HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - Regular - 11/20/1986REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
NOVBMBER 20, I986
The City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas met in regular session on the 20th day of
November, 1986 in the City Council Chambers, first fluor, City Hall, 1625 13th Street,
Lubbock, Taueo at 8:00 a.m.
Present: Mayor B. C. McMinn, Mayor Pro Tem Joan Baker, Councilman T. J. Patterson,
Councilman Gary Phillips, Councilwoman Maggie Trg'o, Councilman Bob Nash, Councilman George
Carpenter, City Manager Larry J. Cunningham" City Attorney John C. Ross, Jr', and City
Secretary Ranette Boyd'
Mayor McMinn called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m.
86-45A-502-783
( I') The Invocation was given by Councilman T. J. Patterson.
86-45A-502-784
( 2'\ The Pledge of Allegiance was given in unison by those in the Council
Chambers'
86-45A-502-785
( 3'\ Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilwoman Tr 'o
to approve the Minutes of the November 13, 1980 Regular City Council
meeting as written' Motion carried: 7 Yeas; D Nays
88-45A-502-788
( 4') Citizen
86-45A-502-787
� 5'\ A representative
Ordinance #8989 providing for the abatement of diseased trees.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 2 & 18 OF THE LUBBOCK CITY CODE BY ADDING AN ARTICLE III
ENTITLED "DISEASED TREES,, WHICH DEFINES CERTAIN NUISANCES; PROVIDES NOTICE OF ABATEMENT AND
APPEAL FROM SUCH NOTICE AND GIVES THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD POWER TO HEAR SUCH APPEALS;
PROVIDES FOR THE CITY TO ABATE SUCH NUISANCE AND ASSESS THE COSTS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER;
PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
PhilHoel, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Board, reported to
Council that the Board had reviewed the diseased trees ordinance and
recommended it to Council for passage.
Lee Osborn, Parks and Recreation Director, gave the history of this
ordinance as follows: He said that on August 28, 1988, Mrs' Barbara
Rudd, Dr' Arthur Elliott, and Dr' Harlan Thorvilaon appeared at the City
Council work session to discuss the problems associated with diseased
trees, especially Oak Wilt' The Parks and Recreation Staff was asked to
investigate three specific areas: Encourage property owners to
voluntarily remove diseased trees; survey other cities with ordinances
related to diseased trees; and determine if any state or federal laws
would be applicable for diseased tree problems.
Mr' Osborn went on to say that during the work session on September Il,
1986, the City Council was provided a progress report regarding the
extent of the diseased tree problem' It was the consensus of the Council
that the Parks and Recreation Staff continue to study the matter and that
the Parks and Recreation Board consider the information and develop a
recommendation for an ordinance for Council consideration. A rough draft
of an ordinance for the abatement of diseased trees and a draft of the
notice to owners was prepared and presented to the Parks and Recreation
Board for the review and approval on November 5, 1986. The Parks and
Recreation Board approved the Ordinance and a procedure for notifying
owners of diseased trees which contains the following key elements:
I' Definition -- The City of Lubbock has authority to abate
nuisances; therefore, the Ordinance provides for a definition
and abatement procedures for the nuisance. The Ordinance is
503 November 20, 1986
88-45A-503-788
( 6.)
2. Requirement for Abatement -- The Ordinance declares it unlawful
for any person or occupant having control of a lot, tract, or
parcel of land, to allow any tree or plant which is defined as
a public nuisance to remain intact and requires the owner or
occupant to remove the dead or diseased trees.
3' Inspections -- The Director of Parks and Recreation or his
representative is authorized to enter upon any lot or parcel of
land at any reasonable hour to inspect trees or plants in order
to accomplish the purpose of this Ordinance.
4' - Following the verification of the disease by a
laboratory analysis, the owner or occupant will be furnished a
written notice which outlines the requirements of the Ordinance
and requires the removal of the dead or diseased trees.
5. Appeal Process -- The owner or occupant would have the right to
appeal the requirement to remove the diseased or dead tree to
the Parks and Recreation Board-
8- Assessment of Cost -- If the owner or occupant fails to remove
the diseased or dead tree within the specified time frame, the
Director of Parks and Recreation shall have the authority to
cause the work to be done and the City would assess the coat
against the property owner'
7- - A violation of this Ordinance would be deemed a
misdemeanor and could be punishable by a fine not to exceed
$200.
