HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-22 Regular Meeting•
a
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 22, 2001
CALL TO ORDER
Next Ord. 2001-2463
Next Res. 2001-01
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Malone at 6:00 P.M.
Members of City Council Present: Mayor Norman Malone and Councilpersons
Guy Sutherland, Howard Ebow, Peter Griffiths, Alton Porter, Deotis Gay, Charlie
Young and Jerry Clarke.
Members of City Councilpersons Absent: Chuck Engelken.
Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City Manager
Robert T. Herrera, Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong, Assistant City
Manager John Joerns, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Finance Director Cynthia
Alexander, Director of Administrative Services Louis Rigby, Parks and
Recreation Director Stephen Barr, Public Works Director Steve Gillett,
Emergency Services Director Joe Sease, Planning Director Doug Kneupper,
Planning Coordinator Masood Malik, Tim Bird, Golf Pro Alex Osmond, Greens
Superintendent Dennis Hlavaty, Accountant Shelley Hart, Purchasing Manager
Susan Kelley, Assistant Finance Director Michael Dolby, Tax Assessor Kathy
Powell, Assistant Police Chief Aaron Corrales.
Others Present: Sue Gail Kooken, Jean Young, Rhonda Smith, Bill Scott, Pat
Muston, Spero Pomonis, Norman Cook, Lee Burrows, Ben Ritchie, Nick Barrera,
Sib Carpenter, Fran Strong, Clarence Morgan, Greg Josey, Mary McLain, Amy
Trabue, Dwayne Graham, Jackie Torres, Joyce Bell, Nolan Allen, Larry Allen,
Kylee Allen, James Adams, Gideon Jones, Krystyna Burriss, Richard Burriss,
Marvin Hutchins, Alton Ogden, Jr., Jeff Burkhalter, Danny Shurden, Walter
Weaver, Robert Holbrook, Ella Mae Holbrook, Paul Neumann, Bernard Legrand,
Patricia Wright, Gordon Robb, Leonard Zlomke, Ronda Lunsford, Joy Messenger
and Ray Garcia.
2. Reverend Randy Young, St. Mark's Methodist Church delivered the invocation.
3. Council considered approving minutes of the Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
of La Porte City Council held January 8, 2001.
Motion was made by Councilperson Ebow to approve the minutes of January 8,
2001. Second by Councilperson Clarke. The motion carried.
1/22/01 Minutes — Page 2
Ayes: Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Gay, Young, Clarke and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: Porter
4. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS
AND TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL
The following citizens addressed City Council:
a. Chris Santiago —10610 North P., La Porte, Texas 77571 — Mr. Santiago
addressed City Council and informed them he is opposed to the extension
of Farrington Blvd.
b. Rhonda Smith —1985 Lomax School Rd., LaPorte, Texas 77571 —Ms.
Smith addressed City Council and informed them she is opposed to the
extension of Farrington Blvd.
c. Cher Barron— 1602 Lomax School Rd., LaPorte, Texas 77571 —Ms.
Barron addressed City Council and informed them she is opposed to the
extension of Farrington Blvd.
d. Richard Burriss — 10535 N. P. St., LaPorte, Texas 77571 —Mr. Burriss
addressed City Council and informed them he is opposed to the extension
of Farrington Blvd.
e. Kylee Allen —1415 Lomax School Rd., La Porte, Texas 77571 — Ms.
Allen addressed City Council and informed them she is opposed to the
extension of Farrington Blvd. and requested them to consider putting in
sidewalks for the children who walk to school.
f. James Adams —1606 Lomax School Rd., La Porte, Texas 77571 — Mr.
Adams addressed City Council and informed them he is opposed to the
extension of Farrington Blvd.
g. Jackie Torres — 5101 Meadow Place, La Porte, Texas 77571 — Ms. Torres
addressed City Council and informed them she is in favor of the extension
of Farrington Blvd. for the safety of citizens.
h. Greg Josey — 2202 Lomax School Rd., La Porte, Texas 77571 — Mr. Josey
addressed City Council with concerns of the process of the meetings
surrounding the comprehensive plan update meetings. In addition, he
informed City Council he is opposed to the extension of Farrington Blvd.
i. Clarence Morgan —10415 N. Ave. H, La Porte, Texas 77571— Mr.
Morgan informed City Council he is opposed to the extension of
Farrington Blvd.
j. Gideon Jones— 10403 Quiet Hill, LaPorte, Texas 77571 —Mr. Jones
addressed City Council and informed them he is opposed to the extension
of Farrington Blvd.
k. Bill Scott —1802 Lomax School Rd., La Porte, Texas 77571 — Mr. Scott
addressed City Council and informed them he is opposed to the extension
of Farrington Blvd. In addition, Mr. Scott presented City Secretary
1/22/01 Minutes — Page 3
Martha Gillett with tapes and documents. He requested these documents
become public record. He also reminded Council of the previously
presented petition opposing the extension of Farrington Blvd.
1. Lee F. Burrows — advised City Council his client Ray Garcia would like to
speak and inform City Council he is opposed to the approval of the alley
closing in Block 752 behind his home.
m. Alton Ogden - Natchez Mississippi— advised City Council he is a part of
the La Porte Community. He further informed Council he requested their
support to close the alley in Block 752 on 16th Street.
n. Mary McLain —128 S. 16th St., La Porte, Texas 77571 — Ms. McLain
informed City Council she wants to protect her interest and her home and
wants to know if she can get her property extended. Mayor Malone
advised her to make this inquiry to the Inspections Division.
o. Jeff Burkhalter — 305 Winchester Rd., Natchez, Mississippi 39120 — Mr.
Burkhalter informed City Council he is in the favor of closing the alley in
Block 752 on 16th Street.
p. Ben Ritchie — 435 S. Shady Lane, La Porte, Texas 77571 — Mr. Ritchie
requested City Council change back the zoning from residential to
commercial on his business property located on S. Broadway.
q. Bernard Legrand — 3115 Layne Court, La Porte, Texas 77571 — Mr.
Legrand informed City Council he is concerned about the number of
apartment complexes on Broadway Street. In addition, he requested City
Council to consider hike and bike trails on Broadway Street.
5. Presentations:
Kathy Powell was recognized for obtaining her CTA designation. The Finance
Director Cynthia Alexander and Assistant Finance Director Michael Dolby
presented her a plaque.
Mayor Malone informed City Council he had a request to take item 13 next on the
agenda. It was the consensus of City Council to take that item next.
13. Council considered approval or other action regarding an ordinance appointing a
re -districting committee and establishing its powers and duties. This item was
previously tabled at the January 8, 2001 meeting due to the illness of Councilman
Gay.
There was detailed discussion on this item.
1/22/01 Minutes — Page 4
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2000-2460-A) — AN ORDINANCE
APPOINTING A RE -DISTRICTING COMMITTEE, AND ESTABLISHING ITS
POWERS AND DUTIES; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS
LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF
A motion was made by Council member Charlie Young to appoint James Warren as the
District 4 member to the re -districting committee and Norman Cook as the alternate
member to District 4 and Paul Berner as alternate to District 5. There was no second to
the motion. Councilperson Young withdrew his motion.
A motion was made by Mqyor Malone to appoint members to the re -districting
committee for each council district. He requested each council member state their
appointee.
Mayor — Sydney Grant
District 1 — Guy Sutheland nominated Betty Waters
District 2- Chuck Engelken was not present but Mayor noted his appointment as
previously nominated was Betty Stoumbaugh
District 3- Howard Ebow nominated Kirby Linscomb, Jr.
District 4 — Deotis Gay nominated Charlie Perry.
District 5 — Charlie Young nominated Bernard Legrand
District 6 — Jerry Clarke nominated Bob Capen
At Large Position A — Peter Griffiths nominated Claudia Zapata
At Large Position B — Alton Porter nominated Ed Matuszak
The motion was seconded by Peter Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Gay, Porter, Young, Clarke, and Mayor Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Councilperson Charlie Young left the meeting at 7:45 P.M.
Mayor Malone recessed the meeting for a five-minute break at 7:45 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 8:00 P.M. There were no discussions or action taken during
the break.
6. Council considered a resolution adopting the Comprehensive Plan Update (Res.
2001-01)
Planning Director Doug Kneupper presented summary and recommendation and
answered Council's questions. Mr. Kneupper noted the following items as
recommendations for modifications by the Planning and Zoning Commission:
1/22/01 Minutes — Page 5
• Add an Objective under Chapter 4, Land use to consider creating a large
lot residential zoning district and provide the associated regulations.
• Include as part of Figure 5.3, La Porte Thoroughfare Plan, the extension of
Farrington to North "H" Street. The commission did not recommend the
extension of Farrington beyond "H" Street.
• Delete the "H" Street Bridge over Big Island Slough.
• Delete the connection of "H" Street with Barbours Cut Blvd. Between
Sens Road and North 16t' Street.
• The Unified Crime Report prepared by the Police Department should be
included in Chapter 8, community facilities and Services.
A motion was made by Councilperson Gay to accept Planning and Zoning's
recommendation to add an Objective under Chapter 4, Land use to consider
creating a large lot residential zoning district and provide the associated
regulations. The motion was seconded by Jerry Clarke. The motion carried
Ayes: Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
A motion was made by Councilperson Griffiths to remove the extension of
Farrington to North "H" Street as part of Figure 5.3, La Porte Thoroughfare Plan.
The motion was seconded by Councilperson Clarke. The motion carried.
Ayes: Sutherland, Griffiths, Gay, I�d Clarke.
Nays: Porter, Ebow and Mayor Malone.
Abstain: None
A motion was made by Councilperson Griffiths to accept Planning and Zoning's
recommendation to delete the "H" Street Bridge over Big Island Slough. The
motion was seconded by Councilperson Clarke. The motion carried.
Ayes: Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and Mayor Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
A motion was made by Councilperson Porter to accept Planning and Zoning's
recommendation to delete the connection of "H" Street with Barbours Cut
The motion was seconded
by Councilperson Clarke. The motion carried.
Ayes: Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and Mayor Malone.
Nays: None
1/22/01 Minutes — Page 6
Abstain: None
A motion was made by Councilperson Griffiths to accept Planning and Zoning's
recommendation to include the Unified Crime Report prepared by the Police
Department in Chapter 8 Community Facilities and Services. The motion was
seconded by Councilperson Clarke. The motion carried.
Ayes: Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and Mayor Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
The City Attorney read: RESOLUTION NO. 2001-01 — A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY OF LA PORTE, UPON RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING
AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilverson Porter to adopt Resolution 2001-01 as read
by the City Attorney and with the amendments previously pproved by City
Council. Second by Councilperson Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and
Malone
Nays: None
Abstain: None
7. Council considered ordinances authorizing the City to enter into an Industrial
District Agreement, Water Service Agreement and Sanitary Sewer Service
Agreement with Terranova Forest Products (Ord. 2000-IDA-54 and Ord. 2001-
2463).
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2000-IDA-54 — AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF AN
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH TERRANOVA FOREST
PRODUCTS, FOR THE TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND
ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2007; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND
PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE
WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilperson Griffiths to adopt Ordinance 2000-IDA-54 as
read by the City Attorney. Second by Councilperson Ebow. The motion carried.
4b 0
1 /22/01 Minutes — Page 7
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and
Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2001-2463 — AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
AGREEMENT AND A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY OF LA PORTE AND TERRANOVA FOREST PRODUCTS; MAKING
VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT;
FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilperson Ebow to adopt Ordinance 2001-2463 as read
by the City Attorney. Second by Councilperson Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Young, and
Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
8. Council considered an Ordinance authorizing an amendment to the City of La
Porte Personnel Policy Manual (Ord. 2001-2464).
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2001-2464 — AN ORDINANCE
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6, SECTION 6, "VACATION
LEAVE" OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL
DATED JANUARY 1, 1992; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE;
FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilperson Ebow to adopt Ordinance 2001-2464 as read
by the City Attorney. Second by Councilperson Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and
Malone
Nays: None
Abstain: None
9. Council considered an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute an
Agreement for professional engineering services to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
(Ord. 2001-2465)
1 /22/01 Minutes — Page 8
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2001-2465 — AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE AND
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE, TO PERFORM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
FOR THE LITTLE CEDAR BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SOLIDS HANDLING PROJECT; APPROPRIATING NOT TO EXCEED
$100,000.00, TO FUND SAID CONTRACT; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS
AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilverson Porter to adopt Ordinance 2001-2465 as read
by the City Attorney. Second by Councilperson Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and
Malone.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
10. Council considered an ordinance approving and authorizing amendments to a cost
sharing agreement on the Southeast Water Purification Plant between the La Porte
Area Water Authority and the City of Houston (Ord. 2000-2383-A).
Public Works Director Steve Gillett presented summary and recommendation and
answered City Council's questions.
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCE NO. 2000-2383-A — AN ORDINANCE
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO A COST SHARING
AGREEMENT ON THE SOUTHEAST WATER PURIFICATION PLANT
BETWEEN THE LA PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY AND THE CITY
OF HOUSTON; MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS
RELATING TO THE SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN
MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilperson Sutherland to adopt Ordinance No. 2000-
2383-A as read by the City Attorney. Second by Councilperson Porter.
The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and
Malone
Nays:
Abstain:
1/22/01 Minutes — Page 9
11. Council considered adopting ordinances authorizing execution by the City of La
Porte of Industrial District Agreements for the term commencing January 1, 2001,
and ending December 31, 2007 (Ords. 2000-IDA-46 thru 2000-IDA-53).
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCES 2000-IDA-46 THROUGH 2O00-IDA 53
— AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF
LA PORTE OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH KAVER,
LP; TURBO STORAGE SERVICE COMPANY, INC.; DANA TANK
CONTAINER, INC.; AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, INC.; ARCO MIDCON
LLC; BAKER PETROLITE CORPORATION; BAYPORT NORTH
INDUSTRIAL PARK, LP; AND PRIME SERVICE, INC., FOR THE TERM
COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2007;
MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
SUBJECT; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW;
AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilperson Clarke to adopt Ordinances 2000-IDA-46
through 2000-IDA-53 as read by the City Attorney. Second by Councilperson
Griffiths. The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and
Malone
Nays: None
Abstain: None
12. Council considered an ordinance vacating, abandoning and closing the alley in
Block 752, Town of LaPorte, Harris County, Texas (Ord. 2001-2461) (Tabled at
Jan. 8, 2001, meeting).
Planning Director Doug Kneupper presented summary and recommendation.
At the request of City Council the applicant agreed to pay for the residual alley
not included in the original request.
The City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2001-2461 — AN ORDINANCE
VACATING, ABANDONING AND CLOSING THE ALLEY IN BLOCK 752,
TOWN OF LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilperson Ebow to adopt Ordinance 2001-2461 as read
by the City Attorney. Second by Councilperson Clarke. The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Porter, Clarke and Malone.
1 /22/01 Minutes —Page 10
Nays: Gay and Griffiths
Abstain: None
14. Council considered a consent agenda, as follows:
1. Consider awarding bid for annual contract for oils, fluids, and lubricants to
Jones Oil
2. Consider awarding bids for golf course and parks equipment to Brookside
Equipment and Gail's Flags
Motion was made by Councilperson Griffiths to approve the consent agenda as
presented. Second by Councilperson Gay. The motion carried.
Ayes: Councilpersons Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and
Malone
Nays: None
Abstain: None
15. Administrative Reports: City Manager Robert Herrera reminded Council of the
Chamber of Commerce Installation Banquet to be held January 25, 2001, and that
the February 12, 2001 City Council meeting will be held at the original City Hall.
He also informed Council Mr. Engelken's mother-in-law is very ill and requested
them to keep her in their prayers.
16. The following Councilpersons brought items to Council's attention:
Sutherland, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Gay, Clarke and Mayor.
17. 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, DELIBERATION
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)
18. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEMS CONSIDERED IN
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Due to no Executive Session there was no action taken.
19. ADJOURNMENT
4b 0
1/22/01 Minutes — Page 11
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
adjourned at 9:45 P.M.
Respectfully Submitted:
Martha Gillett, City Secretary
Passed and Approved on this the 12th day of February, 2001
Norman Malone, Mayor
Notes for Bill Scott's 1-22-01 Council Presentation.
The stack of documents and tapes I just handed Mrs. Gillett are the presentations of the
facts "Common Sense Government " has gathered over the last 2 '/2 years that prove the
Farrington extension violates the principles, intent, and specific safety areas of the FAA
Airport Design Standards. The audio tape is pertinent parts of conversations with
TXDOT's Jim Curl who states they don't want new roads in an RPZ ,and Washington
FAA's George Leggerata who states the FAA wants the City to make every effort to
acquire ALL of the RPZ land with the FAA grant and who states the City is hanging way
out on liability if they don't use the recommendations, which are less than the required
standards.
We have given these items to a Houston Chronicle Investigative Reporter who
approached us about doing articles on our situation and we would like this information
put in the public record for future use. Her series of articles should start appearing in a
couple of weeks.
The FAA/ Txdot tape is part of a package we're preparing to send to the FAA Head
office and the Inspector General asking for an investigation into the Design Standards
violations, if necessary. We've found two more violations of the contract and the
Assurances Document regarding requirements to meet the Design Standards.
In the Sept. 28, 1998 Council meeting a Councilman publicly accused us of spreading
misinformation. We have conclusive and profound evidence that his statements on that
subject were incorrect and we'll be providing that evidence to Council at a later date.
However; 3 of the councilman's statements were very true and very important.
1. About our concerns on the Farrington extension he stated," I don't even have a
problem with them not wanting that if that's what the people ultimately decide they don't
want". A 570+ signature petition against the Extension and NO petitions for it. When
citizens attended the Sylvan Beach Public Forum, there were 20+ written comments
against the extension and NO comments for it. In all of the public meetings on this
extension in the past 2 '/2 years dozens of citizens who aren't comfortable with public
speaking; got up and spoke against the Farrington Extension and only one got up and
spoke for it; and he owns the Mr. Mercury Convenience Store at Spencer and Farrington
that would benefit from a large increase in traffic. THE PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED, MR.
COUNCILMAN, AND THEY HAVE DECIDED THEY DO NOT WANT THE
FARRINGTON EXTENSION. AND WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOU STICKING
BY YOUR STATEMENT AND VOTING TO REMOVE THE FARRINGTON
EXTENSION FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
2. Referring to the Farrington extension, He Said, " not wanting it is good enough".
WELL; WE DO NOT WANT IT, SO THAT SHOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR
YOU TO VOTE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
3. Concerning information about the Farrington Extension, He stated, "we need to talk
about the facts and not somebody elses idea of the facts".
WE HAVE SPENT 2 '/z YEARS GATHERING, STUDYING, AND PRESENTING
THE FACTS TO COUNCIL AND TO THE CITIZENS, AND TO SUM THE FACTS
UP:
Fact 1. The Farrington extension would violate the principles, intent, and specific safety
areas of the FAA design standards.
Fact 2. The Farrington extension would violate well known and accepted engineering
guidelines and principles for neighborhoods.
Fact 3. We have proven the Farrington extension is an unacceptable safety hazard to the
citizens in our neighborhoods... and there is a White Cross on P street that stands in
testimony to that.
Fact 4. During our gathering, studying, and presenting the facts we proved that the people
wanting this extension did not gather the facts and did not do their homework.
We are requesting Council to respect the Vote of the Steering Committee on this issue
and VOTE TO REMOVE ALL 3 PHASES OF THE FARRINGTON EXTENSION
FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
We are also requesting Council to properly classify the Lomax streets as residential as
they are defined to be.
Thank you for your consideration, Bill Scott
This evening I'd like to inform you of more facts that prove the Farrington
extension is a bad idea.
In his March 16, 2000 speech before Planning and Zoning Commission, The
Fire Chief claimed that for the Spencer Fire Station to cover in Lomax, it was 3
112 miles to H St. & Lomax School Rd. by the so called long route using
Underwood Rd. and only 3/ of a mile by the so called short route using the
Farrington extension. Sounds impressive, but let's look at ALL the facts that were
not presented.
To the middle of H St. that is West of Big Island Slough the long route is app.
2.1 miles. The short route is 2.2 miles. Not only is the so called short route
actually longer; it also has 3 more turns and uses narrow residential streets
with 2 way stop signs at blind corners, deep ditches and no sidewalks. The
Fire Trucks should be using the much safer Spencer/ Underwood route.
This point on H St. is at the South Middle of Lomax's largest subdivision,
which of course has the greatest concentration of people and property to be
protected by the Fire Dept.
2. To the middle North side of Lomax's 2nd largest subdivision on West P
St.; the long route is app. 2.6 miles and the short route is app. 2.1 miles. So
the short route is shorter by Y2 mile which is no where near the 2 3/ miles the
Fire Chief likes to use. And again the shorter route would have 1 additional
turn and would use narrow residential streets with 2 way stop signs at blind
corners, deep ditches, and no sidewalks.
3. To the East side of Lomax's 3rd largest subdivision at North Sens Rd., the
long route is app. 2.5 miles and the short route is actually .3 miles longer at
app. 2.8 miles. And again the short route has 3 more turns, is through
residential streets and is very dangerous.
Of Course, this same situation applies to the police, the school busses and
people traveling in general.
We have already proven that the claims of the Farrington extension benefiting
EMS are False.
We believe this proves that the general claims of a shorter route don't hold
water. Our researched facts do hold water.
We would appreciate if you would vote the facts and not the false claims.
The 2 City staff and 1 LPISD staff also publicaly asked P&Z in that March
16,2000 meeting, to extend Airport Blvd. and Valley View. They were later told
Airport Blvd. was on airport property and couldn't be extended and Valley View
would run through homes if it was extended.
•
•
We think this obviously proves that the few people asking for this extension DID
NOT DO THEIR HOMEWORK.
We think it has also been obvious for the last 2'/z years that We Citizens of
"Common Sense Governmed'have done our homework and we have proven this
extension is a dangerous, unsafe, unneeded waste of taxpayers money..and I
have a couple of questions for council.
1. The Police Chief has expressed his great safety concerns about the
Farrington extension to our Treasurer and to the Assistant City Manager in
private. Why hasn't he made those safety concerns known to the Council in
public??
2. The Assistant City Manager explained to the Jan.14-99 Steering Committee in
detail why the Farrington extension was put on the 84 Comprehensive Plan
and why it is no longer necessary. Why hasn't he made this information known to
the Council in public ??
Thanks for listening and for voting the facts.
Clarence Morgan.
•
To: La Porte City Council From: Greg Josey, Lomax School Road
Gentlemen;
I heard a Councilman in the last meeting ask if we had anything good to say
about the Comprehensive Plan Process.
I think most Councilmen are not aware of what really happened in that process.
I would like to submit the following facts and our view of the process.
• We volunteered to serve on the 15 person Steering Committee. We were
ignored. We were told the Steering Committee was just a focus group for
public participation and that we could get on the transportation committee if
we attended the Sylvan Beach Public forum. We attended that forum. We
were the vast majority of the Transportation section. We were told at the
forum by the City Planning Director that we could get on the committee if we
asked in writing in the comments section of the Blue card. All of us did.
...and we never got a response.
...and the committees were never formed.
The written Project Operations Procedure (POP) states that the development
of goals and objectives, and the visioning process would occur at the initial
community visioning workshop which was the first Sylvan Beach meeting;
and would involve a large number of citizens.
... and it never happened. The goals, objectives, and visioning were done by
the Steering Committee that the POP says was just to be a focus group for
public participation.
• The Mayor's Position Paper stated that "neighborhood meetings will take
place throughout the City to receive input". The Steering Committee Co -
Chairperson also stated this to us again, 6 months later.
... and it never happened.
The Mayor's Position Paper stated" A Citizen's Committee.... will recommend
changes to the City Council". 1
.... and it never happened. The Citizen's committee REMOVED THE
FARRINGTON EXTENSION from the Comprehensive Plan but the P&Z
Commission overturned their decision. 4 OF THE 6 P&Z MEMBERS HAVE
WELL DOCUMENTED CONFLICTS OF INTEREST WHERE THEY
PERSONALLY BENEFIT FROM THIS ROAD GOING THROUGH. Common
sense called for them to abstain from voting.
...AND THEY VOTED FOR THE ROAD ANYWAY.
•
• The consultant introduced 2 City staff and a LPISD representative to the
3-16-00 P&Z meeting as speakers who would give an " objective
overview of the Pros and Cons"
.....and they gave NO cons, even though 2 of the speakers were
well aware of the many "cons". ....and we have proven many of their
statements to be very slanted or outright false.
The Consultant has repeatedly claimed that thoroughfare planning principles
call for this road to be put through. We repeatedly tried to get the
consultant's references that support his claims, but he would not return our
phone calls.
The City Planning Director repeatedly promised use this information but did
not produce it until we went to the City Manager and said we'd take the issue
to Council if necessary.
... and the references the consultant finally provided prove his claims are
wrong and also show he left out many pages of vital information that prove
our safety concerns are valid and that this road should not happen. The
engineering references also prove the consultant and others were wrong in
claiming Lomax's main streets are arterials, when by definition they are
residential streets because driveways enter them.
Our view is; the evidence proves that the Comprehensive Plan process was
manipulated by a few people at City Hall to produce the results they wanted and
not the results the Citizens wanted.
Our view is that the only respectable part of the entire process, was the
vote of the Steering Committee to remove this road from the
Comprehensive Plan. The Mayor's Position Paper states the Steering
Committee will recommend changes to Council and a Councilman has told
us that Council will respect the decision of the Steering Committee. We
expect the Mayor and the Council to honor their statements to us and to
remove all 3 phases of the Farrington extension from the Comprehensive
Plan as the Steering Committee voted to do.
9-16-98 Bayshore Sun Article (You m* want to Subscribe) •
Farrington Plan.
The Article and Mr. Herrera sound credible on the surface... but let's take a deeper
Stop' At Ave.
ff
Look at the FACTS.
The six La Porte City Council
Sounds like the plan to put a highway through our neighborhoods was actually changed (because
members who were present for
an estimated 60 to 100 people against the highway attended the council meeting. Eight spoke
Monday night's regular council ses-
before Council against the highway, and 400 + signed the "Stop the Highway through our
Sion heard from eight different resi
Neighborhood" petition.) These actions did make significant gains in stopping the highway, but..
dents, all urging the city to not carry
FACTS: The City's official "Comprehensive Plan" to put a Highway through our neighborhoods
out plans in the newly adopted budget
is still in effect; the City's Director of Planning, Doug Kneupper, used the word "Highway" to
for the extension of Farrington
describe this violation of our Zoning ordinance; and the last time I talked with Mr. Kneupper
Boulevard from just north of Spencer
'a
Oust before the council meeting), planned to build the highway. Lomax's Planning
�t days g)' he still p g y'
Highway to connection with
Avenue H.
and Zoning representative, Melton Wolters, and Lomax's City Councilman, Guy Sutherland,
Those residents included Bill Scott,
are still very much in favor of building phase 1 of the highway in direct opposition to the
Paul Neuman, Kevin James, Larry
directions and needs of 400+ petition signers. The City Council ignored our actions and approved
Allen, Jack 'Howard, James Adams,
funds to start Phase I of the Highway. WE CAN CHANGE THE "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" IF
Mike McInnis and Donna Marlar.
ENOUGH CONCERNED VOTERS SHOW UP AT THE OCT. 27, 1998 7:00 PM
During the Monday meeting, City
SYLVAN BEACH CITY WIDE MEETING TO REVIEW THE PLAN... AND WE CAN STILL
Manager Bob Herrera told council
STOP PHASE I OF THE HIGHWAY IF WE CONTACT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
that it would be at least 30-45 days
before any further consideration of
Sounds like Mr. Herrera is giving plenty of time for input.
the Farrington plans would be made,
FACTS: He leaves himself a range of 30 to 45 days before "further consideration" rather than
so council will have plenty of time to
giving a deadline. If he chooses the minimum 30 days; it will occur well before the Oct. 27,1998
consider the matter.
On Tuesday, Herrera told The
Sylvan Beach public meeting to review and change the "Comprehensive Plan" and the 45 day
Bayshore Sun that is has been
limit will occur just 2 days after the Oct. 27 public review meeting and months BEFORE input
rumored that Farrington would run all
from the neighborhood meetings.( See the Mayors letter). We are lead to believe by the Mayor
the way to Highway 225 with four
and some Council members that the Oct. 27 meeting and the neighborhood meetings that follow
lanes of divided roadway.
are the "proper forum" to eliminate the highway, yet in fact Mr. Herrera plans "Consideration"
Herrera noted that while the city's
of Phase I of the highway well before voter input from the meetings.
Comprehensive Plan that was formu-
lated in 1984 calls for more north-
Mr. Herrera attempts to downplay the Highway as just a "rumor".
south routes in the city, and lists
FACTS: It's not a rumor, it's a fact. It's in the Comprehensive Plan. See above FACTS.( In our
Farrington as one of the possible con-
first letter we warned that these bureaucrats would try to downplay this important Phase I of the
nections, "now that Highway 146 is
highway and that they would say what they think we want to hear while they secretly work
getting extensive renovation, and
toward their goals.
Underwood Road now connects
Fairmont Parkway with 225, and
are underway to connect Bay
You are wrong again Mr. Herrera. Sounds like the $321,000 connecting road between Farrington
plans
Area Boulevard to 225 via Sens
Blvd. and Lomax School Road will be just an innocent inter neighborhood road..... WRONG
Road, I can see no reason for
FACTS: This Road is the Official, Planned First Phase of a Planned Highway through our
Farrington to be connected to 225.
neighborhoods. Anyone who looks at a City map or drives these roads knows that this planned
" We plan this two-lane extension to
Phase I road connects Fairmont Parkway to "P" street which is only app. a 1/4 mile from Highway
Avenue H to expand residential traf-
225 and that this Phase I road will greatly increase traffic all the way from Fairmont Parkway to
frc between the Lomax area and
"P" street. Apparently Mr. Herrera has not looked at a map of the area or has not driven the area.
Spencer Highway, and to give us bet-
The Fire Chief that is pushing for Phase I of the highway has an entire set of plans for the vote)
ter access from Fire Station No. 2 on
that includes not only ruining our neighborhoods, but getting us to borrow money through a
Spencer, to the Lomax area."
$500,000 bond issue to build him a new fire station in Lomax. We'll have more details about
this at our Sept. 22, 1998 6-8:00 PM Public meeting to be held at the Farrington Blvd.
Community Center located near the water tower in Fairmont Park. Please plan to attend.
This article and mayor malone's one man circus that passes for a Council meeting
are starting to prove to a lot of voters what some of us have experienced for several
years..... The current City Administration's credibility belongs in a crapper....
and WE the voters can change that if we'll work to do it.
r
La Porte Citizens that are stopping the highway through our neighborhoods will meet
on Tue., Sept 22, 1998 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM at the community building located next to
the water tower at the Farrington Blvd. baseball complex.
The purpose of the meeting is to :
1. discuss results of our actions, (signing the petition, attending the Sept. 14 City
Council meeting, and Speaking to the Council) .
2. discuss the 9-16-98 Bayshore Sun Article about the highway (See back of this page).
3. discuss our future actions to complete the job of eliminating the threat of the
highway,( completing the petition, calling our City Council members, and
attending the Oct. 27,1998 7:00 PM Sylvan Beach Conference Center, City
sponsored "Comprehensive Plan Review" meeting to give our input about
eliminating the highway from the City's "Comprehensive Plan").
Current Suggested Agenda for Sept. 22, 1998 meeting, continueing with item # 4:
4. Do we need to form as an organization to fight the highway?
5. Newspaper ads and responses to newspaper articles.
6. The 15 member, City set up "Comprehensive Plan" committee & community
meetings that are set up to review the Comp. Plan. & the Oct. 27,1998 meeting.
7. The Petition: It's effect, completing it, why we need 600 signatures.
8. Set up street or group coordinators to hand out letters, keep their neighbors
informed etc. and get feedback from their neighbors.
9. Results of one on ones with our City Council members.
10. Attending and speaking at City Council in the next 3 sessions. Planned council
meetings are on the second and fourth Mondays of each month.
11.
12.
13.
�: lir� J,.�(+hF'L�AYN�:` �l�itaPFi`.i'� YiC�:n' .: l�.r'� Y/S.ti'� i'fiZ-�.1.," �•7d:.R°s�:�itA..'liti�� �•�i'•,�
L.P. Budget Includes Ca'pit
The 1998-99 fiscal year budget for
the City of La Porte includes a num-
ber of capital improvement projects
that cover a wide range of renova-
tions, additions and new facilities.
Listed here in the same order as
they appear in a summary issued to
city council for budget workshop
sessions. that concluded this past
week, the.projects inciude continu-
ing sidewalk cenovations.throughout
the city, at a proposed budget total
Also, it has been propose d,"laf
council , approval, that the city
extend Farrington Boulevard north
from the Glen Meadows subdivision
to North H Street and its intersec-
tion with Lomax School Road. The
28-foot-wide, two-lane road would
have open ditches, and would be
positioned to allow for the future
addition of two more lanes. The
plan would .cost an estimated
$321,000.
reconstruction of the intersection of
Canada Road and Spencer Highway,
to align the intersection with t c
City of Deer Park's extension of
And a third is paving of the p in
lot at the Rodco Arena in the Lomax
area.
Also, it is being proposed that the
city relocate the girl's softball pro-
gram from Lomax Park to the Little
Cedar Bayou Park, at a cost of some
$200,000. And combined with
S 136,000 from the general obliga-
tion bond fund, plans are outlined
for a total of $335,500 to be spent
completing the parking lot,
restroom and pavilion facilities at
the city's Scabrcczc Park on
Galveston Bay.
There are also various joint ven-
ture projects with youth sports pro-
grams and other such organizations,
at a total projected cost of $40,000.
A number of community facilities
re proposed as well. For instance,
-100,000 has been set aside in each
f the four previous fiscal years, and
combined with $100,000 for (lie
upcoming year, totals $500.000 in
funds for the construction of a class-
room facility at the city's existing
Fire Training Field. The facility
would also servc as the city's
Emergency Operations Center.
City Hall renovations arc also
included in the capital improvement
plan proposals. A total of 5360.000
was earmarked durint the current
fiscal year, and another S360.000 is
proposed for (lie next fiscal year.
Staff proposes to add space to the
current Ci(y Hall building, while
remodeling and repairing the exist-
ing facility as well. The S720.000
earmarked will cover the remodel-
ing efforts, and (hc additiona! sp i-c
wouldbc ad`dccsscd in a futurc bond
package.
Another S35,000 is listed to secure
archi(cctural services for the possi-
blc addition of space at the La Porte
Police Department building. And
$125,000 is earmarked for (tic build-
ing of a storage facility for the city's
records. The old lire station in,
Fairmont Park is now bcim_ used for
this storage. And $65,(H)0 is pro-
posed for the acyuistion of land for
East Boulevard. That would cost
$235.000. And a proposed further
extension of South 14th Street north
to H Street. with completion of the
intersection at that point, would be
adjacent to the commercial center
now being built next to the Kroger
store. The exteri$ion would cost
Sun Spots
CCA-Texas, San Jacinto Chapter...ccA-Texas,. San
Jacinto Chapter is having its first Annual Fundraiser Fajita Dinner,
catered by Triggs, from 6 p.m - 10 p.m. on Thursday. Aug. 27 at Sylvan
Beach'Pavilion. Live auction, silent auction, raffles. For raffle and din-
ner ticket information call Pat Murray at 1-800-626-4222. Also tickets
will be'sold at the door.
Cheerleader Booster —The La Porte High School Cheerleader
Booster Club will hold its first meeting for the '98-'99 school year at 6
p.m on Monday. August 24 id the high school cafeteria. All parents
please plan to attend.
Football Bulldog Booster... La Porte Football Bulldog
Booster Club will meet every Monday night at 6:30 p.m. at the Dog
House. All football parents and other interested persons arc urged to
attend.
Girls Fastpiteh.:.The Texas Rage, a girls 16u Fastpitch team, will
be holding tryouts Sept 12 and i% for the upcoming season. For more
information call Roger Harris'at 281-998-7665.
UHS Yearbooks... The 1998 La Porte High School Yearbooks
are in and maybe picked up in Room 10. Extra copies arc available for
purchase: and are $38.00.
Workers Training Banquet ...Bayshore Baptist Church
Sunday School Workers Training Banquet will be from 7 n.m - 9•'t0
S 171,000.
At a cost of S 17
also proposes cur
Road from a rock rc
wide asphalt road wi
Developers of he
Crossing and Sunnn
visions have outline
plete the next secti(
subdivisions, and C
provide an addition?
dents in these ncight
There is also a pro;
venture with Harris
City of Shoreacres,
Drive Drainage Prof
for Harris County t
percent of (lie dc,
$600,000 of (tic con
the cities payin , S I
While the project is
107 acres of the watc
Porte.
There arc a nunibc
jccts proposed. One
of four ventilator fan
Recreation and Fanc.,
cost of $45,000. Anu
and tile work at the N�
at an anticipated cos
what will eventually I
Booster Club ...Thc La Porte High School Baseball Bc
will met at 7.p.m. on Thursday. Aug. 27 at the Lecture Hall.
Exercise Class ... The fall session of the Exercise wi
class will begin Monday, August 31. To register for this Ic
exercise class, contact Neighborhood Centcrs,•Inc. 911 S. eig
281-471-1824.
La Porte Eyes Fors
Traffic Hump Polio
La Porte City Council faces a number of decisions at its 6 p.
session, covering a wide variety of subjects.
Council will handle what amounts to "dotting the is and cros
concerning the city's cable TV franchise, as consideration will f
an ordinance renewing the grant of a non-exclusive franchise
Systems Inc., to erect, maintain and operate a cable television s)
city. And that will be followed by consideration of an ordinance
fers the cable TV franchise from Tele-Vue to Texas Cable Partn<
Also Monday, two resolutions arc on the agenda. The first
request for legislative action preserving local government author
taxpayer dollars through cooperative purchasing programs" The
support document for that same legislative action.
O� L A
city
rexps
September 26, 1994
Mr. Wayne Knox
Pipe and Valve
11837 Fairmont Parkway
LaPorte, TX 77571-6003
of La Porte
Estcihllslied 189
Dear Mr. Knox:
In response to your letter dated September 22, regarding the extension of Farrington/Lomax
School Road, I would like to furnish you the following information:
• The project, part of the Comprehensive Plan, is scheduled to be a phased
project lasting in. the neighborhood of fifteen years.
The ultimate roadway, as called for in preliminary planning, will be a four
lane facility divided by a median and will appear much like Farrington Blvd.
from Spencer Hwy. to Fairmont Pkwy. As this is designed to be phased, the
initial roadway will be two lanes expandable to four lanes at the point in time
that traffic would warrant increasing the size.
• Phase One kvoL be the co�ectiiin rom the end of Farrington ro
Lomax School Road at "Ir Street. _ Our current plans are to seek funding in
FY 1996.
• Phase Two would be the connection from "P" Street north to S.H. 225. There
are no current indications of timing, but probably will not occur. before FY
2001.
Phase Three would be the widening of the roadway from two lanes to four
lanes. Anticipated timing for this portion of the project is ten to fifteen years.
Sincerely
Charles R. Harrington
Director of Planning
Fw Iz 4'�`11SE•-•
xc: Robert T. Herrera, City Manager
Norman Malone. Mayor
Page 2 of 2
We invite you to join with your neighbors to stop this Four Lane Highway through
our neighboorhoods before it gets started. Please:
1. Sign the petition by calling one of the neighbors listed at the bottom of this letter.
2. Call our elected officials and bureaucrats at the #s below. Remember, we pay
their salaries and we elect them. They Work For Us. Please tell them what you
want in return for your tax money and your vote .... and ask them how they would
like a Four lane Highway built through their neighboorhoods and front yards.
3. Attend the City Council meeting on Sept. 14, 1998 with your children and your
neighbors to show our bureaucrats and officials that we Will Act to save our
neighborhoods. You have a legal right to speak before City Council for
5 minutes during the meeting. If you wish to use this right, sign up at the
entrance at least 15 minutes before the meeting starts.
4. Tell your neighbors and ask them to sign the petition, to call our bureaucrats and
Council Members, AND to attend the Sept. 14 Council meeting.
Our bureaucrats and some Council members are trying to down play this assault on
our neighborhoods as "no big deal". When you call them and they try to down play
the importance of this first phase of the Four Lane Highway through our
neighborhoods, please remember the attached 1994 letter from City bureaucrats to
the Knox's. Within the last two weeks we have seen the engineering drawings for the
Four Lane Highway and talked with the Director of Planning... and he still plans to
build the Highway.
• We have developed a mountian of evidence that proves the City bureaucrats will say
what they think we want to hear while they secretely work toward their goals ... and
their goal is to turn Farrington Blvd. and Lomax School Rd. into a Four Lane
Highway connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225, unless we stop them.
Please call City Council members: Guy Sutherland @ (H) 471-1244
Howard Ebow @ (H) 471-4014
Peter Griffiths @ (H) 471-3756
Alton Porter @ (H) 471-8377
Zoning Board Member Melton Wolters @ (H) 471-1527
City Manager Bob Herrera @ (W) 471-5020
City Planning Director Doug Kneupper @ (W) 471-5020
Mayor Norman Malone @ (W) 471-5020
OR leave a message for them at City Hall @ 471-5020
Thank you for your time and effort:
Wayne Knox @ (W) 471-5751
Jim Adams @ (H) 470-2378
Bill Scott @ (H) 470-6685
0 •
8/30/98 Page 1 of 2
Fellow La Porte Citizens and Taxpayers;
On Sept. 14, 1998 at 6:00 PM at the La Porte City Hall; our City Council will vote on
a budget that approves funds to start the first phase of a Planned Highway through our
our neighborhoods.
The new City Planning Director, Doug Kneupper, has clearly stated that the City
plans to turn Farrington Blvd. and Lomax School Road into a Four Lane Highway
that will run through the Fairmont Park, Glen Meadows, and Lomax
neighborhoods to Highway 225 as part of a "Comprehensive Plan" put together by
City bureaucrats. This Highway through our Residential Zoned neighborhoods is
intended to be like Underwood Road except that it will have a raised median in the
center instead of a left turn lane.
• The City will spend app. $321,000 +? Land $$ of our tax money to connect
Farrington Blvd. to Lomax School Road as the first phase of putting this Highway,
through our neighborhoods.
• This proposed Highway will run through 2 school zones and 3 city park areas.
We believe this Highway through our neighborhoods will:
1. Endanger us and our children as we travel to and from schools, parks, and
other places in our neighborhoods.
2. Endanger us as we enter and leave our driveways, park trailers, or travel to and
from the Rodeo arena, Parks, Ball fields, and Schools.
3. Greatly decrease the value of our homes and our property.
4. Greatly decrease our over all quality of neighborhood life. Apparently the
bureaucrats have forgotten that our neighborhoods are Zoned Residential.
5. Destroy our neighborhoods with increased speeding traffic, noise, crime, littering,
and air pollution.
6. Unfairly decrease our quality of life and property values in order to increase the
property values of special interest land developers South of us.
The excuse our bureaucrats use to install this first phase of the Highway through our
neighborhoods and front yards, is the desire of La Porte I.S.D. to have a shorter bus
route for Lomax Elementary students that have previously attended Rizzuto Elementary.
Yet, L.P.I.S.D. Superintendent John Sawyer says the last time L.P.I.S.D. asked for the
road was about 3 years ago. Mr. Sawyer was unaware that the first phase road was being
considered. The logical answer to the school overcrowding problem is to use the
$321,000 to build new class rooms at Rizzuto rather than destroy our existing
neighborhoods with an unwanted Highway. With a new school planned for the area and
changing school population, there is a good probability that in the near future the road
will not be necessary for school travel, but we will still have to live with it's destruction
of our neighborhoods. (More info on the back)
•
•
rexA0
City of La Porte
Established 1892
POSITION PAPER ON FARRINGTON BLVD. EXTENSION
September 14, 1998
The City's plan for the extension of Farrington Blvd. consists of building a 28400t wide
two-lane road with open ditches to go from Glen Meadows Subdivision to North "H" Street. We
-have set aside $321,000 for this project.
This extension is not a four -lane hihway. The City's Comprehensive Plan as -adopted in 1984
recognized the lack of roads in La Porte that had a south to north access. The'plari4f that time
recommended Underwood Road, Bay Area Blvd. and Farrington Blvd.`�some day ga`through to
State Highway 225. The City does not see Farrington Blvd. being extended to SH 225 .within the
next 15 to 20 years and this plan may even be changed as a result of f City,i current effort`to .
update the, I984;Compcehensive,Phim Jt is out�behef that;once:Bay-A'rea Blvd is built and
11
improved,'it.will eliinate the need to build FarringtonBlvd. through to S i"225:
m'
F
Within the next 2 to 6 months, neighborhood meetings will take :pia 'throughout the City: to
... y„
receive input on what, changes or additions are `needed within the Cit 's Comprehensive Plan
This is the proper forum to change the'., City'.s future road systems.: �- A' citizens' committee
worlang with a consultant then will recommend changes to the City Council.
A public meeting is scheduled for October 27, 1928 -at_7;QD_Vm at Sylvan Beach Conference
Center to discuss how to proceed in updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and to receive
public input on matters that need to be looked at within the Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
Norman Malone
Mayor
P.O. Box 1115 • La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 4�1-5020
•
Contact List
Page 6 of 6
You can leave a message at City Hall (281-471-5020) for any of the City Council
Members or City Staff and they are supposed to return your call.
La Porte City Hall Main # - (H) 471-5020
Guy Sutherland - City Council Member for Lomax & Glen Meadows - (H) 471-1244
Howard Ebow
- City Council Member for Fairmont Park
- (H) 471-4014
Peter Griffiths
- City Council Member At Large & City Council Rep
for the Comprehensive Plan Update
- (H) 470-8483
Alton Porter
- City Council Member At Large
- (H) 471-8377
Deotis Gay
- City Council Member & Rep for the
Comprehensive Plan Update
-(H) 471-3259
Norman Malone - City Mayor
- (W) 471-5020
Betty Waters
- City Planning and Zoning Board Rep for the
Comprehensive Plan Review
- (H) ????????
BobHerrera
- City Manager
- (W) 471-5020
Doug Kneupper - City Planning Director
- (W) 471-5020
Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee Members
The following names were acquired under the Public Information Act. We will make
addresses and/or phone #s available when and if they become available from the City.
Brian Moore
Chester Pool
David Brady
Deoitis Gay
Gary Wiggington
John Tomerlin
John Zemanek, Sr.
Peter Griffiths
Roy Baldwin
Steve Valarius
Barbara Jenks
Betty Waters
Imogene Pulleine
Martha Love
Pat Muston
Page 5 of 6
In Mid August I asked Mr. Sutherland about the Farrington to "H" Street connecting
road and he did his best to convince me it was just a little connection road that was being
pushed by the school system for a bus route and to save my energy for fighting the big
road going to Hwy 225. I checked with the L.P.I.S.D. Superintendent and the
Transportation Director and they had no idea the road was being built. I then got with
other neighbors and found out that the little connection road was actually Phase 1 of
what the City's Planning Director called a "Highway" and he was still planning on
building it... and that was just 35 days ago. Mr. Sutherland has recently met with his
"Kitchen Council" of 6 Lomax Taxpayers and after 3 hours of trying to persuade them to
his point of view, all 6 were still strongly against the Phase 1 road. In one month our
group has grown to 550+ taxpayers with 17 Coordinators who have signed a Petition
asking the City to abandon the Phase 1 road and the Highway.. and there were just 997
voters in the last City General Election. Now Mr. Sutherland is going out to do a sales job
to persuade people to allow the Phase 1 instead of listening to 550+ taxpayers that signed
a petition to stop the Phase 1 of the Highway. The question is obvious... How can Mr.
Sutherland attempt to represent City Hall's position on this matter when he can't
even represent the Taxpayers in his own district?
City Manager Bob Herrera has tried to down play the seriousness of this Highway in a
recent Bayshore Sun article by calling it a "rumor". As you can see from the above facts,
it is not a rumor. He also stated that the Phase 1 road was planned "to expand residential
traffic between the Lomax area and Spencer Hwy". Actually it will tie Fairmont Parkway
into P Street in North Lomax which will open up our neighborhoods to rush hour through
traffic moving away from the "Parking lot" of Sens Road & also the Underwood/Spencer
intersection. He also states it will be 30- 45 days before further City consideration of the
road. This Time limit will expire well before the 2-6 month review of the Comprehensive
Plan where taxpayers can input their thoughts on this road. I don't understand Mr.
Herrera's rush to build this Phase 1 road. With all the misinformation the City has put
out on this Highway, is it any wonder that many taxpayers believe the City has lost all
credibility on this issue.
