Loading...
1995 05 11 CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN May 11, 1996 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in regular session on May 11, 1995, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the following in attendance: Eva Benavides Council Member David Byford Council Member Stephen DonCarlos Council Member Manuel Escontrias Council Member E. Frank Hinds, Jr. Council Member Rolland J. Pruett Council Member Pete C. Alfaro Mayor Bobby Rountree City Manager Ignacio Ramirez City Attorney Eileen P. Hall City Clerk The meeting was opened with a quorum present, and Council Member Byford offered the invocation, after which the following business was conducted: Consider Approval of the Minutes for the Regular Meeting Held on April 27, 1995 Council Member Benavides moved for approval of the minutes for the regular session held on April 27, 1995. Council Member Byford seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Consider Minutes for Special Session Held on May 3, 1995 Council Member Escontrias moved for approval of the minutes for the special session held on May 3, 1995. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: 950511 -2 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Consider Proposed Resolution No. 1246, Canvassing Results of General and Special Election Held on May 6, 1995 Council canvassed the returns of the May 6, 1995, Election as follows: COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 1 Eva Benavides 122 votes COUNCIL DISTRICT NO.2 David Elmore, Sr. 109 votes Rocky Rodriguez 34 votes Rolland J. Pruett, Jr. 186 votes COUNCIL DISTRICT NO. 3 Ron Priddy 370 votes Manuel Escontrias 455 votes PROPOSITION NO. 1 For 1,838 Against 1,409 TOTAL BALLOTS CAST 3,306 Ms. Hall verified this information to be correct. Council Member DonCarlos moved for adoption of the resolution. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: 950511 -3 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None RESOLUTION NO. 1245 A RESOLUTION CANVASSING THE RETURNS OF THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION AND SPECIAL ELECTION HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF BAYTOWN ON THE 6TH OF MAY, 1995. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM THE RESPECTIVE THREE DISTRICTS 1, 2, AND 3; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED PROPOSITION AS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION ORDINANCE; DECLARING THE RESULTS OF SAID ELECTION; FINDING THAT NOTICE OF SAID ELECTION WAS PROPERLY HELD AND THE RETURNS THEREOF MADE BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. Administer Oaths of Office to Newly Elected Officials Ignacio Ramirez, City Attorney, administered the Oaths of Office to the newly elected officials. Consider Proposed Ordinance No. 950511 -2, Clarifying the Legislative Intent of Ordinance No. 852 and 6094 Regarding the Fee Associated with Using Public Rights -of -Way Within the City Without a Franchise Agreement The City Manager explained that Ordinance No. 852 passed in 1967 imposed a fee of two percent of gross receipts on all non - franchised persons and entities using public rights -of -way and property to compensate the City for such use. Ordinance No. 6094 passed in 1991 increased the user fee to four percent of gross receipts. According to the council minutes, such ordinances were not intended to be regulatory or to establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme for persons and entities using the City's rights -of -way and property. Such ordinances were enacted 950511 -4 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 as an exercise of the City's home rule authority to ensure that persons or entities using tax supported public rights -of -way and property for their own advantage pay for such use. The proposed ordinance confirms, supports, and establishes that the City Council in enacting Ordinance Nos. 852 and 6094 intended such ordinances to be user ordinances and not regulatory ordinances. Since several persons had registered to speak, Mayor Alfaro asked for their comments as follows: Mike Shields, Executive Director of Baytown/West Chambers County Economic Development Foundation, requested Council to postpone action on Item No. 6 to allow time to study the potential impacts and ramifications of that ordinance. He emphasized a primary issue with all companies is the cost of doing business and concluded by requesting that Council make certain of the impacts prior to enactment of the ordinance. Tracey Wheeler, President of the Baytown Chamber of Commerce, stated that the proposed adoption of the ordinance is not only a legal issue but an anti - business position. She requested that Council consider that the majority of taxes paid in Baytown are paid by business and industry. Additional penalties or taxes to these erode the businesses. She asked Council to consider not having Exxon, not having Chevron, not having Bayer Corporation, and then consider all the businesses in this community that are dependent for their livelihood on these industries. She urged that some additional time be taken for Council and the public to study the proposed ordinance since there are industries that are not aware of this issue. Mickey Driver stated that he is an employee of Chevron working at the Cedar Bayou Chemical Plant as well as with pipeline operations in the Baytown area. Chevron's pipeline operations in this area are very extensive, and their attorney's first reaction to this is that it would have an extremely serious impact on Chevron. Chevron is concerned about the