Loading...
1982 08 12 CC Minutes, Special20812 -1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN August 12, 1982 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in special session on Thursday, August 12, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. at the northwest corner of the last entryway into Goose Creek Shopping Center from Sharon Road and in the parking lot with the following attendance: Fred T. Philips Jimmy Johnson Absent: 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 following business was conducted: Hold Public Hearing on Proposed Annexation of Goose Creek Shop Ring Center Mayor Hutto declared the public hearing on the proposed annexation of Goose Creek Shopping Center to be open. Fritz Lanham, City Manager, described the area being proposed for annexation which area was shown on a map held by members of the Administration. He also mentioned that a service plan was available for any interested person to review. Since there were no persons present who expressed a desire to speak, Mayor Hutto declared the public hearing to be closed. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk 20812 -1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN August 12, 1982 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in regular session on Thursday, August 12, 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 to approve the minutes for Council meetings held on July 22, 1982 and July 26, 1982; Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Receive Petitions There were no petitions presented. City Manager's Report Budget Work Sessions - Council set budget work sessions for Monday, August 16, 1982; Tuesday, August 17, 1982 and Wednesday, August 18, 1982 each to begin at 5:00 p.m. Council also scheduled a public hearing on the proposed 1982 -83 City of Baytown Budget for August 26 at 7:00 p.m. and the hearing on the proposed expenditure of Revenue Sharing Entitlement %IV funds for 7:15 p.m. on August 26. KYI*V a Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Entex, Inc. - Council was furnished with a copy of a letter from Entex regarding an increase in rates due to increase in cost of gas. The increase is rather modest. For a user of 5500 cubic feet which is the average for a residential user, the average increase would be $ .80 per month. It was not necessary for Council to take formal action on the increase; however, if Council elected to do so, an item would need to be placed on the next Council agenda. The last increase was in February, 1982 which was approximately $ .62. The $ .80 per month is an annualized average. Senior Citizens Taxi Program - The Administration surveys users of the Senior Citizens Taxi Program every six months when new cards are forwarded. The report indicated that the survey confirmed that the program is definitely needed and valued. Some problems surfaced which will be evaluated to determine the best solution. The city has been receiving grant funds to help maintain this program for a number of years. The city's support has been about $15,000 per year. This program is unique and other cities have made inquiries regarding this program. Street Sweeper - The new street sweeper has been delivered. The operator is involved in a training program; therefore, it will be a few days before the new sweeper is placed in service. The old sweeper will be on standby so that one of the sweepers will be in operation at all times. West Sewer District - Council was provided with a report on sanitary sewer system improvements that are underway in the West District. The plant and the lift station are ninety -seven (97%) percent complete; rehabilitation of collection system and line grouting, manhole repairs is about fifty -eight (58 %) percent complete with sixty -seven (67 %) percent of the time used which reflects that that contractor is behind schedule. Council awarded the contract for additional collection system repairs -- sliplining, point repairs, line replacement and the contractor has begun work on that. The fourth contract involving the conveyance system and the effluent force main is ninety -seven (97%) percent complete with only sixty -six (66%) percent of the contract time having been used. For the most part, the work is ahead of schedule, except for the contract with Naylor Industries (rehabilitation of collection system and line grouting). There have been problems with changes in supervision and equipment problems. The consulting engineers and representatives of the City of Baytown's Engineering Department have met with representatives of Naylor and have called their attention to the fact that the contract is behind schedule. The problem with this contract will not hold up getting the plant into operation. Community Development Project (Magnolia /Cypress Streets) - That project is ninety -six (96 %) percent complete and ninety - six (96%) percent of the time has been expended. 20812 -3 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 1982 Street Improvement Project - The contractor for the 1982 Street Improvement Project has begun that contract. Work has begun on Georgia Street - -curb and gutter has been replaced and work has begun on the base. Curb and gutter is being replaced on East Wright and Gresham, while valley gutters are being replaced on Aron Street. The contractor is working around the schools to complete those streets due to the approaching commencement of the school term. Sliplining - The 1982 Sliplining Contract - Phase I change order was approved. Pipe has been ordered to complete that change order, but it usually takes 2 -3 weeks to get delivery on this pipe. Drainage - Several projects which were underway have been completed -- McPhail area, Lantern Park area, Pecan Street and McKinney Street areas and Tri Cities Beach Road area. Jasmine is ninety -eight (9876) percent complete. The work that was being performed on the Gulf pipeline right of way has been completed. Narcille Street project is ninety (90%) percent complete and work has begun on Crow Road in the Brownwood area. Questions and Comments of City Council Councilman Cannon mentioned that two weeks ago, the City had participated in a special concentration on DWI offenses which resulted in 106 violations for DWI and 355 other offenses in the Baytown area. 'Councilman Cannon stated that he would like to see Council support a resolution to encourage this kind of concentrated effort in the future. Mayor Hutto expressed the feeling that since only three DWI's of the 106 were arrested within the City limits of Baytown, officers on regular patrol should be able to handle that situation. Councilman Johnson pointed out that the lot east of Trophy Barber Shop is being used as an automotive wrecking yard and requested that the Inspection Department check into that situation. Bob Bergbower, General Manager, Bay Area Division Operations of General Telephone Company of the Southwest, Will Appear Mr. Bergbower appeared before Council to introduce himself to the Council as the new General Manager, Bay Area Division Operations of General Telephone Company of the Southwest and Mr. Hardy White, the new Division Manager for the Baytown area. Hear Report on Billboards Larry Patterson, Assistant City Manager, summarized his report to Council regarding sign ordinances (for copy of that report, see Attachment "A"). After Mr. Patterson's summarization, Councilman Fuller stated that the City of Baytown does not have a specific ordinance which addresses signs (billboards) and their effect on the future of Baytown and esthetics of the City. He mentioned as an example a tremendous billboard has been located very near a residential 20812 -4 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 area and signs are in existence to promote businesses which are now out of business. There are problems with safety. Councilman Fuller encouraged input from organizations such as Clean City Commission and the Beautify Baytown Association regarding signs. Mayor Hutto suggested that Council request that the City Attorney develop an opinion as to exactly what Council's authority would be regarding signs and their placement. Council can then better determine what action to take. Council had no objections. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Patterson stated that currently the inspection department is involved in the issuance of permits for erection of signs. However, that department's regulation is restricted to structural matters. Mr. Lanham pointed out that the city does not control location of these signs. The only restriction is. structural. There are no restrictions for portable signs except those signs canner be installed on city rights of way and the police department does enforce that restriction. Mr. Lanham stated that the Administration would prepare a report for Council on the authority of Council in this regard. Hold Public Hearing on Proposed Annexation of Goose Creek Shopping Center (7 :00 p.m.) Mayor Hutto called to order the public hearing on the proposed annexation of Goose Creek Shopping Center. Mayor Hutto stated that everyone in attendance who desired to testify at this hearing should sign the register provided in the hallway since this register would be used to provide the speaking order for the hearing. The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from interested parties concerning the proposed annexation. The City Manager described the area proposed for annexation as shown on a map posted in the Council Chamber. He mentioned that when San Jacinto Mall was annexed, Council annexed a portion of the property on which the Goose Creek Shopping Center is being constructed. A portion of the center is within the city limits, but the back portion is not. The center is interested in having city services and the center has complied with the City of Baytown's building regulations. A little under six acres of land is involved and a service plan was available for review. In response to an inquiry from Council, the City Attorney stated that in the original annexation of Garth Road, approxi- mately 240 feet of Sharon Road was annexed. None of Sharon Road is included in this annexation. However, there is a lawsuit pending to determine the status of the roadway whether the road is a public or private roadway. Harris County is the primary party to that lawsuit, but the city is also included as a party. Since there were no persons present indicating a desire to speak, Mayor Hutto declared the public hearing on the proposed annexation of Goose Creek Shopping Center to be closed. 