1986 09 25 CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
September 25, 1986
The City Council of the City of Baytown, met in regular
session on Thursday, September 25, 1986, at 5:30 p.m. in the
Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the following
attendance:
Fred T. Philips
Jimmy Johnson
*Perry M. Simmons
Ron Embry
Roy Fuller
Rolland J. Pruett
Emmett 0. Hutto
Fritz Lanham
Larry Patterson
Randy Strong
Eileen P. Hall
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Councilman
Mayor
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
The meeting was called to order with a quorum present. The
invocation was offered by Councilman Embry, after which the
following business was conducted:
Consider Minutes for the Regular Meeting Held on September 11,
1986
Councilman Johnson moved for approval of the minutes for the
meeting held on September 11, 1986; Councilman Philips seconded
the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members
and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Philips, Johnson, Embry
Abstained: Councilman Fuller
Citizens Communications:
No one requested to speak.
SW
60925-2
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Consider the Appeal of Adulfo Amador From the Decision of the
Auto Wrecker Committee Concerning Application for Auto Wrecker
Permit
*Councilman Simmons arrived while the hearing was in progress.
Mayor Hutto explained that council wished to entertain all
pertinent information regarding the application of Mr. Amador for
an auto wrecker permit. He explained further that council wished
to receive the information in an orderly manner as follows:
1. The testimony and arguments are be be relevant to the
qualifications of Mr. Amador as as auto wrecker permit
holder and to the public convenience and necessity of
the issuance of a permit to Mr. Amador.
2. The attorney or representative for each party represen-
ted will have an opportunity to make an opening state-
ment, not to exceed five minutes.
3. The testimony will be received from each witness, with
the attorney calling the witness having opportunity to
examine the witness. Upon completion of that examina-
tion, each attorney representing another party and
interest will have an opportunity to cross- examine the
witness. Following cross- examination, re-examination
will be allowed.
4. Upon completion of the evidence, each attorney or
representative will have an opportunity to make a
closing statement. The attorney for the applicant,
having the burden of proof, will be entitled to open
and close the closing statements.
5. Members of council will be entitled to question wit-
nesses as they feel necessary.
6. Objections to any offered testimony or argument should
be addressed to the Mayor for ruling.
The Mayor asked those desiring to testify to stand, and the
City Clerk administered the oath of the witnesses.
60925-3
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Ignacio Ramirez, representative of Mr. Adulfo Amador, stated
that he is an attorney in Baytown with the firm of Dunman and
Ramirez. Adulfo Amador is the owner of Adulfo's Paint and Body
Shop. He is a fourteen year resident of the City of Baytown. He
is married and has two children. He is a Baytown homeowner, and
has been in business for eleven years. He is a member of Our
Lady of Guadalupe Church. He is bilingual. Mr. Ramirez ex-
plained that he was before Council to appeal the decision of the
Auto Wrecker Committee made on July 27, 1986. In that ruling the
committee voted 2-2 to deny the permit. Committee members Rios
and Ponder voted to approve the permit, while Committee members
Staner and Walton voted to disapprove the permit. Jess Shead,
committee member, was absent. Since that time Mr. Ramirez se-
cured a copy of the taped transcript of the hearing, along with
the written transcript of the hearing, and furnished those to Mr.
Shead, along with exhibits for his review.
The existing Auto Wrecker Ordinance requires the applicant
to establish public necessity and convenience for issuance of an
additional auto wrecker permit. Mr. Ramirez stated that he would
establish the necessity and convenience for the issuance of an
additional auto wrecker permit because of the large number of
Hispanics being inconvenienced due to lack of a bilingual auto
wrecker permit holder. He would establish a substantial increase
in number of tows and poor performance on the part of existing
permit holders.
Mr. Ramirez called Virginia Ramirez as a witness. Virginia
is a real estate agent in the City of Baytown, and she testified
that it is necessary in her business to be able to transact
business in both English and Spanish. There are eight realtors
in her office, but she is the only one who can converse in Span-
ish; therefore, she is relied upon heavily to assist the clients
who are bilingual. She testified that it is definitely conven-
ient for a person who speaks Spanish to have a realtor who can
converse in that language. Mrs. Ramirez testified that at one
time she was employed for the City of Baytown in the Municipal
Court as a secretary and in Police Department as a secretary.
While employed with the City of Baytown, there were numerous
occasions in which she was called upon to translate and converse
in Spanish.
Ed Wheeler, representative of the Baytown Wrecker Associa-
tion, in his cross-examination of Mrs. Ramirez, established that
there are Baytown Police Officers on the street who do speak
Spanish, and that it is customary to get someone to interpret at
the scene of an accident if necessary. Therefore, he maintained
la
60925-4
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
that there was no relationship between rotation and the necessity
to speak Spanish.
Mr. Ramirez called Mary Jane Samora of 1906 McFarland. Ms.
Samora testified that she is bookkeeper/supervisor and assistant
secretary at Century Savings and Loan and has been employed there
for one and one-half years. She testified that in her business
dealings that she has had to use her ability to speak Spanish
with some patrons. She also testified that she felt that in an
accident situation an individual who speaks Spanish would prefer
and find it more convenient to have a Spanish speaking auto
wrecker permit holder to select.
Mr. Ramirez stated that because of poor performance on the
part of existing auto wrecker permit holders another permit is
needed. He made reference to a memorandum dated April 10, 1984
from Sergeant B. Jones to Asst. Chief R.P. Merchant. Mayor Hutto
pointed out that this information is 2 and 1/2 years old. Mr.
Ramirez stated that he planned to start with 1984 and move up to
September 1986. He further stated that the poor performance
dates back to 1960. In the memorandum from Officer Jones, it was
noted that one permit holder had passed 32 times from January 1,
1984 to April 10, 1984. The officer felt due to the excessive
number of times that the dispatchers have had to redispatch
because of the permit holder passing, this was a problem that
should be addressed. When the permit holder was called in to ask
the reason for the number of passes, he gave various reasons for
his poor performance. It was noted on the memo that the permit
holder had been talked with in 1980 concerning this very problem.
A follow up study was performed which showed from April 11, 1984
through September 7, 1984, the permit holder had passed 37 times.
Another study in May of 1985 indicated the permit holder had
passed 39 times. A study in April of 1985 showed 56 passes. Mr.
Ramirez performed a study from May 28, 1985 to July 2, 1986,
which indicated an additional 122 passes for a total of 274
passes from January 1984 through July 2, 1986.
A memorandum from L.P. Bush dated May 27, 1985 to Lieuten-
ant Shaffer indicated that the permit holder's passing has caused
extra work for dispatchers and has resulted in as much as 78
minutes of wasted time by the dispatchers. Mr. Bush ended the
memorandum by stating that this matter is costing this department
time and money. A recent study by B. Jones dated June, 1986,
indicated that the permit holder had been dispatched and 28
minutes later had not arrived. Therefore, he was called again
and this time indicated that he was passing. A second wrecker
was dispatched causing the unit to have to wait from the time Mr.
Dunham was dispatched until the unit got back into service a
2
60925-6
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Mr. Wheeler called Denzil Shirley, auto wrecker/owner
operator, as a witness. Mr. Shirley appeared as a representative
of Baytown Wrecker Association. Mr. Shirley testified that
presently his business is off by 50% and for the entire year 30%.
Mr. Shirley felt that one of the effects that adding an addi-
tional auto wrecker permit would be that permit holders would not
be able to afford up to date equipment. He felt the testimony
given with reference to passes, is a problem that could be re-
solved through disciplinary action. Also, he felt that two
companies could handle all the business for the City of Baytown.
Mr. Shirley testified that there has not been a problem on the
street with communication, and many times the auto wrecker driv-
ers are the last ones on the scene. Many times the persons
involved in the accident have gone.
Mr. Ramirez inquired of Mr. Shirley how long he had been in
the auto wrecker business. Mr. Shirley responded that he had
been in the business since 1963. Mr. Ramirez felt it very
strange that Mr. Shirley had never had the opportunity or the
need to speak Spanish. He pointed to the fact that if one visits
out at Exxon there are signs in both English and Spanish. Voter
registration cards are printed in both English and Spanish. He
felt the fact that Mr. Shirley has not found a need to speak
Spanish indicates his insensitivity to the needs of these people.
Mr. Ramirez called Virginia Ramirez to witness a second
time. Virginia testified that she is married to Ignacio Ramirez,
and that she has assisted him at his office on several occasions.
