HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-24 Regular Meeting
e
e
.-
e
e
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL
JULY 24, 2000
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Norman Malone at 6:00 p.m.
Members of City Council Present: Councilpersons Chuck Engelken, Howard Ebow, Peter
Griffiths, Deotis Gay, Charlie Young, Jerry Clarke, and Norman Malone.
Members of Council Absent: Guy Sutherland and Alton Porter
Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City Manager Robert T.
Herrera, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Assistant City Manager John Joems,
City Secretary Martha Gillett, Finance Director Cynthia Alexander, Assistant Finance
Director Mike Dolby, Director ef Administrative Services Louis Rigby, Planning
Director Doug Kneupper, Assistant City Secretary Janis Goulder, Street Supervisor Billy
Davenport, Public Works Director Steve Gillett, Purchasing Manager Susan Kelley,
Utility Maintenance Worker Jose Molina, Equipment Operator II Danny Cavazos,
Assistant Fire Chief Champ Dunham, Assistant Public Works Director Buddy Jacobs,
and Fire Chief Mike Boaze.
Others Present: Sib Carpenter, Fred Muston, Jack Oliphant, Ed Matuszak, Dean Snider,
Kay Snider, Bill Scott, Harvill Weller, Mary Beth Maher, George Cooney and a number
of citizens.
2. Reverend R. Holmes - Redeeming Faith COGlC delivered the Invocation.
3. Council considered approving the minutes of the Regular Meeting on July 10, 2000.
Motion was made by Councilperson Clarke to aoorove the minutes oHhe Regular
Meeting of July 10,2000 as presented. Second by Councilperson Gay. The motion
carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Gay, Young, Clarke, and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: Griffiths and Engelken
4. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICA nONS, AND CITIZENS AND
TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL.
The following citizens addressed City Council.
Gerald Cooney - 3917 Sunrise, La Porte, Texas 77571 - Mr. Cooney informed council
he opposed the Port expansion and was concerned about property values reducing.
Mary Beth Maher - 3610 Miramar, Shoreacres, Texas 77571 - Ms. Maher informed the
council she opposed the Port expansion and had many concerns for the community if the
expansion occurs.
e
e
Page 2 - Council Minutes - 7-24-00
Dean Snider - 202 Bay Colony Dr., La Porte, Texas 77571 - Mr. Snider informed the
Council he and his wife both had concerns and were opposed to the Port expansion.
Pat Muston - 117 Garfield, La Porte, Texas 77571 - Mrs. Muston informed the Council
she opposed the Port expansion and requested the City Council to do anything they can to
stop it from occurring.
A. Galveston Bay Gonservation and Preservation Association - participation in cost
sharing study to review Corp of engineer's draft environmental impact study.
Mr. Harvill Weller - 311 Lakshore Dr., Seabrook, Texas 77586 - Mr. Weller
represented the Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association. Mr.
Weller informed Council his group opposed the Port expansion. In addition, he
requested Council provide funding to participate in their study of the
environmental impact study.
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. Employees of the Quarter Utility Maintenance Worker Jose Molina and
Equipment Operator II Danny Cavazos.
Public Works Director Steve Gillett and Street Supervisor Billy Davenport
recognized these two employees and presented them with a plaque.
6. Council considered approving a resolution to execute a funds transfer agreement and wire
transfer authorization form with Bayshore National Bank.
Director of Finance Cynthia Alexander presented summary and recommendation.
City Attorney read: RESOLUTION 2000-11 - A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO EXECUTE A FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENT
AND WIRE TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION FORM WITH BA YSHORE NA TlONAL
BANK; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING LAW; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Council person Young to approve Resolution 2000-11 as presented
by Ms. Alexander, Second by Council person Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Engelken, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke, and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
7. Council considered approving a resolution authorizing the acquisition of rights-of-way
for flood control purposes in the City of La Porte.
Assistant City Manager John Joerns presented summary and recommendation.
City Attorney read: RESOLUTION 2000-12 - A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE
ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR FLOOD CONTROL PURPOSES IN THE
e
e
City Council Minutes 7-24-00 - Page 3
CITY OF LA PORTE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS
LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion was made bv Councilperson Gay to approve Resolution 2000-12 as presented by
Mr. Joerns. Second by Councilperson Clarke. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Engelken, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke, and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
8. Council considered approving three ordinances authorizing the City of La Porte to
execute the following agreements with United Rentals:
A. Industrial District Agreement with United Rentals for the term commencing January
I, 2000 and ending December 31, 2007
B. A Water Agreement with United Rentals to provide potable water service
C. A Utility Extension Agreement with United Rentals for construction and installation
of an extension of utility main(s)
Director of Planning Doug Kneupper presented summary and recommendation.
Assistant City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2000-IDA-13 - AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORE OF AN
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH UNITED RENTALS, FOR THE
TERM COMMENCING JANUARY I, 2000 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2007;
MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING LAW; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Assistant City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2000-2419 - AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LA PORTE TO ENTER INTO A
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED RENTAL; MAKING VARIOUS
FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
Assistant City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2000-2420 - AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LA PORTE TO ENTER INTO A
UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH UNITED RENTALS; MAKING
VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT;
FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETING LAW; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion was made by Councilperson Engelken to approve Ordinance 2000-IDA-13,
Ordinance 2000-2419 and Ordinance 2000-2420 as presented by Mr. Joerns. Second by
Councilperson Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Engelken, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke, and Malone.
Nays: None
e'
e
City Council Minutes - 7~24-00 - Page 4
Abstain: None
9. Council considered approving an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the
amendment to contract between the City of La Porte and La Porte Area Water Authority.
Director of Public Works Steve Gillett presented summary and recommendation.
City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2000-2421 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF
POTABLE WATER AND THE CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERATION
OF WATER TREATMENT TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION, FACILITIES
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE AND THE LA PORTE AREA WATER
AUTHORITY; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO
THE SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW;
AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion was made by Councilperson Engelken to approve Ordinance 2000-2421 as
presented by Mr. Gillett. Second by Councilperson Young. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Engelken, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke, and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
10. Council considered approving an ordinance to amend the contract between the cities of
La Porte, Shoreacres and Morgan's Point and authorizing the Mayor to execute the
amendment to contracts between the cities of La Porte, Shoreacres and Morgan's Point
and the La Porte Area Water Authority,
Director of Public Works Steve Gillett presented summary and recommendation.
City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2000-2422 - AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND
AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF
POTABLE WATER AND THE CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERA nON
OF WATER TREATMENT TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION, FACILITIES
BETWEEN THE LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF
SHOREACRES, THE CITY OF MORGAN'S POINT, AND THE CITY OF LA
PORTE; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVlSIONS RELATING TO THE
SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Motion was made by Councilperson Clarke to approve Ordinance 2000-2422 as
presented by Mr. Joems. Second by Council person Engelken. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Engelken, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke, and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
11. Consent Agenda
e
e
City Council Minutes 7-24-00 - Page 5
A. Considered awarding bid to Rescue Concepts for firefighter protective clothing -
I.C. Dunham
B. Considered awarding bid to Van Waters and Rogers Inc., as a sole source for
permonone 31+66 mosquito control agent - S. Gillett
Council person Young made a motion to vote on all Consent Agenda items together and
approve items presented. Second by Councilperson Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Ebow, Engelken, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke, and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
12. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
City Manager Robert T. Herrera reminded Council of the following events:
A. New Teacher's Luncheon - August 1, 2000 - La Porte High School Student
Center
B. 4th Annual Community Health and Safety Fair - August 12,2000 at La Porte
High School from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
C. Budget workshop meetings - August 14 - 17/18, 2000
In addition, ,Mr. Herrera reported that $127,000 was raised at the joint auction between
the City of La Porte and the City of Deer Park. The City of La Porte's portion was
$53,000.
13. COUNCIL ACTION
Councilpersons Engelken, Ebow, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke and Mayor brought items
to Council's attention.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PURSUANT TO PROVISION OF THE OPEN
MEETINGS LAW, CHAPTER 551.071 THROUGH 551.076, AND 551.084, TEXAS
GOVERNMENT CODE, - (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY,
DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, DELmERATION
REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT OR DONATION, PERSONNEL MATTERS,
CONFERENCE WITH EMPLOYEES DELIBERATION REGARDING
SECURITY DEVICES, OR EXCLUDING A WITNESS DURING
EXAMINATION OF ANOTHER WITNESS IN AN INVESTIGATION)
No Executive Session.
15. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEMS CONSIDERED IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Due to there being no Executive Session, there was no action taken,
e
City Council Minutes 7-24-00 - Page 6
16. ADJOURNMENT
e
There being no further business to come before Council, the Regular Meeting was duly
adjourned at 6:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
~OJ1J1tJv {4~
Martha Gillett
City Secretary
Passed and approved on this 14th day of August 2000.
!lPJ1~;ffiz~
Norman Malone, Mayor
--
e
.
.-;::
, '0
..'
7/20/00:
Please ne they ~re requesting to speak e more than five
minutes,
Martha Gillette 7-18-2000
City SecretlU')'. La POM
Rc: Request to be on thc agenda for the City Couneil Meeting set for 6:00. July 24.1.000.
nl':lU' Mayor and Counoil,
The GalveRtoD l!a)' Conservation and Plwcrvation Asso~iation respootftally requell. an extended
audionce with you at. your nexl regularly scl1edulc:d City Council Mcot.ing. Tho (IDCPA would
like to review with you our cftbrts to comploLo technical sludies th4t will be BubJJliued to the
Arm)' Corps of .tinginccrs durinl the Dr.u\ BIS pIWCS5 for the propulIod Bayport Facitlity.
Duriq the last few months aBCPA has ruvi"wcd ii' excess of 50,000 )')ages of PHA dUl.iUI\\el1ts,
over 'tOUO have been copiodfbr our ruwnls. Thoso documwJl9 clelU'ly dcmnftltnlw dlat tb~ PI1A
is not only reviewing data but also providing dl'ata to URS Greiner for tho Arm)' Corpl of
Bngineers Draft ms. Thc potential exists for a less than complete and unbiased HIS. In order to
provide the Corps ofBnginCCJ'S with essential information, OBCPA belicves that we must provide
more in-depth technical evaluations.
1 am aware thal you have been asked to hire Ms. Dana Olivo's consultants. She ha.q been uying to
work wil.h some cities on her own. Ms. Olivo hu nut "ll.vudod any of our meetings ond hRs not
worked with any of our committees.
Please let us be cJeart we arc aware that you must work with tho PHA to reinforce and rcmediatc
the Norlh Shore of Bayport Channcl and on tmffic concerns, including the Pairmunl Parkway
overpass and Bay Area BI\'d ilsucs. We do not a.k that YOll OppOll. tbe propo.ed nayport
Expansion at thil time. How~ver, you voiced many concorns, in your 'white paper', that havc
yet to be full)' addressed. These arc the same illsues tIuat. GBCPA and some local citios will be
addressing in our tccJ'II1lcal studies. Thesc MU many oft11o &am" itllluCII yOu already address duc to
the activities fro", the Barbours c.:ut facility.
Spocifica1Jy. the technical studies will address traffio implications of not only BarboUR Cut or
Bayport but the combined truck traffic, combined air quality impacts. and combined
infi'astructure issues. As you are iw.re Ihc proposed Bayport facility is 1.090 aores. thrce timel
the size of Barb ours Cut. Many local communities have great coneor..:! that tho PIIA will not
adequately address the full impacts ()(these two container porl, on the hlXlhh, safety, and wolfare
of OLlr citizenry. It Is unfortunate that the PitA did not work with La Potto earlier to address the
tramo and crOllion issues you now must contcnd with. We would like to have aU or uur illltucs Oil
the table before the Bayport lIcility is pcrmlted.
The City of Shorcacres ($5.000) and the City ofl'aylor l..ake VilIagc ($S.OOO) have each
appropriated funding to study Air, Traffic and I.and use/values. The City of Seabrook has Bet
aside matching funds totaling $50,000 (in this fiscal year). It is on the agenda in Clear Lake
Shol'os tonight to amend the budget to include funding for thcse ta;hnical studios. We would ask
that you consider joining GBCP A and meso cities in SUPPUl'til1g the ;n-dcp~ tcohnicnJ evaluationg
nKosAry to insure the hca.lth~ safety, and wclt8re oryaur uiLil.CllS.
Th~k YOls,..",~
{"..,.. .' ~~ataii~'O:'
"'~
--".
e
e
I
City of La Porte
Administrative Services Department
Human Resources Division
e
e
Interoffice Memorandum
July 14, 2000
From:
Martha Gillett, City Secretary
Lorie Doughty, Human Resources Manager -av
Council Agenda Item, July 24, 2000
Co-Employees of the Quarter: January, February & March 2000
To:
Subject:
Please include a Co-Employees of the Quarter Award for the 1st Quarter of 2000 presentation
on the Agenda for the Council Meeting scheduled on July 24, 2000. The award will be
presented to:
Jose Molina and Danny Cavazos
Jose Molina, Utility Maintenance Worker in Wastewater Collection and Danny Cavazos,
Equipment Operator II in the Streets Division of the Public Works Department have been
chosen as Co-Employees of the Quarter for January, February & March of 2000. Jose has
been employed with the City over 19 years and Danny over 18 years.
These two employees have always beell willing to do any task asked of them. They are always
professional and competent in the performance of their duties. Both are friendly and always
willing to assist their fellow employees in any way they can. When a fellow employee of the
Public Works Department was. severely injured in an accident, Danny and Jose organized a
fund raising BBQ dinner benefit to raise money to assist the family in meeting some of their
expenses. Although many City employees gave of their time and money to make 'this benefit
successful, Danny arid Jose were the driving force behind this effort.
Because of their past job performances and their willingness to sacrifice their time and efforts in
order to help out a fellow employee in need, we are proud to announce the Co-Employees of
the Quarter for the 1st Quarter of 2000.
Cc: Steve Gillett
Buddy Jacobs
Curtis Herrod -
Orville Burgess
Louis Rigby
I! e
~.
REQU~ FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA_
Agenda Date Requested: July 24. 2000
Requested By:
Cynthia B. Alexander
Department: Finance
Report X Resolution
Ordinance
Exhibits: Funds Transfer Agreement Resolution
Designated Contact Form
Funds Transfer Agreement
Wire Transfer Authorization
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The City of La Porte currently has a contract with Bayshore National Bank as the City's Depository. One of the
features that Bayshore National Bank offers is an online banking option known as ClickBank. The City of La
Porte currently uses the basic features of ClickBank to obtain daily balances on the City's bank accounts. We
would like to expand our online capabilities with the bank so that we may utilize the service to its fullest extent
in order to reduce manual transactions.
By expanding the online services, we would be able to more efficiently perform tasks such as wire transfers and
ACH transactions, which are transactions that involve various institutions through the Automated Clearing
House. Performing the ACH transactions online will allow the City to fully implement the Automatic Bank
Drafting of the utility bills. Automated Bank Drafting will allow our citizens to electronically pay their utility
bills from any financial institution in the country.
The Funds Transfer Agreement Resolution also designates that the Director of Finance will have the ability to
amend designated persons authorized to act on behalf of the City as stated in the resolution by written notice to
Bayshore National Bank.
Action Required by Council:
Authorize the Director of Finance to execute a Funds Transfer Agreement and Wire Transfer Authorization
Form with Bayshore National Bank.
Availability of Funds:
General Fund
Capital Improvement
Other
WaterlWastewater
General Revenue Sharing
Account Number:
N/A
. Funds Available: YES NO
Approved for Citv Council Ae:enda
G<~ T~ ~
Robert T. Herrera,
City Manager
Date -, - ~ c;)'" eYu
-e
./
-
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-..1L
A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO
EXECUTE A FUNDS TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND WIRE TRANSFER
AUTHORIZATION FORM WITH BAYSHORE NATIONAL BANK; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
WHEREAS, I, Martha Gillett, Secretary for the City of La Porte, a Political
Subdivision organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas (the "Political
Subdivision") hereby certify that at a meeting of the City Council for the City of La Porte
duly called and held on July 24, 2000, at which a quorum was present and acting
throughout, the following resolutions were adopted and are now in full force and effect.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. That the Director of Finance of the City of La Porte is authorized to
execute on behalf of the City a Funds Transfer Agreement and Wire Transfer
Authorization Forms with Bayshore National Bank in such form (including any
amendments made thereto from time to time) as prescribed by Bayshore and to make, and
from time to time change, by written notice delivered to Bayshore all required or
appropriate designations therein of persons, including themselves, authorized to act on
behalf of the City in the use of the funds transfer service under the terms and provisions
of such agreement.
Section 2. That this resolution shall remain in full force and effect and Bayshore
may rely on same in acting thereon until written notice of its change or revocation has
been duly given to and received by Bayshore.
I further certify that the names of the officers of the City of La Porte or any other persons
authorized to act under this resolution and their official signatures are as follows:
Name'
Cynthia B. Alexander
Title
Director of Finance
'.
./
.
Section 3. The City Council officially finds, determines, recites, and declares that
a sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City
Council was posted at a place convenient to the public at the City hall of the City for the
time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law,
Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public
as required by law at all times during which this resolution and the subj ect matter thereof
has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. The City Council further
ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
Section 4, This Resolution shall be effective from and after its passage and
approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 24th day of July, 2000.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By. /!~~?
Norman L. Malone
Mayor
ATTEST:
Vf11 Jtl:AUv{ll(Lttl
Martha A, Gillett
City Secretary
--
e
Bayshore National Bank
Designated Contact Form
The individual named below has the authority to receive and disseminate the User Names,
Personal Identification Numbers (PIN) and Wire Transfer PIN for each Authorized Person as
identified on the Authorized Users Forms. This individual shall be responsible for assuring that
the above information is not distributed to unauthorized parties. In addition, this individual will
receive all future correspondence regarding the bank's electronic banking system.
COMPANY NAME:
City of La Porte
DESIGNATED CONTACT:
Cynthia Alexander
TITLE:
Director of Finance
PHONE NUMBER:
(281) 471-5020
~ ~ ~..J
Cynt a xandel, Dire r of Finance
-
Julv 24. 2000
e
e
Treasury Management Services
Bayshore National Bank
Funds Transfer
Agreement
nus AGREEMENT is by and between Bayshore National Bank. ('~") and the undersigned customer ("Customer'"). In consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein. Bank and Customer agree as follows:
1. Wire Traruft!T Authorization. Customer hereby authorizes Bank to honor, execute and charge to any designated deposit account maintained by
Customer at Bank (whether one or more, the "Accountj without limit as to amount (unless an amount limit is set forth in User Authorization Form provided by
Customer to Bank from time to time). any and all telephonic or other verbal request, or facsimile, or electronic transfer requests via the Bank's electronic banking for
the transfer of funds when such requests or orders (a) are received from a person identified as an authorized representative of Customer listed on the User Authorization
Form (an "Authorized Personj, and (b) are made in compliance with Bank's transfer procedures under this Agreement. Unless otherwise set forth on the User
Authorization Form, Bank is authorized to transfer funds from an Account at the Bank (a) to any other specified deposit account maintained by Customer whether such
account is with Bank or another fmancial institution; (b) to any deposit account' of a third party whether such deposit account is with Bank or another fmancial
institution. this would include transfers to an affiliated company with a similar but not identical name, as well as any movement of funds from Customer's account at
the Bank to "Pay Upon Proper Identification" of any company, individual or representative of any company; or (c) for the account or for credit to Customer. Any
transfer hereunder may be by means of an electronic funds payment system or draft. As used herein, "draft" means a written order initiated by Customer and addressed
by Bank to a Correspondent requiring the Correspondent to pay on demand or at a defmite time a specific sum of money to the designated payee. Correspondent means
a financial institution located outside the United States which serves as a depository for Bank or provides certain services for Bank.
Z. RtnJetitive Trruuft!Ts. Bank. is hereby authorized to transfer funds based upon predetermined criteria as instJucted by an Authorized Person. A
set of such instructions is included in the Repetitive Transfer Authorization Fonn which covers pre-authorized transfers of a repetitive lIlIture where the debit and credit
parties remain the sarne and only the date. dollar amount, and/or descriptive fields are variable ("Repetitive Transfers"). Each such Repetitive Transfer will be
assigned a unique alpha and/or numeric code ("Repetitive Identification Number'") and shall be required by the Bank when requests for Repetitive Transfers are
communicated to the Bank. It is Customer's responsibility to ensure that Repetitive Transfer Numbers are known only to appropriate Authorized Representatives.
3. Securitv Procetlura. (a) Customer agrees that Bank will assign to each Authorized Person, a security password and code, ("Personal
Identification Number'") or other security procedures which shall be used by such Authorized Person to initiate and authenticate funds transfer requests initiated via
the Bank's electronic banking system telephonic or other verbal transfer request Customer represents that it will ensure that the Password and Personal identification
Number is provided by Customer only to the Authorized Person to whom it is assigned. Bank shall be entitled to rely conclusively upon the authority of a person to
make a transfer and issue other instructions to Bank if such person uses a Password and Personal Identification Number of an Authorized Person.
(b) Customer agrees to supply to Bank any additional fonns or information which Bank may reasonably request including, but not limited to,
transfer authority. accounts to be affected, dates of transfers, supplemental instructions and further evidence of any Authorized Person's authority to transfer funds or to
do any other act contemplated hereunder.
(c) Customer agrees to use all Passwords, Personal and Repetitive Identification Numbers and to comply with any other security pfoJcedures
established from time to time by Bank. C~stomer agrees to promptly report to Bank by telephone and in writing any breach of confidentiality of any Password,
Personal Identification Number, Repetitive Identification Number or other security procedures, and to notifY the Bank of the termination of any Authorized Person from
Customer's employment, so that Bank may cancel the Password and Personal Identification Number assigned to such person.
(d) Following the receipt of any request, Bank reserves the right to verifY or authenticate any request for a transfer or other request by any means
which Bank may deem appropriate, but its failure to verifY or authenticate any such instructions shall not be evidence of any failure to exercise reasonable care or good
faith. Customers agrees that if and when the Bank attempts to confIrm transfers a delay may occur as a result of the Bank not being able to obtain an independent
confirmation. Bank shall have no duty to verifY or otherwise confirm electronic, telephonic or other verbal instJuctions before acting thereon. Bank shall not be liable
for its refusal to honor any request or instruction if Bank in good faith is unable to satisfY itselfthat the request or instruction is given by an Authorized Person.
(e) Customer hereby agrees and consents to the security procedures set forth herein. and such security procedures as may be implemented by
Bank from time to time. Customer acknowiedges and agrees that such procedures are commercially reasonable.
4. Sufficient Funds. Customer represents that each Account to be debited will contain sufficient collected funds to allow for payment of each
transfer of funds requested hereunder at the time that such transfer is to be made. But if the Bank does execute a transfer of funds that creates an overdraft, Customer
shall immediately pay on demand the amount of the overdraft.
S. RecordatiDn orCertain Trruurer Orden. Bank may record all telephonic instructions received by Bank. from Customer and may retain such
recordings in accordance with Bank's policy relating to such recordings. .
6. Extzminatio" or Records. Bank will make confirmations to Customer of all transfers made to or from its account at the Bank. by mail or
using other means designated by Customer. Customer shall maintain a hard copy record of each transfer request and shall compare its records with the confIrmations
provided by Bank within ten (10) days of receipt and notify the Bank of any discrepancies. Customer agrees to promptly examine bank statements for the Account.
Customer agrees to report any discrepancies (a) between the records of the transfers shown on the statements for the Account and the transfers shown on the statement
for any other deposit account of Customer, or .(b) between the Customer's records of such transfers and any statement for the Account, in writing to Bank within sixty
(60) days after statement date.
7. Oblillation to Make TrtUUfen. Bank agrees to make transfers and otherwise act upon requests made in compliance with this Agreement as
promptly as is practicable having due regard for its volume of other transfer requests and shall incur no liability to Customer for delays in implementing instructions
after such requests have been received by Bank. Bank shall have no liability to Customer for failing to make a transfer or failing to ta1ce any other action on or before
- any deadline contained in a request. Transfer' instructions received after cut-off hours as Bank may from time to time establish may be honored as of the foUowing
Bank business day. Bank shall have no obligation to make any transfer unless the affected Account contains sufficient collected funds to cover such transfer. Bank
shall have no obligation to attempt to revoke or rescind any transfer initiated in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
8. Conf1icline Demands. In the event of any disagreement hereunder. or if conflicting demands or notices are made upon Bank relating to this
Agreement or any item or amount received by Bank. hereunder. Bank may, after notice to Customer, refuse to comply with any such claims or demands on it or refuse to
ta1ce any other action hereund~ with regard to the subject matter of the dispute, so long as such dispute continues; and in any such event, Bank sbaII not be or become
liable to any person for its fiIilare PI' refusa1 to act.
--- -" .9.... '.. Time r.;J,;;i, Unle,'lS' ~theryv~ prohibited by Article 4A of the Unifonn Commercial Code, Customer may not bring any claim against the
Indemnifted Parties arising d~y or-inditeC:t1y..oUt of this Agreement orthe performance of the transfers contemplated hereunder more than one year after the cause
of action accrued..i .
10. GoPenrine Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas and applicable
federa1laws.
11. Problem ArelU. From time to time, Bank experiences various difficulties in transfening funds to certain countries ("Problem Areas'"). Those
difficulties include (but not by way of limitation) (a) excessive delay in applying funds, (b) incorrect application of funds, (c) disappearance of funds, (d) excessively
slow response to inquires, or (f) government restriction on the transfer of such funds. Bank may identitY such Problems Areas from time to time. Customer hereby
Funds Transfer Agreement
e
e.
acknowledges and assumes any expense in connection with such transfers, which may be incurred by Bank in addition to normal and customary charges. Customer is
obligated to comply with all laws relating to the transfer offunds for foreign countries, individuals or agencies. Noncompliance may result in the delay of funds
transfer, fines equivalent to a percentage of the principal or confiscation of the entire principal amount of the transfer if an attempt is made to transfer timds to a
sanctioned individual, agency and/or country.
12. Forebln Cunmcv. If a transfer (whether by Draft or otherwise) is in currency other than U. S. Dollars, the rate of conversion sba11 be
according to Bank's then stated rate. If a transfer is in U.S. Dollars, but is to be converted by Correspondent to the cwrency of the place of payment, then tIlch
conversion shall be at Correspondent's conversion rate at time of payment.
13. Litzbililv: Intlnnnities: Remedies. (a) Bank's only responsibility and liability to Customer from and against all liabilities, claims, losses,
costs, expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs), and damages of any and every kind (including direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, and punitive,
the "QaiJns'') caused (including Claims caused by Banlc.'s negligence or gross negligence). incurred, suffered by, or asserted against Bank arising out of or resulting,
directly or indirectly. in connection with this "Agreement or the transfer contemplated herein shall be to compensate Customer as expressly provided by the Uniform
Commercial Code Article 4A; as adopted by the Stale of Texas.
(b) Customer agrees to hold harmless. defend. and indenmifY Bank. its officers, directors. agents, employees, and all persons in privity with it
(the "JndenmUled Parties'') from and against any and all liabilities, claims, costs, expenses, losses and damages of any and every kind (including reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs) arising out of or resulting. directly or indirectly. from the acts or omissions of Customer in connection with this Agreement or the transfers contemplated
herein, except to the extent of Bank's liability under the above Paragraph.
(c) BANK'S LIMITED RESPONSIBILITY AND UABn.ITY AS SET FORTH HEREIN CONSTITUTES CUSTOMER'S SOLE AND
EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES UNDER THIS AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER REMEDIES, WHETHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED AND WHETHER AT
LAW OR IN EQUITY, AND BANK HEREBY DISCLAIMS, AND CUSTOMER WAIVES (ALL CLAIMS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES AND ALL
CLAIMS REGARDING LOSS OF REVENUE, INCOME, PROFIT, AND USE, OR DAMAGES) AND RELINQUISHES CUSTOMER'S RIGHT TO ANY OTHER
REMEDY AND TO ALL CUSTOMER'S CLAIMS. THE EXTENT OF UABIUTY THAT MAY BE IMPOSED ON BANK IS LIMITED STRICTLY AND
SOLELY TO THE Cm.CUMST ANCES AND AMOUNTS AS SET FORTH ABOVE.
(d) Bank may use Correspondents or other agencies in connection with any transaction hereunder, but shall not be liable for their improper or
negligent acts or omissions to act. No liability shall attach to Banlc. or to such Correspondents or agencies for any losses or damages in consequence of present or fucure
laws, censorships. regulations, decrees, orders, controls or restrictions rightfully or wrongfully exercised by any de facto or de jure domestic or foreign government or
agency. Bank shall not be liable on or in connection with any Draft unless the Draft is presented to the drawee within a reasonable time after delivery, or unless the
beneficiary or the transfer shall make demand for payment of such transfer within a reasonable time after the issuance thereot: Bank shall not be responsible for the
failure of the drawee or its paying Correspondents to identifY the payee or person entitle to the payment of such Draft or transfer. In connection with a Draft, Bank
assumes no responsibility beyond making available to the drawee funds or credits for the payment of the Draft, and Bank shall not be responsible for insolvency of the
drawee, or errors, delays, omissions or defaults of the drawee.
14. Force Maiul!1'& Bank shall have no responsibility or liability for failure or delay in performance pursuant to the tenns of this Agreement when
such failure or delay is due to any natural disaster, fire, flood, stonn, strike, labor unrest, war. riot, act of God, power failure. equipment failure, errors or acts by any
third party or any other cause beyond Banks reasonable control
15. C!s.. Customer agrees to pay Bank's prevailing charges in effect from time to time for providing the services utilized hereunder and Bank may
charge Customer's account therefore. Customer agrees to reimburse Bank upon demand if such fees are not paid in accordance with the tenns hereof.
16. Term. This agreement may be terminated by either party upon not less than thirty (30) days written notice to the other, and any such
termination shall be effective upon the date specified in such termination notice. Upon any breach of this Agreement by Customer, Bank may immediately tenninate
this Agreement upon written notice to Customer. No tennination hereunder or expiration of this Agreement shall affect the rights or obligations of either party which
may have arisen or accrued prior to such termination or expiration.
17. Entire Apreement This Agreement supersedes and acts to rescind all prior agreements between the parties with regard to the subject matter of
this Agreement. ~omer agrees that it has not relied on any statements, representations, agreements, or warranties except as expressed herein. Except as specifically
provided herein, this Agreement can only be modified or amended by mutual written agreement of the parties.
18. "SePt!1'abililv. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, such provision shall be delete-l. and th~
remainder of this Agreement shall be enforced as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision bad never been contained therein.
19. Partia Bound. This Agreement is a legal, vaJid, and binding obligation of Customer and Bank. For the purposes of this Agreement, "Bank"
shall mean and include the officers, employees, agents. and representatives of Bank. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto
and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns; however, this Agreement may not be assigned by Customer without prior written consent of Bank.
20. NotU:& Except as otherwise provided, all notices required or permitted under this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given (a) when
delivered in hand by messenger or overnight courier service, (b) on the third banking business day when mailed by United Stales mail, registered or certified mail,
return receipt requested, postage prepaid, and addressed as set forth below, or (c) upon receipt of an acknowledged facsimile transmittal. Either party may from time to
time change its address for notification purposes by giving the other party prior written notice of the new address and the date upon which it will become effective.
21. ,Non-WaiYl!1'. No delay or omission by either to exercise any right or power hereunder shall impair such right or power or be cons1zued
to be a waiver thereof. A waiver by either party of any covenant to be performed by the other or any breach by the other shall not be coDStrued to be waiver of any
succeeding breach or of any other covenant.
22. Tille to DtU'tJpr/IDM. The titles to the paragraphs used in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not be used to interpret the
contents thereof.
EXECUTED as of -" ~ Lj.
{)()
by the duly authorized representatives of the parties hereto.
BAYSHORE NATIONAL BANK
Signature:
CUSTOMER
~_:~~ ~~J
Print Name:
Title:
Title:
Funds Transfer Agreement
2
~----- -
.
e.
e
RF.QIJF.ST FOR CITY COIJNCrr. AGF.NDA ITF.M
--
_ Report
A~~i~tant r.ity Mam'lgrr
Agenda Date Requested:
Requested By:
x
Exhibits:
Resolution 98..
SUMMARY & RF.COMMF.NDATION
On February 23, 1998, City Council approved Resolution 98-01 which authorized Knox Askins, City Attorney, to
represent the City in the acquisition of (13) properties for Flood Control purposes (FIOI project). It further provided that
in the event, the owners and the City could not agree on fair market value, the City Attorney had authorization to initiate
eminent domain proceedings to acquire the properties.
Since Resolution 98-01 was passed, all but (1) property has been acquired, In the event we move forward with eminent
domain proceedings, staff and, legal counsel felt it would be less confusing to the court-appointed Commissioners if we
had a Resolution that identified only the one remaining tract of land.
Action Required by Council:
Consider approval of Resolution 00 - )~ and authorize City Attorney, Knox Askins, or his designated
representative to represent the City of La Porte in the acquisition of the described property for flood control
purposes.
Availability of Funds: nla
_ General Fund- Water/Wastewater
_ Capital Improvemeni- General Revenue Sharing
_ Other
Account Number:
Funds Available: _ YES _ NO
Apprnved fnr City CnllDeil Ag~Dda
7!rJ IOD
~
~
.
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-~
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR FLOOD
CONTROL PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF LA PORTE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has found
and determined that public necessity requires the location of
rights-of-way for flood control purposes on the hereinafter
described real property, in the City of La Porte, Harris County,
Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has found
and determined that rights-of-way over and across the hereinafter
described real property is suitable and needed for flood control
purposes, and that it is necessary to acquire same for flood
control purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte deems it
advisable to authorize, and does hereby authorize, Knox W. ASkins,
City Attorney of the City of La Porte, or his designated
representative, to represent the City of La Porte in the
acquisition of the hereinafter described property;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LA PORTE:
section 1. That the said Knox W. Askins, as city Attorney for
the City of La Porte, or his designated representative, be and he
is hereby authorized to negotiate with the owners of the
hereinafter described land, concerning the acquisition by the city
of La Porte, of rights-of-way for flood control purposes, located
in Harris County, Texas, said rights-of-way being more particularly
described on the several metes and bounds descriptions and plats,
attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein,. and made a part
hereof for all purposes, at the fair market value for same, and
should said City Attorney, or his designated representative, as the
duly authorized representative of the City of La Porte, be unable
to agree with such owners as to the fair market value of such
rights-of-way, then, and in that event, said attorney be, and he is
hereby authorized and directed to file against all owners and
lienholders, prQceedings in eminent domain to acquire the above
described property, for flood control purposes.
.
e
section 2. The City'Council officially finds, determines,
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council was
posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the
ci ty for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as
required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government
Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public as required
by law at all times during which this resolution and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted
upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and confirms
such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
section 3. This Resolution shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 24th day of July, 2000.
BY:~
orman L. Malo , Mayor
ATTEST:
~&tb& d. 1Ut1dt
Mar ha A. Gillett
City Secretary
2
'e
EXHIBIT A
e
ENOCH BRANSON SURVEY
ABSTRACT NO.5
7.160 ACRES
PAGE 1 OF 3
State of Texas ~
County of Harris i
Being a 7.160 acres (311,903 square feet) tract of land located in the Enoch Branson Survey,
Abstract No.5, Harris County, Texas, said 7.160 acre parcel being partially out of the second of
two tracts of land described in deed to Charles C. Hinds dated March 7, 1990 and recorded under
Harris County Clerk's File (BCCF) No. M550730 of the Official Public Records of Real Property
of Harris County, Texas (OPRRPHCT), being part of Outlots 286 and 295 and all of Outlot 294
of the LaPorte OQtlots, a subdivision recorded by plat in Volume 61, Page 374 of the 'Harris
County Deed Records (HCDR); said 7.160 acre parcel furthermore being partially out of Outlots
306 and a portion of Outlot 295 of said LaPorte Outlots, which is all of a called 7.1613 acre tract
described in deed dated February 17, 1982 to Charles C. Hinds and recorded under HCCF No.