purpose of the ordinance as it seems to say that it is to clarify the ordinances that were passed some thirty -five years ago. Chevron's representatives feel that it makes things less clear. For example, the distinction between public utilities and pipelines seem to be skewed in the proposed ordinance. There does not seem to be any differentiation between public utility and a pipeline operation. Therefore, Chevron feels this ordinance would put their 950511 -5 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 pipeline operations right in there with public utilities. He, too, requested that the City Council grant more time to study this proposed ordinance in order that Chevron could respond more clearly with their concerns. Sherri Stuewer, Manager of Exxon's Refinery in Baytown, spoke on behalf of the family of Exxon companies that operate in Baytown. The Exxon companies in Baytown feel that this ordinance and its intent would impose a significant surcharge on the crude and feedstocks delivered by pipeline to the Exxon facilities. The surcharge would create a significant competitive disadvantage for Exxon and for similar businesses in Baytown. It would also create a strong disincentive for expansion of existing facilities or for the addition of new facilities. Therefore, Exxon believes it is in the City's long -term interest to reconsider the intent to apply franchise fees to pipelines that transport crude and feedstocks to industrial facilities in Baytown. The company feels there is no requirement or authorization under current Texas law to proceed with application of franchise fees for this purpose. She concluded that proceeding with the ordinance would trigger contentious and expensive litigation and damage the cooperative relationship between the City and its industry. David R. Smith, representing Bayer Corporation, stated that after reviewing the ordinance, Bayer is somewhat concerned, surprised, and disturbed by the tone that is being set. He requested that Council table any action on this ordinance until Bayer had more time to study the impact on the cost of raw materials and the products made in Baytown. He emphasized that Bayer, Baytown, is competing not only with other companies to be the low cost producer, but with other plant sites within Bayer Worldwide. He emphasized that the company is a good corporate citizen that pays its fair share of taxes willingly and, willingly, tries to put extra into this city. To the company, this ordinance seems an attempt to throw in additional taxes. Bayer's legal department has not had an opportunity to look at all the ramifications, but on the surface, it seems an unfair attempt to levy additional taxes on the Bayer site. Therefore, he requested tabling of this issue until all parties have a chance to evaluate it and to offer more input. Becky Clayton, owner of Becky Clayton Realty, expressed her belief that the 1967 and 1991 ordinances were intended to apply to the distribution of utilities. The City required the creation of the easements for transmission of utilities, and thus, had a product to lease. The City did not create the pipeline easements. Applying this ordinance to the distribution of products used by local industries, creates an 950511 -6 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 adversarial relationship which has been a mutually beneficial one. Therefore, she requested Council to table this item and to sit down with industry to arrive at a conclusion healthy for Baytown for the long term. Since all who had registered to speak concluded their comments, Mayor Alfaro asked Mr. Hall to address some of the issues proposed by the speakers and informed those present that Mr. Hall had been hired to audit existing franchise agreements to determine if companies are paying the City in accordance with those agreements. Also, he had been asked to determine if other companies using City rights -of -way, should be paying franchise fees. Benjamin Hall, attorney for the City of Baytown, explained that Council had retained his firm to survey and find those persons who may have been using public property in Baytown and not paying for it. A number of companies that are working in Baytown have obtained franchise agreements and are paying franchise fees. During the brief term that Mr. Hall's firm has been working on the City's behalf, it had been determined that there may be some enterprises taking advantage of public property, but are not paying for that use. Essentially, in 1967, Council passed an ordinance that said anybody who uses City property in Baytown for private advantage to make a profit off tax - supported property, has the option of obtaining a franchise agreement from the City. However, there are a number of companies and businesses that have been utilizing public property, but not paying for that use. Just as a private citizen must pay for the right to use public property, so Council determined, some time ago, that persons, even if they were of a corporate nature, using public property would have to pay for that privilege. Council passed a law in 1967 and 1991 that assessed a fee for such use. That fee applies only if the company did not obtain a franchise agreement from the City which could have been obtained easily. He continued that these companies never came to Council to reveal that they had facilities across the City's property and had made billions of dollars off the use of the City's property, but these companies want to escape the provisions of the 1967 ordinance. The facts are that there are people using City of Baytown property. In 