20812 -5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Consider Setting Date for Hearing on Houston Lighting and Power Company's Rate Request Since the rural rate case is scheduled for August 30, 1982, the cities are attempting to hold their rate cases and make a determination prior to that hearing in order to have all information presented to the PUC during the rural rate case. Council had previously scheduled the hearings on the proposed City of Baytown Budget for 1982 -83 and the Revenue Sharing Entitlement XIV expenditures for August 26, 1982 at 7:00 and 7 :15 p.m. respectively. Therefore, Council decided to start the Council meeting at 5:30 p.m. and set the hearing on the Houston Lighting and Power Company's rate request for 6:00 p.m. Hold Public Hearing on Benefits for the Caldwell Street Assessment Program (7:15 p.m.) Mayor Hutto called the public hearing concerning the hearing on benefits for Caldwell Street Assessment Program to order. The Mayor indicated that everyone present desiring to testify at the public hearing should sign the register provided in the lobby since this register would provide the speaking order for the hearing. Mayor Hutto allowed time for those present who had not registered to do so. Mayor Hutto then asked all those desiring to speak to rise to be sworn. After the swearing of the witnesses, Mayor Hutto explained that approximately five (5) months ago, City Council initiated street improvement for Caldwell Street which was done under the State Paving Assessment Statute. The procedure was implemented, in part, due to the request of the school district for improvement of the street. The public hearing was scheduled to determine the amount of assessments to be levied against the property abutting the proposed street improvement. The city assesses the property and its owners for the special benefit that the property'is enhanced due to the improvement. For information of those present to testify, Mayor Hutto explained that the city staff would first present a brief summary of the proposed project and the special benefit in enhanced value to the abutting property. After each person is called to testify, members of the Council, abutting property owners or their representatives would be allowed to ask questions of that individual concerning their testimony. After presentation of the staff's summary, the abutting property owners or their representatives would have the opportunity to testify. Mayor Hutto requested that the City Attorney, Randy Strong, proceed with the staff's summary. Mr. Strong stated that Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -1 would levy assessments against property abutting Caldwell Street. The ordinance would make a number of findings and set forth provisions for assessment liens and the collection thereof, etc. Posted behind the Council table was a map of Caldwell Street reflecting the various property owners abutting the street and those that would be affected by the improvement. Under the State Paving Assessment Statue, cities are entitled to assess property owners abutting a street that the city improves for one hundred (100%) percent of the costs of curb and sidewalks and up to ninety (90%) percent of the costs of the actual paving. As required by 20812 -6 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 State statute, the City of Baytown has provided notice of this hearing on benefits for Caldwell Street and In that notice the estimated total costs was shown as $29.69 per front foot and the total maximum assessment that would be possible under the Statute based on that cost would be $26.87. The City Attorney had in his possession a copy of an affidavit by the City Clerk stating that notices were published in the Baytown Sun and were also mailed to all the abutting property owners as listed on the City of Baytown Tax Rolls which is required by State statute. The City Attorney called Mr. Jim Hutchison with Busch, Hutchison & Associates to describe in more detail the actual improvements to be done and the calculations in determining the costs. Jim Hutchison verified that the memorandum which the City Attorney had furnished to City Council was the document which he had personally prepared. Mr. Hutchison reported that the proposed project would consist of approximately 1700 linear feet of pavement; 29 feet back to back of curb with a curb section six inches high on both sides of the street. The improvement is to extend from the intersection of Caldwell Street and Post Oak Drive to Robin Road. Also, included in the project is about 900 feet of storm sewers which are not subject to assessment. Under state law, one hundred (100 %) percent of the curb costs is assessable. The successful bidder for this project, Able Services, Inc. had bid $1.50 per linear foot for curb. Ninety (900) percent of the costs may be assessed for pavement. This includes . concrete pavement, reinforcing steel, excavation and lime stablization of the subgrade. Assessement rate is calculated by the total of the costs of pavement times 1/2 the width of the street times ninety (90 %) percent divided by the total square yards in the project divided by nine (9) square feet per square yard. This equals to an assessment rate of $31.53 for pavement or a total maximum assessment of $33.03 per front foot. Mr. Hutchison clarified that the discrepancy between what had been posted in the notice and what had been included in his figures tonight was the inclusion of the lime stablization of the. subgrade which was not included in the original estimate. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Hutchison stated that the drainage area was calculated when drainage work in the Robin Road area was performed. The size of the pipe necessary for Caldwell, as well as the run -off structures were calculated at that time. The City Attorney called Gerald Teel, Independent Real Estate Appraiser, who had performed the appraisals of the various properties abutting Caldwell Street to determine enhanced benefit to those properties as a result of the improvement program. Mr. Teel stated that he had inspected the project and taken into account the effects of the project and what special benefits might accrue to those properties along the frontage. A study was made of lots in the Baytown area that.are fronting on asphalt paved thoroughfares versus those lots which are currently fronting on concrete thorough- fares with curbs. Also, the appraiser looked at some thoroughfares that are concrete without curb. Homes that have sold in the Baytown area which do not have the benefit of concrete pavement and curb were compared to homes that were sold without that benefit to ascertain what differences there might be in value. Assessments were made based on front footage. 20812 -7 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Mr. Strong stated that Council had been provided with a schedule which reflected enhanced value as proposed by Mr. Teel and inquired if those figures were accurate as determined by Mr. Teel's appraisal. Mr. Teel responded that the total assessment reflected on the schedule was correct, along with the total assessment rate. However, the total assessment rate should be the sum of the Assessment Rate for curb plus the Assessment Rate for pavement. Due to a typographical error, on the first page, Item Nos. 2 -6 should reflect $1.00 for Assessment Rate for curb and $19.00 for Assessment Rate for pavement. In response to an inquiry from Council regarding the basis for the churches and school receiving no benefit, Mr. Teel responded that the churches and the school have primary access from other thoroughfares which have already been improved. Therefore, to improve access to those tracts' back will provide no special benefits to those tracts. Councilman Johnson stated that the school had instigated the improvement and now the school would not be assessed, while all those property owners fronting on Caldwell would be assessed. Councilman Cannon inquired if the school had paid an assessment on Wye Drive. Mr. Teel clarified that he had not assigned "no benefit" because those tracts were church property or school property. He had looked at all the properties to determine the real estate value due to the improvement of the street. The decision is made on frontage, primary access, secondary access and what access those properties had before and after said improvement. In the case of the Stuart Center on Wye Drive, that was their primary access and that property benefited from that improvement. Councilman Fuller pointed out that with the improvement there is a potential value to the property. In the future, if the church dissolved and the property is available to sell, the potential value of that land has been enhanced by the pavement and curb. Mr. Teel responded that each of the three tracts in his opinion would still have primary access from another thoroughfare. Even for potential use, the enhancement is still not there. Mr. Lanham mentioned that the school has agreed to pay a portion of the cost at the $5.00 per front foot rate-since the school property is side abutting. Mr. Teel explained that side abutting property was assessed at twenty -five (25%) percent of the one- hundred (100 %) percent rate. Mr. Lanham stated that using that figure, the total assessment for the school would equate to $5,567. Mr. Strong reiterated that the State statute provides that cities may assess up to ninety (90%) percent for pavement which would be.,th_e $26_.87 per front foot on pavement and then the statute states in another place that the Council shall consider the enhanced benefit to the property. The ninety (90%) percent is simply the maximum. Council is 20812 -8 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 free to adopt a lower figure. Mr. Teel's testimony reflected what.the increase in value would be to the various abutting properties as a result of the pavement. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham stated that on previous assessment projects, the city assumed responsibility for the difference between the assessment and the actual cost of the project. In recent years, the city's share has been seventy- five.