1986 06 26 CC Minutes60626-1
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
June 26, 1986
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in
regular session on Thursday, June 26, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. in
the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the
following attendance:
Fred T. Philips Councilman
Jimmy Johnson Councilman
Perry M. Simmons Councilman
Ron Embry Councilman
Rolland J. Pruett Councilman
Emmett 0. Hutto Mayor
Fritz Lanham City Manager
Larry Patterson Assistant City Manager
Randy Strong City Attorney
Eileen P. Hall City Clerk
Absent: Roy Fuller Councilman
The meeting was called to order with a quorum present.
The invocation was offered by Councilman Simmons, after
which the following business was conducted:
Consider Minutes for the Regular Meeting Held on June 12, 1986
Councilman Simmons moved for approval of the minutes
with the correction noted that it was Councilman Philips
rather than Councilman Simmons who had spoken with Marion
Johnson (Page 60612-6); Councilman Embry seconded the
motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Citizens Communication
a. George F. Golden Will Appear to Request Authorization
to Allow his' 'Carport' to* Remain
George Golden, 1600 Sierra, appeared to request
that council authorize the chief building inspector to allow
the carport at 1600 Sierra to remain. Mr. Golden had the
carport constructed four years ago and the carport meets all
the building requirements, but is in violation of the deed
restrictions for that subdivision. Also, it was noted that
Mr. Golden did not obtain a building permit to construct the
carport.
60626-2
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
The administration has notified Mr. Golden that he will
need to remove the carport since it was constructed in
violation of the deed restrictions having to do with building
set back lines.
Mr. Golden presented council with a letter which his
neighbors had signed stating that they have no problem with
the carport at 1600 Sierra. He also presented council with
photos of the area which reflected that there are several
carports in that area.
The city attorney pointed out that Chaparral Village is
subdivided into several parts and that the carports that Mr.
Golden had pointed out do not exist in the same section.
If the only problem with the carport would be that Mr.
Golden failed to obtain a building permit, he could get with
the building inspector, complete the necessary paper work
and pay a double permit fee to have the carport remain.
However, the problem is that the carport violates the deed
restrictions, and council has instructed that those deed
restrictions that the city can enforce will be enforced. If
council instructs the administration not to enforce these
restrictions, then the administration will not be enforcing
building set back lines with regard to deed restrictions.
The city attorney explained that deed restrictions are
normally a private agreement between the property owners
within a subdivision, and a city would normally have no
reason to be involved, except there is a statute that
authorizes cities to enforce deed restrictions that affect
the residential characteristic of the neighborhood. The
statute further defines items that affect the residential
characteristic of the neighborhhood as being a business in a
residential neighborhood, building set back lines and size
or type of building. Those are the only three areas where
cities have statutory authority to enforce deed restrictions.
This is a building set back question; therefore, the city
does have the authority to enforce deed restrictions.
Councilman Embry pointed out that the question is
whether Chaparral Village as a whole considers this a valid
deed restriction that they have substantial interest to
continue.
The city attorney pointed out that the restrictions are
a covenant among all the property owners and even if 99 out
of 100 had no objection,,the one remaining neighbor has a
right to object.
Councilman Philips stated that since Baytown is a city
where there is no zoning, then the only protection that a
homeowner has is the deed restrictions. If council fails to
recognize that, the homeowner's life savings are put at
risk. When the owner purchased the home, he felt that he
was somewhat protected by the deed restrictions. Therefore,
Councilman Philips feels that enforcement of deed restrictions
is the only way that the city can help.
60626-3
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
The city attorney pointed out that Mr. Golden did
construct the carport prior to council's decision that the
administration would enforce those deed restrictions that
the city has been empowered to enforce.
Council decided to table the matter for one meeting and
not hear any other input; council will take action at the
next meeting.
b. Eric Frazier, Biologist with Gulf Coast Conservation
Association, Will Appear to Explain Environmental
Aspects of Dredging Ship Channel
Eric Frazier, Assistant Director for the Gulf
Coast Conservation Association, appeared to point out that
the Gulf Coast Conservation Association is not and has not
been against the dredging of the Houston Ship Channel. What
the association would like is for the Corps of Engineers and
the Environmental Protection Agency to tell everyone just
what is going to happen to the resources in the Galveston/Trinty
Bay Complex with not only the Houston Ship Channel, the
Bayport Ship Channel, the Texas City Channel, the dam proposal
for the east fork of the San Jacinto, the Trinity River and
Wallisville Projects. The association has asked numerous
times for input and what is going to happen to the estimated
$3,000,000 a year annual benefits to the people of the
Houston area from the construction of these major projects.
He continued that between 1950 and 1975, Trinity Bay
lost a little over 27,000 acres of wetlands. It is the
feeling of the GCCA that they want to know what is going to
happen to the bay, and the association is asking that
council join with them to ask that question.
c. R. B. Owens, Treasurer of Salt Water Anglers League
of Texas, Trinity Bay Chapter, Will Appear to Present
Chapter Position on Proposed Corps of Engineers
Houston Ship Channel Dredging Projects
Royce B. Owens, 1107 Narcille, Treasurer of Salt
Water Anglers League of Texas, Trinity Bay Chapter, stated
that he was acting as spokesman for the 140 members of the
Salt Water Anglers League of Texas, and they too are concerned
about the proposed plan to deepen and widen the ship channel.
The group is not opposed to the project in its intent;
however, they are opposed to its implementation as presently
planned as are several other environmentalist groups. The
opposition is based on the fact that no environmental impact
statement has been submitted to date which leaves some very
serious questions as to what type impact this project would
have on the various bays. Therefore, he requested that
council not endorse the project as planned.
60626-4
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
d. Eddie J. Benoit, Sr., 210 Alva Street, Will Appear
to Discuss Possible Amendment of the Animal Control
Ordinance
Eddie J. Benoit, Sr., 210 Alva Street, appeared to
request that council consider amending the animal control
ordinance to restrict the number of cats allowed for each
household and institute tag restrictions and vaccination
procedures.
Council referred this matter to the administration for
recommendation.
Hold a Public Hearing on the Request of Houston Lighting
and Power' 'Comp'any for 'a Rate' Tncrea'se' '(7':00 p'.m..)' ' ' '
Mayor Hutto called the public hearing to order and
informed those present that there was a register in the
hallway outside the Council Chamber for those to sign who
desired to speak during the hearing. He said that after
Houston Lighting and Power and the City of Baytown had made
their presentations, those registered to speak would be
called in order of registration.
Mayor Hutto stated that Houston Lighting and Power has
requested a rate increase that will result in a system wide
base rate of approximately $345,000,000. The City of Baytown
has jurisdiction over utility rates within the city limits.
The hearing is for the purpose of providing City Council
with information and evidence necessary to determine what
rates should be charged.
Mayor Hutto noted that no one in attendance had indicated
a desire to speak.
Randy Strong, City Attorney, stated that Houston Lighting
and Power had indicated that at this time, they have no
presentation to make; however, a representative of the
company was present to respond to questions.
The company filed for rate increase several months ago
and the city attorney a$ked that the rate filing package be
included as a part of the record. The first thing that the
city attorney pointed out is that the requested rate is two
parts --the base rate and the fuel costs. The $345,0001000'
increase which is being proposed by the company is in the
base rate. The fuel cost is being decreased substantially
by the company and offsets the amount of the base rate
increase. Therefore, overall, in net dollars, the proposal
will actually be a smaller amount on the bill; however, the
base rate factors that go into the cost of creating and
delivering electrical service is supposed to go up. The
City of Baytown does not have any consultants as such for
the hearing. We have used some information provided by the
City of Houston and their consultants. The City of Houston
has already had a hearing and has adopted an ordinance which
granted $159#000,000 increase to Houston Lighting and Power
Company. This is an increase on the base rate, but a decrease
in fuel cost which offsets that and results in a total
overall amount of less than current bills. Nevertheless,
this is an increase in the base rate.
60626-5
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
The ordinance being proposed would adopt the same
reductions and increases for Houston Lighting and Power that
the City of Houston recommended. A copy of the City of
Houston recommendations is attached to the minutes as
Attachment "A." The city attorney reviewed these with
council.
The city attorney informed council that he had spoken
with Jim Boyles of the Public Consumer's Office of the
Public Utility Commission prior to the council meeting, and
he had asked that council delay action on this because he
would like to send additional information. He feels that
the City of Houston and others have not realized that there
is a rate increase involved in this for Houston Lighting and
Power even though overall there is a reduction. He also
pointed out that the 14.75% rate of return for Houston
Lighting and Power is very high for the industry and according
to Mr. Boyles, a federal measure that is used which is an
average of all electric utilities, the national average, for
this month worked out to be 12.75%. There were a number of
other things that he was concerned about as far as the fuel
cost and other items. He expressed an interest in assisting
the city if Baytown wished to pursue this further.
The Public Utility Commission's staff has looked at the
rate case, and they have recommended that HL&P receive an
increase of a little less than recommended by the City of
Houston, about $147,000,000.
Councilman Philips pointed out that the City of Houston
had studied this extensively, as well as the PUC staff to
come up with their figures. Perhaps, Baytown could get a
fraction of an amount off that, but should Baytown expend
the money required to obtain that difference?
Since there were no further comments, Mayor Hutto
closed the public hearing.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Setting Rates for Houston
Lighting'and- Power- -Company
Councilman Johnson indicated that he would favor council
doing all within its power to keep the rate as low as
possible for the citizens of Baytown, and therefore, favored
delaying action.
The city attorney explained that if council desires to
participate in the hearing process before the PUC, under the
statute, this can be done at no cost to the city because
experts can be retained and that cost is absorbed by HL&P,
but ultimately, those costs will be rolled back into the
rate base at a future time. Also, as far as the fuel cost,
under the current system, the light company is required to
make those adjustments as the fuel costs go up and down
regardless of the hearing, but as part of this hearing, they
are making an adjustment there as well. The customers will
get the benefit of any decreases or the burden of any increases.
60626-6
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Councilman Embry stated that what HL&P is doing is to
increase the base rate and decrease the variable rate such
that for a given average customer, the monthly cost will go
down. Then one should ask the question, under what set of
circumstances would the consumer ultimately benefit? The
rate base is going up and if total consumption is trending
down and more of the costs are in the base, that would tend
to hold HL&P's revenues up high. Whereas, under the existing
rate structure, if consumption trend is down, then the
consumer would benefit. Which way is consumption going? If
consumption is trending down, this is going to hold total
power company revenues up even though consumption goes down.
That will be the net effect.
Jim Schaefer, district manager, stated that on residential
basis, the net growth in new customers is stagnant. It is
difficult to track any real change in actual kilowatt hour
usage because it is weather impacted. The only real reduction
that the company has seen is the reduction in the industrial
kilowatt hour consumption. The average kilowatt consumption
for residential is about 13.5 thousand kilowatt hours a
year.
Councilman Embry then stated that the question then is
does Baytown want a structure that has a high base and a
relatively low marginal component or does Baytown want one
that now exists with a little lower base and pay more for
the marginal consumption above that base? Under the proposed
rate structure, for an average customer, the total goes
down, but one effect would be to stabilize HL&P's total
revenues and not make them too demand dependent.
Councilman Johnson moved to postpone action on this
item until more information is obtained from Mr. Boyles;
Councilman Simmons seconded the motion.
The city attorney pointed out that council has suspended
rates through July 23; therefore, action would be necessary
by that date or the proposed rates by HL&P would become
effective. He also pointed out that historically, the
Public Utility Commission has set rates very close to what
the PUC staff recommended. Another thing is that historically,
the PUC has considered rural rates first, and then imposed
the same rates on municipalities in order to keep system
wide rates the same. This year, the rural case has not been
decided yet. Houston and other cities have established
their rate, and the light company has indicated that they
will not appeal that to the PUC; therefore, there is the
situation that the PUC may be forced to go along with what
the cities are recommending in order to keep rates uniform.
Likewise, if Baytown elects not to go with Houston, Baytown
may end up having to do this on its own and have a rate
different than both Houston or the rural areas.
Councilman Philips stated that given the mere fact that
for the average customer, costs are going to go down, probably
council should go ahead and act on the ordinance.
60626-7
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Councilman Philips pointed out that it appears that
Houston really did put a great amount of work into their
recommendation.