Many thanks from all the taxpayers involved, to all the taxpayers who have signed the
petition, attended City Council meetings, spoke before Council, circulated thM-
n
and letters and have basically made our system of government work. I�
Coordinators:
Jim Adams (IT) 470-2378
Dorothy Coker " 471-2346
Earl Deleon (H) 471-2346
Danny Frierson (H) 470-9608
Louis Heintschel (H) 471-3247
Wayne Knox (W) 471-5751
Paul Neumann (H) 471-2671
Becky Sayers (H) 470-0113
Kay Scott (H) 470-6685
Bill Scott (IT) 470-6685
Sharon Tally (H) 471-1445
Doyle Tally (H) 471-1445
Pat Wright (I) 471-7840
Nancy Quested (H) 471-0709
Bill Scott
3 Coordinators wish
to remain anonymous
0
Page 4 of 6
The 550+ taxpayers signing the Petition to stop the Highway believe the Phase 1 road
will greatly reduce our property values, greatly lower our existing neighborhood
environments, and seriously jeopardize the safety of our children and ourselves due to
increased through traffic.
8. (We can't put the needs of 30 people above the needs of 32,000 people) This statement
was made by the same Council Member claiming a need for the Highway for emergency
evacuation(item 4).
It's not the needs of 30. It is the needs of the 550+ voters who have signed a Petition
asking the City Council to Not fund Phase 1 of this "Highway" through our
neighborhoods ... and to even propose that 32,000 La Porte citizens will use Farrington
Blvd for emergency evacuation is illogical.
I believe that if all directly affected taxpayers wanting to sign the Petition could be
reached; the number of signatures would easily grow from the current 550 to exceed
1500. BY COMPARISON, THERE WERE ONLY 997 VOTERS IN THE LAST
LA PORTE GENERAL ELECTION.
If all La Porte taxpayers knew the City was wasting app. $1,000,000 of their tax money
on local combined projects that are strongly opposed by the local taxpayers these
projects are supposed to benefit; a large wheel barrow wouldn't be able to carry all the
signatures... and of course We will make other taxpayers aware through the newspapers.
This money is desperately needed to solve flooding problems in East Lomax and other
areas.
As one of the 16 Coordinators for our taxpayers group, I think this is where our group
stands:
1. We will actively work for the removal of elected and appointed representatives and
of bureaucrats who defend this Phase 1 road or try to straddle the fence in order to
avoid the blame for building it.
2. We will present our Petition to City Council during the Oct. 12 City Council
meeting.
3. If this Petition is ignored we will repetition the same taxpayers to force an initiative
for a city ordinance to permanently ban this type of assault on our neighborhoods...
and with our Petition signatures exceeding 1/2 the number of voters in the last general
election, We legally can and will do it.
Our Lomax/Glen Meadows Council member, Guy Sutherland has attempted to speak for
the City and the Council in recent Bayshore Sun Articles. However, Mr. Sutherland is
only one of 9 Council Members and you have just read remarks by some of the other
Council Members who are trying to justify not only Phase 1 but Phases 2 and 3 of the
Highway.
0
CJ
Page 3 of 6
Response:
a. The structural condition of #3 station and possible repair have not been professionally
or accurately studied. The assumed structural condition is based on some people seeing
"large" amounts of termite damage when interior wall coverings were replaced some
years ago.
b. The softball fields will be moved to Little Cedar Bayou Park and that area will
become Rodeo Arena parking. I think this will eliminate the concern about mixing
Fire Trucks with children ... and again, there has been no needs/impact study to justify
any of item #2.
3. (EMS Route) EMS services for the West side of the city are located just East of Sens
Road at Spencer. Every possible Scenario I can think of on this item shows that the Phase
1 road is not needed. Again, a detailed needs/impact study was not done.
4. (Emergency Evacuation) Underwood Rd. is now 5 lanes. The new 4 lane East Blvd. is
just 1/2 mile West of Underwood Rd. Hwy 146 is being extensively expanded. Bay Area
Blvd. will tie into Sens Rd. which will become 4 lanes to Hwy 225. All of this should
tell any logically thinking person that in an emergency evacuation the obvious traffic jam
for our evacuation route may occur were traffic funnels into the Baytown bridge and
other funnel points, Not on Farrington Blvd.
Again, there has been No needs/impact study. Only notional thinking.
5. (Open up Lomax) I have driven through out most of the Subdivisions in recent weeks.
They are a maze of dead ends and tees. I've become lost more times than I can count.
These sub divisions were intentionally designed this way to eliminate through traffic that
doesn't belong there. Yet the Council Member making this statement thinks it is OK to
"open up" Lomax and dump through traffic and rush hour traffic through 2 elementary
school zones and 3 recreational areas. This isn't just poor planning with No needs/impact
study. This is gross negligence.
6. (Convenient Travel) As stated in item 5. Subdivisions are designed to eliminate
through traffic and convenience through traffic travel. Lomax, Glen Meadows, and
Fairmont Park taxpayers have the same right as other taxpayers to keep our existing street
structure to eliminate through traffic and maintain our property values and neighborhood
environment. One persons' desire for a convenience does not justify another persons' loss
of property value and/or existing neighborhood environment. This is a basic American
right.
7.(We Can't Stop Progress) This worn out clich6 has been used many times to financially
benefit a select few at the cost of the existing general good of the many. I think it's use as
a justification for the Phase 1 road points out that the City has attempted to push this road
through with no input from the taxpayers affected by it.
• 0
�1
Page 2 of 6
3. Now that Council Members are aware of the Strong objection to this Phase 1 road by
a very large number of taxpayers; They are still attempting to justify wasting the
taxpayers money on this unwanted, unnecessary Phase 1 road by
broad general cliches, notional ideas, and unstudied, unverified information.
I have talked at length with 5 Council Members and they did not mention one single
word about how this Highway will decrease our hard earned property values, and
reduce our neighborhood environments in Lomax, Glen Meadows, and Fairmont Park.
Instead, they mentioned:
1. The school system wants it for a shorter bus route.
2. Emergency vehicles need a shorter route.
3. I'm concerned about EMS response time.
4. We need it for emergency evacuation.
5. We need to "open up" Lomax.
6. The road will make travel more convenient for me.
7. We can't stop progress.
8. We can't put the needs of 30 homeowners above the needs of 32,000 other citizens.
Some of these may sound good on the surface, but let's take a closer look and address
each one with specifics instead of general cliches, notional ideas, and fuzzy concepts that
are not backed up by factual input.
L(Bus Route) I contacted the La Porte I.S.D. Superintendent and the Transportation
Director. Neither one knew the Phase 1 road was starting. They had informally
mentioned wanting the road to the City Administration about 3 years ago. Now that they
are aware of the road, They want it to bus students from North of Meadow Place Dr. in
Glen Meadows to Lomax Elementary School because of overcrowding at their home
school of Rizzuto.
Response. The logical, cost effective answer to this problem is to put our tax money in
to a permanent fix by adding more class rooms at Rizzuto or another school and not
waste it on a temporary band aid fix for the school system that will have a permanent
serious negative effect on over 550+ people in established neighborhoods.
2. (Emergency Vehicle Route) Fire Chief Joe Sease wants the Phase 1 road so the #2
Spencer Fire Station can respond to the center of Lomax more quickly. If this Phase 1
Road is completed, he plans to build a new $500,000 Fire Station probably at "P" Street
and Sens Rd. for 2 reasons.
a. The current #3 Lomax Fire Station is structurally unsound because of termite damage
b. The dangers of Fire Trucks existing and traveling so close to the softball fields and
Rodeo Arena. I think this is a logical concern with evidence to back it up.
9-30-98 Page 1 of 6
Fellow Taxpayers,
This letter is intended to summarize the facts and positions on our efforts to stop the
Highway being planned for our sub divisions.
Important dates:
Oct. 6- 6:00-9:30 PM -We meet at Farrington Blvd Rec. Center (near the water tower)
for discussion and info sharing. Our consultant Barry Klein will lead some
discussion and answer questions. Mr. Klein is also currently working with
taxpayers to stop the Bayport container ship terminal and has worked with
taxpayers to stop Harris County rail transit, Houston Zoning, etc.etc..
Oct.12- 6:00- 7:00 PM - City Hall Council Chambers- We Present the Petition to Council
at their bi-monthly meeting.
Oct. 27- 7:00 PM- Sylvan Beach Conference Center( Pavilion)- VERY IMPORTANT
If you can only make 1 meeting to save your property values and
neighborhood environment, This Is The One To Attend.
Open Public Meeting to start the Review of the Comprehensive Plan. If we
eliminate all three phases of this "Highway" from the plan it becomes extremely
difficult for the City to build it later. Please attend and get on the committees and
voice your facts and opinions.
Background Facts:
a.The City's Comprehensive Plan that was developed in 1984, shows Farrington Blvd.
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Hwy 225.
b. On Sept. 26,1994, City Planning Director Charles Harrington wrote on a city
letterhead to a resident about this road stating that:
1. Phase 1 would connect Farrington Blvd. to Lomax School Road.
2. Phase 2 would connect "P" Street to Hwy 225 at some time probably after 2001
3. Phase 3 would make the entire project 4 lanes in app. 2004 to 2009.
c. On Aug 25,1998 the City's current Planning Director referred to this three phase
project as a "Highway" when comparing it to Underwood Road.
d. On Sept.14,1998 the City approved $321,000 in It's General Budget to
build Phase 1 of the "Highway". However Council Members have said that any
Budget item may be removed simply not funding it. Phase 1 construction can
still be easily stopped by the City.
Many members of our group have talked with several of the City Council Members
about the proposed Highway through our neighborhoods and it has become very evident
the start of the Phase 1 road was recently proposed and budgeted with:
a. Little or no thought given to this roads' serious current negative impact on a large
number of taxpayers.
b. Little or no, input from or concern for negatively affected taxpayers.
c. Little or no current needs analysis or impact analysis or engineering study etc.
No Highway,Wo
.
4-Lane Roadway
As we reported on Page 1 of today's edition, La Porte City
Council is in the process of considering a proposal that calls
for Farrington Boulevard to be extended to Avenue H in the
Lomax area of the city.
That proposal, as noted on Page 1, calls for a 28-foot wide
concrete street. It would be a residential street. There would
be stop signs along the way, and it would not be open to
truck traffic. The speed limit would be 30 miles per hour.
This current proposal, however, is in conflict with the
city's Comprehensive Plan of 1984 -- a plan that is still, at
least theoretically, in place in 1998, at least until a new com-
prehensive plan can be established.
Back in 1984, and for several years beyond that, in fact,
La Porte had a serious lack of major north -south traffic
arteries. Highway 146 was mostly a bottleneck during any
sort of crisis situation. There was no four -lane Underwood
Road connecting Fairmont Parkway. with Highway 225.
But today, things are vastly different. Highway 146 is
about to be one of the finest such thoroughfares in the state.
There will be a widened overpass at Main Street, an over-
pass at Barbour's Cut Boulevard, a new Highway
146/Highway 225 interchange, and a new connection to the
eight -lane Fred Hartman Bridge, which connects on the
north side of the Ship Channel to a vastly improved
Highway 14.6 section that connects with Interstate 10.
Also, Underwood Road is in place, and the City of Deer
Park is about to open East Boulevard, which adds even
more to the current Underwood Road connection with
Highway 225 -- which, by the way, has also been drastically
inproved. A:so, Spencer Highway?has been widened and
improved significantly, so that t4b a new north -south thor-
oughfares offer more oppor.tumtaes to get east -west as well.
Also, plans are in place to'extetid Bay Area Boulevard with
a four -lane roadway to Speneec Kighway, and to eventually
tie that in to what will evenlivally be a widened and
improved Sens Road, connecting to Highway 225.
With all of.these changesJn place, there is absolutely and
positively no need for any more major north -south thor-
oughfares in La Porte. They are either in place, or soon will
be. So the 1984 suggestion that Farrington Boulevard be
expanded to four -lanes from Spencer to Highway 225 is now
a bad idea. Not prudent. Not needed. Not wanted.
There is no need to convince the city that a four -lane
Farrington from Spencer to Highway 225 is not needed.
City officials already know that. The task at hand, rather. is
to first convince the citizens in that area that the four -lane
expansion plan is history. And at the same time, somebody
needs to make sure that everyone understands that no
"highway" will ever be built along Farrington. The city does
not build highways. Underwood Road is a road, it is not a
highway. Bay Area Boulevard is a boulevard, not a highway.
Everyone should please forget the term highway, in regards
to this Farrington issue. In using the term "highway" when
talking about Farrington, nothing could be farther from
the truth.
So now comes the task of determining if the people in that
area of La Porte want a two-lane roadway extension along
Farrington, from Spencer to Avenue H. Maybe they do.
Maybe they do not. But the fact is, since It will be a residen-
tial street, those are the people who would, for the most
part, be using it.
If you ask someone who lives in the area if he or she wants
Farrington to be converted into a highway that connects
with Highway 225, the likely response will be a resounding
"No Way." So the big question now is, if you ask that same
someone if he or she wants a two-lane residential street
extension to go in from Spencer to Avenue H, what will the
answer be?
In our opinion, if the folks who would mostly be using it
want it, then build it. If they don't want it, don't build it.
Use the money elsewhere.
J
Future ans -To
LP Council T
Although the matter was not on the agenda for Monday night's meeting,
the possible extension of Farrington Boulevard from' just north of Spencer
Highway to Avenue H was the key top of discussion.
First, resident Bill Scott addressed council on the Farrington matter, out-
lining his opposition to the city's budgeted plan of spending some $300,000
on the above mentioned Farrington extension, by putting down a 28-foot-
wide, two-lane concrete roadway.
And later in the meeting, both Councilmen Guy Sutherland and Alton
Porter addressed the issue, noting that a substantional amount of information
has been circulating about the proposed project, and that not all of that infor-
mation matches the city's plans concerning Farrington.
Sutherland is the city's representative on the Houston -Galveston Area
Council (H-GAC), and as part of his duties on that body, he is a member of
the eight -county Transportation Policy Council. Contacted by The Bayshore
Sun Tuesday morning, Sutherland said that information has been circulated
here indicating that the city. plays to eventually make Farrington a four -lane.
divided "highway" that will connect Spencer with Highway 225.
Sutherland said that information comes from the city's 1984
Comprehensive Plan, which focused on adding north -south access within
city limits.
"Things have changed a great deal since that time," Sutherland said
Tuesday. "With Highway 146 having been expanded, with Underwood Road
now being four lanes between Fairmont Parkway and 225, with Deer Park
about to add East Boulevard to expand access to 225, and with plans in place
to extend Bay Area Boulevard to Spencer Highway, the 1984
Comprehensive Plan is old information.
"The first thing we have to do at the city is prove to the residents that we
have no plans to make Farrington a four -lane roadway," Sutherland said. "I
have been meeting with people in my district to convince them of this. Then
we have to explain that the two-lane Farrington extension would help get cit-
izens in that area from once place to another more conveniently. And we also
need to point out to them that another plus would be that part of the road-' -
work would include drainage work that would help the drainage problems iA
that area. We wouldn't start any work on this until the start of next year, so
there is plenty of time to talk about it and exchange information."
And speaking of the Comprehensive Plan, a meeting of the city's
Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee was to have been held Tuesday
night at City Hall. At that meeting, city planners Wilbur Smith & Associates
were to have presented a report on the process of establishing a new plan for
the city.
Also at Monday night's council session, council agreed 8-0 (Councilman
Howard Ebow was not present) to add to the city's Code of Ordinances cri-
teria governing tax abatement agreements, and after a public hearing on the
matter, designated a "PPG Industries Reinvestment Zone."
The only "no" vote cast Monday came from Councilman Porter, who voted
against an agreement between the city and Morgan's Point for La Porte to
provide 911 emergency dispatch, jail, fire protection and emergency ambu-
lance service. The measure passed, 7-1.
No Highway,Wo
.
4-Lane Roadway
As we reported on Page 1 of today's edition, La Porte City
Council is in the process of considering a proposal that calls
for Farrington Boulevard to be extended to Avenue H in the Future
Plans
_ O
Lomax area of the city. That proposal, as noted on Page 1, calls for a 28-foot wide
concrete street. It would be a residential street. There would
be stop signs along the way, and it would not be open to
truck traffic. The speed limit would be 30 miles per hour. Counc1*1
This current proposal, however, is in conflict with the LP city's Comprehensive Plan of 1984 -- a plan that is still, at
least theoretically, in place in 1998, at least until a new com- Although the matter was not on the agenda for Monday night's meeting,
prehensive plan can be established. the possible extension of Farrington Boulevard from'' just north of Spencer
Back in 1984, and for several years beyond that, in fact, Highway to Avenue H was the key top of discussion.
La Porte had a serious lack of major north -south traffic First, resident Bill Scott addressed council on the Farrington matter, out -
arteries. Highway 146 was mostly a bottleneck during any lining his opposition to the city's budgeted plats of spending some $300,000
sort of crisis situation. There was no four -lane Underwood on the above mentioned Farrington extension, by putting down a 28-foot-
Road connecting Fairmont Parkway. with Highway 225. wide, two-lane concrete roadway.
But today, things are vastly different. Highway 1 iAnd later in the meeting, both Councilmen Guy Sutherland and Alton
about to be one of the finest such thoroughfares in the stato te..
There will be a widened overpass at Main Street, an over- Porter addressed the issue, noting that a substantional amount of information
pass at Barbour's Cut Boulevard, a new Highway has been circulating about the proposed project, and that not all of that infor-
146/Highway 225 interchange, and a new connection to the mation matches the city's plans concerning Farrington.
eight -lane Fred Hartman Bridge, which connects on the Sutherland is the city's representative on the Houston -Galveston Area
north side of the Ship Channel to a vastly improved Council (H-GAC), and as part of his duties on that body, he is a member of
Highway 146 section that connects with Interstate 10. the eight -county, Transportation Policy Council. Contacted by The Bayshore
Also, Underwood Road is in place, and the City of Deer Sun Tuesday morning, Sutherland said that information has been circulated
Park is about to open East Boulevard, which adds even here indicating that the city plays to eventually make Farrington a four -lane,
more to the current Underwood Road connection with divided "highway" that will connect Spencer with Highway 225.
Highway 225 -- which, by the way, has also been drastically Sutherland said that information comes from the city's 1984
inproved. A:so, Spencer Highwayrhas been widened and
b a new north -south thor- Comprehensive Plan, which focused on adding north -south access within
improved significantly, so that t4
oughfares offer more opportunide; to get east -west as well. city limits.
Also, plans are in place to extend Bay Area Boulevard with "Things have changed a great deal since that time," Sutherland said
a four -lane roadway to Speneer'pighway, and to eventually Tuesday. "With Highway 146 having been expanded, with Underwood Road
tie that in to what will eventually be a widened and now being four lanes between Fairmont Parkway and 225, with Deer Park
improved Sens Road, connecting to Highway 225. about to add East Boulevard to expand access to 225, and with plans in place
With all of.these changes In place, there is absolutely and to extend Bay Area Boulevard to Spencer Highway, the 1984
positively no need for any more- major north -south thor- Comprehensive Plan is old information.
oughfares in La Porte. They are either in place, or soon will "The first thing we have to do at the city is prove to the residents that we
be. So the 1984 suggestion that Farrington Boulevard be have no plans to make Farrington a four -lane roadway," Sutherland said. "I
expanded to four -lanes from Spencer to Highway 225 is now have been meeting with people in my district to convince them of this. Then
a bad idea. Not prudent. Not needed. Not wanted. we have to explain that the two-lane Farrington extension would het
There is no need to convince the city that a four -lane FiP get cit-
e
Farrington from Spencer to Highway 225 is not needed. izens'in that area from once place to another more conveniently. And we also
City officials already know that. The task at hand, rather, is need to point out to them that another plus would be that part of the road? -
to first convince the citizens in that area that the four -lane Rork would inclu&44 ainaAe work that would help the drainage problems if-i
expansion plan is history. And at the same time, somebody that area. We wouldn't start any work on this until the start of next year, so
needs to make sure that everyone understands that no there is plenty of time to talk about it and exchange information."
"highway" will ever be built along Farrington. The city does And speaking of the Comprehensive Plan, a meeting of the city's
not build highways. Underwood Road is a road, it is not a Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee was to have been held Tuesday
highway. Bay Area Boulevard is a boulevard, not a highway. night at City Hall. At that meeting, city planners Wilbur Smith & Associates
Everyone should please forget the term highway, in regards were to have presented a report on the process of establishing a new plan for
to this Farrington issue. In using the term "highway" when the city.
talking about Farrington, nothing could be farther from the truth. Also at Monday night's council session, council agreed 8-0 (Councilman
Howard Ebow was not present) to add to the city's Code of Ordinances cri-
area of La Porte want atwo-lane roadway extension along
So now comes the task of determining the people in that teria governing tax abatement agreements, and after a public hearing on the
Farrington, from Spencer to Avenue H. Maybe they do. matter, designated a "PPG Industries Reinvestment Zone."
Maybe they do not. But the fact is, since it will be a residen- The only "no" vote cast Monday came from Councilman Porter, who voted
tial street, those are the people who would, for the most against an agreement between the city and Morgan's Point for La Porte to
part, be using it. provide 911 emergency dispatch, jail, fire protection and emergency ambu-
If you ask someone who lives in the area if he or she wants lance service. The measure passed, 7-1.
Farrington to be converted into a highway that connects — with Highway 225, the likely response will be a resounding
"No Way." So the big question now is, if you ask that same
someone if he or she wants a two-lane residential street
extension to go in from Spencer to Avenue H, what will the
answer be?
In our opinion, if the folks who would mostly be using it
want it, then build it. If they don't want it, don't build it.
Use the money elsewhere.
0 0
10-16-00 Council presentation notes.
1. Mr. Guttery of the Texas Airports Development Office has stated that,"... our
Advisory Circular on Airport Design does not preclude roads from being in RPZs".
Let's see what the Design Standards say. Page 13 yields the only information in the
Design Standards regarding vehicles in an RPZ. Sec.212(2)(a) states," Automobile
parking facilities although discouraged, may be permitted, provided the parking facilities
and any associated appurtenances, in addition to meeting all of the preceding conditions,
are located outside of the object free area extension(as depicted in fig. 2-3). Of course,
it also stands on it's own that vehicles and people are objects per the page 2 definition
and are not navigational aids and are therefore required to be cleared from the Object
Free Area extension. And of course this is located under standards and not under
recommendations and is therefore mandatory for this RPZ because La Porte used a
Federal grant to buy the RPZ. About 700 ft. of the proposed Phase 1 Road would not
meet the OFA extension clearing requirements.
When I talked with Jim Curl, the Tex DOT inspector for this Airport, on the subject of
roads through an RPZ, I said,"I guess the upshot of all that is that you guys don't want
roads within your RPZ", and he replied," or within the OFZ or RSA, any of the three". he
also stated that "if we can purchase the old and get rid of it, we do that ", but said that
sometimes roads (existing before 1989) had to be grandfathered in because "highways are
awfully expensive to move". I said, "but if it is new stuff, you don't want them in there".
He replied ,"That's right."
Using the Design standards as we did above, We can just as easily prove that the
Farrington extension would not comply with the requirements of the Instrument approach
thresh hold or the Localizer antenna critical area that is supposed to be cleared of all
objects.
When I talked with Mr. Legeratta of the Washington D.C. FAA regarding RPZs, he
stated,"If you take the federal money we want you to make all the efforts to obtain the
land". I think it is obvious the City did NOT "make all the efforts to obtain the land".
He also said that," even if an Airport does not accept Federal dollars and looked at the
book and says it is just a recommendation, when it comes to an accident, the Airport is
kinda hanging out there... because the judges will say. Why aren't you taking the
recommendations?" and La Porte is governed under the more strict "mandatory" view of
the standards, not the recommended view.
So with all these facts that prove that the Phase 1 Road should not be in the RPZ, Why
is Mr. Guttery insisting it is O.K. Sadly, many of us have seen this sort of thing at work
and in government many times. A bad decision is made and when it becomes apparent;
the people that made the decision choose to stonewall and push the decision rather than
take corrective action.
Will the La Porte City Council be a part of taking the corrective action? Or will the City
Council be part of pushing a very bad, very dangerous decision.
Thanks for your time and consideration, sec
Bill Scott, Treasurer for CSG
9-11-00 City Council Budget Public Hearing
Council Members and Fellow Citizens;
This letter continues the discussion of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airport
Design Standard AC: 150/5300-13 A&B. The first section is a review of important items
from the 8-24-00 presentation to Council in outline form:
Cover Letter by Leonard E. Mudd, Director of Office of Airport Safety and Standards
The standards are mandatory and not just recommendations that can be ignored as some
at City Hall have thought. A recent conversation with George Lagarreta of the FAA
Head Office in Washington D.C. confirmed that recommendations stated as
"desirable", "encouraged", "recommended", "should", "preferably", etc.; have the force
of being "mandatory" for airport projects receiving Federal grant-in-aid assistance as
La Porte received to purchase Property for the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ), Object
Free Area Extension (OFA), Obstacle Free Zone (®FZ), and Threshold Approach
Surface at the North West end of the La Porte Airport.
NOTES:
1. By definition on page 2; People and Vehicles are Objects.
2. La Porte Airport is a class B-II, Large Airplane Airport. It is classed for airplanes of
more than 12,500 Lbs. certified takeoff weight, landing speeds greater than 91 knots
but less than 121 knots, and wing spans of 49 & up to 79 fft.
3. A drawing traced 'from the scaled City drawing of this area is provided to clarify
locations of La Porte Airport Safety Areas.
THE RUNWAY�PROTECTION. ZONE ///RZ
1. Wage 9, 201:6'(2)'=Prin6iples of Application"=:"All other existing and planned
elements;-uicluding the following should be on airport property: Object Free Areas,
Runway Protection Zones, Imaginary surfaces out to 35 fL. abovOhe primary surface,
and areas wherednC inpatible land uses are uncontrollable.. :
CONCLUSION:4i is.mandatory that the RPZ-and OFAs; and'certain imaginary
surfaces be bn' UPorte:Airport Property.,, The right of way.for-the proposed. -Phase 1.
road should have never been cut out of the RPZ land purchase.
2.-Page: �12, 212. "The RPZ's' function is to .enhance the'protection o6eople and property
on the ground. Thi•s`is achieved through airport owner control over.:RPZs: Such,
control includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear).of incompatible
objects and activities:''Control is preferablyexercised through.the acquisition of
sufficient property interest in the RPZ.
CONCLUSION: Again, It is mandatory that the RPZ be on La Porte Airport Property
and that it be cleared of incompatible objects. The right of way for the proposed Phase
1 road should have never been cut out of the RPZ land purchase.
3. Page 140 Appendix 8, sec.8. "The RPZs function is to enhance the protection of people
& property on the ground. Where practical, airport owners should own the property
under the runway approach & departure areas to at least the limits of the RPZ. It is
desirable to clear the entire RPZ of all above ground objects".. And by definition,
vehicles are objects.
CONCLUSION: The Phase 1 Road would not meet the RPZ clearing requirements.
....and now let's continue on with the FAA airport design standards that are mandatory
for the North West end of the Airport.
Conversations with Texdot Aviation's La Porte Inspector Jim Curl and George
Lagarreta of the Federal Aviation Administration's Head Office In Washington D.C.
clarify what is practical -in item 3 above. Mr. Curl has stated that sometimes it is not
practical to move an existing highway and realign the businesses on it, so it is
grandfathered. Texdot does not like it, but there isn't much they can do about it. That
occurred in the same conversation that Mr. Curl stated that Texdot buys up old roads
-when they can and that they don't want new roads in the RPZ, or the OFA, or the OFZ,
or the RSA.
Mr. Legarreta stated regarding the "Z; that the FAA wants the airport owner
receiving a grant, to make all the efforts to obtain the land. The City obviously did not
make all the efforts to obtain the land for the RPZ because the City worked to have the
Phase 1 road right of way cut out of the RPZ.
CONCLUSION: The Airport disregarded the mandatory requirement that
they own all of the RPZ when it was practical and easy for them to own it.
THE OBJECT.FRPE,AREA:
i 4. Page 22 -par. 307. `.`The runway OFA clearing standard requires clearing the OFA of
above ground objects protruding above the runway safety area edge elevation about
&same elevation -as the runway)", except those objects needed for air navigation,
which must be of al�eak-away design. "Extension of the OFA beyond the.standard
length to the maximum extent feasible is. encouraged.. See Figure 2-3" a Figure 2-3
shows the OFA extended the full length of the RPZ and once the Airport bought the
I RPZ land witha Federal grant there was nothing to keep the OFA froffi being
extended:
CONCLUSION; About 700 & of the proposed Phase I Road would not meet the OFA
extension clearing requirements.
B 16
THRESHOLD APPROCACH SURFACE REQUIREMENTS:
5. Page 101, 3.a "Threshold displacement or relocation should be undertaken only after
full evaluation reveals that displacement or relocation is the only practical alternative."
The threshold is the beginning of that portion of the runway available for landing. The
threshold on runway 12 at the North West end of the Airport is currently displaced 190
ft. East because the old property chain link fence would violate the Obstruction Free
Zone if the threshold were at the end of the pavement as it is now required to be.
CONCLUSION: Now that the Airport owns the RPZ land, threshold displacement is no
longer the only practical alternative. It is mandatory that the fence and the threshold be
moved North West. '
6. Page 102 5.d(1)(2) When the requirements in item # 5 are met, the proposed Phase I
Road violates yet another safety -zone; the Threshold Approach Surface. La Porte
Airport has'requested an instrument approach system and has' gone so far as to put a
localizes antenna on the survey drawing; even though that particular instrument
approach'system is not yet installed. 5.d(1) states, "For Approach End of Runways,
ExceptlStol.Ruuways,Expected to Accommodate Instrument Approaches having
Visibili .IVluuinums Lower Than,1 Mile "and lower thadl mileis;the most lenient
of the 2 possibiLties) '(1:) " No object should penetrate a surface that starts 200 ft. out
from the"threshold and at the elevation of the runway centerline at the threshold and
;f ;ry > slopes'itpward from the starting point at a slope of 20ft.(horizo4t4):to l ft.(vertical)."
.`st�.rz..: 1' �,.,. �Y, ')
(2.) "Iri the,P,lan view, the centerline of tlus'surfare extends j 0,000 ft:• along the '
extended ivnway centerline: This surface extends laterally'500 ft on each side of the
., in
centerline at tlie:staiting point'and increases in width 2,000 ft. 'at the far end of the
• � surface ,;17,- . ` � , • E - . .
C0 ICLIISI®N'Vith the current,11i6shold•location; anyobject on the proposed Phase
1'Road wl ere tswoul .-bidd Farringtonwould have to be under about 5 ft. tall or the .
s ;.
object wouldviolate� e:,. esliold.Approach Surface. Many vehicles.are taller than 5ft.
School buses and delivery vans are abouY-10'f� tall.
When the thresliotd gs.m6v4to it .s mandatory location required in item # 5; a large
amount of the proposed Phase 'I Road'will come under the,'objects less than 5 fi. tall
requirement.
So with all of these�violations; how did it come to pass that the City was able to cut the
Phase• 1 Road right of way out of the RPZ land purchase? From the information I've
gathered, there are no sure answers, only possibilities. It possibly happened like the
Challenger 7 disaster. One. part of government trying to help out another part of
government, or possibly the technical people that knew the design standards, were either
not involved or were coerced by management or politicians into accepting known safety
0 • 4
standard deviations violations, or possibly the people that were making decisions were
not up to date with the ever changing design standards.
When I told Jim Curl, the Texdot Aviation Inspector for the La Porte Airport, about the
Phase I Road he seemed unaware of it and said an office person named Diana handled
the land acquisition, and Diana had resigned and moved to Montana, and her
replacement, Charlotte, probably would not know the details of the land acquisition.
George Legarreta of the FAA Head Office in Washington D.C. made a very interesting
point during our conversation. He said that even if an Airport does not accept Federal
grant money so the Airport Design Standards would only be recommendations; the
Airport would still be hanging way out with liability in a lawsuit if there were an
accident, because the first question a judge would ask would be why known standards
were not adhered to;. and La Porte is governed under the more strict "mandatory" view of
the standards, not the recommended view. I'll state the obvious. Not only would the City
be liable. The individuals involved in pushing the Phase I Road through would be
personally liable... forever; and of course now that we have made all this public; it would
be called willful negligence. There have already been 2 plane crashes that I'm aware of,
at the -ends -of La Porte Airport runways and attempted landings where La Porte Airport
was thought to be Ellington Airport because both Airports have the same orientation.
Thanks for Your time and Consideration,
C
Bill Scott, Treasurer for the GPAC "Common Sense Government"
_ I
Advifory
'r few
ofTro par,rt,ent Circular
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
Darr. 929/89 AC No. I50/5300-13
Subject: AIRPORT DESIGN initiated by: AAS-110 Change:
I. 11URPOSE. This advisory circular (AC)
)
contains the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA)
standards and recommendations for airport design.
2. CANCELLATION. This (AC) cancels the
following publications:
a. AC 150/5300-2D, Airport Design
Standards --Site Requirements for Terminal
Navigational Facilities, dated March 10, 1980.
b. AC 150/5300-4B, Utility Airports—Alr
Access to National Transportation, dated
June 24, 1975.
c. AC 15015300-12. Airport Design
Standards. -Transport Airports, dated
February 28, 1983.
'4'" F. hv,.j.t
Leotard E. Mudd. Director
office of Airport Safety and Standards
d. AC 150/5325-5C. Aircraft Data, dated
June 29, 1987.
e. AC 150/5335-2, Airport Aprons, dated
January 27. 1965.
3. APPLLCA'I'IUN. The standards and
recommendations contained in this advisory circular
are recommended by the Federal Aviation
Administration for use in the design of civil airports.
For airport projects receiving Federal grant-in-aid
assistance, the use of these standards " -mandatory.
At aeatificated,. airports, the standar s and
recommendations may be used to satisfy specific
requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
Part 139, Certification and Operations: Land Airports
Serving Certain Air Carriers, Subpart D.
AC 150/5300- l3 CHG 5 0
(c) When the thresholds are
staggered and the approach is to the far threshold, the
minimum 2,500-foot (762 m) separation requires an
increase of 100 feet (30 m) for every 500 feet (152 m)
of threshold stagger.
209. RUNWAY TO PARALLEL TAXIWAY
AND TAXILANE SEPARATION.
a. Standards. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present
the runway centerline to parallel taxiway/taxilane
centerline separation standard. This distance is such to
satisfy the requirement that no part of an aircraft (tail
tip, wing tip) on taxiway/taxilane centerline is within
the runway safety area or penetrates the obstacle free
zone (OFZ). The computer program cited in
appendix 11 may be used to determine the increase to
these separation distances for elevation.
b. Recommendations. To have room for
the acute -angled exit taxiway, provide a runway
centerline to parallel taxiway centerline of at least 400
feet (120 m) for Airplane Design Groups I and II,
500 feet (150 m) for Airplane Design Group III, and
600 feet (180 m) for Airplane Design Groups IV, V,
and VI.
210. BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE (BRL).
A BRL should be placed on an airport layout plan for
identifying suitable building area locations on airports.
The BRL should encompass the runway protection
zones, the runway object free area, the runway
visibility zone (see paragraph 503), NAVAID critical
areas, areas required for terminal instrument
procedures, and airport traffic control tower clear line
of sight.
4.1T'�ECT CLEARING CRITERIA. Safe and
o22��f cie7l-operations at an airport require that certain
areas on and near the airport be clear of objects or
restricted to objects with a certain function,
composition, and/or height. The object clearing
criteria subdivides the 14 CFR Part 77, Subpart C,
airspace and the object fi-ee area (OFA) ground area by
type of objects tolerated within each subdivision.
Aircraft are controlled by the aircraft operating rules
and not by this criteria.
a. Standards. Object clearance
requirements are as follows:
(1) Object Free -Area (OFA). Object
free areas require clearing of objects as specified in
paragraph 307, Runway Object Free Area, and
paragraph 404, Taxiway and Taxilane Object Free
Area (OFA).
2/ 14/97
(2) Runway and Taxiway Safety
Areas. Runway and taxiway safety areas require
clearing of objects, except for objects that need to be
located in the runway or taxiway safety area because of
their function. Objects higher than 3 inches (7.6 cm)
above grade should be constructed on low impact
resistant supports (frangible mounted structures) of the
lowest practical height with the frangible point no
higher than 3 inches (7.6 cm) above grade. Other
objects, such as manholes, should be constructed at
grade. In no case should their height exceed 3 inches
(7.6 cm) above grade. Underground fuel storage
facilities should not be located within runway and
taxiway safety areas (see AC 150/52304), Aircraft
Fuel Storage, Handling, and Dispensing on Airports).
Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 4-1 specify runway and
taxiway safety area standard dimensions.
(3) Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ).
Obstacle Free Zones require clearing of object
penetrations, except for frangible visual NAVAIDs that
need to be located in the OFZ because of their function.
Paragraph 306 specifies OFZ standard dimensions.
(4) Threshold. The threshold obstacle
clearance surfaces, defined in Appendix 2,
paragraph 5, require clearing of object penetrations.
(5) NAVAIDs. Certain areas require
clearing for the establishment and operation of
NAVAIDs. These NAVAID critical areas are depicted
in chapter 6.
i
(6) 14 CFR Part 77 Obstructions' to
Air Navigation. Obstructions to air navigation must
be removed unless an FAA aeronautical study, based
on proposed operations, determined otherwise. To
determine otherwise, the FAA must find no substantial
adverse effect as defined in Order 7400.2, Procedures
for Handling Airspace Matters, Chapter 7, Evaluating
Aeronautical Effect, Section 1, General. The FAA,
normally, limits aeronautical studies of existing objects
to obstructions to air navigation which are not included
in the criteria cited in paragraphs 211a(1) through (5).
(7) Ranway.-Protection Zone-
The RPZ requires clearing of incompatible objects and
activities as specified in paragraphs 212a(1 xa) and
212a(2).
(8) General. Other objects which
require clearing are those which generally can have an
adverse effect on the airport. These include objects in
the inner part of the approach area (coinciding with the
RPZ) such as fuel handling and storage facilities,
smoke and dust generating activities, misleading
lights, and those which may create glare or attract
wildlife.
12 Chap 2
0
AC 150/5300-13 CIKU
01
2/ 14/97 0
b. Recommendations. Other objects which
are desirable to clear, if practicable, are objects which
do not have a substantial adverse effect on the airport
but, if removed, will enhance operations. These
include objects in the controlled activity area and
obstructions to air navigation which are not covered in
paragraph 21 La, especially those penetrating an
approach surface. On a paved runway, the approach
surface starts 200 feet (61 m) beyond the area usable
for takeoff or landing, whichever is more demanding.
On an unpaved runway, the approach surface starts at
the end of the area usable for takeoff or landing.
212. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ).
The RPZ's function is to enhance the protection of
people and property on the ground. This is achieved
through airport owner control over RPZs. Such control
includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them
clear) of incompatible objects and activities. Control is
preferably exercised through the acquisition of
sufficient property interest in the RPZ.
a. Standards.
(1) RPZ Configuration/Location. The
RPZ is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the
extended runway centerline. The controlled activity
area and a portion of the Runway OFA are the two
components of the RPZ (see figure 2-3). The RPZ
dimension for a particular runway end is a function of
the type of aircraft and approach visibility minimum
associated with that runway end. Table 24 provides
standard_dimensiansdm..-:RPZs. Other than with a
speciatl application of declared distances, the RPZ
begins 200 feet (60 m) beyond the end of the area
usable for takeoff or landing. With a special
application of declared -distances, see Appendix 14,
separate approach and departure RPZs are required for
each runway end.
(a) The Runway OFA.
Paragraph 307 contains the location, dimension, and
clearing standards for the Runway OFA.
(b) The Controlled Activity
Area. The controlled activity area is the portion of the
RPZ beyond and to the sides of the Runway OFA.
(2) Land Use. In addition to the
criteria specified in paragraph 211, the following land
use criteria apply within the RPZ:
(a) While it is desirable to clear
all objects from the RPZ, some uses are permitted,
provided they do not attract wildlife, are outside of the
Runway OFA, Iand do not interfere with navigational
aids. Golf courses (but not club houses) and
agricultural operations (other than forestry or livestock
farms) are expressly permitted under this proviso.
Automobile parking facilities, although discouraged,
may be permitted, provided the parking facilities and
any associated, appurtenances, in addition to meeting
all of the preceding conditions, are located outside of
the object friee area extension (as depicted in
figure 2-3). ,Fuel storage facilities should not be
located in the RPZ.
(b) Land uses prohibited from the
RPZ are: residences , and places of public assembly.
(Churches, schools, hospitals, office buildings,
shopping centers, and other uses with similar
concentrations of persons typify places of public
assembly.) Fuel storage facilities should not be located
in the RPZ.
b. Recommendations. Where it is
determined to be impracticable for the airport owner to
acquire and plan the land uses within the entire RPZ,
the RPZ land use standards have recommendation
status for that portion of the RPZ not controlled by the
airport owner. ` 'A
C. FAA Studies of Objects and Activities
in the VicinitX of Airports. The FAA policy is to
protect the public investment in the national airport
system. To implement this policy, the FAA studies
existing and pFoposed objects and'vactivities, both off
and on publi airports, with respect to their effect
upon the safe] and efficient use of the airports and
safety of persons and property on the ground. These
objects need not be obstructions to air navigation, as
defined in 14 CFR Part 77. As the result of a study,
the FAA may issue an advisory recommendation in
opposition to the presence of any off -airport object or
activity in the vicinity of a public -use airport that
conflicts with an airport planning or design standard or
recommendation.
213. to 2". RESERVED.
Chap 2
13
11/10/94 0 AC 150/53M!3 CIIGd
Fable 2-4Runway protection zone (RPZ) t nsions
Approach
facilities
Dimensions
Inner
Outer
Visibility
Expected
Length
Width
Width
RPZ
Minimums I/
To Serve
L
WI
WI
feet
(meters)
feet
(meters)
feet
(meters)
acres
Small
Aircraft
1,000
250
450
8.035
Exclusively
(300)
(75)
(135)
Visual
and
Aircraft
Approach
1,000
500
700
13.770
Not lower than
Categories
(300)
(150)
(210)
1-Mile (1 600 m)
A & B
Aircraft
Approach
1,700
500
1,010
29.465
Categories
(510)
(150)
(303)
C&D
Not lower than
All
1,700
1,000
1,510
48.978
3/4-Mile (1 200 m)
Aircraft
(510)
(300)
(453)
Lower Than
All
2,500
1,000
1,750
78.914
3/4-Mile (1200 m)
Aircraft
(750)
(300)
(525)
1/ The RPZ dimensional standards are for the runway end with the specified approach visibility minimums. The departure RPZ
dimensional standards are equal to or less than the approach RPZ dimensional standards. When a RPZ begins other than 200 feet (60 m)
beyond the runway end, separate approach and departure RPZs should be provided. Refer to appendix 14 for approach and departure RPZs.
19
Chap 2
I
,AC 150/5300-13 CIIG 2
Appendix 8
•
2/24/92
S. RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE (RPZ). Approach
protection zones were originally established to define land areas
underneath aircraft approach paths in which control by the airport
operator was highly desirable to prevent the creation of airport
hazards. Subsequently, a 1952 report by the President's Airport
Commission (chaired by James Doolittle), entitled "The Airport
and Its Neighbors," recommended the establishment of clear areas
beyond runway ends. Provision of these clear areas was not only
to preclude obstructions potentially hazardous to aircraft, but also
to control building construction as a protection from nuisance and
hazard to people on the ground. The Department of Commerce
concurred with the recommendation on the basis that this area was
"primarily for the purpose of safety and convenience to people on
the ground." The FAA adopted "Clear Zones" with dimensional
standards to
100
90
80
c 70
O
a
d
50
50
40
v
V
} 30
d
t
20
10
0
implement the Doolittle Commission's recommendation.
Guidelines were developed recommending that clear zones be kept
free of structures and any development which would create a place
of public assembly.
In conjunction with the introduction of the RPZ as a replacement
term for clear zone, the RPZ was divided into 'object free" and
"controlled activity" areas. The RPZ function is to enhance the
protection of people and property on die ground. Where practical,
airport owners should own the property under the runway
approach and departure areas to at least the limits of the RPZ. It is
desirable to clear the entire RPZ of all aboveground objects.
Where this is impractical, airport owners, as a minimum, shall
maintain the RPZ clear of all facilities supporting incompatible
activities. Incompatible activities include, but are not limited to,
those which lead to an assembly of people.
0 100 200 300 400 500 SUE)7UU tsuu nuu luuv 1 g00 '1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Oistance from rur"Y end Cfeet)
Figure A8-1. Approximate distance airplanes undershoot and overrun the runway end
140
1 1 / 10/94 r
AC I50/5300.! 3 CHG 4
Appendix 14
Appendix 14. DECLARED DISTANCES
1. APPLICATION. The use of declared distances for airport
design shall be limited to cases of existing constrained airports where
it is impracticable to provide the runway safety area (RSA), the
runway object free area (ROFA), or the runway protection zone
(RPZ) in accordance with the design standards in chapters 2 and 3.
a. This appendix, by treating the airplane's runway
performance distances independently, provides an alternative airport
design methodology by declaring distances to satisfy the airplane's
takeoff run, takeoff distance, accelerate -stop distance, and landing
distance requirements. The declared distances are takeoff run
available (TORA), takeoff distance available (TODA), accelerate -
stop distance available (ASDA), and landing distance available
(LDA) which when treated independently may include clearway and
stopway and may limit runway use. This alternative design
methodology may affect the beginning and ending of the RSA,
ROFA, RPZ, and primary surface.
b. Where declared distances differ, the primary surface
extends 200 feet (60 m) beyond each end of the runway or the far
end of each TODA whichever is further to protect departures to the
extent of the 14 CFR Part 77 approach surface for that runway end
i.e. 20:1, 34:1, and 50:1 originating at or beyond the end of TODA.
2. BACKGROUND. In applying declared distances in airport
design, it is helpful to understand the relationship between airplane
certification, aircraft operating rules, airport data, and airport design.
a Airplane certification provides the airplane's
performance distances. The performtance speeds, e.g., Vr, takeoff
decision speed, Vuw, lift-off speed, V2, takeoff safety speed, Vs%
stalling speed or the minimum steady flight speed in the landing
configuration, and the following distances to achieve or decelerate
from these speeds are established by the manufacturer and confirmed
during certification testing for varying climatological conditions,
operating weights, etc.
(1) Takeoff run - the distance to accelerate from
brake release to lift-0k plus safety factors.
(2) Takeoff distance - the distance to accelerate
from brake release past lift-off to start of takeoff climb, plus safety
factors.
(3) Accelerate -stop distance - the distance to
accelerate from brake release to Vr and then decelerate to a stop, plus
safety factors.
(4) Landing distance - the distance fiom the
threshold to complete the approach, touchdown, and decelerate to a
stop, plus safety factors-
b. Aircraft operating Hiles provide a minimum
acceptable level of safety by controlling the airplane maximtnn
operating weights by limiting the airplane's performance distances as
follows:
(1) Takeoff run shall not exceed the length of
runway.
(2) Takeoff distance shall not exceed the length
of runway plus clearway.
(3) Accelerate -stop distance shall not exceed the
length of runway plus stopway.
(4) Landing distance shall not exceed the length
of runway.
C. Airport data provides the runway length and/or the
following declared distance information for calculating maximum
operating weights and/or operating capability.
(I) Takeoff run available (TORA) - the length of
runway declared available and suitable for satisfying takeoff run
requirements.
(2) Takeoff distance available (TODA) - the
TORA plus the length of any remaining runway or clearway beyond
the far end of the TORA available for satisfying takeoff distance
requirements. The usable TODA length is controlled by obstacles
present in the departure area vis-a-vis aircraft performance. As such,
the usable TODA length is determined by the aircraft operator before
each takeoff and requires knowledge of the location of each
controlling obstacle in the departure area. Extending the usable
TODA lengths requires the removal of existing objects limiting the
usable TODA lengths.
(3) Accelerate -stop distance available (ASDA) -
the length of runway plus stopway declared available and suitable for
satisfying accelerate -stop distance requirements.
(4) Landing distance available (LDA) - the length
of runway declared available and suitable for satisfying landing
distance requirements.
3. FAA APPROVAL FOR APPLYING DECLARED
DISTANCES IN AIRPORT DESIGN. The application of declared
distances at a specific location requires prior FAA approval on a
case -by -case basis. Approval is reflected on the FAA -approved
Airport Layout Plan
275
T
AU 150/5300-13 CHG 4
Appendix 14
11/10/94
4. RUNWAY SAFETY AREA (RSA) AND RUNWAY
ONJECT FREE AREA (ROFA) LENGTHS. The standard RSA
length P in die following paragraphs is the length specified in tables 3-1,
3-2, and 3-3 for the RSA length beyond the runway ends. Tlic standard
ROFA length R in the following paragraphs is die length specified in
tables 3-1, 3-2, and 3-3 for the ROFA length beyond the runway ends. The
RSA and the ROFA shall extend for the full length of the runway plus die
greater of die following lengths beyond the runway ends for takeoff and
landing in both directions.
For takeoff.