H346433 of said OPRRPHCT; and furthermore said 7.160 acre parcel being partially out of and
a part of Outlot 315 of said LaPorte Outlots as described in deed dated April 11 , 1995 to Charles
C. Hinds and recorded under HCCF No. R351137 of said OPRRPHCT. Said 7.160 acre tract
is more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
(Bearings shown hereon are based upon the Texas State Plane Coordinate System, South Central
Zone, utilizing City of La Porte Monument No. 's HI5-01, H14-01, ,E14-01, and E15-01, which
are based upon the USC & GS North American Datum of 1927.)
BEGINNING at a 5/8-inch iron rod set for the northwest comer of the aforementioned Outlot 294,
same being the northeast comer of a 30 foot wide Harris County Flood Control District (BCFCD)
fee strip described in deed dated March 16, 1966 and recorded in ,Volume 6360, Page 34 of said
HCDR, and also being on the south line of a 30 foot wide HCFCD fee strip described in deed
dated March 28, 1966 and recorded in Volume 6488, Page 107 of said HCDR;
THENCE, North 87 degrees 09 minutes 48 seconds East, along said south line of the 30 foot wide
HCFCD fee strip and the north line of said Outlot 294, a distance of 335.96 feet to a 5/8-inch iron
rod set for the common comer of Outlots 294,295, 306, and 307;
THENCE, North 03 degrees 01 minute 53 seconds West, with the common line of said Outlots
306 and 307, at a distance of 30.00 feet passing the no~east comer of said 30 foot wide HCFCD
fee strip, same being the southeast comer of that certain tract of land conveyed to Glenn Doyle'
Goodman, et ux., by ~ dated rilly 20, 1981 and recorded under HCCF No. H093593 and
HCCF No. H069618 of said OPRRPHCI', and from which a 5/8-inch iron rod found bears South
19 degree 10 minutes West, a distance of 0.34 feet, at a distance of 470.01 feet passing a 5/8-inch
iron rod set for the common comer of Outlots 306,307, 314, and 315, and continuing along the
common line of Outlots 314 and 315 for a total distance of 900.01 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set
for the northwest comer of the aforementioned Outlot 315, said comer being on the south right-of-
way line of North "P" Street (80 feet wide), said iron rod also being the northeast corner of Outlot
314 and that certain tract of land conveyed to Glenn Doyle Goodman, et ux., by deed dated April
e
e
ENOCH BRANSON SURVEY
ABSTRACT NO.5
7.160 ACRES
PAGE 2 OF 3
24, 1971 and recorded in Volume 8397, Page 498 and Volume 8448, Page 23 of said HCDR, and
from which a 112-inch iron rod found bears North 03 degrees 01 minute West, a distance of 0.41
feet;
THENCE, North 86 degrees 59 minutes 20 seconds East, along said south right-of-way line of
North lip" Street, a distance of 150.00 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for corner;
THENCE, South 03 degrees 01 minute 53 seconds East, departing said south right-of-way line
at a distance of 430.00 feet passing a 5/8-inch iron rod set on the common line of Outlots 315 and
3~6, in all a total c;Jistance of 797.90 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for corner;
THENCE, North 81 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds East, continuing across said Outlot 306, a
distance of 176.73 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for comer on the common line of Outlots 306
and 305, said Outlot 305 having been conveyed to Eugene R. Ybarra and Antonio Matta by deed
dated March 8, 1973, and recorded under HCCF No. 0832504 of said OPRRPHCf;
THENCE, South 03 degrees 00 minutes 09 seconds East, with the common line of Outlots 306
and 305, at a distance of 89.70 feet passing a 112-inch iron rod found for the northwest corner of
a 30 foot wide Harris County Flood Control District (HCFCO) fee strip (called 0.449 acre)
described in deed dated November 22, 1965 and recorded in Volume 6291, Page 64 of said
HCDR, and continuing for a total distance of 119.70 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for the
common corner of Outlots 306 and 305, same being the southwest corner of said 30 foot wide
HCFCO fee strip~ and also being on the common north line of Outlot 296 and a called 2.32 acre
tract conveyed to Emesto Gomez, et ux., by deed dated November 4, 1985, and recorded under
HCCF No. K274921 of said OPRRPHCT;.
THENCE, South 86 degrees 59 minutes 10 seconds West, along the north line of said Outlot 296,
a distance of 2.02 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for the common north comer of Outlots 296 and
295;
THENCE, South 03 degrees 06 minutes 42 seconds East, along the common line of said Outlots
296 and 295, at a distance of 30.44 feet passing a 5/8-inch iron rod found, and continuing for a
total distance of 51.35 feet to a 5/8-inch irOn rod set for corner;
THENCE, South 81 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds West, across said Outlot 295, a distance of
176.80 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for corner, being on the common line of the aforementioned
7.1613 acre tract;
THENCE, South 03 degrees 01 minute 09 seconds East, departing said common line and with a
west line of said called 7.1613 acre tract, passing at a distance of 30.29 feet a Sl8-inch iron rod
found and continuing for a total distance of 899.69 feet to a Sl8-inch iron rod set for corner on
the north right-of-way line of North "L n Street (80 feet wide), and from which a found 5/8-inch
iron rod bears South 03 degrees 08 minutes East, a distance of 0.79 feet;
e
e
ENOCH BRANSON SURVEY
ABSTRACT NO.5
7.160 ACRES
PAGE 3 OF 3
THENCE, South 86 degrees 51 minutes 41 seconds West, along said north right-of-way line of
North "L" Street, a distance of 130.00 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for corner;
THENCE, North 03 degrees 01 minute 09 seconds West, departing said north right-of-way line
and crossing said Outlots 286 and 295, a distance of 818.02 feet to a 5/8-inch iron rod set for
corner;
TIrnNCE, South 81 degrees 16 minutes 20 seconds West, a distance of 18.70 feet to a 5/8-inch
iron rod set for corner;.
""
THENCE, South 86 degrees 57 minutes 42 seconds West, a distance of 335.29 feet to a 5/8-inch
iron rod set for corner on th~ common line of Outlots 293 and 294, said Outlot 293 and Outlot
288 having been conveyed to Paul D. Covington, et UX., by deed dated March 30, 1976 and
recorded under RCCF No. E725561 of said OPRRPHCT;
THENCE, North 03 degrees 00 minutes 42 seconds West, along said common line, a distance of
85.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and containing 7.160 acres (311,903 square feet) of
land, of which 0.678 acre (29,553 square feet) of l~d lies within an existing HCFCD drainage
easement recorded in Volume 6597, Page 584 of said HCDR.
This description is based on a Land Title Survey and Plat by J. Patrick Going, Registered
Professional Land Surveyor, License Number 4477, completed November 10, 1997, and is on file
in the office of Baseline Corporation, Job No. 86.051.25.
November 10, 1997
WSG:RLD:bgb
Job No. 86.051.25
File: BLACAD\86051 \8605 12S\M&B-DES
JIJO JI4 J14A JI48 J14C
~~ ~~
:, =~ 11602
'--- 023-137-DDD-0316
J.219 AC.
C.r,NO.~'U7l1l'Rl1PHCT
-
N
g
! ~ u u
.. ..
.. .. .. ..
..- .. ..
..' :l! ~ ...
~~ ..
M ri ri
1----- ---- ---
J098 J078 J07
_~.C.F.C.D.
----
..
..
l!l
! !i
!i! g
Iii ~
27JA
..
~
gu
.. ..
*..
~7 lil
=; ~
I
I
I
I
I 297A
I
I
I
I
I
296C I 297C
----~-------~--------
286A I 295A 2948
I
-1- """"1 - - - - - - -
I 29.r
2958 I 28.c I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
1
:
.
I
I
I
I
I
~~~1137-01lO-0361 I
~6J~~37.DOO-0338 I
H.C.CJ. NO. 1.4550730 OPRRPHCT I
I
I
023-137-0QO-OZS4
17,062J AC
1297
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2970
~
..
ill
! ~
.. ..
"j g
W ~
----,
286A-1
-
2978
-
297A
=fi
:'
~,
:,
274
2748
NORTH L STREET
221902 I
1901
-DD22 -DlID'
21 2
-0021 -lIlID2
20 J 1
-DD20 -00D3
19 1'14 4
-0019 -OlIO'
W
19 Z 5
<I:
-0018 ...J -0005
17 <I: 6
0<
-0017 ;J -oaK
274A
~
s
Ii\i
~ ..
- al
~ ~
1lI rU
~
*~
~ ..
oj" ~
& ~
8
I \i
~ ..
;t g
III rU
v
~~ I ~, I :1:1
NORTH P STREET
JI6
JI7A
JI7
PROPOSED
ACQUISITION
J
..
..
S
'u
! ..
l!!7 g
!W ~
HC.F.C.D.
2968 3D' H.C,r.C,D, (SHY. 1 2978
11623
023-'37-01lO-0357
2.J200 AC
296A
2970
~
., u
! ..
~ ~
.. '"
III rU
~
!
~
285D
285C
..
g
,~
.~~
~!ij~
I
2941: I 294'1
I
~~I
:, I
I
..
s
! \i
!i! 0
Iii ~
2940
;e~
2,
.", I ~8
=~ =.
l '427
JI9 ~~ J1
~ ~
~
! u N.T.S.r:
..
.... .. l:i
!!J;8 .. U
Ii!
~~~ If> ...:
u
::t
Joe!
-
JO
19 19 17 16 IS 14 IJ
12
~~
19 19 17 16 16 IS I' IJ
CD ~i ~i i,
'_I _I
12
20 21 22 2J 24 2S 26
~ ~
2
19 19 17 16 15
..
~, '
12
I-
~
VI
14 IJ
..
~
20 21 22
2J 24 25 2l
~~ ~
2
.,.j
Q.
Q.
-1I03B
19 19 17
..~
~,
12
16 IS 14 IJ
..
~
20 21 22 2J 24 25 26
2
OWNER: CHARLES C. HINDS
2760 2768 277A-2
EXHIBIT "B"
;t~
- :g~
276C
..
..
s PROJECT NO.: 86-4302
l!i\i
~M Fl01CHANNELIMPROVEMENTS
N- ... 2778
:II' '"
....
:21 N
276'1
~
. \i
..
.. ..
CIII'i 0
!& :
e e
.
.
EXHIBIT NO. 1
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT ORDINANCE
&
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT ORDINANCE
.
e
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Requested By:
Do
Department:
Plannina
Agenda Date Requested:
x
Agreement
Resolution
Ordinance
Exhibits:
1. Ordinances: Industrial District Agreement, Water Service Agreement & Utility Extension Agreement
2, Industrial District Agreement
3. Water Service Agreement
4. Utility Extension Agreement
6. Area Map
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
United Rentals is expanding its operations in La Porte. As part of this expansion, the business is relocating from
its existing site on North 23rd Street to a larger 8.171-acre site located at 8221 S,H. 226. The company has
approached the City to provide water service to its new location. In response to this request, Staff has
researched and determined that the new United Rentals site is not under an Industrial District Agreement and
does not have access to adequate water service to the S.H. 226 site.
The City Attorney's office has prepared an Industrial District Agreement for the company's new site. The
Agreement has subsequently been presented to and executed by the company and awaits final approval by
Council (see Exhibit 21.
As previously stated, United Rentals desires to pursue water service under the terms and conditions offered by
the City. Based on 36 on-site employees, the average daily demand is estimated to be 1,750 gallons. The
applicant is also requesting 1 ,800 gallons per day for cleaning of rental equipment. The company will pay one
and one-half times the City's current rate. The term of the Water Service Agreement is for (5) years, plus any
renewals and extensions thereof. However, the Agreement shall 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.
Based on its total daily demand (domestic + industrial uses), the applicant is subject to an administrative
connection charge of $7,100 (1,750 gpd + 1,800 gpd = 3,550 gpd x $2.00 per gallon = $7,100). Staff has
prepared the Water Service Agreement for United Rentals and the company has subsequently executed its part
of this agreement for consideration by Council (see Exhibit 31,
Execution of a Utility Extension Agreement is necessary for the extension of a 12. waterline required to serve
United Rentals' new site. Staff has prepared and presented this document to United Rentals who in turn has
executed its part of this agreement to be presented to Council (see Exhibit 41.
Staff recommends approval by Council of an Industrial District Agreement, Water Service Agreement and Utility
Extension Agreement between the City of La Porte and United Rentals as submitted herein.
Action Reaulred by Council:
Consider approval of three individual ordinances. The first of which authorizes the City to execute an Industrial
District Agreement with United ,Rentals. The second ordinance authorizes the execution of a Water Service
Agreement between the City and United Rentals. The final ordinance authorizes the City Manager to execute a
Utility Extension Agreement with United Rentals for the extension of a 12. waterline.
Availability of Funds: N/A
ADDroved for City Council Aaenda
C=X~ ~
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
,. aO.Oc)
DATE
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-13
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OP LA PORTE OP
AN INDUSTRIAL D.IS'l'RICT AGREEHEN'1' WITH UNITED REN'1'ALS, POR THE TERM
COMXBNCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2007; MAKING
VARIOUS PINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; PINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EPPECTIVE
DATE HEREOP.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. UNITED RENTALS has executed an industrial district
agreement with the City of La Porte, for the term commencing
January 1, 2001, and ending December 31, 2007, a copy of which is
attached hereto, incorporated by reference herein, and made a part
hereof for all purposes.
section 2. The Mayor, the City Manager, the City Secretary,
and the City Attorney of the City of La Porte, be, and they are
hereby, authorized and empowered to execute and deliver on behalf
of the City of La Porte, the industrial district agreement with the
corporation named in Section 1 hereof.
Section 3. The City Council officially finds, determines,
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council was
posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the
ci ty for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as
required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government
Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public as required
by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted
upon.
The City Council further ratifies, approves and confirms
such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
e
e
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 24th day of July, 2000.
ATTEST:
vfl1attht'v Cr .J1JJ11/
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY:~~
orman L. Mar e,
Mayor
2
e
e
EXHIBIT NO.2
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT
! \ /
.'"
.~.. e e
. .
.
NO. 2000-IDA- 13 {
{
STATE OF TEXAS {
{
COUNTY OF HARRIS {
IJfDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEKBRT
This AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the CITY
OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, a municipal corporation ?f; Harris County,
Texas, hereinafter called "CITY", and UI/) irel) eOlA-}S
, a corporation, hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, it is the established policy of the City Council of
the City of La Porte, Texas, to adopt such reasonable measures from
time to time as are permi.tted by law and which will tend to enhance
the economic stability and growth of the' City and its environs by
attracting .the location of new and the expansion of existing
industries therein, and such policy is hereby reaffirmed and
adopted by this City Council as being in"the best interest of the
City and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its policy, City has enacted Ordinance
No. 729, designating portions of the area located in its
extraterritorial jurisdiction as the "Battleground Industrial
District of La Porte, Texas", and Ordinance No. 842A, designating
portions of the area located in its extraterritorial jurisdiction
as the "Bayport Industrial District of La Porte, Texas",
hereinafter collectively called "District", such Ordinances being
in compliance with the Municipal Annexation Act of Texas, codified
as Section 42.044, Texas Local Government Code; and
WHEREAS, Company is the, owner of land wi thin a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said lan~ being
~ega~~y described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land") ;
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "BII, which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
si te layout, showing all improvements, including pipelines and
railroads, and also showing areas of the Land previously annexed by
the City of La Porte; and
WHEREAS, City desires to encourage the expansion and growth of
industrial plants within said Districts and for such purpose
desires to enter into this Agreement with Company pursuant to
Ordinance adopted by the City Council of said city and recorded in
the official minutes of said City:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the
mutual agreements of the parties contained herein and pursuant to
the authority granted under the Municipal Annexation Act and the
Ordinances of City:'referred to above, City and Company hereby agree
with each other as follows:
FIKaL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
e.
e
I.
City covenants, agrees and guarantees that during the term of this
Agreement, provided below, and subject to the terms and provisions
of this Agreement, said District shall continue to retain its
extraterritorial status as an industrial district, at least to the
extent that the same covers the Land belonging to Company and its
assigns, unless and until the status of said Land, or a portion or
portions thereof, as an industrial district may be changed pursuant
to the terms of this Agreement. Subject to the foregoing and to
the later provisions of this Agreement, city does further covenant,
agree and guarantee that such industrial district, to the extent
that it covers said Land lying within said District and not now
within the corporate limits of City, shall be immune from
annexation by City during the term hereof (except as hereinafter
provided) and shall have no right to have extended to it any
services by City, and that all Land, including that which has been
heretofore annexed, shall not have extended to it by ordinance any
rules and regulations (a) governing plats and subdivisions of land,
(b) prescribing any building, electrical, plumbing or inspection
code or cod~s, or (c) attempting to exercise in any manner whatever
control over the conduct of business thereon; provided, however,
any portion of Land constituting a strip of land 100' wide and
contiguous to either Fairmont Parkway, State Highway 225, or State
Highway 146, shall be subject to the rules and regulations attached
hereto as Exhibi t "c" and made a part hereof; and provided,
however, it is agreed that city shall have the right to institute
or intervene in any. administrative and/or judicial proceeding
authorized by the Texas Water Code, the Texas Clean Air Act, the
Texas Health & Safety Code, or other federal or state environmental
laws, rules or regulations, to the same extent and to the same
intent and effect as if all Land covered by this Agreement were not
subject to the Agreement.
II.
In the event that any portion of the Land has heretofore been
annexed by city, Company agrees to render and pay fu11 city ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal proper~y.
Under the terms of the Texas Property Tax Code (S.B. 621, Acts of
the 65th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, 1979, as amended), the
appraised value for tax purposes of the annexed portion of Land,
improvements, and tangible personal property shall be det~rmined by
the Harris County Appraisal District. The parties hereto recognize
that said Appraisal District has no authority to appraise the Land,
improvements, and tangible personal property in the unannexed area
for the purpose of computing the "in lieu" payments hereunder.
Therefore, the parties agree that the appraisal' of the Land,
improvements, and tangible personal property in the unannexed area
shall be conducted by city, at City's expense, by an independent
appraiser of City's selection. The parties recognize that in
making such appraisal for "in lieu" payment purposes, such
appraiser must of necessi ty appraise the entir~ (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
2
e
e
,
Nothing herein contained shall ever be interpreted as lessening the
authority of the Harris County Appraisal District to establish the
appraised value of Land, improvements, and tangible personal
property in the annexed portion, for ad valorem tax purposes~
III.
A. .On or before April 15, 2001, and on or before each April 15th
thereafter, unless an extension is granted in accordance with the
Texas Property Tax Code, through and including April 15, 2007,
Company shall provide City with a written description of its Land
and all improvements and tangible personal property located on the
Land as of the immediately preceding January 1st, stating its
opinion of the Property's market value, and being sworn to by an
authorized officer of the Company authorized to do so, or Company's
duly authorized agent, (the Company's "Rendition"). Company may
file such Rendition on a Harris County Appraisal District rendition
form, or similc;Lr form. The properties' which the Company must
render and upon which the "in lieu of" taxes are assessed are more
fully described in subsections 1, 2, and 3 of subsection D, of this
Paragraph III (sometimes collectively called the "Property");
provided, however, pollution control equipment installed on the
Land which is exempt from ad valorem taxation pursuant to the
provisions of Sec. 11,. 31 of the Texas Property Tax Code is exempt
from ad valorem taxation and "in lieu of taxes" hereunder. A
failure by Company to file a Rendition as provided for in this
paragraph, shall constitute a waiver by Company for the current tax
year, of all rights of protest and appeal under the terms of this
Agreement.
B. As part of its rendition, Company shall furnish to City a
written report of the names and addresses of all persons and
entities who store any tangible personal property on the Land by
bailment, lease,' consignment, or other arrangement with Company
("products in storage"), and are in the possession or under the
management of Company on January 1st of each Value Year, .further
giving a description of such products in' storage. .
c. On or before the later of December 31, 2001, or 30 days from
mailing of tax bill and in like manner on or before each December
31st thereafter, through and including December 31, 2007, Company
shall pay to City an amount "in lieu of taxes" on Company's
Property as of January - 1st of the current calendar year ("Value
Year").
D. Company agrees to render to City and pay an amount "in lieu of
taxes II on Company's Land, improvements and tangible personal
property in the unannexed area equal to the sum of:
1. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the amount of ad valorem
taxes which would be payable to Ci ty if all of the
Company's Land and improvements which existed on January
1, 2001, and each January 1 thereafter of the applicable
Value Year during the term of this Agreement, (excluding
amounts payable pursuant to subparagraph 2, below), had
been within the corporate limits of City and appraised
3
e
e
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
2. (a) On any Substantial Increase in value of the Land,
improvements, and tangible personal property
(excluding inventory) dedicated to new
construction, in excess of the appraised value of
same on January 1, 2000,- resulting from new
construction (exclusive of constru~tion in
progress, which shall be exempt from taxation), for
each Value Year following completion of
construction in progress, an amount equal to Thirty
percent (30%) of the amount of ad valorem taxes
which would be payable to city if all of said new
construction had been within the corporate limits
of City and. appraised by City'S independent
appraiser, in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Texas Property Tax Code.
(b) A Substantial Increase in value of the Land,
improvements, and tangible personal property
(excluding inventory) as used in subparagraph 2(a)
above, is defined as an increase in value that is
the lesser of either:
i. at least Five percent (5%) of the total
appraised value of Land and improvements, on
January 1, 2000; or
ii. a cumulative value of at least $3,500,000.00.
F9r the purposes of this Agreement, multiple
projects that are completed in a Value Year can be
cumulated to arrive at the amount for the increase
in value.
(c) If existing Property values have depreciated below
the Property value established on January 1, 2000,
an amount equal to the amount of the depreciation
will be removed from the calculation under this
subparagraph 2 to restore the value to the January
1, 2000, value; and
3. Fifty-three percent (53%) of the amount of ad valorem
taxes which would be payable to City on all of the
Company's tangible personal property of every
description, located in an industrial district of City,
includinq, without limitation, inventory, oil, gas, and
mineral interests, items of leased equipment, railroads,
pipelines, and products in storage located on the Land,
if all of said tanqible personal property which existed
on January 1, 2001, and each January 1 thereafter of the
applicable Value Year during the term of this Agreement,
had been within the corporate limits of City and
appraised each year by the City's independent appraiser,
4
e
e
in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Texas
Property Tax Code.
with the sum of 1, 2 and 3 reduced by the amount of ci ty' s ad
valorem taxes on the annexed portion thereof as determined by
appraisal by the Harris County Appraisal District.
IV.
This Agreement shall extend for a period beginning on the 1st day
of January, 2001, and continuing thereafter until December 31,
2007, unless extended for an additional period or periods of time
upon mutual consent of Company and ci ty as provided by the
Municipal Annexation Act; provided, however, that in the event this
Agreement is not so extended for an additional period or periods of
time on or before August 31, 2007, the agreement of city not to
annex property of Company within the District shall terminate. In
that event, City shall have the right to commence immediate
annexation proceedings as to all of Company's property covered by
this Agreement, notwithstanding any of the terms and provisions of
. this Agreement.
Company agrees that if the Texas Municipal Act, Section 42.044,
Texas Local Government Code, is amended after January 1, 1994, or
any new legis~ation is thereafter enacted by the Legislature of the
State of Texas which imposes greater restrictions .on the right of
City to annex land belonging to Company or imposes further
obligations on City in connection therewith after the annexation of
such lan~, Company will waive the right to require City to comply
with any such additional restrictions or obligations and the rights
of the parties shall be then determined in accordance with the
provisions of said Texas Municipal Annexation Act as the same
existed January 1, 1994.
v.
This Agreement may be extended for an additional period or.periods
by agreement between city and Company and/or its assigns even
though it is not extended by agreement between City and all of the
owners of all land within the District of which it is a part.
VI.
A. In the event Company elects to protest the valuation for tax
purposes set on its said properties by City or by the Harris County
Appraisal District for any year or years during the terms hereof,
nothing in this Agreement shall preclude such protest and Company
shall have the right to take all legal steps desired by it to
reduce the same. .
Notwithstanding such protest by Company, Company agrees to pay to
City on or before the date therefor hereinabove provided, at least
the total of (a) the total amount of ad valorem taxes on the
annexed portions, .-'plus (b) the total amount of the "in lieu of
taxes" on the unannexed portions of Company's hereinabove described
property which would be due to ci ty in accordance wi th the
5
e
..
foregoing provisions of this Agreement on the basis of renditions
which shall be filed by Company.
When the City or Harris County Appraisal District (as the case may
be) valuation on said property of Company has been so finally
determined, either as the result of final judgment of a court of
compet~nt jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then wi thin thirty (30) days thereafter Company
shall make payment to City of any additional payment due hereunder
based on such final valuation, together with applicable penalties,
interests, and costs.
B. Should Company disagree with any appraisal made by the
independent appraiser selected by City pursuant to Article II above
(which shall be 'given in writing to Company), Company shall, within
twenty (20) days of receiving such copy, give written notice to the
ci ty of such disagreement. In the event Company does not .gi ve such
written notice of disagreement within such time period, the
appraisal made ,by said independent appraiser shall be final and
controlling for purposes of the determination of "in lieu of taxes"
payments to be made under this Agreement. .
Should Company give such notice of disagreement, Company shall also
submit to the City with such notice a written statement setting
forth what Company believes to be the market value of company's
hereinabove described property. Both parties agree to thereupon
enter into good fai th negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value. of Company I s property for "in
. . lieu" purposes hereunder. If, after the expiration of thirty (30)
days from the date the notice of disagreement was received by City,
the parties have not reached agreement as to such market value, the
parties agree to submit the dispute to final arbitration as
provided in subparagraph 1 of this Article VI B. Notwithstanding
any such disagreement by Company, Company agrees to pay to City on
or before December 31 of each year during the term hereof, at least
the total of (a) the ad valorem taxes on' the annexed portions, plus
(b) the total amount of the "in lieu" payments which would be due
hereunder on the basis of Company's valuations rendered .and/or
submi tted to city by company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last precedi'ng year, whichever
is higher.
1. A Board of Arbitrators shall be created composed of one
person named by Company, one by City, and a third to be
named: by those two. ,In case of no agreement on this
arbitrator in 10 days, the parties will join in a written
request that the Chief Judge of the u.s. District Court
for the Southern District of Texas appoint the third
arbitrator who, (as the "Impartial Arbitrator") shall
preside over the arbitration proceeding. The sole issue
to be determined in the arbitration shall be resolution
of the difference between the parties as to the fair
market value of Company's property for calculation of the
"in lieu" payment and total payment hereunder for the
year in question. The Board shall hear and consider all
relevant and material evidence on that issue including
6
e
e
expert opinion, ang shall render its written decision as
promptly as practicable. That decision shall then be
final and binding upon the parties, subject" only to
judicial review as may be available under the Texas
General Arbi tration Act (Chapter 171, "General
Arbitration", Texas civil Practice and .Remedies Code).
Costs of the arbitration shall be shared equally by the
Company and the city, provided that each party shall bear
its own attorneys fees.
VII.
City shall be entitled to a tax lien on Company's above described
property, all improvements thereon, and all tangible personal
property thereon, in the event of default in payment of "in lieu of
taxes" payments hereunder, which shall accrue penalty and interest
in like manner as delinquent taxes, and which shall be collectible
by City in the same manner as provided by law for delinquent taxes.
VIII.
This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon
Ci ty and Company, and upon Company's successors and assigns,
affiliates and subsidiaries, and shall remain in force whether
Company sells, assigns, or in any other manner disposes of, either
voluntarily or by operation of law, all or any part of the property
belonging to it within the territory hereinabove described, and the
agreements herein contained shall be held to be covenants running
with the land owned by Company situated within said territory, for
so long as this Agreement or any extension thereof remains in
force. Company shall give City written notice within ninety (90)
days, with full partiCUlars as to property assigned and identity of
assignee, of any disposition of the Land, and assignment of this
Agreement.
IX.
If .Ci ty enters into an Agreement with any other landowner wi th
respect to an industrial district or enters into a renewal of any
existing industrial district agreements after the effective date
hereof and while this Agreement is. in effect, which contains terms
and provisions more favorable to the landowner than those in this
Agreement, Company and its assigns shall have the right to amend
this Agreement and City agrees to amend same to embrace the more
favorable terms of such agreement or renewal agreement.
X.
The parties agree that this Agreement complies with existing laws
pertaining to the subject and that all terms, considerations and
conditions set forth herein are lawful, reasonable,. appropriate, "
and not unduly restrictive of Company's business activities~
without such a~eement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the" event anyone or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
e
e
corporation or circumstances shall be held by any court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional for any
reason, then the application, invalidity or unconstitutionality of
such words, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph, section, article
or other part of the Agreement shall be deemed to be independent of
and separable from the remainder of this Agreement and the validity
of the remaininq parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement,. all other.
previously existinq industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
By:
(COMPANY)
2904 NORTH ?1rd ST
IA pnRT~, TX 77~71
-i OF LA PORTE
By: ~.......-
, 0 a . a: ne
ayor
ATTEST:
Lfn dJilrL,d, )tJiU;f
C1.ty.Secretary
,
W. Ask1.ns
Attorney
of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
By:
(Kl~"t ~~~
Robert T. Herrera
City Manaqer
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
8
It
e
"BXJaBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
...
MAY 25 . 00 (THU) 10:05 REMAX SOUTH EAST
. . -- -~ ~-- ._.."... ......... ,.1 .
2814871729
; rnn nu.
e
'EXHIBIT ~A ~ ~
.e
. ;.!
. i
I
. "!
i .; :l . . .
". ..tu ....... till ., '.Ii~~Ift'Ia, VI ijL.~1 ialli.' .irae, :..'.rn-
'II.A1.' al" 1"IU~it. 1~ ".'Ii~ee.."".. 'e..:'.. ......1..' .,'.i... ....
., Lrlat: 'u..., ...i.,...: Iii :"1.. "I' ..,. I. ,I &a. .... 1.-
Gltt.,.. '11' ........'er...li_ ',ti_".. ''''iI' .. at..n .t a nlll' a.UII
a.? ,.... il l.ad ...,.;."llle II...... ..... c."..r ~,.Ii.'..,
.'.!" c.....,... ...i..~..i,..ft.i' .."".."....... Cler_" 'U. .N..
... "f '''el ......,.; 1,',It'~. 1!'91 A.....OaPri""1I ...11'....: ,..,..
w., I h ,.. ..a.e. ot. ""~III" ......., '" Ye.,. '''1' ,.,,: loll
., l'~ D... ....,.i .t.~,p;). Ci~ftt't'~'''~, .i.., 'ia, .i.~... .~
1"1 ;.11.",. ..... !~rU..b,l, 'lI.rl"~ '1'.'1. ta'I ........' ..
'" I,_i :: '.....'~iili ''''i~:;~..'' IOD!N ..... '..~ un,"'_ .JtaTt
Iq-""'~O" "a.... . ":'. . ':': ':' : . ,
.aiblNG, It.... ,.tit: li1.k .;~, '1,.' tik." k. II' '.l~,....tl.., Ii
'''1 iI....... lIa.' ._.t*.'I'I~j~. I.., " .1I.d~.t' a. It ..i:'Alf: . 8"a.c
"'4!..&1.. _Ilk.", n............, II.. .~!".&. Ill.'" N., *".
.1.. . "Ol.i, Iu ..,....,.. w.., ,.M-n...:., . tI~.1C "U 1,"1: ~r :. I'll
...,.,., '," ~.l~'" _nl'."... .'._ ..,." ,.riiill''', I.'''.' Iii' ;I.,li
":"11 :'. ..,......., Inll." !Mit:rh C"It', Cli,,,". nl; W..... all41.
'.I~ '~pt'.~, a;; :11"" ;'!: . . ::. . : :'
-', '* .",Ua' .........to.,: :...l ~'l.ili:. tlie'~.r'~"'lt.iJ' ; ~l,,,:..~,~..
11:.. ..,. .a.'. !I.~t~'. I'.'! III; ;. '.li.'.II"~ .';.I'I~" I... ,~ .
'I":!!:' UI,It.,. 1."Or.', ..!tJ...., lelia' hr. ..hlt Ita :.'" ."..1Ia
. Pl;, '1 !'el 1__,' Un... .:t '.",". IMd (.....: in.: ".0." ....I. WI'.
. .I~ 'a".,-.,J,. ..I,! ' :: :. .' .'
.1. . . I . ., ':
,.rei If.................. ;D.i.! '-loi, Ut' ..,~i il.II...'....' "Jft. .t
. .&:jif. 'It.." I.,... .. "I'lia~ :tl 11l,ID "CI.t '.LI'I.~."-= '.' ..a
I~ I: ~.r....' '~I. .il,.ft 'n.. "Lit' ....., ...~ "111- Ie". :., '11,.11
t.... '''~. ':..... ..~hHl"~ :;1, ai,. ,...O.~ ...U!... ... .~. I,'.t. '.
'.d .....ea.. '1"'nU.. :'t,l1l1tt a....,. .: ;' . ' '.
.. '1.. :. .:. - f ". . I
. tII. ".~t' 'D".:"'II'~ "~"L ftaU.' i.,'a~ i.l'., ,..., ;...:.11,.... ..
. .......:;-..Dt II', &".,...il' !iil :IIi." ,.....tIt .: !.'II...iti "liIii_.t
. ...". t6t"ko ..",..., .it.ftt' ., ,~,'I..\a .ft"~.lli'l .Ild ..,..
'2; i.'. .' :': . . :.. .' "
~: '..Il"......~':..I..~.:jJ~,;,...~I.h:... ~J 'IO~... ~..l iC...lh~
'In ~"O) ; U a. .......... ....,....' ItIU" I... :.....N.. II' . t,,,: ......
11", ,.I...a "Id, Lot*.1't lW: II, : . ~ . . .' '. .':,
.." '. .. : ~. I . I I . .
ft~~... ...." '~.6/,.": iii;i.:J.aU.' ...d.~ ..h.... ~l...i.:._.. .: uit.
...,.... ,.&1.'. . L.U' II: 'ii.; '. ,a: 4&11..,. .1: nli I. '"I it.. U'
'~l~l a, 'natlQflfta:.., ..ii~).;...lft ...:le'.I~.,fh.~t ai.I:.' "~.'I'U.; .
..tlt:,.....,... .d~" 1.....~I!o!:'I~... I.et .P :1r.Ul: ........ ~l aa...
. . !' I'.
I
,
:.'! .
.. ,
.
I
i
.,
. . ~
I
. PAGfj}/Jo,.1.
.
I..
.
. .
'.
. ~ . :
:j :: :
;.
. ! : ~
. i
..
. I
': ! ; ~,
,;' "
j .
'! ; .
".
.
; . ,
i., ..:
, i
I' . .
I '
i
.1
:'" "I..
..' :
:. " " , . . ~, : . : . " : : .
M-()~: .' .'I1IE;to~ANY:.ots Nqt upwtNr $ T tBE).BOvt A~~~~I~~ .
;; :. SQUARE"dotAGE;~tlIAnON$~CORR.E~.: .: I..
' .,'. .' " ! . . . ,..
! i'"
. .
. ,
' ,
I '.
,\ ..
':j ,
~I :
..t.
.!
e
e.
"BDIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
si te layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
.:.
e
e
"BD:IBIT e"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AID) RBGULATIOITS
Any portion of Land constituting a strip of land 100' wide and
contiguous to either Fairmont Parkway, state Highway 225, or state
Highway 146 shall be subject to the following rules and regulations
pertaining to new signage, screening, driveways and median
crossovers. These rules and regulations shall apply after the
effective date of this Agreement when Company develops or
constructs improvements on vacant Land described in Exhibit "A"
which is adjacent to Fairmont Parkway, state Highway 225, or state
Highway 146.
