Agenda Request

	City Council
	Agenda Request
Agenda Of:	december 02, 2008	Agenda Request No:		IV-N
Initiated By:	Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary	Responsible Department:		City Secretary
Presented By:	Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary	Department Head:		Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary
		Additional Department. Head (s):		N/A
Subject / Proceeding:	Minutes City Council Meeting december 02, 2008 Approve Minutes
Exhibits:	Minutes december 02, 2008
Clearances			Approval
Legal:	N/A		Executive Director:	N/A
Purchasing:	N/A		Asst. City Manager:	N/A
Budget:	N/A		City Manager:	Allen Bogard
Budget
Expenditure Required: $			N/A
Current Budget: $			N/A
Additional Funding: $			N/A
Recommended Action
Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting December 02, 2008.
Exhibits

STATE OF TEXAS	§
COUNTY OF FORT BEND	§
CITY OF SUGAR LAND	§

CITY OF SUGAR LAND

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

tuesday, december 02, 2008

REGULAR MEETING

The City Council of the City of Sugar Land convened in a regular meeting open to the public and pursuant to notice thereof duly given in accordance with Chapter 551, Government Code, Vernon's Texas Codes, Annotated, as amended, in Sugar Land City Hall within said City on Tuesday, December 02, 2008 at 5:30 o'clock P.M. and the roll was called of the members; to wit:

James A. Thompson, Mayor

Thomas Abraham, Council Member at Large, Position One

Jacqueline Baly Chaumette, Council Member at Large, Position Two

Dennis C. Parmer, Council Member District One

Donald G. Olson, Council Member District Two

Russell C. Jones, Council Member District Three

Michael S. Schiff, Council Member District Four

QUORUM PRESENT

All of said members were present.

Also present were:

Allen Bogard, City Manager

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

Joe Morris, City Attorney, and

A Number of Visitors

CONVENE MEETING

Mayor James Thompson convened the session, open to the public, to order at 5:41 o’clock P.M.

INVOCATION

Council Member Abraham delivered the invocation.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Cub Scout Pack 1199, Den 4 and 5, led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America.

RECOGNITIONS

INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL OF FORT BEND 2008 APPRECIATION TO CITY COUNCIL

Mayor Thompson introduced Ms. Cheryl Olivier, 2008 President of International Festival of Fort Bend, who stated the mission of the International Festival of Fort Bend (IFFB) is to celebrate the multi-ethnic communities and enable people to enjoy and experience the music, dance, foods, and arts of different cultures.

On October 4, 2008, the diversity of Fort Bend County was showcased and celebrated at the second annual International Festival of Fort Bend. Approximately 7,000 people attended the event which featured an indoor vendor area with arts, crafts, cultural items, and food from countries around the world, a children activity area, and a parade of nations. To support this multi-cultural effort, the City of Sugar Land proudly participated as one of many event sponsors.

The International Festival of Fort Bend, represented by Festival Director and Board President Cheryl Olivier, recognized the City Council and expressed sincere appreciation to the City of Sugar Land for support of the festival.

agency of the year award – texas animal control association

Mayor Thompson introduced Mr. Mike Goodrum, Community and Environmental Services Director, who stated that the Texas Animal Control Association held its 34^th Annual Conference in Dallas on November 2 - 5, 2008, and the 2008 Texas Animal Control & Welfare Agency Award for cities with a population of 50,000 to 100,000 was awarded to the City of Sugar Land.

The Texas Animal Control & Welfare Agency Award is given to the top agency each year and is based on:

· Active membership in TACA

· Effective employee development program

· Agency involvement in public awareness

· Agency facility compliance with the Shelter Act

· Agency improvements which includes improvement to facilities, handling of animal enforcement, and efficiency of personnel.

The award was in recognition for all of the improvements made to Animal Services and the emphasis that the city has put on Animal Services over the past year by building the extraordinary animal shelter, providing excellent staffing, promoting a tremendous employee development program with City support, and ensuring the resources necessary to maintain an exceptional facility.