There is a definite need for a Spanish speaking person in that
office since 75% of Mr. Ramirez's business is with Spanish
persons. She testified that Mr. Ramirez is called on from time
to time to be a translator in the Court system.
Upon questioning by Ed Wheeler, Virginia Ramirez testified
that people do call the office of Dunman and Ramirez because of
the name Ramirez, and that she felt should there be a Spanish
surnamed person on the rotation list that that person would
receive calls for that reason.
Mr. Wheeler disagreed with that statement, and emphasized
that the problem brought forth by Mr. Ramirez concerning passes
is one of a disciplinary nature. He further stated that council
should take into account information provided on the application
and the effect that the issuance of an additional permit would
have on the existing permit holders.
la
60925-7
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Gary Smith, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that the pre-
requisites of the application had been met, and that council
should be considering the larger issue and that is public conven-
ience and necessity. He reminded council that the burden of
proof is on Mr. Amador and Mr. Ramirez.
Mr. Ramirez concurred that eventually the streets of Baytown
are being cleared of accidents. However, from the police infor-
mation provided this is not always being done in a timely
fashion. The Police Department memos indicated that this is a
problem to the Police Department, the city, and the citizens of
Baytown. This is not convenient. He mentioned case law which
indicated that one does not have to show absolute necessity. He
also pointed out that he had produced evidence that the number of
tows per company have increased rather than decreased. The tows
for 1986 have increased 65% over the tows for 1984. There is
room for another auto wrecker permit holder. Mr. Ramirez pointed
out that Mr. Amador has come before council with a request for
an auto wrecker permit and has shouldered the burden to prove
public convenience and necessity.
He further stated that at the hearing on July 29 before the
Auto Wrecker Committee, the chairman pointed out it would be
difficult to grant an additional permit when others had been
denied. Mr. Amador reviewed the requests for permit from others
as provided through the minutes of the meetings of the Auto
Wrecker Committee. Others had not proved public convenience and
necessity, but had simply appeared before the Auto Wrecker Com-
mittee and Council to state that their business would be improved
by issuance of an auto wrecker permit. Mr. Amador has gone
through great lengths to acquire the proper equipment, to have
his storage area inspected and approved, to acquire proper insur-
ance, pay taxes and has gathered data and presented facts before
Council. Mr. Amador has followed the City of Baytown ordinance
and has proved each and every element; therefore he should be
granted his request for permit.
In response to Councilman Philips' inquiry regarding whether
a permit application would be filed if several of the current
permit holders could speak fluent Spanish, Mr. Ramirez responded
that he felt there would still be the application due to poor
performance of the existing permit holders.
Mayor Hutto suggested that this matter be placed on the next
Council Agenda or some future agenda in order to allow Council
time to review documents that Mr. Ramirez had made reference to.
Mayor Hutto pointed out that Mr. Ramirez's client had only one
wrecker. This had presented a problem to the permit holder with
la
60925-8
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
all the passes.
Mr. Ramirez responded that his client did not only have one
wrecker, but if he did and if he were providing poor service,
then his recommendation to him would be to get out of the busi-
ness. Mr. Ramirez inquired if council had an employee who
failed to show up for work 274 times, would that employee's
employment continue? In response to council's concern that there
may be a conflict of interest since Mr. Amador owns a paint and
body shop, Mr. Ramirez pointed out that one of the current
permit holders performs mechanic work as well as auto wrecker
tows. In response to council's comment that the Police Depart-
ment had not been heard, Mr. Ramirez stated that an officer was
present at the Auto Wrecker Committee Hearing. The officer
indicated that there was no problem with wrecks being picked up
on the street. However, Mr. Ramirez questioned that since the
memorandums showed there is a problem.
Councilman Embry did not object to a time for council to
review information; however, he did feel that the item should be
on the next council agenda. He felt that Mr. Amador should be
given an answer as quickly as possible.
The City Attorney stated that the ordinance does not put a
time limit on the decision to be rendered by council, but he felt
it would be wise not to delay too long.
In response to an inquiry from council, Gary Smith, Assis-
tant City Attorney, explained that at this point in time one
cannot be removed from the Auto Wrecker list indefinitely. There
is a provision for suspension up to one year. The committee will
be looking at changes in the Auto Wrecker ordinance in the near
future. Mayor Hutto stated that this item would be placed on the
council agenda for October 7, and in the meantime council members
will have ample opportunity to review information presented.
Receive Six Month Audit
James G. Gerace, Certified Public Accountant and City of
Baytown Auditor, was present to review City of Baytown financial
statements of General and Enterprise Funds as of March 31, 1986.
The City of Baytown is in better financial condition as of March
31, 1986 in comparison to the same period in March of 1985 For
Id
60925-9
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
instance, cash for 1986 was $10,000,000 as compared to $9,000,000
in 1985. Total assets were $49,000,000 for both years. March of
1986 total liabilities were $6,000,000 as compared to $7,000,000
in 1985. Therefore, total fund equities were up by $1,000,000
for a total of $43,000,000 in 1986 as compared to $42,000,000 in
1985.
With regard to the combined fund, revenues were 18.6 million
in 1986 as compared to 17.2 million the previous year. Expenses
were 12.4 million for 1986 compared to 11.8 million for 1985.
Excess of revenues over expenditures for 1986 before depreciation
showed the city made 5.6 million in 1986 as compared to 5.1
million in 1985.
In response to inquiries from council, Mr. Gerace stated
that on page nine of the notes sick leave pay is listed as
$2,460,188. The $78,492 designated for vested employee benefits
is listed on page 3 of the notes. Council had no further ques-
tions of Mr. Gerace.
Recess and Reconvene
Mayor Hutto called for a short recess. When the open meet-
ing reconvened the following business was transacted:
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Expenditure of Funds for
Emergency Ambulance Service
Councilman Philips addressed council concerning Emergency
Ambulance Service. He mentioned that for the last 1 and 1/2
years the Ambulance Committee had been working to develop an
emergency ambulance service for the City of Baytown. Last
Wednesday morning Medic I, the interim provider left Baytown
unexpectedly. At that time Jess Navarre graciously agreed to
perform interim service until a permanent situation could be
resolved. Mr. Navarre has indicated that the cost of his service
will be $480 per day. The committee recommends that the City of
Baytown pay that sum to Jess Navarre beginning September 18, 1986
until a permanent solution is reached. The committee met last
evening and looked at four alternatives to providing long term
emergency service to the City of Baytown.
First, the committee considered the bids that were received
on Tuesday. Secondly, increasing the subsidy to a private pro-
vider was considered. Thirdly, the committee considered the City
M
60925-10
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
of Baytown providing emergency medical services, and fourthly a
regional approach was considered. Bids which were sent to the
vendors offered them an option of bidding on three city subsidies
- one at $96,000, one at $125,000, and one at $150,000. The
lowest bidder, Western Ambulance Service, Littleton, Colorado,
asked that the city guarantee three things, one of which is
beyond the city's control and that is the city guarantee that
each of the hospitals will use Western Ambulance Service exclu-
sively for their transfer business.
The second low bid, Alert Care, Inc. featured a basic life
support run of $145, plus an advanced life support run of $195.
The range of bids excluding the bid of Western is $497,500 to
$766,250. Western's bid is $282,700. From the bids that were
received a result will be a high trip fee, plus the city will pay
a subsidy of $150,000. In researching the bid specifications the
committee talked to an ambulance provider who does so on a na-
tional basis, Medivac. The officials for that company indicated
that they elected not to bid because both the run volume and the
city's subsidy are too low. With the suggested $150,000 supple-
ment and the run volume, that company would charge $260 per run
and still the dollars fell approximately $100,000 short. They
felt that in order for a firm such as theirs to come in and
provide the level of service provided for in the specifications
the city would be looking at a supplement of approximately
$300,000.
The next option that the committee considered was city
service. Councilman Philips handed a proposed EMS budget for the
City of Baytown to council. This budget assumes that the City of
Baytown would provide two advanced life support units that would
be staffed and operable on a 24 hour a day, seven days a week
basis. There would be one basic life support ambulance as a
backup which would remain idle until such time that one of the
ALS units is out of service, either for maintenance or because of
repair. The budget assumes a staff of 12 people, one of which
would be the EMS chief and would ride the ambulance; one of which
would be a billing person and also ride the ambulance. The total
budget with the capital expenditures necessary to get in the
business is approximately $578,00. However, the committee feels
by financing the capital expenditures over a two or three year
period that that budget can be reduced by $150,000, bringing the
first years budget to $428,000. The committee feels in doing
this that the city would be able to set a run charge at a flat
rate of approximately $100 to $150 per run.
