1982 01 14 CC Minutes20114 -1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
January 14, 1982
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in
regular session on Thursday, January 14, 1982, at 6:30 p.m.
in the Council Chamber 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 Philips moved for approval of the minutes
for the Council meeting held December 10, 1981; Councilman
Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Receive Petitions
None.
City Manager's Report
DeZavala Neighborhood Council Petition - A report
regarding the DeZavala Neighborhood Council Petition concerning
cleanup of East Baytown Addition, Leger Addition, Airhart
Addition and Busch Terrace had been prepared by leis. Jo
Roosa, Clean City Coordinator, and Council had been furnished
a copy.
Councilman Philips stated that this was a job well done
and everyone connected with this effort deserved recognition.
Building Activities in Baytown - In 1981, value of
permits issued through the Inspection Department was almost
$48,000,000; for 1980, the total was $34,000,000. Residential
construction was down from 1980, but 244 permits were issued
for single family residents.
20114 -2
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Houston Lighting and Power Monthly Cost Comparisons -
Cost per 1000 KWH for January is $63,00 compared to $60.24
for December.
EPA Funding - The Administration has mentioned in the
past that there might be an adjustment in EPA funding regarding
sanitary system improvements. Baytown has received several
million dollars in assistance through the years. Congress
has adopted amendments to the legislation authorizing grants
which has been signed by the President. Some of the major
changes include the change in the types of improvements that
are eligible for grants. In the past funds for treatment
plants, innovative projects, collector sewer, interceptor
sewers and corrective measures to minimize infiltration have
been available. Funds for these type projects will remain
eligible until October 1, 1984. At that time, the types of
improvements that will be eligible will be limited to building
treatment plants, innovative projects and interceptor sewers.
Also, on that date the federal share of approved projects
will be reduced from 750 of the costs to 55%. Under the
present law, municipalities can build extra capacity into
the treatment plants for future growth. After October 1,
1984, that will no longer be permitted.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham
stated that under the present rules the addition of Brownwood
to the West District project would be eligible.
Error in Calculation of Sales Tax - The Administration
has received notification from the State Comptroller that
there has been an error in the calculation of sales tax that
was paid for the last several years. The Comptroller has
paid more than should have been paid. The error resulted
from Exxon ER &E paying Sales and Use tax over a period of
several years when that entity should not have been paying
sales tax. Exxon ER &E is not within the city limits. The
total amount which has been overpaid is $220,000. The
Comptroller will begin deducting from the city's sales tax
revenues beginning this month and continuing through November
until the entire amount is paid. The full amount will be a
refund to Exxon.
Drainage - Singleton Road and West Main projects have
been completed. Massey Tompkins project is 15% complete.
The city has acquired an easement on McPhail to assist with
drainage of Singleton Addition. Plans for the super ditch
are very near completion. Upon completion, the plans will
be forwarded to Harris County for final inspection.
Sliplining - Pipe has been delivered, but work has not
yet begun on the project.
Garth Road Water and Sewer Extensions - The sewer line
is in place and about 650 feet of the water line is in
place.
Community Development - Carver Street - Excavation,
storm sewer and the concrete street has been completed in
front of Carver -Jones Elementary School. The entire project
is 65% complete.
Budget Schedule - There have been many changes in the
laws regarding property taxation which have resulted in
changes in procedures. For this reason, the Administration
N
20114 -3
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
would like to hold a work wession with Council prior to the
next Council meeting. The work session will require 1 1/2
hours. Council scheduled the work session for 5:00 p.m.
prior to the next regular meeting.
Harris County Mayor and Councilmen's Association - The
next meeting of the association is January 21. Speakers
will be Mr. Poorman, District Highway Engineer and Judge Jon
Lindsay.
Houston - Galveston Area Council - The annual meeting of
the Houston - Galveston Area Council will be held February 2
with Governor Bill Clements speaking. Councilwoman Wilbanks
has been nominated to serve as chairperson.
Questions and Comments Regarding City Manager's Report
Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works /City Engineer,
in response to an inquiry from Council reported that there
are several places where the curb needs to be replaced in
Allenbrook. City crews have begun work by removing some of
the materials which have become dislodged. Forms have been
set, but the crews have been unable to pour due to poor
weather conditions.
Mr. Lanham reported that Teleprompter is scheduled to
report to Council next Council meeting.
In response to a Council inquiry regarding the dividers
on Baker Road, Mr. Lanham stated that the Administration
will contact the County in that regard.
Councilman Cannon reported that the lights on Decker
Drive have not been working properly.
With regard to a problem with the light at San Jacinto
and Bayway, Bill Cornelius, Director of Traffic and Planning,
reported that the timer at that particular location had been
malfunctioning. It is being repaired.
With regard to the serious accident at Decker and
Bayway when the lights were out and stop signs were installed,
Council requested that added flasher protection be provided.
Council requested that the Administration begin working
with the school to coordinate Caldwell Street improvement.
Receive Report from Clean City Commission
Mrs. Eva Smith, Chairperson for the Clean City Commission,
presented the 1981 report from the Commission which covers
November, 1980 through October, 1981. The purpose of the
Clean City Commission is to reduce litter in Baytown. Clean
City records indicate that there has been a sixty -two (620)
percent reduction in litter since the inception of the Clean
City Commission. Keep America Beautiful Program held last
April 25 won national acclaim for Baytown. Jo Roosa, Clean
City Coordinator, was presented with a plaque at the National
Awards luncheon in Washington D.C. Twenty -three awards were
given. Mrs. Smith presented Fritz Lanham, City Manager,
with the plaque to be displayed at City Hall.
20114 -4
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Mrs. Smith stated that many individuals and organizations
had helped the Clean City Commission through a very successful
year and those efforts were appreciated. Mrs. Smith gave
special recognition to Mrs. Roosa for her outstanding leadership
and diligence, as well as various departments of the City of
Baytown and City Council for the cooperation and support
given.
The Clean City System strives to unify the community,
to reduce the burden on public works, to offer businesses
the opportunity to show commitment to a clean city, to boost
sanitation workers morale, reduce junked cars, develop
positive assignment for sanitation enforcement, save landfill
space, to reduce spillage from uncovered vehicles and to
encourage proper waste handling.
Council thanked Mrs. Smith for her presentation, the
Commission and Mrs. Roosa for their efforts.
Consider Request of West Town Shopping Center to Amend Plat
Approval
Rules and regulations for Council proceedings provide
that in order for an item to be reconsidered within six
months of a decision by Council, Council must waive that
restriction.
Councilman Johnson moved to consider the request of
West Town Shopping Center to amend plat approval; Councilman
Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Mr. Cletus Davis, attorney for developers of West Town
Shopping Center, Phase Two, was present and stated that
after the last Council meeting, representatives of John
Haesly Company, developers of the property arranged to meet
with the Country Club Oaks Civic Association officers to
attempt to work out a compromise plan that would be acceptable
to the association and reduce some of the concerns of the
association with curb cuts on Fairway. Since that time,
John Haesly Company has also undertaken to contact the
tenants of the proposed shopping center to give Council an
accurate response from those tenants of results of being
permanently stopped from utilizing cuts on Fairway. John
rT
Zeeger and his company have reviewed the compromise plan to
bring Council updated information on how traffic would be
affected by this compromise proposal.
Mr. Davis clarified that the claim form that was submitted
was submitted by Mr. Davis on behalf of his client to make
certain that no procedural points were overlooked to protect
his client. The claim was not submitted as an effort to
threaten or to coerce. Council was furnished with a copy of
the compromise plan.
Mr. Davis summarized the chronology of events for
Council.
20114 -5
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
John Haesly Company began working with City of Baytown,
Harris County, Flood Control and the State Highway Department
in 1979, submitting plans for the layout and development of
the center. In February, 1980, approval was sought for
preliminary plat plan from the Baytown Planning Commission
and approval was sought from the highway department for
access on Decker. In January, 1981, approval was received
from the highway department for access on Decker and in May,
1981, approval of preliminary plans was granted by the
Baytown Planning Commission. This plan showed two accesses
onto Fairway. This was before the developers had closed on
purchase of the land and before financing had been finalized
with the bank and equity participant. The financing package
was closed in August, 1981. In October, 1981, final approval
was sought from Baytown Planning Commission and in November,
1981, the commission granted approval of development with
exception of auto vehicle access connection to Fairway
Drive. Final hearing before the Commission was held in
November when the commission reviewed and rejected development
plans as presented.
City Council approved the plan, but denied access to
Fairway Drive. After that meeting, Mr. Bob Ralston who is
in charge of all leasing for the TG &Y Stores throughout the
United States was contacted. At that time, Mr. Ralston
again reiterated that his company in his opinion would
terminate the lease if access to Fairway Drive was denied.
Mr. Ralston was told at that time that representatives of
John Haesly would be meeting with representatives of the
civic association to attempt to work a compromise. Mr.
Ralston was approached with the idea of one (1) curb cut for
two -way traffic on Fairway and not have the service facility
near the back and close to the school. Mr. Ralston felt
that would be minimum acceptable access.
Bob Postle, architect on the project, drew a plan which
TG &Y approved and that plan was presented to the Country
Club Oaks Civic Association, but this is not the plan that
Council will be shown. After meeting with the association,
the plan was reworked to better meet the objections of the
association. Mr. Davis did emphasize that the association
by no means had endorsed this plan. However, the plan would
limit truck traffic entering off Fairway and would provide
for all traffic to exit onto Fairway by taking a mandatory
right hand turn. Mr. Davis reiterated that TG &Y would
require at least minimum access to Fairway. He stated that
he had inquired of Mr. Ralston again if there had been any
change of position and Mr. Ralston verified the need for
access to Fairway and the fact that the lease would be
terminated. Mr. Davis requested that Mr. Ralston talk to
Mr. Lanham and convey that information to him. Also, Mr.
Davis requested that Mr. Ralston forward a telex which he
read for the record as follows:
"Reference is made to that certain lease agreement
dated January 21, 1980 as amended between John Haesly, as
lessor and TG &Y Stores Co., as lessee covering premises
located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Decker Drive and Baker Road, in the City of Baytown County
of Harris State of Texas.
20114 -6
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Please be advised that by this telex, we do hereby
communicate to you that it is our right under the terms of
said lease and our intent to cancel the above referenced
lease in the event that our lessor cannot provide us with
access for our customers off of Fairway Drive. It is essestial
to us that the main entrance to the center shown on the site
plan attached to our lease (the southern most entrance way
off of Fairway Drive) be preserved. The denial of entrance
off of Fairway Drive will inflict economic harm upon my
company, our lessor, and upon our co- tenants (mainly small,
locally owned businesses) and it will inconvenience customers
of the center.
It seems in my company's view that the benefits to be
obtained by refusing access to our customers off of Fairway
is far outweighted by the damages that will inevitable
result from this action.
We are willing to make arrangements with our lessor to
provide service drive access to our store using an entrance
off of Decker Drive."
After reading the telex, Mr. Davis requested that fir.
John Zeeger present to Council the compromise plan which Mr.
Davis felt would resolve the concerns of the citizens who
reside in that area and still provide John Haesly with the
means to continue the development of the project.
