The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-05-16 Special Called Regular Meeting of La Porte City Council A MINUTr..~ OF SPECIAL CALLED REGULAR lVhJETING OF THE LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL May 16,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Alton Porter at 6:01 p.m. Members of City Council Present: Mayor Alton Porter, Councilmembers Tommy Moser, Mike Clausen, Peter Griffiths, Mike Mosteit, and Howard Ebow, Barry Beasley Members of Council Absent: Chuck Engelken, Louis Rigby Members of City Executive Staff and City Emplovees Present: Assistant City Manager John Joerns, Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins, Police Chief Richard Reff, City Secretary Martha Gillett, Public Works Director Steve Gillett, Records Technician Susan Felty. Others Present: None 2. Mayor Porter delivered the invocation. 3. Mayor Porter led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. PRESENT A TIONS / PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Porter presented a proclamation designating Peace Officer's Memorial Day. 5. Council to Consider approving Minutes of the Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting held on May 9, 2005. Motion was made bv Councilmember Mike Clausen to approve the Minutes as presented. Second by Councilmember Mike Mosteit. The motion carried. Ayes: Beasley, Griffiths, Moser, Mosteit, Clausen, Porter and Ebow Nays: None Abstain: None 6. Council to consider approval or other action regarding an ordinance declaring the results of the City of La Porte Election held on May 7, 2005 Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins presented summary and recommendation and answered Council's questions. Assistant City Attorney read: ORDINANCE 2005-2826 - AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF LA PORTE ON MAY 7, 2005, FOR THE ELECTION OF COUNCILPERSON AT LARGE, POSITION B, COUNCILPERSON DISTRICT 1, AND COUNCIL PERSON DISTRICT 6; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF. Motion was made by Councilmember Howard Ebow to approve Ordinance 2005-2826 as presented bv. Second by Councilmember Peter Griffiths. The motion carried. Ayes: Beasley, Griffiths, Moser, Mosteit, Clausen, Porter and Ebow Nays: None Abstain: None City Council Special Called Regular Mtding - May 16,2005 Page 2 7. Mayor Porter and City Secretary Martha Gillett administered Oaths of Office to the reappointed At-Large B, Councilmember District 1 and Councilmember District 6 as presented. 8. PETITIONS, REMONSTRANCES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND CITIZENS AND TAX P AYERS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON ANY ITEM POSTED ON THE AGENDA There were no citizens or taxpayers wishing to address Council. 9 Council to consider approving Ordinance appointing positions to fill the remaining vacancies on Boards and Commissions. Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins presented summary and recommendation and answered Council's questions. No action taken 10. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mayor Porter reminded Council of the Memorial Day Holiday May 30, 2005 Mayor Porter informed Council of the Police Officer Memorial Program May 19,2005 11. COUNCIL COMMENTS Moser, Beasley, Griffiths, Ebow, Mosteit, Clausen and Mayor Porter had comments. 12. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PURSUANT TO PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW, CHAPTER 551.071 THROUGH 551.076, 551-087, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY, DELIBERATION REGARDING PROSPECTIVE GIFT OR DONATION, PERSONNEL MATTERS, DELIBERATION REGARDING SECURITY DEVICES, OR EXCLUDING A WITNESS DURING EXAMINATION OF ANOTHER WITNESS IN AN INVESTIGATION, DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS) There was no executive session items 13. CONSIDERATIONS AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ITEMS CONSIDERED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 14. There being no further business to come before Council, the Regular Meeting was duly adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ':J1l~~~ Passed and approved on this 23rd day of May 2005 ~L~~ Mayor Alton E.Porter .- .- - (V\\\{.~ \f\las~+.- Harris County / City of La Porte Agenda May 6, 2005 1) Discuss Drainage Maintenance - Harris County Flood Control District o Citizen Inquiries o Routine Maintenance 0: ..5*-1'+ C.G1U!J./L/tL-Y 2) Discuss Port of Houston Authority - Bayport Turning Basin Project o SH 146 Improvements - Long Range o Potential for Interim Improvements on SH 146 @ Port Road --=='" 3) Brief Commissioner on Proposed Harris County Flood Control purchase/use of 80 Ac site owned by the City of La Porte o La Porte Internal Communication Problem o Administration and Council were aware of the recommendations contained in a report that suggested approximately 28 Ac of detention on a site North ofthe 80 Ac site o Administration and Council unaware of the La Porte property being referenced in subsequent Engineering Reports. One report stated that "The detention pond location has been requested by the City of La Porte to be an 80 Ac site. . .. It further states La Porte owns and prefers this site" Meanwhile o City Council authorized appraisal- considering public sale o La Porte has