Loading...
1982 07 08 CC Minutes* ** 20708 -1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN July 8, 1982 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in regular session on Thursday, July 8, 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 Absent: 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 Simmons moved for approval of the minutes; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Receive Petitions No petitions were presented at this time. City Manager's Report Revenue Sharing - In order that Baytown may receive approximately $620,266 in Revenue Sharing Funds for the 1982 -82 Fiscal Year, the Chief Administrator of the city must conduct a proposed use hearing to grant all interested parties the opportunity to appear and be heard. The hearing before the City Manager has been scheduled for July 12, 1982 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber. After that hearing, the Administration will prepare recommendations for expenditures of the funds and City Council will be required to hold another hearing before allocating said funds. * ** For correction, see Page 20722 -1 20708 -2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Police Department - For the first time in many months, there is only one vacancy in the Police Department which will enable the Administration to activate the fourth shift that Council approved during the budget process for 1981 -82. That shift should be fully trained and on duty in October. Houston - Galveston Area Council - Council was provided with a copy of a memorandum from the Houston - Galveston Area Council which requested City of Baytown reaction to their proposal which is to study new funding sources for city and county roads. The H -GAC is considering conducting a study for a source of funding for local streets and thoroughfare improvements. However, before making this decision the Board of Directors requested input from the cities. Transportation Planning Funds have been made available to H -GAC to address funding sources for local streets and thoroughfares; therefore, there would be no additional cost to the cities. One thing that may have prompted this is that last year efforts were made through Texas Municipal League to get state funds appropriated for allocations to cities to assist in street improvements. Probably, Texas Municipal League will be sponsoring similar legislation this session. Councilman Simmons moved that the Administration be authorized to indicate the City of Baytown's support of the proposed study; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 1982 Street Improvement Program - The contractor on this project has indicated that work will commence no later than July 26. Community Development (Cypress & Magnolia) - The project is about eighty (80 %) percent complete with about seventy - one (71 %) percent of working days expended. Several contractors on city jobs are ahead of schedule. Sliplining - The sliplining contract, including the line in the North Burnett, Holly Street area that was added as a change order, is approximately ninety -five (95 %) percent complete. West District Sewer System Improvements - A work order had been issued for the fourth and final contract. The contractor is to begin work on July 26. Drainage - City forces have been working on McPhail to the railroad and that project is ninety -eight (98 %) percent complete; Pecan /McKinney project is ninety -five (950) percent complete; Jasmine is about fifty (50 %) percent complete. Questions /Comments Regarding City Manager's Report Councilman Philips commended Chief Henscey for his good work with regard to bringing the Police Department to full staff and for the large drug operation which was closed during the week through the Organized Crime Unit. 20708 -3 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Councilman Cannon requested that the Administration continue to work toward a procedure by which the property at the corner of Sterling and North Main could be disposed of. Councilman Johnson mentioned that he was aware of a problem with false alarms at the mall and inquired if some procedure could be divised whereby the officers would not be forced to travel to the mall for these false alarms. Mr. Lanham responded that this is a problem throughout the city. Last month 201 false alarms were experienced with approximately ten (10 %) percent originating from the mall. The Chief of Police is working toward a solution to the problem. Many cities are experiencing this same problem and several have begun to assess a charge to the businesses after a certain number of false alarms. The Administration will continue to look into this problem and report back to Council with alternatives. Councilman Simmons mentioned that on Park Street east of Pruett in the first block there are two very bad places which need immediate attention. Receive Report from City Attorney Regarding Access to Magnolia Cemetery At a recent meeting of Council, citizens who have relatives buried in Magnolia Cemetery appeared before Council to request that access be provided and requested that the city improve one of the dead end streets that abut the property. The City Attorney researched the matter and visited with the property owner. He reported that the city does have right of way on Third Street all the way to the edge of Magnolia Cemetery property. In talking with the property owners, they pointed out that there is access to the cemetery off Alford Street. The city does have right of way on Alford Street and the property owners would prefer that the city improve Alford Street rather than Third Street since there is access to the cemetery off Alford Street and the owner lives at that point. The owner felt that she could keep control of the premises if access is provided at Alford Street rather than Third Street. The only other access is off Aron Street; however, there is some question whether there is right of way available off Aron Street. The City of Baytown could improve any of the streets to the cemetery; however, this would not place any obligation upon the property owner to put an entrance at that point because the city's rights stop at the edge of the property. The cemetery owners were present and requested to be recognized. Bertha Holton, daughter of Mrs. Holland, owner of Magnolia Cemetery, stated that in past years there has been much vandalism of Magnolia Cemetery and since Mrs. Holland lives on Alford, the proper entry way should be at Alford Street. Mrs. Holton stated that the family plans to improve the cemetery and the plans are to maintain an entry way at Alford. The cemetery will be open to those who wish to visit from 8:00 a.m. until dusk. 20708 -4 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Mayor Hutto recognized Mr. Glen Swick, President of Magnolia Cemetery Preservation Committee, who stated that according to the plat, the only platted entry way into the cemetery is off Third Street and any other entry way would mean that graves would be crossed. Besides, Mr. Swick stated that Alford Street is already blacktopped with curb. Mrs. Holton responded that according to information from the family attorney, the ownership of the cemetery rests with Mrs. Holland and the owner has every right to replat the cemetery and designate the entry way. After hearing the report of the City Attorney and comments of Mrs. Holton and Mr. Swick, City Council concluded that regarding the request of the Magnolia Cemetery Preservation Committee to pave Third Street to provide access to Magnolia Cemetery, the parties involved needed to resolve the problem of where the entry way to Magnolia Cemetery is to be prior to Council action. Discuss Proposal to Construct Baytown Housing Development on Nolan Road Douglas Gunn, 1509 Donovan, presented Council with a petition containing 107 signatures to make Council aware of residents of that area objections to the proposed low- income federally subsidized housing project planned in the Nolan Road area. Mr. Gunn stated that the subdivision is small and is composed of three streets -- Donovan, Nolan and Knowlton. Streets are narrow with no curb and gutter. Residents of the area mow to the street. Mr. Gunn emphasized that the petitioners were not present to object to the poor people and their needs, but the petitioners felt that they were objecting to a well- organized group from Louisiana coming in to develop a project and make a profit which will reduce the value of the property in the neighborhood. The petition sets forth the following reasons for opposing the proposed construction of the low- income housing project planned on Nolan Road: 1. Decreased property values; 2. Lack of facility maintenance; 3. Neighborhood characteristics damaged; 4. Increased traffic; 5. Increased crime; 6. Drainage problems. Mr. Gunn stated that proponents of the construction will say that there is a need and he agreed if 3 -4 projects of this nature were to be constructed that probably there would be no problem to locate tenants because of human nature. The residents of the area feel that the managers of the complex will not have the incentive to maintain the project because of the subsidy and consequently the complex will deteriorate and cause property values.to be drastically reduced. As residents of the area, the petitioners are attempting to protect themselves and their property values. 