1966, Council found there was a company in Baytown by the name of Phonoscope utilizing City property and not paying for that use. The legislative body at that time determined that was an unlawful appropriation of public property and that everyone using city property should pay for that use. Council passed an omnibus ordinance that said, "if you are making money off public property in Baytown and you are selling a product or providing a service, you owe the City two 950511 -7 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 percent of the gross receipts." That ordinance does not apply to anyone who is simply delivering products and buying the products within territory that is not within the city limits. The ordinance provisions are specifically limited to persons doing business and making money within the city limits. There are a number of pieces of property that are not inside the city limits one of which would be Exxon. Mr. Hall's firm has been trying, over the last few months, to get the corporate leaders and presidents of companies and their general counsels to come in to talk about a possible settlement. Instead, the companies have come forth with the argument that Council is trying to regulate industry through the ordinances adopted in 1967 and in 1991. Mr. Hall and his firm have stated repeatedly that Council made no attempt to regulate any kind of business; what Council is doing is charging a fee for the private use of public property. He stressed that the proposed ordinance does not enlarge any of the laws that were previously passed. It does not increase the two percent to four percent as of 1967, because it remains two percent. It does not increase the four percent to six percent as of 1991. It does not do that. This ordinance simply clarifies that Council did not try to regulate any business in 1967 or in 1991, but attempted to charge a fee for the use of public property. That is all that this ordinance does. It clarifies the legislative intent of the 1967 and 1991 enactments of the Council. Passage of the clarification ordinance should take away this argument that Council attempted to regulate business. Then, negotiations can begin to determine what is fair compensation to the City and to the taxpayers of the city by these companies who have used public tax - supported property without compensation for these many years. He noted that his firm had notified a number of companies of their obligations to the City and had found that several companies do owe the City money under existing law. The proposed ordinance does not add to the law; it clarifies the legislative intent. Mayor Alfaro inquired if Council had questions of Mr. Hall. In response to Council inquiry, Mr. Hall verified that the ordinance would not apply to a transmission line with no product being sold or delivered inside the city limits. Also, he verified that this is not a new idea; this has been in existence; nothing has been added. The ordinance does not apply to companies within the industrial district, because they are not inside the city limits. 950511 -8 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 More than fifty companies have been contacted, but the firm has negotiated with less than ten. In fact, most of the companies deny that they have facilities in Baytown. It was only upon documentation that they finally conceded that they may have facilities here. The next argument was, "We are not selling any product inside the city." The firm had to go to the Comptroller's Office and the tax records to prove that the companies were selling commodities in Baytown. After the firm proved (1) they had facilities (2) they were selling inside Baytown, their next argument was, "It is a regulatory fee." That is why the firm is requesting Council to make it clear, patently clear, that Council never intended to regulate the oil and gas business or any other industry in this city by Ordinance Nos. 852 and 6094. Adoption of the proposed ordinance should cause negotiations to take place as opposed to continuing to deny that their facilities actually exist in Baytown. Through the entire process, Council has the prerogative to accept or reject or amend any proposed settlements. The City Manager requested that Mr. Hall respond to a statement earlier about the distinction between a public utility and a pipeline operation. Mr. Hall stated that there is a legal distinction between what constitutes a public utility as opposed to an oil and gas line that may be providing petroleum products. A public utility, under state law, is defined as inclusive of these. It would be an electric facility or a gas facility, providing electricity or gas within the city limits. A petroleum products company would not be considered a public utility if it is in the manufacturing and production of petroleum products. It is the provision of those things customarily viewed as consumer used goods that fall under public utility; such as: telephones, electricity, heating and gas. To the comments by some of the speakers that they were unaware of this ongoing process, Mr. Hall responded that representatives of his firm had spoken to the corporate leaders of every organization that had spoken at the council meeting. Mr. Hall and his group have been dealing with the people who make the decisions about settling —the general counsels of those corporate entities or the presidents or the district managers. Some of the local people may not know about those discussions, but those discussions have been very fervent and ongoing with all of the companies. In fact, the City Attorney verified that he has been receiving copies of the documentation going to the companies. 