been in discussion with broker regarding public sale o La Porte has shown property and has submitted site for an Economic Development inquiry from the Governor's Office of Economic Development o Plan to visit with Council- one outcome may be a request to consider 20-25 acres from City's 80 Ac site in combination with 28 Ac site identified in a previous study o Loss of other tax base in the La Porte Bayport Industrial District (within La Porte ETJ) o + 1 00 Ac City of Pasadena (Proposed Athletic Facilities) o + 115 Ac of 236 Ac site- Harris County Flood Control District site in Willow Springs Watershed 4) Draft Agenda for Future Meeting o Hand Out Agenda .. j3r/L {eTA] Ctr tV-euiuL~ r~ --r-- / ?JuJv NO BACK UP PROVIDED }AEE~G ~o"lJfS May 23,2005 Mayor Porter, Council I am Mary Gay. I live at 305 N. 5th Street on La Porte's North Side. I have lived in La Porte 52 years on the North Side. I was married to the late Deotis Gay 49 years. He was on the City Council 20 years. The twenty years he served I served right along with him. I went on most of the trips to the Conferences. The first thing I did after registering was to look at the Agenda. I attended any workshop that was pertaining to community program or for youth. I went on lot~urs and enjoyed them but most of the times when others wer~urs I was attending workshops. I have belonged to the La Porte Community Civic Club since 1981 (24 years) serving as program director. When Councilman Gay was defeated I told him I was going to quit too that I was tired. He said please don't stop keep on. I promised him I would so I have worked very hard, long, tiring years most of it in vain but I didn't stop and I don't intend to, I plan to work to the end. Now I see on tonight's agenda about Truck Stop. I don't know what it fueling involve or what it mean but I do know the truck facility on Barbour's Cut and 1 st have been fought against from the beginning. The owner is a member of the Civic Club. He has sponsored many of our programs: Seniors Citizen Day, Chartered a bus for the youth to go to Houston Museum, Youth Program, Activities for Juneteenth Celebration. When he was turned down he said in his country they gave 10% of their earning and he would not quit helping us. One reasons he was trying to make points up there. Just August he gave a back to school party for Jr. High furnish food and school supplies. Will be a sponsor for Juneteenth Activities. So if the citizens of the North Side is not against the facility why all the people from Fairmont Park, the South Side and even Houston against it. Someone that want to help beautify, help with programs, not 100 jobs but even several jobs will help our people, we firmly believe that it will be a great help for the North Side citizens and an assess to the City. Why are you fighting it? We have started reading between the lines but we hope what we read is not true. Councilman Moser is doing a great job but the entire Council represents the North Side. You also have to vote on North Side issues. So Mayor and Council we beg you to consider our needs and request, be for us not against us. Thank You, Mary Gay MAY 20 '05 15:30 FR 1 TO 8-2818421259 SBC TEXAS EXTERNAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT P.04/04 fIA FACS1MILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET ~ ~ -ldy Z Lo./6.;A"""" &h bKjr}ftO FAX UMBER: Date: 0 d'i'l-gifJ.-1)'59 .5/;;'0 {)S COMPANY: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER: /itow,.,: s 113 C- 4- HONE NUMBER: KG: 56 -1oK' o URGENT m{Ol\ REVIEW 0 PLEASE COMMENT 0 PLEASE REPLY ~ PLEASE RECtCLn ~- /,,' / ~c (IL ,j ,J (, I!\:-- 1616 GUADALUPE STREET. SUITE ~ 501 . AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 PHONE: 512. 870.3800 · PAX: 512 870-1143 MAY 20 '05 15:29 FR 1 TO 8~2818421259 P. 01/04 Cities would lose all in-kind services Certain in-kind benefits-free access to currently required in cable franchises if this cable broadba~d networks and cable TV bill passes. service-would be extended through the earlier of either 2015 or the expiration of the current franchise. The bill would eliminate in"!kind items that drive up the price of cable service - for example, annual cash payments to cities. Cable rates will go up if this bill passes. If anything, they should finally go down as monopoly cable companies are forced to compete. School districts will no longer enjoy free Under sa 408, free cable service to cable TV service if this bill passes. schools would be extended through the earlier of 20 15 or franchise expiration. Even if the phone companies are granted. a This is wrong. Federal law gives the state statewide franchise, cable companies are tbe authority to determine whether still obligated under federal law to obtain franchises are granted at the state or local video franchises. local level. It does not require both. Cities will never realize the full benefits of Common sense would suggest it is in competition in the video market since the phone companies' best interests to quickly phone companies can pick and choose roll out video to as many consumers as whom they serve. possible. sac has stated it plans to reach 50% of its customers within three years. Cable is applying a double standard on this issue-especially when its introduction of digital phone service has