HomeMy WebLinkAbout08292 ORD - 12/21/196612/27/66 .
TEXAS:
FINDS:
AN ORDINANCE
CLOSING THE HEARING GIVEN TO THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS
OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON THE HEREINAFTER NAMED STREETS
IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, TO -WIT:
1. 13ALBOA STREET FROM HIDALGO TO PINE,
2. MARY STREET FROM 20TH TO SOUTH PORT,
3. NORTON AND CASA GRANDE STREETS AT CASA LINDA PARK;
PRESCOTT STREET FROM CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY TO
CUNNINGHAM SCHOOL,
5. BURTON LANE FROM WILLIAMS DRIVE TO CAIN,
6. ANTELOPE AND CARANCAHUA STREETS AT POST OFFICE,
7. WARDLE ROAD FROM NILE DRIVE TO ZARSKY,
$. HORNE ROAD FROM PRESCOTT TO CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY,
9. HUDSON STREET FROM SHAW TO CHULA VISTA SCHOOL,
10. WILLIAMS DRIVE FROM STAPLES TO EVERHART,
11. CARROLL LANE FROM WARDLE ROAD 700' SOUTH TOWARD
PADRE ISLAND DRIVE,
12. CAIN DRIVE FROM BURTON LANE TO SOUTH STAPLES
STREET,
13. ROSSITER STREET FROM SANTA FE TO ALAMEDA;
AS TO THE SPECIAL BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO SAID PROPERTY AND
THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF BY VIRTUE OF THE CON-
STRUCTION OF SIDEWALKS THEREON, DESIGNATED AS SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT ill, AND AS TO ANY ERRORS, INVALIDITIES
OR IRREGULARTIES IN ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR CONTRACT
THEREFOR; FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT EACH AND EVERY PARCEL
OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED WILL BE SPECIALLY
BENEFITTED AND ENHANCED IN VALUE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE, AND AS,
ASSESSED AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND
TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, AND LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR THE PAY-
MENT OF A PORTION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING SAID SIDEWALKS
WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED; FIXING A CHARGE AND LIEN AGAINST
ALL SAID ABUTTING PROPERTIES, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS
THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATES
UPON THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS, THE
MANNER AND TINE OF PAYMENT THEREOF, AND PROVIDING FOR THE
MANNER AND METHOD OF COLLECTION OF SAID ASSESSMENTS AND
CERTIFICATES; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
SECTION 1. THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI
(A) THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS,
HAS HERETOFORE BY ORDINANCE NO. 8235, ENACTED ON THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
1966, DETERMINED THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERED THE CONSTRUCTION OF SIDE-
WALKS ON THE HEREINAFTER NAMED STREETS IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS,
TO -WIT:
1. BALBOA STREET FROM HIDALGO TO PINE,
2. MARY STREET FROM 20TH TO SOUTH PORT,
3. NORTON AND CASA GRANDE STREETS AT CASA LINDA PARK,
F� ?a
4. PRESCOTT STREET FROM CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY TO
CUNNINGHAM SCHOOL,
5. BURTON LANE FROM WILLIAMS DRIVE TO CAIN,
6. ANTELOPE AND CARANCAHUA STREETS AT POST OFFICE,
7: MCARDLE ROAD FROM NILE DRIVE TO ZARSKY,
8 HORNE ROAD FROM PRESCOTT TO CROSSTOWN EXPRESSWAY
9, HUDSON STREET FROM SHAW TO CHULA VISTA SCHOOL,
10. WILLIAMS DRIVE FROM STAPLES TO EVERHART,
11. CARROLL LANE FROM MCARDLE ROAD 700' SOUTH TOWARD
PADRE ISLAND DRIVE,
12. CAIN DRIVE FROM BURTON LANE TO SOUTH STAPLES
STREET,
13. ROSSITER STREET FROM SANTA FE TO ALAMEDA;
AND IN THE MANNER AND ACCORDING TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFOR,
WHICH PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HAVE HERETOFORE BEEN APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL.
(B) THAT A NOTICE DULY EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI, TEXAS, OF THE ENACTMENT OF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCE HAS BEEN, TO-
WIT, IN THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 19661 FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF NUECES
COUNTY, TEXAS, THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI IS SITUATED,
AND SUCH NOTICE HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED IN VOLUME , PAGE
OF'THE DEED OF TRUST RECORDS OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS.
(C) THAT SAID CITY COUNCIL, AFTER HAVING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS IN
THE MANNER AS REQUIRED BY LAW AND BY THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI,
DID AWARD THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS TO STANLEY
ORION & KEISEL, INC. UPON ITS BEST AND LOWEST BID THEREFOR.
(D) THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CAUSED THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
TO PREPARE AND FILE ESTIMATES OF THE COSTS OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATES
OF THE AMOUNT PER FRONT FOOT PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PROPERTY
ABUTTING EACH OF SAID STREETS WITHIN THE LIMITS HEREIN DEFINED, AND AGAINST
THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF.
(E) THAT UPON THE FILING OF SAID ESTIMATES, THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI DID BY ORDINANCE DULY ENACTED ON THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1966',1 14
PROVIDE FOR AND ORDER A HEARING TO BE HELD AT 3 O'CLOCK P. M. ON THE TH
DAY OF DECEMBER, 1966, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL OF THE CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, AT WHICH TIME AND PLACE ALL PERSONS, FIRMS, CORPO-
RATIONS AND ESTATES OWNING OR CLAIMING ANY SUCH ABUTTING PROPERTY OR ANY
INTEREST THEREIN, AND THEIR AGENTS, AND ATTORNEYS, AND ALL OTHER PERSONS
INTERESTED THEREIN, WERE TO APPEAR AND BE HEARD IN PERSON OR BY COUNSEL,
-2-
Mayor Furman announced the Council would now hold the scheduled public hearing on
assessments for the proposed sidewalk improvements on the following streets;
Balboa Street from Hidalgo to Pine
Mary Street from 20th to South Port
Norton and Casa Grande Streets at Casa Linda Park
Prescott Street from Crosstown Expressway to Cunningham School
Burton Lane from Williams Drive to vain
Antelope and Carancahua Streets at the Post Office
McArdle Road from Nile Drive to Zarsky
Horne Road from Prescott to Crosstown Expressway
Hudson Street from Shaw to Chula Vista School
Williams Drive from Staples to Everhart.
Carroll Lane from McArdle Road 700 feet south toward Padre Island Drive
Cain Drive from Burton Lane to South Staples Street
Santa Fe Street from Minnesota to Rossiter
Rossiter Street from St. Patrick's School to Santa Fe Street
Mayor Furman explained the procedure to be followed, and stated that each member
of the Council had been presented with a Preliminary Assessment Roll; and that Assistant
City Attorney Tom McDowell would conduct the public hearing.
Assistant City Attorney McDowell explained the purpose of the public hearing and
stated that the Staff would offer testimony from the City Engineer and evaluation testi-
mony from a real estate appraiser to substantiate the assessments which appear on the
Preliminary Assessment Roll, and that the hearing was to form a basis on which the Council,
acting as a legislative body, would determine or establish the assessments on the abutting
properties.