(75 %) percent of the total costs including storm sewer and those things that are not assessable. The City Attorney stated that as an example, on Tract No. 2, the enhanced benefit would be the $20.00 per front foot total. Mr. Hutchison has testified that the costs to the city will be approximately $33.00 per front foot; therefore, the city would be paying the other $13.00 per front foot. The City Attorney stated that the total assessment according to the proposed assessment roll equals $20,351.95, exclusive of the school property. Total cost for the project is $176,570. The City Attorney clarified that the proposed assessment roll as recommended by Mr. Teel would be correct if the Assessment Rate for curb on Item Nos. 2 -6 were changed to $1.00 and Assessment Rate for pavement on those same items were changed to $19.00. Mr. Teel verified that that would accurately reflect appraisals made of the property. Councilman Fuller pointed out that the school and churches get the benefits of the improvement, but do not have to underwrite any of the costs. Councilman Cannon reminded Councilman Fuller that the school had voluntarily agreed to the assessment. Councilman Johnson inquired if the churches could be assessed even though the appraiser indicated that there is no benefit. The City Attorney responded that City Council is authorized by State statute to assess up to ninety (90 %) percent, but the statute stated that Council is to take into account enhancement of the property. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Lanham stated that he had been contacted through the years by persons who own property along Caldwell with regard to having the street improved. Some of those persons were willing to discuss assessment, but at the time there was not sufficient development to make the project feasible. The policy for assessment requires that sixty (60%) percent of the property owners request pavement. At that time, there was not that much development. Ronald H. Haney, 506 Red Bud, inquired what assessment amount would he be facing. Mr. Lanham responded that Mr. Haney's assessment would be $5.-00 per front foot because the Haney property sides on Caldwell Street. Mr. Haney stated that what he would have to say pertains mainly to common sense. In looking back, there has been a history of attempts to get the street paved with little sucesss, but now there is a situation where a junior high school is-being constructed and it is to the benefit and at the request of the school that the street is being constructed. 20812 -9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Therefore, it is difficult for Mr. Haney to separate in his mind, the impact on the value of his property with the junior high school located in a very close proximity and the street being paved. Mr. Haney stated looking at those two items as one event, he could not s.ee where he is receiving enhanced value because of the close proximity of the junior high school and increased traffic. He would have a difficult time seeing that the combination would enhance his property. Mr. Haney pointed out that when he had his home appraised to receive a loan from the bank, there was no mention on the appraisal concerning the street nor that the appraisal was any less due to the fact the home was on an unpaved street. In conclusion, Mr. Haney stated that he could not see that the two events combined -- the construction of the school and the paving of the street would cause his property to be enhanced at all and in the past on appraisals on his home and other homes in the area, there has never been any subtraction noted on the appraisal because Caldwell Street did not happen to be paved. T. C. Heisig and R. J. Reed, St. Pauls Methodist Church, appeared to state that they represented St. Pauls Methodist Church and were in full agreement with the appraiser that the church would receive no benefit from the improvement to Caldwell Street and expressed the hope that Council would consider this. Mr. Heisig stated that an assessment would result in a financial strain on the church since at this time the church is involved in a small expansion. The main direction for added construction in the future is going toward Bayway Drive and not toward Caldwell. Therefore, Mr. Heisig and Mr. Reed respectfully agreed with the appaiser and stated that the church felt that the property would not be enhanced at this time, nor even in the future. Mr. Lanham inquired if St. Pauls Methodist Church had paid an assessment when Post Oak was improved several years ago to which Mr. Heisig responded in the affirmative. Mr. Reed stated that St. Pauls Methodist Church certainly wanted to pay its fair share of whatever is happening in the City of Baytown, but the church is really satisfied or convinced that the improvement to Caldwell would not enhance the church's property in any manner. Very few people access the property by Caldwell. The church has access to Redbud and Bayway Drive. The church does not object to the paving, but at this time, the church feels that the improvement does not provide enhancement to the church property in its use or intended use. Mr. Reed commented that had the church known what to do, members would have appeared to discuss the previous assessment, but as it turned out the assessment hearing slipped past some of the church's administrators and by the time the church was fully aware, assessment statements were mailed. Therefore, the church felt that since they were unaware, the assessement was valid and the money was borrowed to pay the assessment off. In fact, Mr. Reed noted that the church may still be paying on that note. The other thing that Mr. Reed inquired about was of a technical design and that is on Post Oak the curb is higher than the church property which causes water to run down the church property and stand. Therefore, Mr. Reed inquired if elevation of the curb will be such that the church's property will drain? Jim Hutchison who was still in the audience explained privately to Mr. Reed what was being proposed. 20812 -10 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Bobby Zahn, 405 Caldwell, stated that he has approximately 356 feet of which 215 is side abutting and 141 is front abutting. He mentioned that he did have a 10 to 20 foot utility easement to the back of his property for which he understood he would be assessed. Mr. Zahn mentioned that for the past month there had been tractors on the easement and for all practical purposes the easement is of no use to him. There is a driveway to the rear end of the school which will probably produce more traffic on Caldwell. Mr. Zahn stated that with the school located there, probably the sale of his home would be tied to a young couple. Another point made by Mr. Zahn was how was the assessment to be paid. He stated that he realized that the improvement would help his property and that he should pay for some of it. Another thing that concerned Mr. Zahn was safety. He stated that he had been dwelling on the corner for approximately one year. The corner is very dangerous and there is a need for stop signs at that location. Mr. Zahn stated that he would like to see the assessment be less than $20.00 per front foot. He stated that he had figured his to be about $4,000. Mr. Lanham stated the assessment would be $3,894. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Zahn stated that the easement he had referred to was a utility easement for water, sewer, cable television, etc. He mentioned that there was a tractor out there along with a crew last week. The easement was dug up and filled. The crew is back out again. The crew had been televising a line for sanitary sewer problems. Mr. Zahn said that he had contacted the City regarding the assessment against the easement and he was told that he would have to pay for enhancement to the easement too because he could use the surface of the easement. All easement rights were granted for the south side of the property. The City Attorney explained that the manner in which payment is to be made for the assessment is covered in the proposed ordinance levying assessment. The homeowners may come in and pay the entire amount immediately or they may elect to pay in six equal installments, the first payable within 30 days after completion of the project and then five annual installments after that at eight (8%) percent interest on the unpaid balance. Mr. Lanham stated that in the case of alleys, the city levies no assessment; however, there has been no case where allowance has been granted for easement. It is unusual for all the easement to be granted from one side. Councilman Cannon stated that the Traffic Committee would probably prefer to wait until the street is improved to consider stop signs for -that location. Mayor Hutto stated that perhaps some consideration could be given to the easement portion of the assessment. Mayor Hutto inquired if Molly Zahn wished to speak. Mrs. Zahn did not wish to speak. Michael R. Wise, 509 Post Oak, requested clarification as to what the assessment on his property would be. 20812 -11 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Mr. Lanham responded that Mr. Wise would be assessed $5.00 per front foot for 162 front feet or approximately $810 total assessment. Mr. Wise stated that he was happy to hear that the churches and school had come forth and agreed to pay a portion of the costs. Mayor Hutto stated that only the school had indicated a desire to pay a portion of the costs. Mr. Wise stated that he agreed with Councilman Fuller that later the value of the improvement would provide an enhancement to the church properties and the school if the land were to be sold and main access would be off Caldwell Street. Mr. Wise stated that he felt it to be unfair for the school and the churches to receive no assessment. He felt that everyone should bear the burden of the costs. Mr. Wise . stated that he was skeptical as to how comparisons of a bunch of houses in Baytown with paved roads and those without could be used to form a general factor. It appeared to Mr. Wise that each represents a special case when being presented for sale and there are other things to be considered other than whether the front street has pavement. Bill Lucas, 305 Caldwell, stated that he has resided in the area since October 27, 1972, and that he had tried on numerous occasions to get the street paved, but had been unsuccessful. Even though over half the property owners had signed a petition for improvement, the owners who signed did not own over