Rather than including in the Ordinance the provisions for the notice and
the operating procedures governing the appeal process, it was felt that
the Parks and Recreation Board should have the authority to review these
and make changes as needed. As a result, notice provisions and specific
appeal procedures are not included in the Ordinance. This allows the
Board some flexibility in making changes as needed.
Owners will have 30 days from the data of the notice to remove the dead
or diseased trees from their property' The owner or occupant could
appeal the notice to the Parks and Recreation Board by furnishing an
appeal in writing within 14 days of the receipt of the notice. The Parks
and Recreation Board would hear the appeal within 14 days and the Staff
would inspect the property 30 days after the notice is issued to
determine if the nuisance had been abated' If the owner fails to abate
the nuisance, then the City will issue an order to a private contractor
to remove the nuisance and the owner will be assessed the coot which is
payable within 30 days. If the owner is unable to pay the cost of the
work, they may enter into an agreement with the City to pay out the cost
in monthly installments.
The Parks and Recreation Board and Staff recommended approval of the
Ordinance.
Motion was made by Councilman Nash, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Baker to
pass on first reading Ordinance #8989 as recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Board and Staff' Motion carried: 7 Yeas; O Nays'
ORDINANCE #8987--Authorizing the removal of the traffic signal at
intersection of Amarillo Highway (U.S. 87) and Erskine and Street.
ORDINANCE #8987
IAN ORDINANCE CANCELLING AUTHORITY AND APPROVAL FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT ER3KINE STREET
AND AMARILLO (U.S. 87) AND AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF SAID TRAFFIC SIGNAL AS AN OPERATIVE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Carpenter
to pass on second and final reading Ordinance #8087 as recommended by
Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; U Nays'
86-45A-583-788
/ 7,\ ORDINANCE #8988--Deleting certain provisions of the Code of Ordinances
concerning permits.
ORDINANCE #8988
AN ORDINANCE DELETING ALL SECTIONS OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK,
TEXAS, INCLUDED IN ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE III OF CHAPTER
14, ARTICLE IV OF CHAPTER 14, ARTICLE V OF CHAPTER 14 AND A PORTION OF CHAPTER 15; PROVIDING
A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
November 20, 1986
504
85-46A-504-790
( 8.)
Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Carpenter
to pass on second and final reading Ordinance #8988 as recommended by
Staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas; O Nays.
Consider Resolution #2472 declaring the necessi
imorovement of certain streets and alleys on t�
RESOLUTION #2472
RESOLUTION #2472
1986 ASSESSMENT PAVING PROGRAM
Program.r and ordering the
6 Assessment
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock by a Resolution passed on October 7,
1986, in regular session of said City Council declared a necessity for and ordered the
improvement of those certain streets, highways, and alleys or portions thereof in the City of
Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, as more particularly described hereafter, by excavating,
grading, and paving the same and by the construction of drainage facilities therein and by
the construction of curbs and gutters wherein curbs and gutters are not now in place, and
directing the City Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for said improvements; and
WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for the improvements of said highways, streets
and alleys have now been duly approved by the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Lubbock
County, Texas; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas,
to be necessary in the public interest to make the improvements herein designated on those
certain highways, public streets and alleys or portions thereof; NOW THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
SECTION l' THAT improving the hereinafter described highways, streets and alleys or
portions'thereof, located within the City of Lubbock by excavating, grading and paving the
surface thereof and the construction of drainage facilities therein as well as the necessary
curbs and gutters which are not now in place be and are hereby found to be a necessity.
SECTION 2' THAT the coot of making such improvements be partly paid for by the City of
Lubbock and partly by the property abutting upon the hereinafter described highway, street or
streets and alloys or portions thereof which are hereby ordered to be improved, and the
owners of such property as a personal liability after public hearing, all in accordance with
and as required by Article II05b, of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas amended by Chapter
281 Acts of the 52nd Legislature and amendments thereto'
SECTION 3' THAT the portions of streets and alleys which improvements are proposed to
be constructed and the abutting property proposed to be assessed for said improvements
designated and defined by Unit and Sub -Unit are as follows:
UNIT AND
SUB -UNIT
ALLEYS (10, WIDE)
FROM
TO
A-460-95
E-W alley between
I16'5/ W.
361' E. of
33rd 3t' & 34th 5t'
of Ave' oNx
Ave' xXx
A-460-96
E-W alley between
Salisbury Ave.
Salem Ave.
7th St' & 8th 3t'
A-460-97
E-W alley between
Elgin Ave.
