The URL can be used to link to this page

1994 02 24 CC Minutes, SpecialEd MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN February 24, 1994 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in special session on February 24, 1994, at 5:15 p.m. in the Don H. Hullum Conference Room of the Baytown City Hall with the following in attendance: Eva Benavides David Byford Manuel Escontrias E. Frank Hinds, Jr. Stephen DonCarlos Rolland J. Pruett Pete C. Alf aro Bobby Rountree Norman Dykes Ignacio Ramirez Eileen P. Hall Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Mayor City Manager Asst. City Manager City Attorney City Clerk The meeting was opened with a quorum present, after which the following business was conducted: Recess into Executive Session to Discuss Contemplated Litigation Mayor Alfaro recessed the open meeting into executive session to discuss contemplated litigation. When the open meeting reconvened, Mayor Alf aro announced that no action was necessary as a result of the executive session. Adjourn There being no further business to be transacted, the special meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN February 24, 1994 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in regular session on February 24, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the following in attendance: Eva Benavides David Byford Manuel Escontrias E. Frank Hinds, Jr. Stephen DonCarlos Rolland J. Pruett Pete C. Alfaro Bobby Rountree Norman Dykes Ignacio Ramirez Eileen P. Hall Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Mayor City Manager Asst. City Manager City Attorney City Clerk The meeting was opened with a quorum present, and Council Member Pruett offered the invocation, after which the following business was conducted: Consider Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Session Held on February 10, 1994 Council Member Escontrias moved for approval of the minutes for the regular session held on February 10, 1994, as presented prior to the council meeting. Council DonCarlos seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Hold Public Hearing on Award of the Contract for the Expansion of the East District Sewer Treatment Plant Mayor Alfaro called to order the public hearing concerning the contract for the expansion of the East District Sewer Treatment Plant, and asked everyone desiring to speak at the hearing to sign the list in the lobby, if they had not already done so. This list provided the speaking order for the hearing. He inquired if other people needed to sign the register. The group with Basic Constructors indicated that Steve Shoedinger would be arriving later; however, Mr. Shoedinger never arrived. Mayor Alfaro administered the oath to everyone present desiring to testify. 940224 -2 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 The Mayor explained that the hearing was being conducted in compliance with the Texas Local Government Code Section 271.027 for the purpose of providing Basic Constructors, Inc. an opportunity to present evidence of responsibility in connection with the contract for the expansion of the East District Sewer Treatment Plant. He emphasized that everyone desiring to present information at the hearing would be given ample opportunity to do so, but encouraged each speaker to be as brief and to the point as possible. He cautioned that this was not an adversary type proceeding, and called upon Tom Myers to speak. Mr. Myers stated that he was the attorney for Basic Constructors and would be presenting evidence regarding Basic's responsibility in connection with this project. He felt Basic to be the low, responsive, responsible bidder on the East District Water Treatment Plant. However, the design engineer had recommended that the contract be awarded to the second low contractor whose bid was approximately $14,000 higher than Basic's bid. Mr. Myers said the issue before council and the decision that had to be made by council, and only by council, is whether or not Basic is a responsible contractor. He emphasized that the determination would not be whether or not Basic is more or less responsible than the other bidder. If Council found Basic to be responsible, then Council would be obligated to award the contract to them pursuant to the competitive bidding statutes in Texas. He emphasized the importance to Basic both monetarily and with regard to reputation. He stressed that a finding and award to the second low contractor is a finding by council that Basic is not responsible; however, Basic would prove through evidence and testimony that Basic is a responsible contractor and should be awarded the contract. Employees of the company, as well as others voluntarily, on their own time, were available to give testimony regarding Basic. These people had worked with Basic in the past on other projects from an engineering standpoint and from an owner's standpoint. Additionally, council earlier in the day, had been furnished with a copy of a series of letters of recommendation from various engineering firms and various municipal owners around the state, all of whom are attesting to Basic's responsibility. The booklet was presented into evidence as part of the hearing. Mr. Myers reiterated that the evidence would show that Basic is a responsible contractor, and there is no reason for the council members to spend an additional $ 14,000 of their constituents money in awarding the contract to the second low bidder. He concluded by saying to not award the contract to Basic, would be an arbitrary decision. He requested that Ed Baxter be allowed to speak next. Mayor Alf aro recognized Ed Baxter, president of Basic Constructors, who stated the company is a second generation, Houston family business, started by his father, Joe Baxter, in 1948. In that forty -five year history Basic has completed over one -half (01" billion dollars in construction contracts, ranging from a few thousand dollars each to over twenty -three million dollars. Of this, seventy water and wastewater projects valued in excess of $170,000,000 have been completed. He stressed that the company is based on the principles of fair play, cooperation and trust, not only toward 940224 -3 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 the owner and engineer, but also toward sub - contractors, for they realized early on, that was the only way to be in the construction business for the years to come. Their primary goal is to construct a quality job everyone can be proud of, where clients don't have to worry about being short - changed. He admitted that there had been a few disappointed clients out of the some 600 projects, a very few. Construction is a complicated business. Many personalities are involved with the capacity for human error not only in the actual construction, but also in the conceptual and design phases. Everyone is party to building a one -of -a -kind structure in this business, and there is always more than one side to any story. The company felt that any judgement passed on Basic as to responsibility should not be isolated to one side of a very few incidents, but must be based on the over all history of the company. He pointed out that the company had yet to build a project that did not have some inconsistences in the contract documents, because humans are not infallible. It is the manner in which the team, the contractor, the engineer and the owner resolve these conflicts, which either creates mutual respect or not. Basic believes in conflict avoidance. It is for this reason that Basic writes to the engineer during the bidding process, attempting to eliminate inconsistencies. Mr. Baxter said that they also understand the wisdom in compromise and timely resolution of conflicts. As such, they are one of the spearhead companies in Texas to have encouraged owners and engineers to apply the new concepts of partnering to four of their projects over the last two years. Partnering, although a new buzz word, is nothing other than a formalized attempt to get back to the way the team used to construct projects in his father's early years. The owner, the engineer and the contractor meet at the beginning of the project and establish a charter of conduct based on mutual respect, cooperation, fair play and they map out an orderly process for conflict avoidance and resolution. He further submitted that their eagerness to partner was not the expression of an irresponsible contractor. In 1988 Basic constructed the five and one half million dollar Central District Wastewater Treatment Plant, and back in 1968, the San Jacinto Methodist Hospital, and Basic feels that both projects were successful. On February 3 of this year, Basic submitted the low, responsive proposal to construct East District Wastewater Treatment Plant Expansion. Mr. Baxter stated when council awarded this project to them, they would complete it in accordance with the contract documents, in the same highest quality for which they are known. He asked council not to make this the first job in the company's 45 year history where the owner elected to spend an additional $ 14,000 to award to the second bidder. He mentioned that Basic had three representatives of previous clients who have flown and driven to Baytown to speak on their behalf. Each individual will introduce themselves and give their first -hand impression of Basic. Afterward, Mr. Grant will give a brief statement. He concluded by saying that council should have a packet with ten letters of recommendation; the resume of the proposed project manager, Mr. Marcus Griffis, and a company brochure and qualification statement. He thanked Council for giving him the opportunity to speak on behalf of his family business. 