Mr. Zeeger stated that he would like to present briefly
the concept which had been developed for access onto and off
of Fairway Drive to serve the shopping center. Mr. Zeeger
had a map which depicted the location of the proposed shopping
center in relation to Decker Drive, Fairway Drive, Country
Club Oaks and Pumphrey Elementary School. Mr. Zeeger mentioned
that in the presentation to Council about one month ago, the
consultants had presented results of the study which evaluated
the impact of providing two (2) access drives along Fairway
into and out of the center. The traffic engieers found that
the traffic demand, the potential for service vehicle operations
along Fairway and the vehicular pedestrian conflict were all
going to be within the same level of volume as being experience
presently along Fairway.
Since that presentation, the developer did request that
the traffic engineers consider a different concept which
involved only one access drive between Fairway and the
shopping center, and to evaluate a specific kind of intersection
arrangement that would minimize any impact at all on the
Country Club Oaks Subdivision. What is being considered now
is one access drive on Fairway with a different configuration
than normally seen at shopping centers. Mr. Zeeger had a
map which depicted the way the intersection would look. The
intersection is different than most in that it prohibits
certain movements which will limit traffic on Fairway Drive.
Secondly, the intersection restricts trucks from using the
portion of Fairway Drive east of the access point. One
unusual thing about the intersection is the shape of the
island which provides for an outbound or exiting lane which
forces traffic entering Fairway out of the shopping center
to make a right -hand turn and travel toward Decker Drive. The
shape of the triangle is such that traffic can be prohibited
from making a left turn. The raised concrete median will prohibit
20114 -7
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
anyone from turning left. An automobile could possible make
a left -hand turn, but the driver would have to use several
maneuvers in order to turn left. A semi - trailer
truck, however, would never be able to make a left turn
at that location. In order to prohibit trucks and higher
semi - trailer vehicles from entering, the developer will
install a low- clearance traffic control bar above the
roadway to prohibit trucks of a certain height. The intent
of the bar is to re- enforce the pattern whereby the trucks
that are primarily coming to the shopping center from Decker
Drive would enter the shopping center at one of the Decker
Drive access points, would circulate behind the shopping center
stores, service those stores and exit onto Fairway, being forced
to turn right and back onto Decker. Mr. Zeeger stated that
no traffic solution is perfect, but this kind of a solution
will significantly reduce the possiblity of heavy vehicles
using the section of Fairway Drive east of the traffic island.
Mr. Zeeger mentioned that the residents of the area were not
only concerned with truck traffic, but increase in traffic
in general. With this type restriction, the volume of rush
hour traffic eastbound will remain at approximately the same
level. There is the possibility that that volume will increase
in the future as Baker Road is opened. The traffic engineers
concluded that with the traffic island concept with the
limitation to one access point onto Fairway Drive and
the other techniques described serves two purposes: (1)
to practically eliminate the possibility of heavy vehicles
using the section of Fairway Drive east of the island, and
(2) to result in no impact on Fairway Drive by automobiles
during the heaviest hours of activity in the heaviest direction.
In response to questions from Council, Mr. Zeeger
stated that the traffic island is approximately 220 feet
from Decker and approximately 200 feet west of Glenhaven.
He added that the traffic bar could not be of a material
that could cause serious injury.
Mr. Zeeger mentioned that because there is an angle on
Fairway with that entrance much care would need to be given
as to what the turning radius is. He stated what the developers
will do is design that diminsion so that it will be large
enough to allow for normal passenger cars to make that turn
safely without conflicting with the concrete curb in the
middle of the roadway, but at the same time, not make such a
wide sweeping turn that the intersection is so wide that it
invites people to move in the wrong direction, in the wrong
lane or invites larger vehicles to try to circumvent the
intent of the island. He stated that the minimum design
tracking distance of 15 -20 feet would be utilized.
Mr. Zeeger, in response to an inquiry from Council,
stated that the traffic engineers had taken a close look at
the existing conditions with regard to the signal at Fairway
and Decker and also provided what the future condition would
be. The shopping center will add traffic to that intersection.
What the engineers found was that by retiming the light the
backup can be reduced so that vehicles can move through at
an acceptable level of service.
Also, in response to an inquiry from Council, Mr.
Zeeger stated that approximately 120 feet of grassed area
north of Fairway Drive would be provided as a buffer between
parking and commercial developments in the center itself.
Storage in the event of traffic backup will be 3 to 4 times
that found in normal shopping centers. Usually there is
parking up to the curb.
20114 -8
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Councilman Simmons pointed out that the telex message
indicated trucks would be serviced off Decker Drive; therefore,
he wondered why this particular access could not be two -way for
passenger cars only so that Country Club Oaks residents
could come and go more freely. The residents of Country
Club Oaks who were present stated that they did not want the
access.
'qtr. Davis stated that TG &Y has verified that they must
have access to Fairway Drive and this is the compromise that
the developer has worked out so that Council would have
something that they could consider. Mr. Davis pointed out
that Council would need to consider the precedent that could
be set with regard to future growth.
Mr. Davis, in response to an inquiry from Council,
verified that all the items included in the letter dated
November 11, 1981, to Dr. Bartz have been included in the
plans and were noted upon obtaining first building permits.
In closing, Mr. Davis mentioned that there is no real
evidence that the providing of a curb cut on Fairway is
going to create any serious danger to the safety and welfare
of the citizens of Baytown. In fact, there is just the
contrary - -a compromise proposal which seems to have no
effect with regard to increasing traffic on Fairway Drive.
He pointed out that the developer had done everything within
his capability to try to bring to Council a plan that is a
very fair compromise. The developer requested approval of
the compromise.
Councilman Simmons inquired of Mr. Davis that if in the
event the developer were denied a curb cut, would there be
the distinct possibility that the developer would go to
court and request a writ of mandamus, ordering the City of
Baytown to provide the developer with ingress and egress.
Mr. Davis responded that the developer would be forced
to examine every possible alternative due to the $8,000,000
note which Mr. Haesly had personally signed. Mr. Davis also
verified that if a writ of mandamus were sought, the Judge
could order that the developer be provided with 2 or 3 curb
cuts.
Dr. Ken Bartz, President of Country Club Oaks Civic
Association, was present and stated with regard to chronology
of events that about two years ago before any monies were
spent, the association did speak with the developer and
indicated its strong opposition to curb cuts on Fairway.
Dr. Bartz acknowledged that the association had met
with the developer last week to discuss alternate plans for
curb cuts on Fairway Drive. After careful, long and sometimes
heated discussions the Board members voted against the
developers proposal, that is the group is opposed to any
curb cut on Fairway Drive. Dr. Bartz stated that the Board
recognizes the spirit of compromise, but the Board did not
believe the alternate plan fully corrected the concerns
expressed previously. Foremost on that list of concerns is
the added safety hazard to the children who use the school
and its playground facilities. Another concern is the
nusiance value of added traffic on the street and its attendant
problems. Also, the association is concerned that the real
estate value of property along Fairway Drive will be greatly
diminished and eventually the real estate value of all
20114 -9
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
property in the subdivision could be affected. The traffic
plan that is being proposed will result in traffic jams at
the intersection of Fairway and Decker. Any trucks exiting
off Fairway will cause more rapid deterioration of the
roadbed.
Dr. Bartz reminded Council that in its earlier pleas
favorable votes were obtained from the Baytown Planning
Commission and City Council. The group also received very
strong support from the school district.
Dr. Bartz acknowledged that the developer had shown a
willingness to compromise by having the curb cut requirement
reduced over the original proposal and accepting limitations
on its use, but the increased traffic problem still exists.
The traffic will now be coming out of one place rather than
two. There still exists very strong feeling against any
curb cuts on Fairway Drive with many of the residents of
Country Club viewing it as a real threat to the school and
to the subdivision. Dr. Bartz said that the issue comes
down to the right of a taxpaying community which built up an
attractive valuable residential area to maintain its only
major exit and entrance road from increased traffic and its
attendant safety hazards. He requested that Council contrast
these rights with those of the developer and put the rights
of Baytown's citizens first.
Dr. Bartz stated that in the opinion of the association's
attorney based on a 1958 Texas Supreme Court decision upholding
the right of the City of San Antonio to deny curb cuts to a
commercial developer, Council certainly has the legal right
to determine if a curb cut should or should not be made.
The reason that the Supreme Court upheld the City of San
Antonio's right to make such a decision was for the health,
safety and welfare of the surrounding community. Dr. Bartz
inquired if that was not what was being discussed, the
health, safety and welfare of the subdivision.
Bill Neathery, a resident of Country Club Oaks and a
member of the civic association, stated that if the curb cut
did not produce more traffic on Fairway, then it would not
be beneficial to the shopping center. He pointed out that
congestion on Fairway is the concern of the residents which
in the peak times now the street is over congested. Mr.
Neathery stated that if he had calculated correctly, the cut
that Mr. Zeeger had referred to will be opposite the driveway
of the resident on the corner of Glenhaven and Fairway. Mr.
Neathery mentioned that two years ago the association had
met with the developer and at that time had indicated in
very strong terms that the residents did not desire to have
any curb cuts on Fairway Drive even though the developer
kept insisting that the cuts would be for the convenience of
Country Club residents. He also pointed out that the development
already had a total of ten (10) curb cuts off the two four -
lane thoroughfares bounding the property. Permission has
been granted for three (3) more off Decker Drive. On a two -
lane roadway it is impossible to develop a compromise that
would satisfy the developer's request and the residents
concerns. The residents overriding concern is adding to the
congestion already present. He pointed out that the curb
cut being proposed will provide ten (10 %) percent increase
into a parking lot that is never more than (300) percent
loaded and has more access than is ever used. The mechanical
obstructions being proposed to control traffic have proven
to be ineffective. Therefore, there is obviously an impass
20114 -10
Minutes of the Regular P4eeting - January 14, 1982
and the residents are appealing to Council, in this case, to
represent the citizens of the community. Mr. Neathery
stated he understood the developer's position but was rather
skeptical that given the situation that he could not work an
arrangement with the tenant once the tenant fully understood
all the facts.
Fritz Lanham, City Manager, stated that he had developed
a summary according to information presented to Council on
December 10 and from the revised plan which was presented to
the Administration on January 12 and forwarded to Council
with other agenda information. In that summary, Mr. Lanham
mentioned the major features of the revised plan would be as
follows:
(1) There would be one driveway rather than two.
(2) The driveway would be designed in such a way that
all traffic exiting the shopping center onto
Fairway would be required to turn right in the
direction of Decker Drive. This design should
result in less traffic on Fairway than the previous
plan in that traffic exiting the shopping center
would not be able to travel on Fairway Drive in
the direction of Baker Road.
(3) The developer has indicated a willingness to
install an overhead low clearance traffic control
bar that would limit the height of vehicles entering
the shopping center from Fairway Drive.
Other factors for consideration:
(1) Fairway Drive is not a truck route.
(2) There is a school crossing guard on Fairway Drive.
(3) Fairway Drive provides a "short cut" for motorists
traveling between Decker Drive and Baker Road.
Traffic volumes on Fairway will likely increase as
development continues in this vicinity whether or
not there are.curb cuts on Fairway Drive.
(4) The developer has stated he will suffer a large
financial loss if the curb cut is denied, and has
presented a claim against the city for his estimated
loss.
In view of the above and the possibility of a lawsuit,
Mr. Lanham suggested that Council hold an executive session
with the City Attorney prior to making a decision.
With respect to Mr. Lanham's conversation with Mr.