CONGRESSMAN ELECT PETE OLSoN

Mayor Thompson introduced Congressman Elect Pete Olson to the Council and City residents and congratulated him on his recent victory to the Texas 22^nd District accompanied by a hearty round of applause. Mr. Olson stated he would be a resource for the people in his District in Washington, D.C., and will depend on the people in the community to give him their comments, suggestions, and to contact his office if he can be of assistance. His main office will be in Fort Bend County on State Highway 6.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Thompson introduced Public Comment and entertained registered speakers. There were no public comments.

REVIEW OF CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Thompson introduced Review of the Consent Agenda and entertained questions and/or comments.

CONSENT AGENDA

Mayor Thompson introduced III.A) SECOND CONSIDERATION: CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1719 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING ARTICLE XI, CHAPTER 3, CODE OF ORDINANCES, TO EXPAND THE RESIDENCY RESTRICTIONS OF SEXUAL OFFENDERS; PROHIBITING SEXUAL OFFENDERS FROM ENTERING PUBLIC PARKS; AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE; III.B) CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 08-49 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICY STATEMENTS; III.C) CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 08-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND INVESTMENT POLICY AND INVESTMENT STRATEGY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT; III.D) CITY OF SUGAR LAND RESOLUTION NO. 08-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, ADOPTING SUGAR LAND REGIONAL AIRPORT MINIMUM STANDARDS, 2008 EDITION; III.E) Authorizing one year renewal in the amount of $44,787.00 with TOS, Incorporated for security guard services Sugar Land Regional Airport; III.F) Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of November 12 and 18, 2008.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Chaumette, seconded by Council Member Schiff, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. The motion carried unanimously.

CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS

state highway 6 traffic improvement

Mayor Thompson introduced consideration on a Contract in the amount of $120,000.00 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Incorporated for State Highway 6 traffic improvement from Kensington Drive to Lexington Boulevard inclusive of U.S. 59 interchange.

Mr. David Worley, Assistant Public Works Director, stated the scope of services for the design contract for Alternatives 1 and 2 consists of preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E) for the construction of the extension of left-turn and right-turn bays, realignment of roadway approaches, and the installation of a triple left lane with overhead signing and in-pavement LEDs at the interchange of U.S. Highway 59 and State Highway 6, from Kensington Drive to Lexington Boulevard.

Through the consultant pre-selection process conducted earlier for roadway and drainage projects, Public

Works and Engineering Departments selected five qualified consultants to make a presentation regarding their firms’ qualifications. Both departments agreed on recommending Brown & Gay Engineers, Incorporated for the design of the traffic improvements at State Highway 6 and U.S. 59. Sugar Land Development Corporation will provide funding for the project. Planned schedule includes start of construction in May 2009 with completion in August.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Chaumette, seconded by Council Member Abraham, made a motion to approve a contract in the amount of $120,000.00 with Brown & Gay Engineers, Incorporated for State Highway 6 traffic improvement from Kensington Drive to Lexington Boulevard inclusive of U.S. 59 interchange. The motion carried unanimously.

ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

ORDINANCE NO. 1720 AMENDING CODE OF ORDINANCES

revising water and wastewater

Mayor Thompson introduced FIRST CONSIDERATION: CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1720 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REVISING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE VIII, WATER AND WASTEWATER, TO ADD PERMIT FEES FOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS AND GREASE TRAP INSPECTION FEES UNDER THE WASTEWATER PROGRAM AND TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS REGARDING CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER VOLUME CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND PUMPAGE FEES FOR GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN PARTICIPANTS.

Ms. SuEllen Staggs, Director of Utilities, stated grease traps are installed to prevent the grease that restaurants and food establishments create from going into the wastewater collection system which is a serious issue for causing overflows of the wastewater system. The city holds inspections to ensure the traps are kept clean and services them appropriately. After determining costs for completing the inspections and comparing the inspection fee charges of neighboring cities and MUD districts, staff recommends creating a fee of $50 per inspection and for re-inspection if necessary. City completes about 980 inspections per year.

Staff is recommending an industrial pretreatment fee which would be utilized in industries with wastewater discharges that could be harmful to wastewater treatment plants and the environment. Permits control discharge amounts of constituents. The program is mandated by the TCEQ and the EPA and is fairly expensive for the city to manage. Staff recommends a three-tier approach based on volume used and the discharge monitoring, inspections, and lab analysis. Category I, $9,000 per year (Nalco); Category II, $7,000 per year (Crown Cork and Seal); and Category III, $5,000 per year (KWI, MECO, National Oil Well, Schlumberger, TPM, Suntron.