Mayor Hutto pointed out that fuel cost has been a big
factor in rates in the past and when fuel cost begin to
rise, it will be again. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Johnson, Simmons, and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Council members Philips and Embry
Consider the Request of Allan Webb to Instruct the Building
Inspector 'to Issue a Building Permit
Allan Webb had appeared at the last council meeting to
request council to instruct the chief building inspector to
issue a permit to construct a carport at his home in Chaparral
Village. Council had requested that Mr. Webb acquire the
signature of his neighbors to a statement indicating that
they have no problem with the carport being constructed.
Mr. Webb presented council with the letter signed by five of
his neighbors.
Grady Sanders Recognized
Grady Sanders of 1204 Apache Trail was recognized, and
he encouraged council to enforce deed restrictions.
Joe Farley Recognized
Joe Farley, 407 Rollingwood, representative of the
Lakewood Civic Association, stated that the association does
appreciate the action of council last year in support of
deed restrictions which enables the civic associations who
so desire to check building permit applications for deed
restriction violations. That procedure has been working
very well for the past few months. Mr. Farley noted that
Lakewood is not directly affected by the decision concerning
Chaparral Village; however, this would be a step backward
for council to support the violation of deed restrictions.
This could eventually lead to every restricted residential
area in Baytown being affected by people who desire to build
in contradiction to the deed restrictions. This could be
the beginning of numerous such requests.
The civic association feels that there is a better
solution that has been alluded to earlier. In some cases,
it requires unanimous consent to alter deed restrictions,
but in other cases only a majority vote is required.
Usually, when one purchases property within a subdivision,
consideration of the deed restrictions is a consideration in
the decision to purchase. Therefore, if the deed restrictions
can be modified by a majority vote of the owners in the
subdivision, the person who desires the change should take
the lead through his civic association or individually to
get the majority of the property owners to agree to the
change.
60626-8
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Lynn Seamans Recognized
Lynn Seamans, 4814 Country Club View, Chairman of the
Architectural Control Committee of the Country Club Civic
Association, stated that Mr. Farley had covered the subject
and that Country Club Civic Association concurs with the
recommendation that those who are dissatisfied with the deed
restrictions for their area, work within the system to
attempt to have those amended.
Mike Williams Recognized
Mike Williams, 1207 Mesquite, appeared to state that
Chaparral Village Civic Association recently has been formed
and should be incorporated by next week. They intend to
address the deed restriction question, but the general con-
sensus of the group at this point is to uphold deed re-
strictions. A more detailed presentation will be given at
the next council meeting.
Councilman Embry said that he had listened to the
comments of each individual who had appeared concerning deed
restrictions, but with the formation of a civic association
in Chaparral Village and the representative of that association
requesting that deed restrictions be upheld, he would move
that council not instruct the chief building inspector to
issue a building permit for the construction of a carport at
Mr. Webb's residence; Councilman Philips seconded the motion.
Councilman Simmons made a substitute motion that the
council take no action until such time as the civic association
can make its wishes officially known. He felt this was a
matter that should be decided by the civic association. If
they want to deny it, it is their business, and he did not
feel that it should come before council because council will
enforce whatever their deed restrictions are. If they say
"no" then our building inspector will not issue one that
says that that's not permissible. Councilman Johnson
seconded the motion.
Since Councilman Embry concurred with Councilman
Simmons, he withdrew his motion. Councilman Philips withdrew
the second.
Mr. Golden stated that he had never been contacted by
the civic organization; therefore, the assumption that they
represent the majority of the people in Chaparral may be
erroneous.
Councilman Embry stated that he agreed with that, but
suggested that Mr. Golden would want to provide input into
that association so that whatever answer is derived, it will
be representative of the homeowners.
Councilman Simmons stated that he had made the substi-
tute motion to counteract Councilman Embry's motion, and
since that motion had been withdrawn, he would withdraw the
substitute motion. Council took no action.
60626-9
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Consider Proposed Resolution, Supporting the Corps of
Engineers Dredging of the Houston Ship Channel and
Making Recommendations for Improvements in the Baytown
Area
This matter was discussed at the last council meeting,
and the staff was instructed to work with Mr. Marion Johnson
to develop a resolution for council consideration.
Marion Johnson Recognized
Mayor Hutto recognized Marion Johnson who reviewed the
procedure by which the Corps of Engineers approaches a pro-
ject of this nature. The Corps of Engineers started this
project in 1983, at which time they approved an engineering
study to come up with a recommendation. This was then sub-
jected to a scoping hearing in February, 1985, at which time
the scope of the project was discussed in a public hearing.
The project was then developed into something with approxi-
mately 800 pages in which the Corps proposes in some detail
the project. This was heard in a public hearing on May 28.
Now, they have asked for public comments on Plan HD-50 which
is this 800 page document. When all public comments are
received, those will be incorporated into the plan and again
submitted to a public hearing. Once that is approved, an
environmental impact study will be performed which will
answer many of the questions that have been raised.
The administration recommended approval of the resolution.
The city manager stated that some of the concerns of the
other groups can be addressed at a later time. What council
is doing here is endorsing the concept. Council is not
endorsing the plans in detail. Council would be endorsing
that the Corps proceed with the planning.
R. B. Owens Recognized
Mr. Owens stated that he had attended the last hearing
and that was the first time that he had seen so many diverse
government groups represented in concert, and those groups
questioned this project. Therefore, he urged council not to
endorse something that so many groups are opposing.
Dr. Robert E. Hill Recognized
Dr. Hill stated that he has been a practicing physician
in Baytown for 30 years and that he had attended the hearing
in Clear bake. He did not see how any person who attended
that meeting could support the dredging of the Houston Ship
Channel as proposed. He emphasized that through his 30
years of residence in Baytown, he has witnessed the ruining
of the bay for a few large corporations. He ended by stating
that he loves to fish and would like to continue to fish.
60626-10
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Bob Natal Recognized
Bob Natal, County Marine Extension Agent in Chambers
and Jefferson Counties, stated that throughout all the years
that he had studied in college related to biology courses,
fisheries courses, wildlife, etc., he could not see any
positive thing about the proposed project. In all of the
course work, the importance of the marsh, the estuaries, and
the Galveston Bay areas, as well as many of the other major
bay systems are quite necessary for the development of many
of the commercial and recreational species of fish and
shellfish. He is concerned about the effects of the open -
water discharge on the oyster leases. There is about 60-80%
of the leases that will ,be drastically affected by the
proposed project in its present form.
He suggested alternative type projects such as moving
the disposal sites on land to avoid the open -water discharge
which will be going on for 24-hours a day for 8 years.
There is a predicted disposal of 4 feet of sediment over 29
square miles of bay bottom. Anyone who sport fishes or
commercial fishes or has any interest in the resources of
Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, it all begins at the
bay. This will have some serious adverse impacts in its
present form.
Mayor Hutto emphasized that all those who have appeared
in this regard hold the same concerns that council has;
however, he felt that those fears would be properly addressed
at the environmental impact hearing. At that time, there
will be every opportunity to take remedial action at that
time. All council has been asked to do at this point is to
approve the concept of the dredging project.
Councilman Pruett moved to adopt the resolution; Councilman
Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Simmons, Embry and
Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Councilman Johnson
RESOLUTION NO. 950
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
URGING THE U. S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO MAKE CERTAIN
MODIFICATIONS TO ITS PLAN FOR DEEPENING AND WIDENING THE
HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE
HEREOF.
60626-11
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending the Subdivision
Ordinance to Redefine' '"P'lann'ing Area"
This was discussed at the last council meeting. The
present subdivision ordinance provides that one-half mile
outside the city limits proper is defined as the "planning
area," in which all subdivision restrictions must be adhered
to. Outside the planning area, not all those restrictions
are enforced. Council asked that the staff prepare an
ordinance to extend the planning area further north. The
staff is recommending that the boundary for the planning
area be Wallisville Road.
Councilman Johnson moved to adopt the ordinance;
Councilman Embry seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 4483
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 27, "SUBDIVISIONS," OF THE
CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN BY AMENDING
SECTION 27-3(m), "DEFINITIONS," PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE;
CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION
AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending Chapter 14, "Garbage,
Trash and Brush,"' of the Code of 'Ordinances
At the time that the change to garbage bags was con-
sidered, an ordinance was adopted and then repealed. When
this was done, certain sections of the original ordinance
were deleted but never reinstituted; therefore, the proposed
ordinance will replace those sections which were deleted.
The administration recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilman Philips moved to adopt the ordinance; Council-
man Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 4484
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN,
TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 14, "GARBAGE, TRASH AND BRUSH;" BY
ADDING SECTION 14-1(d), "DEFINITIONS," SECTION 14-4, "DISPOSAL
OF TRASH," SECTION 14-15, "CONFISCATION OF IMPROPER CONTAINERS;"
AND BY AMENDING SUBSECTION 14-10, "TIME OF COLLECTION," AND
SECTION 14-14, "COLLECTION OF SPECIAL ITEMS;" REPEALING
CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
60626-12
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Contract for 1986
Street -Improvement
Five bids were received for the 1986 Street Improvement
Program. Hubco, Inc. is the low bidder for the amount of
$154,660.50. Hubco has worked in Baytown previously and
their work was satisfactory; therefore, the administration
recommended approval of the ordinance.
Councilman Pruett moved to adopt the ordinance; Council-
man Embry seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 4485
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERIC TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH HUBCO, INC.
FOR THE 1986 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; MAKING OTHER
PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
DATE HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Expenditure for
Emergency Repairs to Clarifier Corner Sweep at Central
District Wastewater Treatment Plant and Consider Proposed
Ordinance, Authorizing Expenditure for Emergency Removal
of Solids from Central District'Wastewater Treatment Plant
Materials have been ordered and some are on hand. The
corner sweeps had to be removed, and in order to get these
repaired without taking the plant out of service, it was
necessary to get commercial divers in to determine what was
needed. They produced a list of the items necessary to
repair the damage to the corner sweeps. When all the parts
are accumulated, those parts will be installed without
taking the plant out of service. The total cost for both
divers' services and parts is estimated to be about $16,000.
The administration requested council approval of action
already taken on an emergency basis to solve this problem.
Councilman Philips moved to approve both ordinances;
Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
60626-13
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
ORDINANCE NO. 4486
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYOTWN,
TEXAS, DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY SITUATION EXISTS,
AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF SIX THOUSAND AND
N0/100 ($6,000.00).DOLLARS TO OCEAN CORPORATION FOR THE
REPAIR OF THE CORNER SWEEP MECHANISM OF THE MAIN CLARIFIER
BOTTOM SLUDGE SCRAPER AT THE CENTRAL DISTRICT WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE
HEREOF.
ORDINANCE NO. 4487
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN,
TEXAS, DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY SITUATION EXISTS,
AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF TEN THOUSAND AND
N0/100 ($10,000.00) DOLLARS TO CDR INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR
THE REMOVAL OF EXCESS SOLIDS FROM THE CENTRAL DISTRICT
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE
DATE HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Housing Rehabilitation
Contract for 716 E. Bowie
It is the policy of the Community Development Advisory
Committee to award a new contractor only one job. Mr. Morgan
has done some of this type work in the past, but the most
recent was five years ago; therefore, the board is recommending
that Mr. Morgan be awarded one of the two contracts on which
he bid. The one that he is being recommended for is on the
Consent Agenda, Item h. Since there is such a wide range
between the low bid of Mr. Morgan and the next low bidder,
the recommendation is to reject all bids and readvertise for
bids.
Councilman Johnson moved to reject all bids and
authorize the administration to readvertise for bids;
Councilman Embry seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
*Councilman Embry absent.
Receive Amended Engineering Report for the Eva Maud Water
Line Replacement Project and Authorize Advertisement for
Bids
Wayne Smith and Ed Shackelford, engineering consultants,
prepared the plans for the replacement of the Eva Maud Water
Lines based on replacement of the lines in the easements
behind the homes. However, in a prebid conference, there were
two potential bidders present and both indicated that this
work could not be done at the estimated costs. They dis-
cussed how difficult it would be to install water lines in
60626-14
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
the easement where there are fences, gardens and other
obstructions. Therefore, the bid was cancelled and Smith
and Associates were asked to develop an estimate for in-
stalling the lines in the street right of way rather than
in the back easement. They were to include in that estimate,
the costs for moving the customer service lines from the
back to the front.