Detroit Ave'
20th 3t' & 2Ist 3t'
A-460-98 E-W alley between Hartford Ave. Gary Ave'
42nd 3t' & 43rd 3t'
UNIT AND
SUB -UNIT STREET (36' WIDE) FROM TO
2240-81 80th Street Akron Avenue Boston Avenue
2240-82 80th Street Boston Avenue Elgin Avenue
2240-63 8Ist Street Boston Avenue Elgin Avenue
2240-64 Akron Avenue 79th Street 80th Street
2240-55 Akron Avenue 80th Street 81ot Street
505 November 20, 1986
UNIT AND
SUB -UNIT
224O-00
2240-O7
224O-68
224U-G9
UNIT AND
SUB
224I-3
224l-4
224l-5
224I-G
224I-7
UNIT AND
SUB -UNIT
2242-3
UNIT AND
SUB -UNIT
2243-2
2243-3
2243-4
STREET (36- WIDE)
E. 75th Street
76th Street
77th Street
23rd Street
STREET (42- WIDE)
Boston Avenue
Boston Avenue
North 1/2 of
Stanford Street
Rice Street
Queens Street
STREET /
Ash Avenue
STREET (52- WIDE)
N. Avenue oXx
N. Avenue "X«
N. Avenue oXn
FROM
Ash Avenue
Ash Avenue
Avenue «B«
Juneau Avenue
FROM
79th Street
80th Street
N. University
xVeDUe
N. University
*VeOUe
N. University
Avenue
TO
Cedar Avenue
Avenue nBn
Avenue oDo
Iola AVgOU8
TO
80th Street
8Iat Street
N. Avenue xXo
N. Avenue xXo
N. Avenue wXo
FROM TO
74th Street 76th Street
FROM TO
Stanford Street Loop 289
Rica Street Stanford Street
Queens Street Rice Street
SECTION 4' THAT the City Secretary be and is hereby authorized and directed to prepare
a certified copy of this Resolution and to record or cause same to be recorded in the Deed of
Trust Records of Lubbock County, Texas.
SECTION5- THAT this Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its
passage.
Passed by the City Council this 20th day of November, 1986.
ATTEST:
Ranette Boyd, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
/s/ Larry V. Hoffman
Larry V. Hoffman, Director of
Transportation
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ J. Worth Fullingim
J. Worth Fulljngim, Assistant City
Attorney
This is the third in a series of five Resolutions and one assessment
Ordinance that are used in levying paving assessments.
This Resolution lists all streets and alleys proposed to be improved and
a certified copy of this Resolution will be filed in the Deed of Trust
Records of Lubbock County' Such filing will alert all interested parties
that assessments for improvements on these streets and alleys will be
fOrthCV0ing.
November 20, 0 506
Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Baker, seconded by Councilman Phillips
to authorize Resolution #2472 as recommended by Staff. Motion carried:
7 Yeas; O Nays.
86-45A-506-79I
( Q'\
-Consider
the intersection of 22nd Street and University Avenue.
-ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 8990
AN ORDINANCE
CANCELLING AUTHORITY AND APPROVAL FOR A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT 22ND STREET AND
UNIVERSITY AVENUE
AND AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF SAID TRAFFIC SIGNAL AS AN OPERATIVE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF MEDIAN MODIFICATIONS AT THE INTERSECTION-
-
This item is a fVl}mN up item as requested by City Council regarding the
�-j
discussion of the 22Od and University Avenue intersection. Larry
Hoffman, Director of Traffic and Transportation, stated that the proposed
ordinance will authorize the removal of the traffic signal at the
intersection of 22nd Street and University Avenue. Evaluation of the
traffic volumes entering the intersection from all approaches was
conducted and compared with the criteria as established in the Texas
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, for installation of traffic
signals. The criteria was not met at this location, and therefore the
traffic signal should be removed in accordance with the Manual'
Councilman Carpenter stated that, in his opinion, removal of the light
would jeopardize safety, especially without protected left turns. He
further requested that either the light be left or that the intersection
be modified.
MayorMcMinn asked Mr' Hoffman what would be the safest action Council
could take. Mr' Hoffman said the intersection would be safer with
protected turns. Mayor McMinn reported that there may be excess funds in
the Streets Department budget if this in a mild winter and it might be
good to prolong the decision until then.
CouncilwomanTre'o stated that, in her opinion, the problem should be
handled now.
Motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Baker, seconded by Councilman Nash to
|`1
pass on first reading Ordinance #8990 as recommended by Staff' Motion
was then made by Councilman Carpenter, seconded by Councilman Patterson
to amend Mayor Pro Tem Baker's motion to direct that the intersection be
modified to have protected left turns from east going north and from the
west going south' Motion to amend carried: 6 Yeas; l Nay --Mayor Pro Tem
Baker.
86-45A-506-782
�
(ID')
Hear report on resource recovery negotiations and consider
A. Contract for waste processing services.
B. Contract for electric power purchase.
C. Plant 2 Lease Agreement.
D. Change of status of LP&L property_
In a recent memo to Council, it was pointed out that the City Staff has
continued to negotiate with Environmental Protection Resources /EPR\ for
the construction and operation of a resource recovery project in Lubbock'
Following is a recap of the history leading Up to this project, along
with Staff comments regarding the four actions that Council will need to
i�
L�
take should it choose to pursue this project.
-^
HISTORY
Resource Recovery simply refers to a process whereby municipal solid
waste is incinerated and the resulting energy is used in the generation
of electricity. Under this particular approach, it is hoped that
landfill costs can be avoided or minimized by reducing the amount of
solid waste entering our site. The concept also assumes that power
generating costs would be minimized by virtue of the fact that the fuel
source (solid waste) is free,
City involvement with this concept began in earnest over four years ago'
At that time, the City staff was instructed to solicit proposals from
firms interested in building and operating a resource recovery facility.
After reviewing all proposals, Council instructed the Staff to enter into
negotiations with Klocknar, a German based group' The'Staff was
instructed to pursue the concept only as long as it could be shown that
waste disposal and electric generating costs were, at worst, no more than
U
they would have been without the plant construction. After approximately
507 November 20, 1986
one year of negotiations, it became apparent that Klockner would be
unable to finance a plant given those constraints. Consequently, the
decision was made to terminate negotiations.
Approximately 2-112 years ago, Staff was again instructed to solicit
proposals and this resulted in a Council directive to enter into
negotiations with Environmental Protection Resources, a Houston based
firm. Staff was again instructed to live within the original guidelines
-- that is that (1) waste disposal costs would not exceed what they would
be without the plant and (2) power generating costs would not exceed what
they would be without the plant. In July 1985, after almost one year of
preliminary negotiations, the Staff briefed Council on an approach which
guaranteed the following:
1. The "tipping fee" paid by the City would be frozen at $9 per
ton for the 25 year life of the project and this fee is for the
cost paid by the City for depositing a ton of solid waste at
the plant. Staff projections indicated that a $9 tipping fee
would, over the life of the project, result in solid waste
disposal costs slightly less than they would have been without
the project. It was also pointed out, however, that the payoff
would not come until late in the life of the project and that,
for the first few years of operation, citizens would actually
be forced to pay a garbage service charge higher than would
have otherwise been charged.
2. LP&L could agree to purchase power produced by the plant at
rates included in a schedule. At that time, these rates
appeared to be reasonable, although Staff pointed out that over
the last year the declining price of natural gas has made them
somewhat less attractive. The rates discussed in July, 1985
were based on projections that tracked our average cost of
production from all sources - purchase power, power generated
by LP&L under our existing gas contracts, etc. Since that
time, the oil and gas economy has driven our projected costs
for purchase power and self generated power down to the point
that the electric prices discussed with EPR are no longer as
attractive.
Prior to entering into final contract documents, EPR indicated that they
would need some more tangible indication of Council's interest before
completing final contract documents. It was explained that they would
need to incur a considerable amount of expense for underwriting, legal,
and engineering services before the project could be packaged for
investors. Before incurring such expenses, they needed a firm indication
of Council interest and as a result, Council authorized the signing of a
Letter Agreement which obligated the City to participate in these
expenses. The City retained the option of pulling out of the project at
any time, but also agreed to assume the responsibility for any costs
incurred by the company (up to a limit of $200,000) in exercising that
option.
For the last year, Staff has been involved in continuing negotiations
with EPR. Those negotiations have centered upon the development of the
following documents:
1. Waste Processing Agreement -- This is the Agreement whereby the
City agrees to supply the plant with 125,000 tons of garbage in
the first year, with moderate annual increases thereafter.
Tipping fees, disposal of the residue, responsibilities for
plant enhancements required by changes in environmental law,
etc., are addressed in this document.
2. Purchase Power Agreement -- This is the Agreement by which LP&L
will agree to purchase the power produced by the plant over the
life of the project. At this point, the power prices contained
in this document are based on Staff's July, 1985 projections.