Mr. McDowell called Mr. Gerald Smith, City Design Engineer, to testify to the nature,
extent and specifications of the proposed improvements. Mr. Smith stated that the project,
designated as Unit III, Sidewalk Improvements, calls for the construction of sidewalks along
various streets adjacent and leading to both private and public schools within the City;
stated that the assessment rate for the project is calculated on the basis of 80% of the
unit bid price applied to the calculated quantities for the improvements abutting the
property, which is 4 feet wide, 4 inches thick sidewalk at $1.53 per linear foot and for
extra thickness at $1.49 per linear foot; that the total contract price is $49,350.15; the
property owner's assessment is $33,645.37, and that the City's portion of the Cost is
$15,704.78.
Bill Roberts testified as to his background and experience which he felt qualified
him as a real estate appraiser for all types of properties in the City of Corpus Christi;
testified that he had personally viewed and understood the extent and specifications of
the proposed improvements; that he had personally viewed within the past week the pre-
liminary assessment roll and each of the properties to be assessed; and that in his opinion,
each of the properties so assessed would be enhanced in value far above the amout of the
assessments.
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
December 14, 1966
Page 11
Mayor Furman stated he would call the names of the property owners as they are
listed on the assessment roll and invited each property owner to state his approval or
objection to any of the proposed improvements or assessments to his property. The follow-
ing persons appeared:
Item #94: Mrs. Francis Golden appeared and objected on the basis that the project
appeared to be "piecemeal ", and that 15 feet of the original lot had been taken for a
drainage ditch, and inquired if it is proposed that more of the lot be taken for a side-
walk.
City Engineer Smith stated that the drainage ditch will be moved.
Item #,105: Mr. F. J. Jaeger stated that he did not object to the construction of
sidewalks for school children, but that he did object to the location of them as proposed;
stated that school children will have to cross a busy intersection, and that though there
is a traffic light at this location, police cars and ambulances proceed through the red
light signals. He stated that the school children should be routed away from congested
traffic, and that there is available such a route.
Mr. Smith stated that there is a letter on file from the principal of Fraser School
approving the sidewalks as proposed, and that officials of other neighboring schools have
voiced approval.
Item #117: (A.D. Casgrove) Mr. Clifford Cosgrove stated that he is being assessed
for 100 feet of sidewalk, Lots 22 & 21, Block 2, Midway Addition, and inquired as to whether
or not Horne Road from Port Avenue to Prescott will be widened when the Freeway is completed,
and as to where the right of way will come from; stated that if the street is widened at
a later time, will this improvement be torn up and will he be assessed again for paving
and widening the street. Mr. Cosgrove stated he also opposed the proposed improvement,
on the basis that there are no children living on this street; that he does not approve of
the City's method of assessing property owners, and further, he will ask the City's per-
mission to hire his own contractor.
Mr. Smith advised Mr. Cosgrove that he was not in a position to answer his question
as to whether or not Horne Road will be widened from Port Avenue to Prescott when the
Freeway is completed; that he is in agreement that it is a problem; that if Mr. Cosgrove
would come to his office, he would be glad to go over the maps and plans and give him any
information available in the Engineering Department.
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
December 14, 1966
Page 12
City Manager Whitney advised Mr. Cosgrove that if the sidewalk is constructed as
planned now, and at a later datethe plans call for widening the street in question,
property owners will not be assessed for another sidewalk, that it will be at the City's
expense.
Item #120: Mr. Torcuato Luna appeared and stated that his only objection was that
there is a drainage ditch in front of his house and that he would rather see this removed;
that if the sidewalk is constructed, it will narrow the street unless they plan to take
some of his property.
Item #145: Mr. George T. Cunningham stated that he had no objection to the proposed
improvements, but inquired as to the construction of curbs and gutters, and was advised
that the plans do not include curbs and gutters.
Item #156: Mr. J. W. Monts stated he was definitely in favor of the proposed side-
walk improvements.
Item #198: (C. B. Huddleston) Mrs. A. G. Mosmeyer appeared speaking for Mr. Huddles -
ton, and stated that he had instructed her to voice his opposition to construction of side-
walks on Carroll Lane.
Item #201: Mrs. A. G. Mosmeyer appeared in opposition in her own behalf and stated
that there are only two families with children living on this particular block; that the
residents have raised their children without sidewalks; and that if sidewalks are con-
structed, she is fearful other children from other streets where there are no sidewalks,
will congregate and create a disturbing situation for the retired people living in this
block. She further stated that she had worked for the promotion of'the bonds in 1964 to
finance construction of sidewalks, but that she had no idea at that time they would be
built on her block.
Item #203: Mrs. Leon Hernandez appeared and stated that she has no children; does
not need the sidewalks and that she cannot afford to pay for the assessment; that if the
sidewalks are constructed it will necessitate the destruction of two large shade trees in
front of her house and that she feels the shade is of more value to the children in the
neighborhood than the sidewalks, and that she wishes to be recorded as opposed to the
improvements.
Item #208; Mrs. C. E. Busby appeared and concurred in the statements made by Mrs.
Mosmeyer, and that she opposes the improvements.
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
December 14, 1966
Page 13
Item 46213: Mr. Stanley Slowik stated he did not oppose the proposed construction
of sidewalks, but questioned the selection of streets to be improved; stated that he felt
all of Gardendale should have been included; and further, inquired as to the feasibility
of the sidewalks being constructed individually.
Item 41217: Mr. H. F. Lumpkin, stated that he objects to the proposed improvements,
and inquired as to what recourse he would have.
Item #218: Mrs. Roy Brown appeared in opposition, stating that she felt the money
should be spent on better drainage rather than sidewalks.
Item 46221: Mr. F,lmo Blake appeared and stated that he felt the sidewalks should
be constructed on the North side of Cain Drive; that school children will have to cross
Staples Street at the intersection and that it will eventually become necessary to install
a signal light which will adversely affect his business; otherwise, he stated he is in
favor of the sidewalks and that it will enhance his property.
Mr. Smith advised Mr. Blake that the South side of Cain Drive was proposed because
of the existing utility lines and excessive growth on the North side.
Item #222: Mr. R. S. Colley appeared and stated that he was very much in favor of
the proposed sidewalk improvements; that they are fine as far as they go but that there is
no way to "feed the children" into them; that the project should be extended to include the
balance of Santa Fe all the way from Rossiter to conuact with the existing sidewalk north.
Item 46223: Mr. H. D4rwood Thompson stated that he concurred in the statements of
Mr. Colley; that he is not against Hie proposed sidewalks, but stated that he feels that a
sidewalk down Rossiter would serve children going to St. Patricks rather than an Minnesota.
Mr. Thompson inquired of the Engineering Department as to the problem of existing utility
poles, gas meters, shrubbery, and the overall appearance of the completed project.
Mr. Smith stated that he agrees there will be problems of encroachments, but that
Central Power & Light and Bell Telephone Company will move the utility poles, and that
the sidewalk will be located back of the curbs to eliminate the moving of shrubbery.
Mayor Pro Tem Blackmon stated that the original petition for sidewalks had come
from St. Patricks School for Rossiter Street, but that the Council had included both Santa
Fe and Rossiter in order to get the matter before the Council for discussion.
Item 46225: Mr. G. C. Menger stated that he did not object to the sidewalk paving
project, but complained that there exists ten feet of sewer pipe on his property which
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
December 14, 1966
Page 14
stops up about once a month, and asked that it be investigated and corrected before the
construction of sidewalks so they will not have to be repaired after the sidewalks are
built. Mr. Menges also stated that he is in agreement with the statements made by Mr.
Colley and Mr. Thompson relative to the placement of sidewalks on Rossiter,
Item #226: Mr. Norman Beshers stated he was heartily in favor of the proposed
sidewalk improvements.