Ralston, the City Attorney and City Clerk were privy to that
conversation and the City Clerk recorded the following
information:
"This site was originally approved by our corporate
headquarters based upon two entry ways off of Fairway- -
one for trucks and one for customers. Since that time,
it has been decided that we could make do with single
entrance off of Fairway with combined service and
customer usage, and lastly, without any entry way off
Fairway, we will pass and not have a store there."
20114 -11
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Per. Lanham continued that as indicated above, the plan
provides for one curb cut on Fairway Drive and is designed
to minimize the increase in traffic flow on Fairway Drive
resulting from this curb cut. The Administration feels that
the revised plan addresses many of the concerns expressed at
the December 10 Council meeting and that it is a reasonable
attempt to resolve the issues.
Mayor Hutto stated that in view of the fact that a
claim has been received in this matter, it would be proper
for Council to recess into executive session with its attorney
prior to making a decision.
Councilman Cannon stated that Mr. Haesly had approved
this alternate plan and if this plan were to be approved
then that would fulfill any other requirement that he might
have of the city?
Mr. Haesly responded that that was correct and Mr.
Davis concurred that that would be correct since TG &Y has
approved the alternate plan.
Mayor Hutto recessed the open meeting into executive
session to discuss contemplated litigation. When the open
meeting was reconvened, the following business was transacted:
Randy Strong, City Attorney, stated that in his opinion
the case law is such that it is unlikely that the City of
Baytown would be held liable for the type damages which have
been alleged if the developer did pursue the damage claim.
It is possible, however, that the developer could file some
sort of action such as a mandamus and the court could order
City Council to allow a curb cut. In such a situation, the
court would consider evidence that was presented from both
sides in an effort to determine whether the City Council's
decision was supported by evidence or whether it was arbitrary
and capricious. Judging evidence that the City Council has
heard, there is a likelihood that a court would find that
the evidence will not support a Council decision to deny a
curb cut.
Councilman Simmons due to the interests of both parties
and for the best interest of the entire City of Baytown,
after having heard the opinion of legal counsel and the
recommendation of the Administration, and because of the
reasonable and logical alternate plan that was presented
moved that Council adopt the amended plat allowing a curb
cut; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members
Wilbanks, Fuller
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
and Cannon
Consider Designation of Additional Depository Banks for
City of Baytown
Council had been presented with a memorandum from the
City Attorney concerning the City of Baytown depository
contract with Citizens Bank & Trust Company which was entered
into in September, 1980. The contract between the parties
authorized the City to invest funds in time deposits in
banks other than Citizens Bank & Trust.
20114 -12
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
In May, 1981, the Attorney General issued an opinion
which stated that a city cannot withdraw funds from its
depository and invest those funds in United Stated securities
unless specifically allowed to do so by statue.
The Legislature responded by amending the statute to
allow cities to invest surplus funds in federal obligations
at any time. However, the City's depository bank feels that
the practice of investing funds in other banks is improper,
and has cited the Attorney General's opinion in support of
that position. The Administration was aware that cities in
Texas do utilize the services of more than one bank. Therefore,
in an effort to determine how other cities have handled this
problem, a number of Texas cities were contacted. The
responses have fallen into two groups: Those cities which
maintain all their funds in one depository and those who
designate several depositories, and invest funds as the City
of Baytown does.
The City Attorney suggested that one way to deal with
the problem would be for the City of Baytown to designate
the other banks in Baytown as city depositories. There are
two options. One is to have all the City's money in one
depository bank and the other is to designate several depositories.
The expiration date of the present depository contract is
September, 1982.
In response to an inquiry from Council, the City Attorney
explained that the present contract contains a provision
which allows the City to maintain money in other banks. The
point of discrepancy is whether those banks have been declared
as depositories.
Councilman Johnson stated that even though the contract
provides that the City may maintain money in other banks, he
felt that the City has a moral obligation to maintain its
money with Citizens Bank & Trust.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham
explained that all demand depositories are kept in Citizens
Bank & Trust. The City's needs for thirty (30) days are
projected and anything above that is invested. Under the
present arrangement, the best interest rate payment is
obtained for that particular day. The present contract is a
variable contract which is tied to the treasury bill.
In the discussion, Pat Tobin, Director of Finance,
verified that the City had become overdrawn once during the
course of the contract for which the City paid $3,000 penalty.
Mayor Hutto indicated that his personal feeling with
regard to the present arrangement is that the City of Baytown
is utilizing its depository bank as a checking account and
he did not feel that the bank entered the contract with the
full realization that that is what ultimately would occur.
Mayor Hutto recognized ?fir. Conrad Magourik, representative
of Citizens Bank & Trust Company. Mr. Magourik who in
response to Councilwoman Wilbanks request that the matter be
postponed until next Council meeting, stated perhaps he
could provide some facts that would lend assistance to
Council in order that a decision could be made. He stated
that the bank had been working with the Administration for
several months and would like to have the matter resolved.
20114 -13
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Mr. Magourik explained that when the City depository
was up for bids in the summer of 1980, Citizens was also
involved with a depository contract with BAWA which the City
administers. The BAWA contract was expiring. The bank was
approached by Mr. Tobin to continue that contract. The bank
agreed and lived up to that verbal agreement at a cost to
Citizens Bank. At the same time that this was transpiring,
the City went out for bids on a depository contract to all
the banks within the City. The bid form which was submitted
was different than the one which the depository was ultimately
established under. There were no bidders. The bid form was
revised, the bank studied the form, saw the paragraph referred
to and within the bank's organization determined not to bid.
Mr. Tobin called a bank representative to inquire if the bid
form had been received. At that time, Mr. Tobin was informed
that the bank did not intend to bid. He encouraged the bank
to bid and indicated that even though that provision was
included, the City did not intend to utilize that option.
Therefore, the bank bid the depository.
In the meantime interest rates changed and in the
bank's opinion the BAWA contract was abrogated, money was
placed with other banks, Citizens Bank objected and the
contract was rebid. During this time, the bank was receiving
calls on what the bank would pay on City time deposits and
the response was that there was a contract in existence and
the bank would pay according to the contract. Therefore,
Citizens Bank received no time deposits. Citizens Bank
began to consider what course to follow and began to work
with a law firm in Houston. In April, the bank received an
opinion from their attorney that the City's practice was
illegal. The bank began working with the Administration and
presented that opinion to the Administration. The City's
account deteriorated to the extent that in September there
was a net overdraft at the bank and at that point the bank
determined that something must be done. That is when the
bank's attorneys in Houston were contacted and their attorneys
reassured them that the City was operating illegally. In
October, Mr. Magourik spoke with Mr. Lanham, but at that
time, Mr. Lanham was unable to give him an answer because he
needed to confer with the City Attorney. The City Attorney
needed time to research the matter.
Mr. Magourik emphasized that his reason for appearing
before Council was that funds are on deposit that should be
in Citizens Bank and everyday that those funds are elsewhere,
the contract is running and Citizens is being damaged. The
bank would like to have a decision made. He informed Council
that Citizens has guaranteed that a certain amount will be
provided as collateral and the bank must have that money
available anytime the City so designates. The other banks
have no obligation.
Robert Remy with the firm of Liddell, Sapp, Zivley,
Brown & LaBoon, representatives of Citizens Bank & Trust,
concerning various depository matters stated that there is
nothing illegal about designating more than one depository.
The statutes clearly provide that possibility. However,
the City's current practice of depositing funds with various
banks in Baytown has been reviewed by the firm. The firm
feels that the City's procedure violates certain depository
laws of the State.
20114 -14
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Article 2559, V.T.C.S., provides that depositories must
be designated following designation of notice soliciting
bids. That provision has not been complied with in this
case. Article 2561, V.T.C.S., provides that City Council is
to select from the various banks applying to be depositories
the best bid available. This selection is to be made only
following applications made pursuant to statutory notice.
Mr. Remy stated that it was his understanding that City
Council was not involved in selection of particular banks to
receive the other deposits. Also, Article 2561 provides
very detailed and very strenuous security provisions necessary
to secure those time deposits which Mr. Remy's firm was
unsure whether those provisions had been complied with. In
any event, in the firm's opinion, Article 2561 would require
that securities be provided at such time as the depository
is formally designated by City Council and clearly, that is
not the case here.
Mr. Remy continued that as a general point cities do
not enjoy unrestricted investment authority. Their investment
powers are strictly regulated by statute. Going on to the
proposal whereby City Council would be called upon to designate
various or even all of the local banks as depositories, Mr.
Remy stated that he felt there would be several statutory
problems in this regard. First, with regard to Article
2559, that statute requires that application for depository
be submitted to the City Council subsequent to notice of
request for such applications. Article 2560 provides that
from those applications the governing body is statutorily
mandated to select the most favorable terms from those
various banks. The problem with the proposal to designate
additional depositories is that there would be a blanket
designation of banks who would submit applications to City
Council which could not contain the specific proposals to
comply with the statute. According to Article 2560 the City
Council is to make selection of depositories not the Director
of Finance or City Manager or any other governmental employee.
Further, Article 2560 requires that banks appointed to serve
as city depositories must satisfy the security provisions of
Article 2560 prior to being formally designated as depositories.
Also, the article specifically specifies that in order to
qualify, the proposed depositories must comply with the
security provisions within five (5) days from the date
selected. Those depositories are required to pledge securities
equal to or greater than the amount of funds to be deposited
with that bank. Since the banks do not know the amount of
money to be deposited with them, that would be almost unworkable
administratively. Each and every bank would have to pledge
at the very outset the amount of securities equal to the
total amount of city funds. Not very many banks would be
willing to do that. The City's alternatives are to ignore
those provisions and require those other banks to put up
securities only at such time as they are going to receive
particular deposits. Section 67(8) of the Baytown City
Charter requires that the City comply with all statutes
pertaining to securities for city deposits. This re- enforces
the feeling that at the outset of designation, depositories
would be required to provide securities in the amount equal
to the total of city funds.
With regard to Paragraph 14 of the present depository
contract, Mr. Remy stated that there is no question that
that provision does state that the City may place deposits
in other banks; however, the manner in which that is being
done clearly violates the law. It is a clear principle of
law that any provision of a contract that is either on its
face in violation of law or as administered violates law is
20114 -15
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
unenforceable. That is the legal position that Citizens'
Bank attorneys take regarding Paragraph 14.
In conclusion, Mr. Remy stated that the City may designate
as many depositories as it desires, but with the problems
that have been pointed out that would not be administratively
nor legally administrable. In any event, it must be City
Council to make designation of City depositories.
Randy Strong, City Attorney, explained that part of the
problem that had arisen is due to the Attorney General
opinion which was issued in May, 1981 after the contract was
executed. Mr. Strong stated that he felt that the Attorney
General has made an error because traditionally home rule
cities have been given broad powers under the statutes of
the State of Texas. It is general rule that if something is
not prohibited by statute, it is considered acceptable for
home rule cities. Counties are only allowed to do those
things that are specifically allowed by statutes. There was
an earlier Attorney General opinion concerning depositories
of counties. Mr. Strong felt that the Attorney General had
mistakenly carried over the opinion regarding county depositories
and applied that to home rule cities. Mr. Strong stated
that he had some disagreement about the right of cities with
regard to their power to select depositories. Hopefully,
this will be clarified during the next legislative session.
Mr. Strong stated that other banks are meeting security
requirements of the city. The item to consider designation
of additional depository banks for City of Baytown was
placed on the agenda to allow Council the opportunity to
make a decision on whether the administration should begin
the process for declaring other depositories. Finally, Mr.
