Loading...
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