sting the placing of to your leadership and and wellbeing of our TI� L �: ehahili.tation Project BlD� DATE: December 1 1981 L!! Y U! t� A Y! U VI/ IV B1O TABULATION ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION Eastside__Constru_c. C,M,S. _Har_ris County +�X�FN�1� Prosper Brothers Ed Shook Building _ UNJT EXTEIYDEO UNIT EX— ENO-ED UNIT UNI X���S! UNIT X FNDED R ► C PR! CE PRl�E_ �[Q.I.G.E_... _ 1 Rehabilitation Housing Project 80 -03 -12 1111 Turner $9,800.00 No Bid $6,499.00 $5,800.00 $5,999.99 2 Rehabilitation Housing Project 81 -04 -04 217 Mixiam $8,849,99 $9,975,00 $8,135.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 w a� E U cd +� d i `I� t GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC. '� � NET TOTAL . 1��'' IVFRY � . _I_I _I_L c• 8 I D � _.�.....�._. oaTE: V! 1 1 V� L.�H I I V VV (Y B10 TABULATION ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION UN17 �EXTEiv0E0 UNIT Ex7EN0E0 UNl7 �x�N�� UN1 X7��� UNIT EXiFNUEO f31G.� 1 Rehabilitation Project 80 -03 -12 1111 Turner $7,640.00 2 Rehabilitation Project 8I -04 -04 217 Miriam $7,125.00 GROSS TOTAL I FMS nr Sr �� NEr rorA� nFi ivFRY ������ D�1 inn 1 /ahirlpG DA7 (�� �....p... F.pr 7n i Q?? i _ TEM QTY DESCRlP?!ON POLICE VEHICLES 1 21 each per specifications Make /Model I � Delivery A.R.O. i V i .�..yy Y. �W�++ fi U cd +� . d. GROSS T07AL LESS 01SC Nor �o�AL r1 rt �� ir"'r.:. B10 TABULATION Gulf Co st Dod e Timmers f� c__ UNr7 EXTE NDEO U�t1T EXTENOEO UNIT X ND D UN! E NDtO UNr7 f ND�D R F � 4 �� S8,527.8 5179,085.06 58,629.41 S18t,217.61 9,200.0 St93,200.00 59,733.6 $204,407.49 59,272.7 Stg4,727.� Plymouth Gran Fury Dodge Diplomat Plymouth Gran Fury Ford LTD Chevrole Impala � ' 120 days 60 to 9 days 90 days I 30 to 6p days 100 day Ili � ; 1 j t I zm :0 �O Ui UA Oov�i A � r�D r Attachment "H" N iU N n � � � N ri r ON k.-) O "D ° 4j):'��� c� ►~-+ M VI ko 00000 0 2N o°oornvn'I °oo P iJ LC En oo o y (D 8 Fl .,� n E. d Z7 O lD O�� F, N X p7rtG rtw H O (nO :r w CO Z rt N x1W 1 H.w OD w W rn z °I ON O "D ° 4j):'��� ►~-+ M VI ko 00000 0 2N o°oornvn'I °oo P IN LC En oo o 0 0 0 0 0 O r1 r- ,l�OQ xH w CO r W ;J0 N x1W OD w W rn z °I O p; o 0 M 0 Ch O O N to .9�. F- O Cn LnLn J01 z l7J O J da Ln M �.,orn%.0o r o (p 00 NCB 110 O LJ � V °o C 1 � i C z C D C. W C D - o: 4 O "D ►~-+ M VI ko 00000 0 2N °oo w -{O En oo o n xH w CO r W ;J0 N x1W W W rn °I o 1 � i C z C D C. W C D - o: 4 Attachment "I" M E M O R A N D U M December 8, 1981 TO: Fritz Lanham, City Manager FROM: Public Works Department 0 SUBJECT: Bid PW 8211 - 1 Information Bids were opened this date for the sale of the Public Works Department's 1976 Warner - Swasey 300 Hydroscopic Telescoping Boom Excavator. The following bids were received: Company Offer Ike Hall, Inc. $16,036.00 Hi -Way Equipment Co. $12,500.00 The highest price offered was from Ike Hall, Inc., P.O. Box 1019, Friends - wood, Texas 77546 at $16,036.00. We recommend the acceptance of Ike Hall, Inc. purchase offer. RH:smb �, A�1�UA1. l.'ATEF `tETER CONTRACT 1 "t i "L �: Ll; 5211 -15 �r�TF'� • 1)ECGAiBLR 4, 1981 ''�rl,:�l QTY DESCR1PTrQN _ -__1 WA'1'I_:j�„M[:�' � XiiLL,.NOtJ j A`;3UAL tdATI:R i`l1aTISK IIEKSEY PRODUCTS Uir'ri F:c'�1'r��%ti UNri EXTENDED CO,iTRACT, per specifications . {! S00 each Displ�icenient, 3/4 x 5/8 ?, f :i0 cacti � Uisplaccmc►�t, 1 x 5/8 3. ' 3l) cac{i UiSplaccment, 1`z x 5/8 ;, 5 c��ch + 1)i5placem�nt, 2 x 2 �. � each � Cvnpound, 2 inch 6. 1 each � Compound, 3 inch 7. 1 eaci: Compound, 4 inch 8. 30 each Turbine, 2 inch •• 9. i0 each Turbine, 3 inch 10. 3 each 'Turbine, 4 inch lI. 2 each Turbine, 6 inch 12. ? each Turbine Fire Iiydrant, 3 inch 13. 1 each Turbine Fire Hydrant, 6 inch ?�. ' 1 each ;Turbine Fire Hydrant, 10 inch $22,240.00 26.10 = 520,880.00 33.69 $26,952.Ot 73.00$ i TUTAL BID 77.Q0 � i $ 2,100.00 + i DELIVEhY ARO s~ a� U cd d' �. . I .. . ._. _ �rQ TABULATION • ZOCKWEI,L TNTERNAI'IONAI 1'lIE ROHAN COPtI'ANY NEPTUNI: WA'1'I_:j�„M[:�' � XiiLL,.NOtJ CARI.ON 1`tIiTI:R CO;`tI'ANY UNtT EX7EN;:tO IIEKSEY PRODUCTS Uir'ri F:c'�1'r��%ti UNri EXTENDED UtvIT EXTENDED UNIT � � C Op ^�� C� rO:r: tf�r� , �, i ' i S 28.50 $22,800.00 28.95 $23,160.00 27.80 $22,240.00 26.10 = 520,880.00 33.69 $26,952.Ot 73.00$ 2,190.00 77.Q0 $ 2,31.0.00 74.00 $ 2,100.00 52.40 $ 1,572.00 81.04.$ 2,431.21 S 177.04:$ 5,314.40 16b.00 $ 4,980.00 160.00$ 4,800.00 {$ 146.80 S 4,404.00 198.615 5,95A.3t $ 275.00:$ 1,375.00 266.00! S 1,330.00 233.dU 1,165.00 � 203.40 $ 1.,017.00 $ 281.46:$ 1,' +d7.3t $ 635.00$ 1,270.00 840.00 $ I,680.00 No Bid No Bid S 691.00 $ 1,382.01 $ 895.00;$ 895.00 940.00 $ 940.00 ,425.00 $ 1,425.00 � :Io Bid No Bid 1,009.00'$ $ 1,009.01 1,651.01 $1,590.00 $ 1,590.00 1,540.00 $ 1,540.00 ,800.00 $ 1,800.00 j .1,651.00 250.00 $ 7,500.00 265.00 $ 7,950.00 237.00 $ 7,110.00 No Bid 251.00 $ 7,530.0 389.00 $ 3,890.00 382.00 $ 3,820.00 381.00 $ 3,810.00 No Bid 349.40 $ 3,490.0+ 800.00 $ 2,400.00 750.00 $ 2,250.00 666.00 $ 1,998.00 No Bid 726.00 $ 2,178.0+ 1,895.00 $ 3,790.00 1,320.00 $ 2,640.00 ,369.00 $ ,738.00 No Bid 1,639.00 $ 3,278.0+ 450.00 $ 900.00 S10.Od $ 1,420.00 389.00 $ 778.00 No Bid 486.00 $ 972.0 2,400.00!$ 2,400.00 No Bid No Bid I No Bid 3,045.00,5 3,045.0 ,4,800.00!$ 4,800.00 � No Bid No Bid i Vo Bid $4,390.04:5 4,390. d' x$61,110.00 i $53,620.00 549,964.44 i $27,573.00 :$65,673.8 34 -60 i DAYS 10 -15 � DAYS 34 ,DAYS 30 j DAPS 30 � DAYS i i I GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC. NET 70TAL E�7 L L: A \�U�1L IJATER NiE.TER CONTRACT L� �v� S- 'll -1S ��a � E: ur.cr,�rE�: � 1 apt '�`Tc��.