LOCKPORT - The city council voted to annex the 170-acre "tank farm" section of the former Texaco property.

Mayor Tim Murphy said the city has two reasons for annexing the land: to gain control over the property, when the city previously had no control, and to gain tax revenue from the land.

However, Sandy Burcenski, a member of Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, called for more specific provisions regarding stormwater management on the land.

Burcenski also said the council could use this opportunity to obtain more favorable terms in a 2000 annexation agreement regarding other parts of the former Texaco property. Murphy responded that the tank-farm pact is a separate agreement.

The council voted 7 to 0 to approve the tank-farm annexation agreement as it stood Wednesday night, leaving Burcenski frustrated.

Issue's history

Lockport annexed a large portion of the 580-acre Texaco property - but not the tank farm - in 2000.

The tank-farm land now is owned by Chevron Corp., which merged with Texaco in 2001. Shell Pipeline leases the land and operates tanks containing crude oil.

The issue of stormwater management is important to Burcenski, a member of the board of directors of the local environmental group. Burcenski's neighborhood on the west side of Lockport, just south of the Texaco property, was hit by severe flooding in 1996. Burcenski's back yard and basement filled with water.

On Wednesday night, Burcenski expressed concern over part of the tank-farm annexation agreement concerning stormwater.

The text in question reads: "Owner will use commercially reasonable efforts to develop, in cooperation with (the city), a preliminary storm water and flood control plan ..."

Burcenski stressed the importance of this phrase and its meaning: "They're going to develop a preliminary stormwater plan, with the city, that is crucial to the west side. Somebody has got to define for me: What is 'commercially reasonable'?" Burcenski said. "This paragraph out of this annexation agreement - to me, and to that west side - is everything," she said.

City attorney Ron Caneva responded: "Obviously, what we want is some sort of unified storm water plan because it would be better if we included the tank farm in this unified effort along with the remaining areas of Texaco.

"I think by 'commercially reasonable' - that's put in there so that the city can't say: 'By the way, we want all the tanks taken down. We want just one big stormwater detention pond to solve the west side's problems.' That's what I mean by 'commercially reasonable.' "

Two agreements

Burcenski also told the council: "In my opinion ... you are giving Texaco everything that they wanted from that first initial meeting - without, and this is a key point, without reopening (and renegotiating) that original 2000 annexation agreement.If you vote on this, you're not going to have any leverage because you're going to give them everything that they want."

Murphy responded that this is a separate annexation agreement.

"I would think you would understand that this is beneficial, to have this annexed. Without annexing this, we have no control over this," Murphy said.

Burcenski responded: "I'm not knocking the annexation per se." She said she is questioning the agreement.