(1) At the start of takeoff end of runway. The RSA
and the ROFA need to extend behind the start of takeoff to continue die
entrance taxiway safety area and taxiway object free area and/or provide an
area for jet blast protection. The portion of runway behind the start of
takeoff is unavailable and/or unsuitable for takeoff run, takeoff distance,
and accelerate -stop distance computations.
(2) At the far end of runway with stopway. The RSA
shall extend P and the ROFA shall extend R beyond the far end of stopway.
(3) At the far end of runway without stopway. The
RSA shall extend P and the ROFA shall extend R beyond the far end of
ASDA. The portion of runway beyond the ASDA is unavailable and/or
unsuitable for accelerate -stop distance computations.
b. For landing.
(1) At the approach end of runway. The RSA shall
extend P and the ROFA shall extend R before the threshold. The portion of
runway behind the threshold is unavailable and/or unsuitable for landing
distoice computations.
(2) At the rollout end of runway. The RSA shall
extend P and die ROFA shall extend R beyond the rollout end of LDA-
file portion of runway beyond the LDA is unavailable and/or unsuitable
for landing distance computations.
5. RUNWAY PBQTECfION ZONE (RPZ
I LOCATION
AND SIZE. The RPZ function may be fidOled by the RPZ beghming at
a location other than 200'feet (60 m) beyond the end of the runway. When
an RPZ begins at a location other than 200 feet (60 m) beyond the god of
runway, two RPZs are required, Le, a departue RPZ and an approach
RPZ. 71he two RPZs normally overlap.
A. Awmach RPZ The approach RPZ shall begin 200 feet
(60 m) before die threshold able 24 errs standard dimensions for
approach RPZs. The portion of numV behind the mold is unavadable
and/or unsuitable for banding distance coinputations.
b. Departure RPZ The departure RPZ shall begin 200 feet
(60 m) beyond the far end of TORA. 77re portion of runway beyond the
TORA is imavai7able and/or unsuitable for takeoff run contpubbons. The
standard dimensions for departure RPZs arc:
(1) Starting 200 feet (60 m) beyond the far end of
TORA, 1,000 fed (300 m) long, 250 feet (75 m) wide, and at the far cad
of RPZ 450 feet (135 m) wide —for runways serving only small airplanes in
Aircraft Approach Categories A and B.
(2) Starting 200 feet (60 m) beyond the far end of
TORA, 1,000 fed (300 m) long, 500 fed (150 m) wide, and at the for end
of RPZ 700 feet (210 m) wido—for runways serving large airplanes in
Aircaft Approach Categories A and B.
(3) Starting 200 feet (60 m) beyond the far end of
TORA, 1,700 fed (510 m) Tong, 500 feet (150 m) wide, and at the far end
of RPZ 1,010 feet (303 m) wide —for runways serving Aircraft Approach
Categories C and D.
6. CLEARWAY LOCATION. Tlhe clearway is located at the far
end of TORA. The portion of runway extending into die clearway is
unavailable and\or unsuitable for takeoff run and takeoff distance
computations.
7. NOTIFICATION. Thq clearway and stopway lengths and the
following declared distances shatll be provided in the Airport/Facility
Directory (and in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AlP), for
international airports) for each operational direction:
a. The TORA — die Ilength of the runway less any length of
runway unavailable and/or unsuitable for takeoff run computations. See
figure A 14- 1.
b. The TODA -- the TORA plus the length of any remaining
runway and/or clearway beyond the far end of the TORA. See figure A 14-
2.
C. The ASDA — thcl length of the runway plus the length of
any stopway beyond the far end of the runway less any length of runway
and/or stopway unavailable and/orE unsuitable for accelerate -stop distance
computations. See figure A14-3.
d. The LDA — the length of the runway less any length of
runway unavailable and/or unsuitable for landing distance computations.
See figure A144. Note: When the threshold is sited for small airplanes
(see appendix 2, paragraphs 5a and 5b), report LDA as "LDA for airplanes
of 12,500 pounds (5 700 kg) or less maximum certificated takeoff weight."
276
fl\
fry Eofl OF P-?-:L
FH RES q 0 L()
f_r M, (DqI C),00c),e
ot�Ec-T FREE A�-,�Pk
Ec
. ........ . .......
At' I72-
B ILI- -5.0071C S CA LE.. I"_ ��,
0 •
Fellow Citizens:
New Information about the Farrington Rd. Extension to Lomax School Rd.
Your Neighbors and members of "Common Sense Government" requests your
participation in the final City Council vote on the Farrington Extension. Monday,
Jan. 22, 2001 at 6 PM at City Hall.
In September, 1998 we alerted citizens that the Farrington extension was not an
innocent neighborhood road as the City claimed. We uncovered City documents
that proved the Farrington Rd. extension was actually phase 1 of 3 phases that
would make it 4 lanes all the way to Hwy. 225.
The City Planning Director called it a "Highway" and it was planned to be another
Underwood Rd., only with a raised median.
Citizens organized a petition where 570+ citizens signed up for taking all 3
phases of the"Highway" out of the Comprehensive Plan that was driving it .
As a result of the petition, City Council passed an ordinance, ""Finding that there
is no public necessity for the extension and improvement of Farrington Boulevard
and Lomax School Road to connect with State Hwy 225, or to upgrade Lomax
School Road as a four lane street; Repealing references to said connection in
the City of La Porte Comprehensive Plan; Repealing the provision in the City's
1998-99 capital improvement budget for the improvement and paving of a 28 ft.
wide connection between Farrington Boulevard and Lomax School Rd.""
The wording in this ordinance is very crafty and gives false impressions. First,
notice that it does not state that the City will not extend Farrington to HWY 225.
It simply states there is no public necessity for phase 2 of the extension that
would connect with Hwy 225.
Fact is, they can build the 4 lane to Hwy 225 at any time without violating this
ordinance because of the way it is worded. ...and if citizens try to debate the
wording, Council can simply pass a new ordinance to build the Farrington
"Highway" all the way to 225. This Council may not do it, but the new Council
we'll have over the next few years that won't feel bound to this ordinance can
easily find that there is "public necessity " for the "Highway" to 225.
Even though the Ordinance states there is no public necessity to make Lomax
School Road 4 lanes; the consultant has steadily pushed to make it 4 lanes and
3 of the 4 times he has officially recommended it in public meetings; Our public
officials have accepted it without question. He has also repeatedly pushed to
take it all the way to 225. The City insiders are pushing Phase 3 and laying the
groundwork for it, even before phase 1 is accepted.
A recent review of a recording of the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee 1-
14-99 meeting gives us another fact that proves City insiders are laying the
ground work to do all 3 phases of this'Highway". In that recording, one of our
page 2 of 2
7. Of the 100 or so voters that I have personally talked with on this matter,
four were in favor of Phase I of the highway. One owns the Mr. Mercury
convenience store at the corner of Farrington Blvd and Spencer Hwy. I'll
let you figure out why he wants the highway. Two school officials who
would like Phase I of the highway for a shorter bus route... at the expense
of property values and neighborhood quality for hundreds of taxpayers..
and one gentleman in Glen Meadows whose child now attends Lomax
Elementary and wanted a shorter route to school ... until he found out how
much the Phase 1 road is really going to cost him. He changed his
mind and does not want the highway Phase 1 road.
8. What basis in law allows the City to provide one persons convenience at
the expense of another persons existing property values and quality of
neighborhood environment. There is no basis in law or in ethics that
allow this.
9. The City Zoning Ordinance 1501 states that it's purpose is to ..."conserve
the value of property" and ..."promote the health and the general welfare;
to prevent the overcrowding of land..." "with a view to conserving the
value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use of land "...
This proposed Phase 1 road will violate the very purpose of the Zoning
Ordinance that protects our residential neighborhoods from commercial
special interests.... and may well be the basis of a class action lawsuit to
protect our property values and neighborhood environments.
10. We believe that all the voters signing the no highway petition will also
sign a petition of referendum of recall for any elected oi�cial that
promotes this highway through our neighborhoods and front yards.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter.
Bill Scott
Pagel of 2
Notes for Bill Scott's 9-14-98 City Council 5 minute presentation.
1. Handouts to council
2. Name and Address, I just handed you the same letter given out to several
hundred La Porte citizens and voters.
3. The citizens you see here tonight are just a few of the Voters and
Taxpayers that want you to vote against funding to connect Farrington
Blvd. and Lomax School Road which is Phase I of a highway through our
neighborhoods and front yards.
4. These are just a few of the Voters and Taxpayers who will loose their
hard earned property values and have their quality of neighborhood life
in Zoned residential areas, lowered if you start Phase I of this highway.
5. Over 400 voters and citizens have signed this petition calling for you to
NOT fund Phase I of this highway and to remove all references to this
highway from the Comprehensive Plan. The number of voters signing
the petition is growing daily.
6. The excuses I have heard to justify wasting $321,000+ of the taxpayers
money to build Phase I of the highway just don't hold water.
Excuse #1. The LaPorte I.S.D. needs the Phase I road for a bus route.
Reality is; La Porte I.S.D. officials did not even know the Phase I road
was being considered and only informally requested the road about 3
years ago.
Excuse #2. The Phase 1 road is needed for emergency vehicles.
Reality is; There has not been any study to indicate this is necessary. It is
simply a wish list item from the Fire department.
Excuse U. The expansion of subdivisions in La Porte in this area will
need highway access to Hwy 225.
Reality is; there is very little open residentially zoned area left in this part
of La Porte that would benefit from this proposed highway.
• •
Notes for 1-24-00 5 Minute City Council Presentation
1. I speak with you tonight as a coordinator for "COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT".
a. We are the citizens from 3 subdivisions who organized and petitioned to stop a
proposed "Highway" or Underwood type road through our neighborhoods.
b. I'd like to review the Phase 1 Road status.
2. First a brief recap of events:
a. City Council responded to our petition of 576 citizens by passing an ordinance to
cancel Phase 1 funding for one year for the purpose of letting the citizens decide the
issue in the Comprehensive Plan review.
b. The issue was decided; decisively and overwhelmingly. The Phase one road was
removed from the Comprehensive Plan. COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT
prevailed through the entire process and through the maneuvers intended to limit our
participation.
c. Through the entire review process the only citizen speaking in favor of the Phase 1
Road was a Creekmont resident that mentioned at the Sylvan Beach general
meeting, transportation section, that she would like the Phase 1 Road because she
thought it would take traffic off her street of Mertle Creek)... And we responded by
stating that it was wrong for her to try to move her traffic problem over to our
neighborhoods.
3. COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT would like to thank those members of Council
Is that have kept their agreement and contract with the citizens on this issue.
4. COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT would like to reaffirm to this Council our
resolve and determination to stop the proposed Phase 1 Road that endangers the safety
of our children and citizens, our property values, and our neighborhood environments.
5. Last fall some council members attempted to refund the Phase 1 oad in disregard of
the Council's agreement with the citizens. In response to that atte pted refunding of
the Phase 1 Road; COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT is registering as a general
purpose Political Action Committee (PAC) with the State of Texas.
6. If we have to petition again; regarding the Phase 1 Road; that petition will include
other items such as the cost of the City's legal service, the City's lary structure, the
City's handling of the Ned Holmes container terminal, and the City's voter district
representation ratio . We think this will bring broad base support for our petition,
although the petition will only require about 500 names to be legally binding..........
... BECAUSE THE PETITION WILL BE FOR A REFERENDUM OF RECALL
of any Council member that attempts to violate the Council's agreement
with the citizens.
Thank You for Your Time and Consideration of This Issue,
Bill Scott, 281-470-6685, scottl@hal-pc.org
LOn•fi�' hE (`Ct,j L
Connecting? I.otna� Sc1�oo1 Roa:l and I;arri igton Street
}'rLEs( C
or.) �19 , L�(,C C
he issue of whether to connect Far tin�_ton Street t� ith Lomas School Road reatl4
concerns area residents and I want to aivm c you y reasous for opposing what i tool.
attractive to those who do not live there.
I ani the only councilman or city administrator \vho lives in District 1 so I have taken a lot
of tune and effort to rne:,t with residents wlio live in the affected area. They mostly oppose
connecting the two streets and you may be interested in some of their -�iev:potnts
mentioned below.
i • Velucular traffic «ill increase due to people who want to get to Fairmont Park by
bypassing Underwood Street traffic at the Spencer or Myrtle Creek intersection.
2 o Speeding is a serious problem now which our police have not been able to stop and it
will become much worse when a longer straightway is in service. Each existing section
is about 1,12 mile long wluch, if comiected, would provide a 1 1l4 mile speedway.
Speed humps can not be put on Farrington since they would cause problems for
emergency vehicles.
3 . Trucks will become an increased problem if they are given a shortcut through the
residential area.
y • There are no sidewalks. Children walling to both elementary and junior high school
have to walk along the road. Bike riding can be very dangerous when school lets out.
5 • The lack of sidewalks is also a problem for children who are using the Northwest park
for swimming in the summer and to a lesser extent for soccer year round.
• the Lomax School Road paving and ditches are 17 feet further, west than it should be.
This makes concerns by the residents about taking some of their property very valid.
7 • People who use the Lomax arena for horseback riding or children who exercise show
animawould have many more problems as traffic increases. We must "get that
traffic has already increased greatly due to the additional homes which have en built.
4 • It would shorten the school bus route but could reduce the number of riders since the
rules require that buses not be used for shorter walking distances. The added time spent
on a bus is minor. What takes time is waiting for the bus to load and unload and thus.
would not change.
• City emergency vehicles will not get to their destination any faster. Travel time for both
EMIT and fire protection vehicles will be about the same since there will be very little
extra distance traveled. Separate fire stations serve Glen Meadows and Lomax.
ID • The aaency which regulates airports in Texas has indicated opposition to a new street at
the end of the runway. The city should have their written approial before construction
which then have indicated they will not give.
I have always worked to improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods with a special
focus on speeding, solid waste, drainage, parks, and streets. I will not compromise the
safety of our neighborhoods and I hope you support me on this.
E
E
1. For the Public Record; we are giving you a copy of our petition to
remove all 3 phases of the proposed Farrington extension from the
Comprehensive Plan.
2. 570+ Citizens have signed the petition that was circulated by 13 of our
now 30 coordinators. About half the signatures are from Lomax and
half are from Glen Meadows and Fairmont Park.
3. For a comparison of this public sentiment, only 997 citizens voted
in the City general election that preceded. our petition.
4. 22 of our Coordinators attended the last Comprehensive Plan Public
Forum and to submit written comments AGAINST the Phase 1 Road
and the Proposed H street Bridge. NO ONE submitted a
comment favoring the Phase 1 Road or H street Bridge.
5. Unlike most subdivisions, WE only have a few dead ends to control
through traffic and the dead end at H street and the tee at Lomax
School Road are the most important because of their locations.
6. Your information package contains the details of why we are very
serious about protecting what little is left of our traffic safety net for
our Children and Ourselves.
7. Your package contains a video glimpse of the traffic dangers we have
to face every day. Please view it, read the details, ands consider the
numbers of Citizens that are against the Phase 1 Road and H street
Bridge; as part of your due diligence responsibility on this .issue. Even
though You vote tonight ,You can call your respective council member
later with a fresh opinion from our information. WE DON'T WANT
ANY MORE WHITE CROSSES IN OUR NEIGHB90RHOODS.
8. The Bayshore Sun Summed it up very well. This is still a free Country
and the Citizens of the neighborhoods should decide what is
in their best safety interests, not the fire chief or the police chief.
9. Mr. Guttery's newspaper comment that "Our AdvisoryCircular on
Airport Design does not preclude roads from being inZs . WE
simply encourage the communities not to develop any places of public
assembly in this part of the RPZ". Let's look at the facts.
•
City of La Porte
Established 1892
September 14, 1998
POSITION PAPER oN FARRINGT0r4 BLVD. EXTENSION
The City's plan for the extension of Farrington Blvd. consists of building a 28-foot wide
two-lane road with open ditches to go from Glen Meadows Subdivision to North "H" Street. We
have set aside $321,000 for this project.
This extension is not a four -cane highway. The City's Comprehensive Plan as adopted in 1984
recognized the lack of roads in La Porte that had a south to north access. The plan at that time
recommended Underwood Road, Bay Area Blvd. and Farrington Blvd. some day go through to
State 11ighway 225. The City does not see Farrington Blvd. being extended to SH 225 within the
next 15 to 20 years and this plan may even be changed as a result of the City's current effort to
update the 1984 Comprehensive Plan. It is .our. belief that once Bay Area Blvd. is built and
improved, it will eliminate the need to build Farrington Blvd. through to Sii 225.
Within the next 2 to 6 months, neighborhood meetings will take placethroughout the City to
receive input on what changes or additions are needed within the Ci 's Comprehensive Plan.
This is the proper forum to change the City's future road systems.,, A citizens' committee
working with a consultant then will recommend changes to the City Council.
A public meeting is scheduled for October 27 1928- at 7-0Q pm -at S Ivan Beach Conference
Center to discuss how to proceed in updating the City's Comprehensive Plan and to receive
public input on matters that need to be looked at within the Comprehensive Plan.
Sincerely,
Norman Malone
Mayor
P.O. Box 1115 • La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 9 (281) 47 -5020
9-16-98, Rayshore Sun Article (You r*t want to Subscribe) . ,� k
Farrington Plan. The Article and Mr. Herrera sound credible on the surface... but let's take a deeper
`Stop' At Ave. H Look at the FACTS.
(1; C .I S d ,'k th 1 to ut a hi hwa throu h our nei hborhoods was actual, cha d b
The six La Porte [ty ounce
members who were preset for
oun s e e e p an p g y g g y nge ( ecause
an estimated 60 to 100 people against the highway attended the council meeting. Eight spoke
Monday night's regular council ses-
before Council against the highway, and 400 + signed the "Stop the Highway through our
sion heard from eight different resi-
Neighborhood" petition.) These actions did make significant gains in stopping the highway, but..
dents, all urging the city to not carry
FACTS: The City's official "Comprehensive Plan" to put a Highway through our neighborhoods
out plans in the newly adopted budget
is still in effect; the City's Director of Planning, Doug Kneupper, used the word "Highway" to
for the extension of Farrington
describe this violation of our Zoning ordinance; and the last time I talked with Mr. Kneupper
Boulevard from just north of Spencer
days before the council meeting), he still planned to build the highway. Lomax's Planning
Oust ys oug)' gwa y'
Highway to 'a connection with
and Zoning representative, Melton Wolters, and Lomax's City Councilman, Guy Sutherland,
Avenue H.
Those residents included Bill Scott,
are still very much in favor of building phase 1 of the highway in direct opposition to the
Paul Neuman, Kevin James, Larry
directions and needs of 400+ petition signers. The City Council ignored our actions and approved
Allen, Jack *Howard, James Adams,
funds to start Phase I of the Highway. WE CAN CHANGE THE "COMPREHENSIVE PLAN" IF
Mike McInnis and Donna Marlar.
ENOUGH CONCERNED VOTERS SHOW UP AT THE OCT. 27, 1998 7:00 PM
During the Monday meeting, City
SYLVAN BEACH CITY WIDE MEETING TO REVIEW THE PLAN... AND WE CAN STILL
Manager Bob Herrera told council
STOP PHASE I OF THE HIGHWAY IF WE CONTACT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
that it would De at [east uayb I
before any further consideration of
\ Sounds like Mr. Herrera is giving plenty of time for input.
the Farrington plans would be made,
FACTS: He leaves himself a range of 30 to 45 days before "further consideration" rather than
so council will have plenty of time to
giving a deadline. If he chooses the minimum 30 days; it will occur well before the Oct. 27,1998
consider the matter.
On Tuesday, Herrera told The
Sylvan Beach public meeting to review and change the "Comprehensive Plan" and the 45 day
Bayshore Sun that is has been
limit will occur just 2 days after the Oct. 27 public review meeting and months BEFORE input
rumored that Farrington would run all
from the neighborhood meetings.( See the Mayors letter). We are lead to believe by the Mayor
the way to Highway 225 with four
and some Council members that the Oct. 27 meeting and the neighborhood meetings that follow
lanes of divided roadway.
are the "proper forum" to eliminate the highway, yet in fact Mr. Herrera plans "Consideration"
Herrera noted that while the city's
of Phase I of the highway well before voter input from the meetings.
Comprehensive Plan that was formu
lated in 1984 calls for more north-
Mr. Herrera attempts to downplay the Highway as just a "rumor".
south routes in the city, and lists
FACTS: It's not a rumor, it's a fact. It's in the Comprehensive Plan. See above FACTS.( In our
Farrington as one of the possible con-
first letter we warned that these bureaucrats would try to downplay this important Phase I of the
nections, "now that Highway 146 is
highway and that they would say what they think we want to hear while they secretly work
getting extensive renovation, and
toward their goals.
Underwood Road now connects
Fairmont Parkway with 225, and
are underway to connect Bay
You are wrong again Mr. Herrera. Sounds like. the $321,000 connecting road between Farrington
plans
A rcs Boulevard too via Sens
Aged,
Blvd. and Lomax School Road will be just an innocent inter neighborhood road..... WRONG
I care see no reason for
FACTS: This Road is the Official, Planned First Phase of a Planned Highway through our
Farrington to be connected to 225.
neighborhoods. Anyone who looks at a City map or drives these roads knows that this planned
" We plan this two-lane extension to
Phase I road connects Fairmont Parkway to "P" street which is only app. a 1/4 mile from Highway
Avenue H to expand residendil traf-
225 and that this Phase I road will greatly increase traffic all the way from Fairmont Parkway to
frc between the Lomax area and
"P" street. Apparently Mr. Herrera has not looked at map of the area or has not driven the area.
Spencer Highway, and to give us bet-
The Fire Chief that is pushing for Phase I of the highway has an entire set of plans for the vote;
ter access from Fire Station No. 2 on
that includes not only ruining our neighborhoods, but getting us to borrow money through a
Spencer, to the Lomax area."
$500,000 bond issue to build him a new fire station Lomax. We'll have more details about
this at our Sept. 22, 1998 6-8:00 PM Public meetinto be held at the Farrington Blvd.
Community Center located near the water tower itr Fairmont Park. Please plan to attend.
This article and mayor malone's one man circusthat passes for a Council meeting
are starting to prove to a lot of voters what some of us have experienced for several
years..... The current City Administration's credibility belongs in a crapper....
and WE the voters can change that if we'll worklto do it.
A
0 -?-� Lj�--W -k-
La Porte Citizens that are stopping the highway through our neighborhoods will meet
on Tue., Sept 22, 1998 from 6:00 to 8:00 PM at the community building located next to
the water tower at the Farrington Blvd. baseball complex.
The purpose of the meeting is to :
1. discuss results of our actions, (signing the petition, attending the Sept. 14 City
Council meeting, and Speaking to the Council) .
2. discuss the 9-16-98 Bayshore Sun Article about the highway (See back of this page).
3. discuss our future actions to complete the job of eliminating the threat of the
highway,( completing the petition, calling our City Council members, and
attending the Oct. 27,1998 7:00 PM Sylvan Beach Conference Center, City
sponsored "Comprehensive Plan Review" meeting to give our input about
eliminating the highway from the City's "Comprehensive Plan").
Current Suggested Agenda for Sept. 22, 1998 meeting, continueing with item # 4:
4. Do we need to form as an organization to fight the highway?
5. Newspaper ads and responses to newspaper articles.
6. The 15 member, City set up "Comprehensive Plan" committee & community
meetings that are set up to review the Comp. Plan. & the Oct. 27,1998 meeting.
7. The Petition: It's effect, completing it, why we need 600 signatures.
8. Set up street or group coordinators to hand out letters, keep their neighbors
informed etc. and get feedback from their neighbors.
9. Results of one on ones with our City Council members.
10. Attending and speaking at City Council in the next 3 sessions. Planned council
meetings are on the second and fourth Mondays of each month.
11.
12.
13.
0
Page 2 of 2
7. Joe Sease says the Phase 1 road "could have been used by the Fire Dept." 122
times in a recent app. 4 1/2 year period. However, the details of the records used to
get this are not available to the public. "Could have used" has a very broad range
of interpretation. I'll believe the numbers when I'm allowed to study the raw data
behind them.
8. We would like You tell us what will it take to have All 3 phases of this road
removed from the comprehensive plan... more petition signatures? more people at
your meetings to present facts and evidence? pickets? lawyers?
C. Your input, even if just "brain storming" has far reaching serious impacts on the
community... and some of these impacts have a very negative effect on many
citizens. Case in point: The Knoxs and the Scotts.
D. Project Operations Procedures
1. P.I- Avoid serving special interests
2. P.2- Most importantly, the stated goals, objectives, ...etc.
3. P.4- Effective mechanisms for citizen involvement are essential.
4. P.5- Steering Committee is only a Focus group for public participation.
5. P.5- Interview meeting with community leaders
6. P.6- Provide a broad basis of citizen involvement
7. P.7- Community Visioning Workshop.... purpose of the first meeting WILL BE
to involve a large number of citizens in the identification of issues and needs,
development of goals and objectives...
E. Speeding, safety of our kids, no growth
M06fe-- k
Page 1 of 2
Notes for Bill Scotts' 1-14-99 talk with the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee
A. Thanks for this opportunity to present our concerns to the committee.
I'll condense our points of concern. 576+ La Porte Residents have signed a petition to
stop ALL Phases of this highway. As a benchmark of public sentiment against the road,
Only 997 residents voted in the last general City election.
B. Common Sense Government:
1.We are a group of residents from Lomax ,Glen Meadows, and Fairmont Park that
have organized to stop Phases 1,2, and 3 of a planned highway through our
front yards. In some cases our homes are very close to the road as it is now.
* Background on why we are at this meeting
2. We believe the increased traffic caused by the proposed Phase 1 road will greatly
increase the danger to people and animals as they use Lomax School Road to ride
horses, walk 4-H animals, jog, bike, walk their dogs, go to schools, and generally
travel in the area.
3. Lomax School Road is the community travel Hub of Lomax. We believe that
stacking a large amount commuter through traffic on top of the already heavy and
diversified local traffic will have a large negative impact on our local community
environment safety, and property values... and of course all of the commuter traffic
has to come down H St. , L St., or P St. to get to Lomax School Road.
4. The well intentioned committees of the 84' Committees apparently did not realize
that IN LOMAX, STREETS ARE OUR SIDEWALKS. The ditches start at the
edge of the roads and are very steep and very deep.
5.. Almost the same situation exists on Farrington Blvd. in Glen Meadows and
Fairmont Park.
6. Some Residents in Glen Meadows and Fairmont Park that live away from Farrington
Blvd. now want this Phase 1 road as a convenience because their children have
been or will be moved to Lomax Elementaryor for convenient travel to recreational.
events. These same people bought their homes with a known existing road structure
of dead ends and Tees that were intentionally designed to control traffic, maintain
their property values and,to help protect their environment from crime, pollution,
and dangers to their children. They strongly guard their own existing road system
...but they think it is OK to destroy our existing road system for their own
convenience of saving a few minutes travel time during the period that their
children attend Lomax Elementary.
This is a flat out violation of property rights. Any way you slice it or dice it; this
is dangerous, unfair, unethical, and just plain Wrong.
L'arex—is y)�
"uwdtet Includes Ca'plot
The 1998-99 fiscal year budge( for
the City of La Porte includes a num-
ber of capital improvement projects
that cover a wide ran-c of renova-
tions, additions and new facilities.
Listed here in the same order as
they appear in a summary issued (o
city council for budget workshop
sessions. that concluded this past
week, the projects include continu-
ing sidewalk -.renovations. throughout
the city, at a proposed budget total
— Also, it has been proposed'iaf
council , approval, that tl)c city
extend Farrington Boulevard north
from the Glen Meadows subdivision
to North H Street and its intersec-
tion with Lomax School Road. The
28-foot-wide, two-lane road would
have open ditches, and would be
positioned to allow for the future
addition of two more lanes. The
plan would .cost an estimated
$321.000.
reconstruction of the intersection of
Canada Road and Spencer Highway,
to align the intersection with me
City of Deer Park's extension of
And a third is paving of the p ing
lot a( the Rodco Arena in the Lomax
area.
Also, it is being proposed (hat the
city relocate the girl's softball pro-
gram from Lomax Park (o the Little
Ccdar Bayou Park, at a cost of some
S200,000. And combined with
S 136,000 from the general obliga-
tion bond fund, plans are outlined
for a total of S335,500 to be spent
completing the parking lot,
restroom and pavilion facilities at
the city's Scabrccze Park on
Galveston Bay.
Thcrc are also various join( ven-
ture projects with youth sports pro-
grams and other such organizations,
at a total projected cost of $40,000.
A number of community facilities
rc proposed as well. For instance,
loo
100,000 has been set aside in each
f the four previous fiscal years, and
mbined with $100,000 for the
upcoming year, totals $500.000 in
funds for the construction of a class-
room facility at the city's existing
Fire Training Field. The facility
would also serve as the city's
Emergency Operations Center.
City. Hall renovations arc also
included in the capital improvement
5171 000
plan proposals. A total of S360.000
At a cost of S I
was earmarked during the current
also proposes co
fiscal year, and another S360.000 is
Road from a rock i
proposed for the next fiscal year.
wide asphalt road u
Staff proposes to add space to the
Developers of h
current City Hall building, while
Crossing and Sunni
remodeling and repairing the exist-
visions have outline
ing facility as %vell. The S720.000
ple(e the next secti
earmarked will cover (tic remodel-
subdivisions, and i
ing efforts, and the additiona! sp i-c
provide an addition
ivould*bc addressed in a future bond
dents in (hose nci!-,
package.
There is also a prc
Ano(her S35,000 is listed to secure
ven(urc with Harris
architectural services for the possi-
City of Slioreacres,
blc addition of space a( dtc La Porte
Drive Draina,c Pro
Police Department building. And
for Harris County t
S 125,000 is earmarked for the build-
perccn( of (he do
ing of a storage facility for the city's
S600 Opp of the coi
records. The old lire station in-
(Ire cities payin - S I
Fairmont Park is now being used for
1Vhile the project is
(his storage. And WSW is pro
107 acres of(he walC
posed for (he acquistion of land for
Portc.
East Boulevard. That would cost
There arc a numb,
S235.000. And a proposed further
jccts proposed. One
extension of South 14th Strect north
of four vcn(ila(or far
to H Strect, with complctian of the
Recreation and Fitnc
intersection at that point, .would be
cost of S45,000. Anc:
adjacent (o the commercial center
and life work at the N
now being built next to the Kroger
at an anticipated cos
store. -Thc cxtcri�ion ' would cost what will eventually I
Sun. Spots
CCA-Texas, San . Jacinto Chapter... CCA-Taal, San _
Jacinto.Chapter -is having its. Cult Annual, Fundraiser. Fajita Dinner,_
catered byTriggs. from 6 p.m =10 pzL'on Thursday. Aug 27 at Sylvan
Beacli.Pavilion. Live auction, silent auction, raffles. For raffie and din-
ner tieketftiiforination call Pat Murray at 1-800-626-4222. Also tickets
will be'sold at the door.
Cheerleader Booster... -me La Porte High School Cheerleader,
Booster Club will hold its first weting for the '98-'99 school year at 6
p.m. on Monday. August 24 id the high school cafeteria. All parents
please plan to attend.
Football. Balldog BOOSter..La Porte Football Bulldog
Booster Club will meet every Monday night at 6:30 p.m. at die Dog
House. All football parents and other interested persons are urged to
attend.
Girls Fastpiteh... The7bxas Rage, agiris-16u Fastpitch team, will
be holding tryouts Sept. 12 and 19, for the upcoming season. For more
information call Roger Harris'at 281-998-7665.
UHS Yearbooks... The 1998 La Porte High School Yearbooks
are in and maybe picked up in Room 10. Extra copies are available for
purchase and arc $38.00.
Workers naining Banquet ...Bayshore Baptist Church
Sunday School Workers Training Banquet will he from 7 n.m. - 9.30
.Booster .Cb...'Ihe La Porte High School Baseball Bc
wilII rnet at 7•p. . m. on thursday, Aug. 27 at the Lecture Hall.
Exercise Class..:The fall session of the Exercise wi
class will begin Monday. August 31. To register for this Ic
exercise class. contact Neighborhood Centcrs,•Inc. 911 S. eig
2814714824.
La Porte Eyes Fors
Traffic Hump Poli(
La Porte City Council faces a number of decisions at its 6 p.
session, covering a wide variety of subjects.
Council will handle what amounts to "dotting the is and cross
concerning the city's cable TV franchise. as consideration will fi
an ordinance renewing the grant of a non-exclusive franchise t
Systems Inc., to erect. maintain and operate a cable television sy
city. And that will be fcfllowed by consideration of an ordinance
fors the cable TV franchise from Telc-Vue to Texas Cable Panne
Also Monday, two resolutions are on the agenda. The first
request for legislative action preserving local government author]
taxpayer dollars through cooperative purchasing programs. The
support document for that same legislative action.
L
•�� City of La Forte
U m E<caNtslied 189
``� TEXAS
September 26, 1994
Mr. Wayne Knox
Pipe and Valve
11837 Fairmont Parkway
La Porte, TX 77571-6003
Dear Mr. Knox:
In response to your letter dated September 22, regarding the extension of Farrington/Lomax
School Road, I would like to furnish you the following information:
• The project, part of the Comprehensive .Plan, is scheduled to be a phased
project lasting in the neighborhood of fifteen years.
• The .ultimate roadway, as called for in preliminary planning, will be a four
lane facility divided by a median and will appear much Iike Farrington Blvd.
from Spencer Hwy. to Fairmont Pkwy. As this is designed to be phased, the
initial roadway,will-be two lanes expandable to four lanes at the point in time
that traffic *ouldmarrant increasing the size.
• phase O would by the cornecti q from`the end of Farrington - ro
,r. _.,. ,� , ,
Lomax School Road at "H" Street. }nur current plans*
are to seek funding in .
w: ..
FY 1996
• Phase •Tiro would be the connection from "P" Street north to S.H. 225. 'There
are no current indications of -timing;��but probably will not occur. before FY
2001.
Phase Three Would be the widening of the roadway from two lanes to four
lanes. Anticipated timing for -this portion of the project is ten to fifteen years.
Sin4*rely,
Charles R. Harrington
Director of Planning
xc: Robert T. Herrera, City Manager
Norman Malone. Mayor
,ti,
Page 2 of 2
We invite you to join with your neighbors to stop this Four Lane Highway through
our neighboorhoods before it gets started. Please:
1. Sign the petition by calling one of the neighbors listed at the bottom of this letter.
2. Call our elected officials and bureaucrats at the #s below. Remember, we pay
their salaries and we elect them. They Work For Us. Please tell them what you
want in return for your tax money and your vote .... and ask them how they would
like a Four lane Highway built through their neighboorhoods and front yards.
3. Attend the City Council meeting on Sept. 14, 1998 with your children and your
neighbors to show our bureaucrats and officials that we Will Act to save our
neighborhoods. You have a legal right to speak before City Council for
5 minutes during the meeting. If you wish to use this right, sign up at the
entrance at least 15 minutes before the meeting starts.
4. Tell your neighbors and ask them to sign the petition, to call our bureaucrats and
Council Members, AND to attend the Sept. 14 Council meeting.
• Our bureaucrats and some Council members are trying to down play this assault on
our neighborhoods as "no big deal". When you call them and they try to down play
the importance of this first phase of the Four Lane Highway through our
neighborhoods, please remember the attached 1994 letter from City bureaucrats to
the Knox's. Within the last two weeks we have seen the engineering drawings for the
Four Lane Highway and talked with the Director of Planning... and he still plans to
build the Highway.
• We have developed a mountian of evidence that proves the City bureaucrats will say
what they think we want to hear while they secretely work toward their goals ... and
their goal is to turn Farrington Blvd. and Lomax School Rd. into a Four Lane
Highway connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225, unless we stop them.
Please call City Council members: Guy Sutherland @ (H) 471-1244
Howard Ebow @ (H) 471-4014
Peter Griffiths @ (H) 470-8�83
Alton Porter @ (H) 471-8 77
Zoning Board Member Melton Wolters @ (H) 471-1527
City Manager Bob Herrera @ (W) 471-5020
City Planning Director Doug Kneupper @ (W) 471-5P20
Mayor Norman Malone @ (W) 471-5 20
OR leave a message for them at City Hall @ 47.1-5020
Thank you for your time and effort:
Wayne Knox @ (W) 471-5751
Jim Adams @ (H) 470-2378
Bill Scott @ (H) 470-6�85
J�
8/30/98 Page 1 of 2
Fellow La Porte Citizens and Taxpayers;
On Sept. 14, 1998 at 6:00 PM at the La Porte City Hall; our City Council will vote on
a budget that approves funds to start the first phase of a Planned Highway through our
our neighborhoods.
• The new City Planning Director, Doug Kneupper, has clearly stated that the City
plans to turn Farrington Blvd. and Lomax School Road into a Four Lane Highway
that will run through the Fairmont Park, Glen Meadows, and Lomax
neighborhoods to Highway 225 as part of a "Comprehensive Plan" put together by
City bureaucrats. This Highway through our Residential Zoned neighborhoods is
intended to be like Underwood Road except that it will have a raised median in the
center instead of a left turn lane.
• The City will spend app. $321,000 +? Land $$ of our tax money to connect
Farrington Blvd. to Lomax School Road as the first phase of putting this Highway
through our neighborhoods.
• This proposed Highway will run through 2 school zones and 3 city park areas.
We believe this Highway through our neighborhoods will:
1. Endanger us and our children as we travel to and from schools, parks, and
other places in our neighborhoods.
2. Endanger us as we enter and leave our driveways, park trailers, or travel to and
from the Rodeo arena, Parks, Ball fields, and Schools.
3. Greatly decrease the value of our homes and our property.
4. Greatly decrease our over all quality of neighborhood life. Apparently the
bureaucrats have forgotten that our neighborhoods are Zoned Residential.
S. Destroy our neighborhoods with increased speeding traffic, noise, crime, littering,
and air pollution.
6. Unfairly decrease our quality of life and property values in order to increase the
property values of special interest land developers South of us.
The excuse our bureaucrats use to install this first phase of the Highway through our
neighborhoods and front yards, is the desire of La Porte I.S.D. to have a shorter bus
route for Lomax Elementary students that have previously attended Rizzuto Elementary.
Yet, L.P.I.S.D. Superintendent John Sawyer says the last time L.P.I.S.D. asked for the
road was about 3 years ago. Mr. Sawyer was unaware that the first phase road was being
considered. The logical answer to the school overcrowding problem is to use the
$321,000 to build new class rooms at Rizzuto rather than destroy our existing
neighborhoods with an unwanted Highway. With a new school planned for the area and
changing school population, there is a good probability that in the near future the road
will not be necessary for school travel, but we will still have to live with it's destruction
of our neighborhoods. (More info on the back)
•
•
Page 4 of 4
Galveston Tx. has 3 full time staff attorneys whose salaries with a 40% benefit load,
range from app. $27 to app. $50 per hour.
La Porte Tx. (Pop. app. 33,000) pays their contract City Attorney $145 per hour.
We paid him app. $185,000 in 1998. This amounts to millions of dollars of wasted
taxpers money over the years.
People have tried to justify his salary by saying the City doesn't have to provide a Law
Library or office with a contract attorney. That's a hot air cover up. When a Staff City
Employee Attorney needs a law library, one of the finest Federal Regional Law libraries in
the U.S. is at Bates College of Law, just a 25 minute drive; or the fine San Jacinto
College library legal section is just a 10 minute drive. We taxpayers already pay for these
two libraries.. And our contract attorney already maintains an office in the municipal court
building.
Title 1 1988 I 1998
Asisstant City Manager
$50,398
$94,307
Assistant City Manager, Finance
$46,010-Note 4
$94,286
Assistant Finance Director
Note 1
$56,784
Assistant Fire Chief
$33,259
$69,846
Assistant Police Chief
Note 1
$58,448
Assistant Public Works Director
$36,005
$71,968
Associate Judge
Note 2
$96,413
City Attorney
Note 2
$185,105
City Manager
$62,982
$110,011
Director of Administrative Services
Note 1
$72,987
Director of Parks & Recreation
$46,301 - Note 3
$66.352
Director of Planning
$46,342 - Note 3
$70,117
Director of Public Works
$45,490
$89,606
Police Chief
$46,301-Note 3
$81,349
Note 1- Position did not exist
Note 2- Professional Services Contract - 1988 Data Not Available
Note 3- Current Employee Did Not Hold this Position
Note 4 - Position called Director of Finance
If you are registered to vote, just present your driver's license at the polling place.
If you are not registered to vote it is too late to register for the Jan.16,1999 bond
election but you can register with the attached form to vote in all future elections and be
part of correcting the problem at the source, our City management.
Early voting on the Bond election goes through Jan. 12,1999 at City Hall from 7 to 7.
Regular voting is on Jan. 16. 1999 at local schools from 7 to 7. For more info the City
Hall # is 281-471-5020
74t & am rw ame 4ad &tez ,
ft sdo, &andl&w n �n & seam Gaut,
E-mail scott l @hal-pc. org, ph. 281-470-6685
Page 3 of 4
9. I recently spent from 4:40 to 5:15 PM on a weekday counting traffic on N. 5t` with
these results in a 35 minute period:
5 buses, 31 cars, 5 bicyclists, 4 pedestrians. The pavement is in excellent
condition with no pot holes, cracks, repairs, etc. The bicyclists and 4 of the cars
spent a large amount of time leisurely stopped out in the middle of N 51' street
talking. The street has many vacant lots and empty, boarded up houses. This is
hardly the heavy transit use picture the newspaper painted. By comparison Sens road
becomes a parking lot at this time of day. The obvious question for City management:
Where are your priorities?
10. The Lomax Fire Station($750,000 project) would give us a new station only slightly
larger than the existing station. There is no current plan to put more fire engines at a
new station. The existing station has termite damage that was stopped and repaired
when Lomax was annexed. It is hardly ready for the bulldozer.
11. I have visited City Hall many times and have not seen any overcrowding. If
overcrowding does occur, perhaps the Councils' closed meeting room should be
turned into office space. Then Council would have to discuss the issues in public. Of
course the obvious question is: Do we have too many bureaucrats in management?
I think that if the pool & fire station were privately owned they would be repaired,
not be bulldozed or abandoned.. and a private owner would have maintained them
better than our City management.
13. The most interesting part of all is the salaries we pay our City management to put us
further indebt. While many taxpayers have struggled through several years of wage
freezes, layoffs, and consolidations; The City's management have enjoyed salaries that
have increased dramatically and doubled in some cases, in the past ten years ... and
salaries don't include the perks. I understand our City upper management makes
considerably more than the average for cities our size... While fire, police and other
personnel are paid considerably less than the average. I'm currently verifying and
getting updated figures on this. Please take 2 aspirin & get a tight grip on your
checkbook before seeing the salary chart on page 4.
The most blatant abuse of taxpayers and waste of our money is our legal service.
Here are just two of the many, many examples:
In 1997 the City of Copperas Cove Tx. (Pop. app. 32,000) hired a full time (2080 hrs. a
year) very experienced Staff City attorney away from Lubbock Tx. His salary with car
allowance was $62,300 a year. Add app. 40% for benefits and the cost to Copperas cove
is app. $87,220 a year or app. $42 per hour.
•
Page 2 of 4
6. The 15 person Steering Committee for the Comprehensive Plan Review will
meet on Jan. 14, 1999 at 7:00 P.M. at City Hall to determine goals and
objectives for the Transportation part of the Comprehensive Plan.
This is the part of the review that will consider the Phase 1 connection road. We
encourage everyone to attend this meeting.
After discussions with the consultant and City management;We and all La Porte
Citizens have been invited to attend the Jan. 14,1999 meeting and to present our concerns
about the Phase 1 road as well as any other transportation concerns, to the committee in
much the same manner as we did at Sylvan Beach.
I'd like to present a few facts about the upcoming $4,000,000 bond election that the
slick sell newspaper articles & adds haven't presented and that you might find interesting.
7. The City of La Porte and thus the taxpayers are currently over $16,000,000 in debt
on 9 different bond issues and one note payable. And that is stacked on top of all the
LPISD indebtedness, County indebtedness, etc.,etc. The interest rates on these debts
range from 4.2% to 8.5 % . Of course the more debt we incur, the more our taxes are
used to pay for interest instead of city maintenance. At this level of debt it is probably
prudent to ask if these proposed projects are necessary... or just nice to have. The
Bayshore Sun newspaper articles and adds make all these bond projects seem
necessary... but We encourage everyone who votes on these projects to take about 1
hr. of their time before putting themselves $4,000,000+ further into debt and visit the
San Jacinto pool ($250,000 project), N. 56 street ($675,000 project ), Lomax Fire
Station ($750,000 project), and City Hall ($1,500,000 project), and judge for
themselves. A route to the San Jacinto Pool is east on Spencer(Main) right on
Broadway(Old 146) left on East G at the new school construction ... another
monument to mismanagement. N 5th street is left off Main on your way to the pool.
The Lomax Fire Station is on Lomax School Road by the Rodeo Arena.
I have visited and investigated these proposed projects and have come to the
conclusion that none of them are necessary except the fire station # 4 project... and
we have 5 years to complete that project.
8. The San Jacinto Pool needs some slab maintenance and possibly building expansion.
The pool is full of clear water to App. 8 " of the rim. I see no cracks, repairs, or
settlement problems in the pool itself. The obvious questions'for City management
are: Why has the pool not been properly maintained? Why was the original building
downsized?
Letter # 4
Fellow LaPorte Citizens,
Page 1 of 4
This letter is an update of events about the proposed Highway through Fairmont Park,
Glen Meadows, and Lomax. + info about the upcoming Bond election.
1. Citizens attending our group meetings voted to name our group "Common Sense
Government". We are formalizing the paperwork to make us a state registered
Political Action Committee (PAC) so we can work other local issues if they arise.
2. 576 + citizens have signed the Common Sense Government petition to "abandon the
proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. to Lomax School Road and remove all
Comprehensive Plan references to connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225".
Our petition was presented to City Council on Oct. 12,1999. The Council responded
by unanimously voting for the following City Ordinance # 98-2287.
"There is no public necessity for the extension and improvement of Farrington
Boulevard and Lomax School Road to connect to Highway 225, or to upgrade
Lomax School Road as a four lane street; repealing references to said connection
in the City of La Porte Comprehensive Plan; repealing the provision in the City's
1998-1999 capital improvement budget for the improvement and paving of a 28
foot wide connection between Farrington Boulevard and Lomax School Road".
3. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS TO ALL WHO SIGNED THE PETITION
AND TO THE 16 COMMON SENSE GOVT. COORDINATORS WHO
CIRCULATED THE PETITION AND MADE IT POSSIBLE... AND THANKS TO
THE COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES THAT PASSED THE ORDINANCE.
4. If you understood the ordinance to read that the Phase 1 road connecting Farrington
Blvd to Lomax School Road is dead; you are not alone. Many people have
interpreted it that way .... However; the ordinance can be interpreted several different
ways and there are some on City Council that interpret the ordinance to mean that the
Phase 1 road can still happen in the next budget and North Farrington Blvd. can still
become 4 lanes. If these items make it through the Comprehensive Plan Review, they
probably will happen.
5. We need to remain active and vigilant through the City's Comprehensive Plan
Review process to make sure ALL phases of this project are removed from the
comprehensive plan. We believe that the Phase 1 road by itself would make another
high speed, heavy traffic "Myrtle Creek" type bypass of Farrington Blvd/Lomax
School Rd, and H,L,and P Streets as drivers would try to avoid the congestion at
Sens/Spencer, and Underwood/Spencer.
0
coordinators asks how long the ordinance to stop phases 2 &3 is good for. As a
councilman answers loudly, "Forever", the tape picks up Betty Waters
sarcastically saying in the background," until a new one is passed". This is very
important because Betty Waters is chairperson of the Planning and Zoning
Commission that put phase 1 back in the Comprehensive Plan AFTER the
Steering Committee removed it. Mrs. Waters has also been the chief, behind the
scenes, builder of roadblocks to our participation in the political process of the
Comprehensive Plan Review.
If you thought, as many citizens have thought; that the ordinance protected
your neighborhood and your safety from the "Highway"; we encourage you to
think again.
WE ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO JOIN THE CITIZENS OF "Common Sense
Government" at the Jan. 22, 2001 6PM City Council meeting. The Council will
vote on Phase 1 of the "Highway" in this meeting. We urge you to stand up with
your neighbors in opposition to all 3 Phases of the "Highway"... and in the small
City Council Chambers, every stand up vote will count.
0 0
9-26-98 page 1 of 4
Notes for Bill Scott's 9-28-98 5 minute presentation to City Council
Background:
a.The City's Comprehensive Plan that was developed in 1984, shows Farrington Blvd.