940224 -4 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 Mayor Alfaro recognized Glenn Grant, who helped put together the bid on this project for Basic Constructors, along with Marcus Griffis. During the bid phase of the project, Mr. Grant wrote five letters concerning questions of the contract documents, the plans. His intent on doing this was to correct any errors in the plans, any problems he could see in the future to try and get all these things out in the open at the beginning. This is the only chance a bidder has to talk about the contract. That was his intent. When the addendum came out, it answered the questions and their bid was produced per the plans, specs and the addendum. He emphasized that if he had offended anybody, he apologized for it. He concluded by saying that Basic has a good reputation, and he very much wish to uphold it. Mayor Alf aro recognized Robin Green, who stated that he is currently employed by the City of Houston as a Senior Engineer, but was not representing the City of Houston at the hearing. He verified that he had not been offered any compensation by Basic Constructors for his testimony and that he was on his own time. Between 1987 and 1991 Mr. Green was a project manager in the construction section, and during that time he managed three separate contracts with Basic Constructors for a total of about ten million dollars. Basically, his job was to administer the contract, review Basic's work progress, review their compliance with the contract documents and then recommend payment. Throughout his relationship with Basic he found them to be very professional, very honest, very straightforward, never attempting to gouge the owner, never soliciting unnecessary change orders. There were change orders, but he felt like they were warranted, and in many cases they were enhancements or additions requested by the owner. Mr. Green felt like Basic asked very hard questions during the prebid phase because they examined the documents very carefully. He felt this to be a benefit to the owner. Therefore, he always looked at their questions and attempted to interpret them carefully. During the construction phase they always showed a very good understanding of the documents. Scott Kousheshi had signed the register in case he needed to answer any questions. Since no questions were posed, Mayor Alfaro recognized Gary Kimbrell, the director of construction services for M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Mr. Kimbrell volunteered information concerning Basic's performance. Currently, M.D. Anderson has a $248,000,000 program underway. It involves new facilities and over a million square feet of new cancer treatment center. That program is supported by an extensive remodeling program of which Basic is a part. They have completed approximately seven million dollars worth of renovations in the existing facilities as a part of that interface to the new program. M.D. Anderson has a program that prequalifies general contractors to do work at M.D. Anderson. Basic is one of those four pre - qualified contractors. Mr. Kimbrell felt that there was no reason to doubt Basic's continuation of service that has been experienced over the past five years. He could see no reason why Basic wouldn't continue that service on a similar project or project the city had in mind. 940224 -5 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 Mayor Alfaro recognized Wayne Smith, Consulting Engineer for the City of Baytown, who called attention to a small booklet with about thirty sheets in it for council review containing information developed through the Open Records Act. He emphasized that Wayne Smith had been selected by the city to provide design expertise based on their experience and this treatment plant was designed with that in mind. The consulting engineers are also retained to give the city advice or make recommendations. They are no different than your physician, your dentist, your attorney, your CPA or your optometrist. They are to give advice, but council doesn't necessarily have to take it. To do their job, they must give the recommendation that they deem best, in the best interest of the city. Before proceeding through the booklet, Mr. Smith introduced Stan Cargill who signed up to speak but was really on hand to answer questions from council regarding the specific design of the project. Stan is Vice President of the corporation and the responsible person in charge of the design of the project. Two more people present who didn't speak were Lauren McDaniel, construction administrator, who was formerly with Turner, Collie & Braden; formerly with the Corps of Engineers. He's seventy -seven years old and has been doing this for over fifty years, so he has a tremendous amount of experience. With him was Patty Hodges who is his assistant and a resident of Baytown. Mr. Smith stated that they began to compile this information last Tuesday. There is more coming and a great deal more that could be attained if the city should choose. He called attention to a letter that they had written to Bobby Rountree, City Manager, on February 21, 1994, a response to the city's request for reasons that we the consultants had recommended award of the contract to N & S Construction Co. Basic Constructors wrote us a letter on January 21, 1994, which is included in the back of the packet. In statement number four in their letter, and this is a direct quote, "contract drawings sheet 9, note 1, sheet 10, note 1, and sheet 1 1's note, state that the general contractor's responsible for verifying the location of all existing piping prior to bid time. To accomplish this fete we would have to dig up the entire site. You as the engineer and the city are asking the impossible." Wayne Smith & Associates provided the italics and the bold letter that follows. "If Basic is the low bidder on this project and we unearth an existing line which was either not shown in the bid documents or shown incorrectly, we will apply for a change order to accomplish extra work." The note that Basic Constructors is referring to is repeated on ten separate sheets in the drawings. The note states that they will be responsible for determining the vertical and horizontal locations of those facilities. Mr. Smith emphasized that their specifications are industry standard, the note is industry standard. Under their specifications, under existing structures, highlighted is one sentence out of it, that it is mutually agreed, if all surface and subsurface structures are not necessarily known, that the owner assumes no responsibility for failure to show any or all of these structures on the plans. Highlighted is the sentence that says "it is mutually agreed that such failure should not be considered sufficient basis for claims, for additional compensation for extra work or for increase in the pay quantities in any manner whatsoever unless the obstruction encountered is such as to necessitate substantial 940224 -6 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 changes." The consultants feel that is directly contrary to the statement by Basic which says they will file for extra claim should they uncover anything. Paragraph twenty -five, under special conditions, refers to existing utilities and service lines. It says, "the contractor shall be responsible for the protection of all existing utilities or service lines crossed or exposed by his construction operations. Where existing utility or service lines cut, broken or damaged, the contractor shall replace or repair the utilities or service lines with the same type of original material in construction or better at his own cost and expense. These notes are standard in the industry, the special conditions are standard in the industry. The expansion to the East District Sewage Treatment Plant is being constructed adjacent to an existing treatment plant that is at the site of an old treatment plant, as well as the site of an old brickyard. It is probable that there will be something uncovered during the construction process. No other contractor took exception to that note or to those specification items. The next item that is indicated in the letter is Statement No. 7 from Basic Constructor's letter, bold letter and italics were added by the consultants, " contract specifications, special provision number 1 to general condition deletes the arbitration clause out of the standard general conditions." Addendum number one did delete that. The contractor states, "this deletion is obnoxious. Many professional people got together to establish a fair and equitable set of General Conditions when this set of General Conditions was developed," and the next highlight says, " the only reason to remove this clause that I can think of is to eliminate claims." And then the last thing highlighted from Basic's letter is that this is not Basic Constructor's way of doing business. The City of Baytown currently in all of their projects eliminates the arbitration clause. It isn't even in the contract with the consulting engineer. City of Baytown has had some negative experience in arbitration and has eliminated arbitration from all their projects. To the engineer, the statement that this is not Basic Constructor's way of doing business, is directly contrary to the way the City of Baytown does business, making them unresponsive to the bid process. At the last meeting Mr. Smith had indicated that there were some 120 change orders on another project. The letter on page 4 was obtained through the Open Records Act and change order proposal #122 is highlighted. This means that there was a proposal for #122. It doesn't mean that 122 change orders were approved, but it means 122 had been applied for. The last statement in their letter is apparently objecting to a condition that the engineer of the city had, and it says, "Basic protests this action by the owner and will file a claim." Sheet six is a letter from the consulting engineer at the City of Conroe to the City, and they refer to Basic Constructor's, Inc. Change Order Proposal #122. So change orders of 122 were at least proposed. Page nine is a fax from the City of Conroe and page ten is change order number 16. Change order number 16 is dated January 19, 1994. That's up at the upper right hand corner right under the number sixteen. Down near the bottom the last date for contract time extension was September 20, 1993. That's some four months ago, and that project is either just finished or about to be completed. That change order was not recommended by their consultant, nor is that change order approved by the City Engineer. In fact,the consultants have been told that the City 940224 -7 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 of Conroe gave the consulting engineer a letter relieving him from the liability involving this part of the project because he refused to execute that change order. Sheet 11 talks about outstanding change orders, and this is from the City of Conroe. Down at the bottom there is a comment that says hairline cracking and water bearing