1. Any sign erected in said 100' strip of land shall be subject
to the ,following provisions:
. One freestanding identification sign shall be permitted
for each side of an industrial establishment 'that fronts
on an improved public right-of-way.
. Freestanding identification signs for single tenant
buildings shall not exceed 150 square feet in area.
. One freestanding identification sign for identifying
multiple businesses is allowable at the intersection of
improved public rights-of-way.
. Freestanding identification signs for multiple businesses
shall not exceed 350 square feet.
. Freestanding identification signs shall not exceed 45
feet in height.
, . Minimum setback for sign construction shall be ten (10)
feet from property lines.
2. When Land adjacent to said 100' strip is developed, the
initial 50,' of said strip beyond any existing pipeline
easement contiguous to either Fairmont Parkway, state Highway
225, or state Highway 146 shall be screened by one of the
following techniques:
a) Leaving in place existing trees, vegetation, underbrush,
etc. to provide a thorough and effective visual screening
of the development. Existing trees shall, together with
other vegetation and underbrush, create a continuous
visual screen. '
,~
b) The use of earthen berms with approximately 3: 1 side
slopes, 50' wide at the base and 8' high. The berms may
be landscaped with a combination of trees, shrubs, and
ground cover. All berms and landscaping will be
maintained by the property owners.
e.
e
"BDIBIT e"
Page 2 of 2
c) A screening plan, to be approved by the city, that
includes a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover
that after 5 years growth will be. at least 20 feet in
height and shall, together with shrubs and ground cover,
create a continuous visual screen. Provided, however, in
public utility easements or rights-of-way, the vegetation
shall be installed and maintained in a manner which is
acceptable to the public utility company, and does not
interfere with the operation and maintenance of the
public utility facilities. .
For items; b and c above, the actual length of required
screening along the roadway will be equal to the length of the
new development that is parallel to the roadway. Screening
shall not be required for new development that is to the rear
of. or behind existing facilities.
In all cases the SO' strip, along the entire roadway frontage,
shall be dedicated as a landscape easement and shall be kept
free from any improvements except for approved driveway access
and identification signs.
For cases of new development or improvements where a 50'
landscape easement is not available or practical, Company
shall meet with City to determine a suitable landscaping
alternative.
3. Driveways opening from said strip of land onto state Highway
225 or State Highway 146 shall be subject to the rules and
requlations of the Texas Department of Transportation and
provisions of the City's Code of Ordinances, whichever is more
restrictive.
Driveways opening from' said strip of land onto Fairmont
Parkway shall be subj ect to the rules and regulations of
Harris County and provisions of the City's Code of Ordinances,
whichever is more restrictive.
4. Driveways opening from. said strip of land onto Fairmont
Parkway shall be approved by the City and may require the
installation of separate acceleration/deceleration lanes.
5. Installation of a median crossover on Fairmont Parkway shall
be subject to the approval of both Harris County and City.
..,
, ,
e
e
EXHIBIT NO.3
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- a..1/Q
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LA PORTE TO
ENTER INTO A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED RENTALS; MAKING
VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and authorized the contract,
agreement, or other undertaking described in the title of this ordinance, in substantially
the form as shown in the document which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference. The City Manager is here authorized to execute such document and all
related documents on behalf of the City of La Porte, The City Secretary is here
authorized to attest to all such signatures and to affix the seal of the City to all such
documents,
Section 2. The City Council officially finds, determines, recites and declares
that a sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the
City Council was posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the City
for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings
Law Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this meeting has been open to the
public as required by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject matter
thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon, The City Council
further ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and posting
thereof.
e
e
2
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- ~~ I ~
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effedive from and after its passage and
approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 24th day July, 2000.
CITY OF LA PORTE
~
B,
Norman L. Malone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Cj;Jtl/ii:d1. A/liP
Martha Gillett, City Secretary
Knox Askins, City Attorney
e
.
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF HARRIS ~
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
This AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, a
municipal corporation of Harris County, Texas, hereinafter called "CITY", and United Rentals, a
corporation, hereinafter called "COMPANY".
I.
COMPANY is the owner of certain real property which is situated in CITY'S Battleground
Industrial District and not within the corporate limits of the CITY. CITY and COMPANY are
parties to a current Industrial District Agreement.
II.
COMPANY is desirous of purchasing potable water from CITY for usual human domestic
consumption and uses, and for limited industrial processes as hereinafter stated. Previous planning
considerations for the long-range potable water supply of CITY did not include the needs of
property located outside the city limits of CITY. COMPANY recognizes that CITY cannot at this
time provide permanent and unlimited water service, CITY agrees, however, to provide limited
potable water service to COMPANY. For and in consideration of furnishing domestic potable
water by CITY, the parties hereto agree as follows, to-wit:
III.
COMPANY has, made certain representations to CITY as to its number of employees,
and/or its desired amount of potable water for limited industrial processes, as of the date of this
agreement, upon which representations CITY has relied in entering into this Agreement.
e
.
2
Upon review of these representations, the City has determined the following:
Number of Company Employees on site
35
Number of Contract EmployeeS on site
o
Total on-site Employees
35
Potable Water Approved for Domestic Use
(fotal on-site Employees times 50 gpd per employee)
1.750
1.800
Potable Water Approved for Industrial Processes (gpd)
Total Amount of Potable Water Approved for
Company (gpd)
3.550
. IV.
CITY has determined that adequate facilities are available to CITY to furnish potable water
to COMPANY based on the following terms and conditions, to-wit:
(A) Company shall pay to CITY a one-time administrative connection charge of $ 7.100.
(B) Potable water used for Industrial Processes shall be limited to the following processes:
Cleaninr of Equipment for Re-rentaI Pw:poses
(C) COMPANY shall file an application for water service with CITY'S Utility Billing Division and
pay appropriate deposit and water meter charge, CITY shall be responsible for furnishing and
installing meter at Company's expense. COMPANY shall be responsible for installing
appropriate meter box to be approved by City,
(D) Where applicable, COMPANY shall also pay to CITY $ N/A as a pro-rata reimbursement
for installation of utility mains funded by other parties.
(E) The total amount of potable water approved (average daily demand) is established at 3.550
gallons per day. This number is based on an average of fifty (50) gallons per employee per day
established by CITY, plus any amount approved for industrial processes.
e
e
3
(F) The average monthly demand of 108.275 gallons is established by multiplying the
average daily demand by a factor of 30.5, which shall be used to fucilitate service billings.
(0) The cost of water up to the average monthly demand 'of 108.275 gallons shall be
one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the CITY'S rate as established from time to time for
commercial customers inside its corporate limits.
(H) The cost of water for amounts used in excess of the established average monthly demand shall
be two hundred percent (200%) of the CITY'S rate as established from time to time for
commercial customers inside its corporate limits.
(I) Nothing contained in this Agreement shall obligate CITY to furnish more than the average
monthly demand of 108.275 gallons. Repeated consumption greater than the
established average monthly demand may result in termination of service.
(1) CITY shall have the right to interrupt or temporarily suspend said water service to COMPANY
if an emergency arises and there is not an adequate water supply to meet the needs of the
citizens of La Porte.
(K) CITY reserves the right to enforce its drought contingency plan on all water customers at
CITY'S sole discretion.
(L) The total cost for the engineering design and construction of any potable water main, service
line, back flow preventer, meter or other required appurtenances will be the responsibility of
COMPANY,
(M) COMPANY agrees that it shall be bound by all applicable ordinances of CITY, relative to
the furnishing of potable water to customers within the corporate limits of CITY,
e
e
4
(N) All plumbing installed by COMPANY connected to the domestic water line from CITY, shall
meet all applicable State of Texas and CITY plumbing code requirements. CITY'S engineering
and code enforcement personnel shall have the right of prior review and approval of
COMPANY'S plans and specifications for the plumbing system(s). CITY plumbing inspectors
shall have the right to inspect any and all work related to the furnishing of potable water to
COMPANY.
(0) A reduced pressure zone backtlow preventer shall be installed and maintained by COMPANY
to protect CITY from any possible cross-connections.
(P) The potable water supply system will be segregated from any existing and future COMPANY
fJre protection system,
(Q) There shall be no resale of the water provided by CITY, nor any extension of service lines by
COMPANY to serve other parties.
(R) COMPANY shall submit a certified site plan showing the total acreage of the tract including
present and proposed improvements and a suitable location map of the site. Company's
development may be subject to certain additional requirements as described in Exhibit A These
requirements shall be shown on the site plan and approved by City.
V.
All expenses of the installation of the meter; service lines from the main to the meter; and
from the meter to COMPANY'S facilities, shall be solely at the expense of COMPANY.
COMPANY shall own and maintain all service lines and plumbing facilities beyond the meter.
CITY shall own the meter.
VI.
CITY will have ownership and maintenance responsibility for its water mains, and service
lines up to and including CITY'S water meter. In the event a State or Harris County license,
permit, or permission to install the water main is revoked, or relocation or adjustment is required,
e
e
5
CITY will not be responsible for the expense of such relocation, adjustment, or replacement.
VII.
CITY reserves' the right of entry at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspection of
COMPANY'S water facilities, and to observe compliance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement. When exercising its right of entry, CITY shall notify COMPANY in advance. CITY
also agrees to follow established health and safety policies in effect at COMPANY'S facility.
VIII.
CITY reserves the right to terminate this agreement in the event of violation of the terms
and provisions hereof by COMPANY. CITY will provide COMPANY with written notice of any
defects and COMPANY shall have the opportunity to cure any defects. Failure to correct defects
within ten (10) days may result in termination of Agreement. CITY shall have the right to
summarily correct, at COMPANY'S expense, any defect or deficiency, when in its opinion the
integrity of the public water supply is threatened.
IX.
Upon receipt of written notice of termination, COMPANY shall have up to six (6) months
to prepare for transition to another water supply. If the transition is not complete within said six-
month period, CITY shall have the right to terminate water service at its sole discretion.
X.
In the event of any conflict between the terms and provisions of this Water Service
Agreement and the terms and provisions of the Industrial District Agreement between the parties,
the terms and provisions of the Water Service Agreement shall control, to the extent of such
conflict. The term of this Agreement shall be for five years plus any renewals and extensions
thereof. However, this Agreement shall automatically expire at such time as there is no effective
Industrial District Agreement between the parties or if CITY exercises its right of termination.
e
e
7
This is EXHIBIT A, consisting of 1 page,
referred to in and part of the Water Service
Agreement between CITY and COMPANY
dated
,-
Initial :
CITY
COMPANY JJl~
ADDITIONAL REOUIREMENTS
The Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreer:nent of the
parties. COMPANY shall provide additional improvements as specifically set forth below.
These agreements represent contractual undertakings of COMPANY, undertaken to induce
CITY to sell water to COMPANY pursuant to the terms of the Water Service Agreement
and/or Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement and this addendum. Said additional improvements
undertaken by COMPANY are an integral part of the consideration by COMPANY for
obtaining the provision of water and/or sanitary sewer service from CITY.
1) Storm Water Plan:
For new development, COMPANY shall provide a Storm Water Management Plan that
is approved by Harris County Flood Control District and CITY . COMPANY shall
construct and maintain any storm water system as a condition of continued water and/or
sewer service,
2) Beautification Efforts:
COMPANY shall provide a Landscaping Plan subject to approval by CITY.
COMPANY shall install and maintain landscaping along its existing developed frontage
to State Hwy. 225, as per approved Landscaping Plan as a condition of continued water
service.
e
ENTERED INTO effective the !). tfi~ day of
CITY OF LA PORTE
A TrEST:
~af;tAl0 ti./~Lti;
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
/)
{j!::I#a
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
City Attorney
PO Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
By:
.'
e
6
1~j/lik.
Company
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY:~
Norman L, Malone .
Mayor
By: G(.~~vt- ,. ~~
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of La Porte
PO Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
Phone: (281) 471-5020
Fax: (281) 471-7168
e
e
EXHIBIT NO.4
UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT
.
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- ~~ ~o
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LA PORTE TO
ENTER INTO A UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT WITH UNITED RENTALS;
MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT;
FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the contract,
agreement, or other undertaking described in the title of this ordinance, in substantially
the form as shown in the document which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference. The City Manager is here authorized to execute such document and all
related documents on behalf of the City of La Porte. The City Secretary is here
authorized to attest to all such signatures and to affix the seal of the City to all such
documents,
Section 2. The City Council officially finds, determines, recites and declares
that a sufficient written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the
City Council was posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the City
for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings
Law Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this meeting has been open to the
public as required by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject matter
thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. The City Council
further ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and posting
thereof.
.
ORDINANCE NO. 2000- ~J.(-9-..D
e
2
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and
approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 24th day July, 2000,
ATTEST:
r1!JJ atUJtIv )<1J ull
Martha Gillett, City Secretary
Knox Askins, City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
BJ~~
Norman L. Malone, Mayor
e
e
1
UTILITY EXTENSION AGREEMENT
(Owner Funded Extension)
THE STATE OF TE;xAS:
COUNTY OF IlARIUS:
This agreement, made this ,!).. ~/.- day of "1'u tv
. 2000, by and between the City of La
Porte. herein called "City", acting herein through its City Manager and United Rentals, a corporation, of La
Porte. County ofHanis, and State of Texas, hereinafter called "Owner".
WITNESSEm
1. All references to "Utility Main(s)" hereunder shall, for the pwposes of this agreement, shall refer to the
extension of a 12-inch potable water line and related appurtenances as per plans and specifications
preparedby #~R~as~/7# .JobNo. r::e#-OO. Dated ~/~ ,and
r
approved by City (CLP Project No.. 2000-7601).
2. Owner is the owner of certain property in the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas, identified as 8.171-Acre
Tract of Land out of Lot 32 of the Strang Subdivision, Harris County, Texas. City's utility main(s)
presently do not extend to Owner's said property. Owner has requested the extension of City's utility main(s) to
serve Owners said pro~erty,
3. City hereby agrees to the constrUction and installation of an extension of its utility main(s) to said property
commencing at the nearest existing utility main(s) of sufficient size and capacity. Thence along/through public
rights-of-way and/or easements to and through said Owner's property. Provided, however, that City should not
possess all necessary 'rights-of-way and/or easements to complete said extension(s), Owner shall be solely
responsible for obtainiDg said additional rights-of-way andlor easements at no cost to City on City approved
forms. All permits and approvals required by entities with jurisdiction shall be secured prior to COnstructiOIL
4. Owner agrees to pay all costs related to the construction and installation of said utility main(s) including
necessary appurtenances in conformance with City's standards and specifications for said utility main(s).
Owner further agrees to pay all engineering fees for survey, design, contIact documents, bidding, construction
staking, construction inspection, and preparation and submittal of As-Built construction drawings.
e
e
2
S. Subject to the provisions of this agreement, City hereby agrees to the construction and installation of said utility
main(s) according to the plans, specifications and contract documents to be prepared by the Ownus engineer
and approved by the City. The conlract documents shall include a provision for a one (1) year warranty from
defects in materials and workmanship. The documents will also provide a "Notice" to Conlractor that the City
of La Porte will perfonn daily construction inspection to insure compliance with plans and specifications,
Owner agrees that City will not be responsible for issuing or approving payments to the Contractor. It is agreed
and understood that Owner is responsible for paying for any unforeseen costs or cost overruns in the project that
result from circumstances beyond the control of the City.
6. City shall have the right to approve the Engineer and the Contractor selected by Owner. Upon completion and
approval of plans, specifications, and contract documents. the City shall authorize the Owner to secure bids
from qualified underground utility contractors.
7. Owner agrees that upon completion and acceptance by City, City will assume ownership and maintenance of
the utility main(s) and as such sha1I have full control over future extensions and connections thereto.
8. For the purposes of reimbursement, as provided for in paragraph 9, Owner agrees to supply City with a
statement of final construction costs, Owner and City agree to use the final construction cost to develop an
average cost per foot. Said average cost per foot shall equal the final construction cost eligible for
reimbursement, less any allowances for City participation, divided by the total length of utility main eligible for
reimbursement as defined by Exhibit" A".
9. In the event that other owners of property abutting the utility mains extended by Owner under this contract, as
shown on the plat attached hereto as Exhibit " A" and incorporated by reference herein, shall utilize the extended
utility main(s) constructed under this agreement by making connection thereto under a permit from City within
a period of ten (1 0) y~ from and after the date City has accepted the construction of said facilities by the
contractor, City agrees to collect from said property owners, an amount equal to their linear foot of frontage
abutting the utility main times the average cost per foot and reimburse this amount to Owner. In the event that
other Owner(s) have participated in the cost of the extension of this line(s), all participating owner(s) shall be
reimbursed pro rata to their respective participation in the cost of the line(s),
.
e
3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to these presents have executed this agreement in several
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. in the year and day first mentioned above.
(Seal)
ATIEST:
B~(jt{jtL(1 JUL/:/I
( ity ecretaly of La Porte)
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY: 9~ To. l=i.~~
TITLE: t('t-~ ~~.
BY.
to.
.~......~
"~-- s
""''''' ..It .
,CC.i, ,1,\"'_ . ..> . 225 '. ,,'
';~~~~;",,'., g :....;: .~,~, ',:... ..
~.~.' ""'-"'''ii~ ""'4~ ...- ".v...-
POINT "A" TO POI~T "B" EUGIB~ ;;m ~~IM:~~;~?'
. . ' "0. - ~-~.. '~~2,~~_ ~~~~~i:~'-'.~~.~
TO U.E.A. 2000-7601
.
EXHIBIT NO.5
AREA MAP
.
. .
.~ .
REQUEST 'R CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITE.
Agenda Date Requested: Julv 24. 2000
Requested By: S. Gille~artment:
Public Works
_ Report _ Resolution XX Ordinance
Exhibits:
Ordinance no, 2000
Amendment to Contract Between the City of La Porte and the La Porte Area Water Authority
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The La Porte Area Water Authority approved the Amendment to Contract Between the City of La P0I1e and the La Porte
Area Water Authority on June 13,2000. The Contract amends Section 2.01 and 2.03 of the original agreement approved
on November 23, 1987 for supply of surface water. The new Contract is needed to reflect the new capacity owned by the
Authority at the Plant, and to allocate capacity to the Authority's customers.
Section 2.01 is amended to update La Porte's share of treatment capacity at the Southeast Water Purification Plant from
3.82 MGD to 6.925 MGD. Section 2.03 is amended to update La Porte's share of distribution capacity from 90.97% to
80.30%. The changes reflect the recent purchase of additional capacity at the Southeast Water Purification Plant and the
changes in distribution capacity costs allocated to the Authority's customers.
The Authority has purchased this new capacity for its customers through the use of retained earnings, accumulated
Capital Recovery Fees, refunding savings of the original bonds, and the sale of excess water capacity rights to Pasadena,
Friendswood and Clear Lake City Water Authority. In addition to the new capacity purchased for La Porte, the reduced
debt service requirements will result in a lower water rate for La Porte(approximately $1.23 per 1,000 Gal. to $0.97 per
1,000 Gal.), elimination of the Capital Recovery Fee billing ($160,376 per year), and a cash refund to La Porte of
approximately $339,493.
Action Required by Council: Approve Ordinance No. 2000- authorizing the City Manager to execute the
Amendment to Contract Between the City of La Porte and the LA Porte Area Water Authority.
Availability of Funds:
General Fund Water/Wastewater
_ Capital Improvement--':" General Revenue Sharing
Other
Account Number:
Funds Available: YES NO
.
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-a~J..\
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AHENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT
FOR THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER AND THE CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND
OPBRATION OF WATER TREATMiNT TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION,
PACILITIBS BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE AND THE LA PORTE AREA WATER
AUTHORITY; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
SUBJECT; PINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MBBTINGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING AN BPFBCTIVE DATE HBREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Sec~ion 1. The City Council hereby approves and authorizes
the contract, agreement, or other undertaking described in the
title of this ordinance, in substantially the form as shown in the
document which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute such
document and all related documents on behalf of the City of La
Porte. The City Secretary is hereby authorized to attest to all
such signatures and to affix the seal of the City to all such
documents.
Section 2. The City Council officially finds, determines,
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council was
posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the
ci ty for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as
required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government
Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public as required
by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted
upon.
The City Council further ratifies, approves and confirms
such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
Sec~ion 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
.
e
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 24th day of July, 2000.
ATTEST:
llJMA~(J.lhLt/
Ma tha A. Gillett
City Secretary
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY:~~
Mayor
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
e
e
THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION
UNDER THE TEXAS GENERAL ARBITRATION ACT
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER AND THE
CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERATION OF WATER TREATMENT
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into as ofthedLJIJ-day Of~, 2000, (the
"Amendment") amends the Contract made and entered into as of the 23rd day of
November, 1987, by and between La Porte Area Water Authority (the "Authority"), a
conservation and reclamation district in Harris County, Texas, and a governmental
agency and a body politic and corporate, created by Chapter 729, page 2678, Acts of
the 6ih Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 1981 (the "Act"), and the
City of La Porte, Texas, a municipal corporation of the State of Texas (the "City"),
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Contract").
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, the City and other Participants named in Section 2.01 hereof are
required by the rules and regulations of the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence
District (the "Subsidence District") to continue the reduced levels of their respective
withdrawals of groundwater from their wells, and replace such withdrawals with surface
Water which has been properly treated for domestic use;
WHEREAS, the Authority has existed primarily for the purpose of providing
Water treatment and transmission facilities necessary to serve municipal corporations,
political subdivisions and others within an area described in Section 3 of the Act, and
may provide such facilities to persons, corporations, municipal corporations, political
subdivisions and others within an area described within Section 5(b) of the Act;
e
.
WHEREAS, under the Act the Authority has specific power, among others, to (a)
acquire surface Water supplies from sources inside and outside its boundaries, (b) treat,
purify, transport, distribute, sell and deliver Water (as defined herein) to corporations,
municipal corporations, political subdivisions of the State of Texas and others, (c)
purchase, construct or otherwise acquire facilities and improvements necessary to carry
out its powers, and (d) issue and sell its revenue bonds, without the necessity of an
election, for the purpose, among others, of paying the cost of such facilities and
improvements;
WHEREAS, at the request and for the benefit of the City and such other
Participants, the Authority has entered into a contract with the City of Galveston,
Galveston County, Texas, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Texas, for the purpose of purchasing a 3MGD additional undivided
interest in the Pumping and Production Capacity of the City of Houston's Southeast
Water Purification Plant (hereinafter called the "Southeast Plant");
WHEREAS, the Authority has entered into a Cost Sharing Agreement with the
City of Houston for the expansion of the Southeast Plant, and the expansion has
increased Production Capacity of the Southeast Plant from 80 MGD to 120 MGD, which
has provided the authority the rights to an additional 3.6 MGD of production capacity, of
which the Authority has sold the rights for 3 MGD to other entities by entering into an
Excess Rebate Water Purchase Agreements and has retained the rights to .6 MGD,
and the expansion has also lowered the Pumping Capacity of the plant from 225 MGD
to 200 MGD.
WHEREAS, in order to continue to comply with the rules and regulations of the
Subsidence District, the City desires to purchase additional Water from the Authority on
2
e
e
the terms and conditions herein set forth and the Authority is willing to sell such
additional Water to the City upon the same terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City are authorized to enter into this Contract
pursuant to the Act, Chapter 791, ~ 791.002 et seq. of the Texas Government Code,
and other applicable laws;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants and
agreements therein contained, the Authority and the City hereby agree as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 1, Section 1.01 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as
follows, to-wit:
"ARTICLE I
Definition of Terms
Section 1.01 Unless the context requires otherwise, the following terms and
phrases shall have meanings as follows:
(1) Act - Chapter 729, page 2678 et seq., Acts of the 67th legislature of the
State of Texas, Regular Session, 1981.
(2) Authoritv - The La Porte Area Water Authority.
(3) Authoritv Director - the General Manager of the La Porte Area Water
Authority, or his designated representative.
(4) Board - The Board of Directors of the Authority.
(5) Bond Resolution - any resolution or order of the Authority, duly approved
by the City, which authorizes the issuance of any Bonds.
(6) Bonds - any revenue bonds issued by the Authority, as authorized by this
Contract and any Bond Resolution, whether one or more issues, and the interest
appertaining thereto, to finance the Authority's participation in the Southeast Plant,
the Transmission System, and the Distribution System, including all improvements,
enlargements, and expansions thereof, and any Bonds issued to refund such bonds.
(7) City - the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
(8) City System - the City's existing waterworks and sanitary sewer system,
together with all present and future extensions, additions, replacements and
improvements thereto.
3
e
e
(9) Code - the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(10) CWA - the Coastal Water Authority, previously known as the Coastal
Industrial Water Authority.
(11) Demand Allocation Factor- the percentage of the production capacity of the
Southeast Plant which the Authority is entitled to use at any given time. The initial
Demand Allocation Factor for the authority will be the percentage of the actual
production construction cost paid by the Authority divided by the total actual
production construction cost, as specified in Section 2.01 of the Houston Contract.
The initial Demand allocation Factor is 6.5%.
(12) Distribution System - those facilities used to transport treated surface
Water from the termination of the transmission facilities shown on Exhibit "Cn,
attached hereto, and fully incorporated by reference herein, to each Participant's
take point.
(13) Excess Production Fee - the rate to be charged to the City by the Authority
for use of production capacity above the City's share of committed capacity from the
Southeast Plant which shall be payable in the amounts and at the times as set forth
in Section 4.05 of the Houston Contract.
(14) Excess Pumoaae Fee - the rate to be charged to the City by the Authority
for use of pumping facilities associated with the Southeast Plant in excess of the
City's share of committed capacity for the Project, which shall be payable in the
amounts and at the times as set forth in Section 4.05 of the Houston Contract.
(15) Fiscal Year - the Fiscal Year of the Authority, as designated in Section
16(b) of the Act, which is from October 1, to September 30 of the following year,
unless and until changed by the Board.
(16) Houston - the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas.
(17) Houston Contract - the contract between the Authority and Houston, which
shall be in all material respects in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
contract attached to this Contract as Exhibit "An, incorporated by reference herein as
if recited in this Contract verbatim, providing for the purchase by the Authority of: an
undivided interest in the Southeast Plant as well as potable treated surface Water
from the Southeast Plant.
(18) Houston Director - the Director of the City of Houston's Department of
Public Works and Engineering or any other person designated as such Director.
(19) La Porte - the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
(20) "MGDn - an abbreviation for million gallons per day. As used in this
Contract, "MGDn refers to the quantity of Water during a period of time expressed for
convenience in terms of an average daily quantity during a calendar month (unless a
different period of time is specified). The volume of two MGD for a calendar month,
for example, is calculated as follows: Two million gallons multiplied by the number of
days in such calendar month.
4
e
e
(21 ) Oceration and Maintenance Excenses - all costs of providing Water to
Participants under the Water Sales Contracts, except for costs funded by Bond
proceeds; debt service on the Authority's Bonds and amounts required to fund any
reserve fund, contingency fund, rebate fund, or any other fund established under any
Bond Resolution, including without limitation all Operation and Maintenance Costs
billed to the Authority by Houston, all Operating and Maintenance Costs incurred by
the Authority related to the Transmission system and the Distribution System, and all
administrative costs incurred by the Authority (including insurance).
(22) "Particicantsll - the city and all of the other parties named in Section 2.01
hereof who have executed a Contract substantially similar to this Contract. The
terms also includes any customer who executes a Water Sales Contract pursuant to
the provisions of Section 11.09 hereof from and after such execution.
(23) Production Cacacitv - the maximum rate of production of treated surface
Water from the Southeast Plant, which equals 120 MGD.
(24) Pumcina Allocation Factor - the percentage of the Southeast Plant's
pumping and related treated Water storage capacity which the Authority is entitled to
use at any given time. The initial Pumping Allocation Factor for the Authority will
equal the actual construction cost of the pumping and storage facilities paid by the
Authority divided by the total actual construction cost for such pumping and storage
facilities. The initial Pumping Allocation Factor is 4:875%.-
(25) Pumcina Cacacitv - the maximum rate of delivery of treated surface Water
from the Southeast Plant, which equals 200 MGD (expressed as a peak hour
pumping rate),
(26) Service Area - that area described in Sections 3 and 5(b) of the Act.
(27) Southeast Plant - the Project described in the Houston Contract generally,
and specifically described in Exhibit "B" to the Houston Contract.
(28) Subsidence District - the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District.
(29) Transmission Svstem - those facilities, including pipelines, easements,
pumping, and other devices to deliver treated surface Water from the take point at
the Southeast Plant, shown on Exhibit "All attached to the Houston Contract, to that
point shown Exhibit "CII of this Contract, which includes necessary storage and
pumping facilities to delivery treated surface Water to each Participant.
(30) "Water" - the term "Water" means potable treated surface Water that has
been supplied by Houston in accordance with the Houston Contract.
(31 ) Water Sales Contracts - the Contract, the contracts between the Authority
and the other Participants named in Section 2.01 of this Contract, and any Contract
between the Authority and a new Participant. All Water Sales Contractsss are and
shall be in a form substantially similar to this one. II
5
e
e
SECTION 2. Article II, Section 2,01 is hereby amended to read as follows, to-wit:
"Section 2.01 With the full cooperation of the City (and the other
Participants) the Authority agrees to purchase an initial Demand Allocation Factor of
6.5% and an initial Pumping Allocation Factor of 4.875% in the Southeast Plant, in
accordance with the Houston Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit "An. Each
Participant's share of the initial Demand Allocation Factor and initial Pumping
Allocation Factor are set forth below opposite the name of each party.
PARTICIPANT
% SHARE
OF lOAF.
SHARE
OF lOAF.
% SHARE
OF IPAp.
SHARE
OF IPAp.
City of La Porte
City of Shoreacres
City of Morgan's Point
88.78%
4.17%
7.05%
5.77%
0.27%
0.46%
88.78%
4.17%
7.05%
4.33%
0.20%
0.34%
· lOAF -Initial Demand Allocation Factor
.. IPAF - Initial Pumping Allocation Factor
T~e above percentages, applied to the lOAF of 120 MGO and the IPAF of 200
MGO, calculate as follows:
Gallons Gallons
PARTICIPANT of lOAF of IPAF
City of La Porte 6,925,000 8,656,250
City of Shoreacres 325,000 406,250
City of Morgan's Point 550.000 687.500
Total for Authority 7,800,000 9,750,000"
SECTION 3. Section 2.03 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows, to-wit:
"Section 2.03 The pro rata share of each Participant in the actual
construction cost of the Transmission System and the Distribution System is as
follows:
City of La Porte
City of Morgan's Point
City of Shoreacres
80.30%
11.70%
8.0%
6
e
e
Each Participant, including the City, hereby approves the construction cost formula
and the City's share of the actual construction cost for the Transmission System and
Distribution System as paid by the City and the other Participants, as required by the
Contract. n
SECTION 4. This Amendment and the Contract together constitute all the
understandings between the parties hereto, and there are no oral representations,
stipulations, warranties or understandings with respect to the subject matter of this
Amendment which are not fully expressed herein. Neither this Amendment nor its
execution has been induced by any representations, stipulations, warranties or
understandings of any kind other than those herein expressed.
No amendment, addition to, alteration, modification or waiver of all or any part of
this Amendment shall be of any forc~ or effect unless in writing and signed by the
Authority, the City and any other Participant affected by such change. If the terms and
conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of any purchase order or
order acknowledgement written in connection with this Agreement conflict, the terms
and conditions of this Amendment shall govern.
SECTION 5. No waiver by any party hereto of one or more defaults by any other party
hereto in the performance of any of the provisions of this Amendment shall operate or
be construed by a waiver of any other or further default or defaults, whether of a like or
different character,
SECTION 6. This Amendment shall bind and benefit the parties hereto and their
respective successor~ and assigns, and shall not be assignable by any party without
written consent of the other parties.
7
e
e
SECTION 7. This Amendment is to be construed according to the laws of the State of
Texas.
SECTION 8. The topical headings used herein have been inserted for convenience only
and shall not be construed as having any substantive significance or me~ning
whatsoever or as indicating that all of the provisions of this Amendment relating to any
particular topic are to be found in any particular Article.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the parties hereto, acting under authority of the
respective governing bodies. have caused this Amendment to be e~ecuted in several
. .
counterparts. each of which shall be an original. but all collectively constituting one and
the same instrument. all as of the day and year first written.
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
By:
G~ T ~~
City Manager
ArrEST:
By: ~ f141/f1Il...a. itUI/I
City Secretary
APPROVED:
. 8
e
e
LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY
By: 4~;Q-~.1
President
ATTEST:
By:
&~ .{2&
Secretary
APPROVED BY:
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
By:4~#(.?-
ayor
ATTEST:
By:011 tui/J IL O. )UlIff
City Secretary
APPROVED:
9
e
.~
~
,
"
e
....~
v
REOUES.R CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITE.
Agenda Date Requested: July 24, 2000
Requested By: s. Gill~artmeut: Public Works
_ Report _ Resolution XX Ordinance
Exhibits:
Ordinance no. 2000
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The La Porte Area Water Authority approved the Amendment to Contract Between the Cities of La Porte, Shoreacres and
Morgan's Point and the La Porte Area Water Authority on June 13,2000. The Contracts amends Section 2.01 and 2.03
of the original agreement approved on November 23, 1987 for supply of surface water. The new Contract is needed to
reflect the new capacity owned by the Authority at the Plant, and to allocate capacity to the Authority's customers.
The Contract was approved by the City of Shoreacres on July 10,2000 and the City of Morgan's Point on July 11,2000.
The City of La Porte is considering approval of the Contract at tonight's meeting. The Authority's enabling legislation
requires the City of La Porte to approve all contracts entered into by the Authority.
Action Required by Council: Approve Ordinance No. 2000- approving the Amendment to Contract Between the
Cities of La Porte, Shoreacres and Morgan's Point and authorizing the Mayor to execute the Amendment to Contracts
Between the Cities of La Porte, Shoreacres and Morgan's Point and the La Porte Area Water Authority.
Availability of Funds:
General Fund WaterlWastewater
_ Capital Improvement~ General Revenue Sharing
Other
Account Number:
Funds Available: YES NO
e
e
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-a-'f~d-
All ORDINAIlCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AIIENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT
FOR THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER AND THE CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND
OPERATION OF WATER TREATMENT TRANSHISSION AND DISTRIBUTION,
VACILITIBS BETWEEN THE LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY AND THE CITY
OV SHOREACRES, THE CITY OF MORGAN' S POINT, AND THE CITY OV LA
PORTE; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEBTINGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING All EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Sec~ion 1. The city Council hereby approves and authorizes
the contract, agreement, or other undertaking described in the
title of this ordinance, in substantially the form as shown in the
document which ,is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such document
and all related documents on behalf of the City of La Porte. The
City Secretary is hereby authorized to attest to all such
signatures and to affix the seal of the City to all such documents.
Sec~ion 2. The City Council officially finds, determines,
recites, .and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place and subject of this meeting of the city council was
posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the
City for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as
required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government
Code; and that this meeting has been open to th~ public as required
by law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted
upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and confirms
such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
.
e
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 24th day of July, 2000.
By:
CITY OF LA PORTE
~t~
Mayor
ATTEST:
l1f)fff11J4 Jld
Mar ha A. Gillett
City Secretary
AP~td dJ
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
.
e
THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION
UNDER THE TEXAS GENERAL ARBITRATION ACT
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER AND THE
CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERATION OF WATER TREATMENT
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
THIS CONTRACT. made and entered into as of th~ay ofJU \. y. 2000, (the
"Amendment") amends the Contract made and entered into as of the 23rd day of
November, 1987, by and between La Porte Area Water Authority (the "Authority"), a
conservation and reclamation district in Harris County, Texas, and a governmental
agency and a body politic and corporate, created by Chapter 729, page 2678, Acts of
the 67th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 1981 (the "Act"), and the
City of Morgan's Point, Texas, a municipal corporation of the State of Texas (the "City"),
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Contract").