The engineers suggested that since plans have already
been prepared for replacement of the water line within the
easement, that the engineers should prepare an additional
set of plans for working in the street right of way, and
bids be solicited for both. After the bids are taken on
both methods, council can decide how the bid should be
awarded. The estimate for replacement of the water lines
utilizing the street right of way is $491,000, while the
estimate for construction in the back lots is $595,764.
The engineering cost to prepare plans for the construction
in the street right of way is between $10,000 and $15,000.
The total amount of funds available for this project is
$580,000, including engineering.
Councilman Simmons moved to authorize the consulting
engineers to prepare another set of plans to utilize the
street right of way in the replacement of the Eva Maud
Water Lines and to move the service connections to the
front and to authorize the consultants to advertise for
bids utilizing both sets of plans; Councilman Johnson
seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members
and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Philips, Johnson, Simmons
Consider Approval of Plans and Specifications for Sanitary
Sewer Force Main Along Highway 146, to S*taples Drive
Norman Dykes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer,
stated that for the most part this project is located in
Chambers County along Highway 146. There are residents
along Staples Drive and at the private school, Woodland
Academy, both of which have received permission from city
council to connect to the sewer service. At this time, they
propose to take bids, but they want the city to take the
bids so that they will be eligible under city ordinance to
recover some costs later on if someone else should connect
to the line. Woodland Academy has agreed to pay for the line
up to that location and residents along Staples have indicated
that they will pay for the line on up to their street.
Woodland Academy needs a two (2") force main and Staples
Drive needs a four (411) inch force main. The four (4")
inch main would also take care of the school. The proposal
is to take bids on a two (21') inch main for Woodland
Academy and to take bids on a four (4") inch main which
would handle everyone. Woodland will pay for the two (211)
line and Staples Drive residents will pay the difference.
kw
60626-15
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
The city will have no costs except to take bids and have
the city inspector oversee the job. After the one year
maintenance period, the force main would belong to the
City of Baytown. Therefore, the administration requested
permission to advertise for bids for the base bid of a two
(2") inch main and an alternate bid of a four (4") inch
main.
Councilman Philips moved to authorize the administration
to advertise for base bid of two (2") inch main and an
alternate bid of a four (4") inch main; Councilman Simmons
seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons
and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consent Agenda
The city manager asked that Item a be removed from
the Consent Agenda because the necessary paper work had
not been received from Mr. Walker. He pointed out that
for Item e, the administration had given council a corrected
ordinance which was at each place. The administration
recommended approval of all other items.
Councilman Simmons requested that Item j be removed.
Council considered the Consent Agenda as follows:
b. Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-9, will award the
proposal for telecommunications consultant to
Joseph & Lange, Inc. Joseph & Lange, Inc. proposes
to provide the Fire Department with turn -key
telephone system design and consulting service
including the following:
a. A functional analysis and telephone system as
well as other operating systems within the
new Fire Administration building.
b. Request for proposal specifications
c. Vendor solicitation
d. Pre -bid conference
e. Analysis and recommendations
f. Contract negotiations
g. Customized contract design
h. Installation and implementation
i. Training
J. Final acceptance
k. Management reports
60626-16
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
We recommend accepting this proposal at a fee of no more
than $3,500.
We recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance No.
60626-9.
c. Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-100 will award the
bid for cast iron fittings. Bids were sent to 7
vendors and 7 bids were received. Utility Supply
submitted the low bid in the amount of $25,603.50.
We recommend the low bidder, Utility Supply, be
awarded this contract.
d. Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-11, will award the
bid for chairs and tables. Bids were sent to five
vendors and four responded. The low bidders were
Matherne's (Item #1) and Persenaire (Item #2).
The total bid amount is $11,805.
We recommend the low bidders, Matherne's (Item #1)
and Persenaire (Item #2) be awarded this contract.
e. Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-12, will award the
bid for tires and tubes. Bids were sent to 8
vendors and 5 bids were received. The recommended
low bidders were as follows:
Item #1, 91 14-16 - General Tire
Item #2-8, 10-13, 17-19, 21-32 - Goodyear
Item #20 - A-Z Tire & Battery
The total bid amount is $48,872.71. We recommend
that the bidders, General Tire, Goodyear, and A-Z
Tire & Battery be awarded this contract.
f. Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-13, will award the
bid for the annual fill sand contract. Bids were
sent to fourteen vendors. Seven bids were received
along with three no -bids. This contract is for
the water distribution and sewage collection
division. Right Way Sand Company submitted the
low bid in the amount of $15,750.
We recommend the low bidder, Right Way Sand Company,
be awarded this contract.
60626-17
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
g. Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-14, will award the
bid for a concrete/asphalt saw. Bids were mailed
to 10 vendors and 8 proposals from 6 companies
were received. We specified a 37 horsepower
hydraulic operated concrete saw because we felt
that the larger 65 horsepower saw would exceed our
budgeted amount. However, we have received a bid
of $7,899 for a 65 horsepower saw from one of our
bidders and would like to request Council to
reject all bids and authorize us to change our
specifications to provide for the 65 horsepower
saw. The budget amount was $8,000 for this
purchase.
h. Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-15, will award the
housing rehabilitation contract for 802 E. Lobit.
Four bids were received. Morgan Construction
Company submitted the low bid of $7,814. The
staff estimate was $10,450. This contract has
been reviewed by the Community Development Advisory
Committee and meets with their approval.
We recommend the low bidder, Morgan Construction
Company, be awarded this contract.
i. Council is asked to consider approval of an
amendment to the contract between BAWA and Harris
County Fresh Water Supply District 1A. The BAWA
Board has approved the delay of the take or pay
provision of the contract from January 1, 1986
until June 1, 1986. Water is now being taken.
We recommend approval of this amendment to the
contract.
Councilman Philips moved to adopt the Consent Agenda
with the exception of Items a and j and including corrected
Item e; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote
follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons
and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
ORDINANCE NO. 4488
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE PROPOSAL OF JOSEPH AND LANGE,
INC. AS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS TO ANALYZE, DESIGN
AND RECOMMEND THE TELEPHONE SYSTEM FOR THE NEW FIRE ADMIN-
ISTRATION BUILDING AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY
OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND
N0/100 ($3,500.00) DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No.
60626-9)
60626-18
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
ORDINANCE NO. 4489
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF UTILITY SUPPLY FOR THE
ANNUAL CAST IRON FITTINGS CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF TWENTY-FIVE
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THREE AND 50/100 ($25,603.50) DOLLARS.
(Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-10)
ORDINANCE NO. 4490
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF MATHERNE'S AND PERSENAIRE
PARK AND PLAYGROUND FOR THE PURCHASE OF CHAIRS AND TABLES
AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE
SUM OF ELEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIVE AND N0/100
($11,805.00) DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-11)
ORDINANCE NO. 4491
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF GENERAL TIRE SERVICE,
GOODYEAR TIRE SERVICE, AND A-Z TIRE AND BATTERY FOR THE
ANNUAL TIRE AND TUBE CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT
BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF FORTY-EIGHT THOUSAND
TWO HUNDRED SEVENTEEN AND 51/100 ($48,217.51) DOLLARS.
(Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-12)
ORDINANCE NO. 4492
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF RIGHT WAY SAND COMPANY
FOR THE ANNUAL FILL SAND CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT
BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF FIFTEEN THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED FIFTY AND N0/100 ($15,750.00) DOLLARS. (Proposed
Ordinance No. 60626-13)
ORDINANCE NO. 4493
AN ORDINANCE AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
REHABILITATION PROJECT #85-04-15 TO MORGAN CONSTRUCTION FOR
THE SUM OF SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FOURTEEN AND N0/100
($7,814.00) DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No. 60626-15)
For bid tabulations, see Attachments "C" through "H."
Consider Approval of Appointment of Hullum and Start as
BAWA Auditors for 1985-86
Councilman Simmons stated that historically the City
of Baytown auditor and the Baytown Area Water Authority
auditor have been the same. He felt that when council
decided to change auditors, they felt that that action was
tantamount to choosing the auditor for both the city and
the Baytown Area Water Authority. However, when the matter
was presented to the Baytown Area Water Authority Board,
that board recommended the appointment of Hullum and Start.
60626-19
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
He stated that it would be cumbersome for the council,
as well as the finance director to have to deal with two
auditing firms, and since council had made the decision to
change auditing firms, Councilman Simmons moved to disapprove
the appointment of Hullum and Start and to ask the BAWA
Board to consider approval of the firm of James Gerace.
Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons and
Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Consider Appointments 'to the Mechanical Board
Councilman Johnson moved to reappoint J. W. Ainsworth
and Jerome Simon to the Mechanical Board and to authorize
the administration to come back to council with an ordinance
reducing the board from seven to five members. Councilman
Philips seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members
and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
City Manager's Report
Philips, Johnson, Simmons
Harris County Appraisal District - The administration
has received a copy of the proposed Harris County Appraisal
District budget which has been reduced by 3.35% below the
last year's budget. If council is concerned about the
proposed budget, council does have the right to object.
However, the finance director has examined that budget and
he feels that this is a reasonable budget; therefore, the
administration is not recommending that council take action.
Based on this budget, the City of Baytown's share of the
costs will drop from $112,910 to $107,538.
National Transit Service - The administration has been
in contact with National Transit Service which is a nation-
wide company that operates bus services. They have a contract
with METRO to provide park and ride services throughout the
Houston area. They have visited with the administration
about a park and ride arrangement for Baytown to be provided
at no cost to the city. They are thinking in terms of peak
hour only subscription basis type service. However, they
would like for Baytown to continue to pursue the idea of a
park and ride facility being built by the state, although
they are asking for 300 spaces while the administration had
been thinking of 100 spaces. For this reason, the adminis-
tration will need to get back with the state. The city's
only role will be to assist in marketing the service. At
this point, however, the administration is asking whether
council had any objections to their continuing to work with
this group. National Transit Service would want a franchise,
even though it would not be an exclusive franchise, detailing
how the program would be operated. Council had no objections.
60626-20
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
The staff has visited with the state concerning space
for a park and ride facility recenity and they have indicated
that the outlook is optimistic, but the decision will not be
made for a few weeks. They probably need to get further
along in their planning on Spur 330 before they will know if
excess right of way will be available, and if so, how much.
Auction - The city held a cooperative auction with
other cities and school districts in the area. About 1,000
people were in attendance with 545 registered bidders.
There was a total of $74,000 in sales with the city's share
being about $25,000.
East District Lift Station and Force Main Modifications -
Work has been completed on the lift station and force main
modifications for the East District. The only thing remaining
for that contractor to do is to conduct a training course
for our operators.
Sliplining - There are two sliplining projects in
process. The contractor has installed 815 feet of pipe
between Willow and Yaupon and about 420 feet between Decker
Drive and Glen Haven. There are no service connections on
that one.
The contractor has completed the lining of the 12 inch
sanitary sewer on Huggins Street which encompassed 2,546
feet. He has not been able to begin the work on Ash Street,
but will begin as soon as the weather permits him to do so.
Massey Tompkins Elevated Water Storage Tank - The con-
tractor has been able to do some work on the elevated
storage tank, but not much. A total of 28 piles have been
driven. The pile driving is about 25% complete. That
contractor will complete work when the weather permits.
Cedar Bayou Water Line - The contractor has completed
the 12 inch water line, and the sewer line and wet well are
in place, but the pump and electrical supply have not been
installed.
Community Development Project - Angel Brothers has
completed the new storm sewer on Huggins and will begin
excavation for street work when the weather permits.
The contractor on Willow has begun work on the storm
sewer and has about 478 feet in place.
Lakewood Drainage - City crews have been working in
Lakewood. On Holly and Yaupon Streets additional pipe has
been added across the streets. This will relieve flooding
of homes in that immediate area.
60626-21
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - June 26, 1986
Questions/Comments of Council
Councilman Simmons commented that at the intersection
of Airhart and Spur 330, there is a bulge that has rolled
up which is a traffic hazard.
Councilman Pruett stated that he has been receiving
numerous calls concerning vacant lots and lots with vacant
houses on them that are not being properly maintained.
Councilman Pruett said that in the first block of
Homan Street, there is a house that has been condemned
and that yard is completely grown over.
Mr. Lanham commented that growth in the city will
be a problem because of the heavy rains.