structures, and its got a price there of about $49,000. Under our contract and also on the next page, 125 R - leakage at joints formed by the joining of new concrete to existing concrete, East District Treatment Plant as it exists now will have an extension added to it by this project, and there will be a necessity to connect new concrete to old concrete. Under our plans and specifications, there is no extra pay for doing this, and the engineer would not entertain any claims or any requests for payment for repairing leaks for a project that the contractor did. Sheet number 13 is from the City of Temple. This is information just received this morning, but the contract date for the City of Temple is November 3, 1988, the allotted time for the amount of the contract was 719 days which is less than two years. The October 31, 1991 completion date, is three days short of being three years. So the project is roughly a year old. Under the terms of the agreement that the consultants have with the City of Baytown, as well as the agreement that the city has with all its consultants, which is the industry standard, the consultants provide a field representative to observe the construction process and to report that to Mr. McDaniel and to city staff as the project proceeds. The city pays a basic fee for everybody except that field representative who is billed by the hour. That roughly works out to about $8,000 a month and a project that is over by 12 months would cost the city 12 times eight which must be about $96,000. Fourteen and fifteen were all additional construction estimates from the City of Temple. Page 17 is supposed to be from the Galena Park Independent School District, and at 4:00 this afternoon they called and said that it would be tomorrow before they got the information, but once again that project was an eighteen month project. It took two years and three months. If you take nine more months worth of construction on top of a project and you put field representative time on top of it, that's another $72,000 that the owner would have to pay the consulting engineer for the project being delayed. Page 18 is the bid form. This is a copy of the bid form submitted by the contractor. Highlighted is the last sentence before tabulation of the bid items. The last sentence says, "it is understood that the owner reserves the right to reject any and all bids." Page 25 is a letter from Basic Constructor's, Inc. to Lauren McDaniel at Wayne Smith & Associates. That is the letter containing statement four and statement seven quoted earlier. On page 28 is the consultants letter of recommendation to the City of Baytown. Mr. Smith reiterated that the recommendation made two weeks ago stands. They have not learned anything since that time to cause a change in the recommendation. Mayor Alfaro recognized Norman Dykes, a Registered Professional Engineer, who had practiced as a city engineer over twenty years and has worked with several contracts. Mr. Dykes was City Engineer when Basic Constructors did the Central District Plant. That plant was due to be completed March 13, 1988, but it was 940224 -8 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 actually completed February 14, 1989. On change orders 1, 15, 16 and 17, contractor's profits, were higher than those that were allowed by the guidelines of the Water Development Board. Under the Open Records Law, Mr. Dykes obtained copies of documentation from the City of Conroe. He pointed out that a document indicated the Conroe project was finished August, 1993, Mr. Smith just read from change order 16 that was dated this spring. A lot of what Mr. Dykes found deals with time extensions. In Conroe they have what they call RFP's, which basically are change orders. The city pulls the RFP's together and combines them into change orders. They had 16 change orders in the project, but 122 requests for various changes which were combined. These change orders represent over $ 100,000. They had three phases in that project with an overage on time of 302 112 days. Again, the time factor is disturbing, because when there is an overrun on time, the city pays an inspector to watch the job, and many times under orders from the state to get the job done and get in compliance. From a letter dated March 22 from the consulting engineer doing work for Conroe to Mr. Ed Baxter, "Basic Constructor's, Inc. is hereby notified that it is the intention of the City of Conroe to proceed with the termination of work by Basic Constructor's Inc. as per the standard schedule, conditions of the construction contract, Article 15 2.6 and to request the surety to complete the project unless the following conditions are met no later than April 16, 1993." There are two items -- evidence satisfactory to the City of Conroe is provided that leaks and water retaining structures mentioned above in the letter are repaired. Item 2 is resubmit a revised work schedule for approval. Mr. Dykes noticed through these letters that numerous times the city asked for construction schedule. Many, many times they asked for a construction schedule or please revise it and resubmit, give us a schedule. A letter dated July 22, 1993, to Basic from the City Administrator of Conroe states, "should you fail to submit the schedule or should your schedule be unacceptable, then the City will have no alterative but to declare you in default of your contract and make demand upon your bonding company to complete the performance." In another letter from Basic to the former City Manager of Conroe, "I was somewhat disturbed to hear your opening comments prior to leaving the meeting which implied that Basic may be trying to avoid performing its contractual duties in full." Another letter to Basic, deals with money. It says, "Basic's responses have aroused some concern and caused us to review your proposal with greater scrutiny. As per article 11, of the standard general conditions of the construction contract... for costs incurred for work performed by a sub- contractor, the contractor's fee shall be five percent and the max allowable to the contractor on account of overhead and profit of all sub - contractors shall be 15 %. As per your letter it is our understanding that Weimar Manufacturing is a subcontractor to Pfeiffer & Son, who in turn is a subcontractor to Basic. Weimar Manufacturing added overhead of 10% and a profit of 5% on to which Pfeiffer & Son added overhead of ten and a profit of five on to which Basic added a profit of fifteen percent for a total net profit of 53.4 %." Mr. Dykes felt that was not acceptable. The last paragraph of a letter from the consultant, to Basic states, "Due to the apparent unwillingness of Basic Constructors to, in our opinion, cooperate fairly with the City of Conroe, your change order proposals number 71 and 56 have been rejected." 940224 -9 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 In rebuttal, Tom Myers stated that what he heard was a lot of innuendo, hearsay, third party reports, that don't match the truth of what took place up on Conroe. He pointed out that he was under oath, and he was the attorney who negotiated the final closeout of the contract for the City of Conroe and with their attorney Mark Winberry. The job was completed and the change order was executed after the fact, after completion. He verified the date of completion to be in August, not this spring. The job had on record a thirty day overrun of time, not 300 days. Construction contracts have provisions for excusable delays, weather, other delays, things that can interfere with a project. Of the 122 change proposals, 72 were proposed by the owner, not the contractor. The total change orders on that project amounted to less that 1 % of the total contract amount of over $ 10,000,000 and a two year project. The change orders were a small part of the job, and Basic was paid extra money for cracks in the clarifier. There were cracks in it. Basic alleged that there was a problem in the design mix and evidently the city agreed because they paid the contractor for the fix. There were no EPA fines. There were no Texas Water Development Board fines of any kind. In fact, the final has been received by the City of Conroe; therefore that job is done. It's been done. It's been done since last August. Mr. Myers emphasized this point because he felt that had been misrepresented. In terms of the comments in Mr. Grant's letter, Mr. Myers apologized for the tone of the letter, and stated that perhaps he was a bit over - zealous in his tone in the prebid correspondence. However, there were numerous addenda issued to the bid documents in order to clarify items which Basic did raise. In terms of his position with respect to arbitration, he submitted that the industry form used by the engineer has arbitration. That is the industry standard. It may not be Baytown's standard, and over the years it may have been deleted as a standard, but for contractors who build wastewater treatment plants, the NSPE forms have arbitration, it's standard, and that's what evoked the comment. In Temple there were some time overruns, but he asked, "do we know why, what were the reasons, where there excusable delays, is anybody here from the City of Temple to talk about that ?" "No," and responded, "we just have a sheet of paper that indicates the time was extended, with no evidence before the Board as to why." He pointed out that the city never did declare the contractor in default in Conroe, they never did terminate. The job was done. The entire claim was a series of approximately two meetings between Mr. Myers and Mark Winberry to sit down and go over items, many of which were instituted by the owner, for which pricing was worked out. It was very amicable. It was not a major conflict and Mr. Winberry had pointedly indicated that no one would be at the hearing from the city to talk about Basic or any problems with Basic. There are people who came and lots of letters of recommendation were presented. Mr. Myers recognized that the city can reject any and all bids. That's in the bid documents, that's Texas law, but the documents also state that the city will award to the low, responsive and responsible bidder. He continued that he had been doing construction law for twelve years and represents nothing but contractors, and had represented Basic for over eight years. Basic avoids conflicts, they are a