20708 -5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Mr. Gunn ended his presentation by requesting that if Council is unable to halt the construction of the project, that Council require that an additional entrance into the project be provided off a major thoroughfare. Also, the residents of the area requested that any staff members working on this project with regard to granting the various permits, make certain that all regulations are adhered to, specifically any drainage requirements. Councilman Fuller moved to accept the petition; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Mr. Lanham mentioned that Bill Eiland with the Baytown Housing Authority was present and that Mr. Eiland is involved with the Baytown Property Management and Development Corporation which will have a role in the development. Mayor Hutto recognized Mr. Eiland. Mr. Eiland stated that be had traveled to Monroe, Louisiana, on Monday where he had inspected six of the nine projects that the apartment builder owns, as well as two of the public housing projects constructed by this developer. Mr. Eiland had pictures of the structures for Council to view. Mr. Eiland reported that in Baytown at the present time, there are 3 -4 different type HUD related programs- -the public housing which is owned by the Baytown Housing Authority (six different projects); Section 8 New Construction Project, Centennial Square which is located at 805 Schilling and is operated to house the elderly and the proposed 130 family unit off Nolan Road. Another program which the Baytown Housing Authority is not affliated with in any manner is the Village Lane Apartments off Baker Road. Under Section 8 400 assistance, the Baytown Housing Authority subsidizes various houses throughout the City of Baytown, Mr. Eiland explained that under the Section 8 New Construction Program, the owners are given enough money to maintain the project. On the proposed Nolan Road unit, two options are available to the housing authority: (1) that the housing authority manage the complex just as it does Centennial Square or (2) for the housing authority to simply handle the apartment payments. At this point, the housing authority is leaning toward opting to handle the apartment payments because the authority can handle this without adding staff. However, the final decision will be made by HUD and whichever way it goes, the Baytown Housing Authority will be directly involved. Mr. Eiland emphasized that an owner under the Section 8 program had a great amount of pressure exerted to maintain the project because HUD inspects twice a year and requires that a management report be filed yearly. If the project was not maintained, HUD could withdraw the subsidy payments. If the owners then declared bankruptcy, the project would revert to the Baytown Housing Authority. 20708 -6 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Eiland stated that in 1979 HUD advertised in this area for projects and a Houston developer bid on the contract. Approval was granted in 1979. The contractor was not aware of the time involved in getting a project like this off the ground; therefore, when the contractor decided to renege, the developer in Louisiana was awarded the contract. What reactivated the project was the fact that throughout the United States there are several projects which had received approval from HUD, but no financing was available. In April, the federal government came out with financing adjustments factors that allowed some of the projects to be financed under the current market. Councilman Philips pointed out that at the time of the work session with Mr. Eiland, that he had specifically asked if there were any other projects in the development stages and Mr. Eiland had responded negatively. Mr. Eiland stated that the reason he had not mentioned the project was that when the question was asked, he was thinking about public housing per se. The difference in this project and public housing is that this is private property and the owners.will be receiving fair market rent and the owners will be able to maintain the complex. It will not be necessary to go to HUD to request modernization or operating money. The property on Nolan Road is currently owned by Mr. I. T. (Buddy) Mays. The Louisiana concern does have an option to purchase the property. The proposed project will consist of 19 apartment buildings -- 3 duplexes, 1 fourplex and 15 - 8 unit apartments, plus an office building. There would be a total of 130 apartments, plus the office building. Residents of the structures must be distributed according to the ethnic breakdown in the community. The City Attorney explained that according to State law once a city adopts a resolution making the finding that there is a need for public housing, the housing authority created is an independent body which is not subject to city control. One section under the act does require that all housing authorities and projects are subject to planning, zoning, sanitary and building laws, ordinances and regulations of the city just as any other business or commercial project would be*. The only other control or regulation that the city has over the housing authority is that the housing authority may not authorize the construction of a housing project unless there is a hearing regarding location of the site and the city is empowered to withhold building permits if no hearing is held. The problem in this case is that it is not really clear whether this project would be classified as a housing project under the definition of state statue since this is not a project which is being constructed by the housing authority under their control. It is private ownership, which will build basically an apartment complex for which rent subsidy will be granted through HUD. Also, the City Attorney pointed out that the statute regarding the hearing was adopted in the last legislature and became effective September 1, 1981. Threfore, it is possible that this site would not be covered by that particular statute. 20708 -7 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Councilman Cannon stated that there are a number of things that Council should consider concerning this particular project. The present developer has been involved with this project for the past two years. The project came before the Planning Commission recently and the plat that was presented did not satisfy the off- street parking requirements of the city. The plat was not approved for this reason. The developer reworked the plat and the proposed plat does meet city requirements; however, it is crowded. The point is that the developer had two years to determine what the city's requirments regarding off street parking are, but did not bother to do so. Another point is that there are serious drainage problems in this particular area as Mr. Gunn pointed out. Nolan Road floods very easily. Another concern is the safety standards. For 130 housing units, only one entrance is being proposed. In the event of fire, this would be a catastrophe. The addition of 130 units will present a serious problem to the school district. Historically projects such as this have 1 1/2 elementary aged students per unit. This equates to about 200 students. There are three elementary schools in the area - -two are already overloaded. At Bowie Elementary, there is some capacity available, but this will be used up by the apartment complex going in on Bowie Drive. Councilman Cannon stated that he had attempted through Bill Eiland to have a HUD representative come out and meet with neighborhood residents, but HUD refused. Councilman Cannon mentioned that in a letter from Mr. Eiland it is mentioned that the developer has paid approximately $18,850 to HUD and a total of $35,000 out of pocket expenses. These are legitimate business expenses. No tentative approval has been granted by the Planning Commission; therefore, there is no obligation yet on the part of the city. The project is to be financed through tax exempt bonds which will be issued through the Baytown Housing Authority. Councilman Cannon suggested that there is an attempt on the part of the entities involved to push the project without a public hearing provided to obtain input from the residents. He felt that the local authority should have held a public hearing in this regard regardless of whether there is a law that provides for such a hearing. Councilman Cannon also pointed out that if this project is successful which with guarantee subsidy there would be no reason for it not to be, the remainder of the block could be purchased and developed in the same fashion. This would certainly compound the problem for the neighborhood. He felt that a project such as this should be located in an open area. Councilman Cannon requested that Council consider delaying of the project until the matter of the public hearing could be researched. Mayor Hutto expressed concern with the Council usurping authority of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has a regularly scheduled meeting July 19 unless there is a special meeting of the commission. On July 19, the commission could only grant preliminary approval. Another meeting of the commission would be required for final approval. 20708 -8 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Councilman Cannon mentioned that he had been apprised that the developer would lose the grant if construction does not begin by August 1. If tentative approval is granted, the developer will begin construction and Council will be in the same position as in the past. This project has been in the making for at least two years and now Council has no time to review the project. Councilman Cannon inquired if there was anything that Council could do to take some of the pressure off the Planning Commission. He mentioned that a public hearing could be scheduled. The Planning Commission would have no authority to reject the plat if all ordinances and regulations of the city are met. Mayor Hutto pointed out that if the Planning Commission would have no legal basis to reject the plat, what-basis would City Council have to do so? Councilman Cannon responded that the City Attorney had mentioned a possibility - -a public hearing. Mayor Hutto felt that the Planning Commission should be allowed to act on the proposed plat. He felt that for Council to intervene would be usurping authority granted to the Planning Commission. Councilman Cannon stated that if the City of Baytown is in no position to alleviate this problem, a junkyard could be constructed on that property. If City Council has no alternatives, then zoning is needed in the city. There must be a method by which Council can control what happens in Baytown. Councilman Philips pointed out that the real problem is whether Council wants a housing project on that property and the Planning Commission is not charged with that question. The Planning Commission can only look at a set of plans and can only determine if that set of plans meet requirements of the city as set forth by ordinance. Baytown has no zoning and City Council has no zoning authority. Councilman Philips suggested that if zoning is needed, then an election of the people