Loading...
1982 10 28 CC Minutes21028 -1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN October 28, 1982 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas met in regular session on Thursday, October 28, 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 Cannon pointed out that he had not been present for the special meeting held on October 14, 1982. Also, he clarified that the minutes for October 14, 1982 regular meeting, Page 6, should reflect that the request for an Attorney General's opinion was delayed in Representative Emmett's office at the request of Brockman Builders' attorneys and the City Attorney. Randy Strong, City Attorney, confirmed that one of the attorneys' for Mr. Brockman had called with some question about the manner in which the request was going to the Attorney General's office. The City Attorney had discussions with Brockman's attorney over several days and ultimately requested that the request be delayed because that is where the revised request came from. Councilman Fuller moved to adopt the minutes for the special and regular meetings held on October 14, 1982 as corrected; Coun- cilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Wilbanks, Fuller Mayor Hutto Nays: None Receive Petitions Philips, Johnson, Simmons, and Cannon The Administration did receive a petition. Item No. 6 on the agenda relates to that petition. 21028 -2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 City Manager's Report U.S. Steel Industrial District Contract - The Adminis- tration has received from U.S. Steel Corporation an executed Industrial District Contract which will be on the next regular Council meeting agenda. Council concurred that receipt of this information would preclude the necessity of continuation of annexation. Houston Lighting and Power - Council had been furnished with a copy of the letter from Houston Lighting and Power regarding cost comparisons for the months of September, October and November. This letter reflects that for the user of 1500 KWH in November, the cost will be $113.82 compared to $125.18. However, beginning in November, there will be a seasonal change in rates which is lower. The increase in fuel costs is directly related to the $17,000,000 of under recovery for fuel in August. The bill for the user of 1500 KWH will be about $12.00 less. Councilman Philips mentioned that he desired to go on record as opposing the automatic fuel cost pass through. Fuel costs are going up and in order to gain some supposed cost reduction, it is lowered abnormally one month and then recovered the next month. Councilman Philips suggested that Council needed to make an attempt to get the PUC to get the fuel cost included in HL&P's base operating costs rather than a direct pass through to the consumer. Councilman Cannon requested that the company provide Council with 6 or 7 months information on fuel costs. The company points out $17,000,000 under recovery in August. What happened in August in relation to July? Did August go up from July? If so, this makes the $17,000,000 very significant. If there was a drop from July to November that would be different. The reason Councilman Cannon desired this information was to give Council a more com- plete picture of what is actually happening regarding fuel costs. In his concluding comments, Councilman Cannon specifically requested that the company furnish Council with about an eight month run on fuel costs. Mr. Lanham inquired if that should be in the same format as it is now presented. Councilman Cannon replied in the affirmative. Councilman Philips encouraged Council to individually or collectively consider taking a position on the fuel cost pass through in order to get this matter before the PUC. He felt that with the pass through the company had no incentive to burn fuel more efficiently or to purchase the lowest cost fuel. Council requested that the Administration draft a resolution directed to the Public Utilities Commission expressing Council's opposition to the automatic pass through on fuel costs. Mayor Hutto pointed out that the Governor should be made aware of this since it is his responsibility to appoint the Commissioners. This item will be included on the agenda for the next regular Council meeting. Work Session -- General Telephone Company Representatives - Council scheduled a work session with General Telephone Company of the Southwest representatives for November 11 at 5:00 p.m. Al Chappell former Division Manager for the company in Baytown, will be making the company's presentation on Usage Sensitive Service. 21028 -3 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Missouri Pacific Railroad - The Railroad Commission has given notice that Missouri Pacific Railroad has requested authority to discontinue its agency at Baytown and make a non - agency station. Actually the office on East Texas was closed more than one year ago and the agent was moved out to Wade Road. This action will formally eliminate that position and Baytown will be served by a regional office. The company is making significant changes in its operation. The Administration felt that the city would see very little difference in operation, but indicated that the change could be protested should Council desire. Council indicated no desire to object. 1982 Street Improvement Program - The contractor is making very good progress. The contract is about sixty -five (65 %) percent complete. Caldwell Street Paving Assessment - The contractor on Caldwell has lime stabilized the remaining portion of the street, that is the part that has not had concrete poured. Sliplining - The sliplining contractor has removed the obstructions in the line on East Texas Avenue and has pulled the liner along East James near Alexander Drive. Sliplining is in progress at Danubina and East Texas. It will be neces- sary to use city crews to install about 300 feet of sewer line that cannot be sliplined because the line has deteriorated beyond the sliplining possibility. Craigmont /Ponderosa Water Line Contract - The contractor has completed about thirty -five (35 %) percent of the work. Drainage - City forces are eighty -five (85 %) percent complete on Cabaniss; ninety -eight (98 %) percent on Barcelona Circle; twenty (20 %) percent complete on the McKinney ditch at South Main Extension. Bids will be received on November 1 for Glen Meadow Subdivision Drainage Project. Second Council Meeting in November - Council scheduled the second meeting in November for Monday, November 22. Open House - West District Treatment Plant Open House was scheduled for Wednesday, November 17, 1982 between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Municipal Court Fines - Council had been furnished with a memorandum from Judge Donnelly relating to revised fine schedule for Municipal Court. The Judge had requested any comments from Council by November 1 with regard to the pro- posed revisions. Questions /Comments of Council Councilman Johnson mentioned that at 1809 Maryland the curb and street have separated which has resulted in a drop of about six inches. The Administration will check this problem. Councilman Philips reported that he and Councilman Simmons have been serving on the H -GAC Transportation Planning Committee and as a result of that, Omer Poorman has completed the last lane on Spur 330 to Bayway Drive. 21028 -4 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Consider Proposed Resolution, Commending the Wooster Volunteer Fire Department The City Manager read Proposed Resolution No. 819, commending the Wooster Volunteer Fire Department. Councilman Simmons moved for the adoption of the resolution; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Wilbanks, Fuller Mayor Hutto Nays: None Philips, Johnson, Simmons, and Cannon Mayor Hutto then presented Al Rieck and Louie Bishop with a duplicate original of the resolution. Jean Shepherd, representative fo the Brownwood Civic Asso- ciation, presented both gentlemen with plaques in recognition for their dedicated service to the community as members of the Wooster Volunteer Fire Department and Emergency Corps. RESOLUTION NO. 819 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS EXPRESSING ITS GRATITUDE AND APPRECIATION TO THE WOOSTER VOLUN- TEER FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR ITS' MEMBERS SELFLESS SERVICE TO THE CITIZENS OF BAYTOWN AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE. Consider Proposed Resolution, Commending the Business Community of the City of Baytown for its Support of the Mayor's Summer Job Program Council at its last meeting had requested that a resolution be drafted commending the business community of the City of Bay- town for its support of the Mayor's Summer Job Program. Councilman Philips moved for approval 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. 820 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN COMMENDING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FOR ITS SUPPORT OF AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE MAYOR'S SUMMER JOBS PROGRAM. Consider Request of Mission Viejo for Variance to Sidewalk Regu- lations At the last Council meeting, Council had approved variances to city ordinances for development of Mission Viejo, a planned unit development, but this one variance was overlooked. The request is to allow sidewalks to be constructed to the rear prop- erty lines instead of the front of the residences. The-sidewalks are designed to be constructed around the perimeter of the develop- ment in the common utility easement. The developer felt that this 21028 -5 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 would better serve the residents of that subdivision since the sidewalks will also serve as jogging paths. The restric- tions for the subdivision provide that anytime that the side- walk must be broken to work on utilities, the civic association is responsible for paying the costs of replacement. Councilman Simmons moved to approve the variance; Council- man Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Proposed Ordinance, Assigning Goose Creek Shopping Center to Council District No. 6 The Administration recommended approval of the proposed ordinance in order to place the newly annexed Goose Creek Shopping Center in the proper Council district. Councilwoman Wilbanks moved for adoption of the ordi- nance; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3487 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ADDING CERTAIN PROPERTY TO COUNCIL DISTRICT NUMBER SIX (6); REPEALING ORDINANCES INCONSISTENT