HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25-13 Regular Meeting of La Porte City Council
LOUIS R. RIGBY
DARYL LEONARD
Mayor
Councilmember District 3
JOHN ZEMANEK
TOMMY MOSER
Mayor Pro-Tem, Councilmember At Large A
Councilmember District 4
DOTTIE KAMINSKI
JAY MARTIN
Councilmember At Large B
Councilmember District 5
MIKE MOSTEIT
MIKE CLAUSEN
Councilmember District 1
Councilmember District 6
CHUCK ENGELKEN
Councilmember District 2
– The invocation will be givenbyBrian Christen,La Porte CommunityChurch.
– The Pledge of Allegiancewill be led by Councilmember John
Zemanek.
(Limited to five minutesper person.)
Mike Henley –Closing of Main Street for Community Events
(All consent agenda items are considered routine by City Council and will be
enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
requests anitem be removed and considered separately.)
Consider approval or other action regarding the minutes of regular City Council meeting
held on March 11, 2013 – P. Fogarty
Consider approval or other action regarding an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to
execute a Water Service Agreement with Kuraray Inc., located at 13100 Bay Area Blvd. –
T. Tietjens
Consider approval or other action authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with
Sweetwater Pools, Inc. for lifeguarding services and approving a base line purchase order
for services to be provided for the 2013 swim season – S. Barr
Consider approval or other action awarding Bid # 13012for Farrington Boulevard Utility
Relocation – D. Mick
Consider approval or other action awarding Bid # 13014 for Wave Pool Mechanical
Building Renovation – S. Barr
Discussion or other action regarding Utility Infrastructure Report – D. Mick
Discussion or other action regarding Street Report – D. Mick
Receive Planning Audit Report – C. Alexander/T. Tietjens
ReceiveDelinquent Tax Report – Mayor Rigby
Receive report from City Manager
La Porte Chamber of Commerce, State of the Cities Luncheon, Wednesday, March 27,
2013
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting, Thursday, March 28, 2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, April 8, 2013
La Porte Development CorporationBoard Meeting, Monday, April 22, 2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, April 22, 2013
regarding matters appearing on the agenda; recognition of community
members, city employees, and upcoming events; inquiry of staff regarding specific factual
information or existing policies– Councilmembers, Zemanek,Leonard,Engelken, Mosteit,
Clausen, Martin, Moser, Kaminskiand Mayor Rigby.
The City Council reserves the right to meet in closed session on any agenda item should the need
arise and if applicable pursuant to authorization by Title 5, Chapter 551, of the Texas Government
Code.
into regular session and consider action, if any, on item(s) discussed in executive
session.
I certify that a copy of the March 25,2013,agenda of items to be considered by the City Council was posted on the
City Hall bulletin board on March 19, 2013.
Patrice Fogarty, City Secretary
1.
– The invocation will be given by Brian Christen, La Porte Community
Church.
– The Pledge of Allegiance will be led by Councilmember
John Zemanek.
(Limited to five minutes per person.)
Mike Henley –Closing of Main Street for Community Events
(
All consent agenda items are considered routine by City Council and will
be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a
Councilmember requests an item be removed and considered separately.)
Consider approval or other action regarding the minutes of regular City Council
meeting held on March 11, 2013 – P. Fogarty
Consider approval or other action regarding an ordinance authorizing the City
Manager to execute a Water Service Agreement with Kuraray Inc., located at
13100 Bay Area Blvd. –T. Tietjens
Consider approval or other action authorizing the City Manager to execute a
contract with Sweetwater Pools, Inc. for lifeguarding services and approving a
base line purchase order for services to be provided for the 2013 swim season
– S. Barr
Mayor
Councilmember District 3
Mayor Pro Tem
Councilmember District 4
Councilmember At Large A
Councilmember District 5
Councilmember At Large B
Councilmember District 6
Councilmember District 1
Councilmember District 2
The City Council of the City of La Portemet in a regularmeetingonat the City
Hall Council Chambers, 604 West Fairmont Parkway, La Porte, Texas, at . to consider the
followingitems of business:
Mayor Rigbycalled the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. Members of Council present:
CouncilmembersZemanek, Engelken, Kaminski, and Moser. Absent: CouncilmembersMosteit,
Martin, Clausen and Leonard.Also present were City Secretary Patrice Fogarty, Assistant City
Manager Traci Leachand Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins.
-The invocation was given by Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins.
-The Pledge of Allegiance was led byCouncilmember Dottie
Kaminski.
(Limited to five minutes per person.)There were no public comments.
(All consent agenda items are considered routine by City Council and will be enacted
by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember requests an
item be removed and considered separately.)
Consider approval or other action regarding the minutes of regular City Council meeting
held on February 25, 2013 – P. Fogarty
Consider approval or other action regarding an ordinance declaring the candidates for
At-Large A and Districts 4 and 5 unopposed; declaring John Zemanek, candidate for
At-Large A, elected; declaring Tommy Moser, candidate for District 4, elected; declaring Jay
Martin, candidate for District 5, elected; and cancelling the May11, 2013, general
election – P. Fogarty
Consider approval or other action rejecting all proposals for Section No. 2 of Request For
Proposal (RFP) #13502 for Asbestos Abatement & Demolition of Fire Station
No. 1/Administration Building – D. Ladd
Regarding Consent Item 5b, Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read the caption of AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, DECLARING THE CANDIDATE FOR
COUNCILPERSON AT LARGE A, JOHN P. ZEMANEK, JR., THE CANDIDATE FOR COUNCILPERSON
DISTRICT 4, TOMMY MOSER, AND THE CANDIDATECOUNCILPERSON DISTRICT 5, JAY MARTIN,
UNOPPOSED; DECLARING JOHN P. ZEMANEK JR., CANDIDATE FOR COUNCILPERSON AT LARGE A,
TOMMY MOSER, CANDIDATE FOR COUNCILPERSON DISTRICT 4, AND JAY MARTIN, CANDIDATE
FOR COUNCILPERSON DISTRICT 5 ELECTED; CANCELLING THE ELECTION FOR POSITION AT
LARGE A AND SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS 4 AND 5; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS OF
ORDINANCES INCONSISTENT OR IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
CONTAINING AN OPEN MEETINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Councilmember Engelkenmoved to approve the Consent Agendapursuant to staff
recommendations.Councilmember Moserseconded.
Ayes: Mayor Rigby, Councilmembers Zemanek, Kaminski, Engelken,
and Moser
Nays: None
Absent:Councilmembers Mosteit, Martin, Clausen and Leonard
Consider approval or other action authorizing the City Manager to approve Change Order
rd
No. 2 to construction contract for the 3
Street Side Slope Stabilization Project – J. Garza
Senior Engineer Julian Garza presented a summary.
Councilmember Zemanekmoved to authorize the City Manager to approve Change Order No. 2 to
rd
construction contract for the 3Street Side Slope Stabilization Project. Councilmember Engelken
seconded.
Ayes: Mayor Rigby, Councilmembers Zemanek, Kaminski, Engelken,
and Moser
Nays: None
Absent:Councilmembers Mosteit, Martin, Clausen and Leonard
Consider approval or other action regarding a resolution approving grant application for
License Plate Reader Acquisition through the Criminal Justice Division Governor’s Office –
K. Adcox
Chief of Police Ken Adcox presented a summary.
Councilmember Engelkenmoved to approveapproving a grant application for
License Plate Reader Acquisition through the Criminal Justice Division Governor’s Office.
Councilmember Kaminskiseconded.
Ayes: Mayor Rigby, Councilmembers Zemanek, Kaminski, Engelken,
and Moser
Nays: None
Absent:Councilmembers Mosteit, Martin, Clausen and Leonard
Receive2012 La Porte Police Department Annual Crime and Activity Report – K. Adcox
Chief of Police Ken Adcox provided a Power Point presentation and presented a summary.
Receive 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial (CAFR) Report – P. Rinehart
Controller Phyllis Rinehart presented a summary.
Receive report from City Manager
Animal Shelter Advisory Meeting,Tuesday,March 12, 2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, March 25,2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, April 8, 2013
La Porte Development Corporation Board Meeting, Monday, April 22, 2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, April 22, 2013
There were no additional reports.
regarding matters appearing on the agenda; recognition of community
members, city employees, and upcoming events; inquiry of staff regarding specific factual
information or existing policies– CouncilmembersKaminski, Zemanek,Engelken, Moser and
Mayor Rigby.
Councilmember Zemanek extended sympathy to City Manager Corby Alexander and his family on
the passing of his grandmother. Councilmember Moser thanked Chief of Police Ken Adcox for the
2012 La Porte Police Department Annual Crime and Activity Report.
The City Council reserves the right to meet in closed session on any agenda item should the need
arise and if applicable pursuant to authorization by Title 5, Chapter 551, of the Texas Government
Code.
Consultation with Attorney regarding Enterprise
Products/IDA matter.
City Council recessed the regular meeting to convene an executive session at 6:45p.m. to consult
withthe CityAttorney regarding Enterprise Products/IDA matter.
into regular sessionand consider action, if any, on item(s) discussed in executive
session.
The regular meeting was reconvened at 7:03p.m.
City Council directed the City Manager’sOffice and City Attorney’sOffice to sign an Industrial
District Agreement with Enterprise Products and credit the account for the entire amount paid in
error.
There being no further business, Councilmember Engelkenmoved to adjourn the meeting at
7:04p.m. Councilmember Zemanek seconded.
_______________________________
Patrice Fogarty, City Secretary
Passed and approved on March 25, 2013.
________________________________
Mayor Louis R. Rigby
FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
REQUEST
Appropriation
Agenda Date Requested: March25, 2013
______N/A___________
Source of Funds:
Tim Tietjens
Requested By:
Account Number:______N/A__________
Department: Planning
Amount Budgeted: _____N/A___________
Report: _ __Resolution: ____Ordinance: _X__
Amount Requested: ____N/A__________
Budgeted Item: YES XNO
Exhibits:
Ordinance
Water Service Agreement
Area Map
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Kuraray, Inc.has approached theCity forwater service to its 81 acre site located at 13100Bay
Area Blvd.(see Area Map). The company will employ 69full-time positions, which will require
a total of 3,450 gallons per day of domestic water use.
Council has approved a policy forwater service to companies outside the city limits andwithin
the City’s industrial districts.Per the policy, the company isrequired to execute and maintain an
Industrial District Agreement (IDA) with the City.Kuraray, Inc. desires to obtain its water
service under the terms of this policy and has a current IDA with the City (2007-IDA-122).
Per the policy’s terms,Kuraray, Inc.will pay one and one-half (1-1/2) times the City’s current
utility ratefor water serviceandis subject to a one-time administrative fee associated withits
Water Service Agreement (WSA) in the amount of $6,900for which payment hasbeen received.
The terms of the company’sIDAand WSA will expire on December 31, 2019, plus any renewals
and extensions thereof. However, the company’s WSAwill automatically expire at such time as
there is no effective Industrial District Agreement between the parties,or, if the City exercises its
right of termination.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Action Required by Council:
Consider approval or other action of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Water Service Agreementwith Kuraray, Inc. for its proposed facility at 13100 Bay Area Blvd.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Approved for City Council Agenda
___________________________________________________________
Corby D. Alexander, City Manager Date
W MADISON ST
N D STN D ST
AREA MAP
W TYLER ST
W MAIN ST
W A ST
W B ST
W C ST
DOGWOOD DR
W E ST
W F ST
BIRCH DR
FAIRMONT PKWY
MC CABE RD
Legend
UNKNOWN
KURARAY, INC. TRACT
CHOATE RD
CITY LIMITS
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: March 25, 2013 Appropriation
Requested By: Stephen L. Barr Source of Funds: General Fund001
Department: Parks & Recreation Acc’t Number: 001-8081-551-5007
_X__Resolution: _____Ordinance: ____ Amount Budgeted: $142,387
Report:
Exhibits: Proposal Evaluation Summary Amount Requested: $133,294
Exhibits: Budgeted Item: YES X NO
Exhibits:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
A Request for Proposalsfor Lifeguarding Services for the city swimming pools was let in February,
th
with fivepool service providers invited to submit. The proposals were opened on March 12and four
Sweetwater
proposals were received. After review by the evaluation committee, the proposal by
Pools, Inc.
was determined to be the proposal most advantageous tothe City. Sweetwater has held the
contract with the Cityfor sixyears and has performed well.