been less than ubiquitous. The status quo is better for cities. SB 408 provides a unique opportunity for cities to stabilize-and perhaps even grow-- video franchise revenues. Taking no action wiD lower city revenues as wireless does not pay fees to cities. MAY 2121 '1215 15:3121 FR 1 TO 8-2818421259 P.12l2/1214 ,,I The real story about SB 408 and its impact on Texas cities and schools While some would have cities and schools believe that SB 408 will harm them financially and deprive them of important benefits, the reality is just the opposite. It's time to set the record straight. The Cable Lobby Spin: Tbe Real Story: Cities will lose municipal franchise fees Under SB 408, both incumbent cable under SB 408, resulting in a net revenue providers and new entrants such as SBe, loss. Grande and VerizoD will pay S percent of their gross revenues in video franchise fees to cities. Because the fee payment requirements are comparable, cities' revenues will remain stable when cable providers lose video customers to phone companies. By contrast, cities today lose revenue when consumers migrate to cable's only competitor-sateWte TV-which does not pay franchise fees. Importantly, some cities could actually realize revenue gains under SB 408. While federal law permits cities to assess cable providers up to 5 percent of their gross receipts. not all cities collect the full amount allowed Under SB 408. a 5 percent fee payment would be mandatory. Cities would lose control over their right- Cities would retain all right-of-way of-way if this bill passes. police powers they enjoy today. 5B 408 would merely ensure equal access to the right-of-way for all video providers. Cities will lose public access channels if SB 408 preserves public channels at this bill passes. current levels. Availability would decline only if the city SlODS using a channel. MAY 20 '05 15:30 FR 1 TO 8~818421259 P.03/04 May 19, 2005 An Open Letter to City Officials in Texas: As you may know, I am the author of proposed legislation that would revamp the way Texas cities are compensated by video providers for use of public right-of-way. While you have likely heard all sorts of horror stories about my proposal-many courtesy of cable incumbents determined to perpetuate their market dominanc&-l wanted to personally share with you why I think this proposal is both timely and appropriate. From the onset of the current debate, a driving motivation for me has been a sincere desire to reconcile city right-of-way compensation with the reality of changing technology and communications markets. Consumer migration to wireless and other technologies has deteriorated cities' municipal fee payments from local telephone service providers. A similar dynamic is taking shape in the video arena, where satellite displacement of traditional cable TV service is causing further revenue erosion for Texas cities. SB 408, in my view, represents an important first step toward addressing the emergiDg municipal revenue crisis that the communications technology revolution has created. By ensuring new video entrants will pay cities a guaranteed 5 percent of gross revenues from video services, it seeks to stabilize municipal revenues in the short term and to position cities for potential revenue growth as technological alternatives to traditional cable lV become more robust. BeyoDd addressing cities' revenue needs, I also am seeking with this legislation to stimulate additional investment and much-needed price competitiOD in the video services market. Under my proposed statewide franchise concept, Texas would become the most attractive state in the country for phone companies to roll out video services in competition with traditional cable providers. These companies are poised to spend billions of dollars nationwide to upgrade their networks for video capability. With my bill, they would have additional incentive to prioritize investment to Texas. At the same time, cities would continue to be fairly compensated for right-of-way oversight and reap potential new economic benefits, including increased sales and property tax revenues. Sadly, the real merits of this bill are being lost in the current lobby rhetoric. Therefore, I have taken the liberty to provide you with the attached document that addresses some of the most glaring misinformation about SB 408. I hope you will read it and think about it I sincerely believe we have a unique opportunity with this bill to do something positive and forward-thinking for Texas cities and consumers. Sincerely, (Phil King) r MAY-17-05 TUE 11:08 AM TEXA.s..MUNICIPAL LEAGUE FAX NO. 51~317490 P. 03 H.B. 2833 . VOTE NO! . What is the main reason that cities are formed? To protect property values and to prohibit negative activities for the common good. . Do cities impose regulations that reduce the value of some owner's property? Yes. For example, many cities prohibit sexually oriented businesses in certain areas. That prohibition means that a landowner may not be able to realize the profits he or she planned for by opening a strip club. . Are there protections in current law that allow a landowner to be compensated when city regulations go to far? Yes, both the Texas and United States Supreme Courts bave adopted a balancing test that weighs the interests of an individual