WIT NE SSE T H:
WHEREAS, the City and other Participants named in Section 2.01 hereof are
required by the rules and regulations of the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence
District (the "Subsidence District") to continue the reduced levels of their respective
withdrawals of groundwater from" their wells, and replace such withdrawals with surface
Water which has been properly treated for domestic use;
WHEREAS, the Authority has existed primarily for the purpose of providing
Water treatment and transmission facilities necessary to serve municipal corporations,
political subdivisions and others within an area described in Section 3 of the Act, and
may provide such facilities to persons, corporations, municipal corporations, political
subdivisions and others within an area described within Section 5{b) of the Act;
.
e
WHEREAS, under the Act the Authority has specific power, among others, to (a)
acquire surface Water supplies from sources inside and outside its boundaries, (b) treat,
purify, transport, distribute, sell and deliver Water (as defined herein) to corporations,
municipal corporations, political subdivisions of the State of Texas and others, (c)
purchase, construct or otherwise acquire facilities and improvements necessary to carry
out its powers, and (d) issue and sell its revenue bonds, without the necessity of an
election, for the purpose, among others, of paying the cost of such facilities and
improvements;
WHEREAS, at the request and for the benefit of the City and such other
Participants, the Authority has entered into a contract with the City of Galveston,
Galveston County, Texas, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Texas, for the purpose of purchasing a 3MGD additional undivided
interest in the Pumping and Production Capacity of the City of Houston's Southeast
Water Purification Plant (hereinafter called the "Southeast Plant");
WHEREAS, the Authority has entered into a Cost Sharing Agreement with the
City of Houston for the expansion of the Southeast Plant, and the expansion has
incre~sed Production Capacity of the Southeast Plant from 80 MGD to 120 MGD, which
has provided the authority the rights to an additional 3,6 MGD of production capacity, of
which the Authority has sold the rights for 3 MGD to other entities by entering into an
Excess Rebate Water Purchase Agreements and has retained the rights to .6 MGD,
and the expansion has also lowered the Pumping Capacity of the plant from 225 MGD
to 200 MGD.
WHEREAS, in order to continue to comply with the rules and regulations of the
Subsidence District, the City desires to purchase additional Water from the Authority on
2
.
e
the terms and conditions herein set forth and the Authority is willing to sell such
additional Water to the City upon the same terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City are authorized to enter into this Contract
pursuant to the Act, Chapter 791, ~ 791,002 et seq. of the Texas Government Code,
and other applicable laws;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants and
agreements therein contained, the Authority and the City hereby agree as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 1, Section 1.01 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as
follows, to-wit:
"ARTICLE I
Definition of Terms
Section 1.01 Unless the context requires otherwise, the following terms and
phrases shall have meanings as follows:
(1) Act - Chapter 729, page 2678 et seq., Acts of the 67th legislature of the
State of Texas, Regular Session, 1981.
(2) Authoritv - The La Porte Area Water Authority.
(3) Authority Director - the General Manager of the La Porte Area Water
Authority, or his designated representative. .
(4) Board - The Board of Directors of the Authority.
(5) Bond Resolution - any resolution or order of the Authority, duly approved
by the City, which authorizes the issuance of any Bonds.
(6) Bonds - ,any revenue bonds issued by the Authority, as authorized by this
Contract and any Bond Resolution, whether one or more issues, and the interest
appertaining thereto, to finance the Authority's participation in the Southeast Plant,
the Transmission System, and the Distribution System, including all improvements,
enlargements, and expansions thereof, and any Bonds issued to refund such bonds.
(7) City - the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
(8) City System - the City's existing waterworks and sanitary sewer system,
together with all present and future extensions, additions, replacements and
improvements thereto.
3
e
e
(9) Code - the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(10) CWA - the Coastal Water Authority, previously known as the Coastal
Industrial Water Authority.
(11) Demand Allocation Factor- the percentage of the production capacity of the
Southeast Plant which the Authority is entitled to use at any given time. The initial
Demand Allocation Factor for the authority will be the percentage of the actual
production construction cost paid by the Authority divided by the total actual
production construction cost, as specified in Section 2.01 of the Houston Contract.
The initial Demand allocation Factor is 6.5%.
(12) Distribution System - those facilities used to transport treated surface
Water from the termination of the transmission facilities shown on Exhibit "C",
attached hereto, and fully incorporated by reference herein, to each Participant's
take point.
(13) Excess Production Fee - the rate to be charged to the City by the Authority
for use of produ~ion capacity above the City's share of committed capacity from the
Southeast Plant which shall be payable in the amounts and at the times as set forth
in Section 4.05 of the Houston Contract.
(14) Excess PumpaQe Fee - the rate to be charged to the City by the Authority
for use of pumping facilities associated with the Southeast Plant in excess of the
City's share of committed capacity for the Project, which shall be payable in the
amounts and at the times as set forth in Section 4.05 of the Houston Contract.
(15) Fiscal Year - the Fiscal Year of the Authority, as designated in Section
16(b) of the Act, which is from October 1, to September 30 of the following year,
unless and until changed by the Board.
(16) Houston -the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas.
(17) Houston Contract - the contract between the Authority and Houston, which
shall be in all material respects in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
~ontract attached to this Contract as Exhibit "A", incorporated by reference herein as
if recited in this Contract verbatim, providing for the purchase by the Authority of: an
undivided interest in the Southeast Plant as well as potable treated surface Water
from the Southeast Plant.
(18) Houston Director - the Director of the City of Houston's Department of
Public Works and Engineering or any other person designated as such Director.
(19) La Porte - the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
(20) "MGDn - an abbreviation for million gallons per day. As used in this
Contract, "MGDn refers to the quantity of Water during a period of time expressed for
convenience in terms of an average daily quantity during a calendar month (unless a
different period of time is specified). The volume of two MGD for a calendar month,
for example, is calculated as follows: Two million gallons multiplied by the number of
days in such calendar month,
4
e
e
(21) Operation and Maintenance Expenses - all costs of providing Water to
Participants under the Water Sales Contracts, except for costs funded by Bond
proceeds; debt service on the Authority's Bonds and amounts required to fund any
reserve fund, contingency fund, rebate fund, or any other fund established under any
Bond Resolution, including without limitation all Operation and Maintenance Costs
billed to the Authority by Houston, all Operating and Maintenance Costs incurred by
the Authority related to the Transmission system and the Distribution System, and all
administrative costs incurred by the Authority (including insurance).
(22) "Participants" - the city and all of the other parties named in Section 2.01
hereof who have executed a Contract substantially similar to this Contract. The
terms also includes any customer who executes a Water Sales Contract pursuant to
the provisions of Section 11.09 hereof from and after such execution.
(23) Production Capacity - the maximum rate of production of treated surface
Water from the Southeast Plant, which equals 120 MGD.
(24) Pumpina Allocation Factor - the percentage of th.e Southeast Plant's
pumping and related treated Water storage capacity which the Authority is entitled to
use at any given time. The initial Pumping Allocation Factor for the Authority will
equal the actual construction cost of the pumping and storage facilities paid by the
Authority divided by the total actual construction cost for such pumping and storage
facilities, The initial Pumping Allocation Factor is 4.875%.
(25) Pumpina Capacity - the maximum rate of delivery of treated surface Water
from the Southeast Plant, which equals 200 MGD (expressed as a peak hour
pumping rate).
(26) Service Area - that area described in Sections 3 and 5(b) of the Act.
(27) Southeast Plant - the Project described in the Houston Contract generally,
and specifically described in Exhibit "B" to the Houston Contract.
(28) Subsidence District - the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District.
(29) Transmission System - those facilities, including pipelines, easements,
pumping, and other devices to deliver treated surface Water from the take point at
the Southeast Plant, shown on Exhibit "A" attached to the Houston Contract, to that
point shown Exhibit "C" of this Contract, which includes necessary storage and
pumping facilities to delivery treated surface Water to each Participant.
(30) "Water" ... the term "Water" means potable treated surface Water that has
been supplied by Houston in accordance with the Houston Contract.
(31 ) Water Sales Contracts - the Contract, the contracts between the Authority
and the other Participants named in Section 2.01 of this Contract, and any Contract
between the Authority and a new Participant. All Water Sales Contractsss are and
shall be in a form substantially similar to this one."
5
e
e
SECTION 2. Article II, Section 2.01 is hereby amended to read as follows, to-wit:
"Section 2.01 With the full cooperation of the City (and the other
Participants) the Authority agrees to purchase an initial Demand Allocation Factor of
6.5% and an initial Pumping Allocation Factor of 4.875% in the Southeast Plant, in
accordance with the Houston Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Each
Participant's share of the initial Demand Allocation Factor and initial Pumping
Allocation Factor are set forth below opposite the name of each party.
PARTICIPANT
% SHARE
OF IDAF*
SHARE
OF IDAF*
% SHARE
OF IPAF**
SHARE
OF IPAF**
City of La Porte
City of Shoreacres
City of Morgan's Point
88.78%
4.17%
7.05%
5.77%
0.27%
0.46%
88.78%
4.17%
7.05%
4.33%
0.20%
0.34%
* lOAF -Initial Demand Allocation Factor
** IPAF -Initial Pumping Allocation Factor
The above percentages, applied to the lOAF of 120 MGO and the IPAF of 200
MGD, calculate as follows:
Gallons . Gallons
PARTICIPANT of lOAF of IPAF
City of La Porte 6,925,000 8,656,250
City of Shoreacres 325,000 406,250
City of Morgan's Point 550.000 687,500
~otal for Authority 7,800,000 9,750,000"
SECTION 3. Section 2,03 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows, to-wit:
"Section 2.03 The pro rata share of each Participant in the actual
construction cost of the Transmission System and the Distribution System is as
follows:
City of La Porte
City of Morgan's Point
City of Shoreacres
80.30%
11.70%
8.0%
6
e
e
Each Participant, including the City, hereby approves the construction cost formula
and the City's share of the actual construction cost for the Transmission System and
Distribution System as paid by the City and the other Participants, as required by the
Contract. n
SECTION 4. This Amendment and the Contract together constitute all the
understandings between the parties hereto, and there are no oral representations,
stipulations, warranties or understandings with respect to the subject matter of this
Amendment which are not fully expressed herein. Neither th!s Amendment nor its
execution has been induced by any representations, stipulations, warranties or
understandings of any kind other than those herein expressed.
No amendment, addition to, alteration, modification or waiver of all or any part of
this Amendment shall be of any force or effect unless in writing and signed by the
Authority, the City'and any other Participant affected by such change. If the terms and
conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of any purchase order or
order acknowledgement written in connection with this Agreement conflict, the terms
and conditions of this Amendment shall govern,
SECTION 5. No waiver by any party hereto of one or more defaults by any other party
hereto in the performance of any of the provisions of this Amendment shall operate or
be construed by a waiver of any other or further default or defaults, whether of a like or
different character,
SECTION 6. This Amendment shall bind and benefit the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, and shall not be assignable by any party without
written consent of the other parties.
7
e
e
SECTION 7. This Amendment is to be construed according to the laws of the State of
Texas.
SECTION 8. The topical headings used herein have been inserted for convenience only
and shall not be construed as having any substantive significance or meaning
whatsoever or as indicating that all of the provisions of this Amendment relating to any
particular topic are to be found in any particular Article.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, acting under authority of the
respective governing bodies, have caused this Amendment to be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all collectively constituting one and
the same instrument, all as of the day and year first written.
CITY OFMORGAN'S POINT, TEXAS
B&~~
May
ATTEST:
By: ,-/)AAAiJ..J ~, /
~it;s1!cr:rn.~6
. 8
e
ATTEST:
By. i!I~ ~
Secretary
APPROVED BY:
ATTEST:
By:~t1t1.A4. tliU.lli
, City Secretary
APPROVED:
"j
e
fI.
,
LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY
.,
\
~ ,
~\
By: ~~IWVU
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
BY:~~~
. Mayor
9
e ORDINANCE 2000-07 -ShOr.ec:;,c-r.
THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ARBITRATION
UNDER THE TEXAS GENERAL ARBITRATION ACT
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY OF POTABLE WATER AND THE
CONSTRUCTION, FINANCING AND OPERATION OF WATER TREATMENT
TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into as of th~day af~, 2000, (the
"Amendment") amerids the Contract made and entered into as of the 23rd day of
November, 1987, by and between La, Porte Area Water Authority (the "Authority"), a
conservation and reclamation district in Harris County, Texas, and a governmental
agency and a body politic and corporate, created by Chapter 729, page 2678, Acts of
the 6th Legislature of the State of Texas, Regular Session, 1981 (the "Act"), and the
City of Shoreacres, Texas, a municipal corporation of the State of Texas (the "City"),
(hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Contract").
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, the City and other Participants named in Section 2.01 hereof are
required by the rules and regulations of the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence
District (the "Subsidence District") to continue the reduced levels. of their respective
withdrawals of groundwater from their wells, and replace such withdrawals with surface
Water which has been properly treated for domestic use;
WHEREAS, the Authority has existed primarily for the purpose of providing
Water treatment and transmission facilities necessary to serve municipal corporations,
political subdivisions and others within an area described in Section 3 of the Act, and
may provide such facilities to persons, corporations, municipal corporations, political
subdivisions and others within an area described within Section 5(b) of the Act;
e
e
WHEREAS, under the Act the Authority has specific power, among others, to (a)
acquire surface Water supplies from sources inside and outside its boundaries, (b) treat,
purify, transport, distribute, sell and deliver Water (as defined herein) to corporations,
municipal corporations, political subdivisions of the State of Texas and others, (c)
purchase, construct or otherwise acquire facilities and improvements necessary to carry
out its powers, and (d) issue and sell its revenue bonds, without the necessity of an
election, for the purpose, among others, of paying the cost of such facilities and
improvements;
WHEREAS, at the request and for the benefit of the City and such other
Participants, the Authority has entered into a contract with the City of Galveston,
Galveston County, Texas, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Texas, for the purpose of purchasing a 3MGD additional undivided
interest in the Pumping and Production Capacity of the City of Houston's Southeast
Water Purification Plant (hereinafter called the "Southeast Plant");
WHEREAS, the Authority has entered into a Cost Sharing Agreement with the
City of Houston for the expansion of the Southeast Plant, and the expansion has
increased Production Capacity of the Southeast Plant from 80 MGD to 120 MGD, which
has provided the authority the rights to an additional 3.6 MGD of production capacity, of
which the Authority has sold the rights for 3 MGD to other entities by entering into an
Excess Rebate Water Purchase Agreements and has retained the rights to .6 MGD,
and the expansion has also lowered the Pumping Capacity of the plant from 225 MGD
to 200 MGD,
WHEREAS, .in order to continue to comply with the rules and regulations of the
Subsidence District, the City desires to purchase additional Water from the Authority on
2
e
e
the terms and conditions herein set forth and the Authority is willing to sell such
additional Water to the City upon the same terms and conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the City are authorized to enter into this Contract
pursuant to the Act, Chapter 791, ~ 791.002 et seq. of the Texas Government Code,
and other applicable laws;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual premises and covenants and
agreements therein contained, the Authority and the City hereby agree as follows:
SECTION 1. Article 1, Section 1.01 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as
follows, to-wit:
"ARTICLE I
Definition of Terms
Section 1.01 Unless the context requires otherwise, the following terms and
phrases shall have meanings as follows:
(1) Act - Chapter 729, page 2678 et seq., Acts of the 6th legislature of the
State of Texas, Regular Session, 1981.
(2) Authority - The La Porte Area Water Authority.
(3) Authority Director - the General Manager of the La Porte Area Water
Authority, or his designated representative.
(4) Board - The Board of Directors of the Authority.
(5) Bond Resolution - any resolution or order of the Authority, duly approved
by the City, which authorizes the issuance of any Bonds.
(6) Bonds - any revenue bonds issued by the Authority, as authorized by this
Contract and any Bond Resolution, whether one or more issues, and the interest
appertaining thereto, to finance the Authority's participation in the Southeast. Plant,
the Transmission System, and the Distribution System, including all improvements,
enlargements, and expansions thereof, and any Bonds issued to refund such bonds.
(7) City - the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
(8) City System - the City's existing waterworks and sanitary sewer system,
together with all present and future extensions, additions, replacements and
improvements thereto,
3
e
e
(9) Code - the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
(10) CWA - the Coastal Water Authority, previously known as the Coastal
Industrial Water Authority.
(11) Demand Allocation Factor- the percentage of the production capacity of the
Southeast Plant which the Authority is entitled to use at any given time. The initial
Demand Allocation Factor for the authority will be the percentage of the actual
production construction cost paid by the Authority divided by the total actual
production construction cost, as specified in Section 2.01 of the Houston Contract.
The initial Demand allocation Factor is 6.5%. '
(12) Distribution System - those facilities used to transport treated surface
Water from the termination of the transmission facilities shown on Exhibit "Cn,
attached hereto, and fully incorporated by reference herein, to each Participant's
take point.
(13) Excess Production Fee - the rate to be charged to the City by the Authority
for use of production capacity above the City's share of committed capacity from the
Southeast Plant which shall be payable in the amounts and at the times as set forth
in Section 4.05 of the Houston Contract.
(14) Excess Pumoaae Fee - the rate to be charged to the City by the Authority
for use of pumping facilities associated with the Southeast Plant in excess of the
City's share of committed capacity for the Project, which shall be payable in the
amounts and at the times as set forth in Section 4.05 of the Houston Contract.
(15) Fiscal Year - the Fiscal Year of the Authority, as designated in Section
16(b) of the Act, which is from October 1; to September 30 of the following year,
unless and until changed by the Board.
(16) Houston - the City of Houston, Harris County, Texas.
(17) Houston Contract - the contract between the Authority and Houston, which
shall be in all material respects in accordance with the terms and provisions of the
contract attached to this Contract as Exhibit "An, incorporated by reference herein as
if recited in this Contract verbatim, providing for the purchase by the Authority of: an
undivided interest in the Southeast Plant as well as potable treated surface Water
from the Southeast Plant.
(18) Houston Director - the Director of the City of Houston's Department of
Public Works and Engineering or any other person designated as such Director.
(19) La Porte..... the City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
(20) "MGDn - an abbreviation for million gallons per day. As used in this
Contract, UMGDn refers to the quantity .of Water during a period of time expressed for
convenience in terms of an average daily quantity during a calendar month (unless a
different period of time is specified). The volume of two MGD for a calendar month,
for example, is calculated as follows: Two million gallons multiplied by the number of
days in such calendar month.
4
e
e
(21) Operation and Maintenance Expenses - all costs of providing Water to
Participants under the Water Sales Contracts, except for costs funded by Bond
proceeds; debt service on the Authority's Bonds and amounts required to fund any
reserve fund, contingency fund, rebate fund, or any other fund established under any
Bond Resolution, including without limitation all Operation and Maintenance Costs
billed to the Authority by Houston, all Operating and Maintenance Costs incurred by
the Authority related to the Transmission system and the Distribution System, and all
administrative costs incurred by the Authority (including insurance).
(22) "Participants" - the city and all of the other parties named in Section 2.01
hereof who have executed a Contract substantially similar to this Contract. The
terms also includes any customer who executes a Water Sales Contract pursuant to
the provisions of Section 11.09 hereof from and after such execution.
(23) Production Capacity - the maximum rate of production of treated surface
Water from the Southeast Plant, which equals 120 MGD.
(24) Pumpina Allocation Factor - the percentage of the Southeast Plant's
pumping and related treated Water storage capacity which the Authority is entitled to
use at any given time. The initial Pumping Allocation Factor for the Authority will
equal the actual construction cost of the pumping and storage facilities paid by the
Authority diyided by the total actual construction cost for such pumping and storage
facilities. The initial Pumping Allocation Factor is 4.875%.
(25) Pumpina Capacity - the maximum rate of delivery of treated surface Water
from the Southeast Plant, which equals 200 MGD (expressed as a peak hour
pumping rate).
(26) Service Area - that area described in Sections 3 and 5(b) of the Act.
(27) Southeast Plant - the Project described in the Houston Contract generally,
and specifically described in Exhibit "B" to the Houston Contract.
(28) Subsidence District - the Harris-Galveston Coastal Subsidence District.
(29) Transmission System - those facilities, including pipelines, easements,
pumping, and other devices to deliver treated surface Water from the take point at
the Southeast Plant, shown on Exhibit "A" attached to the Houston Contract, to that
point shown Exhibit "C" of this Contract, which includes necessary storage and
pumping facilities to delivery treated surface Water to each Participant.
(30) "Water" - the term "Water" means potable treated surface Water that has
been sl:Jpplied by Houston in accordance with the Houston Contract.
(31) Water Sales Contracts - the Contract, the contracts between the Authority
and the other Participants named in Section 2.01 of this Contract, and any Contract
between the Authority and a new Participant. All Water Sales Contractsss are and
shall be in a form substantially similar to this one,"
5
e
e
SECTION 2. Article ,II, Section 2.01 is hereby amended to read as follows, to-wit:
"Section 2.01 With the full cooperation of the City (and the other
Participants) the Authority agrees to purchase an initial Demand Allocation Factor of
6.5% and an initial Pumping Allocation Factor of 4.875% in the Southeast Plant, in
accordance with the Houston Contract, attached hereto as Exhibit "Art. Each
Participant's share of the initial Demand Allocation Factor and initial Pumping
Allocation Factor are set forth below opposite the name of each party.
% SHARE SHARE % SHARE SHARE
PARTICIPANT OF IDAF* OF IDAF* OF IPAF** OF IPAF**
City of La Porte 88.78% 5.77% 88.78% 4.33%
City of Shoreacres 4.17% 0.27% 4.17% 0.20%
City of Morgan's Point 7.05% 0.46% 7.05% 0.34%
* IDAF - Initial Demand Allocation Factor
** IPAF -Initial Pumping Allocation Factor
The above percentages, applied to the lOAF of 120 MGO and the IPAF of 200
MGO, calculate as follows:
Gallons Gallons
PARTICIPANT of lOAF of IPAF
City of La Porte 6,925,000 8,656,250
City of Shoreacres 325,000 406,250
City of Morgan's Point 550.000 687.500
Total for Authority 7,800,000 9,750,000"
SECTION 3. Section 2.03 of the .Contract is hereby amended to read as follows, to-wit:
"Section 2.03 The pro rata share of each Participant in the actual
construction cost of the Transmission System and the Distribution System is as
follows:
City of La Porte
City of Morgan's Point
City of Shoreacres
80.30%
11,70%
8.0%
6
e
e
Each Participant, including the City, hereby approves the construction cost formula
and the City's share of the actual construction cost for the Transmission System and
Distribution System as paid by the City and the other Participants, as required by the
Contract. "
SECTION 4. This Amendment and the Contract together constitute all the
understandings between the parties hereto, and there are no oral representations,
stipulations, warranties or understandings with respect to the subject matter of this
Amendment which are not fully expressed herein, Neither this Amendment nor its
execution has been induced by any representations, stipulations, warranties or
understandings of any kind other than those herein expressed.
No amendment, addition to, alteration, modification or waiver of all or any part of
this Amendment shall be of any force or effect unless in writing and signed by the
Authority, the City and any other Participant affected by such change. If the terms and
conditions of this Amendment and the terms and conditions of any purchase order or
order acknowledgement written in connection with this Agreement conflict, the terms
and conditions of this Amendment shall govern.
SECTION 5. No waiver by any party hereto of one or more defaults by any other party
hereto in the performance of any of the provisions of this Amendment shall operate or
be construed by a waiver of any other or further default or defaults, whether of a like or
different character.
SECTION 6. This Amendment shall bind and benefit the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, and shall not be assignable by any party without
written consent of the other parties,
7
e
e
SECTION 7. This Amendment is to be construed according to the laws of the State of
Texas.
SECTION 8. The topical headings used herein have been inserted for convenience only
and shall not be construed as having any substantive significance or meaning
whatsoever or as indicating that all of the provisions of this Amendment relating to any
particular topic are to be found in any particular Article.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, acting under authority of the
respective governing, bodies, have caused this Amendment to be executed in several
counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all collectively constituting one and .
the same instrument, all as of the day and year first written,
CITY OF SHOREACRES, TEXAS
By: l~~
ayor
~
/1/
City Secreta
APPROVED:
By:
(]YLUL
City Attorney
8
e
e"
LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY
BY:.a~
President
ATrEST:
By: a~/YJ
Secretary
APPROVED BY:
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
By: ~4.~~
Mayor
A TrEST:
BYdU ~tl1t~j} .JlLar
City Secretary
9
.
0"\-
,
e
~
.'
e
e
,~,
A
REQUEST FI CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM ·
Agenda Date Requested: July 24, 2000
Requested By: J. C. Dunham
Department: Fire
X Report _ Resolution _ Ordinance
Exhibits: Bid Tabulation
Bidder List
Memo From Susan Kelly
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Sealed bids #0808 were opened on June 26, 2000 for FireFighter Protective Clothing (Bunker Gear). Bid
requests were mailed to four (4) vendors with two (2) returning bids. The bunker gear specified is the same
as we have purchased for the last three years, which has served us well in durability, and comfort for our
firefighters. We are continuing to standardize our gear and we should be able to completely outfit all our
personnel with the same level of protection with the purchase of this gear. We recommend awarding the fid
to Rescue Concepts, the low bidder meeting specifications, in the amount of $30,025.00.
Action Required by Council: Approve awarding the bid to Rescue Concepts in the amount of $30,025.00.
Availability of Fonds:
X General Fund Water/Wastewater
- -
Capital Improvement General Revenue Sharing
- -
Other
Account Number: 001-5051-522-2003 Funds Available: X YES NO
Approved for City Council A2enda
~'\~
. obert T. Herrera
City Manager
C -t.~-Ou
Date
e
e
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
June 27, 2000
TO:
JOE SEASE, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
SUSAN KELLEY, PURCHASING MANAGER
SEALED BID #0808 - FIREFIGHTER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
(BUNKER GEAR)
FROM:
SUBJ:
Advertised, sealed bids #0808 - Firefighter Protective Clothing (Bunker Gear) were
opened and read on June 26, 2000. Bid requests were mailed to four (4) vendors with
two (2) returning bids.
Copies of the bids are attached for your review.
Please submit your recommendation with an agenda request form by the prescribed time
before the next regular council meeting. If there is a need to delay bringing this bid before
council, please notify me.
Attachment: Bid Tabulation
Bidder's List
Bid Copies
~
e
e
#
BID TABULA TION
BID #0808 - FIREFIGHTER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
. RESCUE FOUR ALARM
DESCRIPTION QTY CONCEPTS FIRE
1) BUNKER COATS 25 $6'94.00 $734.00
Sub-Total $17,350.00 $18,350.00
2) BUNKER PANTS 25 $507.00 $520.00
Sub-Total $12,675.00 $13,000.00
GRAND TOTAL $39,025.00 $31,350.00
Additional charge for $32.50 N/A
each size over 60"
..
e,
e
BIDDER"S LIST
SEALED BID #0808
FIREFIGHTER PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
CAIRNS & BROTHERS
PO BOX 125
PITTSFIELD, NH 03263
DXP/STRA TEGIC SUPPLY
112 N. 12TH STREET
LA PORTE, TX 77571
FOUR ALARM FIRE EQUIPMENT
3500 SOUTH RICHIE, SUITE 240
HOUSTON, TX 77017
RESCUE CONCEPTS
9113 STATE HWY 146 SOUTH
DAYTON, TX 77535
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO BOX 996
LA PORTE TX 77572-0996
BAYSHORE SUN - PUBLISH DATES:
JUNE 11, 2000
JUNE 18,2000
e
e
B
.~
REQUEST &. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITE~
Agenda Date Requested: Jul
xx Report _ Re olution _ Ordinance
ent: Public Works
Requested By: Steve Gille
Exhibits: 1. Quotes from Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. and B & G Chemical Co.
2. Letter of Sole Source Notification from Van Waters & Rogers, Inc.
-
For the past several years, the City has been using a product called Scourge supplied by B & G Chemical Co.,sole source
supplier, for Mosquito Control activities. Through research, we have located another chemical, Permanone 31 +66, which
is used for Mosquito Control. The supplier claimed the product would control mosquitoes as well as Scourge and is less
expensive. We acquired a small amount of the chemical and used it in our program for a test. The chemical proved to be
as effective as Scourge.
The supplier, Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., quoted a price of $260.00 per gallon for the insecticide and $3.00 per gallon for
the base oil for a total cost of $21,170.00. B & G Chemical Co. quoted a price of $311.41 per gallon for Scourge and
$2.67 per gallon of base oil for a total cost of $24,442.00. Both suppliers are the sole source for each of their chemicals.
Over long periods of use, insects may develop an immunity to some insecticides which limits their effectiveness. For this
reason, we propose to change to different chemicals periodically in our program to prevent this from happening.
Staff recommends award of bid for Mosquito Control agent to Van Waters & Rogers, Inc., sole source supplier for
Permanone 31 +66, in the amount of $21,170.00. Adequate funds for this contract is budgeted in the 1999/00 Streets
Division Operating Budget.
Action Required by Council: Designate Van Waters & Rogers Inc. as a sole source for Permanonc 31+66
and award bid for the purchase of Mosquito Control Agent in the amount of $21,170.00.
Availability of Funds:
..x General Fund_ Water/Wastewater
_ Capital Improvement_ General Revenue Sharing
Other
Account Number: 00170715312007 Funds Available: .x YES NO
J u I. 6. 2000 I 0 : I 6 AM
281 4~0578 CIT~ O~ LA PORTE
e
No.2726' p. ,2/2
CITY OF LA PORTE
QUOTE .
The City of La Porte is requesting quotes on insecticide for mosquito control. Any exceptions
to the following specifications must be noted in detail. 8e sure to include all charges, including
freight, handling, delivery, and any other fees. Quote must be fl.nn for ~ minimum of thirty (30)
days.
Please fax your quotes to Purchasing, 281-471-0578 by Friday, July 71h, noon.
.
If more information is needed, please contact Susan Kelley at 281-471-5020. ext.328.
SPECIFICA nONS
Mosquito control chemicals to be used in a city-wide mosquite. control program. The product
.may be lJ1ixed with oil. This product shall be used by certified personnel only.
State the following for your product:
Brand/M~. of Insecticide Ifve~ Ii's
Mixing Ratio w/Oil: ' J t~ I 0/
fer~~()AlE 3/- '"
.
UNIT EXTENDED
DESCRIPTION 'Qty COST COST
Insecticide 70 gallons J~Q, ~o / g ';00
Base Oil 990 gallons 3. Of) c:J'17t:J
(Qty of 18 - 55 gallon drums) NDNe
Freight/Delivery
TOTAL COST ~(170
State delivery time in days
'3
Vendor Name: . VON' iA)afe,s Cf' ~e~s
Phone':' 7/3 fa 'It.( I~O I
Contact miles O~ Kit!j
~~A-ltI
'"
I
ThI> CIty at IA PodB la ~.~ on ~~U/Io cOntrol. Any ~
lO the fcll(Nvil'l9 ~Ji*ifi~~ In~.t;,~ ~tad In de~ll. ~ ' '~ tr.tinCbi6 aI. ehal'g$$, il'ldudiftg
~' hIlntlllllo. ~: ~ llOytilr fMa QuiJlft rrlJlIIt f ~fiY ~ minimum nf thirty (M)
f ,:.: . .. t. .
. Please faX your ~ ~;~~~, ~-4r1..o678 bY~~Y. July 1",:noolll.
If_lmi."';-'n '-~, ~~~:~18;428~-4T1-6020. _328:
. ... i, ' " I '
SPECI~CAnONS " '. 0 " ~: I '
- J' " " , ~ !
~~~~~~.:'~J~=~. Tb8p_
, . I:' .: ,." '. 0, I .
.; I'
State..the 1o'lowlrig ~r ~~~~' '.,' ,'. , . .;, I
Bran~. of In88dIci~:' l S 6iJilk.!J~ ;1 rt :p:1; I
. , .... . , .r'
I I ;
UOOng Rsitto w/Oir !: ,) f (P: ,10 /: l~ '", .I
1. I ' ,IUNiT
bE8cRlPT JON' : Q1Y ~1C08T
,In~:-:Aei - loi 70 n...' /1.$:11/. Y'I
~wu g811wnl ' '0 '
Base Oil . I:, , ' 9sO 9.,loh8 i 1-- .J , , 7
(Qty of 1.8 - 5'6 ~Ion ~ms) t
, ' I: Frelgt.d1CeiRvery
. , . .
I
f.
State deliife~ time in _, '7 '.' ,
. . I ' T
17136824374
1111', II. 1111',. . l4, r '"III
o B&G CO. HOUSTON TX
:1 II I : . a"" '" II". i.., I II "..... . . I
't i ~ ::' : ~::.,
542 P02
:e
.' , qITY OF i.A PORTE
QUOTE .~..
ToT~ COST
JUL 1217 · I2lI2l 12l8: I2l2
.
&XTIiNDaD
'COST
~I 7,f.. 70
>>
~ .,.
./ ~ G,~3'1 30 .
-.'
- 0-
{,
~</J '{if ~ . 0-0
, , "
. t1.;!~ :de1'/4-~ ~1(:!~"'/Y.1~;t~., ....Me.
';, ,~!~ ,;- ::~/.J.;- ~9I// ,.~ ,,;L
" :, A1Jie- ~'~o4 :~.,.i ~t.i ~n7crU
, : " ' I
I i
'1 I
! I
, I
I i
I 0
I I
I
.
.
r
,Vendor Name:..
Phone I:
COntact:
!
I. '
,,' ~: ! "0
. .... 1 f:
i ~:
,I ,'\
" t
'.'
~d'i;.:.' . .'
I
, ,
.
. t ~
. : :
APR Z7 '80.09:55 FR' VAN 'WATERS & RoGERs 713 644 1139 TO 2818678892
e e
P.B1/01
- Van ~ & Rogers lite.
.
A ROwI&. PMHDIiD CClNPMV
m BRISIBIINe Gr
HOUSm:lrt, lX,7lllfI'"
P.cuax.... '
HOUlnQlI. TX 7721o-t1i'lJ
Apn127.20oo
rffO
tJ~tJ - t> , .... 2/JD 7
.... " / t? 6 '71 ~ ; J J ,
po, -'/ ,
!tJ' ~ &44-1IlOl
.MIC: ___
In NA:CCIII
.. _,. ......... .".',-... .
City of La Porte
I I ::;. '''.I. ....i ':
Billy Davenport - . "
2963 North 23n1 StAJet, " , ,. ".. , ',' . '..' ,
....~...~a.Porte~.1X 7726'1................~..._.................. _.,.~,...:.I.._\o._.... .................... .......-..-....1. ...~_._w.ooo&i.... ....:.It..._......w,.~..............__......u..... ...~ ~\: .....j..,l.oo,:~..~
i,~~:F.ax#'281,~;0892~N '..1P.Ti:I;':; r~ HGGEP.5 7:'.:' 64!l 11~ TO 2HS'S?t"'9:~:
?l;n~'01 :
Dear BiUy:
. :'!:l
I would like to inform you that .Van Waters & Rogers Is a sore source sOP~lier, <11'
Permanone31+66.. : .:' ,_,'... '
'I". . '..:... . _. ": ,:',' :',. ";". .... '" ~.:..
If you have any questions; .please do 'nOt hesitate to give me a call att1,~~'f: ~ ~~,
1601. ".,.~ ::~. ::::~ ~.
i',.: ~!.!:'r '~t L:r;t to~..' j ~'J!
''':'.;1:' " . ',!'1G.;H
. ..it: f . ':. I" ';~ ;~J
. ..t.'.~1 ". ':= .J:"~.v.
Sincerely,
, ,e,~ ~(raJl
Brian Mcfall
VeCtor Specialist
..=,
....1
. .~ .
. ...., :..
" ,
~.. .:-.. i' .
I. '.
... .,. I .....
: :. 1:..~ :i.: ~~ '. . . ..
. .."'....