At the beginning of eachswim season, staff creates a Purchase Order for lifeguard serviceswith the
contracted service providerbased on a budget amount that is an estimate of the actual cost. The actual
cost of the contract depends on two variables- public pool hours,and pool rentals.While rainouts
reduce the actual amount owed for lifeguarding services;pool rentals for private parties at the Wave
Pool, San Jacinto Pool and Northwest Pools increase the actual amount owed for lifeguardingservices.
The revenues generated by the after-hours private parties exceed the extra costof the lifeguarding
services.
Sweetwater Pools is expected to provide the same level of service as it has in the past at an hourly rate
that is projected to be within the budgeted amount. As stated above, the actual cost will not be known
until the end of the season. Should additional funds be needed (i.e. additional rentals, staffing, etc.) an
adjustment will be made at the end of the swim season.The contract is set for the next three years.
Sweetwater Pools, Inc.
Staff recommends award of the proposal by with the proposal most
advantageous for the City. Staff recommends approval for a base line Purchase Order for lifeguard
services in the amount of $133,294.
Action Required by Council:
Consider approval or other action authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with
Sweetwater Pools, Inc.
for lifeguarding services and approving a base line purchase order in the
amount of $133,294 for services to be provided for the 2013 swim season.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Approved for City Council Agenda
___________________________________________________________
Corby D. Alexander,CityManager Date
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Budget
Agenda Date Requested:March 25, 2013
Source of Funds: Fund 002 (Utility)
Requested By: David Mick
Account Number: N/A
Department: Public Works
Amount Budgeted:Not Budgeted
Report: X Resolution: Ordinance:
Amount Requested: $578,316.22
Exhibit:Site Map
Budgeted Item:YES ___ NO ___
Exhibit: Bid Tabulation
Exhibit: Bidders Notification List
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Staff provided an update to City Council on this project during the February 25, 2013 council
meeting. Council will recall that Harris County Pct. 2 was notified last Fall that Pct. 2 would
receive CDBG IKE grant funding to improve Farrington Boulevard from Fairmont Parkway to
Spencer Highway. In December, the City of La Porte was advised by Pct. 2that there were a
significant number of city water and sewer utility conflicts with the proposed road and drainage
improvements. The Harris County consultant’s 60% roadway and drainage design was available
to staff in January. City Planning and Engineering Departmentstaff was successful in designing
and bidding the utility relocation work with short notice and within in very tight schedule.
Advertised, Sealed Bid #13012 –Farrington Boulevard Utility Relocate was opened and read on
March 12, 2013.Solicitation requests were advertised in the Houston Chronicle, posted on the
City of La Porte website and notices were mailed out to 27 vendors. Seven additional vendors
either made inquiries or picked up plans.Paskey, Incorporated, located in La Porte, and
Horseshoe Construction, located in the La Porte ETJ area, were the only bidders.
Paskey, Incorporated provided the lowest and best bid of $539,849.02 for the Base Bid. Staff
included an Alternate Bid for the “Section A” items listed on the attached bid tab. The Alternate
Bid for the Paskey bid was $14,107.00 less than the Base Bid. The Alternate Bid method
includes tapping both ends of the new water main connections that will reduce service
disruptions for the water customers and is the method recommended by staff. The contract
amount then is reduced from $539,849.02 to $525,742.02. Staff requests funding of $578,316.22
from the Utility Fund Reserve for the contract amount of $525,742.02 plus $52,574.20
contingency (10.0%). This will reduce the number of days of working capital in the Utility Fund
to less than the recently-enacted city policy of 90-daysbut the working capital will still be
slightly greater than the previous 60-day working capital goal.
Staff’s February 25 report to council noted that the original Harris County consultant cost
estimate for the City of La Porte utility work was $540,000 including design. At that time staff’s
estimate was $400,000 for the relocation work. Staff identified two additional sanitary sewer
conflicts after the February 25 report to council that was notincluded in staff’s $400,000
estimate; neither were these conflicts included in the consultant’s $540,000 estimate.
Given the low response rate from bidders and the higher than expected bid pricing, staff believes
that it maybe in the best interest ofthe City to reject the current bids and re-bid the project.
While re-bidding does not guarantee a lower project cost, staff feels that the project’s very tight
timeline for completion contributed to both the higher pricing and the lower response.
Eliminating this constraint may open up the project to additional companies that could not meet
these specifications in the original bid.
Project Benefits, Liabilities, and Operating Cost:
Benefits:
Harris County Pct 2 proposes to upgrade their storm drainage facilities and concrete road
surface along Farrington Boulevard. The improved storm sewer system will greatly
reduce the potential for overland flooding into residential structures in portions of
Fairmont Park Sections One and Two. The current roadway condition is poor and
requires reconstruction.
Liabilities of Maintaining the Status Quo:
The city utilities are located within Harris County right-of-way and some of these
existing facilities must be relocated in order to allow Harris County to construct the
proposed storm and roadway improvements that will benefit motorists and the local
residents.
Operating Costs:
The majority of the relocation work involves the existing water main crossovers. These
mains are 50-years old and have required repair on numerous occasions over the past
several years. Replacing the mains will eliminate need for emergency repairs on those
replaced segments likely for several decades.
Action Required by Council:
Council may:
1.Consider rejecting all bids forSealed Bid #13012 – Farrington Boulevard Utility Relocate
and re-bid the project; or
2.Consider approval or other action authorizingthe City Manager to enter into a contract with
Paskey, Incorporated in the amount of $525,742.02, accepting the Alternate Bid, and
further allocating up to $578,316.22for this contract including a $52,574.20contingency
(10.0%). The $578,316.22contract will be funded from the Utility Fund reserve reducing
the working capital to just over 60-days; or
3.Direct staff to pursue any other option desired by the City Council.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Corby D. Alexander, City Manager Date
Waterline & Sanitary Sewer Crossing Relocation Along Farrington
Paskey Horseshoe
Paskey UNIT EXTENDED Horseshoe UNIT EXTENDED
Item DescriptionCOSTCOSTCOSTCOST
Item no.UOMQTY
SECTION "A" - Waterline (Base Bid)
1MobilizationLS1$34,850.00$34,850.00$10,000.00$10,000.00
2Traffic ControlLS1$11,797.00$11,797.00$5,000.00$5,000.00
3Remove and Dispose existing 12" PVC waterlineLF40$35.00$1,400.00$35.00$1,400.00
4Remove existing concrete pavementSY3300$0.99$3,267.00$25.00$82,500.00
5Remove and dispose existing 8" A.C. waterlineLF220$35.00$7,700.00$35.00$7,700.00
68" PVC C-900 waterline including excavation and beddingLF1362$92.51$125,998.62$118.00$160,716.00
712" PVC C-900 wterline including excavation and beddingLF231$113.08$26,121.48$125.00$28,875.00
812" 45-degree bend with Mega Lug Lok restraing (MJ)EA10$717.00$7,170.00$800.00$8,000.00
98" 45-degree bend with Mega Lug Lok Restraing (MJ)EA44$477.00$20,988.00$700.00$30,800.00
102" Sample TapsEA15$239.00$3,585.00$1,000.00$15,000.00
11Plug existing 6" waterlineEA12$275.00$3,300.00$500.00$6,000.00
12Plug existing 8" waterlineEA18$375.00$6,750.00$500.00$9,000.00
13Plug existing 12" waterlineEA3$475.00$1,425.00$500.00$1,500.00
146" to 8" PVC reducerEA5$183.00$915.00$500.00$2,500.00
156" to 8" PVC AC adaptorEA5$313.00$1,565.00$500.00$2,500.00
168" PVc-A"C adaptorEA3$413.00$1,239.00$500.00$1,500.00
17tie toexisting 6" WL (wet connect)EA5$3,379.00$16,895.00$2,000.00$10,000.00
18tie-in to existing 8" waterline (wet connection)EA7$3,579.00$25,053.00$2,500.00$17,500.00
19tie to existing 12" WL (wet connect)EA5$5,111.00$25,555.00$3,000.00$15,000.00
2012" x 12" T.S. & V.EA1$5,748.00$5,748.00$5,850.00$5,850.00
218" x 8" T.S. & V.EA1$3,468.00$3,468.00$5,000.00$5,000.00
2212" x 8" T.S. & V.EA11$3,888.00$42,768.00$5,000.00$55,000.00
23Temporary asphalt pavementSY3300$0.99$3,267.00$45.00$148,500.00
2412" plug & clampEA1$475.00$475.00$1,000.00$1,000.00
258" plug and clampEA7$375.00$2,625.00$800.00$5,600.00
266" plug and clampEA5$275.00$1,375.00$500.00$2,500.00
$385,300.10$638,941.00
Section "A" base bid
Paskey Horseshoe
Paskey UNIT EXTENDED Horseshoe UNIT EXTENDED
COSTCOSTCOSTCOST
Section "B" - Sanitary Sewer (Base Bid) UOMQTY
1Remove existing concrete pavementSY140$10.00$1,400.00$25.00$3,500.00
2temporary asphalt pavementSY140$20.80$2,912.00$45.00$6,300.00
3remove and dispose Ex 8" San. Sew.LF60$15.00$900.00$30.00$1,800.00
4plug existing 8" san. Sew.EA8$475.00$3,800.00$500.00$4,000.00
8" SDR 26 ASTM D 2241 San. Swr. Including excavation and bedding
(all depths)
5LF177$252.16$44,632.32$90.00$15,930.00
10" SDR 26 ASTM D 2241 San. Swr. Including excavation and beddin
(all depths)
6LF177$256.00$45,312.00$92.00$16,284.00
7Std manholeEA5$2,725.00$13,625.00$5,000.00$25,000.00
8extra depth manholeVF34$172.00$5,848.00$300.00$10,200.00
9proposed drop structureEA6$1,711.00$10,266.00$1,200.00$7,200.00
$128,695.32$90,214.00
Section "B" base bid
Paskey Horseshoe
Paskey UNIT EXTENDED Horseshoe UNIT EXTENDED
COSTCOSTCOSTCOST
SECTION "C" - Extra Work (base bid)UOMQTY
2412" G.V. with boxEA2$5,252.70$10,505.40$3,000.00$6,000.00
258" G.V. with boxEA2$4,499.70$8,999.40$2,000.00$4,000.00
266" G.V. with boxEA2$3,174.40$6,348.80$1,200.00$2,400.00
$25,853.60$12,400.00
Section "C" base-bid
Total project cost - base bid
$539,849.02$741,555.00
Paskey Horseshoe
Paskey UNIT EXTENDED Horseshoe UNIT EXTENDED
COSTCOSTCOSTCOST
Section "A" Waterline (ALTERNATE BID)UOMQTY
1mobilzationLS1$34,850.00$34,850.00$10,000.00$10,000.00
2traffic controlLS1$11,797.00$11,797.00$5,000.00$5,000.00
3Remove and Dispose Existing 12" PVC WaterlineLF40$35.00$1,400.00$35.00$1,400.00
4Remove existing concrete pavementSY3300$0.99$3,267.00$25.00$82,500.00
5Remove and dispose existing 8" A.C. waterlineLF220$35.00$7,700.00$35.00$7,700.00
68" PVC C-900 waterline including excavation and beddingLF1362$92.51$125,998.62$118.00$160,716.00
712" PVC C-900 waterline including excavation and beddingLF231$113.08$26,121.48$125.00$28,875.00
812" 45-degree bend w/mega lug lok restraing (MJ)EA10$717.00$7,170.00$800.00$8,000.00
98" 45-degree bend w/Mega Lug Lok Restraing (MJ)EA44$477.00$20,988.00$700.00$30,800.00