good contractor, they do good work. He urged council to give serious consideration to the evidence. He felt it indicated responsibility on the part of Basic. He concluded by pointing out that Basic wanted 940224 -10 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 this job very much and wanted to be the city's contractor on this job. It is important to the company. Mayor Alfaro recognized the City Manager who asked Mr. Myers why was final payment just now if the project was finished in August in Conroe? Tom Myers responded that the date of substantial completion for Phase III, is August 27, 1993. Therefore, the City Manager asked why was final payment this week on the project? Mr. Myers answered final payment was released this week. The City Manager inquired, "why the delay ?" Mr. Myers responded that the delay was due to the fact that the city had to have final close our documents on the entire project. Every piece of equipment warranted, the dates of warranty established. They had to have any and all claims regarding the project, including claims that stem from owner requested changes had to be ironed out, worked out, totally completed. Things such as dates of completion, dates the warranties kick in. All this had to be put in to a complete package, wrapped up, sealed, signed off on and then delivered to Texas Water Development Board before it could be closed out. So what was held up was the final payment, most of that's retainage. It was a ten million dollar job, so this is basically five percent retainage withheld pending complete closeout and approval of all documents by Water Development Board. Mayor Alfaro asked if it normally takes that long to resolve the final payment? Mr. Myers said that Conroe's position was that because it was fully funded by Texas Water Development Board, they could not release anything below five percent until everything was totally wrapped up. There was some discussion over pricing and some items. Mark Winberry and Mr. Myers worked those out which was a month and a half, two month process, where they worked through the documentation and came to agreement on it. That was part of that process. Mayor Alfaro stated that perhaps he should ask the question a different way, and asked of the 600 customers or clients of Basic, is that about average, more or less? Mr. Myers said much less. Mr. Baxter added that the process is more complicated than Mr. Myers has intimated. Basically, the City of Conroe had a working plant in August of 93 that was treating their sewage, and they enjoyed holding $600,000 owed to Basic for seven additional months, because there was no agreement established to allow them to get their money from the Texas Water Quality Control Board. The City of Conroe had their working plant. It's an excellent quality project. Basic Constructors funded that plant for seven months, because of the delay in getting the project wrapped up. Mr. Baxter 940224 -11 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 indicated another problem was conflict between the City of Conroe and the engineer. The engineer would not process the paperwork, and because that didn't get processed, that's part of Basic's paperwork and they couldn't get their money. Normal turn around on completion of the project for final payment would be 30 to 60 days. Mayor Alfaro asked what caused the delay on the Baytown project? Mr. Baxter responded that there are two sides to every story. "These are complex projects. They involve a lot of human beings, and there are many reasons for why everything happens. I can't tell you why it was a year late. I can guess that there were justifiable delays which we probably had extensions of time for, which is our right by contract, and /or there might have been discrepancies in the documents as I've said earlier that cause complications that make the job last longer. It was discussed that the inspection cost more money. Believe you, it cost us more money, too, to be on a project longer, so everyone is suffering. " Mayor Alfaro asked, "the document you submitted that was addressed to us that we got today, under Section L, Page 4, you indicate under 3.2.3, the question is, has your organization filed any lawsuits or requested arbitration with regard to construction contracts within the last five years ?" Your answer is "no." Mr. Baxter responded that he had completed that form may years ago. They had augmented the form, and that answer is incorrect, that is an error. Council Member Escontrias pointed out on the underground piping and arbitration clause, there was no objection posed by other contractors, and inquired why Basic had objected. Mr. Myers responded that in the prebid stage, the contractors are encouraged to write on anything they notice in the documents where there is a conflict, an error, a discrepancy, conflicts with code, or anything in the documents that they have a problem with in terms of the specifications or the conditions, supplementary conditions, terms of the contract, because they know that once they bid, unless an addendum is issued and has changed what's in the bid package, they're bound to the bid package. That's their only opportunity to raise issue with any of those items. He took issue with Mr. Smith on his statement that the provision on underground obstruction is industry standard. It's contrary to the typical form in the AIA A201 General Conditions, which is one of the more widely used documents in construction. He noted that the bid that was submitted took no exception to either of those two items referenced in paragraphs four and seven of the letter. Basic bid to the bid documents, they're bound to the bid documents, and they were responsive. If they had on their bid form said, "we object, we won't abide by this," then Council could throw their bid out. It would be non - responsive. But, they didn't. They submitted a responsive bid, and those terms were part of the contract. 940224 -12 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 In response to Council Member Escontrias, Mr. Myers continued that if he didn't agree to the terms, he would have to write on the face of the bid document an exception to certain provisions. If that exception in writing on the bid is not made, the contractor is bound to the terms of the bid document. If an exception is taken, then the city attorney is going to tell you to throw the bid out, anyway, because it's non - responsive, but that letter was a prebid letter. It's one of many items, many articles seeking clarification, changes. The last sentence or two in the arbitration paragraph, paragraph number seven refers to, "please consider this and get back to us with your thoughts, or what you'll do with this." It's simply an attempt, prebid, to call out clarifications and attempt to change language in the contract. It's the contractor's only chance to do that. The bid document is what controls and binds, and that's what Basic submitted. Council Member Pruett inquired of Mr. Baxter if the company was previously called Baxter, Baxter Equipment or something similar? Mr. Baxter stated that his father started the business in 1948 under the name of Baxter Construction Company, Inc. In 1970, he formed Basic Constructors, Inc. Eight years ago Baxter merged with Basic. It is the same organization. It's the same people, the same facility. Mr. Baxter went on to say that under unforeseen conditions, in most jobs they are not as stringent as this clause, but he felt the original intent of those clauses when they were first developed, was for small differences in the plans, but the clause should not be used to make a contractor responsible for unforeseen or incorrectly shown items of $20,000, $40,000 or $50,000. General Contractors don't have that kind of contingency in their bid. The City Manager asked Mr. Myers on the pricing that the city attorney had been discussing on the Conroe project did that have to do with the prices that were in the bid document, or where there new items that came up after the contract was awarded? Mr. Myers responded that those were all items that came after the contract was entered. They were items of additional work required by the owner, as well as changed conditions on the site for which the contract provided for compensation, but how much, particularly that issue regarding the wall between an old and new structure. Basic had pointed out in correspondence that there was a defect in the design and that it would leak. They were directed to build it anyway. They built it. It leaked. And then the discussion over who should pay for the repair. That was the background on that particular issue. That was included in those discussions. So, these were items that were not pay items under the contract, unit price items or lump sum items. 940224 -13 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 At this point Mr. Myers stated to Mr. Dykes that he had spoken harshly a minute ago, and apologized to him. Mayor Alfaro stated that since there was no one else desiring to speak at the public hearing concerning the contract for the expansion for East District Sewer Treatment Plant, the hearing was closed. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Repealing Ordinance No. 6928 and Awarding Contract for Expansion of East District Sewer Treatment Plant Council Member Pruett moved for adoption of the ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 6928 and authorizing a contract with N & S Construction Company, Inc. for the expansion of the East District Sewer Treatment Plant. Council Member Byford seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 6936 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 6928 PASSED ON FEBRUARY 10, 1994; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH N & S CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE EAST DISTRICT SEWER TREATMENT PLANT; AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF THREE MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTEEN AND 501100 DOLLARS (53,704.613.50); MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. Consider Proposed Ordinance, First Reading on Proposed Annexation of Budgetel Inn Site at the Northeast Quadrant of Interstate 10 and Garth Road Council Member Hinds moved for adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Benavides seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None 940224 -14 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 ORDINANCE NO. 6937 AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, AND THE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPOSED SITE FOR THE BUDGETEL INN AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF INTERSTATE 10 AND GARTH ROAD; WHICH SAID TERRITORIES LIE ADJACENT TO AND ADJOIN THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMITS FOR THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS. Consider Proposed Resolution No. 1206, Authorizing the City Manager to Make Application to Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's Office for Texas Narcotics Control Program Funds The proposed resolution authorizes the City Manager to make application for Texas Narcotic Control Program Funds in the amount of $2,364,208. It also authorizes the City Manager to sign inter - agency agreements with twenty participating agencies. This is the fifth year to apply. The grant period is January 1, 1994 to May 31, 1995 and will be on a sixty /forty grant. The grant application for the next grant year will be for a total of $3,940,347. The City of Baytown match for this grant will be $74,460.00. The other participating agencies' match will be $515,552 and the generated program income will be $986,127. The annual budget which includes the grant requests, program income, the City of Baytown's match and the participating agencies' match total $3,940,347. The administration recommended approval. Council Member Escontrias moved for the adoption of the resolution. Council Member Benavides seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 1206 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, TO MAKE APPLICATION TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, STATE OF TEXAS, FOR TEXAS NARCOTICS CONTROL PROGRAM FUNDS; DESIGNATING AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE; ACCEPTING OR AFFIRMING ANY GRANT AWARD THAT MY RESULT THEREFROM; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. N 940224 -15 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 Consider Proposed Resolution No. 1207, Authorizing the Mayor to Submit a Program Proposal to be Included in Harris County Private Industry Council's Application to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration for a Youth Fair Chance Program This is another grant proposal being worked through the Youth Commission. The U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration has established a competitive grant program to fund demonstration projects that will provide comprehensive employment and training services to youth, ages 14 through 21, and young adults ages 22 through 30 in high poverty areas of urban and rural communities. The purpose of the Youth Fair Chance Program is to provide all youth living in designated target areas with improved access to the types of service and support necessary to help them find jobs, develop careers and lead productive lives. Target areas are defined as census tracts that meet the U.S. Bureau of Census Poverty Guidelines. Therefore, it is anticipated that target areas will encompass West Baytown, Oakwood, Central Heights, Pelly and Lee Heights. The proposed program will be administered locally by the Baytown Area Youth Commission in conjunction with Goose Creek Independent School District, Lee College, the Baytown YMCA, Sterling Municipal Library, the City of Baytown Parks and Recreation Department and other interested agencies. If funded the program will last for eighteen months with the possibility of future funding. Only twenty -five grants will be awarded nationwide. The Baytown Area Youth Commission's proposed program should be a strong contender because of the collaborative structure of the Youth Commission. The grant will be for up to $600,000. The twenty percent grant match, $180,000, will be provided through other federal sources and in -kind services. The administration recommended approval. Council Member DonCarlos moved for adoption of the resolution. Council Member Pruett seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 1207 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SUBMIT A PROGRAM PROPOSAL TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HARRIS COUNTY PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL'S APPLICATION TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION FOR A YOUTH FAIR CHANCE GRANT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. 940224 -16 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 Consider Proposed Resolution No. 1208, Adopting Guidelines for Homebuyers Assistance Program In the Community Development Block Grant Budget $48,000 was budgeted for homeownership assistance. Under this program, up to $4,000 would be provided through Community Development Block Grant /Houston Housing Partnership to low moderate income households for closing costs when purchasing a home. The amount of the loan will be forgiven after the buyer has lived in the house for five years. Should the buyer live in the house for less than five years, the amount to be repaid would be prorated. Priority will be given to (1) buyers who are applying to purchase the house which they currently rent, (2) buyers who have successfully completed the Baytown Housing Authority's Family Self Sufficiency Program, (3) buyers who reside within an enterprise zone. Council Member Escontrias moved for adoption of the resolution. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 1208 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, ADOPTING GUIDELINES FOR THE HOMEBUYERS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Amending Chapter 17, "Miscellaneous Provisions and Offenses" by Repealing Section 17 -15, "Fencing of Certain Manmade Pits, Holes or Other Man -Made Excavations," and by Adding Sections 17 -24 through 17 -35 Council held a couple of work sessions on the proposed ordinance. The proposed ordinance provides for a permitting process prior to excavation of land within the city An application must be presented to the City Engineer along with a bond to indemnify the City for any damages that may result from the making or existence of such excavation and to insure the restoration of the premises. Upon receipt of the application and bond, the City Engineer will consider the erosion, drainage and other consequences that may result from the excavation prior to making his determination. Excavation will be prohibited within 200 feet of any residence, building or structure without the applicant having first secured written permission of the owner thereof; and within 300 feet of any exterior property line boundary of lands utilized for a public school, college, university, hospital, church or public building. Once excavation is complete, the ordinance requires the applicant to restore the property to a useable condition. There is also an appeal process for any person 940224 -17 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 adversely affected by the grant or denial of an excavation permit. A section has been added to allow the property owner to develop the property as a recreational area or detention facility with the approval of the City of Baytown. The administration recommended approval. Council Member DonCarlos moved for adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Pruett seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 6938 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17, "MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND OFFENSES," OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, BY REPEALING SECTION 17 -15 "FENCING OF CERTAIN MAN -MADE PITS, HOLES OR OTHER MAN -MAD EXCAVATIONS," AND ADDING SECTIONS 17 -24 THROUGH 17- 35; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Contract for 1993 Street Improvement Program - Phase II The proposed ordinance awards the contract to the low bidder, Angel Brothers Enterprises, Inc. for the amount of $ 1,468,145. There is $ 1,467,100 remaining in 1991 Bond Funds for this contract. Therefore, the administration hopes to make up the difference at some point. The administration is recommending the alternate bid which would include the replacement of all water lines with eight inch pipe instead of the six inch pipe specified in the base bid. The eight inch lines will improve both water distribution and firefighting capability in the area. Council Member Escontrias moved for adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None 940224 -18 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 ORDINANCE NO. 6939 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH ANGEL BROTHERS ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE II; AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF ONE MILLION FOUR HUNDRED SIXTY -EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY -FIVE AND NO /100 DOLLARS ($1,468,145.00); MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. For Bid Tabulation See Attachment "A." Consider Proposed Ordinance, Awarding Contract for Craigmont Sanitary Sewer Sliplining Project - Phase 2 The administration is recommending the award of the contract to Horseshoe Construction, Inc. in the amount of $594,500. The project includes the rehabilitation of sanitary sewer lines located in Craigmont, Ponderosa and Lantern Park Subdivisions and Travis, Bolster and Bowie Streets. The base bid was for rehabilitation by the sliplining method. Sanitary sewer rehabilitation using fold and form pipe requires less digging than sliplining and leaves little to no annular space between the liner and the existing pipe. Fold and form pipe has been used extensively in many areas for sanitary sewer rehabilitation, but usually costs more than sliplining. Only two bids were received for the fold and form pipe. Both were considerably higher than the base bid. Therefore, the administration recommended award of the contract on base bid. The engineering estimate was $800,000, and the low bid for fold and form was $1,286,350. Council Member Pruett moved for adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 6940 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH HORSESHOE CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR THE CRAIGMONT SANITARY SEWER SLIPLINING - PHASE II PROJECT; AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF FIVE HUNDRED NINETY -FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND NO /100 DOLLARS (5594,500.00); MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDED FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. 