One of my cornerstone beliefs is that a republic cannot work if the people do not exercise oversight of their elected representatives. And oversight cannot be excercised without information. Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but “Use the Force, Luke” is no way to decide who to vote for each election; I prefer the comfort of a good blaster set of facts.

It is an unfortunate truth that most people simply can’t be bothered to go do the digging necessary to obtain the facts to make informed decisions. Largely, I blame our so-called press for this; they are more interested in bringing us entertainment than information. Why should we have to dig? Isn’t it their job to bring us the facts and do a dispasionate analysis? That’s what they tell us while they whip up bogus TANG memos and the umpteenth report on Brittany Spears. (Of course, theres an argument to be made that they’re only delivering what we want, but I’ll pass on that one for now.)

Fortunately, we now have the blogsphere to make up for their lack. And I have been doing my part, giving the public such information as I have been able to provide without making it terribly obvious who I am and what office I work in. However, it occurs to me that I can do something more: actively summarize the most public aspect of the city government’s business.

Starting with this week, Houblog will carry a brief summary of the upcoming week’s City Council Agenda, taken directly from the City Secretary’s website. Whenever possible, links will be provided to other websites discussing controversial items. The summary will include a link back to the agenda istelf, as the emphasis will be on explaining (or guessing) what the item is about. I don’t claim to have inside info on many of the items and sometimes my knowledge may be a bit inaccurate, or no more than the average layman’s. Where I’m engaging in low-probability guesswork, that will be indicated. I do have access to further backup (the RCAs, or Request for Council Action), but it’s on the city’s intranet–meaning I can only grab them while at work. Due to their large size (.pdf format) and need to chop extraneous pages out, I can’t possibly provide them on a routine basis — the one I did a couple of weeks ago ran 3+ megs, and I’ll quickly run out of storage room.

There are times I think I need to make this blog a co-op effort… Anyway, the idea is that I’m doing the initial legwork to get the agenda into a more accessable format and provide a starting point for citizens who may not even know what questions to ask yet. And of course, I’m going to toss in my own observations about the city’s actions.

Assuming I’m able to keep up the pace (this isn’t easy!) you can expect to see a new installment every Monday morning. The agendas are posted online late Friday afternoon, which gives me the weekend to try and fit them in. For ease of locating these articles, I am establishing a new category: City Agendas. I hope that people will find this to be of some use in keeping up with what their city government is up to. Even if you can’t show up at a council meeting, one of the reasons council members have staffs is to listen to you, the citizen, and relay your concerns to them.

And now, without further ado, the Houston City Council Agenda for 6/13-14/06

Public Comment: 6/13, 2-5 pm. Citizens desiring to address the council must register one week in advance with the City Secretary.

Action Meeting: 6/14, 9:00 am

Special item: Mayor’s report on the Enterprise Resource Planning System. I believe this is about the current changeover to using SAP to replace several different procurement and payroll systems. Probably a status report?

Micellaneous: Items 2-4
These three items are related to the beginning of the new budget year. The most important one is the 5-year CIP, or Capital Improvement Plan. This establishes the framework for upcoming projects and allows budget planning for multi-year and future projects. If you want to know when/if major improvements will be made to your water lines, streets, storm drains, and the like, this is the document to obtain. It’s not free, however. (No idea what the fee will be fixed at; might be able to obtain it from the RCA later).

Two other items are for the budgets of subservient or cooperative entities which obtain and/or treat water for Houston and surrounding districts. Note that these are Enterprise funds (i.e.: they make revenue).

Damages: Item 5
Paying $30k from the Property and Casualty Fund to settle AIXA SHELTON v. The City of Houston, Texas; in the 164th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, Cause No. 2004-5331. Their website is spewing errors so I can’t find out anything about this.

Accept Work: Items 6-10
Legally saying “ok we accept the job you did, here’s the money.”
6. JTB services Inc — $216,023.73 for Gulf Meadows Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements. 1.23% over the original contract amount.
7. Chief Environmental Surveys, Inc — $781,930.76 for Sanitary Sewer Inspection and Rehabilitation by Point Repair Method. 0.71% under the original contract amount.
8. TROY CONSTRUCTION, L.L.P. — $1,241,229.61 for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation by Point Repair Method. 01.84% under the original contract amount.
9. PHOCO, INC, dba TELEPHONE COMPANY OF HOUSTON for Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation by Point Repair Method. I don’t know how significant it is that this was only for acceptance of work, and no pay was specified. I would guess it’s routine, but I am being tempted by a joke involving telephone servce and toilets…
10. R. K. WHEATON, INC — $1,496,095.61 for Citywide Fire Hydrant Replacement and Height Correction. 00.55% under the original contract amount.

