HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-9-27
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, PUBLIC HEARING, AND WORKSHOP MEETING
OF THE LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL
September 27,2010
1. Call to order
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Rigby at 6:00 p.m.
Members of City Council Present: Councilmembers Tommy Moser, John Zemanek, Mike
Clausen, Chuck Engelken, John Black, Daryl Leonard, Jay Martin, and Mayor Rigby
Councilmember Clausen arrived at 6:45 p.m.
Members of Council Absent: Mike Mosteit
Members of City Executive Staff and City Employees Present:
City Manager's Office: Ron Bottoms, John Joerns and Melisa Boaze
Legal: Clark Askins
City Secretary's Office: Martha Gillett and Sharon Harris
Finance: Michael Dolby
Planning: Tim Tietjens, Brian Sterling, Masood Malik and Debbie Wilmore
Police Department: Chief Ken Adcox, Sherman Moore and Chris Paige
Public Works: Steve Gillett
Human Resources: Heather Weger
Fire: Mike Boaze and Donald Ladd
Purchasing: Jeanna Masterson
Parks and Recreation: Stephen Barr
Others Present: Adam Yanelli of the Bayshore Sun, Ted Powell, Dottie Kaminski, Gary
Nixon, Karen Rigby, Marylee Nolley, Anthony Villarreal, Tim Aguilar, Zoe Russell, J.
Nolley, Gail Martin, Norma Elliott, Jeannie Zemanek, Paula Rizzuto, Leslie Hagen of Willis,
Texas, Carol Gloyna, Joyce Dudley, Ed Matuszak, David Janda, Anita Willis, Leslie
Guzman, Father Rickles, Richard Warren, Darlene Bays, Mark Follis, Mr. and Mrs. Rosa,
Dana Nicholson, Stephanie Harris, Scott Kohler, Stephanie Zemanek, Colleen Hicks and
Phillip Hoot
2. The Invocation was given by Father Rickles.
3. Councilman Tommy Moser led the Pledge of Allegiance.
4. Presentations/Proclamations
A. Presentation - Mayor Rigby presented Mayor Pro-Tem Daryl Leonard with a plaque
acknowledging him for his dedicated services as Mayor Pro-Tem - May 2010 -
September 2010. He served as acting Mayor due to the resignation of Mayor Barry
Beasley.
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 2
5. Petitions, Remonstrance's, Communications, Citizens and Tax Payers wishing to address
Council on any item posted on the agenda (Limited to five minutes)
Phillip Hoot- 927 Seabreeze - addressed Council and noted his concerns with item 8 and
encouraged Council not to vote on this item. He provided a handout of what he read to
Council.
Gary Nixon - 410 North Shady Lane - Mr. Nixon thanked the City for helping with the
minors on motorcycles in his area. He noted there are still some violations and would like
additional assistance.
Anthony Villareal - 3903 Barracuda - Mr. Villareal noted concerns with the Port of
Houston.
Marylee Nolley - 2819 E Street - Ms. Nolley noted concerns with item 7 regarding the
audit not being properly conducted as a forensic audit.
Tim Aguilar - 3119 Fondren - Mr. Aguilar noted concerns with the audit not being
conducted as a forensic audit.
Zoe Russell- 102 South Y. Street - Ms. Russell noted concerns with the audit not being
conducted as a forensic audit.
Ted Powell- 1700 Roscoe - Mr. Powell noted concerns with not getting a forensic audit
and the need to place detailed financial controls in place.
6. Consent agenda - Any item may be removed by a Councilperson for discussion.
~
Items H and I were removed for separate discussion and itemKwas voted on separately.
A. Consider approval or other action of minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and
Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council held on September 13, 2010 - M. Gillett
B. Consider approval or other action regarding an Ordinance amending Chapter 34 of the
Code of Ordinances relating to regulation of nuisances on developments and subdivisions
with approved plats - (Ord. 3277) - D. Wilmore
C. Consider approval or other action awarding the City of La Porte's Employee Dental
Coverage - H. Weger
D. Consider approval or other action awarding the City of La Porte's Employee Vision
Coverage - H. Weger
E. Consider approval or other action awarding the City of La Porte's Employee Long-term and
Short-term Disability Coverage - H. Weger
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 3
F. Consider approval or other action awarding of bid # 10029 for Water and Sewer Supplies-
M. Dolby
G. Consider approval or other action awarding of RFP # 10509 for Grounds Maintenance
Services at various sites throughout the City of La Porte - S. Barr
H. Consider approval or other action regarding additional expenditure of $48,000.00 to Klotz
Associates for engineering services for the preparation of plan/profile sheets for the sheet
flow relief swales and storm sewer outfall improvements in the Brookglen, Fairmont Park
East, Fairmont Park West and Creekmont Section One Subdivisions - T. Tietjens
I. Consider approval or other action regarding an Ordinance terminating the Main Street
Advisory Board - (Ord. 3278) - Mayor Rigby
Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read the following ordinance captions:
Ordinance 3277 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 "ENVIRONMENT" OF
THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE BY AMENDING ARTICLE
IV. "UNSANITARY, UNSIGHTLY CONDITIONS ON PRIVATE PREMISES," SECTION 34-
128 "PROHIBITED CONDITIONS DESIGNATED", BY PROHIBITING NUISANCES ON
DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITH AN APPROVED PLAT; PROVIDING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING THAT ANY PERSON
VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE FINDED IN A SUM NOT TO
EXCEED TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS; PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CAPTION HEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Zemanek to approve Items A-H on the consent
aoenda as presented. Second by Councilmember Black. Motion carried unanimously.
Ayes: Engelken, Martin, Mosteit, Moser, Leonard, Zemanek, Black, and Mayor Rigby
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Clausen and Mosteit
Motion was made by Councilmember Moser to leave the Main Street Advisory Board in
place but it is to remain dormant at this time. Second by Councilmember Martin. Motion
carried unanimously.
Ayes: Engelken, Martin, Moser, Leonard, Zemanek, Black and Mayor Rigby.
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Clausen and Mosteit
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 4
7. Receive Report from Fiscal Affairs Committee of the final report from Belt Harris Pechacek,
LLLP as a result of an agreed upon procedures engagement for the Town Plaza Project
,.foreMi~ m:reIit - C. Engelken
Councilmember Clausen arrived at 6:45 p.m.
Chairman Engelken provided Council with a report of the final report from Belt Harris
Pechacek, LLLP as a result of an agreed upon procedures engagement for the Town
Plaza Project fGrQR€ie etJdit.
Councilmember Chuck Engelken provided an overview of the audit results and noted there
were no actions by the City or EDC that were in obvious violation of statutes or policies
and procedures. However, they noted a disparity in the level of documentation available
and provided other opportunities for improvement as indicated in the detailed report.
Mr. Engelken informed the Council he is suggesting the report and findings be forwarded
to the District Attorney's Office for an additional review.
Stephanie Harris of Belt Harris Pechacek was in the process of providing an overview
when the power, lights and air conditioning went out.
Due to no power, Mayor Rigby called for a brief recess at 6:50 p.m.
Mayor Rigby reconvened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and suggested the meeting be
recessed until the next day at 6:00 p.m. due to the power outage.
Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read the law allowing a meeting to be recessed until
the next day without having to post a new notice.
Motion was made bv Councilmember Leonard to recess until 6/28/2010 at 6:00 p.m.
Second by Councilmember Engelken. Motion carried unanimously.
The meeting was recessed at 7:08 p.m.
9/28/2010 Mayor Rigby reconvened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Members of City Council Present: Councilmembers Daryl Leonard, Tommy Moser, John
Zemanek, John Black, Chuck Engelken, Mike Clausen, Mike Mosteit, Jay Martin and
Mayor Rigby.
Members of Council Absent: None
Members of Executive Staff and Staff Present:
City Manager's Office: City Manager Ron Bottoms, Assistant City Manager John Joerns,
Melisa Boaze and Stacy Osborne
Legal: Clark Askins
City Secretary's Office: Martha Gillett and Sharon Harris
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 5
Public Works: Steve Gillett
Police Department: Chief Ken Adcox, Sherman Moore and Chris Paige
Planning Department: Tim Tietjens, Brian Sterling and Debbie Wilmore
Fire: Mike Boaze
Others Present: Karen Rigby, Jeanne Zemanek, Gail Martin, Ted Powell, Kathryn Aguilar,
David Janda, Phillip Hoot, Leslie Guzman, Rick Guzman, James Warren, Heavy Fed
Gillium, Mr. and Mrs. Rosa, Dottie Kaminski, Darlene Bays, Adam Yanelli, Ted Powell,
Marylee Nolley, Tim Aguilar, Randy Woodard, Bob Pizzitola, Ed Matuszak, Mrs. Powell, J.
Nolley, Zoe Russell, Colleen Hicks, Stephanie Harris and Scott Kohler.
Mayor Rigby requested item 7 begin again and requested Councilmember Engelken to
provide report.
Chairman Engelken provided Council with a report of the final report from Belt Harris
Pechacek, LLLP as a result of an agreed upon procedures engagement for the Town
Plaza Project fgr;9n9i(' 1I'ldit.
Councilmember Chuck Engelken provided an overview of the audit results and noted there
were no actions by the City or EDC that were in obvious violation of statutes or policies
and procedures. However, they noted a disparity in the level of documentation available
and other opportunities for improvement as indicated in the detailed report.
Mr. Engelken informed the Council he is suggesting the report and findings be forwarded
to the District Attorney's Office for additional review. Mr. Engelken noted he wanted the
public to have complete faith, trust and confidence in the governing body, City staff and
processes and procedures. He also noted some additional policies and procedures need
to be implemented as suggested in the report.
Each councilmember was provided an opportunity to ask questions.
It was the consensus of Council to move forward with an action item to vote to accept the
report and findings.
Stephanie Harris of Belt Harris Pechacek, LLLP provided City Council with an overview
and answered Councils' questions.
Councilmember Engelken noted by sending the item to the District Attorney's Office this
would provide another level of review to satisfy the public. He also advised the item would
have to be posted on a future meeting and voted on. In addition, the proper means of
sending the item to the District Attorney's Office would need to be established. Also,
whether or not the Mayor, City Attorney or Police Chief would need to officially submit the
item.
Councilmember Moser requested the City Secretary to note in the official record of this
meeting that the report provided this evening was not a forensic audit.
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 6
8. Consider approval or other action regarding an Ordinance appointing members to various
City of La Porte Boards, Commissions, and Committees as desired - (Ord. 3279) - Mayor
Rigby
Mayor Rigby presented summary and recommendation and answered Councils' questions.
The following reappointments and appointments were recommended:
Airport Advisory Board:
Position 1 - Debra Rihn - reappoint through 2013.
Position 2 - Nick Hooke - reappoint through 2013.
Position 3 - Steve Gillett - reappoint through 2013
La Porte Reinvestment Zone Number One
Position 2 - Dave Turnquist - reappoint through 2012
Position 4 - Horace Leopard - reappoint through 2012
Position 6 - J.J. Meza - reappoint through 2012
Position 8 - Chester Pool - reappoint through 2010
Building Codes Appeal Board
Position 1 - Tom Campbell- reappoint through 2013
Position 2 - Terry Bunch - reappoint through 2013
Position 6 - J.P. Jackson - appoint through 2011
Fire Fighter's Pension Board
City Council Representative - Michael Dolby - No Term
Fiscal Affairs Committee
Committee Member - Daryl Leonard was moved from Alternate 2 to Committee Member
Alternate 1 - John Zemanek was appointed
Alternate 2 - Jay Martin was appointed
Houston Galveston Area Council Representative
Alternate Representative - John Black was appointed
La Porte Area Water Authority
Position 1 - Randy Woodard - appoint through 2011
Position 4 - David Janda - reappoint through 2012
Position 5 - Ken Schlather - reappoint through 2012
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 7
City of La Porte Development Corporation
Council Position - John Zemanek - appoint through 2012
Citizen Position - Nancy Ojeda - appoint through 2012
Citizen Position - Bob Pizzitola - appoint through 2012
La Porte Redevelopment Authority
Mayor recommended Council ratify the appointment of Lindsay R. Pfeiffer as Chairman.
Position 2 - Dave Turnquist - reappoint through 2012
Position 4 - Horace Leopard - reappoint through 2012
Position 6 - J.J. Meza - reappoint through 2012
Position 8 - Chester Pool - reappoint through 2012
Planning and Zoning Commission
District 4 - Dottie Kaminski - reappoint through 2013
District 5 - Lou Ann Martin - appoint through 2013
Alternate 1 - Danny Earp - appoint through 2013
Alternate 2 - David Janda - appoint through 2011
Southest Texas Housing Finance Corporation Board of Directors
Director - Betty Moore - appoint through 2012
Zoning Board of Adjustment
Alternate 1 - Lawrence McNeal- reappoint through 2012
Alternate 2 - Gilbert Montemayor - reappoint through 2012
Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins read Ordinance 3279, AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING
MEMBERS TO VARIOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES, OF THE CITY
OF LA PORTE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; CONTAINING A REPEALING
CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
Motion was made by Councilmember Leonard to approve Ordinance 3279 and appoint the
members recommended by Council. Second by Councilmember Moser. Motion carried
unanimously.
Ayes: Engelken, Martin, Leonard, Moser, Zemanek, Clausen, Black, and Mayor Rigby
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: Mosteit
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 8
9. Public Hearing - Discuss the Little Cedar Bayou Drainage System Improvements and Fire
Station No. #1 reconstruction Disaster Recovery Supplement (DRS) Program associated
with the Hurricane Ike Texas Community Development Block Grant Funds - T. Tietjens
Mayor Rigby opened the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m.
Planning Director Tim Tietjens presented summary and recommendation and answered
Councils' questions.
Councilmember Tommy Moser wanted to note for the record that this would not affect the
funds placed in the budget for Fire Station #1 and will not delay moving forward with the
project.
Public Input: Ted Powell informed the Council that he did not see why this was being used
for Fire Station #1 rather than other needed projects within the City.
Mayor Rigby closed the Public Hearing at 7:46 p.m.
10. Close Regular Meeting and Open Workshop Meeting
The Regular Meeting was closed and the Workshop Meeting was opened at 7:47 p.m.
Discuss Building Codes Appeals Boards' recommendation for adoption of 2009
Code Editions and provide staff with direction - D. Wilmore
Chief Building Official Debbie Wilmore discussed the Building Codes Appeals
Boards' recommendation for adoption of 2009 Code Editions. She noted these will
be effective January 1, 2011.
Council directed staff to move forward.
11. Close Workshop Meeting and Open Regular Meeting
Mayor Rigby closed Workshop Meeting and reconvened Regular Meeting at 7:57 p.m.
12. Receive Monthly Inspections Report from Staff - D. Wilmore
Chief Building Official provided the monthly Inspections Report.
13. Administrative Reports - R. Bottoms
September 25,2010 - Health and Safety Fair - La Porte Junior High School- 9:00 a. m. -
1 :00 p.m.
September 27,2010 - City Council Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 9
September 29, 2010 - Salute to Industry Golf Tournament - Bay Forest Golf Course (2)
tee times- 8:00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m.
September 30, 2010 Salute to Industry Dinner - Monument Inn - 6:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m.
October 7, 2010 - Plaza by the Bay Fall Series - Molly and the Ringwalds - 7:00 p.m. -
10:00 p.m.
October 26-29, 2010 - Annual TML Conference and Exhibition - Corpus Christi, Texas
14. Council Comments: Moser, Black, Zemanek, Leonard, Engelken, Mosteit, Clausen, Martin,
and Mayor Rigby
A. Matters appearing on agenda
B. Recognition of community members, city employees, and upcoming events
C. Inquiry of staff regarding specific factual information or existing policy
15. Executive Session - pursuant to provision of the Open Meeting Law, Chapter 551, Texas
Government Code, Sections 551.071 through 551.076, 551.087 (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)
551.071 (Pending or Contemplated
Discuss with City Attorney Port of
Houston Noise Citations
Litigation)
Council retired into Executive Session at 8: 12 p.m.