•,j QTY DESCRIPTION i� I -- �_ 1 I Ii j �� \L'AI. ;DATER :METER � � � COVTK:ICT, per specifications l 1. ` 500 each Displacement, 3/4 x S/8 ` "?. 30 e.3ch I)isplacemcnt, 1 x 5/8 3. 30 eac_1� j Displacement, 1'g x 5/8 4. ; S c °aclti i Uisplacemettt, 2 x 2 3. � 2 each � Compound, 2 inch G. 1 each � Compound, 3 inch 7. 1 each Compound, 4 inch 8. 30 each Turbine, 2 inch 9. 10 each Turbine, 3 inch 10. 3 each Turbine, 4 inch 11. 2 each Turbine, 6 inch 12. 2 each 'Turbine Fire Hydrant, 3 inch .'.3. i I each i Turbine Fire Hydrant, 6 inch 1�. 1 eaci� Turbine sire Hydrant, 10 inch � TOTr'1L AID DELIVERY ARO CROSS roTa� HESS orsc NET TOTAL -_ V . i v • .�.. • ., f�1D Ta BULAT! ON ,. UTILITY SUPPLY CO. PRECISION METERS ^„_ �} � ;. UNr7 FXTe -NEED Un1l7 EXiEN0E0 UNIT tX7 EN,,eG (,iN1T EXTc��� tJ Ur;iT�j �x • �;v��� i 1 $ 31.75$25,400.00 26.90 $21,520.00 77.00; 2,310.00 6b.90j 2,007.00 190.00• 5,700.00 131.90! 3,957.00 272.00, 1,360.00 220.90 1,104.50 650.00: 1,300.00 No Bid 940.00! 940.00 No Bid 1,670.00 1,670.00 No Bid 290.00 8,700.00 No Bid 430.00 4,300.00 327.25 3,272.50 i 860.00 2,580.00 595.00 1,785.00 ,1,990.00 3,980.00 1,190.00 2,380.00 350.00, 700.00 No Bid 2,385.00i 2,385.00 � No Bid '4,610.00 4,610.00 No Bid �$b5,935.00 � $36,026.00 30 DAYS 10 'DAYS i , , t I t i ! " Attachment "A" Mayor and the City Council City of Baytown P.O. Box 424 Baytown, Texas 77520 Dear Mayor and City Council Members: "Taziche Ibss & Cam. November. 30, 1981 U tf CJ 'i. We have prepared this letter to summarize Mr. Pat Loconto's and Mr. Sam Rhodes' testimony pertaining to Houston Lighting and Power Company's (HL &P) July 6, 1981 rate applica- tion. An overview of ratemaking and our findings and recommenda- tions are summarized below: Overview of Ratemaking The ratemaking process involves the application of the fol- lowing formula: Adjusted Value of Invested Capital Rate Base (x) Fair Rate of Return ( =) Required Operating Income ( -) Adjusted Test Year Operating Income ( =) Income Deficiency ( +) Federal Income Taxes ( +) Revenue Related Taxes (_) Additional Revenue Requirements The definition of each of these components is: - Test Year: This represents a 12 -month period of time which is utilized to determine the investment requir- ed to provide electric service, the operating income (earnings capacity) of the Company, and fair rate of return. - Adjusted Value of Invested Capital Rate Base: This represents the weighted investment to provide elec- tric service and is based on the weighted cost of in- vested capital rate base and the current cost rate base. Invested Capital Rate Base: This represents the ori- ginal cost investment incurred by the Company to pur- chase plant (buildings, generation, transmission, and distribution plant) less depreciation plus a working capital allowance. TWO ALLEN CENTER, 25TH FLOOR -1200 SMITH STREET - HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002- (713) 651 -9581-TELEX: 791-OID 'kil ldle Ra,u 6 Cry Current Cost Rate Base: This represents the cost of the plant (buildings, generation, transmission, and distribution plant) if it were built today less an allowance for age and condition plus a working capi- tal allowance. - Fair Rate of Return: This represents the rate of re- turn on the adjusted value of invested capital that allows a company a reasonable return to pay debt cost, preferred dividends, and common dividends. Adjusted Test Year Operating Income: This represents the Company's earnings capacity and is based on ac- tual test year operating income adjusted for knoan and measurable changes. Federal Income Taxes: This represents the additional federal income taxes attributable to the additional revenue requirements. Revenue Related Taxes: This represents the addi- tional state gross receipts taxes and the franchise fees attributable to the additional revenue require- ments. Summary of Recommendations Based on our review and analysis of HUP's July 6, 1981 rate filing package, we recommend: The company be allowed a rate increase to provide $134,984,000 in additional revenue requirements, which is a reduction of $120,,606,,000 from the Com- pany's proposed revenue requirement of $255,59 0,000 (base revenue increase of $247,926,000 plus franchise fee surcharge of $71,664,000) . An adjusted value of invested capital rate base of $3,613,996,000, which is a reduction of $516,744,000 from the Company's proposed adjusted value of invest- ed capital rate base of $4,130,740,000. - An adjusted test year operating income of $300,201,000, which is an increase of $1,360,000 from the Company's proposed test year operating income of $298,841,000. - A fair rate of return on the adjusted value of in- vested capital of 10.25 %, which reflects a return on book common equity of 15.7 %. The Company proposed a return on book common equity of 17.0 %. Iris a he 1?nrs:;� G The Company's proposed customer class cost allocation methodology be adopted. - The Company's proposed rate design should be adopted, except for: The franchise fee should not be surcharged to the municipal ratepayers but should be included in the base rates. The effect of including the franchise fee in the base rates is to spread the cost to all the ratepayers irrespective of incorporated bound- aries. - The