102" sample tapsEA15$239.00$3,585.00$1,000.00$15,000.00
11plug existing 6" waterlineEA12$275.00$3,300.00$500.00$6,000.00
12plug existing 8" waterlineEA18$375.00$6,750.00$500.00$9,000.00
13plug existing 12" waterlineEA3$475.00$1,425.00$500.00$1,500.00
146" to 8" PVC reducerEA5$183.00$915.00$500.00$2,500.00
156" to 8" PVC-AC adaptorEA5$313.00$1,565.00$500.00$2,500.00
168" PVC -AC adaptorEA3$413.00$1,239.00$600.00$1,800.00
17tie to existing 12" WL (wet connect)EA4$5,111.00$20,444.00$3,000.00$12,000.00
1812"x12" T.S. & V.EA2$5,748.00$11,496.00$5,850.00$11,700.00
198" x 8" T.S. & V.EA8$3,468.00$27,744.00$5,000.00$40,000.00
2012" x 8" T.S. & V.EA11$3,888.00$42,768.00$5,000.00$55,000.00
216" x 6" T.S. & V.EA1$2,928.00$2,928.00$3,500.00$3,500.00
22Temporary asphalt pavementSY3300$0.99$3,267.00$45.00$148,500.00
2312" plug & clampEA1$475.00$475.00$500.00$500.00
248" plug and clampEA7$375.00$2,625.00$500.00$3,500.00
256" plug and clampEA5$275.00$1,375.00$500.00$2,500.00
$371,193.10$650,491.00
20810 Fernbush Ln.
Houston, TX 770732500 W Main Suite G3
League City, TX 77573
PO Box 3684
Beaumont, TX 77704PO Box 2103
Alvin, TX 77512-2103
131 N Richey
Pasadena, TX 775062990 Holmes Rd
Houston, TX 77051
5715 Luce
Houston, TX 77087PO Box 1399
Stafford, TX 77497
4302 Almeda Genoa
11603 Windfern Suite C
Houston, TX 77048
Houston, TX 77064
7333 Monroe
PO Box 570
Houston, TX 77061
Baytown, TX 77522-0570
PO Box 6853
9353 Friendly Rd
Houston, TX 77093Kingwood, TX 77325
PO Box 11549015 Sweetbrush
La Porte, TX 77572-1154Houston, TX 77064
3636 Pasadena BlvdPO Box 1338
Stafford, TX 77477
Pasadena, TX 77503
7600 Sante Fe Dr Bldg A1
P.O. Box 5724
Houston, TX 77061
Pasadena, Texas 77508
Po Box 1075
Channelview, TX 77530
8400 La Porte Rd
16410 HuffmeisterHouston, TX 77012
Cypress, TX 77429
11228 East Hardy Rd
13405 Southwest Freeway,Suite 210Houston, TX 77093
Sugarland, Texas 77478
820 Old Atascocita Road1544 Sawdust Rd #200
Huffman, Texas 77336Woodlands, TX 77380
Web and other Requests
PO Box 6070
Austin TX. 78762
7035 W. Tidwell Suite J112
Houston TX. 77092
4555 Katy Hockley Cut – off
Katy TX. 77493
8450 Westpark, Suite 100
Houston TX. 77063
P.O. Box 594
Seabrook, Texas 77586
1410 Preston Ave., Bldg H
Pasadena, Texas 77503
2309 Battleground Road
La Porte, Texas 77571
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: March 25, 2013 Appropriation
Requested By: Stephen L. Barr Source of Funds: Fund 015
Department: Parks & Recreation Acc’t Number: 015-9892-647-1100
Fund15 Contingency
_X__Resolution: _____Ordinance: ____ Amount Budgeted: $158,818
Report:
Exhibits: Engineer’s Report & Cost Estimate Amount Requested: $192,500
Exhibits: NoBid Response by Vendors Budgeted Item: YES X NO
Exhibits: Bidder’s List
_______
Exhibits:Bid Tabulation
______________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The Wave Pool Mechanical Room is in need of extensive concrete and electrical repairs and re-fits
to bring it into an operational condition for the upcoming swim season. The project was budgeted in
this year’s capital improvement fund. After the initial assessmentby our Engineering firm,
additional problem areas were discovered and the estimated cost of repairs was submitted for
review.In January, staff requested additional funding and the City Council approved, based on the
Engineering Report and the estimated cost of repairs that was provided at that time.
The project was let for bids in February, withfifteencontractors invited to bid, of which many
th
attended thepre-bid conference. The bids were opened on March 12and two bids were received.
One bid was submitted for performing theelectricalcomponentonly; the secondbid was submitted
Aztec Remodeling and Landscaping, Inc.
for the complete projectbyin the amount of $175,000.
Prospective bidders were polled by the Purchasing Department as to why they had not bid the
project. The most prevalent answers were, “time constraints”, “bonding capacity”,and “too busy”
Aztec Remodeling and Landscaping, Inc.
(see attached NoBid Response).has performed work
for the City in the past, and is currently constructing the satellite restroom facilities at Pecan Park for
the City. The contractor has performed wellfor the Cityon both past and present projects.
The amended project budgetis $158,818, includingthe proposed contract and contingency amount,
based on the Engineer’s estimated cost. The shortfall between the actual bid received and the budget
is $16,182. The consulting engineeris recommending that a 10% contingency be allocated as well
to be able to address any hidden problem areas that may not have been identified in the initial
project assessment.Funds are available in the Capital Improvement contingency account in the
amount of $33,682, to cover the budget shortfall and contingency.
There is a second option to consider regarding this project. Because of the two rather large
construction projects that were let at the same time, contractors may have “hung their hat” on the
larger projects at the expense of this one. It is possible to rebid the project with the hope of attracting
additional contractors that may fit within our existing budget for this project. The drawback is that if
rebid, the renovation will not be completed prior to the pool opening, currently scheduled for
th
Memorial Day Weekend (May 25-27). Rebid will most likely delay the opening by a month or
th
so, which would mean that the pool would open around June 15.
A third option would be to operate the Wave Pool “as is” for another complete season. The
engineering consultant, as well as theCity Engineer, do not recommend this option as the condition
of the structure under operation, is consideredto betoo dangerous.
Staff is seeking direction from the City Council regarding the three proposed options:
Aztec Remodeling and Landscaping, Inc.
A.Recommend awardof the project to in the
amount of $175,000 with 10% contingency funding in the event there are as yet unidentified
problems with the structure, and appropriating availablefunding from the Capital
th
Improvement Contingency account, with projected completion on May 15.
B.Recommend rebid of project to attract additional contractors and possibly bring the project
th
back within budget,with projected completion around June 15.
C.Staff does not recommend Option 3, to operate the Wave Pool “as is”.
Action Required by Council:
A.Consider approval or other action awardingthe Wave Pool Mechanical Building
Aztec Remodeling and Landscaping, Inc.
Renovation to in the amount of $175,000 with
10% contingency funding for a total of $192,500, and appropriating available funds from the
Capital Improvement Contingency account; or
B.Consider rejecting current bids and rebid of project to attract additional contractors in hopes
th
of more favorable bids, with projected completion around June 15; or
C.Consider operation of the Wave Pool “as is”.
______________________________________________________________________________
Approved for City Council Agenda
___________________________________________________________
Corby D. Alexander,CityManager Date
CITYOFLAPORTE
WAVEPOOLMECHANICALROOMSTRUCTURALREPAIRSANDIMPROVEMENTS
CONSTRUCTIONCOSTESTIMATE
Engineer'sEstimate
Unit
ItemDescriptionUnitQuantityPriceTotal
1Mobilization,InsuranceandBondingL.S.1$7,000.00$7,000.00
2RoofandSoundStructureDemolitionL.S.1$2,500.00$2,500.00
3CMUWallSectionDemolitionL.S.1$1,800.00$1,800.00
4AirPlenumSectionandPavingDemolitionL.S.1$5,500.00$5,500.00
5ElectricalDemolitionandTempSupportL.S.1$3,500.00$3,500.00
6RelocationofAirCompressorL.S.1$2,000.00$2,000.00
7ReconstructionofAirPlenumcuyd17$750.00$12,750.00
8ReconstructionofCMUWallsqft243$20.00$4,860.00
9NewroofstructuralL.S.1$10,150.00$10,150.00
10Newroofdeckandcoversqft1794$5.00$8,970.00
11NewSoundattenuationstructureL.S.1$1,800.00$1,800.00
12RemoveandremountplenumductandhatchL.S.1$2,500.00$2,500.00
13Newelectricalroomslabcuyd1.5$400.00$600.00
14Newlightsunderroofcovereach15$270.00$4,050.00
15New600Amp,600VoltelectricalpanelL.S.1$10,000.00$10,000.00
16RemoveandremountelectricalinnewpanelL.S.1$3,000.00$3,000.00
17Paintingsqft5550$2.00$11,100.00
18Newacidfeedpumpsystemwcontaiment&elecL.S.1$7,000.00$7,000.00
19RemountingpipeandconduittonewroofstructureL.S.1$5,000.00$5,000.00
20RaisemaincontrolpanelandinstallnewbaseL.S.1$6,500.00$6,500.00
21ExtendandcutconduitsL.S.1$3,500.00$3,500.00
22NewelectricalroomdoorL.S1$2,600.00$2,600.00
L.S.1$2,500.00$2,500.00
23Resetgateandequipmentonnewwall
24NewMechanicalroomdoorL.S.1$4,800.00$4,800.00
25ConcretePavingsqft770$10.00$7,700.00
26InletgratesanddrainpipingL.S.1$5,500.00$5,500.00
27SiteGradingfordrainageL.S.1$3,000.00$3,000.00
28SiteCleanupL.S.1$1,200.00$1,200.00
29WasteDisposalandMiscellaneousItemsL.S.1$3,000.00$3,000.00
BaseBidAmount$144,380.00
CostCostEstimateEstimate ManninigManninigEngineeringEngineeringCorp.Corp.PagePage11
Derk Harmsen Construction – Not their forte;most of their workiswith chemical plants and
concrete/asphalt
Follis Construction – Bonding requirements; fairly complex and wanted to focus on Lomax
Project
L & M Contractors – Bonding requirements
Patak Construction – Focusing on Animal Shelter; prefers new construction to renovation
Frost Construction – too small of a project; working on Animal Shelter and Lomax Project
T & C Construction – Not their forte; they build lift stations, concrete bids, etc.
Oates Industries – Danny Earp is currently on the P&Z Commission and believes it to be a
conflict of interest; wants to remain on thebidders list to keep informed
Left message, no response to date:
Summit Builders
Paddock Southwest
2820 Center
15825 Tomball Parkway #5
Deer Park, TX77536
Houston, TX 77086
111 N Broadway
PO Box 512
La Porte, TX 77571
Seabrook TX. 77586-0152
511 S. Utah
2318 Center Street, Suite 110
La Porte, TX 77571
Deer Park TX. 77536
1927 Hwy. 146
2309 Center Street Suite A.
Kemah, TX 77565
Deer Park TX. 77536
th
2900 East X St
116 N. 16Street
La Porte, TX 77571
La Porte TX. 77571
5411 Killough
315 Main Street
Houston, TX 77086
Humble TX. 77338
PO Box 1616
Pasadena TX. 77501
Requested from Website
8450 Westpark, Suite 100
Houston TX. 77063
P.O. Box 594
Seabrook, TX 77586
621 W. Main
La Porte, TX 77571
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM
Budget
Agenda Date Requested: March25, 2013
Source of Funds: N/A
Requested By: David Mick
Account Number:
Department:Public Works
Amount Budgeted:
Report: Resolution: Ordinance:
Amount Requested:
Exhibit:Summary 02-13 Utility CIP
Exhibit:Sewer Overflow History
Budgeted Item:N/A – For Discussion
Exhibit: Watermain Age/Materials
Exhibit: Potential Bond Project Area
Exhibit: Draft 4-YRCIP
Exhibit: Water Projects on Hold
Exhibit: Utility Rate History
Exhibit: Utility Rate Survey of Other Communities
Staff is presenting a Utility Capital Improvement Program (CIP) report to City Council for
council’s consideration and comment at the March 25, 2013 council meeting. This update
includes a review of the Utility CIP over the 10-year period from 2002 –2011, staff’s vision for
a Utility CIP over the next 10-years, and a look at the funding necessary to complete the
improvements. Please note that all costs provided in this report have been adjusted to 2013
values.
Highlights of the Previous 10 – 15 years:
The city water and sewer utility system is in good overall condition. Fortunately, the utility
system has been significantly improved in recent yearsto the credit of past and present city
council members and city staff.
There has been a very dramatic decrease in the number of occurrences of untreated
sewageoverflows out of the collection or treatment system from 116 in 1995 to ZERO in
5of the last 10-years. The reduction in sewage overflows is a direct result of consistent
funding by the cityand the sewer maintenance staff’s efforts each year over the past 20-
years purposed toward reducing inflow/infiltrationin the sanitary sewer system.