Council reconvened to Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting at 8:35
p.m.
16. Considerations and possible action on items considered in executive session.
There was no action taken in executive session.
17. Adjournment
Being no further business, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
'1l~
Minutes of Regular Meeting, Public Hearing and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council on September 27, 2010 10
City Secretary
approved on this 11th day of October 2010.
B
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: September 27. 2010
Budeet
Requested By: D. Wilmore
Source of Funds:
Department:
Planning
Account Number:
Report:
Resolution:
Ordinance:
x
Amount Budgeted:
Exhibits: Code of Ordinance - Sect. 34-126 thru Sect. 34-136
Amount Requested:
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Chapter 34, Environment, of the City's Code of Ordinances includes mowing regulations. As currently written,
properties with weeds more than 12" on lots and 18" on acreage constitute a public nuisance where located within
150 feet ofthe property line of a residence or place of business.
Council held a workshop on September 13th to discuss a possible amendment requiring developments or
subdivisions, regardless of distance to a residence or place of business, to maintain their properties at a height less
than 18" in height. This regulation would apply once the project's final plat is approved and accepted by the City.
At the close ofthat workshop, Council directed staffto proceed with the change. Attached is the ordinance that
implements the discussed change.
Action Required bv Council:
C side approval or other action on the ordinance amending the city's mowing regulations
1 ! JJ-Ilb
Date
ORDINANCE NO. 2010- 3277
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34 "ENVIRONMENT" OF THE CODE OF
ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE BY AMENDING ARTICLE IV.
"UNSANIT ARY , UNSIGHTLY CONDITIONS ON PRIV ATE PREMISES," SECTION 34-128
"PROHIBITED CONDITIONS DESIGNATED", BY PROHIBITING NUISANCES ON
DEVELOPMENTS AND SUBDIVISIONS WITH AN APPROVED PLAT; PROVIDING A
REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; PROVIDING THAT ANY PERSON
VIOLATING THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE DEEMED GUILTY OF A
MISDEMEANOR AND UPON CONVICTION SHALL BE FINED IN A SUM NOT TO
EXCEED TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS; PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE
CAPTION HEREOF; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS:
Section 1: That Chapter 34 "Environment," Article IV. "Unsanitary, Unsightly Conditions
on Private Premises," Section 34-128 "Prohibited Conditions Designated", of the Code of
Ordinances, La Porte, Texas, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 34-128. Prohibited Conditions Designated.
The following specific acts and conditions are declared to constitute a public nuisance and are
hereby prohibited and made unlawful:
(1) Weeds, brush, rubbish and all other objectionable, unsightly and insanitary matter of
whatever nature, covering or partly covering the surface of any portion of a lot, where the lot is
located within 150 feet of the property line ofa residence or place of business.
(2) Weeds, brush, rubbish and all other objectionable, unsightly and insanitary matter of
whatever nature, covering or partly covering the surface of acreage, on that portion of the
acreage situated within 150 feet of the property line of any residence or place of business.
However, in any case where the acreage is abutted by a residence or place of business on more
than one side of the acreage, the owner of the acreage shall be responsible for maintaining the
surface of every portion of the acreage as required by this article, regardless of the size of the
acreage.
(3) Weeds, brush, rubbish and all other objectionable, unsightly and insanitary matter of
whatever nature, covering or partly covering the surface of any portion of a development or
subdivision with a completed final plat accepted by the City. The acreage property shall be
maintained, including both the interior site as well as the perimeter along the exterior of the site,
regardless of its distance from the property line of a residence or place of business.
Ordinance # 2010- ~ 1 '1
Page 2
(4) Any lot or parcel of real estate situated within the city which has the surface thereof filled or
partly filled with holes, or is in such condition that the lot or parcel holds or is liable to hold
stagnant water therein, or, from any other cause, is in such condition as to be liable to cause
disease, or produce, harbor or spread disease germs of any nature or tend to render the
surrounding atmosphere unhealthy, unwholesome or obnoxious."
Section 2: All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with the terms of this ordinance are
hereby repealed; provided, however, that such repeal shall be only to the extent of such
inconsistency and in all other respects this ordinance shall be cumulative of other ordinances
regulating and governing the subject matter covered by this ordinance.
Section 3: Should any section or part of this ordinance be held unconstitutional, illegal, or
invalid, or the application to any person or circumstance for any reasons thereof ineffective or
inapplicable, such unconstitutionality, illegality, invalidity, or ineffectiveness of such section or
part shall in no way affect, impair or invalidate the remaining portions thereof; but as to such
remaining portion or portions, the same shall be and remain in full force and effect and to this
end the provisions ofthis ordinance are declared to be severable.
Section 4. Any person, as defined in Section 1.07 (27), Texas Penal Code, who shall violate any
provision of the ordinance as codified in the Code of Ordinances herein, shall be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine not to exceed TWO
THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,000.00).
Section 5. The City Council officially finds, determines, recites and declares that a sufficient
written notice of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council is posted at
a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the city for the time required by law
preceding" this meeting, as required by Chapter 551, Tx. Gov't Code; and that this meeting has
been open to the public as required by law at all times during which this ordinance and the
subject matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally acted upon. The City Council
further ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
Section 6. This Ordinance shall be effective fourteen (14) days after its passage and approval.
The City Secretary shall give notice of the passage of this ordinance by causing the caption
hereof to be published in the official newspaper of the City of La Porte at least once within ten
2
Ordinance # 2010- 3:2. '{J
Page 3
(10) days after the passage of this ordinance, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 52,
Texas Local Government Code, and the City of La Porte Charter.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the Jrf'--day of ~tJe/ ,2010.
By:
ATTEST:
City Secretary
AP~
. .ssist City Attar ~
3
Sec. 34-126. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Acreage means a tract of land that is in excess of three-quarters of an acre (32,670 sq. ft.) in land
area.
Any and all other objectionable, unsightly or insanitary matter of whatever nature means all
uncultivated vegetable growth, objects and matters not included within the meaning of the other
terms as defined in this section, which are liable to produce or tend to produce an unhealthy,
unwholesome or insanitary condition to the premises within the general locality where such
conditions are situated, and shall also include any species of ragweed or other vegetable growth
which might or may tend to be unhealthy to individuals residing within the general locality of where
such conditions are situated.
Brush means all trees or shrubbery under seven feet in height which are not cultivated or cared for
by persons owning or controlling the premises.
Lot means a tract of land that is less than three-quarters of an acre (32,670 sq. ft.) in land area, and
includes, in addition to the ground within its boundaries, all ground lying and being adjacent to and
extending beyond the property line of such lot or parcel of real estate to the curbline of adjacent
streets, where a curbline has been established, and 14 feet beyond the property line where no
curbline has been established on adjacent streets; and, in all cases, to the center of all adjacent
alleys.
Nuisance means whatever is dangerous to human health or welfare, or whatever renders the
ground, water, air or food a hazard or an injury to human health.
Rubbish means all refuse, rejected tin cans, old vessels of all sorts, useless articles, discarded
clothing and textiles of all sorts and, in general, all litter and all other things usually included within
the meaning of such term.
Weeds means all rank and uncultivated vegetable growth or matter which has grown to more than
12 inches on lots and 18 inches on acreage or which, regardless of height, is liable to become an
unwholesome or decaying mass or a breeding place for mosquitoes or vermin.
(Code 1970, ~ 13-21; Ord. No. 2003-2623-A, ~ 1,1-14-08; Ord. No. 2003-2623-8, ~ 1, 6-23-08)
Cross reference-Definitions generally, ~ 1-2.
Sec. 34-127. - Enforcement of article.
The terms and conditions of this article shall be enforced by the director of planning or his duly
designated agents. It is unlawful and, unless otherwise declared in this chapter with respect to particular
offenses, it is a misdemeanor for any person to do any act forbidden or fail to perform any act required in
this article.
(Code 1970, ~ 13-22; Ord. No. 2003-2623-A, ~ 2, 1-14-08; Ord. No. 2003-2623-8, ~ 2,6-23-08)
Sec. 34-128. - Prohibited conditions designated.
The following specific acts and conditions are declared to constitute a public nuisance and are
hereby prohibited and made unlawful:
(1 )
Weeds, brush, rubbish and all other objectionable, unsightly and insanitary matter of
whatever nature, covering or partly covering the surface of any portion of a lot, where the
lot is located within 150 feet of the property line of a residence or place of business.
(2)
Weeds, brush, rubbish and all other objectionable, unsightly and insanitary matter of
whatever nature, covering or partly covering the surface of acreage, on that portion of the
acreage situated within 150 feet of the property line of any residence or place of business.
However, in any case where the acreage is abutted by a residence or place of business
on more than one side of the acreage, the owner of the acreage shall be responsible for
maintaining the surface of every portion of the acreage as required by this article,
regardless of the size of the acreage.
(I
(4)
Any lot or parcel of real estate situated within the city which has the surface thereof filled
or partly filled with holes, or is in such condition that the lot or parcel holds or is liable to
hold stagnant water therein, or, from any other cause, is in such condition as to be liable
to cause disease, or produce, harbor or spread disease germs of any nature or tend to
render the surrounding atmosphere unhealthy, unwholesome or obnoxious.
(Code 1970, ~ 13-22; Ord. No. 2003-2623-A, S 3, 1-14-08)
State law reference-Authority of city to prohibit conditions described in this section,
V.T.e.A., Health and Safety Code SS 342.001-342.004.
Sec. 34-129. - Notice-Issuance.
Whenever the existence of any nuisance or other prohibited condition on any lot or parcel of real
estate situated within the city shall come to the knowledge of the director of planning or his duly designated
agents, it shall be his duty to forthwith cause a written notice to be issued to the person owning such lot or
parcel as provided in V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code S 342.006(b).
(Code 1970, ~ 13-24)
Sec. 34-130. - Same-Contents; frequency of notice of abatement.
The notice provided for in section 34-129 shall identify the property and require the abatement of
such nuisance or removal of such condition by grubbing and removing such weeds, brush, rubbish or other
objectionable, unsightly or insanitary matter of whatever nature, as the case may be, or by filling in, draining,
leveling or otherwise regulating such lot or parcel of real estate so as to prevent stagnant water standing
therein, within ten days from the service of such notice. Such notice shall further state that, in default of the
performance of such conditions, the city may, at once, cause the abatement to be done and pay therefor,
and charge the cost and expense incurred by the city in doing or having such work done, or improvements
made, to the owner of such property, and fix a lien thereon as provided in this article. Such notice may also
state that if the owner commits another violation of the same kind or nature that poses a danger to the public
health and safety on or before the first anniversary of the date of the notice, and if the city has not been
notified in a change of ownership of the property, in writing, within said one year period, then the city may,
without further notice, correct the violation and pay therefor, and charge the cost and expense incurred by
the city in doing or having such work done, or improvements made, to the owner of such property, and fix a
lien thereon as provided in this article.
(Code 1970, S 13-25(a); Ord. No. 2003-2623, S 2,4-14-03)
State law reference-Authority of city to correct or remove conditions described in this
section, notice, V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code S 342.006.
Sec. 34-131. - Same-Service methods.
The notice provided for in sections 34-129 and 34-130 shall be served personally on the owner to
whom it is directed or shall be given by letter via regular mail and registered/certified mail addressed to such
owner at his last known post office address. If personal service cannot be made and the owner's address is
unknown, such notice shall be given by publication at least two times within ten consecutive days in a
newspaper of general circulation published within the city; by posting the notice on or near the front door of
each building on the property to which the violation relates; or by posting the notice on a placard attached to
a stake driven into the ground on the property to which the violation relates, if the property contains no
buildings.
(Code 1970, 9 13-26; Ord. No. 2003-2623-C, * 1, 8-25-08)
Sec. 34-132. - Abatement by city-Generally.
(a)
In the event of the failure, refusal or neglect of the owner of any premises or property to comply
with a notice given him pursuant to this article, it shall be the duty of the director of planning or his
duly designated agents to cause the weeds, brush, rubbish or other insanitary matter or condition
constituting a nuisance to be promptly and summarily abated, in a reasonable and prudent manner
at the expense of the city. The director of planning or his duly designated agents shall carefully
determine the cost of such work done and shall charge such costs against the owner of such
premises. Cost shall be based upon the charges in amounts established by the city and listed in
appendix A of this Code.
(b)
The city shall have the right to award any quantity of work authorized under this section to a
general contractor whose bid shall be accepted by the city council as the lowest and best secured
bid for doing the work mentioned in this section during a stipulated time not to exceed one year.
(Code 1970, 9913-25(b), 13-27; Om. No. 1837, 91,4-27-92; Ord. No. 2003-2623, 91, 4-14-03; Ord. No. 2003-2623-A, 94,
1-14-08}
State law reference-Authority of city to correct or remove conditions described in this
article, V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code S 342.006.
Sec. 34-133. - Same-Filing of statement of expenses incurred.
After compiling the cost of the work as provided for in section 34-132, and after charging the costs
against the owner of the premises, the director of planning or his duly designated agents shall certify a
statement of such expenses to the customer service division, who shall bill the property owner and shall file
the statement with the county clerk. The cost to remove the lien filed on the property shall be in an amount,
per property, to be established by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code.
(Code 1970, 9 13-28; Ord. No. 1837,92, 4-27-92)
State law reference-Statement to be filed, V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code S 342.007(b).
Sec. 34-134. - Same-Lien for and collection of expenses.
Upon filing the statement of expenses with the county clerk as provided for in section 34-133, the
city shall have a privileged lien upon the land described therein and upon which such improvements have
been made, in accordance with the provisions ofV.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code ~ 342.001 et seq. Such
liens shall be second only to tax liens and liens for street improvements to secure the expenditures so made,
and shall bear ten percent interest on the amount of such expenditures from the date of such payment by
the city. For any such expenditures and interest, suit may be instituted by the city attorney and recovery and
foreclosure of the lien may be had in the name of the city, and the statement of expenses made in accord
with section 34-133, or a certified copy thereof, shall be prima facie proof of the amount expended in such
work or improvements. Upon payment of the full charges assessed against any property, pursuant to the
procedure set forth in this section, the director of planning or his duly designated agents shall be authorized
to execute, for and in behalf of the city, a written release of the lien heretofore mentioned, such written
release to be on a form prepared and approved in each case by the city attorney.
(Code 1970, 913-29)
State law reference-Similar provisions, V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code ~ 342.007.
Sec. 34-135. - Same-At owner's request.
Any owner of vacant property in the city shall have the right to contract with the city to remove all
such weeds and vegetation as may grow on such real estate by requesting, in writing, the director of
planning or his duly designated agents so to do, and by agreeing to the charges to be paid therefor in
amounts established by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code.
(Code 1970,913-30; Ord. No. 1837,93, 4-27-92)
Sec. 34-136. - Same-Inspection division to handle payments and issue receipts.
All payments of money by and collections of money from property owners for the purpose of paying
the city for expenses in cutting weeds, or abating other nuisances pursuant to the provisions of this article
shall be handled by the inspection division, and a proper receipt issued therefor. Such receipts and the
necessary records in connection therewith shall be prepared and handled and maintained as a permanent
record, and such sums of money shall be handled in the form and manner prescribed by the director of
finance.
(Code 1970,973-31)
Sees. 34-137-34-165. - Reserved.