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Hwy 225.
b. In 1994, City Planning Director Charles Harrington wrote a resident, stating that:
1. Phase 1 would connect Farrington Blvd. to Lomax School Road.
2. Phase 2 would connect "P" Street to Hwy 225 at some time probably after 2001
3. Phase 3 would make the entire project 4 lanes in app. 2004 to 2009.
c. On Aug. 25, 1998 the City's current Planning Director referred to this project as a
"Highway" when comparing it to Underwood Road.
d. On Sept. 14,1998 the City approved $321,000 in It's General Budget to
build Phase 1 of the "Highway". However Council Members have said that they
do not hold up approval of the General Budget for any one item ... But any
item may be removed later by simply not funding it. Phase 1 construction can
still be easily stopped by the City.
2. I and many others in our group have talked with several of the City Council Members about
the proposed Highway through our neighborhoods and three facts have become very evident:
The start of the Phase 1 road was proposed and budgeted with:
a. Little or no thought given to this roads' serious current negative impact on a large
number of taxpayers.
b. Little or no input from negatively affected taxpayers.
c. Little or no current needs/impact analysis.
Now that Council Members are aware of the Strong objection to this Phase 1 road by
a very large number of taxpayers; I think it is time to get on with listening to the
taxpayers and to quite aggravating a decision that in hind sight was a mistake. This
Phase 1 road is still being justified by using broad general cliches, notional ideas, and
unstudied, unverified information. This type of thinking caused the mistake and it
certainly will not correct it. Council Members are still attempting to ignore the serious
negative effects this Phase 1 road will have on a large number of taxpayers in 3 large
subdivisions. I have talked at length with 4 Council Members and a Planning and
Zoning Rep. They did not mention one word about how this Highway will greatly
decrease our hard earned property values, decrease our standard of living, disrupt our
existing neighborhood lifestyles, AND Endanger our Children and our selves.
Instead, they mentioned:
1. The school system wants it for a shorter bus route.
2. Emergency vehicles need a shorter route.
3. I'm concerned about EMS response time.
4. We need it for emergency evacuation.
5. We need to "open up" Lomax.
6. The road will make travel more convenient for me.
7. We can't stop progress.
• 0
page 2 of 4
8. We can't put the needs of 30 homeowners above the needs of 32,000 other citizens.
Some of these may sound good on the surface, but let's take a closer look. I'd like to address each
one of these in the order listed and use specifics instead of general cliches, notional ideas, and
fuzzy concepts that are not backed up by factual input.
L(Bus Route) I contacted the La Porte I.S.D. Superintendent and the Transportation Director.
Neither one knew the Phase 1 road was starting. They had informally mentioned wanting the
road to the City Administration about 3 years ago. Now that they are aware of the road, They
want it to bus students from North of Meadow Place Dr. in Glen Meadows to Lomax
Elementary School because of overcrowding at their home school of Rizzuto.
Response. The logical, cost effective answer to this problem is to put our tax money in to a
permanent fix by adding more class rooms at Rizzuto or another school and not waste it on a
temporary band aid fix for the school system that will have a permanent serious negative effect
on over 500 people in established neighborhoods.
2. (Emergency Vehicle Route) Fire Chief Joe Sease wants the Phase 1 road so the #2 Spencer
Fire Station can respond to the center of Lomax more quickly and the Lomax #3 Fire Station can
respond directly South more quickly. His overall plan includes building a new Fire Station
probably at "P" Street and Sens Rd. for 3 reasons.
a. The current #3 Lomax Fire Station is structurally unsound because of termite damage
b. The dangers of Fire Trucks existing and traveling so close to the softball fields and
Rodeo Arena. I think this is a logical concern with evidence to back it up.
c. Possible expansion of coverage to the North and East.
Response to:
a. The structural condition of #3 station and possible repair have not been professionally
or accurately studied. The assumed structural condition is based on some people seeing
"large" amounts of termite damage when interior wall coverings were replaced some
years ago.
b. The softball fields will be moved to Little Cedar Bayou Park and that area will become
Rodeo Arena parking. I think this will eliminate the great majority of concern about
mixing Fire Trucks with children and with Rodeo Arena traffic.
c. I think areas to the North and South will expand in unforeseen ways, IF the Bayport
Ship Terminal is constructed. But that is far in the future and may not even happen. At
the present, and based on population density, the #3 Fire Station is very centrally located
for it's coverage area of Lomax. Mr. Sease thinks a new fire station will cost app.
$500,000. I think a new $50,000 steel building, at 1/10 tenth cost, at the current location
will be more cost effective ... IF it is proven the current station is unsound and can not be
repaired.
0 •
Page 3 of 4
I think when we tell voters all the facts, there won't be a $500,000 urban artwork Fire Station in
Lomax. I think wasted taxpayers money is wasted taxpayers money. It doesn't matter which area
of the City benefits from the waste.
..And as in all the other excuses used to build the Phase 1 road, there has been NO detailed
needs/impact study to justify any of item #2.
3. (EMS Route) EMS services for the West side of the city are located just East of Sens Road at
Spencer. Every possible Scenario I can think of on this item shows that the Phase 1 road is not
needed. Again, a detailed needs/impact study has not been done on this item.
4. (Emergency Evacuation) Underwood Rd. is now 5 lanes. The new 4 lane East Blvd. is just 1/2
mile West of Underwood Rd. Hwy 146 is being extensively expanded. Bay Area Blvd. will tie
into Sens Rd. Sens Rd. becoming 4 lanes is under discussion with the County. All of this tells me
that in an emergency evacuation the Obvious traffic jam will occur in and around Houston, not
on Farrington Blvd.
Again, there has been No needs/impact study to justify this. Only notional thinking.
5. (Open up Lomax) I have driven through out most of the Subdivisions in recent weeks. They
are a maze of dead ends and tees. I've become lost more times than I can count. These sub
divisions were intentionally designed this way to eliminate through traffic that doesn't belong
there. Yet the Council Member making this statement thinks it is OK to "open up" Lomax and
dump through traffic into 3 large subdivisions and run rush hour traffic through 2 elementary
school zones and 3 park areas. This isn't just poor planning with No needs/impact study. This is
gross negligence.
6. (Convenient Travel) As stated in item 5. Subdivisions are designed to eliminate through
traffic and convenience through traffic travel. Lomax, Glen Meadows, and Faremont Park
taxpayers have the same right as other taxpayers to keep our existing street structure to eliminate
through traffic and maintain our property values and neighborhood environment. This basic
American right has been upheld in numerous court cases. One persons desire for a convenience
does not justify another persons loss of property value and/or existing neighborhood
environment.
7.(We Can't Stop Progress) This worn out clich6 has been used many times to financially benefit
a select few at the cost of the existing general good of the many. I think it's use as a justification
for the Phase 1 road points out that the City has attempted to push this road through with no
input from the taxpayers affected by it.
527+ taxpayers think the Phase 1 road will greatly reduce our property values, greatly lower our
existing neighborhood environments, and seriously jeopardize the safety of our children and
ourselves due to increased through traffic.
8. (We can't put the needs of 30 people above the needs of 32,000 people) This statement was
used as part of the need for the Phase 1 road for emergency evacuation(item 4).
0 0
Page 4 of 4
It's not the needs of 30. It is the needs of the 527+ voters who have signed a Petition asking the
City Council to Not fund Phase 1 of this "highway" through our neighborhoods ... and to even
propose that 32,000 La Porte citizens will use Farrington Blvd for emergency evacuation is
illogical and irresponsible.
I believe that if all directly affected taxpayers wanting to sign the Petition could be reached;
the number of signatures would easily grow from the current 527 to exceed 1500. BY
COMPARISON, THERE WERE ONLY 997 VOTERS IN THE LAST GENERAL ELECTION.
I think if all La Porte taxpayers knew the City was wasting app. $1,000,000 of their tax money
on local combined projects that are strongly opposed by the local folks These projects are
supposed to benefit; a large wheel barrow wouldn't be able to carry all the signatures... and of
course We will do that through the newspapers if necessary.
As one of the 16 Coordinators for our taxpayers group, I think this is where our group stands:
1. We will actively seek the removal of elected and appointed representatives and of
bureaucrats who defend this Phase 1 road or try to straddle the fence in order to avoid
the "heat".
2. We will present our Petition to City Council during the Oct. 12 City Council meeting.
3. If this Petition is ignored we will repetition the same taxpayers to force an initiative for a
city ordinance to permanently ban this type of assault on our neighborhoods... and with
our Petition signatures exceeding 1/2 the number of voters in the last general election,
We legally can and will do it.
Many thanks from all the taxpayers involved to all the taxpayers who have signed the petition,
attended City Council meetings, spoke before Council, circulated the Petition and letters and
have basically made our system of government work.
Important dates:
Oct. 6- 6:00-9:30 PM -We meet at Farrington Blvd Rec. Center (near the water tower)
for discussion and info sharing. Our consultant Barry Klein will lead some
discussion and answer questions. Mr. Klein is currently also working with
taxpayers to stop the Bayport Shipping expansion project and has worked with
taxpayers to stop Harris County rail transit, Houston Zoning, etc.etc..
Oct.12- Present the Petition to Council at their bi-monthly meeting.
Oct. 27- 7:00 PM- Sylvan Beach Conference Center( Pavilion)- VERY IMPORTANT -
Open Public Meeting to start the Review of the Comprehensive Plan. If we
eliminate this "Highway" from the plan, we eliminate it period. Please attend and
get on the committees and voice your facts and opinions.
Contacts: Kay & Bill Scott (H) 281-470-6685, Jim Adams (H) 281-470-2378
Wayne Knox (W) 281-471-5751
9-30-98 Pagel of 6
Fellow Taxpayers,
This letter is intended to summarize the facts and positions on our efforts to stop the
Highway being planned for our sub divisions.
Important dates:
Oct. 6- 6:00-9:30 PM -We meet at Farrington Blvd Rec. Center (near the water tower)
for discussion and info sharing. Our consultant Barry Klein will lead some
discussion and answer questions. Mr. Klein is also currently working with
taxpayers to stop the Bayport container ship terminal and has worked with
taxpayers to stop Harris County rail transit, Houston Zoning, etc.etc..
Oct.12- 6:00- 7:00 PM - City Hall Council Chambers- We Present the Petition to Council
at their bi-monthly meeting.
Oct. 27- 7:00 PM- Sylvan Beach Conference Center( Pavilion)- VERY IMPORTANT
If you can only make 1 meeting to save your property values and
neighborhood environment, This Is The One To Attend.
Open Public Meeting to start the Review of the Comprehensive Plan. If we
eliminate all three phases of this "Highway" from the plan it becomes extremely
difficult for the City to build it later. Please attend and get on the committees and
voice your facts and opinions.
Background Facts:
a.The City's Comprehensive Plan that was developed in 1984, shows Farrington Blvd.
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Hwy 225.
b. On Sept. 26,1994, City Planning Director Charles Harrington wrote on a city
letterhead to a resident about this road stating that:
1. Phase 1 would connect Farrington Blvd. to Lomax School Road.
2. Phase 2 would connect "P" Street to Hwy 225 at some time probably after 2001
3. Phase 3 would make the entire project 4lanes in app. 2004 to 2009.
c. On Aug 25,1998 the City's current Planning Director referred to this three phase
project as a "Highway" when comparing it to Underwood Road.
d. On Sept.14,1998 the City approved $321,000 in It's GeneraliBudget to
build Phase 1 of the "Highway". However Council Members have said that any
Budget item may be removed simply not funding it. Phase 1 construction can
still be easily stopped by the City.
Many members of our group have talked with several of the City Council Members
about the proposed Highway through our neighborhoods and it has become very evident
the start of the Phase 1 road was recently proposed and budgeted with:
a. Little or no thought given to this roads' serious current negative impact on a large
number of taxpayers.
b. Little or no input from or concern for negatively affected taxpayers.
c. Little or no current needs analysis or impact analysis or en*ineering study etc.
Page 2 of 6
3. Now that Council Members are aware of the Strong objection to this Phase 1 road by
a very large number of taxpayers; They are still attempting to justify wasting the
taxpayers money on this unwanted, unnecessary Phase 1 road by
broad general cliches, notional ideas, and unstudied, unverified information.
I have talked at length with 5 Council Members and they did not mention one single
word about how this Highway will decrease our hard earned property values, and
reduce our neighborhood environments in Lomax, Glen Meadows, and Fairmont Park.
Instead, they mentioned:
1. The school system wants it for a shorter bus route.
2. Emergency vehicles need a shorter route.
3. I'm concerned about EMS response time.
4. We need it for emergency evacuation.
5. We need to "open up" Lomax.
6. The road will make travel more convenient for me.
7. We can't stop progress.
8. We can't put the needs of 30 homeowners above the needs of 32,000 other citizens.
Some of these may sound good on the surface, but let's take a closer look and address
each one with specifics instead of general cliches, notional ideas, and fuzzy concepts that
are not backed up by factual input.
L(Bus Route) I contacted the La Porte I.S.D. Superintendent and the Transportation
Director. Neither one knew the Phase 1 road was starting. They had informally
mentioned wanting the road to the City Administration about 3 years ago. Now that they
are aware of the road, They want it to bus students from North of Meadow Place Dr. in
Glen Meadows to Lomax Elementary School because of overcrowding at their home
school of Rizzuto.
Response. The logical, cost effective answer to this problem is to put our tax money in
to a permanent fix by adding more class rooms at Rizzuto or another school and not
waste it on a temporary band aid fix for the school system that will have a permanent
serious negative effect on over 550+ people in established neighborhoods.
2. (Emergency Vehicle Route) Fire Chief Joe Sease wants the Phase 1 road so the #2
Spencer Fire Station can respond to the center of Lomax more quickly. If this Phase 1
Road is completed, he plans to build a new $500,000 Fire Station probably at "P" Street
and Sens Rd. for 2 reasons.
a. The current #3 Lomax Fire Station is structurally unsound because of termite damage
b. The dangers of Fire Trucks existing and traveling so close to the softball fields and
Rodeo Arena. I think this is a logical concern with evidence to back it up.
0
0
Page 3 of 6
Response:
a. The structural condition of #3 station and possible repair have no been professionally
or accurately studied. The assumed structural condition is based on some people seeing
"large" amounts of termite damage when interior wall coverings were replaced some
years ago.
b. The softball fields will be moved to Little Cedar Bayou Park and that area will
become Rodeo Arena parking. I think this will eliminate the concern about mixing
Fire Trucks with children ... and again, there has been no needs/impact study to justify
any of item #2.
3. (EMS Route) EMS services for the West side of the city are located just East of Sens
Road at Spencer. Every possible Scenario I can think of on this item shows that the Phase
1 road is not needed. Again, a detailed needs/impact study was not done.
4. (Emergency Evacuation) Underwood Rd. is now 5 lanes. The new 4 lane East Blvd. is
just 1/2 mile West of Underwood Rd. Hwy 146 is being extensively expanded. Bay Area
Blvd. will tie into Sens Rd. which will become 4 lanes to Hwy 225. All of this should
tell any logically thinking person that in an emergency evacuation the obvious traffic jam
for our evacuation route may occur were traffic funnels into the Baytown bridge and
other funnel points, Not on Farrington Blvd.
Again, there has been No needs/impact study. Only notional thinking.
5. (Open up Lomax) I have driven through out most of the Subdivisions in recent weeks.
They are a maze of dead ends and tees. I've become lost more times than I can count.
These sub divisions were intentionally designed this way to eliminate through traffic that
doesn't belong there. Yet the Council Member making this statement thinks it is OK to
"open up" Lomax and dump through traffic and rush hour traffic through 2 elementary
school zones and 3 recreational areas. This isn't just poor planning with No needs/impact
study. This is gross negligence.
6. (Convenient Travel) As stated in item 5. Subdivisions are designed to eliminate
through traffic and convenience through traffic travel. Lomax, Glee} Meadows, and
Fairmont Park taxpayers have the same right as other taxpayers to beep our existing street
structure to eliminate through traffic and maintain our property values and neighborhood
environment. One persons' desire for a convenience does not justif� another persons' loss
of property value and/or existing neighborhood environment. This is a basic American
right.
7.(We Can't Stop Progress) This worn out clich6 has been used many times to financially
benefit a select few at the cost of the existing general good of the many. I think it's use as
a justification for the Phase 1 road points out that the City has attempted to push this road
through with no input from the taxpayers affected by it.
0 •
Page 4 of 6
The 550+ taxpayers signing the Petition to stop the Highway believe the Phase 1 road
will greatly reduce our property values, greatly lower our existing neighborhood
environments, and seriously jeopardize the safety of our children and ourselves due to
increased through traffic.
8. (We can't put the needs of 30 people above the needs of 32,000 people) This statement
was made by the same Council Member claiming a need for the Highway for emergency
evacuation(item 4).
It's not the needs of 30. It is the needs of the 550+ voters who have signed a Petition
asking the City Council to Not fund Phase 1 of this "Highway" through our
neighborhoods ... and to even propose that 32,000 La Porte citizens will use Farrington
Blvd for emergency evacuation is illogical.
I believe that if all directly affected taxpayers wanting to sign the Petition could be
reached; the number of signatures would easily grow from the current 550 to exceed
1500. BY COMPARISON, THERE WERE ONLY 997 VOTERS IN THE LAST
LA PORTE GENERAL ELECTION.
If all La Porte taxpayers knew the City was wasting app. $1,000,000 of their tax money
on local combined projects that are strongly opposed by the local taxpayers these
projects are supposed to benefit; a large wheel barrow wouldn't be able to carry all the
signatures... and of course We will make other taxpayers aware through the newspapers.
This money is desperately needed to solve flooding problems in East Lomax and other
areas.
As one of the 16 Coordinators for our taxpayers group, I think this is where our group
stands:
1. We will actively work for the removal of elected and appointed representatives and
of bureaucrats who defend this Phase 1 road or try to straddle the fence in order to
avoid the blame for building it.
2. We will present our Petition to City Council during the Oct. 12 City Council
meeting.
3. If this Petition is ignored we will repetition the same taxpayers to force an initiative
for a city ordinance to permanently ban this type of assault on our neighborhoods...
and with our Petition signatures exceeding 1/2 the number of voters in the last general
election, We legally can and will do it.
Our Lomax/Glen Meadows Council member, Guy Sutherland has attempted to speak for
the City and the Council in recent Bayshore Sun Articles. However, Mr. Sutherland is
only one of 9 Council Members and you have just read remarks by some of the other
Council Members who are trying to justify not only Phase 1 but Phases 2 and 3 of the
Highway.
Page 5 of 6
In Mid August I asked Mr. Sutherland about the Farrington to "H" Street connecting
road and he did his best to convince me it was just a little connection road that was being
pushed by the school system for a bus route and to save my energy �or fighting the big
road going to Hwy 225. I checked with the L.P.I.S.D. Superintendent and the
Transportation Director and they had no idea the road was being built. I then got with
other neighbors and found out that the little connection road was actually Phase 1 of
what the City's Planning Director called a "Highway" and he was still planning on
building it... and that was just 35 days ago. Mr. Sutherland has recently met with his
"Kitchen Council" of 6 Lomax Taxpayers and after 3 hours of trying to persuade them to
his point of view, all 6 were still strongly against the Phase 1 road. In one month our
group has grown to 550+ taxpayers with 17 Coordinators who have signed a Petition
asking the City to abandon the Phase 1 road and the Highway.. and there were just 997
voters in the last City General Election. Now Mr. Sutherland is going out to do a sales job
to persuade people to allow the Phase 1 instead of listening to 550+ taxpayers that signed
a petition to stop the Phase 1 of the Highway. The question is obvious... How can Mr.
Sutherland attempt to represent City Hall's position on this matter when he can't
even represent the Taxpayers in his own district?
City Manager Bob Herrera has tried to down play the seriousness of this Highway in a
recent Bayshore Sun article by calling it a "rumor". As you can see from the above facts,
it is not a rumor. He also stated that the Phase 1 road was planned "to expand residential
traffic between the Lomax area and Spencer Hwy". Actually it will tie Fairmont Parkway
into P Street in North Lomax which will open up our neighborhoods to rush hour through
traffic moving away from the "Parking lot" of Sens Road & also the Underwood/Spencer
intersection. He also states it will be 30- 45 days before further City consideration of the
road. This Time limit will expire well before the 2-6 month review of the Comprehensive
Plan where taxpayers can input their thoughts on this road. I don't understand Mr.
Herrera's rush to build this Phase 1 road. With all the misinformation the City has put
out on this Highway, is it any wonder that many taxpayers believe the City has lost all
credibility on this issue.
Many thanks from all the taxpayers involved, to all the taxpayers ho have signed the
petition, attended City Council meetings, spoke before Council, c' culated the tition
and letters and have basically made our system of government wor .
Coordinators:
Jim Adams (H) 470-2378
Dorothy Coker (I) 471-2346
Earl Deleon (H) 471-2346
Danny Frierson (H) 470-9608
Louis Heintschel (H) 471-3247
Wayne Knox (W) 471-5751
Paul Neumann (H) 471-2671
Becky Sayers (H) 470-0113
Kay Scott (H) 470-6685
Bill Scott (H) 470-6685
Sharon Tally (H) 471-1445
Doyle Tally (H) 471-1445
Pat Wright (H) 471-7840
Nancy Quested (H) 471-0709
Bill Scott
3 Coordinators wish
to remain anonymous
Page 6 of 6
Contact List
You can leave a message at City Hall (281-471-5020) for any of the City Council
Members or City Staff and they are supposed to return your call.
La Porte City Hall Main # - (H) 471-5020
Guy Sutherland - City Council Member for Lomax & Glen Meadows - (H) 471-1244
Howard Ebow
- City Council Member for Fairmont Park
- (H) 471-4014
Peter Griffiths
- City Council Member At Large & City Council Rep
for the Comprehensive Plan Update
- (H) 470-8483
Alton Porter
- City Council Member At Large
- (H) 471-8377
Deotis Gay
- City Council Member & Rep for the
Comprehensive Plan Update
-(H) 471-3259
Norman Malone - City Mayor
- (W) 471-5020
Betty Waters
- City Planning and Zoning Board Rep for the
Comprehensive Plan Review
- (H) ????????
BobHerrera
- City Manager
- (W) 471-5020
Doug Kneupper - City Planning Director
- (W) 471-5020
Comprehensive Plan Update Steering Committee Members
The following names were acquired under the Public Information Act. We will make
addresses and/or phone #s available when and if they become available from the City.
Brian Moore
Chester Pool
David Brady
Deoitis Gay
Gary Wiggington
John Tomerlin
John Zemanek, Sr.
Peter Griffiths
Roy Baldwin
Steve Valarius
Barbara Jenks
Betty Waters
Imogene Pulleine
Martha Love
Pat Muston
Mr. Ref s speech was about "conRtseveral
ble delays in response times" and " aring response times"
for the police. I have met with Mr. times and studied his data and he has admitted that he
has NO data about response times and can not even begin to compare response times. Mr. Reff also
did not state that the major reason for any long response times was that the policewere short 9 patrol
officers.
Mr. Clausen stated that he wants Phase 1 because Underwood and Spencer are 91afety concerns... but
he plans to bus children through an Airport Runway Protection Zone. He did NOT state the fact that if
Phase 1 is built there will not be any bus routes from Glen Meadows to Lomax lementary because the
School district will not bus within a 2 mile radius of a school. Lomax is an except;p't,qjybecw4lk.them.
,oause
ffi
trac and lack of side walks make Lomax streets so dangerous that most people
While Mr. Sease's and Mr. Reff's excuses for building Phase 1 are full of ifs & maybes, the dangers
from traffic on Lomax roads are real; they occur every day; and a white cross by the road at P ST
and Lomax School Rd. reminds us of that fact. We invite anyone who doesn't agree; to try to ride a
bicycle down H, L, & P streets during the evening.
Background facts for the following Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) safety standards..
The Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for the La Porte Airport is supposed to extend 1,200 ft. beyond
the end of the runway & be 700 ft. wide at the West. end., The Pro osed Phase
,l_road would cut
__.. .
through app. 1/3 of the RPZ. The La Porte airport is go, e- 6d,& inspected,by the Texas Department
of Transportation (TexDOT) Aviation Division using FAA rules & regulations.
In the 3-16-00 Planning & Zoning meeting, the City's Airport Manager, Steve Gillett stated, "The fact
that we were able to take part of the City's money & purchase the right of way for that (Phase 1 road)&
reserve it; that was the only way Farrington (Phase 1 Road) was ever going to happen, because if we
had just purchased it (Phase 1 road right of way) with Federal (grant)funds as Airport, Property, they
(TexDOT) would have prohibited the (Phase 1) road." Let's read on to see one reason why:
The following are direct quotes from FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design,
which contains the regulations that govern the LaPorte Airport.".. For airport projects receiving
Federal grants-in-aid assistance, the use'of these standards is mandatory." Here are the safety
standards the City maneuvered around by cutting the Phase 1 Road right of way out of the RPZ grant.
201.- Principles of Application
a(2) "All other Existing & planned airport elements, including the following, should be on airport
property, (a) Object Free Areas; (b) Runway Protection Zones (RPZs)."
211 - Object Clearing (sec. 8) General -;"Other objects which require clearing (from the RPZ) are
those which generally can have an adverse effect on the airport. These.include objects in the inner.part
of the approach area (coinciding with the RPZ) such as fuel handling & storage facilities, smoke &
dust generating activities, misleading lights, & those which may create glare or attract wildlife." How
many of us have been blinded by glare from vehicle glass & chrome parts?
212 - Runway Protection Zone (RPZ).. "The RPZ's function is to enhance the protection of people &
property on the ground. This is achieved through airport owner control over the RPZs..Such, pontrol.
includes clearing the RPZ areas {& maintaining them clear} of incompatible objects &activities." 2.a.
Golf courses (except club houses) and certain agricultural uses are permitted. Automobile. parking lots
are discouraged but allowed if they meet certain conditions. TexDOT is even against parking lots in a ,
RPZ and generally, more people are exposed to danger on a through road than is a parking koi.
Appendix 8, sec. 8, (page 140) " The RPZ's function is to enhance the protection of people & property
on the ground. Where practical, airport owners should own the property+ under,the runway approach &
departure areas to at least the limits of the RPZ. It is desirable to clear the entire RPZ. of ail above
ground objects. Where this is impractical, airport owners, as a minimum, shall Maintain the RPZ
clear of all facilities supporting incompatible activities. Incompatible activities include, but are
not limited to, those which lead to an assembly of people."
Inspector Jim Curl has stated that new roads are not allowed in RPZs I believe it WAS practical for
the Airport to own the entire RPZ and keep it clear of all above ground objects. I think it is obvious
from Mr. Gillett's statements to the P&Z that the City intentionally set out to avoid prohibiting new
road construction through the La Porte Airport RPZ. Most importantly, I:think,any reasonable „person,
would say that a school bus full of children is an assembly of people;, an extremely:important assembly
that deserves the highest safety standards. Are TexDOT's safety conce;ns real?'Well; abet trainer;and a
large transport have mistakenly attempted to land at the LaPorte Airport and lanes hav h d
aup a eras e
into 2 homes near the proposed Phase 1 Road.
it :CS' l l#Yii�r.'
TIRED OF THE MANEUVERS USED TO BUILD THIS DANGEROUS OAD?; TIIt1r,D OF.;r a,
THE 60+ MPH TRAFFIC IN LOMAX?
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES; THEY WORK FOR YOU.
Councilman Peter Griffiths 281- 470-8483 Councilmap Alton Porter 2$�-471-5.3$8
Councilman Guy Sutherland 281-471-1244 Police Chef Reff 281-471 3810,.
Thank you for your time and support,
Bill Scott, Treasurer for.,Common. Sense; Government,g
281-470-6685, scottl@hal-pcorg
6-12-00 R.2
YOUR INPUT IS REQUESTED
The City Will Hold,A Public Forum on Tuesday', June 20, 2000, 7 - 8:30 PM at the
Sylvan Beach Pavilion for Citizens to Review & Comment on the Draft Comprehensive
Plan. The Sylvan Beach Pavilion is located on Galveston Bay at the East end of Fairmont Parkway.
Bolding is added in the following text:
The Citizens -with Common Sense Government (CSG) urge you to attend & make your views known.
This plan will guide La Porte for `approximately the next 10 years. This is an informal opportunity to
receive an overview of the draft of the new Comprehensive Plan (Comp. Plan), ask questions of City ;
staff and the planning consultant, and to comment on individual parts of the Comp. plan.' Your
suggestions will be documented in writing and forwarded to City Council for their consideration.
Following the Open House, the City Council will receive the draft proposed Comp. Plan Update for
their review and discussion. Citizens will have an opportunity to address City Council about any
requested changes to the plan.
In their 3-16-2000 meeting; the City's 6 member Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) voted
to recommend to City Council that the Phase 1 Road connecting Farrington Blvd. to Lomax
School Road, be put Back into the Comp. Plan. This occurred 14 months AFTER CSG Citizens
spoke before the 15 member Steering Committee which developed the Comp. Plan. The Steering Com.
REMOVED Phases 1, 2, and 3 at that meeting. The P&Z will also recommend a bridge on H street
to make it a through road. Here are the Details:
Summary of Phase 1 Road Events:
1.8/98 - City declares intent to build Phase 1 Road with 3 sentences in a Bay Shore Sun article that
doesn't say anything about Phase 2 which continues Farrington to Hwy 225 & Phase 3
which makes it a 4 lane Underwood type road where speeds commonly exceed 60 MPH..
2. 8/30/98 - CSG exposes City's documented plan to install Phases 2 & 3 after Phase 1 is built.
3. 9/14/99 - Mayor's Position Paper admits there is a plan to extend Farrington to Hwy 225 & calls for
the issue to be worked through the Comprehensive Plan Review.
4. 9/28/98 - CSG presents a 574 signature petition calling for all 3 phases to be removed from City's
Comp. plan. Council passes ordinance declaring no intention to do Phase 2, & putting
Phase 1 on hold while it is worked through the Comp. Plan. This Ordinance is not
permanent. It can be overturned at any time.
5. 1/14/99 - CSG members speak before the Steering Committee developing the Comprehensive
Plan. The Steering Committee removes all 3 Phases from the Comp. Plan.)
6. 3/16/00 - P&Z votes to recommend putting Phase 1 Road back into Comp. Plan.
7. Dates pending- Public hearings before P&Z & City Council on the Comp. Plan.
A study of the audio tape of the 3-16-00 P &Z meeting exposes several biased statements that pages
could be written about. We'll review a few main statements below. "
1. Project Manager, Bret Keast repeatedly pushed for making Phase.l a -4 lane road, with 2 parking
lanes. Fire Chief Sease also pushed to make Phase 1 a 4 lane road. All the comments about making
Phase 1 a 4 lane road were accepted by silence from the P&Z members who did not ask any questions,
or express any concerns about making Phase 1 a 4 lane road. One P&&.:member asked about the plan to
connect Farrington to Hwy 225 and it was thought this would not be. necessary IF Lomax' could be, ", '° '
zoned for large minimum lot sizes to limit population. City insiders don't even have Phase I OK'd and
they are pushing for a form of Phase 3 of the project. This is more hard evidence of the City's real , w
intent to eventually build Phases 2 & 3. Bret Keast 'introduced speakers;Fire Chief Joe Sease`&;Police'°" $`a ""'i,
Chief Richard Reffg as, "..the City staff members hereTh �omnght, ey want to kind of present an at , ry N tl
objective overview of pros & cons I' guess, of extending some form`.of cconnection between the
Farrington Rd. & Lomax'School Rd. Mike Clausen with'the School District also spoke
Joe Sease, Richard Reff, & Mike Clausen,.whose main jobs are our safety, presented; NO cons on the
Phase 1 road. Their presentations were not objective. I talked with`Mr's Sease & Clausen, in'98"about
the safety concerns of the 574 citizens 'signing the petition to stop, all phases of the pfoposed; inghwaay,! F
so they were well aware of the "cons" of Phase 1, & yet they did,not sayFone,word about
concerns. These people keep ignoring the obvious fact that safety inla'neighborhood'consists of"a
lot more than just response time.O
..
Fire Chief Sease stated that the EMS(ambulance) needs Phase'
1; although he hash' a o; a o Iy�tj�f� k�"
the facts that because the EMS is located near Sens at Spencer Phase 1 pould'only be an advan e f
an ambulance was returning empty on Spencer, if it was just opposite Phase 1 and if it -was re�r�uted to`'"1 Sir'
an emergency in Lomax just opposite Phase 1, that would have to occur at that exact moment ,' Arid
that is" a LOT of ifs]. An EMS activity on part of H street would be about 800 yards"longer until the H "
street bridge is built. Mr. Sease has admitted in writing in response to an Open Records request that he
has not done any data analysis to prove his opinion that Phase 1 would lessen Citizen's exposure to fire
damage.
This P&Z meeting discussed the Transportation section of the Comp. Plan... Yet not one word was
said about making Sens Road a much needed 4 lanes(wh'ere the P&Z Chairperson lives & her
daughter has a nice home very close to the road). Although this is a County road, the City has to
financially participate in new cons ction, as they are on Bay Area Blvd. ore Info On Back >>>
n
LJ
•
Mayor, Council, & City -Tanager
xn: Councilman Sutherland
Comprehensive Plan
aowing are points I would like to have clarified as requested at the Workshop.
I understood Bret Kcast to sav that Lomax School Road could become a 3 or 4 lane
road. I would like to have the plan make a specific recDmmendation that it stays as is.
There is confusion on whether TxDOT & FAA approves of a city street in the RPZ.
This will not be clear until our City Attorney gibes his opinion on this and he should
onh, do it after personally discussing it with regulatory authorities. The cite- should
avoid becoming involved in a lawsuit over this.
We should rethia- extending Valle) -view between H & L Streets. Any location between
Lomax Dme and the pipeline corridor would destroy propem values of seer-ral homes.
d=e of them new and expensive.
We should delete the recommendation that Farrington be extended to Lomax School
Road to reflect the wishes of the 570 petition signers and the 100% of the attendees
who testified against it at the public hearing called to solicit public opinion. our Council
must respect the wishes of its citizens.
It is implied that Fire Station 2 fights fires in Lomax where Station 3 is the primary
server. Our volunteer fireman take exception to this slight to their ability and the plan
should reflect their work accurately.
I am submitting a map with the Mayor's copy of this letter indicating street changes I
think are desirable and am listing them bclow for the rest of you.
1. Robinson Road should be shown as a collector.
?_ All other arterial. collector streets north of P Street should be omitted to give
developers of these large tracts complete freedom in planning.
3. Valleybrook extention to H Street could be used in place of the Farrington extention
since, it would be much legs attractive to through traffic.
4. A collector road to Bay Colony should be shown.
5. The new collector streets to Cattle Cedar Bayou Park should be omitted due to
terrain problems.
((/� '� c� - ..--\G�y min ��]�i ►�S !ry �C� c5
Dau:Kneu per -
From: Bret Keast [bkeast@wilbursmith.com]
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2000 7:52 AM
To: 'Doug Kneupper'
Subject: Thoroughfare Planning
The following are resources concerning thoroughfare planning and network development:
V11. S.raansaadation Planning Handhook, Institute of Transportation Engineers,
1992
'2 . A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways adn Streets, American Assocaition
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1984
/ pticuacapdeB,dpp�eAtl.Institute of Transportation Engineers,
3. 1
988
,/ h ndbDa, Institute of Transportation
Engineers,1976 --'
The Practice of Local Government Planning, International City Management
Association, 1979
(e, The Guide to Urban Planning in Texas Commu ities, Texas American Planning
Association, Seventh Edition, 1996
I hope this is what you Iwere looking for with your request.
T I-E
to <?-3
Ce AIM
,� 7 SlyS�
s'x 13 Z c-
c� �2- aZz� � p'X�' ►�' 1 �.
i ff LE-T�� P,
8/30/98 Page 1 of 2
Fellow La Porte Citizens and Taxpayers;
On Sept. 14, 1998 at 6:00 PM at the La Porte City Hall; our City Council will vote on
a budget that approves funds to start the first phase of a Planned Highway through our
our neighborhoods.
The new City Planning Director, Doug Kneupper, has clearly stated that the City
plans to turn Farrington Blvd. and Lomax School Road into a Four Lane Highway
that will run through the Fairmont Park, Glen Meadows, and Lomax
neighborhoods to Highway 225 as part of a "Comprehensive Plan" put together by
City bureaucrats. This Highway through our Residential Zoned neighborhoods is
intended to be like Underwood Road except that it will have a raised median in the
center instead of a left turn lane.
• The City will spend app. $321,000 +? Land $$ of our tax money to connect
Farrington Blvd. to Lomax School Road as the first phase of putting this Highway
through our neighborhoods.
• This proposed Highway will run through 2 school zones and 3 city park areas.
We believe this Highway through our neighborhoods will:
1. Endanger us and our children as we travel to and from schools, parks, and
other places in our neighborhoods.
2. Endanger us as we enter and leave our driveways, park trailers, or travel to and
from the Rodeo arena, Parks, Ball fields, and Schools.
3. Greatly decrease the value of our homes and our property.
4. Greatly decrease our over all quality of neighborhood life. Apparently the
bureaucrats have forgotten that our neighborhoods are Zoned Residential.
5. Destroy our neighborhoods with increased speeding traffic, noise, crime, littering,
and air pollution.
6. Unfairly decrease our quality of life and property values in order to increase the
property values of special interest land developers South of us.
The excuse our bureaucrats use to install this first phase of the Highway through our
neighborhoods and front yards, is the desire of La Porte I.S.D. to have a shorter bus
route for Lomax Elementary students that have previously attended Rizzuto Elementary.
Yet, L.P.I.S.D. Superintendent John Sawyer says the last time L.P.I.S.D. asked for the
road was about 3 years ago. Mr. Sawyer was unaware that the first phase road was being
considered. The logical answer to the school overcrowding problem is to use the
$321,000 to build new class rooms at Rizzuto rather than destroy our existing
neighborhoods with an unwanted Highway. With a new school planned for the area and
changing school population, there is a good probability that in the near future the 'road
will not be necessary for school travel, but we will still have to live with it's destruction
of our neighborhoods. (More info on the back)
Page 2 of 2
• We invite you to join with your neighbors to stop this Four Lane Highway through
our neighboorhoods before it gets started. Please:
1. Sign the petition by calling one of the neighbors listed at the bottom of this letter.
2. Call our elected officials and bureaucrats at the #s below. Remember, we pay
their salaries and we elect them. They Work For Us. Please tell them what you
want in return for your tax money and your vote .... and ask them how they would
like a Four lane Highway built through their neighboorhoods and front yards.
3. Attend the City Council meeting on Sept. 14, 1998 with your children and your
neighbors to show our bureaucrats and officials that we Will Act to save our
neighborhoods. You have a legal right to speak before City Council for
5 minutes during the meeting. If you wish to use this right, sign up at the
entrance at least 15 minutes before the meeting starts.
4. Tell your neighbors and ask them to sign the petition, to call our bureaucrats and
Council Members, AND to attend the Sept. 14 Council meeting.
Our bureaucrats and some Council members are trying to down play this assault on
our neighborhoods as "no big deal". When you call them and they try to down play
the importance of this first phase of the Four Lane Highway through our
neighborhoods, please remember the attached 1994 letter from City bureaucrats to
the Knox's. Within the last two weeks we have seen the engineering drawings for the
Four Lane Highway and talked with the Director of Planning... and he still plans to
build the Highway.
• We have developed a mountian of evidence that proves the City bureaucrats will say
what they think we want to hear while they secretely work toward their goals ... and
their goal is to turn Farrington Blvd. and Lomax School Rd. into a Four Lane
Highway connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225, unless we stop them.
Please call City Council members: Guy Sutherland @ (H) 471-1244
Howard Ebow @ (H) 471-4014
Peter Griffiths @ (H) 470-8483
Alton Porter @ (H) 471-8377
Zoning Board Member Melton Wolters @ (H) 471-1527
City Manager Bob Herrera @ (W) 471-5020
City Planning Director Doug Kneupper @ (W) 471-5020
Mayor Norman Malone @ (W) 471-5020
OR leave a message for them at City Hall @ 47.1-5020
Thank you for your time and effort:
Wayne Knox @ (W) 471-5751
Jim Adams @ (H) 470-2378
Bill Scott @ (H) 470-6685
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
L
L
L
L
L�
L
F
y
Address
v-s�O `?V "
l G 1
T3
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name . Address
kt0LO
�1
1
3
.4
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address 1
Al py
�-
Paw,
/-�ll
Z g n�)-4"fcl-
`�i o CAA
ca
J
15
r' I
P�
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of LaPorte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
(i i)
Name Address tI F`7,
L
�- f''eaKC- Ia'Z-ZO Ivorfh I--
L n
/Ig,s,jL,
le-
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. f �
Nam Address
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
L
L
L i
0P/ -/, . / 9-,)
It 3
JAle-, 4.
I I?Cj YID -xl
L
L
/1020 /u,G
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. i
Name Address
LrI
—ry
IwL
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
e
d 1_Ytz
Address
16�
csJ/ /,!iLa ? /a-,
`r �s�/ass lL�^✓
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address Phone #
r l�
I nr is �r7P-ACt-� l D L�O& /A-)
L
3
,
Iva
52-1
U
A
G/10
i�ln4,
y
17
F&q
0
, th C* fL P
We the undersigned residents of La orte P T
tx. peition e ity o a orte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
c,L,,
n,.A. ; CIV 1241-
qq tf
LQQVi*IIg5
JA09 GeeKl--OJ
Czsl-
C-1
y�Z2I)MiAf
0
I�
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax f
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
/J
f--- OOV OIMA,
((()3 61-4-�, KoGk--,
y " 4 -el� 'U21 �Z 6,4,4 0� Q�
I Z,
1-7
}
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
-9/1 W, P-.f
r Bo
n 1
c-) /Oow
l� JQAO Lom SuuL Lp L F
LQ i1) n_ L,.. / .. _ .•. Y ii.i,� � � 1. 41 M (1 Y' �.Jc' � I� U �v Q
i �549 �C/ 9G L4
1-755 S- 1 t H L_A C`
1
�7
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
L, ep" � �u 0 JOrA/, Jo V Avo eii-z 4
a
u��
ze-d
; e t �)b .
fie
�LVK)C
C-
17
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
XTamP A(irirPcc i
/0& l F- I �
.� �,, I
• . � 7i- �3 6 9
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte,,
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
/� F
iu," VA,,-cv M Sy .SllaPQc
•
7
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
_ . 1 1
WN
FLO
4 1 V
S/ L - c b
�� / -3s
IJ,If� d6ll- L- 1004 LA6J:& )�X
�, a ---
._.III
01
I�
jo (,3
0/1
/ L w
qz-
L` Poi-+C) may- _75 7
We the undersigned residents of La Porte.Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to. -remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
oil 1 4
Milli
9)
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Ax th'I"
Address
t � c
� 1 i
L_
7
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to 1
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
I LN'�X
MAIN
r &AM I
/ ! %AVIA
i
AA0t�
b4 7T 77S
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
,NCName Address
5 fI RQd,0 5
5fo,4>
1
-51f4 0
/-2-
)2
�GI
/6 0
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Memo A ririrPce
E T3
r
l�, L VI�X-
C.
"12a 6�
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
`�/�
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to 7�)
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
� C,
L I �
C%7/
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Y ►'((� Q co- 1 G i op NcP r-
u io OtcS "r,L S4.
,�] ��. it Al >►1,�,� �•� ��1 (�l.Li �� ( /i,P
t-6
�G F=
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to f
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address PI
Ae
0
e
6��5�
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
F I 7
1035
� ? ry�-5-�-
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrin11
gton Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
/03Z)(0 &--�L < 4
/ �Qdi -
5- 1,rX ze)
17
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
4 C ,, �r Ar,_ 1 ,:,LI
-�-1h h r,:; n
0,4�� I_#
i
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address n
(� fi n- Q � 1 Li- 1�� n/ P -n-�-YI -u-
MI
��#- 19.9��Mvmj
r ._ i :' M
1
OIDO
1 ? �-- w<:�-
L
G.;2, L61"
v2 8i —4et7o
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
t A I I
.�� ire � � - i•—o�¢5 rv� �l� v« ���-
0 3�
-? -�- n _1
% W4111
-71
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the Cify of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. t '>
Name
Address
<�,� 1112 � /I/ /,/ /, �, �, —
L o
C &i
l 0 33 5 o\ d O r r hnrcl
10 3a 3 Old OrOJ-D r d
17
97066v,(-I
1-0, �O r-I ze —/—y 7 75- -� /
CdFf) tf 7/ -/ V5
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to-�
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name
Address
TLl L(Eq STE �ErtiS I ((n 6 l�%
10-75 tO -I
ajAe, N
233z
_ z4�
�G 70 b tf
-k,yr77S,
�I) `F`71-(VY �;
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. a
Address
-
♦
,
M, Ed
i
M�W,4�
{°
o
i
N
to _7, ' Ak
-775�7(-
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address t ,1
6QANQ MoUIS /0630 rJ. H
0
FA
Z-� 190 rfe , 7-757)
Casa q7/-1 Yq5
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225. 0
` 10-1n®
a`7 or 0 %A
�AM/i i
A<a.i�;
MIN
I
0
_.. _ r
/
•
'
...ice`—
`-�'
- -�
�_! .� . `-
Sa 1-7
_ �o
a-ro t,
10706 �rle,l'�( 7757f
C��� Y 7/ Y q5
We the undersigned residents of La Porte Tx. petition the City of La Porte
Tx. to abandon the proposed connection of Farrington Blvd. and Lomax
School Road and to remove all "Comprehensive Plan" references to
connecting Fairmont Parkway to Highway 225.
Name Address
7-3
E�
R
Wit
To: Mayor / Councilmembers January 22, 2001
From: Alton Porter
Subject(s): Comprehensive Master Plan /Re -districting committee appointment(s)
First, in regards to the comprehensive plan I want to share some of my observations,
concerns, and comments on the concept and implementation of the plan. The plan is
supposed to be a guideline of ideas and possibly projections of future needs of this city
over the next twenty years. It is not a concrete, set -in -stone list of capital projects that
are being voted on, rather a look into the future of possible needs in this twenty year
period We are not committed to a project listed in this plan, rather it is there for
future considerations by this council or future councils at later dates By the same token
by removing or omitting something from this document does not restrict, limit, or prohibit
any of these projects from being undertaken at any time in the future. With these things in
mind I believe it is in our best interests, for all involved to keep this plan in place as close
as possible to the considerations given to it by " our appointed" comprehensive master plan
committee. Specifically to the issue of the Farrington Blvd Extension, I personally believe
that the reference to this potential project remain in the plan even if the project never receives
consideration from this or any other city council body. I believe that the interests expressed by
all elements of our emergency responders dictates that we leave this in at least for future
consideration. There is no other reasonable alternative for North /South access into the
Lomax area between Sens Road and Underwood Road and I believe it will be negligent on
our part to not include a reference to it for consideration.
Second, with regards to the District 4 representative appointment to the re -districting
committee I believe that we should be prepared to find an appointment in the event
Councilman Gay refuses to nominate anyone other than himself. Dee, as well as any other
councilman, can offer advice, present his ideas, maps, or any other form of input into this
process, but I believe it is absolutely wrong for a "sitting member of council" to sit on this
committee. I hope for the well being of this body that Councilman Gay agrees to this and
that we do not have to nominate a representative from his district.
u I, F'O--Ctz--I
Alton E. Porter
0
The Board of Tax Professional Examiners recently recognized Ms. Katherine R. Powell,
Tax Assessor/Collector for the City of La Porte, as a Certified Tax Administrator (CTA).
The BTPE has a total of 3,465 registrants across the State of Texas consisting of
Collectors (RTC), Assessor/Collectors (RTA), Appraisers (RPA), and Tax
Administrators (CTA).
The CTA designation is given to individuals who have taken the time to go beyond the
basic requirements of the State of Texas — and continues to improve upon their
profession. In order to earn this designation an individual must have already earned a
State designation of RTC, RTA and/or RPA and must have successfully completed
several rigorous examinations. Currently there are 3,465 persons registered with the
State Board of Tax Examiners. Of this amount, only 9.32%, or 323, have actively earned
the CTA designation with the Texas Association of Assessing Officers. By earning this
designation Katherine has brought the City of La Porte the much earned respect and
regards as an accomplished professional in an increasingly complex and technical field.
i •
VJ
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGIONDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 22 2001
Requested By: Doug Kneu e
Department: Planning
Report: Resolution: X Ordinance:
Exhibits:
1. Resolution adopting Comprehensive Plan
Appropriation
Source of Funds: N/A
Account Number:
Amount Budgeted:
Amount Requested:
Budgeted Item: _YES _NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
In late February, 2000, you received a three-ring binder with the second draft of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. This document was the result of reviews by the Steering
Committee and City staff. The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed this document and
recommended the following modifications:
• Add an Objective under Chapter 4, Land Use to consider creating a large lot residential
zoning district and provide the associated regulations.
• Include as part of Figure 5.3, La Porte Thoroughfare Plan, the extension of Farrington
to North "H" Street. The Commission did not recommend the extension of
Farrington beyond "H" Street.
• Delete the "H" Street Bridge over Big Island Slough.
• Delete the connection of "H" Street with Barbours Cut Blvd between Sens Road and
North 160' Street.