limitation on computing the fixed charge and in- ventory carrying charge on coal purchased from Utili- ty Fuels, Inc. (UFI) should be continued for pur- poses of computing the monthly fuel charge. Reconciliation of Revenue Requirements The table below summarizes the effect on revenue re- quirements of our adjustments to the adjusted value of invested capital rate base, test year operating income, and fair rate of return. Further, we have summarized the effect on revenue re- quirements due to our adjustments to rate base into the following categories: - The adjustments to construction work in progress - The adjustments to working capital - The adjustments to other rate base items TABLE 1 ($000s Omitted) Company: Additional Revenue Requirement, Excluding Franchise Fees $247,926 Franchise Fees 7,664 Additional Revenue Requirements, Including Franchise Fees 255,590 Rate Base: Construction Work in Progress (32,360) Working Capital (45,420) Other ( 8,353) Total (8 6,133) Operating Income ( 2,616) Fair Rate of Return (31,857) Consultant's Additional Revenue Requirements $134.9£i4 r =4 3 1ci!J1(, Cn Adjusted Value o£ Invested Capital We recommend an adjuste ' value o one of $516 7 44, 0 0 from tease of $3,613,996,000, which is a redact the Company's proposed adjusted value of marlstdue t capital rate base. The reduction of $516,744,000 is primarily - A reduction in construction work in progress (CV1IP) from $881:807 , 0 00 $749,424,000 The utilization of a balance sheet approach to deter- mining working capital in lieu of the 1/8 formula - The reduction of fuel oil inventory to twice the highest usage in the past three years rather than using the book balances _Construction Work in Pro ress The Public Utility Regulatory Act provides that CWIP may be included in the rate base i odes' financ al t financial integrity criteria integrity of a company. Mr. Rho were: internal cash generation as a percentage of construction Over 40% expenditures Pretax interest coverage 3.25x to 5.00x Allowance for funds used during No higher than construction as a p 20% -25% net income available for common Based on Mr. Rhodes' financial integrity criteria, the e WI P rieis e ssary to maintian the financial integrity i ty cmf$749,424,000 or 60% of t e k balan al $881,807,000 or 71$ of the balance. The Companysinanci integrity criteria were: Internal cash percentage of expenditures generation as a construction 40% minimum Pretax interest coverage, excluding 3.5x minimum AFUDC Allowance for funds used during construction as a percentage of net income available for common Reasonable levels 4 7olIdle &1�s Ca Working Capital Working capital allowance represents the amount of funds required or available from the Company operations. The alterna- tive methods for determining the working capital allowance are: - A formula approach based on 1/8 of the operation and maintenance expenses, excluding purchased gas, depre- ciation expenses, and taxes other than income plus an allowance for materials and supplies and prepayments - A balance sheet analysis of the capital requirements excluding plant and sources of capital, excluding short- and long -term debt, preferred equity and common equity. - A lead -lag study which quantifies the dollar effect of the timing differences between the date service is rendered and revenues collected and the date costs are incurred and paid The Company utilized the 1/8 formula method in this proceeding. It is Mr. Rhodes' opinion that this approach is not appropriate because the 45 -day lag inherent in the formula reflects business conditions 30 years ago and the method does not recognize all sources and uses of working capital. Mr. Rhodes utilized the balance sheet approach which reflects the 13 -month average of the actual book balances. The lead -lag study was not utilized due to time constraints. However, Mr. Rhodes recommends that a lead -lag study be developed prior to any subsequent proceeding. Fuel Oil Inventory The fuel oil inventory was adjusted to reflect twice the highest usage during the previous three years rather than to uti- lize the actual book balances. This adjustment was made based on Mr. Rhodes' analysis which indicated that the Company had 4.5 years of fuel oil inventory based on actual test year usage. The other adjustments to the rate base were: - A change in the weighting from 60% original cost, 40% current cost to 70% original cost, 30% current cost - An adjustment to the accumulated depreciation expense reserve - The removal of advances for lignite leases - An adjustment to deferred income taxes li)lld wRa s:�Cox Test- Year n era tin Income C ��r operating income of Mr. Rhodes recommends a teat year 000, which is an increase o Sli 360,000 f $298f841,000p The $300, r year operating incontc- pa proposed test y erating income are: primary differences in op The adjustment to revenues ns nd o expenses appropriate levels Wade Clifton's recommendatio of price elasticity The adjustment of salary and related expenses The adjustment of non - economy start -up expanses price Elasticit *s Mr. Made Clifton's analysis indicated that seheof company proposed adjustment was overstated for electricity. Further, he price rather than marginal p o problem with the mod - believes that there Sahis own modelto correct for the auto - el. Mr. Clifton developed final prices for correlation problem and utilized