landowner and the public-at-large. . What mandates does H.B. 2833 impose on cities? The bill requires a city to pay for a detailed report (a "takings impact assessment") as to why any regulation that might reduce the value of property is being considered. Also, if the regulation reduces the value of an individual's property (with nO concern about how it protects the surrounding properties)) a city is required to use taxpayer funds to subsidize that individual. . What is an example of how ridiculous and impossible it would be for a city to comply with the bill? If a city wants to impose a smoking ordinance, it must prepare a detailed report on how tbe ordinance might affect each individual property in the city. And if the ordinance might (according to whom?) reduce the value of one or all of those properties, tIle city would have to pay cash to each and every business owner in the city. . Will floor amendments fix the bill? No. H.B. 2833, in any form, is bad public policy and creates too much uncertainty for city taxpayers, resulting in a "full-employment acf' for trial lawyers. . MAY-17-05 TUE 11:08 AM TEX~MUNICIPAL LEAGUE FAX NO, 5122317490 p, 04 Texas Municipal League Legislalive April 22, 2005 Number 16 . ~ SOME REPORTS MISS THE MARK ON NEGATIVE LAND USE BILL Uast week's LegiSlaliv: Update reported on H.B. 2833 by R. Cook, a devastating land use bill that was voted out of lhe House Land and Resource Management Committee Oil April 7. H.B 2833 would make cities subject to the Texas Private Real Property Preservation Act (Act), drastically altering the way in which cities exercise their authority to regulate land use. The bill would arguably require a "takings impact assessment" for almost every action a city takes. That requirement is unduly burdensome and runs counter to effective public policy. The bilJ excepts certain types of zoning, but most city regulations that might reduce the value of property by more than twenty-five percent would require a takings impact assessment and require a city to compensate an owner for the reduction in value. Such requirements would severely hamper the ability of cities to regulate the use of land for the common good. Since last week, various organizations have attempted to frame the bill as a rural properly rights issue. They claim that cities and other governmental entities are destroying their rural way of life. In fact, several landowners spoke at the committee hearing on the bill about wanting to preserve their "besutifulland in the Texas hill country." The truth is that nothing in current law prohibits them from doing so. By definition, a city does not regulate "rural" land. One commenter in the San Antonio Express-News wrote: "1! such regulations are for the betterment of the general public, then the landowner who pays a dear price in loss of value should. under both state and federal constitutions, be compensated fairly. " That blanket statement is not supported by the regulatory takings jurisprudence of either the Texas or United Stat.es Supreme Court. The courts apply a much more reasonable definition of a "taking" to cities. The same comrnenter also stated that Texans have the right of "owning and enjoying private property." City officials undoubtedly agree with that statement. Howover, no reasonable person believes that any Texan has the right to develop property in a way that is detrimental to fellow city residents. . Note: When you receive this TML Legislalive Update, please make copics of it and distribute them 10 members (l[lhe govel'lling body and to depart. ment heads as appropriate. TML sends only one copy to each city, and we rely on those who receive it to dislribulc it. Thanks for your help. NAY-17-05 TUE 11:08 AM TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE .......... FAX NO, 5122317490 p, 05 III fact, most land liSt: regulations increase the value of most property in an area by prohibiting a certain use on one parcel. Thc effect of B.B. 2833 would be to reqllire city residents to subsidize one properlY owner to the detriment of neighboring property owners. Interestingly, the bill does not provide that if a land llse regulation increases a parcel's value, as most do, the owner must compensate the city in any way. In 1995, the legislature exempted cities from the Act. Why? As opposed lO rmal residents, city residents have the ex.pectation that their properly will be protected for the good of the city as a whole. Because of that expeclation, cities regulate private real property in many ways, and a city shouldn't have to ineur inordinate costs to enforce those appropriate limits. As the Texas Sllpreme Court has stated: "the lakings clause. ..does not charge the ~ovcrnment with guaranteeing the profitability of every piece of land subject to its authority. Purchasing and developing real estate carries with it certain fillMcial risks, anu it is nol the government's duty lO underwrite this risk." Certain groups may try to frame this bill as protection for rural residents. On the contrary, this bill strikes at the very reason cities are incorporated in the first place: to protect the property values and the health and sctjety a/those living in close proximity to one anothel". Make no mistake, this bill is devc.