Item #227: Mr. R. L. 9aughter appeared and stated that he does not oppose the
construction of sidewalks, but that he will object unless the construction is extended
as far north as it can, for the reason that he has three grandchildren who will need
sidewalks to attend school.
Item #240: Mr. Leroy J. Boudreau cited an article which appeared in the newspaper
September 15, 1966, in which Assistant City Manager was quoted; that a group of "irate"
parents along Carroll Lane off Padre Island Drive had complained of the lack of sidewalks
and was told that "if a petition will be sent to the Traffic Engineering Department with
neighbor's signatures I am sure the City Council will give it every consideration "; "that
if such a sidewalk is installed the homeowners will be assessed 80 percent of the cost of
$1.60 a foot "; "that if it is the will of the people in the block, they will get a sidewalk
put in ".
Mr. Smith of the Engineering Department, stated that the Assistant City Manager
was possibly misquoted.
No one else appeared to be heard in connection with the proposed sidewalk improve-
ments.
Motion by Blackmon, seconded by Jimenez and passed that the hearing be closed.
Motion by McDaniel, seconded by Wallace and passed action on the foregoing proposed
sidewalk improvements be deferred for further consideration.
THERE BEING NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT WHO DESIRED TO BE HEARD, THE
MAYOR ANNOUNCED THAT THE HEARING WAS CLOSED AND DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY
TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING THE FINDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHEN
MADE.
(G) THAT AT SAID HEARING NO PROTESTS, OBJECTIONS OR TESTIMONY WERE
OFFERED AS TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS, THE CONTRACTS OR ASSESSMENTS THEREFOR, OR
AS TO ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN REFERENCE THERETO EXCEPT AS HEREINABOVE
SET OUT; THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS HEARD ALL PARTIES WHO APPEARED AND DESIRED
TO BE HEARD AS TO THE SPECIAL BENEFITS IN ENHANCED VALUE TO ACCRUE TO SAID
ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF AS COMPARED TO THE
PORTION OF THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING SAID IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE
ASSESSED AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY, AND HAS HEARD ALL PARTIES APPEARING
AND OFFERING TESTIMONY, TOGETHER WITH ALL OBJECTIONS AND PROTESTS RELATIVE
TO SUCH MATTERS AND RELATIVE TO ANY ERRORS, INVALIDITIES OR IRREGULARITIES
IN ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS FOR SAID IMPROVEMENTS, AND HAS GIVEN A FULL AND,
FAIR HEARING TO ALL PARTIES MAKING OR DESIRING TO MAKE ANY SUCH PROTEST OR
OBJECTION OR TO OFFER TESTIMONY, AND HAS FULLY EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED ALL
OF SAID EVIDENCE, MATTERS, TESTIMONY AND OBJECTIONS OFFERED.
(H) THAT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, MATTERS, TESTIMONY AND OBJECTIONS
CONSIDERED AT SUCH HEARING THE SAID CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED THAT THE
PROPERTIES, AND EACH AND EVERY PARCEL OF SUCH PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID
SIDEWALK WILL BE ENHANCED IN VALUE AND SPECIALLY BENEFITTED IN AN AMOUNT
IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO BE,
AND AS HEREINAFTER, ASSESSED AGAINST EACH OF SAID PARCELS OF PROPERTY,
ABUTTING UPON SAID ALLEY, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF.
(I) THAT SAID CITY COUNCIL 15 OF THE OPINION, AND FINDS THAT
1E�XCEPT AS MAY BE VARIED THEREFROM IN THE ASSESSMENTS SET OUT IN SECTION
Y BELOW, THE FRONT FOOT PLAN OR RULE, IF UNIFORMLY APPLIED, WOULD NOT
RESULT IN INJUSTICES AND INEQUITIES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PARCELS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE SAME UNIT, TO WHICH SAID PLAN OR RULE IS HEREBY APPLIED THAT IN
EACH OF THE CASES WHERE THE ASSESSMENT SET OUT IN SECTION `F BELOW HAS BEEN
VARIED FROM THE FRONT FOOT PLAN OR RULE, SAID CITY COUNCIL IS OF THE
OPINION, AND FINDS, THAT SAID PLAN, IF UNIFORMLY APPLIED WOULD RESULT IN
ME
INJUSTICES AND INEQUITIES BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT PARCELS OF PROPERTY WITHIN
THE SAME UNIT; AND THE CITY COUNCIL HAS DETERMINED TO APPORTION AND
ASSESS THE COSTS IN A DIFFERENT MANNER IN SUCH PROPORTIONS AS IT DEEMS
AND FINDS TO BE JUST AND EQUITABLE, HAVING IN VIEW THE SPECIAL- BENEFITS
TO THE ENHANCED VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES.
(J) THAT SAID CITY COUNCIL HAS ADOPTED THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT
AND DIVISION OF THE COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN SAID ABUTTING PROPER-
TIES AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF HEREIN SET FORTH AND HAS FOUND
THE SAME TO BE JUST AND EQUITABLE AND TO PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY CON-
SIDERING THE BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED AND THE BURDENS IMPOSED THEREBY; AND
SAID CITY COUNCIL HAS FURTHER FOUND UPON THE EVIDENCE CONSIDERED THAT THE
ASSESSMENTS HEREINAFTER MADE AND THE CHARGES HEREBY DECLARED AGAINST SAID
ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF ARE JUST AND
EQUITABLE AND THAT ALL OBJECTIONS AND PROTESTS SHOULD BE OVERRULED AND
DENIED.
SECTION 2. THERE BEING NO FURTHER PROTESTS OR TESTIMONY FOR OR
AGAINST OR IN REFERENCE TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS3 BENEFITS OR PROCEEDINGS SAID
HEARING GRANTED TO THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS.OF PROPERTIES ABUTTING UPON
SAID STREETS OR UNITS, WITHIN THE LIMITS HEREIN DEFINED, AND ALL PERSONS,
FIRMS CORPORATIONS AND ESTATES OWNING OR CLAIMING SAME OR ANY INTEREST
THEREIN, SHALL BE, AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CLOSED, AND ALL PROTESTS AND OB-
JECTIONS, WHETHER SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED OR NOT, SHALL BE AND THE SAME ARE
HEREBY OVERRULED AND DENIED.
SECTION 3. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES UPON THE
EVIDENCE HEARD IN REFERENCE TO EACH AND EVERY PARCEL OF PROPERTY ABUTTING
UPON THE SAID STREETS AND UNITS HEREIN SET OUT THAT THE ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE
TO ACCRUE TO SAID PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF BY VIRTUE
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID SIDEWALKS WILL BE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF
THE COSTS OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED TO BED AND AS HEREIN ASSESSED
AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF; AND
FINDS THAT THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE COSTS OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND THE
ASSESSMENTS HEREINBELOW MADE ARE JUST AND EQUITABLE AND PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL
EQUALITY CONSIDERING THE BENEFITS RECEIVED AND THE BURDENS IMPOSED THEREBY,
AND ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE CHARTER
-5-
OF SAID CITY AND FURTHER FINDS THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTRACTS HERETO-
FORE HAD WITH REFERENCE TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN ALL RESPECTS REGULAR
PROPER AND VALID AND THAT ALL PREREQUISITES TO THE FIXING OF THE ASSESS-
MENT LIENS AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTIES, AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED,
AND THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, WHETHER
NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED HEREIN OR NOTE HAVE BEEN IN ALL THINGS REGULARLY
HAD AND PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND THE PROCEEDINGS OF SAID
CITY COUNCIL.