3. Lease Agreement -- This is the Agreement by which EPR proposes
to lease LP&L's Plant 2 site (on Municipal Hill) from the City.
Under the concept currently being discussed, EPR will build the
resource recovery plant immediately adjacent to Plant 2. Plant
2 will be leased and the facilities will be utilized for power
generation. The annual lease price is the greater of $25,000
or 1% of the gross electric revenues.
Since the last communication with Council, changes in the Federal Tax
Code have mandated a fourth item on which Council will need to take
action should it care to pursue this project. Elbert Morrow, City Bond
Counsel, indicated that the newly enacted tax code could make all future
bond issues for LP&L purposes taxable unless plant 2 is transferred from
the Electric Fund and placed in the Sanitation Fund. The fourth Resolu-
tion on the Council agenda simply gives formal notice of the interest to
make this transfer and should take care of any concerns raised by Mr.
Morrow.
November 20, 1986
As was mentioned previously, it was also Staff/o understanding that some
concern has been voiced to the Council regarding the technology to be
used in the plant' Staff pointed out that the plant will be using a
"fluidized bed" technology and is less expensive than alternate
technologies. As a result, it allows the company to put together a
package that would enable them to live within the constraints dictated by
the City (tipping fee limitations and purchase power price limitations).
Critics of the plant indicate that this particular technology is not as
reliable as a technology referred to as "mass burn." Based on the
history of both technologies, the Staff did not disagree with this
assertion. It was pointed out, however, that mass burn technologies have
been evaluated by EPR and that the expense associated with those
technologies is simply too great to live within the limitations that the
City is imposing.
As the Staff sees it, the C1ty's primary vulnerabilities in this project
may be summarized as follows:
I' The City is at risk if it cannot bring as much solid waste to
the plan as it is contracted to do. Staff has committed to
I25,000 tons per year in the first year with an escalator of 1-
I/2% per year thereafter and see no difficulties in this area
based on current projections.
2' Should purchase power and self generated power prices remain
low over the next ten yearn, it is possible that LP&L will pay
a higher price for electricity received from the plant than
might otherwise have been the case. Staff pointed out,
however, that should purchase power prices and self generated
prices go up dramatically over the next ten years, LP&L would
be in a vary favorable position' After ten years, LP&L is
guaranteed a price that is the lower of either our purchase
power coat or our self generated coat' Consequently, LP&L is
at no risk over the last 15 years of the project, although it
should be pointed out that LP&L also foregoes the opportunity
of benefiting should the purchase power and self generated
power options prove to be more expensive than the power
produced by the plant'
3' The City is at risk if the Federal or State governments impose
environmental standards that will require substantial upgrades
in the plant. The Staff was concerned about an open ended
vulnerability on this point and has been able to negotiate an
arrangement whereby the City and EPR would share 50% of any
enhancements up to the price of $2 million' At that point,
either party could make the determination that more expensive
enhancements would be unfeasible and could cancel the waste
processing portion of the Agreement. This would mean that the
City would simply revert to handling solid waste in the
traditional landfilling method and that LP&L would continue to
buy power from the plant should the owners be able to retro-fit
it for natural gas purpnoes-
4' The City is somewhat at risk if the plant operates for anywhere
from one to 12 years and then fails' As was previously pointed
out to Council, this risk is due to the fact that the City will
have to assess a garbage service charge higher than would have
otherwise been assessed in order to "subsidize" the plant in
the early years. As was pointed out to Council last year, the
payoff comes for the City in the latter years of the project
when garbage rates are projected to actually be less than they
would otherwise have been.
Jim Brewster, Trial Attorney, made the following presentation: He stated
that the Letter of Agreement of August 18, I985 is limit of Attorney
authority to give or take in any matter. Some items, at this time in the
negotiations, are not covered by that document or are not consistent with
it.
I' Mr' Brewster pointed out that the only agreement as to agreed
costa (EPA mandated costs in the future, Health Department
costa, OSHA and other agencies) is 7b of the Latter of
Agreement which stated that "The City and EPR will mutually
develop a program to minimize the risk of any passage of toxic
waste by the facility' The cost of development of such program
shall be borne equally by EPR and City." Mr' Brewster
explained that there is the possibility of a substantial number
of mandated change in the future and that EPR had requested the
City alternatively share all the costs 50/50 or take a position
where, under one alternative, we would each share up to a
certain amount and then beyond that amount it would be up to
the parties respectively to decide whether or not to proceed
and pay the coats. Mr. Brewster indicated that this goes
beyond the Letter Agreement that committed Council to only the
program costs on toxic waste disposal and he requested guidance
on this point.