Strong stated that he had conversed with Texas Municipal
League and other cities and this is a common practice across
the State of Texas. A number of cities have numerous depositories
and put various funds in those depositories as they see fit.
In fact, Houston has approximately 30 depository banks.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Strong
stated that the Administration's position has been that when
the contract was entered into with Citizens Bank, the contract
was proper and that provision was allowable under State
statute. The Attorney General's opinion does cast some
doubt over the whole situation.
Mr. Tobin, in response to an inquiry from Council,
stated that presently the city has $1,700,000 in cash at
Citizens and approximately $7,117,000 invested.
Mr. Lanham read from the present depository contract as
follows:
"The bank convenants and agrees that the City may
maintain time deposits in other banking institutions and
such accounts in other banks shall not be deemed to be a
breach of the terms or obligations of this contract."
Mr. Tobin explained that the reason the contract was
bid in the fashion it was was to give the City a gauge. In
the past the City had requested that the institutions
guarantee the rate for a given period 1 or 2 years. No one
wanted this type arrangement; therefore, in the last bid,
the depository rate was tied to the treasury bill as columned
in the wall street journal. At the time the contract was
bid, the Administration felt that the law required that a
depository be designated. The Administration considered
20114 -16
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
at that time whether after a designation was made must the
funds remain with that bank for the life of the contract?
The decision was made that the funds could be placed elsewhere;
therefore, that provision was added to the contract.
Councilman Philips stated that he felt that the City is
obligated to the two -year contract with Citizens Bank until
the contract is mutually abrogated. The City should stay
with that contract until it expires and then do whatever the
law provides with regard to depositories.
Mayor Hutto recognized Mr. Craig Wooten with Texas
National Bank who stated that in August, 1980, his bank had
submitted a depository bid which was rejected and at both
meetings where the depository was discussed, the fairness of
the bid was discussed. Bids have always been one -sided for
the city. Cities have always had the opportunity to invest
funds other than at the bank that is awarded the depository
contract. The situation concerning investing with other
banks was detailed in the August and September meetings of
City Council. The pledging requirement to be city depository
is very restrictive. Mr. Wooten said that the most important
thing and the thing that Council really needs to consider is
that for years the City has not received the best that it
could possible get. The year Texas National Bank got the
bid, the City improved its position in earning that year by
approximately $90,000 which is money to the taxpayers.
Under the present policy the City is making money and the
only way the City will ever get a good return on its money
is to have numerous depositories. The process is fair for
everyone involved. Mr. Wooten was of the opinion that the
contract which was adopted was quite well understood by
everyone involved and stated that he would like to see the
present arrangement continued.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Wooten
stated that under the present contract the bank could be
used as an agent for buying all the city's treasury bonds,
pay for all the costs of handling and never receive any
payment. He stated that is the reason his bank bid a negative
figure with regard to the treasury bill rate.
Councilman Simmons pointed out that the State of Texas
had the opportunity to invest some $692,000,000 in State
bonds from which $92,000,000 would have been earned, but
elected not to because this would not have been in the best
interest of Texas to withdraw that much money from its
economy. He felt that the City of Baytown has a contract
and that contract should be honored. When that contract
expires, the City can take another course of action if that
is advisable.
Councilman Philips stated that he didn't want the City
to lose money, but at the same time Council could not expect
business institutions to work for the City with no pay or to
lose money. Therefore, Councilman Philips moved to go back
to the contract that is now in full force and work with that
contract and when that contract expires, Council can take
another look at it.
Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that it seems that there
is a conflict between how that contract is being read and
the manner in which it is being applied, and she was uncertain
that when Councilman Philips stated "go back to the contract"
if that meant "keep the money at Citizens."
20114 -17
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Councilman Philips verified that that was what he was
saying.
Councilwoman Wilbanks pointed out that there is a
statement in the present contract which provides that the
City may consider other depositories.
Councilman Philips responded that apparently this was
not legal.
Councilman Johnson stated that the felt that Council
had a moral obligation to honor the contract. After the
contract expires, Council can make a decision what is to be
� Owl done with regard to the depository.
Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that by honoring the
contract, Council would not be doing what it wants to do.
Councilman Johnson clarified that he was speaking of
how he interpreted the contract. When the contract was
executed with Citizens, he felt that the City would be
leaving its money at Citizens.
Councilwoman Wilbanks inquired then if Council wanted
to amend the contract.
Councilman Philips responded that the contract itself
did not need to be amended.
Councilman Fuller concurred and stated that Council
need only to instruct the Administration how to interpret
the contract.
The City Attorney clarified that Citizens Bank felt
that certain provisions of the contract should not be honored.
Because of the Attorney General's opinion on the matter, the
City needs to go ahead and have its money in one depository
or Council should'direct the Administration to go ahead and
take steps necessary to appoint additional depositories so
that the City may continue to invest money in other banks.
Mayor Hutto stated that that was what Councilman Philips
was trying to state in his motion. That the City utilize
one depository until the present contract expires.
Councilwoman Wilbanks inquired of Councilman Philips if
his motion meant that the City Council intends for City
funds to stay with Citizens until September, 1982.
Councilman Philips verified this was correct.
In response to an inquiry from Councilman Fuller for
the need for a motion at all, Councilman Philips stated that
in the strictest sense of the contract, the wording allows
for the Administration to invest in other depositories, but
the agreement, intent and understanding which motivated
Citizens to bid the contract and to enter into the contract
was on the basis that they would receive all the funds.
Councilman Philips continued if that was the intent then
Council needs to honor that. Councilman Johnson seconded
the motion.
Mayor Hutto inquired if that motion meant to put the
funds at Citizens immediately.
20114 -18
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Councilman Philips clarified that the motion included
that funds should be moved within thirty (30) days to Citizens
Bank & Trust and that all funds of the City should remain at
Citizens, and that the agenda item which covers the subject
of designation of additional depositories would be rejected.
The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Second and Final Reading on
Proposed Annexation of Raven Way and Adjacent Parcels_
Council has discussed the proposed annexation of Raven
Way and adjacent parcels for several meetings. The proposed
ordinance would annex Parcels No. 2 and 1 as depicted on
a map provided, along with railroad right of way. Developers
of Raven Way were contacted and have responded that Raven
Way will be developed as soon as mortgage interest rates
become more favorable. The developers anticipate a very
strong housing market when interest rates adjust to a reasonable
level.
Mr. Lanham emphasized that if Raven Way were to be
annexed without annexing the other parcels, those parcels
could only be annexed by request of the owners to do so
which might present problems for the City in the future.
Therefore, the Administration recommended approval of the
ordinance on second and final reading.
Councilman Fuller moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Simmons seconded the motion.
Mr. Dalton Clanton was present. He stated that he was
still confused as to the reason Council could not at a
future time consolidate the two green tracks or the Davis
property and annex. The City Attorney explained that the
property must be 500 feet wide at its narrowest point in
order for the City to annex without consent from the owners.
Those parcels when combined do not qualify. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Simmons, Wilbanks, and Fuller
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Council members Philips, Johnson and Cannon
ORDINANCE NO. 3269
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY
LIMITS OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, AND THE ANNEXATION OF
RAVEN WAY SUBDIVISION AND ADJACENT LAND WHICH SAID TERRITORY
LIES ADJACENT TO AND ADJOINS THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMITS OF
THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Execution of Contract
with Bay Area Women's Center
Revenue sharing funds were appropriated for the Bay
Area Women's Center in the amount of $15,000. The Administration
has received a request from the center for those funds. In
20114 -19
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
the contract which had been presented to Council, there was
an error on the first page. The date should be 1982 rather
than 1983. The contract provides that the program applicant
agrees to furnish the City a copy of its final budget for
the fiscal year. This provision has not been included in
previous contracts of this nature; however, the Administration
felt that Council might like to consider an item such as
this in future contracts of this nature. The Administration
recommended approval of the contract.
Council felt that this was a very reasonable provision
and indicated that that provision should be included in all
future contracts.
Councilwoman Wilbanks moved to adopt the ordinance;
Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 3292
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER OF
THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH THE BAY AREA
WOMEN'S CENTER FOR PROVIDING HOUSING & ASSISTANCE TO WOMEN
WHO ARE TEMPORARILY DISLOCATED DUE TO DISRUPTION OF THE
FAMILY; AUTHORIZING PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND
AND N01100 ($15,000.00) DOLLARS WITH REGARD TO SUCH AGREEMENT;
AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Execution of Contract
with Wayne Smith for Engineering Services
The Administration was not prepared for discussion of
this item.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending Mobile Homes, Mobile
Homes Park Ordinance to Include New Driveway Provisions
and Allowing Replacement of Mobile Homes Existing Prior
to Enactment of Present Ordinance
Several months ago, individuals appeared before Council
who were being required to install a driveway at a mobile
home located outside a park. They were replacing the mobile
home that had previously been situated there with a new one.
They felt that that requirement was unreasonable and requested
a waiver. The matter was referred to the Mobile Home Review
Board and the Board has recommended changes be made in the
ordinance to cover this type situation. The changes that
are being recommended provide for inclusion of stabilized
shell and stabilized sand as possible materials for construction
of streets and driveways for mobile homes located outside
mobile home parks. The present ordinance requires either
concrete or asphalt. Another change would provide where a
person owned a mobile home prior to the enactment of the
ordinance and such mobile home has not been moved to a new
stand or location since that date, then that person would
not be subject to the requirements of the ordinance nor
would that person be subject to the requirements of the
ordinance in the event that home was replaced. The Adminis-
tration recommended approval of the amendments.
20114 -20
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
In response to an inquiry by Council, the City Attorney
explained that in the event of change of ownerhsip, the
requirements of the ordinance would apply.
Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 3293
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17A, "MOBILE HOMES & MOBILE
HOME PARKS ", OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
BY AMENDING ARTICLE III, "MOBILE HOMES OUTSIDE PARKS, SECTION
17� -15, "PARKING OF MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF LICENSED MOBILE
HOME PARK ", SUBSECTION 13; AND BY AMENDING CHAPTER 17J, BY
THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION, SECTION 17A -16 OF ARTICLE
III, ENTITLED ESTABLISHED MOBILE HOME STANDS; PROVIDING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND EFFECTIVE
DATE HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Expenditure of
Funds for Subscription to Public Technology, Inc. and
Purchase of Fire Station Location Package
The Administration had mentioned when talking about
fire station construction several months ago, the need for a
fire location study. In checking with consultants, the
Administration learned that one way to get that accomplished
was through Public Technology, Inc. (PTI). PTI is a non-
profit organization which was formed by a number of public
interests organizations. This organization provides research
capabilities to cities. This group has made numerous studies
through the years and one such study has involved fire
station locations. This is available to the City of Baytown
at a cost of $7,500, plus computer time estimated at $2,500
as a non - member or the City can join at a cost of $6,500 for
one year subscription, plus computer time. This would save
the city $1,000, plus the City would have other studies
available. For that amount of money, the organization will
require a great deal of help from the City. In fact, the
City will be providing most of the field work. Cities of
Denison, Orange, Longview, Arlington and Midland have utilized
the fire station location package. The City of San Antonio
conducted a study of cities who have utilized this service
and most of the responses were favorable. The Administration
recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Fuller seconded the motion.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham
stated that the Administration would be working within the
frame work provided by PTI. PTI's approach in fire station
location is related more to travel time than to distance.