There were significant improvements made to the city waste water treatment plant
between 2002 – 2009 totaling $12-millionincluding an expansion in the treatment plant
capacity from 16.8-million gallons per day (MGD) to 21.8-MGD (2-Hr Peak Flow).
Since 2004, 8 lift stations were rebuilt or rehabilitated with a total cost of $3-million.
Existing water mains were replaced along portions of Main Street (2012), Broadway
(2010), Sens Road [water and sewer] (2010), Valleybrook (2009), Spenwick Subdivision
(2008), Bayshore [water and sewer] (2004), and Carlow (2003) at a cost of approximately
$5.4-million.
The city extended new water and sewer mains at Bay Area Blvd Water (2010), McCabe
Road Sewer (2009), South La Porte Sewer (2008), SR 146 Water (2008), Future Bay
Area Blvd Sewer (2004), Canada Road Water and Sewer (2004) with a total cost of
approximately $7.7-million.
The city’s inventory of lift stations was reduced from 41 to the current 36 with the
various sanitary sewer extensions and lift station construction projects.
The average annual utility capital improvement budget for the 10-year period from FY
2002 – FY 2011 was $3.3-million/yearincluding the wastewater treatment plant
improvement projects. $2.1-million/year not including the treatment plant projects.
The city now enjoys a TCEQ rating of “Superior” water quality rating (last 15-years).
Existing Utility System:
Utility system value = $500-million
Water System:
185-miles of water main (not including services in r/o/w and easement areas)
o
3200 water valves
o
1300 fire hydrants
o
4 elevated water towers
o
6 water production plants and booster stations
o
Pump approximately 1500 MG
o
Sewer System:
167-miles of sewer main (not including laterals in r/o/w and easement areas)
o
2800 manholes
o
36 lift stations
o
21.8-MGD wastewater treatment plan
o
Moving Forward:
The city’ssewer and water infrastructure is in very good condition overall as mentioned
previously. But there will be potential problem areasin any $500 millionsystem, particularly,
wheresome system components are in excess of 40 – 50-years old.
Staff’s focus moving forward: 1) continuethe aggressive sanitary sewer inflow/infiltration
programthat has been in place the last 20-years, 2) increasethe contract water main replacement
to 2-mile per year plus the current 1-mile per yeargoal for city crews, 3) extend gravity sanitary
sewer to eliminate aging lift stations –particularly in the area north of Spencer (including
Lomax) that is being pumped in stages toward the Fairmont Park subdivision (Lift Station #30
located at Wilmont and Fairmont), 4) respond to a potential increase in USEPA and/or TCEQ
effluent standards for the wastewater treatment plantif/when new standards are enacted, 5) re-
prioritize projects identified for construction in the city’s 2009 Water Master Plan and move
forward with construction accordingly.
45% of the city waterlines (83-miles) are more than 40-years old. The cost to remove
and replace 83-miles of water main is estimated at $50-million. With city crews
replacing a portion of the mains each year along with an annual contract goal to replace
an additional 2-miles of waterline per year, the inventory of 40(+)-year old watermain
would be replaced over the next 30 – 40-years. Overall,the frequency of watermain
failures on the system is lowto moderate at this point in time. With this in mind, Public
Works staff believes a 30 –40 year replacement program to be reasonable until a greater
frequency of watermain breaks dictates a more accelerated replacement rate.
A significant percentage of the city watermain that is in excess of 40-years old consists of
asbestos concrete (AC) pipe. A plot of the locations of watermain breaks repaired by city
crews during the high point of the 2011 shows that the breaks were particularly
concentrated on 10 –12 miles of AC pipe. In general, the failure rate of AC pipe is
known to significantly increase with age beginning at about 30-years.
10 of the city’s 36 lift stations are 40-years or older. The anticipated service life of a lift
stationis approximately 40-years. The value of the 10-lift stations and force mains is
approximately $7-million. Staff is envisioning a potential $7-million - $10-million bond
project in three to five years to construct a large diameter sanitary sewerextension
designed to take perhaps up to six of these lift stations offline and is moving forward with
a Preliminary Engineering Report to assess the feasibility and cost of this project.
Staff recently submitted the city’s wastewater treatment plant discharge permit renewal to
TCEQ. Past updates from TCEQ suggests that TCEQ may be considering more stringent
effluent requirements for wastewater treatment plant facilities that discharge to Galveston
Bay. If that is the case, staff will likely be notified with TCEQ’s comments to the city’s
application for permit renewal. The comments could conceivably translate into
additional wastewater treatment plant improvements.
The city’s 2009 Water Master Plan identified 9 projects totaling $3.8-million to be
constructed between 2010 –2017. (The project list is attached.) Two of the projects
were constructed. Seven projects totaling an estimated $3.5-million have been set aside
pending additional funding.
Utility Budget and Billing Rates:
The 1998 – Current rate history summary for the City of La Porte is attached. Residential
utility billing rates remained the same or decreased slightly from 1998 to 2005; increased
40% over a 3-year period including 2005 (27.5% increase), 2006 (5.9% increase), 2007
(3.0% increase); rates have not changed since 2007.
The current city utility rate schedule is attached along with a comparison the City of La
Porte water and sewer rates compared with 29 other municipalities statewide with a
population of 30,000 – 50,000 and a comparison of La Porte to 11 other local municipal
agencies.
La Porte’swater plus sewer rates are 48% belowthe average among the 30 communities
from across the state for residential customers at 5000 gallons/month and 33% belowthe
average for residential at 10,000 gallons/month.
La Porte’s water plus sewer rates are 32% belowthe average among the 12 local
communities for residential customers at both 5000 gallons/month and 10,000
gallons/month.
La Porte’s commercial rates seem to be average to slightly below average compared to
the local and statewide communities surveyed.
It should be noted that the majority of the survey data was obtained from the Texas
Municipal League (TML) and is slightly dated. Some of these communities will have
increased their rates since the survey was taken.
Consumption Approx. Share
GroupConsumption
Residential (Single) 68 %
Residential (Multi-Family) 12 %
Commercial 13.5%
City 1.5%
Non-Profit 2 %
Industrial 3 %__
100%
Residential customers provide approximately 60% of the utility revues.
Item Balance of Funds
FY 12_13 Non-CIP Utility Expenses: Cost Remaining
(FY 12_13 Projected Utility Revenue) $8,060,000
Personnel $2,535,000 $5,525,000
Purchase Water $1,740,000 $3,785,000
Bond Debt $862,000 $2,923,000
Utility BillingDivision$758,000 $2,165,000
Electric$615,000 $1,550,000
Services & Charges (Motor Pool, Machinery, etc.)$490,000 $1,060,000
Non-Dept $270,000 $790,000
Supplies (Chemicals, Gas/Oil, etc.) $200,000 $590,000
TCEQ $115,000 $475,000
Meter Supplies/Water Tap Material $45,000 **$430,000
Utility Expenses Prior to CIP Projects: $7,630,000 **Balance Available
For CIP Projects
The estimated $430,000 funds projected to be available for CIP projects in FY 12_13
may end up being $0 to $1-million with a few percent increase or decrease in water
consumption this fiscal year.
Staff’s recommended Utility Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget is $2-millionper
year. The estimated $430,000 projected to be available for CIP projects will likely be
absorbed by inflation costs over the next two years.
One option
for funding an annual $2-millionCIP program is to consider a $1.50 per
1000 gallon “Capital Improvement ReserveFee” added to the rate structure. The city
bills an average of 1.3-billion gallons/year x $1.50/1000 gallons = $1,950,000.
Benefits of a Capital Improvement Reserve Fee:
Fairly consistent revenue from year to year gives staff the ability to better plan
o
longer term (5-year) CIP program.
More uniform project work load from year to year. The current cycle for CIP
o
funding is: 1) period of declining funds available for CIP projects each year, 2) a
significant increase in utility rates (40% total rate increases over 2005 –2007), 3)
another period of declining CIP funding.
The impact of a $1.50/1000 gallon Capital Improvement Reserve Fee on residential
customers is approximately $4.00/month added to the bill of a single person; $9.00 -
$10.00/month of the average residential customer. Still the La Porte residential rates
would still be 7% (10,000 gallons/month) –21% (5,000 gallons/month) below the
average of the 30 communities (30,000 – 50,000 population) surveyed across the state;
9% (10,000 gallons/month) – 7% (5,000 gallons/month) below the average of the 12 local
communities surveyed.
The potential cost increase to the large-volume water consumers (some of the
polymer/chemical plants, La Porte ISD, city) will be a consideration. Staff will run a
report of the potential impact to these customers. A $1.50/1000/gallon fee would elevate
the commercial rates from slightly below average currently to 6% - 11% above the
average of the 12 local communities surveyed.
The city’s utility-related bond debt payments will decrease by approximately $300,000 in
2016 and another $600,000 (city share of $690,000 La Porte Area Water Authority
annual debt service) in 2017. Staff anticipates that a portion of the $900,000 per year
may be applied toward a bond project to construct the large diameter sanitary sewer
designed to eliminate several Lomax-area lift stations that was described earlier in this
report.
Summary:
The city’s utility system is in very good condition thanks to the commitment and effort of current
and previous city council and city staff. The La Porte residents and business owners benefit now
from nearly $34-million in system improvements (2013 $) completed between 2002 – 2011
including over $12-million of improvements to the wastewatertreatment plant and a utility
capital improvement program averaging $2.15-million per yearduring that 10-year (2002-2011
period). The projected utility budget for next fiscal year is less than $400,000 assuming that the
current rate structure remains the same. Public Works staff is recommending that City Council
consider the need for a 10-year program moving forward very much resembling the program
completed from 2002 –2011 with a CIP program of $2-million/year and the potential for a $7-
million to $10-million bond project to extend a large diameter sanitary sewer designed to
eliminate up to six existing lift stations constructed in the late-1960’s/ mid-1970’s. One option
to consider for generating additional revenue necessary for a $2-million/year utility CIP program
would be a $1.50 per 1000 gallon “Capital Improvement Reserve Fee” that would provide an
average of $1.95-million in annual revenue for utility CIP projects.
Action Required by Council:
Staff is requesting council consideration and comments at the March 25, 2013 council meeting
with perhaps further discussion at the upcoming council/staff budget retreat if desired by the
council members.
Approved for City CouncilAgenda
Corby D. Alexander, City Manager Date
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM
Budget
Agenda Date Requested:March 25, 2013
Source of Funds: N/A
Requested By: David Mick
Account Number:
Department:Public Works
Amount Budgeted:
Report: Resolution: Ordinance:
Amount Requested:
Exhibits:Street Tour Noteswith Cover Memoand Map
Budgeted Item:N/A – For Discussion
Exhibits:Age of Concrete Streets Rated a 6 (of 9) or below
ExhibitsDraft HDR Street Assessment Report
Exhibits USGS Report Summary of Area Soil Types
At theirSeptember 24, 2012meeting,City Councilauthorized a $28,670 professional services
contract with HDR Engineering, Inc. to inspect and rate all city-maintained roadways and to
build the street centerline component of the city’s GIS mapping program to include the pavement
inspection ratings, roadway widths and surface types. A copy of HDR’s preliminary report is
attached.
At the February 25, 2013 meeting, council asked staff for a map of streets proposed to be toured
by staff along with notes associated with each street. This information was provided to the
council members the week of March 4 and is attached with this report.
Goals ofthis discussion item include hearing City Council’s perspective on a desired level of
service, whether or not alternatives to removing and replacing concrete streets such as asphalt
overlay of concrete streets might be worth considering, andultimately, the level of funding City
Council and staff may be able to consider over the next five years for street rehabilitation.
Concrete Streets:
A few statisticsregarding the City’s concrete streets:
Linear miles concrete city streets = 70.
Total value of concrete (only) city streets = $106-million
Percentage city streets concrete = 62% (SY), 58% (centerline miles).
The first concrete citystreets constructed =1955.
Service life for concrete streets = 35 – 45 years.
Of the city’s concrete streets, 64% - almost two-thirds - is now 40+years old.
Approximate value of concrete (only) streets 40-years or older = $68-million.
A few isolated sections of concrete roadway was removed and replaced in the last five
years due to pavement condition including a section of Valleybrook, Old Orchard Road,
and Antrim Lane. These roadway segments were 53 – 55 years old atreplacement.