Recess into Executive Session to Discuss Pending and
Contemplated Litigation
a. Brownwood
There was no business to be transacted in executive
session, and no further business to be transacted in open
session; therefore, Mayor Hutto adjourned the meeting.
Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk
Attachment "A"
PETITION OF
HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY
FOR AUTHORITY TO CHANGE RATES
RECOMMENDATION OF THE DIRECTOR
OF REVENUE & REGULATORY AFFAIRS
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. Executive Summary..........................................1
II. Cost of Service............................................3
A. Operations and Maintenance Expenses....................3
1. Salaries and Wages................................3
2. Employee Benefits.................................3
3. Limestone Operating Expenses......................4
4. Municipal Street Use Fee..........................4
S. Rate Case Expenses................................5
6. Edison Electric Institute Dues....................5
7. Management Audit..................................6
8. Leases and Rental.................................6
9. Uncollectible Accounts ............................6
10. Advertising, Contributions & Donations ............ 7
11. Wheeling Expenses.................................7
12. Limestone.Amortization ............................8
13. Other Operations & Maintenance Expenses ........... 8
B. Fuel Expenses.........................................11
C. Purchased Power Expense................................11
D. Depreciation Expense..................................11
E. Taxes other than Federal Income Taxes.................12
F. Federal Income Taxes..................................12
G. Return on Investment..................................12
III. Rate Base.................................................14
A. Electric Plant in Service .............................14
B. Construction Work in Progress .........................14
N
N
Page
C. Property Held for Future Use .................._ ,A
D.
Nuclear Fuel in Progress...... ...
E.
Fuel Oil Inventory ....... ••........0..................15
F.
Working Cash Allowance................................lb
G.
Prepayments...... .....
H.
Deferred Limestone Expenses......... ...........
... 17
I.
Unrecovered Storm Losses, ...
J.
Deferred Taxes........................................17
K.
Other Cost -Free Capital..........
IV.
Revenue Requirement...... ......... 0..0 ........
19
V.
Cost Allocations............ ... 19
VI.
Rate Design................. .......... 0 ...... ....... 20
VII.
Schedules
1.
Revenue Requirement
2•
Calculation of Rate Adjustments
3.
Operations and Maintenance Expense Adjustments
4.
Summary of Fuel and Purchased Power Costs
5.
Rate Base
6.
Summary of Cash Working Capital
7.
Cost of Capital
8.
Graph of Residential Rates
9.
Weighted Average Cost of Gas, 1969 - 1986
I, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 18, 1986, Houston Lighting & Power Company ("HL&P")
filed a rate change application with the City of Houston, other
municipal regulatory authorities and the Public Utility commis-
sion of Texas ("PUC"). The application proposes to increase the
non -fuel component of rates by $345,289,000, or 18.7%, and to
decrease the fuel component of rates by $520,461,000, or
32.48.1 The,net effect of the request would be to reduce overall
revenues by $175,172,000, or 5.1%, as compared to adjusted re-
venues for the test year ended December 31, 1985.
On April 15, 1986, City Council authorized execution of con-
tracts with three public utility consulting firms. These con-
sultants, together with the staff members of the Revenue & Regu-
latory Affairs Division, have conducted a thorough review of the
rate adjustment application and the books and records of the
utility.
Based upon this analysis, it is recommended that City Coun-
cil authorize an increase in the non -fuel component of rates in
the amount of $149,962,000, or 8.11%, and a decrease in the fuel -
related component of rates by $562,519,000,2 or 34.07%, on an
1 The proposed decrease in fuel revenues includes a fuel cost
overrecovery through December 1985 in the amount of
$180,897,000 for which customers received a bill credit in
May 1986. On a fully normalized basis, the amount of over -
recovery should not be included in the calculation of the
proposed rate change. Excluding this amount, HL&P's pro-
posal would result in a $340,757,000, or 21.21, reduction in
the fuel -related component of rates, and a $4,532,0001 or
.13 %, increase in overall revenues.
2 This amount does not reflect fuel cost overcollections which
were refunded in May 1986, nor fuel cost overrecoveries
which have occurred since the end of the May refund per-
iod. The most recent overrecoveries will be refunded or
credited pursuant to the PUC's Substantive Rules upon
approval by the PUC.
-1-
annual basis. The net effect of the recommended rate adjustments
would be an annual decrease in revenues in the amount of
$412,558,000, or 11.79%, as compared to fully adjusted test
period revenues.
The primary reason for the recommended increase in base
rates is the addition of HL&P's new Limestone Unit 1 electric
generating station which began commercial operation in December
1985. The total cost of the lignite -fired, 720 mW unit was $893
million. With the completion of Limestone Unit 1, HL&P's fuel
mix is further diversified, reducing its dependence on natural
gas from 75% to 66% of the fuel mix3.
Lignite is projected to be less costly than the natural gas
burned in the gas fired units displaced by Limestone Unit 1. The
current cost of lignite is $1.12 per million btu's ("mmbtu"),
while HL&P's current cost of natural gas ranges between $1.425
and $2.26 per mmbtu. The reduction in fuel cost attributed to
the first year of operation of Limestone Unit 1 is projected at
$23,351,000. HL&P's weighted average cost of gas for the period
1969 through 1986 is shown on Schedule 9.
The specific adjustments made to HL&P's request are summa-
rized below and are explained more fully in the testimony of the
staff experts and consultants. Copies of the testimony are
available for review in the City Secretary's office and may be
obtained upon request from Jane Cater, 864-5840.
3 Includes cogeneration purchases which are fueled by natural
gas.
-2-
II. COST OF SERVICE
A. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES
1. Salaries and rages ($4,618,000)
Salaries and wages have been adjusted to reflect
the annualization of HL&P's payroll for the period ended
April 30, 1986. Additional adjustments were made to re-
flect a 3.5% union wage increase effective May 22, 1986,
and to apply a 28 attrition factor to give effect the
HL&P hiring freeze currently in effect.
The number of employees as of April 30, 1986,
11,605, was determined to be representative of the aver-
age number generally employed by the utility.
Tests were made to determine the reasonableness of
the percentage of overtime paid during the test year and
the percentage of labor costs capitalized during the
test year as compared to previous years. HL&P's use of
these test year percentages was found to be reasonable.
2. Moployee Benefits ($816,000)
The amount of Life Insurance cost requested by HL&P
included amounts related to affiliates of HL&P. These
were removed. In addition, the life insurance premium
was reduced to reflect interest which will be earned on
the balance HL&P has on deposit with its insurance com-
pany. A third adjustment to Life Insurance cost was
made to include $579,000 of test year expense inadver-
tently excluded in the Company's calculation of the ad-
justment.
Expenses associated with all other Employee Bene-
fits including Medical and Dental Insurance, Workers'
Compensation Insurance, and the Retirement and Savings
-3-
2
Plans, were reviewed and found to be reasonable. These
expenses have therefore been included in the Cost of
Service.
3. Limestone Operating Expenses ($1,889,000)
HL&P's 720 mW Limestone Unit 1 began commercial
operation in December 1985. Operations and Maintenance
(0&M) expenses associated with the power plant have been
estimated based on actual O&M expenses incurred during.
the first three months of 1986. Certain adjustments
were made prior to annualizing the expenses incurred
during the first quarter of operation to: 1) give
effect to property insurance premiums which are paid
monthly but were not actually included in 0&M expenses
until March 1986; 2) remove non -recurring moving expen-
ses incurred during the month of March 1986; and 3)
exclude vacation and holiday pay incurred in the first
quarter of 1986, because these amounts have been inclu-
ded in the recommended amount of Salaries & Wages
expense.
4. Municipal Street Use Fee $(70696,000)
In March 1985, the City of Houston and HL&P entered
into an Agreement to settle all issues of a lawsuit
brought against HL&P by the City concerning the method
of calculating and paying franchise fees for the years
1980 through 1985. The Settlement involved use of a
surcharge to HL&P customers for City Franchise Fees not
received for the period 1980 through 1985. Because this
Settlement is non -recurring in nature, the factor used
to compute Municipal Street Use Fees in the current rate
case has been adjusted to remove all effects of the
settlement.
-4-
Municipal Street Use Fees were subtracted from the
Revenue Requirement prior to designing base rates be-
cause these fees are recovered through a line item on
the bills of customers residing within municipalities.
5. Rate Case Expenses ($1,059,000)
Rate Case Expenses associated with the current case
have been adjusted to reflect all known and measurable
changes to the test year amount.
Rate Case Expenses incurred in prior cases which
were associated with the South Texas Nuclear Project
have been amortized over a two year period.
Finally, an adjustment was made to include only 50%
of the adjusted balance of Rate Case Expenses in the
Cost of Service. The remaining fifty percent of all
costs associated with rate case activity will therefore
be borne by HL&P's shareholders. This adjustment recog-
nizes that shareholders receive benefits from the Com-
pany's rate cases. Such benefits include the opportun-
ity to increase profitability and to more closely align
costs and revenues.
6. Edison Electric Institute Dues ($331,000)
HL&P has requested the inclusion of EEI support in
the amount of $331,000 in the Cost of Service.
Section 41(c)(3) of the Public Utility Regulatory
Act ("PURA"), provides that "regulatory authorities
shall not consider for ratemaking purposes ... legis-
lative advocacy expenses." Because there is reason to
believe that EEI dues are used to support the lobbying
and advocacy functions of EEI, and because HL&P has not
proved that its EEI expenditures were not used for leg-
-5-
islative advocacy, all EEI dues paid by HL&P during the
test year have been excluded from the Cost of Service.
7. Management Audit ($652, 000)
In 1984, HL&P was the first utility examined under
a new state law requiring the Public Utility Commission
of Texas ("PUC") to conduct management audits of regu-
lated utilities at least once every ten years. Arthur
Young & Company was selected to perform the management
audit of HL&P.
In a recent case before the PUC, the Commission
ordered the amortization over a three year period of the
cost of a management audit of El Paso Electric Com-
pany. Because of this precedent, and because the HL&P
management audit conducted by Arthur Young & Company
should prove of benefit for a number of years, the
$978,000 cost of the audit has been amortized over a
three year period.
It
8. Leases and Rental ($318,000)
Several adjustments have been made to Lease and
Rental expenses to remove: 1) claimed operating cost
adjustments, not supported by HL&P, associated with two
leases; 2) a rounding adjustment of $39,672 made by HL&P
in the calculation of the cost of a Greenway Plaza
lease; and 3) the cost of three leases in Austin, Texas,
which are not necessary to the provision of electric
service in the Houston area.
9. Uncollectible Accounts ($947, 000)
A factor was determined for use in projecting
uncollectible accounts expenses by dividing the test
-6-
year amount of uncollectible account write-offs by asso-
ciated revenues "lagged" 140 days. One -hundred forty
days was determined to be the average length of time
between revenue recognition and the write-off of an
uncollectible account. When compared to the uncollect-
ible account factor determined in the previous rate
case, the test year factor indicated improvement in the
percentage of accounts written -off by HL&P.
10. Advert sing, Contributions 6 Donations ($13,000)
Section 23.21(b)(2) of the PUC's Substantive Rules
requires exclusion of certain types of donations from
the Cost of Service. All donations made by HUP during
the test year were reviewed and several donations which
totaled $12,500, were excluded from the Cost of Service
in accordance with the Substantive Rule.
Section 23.21(b)(1)(E) of the Substantive Rules
provides that the total of all advertising, contribu-
tions and donations included in the Cost of Service
shall not exceed 3/10 of 1% (0.3%) of the gross receipts
of the utility. A test was made of HL&P's compliance
with the 113/lV s of 1 V rule, and it was found that the
utility was in compliance, spending 1/10 of 1% of gross
receipts on advertising, contributions and donations
during the test year.
11. Wheeling Sipenses ($197,000)
HL&P purchases power from the City of Austin and
City Public Service Board of San Antonio pursuant to
contracts with both. The expenses associated with
"wheeling" power from Austin and San Antonio through the
service areas of other utilities have been adjusted to
reflect the projected cost of all wheeling contracts
currently in effect.
-7-
12. Limestone Amortization ($7, 056, 000)
HL&P has requested authorization to defer certain
expenses associated with Limestone Unit 1 during the
period December 1985 through September 1986, and to then
amortize these expenses through rates over a ten year
period. The request by the utility would effectively
result in selective ratemaking. For this reason,
expenses associated with Limestone Unit 1 during the
requested period (prior to a final rate order in the
current case) have not been deferred.