would determine that question. Mrs. Norma Wilder, President of Baytown Housing Authority Board and Housing Finance Corporation Board, explained that Baytown needs housing and this housing will be brick homes that are very nice. Those two entities have been charged with the responsibility of doing something about housing in Baytown and.that is what they have been doing. In response to an inquiry from Council, the City Attorney explained that if this project were a housing project as defined by the statute, then the housing authority would be required to hold a public hearing prior to authorization to construct the project. If the hearing was not held, the city would have authority to withhold the issuance of building permits until such time as the hearing was held. 20708 -9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Councilman Fuller commented that it appeared to him that the Baytown Housing Authority was not involved in the construction of this project, but the entity that was formed as a private corporation was involved. The City Attorney stated that from checking into the matter, that other housing authorities in the state do not consider this type project a housing project as described by the statute. The general interpretation throughout the state is that no public hearing is required. The way to determine for certain would be litigation or to request an Attorney General's opinion. Councilman Cannon pointed out that if the City of Baytown requested an Attorney General's opinion and that opinion stated that a public hearing was required, the housing authority would be in violation. The City Attorney stated that the authority would be in violation until a public hearing was held. However, the attorney pointed out that Council should bear in mind that this requirement was probably enacted after proceedings had begun on the project. Councilman Johnson expressed concern that the city is being presented with time problems on this project when the project has really been in the making since 1979. Now, because the deadline has been established by the federal government, the city is expected to act within a rushed time frame. Bill Eiland said that sometime in April, HUD lifted its restrictions to allow the project to proceed under current market situations. When the restrictions were lifted, the specification was set forth that the project must be under construction by June 1; however, since that time an extension has been granted and the deadline is now August 1. There is an effort in process now to acquire another extension. Councilman Simmons made the point that the project is going to be owned by a private concern yet the reference has been made that this is to be low- income housing or subsidized housing. Therefore, he was wondering if these units were to be rented at fair market value compared to comparable units in the free enterprise system. Mr. Eiland responded that the rents would be comparable, but rental charges would be paid by the tenants according to their income and the federal government will pay the difference. Councilman Simmons pointed out that six of the units were to be four bedroom units which he felt was elaborate considering there are many families who pay for homes who cannot afford four bedrooms. Mr. Eiland responded that six of the units will be for larger families. The project is to be constructed according to HUD specifications. A property owner on Nolan Road pointed out that in the event of fire the one entrance to the project would result in a grave safety hazard, expecially with Nolan Road being as narrow as it is. 20708 -10 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Mr. Lanham stated that one of the things the City Attorney could look into would be the possibility of the Planning Commission requiring additional entrances. Councilman Cannon stated that he would really like to obtain an Attorney General's opinion concerning whether this project would be considered public housing and if it would fall under the provisions of the statute requiring a public hearing. This would be one avenue and then another would be safety. The City Attorney responded that the Planning Commission could consider street patterns of the neighborhood. In response to an inquiry from Council, the City Attorney explained that the Planning Commission may reject a plat at any point in the process if an omission or defect in the plans is discovered. Councilman Cannon suggested that Council express to the Planning Commission its grave concern regarding the safety aspects of the project and in the meantime, request an Attorney General's opinion regarding (1) is this project a housing project and (2) if so, would it be exempt from the statute requiring a hearing? The City Attorney informed Council that an Attorney General's opinion usually takes several weeks to receive. Councilman Cannon felt that if Council requested the Attorney General's opinion, this would be an indication to the Planning Commission that Council supports the delay of the project. If the Attorney General's opinion reflects that the project is a housing project and that the project would fall under the provisions of the statute, Councilman Cannon advocated the filing of a suit to stop the project. Mayor Hutto inquired if the building permit would be withheld from the contractor, what liability would Council have? The City Attorney responded that if City Council did act and prohibited the construction of the project and in some way caused the developer some damage, and it was found that City Council's action was inappropriate or beyond its powers, the city would be held liable for the amount of damages the builder would suffer. The City Attorney felt that City Council would not face individual liability. Mayor Hutto also inquired what would happen if while the City was attempting to get an Attorney General's opinion, another builder came in to request a building permit to construct an apartment complex in that particular tract? The City Attorney responded that from a legal standpoint, as long as the builder met all the City of Baytown's building requirements and other regulations, there would be no reason to refuse issuance of necessary permits. Councilman Johnson inquired if there would be any problem with Council notifying the Planning Commission of Council's grave concern with regard to the safety aspects of the project. The City Attorney responded that City Council would have that right. Councilman Johnson moved that the Administration relate to the Planning Commission Council's grave concern with regard to the safety factors with only one entrance /exit to the project; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. He also stated that the Planning Commission 20708 -11 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 should also address the street situation - -the condition of the street and really assess if the street can legitimately carry 250 automobiles. Councilman Fuller commented that he felt very confident in the Planning Commission to come up with the proper requirement for this project. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Councilman Cannon requested that in the interim that the City Attorney pursue an Attorney General's opinion and inquired -if a motion to this effect was necessary. Fritz Lanham, City Manager, stated that the Administration would need some guidance in the event an Attorney General's opinion is requested and in the event the Planning Commission approves the project. The Administration would need direction from Council with regard to the issuance of the building permit. Councilman Philips inquired if it would be possible to issue a building permit subject to compliance with all state laws. Councilman Simmons pointed out that once a building permit is issued, the builder will begin construction. Councilman Philips responded that the builder would begin construction at his own risk. In response to an inquiry from Council regarding issuance of an Attorney General's opinion, the City Attorney stated that he could ask that the opinion be rushed, but there would be no guarantee that the opinion would be received in a timely fashion. That office receives requests for opinions on a daily basis with only a limited staff to respond. Councilman Philips moved to authorize the Administration to issue the building permit on this project subject to full compliance with state laws, namely that it meets public hearing requirements; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. Councilman Simmons inquired if the requesting of the Attorney General's opinion would be part of that motion. Mr. Lanham inquired.of Bill Cornelius, Director of Planning and Traffic, if building permits are issued after preliminary approval. The Director of Planning responded that final approval by the Planning Commission is required prior to issuance of any building permits. Councilman Cannon pointed out, however, that if the developer meets theAugust 1 deadline, construction will begin based on preliminary approval. The Director of Planning emphasized if the developer began construction based on preliminary approval, it would be totally at his own risk. Councilman Johnson inquired if that motion would really be necessary. 