• The Unified Crime Report prepared by the Police Dept. should be included in Chapter 8,
Community Facilities and Services
City Council conducted a public hearing on January 8, 2001 regarding the draft Comprehensive
Plan Update. Testimony heard at this meeting was similar to previous testimony heard by the
Steering Committee and P & Z. The testimony was singularly focused on the connection of
Farrington with North "H" Street. At this time Council may make modifications to the document
prior to approval of the adopting Resolution.
Action Required by Council:
Consider approval of a Resolution adopting the Comprehensive Plan Update.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
RES0LUTJ6N20®1-Q1
THIS IS ;RESOLUTION
ADOPTING'. AMEND-
MENTS TO THE COM-
PREHENSIVE PLAN'. OF
AND,PAbVjt4 EF-
FECTIVE DA HEFREOF:
CITY OF LA PORTE
sJNorman L. Malone,
Mayor
ATTEST:..
s/Maftha A. Gillett,
City Secretary
APPAQVED:
s/Knox W. AsWs,
City A tomes
N
j0 Hwy. 146
Suite 150
P.O. Box 1414
La forte, Texas -1J571
The B
`Voice
Citv of La Porte
County fo Harris
State of Texas
• 281-471-1234
Fax: 281-471-5763
E-mail: baysun@swbell.net
re Sun
ce 1947'
Before me the undersigned authority, on this date
came and appeared Karolyn Kellogg, a duly authorized
representative of The Bayshore Sun a semi -weekly
newspaper published and generally distributed in the
City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas, and who after
being duly sworn, swears the attached notice was
published in The Bayshore Sun dated 01/28/01
1,01arol,
ynJOI(J7, 140�e
Kell g
Authorized Representative
Sworn and subscribed before me this 61 79 day of
2004.
SANDRA E. BUMCARNER
t1 t®* NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF TEXAS
11 NA r MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
�rFOF,�t FEB. 19, 2002
Sandra E . Bumgarner
Notary Public
Harris County, Texas
�UBLCNCr1'IC c�rY of u PORTS
PUBLIC NOTICE '�
ATTEST: "
1
"Urtha A. Gillett,
RESOLUTION 2001-01 1,
City Secretary
APPROVED.
THIS IS RESOLUTION
"4ftx W AsIdns,
ADOPTING AMEND-
City Attorney
M NTS TO THE>COM_
P EHE�ISIVE ' PUN OF
r ClI� OF LA MORTF
ANDJZ)NA
MisSION CI OF
LA _
OPEN M O ne
AND PROMNG W
FECTIVE 01ATgHER OAF
1200 Hwy. 146
Suite 50
P.O. Box 1414
La Porte, Texas 77571
The B
`Voice
City of La Porte
County of Harris
State of Texas
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this date
came and appeared Karolyn Kellogg, a duly authorized
representative of The Bayshore Sun, a semi -weekly
newspaper published and generally distributed in the
City of La Porte, Harris County, Texas and who after.
being duly sworn, swears the attached notice was
published in The Bayshore Sun dated D 3 J c!
281-471-1234
Fax: 281-471-5763
E-mail: baysun@swbell.net
re, Sun
cc 1947'
do or,
Karolyn Kellogg
Authorized Representative
Sworn and subscribed before me this 714 day of p)qa�-c�-�
, 2001.
yl.rr:.a.✓:ii1✓✓✓✓l✓✓lllll✓✓lll.� Sandra E. Bumgarner
y o�P�Y Pia, SANDRA E. BUMGARNER Notary Public
* NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF TEXAS
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES ti Harris County, Texas
FEB. 19, 2002 1
0
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 22 2001
Requested By: Doug Kneupper 41
Department: Planning
Report: Resolution: Ordinance: X
Exhibits:
A. Ordinance for:
1.) Industrial District Agreement
2.) Water & Sewer Service Agreements
B. Industrial District Agreement
C. Water Service Agreement
D. Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement
E. Area Map
Appropriation
Source of Funds: N/A
Account Number: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Amount Requested: N/A
Budgeted Item• _YES JL__NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Terranova Forest Products has recently approached the City to request water and sanitary sewer service to
their site. Their business is to be located at 9600 New Century Drive in the newly developed Bayport North
Industrial Park.
Council has approved a policy to provide utility service to companies located outside city limits but within the
industrial district. These companies must maintain a current Industrial District Agreements with the City.
Terranova wishes to pursue water and sanitary sewer service under the terms of'the policy. Based on 8 on -
site employees, the average daily demand is estimated to be 400 gallons. Terranova will pay one and one-
half (1-Y2) times the City's current utility rate. The term of the Water Service Agreement and Sanitary Sewer
Service Agreement expires on December 31, 2007, plus any renewals and extensions thereof. However,
the agreements shall automatically expire at such time as there is no effective Industrial District Agreement
between the parties or if the city exercises the right of termination. The applicant is subject to the minimum
administrative fee of $5,000 for each agreement for which payment has subsequently been received.
Staff recommends approval of an Industrial District Agreement, Water Service Agreement and Sanitary
Sewer Service Agreement as submitted herein.
Action Required by Council:
Consider approval of ordinances authorizing the City to enter into an Industrial District Agreement, Water
Service Agreement and Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement with Terranova Forest Products.
Approved for City Council Agenda
GA.. -1' g.utiv� r_ 1- 12 - v 1
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
r:
C7
EXHIBIT "A"
ORDINANCE FOR
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT
0
ORDINANCE FOR
WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
AGREEMENTS
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA--S"4
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH TERRANOVA FOREST PRODUCTS,
FOR THE TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,
2007; 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. TERRANOVA FOREST PRODUCTS 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this day of - , 2001.If
ATTEST:
1-fild'ima' A'('w-
Marthaa A. Gillett
City Secretary
APPROVED:
a),
Knox W. Askins,
City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
'�Nrm-ah-L.Malotte,
Mayor
2
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-941v3
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
AGREEMENT AND A WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA
PORTE AND TERRANOVA FOREST PRODUCTS; 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 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
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.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.)
•
a001- 9J4(03
ORDINANCE NO. 2-&"-
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 4 day of January, 2001.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
' )oAM 1 ne
yor
ATTEST:
Ma tha A. Gillett
City Secretary
APPRO
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
PAGE 2
J
0
EXHIBIT "B"
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT
NO. 2000-IDA- 5' {
{
STATE OF TEXAS {
{
COUNTY OF HARRIS {
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 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 R4A)c ✓A
a L04SvQ1QG7bN corporation, hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
• 0
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
• 0
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City 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
2.
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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,
including, 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 tangible 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
• 0
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 City '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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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 City in accordance with the
5
0 0
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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 forlcalculation 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
0
0 0
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
V/
! 0
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2
14
TIM, i -ma_
Name:
Title rr
Addrz
�r
►� 1 � f► / �1
ATTEST: CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
City Secretary Orman L. M one
Mayor
APPR ED
Kn W. Askins
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
By: 9 i-e�
Robert T. He rera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
ANY)
8
"EXHIBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
• 0
TRACT 1
METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
CONTRACT TRACT
BEING 10.0000 ACRES OF LAND
OUT OF THE
WILLIAM M. JONES SURVEY, A-482
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
All that certain 10.0000 acres of land out of the William M. Jones Survey, A-482, Hams County, Texas,
and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows (All bearings are based on Texas
State Plane Coordinate System, South Central Zone):
COMMENCING at a found 5/8" iron rod marking the northwest comer of that certain called 162.2695
acre tract described in a deed to Lyondell Polymers Corporation filed in the Official Public Records of
Real Property of Hams County, Texas at Clerk File No. M-514702, Film Code No. 169-66-0131, said
point being a point on south the right-of-way of Fairmont Parkway (250' wide) from which the City of La
Porte Monument I.D. LPSM 99, having State Plane Coordinates X=3,241,150.12, Y=681,564.92 bears
S 89031'02" W—1,743.48 ; thence S 01 ° 56' 14" E — 617.37', with the east line of proposed Underwood
Road (50' wide) also, said west line of that said called 162.2695 acre tract to point for comer; thence
S 860 52' 50" W — 890.23' with the south right-of-way line of proposed New Century Drive (60' wide) to a
set 5/8" iron rod with cap marking the POINT OF BEGINNING of the herein described tract;
THENCE S 01 ° 56' 01" E — 639.37', to a set 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE S 880 03' 59" W — 688.98', to a set 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE N 010 56' 01" W — 625.11', to a set 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE N 860 52' 50" E — 689.12', with the said south right -of -line of said proposed New Century Drive
to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 10.0000 acres (435,600 square feet) of land, more or less.
Compiled from survey by:
PREJEAN & COMPANY, INC.
surveying/mapping
256-1-2C.mb
November 1, 1999
Revised: November 18, 1999
-)mv ;v &'41-
EXHIBIT "A"
(TERRANOVA FOREST PRODUCTS I.D.A.)
0 0
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
0 0
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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.
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
EXHIBIT "C"
WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT
0
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 TERRANOVA
FOREST PRODUCTS, a corporation, hereinafter called "COMPANY".
I.
COMPANY is the owner of certain real property which is situated in CITY'S Bayport
Industrial District and not within the corporate limits of the CITY. CITY and COMPANY are parties
to a current Industrial District Agreement.
1�
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:
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.
Upon review of these representations, the City has determined the following:
Number of Company Employees on site
Number of Contract Employees on site
Total on -site Employees
Potable Water Approved for Domestic Use
(Total on -site Employees times 50 gpd per employee)
Potable Water Approved for Industrial Processes (gpd)
Total Amount of Potable Water Approved for
Company (Average Daily Demand, gpd)
FLV
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 S,l 0
(B) Potable water used for Industrial Processes shall be limited to the following:
(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 -rats reimbursement
for installation of utility mains funded by other parties.
(E) The total amount of potable water approved (average daily demand) is established at FOI TR
M TNMED (-400-) 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.
(F) The average monthly demand of 'T WFT VF THOT IS AND TWO H[ TNT) ED (12,200) gallons is
established by multiplying the average daily demand by a factor of 30.5, which shall be used to
facilitate service billings.
(G) The cost of water up to the average monthly demand of TWELVE T 4M TS AND TWO
HUNDRED (12,200) 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 (2001/6) of the CITY'S rate as established from time to time for commercial
customers inside its corporate limits.
(1) Nothing contained in this Agreement shall obligate CITY to furnish more than the average monthly
demand of TWELVE. THOT N AND TWO HT TNDRED (12,200) gallons. Repeated consumption
greater than the established average monthly demand may result in termination of service.
(J) 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.
a
(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 fumishmg of potable water to COMPANY.
(0) A reduced pressure zone backflow 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 fire
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, CITY will not
be responsible for the expense of such relocation, adjustment, or replacement.
0 i
5
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.
Q
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.
►0
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 terminate on December 31, 2007. 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.
ENTERED INTO effective the 20 1-)d day of 2002.
Un
CITY OF LA PORTE
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
City Attorney
PO Box 1218
LaPorte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
No e
Mayor
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of La Porte
PO Box 1115
LaPorte, TX 77572-1115
Phone: (281) 471-5020
Fax: (281) 471-7168
•
•
VA
This is EDIT A, consisting of 1 page,
referred to in and part of the Water Service
Agreement and/or Sanitary Sewer Service
Agreement between CITY and COMPANY
dated 06aya���rZZO
I}itial.
CIT�t
COMPANY TIJ
The Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement 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 submit a Landscaping Plan subject to approval by CITY.
COMPANY shall install and maintain landscaping along its existing developed
frontage as per approved Landscaping Plan as a condition of continued water
service.
•
EXHIBIT I'D"
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT
i
1
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF HARRIS §
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AGREEMENT
(for Companies located in Bayport North Industrial Park)
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 TERRANOVA
FOREST PRODUCTS, a corporation, hereinafter called "COMPANY".
I.
COMPANY is the owner of certain real property which is situated in CITY'S Bayport
Industrial District and not within the corporate limits of the CITY. CITY and COMPANY are
parties to a current Industrial District Agreement.
COMPANY is desirous of purchasing sanitary sewer service from CITY for usual human
domestic uses. COMPANY recognizes that CITY cannot at this time provide permanent and
unlimited sanitary sewer service. CITY agrees, however, to provide limited sanitary sewer service to
COMPANY. For and in consideration of furnishing sanitary sewer service by CITY, the parties hereto
agree as follows, to -wit:
COMPANY has made certain representations to CITY as to its number of employees, and/or
its desired amount of sanitary sewer from limited industrial processes, as of the date of this agreement,
upon which representations CITY has relied in entering into this Agreement.
2
Upon review of these representations, the City has determined the following.
Number of Employees on -site R
Number of Contract Employees 0
Total on -site Employees R
Sanitary Sewer Desired for Domestic Use
(Total on -site times 50 gpd per employee) 400
Sanitary Sewer Approved for Industrial Processes (gp0
Total Amount of Sanitary Sewer Approved
by Company (Average Daily Demand, gpd) 400
IV.
CITY has determined that adequate facilities are available to allow CITY to furnish sanitary
sewer to COMPANY based on the following terms and conditions, to -wit:
(A). Company shall pay to CITY a one-time administrative connection charge of $ 5 000
(B). COMPANY shall file an application for sanitary sewer service with CITY'S Utility Billing
Division and pay appropriate deposit.
(C). The average daily demand is established at FOT TR Bi INDRED (-4D-O_) gallons per day. This
number is based on an average of fifty (50) gallons per employee per day established by CITY.
(D). The average monthly demand is calculated to be eighty-five percent (85%) of the average daily
demand multiplied by a factor of 30.5, which shall be used to facilitate service billings.
(E). The cost of sanitary sewer service up to the average monthly demand of TFN 01 JIS AND
THREE HI TNT)RFD ISF IFI= (10 3M) 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.
(F). The cost of sanitary sewer service for amounts 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
•
3
for commercial customers inside its corporate limits.
(G). Nothing contained in this Agreement shall obligate CITY to furnish more than the average
monthly demand of TFN THOUSAND TURFF HUNDRED SEVENTY (1QM) gallons.
Repeated sanitary sewer delivery greater than the established average monthly demand may result
in termination of service.
(IT). COMPANY agrees that during periods when the CITY' S collection system is surcharged, the
CITY may require the suspension of use of the sanitary sewer system for periods not to exceed
thirty-six hours.
(I). CITY shall have the right to interrupt or temporarily suspend said sanitary sewer service to
COMPANY if an emergency arises and there is not an adequate sewer collection or treatment
capacity to meet the needs of the citizens of La Porte.
(). COMPANY agrees that it shall be bound by CITY' S Industrial Waste Ordinance (Chapter 74,
Article II of the Code of Ordinances) and any subsequent amendments or revisions.
(K). The total cost for the engineering design and construction of any sanitary sewer main, service
line, lift station, meter or other required appurtenances will be the responsibility of COMPANY.
(L). COMPANY agrees that it shall be bound by all applicable ordinances of CITY, relative to the
furnishing of sanitary sewer service to customers within the corporate limits of CITY.
All plumbing installed by COMPANY connected to the sanitary sewer 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 sanitary sewer service to
COMPANY.
(N). There shall be no resale of the sanitary sewer service provided by CITY, nor any extension of
0
4
service lines by COMPANY to serve other parties.
(0). 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 project 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 service lines from the main to the COMPANY'S facilities,
shall be solely at the expense of COMPANY. COMPANY shall own and maintain all service lines and
plumbing facilities.
VI.
CITY has no ownership and/or maintenance responsibility for the sanitary sewer mains and/or
service lines within Bayport North Industrial Park. In the event a State or Harris County license,
permit, or permission to install the sanitary sewer main is revoked, or relocation or adjustment is
required, 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 sanitary sewer 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 sanitary
sewer system is threatened.
►®
r]
R
Upon receipt of written notice of termination, COMPANY shall have up to six (6) months to
prepare for transition to another sanitary sewer service provider. If the transition is not complete
within said six-month period, CITY shall have the right to terminate sanitary sewer service at its sole
discretion.
X.
In the event of any conflict between the terms and provisions of this Sanitary Sewer Service
Agreement and the terms and provisions of the Industrial District Agreement between the parties, the
terms and provisions of the Sanitary Sewer Service Agreement shall control, to the extent of such
conflict. The term of this Agreement shall terminate on December 31, 2007. 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.
i 0
ENTERED INTO effective the ?,94 day of A/�� _, 2001.
A
CITY OF LA PORTE
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
APP
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
City Attorney
PO Box 1218
LaPorte, TX 77572-1218
CITY OF LA PORTE
By
No an L. Malone
Mayor
By: G�� J, ` ..
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of La Porte
PO Box 1115
LaPorte, TX 77572-1115
0
0
7
This is EXHMrr A, consisting of 1 page,
referred to in and part of the Water Service
Agreement and/or Sanitary Sewer Service
Agreement between CITY and COMPANY
dated 06naSMI ZZ . ZOO ,
Initial:
CIT
COMPANY
The Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement 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 and/or sanitary sewer 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 submit a Landscaping Plan subject to approval by CITY. COMPANY
shall install and maintain landscaping along its existing developed frontage as per approved
Landscaping Plan as a condition of continued sanitary sewer service.
3) Sampling Well:
COMPANY shall install a sanitary sewer sampling well in accordance with CITY's
standards.
4) Industrial Waste Permit:
COMPANY shall submit application to CITY for industrial waste permit.
EXHIBIT "E"
AREA MAP
Jqr
" .t-x
•� � -,��,� .. `'`
Mh M
i ��41ir4 .Y.'+
Jr-
-
c
t
�'�*rrY"W4]YIL'M"l�+. �afw_�.:{-.:XL'•14�:.k11::.1/iMLw'++f/15�fdal.tY�WIY•!
CFNTl)RV!)PTVP
EXHIBIT ".E"
9 0
!tj
•
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: Jamig!22001
Requested By: Limit Riorhv
Department:
Report: Resolution: Ordinance: X
Exhibits: Ordinance
Exhibits:
Exhibits:
Appropriation
Source of Funds: N/A
Account Number:
Amount Budgeted:
Amount Requested:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
City Council approved Ordinance 1798, adopting the City of La Porte Personnel Policy Manual, on December 9,
1991. The Policy provides that employees may not take vacation in periods of less than one regularly scheduled
work day. Staff has determined that employees would benefit if the policy were changed to allow vacation in four
(4) hour increments, in addition to a full regularly scheduled work day. This would allow employees to take care of
personal business without having to take a full day vacation.
Chapter 6, Section 6, Paragraph 8 of the City's Personnel Policy Manual would be changed as follows:
FROM:
TO:
8. Vacation leave may not be taken in periods of less than one regularly scheduled work day.
8. Vacation leave may be taken in four (4) hour increments.
Action Required by Council:
Adopt ordinance authorizing an amendment to the City of La Porte Personnel Policy Manual.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
• ORDINANCE NO. d 001- 0, 4.
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 6, SECTION 6,
"VACATION LEAVE", OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE PERSONNEL POLICY MANUAL
DATED JANUARY 1, 1992; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. Chapter 6, Section 6, "Vacation Leave" of the City of La Porte
Personnel Policy Manual dated January 1, 1992, is hereby amended, and shall
hereafter read as follows, to wit:
"SECTION 6 — VACATION LEAVE
8. Vacation leave may be taken in four (4) hour increments."
All other paragraphs shall remain the same.
Section 2. If any section, sentence, phrase, clause, or any part of any section,
sentence, phrase, or clause, of this ordinance or amendment of the City of La Porte
Personnel Policy Manual hereby adopted, shall for any reason, be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or said Personnel
Policy Manual, and it is hereby declared to be the intention of this City Council to have
passed each section, sentence, phrase or clause, or part thereof, irrespective of the fact
that any other section, sentence, phrase or clause, or part thereof, may be declared
invalid.
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 Ci y Hall of the City for the
time required b law preceding this meeting, as required b the en Meetings Law,
q Y P 9 9� q Y p 9
Article 6252-17, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated; 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. �10l� ► _ ��
9 Page 2
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and
approval, and it is so ordered. The amendment adopted by this Ordinance shall be
effective from and after February 1, 2001.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the 22"d day of January, 2001.
BY:
Norman . Malone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha Gillett, City Secretary
i'
Knox Askins, City Attorney
•
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 22, 2001
Requested By: S. Gillett44 4�
Department: Public Works
Report: Resolution: Ordinance: XX
Exhibits: Ordinance No. 2001-
Exhibits: Standard Form of Agreement
Exhibits:
Appropriation
Source of Funds: Utility CIP Fund
Account Number: 003-9890-786-1100
Amount Budgeted: $100,000
Amount Requested: $100,000
Budgeted Item: YES
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
An Engineering evaluation was performed last year for the Little Cedar Bayou Wastewater Treatment Plant to
analyze the solids handling process. The Study, performed by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) revealed that
the sludge processing facilities are not currently sized to handle the permitted flow rate of 7.56 MGD. These
deficiencies are primarily caused by changes in TNRCC design criteria, and if not corrected, could result in
reduction of the permitted flow.
CDM evaluated several alternatives for sludge stabilization, dewatering, thickening, and ancillary support facilities
improvements. The recommended sludge handling facilities improvements include modifications to the Waste
Activated Sludge pump station, installation of a pre -thickening process upstream of the aerobic digesters, expansion
of the aerobic digesters from two to four to provide 20 day detention time, installation of an additional waste
digested sludge pump, renovation of the existing gravity sludge thickener, replacement of the thickened sludge
pumps, and construction of a new sludge dewatering/loading building, with two (2) new belt filter presses. The
recommended improvements assume that the TNRCC will grant a variance for proposed design criteria that require
40 days detention time. In order to obtain the variance prior to final design, and to establish firm cost estimates, it is
recommended that the Preliminary Engineering phase of the Project be completed before moving forward with final
design. Once this phase is completed, final design and funding for construction can be finalized.
CDM has submitted a proposal to perform Preliminary Engineering Services, together with survey and geotechnical
work necessary for preliminary and final design at this time. The costs associated with this phase are as follows.
Preliminary Engineering $ 76,500
Surveying 9,000
Geotechnical 8,000
Total $ 93,500
The remaining budgeted funds ($6,500) may be required for additional engineering, documentation and travel
associated with obtaining a variance from the TNRCC. It is recommended that the City Council authorize a budget
of $100,000 to fund this phase of the Project.
Action Required by Council: Approve Ordinance No. 2001- authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Standard Form of Agreement for Professional Engineering Services to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. in an amount
not to exceed $100,000.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
ORDINANCE NO. 2001- d4b5—
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE AND CAMP DRESSER
& MCXEY, TO PERFORM PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING FOR THE LITTLE CEDAR
BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT SOLIDS HANDLING PROJECT;
APPROPRIATING NOT TO EXCEED $100,000.00, TO FUND SAID CONTRACT;
MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT;
FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; 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 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. City Council appropriates the sum not to exceed
$100,000.00 from the City of La Porte FY 2000-2001 Capital
Improvement Fund Account No. 3 to fund said contract.
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. 2001-94te5'
PAGE 2
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By: korman
. Mal e,
Mayor
ATTEST:
[�(Xy &
Martha A. Gillett,
City Secretary
APPROVED:
Knox W. Askins,
City Attorney
STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
OWNER AND ENGINEER FOR
PROFESSIONAL DESIGN SERVICES
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT made as of January 4, 2001)(2Q O between City of LaPorte, Texas ("OWNER") and Camp
Dresser & McKee Inc. ("ENGINEER")
OWNER intends to design and construct Sludge Processing Facility Improvements at the Little Cedar Bayou Wastewater
Treatment Plant (the "Project").
OWNER and ENGINEER in consideration of their mutual covenants herein agree in respect of the performance or
furnishing of professional engineering services by ENGINEER with respect to the Project and the payment for those
services by OWNER as set forth below. Execution of this Agreement by ENGINEER and OWNER constitutes
OWNER's written authorization to ENGINEER to proceed on the date first above written with the Basic Services
described in Article 2 below and as further set forth in Exhibit A, "Further Description of Engineering Services and
Related Matters" ("Exhibit A") and in the other exhibits listed in Article 9 below. This Agreement will become effective
on the date first above written.
ARTICLE 1 - GENERAL
1.1. Standard of Care
ENGINEER shall perform for or furnish to OWNER professional engineering and related services in all phases
of the Project to which this Agreement applies as hereinafter provided. ENGINEER shall serve as OWNER's
prime design professional and engineering representative for the Project providing professional engineering
consultation and advice with respect thereto. ENGINEER may employ such ENGINEER's Subcontractors as
ENGINEER deems necessary to assist in the performance or furnishing of professional engineering and related
services hereunder. ENGINEER shall not be required to employ any OWNER's Subcontractors unacceptable
to ENGINEER.
The standard of care for all professional engineering and related services performed or furnished by ENGINEER
under this Agreement will be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of ENGINEER's profession
practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same locality.
1.2. Coordination with Other Documents
It is the intention of the parties that the Standard General Conditions will be used as the General Conditions for
the Project and that all amendments thereof and supplements thereto will be generally consistent therewith.
Except as otherwise defined herein, the terms which have an initial capital letter in this Agreement and are
defined in the Standard General Conditions will be used in this Agreement as defined in the Standard General
Conditions. The term "defective" will be used in this Agreement as defined in the Standard General Conditions.
1.3. Definitions
Wherever used in this Agreement the following terms have the meanings indicated which are applicable to both
the singular and plural thereof:
Page 1
Prof Design Services 3/2000
• 0
1.3.1. Special Services
Special Services means the services to be performed for or furnished to OWNER by ENGINEER
described in Article 3 of this Agreement.
1.3.2. Agreement
Agreement means this Standard Form of Agreement between OWNER and ENGINEER for Professional
Services including those exhibits listed in Article 9 of this Agreement.
1.3.3. Basic Services.
Basic Services means the services to be perforned for or furnished to OWNER by ENGINEER
described in Article 2 of this Agreement.
1.3.4. Construction Cost
Construction Cost means the total cost to OWNER of those portions of the entire Project designed or
specified by ENGINEER. Construction Cost does not include ENGINEER'S compensation and
expenses, the cost of land, rights -of -way, or compensation for or damages to properties, or OWNER's
legal, accounting, insurance counseling or auditing services, or interest and financing charges incurred
in connection with the Project or the cost of other services to be provided by others to OWNER pursuant
to Article 4 of this Agreement. Construction Cost is one of the items comprising Total Project Costs.
1.3.5. Contractor
Contractor means the person or entity with whom OWNER enters into a written agreement covering
construction work to be performed or furnished with respect to the Project.
1.3.6. ENGINEER's Subcontractor
ENGINEER's Subcontractor means a person or entity having a contract with ENGINEER to perform
or furnish Basic or Special Services as ENGINEER's independent professional associate or
subcontractor engaged directly on the Project.
1.3.7. Reimbursable Expenses
Reimbursable Expenses means the expenses incurred directly in connection with the performance or
furnishing of Basic and Special Services for the Project for which OWNER shall pay ENGINEER as
indicated in Exhibit A.
1.3.8. Standard General Conditions
Standard General Conditions means the Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract (No.
1910-8) (1996 Edition) of the Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee.
1.3.9. Total Project Costs
Total Project Costs means the sum of the Construction Cost, allowances for contingencies, the total costs
of design professional and related services provided by ENGINEER and (on the basis of information
furnished by OWNER) allowances for such other items as charges of all other professionals and consul-
tants, for the cost of land and rights -of -way, for compensation for or damages to properties, for interest
and financing charges and for other services to be provided by others to OWNER under Article 4.
ARTICLE 2 - BASIC SERVICES OF ENGINEER
2.1. Design Phase
2.1.1. Prepare for incorporation in the Contract Documents final Drawings showing the scope, extent and
character of the work to be performed and furnished by Contractor and Specifications (which will be
prepared, where appropriate, in general conformance with the sixteen division format of the
Construction Specifications Institute).
Page 2
Prof Design Services 3/2000
0
2.1.2. Provide technical criteria, written descriptions and design data for OVVNER's use in filing applications
for permits with or obtaining approvals of such governmental authorities as have jurisdiction to review
or approve the final design of the Project, and assist OWNER in consultations with appropriate
authorities.
2.1.3. Advise OWNER of any adjustments to the opinion of probable Construction Cost and any adjustments
to Total Project Costs known to ENGINEER as a result of changes in scope, extent or character or
design requirements of the Project.
2.1.4. Prepare for review and approval by OWNER, its legal counsel and other advisors, contract agreement
forms, general conditions and supplementary conditions, and (where appropriate) bid forms, invitations
to bid and instructions to bidders, and assist in the preparation of other related documents.
2.1.5. Furnish five copies of the above documents, Drawings and Specifications to and review them with
OWNER.
2.1.6. ENGINEER's services under the Design Phase will be considered complete at the earlier of (1) the date
when the submittals have been accepted by OWNER or (2) thirty days after the date when such
submittals are delivered to OWNER for final acceptance, plus in each case such additional time as may
be considered reasonable for obtaining approval of governmental authorities having jurisdiction to
approve the portions of the Project designed or specified by ENGINEER, if such approval is to be
obtained during the Design Phase.
The duties and responsibilities of ENGINEER during the Design Phase are amended and supplemented
as indicated in Exhibit A.
ARTICLE 3 - SPECIAL SERVICES OF ENGINEER
3.1. Services Requiring Authorization in Advance
If authorized in writing by OWNER, ENGINEER shall furnish or obtain from others Special Services of the
types listed in paragraphs 3.1.1 through 3.1.11, inclusive, as amended and supplemented as indicated in Exhibit
A. These services are not included as part of Basic Services except to the extent otherwise provided in Exhibit
A. These services will be paid for by OWNER as indicated in Article 6.
3.1.1. Preparation of applications and supporting documents (in addition to those furnished under Basic
Services) for private or governmental grants, loans or advances in connection with the Project;
preparation or review of environmental assessments and impact statements; review and evaluation of
the effect on the design requirements of the Project of any such statements and documents prepared by
others; and assistance in obtaining approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the anticipated
environmental impact of the Project.
3.1.2. Services to make measured drawings of or to investigate existing conditions or facilities, or to verify the
accuracy of drawings or other information furnished by OWNER.
Page 3
Prof Design Services 3/2000
3.1.3. Services resulting from significant changes in the scope, extent or character of the portions of the Project
designed or specified by ENGINEER or its design requirements including, but not limited to, changes
in size, complexity, OWNER'S schedule, character of construction or method of financing; and revising
previously accepted studies, reports, Drawings, Specifications or Contract Documents when such
revisions are required by changes in laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, codes or orders enacted
subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement, or are due to any other causes beyond ENGINEER's
control.
3.1.4. Providing renderings or models for OWNER's use.
3.1.5. Preparing documents for alternate bids requested by OWNER for Contractor's work which is not
executed or documents for out -of -sequence work.
3.1.6. Undertaking investigations and studies including, but not limited to, detailed consideration of operations,
maintenance and overhead expenses; the preparation of feasibility studies, cash flow and economic
evaluations, rate schedules and appraisals; assistance in obtaining financing for the Project; evaluating
processes available for licensing and assisting OWNER in obtaining process licensing; detailed quantity
surveys of materials, equipment and labor; and audits or inventories required in connection with
construction performed by OWNER.
3.1.7. Furnishing services of ENGINEER's Subcontractors for other than Basic Services; and furnishing data
or services of the types described in paragraph 4.4 when OWNER employs ENGINEER to provide such
data or services in lieu of furnishing the same under paragraph 4.4.
3.1.8. Services during out-of-town travel required of ENGINEER other than visits to the site or OWNER's
office as required by Article 2.
3.1.9. Preparing for coordinating with, participating in and responding to structured independent review
processes, including, but not limited to, Construction Management, Cost Estimating, Project Peer
Review, Value Engineering and Constructability Review requested by OWNER; and performing or
furnishing services required to revise studies, reports, Drawings, Specifications or Contract Documents
as a result of such review processes.
3.1.10. Preparing to serve or serving as a consultant or witness for OWNER in any litigation, arbitration or other
legal or administrative proceeding involving the Project (except for assistance in consultations which
is included as part of Basic Services under paragraph 2.1.2).
3.1.11. Other Special Services performed or furnished by ENGINEER in connection with the Project, including
services which are to be furnished by OWNER under Article 4, and services not otherwise provided for
in this Agreement.
ARTICLE 4 - OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
Except as otherwise provided in Exhibit A, OWNER shall do the following in a timely manner so as not to delay
the services of ENGINEER and shall bear all costs incident thereto:
4.1. Designate in writing a person to act as OWNER'S representative with respect to the services to be performed or
furnished by ENGINEER under this Agreement. Such person will have complete authority to transmit instruc-
tions, receive information, interpret and define OWNER's policies and decisions with respect to ENGINEER's
services for the Project.
4.2. Provide all criteria and full information as to OWNER's requirements for the Project, including design objectives
and constraints, space, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility and expandability, and furnish copies
Page 4
Prof Design Services 3/2000
0
of all design and construction standards which OWNER will require to be included in the Drawings and
Specifications.
4.3. Assist ENGINEER by placing at ENGINEER's disposal all available information pertinent to the Project including
previous reports and any other data relative to design or construction of the Project.
4.4. Furnish to ENGINEER, as requested by ENGINEER, for performance of Basic Services or as required by the
Contract Documents, the following:
4.4.1. services provided or data prepared by others, including, without limitation, explorations and tests of
subsurface conditions at or contiguous to the site, drawings of physical conditions in or relating to
existing surface or subsurface structures at or contiguous to the site, or hydrographic surveys;
4.4.2. the services of an independent testing laboratory to perform all inspections, tests and approvals of
samples, materials and equipment;
4.4.3. appropriate professional interpretation of all of the foregoing;
4.4.4. environmental assessments, audits, investigations and impact statements, and other relevant
environmental or cultural studies as to the Project, the site and adjacent areas;
4.4.5. field surveys for design purposes and property, boundary, easement, right-of-way, topographic and utility
surveys or data, including relevant reference points;
4.4.6. property descriptions;
4.4.7. zoning, deed and other land use restrictions; and
4.4.8. other special data or consultations not covered in Article 2.
OWNER shall be responsible for, and ENGINEER may rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all reports,
data and other information furnished pursuant to this paragraph. ENGINEER may use such reports, data and
information in performing or furnishing services under this Agreement.
4.5. Provide, as required by the Contract Documents, engineering surveys and staking (except as otherwise provided
in Exhibit A) to enable Contractor to proceed with the layout of the work, and other special field surveys.
4.6. Arrange for access to and make all provisions for ENGINEER to enter upon public and private property as
required for ENGINEER to perform services under this Agreement.
4.7. Examine all alternate solutions, studies, reports, sketches, Drawings, Specifications, proposals and other
documents presented by ENGINEER (including obtaining advice of an attorney, insurance counselor and other
consultants as OWNER deems appropriate with respect to such examination) and render in writing decisions
pertaining thereto.
4.8. Provide approvals and pernnits from all governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve the portions of
the Project designed or specified by ENGINEER and such approvals and consents from others as may be
necessary for completion of such portions of the Project.
4.9. Provide such accounting, bond and financial advisory, independent cost estimating and insurance counseling
services and such legal services as OWNER may require or ENGINEER may reasonable request with regard to
legal issues pertaining to the Project.
Page 5
Prof Design Services 3/2000
4.10. If more than one prime contract is to be awarded for work designed or specified by ENGINEER, designate a
person or entity to have authority and responsibility for coordinating the activities among the various prime
contractors, and define and set forth the duties, responsibilities and limitations of authority of such person or
entity and the relation thereof to the duties, responsibilities and authority of ENGINEER in an exhibit that is to
be mutually agreed upon and attached to and made a part of this Agreement before such services begin.
4.11. Provide labor and safety equipment to open and protect manholes and/or to operate valves and hydrants as
required by the ENGINEER.
4.12. Furnish to ENGINEER data or estimated figures as to OWNER's anticipated costs for services to be provided
by others for OWNER so that ENGINEER may make the necessary calculations to develop and periodically
adjust ENGINEER's opinion of Total Project Costs.
4.13. Give prompt written notice to ENGINEER whenever OWNER observes or otherwise becomes aware of any
development that affects the scope or time of performance or furnishing of ENGINEER's services, or any defect
or nonconformance in ENGINEER's services or in the work of any Contractor.
4.14. Furnish, or direct ENGINEER to provide, Special Services as stipulated in paragraph 3.1 of this Agreement or
other services as required.
4.15. Bear all costs incident to compliance with the requirements of this Article 4.
ARTICLE 5 - TIMES FOR RENDERING SERVICES
5.1. If in this Agreement specific periods of time for rendering services are set forth or specific dates by which
services are to be completed are provided and if such periods of time or dates are changed through no fault of
ENGINEER, the rates and amounts of compensation provided for herein shall be subject to equitable adjustment.
If OWNER has requested changes in the scope, extent or character of the Project, the time of performance and
compensation for ENGINEER's services shall be adjusted equitably.
5.2. If ENGINEER's services for design of the Project are delayed or suspended in whole or in part by OWNER:
5.2.1. for more than three months through no fault of ENGINEER, ENGINEER shall be entitled to equitable
adjustment of rates and amounts of compensation provided for elsewhere in this Agreement to reflect,
among other things, reasonable costs incurred by ENGINEER in connection with such delay or
suspension and reactivation and the fact that the time for performance under this Agreement has been
revised; or
5.2.2. for more than one year through no fault of ENGINEER, the rates and amounts of compensation provided
for elsewhere in this Agreement will be subject to equitable adjustment to reflect, among other things,
changes in the various elements that comprise such rates of compensation.
5.3. In the event that the work designed or specified by ENGINEER is to be performed or furnished under more than
one prime contract, or if ENGINEER's services are to be separately sequenced with the work of one or more
prime contractors (such as in the case of fast -tracking), OWNER and ENGINEER shall, prior to commencement
of the Design Phase, develop a schedule for performance of ENGINEER's services during the Design Phase in
order to sequence and coordinate properly such services as are applicable to the work under such separate prime
contracts. This schedule is to be prepared and included in Exhibit A whether or not the work under such
contracts is to proceed concurrently.
Page 6
Prof Design Services 3/2000
ARTICLE 6 - PAYMENTS TO ENGINEER FOR SERVICES AND REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES
6.1. Methods of Payment for Services and Expenses of ENGINEER
6.1.1. For Basic Services
OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for Basic Services performed or fumished under Article 2 on the basis
set forth in Exhibit A.
6.1.2. For Special Services
OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for Special Services performed or furnished under Article 3 on the basis
set forth in Exhibit A.
6.1.3. For Reimbursable Expenses
In addition to payments provided for in paragraphs 6.1.1 and 6.1.2, OWNER shall pay ENGINEER for
Reimbursable Expenses incurred by ENGINEER and ENGINEER's Subcontractors as set forth in
Exhibit A. The amount payable for Reimbursable Expenses will include a factor to the extent so
indicated in Exhibit A.
6.1.4. Tax on Services
The amount of any excise, VAT or gross receipts tax that may be imposed shall be added to the
compensation as determined above.
6.2. Other Provisions Concerning Payments
6.2.1. Preparation of Invoices
Invoices for Basic and Special Services and Reimbursable Expenses will be prepared in accordance
with ENGINEER's standard invoicing practices and will be submitted to OWNER by ENGINEER at
least monthly. The amount billed for Basic Services and Special Services in each invoice will be cal-
culated on the basis set forth in Exhibit A. Invoices are due and payable on receipt.
6.2.2. Unpaid hivoices
If OWNER, for any reason, including, but not limited to, fails to make any payment due ENGINEER
for services and expenses within thirty days after receipt of ENGINEER's invoice therefor, the amounts
due ENGINEER will be increased at the rate of 1.0% per month (or the maximum rate of interest
permitted by law, if less) from said thirtieth day; and, in addition, ENGINEER may, after giving seven
days' written notice to OWNER, suspend services under this Agreement until ENGINEER has been paid
in full all amounts due for services, expenses and charges. Payments will be credited first to interest and
then to principal. In the event of a disputed or contested billing, only that portion so contested may be
withheld from payment, and the undisputed portion will be paid.
OWNER agrees to pay ENGINEER all costs of collection including but not limited to reasonable
attorneys' fees, collection fees and court costs incurred by ENGINEER to collect properly due payments.
ARTICLE 7 - OPINIONS OF COST
7.1. Opinions of Probable Construction Cost
ENGINEER's opinions of probable Construction Cost provided for herein are to be made on the basis of
ENGINEER's experience and qualifications and represent ENGINEER's best judgment as an experienced and
qualified professional engineer generally familiar with the construction industry. However, since ENGINEER
has no control over the cost of labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others, or over the
Contractor's methods of determining prices, or over competitive bidding or market conditions, ENGINEER
Page 7
Prof Design Services 3/2000
• 0
cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual Construction Cost will not vary from opinions of
probable Construction Cost prepared by ENGINEER. If OWNER wishes greater assurance as to probable
Construction Cost, OWNER shall employ an independent cost estimator as provided in paragraph 4.9.
ARTICLE 8 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
8.1. Termination
The obligation to provide further services under this Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty
days' written notice in the event of substantial failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms
thereof through no fault of the terminating party. In the event of any termination, ENGINEER will be paid for
all services rendered and reimbursable expenses incurred to the date of termination and, in addition, all
reimbursable expenses directly attributable to termination.
8.2. Reuse of Documents
All documents including Drawings and Specifications provided or furnished by ENGINEER (or ENGINEER's
Subcontractors) pursuant to this Agreement are instruments of service in respect of the Project, and ENGINEER
and ENGINEER's Subcontractors, as appropriate, shall retain an ownership and property interest therein
(including the right of reuse by and at the discretion of ENGINEER and ENGINEER's Subcontractors, as
appropriate) whether or not the Project is completed. OWNER may make and retain copies for information and
reference in connection with the use and occupancy of the Project by OWNER and others; however, such
documents are not intended or represented to be suitable for reuse by OWNER or others on extensions of the
Project or on any other project. Any such reuse without written verification or adaptation by ENGINEER and
ENGINEER's Subcontractors, as appropriate, for the specific purpose intended will be at OWNER's sole risk and
without liability or legal exposure to ENGINEER, or to ENGINEER's Subcontractors, and OWNER shall
indemnify and hold harmless ENGINEER and ENGINEER's Subcontractors from all claims, damages, losses
and expenses including attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting therefrom. Any such verification or adaptation
will entitle ENGINEER to further compensation at rates to be agreed upon by OWNER and ENGINEER.
8.3. Mutual Waiver of Consequential Damages
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement to the contrary, neither party including their officers,
agents, servants and employees shall be liable to the other for lost profits or any special, indirect, incidental, or
consequential damages in any way arising out of this Agreement however caused under a claim of any type or
nature based on any theory of liability (including, but not limited to: contract, tort, or warranty) even if the
possibility of such damages has been communicated.
8.4. Controlling Law
This Agreement is to be governed by the law of the principal place of business of ENGINEER.
8.5. Successors and Assigns
8.5.1. OWNER and ENGINEER each is hereby bound and the partners, successors, executors, administrators
and legal representatives of OWNER and ENGINEER (and to the extent permitted by paragraph 8.5.2
the assigns of OWNER and ENGINEER) are hereby bound to the other party to this Agreement and to
the partners, successors, executors, administrators and legal representatives (and said assigns) of such
other party, in respect of all covenants, agreements and obligations of this Agreement.
8.5.2. Neither OWNER nor ENGINEER may assign, sublet or transfer any rights under or interest (including,
but without limitation, moneys that may become due or moneys that are due) in this Agreement without
the written consent of the other, except to the extent that any assignment, subletting or transfer is
Page 8
Prof Design Services 3/2000
mandated by law or the effect of this limitation may be restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to
the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the as-
signor from any duty or responsibility under this Agreement.
8.5.3. Unless expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement:
8.5.3.1. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create, impose or give rise to any duty owed
by ENGINEER to any Contractor, Subcontractor, Supplier, other person or entity, or to any
surety for or employee of any of them, or give any rights in or benefits under this Agreement
to anyone other than OWNER and ENGINEER.
8.5.3.2. All duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and
exclusive benefit of OWNER and ENGINEER and not for the benefit of any other party.
8.6. Notices
Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate party at the address
which appears on the signature page to this Agreement (as modified in writing from time to time by such party)
and given personally, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, by facsimile, or by a nationally
recognized overnight courier service. All notices shall be effective upon the date of receipt.
8.7. Severability
Any provision or part of the Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any law or regulation shall be
deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon OWNER and
ENGINEER, who agree that the Agreement shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof
with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken
provision.
8.8. Unforeseen Conditions
At any time during the life of this Agreement should any substance be uncovered or encountered at the site that
would void or otherwise adversely impact the ENGINEER's professional liability insurance, the ENGINEER
reserves the right to renegotiate the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the fees for the ENGINEER's
services, and the ENGINEER's continued involvement in the Project.
8.9. Insurance
ENGINEER shall procure and maintain insurance for protection from claims under workers' compensation acts,
claims for damages because of bodily injury including personal injury, sickness or disease or death of any and
all employees or of any person other than such employees, and from claims or damages because of injury to or
destruction of property including loss of use resulting therefrom.
8.10. Discovery
ENGINEER shall be entitled to compensation on a time and materials basis when responding to all requests for
discovery relating to this Project and to the extent that ENGINEER is not a party to the lawsuit.
8.11. Nondiscrimination and Affirmative Action
In connection with its performance under this Agreement, ENGINEER shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, marital status, sexual
orientation or affectional preference, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, physical or mental handicap or because
Page 9
Prof Design Services 3/2000
0
C7
he or she is a disabled veteran or veteran of the Vietnam era. ENGINEER shall take affirmative action to ensure
that qualified applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their
race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, marital status, sexual orientation or affectional preference, national origin,
ancestry, citizenship, physical or mental handicap or because he or she is a disabled veteran or veteran of the
Vietnam era. Such actions shall include recruiting and hiring, selection for training, promotion, fixing rates or
other compensation, benefits, transfers and layoff or termination.
ARTICLE 9 - EXHIBITS AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS
9.1. This Agreement is subject to the provisions of the following Exhibits which are attached to and made a part of
the Agreement:
9.1.1. Exhibit A, "Further Description of Engineering Services and Related Matters," consisting of 11 pages.
9.1.2. N/A
This Agreement (consisting of Pages 1 to 11 inclusive,) and the Exhibits identified above constitute the entire agreement
between OWNER and ENGINEER and supersede all prior written or oral understandings. This Agreement may only
be amended, supplemented, modified or canceled by a duly executed written instrument.
Page 10
Prof Design Services 3/2000
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have made and executed this Agreement as of the day and
year first above written.
OWNER
LX-
ENGINEE
j'.
Robert Herrera By: Rodney W. Chapin, P.E.
Title: City Manager `t
Date: G t 1`�e1v�e�
I- ZZ-01
Address for giving notices:
Cijy of LaPorte. Texas
P. O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115
Title: Principal
Date: /� ' 000
Address for giving notices:
Cg= Dresser & McKee Inc.
1800 West Loop South Suite 1550
Houston, TX 77027
Professional Design Services Page 11
EXHIBIT A
FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF ENGINEERING
SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS
SCOPE OF SERVICES
FOR
CITY OF LA PORTE
LITTLE CEDAR BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
The Engineer will prepare a preliminary engineering report and provide additional services as
required for the Sludge Processing Facility Improvements at the Little Cedar Bayou Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP). The work associated with these engineering services is separated
into the following tasks:
I. Preliminary Engineering Services
II. Additional Services
R:\CONTRACT\LAPORTE\SCOPE-A.DOC say A_1 January 4, 2001
I. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES
Preliminary engineering services for the Sludge Processing Facility Improvements at the
Little Cedar Bayou WWTP will be performed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. The
following scope of work is for those preliminary engineering services.
A. Project Management:
■ Conduct a project initiation meeting to clarify requirements for the project;
■ Coordinate with staff and project personnel to complete project tasks and meet
project objectives;
■ Conduct project meetings with staff at least on a bi-monthly basis and provide
appropriate minutes of the meetings and necessary documentation;
■ Develop and maintain a project schedule with detailed milestones; and
■ Provide quality control reviews and technical reviews of all evaluations and
recommendations, technical memoranda, and reports.
B. Preliminary Engineering Report (PER): The Engineer shall prepare a preliminary
engineering report (PER) for approval and revise as required. Such report shall
consist of preliminary layouts, sketches, recommended final design criteria, and
construction costs estimates. The report shall be prepared in sufficient detail so as to:
(1) clearly indicate anticipated problems; and (2) recommend alternate solutions to
the problems.
The preliminary engineering report will address the following aspects of the sludge
processing facilities design:
■ A summary of recommended improvements.
■ Facility design criteria recommendations.
■ Electrical and control requirements.
■ Documentation for TNRCC variance request (if necessary).
■ Schedule of final design/construction.
■ Probable cost of construction for the recommended improvements.
The Engineer shall submit five (5) copies of the draft preliminary engineering report.