19
60925-11
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
A regional approach was considered. This would be some type
of cooperative arrangement with bordering jurisdictions to share
the cost of an ambulance service for East Harris County. This is
a good concept but no guarantee that would hold the cost down
any. There is also the element of timing, and it will take a
considerable amount of time to put an approach such as this
together. This may be something that the city will want to
consider for the future. But at this time because of the time
constraints the committee feels that the city needs to delay that
discussion until the city is in a better posture to begin to look
at a regional approach.
The Ambulance Committee is recommending that City Council
consider the City of Baytown becoming the provider of emergency
medical services. Emergency ambulance service is no different
than police and fire. It is an insurance type of service that we
all need to share in the cost to insure that it is there when it
is needed. The city was fortunate last Wednesday morning that we
could turn to Mr. Navarre who was willing and able to provide
emergency ambulance service at a moments notice. In order for
the city to ensure the state of the art technology that is
required, the city would need to increase the subsidy to at least
$250,000 to $300,000. Providing that type of outlay will take
additional revenues from the General Fund. Such an arrangement
does not guarantee to the city the element of control in terms of
providing emergency medical services that is needed. There is no
way to guarantee that the money the city pays in subsidy to a
private provider will go to finance only emergency ambulance
services. The city could be subsidizing a private providers'
transfer service as well.
To finance the emergency medical service, Councilman Philips
proposed an increase in the tax rate of 1 and 1/2 cents and use
of the $96,000 in the proposed budget for emergency ambulance
service. The committee proposes a fee structure for the city's
ambulance service of $100 per call. The proposed tax increase
along with the moneys already proposed for appropriation and the
proposed fee structure would provide a budget of approximately
$428,000 for the first year. Councilman Philips stated that as a
member of the Ambulance Committee he would seek council authori-
zation to proceed with the development of this service at the
earliest possible date. He felt that it would take the city's
staff at least 30 to 45 days to insure that the service is in
place and operable. Councilman Philips concluded his presenta-
tion by moving that City Council authorize the administration to
60925-12
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
proceed with City of Baytown emergency ambulance service and to
approve the proposed ordinance authorizing expenditure of funds
for emergency ambulance service; Councilman Johnson seconded the
motion.
Councilman Johnson stated that he had spoken with Jess
Navarre, and Mr. Navarre has agreed to serve as the emergency
backup. This would mean that the city would not need to purchase
the third ambulance.
Jess Navarre, owner of Baytown Ambulance Service, verified
that his company would serve as backup on a per call basis, not
on a retainer basis. Mr. Navarre endorsed the Baytown Ambulance
Committee's recommendation.
William K. Atkinson, Executive Director and Chief Operating
Officer of Humana Hospital Baytown, stated that the entire pro-
cess has been an education. He verified that the venture has
been a cooperative venture between the private and public sec-
tors. He stated that the type service being discussed is state
of the art technology and not "pie in the sky items." These items
are state of the art in most communities. He verified that the
process that occurred in Baytown has occurred in cities all
across the nation. He ended his presentation by encouraging
council to adopt the recommendation of the committee.
Councilman Simmons asked Mr. Atkinson as well as the other
two hospitals to consider supporting an emergency ambulance
service for Baytown by contributing $70,000 each. Mr. Atkinson
pointed out that the hospitals are currently expending large
amounts toward emergency medical service in the community. The
hospitals utilize the cities emergency ambulance provider for
transfers and supplements the fees. With the present rate of
unemployment, the hospitals' indigent emergency care has doubled
in the last year. The hospitals are supporting that care not
only for Baytown, but for the surrounding area. Presently Humana
is providing the educational personnel to train persons for EMS
education.
Councilman Simmons stated that he could appreciate the
services that the medical community is providing; however, coun-
cil is looking at 1 and 1/2 percent increase in the tax rate. He
asked Mr. Atkinson to take his proposal back to the medical
community.
r"
60925-13
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
In response to council's concerns regarding the increase of
the tax rate, Councilman Philips explained that the committee had
begun looking at a 3% increase, but kept working on the budget
until it was reduced to 1.5% increase. He felt this to be a very
austere budget.
Mayor Hutto pointed out that at budget time in 1987, the
council will have had a year's experience with the ambulance
service. At that time it may be possible to reduce the tax rate.
Councilman Philips pointed that the EMS budget has been
established as a separate entity; therefore, it will be easy to
track what is happening in that budget.
Mayor Hutto pointed out that as the city becomes more in-
volved in emergency ambulance service, there is always the option
of increasing fees for the service.
In response to inquiry from council, the City Manager stated
that what he would propose to do if council approved the motion
is to have the Director of Finance rework the proposed ordinance
adopting the City of Baytown budget for 1986-87 to include the
necessary funds for the emergency medical service. At the time
that council considers establishment of the tax rate, the tax
rate will need to be established in an amount to finance the
adopted budget.
Council members Fuller and Embry indicated that they under-
stood the need to increase the budget to finance the EMS portion;
however, this did not mean that it is a foregone conclusion that
the tax rate will need to be increased because at a future date
the budget could be amended.
The City Manager explained that the staff had originally
considered recommending to council that the budget be adopted as
presented and a future meeting ask council to adopt a tax rate
and an amendment to the budget to include the EMS Program. The
advantage to adding the EMS Program in the ordinance adopting the
City of Baytown budget is that the staff can begin to work on
implementation of the program.
The City Attorney explained that the charter originally
provided that the tax rate would be established to cover the
budget adopted; however, changes in the state law have made
adoption of the tax rate at this time impossible. The charter
60925-14
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
does not provide for amendments to the budget after the fact, but
it doesn't prohibit it either. The attorney felt that it would
be preferable for council to adopt the budget with the EMS Pro-
gram included.
The city manager reminded council that the tax rate that
council finally establishes is determined in large part by the
roll, and if the city is lucky the roll will come in higher than
anticipated and no tax increase will be necessary. Of course,
the other side to that is that the roll could come in lower than
estimated.
Councilman Philips said that if council were to go ahead and
adopt the budget and approve the emergency ambulance service
which would give the administration the green light to begin
implementing the emergency medical service, this would allow time
for the staff to scrutinize the EMS budget and to receive the tax
roll which would ultimately establish the tax rate.
Councilman Simmons requested that council consider voting on
the two items separately. Therefore, Councilman Philips withdrew
the motion and Councilman Johnson withdrew the second. Council-
man Philips then moved that the City Council of Baytown authorize
the city manager to proceed immediately to implement a Baytown
Emergency Ambulance Service with city forces. Councilman Johnson
seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Embry,
Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Abstained: Councilman Simmons
Councilman Simmons stated that he was abstaining because of
his love and respect for council members Philips and Johnson
which would prohibit his voting against the motion. Councilman
Philips moved to adopt the ordinance authorizing expenditure of
funds for emergency ambulance service; Councilman Embry seconded
the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Im
80925-15
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Ordinance No. 4547
AN ORDINANCE DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF
FUNDS FOR EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
The City Attorney advised council that it would be better to
adopt the budget with the EMS Program included because it would
be better to delete items from the budget than to add to the
budget. The Director of Finance left the meeting to revise the
proposed ordinance adopting the City of Baytown budget for
1986-87.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending Chapter 31, "Utilities," by
Amendment of Section 31-56, Water Rates, and Section 31-65, Sewer
Service Charge; and Section 31-67.1, Sewer Service Charge for
Users Without Water or Outside City
Council discussed increasing the minimum charge for water
service from $5.00 to $6.50 and sewer service from $5.00 to $6.50
during budget work sessions. This increase will help to finance
the proposed budget. The administration recommended approval of
the ordinance. These increases will make the water and sewer
funds self-supporting and help to finance the general obligation
bonds voted for improvements to those systems. Councilman Embry
moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Philips seconded
the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Ordinance No.4548
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31, "UTILITIES," TO REVISE WATER
AND SEWER RATES; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CONTAINING A
SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending Chapter 14, "Garbage, Trash
and Brush," by Amendment of Section 14-13, Collection of Brush
60925-16
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
The adoption of this ordinance will implement another item
discussed during budget work sessions. This will move the sched-
ule for trash pickup from once a month to once every six weeks.
The staff has worked up the revised schedule and if this item is
approved by council, the printer will begin printing the new
schedule so that notices can be mailed. The administration
recommended approval of the ordinance in order to help finance
the proposed budget. Councilman Embry moved for adoption of the
ordinance; Councilman Fuller seconded the motion.