November 2O 1986
��� ,
2' The original Letter Agreement contemplates the existence of a
25-year term for the contract and Mr' Brewster stated it is
only if the City gets into the later stage of the contract life
that the City can realize the benefits and savings of the
contract. He went on to say that under some of the provisions,
the contract could be terminated by the will of EPR, and in
some oases by City, short of that 25-year term, for conditions
other than matters beyond either partx/s Control' For City to
agree to any reduction of the term under any circumstance
deprives City of the opportunity of realizing the contract
benefits' Mr' Brewster requested guidance on this point'
3. EPR wishes to have limitation of liability VO their behalf to
$I,000,000, enhanced by interest on that sum, less taxes on the
interest. According to Mr' Brewster that sum would probably
cover damages, other than premiums City would be paying on the
Tipping Fee and the electricity, if the City does pay a
premium' Using 1985 Electric figures, there's no way City can
recover, under $1,000,000 limitation, all of premium City might
have paid' He stated further that the City would remain bound
under the Contract to every liability recoverable by law,
creating an imbalance in this area. Mr' Brewster requested
guidance on this issue'
4' Mr' Brewster said the contract provides many bailouts to both
parties to allow for events or acts that neither party can
control' However, the issue of Initiative and Referendum is a
real threat faced by the City which could put City in the realm
of default' EPR, according to Mr' Brewster, is unwilling to
accept the inclusion of acts of Initiative and Referendum as a
defense and Mr- Brewster stated he could not agree without
consent of Council' (ID his opinion the Courts would most
probably not allow this right to be taken away from the
citizens or put on them a burden of damages by exercising their
Mr' Carpenter asked how the City would be affected by Initiative and
Referendum action to terminate the contract. Mr- Brewster said it would
be considered a breach and City still would be bound to continue to pay
Tipping Fee, electricity, and if EPR felt that breach affected their
ability to continue to operate the plant, City would be paying those and
still not getting waste processed.
Councilman Carpenter stated it was his opinion Council should not go
beyond the original agreement.
Councilman Nash stated City should not accept any greater risks or costs
than in the original Letter Agreement.
Motion was made by COUDCil0aD Nash, seconded by Councilman Phillips to
direct City Staff and the negotiators to modify these documents as
follows: (l) to exclude any costs or risks not implicitly contemplated
or stated in the Letter Agreement, and
(2) to negotiate to final figures closer to current projections, and that
after these modifications have been made and the project still remains
viable, that the documents be brought back for Council scrutiny. Council
will then need time to explore the consequences of any or all provisions
of the documents. Motion carried: G Yeas; O Nays --Mayor Pro Tem Baker
absent'
WarliCk Carr, Counsel for EPR, requested an opportunity to meet with
Council to discuss their issues, and Council said that would be
permissible-
86-45A-5O9-793
(I�.\Consider Resolution 2473 authorizing the Mayor to sign an Encroachment
Agreement with LQM Operating Partners_
RESOLUTION #2473
RESOLUTION #2473
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to
execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a utility agreement between the City of
Lubbock and LUM Operating Partners, LP, regarding paving, parking, landscaping and other
encroachments at La Ouinta Inn in the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, the agreement
is attached hereto, and shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council and as spread UpVD
the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part Of this Resolution as if fully
copied herein in detail.
November 20, 1986 GIO
Passed by the City Council this 20th day of November, 1985.
B. C. nu'unm, .,n/vu
ATTEST:
i-
i1
Ranette Boyd, City Secretary
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
/s/ Joe Graham
J08 Graham, Senior Electrical
L�J Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Donald G. Vandiver
Donald G. Vandiver, First
Assistant City Attorney
THE STATE OF TEXAS \(
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK )/
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered this 10th day of November, 1986 by and between the
CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS (herein called "City") and LOM OPERATING PARTNERS, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership (herein called "L0Mn\'
L^� WHEREAS, on the 20th day of August, 1973, LQM/s predecessor in interest, La UUiMta Motor
Inns, Inc', granted to City a Ten (IO) Feat Wide Underground Power Line and Transformer Pad
Easement (herein called "Easement") recorded in Volume 1358, Page 647 Deed Records of
Lubbock County, Texas, which Easement is incorporated into and made a part hereof as if fully
copied herein in detail in this place; and
�
WHEREAS, LOM has encroached upon said Easement with portions of two buildings and the
City has placed a transformer pad partially upon property owned by L0M, all as depicted on
the survey dated August 8, 1986, prepared by John N. Wilson attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference a� Exhibit oAn and
-~ ,
WHEREAS, LUM also desires to use the Easement for paving, parking, and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, the City if willing to consent to such use and encroachments by LOM and LOM is
77 willing to consent to such Use by City under the terms and conditions hereinafter Set forth.
|| NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
L�
hereby acknowledged by parties, City hereby grants to LOM the right to pave, park vehicles
and landscape over and above the Easement and to encroach over that portion of the Easement
with its two buildings" all as depicted on Exhibit xAu'
LDM hereby grants to City the right to encroach UpVO its property with a transformer pad
^�~ as depicted upon Exhibit nA« and L0M hereby agrees to provide, at its mole cost and expense,
an Easement for the placement of utilities, including all expenses of relocation, in a
location acceptable to the City, should City need to repair or replace the utilities within
the portions of the Easement encroached upon by LOM/o two buildings' In the event that
repairs requiring excavation become necessary in those portions of the Easement not
511 November 20, I886
encroached upon by LQM with its two buildings, LQM shall be responsible for restoring at its
own expense any damage to paving, landscaping or other improvements placed on the Easement by
LQM as a result of such excavations.
This Agreement shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of, the parties hereto,
their successors and assigns'
LOM OPERATING PARTNERS, L.P.
a Delaware limited partnership
8v:LA UUINT8 REALTY CORP.,
a Texas corporation
General Partner
/s/ Alan L. Tallis
B«:Alan L. Tallis
Vice President and
Secretary
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK
8»:B- C. McMINN, MAYOR
ATTEST:
Ranette Boyd, City Secretary
ins
/s/ Joe Graham
Joe Graham, Senior Electrical
Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/ Donald G. Vandiver
Donald G. Vandiver, First
Assistant City Attorney
This instrument was acknowledge before me on this the 20th day of November, 1888, by B.
C. MdMINN, MAYOR, of the City of Lubbock, VO its behalf.
/s/ Olivia R. Solis
Notary Public, State of Texas
Olivia R. Solis
My Commission Expires 11/30/89
STATE OF TEXAS X
COUNTY OF 8EXAR \(
This instrument was acknowledged before me on this the I0th day of November, 1986, by
ALXN L. TALLIS, VICE PRESIDENT -SECRETARY of La Duinta Realty Corp', a Texas corporation,
General Partner of LQM Operating Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership, on behalf of
said limited partDer3hip-
/s/ Deborah A. Corrales
Notary Public, State of Texao
My Commission Expires 7/12/89
PLEASE RETURN TO:
Mr' Lae M. Golden
La Uuinta Motor Inns, Inc'
lUUIO San Pedro
San Antonio, Texas 78216
Several years ago, La Ouinta Motor Inn built a portion of two buildings
over an Underground Power Line and Transformer Pad Easement granted to
the City of Lubbock. A pending change in ownership to LUM Operating
Partners brought about a request for the City to consent to their
encroachment, in exchange for their Agreement to provide another Easement
and pay the coat of relocation of utilities should the City need to
repair or replace utilities within the area of encroachment. Further,
the Agreement states that if any excavation is necessary during repair or
replacement, the owner will pay for restoring paving, landscaping or
other improvements placed on the Easement.
Motion was made by Councilman Carpenter, seconded by Councilwoman Tr 'o
to authorize Resolution #2473 as recommended by Staff' Motion Carried:
6 Yeas; 0
November 20, 1986 512
86-45A-512-784
/I2,\
Consider setting a date for a Public Hearing to determine public
convenience and necessity for limousine service.
This item concerns a re -application from LaNette Armstrong to obtain a
permit to operate a limousine service in the City of Lubbock' Ms.