On a prospective basis, it is recommended that the
utility be authorized to defer operations and mainte-
nance expenses, depreciation expenses and property taxes
from the date of commercial operation of Limestone Unit
2 for a period of time not to exceed 18 months or until
such time as rates set in HL&P's next general rate pro-
ceeding become effective, whichever is sooner. An ad-
justment will be made to reduce the deferred amount to
reflect declining 0&M expenses at power plants displaced
by Limestone Unit 2. A review for reasonableness of
expenses will be conducted at such time as HL&P proposes
to amortize the deferred amounts through rates.
13. Other Operations & Maintenance Expenses
a. Reduction in Gas 0&M Expenses ($9,464,000)
An adjustment has been made to reflect declining
operating costs associated with certain gas gener-
ating units, the production from which has been
displaced by Limestone Unit 1 and cogeneration
purchases.
-8-
b. New Billing Procedures ($255,000)
C.
d.
e.
f.
Effective April 1986, HL&P changed its billing
format. The cost savings associated with the new
format are projected at $255,000 annually.
Additional Legislative Advocacy
($17, 000)
Expenses associated with public image advertising
and inaugural ball tickets have been excluded from
the Cost of Service.
Unsupported & Excessive Officer Expense ($85,000)
Officers' expense vouchers were reviewed and all
unsupported expenses were removed from the Cost of
Service. Hotel charges in excess of $90 per day
were determined to be excessive and the increment
over $90 per day was removed from the Cost of Ser-
vice.
Lease and Rental Expenses
($51,000)
The cost of HL&P's Greenspoint Employment office
was reclassified from 0&M to Lease Expenses and
included in the Cost of Service.
Fuel Refund Costs ($248,000)
In July 1985, HL&P issued checks to its customers
to refund an over -collection of fuel costs. All
costs associated with the refund have been amor-
tized over a two-year period as these costs are
non -recurring in nature.
g. Malakoff Expenses to CWIP ($16,000)
Expenses incurred in connection with Docket 5755,
before the PUC, Inquiry of the Public Utility into
whether the Certificate of Convenience and Neces-
sity granted Houston Lighting & Power Company for
its Malakoff Generating Station should be Cancel-
led, have been reclassified from Rate Case Expenses
to Malakoff -related Construction Work in Progress.
h. STP #12 Expense Reclassification ($100, 000)
i.
J.
Expenses related to the study of the economic via-
bility of STP Unit 2 have been reclassified from
Other O&M Expense to Rate Case Expense.
Non -recurring Maintenance
($8, 550, 000)
Major stator and rotor repairs, and blade replace-
ments made during the test year at four generating
stations have been reclassified to CWIP or amor-
tized over a three year period, as appropriate.
Affiliate Charges
($538,000)
An adjustment was made to the amount of Houston
Industries, Inc. ("HII") charges allocated to HL&P
so that the Cost of Service includes 75% of HII
charges. The remaining 25% is allocated to the
other subsidiaries of HII.
k. Employee Store Expenses
($181, 000)
All expenses incurred in the operation of a store
which is used to sell electric appliances to HL&P
-10-
employees have been removed from the Cost of Ser-
vice.
B, FUEL EXPENSE
C,
D,
($136,181,000)
Fuel expenses have been projected by performing an econ-
omic dispatch of HL&P's system and factoring into the analy-
sis current fuel costs and contractual take -or -pay obliga-
tions. Substantial fuel cost savings are projected due to
the recent decline in natural gas prices and HL&P's renegoti-
ations of fuel supply contracts.
PURCHASED POWER EXPENSE ($40,961,000)
Purchased power expenses have been computed by applying
contractual rates for purchases from firm suppliers of cogen-
erated capacity and from the City of Austin and City Public
Service Board of San Antonio.
Pursuant to HL&P's non -firm cogeneration tariff, non -
firm cogeneration is purchased at the hourly marginal cost of
energy to HL&P. These purchases have been factored into the
Cost of Service analysis at the spot market price of natural
gas.
DEPRECIATION EXPENSE
($139835,000)
Depreciation Expense has been adjusted to reflect the
useful lives and estimated salvage values of HL&P's property,
plant and equipment as determined by the consulting firm of
R.W. Beck and Company, which provided an analysis of HL&P's
Depreciation Study for the City in this case. The adjust-
ments are explained more fully in the testimony of Mr. Jack
Pous of R. W. Beck and Company.
-11-
Es TAXES OTHER THAN FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
($5,0139000)
Social Security, Federal Unemployment and State Unem-
ployment Taxes were calculated based on current tax rates and
the recommended level of Salaries and Wage Expenses.
Ad valorem taxes were calculated based on an effective
rate applied to the recommended levels of Plant in Service
and Plant Held for Future Use.
No adjustments were made to the amount of State Fran-
chise Tax or the PUC Gross Receipts Payment factor requested
by HL&P. The amounts requested were determined to be reason-
able.
HL&P was audited by the State of Texas during the test
year and as a result of the audit, HL&P paid the State $3.7
million in Use tax, interest and penalties for the period
January 1, 1976, through June 30, 1983. The taxes paid
during the test year which were related to prior years have
been removed. Because HL&P does not recognize Use tax on a
current basis, no provision has been made for Use tax in the
Cost of Service.
F, FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
($65,5079000)
Federal Income Taxes have been computed by applying
statutory tax rates to the recommended Revenue Requirement.
Tax savings resulting from the consolidation of affiliates'
returns have been deducted in the calculation of Federal
Income Taxes as required by Section 41(c)(2) of the Public
Utility Regulatory Act.
Go RETURN ON INVESTMENT
($66.209,000)
The Return that HL&P should be allowed to earn on its
investment has been calculated by multiplying its Weighted
-12-
he
Average Cost of Capital by the value of its Rate Base.
The cost of debt and preferred stock used in the deter-
mination of the Weighted Average Cost of Capital reflect
actual costs associated with outstanding debt and preferred
stock issues.
The cost of equity capital was determined using the Dis-
counted Cash Flow and the Risk Premium methodologies. These
methodologies are used by financial analysts to determine in-
vestors' current expectations of a particular stock issue.
The analyses indicate that the cost of equity capital to
HL&P's parent company, Houston Industries, Inc., is currently
14.75%. Because the financial performance of HII is domi-
nated by that of HL&P, no adjustment was made to HII's cost
of equity to project that of HL&P.
The utility's capital structure has been determined by
taking into consideration recent bond refundings and a requi-
sition of pollution control bond proceeds which had been held
in trust.
The calculation of the Weighted Average Cost of Capital,
in the amount of 11.58%, is shown on Schedule 7.
The Weighted Capital Cost of Capital was multiplied by
the value of HL&P's.Rate Base to determine the amount of
"return" to allow the Company.
-13-
III. RATE BASE
A. ELECTRIC PLANT IN SERVICE
(E5,496,000)
HL&P capitalized Employee Benefits and Use Tax asso-
ciated with Limestone Unit 2 as if they related to Limestone
Unit 1. These amounts have been reclassified from Plant in
Service to Construction Work in Progress because Unit 2 is
still under construction.
B. CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS
$1,243,000
Adjustments were made to the balance of Construction
Work in Progress (CWIP) to reflect: 1) the reclassification
of Rate Case Expenses associated with the Malakoff decertifi-
cation proceedings from Rate Case Expenses to CWIP; 2) the
capitalization of major stator and rotor repairs made during
the test year to Robinson Unit 4, Parish Unit 5, and the
Greens Bayou generating stations; 3) the reclassification
from Plant in Service to CWIP of certain sales tax and Em-
ployee Benefits expenses associated with Limestone Unit 2
which HL&P had classified as related to Limestone Unit 1; and
4) the removal of the cost of a Direct Current Interconnect
line in Ft. Bend County, which, because of a change in plans,
the utility will not build.
None of the costs associated with the construction of
the South Texas Nuclear Project have been included in Rate
Base.
C. PROPERTY HELD FOR FUTURE USE
($518,000)
Due to changes in long range planning of the Electric
Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), the Crosby Street Sub-
station, which was formerly under construction by HL&P, will
not be completed. Because the utility has no definitive
plans for the substation, it is not "used and useful" as re-
-14-
quired by S39(a) of the PURA for inclusion in Rate Base.
Expenditures related to the Crosby Street Substation, in the
amount of $517,859, have therefore been removed from the Rate
Base.
D. NUCLEAR FUEL IN PROGRESS ($609370)
An adjustment was made to the balance of Nuclear Fuel in
Progress (NFIP) to reverse the compounded effect of an error
made by the Company in its calculation of Allowance for Funds
used During Construction (AFUDC) in the month of February
1985.
AFUDC is accrued monthly on the balance of CWIP and
Nuclear Fuel in Progress that is not included in Rate Base.
Conversely, "return" dollars are earned on CWIP and NFIP
included in the Rate Base.
The accrual of AFUDC is similar to the compounding of
interest during construction (IDC) on any major project, with
the primary difference between the accrual of AFUDC and IDC
being that AFUDC is accrued not only on construction costs
financed by debt proceeds, but also on construction costs
financed by equity funds.
E. FUEL OIL INVENTORY ($2,713,000)
The adjustment to the balance of Fuel Oil Inventory has
been derived by calculating each fuel oil -burning generating
station's maximum annual fuel oil burn over the period 1981
through 1985 and adding an "unuseable" component for each
plant to account for oil in tank bottoms and in the pipeline
system.
-15-
F. WORKING CASH ALLOWANCE
($82.702.000)
The amount of Working Cash required in the day-to-day
operations of the utility was determined by using a Lead/Lag
Study. The Lead/Lag Study is used to evaluate the timing of
all sources and uses of cash by the utility.
An example of a "Lead" item in this analysis is the
Franchise Fee paid to the City of Houston by HL&P for the use
of City streets and public rights -of -way. In accordance with
the terms of HL&P's Franchise Ordinance, the Company collects
Franchise Fees from ratepayers each month of a calendar year,
and then remits the fees to the City on February 15th of the
next year. In the Lead/Lag Study, Franchise Fee Revenues are
assumed to be collected mid -way through the calendar year
(approximately June 30), and remitted to the City 228.5 days
later (on February 15), resulting in a 228.54 "Lead" on Fran-
chise Fee Revenues. Conversely, were the City to perform a
Lead/Lag Study of its own, the receipt of Franchise Fees from
HL&P would be assigned a 228.5 day "Lag".
G• PREPAYMENTS
($308,000)
Unlike Municipal Franchise Fees, State Franchise Taxes
and the PUC Gross Receipts Assessment are prepaid in accor-
dance with State law. Adjustments have been made to accu-
rately reflect the average monthly balance of these prepaid
taxes for each month of the test year.
4 The 228.5 day "Lead" is calculated as follows: [(365 days +
2) + (31 days in January) + (15 days in February)].
-16-
H. DEFERRED LIMESTONE EXPENSES
($64,625,000)
As previously stated, Limestone Unit 1 became opera-
tional on December 1, 1985. HL&P has requested that costs
incurred during the month of December 1985, and projected
operation and maintenance expenses, depreciation, ad valorem
taxes and AFUDC for the period January 1, 1986, to October 1,
1986, be included in the rate base.
Were the City to honor HL&P's request, the utility would
be granted selective ratemaking treatment. The utility would
defer expenses which were not included in the determination
of rates now in effect. This is not recommended, in parti-
cular because HL&P reported earnings during the test period
in excess of that authorized in its last rate case. For this
reason, deferred costs associated with Limestone Unit 1 have
not been included in Rate Base.
I. UNRECOVERED STORM LOSSES
($8.880.000)
In Docket No. 5779, HL&P was authorized to recover all
costs associated with Hurricane Alicia in excess of the
amount available in.the property insurance reserve through
amortization over a seven year period. Consistent with the
PUC's Final Order in that Docket, the unamortized balance of
costs associated with Hurricane Alicia are not included in
the Rate Base.
J. DEFERRED TAXES
($2998789000)
The accumulated balance of Deferred Taxes has been esta-
blished to recognize the difference in the amount of taxes
included in the Cost of Service and the amount actually paid
the Federal government. In the early years of the life of an
asset, "per book" taxes generally exceed taxes actually paid,
-17-
and the difference between the two is flowed through to rate-
payers over the life of the asset. The balance of Deferred
Taxes yet to be amortized is credited to the Rate Base to
prevent ratepayers from paying a return on cost-free funds
provided by the Federal government.