940224 -19 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 For Bid Tabulation See Attachment "B." Consent Agenda Item "a" was removed from the Consent Agenda for separate consideration. Council then considered the Consent Agenda, items "b" through "e" as follows: b. Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -7 awards the annual pesticide contract as follows: Item 1 Helena Chemical Co. $13,552.00 Item 2 Cast Lots 3,135.00 Item 3 Terra International 2,739.40 Item 4 B & G Chemical 764.40 $20,190.80 Invitations to bids were mailed to nine suppliers and we received six bids and one no -bid. This contract will be used by several departments. Item #2 was a tie among four (4) bidders. We recommend Council cast lots at the Council meeting to determine the successful supplier. We recommend approval. Council drew lots for Item #2. Helena Chemical Company won the draw. Council Member Pruett moved to award Item 2 to Helena Chemical Company. Council Member DonCarlos seconded the motion. All council members present voted "aye." C. Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -8 awards the annual mosquito control contract as follows: Item 1 Van Water & Rogers $ 6,728.70 Item 2, 3 & 4 B & G Chemicals 5.152.05 TOTAL $11,880.75 Invitations to bid were mailed to seven suppliers and we received four bids and two no -bids. This contract will be used by the Health Department. The low bidder, Vectec, Inc., has a minimum $2,000 order requirement. Therefore, we recommend to award Item #4 to the second low bidder, B & G Chemicals. 940224 -20 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 We recommend approval. d. Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -9 authorizes a refund of taxes for Olympia Mortgage Corp; Huntington Chadwick & Montgomery in the amount of $9,300.58. This refund a result of a settlement of a H -CAD lawsuit. We recommend approval. e. Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -10 authorizes a refund of taxes for Citicorp North America Inc. in the amount of $1,419.38. This refund is due to an erroneous payment of personal property. We recommend approval. Council Member Byford moved for adoption of the Consent Agenda, Items "b through "e." Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 6941 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF HELENA CHEMICAL COMPANY, TERRA INTERNATIONAL, INC., AND B & G CHEMICAL & EQUIPMENT FOR THE ANNUAL PESTICIDE CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, THE SUM OF TWENTY THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY AND 801100 DOLLARS ($20,190.80); MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -6) ORDINANCE NO. 6942 AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE BID OF B & G CHEMICALS & EQUIPMENT CO. AND VAN WATER & ROGERS, INC. FOR THE ANNUAL MOSQUITO CONTROL CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT BY THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, THE SUM OF ELEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY AND 751100 DOLLARS ($11,880.75); MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -7) 940224 -21 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 ORDINANCE NO. 6943 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THAT THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY OLYMPIA MORTGAGE CORP; HUNTINGTON CHADWICK & MONTGOMERY ON ACCOUNT NUMBERS 045 -144- 002 -0049 AND 045 -144- 002 -0032 FOR TAX YEAR 1993 WAS EXCESSIVE; APPROVING A REFUND OF THE OVERPAYMENT OF NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND 581100 DOLLARS ($9,300.58); AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -8) ORDINANCE NO. 6944 AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THAT THE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY CITICORP NORTH AMERICA INC. ON ACCOUNT NUMBER 990 - 503 - 192 -20 FOR THE TAX YEAR 1990 WAS EXCESSIVE; APPROVING A REFUND OF THE OVERPAYMENT OF ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED NINETEEN AND 381100 DOLLARS ($1,419.38); AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. (Proposed Ordinance No. 940224 -9) For Bid Tabulations, See Attachments "C" and "D." Consider Proposed Ordinance, Authorizing Final Payment to Angel Brothers Enterprises, Inc. for Massey Tompkins Road Paving and Drainage Improvements - Phase I The Proposed Ordinance authorizes final payment in the amount of $130,263.15 to Angel Brothers Enterprises, Inc. for Massey Tompkins Road Paving and Drainage Improvements - Phase I. The original contract amount was $2,258,107. There were two change orders in the amount of $124,020 and $13,750 which totaled $ 137,770. The net of the overruns and underruns excluding the change orders is $144,078.05 which brings the final contract amount to $2,539,955.05 or a twelve and one half percent increase. Jim Hutchison, Consulting Engineer on the project, explained that all bids were taken on a unit price basis. Once the work begins the actual quantities put in the ground may vary; however, only work performed is paid for. Mr. Hutchison explained the overage and under amounts in attachment to the minutes, attachment "E." In response to council inquiry, Mr. Hutchison felt that had all these variables been known in the beginning this contract would have cost this amount. However, he did feel there will be a surplus on Phases 11 and III of Massey Tompkins. 940224 -22 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 Council Member DonCarlos moved for adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Byford seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None ORDINANCE 6945 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF ONE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SIXTY -THREE AND 151100 DOLLARS ($130,263.15) TO ANGEL BROTHERS ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR THE MASSEY TOMPKINS ROAD PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT - PHASE I PROJECT; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. Consider Appointments to Baytown Area /West Chambers County Economic Development Foundation for 1994 Council Member Benavides moved to appoint Council Member Pruett. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Consider Appointment to Baytown Area Community Long Range Planning Commission Council Member Escontrias moved to appoint Harvey Oyler. Council Member Pruett seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None City Manager's Report Hearing Disabled Equipment - Through the efforts of Missy Davidson and Ann Malkie the hearing disabled now have equipment making city government accessible to them. 940224 -23 Minutes of the Regular Session - February 24, 1994 Professional Integrity Workshop - The City Manager reminded Council of the Professional Integrity Workshop scheduled for Friday, February 25. Itinerant Merchants - Included in the council packet was a letter from Greer Florist, Inc. concerning the license fee for itinerant merchants. Also included in the council packet for council information was Youth Commission Strategies adopted by the Youth Commission, status report of the McLemore Substation, and presentation being made by Lt. Gary Cochran to a state teacher's meeting on Operation Bright Star. Vehicles for Sale - A note to council was included concerning the Legal Department's research concerning a large number of automobiles that are for sale on various parking lots and vacant lots around town. Adjourn There being no further business to be transacted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk 1W r�i» 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PHASE 11 JOB N0. 93 -3040 r�,. ITEM l arotlars Ilt4[o steltb r;oexetivetlon mart L Beet e0, IIIN aWliifY WII lenit Prfee tool unit Prfce total unit Or1ee Total Unit Prlea total 1. aemwo Ola Concr rte Curb i J Duster, Cmplrtr In Plec_^ 3,510 l.f. 13.00 110[530.00 11.50 15,265.00 _ _ SB.BS 131,063.50 52.60 19,626.00 2. Ramov,• Old COM rctr 5idrualkc i Orivrways, Corpsele•in•Plece 1,620 S.Y. <.B5 7,657.00 5.00 8,100.00 S.TS 9,315.00 6.10 6,662.00 3. Roadway Exeavotion, Coaplete In Pl acr 1,340 C.Y. 8.00 11 120.00 9.00 12 510.00 8.50 it 615.00 11.50 1S 965.00 G. In Dl ace Full Otpth Cold Ilexible Pavteent R.eyel irg, b• thick, Liee Slurry Stebilited <22 IDs. Dry Ume Per S.Y.) C late In Place 22 920 L.T. 3.25 7G 690.00 3.75 6S 950.00 7.00 160 660.00 6.25 169 060.00 S. lira Slurry to Stabilize Reey[led Bese 10.015 tens per S to Yards C lete•in•Placr 350 tan 90.00 31 500.00 85.00 29 750.00 90.25 31 587.50 10.00 ] 500.00 6. Crushed Stane to Supplement Recycled Bose, Caeple[e In Dlace 3 260 tan 15.00 G8 600.00 16.50 66 980.00 25.50 62 620.00 22.20 71 926.00 7. Palm coat, ND 30 10.zs Dal. /ST) C Itte In Plnee S, 7}0 wl. 0.10 573.00 1.00 S 730.00 1.50 6 59S.Q0 1.70 9 761.00 0. Cut Reck Asphalt lock Coat 10.10 W1. /SY), Coaplete In Place 3 0 }0 Gol. 0.10 SO7.00 1.00 3 030.00 1.50 6 565.00 1.70 S 151.00 9. Not•Nlx Not told Aspholtic Concrete Surincing, Carplate In Place < 340 ton 32.50 162 675.00 35.00 153 [50.00 36.50 160 235.00 36.30 159 357.00 10. Concrete Curb i Wtter, C lets in Place 3 SSO l.f. 15.00 S3 250.00 1G.� i9 700.00 19.10 67 605.00 /3.50 Q 925.00 11. Corcrete Curb Dowelled on to Existing Concrete, Caeplete in•Plaee 360 l.f. 6.00 2 160.00 S.QO 1 800.00 6.50 2 360.00 9.00 3 260.00 12. Sidewalk, <" thick, 6• wide C fete in Place }25 S.T. 25.00 6,125.00 25.00 6,125.00 19.55 6,337.50 30.00 9 750.00 13. Driveway, 5" tMck caepleta in place 1,640 S.Y. 26.00 61,720.00 I6.00 61,720.00 21.00 31,290.00 32.90 49,021.00 r� %.� ITEM Artgel Brothers Htrbco R Smith Cattstruction B i Root NO. ITEM OIIANTITy 11NIi Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total 14. Sau Cut Front of Inlet Top, Expose Reinforcement and Reconstruct as Required to Repair Damages, Complete in Ploce 1 Each 750.00 750.00 500.00 500.00 850.OU 850.00 1 600.00 1,600.00 15. 5' Curb Inlet Carry >Ir•te in Pl.rcc 2 Each 1,200.00 2,400.00 1 200.00 2 400.00 900.00 1,800.00 1 500.00 i 500.00 16. Adjust Existing Manhole•.:, Caq,lete-in -Fiore 35 Eurh 100.00 3,500.00 100.00 3,500.00 ?00.110 71000.00 210.00 7,350.00 17. Ajust Existing Valve Doxes, Ccn lete•in -Pl�cc 17 Each 100.00 1 700.00 50.00 850.0(1 27.50 467.50 97.00 1 649.00 18. 