HEREWITH; CON- TAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICA- TION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Third and Final Reading on General Telephone Company of the Southwest Franchise Council had previously approved the proposed franchise ordinance with General Telephone Company of the Southwest on first and second readings. The Administration recommended adoption of the ordinance on third and final reading. Councilman Fuller moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Wilbanks, Fuller Mayor Hutto Nays: None Philips, Johnson, Simmons, and Cannon 21028 -6 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 ORDINANCE NO. 3464 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE AND FRANCHISE TO GENERAL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHWEST, GRANTEE, AND ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, TO CONSTRUCT, ERECT, BUILD, EQUIP, OWN, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE IN, ALONG, UNDER, OVER AND ACROSS THE STREETS, AVENUES, ALLEYS, BRIDGES, VIADUCTS AND PUBLIC GROUNDS OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, SUCH POSTS, POLES, WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS AND OTHER APPLIANCES, STRUCTURES AND FIXTURES NECESSARY OR CONVENIENT FOR RENDITION OF TELEPHONE AND OTHER COMMUNICATION SERVICE AND FOR CONDUCTING A GENERAL LOCAL AND LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE BUSINESS; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION; FOR PERIOD OF GRANT; FOR ASSIGNMENT; FOR METHOD OF ACCEPTANCE; FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND FOR PARTIAL INVALIDITY. Councilman Philips pointed out that the General Telephone Company franchise is not an exclusive franchise. Public Hearing on Application for Wine and Beer Retailers and Retail Dealers on Premise Late Hours Permit for 1219 North Pruett Mayor Hutto called the public hearing on the application for Wine and Beer Retailers and Retail Dealers on Premise Late Hours Permit for 1219 North Pruett to order. All persons desiring to testify at the hearing were given an opportunity to sign the register provided in the lobby. The signers of the register were asked to stand and the oath was administered by Mayor Hutto. Mayor Hutto explained that the hearing was being conducted in compliance with Section 4.14 of the Code of Ordinances and Section 11.41 of the Alcoholic Beverage Code for the purpose of receiving evidence and public input regarding a recommendation, if any, to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission. The Mayor stated that everyone desiring to testify would be given an opportunity to do, but encouraged participants to be brief. Wayne Dean who owns Baytown Bible Book Store, 1301 North Pruett, testified that at the proposed location, previously, had been located a restaurant where alcoholic beverages were sold and that the problems were many. fir. Dean had taken the time to contact most of the neighbors, either living adjacent to or working adjacent to the proposed location. Almost with- out exception, neighbors expressed distress. There are ladies who work late at the lawyers' office, as well as the insurance agency, who stated that they would not be able to continue this practice. The noise pollution would bother the people who reside on Felton Street. Mr. Dean also pointed out that at this loca- tion, there is room to park approximately six (6) cars. There are elderly ladies who live at the Inverness Apartments who must walk to the shopping center and grocery store and would be walking past this establishment. Also, there are children who walk to and from the elementary and junior schools who would be walking past this establishment. Mr. Dean ended his presenta- tion with a plea that Council consider the objections and rule favorably on behalf of the petitioners. Mrs. John Petrash, 517 Harvey, stated that she and her husband had the interest of the young people at heart, as well as their property and their neigbors, all of whom are elderly. W 21028 -7 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Many of whom live alone and were unable to attend the Council meeting due to health reasons. She concurred with the reasons Mr. Dean had set forth. Richard Heyen, attorney for the applicants, stated that the only basis for Council to prohibit the granting of a per- mit is where that building or that place of business would be within three (300) feet of any church, school or public hos- pital. There are no hospitals, churches or public schools within three (300) feet of the proposed place of business. The hours that are proposed are from 5:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. Thus, any problem that may occur with school children going back and forth to Lamar Elementary or any other schools in the area would probably be very minimal, if any. With regard to noise pollution and other problems that could arise because of the operation of this establishment or this type establish- ment in the area, this is a commercial area even though some of the businesses don't stay open late at night. K -Mart on the corner and satellite businesses are open past 5:00 p.m. Mr. Heyen pointed out that the Branding Iron Restaurant had operated at this location for about one year with an on- premise liquor license. Mr. Heyen concluded his presentation by stating that there had been no objections made that would be recogni- zable as reason to deny the permit. In response to an inquiry from Council, Air. Heyen stated that under the lease agreement, the applicant had until Novem- ber 15 to secure a permit or the lease is no longer binding. Councilman Simmons pointed out that once a permit would be obtained, the applicant could change opening hours. Councilman Cannon pointed out that there are elderly persons who reside in the neighborhood and this place would be a problem for them. He pointed to the establishment off Highway 146 where the neighbors have complained of persons throwing objects over the fence and loud noise. Air. Heyden stated that he couldn't deny that, but at this point he felt that there was no legal grounds to deny the permit. In response to an inquiry from Council, the City Attorney explained that the Mayor has the authority to make a recom- mendation to the Alcoholic Beverage Commission as to whether a permit should be issued or not. In the past, Council has held these type hearings to give the Mayor some guidance with regard to that recommendation. He also explained that, by law, there were 15 grounds for refusal by the Commission. Section 11.46, General Grounds for Refusal, of the Alcoholic Beverage Code, states that the commission or adminstrator may refuse to issue an original or renewal permit with or without a hearing if it has reasonable grounds to believe and finds that any of the following circumstances exist. The City Attorney read the fifteen items and pointed to Item No. 8, "the place or manner in which the applicant may conduct his business warrants the refusal of a permit based on the general welfare, health, peace, morals, and safety of the people and on the public sense of decency." Mayor Hutto inquired if there were other persons present who would like to speak. Since no one indicated a desire to speak, Mayor Hutto declared the public hearing to be closed. Mayor Hutto stated that the three options were to recommend against, to recommend for or to take no action. However, Z1VZ6 -ti Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 the final determination would Beverage Commission. Council grant, only to recommend. be made by the Texas Alcoholic has no authority to deny or Councilman Johnson moved to recommend the request be denied. Councilman Johnson felt that the health, safety and welfare of the residents needed to be considered and made that part of his motion; Councilman Cannon seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Nays: None Abstained: Mayor Hutto Ed Vanegas Will Appear Ed Vanegas, representative of Goose Creek Ski Club, appeared before Council to clarify that the club was requesting sponsorship from the City with regard to an application before the Corps of Engineers. No financial support is being requested of the City of Baytown. Benefits to the city would be beautifi- cation, as well the attraction and novelty of having a Ski Exhi- bition and Tournament site within the reaches of downtown Baytown. Mr. Vanegas stated that he had previously appeared before the Baytown Clean City Commission concerning dredging the creek and distribution of the materials along the banks to further reclaim and beautify the shores of the creek. The ski club has another concern which concerns the com- munity, as well as the ski club and that is the level of pollutants in Goose Creek. The Texas Water Resources Board has documentation of samples taken from Goose Creek which show excessive levels of 66,000 parts per 100 milliliters of fecal chloroforms and even to the point of 161,000 as recent as Monday. A safe level of fecal chloroforms which are indication of harm- ful bacteria are 200 per 100 milliliters of water. In response to an inquiry from Council concerning the necessary procedure for sponsorship, Mr. Vanegas stated that the ski club would gather the necessary information and have the necessary engineering studies performed. Also, regarding the possibility of utilizing Cedar Bayou where there is already a boat ramp facility, Mr. Vanegas stated that the problem would be that Cedar Bayou is a navigable stream with barge and other boat traffic. Presently, there is no traffic in Goose Creek and there is minimal wind disadvantages at the moment. There is one individual who takes his boat to work -- George Chandler. He has been contacted and has given his support of the project. Councilman Philips pointed out that this project is of considerable size and will require a considerable sum to imple- ment. He also took exception to the statements made by Mr. Vanegas concerning the extremely high fecal chloroform count. The City Manager explained that the city had been experi- encing problems with a leaking manhole on East Texas and also, on one of the old sewer lines that had been plugged off, the plug came out and there has been some unusually high counts. Unfortunately, this is not a rare occurence. 