Aside from those few exceptions, the primary focus of our more significant maintenance
activities has been on 38% (non-concrete portion) of the city system considering that the
other 62% (concrete) was still in generally good condition.
While soil, traffic volume and construction methods certainly play a role in the longevity
of any roadway,a generalization can be made looking at the consultant’s inspection
ratingsthat pavement age may be the most significant factor in determining the condition
of the city-maintainedconcrete roadways.
Concrete Percent of City Average
PavementConcrete Street Running Age (Yr)
Rating [1]Pavement AreaTotalPavement [2]
2 1.3% 1.3% 48 [3]
3 6.0% 7.3% 47
4 30.5% 37.8% 42
5 25.9% 63.7% 41
6 18.0% 81.7% 24
7 17.6% 99.3%
8 0.6% 99.9%
9 0.1% 100.0%
Notes:
[1] Pavement ratings are on a scale of 1 (worst) to 9 (new).
[2] Weighted average
[3] Two of the three concrete streets rated a 2 are 58 years old.
Staff’s cost estimate/square yard (SY) of concrete pavement street removal and
replacement was based on the project cost (excluding drainage and utilities)for projects
over the past five-years adjusted for construction cost index.
Project
Adjusted Cost/SY [4]
th
8 Street (2010) $104
Fleetwood Drive (2010) $ 71
Old Orchard (2008) $ 88
Valleybrook/Atrium (2010) $ 56
Average $ 80/SY
Add 12.5% for design, construction services: Use 90/SY
[5]
Notes:
[4] Cost includes removal and replacement of existing streets, curb, sidewalk (if
necessary), drive aprons, and handicap ramps. This cost does not include the cost
of utility replacement of 50-60 year old water and sewer infrastructure that may
be necessary when replacing 50-60 year old concrete streets.
[5] The consultant’s budget estimate =$94/SY
Other Considerations (Concrete Streets):
While staff utilized the age of the streets to help predict the amount of work that might be
expected over the next 20-years, the actual prioritization of streets would depend on the
pavement condition(roughness, joint deflection),traffic volumes, whether or not it is
grant eligible,the potential need for other improvements (i.e. drainage or utility
improvements) within the roadway rather than pavement age.
There may be circumstances where asphalt overlay over existing concrete streets can
provide an improved road surface for a period to extend the service life of the concrete
basefor City Councilconsideration. Asphalt over concrete can extend the service life of
the roadperhaps even a decade or two. This would help balance the cost over subsequent
20-year periods (currently two-thirds of the total cost over the next 20-years, something
significantly less over the two 20-year periods that follow). However, this would change
the look of the subdivision streets from concrete to asphalt.
Non-Concrete Streets (Asphalt, Chip Seal, Gravel):
The city has 40.3-miles of asphalt, 14.6-miles of chip seal and 0.8-miles of gravel drives.
In terms of square yards, this constitutes 27%, 10.5%, and 0.5% of the city roadway
surface arearespectively.
The service life for asphalt streets =8-years to 20-years depending on soils and traffic
volume. 12 – 15 years is generally considered to be the average time for an asphalt street
to require resurfacing.
With Public Works crews preparing the roadways ahead of contractor resurfacing, the
average rehabilitation cost is estimated to be $15/SY.
The estimated cost to resurface city streets on a 15-year cycle with city crews preparing
the roadways ahead of the asphalt contractor is $650,000/year contract + $70,000 in
materials for city crews.
Other Considerations (Asphalt Streets):
Staff has developed a list of asphalt streets located east of SR 146 for Harris County’s
consideration to include with the Pct. 2’s BetterStreets2Neighborhoods program. Pct. 2
preference is for asphalt (only) streets that are not so deteriorated that the streets need
major base repair or rebuilding but that will in a few years without intervention at this
time. Pct. 2 will put the item on the county commissioner’s court agenda for the
commissioner board to set the budget and authorize the request.
OtherConsiderations (General):
Attached is a copy of selected pages from the USGS Harris County Soil Survey Report
summarizing the characteristics of the Beaumont and Lake Charles clays that are
prevalent in La Porteand the bay area.In general these soilsare not especially well
suited for roadway construction and may adversely impact the service life of the existing
city roadways.
Recommendation:
Consider several funding options including:
Where the “Base Budget” includes annual expenditures approximately equal to:
Contract Asphalt Resurfacing: $ 650,000
Repair Isolated Concrete Pavement Sections: $ 190,000
Asphalt Materials for City Crews: $ 70,000
Slab Jacking Isolated Concrete Slabs $ 30,000
New Handicap Ramps (Where none currently)$ 30,000
Total “Base Budget”: $ 970,000
Option 1: Maintain current funding levels equal to the street tax revenue of approximately
$870,000 per year. Reduce $100,000 from the above Base Budget.
Option 2: Consider funding for replacing concrete 1/60 of the city streets assuming a 60-year
life cycle. This is the funding level necessary to rebuild concrete streets on a 60-year life cycle if
the streets were expected to fail at a uniform rate over the next 60-years. However, the city may
be in a situation that up to two-thirds of the city concrete streets will begin to fail over the next
20-years. It will take repeat inspections every four years to know more precisely the rate of
pavement deterioration that can be anticipatedover the subsequent 20-year period.
Annual Program:
Remove and Replace Concrete Streets: $1,770,000
Base Budget$ 970,000
Total: $2,740,000
Current Funding from Street Tax: - $ 870,000
Source of Funding To Be Determined: $1,870,000
Option 3:Consider funding for replacing concrete streets at an average age of concrete
pavement equal to 55-years old. Re-evaluate after a follow-up comprehensive inspection in four
years.
Annual Program:
Remove and Replace Concrete Streets: $3,300,000
Base Budget$ 970,000
Total: $4,270,000
Current Funding from Street Tax: - $ 870,000
Source of Funding To Be Determined: $3,400,000
This level of funding though assumes 100% city funded and 100% concrete removal and
replacement. The reality is that staff will continue to pursue outside funding opportunities and
consider more economical alternatives (asphalt overlay of existing concrete streets for example)
to 100% concrete removal and replacement.
Option 4: Consider funding an amount midway between Option 2 and Option 3. This level of
funding will allow for the concrete streets to be replaced on a 60-year average cycle andwill
provide additional funding to catch up with the higher percentage of streets that will surpass 60-
years service in the next 20-years. Re-evaluate the anticipated rate of future pavement
deterioration after a follow-up comprehensive inspection in four years.
Annual Program:
Remove and Replace Concrete Streets: $2,535,000
Base Budget$ 970,000
Total: $3,505,000
Current Funding from Street Tax: - $ 870,000
Source of Funding To Be Determined: $2,635,000
Action Required by Council:
Staff requestsCity Council consideration and comments at the March 25, 2013 council meeting
with perhaps further discussion at the upcoming council/staff budget retreat if desired by the
council members.
Approved for City CouncilAgenda
Corby D. Alexander, City Manager Date
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Budget
Agenda Date Requested:March 25, 2013
Source of Funds: N/A
Requested By:Corby Alexander/Tim Tietjens
Account Number: N/A
Department: CMO/Planning
Amount Budgeted:N/A
Report: X Resolution: Ordinance:
Amount Requested:N/A
Exhibit:PlanningAudit Report
Budgeted Item:YES ___ NO ___
Implementation Matrix
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
At the Special Called City Council meeting of February 18, 2013, the Planning Audit final report
and recommendations were presented along with an implementation matrix showing priority for
future action and responsible parties connected with each recommendation. Council was asked to
provide direction on the recommendations with particular emphasis on those in which
organizational culture and high level direction is necessary.
In accordance with Council direction, the report and the implementation matrix are being
presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at theCommission’snext available meeting
of March 21. Because of the timing of the meeting dates, the Planning and Zoning Commission
comments have not yet been received as of the preparation of this agenda item. Therefore, staff
will forward the results of the Planning Commission review as a supplemental memo on Friday,
March 22. The above referenced items together with the supplemental memo will be reviewedat
the March 25 City Council meeting date.
Action Required by Council:
Receive staff report and provide direction regarding recommendations and implementation
priority.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Corby D. Alexander, City Manager Date
City of La Porte
Planning Department
Organizational Review
Final Report and Recommendations
Mueller Management/Ron Cox Consulting
February 6, 2013
City of La Porte
Planning Department Organizational Review
Final Report and Recommendations
Table of Contents
Page
I.Introduction 2
II.Recommendations 4
Process Recommendations
A.Communication 4
B.Cumbersome Processes 6
C.Site Plan Review Process 8
D.Permitting Intake/Issuance 10
E.Code Enforcement 12
F.Inspections 13
G.Miscellaneous 14
Organizational Culture Recommendations
H.Mission & Goals 15
I.Departmental Cohesiveness 18
J.Trust 19
Code Recommendations
K. Code Recommendations 20
Zoning Code 20
Development Ordinance 23
Other 25
III.Conclusion 25
IV.Exhibits
A. Site Plan Review Flowchart
B. Permit Intake/Issuance Flowchart
1 Planning Department Review Consulting
I. Introduction
On September 24, 2012, the City of La Porte engaged Mueller Mana
Consulting, to perform an organizational review of the Planning
organizational reviews in various departments of the City was identified by the City Council during the FY
2013 budget planning process. The Planning Department was chose
due to its high frequency of customer/citizen interaction points
have a significant impact on the communitys perception of the City gov
Specifically, the purpose of this review was directed toward evaluating departmental policies,
procedures, practices, and codes to identify improvements that m
and improve customer service. In particular, the processes invo
issuance were identified as areas of emphasis.
The underlying strategy of the analysis by the consulting team was to identify internal perceptions and
external perceptions as they relate to the identified issues/p
perceptions of internal participants (employees) align or differ
Planning Commission, customers) was analyzed to identify gaps in desired-versus-provided service
levels.
Internal perceptions were gathered from individual interviews with each member of the Planning
Department and members of other City departments who are involved with the site plan and building
permit processes. Further, the site plan review process and theand issuance processes
were flowcharted to identify potential gaps or inefficiencies in thos
External perceptions were obtained by individual interviews with each member of the City C
Planning and Zoning Commission. To further validate the percept
interviews, three separate focus groups were convened one focused on code enforcement; one with
contractors/designers; and one with business owners.
An interim report, summarizing the internal and external observations, organized under 10 major
themes, was presented to City Council on December 10, 2012. Subsequent report
presentation, the consulting team conducted the following activi
The interim report and several specific customer concerns that w
focus groups were reviewed with the Planning Department division managers. This
review provided an opportunity for the staff to better understand and accept the reality of
the issues at hand and begin to be part of the recommended solutions.
Management recommendations were developed to address the organizational culture,
communication, and trust themes that were identified in the interim report.
2 Planning Department Review Consulting
The flow-charted processes were analyzed for efficiency and communication
improvement opportunities.
Organizational, process, and communication improvements were developed. Suggestions
offered by the electedand appointed officials, customers and employees were
incorporated.
The zoning and development codes were evaluated for potential recommendations to
improve their functionality and address concerns raised by the customer groups.
Implementation Recommendations:
Implementation of the recommendations will present many opportunities for organizational and
leadership development within the department and with customers. An effective method of
implementation is the use of task forces organized around a spec
Membership in the task forces should primarily consist of employ
also consist of representatives of the customer groups identifieEach task force should be
managed by a team leader appointed by the Director. Each team leader will
completing and reporting on the final implementation.
It is also important to reinforce the revised processes with underlying improvements in culture, trust,
and cohesiveness. The process improvements will not be fully successful until t
organizational culture is redirected toward better cooperation internally and a customer focus
externally. A variety of tools are available designed to enhance the organizational culture. A
commitment by City Council and management toward this holistic approach will enhance the full
implementation of the improved customer service attitude.
Acknowledgements:
The consulting team wishes to thank all members of the City Coun
Managers office, the Planning Department, and the customer focu
great cooperation from each person we spoke with and encountered
information we requested. All participants were very candid in their comments and believed
negative and positive comments would be used in the spirit of imMany
positive suggestions were put forth by the individuals and groupere
incorporated into these recommendations.
The consulting team appreciates this opportunity to be of servic
that these recommendations will add value to your customers exp
effectively perform their jobs. This report concludes our engagement,
provide additional assistance should you or the staff desire an
implementation.