half the front footage of the property. Mr. Lucas stated that the project could have been performed nine years ago for a fraction of the costs that must be paid today. Mr. Lucas stated that taxes on property along Caldwell have not been reduced because that property is along an unpaved street. He also pointed out that the City of Baytown has probably expended enough money on caliche, oiling and patching, to have paved the street. For this reason, Mr. Lucas stated that he felt this to be false economy. He stated that he realized that Council was limited by what the laws and ordinances would allow, but he felt that Council should consider dollars for dollars sake. Mr. Lucas stated that he did not feel that-his house would sell for more money simply because it was located on a paved street. However, he did agree that the street needed to be paved. He mentioned that the entire City of Baytown voted in a bond issue for the street to be paved and he did not feel that the residential owners should be assessed for more than one - third the cost of the paving. It was Mr. Lucas' understanding that in other areas where property owners had been assessed, property owners on each side of the street were assessed one -third and the city assumed one -third of the responsibility. Mr. Lucas inquired if it will cost $29.00 per front foot to pave the street, why should he be assessed $26.00 per square foot for that pavement. He was especially concerned since an effort had been made to get the street paved back when the costs were within reason, but the request was denied. Councilman Cannon pointed out that the figures indicate that the property owners will be assessed less than one - third. Mr. Lanham explained that, by law, the maximum possible assessment must be used for notice purposes. 20812 -12 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Mayor Hutto reiterated that the notice, by law, must contain the maximum assessment allowed, but Council may assess below that amount. Robert Snoek, 303 Caldwell, stated that he has been a resident at this address for eight years and that he had signed the petition presented by Mr. Lucas. Mr. Snoek stated that when he purchased his lot and constructed a home on Caldwell, he felt that over a period of time, people would move in and a street would be constructed. After the house was constructed, Mr. Lucas informed Mr. Snoek that he was just'out of luck because churches and whatever, owned sixty (60 %) percent of the property. Mr. Snoek stated that the owners of property along Caldwell have experienced a very bad time from pot holes and the street being in a state of disrepair. He also indicated that when it was time to pay taxes, there was no discount for residing along an unpaved street. Mr. Snoek stated that he purchased the lot next door to clean it up and beautify it since it had become overgrown and a haven for mosquitoes, Now, Mr. Snoek will have two assessments along the improvement and he feels that the improvement of the street will not enhance the property over what he has already paid. As far as the churches, Mr. Snoek felt that the churches do have a right of way facing the street and therefore, should be assessed. Mr. Snoek stated that the property in front of his property belonged to the Episcopal Church which lot is in a neglected state. Mr. Snoek concluded by stating that he was not anxious to see the school located there and that the school would use Caldwell Street. Mayor Hutto inquired if there were others present in the audience who had not had the opportunity to sign the register to speak at the hearing. There was no response. Councilwoman Wilbanks stated the she felt that some numbers needed to be clarified since various figures were discussed. She asked if Council adopted the proposed assessment, including the total that the school has agreed to pay for having side abutting property, what percentage would that represent of the total project? The remaining percentage then would be picked up by the city. -Councilman Cannon stated that that would represent 14 -15% of the project. Mr. Lanham stated that the figure would be about $23,800 or $23,900 versus the total cost. of the project which is $176,570, plus engineering and inspection would bring the costs close to $200,000. Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that she had figured that the assessment factor would be 13.5% paid by property owners and 86.5% by the city. Mr. Lanham stated that that was correct. Mrs. Wilbanks asked that the Administration clarify what figures are correct. The City Attorney clarified that the maximum assessment that Council can levy is $26.87 per front foot, and because that is the maximum, that is what is included in the notice. 20812 -13 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Mr. Lanham added that he was unaware of the city ever having a 1/3 / 1/3 / 1/3 policy. However, that policy could have been in existence at one time. He went on to say that the projects with which he is familiar are Oak Addition, Garth Road, North Main, New Jersey, Ward Road, Post Oak, and Wye Drive. All of those were based on an assessment similar to the proposed assessment for Caldwell. Cities through the years have had the 1/3 / 1/3 / 1/3 policy and Baytown may have had. Councilman Cannon stated that he could recall that type policy having been discussed. Mr. Lanham stated that in some of the cases mentioned, particularly if the streets were residential, the assessment could have worked out to be 1/3 / 1/3 / 1/3. Councilman Simmons mentioned that it had been indicated that in the bond issue Caldwell Street Improvements had been included and inquired if that was correct. Mr. Lanham stated that Caldwell, along with Rollingbrook were listed as streets for which bond funds would be used. Councilman Simmons inquired since part of the costs of the improvements are to be raised through assessment, if the remainder would be paid by bond funds. Mr. Lanham responded in the affirmative. Mayor Hutto inquired how the school had arrived at the agreed lump sum. Did the school use the $5.00 for side abutting rate? Mr. Lanham responded that that was correct -- side abutting at $5.00 per front foot. Mr. Lanham indicated on the map which parcels represent the $5.00 per front foot assessment, those representing no benefits and the $20.00 per front foot assessments. Mr. Lanham inquired if there was a church that fronts on Robin Road as he pointed to the map. Mr. Lucas stated that the church fronts on Caldwell Street and the church hasn't even bothered to cut underbrush. Mr. Lucas stated that he had had a mosquito problem until the school decided to construct Baytown Junior School. Another thing that Mr. Lucas mentioned was that next door to his property is a vacant lot that belongs to Mr. Bill Hart which is grown over and is mosquito infested. He stated that he would like to see those areas cleared. Councilman Cannon stated that he would like to have the addresses at a later time. Councilman Cannon inquired if the church fronted on Caldwell to which Mr. Lucas stated that the church fronted on Robin Road. Councilman Johnson inquired if the majority of the people who reside along Caldwell Street want the street paved. Mr. Lucas responded that evidently the majority of the people in Baytown wanted the project done or they wouldn't have voted it in the bond issue. 20812 -14 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Councilman Philips stated "Really the sense of the thing is that you want it done." Mr. Lucas stated that he wanted the project done. However, it was a matter of why wasn't it done ten years ago. Councilman Johnson responded that Mr. Lucas knew why it wasn't done. Mr. Lucas inquired how much in reduced taxes-had he paid in the last ten years because he lived on an unpaved street. Councilman Johnson responded that his taxes would probably increase since the property is going to be improved. Mr. Zahn stated that on frontage feet, he was going to be paying $20.00 to look at the back of the school and the school would be looking from there back at his place for $5 per running foot because his property is being improved. He continued that if the Episcopal church is being assessed, the school and everyone should be. He added that he could understand in real estate why one might consider side abutting property, but as a homeowner and for $3,894, he certainly didn't want to look at it in that manner. Councilman Johnson stated that his personal feeling is that everyone should be assessed along the same lines. He felt that if residential property is being assessed $5.00 along the side street, the Episcopal church, the Methodist church, everyone out there should be assessed $5.00 along the side street or back street. He stated that he couldn't get into his mind that curb and gutter would not enhance the property. Councilman Cannon stated that he agreed with Councilman Johnson wholeheartedly, but Council had expert testimony that there was no enhanced value to the churches. Mayor Hutto said that he felt that Mr. Teel would be the first to admit that if Council were to get two more appraisals, Council may get different opinions. Mr. Lucas inquired if the truck route would enhance property values, because that is what it would be - -a truck route for deliveries to the school. Councilman Johnson stated that that could be remedied. Mayor Hutto inquired if anyone else had any testimony to offer. No one responded; therefore, Mayor Hutto closed the public hearing on benefits for Caldwell Street Improvement. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Levying Assessment for Caldwell Street Improvements The City Attorney explained that the ordinance was blank with regard to assessment rates and that it would be up to Council to make that determination. 