After receipt of review comments, the Engineer shall incorporate review comments,
as appropriate, and submit five (5) copies of the final preliminary engineering report.
RACONTRAMLAPORMSCOPE-A.DOC say A_2 January 4, 2001
II. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional services will be provided as required for the following tasks.
A. Surveying
Engineer will perform design topographical surveying for the treatment plant
site, including the adjacent property to be used for the sludge dewatering
building. Permanent control points and bench marks to USGS datum will be
established.
B. Geotechnical Investigation
1. Engineer will conduct geotechnical investigation for design of the Sludge
Processing Facility Improvements.
III. SCHEDULE
A. The Engineer shall initiate work described herein immediately upon the execution of
the Agreement and upon issuance by City of Notice to Proceed.
B. Engineer shall submit five (5) draft copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report
within 70 calendar days of receipt of the City's Notice to Proceed.
C. Engineer shall submit five (5) final copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report
within 14 calendar days of receipt of the City's draft report review comments.
IV. COST
A. Costs for Preliminary Engineering Services shall be lump sum.
B. Costs for Additional Services shall be reimbursable per the attached wage rates
(Table A-1) and reimbursable rates (Table A-2).
C. The lump sum cost for Preliminary Engineering Services shall be $76,500. A
breakdown of manhours and other direct costs is included in Table A-4.
V. PAYMENT SCHEDULE
A. Engineer shall issue an invoice for 75 percent of the lump sum cost for Preliminary
Engineering Services upon submittal of the draft version of the Preliminary
Engineering Report.
B. Engineer shall issue an invoice for the remaining 25 percent of the lump sum cost for
Preliminary Engineering Services upon submittal and acceptance of the final version
of the Preliminary Engineering Report.
C. Payment for additional services shall be for reimbursable costs accrued at the time of
each invoice.
R:\CONTRACT\LAPORTE\SCOPE-A.DOC say A-3 January 4, 2001
•
Table A-1
BILLING RATE SCHEDULE
FOR
RESIDENT ENGINEERING AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Category 2001 2002
Principal/Tech Specialist (QA/QC) $ 180.00 $ 190.00
Project Director 145.00 148.00
Senior Project Manager 140.00 142.00
Electrical/Instrumentation Engineer 140.00 142.00
Structural Engineer 135.00 138.00
Project Engineer
Design Engineer
CADD
110.00
113.00
90.00
92.50
80.00
82.00
Administrative Support 58.00 62.00
RACONTRAMLAPORMSCOPE-A.DOC say A-4 January 4, 2001
u
•
Table A-2
REIMBURSABLE COSTS
FOR
RESIDENT ENGINEERING AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Item Unit Cost Unit Cost
Photocopies
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
Mylar Plots
17.00
17.00
Bluelines
1.00
1.00
Facsimilie
1.00
1.00
Mileage
0.33
0.33
Note: All other reimbursable costs, i.e., telephone, mail, Fed Ex, courier, and miscellaneous
supplies will be invoiced at actual cost. All outside professionals will be invoiced at
actual cost plus 10 percent markup.
RACONTRACT\LAPORTE\SCOPE-A.DOC say A_5 January 4, 2001
• 0
Table A-3
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING COSTS
INCLUDING ESTIMATED COSTS FOR OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS
SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
LITTLE CEDAR BAYOU WWTP
Preliminary Engineering Phase
Preliminary Engineering (lump sum) $ 76,500
Surveying (reimbursable per Tables A-1, A-2) $ 15,000 (est.)
Geotechnical (reimbursable per Tables A-1, A-2) $ 20,000 (est.)
END OF ATTACHMENT A
RACONTRACTUAPORMSCOPE-A.DOC say A-6 January 4, 2001
Ianrc A-4
LaPorte Preliminary Engineering Budget
Contractor: Camp Dresser & McKee
Task 1: Complete Preliminary Engineering Budget
Total for This Estimate : $ 76,495.10
Camp Dresser and McKee Labor Costs
Man -Hours
Salary Rate
Multiplier
Extended Amount Comment
Principal
4
$ 65
3.15
$ 819.00
Project Director
32
$ 45
3.15
$ 4,536.00
Senior Project Manager
192
$ 43
3.15
$ 26,006.40
Senior Engineer
40
$ 40
3.15
$ 5,040.00
Junior Engineer
208
$ 26
3.15
$ 17,035.20
Senior Scientist
0
$ 48
3.15
$ -
Scientist
0
$ 35
3.15
$
Designer
0
$ 30
3.15
$
Drafter
100
$ 25
3.15
$ 7,875.00
Administrative Assistant
16
$ 25
3.15
$ 1,260.00
Clerical
92
$ 20
3.15
$ 5,796.00
Sub - Total:
$ 68,367.60
Outside Professionals
Pete Bulot
Other Direct, Reimbursable Non -Labor Costs
Contract
$ 3,500.00
Lump Sum Number
Multiplier Extended Amount Comment
1.1 $ -
1.1 $ 3,850.00
1.1 $ -
Sub -Total $ 3,850.00
Unit Cost Extended Amount Comment
0
Photocopies
1,650
$ 0.10
$
165.00
Mylar Plots
0
$ 17.00
$
-
Bluelines
100
$ 1.00
$
100.00
CADD Computer Allocation
0
$ 10.00
$
Facsimile
35
$ 1.00
$
35.00
Mileage
P,700
$ 0.33
$
227.50
Other Reimbursable Non -Labor Costs
$ 3,000
$
3,000.00
Reimbursable Travel Costs
Lump Sum
Number
Unit Cost
Extended Amount Comment
Reimbursable Travel
$ 750
$
750.00
Sub - Total
$
4,277.50
Task Total $ 76,495.10
EXHIBIT A
FURTHER DESCRIPTION OF ENGINEERING
SERVICES AND RELATED MATTERS
SCOPE OF SERVICES
FOR
CITY OF LA PORTE
LITTLE CEDAR BAYOU WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
The Engineer will prepare a preliminary engineering report and provide additional services as
required for the Sludge Processing Facility Improvements at the Little Cedar Bayou Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP). The work associated with these engineering services is separated
into the following tasks:
I. Preliminary Engineering Services
II. Additional Services
RACONTRACT\LAPORTE\SCOPE-A.DOC say A-1 January 5, 2001
• 0
I. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES
Preliminary engineering services for the Sludge Processing Facility Improvements at the
Little Cedar Bayou WWTP will be performed by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. The
following scope of work is for those preliminary engineering services.
A. Project Management:
■ Conduct a project initiation meeting to clarify requirements for the project;
■ Coordinate with staff and project personnel to complete project tasks and meet
project objectives;
■ Conduct project meetings with staff at least on a bi-monthly basis and provide
appropriate minutes of the meetings and necessary documentation;
■ Develop and maintain a project schedule with detailed milestones; and
■ Provide quality control reviews and technical reviews of all evaluations and
recommendations, technical memoranda, and reports.
B. Preliminary Engineering Report (PER): The Engineer shall prepare a preliminary
engineering report (PER) for approval and revise as required. Such report shall
consist of preliminary layouts, sketches, recommended final design criteria, and
construction costs estimates. The report shall be prepared in sufficient detail so as to:
(1) clearly indicate anticipated problems; and (2) recommend alternate solutions to
the problems.
The preliminary engineering report will address the following aspects of the sludge
processing facilities design:
■ A summary of recommended improvements.
■ Facility design criteria recommendations.
■ Electrical and control requirements.
■ Documentation for TNRCC variance request (if necessary).
■ Schedule of final design/construction.
■ Probable cost of construction for the recommended improvements.
The Engineer shall submit five (5) copies of the draft preliminary engineering report.
After receipt of review comments, the Engineer shall incorporate review comments,
as appropriate, and submit five (5) copies of the final preliminary engineering report.
R\CONTRACT\LAPORTE\SCOPE-A.DOC say A-2 January 5, 2001
• 0
II. ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Additional services will be provided as required for the following tasks.
A. Surveying
1. Engineer will perform design topographical surveying for the treatment plant
site, including the adjacent property to be used for the sludge dewatering
building. Permanent control points and bench marks to USGS datum will be
established.
B. Geotechnical Investigation
1. Engineer will conduct geotechnical investigation for design of the Sludge
Processing Facility Improvements.
III. SCHEDULE
A. The Engineer shall initiate work described herein immediately upon the execution of
the Agreement and upon issuance by City of Notice to Proceed.
B. Engineer shall submit five (5) draft copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report
within 70 calendar days of receipt of the City's Notice to Proceed.
C. Engineer shall submit five (5) final copies of the Preliminary Engineering Report
within 14 calendar days of receipt of the City's draft report review comments.
IV. COST
A. Costs for Preliminary Engineering Services shall be lump sum.
B. Costs for Additional Services shall be reimbursable per the attached wage rates
(Table A-1) and reimbursable rates (Table A-2).
C. The lump sum cost for Preliminary Engineering Services shall be $76,500. A
breakdown of manhours and other direct costs is included in Table A-4.
V. PAYMENT SCHEDULE
A. Engineer shall issue an invoice for 75 percent of the lump sum cost for Preliminary
Engineering Services upon submittal of the draft version of the Preliminary
Engineering Report.
B. Engineer shall issue an invoice for the remaining 25 percent of the lump sum cost for
Preliminary Engineering Services upon submittal and acceptance of the final version
of the Preliminary Engineering Report.
C. Payment for additional services shall be for reimbursable costs accrued at the time of
each invoice.
R\CONTRAMLAPORMSCOPE-A.DOC say A-3 January 5, 2001
0 •
Table A-1
BILLING RATE SCHEDULE
FOR
RESIDENT ENGINEERING AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Category 2001 2002
Principal/Tech Specialist (QA/QC) $ 180.00 $ 190.00
Project Director 145.00 148.00
Senior Project Manager 140.00 142.00
Electrical/Instrumentation Engineer 140.00 142.00
Structural Engineer 135.00 138.00
Project Engineer
Design Engineer
CADD
110.00
113.00
90.00
92.50
80.00
82.00
Administrative Support 58.00 62.00
R\CONTMMLAPORMSCOPE-A.DOC say A-4 January 5, 2001
Table A-2
REIMBURSABLE COSTS
FOR
RESIDENT ENGINEERING AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
Item Unit Cost Unit Cost
Photocopies
$ 0.10
$ 0.10
Mylar Plots
17.00
17.00
Bluelines
1.00
1.00
Facsimilie
1.00
1.00
Mileage
0.33
0.33
Note: All other reimbursable costs, i.e., telephone, mail, Fed Ex, courier, and miscellaneous
supplies will be invoiced at actual cost. All outside professionals will be invoiced at
actual cost plus 10 percent markup.
R\CONTRACT\LAPORTE\SCOPE-A.DOC say A-5 January 5, 2001
Table A-3
SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING COSTS
INCLUDING ESTIMATED COSTS FOR OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS
SLUDGE PROCESSING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
LITTLE CEDAR BAYOU WWTP
Preliminary Engineering Phase
Preliminary Engineering (lump sum) $ 76,500
Surveying (reimbursable per Tables A-1, A-2) $ 9,000
Geotechnical (reimbursable per Tables A-1, A-2) $ 8,000
END OF ATTACHMENT A
RACONTRAMLAPORMSCOPE-A.DOC say A-6 January 8, 2001
Table A-4
Budget Summary
Preliminary Engineering
LaPorte Preliminary Engineering Budget Contractor: Camp Dresser & McKee
Total for This Estimate: $ 76,495.10
Task 1: Complete Preliminary Engineering Budget
Camp Dresser and McKee Labor Costs
Man -Hours
Salary Rate
Multiplier
Extended Amount Comment
Principal
4
$
65
3.15
$ 819.00
Project Director
32
$
45
3.15
$ 4,536.00
Senior Project Manager
192
$
43
3.15
$ 26,006.40
Senior Engineer
40
$
40
3.15
$ 5,040.00
Junior Engineer
208
$
26
3.15
$ 17,035.20
Senior Scientist
0
$
48
3.15
$ -
Scientist
0
$
35
3.15
$ -
Designer
0
$
30
3.15
$ -
Drafter
100
$
25
3.15
$ 7,875.00
Administrative Assistant
16
$
25
3.15
$ 1,260.00
Clerical
92
$
20
3.15
$ 5,796.00
Sub - Total:
$ 68,367.60
Outside Professionals
Contract
Multiplier
Extended Amount Comment
Pete Bulot
Other Direct, Reimbursable Non -Labor Costs
Photocopies
Mylar Plots
Bluelines
CADD Computer Allocation
Facsimile
Mileage
3,50
$ - 1.1 $
Sub -Total $
Lump Sum Number
1,650 $
0 $
100 $
0 $
35 $
700 $
Unit Cost
0.10 $
17.00 $
1.00 $
10.00 $
1.00 $
0.33 $
3,850.00
Extended Amount Comment
165.00
100.00
35.00
227.50
0
0 0
0
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 22, 2001
Requested By: S. Gillett
Department: Public Works
Report: Resolution: Ordinance: XX
Exhibits: Ordinance No. 2000-2383 - A
Exhibits: Letter from City of Houston Legal Dept.
Exhibits:
Appropriation
Source of Funds:
Account Number:
Amount Budgeted:
Amount Requested:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The Cost Sharing Agreement Southeast Water Purification Plant (Restated and Amended) was
approved by the La Porte Area Water Authority and the La Porte City Council on February 21,
2000 (joint meeting). All Participants, with the exception of Pasadena, approved the Agreement
during that time. Pasadena did not have representatives present during the contract negotiations,
and refused to approve the Agreement until they had a chance to review and understand.
Recently, the City of Pasadena approved the Agreement, with changes. The City of Houston has
requested that the Participants amend their Agreements to reflect the changes made by Pasadena.
The changes are attached to the ordinance, and highlighted in bold. The proposed changes are
minor, and do not materially alter the basic Agreement. The new agreement does not change any
costs associated with the Agreement. Also attached is a letter from the City of Houston's Legal
Department explaining the changes.
The La Porte Area Water Authority met on January 16, 2001 and approved the amended
Agreement. The Authority's enabling legislation requires the La Porte City Council to approve
all contracts entered into by the Authority.
Action Required by Council: Approve Ordinance No. 2000-2383-A authorizing the City Manager to
execute the Cost Sharing Agreement Southeast Water Purification Plant (Restated and Amended).
Approved for City Council Agenda
(21:i"k 1 &V .� H-o
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
0
0
DUE TO THE VOLUME OF THIS CONTRACT
ONLY THE AMENDED PAGES ARE INCLUDED.
YOU CAN REVIEW THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT IN THE
CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-2384:-A
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO A COST SHARING
AGREEMENT ON THE SOUTHEAST WATER PURIFICATION PLANT BETWEEN THE LA
PORTE AREA WATER AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF HOUSTON; 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 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 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.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after
its passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
u
L�
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-2384-A
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
4rman
LA PORTE
By: Malone
Mayor
ATTEST:
Martha A. Gil ett
City Secretary
APPROVED:
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
PAGE 2
ARTICLE 3
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PLANT
3.1 In General
3.1.1 The Participants, as co -owners of the Plant, understand that, except as otherwise
specified herein, the Managing Participant will serve as managing owner for construction at the Plant
r.
as well as for the maintenance and operation of the Plant and shall have charge of its business and
general conduct. (The equity ownership for each Participant is set forth in Participant's Exhibit
3.1.2 The Participants shall have an interest in the conduct, affairs and decisions of the
Plant in proportion to the Participant's capital contribution. The Participants shall have the authority
to enter the Plant premises upon proper identification provided to Plant security personnel.
3.1.3 The Participants are willing to make capital contributions and payment of 0&M
Expenses as specified herein on the basis that the Managing Participant as managing owner agrees
to use its best efforts to assure proper. construction, operation and maintenance of the Plant and its
structures, equipment and facilities, and proper conduct of all employees, agents or contractors, to
pay debts when due and to obey all applicable federal, state or local regulations.
3.2 Relationship of Participants
3.2.1 The relationship of the Participants is of a fiduciary character. The Managing
Participant is trustee with respect to the Participants, with respect to the operation of the Plant and
care of all joint property specified herein. Each Participant shall act in the highest good faith toward
the other in conducting the operation of the Plant as well as their respective duties under this
U:\WPF1LEs\CONTRAC71EW8\1999AEW610975.RV I
LD. File No. 80-991»6-01
15
Revised
3.7 Other Projto
0
If the Managing Participant undertakes additional expansions of the Plant ("Other Projects")
any Participant shall have the right to purchase additional Demand, Pumping and/or Distribution
Allocations as such Participant desires out of such expansion by paying Managing Participant its pro-
rata share of the cost for such expansion as well as unreimbursed original capital costs (if any) as
shown in Exhibits "C-2," "C-3" and "D-2,":and executing an amendment to this Agreement affirming
Participant's obligation to make payment for construction of the Other Project and the Managing
Participant's obligation to construct the expansion and operate the same generally as provided herein
for the Plant. Provided, however, in the event the total additional Demand, Pumping and/or Distribution
Allocations requested by the Participants is greater than the proposed expansion, then each Participant
shall have the option to take a percentage share of the Demand, Pumping and/or Distribution Allocation
in the expansion at least equal to its then existing Demand, Pumping and/or Distribution Allocation
Factor. This option must be exercised by notice to the Managing Participant during the 150 day notice
period described below.
The Managing Participant shall give 150 days' advance written notice to Participants of any
proposed expansion of the Plant. At any time during the 150-day notice period, any Participant
desiring to purchase capacity in the expansion must give the Managing Participant written notice of
intent to purchase additional Demand, Pumping and/or Distribution Capacity in such expansion.
The Managing Participant and Participants agree, in making any such amendment, to act timely
and in good faith in order to permit an orderly enlargement or expansion of the Plant for the lowest
cost reasonably obtainable without causing undue delay.
The Managing Participant reserves the right to charge its standard rates for untreated water for
water produced by Other Projects in lieu of the raw water component of the O&M Expense.
1;:%%'PFILES%CONTRACTEwBxll4Q%EWBIO-175 RVI
L0. R c .N;u. SO.99116.01
Ro-Ised
21
Participant shall engage its then -current independent certified public accounting firm to audit the
accounting of costs. As soon as the firm has completed the audit, the Managing Participant shall
submit the audited accounting to the Participants. The Managing Participant and Participants
agree to "true -up" the previous payments trade for services during the fiscal year such that each
Participant who has underpaid will make timely payment of all O&M Expenses owed in the next
monthly billing following the audit, and the Managing Participant agrees to give credit to each
Participant who has overpaid O&M Expense for the fiscal year, such credit to be given in the
monthly billing following the audit.
4.2.4 The Managing Participant agrees to provide the independent auditor all expense,
meter readings and cost data required for the audit, including any documents or records available
to Participants under this Agreement.
4.2.5 The audit must include an itemization for each Participant of all costs and meter
recordings used to compute the O&M Expenses.
4.3 O&M Expense Calculations
For the purposes of this Agreement the yearly O&M Expense for each Participant, except
the City of Pasadena and the LaPorte Area Water Authority, is computed according to the
following formula below. (Pasadena's O&M Expense is the same as below except replace
Exhibit "E" with Exhibit "E Pasadena" and eliminate factor "G" in the formula; LaPorte's
O&M Expense is the same as below except replace Exhibit "E" with Exhibit "E LaPorte Area
Water Authority" and eliminate factor "G" in the formula.)
U:\WPFl1ES\CONTRAC7IEWB\ 1999\EWB 10975.R V I
LD. File No. 90-99146-01
28
Revised
E
•
other evidences of indebtedness issued to finance the capital cost of the transmission
lines.
"H" is .025 or such smaller number as necessary to fund the Contingency Reserve.
"I" is the Participant's Demand Allocation Factor.
I.
4.4 Contingencv Reserve
The Managing Participant will maintain a separate interest -bearing account to include all
funds Generated from O&M Expense billings to the Participants for a Contingency Reserve,
which shall not exceed $1,000,000. The Managing Participant may use funds from the
Contingency Reserve to reimburse itself for (1) emergency repairs, (2) Major Replacements
costing in excess of $500,000 for which the Managing Participant has not been reimbursed
within 270 days, or (3) difference between actual O&M Expenses incurred and O&M Expenses
paid on basis of Annual Budget. The Managing Participant shall provide an accounting for all
expenditures from the Contingency Reserve with its monthly invoice to the Participants.
4.5 Failure to Pay When Due
Should a Participant fail to tender payment within thirty (30) days of invoice of any O&M
Expense (or any part thereof) or should the Managing Participant fail to refund any overpayment
to a Participant within thirty (30) days of the date due, interest thereon shall accrue at the rate of
ten percent (10%) per annum from the date due until paid.
U:\WpFILES\CONrRACTEWB%19991EWB10975.RV I
LD. File No. 80-99146-01
30
Revised
0 0
CITY OF HOUSTON
Legal Department
Post Office Box 1562 Houston, Texas 77251-1562 713/247-2000
Lee P. Brown, Mayor
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Bruce Tatro Carol M. Galloway Mark Goldberg Jew Don Boney, Jr. Rob Todd Mark A. Ellis Bert Keller Gabriel Vasquez
John E. Castillo Annise D. Parker Gordon 9uan Orlando Sanchez Chris Bell Carroll G. Robinson CITY CONTROLLER: Sylvia 2 Garcia
Anthony W. Hall, Jr.
City Attomey
November 1, 2000
Steve Gillett
Public Works Director
City Of La Porte
P.O. Box 1115
Laporte, Texas 77572
RE: Proposed Restated Cost Sharing Agreement
Dear Mr. Gillett:
The Department of Public Works has requested that I give some additional explanation for
the proposed changes in the Southeast Plant Restated Cost Sharing Agreement, which
representatives of Houston and the other participants agreed to in February of this year.
An inherent problem with a negotiation process that it involves only representatives of the
parties and that the parties themselves may fail to approve the agreement reached by the
representatives. In the case of Southeast Plant negotiations, apparently the results of the
negotiations and workshops held in the winter of 1999-2000 were not conveyed to decision makers
of City of Pasadena.
During the Summer of 2000, representatives of Houston and Pasadena met on several
occasions and agreed to four minimal changes to the contract. These changes are either favorable
to all participants or relate to the location of Pasadena's Point or Delivery. They are as follows:
Page 15: Pasadena had requested the addition of a statement at Paragraph 3.1.1
setting out the equity ownership of each Participant. This has been done by adding
a reference in the Paragraph to each Exhibit II, which specifies the percentage of
equity ownership.
Seu-&e ?k oug( z4A.
® Printed on Recyaed Paper
0 0
Page 21: Pasadena requested language guaranteeing each Participant a pro -rats
share of capacity in a Plant expansion equal to its Demand Allocation Factor for
the Plant. Representatives of the cities arrived at language that gives each
Participant the option to participate pro-rata in the expansion if the Plant cannot be
expanded enough to meet all Participants' requirements. This new option is in
addition to the right of each Participant to purchase whatever it needs out of any
expansion that is unlimited, i.e., as large as the Participants as a group are willing
to finance.
Page 28, Exhibits B, F, E Pasadena, I Pasadena, H Pasadena, and II Houston:
Changes at these locations of the Contract relate to the decision by Pasadena to take
water only from the head works of the Southeast Plant. Therefore, Pasadena will
not be paying for added capacity in the Treated Water Transmission Facilities or
for maintenance of the Treated Water Transmission Facilities.
Page 30: This change was not requested by Pasadena. However, we noticed that
the definition of "H" needed to be modified to fit the formulation page 29. The
intent of the Participants is that the periodic payments for operation and
maintenance include an amount not to exceed 2 Ih % for the Reserve Fund.
We believe these revisions are beneficial to all Participants, and in keeping with our mutual
decision to have all Participants sign the same agreement, we are asking all parties to approve this
revised document. If you have any questions, please contact me at 713-247-1465.
P.S. After the Participant meeting of October 18, a Friendswood representative contracted me
and stated that page two of its Exhibit I map was missing from the exhibit package that was
distributed at the meeting. I have attached hereto both pages of Friendswood Exhibit I.
S' rely your ,
E.W. Beauchamp
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
EWB:jdw
UAWPFILESTHIL.WPD
cc: Gary Oradat
Bert Simmons
SPJ vzw -7kuwf4 Zaa-
® Printed on Recycled raper
0 0
0
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: Al"ary 22 2001
Requested By: John Jo
Department: Administrati n
Report: Resolution: Ordinance: X
Exhibits:
♦ 8 Ordinances
♦ Standard Industrial District Agreement
Appropriation N/A
Source of Funds:
Account Number:
Amount Budgeted:
Amount Requested:
Budgeted Item: _YES _NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
The City and Industry have agreed to renew the provisions of the Industrial District Agreement for another seven-
year period. The current agreements expired December 31, 2000.
The City mailed 61 Industrial District Agreements in March 2000. Currently, because of splits, mergers, sales,
name changes, etc., the number of agreements to track is reduced from 61 to 58. To date, we have approved 43
agreements. The total agreements approved after tonight's action will be 51.
Four industries have returned executed agreements complete with Exhibits A, B, and C. Four industries returned
executed agreements, but did not furnish all required exhibits. In this case, exhibits provided for the previous IDA
(Series 1994-2000) were copied and attached to the current agreements. These agreements are presented to City
Council for approval on a condition these industries will provide revised exhibits if necessary. The remaining
agreements will be presented to City Council as City staff receives them.
Staff recommends City Council authorize the execution of Industrial District Agreements with the following
industries:
• Kaver L.P.
• Turbo Storage Service Company
• Baker Petrolite Corporation
• Dana Tank Container
• Bayport North Industrial Park
• Prime Service
• ARCO Midcon
• Akzo-Nobel Chemicals Inc.
Action Required by Council:
Consider approval of Ordinances 2000-IDA-46 and 2000-IDAVauthorizing the execution by the City of La Porte
of Industrial District Agreements listed above.
Approved for City Council Agenda
T-,1A&, � I- k 5- w .
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
• 0
DUE TO THE VOLUME OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
AGREEMENTS, ONLY ONE AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED.
EACH AGREEMENT IS THE STANDARD FORM AND
CAN BE REVIEWED IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
0 0
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-46
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH RAVER, LP, FOR THE TERM
COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2007; 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. KAVER, LP 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
0 0
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Mar. ha A. Gillett
City Secretary
City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
By: i
N rm L.-f Malon ,
Mayor
2
• •Ir
b Li J AUG 3 12000
NO. 2000-IDA-46 { f
{
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS {
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 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
, a Limited PartnershipVUEVOURMW hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
• 0
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
2
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City 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
01
0 0
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 construction 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.
For 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'l, 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,
including, 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 tangible 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
0
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 City '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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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 City in accordance with the
5
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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
51
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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.
OR
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
•
0
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
City Secretary
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
Kaver, LP
0 PANY)
By:
Name: Ly& A. evak
Title: President
Address: P.O. Box 1645
La Porte, Tx. 77571
CT,TY OF LA PORTE
By:
Worman L. MdIone
Mayor
By: Ga5j�
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
8
"EXHIBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
EXHIBITS INFORMATION WILL FOLLOW WITHIN.APPROXIMATELY TWO
WEEKS. WE ARE CURRENTLY HAVING PROPERTY SURVEYED TO MEET
THIS REQUIREMENT.
KAVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
Being a 16.106 acre tract out of the Richard Pearsall 1/3
League, A-625, Harris County, Texas, and being a call 2.550
acre tract as conveyed to Kaver Limited Partnership by
instrument recorded under Harris County Clerks File No.
R874016, a call 4.435 acre tract as conveyed to Kaver
Limited Partnership by instrument recorded under Harris
County Clerks File No. 5095365, a 8.8267 acre tract as
conveyed to Kaver Limited Partnership by instrument recorded
under Harris County Clerks File No. P311296, P311294, and
P311295, and a 0.2917 acre tract being the residue of a
2.9085 acre tract as conveyed to Lynn A. Revak and Billie C.
Revak by instrument recorded under Harris County Clerks File
No. M411083, said 16.106 acre tract being more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at a monument with a brass cap numbered 3098
found for the Southwest corner of the call 2.550 acre tract,
said point being also the Northwest corner of Harris County
Flood Control District Ditch C, Tract 1;
Thence, South 03 degrees 08 minutes 10 seconds East (Call
South 03 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East), coincident
with the West line of said Ditch C, Tract 1, and a East line
of the call 8.8267 acre tract, a distance of 49.17 feet to a
5/8" iron rod set for the Northeast corner of the said 4.435
acre tract;
Thence, South 03 degrees 00 minutes 13 seconds East,
coincident with the West line of said Ditch C, Tract 1, and
the East line of the said 4.435 acre tract, a distance of
180.00 feet to a point for corner, said point being the
Southeast corner of this 16.106 acre tract, from which a
monument with a brass cap numbered 3085, was found to bear
South 37 degrees 34 minutes West, a distance of 3.32 feet;
PAGE 1 OF 4
KAVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - CON'T.
Thence, South 86 degrees 53 minutes 07 seconds West (Call
South 86 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds West) coincident with
the South line of the said 4.435 acre tract and the North
line of a call 3.351 acre Drill Site 10, and the North line
of a Rohm -Hass Bayport, Inc. call 60.155 acre tract, a
distance of 1,073.39 feet (Call 1,073.16 feet), to a
concrete monument with a brass cap , said point being the
most Southwesterly Southwest corner of this 16.106 acre
tract and the Southwest corner of the said 4.435 acre tract;
Thence, North 03 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds West,
coincident with the West line of the said 4.435 acre tract,
and the East line of an Airco, Inc. call 17.466 acre tract,
a distance of 180.07 feet (Call 180.00 feet) to a 1/2 inch
iron rod found for the most westerly Northwest corner of
this 16.106 acre tract, and being the Southwest corner of a
Turbo Storage Service Co., Inc. call 2.6161 acre tract and
the Northwest corner of the said 4.435 acre tract;
Thence, North 86 degrees 53 minutes 07 seconds East (Call
North 86 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds East), coincident
with the North line of the said 4.435 acre tract, and the
South line of the Turbo Storage Service Co., Inc. call
2.1616 acre tract, a distance of 516.07 feet (Call 515.87
feet) to a 5/8" iron rod set for corner, said point being
the Southeast corner of the said 2.6161 acre tract;
Thence, North 03 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds West,
coincident with the East line of the said 2.6161 acre tract
and a West line of the said call 8.8267 acre tract, a
distance of 162.07 feet to an "X" chisled in concrete for
corner, said point being the Easterly Northeast corner of
the said 2.6161 acre tract;
Thence, South 86 degrees 51 minutes 49 seconds West (Call
South 86 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds West), coincident
with a North line of the said 2.6161 acre tract, a distance
of 147.02 feet to a 5/8" iron rod set for corner, said point
being a Southwest corner of the said 2.6161 acre tract
PAGE 2 OF 4
KAVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - CON'T.
Thence, North 02 degrees 50 minutes 51 seconds West (Call
North 02 degrees 46 minutes 37 seconds West), coincident
with an East line of the said 2.6161 acre tract, a distance
of 47.05 feet to a point for corner;
Thence, North 87 degrees 43 minutes 53 seconds East,
coincident with a Southerly line of a Tri-Gas, Inc. call
4.2648 acre tract, a distance of 49.61 feet to a point for
corner;
Thence, North 03 degrees 07
coincident with an easterly
tract, a distance of 60.70
point for corner;
Thence, North 86 degrees 52
coincident with a Southerly
tract, a distance of 37.94
concrete;
minutes 06 seconds West,
line of the Tr -Gas 4.2648 acre
feet to a call "X" in concrete, a
minutes 54 seconds East,
line of the said 4.2648 acre
feet to an "X" found marked in
Thence, North 03 degrees 08 minutes 10 seconds West, (Call
North 03 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds West) coincident with
the East line of the said 4.2648 acre tract and the West
line of the said 8.8267 acre tract, a distance of 380.15
feet (call 380.05 feet) to a 7" gate post for the Northwest
corner of this 16.106 acre tract, said point being in the
South right-of-way of Fairmont Parkway;
Thence, North 86 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds East,
coincident with the North line of this 16.106 acre tract and
the South right-of-way line of Fairmont Parkway, at a
distance of 616.88 feet (Call 616.85 feet) pass a 5/8" iron
rod found for the Northeast corner of the said 8.8267 acre
tract and the Northwest corner of the said 2.550 acre tract,
for a total distance of 802.19 feet to a point for corner,
said point being the Northeast corner of this 16.106 acre
tract and the Northeast corner of the said 2.550 acre tract,
from which a 5/8" iron rod was found to bear South 21
degrees 46 minutes East, a distance of 0.17 feet;
PAGE 3 OF 4
KAVER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP - CON'T.
Thence, South 03 degrees 06 minutes 23 second East (Call
South 03 degrees 05 minutes 21 seconds East), coincident
with the East line of the said 2.550 acre tract and the West
line of a Center Land Co. of Texas 0.330 acre tract, a
distance of 599.96 feet to a point for a Southeast corner of
this 16.106 acre tract, from which a 5/8" iron rod was found
to bear South 82 degrees 11 minutes west, a distance of 0.46
feet;
Thence, South 86 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds West,
coincident with the South line of the said 2.550 acre tract
and the North line of the Harris Count Flood Control
District Ditch C, Tract 1, a distance of 180.00 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
PREPARED FROM A PARTIAL ON THE GROUND SURVEY AND FROM RECORD
DEEDS. NOT FULLY SURVEYED ON THE GROUND.
H. CARLOS SMITH
TEXAS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND
OCTOBER 27, 2000
JOB NO. 3171-98-KAVER
PAGE 4 OF 4
• 0
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
EXHIBITS INFORMATION WILL FOLLOW WITHIN APPROXIMATELY TWO
WEEKS. WE ARE CURRENTLY HAVING PROPERTY SURVEYED TO MEET
THIS REQUIREMENT.
• 0
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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.
0
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
i 0
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-47
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH TURBO STORAGE SERVICE
COMPANY, INC., FOR THE TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 11 2001, AND ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2007; 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. TURBO STORAGE SERVICE COMPANY, INC. 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
0
i
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
Knox W. Askins,
City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
By: --�
N r L. Malo ,
Mayor
E
This AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the CITY
OF LA PORTE, TEXAS, a municipal corporation of Harr-igL-County,
Texas, hereinafter called "CITY", and Turbo Storage Service Company,
Inc. , a Subchapter S corporation, hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
2
• 0
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City 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
s
M
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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,
including, 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 tangible 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
0
0
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 City '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 ,City 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 legislation 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 land, 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 City in accordance with the
5
0 0
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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
C=
•
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
0
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
F.40
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
By:
ATTEST:
-v6palt-, d - XzyBy:
Ci y Secretary
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
Turbo Storaue Service Company, Inc.
)C2& (COMPANY)
Name: Lynn A. Revak
Title: President
Address: P. 0. Box 1606
T,a Porte, Tx. 77571
CITY7 OF LA PORTE
o Ma one
Mayor
By: Cal -F-yE-ct :.
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
8
"EXHIBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
EXHIBITS INFORMATION WILL FOLLOW WITHIN APPROXIMATELY TWO
WEEKS. WE ARE CURRENTLY:�.HAVING PROPERTY SURVEYED TO MEET
THIS REQUIREMENT.
TURBO STORAGE SERVICE CO., INC.
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
Being a 2.617 acre tract (Call 2.6161 Acres) out of the
Richard Pearsall 1/3 League, A-625, Harris County, Texas,
and being part of that call 2.9085 acre tract as conveyed to
Lynn A. Revak and Billie C. Revak by instrument recorded
under Harris County Clerks File No. M411083, said 2.617 acre
tract being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a 1/2" iron rod found for the Southwest corner
of the said 2.9085 acre tract, said point being the
Northwest corner of that certain 4.435 acre tract as
conveyed to Kaver Limited Partnership by instrument recorded
under Harris County Clerks File No. 5095365;
Thence North 03 degrees 07 seconds 06 minutes West,
coincident with the West line of said 2.9085 acre tract and
the East line of an Arco, Inc. call 17.466 acre tract, a
distance of 244.63 feet to a point for the North West corner
of this 2.617 acre tract, and being the Southwest corner of
a Tri-Gas, Inc. 4.2648 acre tract, from which a 1/2" iron
rod was found to bear North 86 degrees 59 seconds East, a
distance of 0.21 feet;
Thence, North 86 degrees 58 minutes 49 seconds East (Call
North 86 degrees 58 minutes 07 seconds East) coincident with
the North line of this 2.617 acre tract and the South line
of the said Tri-Gas, Inc. 4.2648 acre tract, a distance of
369.39 feet (Call 369.34 feet) to a chain link fence post
for corner;
Thence, South 02 degrees 50 minutes 51 seconds East (Call
South 02 degrees 46 minutes 37 seconds East), coincident
with an East line of this 2.617 acre tract and a West line
of the Tri-Gas, Inc. 4.2648 acre tract, and a West line of
the Kaver Limited Partnership 16.106 acre tract, at a call
distance of 34.95 feet, pass a Northwest corner of the said
16.106 acre tract for a total distance of 82.00 feet to a
5/8" iron rod set for an interior Southwest corner of this
2.617 acre tract;
PAGE 1 OF 2
TURBO STORAGE SERVICE COMPANY, INC. - CON'T.
Thence, North 86 degrees 51 minutes 49 seconds East (Call
North 86 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds East), a distance of
147.02 feet to an "X" chisled in concrete for the most
easterly Northeast corner of this 2.617 acre tract, and
being a point in a West line of the said 16.106 acre tract;
Thence, South 03 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds East,
coincident with the East line of this 2.617 acre tract and a
West line of the said 16.106 acre tract, a distance of
162.07 feet to a 5/8" iron rod set for the Southeast corner
of this 2.617 acre tract, and being a Southwest corner of
the said 16.106 acre tract;
Thence, South 86 degrees 53 minutes 07 seconds West (Call
South 86 degrees 52 minutes 54 seconds West), coincident
with the South line of this 2.617 acre tract and the North
line of the said 4.435 acre tract, a distance of 516.07
feet (Call 515.87 feet) to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
H. CARLOS SMITH
TEXAS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR NO.
OCTOBER 27, 2000
JOB NO. 3171-98-REVAK
PAGE 2 OF 2
OF r
A-0 M
0
�as�.•• A
•
0
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
EXHIBITS INFORMATION WILL FOLLOW WITHIN APPROXIMATELY TWG
WEEKS. WE ARE CURRENTLY HAVING PROPERTY SURVEYED TO MEET
_..,THIS REQUIREMENT.
•
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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.
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
• 0
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-48
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH DANA'TANK CONTAINER, INC.,
FOR THE TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,
2007; 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 I. DANA TANK CONTAINER, INC. 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
0
.I
L
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Martha A. Gi lett
City Secretary
City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
ArmL. Malon ,
Mayor
2
0
NO. 2000-IDA- 48 {
{
STATE OF TEXAS {
{
COUNTY OF HARRIS {
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 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 Dana Tank Container, Inc.
, a New Jersey corporation, hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
2
0 0
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City 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
0 •
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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,
including, 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 tangible 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
0
0
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 City '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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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.
1M
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 City in accordance with the
k,
0
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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
0
0
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the, event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
DANA TANK INER, IN
COMPANY)
By:
me: Ron Dana
Title: President
Address: 210 Essex Avenue
Avenel, NJ 07001
ATTEST: C Y OF LA PORTE
By : i !�-
Cfty Secretary Ugrman . Malo e
Mayor
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
By: Gj4 -
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
8
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
0 0
"EXHIBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
04
P 1
\ I EXHIBIT "A' - Page 1 of' _
3 ..• . 1835.acres of lard, more or ;ess, located in the Enoch Brinson' Survey, Abstract ,
tray, T *and
particularly:being part of the residue of that certain•caged -
o Iand described as Tract 11; conveyed to Seiecied I.arids. Ltd N4.9. }
recard:tu deFt�cord-qt Realfto: 0761.2ofhe Ml iaf PUtIc _
dl� s Couinty;;Yexa,, Sal -1,835 ac; e_ -baiog lnorq 14tt:Cu0arh!
' a-_' t:a VS- troll rod. found foc comer at the Nortneasl cromer of that
4y' A672`bad at-tand •doscribed as "First Tract', convemAd to J. P.
t; >Irts tirrent:of:.racord under fife no. K333175 cf the Qftictal. Public
a°
f..:-. _ .... pa�t.at~liai�s-i^.out;ty,-Texas,-saFtaaoeing-�#tae-rna�edltl't>!ta _ .
with said.noriherN line. NoMIZB° 14 minutes 09 secangS East, 1372.20'
- ;` set for comer; being the Northeast corner a1 said 5&84 acres;
; .with the easterly Tina of said 56.84 acres, South 01 ° '4 ;rTtirtuteS 52
smcmda East; 170.00' to a 5r8' iron rod set -for corner,
' -UJEbjCE, leaving said easterly line, North 56' 04 minutes 45 seconds West.
to a 5/8" 1 n rod set for corner,
88-14 mil=lutes 09 seccnds'Nest, 1074.; 5' to z 513" iron roc set
T
r H. CE, South 01' 45 minutes 17 seccnas East, 349.90' !o a 5!8" iron rod set
-PiENCE, South 88° 13 minutes 02 secords West, 200 00' ?o a 5/8" iron rod found
fir corner at the Sowheasl corner of aforementioned 8.672 acre tract;
ItiENCE, with the. easterly line of sad 8.672 acre tract, North 01 ° 45 minutes 17
Winds Wes',-49.97' to the point of beginning and centaining 4.835 acres of
•i:i
land.
r
A
J,
(1 J
tLixL •-_1�.. _ - .
!! fo,-Vo�
"7
'023-:5&.73428
Page.2 Of 7 t. 7.
TRACT 11:
a�
4'
'Cr Brinson SuNav Abstract
a 0,, je55 located in the Enc .1 2 and 2-.100
'3 aPres.ot laPdM0r I j of those certain called &67
jupty, Texas, more Particuiarly ' being al pectvejy, and.convey0d 10
'First Tract" and ` Second :rract'. ri� i
described as 'Fi t T L U -ds
cord under file no. R938175 of the Official P bUc Reco'
i by instrument en.t of re __: mdre, particularly
County, Texas. Sala
Harris COun
Ites;and bclundi as fOl'-Gws*
cornet Oi
Northwest
zt a 1;0,1 - pipe found marking the
line. OLLW's
-n
W-asi Sar-,.e bp-.-I-1 tle I:klst`�l`ly
0 and a 672 acre tracts, North 86*
erly line of said 2-0
Tv ith th a, no rib to a a,'8* iron rcJ 10uno n-raalng the W-rtheas'.
ate-'.
6672.acres
rriqs 17
Sol _�tt. 010 45
i:,WitM- the - %ISterly fina at sa�d neast CcrrW, Of
toa 518- iron rod. fVLMd marxing the SOut
acres', 4
3 Minutes 02
-s. C--.,nh 88*
southerly 'ins of said &672 acr=
.-yvjtl�.j the, s eriy on rod d found for c;orner,n :he northerly
West, 800.fa'to a 518- Ilcotlds r
rwtne of State *Highway No.: 5;
1-b4PNICE with said northerly right-Of7way ill -le. 1rj. oliowing four (4) courses:
112'
Z., trar, ad. set for
4" minutes 46 se�;Or'os 'p4es*
North 19* -
cpTner, 'Ilia beginning of a curves:
sut),
-_�rve being d e d by
to the left, sad c
arc of a tangent CU - - -s uf 421 .9
Along 0.
minutes COseconds, naving a
4 of 72' 00 IM -�ej for -:;orr-I3r' a central hLngla
I h 530.29 to a Ii2*
..and an art length I a-
iron rod set for
minutes 55 seconds West,'o a I;-
3. S6u!h 87" 37
6.57- -0 a ne r --
1,2" iron roc sat for
corner; '
4. Norm 48' 31 minutes 05 saw-'65 V4'3-�'t 5 f c-r.s Pcad;
corner in-1he ato, ementioned easteasterly:Igrjof -way �i -
jht-of-way tire of State Highway 225 and with
THENCE, leaving. said northerly rig-conas
of Sens co;
North 010 44 minutes 03 se
said easterly right -at -way line 10.673 a.cres Of !and.
west, 107.41' to the point of beginning and co,--'3lrIirg
GEORGE J. LAMB & ASSOCIATES
REGISTERE13 PROFE9910NAL RHO INEERS
2102 NAZARO ST. "CUSTOM. TL71AS 77019 T[L. 822•0903
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY
A 2.937 acre tract of land out of Lot 10 of the F. A. Staashen
Subdivision, said subdivision being out of the Enoch Brinson
Survey, Abstract No. 5, Harris County, Texas, with said
2.937 acre tract being more particularly described as follows,
to wit:
Beginning at a point in the West line of Sens Road; (601 row),
said point also being located in the South line of a Houston
Lighting & Power Company 2501 Easement;
Thence S01'3613411E along the West line of Sens Road, a dis-
tance of 107, 75 feet to a point for corner;
Thence 843*23126"W a distance of 56.58 feet to a point for
• corner, said point being located in the North line of State High-
way No..225 (3701 row);
Thence in a Southeasterly direction along the North line of
State Highway No. 225 the following:
S W23'26t1W a distance of 48.00 feet to a point;
Thence following a curve to the lcft having a central angle of
40 001001, and a radius of 421.97 feet, a distance of 294. 59 feet
to a point;
Thence S48%3126t1W a distance of 188. 05 feet to a point;
Thence following a curve to the right having a central angle of
11*2815211 and a radius of 341.97 feet, a distance of 68. 52 feet to
a point for corner, said point being located in the East line
of a Seadrift Pipeline Company 1.271 acre tract of land as
recorded in Volume 4210 Page 476 , Harris County Deed Records;
GEOI4GE J. LAMB & ASSOCIATES
REOISTEREV PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS
2102 HAZARD •T. HOUSTON. TEXAS 77019 TEL. 822.8903
Thence N016 29'2411W along the East line of said 1. 271 acre tract
of land, a distance of 410.28 feet to a point for corner, said
point being located in the South line of the same Houston Light-
ing & Power Company 250' easement;
Thence N88050136"E along the South line of said easement, a •,
distance of 559.00 feet to the place of beginning of this survey
and containing 127, 057.58 square feet.
orgeA. Lam-U—Jr. , VE.
C-346
• i
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
•
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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.
•
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
0
"EXHIBIT D"
TO THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE
AND
DANA TANK CONTAINER, INC.
Company agrees to abide by all City's rules, regulations,
policies and ordinances regarding utility service unless
the provisions of the Water and Sewer Service Agreement
prevail or impose specific or more strict standards.
For any future expansions or improvements to the site
described in Exhibit "A" and "B", Company shall present
a site plan to the City of La Porte for review. Company
further agrees to abide by the concepts established in
the City's adopted F101 Master Watershed Plan by
providing onsite detention of stormwater runoff for any
future improvements.
Company further agrees to participate in future planning
of water and sewer demands undertaken by the City or by
the La Porte Area Water Authority.
•
0
February 16, 2001
Dana Tank Container, Inc.
Attn: Ron Dana, President
210 Essex Avenue
Avenel, NJ 07001
City of La Porte
Established 1892
Re: Industrial District Agreement (IDA) Series 2001-2007
Dear Mr. Dana:
Enclosed is a fully executed duplicate original of the Industrial District Agreement between
your firm and the City of La Porte, effective January 1, 2001, for the term expiring December
31, 2007. I also enclose a certified copy of the City's approval ordinance, for your records.
Per your conversation with Knox Askins, Exhibit "A" furnished by Dunn Equipment for their
previous IDA (Series 1994-2001) was added to Dana's previous Exhibit "A" to complete this
agreement.
If this Exhibit "A" is correct, please note by signing and returning this letter. Also, please
forward a current Exhibit "B" depicting both the Dana property and the newly purchased
property. Please attach a copy to the enclosed IDA for your records.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sinc elf,
ohn J ns
Ass' ant City Manager
Yes No
Use previous "Exhibit A" ❑ ❑
New Exhibit "A" to be furnished ❑ ❑
(Company)
By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
P.O. Box 1115 + La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
• 0
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-49
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, INC.,
FOR THE TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,
2007; 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. AKZO NOBEL CHEMICALS, INC. 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
• 0
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
ragtt 0. XW-
ar ha . Gillett
City Secretary
APPROYJFA
1
lyz'Ha '
Knox W. Askins,
City Attorney
CITY F LA PORTE
By: —
No rma rf L:r Ma10 e,
Mayor
2
• 0
NO. 2000-IDA- 49
STATE OF TEXAS { �'
COUNTY OF HARRIS {� i
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT cv,Tat`'
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 Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc.
a Delaware corporation, hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
• 0
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
2
0
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City 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
Is
2.
3.
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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
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,
including, 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 tangible 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
0
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 City '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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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 City in accordance with the
5
• 0
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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 lien" 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
P,
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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.
*14
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
0
0
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
Akzo Nobel ChemIcals Inc.