K, OTHER COST-FREE CAPITAL ($592809000)
Cost-free Capital has been increased to reflect un-
claimed fuel refund checks and unpaid incentive and deferred
compensation costs as of the end of the test year. These
expenses were included in the determination of rates in pre-
vious years but as of yet have not been paid by the util-
ity. Accordingly, the funds represent Cost-free Capital and
have been deducted from the Rate Base.
-18-
IV, REVENUE REQUIREMENT
Based upon a Rate ease of $4,764,986,0001 a Rate of Return
of 11.58%, and the Cost of Service adjustments discussed in Sec-
tion II above, the Revenue Requirement for HL&P has been deter-
mined to be $3,087,698,000. When compared to fully adjusted test
year revenues in the amount of $3,500,255,000, a revenue reduc-
tion in the amount of $412,557,000, or 11.79% is recommended.
(See Schedule 2.)
V, COST ALLOCATIONS
Cost Allocation is the process by which the total revenue
requirement is allocated to the customer classes served by HL&P.
Capacity charges have been allocated using the Probability
Peak Methodology proposed by HL&P. The Probility Peak method
weights each hour of the year by the probability of being unable
to supply the demand on the system in any given hour.
The Cost of Service for each of HL&P's customer classes was
determined, and Relative Rates of Return were computed. Proposed
revenues for each class were established such that each class
would move toward a Relative Rate of Return of 1.00. A Relative
Rate of Return of 1.00 indicates a class is providing revenues
equal to the cost of serving the class.
-19-
VI, RATE DESIGN
As recommended, the residential class as a whole will re-
ceive a 8.6% reduction in rates. Under the recommended rate
structure, the average cost per kilowatt-hour increases with con-
sumption during the on -peak summer season, thereby encouraging
conservation by providing a rate incentive to conserve. On the
other hand, the rate recommended for winter heating consumption
in excess of 1,000 kilowatt-hours per month, is low, recognizing
the base load usage characteristics of such consumption.
The present and proposed residential rate structures follow:
Present Monthly Rate Structure
Summer: Customer Charge o $9.00 per month, which includes 250 kwh
all kwh over 251 kwh at 5.29230 per kwh
plus: fuel charge of 2.53lU per kwh for all kwh
Plus: PCRF charge of 0.30930 per kwh for all kwh
Winter: Customer Charge of $9.00 per month, which includes 250 kwh
251-1,000 kwh at 5.2923C per kwh
over 1,000 kwh at 2.4297t per kwh
plus: fuel charge of 2.53134 per kwh for all kwh
Plus: PCRF charge of 0.30930 per kwh for all kwh
ton Lighting & Power Company Proposed Rate Structure
per: Customer Charge o $10.60 per month, which includes 250 kwh*
all kwh over 251 kwh-at 6.67800 per kwh
plus: fuel charge of 2.50980 per kwh for all kwh
Winter: Customer Charge of $10.60 per month, which includes 250 kwh*
251-1,000 kwh at 6.6780t per kwh
over 1,000 kwh at 3.45000 per kwh
plus: fuel charge of 2.5098C per•kwh for• all kwh
Revenue & Regulatory Affairs Division Recommended Rate Structure
Summer: Customer Charge o $9.00 per month, which includes 250 kwh*
all kwh over 251 kwh at 6.24600 per kwh
plus: fuel charge of 2.08540 per kwh for all kwh
Winter: Customer Charge of $9.00 per month, which includes 250 kwh*
251-1,000 kwh at 6.24600 per kwh
over 1,000 kwh at 2.96550 per kwh
Plus: fuel charge of 2.08540 per kwh for all kwh
-20-
Under the recommended rates, the typical residential custo-
mer averaging 1,700 kwh usage in the summer months and 800 kwh
usage in the winter months, would realize a monthly average re-
duction in electric bills of $8.10.
The rate structure for all classes, with the exception of
the residential class which is discussed above, shall be the same
structure as that proposed by HL&P in Volume VII of its Rate
Filing Package. In accordance with Section 5 of the Rate Ordi-
nance submitted for City Council's approval, HL&P shall design
rates and submit the tariff for approval within ten days of
approval of the Rate Ordinance.
B-6118-47
-21-
SCHEDULE 1
CITY OF HOUSTON
HOUSTON LIGHTING 8 POWER COMPANY
REVENUE REQUIREMENT
TEST YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1985
(OOO's)
LINE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
NY_______
PER BOOKS ADJUSTMENT
HLCP
REQUEST
CITY
ADJUSTMENT
CITY
RATE ORDER
1
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
$594,576 M$11,114
$505,690
((=—_�43,097•)
$560,593
2
FUEL
1,420,262 (432.108)
988,154
(135,181)
851,973
3
PURCHASED POWER
442,802 96,454
539,256
(40,961)
498,295
4
DEPRECIATION
177,099 33,488
210,587
(13,835)
196,752
5
OTHER TAXES
140,185 15,507
156,692
(5,013)
151,579
5
INTER ON CUSTOMER DEPOSITS
0 0
2,302
(0)
2,302
7
FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
262,557 77,439
339,996
(65,507)
274,489
e
RETURN
495,883 121,940
517,823
(56,209)
551,614
9
REVENUE REQUIREMENT
$3,533,364 ($75,166)
$3,460,500
($W 372,802
=3,087,698
summum.ntwn sosmasa.mom
-mamossm.ao
mutantwase
wossosmsssa
CITY OF HOUSTON
HOUSTON LIGHTING B POWER COMPANY
CALCULATION OF INCREASE
TEST YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1985
(OOO,S)
LINE
NO. DESCRIPTION
---- ----------------
1 REVENUE REQUIREMENT
2 LESS: FUEL REVENUES
3 MUNICIPAL STREET USE REVENUES
4 OTHER REVENUES
5 BASE RATE REVENUE REQUIREMENT
6 INCREASE IN BASE RATE REVENUES
HLCP CITY CITY
REQUEST ADJUSTMENT RATE ORDER
$3,460,500 ($372.802) $3,087,698
(1,265,810) 177,150 (1,088,652)
(80,117) 9,069 (71,048)
(25,090) (1,241) (26.331)
$2,089,483 ($187,816) $1,901,667
.........
IN
SCHEDULE 2
$159,759
TEST YEAR
AS ADJUSTED
$3,500,255
(1,651,171)
(84.587)
(22,589)
$1,741,908
wwwwwwasm
SCHEDULE 3
CITY OF HOUSTON
HOUSTON LIGHTING
E POWER COMPANY
OPERATIONS
E MAINTENANCE EXPENSE
ADJUSTMENTS
TEST YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1985
(000,S)
LINE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
- --
PER BOOKS
ADJUSTMENT
HL&P
REQUEST
CITY
ADJUSTMENT
CITY
RATE ORDER
1
2
SALARIES E WAGES
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
$226,920
$14,104
$241,024
($4.618)
$236.406
3
LIMESTONE OPERATING EXPENSES
29,511
152
(488)
12.330
29,023
(816)
28,207
4
STORM DAMAGES
2.076
(702)
12,482
(1,809)
10.593
5
STORM DANAGES-5779
996
1.374
0
1.374
6
7
MUNCIPAL STREET USE FEES
98,238
(19.967)
1,234
76,744
0
(7,696)
1,234
71.048
e
RATE CASE EXPENSES
EEI DUES
498
757
1.255
(1,059)
!96
9
R E D
414
(83)
331
(331)
0
10
ANORT. OF OTHER DEF. CHARGES
721
11,204
1,05
12.779
0
12 779
•204
11
MANAGEMENT AUDIT
0
0
0
204
0
12
LEASE AND RENTAL
5,408
978
278
978
(652)
326
13
UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS
14.419
902
5,666
(318)
5,368
14
ADVERT., CONTR. E DON.
2,803
784
15.321
(913)
13,574
15
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
9
(9)
3,587
'
(13)
3.574
16
SOCIAL DUES
25
(25)
0
0
0
17
18
POWER WHEELING
ANORT. OF LIMESTONE DEF. CHRGS
8.Fr70
(7.056)
0
11822
0
(197)
0
1.625
19
OTHER OEM EXPENSES
192,790
7,056
(7.056)
0
20
REDUCTION IN GAS OEM EXP.
0
192,790
0
192,790
21
NEW BILLING PROCEDURES
(9,464)
(9,464)
22
ADDIL. LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY
(255)
(255)
23
UNSUPPORTED E EXCESSIVE OFFICER EXP.
(17)
(17)
24
LEASE E RENTAL EXPENSES
(85)
(85)
25
FUEL REFUND COSTS
(51)
(51)
26
MALAKOFF EXP. TO CHIP
(248)
(248)
27
STP p2 EXP. RECLASS. TO RATE
CASE EXP.
(16)
(15)
28
NON -RECURRING MAINTENANCE
(100)
(100)
29
AFFILATE CHARGES
(8.550)
(8.550)
30
EMPLOYEE STORE EXPENSES
(538)
(538)
_
(181)
(181)
TOTAL EXPENSES
$594,576
$11 114--------
$605,690
----------------
($45.097) $560.593
.name..
.ase..n
.......
.......
N
SCHEDULE 4
CITY OF HOUSTON
HOUSTON LIGHTING 9 POWER COMPANY
SUMMARY OF FUEL COSTS
TEST YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1985
LINE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
HL&P
CITY
CITY
---------
REQUEST
ADJUSTMENT
RATE ORDER
FUEL EXPENSE
---------
-----------
'-""-""-
I
2
------------
RECOVERABLE COSTS
$875,322
0121.279)
$754,043
BASE RATE FUEL
112,832
(14,902)
97,930
3
TOTAL FUEL
------»-
980,154
----- »--
(136,181)
851,973
PURCHASED POWER
-----»»
------ ---
»--'""'"
4
5
--------------
RECOVERABLE COSTS
BASE RATE PURCHASED POWER
390,488
(55,879)
334,609
148.768
14,918
163,686
6
TOTAL PURCHASED POWER
539,256
»(40,961)
498,295
7
TOTAL FUEL AND PURCHASED POWER
$1,527,410
($177,142)
$1.350,266
8
BASE RATE FUEL
.........
$261,600
summon...
$16
..Newman.
$261,616
9
FUEL REVENUE
$1,265,810
($177,158)
$1,088,652
.mamma...
Swum.....
wousessum
SCHEDULE 5
CITY OF HOUSTON
HOUSTON LIGHTING
& POWER COMPANY
INVESTED
CAPITAL AND RETURN
TEST YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1985
(OOO,S)
LINE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
- - - - - - - - - - - -
HLEP
REQUEST
CITY
ADJUSTMENT
CITY
RATE ORDER
1
PLANT IN SERVICE
- - - - - - - - -
$5,915.823
-----------
($5,496)
$5,910,327
2
ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
1,201,576
0
1,201,576
3
NET PLANT
-----------
4,714,247
-----------
(5,496)
4.708,751
4
CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS
676,830
1,243
678,073
5
PROPERTY HELD FOR FUTURE USE
3,613
(518)
3,095
6
NUCLEAR FUEL
118,181
(60,370)
57,81'.
7
FUEL OIL INVENTORY
17,478
(2,713)
14,765
8
WORKING CASH ALLOWANCE
44,454
(82,702)
(38,248)
9
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
56,662
0
56,662
10
PREPAYMENTS
15,058
(308)
14,750
11
DEFERRED LIMESTQIrE CHARGES
64,625
(64.625)
0
12
UNRECOVERED STORM LOSSES
8.880
(81880)
0
13
DEFERRED TAXES
(601,625)
(29,878)
(631,503)
14
PRE-1971 INVESTMENT TAX CREDIT
(6,302)
0
(6,302)
15
CUSTOMERS DEPOSITS
(32,536)
0
(32.538)
16
CUSTOMER ADVANCES FOR CONSTR.
(15,891)
0
(15,691)
17
RESERVE FOR INJURIES
(5,597)
0
(5,597)
18
OTHER COST FREE CAPITAL
(33,562)
(5,280)
(38,842)
19
INVESTED CAPITAL
$5,024,513
($259,527)
$4,764,986
20
RATE OF RETURN
...ow.....w
12.30%
...........
.....o.....
-0.72%
11.58%
21
RETURN
...........
$617,823
...........
($66,209)
...........
$551,614
...o.sw...