A groundwater reduction fee is the third fee that staff is recommending. Groundwater Reduction Plan (GRP) agreements include pumpage fees that are set by ordinance. Currently the pumpage fee to GRP participants is $0.25 per 1000 gallons of groundwater produced or water supplied by the city to ensure cost

is recovered for the groundwater program.

The last recommendation is to establish provisions for calculation of wastewater volume charges for new residential customers. Customers in the city are currently charged according to a residential wastewater winter average calculation using the average water usage for February and March bills, and this sets the bill for the next 12-month period. Maximum is 12,000 gallons. New residential customers have no history in the city to calculate a winter average and have been assigned 9,600 gallons, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standard, per residential home which historically has been used as the “cap” for new customers. Staff is proposing a “new customers wastewater cap”; charges would be based on the overall residential winter average for the City, currently at 6700 gallons, and each year adjust the amount based on the new City average. The reduction in customer’s bill would be about $8.12 per month. Fiscal impact to the City is approximately $129,000/year revenue reduction.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Abraham, seconded by Council Member Olson, made a motion to pass to second reading CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1720 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY REVISING CHAPTER 5, ARTICLE VIII, WATER AND WASTEWATER, TO ADD PERMIT FEES FOR INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS AND GREASE TRAP INSPECTION FEES UNDER THE WASTEWATER PROGRAM AND TO ESTABLISH PROVISIONS REGARDING CALCULATION OF WASTEWATER VOLUME CHARGES FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS AND PUMPAGE FEES FOR GROUNDWATER REDUCTION PLAN PARTICIPANTS. The motion carried unanimously.

ORDINANCE NO. 1722 AMENDING CODE OF ORDINANCES

ANIMAL SERVICES

Mayor Thompson introduced FIRST CONSIDERATION: CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1722 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTERS 2 AND 3 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO ANIMAL SERVICES, ESTABLISHING ANIMAL ADOPTION FEES, AND ADDING A MEMBER TO THE ANIMAL ADVISORY BOARD.

Mr. Mike Goodrum, Community and Environmental Services Director, presented background information stating the enhanced Animal Services strategic project included building a new animal shelter, creating a volunteer program, adding personnel, and expanding the shelter operation hours. Effective December 1, 2008, the shelter is open on Thursdays until 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. The Animal Shelter will be open for adopting animals during those times and volunteers will be able to help out at the shelter.

The final aspect of the strategic project was updating the ordinance that was last updated in 1993. After City staff and Animal Control Advisory Board reviewed the ordinance, five changes were recommended to

City Council at the August workshop; Council feedback resulted in modification of the ordinance to address suggested preferences. Since the ordinance was re-codified, Council will be approving the entire ordinance

with (5) substantial changes:

(1) Dangerous Dog – Makes or commits an unprovoked attack in a place other than an enclosure in which the dog is being kept. The Ordinance would authorize City to take actions related to dangerous dogs. State law requirements include: register dog, restrain animal, obtain $100,000 of liability insurance, and comply with municipal restrictions. Local restrictions are: register dog annually ($100 fee), dog must wear orange and yellow and dangerous dog collar, owner is required to post “dangerous dog” sign, and dog must be restrained by fenced area approved by Animal Services, or fully enclosed area, or fully enclosed vehicle.

(2) Humane Treatment – Unattended animal restraint. State law regulates unattended animal restraints between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. within 500 feet of a school or during extreme weather, State law allows chaining if 5 times length of dog or 10 feet, State law does not allow pinch, prong, or choke collars when dogs are unattended. The ordinance would create the local restrictions of expanding the hours to all times and would require use of a running line instead of a chain.

(3) Nuisance – Animal Waste. Requires removal of pet waste from private property other than that of the owner, would be citizen complaint driven; citizen notifies animal owner first, then files complaint with City.

(4) Board Membership – Currently the city has (4) members: municipal official, shelter operation employee, licensed veterinarian, and animal shelter welfare member. Ordinance would add a 5^th member, a shelter volunteer, who would be appointed during the next year process.

