Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2002-01-28 Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS OF LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 28, 2002 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Norman Malone at 6:00 p.m. Members of City Council Present: Councilpersons Guy Sutherland, Chuck Engelken, Howard Ebow, Peter Griffiths, Alton Porter, James Warren, Charlie Young, Jerry Clarke, and Norman Malone. Members of Council Absent: None Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present: City Attorney Knox Askins, Assistant City Manager John Joerns, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Assistant Finance Director Mike Dolby, Director of Administrative Services Carol Buttler, Director of Parks and Recreation Stephen Barr, Director of Public Works Steve Gillett, Purchasing Manager Susan Kelley, Director of Emergency Services Joe Sease, Planning Director Doug Kneupper, Police Chief Richard Reff, Golf Pro Alex Osmond, Golf Course Superintendent Dennis Hlavaty, and Engineering Tech Supervisor Brian Sterling. Others Present: Sib Carpenter, Spero Pomonis, Betty Stoumbaugh, Jean Young, Nick Barrera, Dave Tumquist, Colleen Hicks, and Fran Strong, and a number of citizens. Reverend Michael Bingham of Fairmont Park Baptist Church delivered the invocation. 3. Council considered approving the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on January 14, 2002, and the Minutes of the Special Called Workshop Meeting on January 21, 2002. Motion was made by Councilperson Clarke to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on January 14 2002 and the Minutes of the Special Called Workshop Meeting on January 21 2002 as presented. Second by Councilperson Warren. The motion carried. Ayes: Sutherland, Engelken, Ebow, Porter, Warren, Young, Clarke, Malone. Griffiths was for the Minutes of the Special Called Workshop Meeting. Nays: None Abstain: Griffiths abstained on the Minutes of the Regular Meeting on January 14, 2002. 4. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL There were not any petitions, remonstrances, communications, or citizens wishing to address Council. City Council Minutes 1-28-02 — Page 2 5. RECEIVE REPORT FROM GEOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGIES GROUP REGARDING GIS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Director of Planning Doug Kneupper introduced representatives from Geographical Technology Group, David Holdstock and Curtis Hinton, and received their report. No action or vote was taken on this item. 6. MAYOR CONSIDERED APPOINTING A COMMITTEE TO PREPARE AN OPPOSITION LETTER AND REPORT ON THE PORT OF HOUSTON EXPANSION Mayor Norman Malone presented summary and recommendation and answered Council's questions. Motion was made by Mayor Malone to approve appointing Committee and Chuck Engelken will serve as Chairperson. Second by Councilperson Porter. The motion carried. Ayes: Sutherland, Engelken, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Warren, Young, Clarke, and Malone. Nays: None Abstain: None 7. CONSENT AGENDA Council considered a consent agenda as follows: A. Consider approving purchase of the Omni -Directional Siren Upgrade from standard automation — J. Sease. B. Consider awarding bid for Golf Course and Parks equipment to Brookside Equipment, Professional Turf Products and AMC Industries — A. Osmond. Motion was made by Councilperson Clarke to approve agenda. Second by Councilperson Sutherland. The motion carried. Ayes: Sutherland, Engelken, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Warren, Young, Clarke, and Malone. Nays: None Abstain: None 8. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Assistant City Manager John Joerns reminded Council of the following items: The Bond Election on Saturday, February 2, 2002; the City Council Meeting to canvass the Bond Election on Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 6 p.m.; and the National League of Cities on March 8 through March 12, 2002. City Council Minutes 1-28-02 — Page 3 9. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilpersons Engelken, Ebow, Griffiths, Porter, Warren, Young and Clarke brought items to Council's attention. 10. 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) Council retired into executive session at 6:58 p.m. Council returned to the table at 8:08 p.m. There was no action taken. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before Council, the Regular Meeting was duly adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Martha Gillett City Secretary Passed and approved on this 1 lth day of February 2002. 14orman Malone, Mayor PORT OF HOUSTON' S PROPOSED CONTAINER AND CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL TIMELINE OF EVENTS ACTION DATE City representative attended a public hearing hosted by Port of Houston August 5, 1998 at Kyle Chapman Annex where the proposal and process of the expansion were discussed. City representative attended a public hearing hosted by Port of Houston August 19, 1998 at the Houston Yacht Club. Port of Houston applied for permits to construct and operate the proposed October 8, 1998 facilities. Corps of Engineers published Notice of Intent to prepare an June 2, 1999 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). City representative attended a meeting hosted by City of Seabrook and June 17, 1999 Galveston Bay Conservation & Preservation Association to discuss the expansion. Corps of Engineers hosted a public hearing at Texas Chiropractic College July 8, 1999 to provide basic information to the public. City Council attended a retreat to discuss the expansion and appointed a July 19, 1999 representative to serve on the Community Advisory Panel. City Council discussed the Bayport Terminal Expansion and position August 9, 1999 paper at City Council meeting. City published its position on the expansion. August 10, 1999 City requested meetings with Commissioner Jimmy Burke, August 13, 1999 Commissioner Steve Phelps, Commissioner Jim Fonteno, State Representative John Davis, and State Senator Mike Jackson to discuss the Bayport Terminal Expansion. City representative attended scoping meeting and public information August 17, 1999 workshop hosted by Corps of Engineers at Pasadena Convention Center. Corps of Engineers hosted a public scoping meeting. September 17, 1999 0 • As of January 22, 2002 ACTION DATE Corps of Engineers published a Public Notice to inform the public of the November 15, 1999 proposal to construct the Bayport Terminal Expansion. City hosted SH 146 Corridor meeting at Lou Lawler Seafarers Center to April 3, 2000 promote expansion of the highway and to support a major investment study conducted by TxDOT. In attendance were Commissioner Fonteno, Port of Houston officials, and State officials. City hosted SH 146 Corridor meeting at City Hall to obtain support from May 11, 2000 cities along SH 146 to keep this highway a priority of TxDOT. In attendance were Commissioner Fonteno and local area city officials. Port of Houston revised permit application for proposed Bayport December 8, 2000 Terminal facility. City hosted SH 146 Major Investment Study Advisory Committee January 10, 2001 meeting at City Hall. Port of Houston hosted a public hearing at Clear Lake Courthouse February 19, 2001 Annex. City requested an extension for participants wishing to comment on the June 27, 2001 permit application submitted by the Port of Houston. City Council attended a retreat to discuss the Bayport Expansion and to September 21, 2001 receive feedback from staff and Councilman Chuck Engelken. Corps of Engineers published Draft Environmental Impact Statement November 12, 2001 DEIS . City representative attended a public education workshop hosted by December 4, 2001 Corps of Engineers at Pasadena Convention Center. City representatives attended a public hearing hosted by Corps of December 12, 2001 Engineers on DEIS at George R. Brown Convention Center. City representative, Councilman Chuck Engelken, from July 1999 to January 21, 2002 present attended 29 out of 34 Community Advisory Group meetings. Staff attended 2 of the meetings Councilman Engelken was unable to attend. Deadline to make written comments to the Corps of Engineers (comment March 13, 2002 period was extended 30 days) • u As of January 22, 2002 0 • Bayport /Army Corps of Engineers Draft E.I.S. Report It is my belief that we should point out the primary concern with this project at this location and that has to do specifically with us being in a "severe" non -attainment situation with regards to the "Clean Air Act". This alone should be reason to reject this project from an environmental standpoint We have to lower our speed limits to 55 MPH, can only operate lawnmowers (commercially) after noon, various heavy equipment operations are going to be very severely impacted from an operational standpoint, and numerous other restrictions simply because our air is already unacceptable from a health /safety consideration. In addition to this we will be postured to or eit future federal highway funds due to our non - attainment status. Even in the event that we do not forfeit highway funds TxDot is on schedul approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) years behind the Port on infrastructure (road) improvements that are going to be dramatically affected by the port expansion. If we remain a "non -attainment" area not only is this end of Harris County going to suffer from major traffi problems but the entire Houston / Galveston region is going to lase funding far major scheduled road projects. We need to make sure that everyone around us is aware of the very negative effect this is going to have on an economic development standpoint for our entire region. This will more than off -set any positive gains from the port expansion. Again, I believe that this should be the central theme for our approach to the Corps and I believe we should copy the EPA Region VI director, our federal elected officials, and our Governor as well as all local / region city councils and county governments for support. In addition to this I believe that the position paper should be attached that addresses all of the other positions /considerations that we have stated. City of La Porte Interoffice Memorandum To: Mayor and City Council Robert T. Herrera, City Ma From: John Joerns, Assistant Ci n ffer Date: January 17, 2002 Subject: Texas Department of Transportation New Frontage Road Rule Attached is a flyer summarizing New Frontage Road Rules that the Commission is preparing. In summary, the Commission is preparing rules authorizing it to limit the construction of new frontage roads and access points on controlled access facilities. The rules are being established because adjacent development and access points along controlled access highways contribute to congestion and early deterioration of the main travel lanes. There will be provisions for exceptions and projects currently being developed will be evaluated on a case by case basis. There is a workshop and public hearing on this matter on Friday, January 18, 2001. I plan to attend to get more information, especially as it relates to State Hwy. 146. Staff will report to Council at the January 21St Workshop Meeting and receive direction from Council if warranted. The deadline for written comment is February 4, 2002. cc: Doug Kneupper, Director of Planning 1 PC-- .� The Texas Departnen of Transportation Background In order to make freeway travel safer and to provide maximum traffic han- dling capacity for as long as practical, the Commission is preparing rules au- thorizing it to limit the construction of new frontage roads and access points on controlled access facilities. Adjacent development and access points along controlled access highways contribute to congestion and early deterioration of the main travel lanes. Therefore, the Commission will no longer assume the construction of frontage roads when contemplating a new freeway. Rules It is the intent of the Commission to not construct new frontage roads on new or existing controlled access facilities unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Exceptions TxDOT is authorized to make exceptions to the policy under certain circum- stances. Frontage roads may be authorized when needed to improve the safety and efficient operations of a state highway corridor, to resolve land- locked conditions on certain remaining parcels, to restore circulation of local traffic from severed streets, or if the cost to purchase the right of access con- trol would exceed the cost of the frontage road. The Commission may also approve additional frontage roads when construction is determined to be in the best interest of the state. Next Step The Commission will conduct a series of public hearings around the state to receive the comments of interested parties. In addition, comments may be filed in writing through Feb. 4, 2002. Mindful of the public comments, the Commission will then consider a final version of the rules and vote on adop- tion as early as Spring 2002. ". a ''-' ` Current Projects Potentially Impacted j F 44 4Y;, Projects currently being developed may be affected by the new rules and will be evaluated individually on a case -by -case basis. 4: ,; �a...4.•.' lira , '•. 0 0 The Texas Department of Transportation November 28, 2001 I am delighted to be here to discuss frontage roads and access issues. Having lived in Houston for all of my life, it is nice to have a "home game" if you will. I can think of no issue or decision during my time on the Commission which has created as much interest and stirred as much debate as has the is- sues of frontage road and access rights policies. What I would like to do is give you a brief history of actions taken thus far, the next steps to be taken, some of the reasoning that got us here and a few personal observations. After all of that, time permitting, I will be more than happy to field questions. Prior to October 1999, new frontage roads and matters related to access rights were guided by existing policies and handled by district offices on a case -by - case basis. Here is a brief overview of key, but not all, events that are rede- fining these practices: In October 1999, the Commission approved a minute order limiting frontage roads along IH-69. After considerable internal discussion, this minute order was proposed and then adopted by the Commission. The minute order caused minimal controversy, but much of it had been blunted by a focused outreach effort with communities along the IH-69 corridor by Commissioner Nichols and others at TxDOT. During the meeting, an open discussion about the flexibility allowed by the minute order also put the Commission's action in x ' `'�" the proper context. As most of IH-69 is in rural areas, from both a mainte- •,.. 4 ;.. , ;,,,,.3w.:,;: "^'�_ nance and construction standpoint, this parkway approach made sense. mr Then in June 7001, the Commission adnvted a tinutP order that sets the stake Page 2 Chairman Johnson Speech to TEX21 for limiting future frontage roads. This action broadened the concept to apply to new location relief routes, a logical next step. A second minute order established direction on addressing new situations that might arise. Why this change in philosophy? Current procedure assumes frontage roads mostly with access rights. Please note --and this is important —the new policy will not eliminate frontage roads; it will not eliminate access rights. My interpretation is that what it does is to require each corridor to be analyzed to see if it can support frontage roads and what effect access rights to the front- age roads might have. Clearly, mobility and congestion have become such challenges that we need to change starting points. Here are some observations that hopefully will help clarify a very complex subject: • Primary focus will be placed on the controlled access rights ;that the state owns, with par- ticular emphasis on the Interstate system and new 4 lane facilities. • Common sense and credibility dictate that where access rights are currently owned by a property owner, those rights remain with the owner and the Commission will honor com- mitments made under the old rules where significant work or expense has occurred. This is important because a great deal of work has been done under existing rules, mostly in good faith. But in future cases, frontage roads would be approved at the outset and the issue of access rights determined then, so expenditures for consulting, engineering, or any other mat- ter would be made after the access rights have been granted. The next step is to attempt to state these policies in minute order form, so that they are clear and understandable. This will not be an easy task, but we are hopeful that they will be ready for consideration at our December 13, 2001 Commission meeting. In early to mid January, we will conduct listening sessions at six locations throughout the state: January 8 - San Antonio January 22-Lubbock January 15.- Dallas (Irving) January 23-McAllen January 18- Houston January 24-El Paso The purpose of these hearings is to get feedback A Commissioner is planning to be present at each. The Commission will then take the input into consideration in the evolution of the final rules to be adopted at a future Commission Meeting. What will the rules look like? My suspi- Chairman Johnson Speech to TEX21 Page 3� cion is that the high points might focus on the following: • In accordance with the minute orders adopted in October 1999 and June 2001, all new interstate highways, new location freeways or relief routes shall be constructed as a controlled access facility with no frontage roads, unless required for circuitry of travel. Access rights for development will not be granted. • The Executive Director must approve all other frontage roads after completion of a traf- fic study that shows the frontage road will have little or no negative impact to the op- erations of the main lanes. • Any requests for exceptions to the above will be brought before the Commission for their consideration. • All release of access control shall continue to be brought to the Commission for ap- proval in accordance with the existing policy. Let me emphasize the following: Point 1 refers only to new facilities. Point 2 allows the Ex- ecutive Director to approve other frontage roads as long as they have minimal impact on the main lanes. Points 3 & 4 place exception and access control authority with the Commission and add significant flexibility. In closing, allow me to give you my interpretation. Earlier, I mentioned a "change in starting points." In essence, instead of assuming frontage roads with access rights, we now start with the premise, no frontage roads, no access rights. From that point, the corridor is studied and if it will support frontage roads without impeding mobility and impacting, in a negative way, safety, frontage roads could be justified. My friend and fellow Commissioner, Robert Nichols, puts our dilemma in these terms: 25% of the Interstate System in the Metro or Urban areas are at 95% capacity. An- other 40% are at 80%. The current forecast is for an approximate 50% increase in traffic in the next 18 years. For starters, it just won't fit! Secondly, if we continue to develop frontage roads, it impacts our most vital corridors, and adds traffic to the main lanes for which we do not have the resources, either sufficient R.O. W. or available funds, to expand. Thank you for your time. I'll be happy to take any questions. 