21028 -9 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Councilman Philips pointed out that this was not the norm, but an upset condition which is subject to being con- trolled and certainly, is not allowed to persists. Mr. Lanham verified that the reports do indicate that on many occasions the stream does exceed the 200 parts per million, but Goose Creek Water Shed is very large, much of it is inside the city, but much is not. The City can con- trol the portion within the city, but cannot control that which is not. With regard to the costs of the project, Mr. Vanegas stated that the estimated total costs for dredging a channel 1800 feet long, 150 feet wide and 22 to 3 feet deep is $43,000. Councilman Johnson pointed out that Council has received a letter from a property owner in Hill of Rest Cemetery due to the close proximity of the cemetery to this project project. Also, Councilman Johnson had learned on good authority that the Hill of Rest Cemetery Association would oppose this pro- ject for some of the same reasons stated in the letter and that he personally concurred with that reasoning. The question was raised regarding reclamation of the cemetery property that had subsided and the City Attorney stated that he would have to research the matter to be certain, but he felt that the association would not be allowed by the Corps to reclaim the property. However, it was his understanding that even though the property has subsided, the property does belong to the cemetery. In response to an inquiry from Mayor Hutto concerning whether a citizen would be allowed to utilize the facility which the city is requested to sponsor, Mr. Vanegas responded he did not believe a citizen could unless that citizen became a club member. Councilman Simmons indicated that he would not be interested in supporting this venture. Councilman Fuller acknowledged that the idea would help to clean up the area, but at this time the economics appear to be out of balance to the total benefit, but one could not minimize the benefit to the city if the city had a nice lake there. The property owners and others are con- cerned with what is to be done with the spoil from the dredging. However, he felt that Council should recognize that the group is trying even though the cost ratio seems to be out of order at this point; Councilman Cannon con- curred. He felt that Council should allow Mr. Vanegas to pursue this a little further. He felt that if all that would be required of the City would be to sponsor request for a Corps of Engineers permit, that would be no problem. However, he would not favor the city's expenditure of funds for this endeavor. Councilwoman Wilbanks requested that the Administration report to Council concerning the water quality in Goose Creek, along with solutions to the problem. Susie Brown, 5100 Inverness, stated that the Corps of Engineers had been very helpful to the residents of the Brownwood area when that project was being considered. 21028 -10 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Arvill Johnson, Group W, Will Give Status Report Mr. Johnson reported that Group W was progressing very well with the rebuilding of the cable television system in Baytown. The cable should be completelyin place in the rebuilt areas by November 1. All subscribers should be on the new plant by the end of November. The company has installed additional phone lines to accomodate the citizens of Baytown in receiving com- plaints and handling of problems on a one to one basis. Addi- tional staff has been added in the technical, as well as the administrative operations. Backlog in calls has been reduced to one day. The goal is to get to one -day service on complaints. In response to an inquiry from the City Manager regarding expected completion time for new areas, Mr. Johnson stated that the turn -on time for the new system will not be far behind the rebuilt areas. Most of the new area is in place. It is just a matter of getting those turned on. The construction crew plans to be completed by the end of November with putting up the cable and splicing the turn -on. Then a wreck -out crew will come in to remove the old plant and cleanup. By the end of 1982 everyone should be on the new system with the exception of a few apartment complexes. Those have antenna systems that will not accept the full spectrum of the new service and must be worked with individually. Mayor Hutto requested that the company provide two programs for those customers who have two or more outlets. Mr. Johnson indicated that this would not be a problem. (See Page No. 21028 -11) M G1V68 -11 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Consider Withdrawing Foundation Permit for the Bay Terrace Apartments Since the item was placed on the agenda due to the urging of the Nolan Road area residents, Mayor Hutto suggested that representatives of that group be allowed to speak to the issue first. After the Nolan Road area resi- dents' representatives, the developer would be allowed to speak and then finally the representative of the Baytown Housing Authority. As there were a number of persons pre- sent who were interested in the item, Mayor Hutto suggested that each group have a spokesman. However, if additional matters could be presented by others, then additional persons could be called upon. Finally, Mayor Hutto emphasized that Council did not impose time limits on any group that appeared before Council; however, he asked that each group make an attempt to keep statements as brief as possible in the matter. After making those statements, Mayor Hutto requested that the spokesman for the Nolan Road area address Council. Ron Haddox, local attorney and representative of the Baytown Housing Authority, challenged Councilman Cannon's right to preside as a Council member due to his personal interest in the matter. Councilman Cannon inquired of the City Attorney if he would have any advice in this regard emphasizing that what the group was doing tonight he had not been a participant to and he did not feel obligated to step down from his Council place. Randy Strong, City Attorney, responded that there is no real case law or statute that he could refer to that specifically addresses that question. Mr. Strong indicated that he had researched this question for a prior meeting and that McQuillan states that the public is entitled to have its representatives perform their duties free from any personal or pecuniary interests which might affect their judgment. There is a Texas case that generally states that public policy forbids sustaining of municipal action bound upon the vote of a Council member or member of the governing body on any matter before it, which directly or immediately affects him individually. This closely parallels the con- flict of interest provisions of the Charter which only applies in instances of contracts. Council would not be empowered to require Councilman Cannon to step down; how- ever, if action of Council were ever brought into question, this would be an area where the city would be vulnerable if Councilman Cannon were to vote. This would be an area of attack - -the fact that Councilman Cannon may have had an interest in the vote, could possibly invalidate the whole action. The City Attorney stated that this opinion did represent some guess work on his part since there was not anything concrete in that area. Councilman Cannon stated that he would prefer to remain at the Council table and that he would consider the facts presented by the City Attorney if a vote were to be taken. At that time, if he felt that he had a conflict, he would abstain. The City Attorney responded that he did feel obligated to point out that Councilman Cannon's vote may be an area of weakness in Council's decision. Doug Sandvig, attorney for citizens of the Mollie Knowlton area, addressed Council with respect to whether the foundation permit for Bay Terrace Apartments should be with- drawn. In addressing that issue, Mr. Sandvig stated that the question really being confronted was whether the project that is being constructed is being constructed in a lawful or unlawful manner. If Council should feel that the project is not being constructed in a lawful, proper manner, Council should revoke the foundation permit. Mr. Sandvig stated that as Council members, each Council person was familiar 21028 -12, Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 with the project and there was no reason for him to recite a history, but there is one area that is not subject to dispute and that is that the Baytown Housing Authority has never con- ducted a public hearing on this. The reason for that is that it is the Authority's contention that the project is owned by a private company and in view of the fact that it is privately owned, it is not subject to the laws regulating public housing projects. In addressing the issue of whether the construction of the project is being performed in a lawful or unlawful manner, to get to the heart of the issue, it may need to be determined whether the Baytown Housing Authority has such a close connec- tion with this project that it is subject to the requirements of giving legal notices. The fact that a notice was given or not given is not what is in dispute. Nobody contends that the Authority gave a notice. The Authority is contending that no notice of that body was required. With respect to the Authority's participation in the project, it is their contention that it is privately owned. It is owned by a group called Brockman Builders, and as a result of that, that somehow removes the Baytown Housing Authority from any participation. When one gets right into the law with respect to housing projects, there is no requirement whatsoever that requires ownership on the housing authority. A housing project can mean any work or undertaking in the development of the housing project itself. Certainly, the Baytown Housing Authority has undertaken work and they have begun to take actions which enabled the project to continue. In fact, their connection to this particular pro- ject is so close that if you take out the Baytown Housing Authority, you take out the project. They're contending that it is privately owned, but when you get right down to it, if you subtract the housing authority from it, there is no project. It's quite simple to determine the extent of the par- ticipation of the Baytown Housing Authority. A copy of the minutes of the Baytown Housing Authority from August 19, 1982, reflects adoption of Resolution 1035. The resolution, according to Mr. Sandvig, undisputedly reflects that the Baytown Housing Authority is so closely related to this pro- ject that it becomes subject to all requirements of public housing authorities in Texas. In particular, in the preamble of the resolution is stated that whereas, Section 11(b) of the Act ( "the Act" refers to federal statutes which provide for public housing projects) provides a