The vote follows:
20114 -21
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 3294
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPEND FUNDS
IN THE AMOUNT OF SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND N01100 ($6,500.00)
DOLLARS FOR A SUBSCRIPTION TO PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND
FOR THE PURCHASE OF A FIRE STATION LOCATION PACKAGE.
Consider Approval of Plans and Specifications and
Authorization to Receive Bids for Construction of
North Little League Park on Sterling High School
Property
Jim Hutchison with the firm of Busch, Hutchison was
present to present plans and seek authorization to receive
bids for construction of North Little League Park on Sterling
High School property. The first sheet showed the layout of
the facility. The upper two diamonds are for future expansion.
These are what the school district would install for girls
softball. The bottom two diamonds are designated for Little
League. The one on the right hand side is the major league
field and is a little larger. The other field is where
Minor 2 games are played. In the center of the complex is
the concession stand. The service drive comes in along an
existing flood control ditch into an 83 space parking lot.
The parking lot can be expanded in the future. Provided in
the plans is a service drive for vehicles to get to the
concession stand to deliver goods that will be sold there.
Water service is available on East Road. The City will need
to run a line approximately 450 feet for water and approximately
200 feet for sewer service.
Page 2 indicates the drainage plan. Approximately
5,000 cubic yards of fill dirt will be necessary to raise
the site to acceptable level to properly drain the area and
protect the concession stand from being flooded. Fortunately,
there is a flood control ditch next to the site. The land
generally slopes toward the drainage ditch and an outfall
has been designed to gather drainage from the area and move
it to the drainage ditch. The City does require a retention
pond of some kind or some sort of retention. Where the
flood control ditch makes a little turn, there is a note to
re -align center line and remove 180 cubic yards of dirt for
retention. Approval must be granted from Harris County
Flood Control District for this work.
The next sheet shows floor plans for concession stand
and building. The building is two - story. The lower floor
contains rest room facilities for men and women and the
concession stand. A concession area is marked for future
concession and storage which could be utilized by the
school. Restrooms will be utilized by both entities. There
is a set of stairs that go up to what would be called a
press box or score keepers area. There are four windows
built into this area to look out onto the field.
20114 -22
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1082
The next page shows an elevation of what that building
will look like. It will be concrete block structure on the
lower part with rough cut plywood upper part. The roof will
be composition. This is the same construction as Jenkins -
Hollaway Park. The Little League owns two sets of bleechers
which will be moved to this facility.
The lighting layout indicates lighting for the one
lighted field which will be metal halide lighting system
which utilizes four (4) poles and four (4) fixtures per
pole. This is the most efficient lighting system now available.
Two lights will be utilized on the parking lot and two area
lights near the concession stand.
The last sheet indicated a layout of the ball field
itself and the dugouts.
Bids will be taken to have all the site work done for
both fields and as a base bid both fields will be fenced,
dugouts will be constructed for both and the backstops
installed for both. Deduct alternates are being provided
for fencing, dugouts and backstop for the smaller field in
the event bids come in too high. Also, a bid item will be
sought for fill dirt in the event it is needed.
Mr. Lanham stated that Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board, as well as Little League officials have reviewed and
approved the plans. The Administration recommends approval.
Estimated construction costs are $225,000. The budget for
the bond program includes $250,000 for the total costs. The
Administration requested authorization to advertise for
bids.
Councilman Fuller moved to approve the plans and specifications
and to authorize advertisement for bids. Councilman Cannon
seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consider Proposed Resolution, Authorizing Baytown Area
Water Authority to Apply for Grant from Texas Department
of Unn -1th to Fluoridate Water
Baytown Area Water Authority Board at two or three
recent meetings has discussed the fact that when Baytown
converted from well water to surface water the amount of
fluoride in the water was reduced. The Board has been
approached by physicians and dentists in the community
concerning this. The Board felt that consideration should
be given to restoring the fluoride content to the water to
the degree recommended by Texas Department of Health. There
are grant funds available through the Texas Health Department
for purchase of equipment to place fluoride in the water,
plus funds for chemicals for two years. The Board would
like to proceed with this and has requested Council endorsement
of that effort by authorizing the submittal of an application
for grant funds.
20114 -23
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Mayor Hutto recognized Mr. Wallace Hunt who stated that
this is a most controversial question and he requested that
Council defer action until he had had an opportunity to
share information with Council. Following optimum briefing
of Council, Mr. Hunt requested that Council conduct a public
hearing to get input.
Mr. Hunt stated that this is a toxic material which is
extremely hazardous to pregnant women, children under age 6
and senior citizens because of effects on enzyme metabolism.
He stated that there was a great deal of information available
on the matter. He stated that since this was optional,
Council could defer its decision to another time.
Dr. Wallace Brunson was present as a representative of
Baytown Dental Society. He too stated that he could furnish
Council with information if the item was to be deferred. He
stated that Baytown Dental Society, Houston District Dental
Society, Texas Dental Association, etc. were all in favor of
fluoridation of water. There are a number of reports concerning
cancer studies, enzyme studies, heart disease studies related
to fluorides which all are negative. Dr. Drew Williams was
present earlier. He had to leave, but he assured Dr. Brunson
that the East Harris County Medical Society was also in
favor of fluoridation of the water. The Houston medical
Society and American Medical Association are also in favor
of fluoridation of water.
In response to Council, Mr. Lanham stated that when
Baytown was utilizing well water, fluoride was a natural
part of the contents. Fluoride content at that time was
higher than the minimum recommended by the State Health
Department.
Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works /City Engineer,
stated that in a 1977 chemical analysis of Baytown water, it
was found that the range of fluoride was from .95 to 2 parts
per million. The State recommends that .7 parts per million
be utilized. The estimated annual cost to add the fluoride
is approximately $1,800. Estimated cost for equipment to
add the fluoride is about $20,000.
Dr. Brunson stated that most of the studies by two (2)
doctors in 1976 have been considered to be useless data by
most responsible authorities -- National Cancer Society,
Heart Association, etc. The main problem that can be produced
with fluoride is mottle enamel which is only produced when
the fluoride concentration is above 2 parts per million.
With anything up to 2 parts per million, there are no problems.
There has never been an accurate study performed which
substantiates that fluoride causes any disease.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Dr. Brunson
stated that there never has been any indication that the
residents of Lubbock, Texas, have more incident of heart
disease or cancer. Up to just a few years ago, Lubbock's
water contained as high as 5 parts per million fluoride. In
Lubbock, since 1974 chemicals are added to the water to
reduce the fluoride to an acceptable level to prevent
mottling of teeth.
Councilman Johnson moved to authorize the Baytown Area
Water Authority to apply for grant from Texas Department of
Health to fluoridate the water; Councilman Philips seconded
the motion.
20114 -24
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Mr. Hunt stated that there is a vast amount of difference
between sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride. He stated
that well water contains calcium fluoride which is very
insoluble and not a great amount of it is ingested. However,
sodium fluoride is readily available to damage an individual's
enzyme metabolism. Mr. Hunt felt that it would be very
simple for the fluoride to be applied topically. Those who
elect not to drink the water once fluoride has been added
must go the the expense of purchasing water or refining the
fluoride out of the water. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
RESOLUTION NO. 799
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF
BAYTOWN TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH FOR FUNDS FOR THE FLUORIDATION OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN'S
POTABLE WATER SUPPLY.
Consider Possible Alternatives to Alleviate Heavy Truck
Traffic on Streets and Thoroughfares
Mayor Hutto had requested that this item be placed on
the agenda for discussion by Council. Mayor Hutto stated
that there has been a problem with trucks traveling within
the city without secured loads, exceeding the speed limit
and crowding other vehicles. Harris County Mayor's and
Councilmen's Association will be encouraging more vigorous
enforcement at the State level. Mayor Hutto requested
permission of Council to appoint a committee to study the
problems and report back to Council.
Councilman Simmons commented that one recent idea was
to have all truck traffic adhere to right lanes on freeways.
Mayor Hutto stated that would be something that could
be considered, along with the possiblity of scales. Possibly,
the committee may have suggestions for passage of ordinances
which may help.
Presently, the City has limited weight requirements due
to the fact the city does not own scales and there would be
a problem to enforce extensive weight requirements. Scales
are very expensive and maintaining personnel to weigh
trucks would be expensive.
Mayor Hutto appointed Councilman Cannon, a member of
the police department and Larry Patterson to work on the
problem. He also requested that someone from the legal
department attend.
Councilman Philips suggested that someone in the trucking
business should be included. Councilman Johnson stated that
he was familiar with a gentleman who is vice - president of a
trucking firm whom he would contact with regard to serving.
Mayor Hutto stated Council could include that individual
at the next meeting.
20114 -25
Minutes of the Regular ?fleeting - January 14, 1982
Consider 1982 Street Improvement Priority
Council was furnished with a copy of the recommended
1982 Street Improvement Priority List. A total of $620,000
is available for this project from both budgeted and revenue
sharing funds. A map was posted in the Council chamber
indicating the location of each street on the list. The
Administration surveyed all the streets in the city to
develop the list. The list does not include all streets
that need improvement. The Administration recommended
approval of the priority list.
Councilman Philips moved for approval of the 1982
Street Improvement Priority List; Councilman Johnson seconded
the motion.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham
stated that the Administration would perform some maintenance
work on Pruett Street in the area of Spur 201 between Schilling
and Inwood. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consent Agenda
Mr. Lanham pointed out to Council that under Item f,
the Administration's recommendation and the ordinance that
was provided Council were in disagreement. The ordinance
would have awarded the purchase to low bidder which the
Administration feels the low bidder does not meet specifications
in that ten (10) days delivery is specified. For the type
work the City of Baytown performs, there is a need for
immediate delivery; therefore, the Administration recommended
that second low bidder be awarded the contract. A revised
ordinance to that effect was placed at the Council table.
The revised ordinance awards the contract to Whites Supply
Company.
Council considered the consent agenda as follows:
a. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -6, will authorize the
abandoning of a portion of a 5 foot utility easement
on Lot 3, Block 5, of Decker Terrace Subdivision.
A request was received from U. S. Homes Corp. to
abandon the easement. All utility companies have
been notified, and none have or will have any
facilities in this easement, and none object to
abandonment. Before a deed can be executed
transferring the easement to U. S. Homes Corp., U.
S. Homes will be required to pay the sum of $100.00,
the appraised value of the easement.
We recommend approval of Ordinance No. 20114 -6.
b. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -7, will award the bid
for the demolition of structures at 3527 and 3529
Market. Seven (7) bids were received. A -1 Home
Improvements submitted the low bid of $18,000.
We recommend the low bidder, A -1 Home Improvements,
be awarded this contract.
20114 -26
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
C. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -8, will award the bid
for the demolition of a structure at 703 Willow.
Seven (7) bids were received. Luckett Contracting
Company submitted the low bid of $2250.
We recommend the low bidder, Luckett Contracting
Company, be awarded this contract.
d. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -9, will award the bid
for the annual calcium hypochlorite contract.
Three (3) bids were received. Thompson- Hayward
submitted the low bid of $13,125.
We recommend the low bidder, Thompson- Hayward, be
awarded this contract.
e. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -10, will award the
bid for the flexible base material contract.