0 . With Backage Road With Frontage Road If— aeouun*W a rra"Wrrahao: Design Division January 2002 BACKGROUND ■ The Texas Transportation Commission approved a policy (October 1999) limiting the construction of frontage roads along 1-69, which extends from the Texas - Mexico border to Texarkana. ■ On June 28, 2001, the Texas Transportation Commission approved two minute orders reflecting the change in the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) policy regarding frontage roads. ■ Minute Order 108544 - sets policy so new controlled access freeways are constructed without frontage roads whenever feasible. ■ Minute Order 108545 - directs TxDOT to work with local governments to determine how best to maintain local traffic circulation when frontage roads are not built. ■ On December 13, 2001, the Texas Transportation Commission gave preliminary approval to the proposed rules to implement the revised frontage road policy. OVERVIEW ■ In the past, frontage roads were built when certain criteria were met.. ■ When planning a new freeway, TxDOT will start with the premise that frontage roads will not be built. TxDOT will then evaluate the corridor to determine whether frontage roads can be supported and what impact frontage roads would have on mobility and safety. ■ Regulating access to a highway is termed "access control." Access control is achieved by limiting access rights to and from properties adjacent to the highway. ■ In Texas, access control of freeways is accomplished through purchase of access rights or the provision of frontage roads. Frontage roads have long been Texas' preferred solution for controlling access along freeways. ■ Access control is important in the development of freeways. A freeway is defined as a main highway with full control of access. Full control of access gives preference to through traffic by providing access connections using ramps with only selected public roads and by prohibiting at -grade or direct private driveway connections. ■ Currently, Texas has over 6,481 miles of frontage roads, many of which were constructed to avoid adverse impacts to adjacent properties where existing roadways were converted to freeways. ■ Continued on other side of page Information OVERVIEW (continued) ■ Backage Roads - a term referring to a local street or road that generally runs parallel to an arterial or highway but is not adjacent to the highway right of way. Direct access for businesses or properties located between the highway and the backage road is provided by the backage road rather than the highway. ■ Research indicates backage roads provide more access to a greater number of businesses and can increase the value of adjacent land while reducing road construction costs for individual properties. PURPOSE OF REVISED FRONTAGE ROAD POLICY ■ To improve mobility on state highway corridors ■ To increase safety of freeway travel ■ To extend the operational life of the existing road ■ To reduce highway construction and maintenance costs PROPOSED RULES ■ The proposed rules will amend the current rules found in the Texas Administrative Code Section 15.54 (d). ■ Frontage Road Provision - For new location freeways and relief routes, TxDOT no longer intends to construct frontage roads unless necessary and justified. However, TxDOT may approve frontage roads under the following circumstances: . To improve the safety and efficient operations of a state highway corridor . To resolve landlocked conditions on certain remaining parcels . To restore circulation of local traffic from severed streets . If the cost to purchase the access rights would exceed the cost of the frontage road . If it is determined to be in the best interest of the state ■ Exceptions - The Texas Transportation Commission recognizes there are times when frontage roads are necessary to allow for proper operation of the state highway system. If a project does not meet any of the above requirements, a request must be made to the commission. CURRENT PROJECTS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED ■ Projects currently being developed may be affected by the new rules and will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis. ■ Evaluation will include a review of prior commitments or development work based on the previous frontage road policy. NEXT STEP In addition to the public hearings, TOOT will accept written comments submitted by Feb. 15, 2002. Comments should be mailed to Ken Bohuslav, Director, Design Division, Texas Department of Transportation, 125 E. 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701.2483. Following evaluation of public comment, the Texas Transportation Commission may consider the final rules as early as spring 2002. corridor, there is a need to resolve a landlock condition on the re- mainder of a parcel of land that has a value that exceeds the cost of the frontage road, or if the cost to purchase the right of access control would exceed the cost of the frontage road. Frontage roads may also be constructed when needed to restore local cir- culation due to roads or streets being severed. The commission may approve additional frontage roads when construction is de- termined to be in the best interest of the state. Where the department owns the right of access control, public or private access will not be allowed to controlled access high- ways, including frontage. roads, from abutting property except in certain circumstances. Access to a specific property will be allowed when a frontage road is constructed to resolve a land - lock condition for that property or because the cost to purchase the access rights to that property was too great Otherwise, the commission may approve a site speck exception to allow ac- cess after considering the safety and operation of the state high- way corridor, prior commitments or development based on the previous frontage road policy, and whether such access is de- termined to be in the best interest of the state. Such site specific exceptions must be appro3ed by the commission prior to the de- partment accepting any funds or consideration for engineering, development, or construction of frontage roads where it is antic- ipated that additional access will be requested. All cost associ- ated with preparing the request shall be at the sole expense of the requestor. James Bass, Director, Finance Division, has determined that for the first five-year period the amendments are in effect, there will be no direct fiscal implications for state or local governments as a result of enforcing or administering the amendments. There are no anticipated economic costs for persons required to comply with the amendments as proposed. Kenneth Bohuslav, Director, Design Division, has certified that there will be no significant impact on local economies or overall employment as a result of enforcing or administering the amend- ments as future development may occur along parallel or per- pendicular.facilities. By not encouraging development fronting the state highway corridor, freeway capacity will be maintained for longer periods of time and system expansion can be accom- plished with fewer impacts to developed property. Mr. Bohuslav has also determined that for each year of the first five years the amendments are in effect, the public benefits an- ticipated as a result of enforcing or administering the amend- ments will be to provide savings to the state by not constructing frontage roads along controlled access facilities and that main - lane capacity will be further preserved by this effort. There will be no adverse effect on small businesses. Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, Government Code, Chapter 2001, the Texas Department of Transportation will conduct six public hearings to receive comments concerning the proposed amendments. Each public hearing will begin at 4:00 p.m. local time and last at least until 6:00 p.m. on the following dates and at the following locations: January 8, 2002: City of San Antonio Council Chambers; Munic- ipal Plaza Building, 103 Main Plaza; San Antonio, Texas 78205. January 15, 2002: Irving Arts Center; 3333 North MacArthur Boulevard; Irving, Texas 75062. January 18, 2002: Houston -Galveston Area Council (HGAC); 3555 Timmons Lane; Houston, Texas 77027. January 22, 2002: Lubbock Chamber of Commerce; 1301 Broadway; Lubbock, Texas 79401. January 23, 2002: McAllen Tourist Center; 1300 South 10th Street; McAllen, Texas 78501. January 24, 2002: Ysleta Independent School District (YISD); Administrative Office; 9600 Sims Drive; El Paso, Texas 79925. These public hearings will be conducted in accordance with the procedures specified in 43 TAC §1.5. Prior to. each hearing, de- partment employees will be available beginning at 2:00 p.m. to conduct an open house where informal discussion can occur to further clarify the proposed amendments. Comments made to department staff during the open house will not be consid- ered part of the public comment maderegarding these proposed amendments. Those desiring to make official comments or pre- sentations may register starting at 2:00 p.m. Any interested per- sons may appear and offer comments, either orally or in writ- ing; however, questioning of those making presentations will be reserved exclusively to the presiding officer as may be neces- sary to ensure a complete record. While any person with perti- nent comments will be granted an opportunity to present them during the course of the hearing, the presiding officer reserves the right to restrict testimony in terms of time and repetitive con- tent. Organizations, associations, or groups are encouraged to present their commonly held views and identical or similar com- ments through a representative member when possible. Com- ments on the proposed text should include appropriate citations to sections, subsections, paragraphs, etc. for proper reference. Any suggestions or requests for alternative language or other revisions to the proposed text should be submitted in written form. Presentations must remain pertinent to the issues being discussed. A person may not assign a portion of his or her time to another speaker. Persons with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and who may need auxiliary aids or services such as interpreters for persons who are deaf or hearing impaired, readers, large print or Braille, are requested to contact Randall Dillard, Director, Public Information Office, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2483, 5121463-8588 at least two working days prior to the hearing so that appropriate services can be provided. Written comments on the proposed amendments may be sub- mitted to Kenneth Bohuslav, Director, Design Division, 125 East 11th Street, Austin, Texas 78701-2483. The deadline for receipt of comments is 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2002. The amendments are proposed for adoption under Transporta- tion Code, §201.101, which provides the Texas Transportation Commission with the authority to establish rules for the conduct of the work of the Texas Department of Transportation. No statutes, articles, or codes are affected by the proposed amendments. §15.54. Construction. (a) Purpose. This section describes the conditions under which state, federal and local financing of construction costs are to be shared. (b) Funding. Construction costs may be funded by the com- mission at the entire expense of the department, with local participa- tion, and/or with federal participation, as described in § 15.55 of this title (relating to Construction Cost Participation), and in accordance with criteria set forth by federal and state law and regulations. The lo- cal government shall also be responsible for the total cost of any work included which is ineligible for federal or state participation as speci- fied in § 15.52 of this title (relating to Agreements). PROPOSED RULES December 28, 2001 26 TexReg 10817 CHAPTER 15. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING , SUBCHAPTER E. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PARTICIPATION 43 TAC §15.54 The Texas Department of Transportation proposes amendments to §15.54, Construction, concerning federal, state, and local par- ticipation in highway improvement projects. Transportation Code, Chapter 203, provides that the Texas Transportation Commission (commission) may layout, construct, maintain, and operate a modem state highway system, with emphasis on the construction of controlled access highways. To promote public safety, facilitate the movement of traffic, preserve the public's financial investment in highways, and promote national defense, the commission may convert where necessary an existing street, road, or highway into a controlled access highway in accordance with modern standards of speed and safety. This chapter also authorizes the commission to designate a state highway as a controlled access highway, deny access to or from a controlled access highway, designate the location, type and extent of access to be permitted to a controlled access highway, and to dose a public or private way at or near its intersection with a controlled access highway. Due to the significant cost associated with the construction and maintenance of controlled access highways, it is imperative that they provide maximum traffic handling capacity for as long as practical. Adjacent development and access points. along con- trolled access highways contribute to congestion and early de- terioration of the operation of the main travel lanes, thereby re- ducing the ability of the state highway system to safely and effi- ciently move higher volumes of traffic. By limiting construction of new frontage roads, it is anticipated that the capacity of the main travel lanes will be preserved by promoting future development along parallel or perpendicular facilities. In addition, limiting the construction of new frontage roads will allow scarce state high- way funding to be used to address other needed highway im- provement projects across the state. The amendments remove the consideration of funding for a frontage road in §15.54(d)(3) through (5) from the decision of whether to build a frontage road. Elimination of these paragraphs will ensure administrative authorization of all new frontage road construction in the state and provide more concise requirements for inclusion of frontage road construction and provisions for added access to new and existing controlled access facilities. The amendments state that it is the intent of the department to not construct frontage roads on new or existing controlled a facilities unless approved by the executive director or designee. Frontage road construction may be approved when needed to improve the safety and efficient operations of the state highway 26 TkzBeg 10816 December 28, 2001 Texas Register (c) Sidewalks. The department will also provide for sidewalk construction, accomplished in accordance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other applicable state and federal laws, on designated state highway system routes: (1) when replacing an existing sidewalk; (2) where highway construction severs an existing side- walk system (the state will make connections within highway right of way to restore sidewalk system continuity); or (3) where pedestrian traffic is causing or is expected to cause a safety conflict. (d) Control of Access [en Freeway Mainlanes]. Designation. All facilities to be developed as freeways or relief routes shall be designated by the commission as controlled access highways pursuant to Transportation Code, Chapter 203. The department may also designate discrete areas of control of access on non -controlled access state highway facilities as necessary to facilitate the flow of traffic and promote the public safety and welfare. Access to controlleftecess highways. (A) Existing access. It is the intent of the department when developing expanded controlled access facilities that if a prop- erty owner has access to the system prior to the expansion, that property owner would have access to a frontage road on the system after devel- opment. Exceptions under this provision would be for unusual safety or circuity situations. New access. Public or private access will not be allowed to controlled access highways or frontage roads except where a frontage road is provided under paragraph (3)(A)(i)(III) or (3)(B)(i)(III) of this subsection or the commission approves a site specific exception. 