method for financing low- income housing projects assisted through Section 8 of the Act, which requires the Authority (Baytown Housing Authority) to consent to the designation of the Corporation (a "dummy corporation" formed by the Baytown Housing Authority to act as an instrumentality to carry out their business) as the instrumentality of the Authority, but provides that the Authority is to exercise powers of review and approval over the selection of projects, programs, expenditures, financing and other activities of the Corporation. Mr. Sandvig held that in order for HUD to become in- volved under Section 8 provisions of the Statutes which provide for these public housing authorities3participation of the Baytown Housing Authority was required. Further on in the preamble, the resolution states that whereas, the Authority and its counsel have determined that the creation, designation and utilization of the Corporation as the Authority's instru- mentality is not prohibited by the laws of the State of Texas. In other words, according to Mr. Sandvig's interpretation, this is simply a method by which to circumvent the require- ments of state law. Another statement of the resolution's preamble is whereas, pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, HUD is expected to enter into an Annual Contributions Contract with the Authority providing for the payment of housing assis- tance payments to the Owner upon the completion of the Project and its acceptance by HUD. In other words, Mr. Sandvig felt that the Baytown Housing Authority whether operating through the Corporation or not would be the entity to administer the payments and would be the entity to collect rent subsidies and disburse those subsidies to the owner. The Authority GlUGa -1J Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 would be operating the project and when the Baytown Housing Authority gets into the business of operating a housing pro- ject, that project becomes subject to the laws of the State of Texas and in those laws are the requirements that public notice be given, which that notice was never given. A further aspect that Mr. Sandvig touched on was the fact minutes of August 19, 1982 of the Authority clearly demonstrate that the Authority did not approve the project until August 19, 1982, which is clearly after the effective date of the Act requiring notice. In analyzing whether the 'dummy corporation' is the instrumentality of the Baytown Housing Authority, Mr. Sandvig pointed out that in addition to the express statement of the resolution that it is our intent and purpose to conduct our activities through this instrumentality, there is the situation where the identity of the Baytown Housing Authority consists of O. J. Howell, Pete Alfaro, David Gunn, Norma Wilder and Vernon Shields. The participants in the Baytown Properties Management and Development Corporation, referred to by Mr. Sandvig as 'dummy Corporation' are O. J. Howell, Pete Alfaro, David Gunn, Norma Wilder and Vernon Shields. There is perfect identity between the two. This privately owned corporation has issued tax - exempt bonds and the vehicle to issue tax - exempt bonds is a municipal government related device. He questioned how a privately owned company could issue tax - exempt bonds unless that corporation was strongly tied to a local governmental agency. This instrumentality or 'dummy corporation' was set up to mar- ket bonds. Through this Corporation is how the Baytown Housing Authority is acting and how Brockman Builders is securing funds which clearly makes this a public housing project. In fact, in the resolution, it is expressly identified as such. In view of all these facts, Mr. Sandvig felt that it was preposterous that anyone could say that the Baytown Housing Authority is not involved. In response to an inquiry from Council, Mr. Sandvig reiterated that HUD is acknowledging that it is Section 8 housing project for which rent will be subsidized and not only does HUD request or desire that the Baytown Housing Authority administer and operate this project, they require it. That is reflected in the preamble of the resolution which was previously reviewed. Section 8 of the Act re- quires the Authority to consent to the designation of the Corporation as the instrumentality of the Authority, but provides that the Authority (the Baytown Housing Authority) is to exercise powers of review and approval over the selection of projects, programs, expenditures, financing and other activities of the Corporation. He mentioned that the financing and raising of the tax -free bonds fitted with- in that. In going through and creating this Corporation, the Housing Authority was required to insist that the 'dummy corporation' be audited by the Housing Authority within ninety (90) days of its creation. Mr. Sandvig stated that this seemed rather silly to him that the five individuals who are the Baytown Housing Authority are going to be auditing the same five individuals who are, in fact, the 'dummy corporation'. He suggested that would be somewhat less than an impartial audit. Councilman Philips stated that in reviewing the tech- nicalities, he could find nothing in conflict with laws and inquired if the real issue was whether or not the project had had a public hearing. He inquired if this was the issue or was it the legality of the project. Mr. Sandvig responded that public notice is right at the core of the whole problem. The idea is very simple. If you are going to put low- income public housing project in the back yard of a neighborhood, notice must be given. It is something that so intimately goes to the very property values and the way people live in their daily lives that 4IV46-14 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 the legislature set out some notice requirements which are above and beyond those required of normal governmental activity. A truly private corporation could go out and build a housing pro- ject on its own, forego the participation of the local authority or the federal housing authorities, and not be subject to the notice requirement. However, when you have local government representatives participating in a housing project, giving their approval in the raising of $4,000,000 in bonds, the people who those governmental representatives are answerable to had better comply with the notice requirements that the legislature has provided. Councilman Cannon inquired if City Council had ever given the Housing Authority approval to set up this type financing arrangements. The City Attorney responded that the Housing Authority really acts in most cases separately from the city. The city appoints its Board, but it is not required that that Board bring back all acts to the City Council for approval. The issue on this project is that under this new Statute, 1269k, Section 13, the city shall not issue a building permit unless all provisions of the statute have been complied with. One of those provisions is the public meeting requirement that Mr. Sandvig spoke of and that is the city's sole connection with this entire process -- whether the city should or should not issue a building permit based on whether the statute has been complied with. The question is was it required? If not, the statute has been complied with and the city would have no recourse but to issue the permit, assuming that restrictions of the building code are met. If a public meeting was required, the city should not issue the permit until that requirement is met because that is a provision of the statute. Councilman Cannon inquired if the Housing Authority had the specific authority to authorize this. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Mr. Sandvig pointed out that not only does the statute provide that the developer may not be issued a building permit, but the city may not allow the project to be occupied if the statute is not adhered to. The city could be in a position of having a $4,000,000 housing project which perhaps could not be occupied because of failure to provide notice to the residents of the area. At one time there was a tremendous immediacy to present an item to Council for approval due to bonds having been approved. The representation was that the bonds were issued around August 1. According to the minutes of the Directors' meeting of the Baytown Properties Management and Development Corporation dated August 19, 1982, the intent was to issue bonds. In response to a question from Council, Mr. Sandvig verified that he represented a group called the Mollie Knowlton Civic Association. Councilman Philips inquired if Mr. Sandvig had considered whether it would be proper to go ahead and challenge the legality of the project in the courts and stated that the reason that he had inquired was that for instance, assuming the public hearing did take place but it did not go the way the civic association would prefer, wouldn't the ultimate decision lie with the courts? Mr. Sandvig responded that he did not feel that it did. At some point, legal disputes must be resolved in court and probably in most sessions of Council some decision could result in a resolution in court. However, the fear of potential liti- gation should not make Council timid in making its decision. He continued that the minutes of the Baytown Housing Authority prove the Authority's involvement. No one is disputing that the public hearing has not been held; therefore, the thing to do 61UZ6_ 1J Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 would be to pull the permit on it before things go any fur- ther and the city has a completed housing project with no one to occupy it. Mayor Hutto inquired of Mr. Sandvig if he would agree that Council had acted in good faith in the proceedings that it had undertaken in this matter. Mr. Sandvig responded that he felt that Council cer- tainly had and that he realized that all the Council members were citizens and that each had voluntarily chosen to accept the responsibilities that fall to Council members. He stated that he understood that Council was faced with dif- ficult problems, but difficult problems required difficult solutions. Mayor Hutto indicated that the question that Mr. Sandvig had brought up could be more properly addressed before the Housing Authority and not City Council. Mr. Sandvig responded that the question would be addressed to the Housing Authority, but at this point, the civic association is confronted with the situation of whether the city permit should continue. He felt that there was a glaring situation that the developer had not done what he was supposed to do. If that