20708 -12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Mr. Lanham explained that if the project complies with local ordinances, the building permit is issued. If Council desires that the Administration request an Attorney General's opinion and withhold a building permit until that response is received, the Administration does need guidance. One way to handle the matter would be to issue the permit and then withdraw the permit if the opinion comes back negative. However, it could take several weeks to receive the Attorney General's opinion. In response to an inquiry from Council, Bill Eiland stated that the developer would need both preliminary and final approval prior to commencing construction. Councilman Cannon pointed out that in order for the developer to comply with the August 1 deadline, a special meeting of the Planning Commission would be necessary. Mayor Hutto stated that he would not support a motion to withhold any permits governed by ordinances of the City of Baytown, depending on a ruling from the Attorney General which could take months. Mr. Lanham pointed out that there are two other checks on this (1) HUD attorneys will need to be satisfied that state, local and federal laws are complied with and (2) bond attorneys will not approve the issuance of bonds until they are satisfied that everything to do with the project was done legally. Therefore, the question of whether a public hearing must be held may be addressed by those two groups. Mayor Hutto responded to an inquiry from the audience that all aspects of construction would be reviewed by the proper departments. Councilman Johnson notified the audience that the Planning Commission meeting was open to the public. The meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on July 19 in the Council Chamber. Councilman Philips stated that under the circumstances that the question that his motion was addressing was more or less resolved which was that the City will get the question of compliance addressed, therefore, he withdrew the motion. Councilman Cannon mentioned that Council had correspondence dated 1979 addressing water and sewer lines, but this would not constitute approval for 1982. Mr. Lanham responded that the developer would have to meet all requirements of the City of Baytown for 1982. For example, at the time the letters were written, the city did not have the drainage requirements which are now in existence. The only thing that the letters of 1979 indicated was that water and sewer services were available to that site. Consider Request of Luby's No. 1 for Variance of Distance Requirements Between Side Yard Property Line and Edge of Driveway from Ten (101) Feet to Five ('5')' Feet Council was furnished with a copy of the request from Luby's No. 1 for variance of distance requirement between side yard property line and edge of driveway from ten (101) 20708 -13 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 feet to five (51) feet. The ordinances of the city require that a driveway be at least ten (101) feet from the property line. The builder of Luby's negotiated with the pipeline companies for a crossing and was required to encase a portion of the pipeline. The pipeline was encased under the 25' easterly access which does not provide sufficient area to meet city standards. Therefore, the company is requesting a compromise of having the curbing at a 5' radius, the approach 5' from the east property line and the curbing and paving 20' in width. This would permit two -way traffic and provide for dumpster truck access. Mr. Lanham mentioned that there is another building being constructed next to this location and that property owner was required to meet city standards. If representatives of the concern had visited with the Administration earlier, this problem could have been averted. One possibility is to have a fifteen (15) foot driveway rather than a twenty, but that decision would be the company's to make. The company will have access from Garth as well as from Baker. There is another entry way off Baker. The Administration felt that it would be unfair to recommend an exception in this instance when the other company had to meet city standards. There is good reason to have the driveway this distance apart. Craig Allen, architect representing Luby's Cafeteria, stated that the compromise being proposed would not impede the traffic movement nor interfer with safety. Councilman Fuller stated that if an exception were granted to Luby's, this would be unfair to the property owner next to Luby's who met city standards. Councilman Johnson moved that Council deny the five - foot radius turn and that the company either go with a 15- foot driveway or take plans and revamp them; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Fuller and Cannon Nays: Council member Simmons and Mayor Hutto Mayor Hutto recessed the meeting. When the meeting reconvened, the following business was conducted: Consider Authorization for City Attorney to Intervene before the Public Utilities Commission in Houston Lighting and Power'Comnanv's Rate Reauest The City Manager reported that the City of Baytown has been working with the City of Houston and other cities in the area relative to the Houston Lighting and Power rate request. What the Administration is requesting is formal authorization for the City of Baytown to intervene before the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The City Attorney explained that the rate request goes through several stages. When the light company files for rate increase with the City of Baytown, they simultaneously file with the PUC for rate increases in the unincorporated areas of their service area. The PUC has original jurisdiction 20708 -14 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 of rates in unincorporated areas. In past years, the City of Baytown has intervened in that rural rate case because that has been the area where alot of the issues were set. Because of some time constraints, the City Attorney went ahead and filed the motion to intervene and actually attended the pre- hearing conference. The City of Baytown has been granted intervenor status. The City Attorney did this. without prior approval of Council in order to meet time limitations. If Council elects not to participate in the rural case, the City Attorney can withdraw the motion. A group has been formed called "Coalition of Cities with Original Jurisdiction." Of the 59 cities in the HL&P service area with original jurisdiction, 54 of these have given at least informal consent that they elect to be included in the coalition. The City Attorney had indicated to the coalition leader that Baytown would be interested in participating. The City Attorney will be bringing a formal resolution as to that action to Council at the next meeting. There is no reason that the City of Baytown cannot be a part of that coalition and a separate intervenor. In response to an inquiry from Council, the City Attorney explained that past history has been that HL &P has requested uniform rates be set in both incorporated and unincorporated areas. In the past because the rural case was heard first and because in the rural case, the Commission looked at the overall system revenue requirements, the issues as to rate of return, CWIP, funds used during construction, etc. Those facts were decided in the rural rate case prior to cities having their hearing. The cities would then have their hearing after the fact, come up with their own different rates which HL &P would appeal to the Commission and the Commission would be looking at appeal from the cities' rates having already decided a month earlier that they wanted to give the company a certain amount. It was the cities' hearing that was being ineffective. For this reason, the cities have an overall plan to work with the City of Houston who has hired some in -house staff people to analyze the request of HL&P. They will come up with a recommendation and this information will be made available to all the cities who form the coalition. The aim is for all the cities to hold their hearings and set their rates prior to August 30 - date the rural rate case will be heard. Therefore, the cities will have had their hearings first and all 59 cities will appear before the Commission already having decided that this is the rate that should apply. The cities will ask that the appeal from the various city cases be consolidated with the rural case which will give the cities a much better input before the Commission. Instead of having two separate hearings before the Commission, there will be one. The cities will have the benefit of already having set rates. Probably in revenue the cities represent about 70% to 80% of HL &P's consumers. Cities hope that the Commission will take into account the number of people involved and the issues cited by law, thereby granting local regulatory authorities more influence with the Commission. The City of Baytown will hold its rate hearing sometime in late August to establish a rate prior to the rural case being heard. HL&P will appeal that rate immediately so all information can be heard at once. 20708 -15 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Council expressed concern with the ever rising cost of electrical service and the fact that the utility company continues to demand more and more to operate. Citizens throughout the city have expressed concern and disapproval with the manner in which the utility company is handling its affairs. Mr. Doug Taylor presented a petition to Council containing 691 signatures which requested that City Council protest the fourteen (14%) percent rate increase proposed by Houston Lighting and Power Company. The citizens expressed the feeling that HL&P is making a fair rate of return on their investment and is not entitled to an increase at this time. Mr. Taylor also stated that citizens had wondered if the city had considered in its appearance before the PUC suggesting alternate type rates such as variable rates or graduated rate increases, particularly for the aged and non - working who must live on fixed incomes. A lady from the audience stated that it was her under- standing that the light company had purchased $326,000,000 worth of equipment in order to provide nuclear power from Allen Creek which was wasted. Now the company expects its consumers to pay for this error. The lady questioned whether the people were going to just sit back and allow the company to pass that charge on to its consumers or would the people say that the mistake was the company's to absorb. Councilman Johnson stated that he agreed, but there was very little to be done because the company's investors are to be paid, their employees are to be paid, etc. The company made a mistake in Bay City and the consumer is paying for that. Mayor Hutto mentioned that HL&P net income after preferred dividends last year was up thirty (30%) percent. Councilman Johnson moved to receive the petition; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None For a matter of information, the City Attorney notified Council that in order to help promote the coalition, various groups have been formed to work together to develop information. Another thing that has been mentioned by the Commission in past years is if all the cities are interested in this, why is it that no one is ever present at the hearings. This year the members of the coalition are hoping to get a number of city officials to attend various portions of the hearing. It may last 2 -3 weeks so no one person will be asked to attend the whole proceeding. Attendance will let the Commission know that the City of Baytown, as well as other cities are interested. 