20812 -15 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Councilman Johnson moved that the assessment rate be that all frontage and side abutting properties be assessed the same amount including churches and school. Councilman Simmons inquired if Councilman Johnson was saying that the school and churches would be assessed $5.00. Mayor Hutto stated that Councilman Johnson needed to specify a rate. Councilman Johnson specified that the rate was to be $20.00 per front foot for property fronting on the project and $5.00 per front foot for side abutting property which would include the churches and school. Randy Strong, City Attorney, in order to be certain inquired of Councilman Johnson if the churches and school were to be assessed at the rate for fronting property at the full $20.00 or for side abutting at the $5.00 rate. Councilman Johnson responded that the churches and school were to be assessed at the $5.00 rate; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. Councilman Philips inquired if this meant that the assessment was to be $5.00 per front foot for everyone. Mayor Hutto stated that the $5.00 would only apply to all property siding on the street. The City Attorney stated that because he needed exact information, he inquired of Councilman Johnson if on the proposed roll Parcel Nos. 1 -12 total assessment would remain as proposed, with Parcel Nos. 2 -6 being changed to reflect the $1.00 and $19.00 and Parcel Nos. 13, 14 and 15 would be assessed at $ .25 per front foot for curb and $4.75 per front foot for paving; Councilman Johnson verified that that would be correct. Councilman Fuller pointed out that Council still did not resolve the utility easement question. Mr. Lanham stated that he suspected that the Haney and Wise property would be similarly affected and inquired of the City Attorney if the assessment roll could be amended later. The City Attorney stated that he would need to research the matter, but he felt that probably Council would not be able to amend the assessment roll later without holding another public hearing. The City Attorney suggested that if Council desired not to assess the easements at all, that an amendment be added to the roll, that the easements containing front footage would not be assessed and the roll should be adjusted to reflect that. The staff will go back and calculate that and adjust the roll accordingly, but the statement will be added to the roll that easements will be assessed at zero. Both Councilmen Johnson and Simmons concurred that that should be included as part of the motion. The vote follows: 20812 -16 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3432 AN ORDINANCE LEVYING ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY ABUTTING CALDWELL STREET AND THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY FOR THE PAYMENT OF A PART OF THE COST OF IMPROVING AND PAVING PORTIONS OF THAT STREET; PROVIDING FOR THE TIME WHEN SUCH ASSESSMENTS BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE, THE RATE OF INTEREST, AND FIXING A CHARGE AND LIEN AGAINST SAID PROPERTY AND MAKING SAID CHARGE A PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OWNING PROPERTY ABUTTING CALDWELL STREET; AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENTS. Discuss Driveway at 705 E. Lobit Councilman Cannon stated that he realized that Council had addressed this problem in the-past; however, the problem was never resolved. Mayor Hutto mentioned that he had looked at the situation and it appeared to him that there was an unusually high slope to the drive that contributed to the problem. There is a high slope with a flat sidewalk and then another slope. Councilman Cannon felt that the City should consider placing a pipe or participating with Mr. Burrough's on redesign of the driveway. Mr. Lanham stated that he would prefer that Council consider participating with Mr. Burrough's because placement of pipe destroys an asphalt street. Councilman Cannon stated that perhaps the city could consider participation with those persons having similar difficulties. Mayor Hutto inquired if Councilman Cannon was speaking of pouring a completely new driveway and pointed out that probably most of the people would want a new driveway. He also pointed out that in some of the new subdivisions cars drag and asked where would the city stop. Councilman Cannon replied that if cars were dragging in new subdivisions, the city has adopted the wrong standards for streets. Councilman Philips stated that it was very difficult for him to see that a minor layer of pavement would cause the problem to suddenly manifest itself and that he rather suspected that the problem is that the man changed vehicles. Councilman Cannon responded that he did not feel that it was a minor overlay. The street is high compared to the curb and he felt it would be unfair not to participate. 20812 -17 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Mr. Lanham, in response to an inquiry from Council, stated that the City had discontinued the policy of placing pipes in driveways because the pipes became stopped which forced water out onto the asphalt street and that damaged the asphalt. Persons requesting the piping would usually indicate that the pipe would be kept clear, but that was not the case. Mayor Hutto suggested that the Administration develop cost figures to correct the problem and report back to Council. Mayor Hutto called a ten- minute recess. When the meeting reconvened, the following business was transacted: Consider Preliminary Engineering Report on Construction of 2,000,000 Gallon Elevated Water Storage Tank Representatives of Bovay Engineers, Inc. reviewed the Preliminary Engineering Report for construction of a 2,000,000 gallon elevated water storage tank in the northeast section of the city with Council. Included in the bond program was $2,100,000 for this purpose. Bovay Engineers concluded from their study that the best location for the tank is on the high ground near the intersection of Spur 201 and Highway 146. This location is also near the intersection with a 12- inch main that runs along Spur 201 and a 12 -inch main coming up Highway 146 from the south which will provide the best access into the distribution system. The engineers' study indicated that a 2,000,000 gallon multiple leg tank_could be constructed at an estimated cost of $1,921,000. Upon authorization by Council to proceed, the next steps would be negotiation for site selection with the understanding that soil borings and topographic surveys would need to be performed; acquisition of the site, preparation of detailed plans and specifications and authorization to advertise for bids. In response to inquiry from Council, the engineers stated that no detailed study had been performed regarding faulting in the area of the proposed site. Councilman Fuller indicated that studies had been performed and that that information was readily available. Also, Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works /City Engineer, explained that the State requires that cities maintain in elevated storage one - half the daily water service. Last year Baytown used 8,000,000 gallons per day; therefore, 4,000,000 gallons of elevated water storage is needed. Along with present elevated storage capacity, the 2,000,000 tank capacity will provide adequate storage for the present and at least two years into the future to meet State requirements. Councilman Fuller moved to accept the report and authorize the Administration to place an item on the next Council agenda to proceed with site selection; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 20812 -18 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Consider Proposed Resolution, Adopting Facility Plan and Environmental Informat-ion on 'East' Sewer District The City Manager explained that Proposed Resolution Nos. 813 and 814 are the resolutions that the Administration had informed Council would need to be considered following the hearing that was held July 22. In the report, there were two alternatives for the proposed improvements in the East District. Alternative 2 is the one that is being recommended. Phase I of Alternative 2 includes 1983 construction of the sewer system rehabilitation and lift station, with Phase II being deferred until the 1988 -89 period (the enlargement of the East District Plant). The estimated cost of what is being recommended is $1,726,000 and if federal money is obtained, the local share will be $452,000. Basically, Phase I of Alternative 2 would provide sliplining and would include an additional pump in the Woodlawn Lift Station; replacement of the Rosewood Lift Station and the James Street Lift Station and would include a new effluent force main from Woodlawn Lift Station back to Kilgore Road and then up Kilgore Road to tie into the existing 30 inch gravity sewer at Kilgore and Ward Road. At the present time, the city has only one force main out of that lift station that goes up Narcille and empties into Ward Road at Narcille. The city has experienced some backing up problems in that area so this would relieve that force main and divert the sewage into a large gravity sewer. There will also be a small trunk sewer from East James Street into the Woodlawn- Lift Station. Woodlawn Lift Station now receives flow from an 18 -inch gravity sewer and an 8 -inch gravity sewer, but coming into that 18 -inch is one 18 -inch and a 15 -inch line which results in backup. That is basically the 1982 -83 program which the city hopes to have funded under the EPA Construction Grant Program. The subsequent program in 1988 -89 would be modifications and additions to the East District Sewer Plant which time span would be altered according to growth. That program would add an additional clarifier to the existing facility and an additional chlorine contact basin. The plant has been laid out and arranged for expansion. Head works would be added which are similar to the head works at the West District plant and then there would be a conversion of the physical chemical unit into another use in the process. Nothing will be abandoned. All the structures will be reused. Mr. Langford explained that this would complete Step 1 services which is preliminary planning. These reports will then be submitted to the State and subsequently to the EPA by the State for review and approval. Fifteen letters of notification have been forwarded to various federal and state agencies. Langford Engineering has received reply from only one agency requesting a copy of the documents. Other agencies have received the letter with no comment. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of Resolution No. 813; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 20812 -19 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 RESOLUTION NO. 813 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, ADOPTING A FACILITY PLAN AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL IN- FORMATION DOCUMENT FOR THE EAST SEWER DISTRICT FACILITY PLANNING AREA FOR THE CITY OF BAYTOWN. Consider Proposed Resolution•, Adopting Time Schedule for East Sewer District Improvements Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the resolution; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 814 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, RESOLVING THAT THE EAST DISTRICT SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE COMPLETED PURSUANT TO THE LAWS, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1981, PUBLIC LAW 92 -500; AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION; AND FURTHER RESOLVING THAT NO CHANGE OF THE SCHEDULE WILL BE AUTHORIZED WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES AND THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding the Contract for the 1982 Sanitary Sewer Sliplining, Phase II, Job No. 8207 -21 (Roseland Oaks, East Texas, and East James Avenue) The Administration recommended to Council that the proposed ordinance be adopted which would award the bid to the second low bidder, Shur -Flo, Inc. The reason for this recommendation is that Naylor Industries, Inc. is behind on an existing contract for the West District. The work on the existing contract is fifty -eight (58 %) percent complete, with sixty -seven (67%) percent of the time having been expended. There have been problems with keeping the required number of workers and supervisors on the job. The city's costs are greater on jobs that are behind schedule because the city must pay an inspector. The Administration has spoken to Shur -Flo and has been assured that work will begin on the contract within two weeks of notification of award. The Administration recommended that the award of the contract for 1982 Sanitary Sewer Sliplining, Phase II, be awarded to Shur -Flo for the bid amount of $135,535. Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 20812 -20 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 ORDINANCE NO. 3433 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF SHUR -FLO, INC., FOR THE 1982 SANITARY SEWER SLIPLINING PROJECT, PHASE II, AND AUTHORIZING THE CONTRACTING OF INDEBTEDNESS BY THE CITY FOR THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY FIVE & 00 /100 ($135,535.00) DOLLARS WITH REGARD TO SUCH AGREEMENT. For tabulation, see Attachment "B." Consider Authorizing the Administration to Advertise for Bids for Steel Sheet Piling to be Used as Liner for Brush Burning Pit The brush burning pit is being operated on the island south of Highway 146 which is owned by the city. The Administration has discovered that at this site, as well as the old landfill on the east side of the city where the pit was first placed, the earthen wall is sloughing. Other cities with brush burners have experienced the same problem. The solution is to install steel sheet piling to maintain a suitable shape to the burning pit. The estimated cost for the piling is $25,000. The Administration plans are to lease equipment necessary to drive the piling and perform the work with city crews. The Administration requested permission to advertise for bids for the purchase of the piling. This piling can be removed and taken to another location in the future. Money is available in unappropriated revenue sharing funds for the amount of approximately $31,000. Prior to purchase of the brush burner, the commercial landfill was being utilized at a cost of $40.00 per load X 20 loads per day on a four day week. There is one person operating the equipment and the schedule is to burn 1 -2 days per week. Councilman Simmons moved to authorize the Administration to advertise for bids for purchase of steel sheet piling; Councilwoman Wilbanks seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Proposed Resolution, Endorsing TML Municipal Defense Program Texas Cities Attorneys' Association has been discussing a municipal defense program for almost a year. Cities are facing more and more litigation problems since the courts have continued to open the door to litigation against cities by removing exemptions that cities have had. Unfortunately, what tends to happen in many cases is that there is a lawsuit that will have a tremendous impact across the State, but it will be filed against some small city, for instance the lawsuit involving the mobile home case. In order to get all cities involved to protect all cities' interests, the Texas Cities Attorneys' Association recommended that a municipal defense program be formed. Texas Municipal League is proposing 20812 -21 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 to do that by adding one attorney to perform the task of reviewing pending litigation against cities. If a city comes up with an unusual problem, this person would act as liaison to help provide information or put that city's attorney in touch with another city attorney who may have had a similar problem. There would be a committee of city attorneys and other officials with TML who would review the actions of this person and determine if the case was important enough for TML to actually file a brief in the case, depending on the importance of the case to the cities. This program is not being set up as an avenue to try cases for the individual_ cities. The program would be a central clearing house for information where if there is a potential problem that would affect several cities, other cities in the state could offer help and participate if necessary. The cost to Baytown for this program would be about $285 per year. Councilman Cannon moved for adoption of the resolution; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 815 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ENDORSING TML MUNICIPAL DEFENSE PROGRAM, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consider Proposed Resolution, Stating the City of Baytown's Proposal posaltotBanks, and the Det rimental i rimentalEffect the Plan Would Have on the Municipal Bond Market Texas Municipal League has recommended that cities consider opposing the application of the Administration's minimum tax proposal to banks, and the detrimental effect the plan would have on the municipal bond market. The tax being proposed would require every corporation to pay minimum federal income tax of at least fifteen (15 %) percent and included in that would be interest on borrowing used to purchase tax exempt bonds which would have a significant impact on bonds that typically pay federal taxes at a very low rate, if at all. It would make municipal bonds less appealing as tax - exempt securities to commercial banks and the MFOA predicts that banks would reduce their holdings of municipal securities by at least twenty -five (25 %) percent if the law becomes effective. Therefore, there would be less competition in the market for municipal bonds. Whatever happens to interest rates on municipal bonds is paid by the taxpayers of all communities in the country.- The Administration recommended approval of the resolution. Councilman Simmons moved for adoption of the resolution; Councilman'Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 20812 -22 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 RESOLUTION NO. 816 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN STATING ITS OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD IF PASSED APPLY A MINIMUM TAX TO MUNICIPAL BONDS PURCHASED BY BANKS. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Approving Amendment to Contract with the City of Houston for Untreated Water to Change Minimum Take or Pay Provision Since the Baytown Area Water Authority has been taking water, the minimum take or pay has been 6,000,000 gallons per day which has been exceeded most of the time. Lynchburg Cedar Bayou line is expected to be placed in service within the next 2 -3 weeks so that the use of wells will be all but eliminated. For this reason the Administration felt that it would now be safe to increase the minimum take or pay. It is important that the minimum take or pay not be set too high, because all the water covered by the minimum take or pay must be paid at $ .22 per thousand, whereas the penalty for using more than the minimum take or pay is ten (10 %) percent. The Administration explained that the minimum take or pay needed to be kept low enough so that the Authority would not be paying $ .22 per thousand for a large amount of water that will not be used. The Authority would be better off paying the ten (10 %) percent penalty. The Baytown Area Water Authority Board has recommended approval of the proposed amendment. Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3434 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO'THE SURFACE WATER SUPPLY CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND BAYTOWN AREA WATER AUTHORITY; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Participation with MUD III Developer to oversize Sanitary Sewer Under I -10 at Garth Road MUD III is proposing to install a 10 -inch force main under Interstate 10 to serve their property and tie into the 12 -inch gravity flow line that is 600 feet south of Interstate 10 on Garth Road. The Administration requested that the engineers for the district take alternate bids to provide for a 12 -inch gravity sewer line to start at the end of the existing line, 600 feet south of Garth and extend under IH- 10 to the northeast corner of IH -10 and Garth Road. This would enable the city to serve other customers that may want service in the future. The difference in cost between what the MUD III developer needs and what the city would like to 20812 -23 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 have is $8,858. These funds are available in an escrow account for funds collected from customers tying onto sewer lines under the. city's current policy. The Administration recommended approval of the proposed ordinance. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3435 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT & N01100 ($8,858.00) DOLLARS TO HARRIS COUNTY MUD III AS THE CITY'S SHARE OF THE COST OF OVERSIZING A PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER LINE UNDER IH -10; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consent Agenda The Administration requested that Item "k" on the consent agenda be considered separately. Council had no objections. Council considered the Consent Agenda, Items "a" through "j" as follows: a. Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -5, will award the bid on the annual storage battery contract. Six (6) bids were received. RPW, Inc. submitted the low bid of $5,270.12. We recommend the low bidder, RPW, Inc. be awarded this contract. b. Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -6, will award the bid on the annual data processing paper contract. Nine (9) bids were received. Data Documents submitted the low bid of $6,577.70. We recommend the low bidder, Data Documents be awarded this contract. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -7, will establish a No Parking - Tow Away zone on Northwood Drive. This zone would be established as follows: Northside: from a point 350 feet east of Woodway Drive - east a distance of 98 feet. Southside: within the street easement beginning 353 feet east of Woodway Drive a distance of 115 feet along Northwood and south a distance of 50 feet. This is a recommendation of the Traffic Commission. 20812 -24 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 d. Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -8, establishes a maximum speed limit of 50 mph on Spur 55. Based upon a speed study by the Texas Highway Department, the Traffic Commission recommends this speed zone be 50 mph. e. Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -9, will remove a No - Turn restriction on N. Alexander at James Bowie. This action would remove the left lane no -turn restriction presently in effect for the northbound, N. Alexander at James Bowie. A left turn lane and signalization has been provided, eliminating the need for this restriction. The Traffic Commission recommends approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 20612 -9. f. Mr. H. H. Rosser, Acting Trustee for Life Assembly South Texas Assemblies submitted a request on behalf of the Life Assembly Church, 814 Cedar Bayo, Road, for water service. The Church into the City line along Cedar Bayou Road. the Christian of God, has Christian u Lynchburg would tap Lynchburg g. Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -10, authorizes entering into a contract with Harris County for the purchase of insecticide for mosquito control. This contract would allow the City to purchase the insecticide Malathion ULU concentrate from the County or on an as- needed basis (quantity requested). The City shall have the right of inspection before purchase and pay to the County the County's cost plus twenty (20) per cent for storage, handling, and administrative overhaul. The County will deliver this insecticide to the City. We recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -10. h. Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -11, will establish a stop intersection on Tri Cities Beach Road at Spur 55. This ordinance should establish Stops on Tri Cities Beach Road at Spur 55 and remove those that are presently established on Spur 55 at Tri Cities Beach Road. The Traffic Commission recommends approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -11. i. The City of Baytown has employed the services of Creditors Financial Service, Inc. since May of 1981. In reviewing Creditors' performance the Administration feels this would be a good time to consider changing collection agencies. The Administration is seeking Council authorization to enter into a 20812 -25 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 contract with Clegg, Brush, and Associates for said services. The payment schedule of fifty (50%) percent of collections remains the same. j. Mrs. L. R. Gregory of 510 South Road has requested sewer service for that address which is located outside the City limits. The property is located just north of the Sports Complex. The Engineering Department has verified that there is a line available to serve this address. We recommend approval of this request. Councilman Johnson moved for adoption of the Consent Agenda, Items "a" through "j "; Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3436 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF R.P.W., INC. FOR THE ANNUAL STORAGE BATTERY CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF FIVE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY & 12/100 ($5,270.12) DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance NO. 20812 -5) ORDINANCE NO. 3437 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF DATA ANNUAL DATA PROCESSING PAPER CONTRACT PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY SEVEN AND 70/100 (Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -6) ORDINANCE NO. 3438 DOCUMENTS FOR THE AND AUTHORIZING THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND ($6,577.70) DOLLARS. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ESTABLISHING NO PARKING -TOW AWAY ZONES ON NORTHWOOD DRIVE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWO HUNDRED AND N01100 ($200.00) DOLLARS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -7) ORDINANCE NO. 3439 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ESTABLISHING A SPEED LIMIT OF 50 MILES AN HOUR ON SPUR 55; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWO HUNDRED AND N01100 ($200.00) DOLLARS; PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -8) 20812 -26 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 ORDINANCE NO. 3440 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF A NO TURN RESTRICTION ON NORTH ALEXANDER AT JAMES BOWIE DRIVE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES;-CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -9) ORDINANCE NO. 3441 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH HARRIS COUNTY FOR THE PURCHASE OF INSECTICIDE FOR MOSQUITO CONTROL AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -10) ORDINANCE NO. 3442 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ESTABLISHING A STOP INTERSECTION ON TRI CITY BEACH ROAD AT SPUR 55; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; PRESCRIBING A MAXIMUM PENALTY OF TWO HUNDRED AND N01100 ($200.00) DOLLARS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 20812 -11) For tabulation, see Attachments "C" and "D." Consider Proposed Resolution No. 817, Urging Baytown Housing Authority to Assume Management of Bay' 'Terrace 'A»artmen'ts Bill Eiland, Director of Baytown Housing Authority, was present and recommended that Council adopt a resolution which would first request that Baytown Housing Authority request to be made agent for administering the Housing Assistance Payment Contract and alternatively that the Baytown Housing Authority request to be given the Management Contract for the project. Mr. Eiland felt that this would be the most reasonable manner in which to make the request since if the housing authority were agent for administering the Housing Assistance Payment Contract, the authority would have better leverage to deal with any problem which may arise with regard to the apartments. Councilman Cannon moved for the adoption of the proposed resolution encouraging the Baytown Housing Authority to maintain an active role in the future upkeep and management of the Bay Terrace Apartments, by requesting that the authority be made agent for administering the Housing Assistance Payment Contract; alternatively that Baytown Housing Authority would request that the authority be given the Management Contract for the project. Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None 20812 -27 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 RESOLUTION NO. 817 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ENCOURAGING AND REQUESTING THE BAYTOWN HOUSING AUTHORITY TAKE AN ACTIVE ROLE IN THE FUTURE UPKEEP AND MANAGEMENT OF BAY TERRACE APARTMENTS, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Discuss Traffic Signal at Decker Drive and the Baytown Olefins Plant Entrance Bill Cornelius, Director of Planning and Traffic, in a memorandum concerning signalization at Olefins and Decker Drive, indicated that that particular signal has never met the warrants used by the city for installation of a traffic signal. He also indicated that last year the State Department of Highways and Public Transporation authorized the removal of the signal at this intersection. However, in Council's deliberations last year, while reviewing all signals in the Decker Drive system, Council decided to retain the signal as it now operates. The Decker Drive System which was described as marginal last year because of the distance between signals, would be even less effective with the removal of the signal at Decker and the Baytown Olefins Plant entrance. When Rollingbrook Drive is completed, the traffic signal for Decker Drive will necessarily be reworked. Mr. L. E. Orr with the Baytown Olefins Plant requested that Council consider the 400 full time BOP employees, plus the 75 contract employees who must enter and exit at that location. He indicated that only two shifts are worked -- 6 to 6. The employees work 12 hour shifts. Councilman Cannon requested that Mr. Orr bear with Council during a month trial period to determine the necessity for the signals at that location. Councilman Cannon moved to bag both signals at that location for one month and requested feedback from BOP. Bill Cornelius requested that in lieu of bagging the signals that the staff be allowed to place the signals on flashing. Council voiced no objections. Councilman Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Appointments to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board Councilwoman Wilbanks moved that Richard Moravek, Mrs. Dennis Hancock and Ike Hall be reappointed to three -year terms on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: 20812 -28 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - August 12, 1982 Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Appointments to the Baytown Traffic Commission, Clean City Commission, Baytown Planning Commission and Baytown Area Water Authority were not made. Budget Work Sessions Councilwoman Wilbanks stated that she had mistakenly looked at the wrong dates when Council had scheduled the budget work sessions and she would not be available on. Wednesday. Therefore, Council scheduled the budget work sessions for Monday and Tuesday, August 16 and 17 to begin at 5:00 p.m. and end at 8:00 p.m. Ad ourn There being no further business to be transacted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk Attachment "A" M I E M O R A N D U M August 5, 1982 T0: Fritz Lanham, City Manager FROM: Larry Patterson, Asst. City Manage S:;"3JECT: Sign Ordinances -- A Report Several weeks ago Councilman Fuller requested the administration