11 Request for exception. Approval for a site spe- cific exception to allow access rights to a facility must be approved by the commission prior to accepting any funds or consideration for engi- neering, development, or construction of frontage roads for which there is an anticipation of allowing access rights. Any cost of traffic studies of access appraisals required under this section shall be at the sole ex- pense and risk of those making the request. H Approval. The commission may approve an ex- ception after considering: 11l impacts on the safety and operation of the state highway corridor as iustified by an engineering study approved by the department; II significant prior commitments or develop- ment work based on the previous frontage road policy, and !II whether access is judged to be in the best interest of the state. LQ Disposal of access rights. When the commission approves a release of access control to property adjoining the facility, the sale or disposal of access rights shall be accomplished in accordance with §§21.101-21.104 of this title (relating to Disposal of Real Estate Interests). Frontage mad provision. (A) New location freeways and relief mutes. For new location freeways and relief routes, it is the intent of the department not to construct frontage roads. j Ut The department may approve frontage mad con- struction when the executive director or designee determines that: ✓111 short sections of frontage mad are needed to improve the safety and operations of the main travel lanes; 11 the geometric design of an interchange re- quires the provision of a short section of frontage road for operational purposes; J there is no other feasible means to resolve a landlock condition on the remainder of a parcel of land that has a value that exceeds the cost pf the frontage road; li there is no other feasible means to restore circulation of local traffic due to state or local roads or streets being severed; or frontage roads would be beneficial to the safety and operat of the state highway corridor or the local road s- tem as iustified by an engineering study approved by the department �i The commission may approve frontage road construction when they determine that such construction is in the best interest of the state. (B) Existing facilities designated as controlled access. For existing freeways and other facilities designated as controlled ac- cess, it is the intent of the department not to construct new or additional frontage roads. Ai The department may approve frontage mad con- struction when the executive director or designee determines that: \I short sections of frontage mad are needed to improve the safety and operations of the main travel lanes; II the geometric design of an interchange re- quires the provision of a short section of frontage mad for operational purposes; II the anticipated cost to purchase the right of access control would exceed the cost of the frontage road; An there is no other feasible means to restore circulation of local traffic due to state or local roads or streets being severed; or frontage roads would be beneficial to the safety and operation of the state highway corridor or the local mad sys- tem as justified by an engineering study approved by the department. Jri The commission may approve frontage road construction when they determine that such construction is in the best interest of the state. (44) Backage roads. U For purposes of this paragraph, "backage road" Means a local street or road that is generally parallel to an arterial highway but that does not abut the highway right of way. Direct access for businesses or properties located between the highway and the backaae mad is provided to the backage road rather than the highway, Backage roads also provide access to properties located on the opposite side of the backage mad from the highway. (B) In those instances where backaee roads are neces- ranarocrc common on a remammg parcel of land, backage roads may be included in the freeway construction proiect on a standard participa- tion basis as established in Appendix A of § 15.55(c) of this subchapter. Commission approval shall be obtained prior to the department enter- ing into any agreements to provide backage roads in coniunction with 26 TexReg 10818 December 28, 2001 Texas Register as 6e • [(0 Fef €aeilities with fall eentiel o€aseess; sueh as inter- state highways of freeways developed by eemnrissien designatien pur- suant to Ranspertatien Eede; Chapter 203; aeeess to the main travel lanes is €ally eenfrelled through desigraien, purehase e€assess rigkts; er provision of frontage reads:} M The depamnentwillinelude€mntagefeeds inthe plan- ning stage e€highways with lull assess Central when4i {(A) it is nesessary to unlandleGk the remainder of a parcel e€ land whieh has a value equal to er nearly equal to the east of the frontage read;} {(B) the appraised damages; resulting €ram the absenee of frontage reads at the time of planning; would eEseed the east of the ffentage feeds; ef} JR it is neoessary to restere sireulatien of leeal tmffto due to heal reads or streets being severed er seriously impaired by the construction o€the eentfelled assess high%W, and an eeenemie analy- sis shows the benefits derived mere than offset the eests e€eenstraeting and maintaining the €Tentage reads:) M In these i4danees where requests for additional frontage reads arc received during er subsequent to the planning stage of OW the freeway has been senstmeted; they may be eensidered and placed in order of the priority of highway needs.] JW A% right of way and utility adjustment casts are shared with a leeal gevemment on a standard peftieipetien basis appli- eable to the highway designation; the department may assume 1000% respensibility few additional €tentage teed eenstruetien as €ellows� IN en 'elatively shell sestiens of €Tentage reads where through lane traffra is experiencing high aseident fates due to heal access and where sush eenstmetien son be expected to substantially improve safety; er] {tie} in heavily traveled urban een<idets where gaps ecsur in the existing frontage Lead systems; and elesing these frontage read gaps will testere system eentinuity and provide a oust-efleeti•:e method of enhaneing trade eperatiens in the sen=iden) [(l3-} The depattrnent may assist a requesting leeal gev- emment in the eenstruetien of additional frontage roads as fellows-] {fed where a usable section o€€matage Lead that will be e€ benefit to the traveling publie is to be developed (usable seetien being defined as an addition er extension €ram a swas feed seperatien to eeess read separation or eenneeting to a publie readway of mejer trefe generator);} {f o where suehftentsgeteadeenstruetienisjudged to not adversely impaet existing huffie eperations er safety;] {f 0 where the depaFtment is responsible fff design and senstruetien of the added ffrentage reads; and] f0y) exeept as provided in subpena"h (E) of this paragraph and as adjusted under §1333 of this title (relating to Cen- stfustien Cast when the requesting Weal geverrunent €HThshes 100%e€ needed fight efwayandutility adjustmentBestsmid -50% e€ the east of eenstfuetien; ineluding pfelirainmy and eenstme- tien engineering:} [R The department may appreve additional entsge read .eenstruetien; whieh is 100% funded by the requesting leeal gev- ermnert as fellows:] {fed if the frontage read sexstfuetien primarily pre- vides new er inVreved neeess to abutting prepetcy and deer net neees- sarily provide a usable sestien as defined in subpara" (B)(i) of this paragraph (a type of addition that would provide limited benefits to the geneFa uwmling ); and] {feel exeept as pfevided in subparagraph (E) of this pamgmph; where the deperttnent is responsible &f designing and een- strueting the tentage read and the requesting toed govetnrnent is fe- spensible for 100% e€the eensttuetien,, tight of way; and utilityadjust- ment eests including prelirainary and construction engineering.4 {(D3) k4here right of way casts are 100% the respensi- bility e€the requesting leeal gevemment; releeatien assistanee benefits will also be 100"k the respensibility of the leeal government and must be aesemplished in eempliance with depatartent policies and preee- duras.] f(E) The depeIrnent may waive any one of mere of the lest eenditiens stated in subpanqMhs (B)(iY) and (6)(ii) of this para- graph,- provided that the waiver is first approved by writtet; order of the eemmissien. In appreving a waiver; the commission will base its deei- sien en eensidefstien e€the pepulatien level; banded indebtedness; tax base; and tax rate of the leeal gwm urnent involved; er ether eenditions the een nissien deems peftinent.1 M For additional frontage reads requested subsequent to the planning stage or after, the fieeway has been eenstfaeted; eet&el of access as originally eeneeived far the facility may be medified to allow eeeess to the proposed €tentage read enly to the extent as may be permitted by safety eensideratiens and in keeping with departnent pelieies and pfeeedures. The sale of dispesel of aeeess fights shall be aeeemplishedinaseerdancewith§§".101 2-104o€thistitle(relating to Dispesal of heal Estate Interests)} M Aeoess driveway €aoilities "be faf securing assess to abutting prapefty: Casts and provisien theme shall be in asoerdanee with the eriteria and responsibilities established in e c 11gin of this title (relating to Aeeess Driveways to State Highways).] (e) Drainage Construction Costs. (1) In general, it shall be the duty and responsibility of the department to construct, at its expense, a drainage system within state highway right of way, including outfalls, to accommodate the storm water which originates within and reaches state highway right of way from naturally contributing drainage areas. (2) Where a drainage channel, man-made, natural, or a combination of both, is in existence prior to the acquisition of highway right of way, including right of way for widening the highway, it shall be the duty and responsibility of the state to provide for the construc- tion of the necessary structures and/or channels to adjust or relocate the existing drainage channel in such a manner that the operation of the drainage channel will not be injured. The construction expense required shall be considered a construction item. The acquisition of any land required to accomplish this work shall be considered a right of way item, with