SECTION 4. IN PURSUANCE OF SAID ORDINANCE DULY ENACTED BY SAID
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID SIDEWALKS AS
HEREINBELOW SET OUTS WHICH ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, AS AFORESAID ON THE 9TH
DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1966, AND IN PURSUANCE OF SAID PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD
AND ENACTED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL IN REFERENCE TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND BY
VIRTUE OF THE POWERS VESTED IN SAID CITY WITH RESPECT TO SAID SIDEWALK
IMPROVEMENTS BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE
TO CHAPTER 106, ACTS OF THE FIRST CALLED SESSION OF THE MOTH LEGISLATURE
KNOWN AS ARTICLE 11058, VERNON'S TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES, AS AMENDED AND
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 6 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS,
THERE SHALL BED AND IS HEREBY LEVIED ASSESSED AND TAXED AGAINST THE
RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED AND ABUTTING UPON THE
SAID STREETS AND UNITS HEREINAFTER SET OUT AND WITHIN THE LIMITS BELOW
DEFINED AND AGAINST THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS OF SUCH PROPERTY WHETHER SUCH
REAL AND TRUE OWNERS BE NAMED�OR CORRECTLY NAMED OR SAID PROPERTIES BE
CORRECTLY DESCRIBED HEREIN OR NOTE THE SEVERAL SUMS OF MONEY HEREINAFTER
MENTIONED AND ITEMIZED OPPOSITE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS
OF SAID PROPERTY, THE NUMBER OF FRONT FEET OF EACH, AND THE SEVERAL AMOUNTS
ASSESSED AGAINST SAME AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF] AND THE NAMES
OF THE APPARENT OWNERS THEREOFp ALL AS CORRECTED AND ADJUSTED BY SAID CITY
COUNCIL, BEING AS FOLLOWS TO -WIT:
-6-
• Sheet No.�
SThPWAT,K TMPROVr'MCNTS, UNIT III_ -..
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement Y6
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or P. -2 p.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per yT. ft. $ 1.53. LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 7.49 TF
TEA4
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
OF
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AI+.OUNT
ASSESSED
g?7DOA STREET from
HIDALGO STREET
to 20th STREET
(51.60)
1.
FERNANDO FLORES
Lot 1, Block 3, Santa Ellena
103.20 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 78.94
Addition, 50% Assessed
2.
MARIA R. FERNANDEZ
(83.18)
Lot 20, Block 3, Santa Elena
103.20 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$127.26
Addition, 80.6% Assessed
SA7 `.Cl FTLII:17k
S=1T
3.
JESUS GUERRA
(51.70)
Lot 1, Block 5, Santa Ellena
103.41 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 79.10
Addition, 50% Assessed
4.
WILLIE A. SHIVERS
Lot 20, Block 5, Santa Elena
103.42 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 79.11
Addition, 50% Assessed
NAVAJO
STREET
5.
JIM E. -Z
(82.70)
Lot 16; of 4, Coronado
100.0 LF-
Sidewalk
1.53
$126.22
Addition, 82.5% Assessed
6.
Jim E. HERNw=
(50,0)
Lot 1, Block 4, Coronado
100.0 LF-
Sidewalk
1.53
$76.70
Addition, 5 Assessed
+0.0 LF-
Extra Thickness
1.'79
22.35
$ 98.85
(l).0)
CARMEN
STREET
7.
PAUL SNYDER
Lot 1, Block 5, Coronado
13.56 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 20.74
Addition, 100% Assessed
BA:.DWTN BOULEVARD
B.
COLONIAL AMERICAN LIFE INS.
(43.10)
Lot 18, Block 6, Coronado
86.21 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 65.94
Addition, 50% Assessed
9.
F. G. GUTI 2 Z
(66 )
Lot 1, Block 6, Coronado
120.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
i
1 $'700.98
Addition, 55% Assessed
I
i
i
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
17 -A
ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CHURCH (50)
Lot 16, Block 8, Coronado 100.0 LF Sidewalk
Addition, 50% Assessed
BENITO GARZA (50)
Lot 1, Block 8, Coronado 100.0 LF Sidewalk
Addition, 50% Assessed
PINE S T
END BALBOA STREET
MARY STREET from 20th TREET to P
MAxUEL SAN MIGUEL
Lot 1, Block 10, Patrick Webb 25.0 LF Sidewalk
Addition, 100°% Assessed
MAi AS TAPIA
Sheet No
50.o LF
Webb Addition, 100% Assessed
SIDEWALK IMPRO MENTS_,_UNIT III
LOUIS MEVINIO
Stanley Orion & Keisel
Zoned & Used R -1 or P, -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Patrick Webb Addition, 1000
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.£. $
;MS. W. M. NOBLE
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per :c £t,
$ 1,53 LF
50.0 LF
Patrick Webb Addition, 100%
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft.
$
(ITEM
SPEED - VILLAP=
Extra thickness Sidewalk
1.49 LF
25.0 LF
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
OF
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
TAMPICO
TREET
10.
WEST SIDE Li."QSER CO.
I
Lot 6, Block 7, Coronado
52.97 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 81.04
Addition, 100% Assessed
11.
RICARDO ESPINOSA
Lot 162 Block 7, Coronado
100.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$153.00
Addition, 100% Assessed
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
17 -A
ST. JOSEPH'S CATHOLIC CHURCH (50)
Lot 16, Block 8, Coronado 100.0 LF Sidewalk
Addition, 50% Assessed
BENITO GARZA (50)
Lot 1, Block 8, Coronado 100.0 LF Sidewalk
Addition, 50% Assessed
PINE S T
END BALBOA STREET
MARY STREET from 20th TREET to P
MAxUEL SAN MIGUEL
Lot 1, Block 10, Patrick Webb 25.0 LF Sidewalk
Addition, 100°% Assessed
MAi AS TAPIA
Lots 2 & Z;, Block 10, Patrick
50.o LF
Webb Addition, 100% Assessed
LOUIS MEVINIO
Lots 11 & 12, Block 10,
50,0 LF
Patrick Webb Addition, 1000
Assessed
;MS. W. M. NOBLE
Lots 13 & 14, Block 10,
50.0 LF
Patrick Webb Addition, 100%
Assessed
SPEED - VILLAP=
Lot 4, Block 10, Patrick
25.0 LF
Webb Addition, 100% Assessed
1.53
1.53
1.,
Sidewalk 1.53
I
I
Sidewalk 1.53
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
1.53 1
1.53
$ 76.50
$ 76,50
$ `8•
6.50
$ 76.50
i
i
76.50
I
$ 38.50
•' Sheet No.�
SIbEWALiC-J_MPROTS, UNIT_ III
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned -& Used Other 'Tha'7 R -1 or R -2 p.l.r. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per sq. ft. $ 1.53 IF
Assessment Rate Driverva/ ner sq. ft. $
Extra Thickness Side-•ralk 1.49 IF
�TEbi
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION
OF
ASSESSMENT
RATE
lvrOL_;T
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
18.
BENITO GALVAN
Lot 15, Block 10, Patrick
25.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 38.25
Webb Addition, 100% Assessed
19.
ISABEL M. BARRIENTES
Lot 16, Block 10, Patrick
25.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 38.25
Webb Addition, 100% Assessed
20.