950511 -9 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 Mr. Hall, in response to Council, reiterated that the proposed ordinance is an attempt to clarify that Council never intended to regulate business, but Council only intended to charge a fee for the use of public property. That is clear from the minutes that accompany the 1967 ordinance and the 1991 ordinance. In fact, in 1991 Council called it a "street rental." With regard to questions by Council concerning the need for clarification, Mr. Hall pointed out that when you are dealing with a person and you are asking them to pay considerable dollars to your city, they are not prone to concede that they have no defense. Lawyers are clever enough to come up with any argument to defend a client. That is their obligation. The prior arguments have been defeated. This is the last argument that has been posited, that it is a regulatory ordinance. The last argument on the table is a lawyer- created argument that Council intended to regulate the oil and gas business or other industries. This ordinance takes that away. To the City Manager's question of whether Chevron, Exxon, and Bayer had been contacted, Mr. Hall responded in the affirmative. With regard to whether the companies had knowledge of these ordinances, Mr. Hall pointed out the law is that once you pass a law, every citizen is presumed to know it, and clearly, the lawyers who represent these firms should have known about it. Mr. Hall clarified that many of the facilities that his firm had contacted were built after Council passed the 1967 and 1991 ordinances, so it is not a situation where the facilities were already in the ground, then Council passed a surprise law and applied it to them. These laws were already on the books telling them that if they used City property, they had to pay for it; and the companies chose to go ahead and build. Mayor Alfaro recognized Ms. Stuewer who referred Council to Section 2 of the ordinance as follows, "Any person, partnership, enterprise, or legal entity of any nature or type that uses the streets, rights -of -way, easements, alleys, parks, or other public property within the City of Baytown are to pay a two percent fee for such use." She felt the wording of this ordinance to be significantly broader in its inclusion, and on that basis recommended a tabling of the proposed ordinance. Council Member Pruett moved to approve the ordinance. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. Council Member Escontrias moved to amend the motion to include a thirty- day deferral period for it not to be implemented to allow both the corporate partners and the City time for more discussions to take place and that the City's legal 950511 -10 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 counsel be instructed not to file any suits during this period until proper discussions have taken place. Council Member Benavides seconded the motion to amend. In response to an inquiry from Council, the City Manager clarified that the ordinance has a ten -day effective date, and if Council desires thirty days, then the amendment would have to be taken. Council Member DonCarlos commented that after having looked at the 1967 and 1991 ordinances, as well as the current ordinance, he agreed with Mr. Hall's assertion that this does not change what has been affecting the City since 1967 which is a user fee on various utilities and other entities using city property. Also, he stated that he understood that three months had been devoted to negotiations with various companies. However, it would be his preference to have the ordinance tabled for thirty days just to make it absolutely clear to the business leaders present that Council is not taking enforcement of this ordinance lightly and is attempting to give every opportunity to the industries involved to discuss this matter with Mr. Hall. Council Member Pruett expressed the feeling that adding another thirty days would not draw people together to sit at a table and talk. He stated that this process began in February with letters being forwarded, and it is May with very little response from industry. Mayor Alfaro concurred with Council Member DonCarlos that time is needed for further study. However, he made it clear that Council owes it to the citizens of Baytown to collect monies due the City. He added that the corporations have been extremely cooperative in making this community what it is, and Council desires to maintain that relationship. He stated that the difference in interpretation as to the ordinances is unfortunate and any misunderstanding needs to be cleared up. Prior to the vote on the amendment, Mr. Hall stated his firm's concern at the efforts to try to change the law to prevent Council from collecting this money, because if litigation is filed after the law is changed, the new law will apply, not the prior. Council Member Escontrias elected to vote on the amendment on the floor. The vote on the amendment follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides and Escontrias Nays: Byford, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro 950511 -11 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 The vote on the original motion follows: Ayes: Council Members Byford,Hinds, and Pruett Nays: Council Member Benavides, Escontrias, and DonCarlos Mayor Alfaro In response to an inquiry from Council on when the ordinance may be considered in the future, Mayor Alfaro stated that the expectation was that this ordinance would not be on the May 