cost participation to be in accordance with § 15.55 of this title (relating to Construction Cost Participation). (3) Where an existing highway crosses an existing drainage channel, and a political unit or subdivision with statutory responsibil- ity for drainage develops a drainage channel to improve its operation, both upstream and downstream from the highway, and after the state establishes that the drainage plan is logical and beneficial to the state highway system, and there is no storm water being diverted to the high- way location from an area which, prior to the drainage plan, did not contribute to the channel upstream of the highway, and after construc- tion on the drainage channel has begun or there is sufficient evidence to insure that the drainage plan will be implemented, the department, PROPOSED RULES December 28, 2001 26 TexReg 10819 • 0 at its expense, shall adjust the structure and/or channels within the ex- isting highway right of way as necessary to accommodate the approved drainage plan. (4) Where a state highway is in existence, and there is a desire of others to cross the existing highway at a place where there is not an existing crossing for drainage, then those desiring to cross the highway must provide for the entire cost of the construction and maintenance of the facility which will serve their purpose -while at the same time adequately serving the highway traffic. The design, con- struction, operation, and maintenance procedures for the facility within state highway right of way must be acceptable to the department. (5) In the event the local government involved expresses a desire to join the department in the drainage system in order to divert drainage into the system, the local government shall pay for the entire cost of collecting and carrying the diverted water to the state's system and shall contribute its proportional:share of the cost of the system and outfall based on the cubic feet per second of additional water diverted to it when compared to the total cubic feet per second of water to be carried by the system. The local government requesting the drainage diversion shall indemnify the state against or otherwise acknowledge its responsibility for damages or claims for damages resulting from such diversion. (f) Highway adjustments for reservoir construction. (1) Where existing highways and roads provide a satisfac- tory traffic facility in the opinion of the department and no immediate rehabilitation or reconstruction is contemplated, it shall be the respon- sibility of the reservoir agency, at its expense, to replace the existing road facility disturbed by reservoir construction in accordance with the current design standards of the department, based upon the road clas- sification and traffic needs. (2) Where no highway or road facility is in existence but where a route has been designated for construction across a proposed reservoir area, the department will bear the cost of constructing a sat- isfactory facility across the proposed reservoir, on a line and grade for normal conditions of topography and stream flow, and any additional expense as may be necessary to construct the highway or road facil- ity to line and grade to comply with the requirements of the proposed reservoir shall be borne by the reservoir agency. (3) In soil conservation and flood control projects involv- ing the construction of flood retarding structures where a highway or road operated by the department will be inundated at less than calcu- lated 50-year frequencies by the construction of a floodwater retarding structure, it will be expected that the soil conservation service or one of its cooperating agencies will provide funds as necessary to raise or relocate the road above the water surface elevation which might be ex- pected at 50-year intervals. In those cases where a highway or road operated by the department will not be inundated by floods of less than 50-year calculated frequency, it will be the purpose of the department to underwrite this hazard for the general welfare of the state and continue to operate the road at its existing elevation until such time as interrup- tion and inconvenience to highway travel may necessitate raising the grade. (g) Irrigation crossings. (1) Where an irrigation facility is in existence prior to the acquisition of highway right of way, including right of way for widen- ing, and the highway project will interfere with such a facility, the fol- lowing provisions shall govern. (A) If, at the place of interference, the irrigation facility consists primarily of an irrigation canal which crosses the entire width of the proposed right of way, this shall be considered a crossing and it shall be the duty and responsibility of the department to construct and maintain an adequate structure and to make the necessary adjust- ments or relocations of minor laterals and pumps, etc., associated with the crossing, in such a manner that the operation of the irrigation fa- cility will not be injured. The construction work at a crossing will be considered a construction item with the expense to be bome by the de- partment. The acquisition of any land required to accomplish the ad- justments and/or relocation shall be a right of way consideration. (B) Any irrigation facility encountered which does not cross the right of way and consists primarily of a'longitudinal canal and/or associated irrigation appurtenances such as pumps, gates, etc., which must be removed and relocated shall be considered a right of way item. (C) In those cases where both crossing and longitudinal adjustments or relocation of irrigation facilities are encountered, each segment shall be classified in accordance with subparagraph (A) and (B) of this paragraph. (2) Where a highway is in existence, and there is a desire of others to cross the existing highway with an irrigation facility at a high- way point where there is not an existing crossing facility, then those desiring to cross the highway must provide for the entire cost of the construction and maintenance of the irrigation facility which will serve their purpose while at the same time adequately serve the highway traf- fic. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance procedures for the facility within highway right of way must be acceptable to the department. (h) Continuous and safety lighting systems and traffic signals. For the installation, maintenance, and operation of continuous and safety lighting systems and traffic signals, the local government shall be responsible for providing matching funds as shown in Appendix A of § 15.55 of this title (relating to Construction Cost Participation), except as adjusted under that section. Such installation, maintenance, and operation shall be accomplished in accordance with §25.5 of this title (relating to Installation, Operation, and Maintenance of Traffic Signals) and §25.11 of this title (relating to Continuous and Safety Lighting Systems). This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's legal author- ity to adopt. Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State, on December 14, 2001. TRD-200107886 Richard D. Monroe General Counsel Texas Department of Transportation Earliest possible date of adoption: January 27, 2002 For further information, please call: (512) 463-8630 26 TexReg 10820 December 28, 2001 Texas Register 0 i REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Agenda Date Requested: Januai 28 2002 Requested By: Doug Kneuove 4 Department: Planning Report: X Resolution: Ordinance: Exhibits: 1. Executive Summary from GIS Implementation Plan Appropriation Source of Funds: N/A Account Number: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Amount Requested: Budgeted Item: AYES __v0 RECEIVE REPORT FROM GTG ON CITY' S GIS IMPLEMENTATION PLAN In June of 2001, City Staff sent Requests for Qualifications to several firms specializing in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Implementation. Statements of Qualifications were received from four of the firms solicited. After extensive review of each firm's qualifications, Geographic Technologies Group, Inc. (GTG) was selected to conduct the City's GIS implementation plan. In September, Council authorized the City Manager to execute a contract with GTG, Inc. to conduct needs assessment interviews and to prepare an implementation plan for the City. GTG interviewed all City departments in October to determine each department's specific GIS needs and delivered the final implementation plan to the City in December for Executive Staff review (see Exhibit No. 1, attached). At this time, Staff wishes to introduce representatives from GTG, Inc. to City Council and give the opportunity for additional questions and comments from Council regarding GIS Implementation. Approved for City Council Agenda Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date • 0 Exhibit No. 1 Executive Summary from GIS Implementation Plan Geographic Technologies Group, Inc. (GTG) was retained by the City of La Porte to perform a City-wide Geographic Information System (GIS) Implementation Plan. A summary of the key recommendations and conclusions made by GTG for La Porte is provided. GTG is recommending a three year phased implementation of GIS. After extensive on -site