to review what other cities have done in regard to the regulation of billboards. Since that request, I have received.and reviewed the sign ordinances from the cities of Houston, Bellaire, Missouri City, and Fayetteville, Arkansas. It should be noted that each of these cities with the exception of Houston has zoning. The various methods of regulating signs by each of these cities, is broad in scope as well as degree of regulation. For purposes of organization, allow me to present this report in summary by regulation. Of course, I will only highlight the major regu'sations. Permits, Inspections, Enforcement Each city requires all persons wishing to erect, re- erect, construct, or alter any sign, to first obtain a permit. Of course each ordinance provides for exceptions to this requirement.. The City of Houston designates the Director of Public Works as the sign administrator. Missouri City places this authority with the Planning Director, while Bellaire and Fayetteville entrust this responsibility to the Building Inspector. These cities outline specific inspection methods, but allow exceptions in cases where signs may impose an immediate threat to life or property. Failure to adhere to the provisions of each of these ordinances usually results in punitive action which include the removal of the sign or compliance and in the City of Houston paying a fine of not less than $150 or more than $200. In Houston each day is considered a new offense. The City of Baytown under Chapter XXIII of the Southern Building Code, requires a permit on any outdoor advertising display sign. We do provide for the removal of any sign which is unsafe, not properly maintained, unlawful, or violates a location restriction or that projects over public property in a manner not prescribed by the code. The Chief Building Official is the person designated to oversee this code for the City of Baytown. Structural Requirement A. Wind Load Generally, each ordinance specifies that all signs and sign structures shall be designated and constructed to resist wind forces -as specified in their code. Usually, these specifications are designed around the relationship of the height above the ground of the sign to pounds of pressure per foot. Of course the higher the sign, the gre4ter the pressure it must withstand. These ordinances usually discuss any guy wire regulations as well. The City of Baytown in the SBC does provide for these type of requirements. B. Height and Width There are many different approaches to these type of requirements. Some of the intervening variables are the type of sign (wall sign, ground sign, marquee, etc.) or if the sign is an on premise or off premise sign. In Fayetteville, the sign's size allowed varies by its distance from the right of way. Also, ground signs and roof signs normally have requirements of how much clearance they may have. Signs along highways may be required to have height regulations in regards to the pavement surface, so as not to obstruct vision. Some communities regulate signs in relationship to the environment in-which the, sign'is erected. An example would be that in residential areas, only one sign which identifies the subdivision would be allowed at the entrance. Another example would be the prohibiting of signs along historical routes or scenic routes. M 2 The Southern Building Code does provide for the regulation of the height of signs from the ground and /or roof. In this code there are no regulations as to size of the signs. C. Other Structural Requirements There are numerous other structural requirements. For purposes of introduction these pertain to such requirements as: a. Degree of angle of V shape signs b. Distance one sign is from another C. Relationship of viewing surface to intersection d. -Electrical requirement e. Braces, wooden blocks, display surfaces f. Fire Prevention Requirements On'Premise Requirement On' premise signs are those signs which identify the business, person, service or activity,-which is sold, offered, or conducted on those grounds. Regulations on these signs are generally less restrictive than those concerning off premise signs. Usually there is a specific number of signs allowed. Size requirements normally are more generous. Off Premise Signs These signs are advertisements of goods, people, services, or products not usually located on the premises where the sign is located. Some of the regulations in regards-to these type of signs are: a. Requirement that they be located within a certain number of feet of a commercial or industrial activity. b. Residential area restrictions C. Scenic or historical area restrictions d. Spacing requirement in regards to other signs and /or natural boundaries or buildings. 3 M Exception Each ordinance does recognize a number of signs it handles as exceptions. These signs would be as follows (this is not an exclusive list): a. Temporary signs , b. Real Estate signs C. Garage sale signs d. Residential identification signs e. Traffic control signs f. Institutional signs g. Railroad signs h. -.Political signs Nonconforming Signs After each city passed ordinances regulating signs, there were a number of signs which did not conform to the ordinance. Generally a grace period of one (1) to six (6) years was given to allow these signs to be dismantled or conform to the ordinance. Zoning As previously mentioned, the majority of cities reviewed that maintain sign ordinances also had zoning. Restrictions in regard to the location of signs were very much related to the land uses as dictated by the zoning ordinances. Houston, which does not have zoning, does restrict off - premise signs to areas within.800 feet of commercial or industrial• activ -ity, which is defined as property that is restricted to use for commercial or industrial purposes, and not for residential purposes. LP:cs !TL �: ANNUAL STORAGE BATTERY CONTRACT 31D= - M TE: July 27, 1982 2:00 P. M. Page 1 of 2 CITY Or 13AYTOWN 131D 'TABULATION TED'S SUPPLY T'EM QTY DESCRIPTION UMT JE.YTEN RIrF opir ANNUAL STORAGE BATTERY CONTRACT, per specifications 1.. 24 Delco Free 8360, or' equivalent. 2. 28 i Delco Free 8960, or equivalent. 3. 1Q Mopar, 30H 4. 10 Type 41) 1 5. 20 Type 77 6. 10 Type 80 1 I U I a a� v Ca 4J 4J 44 TOTAL; DELIVERY: GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC AICT `ir1TA r R.P.W, INC. U1.117 I D'TEN 44.6o 11 1,070.40 31.66 1 759.84 54.65 ! 1,530.20 34.86 976.08 68.95 I 689.50 52.73 527.30 21.10 10211.00 99.07 990.70 56.6o 1,132,00 40.90 818.00 45.70 1,457-00 119,82 10198.20 $7,090-10 1$5,270-12 1,396.10 117.27 2 Days 62.00 ! As soon as 45.53 I 910.60 IPossible , 0 PARTS SAN JACINTO FORD t X END Q UNIT rXEE�1: rc of•,rC on or, C I OAfr; RELIABLE BATTERY i•1r c Imo° i 1 NO ]BID NO BID t , , N 55.83 s 1,339.92 53.62 1 1,586.88 64.25 j' 1,799.00 60.09 1,682.52 89.20 i 892.00 53.59 535.90 139.61 1,396.10 117.27 1,172.70 62.00 1,240.00 45.53 910.60 163.01 1,630-10 136.93 1,369'.30 $8,297.12 $6,957-90 i i 1 -2 Days 10 Days RELIABLE BATTERY i•1r c Imo° i 1 NO ]BID NO BID t , , N GITY OF BAYTOWN I TL E: 1982 Sanitary Sewer Sliplining : Phase II - B I D TA B U L ATI 0 N 31 D: ... _&(17 -a i )ATE . _,LZ. 10, 1982 @ 10 a.m. Pasadena Houston TEM QTY DESCRIPTION Na for Industries Shur —Flo Inc. KNIT EXTENDED UNIT EXTENDED PRICE PRlrE PRICE 1982 Sanitary Sewer Sliplining: 127,675.50 135,535.00 Phase II b . N E U ' a3 � r GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC. NET ! TOTA L nFi VERY Channelview Channel Constr. UNIT EXTEND DD 136,030.00 vin con Constr. IT EXTEND EC irF PRICE 170,624.80 Baytown iol_ds 6 Sons IT EX AIDED C.E._ pnorF 197085.0( TOTAL: DELIVERY: GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC. wIl, I - 7'inT•ft i $7,381.60 4 WEEKS 1 $6,627.28 *iF,b.B.HOUST 2 DAYS "' DOES NOT MEE SPECIFICATIO S $6,642.20 ; $6,666.50 $7,270.20 i } ------ 3 DAYS 2 DAYS 1 I I � ciry OF 13AYToW N ANNUAL DATA PROCESSING PAPER CONTRACT PAGE 1 OF 2 F31D TABULATION ,9828 -85 August 5, 1982 2:00 P.M. �1 CITY DESCRIPTION REGAL FORMS, INC, BOWATER COMPUTtR FORMS ENDED B & B OFFICE SUPPLY UNI X Np D REIN CO. T UNIT Ex'TE:T c7 TRINITY FORM Uri:T `— ���''- UNIT EXTENDED R �- UNIT I p c 1 )- . r 1 c p �, F el C' ANNUAL DATA PROCESSING PAPER, I per specifications. ; I � I 150,000 1 part, Standard, 14' 7/8" x I1 ", $12.04 $8.55 1 $11289.34 $8.48 1 $1,272.00 $9.45 ! $1,417.50 $11.50 $1,725.00 j 20 lb. stock i$1,806.00 { 20,000 2 part, Standard, 14 7/8" x 11 ", $29.65 i S593.00 $22.00 $443.30 $23.011 $460.00 $20.94 $418.30 $25.54 $510.80 I 15 lb. stock ' 100,000 4 part, Standard, 14 7/8" x 11 ", $47.95 $4,795.00 $47,40 $4,763.70 $47.92 I $4,792.00 i $46.92 $4,692.00 $48.644 $4,8614.00 15 lb. stock , 20,000 1 part, White, 9 ,1" x.11 ", 20 lb. S9.38 $187.60 $6.45 $130.94 $5.91 $118.20 $6.91 $138.20 $8.52 $17U stock TOTAL: DELIVERY: GROSS TOTAL LESS DISC. wIl, I - 7'inT•ft i $7,381.60 4 WEEKS 1 $6,627.28 *iF,b.B.HOUST 2 DAYS "' DOES NOT MEE SPECIFICATIO S $6,642.20 ; $6,666.50 $7,270.20 i } ------ 3 DAYS 2 DAYS 1 I I � -I TL 31D: )ATE. ANNUAL STORAGE BATTERY ' COITRACT _._..dL$.Z.: -$ 4 July 27, 1982 2:00 P.M. a%9e 2 of 2 CITY 0r BAYTOWN B!D TABULATION rEm QTY DESCRIPTION v:� r 1 UN1r Exr�ENO D UNIT EXTENDED UNIT X No D UNIT EXTE r�DD R j- PRICE P r PIMCE PrIlc1c. rrr p r^ ^�•r C = " ANNUAL STORAGE BATTERY CONTRACT, I r 1 ! per specifications 1 I .I .1. 24 ;Delco Free 8360, or equivalent 62.88 1,809.12 1 I 2. 28 Delco Free 8960 or equivalent 64.87 1,819.16 I 3 10 , � Mopar, 30H 83.40 834.00- I i I 4. 10 Type 4D 130.•54 1,305.40 5. 20 Type 77 57.92 1,1159.10 6. 1 10 Type 8D 152.42 1.524.20 $8,151.28 1 i TOTAL: I i i ' I DELIVERY: --- 1 I GROSS 7 U 1 A L LESq DISC. AIC Tn-r A I �x V1 n rL y WQ c W m 4 z �- ah0. .k o - a � m O z w M J O cn /� C) c MoMu.�'r...:. V. _j •C - o � a co W O U'% co - 3; O Ott. 0; n N N Ln co G O z ° Q. C14 <n �D sn O ^ t to U n %,� U1 ca ;- rn s cn �D Q C-) Q �a L°i1 O O N C C) W ♦D a% ^ .••. f� M O O M M n � � i.. -r I-- � ._ � %D N v z w x° W N p ^ Lf% U1 v7 U- C ` a% U1 O rz N }Q-- t/? N _- <^ Q V} N w O C7 Q CL V -D ^ ^ w Q w e X X X N J � Q•y -_ -_ -_ ,- J Z O Z d C O co l co OO - _ O F- W O LD u � r ^ z cc: E — 0 - s X CL a CL Ln 0 - - =w QLai •— ° � L L L u co co .x ro - Z y r^ u ip u t0 O N v/ F- U •.j in y N AJ a.+ N t 3 cn w V Q Q d 0. o 0. . to cn Ln V7 - O cc N Q L L L L L CL ao O a, ca O ro Ln m UY ro z si CL ^ a ^ a ^ z F-• Q ^ N - ^ Q O O Q i O O O O Z ` O O O O 3 Q� U1 N O N ci M J O cn /� C) c MoMu.�'r...:. V. _j •C