23 agenda because of the need to waive the six -month rule. Council Member DonCarlos verified his intention to bring such a motion on May 23 in order to have the ordinance considered at the June meeting. The City Manager clarified that an item to waive the six -month rule would be on the next council agenda.. Assuming the motion passes to waive the rule, Council Member DonCarlos has stated that he will recommend it be placed on the first meeting in June for action by the Council in its present form. Council Member DonCarlos concurred, and clarified that his reason for preferring a thirty -day delay was the hope that industry would meet with our attorney, Mr. Hall, and get this matter resolved so everyone might have a final conclusion within thirty days or at least make considerable progress. He stated that if not, then obviously, Council will support Mr. Hall through the clarifying of this ordinance. There being no further discussion on this matter, Mayor Alfaro addressed Item 5 on the agenda. Consider Proposed Ordinance No. 950511 -1, Amending Chapter 8, of the Personnel Rules to Include a Policy to Provide Use of Sick Leave to Care for an Immediate Family Member with a Serious Health Condition Presently, the City of Baytown must allow an employee twelve weeks leave under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for an immediate family member; however, the City is under no obligation to pay the employee for this time off other than through holiday, vacation, or compensatory time accrual. What is being proposed is a policy by which an employee could be granted the twelve weeks to 950511 -12 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 care for an immediate family member with pay. The mechanism for this still requires usage of all existing holiday, vacation, and compensatory sick leave accrual, with the remainder being charged to accrued sick leave up to one -half the employee's total accrual. The administration recommended approval of the ordinance. Council Member Hinds moved for adoption of the ordinance. Council Member Escontrias seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 7308 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN AMENDING THE CITY OF BAYTOWN PERSONNEL RULES TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF SICK LEAVE TO CARE FOR A FAMILY MEMBER WITH A SERIOUS HEALTH CONDITION; PROVIDING A REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Consider Approval of Plans and Specifications for Carver Jones Park Improvements and Authorize Advertisement for Bids and Consider Approval of Plans and Specifications for Central Heights Park Improvements and Authorize Advertisement for Bids In both cases, a Community Development Block Grant has been provided for new shelters, playground equipment, parking, and sidewalks. The Parks Department is installing the shelters and playground equipment. There is an alternate to extend sidewalks if the bids come in low enough. Estimated costs for Central Heights Park Improvements is $26,000 and the estimate for Carver Jones Park Improvements is $69,000. Council Member Byford moved to approve the plans and specifications and to authorize the administration to advertise for bids. Council Member Pruett seconded the motion. The vote follows: 950511 -13 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Consider Approval of Plans and Specifications for Public Boat Ramps at Bayland Park Marina and Authorize Advertisement for Bids This project consists of constructing three concrete, boat - launching ramps and a parking area to accommodate sixty vehicles with boat trailers. The parking lot will consist of a combination of concrete and milled asphalt. The total parking area subgrade will be prepared. Eighteen parking spaces will be concrete and forty - two will be milled asphalt. The milled asphalt will come from the Massey- Tompkins' job. If prices are favorable, more spaces will be concrete. Work to be performed includes ramp dredging and slope preparation; pavement subgrade excavation and stabilization; and installation of piers, bulkhead and electrical lighting, water service and drainage. Texas Parks and Wildlife will fund $200,000, and the balance will be financed through Bayland Park Marina Bonds. The engineering construction cost estimate for this project is $450,000. Council Member Pruett moved to approve the plans and specifications and to authorize the administration to advertise for bids. Council Member Benavides seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Consider Approval of Plans and Specifications for Airhart Drive Improvements and Authorize Advertisement for Bids Airhart Drive is a concrete street with an asphalt overlay. The street has buckled at several of the joints. This project includes replacements of concrete sections and expansion joints and an asphalt overlay from Market Street to J. B. LeFevre. The estimated cost of the project is $88,000. Community Development 950511 -14 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 Block Grant Funds will be used for this project. Council Member Benavides moved to approve the plans and specifications and to authorize the administration to advertise for bids. Council Member Escontrias seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None Consent Agenda Council considered the consent agenda Items "a" through "c" as follows: a. Proposed Ordinance No. 950511 -3, awards the contract for the Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation for Cured -in -Place Pipe or Fold and Form Pipe to Insituform Gulf South, Inc. in the amount of $259,815.75. This