interviews, meetings, and telephone conversations, the following results were determined: Conclusions: • The City of La Porte is not currently utilizing GIS tools. ` • The City of La Porte continues to have steady growth and expansion. This continued growth and development has left La Porte needing more sophisticated tools to manage its resources. • Some of the critical elements needed for a successful GIS are: o Hiring a GIS Coordinator o Converting existing CAD based data to GIS data o Cleaning up HTE land based files and GIS enabling HTE data o Creation of data layers for all departments o Creating easy -to -use tools to access GIS • Current mapping efforts have focused on map products in a non-GIS environment • The City of La Porte has invested in software and associated databases. Utilizing GIS as a window into these databases will improve La Porte operations. • A survey of all networking, hardware and software resources throughout City departments indicates that computer resources and network infrastructure are good. Some personal computers will need to be upgraded to accommodate GIS. Recommendations: The following is a list of key implementation issues and recommendations: • Creating and converting needed data layers is critical and will be a focus in the first year of this initiative (Water, Sewer, Street Centerlines, Signs, etc.) • Implementing a common easy to use data browser will enable all necessary staff to utilize GIS to answer daily questions • Integration with existing databases is key for many current and future applications • Internet and Intranet applications are key for a cost effective implementation ©Geographic Technologies Group, Inc. i • The City should conduct quarterly GIS steering committee meetings (Managers) • The City should conduct quarterly GIS user group meetings (Front-line staff) • A City of La Porte GIS newsletter (hardcopy and/or Intranet) should be distributed as a means of sharing successes and educating the organization about the uses of GIS • Sharing data with the public through Internet based GIS applications and public access terminals is needed • Most departments will need to identify a staff person to be the GIS liaison for their department A successful GIS is measured not by the amount of money spent, the volume of data, or the GIS software utilized but by the applications made available and the usage of these applications by staff and the public. Key applications have been identified and prioritized and are as follows: • Data Browser - most commonly used GIS functionality made available to entire organization • Emergency Dispatch/911 — Computerized maps of calls as they are received • Intranet Web Data Browser — Internal web based GIS browser • Touch Screen Public Access — Extremely easy to use touch screen GIS application for use by the public • Internet GIS — Public access of GIS data via the Internet • Police Incident Analysis — Allows mapping of all incidents for crime analysis, arson investigations, balancing districts, and optimal facility location. • Citizen Concern/Inquiry Tracking — Allows staff to log citizen concern/inquiry calls from the public. Staff can view trends, clusters of calls, and can track the resolution of any call. • Field Book Creation — Field map books for Police and various emergency crews and Utility staff ©Geographic Technologies Group, Inc. ii wm Implementation Costs h recommended - follows: The re o ed three-year GIS implementation costs are as o MB M Year One - Database Development and Initial Enterprise -Wide Deployment x� The first year will be comprised of data base accessibility, data development, training, hardware, software installation, and some application development. The overriding need in this first year is to develop, convert, and acquire the needed data layers. This is not the most glamorous part of the project, but is critical to success. The acquisition and creation of vital digital data will enable La Porte to show success quickly. At the end of year one La Porte will have accomplished the following goals: • Acquired hardware and software to support City-wide GIS usage • Converted existing CAD based data to GIS • Created approximately 50 new GIS layers to serve all La Porte departments • Provided training to key staff throughout the City • Implemented a City-wide GIS data browser • Implemented a work order mapping extension to the data browser • Implemented a 911 dispatch mapping application • Implemented crime mapping application • Will have gone from GIS for a few staff to GIS for all departments Year One Resources: $196,320 Year Two - Application Development Phase Year two's main focus is the further development of applications that will enable staff to work more effectively. Applications for all departments will be deployed. At the end of year two La Porte will have accomplished the following goals: • Created an Intranet application for access by all City staff • Provided access to GIS data via the internet • Expanded the use of the GIS based data browser • Continued the creation of data layers and data bases • Implemented a citizen concern/inquiry tracking system • Continued training La Porte staff on GIS usage • Implemented field collection units for Engineering and Public Works Year Two Resources: $126,100 ©Geographic Technologies Group, tne. iii OF Year Three - Data Access and Sharing Phase The third year of the project will revolve around sharing data throughout the organization and with the public. At this point in the project, departments should be utilizing the GIS for sophisticated analysis. It should have become niidther resource that employees rely on, much .like a word processor or spreadsheet program. At the end of year three, the City of La Porte will have accomplished the following goals: • Implemented touch screen GIS for public usage • Implemented a GIS based fire mapping and analysis applicadon • Implemented touch screen access to GIS data for the public • Implemented a field book creation application for Police and Fire • Implemented a GIS based pavement management application Year Three Resources: $79,000 @Geographic Technologies Group, Inc. ry 0 • •CITY OF LAPO RTE • MAYOR'S OFFICE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM January 23, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Norman L. Ma Mayor f y� SUBJECT: Bayport Opposition I recommend a committee be formed to prepare an opposition letter and report on the Port of Houston Expansion. I would like to appoint the following individuals to serve on the committee: Chuck Engelken, Chairman Guy Sutherland Howard Ebow Peter Griffiths The purpose of the committee is to study, draft, and enhance an opposition letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Bayport Project. Findings and recommendations will be presented at a future Council Meeting. Let me know if you need any additional information. NLM/mg 9 0 0 CONSENT AGENDA • 0 0 0 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Agenda Date Requested: January 28, 2001 Requested By: J. L. Sease Department: Emergency Services Report: X Resolution: Ordinance: Exhibits: Ouotation from Standard Automation Exhibits: Letter from Whelen on Single Source Exhibits: Appropriation Source of Funds: Capital Improvement Account Number: 015-9892-799-1100 Amount Budgeted: 39,500.00 Amount Requested: 26,670.00 Budgeted Item: X YES NO SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION The original Whelen Siren system, of nine sites, was installed in May of 1987 and several years later when BayMud was annexed two additional sites were added to the system on the southern area of the city. These sites all have Directional Speaker systems that required a motor to rotate the Speakers. These systems are a continual maintenance problem. Two years ago the LEPC added an additional site at PPG Industries to cover the growth in the area of Hwy 146 and Fairmont Parkway. That site was the first to have an Omni -Directional Speaker system. Last year the LEPC purchased a new Siren, which was placed at North H Street just east of Lomax School Road. The City ordered its first upgrade August 27, 2001 and this unit is scheduled for installation in February. This unit was delayed due to the War on Terrorism. We have a quote from Standard Automation, who is the Whelen representative in the Southeast Texas area, to do a total upgrade to one of the sites for $26,670.00. The site chosen is the location at North L Street just west of Valley View. Action Required by Council: Approve the purchase of the Omni -Directional Siren upgrade in the amount of $26,670.00 Approved for City Council Agenda Robert T. Herrera, City Manager Date City of LaPorte -LaPorte, TX Whelen Siren System 0 Date: 1 /17/2002 To: Joe Sease Company: City of LaPorte LaPorte, TX From: Marty Yudell Subject: Whelen Siren System Quote: 01172002-city of laporte QtV Description Unit Price Total 1 Whelen WPS-2800-9 Omni -Directional $ 20,400.00 $ 20,400.00 1 STP666A, Silent Test Status $ 320.00 $ 320.00 1 INTRUIII, Intrusion Alarm $ 160.00 $ 160.00 1 LBALARM, Low Battery Alarm $ 90.00 $ 90.00 1 Remove old WPS-3000 Siren Head $ 3,900.00 and Controls and replace with new WPS-2800-9 Siren Head and Controls Material $ 24,870.00 Final Hookup & Supervision $ 1,800.00 Total System $ 26,670.00 2450 South Shore Blvd., Suite 210 i League City, TX � 281.334.3293 Fax: 281.334.4324 City of LaPorte -LaPorte, TX Whelen Siren System 0 City of LaPorte -LaPorte, TX Page 2 Scope of Work: 1) Standard Automation will remove old siren and controls and install new WPS-2800-9 and Controls 2) The City of LaPorte will be responsible for the storage of the old WPS-3000 Siren and Controls. 