marg of customers. Salary and Related Expenses r, Rhodes adjusted the Company's proposed salary adjust- Mr. 1981, in order ment to remove employees subsequent to March Sense. Further, he to provide a better matching of revenue and exp pro forma ate the p adjusted the overtime factor utilized to comp 197 in T s was adjustments to remove overtime experienced resulted d This was add necessary because of the 1976 striker mal amount of overtime. ense s Non- econom Start -U � expenses to Rhodes adjusted the non - economy start -up Mr. purchased power from 46.9% to reduce the anticipated non-- economy P adjustment was because the company's rt�o total pur- 29.0 %. This was sis of non- economy purchased p based on an analy of Austin only rather than noneconThe chased power form the City purchased power for the company. purchased power to total P income are: other adjustments to operating An adjustment to residential conservation program costs - An adjustment to the reserve for property insurance - An adjustment to rate case expenses - An adjustment to federal income taxes ,IUI lull' 16&u 6 ( i) Fair Rate of Return Mr. Loconto recommended a fair rate of return of 10. 255.1 on the adjusted value of invested capital, which compares to the Company's return on adjusted value of invested capital of 10.43 %. The difference is primarily due to the return on common equity. The Company proposed a 17.0% return on common equity and Mr. Loconto recommended a 15.7% return on common equity. The other adjustments were: - Mr. Loconto utilized a capital structure at June 30, 1981, whereas the Company's capital structure was at March 31, 1981. - Mr. Loconto removed a $20 million issue due in October 1981 from long -term debt and included the Company pollu- tion control bonds in long -term debt. Rate Design The analysis of the rate design proposed by the Company in- dicated that the rate design was appropriate except for the treatment of franchise fees and fuel cost on purchases from Util- ity Fuels, Inc. The Company is proposing to continue to sur- charge the franchise fees to municipal ratepayers. Mr. Rhodes recommends that the franchise fees be included in the base rates and paid for by both urban and rural ratepayers because the rural ratepayers benefit from the use of city streets and rights -of -way that are provided for in the Franchise Agreement. The Company is proposing that the fuel cost incurred on purchases from UPI be passed through to the ratepayer. Mr. Rhodes recommends that the limitation on the return utilized to compute fixed charges and inventory carrying cost be continued. This is necessary to ensure that UPI does not earn a return greater than the return authorized by the regulatory body on transactions with AL &P. cc: Mr. Randy Strong City Attorney Mr. Fritz Lanham City Manager 7 Very truly yours, Jd� D. Wa r re n go Attachment "II" 1 1 ill '1. C A a 0 M-1 111.111*61s; W., �s +' 1 li + i VIII il. i► DECEMBER 10, 1981 RATE INCREASE HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER REQUESTED INCREASE OF 9.8% OR $255,590,000 PUC STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF 7.4% OR $193,2 36, 0 00 TOUCH E Ross & Co. RECOMMENDATION OF 5.2% OR $134,984,000 OR $58,252,000 LESS THAN PUC STAFF RECOMMENATION _1.. m Q1 1 Q1119ox dilmili-:611 CONSULTANT PROPOSED RETURN ON COMMON EQUITY 16.7% PRETAX INTEREST COVERAGE INCLUDING AFUDC 4.08X EXCLUDING AFUDC 3.85x INTERNAL CASH GENERATED 41.9% AFUDC AS A PERCENT OF EARNINGS 13.1% PliC STAFF RE rOMENDED RETURN ON COMMON EO UITY NA PRETAX INTEREST COVERAGE INCLUDING AFUDC 3.93X EXCLUDING AFUDC 3.49x INTERNAL CASH GENERATION 41.0% AFUDC AS A PERCENT OF EARNINGS 26.5% -2- OEM ADJUSTED VALUE OF INVESTED CAPITAL MULTIPLIED BY RATE OF RETURN EQUALS REQUIRED TEST YEAR OPERATING INCOME MINUS TEST YEAR OPERATING INCOME EQUALS OPERATING INCOME DEFICIENCY PLUS TAXES (FEDERAL INCOME TAXES AND OTHER REVENUE RELATED TAXES) EQUALS INCREASE IN REVENUE REQUIREMENTS :&Z 111 Iw I 11 $ 3,613,996 10.25% 370,435 300.201 70,234 64,750 S 134,984 ADJUSTED VALUE OF PLANT IN SERVICE CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS ELECTRIC PLANT HELD FOR FUTURE USE NUCLEAR FUEL IN PROCESS WORKING CAPITAL DEFERRED FIT UNAMORTIZED ITC (PRE -1971) CUSTOMER DEPOSITS CUSTOMER ADVANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION RESERVE FOR PROPERTY INSURANCE TOTAL ADJUSTED VALUE OF INVESTED CAPITAL -4- $000'S OMITTED $3,096,618 749,424 28,813 108,029 (46.279) (283,310) (8,801) (12, 540) (9,573) m m RETURN CQNSU TANT ON ADJUSTED VALUE RECOMMENDED CAPITAL OF INVESTED ( $000' S QMMITTE D ) WEIC�STED AMOUNT PERCENT CQSS LONG -TERM DEBT $ 1.714.989 49.04% 8.68% 4.26% PREFERRED EQUITY 243.518 6.96 8.23 .57 COMMON EQUITY .1..538.676 44.00 12.32* 5.47 TOTAL $3.497.183 100,00 1025% * 15.7°% ON ORIGINAL COST OF INVESTED CAPITAL -5- OPERATING REVENUES OPERATING EXPENSES: RECOVERABLE FUEL AND PURCHASED POWER RECOVERABLE CITY FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION AMORTIZATION OF DEFERRED DEBITS INTEREST ON CUSTOMER DEPOSITS TAXES OTHER THAN FEDERAL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES INTEREST INCOME o ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME Im _(DOD's OMITTF $2,613,159 1,562,719 53,787 340,603 113,251 3,658 736 97,541 1422.113 2.314,408 1.450 $ 300,201 ,mN N—ow OPERATING REVENUES OPERATING EXPENSES: RECOVERABLE FUEL AND