Loading...
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