18" RCP, ASTM C 76, Class ill, C �lcte- in•Place 54 L.F. 40.00 2,160.00 55.00 2,970.00 40.25 2 173.50 47.00 2,538.00 19. Type "A" Hydrated lime for Subgradc Car lets in Ptacc 410 Tnn 80.00 32 800.00 87.50 35,875.00 90.25 37 002.50 10.00 4 100.00 20. Mixing & Compacting 6" Limo Stabilized Subgrade i30ft /S.T.), Cortrpletc in Place 24,600 S.T. 1.40 34,440.00 1.35 33,210.00 2.00 49,200.00 1.69 41,574.00 21. Cement Stabilized Sand as Directed by [he Engineer or Shawn on the Drawings, Canplete in Place 570 Ton 25.00 14,250.00 15.00 8,550.00 18.75 10,687.50 48.00 27,360.00 22. Hot Nix Not Laid Asphaltic Concrete Level•trp Course, C fete- in-Place 330 ion 36.50 12,045.00 40.00 13,200.OU 53.50 17,655.00 37.00 12,210.00 23. Nill Asphalt Surfaces to Grades Required an Plans orxl Deliver Milled Material to Owner, C fete in Plocc 39,500 S.T. 1.10 43,450.00 1.75 69 125.00 1.50 59 250.00 1.25 49,375.00 24. Blow Cleon 8 Fill Srn (crcc Cracls or �ornts 1/8" wide or Greater in Cancrete or Asplrolt Surfaces to be Overlaid, Complete in Place 150 Gal. 15.00 2,250.00 30.00 4,500.00 45.00 6,750.00 64.00 9,600.00 25. 6' wide Concrete Valley Gutter, C fete in Place 142 S.T. 28.00 3,976.00 41.50 5,893.00 27.50 3 405.00 35.00 4,970.00 26. Remove Existing Valley Gutter, C fete in Place 51 S.Y. 10.00 510.00 20.00 1,020.00 4.50 229.50 4.60 234.60 27. Adjust Grate Inlet, Complete - in -Place 1 Eoch 200.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 275.00 275.00 350.00 350.00 �''° l Brothers Rtbco Ra Staith Corottvctlon Bran i Root l7EM Unit Price Totol Unit Price Total Unit Price Tote Unit Price Total NO. ITEM QUANTITY UNIT 28. Romovc and Dispose of Asphalt /Rock Orive, Complete in Place 20 S.Y. 10.00 200.00 25.00 500.00 4.25 85.00 4.50 40.00 29. Remove 8 replace 5" to 6" Concreto Bose Including Sau cutting as required, CtP 1,640 S.Y. 39.50 64,780.00 30.00 49,200.00 28.25 46,330.00 29.00 67,560.00 30. Handicap Sidewalk Ramp, Type I, C fete in Place 76 Each 325.00 24,700.00 500.00 38,000.00 475.00 36 100.00 660.00 50,160.00 31. Handicap Sidewalk Ramp, Type 2, Complete in Place 23 Each 325.00 7,475.00 350.00 8,050.00 220.00 5,060.00 370.00 8,510.00 32. b" AIAIA 0400, Closs 150, D R 18, PVC Waterline Open Trench Construction, Cartplete in Place 7,000 L.f. 20.00 140 000.00 15.00 105,000.00 20.00 140 000.00 29.70 207,900.00 33. 8" AWWA 0400, Class 150, S R 18, PVC Waterline Open french Construction, Coeplrte in Ploce 455 L.F. 22.00 21 010.00 21.50 20,532.50 22.00 21 010.00 36.00 34,380.00 34. 8 x 8 Tapping Slcevc 8 Valve with Valve Box, Complete in Plecc 1 Each 1,400.00 1 400.00 2 100.00 2,100.Q0 1,275.00 1 275.00 2 100.00 2,100.00 35. 12 x 6 Cast Iron Cross, Mechanical Joint, Complete in Place 1 Each 800.00 800.00 1 800.00 1,800.00 285.00 285.00 1,000.00 1 000.00 36. 8 x 6 Cast Iron Cross, Ncchanciel Joint, Complete in Place 3 Each 700.00 2 100.00 1 500.00 4 SOO.QO 200.00 600.00 860.00 2 580.00 37. 6 x 6 Cast Iron Cross, Meehaneial Joint, Complete in Place 4 Each 650.00 2,600.00 1,250.00 5,000.00 165.00 660.00 790.00 3,160.00 38. 8 x 12 Cast Iron Cross, Ncchanciel Joint, Completo in Place 1 E:�ch 400.00 400.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 300.00 300.00 1 OQO.QO 1 000.00 39. 6" Gatc Valve with Valve Box, Ncchanciel Joint, Complete in Place 54 Each 350.00 18 400.00 285.00 15,390.00 330.Q0 17 820.00 600.00 32,400.00 40. 8" Gate Valve with Valve Box, Ncchanciel Joint, Complete in Place 6 Each 475.00 2 850.00 400.00 2 400.00 450.00 2 700.00 650.00 3 400.00 41. 12" Gote Volvc with Volvo Box, Nechaneiol Joint, Complete in Place 2 Each 800.00 1,600.00 700.00 1,400.00 765.00 1,530.00 1,100.00 2,200.00 �►� ITEM Angel Brothers Hubco R Satith Catstlution 8 i Root Unit Price Totel Unit Price Totol unit Price Total Unit Priee Total NO. I Il N CUANi I IT IAI l T 42. 8 x 6 Cast iron lee, Nechencial Joint, Complete in Ploce 5 Eoch 250.00 1 250.00 165.OU 825.00 160.00 800.00 260.00 1,200.00 43. 6 x 6 Cast Irun ice, Meebarxial Joint, CaeS,lele in Place 24 Each 200.00 4,800.00 135.00 3,240.00 125.00 3,000.00 210.00 S,O40.OU 44. 6 x 8 Cast Iron lee, Mechanecal Joint, Ca�plete in Place 1 Each 350.00 350.00 165.00 165.00 160.00 160.00 260.00 260.00 45. 6" Cast Iron 45' Bend, Mechaniial Joint, Complete in Place 16 Each 165.00 2,640.00 95.00 1,520.00 95.00 1,520.00 150.00 2,400.00 46. 8" Cast Iron 45' Bcrtd, Mechanical Joint, Complete•in- Place 10 Each 200.00 2 000.00 125.00 1 250.00 120.00 1 200.00 190.00 1 90U.UU 4T. 6" Cast Iron 90' Bend, Mechanical Joint, Complete•in- Ploce 2 Each 165.00 330.00 l0U.U0 200.00 100.00 200.00 160.00 320.00 48. 4" 4laterline Plug, Complete in Place 3 Each 100.00 300.00 45.00 135.00 33.00 49.00 40.00 120.00 49. 6" llatcrlinc Plug, Ca«pletc in Place 2 Each 100.00 200.00 50.00 100.00 44.00 88.00 52.00 104.00 50. 8 °' Woterline Plug, Complete in Place 2 Each 125.00 250.00 60.00 120.00 55.00 110.00 71.00 142.00 51. 6 x 8 Cast Iron Reducer, Mechanical Joint, Complete -in- Place 1 Each 150.00 150.00 600.00 600.00 80.00 80.00 100.00 100.00 52. Fire Hydrant, 4' Bury, C fete in Piece 25 Each 800.00 20 000.00 1 700.00 42 500.00 1,100.00 27 500.00 1 200.00 30 000.00 53. Transfer Mater Services from Abarxloned Lines to Ncw Lines, Near Side, C fete in Place 57 Each 250.00 14 250.00 350.00 19,950.00 170.00 9,690.00 420.00 23,940.00 54. Transfer Water Services from Abaldoned Lines to Ncw lines, Far Side C Iete•in -Place 55 Each 350.00 19 250.00 850.00 46 750.00 190.00 10 450.00 570.00 31 350.00 55. Remove existing fire Hydrants on Abondoned 1latcr Lines and return to the City of Baytown, C fete in Place 8 Eech 200.00 1 600.00 500.00 4 000.00 110.00 880.00 140.00 1 520.00 56. 4" SOR 35 PYC Gravity Snnitory Sewer, All Cuts, Complete In Place 29 l.F. 40.00 1,160.00 25.00 725.00 25.00 725.00 27.00 3.00 �.- �. �� [TEN t Brothers Iltrbco R SMith Cotnetrttetion 8 i Root Unit Price Total Unit Price Total unit Price Total unit Price Totol KO. ITEM OUANTITT UNIT 57. 601 SOR 35 PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer, All Cuts, Complete in Place 1 385 L.F. 24.00 33 240.00 19.00 26 315.00 27.50 38 087.50 39.50 54 707.50 58. 8" SDR 35 PVC Gravity Sam tart' Scwcr, All Cuts, Canplete in Place 3,940 l.F. 32.00 126,080.oU 20.00 78,800.00 28.50 112,240.00 40.90 161,146.OU 59. 10" SDR 35 PVC Gravity Sanitary Sewer, All Cuts, C lete•in -Place 1,594 l.f. 34.00 SG,196.00 21.50 36,271.00 42.00 66,948.00 83.90 133 736.60 60. Sanitary Sewer Manholes, All De the C fete in Place 31 Ench 1,250.00 38 750.00 1 200.00 37 200.00 1 150.00 35 650.00 870.D0 26 970.00 61. Sanitary Sewer Manholes with Outside Drop, All Depths, C fete in Place 1 Each 1,600.00 1,600.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,320.00 1,320.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 62. 4" Sanitary Sewer Plug, C tote in Ploce 1 Each 75.00 75.00 145.00 145.00 30.25 30.25 9.00 9.00 63. 6" Sanitary Sewer Plug, Complete- in•Place 10 Each 175.00 1,750.00 90.00 900.00 33.00 330.00 10.00 1D0.00 64. 8" Sanitary Sewer Plug, Con fete- in•Place 13 Each 2D0.00 2,600.00 100.00 1,300.00 35.75 464.75 23.D0 299.00 65. 10" Sanitary Sewer Plug, Complete in Place 2 Eoch 250.00 500.00 165.00 330.00 55.00 110.00 52.00 104.00 66. Remove Abandoned Sanitary Sewer Hanholes to 2' belttw Proposed Subgrade and Fill with Stabilised Satt<1, Coaplete in Place 7 Each 500.08 3 500.00 750.00 S 250.00 33.00 231.00 420.00 2 940.00 67. Transfer Sanitary Sewer Service Connections from Abandoned Lines to New Lines, C fete in Ploce 117 Eech 500.00 58 500.00 650.00 76 050.00 200.00 23 400.00 735.00 85 995.00 68. Trench Safety System for Depths from 5 to 10 fett, Complete -in -Place 2,925 L.F. 0.29 585.00 1.50 4,367.50 2.00 5,850.00 1.30 3,802.50 69. Installing ti5 dowels 12" into abutting concrete base, with epoxy grout, of 1801 centers. Complete -in -Place 1,300 Eneh 3.00 3,9D0.00 3.50 4,550.00 9.50 12 350.OD 11.D0 14,300.00 70. 8" Stack Base, Placed and Compacted in Maximum 4" Lifts, Complete in Place 2,050 Ton 42.00 86,100.00 40.00 82,000.00 50.00 102,SOO.OD 51.70 105,985.00 ��M 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PMASE II ALTERNATE 810 JOB N0. 93.3040 Mt6co R Seith Construction Br i Root ITEM N0. ITEM OIiANfliy UItIT Angel Brothers unit Price Total Unit Price Total unit Price Tota Unit Price Total NO. ITEM Ol1ANTITT UNIT 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100 000.00 100 000.00 100,000.00 71. Allowance for Unknown Conditions Encountered During Construction, to be Used es Directed by the Engineer, C fete in Place _ Total aid Price 51,456,555.00 51,465,354.00 51,635,052.50 f1,934,481.60 1993 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - PMASE II ALTERNATE 810 JOB N0. 93.3040 Mubco Roy Seith Construction Bran i Root ITEM Angel Brothers unit Priee Total Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Unit Priee Total NO. ITEM Ol1ANTITT UNIT 1. 8" AIAfA 0900, Class 150, S R 18, PVC Waterline Open Trench Constrteetion, Complete in Place 3,110 L.F. 23.00 71 530.00 21.00 65,310.00 22.00 68 420.00 36.00 111 960.00 2. 12 x 8 Cast Iron Cross, Mechanical Joint, Complete in Pleee 1 Each 900.00 900.00 2 000.00 2,000.00 300.00 300.00 1 025.00 1,025.00 3. 8 x 8 Gast Iron Cross, Mcchancial Joint, Complete in Place 2 Each 800.00 1 600.00 1 700.00 3 400.00 300.00 600.00 890.00 1 780.00 4. 8 x 6 Cast Iron Cross, Mcchancial Joint, Complete in Place 2 Each 700.00 1,400.00 1,500.00 3,000.00 200.00 400.00 835.00 1,670.00 5. 8" Gote Valve with Valve Box, Mcchancial Joint, Complete in Place 14 Each 475.00 6,650.00 400.00 5,600.00 425.00 5 950.00 750.Q0 10 500.00 6. 8 x 6 Cast Iron ice, Mcchancial Joint, Complete in Place 8 Each 250.00 2 000.00 165.00 1,320.00 160.00 1 280.00 240.00 2 320.00 7. 8" Cost Iron 45' Bend, Mechanical Joint, Camplete•in- Place 4 Each 200.00 800.00 125.00 500.00 115.00 460.00 185.00 740.00 8. 6" Cost ]ron 90• Bend, Mechanical Joint, Complete -in- Place 1 Each 200.00 200.00 150.00 150.00 125.00 125.00 200.00 200.00 9. 8" waterline Plug, Complete in Place 1 Each 200.00 200.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 60.00 72.00 T2.00 tTEM Argel Brothers 1�co Unit Price Total Unit Price iotol 1t0_ ITEM OU/UITITY 11117 10. 8 x 6 Cest Iron Rcduccr, Nechanicel Joint, Complete -in- Place 1 Each 150.00 150.00 600.00 600.00 Grand Total Alternate f1,468,145.00 (1,487,744.00 R 5>.ith canstrvctlon eras t Root Unit Priee Total Unit Price Totsl 40.