Three (3) bids were received. Radcliff Materials
submitted the low bid of $90,650.
We recommend the low bidder, Radcliff Materials,
be awarded the contract.
f. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -11, will award the
bid for the annual concrete pipe contract. Three
(3) bids were received. The low bidder was Gifford
Hill Pipe ($51,250). The Administration does not
feel Gifford Hill Pipe meets the bid specifications
because of an indicated delivery time of ten (10)
days. White Supply Company was the second low
bidder of $52,739. Their indicated delivery time
is one (1) day.
We recommend the second low bidder, White Supply
Company, be awarded this contract.
g. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -12, will award the
bid for medium duty trucks (8 yard Dump Truck -
Replacement - Water Dist.; 14 yard Dump Truck -
Replacement - Street; 11 ton Utility Truck -
Additional - Water Dist.). Four bids were received.
Jim Ball International submitted the low bid on
each of these trucks totaling $78,847.77. The
City Council has budgeted $94,000 for these items.
We recommend the low bidder, Jim Ball International,
be awarded this contract.
h. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -13, will award the
bid for a 1/2 ton pickup truck. Three (3) bids
were received. San Jacinto Ford submitted the low
bid of $8,574.04. Council has budgeted $7,500 for
this item. This truck is for the Utility Office.
We recommend the low bidder, San Jacinto Ford, be
awarded this contract.
i. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -14, will award the
bid for flail mowers. The mowers are to be used
in the Parks Department. Three bids were received.
Hyco Equipment, Inc. submitted the low bid of
$7,860. Hyco does not meet weight or center mount
specifications. The second low bid was that of
Jim Ball International ($8,588). The amount
budgeted for this item was $7,200.
20114 -27
Minutes of the Regular fleeting - January 14, 1982
We recommend the second low bidder, Jim Ball
International, be awarded this contract.
j. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -15, will award the
bid for Gray Sports Complex fence repair. Three
(3) bids were received. Creative Fence submitted
the low bid of $5,277. The amount budgeted for
this item was $8,500.
We recommend the low bidder, Creative Fence, be
awarded this contract.
k. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -16, will award the
bid for Community Building Furniture. Five (5)
bids were received on three items: Six foot
tables, stackable chairs, and card tables. The
Council has budgeted $8,500 for the purchase of
these materials. The low bidders were: Six foot
tables - Persenaire Playground Products, :1,314;
Chairs - Saco, $5,217.75; Card Tables - Saco,
$593.76. This is a total of °7,125.51.
We recommend the low bidders be awarded this
contract.
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -17, will award the
bid for a 1/2 ton panel van for the Library. One
bid was received from San Jacinto Ford. The bid
amount was $10,362.62. Council budgeted $9,800
for the purchase of this item. The trade -in on
the old van is $750.00, thereby making the actual
purchase price $9,612.62.
We recommend the bid of San Jacinto Ford be accepted.
M. Proposed Ordinance No. 20114 -18, will award the
bid for traffic signal control equipment. Two (2)
bids were received. Signal Engineering Company
submitted the low bid of $2,825. The amount
budgeted for this item was $2,900.
We recommend the low bidder, Signal Engineering
Company, be awarded this contract.
Councilman Fuller moved for adoption of the Consent
Agenda Item Nos. a through m; Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded
the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 3295
AN ORDINANCE CLOSING AND VACATING THE UTILITY EASEMENT IN
LOT 3, BLOCK 5, OF DECKER TERRACE SUBDIVISION, AND PROVIDING
FOR THE DISPOSITION OF SAID PROPERTY.
ORDINANCE NO. 3296
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF A -1 HOME IMPROVEMENTS FOR
THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURES AT 3527 AND 3529 ?iARKET;
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR EIGHTEEN THOUSAND AND
N01100 ($18,000.00) DOLLARS; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
20114 -28
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
ORDINANCE NO. 3297
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF LUCKETT CONTRACTING COMPANY
FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE STRUCTURE AT 703 WILLOW; AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT FOR TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FIFTY
AND N01100 ($2,250.00) DOLLARS; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
ORDINANCE NO. 3298
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF THOMPSON - HAYWARD CHEMICAL
COMPANY FOR THE ANNUAL CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF
THIRTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE & N01100 ($13,125.00)
DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3299
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF RADCLIFF MATERIALS, INC.,
FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLEXIBLE BASE MATERIAL CONTRACT AND
AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF
NINETY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY & N01100 ($90,650.00)
DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3300
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF WHITE SUPPLY FOR THE
ANNUAL CONCRETE PIPE CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY
THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF FIFTY TWO THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED THIRTY EIGHT & N01100 ($52,738.00) DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3301
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF JIM BALL INTERNATIONAL FOR
THE PURCHASE OF MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS, AND AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF SEVENTY EIGHT
THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN & 77/100 ($78,847.77)
DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3302
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF SAN JACINTO FORD FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE (1) ONE HALF TON (FULL SIZE) PICKUP TRUCK
AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE
SUM OF EIGHT THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY FOUR & 04/100
($8,574.04) DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3303
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF JIM BALL INTERNATIONAL FOR
THE PURCHASE OF FOUR (4) FLAIL MOWERS AND AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF EIGHT THOUSAND
FIVE HUNDRED EIGHTY EIGHT & N01100 ($8,588.00) DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3304
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF CREATIVE FENCING SYSTEMS
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX FENCE AND AUTHORIZING
THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF FIVE THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN & N01100 ($5,277.00) DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3305
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF PERSENAIRE PARK AND PLAY
AND SACO OFFICE EQUIPMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF COMMUNITY
BUILDING FURNITURE, AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY
OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF SEVEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWENTY
FIVE AND 51/100 ($7,125.51) DOLLARS.
20114 -29
Minutes of the Regular meeting - January 14, 1982
ORDINANCE NO. 3306
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF SAN JACINTO FORD FOR THE
PURCHASE OF ONE (1) ONE -HALF TON PANEL VAN AND AUTHORIZING
THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF NINE THOUSAND
SIX HUNDRED TWELVE AND 62/100 ($9,612.62) DOLLARS.
ORDINANCE NO. 3307
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF SIGNAL ENGINEERING CO.,
FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND
AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND N01100 (°$2,825.00)
DOLLARS.
For bid tabulations, see Attachments "A" through "K"
respectively.
Consider Appointments to Electrical Board
Councilman Philips moved to reappoint Leo Barta and
Howard C. Boyles to the Electrical Board. Mr. Pat Mann has
indicated that he can no longer serve. Councilman Johnson
seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consider Appointments to Community Development Advisory
Committee
Councilman Simmons moved to reappoint Mrs. Madonia
Stafford, Mr. Ruben DeHoyos and Mrs. Jean Shepherd to the
Community Development Advisory Committee; Councilwoman
Wilbanks seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consider Appointment of Municipal Court Judge and Alternate
Councilman Simmons moved to reappoint Judge Raymond
Donnelly as Municipal Court Judge and Judge Roy Fuller as
Alternate Judge. Councilman Philips seconded the motion.
The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Abstained: Councilman Fuller
20114 -30
Minutes of the Regular Meeting — January 14, 1982
Consider Confirmation of Appointment to Civil Service
Commission
Mr. Lanham requested Council confirmation of his reappointment
of W. Houston Schweitzer to the Civil Service Commission.
Councilman Johnson moved to confirm the reappointment
of W. Houston Schweitzer to the Civil Service Commission;
Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consider Polling Places for Voting Precinct Nos. 12 and 249
for the Municipal Election
Due to redistricting by the Legislature Commissioner's
Court was required to redistrict voting precincts within
Harris County. The City of Baytown usually utilizes Harris
County Voting Precincts. However, since the County redistricted
the Baytown area two new precincts were added. Precinct
Nos. 532 and 533. Those precincts for the most part were
carved from Precinct No. 12 and 249 to conform to legislative
lines. To date the county has not located polling places
for Precinct Nos. 12 or 249 nor have they appointed election
personnel for Precinct Nos. 532 and 533. The City of Baytown,
by law, may consolidate one or more county precincts.
Therefore, Mrs. Hall suggested that for the Municipal Election,
that Council authorize the consolidation of Precinct Nos. 12
and 533, with the polling place for that precinct to be
Alamo Elementary School and consolidation of Precinct Nos.
249 and 532, with the polling place for that precinct to be
James Bowie Elementary School.
Councilman Simmons moved to accept the recommendation
of the Administration; Councilman Johnson seconded the
motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members
Wilbanks, Fuller
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
and Cannon
Consider Request of Ray Hopper for City of Baytown Partici-
pation to Expand Rollingbrook Drive to Four Lanes from
Garth Road East to Point of Intersection with Four Lane
Roadway
Mayor Hutto explained that due to the fact, he is
presently and has been for some time, Trustee of the property
to be discussed, he would relinquish the Chair to Councilman
Cannon, Mayor Pro Tem.
Council was presented with a copy of a letter from Mr.
Ray Hopper in which Mr. Hopper states that he is one of the
owners of 11.73 acre tract of land located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of Rollingbrook Drive and Garth
Road. He suggests that the city consider participating in
20114 -31
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
the expansion of that secton of Rollingbrook Drive to four
lanes by paying a portion of the cost and assessing the
usual property owners portion against the property similar
to the arrangement and method that was used on Garth Road.
The deed that conveyed right of way for Rollingbrook
Drive to the City in 1971 states that the grantor, his
successors and assigns shall upon the development of his
abutting property and the acquisition of a building permit
pay the direct costs of improving the hereinabove described
easement as a street. At that time, there was an agreement
with all property owners along Rollingbrook; the others paid
their share, but this tract was handled in this manner. The
owner understands that according to the deed when the property
is developed and the building permit is obtained, that
section must be paved at his expense. The City would like
to see it paved now. Since the owner has no plans to develop,
he is suggesting that the City of Baytown assist in the
costs to pave the street on assessment basis.
Councilman Cannon inquired if Council had not been
informed by letter that the developer was ready to proceed.
Mr. Lanham responded that there was some discussion, but he
could not recall exactly what.
Council pointed out that the property is jointly owned,
but the letter is from one of those owners. The statement
is not a joint statement. Therefore, there is a question
whether Air. Hopper is speaking for himself or the group.
In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham
stated that under the assessment program, property owner
participation is based on enhancement to the property which
is determined by an appraiser. There would be no way of
making that determination in advance. This would not be
consistent with the manner in which payment for the other
portion of the street was handled. The property owners paid
for the total cost of paving that portion. The City, some
of the property owners and the County shared in the cost of
the bridge.
The group did receive bids on this proposed project.
Four bids were received with a low of $53,197 and a high of
$59,640.
In response to a suggestion that perhaps a participation
agreement could be reached, Mr. Strong, City Attorney, said
that if Council wanted to pursue that possibility, he would
have to look into the Mayor's involvement as Trustee.
Councilman Cannon stated that perhaps the City would
want to consider participating in cost of the project with
the understanding that when the property is developed the
city will recoup its cost.
Mr. Lanham suggested that the City could consider
completing the project and incurring total costs until the
land is developed and at that time, the developer would be
obligated to reimburse the city for the entire cost of the
project.
Council requested that the Administration provide
Council with a copy of the first letter that was received
and that there be an item on the next agenda to discuss
Rollingbrook Drive. Council requested that the Administration
request that a spokesman for the group of owners be present.