I
ot 0\ NMV{,l:~ /Y1af1'OrJ ~~ M4A~ --h
,vol . I "t.,.tl.'i.f (.0 m tY\ I \l-e, e ~ ..e,
~rA, IT l).Jo\A.lt.A. he,"';+-O If
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested September 27,2010
Appropriation
Requested By:
Mayor Rigby
Source of Funds: nla
Department:
Mayor's Office
Account Number: nla
Report:
Resolution:
Ordinance:
x
Amount Budgeted: n/a
Amount Requested:
Exhibits:
Ordinance
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits:
Exhibits:
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
La Porte City Council to take formal action to terminate the Main Street Advisory Board.
unci to take formal action on terminating the Main Street Advisory Board.
~}/ID
ORDINANCE NO. 2010- 3 Z 7 C(;
AN ORDINANCE TERMINATING THE MAIN STREET ADVISORY BOARD; CONTAINING
A REPEALING CLAUSE; CONTAINING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; FINDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1.
The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
terminates the Main Street Advisory Board by expressly repealing
Ordinance 2004 -2801, passed and approved on the 13th day of December,
2004, and Ordinance No. 2004-2801-A, passed and approved on the 11th
day of September, 2006.
Section 2. If any section, sentence, phrase, clause, or any part
of any section, sentence, phrase, or clause, of this Ordinance shall,
for any reason, be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the
remaining portions of this Ordinance, and it is hereby declared to be
the intention of this City Council to have passed each section,
sentence, phrase, or clause, or part thereof, irrespective of the fact
that any other section, sentence, phrase, or clause, or part thereof,
may be declared invalid.
Sec tion 3.
The City Council officially finds, determines,
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the date,
hour, place and subj ect of this meeting of the City Council was posted
at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of the City for
the time required by law preceding this meeting, as required by the
Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government Code; and that this
meeting has been open to the public as required by law at all times
during which this ordinance and the subject matter thereof has been
discussed, considered and formally acted upon.
The City Council
further ratifies, approves and confirms such written notice and the
contents and posting thereof.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall be in effect from and after its
passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this ____ day of
, 2010.
ATTEST:
Martha A. Gillett
City Secretary
APPROVED:
Mdt r ~
Clark T. Askins
Assistant City Attorney
By:
Or Oi..au ~
#
PfY(OI t~
2
CITY OF
LA PORTE, TEXAS
Independent Accountants' Report
Agreed Upon Procedures
Five Points Town Center Project
September 21, 2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Background............................. ....................... ....................................................................................... 4
II. Executive Summary....................................... ................................... .............. .....................................4
III. Project Description............... ........................ .................................... ...................................................5
1. Nature of the Engagement .............................................................................................................5
2. Exhibits and Conti d entiality ................... ..................................... ..................................................5
3. Procedures ............. .......... ......................... ....................................................................................... 5
IV. Detail of Procedures Performed ............................. .............................................................. .............. 6
1. Obtain Further Understanding of Five Points Project................................................................6
2. Review All Expenditures Coded to the Project and Compare to Applicable Policies ..............7
3. Review EDC Project Plan and Associated Documents for Compliance with State Statutes ...8
4. Prepare a Timeline of Events Associated with the Project .......................................................11
5. Question Officials About an Alleged Meeting on 10/1/2008......................................................11
6. Review URS Contract and Supporting Documents for Accuracy and Compliance...............12
7. Review Process for Selection of Proj ect Engineer and Contractor ..........................................15
8. Verify Filing of Conflict ofInterest by Board Member ............................................................16
9. Verify Authorization for Expansion of Project Funding ............................................................18
.10. Review Transactions Between City and Developer ...................................................................18
11. Review Real Estate Transaction Between City, Board, and Developer ...................................21
Disclaimer and Limit on Report Use .......................................................................................................24
The following exhibits are referenced in this document but are bound separately because of their
size and because some exhibits contain information not subject to open records request.
EXHIBIT 1 - City Purchasing Policy
EXHIBIT 2 - Development Corporation Bylaws
EXHIBIT 3 - 2010 Texas Municipal Procurement Laws Made Easy
EXHIBIT 4 - Local Government Code Chapter 252
EXHIBIT 5 - Copy of General Ledger Detail for Project
EXHIBIT 6 - Test of Transactions Summary
EXHIBIT 7 - Memorandum of Understanding
EXHIBIT 8 - Timeline of Events
EXHIBIT 9 - Questionnaires on Meeting
EXHIBIT 10 - URS Invoice Detail 11/25/08
EXHIBIT 11 - URS Invoice Detail 02/20/09
EXHIBIT 12 - URS Invoice Detail 04/10/09
EXHIBIT 13 - URS Invoice Detail 05/11/09
EXHIBIT 14 - URS Invoice Detail 06/19/09
EXHIBIT 15 - URS Invoice Detail 07/17/09
EXHIBIT 16 - URS Invoice Detail 08/06/09
EXHIBIT 17 - URS Invoice Detail 09/23/09
EXHIBIT 18 - URS Invoice Detail 10/14/09
EXHIBIT 19 - Contract with URS
EXHmlT 20 - URS Project Proposal
EXHIBIT 21 - Summary of Reimbursed Expenses for URS
EXHIBIT 22 - Indirect/Direct Reimbursable Expenses
EXHIBIT 23 - Professional Services Procurement Act
2
EXHIBIT 24 - Memo from Ron Bottoms
EXHIBIT 25 - Conflict of Interest Form
EXHIBIT 26 - Minutes 02/04/08
EXHIBIT 27 - Attorney Letter 04/27/10
EXHIBIT 28 - Attorney General Opinion JC338
EXHIBIT 29 - Sample Conflict of Interest Statement
EXHIBIT 30 - BUD-I Showing Loan
EXHIBIT 31 - Wire Transfer of Loan
EXHIBIT 32 - Promissory Note for Loan
EXHIBIT 33 - Deed of Trust Related to Note
EXHIBIT 34 - Wire Transfer for Loan Repayment
EXHIBIT 35 - Release of Lien
EXHIBIT 36 - Bank Confirmation
EXHIBIT 37 - BUD-I for Purchase of Triangle Property
EXHIBIT 38 - Property Tax Check and Support
EXHIBIT 39 - Wire Transfer for Purchase of Triangle Property
EXHIBIT 40 - Purchase Agreement for Triangle Property
EXHIBIT 41- Title Search Documents
EXHIBIT 42 - Summary of City Purchasing Policies and Procedures
EXHIBIT 43 - Engagement Letter
3
I. Background
The following background is provided by Belt Harris Pechacek, LLLP in an effort to aid users in
understanding the sequence of events leading up to this report. It is based on information relayed to us
and is only intended to assist the users of this report and to aid in their understanding of it.
In early 2008, the City of La Porte Economic Development Coordinator developed a downtown
revitalization plan involving the purchase of properties and the building of a town plaza in the area of the
intersection of Broadway, Main, and San Jacinto streets known as Five Points (the "Project"). This plaza
was to be a centerpiece to further development of adjacent properties in the downtown area. In February
2008, both the La Porte Economic Development Corporation (the "EDC") and the City Council (the
"Council") approved the initial planning phase of the Project. The site selected for the Project centered on
a triangle shaped property bordered by San Jacinto, Broadway, and A streets known as the Triangle
property. This property, along with properties in the Five Points area, were held by a development
company owned by Garson Silvers known as East A Development Inc. ("East A"). On October 29,2008,
the Triangle property, as well as the adjacent property at the comer of San Jacinto and Main Streets
owned by Texas Parks and Wildlife, was purchased by the City in a complex transaction involving the
purchase of properties by both the EDC and East A, multiple sellers, and a loan by the EDC to East A to
enable them to purchase properties at 109 and 111 San Jacinto. In concert with the Project, East A was to
later develop adjacent properties. East A was also given the option to later purchase the Parks and
Wildlife property which was the intended site of a multi-story office building.
In March 2010, the construction of the plaza was completed. During the process, however, East A did not
begin construction on the multi-story office and parking areas as previously envisioned. During and after
Project completion, it is our understanding that concerns were raised by citizens and City officials over
various actions and transactions related to the Project. The City's Fiscal Affairs Committee (the "FAC")
selected Belt Harris Pechacek LLLP ("BHP") to conduct an agreed upon procedures engagement in an
effort to provide a central document related to the Project and answer some of these concerns. A summary
of our procedures and findings related to these agreed upon procedures follows under "Detailed Report".
II. Executive Summary
While the City and EDC had a clear picture of the result they wanted to achieve, the Proj ect did not
materialize as envisioned. The EDC's portion of the project (the Plaza) was carried out and the end
product was nearly identical to pre-project renderings; however, the envisioned office complex and
surrounding development has not materialized. Over the course of our procedures, we found no actions by
the City or EDC that were in obvious violation of statutes or policies and procedures. However, we noted
a disparity in the level of documentation available and other opportunities for improvement as indicated
in the detailed report.
1
~
Robert Belt, CPA
Steph:mie E. Harris, CPA
Nathan Krupke, CPA
Partner of Counsel
John R Pechacek, CPA
&win
100 Congress Ave., Ste. 2000
Austin, TX 78701
512.381.0222
IillmIi=
www.tex3.sauditors.com
info@t>..-auditors,com
713.263.1550 fax
== Governmental
_ Audit Quality Center
..
~
3210 Bingle Rd., St<. 300
Houston, TX 77055
713.263.1123
!Wlri!k
6100 Windy Hill Lane
Bellville, TX 77418
979.865.3169
~
o
S.
0.-
S'
(Jq
()
o
a
"1
::l
3
n
::l
.....
!>)
--
~
Z
o
::l
'U
"1
o
::n
.....
~
r:::
0.-
.....
.....
UJ
U)
n
~
n
0.-
~
s:
~
n
n
I;:::
n
::l
n
n
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project
September 21, 2010
Detailed Report
III. Project Description
Nature of the En2a2ement:
The goal of the agreed upon procedures performed is to assist stakeholders in obtaining a better
understanding of the Project. Our engagement consisted of agreed upon procedures designed to give an
understanding of the Project, an overview of transactions related to the Project and applicable policies and
procedures and state laws related to the Proj ect, and recommendations for improvement of City and EDC
policies and procedures where applicable.
Exhibits and Confidentiality:
We have referenced various exhibits in this document, some of which may include information of a
confidential nature including, but not limited to: banking and credit card information, legal documents,
and contractor employee information. We have supplied the City with copies of exhibits referenced
throughout this report. If copies of these exhibits are to be publicly distributed, such distribution should
follow normal City procedures related to public information requests and handling of private information.
Specifically, the City should redact information in these documents prior to public distribution where
necessary.
Procedures:
The following is a summary of the agreed upon procedures planned and conducted in accordance with the
engagement letter (Exhibit 43) approved by the City:
. Obtain further understanding of the Project and areas of concern through interviews of Fiscal
Affairs Committee Members and a concerned citizen, as well as by a review of minutes and open
records request by the Citizen to further define scope.
. Obtain a listing of all expenditures coded to the Project as recorded on the City's and/or 4B
Development Corporation general ledger and review supporting documents/invoices against
applicable policies and procedures for preparation of an exhibit for the final report.
. Obtain a copy of EDC Project Plan and other applicable documents associated with advertising
and approval of the fmal Project by City Council and review for compliance with applicable state
statutes and by-laws.
. Prepare a tirneline of events associated with the Project from inception to completion thru review
of minutes and other interviews.
. Question officials about an alleged meeting on 10/1/08 with URS to detennine if there was a
violation of the Open Meetings Act.
. Review the contract and resulting invoices for services as submitted by URS (project Engineer) to
the City in connection with the Project for accuracy and compliance with the City's applicable
policies and procedures.
. Review the process for selection of the Project Engineer and Construction Contractor for
compliance with applicable State Statute.
. Verify the filing of Conflict of Interest by 4B Development Board Member.
5
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21,2010
. Review the expenditure of funds by the 4B Development Corporation for the S-Points Project for
compliance with applicable state statutes. (This procedure was addressed under "Review EDC
Project Plan and Associated Documents for Compliance with State Statutes")
. Verify proper authorization for expansion of funding for the Project.
. Review transactions between the City and Developer as they relate to the following:
o Criteria used for providing of a loan to the Developer.
o Review loan documents to determine compliance with the agreement and applicable laws
and regulations.
o Obtain Confmnation from the City to determine the depositor of a wire transfer used for
repayment of the loan.
. Review various real estate transactions between the City/4B Development Corporation and the
Developer as they relate to the following:
o The sale of a portion of San Jacinto Street to the Developer.
o Payment of property taxes on the Triangle property.
o Review of evidence of payments made by City to all parties at closing on Triangle
Property.
o Review of HUD-I known as Exhibit C for proper execution.
o Review title history along with lien documents on property, if available, and timing of
transactions.
. Prepare report.
. Review the procedures completed and the report.
Each of these items is addressed individually below.
IV. Detail of Procedures Performed and Results
1. Obtain Further Understandinl! of Five Points Proiect:
Because of the overall complexity of the Project, we began our procedures by viewing documents
provided by the City and the City Attorney in order to gain an overall understanding of the Project goals,
the timing of events, responsible parties, and applicable state and local codes.
We read meeting minutes related to the Project including those for the Council, EDC, and FAC from
February 2008 (before Project approval) to June 2010. These were obtained from the City's website.
Also, we interviewed Katherine Aguilar, a concerned citizen. It was represented to us by the F AC that she
had submitted public information requests concerning many of the questions raised and had attended a
majority of public meetings related to the Project. Present at this interview were FAC Chairman and
Councilman, Chuck Engelton and FAC member, Louis Rigby. During the interview, Mrs. Aguilar
discussed many of her questions and concerns related to the Project. Information obtained in this
interview was used to assist in developing our list of tasks planned and performed, as well as to better our
understanding of the Project and public concerns related to it.
Also interviewed were the members of the F AC in order to gain a better understanding of the Proj ect as a
whole, as well as an overview and background of some of the concerns that have been raised by citizens
of La Porte.
6
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
We also viewed what was represented, by the City Secretary, as all documents provided to Mrs. Aguilar
through public information requests. Original documents were also provided to us by the City through the
City Secretary's office. Documents provided to us included:
. City emai1s, memos, and other correspondence
. Genera11edger detail for the Proj ect
. Invoices, purchase orders, check requests, and other support documentation for all transactions
related to the Project
. Contracts related to the Proj ect
. The appraisal report for the Triangle property
. Loan and purchase documents related to land transactions
This review allowed us to gain the understanding of the Project needed for us to aid the City in
determining a reasonable scope for our work.
2. Review All Expenditures Coded to the Proiect and Compare to Applicable Policies:
One concern voiced by citizens was the possibility that Project expenditures may have violated applicable
City or EDC policies and procedures or Texas Local Government Code.
We began by interviewing the City Controller and Purchasing Manager to determine applicable
purchasing policies and procedures. We also obtained a copy of the City's purchasing policies and
procedures (Exhibit 1) and EDC bylaws (Exhibit 2). We then reviewed a project detail report (Exhibit 5)
provided by the City Finance department represented to contain all transactions related to the Project and
assessed those transactions for compliance with policies and procedures and state statutes.
Although transactions belong to the EDC and are not subject to City policies and procedures unless it is
specified in the EDC's own bylaws or policies and procedures, City personnel follow the more strict City
policies as summarized in Exhibit 42. Economic development corporations are generally considered
nonprofit corporations rather than governmental entities and, as such, are not subject to many of the legal
requirements that cities fall under including purchasing requirements.