It’s nice to see some contracts coming in under budget instead of involving massive overruns. Somehow we never hear about that in the news.

Property: Item 11
11. This one’s long-winded but it looks like the city used eminent domain to seize some land from Grocer’s Supply for a bike trail; GS didn’t care for the amount offered and challenged the city, which lost and is having to pay all the court fees as a result: Cause No. 855,656, for acquisition of Parcels AY2-173 and AY2-173A; for the COLUMBIA TAP HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL PROJECT; CIP/GFS N-0420-22-2 – $163,998.00 (Maybe we need to set up toll booths on these terribly underused bike trails and add another city revenue stream to pay for these costly favorites of the bike hobby-lobby. Hey, I used to like model trains; can I get the city to finance my hobby too?)

Purchasing and Tabulation of bids: Items 12-16
12. HAZARD ASSESSMENT LEADERS, INC — $34,200.00 for Lead Abatement Services for Fire Station No. 75. Well, at least they worry about lead in fire stations, if not the homes they’re supposed to inspect for HUD.

13. GLAXO SMITH KLINE — $40,655.00 from the general fund for Hepatitis Vaccine. You’d think this would be from the budget of the Health Department?

14. KATHERINE B. ENSOR — $60,000 PhD for professional services to develop a statistical model relating to air pollution monitoring and analysis. Hiring a consultant to examine our pollution? I’d like to know more. When it comes to science, we should be guided by accepted principals and tested theories. I’m always suspicious of statisticians claiming to have found a new wrinkle on an old problem that only they can detect — to me, they’re the modern-day equivlent of a snake-oil salesman. I do note that Dr. Ensor may be following generally accepted scientific principles and theories, rather than breaking new ground–I’d just like to know that for sure.

15. APPLIED BIOSYSTEMS — $29,377.08 for Preventive Maintenance Services Agreement for Genetic Analyzers for Houston Police Department Crime Laboratory. How much do they charge for competant and honest people to run the analyzers after they finish the maintenance?

16. DATASCAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC — $170,318.83 for Bar Code Hardware, Software and Maintenance for Department of Public Works & Engineering from the Texas Procurement Center’s Contract – Enterprise Fund. This is probably a parts inventory system; the fact that it’s an enterprise fund means it almost certainly has to do with water and sewer revenue. Question: did they think to make sure it was compatible with the SAP implementation?

ORDINANCES – Items 17 to 66A. Ok, so much for the administrative crap, now we’re into some meat.

17. Administrative, having to do with the organization of the ordinances themselves. So much for being done with the admin stuff.

18. Swapping a couple of small utility easements we don’t need for one we do in the Main Street Plaza area. Just another way Houston is a developer friendly city….

19. Approval of a contract with HCCS for education of dental students. This is probably one of those “we’ll see your employees for free” things; which is good if you don’t mind being treated by an inexperienced student… I’ve gotten eye exams at UH that way.

20. Acceptance of a sculpture honoring the Filipeno Dr. Jose P. Rizal, to be placed in Hermann Park. He’s definately someone to whom statues should be erected, though I’m not sure what he has to do with Houston. We could use role-models like him though, and no public money is being spent on this (that I can tell), so I’ve got no cause for compalaint.

21. Awarding of a $5,018,207.04 5-year contract for litter removal to On Our Own Services, Inc. without bid. This is a “partner organization” of TIBH Industries. They appear to specialize in creating jobs for, and selling products made by the disabled. Still, $1 million/yr, on no bid? That seems a bit expensive. (And why do I hear an old computer game of mine saying “More plebes needed!”)

22. Awarding a 3-year, $450,000.00 contract to HOUSTON CLEAN CITY COMMISSION, INC d/b/a KEEP HOUSTON BEAUTIFUL for Volunteer Cleanup Services of City Neighborhood Lots. Wait, I think they just made my point for me….

23-24. Approval of cooperative agreements for emergency reciprocal services with Pasadena and Clear Creek Independant School Districts. More evidence that Houston takes emergency planning seriously, unlike one Gulf Coast city I could name.

25. Approval of a $400,000.00 amendment to a contract with FROST NATIONAL BANK; allows HPD to pay filing fees electronically.

26. Series of contracts relating to demolition of dangerous buildings. Often these structures have indeterminate owners or none at all.
26.a. JTB SERVICES, INC, AAA DEMOLITION COMPANY, CHERRY MOVING COMPANY INC, DBA CHERRY DEMOLITION, HOUSTON G & G DEMOLISHING SERVICES, INC, SMITH-MOBLEY, INC, and WILLIS DEMOLISHING COMPANY. Total of $9,079,679.28.
26.b. HONESTY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC — $200,000 for Professional Environmental Consulting Services. This is the kind of thing I wish I knew more about. What are we paying for here? For them to tell us “Well, the house might have asbestos or lead paint in it.” Thank you, we figured that out.
26.c. TECHNOLOGY SERVING PEOPLE, INC — $200,000.00 for more of the same.

27. MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND ELECTRONICS– $845,000.00 appropriated for communications equipment for use by the airports.

28. Authorizes acquisition of property for improvements to the intersections of Long Point and Blalock.

29. $652,292.73 in funding appropriation, in concert with TXDoT, for “utility adjustments” along US90 from Wallisville Road to Uvalde Road. This must be an ETJ issue, since I’m fairly sure that’s outside city limits. Though it’s noted as being in District B, so maybe I need to look at the maps again. Also, it does not say if this is the old 90 or new 90. (Yes, you’re forced off at Wallisville, but the freeway physically continues to Uvalde.)

30. Appropriation of $260,000 to CHIANG, PATEL & YERBY, INC for designing the overpass at Fuqua and Mykawa.

31. Appropriation of $419,923.00 to PATE ENGINEERS, INC for Design of Mercury Drive Paving Improvements from Herman Brown Park to Wallisville Road. It needs it; IIRC that’s a narrow 2 lane road and totally inadequate when the sports complex is in use.

32. Appropriation of $9,057,000.00 from various funds to PACE SERVICES, L.P. for Lancaster Area Drainage Improvements.

33. Appropriation of $6,098,000.00 from various funds to E. P. BRADY, LTD., for Sunnyside Court Storm Sewer Laterals.

34. Appropriation of $7,925,000.00 to PACE SERVICES, L.P., for Sharpstown Area Drainage Improvements.

35. Appropriation of $578,400.00 out of Street & Bridge Consolidated Construction Fund, to CAAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC for Safe Sidewalk Program F2 Project — somewhere in District E.

36. Appropriation of $605,600.00 out of Street & Bridge Consolidated Construction Fund, to TJ & T ENTERPRISES, INC for Safe Sidewalk Program F3 Project — somewhere in District B.

37. Awarding construction contract to C. E. BARKER, LTD. and then assigning it to RICO DEVELOPMENT, INC, for Construction of Water, Sanitary Sewer System and Storm Drainage System to serve the Almeda Meadows Subdivision. No $$ amount specified, and I don’t get the assignment bit either….

38. Appropriation of 10,275,800.00 from various funds to TEXAS STERLING CONSTRUCTION, L.P., for 48″ Water Line along Cambridge Street from Holcombe Boulevard to Old Spanish Trail. (When are they going to fix GIMS to work with Firefox?)

39. Appropriation of $2,307,800.00 out of Water & Sewer System Consolidated Construction Fund, to TROY CONSTRUCTION, L.L.P for a 24″ main and ancillary devices on Sawyer from Union to Center.

40. Appropriation of $5,627,500.00 out of Water & Sewer System Consolidated Construction Fund, to CSA CONSTRUCTION, INC for Sims Bayou Waste Water Treatment Plant Improvements.

41. Appropriation of $834,800.00 out of Parks Consolidated Construction Fund, to PARALLAX BUILDERS, INC for Boone Road Park.

42. Appropriation of $721,000.00 out of Water & Sewer System Consolidated Construction Fund to PARALLAX BUILDERS, INC for Renwick Fleet Maintenance Facility. Renwick is one of the four “quadrant” facilities for Water Maintenance (the guys who keep our water mains and other fixtures in order).

43. Creation of a bond fund and appropriation of $1,691,000 from various funds for an existing Design-Build Contract with GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY for Looscan Branch Library Replacement. I don’t get why the fund and funding are just now being arranged for an existing contract?

44. ORDINANCE appropriating $37,889,949.48 out of Tax Increment Funds for about twenty Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones. Now that’s a surprise… I’d always thought that these zones did all their own improvements. Does this mean that all their funding goes to the city, and then the city decides where to spend the money? Does each zone get back the the amount of money that it had taken from it? And get the purpose it’s taken for: “Affordable Housing, Administrative Expenses, Payment of Project Costs, Payments to Houston Independent School District, the Humble Independent School District, the Aldine Independent School District, the Spring Independent School District, the Houston Finance Corporation and certain Redevelopment Authorities as provided herein.” Huh? I have never been a fan of TIRZ’s but the more I learn, the less I like. What sort of shuffle is going on here with the tax money taken from these unelected and uncontrollable districts?