, ,
I J' '....1
. .j.. ~.
, , ,
.... .... .. . -. ....
~~~'. :: . . : ... .... .;: ~ }' '.
** TOTAL PAGE. f'~ **
e
MEETING HANDOUTS
e
.
.
Date:
Name:
G Il:'~ 0,. '-1;1 C'D't> tJ c= '-{
3~\'? . S->~{l\.~cr
Address:
City, State, Zip:
l.~c>~\b
Subject on which I wish to speak:
~'t-~~ ~\ oN ol2- \ 4~ ~G.\J~~\lt;"'
C-.....0~~ ~'i ~ ?~~\
e
-
Date: 7 - ~;f - t!J 0
Name:
/f/~I?r:dJ 1l1Lh~ ,
Address: "
'-.3 f/; I 0 /lAM IJ 4Vl tfA j
City, State, Zip:
~~tt/!MLJ/. /)f 7767/
Subject on which I wish to speak:
~1fXif
e
e
Q)
Date:
7/2-,,/ r Ol)
Name:
Q cill-l SN' Dt:..71
Address:
~ D 2- f3 Ai' CO f,(;)II ", D n
City, State, Zip:
LPr
peR TE r 'X.
I
775 7 (
Subject on which I wish to speak:
B~
Greet the sunrise each morning
from your new home by the ba~
Only one block from the Houston
Yacht Club, you'll find the picturesque
Sunrise Townhomes. Surrounded by
beautiful landscaping and brick paver
patios and sidewalks, these one, two
and three bedroom townhomes were
developed with you in mind.
All the luxuries you'd expect in a fine
home are yours at the Sunrise Town- .
homes. From the craftsmanship, to the
electric garage doors and microwaves,
~~V.I~ I\t'
-
~
@
these homes have been built for
comfort, durability and beauty.
With low maintenance and ex-
ceptionallocation for bay lovers, the
Sunrise Townhomes make the ideal
permanent or resort home. Come by
and take a look this week, you could
be moving in soon.
MAIL IllIG ADDRESS: _
CUSTOMER SERVICE OEPARTMENT .
P.O. BOX 922004
HOUSTON, TX 77292-2004
Harris <ia.tnty Appraisal District
2800 N~ Loop West, Houston, Texas
Telephone: (713) 812.5800
Information Center: (713)957.7800
11111111111111111 11111 11111 Iml 11111 11111 1111111111 11111 1111111111 11111111
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
UNIT 14 BLoG II
CONFIRMATION OF REDUCED VALUE
SUNRISE T/H
11...11...1..1.1.1.1.1..1.1..1...11.11...1...111...1...1.11..1
PROPERTY LOCATION:
SUNRISE
LA PORTE TX 77571
0942360020014 2000
COONEY B V AND
GERALD A COONEY
PO BOX 58307
HOUSTON TX 772aS-S307
DATE: 06/15/2000
ACCOUNT #: 0942360020014
YEAR: 2000
This letter confirms that you and/or your representative met with our appraisers-
to discuss your protest on this property. It was mutually agreed that the value
should be reduced as indicated:
PREVIOUS VALUE:
NEW VALUE:
9 1 . 300
54.800
The basis of this change was:
CHANGE VALUE. CHANGE IN CHARACTERISTICS
You withdrew yo~r protest subject to the chief appraiser's approval of the new value.
This letter is to notify you that the new value has been approved.
The new value has been placed on this account for the tax year indicated above.
Sincerely,
,
tfv- ~ .J,......... ""
Jim Rqbinson, R.P.A.
Chief Appraiser
Ie
Real.operty Informal Hearing Su.....ary
HCAD NO: 094-236~2-0014 NBHD: 21691
PID: 20-00922.2-01.0-164.0-01000-0019
HMSTD: %: VET 1 %: VET2 %:
SALES PRICE/DA TE: 1 .', .
OWNER'S OPINION OF VALUE: s,c..',oco
RENDERED VALUE: 0
VALUE FOR SUB ERROR:
CAP MAXIMUM VALUE:
9615
NAME: COONEY B V AND
ACREAGE: 0.0000
LEGAL:
UNIT 14 BLDG II
SUNRISE T/H
LAND VALUE:
IMP VALUE:
TOTAL VALUE:
TAX YEAR: 2000
1998
9,300
70,700
80,000
1999
9,300
70,700
80,000
o Excessive Appraisal 0 Unequal Appraisal 0 Denial of Exemption
o Other (Describe)
,',
2000
9,300
82,000
91 ,300
2000AG
o
S;#l
Owner's Comments: Atl Cl(r~tt' ~
".A ","b'.l~t"'1k?r - >B. ,.-.0("'1'1'
LA.~~~I!17 1"L\'~:h..t!~~..c..e~v, t~o.J.
1eJ/'.hk~.$ll
,~ (oj.
I
SIt .Cf!!.
.8&1> ,sl
f!1~fi) .
l'iYLI e f6~s-.d
/Exl'-J,tp~-" ~/y
Appraiser's Comments: Mti J9Y
Q<:> ~ " Wlrcted
l)~cN ~\<C9
v1al~ -
\I~~i. - ('o~
/'ero""""m ~V\t::( i~
M~AL(.J:)
~/o~
7'O~
dli-, YlO
I"PJ"cI) OV/ .
,-
[:}. Resolved by Agreement (complete this form)
o Field Check Rvwr 10#
Market Value
o Not Resolved - Referred to Formal
Land cr,3IJO Land
Improvements 4, )-CO Improvements
Total Market ~ ~'I 4'00 Final Appraised
Value J I 0" Value
,\"".
Letter Type Decision Code
Note: Market value will be different from appraised value where (1) market value exceeds the limitation on increases
in the value of residence homesteads set forth in Sec. 23.23, Tax Code; or (2) the appraised value results from an
unequal appraisal protest. '
AGITMB/SPC: I 01 AGI Timber type:
Final Value
I own the property above or the owner has authorized me to represent the property. I affirm under penalty of law
that the Information and documents I have presented to representatives of the Harris County Appraisal District are
true and correct. I understand that all documents I have submitted shall become part of a government record. I
agree to the action recommended above. I understand that the agreed action and value set forth above will be
final and not subject to further protest or appeal should the chief appraiser approve the agreement. I understand
that I will have an opportunity to pursue my protest motion before the Appraisal Review Board It the Chief
Appraiser does not approve the agreement. .
Sign{~~::\'of ow~ner I p 7sGtative
--'6!' \
\../': t..' \
- ''J
Ap ra. er's S. nature
Supervisor
HIICI3I: JIIYGD: 01"01"" 'M. CSH
o Owner did not appear
[) I understand that this value will be forwarded to the
County Appraisal Dlstrict(s) and agree that the value
will be tlnal for the named Dlstrlct(s) for the property
Identltled on this form. Accordingly, I waive any .
right to appeal In the named Dlstrlct(s). . ' ..
Agent # .
Date
Db 0,6 '60:-'~'
Chief Appraiser By: :,
. . . ~..~ :. .. .'. ..~
.. Rvwr ID #
,~.".
t....:
.
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS
.
I RETVRN I LA PORTE TAX OFFICE
PAYMENT P.O. BOX 1115
TO LA PORTE, TX n~
(281) 471-5020
IMPROVEMENT VALUE:
LAND VALUE:
PRODUCTIVITY VALUE:
TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE:
1999
TAX STATEMENT
70,700
9,300
ACCOUNT ID : 11437
HCAD # : 094-236-002-0014
I MORTGAGE CODE:
,LOAN #:
80,000
JlIlUSDlcrION APPRAISED/ASSESSED PERSONAL PROPERTY EXEMPTION EXEMPTION TAXABLE TAX RATE TAX
ASSESSMENT RATIO 100... (+) VALUE (+) VALVE CODE(S) (.)AMOUNT (..) VALVE (X) PER 5100 (..)DVE I
80,000 80,000 .710000 568.00 I
CITY OF LA PORTE
LA PORTE ISO 80,000 80,000 1.650000 1,320.00
AMOUNT DUE UPON RECEIPT: 1,888.00
COONEY B V AND
GERALD A COONEY
PO BOX 58307
HOUSTON TX 77258-8307
PROPERTY
DESCRIPTION
UNIT 14 BLOG II
SUNRISE T/H
PENALTY -- - INTEREST &: COLLECTION FEES RESULTING FROM LATE PAYMENT OF TAXES PAID IN:
ACCOUNT 10: 11437
HCAD NUMBER: 094-236-002-0014 ADD MONTH AMOUNT DUE
0 \ OCT'1999 1,888.00
0 \ NOV'1999 1,888.00
KEEP THIS PORTION FOR YOUR RECORDS 0 \ DEC'1999 1,888.00
o \ JAN'2000 1,888,00
on FEB'2000 2,020.16
CANCELLED CHECK WILL SERVE 09\ MAR'2000 2,057,92
AS YOUR RECEIPT 11\ APR'2000 2,095.68
13\ MAY'2000 2,133.44
15\ JUN'2000 2,171.20
18\ + 15\ JUL'2000 2,562.02
'....,
e
e
Lf
Date:
Name:
tJOd
Address:
r' 7
City, State, ZiP=j"i
Subjec on which I wish to speak:
Date:
e
7P'/ja, ..
e,
Name: I
.~V/LL WgLt~
Address:
3/1 LY-rtf/d IL I: PP-~
. .
City, State, Zi~~, roAA c-::::::
~~a /,,(, r'\r'. <1-"7-,[0.-(,
Subject on which I wish to speak:
~ rf ~fAM,N dlI\
'f
e
e
Norman Malone
Mayor, City of La Porte
La Porte, Texas
Dear Mr. Malone:
The City of La Porte is home to many Texas treasures - San Jacinto Monument, Sylvan
Beach and the majestic Fred Hartman Bridge. But did you know La Porte is also home to
one of Texas' best kept secrets?
It's true - Debby Rihn-Harvey, a La Porte resident and business owner, is now the
longest standing member ofTIrn United States Aerob8:tic Team and is poised to make
history in the upcoming World Aerobatic Championships this fall.
You may be familiar with,Debby from her annual appe~ces at Bay Day, or from her
flight school at'La Porte Municipal Airport. If so, then you know she is an incredible
person - to maintain a local business, while maintaining her role as a Captain for
Southwest Airlines, and all the while - juggling a rigorous training schedule "for the
highest ~aliber aviation competition. '
I think La Porte is missing a tremendous opportunity to highlight one of its brightest stars
and right now, the City has a chance to recognize a remarkable individual and gain both
the City, and Debby, some due recognition.
The time couldn't be more perfect for the City of La Porte to take part in ensuring the
succe~s of one .its own. Debby will be competing in what is essentially the "Olympics of
the sky". She is putting in countless hours in the sweltermg Texas heat, 3,000 feet up,
perfecting her high g maneuvers to represent not only La Porte, but our entire Country,
against 20 other countries for the international title. She has spent hundreds of thousands
of dollars on the plane, maintenance and travel - out of her own pocket, only for the
pride of representing the United States in this worldwide event.
Can't we show her that it is appreciated???
I would like to talk with you about how the City can demonstrate its support for this local
legend and will call you in the next week to see if we can arrange a time to meet. In the
meantime, please call me at 281-335-0949 if you would like more information. I hope
yoU: share my enthusiasm and will welcome the chance to recognize one of the
extraordinary people that make this City so unique.
With kindest regards,
~ CJOOvi1eJ ~
e
· Harvey&Rihn
..:. via lion
101 AIRPORT · LaPORTE, TEXAS 77571
Inc.
FOR MORE lNFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole Cloutier/%81.335.0949
Ndcloutier@evl.net
(281) 471-1675
Fax: (281) 471-6646
Two LOCAL PILOTS SELECTED
FOR U.S. UNLIMITED AEROBATIC TEAM
HOUSTON (Nov. 22, 1999) - Two local pilots, Debby Ribn-Harvey and Janet Fitzke, have been selected as part
of the United States Unlimited Aerobatic Team. Rihn-Harvey and Fitzke, both from La Porte, will compete at the
, .
World Aerobatic Championships in Muret, France August 8 to 19, 2000, against teams from 20 other countries.
"Texas has always been a source ofgreat aerobatic pilots," said Team Manager Bob Minkus. "Still, it's unique to
have two team members from the same hometown (La Porte, TX) and ailpOrt. Debby and Janet have trained
together and worked hard to achieve their goals. That kind of teamwork is exactly what's needed to bring home
U.S. medals from the World Aerobatic Championships."
Ribn-Harvey, owner of Harvey-Rihn Aviation at La Porte Municipal Airport, has been a member of the team nine
times since her debut in 198~. She is the current Women's National Champion and a former World Champion
Gold Medallist. Rihn-Harvey also is a captain for Southwest Airlines, an FAA Designated Flight Examiner and an
ICAS Designated Aerobatic Competency Evaluator.
Fitzke, making her team debut, is an en~eer with Exxon Chemical Company. She began flying in 1989 and ofher
1,000-plus flight hours, more than 800 are logged as aerobatic time.
''My team. membership is the culmination of more than 10 years ofaerobatic flying," said Fitzke. ''Throughout that
time, Debby has been more than a great coach - she's been an inspiration. It's an honor to be on the team with
her."
Other U.S. Unlimited Team members include Team Captain David Martin, Robert Armstrong, Kirby Chambliss,
Marta Meyer, Chris PanzI, Julie Sandman and David Windmiller.
t...;.
.'
e
,e
H~rvey & Rihn
~viation
101 AIRPORT · LaPORTE, TEXAS 77571
Inc.
FOR MORE INmRMATION CONTACT:
Nicole CloutierI281.335.0949
Ndcloutier@evl.net
~
(281) 471-1675
Fax: (281) 471-6646
GET' READY To WIN!
TEXAS PILOTS READY FOR 'OLYMPICS OF THE SKY'
COMMUNITY, MEDIA. INVITED TO SUPPORT U.S. AEROBATIC TEAM MEMBERS
CALENDAR LISTING
Public, Media Invited to Help
Send Off Pilots to Championships
Where e~e"can you personally meet a World
Aerobatic'Champion?
Aviation enthusiasts and the general public are
'ibvit~ to this special event to show our support
for Debby Rihn-Harvey and Janet Fitzke, our local
competitors in the 2000 World Aerobatic
Championships.
Not only can they meet and talk to the pilots, but
they can see their unique competition planes and
get autographs from these two aviation legends.
The event is free to the public.
When: July 26, 7 p.m.
Where: Harvey and Rihn Aviation
La Porte Municipal Airport
Spencer Highway
(20 miles SE of Houston
~
What: Refreshments
Autograph opportunities
See unique , planes and talk to competitors
PHOTO OPPORTUNITY
Unique Photo and Interview
Opponunities'Available
Media are invited to take advantage of photo and
interview opportunities as local U.S. Unlimited.-
Aerobatic Team members Debby Rihn-Harvey and' '.
Janet Fitzke prepare for the World Aerobatic
ChampionShips.
~.'t,
July 26, 7 p.m. La Porte Municipal':Airport:
Debby Rihn-Harvey and Janet Fitzke
depart from Harvey Rihn Aviation send-off
party for Kelly Air Force Base.
Photo opportunities include the pilots with
their unique planes; farewells. to. friends,
family and well-wishers,. and the final
departure and take-off to l(.el/y Air Force
Base.
July 27 San Ant~nio, KeUy Air Force Base:
Competition planes and team loading onto
U.S.Air Force C-SA. Departure for France.
Additional interview and photo opportunities are
available in advance. Please call2gf33S.0949 to
schedule interview or for Kelly Air ' Force Base
credential information.
###
e
e
DEBBY RmN-HARVEY
FACTSBEET
PRONUNCIATION:
REEN-HARVEY
BIRTH DATE/CITY:
May 8, 1951, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
EDUCATION:
Burke High School, Omaha, Nebraska
Hastings College, Hastings Nebraska
B.A Biology, 1973
B.A Medical Technology, 1974
EMPLOYMENT:
Airline Captain with Southwest Airlines
Owner/manager of Harvey & Rihn Aviation, Inc., flight school and
maintenance facility specializing in aerobatics and experimental aircraft
FAA Designated Flight Examiner
ICAS Designaied Aerobatic Competency Evaluator
PILOT RATINGS:
.Private pilot in 1968.
Ratings include Airline Transport Pilot,
Airplane Single and Multi-engine land, Airplane Single Engine Sea, B-737
18,000 total flight hours
OTHER:
Airshow performer
Active member ofEAA, lAC, AOP A and Ninety Nmes
Guest speaker promoting aviation and aviation safety
BuUding a replica of the Overland Sport, an aircraft manufactured in the
1920s by her grandfather, Roy Furstenberg, Omaha, Nebraska
Enjoys swimming and golf
e
e
COMPETITION HISTOR.Y
WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS
1984, Bekescsaba, Hungary
1!)86, South Cerney, England
1988, Red Deer, Alberta, Canada
1990, LaHarve, France
1992, Switzerland
1994, Hungary
1996, Oklahoma City, OK., USA
1998, Trencin, Slovakia
u.s. NATIONALS
Third, Overall Women
Silver medal, Women's Team
Silver medal, Unknown Flight
Silver medal, Women's Team
Bronze medal, 'Freestyle Flight
Gold Medal, Women's Team
Gold Medal, Unknown Flight
Weather prevented contest
Silver medal, Women's Team
Bronze medal, Women's Team
Silver ~edal, Women's Team
Bronze medal, Women's Team
Intermediate and advanced category
Qualified for unlimited national team
Women's National Champion
Qualified for unlimited national team
1987 through 1996, Sherman, Texas Qualified for unlimited team
1997, Sherman, Texas Second, women qualified for unlimited team
1998, Sherman, Texas Women's National Champion
1999, Sherman, Texas Women's National Champion
1980-82, Sherman, Texas
1983, Mesa, Arizona
1985, Sherman, Texas
REGIONALS
Winner of several regional contests since 1980
1999- Vice Champion of Championship of the Americas
e
· Harvey & Rihn
~viation
101 AIRPORT · LaPORTE, TEXAS 77571
Inc.
(281) 471-1675
Fax: (281) 471-6646
DEBBY RmN-HARVEY
BIOGRAPHY
Debby Rihn-Harvey is an experienced competition and airshow pilot from La Porte, Texas. She has
competed in unlimited category aerobatics for 19 years. There are less than 100 pilots who compete in
the United States at this high level of aerobatic competition. During her aerobatic car~er, Rihn-Harvey
has represented the 'United States in eight World Aerobatic Championships in North America and
Europe. , This fall, she' qualified for her ninth and tenth U.S. Aerobatic Team. In world competition,
Rihn-Harvey has been a Gold Medallist. She holds many regional titles as well as being the U.S.
National Women's Champion. Her competition background shows in her airshow style with a focus on
precision. Watch for near pe~ect vertical lines and precision in her rolls, point rolls and snap rolls.
Rihn-Harvey flies an experimental Texas Hurricane aircraft that was designed by her late husband, Eoin
(Ian) Harvey and built for the rigors of world class competition. This state-of-the-art airplane is a
cO!llbination of proven technologies and the latest in composite construction. It is powered by a highly
modified 540 cubic inch Textron-Lycoming engine. The airplane's empty weight is just over 1,100
pounds resulting in a combination of light weight and high power that provide an unparalleled
performance with a climb rate of more than 3,700 feet per minute. The prototype wing for this aircraft,
whose structural members are made of a carbon fiber matrix, was tested to 23 Gs without evidence of
failure. During the test, the engineers at Zivko Aeronautics placed 30,000 pounds oflead weights on the
wing. That proven strength provides the same level of comfort as Debby pulls up to nine positive Gs
and pushes more than seven negative Gs during her competition and airshow performances.
..
~.
Depending on the weather conditions, you will see magnificent vertical lines with multiple rolls up and
down. The vertical lines will be topped with hammerhead turns, pushes or pulls to vertical lines down,
caps to level upright or inverted flight, tail slides, torque rolls or Lomcevaks. All of these maneuvers are
routine flying for Rihn-Harvey. Horizontal and vertical rolls will include full rolls, point rolls, and
inside or outside snap rolls. Combination rolls frequently change directions and are always done with a
focus on precision, even with the extraordinary 400+ degree/second roll rate of the aircraft.
This native Nebraskan is the third generation of aviators in her family. Her grandfather, Roy
Furstenberg, manufactured the Overland Sport Aircraft in Omaha in the 1920s, while her father, Jack
Furstenberg, began teaching her to fly in her teens. Rihn-Harvey is a captain for Southwest Airlines.
Besides the many hours of practice it takes for competition and airshow flying, she iJ.lso manages her
fixed base operation at La Porte Municipal Airport, Harvey & Rihn Aviation. This world renowned
aerobatics school is a great place to acquire new skills or just to shake the dust off those that you haven't
used in a while. Rihn-Harveyalso is an Aerobatic Competency Evaluator (ACE) for the International
Council of Airshows and an FAA Designated Flight Examiner who administers flight exams for Private
Pilot through Airline Transport Pilot certificates.
e
. Harvey & Rihn
~viation
101 AIRPORT · LaPORTE, TEXAS 77571
Inc.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole CloutierI281.335.0949
ndcloutier@evl.net
(281) 471-1675
Fax: (281) 471-6646
Rihn-Ha~ey Transitions to Cap 232
for 2000 World Championships
HOUSTON (May 3, 2000) - Renown pilot Debby Rihn-Harvey, the longest standing member of the U.S.
Aerobatic Team, is the proud'owner of the newest Cap 232 - a revolutionary aircraft that in all likelihood
will ensure her placement among World Aerobatic Championship winners this fall.' 'Rihn-Harvey's Cap,
which was delivered from France in early April, marks only the fifth Cap 232 in the United States.
Rihn-Harvey has long been knoWn. for her remarkable performances in the one-of-a-kind Texas Hurricane,
an exclusive design by Eoin (Ian) Harvey. Rihn-Harvey invested in the Cap, dubbed the Hurricane
Two, to fine-tune her already near-perfect competition perfonnance.
"Historically, the Cap has been the only aircraft in the major competitions that has beat the Texas
Hurricane," explained Rihn-Harvey, who was in Florida when the aircraft arrived to personally lead its
assembly and test flights.
The Cap 232 features a completely new wing design compared to the Cap 231 and 231 EX. The wing
is made of high performance pre-impregnated carbon fiber, cured at high temperature under high
pressure (autoclave system), the new airfoil provides increased strength, stiffness and lower weight.
According to Rihn-Harvey, the Cap is lighter on the controls and has a bigger stock engine than the
Texas Hurricane, which she has flown since'1991.
"The Cap's control stick pressures are so much lighter, it seems as though the roll rate is faster." says
Rihn-Harvey. '.'TheCap seems to maneuver using less speed and less g loading. It's much more
responsive and makes for a good tumbling airplane."
Rihn-Harvey is now training in the Cap at local practice areas in Texas, but she'll continue to use the
popular Texas Hurricane for her airshow performances and competitions through the summer.
###
Rihn-Harvey, now in her ninth season (19 years) with the U.S. Aerobatic FOWldation, is the longest standing member of the u.s.
Aerobatic Team. The team will compete against representatives froni approximately 20 other countries in the World Aerobatic
Championships August 8 to 19, 2000 in Muiet, France.
. As the highest ranked female competitor in the U.S., Rihn-Harvey is the 1999 recipient of the Betty Skelton 'First Lady ,of Aerobatics
Trophy' and is a former Wor~ Champion Gold Medalist She is the owner of Harvey-Rihn Aviation, an internationally renowned
aerobatic school located at La Porte Municipal Airport, Texas. Rihn-Harvey is a captain for Southwest Airlines, an FAA Designated
Flight Examiner and an lCAS Designated Aerobatic Competency Evaluator.
.
· Harvey & Rihn
~viation
Inc.
101 AIRPORT · LaPORTE, TEXAS 77571
(281) 471-1675
Fax: (281) 471-6646
CAP 232 SPECIFICATIONS
Powerplant: Lycoming 10-540
Propeller: MT MTV9-B-C/200-15
Empty weight: 1290 pounds
Gross weight: Cat. A 1610, Cat. N 1810
Fuel capacity: 48 gal.
Length: 22 feet, 2 inches
Wingspan: 24 feet, 3 inches
Wing area: 102 square feet
Height: 70.5 inches '
Structural limits: +/. lOgs
Cruise speed (75%): 200 mph or 180 lets
Maximum cruise: 217 mph or 189 kts
Never exceed speed: 252 mph or 219 lets
Maneuvering speed: 195 mph or 170 lets
Stalling speed: 65 mph or 5~ lets
Rate of climb: 3,290 feet per minute
Rate of roll (Va speed): 420/s
Unrefueled range: 650 nm
..
II
La Porte City Council Meeting
July 24, 2000
Harvill E. Weller
1. Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association (GBCPA) - 10 Board
Membersl90 Committee Members
2. Corps ofEngiI)eerslURSlPort of Houston Authority (pHA) Memos - Open Records
3. GBCP A - Legal Strategy
4. GBCP A Technical Studies
5. Small Particle DatalLa Porte
a. Sonoma Technology/City of Houston Study (1999)
b. Preliminary Diesel Particulate Emissions Generated at The Port Only
6. Bayport History
7. 1960's Humble Brochure Map
8. 1974 Friendswood Bayport Industrial District Brochure RE: Deed Restrictions
9. PHA Legal Memo RE: Deed Restrictions
10. Peter Brown Study
11. GBCP A Newsletter - Wmter 2000
.
.
Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association
GBCP A Board of Directors
Jim Blackburn, Chair
(Houston)
Charlotte Cherry
(Pasadena/EI Jardin)
Katie Chimenti
(Houston/Clear Lake City)
Gerry Cooney
(Friendswood)
Elaine Douglas
(Seabrook)
Mary Beth Maher, Scty/Treas'r
(Shore Acres)
Dick Morrison
(Kemah)
Natalie O'Neill
(Taylor Lake Village)
Ellyn Roof
(Taylor Lake Village)
Harvill Weller
(Taylor Lake Village)
GBCP A Committee Orl!anization
· Fundraising
· Business & Foundations
· CitieslEconomic Development Committees/Community Associations
· Community Events
· Community Outreach
· Website
· Neighborhood & Institutional (La Porte & Bayport CAPS)
· Public Affairs & Speakers Bureau
· Yacht Clubs
· Technical Studies
· Air Quality
· Land UseILand Value
· Transportation
· Media Relations
· Letter Writing
· Legislative Review
Galveston Bav Conservation and Preservation Association
Address: P.O. Box 323, Seabrook, TX 77586
Phone #: 713-840-2729
Email: !!bcpa(l.v.!!bcpa.orr
Website: www.gbcpa.org
,0
.
-
'~ n ",,\))o (';\ C 9
j :c CJ J \ "\ 'e...;;-}('
r. f\J\. ~
:p/"'J.(,crIJ...v " .-, ,\ 'r,\
' ~" ~' ",} 1 }!"./'-
o :JL;;.;..... '
,
"
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE:
March 25, 1998
TO: James Jackson
Ted Walters
Brenda McDonald
Steve DeWolf
William Wachel
FROM: Laura W. Fiffick
SUBJECT: Permitting at Bayport
The following is a summary of potential pro's and con's for
permitting at Bayport. Option I is to permit the entire project
as a whole and Option 2 is to permit the cruise terminal separate
from the container terminal.
OPTION 1- ONE PERMIT
PRO" S
· The PHA will be able to receive the permit for both
terminals quicker than,if two permits are obtained.
· The Resource Agencies will be shown all of the environmental
impacts as a whole. A mitigation plan will b~ developed for
all of the wetlands which is less costly.
· There will be one agency and one public review process.
· The Resource Agencies and public will be focused on the true
issues instead of what may be to come with the next permit
or the piece-mealing issue.
· The CaE and the Resource Agencies already agree on the merit.
of the project and have expressed interested in assisting
the PHA.
· The Resource Agencies and public are already aware of the
project and expect to see the project permitted as a whole.
CON's
· The PHA has not begun the design of the container terminal.
Land acquisition is not complete and there are still aspects
of the project which may change.
· The container terminal has community issues and the cruise
terminal has environmental issues. The PHA may receive less
comments for the permit if separated.
e
e
OPTION TWO - SEPARATE PERMITS
PRO'S
· The PHA may be able to get the cruise terminal permit
slightly faster than a permit for both.
· The cruise terminal will not have as much public resistance
as the container terminal.
CON'S
· The Resource ,Agencies will accuse the PHA of piece-mealing
permits. We will spend valuable time arguing against this.
· The PHA will not be able to submit the permit for the
container terminal until after the cruise terminal permit is
granted.
· If the two permits are submitted within months of each
other, the container terminal permit could be held up
indefinitely as it will appear the PHA withheld information
during the cruise terminal permit,process.
· The PHA will have two sets of agency and public reviews.
This is much more costly (approx $100,000 depending on
negative comments) and. the same communities and agencies are
affected with the second permit.
· The COE stated the two projects could be divided however,
due to public and agency pressure, the COE may reject
separate permits.
· The PHA will not have public or Resource Agency support for
two permits. (The Resource Agencies commenting on the
permits are the same Agencies on the BUG.)
In summary, the PHA currently has the suppo.rt of the COE and
several Resource Agencies. The merits of the project speak for
themselves; the environmental and community issues can and will
be handled through mitigation and public awareness. With
separate permits, the focus will be shifted away from the true
issues of the project to meaningless questions such as "what is
the PHA hiding" and "why is the PHA piece-mealing the permi t". '
Valuable agency and public coordination time will be spent
dealing with these concerns. The PHA will also not be received
favorable by the COE, public, or resource agencies. In addition,
these groups can and have blocked permits by pressuring the COE
and/or litigation. The COE is sensitive to this as they are
currently involved in several permit suits in the Galveston
District. This can hold up a permit for years.
If it is not feasible to permit the projects as a whole, it
is recommended the PHA wait approximately six months to a year
e
.
after receiving the first permit to pursue the second permit.
~..
e. TC&S ENV PLANNl NG
.
"
. NOV-25-1998 15:00
v'
P. 02/~3
TurnerCoIlie@'Braden Inc.
INTERNAL
MEMORANDUM
To;
From:
Dare:
Job No.:
Subject:
Lama FifIicIcI Ted Walters
Bob Esenwcin
November 25. 1998
Mark King Ev~tioD of Port RFP's
Matte says that since the m"s are responsive to an enviromnental assessment scope ofworlc he
caDIlot dctamine which film is qualified to pedorm all EIS. BVeD so. he says. he cfid attempt to
compare the qualifications of the films. This exezcisc was somewhat inconclusive. He bas
rccommcmdcd to the District EDgineer- thai the Port nHdVenise based upon an EIS scope of work.
MatIc: indicated that he thought it would be "'Direr to aU the: CODtracton iuvolved"" ifthc:y aU applied
for an EIS project versus trying to judge amOilllhosc: who applied for the cnvUomnc:n1al
assf'ISDleDt.
Mark said 'that he did Dot thmk the eavimn1ft~1 assessmCllt RFP was lW'!A1iaie anyway in 1hat the:
Corps would 'Devci' have bccu able to PONSI the EA.. He also said that die air quality issue was
the major one to deal with OD Ibis EIS aDd that a fiml with really stroDI qualifications ill Ibis area
would be more appropriate. He also said that Tom lComegay was meetiDa with the District
Engineer Oil this day mcl that the Corp ~s was going to recommcDd a re-advmti&emr:l1t.
CODlllleDt: 1 me:atioDed to Maik that it was the Corps which oripIa1ly pidcd the Pon to pepare
m as~smeut. He said1hat "'if that is so. then it was iJlepJ to uw said that ~use it is obvio~
that IheR will be severe air quality impacts on these people who live Dear the project. I also told
Mark that I regularly asked Tracey On in August and September after the first public meeting the
Port convened to teeeive public input whether the Corps still W3Irtcd to stick with its assessment
versus BIS guidance. In ~ery mCflnt~~ Tracey afBmlecl aD asSCSSIIlCllt was what was required.
Mark's discussion indicated to me that since air quality has emerged as a major issue tbat an air
quality contractor should prep8R tho EIS. I told him tbat key issues often CDlCl"F during the
course of a project aDd that spc:ciaJizecl expertise is hind to hancUe 1he issue. He scc:med to be
saym, that siuee air quality capability was DOt strongly ref1~ in our RP'P respouse and was
stronger: with other finDs tllat he rated the o~er &ms bigher. This would argue that projcct
spoDIOtS should replace EIS contractors whenever maj~r issues emerp OD a project the coJJtractor
was DOt spcc:ia11y suited to address at project start. If soma other issue emerges as a major concem.
say. facility JighliDg, would the Cmps waut to start over with a contractor that has a lot of lighting
impact CXpcriCllCc? W Co as do other firms. contract specialized impact areas all d1c time ~d we
supervise this work. Mmy oftheae contractors are not in the business ofNEPA cocmtiDatiOD ancl
doeumCDtaliOlL We apply our NBPA skilla to the specializec:l impact analysis and fit the special
study into the overall d~on document or EIS.
, NOV-2S-1998 15: 08
.., TC&B EN\.) Pl..ANNI NG
e.
'...
P.03/03
....... f~
Mark KiDg Evaluation of Port RfP's
November 25, 1998
Pile 2
r am also cODcemed that Marlc's thinlcing reflects a focus on what should be fair to comractors. I
asked him wheth~ he thought what was fair to the Port should be the primaty focus. 'Ibis i& when I
mentioDed to him the earlier guidance the Corps gave, which Made denied was given.
OisttibutiOD:
TOTAl P. 03
-:; . ,~
e
e
Subject:
King, John M SWG Dohn.m.king@swg02.usace.army.mil)
Friday, October 15, 1999 11 :01 AM
Bill Fehring (E-mail); Richard Stoker (E-mail)
Dunn, Dolan 0 SWG; Anthamatten, Fred L SWG; Billingsley, Mellie M SWG; Laura Fiffick
(E-mail)
RE: October 6 Meeting Notes
" _r.J'>J
\ -..::/;..'>--1. \ ': . ....
'- (). ('\ C'-'
'1\'J .
~l ' r. v_.,,\' 'i,
- ...., . \.. V\'.>:..~-" ..... '"._n.. V
I '
i./\;~ L1vJu:/..)
laura Fiffick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Just wanted to address the other issues on Laura's comments below. I've
addressed the 50' channel issue already.
1. Air Quality -
a. General Conformity vs. Traffic Conformity
As I understand it at this point, General Conformity will
look at non-mobile sources of air emissions. We plan to do disclose those
emissions as a part of this 'EIS. I agree with Laura that HGAC is the lead
in the development of transportation conformity. At this time (prior to
/ discussing this with EPAlTNRCC) I don't expect the EIS to address whether or
" not a particular alternative'wilVwill not cause the TIP to be in
conformity. However, I do expect that the EIS will address expect mobile
'source emissions for each of the main alternatives that will be fully
evaluated. The Corps may not be the agency to determine whether a project
is in the TIP, but we are responsible for disclosing emission information
that may occur via a DOA permit.
b. The Comment Laura has quoted is, "the Corps is still trying to....",
refers to the Corps review of emission sources that the Corps may have
responsibility for beyond construction of the site. At this time, the Corps
is still coordinating with other Districts that have applied Air Conformity
Rules to large develop projects. The conformity rule identifies two classes
of emissions: direct and indirect. Direct emissions are those emissions of a
criteria pollutant or its precursors that are caused or initiated by the
Federal action and occur at the sarTIe time and place as the action. The
Corps' action is the permit for construction. Therefore, the direct
emissions are clearly those that occur at the time of construction of the
permitted work. If the permit is issued for the current proposal, we must
consider the emissions associated with construction as it is expected to
occur over time (not all of the facility will be built at one time).