(5) Adoption Fee – Currently, there is not a fee to adopt animals from the City of Sugar Land animal shelter. The city vaccinates the animal and it is owner responsibility to spay or neuter. In controlling the pet population, staff recommends animals should be spayed or neutered prior to being released to the public. This amendment would create a dog adoption fee of $100 and a cat adoption fee of $85, which would cover costs to fully test and vaccinate, spay or neuter, and provide for a microchip with lifetime registration.

Staff stated the difference between a dangerous dog and a vicious dog; vicious dog applies to animal that is running at large and makes an unprovoked attack and bites someone. A dangerous dog would overlap that.

In Texas, there is a law concerning “breed specific” wherein the breed of a specific dog such as a Rottweiler, German Shepherd or Pit Bull does not imply the dog is dangerous; the dog would have to make an unprovoked attack or threaten someone who would feel that their life is in danger. For Animal Services to make that determination, the individual would have to sign a statement that could be accepted in a court of law if Animal Services is not there as a witness.

Council requested clarification on dangerous dog collars and determination of complying with the Ordinance. Staff stated that when an animal owner obtains a license in the city by registering with the city annually, City will provide the owner with a dangerous dog collar which is imprinted, striped orange and yellow.

Every year the owner will have to register the animal, and at that time Staff will go to the location and ensure that the enclosure is suitable to be in compliance with the Ordinance. If there is no compliance with the Ordinance, animal control staff has the authority to seize the animal.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Olson, seconded by Council Member Chaumette, made a motion to pass to second reading CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1722 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING CHAPTERS 2 AND 3 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO ANIMAL SERVICES, ESTABLISHING ANIMAL ADOPTION FEES, AND ADDING A MEMBER TO THE ANIMAL ADVISORY BOARD. The motion carried unanimously.

ordinance no. 1723 mixed use conservation district regulations

Mayor Thompson introduced FIRST CONSIDERATION: CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1723 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 2-167 OF THE SUGAR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO MIXED USE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (MUC) REGULATIONS.

Mr. Aaron Dobbs, Assistant City Attorney, stated this is a corrective ordinance to a drafting error which occurred in Ordinance No. 1645 adopted in October 2007 that amended the MUC District regulations located in the Development Code. Ordinance No. 1645 established that new buildings and additions in the District must meet the amended regulations under Section 2-167(a), (b), (c), and (d), and are approved at the staff level. The ordinance provides that staff may not approve buildings that do not meet these regulations under the subsections. In the process of amending the MUC District regulations, the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) and City Council envisioned a process where new buildings and additions that may not meet all the regulations could be approved if the building or addition nevertheless was still on the character with the other buildings in the District.

The ordinance established a process wherein the Commission may grant a Site Development Permit for building/addition that does not meet a regulation under Subsections (b), (c), or (d). The ordinance does not allow the Commission to grant a permit for a building or addition that does not meet a regulation under Subsection (a) of that section. The Subsection (a) regulations are mandatory regardless of whether approved at the staff level or at the Planning and Zoning Commission level. At the time, Ordinance No. 1645 was intended so that P&Z would be allowed to grant a permit for building/addition that exceeds the maximum floor area regulation. When Ordinance No. 1645 was prepared, regulation was included under Subsection (a). As written, a Site Development Permit may not be issued for building or addition exceeding the maximum floor area regulation.

Ordinance No. 1723 fixes the error by removing the maximum floor area regulation from Subsection (a) and places it under Subsection (b), which allows P&Z to issue permits for buildings or additions exceeding maximum floor area regulations.

Following a full and complete discussion, Council Member Parmer, seconded by Council Member Olson, made a motion to pass to second reading CITY OF SUGAR LAND ORDINANCE NO. 1723 AN

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND, TEXAS, AMENDING SECTION 2-167 OF THE SUGAR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO MIXED USE CONSERVATION DISTRICT (MUC) REGULATIONS. The motion carried unanimously.

workshop

GULF COAST FREIGHT RAIL DISTRICT AND COMMUTER RAIL

Mayor Thompson introduced discussion on Gulf Coast Freight Rail District and Commuter Rail.