PURCHASED POWER RECOVERABLE CITY FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION AMORTIZATION OF DEFERRED DEBITS INTEREST ON CUSTOMER DEPOSITS TAXES OTHER THAN FEDERAL FEDERAL INCOME TAXES TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES INTEREST INCOME o ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME Im _(DOD's OMITTF $2,613,159 1,562,719 53,787 340,603 113,251 3,658 736 97,541 1422.113 2.314,408 1.450 $ 300,201 m 111 Iv 1 * RETURN oV EQUITY 17.0% 16.25% 15.7% -7- COMPANY PUQ STAFF CONSULTANT ADJUSTED VALUE OF INVESTED CAPITAL $4.130,740 $4,550.957 3,613,996 FAIR RATE OF RETURN 10.43X* 9.02X* 10.25 %* REQUIRED OPERATING INCOME 430,836 410.398 370,435 ADJUSTED OPERATING INCOME 298.841 NA 300.201 INCOME DEFICIENCY 131,995 NA 70,234 REVENUE RELATED. TAXES 123.59 NA _ 69,750 REVENUE REQUIREMENTS $255,590 $ 193,236 $134.984 * RETURN oV EQUITY 17.0% 16.25% 15.7% -7- 111 1 STAFF ADDITIONAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FRANCHISE FEE ADJUSTED STAFF ADDITIONAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS RATE BASE: CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS FUEL OIL WORKING CAPITAL PLANT HELD FOR FUTURE USE OTHER TOTAL RATE BASE RATE OF RETURN OPERATING INCOME: ADJUSTMENT FOR ABNORMAL O&M EXPENSE OTHER TOTAL OPERATING INCOME CONSULTANT'S ADDITIONAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS (A) ESTIMATED $189,225 4.011 (A) 193,236 (30, 406) ( 8,833) (33, 305) 4,038 ( 434) (68,940) ( 7,939) 7,066 11.561 18.627 $134,984 1 11111_l_IT-lioce ► RATE DESIGN - ADOPTION OF COMPANY DESIGN WITH EXCEPTION OF FRANCHISE FEE WHICH SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN BASE RATES FUEL ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE - LIMIT RETURN EARNED BY UFI ON PASS - THROUGH OF COAL CHARGES TO HL &P AUTHORIZED RETURN WORKING CAPITAL COMPUTATION - COMPANY SHOULD PERFORM A LEAD -LAG STUDY PRIOR TO NEXT PROCEEDING WITH GUIDANCE FROM REGULATORY AUTHORITY -9- Attachment "C" b BARTON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. TWo Allen Center, Suite 2640, Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 757 -1120 MEMORANDUM TO: Haesly - Kinghorn Partnership No. 2 FROM: Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc. DATE: December 10, 1981 SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Analysis West Town Shopping Center - Phase II Expansion Baytown, Texas The Haesly- Kinghorn Partnership No. 2 has proposed to develop a shopping center in Baytown, Texas. This 16 acre site, Phase II of the West Town Shopping Center, is located in the northeast quadrant of the Decker Drive (Spur 330) /Fairway Drive intersection. It will include a total of 158,735 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA) and will consist of financial institutions, restaurants, and retail stores. It will be located immediately south of the existing West Town Phase I development, which includes 121,443 square feet GLA, and which has access on Decker Drive and Baker Road. (See Figure 1.) This report presents the findings and recommendations of a study conducted to determine the traffic impacts of the proposed Phase II development. Specifical- ly, the need to provide access from the proposed center onto Fairway Drive was investigated as it related to traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site. This access will include one driveway for patrons and employees of the develop- ment and one service driveway for delivery vehicles. Barton-Aschman projected the additional traffic which would be generated by the development and its distribution on the roadway network. The ability of the roadways to serve these projected volumes with and without Fairway Drive access was evaluated and, where appropriate, roadway improvements were recommended. STUDY PROCEDURE To make a thorough evaluation of the proposed development with respect to traffic access and circulation, the following analyses were conducted: 1. Data Collection. The physical characteristics of the site and the surround- ing road network were surveyed to identify existing cross- sections and traffic signal locations and to identify any physical constraints relative to roadway modifications. Data from various governmental agencies (City of Baytown, Harris County, and the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation) was col- lected. This data included: i r tis Mar r To c cAL.E 0 t° l p d, �e .�' ,,6 Subd;V;S;ort 0 ___ems. Imn, Yy'OLokeaj k y • a�l�w� � yt�erMess A f7cw�we � 1 � GJe S4 ?oW n West 7-OW� � � Phas e X PAase .E Decter Dr;ve (-5 fcw 330) ASkajood pli are I S/rz cocATeoM a. The status of roadway plans programmed for the area. b. Details of the Baker Road improvement presently under construction. c. Recent traffic counts and traffic operations data for the street net- work (including available daily traffic counts). In addition, the following independent surveys were conducted: a. Peak period turning movement counts during the morning and evening rush hours of typical weekdays at the following intersections: 1. Decker Drive and Baker Road 2. Decker Drive and Fairway Drive 3. Baker Road and Goose Creek Drive 4. Fairway Drive and Goose Creek Drive b. School crossing surveys involving vehicle- pedestrian counts during the morning peak period and field observations during the evening peak period at the Pumphrey Elementary School. c. Delivery vehicle classification counts at the existing Phase I West Town Center service driveways during the morning and evening peak per- iods. d. Inbound and outbound vehicle counts at major driveways serving the existing center during the morning and evening peak periods. 