Indirect emissions are those emissions of a criteria pollutant or its
precursors that: (1) are caused by the Federal Action buy may occur later in
time and/or may be further removed in distance from the action itself but
are still reasonably foreseeable; and (2) the Federal agency can practicably
control and will maintain control over due to a continuing program .
responsibility of the Federal agency. The Corps does not recognize a case
for condition (2), however, we are considering condition (1).
t/@ PM 2.5 - Based on passed discussion, I agree at this pOint that
modeling for PM 2.5 will not be needed. However, I want to take this issue
up with the EPAlTNRCC.
On another note:
Bill,
I've discussed with several District employees the issue of disposal areas.
As I see it, the issue does not lie solely with the Corps. The Corps owns
Jacinto and Pelican disposal areas. However, the remaining areas are
controlled by the local sponsors. So for instance, Texas City would have to
be willing and able to tind a new site that would replace the current
capacity in Shoal Point for that site to be a viable site. The same would
1
e
e
~
"'
go lor the Port on the areas that they control. II the local sponsor can
come up with a new site (that offsets lost capacity of the existing site)
the Corps could use the new site.
Send me a list of all the disposal areas that are currently on the
alternatives list (I will include the proposed Beltway B site). I will
compile a list of the controlling organization. We will then have to ask
each controlling organization if it would be viable to take the areas over
for construction. For Pelican and Jacinto, the Corps would have to have
Congressional action to release the Federal property. I would normally say
that this would be out of the question, but some action has already taken
place to possibly give some 01 the area to the City of Galveston.
I will continue to discuss the issue with the appropriate Corps
reps.
'N- .. "
~Jar ~$-the i~\-l~'9f ri3,d~Y~I~pcinexistihg sites; w.e beJi~W~ that the
cost of tnfrastruettifetlh~ulge would be prohibitive to developing the project
based on the other alternative$ tilat are available. Therefore., get the Port <Y
to provide estimated costs of redevelopment on each of these sites and use
ttlis to discuss the nOh-praCticability of these sites for meeting the basic
purpose.
I still ~orlqJ)Q., ,gpn W,~_t (eyelot dre<:iging would be a "stopper" for
other alternatives~~ need tOti~e the Port take a look at those
atternatives and provide qll ~~timated ~st 01 dredging. !J!may be that we
t\ave to loOk at the cost di:dfGtlgihtras a' percentage oJ me overall cost of
ptojett development '.
I've got to go to Houston now. So I'll stop there. I'll talk with you
again next week. Have a good weekend.
Mark
-Original Message- .
From: Laura Fiffick [SMTP:LFiffick@poha,com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 19992:35 PM
To: BiILFehring@urscorp.com
Cc: John M SWG King Uohn.m.king@swg02.usace.army.mil] (E-mail)
Subject: RE: October 6 Meeting Notes
Bill
Bayport Terminal meeting
The Bayport Project is proposed at 40 with 2 foot overdraft. .1 may
have
misunderstood but l'ihQught it was decided that the 50 foot channel
would
only be addre$sed in the sense of the tRR. I thought the discussion
was
that we would address is as a cumulative impact as it would not be
driven by
Bayport.
Air Quality -
The General Conformity will look at non-mobile construction sources.
I don't understand the second statement with "the Corps is still
trying
2
..
1....,
~ .,
e
e
to....".
.4.;
./'
1.~Rn:t believe re~i~nal modeling .of PM 2.5 will be used in the EIS
but we
r,~ognize that PM 2.5 is a regional issue.
e/
h~on't believe the EIS .~hQ~'p' disclO$e any infQrmat!c;m related to
,tfansportatioil coii'io.rinlty as'lt is an HGAC issue riofusAcE. The ~,~
sneuld . . .
. disclose information related to General Confor
"II work on the other meetings this afternoon.
Thanks
Laura
:> --Original Me~~age--
> 'ei'of{J.t~l'~Fehring@urscorp.com [SMTP:BiI'-Fehring@urscorp.com]
>. S:ent: Wednesqay. Oc1ober 13, 1999 11 :06 PM
> To:": joh~.m.king@'swg02.usace.army.mil; Ififfick@poha.com
> cb: ' Rit:hard_Stoker@urscorp.com
> Subjec1: October 6 Meeting Notes
>
>
>
> Attached are the IJ.pJ~$,' fQ( t~~ 9ctob.~r 6 meeting compiled by
Richard ~~,." ;.' .. . ..,,' .
> Stoker and
> myself. Please let us know jf you have any corrections. May'
assume
>~mb ,
> lack of feedback that you have no comments on my notes for the
September B
> meetings?
>
> (See attached file: c991 006b.pdf) << File: Adobe Portable Document
>>
3
e
e
GBCPA-LEGALSTRATEGY
,June 15, 2000
It is the belief of GBCP A that litigatio~ likely will be required in order to
ultimately defeat the Port of Houston's proposed Bayport Container Terminal. From the
inception of our fight against Bayport in summer, 1998, GBCP A has attempted to
intelligently argue various requirements of federal and state environmental laws in our
fight against this facility. We opposed the initial decision to prepare an environmental
assessment rather than an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Corps of Engineers
and the Port of Houston are now preparing an EIS. The following are a series oflega!
concepts that may be used in order to defeat the proposed Bayport Container Port.
LITIGATION UNDER NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA)
FULL DISCLOSURE STANDARD
CORPS MUST PREPARE UNBIASED, SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS
CORPS MUST ANALYZE ALL Th1PORTANT ISSUES
CORPS MUST ANALYZE ALL VIABLE ALTERNATIVES IN A
. COMPARATIVE MANNER
LEGAL VS. FACTUAL DISAGREEI\.1ENTS IMPORTANT
LEGAL VICTORY I\.1EANS REDO EIS - PROJECT DELAY
PROJECTS DEFEA'rED/WITHDRA WN IN THE HOUSTON REGION BASED
ON NEP A LITIGATION IN WHOLE OR PART
WALLISVILLE RESERVOIR - 25,000 ACRE ALTERNATIVE
5,000 ACRE ALTERNATIVE
WESTSIDE AIRPORT .
PELICAN ISLAND COAL TERMINAL
e
e
LITIGATION UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT
HOUSTON NON-ATTAINMENT FOR OZONE
GENERAL CONFORMITY REQUlREMENT
LEGAL ISSUE - SCOPE OF GENERAL'CONFORMITY
LEGAL ISSUES - CONTROL OF SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT
~ 1 0 PERMIT VS. 9404 PERMIT
CONSTRUCTIDN EMISSIONS
OPERATING EMISSIONS
,~
LITIGATION UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT
EPA 9404(b)(1) GUIDELINES BINDING ON CORPS
9404(b)(I) GUIDELINES PROHIBIT DISCHARGE OF FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS IF PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE EXISTS
BAYPORT CONTAINER PORT REQUIRES FILLING OF
FRESHWATER WETLANDS
DO PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVES EXIST?
BARBOURS CUT
PELICAN ISLAND
TEXAS CITY
FREEPORT
CORPUS CHRISTI
ALTERNATIVE SITE IS PRACTICABLE IF:
AVAILABLE
CAP ABLE OF BEING DONE
CONSIDERING COST, LOGISTICS AND TECHNOLOGY
e
e
IN LIGHT OF OVERALL PROJECT PURPOSES
DOES THE PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE CAUSE LESS
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE?
LITIGATION UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
BASED ON RED WOLF
ISSUE CONCERNING HYBRID PROTECTION
DOES A HYBRID C0VNT AS ENDANGERED?
IF SO, WILL PROJECT mop ARDIZE CONTINUED EXISTENCE?
LITIGATION UNDER TEXAS CONSTITUTION -
ILLEGAL TAKING OF PROPERTY
INVERSE CONDEMNATION
. DOLLAR DAMAGES ONLY
INCREASES COST OF PROJECT
CURRENT TAKING
FORMOSA TERMITES
PROPERTY DEVALUATION
GARY BROWN
JERRY COONEY
LITIGATION UNDER TEXAS TAKINGS LAW
NO TAKINGS ANALYSIS
MUST OCCUR BEFORE PROJECT APPROVAL
,
e
e
GBCP A - STUDIES NEEDED
June 15, 2000
The following is an outline of studies that are needed to defend the Bay Area
community from the threat posed by the Port of Houston's proposed Bayport Container
Port. Distinct studies are shown in bold print. As currently considered, the bulk of this
work would be presented in a detailed study of land use impacts prepared under the
overall supervision of Peter Brown and Jim Blackburn. Subparts of the land use study
may also be presented as stand-along studies. The remaining studies will be prepared as
. stand-alone documents that will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers as necessary to
support certain legal issues. These studies have been designed to interface with the legal
strategies to defeat the Port of Houston's proposed Bayport Container Port.
PETER BROWN LAND USE
(~
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF BAYPORT
LAND USE IMPACT OF PORT OF HOUSTON CONTAINER PORT
CORE AREA - BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS
PRIMARY AREA
SECONDARY AREA
CONWAroSONvnTHOTHERCONTAThffiRPORTS
LONG BEACH
CHARLESTON
ELEMENTS OF LAND USE IMPACT
. INCONW ATffiLE ADJACENT USE
NOISE
ESTABLISH NOISE MODEL
PREDICT ADJACENT AlVIBIENT LEVELS
LIGHTING
VISUAL
(
e
e
TRAFFIC - ROAD SYSTEM CONGESTION
IDENTIFY PROJECTED TRUCK/TRAIN USAGE
UNDERSTAND EXISTING ROAD CAPACITIES
IDENTIFY ABSORPTION OF TRAFFIC INTO
INFRASTRUCTURE
. AIR POLLUTION
ESTIMATE EMISSIONS FROM BAYPORT
NOx
,....
PM2.5
HAPS
NOx-OZONE
POSITION OF PORT IN NEW SIP
CONSTRUCTION
OPERATION
GENERAL CONFORMITY ANALYSIS
SECONDARY EFFECTS
FINE P ARTICLE/PM 2.5
IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTING M1BIENT LEVELS
PROJECTION OF INCREMENTAL INCREASE
IDENTIFY RESULTANT M1BIENT LEVELS
PREDICT HEALTH EFFECTS
MORTALITY
MORBIDITY
,
e
e
. HAZARDOUS AlRPOLLUTANTS
SPECIATE DIESEL EWSSIONS
GATIffiREXISTING AMBIENT DATA
PROJECTION OF INCREMENTAL INCREASE
IDENTIFY RESULT ANT Nv1BIENT LEVELS
PREDIC-T HEAL TII EFFECTS
MORTALITY
MORBIDITY
.{.....
END RESULT OF LAND USE IMPACT
LOSS OF PROPERTY VALUE
GARY BROWN ANALYSIS
JERRY COONEY TAX APPRAISAL
DESTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL INTEGRITY
INDUSTRIAL SPRAWL
LONG BEACH EXAMPLElFILM
LOSS OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
OPPORTUNITY COST OF BAYPORT
ALTERNATIVE FUTURE
mGH TECH
mGH QUALITY OF LIFE
t
e
e
50-FOOT DEEPENING STUDY
BASIS OF REQUEST FOR 50 FOOT STUDY
EXTENT OF PRIOR ANALYSIS
. REQUIRED ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
TEXAS CITY
BARBOUR'S CUT
FREEPORT r
PELICAN ISLAND
CORPUS CHRISTI
NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES
FORMOSA TERMITES
ENDANGERED SPECIES
RED WOLF ANALYSIS
WETLANDS
FRESHWATER WETLAND IMPACTS .
Diesel Particulate Matter Emissions
Bayport Container Facility*
~ MAr
f
8:
jl
r
~
'"
()
--~
4?i
flJl
E~
ifi I
f~.J
!
i
I.
== ". .... PreVJliling Wi
( ,
0 MapQuest.oom, 'nc.: C1g9g NavQatcrl TechnoloQ~s
:.~. .
"
c
.
.
;
e;
~ 33 V-tJ/YVl3
,S" ] u..J~ (/'VI 1
~~f~/I/1J'
e}
idling of trucks &
the area
11l
concentratIons
*Estlmate compiled only of emissions from
"holeling" of ships
"""Concentralions do no( include ambienl
640 SSE (average)
n
wind fro
6.66 knol
Assumption:
07:45am From-BLACKBURN & CARTER
.
+7135245165
-
T-835 P,06/07 F-424
Sm&.l11 Particle I'"C:lrlv .-.\ verage ConcenrraQon
~ "-
1997-1998 .
~;o.". ._
\ \ ~
'. ' '-
\ '\.
.", '\ \.
"\ '
\ \, \,
-"
'<, '-
\
.
,
\
.
\......--
\ . \
\ J \
\ \ ! \
'\' , I \ _
t I .
. . J
.."
<oJ
-
--
-
-
-
.,..
'"
.
- - ~
1'- 0_
--.~
_:. ~ :1
......-.-
-- -
_....- -
-...........
Lonaitude
-
-- J
--- ;
-_.
- . -
--~ -
- ..-
Source Sonoma T~chnology 1999
, . ,..
I
", . ' I .
'e
In the early 1960's, Humble Oil & Refining Company ("Humble"), which later became
Exxon, acquired 30,000 acres ofland from the Jim West Family. A portion of the land was
donated to Rice University who leased it to the Federal Government for the construction of
NASA. A large residential area was then planned by Humble to attract NASA related
businesses.
In 1964 and 1965, Humble Land Development Division (later Friendswood Development
Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Exxon) issued brochures to the Bay Area community
and to business corporations, inviting industry to acquire land in the newly formed Bayport
Industrial District. Bayport was projected to be a 7,250 acre industrial track (out of this 30,000
acres) in Southeast Harris County and designed to attract:
(1) chemicals and allied industry;
(2) basic metals and glass (including fabrication and assembly); and
(3) NASA oriented projects.
Humble represented that, together with the Port Authority of Houston ("PHA"), a port
facility was being designed at Bavport to preserve the natural residential and recreational
advantages of the area and that the "nearby Bay Area [would be] unmarred by spoil deposits."
Humble also represented that:
Bayport will be an orderly, planned development. It will work to maintain the
best possible conditions within the area and good relations with its neighbors.
That means environmental standards will be established to preserve:
- A healthful atmosphere;
- Recreational waters; and
- Natural habitat for marine life.
Already existing at that time were residential communities in Seabrook, Shoreacres, La
Porte, EI Lago and Taylor Lake Village. Citizens expressed concern about cutting a channel
through existing streets. Humble map displays showed that the land available for industrial
plants was all west of the new Highway 146, except for one small section of land between Old
146 and New 146, south of the proposed port. No land east of Old 146 was charted as being
available for industrial plants. There was a narrow strip of land immediately north and south of
the proposed Bayport channel basin for port development. On the south side of the channel, the
port area was reflected to be totally north of Port Road, with a narrow strip of land extending
east two-thirds of the way between Old Highway 146 and Todville Road.
. '
,
'e
.
One of the Bayport brochures touted, "a companion project named Clear Lake City
[which] offers your employees a wide range of attractive homes and recreational facilities in a
planned community development." This brochure also hailed the "firm but realistic environment
standards" for Bayport that "are essential for the benefit of all plants within the area and for
neighbors in adiacent residential or business areas."
Bayport proudly promoted these self-created environmental standards, the first of its kind
in the U.S., as serving various purposes:
(1) To insure proper use and appropriate development and
,improvement of the area and to protect surrounding landowners in
residential and commercial areas from property depreciation and
health impairment
(2) To protect the owners of plant sites within the property described
herein against improper use of other Dlant sites, which will
depreciate the value of their property;
(3) To .guard against the erection therein of improper or unsuitable
structures; and
(4) To insure adequate and reasonable development of such property.
These environmental standards placed limits on smoke and particulate matter, including
dust fall, odorous matter, toxic matter, radioactive materials and explosive, flammable materials.
Odorous matter was to be controlled so that no release from a plant would become a nuisance
or source of discomfort at any point beyond the p~ant property line. Noise emissions and sound
levels were specified, as were vibration and glare levels, the latter being limited to illumination
which did"not exceed 0.2 foot candles in any residential area. Waste and surface drainage was
also to be regulated. In addition, loading areas, weigh stations and truck roads were to "be
located so as not to impede traffic or cause unsafe conditions on Dublic thoroughfares."
Each owner or occupant of an industrial plant site in Bayport was to become a member
of the Bayport Industrial Association (later Association of Bayport Companies - "ABC") which
was to elect officers and hold quarterly meetings, at a minimum. The purpose of the Association
was to administer and enforce the Bayport environmental standards. to formulate and implement
a preparedness plan when justified and to coordinate industrial fire protection and other
protective services when needed. Each member of the Bayport Industrial Association agreed to
abide by the Bayport environmental standards," which can be changed only by two-thirds vote.
Association representatives had the right of ingress and egress to and from each plant site at all
reasonable times for monitoring purposes, and conducting reasonable investigations of
compliance with the standards, including the right to install and operate test equipment.
Quarterly results of this monitoring program were to be furnished to each association member.
2
(
'e
(
e
Offending plants were to be notified and given a reasonable length of time to correct the
violation. If correcti,on was not completed in that time frame, the Association was directed to
"use all appropriate legal means to enforce compliance with the standards." Each individual
plant owner also had the right to use appropriate legal means to enforce such compliance.
These restrictions were to run with the land and bind the present owner and any
successors and assigns. Humble was directed to include in each deed executed by it an express
clause subiectin~ such land to the provisions. but such land was said nevertheless to be subiect
to the provisions even if such express clause was omitted. These restrictions were to last until
July 1, 2003, and could be extended by a favorable vote of members owning not less than 90
percent of the Bayport lands.
Artists' renderings of Bayport Industrial District showed chemical plants located well
within the center of the district, with enclosed office buildings closer to the borders. Large green
buffers between the residential and industriaVcommercial areas were depicted and no industrial
areas were reflected east of Old Highway 146 and south of the Port area.
A PHA document in January of 1973 stated that this port was a cooperative venture
between Friendswood Development Company and the PHA, intended to serve industries located
in and near Humble's Bayport .Industrial District. 720 acres of land had been conveyed by
Humble to the Port Authority, out of which a shallow draft channel and turning basin was
dredged. In 1965, PHA also dredged a channel connecting the turning basin with the Houston
Ship Channel, constructed two barge docks, and road and rail connections to the docks. PHA
docum~nts show that the planners felt that the availability of deep draft marine transportation
in close proximity to plant sites, would be a powerful drawing card. The HumblelPHA Master
Plan contemplated a varied mix of industries that would generate both dry and liquid bulk
cargos, as well as general cargo and volume sufficient to pay for the investment of the port.
By early to mid-1970, PHA documents show that sale of land in Bayport had exceeded
expectations; however, the type of industry purchasing land in Bayport was not as expected.
Rather than the broad spectrum of industries hoped for, Bayport was essentially a petrochemical
complex. Thus, the ,PHA felt there was little likelihood that the Bayport Industries would
generate sufficient general cargo or dry bulk cargo to require or support port facilities for
cargoes of these types. The PHA and Friendswood entered into protracted negotiations and
finally entered into a new agreement.
In the early 1970's, PHA development area was already on the north side of the channel
and the west side of the turning basin for "facilities to serve local industries." A 3QO acre track
on the south side of the channel, with 5,600 feet of frontage and adjacent to Galveston Bay, was
swapped to th PHA to be available for development as necessary to meet the needs of local
industries. A PHA memo also said this land could be utilized by the PHA in any manner it
deemed appropriate, provided the PHA paid 515,000 per acre for a release of the restriction to
use the land to serve local industries. This restriction was to end in 2013, after which the Port
3
(
e
(
.
Authority would be free to use the land in any manner it deemed appropriate. (PHA memo of
January 26, 1973.)
In brochures distributed in the 1971/1972 time frame, Friendswood described the 8.750
acre Bayport Industrial Development to provide with a proposed 36 foot deep water port facility
to enable ocean going vessels to berth at the Bayport Division, Port of Houston, by 1973. The
brochure correctly stated that a deep water capability had always been planned as being available
to Bayport plant site owners. What was new, an~ differing from the earlier representations, was
the addition of 1,500 acres with as much as 5,200 feet of privately owned frontage being
available on "America's newest deep water port." Friendswood Development Company had
purchased an additional 1,500 acres south of Port Road, bounded on the east by Old Highway
146, on the west by Todville Road, and on the south by Red Bluff Road, extending from the City
of Pasadena, in the north, to the City of Seabrook in the south. This new acreage was
designated by Friendswood as Bayport II, a part of the Bayport Industrial District. Dredge spoil
was to be deposited. on existing spoil banks in the Bay "so that no new banks will be formed."
Thus, Friendswood Development Company was, under the new agreement in 1972, and the swap
ofPHA land, to have 6,150 feet of water frontage (north of Port Road and east of the PHA's
300 acres) contiguous (north of Port Road), to approximately 1,500 acres south of the channel.
Despite the expansion of Bayport II into areas contiguous with residential areas, Bayport
brochures continued to market their environmental standards as being for the benefit of
"neighbors and adiacent residential and commercial areas" as well as being "essential for the
benefit of all plants within the proiect." These environmental standards also included certain
basic qualifications as to the proper use, reasonable development and maintenance of the area
to insulate plant owners against unnecessary property depreciation from surrounding areas. The .
practicality, however, of the land in Bayport II being used for heavy industrial purposes,
consistent with the deed restrictions, was now much more difficult.
The new deep water channel and turning basin was opened in October of 1974. A 1988
PHA memo states that only three of ~he tracks sold by Friendswood (in Bayport II), were
actually being developed by private owners. In 1988. the Port Authority still had no
development of its own at Bavport. Dredging for the Bayport ship channel was performed in
1978, 1982, 1983, and in 1985, with the cost charged to the riparian owners on a pro rata basis.
Part of this cost involves acquiring a location for depositing the dredge material. In 1986, a
Federal Act was passed to require the Corps of Engineers to maintain this channel. PHA
wharfage collected on the four and a half million tons of bulk liquid cargos that moved through
Bayport annually made Bayport self-sufficient for the Port Authority, with a small net income
when dredging expenses were excluded.
In October of 1992, the Port Authority announced to the Army Corps of Engineers their
intent to obtain 500 acres, with an optional 108 acres, for the primary purpose of developing an
upland dredge material storage facility to store dredged material from the Bayport ship channel.
561 acres of this track extended south of Port Road and east to Todville Road and was originally
4
'e
i
e
(
I
part of the I,SOO acres in Bayport II sold by Friendswood to private owners. 46 acres was
another private track earlier sold by Friendswood north of Port Road. This 608 acre tract is part
ofPHA's proposed Bayport Container Terminal Plan.
On November 16, 1992, a private law firm prepared a memo for the PHA discussing the
restrictive covenants encumbering the 500 acres south of Port Road. There were two sets of
restrictions - the original environmental standards of February 23, 1965 (The "First
Restrictions"), as amended, and the "Friendswood Restrictions." The First Restrictions required
a favorable vote of90 percent of the landowners for amendment. The Friendswood Restrictions
did not set out how or whether they could be amended. The PHA law firm concluded that:
It is unclear how the port could escape any use restriction imposed by the
Friendswood Restrictions, except perhaps by obtaining consent from Friendswood
and all owners intended to be benefitted by the Friendswood restrictions.
The PHA private attorneys expressed concern as to whether or not the dust and drainage
provisions of the restrictions would impact the port's proposed use of the property for placement
of dredge fill. In addition, the Friendswood Restrictions required that the land be used:
only for manufacture, terminaling, storage, and shipment of products
manufactured or refined by the propertv owner or purchased by. the oroperty
owner for use in their own operation and/or for the manufacture. refining. or
processing of products in .their operations. (Emphasis added.)
The PHA attorneys voiced opinions that these Friendswood Restrictions may prohibit the use
of the property for purposes other than those stated in the restrictions.
A portion of the PHA lawyers' concern was addressed on April 27, 1993, when the PHA
obtained a Waiver of Restrictions from Ftiendswood Development Company for the 600+ acres,
earlier conveyed by Friendswood to' Hudson Oil Company, and later by Hudson to KJ Texas
Development Limited Partnership, who was selling it to PHA. This acquisition of private land
by PHA took 600 acres of unimproved land,. taxed at $254,000 annually, off the County and
CCISD tax rolls. The taxes for improved private land would, of course, been much more.
In the initial drawings for Bayport Terminal Complex, dated October 9, 1997, all portions
of the Bayport Container Terminal were north of Port Road, consistent with the earlier
FriendswoodlPHAMasterPlan. However, Port Road was shown, on several of these drawings,
to be straightened out, so as to include an additional 100 acres south of the existing Port Road.
Suddenly in1998, later drawings of the proposed Bayport Terminal showed it extending far south
of Port Road and into the City of Seabrook, to include a huge train switching yard, container
storage space and other commercial development and a port railway and roadway entry close to
or on Todville Road.
5
l
\
.
e
On September 15, 1999, the Association of Bayport Companies ("ABC") held a Board
of Directors meeting, attended by Tom Kornegay, Port of Houston Authority. Kornegay
admitted that the PHA had done a very poor iob of community relations in announcing the plans
for exoansion and in leading up to the announcement. Kornegay said there would be no rail
facilities provided until the terminal was built out in approximately eight years. Until then,
containers would be trucked to Barbour's Cut terminal to be placed on railcars. The eventual
rail line would be only for the Port terminal railroad and Port activities, and not for Bayport
Companies.
The Bayport Companies listed a number of their concerns with the proposed Bayport
Container Terminal, including the following:
(1) Traffic:
. Trains interrupting service to local ABC facilities.
. Trains impeding vehicular traffic flow (emergency and non-emergency).
. Terminal traffic impeding traffic flow in and out of ABC facilities.
. Road and rail improvements need to be ahead of terminal installation.
(2) Environmental Planning:
. Ozone attainment for Houston area will be made increasingly difficult.
. Permitting for growth of existing facilities will be more costly; time delays.
. Permitting problems will detract from competitiveness of Houston
Industry .
. Impact of truck/ship emission on ozone levels in Houston region needs to
be quantified and mitigated.
(3) Community Relations:
. ABC Companies have cultivated improved community relations climate.
. Port of Houston has blind-sided local industry; made our efforts more
challenging.
. Terminal project needs to include local involvement; tangible benefits to
local neighborhoods.
6
(
{
e
lIJ .
e
On December 16, 1999, the Port of Houston asked the Houston-Galveston Area Council
to include certain Port Authority transportation projects in the HGAC's 2025 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan ("MTP"). Among these requests was an automated signage system to
provide advanced warning to traffic of delays at grade crossings. The system would suggest
detour routes to keep traffic moving and prevent delays and congestion, to decrease air
emissions, and decrease truck/car interaction on congested intersections, at a cost of $3 million,
with the construction start date to be 2001. These 11 proposed projects were said to "effect the
port operations immensely," and included a projected cost of$139 million. This price tag did
not include a separate road for Port truck and train traffic. At long Beach Container Port in the
Los Angeles area, a 20 mile Almeda Corridor is being built (partially underground) solely for
container trucks and trains, due to public outrage over traffic congestion, traffic safety concerns,
pollution and damage to public highways. The price tag for the Almeda Corridor is $2.4 billion.
7
'4'"
e
,
I:.
,..
"\
I
rr.~.1(
~
,."
r
.
"
:,..'"
~
""-r...
~/
~
BaylJOl1--~
(!,.. ,
,
.
..;
....
, .
A carefully planned
industrial complex near
Houston,le".s.
.....'\:
:
"..,
. .-:~.' .:-:.
-.
"
~\'
-... .. ..: -.. ,j' ....:.. ........~"':..I
....... ~~.
.'
.... . .
..... ..
.. ..-.....
. ."
!'. ..........
,.
. ..... ".
, .
..... :\ ~(..:ri~~. " .:~:I:
~ ,
, ..~
~ ~" . '. .'
.... .
','
.'. ..'
.' ,"'.
.:'1.
. ,::c. ", ...., .. .. :-4 ..... ,. ,I,',' .... .:,.."-~,"~: .: .'..'.,.10 :..;;.~.." ",'''''' .... "::::'~:.= ..~..:...:.'",.i.: ;[;..:,.. . '. :..... ..
,- ;-i '::.X'~..'..:'-' ::~
...~.. ..~. ....:... ~':;1:... .:... .~. .,.. .;~ \ '~'I ":."'~..' . .... . :'. :..: ". ,':.":", ::. ". :~.: ".;.<.
... .... ~. ',J., -: ":.; -' ':"~:!;01~~~~ c...~;: :' I;'!: .. '.. :.:: .,,':' ~""'~
..";;.~:~:' .;::~;:.;f;~;j;:t;~~:;~'~~~~i~?~~~1~~~i~.; ;::S~ii;:;~t'~~;~;(f:~':. .
:'0.'
'. .
<<
'j,
'f
~. ...
"
~
:to:
~
'--1
.
,
.',
,
:
\
\
.. .. ,. 1 ...
c.
Bayport: Property Development
c.
The Environmental Standards
Environment. Ecology. Important words now. But they've been watchwords with
Bayport's planners since the projecrs inception. These men knew then that firm
but realistic regulations were essential for the benefit of all plants within the proj-
ect. And for neighbors in adjacent residential and commercial areas. And for this
delicately balanced planet on which we live.
So Friendswood Development Company, the developers of Bayport. set about
early formulating a package of solid environmental standards; standards which,
as someone has said, "protect the air, water, and you'r corporate image." Th~y
also protect a company's investment once located in Bayport, by controlling the
usage, type and appearance of improvements upon the land. and the placement
of structures relative to the entire development. ' ,
The defender of the Bayport code of environmental standards is Ihe Bayport
Industrial Association, an organization comprised of owners and occupants of the
development; in essence a self-regulating body. Each landowner in the Bayport
Industrial Development automatically has the option to become a member of the
Association, with representation by designation of the landowner. All landowners to
date are represented.
Quoting from the contract signed at the time of purchase by the "Site Owner"
and Friendswood Development Company: "The purpose of the association is and
shall be the planning, support and execution of programs and projects of mutual
benefit and concern to the industrial occupants of Bayport. These programs and
projects currently include:
",. Administration of Bayport Environmental Standards.
"2. Formulation and implemenlation of a preparedness plan when justified.
"3. Coordination of industrial fire protection and other protective services
when needed,"
Air emissions such as smoke, particulate matter, odorous or toxic materials
are strictly controlled. The manufaclure, utilization and storage of radin-active
I
c;
'(,
POR05945
~
'~'.l
materials must comply with regulations
established by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, Texas State Department of
Health and other jurisdictional authorities.
Explosive and flammable materials must
meet the standards of the National Fire
Protection Associatio,n. American Petro-
leum Institute, Manufacturing Chemists
Association, and other organizations that
promulgate standards of good practice.
(Note Section III, A through F, of the
Terms 0' Purchase Contract as quoted
in its entirety on this page.)
Noise levels must be measured with
a sound level meter and associated Oc-
tave band analyzer manufactured in ac-
ordance with the rules of the American
Standards Association. Vibration and glare
are measured and controlled. (See Sec-
tion III-G. H. I.)
The volume, quality and point of dis-
charge of industrial and domestic liquid
wastes .must be approved by the Texas
Water Quality Board, with the collection
and treatment of waste materials handled
by the Central Waste, Control Organization
under individual contract with plant opera-
tors. (Reier to Section /II. J.)
Bayport environmental standards also
include certain basic qualifications as to
the proper use, reasonable development
and maintenance of the area. These
qualifications help to insulate plant own-
ers against unnecessary property depre-
ciation from surrounding industries. (For
full details. nole Section III, K.)
All environmental standards, a,s well
as the central waste treatment system
discussed in the following paragraphs,
were formulated for the benefit of both
Bayport plant site owners and their neigh-
bors, Certainly a concern for environment
is the mutual concern of every corporate
cit' . 1 and Friendswood Development.
/
e
)
'~
,_. .1
c
Bayport Terms of Purchase
Conlract
"Section III. Environmental
Slandards"'
From the contract signed at time of pur-
chase by plant site purchaser and Friends-
wood Development Company.
A. SmDke and Parllculate M....r
1~ DEFINITIONS
Dustfall- The rate at which partlcli-
late matter collects in an open Jar, usually
tons per square mile per month.
Mlcrogram-One millionth of one
gram.
Particulate Matter-Material other
than water which I. suspended In or dis-
charged into the atmosphere in a finely
dIvided form as a liquid or solid.
Rlngelmann Number-The number
appearing on the Rlngelmann Chart de-
scribed in the U. S. Bureau of Mines In-
formation Circular 6888 by which the
density or equivalent opacity of a smoke
emission may be measured.
Smoke-Small gas-borne partiCles
other than water that form a visible plume
In the air. For purpose of this standard,
smoke is further defined as the emIssion
from the combustion of conventional
fuels, waste products, or waste m~terials.
2. SMOKE
The emission of smoke having a
density or equivalent opacity less than
Rlngelmann No. 2 'shall be permitted at
all times. Smoke having a density or
equivalent opacity of Rlngelmann No. 2
but less than Ringelmann No. 3 shall be
permitted for six minutes during anyone
hour. Smoke having a density or equiva-
lent opacity of Ringelmann No.3 or great-
er st'lall not be permitted except under
iii
._,
.
'.'
0;
e
.
MAYOR, DAY, CALDWELL & KEETON, L.LP
700 LOUISIANA. SUITE 1900
HOUSTON, TEX^S 77002 -2778
(713) 225-7000
TELF.COPr l713j 225'7047
TELEX 382813
April 15, 1993
Mr. Perry McGee
"
Port of Houston Authority
III East Loop North
Houston, Texas 77029
Via Messenger
Re: Bayport Property
Dear Perry:
We have received a waiver from Friendswood Development Company of certain
Restrictions encumbering the Property. This waiver allows the Property to be used as a dredge
disposal facility but does not waive the environmental standards contained in the Restrictions.
I am enclosing a memorandum detailing certain of the environmental standards contained in the
Restrictions. Please confirm that these environmental standards will not interfere with the Port's
intended use of the Property as a dredge disposal facility.
Should YOll have any questions Or comments, please do not hesitate to give me a call at
your convenience.
Very truly yours,
MBA:prf
0088833.01
04931511520
Enclosure
cc: Mr: Daniel E. McCormick (Firm)
~'
..~
e'
.
MAYOR, DAY, CALDWELL & KEETON, L.L.P.
MrEMORANDUM
TO:
Daniel E. McCormick
Mark B. Arnold ~
November 16, 1992
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Port of Houston Authority/Bayport 500 Acres;
Restrictive Covenants Encumbering the Property
According to the Title Commitment, the Property is encumbered by various deed
restrictions and covenants. These restrictions appear to primarily set environmental standards
for the use of any property in the Bayport Industrial Area. The following is brief summary of
the Restrictions:
,A. Environmental Standards/Bayport Industrial Area dated February 23, 1965,
recorded in Volume 5920, page 165 of the Deed Records of Harris County,
Texas (the "First Restrictions"), as amended by instrument filed for record in
Volume 8470, Page 238 of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas (the
"Amended Restrictions"), as further amplified and amended by instrument filed
for record under Harris County Clerk's File No. E398850 (the "Friendswood
Restrictions") (collectively the "Restrictions"):
1. Smoke: These Restrictions contain detailed provisions pertaining to the
density ot equivalent opacity of .smoke permitted to ~e emitted from the
Property;
2. Suspended Matter: As amended by the Amended Restrictions, emissions
of particulate matter from any plant which will result in suspended
concentrations greater 250 micrograms per cubic meter of air, measured
at any point beyond the plant property line, shall not be permitted. In
addition, the emission of any particulate matter from any plant in the
Bayport Area which will result in suspended concentrations greater than
100 micrograms per cubic air in residential and commercial areas outside
of Bayport, shall also not be permitted.
3. The First Restrictions also contain provisions regulating the amount of
dustfall and windblown dust which may be emitted from the property.
"
0+"
e'
e
4. According to the First Restrictions, the release of odorous matter from
any plant must be controlled so as not to become a nuisance or source of
unreasonable discomfort at any point beyond the plant property line.
5. The First Restrictions also contain provisions regulating the emission of
toxic matter and other such substances as carbon disulfide, carbon
monoxide, chlorine, ethylene, hydrogen chloride, and oxides of nitrogen
or sulphur.