20708 -16 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Councilman Simmons moved to authorize the City Attorney to intervene before the Public Utilities Commission in Houston Lighting and Power Company's rate case; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Withdrawing Central Sewer District Improvements from EPA Several weeks ago, Council held a work session to discuss the possibility of withdrawing only the Central District portion of the sewer system improvement program from EPA Grant Program. Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works /City Engineer, prepared a memorandum which was placed at the Council table regarding the study of withdrawal of Central Sewer District from EPA Grant Program. The Director of Public Works /City Engineer stated that the first thing considered was what if the city elects to remain in the program. At the present time, the city is involved in Step 1 which has not been completed. The entire procedure is a three -step process - -Step 2, design; Step 3, construction. The engineering department has reviewed this in a very realistic manner utilizing earliest dates possible that each phase could be approved and escalating amounts based on inflation in an attempt to get the various phases into actual dollar amounts at the various times. The earliest date that construction could be completed would be in October, 1986 at an escalated cost of $16.9 million. However, based on experience, a 10 year factor may be more realistic. By escalating May, 1981 costs for 10 years using 12% and 8% annual inflation rates, this project could cost an estimated $24.4 million. At this time, EPA funding has been at a rate of 75% funding, with the city providing 25 %. However, regulations have changed and at this time, EPA is saying that the city would need to finish Step 1 with only a chance at funding. Step 2 would have to be completed with city funds meeting all EPA guidelines and then go into Step 3. Once the city gets to Step 3, EPA might reimburse the city, but again, EPA would have the option to refuse reimbursement. New rules say that reimbursement for line repairs is being deleted and participation for plant expansion for future growth is being deleted. Many of the items that cities have been previously receiving funds for have been dropped. EPA is saying that after October 1, 1984, the most that cities would be reimbursed is 55 %, that is if EPA decided to fund the project. In 1985, EPA funding will be reduced further to 45 %. Also, EPA is now saying under new regulations that the federal money will be expended to improve plants where improvements can be shown in quality of the receiving stream. There are many plants throughout the United States that are putting out effluent which is damaging to receiving streams. Unless Baytown is able to show that by the construction of this plant that 20708 -17 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 the discharge into Goose Creek would be improved, there is a good possibility that Baytown will receive no funding. The current trend seems to be to remove EPA from the picture and accomplish more at the local level, spending the federal money on severe problems where there is real damage being done to the waters. In the City of Baytown Bond Program, a total of $916,000 was budgeted for improvements in the district, plus an additional $1,166,000 earmarked for sliplining throughout the city. In the West District, the city is performing a large sized project of line rehabilitation, grouting, manhole repairs and sliplining. The sliplining contract will begin later this month. This should take care of over 90% of the bad lines that are causing problems with infiltration in the West District, except the Brownwood area. The city has been budgeting historically anywhere from $100,000 - $200,000 per year in the city budget and revenue sharing combined for sliplining throughout the city. If the budgeted funds and sliplining funds were diverted to the East District, a good amount of the $1,066,000 could be utilized in the Central District. There will be approximately $2,000,000 available to be expended in the Central District. The opinion of the Administration is that rather than apply for funding which from all indications will not be available, and expending alot of money which may not be refunded, the better decision would be to withdraw from EPA funding for the Central District. The city is aware of problems with old concrete pipes. This has been proven by televising. The staff has the experience now and is aware of where the problems exist. Therefore, the staff is recommending that it would be better to spend available funds to rehabilitate and slipline lines in the Central District that are going to the plant. When this is done, infiltration will be eliminated which will provide more plant capacity and at the same time, alot of citizens' problems with stopped sewer lines will be alleviated. The main thing is that if infiltration can be eliminated, for the most part this will eliminate the need for plant expansion in the Central District. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Dykes explained that if the City went into the EPA program, assuming that funding was granted and that project lasted as long as the West District, the city would be looking at the expenditure of $24,000,000 with the city having to fund half of that, the city would be expending $12,000,000 when only $2,000,000 is available. Therefore, the city would have to come up with $10,000,000 which would mean in the next five -year bond program $10,000,000 would necessarily be included for sewer work in the Central District. The last bond program was only $18,000,000 total. Another factor which could reduce the flow at the West Main plant is the possible diversion of some of the Central District sewage to the West District. There is a study underway on the possibility of diverting the Central District flow in northern Baytown to the West District. If this is done, more capacity will be provided at the West Main plant. That, plus reduction of infiltration would eliminate the need for new construction in the Central District. 20708 -18 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 In the West District, developers are being required to pay buy -in charges which will provide funding for expansion in that district. With the diversion to the West District, it will become necessary to enlarge the West District plant soon after completion. The Administration recommended taking into account the report of the Director of Public Works /City Engineer that the City of Baytown withdraw only the Central Sewer District from the EPA Grant Program. Councilman Simmons inquired if by withdrawing the City of Baytown would only lose the money expended toward the study of the system. Mr. Lanham responded that that was correct, but the city now has an infiltration /inflow analysis which the city can utilize. Councilman Philips noted that one thing that he had noticed about the EPA funding was that the city was propelled along and he wondered if the city withdrew, if the city would maintain a schedule for improvements. Mr. Lanham responded that he felt that the city would because the city must meet requirements of Texas Water Resources Commission, as well as other state agencies with respect to quality of effluent. Councilman Simmons pointed out that when EPA was furnishing 75% of the fund, it was difficult not to get into the program. Mr. Lanham pointed out that.was correct and that under the 75% funding, EPA was funding not only enlargement of the treatment plant, but lift stations, sliplining, etc. Much of that work is no longer eligible, plus the city's chances of obtaining funding have diminished. The Administration emphasized that there is no recommendation at this time that the city withdraw from EPA funding for the East District. Ivan Langford, Consulting Engineer, explained that at the next Council meeting a public hearing is scheduled on the facility plan which will complete the Step 1 Phase which EPA has funded. Council can decide after the hearing, whether to proceed with Step 2. The expensive evaluation of the East District was not required because there was not the severe infiltration /inflow problem. Councilman Fuller moved to withdraw the Central Sewer District from EPA Grant Program; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending the Fencing Requirements for 'Swimming Pools The present ordinance requiring fencing at swimming pools has been in existence for several years. The Health Department has the responsibility for inspecting pools to be certain that fences are provided. The Building Inspection Department is also involved. In the course of these inspections, the staff has discovered that in some cases, there is a fence but it may be an ornamental iron fence with four -inch 20708 -19 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 openings therefore, the Administration is suggesting that the ordinance be amended to read as follows: "Such fence, wall or other solid structure shall have no opening of more than four (4) inches in width." Councilman Simmons mentioned that possibly the ordinance should include the terminology "exclusive of gates," and moved that the ordinance be adopted with the inclusion of the wording "exclusive of gates." Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3418 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 28, SWIMMING POOLS; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; ESTABLISHING A PENALTY; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Contract for Improvements to Caldwell Street Several bids were received for construction of improvements to Caldwell Street. Able Services, Inc. of Houston was low bidder for the amount $176,570. This amount is $21,000 over the estimate. One reason for this overage is that the contractor was requested to provide access for abutting property owners. If the contractor did not provide access, in the event of rain, it could be weeks before people would have a driveable surface. The Administration recommended that the contract be awarded to Able Services, Inc. of Houston. This firm performed work for the City several years ago and the city's experience with the company was satisfactory. The contractor cannot begin construction until a hearing on benefits is held. The city's share of this project will be paid by bond funds. Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. In response to a concern expressed by Councilman Philips regarding change orders, the City Attorney explained that Section 3 of the ordinance is taken directly from state law and that there is no relation between the original contract amount and change orders. Mr. Lanham pointed out that any change order over $15,000 must be approved by City Council. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 20708 -20 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 ORDINANCE NO. 3419 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF BUSCH - HUTCHINSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE CALDWELL STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT; AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR SAID PROJECT TO ABLE SERVICES OF HOUSTON FOR ONE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY & N01100 ($176$70,000) DOLLARS; DIRECTING THAT NO WORK BE STARTED ON SAID PROJECT UNTIL COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. For tabulation, see Attachment "A." Consider Setting Date, Place and Time for Hearing on Benefits on Caldwell Street Assessment Program Council had been provided with a proposed calendar of events for the Caldwell Street-Assessment Program which listed hearing on benefits to be held August 12. Councilman Simmons moved that the hearing on benefits be scheduled for August 12, 1982 at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Baytown City Hall; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Proposed Ordinance, Setting Hearing on Proposed Annexation of 2.0458 Acres'(IH =1O at' Thompson Road) The Administration requested that this item be removed from consideration, but requested authority to tell the developers of this site that the city will provide water and sewer service to the site. The tract of land being developed at the northeast corner of IH -10 and Thompson Road is to be a truck stop. When the Administration was contacted concerning water and sewer service, the developers were told that the general policy for providing utilities along IH -10 was that the area be annexed. The owners forwarded a letter indicating a desire to be annexed; however, the Administration discovered that the City has a 10 -foot strip along the southside of IH- 10 and in order to annex this area, the city would have to cross the interstate. Interstate 10 right of way is only 300 feet wide; therefore, the City would need to annex additional property along with the right of way and this tract in order to comply with the state law which requires that 500 feet be annexed or that consent of the owner be obtained. The Administration did not feel that the highway department would favor requesting annexation. What the Administration is suggesting is that the owners of the truck stop be informed that the city is willing to serve the.site with water and sewer, but that the truck stop will be annexed in the future when the area develops. Reading Buick is located on the same side of the interstate. 20708 -21 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Councilman Philips suggested that when annexation is proposed that the City annex all the way up to Highlands Park. Mr. Lanham stated that when this annexation is proposed, that the Administration will probably recommend that the water plant be annexed also.. Council had no objection to the Administration notifying the owners of the proposed truck stop that the City of Baytown will furnish the site with water and sewer based on out of the city rates. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Approving Industrial District Agreement with J. M Huber Corporation J. M. Huber Corporation Industrial District Contract expires this year. The staff has prepared a contract which is the same as others approved by City Council under the new policy which provides that the industry shall pay a combination of taxes and industrial district payments that total 35% of what they would pay if they were totally annexed. Huber has approved the contract. The Administration recommended approval of the contract. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3420 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH J. M. HUBER CORPORATION; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda was considered as follows: a. Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -5, will authorize the transfer of funds from Council Contingency to Account No. 0109 -04 -0100 for repairs to the Library's air - conditioning. The transfer of $26,000 would enable the replacement of the two existing tandem thirty -ton units with two in- dependent thirty ton units. It will also permit the replacement of the five -ton unit which has been in operation since 1961. We have expended over $15,000 in air - conditioning maintenance on the existing equipment in the last twenty (20) months. Also, $4,000 needs to be transferred from Council Contingency to Account No. 0109 -10 -08007 (Books) to replace funds that have been transferred to cover air - conditioning maintenance. We recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -5. 20708 -22 Minutes of the Regular Meeting July 8, 1982 b. Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -6, will authorize a lease agreement with Jerry E. Golden. The lease agreement will permit the use of that property known as McKinney Street to Mr. Jerry Golden, who in return shall pay to the City the sum of $8.33 per month for the duration of this lease. We recommend the approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -6. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -7, will authorize the agreement with 'Harris County for jail services. Under the terms of this contract, the County will pay to the City the sum of $71,000 for these services. The length of this contract is for one (1) year. We recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -7. d. Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -8, will award the annual tire and tube contract. Twenty -four items comprised this bid. Five (5) bidders submitted bids. The low bidders are: Name Item Amount General Tire Service 4 & 6 $ 2,343.72 A -Z Tire & Battery Firestone B. F. Goodrich Total 15 1 -3, 5, 7 -14, 16 -24 12 8,061.60 31,, 378.26 482.08 $42,265.66 We recommend the above low bidders be awarded these contracts. e. Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -9, will award the annual cast iron castings contract. Three (3) items were included in this bid. Five (5) bids were received. Golden Triangle Pipe submitted the low bid on Item Nos. 1 & 3 of $3,253.60; Utility Supply submitted the low bid on Item No. 2 of $6,455. The total bid for all three items is $9,708.60. We recommend the above mentioned low bidders be awarded these contracts. 20708 -23 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the Consent Agenda Items a through e. Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3421 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO APPROPRIATE THIRTY THOUSAND & N01100 ($30,000.00) DOLLARS FROM "COUNCIL CONTINGENCY" TO ACCOUNT NO's. 0109 -04 -0100 AND 0109 -10 -0800 FOR THE REPAIRS TO STERLING MUNICIPAL LIBRARY'S AIR - CONDITIONING, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -5). ORDINANCE NO. 3422 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE LEASE OF LAND OWNED BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, TO JERRY E. GOLDEN; DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO AN INSTRUMENT LEASING SAID LAND TO JERRY E. GOLDEN, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -6). ORDINANCE NO. 3423 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH HARRIS COUNTY WITH REGARD TO JAIL SERVICES FOR COUNTY PRISONERS AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -7). ORDINANCE NO. 3424 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF GENERAL FIRE SERVICE FOR ITEM #'S 4 & 6; A -Z TIRE & BATTERY FOR ITEM #15; FIRESTONE #2233 FOR ITEM #'S 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, AND 24, AND B. F. GOODRICH FOR ITEM #12, FOR THE ANNUAL TIRE AND TUBE CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN FOR THE SUMS OF $2,343.72; $8,061.60; $31,378.26; and $482.08, TO EACH VENDOR, RESPECTIVELY. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -8). ORDINANCE NO. 3425 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF GOLDEN TRIANGLE PIPE AND UTILITY SUPPLY COMPANY FOR THE ANNUAL CAST IRON CASTINGS CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN FOR THE SUM OF NINE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHT & 60/100 ($9,708.60) DOLLARS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20708 -9). For tabulation, see Attachments "B" and "C." 20708 -24 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Consider Authorization to Hire Personnel to Operate West District Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Transfer of Funds from Water /Sewer Contingency to Account No. 1105 The Administration had not expected the West District Wastewater Treatment Facilities to be completed until the fiscal year 1982 -83; however, the contractors on the project are so far ahead of schedule that the plant will be ready to be placed in service sometime in August. For this reason, the Administration requested permission to go ahead and hire people to operate the plant. The present plant in the West District is not manned on a 24 -hour basis. The plant is checked during the day by the personnel who maintain lift stations. One person who will serve as plant superintendent is already on board and the Administration is requesting that eight additional positions -be- -hired. Those positions will be included in the 1982 -83 Budget. In the meantime, the Administration would like to hire the necessary personnel for two months this year. In the proposed budget for the two months operation, are included costs for electrical service and supplies. Money is available in contingency in the water /sewer budget to fund the operation of the West District Wastewater Treatment Facilities for two months. The Administration recommended approval of Agenda Item Nos. 15 and 16. Councilman Philips moved to authorize the Administration to hire personnel to operate West District Wastewater Treatment Facilities and for the adoption of the proposed ordinance, transferring necessary funds from water /sewer contingencies to Account No. 1105; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3426 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO APPROPRIATE FIFTY SIX THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR & N01100 ($45,424.00) DOLLARS FROM "WATER /SEWER CONTINGENCY" TO ACCOUNT NO. 1105 AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consider Authorization to Advertise for Bids for Lift Station Monitoring System Council approved $25,000 in 1981 -82 Revenue Sharing Funds for the purchase and installation of monitors at some of the major lift station. The Administration would like to proceed with that project. Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works /City Engineer, stated that the plan is to install a monitoring system at some of the larger lift stations within the city. There would be a transmitter located at the 20708 -25 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 wastewater lift station with a sensor as to water levels in the wet well. There would be a receiver at one of the wastewater plants where there is personnel on duty 24 -hours a day. In the event of pump failure a signal would travel by leased phone line to the wastewater plant where the operator is on duty. This would give the staff notice 24 -hours per day if there is a problem at any of the larger lift stations. The procedure now is to make rounds of the lift stations. There is a six -man and one foreman crew who perform this task. They take care of the city's 40+ lift stations. With failure of the larger lift stations, there is sewer backup which causes problems in homes and businesses. The Administration requested permission to advertise for bids on the equipment. Some of the equipment the city crews can install, but some of the equipment installation will need to be bid. Those bids will be brought to Council for award. What the Administration is requesting at this time is to advertise for the equipment. Councilman Fuller moved to authorize the Administration to advertise forbids for a lift station monitoring system; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Mr. Dykes stated that $25,000 had been budgeted for this purpose. To begin with the Administration would take bids for approximately five to determine the costs and then put as many of the larger lift stations as possible on the system with the funds allocated. Receive Report and Consider Authorization to Enlarge Lift Station at Baker Road and Goose Creek Stream and Authorize Advertisement for Bids At a recent Council meeting a resident of Quail Hollow Subdivision appeared to express concern with regard to sewer problems which he had been experiencing at his home. The Administration has determined that some of those are related to an overloaded lift station. There have been long -range plans to request permission to enlarge this lift station. Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works /City Engineer, stated that the Quail Hollow lift station is located on the north side of Baker Road. It was constructed originally to serve Quail Hollow Subdivision by the developer of that subdivision. Quail Hollow has four sections -- Section No. 1, 121 lots; Section No. 2, 157 lots; Section No. 3, 62 lots and Section No. 4, 74 lots. Later the apartments were added on. The apartments have 276 units in the original section. When Ginger Creek Subdivision was developed just north of Quail Hollow, there were parts of Quail Hollow that were not developed. Therefore, there was sufficient capacity at that time to allow the Ginger Creek lift station to tie into the Quail Hollow lift station. Ginger Station now has three sections with 55, 83 and 41 lots. Another apartment complex developed has tied into Quail Hollow lift station. What 20708 -26 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 has happened is that this station has over a period of time become overloaded. At the same time, there is an.overloaded condition in the Craigmont lift station across Goose Creek to the west. The City has a sanitary sewer line that goes from Country Club Oaks Subdivision, Section Nos. 5, 6 & 7 down Baker Road across Goose Creek and then to Craigmont. The Administration has been planning to take some of the load off Craigmont lift station by enlarging the Quail Hollow lift station to take care of all the sanitary sewage on the east side of Goose Creek. By enlarging the Quail Hollow station, more capacity will be provided in the Craigmont lift station since that station is also overloaded. About one year ago the city got into the program of developers paying a share of water and sewer and the city has collected money from any development that tied into the lift station for the last year. Langford Engineering performed a small study as to the capacity of the station and what developments in the area would be going into the station in the future from which the staff figured prorata payments. When the apartment complex was added, the prorata portion was paid to the city. The total paid or expected to be paid from developers at this point is $11,500. The total estimated cost to enlarge the station to almost double its capacity is $66,000. The wet well diameter will be increased to provide more capacity. New electrical controls will be installed. Larger sewage pumps and motors will be installed. Those are four inch now and the need is to go to eight inch diameter pumps. The force main is of sufficient size to handle the flow. Therefore, what is being considered is to perform some modifications in the station. Much of the work will be performed with city forces. Probably it will be necessary to hire an electrician to wire the controls. The Administration requested permission to advertise for bids for pumps and motors. There are available funds in utility construction wastewater account for sewer improvements to perform this work. It may be necessary for the Administration to take bids on the construction of a new wet well. Bids will be taken and brought to Council for award. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Dykes stated that continuity of service would be maintained during this process. The cost is relative to the fact that the station is being enlarged to handle the area for some time in the future. The Administration is continuing to collect from new developments; therefore, the city will retrieve some of this funding. In this manner the city can construct one large plant, rather than have developers constructing several small plants which the city would need to maintain. In response to an inquiry from Council regarding whether enlargement of the plant will resolve the problems referred to in the appearance before Council by Mr. Anderson, Mr. Dykes stated that this would resolve the problems with backup during wet weather, but if there is a problem with the lines it would not resolve that. The majority of Mr. Anderson's complaints were due to wet weather backup. Councilman Simmons moved to authorize the Administration to advertise for bids to enlarge lift station at Baker Road and Goose Creek Stream as specified by Mr. Dykes; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: 20708 -27 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - July 8, 1982 Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Participation in the Traffic Safety Awareness Task Force and Authorization to Participate in East Harris County DWI Enforcement Programs of this type are in existence in various parts of the county and state. The Department of Public Safety and the sheriff's office are making plans for a concentrated program in East Harris County, in particular Highway 225 and Highway 146. These two entities have invited the various cities in East Harris County to participate. There are two ways that the city could participate. One way is to utilize on -duty people on this particular night, but the Administration felt that there should be five people working on an overtime basis during that time to participate with the other entities that are involved in the program. The Administration requested approval from Council for the City of Baytown to participate and that overtime personnel be utilized. Mayor Hutto stated that he was opposed to anyone getting behind the wheel in an intoxicated state; however, he was not in favor of the selective type program. He felt that this type enforcement should be emphasized in the regular course of business. Mr. Lanham mentioned that it requires time to complete the process required on this type arrest and this was the reason the Administration had recommended the use of overtime. Councilman Fuller moved to authorize the Administration to participate in the Traffic Safety Awareness Tasks Force and to participate in East Harris County DWI Enforcement on an overtime basis; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Nays: Mayor Hutto Consider Appointment to Board of Adjustment and Appeals Councilman Johnson moved that Jack Jungbluth be appointed to serve the remainder of the term of Gary Jones on the Board of Adjustment and Appeals; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Adj ourn There being no further business to be conducted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, ,City Clerk Page 2 y Item ANGEL BROTHERS BAYTEX CONSTRUCTION No. Item uantit Unit Un t Price I Total Unit EP RceE$ ITota Unit Pricey Total Unit Price EMS INC. Iota 9. Lime Stabilization of Sub - rade Com lete -in -•lace 6,000 S.Y.• $ 4.00 $ 24 000.00 $ 3.00 $ 18 000.00 $ 2.40 $ 14 400.00 $ 2.15 $ 12 900.00 10. Flexible Base.Pavement, Including Excavation, 7" Compacted Cement Stabilized Shell Base, and 4" Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete, Complete - in- lace . -150 S.Y. 15.00 2.250.00 20.00 3 000.00 $ 29.00 4.350.00 $ 17.00 $ 2,55 . 