3 Planning Department Review Consulting
II. Findings and Recommendations
The internal observations, external perceptions, and a preliminary assessment of the implications of
these observations and perceptions were documented in the interim report. The topics presented in
this report generally correspond to the themes that were coveredthe interim report. A set of
findings are presented for each topic along with a series of rec
finding. The topics are grouped into process, organizational culture, and code-related
recommendations.
Process Recommendations
The following process-related recommendations are intended to respond to concerns expr
customers and incorporate procedural improvement possibilities o
These improvements are designed to improve communication and access to information; reduce the
time required to obtain permits and improve the customer experie
Department.
A.Communication
Findings
The variety of independent prerequisites before the issuance of a building permit provides multiple
opportunities for ambiguity and difficulty in coordination. Cur
charged with coordinating all aspects of a project from initial
be challenging for customers to know exactly which sub-applications apply for a particular project
and the correct submittal sequence.
Staff acknowledged that multiple resubmittals do occur, but gene
result of poor plans being submitted or designers modifying unrelated items (on which the
additional comments are based). There is a gap between the perceptions of t
staff that needs to be resolved.
Recommendations
1.Pre-Development Meetings with customers:
i.Establish routine days and times for pre-development meetings when staff will
be available.
ii.Establish which staff is required to attend the pre-development meetings, and
hold those staff accountable for attendance. Establish a protoco
4 Planning Department Review Consulting
responsibility to the appropriate person for notifying the staff
attendance requirement.
iii.Publicize the availability and schedule of pre-development meetings on the web
site and in the Planning Department lobby. Encourage staff to r
preference for using the pre-development meeting format whenever possible in
their interactions with the public.
iv.Develop a pre-development meeting checklist that outlines all of the permits
that may be necessary for a particular project, so that the appl
aware of the multiple steps that may be needed before they make their first
submittal. Also, provide fee schedules associated with each of the applicab
permits.
v.Utilize the pre-development meeting to review the checklist and have staff
available to elaborate and answer questions. Also, utilize this meeting to
communicate lessons learned from similar projects, such as critical review i
and long lead-time aspects of the permitting process, to assist the customer i
planning their overall schedule.
2.Host periodic forums for the development/contractor/business community to open
and maintain an opportunity for dialogue. These forums can be utilized to
communicate such topics as new codes, frequently encountered pro
receive feedback and suggestions from developers and contractors. The goal is to
establish and maintain open lines of communication between the d
customers to reduce the perception that involving management or
order to achieve solutions. Establishing open rapport will facilitate a collaborative
problem-solving environment between staff and customers.
i.Initially a quarterly schedule is recommended; re-evaluate frequency after the
first year.
ii.Depending on the interest of participants, the city may want to
forums into more focused topic sub-groups (for example, separate planning,
engineering, and inspections forums).
3.Establish a centralized database of previous code interpretationcessible to the
staff and public; or display in a FAQ format.
4.Ensure that the need for address verification and utility verifi
consistently; document the need on related forms and communicate early in the
application process.
5.Ensure that all permit application forms and related information (that was provided to
the consultants in the binder) are available on the website. At a minimum, provide
5 Planning Department Review Consulting
printable PDF files, but preferably as live forms that can be completed an
electronically.
6.To the greatest extent possible with the current computer system
available on-line so that applicants can obtain status updates as easily as p
Where the computer system falls short, establish an information
status of projects and provide contact information to the custom
information. The objective is to develop a system within the constraints of t
computer software system, to provide substantive information to omer on a
timely basis.
7.Post the office hours by the outside door. City hall hours are posted, which may cause
customers to think the office is closed when it is actually open
8.Departmental staff should proactively notify the city management
interactions that may be reasonably expected to evolve into more
relations situations.
9.Revise the Planning & Zoning Commission public hearing agenda format. The
following agenda sequence is proposed:
i.Staff Presentation
ii.Applicant Presentation
iii.Public Comments (for, against, or simply questions)
iv.Question and Answer
The current public hearing agenda format encourages the Commissi
before all of the information has been presented and also puts tion
of answering questions better answered by the applicant. The Commission should allow
all information to be presented in items i-iii before asking questions under item iv. Any
questions posed by the public during item iii should be noted by
then asked by the Commission during the question and answer peri
question and answer period, questions should be directed by the
the staff or applicant, depending on who is in the better position to answer the
particular question.
B.Cumbersome Processes
Findings
The cumbersome nature of the NaviLine software system appears to
sluggishness and inconsistencies that customers experience. Iro
6 Planning Department Review Consulting
processes too difficult to navigate and work without permits, this also increase
code enforcement division.
Recommendations
1.Track certain permits outside of the NaviLine system to eliminat
that does not add value for example: fill dirt, utility verification, culvert, address
assignment, site plan review.
i.A separate logging and tracking system (database or spreadsheet) n
developed and made available on the server so all staff members
update information and check status as needed.
2.The driveway permit process should be modified so that culvert s
part of driveway permit process rather than as a separate applic When a
driveway permit (issued by the Inspections Division) requires a
culvert permit (issued by the Engineering Division) is also requ
primarily consists of specifying the correct diameter for the cu
for a non-driveway application, the culvert application would still be a s
application.
3. Complete the water and sewer GIS layer and make available to the. The
internal utility verification process can be eliminated completely by allowing the public,
land owners, and engineers to access the data directly. However, in the inte, within
the current utility verification process:
i.Ensure that the drawing of the existing utilities is provided to as
part of the response to the applicant.
ii.If NaviLine is continued to be used to track utility verificatioave a
PDF of the utility drawing as an attachment to the NaviLine file so that all data
related to the request can be obtained in one location.
4. Until NaviLine is able to produce the information needed for the monthly reports, the
reports should be reconfigured to eliminate the time and effort needed to track
information manually. Currently, some data for the monthly and quarterly reports is
tracked manually because it is not accessible from NaviLine.
5.Establish and publish plan review time goals for the most common
This information will provide the customer with a reasonable expectation and esta
accountability for the staff.
7 Planning Department Review Consulting
6.Allow simple plan sets to be reviewed quickly while more complex
reviewed in the background. To expedite simpler plan sets, establish and use a priority
process rather than a chronological (first come-first served) policy.
7.Establish a simplified fence permitting process. The current system is both time
consuming and expensive and is a source of consistent frustratioTo
expedite standard fence replacements in the same location, do no
formal surveys. Utilize standard details as a condition of appr
attachment of runners and pickets, etc.). If a fence is on a cone,
perhaps require consent from the neighbor to waive the site plan
further relaxation, the site plan requirement for new fences cou
location restrictions being issued as permit conditions.
8.Upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy, paper inspection files should be purged.
Maintaining the paper copies of plan review comments, permits, a
takes considerable staff time. The content of these files is ge
that has been or should have been entered into the NaviLine permit file.
9.Establish a consistent philosophy to utilize PUDs to simplify, rather than complicate,
development applications. Several people who were interviewed reported that the
current implementation of PUDs actually makes approval of a project more difficult,
rather than facilitating the unique situations they are intended
with the organizational culture initiatives previously discussed
PUDs to facilitate development, rather than as a mechanism to add additional
requirements, should be encouraged and enforced by management an
C.Site Plan Review Process
Findings
The site plan review process affects a wide variety of businesse
applicant has with the City. As currently structured and administered, the prs confusion
for many applicants and creates a poor first impression.
Recommendations
1.Compile and agree upon staff review comments before meeting with the applicant.
2.Establish appropriate review protocol between the Planning and Fire Departments.
Evaluate need for fire marshal to be involved with site plan revconsider whether or
not one Fire Department representative can handle all fire-related review comments.
8 Planning Department Review Consulting
This will better define and possibly reduce the number of people involved
process.
3.Develop and consistently use checklists for each reviewer. The contents of each
checklist should be unique to the items for which each reviewer is responsible and
approved by the Planning Director. Periodically update the checklists as new or
recurring issues arise. The checklists can be provided directly to the applicants in
advance to better inform them of the requirements. Further the c
can also be provided to the applicants to eliminate the time and effort required to
compile all comments into one review letter.
4.Ensure all reviewers are submitting comments electronically in a
(Word document or NaviLine) using the checklists described above; also consider
requiring reviewers to provide marked-up plan sets for return to the applicant.
5.Ensure review deadlines for each application are communicated an for all
reviewers (inside and outside of the Planning Department).
6.Establish review turn-around time goals for re-submittals.
7.Establish and enforce a policy that additional comments will not
resubmittals. Exception: when the applicant has made changes to the plans subsequent
to the prior submittal.
8.Research the ability of NaviLine to assign a project number usin
number (if NaviLine tracking of site plans is continued). Currently, s
can not be entered until an address is assigned. This sometimes results in a delay of
processing while the address verification process is completed.
9.Ensure NaviLine is sending automatic notices of new site plan ap
all reviewers (if NaviLine tracking of site plans is continued).
10.Establish and post annually a schedule of deadline dates for sub
comments, resubmittals, and the corresponding Planning and Zonin
meeting date on which action will be taken (if applicable).
11.Consolidated review comments that are sent to the applicant should be provided to all
reviewers. These consolidated comments will allow each reviewer to be aware of the
full context of comments that were made.
9 Planning Department Review Consulting
12.Ensure NaviLine is placing a hold on release of building permits site plan is
approved.
13.Automate the generation of the final site plan approval letter s.
14.Replace the manual building permits release form currently bthe
Inspections Division with the automated letter described above.
15.Develop a screening questionnaire to help applicants better prep
this can be reviewed and provided at the pre-development meeting.
i.Communicate to applicants the need for an address request to acc
precede a site plan application.
ii.Communicate to applicants that the proposed electric meter locat
for determining a proper address.
iii.Communicate to applicants the need for a utility verification re
accompany or precede a site plan application.
16.Make available to applicants a sample of a good site plan application to use as a
reference in preparing their application.
17.Re-evaluate the site plan application form to ensure all requested
necessary; remove unnecessary or unused information to make submittal simpler for
the applicant.
D.Permitting Intake/Issuance
Findings
Customers perceive difficulty in timely receipt of consistent pl
permits. In some cases, customers also experience complications
information. Reducing redundant internal procedures will free up staff time for more meaningful
tasks and customer communications. Providing a process to stream
permits to trade contractors would address several customer concerns.
Recommendations
1.Investigate and implement the ability to allow permit applications to be completed
and submitted electronically with payments made on-line, over-the-phone by credit
card, or with an escrow fund. At a minimum, contractors should have the ability to pay
for and obtain simple trade permits on-line.
10 Planning Department Review Consulting
2.Allow contractors to open escrow accounts against which permit fees ca
to eliminate the need for recurring checks and trips to city hal
permits.
3.Ensure that building plan review turn-around time goals are established and enforced
for all staff members involved with plan review.
4.Establish and enforce a policy that additional comments will not
resubmittals. Exception: when the applicant has made changes to the plans subsequent
to the prior submittal.
5.Redundant paper logs should be eliminated with the data being retrieved fr
NaviLine when needed. There are multiple paper logs used for tracking various permit
applications and the status of those applications. Examples inc
(tracks applications during plan review), over the counter log (
other delivered documents), roof permits log, temporary and portable sign log,
clearing/fill dirt/storm water quality log, new code enforcement case log, and a follow
up code enforcement log. Periodically, the data on these logs are typed into a
spreadsheet for archiving, but the original paper logs are also Additionally,
there is a separate database maintained for water and sewer taps
Most of the information entered on the logs is also entered into NaviLine as part of the
process to set up the permit file in the system. If NaviLine is
tracking the review steps, a separate database should be set up in place of the paper
logs, so that the tracking information can be easily entered, updated, queried, and
accessed from the network by all staff members. The database should be set up to track
the info needed for the various permit types, but only require t
for the particular permit type. The database should also be made available to the public
so that applicants can see the review status of their applications.
6.The Inspections Services Technicians should log Planning Division-related applications,
such as site plans and zone changes. A consistent logging process as described above
should be developed for all Planning Department applications to
differentiation between processes for each division.
7.Ensure the plan review comments from outside the Planning Departare
coordinated with the comments from within the department and returned to the
applicant simultaneously from a single source with the Planning
comments.
11 Planning Department Review Consulting
8.Ensure all three front counter technicians have the same job des
adequately cross-trained; each have areas of specialty, but workload should always be
balanced.
9.Ensure all three front counter technicians have access to the sa
notes files and all relevant NaviLine modules.