2. Traffic Forecasts. The directional distribution of site - generated traffic for the Phase II development was determined based on the distribution of traffic approaching and departing the existing (Phase I) shopping center. Estimates of the peak period traffic volumes which could be generated by this development were made, based on generation rates obtained from actual surveys conducted at the major driveways serving the existing center. The projected traffic volumes from the proposed site plus the existing traffic volumes were assigned to the existing street system. This assignment included a detailed assignment of hourly traffic to the major site driveways. 3. Access Requirements Evaluation. Total traffic demand on the streets serv- ing the proposed development was evaluated during those periods of the day when conflicts are highest. Capacity analyses were then performed at the critical intersections in the vicinity of the proposed development to determine the capa- bility of the future area roadnet to accommodate the anticipated future volumes. This evaluation was performed to determine: a. The need for access points along Fairway Drive. b. Required roadway widenings or the addition of exolusive intersection turn lanes, where necessary. The remainder of this memorandum summarizes the findings of this traffic analy- sis. Accessibility to the site is described, traffic impacts of the Phase II development are identified, and the need for roadway improvements with and with- out Fairway Drive access is discussed. SITE ACCESSIBILITY The major factors which determine the accessibility of a site are its geographic location and the efficiency of the roadway network that will serve patrons living within the center's area of influence. Road network efficiency is a function of directness of travel and the traffic capacity available. b 3 BAR DN- ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC Two Allen Center. Suite 2V0. Houston. Texas 77002 t713t 757 11-10 Area Roadway Network The major roadways which will serve prospective patrons living within the area of influence of the proposed center are illustrated on Figure 1. These roadways are discussed below: Decker Drive (Spur 330) is a four lane divided, north -south roadway which connects Interstate Highway 10 to the west side of downtown Baytown. The exist- ing roadway consists of two, one -way frontage roads which provide access to adjacent properties. The main lane sections which will be placed between the two frontage roads are planned for construction by the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (SDHPT), but there are no funds committed for the construction of these main lanes at this time. According to the SDHPT, the eventual construction of the main lanes is at least ten years away. Traffic signals are located at the intersections of Decker Drive /Baker Road and Decker Drive /Fairway Drive. The Decker Drive /Baker Road signals have 75 second cycle lengths and three separate phases. The Decker Drive /Fairway Drive signals have 70 second cycle lengths and two separate phases. The posted speed limit on Decker Drive is 55 mph in the vicinity of the site. Baker Road is presently under construction along the northern boundary of the Phase I development. It is being widened from a two lane undivided to a four lane divided cross - section. The major portion of the construction has been completed east of Goose Creek (from Goose Creek to Main Street) but not yet opened to traffic. The bridge crossing and the section from Goose Creek to Decker Drive is scheduled to be completed in the spring of 1982. The posted speed limit on Baker Road is 45 mph east of Goose Creek and 30 mph west of Goose Creek. There is also a school zone speed limit of 20 mph on Baker Drive (7:15 to 9:15 AM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM) east of the West Lodge Apartment complex. Fairway Drive is a two lane, east -west collector street which forms the southern boundary of the Phase II development. It extends from Decker Drive to Goose Creek Drive. It has a cross -over on the Decker Drive median to allow for left turn movements between Decker Drive and Fairway Drive. Along the southern side of Fairway Drive, there are seven residential street intersections which serve the Country Club Oaks Subdivision. The Pumphrey Elementary School has frontage along the northern side of Fairway Drive east of the Phase II shopping center site. East of Arrowhead Drive, there is a marked school cross -walk on Fairway Drive serving the school. This cross -walk is patrolled by a school crossing guard. The posted speed limit on Fairway Drive is 30 mph. Between 7:15 to 9:15 AIM and 2:00 to 4:00 PM, the school zone speed limit is 20 mph. Fairway Drive "tees" into Goose Creek Drive just south of Baker Road. The Fairway Drive approach to this "tee" intersection is controlled by a yield sign. Existing Traffic Volumes During the last few years, 24 -hour weekday traffic counts have been conducted in the West Town Shopping Center area by the City of Baytown. These counts are summarized in Table 1. However, because of traffic volumes fluctuations which occur throughout the day, these daily volumes only give a general indication of relative traffic activity on the street system. 