0.00 11. Standard Paving Header, Complete-in-place 30 L.F. $ 3.00 $ 90.00 -4.00 120.00 $ 5.00 $ 150.00 6.00 $ 180.00 12. Standard Under -Cut Paving Header Complete-in-place 60 L.F. $ 4.00 $ 240.00 $ 6.00 $ 360.00 5.00 $ 300.00 $ 9.00 $ 540.00 13. Redwood Expansion Joints, as Specified and Detailed on the Plans, Complete -in- , lace 700 L.F. $ 1.75 $ 1.225.00 $ 2.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 2.95 $ 2,065.00 $ 1.50 $ 1,050.00 14. 6" Reinforced Concrete Drive- way, as Detailed on the Plans Com lete -in- lace 240 S.Y. $ 18.00 $ 4,320.00 $ • 19,00 $ 4,560.00 $ 21.80 $ 5,232.00 $ 23.00 $ 5.520.0 . 0 15. 5" Reinforced Concrete Drive- '; way and Walks, as Detailed on the Plans Complete-in-place' 260 S.Y. 16.00 $ 4,160.00 $ 16.00 $ 4,160.00 $ 21.85 $ 5,681.00 $ 22.00 $ 5,720.00 16. Cement Stabilized Sand, as required by the Engineer, other than specified as back - fill, (Delivery Ticket Basis), Com lete -in- lace 10 ITons 20.00 $ 200.00 1 $ 15.00 $ 150.00 $ 24.50 $ 245.00 $ 20.00 $ 200.00 J VU - "u. 81 -Ia4 V Item No. Item ANGEL BROTHERS BAYTEX CONSTRUCTION INC. uantit� Unit UniittLPriice I Total• unitEPrRCeES Total Unit Price Total I.O.I. SYSTEMS INC. Unit t Price Total 1. 18" Diameter R.C.P. Storm Sewer, ASTM C76, Class III, 'Type "A" Backfill, All Cuts, Complete-in-place •60 . L. F. 20.00 $ 1,200.2_0 25.20 1 512.00 $ 19.00 $ 1 2. 30" Diameter R.C.P. Storm _ 140.00 $ 24.00 $ 1 440.00 Sewer, ASTM C76, Class III,. Type :'D" Backfill, All Cuts, Complete-in-place 630 L.F. $' 22.00 $ 13 860.00 $ 31.50 $ 19 845.00 $ 3. 36" Diameter R.C.P. Storm 32.70 20 601.00 $ 27.00 $ 17.010 oo Sewer, ASTM C76, Class III, Type "D" Backfill, All Cuts, E Com late -in- lace 300 L.F. $ 33.00 $ 9 900.00 37.80 $ 11 340.00 $ 39.10 Q 4. ' 10 Standard Storm Sewer $ 11 730.00 $ 35.00 $ 10 500.00 Cd N Inlet Complete-in-place 4 Each $ 1,2 00.00 4 800.00 1 575.00 6,300.00 1 440.00 $ 5 760.00 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00 4 5. Standard Storm Sewer Junction Box, Complete- in-place 1 Each $ 2.800.00 $ '2 800.00 $ 1,575.00 $ 1 575.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 '900.00 6. Tie Proposed Storm Sewer �� $ $ 900.00 to Existing Junction Box, Lump Com lete -in- lace All I Sum 1,50000 1 500.00 1 575.00 1,575.00D 1 7 6" Concrete Pavement, 000.00 $ 11000.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 Including Excavation, Backfill, and Reinforcing Steel Complete-in-21-ace 5,650. S.Y. $ 17.50 $ 98t875.00 $ 17.00 $ 96 050.00 $ 17.50 8. 6" Reinforced Concrete 11 . $ 98 875.00 $ 20.00 $113 000.00 Curb, Including Reinforc- ing Steel, Complete -in- lace 1 3,500 1 I.. F. Is 1.50 5 250.00 2.10 7 350.00 $ 1.85 1 $ 6,475.00 $ 1.90 6 650.00 tom �o• Item ANGEL BROTHERS BAYTEX CONSTR ION uantit Unit Unit P a ce Tota Unit P r ice Total C NY NY Unit Price Total -10.1. 17. Road Shell or Limestone for Unit Price Total 'Temporary Crossings and Driveway Repairs as Directed by the Engineer, (Delivery Ticket Basis), Complete -in- lace 20 Tons $ 20.00 • $ 400.00 $ 15.00 300.00 $ 24.50 $ 490.00 $ 17.00 18. Remove and Dispose of 340.00 Miscellaneous Concrete, Pavement, and Masonry Structures 50 C.Y. $ 30.00 $ 1 500.00 , $ 10.00 $ •500.00 $ TOTALS 12.20 $ 610.00 $ 60.00 $ 3,000.00 176 570.00 178 097.00 $180 104.00 186 800.00 r R. T. Bishop Construction Company, Inc. GALIN /Spencer, -. $196,080.00 Inc. - SKP Inc. - $203,882.50 APAC- Texas, Inc. - $233,983.50 John Carlo Texas, Inc. - $260,700.00 $272,724.00 i I TLE : -- ANNUAL T 1 RE AND TUBE CONTRACT.......... PAGE 1 OF 2 J I D; 0826 -82 M TE: June 30,1982 2 :00 P. M. iEti1 QTY DESCRIPTION 361,20 51.15 1 4,286,25 ANNUAL TIRE AND TUBE CONTRACT, 644,10 , 2,328-50 -1 per specific4tlons: 41,11 1• 428.30 10 19575 R14 WSW 55:96 TfRE 2• ; 75 225/70 R15 B 47.92 ; •49,23 738,45 I 352.. 52-35 75 1 44.78 S 55,51 3. - j 50 235-70 R15 51.34 57,09 114,18 �i 60,26 482,o8 47.27 2,363.5 4, {,1 10 ',7.0014 6 ply 5 cs 30 225/75 R15 4 ply'- , 6. U � 4-)1 54 ' 670 x 15 6 ply ). 4'1 15 700 x 15 8 ply 3, i 50 750 x 16 6 ply 1. 32 1 750 x 16 8 ply 10 800 x 16,5 6 ply 2 875 x 16,5 6 ply '. 8 11 L x 16 SL 10 ply I, 20 825 x 20 10 ply 20 900 x 20 10 ply GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC Aft- Tr1TA I C17-Y 01� SAYrowN 131D TABULATION F.-GOODRICH N11< , XTENDED 112,95 2,259.00 124;50 2,490.00 A•1 TIRE E BATTERY P tv! c I EXTEN0E NO BID r NO BID 1 NO BID 43.67. 436,70 48,26 1;447,80 43.21 2,333.88 50.83 762,45 . 53.82 I 2,691.00 56,41 i 1,805,12 49.71 497,10 52:49 104,98 NO BID 112,55 2,251.00 130.51 2 .610,20 "' CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO RE vi 41,62 1_ 4W20 45.69 ! 3,426.75 48.89 42,20. 422,00 361,20 51.15 1 4,286,25 39.93 60,66 31033,00 644,10 , 2,328-50 -1 1 50,25 41,11 411,10 428.30 5429 1 ;628,70 55:96 TfRE ONLY 1.757.40 46,15 2 1492,10 47.92 ; •49,23 738,45 I 352.. 52-35 75 z 1 637.50 44.78 S 55,51 11776,32 2,427.30 52%61 526,10 51.34 57,09 114,18 1 698. 60,26 482,o8 112,95 2,259.00 124;50 2,490.00 A•1 TIRE E BATTERY P tv! c I EXTEN0E NO BID r NO BID 1 NO BID 43.67. 436,70 48,26 1;447,80 43.21 2,333.88 50.83 762,45 . 53.82 I 2,691.00 56,41 i 1,805,12 49.71 497,10 52:49 104,98 NO BID 112,55 2,251.00 130.51 2 .610,20 "' CONTINUED ON PAGE TWO RE vi 41,62 1_ 4W20 45.69 ! 3,426.75 48.89 1 2 444.50 36,12 361,20 42.31 1.269.30 39.93 2,156.22 42.94 644,10 46.57 2,328-50 -1 1 50,25 1.608,00 42,83 428.30 48.15 96.30 55:96 447,68 87.87 1.757.40 105.34 2,106 80 CARR' S C UNIT T SE�V,1 CE E'XTE � � 0 G NERAL T I RE .. _ �- PP pptr;, i No B I D 43..94 439. NO BID 47.76 3,582. NO BID 51.34 2,576. 47.92 ; 479.20 3 5.22 I 352.. 54.48 1,724.40 44.78 1.343.E 44.95 2,427.30 TIRE 36.88 JONLY 1,9_ 51.34 770.10 46.55 1 698. 63.92 3,196.00 47.27 2,363.5 63.92 2.045.44 54.87 ' 1,755.8 62,09 J� 620,90 46.55 , 465.5 72.53 j 147,06 60.25 1 120.5 82,62 i' 660.96 124.25 j 994.0 128.98 2,579.60 103.15 1 2,063 -U, 142.60 I 2,852.00 123.08 2,461.61 D: I#a26-8? �� r -ITE: June 30,L1982 2 00 P.M. Em, I Q T Y r� 6. 7. i I 60 8 10 12 12 12 12 12 1 DESCRIPTION CONTINUED: •148,58 •196,46 ! 1 8,914,80 1,571.68 1000 x 20 12 Ply j 1100 x 22,5 14 Ply j 1300 x 24 10 Ply 13,6 x 28 r 4 i 6 Ply 14,9 x 24 r 4 6 Ply, 17,51. x 24 r 4 8-my 16,9 x 24 r 4 16.9 x. 30 r I 8 -16 r 4 -TR 6,12r4 - TR 6 Ply 6 Ply 4 Ply 4 Ply . B, F, GOODRICH A,Z TIRE 6 BATTERY -UNIT EXTENDED UNIT EXTENoEC PRIG' Ppfrr Pplre i Ppirr GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC NET TOTAL FIRESTONE I CARR'S CITY SERVICE N1 EXTENOED I UNIT lirr I orfrc PpfrC pAfl'; 137.33 •148,58 •196,46 ! 1 8,914,80 1,571.68 134.36 8 061.60 1,321.52 165,19. I 191.60 : 1,532.80 TIRES , 262,90 2,629,00 263.76 2.637.60 18,02 216,24 17.34 208.44 TUBE ONLY TUBE ONLY 196,69. 2,360.28 199`,78 2,391.36 248,43 2,9,81,16 260,16 3,121.92 TORE ONLY TIRE ONLY 216,84 2;602,08 ' 237,54 2,850,48 24.95 l 29.9..40 23.69 i 284,28 TUBE ONLY TUBE ONFY NO HID NO BID NO BID NO BID NO TEST IN HIGH NO TEST ON HIGH PURSUIT POLICE TIRES PURSUIT POLICE TIRES GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC NET TOTAL FIRESTONE I CARR'S CITY SERVICE N1 EXTENOED I UNIT lirr I orfrc PpfrC pAfl'; 137.33 8 239.80 159.76 9,585.60 164,09 j 1,312.72 I 191.60 : 1,532.80 219.90 1 2,199.00 1 241.55 - 2,415.50 154.16 l 1 849.92 172.13 2,072.76 16o.62 1,927 44 221.72 1 2,660.64 I 2.27,72 1 2,732.64 1 267.84 1 3 214.08 198.77 196.16 9.83 1.40 2 385.24 255.56 ! 3 066.72 2,353.92 294.43 ? 3,533.16 59.83 ^_ 121-97 121.97 31.40 39.96 ; 39.96 NO TEST ON HIGH PURSUIT POLICE TIRES ,179,33 441871;42 2,377,71 35,823.43 2.284.45 42;583,16 2.785.47 45 744.15 � ^,7 GENERAL TIRE r I 141.09 ; 8,465.40 I 168.46 1 ,347.63 273.41 2,734.10 232.35 i 2,788.20 288.87 3,466.44 328.92 3,947.04 311.43 ! 3,737.16 328.25 3,939.01 79.72 79.7= 33.66 .' i I 33.6( NO TES1 ON H I GIs PURSUI POLICE TIRES , 3,052.05 51.736.1 �� L �: ANNUAL CAST IRON CASTINGS i I o: #822 -59 )ATE: June 29. 1982 2;00 P,M. F'EMI Q T 2 a. b. .m - 1 25 25 g 10 a� 10 10 Cd _P 10 I Q 30 GIrY Or BAYTOW N E31D TABULATION . MUNICIPAL PIPE DESCRIPTION I .UNIT . XTE-N CAST IRON CASTINGS, per attached I specifications, Adjustable Valve Boxes $27.54 $2 203.20 24`7 to 36" x 5k^ SUB - TOTAL: $2 203.20 Sewer Castings $1,800.00 $87.00' Light Wt. Manhole Rings E Covers $90.00 1 $2;250,00 Heavy Wt. Manhole Rings & Covers $180.00 $4 500.00 Bolt -on Manhole Covers 6 Rings $229.50 $2.295.00 Light Wt. Manhole Covers• $42.00 $420.00 Heavy Wt. Manhole Covers $48,00 $480,00 Water Tight Bolt on Covers $97.50 $975.00 SUB - TOTAL. Boot -type Sewer Cleanout with bid. $54.00 ($10.920.00 ! $1;620.00 SUB- TOTAL: $1,620,00 �r TOTAL. $14,743,20 DELIVERY: 2 WEEKS GROSS TOTAL LEE,) DISC. AIL r -r'n -r n F WHITE SUPPLY NOEO UNIT ,Y -m- J I! . 1C NO BID S $105.00 $2.625.00 $135.00 $3,375.00 $152.00 $1.520,00 $49.06 $490,00 $60.00 $600.00 $70.00 $700.00 $9,310.00 1 NO BID * ALCOR 'NOTH I NG BID. $9.310,00 30 DAYS $40.00 1 $3,200.00 $3,200-00 $126.90 1 $3,172.50 $126.90 1 $3.172.50 $209.00 $2.090.00 $66.82 $668,20 $66.82 $668.20 $104.50 $1.045.00 $10.816.40 $44.00 I $1.320.00 $1,320.00 $15,336.40 2 DAYS m 11T I EXTE;r rrc PF�rr; I $30.501 $2,440.00 $2,440.00 $72,007 $1,800.00 $87.00' $2,175.00 .$125.001 $1,250.00 $35.00 $350.00 $40.00 $400.00 $48.00 $480.00 $6,455.00 $45.00. $1,350.00 $1,350.00 Ii $10,245.00• 1 ' 4 DAYS I :,,.mac• � �a :-• i i . C�1 1 Y ur t7H r � vvvry TL E: ANNUAL CAST l RON CASTING; PAGE 2 OF 2 • B j D TQ 8 D (,., A TI o N � D: ySz2 -59 1•�nn �q 1982 COQ PM '1TE� GOLDEN TRIANGLE PIPF IMSCO �EM QTY DESCRlPT10N � un,rr r±xrENO�o uNlr ocr�NOEO urvl .—.. . . CAST IRON CASTINGS CONTINUED FROM PAGE 1, per attached specification 2 ,82 $2,065,60 NO BID $p Adjustable Valve Boxes $ 5 24'' to 36` x 5�'' "-"" SUB - TOTAL: $2 065.60 Sewer Castings a. 25 Light Wt. Manhole Rings E Covers $72.60 $1;815.00 Y 25 Heavy Wt. Manhole Rings E Covers $87.12 $2:178.00 10 Bolton Manhole Covers E Rings $123.42 51.234.20 b, 10 Light Wt. Manhole Covers $33.00 $330,00 10 Heavy Wt Manhole Covers $38.50 $385.00 10 Water Tight Bolt on Covers $55.00 $550.00 SUB - TOTAL: $6 492,20 3. 30 Boot -type Sewer Cleanout with bid. $39.60 $1,188.00 SUB- 70TAL•� $1 188.00 __�.. . TOTAL. $9.745.80 • DELIVERY: STOCK 10 DAYS CROSS ToTA L . LESS DISC. . N �., TOTA L. Iti ��L�r NO U UN17 EY.1"ENdED ;1N1]' kx lLl� �