\s~'\ting for Tex.as cities. DOWN BY THE RIVER IN THE ETJ: F(REWORKS~ FJREARMS~ AND MUSIC? Ooes your city prohibit the sale or possession of fireworks in the extraterritorial jllrisdiction (ETJ)? What abo\lllhc discharge of firearms? Have you extended your noise ordinance to the TIT J to protect the welfare of city residents? House Rill 2097 by Chisun\ is a detrimental bill that could curtail nuisance regulations in the ETJ. The bill would provide that a home nile city's authority to abate a nuisance within 5,000 fe~t of the city limits does not include areas within 50 feet of a public waterway. (A city in a counly that borders the Gulf or Mexico or a city within certain coullties through which the Guadalupe or Comal rivers flow are exempt from the bill). In other words, even if a city prohibits the sale or discharge of fireworks within its ETJ, a person would be allowed to engage in those activities within 50 feet of a river or a lake. Why would such a bill be introduced'? According to a press report, the bill is meant to address one specific situation, but could harm almost evel)' home rule city in Texas. The Austin American-Statesman recently reported that one city in central Texas extended its noise ordinance to the ETJ. According to the article, H.B. 2097 is designed to help a nightclub located on a lake in that city's ETJ by prohibiting the city from regulating the noise level of live bands near residential areas. The result of the bill would be to removt: important health and safety authority from virtually every horne rule city in Texas. The bill passed the House on April 13. City officials should contact theIr senatOrs to express opposition La H.B. 2097. 2 MAY-17-05 rUE 11:09 AM rEXA~MUNICIPAL LEAGUE FAX NO. 51?(.317490 P. 06 responsible for damages; (8) an alarm system company must provide customers with information relating to local ordinances and alann system operation, and must inform the city of alarm system . installatioT\s; and (9) a city may not refuse to issue an alarm permit for a residential location solely because it is an apartment. H.:H. 2381 (HcJ!W. relating 10 posting notice of a meeting on the Intemet. Passed the HOllse. H.B. 2751 HIarncttl, requiring thllt a notice of election on a proposed home rule charter amcndmenl include an estimate of the fiscal impact of the proposed runendments(s). Passed the 1 louse. H.n. 2755 (McRevnolds), relating to development corporations. Passed the House. As passed, this hill would allow a 4D corporation to engage in a projecl that is nceded for the "developmcnt, retention, or expansion of business enterprises" if the corporation has not, for each of the previous two years, received morc than $50,000 in sales tax revenue. 1\ H.B. 2833 (R. Cook), relating to regulatory takin&s of private properly. Passed the House. As passed. this bill would: (I) broaden the definition of a "taking" to include an action that limits impervious cover on any real property to less than 45 percent of the surface area; (2) provide that the following actions, if they don't affect building size, lot size, or impervious cover, are not affected by the bill: (a) an action taken to fulfill a federal or state mandate, (b) an action taken to prevent a nuisance, (c) an action taken to prevent a grave and immediate threat, (d) regulation of construction in a flood plain, (e) an action taken to respond to a threat to the public health and safety, (f) all aClion taken to regulate sexually oriented businesses, fireworks, discharge of fireanns, weedy lots, junked automobiles, noisc, alcohol, smoking, construction codes, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, historical buildings; and (3) provide that zoning is not affected unless the z.oning is an "impervious cover" taking or is done without the owner's consent within the lhree4)'car period following the filing of a development application. . H.B. 2842 (ChillUrg), relnting to penalties for providing false information to an accountant or ilccounting finn. Passed the House. H.B. 1864 (Luna), providing that sales tax revenue may be used to back bonds for public improvements in reinvestment zones, entcrprise zones, and other areas. Passed the House. H.B. 3057 (Howarlll. allowing certain part-time firefighters to work more than 500 hours annually. Passed the J'louse. This ill 11 TML hill. H.B. JUS (T. Smith). allowing a combined ballot proposition in 'which one dedicated or special purpose sales tax is reduced or repealed and the other is increased or adopted. Passed the House. ('This is a TML bin.) H.B. 3461 (Baxter), relating to a development moratorium. Passed the House. As passed, this bill would require a city, prior to imposing a moratorium on commercial development, to comply with certain procedures that are currently applicable to a moratorium Oil residential development, including: (1) notice and hearing prior to the adoption of the moratorium; (2) a requirement that a moratorium may be imposed only if there is a need to prevent a shortage of public facilities; and much more. (Companion bill is S.B. 1406 by Armbrister.) ".l.R. 80 (Krusee), amending the Texas Constitution to provide that economic development grants are not unconstitutional debt. Passed the House. S.B. 286 (Wentworth), relating to open government training. Passed the Rouse. As passed, S.B. 186 would provide that: . 6