4 U BARYON- ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Titio Men Center, Suite 2G40. Houston, Texas 77002 1713! 757 11220 IL Table 2 DEFINITION OF LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS C Level of Service Description Example A and B No delays at intersections. Smooth progression of traffic. All Residential or rural vehicles clear in a single signal cycle. streets. C Moderate delays at intersections. Up to 30 percent probability of Urban streets at off - delays of one cycle or more at intersections. Satisfactory to good peak hours. progression of traffic. Occasional backups on critical approaches. D Approaching unstable flow. Up to 70 percent probability of delays Secondary CBD streets of one cycle or more at intersections. No progression of traffic. at peak hours. (This Significant congestion on critical approaches, but intersections is the design Level functional. No long standing lines formed. of Service for urban conditions.) E Heavy congestion. 100 percent probability of delays of one cycle or Primary CBD streets more at intersections. Unstable traffic flow. Blockages of inter- at peak hours. sections may, occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. F Forced traffic flow. Traffic moves in stop - and -go condition. CBD, New York City Three or more cycles required to pass through intersections. Total during rush hour. breakdown at intersections with downstream conditions adding to intersection delays. Note: Although the Level of Service is computed as an average for the peak hour, the actual operational characteristics are variable. The worst condition generally lasts only 25 to 30 percent of the peak hour. Example: An intersection with a Level of Service "Dtt rating might start the peak hour at Level of Service "C ", then degenerate to ttDti, then to "Ell or even 'IF" for five minutes or so and then recover to end the hour at Level of Service ttCn again. On another day, the intersection might operate consistently at Level of Service "D" throughout the peak hour. The Level of Service rating is an indication of how the intersection should perform "on the average ". At unsignalized intersections and at midblock locations along collector streets, such as Fairway Drive, a maximum volume of 500 -700 vehicles per lane per hour can generally be considered appropriate without creating significant delays on the cross - street approaches or congestion on the collector street itself The maximum volume per lane per hour occuring on Fairway Drive today is about 320 vehicles westbound during the morning peak hour (6:45 to 7:45 AM). Based on the peak period turning movement counts, it is estimated that about 240 of these vehicles are traveling between westbound Baker Road and southbound Decker Drive - using Fairway Drive as a connecting road. It is apparent that some of these motorists are using Fairway Drive to avoid construction activity on Baker Road while others are attempting to avoid potential delays at the Baker Road /Decker Drive intersection. In any case, it is likely that some portion of these 240 vehicles will divert off Fairway Drive after the completion of the Baker Road construction and thereby provide additional reserve capacity on Fairway Drive. PHASE II DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC IMPACTS The traffic impact of the proposed shopping center expansion on the street network was determined based on surveys conducted at the existing Phase I center. These surveys identified the directional distribution of travel, for shopping center patrons and the numbers of vehicles generated by the center during the design hours of traffic activity. Directional Distribution of Traffic A convenience or neighborhood shopping center of the size proposed generates two types of trips: motorists traveling between the center to and from their homes and motorists traveling from work, to the center, and then to their homes (or vice versa). Because this second trip type is usually very significant, the percent of vehicles inbound to the center on a particular route is not necessar- ily the same as the percent of vehicles outbound from the center on that route. Based on the peak period counts conducted at the Phase I shopping center drive- ways, the directions of approach and departure for shopping center traffic at West Town were determined. As shown on Table 3, more shopping center patrons approach the shopping center from Decker Drive (north and south) than depart the center onto Decker Drive (north and south). In the morning rush hour, this difference was at least ten percent (30 percent and 15 percent inbound versus 23 percent and 12 percent outbound). In the evening rush hour, the difference was at least 15 percent (27 percent and 17 percent inbound versus 18 percent and 11 percent outbound). These estimates of motorists who stop at the shopping center between home and work are considered - conservative because surveys at other cen- ters have shown greater than 30 percent of the patrons divert from the roadways for impulse purchases. In any case, this distribution of shopping center trips on the roadway network can be used for purposes of determining Phase II traffic distribution because the same market area will be served by the Phase II develop- ment as is served by the Phase I development. 