project includes rehabilitation of existing sanitary sewers by the cured -in -place or fold and form method. These methods involve minimal digging and are used to repair deep lines and sewer lines under streets where digging would be less feasible. The contract establishes unit prices for various pipe sizes and depths. The term of the contract is one year and is renewable at the option of the City under the same prices. The work includes rehabilitation of known problem areas plus emergency repairs throughout the city. This contractor has a large range of resources to handle repairs of large and deep lines, resources not available in Public Works. The cost estimate for this project was $270,000. Funds will come from Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation bonds. We recommend approval. b. Proposed Ordinance No. 950427 -4, sets a date, time (May 23 at 6:35 p.m.) and place for the public hearing on the regulated equipment and installation costs submitted by Star Cable Associates on FCC Form 1205. This hearing is necessary in order to ascertain the reasonableness of the rates charged to subscribers for such equipment and services. Star Cable submitted its annual filing of the FCC Form 1205 for City's review on March 30, 1995; on April 13, 1995, Council granted an extension of time in order to adequately review the reasonableness of costs presented by Star Cable. The 950511 -15 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 public hearing is required pursuant to the regulations adopted by Council in Ordinance No. 6909 and will afford all interested persons an opportunity to address this matter. We recommend approval. C. Proposed Resolution No. 1247 directs TCI Cablevision of Texas, Inc. to keep accurate accounts of all amounts received by reason of the regulated equipment and installation costs submitted on FCC Form 1205. TCI submitted its annual filing of the FCC Form 1205 for the City's review on March 2, 1995; and on March 23, 1995, Council granted an extension of time in order to adequately review the reasonableness of the costs presented by TCI. This accounting order preserves Council's authority to order refunds in the future, if appropriate. We recommend approval. Council Member Escontrias moved for approval of consent agenda items "a" through "c." Council Member Benavides seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None ORDINANCE NO. 7309 AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST TO A CONTRACT WITH INSITUFORM GULF SOUTH, INC., FOR THE SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION BY CURED -IN -PLACE PIPE OR FOLD AND FORM PIPE PROJECT; AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF TWO HUNDRED FIFTY -NINE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTEEN AND 751100 DOLLARS ($259,815.75); MAKING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATED THERETO; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. 950511 -16 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 ORDINANCE NO. 7310 AN ORDINANCE SETTING A DATE, TIME, AND PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ANNUAL FILING OF FCC FORM 1205 ESTABLISHING REGULATED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS SUBMITTED BY STAR CABLE ASSOCIATES; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO PUBLISH NOTICE OF SUCH PUBLIC HEARING; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. RESOLUTION NO. 1246 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS, DIRECTING TCI CABLEVISION OF TEXAS, INC., TO KEEP ACCURATE ACCOUNTS OF ALL AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY REASON OF THE REGULATED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS WHICH WERE SUBMITTED ON FORM 1205; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF. For bid tabulations, see Attachment "A." Consider Appointment to Growth Management and Development Advisory Commission This appointment will be made at a future meeting. Consider Appointment to Baytown Area Long Range Planning Commission This appointment will be made at a future meeting. Consider Appointments to Board of Adjustment and Appeals These appointments will be made at a future meeting. Consider Appointment to Baytown Housing Finance Corporation Board Mayor Alfaro announced the appointment of Hector Meza to the Baytown Housing Authority Board. Mr. Meza is retired from Exxon and will be assuming the 950511 -17 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 position formerly held by Nestor Moreno. Council Member Pruett moved to appoint Hector Mesa to the Baytown Housing Finance Cooperation Board. Council Member Hinds seconded the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias, Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett Mayor Alfaro Nays: None City Manager's Report Implementation of the Neighborhood Protection Ordinance Council had been provided with two possible schedules for implementation of the Neighborhood Protection Ordinance. One would complete the process by July 6, 1995, while the other would complete the process by July 13, 1995. Council selected the completion date of July 13, 1995. The City Manager noted that the administration is preparing for presentation of a proposed bond sale along with the sale of additional revenue bonds. Employees Honored Baytown Jaycees recently honored four city employees: Officer Steve Denton, Police Department; Lisa S. Coker, Sterling Municipal Library; David Ondrias, Director of Parks and Recreation; and Howard Gudgell, Baytown Fire and Rescue. Employee Picnic The City Manager reminded Council of the upcoming employees' picnic scheduled for Friday, May 19. Tickets are available through Ms. Hall's office. 