6. The First Restrictions also regulate (i) the storage, use and manufacture
of explosives and flammable materials on the property, (ii) noise
emissions from the pro~rty J (Hi) vibrations emitted from the property and
(iv) any glare producing activity conducted on the property. The First
Restrictions also include provisions regulating liquid waste, surface
drainage and solid waste.
7. As amended by the Friendswood Restrictions, any fixed and permanent
structures on plant sites must have a minimum setback of fifty feet from
any plant property line except along deep water port frontage. The
Friendswood Restrictions also contain detailed calcu~tions setting the
minimum setback lines in the event that the minimum setback of fifty feet
would cause more than 20% of the plant site area to be within a setback.
8. The Friendswood Restrictions also contain the following provisions:
1. No water well is permitted to be operated on the property unless
an adequate supply of water fit for the owner's purposes and use
is not available from the Coastal Industrial Water Authority.
iL No owner of the property shall use the land or any part thereof as
a public or commercial port facility or for any use that is in
competition with the Port of Houston Authority's public port
facilities.
liL The following provision appears in the same paragraph as, and
immediately following, the sentence prohibiting competition. with
the Port of Houston Authority public port facilities:
Said land will be used only for the
manufacture, terminaling, storage and
shipment of products manufactured or
refined by Grantee.. .or purchased by
Grantee...for use in their own operation
and/or for the manufacture, refining or
processing of products in their operations.
All operations of Grantee...on said land will
be in accordance with and will comply with
,.
'.-
e
e
be in accordance with and will comply with
standard operating procedures and rules of
the Port of Houston Authority.
It does not appear that the above Restrictions would materially interfere with the Port of
Houston Authority's use of the property for placement of dredge fill. However, the dust and
drainage provisions of the Restrictions should be closely scrutinized to determine if they impact
the Port's proposed use of the property. In addition, the Priendswood Restrictions could
possibly be construed as prohibiting the use of the property for purposes other than those stated
in the Friendswood Restrictions. However, it appears that the intent of the Friendswood
Restrictions was to prevent the use of the property from competing with any port facilities
operated by the Port and from violating any standard operating procedures and rules of the Port.
It would seem, therefore, that the Friendswood Restrictions should not be interpreted as limiting
the Port's use of the property. However, it may be wise for the Port to obtain consent for its
proposed use of the property.
According to the First Restrictions, the First Restrictions will expire on July I, 2003.
Further, the environmental standards contained in the First Restrictions may be amended only
by the favorable vote of owners of two-thirds of the lands in Bayport. The term of the First
Restrictions may be amended only by the favorable vote of owners of 90% of the land in
Bayport. Otherwise the First Restrictions may be amended by the favorable vote of owners of
a majority of the land in Bayport. It is unclear whether a release of certain property from the
First Restrictions would constitute a permitted amendment and, if it did. what percentage of
owners would have to consent for it to be effective.
As to the Friendswood Restrictions, the instrument creating those restrictions does not
explicitly set out whether or how they can be amended. Therefore, it is unclear how the Port
could escape any use restriction imposed by the Friendswood Restrictions, except perhaps by
obtaining consent from Friendswood and all owners intended to be benefitted by the
Friendswood Restrictions.
The First Restrictions establish the Bayport Industrial Association (the" Association").
Each owner or occupant of an industrial plant site is entitled to be a member of the Association.
Each owner of a service plant or facility, such as a tank farm, waste or water treatment plant,
utilities and rights-of-way and all other facilities shall have the option of becoming a member
of the Association, but not be entitled to vote or be required to financially support the programs
of the Association. The First Restrictions do not explicitly provide for an assessment to charge
landowners in Bayport, but merely state that financial support shall be provided by the members
in an amount and at a time mutually agreed upon.
The classification of the property proposed to be purchased by the Port is unclear at this
time. This classification should be obtained since it impacts membership in the Association and
any dues and other sums required to be paid.
The Friendswood Restrictions contain references to additional restrictions, copies of
which have not been provided by the Title Company. I have requested that the Title Company
t. .. ~
e-
e
research whether these arlditional instruments continue to encumber the property. If so, the Title
Company will forward to us copies of those instruments for our review.
0064957.01
11921611612
"
e
e
BA WORT LAND USE ISSUES
Peter H. Brown, AlA, AICP
September 15, 1999
2136 KIPLING PrnRH.8lOVN
-. ====='"
HousroN. TIXAS 77098 ~~ i ~..
=~-=
(713) 520-6606 ~ - -==
FAX (7U) 520.7797 CIVIC DESIGN
Land Use Issues
The proposed Bayport terminal site lies at the center of the Clear Lake - Galveston Bay sub-
region. with the primary impact area extending on the east side of Highway 146 from Morgants
Point to Bacliff. The sub-region is a major residential.recreational suburban sector of the
Houston Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA), with a strong economic base, primarily
space technology, related office and light industry, recreation and tourism.
The community character of this sub.region is clearly established, distinguished by the water.
oriented recreation, entertainment and tbe various activities of Clear Lake and Galveston Bay. In
the immediate area there are numerous older water-oriented subdivisions, and west of Highway
146, larger planned communities, including "South Shore Harbor", "Clear Lake City", as well as
major residential developments in Webstert Kemah, Taylor Lake Village and Nassau Bay. In
addition, attractive shorelines and preserved natural areas, primarily coastal/estuary wetlands,
enhance the specific character of this area. Important recreational activities include numerous
golf courses (6 in the Greater Clear Lake Area) and the various facilities of private clubs such as
the Houston Yacht Club. These amenities combined with the employment base of
NASA/Johnson Space Center, and a exemplary school system (Clear Creek lSD, thirtieth largest
district in Texas and La Pone ISD) make this sub-region perhaps the most attractive suburb for
residential living in the entire SMSA. It is home to many of our nation's astronauts.
These two school districts, Clear Creek ISD (28 schools with 28,500 students) and La Porte ISD
(11 schools with 7,344 students)t represent a major public investment in the cultura1leducational
infrastructure serving the reside~tial population of the sub-region.
The nature of industrial uses
Industrial uses are generally classified in municipal land use regula.tions based on two categories:
light industry and heavy industry. Light industry includes warehousing, and manufacturing
involving the assemblage of pre-manufactured parts, such as computers or small machines and
products. Heavy industry includes manufacturing involving chemical processes and significant
noise, airborne particulate matter and glare. Transportation terminals, railroads, ports, airports,
electric generating stations, substations, utility plants, breweries, smelters and chemical plants
are classified as heavy industry.
Industrial uses generally account for 3%.5% gross (or 6%-8% net) of the land use ofa city or
sub-region, and tend to be concentrated in large agglomerations, close to major transportation
arteries (highways, freeways, inter-coastal waterways, ports and railroads). There are three
reasons for the concentration of heavy industrial uses.
1. Heavy industrial uses, considered in terms of commonly accepted plaMing and land use
standards, are incompatible with most other land uses, particularly residential, institutional
(schools), and park, recreational and' open space uses. In most municipalities, substantial
buffers are required between even light industrial and residential uses, and heavy industry is
ARCHITECTUR.E, URBAN DESIGN AND TOWN PLANNING
e
e
IU1IlH.IllCMN
,.
CMe Df~1G1'I
nct allowed in any reasonable proximity to residential uses. This is a national standar~
promulgated by the American Planning Association and established in land use regulations
and comprehensive plans throughout the nation. Therefore, heavy industry tends to be
grouped in one area of a city or suburb, to minimize adjacency with other uses.
2. Industrial areas attract other industrial uses in close proximity. For example, a port facility
will attract large-scale warehousing and distribution centers, major tnlcking tenninals, and
heavy industries such as chemical plants and industrial processing facilities in close
proximity. These often noxious uses tend to eliminate residential and related development
from the immediate area. For example, the Baytown Comprehensive Plan suggests
significant physical separation between emission points and residential structures,
recognizing the adverse impacts of heavy industrial uses, not only on residential property
values and neighborhood life, but also on the community's overall "image and general
physical appearance."
3. Industrial uses adversely affect property values of other uses, most notably residential, retail,
and office uses. Therefore, industrial uses, particularly heavy industry, tend to be isolated in
areas which are not considered suitable for residential use.
Potential land use impacts of the proposed Bayport facility
The proposed Bayport heavy industrial facility, in tenns of commonly accepted national
planning standards, published by the American Planning Association. the American Institute of
Architects, and the American Institute of Landscape Architects, is a highly iDcompatible land
use in a predominately residentiallrecreational area.
The anticipated adverse impacts are in three areas:
. The Core Impact Area
In the "Core" impact area, are those established residential neighborhoods (EI Jardin del Mar,
Seabrook, Shoreacres, and the southern part of La Porte) directly effected by the presence of
a large industrial facility, particularly those neighborhoods in direct contact with noise, glare,
traffic (primarily truck) congestion and shipping traffic. The likely impacts include declining
property values, environmental nuisances (air pollution, smoke, glare, noise) and traffic
congestion.
. The Primary Impact Area
The primary impact area includes the portion east of Highway 146 from Morgan's Point to
Bacliff and the communities that are immediately adjacent on the west side of 146: Taylor
Lake Village) EI Lago and parts of Seabrook. The primary impact area will experience
effects similar to the core impact area, particularly traffic congestion along Highway 146, tie-
ups at at-grade rail crossings. declining property values and a negative community image.
. The Secondary lmpacr Area
Effects will be significant in the secondary impact area, essentially a 5-7 mile radius inland,
which includes the NASA area, portions of Clear Lake City, Webster, League City, and La
Porte. In this area, traffic congestion will likely be the primary problem, property values will
be 'affected, accompanied by a change in the overall image and appearance of"the sub-region.
2
e
e
"
I'lTIilK ION
.'
CMC DESIO,..
The e)tisting light and heavy industries adjacent to Bayport are across Highway 146 from a large
light and heavy industrial area on either side of Port Road. extending north from Bay Area
Boulevard, which also contains considerable undeveloped vacant land. These areas are
unfortunately adjacent to the Armand Bayou Nature Center and other estuarine tributaries of
Clear Lake and border several residential subdivisions to the north. This is a good example of
the spreading growth patterns of heavy industrial uses (primarily manufacturing. trucking and
warehousing). infringing on pristine natural areas and effecting nearby residential
neighborhoods. Similar patterns ofland use occur adjacent to the Barbour's Cut Terminal. ~
a pattern is incompatible with the established residential character of the area.
It is not likely that the neighborhoods in the core impact area will survive the adverse effects of
Bayport. NO AMOUNT OF BUFFERING OR REMEDIAL MEASURES can alleviate the
effects of such a large facility in the core impact area.
The result of the proposed Bayport facility, in the core impact area will likely be an immediate
and significant loss of property values (affecting 3,000-3,500 homes, mostly owner occupied)
and an exodus of the long-term resident population. This is typically followed by an influ)t of
less aflluent renters and buyers and haphazard changes from residential to marginal commercial
and industrial uses, where the land is not regulated by zoning. In planning tenns, this is the
beginning of a downward spiral of neighborhood decline, resulting in future blight and physical
deterioration of the built environment
The nature of change in the primary impact area will be similar as those in the core area,
particularly increased traffic congestion. The essential established character of the community
will be irreversibly altered. Probable adverse impacts include:
. A significant loss of propeny values and ad valorem taxes and a consequent reduction in the
quality of municipal services and level of educational facilities.
. Declining commercial values, which historically served the generally broad spectrum of
residential population. There will be a possible surplus of commercial retail and office uses.
as spending power decreases, and new commercial retail office growth will be diminished.
. Reductions in water-oriented tourism and leisure activities, particularly, sailing and eco-
tourism.
. Decline in the rate of new development of vacant land for residential and supporting
commercial uses-
. Gradual increases in the amount of land devoted to heavy and light industrial and
warehouse/manufacturing uses, which are attracted by a large container port operation and its
spin-off operations, particularly in areas where there are no zoning regulations.
The current predominant land use in the primary impact area as a percentage of developed land is
residential 80% and commercia113%. Industry accounts for only 7%. This figure will possibly
be doubled by the construction of Bayport and spin-off industries. This would be an unusually
high percentage of industrial land. panicularly in predominantly residential sub-region.
,. .
Probable effects in the secondary impact area (5-7 mile radius west of Highway 146), will
include:
3
e
e
I'-1WlIII:Wf
..
CIvIC DESICH
. Added traffic congestion will be a critical factor, because most of the local residents are auto-
dependent commuters.
. A lessening of desirability of residential areas and planned communities, such as "South
Shore Harbor". which depend on an unspoiled recreational and leisure environment for their
competitive appeal with other SMSA sub-regions.
. A general decline in its image and community appearance.
The slowing of residential growth and decline in property values and tax revenues brought about
by the increase in industrial uses. particularly heavy industry, will have a significant impact on
local school districts, especially Clear Creek ISD which is planning for significant increases in
school-age population. These negative impacts must be quantified and included in any
costlbenefit analysis of port and industrial expansion.
Eventually, the employment base of NASA will be effected, since there is fierce national and
international competition for recruiting top engineering graduates to work at NASA. No one
moving to Houston wants to live near in the vicinity of a large heavy industrial complex. Quality
of life is a key factor in attraeting these new employees. Any significant decline in the quality of
life (panicularly congestion, the loss of recreational and leisure amenities. and the "industrialn
stigma) eventually will have a negative effect on the growth of the important space technology
sector of the economy.
Appropriate Land Use
The proposed container facility raises the important question, "In terms of commonly accepted
planning principles. what is the appropriate land use for this property?" In reaching a conclusion
to this question. specific criteria must be considered:
1. Compatibility with established existing land uses in the immediat~ area.
2. Environmental concerns. especially on the Galveston Bay ecosystem, storm water
management and air quality.
3. Traffic considerations. particularly added congestion impacting e?,isting uses.
4. Impact on the local tax base of the adjacent municipalities.
5. Market demand for the development of this property and adjacent vacant land in terms of the
intensity and type of use.
6. Ex:isting land uses and activities currently on the subject property.
7. Social impacts including broader community effects on social, well-being (See Hanly v,
Kleindist. 409 US9~0. 1972).
8. Adequate infrastructure, including the roadway system. rail and water transportation, water.
sewer and drainage facilities.
The feasible alternative uses for this large property provided there are significant and adequate
buffers from existing heavy industrial. include:
. Single and multi-family residential - oriented toward the water areas
. Commercial retail and office. along Highway 146
. Leisure commercial including a hotel, convention/meeting facilities, restaurants and
entertainment venues
. Recrea.tionaVcommercial marinas and related facilities
4
l
e
e
1mAH.1IlONN
nri
CIVIC DESICN
. Cruise ship terminal
. Regional parldands. sports and recreational facilities
. Light industr~a1, manufactUring and warehousing
. Golf course and country club.
From a planning viewpoint, additional heavy industry is inappropriate for this site. The existing
heavy industry on the property suggests limited light industry and commercial on adjacent land.
Residential uses are appropriate on those ponions of the property not impacted by existing hea.vy
industry. The water areas should be developed as regional amenities. marinas and sailing clubs,
including a venue for Olympic water sports. A local or regional park is clearly an appropriate
use, as well as a championship golf course. Waterfront entertainment.oriented retail. similar to
the Kemah Waterfront. could be developed on the bayn-ont south ofthe inlets. A cruise ship
terminal could possibly be developed in association with waterfront commercial, provided it
does not adversely impact sailing and, related water sports.
In summary. this is a large and attractive propeny, with a unique waterfront amenity. It has the
unmistakable potential to reinforce the recreational. residentia.l and leisure-oriented commercial
character of the Clear Lake - Galveston Bay sub.region. Given the limited infrastructure
(existing and planned) and the unique potential of this site and its context. further development
as a port facility and related heavy industry, trucking and warehousing is inappropriate.
Summary
Aside from the significant adverse environmental impacts on the sub-region and Galveston Bay,
in terms of air and water quality, the proposed Baypon container terminal will have substantial
negative impacts on the local livability and the economy; including:
. Loss of property values. decreased tax revenues for municipalities , and school districts.
. Job losses in the public sector. followed by declining job growth in the commercial,
recreation and entertainment sectors.
. Decrease in growth rates of commercial uses particularly retail and professional offices,
resulting from decreased consumer spending power.
. Significant decreases in the rate of new residential development, particularly in the primary
impact area.
. Deterioration and blight of once stable residential neighborhoods in the core impact area.
Ofpanicular significance is the issue offuture land use. More than 50% of the land area in the
primary and secondary irI).pact areas is yet undeveloped. The future land use, in terms of current
zoning and land use suitability, is predominantly residential. accompanied by supponing retail,
office, recreational and leisure uses. The most significant impact of Bayport, perhaps, is this
effect on the future disposition of vacant land. If Bayport is constructed, eKpanding presence of
heavy industI)', much of this land will be developed by spin-off heavy industry and
manufacturing, and large areas, highly suitable for residential use will be consumed by industrial
uses, remain vacant or developed as marginal non.residential uses with a minim,!l economic
multiplier effect.
s
,,,
e
e
ImRIUlIOIIN
..
CIVIC DUIGN
Typically industrial uses (both light and heavy) acCount for approximately 3%~5% (gross) of the
land use in an economic sub-region or region. Industrial uses in the primary impact area are
already at 3.5%. This would indicate that compared to other stable sub-regions, very little
industrial growt~ particularly heavy industry, is warranted panicularly in the Clear Lake -
Galveston Bay sub-region.
Our research shows that without the Bayport facility the undeveloped land will tend to develop
according to the prevailing trends, with increased high quality residential, recreational (water-
oriented), and high-tech office uses, focused on the space technology and research sectors.
These are the appropriate land uses for this unique site.
This raises the important question as to whether the economic benefits of Bayport, primarily in
tenns of employment, will result in any net economic benefit to the sub-region or SMSA
Decreased tourism and leisure activities, the costs of declining municipal and school revenues
and job losses. declining commercial uses, slower development activity in all sectors except
industrial may well offset any anticipated economic benefits. The long-tenn effect of Bayport
could well be a significant broad based economic loss for the Houston SMSA When the costs of
new infrastructure construction, traffic congestion mitigation (including accidents and deaths),
remedial measures for increased air pollution, and remediation for environmental impacts on
Galveston Bay are all taken iilto account, Bayport (in this location) will likely have a severe
negative impact on the region.
In addition, it will inevitably alter the community character of what is perhaps the highest
amenity suburb of the Houston SMSA and adversely affect our major space technology-oriented
employment sector, increasingly important to the economic base of the entire region in the high-
tech, information age global economy.
Submitted by:
(!,p;t//rtw.
Peter H. Brown, AlA, AICP
~
.- .
6
e
e
Zl36 KiPlING PEnlUi.81O'1N
HOU~ON, TEXAS ;7098 ~..d.~~
-~-
(7U) 520-6606 ~-~
FAX (1\3) 520.7i91 CIVIC DESIGN
CURRICULUM VITAE
PETER H. BROWN, AlA, A:PAt AICPt PRINCIPAL
PETER. H. BROWN CMC DESIGN
2136 Kipling, HouStoll., Te.-cas 71098
Tel 713/520-6606 r8."C 713/520-7191 E.mallcvcdesign@aol.cOP1
Peter H. Brown. AlA. AP ~ AlCP, has more than 25 years experience in cit)' plaMiog, wban design, and architeclll1'C. His
education ilv;ludes degrees from The University of Houston (BA). Tbe University of California at, BeIkeley (MA). and the
University of Pennsylvania (B.An:b. M.Arcb. MCity Planning). Mr. Brown is a secoad-generation oati'Ie HoustOnian. iA.
professional practice in Houston since 1984, spcc:iaJizing in municipal planning. urb~ design, parks and. rec(e3tiotW fac~ties.
civic and ItSidemial aJdUleCtUl'C. urban redevelopmenr. and tni.-ced-use planoed. c:ommumties. He is a national SpOkesman for
traditional oeigbborhDocl pJaMiftg and "The New Urbanism.... His mban redcvelopmcnc e.~rience STatted. in tb: 1970's. when he
ditected a neighborhood-based. convnunit)' design center in a blighted COrm1lunil)' of West Philadelphia.
As a city planner. Mr Brown has been a consultant to me cities of Houston, TX; Galvesmn, 11<; EL Paso. 1'X; Boulder. CO~
PhiladelptUa, P A:. Miami. FL; Dmper (Salt Lake City), trr; Sl Petersburg. RlISsia and nwnero\lS towns in Texas, Florida.
Pennsy~ an:! New Jersey. He selVed as the P1amiIJg and 2;<Jl1iIlg Of&cial fot the Lamar Terrace Ta.'t IzlCremem R.einvestmCllt
Zone during 1990 _ 1994. has been a c:onsultaIIL to the Houston MetrOpoliran Transi[ Au1hori~. (METRO). to tbe Housing
A1Jl'bJrit)' oftbc City ofHoUStDn (HACH), a plaPoing consultanl. to the U'C\iversity ofHousmll, aDd to tbe Chinatown colX1fJll1Dity.
and. is cumntly working on several city projec:tS. including Hetm81ln Parle. the Downtown TtanSit StreetS. and tile Houstoll
Bikeways project.
His an:hitec:tural work includeS the Hillc;rotl: Transit Center, Oa!den V1lJas Elemenwy School, numerous crimiJlal justice
facilities. public housing. apartments, parks and recreation projects, and private residences.
In term of public service, Mr. Brown has served on numerous Boards and Comminees. including:
_ Houston Proud (Founder) - Clean Ho\1Stot!-. tnc.
. Making Main Sueet Happen, Inc. (Founder) . Trees for Houston
. Billboards Limited . The ParkPeople
_ The Houston Atcbitecture Foundation - Briargrove Civic A.ssociatiOl\
. American tnstirole o( Architects, Houston Cb.apter, President 1987.88
He is a licensed architect in the stat~ orTe;w, florida, New ]efSey and Peonsylvania. a licensed planner in New Jersey, aIld is a
member of the American Institute of Atc!1i[ects (AIA) an4 The American Institute of Certified Planners (AIcP).
A recipielll of numerous design and service awards, he was the tint prize winner of the Hermann patk ''Heart of the Park"
International Design Competition in 1994.
A journalist as well. Brown's numerous articles on urban issues and improving the quality .of me built environment have been
publis.tk':d in the Philadelphia Inquirer, MetrOpOlitan Home. Te.-<as AschiteCt. Alchitectutal Recort1. the Christian Science
MotUror, the Houston Chronicle. The British Planning JoumaJ.. CITE Magazine and other newspapers am magazines. Mr.
Brown has co-autl1Or:ed "Seven Schools'", a book: on innovative urban education a.od is curreruly working on a book "sutViving the
Millennium - A Civ'ic Credo for the Next Century."
He resides with his family at HWaverly Coun in the Museum District.
ARC HIT E C T U R E. U R 8 'A N 0 E S I G NAN 0 TOW N P L ^ ~ N I N G
-;
e
e
Making Waves
Citizens Protecting Their Communities and the Environment of Galveston Bay and Its Waterways
Bayport: Not a Done Deal .
By Jim Blackburn and
Mona Shoup, GBCPA co-chairs
It can be difficult fot Bayport
opponents to keep up morale
when colleagues and
neighbors say, "The port
bond passed. Why fight? Bayport's a
done deal."
Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Big environmental wars are not
won easily or quickly. And make no
mistake about it - Bayport is a war.
It's a war of attrition and a war of re-
solve. If the residents of the Bay area
are resolved that Bayport won't hap-
pen, then it can and will be defeated.
In the war against Bayport, our
tactics are pure guerilla warfare. The
Port of Houston Authority is a bully
and the last "good 01' boy club" in Har-
ris County. They have a lot of money
and try to buy what they want. They
have no sense of the Bay community.
However, they are ripe for defeat.
The people, however, must make
their own politics. Public outcry does
make a difference. It makes headlines
and it makes elected officials nervous.
A fine example is the 2,500-citizen
turnout for Bayport's first Corps of En-
gineers Scoping Meeting last August.
In this age of apathy such a turnout for
a Scoping Meeting is virtually unheard
of anywhere in the country. The politi-
cians know this, as does the Corps and
PHA. Another example is the Seabrook
recall election. Citizens demonstrated
to the Port of Houston that it made a
mistake in trying to buy off Seabrook.
This is how we must continue to
make our own politics - through mak-
ing the atrocities of Bayport known
Clear Creek Channelization Up~ate
By Mona Shoup
Good things are happening this
year on Clear Creek. Although the
Clear Creek channelization issue has
quieted since citizen protest won a re-
study last spring by the Corps, Friends
of Clear Creek (FoCC) has remained
hard at work.
Corps Reform
Last spring, FoCC joined with
other environmental groups from
across the nation that are seeking
Corps reform. The Greening of the
Corps group met in Louisiana and Ne-
braska to discuss egregious Corps pro-
jects, including the Clear Creek Chan-
nelization project, and changes in pol-
icy that are needed to update or pre-
vent environmentally destructive pro-
jects.
Citizens' Role in Green Corps
A goal of the group is to hold the
Corps to its environmental mission and
to heed its policy of serving the pub-
lic - their "customer." The Corps has
long been influenced by industry and
politicians to build their "brown" pork-
barrel projects. The environmentalists
say it"s time that the public insists
upon "green" projects that benefit en-
tire communities. This requires all citi-
zens, however, to be persistent with
this message to our congressional rep-
(Colltilllletloll page 8)
. .
and growing our opposition team. In
the long run, this brand of politics suc-
ceeds because it's composed of the
passion and the democracy upon which
this country was built.
A major environmental war such
as Bayport is won by many fighters,
each taking a jab, metaphorically
speaking. GBCPA's war against Bay-
port is designed to inflict "death by a
thousand cuts" to the Port of Houston's
Bayport container terminal.
The fighters and their weapons
come in many forms:
. residents writing to their elected
officials;
. public health professionals sub-
stantiating Bayport's hazards upon the
community;
. technical studies that verify
Bayport's flaws.
(Continued on page 8)
INSIDE
3 Bayport and Ozone
4 Texas Ci ty Update
6 Bayport Land Use
11 Environmental Theology
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT!!
a~ypoit funclraisillg: Matching Chall~i1ge Grant
GBCPA has r~ehl'ed a $too,OOO ch~Uelig~'grant
to support the technjc~ and legal work needed to
defeat the Bayport Container p,roposal. however,
this money inuSt be in~tched by cOl,ltributioliS
from other sources. GBCl'A needs help tro~ eve-
ryone in order to match this money ai1d contract
for ne~ded studies. SEE PAGE 2.
The Newsletter of Galveston Bay Conservation & Preservation Association Winter 2000
e
e
, I 2
' GBCPAD$100,OOO Match Needed!! ' ;
y
Studies Outlined to Lay Legal Groundwork for Defeat of Bayport
OBCP A has received a $100,000
challenge grant to support the technical
and legal work needed to defeat the
Bayport Container proposal. However,
this money must be matched by contri-
butions from other sources. OBCP A
needs help from everyone in order to
match this money and contract for
need~d studies.
OBCPA has identified several types
of studies needed that must go into the
Corps' administrati ve record in order to
challenge Bayport in federal court. The
Land-Use Report by Peter H. Brown
Civic Design must be expanded into
the next phase of scope and detail.
With the $100,000 challenge
grant, GBCP A has a chance to raise
the money necessary to undertake
these studies and to ensure that these
studies are presented correctly from
a legal standpoint. GBCPA has a
game plan. All that is lacking is your
contribution to assist us in mat~hing
the $100,000 challenge grant.
There is much work to be done.
Please give now, so that GBCPA
may begin these studies and start
laying the legal groundwork to defeat
Bayport. The following studies are pro-
posed for funding:
Detailed Land Use
Brown recommends the examination
of certain issues in detail. For example,
the relationship of the current Bayport
proposal to the original Friendswood
Master Plan and the initial announced
plans by the Port of Houston needs to be
documented in detail. More, detail needs
to be provided regarding the existing
land-use plans of the Bay town, Deer
Park and Pasadena. The concept of in-
dustrial sprawl needs to be further ex-
amined, particularly the aspect of Sho-
reacres, LaPorte and Morgan's Point
being subjected to an industrial "pincer
movement." And finally, an alternative
land-use vision for the Port of Hous-
ton. s Bayport tract needs to be devel-
oped - one that emphasizes research and
development and water recreation rather
than the proposed heavy industrial use.
Land-Value Analysis
The Brown report has estimated
land-value loss in each of the three im-
pact areas. OBCP A now needs to retain
certified land-value appraisers to docu-
ment the land-value loss that has oc-
curred to date. This work should be ini-
tiated as soon as possible.
Traffic Congestion
Brown has identified that traffic con-
gestion will be a major cause of impacts
in each of the three impact zones sur-
rounding Bayport. Tramc congestion
will be caused by rail, truck and auto-
mobile traffic associated with Bayport.
The goal is to hire a transportation con-
sultant to review the plans, submitted to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, from
the standpoint of the impact upon the
transportation infrastmcture, in associa-
tion with existing and projected usage
patterns.
Nuisance Impact Analysis
The Brown report identitied several
aspects of Bayport that will have a sig-
nificant impact upon those living
nearby, including noise, vibration and
lighting issues, These nuisance aspects
of the Bayport proposal will be evalu-
ated based upon the plans submitted to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, To
the extent that mitigation alternatives
have been seriously proposed by PHA.
they also will be considered.
Air Quality AnalysiS
The Brown report identifies air pQ}-
lution from Bayport as a serious impact
on surrounding residential areas. Indeed,
there are three major air quality issues
associated with Bayport. These are (a)
NOx emissions that will worsen ground
level ozone air pollution,' (b) NOx, sul-
phur aQd diesel emissions that will
worsen small particie air pollution and
(c) hazardous air pollution associated
with diesel emissions. This difficult
analysis will require emission esti-
mation and computer modeling to
predict resultant air pollution levels.
The goal is to understand the health
effects upon those that live nearby,
based on understanding the pollu~nt
profile that already exists and the'
pollutants that Bayport will be add-
ing to that baseline which is already
unacceptable with respect to ozone
and small particles, at the least. Pre-
liminary information indicates that
serious health issues will include
asthma, headaches, loss of lung ca-
pacity, cardiopulmonary disease,
premature death from small parti-
cles, and potentially cancer and birth
defects from the hazardous pollutants.
This study will be expensive and will
require sophisticated analysis.
Area Economic Analysis
It is Peter H. Brown Civic Design's
opinion that the overall economic im-
pact of Bayport will be negative to the
region, particularly the Clear Lake area.
The issue in many respects is whether
heavy industry or research and develop-
ment employment offers the best future
for the region. It's believed that Bayport
will make high-tech employment at the
Johnson Space Center less competitive
in attracting engineers and scientists,
particularly if Bayport causes the sig-
nificant decline in quality of life as pro-
jected by the Brown report. This study
will be conducted by a regional eco-
nomics expert.
B'ayport & Air Quality: Project to Add More Than 5 Tons of NOx Daily
By Jim Blackburn
of air pollution, including industry,
ports, automobiles and trucks and vari-
ous types of construction equipment.
Effective ozone control requires many
different and politically strong sources
to be controlled.
Today, the Houston area is faced
with a major task of substantially reduc-
ing its emissions of NOx in order to
come into compliance with the national
health standard. Computer modeling
has shown that the Houston region
needs to reduce NOx emissions to a
level of 289 tons/day. Currently, emis-
There are several air quality issues
associated with the Bayport container
terminal: ozone, small particle pollution
and hazardous air pollutants. This article
discusses ozone air quality.
In 1970, Congress amended the
Clean Air Act, making it relatively
strong. In 1971, the newly formed Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) de-
veloped national standards for the qual-
ity of the air that is outside our homes.
These standards were set to protect our
health. Among the pollutants
designated from health effects
standpoint were photochemical
oxidants, measured as ozone.
Under the structure of the
Clean Air Act, Texas must de-
velop and implement a plan for
attaining, or meeting, the national
standard. This plan is called the
State Implementation Plan or SIP
and must be prepared and submit-
ted to the EP A for approval. If an
adequate SIP is not prepared,
then certain sanctions may be im-
posed on a region, including loss
of federal highway funds. Per-
haps more importantly, Houston-
area residents that are being exposed to
ozone air pollution will be harmed in
many ways, including increased asthma,
particularly in children, decrease in lung
function, increased risk of cardiopul-
monary problems as well as increased
headaches and eye irritation.
From the beginning. the altainment
of ozone air quality was contentious.
First, ozone is formed by chemical reac-
tions in the atmosphere where volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) and nitro-
gen oxides (NOx) combine in the pres-
ence of sunlight to make ozone and
other pollutants. These atmospheric re-
actions make ozone difficult to analyze
and to determine control strategies. ne-
cessitating the development of sophisti-
cated' computer models for analysis.
Second, effective ozone control may re-
quire controls on many different sources
Ports are considered to .be off-road
mobile sources. Therefore, Bayport will
be adding emissions to a source cate-
gory for which an adequate reduction
plan doesn't exist at the current time.
And, make no mistake about it, Bayport
will add significant tonnage of NOx at a
time when we are trying to reduce NOx
emjssions.
To date, the Port of Houston Author-
ity has not released a comprehensive
NOx analysis of the proposed Bayport
container complex. However, we know
quite a lot about the emission sources
from existing documents. There
will be NOx emissions from con-
tainer and cruise ships, idling
trucks, trains working in the yard
and diesel-fueled terminal equip-
ment, including yard cranes, mo-
bile cranes and lifters, heavy duty
yard tractors and yard trucks.
In order to understand the magni-
tude of NOx emissions from these
sources, GBCPA consulted an En-
vironmental Impact Statement
(EIS) that was prepared for the
Port of Long Beach, California. In
this EIS. the Port of Long Beach
was proposing to construct three
container berths on 150 acres and
handle approximately 550,000 contain-
ers. By comparison, Bayport is pro-
posed to have seven berths on 750 acres,
handling 1.4 million containers. Where
Long Beach projected a peak usage of
3,772 trucks per day and no trains, Bay-
port has projected 7,060 trucks per day
and 57 trains per week. Additionally,
Bayport will have cruise vessels.
According to the Long Beach EIS.
the air pollution impacts from the opera-
tion of the container port will be signiti-
cant. The EIS projects that the NOx
emissions from operation of the Long
Beach facility will be 5.392 pounds per
day, or about 2.7 tons per day. If a sim-
ple ratio is fill1 between Bayport and
Long Beach, Bayport should have be-
tween two and three times the amount
of NOx emissions. depending upon
(Col/til/lled on page W)
sions in the Houston region are 1.052
tons/day. The best plan developed so
far shows a reduction down to 407 tons!
day. leaving the region a "gap" of 118
tons/day of NOx reductions in order to
meet the national health standard. That
plan is inadequate at the current time.
There are three major sources of
NOx in the region: industrial sources,
on-road mobile sources and off-road
sources. According to the best plan to
date. industry NOx emissions will be
reduced by almost 90 percent whereas
much lower reductions will be realized
in the on-road and ofT-road mobile
source categories. The off-road mobile
source category currently has 222 tons/
day of NOx emissions, which are pro-
jected to be reduced to 148 tons/day,
although details are missing on how this
reduction is to be accomplished.
Texas City Pursues Corps Permit for Shoal Point Terminal
By Jim Blackburn and Mona Shoup
GBCP A has been looking for alter-
nate sites for a container port on Galves-
ton Bay since the Bayport project was
announced. GBCPA believes it is not
sufficient to simply oppose a project
that we believe to be detrimental to Gal-
veston Bay and its residential commu-
nity. We believe that we must identify
and support environmentally sound al-
ternatives to ensure regional economic
benefits are realized.
On Jan. 26, 2000, the City of Texas
City announced that it intends to submit
a permit application to the Corps of En-
gineers to construct a container port at
Shoal Point. GBCPA believes Shoal
Point to be superior alternative to the
Bayport site. GBCPA is coordinating
with Texas City and its consultants in
order to make this alternate site permit-
ted by the Corps in the near future.