..owns.....
.oss......n
SCHEDULE 6
CITY OF HOUSTON
HOUSTON LIGHTING 6 POWER COMPANY
DOCKET 5765
SUMMARY OF CASH WORKING CAPITAL
MULTIPLIER CASH WORKING
RECOMMENDED (LEAD)/LAG (LEAD)/LAG DAYS CAPITAL
WORKING CAPITAL USES AMOUNT DAYS /365 DAYS REQUIREMENT
------------------------------------------------------
Revenue Requirement $3,087,698 36.25 0.0993 $305,655
WORKING CAPITAL SOURCES
-----------------------
Fuel
Purchased Power
Other 06M
Federal Income Taxes
Other Taxes
Interest
Preferred Dividends
$851,973
498,295
560,593
160,139
99,407
247.571
29.391
ESTIMATED CAPITAL TO FINANCE THE
NET LEAD IN RECOVER OF COST OF SERVICE
Cash Componant
Municipal Franchise Fees 71,048
CASH WORKING CAPITAL REQUIREMENT
(29.47)
(0.0807)
($68,784)
(37.50)
(0.1027)
(51,195)
(17.54)
(0.0481)
(26,946)
(99.91)
(0.2737)
(43,834)
(160.54)
(0.4946)
(49,169)
(86.13)
(0.2360)
(58,418)
(46.13)
(0.1264)
(3,715)
4,594
1,636
(220.50) (0.6260) (44.478)
--------- ------
($38,246)
...............
f
=
II -
_
a�a
a
'
Ii ct
1�.
ID
ct
C C C ui C C r
r,� rt� r:► ry r: r:�
vy
m
'"
II
n
N
c a m Ill on 'n
II JF
t0 M M fD t0 rD
N
11 P.
)
E`1
(P
IILq T
Lei �.1 r �p 1-• ►..
m
11
r
tR
�+
kD
14
If
II
11
W
C.
N 4
11 t)
t.
m
C•1
r
1,
I. -II
II z
n
+o
•I
m
11 rn
r
m
110
if m
'
rV
V
V
,I
V
tT
V
III
V
,,N^D
W
I ^•
y
•.
1
K
•
- If
_
^.
m
0
4
!!
8
II C+-S
c
4
II -I
W
CQ
Gl
II ro
C+
�'
II ED
CR
r
+
ii C+
C�
if u)
0
if
r
r 0
r
it -h
W.
U3
n ct
Q M-
P'1
•
N 1!7
0
i
m
it r)
fu
!1 0
C
C
0
11ILI
3
3
`C
��
11 N •
►•
II C+
11 O D
w 11
•
II ram•
Rti
Ul
m
II
X ?t
X
II C)
II �
II r•
n �
u o+
n •-
00
Ln
H
m
w
Ln
J
co
Q
�
I
o.
cc
I
H
Cl.
�--
U)
Q
�
z
z
w
°C
o
°C
H
�
En
U
,
rr
A I I a
i
o-
3
Y
SHV-1700
1
Q
Q
co
0
c.i
LLJ
cc
w
0
W
W
4.
J
Z
A $ h $ $ $
N N p p
n.ten nit
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF HARRIS S
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally
appeared Jane Wilton Cater, who, having been placed under oath by
me, did depose as follows:
"My name.is Jane Wilton Cater. I am of legal age and a
resident of the State of Texas. The foregoing Recommendation and
Schedules, offered by me on behalf of the City of Houston, were
prepared by me or under my direction and supervision, and are
true and correct, and the opinions stated therein are, to the
best of my knowledge and belief, accurate, true, and correct."
Jane Wilton Cater
SUBSCRIBED nd SWORN TO BEFORE ME by the said Jane Wilton
Cater, this /t7t, day of June, 1986.
1.11
/,KZC_ .
Notary Public in—a-n-cr or
Harris County, Texas
Anita Slavkoff
My Commission expires 03/06/88
Attachment "B"
1986 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Job No. 8603-24
June 17, 1986
Bid Results
Angel Brothers Enterprises, Inc. $167,379.75 (4)
Beach Construction Company
Brown & Root, USA
Buffalo Excavating and Paving
Craig & Heidt, Inc.
Hubco, Inc.
Skrla, Inc.
Teal Contracting Company
World Wide Utilities
$171,621.75 (5)
$161,267.30 (2)
Bid not accepted (late)
$154,660.50 (1)
$167,209.50 (3)
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION
TITLE: ANNUAL CAST IRON FITTINGS CONTRACT
BID NUMBER: 8605-73
DATE: 6-10-86 2:00 P.N.
Attachment "C"
;ITEM; QTY !UNIT ;DESCRIPTION ENTERPRISES TRIANGLE �JAMCO PIPE a FAB. MATERIAL ENTERPRISES ;UTILITY SUPPLY ;
I ' ' ;UNIT PRICEIEXT. PRICE'UNIT PRICEIIXT PRICE! I '
l ; LOT 1 LOT ;CAST IRON FITTINGS 1 I 1 1 :UNIT PRICE1 27, PRICE UNIT PRICE,EXT. PRICE;
1 , 26,345.15, , 30,304.58, 1 27,003.10! 1 25,603.501
! � � 1 1
! ! ! ! WARRANTY: 11 YEAR ! !I YEAR 1 i i 1 !
1 1 ! I ,I YEAR , ,BY NANUFACTURER 1
DELIVERY: 114 DAYS ARO 10-14 DAYS ARO 1 1 ;
� ,STOCK � � � -2 WEEKS ARO ,14 DAYS ARO ,
1
1 ! 1 !BIDS NAILED TO 1 VENDORS.!
I I I I ! 1 I
1 , I
1 ,
1 ,
1
CITY of BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION PAGE 2
TITLE: ANNUAL CAST IRON FITTINGS CONTRACT
810 NUMBER: 8605-73
DATE: 6-10-86 2:00 P.M.
;ITEM;
QTY ;UNIT ;DESCRIPTION
;ROHAN COMPANY
;MUNICIPAL PIPE
t FAB.;AQUA UTILITY
1
I
—�
1 ;
LOT ;CAST IRON FITTINGS
;
;UNIT PRICEIEXT. PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT.
,
PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT. PRICE;
UNIT
PRICE�EXT
PRICE1
LOT ;
; ; 29,00.50;
' 29,5/3.40'
,
1 , 27,S20.721
0
WARRANTY:
;BY MANUFACTURER
;I YEAR ;
;l YEAR
1
DELIVERY:
'7-10 DAYS ARO
;
114 DAYS AR O
' oArs ARo
�
,14
1
1
I
I
CITY OF BAYTOWN
810 TABULATION
TITLE: CHAIRS AND TABLES
810 NUMBER: 8605-72
DATE: 6-17-86 2:00 P.N.
Attachment "D"
1 1 1
;ITEMS QTY ;UNIT =DESCRIPTION
SBAYSHORE OFFICE '
, �NATHERNE S
,PERSENAIRE
PARK
18 16 OFFICE SUPPLY
;
1 1
1 250 1 EA.
15TACKABLE CHAIRS
1
�
1UI_1IT PRICElEXT. PRICE:UNIT PRICEIEXT
= • 18.24 1 4,560.001 32.53 1
PRtCElUN1T PRICE:
8,132.501N0 810
XT, PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT. PRICE'
2
1
65 ; EA.
;SIX FOOT TABLES
38.65 I 2,512.251 58.35 1
,NO BID
3,792.151 56.50 1 3#672.501 60.90 1 3,958.501
MODEL:
,V1RCO 11100 SASTRO 12200
,KRUEGER
$KRUEGER !
_
1
1 WARRANTY:
SBY NAKUFACTURER 190 DAYS 1
DELIVERY:
130 DAYS ARO 142 DAYS ARO
'30 DAYS
ARO
'
-/0 DAYS ARO
i
I SPECIAL CONDITIONS:1'CHAIRS:
�
�
�
,30
,
1 FRANE-14GA 3/49
1
i
1 TUBULAR STEEL. 16GA1
1 WAS SPECIFIED.
1
1 WEIGHT-12LBS
1
I
1 9-IILBS SPECIFIED.
1
1
i
i
14TABLES: 1
1
,
1
1
1
1
1 TOP IS 5/8• PARTICLES 1
1
1
, i
1
1
1
i
I BOARD CORE.
1 PLASTIC SPECIFIED. I 1
1
I
,
1
RIDS NAILED TO 5 VENDORS.,
1
1
i
1
,
1
CITY OF BAYTOVN
610 TABULATION
TITLE: ANNUAL TIRE AND TUBE CONTRACT
BID NUMBER: 8605-75
DATE: 6-17-86 2:00 P.M.
Attachment "E"
!
!ITEM!
QTY
!UNIT
!DESCRIPTION
!GOODYEAR
1A-1 TIRE t
BATTERY !GENERAL TIRE SERVICE !KELLY TIRE SERVICE
,
!UNIT PRICEIEXT. PRICEIUNIT PR_ICE'EXT. PRICE;UNIT PRICEIEXT.
TIRES 11
PRICEIUNIT PRICE.-EXT. PRICE:
!SECTION I -POLICE
1.
10
EA.
1
'195-7SRl4WSV ;
1
44.721
447.201NO
1
BID 1
1
1
,
42.781
, 11
427.801NO BID ;
11
, 2. ,
75
, EA.
1225/70 RIS
;
47.381
3,553.501NO
BID 1
1
52.04'
3,903.001NO 810 '
1 3. 1
SO
1 EA.
1235-70 RIS
1
48.561
2,428.001NO
BID 1
1
S2.941
2,647.001N0 BID 1
! !
1
!SECTION 11-TRUCK TIRES 1
1
1
1
1 1
1
:AND TUBES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ,
1.
'
1 4. 1
8
1 EA.
!LT215/85R160
1
63.961
511.681
67.191
1
537.52 1
1
77.511
620.081 67.471
539.76:
! 5. 1
1 6. 1
10
30
1 EA.
1 EA.
17.0014
1225/75 RIS
!
28.531
285.301
37.311
373.10 1
33.581
335.801 42.751
427.501
1 7. 1
54
1 EA.
1670 X 15
1
34.681
1,040.401
35.511
1,065.30 1
45.111
1,353.301 44.651
1,339.501
1 B. 1
4
1 EA.
1700 X 14
!
31.171
1,683.181,
33.511
1,809.54 1
37.011
1.998.541 35.901
1,938.601
1 9. 1
15
1 EA.
1700 X 15
1
1
28.531
40.351
114.121
605.25!
37.311
41.891
149.24 1
31.581
134.321 42.75'
171.001
110. 1
SO
1 EA.
1750 X 16 - 6
PLY 1
43.501
2,175.001
46.521
628.35 1
2,326.00 1
38.931
44.S21
583.951 40.401
2,226.001 52.191
606.001
2,609.501
It!. 1
112. 1
32
10
1 EA.
1 EA.
1750 X 16 - 8
1800 X 16.5
PLY 1
45.521
1,456.641
46.S21
1,488.64 1
49.911
1,597.121 52.191
1,670.081
113. 1
20
1 EA.
111L-16SL
1
1
41.111
73.941
411.101
1,478.801
44.331
78.511
443.30 1
1,570.20 1
43.061
140.861
430.601 63.701
2,917.201 66.141
637.001
114. 1
11S.
20
60
1 EA.
1900 X 20
1
102.011
21040.201
96.461
1,929.20 1
96.041
1,920.801 108.001
1,322.801
6,480.001
1
116. 1
60
1 EA.
1 EA.
11000 X 20
11100 X 20
1
133.521
8,011.201
125.291
7,517.40 1
114.511
6,870.601 120.001
7,200.001
117. 1
10
1 EA.
11300 X 24
1
146.591
8.795.401
136.901
8,214.00 1
135.091
0,105.401 136.001
8,160.001
118. 1
12
1 EA.
113.6-28R4
1
200.361
2,003.601
215.761
2,157.60 1
216.451
2,161.SOIKO 810 '
'
119. 1
11
1 EA.
114.9-24R/
1
111.73,
154.311,
1,352.76,NO
1,851.721
,
BID ,
192.931
,
,
2,315.16 1
,
209.941
232.4S1
1,519.281N0 BID 1
2,789.4010 810
1
120. 1
121. 1
12
12
! EA.