According to the 2010 Texas Municipal Procurement Laws Made Easy (Exhibit 3), issued by the Texas
Attorney General's office:
The duty to comply with procurement laws is generally derived from some statute that
specifically requires an entity to make its purchases through such a procedure. The
implementing legislation for development corporations (the Development Corporation
Act) does not contain a provision that subjects economic development corporations to
municipal procurement requirements. These corporations are considered and treated for
most purposes as nonprofit corporations. Therefore, some legal analysts argue that if a
development corporation (a separate entity from the city) makes an expenditure, it would
not be required to follow municipal procurement requirements. Neither the Texas
Attorney General nor the Texas courts have directly addressed this question. However,
the Texas Supreme Court has found that a county park board must comply with the
competitive bidding requirements applicable to counties. The court found that the park
board was not autonomous and was under the supervision of the county to at least some
degree. Thus, the court reasoned that the park board should be treated as part of the
county for purposes of competitive bidding requirements.
7
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
While some might argue that, in light of this case, development corporations should be
subject to municipal procurement requirements since such corporations are clearly
subject to oversight by the city, the prevailing opinion is that development corporations
are not subject to these laws because they are functionally separate entities.
Review of Five Points Proiect Transactions
We requested a detail of all transactions coded to the Proj ect from the City's fmance department and were
provided a project detail report (Exhibit 5) showing only transactions coded to the Project. This report
includes expense, reclassification, and encumbrance transactions. Each expense transaction was reviewed
to determine whether City policies and procedures and state law were followed. We also viewed
supporting documentation including invoices, receipts, purchase orders, receiving reports, and copies of
checks for conformity to state law and City policy. It should be noted that, for transactions related to
URS, additional procedures were performed and will be addressed separately under "Review URS
Contract and Supporting Documents for Accuracy and Compliance."
A summary of this review is included as Exhibit 6. Generally, the EDC appeared to follow City policies
and procedures and state statutes applicable to the City, although not required to do so. A few exceptions
related to the accuracy of URS invoices are detailed in the section entitled "Review URS Contract and
Supporting Documents for Accuracy and Compliance" below. Other items that were noticed during this
review include:
. The City miscalculated retainage on the first application for payment by CF Jordan, construction
contractor on the Project. The City underpaid, but caught the error and made up the difference on
the second application for payment.
. There were several instances where items were initially coded incorrectly, however, these errors
were identified and corrected by the City.
. There were two instances where the receiving report was not stamped "received."
. There was one instance, also for CF Jordan, where no receiving report was documented for an
application of payment. However, the application for payment was signed indicating the work
was done.
2A. Finding
As the EDC is generally considered a nonprofit corporation, it is not subject to municipal procurement
laws. In addition, the EDC does not currently have any policies and procedures in place governing
procurement.
2A. Recommendation
The EDC should consider amending its bylaws to officially adopt purchasing policies and procedures to
help ensure organizational, fmancial, and civic accountability over the use of public funds. This could
consist of adopting the same policies and procedures as the City or following municipal purchasing
requirements under Chapter 252 of Texas Local Government Code.
3. Review EDC Project Plan and Associated Documents for Compliance with State Statutes:
Citizens have voiced concerns that the Project, or parts of the Project, may not have been carried out in
compliance with state statutes. In particular, there were specific questions raised by the public related to
8
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
the process for approving the Project, the purchase of property for the Project, cleanup costs related to the
removal of old fuel storage tanks, and the loan to East A to obtain the rights to property to be developed
by East A.
The EDC is a 4B development corporation tasked, along with City Council, with overseeing monies
collected through a one-half cent sales tax. Cities in Texas were given the authorization to collect this
sales tax in the 1991 Legislative Session in order to promote a wide range of civic and commercial
projects under section 4B of the Development Corporation Act of 1979 (the "Act"). In order to be eligible
for funding by taxes under section 4B, several criteria must be met under the Act. We have evaluated the
Project for compliance with each of these criteria.
4B projects must be of an authorized category. According to section 4B(a)(2)(A), public parks, park
facilities and events, and open space improvements are permissible projects. In addition, according to
Attorney General Opinion JC-400, because the EDC's articles of incorporation include the phrase
"including, but not limited to" any items allowable under Section 4B are also allowable under the EDC's
bylaws. As the Plaza would appear to fall under a public park and open space improvement, the Plaza
appears to be an approved class of project. The intention ofthe Project as a whole appears to fall under a
"project that the board in its discretion determines promotes or develops new or expanded business
enterprises that create or retain primary jobs" under the Economic Development Corporation Act.
Approval of 4B projects must also go through a specific process. The first step in this process is public
notice of a public hearing at least 60 days before the first project expenditure. This notice was published
on June 1,2008 in The Bayshore Sun newspaper.
The second step is to hold a public hearing. The public hearing was held on July 7, 2008 by the Board of
Directors of the EDC. Once the public hearing has occurred and sixty days have elapsed since the first
public notice, expenditures may proceed on the project. The first expenditure was made on October 28,
2008 (wire transfer and loan associated with the purchase of the Triangle property) which was more than
four months from the date of first notice.
The project must also be approved by the EDC's Board. This occurred in two stages. The planning phase
of the Project was approved by both the Council and Board on February 25, 2008. The implementation
phase of the Project was approved on July 7,2008 by the Board. Section 21 of the Act requires that the
City approve all programs and expenditures of the EDC. The Council approved the Project on February
25,2008, and approved individual contracts during the course of the Project.
Lastly, funds must be used for approved costs. These costs, according to Section 2(4) of the Act, include:
"The cost of acquisition, cleanup, construction, reconstruction, improvement, and
expansion, including the cost of the acquisition of all land, rights-o.f way, property rights,
easements, and interests, the cost of all machinery and equipment, financing charges,
inventory, raw materials and other supplies, research and development costs, interest
prior to and during construction and for one year after completion of construction
whether or not capitalized, necessary reserve funds, cost of estimates and of engineering
and legal services, plans, specifications, surveys, estimates of cost and of revenue, other
expenses necessary or incidental to determining the feasibility and practicability of
acquiring, cleaning, constructing, reconstructing, improving, and expanding any such
project, administrative expense and such other expense as may be necessary or incident
to the acquisition, cleanup, construction, reconstruction, improvement, and expansion
9
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
thereof, the placing of the same in operation, and the financing or refinancing of any
such project, including the refunding of any outstanding obligations, mortgages, or
advances issued, made or given by any personfor any of the aforementioned costs. "
Expenditures for the Project appear to fall into these allowable costs. Allowable costs incurred include:
. Engineering - payments made to URS for engineering and architectural services.
. Acquisition and cleaning of land, property rights, and easements - payments for purchase of
Triangle property and Parks and Wildlife building, appraisal, removal of buried fuel tanks and
soil testing and remediation.
. Raw materials and other supplies - various supplies purchased or issued by the City warehouse.
. Construction - payments made to the contractor on the Project (CF Jordan) and to Centerpoint
Energy for removal of streetlight and running power.
Promotional expenses are also allowable costs under section 4B(b), provided they do not account for
more than ten percent of revenues collected. This would cover the EDC's purchase of banners, buttons,
and other promotional items for the Project's completion.
The loan made to East A in order to secure the right of way and to facilitate securing the Triangle
property appears to be allowable. According to section 23(a)(6), development corporations have the
power to make secured and unsecured loans and collect interest on these loans "upon such terms and
conditions as its Board of Directors may deem advisable and not in conflict with the provisions of the
Act. "
In addition, the expenditures of sales tax proceeds must be made pursuant to a contract or other
arrangement sufficient to ensure that the funds are used for the intended and authorized purpose according
to Texas Attorney General Opinion JC-O 118. The intended purpose of the loan was to allow East A to
purchase property at 109 and 111 San Jacinto Street according to the memorandum of understanding
(Exhibit 7). What the developer was to do with this property is not spelled out in the memorandum of
understanding.
In 2007, Sections 40(a) and 40(b) were added to the Act requiring written performance agreements with
business enterprises when development corporations provide funding or make expenditures on behalf of
business enterprises. These agreements require a schedule of payroll or jobs to be created or retained,
capital investment to be made by the business, and repayment terms if the business should fail to meet the
terms of the agreement. However, these sections did not take effect until April 1, 2009 and do not apply to
the loan for this Project.
3A. Finding
The EDC appears to have lacked a written plan detailing exactly what East A was to provide in exchange
for the loan of funds.
3A. Recommendation
We recommend the EDC implement policies and procedures to ensure that written performance
agreements are prepared in any future projects involving funding of or expenditures on behalf of
businesses.
10
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
4. Prepare a Timeline of Events Associated with the Proiect:
In order to gain a better understanding of the Project during our procedures and to provide a point of
reference for the City and concerned public, we prepared a general timeline of events associated with the
Project using information obtained in the minutes and documents provided to us. This timeline can be
found as Exhibit 8.
5. Ouestion Officials About an Allel!ed Meetinl! on 10/1/2008:
An allegation was made that there was a non-public meeting of public officials related to the Proj ect
which took place on October 1,2008. Concerns were raised that this meeting may have been in violation
of the Open Meetings Act. We were asked to determine whether such a meeting took place, if there was a
record of the meeting, who was in attendance, and if any such meeting was a violation of the Open
Meetings Act.
In order to obtain information on the alleged meeting, we mailed questionnaires to Council members,
Board members, and key City staff including the City Manager, Finance Director, and City Secretary.
These questionnaires asked the following questions:
. Did you attend, or do you have any knowledge of, a meeting taking place on October 1, 2008
between City staff or officials and URS Corporation representatives?
. If yes, was there a written record of who was in attendance and what this meeting concerned?
Please provide a copy of this written record.
. If there was no written record, please provide known information of who was in attendance at that
meeting and what it concerned.
The responses we received are included as Exhibit 9. The City Manager and City Secretary acknowledged
that there was a meeting scheduled for the morning ofthat day, but had no knowledge of any specifics of
whether the meeting took place or what was discussed. Ed Matuszak, Vice President of the EDC Board,
assumed that if there was a meeting, he was likely there but had no memory or documents indicating he
was in attendance.
Through the City Secretary's office, we were also able to view the Microsoft Outlook calendar for
Council, the Board, and City staff. Through this, we were able to learn that there was a meeting scheduled
on October 1, 2008. City Manager Ron Bottoms, Assistant City Manager John Joems, and Economic
Development Director Gretchen Larson were scheduled to attend the meeting. Also scheduled were Dan
Wardrop and Bruce Broberg, both representatives ofURS Corporation. Ed Matuszak was not scheduled
to attend. No record was made of such a meeting and no staff questioned remembered that specific
meeting and, as such, we were unable to determine if the meeting actually took place or who was actually
in attendance.
If the meeting did take place and the scheduled attendees were there, it does not appear that it would be a
violation of the Open Meetings Act. Council and Board members also have calendars in the Outlook
system and per our review none were scheduled to attend. However, modifications to these records would
not result in an audit trail. If no quorum of Council members or EDC Board attended, the meeting would
not have fallen under the Open Meetings Act. The Open Meetings Act would not apply to a meeting
between City employees and a contractor.
11
CITY OF LA. PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
5A. Recommendation
The City and EDC should ensure that any meetings conducted which involve Council or Board members
in sufficient numbers to constitute a quorum are conducted in accordance with the requirements of the
Open Meetings Act.
6. Review URS Contract and Supportin2 Documents for Accuracy and Compliance:
Summary
URS was selected to provide engineering and architectural professional services on the Project. Concerns
were raised by the public related to invoices submitted by URS for payment. Allegations included errors
in invoices, charges submitted for travel expenses on days URS employees were not working on the
Project, and the possibility of charges not allowable under the contract.
We reviewed the URS invoices provided by the City for accuracy and compliance with the contract and
found that, while the invoices submitted appeared to be accurate in most respects, there were several
items which appeared questionable or could not be evaluated for accuracy or reasonableness based on the
documentation provided. It should be noted that, both individually and in total, these items accounted for
a very small percentage of the total Project costs of approximately $3.0 million. In addition, these items
appeared to be largely clerical or typographical in nature and did not appear to constitute an intentional
distortion of the amounts billed and, in some instances, were to the City's benefit.
Some of the items that could not be evaluated based on the information provided to us included:
. Reimbursement for mileage expenses - the contract documents provided do not specify how
mileage is to be calculated (actual, city limit to city limit, straight line, etc.).
. Reimbursement for toll expenses - reimbursement appears to have been done based on toll plazas
rather than dates and it could not be determined whether individual tolls were directly related to
the particular Proj ect.
. Hours billed - job titles were not included on the submitted time sheets so hourly billing amounts
could not be matched to hourly rates in contract documents; job titles for two URS employees did
not match any of the job titles included in contract documents.
Detail of Procedures Performed and Individual Findings
We reviewed invoices charged to the Project. Each invoice was recalculated in order to determine
accuracy. We also compared the items on these invoices for compliance with the contract with URS. We
have included these invoices as Exhibit 10 through Exhibit 18. Exceptions found are summarized below:
. On the 2/20/2009 invoice, URS appears to have incorrectly allocated 1.5 hours of time to the
Project which belonged to a different client's project called "QP RLC Fire Training Facility
Project Management" (see Exhibit 11, page 178). The employee, Moises Cinco, is billed at $120
per hour resulting in a possible overcharge of $185.40 including the three percent
communications fee added to all personnel billed to the Project.
. The 2/20/2009 invoice (see Exhibit 11, page 132) includes a travel expense report for URS
employee Bill O'Brien requesting mileage reimbursement for travel from Dallas to La Porte. The
URS Contract does not specify how mileage is to be charged to the client (actual mileage, straight
line, city limit to city limit, etc.). Mileage submitted was 650 miles. To gauge the reasonableness
12
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
of the miles, we calculated the round trip distance from URS's Dallas office to La Porte at 538
miles using to Google Maps for a difference of 112 miles.
. The 2120/2009 invoice (see Exhibit 11, page 131) includes a travel expense report for URS
employee Bill O'Brien requesting a meal reimbursement for travel with no supporting
documentation.
. The 2/20/2009 invoice (see Exhibit 11, page 127) includes a travel expense report for URS
employee Ed Burke requesting reimbursement of $12.25 for business meals and $6.00 for parking
or tolls. No supporting receipts were submitted.
. On the 2/20/2009 invoice (see Exhibit 11, pages 3 and 44), URS included reimbursement of a
courier bill for $69.66. Support documentation provided listed was for $69.60 for a possible
overcharge of $0.06.
. The 4/10/2009 invoice (see Exhibit 12, page 23) includes a request for reimbursement for a meal
at Yao with Bill O'Brien with no indication of business purpose or supporting documentation.
The amount charged was $24.41.
. The 5/11/2009 invoice (see Exhibit 13, page 23) includes a travel expense report for URS
employee Bill O'Brien requesting mileage reimbursement of 670 miles for travel from Dallas to
La Porte. To gauge the reasonableness of the submission, we calculated the round trip distance
from URS's Dallas office to La Porte at 538 miles using to Google Maps for a difference of 132
miles.
. The 5/11/09 invoice (see Exhibit 13, page 22) includes a travel expense report for URS employee
Bill O'Brien requesting a meal reimbursement for $6.50 with no support documentation provided.
. The 6/19/2009 invoice (see Exhibit 14, pages 11 and 16) includes a request for reimbursement for
$68.40 from A&E Graphics Complex for printing; however, the invoice is for $68.20 for a
possible overcharge of $0.20.
We also reviewed the URS contract document (see Exhibit 19) for a description of allowable charges and
costs and compared these to the invoices as submitted to the EDC (Exhibits 10 through 18). Services
subcontracted by URS were to be reimbursed by the EDC at a rate of cost plus ten percent. There was
also a three percent charge for communications for phone, fax, postage, and incidental copy costs which
is based upon the total labor charges. Both of these fees were recalculated and appeared to be correctly
calculated by URS.
We compared the hourly rates charged to the hourly rate schedule in the contract. While the amount of
hours billed matched the timesheets provided (with the exception noted above), it was not possible to
verify that hourly rates charged on invoices matched hourly rates per the schedule in the contract. There
are two reasons for this:
. Employees do not have job descriptions on the timesheets submitted. As such, it is impossible to
match an individual employee with the rates in the contract schedule.
