1995 10 31 CC Minutes, SpecialMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL SESSION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
October 31, 1996
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in special session on
October 31, 1995, at 5:00 p.m. in the Don M. Hullum Conference Room of the
Baytown City Hall with the following in attendance:
Eva Benavides
Council Member
David Byford
Council Member
Manuel Escontrias
Council Member
E. Frank Hinds, Jr.
Council Member
Stephen DonCarlos
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; after which Mayor Alfaro
recessed the meeting and requested that Council move to the Council Chamber.
The meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber. Council Member Hinds offered
the invocation. The following business was conducted:
Consider Action on the Appeal of the Houston Pipe Line Company Case
Mayor Alfaro informed those present that anyone desiring to speak should
register on the list provided in the lobby because the list would provide the speaking
order.
The City Manager explained that Judge Elizabeth Ray, in her order signed
October 17, 1995, granted Houston Pipe Line Company's motion for summary
judgement while denying the city's. Council may appeal the judge's decision at the
appellate court level or take no further action. He called attention to a memorandum
from Texas Municipal League which stated, in part, "The Texas Municipal League
and the Texas City Attorney's Association may want to consider submitting an
amicus brief on behalf of Baytown if Baytown appeals this ruling."
951031 -2
Minutes of the Special Session - October 31, 1995
Mayor Alfaro recognized the following speakers:
Henry Adair, Post Office Box 501, Vice President of the Baytown Area/West
Chambers County Economic Development Foundation, stated that the franchise fee
is an added cost to the industries and may be the beginning of the end of the city's
industrial base. Therefore, he requested that Council vote "no" to an appeal.
Perry Simmons, 1309 North Dakota, a resident of Baytown for almost sixty
years stated he related to the difficult decisions Council must make because of his
tenure on Council. He served on Council during a time when difficult decisions were
made regarding Brownwood and single member districts; however, he requested
that Council consider what our industrial benefactors have contributed to the
community. He stressed the importance of making a decision that is in the best
interest of the city. He concluded by stating his opposition as a private citizen on
the continuation of the lawsuit.
Tracey Wheeler, 4903 St. Andrews, Executive Vice President of the
Chamber of Commerce, stated the chamber represents 1,000 plus constituents and
of those 95% are small businesses. The lawsuit has projected a negative image of
the community. Small businesses are concerned with what legislation may be
forthcoming. Up to the filing of this lawsuit, the Chamber of Commerce, Economic
Development Foundation, and the City of Baytown had worked closely to foster a
positive business image. Ms. Wheeler requested Council to end the lawsuit.
Doff Baker, 5000 Homewood, a small business owner, stated that it would
not be good for Baytown to continue the lawsuit and that a "no" vote would be better
for the community.
Tom McLaughlin, 4610 Alamance, pointed out that any short-term gains
derived from successful completion of the lawsuit would have long -term detrimental
effects. He mentioned a refinery withdrawing from a south Texas community which
resulted in the town folding. He requested that Council take this into account and
look at this situation from the stand point of a small business dependent on industry
for survival.
Council Member DonCarlos moved to drop the appeal in the summary
judgement styled City of Baytown vs Houston Pipe Line Company, et al. Council
Member Benavides seconded the motion.
Council Member DonCarlos stated that he originally felt it was the Council's
duty to explore whether the city was owed money under the two ordinances. Since
the judge had made a decision, he now felt that there were less drastic ways for the
951031 -3
Minutes of the Special Session - October 31, 1995
city to control its streets. He no longer supported the lawsuit, because the price was
too high, and requested that Council consider the effects of this continued litigation.
Council Member Benavides concurred with Council Member DonCarlos. She
had received numerous calls in opposition to the continuation of the appeal.
Originally, she did not realize the impact to the community, and personally, did not
feel the disruption in the community was worth it. The city took the matter to court
and was ruled against. Therefore, she felt that it is now time to move forward.
Benjamin Hall said that on October 17, 1995, for the first time, a Harris
County court held that a city, like Baytown, did not have control over its streets.
Under State law the city does have the right to control its streets. The judge got it
wrong. When the city began to exercise its rights to collect a street rental, this
industry refused to cooperate. The city sued, and they sued back with a
counterclaim that the city had no authority to tell them they cannot use city property.
The same company is paying the City of Houston three percent and has
chosen not to pay the City of Baytown. The city's claim is not anything new or
anything extraordinary. A poll of Baytown's citizens shows support for the city's
efforts by two to one of persons who are not connected with industry.
Our judicial system recognizes that an individual judge can get it wrong. The
problem is that this judge got it wrong. If the judge got it wrong, to appeal will not
cost the city any money. This is an outside company. It has no local location. If the
city relinquishes its right to appeal as to this company, it relinquishes control of its
streets as to location or relocation of pipelines. Texas Municipal League has taken
the position that this is a dangerous precedent for Texas cities and will file a brief
in support of Baytown's position. Mr. Hall concluded by saying that the action
required is to appeal. If Council were to forego the right to appeal, later the city
would be unable to have the decision set aside or to challenge it.
Council Member Hinds noted that from the various editorials and letters to
the editor, it was obvious to him that much of the information being put forth was
erroneous. Council never intended to charge a four - percent fee on transmission
pipelines. The only franchise fee authorized would apply to those pipelines that
terminate within the city limits. It was never Council's intent to harm any company
or put excessive costs on any company. Council was simply trying to determine if
money was owed to the city. Now, the whole situation has become so volatile, the
question becomes should Council back off to allow things to settle down?
Council Member Pruett concurred with Council Member Hinds in that Council
is not after a windfall but to maintain control of the city's property.
951031-4
Minutes of the Special Session - October 31, 1995
Council Member Escontrias noted that all decisions concerning the lawsuit
must be made by Council, especially regarding retroactivity and the two percent and
four percent fees.
Mayor Alfaro pointed out that in the memorandum from Texas Municipal
League, the indication is that a brief may be filed.
Mr. Hall responded that based on discussions with Texas Municipal League
and the City of Houston, both would file briefs on Baytown's behalf. In response to
Council inquiry, Mr. Hall replied that should the city prevail, the Council would have
the ultimate decision with regard to settlement; however, should the case go to trial,
the jury will decide the amount owed. Council would still have the option of settling
for less than the jury awards. He also indicated that he felt that the Attorney
General of Texas would support Baytown's appeal.
Mayor Alfaro acknowledged that the city's attorneys feel that the law is on
Baytown's side, and the city will win the appeal, but Council was told that the city
would win the summary judgement. He verified his original support of the audit of
franchise fees. However, he now feels that the city's economic future is at stake.
Also, he emphasized that at no time during this process had anyone from Exxon
contacted him with regard to the lawsuit or the appeal. During the process, the
Mayor has come to believe that the ordinances in question never were intended to
apply to pipelines. Therefore, he stressed that he did not favor the appeal nor
would he vote to proceed. The vote follows:
Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Hinds,
and DonCarlos
Mayor Alfaro
Nays: Council Members Escontrias, Byford,
and Pruett
Council Member Pruett suggested and Council Members Escontrias and
Byford concurred that since the motion passed by four to three it should be made
unanimous.
Ayes: Council Members Benavides, Byford, Escontrias,
Hinds, DonCarlos, and Pruett
Mayor Alfaro
Nays: None
951031 -5
Minutes of the Special Session - October 31, 1995
Adjourn
There being no further business to be transacted, the meeting was
adjourned.
CA WPWIN601WPDOMMINUTES110- 31- 95,SPC
Eileen P. Hall, City Clerk