A.G. GARZA
Lots 17 & 18, Block 10,
50.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 76.50
Patrick Webb Addn.,100% Assessed
21st
STREET
21.
JOSE V. RARRn.RA
Lots 9 & 10, Block ll
50.0 IF T
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 76.50
Patrick Webb Addn., 100% Assessed
(50' west of 21st St
eet to 23rd SItreet
has existing sidewalk
23
I
d STREET
22.
NASARIO BECERRO
Lot 1, Block 2, Summit Place
25.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 38.25
100% Assessed
22-A
TONASARIO BECERRO
Lot 2, Block 2, Summit Place,
25.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 38.25
100% Assessed
23.
VICTOR LISERIO
Lot 3, Block 2, Summit Place
25.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 38.25
100% Assessed
234
LUPE PEREZ
Lots 4 and 5, Block 2
50.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 76.50
Summit Place, 100% Assessed
24.
P. P. MENDOZA
Lot 6, Block 2, Summit Place
25.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 38.25
100% Assessed
24-P.
ELIAS G. MARTINEZ
Lots 7 and 8, Block 2
50.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 76.50
Summit Place, 100% Assessed
25.
RUFINO SANCHEZ
Lots 9 and 10, Block 2,
50.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 76.50
Summit Place, 100% Assessed
26.
MANLTEL GARZA
Lot 11, Block 2,
25.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
$38.25
Summit Place, 100% Assessed
• Sheet No.�
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT III
- Stanley Orion & Keisel
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavec;ent $
Zoned & Used Other Than F. -1 or R -2 p.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per sqy. ft. $ 1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per so. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidev* lk 1.49 LF
:TEM
DESCRIPTION
TOTS
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
OF
AMOUMiT
ASSESSED
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMIOUTNT
ASSESSED
BLUNTGER
—i BET
27.1
JUAN GARCIA
(70.06)
Lot 34, Block 11, Summit Place
140.13 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
``+$107.19
Addition, 50% Assessed
i
25
h STREET
28.
J. B. BLANCO
(42.50)
Lots 37 & 38, Juarez Addition
85,0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 65.02
50% Assessed
29.
G. GARCIA
Lot 21, Block 1, Villa
50.41 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 77.12
Green Addition, 100% Assessed
30.
J. H. MYERS
Lot 21, Block 1, Villa
59.59 LF
sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.17
Green Addition, 100°%0 Assessed
MEULY
VENUE
31.
J. M. P=
Lots 19,20, & 21, Block 2,
82.32 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$125.94
Villa Green Addition, 100/
Assessed
PORT
,VENUE
END MAR'S
STREET
ic-
NORTON STREET from A's
prox. 60' Nor�h
of KOSTORYZ ROAD
to CASA
?1Z'DE
60' North of
Kostoryz Road
32.
WILLIAM W. W`6'F.KR
(40.20)
Lot 1, Block 1, Wynwood #1
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
$ 61.50
67% Assessed
33.
II
City Park along Norton & Casa
965.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Grande Streets, 1000 Assessed
lICNOETO-N
j
(To con
ting school
sidewalk Casa Lind.)
l
& CA.
A GRANDE STREET
. Sheet No.�
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT III - —
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f.
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per'lW. ft. $ 1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1.49 L7
:TEM DESCRIPTION TOTlr
NO. OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY OF A! `OTMTT
ASSESSED ASSESSMENT RATE AMOL_TT ASSESSED
PRESCOTT STREET from 215' Northwest of B,;1'4�7 -TT STREET to Cur"LNGHPIVl J°. HIGH SC',OOL
Y-01 EL GONZALES
(48.59)
Lot 4, Block 14, Temple
52.0 LF-
Sidewalk
Addition, 93.45% Assessed
JOSE GARANA
(48.59)
Lot 3, Block 14, Temple
52.0 LF
Sidewalk
Addition, 93.45% Assessed
M. R, RAMINEZ
(48.59)
Lot 2, Block 14, Temple
52.0 LF
Sidewalk
Addition, 93.45% Assessed
FEDERICO SALINAS
(56.07)
Lot 11 Block 14, Temple
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
Addition, 93.45% Assessed
BURNETTiSTREET
JEWEL HOMES
Lot 19, Block 8, Monterrey,,
106.92 LF
Sidewalk
Gardens, 100% Assessed
A. L. GALACIA
Lot 1, Block 8, Monterrey
105.50 LF
Sidewalk
Gardens, 100% Assessed
ANDREWS
STREET
H. A. BRADLEY
Lot 27, Block 7, Monterrey
104.0 LF
Sidewalk
Gardens, 100% Assessed
JEWEL HOMES
Lot 26, Block 7, Monterrey
104.0 LF
Sidewalk
Gardens, 100% Assessed
LORITTE
STREET
JEWEL HOMES
Lot 40, Block 5, Monterrey
104.0 LF
Sidewalk
Gardens #4, 100% Assessed
1.53 1 1 X74.34 1
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
$ 74.34
74. 34
$ 85.78 1
$163.58
$161.41
$159.12
$159.12
$159.12
Stanley Orion & Keisel
Sheet No
SIDEWALK IMPROVF.MCNTS, UNIT III
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned -& Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per ft. $1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway 'oer sc. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1.49 LF
ITEM
No.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION
OF
ASSESSMENT
FA -Lo
A:f:OUQT
TOTAL
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
43.
J-54EL HOMES
Lot 1, Block 5, Monterrey
104.0 LF Sidewalk
1.53
$159.12
Gardens #4, 100% Assessed
ROSLYN ISTREET
44.
J. H. PELS
Lot A, Monterrey Gardens.
331.25 LF Sidewalk
1.53
$506.81
Unit #21 100% Assessed
45.
J. H. PELS
Lot B. Monterrey Gardens
135.0 LF Sidewalk
1.53
$200.55
Unit #2, 100% Assessed
HORT\E ROAD
46.
CLARA AGULAR
(65.95)
Lot 23, Block 2, John Jones
115.7 LF Sidewalk
1.53
$100.90
Unit #1, 57% Assessed
i
YALE STREET
47.
ALSTON TERRY
(66.466)
'
Lot 22, Block 3, John Jones
115.7 IF Sidewalk
1.53
$101.69
Unit #le 57.44% Assessed
48.
0. R. QUELLAR
(66.46)
Lot 23, Block 3, John Jones
115.7 LF Sidewalk
1.53
$101.68
Unit #1, 57.44% Assessed
SHER1IAN iS TREET
49.
JOSE I. GONZALES
(66.39)
Lot 22, Lot 4, John Jones
115.7 IF Sidewalk
1.53
$101.57
Unit #1, 57.38% Assessed
I
50.
SDITO ZUIDi T
(C-6-39)
Lot 23, Block 4, John Jones
115.7 LF Sidewalk
1.53
$101.57
Unit #1, 57.38% Assessed
HUDSON STREET
I
�
Stanlev Orion & Keisel
• Sheet P
SIDMgALh IMPROVEMENTS, UNIT III
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per �. ft. $ 1.53 1
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1.4
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
O1MR & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
OF
AMOU "IT
ASSESSED
ASSESS%2M'T
RATE
A"- 10UN ^1
ASSESSED
51.
MARCAS P. PEREZ
(66.31)
Lot 22, Block 5, John Jones
115.7 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$101.15
Unit #1, 57.31% Assessed
unningham Jr.