Council suggested that notice of the change in schedule be
posted in the newspaper during the year, and that letters be
forwarded to the various civic associations. Also, council felt
that the local radio station might broadcast the changes. Coun-
cilman Pruett asked that the staff keep information on the reduc-
tion because he felt it to be a step backward. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Ordinance No. 4549
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14, "GARBAGE, TRASH AND BRUSH,"
REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE;
AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Consider Adoption of 1986-87 Baytown Area Water Authority Budget
The proposed Baytown Area Water Authority Budget is based on
anticipated revenues and expenditures. That budget is reduced
slightly from the current year, and the administration recom-
mended approval of the budget. Councilman Philips moved for
adoption of the 1986-87 Baytown Area Water Authority Budget;
Councilman Embry seconded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
la
60925-17
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Consider Approval of Performance Based Pay System as Proposed by
Waters, Trego & Davis Consultants
This is the performance based pay system that was discussed
with council on July 14 and in budget work sessions. The admin-
istration felt it to be important to implement the performance
based pay system as soon as possible to serve as a guide to
hiring new people and to begin the evaluation process included in
the program. The administration is recommending that council
approve the system and included in the budget are funds to:
1. Bring all employees below minimum and who meet minimum
Job requirements to minimum.
2. Grant 2% across the board increase to all civil service
employees effective April 1, 1987.
3. Grant 2% pay for performance increase to all non -civil
service employees to be considered during the period
April through September 1987 on their anniversary date
based on performance evaluation.
The city manager noted that approval of this plan would
replace the existing plan, and he recommended approval of the
performance based pay system as proposed by Waters, Trego & Davis
Consultants.
In response to inquiry from council, the City Manager ex-
plained that step increases would no longer be included under the
performance based pay system. He also pointed out that the
system may be used to counsel civil service employees, but the
system cannot be used as a basis for pay increases to those
employees.
Each year when the budget is adopted, council determines if
there will be a pay increase and the amount. The proposed pay
plan provides for beginning and ending ranges. Council can
determine where within that to establish pay increases for em-
ployees. The problem with the present plan is the number of
people who have topped out.
Council members Johnson and Pruett were concerned that
employees throughout the city were not aware of how the perfor-
mance based pay system works.
Councilman Fuller moved to adopt the performance based pay
system as proposed by Waters, Trego & Davis Consultants; Council-
man Embry seconded the motion. The vote follows:
60925-18
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Ayes: Council members Philips, Simmons, Embry
and Fuller
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Council members Johnson and Pruett
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending the Personnel Rules of the
City of Baytown to Implement a Performance Based Pay System
The proposed ordinance will amend the Personnel Rules of the
City of Baytown to implement a performance based pay system and
would provide for the inclusion of the Performance Based Pay Plan
into the City of Baytown's Personnel Rules. Councilman Fuller
moved for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Embry seconded
the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Mayor Hutto asked the administration to prepare an estimate
of the costs to maintain the step plan.
Ordinance No. 4550
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS,
AMENDING THE CLASSIFICATION SALARY PLAN OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
AND THE PERSONNEL RULES OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN TO ADOPT A PERFOR-
MANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM AND A PERFORMANCE BASED PAY SYSTEM; RE-
PEALING INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS OF CURRENT PERSONNEL RULES;
CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE
HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Adopting the City of Baytown Budget
for 1986-87.
The Director of Finance reported that Section 2 of the
Proposed Ordinance had been amended to include the amount
$18,692,000 for the general fund. This results in a total expen-
diture of $34,857,466. With those changes the administration
recommended adoption of the ordinance. Councilman Philips moved
for adoption of the ordinance; Councilman Simmons seconded the
motion. The vote follows:
60925-19
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Ordinance No. 4541
A ORDINANCE ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE ENSUING FISCAL YEAR, BEGIN-
NING OCTOBER 1, 1986, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1987, IN ACCOR-
DANCE WITH THE CHARTER AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN AND
PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE.
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Contract for Eva Maud Water
Line
Bidders were given the opportunity to bid on Alternate A,
placing the water line in the back lots, or Alternate B, placing
the water line in the street right of way. No bids were received
for placement of the water line in the back lots. Six bids were
received for placement of the water lines in the street right of
way, with a low bid of $386,860, and a high bid of $572,755. The
low bid was received from Utilities Unlimited, Inc. The low
bidder did not submit a bid security with their bid. The city
attorney was consulted and upon his recommendation, the low
bidder was allowed to submit a bid security by 5:00 p.m. on the
day of the bid opening. Utilities Unlimited, Inc. performed a
contract for the City of Baytown in February 1985 and has per-
formed satisfactory work for the cities of Houston, Conroe and
Cleveland. Wayne Smith and Associates recommended to council
that the bid be awarded to Utilities Unlimited, Inc.
Mr. Kerwin Stone, an attorney from Beaumont, representing
Baytown Construction Company, the second low bidder on the con-
tract, appeared to protest the granting of extra time for the
apparent low bidder to submit a bid security. Based on the bid
documents a number of contractors prepared bids. It takes much
effort and expense to prepare the bid documents. The bid docu-
ments state that the bid can only be modified prior to the open-
ing yet, there was a modification which was allowed several hours
after the bid opening, in particular the submitting of a bid
security. By this practice, the low bidder gets a second look to
decide if he is interested in the contract. There are seven
different instances in the bid documents where the posting of a
bid security is stated as a requirement. The city did reserve
the right in the bid document to waive any informalities in the
F&
60926-20
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
bid; however, informalities usually indicate a math or clerical
problem, something more a matter of form than substance. The
burden is on the contractor to comply with all the requirements
of the bid documents. This burden was met by five of the bid-
ders. The burden was not met by the apparent low bidder, and
therefore, Mr. Stone felt that the apparent low bidder should
not be awarded the contract. He also pointed out the second,
third and fourth bids were in the $400,000 range which means this
may not be the best bid.
The city attorney stated that he had no disagreement with
anything that Mr. Stone had stated and he wouldn't advocate
council waiving bid bonds as a regular practice. He stated that
there is no statutory requirement for a bid bond, but it is well
accepted that entities taking bids may require a bid security in
order to insure that the successful bidder will enter into the
contract once it is awarded to him. As a bid security is re-
quested for the benefit of the city, the rule is that it is
discretionary with the city as to whether it may waive such
failure to submit the security. McQuillin states "A bid or the
subsequent proceedings related thereto will not be invalidated by
reason of minor irregularities touching the securities, or the
time at which it is produced or perfected." It goes on and talks
about how it is for the protection of the city, and therefore, it
is more or less the option of the city whether to reject or
accept the bid. The cases cited from McQuillin are from New
York, California, and Pennsylvania. There are no Texas cases
addressing the exact point of bid bonds; however, Texas courts
have allowed payment and performance bonds to be obtained late
without invalidating the contract. In a case in Houston County,
the court looked to whether the purpose of the security was being
achieved, and Texas courts would therefore likely uphold the
right of a city to waive the requirement that a bid bond be
submitted at the time of the bid opening.
Council members Fuller, Philips and Pruett questioned the
wisdom of allowing a bidder to submit a bid security after the
bids are opened. Councilman Pruett pointed out the difference in
costs and wondered if there would be change orders on the pro-
ject. These Council members were concerned that a precedent
would be established.
Councilman Embry disagreed. He felt that this was an indi-
vidual case that should be considered on its own merits.
Councilman Simmons moved for adoption of the ordinance;
Councilman Embry seconded the motion. The vote follows:
W
60925-21
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Ayes: Council members Johnson, Simmons and Embry
Mayor Hutto
Nays: Council members Philips, Fuller and Pruett
Ordinance No. 4552
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH UTILITIES UNLIMITED,
INC. FOR THE EVA MAUD WATERLINE REPLACEMENT; MAKING OTHER PROVI-
SIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE
HEREOF.
Consider Proposed Drainage Priority List for 1986-87
Council was provided with a copy of the proposed drainage
projects for 1986-87. The administration recommended approval of
the drainage priority list. Councilman Johnson moved to approve
the Drainage Priority List for 1986-87; Councilman Philips sec-
onded the motion. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
A copy of the Drainage Priority List for 1986-87 is attached
to the minutes as Attachment "A."
Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Bid for Annual Hot Mix
Asphalt Contract
Bids were mailed to eight vendors and two proposals were
received. Both Parker Brothers & Co., Inc. and Dravco Basic
Materials submitted a bid of $20,500. State law indicates a tie
bid will be awarded by the casting of lots. The lot fell to
Parker Brothers & Co., Inc. Councilman Johnson moved to adopt
the ordinance accepting the bid of Parker Brothers & Co., Inc.
Councilman Embry seconded the motion. The vote follows:
la
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
60925-22
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
Ordinance No. 4553
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF PARKER BROTHERS AND COMPANY,
INC. FOR THE ANNUAL HOT MIX ASPHALT CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE
PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF TWENTY THOUSAND FIVE
HUNDRED AND N0/100 ($20,500.00) DOLLARS.
Consent Agenda
Council considered the Consent Agenda as follows:
a. Proposed Ordinance No. 60925-8, will approve the con-
tract with Bob Greer, Computer Consultant. This con-
tract remains the same as in past years. Mr. Greer
will provide the city with facilities management in
regards to our computer operation which involves sys-
tems analysis and design, operation support when neces-
sary, trouble shooting, and some training. The cost of
this contract is $40,000.
We recommend approval of Proposed Ordinance No.
60925-8.
b. Proposed Ordinance No. 60925-9, will award the bid for
the refractory lining of the brush burning pit. Bids
were mailed to six vendors and two proposals were
received. Rawhide Roofing submitted the low bid in the
amount of $6,684.
We recommend the low bidder, Rawhide Roofing, be
awarded this contract.
C. Proposed Ordinance No. 60925-10, will award the bid for
sludge dewatering equipment. Bids were mailed to seven
vendors and two proposals were received. The low
bidder meeting specifications is Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley
with a bid of $135,677.
Wi
60925-23
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
We recommend this bid be accepted and the contract be
awarded to Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, per our change order
no. 1. This change order would reduce the bid price by
$11,000 by eliminating an extra set of spare belts,
deferring the purchase of one set of spare belts, and
reducing the number of training days from 12 to 6. The
contract as amended will be for $124,677.
d. Proposed Ordinance No. 60925-11, will award the bid for
the annual safety contract. Bids were sent to 31
vendors. Fourteen bids were received along with eight
no -bids and nine no -responses. The low bidders meeting
specifications are as follows:
Item
#1
- The Glove Company
$5,962.60
Item
#2
- Clark Fire Equipment
2,193.00
Item
#3
- Tackaberry
1,715.00
Item
04
- Clark Fire Equipment
530.00
Item
#5
- Tackaberry
2,162.00
Item
#6
- Tackaberry
1,502.50
The total bid amount is $14,064.60. We recommend the
low bidders as listed above be awarded this contract.
Councilman Philips moved for adoption of the Consent Agenda
Items "a" through "d." Councilman Johnson seconded the motion.
The vote follows:
Ayes: Council members Philips, Johnson, Simmons,
Embry, Fuller and Pruett
Mayor Hutto
Nays: None
For bid tabulations, see Attachments "B" through "D."
Ma
60925-24
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Ordinance No. 4554
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND
THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST TO A MANAGEMENT CONTRACT WITH B. H.
GREER FOR DATA PROCESSING SERVICES; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFEC-
TIVE DATE HEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 60925-8)
Ordinance No. 4555
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF RAWHIDE ROOFING FOR THE PUR-
CHASE OF A REFRACTORY LINING FOR THE BRUSH BURNING PIT AND AU-
THORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF SIX
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED EIGHTY-FOUR AND NO-100 ($6,684.00) DOLLARS.
(Proposed Ordinance No. 60925-9)
Ordinance No. 4556
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF ASHBROOK-SIMON-HARTLEY FOR THE
PURCHASE OF SLUDGE DEWATERING EQUIPMENT; APPROVING CHANGE ORDER
NO. 1 TO SAID AGREEMENT; AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY
OF BAYTOWN OF THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED TWENTY-FOUR THOUSAND SIX
HUNDRED SEVENTY-SEVEN AND N0/100 ($124,677.00) DOLLARS). (Pro-
posed Ordinance No. 60925-10)
Ordinance No. 4557
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF THE GLOVE COMPANY, CLARK FIRE
EQUIPMENT, AND TACKABERRY FOR THE ANNUAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CON-
TRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN OF THE
SUM OF FOURTEEN THOUSAND SIXTY-FIVE AND 10/100 ($14,065.10)
DOLLARS. (Proposed Ordinance No. 60925-11)
City Manager'm Roport
Coady Municipal Utility District - Several meetings ago
council asked the administration to work on a plan to give relief
to the Coady Municipal Utility District related to the fees
charged by the City of Baytown for sewer service. Other dis-
tricts have a capital buy -in payment based on $1.50 for each
gallon of plant capacity that they would need. The contract then
provides that the city's monthly charge would be the same as to
those inside the city limits. Therefore, the staff approached
the Coady situation with this in mind. The staff has developed a
schedule based on the assumption that Coady District would need
60925-25
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
147,000 gallons of capacity. Therefore, the amount that they
would have to pay up front is approximately $220,000. The staff
worked out a schedule based on a capital buy -in of $220,000 plus
interest over a ten year period. The schedule will reduce the
city's billing to Coady for the next four years, and after 1990,
the district will be paying on the same basis as Lake MUD. The
district will then have rights to approximately 150,000 gallons
of plant capacity. This will put all the districts on the same
basis.
Council had no objection to the administration continuing to
work with the district in developing a contract for council
consideration.
Harris County Appraisal District Fund Balance - Harris
County Appraisal District had a fund balance of 2.3 million at
the end of 1985, and they project a fund balance of 4.5 million
for 1986. The district is to hold a special meeting on September
30 to discuss and adopt a plan for disposition of the fund bal-
ance. Two items were not funded in the HCAD budget that are
needed; therefore, the administration suggested that the City of
Baytown recommend that the district expend whatever funds neces-
sary for the long term requirements for enhancements to the
districts records maintenance and mapping operations. The prob-
lem in records maintenance is the reason for the delay in receipt
of the roll each year. Therefore, the administration would like
to ask that these two items be accomplished to insure the produc-
tion of a certified appraisal roll by July 31 each year. The
administration suggested that the recommendation for the remain-
ing balance be to return the balance to the various taxing juris-
dictions; council concurred.
Beaumont Street, Ward Road Drainage Project - The contractor
is making good progress. All of the 10 X 8 pipe is in place, and
the contractor has begun Highway 146 with an 8 X 7 culvert. All
but one lane is closed on the south side of the median. One lane
of traffic will be maintained during this project to assure
continued traffic flow.
Drainage - City drainage crews continue to work along Pin
Oak and Willow, and that work is approximately 60% complete.
1986 Street Improvement Program - Hubco has completed pave-
ment of Chaparral Drive, and the base work is done on Massey
Tompkins. City crews have finished work on East Adoue, and the
contractor has moved there to work. That work is about 25%
complete.
W
60925-26
Minutes of the Regular Meeting - Sept. 25, 1986
Community Development - The driveways on Huggins and Willow
Streets have been rebuilt, and that project is about 70% com-
plete.
Massey Tompkins Road Water Tower - This project is 38%
complete.
Baytown Bridge Over Ship Channel - Council has been invited
to the dedication of the site of the Baytown Bridge over the ship
channel at 12:30 p.m. tomorrow.
City Manager Out of City - The city manager will be attend-
ing an ICMA Conference in San Diego from Saturday, September 27
through Thursday, October 2, 1986.
Questions/Comments from Council - Councilman Philips asked
that the staff perform a traffic study along Garth Road at Gulf
Coast Hospital to determine whether some sort of traffic control
is necessary there.
Recess and Reconvene
Mayor Hutto recessed the open meeting into executive session
to discuss pending litigation as follows:
a. Clemmer vs City of Baytown.
When the open meeting reconvened, Mayor Hutto announced that
there was no action necessary as a result of the executive
session.