(COMPANY)
By:
Name: Piet Provo Kluit
Title: President
Address: 300 South Riverside Plaza
Chicago. Illinois 60606
ATTEST: CITY OF LA PORTE
G. By : G
City Secretary Mormdfi L. Malone
Mayor
AP,P O '
7� 0 —
nox W. Askins
City Attorney
City of LaPorte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471=2047
By: G r . �V v
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
8
C
"EXHIBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
METES A14D BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
Being a 24.70 acre tract of land, more or less, out of the
Arthur McCormick Survey, A-46 and out of the George Ross Survey,
A-646, Harris County, Texas; said 24.70 acre tract being all of
that certain 3'.0 acre tract as conveyed by Jeff E. Fleming, Trustee,
to Texas Alkyls., by deed dated Play 19, 1959, as recorded in Volume
3705, Page 326, et seq, Harris County Deed Records, and all of that
certain 3.5 acre tract as conveyed by G.A. La Forge to Texas Alkyls,
Inc., by deed dated Nay 5, 1961, as recorded in Volume 4362, Page
26, Harris County Deed Records, and being all of that certain 12.779
acre tract as conveyed by Phillips Petroleum Company to Texas Alkyls,
Inc., by deed dated May 22, 1959, as recorded in Volume 3712, Page
95, Harris Ccsnty Deed Records; and including a part of that certain
(called) 5.6674 acre tract shown on a plat of a survey performed by
Paul W. Wiseman in April, 1978; which tract was off the South end of
the Soltex Polymer Corp., 96.882 acre tract (Tract II) in the A.
McCormick Survey, A-46; said 24.70 acre tract being more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at a 2" O.D. iron pipe with an aluminum cap marked
"PPCo." being the Northwest corner of that said 12.779 acre tract,
and being the Southwest corner of that certain Tract II containing
96.86 acres, conveyed by Phillips Petroleum Company to Celanese Corp-
oration of America by deed doted April 5, 1956, as recorded in Volume
3133, Page 361, Harris County Duc:d Records, and being also the most
Northerly Northwest corner of that certain 63.333 acre tract described
in a partition deed 1•:.J. Howard, et al, dated June 26, 1950,
as recorded in Volume 2124, Page 665, Harris County Deed Records, said
point being on the Southerly extension of the center line of State
Highway No. 134, also known as Battleground Road, and being in the
1•;est line of the Arthur McCormick Survey, A-46, same being the East
line of the George Ross Survey, A-646, Harris County, Texas;
Thence, N 2° 29' 11; coincident with the West boundary line of the
A. McCormick Survey, A-46 and with the Southerly projection of the
centerline of State Highway 134; a distance of 258.29 feet to a point
for the Northwest corner of the aforementioned 5.6674 acre tract.
Thence, N 870 10' 18" E; coincident with the North (bIoundary line
of the aforementioned 5.6674 acre tract; a distance of 58.47 feet to
a point for corner coincident with the East right-of-way line of State
Highway 134; said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence, continuing N 871 10' 18" E, coincident withlthe North
hc-undary line of the aforen-ientioned 5.6674 acre tract, i distance of
928.95 feet to a point for the Northeast corner of the 24.70 acre
tract.
•
Thence, S 20' 50' 03" W; coincident with the West boundary line
of the Houston Lighting and Power Company, 31.058 acre tract as re-
corded in Volume 2440, at Page 455, etc. of the Harris County Deed
Records; passing at 297.54 feet, the Northeast corner of the afore-
said 12.779 acre tract; passing at 1,159.22 feet the Southeast corner
of the said 12.779 acre tract; for a total distance of 1,419.00 feet
to the Southeast corner of this 24.70 acre tract; which is also the
Southeast corner of the aforementioned 3.5 acre tract.
Thence, S 870 34' 44" W; coincident with the agreed South boundary
line of the 3.5 acre tract as set forth in the instrument recorded in
Volume 5235, Page 175, etc., of the Harris County Deed Records; a
distance of 774.03 feet to a point for the Southwest corner of this
24.70 acre tract.
Thence, N 17° 11' E, along the West line of said 3.5 acre tract
and the East right-of-way line of State Highway No. 134, at 127.00
feet pass the most Westerly Northwest corner of said 3.5 acre tract,
being also the Southwest corner of said 3.0 acre tract, and continuing
alonq the West line of said 3.0 acre tract , at a total distance of
997.31 feet to a point of curve.
Thence, following a curve to the left in Northerly direction;
coincident with the East right-of-way line of State Highway 134; said
curve having a central angle of 16' 49' 27" and a radius of 1,246.00
feet; for an arc distance of 365.87 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Prepared from field note deed descriptions, corrected and rotated by
Compass Rule method of adjusLmont, not surveyed on the ground.
/EOF ):cam r
H. Carlos Smith •z�a c.
Texas Registered Public Surveyor, No. 1228
Date: March 31, 1980
Job No. 1243-79
U
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
IIICA-00
1.
1-69 T-77 T
70 T-I21
T-90 I T-96 T
92 T-97 T-27
PMl1p5
ENTAREA
WA9/ %AD
7
o
0
o
O110101O
Ella
souTN TE,u
Fff
UNIT
E2M0
\
♦
_ISO
-rN _-
1 ARE
(ER k -
~NGR0101b,
_
iooC o
���o
EIVROTfAL
EASE
UNIT
OT-l22
IBU
C/R
O T-
T-50 O
T-802 T-SM T-90t
Ll
O O O
GL
_
T 6
T-Sa
00W�M
0�p
U 1EAt
°
LIMIT
T-B.Li
LO�NG---'--
QCONTAINUt
O
Ni MESENBITROCMNIT
�REI•00
-
S
00u
MCC
BLOC.
0N10
� pNNLPS
ty0 EASE.
RNT
C
®
I"-1
SOLOENT
rnlNncR
LORDING
P
SLIBST
2
ITX
V1r00
\
O
�'
O.
111 WE
No. IIW
TA1fON
O
VARENEUSE
SHOP
7
inn
RAW MAlG11AL
F
YARJTENANC
PARKING
NOW
YAINTENNICE DLDG
PARKIN
AREA 1
\/
PAAIONO
AREA
TECHNICAL
CENTER
C
CI
OF
ES
C
\
V2.00
r�
TEXAS STA E H ' 134
(BATTIEGR N0 ROAD)
prop I, y of .I0 Is
the prop ty of APPROVED BY
Ehew shall W
11 i I N
Q o ph WC
be erocedpho�o0fe Wled
-
PI,o—taua W.AKZD
=d IA Aey IgMrrA.°/` I P.D. BOX
�eetl ear RAy p..rPo:. DEER PARK, TEXAS 77
vrgtswver Cep
tteR pvnrsswn e B GEIIEPAL UPDATE
....... ___. AAZQ. ChewCOli. _ NQ RCVISIONS _ P OATC
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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.
0 •
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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
To Mr. Robert T. Herrera, City Manager
From Bruce Glade
Date 11 /30/00
Subject Industrial District Agreement
Copies File
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Memorandum
Polymer Chemicals LLC
Deer Park
Please find two executed copies of the Industrial District Agreement for Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc. My
understanding is that when they are completed by the City of La Porte, one copy will be returned to the site.
If there are any questions or additional information required, please advise
Re ards,
< i
f
ruce M. Glade
Site Controller -+
i.
•
•
7'EXAS
January 12, 2001
Akzo Nobel Chemicals Inc.
Mr. Bruce M. Glade
300 South Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
City of La Porte
Established 1892
Re: Industrial District Agreement (Series 2001-2007)
Dear Mr. Glade:
Two executed originals of the Industrial District Agreement (IDA) were received from
you on December 1, 2000. While reviewing the documents for completeness, we noticed
your firm did not furnish an Exhibit `B".
Since your firm furnished an Exhibit `B" for the previous IDA (Series 1994-2000), this
exhibit will be attached to your agreement. We will proceed and present these documents
to City Council for approval on the condition you will provide corrected information, if
necessary.
Once City Council has approved these documents we will return an original set to you. If
you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
John rns
As * tant City Manager
P.O. Box 1115 a La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
0
City of La Porte
Established 1892
February 15, 2001
Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc.
Mr. Bruce M. Glade
300 South Riverside Plaza
Chicago, IL 60606
Re: Industrial District Agreement (IDA) Series 2001-2007
Dear Mr. Glade:
Enclosed is a fully executed duplicate original of the Industrial District Agreement between your
firm and the City of La Porte, effective January 1, 2001, for the term expiring December 31,
2007..I also enclose a certified copy of the City's approval ordinance, for your records.
Per the letter dated January 12, 2001 this agreement was .approved by City Council with Exhibit
"B" furnished for the previous IDA (Series 1994-2000).
Please warrant Exhibit `B" by signing and returning this letter. If changes have occurred, please
send us a copy as soon as possible and attach a copy to the enclosed IDA for your records.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yes No
Use previous "Exhibit B" ❑ ❑
New Exhibit "B" to be furnished ❑ ❑
(Company)
By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
P.O. Box 1115 9 La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-50
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH ARCO MIDCON LLC, FOR THE TERM
COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2007; 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. ARCO MIDCON LLC 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
• 0
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Martha -'A. Gillett
City Secretary
APPROV
Ile
Knox W. Askins,
City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
orm n . Malone,
Mayor
2
0
r�
NO. 2000-IDA- 50
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 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 ARCO Midcon LLC
, a Delaware limited liability company , hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a
Industrial District of the City of La Porte,
legally described on the attached Exhibit
and said Land being more particui,-'
Exhibit "B", which plat deg-
site layout, showing all
railroads, and also showing
the City of La Porte; and C
WHEREAS, City desires tc
industrial plants within si
desires to enter into this
Ordinance adopted by the City
the official minutes of said
NOW, THEREFORE, in consa
mutual agreements of the partit
the authority granted under tht
Ordinances of City -referred to a.
with each other as follows:
designated
-and being
"Land");
'-ached as
lines; a
.nes and
hexed by
Dwth of
%urpose
int to
9ed in
the
t to
the
_gree
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
0 0
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 'Ipay full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 annexedlI portion of Land,
improvements, and tangible personal property shall be determined 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 apprai al 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 �ecognize that in
making such appraisal for "in lieu" payment purposes, such
appraiser must of necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
2
0 r
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City 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
• 0
2.
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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,
including, 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 tangible 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,
►H
•
0
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 City '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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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 City in accordance with the
5
0 0
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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
C:
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
VA
0
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
A,ploved as to Foi
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
legal Departmen
ATTEST:
��
f tl AW
c1tk Secretary
APP O
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
ARCO Midcon LLC
p.�� ( COMPANY )
By: �el
Name: Brian R. Miller
Title: Attorney -in -Fact
Address: 15600 JFK Blvd., Ste 300
Houston, Texas 77032
CITY, OF LA PORTE
By:
orm L. to e
Mayor
By: G o-6- �V%QAA-�
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
8
•
•
"EXHIBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
• "EXHIBIT A"
TO INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE
0
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
See attached pages 1 through 10
4kXHIBff W
16=�'�=379g
rz
All that certain MOM acre (522,720 square feet) tract of land out of the William
M. Jones Survey, Abstract No. 482, Harris County, Texas, same being a part of Tract
2 of a 169.450 acre tract of land conveyed to ARCO Pipe Line Company by Atlantic
Richfield Company by Deed recorded in Harris County Clerk's File No. L848794,
said 12.0000 acre tract being more particularly described by metes and bounds as
follows; bearings are based on said Deed;
BEGINNING at a 5/8 inch iron rod set in the south right-of-way line of Fairmont
Parkway (based on a width of 250 feet), at its intersection with the west right--of-way
line of Bay Park Road (based on a width of 100 feet), for the northeast corner of
said Tract 2 and the herein described tract;
THENCE, South Or 27 59" East, along and with said west right-of-way line, a
distance of 1020.01 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set for the southeast corner of the
herein described tract;
THENCE, South 86" 52' 37" West, departing from said west right-of-way line, a
distance of 512.50 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set for the southwest corner of the
herein described tract;
THENCE, North 02" 27 59" West, a distance of 1020.01 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod
set in the said south right-of-way line for the northwest corner of the herein
described tract;
THENCE, North 86" 5Z 37" East, along and with said south right-of-way line, a
distance of 51250 feet and returning to the POINT OF BEGINNING, and
containing 12.0000 acres of land. A
Sn `� Mn
7C :..
cn
Zo
..<
�a a W
K
D.
�
r
M
v
EXHIBIT "A" Page 8
L848 ; 9,1
.1 dk::2001
SPECIAL WARRANTY DEED
STATE OF TEXAS )
) KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF HARRIS )
That Atlantic Richfield Company, a Delaware corporation
("ARCO") for and in consideration of the sum of One Hundred
and No/100 Dollars ($100.00) and other good and valuable ([�
consideration to it in hand paid by ARCO Pipe Line Company
("APL"), a Delaware corporation, whose address is ARCO
Building, Independence, Kansas 67301 ("APL"), the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has granted and
conveyed and by these presents does grant and convey unto APL
all of its right, title, interest and estate in and to that
certain tract of land and premises in the William M. Jones
Survey, Abstract 482, and the George B. McKinstry League,
Abstract 47, Harris County, Texas, containing 169.450 acres
in three tracts, 49.366 acres, 117.281 acres and 2.803 acres,
the latter tract being embraced within the right-of-way for
Fairmont Parkway) described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto
and incorporated herein for all purposes.
Being the same tract of land or premises conveyed by
Friendswood Development Company to ARCO by deed dated
December 30, 1974, and recorded in File No. E334151, Film
Code 114-12-0563 through and including 114-12-0573 of the
Official Public Records of Real ProRerty of Harris County,
Texas hereinafter called the "Deed.'
This conveyance is made and accepted subject to:
(a) all rights, easements, restrictions, exceptions,
reservations and encumbrances whether recorded or unrecorded
(b) the convenants, exceptions, conditions, rights,
easements, restrictions, reservations, purchase options and
encumbrances contained in the Deed.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above -described premises,
together with all and singular the rights, privileges, and
appurtenances thereto in any manner belonging unto APL, its
successors and assigns against every person whomsoever
lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof,
,by, through, or under ARCO, but not otherwise.
This Special Warranty Deed has been executed on the date
of the acknowledgment hereto but shall be effective for all 4
purposes as of the 18th day of August, 1988.
Attest: Atlantic Richfield Company J
By
Assistant Secretary Senior Vice President 0
- ARCO
EXHIBIT "A" Page 1
STATE OF 1i'((
SS
COUNTY OF,, --,--:(, 1;, ,"ic,, )
Before me, �< <'i[. (<<' i��7• �'% �i<�('c'ii , a Notary Public,
on this day persona y appeare <<�<<�, (c • ;'r�°r;:.:c , known to
me to be the person whose name is su scr a to"t a foregoing
instrument, and known to me to be the i��� President
of Atlantic Richfield Company, a corporation, and acknowl-
edged to me that he executed said instrument for the purposes
and consideration therein expressed, and as the act of said
corporation.
Given under my hand and
seal of office, this_,7(?f�
day
of (` r , , ,plc , t 1988.
OFFICIAL SEAL
LINDA M MENCKEN
_
,.. CSri' �%f
i lr y . +. � .c
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES COM
.• .
Notary Public, -,;.I
w omma. agtra JAN 1s, IM
County, (/.r l [ 1�
t
��'r'•l'�
My commission expires:
0-
EXHIBIT "A" Page
EXHIBI:0" TO DEED
FROM
ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY
TO
ARCO PIPE LINE COMPANY
METES Atli) BOUNDS UESCRiPTi011
169.450 ACRES
WILLIAM N. J01*-S SUI:'!I:Y, A-432
GEORCE U. MCKIL-ISTRY LEAGUE, A-47
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Cl
Being three tracts or parcels cont'aliting, a total of 169.450 acres
of 'land in the William 1.1. Jones Survey, A-482 and in the George B.
McKinstry League, A-47, llarris County, Texas and being snore parti-
cularly described as Traci: 1, 'Tract II atici Tract 11.1 by metes and
bounds as follows (all bearings referenced to the Texas Coordinate
System, South Central Zone):
TRACT T.
BEGINNING at Coppers -field lNumber 2856, being; the intersection of the
soutli line of Fairmont Parkway, 250 feet wide, ar,
(?7P
ue��lme—SG4 —pact;-�hl�—l�eecl—kteao cgs,--11c1r-lac—GoHtrl-• ►��e and the
east line of a 230.00 foot wide Harris County Flood Control District
right-of-way for Big; Island Slough as recorded in Volume 8260, Page
124, Deed Records, Harris County, Texas;
THEOC1. with the east line of said llarris-. County flood Control District
right -of -tray, S 0701513911 E for a distance of 1052.20 fact to Copper -
weld Number 2857, a point for corner, in the east li.ne of said HarrisCounty Flood Control District right-of-way, 230 feet wide;
THENCE. continuing; with said east line, S 3405913911 l: for a distance
of 1449.7b feet L'cl Coltltel:en.:l.d thuul,ur. 21;511, a itcjint for cc,tnelS, at
the intersectionf: othe cast 1111C U{: !-.aid Ilarri.!: C:cnluty 1'l.00d Control
District right -of --way, 230.00 feet wide, for Bit, Island Slough and
the west line of a 100.00 foot wide Pipeline Corridor "510";
THENCE with tile west line of the aforeluentiuned Pipeline Corridor
"510", 100.00 feet wide, N 14c'41'49" l for a distance of 2391278 a
feet eb an Exxon Pipeline Company marker, idenLiLi.ed as IIPL ,
point for corner, being; the illtersectiotl of the s•iest line of said
Corridor and the aforesaid south line or 1':lirntont Parkway, 250 feet
wide;
THENCE with said south line, S 86052'37" W at 83.28 feet passing a
5/8" iron rod, at 1.266.09 feet passing', a 5/8" iron rocs called Rod
2061, 2.23 feet S 03007'23" E, and continuing; in all for a total
distance of 1574.52 feet to Coppen-jeld 2856; the 1'07.NT OF BEGINNING
and containing; 49.366 acre of land.
TRACT T -1
COMM1?i` it'll:; for re fc!rcnce at Coppc�l:wc!].d lilnllher. 7.856 hc. i Ill,
I:hc! inter-
section of tllr. :;outll 1.1ne of 1'lli 1-rlont (':Ici;uny, 2.50.00 fec!t wide,
let
�ferjl<ciccl Win- ►<-,-tliuc--3G�12—Nz;;c--1r�.—t)i!ril'l;ii:�li-ii:;; TI5T1*J:T.�—t;tlrtttL-7 14--. s
and the: en:�t .L.int' elf it 2.30.00 knit: wide- IL11ri:1 Ccn►nl:y I lucid Control
District rit!,ht:-uJ.' lay Luc Bit', 'I.:ll.cutcl tilnttl;h .1:1 170001:cIf-d .111 V01UIlle
8260, Pag;c 124, Deed Itecords, ll.►rris County, '1'c::as;
THENCE with Saks south lilts Of Fairnnnit t'arki-any, it 8)6o52'37" E, at
a distance of: 1574.52 feet pas-91.111, the srt :;t l.itic �,L• I:::xon 1'illctota
Corridor "5.1.0", �.100.00 sect wide, r,ud Colltinui.ut, in a.1.1 for a total
EXHIBIT "A" Page 3
0 127-7*904
distance of 1679.56 feet to Exxon Pipeline Company Marker, identified
as IIPL-128, the POINT OF BEGINNING, said point also being on the
easterly line of the said 100.0 foot Corridor;
THENCE continuing with said south line, N 86052'37" E for a distance
of 1:11.U2 feet to Cupperweld Nuurber 2860, a point for corner, be-
ing the intersection of said south -Line of Fairmont Parkway, 250.00
feet wide, and the west line of Baypark load, 1.00.00 feet wide;
THENCE with said west line, S 02027'59" 1's for a distance of 2883.23
feet to Copperweld Number 2827, a point for corner, being the north-
east corner of a 60.792 acre tract of land;
THENCE with the north line of said 60.792 acre tract, S 87031'40" W
for a distance of 1814.53 feet to Copperweld Number 2828, a point
for corner, being the intersection of the north line of said 60.'792
acre tract and the east line of the aforesaid 230.00 foot wide
Harris County Flood Control District right-of-way for Big Island
Slough;
THENCE with said east line, N 34059139" W for a distance of 553.93
feet to Copperweld Number 2859, a point for corner, being the inter-
section of the east line of said Harris County blood Control District
right-of-way, 230.00 feet wide, and the cast line of Pipeline Corridor
"510", 100.00 feet" wide '
THENCE with the east line of said Pipeline Corridor, N 14041'49" E
for a distance of 2512.56 feet to the Pan OF III-MINNING and contain-
ing 117.281 acres of land.
TRACT III
BEGINNING at Copperweld Rod Number 2856, marking the intersection
of the south line of Fairmont Parkway, 250.00 feet- wide, -14 Vecwzdedop
��4Mme r— ,is-..-, —ntri; - r - with the
east line of a 230.00 foot wide Harris County Flood Control District
right-of-way for Big; Island Slough as recorded in Volume 8260, Page
124, Deed Records, Ilarris County, 'texas, s:+id southerly lane o.f
Fairmont Parkway, 250.00 feet wide, being; a common line with the
south line of old Cardiff Road, 80.00 feet wide;
THENCE with said common line, N 86052137" E, aL 1491..24 feet passing;
a 5/8" iron rod at 1574.52 feet passing; all Exxon Pipeline Company
marker, identified as IIPL 127, on the westerly line of Pipeline
Corridor "510", 100.00 feet wide, at 1679.56 feet passing an Exxon
Pipeline Company Marker, identified as UPI. 128, on the easterly line
of said Pipeline Corridor "510" and continuing; in all for a total
distance of 3050.58 feet to Copperweld Rod Number 2860 for corner,
said point being on the westerly line of Baypark Road, 100.00 feet
wide;
THENCE with a projection of the westerly line of said Ilnypark Road,
100.00 feet wi.de,..N 02027'59" W, for a distance of 40.00 feet to a
point for corner 'on the cenLerline of the aforesaid old Cardiff
Road, 80.00 Feet wide;
THENCE with said ceriL-erliue S 860'i2' 37" W,log
���
tkie-�sr$C-c r�-3�--aP—Qf--tfitt* �tfQrc�Htcl-1'.:.{u:l�iiIc::urri�tar-u5�1 • •
F �i 7 r n n h » •� .- i n n f• :?—i�C'`.9'�C"�';'��`"'-� ., ii :^E ''i�i G � i o
.
�`il fl" .ltuli-i ti�!:r i+L—" r�r �1 LUL'al cgistancc 3(153.94
feet to a point for corner, said point hei.ng; on a projection of the
easterly line of�AC)� �3�ol-- said 230.00 foot wicle Harris County Flood
Control District^.tor Big,l.siand Slough; Cy.l,
TIIENCE with the projecL-1.011 of acid ca:;tCrly 1 L!' 07015'39" r,
for a distaucc of 40.10 f.cct to Lhe I'O1.IIT OF
111;G.ItIClL►`!(; and containing;
EXHIBIT ''A" Page 4
•
2.803 acres of land, said tract being Lite souLherly 40.00
the aforesaid old Cardiff- Road, 80.00 feet aide.
Compiled by:
Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
Houston Port Arthur
December 6, 1974 Job No. 1659-006
Revised: December 24, 1974
a■P�o�.o�wa�uwasetps�oiw auaaiiExwrauM
woanawrcapppwtswnwwaawurcoourmou�ua
rHE STATE OF TE7�As }
COU SY twkraurt •n ixii N Flo MWAW
W�ul NI eN It IN UN Wna by MC "A eu
eery iab b @N QN I hs N�srdr d bd IroiM: of
SEP 151988
FI&
OUNIYCI.ERK
HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS
♦ v
RECORDEWS MEM 080DUTA
FORTHEBESTf RPNN4 FL'UCTiON
BTCAU,EOfILLEG181t.ITY.� ON
NOW COPY. DISCULORED P►PEA. C'
FXTTTATT "Aff D.,..., F
'127%=2005
feet of
FILED FOR RECORD
8.30 A.M.
►SEP 15 08
County Clerk, Hurls C 01AY, Texts
Return 10
Mildred L. Russell, Manager
Land S R/W Dept.
ARCO Bldg.
Independence, Kansas 87301
�I P001997 W DEED
SPECIAL ARRANTY EE
I I G-4Z-319G
STATE OF KANSAS )
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY )
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS
12/1-/92 0673o2:,11 PV11=v7 t !I,ptt
That ARCO Pipe Line Company, a Delaware corporation authorized to do business
in the State of Texas (hereinafter called "Grantor"), for and in consideration of the sum of
Ten and No/100 Dollars (S10.00) and other good and valuable consideration to it in hand
paid by CBSL Transportation, Inc., a Texas corporation (hereinafter called "Grantee"),
hereby grants, sells and conveys unto Grantee, subject, however, to the reservations,
easements, interests or encroachments hereinafter described, all that certain property in the
County of Harris, State of Texas, described on Exhibit "A" hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the "Property").
This Special Warranty Deed and the conveyance hereinabove set forth is executed
by Grantor and accepted by Grantee subject to the matters described in Exhibit "B" hereto
and incorporated herein by this reference, to the extent same are validly existing and
applicable to the Property (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Permitted Exceptions").
UNDER AND SUBJECT to any and all restrictive covenants, easements, rights of
way or other encumbrances affecting the land hereby conveyed whether the same are
recorded or unrecorded, and to the Permitted Exceptions.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above -described Property, together with all and
singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in anywise belonging, unto the Grantee, its
successors and assigns, forever. And Grantor does hereby bind itself and its successors and
assigns to warrant and forever defend the said property unto the said Grantee, its successors
and assigns, against every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any
part thereof, by, through or under Grantor but not otherwise. :
UNDER AND SUBJECT, nevertheless, as aforesaid.
1992. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Deed has been duly executed. Dated: December 14,
Attest:
C Staton
yAssiVant Secretary
�.f
STATE OF KANSAS )
SS
COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY )
ARCO Pipe Line Company
Vice President
uW
Be it remembered that on this 11th day of December, 1992, before me,
victoria V. Hernandez , a Notary Public, personally appeared Norman R. Bennett,
the Vice President of ARCO Pipe Line Company, a corporation, who is personally known
EXHIBIT "A" Page 6
HOLD FOR CHARTER TITLE COMPANY
T TI43797
to me, and who executed the foregoing instrument, and he duty acknowledged the execution
of the same for and on behalf of and as the act and deed of said corporation.
InAwitness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and fixed my seal the date and year
jr -11
mac:' �.':' � •
:ii?;. ! G:
Notary Public, Montgomery
County, Kansas
(Victoria V. Hernandez)
commission expires:
3=25-941
ntuozrcCABXDEWD CBSLTRAMSFMb
Ar_
a
EXHIBIT "A" Page 7
DEC-08-2000 FRI 11:35 AM FAX NO, F. 03
EXHIBIT "A-1"
TO AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTS,
TEXAS, AND ARCO PIPELINE COMPANY
1. City and Company agree that the real property of company, more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" of this Industrial District
Agreement, is presently unimproved, and unannexed to the City,
except for existing "strip" annexations, if any. City and Company
further agree that Paragraph I hereof is hereby amended, to provide
that during the term of this Industrial District Agreement, and for
such period of time that said real property remains unimproved,
that City will not annex said property; provided, however, City
reserves the right to conduct "strip" annexations as may be
required by law in connection with annexation of land other than
that owned by Company. Company agrees to render to City and to pay
as "in lieu of taxes" on Company's said unimproved land, an amount
equal to the sum of 10o% of the amount of ad valorem taxes which
would be payable to City if all the hereinabove described property
of company had been within the corporate limits of City and
appraised each year by City's independent appraiser.
2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph hereof shall remain
in full force and effect during the term of this Industrial
District Agreement; provided, however, at such time as Company
commences improvements to Company's hereinabove described real
property, Company shall be entitled to pay an amount "in lieu of
taxes" on Company's land, improvements, and tangible personal
property on the above described property, in accordance with
Paragraph III of this Industrial District Agreement.
3. company agrees that the real property of company herein
described shall not be used as a site for commercial hazardous
waste incineration, i.e., incineration of hazardous wastes
generated offsite; provided, however, City does not waive its
rights reserved under Paragraph I of this agreement.
4. Except as amended by the terms and provisions of this Exhibit
"A-111, the terms and provisions of the Industrial District
Agreement, to which this Exhibit "A-1" is attached, shall remain in
full force and effect for the term of this Agreement, expiring
December 31, 2007.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
Approved as to For.
ARCO PIPELINE COMPANY
7/�� Legal Department
By:
Name: JOP�Ay R t2jLL
Title: N -LG _
0 0
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
• 0
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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 useofearthen 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.
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
ARCO Pipe A Company,
15600 J. F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77032
Telephone 281 987 0056
December 4, 2000
Mr. Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of LaPorte
P. O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Enclosed is ARCO Midcon LLC's executed Industrial District Agreement which pertains to
property that the company owns on Fairmont Parkway in LaPorte. While we are willing to
enter into the Agreement, we do not have a current metes and bounds description of the parcel
which we now own. Last year, several smaller parcels were sold from the parent tract, and our
existing metes and bounds description includes tracts that now belong to others.)
In the absence of the requested exhibits, we are forwarding the executed agreement to you to
eliminate any further delay. Since surveys are expensive and we do not need one otherwise,
we are hopeful that an alternate solution to re -surveying is possible. Please let me know if we
may provide you with a general description which, while not exact for surveying purposes,
may contain enough information for the City to determine the total acreage and the
approximate configuration of the remaining parcel.
My employment with ARCO will terminate on December 31, 2000, so if at all possible, I
would like to complete this transaction prior to that time. If we are unable to resolve the
exhibit question prior to year-end, please direct future correspondence to Ms. Jeanne Groat,
Land and Right of Way, ARCO Midcon LLC, 28100 Torch Parkway, Warrenville, I[L 60555.
Ms. Groat's telephone number is 630-836-5192.
Please call me at 281-986-5459 regarding the necessary exhibits. Thanks for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Gti FDEC
�E E
Pamela W. Alley
Supervisor, Land and Right of Way _ 10�Enclosures
ITY MANAGER'S
ARCO Pipe *Company O "
15600 J. F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77032
Telephone 281 987 0056
December 27, 2000
Mr. Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of LaPorte
P. O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Enclosed are the executed duplicate originals of Exhibit "A 1" to the Industrial District
Agreement between the City of La Porte and ARCO Midcon LLC. Please attach these to the
original executed agreement and return one copy to this office when the agreements have been
fully executed on behalf of the City of LaPorte.
Thank you for your assistance with this agreement. Should you need any additional
information, please call Sheila Mitchell at 281-986-5265.
Sincerely,
Pamela W. Alley
Land and Right of Way
Enclosures
DEC 2
LC11 M r" °s
E
40
1L
T'EX A5
January 11, 2001
ARCO Midcon LLC
Ms. Jeanne Groat
28100 Torch Parkway
Warrenville, IL 60555-3938
City of La Porte
Established 1892
Re: Industrial District Agreement (Series 2001-2007)
Securing a new Exhibit "A"
Dear Ms. Groat:
Per your conversation with Crystal Scott on January 5, enclosed is a copy of the metes
and bounds description (Exhibit "A") and plat (Exhibit `B") provided by Arco Pipeline
Company for the last IDA (Series 1994-2000).
We understand that ARCO has since sold some of this property.
To prepare a new Exhibit "A" you may simply note that the property is less the area
described in the attached deed (or metes and bounds).
For Exhibit `B" simply redline the previous Exhibit `B" depicting the area sold.
It is my understanding, due to company relocation, you will be unable to return these
documents in a timely manner. Therefore, we will proceed and present these documents
to City Council for approval on a condition you will provide this additional information.
Once City Council has approved these documents we will return an original set to you. If
you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincer ly
John J •ns
Ass' tant City Manager
P.O. Box 1115 • La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
0
0
s ..
Clity of La Porte
ED
r3 :L Established •
11
February 15, 2001
Arco Midcon LLC
Ms. Jeanne Groat
28100 Torch Parkway
Warrenville, IL 60555-3938
Re: Industrial.District Agreement (IDA) Series 2001-2007
Dear Ms. Groat:
Enclosed is a fully executed duplicate original of the Industrial District Agreement between your
firm and the City of La Porte, effective January 1, 2001, for the term expiring December 31,
2007. I also enclose a certified copy of the City's approval ordinance, for your records.
Per the letter dated January 11, 2001 this agreement was approved by City Council with Exhibits
"A" and "B" furnished for the previous IDA (Series 1994-2000).
As stated in the previous letter, to prepare a new Exhibit "A" you may simply note that the
property is less the area described in the attached deed (or metes and bounds). For Exhibit `B"
simply redline the previous Exhibit `B" depicting the area sold and send us a copy as soon as
possible.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
� W
P.O. Box 1115 + La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
ARCO Pipe * Company 0
15600 J. F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300
Houston, Texas 77032
Telephone 281 987 0056
December 4, 2000
Mr. Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of LaPorte
P. O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115
Dear Mr. Herrera:
DEC - 8 20100
U
Enclosed is ARCO Midcon LLC's executed Industrial District Agreement which pertains to
property that the company owns on Fairmont Parkway in LaPorte. While we are willing to
enter into the Agreement, we do not have a current metes and bounds description of the parcel
which we now own. (Last year, several smaller parcels were sold from the parent tract, and our
existing metes and bounds description includes tracts that now belong to others.)
In the absence of the requested exhibits, we are forwarding the executed agreement to you to
eliminate any further delay. Since surveys are expensive and we do not need one otherwise,
we are hopeful that an alternate solution to re -surveying is possible. Please let me know if we
may provide you with a general description which, while not exact for surveying purposes,
may contain enough information for the City to determine the total acreage and the
approximate configuration of the remaining parcel.
My employment with ARCO will terminate on December 31, 2000, so if at all possible, I
would like to complete this transaction prior to that time. If we are unable to resolve the
exhibit question prior to year-end, please direct future correspondence to Ms. Jeanne Groat,
Land and Right of Way, ARCO Midcon LLC, 28100 Torch Parkway, Warrenville, IL 60555.
Ms. Groat's telephone number is 630-836-5192.
Please call me at 281-986-5459 regarding the necessary exhibits. Thanks for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
pa,vv� �&t
Pamela W. Alley
Supervisor, Land and Right of Way
Enclosures
It 0 V E
DEC - 7 2t)00
ARCO Pipe Llffe Company •
`
15600 J. F. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300 '
Houston, Texas 77032 "
Telephone 281 987 0056
December 27, 2000
Mr. Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of LaPorte
P. O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115
Dear Mr. Herrera:
Enclosed are the executed duplicate originals of Exhibit "A 1" to the Industrial District
Agreement between the City of La Porte and ARCO Midcon LLC. Please attach these to the
original executed agreement and return one copy to this office when the agreements have been
fully executed on behalf of the City of LaPorte.
Thank you for your assistance with this agreement. Should you need any additional
information, please call Sheila Mitchell at 281-986-5265.
Sincerely,
1
p6c,vo
Pamela W. Alley
Land and Right of Way
Enclosures
�E DEC 2
•City of La Porte
Established : •
January 11, 2001
ARCO Midcon LLC
Ms. Jeanne Groat
28100 Torch Parkway
Warrenville, IL 60555-3938
Re: Industrial District Agreement (Series 2001-2007)
Securing a new Exhibit "A"
Dear Ms. Groat:
Per your conversation with Crystal Scott on January 5, enclosed is a copy of the metes
and bounds description (Exhibit "A") and plat (Exhibit `B") provided by Arco Pipeline
Company for the last IDA (Series 1994-2000).
We understand that ARCO has since sold some of this property.
To prepare a new Exhibit "A" you may simply note that the property is less the area
described in the attached deed (or metes and bounds).
For Exhibit `B" simply redline the previous Exhibit "B" depicting the area sold.
It is my understanding, due to company relocation, you will be unable to return these
documents in a timely manner. Therefore, we will proceed and present these documents
to City Council for approval on a condition you will provide this additional information.
Once City Council has approved these documents we will return an original set to you. If
you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincer ly
John J ns
Ass' tant City Manager
P.O. Box 1115 • La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 9 (281) 471-5020
0
Clity 1 La
Porte
u',
Established 1892
February 15, 2001
Arco Midcon LLC
Ms. Jeanne Groat
28100 Torch Parkway
Warrenville, IL 60555-3938
Re: Industrial. District Agreement (IDA) Series 2001-2007
Dear Ms. Groat:
Enclosed is a fully executed duplicate original of the Industrial District Agreement between your
firm and the City of La Porte, effective January 1, 2001, for the term expiring December 31,
2007. I also enclose a certified copy of the City's approval ordinance, for your records.
Per the letter dated January 11, 2001 this agreement was approved by City Council with Exhibits
"A" and "B" furnished for the previous IDA (Series 1994-2000).
As stated in the previous letter, to prepare a new Exhibit "A" you may simply note that the
property is less the area described in the attached deed (or metes and bounds). For Exhibit `B"
simply redline the previous Exhibit `B" depicting the area sold and send us a copy as soon as
possible.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
P.O. Box 1115 • La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
N'-A—Y---' —frees Tony—r
!t t1" [, t0/0, tl/• r•!,'t/�Ot'11' W. t0tll.t1'
9Tj- -4
L
T
IAIIIIIIOUS
N/YNOLDS
A- /4/
TRACT III 2.603 Aa.
---------------
N. Ot• 21'/I0' W. 40.00'
-119:xxx9tL eL.co. ROW
12 acres sold to CBS],
- NOT TO SCALE -
0
0
'••-10'H.L.6 P. 00. LA/SHUNT
w
W
`1
p �OWisale
W. M. JON// DICNAND t
A-4/2 FgAp/ALL
A-//p
LA PORTE
STATION SITE 11
010. /. Ma KINSTRY
A•47
LOCATION SKETCH
1"/ 8000'
ANNEX��1_�R��
7HACK n (SOUTfI S1111P) . 4,067 AC.
711ACK n INORRI S1HIP) 3.I48 AC.
111ACK I 3,569 AC.
TOTAL ACRES 11.584 AC.
I. A NEXED ACRES
WITHIN BAYPORT INDUSTRIAL QI$TRICT
TRACK 1 45.797 AC.
TRACK IT 90.441 AC.
TOTAL ACRES 136.232 AC.
NOTEI TRACK III (2.003 AC. ) LIES WITHIN FAIRMONT PARKWAY HOW
AND IS NOT WITHIN THE BAYPORT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
THAT PART OF TRACK IT WHICH LIES WITHIN THE GEO. B.
TRACT I 49.306 Ac. MCKINSTHY LEAGUE. A-47. 118.825 AC.) IS NOT WITHIN THE
TRACT IL 111. 2Q I AD. BAYPORT INDUSIRIAL DISTRICT AND IS NOT WITHIN THE CITY.
TRACT III 2. 843 Ae. LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE.
TOTAL 169.4 4O Aa
DEEDED FROM FRIENDSWOOO DEVELOPEMENT COMPANY
TO ATLANTIC RICIiFIELD COMPANY DATED DECEMBER
30, 1974, AND FILED ON THAT DATE UNDER FILE A2
E,33415l AND FILE CODE NQ 114-12-0563 OF THE
OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF 'REAL PROPEHTY OF
HARRIS COUNTY, TE)(A9.
At I RFAHIN(39 AHF NEFFHENCF❑ TO THE TEXAS
•
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-51
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH BAKER PETROLITE CORPORATION,
FOR THE TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,
2007; 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. BAKER PETROLITE CORPORATION 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
L�
•
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY:
orma Malo e,
ayor
2
NO. 2000-IDA- 51 {
{
STATE OF TEXAS {
{
COUNTY OF HARRIS {
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 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 Baker Petrolite Coryoration
, a Deleware . corporation, hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City 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
0
0
2.
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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,
including, 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 tangible 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
•
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 City '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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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 City in accordance with the
5
0 •
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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
11
•
•
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
u
9
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
By:
40dje/- eo�;evl-a 4)
14 (COMPANY)
Name: t{ic
Title:
Address:
ATTEST: CI OF LA PORTE
By :—
City Secretary NiZtm&h L. alo e
Mayor
nox W. Askins
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471=2047
By:
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
8
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
125.179 ACRES
WILLIAM M. JONES SURVEY, A-482
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
Being a tract or parcel containing 125.179 acres of land in the William M. Jones Survey,
A-482, Harris County, Texas and being more particularly described by metes and bounds
os follows (all bearings referenced to the Texas Coordinate System, South Central Zone):
COMMENCING for reference at Humble Pipeline Company Copperweld Number 8, being
the intersection of the east line of a 200.00 foot wide pipeline right-of-way and the
south line of Fairmont Parkway, 250 feet wide;
THENCE with said south line, S 860 53'11" W for a distance of 192.20 feet to a point,
the beginning of a curve;
THENCE continuing with said south line and along the arc of a curve to the right, at 7.97
feet passing the northeast corner of Exxon Drill Site B-15 and continuing along said arc
having a central angle of 03017'53", a radius of 5872.76 feet and a chord which bears S
880 32'07" W for a total arc length of 338.04 feet to the northwest corner of Exxon Drill
C Site B-15, the POINT OF BEGINNING;
cITHENCE continuing with said south fine, along the arc of a curve to the right havinq a
entral angle of 060 10'35", a radius of 5872.76 feet and a chord which bears N 86 d
43'38" W for an arc length of 633.08 feet to a point for corner at the end of said curve;
JTliENCE continuing with said south line, N 83038'21" W for a distance of 77.47 feet to
�a point for corner, the beginning of a curve;
THENCE continuing with said south line, along the arc of a curve to the left having a
central angle of 090 29'02", a radius of 5614.81 feet and a chord which bears N 880
22' 52" W for an arc length of 929.39 feet to a point for corner at the end of said curve;
THENCE continuing with said south line, S 860 52' 37" W for a distance of 591.82 feet
to a-_pc4nt-for corner at the intersection of the south line of Fairmont Parkway and the
east line of Proposed Boypark Road, 100 feet wide; -
THENCE with said east line, S 02a 27' 59" E for a distance of 2292.84 feet to a point
for corner, the northwest corner of that certain 100.000 acre tract of land conveyed to
�he Armak Company as -recorded under File D-526504, Film Code 164-35-0011, Official , ublic Records of Real Property, Harris County, Texas;
THENCE with the north line of said 100.00 acre tract, N 870 29' 57" E for a distance
of 2339.52 feet to a point for corner, the southwest corner of Harris County Flood
Control District tract;
THENCE leaving said north line, N 00' 45' 15" W for a distance of 254.57 feet, with the
west line of said Farris County Flood Control District tract to a point for corner, the north-
west corner of said Harris County Flood Control District tract;
THENCE with the north line of said Harris County Flood Control District tract, N 870 29,
57" E for a distance of 150.09 feet to a point for corner, the northeast corner of said
Harris County Flood Control District tract and on the west line of a 200.00 foot wide pipe-
line right-of-way;
EXHIBIT "A"
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION PAGE 2
125.179 ACRES
114-ZO-2084
THENCE with said vest line, N OOo 45' 15" W for a distance of 1397.21 feet to a
point for corner, the southeast corner of Exxon Drill Site B-15;
THENCE leaving said west line, S 89' 14' 45" W for a distance of 330.00 feet to a
point for corner, the southwest corner of said Exxon Drill Site B-15;
THENCE with the west line of said Exxon Drill Site B-15, N OOo 45' 15" W for a
distance of 496.13 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 125.179 acres
of land.
Compiled by:
Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
Houston Port Arthur
July 25, 1974 Job No. 1659-007
C
c
1111TURtl TO'
U. G. r3AUf.!(-,A1J)tli.R
617 CAEOLINE
I OUS1O,N. TEMS 7,7002
JI,I1y, 'r:,
j_P,P -ass Ilflfi a
• •
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
•
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
ROLES AND REGULATIONS
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.
•
:7
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
0
�-� City of La Porte
Established 1892
TEXAS
September 7, 2000
Baker Petrolite Corporation
Attn: Jeffrey J. Shank
13200 Bay Park Road
Pasadena, Texas 77507
Re: Industrial District Agreements (IDA) Series 2001-2007
Dear Mr. Shank:
Two executed originals of the Industrial District Agreement (IDA) were received from you on
August 25, 2000. While reviewing the documents for completeness, we noticed your firm did not
furnish an Exhibit "B". If you warrant that Exhibit "B" furnished for the previous IDA
(Series 1994-2000) is current, we will attach the previous Exhibit "B" to both originals. If changes
have occurred, please send us (2) copies no later than September 15, 2000.
Please indicate your acknowledgement and agreement by signing and returning this letter. Once
these matters are resolved we will present these documents to City Council for approval and we
will return an original set to you. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call
John Joerns at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
Yes No
Use previous "Exhibit B" ❑ ❑
New Exhibit "B" to be furnished ❑ ❑
By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
(Company)
P.O. Box 1115 • La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 9 (281) 471-5020
Baker Petrolite
August 24, 2000
Mr. Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
City of La Porte
P. O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77572-1115
Re: Industrial District Agreement
Dear Mr. Herrera:
FPS F&2
BAKER
HUGHES
12645 West Airport Blvd.
Sugar Land, TX 77478 USA
Tel 281-275-7244
Fax 281-275-7320
E-mail Jeff.Shank@bhi.bhi-net.com
Jeffrey J. Shank
Division Legal Counsel
p EC E0-VE
AUG 2 5 2000
CITY MANAGER'S
OFFICE
Pursuant to your instructions in your July 24 and August 10, 2000 letter to Gerald Martin,
enclosed please find duplicate originals of the Industrial District Agreement, which have been
executed on behalf of Baker Petrolite Corporation.
Please note that Baker Petrolite does not have a plat as requested on Exhibit B.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
e
fhank
JJS:jvh
Enclosures
CC: George Bernhardt
Gerald Martin
Rich Mertz
Griff Thomas
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-52
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL
PARR, LP, FOR THE TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING
DECEMBER 31, 2007; 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. BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, LP 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
•
0
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
City Attorney
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
rman Ma ne,
ayor
2
• 0
NO. 2000-IDA- 52
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF HARRIS
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 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 Bayport North Industrial Park, L.P.
F a Texas Limited Partnership � hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
0 0
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
i 0
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.
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 similar 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" 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 City -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
!. 0
2.
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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,
including, 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 tangible personal property which existed
on January 1, 2001, and each January i 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,
2
i
:7
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 City Is 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 lst 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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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.
[ilk
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 City in accordance with the
5
r
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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
0
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
0
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of -this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
Bayport North Industrial Park, L.P.
By: Fairmont Un ood, Inc., Mang. Partner
Title: president.
Address: 2780 Skvpark Drive Ste 460
Torrance. CA 90505-5350
ATTEST: yy
OF LA PORTE
Ci y Secretary Aora4V. AMao e
Mayor
APP V /
ox W. Askins
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
By: G�cj� T. 4S•stn��
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
8
EXHIBIT "A-1"
TO AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LA PORTE,
TEXAS, AND BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK, L.P.
1. City and Company agree that the real property of Company, more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" of this Industrial District
Agreement, is presently unimproved, and unannexed to the City,
except for existing "strip" annexations, if any. City and Company
further agree that Paragraph I hereof is hereby amended, to provide
that during the term of this Industrial District Agreement, and for
such period of time that said real property remains unimproved,
that City will not annex said property; provided, however, City
reserves the right to conduct "strip" annexations as may be
required by law in connection with annexation of land other than
that owned by Company. Company agrees to render to City and to pay
as "in lieu of taxes" on Company's said unimproved land, an amount
equal to the sum of 100% of the amount of ad valorem taxes which
would be payable to City if all the hereinabove described property
of Company had been within the corporate limits of City and
appraised each year by City's independent appraiser.
2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph hereof shall remain
in full force and effect during the term of this Industrial
District Agreement; provided, however, at such time as Company
commences improvements to Company's hereinabove described real
property, Company shall be entitled to pay an amount "in lieu of
taxes" on Company's land, improvements, and tangible personal
property on the above described property, in accordance with
Paragraph III of this Industrial District Agreement.
3. Company agrees that the real property of Company herein
described shall not be used as a site for commercial hazardous
waste incineration, i.e., incineration of hazardous wastes
generated offsite; provided, however, City does not waive its
rights reserved under Paragraph I of this agreement.
4. Except as amended by the terms and provisions of this Exhibit
"A-Ivl, the terms and provisions of the Industrial District
Agreement, to which this Exhibit "A-1" is attached, shall remain in
full force and effect for the term of this Agreement, expiring
December 31, 2007.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
BAYPORT RT INDUST AL P ,
By: Fai nt Unde od nc, ., Part.
BY: -'
Name Don Tuffli Pres' e
Exhibit "A"
Being 5,025,537 square feet of land (115.4 acres) out of Reserves A, B, C, D, and E of the Bayport North Industrial Park, a Subdivision in Harris County, Texas
as recorded in the plat thereof in Harris County Clerks File Number U218872, and at Film Code 437010 of the Map Records of Harris County, Texas. Said land
areas being summarized below. The land area being further described by metes and bounds of Reserve A, B, C, D, and E, attached hereto as the five page
Exhibit A-2, SAVE AND EXCEPT those land areas sold out of those reserves as described on the Land Ownership Summary.
BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK
Land Ownership Summary
As of December 31, 2000
L_J
Reserve
Number
Platted Area
of Reserve
(Acres) I (Sq. Ft.)
Land Sales
Purchaser Sale Date
Land Area Sold
(Acres) I (Sq. Ft.)
A 25.5
1,108,965
No sales as of the date above
0.0
0
B 24.0
1,046,777
No sales as of the date above
0.0
0
C 38.1
1,660,484
Terranova Forest Products, Inc.
January 27, 2000 10.0
435,600
Oakwood Capital, L.P.
October 13, 2000 8.6
373,792
D 21.9
954,046
No sales as of the date above
0.0
0
E 24.4
1,064,657
No sales as of the date above
0.0
0
F 10.4
453,515
Schutz Container Systems, Inc.
October 11, 2000 10.4
453,515
Totals 144.4 6,288,444
29.0 1,262,907
Land Area Owned by
Bayport North Industrial Park L.P.
(Acres) (Sq. Ft.)
25.5 1,108,965
24.0 1,046,777
19.5 851,092
21.9 954,046
24.4 1,064,657
0 0
115.4 5,025,537
NOTES TO ABOVE
1. Basis for land area is the square footage of land tracts as provided by Registered Public Land Surveyors. The acres area, rounded to the nearest 1/10
acre, is shown for descriptive purposes only based on land square footage area divided by 43,560 square feet per acre.
2. Platted land areas shown are the land area of each reserve as shown on the recorded plat which excludes Hams County road right of ways dedicated
by that plat.
3. Platted land areas include pipeline easements, utility easements, landscape easements, set backs, drainage easements, and other easements on
individual reserves.
METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
25.5 ACRES BEING ALL OF
RESTRICTED RESERVE "A"
BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
All that certain 25.5 acres of land being all of Restricted Reserve "A", Bayport North Industrial Park according to
the plat thereof filed at Film Code No. 437010, Hams County Map Records, also being out of the William M. Jones
Survey, A-482, Harris County, Texas, and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located In the south right-of-way line of Fairmont Parkway (250'
wide) at its Intersection with the west end of a 20' cut back line for the west right-of-way line of Underwood Road
(50' wide), and being the northerly northeast comer of said Reserve "A";
r
THENCE S 51- 55' 14" E — 25.71', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8' iron rod with cap for comer,
THENCE S 01° 56' 14" E — 509.60', with the said west right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located in
the north right-of-way line of New Century Drive (60' wide) at its intersection with the east end of a 20' cut back
' line, and being the northerly southeast corner of said Reserve "A";
THENCE S 42128' 18" W — 28.58', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer,
'r/�� THENCE S 86° 52' 50" W—1,780.92', with the said north right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for the
"Point of Curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 18° 24' 37', a radius of 530.00%
/THENCE continuing in a westerly direction with the said north right-of-way line an arc distance of 170.30', to a
found 5/8" iron with cap marking the Point of Tangency;
THENCE S 68128' 13" W—147.45', with the said north right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located in.
the east right-of-way line of New West Drive (60' wide) at its intersection with the east end of a 20' cut back line,
and being the southerly southwest comer of said Reserve "A";
;THENCE N 68, 21' 14" W — 29.23', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for a point for
comer on a curve to the left having a central angle of 05° 05' 32", a radius of 620.00' and a radial bearing of S 630
50' 41" W;
{ THENCE continuing in a northerly direction with the said east right-of-way line an arc distance of 55.10', to a found
5/8" iron with cap marking the Point of Tangency;
/THENCE N 31 ° 14' 51" W—152.46', with the said east right-of-way line of to a found 518" iron rod with cap for the
Point of Curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 280 10' 58", a radius of 560.00;
,/THENCE continuing in a northerly direction with the said east right-of-way line an arc distance of 275.45', to a
found 5/8" iron with cap marking the Point of Tangency;
THENCE N 03° 03' 53" W — 68.02', with the said east right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located in
the south right-of-way line of said Fairmont Parkway at its intersection with the west end of a 20' cut back line, and
being the southerly northwest comer of said Reserve "A";
-"THENCE N 41 ° 56' 07" E — 28.28', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8' iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE N 86° 56' 07" E — 368.05', with the said south right-of-way line to a point for angle point, from which a
found copperweld rod# 3171 bears, N 36° 37' 13" W — 0.26';
THENCE N 860 52' 37" E — 980.68 with the said south right-of-way line to a point on a curve to the left having a
"'central angle of 08, 51' 58', a radius of 5,854.58' and a radial bearing of N 03° 03' 04" W, from said point bears a
found copperweld rod# 3172 bears, N 05° 14' 23' E — 0.23';
THENCE continuing In a easterly direction with the said south right-of-way line an arc distance of 905.95', to a
point marking the end of the curve, from which a found copperweld rod# 3173 bears, N 62° 51' 13" W — 0.33"
I+THENCE N 78° 05' 34" E — 17.09% with the said south right-of-way line, to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
containing 25.5 acres (1,108,965 square feet) of land, more or less.
Compiled from survey by:
PREJEAN & COMPANY, INC.
Surveying / Mapping
Job No. 256-1-12a
December 20, 2000
CARichard%letes & Bounds%256-1-12a.mb.doc
i METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
24.0 ACRES BEING ALL OF
RESTRICTED RESERVE "B"
BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
All that certain 24.0 acres of land being all of Restricted Reserve "B", Bayport North Industrial Park according to
the plat thereof filed at Film Code No. 437010, Hams County Map Records, also being out of the William M. Jones
Survey, A-482 and George B. McKinstry League, A-47, Harris County, Texas, and being more particularly
described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located in the south right-of-way line of Fairmont Parkway (250'
wide) at Its intersection with the west end of a 20' cut back line for the west right-of-way line of New Century Drive
(60' wide), and being the northerly northeast comer of said Reserve "B";
� THENCE S 480 03' 53" E — 28.28', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer,
f THENCE S 030 03' 53" E — 68.02', with the said west right-of-way line of to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for the
Point of Curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 280 10' 58", a radius of 620.00;
,% THENCE continuing in southerly direction with the said west right-of-way line an arc distance of 304.97% to a found
5/8" iron with cap marking the Point of Tangency;
THENCE S 311, 14' 51" E — 152.46', with the said west right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for the
Point of Curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 2813 08' 28", a radius of 560.00' and being the
northery southwest comer of said Reserve "B";
THENCE continuing in southerly direction with the said west right-of-way line for an arc distance of 275.05', to a
found 5/8" iron with cap marking the Point of Tangency;
THENCE S 031, 06' 23" E — 1,890.83', with the said west right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for
comer, and being the southeast corner of said Reserve "B";
THENCE S 870 27' 55" W — 435.00' to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer, and being the southwest comer of
said Reserve "B";
THENCE N 030 06' 23" W — 597.09' to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer, and being the northerly southwest
corner of said Reserve "B";
THENCE S 890 29' 31" E—10.00' to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for an interior corner of said Reserve "B";
THENCE N 031, 06' 23" W — 2,069.63' to a found 5/8" iron rod for comer, located in the south right-of-way line of
said Fairmont Parkway, and being the northwest comer of said Reserve "B";
THENCE N 860 56' 07" E — 193.67', with the said south right-of-way line, to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
containing 24.0 acres (1,046,777 square feet) of land, more or less.
Compiled from survey by:
PREJEAN & COMPANY, INC.
Surveying / Mapping ,0F ?
Job No. 256-1-12b C`�•• N
December 20, 2000 ' ' ' ' ' •
• N., M.MATH. .....
IS
CARichardWletes 8 Bounds1256-1-12b.mb.doc r '• o 4517
,.A v•
P•Q'
s s,o��0
S U'� V•F
• METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
38.1 ACRES BEING ALL OF
RESTRICTED RESERVE 'C"
BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
All that certain 38.1 acres of land being all of Restricted Reserve "C", Bayport North Industrial Park according to
the plat thereof filed at Film Code No. 437010, Hams County Map Records, also being out of the William M. Jones
Survey, A-482, Hams County, Texas, and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located in the east right-of-way line of New West Drive (60' wide) at
its intersection with the south end of a 20' cut back line for the south right-of-way line of New Century Drive (60'
wide), and being the southerly northwest comer of said Reserve "C";
THENCE N 250 17' 40" E — 29.23', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE N 680 28' 13" E — 147.45', with the said south right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for the
Point of Curvature of a curve to the right having a central angle of 180 24' 37" and a radius of 470.00';
THENCE continuing in an easterly direction with said south right-of-way line an arc distance of 151.02' to a found
"x" in concrete marking the Point of Tangency;
THENCE N 860 52' 50" E—1,049.48', with said south right-of-way to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer, and
being the northeast comer of said Reserve 'C";
THENCE S 010 56' 01" E—1,268.76', with the common reserve line of Reserves "C" & "D", to a found 5/8" iron rod
with cap for comer, located in the north right-of-way line of New Decade Drive (60' wide), and being the southeast
corner of said Reserve "C";
THENCE S 870 26' 41" W—1,287.91', with the said north right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located
in the east right-of-way line of New West Drive (60' wide) at its intersection with the east end of a 20' cut back line,
and being the southerly southwest comer of said Reserve "C";
THENCE N 470 49' 51" W — 28.42', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE N 030 06 23" W — 991.41', with the said east right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for the
Point of Curvature of a curve to the left having a central angle of 130 47' 52" and a radius of 620.00';
THENCE continuing in an northerly direction with said east right-of-way line an arc distance of 149.31' to the
POINT OF BEGINNING and containing 38.1 acres (1,660,484 square feet) of land, more or less.
Compiled from survey by:
PREJEAN & COMPANY, INC.
Surveying / Mapping
Job No. 256-1-12c
December 20, 2000
CARichardWletes & Bounds\256-1-12c.mb.doc
t
rN.
p.. MATHIS4517
�iivC'rESS�0?'0
`S U�1� V.�
• METE & BO` UNDESCRIPTION•
21.9 ACRES BEING ALL OF
RESTRICTED RESERVE "D"
BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
All that certain 21.9 acres of land being all of Restricted Reserve "D", Bayport North Industrial Park according to
the plat thereof filed at Film Code No. 437010, Harris County Map Records, also being out of the William M. Jones
Survey, A-482,,Harris County, Texas, and being more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located in the south right-of-way line of New Century Drive (60' wide)
at its intersection with the west end of a 20' cut back line for the west right-of-way line of Underwood Road (50'
wide), and being the northerly northeast comer of said Reserve "D";
THENCE S 470 31' 42" E — 28.00', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer,
THENCE S 010 56' 14" E—1,236.15', with the said west right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located
in the north right-of-way line of New Decade Drive (60' wide) at its intersection with the east end of a 20' cut back
line, and being the northerly southeast comer of said Reserve "D";
THENCE S 420 45' 13" W — 28.44', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE S 870 26' 41" W — 730.16', with the said north right-of-way line to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for
comer, and being the southwest comer of said Reserve "D";
THENCE N 01 ° 56' 01 " W — 1,268.76', with the common reserve line of Reserves "C" & "D", to a found 5/8" iron
rod with cap for comer, located in the south right-of-way line of New Century Drive (60' wide), and being the
northwest corner of said Reserve "D";
THENCE N 86° 52' 50" E — 730.20', with the said south right-of-way line, to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
containing 21.9 acres (954,046 square feet) of land, more or less.
Compiled from survey by:
PREJEAN $ COMPANY, INC.
Surveying / Mapping
Job No. 256-1-12d
CO - PSG s��9Fo•.�9N
December 20, 2000
.. �d
N. M. MATHIS
CARichardWletes & Bounds1256-1-12d.mb.doc
' ': • ' ' • . • • • • • .
• A 4517
��
9��CFESSIO�P ��'
EXKif?1T A-7-
• METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION •
24.4 ACRES BEING ALL OF
RESTRICTED RESERVE "E"
BAYPORT NORTH INDUSTRIAL PARK
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
All that certain 24.4 acres of land being all of Restricted Reserve "E", Bayport North Industrial Park according to
the plat thereof filed at Film Code No. 437010, Hams County Map Records, also being out of William M. Jones
Survey, A-482 and George B. McKinstry League, A-47, Harris County, Texas, and being more particularly
described by metes and bounds as follows:
BEGINNING at a found 5/8" iron rod with cap located in the east right-of-way line of New West Drive (60' wide) at
its intersection with the south end of a 20' cut back line for the south right-of-way line of New Decade Drive (60,
wide), and being the southerly northwest comer of said Reserve "E";
THENCE N 420 10' 15" E—.28.15', with the said cut back line, to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer;
THENCE N 870 26' 41" E—1,286.68', with said south right-of-way to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer, and
being the northeast comer of said Reserve "E";
THENCE S 010 56' 01" E — 820.48', with the common reserve line of Reserves "E" & "F", to a found 5/8" iron rod
with cap for comer, and being the southeast comer of said Reserve "E";
THENCE S 870 27' 55" W — 1,289.89' to a found 5/8" iron rod with cap for comer, located in the east right-of-way
line of said New West Drive, and being the southwest comer of said Reserve "E";
THENCE N 030 06 23" W — 800.01', with the said east right-of-way line to the POINT OF BEGINNING and
containing 24.4 acres (1,064,657 square feet) of land, more or less.
Compiled from survey by:
PREJEAN & COMPANY, INC.
Surveying / Mapping C10J.
4 •'YJob No. 256-1-12e .�NDecember 20, 2000 ;ATHISC:�RichardWletes 8 Bounds1256-1-12e.mb.doc7• ' • • ` • •
ev1 p��OQ'...DS
• 0
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
RULES AND REGULATIONS
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.
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
0 0
1 1663-D JONES ROAD HOUSTON, TEXAS 77070
(281) 890-4781 FAX (281) 890-7116
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
J -2
DATE: December 29, 2000
TO: John Joems, Assistant City Manager, City of La Porte
RE: Industrial District Agreement, Bayport North Industrial Park
ATTACHED PLEASE FIND THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
Two fully executed Agreements with Exhibits A and B per requirements.
PURPOSE:
For your use
REMARKS:
Should the Exhibits not meet the requirements of the Ordinance, we can arrange for our
surveyor to prepare something different. However, the Exhibit A, Land Ownership
Summary specifically describes all land areas owned by Bayport North Industrial Park,
L.P.
Bob Klassen
BNIPIDAXMTI
DESIGN -BUILD • ENGINEERING • CONSTRUCTION
• 0
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-IDA-53
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE OF
AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENT WITH PRIME SERVICE, INC., FOR THE
TERM COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2001, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2007;
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 I. PRIME SERVICE, INC. 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
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
i 0
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
,-,n .. -4 11
1
1
a tha A. Gillet
City Secretary
A77PPRO7
Knox W. Askins,
City Attorney
CITY, OF LA PORTE
By: l
rm n 1 e,
Mayor
2
0 0
NO. 2000-IDA- 53 {
{
STATE OF TEXAS {
{
COUNTY OF HARRIS {
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 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 �PRL%L SEMIC E,, TIC,
a I1 Eupwpae corporation, hereinafter
called "COMPANY",
W I T N E S S E 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 permitted 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 within a designated
Industrial District of the City of La Porte, said land being
legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Land");
and said Land being more particularly shown on a plat attached as
Exhibit "B", which plat describes the ownership boundary lines; a
site 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:
FINAL DRAFT: February 24, 2000
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 codes, 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 Exhibit "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 full City ad
valorem taxes on such annexed Land and improvements, and tangible
personal property.
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 determined 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 necessity appraise the entire (annexed and
unannexed) Land, improvements, and tangible personal property.
2
0 0
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.
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 similar 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 ist 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" 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 City 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
0 0
2.
each year by City's independent appraiser, in accordance
with the applicable provisions of the Texas Property Tax
Code; and
(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 construction 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.
For 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,
including, 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 tangible 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
• 0
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 City '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 City 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 legislation 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 land, 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.
W
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 City in accordance with the
k,
• 0
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
competent jurisdiction or as the result of other final conclusion
of the controversy, then within 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
City of such disagreement. In the event Company does not give 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 faith negotiations in an attempt to reach an
agreement as to the market value of Company'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
submitted to City by Company hereunder, or the total assessment and
"in lieu of taxes" thereon for the last preceding 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
51
0 0
expert opinion, and 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 Arbitration 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
City 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 City enters into an Agreement with any other landowner with
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 agreement neither party hereto would enter into this
Agreement. In the,event any one or more words, phrases, clauses,
sentences, paragraphs, sections, articles or other parts of this
Agreement or the application thereof to any person, firm,
7
0 0
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 remaining parts of this Agreement shall not be affected
thereby.
XI.
Upon the commencement of the term of this Agreement, all other
previously existing industrial district agreements with respect to
said Land shall terminate.
ENTERED INTO effective the 1st day of January, 2001.
By:
Name:
Title:
Address:
SE?-V tC,
ATTEST: CITY OF LA PORTE
G By:
Cit Secretary orm n Mal ne
Mayor
APP /
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1218
La Porte, TX 77572-1218
Phone: (281) 471-1886
Fax: (281) 471-2047
(COMPANY
By: al� 1 , 9-Lz��
Robert T. Herrera
City Manager
CITY OF LA PORTE
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572-1115
FAR
8
0
a
"EXHIBIT A"
(Metes and Bounds Description of Land)
JBC:m
C %C'�lo S� :_�•1== - '1 � .. � i :�:.. .., i.: G F;; 9.G
73=92-.1 T53
GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
THE STATE OF TEXAS §
§ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
COUNTY OF HARRIS §
THAT THOMAS H. NATION, TRUSTEE, of the County of Harris,
State of Texas, hereinafter called "Grantor", for and in consid-
eration of the sum of TEN AND N0/100 ($10.00) DOLLARS and other
good and valuable considerations to him in hand paid in cash by `
KINCO, INC., a Texas corporation, hereinafter called "Grantee",
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, has
GRANTED, SOLD AND CONVEYED and by these presents does GRANT, SELL
AND CONVEY unto the said Grantee, 4.80 acres of land out of the
jStrang Subdivision, per map or plat thereof recorded in Volume i
75, Page 22 of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas, more
particularly described by metes and bounds on Exhibit "A" here-
unto attached and made a part hereof for all purposes.
This conveyance is made and accepted subject to:
a. A 1/16 nonparticipating royalty interest in and to
all oil, gas and other minerals which may be produced from the
above described property, as reserved in Deed recorded under
County Clerk's File No. D-876837 in the Real Property Records
of Harris County, Texas.
b. Reservation of all oil, gas and other minerals on,
in, under or that may be produced from the above described
property as set out in instrument filed under County Clerk's
A
File No. D-912391.in the Real Property Records of Harris County,
Texas.
6- 30, R
'173-92-.I 754
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above described premises together
with all and singular the rights and appurtenances thereto in any-
wise belonging unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns,
forever, and Grantor does hereby bind himself, his successors and
assigns, to WARRANT AND FOREVER DEFEND all and singular the said
premises unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, against
every person whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or
any part thereof.
EXECUTED this Ilzt day of December, A.D., 1980.
THOMAS I . NATION, TRUSTM /
THE STATE OF TEXAS S
S
COUNTY OF HARRIS S
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day
personally appeared THOMAS H. NATION, TRUSTEE, known to me to
be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing in-
strument, -and acknowledged to me that he executed the same
for the purposes and consideration therein expressed and in
the capacity therein stated.
GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF OFFICE this
IL —
day of December, A.D., 1980.
`l P
rn'�P�'�;' Ue�A`,
.�" t•' ~=•' 'ram.
c�3 s 4
� W
LCU
G rn X -�
W rn q U}-
�
U
\n• e3w U ¢
u <
Nota Public ilid
n and for
Harris County, Texas
My commission expires:
1-tI-`61
-2-
I1=9-.1755
ACRES --
Field note description of a tract of land containing 4.80 acres being
part of and out of Strang Subdivision, as* per map or plat of said subdivision
recorded in Volume 75, Page 22 of the Deed Records of Harris County, Texas,
and being part of and out of that certain 15.6585 acre tract per instrument
•• recorded in Harris County Clerk's File lyo. F-041752,.in the Enoch Brinson
Survey, Abstract 5, in Harris County, Texas and being more particuarly described
by metes and bounds as follows:
COMMENCING at a point being the intersection of .the south right-of-way
`line of Strang Road, 60 feet wide, and the northerly right-of-way line of
State Highway 225, 370 feet wide, at the most west corner of the said 15.6585
acre tract;
THENCE S 69. 55' 03" E, along the northeasterly right -of way line of State
Highway 225, 370 feet wide, for a distance of 1,714.78 feet to a 5/8 inch iron
rod set for corner and the PLACE OF BEGINNING;
THENCE S 69. 55' 03" E, continuing along the northeasterly right-of-way
line of State Highway 225, 370 feel wide for a distance of 343.65 feet to a
1/2 inch iron rod found for corner at the southeast corner of aforesaid 15.6585
acre tract; -
THENCE N 0. 07'`56" W, along U1e east -line of the 15.6585 acre tract, for
a distance of 706.22 feet to a 3/8 inch iron rod found for corner on the south
right-of-way line of said Strang Road, 60 feet wide, at the northeast corner
of the said 15.6585 acre tract;
THENCE N 89. 58' 57" W. along the south right-of-way line of Strang Road,
60 feet wide, for a distance of 323.03 feet to a 5/8 inch iron rod set for
corner;
THENCE S 0- 07' 56" E. for a distance of 588.32 feet to the PLACE OF
BEGINNING, of a tract containing 4.80 acres of land.
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTT OF NARRi8
1 heraby certify that thk Inetnlment We. FILED td
rise Seduenea on the date and at the Vale atampad Wrwn by me: and "a duty RECORDED. In the ONlagl
Public Records of Real Property of 11a"la County. Tacaa da
DEC 111980
✓✓ VV COUNTY cLMK,
KURIS COUNTY; TEXAS
EXHIBIT "A"
0 0
"EXHIBIT B"
(Attach Plat reflecting the ownership boundary lines; a
site layout, showing all improvements, including
pipelines and railroads, and also showing areas of the
Land previously annexed by the City of La Porte.)
PW ----
1.0
�tYwA•�• -16
ry
IWA
SvsconcsrnNs ON ppokwap Paws cr
. ar_wr.�.• M.!vs-r.rw. rrs•.�r0..ec 471LM1&11.Tr � �•.•��••••••••� , �
..Macar..r. awrut.Y�rs L:Yr rer. ...ecn rrc r+..0 a rmar ..r rent r..o uv
snsrt�"W�ir`�`
i GRACE EQUIPMENT COMPANY
uront ,rtrc
I SITE PLAN
can SP-I
r`
Jg9 2tir I
to
r
a
a STRAND ROAD
e� 1
` 1 1 y
r 323.03' — Aea-
c
sar. /S. G6G6 AGRES '� r I C 2
•A�°i \ s
\ to a Aria ■ 4.80 Ace.
\ ^ , ,/� �d • � � �U.. drove/� � �
'+
P
Q
,
\R.O, w\ `
C�
L
"EXHIBIT C"
Page 1 of 2
ROLES AND REGULATIONS
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.
"EXHIBIT C"
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 50' 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
regulations 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 subject 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.
''EXAS
August 24,
Prime Equipment
Attn: Katherine W. Yarbrough
16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77084
Re: Industrial District Agreement (IDA) (Series 2001-2007)
Two executed originals of the Industrial District Agreement (IDA) were received from you on
August 17, 2000. While reviewing the documents for completeness, we noticed your firm did not
furnish an Exhibit "A" or Exhibit "B".
If you warrant that Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" furnished for the previous IDA (Series 1994-2000) is
current, we will attach the previous Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" to both originals. If changes have
occurred, please send us (2) copies no later than August 31, 2000.
Please indicate your acknowledgement and agreement by signing and returning this letter. Once these
matters are resolved we will present these documents to City Council for approval and we will return
an original set to you. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281)
471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
c: Hugh Landrum Jr., Hugh Landrum & Associates
Yes No
Use previous Exhibit "A" ❑ ❑
Use previous Exhibit "B" ❑ ❑
New Exhibit "A" to be furnished ❑ ❑
New Exhibit "B" to be furnished ❑ ❑
(Company)
By:
Name: _
Title: _
Address:
'.0. Rox II15 a ' a Porte, Texas 77572-1115 ® (281) 471-5020
PRIME SERVICE, INC.
16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 200
Houston, TX 77084
281 /578-5600
A Company Within The Atlas Copco Group
August 16, 2000
City of La Porte
Attn: Robert T. Herrera
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, TX 77572 —1115
Dear Mr. Herrera,
D E C E L'.( �r....
AUu 1 7 2 ;.0
CITY MANAGER'S
OFFICE
The Atlas Copco Group
Enclose are two executed Industrial District Agreements for the City of La Port.
Please return one of the originals signed by the City of La Port to Prime Service,
Inc. I apologize for not returning these agreements earlier.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (281) 647-5044.
Sincerely,
4MIJ w. �a► 5h
Katherine W. Yarbrough
Tax Supervisor
Enclosures
•
�.� City of La Porte
Established 1892
?'EXAr✓'
January 11, 2001
Prime Equipment
Attn: Kevin L. Loughlin
16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77084
Re: Industrial District Agreement (IDA) Series 2001-2007
Dear Mr. Loughlin:
Two executed originals of the Industrial District Agreement (IDA) were received from
you on August 17, 2000. While reviewing the documents for completeness, we noticed
your firm did not furnish an Exhibit "A" or Exhibit "B".
Since your firm furnished an Exhibit "A" and Exhibit `B" for the previous IDA (Series
1994-2000), these exhibits will be attached to your agreement. We will proceed and
present these documents to City Council for approval on the condition you will provide
corrected information, if necessary.
Once City Council has approved these documents we will return an original set to you. If
you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
P.O. Box 1115 • La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
•
0
v
,��► City of La Porte
Established 1892
i
�' pEXAS
February 15, 2001
Prime Service Inc.
Attn: Kevin L. Loughlin
16225 Park Ten Place, Suite 200
Houston, Texas 77084
Re: Industrial District Agreement (IDA) Series 2001-2007
Dear Mr. Loughlin:
Enclosed is a fully executed duplicate original of the Industrial District Agreement between your
firm and the City of La Porte, effective January 1, 2001, for the term expiring December 31, 2007. I
also enclose a certified copy of the City's approval ordinance, for your records.
Per the letter dated January 11, 2001 this agreement was approved by City Council with Exhibits "A"
and `B" furnished for the previous IDA (Series 1994-2000).
Please warrant Exhibits "A" and `B" by signing and returning this letter. If changes have occurred,
please send us a copy as soon as possible and attach a copy to the enclosed IDA for your records.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter call me at (281) 471-5020.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Yes No
Use previous "Exhibit A"
❑
❑
Use previous "Exhibit B"
❑
❑
New Exhibit "A" to be furnished
❑
❑
New Exhibit "B" to be furnished
❑
❑
(Company)
By:
Name: _
Title: _
Address:
P.O. Box 1115 a La Porte, Texas 77572-1115 • (281) 471-5020
• 0
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 22 2001
Requested By: Doug Kneu e
Department: Planning -f
Report: Resolution: Ordinance: X
Exhibits:
1. Ordinance with Exhibit "A"
2. Alley Closing Agreement with Exhibit "A"
3. Alley Closing Map (depicting area without owner's
consent and adjacent zoning)
Appropriation
Source of Funds: N/A
Account Number: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Amount Requested:
Budgeted Item: _YES ENO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Alton Ogden of Belle Exploration, Inc. has petitioned the City to vacate, abandon and close the alley in Block 752,
Town of La Porte. The purpose of his request is to facilitate the expansion of the business at 200 South 16t' Street. In
its review, the Public Works Department has determined that a 2" waterline in the alley serves four (4) individual water
customers within the block. Additionally, the northernmost 150 feet of the alley serves as an access drive to the
residence at 213 S. 17t' Street. As a result of the need to relocate these services prior to closing the alley, the applicant
has executed an Alley Closing Agreement with the City. The agreement stipulates that the applicant shall be solely
responsible for funding the relocation of the access drive and the 2" waterline as well as all related tap and meter fees
plus all plumbing reconnections necessary to fully restore utility service to each occupant of the block. The City's
franchised utility companies have received notification of the closing application and have responded to the applicant's
request. Reliant Energy maintains an existing gas line in the northernmost portion of alley for which a utility easement
has been executed and will become effective upon passage and approval of this ordinance. Southwestern Bell and
Time Warner Communications have each provided letters of no objection to the request.
The closing request at issue is not typical of similar requests involving multiple owners. This is because the owner of
Lots 5 & 6 (Mr. Remigio Garcia) has not given written consent to the closing. Even though the City has encouraged a
consensus between the two parties, no agreement has been reached. Although our normal practice is to secure consent
of all property owners, the City Attorney has confirmed that City Council may unilaterally close this section of the
alley without owner's consent. The attached ordinance, as prepared, will close the entire alley allowing the residual 8'
x 50' strip, adjacent to Lots 5 & 6 to revert to the adjacent landowner, Mr. Garcia. In doing so, no monetary
compensation will be received but the City may avoid many future issues such as access to and maintenance of the
residual strip of public property.
In accordance with Ordinance No. 98-2225, Staff has arranged for an independent appraisal to be conducted for the
alley in question. As a result, the fair market value has been assessed at $1.18 per square foot for a total of $7.080.00
(based on compensation for 6,000 sq. ft.). The applicant has subsequently made payment to the City of 75% of the
appraised value ($5,310.00) as per the ordinance. The final sum paid by the applicant does not include the 400 square
feet of alley adjacent to Lots 5 & 6, Mr. Garcia.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends closing, vacating, and abandoning of the alley in Block 752, Town of La Porte as per terms &
conditions of Alley Closing Agreement (Exhibit "A") attached.
Action Required by Council:
Consider approval of an ordinance to close, vacate, and abandon the alley in Block 752, Town of La Porte.
Approved for City Council Agenda
i . I -
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
• 0
ORDINANCE NO.2001- 9 4 /
AN ORDINANCE VACATING, ABANDONING AND CLOSING THE ALLEY IN
BLOCK 752, TOWN OF LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINtS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has been requested by the
record owners of all of the property abutting the hereinafter described alley in Block 752,
Town of LaPorte, Harris County, Texas; save and except the record owners of Lots 5 &
6, Block 752, Town of La Porte, to vacate, abandon, and permanently close the alley of
Block 752, Town of LaPorte, Harris County, Texas; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has determined and does
hereby find, determine, and declare that the hereinafter described alley in Block 752,
Town of LaPorte, Harris County, Texas, is not suitable, needed, or beneficial to the
public as a public road, street, or alley, and the closing of hereinafter described alley in
Block 752, Town of La Porte, Harris County, Texas, is for the protection of the public
and for the public interest and benefit, and that the hereinafter described alley in Block
752, Town of LaPorte, Harris County, Texas, should be vacated, abandoned, and
permanently closed.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. Under and by virtue of the power granted to the City of La Porte under its
home rule charter and Chapter 253, Section 253.001, Texas Local Government Code, the
hereinafter described portion of the alley in Block 752, Town of La Porte, Harris County,
Texas, is hereby permanently vacated, abandoned, and closed by the City of La Porte, to
wit:
A001- � •
Ordinance No. 260'6- 2
All of the alley in Block 752, Town of La Porte, Harris County, Texas, lying within
and situated between Lots 1-16 and Lots 17 - 32, as shown on Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and made part hereof.
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.
Section 3. ' This ordinance shall be effective from and after its passage and approval,
and it is so ordered. The City of La Porte hereby retains all rights of easement to and
through the alley of Block 752, Town of La Porte, Harris County, Texas in order to
facilitate terms of Alley Closing Agreement executed between City of La Porte and
a.00i
Alton Ogden, dated day of L 26M. Upon satisfaction of
the terms of said alley closing agreement, City shall release said easement.
Ordinance No. ;w W/
• 3
PASSED AND APPROVED, THIS 22nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2001.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By:
Norma . Ma e, ayor
ATTEST:
L-Ifl'
Martha Gillett, City Secretary
APPROVEDDt
?r, le 1.
Knox W. Askins, City Attorney
• 0
ALLEY CLOSING AGREEMENT
With Exhibit "A"
DEC-28-2000 "I HU 01: 02 PM r Ax Nu. r . "r-
40
ALLEY CLOSING AGREEMENT
*fHESTATE OF TEXAS:
COUNTY OF HARLtIS:
� today of � tG `6 2UtlU, by and between the
Titis agreement, made this _
City of La Porle.11crCin called "City", acting herein through its City ibianager and Alton Ugden, an
individuil, of Natchez. Mississippi, hereinafter called "Owner".
W ITNiESSETH
1, Allreferences to "Alley Closing" hereunder shall, for 1bc purposes of this agreement, refer to va Catiug,
abandoning alld closing a portion of the atlley in Block 752, Town of La Porlc, H=is County, Texas
(Re: CI.P Project No. SAC-2000-01 & CLP Ordinance No. --- 1,
2. Owner is the owner of ccrtaiia property ill the City of La Porte, Harris Comity, Texas, identified as
Lots l through 4, 7 and 8, and 24 throagh 32, Block 752, Town of 1,a Porte, Harris County,
Texas.
3, Owner along with certain other adjacent property owners has petitioned City to vacate, abandon and
close the alley of Block 752, Town of La Porte, Ha "is County, Texas_
4. Asa tAruiition of passage and approval of an ordinance vacating, abandoning and closing a portion of
said alley, Owner shall bo responsible for the following:
Owner shall provide $1,032.00 to City for the construction of a paved access drive to serve
ft residence of 213 South 170'Street as shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
Owner shall provide $2,616.37 to City for the relocation of a 2" diameter wat erlinc and four
cxisling water nicters from the alloy of Block 752 as shown on Fahibit A attached hcrcto.
Upon completion of vMcrlinc and water meter relocations, Owner shall lrave 60 days to
provide for the full and complete reconnection ajnd restoratian of water servicc (in a=rdauce
with curreni City codes) to each of tbo foair (4) current utility customers within the block.
5. City will inspect and approve all work conducted miler the terms of this agreement for compliance
with cu=% City codes.
6, ()wirers may not take possession of alley until all terms ot'tgis ag «dent have been met,
DEC-28-2000 THU 01:03 PM
1 HA NU.
0
r. u-D
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the hrtics to these presents have executed this ;igmcment ir. severai
counterparts, each of which shall be &IernCd all OrigliW, in the year and day first mctrGor►ed above.
(Sal)
ATTEST;
� l�.
(City Secret�iry of i,.t Por#c)
(Seal)
12
BY:
tncss or SeCrCtM Of COrpc► on)
WI ,..,
9v, MSIPPI STATK ,111Dc t OTA ji" PUELIy
U0 •3 JULY 13, 2002
6CtdDED THM STECnLL JOTARY SERVICE
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
._ City Attorney
CITY O LA POR,TE
TITLE,:
C
ALLEY CLOSING MAP
(depicting area without owner's consent & adjacent zoning)
REOUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: 01/22/01
Requested By: Mayor Norman Malone
Department: Mayor's !lire
Report: Resolution: Ordinance: X
Exhibits:
Exhibits:
Exhibits:
Ordinance
Appropriation
Source of Funds: n/a
Account Number: n/a
Amount Budgeted: n/a
Amount Requested: n/a
Budgeted Item: YES NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
During the December 11, 2000 City Council meeting we discussed and appointed citizens to serve on a Re -
Districting Committee. A total of nine (9) appointments were made.
The Council agreed to bring this matter back at the January 8, 2001 meeting in order to fill the vacancies. The
vacancies are District 4, alternate #2, and alternate #3. This item was tabled at the January 8, 2001 meeting due to
the absence of Mr. Gay.
Action Required by Council: Consider approval or other action regarding an Ordinance appointing
vacancies to the Re -Districting Committee.
Approved for City Council Auenda
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-2460-A
AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING A RE -DISTRICTING COMMITTEE, AND
ESTABLISHING ITS POWERS AND DUTIES; 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 of the City of La Porte hereby
appoints the following resident of the City of La Porte to the Re -
Districting Committee established by this Council in Ordinance
2000-2460, passed and approved on the 11th day of December, 2000,
to -wit:
District 4: Charlie Perry
The Chairman shall appoint an alternate or alternates as
required to establish a quorum at any meeting.
Section 2. Following publication of the 2000 Federal Census,
the Re -Districting Committee shall conduct an investigation and
determine the population of the City, and the population of each of
the districts from which district Councilpersons are elected. Each
such determination shall be based upon the best available data,
including, but not limited to, the 2000 Federal Census. Each such
determination shall be reported by the Re -Districting Committee to
City Council, which shall express the results of such determination
in an ordinance, which shall be a final determination for purposes
of the Home Rule Charter of the City of La Porte. After any such
determination, if the distribution of population among the various
districts is determined by City Council to be materially
unbalanced, the Re -Districting Committee shall, following public
notice and an opportunity for public input, recommend to City
Council the establishment of new boundaries for the election of
district Councilpersons.
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 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. Ordinance No.
2000-2460, passed and approved on December 11, 2000, shall remain
in full force and effect.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this 22nd day of January, 2001.
ATTEST:
Mart a A�.Gillett
City Secretary
APP VE
Knox W. Askins
City Attorney
OF LA PORTE
By: . I -/ I zz�
/4ormaVrt/�.'4Mallbne, Mayor
2
a
•
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 22, 2001
Requested By: S. Gillett
Department: Public Works
Report: XX Resolution: Ordinance:
Exhibits: Bid Tabulation and Bidder's List
Exhibits:
Exhibits:
Appropriation
Source of Funds: Motor Pool
Account Number: 024-7074-534-2040
Amount Budgeted: S200,000
Amount Requested: S-19,067 31
Budgeted Item: YES
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Sealed bids were received on January 2, 2001 for Oils, Fluids and Lubricants for use by the
Equipment Services Division. Bids were sent to twenty-three (23) vendors, with two (2)
returning bids, and one (1) no bid.
The only vendor to bid on all items was Jones Oil, Inc., for a total estimated annual cost of
$19,067.31. This represents a 17% increase over last year's pricing.
Funds are available in the Equipment Services Division operating budget for this contract.
Action Required by Council: Award bid for annual contract for Oils, Fluids and Lubricants to
Jones Oil, Inc. for an estimated annual amount of $19,067.31.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Ij� , I -
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
0 0
BID TABULATION
BID # 0825 - OILS, FLUIDS, AND LUBRICANTS
DESCRIPTION
UNIT
QTY
JONES OIL
BG DISTRIB
TRUMAN
ARNOLD CO
SECTION I
1. Bulk Hydraulic Oil
Gal
1200
$2.77
No Bid
No Bid
2. Bulk Motor Oil
Gal
1200
$3.04
No Bid
No Bid
3. Bulk Gear Oil
Drum
2
$230.00
$773.00
No' Bid
4. Bulk Transmission Fluid
Gal
600
$2.65
No Bid
No Bid
5. Mercon V Trans Fluid
Drum
1
$428.20
No Bid
No Bid
TOTAL - SECTION 1
$9,450.20
$1,546.00
No Bid
SECTION II
1. Motor Oil
Qt
800
$1.18
No Bid
No Bid
2. Antifreeze
Gal
300
$4.02
No Bid
No Bid
3. Chassis Grease -Tube
Tube
325
$0.90
$2.75
No Bid
4. Transmission Fluid
Qt
96
$0.91
No Bid
No Bid
5. Wheel Bearing Grease
Tub
50
$1.55
No Bid
No Bid
TOTAL - SECTION II
$2,607.36
$893.75
No Bid
SECTION III
1. Oil dry
Bag
150
$3.41
No Bid
No Bid
2. Windshield Washer
Gal
200
$1.13
No Bid
No Bid
3. Penetrating Oil
Can
120
$1.19
$4.25
No Bid
4. Carburetor Cleaner
Can
60
$2.10
$4.85
No Bid
5. Power Steering Fluid
Can
75
$0.60
No Bid
No Bid
6. Brake Parts Cleaner
Can
700
$1.37
$3.75
No Bid
7. Freon - R12
Cyl
5
$776.94
No Bid
No Bid
8. Hand Cleaner
Cont
50
$10.91
No Bid
No Bid
9. R134 Freon 30 lb. Cyl
. Cyl
5
$113.85
No Bid
No Bid
TOTAL - SECTION III
$7,009.75
$3,426.00
No Bid
GRAND TOTAL
$19,067.31
$5,865.75
No Bid
0 0
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To: Steve Gillett, Public Works Director
From: Gina Ford, Purchasing Tech. II 0
Subj: Sealed Bid #0825 — Oils, Fluids, & Lubricants
Advertised, sealed bids #0825 — Oils, Fluids & Lubricants were opened and read on
January 2, 2001. Bid requests were mailed to twenty three (23) vendors with two (2)
returning bids, and one (1) no -bid.
Jones Oil was the only vendor quoting all items meeting specifications.
Copies of the bids are attached for your review.
Using estimated yearly quantities, the annual cost would be $19,067.31. This is a
seventeen percent (17%) increase from the last bid.
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
Bidders List
Bid Copies
0
0
BIDDER'S LIST
SEALED BID #0825
OILS, FLUIDS AND LUBRICANTS
APACHE OIL COMPANY
P.O. BOX 177
PASADENA, TX 77501
COMMERCIAL LUBRICANTS
P.O. BOX 6366
PASADENA, TX 77501
H & W PETROLEUM COMPANY
9617 WALLISVILLE RD
HOUSTON, TX 77013
JONES OIL
4828 N. SHEPHERD RD
HOUSTON, TX 77018
O'ROURKE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS
223 McCARTY
HOUSTON, TX 77018
THOMAS PETROLEUM INC
P.O. BOX 659
WINNIE, TX 77665
THE HART COMPANY
P.O.BOX 14030
HOUSTON, TX 77221
INDUSTRIAL LUBRICATION SPECIALTIES
5906 DWYER
HUMBLE, TX 77396
TRUMAN ARNOLD CO.
3513 S.W. H.K
DODGEN LOOP SUITE #200
TMPLES, TX 76502
AMLAC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY, INC.
13620 HEMPSTEAD HWY
HOUSTON, TX 77040
BG DISTRIBUTORS OF HOUSTON, INC
5906 DWYER
HUMBLE, TX 77396
ANGEL'S OIL COMPANY
P.O. BOX 1398
LA PORTE, TX 77572
DAP DISTRIBUTING
5020 EAST ROAD
BAYTOWN, TX 77521
O'REILLY AUTO SUPPLY
1010 S. BROADWAY
LA PORTE, TX 77571
OIL PATCH BROZOS VALLEY
P.O. BOX 456
FREEPORT, TX 77542-0456
SPECIALTY OIL
5750 CAMPBELL RD
HOUSTON, TX 77041
VALVOLINE INC
P.O. BOX 891
DEER PARK, TX 77536
PRECISION INDUSTRIES
818 WEST 13" STREET
DEER PARK, TX 77536
HURST COMPANY
P.O. BOX 14030
HOUSTON, TX 77221
THREE L INC.
P.O. BOX 30100
HOUSTON, TX 77249
ATTN: ANDY LEACH
LADY PEGASUS INC
711 BAY AREA BLVD STE 310
WEBSTER, TX 77598
SAVOY TRADING CO, INC.
SUITE A
11381 MEADOWGLEN LANE
HOUSTON, TX 77082
0
0
SUN COAST RESOURCES INC
P.O. BOX 4516
HOUSTON, TX 77210
BAYSHORE SUN PUBLISH DATES:
DECEMBER 24, 2000
JANUARY 7, 2000
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
PO. BOX 996
LA PORTE, TX 77572-0996
BID REQUEST ENCLOSED
0 0
0
i •
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: January 22 2001
Requested By: Alex Osmond CY
Au
Department: Administration
Report: XX Resolution: Ordinance:
Exhibits: Sealed Bid #0826
Exhibits: Bid Tabulation
Exhibits: Bidders List
Exhibits: Specification / Deviation Chart
Appropriation
Source of Funds: Motor Pool Fund
Account Number: Various
Amount Budgeted: $65,928.00
Amount Requested: $56,136.04
Budgeted Item: YES NO
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Sealed bids #0826 for Golf Course and Parks Equipment were opened and read on December 21, 2000. Bid requests were
mailed to seven (7) vendors with five (5) returning bids.
Brookside Equipment was low bidder meeting all specifications on:
Item
Description
No. of
Units
Price
Amount
Budgeted
Account Number
1
Riding Greens Mower (Golf)
1
$15,874.80
$17,300.00
009-6049-551-8050
2
Compact Utility Tractors (Parks)
2
$17,294.00
$21,528.00
009-8080-552-8050
3
Off -Road Utility Vehicle (Golf) _
1
$11,853.04
$15,600.00
009-6049-551-8050
4
200 Gallon Sprayer (Golf)
1
$4,424.20
$6,200.00
009-6049-551-8050
Total
$49,446.04
$60,628.00
Gail's Flags, Inc. was low bidder meeting all specifications on:
Item
Description
No. of
Units
Price
Amount
Budgeted
Account Number
5
Greens Slicer / Aerifier (Golf)
1
$6,690.00
$5,300.00
009-6049-551-8050
Total
$6,690.00
$5,300.00
Overall Total: Golf Course - $38,842.00; Parks - $17,294.00
Total Budgeted: $44,400.00 $21,528.00
Staff recommends awarding bids for Golf Course and Parks Equipment to Brookside Equipment and Gail's Flags, Inc.,
low bidders meeting specifications as outlined above.
Action Required by Council:
Award bids as recommended by Staff.
Approved for City Council Agenda
Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date
•
0
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
rrr:r=rkr OFF 1r:. �- 066
To: Stephen Barr, Director of Parks & Recreation
Dennis Hlavaty, Golf Course Superintendent
From: Susan Kelley, Purchasing Manager
Subj: Sealed Bid #0826 — Golf Course & Parks Equipment
Advertised, sealed bids #0826 — Golf Course & Parks Equipment were opened and read
on December 21, 2000. Bid requests were mailed to seven (7) vendors with five (5)
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
BID TABULATION - GOLF COURSE EQUIPMENT
BID #0826
DESCRIPTION
QN
BROOKSIDE
AMC
PROFESSIONAL
TURF
LANSDOWNE
LANSDOWNE
MOODY -
GAILS' FLAGS,
EQUIPMENT
INDUSTRIES
PRODUCTS
MOODY -
ALTERNATE
INC.
1) Riding Greens Mower
1
$18,724.80
$18,990.00
$24,759.98
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
Less Optional Trade-in Allowance
($2,850.00)
($2,500.00)
($6,000.00)
Total Item #1
$15,874.80
$16,490.00
$18,759.98
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
2) Compact Utility Tractors
2
$8,647.00
NO BID
NO BID
$8,656.00
$10,214.00
NO BID
Total Item #2
$17,294.00
NO BID
NO BID
$17,312.00
$20,428.00
NO BI
3) Off -Road Utility Vehicle
1
$14,853.04
$14,025.00
$17,786.00
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
Less Optional Trade-in Allowance
($3,000.00)
($1,000.00)
($3,500.00)
Item #3 Total
$11,853.04
$13,025.00
$14,286.00
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
4) 200 Gallon Sprayer
1
$5,424.20
$8,234.00
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
Less Optional Trade-in Allowance
($1,000.00)
($500.00)
Item #4 Total
1
$4,424.20
$7,734.00
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
5) Greens Slicer/Aerifler
$5,032.00
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
$6,690.00
Less Optional Trade-in Allowance
($500.00)
N/A
Item #5 Total 1
$4,532.00
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
NO BID
$6,690.00
10
is
BIDDER'S LIST
GOLF COURSE & PARKS EQUIPMENT
SEALED BID #0826
AMC INDUSTRIES
11959 FM 529
HOUSTON, TX 77041
BROOKSIDE EQUIPMENT SALES INC
190031-45 NORTH
SPRING, TX 77388
GAIL'S FLAGS & GOLF
2821 CARSON STREET
FT. WORTH, TX 76117
PROFESSIONAL TURF PRODUCTS
11513 PETROPARK DR.
HOUSTON, TX 77041
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
P.O. BOX 996
LA PORTE, TX 77572-0996
BROOKSIDE EQUIPMENT SALES INC
7707 MOSLEY
HOUSTON, TX 77017
D & B INTERNATIONAL EQUIP RENTAL
2202 KELLEY
HOUSTON, TX 77026
LANSDOWNE-MOODY COMPANY
84451-10 EAST
HOUSTON, TX 77029
BAYSHORE PUBLISH DATES:
DECEMBER 6, 2000
DECEMBER 13, 2000
SPECIFICATION / DEVIATION CHART
ITEM 5: GREENS SLICER / AERIFIER
VENDOR: Brookside Equipment
SPECIFICATIONS
DEVIATIONS
Gooseneck hitch w/ 2" ball
Standard clevis hitch
Adjustable rear roller
Not Available