Mr. Patrick Walsh, Assistant City Engineer, stated staff proposed bringing a series of workshops before Council related to transportation issues affecting the City of Sugar Land with the idea of conveying the breadth and complexity of transportation issues affecting the city. The workshops would serve as preparation for a strategic planning retreat in February 2009. Staff and Council decided it would be beneficial for Fort Bend County’s two representatives who are on the Board of Directors of the Gulf Coast Freight Rail District to come and speak regarding these issues and to receive Council input.

Mr. Bill Jameson, President W J Interests, LLC, appointed by the Fort Bend County Judge, presented a brief background of the Freight Rail District, stating the charge of the District was to balance the economic benefits of rail with public safety and quality of life through the following goals: Improved safety and reduced vehicle delay at roadway/railroad crossings, improved operating efficiency of railroads, reduced emissions at roadway/railroad crossings, and commuter rail. The District was created in 2005 by the 79^th Legislature and included Harris County and adjacent counties; currently there are two counties, Harris and Fort Bend. There is no taxing authority, and District has eminent domain powers with only local approval and inter-municipal commuter rail powers. No funds were given to the District when created by Harris County, Fort Bend County, City of Houston, with a board composed of 11 appointed directors and one ex-officio director who is a member of the Highway Transportation Commission, and by legislation, the Director of the Port Authority Jim Edmonds is a Director. The Operating Budget consists of funds from Harris County, Fort Bend County, Port of Houston Authority (fiscal agent), City of Houston, H-GAC, and TranStar. The District has a budget of approximately $1 million of which 60-70 percent is in-kind services, and there are no employees.

The rail network in the Houston region consists of 2,200 trains per week coming in and out of Houston, 800 miles of mainline track, 21 miles of railroad bridges, and approximately 1,200 at-grade roadway/railroad crossings. The railroads provide service to more than 900 customers in the Houston region. Less than 5 percent of trains go through the region without stopping in Houston. Over one billion tons of freight traveled through the region in 2005, and over 100 million tons traveled by rail. Growth is anticipated in population and subsequent demand for consumables and in volume of foreign freight moving through the Port of Houston.

The railroads are a large part of the project, and all of the improvements are a public/private sort of project. In almost any project that the Freight Rail District discusses undertaking, a cost benefit ratio would have to be computed, how much is for the private (the railroads) and how much is for the public.

The railroads are prepared to pay their fair share. Union Pacific (U.P.) competes around their whole system for capital dollars. Our district must build a regional plan to sell to U.P. or Kansas City the need to put the capital dollars into the Houston region.

H-GAC did a commuter rail study throughout the region and presented the study to the Freight Rail District and Fort Bend County. The representatives from County expressed displeasure with the results of the study. Through Fort Bend County, the route follows the BNSF line down through Sienna and up to the west side of the County, continuing west where nobody lives. The 90A corridor is not included and the District focus is to get this back on the 90A corridor which would serve Fort Bend County for commuter rail. The District has expressed their concern about the route shown in the H-GAC study, and District feels it will not occur.

Studies have found several options for improving rail infrastructure and impact on the community. TxDOT prepared a study with the City of Houston, Harris County, Fort Bend County, and identified $3.4 billion in costs to upgrade the Freight Rail System in Houston. The new Railroad Corridor, at a cost of $1.1 billion, is the Fort Bend Bypass. Improvements to existing rail infrastructure, $1.4 billion; grade crossing closures, $5.2 million; grade separations at 55 locations, $808 million. From this study, the Freight Rail District has identified through a planning committee about $180 million of First Phase improvements that would have an impact, and District will begin to fund that $180 million shortly. There have been discussions in Austin by the Board President regarding obtaining funds from the state. At the time the District was created, the Rail Relocation Fund was established by the Legislature. No funds have been put in the Relocation Fund at this time, but the Highway Commission, their Chairman, and some others have said that the District may get money into the Fund this year which could be used to get the program started. New railroad corridors were estimated at a cost of $1.1 billion with $634 million in public benefits and $63 million loss in private benefits; the railroad would pay $63 million for the Bypass.

Regarding revenue for the District, there is no taxing authority; we can apply for and attempt to obtain federal grants. If we get the new stimulus plan, there may be some infrastructure money available to tap. Fees will probably become an even bigger element. There has been discussion about attempting to fund some of the rail project on car license fees. Solutions will require regional support and public/private partnership.