Adjourn
There being no further business to be transacted, the meet-
ing was adjourned. L_
Eileen P. Hall
City Clerk
3-1-2
Attachment "A"
PROPOSED DRAINAGE PROJECTS
1986-1987
1. Complete drainage system to Azalea and Willow Streets - $ 12,000
2. Install drainage system to Post Oak and Red Bud - 78,000
3. Install drainage system on Fairway Drive - 36,000
4. Mabry Road Detention Pond - construct necessary outfall pipe - 20,000
5. Contingency - 4,000
$150,000
Estimated Costs for Lakewood Drainage Project
1316 ft. of 48" RCP - Rollingwood to Willow = $38,637.76
800 ft. of 30" RCP - 600 ft. up Azalea & 200 ft. for = 9,432.00
laterals
Additional materials - stab. sand, concrete, bricks,
etc. = 3,000.00
TOTAL $51,069.76
Estimated Costs for Fairway Drive Drainage Project
1800 ft. of 30" RCP - Tamarach to Baker = $21,222.00
100 ft. of 24" RCP - Leads and crossovers = 825.00
5200 sq. ft. of sidewalk - Tamarach to end of existing = 13,000.00
sidewalk
Additional materials = 1,000.00
TOTAL $36,047.00
Estimated Costs for Post Oak/Red Bud Drainage Project
2340 ft. of 48" RCP - Post Oak to Rollingwood = $68,702.40
150 ft. of 30" RCP - Leads and crossovers - 1,768.50
720 ft. of driveway replacement = 2,160.00
Additional materials = 5,000.00
TOTAL $77,630 90
7
Attachment "B"
CITY OF BAYTOWN
810 TABULATION
TITLE: REFRACTORY LINING OF BRUSH BURNING PIT
610 NUNBER: 0607-103
DAM 9-10-86 2:00 P.N.
;RAWHIDE
ROOFING
!HARDY GUNITE OF TX
;
IITENI
QTY !UNIT
!DESCRIPTION
I_i
1. 1
i
1 1 LOT
1 !UNIT_PRICEIEXT. PRICE"—
!REFRACTORY LINING OF I ! 6,684.001
1
,
nos PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT
PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT
PRICE:
!BRUSH BURNING
!
PIT11
1 9,000.00
!
!
!
!
!
iDELIVERY:110
DAYS
;
110 DAYS
1
,
1 I
1
1BIDS NAILED TO
6 VENDORS.!
1
!
!
,
!
!
!
!
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
II
I
I
I
1
i i
1
i
1
i
1
1
1
i
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
i
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
11
i
i
I
I
1
1
I
!
I
'
i
I
I
1
I
I
1
,
I
1 1
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
,
I
,
I
i
I
It
1
I I
I
I
I
I
1
,
I
� 1
I i
1
I
�
I
I
i
1
i
1
i
1
i
!
1
1
I
1
1
,
1
1
1
1
i
I
1
I
1
,
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
1
,
i
i
i
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
1
1
I
I
1
rw
Attachment "Cn
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULA710M
TITLE: SLUDGE DEWATERING EQUIPMENT
810 NUMBER: 8608-110
DATE: 9-16-84 2:00 P.N.
;ITEM:
;A3M5KUUN-4lKUN-NARI. MUNLINE-SANDERSON
QTY ;UNIT ;DESCRIPTION
(NCI
I
1
!UNIT
EA. MUDGE DEVATERING EQUIP. 1
PRICEIEXT. PRICEIUNIT
1135,677.001
PRICEIEXT.
PRIG !UNIT
PRICE! EXT
PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT
PRICE:
1164,975.00:
:
1
�
1 1
EA. (ALTERNATE:SLUDGE i
1
:138,594.00INO
I
610
10
I
11
11
i
i
i
!
I
IDEWATERING EQUIPMENT WITH!
1
1
1
1
!
1
;PORTABLE ROOFING SYSTEM I
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
! DELIVERY:130
DAYS !
INOV.I,
1906
1
1
!
i
!
!BIOS NAILED TO 7 VENDORS.!
1
!
!
!
!
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley
-
11600 East Hardy
lon-HRRTLEY
Houston, Texas 77093
P.ORSHBRooK-si
Ho tBoxon 16327
Houston, Texas 77222
Texas
FAX 713-"9-1324
September 18, 1986
TLX TRT 166139 ASH UT
WUI 791939 ASH HOU
Telephone 713/449.0322
City of Baytown
P.O. Box 424
Baytown, Texas 77520
Att: Mr. Ray Swofford
Reference: Baytown Belt Press Quote
Sir:
In an effort to reduce the pricing offered in our quotation No.
6092251, we can eliminate or reduce items not critical to the press
operation. On page 2 of the specification, item 2 lists a total of
12 man days for installation stand-up and O & M installation. I
would like to propose a reduction as follows:
Installation stand-up and calibration 3 Hrs.
Operation and maintenance instruction 3 Hrs.
This will reduce the pricing $5,000. In addition, the spare parts
section of specification (page 17 item 13) lists 2 spare belts. I
misinterpreted this as 2 spare sets of belts which when corrected
will reduce the purchase price $3,000.
Finally, we could reduce the pricing by an additional $.3,000 if we
eliminate the spare set of belts completely with the understanding
that Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley will under normal conditions have a set
in stock.
These three proposed reductions will reduce the item No. 1 bid to
$124,677 and the item No. 2 bid, which includes the detachable roof,
to $127,594.
Please review this offer and if you have any questions please do not
hesitate to call.
Sincerely
�;o �
Dennis Herold
Regional Manager
DH:krs
cc: Enviromental Improvements, Inc.
1183 Brittmoore
Houston, Texas 77043
713/461-1111
Charles Milstead
snon
1W
Attachment "D"
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION
TITLE: ANNUAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
BID NUMBER: 8607-93
GATE: 8-?I-86 2:00 P.N.
QTY
in I
n iwLy, iNU. :C
i A SUPPLY ;KNIGHT
SUPPLY ICLARK FIRE
EQUIPMENT 1
,ITEM,
IA.'
,UNIT ,DESCRIPTION
!UNIT
345 I EA.IJACKET A PANTS ;
PRICEIEXT. PRICE;UNI1 PRICEIEXT, PRICEIUNIT
9.351 3,225.15! 20.001
PRICEIEXT. PRICEIUNIT PRICEIEXT. PRICE;
16.061
B.1
3/5 ;
EA.IBOOTS I
13.25!
4,571.2SI
10.501
6,900.001
3,622.501
1.021
2.090.701
21421.90:
•S./
6.521
1,866.45'"��
2,249.401
TOTAL ITEM 11:�
7,797.00�
1
IO,S22.50I
I
4,512.601
1
41115.851
1 2A.1
100 I
EA.IHARO HATS WITH RATCHET '
� ,
6.05
605.00,
10.36,
;
1,036.00,
5.82,
582.00!
5.611
564.001
B.,
1 C.1
300 ,
50 !
EA.,RATCHETS I
EA.IBUNP CAPS
3.85!
1,155.001
5.911
1,773.00I
4.121
1,236.00:
4.291
1,287.001
1 D.1
120 1
1
EA.IVINTER LINERS I
3.001
2.651
1SO.00I
318.001
3.001
3.751
150.001
450.001
2.701
2.661
135.001
319.201
2.641
1.751
132.00:
1 I
1
I TOTAL ITEM 12:1
2,228.001
!
3,409.AOI
I
2.272.201
;1
210.001
2,193.00;
i 3A.I
50 I
PR.IVEKTILATEb GOGGLES 1
11.15I
57.50'
2.551
S5,
121 S0,
i
I.IS,
S].50,
I
2.05I
1
102.501
1 B.I
25 1
PR.IVENTILATED a ANTI SPLASH !
2.951
73.751
5.001
125.001
1.301,
32.501
2.121
53.001
1 C.1
U.:
300 1
100
PR.IANTI-SPLASH GOGGLES I
PR.jEYE GLASSES
2.75!
825.00I
2.801
840.001
1.151
345.001
3.30I
990.001,
E.,
1
100 ,
1
PR.,SIOE PROTECTION !
1.95I
2.401
195.001,
240.AOI
5.251
5.00I
525.001
$00.00'
10.681
2.801
1,066.001
4.851
465.001
1 F.1
600 I
PR.IEAR PLUGS I
.15I
90.001
.12I
72.00I
280.001
66.00!
2.88'
288.001
12.A01
1 G.1
20 1
PR.IHEAD GEAR I
4.101
81.AOI
8.00I
160.00!
.III
3.721
74.401
.12!
3.651
13.001
1 H.1
40 1
PR.IFACE SHIELDS 1
2.IOI
84.001
2.25I
90.00I
2.34I
93.601
2.ISI
86.00!
1 1
!
1 TOTAL ITEM 13:'
'
1,6/7.25'
�
I
1,139.50'
,
'
,
1
2,017.00,
2,119.501
1 4A.1
200 1
EA.ISAFETY VEST !
3.501
700.001
3.00I
600.AOI
3.151
630.001
,
2.65I
530.00!