20114 -32
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - January 14, 1982
Adjourn
There being no further business to be transacted, the
meeting was adjourned.
2 1
&e:2S2 P.
Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk
f P_er^olition of Structures
� . 1zs1 -zz
t 1 E: 12 -29 -81
BID TABULA TION
' Geaslin Land Clearing
-
ling
A ''[ � Ail A-1 Home Improvements
l
&Grading Inc.
Linda Martin
Mullins Inc. �
COMPLETION
COI�LETTON
��CQ`u''LETION
COMPLETION COi�LETIO�' I C0:'?LET1;``' j
�.� � TIr1E PRICE
TTI�
PRICE
TIME
PRICE
TIME PRICE TI'✓.E � PF.ICc, � TI`•;" ?;; C;.
i
TOTAL
TOTAL
i^
13527 &3529 Marne
!
60 days
$22,000.
rONCRETE CAP
60 days
NO BID
60 days
$25,240.
60 days
Y
NO BID
GO days
�0 day.
I
18 000.
j 3203 1:innesota-
I
rear .2•' •'j
30 days
$1,800.
30 days
NO BI r
30 days
NO BID
30 days
NO BID
30 days
cays
i
i
i3O
;
12210 Avon- :-;;:.;.,
30 days
$ 650.
30 days
$ 805.
30 days
$ 725.
30 days
NO BID
30 days
f30 days
703 Willow-
(front & rear
45 days
$2,800.-
45 days
NO BID
45 days
$4,995.
45 days
NO BID
45 days
! 45 dad:-
'12'7 o,
A. :
30 days
$1,200.
30 days
Y
NO BID
30 days
y
$ 999. ✓
30 days
NO BID
30 days
! •.. f
30 c.,y.
;1200 Joins tor-
30 days
$ G00.
30 days
$ 625.
30 days
$ 625.
30 da .s
NO BID
30 days
d.•t
+•��
j,� c,;zv. ,
17001 Decker Dr.
30 days
$1,075.
30 days
NO BID
30 days
NO BID
30 days
$ 500.
30 days
'� days
1150' Katherine
30 days
$2,475.
30 days
y
$1,995.
30 days
4,995.
30 days
NO BID
30 days
r
'30 days
i
i
t
s
I
L. r--
�' � ' � ' tiCtuCt:ITCS
r - • .. �-
..
1`'�J L' �_. _
j.,/ ! i w •
�i�� d �� �� � � � �%�l
�iCJ �.T'S L�.J brI �� / L ��
.,
1
jy n � !t '7'f �ii�iTiank Lockhart
l �1 .�i I 1 �CO.�`►?LETiO�
K & A Construction
Olshan Demolishing Co.
Luekett Contracting Co.
Budco Constructors Inc.
CO:SPtETIOV
CO:�LETION
CO1�II'LETION
C0:'G'LETIO�
Ca�= '�EITO��
j ��, � TI�:E PRICE
TIME
PRICE
TI,*ZE
PRICE
TI:'4E
PRICE
TI:' •
PRICE j
i =�'f- �
_
w � i
T
5��,��30.
pT
$�9,��0•
`
TOTAL
524,880.
OTAL
23,500.
` �
l +
• �
' 3�l iM�Jr,t `::�r::et
60 days �CC�ci�
TE CAP
60 days
CONCRETE CAP
60 days
•: :.
60 days
60 days
iCOtiCRETE CAP
0 days '
' �
$22,000.
$18,500.'
536,249.
'
{
1 � 3:03 :•:iaaesota-
��;,: -�t�=
30 Says
S1,250.•
30 days
$3,300.
30 days
$1,800.
30 days
1,750.
30 days
$3,411.
�'+0 days i
,,,.,.,..��- �
f
7 7 � . D:'tny
_ _ . u Av: n -
�
..
�0 days
.
5 500.
30 days
$ 750.
30 days
$1,100.
30 days
2, 200. '
30 days
ri85,
�. � i
�sG d41., t
,; ;;,,..�
(1,
�
703 ;.'illcc.- �
�
I
i
�•�••� °� S :aa: �
,..����
45 drys
52,500.
45 days
$2,700.
45 days
$2,800.
45 days
2,250. �
45 days
84,921.
5 days �
1? : 7 ,; o:::.s to:,
� 30 days
NO BID
30 days
81, 000.
30 days
$l, 200.
30 days
1, 200.
3o nays
1, 560.
30 days !
:2GC ,;otirs:a::
i 30 days
i
8 500. ✓
30 days
$ 500.
30 days
$1,350.
30 days
1,000.
30 days
1,087.
'30 days t
�
;7Cui Oackcr 7:.�
30 days
NO BID
30 days
_
$2,900.
30 days•
$1.700•
30 days
1,000•
30 days
NO BID
30 days
{ Dc..Ay n: �.,.�
`.150 i:;:::•�e:;re
) 30 days
51,500. ./
30 days
53,900.
'30 days
52.850•
30 days
3,900.
30 days
5'98'
X30 drys
!
�I
{
�
I
� •
-- - - --
,
�
�
.�-� ; -L ; - -. ; +t:'IUt +L Ci.LC 1 UM HYi'OCHLOR i TE CONTRACT � jQ �'q � j� j_g710iV
az12-
E31 D � - ---- -- '
�:aT._
s
1
i
t
GPQSS TG 7 AL
LESS DISC.
!v' E7 707Q L
nc�,,,,_�xy,, ��RQ_ VA 5��.,RIlGE MC KESSON C.HEM I CAL_
7�M
iJr + +l" �XrcN:.�i:D Urvil' �C7"ENDED Un1rT X�tr'0 U Urli
$105.00 �St3,i?5 -oa $119.57 $14,946.25 $130.00; $16,250.00
Freestyle HTH HTH i
2 to 3 days 2 to 3 d ys 5-1 deY
f
I '
I
i
EXTEt�r �� Ut�iT' �z'��vJ�U
Aa c c� r aa;�:
I
l!
1
I
i
f
_ ; . _r _.--
-�
'
� ANNUM CALL { l;M HYPOCHLOR I TE
'
f CONTRACT, per specifications
i
�
� i :: a .i ru:•�:�
i 00 l h. drums
' Brand
`
�
Oe � i ��� t -y aito
ra
� . ,
a�
ar
U
l
� t
'
� �
d'
t
i
s
1
i
t
GPQSS TG 7 AL
LESS DISC.
!v' E7 707Q L
nc�,,,,_�xy,, ��RQ_ VA 5��.,RIlGE MC KESSON C.HEM I CAL_
7�M
iJr + +l" �XrcN:.�i:D Urvil' �C7"ENDED Un1rT X�tr'0 U Urli
$105.00 �St3,i?5 -oa $119.57 $14,946.25 $130.00; $16,250.00
Freestyle HTH HTH i
2 to 3 days 2 to 3 d ys 5-1 deY
f
I '
I
i
EXTEt�r �� Ut�iT' �z'��vJ�U
Aa c c� r aa;�:
I
l!
1
I
i
f
�jD TABULAT101`J
-� . r-� . Oecem,�er 2$, 1y51
,�
L, � -, . �•
j�''T�r1.'! OTY' � DtSCR1PTi01V
f f i FLEXIBLE BASE t�ATERIAL CONTRACT,
�{ 11 per specifications
j
� �
. � ?.CSC to„s j F.O.B. plant site
}�,, � ),C:;� tcr.:; F.O.B. 1601 ldest Main Strcet
• � � Baytot•+n, Texas
f i
I Distance from 1200 Lee Drive
t U � i to piar�t site
� � Delivery A.R.O.
a�
U _
cd
� � i
i� �
� i
i
;+
{
GROSS TQ7AL
�.ESS DISC.
l�l E7' �'47A L
UNIT EXTE�vFiEO Urvl7' DCTENO D U�1�T X tN t
PR1 r � A C r^ ! �
} � f
512.60 ! 588,200.00 59.85 568,950.00 Slo.o0 { s7o,000.00
'Si3.85 596,950.00 512.95 590,650.00 513.2? � S92,980.00
;>
' �.
7.6 mclles 16 files 22 lies
1 day 1 d y l d y
� �
` t
� ,
E �`
_ I t
0
UNf7�E�CTEf� TJ ^i.i��; i�:C'c �J�U
)Cir'C A P. '.7. C pDt i
} III'
i ;
}
1
I
-
i
i
-: F
FLEXt3LE BASE MATERIAL CONTRACT �
�-� 1 L` -
j�''T�r1.'! OTY' � DtSCR1PTi01V
f f i FLEXIBLE BASE t�ATERIAL CONTRACT,
�{ 11 per specifications
j
� �
. � ?.CSC to„s j F.O.B. plant site
}�,, � ),C:;� tcr.:; F.O.B. 1601 ldest Main Strcet
• � � Baytot•+n, Texas
f i
I Distance from 1200 Lee Drive
t U � i to piar�t site
� � Delivery A.R.O.
a�
U _
cd
� � i
i� �
� i
i
;+
{
GROSS TQ7AL
�.ESS DISC.
l�l E7' �'47A L
UNIT EXTE�vFiEO Urvl7' DCTENO D U�1�T X tN t
PR1 r � A C r^ ! �
} � f
512.60 ! 588,200.00 59.85 568,950.00 Slo.o0 { s7o,000.00
'Si3.85 596,950.00 512.95 590,650.00 513.2? � S92,980.00
;>
' �.
7.6 mclles 16 files 22 lies
1 day 1 d y l d y
� �
` t
� ,
E �`
_ I t
0
UNf7�E�CTEf� TJ ^i.i��; i�:C'c �J�U
)Cir'C A P. '.7. C pDt i
} III'
i ;
}
1
I
-
i
i
GROSS TQ7AL
�.ESS DISC.
l�l E7' �'47A L
UNIT EXTE�vFiEO Urvl7' DCTENO D U�1�T X tN t
PR1 r � A C r^ ! �
} � f
512.60 ! 588,200.00 59.85 568,950.00 Slo.o0 { s7o,000.00
'Si3.85 596,950.00 512.95 590,650.00 513.2? � S92,980.00
;>
' �.
7.6 mclles 16 files 22 lies
1 day 1 d y l d y
� �
` t
� ,
E �`
_ I t
0
UNf7�E�CTEf� TJ ^i.i��; i�:C'c �J�U
)Cir'C A P. '.7. C pDt i
} III'
i ;
}
1
I
-
i
i
._ ; +Nt�L'AL CONCRETE P I �c CONTP.AC
B l �: s� 12 -z3 ��..�..
oars: ��..- .:rn�b��r zS, 19s1
�7t�'�1�
- - -- �
QTY �
OESCRlPTloN
I
j
�
E
ANNUAL CONCRETE PIPE CONTRACT,
�
j
per specifications
I
r 1. !1,5t)0
ft.
i
12 inch
2. �3,80G `:. �
15 inch
I
3. = '1
,vi10 i t. �
la inch
A
4.
1,000 fC.
2� inch �'
�
5. �
500 ft.
30 inch
6. �
100 fL.
35 inch
+�
� � �
i
TOTAL BID
i
DELIVERY A.R.O.
.