High School Prope
ty Line
END PRESC
TT STREET
BURTON LAM
from WILLIAMS
DRIVE to CAIN DRIVE
DRITI
- EAST SIDE
11ILLTAMS
2.
JOSE OCHOA
Lot 1 -A, Block 4. Gardendale
150.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$229.50
No. 2, 100% Assessed
53•
FRANCISCO SEGOVIA
Lot 2 -B, Block 4, Gardendale
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
No. 2, 100% Assessed
54.
FRANCISCO SEGOVIA
Lot 2 -C, Block 4, Gardendale
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
i
$ 76.50
No. 2, 100% Assessed
55•
FRANCISCO SEGOVIA
Lot 2 -D, Block 4, Gardendale
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
No. 2, 100% Assessed
56.
HILTON HUNTER
Lot 36, Block 4. Gardendale
300.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$*59.00
No. 2, 104o Assessed
CURTISS CIARK
DRIVE
57.
FERiNANDO VILLAMAL
Lots 1 -A & 1 -3, Block 5,
150.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$229.50
Gardendale #2, 100% Assessed
58.
EULOGIO CRUZ
Lot 1 -C, Block 5, Gardendale
75.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$11:.75
#2, 100% Assessed
59.
LEE R. JOHNSON
Lot 1 -D, Block 5, Gardendale
75.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$11.
#2, 100% Assessed
�
I
Sheet N
SIDEWALK 1— MPROVLMENT'S, TilIT III
Stanley 0 ion +T -ic l Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2 � C.G. & Pavement $
— .
Zoned 8, Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per 7?1 ft. $ 1.53
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1.4'? Ls
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
N0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
OF
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
60.
BRUCE C. ROUSE
Lot 36, Black 5, Gardendale
300.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$459.00
+2, 100% Assessed
BONNER
DRIVE
61.
W. L. TONG
Lot 1, Block 6, Gardendale
300.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$459.00
,,,2, 100% Assessed
62.
VIRGIL REEVES
Lots 17 -D, 17 -C2 & 17 -B,
300.0 LF
Sid ewalk
1.53
$459.00
Block 6, Gardendale #2, 100%
Assessed
CAIRI
RIVE
END =TON
LANE
ANTRLOPE-C
ARANCAHUA
63.
DEPT. OF U.S. POST OFFICE
445.0 LF
Sidewalk(9z' kid
) 3.90
$1,735.50
U.S. Post Office Property
redit for existing
S/W 175 @
7b
7
- 393•10
$1,342. 1+0
EN ANTELOP
- CARILVCAHUA
from NILE
MCA'RDLE ROAD
DRIVE to ZARSKY D
64.
H.O.&R. CO.
Tract 1, Pharoah Valley S.W.
115.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ =75.95
Unit 1, 100% Assessed
65.
M. C. COOK
11+0.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$214.20
140'x110' out of E. z of Lot
25, Sec. 17, F.B.E.F.&G.T., 10
Assessed
66.'
PHAROAH ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Lot 1, Block 20, Pharoah
120.45 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$184.28
Valley S.W., Unit 1, 100%
Assessed
ASWAX
DRSPE
67.
PHAROAH ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Lot 1, Block 19, Pharoah
125.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$2- -91.25
Valley S.W., Unit 1, 100%
Assessed
i
I
I
I
Sheet PI
SIDEWALK 1MPROVFZEMTS, UNIT
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other ,Ian R -1 or R -2 p.l.r. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per la�f. ft. 45 1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft.
Extra thickness Sidewalk i•4q ',F
ITEM DESCRIPTION TOVT
NO. OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY OF A!:OL:IT
ASSESSED ASSESSMENT RATE AMOUNT ASSESSED
PHAROAH M-=RISES, LTD.
Pharoah Valley Golf Course
:HAROAH ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Pharoah Valley S.W., Unit 1,
Lot 1, Block 181 100p Assessed
PHAROAH ENTERPRISES, LTD.
Lot 1, Block 17, Pharoah
Valley S.W., Unit 1, 100%.
Assessed
School Property, 100% Assessec
R. 0. PARKB
Lot 23, Block 26, Oso Place V
71.49% Assessed
C. J. BILL
Lot 22, Block 26, Oso Place V
71.82% Assessed
M IORIAL BAPTIST CHURCH
Block C, Oso Place IV
100% Assessed
SHAMROCK 0IL CO.
Lot 3, Block B, Oso Place IV
100% Assessed
OSO DEV. INC.
Oso Place, Block A
100% Assessed
472.30 LF
Sidewalk
L•53
136.76 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
CLARION
ST EET
120.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
1350.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
WOODLAW]H
DRIVE
(76.49)
107.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
(76.85)
107.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
AIMOLD
1
1, DRIVE
1
351.0 LF
Sidewalk
I 1.53
25.0 LF
Extra thickness
•, 1.49
116.3 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
RICKEY
ST9rr,T
358.9 LF
Sidewalk
I
1.53
537.03
37.25
0 Sheet I£0.0-
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT S,_ UNIT .T-,I ___
Stanley Orion & Keisel
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other iIIa.n P, -1 or R -2 p.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per Fp. ft. $ 1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1.1' -9 LF
TEM
N0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION
OF
ASSESSMENT
RATE
ArOUIGT
-02AL
A?!OUNT
ASSESSED
77.
CITY
Alley -Public
i
20.0 LF
Sidewalk
78.
LEON CARR
(78.54)
Lot 1, Block 19, Oso Place IV
116.34 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$120.16
67.51% Assessed
NANCY STREET
79.
R. C. DENTON
(71.03)
Lot 21 Block 10, Oso Place IV
61.00, Assessed
116.45 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$108.67
80.
ALBERT S. !SA* ON
(71.03)
Lot 20, Block 10, Oso Place IV
116.54 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$108.67
61.00% Assessed
BERNICE
DRIVE
81.
VELMA CORDER
(81.24)
Lot 16, Block 8, Oso Place
116.45 LF
Sidewalk
1.53-
$121.29
69.76% Assassed
82.
J. J. F=
(70.23)
Lot 15, Block 8, Oso Place
60.2 Assessed
116.54 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.45
SRINLS
DRIVE
83.
G. V. S+TfiITE
(70.23)
Lot 17, Block 5, Oso Place
116.45 LF
Sidewalk
! 1.53
$107.45
60.26% Assessed
84.
J. T. ROGERS
(70.23)
I
Lot 16, Block 5, Oso Place
116.54 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.45
60.26% Assessed
PRINCE
-r-
DRIVE
85.
J. W. ROSSON
(70.23)
Lot 19, Block 4, Oso Place
116.45 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.45.
60.26% Assessed
I
Sheet P1ole-1
SIDWALK IMPROVMMMT5'- _UN1T_TII
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned &, Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f. .3
Assess -lent Rate, :sidewalk ner7.�q. ft. $ 1.53 Ll
Assessment Rate, Driveway -per sc. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1.49 LT
ITFM
DESCRIPTION
Toap-T
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
OF
AI ,,OTY T
ASSESSED
ASSESS1%TNi T
RATE
A QOUET
ASSESSED
86.
L. J. ROBERTS
(70.23)
Lot 18, Block 4, Oso Place
116.54 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.45
60.26% Assessed
=AKER
DRIVE
87.
E. L. BILL
(86.36)
Lot 19, Block 1, Oso Place
116.45 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$132.13
74.16% Assessed
88.
J. A. M2- RT
(8-9.04)
Lot 1, Block 1, Cullen Place
120.07 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$136.23
74.16% Assessed
CRESMT
DRIVE
89.