is the case, Council should have the courage to pull the permit. Councilman Cannon stated that he felt that there was a better case for the City of Baytown pulling the permit. He referred to a provision of State law which states that an incorporated city or town or other political subdivision of the State may not issue a permit, certificate or other authorization for the construction or occupancy under this act, unless the housing authority has complied with the requirements of this section. It is not black and white, but the scales are tilted enough so that the city is in that gray area. He stated that he would feel more firm to pull the permit and allow the civic association to pursue the matter before the Housing Authority or let the developer take the city to court. An Attorney General's opinion at this point would not be beneficial since the matter must be resolved in court. The further the developer is allowed to go with his construction, the more case he will have to file for damages. It will be more difficult to say "no." Mr. Sandvig concurred and stated that it is imperative that the permit be pulled early because the further and further that the developer gets into the project, the more the expenditures are increased. At some point, there will be very large stakes involved and then it will be even more difficult to resolve the matter. Councilman Philips stated that another aspect of this is that the entity that should be in court is the Baytown Housing Authority. Councilman Cannon challenged Mr. Haddox's interest, in that Mr. Haddox was present at the Council meeting as attorney for the Baytown Housing Authority, but had appeared before the Baytown Planning Commission as representative of Brockman Builders. Mr. Haddox stated that he had no conflict of interest. Arthur L. Forbes, attorney from Houston, appeared as representative of Brockman Builders, the developer, Mr. Forbes agreed with Councilman Philips' assessment of the situation that this was, in fact, a legal question. Mr. Forbes stated that the facts are that this complex had been approved not only by HUD, but by the Baytown Planning Commission, the City engineer, and the Fire Chief. The City Attorney had spoken to the issue and did tell Council that under the facts, Council had no authority to withhold the permit. Based on that,the Baytown Housing Authority did create a non - profit organization which did authorize issuance of public bonds. The bonds have been sold for an amount of 4.3 million dollars 1rjiv1r10 -lu Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 in addition to which 3.5 million dollars in tax - exempt con- struction notes have been sold. Therefore, you have the entire process of hearings before the various city authorities culmi- nating in a solemn act of Council which authorized issuance of a building permit. That is the key. Lawyers can argue until blue in the face as to what the requirements for a hearing are in this peculiar set of circumstances, but the fact remains that the permit has been issued as authorized by Council. Mr. Forbes stated that he had before him at least six Texas cases which hold that once a building permit has been issued, there has been a material change of position. Large amounts of money have been spent. Construction has begun. The public has been involved by the sale and purchase of the bonds. Contracts have been let in excess of $1,000,000. That is a major change of position. Once City Council issues a building permit and a material change transpires, Council is powerless to withdraw that permit. In response to Councilman Cannon's inquiries as to the reason that Mr. Brockman continued the project, Mr. Forbes stated that it was clear to Mr. Brockman's counsel that no public hearing was necessary for this project. Ralph Brockman, majority stockholder in Brockman Builders, the general contractor, appeared before Council. Mr. Brockman stated that there are some very strong merits to the project which would be very beneficial to the community. He also pointed out that the people that this project would benefit unfortunately were not represented. Mr. Brockman gave Council some information concerning his background and explained how he became involved with building. Section 8 Program originated during the previous Repub- lican administration. It was initiated by some very promi- nent Presidential advisers who said that government housing was a flop. Their recommendation subsequently was to get private involvement. Whether this is public housing or not, the owner is private. It is a limited partnership. The management is private. It is not the Housing Authority. Mr. Brockman stressed that his firm had attempted to come into the community and be well received. The core of the matter and the fear of the citizens of the area is the same fear that the developer and the tenants who will occupy these units have. He stated that he has constructed about a dozen different com- plexes. The overriding majority of tenants in these complexes are the elderly. He mentioned that the complex is privately owned and if there were to be any destruction of property, then the partnership would suffer the consequences. As private owners, the partnership does have strenuous tenant qualifica- tions which include credit reports and background checks with previous landlords concerning cleanliness, destruction of property, disorderly conduct and non - payment of rent. Federal involvement is two fold (1) to insure permanent financing and (2) if a tenant qualifies, to subsidize that tenant's rent. In the event an undesirable tenant gets past the screening process, the lease is very specific that the owner may evict. Mr. Brockman also pointed out that there are State agencies that are available for funding and packaging bonds. However, it was Brockman Builders' feelings that it would be better to have local involvement. Therefore, Baytown Housing Authority was requested to be the issuer of bonds and form a corporation under the State Laws of Texas. He mentioned that the Baytown Housing Authority would regularly inspect the premises, including the inside of the units to assure compliance with leases and that the managing agent has in all respects complied with tenant qualifications. When Brockman Builders originally received their allocation of funds, HUD could have been named the administrator. The developer felt HUD might never inspect the property and would be much less responsive than a local authority. For this reason, the Baytown Housing Authority met and formed a non - profit organization auu issued GlUZ6_1! Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 bonds. The bonds were sold. The Authority approved the issuance of the bonds. Even if a hearing had been held, the Authority could have elected to construct the project. There are 500 citizens of Baytown on a list for housing. There is a market for this type housing in Baytown. The developer emphasized that this project could and would be rented at fair market value and that it was not necessary to rent to only the "poor." Standard & Poors researched the project diligently prior to giving the bonds for the project a AAA rating which is as high as one can get. Brockman was issued a building permit and on September 27 & 28, the construction loan was funded. Bonds were issued and sold prior to that time for approximately $4,300,000. These bonds are on deposit now with a Trustee Bank in Shreveport, Louisiana. The construction note has already been sold and the funding at initial closing was approximately $800,000. Mr. Brockman stated that the developer had no inten- tion of hiding anything from Council. He pointed out that from past experiences, this firm has been very successful with complexes of this nature. The firm expends large amounts for privacy. There is only one entrance for security reasons. The firm expends a great amount toward landscaping. Subcontracts for the amount of $1,000,000 have been let. There are a great number of people who will be hurt if the permit is revoked. Some of them will be the investors who purchased the bonds. The subcontractors and general contractor will be damaged. Baytown Housing Authority will lose the $22,000 a year to administer the program. Underwriters of the bonds will be damaged, along with the mortgagee, the Trustee Bank and the inspecting architects and engineers. Mr. Brockman pled the case that the project really has gone too far, not due to the fact that the developer with total disregard began construction, but because the developer had what was considered to be a legal permit. A state finance agency could have been the tool for financing as well as the Baytown Housing Authority. Councilman Cannon agreed that Mr. Brockman made some good points and that if he continued with the project, he hoped that Mr. Brockman would prove to be the good neighbor. Councilman Cannon stated that the people of the community were not against public housing, but they were against public housing being forced on them without the benefit of any input. He mentioned the fact that the residents are concerned with devaluation of their property. Public housing serves a purpose, but it should have been constructed out somewhere and then if anyone elected to build next door that would be their choice. Councilman Cannon pointed out that had Mr. Brockman waited these three months, no money would have been expended on subcontractors, nor would Mr. Brockman's money be committed. Councilman Cannon concluded his comments to Mr. Brockman by stating that he felt that Mr. Brockman would agree that he would not want the home that he had invested his life savings in next door to a public housing project. Ron Haddox, representative of Baytown Housing Authority, stated that when confronted with the issue of a public hearing, he had contended and still held to the position that the Baytown Housing Authority had not authorized the construction of the project and therefore, a public hearing was not necessary. He felt that the project was conceived in early 1979 and approved by HUD in early 1980 which even if the project was subject to the public hearing provision, would not be, as a result of having been approved prior to the time the act became effective -- September 1, 1981. For these reasons, Mr. Haddox pointed out that nothing had changed legally since the night Council approved the building permit. Therefore, if the permit was granted legally at that time, there is now no legal cause which would 61UG8 -16 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 authorize or allow withdrawal of the permit. In response to questions from Councilwoman Wilbanks, Mr. Haddox stated that his position is that the public hearing requirements did not become effective until September 1, 1981, but the project received final approval from HUD in January, 1980 and therefore, the date approval was received from City Council held no consequence in the sequence of events. The initial HUD approval is the controlling factor. Councilman Cannon stated that he had not seen anything which would place him in a position of conflict; therefore, he moved that the city go ahead and remove the permit to resolve the question before it goes any further. He felt the city would be in a better position legally to pull the permit. Councilman Philips felt that City Council was not the body to make the decision. The permit was issued under existing guidelines and to go counter to that would be like asking Council to break the ordinances. He continued that the place to get this matter resolved would be in court if there is indeed some kind of illegal act being perpetrated on the residents of the area. The developer has complied with everything that the city has on the books. Council has no legal basis for saying that the developer is in non- compliance. Therefore, it would be more appropriate for the neighborhood to go to court on the matter and request an in- junction. If City Council takes action to withdraw the per- mit, Council will be in court over not issuing the permit when the developer is legally entitled to one. Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. Councilman Cannon pointed out that he was not contending that the developer had not met ordinance requirements. The question is whether the project is a public housing project and if so, whether the requirements of the act were met. Mayor Hutto stated that he was upset at Council being placed in a position by citizens of Baytown which implied Council was non - compassionate and non - responsive to the citizens, not only in this case, but in other cases before Council where Council has been forced to take an adverse position to what some of the citizens felt Council should do. He stated that he was tired of appearing to wear the black hat and urged the citizens present to file suit. He assured those in attendance that whatever the courts ruled, Council would act accordingly. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Johnson and Cannon Nays: Council members Philips, Simmons, Wilbanks and Fuller Mayor Hutto NO 21028 -19 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Consider Proposed Ordinances, Appropriating $160.271 to Various General Fund Accounts; Appropriating $61,224 to Various Water Fund Accounts; Appropriating $29,015 to Account 1201, Solid Waste (Councilman Cannon no longer present.) Pair. Lanham explained that the proposed ordinances which represented Item Nos. 13, 14 and 15 on the agenda were necessary for accounting purposes to close out the 1981 -82 fiscal year. Councilman Philips moved to adopt the three ordinances; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks and Fuller Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3488 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO APPROPRIATE $160,271.00, FROM THE CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. ORDINANCE NO. 3489 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO APPROPRIATE $61,224.00, FROM THE WATER FUND OVERHEAD ACCOUNT, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. ORDINANCE NO. 3490 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS IN ACCOUNT NO. 1201, SOLID WASTE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,015.00, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consent Agenda Council inquired if the city had been utilizing a carrier service in the past. Mr. Lanham responded that a city employee had been making the deposit in the past, but the Administration felt that this was not a safe practice. Councilman Johnson commented that this was something that could be done by a policeman. Mr. Lanham stated that with the minimal cost for the service, the Administration would recommend the carrier service because to use a police officer for this service would be more costly. (Councilman Cannon returned to the meeting.) Mr. Lanham explained, in response to an inquiry from Council, that of the $67,352.05 change order amount for the 1982 Street Improvement Program, only $17,000 repre- sented overruns. During the reconstruction of Gresham Street, the intersections of Harvard, Jones and Cornell were not included in the program. The estimated cost of this addition is $50,350.75. The overruns represented re- moval of miscellaneous concrete, salvage and reuse of 21028 -20 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 existing base in place /or haul to the designated sites, and excavation. City Council considered the Consent Agenda as follows: a. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -6, will award the bid to repair and replace tile at the Wayne Gray Sports Complex Swimming Pool. Two bids were re- ceived. Lopez Swimming Pool Tile and Coping, Inc. submitted the low bid of $3,220. Council has budgeted $3,400 for this replacement. We recommend the low bidder, Lopez Swimming Pool Tile and Coping, Inc., be awarded this contract. b. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -7, will authorize Change Order No. 2 to the 1982 Street Improvement Program. During the reconstruction of Gresham Street, the intersections of Harvard, Jones, and Cornell were not included in the program. The estimated cost of this addition is $50,350.75. Also, during the course of the program several line items such as removal of miscellaneous con- crete, salvage and reuse of existing base in place /or haul to the designated sites, and exca- vation have overrun the original quantities. These overruns amount to $17,001.30. Total cost of this change order is $67,352.05. The con- tractor SKRLA, Inc. has agreed to this change order. We recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -7. C. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -8, will award the bid for carrier service for City of Baytown bank deposits. Two bids were received. Purolator Armored submitted the low bid of $2,592. We recommend the low bidder, Purolator Armored, Inc. be awarded this contract. d. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -9, will award the bid for the purchase of a portable building for the Animal Control Division. Three bids were received. United Portable Building submitted the low bid of $3,000.00. Council has budgeted $3,000 for the purchase of this item. We recommend the low bidder, United Portable Building, be awarded this contract. e. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -10, will award the bid for the purchase of a 4" Centrifugal Trash Pump. Eight bids were received. Pump -n -Power submitted the low bid of $6,108. We recommend the low bidder, Pump -n- Power, be awarded this contract. f. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -11, will abandon a portion of South First Street, the City of Baytown has been petitioned by Wismer's Distributing Company to abandon a portion of South First Street adjacent to Lot 13, Block 19, of the 21028 -21 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 George Wright Subdivision. All utility companies have been contacted and report no objections to this abandonment. According to the appraisal formed by Paul Storck, Tax Assessor, the fair market value of this land is $7,500, included in the agenda packet is an appraisal report and a map of that area to be abandoned. We recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -11. g. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -12, will award the housing rehabilitation contract for 1600 West Gulf. Six bids were submitted. Ed Shook Building Contractor submitted the low bid of $4,645.30. The Community Development Advisory Committee recommends the low bidder, Ed Shook Building Contractor, Inc. be awarded this contract. h. Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -13, will award the housing rehabilitation contract for 1608 West Texas. Six bids were received. Prosper Brothers submitted the low bid of $3,507. The Community Development Advisory Committee recommends the low bidder, Prosper Brothers, be awarded this contract. Councilman Philips moved to adopt the Consent Agenda Items a through h; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 3491 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF LOPEZ SWIMMING POOL TILE AND COPING, INC. FOR THE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF THE COPING TILE AT THE WAYNE GRAY SPORTS COMPLEX AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF THREE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY & N01100 ($3,220.00) DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -6) ORDINANCE NO. 3492 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN AUTHORIZING CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO THE CONTRACT WITH SKRLA, INC. FOR THE 1982 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF BAYTOWN. (Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -7) ORDINANCE NO. 3493 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF PUROLATOR ARMORED INC. FOR CARRIER SERVICE FOR CITY OF BAYTOWN BANK DEPOSITS AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED NINETY TWO & N01100 ($2,592.00) DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -8) 21028 -22 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 ORDINANCE NO. 3494 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF UNITED PORTABLE BUILDING FOR A PORTABLE BUILDING FOR THE ANIMAL CONTROL DIVISION AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF THREE THOUSAND & N01100 ($3,000.00) DOLLARS. (Pro- posed Ordinance No. 21028 -9) ORDINANCE NO. 3495 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF PUMP -N -POWER FOR A FOUR INCH (4 ") CENTRIFUGAL TRASH PUMP AND AUTHORIZING THE PAY- MENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHT & N01100 ($6,108.00) DOLLARS. (Pro- posed Ordinance No. 21028 -10) ORDINANCE NO. 3496 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, PROVIDING THAT A PORTION OF SOUTH FIRST STREET BE VACATED, ABANDONED AND CLOSED; PROVIDING FOR THE QUITCLAIMING OF PART OF THE CITY'S INTEREST IN SAID LAND; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -11) ORDINANCE NO. 3497 AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOP- MENT REHABILITATION PROJECT #82- 01 -05, TO ED SHOOK BUILDING CONTRACTOR, INC. FOR THE SUM OF FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY FIVE & 3/100 ($4,645.30) DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -12) ORDINANCE NO. 3498 AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOP- MENT REHABILITATION PROJECT #82 -01 -04 TO PROSPER BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SUM OF THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVEN & N01100 ($3,507.00)DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No. 21028 -13) (For tabulations, see Attachments "A" through "E ". Consider Proposed Ordinance, Establishing Speed Limit for Baker Road (Bush Road to Decker Drive) Presently, the speed limit on Baker Road between Bush Road and Decker Drive is 30 mph. The traffic Commission has recommended that the speed limit be increased to 40 mph. A traffic study indicates that more than eighty -five percentile of those persons utilizing Baker Road drive 40 mph or below. A significant part of the traveling public is traveling up to 40 mph. Baytown, as well as other cities in the state use the eighty -five percentile as basis for increasing speed limits. Gary L. Gill, 4614 Coachman Drive, requested that Council consider that the committee by a three to two vote recommended this change. He made the point that an automobile traveling 40 mph would require 127 feet in which to stop. This area is highly populated with many businesses along the street. Children must cross Baker Road to attend school and will cross Baker Road to get to the businesses. Mayor Hutto stated that the traffic committee was 21028 -23 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 trying to adjust the speed limit to what the public is traveling. He pointed out that on Massey Tompkins and Bob Smith when the speed limit was increased, persons traveling those streets did not increase their speed over 10 miles over the increased speed limit. He pointed out that there are other things that should be addressed on Baker Road, other than the speed limit such as obstructions. Councilman Philips stated that he felt that Council needed to be thinking in terms of more traffic control and not necessarily in terms of speed limit control. He mentioned that the traffic light at Quail Hollow does an excellent job of controlling traffic. Perhaps, another light would be justified on Baker Road to allow persons to get in and out of the side streets. Councilman Fuller mentioned that there are some ex- tremely hazardous corners along Baker Road due to the fact citizens of that area have constructed brick walls, placed hedges, etc. along the property line. He felt that this problem needed to be solved. Mr. Lanham stated that the problem is aggravated by the fact that when the south half of Baker Road was built several years ago, a full ten feet was not left between the curb and fence; therefore, on Goose Creek Drive, when one drives up to Baker Road, the left side vision is very narrow. He felt that this was the factor which caused more problem than traffic volume. Mr. Lanham stated that the City may need to attempt to acquire right of way in that area to move the fence back. Councilman Philips suggested that the Administration study the traffic counts at Goose Creek Drive and Baker Road and Country Club View and Baker Road to determine if a light would be necessary at one of those two places. Councilman Simmons moved for adoption of the ordi- nance to establish a 40 mph speed limit. Councilman Fuller stated that he felt Council should look at the counts before making a final decision to increase this speed to 40 mph, especially with these hazards in the area. He felt that Council should attempt to resolve the hazards prior to increasing the speed limit. The motion died for lack of second. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Establishing School Zone for Baytown Junior High The Traffic Commission, by unanimous vote, recommended that no school zone be established for Baytown Junior High. Back in August when school began, the Director of Planning and Traffic and the City Manager instituted a temporary school zone because school was beginning and the contractor had not completed work on the school; therefore, this necessitated bus unloading on Bayway. That temporary sign has been removed since the traffic commission did not recommend that it be made permanent. Paul Hall, member of the Board of Trustees for Goose Creek Consolidated Independent School District, requested that Council delay action on this item until the school board could discuss this matter. Mr. Hall stated that he would favor a permanent school zone at this location because of the ages of the children who would be crossing Bayway. 21028 -24 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Bruce Warner spoke to the issue and stated that he resides on Middleton Road which is east of Bayway Drive and directly across from Baytown Junior High. He stated that he was certain that there are five students, possibly more, who do have to cross Bayway to get to school. He stated that he had spoken to a member of the traffic commission who stated that the commission was unaware that children were crossing Bayway when the recom- mendation was made. Councilman Philips inquired about the possibility of a hand - actuated signal light, but Mr. Warner stated that as a concerned parent and considering the ages of the children, he would like something better. The main problem with any kind of school zone for Bayway Drive is the heavy traffic on Bayway Drive in the morning. A standard type school zone sign is not very visable. It would work after several months, but it would take a number of tickets to change the norm. It would be nice to have school zone signs with a flashing yellow caution light to get the drivers' attention that there is a school zone at that point. The school is 40 yards next to Bayway Drive which makes a school zone very necessary. Councilman Johnson pointed out that if a school zone sign were posted, this would not solve the complete problem of the children who leave school later in the evening because of extra - curricular activities. Dewanna Warner suggested that no one would want to spend money for a crossing guard for five children, and suggested that it would help to get the school speed zone signs up and paint the cross walk in the middle of the road in front of the school to put people on notice. Mr. Lanham stated that the Administration will rein- stitute the temporary school zone signs to allow time for the school board to consider the matter. Consider Approval of Request of Harris County Flood Control District for Inter -Local Agreement for Right of Way Acquisition The Administration requested approval of Council to forward a letter to Harris County requesting County approval of the City of Baytown acquiring right of way for a county drainage ditch in the vicinity of the Rollingbrook Drive Extension. The city is in process of acquiring right of way for Rollingbrook Drive across Busch Ranch, as well as across the bank property. The city will be acquiring right of way not only for Rollingbrook but also for a drainage ditch south of Rollingbrook. Therefore, the Administration contacted Harris County Flood Control with regard to the county obtaining right of way to construct a drainage ditch. Harris County Flood Control and the County Commissioner feel that the project would move faster if the city would agree to acquire the right of way and be reimbursed by the county. This will require an Inter -local Agreement between the two entities. The Inter -local Agreement will need to be worded to assure that if the city is unable to acquire the property for the appraised price, the county will agree to pay whatever is necessary. Councilman Philips moved to authorize the Administration to write a letter to Harris County Flood Control District suggesting that the city and county enter into an Inter -local Nil 21028 -25 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Agreement which would authorize the city to acquire the right of way and for the county to reimburse the city for the costs. Councilman Simmons seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Discuss Appointment of a Sesquicentennial Commission The Baytown Cultural Arts Council has suggested to Council that a Sesquicentennial Commission be appointed, similar to the Bicentennial Commission. The cultural arts council would be willing to serve as a branch of this commission. Bobby Rountree, Director of Parks and Recreation, developed a possible plan for organiza- tion of such a commission which plan was furnished to Council. The decision the Administration was requesting from Council had to do with whether Council desired to pursue the idea of Baytown participating in the Sesqui- centennial Celebration. There has been much interest expressed. The Parks and Recreation Board, Baytown Cultural Arts Council and other groups have discussed participation. Baytown's proximity to San Jacinto Battleground and Baytown's place in the history of Texas is such that it would certainly be appropriate to have a strong commission and effort to participate in this celebration. Councilman Philips inquired if Council needed to consider a budget for the commission. Mr. Lanham stated that the celebration will come about in 1986. Once the commission is appointed, a program and budget can be developed by the commission. That could be considered for future budgets. The planning needs to begin now. Councilwoman Wilbanks moved to authorize the Administration to place an item on the next agenda for the appointment of a Sesquicentennial Commission; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Consider Redistricting Plan for Council Districts Dina Stucker, Transportation Planner, has developed for Council review two versions for revising the Council districts in accordance with 1980 census information. Ms. Stucker had maps posted which depicted the present boundary limits, as well as proposed limits. Council District Nos. 4 and 6 as presently constituted are too large and Council District Nos. 1 and 3 are too small. As far as population is concerned, there is a range from 6,668 to 12,042. Ms. Stucker explained that in attempting to develop revised districts, every effort was made to preserve the census tracts as a whole because of the amount of statis- tical information one can obtain on a census tract level. 