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 (1,643,533.50 52,068,848.60 IL H H C�7 z H i() r" IL NOIIV rYar/019 .35r1N !wOa.111 MIMIS A -11M+c IMt 1-MJ MR Ma 000E N MM 1 MM 1 MM 1 Mat N Ma Y Ma 1 trl twrpd~ a Duu Ma DDR Ma 1 MM Ma N Mat Y Mat tl Mat N v3 O..of1.+I+MS u a -tl Mwt 000. Mat N Ma Mat 1 Ma Y Mw N Ma Y wl .1.I...lw rwlH7 R R Wt 1E1 Mat o0'e MM Y Mwt Ma N Mat A Mat N Mat A 0 vt ,•+••cow.. Ml X.zl ►L aN ■ Ma Mal Mw 1 Mal Ma N Mat tl MM n MM .l dd1�tIM0 to as MM A MM Ma 0 MM 1 Mw N Mat 1 MM p MM 1 fl dd1'Oftw .01 •.0 u WK MM 1 Ma MM 1 MM A Ma 1 MM a Ma A Ma 1 Al dd17P•0 li Doe MM 1 Mw Ma A MM N Mw N Ma 1 MM A Mat tl Y !t dd17•••a•.1 .AI.MN>. f.y —w a Non MM A Nat P,4 Y Ma A MM Y Prow A Ma tl r.w M Ol auc Ma WOR MM 1 Ma MM 1 Ma 1 Ma A MM Y A r3 uPO.wIWr It Na MM 00u MM A Mal Ma a Ma A Ma a MM fl .zl+•allod{pol/ a►e Ma Na Ma 0 Ma 1 Mw A MM A Ma a Ma a a /t a1..a+:POdlwr u Ol NN MM 1 an Mw a Mw a Ma N Mw Y Ma tl MM tl fl J.rd•1Pwdlwr • .M.dtcOr Na MM Np on 1 MM a Ma 1 Ma tl Ma a Ma !1 .9 it S1Yt MM ccP Ma Y MM p MM Y Ma N MM a Ma 0 [t P.•MMelydlrpM It N'a Ma A cop Ma A MM N MM 1 Ma 1 MM N MM 1 Ar 'A1 .,Mw.•a.w,M,w loe ••WS S1 OYf Ma 1 coo Ma A Ma tl Ma 1 MM tl Ma a Ma A wno+l u a'1t Y Ma A no oz d Ma n Ma A Mat n Mw 11 Ma 11 Mw A Not Pw+a•w P+•.o 11 S11311 AMr1M3wt A6,M7S WOWISS44e NWo$ swowsa'{t IIWa cant DODOS c 61931WHII11 lrinl ounce oo0a count Woa'ai WNZl MM 1 Coast WWtt N MM A MM tl MM N Ma A MM a vwa A V3 00e —..n ss a. 2 401 Wool to MM 100002 no A Ma A MM a MM A Ma N MM N 11 Ma tl Ma A A !t W Want WWe O+--,I eud.a•.edto -a e coo NI MM INNOo Wit 1 Ma a Ma a A MM p Ma N Ma 1 MM MM A Ma tl Ma A vJ Na fl.drld •••0101011+5 t NO coo MM MM p00lu'1 NDOMIRt go PC cc ms 1 Ma 1 MM MM tl MM N MM 0 MM tl Ma Y Mal A r3 NN1 Ilzlw -P.d t 00000003 NOW" 00 owt NfW MM NNO10'of WW01 1 P" N MM a MM 1 Mw N Mal Y Ma N v3 an tO3w•aw•P0• 0 0 NOR'Kt NRt N MM NNWD'ott NWe 1 Ma a Ma N MM N A Ma 1 a MM A MM p Ma p Ma A A V3 r3 on as* 00091 • •+••• +s 1Pn 01.101.0. •pwtl of K in 00.OK / MM r Mwt N0000rW AooDtec NOR now 1 Ma 1 Ma a MM c Ma Ma N Ma MM tl Ma A Mw a Ma A ft no ON •Of[o[w+••wosl ► Waa'u Wllrit D'e► Not Ma coN 1 Ma n MM 1 Ma N Ma A Mal a Ma Y ft Noc/ •.daf[w.+.n.o1 t Nenl'aa DR D Ma �Nat'K No0et00 mK 1 Ma tl Ma Y MM N Ma A Ma a MM a ft 0000011 .dp[ffw+P.P_0 t W'W*C Not r Ma colt c Ma D MM c Ma D Ma D Ma D Mw c fl 000119 •Od itf,.Mwo_e { —M 1 A 1W'WSY. ned 1 ••,n A •�w A •lyd A ••1v 0 •wb 0 •l4u •••e a .q.rH7 tAt1 a wlwwwY M p lA'•11Mf1) Pal A .w.w.) wn n ..wwn3 M a 1aM,.w) wLl a .•+•••r] rvl a 11gt1wr3 w•7 A wwwM3 n P•7 11 w•7 vgro ...ce •rf ........ 01831Mn411tr _........ MM N ............_...._ Wa ......................... Ma 1 ......... as 0 Wa A Wa a 00 out a Nal a 0091 a 7r1 Infra PM 09 MM N blast D Ma N WOODS N aWK 1 Nom Y mWw a east tl Woas a v3 ew.•aW a +1.S at Ma 1 on it 1 Ma 1 WR n to A au Y bloc a aoi 1 cc A Not ••n+�+^w•w Ow1w� It MM N 1 MM 1 WW+ A no tl WOOS A a WWe N a WOK 0 NS1 tl 00 A Wal N rl fl ntP.w•Pw tl of MM c 00P D 4 MM 1 1 ouw a NW a Na a mM a Na Wee 1 00 Of Na a Wa tl NSiI a fl .z{.rdP.••a1r.r as ••a•+PI.a1Wr Sl Ma MM WO► Ntt A 0000 cc 1 ou00 A no a 0001 0 WOS a ato N NS0 0 fl �•Id.I M0alr0r 4 Mw 9 WK A ma 1 00 a* a Na a mu N Na a a Na a A 0011 a N fl AS .9..au Pwalmr 1-- "t•Wold C1 L{ Mw O Det N 1 cc WSO 1 1 00 01 p Wa 1 co[ A Wa A 00Q 0 WK 1 0001 Nal a NR Na Wa a •AS PMI.w•a.1.1aa•lae u MM MM 0001 no N an 1 Dat a m[ A 0001 a Ns1 A Wt p au tl Mot r.we+,..r••s o1 MM 0001 tl coca t Wa 11 as a ODR a no cc n WL1 0 Not n Not e.•• —Pw.•J 0 Sn11t AMr1M3M31.1M ma WS'KL1 canf0't"t 800woyes Wage else DaWPM1t D 018 IS" Mot cco0ftbut ;WWLSOts cW DWWCts[t 19 Ma Noa1 1Want ODSn cmtoe'u Noon MaDoo el annual Aamw WOOK lNW)Oi 00owt 1000 =91 000011 looms 000001 a r3 a •1•w•w ss POal..3 0.,0110 q—,l N h MM DNOWIL CoaD't W► Wwort ao NOW Ito 100owl 090 Iaa 400 Y00aIS Wt UGo=0 001 You or. RO n N [t owe • Ma 00eoo'a co00r N000'O19 010011 10000701 WWD 100000'011 MN WL'te 00010 DWoWa W., WWa acoo00St bleu Oaowls Wcot aN NOol WWa a0000S'l WWt aofl a 11 v) Wt a lo3 w.•w www+a. e 00NOYL 10000 blown, log aNt N= 100000'014 moK NNOOr11 0001[ pan 000'011 Mott co000i an NM. Nco00lal Na NNt Imaoo'a{ 00002 tla0ou01L 0000• 000000'011 WOSZ a vl OOa 01DOWI t W00►'1/ game 00o0rele 0001 11002: WKa mot Nam 0011 00000.'02 00 4 Ca one at 0002 00 amNttl 00Li aWWO'it WR N fl non d13'o[troS.z4 *09 WOSMM MM OW41 0011 0001 1Na0'11 00 it Dwou'0t 004 tl- :it Do00oYe1 00 PC aWOK* 1 00 at 100 0000 OOn poom'a1 00 at tl [t M M2'•C"N.n1 MOS.• L z MM ca Na0'ttc 1900010'011 Coel a000'0K NSl 100aOst. WK YW WO'8S. Cott co**am1f W[L INOW'K. WK 0W000ut 0003 10000015t WIL 1 tl 00011 ,ro Ot 0t M0 ^•. l MM IW Wa[1 0021 W1l DW0S0'.l Wtl 100000"'1 00K tlWOK'el Wel 00 0001'12 00 #1 uWOKeI 0051 101000 [z on at Q0 it OStI diJ ••vd Y 10000/'01 .wd •cow 1 mud n •md A ••Me a •Ma+ a +••d n +we tl tl 1rP.o .w rm a .. u•r1.•ii w•7 D .•w••w) Iwl D .aw,•w3 w•4 A 1w...w3 wr1 0 w00ww) 11r7 0 •uPnA3 Intl A ••MU.w3 —1 A .w...•.3 r!n a .•+wl•7 Intl .rl 010 ora'SO1a 717va11IIWUnO2D 1VIl7nS9lalr)14 Y {d "'0071011 ONlOrO JN'U9Mn ISMUJ 3JMr113a0 531rIS,loMl 11 :00,.0 1.M1JnMl51M)JRID 1 ^..,n'.l lO,n l ^.00[»,71 NOIIV rYar/019 .35r1N !wOa.111 MIMIS A -11M+c IMt 1-MJ I 1 I N1N1 0 i I•A I WI 'tT(¢11 -� a07 v Tl A y ATTACHMENT "C" m4z 13 Z "< m m A 0 m n N Z c � o 0 m O a0 n �a �O 2z m I I I 0 A lac o , 1 is to 0 0 U y I y I 0 N Izl ;vl ,7i mI �' !z!z O10 im l ! '0 Z� iDl I I ! I m r Q 131 CID CO I !p `� iii !�(.mR.l m F Q 1ml I-4 Z a � I nt <ic i m m Q � RL iat tm m '� jo- m !-pi IQ i ! INI rnl �� IN OI !si W ZI mlN IN� in N 1 I io I f I (111 ai =I �c i t 3 I lD i IQ-13! ! I ( 1 cl ZDD N 1 f l �jf 1n --1 0y i D �INI oi 0 o ° 1 �I�Im m101 � r i t I � I I! 0 Z ! �-ai N �0 I {m 0I i l I10 1� < '' loi 'o lolo i v I 10 mil I I I r fl I �i�D Ic�Al INI 1 i.Yli DI O v io ONI OI f W iD i- 02 ` 01 . i (Al I�i1�o1 c 0; 1 M N I ! w co l !;tm�c7i ai !1ir 9 N1 4m ?Io i i'fln = O o o a , O lo 010 o � o 0 Imll� i CIO II i ! ICI INI i 1 ! AI I DI I 0 I ICI INI O iQ MIIM �vli� O1 � Ia iAi ZI IzI jm O wi iir I'W�z !O' OI :� 'N OI IWID to I�I'NI Itbl I_ v 1 m I j tD I t711 lool$iol imii ATTACHMENT "C" m4z 13 Z "< m m A 0 m n N Z c � o 0 m O a0 n �a �O 2z m I I I 0 A I PAGE 2 -- 9401 -39T CITY OF BAYTOWN BID TABULATION TITLEANNUAL PESTICIDE CONTRACT BID #9401 -39 DATEFEBRUARY 15, 1994 2:00 P.M. V TERRA INTEP NiATIONAL TIMBERLAND ENTEPRISES VAN WATERS & ROGERS NO. CITY. UNIT DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE UNIT PRICE EXT. PRICE Selective Herbicide 2 -1%2 g.conl 1 800 gallons 17.24 13,792.00 18.25 14,600.00 19.51 15,608.00 _ 2a 60 20 gallons gallons Non — Selective Non — Selective Herbicide — 30j Herbicide 2 -1/2 38.07 2,284.20 38.10 2,286.00 38.10 _ 2,286.00 - - 849.00 _ 42.85 857.00 42.45- 849.00 42.45 _2b 3,141.20 3,135.00 3,135.00 2,894.60 3 144.73 20 bas Fire Ant Insecticide 25 lb bag 136.97 2 739.40 168.75 3,375.00 _ 4 gallons Insecticide 1- gal. container 26.25 787.50 30.00 900.00 26.38 791.40 _ _ GRAND TOTALS: 20,460.10 22,010.00 22,429.00 SUPPLY POINT: WACO, TEXAS HOUSTON, T S HOUSTON, T S DELIVERY: 7 -10 DAYS O 5 DAYS ARO 5 DAYS ARO -- KEMCO— HUNTER CHEMICAL CO. NO BID AT THIS TIME CAN NOT SUPPLY THE REQUESTED PRODUCT. REC MM DIED BIDDERS: _ ITEM #1 — HELENA CHEMICAL PANY — $13,552.00 ITEM #2 CAST LOTS -- $3,13 ITEM #3 — TERRA INTERNATIO 00 AL -- $2,7 - ITEM #4 — B & G CHEMICAL - TOTAL: $764.40 _.40 - - - - - - $20,190.80 - - - 9-1 PAGE 3 -- 9401-39T CITY OF BAYTOWN BID TABULATION TITLEANNUAL PESTICIDE CONTRACT BID X9401 -39 DATE[-hIJHIJAHY LAST lb, 1904 Z:UU P.M. EAR'S E IDS: i HELE A CHEIV ICAL CO. NON - SELECTIVE HET INC.-NON-SELECTIVE BICIDE & INSECTICIDE -- $14,08 6.00 TER INTERNATIONAL, HERBICIDE 30 GAL.& FIRE EANT TOTAL TIMBERLANI.D. ENTERPRISES, INC.-NON-SELECTIVE HERBIGIDE 2-1/2 GA- TOTAL $2,070.00. TOTAL LAST YEAR $22,280.50 PAGE 1 -- 9401 -41T TITLE BIO fi DATE INO.I i� 2. 3. CITY OF BAYTOWN BID TABULATION ANNUAL MOSGaUITO CONTROL CONTRACT X401 -41 FEBRUARY 21, 1954 2:00 p.m. 8 & G CHEMICALS - -- - - - -- - - - - -- -�-�._ _ PRiC€ QTY. UNIT _ DESCRIPTION Malathlon UNIT P CE 1,251.25 EXT. 7,507.50 amid _ _ 536.25 _ 4454.40 -66__ __ _ _ ....�...,....� _ _ _ _0.00 - _ 0.00 _ _^ 360.00 Biomist 316 _ _ 0.00 �............. NO BID__ _ -- NO BID _' 5,760.00_ ULV __ � ..,..........� 1,121.45 ".........� 6 728.76 6 drums 3 16 16 _ 15 drums -- -- - - - - - -- Brand: Carrying Oil for Pyrethroid Mix _ rethroid with Synergist __ __ Brand: - ALTERNATE: ALTERNATE: ULV Flushing Solution _ _ - - - - Brand: Americans American Cy_ 0.00 _ _ _ 0.00 _ 0.00 - - - am NO BID NO BID _ _ NO BID - - . - . _ 178.75 __276.40 Permanone 33 gallon_ s- _ SCOURGE__ _ 250.4! 10.76 -- _NO BID,. - gallons ___4,00640 Lallans 161.40 — -- - =- - BVA 13 RECD MENDED AWARD TOTALS: Items #2,3 &4 5,152.05 Item #1:I 6,728.70 SUPPLY POINT: HOUSTON, T S SAN ANTONI ,TEXAS HOUSTON, T XA$ DELIVERY: 10 DAYS AR 10 DAYS AR 10 DAYS ARO _ A_ward_ B & G CHEMICALS" ITEMS #2, 3 & 4 -- TOTAL: __ $5,152.05 Award V N WATER & ROGERS, ITEM #1 - TOTAL: $6,728.70 CONTRACT TD AL: $11, 88 .75 .r A H d H d PAGE 2 - - 9401- 41 T c1T1r of sanowN BID TABULATION TITLt:i4NNUAL MOSQUITO CONTROL CONTRACT BID X9401 -41 DATEFEBRUARY 21.1994 2:00 o.m. _ NO. 1. --- - - - - -- - .._. -_ _ - - _ _ _ ___ VECTEC�. INC UNIT PRICE 0.00 _.��__��_� EXT. PRICE NO BID ,BbNIDE PRA UNIT PRICE 0.00 UCTS, INC. EXT. PRICE NO BID - - -- CONTROLS _�_________ UNIT PRICE 0.00 - -- _- LUTIOI _.___ EXT. NO - - - -- QTY. 6 _ UNIT drums __ _____ _ DESCRIPTION Malathion �� -- --- - - - - -- Brand: - -- - -- - -- -- 2. 3. -- - - - - -- - _ - - 4. 3 16 16 16 drums gallons Carrying_Oil_for Pyrethroid Mix P rethroid with Synergist _ OAO _ _NO BID __ 0.00 0.00 NO BID 0.00 0.00 __ ___ - - - - - --- 0.00 PASADENA, - _ NO NO - - - -- _ _ �- - -_ NO EXAS NO BID Combination of Punt &Duet: allons Punt 57 -OS 301.00 4,816.00 840.00 __ -_- - - - -- � - - -- -� -� gallons Duet 8.8 -OS YY_115.00 - _ _ - DOES NOT M __1 ET SPECS. - ----- - - - - -- -- - -- NO BID - -V � -�- - - --- -- - - -- - - ULV Flushing Solution _ - _ _ Brand: SUPPLY POINT: ____ _ ON CONCEN AND RECZUIR MIXING PRO _ ___ _ 9_45 DISOLV - -N due to minim RATION PER _ ENT_A_G_ E__S - -- 15 _ -- — gallons_ S EXTE_N_S_IV__ - _ 0.00 ments. EDURE _ _� - _`141.75 t acceptable_ _ m order requir ORLANDO,_F 10 DAYS AR MINIMUM $2, Prices good ti ORIDA YOCKVILLE, _ _ Y _ DELIVERY: _____ ___ ____ _____ 00.00 ORDER I May 20, 1994 BID BID 31D 31D E