1 1
1
1 TOTAL ITEM 11:I
I
700.00:
'
,
600.00,
,
,
630.001
,
,
530.00,
11
1 SA.1
1
200 1
1 I
EA.ISAFETY FLAGS 1
I
1.851
I
370.001
I
1.451
I
290.001
I
1.561
1
312.001
,
!
1.05!
I
210.001
1 B.1
1 C.1
500 1
100 1
EA.ISAFETY CONE-11/0 IMPRINT !
EA.ISAFETY COKE-V1TH IMPRINT
3.951
1,975.001
3.751
1,875.001
3.951
1,975.001
3.411
1,735.001
1 1
1
1
1 TOTAL ITEM 15:1
4.351
435.001
4.501
'
450.001
7.561
756.001
3.471
347.001
1
2,760.00:
�
2,615.001
'
,
3,013.001
I
11292.001
1 6A.11000
B.:
!
100
PR.IWORK GLOVES !
PR.11HEAVY RUBBER GLOVES
1.01.1
�
1,010.001
1.40I
11400.00:
1.381
1,380.001
1.031
1,030.001
C.,
i
100 ,
I
PR.,LIGHT RUBBER GLOVES 1
1.06!
.69I
106.001
69.001
1.101
2.001
110.00!
200.00:
.921
1.40!
92.001
1.251
125.001
1 D.1
50 1
PR.IORIVING GLOVES 1
2.391
119.501
4.001
200.001
3.091
140.001
154.501
.601
2.401
60.001
120.001
E.:
F.,
200
40
PR.jKNIT WORK GLOVES 1
PR.,WELDERS GLOVES
.55I
110.00!
1.251
250.001
.86I
172.001,
.881
176.001
1 1
,
1
1
1 TOTAL ITEM 16:1
2.851
114.001
1,528.501
4.001
160.001
2.871
114.801
3.501
140.001
1 1
1
!
1 SPECIAL CONDITIONS:11EYE GLASSES
PLASTIC 1
1
I
2,320.001
I'H000
1
ON JACKET
2,053.301
NOT !'JACKET
1
00E5
1,651.001,
NOT
1 1
!
1 1 FRAME
NOT WIRE FRAME!
!
1 ATTACHED
1
! ZIP
1
UP FRONT 1
1 1
1
1 DELIVERY:1
1
130
DAYS ARO
12 DAYS
AROI
II DAY
ARO I
,BIDS SENT TO 31 VENDORS.
io
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION PAGE 2
TITLE: ANNUAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
BID NUNBER: 8607-93
DATE: B-21-06 2:00 P.N.
;ITEM#
QTY ;UNIT
INATERIAL ENTERPRISES ;SAFETY SHOE
;DESCRIPTION
DIST. ;GROVES
MOVE COMPANY 1
IA.1
;UNIT PRIM EXT. PRICEIUNIT
345 ; EA.IJACKET s PANTS '6.601
PRICEIEXT.
PRICE'UNiT PRICEIEXt. PRICEIUNIT
PR10E'EXT. PRICE'
1 ''1
345 1
;
EA. 1BOOTS 1
7.641
2,277.001
2,635.801
12.351
8.371
4,260.751'NO
21867.651,
BID 1
11.591
1
7.151
2,466.75,
1 1
1
1 TOTAL [TEN #1::
j
41912.80!
1
7,148.401
3,998.551
3,998.55,
10.131
,
3,495.851
5,962.601
1 1A.1
100 1
EA.IHARO HATS WITH RATCHET 1
6.341
634.001,
1
6.301
630.001'NO
810 I
1
5.67�
561.00,
1 8.1
1 C.1
300 1
50 1
EA.IRATCHETS
EA.IBUNP CAPS
/./8,
1,344.00,
4.55,,
16
1,365.00NO
BID ,
,
4.44,
11332.001
1 0.1
120 1
1
EA.IWINTER LINERS I
2.941
2.901
147.001
348.001
3.510
3.90!
175.501
468.001
2.651
2.201
132.501
264.001
2.501
2.071
125.001
TOTAL ITEN #2:1
1
2,473.001
1
2,638.501
1
396.501
1
246.401
2,272.401
1 3A.1
50 1
PR.IVENTILATED GOGGLES 1
1.241
62.001
2.541
127.001
'1.461
73.001
47.001
1 6.1
25 1
PR.IVENTILATEO 1 ANTI SPLASH 1
1431
35.751
2.861
71.501
1.781
44.501
.941
1.171,
29.251
1 C.1
300 1
PR.IANT1-SPLASH GOGGLES 1
1.241
372.001
3.671
1,101.001
1.911
573.001
2.311
693.001
1 D.1
1 E.1
100 1
100 1
PR.IEYE GLASSES 1
PR.ISI0E PROTECTION 1
11.631
2.81I
1,163.00:
281.001
11.151
2.401
1,115.0011NO
610 1
1
9.891
989.001
1 F.1
600 I
PR.IEAR PLUGS I
22.221,
66.661,
21.501
240.001
64.501
2.72:
272.001
78.001
1.901
190.001
1 G.1
20 1
PR.IHEAD GEAR 1
4.051
81.001
4.551
91.001
.131,
3.881
77.601
.121
5.201
72.001
104.001
1 H.1
40 1
PR.IFACE SHIELDS 1
2.351
94.001
4.061
162.401
1.811
74.801
1.391
55.601
1 1
!
1 TOTAL ITEN 13:!
to
2,155.411
!
2,972.401
!
1,192.90!
!
2,179.85'
1 !
1 1A.1
!
200 1
! 1
EA.ISAFETY PEST 1
I
3.161
1
632.001
,
2.4961
,
416.00�
,
03.801
,
760.001
3.531
'
706.001
1 1
1
1 TOTAL ITEM #4:I
1
632.001
1
/16.00,1
,
760.001
1
706.001
1 5A.1
200 1
1
EA.ISAFETY FLAGS 1
1
1.561
1Is
312.00'
1.26'
252.001
'I. 671
334.00:
10
1.491
1.
298.00,
1 B.1
1 C.1
500 1
100 1
EA.ISAFETY CONE -W/O 1NPRINT 1
EA.ISAFETY CONE -WITH INPRINT
3.9S1
1,975.001
4.681
2,340.00:
3.181
1,590.001
3.971
1,785.001
I
8.231
623.001
6.831
683.001
3.181
318.001110 BID 1
1
1 1
1
1 TOTAL ITEN #S:1
1
3,110.001
I
3,275.00:
1
2,242.001
1
21083.001
1 6A.11000
1 B.1
1
100 1
PR.IWORK GLOVES 1
PR.IHEAVY RUBBER GLOVES
1.471
1,470.001
2.601
2,600.001
' .921
920.001
1.021
1,020.001
1 C.1
100 1
1
PR.ILIGHT RUBBER GLOVES 1
.901
1.361
90.001
136.00:
1.961
1.661
196.001 .791
166.001NO 810
79.000
1.211
121.001
1 0.1
1
PR.IORIVING GLOVES 1
3.101
155.001
8.161
408.001
1
2.601
1
130.001
1.061
2.09I
106.001
104.501
1 E.1 200 1
PR.IKNIT WORK GLOVES 1
.871
174.001
1.801
360.001
.35 1
70.001
56.001
F.1
450
0
PR.�WELOERS GLOVES 1
1.891
115.601,
7.151
286.00:
3.881
155.201
.291
2.871
114.80:
1 1
1
TOTAL ITEN 16:1 1 2,140.601 1 4,016.00:
1 SPECIAL CONOITIONS:1'JACKET IS NOT ZIP-UPI'VEST DOES NOT HAVE !'FAILED
1 1,354.201
TO MANUALLY 1
I
1
1,524.301
1 111000 NOT ATTACHED. I VELCRO CLOSURE. 1 SIGN INVITATION TO I
1
I
1
1 PANTS NOT WAIST
I
1
I BID.
1
1
1
' '
1 STYLE. '
It
1
1 1
1
1 OELIVERY:11-2
DAYS ARO
115
DAYS ARO
I
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION PAGE 3
TITLE: ANNUAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
BID NUMBER: 6607-93
DATE: 8-21-86 2:00 P.M.
;ITEM;
QTY ;UNIT
1TST
;DESCRIPTION
SUPPLY
;SEA LEVEL
;GRACE EQUIPMENT ITACKABERRY
COMPANY 1
-�
;UNIT
PRICEIEXT. PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT.
PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT PRICEIUNIT
PRICEIEXT PRICE''")
IA.'