2 Sources: "Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook" and "A Policy on Design of Urban Highways and Arterial Streets ". 7 U BARYON ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES. INC. Two Allen Center. Suite 2640. Houston, Tcnos 77002 (713) 757 1 120 Table 3 EXISTING DIRECTIONS OF APPROACH /DEPARTURE - PHASE I WEST TOWN SHOPPING CENTER Percent of Shoppin& Center Traffic AM PM Roadway In Out In Out Decker Drive - South 30 23 27 18 ' Decker Drive - North 15 12 17 11 Baker Road - East 28 39 36 48 Baker Road - West 23 23 17 18 Country Club Oaks Subdivision 4 3 3 5 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Future Traffic Volumes Future traffic in the vicinity of the site will consist of two components: traffic generated by the Phase II shopping center itself and existing traffic on the roadway network. The factors which determine the quantity of traffic gener- ated by a center of this type are the size and "mix" of the development and the extent to which the automobile is used as the predominant mode of travel. Be- cause of the unavailability of public transit in the area, no site - generated person -trips were assigned to the transit mode. Table 4 presents the peak -hour traffic volumes which are generated by the exist- ing center. These volumes were converted to generation rates (also shown on Table 4). These rates are comparable to those recorded at other shopping centers of similar size and were therefore considered to be appropriate for predicting Phase II volumes. Table 4 PHASE I PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC GENERATION Existing Generation Rates(2) (Vehicle -trips per thousand Shopping Center Vehicles feet GLA) Peak Hours In Out In Out 7:45 - 8:45 AM 4:45 - 5:45 PM (1) Excludes delivery driveways of the and 3, 1981. 136 93 1.12 0.77 304 393 2.50 3.24 vehicles. Based on actual counts conducted at the major existing West Town Shopping Center (Phase I) on December 2 (2) Based on 121,443 square feet of occupied GLA. 0 b BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC. Two Allen Center. Suite 264Q Hutis"i. Texas 77W2 1 7 1 3) 757 1120 The Phase II center will consist of 158,735 square feet of GLA. Due to its similar size to the Phase I development, it is likely to have similar traffic generating characteristics. Thus, the Phase I generation rates were applied to the Phase II development size to derive an initial estimate of future site traffic. This initial estimate was then reduced by factors of 10 percent (AM) and 15 percent (PM) to account for the minimum portions of Phase II traffic anticipated to be diverted off the roadway system (i.e., traveling between work, shop, and home). The resulting volumes of traffic to be generated by the Phase II development are as follows: AM Peak Hour: 160 vehicles inbound; 110 vehicles outbound PM Peak Hour: 340 vehicles inbound; 440 vehicles outbound This traffic was then assigned to the roadway network in accordance with the directions of approach and departure shown on Table 3 and added to the existing peak hour volumes at the critical intersections in the vicinity of the site. These traffic estimates are conservatively high for two reasons: - It has been assumed that the peak AM and PM shopping center hours (shown on Table 4) coincide with the peak hours of intersection activity (6:45 to 7:45 AM and 5:00 to 6:00 PM). This does not actually occur. - The potential for reducing Phase II new vehicle -trips due to dual - purpose trips taken.by motorists to both centers was not considered. Thus, the resulting future traffic assignments can be considered to be worst -case situations in terms of deleterious traffic impacts on the roadway network. FAIRWAY DRIVE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS The projected design hour traffic volumes which resulted from the analysis de- scribed above allow the traffic impact of the West Town Phase II development to be accurately determined. Three issues related to site traffic impacts on Fairway Drive were investigated: (1) automobile traffic congestion; (2) vehicle - pedestrian conflicts; and (3) delivery vehicle activity. Automobile Traffic Congestion If a driveway serving the Phase II development is provided on Fairway Drive, the maximum total volume per lane per hour on Fairway Drive could increase to about 460 vehicles in an eastbound direction during the evening peak hour. This volume is below the 500 -700 vehicle per hour design limit typically considered accep- table for a collector street (discussed previously in this memorandum). The westbound morning peak hour volume on Fairway Drive will only increase from 320 to 360 vehicles per lane per hour. The actual maximum volumes will probably be less because of the potential diversion of traffic from Fairway Drive to Baker ', Road after completion of the Baker Road construction. Assuming that Fairway Drive access is available to Phase II patrons, the Decker Drive /Fairway Drive intersection will operate at Level of Service B during the morning rush hour and at Level of Service C during the evening rush hour. The Decker Drive /Baker Road intersection will continue to operate at the current E U BARTM- ASCHMAN ASSOCIATES, INC Two Allen Center, Suite 2640. Houstw. Texas 77002 (713) 757 1120