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