10.Plan review for clearing permits conducted by a Parks Department representative and
Engineering and Planning Divisions should be done simultaneously
serially. A simultaneous review process will expedite the issuance of the permits.
11.Adopt one consistent suite of building codes. Currently, a mixture of the International
and Uniform Building Codes are utilized for different trade spec
customers perspective only one suite of codes should be adopted and utilized.
E.Code Enforcement
Findings
Some customers report difficulty in ascertaining the status of service requests. Inef
processes affect the timeliness of data being available and add a redundant burden to the
Inspection Services Technicians. From a broader perspective, there are differing opinions as to the
preferred focus of code enforcement efforts an even distribution, or a focus on hot spots or repeat
offenders.
Recommendations
1.Implement a method to allow the inspection notes/results to be transferred
electronically to NaviLine. Currently the notes are taken in the iPad, printed, and then
input into NaviLine by the Inspection Services Technicians.
2.Develop the GIS so that the status of code enforcement cases can
graphically and accessed directly by the public. This will aid citizens in being able to
quickly ascertain the status of a complaint they called in or to
in their neighborhood. Additionally, the graphical representation will assist staff in
identifying recurring problem trends as an aid to targeted enfor
3.Conduct quarterly forums with citizens and homeowners groups. These forums can be
utilized to identify hot spots in the community that may need special a
code enforcement and provide a system for follow up.
12 Planning Department Review Consulting
F.Inspections
Findings
There are opportunities to improve the customers experiences asd
consistency. Many customer suggestions centered on interactivity improvements such topics as the
ability to submit permit applications, request inspections, or v-line.
Customers also requested improvements to consistency in the interpretations made by different
inspectors. Internally, there are several paper-based tracking processes that are redundant to
electronic processes.
Recommendations
1.Assign inspectors by project rather than geographically. This system will allow the
customer to have a consistent representative throughout the construction process;
other inspectors are still available to cover vacations or for c
2.Provide an opportunity for the assigned inspector to be involvedl
plan review before final approval. This system will reduce the occurrence of the field
inspectors enforcing codes differently than the plan reviewer.
3.Allow trade permits to be finalized as the work is completed pri
certificate of occupancy. Several customers commented that the current process does
not allow them to receive trade finals until the final certifica
building is approved. This practice causes delays in subcontrac
out their contracts and receive final payment.
4.The inspectors should use their iPads to document field inspecti
for direct transfer to the NaviLine system. The current process requires the inspectors
to hand-write notes and inspection results in the field. The results are then entered by
the Inspection Services Technicians into the NaviLine system. T
a method to electronically link the iPad with NaviLine needs to
change would free up office staff time and allow inspection results to be posted much
more quickly, while not adding additional work for the inspector
5.Implement an on-line inspection request system that could interface directly wit
NaviLine to save considerable staff time. The process of pulling inspection requests
from the answering machine, transcribing the information onto w
entering data into NaviLine is time-consuming. The current process of attaching the
white ticket to the inspection folder and then re-stapling it into the ticket book is
13 Planning Department Review Consulting
redundant and should be eliminated as all of the needed information should be
transferred to the NaviLine file.
6.Interface the NaviLine system with the website so that inspectio
viewed on-line by the contractor or owner.
G.Miscellaneous
Findings
During the course of the review, the consulting team noted sever, which are
addressed in the following recommendations.
Recommendations
1.Re-evaluate the need for extended office hours; shift technicians t-5
shift with a rotation for one technician to arrive early to pull
requests.
2.Executed utility reimbursement agreements should be added as an attachment to the
relevant water and/or sewer line database file in GIS. This will facilitate tracking, help
to ensure proper payments are required of new development, and i
cost has been reimbursed to the initial developer.
3.Establish streamlined street and alley abandonment procedures available under state
law; establish a prioritized schedule for systematically abandoning-of-
way, rather than inefficiently responding to ad hoc requests.
4.The duties formerly assigned to eliminated Planning Division per
assigned to specific employees to ensure clear lines of accounta With the recent
reduction of Planning Division personnel, duties of prior employ
between the planner and the office coordinator, but specific res
varies on case by case basis.
5.Zoning notification letters and mailing labels should be generat
notification list by a mail merge function rather than manually.
6.The NaviLine system should be programmed to automatically print
tap work orders to avoid the delays and manual steps inherent in the current method
Currently, when a work order request for a new water or sewer ta
Inspections Services Technician, the utility superintendent does not receive an
automatic notification. The superintendent has to periodically check the system to see
14 Planning Department Review Consulting
if there are new work order requests. Additionally, the superin
several administrative steps in order for NaviLine to print the
7.The Survey Party Chief job description should be updated. The job description does
not match the current duties of the position.
8.GIS Division:
i.The non-GIS tasks assigned to the GIS Manager should be shifted to other staff
members so that the GIS manager can appropriately focus on development of
the GIS and management of GIS-related personnel. If the efficiency and
automation recommendations related to the Inspections Services Technicians
are implemented, those individuals should be freed up to assist
productive work.
ii.Provide additional GIS and Laserfiche licenses and training to relevant
Inspections Division staff members to allow staff to obtain information more
directly without having to involve the GIS Manager.
iii.Properly fund and execute the GIS development program to facilitate data
availability for customers. A more functional GIS will improve the publics ability
to get the information they need to prepare better plan submitta
up staff time currently occupied with manually obtaining that da
customers.
Organizational Culture Recommendations
This engagement has identified many process issues within the Pl
that making the changes that have been identified in the first p
immediate results. It is also believed that to ensure a more complete and more meaningful change
in the organization, more than just process should be addressed.
Departments organizational culture were identified. These findings and recommendations are
addressed below. It is also believed there is a need to better align the organizational culture o
Planning Department with the philosophy of the City Council. Wor
the Council can place the City on a better tract toward the same both with
these organizational and process changes, but the success of the
H.Mission & Goals
Findings
There is an opportunity to enhance the department employees understanding and buy-in for the
mission and goals of the City and Council and management for the department. Developing
15 Planning Department Review Consulting
improved processes and procedures will not have full effect unle
department is addressed and aligned with the Citys overall goal
Recommendations
1.Discern a consensus between City Council and management regardin
customer service philosophy for the Planning Department.
i.The City Council and staff should work together to discuss and d
economic development philosophy of the City. The result of this
should provide staff with better guidance on what development projec
are/are not acceptable in the community. This gives better guida
when approached for zoning changes and other development conside
ii.The City Manager, Planning Director, and City Council should discuss and
establish an understanding regarding the degree to which City Co
staff to interpret codes in favor of customer perspectives and e
projects. This discussion should give definition to providing sense
answers to customers without being too technical, or too liberal
interpretations. The result of this discussion should encourage
better judgment calls with the security to know they will be sup
City Council.
iii.City Council should establish for themselves guidelines for approp
responses to citizen complaints/concerns.
iv.The City Manager and City Council should discuss and agree upon
appropriate channel and method for communicating complaints/conc
including whether or not City Council should coordinate through
Manager or directly with department employees. These protocols s
the feeling by staff they are in a constant state of defense, av
gotcha syndrome some feel is present.
v.The City Manager, Planning Director and City Council should disc
to an understanding regarding the preparation, presentation and
amendments to the various codes and ordinances (staff has been t
previous councils it is not their job to bring proposed amendments). This should
assist the staff in knowing when and how to present needed amend
meet changes in state law, changes in process and changes in loc
to enhance customer service.
vi.Staff should develop meaningful communication opportunities rega
successes and challenges within the department to enhance City C
that staff is timely and sensibly responding to City Council and
inquiries.
16 Planning Department Review Consulting
2.Develop an updated mission statement, guiding principals, and goe Planning
Department and each Division.
3.Encourage a departmental culture of problem solving, assisting a
solutions and overcoming impediments, rather than focusing on mi
Increase the staffs understanding of the customers schedule an
time is money is a true adage. Inculcate an attitude of colla
customers, instead of power and control, to overcome the god syported by
some customers.
i.Conduct periodic all-employee meetings to reinforce departmental
philosophies-mission, guiding principals and goals.
ii.Conduct periodic employee organizational development exercises t
existing internal trust and communication barriers.
iii.Use a more structured new employee orientation and training/ment
system to ensure new employees adopt and express the desired cus
service philosophies.
4.Establish and enforce a culture of mutual respect between the Citnning
Commission, staff, and customers.
i.Conduct facilitated sessions between the City Council to determine the Councils
collective leadership philosophy regarding economic development
City.
ii.Conduct facilitated sessions between the City Council, Planning & Zoning
Commission and staff to deliver that philosophy as well as align
Commission and staff need to take within their respective authorities.
iii.Meet periodically with customers to ensure that philosophy is bo
and is in line with community needs.
iv.Conduct regular follow up sessions with Council, Commission and
long-term alignment.
5.Establish an understanding that staff will be supported by City
management when making judgment calls consistent with the agreed upon common
sense parameters. As stated earlier, frank discussions between City Council and st
should allow for the development of common understandings of how
can be in interpreting code issues, and better define common sense answers to issues
that do not overstep authority of the staff or provide the basis
decision making.
6.Establish Planning Commission bylaws and rules of procedure incl
i.Conflict of interest, participation, abstentions, and voting.
17 Planning Department Review Consulting
ii.Differentiate member roles for zoning, site plan, platting, and
functions of the Commission.
iii.Define and enforce appropriate protocol and decorum expectations
iv.Ensure Commission members are availed of training and education
opportunities.
v.Establishing a schedule and process for periodic review of codes
directly related to the work of the Planning Commission.
I.Departmental Cohesiveness
Findings
There is an internal tension between the divisions of the department that may cause
communication errors and process difficulties. A lack of cohesi
not functioning as efficiently as possible and customers experie
Recommendations
1.Change the name of the department to Planning and Development
Development Services , or similar to better reflect the overall
responsibilities of the department. A divide between the Inspections and
Planning/Engineering Divisions has been identified. One possible cause for the divide is
the name of the department does not represent all aspects of the
a Planning Division, which has only one member, within the Plann
There is an Engineering Division that is not identified at all within the department. The
name of the department implies that planning is its primary func
diminish the perceived importance of the other divisions within
different name for the department would be more inclusive of all
functions and could serve as a first step in reducing internal t
2.Establish one staff member, with a department-wide focus, responsible for
shepherding applications through all phases from inception to fi This
person should be charged with communicating all steps and prereq
particular project at the pre-development meeting. This person should be empowered
with the authority to make judgments (common sense decisions), to reconcile conflicting
inter-division requirements and to facilitate timely and successful co
projects.
Currently, applicants with complex projects must interact serial
divisions and multiple contact persons. This system allows staffbers to be more
concerned with their individual processes/permits rather than on-wide
18 Planning Department Review Consulting
focus of achieving an overall successful and timely project for
dividing the department. From the applicants perspective, thern internal, rules-
based focus as opposed to an external project-completion focus.
3.Establish clear lines of responsibility/accountability for the various permitting
processes. Define an approver and reviewer(s) for each major process.
and enforce accountability for each employees role. Enforcing ac
reduce the need for other employees to fill gaps. When employe
created by others, resentment between employees is generated; pr
customers experience conflicting guidance, confusion, and frustrati
4.Develop a review and comment system that will resolve all issues
with the customer. Recognize that individuals involved with inspections, code
enforcement, and engineering generally tend to be more left-brained and logically-
oriented, and individuals involved with planning-related fields generally tend to be more
right-brained and creative-oriented. When employees interact with other members
of the department, recognizing these different perspectives will facilitate
communication and problem-solving. Resolving differences in perspective internally
before presenting the departments official interpretations to t
expedite the process and enhance the quality of service to the customer.
J.Trust
Findings
There is a lack of trust between some members of the department resulting in staff member
overcompensating for the deficiencies they perceive. This situa
creating confusion and uncertainty as to the correct staff direc
efficient as they could be due to the gaps and overlaps caused b-hoc modifications made in
response to these patterns.
Recommendations
1.Establish a culture of greater trust and open communication amon
of the department.
i.One outward sign of a lack of trust within the department are th
one division needing a sign-off from another division before a process can
proceed. These situations appear to be based more on self-protection than on
actual documented procedural requirements.
19 Planning Department Review Consulting
ii.Organizational development exercises to identify gaps in trust w
action on closing those gaps should have the effect of extending better service
to the customers.