Armstrongproposed to operate two 1965 Cadillac Hearses and one 1957
Cadillac Hearse as novelty limousines and will do business as Little
Hollywood Playtime Limos' Special Council approval was needed because
these vehicles are more than IO years old'
Little Hollywood Playtime Limos' proposed limo rates are $37'50 per hour,
plus 15% gratis, with a two hour 0iD10U0 on Sunday through Thursday and a
three hour minimum rental on Friday and Saturday. Outside the city
limits, $I per mile plus the hourly rental rate and gratuity will be
charged. The City Council reviewed the propriety of the rate structure
to determine the reasonableness of the rates. At the Public Hearing, the
permit holder shall prove that her rates are not unreasonable. The
Council, by Resolution, shall establish reasonable rates if the permit
holder can not prove that the rates suggested are reasonable'
Section 27-103 of the Taxicab and Limousine Ordinance, requires that the
City Council hold a Public Hearing on the application to consider whether
the public convenience and necessity will be served by the issuance of
the permit' The Staff suggested the Public Hearing be held at the
December IIth City Council meeting at 10:00 a.m. The Limousine Ordinance
requires that the Council consider the following conditions in judging
the public convenience and necessity of the service,
I' The financial responsibility of the applicant;
2' Number, hind, and tvug of equipment and the color scheme to be
used by the applicant;
3' The probable effect of the increased service on the local
traffic conditions;
4' Whether the safe use of the streets of and by the public, both
vehicle and pedestrian" will be endangered unduly by the
granting of the proposed service;
5' The character, experience, and responsibility of the applicant;
and,
6' Whether the applicant is fit, able, and willing to perform the
service on a regular basis.
The City Staff had previously researched and responded to these
conditions when Ma' Armstrong first applied for a permit in June of this
year and will make analysis of theme conditions for the upcoming
Hearing.
Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Carpenter
setting the date for a Public Hearing to determine the public convenience
and necessity for a limousine service for December 11, 1985 at lO:OO a.m.
Motion carried: 8 Yeas' O
,
Nays --Mayor Pro Tem Baker absent.
86-458-512-795
/I3'\ BID #9139--Bitmminous distributor (Streets Department)'
Conley -Lott -Nichols Co ---Bituminous distributor with full circulating
spray bar'
Motion was made by Councilman Nash, seconded by Councilman Patterson to
authorize low bid meeting specifications. Motion carried: 6 Yeas; 0
Nays --Mayor Pro Tem Baker absent.
86-45A-512-796
(14') BID #9I49--Miscellaneous water items (Warehouse Stock).
Transtex Supply Cu', Odessa--400 1" straight meter coupling; 96 2" oast
coupling; h 8" cast coupling; 30 Oo cast coupling for 6" cast iron pipe;
4 6oxI0o full circle repair clamp; 2 8" bell joint clamp; 4 16o cast
Western Industrial Supply--25 2nxI« service clamp'
Fields and Co---I0,000/ 3/4x type K copper service pipe; 4,000/ Ix type K
copper service pipe--60' rolls.
Motion was made by Councilman Nash, seconded by Councilman Patterson to
authorize low bids meeting specifications. Motion carried: 6 Yeas; U
Nays --Mayor Pro Tem Baker absent.
513
November 20, 1988
86-45A-5I3-797
(15.) BID #9I53--Urea (Airport).
Kitten Moseley Fertilizer, Inc., 8latoD--I00 tuns Urea, pellet form in 50
lb bags.
Motion was made by Councilman Nash, seconded by Councilman Patterson to
authorize low bid meeting specifications. Motion carried: 6 Yeas; O
Nays --Mayor Pro Tam Baker absent.
86-45A-5I3-798
/IO'\ BID #9I85--Hot and cold mix (Streets Department).
Williams & Peters Construction --GOO tons type D hut mix.
KerrConstruction Co'--800 tons type C hut mix' �OO tons cold mix
'.' , '
Motion was made by Councilman Nash, seconded by Councilman Patterson to
authorize low bids meeting specifications. Motion carried: 6 Yeas; O
Nays --Mayor Pro Tam Baker absent.
86-45A-513-799
(I7.) Consider one appointment to the Board of Health Co fill the unexpired
term of Jean Arnett who has resigned.
Motion was made by Councilman Carpenter, seconded by Councilwoman Tr 'o
to hold this item until Mayor Pro Tem Baker is present' Motion carried:
6 Yeas', O
Nays --Mayor Pro Tem Baker absent.
86-45A-513-800
/18'\ Consider four appointments to the Southeast Lubbock Development
Corporation'
Motion was made by Councilman Patterson, seconded by Councilman Carpenter
to reappoint Earl Ince, Jr', Octavia Givens, Harold Chatman and Doug
Boren to the Southeast Lubbock Development Corporation- Motion carried:
6 Yeas; 0 Nays --Mayor Pro Tem Baker absent.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the motion was made by Councilman
Patterson, seconded by Councilman Phillips to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 a.m. Motion
carried: 5 Yeas; O Nays --Mayor Pro Tem Baker absent.
READ AND APPROVED THIS 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1986.
: ATTES - f
!;nezB�=oeyd, �Ci(ty :Secret��-