45. ORDINANCE appropriating $246,805.87 out of Tax Increment Funds for Reinvestment Zone Number Eight, City of Houston, Texas (Gulfgate Zone), Administrative Expenses, payment of project costs, and Gulfgate Redevelopment Authority as provided herein. I’m not sure what the deal is… I looked at last week’s agenda and TIRZ 8 was a part of the overall agenda item, but had been tagged, and Gulfgate was stricken. See item 76 below. Now why did it have to be separated, and why is none of its money going to the same purposes as the others? Are the city and state selling us a load of BS on how these things actually work, and/or is someone receiving preferential treatment?

Update: There was an error in the calculation of the tax revenue for that district and they weren’t sure the correct numbers would be ready in time, so they seperated it from the others. Just a stupid goof.

Items 46-64: Annexations.
The following districts are being “annexed for limited purposes” by the city. In other words, the city is saying “give us sales tax revenue in your district and we won’t fully annex you.” There’s other things involved, but by and large, this is what the city turned to after the Kingwood annexation made it politically unfeasable to continue expanding the city’s boundries willy-nilly. What I’m trying to figure out is why the areas are being attached to council districts. That sounds like a full annexation, including voting privileges. Yet it’s not.

This is a difficult subject–if the residents of those districts cannot vote in city elections, how can the city tax sales there? And if they can vote, how is it not a full annexation? No property taxes, perhaps? If that’s the case, then the City is establishing a super-class of voter who has all the privileges of “ordinary” residents, while getting to skip one of the major responsibilities: paying property taxes. I’ve read articles in the Chronicle about these districts before, but they were remarkably uninformative. We definately need more information on just what goes into one of these “annexations for limited purposes.” For damn sure, the folks being annexed need it.
Update: See this article for more info. Also, Clutterbuck tagged all of these, putting them back a week.

46. Cy-Champ Utility District.
47. Harris County Municipal Utility District #221.
48. Prestonwood Forest Utility District.
49. Cinco Municipal Utility District #12
50. Heatherloch Municipal Utility District
51. Harris County Municipal Utility District #46
52. Westador Municpal Utility District.
53. Chimney Hill Utility District.
54. Harris County Municipal Utility District #11
55. Harris County Municipal Utility District #18
56. Harris County Water Control District #96
57. Jackrabbit Road Public Utility District
58. Longhorn Town Utility District
59. Langham Creek Utility District
60. Mills Road Municipal Utility District
61. Post Wood Municipal Utility District
62. Remington Municipal Utility District #1
63. Harris County Municipal Utility District #342
64. Harris County Municipal Utility District #412

2007 Budget: Items 65-66
This is split into two items.

Non-Consent Agenda Items:
67. Nominations for 3 positions on the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission Board of Directors.
68. Fee increases for use of various sports facilties, including an amendment from council member Garcia to ensure that the increased fees are actually used for maintenance. This is about the increase to green fees on city golf courses. Interesting that Garcia feels it’s necessary to spell out what ought to be obvious, no?
Update: Actually, it turned out to be about fees for everything BUT golf. A lot of summer leagues just had their activity fees jumped up.

69-71. A five-year license and lease agreement (with 2 5-year renewals) between the city and T-Mobile, allowing them to build a (cell phone?) tower at Fire Stations 13, 50, and 105. T-Mobile pays only $1,000 per month and at the expiration of the agreement, the towers will belong to the city. Question: how do we know we’re going to need these (used) radio towers in fifteen years? Or is this a way to sucker the city into paying to tear them down once they are obsolete? Green, Sekula-Gibbs, Wiseman, and Johnson all tagged these 3 last week.

72. Authorization to submit the 2006 Consolodated Annual Plan to HUD, including applications for about $60 million in grant money. $1,317,133 is for emergency shelter grants. Katrina reimbursement perhaps?

73. Changes to the minimum lot size requirements on Milford street, 1100 and 1200 blocks. Because developers have to jam as many crackerboxes into a single block as possible if they want to make the most money.

74. Settement of a $175,000 claim by Sirius Systems against the city. Huh? What has the city done that it needs to pay off an XM radio company?
Update: The city had a service contract with a company that Sirius bought out and there was some disagreement about payment for services after the buyout.

75. Approval of $375,200 to MONTY PARTNERS, L.L.P., for Litigation Services to assist in defending claims brought by Marsha Farmer in United States of America ex rel Marsha Farmer v. the City of Houston and Houston Area Urban League. The case is Civil Action No. H-03-3713 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

76. The original ordinance to take money from all the TIRZ and use it for various purposes. See items 44 and 45 above.
Update: I saw indications that this may be just a portion, and is for “administrative purposes.”

Time is allocated after the last item for matters to be presented by council members – Council Member Wiseman first.

And there you have it. Sheesh, I had better things to do this afternoon. Well, ok, not really, since I lack a life — but I suppose I could have thought of something…

Update: Reader Rob Booth emails to say that he is in MUD#120 and they do not have voting privileges there, despite one of those limited annexations a while back.