F.0.6. Job Site
GROSS TOTAL
LESS DtSG
NET TO AL
1 ♦ I I I�
�i� Ta eU�AT! one
titi'li I TE SU_PPLY G I FFORD HILL P t PE MONROE FERRELL --- �-- ;, -� - --
U��rr7 �XTENi�t =D t1NIT OCTENDED UNIT X �DCD UNIT EXT� %�;;cD uNrT I Ex��,vDED
I
1
1
t � +
54.43 :s6,615.00 54.30 56,45o.0a 54.96 `57,440.00
55.04 s1g,15z.o0 54.89 :518,582.00 55.54 ;S21,o52.00
I �
55.76 :S10,368.00 S5.58 S10,044.00 S6.33 511,394.00 ( 1
58.65 58,650.00 S8.42 58,420.00 NO BID
$12.35 $6,175.00 $12.04 $b,020.00 NO BID
517.78 S1 ,778.00 517.34 51,734.00 NO BID
jS52,738.00 �S51,250.00 ,539,886.00
f '
I
1 dad+ 10 days i gay
Cash Discount Ca h Discount
2$ 1 days 2$ 10th prox. `
r
I
r i
MED I Uhl DUTY TRUCKS
Tf TL �: 2 � z -2s
glD:
DATE December 28, 1981
'TEtti'1' C?TY � DESCRf PTrOtV
u:�C�SS 3'OTAL
LESS DISC.
N �'" T07'A L •
vl t v � ur•. � .. ,n .
E31D TABULATION
SA�I�T�11 FORD ncH ss
UNi7 EXTENDED UN1T t7CTEND
PRtCr P� ?SCE PRtC� � P ±CE
`•$41,672.08
Ford Li -8000
jS21,858.29
Ford F 700
$19,270.00
Ford F 700
1582,800.37
lS41,272.38
Ford�LT -8000
S23,290.63
Ford F -700
519,b84.32
Ford F -700
584,247.33
I
0
11
NDEO
JIt1
ur�tT
MEDIUM DUTY TRUCKS, per
ur {!T'�X ~�'NaEO
1JNt
�r�rl"F �
1111
specifications
I
1. � 1 �acn
� fourteen Yard Dump Truck
?oi!-:
Make /tlode 1
t
2. W � 1 :�ac,�
; E i nht Yard Dump Truck
= �
" Make /�^�ode 1
+�
2. � 1 eaci�
One and One�•'alf Ton Utility
�
Truck
v
Make /Model
cd
�
j
TOTAL B1D
t
i
i
j
� Dc" "LIVERY A.R.v.
One company submitted a
no-bid
u:�C�SS 3'OTAL
LESS DISC.
N �'" T07'A L •
vl t v � ur•. � .. ,n .
E31D TABULATION
SA�I�T�11 FORD ncH ss
UNi7 EXTENDED UN1T t7CTEND
PRtCr P� ?SCE PRtC� � P ±CE
`•$41,672.08
Ford Li -8000
jS21,858.29
Ford F 700
$19,270.00
Ford F 700
1582,800.37
lS41,272.38
Ford�LT -8000
S23,290.63
Ford F -700
519,b84.32
Ford F -700
584,247.33
I
0
� I
1 541,976.00 � 538,049.90
Ford LT -8000 International F1954
� j
$23,464.00 ! S21,851.05
Ford � -700 tnternat onal 1724
$19,284.00 518,946.82
Ford -700 internat oral 1724
$84,724.00 ! 578,847.77
j
11
NDEO
JIt1
ur�tT
FXTE1�;;tD
ur {!T'�X ~�'NaEO
1JNt
�r�rl"F �
PR!CE
P +
Pni�r
cai�
?oi!-:
� I
1 541,976.00 � 538,049.90
Ford LT -8000 International F1954
� j
$23,464.00 ! S21,851.05
Ford � -700 tnternat onal 1724
$19,284.00 518,946.82
Ford -700 internat oral 1724
$84,724.00 ! 578,847.77
j
7-j �:
PICKt.P TRUCK, ONE HALF TO\
1
...1 �
aJrlJ.tvv +u:.c
-1�'r�'r » •
�ece-:.: >er 30, 1981
u�:�c,'��1r��r;ory
PICKUP T12UCiC . ORE liALl' '.l'ON
i per specif ic•aC i.��n�� - - - - - -. - --
Make / ;iodel
0 ^tior. 1: Strobe Light
1 Option 2: Air Conditioning
� Option 3: H. D. Springs
t ,
� Leliverr A.R.O.
1
TOTAL BID
CROSS ro�AL
LESS OlSC.
N-'' TOTAL
��� -ra Bc.1�.aT! ors
11I..NA \T.. \.tIRK'iQCD.�.l�T. 'VyM.L1- �L7N'S1LIL•.Li�+i. \l :J�il. 1.r.%r .. ._w�� �./ M_.•� •+-
UAYTO[Ji�i i).'�'y�ifld.. ,.. , 4 —_.__ , -:: ; -- : c .
SAN JAChITO FQIt1? � T_ I�Q`fERS �-� .ItOLRZ_— - r�, �� 1 t T L�.�:::. , ::: •� v y - • 1 - r �— ;
UN 7 �X E �'" n►!7" E.X ?EPtOED `U�JIf" i J�1t�.r�UL-U � L' .. J
i 7 lY,.t� o r-C i r"J- f�1.,� �� ��'r' nc +lf _ . -- - - -..
I � ,
I � !
$7,784.85 $7,817.39 58,055.00
� �
Ford F -10:0 Chevrolett10903 Chevrolet `
� i i
$165.00 � 5234. GO � 57.25.0')
1
� $571.71 i 5575.45 j S576.00 � -
i '
$52.48 � $43.35 S 43.00 � �
y � j '
\ i ,
30 -60 Day 65 Days 6o Days � �
� �
;$8,574.04 � :$8,670.79 S8,799.00
j
1 � ii
� � 1
q �
s � - � � � �
i � �
` i � ,
3 f F � �
• � r � 1
1 �
i 1 � I � � _ ����r.. �r. a. �_ w�r N. �. fai. .w..V.r�Yr\.J— \..41�.�.tfArr��. :•.1'�I. . \ \rr.. w�. v. �.1...r..��. \.
M
t
r�D
r
Attachment "G"
W
a
V
d
n
x
m
rt
N
(D
N
W
C
rt
rt
M
d
O
N
d �
• � D�r
C7% N D
QD N r
N V
II m
z
Cl
Co
v
r
=t
Q
C)
z
Cl
3.
V
O
rt
O
7p--
V
m
Co
Z
^
OO
O
O
'L7
d
�
N
W
UC
W
-^ ••1
O O
I
r+
rD
th
�-
r Q"
fS
rTi7�o
O
r'1
O
rt
0
?
7
O
D
O
(D
-1
Co
N
O�
A
°
u
0
Cl
z
Cl
Co
v
o �
� n
C
4 D
N
z
=t
N
C)
3.
V
O
rt
O
7p--
V
vs
Co
Z
OD
OO
O
O
o �
� n
C
4 D
N
z
=t
m
C)
w
°
m
d
�
N
UC
W
-^ ••1
O O
r+
th
r Q"
rTi7�o
T1 TL �; SPORTS COMPLEX FENCE REPAIR
821 -28
DATE � 1 -6 -8z
TtM QTY DESCRJPTioN
1. GRAY SPORTS COMPLEX
F31D TABULATION
`-
CREATIVE FENCING _
w :-
UNfT EXTEND D UNlT E�CTENDED UNIT X ND D UNfT EXTENDtD Ut+�7— �X'_r��,
. i
f � FENCE REPAIRS, per I
i per specifications
I t '
� � Base Bid � $4,651.00
t ` �
Alternates i 864.00
w
� TOTAL BID $5,51$.00
� •.
a�
U
cd
i
iBid packets submitted to vendors
CROSS TOTAL
LESS DISC.
N� TOTAL
i i
55,661.00 54,345.00
1,025.00 932.00 ;
56,686.00 - $5,277.00
i
' ! '
i
I
f
r I
rI TL E: CO1�II�iUNITY BUILDING FURNITURE
g 10= s21 -29
�ATE� • 1 -6 -s2
�_
'TEM QTY DESC R I Pi'lON
COI�IUNITY BUILDING FURNITURE
X10 ra su�ATj oN
�. PERSENAIRE PARK & PLA
UNlT EXT�NO D
B &B OFFICE
UNl1'
SUPPLY
EXTENO£D
per specifications
1. �
24
`fr1THEFt�iE' S i��,�.
i1�1l7�X'' %,rJi!
6 Foot Tables
i
$64.19
I!
$69.97
2.
225
� I
Stackable Chairs
H
Kruger
6
NP 6
� �
as specified
\P 6 .
� 3.
12
�
Card Tables
�
U
cd
$30.00
$6,750.00
$28.08
$6,318.00
$32.79
X10 ra su�ATj oN
�. PERSENAIRE PARK & PLA
UNlT EXT�NO D
B &B OFFICE
UNl1'
SUPPLY
EXTENO£D
J & J FURN
UN17 X NO D
SACO 0
UNIT
F Fni17P
EXTE«OcD
`fr1THEFt�iE' S i��,�.
i1�1l7�X'' %,rJi!
$54.75
$64.19
$1,540.56
$69.97
$1,679.28
$56.35 ► $1,352.40
561.63 j$1,479.1;
Kruger NP:
,$1,314.00
6
Kruger
6
NP 6
as specified
\P 6 .
t
�
$30.00
$6,750.00
$28.08
$6,318.00
$32.79
$7,377.75
$23.19 i $5,217.75
5?4.69 $5,555.2'
2200 Ast
o
Fixture
Z00
2000
as spec fied
2..00
$49.50
$594.00
$51.88
$622.56
$59.69
$716.28
$49.48 5593.76
554.7S 5657.3G
Kruger
3
Kruger
-3
[,1P -3
as specified
'�'P -3
•
t
1
;
1
1
Bid packets were submitted to 10 v dors � I � i '
� l� � �
i
GROSS IOTA �
LESS DISC.
1VE To7'a L
_. , �_ r� ,,. ,
� �
�Ftl
�W o
-000
D
r
Attachment "J" (-TI
CD
n �
o v
_ro
t� a ' f m
ro w 0
° U
ro
•.•� C-tl •• O �v /
CD r-
1 �
W, r
n
� f1
C)
CL
U
o•
a
0
`A
N
O m 7�iL
tn
o ^~ D
a � �
z
� D
° J rn
V W 10
N � �
N O N �� C)
M O N Ol
N C)
z
I n
U kl
1 �I
C�
V w CO
�vr
Fri
V 7
0
i
m
CD
rnrn C
r:
D�
o.
-�-,7-L�:�Traffic Signal Control Equipment Pin TABULATI0IV
B I D; .s21 -38 —
DATE; January 11, 1982 9:30 a. m. IRAFFTC FPRICE P'?frF PRICE PRICF
SIGNAL ENGINEERING & TRANSPORM
ITEM QTY DESCRIPTION
urrrr ExrFrvoi:o urv,r ocrErvoi:o ur,i,r x +vo o uNir FxTew��o v,,:r�z;���
1. 1 each 3 DIAL (5 CONTACT) PRE -TIMED $2,825.00 $2, 825.00 $4,790.00 $4,790.00 , {
MASTER CONTROLLER, per specificati ns I
I
Make -Model Kentron KSTM -3530 Crouse Hinds
+, 36GD • PCE 315
a�
U
cd Bid packets mailed to 3 vendors
i
i•
I
GROSS TOTAL
LESS DISC.
N'"'"'" IOTA L