Regarding the Bypass study, the HNTB study showed a negative number for private benefits and a positive number for the public benefits. Currently, the District is out for RFP’s. Fort Bend County is funding through some federal monies. The second step of the Bypass study and to look in more detail about the public and private benefits to doing a bypass from Rosenberg south, around south Fort Bend County and tying back into the system in Houston, is to alleviate the situation on Highway 90A. One reason is to try to force the commuter rail issue on the 90A corridor. To obtain at-grade crossings on many parts of Highway 90A in Sugar Land is nearly impossible.

Currently there are about 35-37 trains per day which is near capacity for a single track line. The study will look at the feasibility of the bypass and further into the cost benefit analysis. If it proves to give the District enough emphasis to continue to the next step, the District would have an opportunity to sit down with the railroads.

Mr. Leonard Scarcella, Mayor City of Stafford, is representing the cities of Fort Bend County, and stated that he and Bill Jameson basically have a veto power on anything that occurs in Fort Bend County. This is tremendous leverage in terms of a working relationship with Union Pacific. Mr. Scarcella feels that Fort Bend County must have commuter rail. The population of the County is continuing to grow. Approximately half of the 60,000 people who work in the Texas Medical Center live in close proximity to the U.S. 90A rail corridor. A large percentage of people commuting to the Medical Center every day are going there for very serious treatments. Their travels to and from the hospitals, in serious physical conditions, trying to maintain alertness and react to the surrounding traffic would be significant justification for commuter rail.

The 90A corridor will never work as one rail line with both commuter and freight rail; U.P. says it would take two or three rail lines. There is 100 feet of right-of-way all the way through Fort Bend County. Mayor

Scarcella is hopeful that the District can attain the bypass and move the freight south which would open up 10 to 12 trains daily instead of 37 needed to service the existing customers. If this could be accomplished, the District would have a line that would be very appropriate.

In August 2004, H-GAC led a study that included Sugar Land, Stafford, Missouri City, Meadows Place, Houston, Richmond, Rosenberg, Fort Bend County, Harris County, H-GAC, TxDOT, and Metro. The study determined that a Highway 90A corridor was viable and should be pursued. The consultants determined that the route would include stations at Rosenberg, Richmond, Sugar Land Airport, Stafford/Sugar Land, Stafford, Missouri City, Westbury, Metro Rail/Fannin South Park & Ride, which would be a very beneficial route into Harris County; however, the issue has been drawn into a debate and opposition from Union Pacific for commuter rail along 90A. One of the major problems with the rail line along the corridor is the impeding of traffic flow. Of the 1200 at-grade crossings, if 55 are resolved, 1150 would not be solved. Both of these problems should be addressed, but money is a major issue. In regards to infrastructure, we have one of the most compelling situations right here.

Mayor Thompson inquired concerning veto power of both representatives in Fort Bend County. After the District was created, there was negotiation between Fort Bend County, Judge Hebert, the City of Houston, and Harris County regarding how representation from each entity would work. There are only two representatives from Fort Bend County and nine from Harris County/Houston. In the Memorandum of Understanding between the entities, the agreement between Fort Bend County, City of Houston, and Harris County was that nothing could happen through the Gulf Coast Freight Rail District unless agreed upon by the two members from Fort Bend County.

Council Member Parmer stated the current 35-37 trains per day could increase to possibly 55-70 trains per day in 10 years. If there is commuter rail on another track, there would be a tremendous amount of impediment with regards to north/south traffic considering the 9 at-grade crossings plus feeder and private drive, 11 crossings. This is a big impact. The city has a lot of concern with the overall north/south mobility.

Council Member Chaumette stated her agreement with Highway 90A corridor versus BNSF as being the best route and inquired about the costs of different lines for commuter rail versus freight rail. Mr. Jameson stated the cost would be approximately $471 million. The main problem is not the costs, but the railroad

allowing use of the right-of-way.

Council Member Schiff inquired about the issues of operation and maintenance. If the District could find the billions of dollars to bypass the Houston area to the south and somehow work a deal to commit the railroad to allow commuter rail down Highway 90A, it would be much more expensive to go around because the distance is simply greater than the direct route. There would have to be some sort of incentive to the railroad regarding the operation and maintenance. Mr. Jameson stated this issue is part of the study, to define the costs in more detail and look at the benefits. Safety is a huge benefit. There is a benefit in pure costs if they have to double-track the system. For a billion-dollar project, significant federal funding will be needed.