. The job descriptions in the Project proposal (Exhibit 20, page 6) are limited to Bruce Broberg, PE
as Chief Executive and Dan Wardrop, AIA as Project Manager. However, neither description is
found on the hourly wage schedule. It appears Bruce Borberg was billed out at the principal
project manager rate of $210 per hour. Dan Wardrop was billed at $175 per hour which is either
$5 below the senior consultant rate of $180 or $55 over the senior project manager rate.
13
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
The Project proposal (Exhibit 20) also specifies that certain categories of expenses are reimbursable.
Categories which may be reimbursed include:
"copies, photos, models, renderings, express mail, supplies, travel (site trips, meetings),
lodging, meals, printing, and long distance phone calls in connection with the project. "
Expenses submitted for reimbursement appear to meet these criteria. The total amount of reimbursable
expenses submitted totaled $11,401.35 (see Exhibit 21). This amount is well under the "do not exceed"
amount of $19,900 in the Project proposal (Exhibit 20). However, this amount includes the following fees
that were not enumerated in the contract documents:
. On the 2/20/2009 invoice, there was a surcharge (5.676%) added to travel expenses for Charles
Wardrop and William O'Brien. These fees totaled $33.50.
. On the 2/20/2009 invoice, there was a surcharge (3.348%) added to copy and courier fees. This
fee, according to the contract, should have been ten percent (under services subcontracted). The
fee was $7.36, which is lower than the $21.98 that would have resulted using the higher fee
amount.
. On the 10/14/09 invoice, there was a surcharge (9.077%) on travel expenses for William O'Brien
totaling $28.02.
We also compared the dates on expense report forms submitted for reimbursement to time sheets
submitted to ensure that, for dates where travel, mileage, or meal reimbursements were submitted, there
was a time record corresponding to the same date. The results can be seen on Exhibit 21. Two items were
noted for which no corresponding time sheet was provided:
. On the 2/20/09 invoice, William O'Brien, Jr. submitted a request for reimbursement for meal and
mileage for 1/12/09. No timesheet was provided showing that he billed hours for that Project on
that day.
. On the 5/11/09 invoice, Charles Wardrop submitted a request for reimbursement of mileage for
3/25/09. No time sheet was provided showing that he billed hours for that Project on that day.
URS also submitted a summary of direct/indirect costs associated with the Project (Exhibit 22) in the
amount of $5,131.27. These costs do not appear to have been directly billed to the EDC as they are not
found on any of the invoices submitted for payment. The majority of the amounts included are for
mileage ($2,884) and printing/plots ($2,013.72). We reviewed the support documentation provided and
found that the travel dates on the employee expense reports did correspond to dates the employee billed
time to the Project. The printing log also tied to the summary on page one of Exhibit 22 and dates
corresponded to the ongoing dates of the Project.
When we attempted to tie the submitted toll statements to the expense report, we were unable to do so.
Toll amounts submitted on expense reports rarely tied to the tolls accumulated on that date. It appeared
that the tolls indirectly charged to the Project were charged based on toll plazas rather than on date of
travel. The amount of tolls indirectly submitted were $233.55, which account for about one percent of
direct and indirect costs and much less than one percent of the Project.
Total reimbursable costs including costs submitted on invoices ($15,470.77) and URS Intemal/Direct
Costs ($5,131.27) total $20,602.04. This total is approximately 3.5% more than the total estimated
reimbursable costs of$19,900 in the contract. The costs submitted by URS of $15,470.77 in Exhibit 22 is
14
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
in excess of the $11,401.35 calculated by us in Exhibit 21. The difference is caused by:
. $4,041.39 in expenses on an invoice dated 1/1/2010 which the EDC refused to pay because of a
dispute over additional ftnishing work authorized by URS not included in the original plans.
Since it was not paid, it was not included in our total.
. $28.02 that appeared to result from double counting of the surcharge from the 10/14/2009 invoice
on exhibit 22.
No documents provided to us indicated these two items were ever paid. If they are subtracted from the
total on Exhibit 22, the reimbursable costs would be below the "should not exceed" amount in the
contract.
6A. Finding
We noted exceptions with respect to some items billed by URS which included reimbursable expenses
without documentation and hours incorrectly billed to the Project. These exceptions were inconsequential
when compared to the total amount of the URS's contract and appear to be clerical or typographical in
nature.
6A. Recommendations
The City and EDC should ensure evidence is obtained supporting all charges and reimbursements under
large contracts. In addition, this support should be reviewed to ensure all charges are reasonable and fall
within the guidelines of the contract and dispute charges not covered by the contract.
7. Review Process for Selection ofProiect En2:ineer and Contractor:
Citizens have expressed concerns relating to the methods used to select the two primary contractors on the
Project. We inquired of City staff as to the process behind selecting URS as the project engineer and CF
Jordan as the construction contractor. Staff interviewed included the City Secretary, City Manager, and
Purchasing Manager.
As noted above under "Review All Expenditures Coded to the Proj ect and Compare to Applicable
Policies and Procedures," the EDC is not bound by the normal bidding requirements or the requirements
of the Professional Services Procurement Act (Exhibit 23) as they are considered neither government
entities nor government subdivisions subject to state statutes governing procurement. The EDC bylaws do
not specify the procedures to be followed.
Selection ofURS as Proiect Engineer
Per interviews with City staff and a memo from the City Manager in reference to citizen concerns
(Exhibit 24), engineering firms were solicited by telephone by City staff. Three ftrms responded to the
request. Of these, according to staff, one had major problems with their submission, including not
addressing everything requested and added services for other projects. Their quote was not retained by the
EDC or the City. Of the remaining two firms (URS and Knudson), URS was recommended by City staff
to the EDC and ultimately chosen.
The City and EDC did not have any documentation of the criteria used in the selection ofURS. Without
well defmed criteria and a process for judging submissions, the selection cannot be objectively evaluated.
15
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
Selection ofCF Jordan as Proiect Contractor
Although the Project was an EDC project and bidding is not required, the Project was competitively bid,
with CF Jordan being the low bidder. The project bids were also advertised and approved by both the
EDC and Council.
7A. Finding
The process by which URS was selected as engllleenng contractor on the Project was not well
documented.
7 A Recommendations
Although the requirement to formally bid contracts does not apply to EDC's and professional service
contracts do not require bidding under state statutes, the EDC should consider documentation of the
methods used to evaluate and select contractors in order to increase transparency.
8. Verifv Filinl! of Conflict of Interest bv Board Member:
Concerns were expressed that one of the EDC's board members at the time was also an employee ofthe
engineering contractor on the Project. Questions were raised about a possible conflict of interest related to
this situation.
Ed Matuszak, is an employee with URS which was contracted to perform the architectural and
engineering portions of the Project. Mr. Matuszak holds the position of Vice President for Project
Development with URS and was also one of the EDC's Board members at the time of the Project.
Section 5.03 of the EDC's bylaws (Exhibit 2) states that:
"The members of the Board of Directors are local public officials within the meaning of
the Texas Local Government Code Chapter 171. If a director has a substantial interest in
a business entity or real property which is the subject of deliberation by the Board of
Directors, the director shall file an affidavit with the secretary of the Corporation stating
the nature and extent of the interest. Such affidavit shall be filed prior to any vote or
discussion upon the matter by the Board of Directors, and the interested director shall
abstain from any vote or decision upon the matter. "
Mr. Matuszak abstained on votes related to the project according to Board minutes. He also filed a
conflict of interest affidavit (Exhibit 25) on February 4,2008 as required in the EDC's bylaws. However,
the affidavit refers to agenda item seven from the February 4, 2008, Board meeting minutes (Exhibit 26)
which concerns the Sylvan Beach Shoreline Protection and Beach Re-nourishment Proj ect, not the Proj ect
in question. This affidavit does not mention URS directly. The line for business entity is left blank and "I
work for the company" is written in below. Chapter 171 specifies only that a conflict of interest form
must be filled out detailing the conflict, but not whether it must be filled out for each individual project or
even each agenda item. Mr. Matuszak filled out a conflict of interest affidavit for his interest in URS,
albeit in relation to a different project, and publicly abstained from votes regarding URS and the Project.
16
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
It should also be noted that filing an affidavit and abstaining from votes is only required under the EDC's
bylaws and not by state statues. Under state statutes, according to the City Attorney under (Exhibit 27),
EDC Board members are not subject to conflict of interest requirements under Chapter 171 of Texas
Local Government Code. He cites Attorney General Opinion JC-338 (Exhibit 28), dated 2/12/2001,
which states "The directors of a local development corporation are not subject to chapter 171 of the Local
Government Code, which regulates conflicts of interest of local public officials." Further, the Attorney
General concluded "that a development corporation created under the [Development Corporation] Act is
not a political subdivision nor any other 'local governmental entity' subject to Chapter 171 of the Local
Government Code."
Under EDC bylaws, however, they are considered local public officials. According to the City Attorney's
letter (Exhibit 27):
"the bylaws "declare" that the members of the board of directors of the development
corporation are local public officials within the meaning of Texas Local Government
Code Chapter 171.
Therefore, in my opinion, the directors of the City of La Porte Development Corporation
are not covered public officials under Texas Local Government Code, Chapter 171.
However, members of the board of directors of the City of La Porte Development
Corporation are bound by the provisions of Article 5, 'Potential Conflicts of Interest',
Section 5.03 of the corporate bylaws."
8A. Finding
The bylaws contradict recent Attorney General Opinions in stating that Board members are officials
when, under state statutes, they are not under Chapter 171.
8A. Recommendation
The EDC should consider amending the conflict of interest section of their bylaws to either note that they
are exempt from such requirements under Texas Local Government Code or consider clarification of their
policies on conflicts of interest in the bylaws to eliminate any conflict with state statutes and set clear
policies for any violations.
8B. Finding
The conflict of interest form used by the City and filled out by Mr. Matuszak lends itself to being filled
out without fully disclosing the nature of the conflict.
8B. Recommendation
In order to increase information provided relative to conflict of interest and transparency, the City and
EDC should consider adopting different forms for reporting. A sample form obtained from the web site of
the Texas Attorney General is attached as Exhibit 29. The party responsible for receiving such
documentation on conflicts of interest should ensure that such forms are filled out in its entirety and clear
and understandable language so that the nature of the conflict is readily identifiable by interested parties.
17
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
9. Verify Authorization for Expansion ofProiect Fundim?::
Through interviews with the Citizen, the concern was raised that on the HUD-1 Statement (Exhibit 30),
the sale between East A and Wade Cooper involved more than the $150,000 loan approved by the EDC.
The amount in question was the $82,218.68 on line 207 as "paid to seller." Upon review of this
document, it appears that no additional amount was paid for by (or required the authorization of) the
EDC. Line 202 shows the $150,000 loan, as approved by the EDC. Other lines under "amounts paid by or
in behalf of borrower" on this form represent either money previously paid by the buyer (East A) or debts
or liens assumed by the buyer.
We also compared the amount originally budgeted for the Project to the total actual costs associated with
the Project. The Project was initially budgeted for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 at $2.7 million dollars. This
amount includes property purchases, engineering, and construction related to the Project. The total
expenditures on the Project were approximately $3.0 million. It is our understanding that these overruns
were related to two change orders on the construction portion of the Project and expenses related to the
removal of fuel tanks that exceeded the amount estimated. City projects would normally require council
approval of change orders in excess of ten percent of the original contract or $25,000. As noted earlier,
however, EDC projects are not subject to these requirements under Local Government Code 252 as they
are not considered governmental entities.
10. Review Transactions Between City and Developer:
Many concerns were raised about the relatively complicated series of transactions between East A and the
City. These transactions included a loan of $150,000 to East A to secure the rights to 109 and 111 San
Jacinto, purchase of the Triangle property from East A for $150,000, and the lease of the Alamo Building
from East A. Concerns voiced to us included allegations that there was no public purpose behind the loan,
that the requirements of the loan were not met, and that the funds received in repayment of the loan did
not come from East A.
Criteria used for providing loan to Developer
Through interviews with City staff and review of the Memorandum of Understanding (Exhibit 7), the
loan of $150,000 to East A was to allow them to secure the 109 and 111 San Jacinto properties. In
exchange, East A agreed to sell the Triangle property to the EDC. City officials were unable to provide a
written record of what criteria was used to evaluate this loan in terms of creditworthiness of the borrower
or other objective criteria. However, the loan was secured by a deed oftrust for the property.
Review loan documents to determine compliance with the agreement and applicable laws and regulations
The $150,000 loan to East A was wired to Stewart Title Company on October 28,2008 for the October
29,2008 closing (Exhibit 31). The loan was secured by a promissory note (Exhibit 32) with an attached
deed of trust (Exhibit 33). Again, this loan can be seen on Exhibit 30, line 202. Under the deed of trust,
failure to meet the requirements of the trust would have allowed the Corporation to foreclose on the
property and sell it at auction to reclaim the funds owed.
18
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
The promissory note requires the borrower (East A) to repay interest in the amount of $625.00, on the
first of each month until the principal is repaid. However, it appears that interest was instead paid in a
lump sum upon repayment in March as noted below.
Exhibit 33 also specifies that East A will maintain insurance on the property and furnish proof of such
insurance to the EDC. While were provided a copy of the insurance policy on the property that was
effective during the time frame covered by the loan, we were not able to substantiate that a copy was
provided to the EDC as required. The EDC had to request this from East A during our procedures
meaning it was either not provided to the EDC as required in Exhibit 33, or was not retained by the EDC.
On March 12, 2009, the release of lien was filed (Exhibit 35), two weeks prior to the repayment, to allow
it to be placed in escrow with Stewart Title Company for the closing. The loan was repaid on March 27,
2009 by a wire transfer (Exhibit 34) in the amount of $153,183.70, $150,000 principal and $3,183.70 in
interest. The loan was paid out of and the repayment booked to the same Five Points Project account as
seen in Exhibit 5.
The $3,183.70 in interest seems to be in line with the terms of the loan. Using the principal amount of
$150,000, the interest rate of five percent and monthly compounding, one would expect annual interest of
$7,674.29. The term between the borrowing of the amount on October 29, and the repayment on the
following March 27, equates to a term of 149 days. Taking that term and assuming 360 days in a year
would result in interest owed of $3,176.30. The difference (approximately $8) could be the result of
differences in the way the interest was calculated or rounding differences and is insignificant.
Obtain confirmation from the City to determine depositor of wire transfer used for relJayment of loan
In order to determine the source of funds received in repayment of the loan to East A, we confirmed the
holder of the account from which the funds were repaid through JP Morgan Chase (see Exhibit 36). The
confirmation received shows only that the funds were received from Stewart Title Company. It appears
reasonable that the repayment would go through a title company. It is our understanding from
correspondence with the City Attorney that further information about the source of the repayment would
have to be subpoenaed from Stewart Title which is outside of the scope ofthis engagement.
lOA. Finding
The City did not perform, or did not document their performance, of due diligence on East A or Garson
Silvers to ensure he had the intention and fmancial ability to carry through on his portion of the Project.
As a result, while the City performed its portion of the Project as outlined in the Memorandum of
Understanding (Exhibit 7), East A has not.
lOA. Recommendation
The EDC should consider implementing due diligence procedures to require background checks, credit
checks, proof of lines of credit, or other documentation to help ensure contractors and developers have the
means to carry out their side of any economic development project. In addition, the EDC should consider
developing contingency plans for major projects involving third parties in the event they are unable to
complete their portion as agreed.