950511 -18 Minutes for Regular Session - May 11, 1995 Comments Mayor Alfaro mentioned that the election of the Mayor Pro Tempore should be placed on the agenda for May 23 and reminded Council that Council Member Byford is the next senior person. Adjourn There being no further business to be transacted, the meeting was adjourned. Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk minutes105- 11- 95.rgr d SCHEDULE OF BID ITEMS Item No. Decsription Unit Qty. Unit Price Total Unit Qiy. Unit Price Total Cured -in -Place -Pipe Insituform Gulf South Cat Contracting 1 6 ", Up to 26' Deep l.f. 100 $33.70 $3,370.00 l.f. 100 $38.25 $3,825.00 2 8 ", Up to 26' Deep l.f. 500 $35.50 $17,750.00 l.f. 500 $33.41 $16,705.00 3 10 ", Up to 15' Deep l.f. 100 $42.00 $4,200.00 l.f. 100 $40.15 $4,015.00 4 10 ", Over 15' Deep l.f. 20 $43.75 $875.00 l.f. 20 $42.66 $853.20 5 12 ", Up to 10' Deep l.f. 400 $44.50 $17,800.00 l.f. 400 $44.08 $17,632.00 6 12 ", 10' to 15' Deep l.f. 50 $49.50 $2,475.00 l.f. 50 $46.92 $2,346.00 7 12" Over 15" Deep � l.f. 20 $52.25 $1,045.00 l.f. 20 $48.26 $965.20 8 15 ", Over 10' Deep l.f. 300 $54.00 $16,200.00 l.f. 300 $53.18 $15,954.00 9 15', 10 to 15' Deep l.f. 50 $59.25 $2,962.50 l.f. 50 $56.67 $2,833.50 10 15 ", Over 15' Deep l.f. 20 $70.00 $1,400.00 l.f. 20 $60.54 $1,210.80 11 18 ", Up to 10' Deep l.f. 100 $66.50 $6,650.00 l.f. 100 $65.17 $6,517.00 12 18 ", 10' to 15' Deep l.f. 50 $78.00 $3,900.00 l.f. 50 $75.29 $3,764.50 13 18, Over 15' Deep l.f. 20 $86.50 $1,730.00 l.f. 20 $79.77 $1,595.40 14 21 ", Up to 15' Deep l.f. 100 $84.75 $8,475.00 l.f. 100 $94.44 $9,444.00 15 21 ", Over 15' Deep l.f. 50 $103.00 $5,150.00 l.f. 50 $101.23 $5,061.50 16 24 ", Up to 15' Deep l.f. 100 $93.75 $9,375.00 l.f. 100 $111.90 $11,190.00 17 24 ", Over 15' Deep l.f. 30 $128.00 $3,840.00 l.f. 30 $118.63 $3,558.90 18 27 ", Up to I S' Deep l.f. 20 $115.25 $2,305.00 l.f. 20 $140.00 $2,800.00 19 27 ", Over 15' Deep l.f. 20 $135.50 $2,710.00 l.f. 20 $155.57 $3,111.40 20 30 ", Up to 15' Deep l.f. 20 $145.00 $2,900.00 l.f. 20 $161.00 $3,220.00 21 30 ", Over 15' Deep l.f. 20 $170.25 $3,405.00 l.f. 20 $177.06 $3,541.20 22 36 ", Up to 15' Deep l.f. 100 $205.75 $20,575.00 l.f. 100 $215.85 $21,585.00 23 36 ", Over 15' Deep l.f. 30 $225.25 $6,757.50 l.f. 30 $237.78 $7,133.40 24 6" Diameter Fold &Form Pipe l.f. 100 $30.00 $3,000.00 l.f. 100 $38.25 $3,825.00 25 8" Diameter Fold &Form Pipe l.f. 100 $32.50 $3,250.00 l.f. 100 $33.41 $3,341.00 26 10" Diameter Fold &Form Pipe l.f. 100 $37.00 $3,700.00 l.f. 100 $40.15 $4,015.00 27 12" Diameter Fold &Form Pipe I.f. 10 $46.75 $4,675.00 l.f. 100 $44.08 $4,408.00 28 Clean 8" & 10" Sewer < 1/3 Pipe Debris l.f. 200 $1.25 $250.00 l.f. 200 $1.15 $230.00 29 Clean 8" & 10" Sewer> 1/3 Pipe Debris l.f. 200 $1.45 $290.00 l.f. 200 $2.05 $410.00 30 Clean 12" & 15" Sewer < 1/3 Pipe Debris 1. 200 $1.35 $270.00 l.f. 200 $1.55 $310.00 31 Clean 12" & 15" Sewer > 1/3 Pipe Debris 1. 200 $1.55 $310.00 l.f. 200 $2.65 $530.00 32 Clean 18" & 21" Sewer < 1/3 Pipe Debris 1. 200 $1.60 $320.00 l.f. 200 $3.75 $750.00 33 Clean 18" & 21" Sewer> 1/3 Pipe Debris l.f. 20 $2.00 $400.00 l.f. 200 $4.25 $850.00 34 Clean 24" & 27" Sewer < 1/3 Pipe Debris l.f. 20 $2.60 $520.00 l.f. 200 $3.70 $740.00 35 Clean 24" & 27" Sewer > 1/3 Pipe Debris l.f. 20 $3.25 $650.00 l.f. 200 $4.50 $900.00 36 Clean 30" & 33" Sewer < 113 Pipe Debris l.f. 20 $4.50 $900.00 l.f. 200 $6.00 $1,200.00 37 Clean 30" & 33" Sewer> 1/3 Pipe Debris l.f. 20 $5.75 $1,150.00 I.f. 200 $8.10 $1,620.00 38 Clean 36" Sewer < 113 Pipe Debris l.f. 20 $6.75 $1,350.00 l.f. 200 $8.75 $1,750.00 39 Clean 36" Sewer> 1/3 Pipe Debris l.f. 20 $7.50 $1,500.00 l.f. 200 $10.50 $2,100.00 40 Root Removal in Sewers 8" & 10" l.f. 5 $3.10 $15.50 l.f. 5 $2.75 $13.75 41 Root Removal in Sewers 12" & 15" l.f. 5 $3.60 $18.00 l.f. 5 $3.50 $17.50 42 Root Removal in Sewers 18" & 21" l.f. 5 $4.70 $23.50 l.f. 5 $5.25 $26.25 43 Root Removal in Sewers 24" & 27" l.f. 5 $6.00 $30.00 l.f. 5 $16.20 $81.00 44 Root Removal in Sewers 30" & 33" l.f. 5 $8.00 $40.00 l.f. 5 $22.00 $110.00 45 Root Removal in Sewers 36" 1. 5 $11.25 $56.25 l .f. 5 $18.00 $90.00 46 Obstruction Removal - Remote ea. 1 $850.00 $850.00 ea. 1 $435.00 $435.00 47 Additional Set -up for Obstruction Removal ea. 1 $350.00 $350.00 ea. 1 $350.00 $350.00 48 T.V. Inspection of Sewers 6" thru 21" l.f. 500 $1.05 $525.00 l.f. 500 $0.90 $450.00 49 T.V. Inspection of Sewers 24" thru 42" l.f. 500 $1.15 $575.00 l.f. 500 $1.00 $500.00 50 Additional Set Up for T.V. Inspection ea. 2 $150.00 $300.00 ea. 2 $65.00 $130.00 51 By- Passing Set Up for each 3" Pump ea. 3 $100.00 $300.00 ea. 3 $1,200.0 $3,600.00 52 By- Passing Set Up for each 4" Pump ea. 3 $100.00 $300.00 ea. 3 $2,200.0 $6,600.00 53 By- Passing Set Up for each 6" Pump ea. 3 $390.00 $1,170.00 ea. 3 $3,275.0 $9,825.00 54 By- Passing Set Up for each 8" Pump ea. 3 $525.00 $1,575.00 ea. 3 $4,050.0 $12,150.00 55 By- Passing for each 3" Pump � per hr 10 $30.00 $300.00 per hr 10 $12.00 $120.00 56 By- Passing for each 4" Pump per hr 10 $40.00 $400.00 per hr 10 $15.00 $150.00 57 By- Passing for each 6" Pump per hr 10 $50.00 $500.00 per hr 10 $39.00 $390.00 58 By- Passing for each 8" Pump per hr 10 $60.00 $600.00 per hr 10 $55.00 $550.00 59 Manhole Wall Sealing v.f. 10 $87.00 $870.00 v.f. 10 $88.00 $880.00 60 Manhole Replacement, up to 8' Depth ea. 2 $2,750.00 $5,500.00 ea. 2 $3,100.0 $6,200.00 61 Manhole Replacement, over 8' Depth v.f. 5 $350.00 $1,750.00 v.f. 5 $105.00 $525.00 62 Manhole Ring &Lid Replacement ea. 4 $465.00 $1,860.00 