Loading...
2001 07 31 WS MinutesIm MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN July 31, 2001 The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in work session on July 31, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown, Texas, with the following in attendance: Ronnie Anderson Calvin Mundinger Don Murray Mercedes Renteria, III Scott Sheley Pete C. Alfaro Monte Mercer Ignacio Ramirez, Sr. Patti Merrell Absent: Coleman Godwin Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Mayor City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Clerk Council Member The meeting was opened with a quorum present after which the following business was conducted: Discuss TSP Options. Mayor Alfaro stated that this was a City Council work session, for the exchange of information between the Council and City staff. For the record, he noted that notice of the meeting had been posted on July 27, 2001, at 8:30 a.m. Manager Mercer listed the Options that staff had compiled regarding the operation of the TSP landfill. I . Employ a consultant to do a technical review of TSP's permit applications; 2. Seek party status during the upcoming preliminary hearing; 3. Pass an ordinance prohibiting or regulating the landfill; 4. Retain a law firm to keep the City apprised of the status of TSP's applications; 5. Enter into an agreement with an entity that has obtained party status to keep the City apprised of the status of TSP's applications; 6. Continue to have members of the City's staff monitor the status of TSP's permit applications; 7. Encourage the citizens to participate in the contested case hearings; and, 8. Conduct a public forum and invite USX and TSP to address questions from the City Council as well as the citizens of Baytown. Page 2 of 2 Minutes of the Work Session —July 31, 2001 The disadvantages of Option No. 2 were discussed. The time to seek party status has already expired. Staff noted that at the last preliminary hearing, there was a discussion regarding allowing only those to seek party status who had just become aware of TSP's applications due to a faulty translation. In that case, the City could find it difficult to overcome this hurdle. In addition, the City could draw a lawsuit based upon a breach of its Industrial District agreement with USX, for which the City has no insurance coverage. It was pointed out that Option No. 3, could also be construed as a breach of contract. There was further discussion regarding a similar situation in the City of La Porte's decision to oppose the issuance of a permit for a solid waste facility, an action that drew litigation. It was determined that the City had breached its Industrial District agreement. This resulted in a judgment against La Porte, which had to pay $2,300,000 to the solid waste facility and extend its Industrial District agreement for 4'/4 years. Feedback from the Council supported the need to keep the public better informed, and indicated that Council intends to adopt a more aggressive posture regarding the landfill, that the health and safety of the citizens are of the highest importance, that Council must be kept apprised of future legal alternatives, that citizens have a right to know why USX is supporting TSP, that perhaps the scope of the charge to the legal firm should be broadened beyond the TSP applications, for all legal ramifications, now and in the future. Mr. Mercer suggested that staff go forward with Option Nos. 4, 6, 7, and 8, with a slight change in the language of Option 7: 7. encourage the citizens to paHt6ipate be involved and stay informed in the contested case hearings. Upon the suggestion that the law firm be affiliated with an entity that already has party status, Manager Mercer stated that the firm staff is recommending also represents Chambers County. More discussion followed regarding indirect involvement by entering into an interlocal agreement with an entity that already has party status. City Attorney Ramirez advised that the City would lose attorney- client privilege and would not be privy to any confidential information if it were not the one that retains the law firm. Upon the suggestion that the City oppose the landfill due to health and safety concerns, it was again determined that, because of the Industrial District agreement and possible legal liability, this is not a viable choice. It was suggested that Council invite Carl Parker, attorney for TSP, to the public forum with TSP and USX. TSP's financial status was questioned in the event of any mishap attributable to the landfill. "Citizens for a Better Baytown" was encouraged to continue its opposition to the landfill. Page 3 of 3 Minutes of the Work Session —July 31, 2001 00� Adjourn. Council Member Mundinger moved adjournment. Council Member Murray seconded the motion. The vole follows: Ayes: Council Members Anderson, Mundinger, Murray, Renteria, and Sheley. Mayor Alfaro Nays: None. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:43 p.m. Patti Merrell Assistant City Clerk