19
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
lOB. Finding
During our review of the various transactions and support documentation we noted instances where there
was no formal written documentation of the project as a whole and the reasons for and reasoning behind
certain actions taken to bring the project to completion.
lOB. Recommendation
While not legally required, we recommend the EDC consider utilizing project development plans for
future development projects. Such a document, updated as needed, would act as a way to clarify the
project to stakeholders, act as a guide during the project to ensure it stays on task, serve to inspire analysis
of changes to the original project, limit project creep, and act as a reference at the end of the project to
evaluate whether the initial goals were met. In particular, projects or portions of projects that could be
viewed as primarily benefitting private parties should be especially documented with respect to their
public benefit. Documentation of the purpose of funds provided to private parties is required as of April I,
2009 under Sections 40(b) of the Economic Development Act and would serve to make the purpose of
such transactions more transparent to the public.
This detailed project development plan should address some or all of the following:
· The public purpose or use that is to be served by the project
. A detailed scope of the project
· An analysis of the impacts, both positive and negative, on the City
· Cost versus benefit analysis ofthe project in objective terms (jobs created, value added, capacity
increased, etc.)
· A description of the project steps from project planning through completion
· Description of and reasons for significant changes to the project as originally conceived
· If the individual project is part of a larger project or master plan, a description of how the former
relates to the latter
· Detailed costs for the project construction and anticipated maintenance and operating costs after
completion
· Contingency plans for nonperformance on the part of vendors, contractors, and partners involved
· A [mal project report detailing wrap up ofthe project and critique of its execution
10C. Finding
In the review of the promissory note and deed of trust for the loan to East A, it was noted that proof of
insurance was not provided or retained and monthly interest payments were provided in a lump sum
rather than monthly.
lOCo Recommendation
The City and EDC should ensure that policies and procedures are in place to monitor contracts between
the City/EDC and contractors/vendors so that all requirements are met.
20
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
11. Review Real Estate Transactions Between the City. Board. and Developer:
Multiple real estate transactions taking place on one day, along with various liens on the properties in
question, and multiple parties involved make the real estate transactions complex. Because of the overall
complexity of the transactions between the City, Board, and East A, many questions have arisen
surrounding these transactions. In an effort to clarifY these transactions and answer some of these
allegations, we performed procedures related to the real estate transactions. Several questions related to
these transactions were raised in our citizen interview as well as F AC and Council minutes. Among these
were:
· The possible sale of a portion of property on San Jacinto Street to East A by the City.
· Payment of property taxes on the property purchased despite the EDC being a nontaxable entity.
· Questions surrounding the payments made by the City to all parties on the October 29, 2008
closing of the Triangle property.
· The possibility of the settlement statements (HUD-l) being improperly filled out or including
improper charges.
· Questions regarding the title histories on the various properties.
In an effort to clarifY these transactions and evaluate them, we performed procedures related to each
including reviewing documents and interviewing staff to find evidence of a sale of land by the City,
reviewing property taxes paid by the EDC on the Triangle property, gaining an understanding of the
various payments made by the City during closing on the property, reviewing the HOD-I documents
related to the purchase of the Triangle property, and reviewing title documents provided by the City
attorney.
Based on a meeting with the FAC on September 20, 2010 we modified the scope of work to include
researching the appraised value of property held by East A at 109, 111, and 117 San Jacinto Street as
listed with the Harris County Appraisal District.
The sale of a portion of San Jacinto Street to Developer
We viewed no documents that appeared to refer to or substantiate any sale of land to East A. Also, per
interviews with City staff, no such transaction took place.
Payment of property taxes on Triangle property
We reviewed the payment of property taxes on the Triangle property. These property taxes were
delinquent at the time the property was purchased. At the closing for the Triangle property, an estimate of
$324.44 was credited towards the purchase price on the HUD-l (Exhibit 37) by showing the amount
being deducted from the seller in line 511 and credited to the buyer online 211. The actual amount of
taxes paid was $311.92 as can be seen in Exhibit 38. It is common for the buyer to be credited for the
amount of property taxes owed, and to subsequently pay the actual taxes due.
Review of evidence of payments made by City to all parties at closing on Triangle property
On October 28, 2008, the City transferred money for two transactions. The first of these transactions was
for the purchase of the property known as the Triangle property from East A. The second transaction was
the loan to East A. Both amounts were transferred on October 28 for an October 29 closing. We will
address each item individually.
21
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
With respect to the payment for purchase of the Triangle property, $153,424.56 was transferred to a
Stewart Title Company Escrow account (Exhibit 39). The amount matches the HUD-l closing document
found in Exhibit 34. The amount can be broken down as follows:
. $150,000.00 - Purchase price of the property
. $3,479.00 - Closing costs associated with purchase
. $324.44 - Delinquent taxes credited to purchase price of the property
ill exchange for the amounts above, the EDC took ownership of the property as evidenced by the
completed contract (Exhibit 40).
The loan to East A, also in the amount of $150,000, is covered above in the section "Review Loan
Documents to Determine Compliance with the Agreement and Applicable Laws and Regulations. "
Review of Exhibit C for proper execution
ill the documents provided to us, there were two items denoted with Exhibit C. Both were HUD-1 closing
documents; one for the loan to East A (Exhibit 30) and one for the purchase of the Triangle property from
East A (Exhibit 37). Both documents appear to be properly executed. Amounts total and match other
documentation.
Review title history along with lien documents on property, if available, and timing of transactions
The purchases of two properties by the EDC for the Proj ect (Parks and Wildlife Building and Triangle
property) appear to be straight sales. We were provided no documents to the contrary.
Most of the concerns revolve around the much more complicated array of liens involving the property
purchased by East A using the proceeds of the $150,000 loan provided by the EDC. The liens and title
history of this property can be summarized as follows:
On July 30,2007, the Triangle property and the property at 109 and 111 San Jacinto was purchased by
East A from Wade Cooper for $59,999 as can be seen on Exhibit 41, page 1. Rather than a straight
purchase, the property was deeded to East A using a Special Warranty Deed with Vendor's Lien (Exhibit
41, page 4) backed by a note.
On October 17, 2008, East A obtained a mortgage on the two properties in the amount of $110,000
through Gagle illvestments. This is evidenced by the Deed of Trust and Security agreement which can be
found as Exhibit 41, page 22.
On October 29, 2008, the 100' right of way along San Jacinto belonging to East A was deeded to the
EDC. This was the portion of San Jacinto Street which was closed to traffic and incorporated as part of
the Plaza.
Also on October 29,2008, a Warranty Deed with Vendor's Lien was issued in the amount of $150,000.
The original Warranty deed apparently had a mistake and was corrected with the deed attached in Exhibit
41, page 11. This is in reference to the $150,000 loan provided to East A by the EDC as discussed above.
22
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
On March 26, 2009, East A obtained another mortgage on the Alamo property and 109 and III San
Jacinto properties in the amount of $157,000. It appears that the funds received were used to repay the
EDC's $150,000 loan. However, as noted above, we were unable to determine where the funds the EDC
received to payoff the note originated. This mortgage was obtained through Real Property Mortgage and
Investment Co., Inc. The Deed of Trust and Security Agreement for this can be seen at Exhibit 41, page
28.
Also on March 26,2009, Real Property Mortgage and Investment Co. assigned a 52.229 percent interest
in the property to Gagle Investment Company. This is evidenced by the Transfer of Note in Exhibit 41,
page 34.
On July 1, 2009, the EDC filed a lien of $28,916 on the property between the Triangle and Alamo
property for East A's portion of the cost of removal of fuel tanks and soil remediation. Staff explained to
us that these tanks were leaking into the Triangle property which had the potential to interfere with the
Project. A copy of this lien can be found in Exhibit 41, page 16. This lien is considered second in order
of lien priority as verified by the City Attorney.
On October 10, 2009, another lien was filed on the property between the Triangle and Alamo properties
by Halligan's Foam Coatings of Houston for work done on another property owned by East A located at
153 S. Broadway, La Porte, in the amount of $4,300. This lien can be found in Exhibit 41, page 36.
As of the date the title reports were run (March 24, 2010), East A still owned the property at 109 San
Jacinto. At a minimum, there were three claims against the property including the mortgage held by Real
Property Mortgage Inc., the lien held by La Porte's EDC for the removal of fuel tanks, and the lien held
by a vendor for work done to property owned by East A.
Research the appraised value of 109, 111. and 117 San Jacinto Street
On September 21, 2010, the property at 111 San Jacinto Street is listed with the Harris County Appraisal
District as having an improvement market value of $33,629 as of January 1, 2010. The record of owner
listed with the Harris County Appraisal District for the improvement property at 111 San Jacinto Street is
Wade Cooper. The property at 109 San Jacinto Street is listed with the Harris County Appraisal District
as having a land market value of $7,375 and an improvement market value of $17,749 for a total value of
$25,124. The property at 117 San Jacinto Street is listed with the Harris County Appraisal District as
having a land market value of $8,230 and an improvement market value of $89,506 for a total of $97,736.
23
CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
Agreed Upon Procedures - Five Points Town Center Project (Continued)
September 21, 2010
Disclaimer and Limit on Report Use
We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit, the objective of which would be the expression of
an opinion on the information as a result of the procedures performed. Accordingly, we do not express an
opinion. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Mayor, City Council, EDC
Board, and management and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than those
specified parties.
C5lfELT~RRIS I~CHACEK, LLLP
v
Belt Harris Pechacek, LLLP
Certified Public Accountants
Houston, Texas
24
8
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested September 27,2010
Appropriation
Requested By:
Mayor Rigby
Source of Funds: nla
Department:
Mayor's Office
Account Number: nla
Report:
Resolution:
Ordinance:
x
Amount Budgeted: nla
Amount Requested:
Exhibits:
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits: Ordinance
Exhibits: Hoards & Commissions applications at your seats due to confidential information
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
La Porte City Council to discuss and approve appointments, reappointments, and fill vacant positions on various
Boards and Commissions.
The following positions are vacant or term is expiring.
Airport Advisory Board:
Deborah Rihn-Harvey - Position 1 - Term Expires 2010
Nick Hooke - Position 2 - Term Expires 2010
Steve Gillett - Position 5 (Airport Manager) - Term Expires 2010
Applicants: Charles Harrington, Lawrence "David" Thomas, Jr., Nancy Ojeda, Dorothy M. Coker, Gideon Jones,
Richard Warren W. Randolph Woodard and T. J. Walker
Building Codes Appeals Board:
Tom Campbell- Position I-Chairman - Term Expires 20 I 0
Terry Bunch - Position 2 - Vice Chairman - Term Expires 2010
Position 6 - Vacant
Applicants: J.P. Jackson, Dr. Lorena W. Maher, TJ. Walker, Richard Warren and W. Randolph Woodard
City of La Porte Tax Reinvestment Zone Number OnelLa Porte Redevelopment Authority:
Dave Turnquist - Member - Term Expires 20 I 0
Horace Leopard - Member - Term Expires 2010
J.J. Meza - Member - Term Expires 2010
Chester Pool- Member - Term Expires 2010
Page 2
Applicants: Rick Guzman, Dorothy M. Coker, Richard Warren, W. Randolph Woodard, T.J. Walker and Nancy
Ojeda.
Houston Galveston Area Council Representatives (HGAC):
Mayor Rigby will need to be replaced as the alternate representative
La Porte Area Water Authority:
Vacant Position 1 - Term Expires 2011
David Janda - Member - Term Expires 2010
Ken Schlather - Member - Term Expires 2010
Applicants: Abraham Rosa, Dorothy M. Coker, J.P. Jackson, W. Randolph Woodard, Sharon Jones and Nancy
Ojeda
La Porte Development Corporation:
Mike Clausen - Member - Term Expires 2010
Vacant - Member - Term Expires 2010
Bob Pizzitola - Vice President - Term Expires 2010
Vacant - Member - Term Expires 2011
Applicants: Rick Guzman, Charles Harrington, Abraham Rosa, Kathryn Aguilar, Dorothy M. Coker, Jacqueline
Fowler, Phillip Hoot, J.P. Jackson, Nancy Ojeda, Shirley Jones and T.J. Walker
Fire Code Pension Board:
City Council Representative John Joerns will need to be replaced due to his resignation.
Fiscal Affairs Committee:
Vacant - Alternate Member 1
Mayor Rigby will need to be replaced as a member
Planning and Zoning Commission:
Dottie Kaminski - District 4 - Term Expires 2010
Paul Berner - District 5 - Term Expires 2010
David Janda - Member Alternate I - Term Expires 2010
Applicants: Rick Guzman, Danny Earp, Charles Harrington (District 3), Abraham Rosa (District 5), Lawrence
"David" Thomas, Jr. (District 5), Susie Burgess (District 3), Patricia A. Clark (District 6), Dorothy M. Coker
(District 6), Jacqueline Fowler (District 5), Phillip Hoot (District 5), J.P. Jackson (District 1), Dr. Lorena M. Maher
(District 5) and Richard Warren (District 2).
Page 3
Southeast Texas Housing Finance Corporation Board of Directors:
Vacant - Term Expires 2012
Applicants: Charles Harrington, Abraham Rosa, Betty Moore, Dorothy M. Coker and W. Randolph Woodard
Zoning Board of Adjustments:
Lawrence McNeal- Member - Term Expires 2010
Gilbert Montemayor - Member - Term Expires 2010
Applicants: Charles Harrington, Dorothy M. Coker, J.P. Jackson, Richard Warren, W. Randolph Woodard, Shirley
Jones, Nancy Ojeda and T.J. Walker
? 4J-/1O
Date
ORDINANCE NO.!J L 1 q
AN ORDINANCE APPOINTING MEMBERS TO VARIOUS BOARDS, COMMISSIONS,
AND COMMITTEES, OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY
CLAUSE; CONTAINING A REPEALING CLAUSE; FINDING COMPLIANCE WITH
THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE HEREOF.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1.
The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the Airport Advisory Board for
the City of La Porte Municipal Airport, (three (3) year term)
for terms expiring on August 31st of the year indicated, or until
their successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified:
Position l. - Debra Rihn-Harvey 2013
Position 2 . - Nick Hooke 2013
Position 3. - Hector Villarreal 2012
Position 4. - Tucker Grant 2012
Position 5. - Steve Gillett 2013
Position 6. - Eliminated by City Council
on 7/13/98 by Ord. 98-2265
Section 2. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the Animal Shelter Advisory
Committee, without term, or until their successors shall have been
duly appointed and qualified:
Veterinarian - Donna Medford, DVM No Term
Rabies Control Authority - Ken Adcox No Term
Animal Control Officer - Clarence Anderson No Term
Animal Welfare Rep. - Dana Dicker No Term
City Council At-large Pos. A - John Zemanek No Term
Section 3. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Bay Area Houston Convention and
Visitors Bureau, without term, until their successors shall have
been duly appointed and qualified:
City Representative 1 - Stacey Osborne - Appointed 6/2009
Hospitality Industry Professional - Joe Bertuglia -
Appointed 2/2008
Section 4. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Bay Area Houston Economic
Development Representatives, without term, until their successors
shall have been duly appointed and qualified:
Date Appointed
Member - Stacey Osborne - Appointed 6/2009
Member - Mike Mosteit - Appointed 10/2004
Section 5. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Board of Directors of the City
of La Porte Reinvestment Zone Number One, (two (2) year term)- for
terms expiring on August 31st of the year indicated, or until
their successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified:
Position 1 Peggy Antone 2011
Position 2 Dave Turnquist 2012
Position 3 Alton Porter 2011
Position 4 Horace Leopard 2012
Position 5 Doug Martin 2011
position 6 J.J. Meza 2012
position 8 Chester Pool 2012
2
The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby ratifies the
Mayor's appointment of Chairman Lindsey R. Pfeiffer as Chairman of
the City of La Porte Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number One.
The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby ratifies the
following appointments by La Porte Independent School District and
Harris County:
Position 7
Position 9
Lloyd Graham (LPISD)
Lindsay Pfeiffer (Harris Co.)