Council Member Abraham inquired whether Metro would come up to Highway U.S. 90 or end at the beltway. Mayor Scarcella stated Stafford had the opportunity to opt-in to Metro back in 1978 as they have a small portion of Stafford in Harris County. Missouri City had the same option, and voted in. Stafford decided not to participate in Metro due to the costs being half of their sales tax, or over $7 million per year.

A specific agreement between cities can be worked out to join Metro whereby a construction and operating agreement could be negotiated. If we could all come together in a concerted effort, there would be an opportunity to get some of the issues resolved.

Council Member Olson stated he cannot imagine three tracks going down Highway 90 across the front of Imperial Sugar and through our community. The bypass is probably essential to maintaining the quality of our city which raises the issues of urban planning that if we are going to have a 100 foot wide corridor, three tracks with 70 trains per day plus a commuter rail, it would change lifestyles, impact property values. From a planning standpoint for the city, there would be sound walls up and down the corridor, underpasses and overpasses, or gridlock from one end of the city to the other. Mr. Jameson commented that all of these issues will be looked at in the study and the numbers will be updated. This corridor is the east/west route for Union Pacific, coming all the way from California to the East Coast, and as it grows, will become more and more of a problem for the cities.

Council Member Jones inquired why the other adjacent counties to Harris County are not involved, and Mr. Jameson stated in the beginning there were discussions about Montgomery County joining but made a decision not to participate. There is a procedure for joining if they choose, and Montgomery and Brazoria Counties may decide to join.

Mayor Thompson stated Council will continue to communicate with Staff, and asked Mr. Jameson and Mayor Scarcella to contact them if they need anything from Council regarding support on their initiatives.

CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER REPORTS

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

Mayor Thompson introduced reports from the Finance/Audit Committee and the Intergovernmental Relations Committee.

Council Member Olson reported attending the Finance/Audit Committee meeting to discuss donation policy and other issues.

Council Member Abraham reported attending community meetings on behalf of the City regarding the attacks in India.

Council Member Chaumette reported attending Women’s Chamber of Commerce Inaugural Hall of Fame Gala where many prestigious women were honored including First Lady Barbara Bush, and represented the City at the Turkish Community Center opening where Madame Secretary Albright was the guest speaker.

CITY MANAGER REPORT

City Manager Bogard reminded the residents that the Christmas Tree Lighting in Town Square will be held on Thursday, December 4, at 7:30 p.m. The events will begin at 5:00 p.m.

RECESS REGULAR MEETING

Mayor Thompson recessed the Regular Meeting to go into Closed Executive Session, time 7:40 o’clock P.M.

CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mayor Thompson introduced Closed Executive Session as authorized by Chapter 551, Texas Government Code, in accordance with:

Section 551.087, Economic Development; Section 551.071, Consultation with Attorney; and

Section 551.074, Public Officers.

a) For the purpose of deliberation regarding the offer of incentives to business prospects that the City Council seeks to have locate in the City and with which the City is conducting economic development negotiations. Ms. Regina Morales, Director of Economic Development.

b) For the purpose of attorney consultation and deliberation with respect to a long term contract with an energy provider for purchase of base load power. Ms. Margo White, Attorney, Andrews Kurth, LLP.

c) For the purpose of discussion with respect to political signage; and recent Attorney General Opinion No. GA-0668 regarding posted agenda notice requirements of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Mr. Joe Morris, City Attorney.

d) For the purpose of discussion with respect to the appointment of members to Reinvestment Zone No. 1 and Reinvestment Zone No. 3. Ms. Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary.

ADJOURN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mayor Thompson adjourned the Closed Executive Session, time 10:13 o’clock P.M.

RECONVENE MEETING

Mayor Thompson reconvened the Regular Meeting, time 10:14 o’clock P.M.

ADJOURN

There, being no further business to come before Council, Council Member Olson, seconded by Council Member Schiff, moved that the meeting adjourn. The motion carried unanimously and the meeting adjourned, time at 10:15 o'clock P.M.

_____________________________________

Glenda Gundermann, City Secretary

(SEAL)