ea. 4 $350.00 $1,400.00 63 Cement Stabilized Sand Backfill, 2 Sacks Cement per cubic yard as approved c.y. 10 $27.25 $272.50 c.y. 10 $26.00 $260.00 64 Point Repair of 6 " -10" Sewers, 0' -8' Deep ea. 1 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 ea. 1 $1,250.0 $1,250.00 65 Point Repair of 6 " -10" Sewers, 8' -15' Dee ea. 1 $1,750.00 $1,750.00 ea. 1 $2,900.0 $2,900.00 66 Point Repair of 6 " -10" Sewers, Over 15' ea. 1 $3,800.00 $3,800.00 ea. 1 $3,780.0 $3,780.00 Deep 67 Extra Length for Point Repair of 6 " -10" l.f. 10 $27.00 $270.00 l.f. 10 $28.00 $280.00 Sewers; 0' -8' Deep 68 Extra Length for Point Repair of 6 " -10" l.f. 10 $38.00 $380.00 l.f. 10 $38.00 $380.00 Sewers, 8' -15' Deep 69 Extra Length for Point Repair of 6 " -10" l.f. 10 $58.00 $580.00 l.f. 10 $59.00 $590.00 Sewers, Over 15' Deep 70 Point Repair of 12 " -18" Sewers, 0' -8' ea. 1 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 ea. 1 $2,300.0 $2,300.00 Deep 71 Point Repair of 12 " -18" Sewers, 8' -15' ea. 1 $1,900.00 $1,900.00 ea. 1 $3,600.0 $3,600.00 Deep 72 Point Repair of 12 " -18" Sewers, I Over 15' ea. 1 $5,250.00 $5,250.00 ea. 1 $6,800.0 $6,800.00 Deep 73 Extra Length for Point Repair of 12 " -18" l.f. 10 $52.00 $520.00 l.f. 10 $40.00 $400.00 Sewers; 0' -8' Deep 74 Extra Length for Point Repair of 12 " -18" l.f. 10 $62.00 $620.00 l.f. 10 $59.00 $590.00 Sewers, 8' -15' Deep 75 Extra Length for Point Repair of 12" - 18 ' l.f. 10 $90.00 $900.00 l.f. 10 $75.00 $750.00 Sewers, Over 15' Deep 76 Point Repair of 21 " -36" Sewers, 0' -8' Dee ea. 1 $4,390.00 $4,390.00 ea. 1 $3,300.0 $3,300.00 77 Point Repair of 21 " -36" ea. 1 $5,790.00 $5,790.00 ea. 1 $5,600.0 $5,600.00 78 Point Repair of 21 " -36" Sewers, ea. 1 $7,190.00 $7,190.00 ea. 1 $13,300. $13,300.00 Over 15' Deep 79 Extra Length for Point Repair of 21 " -36" l.f. 5 $96.00 $480.00 l.f. S $80.00 $400.00 Sewers, 0' -8' Deep 80 Extra Length for Point Repair of 21 " -36" l.f. 5 $118.00 $590.00 l.f. 5 $95.00 $475.00 Sewers, 8' -15' Deep. 81 Extra Length for Point Repair of l.f. 5 $153.00 $765.00 l.f. 5 $126.00 $630.00 21 " -36" Sewers, Over 1 S' Deep 82 Well Pointing for Point Repairs, 0' -8' Dee ea. 1 $210.00 $210.00 ea. 1 $600.00 $600.00 83 Well Pointing for Point Repairs, 8' -15' ea. 1 $210.00 $210.00 ea. 1 $2,700.0 $2,700.00 Deep 84 Well Pointing for Point Rprs, Over 15' ea. 1 $210.00 $210.00 ea. 1 $2,800.0 $2,800.00 Deep 85 Well Pointing for Extra Length Point l.f. 10 $20.00 $200.00 l.f. 10 $190.00 $1,900.00 Repairs 86 Setup of Traffic Signs for Traffic Control ea. 2 $150.00 $300.00 ea. 2 $180.00 $360.00 87 Flagman for Direction of Traffic man 10 $18.00 $180.00 man hr. 10 $19.00 $190.00 88 Setup for Cured -in -Place Pipe Contiguous ea. 1 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 ea. 1 $100.00 $100.00 Length Less Than 150 L.F. 89 Setup for Fold &Form Pipe Contiguous ea. 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 ea. 1 $1,700.0 $1,700.00 Length Less than 150 L.F. 90 Rmv and Replace of Existing ea. 1 $1,275.00 $1,275.00 ea. 1 $1,150.0 $1,150.00 Service/Lateral Lines by Excavation 0' -1 S' Deep, by separate work order. 91 Rmv and Replace of Existing ea. 1 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 ea. 1 $2,900.0 $2,900.00 Service/Lateral Lines by Excavation Over 15' Deep, by separate work order 92 Rmv and Replace of 6 " -12" Sewers l.f. 50 $65.00 $3,250.00 l.f. 50 $85.00 $4,250.00 Including Modified Bedding 0' -15' Deep (50 LF Min) 93 Rmv and Replace of 6 " -12" Sewers l.f. 50 $80.00 $4,000.00 l.f. 50 $137.00 $6,850.00 Including Modified Bedding Over 15' Deep (50 LF Min) 94 Rmv and Replace of 15 " -21" Sewers 50 $100.00 $5,000.00 $91.00 $4,550.00 Including Modified Bedding 0' -15' Deep 50 (50 LF Min.)l.f. 95 Rmv and Replace of IS' -21' Sewers $111.00 $5,550.00 $145.00 $7,250.00 Including Modified Bedding Over 15' l.f. 50 l.f. 50 Deep (SOLF Minl.g.) 96 Reconnect of Serv. Lns. on Replacement ea. 5 $720.00 $3,600.00 ea. 5 $680.00 $3,400.00 Sewers 97 Rmv and Replace of 4 1 /2" Concrete s.y. 10 $37.00 $370.00 s.y. 10 $31.00 $310.00 Sidewalk, Including Reinforcement (incl. saw cutting) 98 Rmv and Replace of 6" Concrete s.y. 10 $48.00 $480.00 s.y. 10 $54.00 $540.00 Driveway, Including Reinforcement (includes saw cutting and removal of base course, all thicknesses) 99 Rmv and Replace of Curb and Gutter as l.f. 10 $18.00 $180.00 l.f. 10 17.00 $170.00 Required 100 Rmv and Replace of Doweled on l.f. 10 $14.00 $140.00 l.f. 10 17.00 $170.00 Concrete Curb as Required 101 Rmv and Replace Up to 8" Concrete s.y. 20 $55.00 $1,100.00 s.y. 20 62.00 $1,240.00 Pavement, Including Reinforcement (includes saw cutting and removal of base course, all thicknesses) 102 Rmv and Replace up to 3" Hot Mix s.y. 20 $28.00 $560.00 s.y. 24.00 $0.00 Asphalt Concrete (Type D), Including Tack Coat (includes saw cutting and removal of base course, all thicknesses) ,., 103 Trench Safety l.f. 1000 $0.01 $10.00 l.f. 1000 1.00 $1,000.00 104 Trim Protruding Service ea. 1 $450.00 $450.00 ea. 1 450.00 $450.00 105 Mechanical Cleaning of Sewer ea. 1 $500.00 $500.00 ea. 1 800.00 $800.00 106 Reinstall F.M. Drop in Manhole ea. 1 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 ea. 1 1300.00 $1,300.00 TOTAL BASE BID$259,815.75 $314,699.50 It is the City's intent to clean and televise all lines that will be rehabilitated. In addition, the City will not ask the Contractor to mobilize for the purpose of cleaning and/or a television inspection of less than 400 feet in length. Therefore, the minimumcharge for cleaning and/or television inspection will be the unit price bid for each item times 400 feet.