21028 -26 Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Where the census tract could not be preserved, the attempt was made to preserve what is called the "block groups." Block group is a small portion of a census tract that is a statistically similar group of people. Within a census tract, there may be 3 to 7 block groups, depending on the size of the tract and the various groupings in that tract. Council was shown the census tracts for 1980 with overlays of the two proposed versions for redistricting. The over lay with the red lines was the first plan that had been developed and was referred to as Revision I. The smallest population figures for Revision I is 8,944 and the largest is 9,778 which is less than nine (9%) percent deviation. The largest district is about 5.7% larger than ideal and the smallest is about 3.2% smaller than ideal. Twelve census tracts remain whole and in those census tracts that are cut, there are only four broken block groups. After looking at Revision I, Ms. Stucker made some minor adjustments which resulted in Revision II or the green overlay. There are only four places where changes were made. In this plan, the largest Council district is identical to Revision I; the smallest Council district, No. 6, is slightly larger, but in this version one more census tract is preserved which makes thirteen tracts that are whole. In the tracts that are split, only two block groups are broken. Ms. Stucker recommended Version II as the best plan. Another important factor is that in this planning, no blocks were split, only block groups. The City Attorney explained that from the standpoint of submitting a proposed revision to the Justice Department, either plan falls within the guideline of having a total deviation between the largest and smallest district of not more than ten (10 %) percent. The city's concern in trying to maintain census tracts and block groups is something that the Justice Department will recognize. An ideal district is about 9,500 people. One of the things that will need to be impressed on the Justice Department is that in order to have a true minority district, it would take almost entirely blacks or mexican- americans in one district to accomplish this which is not possible. The closest the city could come would be, for instance, revision to District No. 1 by combining the two minorities to make about fifty -three (53 %) percent of that district. The only two changes are in District Nos. 1 and 3. A large portion of what is referred to as the Oakwood area was taken from what used to be District No. 3 and placed in District No. 1 so the numbers there have increased somewhat and decreased minorities in District No. 3. The reason for the change was that both districts were too small and in order to keep the districts as uniform in shape as possible, District No. 1 got Oakwood. The City Attorney did not feel that the Justice Department would be overly concerned in this area, but this is the one area that they might show some concern. The City Attorney suggested that Council may want to hold a public hearing in order to receive input and demonstrate that Council had attempted in every manner to develop revised Council districts according to census tract information and input from citizens. Council scheduled a hearing on the proposed redis- tricting plan for 7:00 p.m., November 11, 1982. 21028 -2? Minutes of the Regular Meeting - October 28, 1982 Consider 1982 -83 Proposed Drainage List Council was furnished with a copy of the proposed 1982 -83 drainage list (See Attachment "F"). The City of Baytown 1982 -83 Budget contains $300,000 for purchase of materials. The list was compiled by notification from citizens of troubled areas and the Administration's check of the city during heavy rains. All parts of the city are represented. On the first project listed, Glen Meadow Subdivision, invitation for bids has been adver- tised and bids will be opened on November 1. Other funds have been earmarked for the "Super Ditch" so no funds are listed for that project. Last week, the additional right of way which had been requested by Harris County was obtained for the 'Super Ditch'. The engineering depart- ment is putting final revisions on the plans to go back to flood control. Flood control will receive bids for this project. The Administration recommended approval of the 1982 -83 proposed drainage list. Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the pro- posed 1982 -83 drainage list with the understanding that the list would be subject to revision if flooding were to result at other locations. Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons, Wilbanks, Fuller and Cannon Mayor Hutto Nays: None Recess and Reconvene Mayor Hutto recessed the open meeting into executive session to discuss contemplated litigation. When the open meeting reconvened, Mayor Hutto announced that no business had been transacted. Adjourn There being no further business to be conducted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk m E U cd 4J +J SERVICES TO BEGIN NOVEMBER 1ST,1982 TO OCTOBER 31 ST, 1983. i Seven (7) Invitations to Bid ; were mailed by the City. We received bids from two carriers. f GROSS TQTAL LESS DISC NET TOTA L I IT i r T �5 1 ' r t i i I i ` I I , I '1 1 L `: CARRIER SERVICE FOR BANK-DEPOSITS CITY BAYTOWN ;ID: �L8_210 -95 E31D TABULATION ATE • October 7, 1982 2 :00 P.M. - 'EM QTY DESCRIPTION UROL -T R ARMOR F) RI ' , OF TEXAS .UNIT E QrFrv0Et7 R r' ' .• pUf,!! i VTFrvOEO` _ F (; j CARRIER SERVICE-FOR CITY OF BAYTOWN'S BANK DEPOSITS $216.00 $2,592.00 $220.00 $2,640.00 per month per month • ' I I� TOTAL: $2,592.00 I 42,640.00 - m E U cd 4J +J SERVICES TO BEGIN NOVEMBER 1ST,1982 TO OCTOBER 31 ST, 1983. i Seven (7) Invitations to Bid ; were mailed by the City. We received bids from two carriers. f GROSS TQTAL LESS DISC NET TOTA L I IT i r T �5 1 ' r t i i I i ` I I , I rL `: COMPLETE COPING & TILE REPAIR -WAYNE GRAY SPORTS COMPLEX D: .. #8210 -98 ,...,.. ITE= October 14, 1982 2:00 P.M. CITY OF L3AYTOV IV 81D TABULATION EM QTY DESCRIPTION CARTER'S FLOORS LOPEZ INC. .UNIT EXPENDED UNIT EXTENDED UNIT EXYENDED UNIT EXTEuCIE'D _ U., F7 po.r 1. 1 COMPLETE COPING 'J& TILE REPAIR- $16,925.00 $3,220.00 I WAYNE GRAY SPORTS COMPLEX, per specifications. i I I I I ! TOTAL: !$16,925.00 I $3,220.00 i Q >~ i U i I Cd l J� I ' 1 . • I i � GROSS l U l A L LESS DISC NET JDTA L _ . -A CLT- V9P' 0 >a C)p m W o O o o rJ ? W ' E H ui •• c- uJ N 41 00 N N N N a a CL m Ll O c W f ♦ V1 I' N rV� LLJ .i' (2 L C LL. d Cl v � � .. W O U N -• a n � � N 0 �1J t• •, TI-T LO m W uj Z tn cc _ az` ® ui 3 Cl D • . xL m U Z h O Z W c O U Z • w� N � w Ct m • C x O 'z Q W ,. _ CO ILL a Q w C 4 W o U UJ m k4 w O z ` z • Cl) F, v ! cl) '1 Q� LU 0-1Zt m W rJ ? ' E H ui •• c- a N a a m Ll c N N f ♦ r9 G1 I' N rV� LLJ .i' co J , L C LL. • Cl v m � z G1 � .. W O U N -• a �- � � N 0 �1J t• •, TI-T LO • Cl) F, v ! cl) '1 Q� LU 0-1Zt •L PORTABLE BUILDING FOR - HUMANE DEPT. ); #8210 -96 j-E • October 13, 1982 2:00 P.M. CITY Or BAY-roW IV B1D TABULATION GROSS 7 U 1 A L LESS DISC. NET ~ETA L e% !' f T!. I = A V M.P.Building.Sal. United Portable Bldg. Cary Way Bldg. Co. W QTY , -DESCRIPTION .UNIT EXTENDED UI11 IT , EXTENDED UNIT EXTEND- 17D.. UNIT EXTE-N ED U:::>• i rx=- ;,F 1 PORTABLE BUILDING FOR HUMANE-DEPT. $4,095.00 $3,000.00 $4,681.71 I TOTAL: $4,095.00 $3,000.00 $4,681.71 j DELIVERY: j 14 DAYS 14 DAYS 21 DAYS , 4., cd �I GROSS 7 U 1 A L LESS DISC. NET ~ETA L e% !' f T!. I = A V ..._____.Bid #25 October 5, 1982 C7 1 U 1 H 0 U l-. H 1 l U IV P er Bros UHU55 1 U IAL ' LESS DISC. ' NET TOTAL n Fi ivFpY r•I+ 507 5,4( OTY DESCRIPTION UNIT L - CXTEI�I'6f:A+ 3 Lee Ie %,vn5L, - 'Uril'i�- •'C'XfC "ri6'CO rOSp • ����� r I UNIT NO 0 UNIT -'• NoEO - - ----- t I C E PRICE _aj_CF - UJ.Cf— —L' Jr Q F— -E1Z 1 C F -.__I? n I C L _ _. _ Rehabilitation Housing Project 9,820.00 5.`535.00 6,71+0.00 9,440.00 31 82 -01 -o4 1608 West Texas ' Rehabilitation Housing Project NO BID 6,900.00 69828.00 10,045.00 82 -01 -05 ! 1600 West Gulf w - m U cd +) d UHU55 1 U IAL ' LESS DISC. ' NET TOTAL n Fi ivFpY r•I+ 507 5,4( r��•. r � to J 'n yLi • dV_Jy W a Q CL N cd V � J cc N co Q1 V Z W t..1 CL SL G1 C, O O N u c0 O 0 0 . f. .. f .._...._ .- ...r----- ....�...�.__..._ ti's V W N + t N • V Z M co cc z` ] • M 4. VY O O ° N Q W Z ► O CC N Cl Z O O D w � N � N W w ct U'% s Q o o � J a k° z ca Y a �a 0 W Q y: W a � � • dV_Jy W a Q CL N cd O N � J cc N co Q1 V Z W t..1 SL G1 C, O O N u c0 O N f. .. f .._...._ .- ...r----- ....�...�.__..._ ti's • dV_Jy ZS/IT/01 I •33alozd stq:l 103 P83eUSTsap spun; zag20l, 000 `00£5 "Mol 0001Z 000`OT Azessaoau se goITP ueaTo - •u-I png 'SZ 000`£ zaqua o 'IS O l 'IS zaluaO moz3 goItp ueaTO - 'PH W ZOH 'LZ 00011 009 4 005 ut malsKs 98eutezp 2onzgsuoo _ meozq _O_ NooTq 008 uT gojtp uealo - S2$tw •SZ 000 S S88TH 39 U-CUR 'M uaamiaq Kaussaoau se goatp .ueaTo - gSy .�Z _O IeaK o4 pueTanaTO m013 adtd 92apTua _ uollaeO '£Z -0- goltp UEaTo - Azaaamao 'IS S99EH 01 98 moz 'uS � Pt q ZZ 000`5 go�tP uealo - •pg �zza3 Azessaoau se sa o area g �tp uEaTo - (ginoS .IZ 000`01 9 gjzoN) :3auzng •pg nofeg zepaO- Agsoao oq sutxdmol •OZ 000`Z - gassex mozi xayssaoau SE gojTp uealo - •pg UTPzeH "S aozead •Pd '6I OOO�Z oq PzEM mozJ g32Tp uealo 4S glg2T xa�Ecy $utpuEJs — •aAV T 000`51 SExa.L •M �E•— a�E z.H g �i *LT sE sa o AZEESSaoau g �tp ueaTo - (g�zoM "a '4 'SeTTeQ 'ux3sny `uoasnoH t za-CQ 'aa ;EH `sauTH `EATy `uEmoH 'stouEZ� `�zEMa3S sapnTout eazE) SuotstAtpgnS -0- uauog aTuutzd '9I 000`8 Ol "S aut moz sa o - IS 7zegaTV d g lTp uealo IS POOM70 '5T _O zalem BUTPURIS aleuTMTTa — megfPK/zopeajq •�I -0- go3tP TTE3Ino uealo - •aAy sexal •M '£I -0- aq3 zo; Azessaoau se sa o T lTP usaToj- O p2i 4SITJ g�no g S 'ZT -0- age 30j f_zessaoau se SagoItP uealO O�1Z 'PH saunH -TT 000`Z uotlEasgns d''IH 04 lxau alems a$Euteip ueaTo — 'IS "ATEM .OT W3 smOZ — Aassejj moij 4apssaoau se UealoEsagogtpp000`8 EOZ malsAs a2euTE3p 2uT:lstxa . �OO`8 uZ aBETZZp� mals4s 92EUTE2 2u P t2stxa •u'I 000`8 puaaxa - uzaluEZ ma �s�Cs a$eutezp SU12STxa •uZ •L 000 �i1 pu94xa - AazznS '9 000`05 W 'H'S 9 givanaS •N uaam4aq MZ45AS a2eutezP TTEISUT - lTgoq •3 .5 000`5£ maas�Cs TTE3lno - a �zESSaoau p0(azogsO .� Se SagDITP uealo -Aeq. 'uoialdE;I `zauTTH 'autzagleX '�Ce`yaQptg) � -0- luauzanozdmt aSeutEZp uo,TSTAZpgnS poomumozg •£ (go2tQ sadnS) 000`ZTT$ goqtp a2eutEZ P 'P2i zaxEg /•zQ xem.CEg •Z uotstnipgnS MopeaK uaTO 'T ZSI'I 39ii�II'v'2iQ £861 -Z86T L:)IU I A U U L A I I U N OId N2; October 5, 1582 Ed Shook Building Cont., Inc. UL S U R I I' "I" I U N - ' -i�T +i r -` rzri ivo�'o _L' l ?.15:..1:_.._- ,I O-c L� Rehabilitation Housing Project 7,881.17 82 -01 -04 1608 West Texas Rehabllltatlon Housing Project 4,645.30 82 -01 -05 1600 West Texas G H 0 S S TOTAL LESS DISC. ' rgc- r* oTAL 7 1 Rl iitiii` Ex1 "ENo�is -- -- iiiii�f - - -- '!'t:r•fi�6Ci5 - -- - -;iiii r- r ► 1'f