Reappointment Chairman 7/27/09
N/A
2011
Section 6. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
appoints the following named persons, all of whom are resident
electors of the City of La Porte or non-resident individuals
owning or operating a business within the City of La Porte, duly
verified by proof of an applicable tax statement or utility
account for such business, and each of whom the City Council deems
competent to serve on such Board by virtue of their experience and
training in matters pertaining to building construction, and none
of whom are employed by the City of La Porte, to serve as members
of the Building Codes Appeals Board (three (3) year term) - for
terms expiring on August 31st of the year indicated, or until
their successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified:
Position 1 Tom Campbell 2013
Position 2 Terry Bunch 2013
Position 3 Paul Larson 2012
Position 4 Ron Holt 2012
3
Position 5 Ken Schlather 2011
Position 6 J.P. Jackson 2011
Position 7 Mark Follis 2011
Section 7. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Chapter 172 Employee Retiree
Insurance and Benefits Committee, for terms expiring on August
31st of the year indicated, or until their successors shall have
been duly appointed and qualified:
Citizen Position 1 George Van Dyke No Term
Citizen Position 2 Steve Valerius No Term
Retiree Participant - Aaron Corrales No Term
Employee Participant - Matt Daeumer No Term
Finance Staff Michael Dolby No Term
H.R. Staff Heather Weger No Term
Legal Staff Clark T. Askins No Term
Alternate Pos. 1 Martha Gillett No Term
Alternate Pos. 2 Julie Graham No Term
Alternate position 1 may participate in all meetings of the
committee but is entitled to vote only in the absence of a regular
member; Alternate position 2 may participate in all meetings of
the committee but is entitled to vote only in the absence of a
regular member, where Alternate Pos. 1 member is not present, or
where more than one regular members are absent.
Section 8. The City Council hereby makes the following
appointments to the Census Count Committee, without term, or until
their successors shall have been duly appointment and qualified:
Member - Charlie Perry - No Term
4
Member - Vicki Campise - No Term
Member - Herman Berges - No Term
Member - T.J. Walker - No Term
Member - Earl Ehlers - No Term
Member - Jeanne Zemanek - No Term
Member - Sherry Lowe - No Term
Member - Sarah Lindeen - No Term
Member - Vacant - No Term
Member - Ernest Escobar - No Term
Member - Vacant - No Term
Member - Vacant - No Term
Member - Don Hill - No Term
Member - Paula Swearingen - No Term
Member - Marie Meehan - No Term
Member - Susan Robinson - No Term
Member - Jesse Garcia - No Term
Member - Betty Moore - No Term
Member - Henry Newsome - No Term
Member - Joe Lopez - No Term
Ex Officio Member - Ken Bays - City of Morgan's Point
Ex Officio Member - David Stall - City of Shoreacres
Section 9. The City Council hereby ratifies and confirms the
appointment by the City Manager of Civil Service Commission
Members of the City of La Porte, (three (3) year term) - for terms
expiring of the year indicated, or until their successor shall
have been duly appointed and qualified:
5
Chairman - Keith Trainer 8/31/2012
Vice Chairman - Les Bird 8/31/2011
Debra Gallington 8/31/2010
Section 10. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the Drainage and Flooding
Committee, without term, or until their successors shall have been
duly appointed and qualified:
Chairman Mike Mosteit No Term
Vice Chairman Mike Clausen No Term
Member Chuck Engelken No Term
Member Louis Rigby No Term
Daryl Leonard - Alternate No Term
Section 11: The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Fire Code Review Board of the
City of La Porte, (three (3) year term) - for terms expiring on
August 31st of the year indicated, or until their successors shall
have been duly appointed and qualified:
District 1 Jack Oliphant 2011
District 2 Jeff Brown 2012
District 3 Woodrow Sebesta 2012
District 4 Floyd Craft 2012
District 5 Jim Bridge 2012
District 6 Lester Clark 2011
At Large-A Bryan Moore 2012
At Large-B Paul Vige 2011
Mayor Lynn Green 2012
6
Section 12. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointment to the Fire Fighters Pension Board of
Trustees, to serve without term or until his successor shall have
been duly appointed and qualified:
City Council Representative
Michael Dolby No term
Section 13. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Fiscal Affairs Committee,
without term, or until their successors shall have been duly
appointed and qualified:
Date Appointed
Chairman Chuck Engelken 1998
Committee Member - Daryl Leonard 2010
Served as Alternate 2 since 2009
Committee Member - Tommy Moser 2010
Served as Alternate 2 since 2004
Served as Alternate 1 since 2009
Alternate Member 1 John Zemanek 2010
Alternate Member 2 - Jay Martin 2010
Section 14. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Harris County Appraisal District
Representative, without term, or until their successors shall have
been duly appointed and qualified:
Member -
Ed Heathcott
12/31/2011
Section 15. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the Houston Galveston Areas Council
7
Representatives, without term, or until their successors shall
have been duly appointed and qualified:
Representative Chuck Engelken No Term
Alternate Representative John Black No Term
Section 16. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the La Porte Area Water
Authority, (two (2) year term) - for terms expiring on August 31st
of the year indicated, or until their successors shall have been
duly appointed and qualified:
Position 1 Randy Woodard 2011
Position 2 Dennis H. Steger 2011
Position 3 Steve Valerius 2011
Position 4 David Janda 2012
Position 5 Ken Schlather 2012
Section 17. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
appoints the following named persons, all of whom are residents of
the City of La Porte, and no more than four of whom are elected
ci ty officials or city employees, to serve as directors of the
City of La Porte Development Corporation without compensation, but
wi th reimbursement for actual expenses, (two (2) year term) for
terms expiring on August 31st of the year indicated, or until
their successors shall have been duly appointed and qualified:
Chuck Engelken 2011
Mike Clausen 2012
John Zemanek 2012
Nancy Ojeda 2011
Richard Warren (President) 2011
8
Bob Pizzitola (Vice President)
Randy Woodard
2012
2011
Section 18. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the La Porte Health Authority,
(three (3) year term) - for terms expiring on August 31st of the
year indicated, or until their successors shall have been duly
appointed and qualified:
Health Authority Abdul R. Moosa, M.D. 2011
Alternate Robert D. Johnston, M.D. 2011
Medical Advisor/EMS Oscar Boultinghouse Contract
Section 19. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the La Porte Redevelopment
Authority, (two (2) year term) - for terms expiring on August 31st
of the year indicated, or until their successors shall have been
duly appointed and qualified. In addition the Council ratifies
the Mayor's appointment of Lindsay R. Pfeiffer as Chairman:
Position 1 Peggy Antone 2011
Position 2 Dave Turnquist 2012
Position 3 Alton Porter 2011
Position 4 Horace Leopard 2012
Position 5 Douglas Martin 2011
Position 6 J.J. Meza 2012
Position 7 Lloyd Graham (LPISD) N/A
Position 8 Chester Pool 2012
Position 9 Lindsay R. Pfeiffer, Chairman 2011
Reappointed Chairman, 7/27/2009
9
Section 20. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the Main Street Advisory
Board, a new Board required by the Texas Historical Commission,
(three (3) year term) - for terms expiring on August 31st of the
year indicated, or until their successors shall have been duly
appointed and qualified:
Position 1- 2011
Position 2- 2011
Position 3- 2011
Position 4- 2012
Position 5- 2012
Position 6- 2012
Position 7- 2010
Position 8- 2010
Posi tion 9-
2010
Position 10- Position 10 Eliminated by Ordinance 2004-2782-
L on August 28th, 2006 by City Council action.
Position 11- Position 11 Eliminated by Ordinance 2004-2782-
L on August 28th, 2006 by City Council action.
There are also three (3) Ex Officio members of this Board:
1 the City of La Porte's Main Street Coordinator
2 the City Manager of the City of La Porte, or his
designee
3 the Manager of the La Porte-Bayshore Chamber of
Commerce
10
Section 21. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby makes
the following appointments to the City of La Porte Planning and
Zoning Commission, (three (3) year term) - for terms expiring on
August 31st of the year indicated, or until their successors shall
have been duly appointed and qualified:
Chairman
District 1
District 2
District 3
District 4
District 5
District 6
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Section 22.
Hall Lawler 2012
Doretta Finch 2011
Richard Warren 2012
Kirby Linscomb Jr. 2012
Dottie Kaminski 2013
Lou Ann Martin 2013
Les Bird 2011
Danny Earp 2013
David Janda 2011
The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the Southeast Texas Housing
Finance Corporation Board of Directors, for terms expiring on
August 31st of the year indicated, or until their successors shall
have been duly appointed and qualified:
Director Betty Moore 2012
Section 23. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
makes the following appointments to the Zoning Board of
Adjustment, (two (2) year term) - for terms expiring on August 31st
of the year indicated, or until their successors shall have been
duly appointed and qualified:
Position 1 Chester Pool 2011
11
Section 26.
The City Council officially finds, determines,
recites, and declares that a sufficient written notice of the
date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the City Council
was posted at a place convenient to the public at the City Hall of
the City for the time required by law preceding this meeting, as
required by the Open Meetings Law, Chapter 551, Texas Government
Code; and that this meeting has been open to the public as
required by law at all times during which this ordinance and the
subject matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally
acted upon.
The City Council further ratifies, approves and
confirms such written notice and the contents and posting thereof.
Section 27.
This Ordinance shall be effective from and after its
passage and approval, and it is so ordered.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this ;2~ay Of~ 2010.
By:
ATTEST:
M~t:d~
City Secretary
::Us-r ~
Assistant City Attorney
12
Position 2 T. J. Walker 2011
Position 3 Rod Rothermel 2011
Position 4 Charles Schoppe 2011
Position 5 George W. Maltsberger 2011
Alternate 1 Lawrence McNeal 2012
Alternate 2 Gilbert Montemayor 2012
The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby designates
George W. Maltsberger, of Position 5, to serve as Chairman of the
Zoning Board of Adjustment until the expiration of the member's
term of appointment as designated in this section, or until their
successor shall have been duly appointed and qualified.
Section 24. If any section, sentence, phrase, clause or any
part of any section, sentence, phrase, or clause, of this
ordinance shall, for any reasons, be held invalid, such invalidity
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance, and it
is hereby declared to be the intention of this City Council to
have passed each section, sentence, phrase or clause, or part
thereof, irrespective of the fact that any other section,
sentence, phrase or clause, or part thereof, may be declared
invalid.
Section 25.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
are repealed to the extent of such conflict
conflict herewith
only.
12
Houston-Galveston Area Council
Office of the Executive Director
October 13,2010
RECEIVED
OCT 1 4 2010
The Honorable Louis Rigby
Mayor
City of La Porte
604 West Fairmont Parkway
La Porte, TX 77571
CI1'Y SECRETARY'S
OFFICE!
Dear <Mayor Rigby:
I am writing regarding the appointment of La Porte's representative to H-GAC's 2011
General Assembly and Board of Directors.
H-GAC's Bylaws authorize each member city with a population of at least 25,000 but not
in excess of 99,999 according to the last preceding Federal Census (2000) to select one member
of its governing body as its representative and one member of its governing body as an alternate
to the H-GAC General Assembly.
H-GAC's Bylaws also stipulate that your Board of Directors representative shall be the
General Assembly delegate. Therefore, the official chosen to serve as the General Assembly
representative will also be designated to serve on H-GAC's Board of Directors.
I have enclosed the appropriate form for your convenience.
The 2011 designated representatives begin their terms of office at the first of January
2011.
If more information concerning General Assembly and Board of Directors membership
would be useful, please contact me or Mary Spain of the staff (713-993-4598). Thanks for your
help in selecting H-GAC's 2011 General Assembly and Board of Directors.
Sincerely,
~
Jack Steele
JS/kay
Enclosure
cc: City Secretary
Mailing Address
PO Box 22777
Houston, Texas 77227-2777
Phone 713-627-3200
o
Physical Address
3555 Timmons Lane, Suite 120
Houston, Texas 77027-6466
Phone 713-627-3200
Recycled
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL
2011 GENERAL ASSEMBLY
AND
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
*********************************
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of La Porte, Texas that the following be and are hereby
designated as the representative and alternate of the General Assembly of the Houston-Galveston
Area Council for the year 2011 :
ALTERNATE
CJ1ucK
Tohn
~~t:rl
B Ic,(cK
REPRESENTATIVE
FURTHER THAT they are hereby, designated as the representative and alternate to the Board
of Directors of the Houston-Galveston Area Council for the year 2011.
THA T the Executive Director of the Houston-Galveston Area Council be notified of the
designation of the hereinabove named delegate and alternate.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this the Jl+kdayof
(Se j1le (VI be ,<...
,2010.
APPROVl1D:
MJr~
ATTEST:
:.m~
10 11
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: September 27. 2010
Budget
Requested By: D. Wilmore
Source of Funds:
Department: Planning
Account Number:
Report: X Resolution:
Ordinance:
Amount Budgeted:
Exhibits: Recommendation Memo from Board
Amount Requested:
Exhibits: Code Review Comments
Budgeted Item: YES
NO
Exhibits
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed the 2009 Code Editions (Residential, Building, Plumbing, Fuel Gas, Energy Conservation and
Mechanical Code). New code books, existing local amendments and typed comments on the new codes were
provided to the Building Codes Appeals Board. The codes were subsequently reviewed and discussed by the Board.
At their August 17, 2010 meeting, the Board voted to recommend adoption of the 2009 Code Editions with local
amendments as noted in the report. Attached is the Board recommendation memo and typed comments.
In accordance with past practices, the memo recommends a minimum 60-day implementation period to allow for
mail notification to contractors as well as updating of divisional handouts and the website. With a 60-day
implementation period, the effective date would be December 11th. For contractor convenience, staff recommends
the ordinance become effective with the new year (January 1,2011).
Action Required bv Council:
op to consider the Board recommendation on code adoption and provide staff with direction on the adoption
lementation of the 2009 Code Editions
~ (~/to
Date
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: Tom Campbell, Chairman of the Building Codes Appeal Board
CC: Building Codes Appeals Board Members; Debbie S. Wilmore, Chief
Building Official; Tim Tietjens, Director of Planning; Ron Bottoms,
City Manager
Date: 9/17/2010
Re: Building Codes Adoption with Local Amendments
As in past practices, staff reviewed the 2009 Code Editions (Residential, Building,
Plumbing, Fuel Gas, Energy Conservation and Mechanical Code). Staff's typed
comments were subsequently reviewed and discussed by the Board.
At our August 17, 2010 meeting, the Board voted to recommend adoption of the
2009 Code Editions with local amendments as attached to this report.
The Board recommends Council support the adoption of the 2009 Edition of the
construction codes with local amendments as outlined in this documentation. We
recommend a minimum 60-day implementation date to allow mail notification to
contractors as well as updating of plan review, divisional handouts and the website.
Thank you.
1
REVIEWCOMMENTS. 2009 EDITION
The following review comments do not include all ofthe city's local amendments. If an existing
amendment was not affected by the respective code book, it was not referenced for review.
Note: The National Electrical Code (NEC) is not part of this review. Its adoption is under Sect.
#82-336 and code editions are reviewed separately.
For your convenience, amendments that have a proposed change are highlighted in yellow.
Residential Code Amendments.
Section RI05.2 Work Exemptfrom Permit. Deletion of Building Permit Exemption #10 (decks).
Requires permit for deck due to zoning placement criteria.
Table R301.2(1) Climatic and Geographic Design Criteria. Establishment of criteria in
accordance with table shown.