C. L. SITaS
(79.01)
Lot 37, Block 3, Cullen Place
105.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$120.88
75.25% Assessed
90.
G. G. PARIS
(81.12) _
Lot 1, Block 3, Cullen Place
105.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$124.11
77.26% Assessed
STRkTiON
DRIVE
91.
J. M. RICH
(64.39)
Lot 32 Block 2 Cullen Place
110.0 LB
Sidewalk
1.53
$104.63
92.
94.
62.17% ;Assessed
M. L. ACUNA
Lot 1, Cullen Place, Block 2
90.22% Assessed
(From Vance
RAY PETERSON
Lot 31, Block 1, Koolside
Addition, 100% Assessed
sRANCI.S GOLDEN
Lot 1, Block 2 Koolside
Addition, 78.e1% Assessed
(99.24)
110.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
re to within 5' of Dorthy Drive omitted)i
I i
85.0 LF Sidewalk 1.53
DORT;TY DRIVE
(129.73)
165.03 LF Sidewalk 1.53
$151.83
$130.05
$198.48
- 0
SI=- IALK IMPROVEMENTS, USIT III
Sheet No0-
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 n.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per Mq. ft. $ 1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1.49 LF
ITEM
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION
OF
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
TOTAL
111Q0UNT
ASSESSED
95.
JOHN A. JORDON
Lot 3, Block 2, Koolside
70.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Addition, 10Y Assessed
96.
0. C. ALBERT
Lot 4 & E. 60' of Lot 5,
130.o LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$198.90
Koaside Addition, Block 2
100 Assessed
97.
JAMES W. GA NETT
E. 60' of Lot 6 & W. 10' of Lot
70.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
5, Block 2, Koolside Addition
100p Assessed
98.
GEo. wILLE
E. 60' of Lot 7 & W. 10' of
70.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Lot 61 Blk. 2, Koolside Add'n.
100% Assessed
99.
C. L. BENSON
E. 60' of Lot 8 & W. 10' of
70.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Lot 7, Blk. 2, Koolside Add'n..
100% Assessed
100.
V. A.
E. 60' of Lot 9 & W. 10' of
70.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Lot 8, Blk. 2, Koolside Add'a.
loop Assessed
101.
MRS. AMA PORTEOUS
E. 60' of Lot 10 & W. 10' of
70.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Lot , Blk. 2, Koolside Add'n.
9
100% Assessed
102,
ABEL GARZA
E. 60' of Lot 11 & W. 10' of
70.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Lot 10, Blk. 2, Koolside Add'n.
100°1' Assessed
103.'
FLOYD H. JAi;GER
W. 10' of Lot 11, All Lot 12,
1400 LF "
Sidewalk
1.53
$211.20
& E. 60' of Lot 13; Blk. 2,
Koolside Addition, 100% Assessed
104.
ELIZABETH GREEK
I
E. 60' of Lot 14 & W. 10' of
70.0, LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Lot 13, Blk. 2, Koolside Add'n.
lOGp Assessed
105.
F. H. JAEGER
E. 60' of Lot 15 & W. 10' of
70.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Lot 14, Blk. 2, Koolside Add'n.
100% Assessed
!
I
Sheet No
SIDEGIALIC L'KPROVEM1l;VT3, U=111_
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement Y6
V
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 n.l.f. $
Asseosncnt Rate, Sidewalk per/^rrl. ft. $1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness SidF-,nik l.Lq T.F
ITEM
NO.
MAE= S PROPERTY DESCRIP=0N
QUANTITY
ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION
OF
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOL:;T
Tor°-
AMOU'TT
ASSESSED
106.
R. J. IsAkcs
Lot 16 S W. 10' of Lot 15,
80.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$122.40
Blk. 2, Koolside Addition
100% Assessed
107.
' E. H. MrFrG
Lot 17, Block 2, Koolside
70.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Addition, 100% Assessed
108.
R. C. SWANSON
Lot 18, Block 2, Koolside
70.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$107.10
Addition, 100% Assessed
LUM STREET
log.
C. M. BA=
(112.00)
Lot 1, Block 12, Koolside
l4o.o LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$171.36
Addition, 80% Assessed
110.
K. R. CARROLL
(73.08)
Lot 1, Block 12, Green Acres
107.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
I. $111.81
Village, 68.3 Assessed
SALEM DRIVE
111.
D. C. GILL
(73.08)
Lot 1, Block 7, Green Acres
107.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$111.81
Village, 68.30% Assessed
112.
E. W. LOCIAN
(73.08)
I
I
Lot 14, Block 3, Green Acres
68 Assessed
107.0 LF i
Sidewalk
1.53
$ =11.61
Village, 3 ,,
ZARSKY�DR
VE
END McARDLE
ROAD
HORATE ROAD
Prom CROSSTONX
=RESSWAY to PRESCOTT
113.
D. W. BEACHUY
I
Lot 26, Block 12 Midway
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
Addition, 100% Assessed
I
114.
B. H. CRISP
Lot 25, Block 1, Midway
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
S 76.50
Addition, i0YP Assessed
I
I
i
j
I
I
• Sheet N
SIDEWALK IMPROVFNEENTSJ_UNIT III
Stanley Orion & Kcisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement
Zoned & Used Other T^-an R -1 or R -2 -D.l.f. $
Assessment Bate, Sidewalk per rag ft. $ 1.53 1
Assessment Rate Driveway per so, ft. $
Extra thin -kness Sidewalk_ 1.49 Lr
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
O10MR & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
OF
A?40U71+T
ASSESSED
ASSESSMENT
FATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
115.
R. F•�ITES
Lot 24, Block 1, Midway
50.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
Addition, 10C% Assessed
116.
B. G. SILVA
Lots 23 & 22, Block 1, Midway
100.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$153.00
Addition, 100% Assessed
VITEMB,STREET
117.
A. D. CASGROVE
Lots 22.& 21, Block 2, Midway
100.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$153.00
Addition, 104 Assessed
118.
B. G. THORNTON
Lots 20, Block 2, Midway
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1,53
$ 76,50
Addition, 100% assessed
119.
S. R. LIB'.CN
Lot 19, Block 2, Midway
50.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
Addition, 100% Assessed
120.
TORCUATO LUXIA
Lots 18 & 17, Block 2, Midway
100.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
1
$153.00
Addition, 100% Assessed
121.
HOMO GARCIA
Lot 16, Block 2, Midway
50.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
Addition, 100% Assessed
122.
C. B. MCGILL
Lots 15 & 14, Block 2,
100.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$1 >3.00
Midway Addition, 100% Assessed
123.
D. C. MORRISON
Lot 13, Block 2, Midway
50.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
Addition, 100% assessed
124.
W. E. FRY
Lot 12, Block 2, Midway
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 76.50
Addition, 100% Assessed
j
PRESCOTT STREET
END HORT6 ROAD
• - Sheet 1*15
SIDD,IALK IMeROVEIC, NTS UNIT III
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement v
Zoned & Used Other Tr
an R -1 or R -2 n.i.f.
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk ner ft. v 1.53 L
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
Extra thickness S °dr ralk 1•L9
ITEM
1
DESCRIPTION
TOIP -T
N0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
ASSESSED
OF
ASSESSMENT
RATE
A2,10L T
A=U-'TT
ASSESSED
HUDSON STREED
from existing
sidewalk to SHAW
STREET
125.