2.Establish a culture of greater trust and open communication betw
City Council. Earlier recommendations spoke to City Council and staff working
to determine their working relationship for customer complaints,
overall economic development philosophy. Resolution of these iss
discussion and clear directives also allows for open communicati
trust between the groups.
3.Revise the monthly and quarterly report format to emphasize communication o
successes, problems, and obstacles in lieu of purely statistical The statistical
portions of the reports should be augmented to provide more cont
month versus same month previous year; or year-to-date versus same date previous
year. This format provides more meaningful benchmark type inform
management and City Council and helps measure progress and/or pr
on gaps that need to be closed.
K.Code Recommendations
Findings
The zoning code and development ordinance were reviewed in lighteinforce
improvements recommended under the themes identified during the This
review was focused on items that may be an impediment to efficie
the ease of use from the customers perspective. This review waintended to be the exhaustive
review that should be conducted to ensure the codes are consistent with the recently adopted
update of the comprehensive plan.
Recommendations
1.Zoning Code Recommendations:
i.106-62. Planning & Zoning Commission Membership and Structure
The current Commission size and appointment method is atypical. ntment
of members by district may promulgate any district tensions that
the Council level and may be an impediment to a city-wide planning
perspective. The Commission should be a more typical seven memb
only condition that they are qualified voters of the City and appointments made
by a majority vote of the entire City Council. The Commission s
own chairperson and other officers. The City Council should con
20 Planning Department Review Consulting
advertising vacancies on the Board as broadly as possible, requi
application form, and conducting interviews of applicants before appointment.
Additionally, the City Council and Planning Commission should conduct at least
annually a joint, facilitated workshop to ensure the two bodies maintain
shared vision and common goals.
ii.106-64 (10) Bylaws and Rules of Procedure
This section permits the Commission to establish bylaws and rule
The staff should prepare drafts of such documents for review and
by the Commission.
iii.106-65 Review of Chapter
This section requires an annual review by the Commission of the
development ordinances. The staff should establish an annual sc
lead the effort to present proposed revisions to the Commission.
iv.106-87 Board of Adjustment Rules
If not already in place, the staff should prepare rules of proce
and consideration by the Board.
v.106-333 Table B, Residential Area Requirements, footnote 12
It is unclear to which building setback (front, rear, side) anwhich land use
type this opaque screening requirement applies.
vi.106-333 Table B, Residential Area Requirements, footnote 14
This footnote requires an additional 25-foot buffer between multi-family and
single-family developments. It is unclear if this buffer is intended to be
landscaping only or if parking, for example, is allowed within t
vii.106-334 Special Use Performance Standards; Residential
Generally: There are a variety of special conditions in this se
back to other underlying zoning districts. These conditions sho-
referenced back to the underlying districts, so that the reader
these requirements.
viii.106-334 Special Use Performance Standards; Residential; Subsection (a)
Subsection (a) of this section requires landscape buffers, but it is unclear as to
when or where this buffer requirement applies.
ix.106-441 Table A, Commercial Uses
This table uses SIC codes to delineate uses. Staff should devel an alternate
table using NAICS codes for consideration.
x.106-444 Special Use Performance Standards; Commercial; Subsection (a
Subsection (a.1) of this section requires planting strips, but it is unclear as to
when or where this requirement applies.
xi.106-444 Special Use Performance Standards; Commercial; Subsection (a.3)
This subsection requires certain parking lots to be screened; if
is intended to apply to the front of such parking lots, the requ-foot
height is excessive. This subsection also requires manufactured
21 Planning Department Review Consulting
and subdivisions to be screened from abutting uses, but it is un if the
screening requirement is the responsibility of the commercial ow
manufactured housing/subdivision owner. Additionally, for large
lots that are only partially developed, this screening requirement should only
apply if the site is developed in proximity to the abutting use.
xii.106-441 Table A, Industrial Uses
This table uses SIC codes to delineate uses. Staff should devel
table using NICS codes for consideration.
xiii.106-637 Procedures for establishing a PUD; Subsection (c)
The individual items on the list of 12 submittal requirements should
if the specific item is not applicable to the scope or context o
xiv.106-637 Procedures for establishing a PUD; Subsection (h)
The code should be modified to allow certain development authori
issued prior to final approval of the PUD and all related genera
This will facilitate construction phasing on large or complex projects. Examples
of early permits that should be allowed include clearing and gra
and utilities, provided that the corresponding subset of the pla
approved prior to commencement of construction.
xv.106-659 PUD Special Regulations and Procedures; Subsection (b.3)
The requirement that a sufficient amount of useable open space is provided is
ambiguous and should be quantified. Developers generally prefer
regulation so they do not have to guess and negotiate the requir
xvi.106-678 PUD Building Height
The maximum building height limitation should be removed to prov
additional flexibility. Surrounding residential properties are
the setback requirements of Section 106-696(c.2).
xvii.Article V: Supplementary District Regulations
Generally: There are a variety of special conditions in this Ar
back to various underlying zoning districts. These conditions should be cross-
referenced back to the underlying districts, so that the reader
these requirements.
xviii.106-801 Tree Preservation
Various terms should be defined, such as native tree , protect
replacement tree . Subsection (b) prohibits the destruction of
greater than six-inch diameter; however, Section 106-802 allows removal of a
protected tree as part of a building permit if the tree is repla
replacement trees. There is a conflict in this language as it appears all tree
removal is prohibited, but also allowed under certain conditions.
xix.106-835 Design Standards
This section including all related figures should be consolidate
Improvements Criteria Manual or a new Private Improvements Crite
22 Planning Department Review Consulting
as applicable. These moves will consolidate technical criteria, allow easier
updating as warranted by new conditions or technology, and give
greater flexibility in granting common sense exceptions when n
expedite a project.
2.Development Ordinance recommendations:
i.General Comments:
1.The Development Ordinance should be codified to eliminate the need
for customers and staff to cross-reference multiple ordinance revisions
to determine the full code requirements.
2.Submittal copies: References to submittal or distribution of a specific
number of copies of various documents (general plans, plats, etc.)
should be removed from the ordinance and established by separate
policy so that staff can readily update the requirements based o
latest needs.
3.Submittal dates: References to specific submittal deadlines should be
removed from the ordinance and established by separate policy so
staff can readily update the requirements based on the latest ne
Additionally, as previously discussed, submittal and re-submittal
deadlines and review time goals should be established and published by
staff. References to statutory Planning Commission action deadlines
should remain in the ordinance.
4.Appendices: Staff should have the authority to update the appen
(technical specifications and procedures) as new conditions warrant.
This can be accomplished by adding a section to the ordinance
authorizing staff to update the appendices or by removing the
appendices from the ordinance and placing them in the criteria m
Regardless of which method is chosen, any staff changes to the
appendices should only be effective after an appropriate notice
waiting period, say 30 days, after posting the proposed change o
website.
5.Update the references to Director of Community Development , wh
is an outdated title. Use City Manager or designee to make the
reference more generic and flexible.
6.Do not put building setback lines on plats inside the city limits; rely on
zoning ordinance to establish setbacks to avoid potential confli
ii.4.00 Sketch Plans
The submittal of sketch plans is optional so it should be remove
Additionally, the intent of the sketch plan review process will
more fully if the pre-development meeting recommendations are implemented.
23 Planning Department Review Consulting
iii.4.01 (D) Official General Plan
The code states that an approved general plan expires after one
has not been filed and upon written notice to the subdivider. T
creates a gray area if the city fails to send the written notice
should simply expire after one year without notice. Further, th
the subdivider to request a one-year extension, but does not stipulate if the
extension is automatically approved or if the Commission needs t
approve the request.
iv.4.03 (C) Preliminary Plats: Effect of Approving Authority Action
The code states that an approved preliminary plat expires after one year if a
final plat has not been filed and upon written notice to the subdivide
potentially creates a gray area if the city fails to send the written notice. The
preliminary plat should simply expire after one year without notice. Further,
this section allows the subdivider to request a one-year extension, but does not
stipulate if the extension is automatically approved or if the C
to act to approve the request.
v.4.04 (D) Final Plats: Recordation and Construction of Public Improvements
The code states that an approved final plat expires after one year if a
construction of the public improvements has not commenced and upon written
notice to the subdivider. This potentially creates a gray area
send the written notice. The final plat approval should simply expire after one
year without notice. Further, this section allows the subdivider to request a
one-year extension, but does not stipulate if the extension is autom
approved or if the Commission needs to act to approve the reques
Additionally, an alternative should be provided to allow the subdivider to submit
a performance bond for completion of the public improvements if they
record the plat before the public improvements are completed.
vi.5.01 General Street Standards
Table 5-2 (Street Geometric Design Standards) should be moved to the Pub
Improvement Criteria Manual.
vii.5.01 (J) Alleys
The City should consider the practice of continuing to allow new alleys to be
platted. Based on the prior complications and cost of maintaini
provision of alleys, at a minimum, should be at the discretion o
than the developer.
viii.5.04 Building Lines
The building line requirements in this section should be consoli
Zoning Ordinance to avoid conflicts and the need to cross-reference multiple
locations to find the same information. Setbacks applicable to the ETJ should be
specifically specified.
24 Planning Department Review Consulting
ix.10.00 Fees and Charges
The fee schedule should be pulled from this ordinance and combin
city fees in a consolidated fee ordinance that can be readily re
annual basis or as needed.
x.12.00 Open Space and Park Dedication
State laws regarding park dedication requirements have been updated
subsequent to 1985 when the Development Ordinance was adopted.
section should be reviewed for conformance with current law. Ad
fee in lieu of dedication should be removed from this section an
with other fees for easier updating as needed.
3.Other Code Recommendations:
i.Industrial District water and sewer agreements are calculated ba
of employees Need an alternate method because the number of employees is
often not known at the time the agreements are prepared, particularly in the
case of companies starting new operations within the City.
ii.Comprehensive Plan sidewalk requirements: Develop a specific list of streets to
which the sidewalk requirements apply and corresponding sidewalkiteria;
place these requirements in the Development Ordinance.
iii.Resolve questions about whether or not fill dirt permits should
projects involving fewer than five loads.
iv.Establishing minimum finished floor elevations for infill development in the
floodplain could be accomplished with a pier and beam requirement rather than
by utilizing dirt fill to minimize the perception of run-off impacts on neighboring
properties.
v.Several focus group members suggested the removal of the requirement for
gates on dumpster enclosures as being impractical ineffective.
vi.Staff has compiled a list of proposed ordinance updates based on
experiences. This list should be presented to the Commission fo
recommendation to City Council.
III. Conclusion
The consulting team believes implementation of these recommendat
goals of improving the customer service responsiveness, efficieneffectiveness. We appreciate
this opportunity to be of service to the City and we are available for questions or additional
engagements to assist with the implementation phase.
25 Planning Department Review Consulting
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: Mar25, 2013 Appropriation
Requested By: Traci Leach Source of Funds:
Department: Administration Acct Number:
Report:X Resolution: Ordinance: Amount Budgeted:
Attachments: February2013 Payment Report Requested:
Attachments: February 2013 Delinquent Account ListBudgeted Item(s): YES NO
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
At the request of the City Council, staff is providing an update of delinquent taxes paid for Council review
as well as a complete listing of all delinquent accounts. The report for February2013isattached as an
exhibit.
Staff will be present to take note of any accounts that Council has questions about and will provide follow
up as necessary.
A
ction Required by Council:
None.
Approved for City Council Agenda
___________________________________________________________
Corby D. Alexander, CityManager Date
Receive report from City Manager
La Porte Chamber of Commerce, State of the Cities Luncheon, Wednesday,
March 27, 2013
Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting, Thursday, March 28, 2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, April 8, 2013
La Porte Development Corporation Board Meeting, Monday, April 22, 2013
City Council Meeting, Monday, April 22, 2013
regarding matters appearing on the agenda; recognition of
community members, city employees, and upcoming events; inquiry of staff regarding
specific factual information or existing policies– Councilmembers, Zemanek, Leonard,
Engelken, Mosteit, Clausen, Martin, Moser, Kaminski and Mayor Rigby.
The City Council reserves the right to meet in closed session on any agenda item should
the need arise and if applicable pursuant to authorization by Title 5, Chapter 551, of the
Texas Government Code.
into regular session and consider action, if any, on item(s) discussed in
.
executive session