3) We will use the existing Motorola/Byte[ radio for the new Siren. Terms: 1. Pricing is firm for 30 days 2. Equipment, Software and Services are billed Net 30 3. Pricing does not include taxes or shipping cost 4. Returned Items will be subject to a 25% restocking charge. Special Order Items are nonreturnable. No Items are returnable after 30 days. If you have any questions or you require further information, please call me. Thank You, Marty Yudell Standard Automation & Controls Siren Division Ju 1 -09-01 13 : 12 LaPort� F i re Dept 281408523 P _ 02 Jun 29 01 03:30p E- Inc.WhelenEng.Co. 870 5-0205 p.l Mr. Joe Sease Director of Emergency Services City of LaPorte Fire Department P.O. Box 1115 LaPorte. TX 77572-1 115 Dear Mr. Sease: Mr. Sease, this is to inform you that Standard Automation Inc. is the only full service distributor in the Houston area. Mr_ Marty Yudell has been involved with Whelen's products for several years and is certified to maintenance and sell W'helen's products. Mr. Yudell has many satisfied customers that have purchased Whelen's products fi-om him in the past. We have never had a complaint regarding Standard Automation Inc. or Marty Yudell. Should you have any questions feel free to contact me at 800-316-7497 anytime. Best regards, Max A. Wright Regicmal Manager Southwest United States Whelen Engineering Co., Inc. 0 0 0 0 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM Agenda Date Requested: January 28, 2002 Requested By: Alex Osmond Department: Administration Report: XX Resolution: Ordinance: Exhibits: Sealed Bid #0843 Exhibits: Bid Tabulation Exhibits: Bidders List Exhibits: Letters of Non -Recommendation Appropriation Source of Funds: Motor Pool / Capital Funds Account Number: Various Amount Budgeted: $128,516.00 Amount Requested: $112,845.08 Budgeted Item: YES NO SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION Sealed bids #0843 for Golf Course and Parks Equipment were opened and read on January 7, 2002. Bid requests were mailed to six (6) vendors with five (5) returning bids and one (1) no bid. Brookside Equipment was low bidder meeting all specifications on: Item Description No. of Price Amount Budgeted Account Number Units I Utility Tractor w/Front Loader, 68 hp 1 $22,100.00 $20,256.00 009-8080-552-8050 (Parks) 2 Fairway Reel Mower, 5 Gang Hydraulic 2 $47,500.00 $58,834.00 009-6049-551-8050 (Golf) Total $69,600.00 $79,090.00 Professional Turf Products was low bidder meeting all specifications on: Item Description No. of Price Amount Budgeted Account Number Units 4 Off- Road Utility Vehicle (Golf) 1 $12,958.58 $15,299.00 009-6049-551-8050 5 Battery Powered Off -Road Utility Vehicle 1 $5,176.50 $5,500.00 028-6049-551-8021 Total $18,135.08 $20,799.00 AMC Industries was low bidder meeting all specifications on: Item Description No. of Units Price Amount Budgeted Account Number 3 Riding Greensmower' (Golf) 1 $16,857.00 $17,723.00 009-6049-551-8050 6 Greens Aerator (Golf) 1 $8,253.00 $10,904.00 009-6049-551-8050 Total $25,110.00 $28,627.00 ruuusuics aisu uw a rnausuuic U-rrcn tuuuig g,cwsu,uwc,) uicculig au 5PW11icatiu115. ine Price of mis unit is a14,L/J.VU. flue t0 past nlstorles from other superintendents problems with Ransome reel mowing equipment, they do not recommend the purchase of this product. (See attached letters of non -recommendation.) Overall Total: Golf Course - $90,745.08; Parks - $22,100.00 Total Budgeted: $108,260.00; $20,256.00 Staff recommends awarding bids for Golf Course and Parks Equipment to Brookside Equipment, Professional Turf Products, and AMC Industries as low bidders meeting specifications as outlined above. Action Required by Council: Award bids as recommended by Staff. Approved for City Council Agenda Ro ert T. Herrera, City Manager Date 0 • CITY OF LA PORTE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Stephen Ban-, Director of Parks & Recreation Bert Clark, Parks Superintendent Dennis Hlavaty, Golf Course Superintendent From: Susan Kelley, Purchasing ManagerAzl. Subj: Sealed Bid #0843 — Golf Course & Parks Equipment Advertised, sealed bids #0843 — Golf Course & Parks Equipment were opened and read on January 7, 2002. Bid requests were mailed to six (6) vendors with five (5) bids returned, and one (1) no -bid. Copies of the bids are attached for your review. Please note all low bids do not meet all specifications. Submit your recommendation with an agenda request form by the prescribed time before the next regular council meeting. Please remember to send a copy of the Agenda Request to Purchasing. If there is a need to delay bringing this bid before council, or you have any questions, please notify me. Attachment: Bid Tabulation Bidder's List Bid Copies BID TABULATION - GOLF COURSE EQUIPMENT BID #0843 DESCRIPTION QTY AMC PROFESSIONAL TURF AMC INDUSTRIES BROOKSIDE LANSDOWNE- D & B INDUSTRIES PRODUCTS (ALTERNATE) EQUIPMENT MOODY EQUIPMENT 1) Utility Tractor w/Front Loader, 68 hp 1 $22,100.00 $22,426.00 Total Item #1 No Bid No Bid No Bid $22,100.00 $22,426.00 No Bid 2) Fairway Reel Mower, 5 Gang, Hydraulic 2 $29,761.00 $30,690.00 $31,968.00 $28,250.00 Less Optional Trade-in Allowance ($3,000.00) ($3,500.00) ($3,000.00) ($4,500.00) Total Item #2 2 $53,522.00 $54,380.00 $57,936.00 $47,500.00 No Bid No Bid 3) Riding Greens Mower 1 $16,275.00 $21,181.98 $18,857.00 $18,900.00 Less Optional Trade-in Allowance ($2,000.00) ($3,000.00) ($2,000.00) ($1,000.00) Total Item #3 $14,275.00 $18,181.98 $16,857.00 $17,900.00 No Bid No Bid 4) Off -Road Utility Vehicle 1 $18,460.00 $14,958.58 $18,460.00 $15,650.00 Less Optional Trade-in Allowance ($2,200.00) ($2,000.00) ($2,200.00) ($750.00) Item #4 Total $16,260.00 $12,958.58 $16,260.00 $14,900.00 No Bid No Bid 5) Battery Powered Off -Road Utility Vehicle 1 $5,176.50 $6,995.00 Item #5 Total 1 No Bid $5,176.50 No Bid $6,995.00 No Bid No Bid 6) Greens Aerator $9,253.00 $10,522.95 $9,253.00 Less Optional Trade-in Allowance ($1,000.00) ($1,250.00) ($1,000.00) Item #6 Total $8,253.00 $9,272.95 $8,253.00 No Bid No Bid No Bid J 0 • BIDDER'S LIST GOLF COURSE & PARKS EQUIPMENT SEALED BID #0843 AMC INDUSTRIES 11959 FM 529 HOUSTON, TX 77041 BROOKSIDE EQUIPMENT SALES INC 19003 1-45 NORTH SPRING, TX 77388 LANSDOWNE-MOODY COMPANY 8445 1-10 EAST HOUSTON, TX 77029 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 PROFESSIONAL TURF PRODUCTS 11513 PETROPARK DR. HOUSTON, TX 77041 BAYSHORE PUBLISH DATES: DECEMBER 23, 2001 DECEMBER 30, 2001 JAN 11 '02 05.47PM BRAEBURN COUNTRY • Dear Mr. Dennis Hlavaty Golf Course Superintendent Bay Forrest Golf Club CLUB BRQ.+G'J uwt �9drI January 11, 2002 P.212 As per our conversation about my opinion on our Ransomes GP160D triplex versus Jacobsen Greens King IV. The Jacobsen triplexes seems to be far superior to Ransomes in the quality of cut, the workmanship, and the amount of down time due to repairs. The Ransomes seems to have a lot of electrical problems and parts are sometimes hard to get. In my opinion any intial cost difference between Ransomes and Jacobsen would certainly be made up in repair cost savings. Sine ly,01. crry GiII Golf Course Superintendent Brae Burn Country Club BpaerBww @Wm&# Oub. 9101 Bisso+nnet Houston, Texas 77074 715/774-25M Fax. 713n79-5102 0 City Of O DEER PARK 710 E. San Augustine • P.O. Box 700 • Deer Park, Texas 77536 11 January 2002 Mr. Dennis HIavaty Golf Course Superintendent Bay Forest GC P.O. Box 1115 LaPorte, TX 77571 Dear Dennis, Robert K. Napier GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT THE BATTLEGROUND GOLFCLUB (281) 478-2076 • Fax (281) 478-2077 As a follow up on our conversation this morning concerning my past experience with Ransome golf equipment, I would like to provide you the following facts concerning my past experience with this particular brand of equipment. The first two fairway units purchased for The Battleground were Ransome 300D Fairway mowers. These two units came in as low bid and were purchased as per policy. Unfortunately we begin experiencing problems almost from the first day. The problems we had were two fold, these being quality of cut and parts availability. During the time we had these units, I had everyone from the local distributer to the District Manager and head mechanic for Ransome out working on the quality of cut. No one was ever able to solve the mystery as to why these units would not cut as expected. The second problem was parts availability. The amount of down time on these units was excessive waiting on parts. At one time one of these mowers was in our shop for over 120 days waiting on a oil cooler. Due to our inability to keep both these mowers in operation and keep our fairways mowed as needed, both mowers were traded in and replaced with much less operating time then expected. From my past experience with this manufacture, I hope never to have to purchase Ransome again. Sincerely, RO#Aen. Robert Napier Golf Course Superintendent Q. ity " Jirjt 5, (-0ver9 Ji.