1 EA.
0 7•SL-24R4
'16.9-24R4
1
203.781
2,445.361
201.59:
2,419.08 1
326.41:
1
3,916.921NO BID 1
1
1
l22. 1
11
1 EA.
116.9-30R1
1
189.901
2,278.801
201.501
2,418.00 1
284.761
2,417.121NO 810 1
4
1 EA.
1P1555 X 80R13
1
169.011
2,028.121
222.331
2,667.96 1
294.331
3413.961NO BID 1
!r 1
1
1 EA.
18-14.SLT
1
1
22.711
46.381
90.841
185.521
24.821
51.501
99.28 1
206.00
29.311
117.241NO 610
l25. 1
6
1 EA.
'LT234-85R16
1
72.781
436.68:
75.071
1
450.42 1
S2.161
77.521
208.641K0 BID
465.121NO BID 1
126. 1
127. 1
8
8
1 EA.
1 EA.
19SO-16.SLT
18.75-16.5LT
!
47.951
383.601
53.911
431.28 1
60.391
483.121NO 610 1
1
1
128. 1
4
1 EA.
116.9-28R1
1
1
43.161
155.141
345.281
49.611
396.88 1
56.461
451.681NO BID 1
129. 1
4
1 EA.
118.430RI722.241,
180.56,
620.561
200.011
2TI.19,
800.04 1
1,085.96 ;
276.191
337.841
1,104.761NO 810 '
'
1,351.361N0
130. 1
8
1 EA.
16.50-161T
1
32.701
261.601
35.421
,
283.39 1
35.341
BID 1
282.721NO 010 1
�
;.
131.
4
11 EA.
16.75-16.5LT
1
43.161
172.641NO BID 1
NO
BID 1
NO BID 1
.32.
1
ol EA.
16-12R4-TR
1
18.201
18.201
27.651
27.65 1
31.271
31.271NO BID 1
1
'
TOTAL: 1
1 50,234.491
143,810.49 1
1 58,806.601 '
, 33,101.74,1
DELIVERY:120
DAYS ARO
13 DAYS ARO1
12 DAYS ARO110
1 1
� SPECIAL
CONDITIONS:!
!
i
i
'
1
1
! !
1
!BIOS MAILED TO
8 VENDORS.!
'
!*O1D NOT SIGN '
'
INVITATION TO
810. !
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION PAGE 2
TITLE: ANNUAL TIRE AND TUBE CONTRACT
BID NUMBER: 8605-75
DATE: 6-17-86 2:00 P.M.
1 FULLERS TIRE CO.
!ITEM!
QTY !UNIT ;DESCRIPTION
=
_
!UNIT PRICEIEXT.
PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT. PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT.
PRICEIUNIT
PRICE!EXT.
PRICE;
,
,SECTION 1-POLICE TIRES
1. ;
10
; EA.
1195-15R14MSM
1' 33.691
336.901
_
1 2. 1
75
1 EA.
1225/70 RIS
1' 57.961
4,347.001
I
1
1 3. 1
50
1 EA.
1235-70 RIS
1N0 010 1
1
I
I
1
Is
i
It
1 1
1
!SECTION II -TRUCK TIRES
! I
I
!
1
I
1
;
It
1 1
1
!AND TUBES
1 1
;
;
! 4. 1
8
1 EA.
ILT215/BSR160
1 83.491
667.921
1 5. 1
10
1 EA.
17.0014
1 39.211
392.101
1 6. 1
30
1 EA.
1225/75 RIS
1 43.021
1,290.601
1 7. !
54
1 EA.
1670 X 15
:NO 810 1
I
I
!
! 8. !
4
1 EA.
1700 X 14
I 41.891
167.56:
1
I
1
I
! 9. 1
15
'1 EA.
1700 X 15
45.111
677.551
'
110. !
50
to EA.
1750 X 16 • 6 PLY
INO BID 1
1
It
1
I
M. 1
32
I EA.
1750 X 16 - 8 PLY
I 51.861
1,659.521
I
!
1
!
I
I
112. 1
10
I EA.
1800 X 16.5
! 52.991
S29.901
1
I
1
I
!
I
I
113. !
20
1 EA.
'IIL-16SL
1 45.211
904.201
I
I
I
I
I
114. 1
20
1 EA.
1900 X 20
1 105.21:
2,104.201
1
!
1
!
1
I
115. 1
60
I EA.
HOOD X 20
1 131.761
7,905.601
I
I
I
I
I
I
116. !
60
1 EA.
11100 X 20
I 160.601
9,636.001
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
117. !
10
I EA.
11300 X 24
! 200.671
2,006.70:
I
I
I
I
1
1
HS. 1
12
I EA.
113.6-28114
1 134.031
1,608.361
1
I
1
I
1
1
119. 1
12
1 EA.
'14.9-24R4
1 176.93:
2,123.161
I
I
120. 1
12
1 EA.
117.51.-24114
1 207.551
2,490.60:
1
I
1
I
121. 1
12
1 EA.
116.9-204
I 19S.241
2,342.881
1
!
I
1
1
122. 1
12
1 EA.
116.9-30R1
I 216.601
2,599.201
I
I
1
1
I
I
123. 1
4
1 EA.
1PIS55 X 8OR13
1 27.741
110.961
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
124. 1
4
1 EA.
18-14.SLT
1 73.911
29S.641
1
12S. 1
6
I EA.
ILT234-BSR16
I 93.221
559.321
I
I
I
126. 1
8
1 EA.
19SO-16.SLT
1 6S.661
S2S.181
127. 1
8
1 EA.
18.75-16.SLT
I S7.851
462.001
:28. 1
4
1 EA.
116.9-28R1
! 190.931
795.721
I
I
I
129. 14
1 EA.
1118.430111
1 244.081
976.321
I
I
130. 1
8
1 EA.
16.SO-16LT
I 40.141
321.121
1
1
131. 14
1 EA.
16.7S-16.SLT
1 S6.481
227.001
I
I
1
132. sl
I
EA.
116-12R4-711
NO BID 1
I
I
TOTAL:
1 1 48,064.111,
1
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1 1
1
1 SPECIAL CONDITIONS:12OOES
NOT MEET SPECIFICATIONS
'
I
,
I
I
1
1 DID NOT INCLUDE TESTING AND
CERTIFICATION
ON TIRES.
1
I
I
1 1
!
!
! 010 NOT SIGN
INVITATION TO
810.1
1
I
!
!
1
CITY OF BAYTOVN
610 TABULATION
TITLE: ANNUAL FILL SAND CONTRACT
BID NUMBER: 8605-76
DATE: 6-19-06 2:00 P.M.
Attachment "F"
,ITEN, OTT
,UNIT :A.B.
SAND
1D.R. SMART DUKP TRUCK;BITTKER
'ARROW REDI-MIX
'
1
1 15000
,DESCRIPTION ;UNIT PRICE!-EXT.
1YAROSIFILL SAND -SHALL BE RIVER ; 3.75 ;
PRICEIUNIT
18,750.001
PRICEIEXT. PRICE'UNIT PRICE'EXT
4.15
pR IE X3,
i
PRICES
1
I
10R BAN SAND. SAND TO BE,''
;
,
209750.001 3.6S ;
18,250.001 75.001 2
437.50:
1
1
1
!FREE OF DELETERIOUS '
I
;
!
1
ROA 16 YARD
1
!
1
1
1NATERIAL.
;
;
1
1
!LOAD
1
!
!
!
1
1
1
1
!
! DELIVERY:124 HOURS 1
!
124 HOURS 1
!AS REQUIRED
!AS REQUIRED
,
!
1
I
1BIDS NAILED TO 14 VENDORS.
!
1
i
CITY OF BAYTOYN
BID TABULATION PAGE 2
TITLE: ANNUAL FILL SAND CONTRACT
BID NUMBER: 8605-76
DATE: 6-19-86 2:00 P.N.
= I
IBAYTONN SAND
I CLAY MIGHT NAY SAND
;BAY
AREA LEASING
;
IITENI
QTY =UNIT ;DESCRIPTION
1 IS000 IYAROSIFILL SANG -SHALL
IKIT
BE RIVER I
PRICEIEXT
3.45 117,250.001
PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT PRICE/UNIT
3.15 ; 15,750.80I
PRICE!EXT. PRICEIUNIT PRICEIFXT,
3.50 1 17,500.001
PR I
I I
I DOR BANS( SAND.
SAND TO BE$,
I
I
I I
I (FREE OF DELETERIOUS
I
I
1 I
I i MATERIAL.
1
DELIVERY:I
1
!AS ORDERED -SANE
I 1
1 1
i
i
!DAY DELIVERY.
i i
i i
I
i
i
I
CITY OF BAYTOYN
BID TABULATION
TITLE: CONCRETE/ASPHALT SAY
BID NUNBER: 8605-76
DATE: 6-19-86 2:00 P.N.
Attachment "G"
;ITEM;
QTY ;UNIT ;DESCRIPTION
;GRACE ,1NC.
IGAEDCKE
EQUIPMENT
'F.Y.
'
GARTNER CO.
W.S. RENTALS
;
;
1 N1� IT PRICEREXT. PRICE:UMtT PRICEIEXT. PRICE MNIT
SAY ; ;' 7,367.651
PRICE'EXT. PRIM UNIT
PRICEIEXT, PR
'
1 1 EA.ICONCRETE/ASPHALT
;' 8,169.131
1 7,733.401
; 1,891.601
NAKE/MODEL: ;TARGET/3705QN18
1FELKER/350NLA
;TARGET/3705QN
;TARGET/3705QN18It
;
iALTERNATE:
i i' 7,000.771
i
It
It
'
i
MAKE/KODEL: !TARGET/PRO35
i
i
I
10
DELIYERY:130 DAYS ;
110 DAYS
'
,I/ DAYS 1 ,
'
DAYS 1
'
1
1
1
1 �
1 SPECIAL CONDITIONS:14SAY IS 35�
l' SAY IS
�
3S H.P.H.P.
1
1
,30
;
_
1
It
'
1 37 H.P. SPECIFIED
1 37 N.P.
SPECIFIED
1
1
i
' I
,
,
1
1
1
1 1
1
RIDS NAILED
1
TO 10 VENDORS. 1
1
1
1
I
10
0
I
1
110
It
1 I
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
I
,
It
1
1
,
,
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION PAGE 1
TITLE: CONCRETE/ASPHALT SAW
BID NUMBER: 8605-78
DATE: 6-19-86 2:00 P.N.
'BAYTEX RENTALS
'OICKSON EQUIP.CO.
1
;
'ITENI
QTY !UNIT
;DESCRIPTION
!UNIT PRICEIEXT. PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT, PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT.
PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT
PRICE'
1 ' EA.
'CONCRETE/ASPHALT SAW ' '' 6,361.001
! 7,899.001
NAKE/MODEL: lPRO-CUT/E35-ESP
11.0116YEAR/6500
1
'ALTERNATE: ' !
' !' 61899.001
HAKE/KODEI:
1
!LONGYEAR/3535W
I
1
1
DELIVERY:l30 DAYS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:''SAW IS 3S N.P.
''SAN IS 3S N.P.
37 H.P. SPECIFIED
' 37 H.P. SPECIFIED
- 7-I 7-L. E: - Ccm►.,nity Development
BID: Enka
DATE: 6-17-86
ITEM OTY I DESCRIPTION
Housing Rehab Project #85-04-15
802 East Lobit
Housing Rehab Project #85-04-16
716 Bowie
GROSS TOTAL
LESS DISC.
NET TOTAL
' nF '/FRY
u 1 D TABULATION Attachment "H"
anus Palton Rousseau, Const Morgan, Const. Aylor, Const. Ken West
NIT EXTENDED k--m —af— I P ff Lcf— UNIT EXTENOEO
r Vnl
E PRfCF n N�-� .,.. N _ UNI EXiFNUf
$10,035.00 I I 1 1$7,814.00 I 1$11,852.00
1,038.00 I 1$13,855.00 I 9,132.00
10,944.00
,985.00
TITL E; Community Development
B1D - BID TABULATION
DATE- 6-17-86
Crystal, Const.
►TEM OTY DESCRIPTION _
UNIT EXTEivOED UNIT EXTENDED UNIT
Project #85-04-16 $14,536.00
716 Bowie St.
GROSS TOTAL
LESS DISC.
NET TOTA L
nFl WRY
UN I
NOEO I UNI EXT1rNUE