As can be seen on the adjacent page,
Shoal Point lies on the Bay side of the
Port of Texas City. In contrast to Bay-
port, Shoal Point is removed from resi-
dential areas. Indeed, Shoal Point is sur-
rounded by Galveston Bay on three
sides and the Texas City industrial com-
plex on the north.
In fact, land-use compatibility is a
major advantage that Shoal Point has
over Bayport. Shoal Point is physically
isolated from residential development
and neighborhood roadways. By con-
trast, approximately 4,000 homes are
within one mile of Bayport and hun-
dreds of residences are immediately
proximate to Bayport. Bayport will dis-
rupt residential uses along upper Gal-
veston Bay and into the Clear Lake area.
Such a problem simply does not exist at
Shoal Point.
A second positive for Texas City
concerns the need for a 50-Foot channel
for new deeper-draft container ships, A
Final Environmentallrnpact Statement
(FEIS) and congressional authorization
exist for a 50-foot channel into Texas
City. No sllch FEIS exists and no con-
gressional authorization exist for deep-
ening the Houston Ship Channel and the
Bayport channel to 50 feet. In fact, one
reason that GBCPA opposes Bayport is
the damage to Galveston Bay that would
result from a 50-foot deep, 3 I-mile long
channel to Bayport. Galveston Bay is
productive because it is an estuary -- an
area where salt and fresh water com-
bine. Salinity levels in upper Galveston
Bay near Bayport are naturally lower
than in lower Galveston Bay near Texas
City. A deeper channel will bring more
salt water into the Bay system thereby
increasing salinity. The quickest way to
kill Galveston Bay is to increase salinity
levels in upper Galveston Bay. thereby
destroying the estuarine characteristics
that support shellfish and finfish pro-
ductivity. A deep channel to Texas City
is more consistent with the natural char-
acteristics of the Bay as set out in the
FEIS.
Third, truck and rail connections
from Texas City are superior to Bay-
port. Both the Burlington-Northern and
Union-Pacific rail lines serve Texas
City, contrasting with Bayport's sole
reliance on Union-Pacific. All train traf-
fic from Bayport must travel down the
Houston Ship Channel corridor and
must cross through the east side of the
city of Houston. Texas City rail traffic
can totally miss the Houston corridor by
following rail lines that circle Houston
on the west.
Similarly, truck traffic will encounter
much more congestion in the Bayport
area than in the Texas City area. More
than 7,000 trucks per day at peak usage
will attempt to enter and leave Bayport.
via State Highway 146, Red Bluff Road,
Fairmont Parkway and NASA Road I.
These trucks will be added to existing
traffic through La Porte, Bay town, Deer
Park, Pasadena, Seabrook and Clear
Lake. Bayport truck traffic will com-
mingle with residential tranic and asso-
ciated neighborhood trips, This problem
is so severe that the City of HOllston has
already closed four major thoroughfares
to through-truck traffic, By contrast,
truck traffic to Texas City will be via
Interstate 45, a road designed to accom-
modate truck traffic. State Highway 146
and State Highway 3 are unlikely truck
routes from Texas City because these
highways do not lead to the containers'
destinations. The truckers' goal is to
reach a major thoroughfare by the short-
est and quickest route. As discussed be-
low, the preferred rC?ute to link
Shoal Point with the mainland proposes
utilization of Loop 197, an industrial
road. The contrast with Bayport could
not be clearer from an access stand-
point.
From the beginning, GBCPA and
other groups have expressed concern
about the route of the proposed linkage
between Loop 197/1-45 and Shoal Point.
Early drawings showed the roadway
alignment crossing Swan Lake and its
associated wetlands. Swan Lake is an
important habitat area. According to
Bob Galloway, The (Galveston) Audu-
bon Society Warden, the islands associ-
ated with Swan Lake are important co-
lonial nesting sites for gulf-billed terns
and black skimmers.
The City of Texas City and its con-
sultants, Shiner-Moseley, have worked
with GBCPA and Audubon in an at-
tempt to identify an access route with
fewer environmental disturbances. As
shown on the adjacent page, the pre-
ferred route to be submitted in the per-
mit application is shown as a white line.
This route avoids Swan Lake and fol-
lows a narrow corridor between the Un-
ion Carbide plant and the Gulf Coast
Waste Disposal Authority's Texas City
industrial wastewater facility. Although
some minimal impact may occur to a
small wetland area adjacent to Loop
197, significant impacts can be avoided.
to Swan Lake and its wetlands with this
preferred route.
The environmental impacts of the
other alternative access routes are more
substantial and are not supported by
GBCPA at this time. One alternative is a
causeway that crosses Galveston Bay to
Virginia Point and then connecting with
(Continued on page 9)
"
0, .
Bayport Terminal Violates National Land-Use Standards
By Jim Blackburn
I
!j
Ii
I!
Anyone living near Bayport real-
izes that Bayport is not compatible
with the current residential lifestyle.
Proponents of the project and people
living elsewhere in the county, how-
ever, often dismiss or don't perceive
how close this project is to homes.
For this reason, CBCP A retained
a noted land use expert - Peter
Brown - to prepare an analysis of the
land use compatibility of Bayport with
the surrounding communities.
Brown is a highly experienced
and qualified land use expert. He has
advanced degrees in city planning and
architecture and is certified as a land
use planner by the American Institute
of Certified Planners (AICP). Brown
has participated in land use planning
work in 10 states and has extensive ex-
perience in the Houston area.
, GBCPA asked Brown to review
Bayport and to assess its impacts upon,
and compatibility with, the adjacent
land uses. Peter H. Brown Civic De-
sign's preliminary report was released
in 1999 and was updated, in part, in
early 2000. Here are the key conclu-
sions
II
,
,
,
II
il
Ii
, I
,
t
I!
Massive Land Use
Bayport covers more than 750
acres with additional acreage desig-
nated for adjacent com!TIercial devel-
opment. Bayport extends more than 2.5
miles from east to west and 2 miles
from north to south. To put Bayport
into perspective, Brown has superim-
posed Bayport over downtown Hous-
ton. As can be seen on the adjacent
map, Bayport extends from Preston
A venue in the northern portion of
downtown southward past the Pierce
Elevated Freeway and into the Mid-
town Area almost to the elevated por-
tion of Highway 59. It also extends
eastward into the Third Ward. It would
effectively cover a large portion of
downtown and midtown and a fair por-
tion of the Third Ward. Bayport truly
!I
is a massive land use.
Core Area Will Be Heavily Damaged
Brown has broken the areas sur-
rounding Bayport into various zones:
a Core Impact Area, a Primary Impact
Area and a Secondary Impact Area. Of
these, the Core Area will be the most
heavily impacted. More than 4,000
residences exist within 1 mile of the
Bayport facility. Of these, approxi-
mately 400 are within 700 feet of the
Bayport facility.
Heavy industrial facilities such as
Bayport are incompatible with residen-
tialland uses. This is a basic principle
of land use planning. According to na-
tional standards, heavy industry should
have a buffer of from 1,000 to 3,000
feet from residential areas. Such a
buffer does not exist at Bayport, which
is literally adjacent to residential uses.
According to Brown's report, 400
homes are within 700 feet of Bayport.
These homes will be effectively de-
stroyed for residential purposes. These
homes are simply too close to the pro-
posed facility to withstand the impacts
of heavy industrial usage and its asso-
ciated noise, vibration, lighting, truck
traffic and air pollution. This impact
represents approximately $70 million
in property loss.
Additionally, the 3,600 plus re-
maining homes within the Core Impact
Area will also suffer extensive impacts
from Bayport. According to Brown,
there will be a diminution of property
value of approximately 25 percent to
30 percent. This will represent a prop-
erty loss of approximately $115 mil-
lion in addition to the previously iden-
tified $70 million.
Significant Impacts to Prim~ry Area
In addition to the impacts to the
Core Area, Brown predicts serious im-
pacts to the Primary Impact Area. The
Primary Impact Area will not be as di-
rectly affected by noise, lighting and
vibration as is the case with the Core
Area. However, there will be major im-
pacts to this area from truck and rail
traffic and air pollution as well as re-
siduallighting and noise impacts, par-
ticularly along the Taylor Lake area.
Additionally, there will be a negative
impact upon the community image.
Of particular importance from a
land use standpoint is the potential en-
circlement of Snoreacres, LaPorte and
Morgan's Point by industrial activities.
If Bayport were completed as planned,
these residential communities would be
wedged between industrial activities on
the north (the Ship Channel, Barbours
Cut), the west (the Bayport industrial
complex west of Hwy. 146) and the
south (the Bayport Container complex
plus other channel-side industries). The
Bayport container facility converts the
last several square miles on the south
to industrial uses. This phenomena is
labeled "industrial sprawl" by Brown.
This industrial sprawl will surround
these residential areas and squeeze the
residential life out of these communi-
ties.
Impacts to the Secondary Impact Area
Brown has identified a third zone
as the Secondary Impact Area. Here,
traffic congestion will be the most im-
portant impact. Extensive truck traffic
from Bayport primarily will depart to
the north along Hwy. 146 and possibly
Red Bluff. Many commuters now use
this corridor to move northward from
the Clear Lake area. Brown expects
these commuters to rely more on the
roads through the Clear Lake area,
adding additional traffic to this area
that is already congested. In this man-
ner, there are indirect effects from
Bayport throughout the Clear Lake
area.
The slowing of residential and re-
lated commercial growth (or decline)
brought about by spreading industrial
uses will have a significant impact on
local school districts. Clear Creek lSD,
which is planning for significant in-
creases in school-age population, w~11
(C(IIItinued on page f(})
.-'
''''=:''i;''~' -=""'-"
:~:~ :~~i::~;-~~~'-t~P'~~.t
..," ,
. . . -
:..'.-..,......:...
. ~.:;: :'\:'
-
'~
. ''!'
.~:<~..);.
..,-
. f:'"' ~I"r ~....
, . \.
'.~ '~-".." <.
. '
.~. :~t
i'..~ ,:~. '..
. :'1. ~ i . . 'I .
. " ..~ .
, . .
:::,;~r
.....i..::"
,..........
.;~:. .
It\:...
~:. 40
,
I'~' .
......-.
I
-*n'" $t~., -
,-' .
..,
I:
j,;'
"'.1
"-
'......
.......
'..
,',-
e.
~ii,
'",
N
.::!;j ;~
~~:.: -~.:~
r&'Ii
r:~7J
;11
i.::..J1(
fir
Iii
Scale: 1"-1200'
1 050 acres
.
.
G {; 1../ :::
,
"
~
~'
.
... '"
.
,. I I'
Bayport: Not a Done Deal I :: I ' Ii ' 8 _
'(Continuedfrompage 1)
ties and neighborhood associations to
keep the issue alive, make more peo-
GBCPA has a long-term legal pIe aware and bring in more allies.
strategy to fight Bayport. We know This is most effective by talking one
the law and science. We have plans to on one to everyone you come in con-
litigate under the Clean Water Act, tact with.
the Clean Air Act, the National Envi- There is much work to be done,
ronmental Policy Act, the River and and it's easy to become overwhelmed
Harbor Act, the Texas Takings Law and feel powerless.
and the Texas Constitution. GBCPA However, by taking one day at a
has plans for various technical stud- time and staying focused on a specific
ies, some of which are already under task, you may be surprised at how
way. much you accomplish in a short time
GBCPA has learned from past period. The next time you think of
battles.' Our legal/technical strategy is something that should be done in this
molded by experience and success in battle, take it upon yourself to make it
other environmental wars: the de- happen.
feated Wallisville Reservoir, the de- All acts, great and small, add up
feated Texas Copper Smelter, the de- to make a difference. They can be
feated Spring-Cypress landfill, the done individually and collectively.
restudy of the Clear Creek Channeli- Below are a few things GBCP A is
zation Project and the postponement working on, plus ways everyone can
to build the Westside Airport. help.
GBCPA is getting assistance . Present testimony before the Senate
from other successful Texas and na- Natural Resources Committee hear-
tional groups including the Texas ings in early March on port policy.
Committee on Natural Resources + Work with State Senator Mike Jack-
(TCONR), the National Wildlife Fed- son, State Representatives John
eration (NWF), and the Sierra Club. Davis and Craig Eiland and others
All of these experienced to introduce effective regional port
fighters agree that these wars are long regulations for Galveston Bay.
and difficult. Such wars are won by + Work to develop alternate sites for
the collective effort and action of eve- container terminals.
ryone. Such wars aren't won by a sil- +Seek to have the laws associated
ver bullet. These experienced fighters with the expenditure of public mon-
agree that the most important ingredi- ies by the Port of Houston changed
ent in winning the war is banding to- to ensure that public money is not
gether in the battles, which means used against taxpayers ever again, as
talking continually to other communi- it did during the port bond election.
0.' ",__ . ,..;;__..... _. M,_ ......-. _'....__...... .." .._~ .:-:.._......;:.:.j.....;".....~_.."..... _:~_~ .____' .~; .';~:". :-~~ .'__' .....~._ _. ,_ ". ....:...' .... ",___.., . ':'" .._,... '_:""';'_, ~~ .._." ..... .__ "';";_ :.
(i;ij~tinu~dfr~if1'P-agt1~ :':, ." ,'. "', :'" ::~:'i' '.'. . \. '~'-r4~Di~cm .' ". ': ,.. : '~i~!~~i$~J1.POrl_ '. :
resentativeS. ,... .,:', :".. -' : l ,.~' ' " 'p, 'i:::tialleri"'e 21 is a river'i"e$torcltioiilt'Jood.. ',' '. LaSt suimn~~' tHe citieS suiTOUbdi" .
~a_~~.;~~~:=;....=~~=ittrn
which maif ''friendS'' of Clear Creek" , conim'iJmti' ,oot huiId.iri.the-nood..' iaiii~ of Chaiieii' it.;! tn "Novenlher- jm FOCC
-, , y.. -. . '.' - .... ...., ..., .~.. ..,",. .' p .. "0 ge.. ", _..., ..,_
wrote,sm~PQrt le~ei"S, ~ C~4U~pg~ 2J{Mi.. " 1i.mi~nm <!~V~(ipe~ MOst impOrtMtly it's ' Jrnlde a pr~~tatiOriPp Chmleri~ Zl iQ the
cflacl i)at~ dep,~ty~iStmlt ~~~I"'Or the r(ilPr.~ tit ~~ Co;ps. Tbe Corps rilust CI.~ ti"~1( W~*,~rsh~ Bteermg Comm.J(~'
the Ann iiltehded a HOl.iston bli".-otit con.. come to terh1S with'rewer wetlaiufs to fill. tee. which waS rectdi~e to tiie"to .. 'am. .
",- ',' ..Y1 '.. '.., .'" "y '" ',. . .. . ..-. ,.... ._ .' _,.".p, ,p, gr...
f~reh~ spoi),w~ by H.l\ni$. COOf'lty J41()()d, tind feWer tive~ to d~m }liU,J chanrlelit~. As ~ricJ wisheS to s~y updated. FoCC inai!itaip
Pmtrol .Plsttict and ~nviroiiI'nent;d,gtolips; <<tevelopiJ1~nt coi\tir!u.es to spi'awi; the Corps that the ChaUeng~ 2i Is Ii tool t.J'lat cou.ld
1w.1 April to speak ~bout tile Corps; 'eri'vi~ must also ~thii1k its "flood contn~r' metb- bii....g tOgether downsweain ari~ upstream
l'onme.i1~ missioJ1 and Ch;1llenge 21. Key ods ilnd think in tertns of ti()()dplain man.. commuqities in the watershed to solve flood
,personnel froi1.t the Corps GaJv~on Dis-- agt;lrilent, w~ch is to keep ~pl~ out of the issues.
. irict Md PaU~ Regionai Division attended floodplain, instead of aJlowing developers to Clear Ci'eek Re-Study
Dilvis; speech. build where l10mes and families are at risk. Last year, the Corps of Engineers-
{Continued on page 9}
..... ........ ......-
. Develop neighborhood leaders who
can raise money for studies and le-
gal fights and who will organize at-
tendance at meetings on short no-
tice.
. Write your elected officials at the
city and county levels as well as our
state and federal representatives and
senators, stating your absolute oppo-
sition to Bayport. (See www.gbcpa.
org to find out who represents you.)
. Work through your'religious institu-
tions to seek their involvement in
justice for the Creation: Galveston
Bay and humanity, the residents
who will breathe and suffer from air
pollution.
. Recommit yourself each day to pre-
venting the Port of Houston from
ever constructing the Bayport facil-
ity.
.Continue-to spread the word about
Bayport, so that when the hearing
occurs on the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, we will demand
that it be held at the Astrodome
where we will assemble 50,000 resi-
dents demanding environmental jus-
tice.
Bayport can and will be defeated
if communities resolve that it will not
occur and act accordingly. Everyone
will need to expend some effort and
will be asked to make financial contri-
butions.
Never doubt the power of the
people. And remember - Bayport is
not a done deal.
0,
a:)& .
Point, rather than the 20 percent to 25
percent cost increase as ",sserted by PHA.
This compaction issue does not affect the
economic viability of Shoal Point. In
fact, building container terminals on
dredged material islands is common
practice. For example, the Long Beach
port was also built on dredged materials.
Yet another claim has been
The Port of Houston Authority made by the PHA, which asserts that the
(PHA) has identified a second "problem" container carriers oppose Texas City due
with the Texas City site. According to to travel time difference between Texas
the PHA, the additional cost of construct- City and Bayport. According to PHA,
iog a container facility on Shoal Point trucks will require an additional ]5-20
will be more than $600,000 per acre. Ac- minutes to travel from Texas City when
cording to PH A, this increased cost is compared to Bayport. GBCPA questions
necessary in order to de-water and stabi- this assertion by the Port of Houston Au-
lize spoil material on Shoal Point. Due thority. First, the congestion associated
to this assertion the city of Texas City with road and rail access at Bayport will
hired geophysical experts to evaluate this be a serious issue, potentially eliminating
soil-stability issue. These experts have the mileage advantage Bayport enjoys
evaluated the soils and have found them over Texas City. Second, Shoal Point is
to be superior to the soils underlying the closer to the Gulf of Mexico than is Bay-
recently completed container facility in port; steaming time to a dockside is sev-
Charleston, S.c., which was built on a eral hours faster in and out of Texas City.
dredged material island. According to This means that the amount of time the
these experts, compaction at Texas City container ship remains at port is less at
will cost less than $100,000 per acre Texas City than at Bayport, offering a
rather than $600,009 as claimed by PHA. drayage cost advantage. Sailing costs for
This increase will add 3 percent to 4 per- a 2400 TEU vessel is $625 per hour.
cent to the completion cost for Shoal Sailing costs for a 6,000 TED vessel is
~=;8~i(J~~"::.~~~~~~"':"~i~'~~~.~~,:
ear restud of the Clear' Creek-€haiuieli..., : niMia~ reli~f to Fr4.dswoOd'.deritS. .;. " i'loii~cfutal 0' oon t6 bu,out ~"._,;{"; .,'
~tio~ P.i:'>j~ ~r. it~~'teaIized: ul~t~; : :~~ile~~u.g"'~:Qat~~ in:nty.~f : '.' fl~~.hQ~ ~s.n't~~~n~~IY cOn~:;, i"
creased floWs rroin4ilianilt;!lizati~i:l into: ::the c~ :li1d Wit~t in~~<;ing ~i1ipaqs. ~ .' sidered.,'- ~n optipp tba.t w~Jd' ~ove ~
Cleat Lal!:~ ~Qring stom) $pt'geS 'CQt.tl!l' i11" " ,tp'Uowl;lSir@ni teSfd~.Jl~ fQC.C ~ I~iig',.; pIe' ftO~: harm'slVay~ red~ n~; ',.
Cre-dSe nOOd iQJpacts w l8k_~ co~~"mties..' . tc)'..s ~m~~~ptdi- tlQl~g in ordetb)'-. "aroiJn~ Clear Lake, 'ond p~erve ~ 7; ,,~" ,,'
, , " Hati1s C'>urlty iiiVitei:l B~ri~ ~Wity" ~"tinl),~ ih~ W:octc.:': " I' :',: ',' :', . '. " c~k, dius alloWing ~ fish n~ty bilbi~
to ~jouHhe project,e~oomg tile ~ , :' ~. "~tl..naI/RegiQ",a' Att~tJ1tf~ " , ',': laUo (.'On~ti~ iis benefits toward GaJv~
studfto (0Qr years. B~ wa$~tiaUy ~ ::,:; Meetirig,~(~th th~ G~,Qh'1g ~ftbe';, -', ,ton Bay's $J ffiiilion tisJiing mdUstrY. ' "
5WOSOF (pattn~r}ofthe piOjec;t amt, :' " . ,.~ (;qrps gniuph~\'e teS'u.Jted qi' gt:lieru~ at..' The Cuif Reston.iion Network; in New
4topped out in th~ mid..80s ~~~ it :" ". ,,' .~nti()n :tQ ckar C~k. On' !\1arch2, i(~, Orleans, wclu~~ ~ C~ hi i~ Dee.
II .... . ." "J': ,.l." . . 'l! ".' ." '. I .. . " .' . . _.
~c~ed ftii!d~g.,f~CC~'!liial~ tlW; ~. ,tb~"hfl>>~'1;orpS W4,tch~ ^T~xpllret'aiid- 15,.l99?~ rep')l1''Destfti~ By. ~gri;'.
~~ ell' Bf:DZO~~ County' ~.f~un~ ~ "to ~ "f.~;Vironme..~1 ~~a r~~ ~~t.;nn of the, ' lbe, U;$: Anny ~orps of.li.:nginee~~ ~on"
sp~.y populated. As SU,ch, t~: ~~ ap-; "" V.~. Anny CoiW of Engir!~ts" Was.~.." tinuing A~ult oq. t\n1erica'$ EiMriln.. " "
Pea~ ~ be"~ ~1.ter ~lidkia~ for ~ f~MA " t~ by tb~"Taxpay~~ f9,r c.oiniDon 'mentj," and point$ out ~t ''Neither th~,
buyout, ipst.~d Of cb~'fnzation.,: 5en,se and The Na~o~ Wild!.ife feder~,.., Corps' ahemativ~ nor th~ aCFCO pl~ '
, Friends ot Cl~ai' Creek 'niti!!tlv8$ ti6h hi W3$r.ington, l>.(;..11u! ,-eilQrt 'oq~ wili effectively reduce t1()Od damages in the
FoCC ill foiinilJating its own floOct"~o~~ the movemept towar4 a more reSponsible Cleat Creek Watersl;uid, Of the FEMA .
~rol r~o~endations and is looking ~t ~o~ a,s ~ c~JJunofi-~~ gc-JaJ sh!lred by' . payments associated thereWith... ;Both ~-
optiOD$ that HeFCD and ttle Cotps didn~t ta,'~payef ad~~tes, co;.setvatiQnists aJ)d , . tern~tives will drain additional floodpl~in.~
eXplore. iii February 1999, Fote tQfi~ COIPmqhiti~ I within the ulJper reaches of Clear Creek
trdcted a hydrologist, biologist ilnd com- ' 'The .repOrt expOses th~ Cie~1" C~k willi the mtention of spumng development
put~r e~rt to develop a 'Geograpmc m.. . Ch~iulelizUtic)!1 project fc)t cl1argiUg tax~ In those regions. Any further ~cveiopme~t
tQr~don Syste!l1S (GIS) inventory ohtlepaycrs $122 ;milll9i1 tor a tl~ controi pro- will ultirilateJy d~rease av~ilahle Oood..
Cle-M Creek watershed to identity 'where joc~' that is l&ely to tiood dowf)Streaiii CC)in- plains needed for noodwater detention."
the prQblems are and hQw to solve them. m~!lities a!1~ encourages ino~ ~pl~ to "Botb felJorts ~ avaUabJe on ollr we~.. .
Hydrologist and environmental ati<<)i"lieY move into th~ noodpla,in.... mt9 hann's ~ire: wW\v.l!bcPa.oi"l!.
. ... . .._ .... . _. . ..._ ... ~ .. , . .... ..... ..... '. '.... ", . ... , . .. ".. :.' :..... '. ;.. - . .." .n _
(Continued from page 4)
{-45. The other alternative route crosses
Swan Lake and the excellent wetland
system on the northern edge of Swan
Lake, connecting to Loop 197. GBCPA
is pleased that the city of Texas City has
been willing to work with us to minimize
impacts associated with the access corri-
dor.
approximately $1,400 per hour or
$35,000 per day, according to the Journal
of Commerce.
The major problem with Shoal
Point is financial. Simply stated, the city
of Texas City does not have financing in
place to construct on Shoal Point at this
time. However, they appear to have a site
that could be permitted, perhaps rela-
tively quickly when compared to the
multi-year fight over Bayport. -.
On t~ other hlUld, the Port of
Houston Authotit:y has $300 million in
reserve and anoth~r. $387 million in b'ond
authorization from the recent election.
State lawmakers and leaders could and
should find a way to combine the money
of the Port of Houston Authority with the
Texas City Shoal Point site.
GBCPA believes the Texas City
site to be a viable alternative. Galveston
Bay must be treated holistically to pre-
serve its health and productivity. Leaders
must do what's right. Leaders must think
regionally. Leaders must realize that ju-
risdictions and PHA's unwillingness to
cooperate are minor nuisances compared
to the disgrace of allowing politics to kill
this great natural resource.
:.
Land Use Standards
(Continued/rom page 6)
be particularly affected.
More generally, there will be a de-
cline in the positive community image
of Clear Lake. Brown believes that ulti-
mately the employment base of NASA
may be affected, ". . . because there is
fierce national and international compe-
ti.ti.on .f?r/ec.r,~i:~i!1~~~~,engineering
~duare~~Ultimate'fY the quality of
)1't"e of this 'a;ea \vtfF6e affected by Bay-
port. Again, according to Brown, "any
significant decline in the quality of life
eventually will have a negative effect on
the growth of the important high tech
space technology sector of the econ-
omy."
Conclusion
Brown's initial studies have been
completed and the conclusion is clear
and convincing that Bayport is totally
incompatible with adjacent residential
land uses. The next steps are to take
the concerns raised in the report - in-
compatibility with established land
use standards, air quality concerns,
traffic congestion, loss of residential
land value, overall economic growth
and development impacts, nuisance
issues such as noise, vibration and
lighting - develop detailed profiles
of these impacts. That will be a major
effort that will occur over the next
four months, with Brown's assistance
and with funding provided by those
who will be impacted by Bayport and
those who are concerned about the
future of residential uses adjacent to
Galveston Bay.
Bayport & Air Quality
(Continued/rom page 3)
whether the ratio is based on num-
ber of berths or container through-
put.
Therefore, it is reasonable to
estimate that Bayport will generate
a daily minimum of 5 tons of NOx
and as much as 7.5 tons per day of
NOx. This number does not in-
clude any rail emissions and it
does not include the emissions
from cruise ships.
At a public presentation in late
January 2000, Tom Kornegay
stated that the NOx emissions from
the cruise ships would be four to
five times greater than from the
container ships. Assuming that this
information is true, then the cruise
ships will be a major source of
NOx emissions at Bayport. In the
Long Beach EIS, container ships
were the source of approximately
60 percent of the 2.7 tons/day of
NOx emissions. If the cruise ships
emit at a significantly greater rate
than the container ships, then it is
reasonable to conclude that all
sources at Bayport, including
cruise ships, will approach 10 tons/
day of NOx emissions during op-
eration.
In the context of the develop-
ment of a SIP for ozone attain-
ment, 5 to 10 tons per day of NOx
is a huge addition to our regional
totals that are already too high.
We need to be reducing NOx
sources, not increasing them. If
we are to achieve regional air qual-
ity that protects our health, we
must find sources to reduce.
It is not unreasonable to insist
that Bayport be put on the shelf
until we have reduced NOx emis-
sions to a level that will protect our
health. Houston-area residents
constantly complain about asthma
and headaches and congestion -
the so-called "Houston crud."
Something is wrong when parents
routinely discuss which assisted
breathing devices work best for
their children. Yet, if more NOx is
added before we bring our existing
excessive levels down, it will en-
sure that health problems will con-
tinue.
There are simply too many
NOx emissions in our region.
There isn't room for more,
Galveston Bay Conservation
& Preservation Association
P.O. Box 323,
Seabrook, TX 77586
Galveston Bay Conservation &
Preservation Association, founded in
1974, is an organization of private citi-
zens who are working to keep the Bay
waterways and adjacent land areas
suitable as a recreational and living en-
vironment.
We are workin'g to preserve a way
of life that will be destroyed if the wa-
ter and air become polluted to the point
of disrupting the delicate balance of na-
ture.
GBCP A is dedicated to the princi-
ples that 1) hard work and vigilance
are necessary to protect the environ-
ment; 2) everyone, both in hislher busi-
ness and private life, should feel re-
sponsibility for the environment in
which he/she lives and works; and 3)
the public sector must be made ac-
countable by the independent sector.
Accountability requires dual re-
sponsibility. It involves responsiveness
on. the part of the government and
business to citizen input. It also in-
volves citizen responsibility to research
issues, then let government and busi-
ness know where citizens stand.
GBCPA is a 501 (c) (3), non-profit,
membership organization. Contribu-
tions to GBCPA are fully tax deducti-
ble. '..
Friends of Clear Creek/Clear Lake
is a committee under Galveston Bay
Conservation & Preservation Associa-
tion.
For more information, call
Jim Blackburn, co-chair, 713-524-1012;
Mona Shoup, co-chair, 281-335-7194;
Mary Beth Maher, treasurer, 281-471-
4145; Ellyn Roof, board member, 281-326-
3217.
Fax: 281-333-2051
E-mail: I!bcpa@l!bcpa.ure: .
Visit our Website: www.gbcpa.org
.
.
Environmental Theology and Bayport
By Jim Blackburn
Environmental theology is new
and important and attempts to redefine the
relationships between humans and the
natural environment in ways that are un-
precedented. To date, the concepts and is-
sues raised by this interpretation have not
been the subject of much discussion in the
Houston area. However, that situation is
likely to change in the next few years and
Bayport could be at the center of that dis-
cussion.
In 1967, Lynn White wrote an
article in Science Magazine titled "The
Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis."
In this article, Whit~ tried to understand
why his civilization had exploited nature to
such an extent that the ecological system
and human systems were at risk. His an-
swer was that traditional ludeo-Christian
thinking was a root cause of tbis crisis.
This article provoked loud and
strong responses from several different di-
rections. However, White's analysis also
caused serious reflection upon the relation-
ship of ludeo-Christian theology and envi-
ronmental destruction. Due to White's arti-
cle. theologians began to view again the
writings of St. Francis of Assisi as well as
more recent voices such as that of Richard
Baer. Baer wrote about "Land Misuse: A
Theological Concern" in Christian Century
in 1966, and offered several compelling
conclusions:
tThe world belo,:,gs to God. While
humans may have dominion over nature,
God has domirtion over humans and na-
ture. Humans have a responsibility, as
trustees, to respect and maintain, rather
than destroy, that which God has created.
tGod likes the Earth he created. In
Genesis I :31, God saw everything that he
had made and behold it was very good.
According to Baer, this phrase gives intrin-
sic value to all of nature.
tGod's creation includes 1I0t only the
individual objects of nature but also their
interrelationships. As such, ecological rela-
tionships were recognized as part of crea-
tion theology.
. The issUt: is not the fact blltlhe qual-
ity of human stewardship, AlTogance and
hllman-cenleredness are 10 be avoided. We
art: gllests of God in the crealioll and are 10
aCI as trustees,
Baer" wrilings reflected a differ-
ent way of looking at words that had been
in existence for centuries. And over time,
denomination after denomination has fol-
lowed Baer and others to develop an envi-
ronmental theology that is revolutionary in
its potential for widespread change.
Today, Baptists speak of creation
theology, the fact that God owns title to the
creation and that the failure to take care of
the Earth is tied to sinfulness. Methodists
write of environmental stewardship and
trusteeship. Presbyterians write about
earth-keeping. Episcopalians write about
the environmental metaphor and the Pope
writes about reverence for life and other
living things.
For example, consider the follow-
ing excerpts from the Texas Baptist Chris-
tian Life Commission:
"Care for the environment is an intrin-
sically religious issue. The artinnation of
all living things is abundantly illustrated in
the Old Testament and New. That God in
Christ crt:ated the heavens and earth and
then entered into that creation to partici-
pate with it is a compelling reason for peo-
ple of faith to seek hannony and health in
the environment.
"Within the context of human dignity
and the value of all living creatures, the
Baptist community has corne to realize a
deeper responsibility for stewardship of the
t:arth, The affirmation of a God-centered
view of the universe, a consistent respect
for all life as part of the creation, and a
world view thai relates to the ethical im-
perative of seeking the common good musl
undergird the work of many who endeavor
to bring peace to a world in need of healing
and health," - Texas Baptist Christian
Life Commission Environmental Justice
Initiative
One of the more interesting
thoughts is that of eco-justice. The Presby-
terian Eco-lustice Task Force discusses
eco-justice in the context of Romans 8:21,
which states" . . . the creation itself will be
set free from its bondage to decay. . . ".
Polluted places and disrupted ecosystems
certainly represent decay.
Several denominations have come
together to examine and address this eco-
justiCe crisis and to'establish appropriate
responses. Air pollution levels that harm
humans and the natural system define this
crisis. This crisis is defined by economic
actions that overstrain the ability of our
natural systems to maintain themselves.
The solution, in part, is to fuse
creation theology with the concept of stew-
ardship. Stewardship comes from the
Greek root word 'oikonomia' that is also
the root word for economics and ecology.
In the context of being an antidote to the
eco-justice crisis, stewardship means to
c~ for the household in a manner that
increases its use value to all members of
the household over time.
Important ceo-justice issues sur-
round the Port of Houston's Bayport pro-
posal. The air pollution levels in and
around Bayport are already unhealthy to
humans and will be worsened by the new
container port. Serious ozone and small
particle health issues exist. The oppressive
impact of Bayport on surrounding residen-
tial areas will cause a decay of these living
areas. And, if a 50-foot channel is con-
stmcted into the upper end of Galveston
Bay, the important nursery function of this
productive estuarine ecosystem could be
destroyed.
There is indeed an eco-justice cri-
sis and it is in our own back yard. Fortu-
nately, help is available from the religious
community to address this crisis, The the-
ology is developed; it just needs to be im-
plemented.
Over the neltt few months. we
need to contact our Bay-area religious in-
stitutions to integrate eco-justice concerns
and care for the creation with our opposi-
tion to Bayport. Groups such as the Texas
Baptist Christian Life Commissioll ha ve
offered to help us in developing these con-
cepts within our religious institutions, And,
in the process, we lTIay discover spiritual
dimensions rdated to environmental pro-
tection ;lI1d pollution control that has not
been previously apparenl 10 us,
s
Galveston Bay Conservation
& Preservation Association
Founded 1974
P.O. Box 323
Seabrook, TX 77586
GBCPA is on the Web!
www.gbcpa.org
./
Non-Profit Org,
U.S, Postage
PAID
SEABROOK, TEXAS
PERMIT # 66
-
,
,
,
Galveston Bay Conservation and Preservation Association is a 501 (c) (3) non-profit membership organization. We need
volunteers and financial support in our efforts to protect Galveston Bay. Please take a moment and fill out the membership applica-
tion_ Your time is needed and your contributions are fully tax deductible and much appreciated_
Send your tax-deductible contributions to: GBCPA. PO. Box 323, Seabrook, TX 77586
I WOULD LIKE TO JOIN GBCPA IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
Benefactor $1000 Sustaining $100
Sponsoring $500 Contributing $50
Supporting $250 Regular $25
I do not wish to join GBCPA at this time, but am enclosing a contribution in support
of your activities: $
I wish to contribute to a specific GBCPA project:
Bayport Challenge Grant
General Expenses
NAME (please print)
ADDRESS
PHONE (home)
FAX
Save Clear Creek
CITY
ZIP
( work)
(EMAIL)