WIND DESIGN SUBJECT TO DAMAGE FROM WINTE
SEISMIC Frost R
GROUND DESIGN Line DESIGN ICE BARRIER FLOOD AIR MEAN
SNOW Speed "dO Topographic CATEGORY Weathering Depth Termite TEMP UNDERLA YMENT HAZARDS FREEZING ANNUAL
LOAD (mph) effects Ok" "r "a" "b" "e" "eO REQUIRED "h" "gO INDEX "I" TEMP OJ"
4-9-87
11-6-96 1500 or
0 120 No A N 12" VH 32. No 6-18-07 less 67"
Section R301.2.1.2 Protection of Openings. Section requires window and garage door glazed
opening protection for windbome debris. Require installation of garage doors that
meet 120 mph windspeed to be requiredfor new construction on Iv.
Section R313 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems. Deletion of entire section (Sections R313.1
thru R313.2.1). Deletion in accordance with S.B. 1410, Sect. 12 which prohibits a
municipality from enacting an ordinance requiring the installation in a new or existing 1 & 2
family dwelling.
Appendix G, Swimming Pools, Spas, and Hot Tubs provisions are hereby adopted as part of this
code edition adoption. Appendix was not adopted with previous code edition, this
amendment is required to adopt at this time.
Code Comments Con't....
Page 2
Buildin!! Code Amendments.
Section 101.4.1 Electrical. The provisions of the National Electrical Code along with local
electrical amendments shall apply to the installation of electrical systems, including alterations,
repairs, replacement, equipment, appliances fixtures, fittings and appurtenances thereto.
Delete - This code section number is no longer titled electrical. The existing amendment
needs to be deleted since the electrical comments were deleted and section number was re-
used.
Section 101.4.4 Property Maintenance. Delete.
number. Previous code edition Sect. was 101.4.5.
Amendment of section
Section 113 Board of Appeals. Deletion of entire section (Sections 113.1 thru 113.3).
Amendment of section numbers. Previous code edition Sect. was 112 and 112.1 thru 112.3.
Section 419 Live/Work Units. Deletion of entire section (Sections 419.1 thru 419.8).
Delete - This new code section would conflict with zoning regulation regarding home
occupations.
Section 1507.8 Wood Shingles. The use of wood shingles is prohibited. All sections and tables
(Sections 1507.8.1 thru 1507.8.8) are deleted. Amendment of section number.
Previous code edition Sect. was 1507.8.7.
Section 1507.9 Wood Shakes. The use of wood shakes is prohibited. All sections and tables
(Section 1507.9.1 thru 1507.9.9) are deleted. Amendment of section number.
Previous code edition Sect. was 1507.9.8.
2
Code Comments Con't....
Page 3
Plumbing: Code Amendments.
NOTE CHANGE: Table 403.1 Minimum Number of Required Plumbing Fixtures. Footnote (f):
Drinking fountains are not required for an occupant load of 15 or fewer. References 410.1
Drinking fountain Approval- when restaurants serve water, fountain not required. In other
occupancies, where fountains are required, water coolers or bottled water dispensers shall be
permitted to be substituted for not more than 50% of the required fountains.
The drinking fountain requirements referenced in the IPC, Table 403.1 and IBC, [P] Table
2902.1 are hereby amended as follows:
Assembly, Educational. Institutional. Residential and Storage Classifications: No change,
requirements shall be in accordance with table and code requirements.
Business, Factory/Industrial and Mercantile Classifications:
Occupancy load of (26) and over - No change, requirements shall be in accordance with table
and code requirements.
Occupancy load of (1) to (25)-
(#1) Install water fountain(s) as required by table and code requirements; - or-
(#2) Building plan identifies a kitchen/break room with a refrigerator and plans identify
permanent use of bottled water for the facility; -or-
(#3) Building plan identifies permanent use of a portable water cooler for the facility.
NOTE: For issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Options #2 or #3 must be in place for the
building final inspection.
Fuel Gas Code Amendments.
Section 106.6.3 Fee Refunds, No.2 (Permit Fee) - Not more than fifty percent (50%) of the
permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code.
Amendment of section number. Previous code edition Sect. was 106.5.3.
Section 106.6.3 Fee Refunds, No.3 (Plan Review) is deleted.
section number. Previous code edition Sect. was 106.5.3.
Amendment of
3
Code Comments Con't....
Page 4
Ener!!\' Conservation Code Amendments.
Section 104.1 General. Construction or work for which a permit is required shall be subject to
all required inspections. Inspections shall be performed by a certified and/or licensed party (i.e.
3rd Party). The building shall have a final inspection and not be occupied until approved.
Amendment of section number. Previous code edition Sect. was 105.1. Also, sentence was
added to provide clarification about occupancy.
Section 104.3 Certification. PlanlPermit submittals to the City shall include all necessary energy
certification documents. Certification documents shall be completed by an approved agency or
individual. Delete - previous code edition section reference was
incorporated into another area.
Sections 104.2 thru 104.8.1. - Sections are deleted in their entirety."
Amendment of section number. Previous code Sect. was 105.2 thru 105.4.
Mechanical Code Amendments.
Existing local amendments remain unchanged. No changes that require a new amendment.
4
12
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
Agenda Date Requested: September 27. 2010
Budl!et
Requested By: D. Wilmore
Source of Funds:
Department: Planning
Account Number:
Report: X Resolution:
Ordinance:
Amount Budgeted:
Amount Requested:
Exhibits: Highlight Memo on Inspection Division Activities
Budgeted Item: YES NO
Exhibits: AUl!ust Activity Report
Exhibits
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION
Attached is a staff report highlighting Inspection Division activities.
Action Required bv Council:
, If~1 to
Date
Memo
CC:
Mayor and City Council
Debbie S. Wilmore, Chief Building Official
Ron Bottoms, City Manager; John Joerns, Assistant City Manager; and Tim
Tietjens, Director of Planning
9/17/2010
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Highlight Memo on Inspection Division Activities
The following is our monthly report on some of the highlights of the Inspection Services
Division and our July Activity Report.
Interrupted ElectricalService - 3003 So. Broadway (Bayside Oaks Apts.)
. In late August, the Police Department reported an occupied apartment complex
electrical service had been damaged by a contractor and the service had already been
terminated. The call came in late in the afternoon and our inspector was dispatched
immediately. The damage was to the main service conduit and the inspector
coordinated with the company responsible for the damage, the apartment manager, the
electrician and the electrical provider. The power was restored later that evening
(approximately 4 hours later).
Assistance on 5602 Stone Creek Drive
. In 2008, a fence was installed without a permit. When the permit was not obtained, a
court ticket was issued. Unfortunately the owner failed to appear in court and a
warrant was issued. The case was closed in 2009 when the owner paid his fine and
obtained his permit and inspection.
In 2010, the Department of Public Safety notified that individual by mail they would
not be renewing his driver's license due to the warrant. A Community Service
Inspector met with the owner and assisted him with a call to the State. The state
recognized the error and updated their file to allow the license renewal. In addition,
the owner updated utility billing records to reflect a contact person should a future
issue arise. The owner greatly appreciated staff's assistance in getting the matter
resolved.
Highlight Memo Con't.
Page 2
August Activity Report
. (1) New Commercial permits - Valuation is $400,000
13324 Somerton Drive (Brookglen Splash Park)
. Increase of (30) inspections from July
. Decrease of(4) customers (counter) sign-ins from July
. No change in the number of code enforcement cases from July
(100) weed cases were part of the overall (173) total cases
. Of the (173) August cases, (65) or 38% were resolved in August
. Page 2
NEW RESIDENTIAL PERMITS: 1
V ALUA TION 90,000
NEW COMMERCIAL PERMITS: 1
VALUATION: 400,000
INSPECTIONS PERFORMED: 359
SLABS 40
ELECTRICAL 104
PLUMBING 60
COVERUP 9
FINAL 36
FRAME 0
MISC. 110
CUSTOMER SIGN IN: 345
OPEN RECORDS REQUEST: 10
COMMERCIAL PROJECTS PENDING - NEW CONSTRUCTION OR
REMODELS OVER $50.000 12
FOLLIS CONSTRUCTION - 223 N 10TH ST - 09-1141 - METAL BUILDING
MRE BUILDERS -702 HWY 146 S - 09-1496 - NEW HOTEL (SUPER 8)
DUROTECH-3501 LUELLABLVD-I0-219-NEWCOMMERCIAL
RAM DESIGN - 920 W MAIN - 10-295- CLP ARCH
WAREHOUSE RACK CO - 10051 PORTER - 900- 1 0-400- PALLET RACKS
ACTION ENG & INSPEC - 317 N BROADWAY ST. - 10-721 - NEW COMMERCIAL
SIP CONSTRUCTION - 9705 SPENCER HWY - 10-840 - NEW COMMERCIAL
ATW DETAILED SOLUTIONS, INC- 1900 NEST -10-1006 - MODULAR BUILDING
FOLLIS CONSTRUCTION-11518 OLD LP RD 7-D-1O-517-BLDG FOR ELEV.
FOLLIS CONSTUCTION-11518 OLD LP RD - 10-951 - PAVING AND DETENTION
KRAFTSMAN PLAYGROUND & PARK EQUIPMENT - 10-1303 - 3324 SOMERTON
DR. NEW SPLASH PARK
TIRZ
NONE
1
CODE ENFORCEMENT
CODE ENFORCEMENT NUMBER OF COMPLAINTS, CASES
CASES AUGUST 2010
(COMMUNITY SERVICE) CITY INITATED CITIZEN COMPLAINT TOTAL
ALCOHOL CHECK 7 0 7
BASKETBALL GOALS 0 0 0
BLDG NUUNTENANCE 1 2 3
BUILDING PLACEMENT 1 1 2
CAR FLYERS 0 0 0
CONTAINERS 0 0 0
COIN OPERATED 0 0 0
MACHINE
DANGEROUS 0 0 0
BUILDING
DEBRIS 8 6 14
EXTERIOR STORAGE 3 1 4
FENCES 0 0 0
FORWARD TO OTHER 0 1 1
DEPARTMENTS
GRAFFITI 0 0 0
HEALTH ISSUES 0 0 0
ILLEGAL DUMPING 1 0 1
ILLEGAL MOBILE 0 0 0
HOMES
JUNK VEHICLES 0 0 0
LIVESTOCK 0 0 0
MISCELLANEOUS 1 4 5
OFFICE TRLR 0 0 0
OFF SITE PARKING 0 0 0
POOLS 2 3 5
SCREENING REQUIRED 0 0 0
SECURING BUILDINGS 5 2 7
SEWAGE 0 1 1
SIGNS 10 0 10
SIGNSONRO W 0 0 0
SUBSTANDARD 0 0 0
STRUCTURES
TEMP STORAGE CONT 0 0 0
UNSAFE ELEC 0 0 0
UNSAFE PLBG 0 0 0
WTR/DRAIN STD 0 0 0
WEEDS 82 18 100
WK WITHOUT PERMIT 3 5 8
ZONING 3 2 5
BLD CODE VIOLATION 0 0 0
BLDG CODE-SANIT 0 0 0
HOUSE MOVING 0 0 0
ROW OBSTRUCT 0 0 0
ROW DAMAGE 0 0 0
TOTAL 127 46 173
2
TOTAL OF 173 COMPLAINTS CASES
AUGUST 2010
TOTAL COMPLAINTS, CASES 173 100%
CASES RESOLVED 65 38%
CASES UNRESOLVED 108 62%
NEW MUNICIPAL
COURT CASES THIS MONTH 4 E. KNIGHT (2)
S. BOOKMAN(2)
1. RAMILABEN
T. MCKENZIE
LAWSUITS IN PROGRESS
(NON-MUNICIPAL COURT CASES) CLIFF HALL (I)
S:\CPShare\INSPECTION DIVISION\lnspections\Monthlv Reports 20IOAUGUSTMONTHL YREPORT.doc
3
ft(h ;~;-} A
Phillip Hoot's Petition
I
l
*:f;<J!\\"~~%~''l(''W"",,''''l,''J,~;M':l;',''t<''~\'l.'\,'>ilE,),'''''''1:.%w''''m>ll''\'r~-=-~<';;.t~~=-~.l\';l:lfmi'~~--m.-~
~"'_*t..'1~"'i\>;"'~_-"'VI_J~"'I>'
First' would like to inform this council that they cannot vote on item 8 because it is not a forensic audit and according
the last page of the AUP it is not even an a udl:
For those who don't know let me describe the masterful way the City Manager and City Attorney perpetrated this
event. Now I am not an accountant so I am not comfortable in using terms like forensic audit, special audit or an AUP
wnich is short for Agreed upon Procedures. So I am going to put this in terms I am comfortable with. Let's say that ABC
City Council approves a subcommittee's request to buy a Mack Truck. So The City Manager sends out a RFQ for a truck.
He finds a Mack Truck for $24,000. The agenda for the Subcommittee containing the purchase order for the vehicle is
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's office. The Subcommittee holds that meeting and is told that it wil! cost
$5000 more to buy the vehicle. The City Council approved the increase. The vehicle is ready and a big unveiling of Mack
truck is scheduled. They lift the veil and there sits a Ford Pinto. The City Manager proclaims I did my job I got your
vehicle. When you ask what happened to the Mack Truck, you are told "what is the problem both are vehicles" or "'the
mayor signed the contract." Even worse, you are told that that when you approved the price increase you also changed
the contract from a Mack Truck to a Ford Pinto. That is right the City Attorney reviewed the contract and did not notify
you of the changes. So you paid more for a Ford Pinto than you would have for a Mack Truck. Also you find out that the
City Manager defied a City Cound! directive and only sent out the RFQ for a pick up. So the question has to be asked
was there a conspiracy conducted by the City Manager and City Attorney or was it just gross incompetence? Gentlemen
what you have here is a Ford Pinto. You originally directive was for a Mack Truck.
What are the implications of this? You're job just got harder, You can no longer trust anything that City Manager and
the City Attorney hands you to vote on or sign. There will be some that say that I don't like this AUP that is not true
because it proves what I have suspected all along. Will the City Manager and the City Attorney's office manipulate the
citizens and this council by any means possible even to the point of letting them unwittingly commit crimes to achieve
their objective? Vou need to seriously consider posting meeting agendas 2 weeks prior to the meeting, in order, that
you might fully comprehend what you are voting on and signing.
I do not envy this council tonight because there are some angry citizens over this deception. I especially do not envy
Chuck Englekin who worked hard and diligent to have an above board process only to have his efforts undercut at the
last minute by some bureaucrats. I feel sorry for Jay Martin who at his 3'" meeting must take a stand on whether this is
just a bunch of radical citizens on a witch hunt or a manipulative and corrupt City Manager and City Attorney wanting
to high jack this government. Gentlemen, your job is not going to be easy tonight. The sad part it could have been.
The reason I made sure I was on the agenda is so my concerns can be addressed at this meeting. My concerns are:
1. Who defied a Council's directive by sending a RFQ out that did not meet Forensic Audit standards?
2. Is this council going to let a subordinate undermine their authority?
3. By defying a Council's directive on the RFQ. does this prove that there was a conspiracy to gain control of this
accounting process?
4. If there was a conspiracy could it have been done without the assistance of the City Attorney's Office?
5. Was the Open Meeting Act violated at the Fiscal Affairs Meeting on July 8th because no documents was presented
to the public detailing the actual changes from a forensic audit to an AUP?
6. Was the Accounting Firm involved in this conspiracy?
7. Why was JulV 8th meeting a possible Open Meeting Act violation when the City Attorney reviews all agendas?
8. Why didn't the City Attorney point out the contract change at July 8th meeting?
9. Did the City Attorney's Office intimidate or coher-es the accounting firm to change direction and opinions shown in
this AUP?
10. What is so important to hide on the Town Plaza Project, that well meaning City Councilman are being deceived?
So what does this AUP say about the financial dealings at the Town Plaza Project; who cares! The question this report
screams who is governing this City? r recommend that this Council conduct a thorough investigation on the Town Plaza
Project along with the AUP process and have someone trustworthy make sure it is conducted per your wishes.