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.