345 ;
EA.IJACKET I PANTS 1
'5.241
1,807.80:
7.801
2,691.001
8.141
2,80B.301
11.201
3,864.00:
6.1
345 ;
EA.IBOOTS 1
7.181
2,477.101
14.501
5,002.501
11.431
3,943.351
7.801
2,691.001
TOTAL ITEM 11:1
1
4,284.901
1
7,693.501
1
6,751.651
1
6,555.001
12A.1
100 1
EA.IHARD HATS WITH RATCHET 1
45.121
512.00INO BID
I
1
7.171
,
777.001
5.911
,
591.001
1
B.1
300 1
EA.IRATCHETS 1
4.181
1,254.0010 BID
1
1
5.351
1,605.001
4.181
1,254.001
1
C.1
50 1
EA.IBUNP CAPS 1
2.021
101.001
3.381
169.001
2.871
143.50:
2.991
149.501
I
0.1
120 1
EA.IWINTER LIKERS 1
2.221
266.401,
1.311
157.201
1.751
210.001
1.351
470.001,
1
1
1
1 TOTAL ITEM 12:1
1
2,133.401
1
326.201
1
2,735.501
'
i
2,/64.50,
1
3A.1
50 1
PR.IVENTILATED GOGGLES 1
' .981
49.001
2.131
106.501
1.571
78.501
2.311
115.501
1
B.1
2S 1
PR.IVENTILATED r< ANTI SPLASH 1
1.251
31.251
2.50I
62.501
2.361
59.001
2.501
62.501
1
C.1
300 1
PR.IANTI-SPLASH GOGGLES I
1.851
SSS.00I
3.101
930.00I
1.571
471.001
2.311
693.001
1
1
D.1
E.1
100 1
100
PR.GEYE GLASSES 1
7.651
765.001
9.961
9%.001
16.391
1,639.001
3.751
375.001,
1
PR.GSIDE PROTECTION 1
2.761
276.00:
3.811
381.001
2.941
294.001
2.371
237.001
1
F.1
600 1
PR.IEAR PLUGS 1
.091
54.001
.16I
96.001
.111
66.001
.121
72.00'
1
G.1
20 1
PR.IHEAO GEAR 1
5.291
105.80110 BID 1
1
4.811
97.401
5.001
100.00:
1
H.1
40 1
PR.IFACE SHIELDS 1
1.121
44.801
3.901
I56.001
5.611
224.401
1.50I
60.00I
TOTAL [TEN f3:1
1
11880.851
1
2,728.001
1
2,929.30:'1,71S.00'
1
4A.1
200 1
EA.ISAFETY VEST 1
91.881
376.001
4.891
978.001
3.991
798.001
3.651
730.001
1
1
I
1 TOTAL ITEM 114:1
1
376.001
1
978.001
1
798.00:
1
730.001
1
5A.1
200 1
1
EA.ISAFETY FLAGS 1
1
'1.851
1
370.001
1
1.891
1
378.001
11
1.561
11
312.001
111
1.261
1
1
252.001
1
6.1
500 1
EA.ISAFETY CONE-V/O IMPRINT 1
5.061
2,530.001
4.601
2,300.001
4.02I
2,010.001
3.101
1,550.001
C.1
100 11
EAieSAFETY CONE -KITH IMPRINT 'NO BID
1
I
5.001
500.00:
4.441
444.001
3.601
360.001
1
TOTAL ITEM 15:1
1
2,900.001
1
3,178.001
'
Z,166.00 '
1
2,162.00I
1
1
6A.11000
1
1
1 1
PR.IVORK GLOVES 1
' .58I
1
580.001
I
1.50I
11
11500.001
�
1
1.201
1
1,200.00:
.981
11
980.000,
B.:
100
PR.:HEAVY RUBBER GLOVES 1
1.231
123.00I110 BID
I
1
1.661
166.001
.911
97.00
,
C.,
100 ,
PR.,LIGHT RUBBER GLOVES 1
1.051
105.001N0 BID
1
1
2.001
200.001
.701
70.001
0.1
SO 1
PR.IORIVING GLOVES 1
4.121
206.001110 BID
1
I
5.231
261.S01
2.35.1
I17.S01
Ed
200 ,
PR.,KNIT WORK GLOVES 1
.391
78.00IKO BID
1
1
.371
74.001
.601
120.001
F.1
40 1
PR.:VELDERS GLOVES 1
5.751
230.00100 810
I
1
4.241
169.601
2.951
118.001
, TOTAL ITEM 16:1
1
1,322.001
1
1,500.001
1
2,071.10:
1,502.50'
1
1
1
1 SPECIAL COKOITIONS:11FAILED TO PROVIDE 1
1
1
I
1
1
1
11 SAMPLES.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 DELIVERY:11 DAY
ARO I
,
114 DAYS ARO
130
DAYS ARD
1
1
I
1
1
1 I
I
i
,
be
CITY OF BAYTOWN
BID TABULATION PAGE 4
TITLE: ANNUAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT
BID NUMBER: 8607-93
DATE: 8-21-06 1:00 P.M.
1 I
1 !MISSISSIPPI
TOOL
;ITEM;
QTY ;UNIT
;DESCRIPTION
-�
'
•'
;UNIT PRICEIEXT. PRICElUNIT PRICEIEXT
EA.IJACKET i PANTS ,
, 7.23, 2,494351
PRICE'UNIT PRICEIEXT PRICEIUNIT PRICE'EXT PRICE;
345 ;
,,.1
3/5 ;
EA.,BOOTS 1 10.131
3,494:851
,
;
1 I
1 TOTAL ITEM #1:; 1
5,989.201
1
1
2A.1
100 1
EA.IHARD HATS WITH RATCHET 1 5.121
512.001
1 6.1
300 1
EA.IRATCHETS 1 3.301
990.001
1 C.1
50 1
EA.IBUMP CAPS , 2.261
113.001
0.1
120 ,
EA.,WINTER LINERS , 2.231
267.601
TOTAL ITEM #2:1 1
1,882.601
1 3A.:
50 1
I 1
PR.IVENTILATEO GOGGLES I •1.461
73.001
1
1
, 6.1
25 ,
PR.,VENTILATED I ANTI SPLASH , 1.721
43.001
1
1 C.1
300 1
PR.IANTI-SPLASH GOGGLES 1 2.641
792.001
I
1
1 D.1
100 ,
PR.IEYE GLASSES 1 3.981
398.001
1 E.1
100 1
PR.ISIOE PROTECTION I 1.471
147.001
1 F.1
600 1
PR.IEAR PLUGS I .111
66.00'
1 6.1
20 1
PR.IHEAD GEAR , 3.961
79.20,
H.1
40 1
PR.IFACE SHIELDS I 2.271
90.801
TOTAL [TEN #3:1 I
11689.00,
1 4A.1
200 1
EA.ISAFETY VEST 3.26'
652.001
I
TOTAL ITEM #4:1 1
652.00:
I
;
1 5A.1
200 I
1
EA.ISAFETY FLAGS , 1.191
238.00,
1 B.,
500 1
EA.ISAFETY COKE -W/O IMPRINT 1 3.151
1,575.001
I
'
1 C.I
100 1
EA..ISAFETY COKE -WITH IMPRINT 1 3.451
345.001
I
1 1
1
1 TOTAL [TEN #5:1 1
2,158.001
1 6A.11000
1
PR.IWORK GLOVES 1 I.Ol1
1,010.001
1
; ;
1 B.1
100 1
PR.IKEAVY RUBBER GLOVES 1 1.181
118.001
1 C.1
100 1
PR.ILIGHT RUBBER GLOVES I 1.25,
125.00!
D.,
SO ,
PR.IDRIVING GLOVES 1 2.491
124.501
,
E.:
200 1
PR.jKNIT WORK GLOVES I .331
66.001
1
1 1 '
F.,
40 ,
PR.,WELOERS GLOVES , 2.861
114.401
1 1
1
I TOTAL ITEM #6:1 ,
1,557.90:
1
1
, SPECIAL CONDITIONS:14#1-PANTS ARE
NOT WAIST STYLE.
1 I
I
1 1'#2-HARD HAT
IS 6 POINT SUSPENSION NOT 8 POINT.
V#3-SIDE PORTECTION GOGGLES ARE NOT
SAFETY APPROVED.
1 I
I'0-CONES HAVE TO BE PURCHASED
AT ONE TINE.,
1
1 1 1
DELIVERY:17-10 DAY ARO
W