City Park
103.59 LF
Sidewalk
SHAW '=T
END HUDS
N STREET
WILLIAMS DRIVE
Crom. SOUTH STAPLES
STREET to EVE
A•RT RWID
STAPLES STR4T
-South Side
126.
M. D. G01=D
Lot 22, Block 11, Gardendale
120.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
.;183.60
Addition 0, 100p Assessed
127.
M. D. GOW AND
Lot 19, Block 11, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition #3, 100% Assessed
128.
M. D. GOWLAND
Lot 18, Block 11, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition 7-1r'3, 100% Assessed
129.
M. D. GOWF -AND
Lot 17, Block 11, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition '#3, 100% Assessed
130.
SEDALIA mAi'- °iB��ils
Lot 16, Block 11, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition T3, 100% Assessed
131.
MAh= I'LORES
Lot 15, Block 11, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition +3, 100% Assessed
132.
11ERBERT MIFFLIN
Lot 14, Block 11, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53'
$ 91.80
Addition 73, 100% Assessed
133.
CURTIIS G. (!LARK
Lot 13, Block 11, Gardendale
Addition #3, 100% Assessed
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
• Sheet
SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS,_UNIT__III
Stanley Orion & Kcisel Zoned & Used R -1 or 2-2, C.G. & Pave ^Ent $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 n.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk ne-r i1fil ft. 1.53 -
Assessment Rate, Drive*aay per sc. ft. $
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1. g I
ITEM
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
j ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION
OF
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AYOL:vT
I
T02A.L
A!OU7,T
ASSESSED
134.
CURTIS G. CLARK
Lot 12, Block 11, Gardendale
60.o LF
Sidewalk
1.53
Addition 7'+3, 100% Assessed
135.1
C.C. IND. SCHOOL DISTRICT
660.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$1,G09.8(
School Land(Blanche Moore)
BLRTON
LA1NE
136.
JAAmS J. WADE
Lot 21, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition, 100% Assessed
137.
T. F. EIM -R—SON
Lot 20, Block 12, Gardendale
6o.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition, 100% assessed
138.
I=T =Tl& YAR'M -DALE
Lot 19, Block 12, Gardendale
6o.o IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition, 100% Assessed
139.
CLARA I. CJBRY
Lot 18, Block 12, Gardendale
6o.o IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition, 100% Assessed
14o.
ISAlAS FLOREs
Lot 17, Blo- %k 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
5 91.80
Addition, 100% Assessed
141.
J. H. HUFF-
I
Lot 16, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition, 100% Assessed
142.
JOHN C. RODRIGUEZ
Lot 15, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition, 100% Assessed
143.
w. H. BLOCK
I I
j
Lot 14, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.80
Addition, 100% Assessed
144.
PEDRO MORALES
Lot 13, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 91.60
Addition, 100% Assessed
I
i
Sheet No.�
SII1L'[tiALK INTROVCYMTSJ UNIT III
Stanley Orion & Keisel Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. ?. raac- -went
Zoned a Used Other Tian R -1 or R -2 o.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk pe'_^ w 1.53 LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway per so.
Extra thickness Sidewalk 1 L LF
:^tEM DESCRIPTION TOa-
NO. OVNEER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY OF I AQOLi;T
ASSESSED ASSESSMENT RATE AMM', ASSESSED
145.1 GEC. T. CU^UNM AM
Lot 12, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
I Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100' /o Assessed
K. L. ROBINSON
Lot 11, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 10O% Assessed
LEE CARR
Lot 10, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100�j'b Assessed
RMOND ALV_REZ
j
Lot 9, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100<o Assessed
M. D. COINMA M
Lot 8, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100% Assessed
LORENA JESSUP
Lot 7, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 10 p Assessed
JOSE HER=' ITMZ
Lot 6, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100% assessed
j
M. D. GOwL?JD
Lot 5, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100; assessed
JESSE GUZ711=11
i
Lot 4, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
i Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, lOC Assessed
E. H. BROTHERTO_1T
Lot 3, Block 22, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, lOC% Assessed
JACxC:E C. EVANS
Lot 2, Block 12, Gardendale
60.0 LF
j Sidewalk 1.53 I
Addition, 1001 Assessed
• Sheet 1:0.
SIDE,1YMK I,%TROVE.ANTS, UIZ-T. III _- -- —
Stanley Orion C :eisel Zoned & Used R -1 or -2, C.G. U ?averent f
Zoned & Uced Other Tnan R -1 or K -2 p.l.'. $
t
Assess:r_ent Rate, Sidewalk per ; ✓o: ft, v1.53 L=
Assessment Rate, Drivevaj per
f-.&
Y
Extra thickness Sidc•,r 1k _1.49 -
TEti: DESCRIPTION To L LL
NO. OWNTER S PROPERTY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY OF AMT-IT
ASSESSED ASSESSYsZT RATE A kOLi.T ASSESSED
156. ! J. W. MONTS j
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
1.53
1.53
1.53
I
1.53
1.53
1.53
�I
1.53
1.73
i
L.53
$ 91.20
Lot 1, Block 12, Gasdendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk
ETHE-L YE,=
Addition, 100�p Assessed
Lot 18, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 I
H TTY
3 STREET
157.
B. T. BIL=GS
Lot 17, Block 13, Gardendale
Lot 21, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
Addition, LOCO Assessed
M. D. Goimom
158.
B. T. BILLIXGS
60.0 I
Addition, 1000 Assessed
Lot 20, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk
Addition, 100% Assessed
Lot Block 13, Gardendale i
6G.o I
159.1
ETSEL YEAHY
16L.
M. D. GOTr I:A'D
Lot 19, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
1.53
1.53
1.53
I
1.53
1.53
1.53
�I
1.53
1.73
i
L.53
$ 91.20
Addition, 100p Assessed
160.
ETHE-L YE,=
Lot 18, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 I
Addition, IOGp Assessed
161.
E. 0. DELL=
Lot 17, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 I
Addition,�0Y Assessed
162.
M. D. Goimom
Lot 16, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 I
Addition, 1000 Assessed
163.
T. -. HO=-
V15,
Lot Block 13, Gardendale i
6G.o I
Addition, 10% assessed
16L.
M. D. GOTr I:A'D
Lot 14, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 I
Addition, 100jo Assessed
1665.
21. D.
Lot 13, Block 13, Gardendale 1
60.0 I
Addition, --OCrp Assessed
1166.
ma= s c. cira:
Lot 12, 310ck 13, Gardendale
60.0 I
I
Addition, 100% Assessed
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
1.53
1.53
1.53
I
1.53
1.53
1.53
�I
1.53
1.73
i
L.53
$ 91.20
iSheet PIo�
SID*0gALK IMT'P,OVEMCNTS,__UNIT_III
Stanley Orion &. Keisel Zoned & Used K -1 or R -2, C.G. • PLve_ent Y
Zoned & U,-ed Other Than R -1 or � -2 ^.1.'.
J J �
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per�'r� °t. v 1 5J LF
Assessment Rate, Driveway her sc. ft. V
Extra -'sickness 1.49 -F.
ITEM DESCRIPTION j T0'T.�
N0. OWNER & ?ROPBR'TY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY OF F_ "C "T_
ASSESSED ASSESSMENT R r_fO1 :T ASSESSED
167.
CURTIS G. CLARK
Lot 11, Block 13, Gardendale
6o.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 10,1,'� Assessed
168.
GR4DY C. CLARK & CLARENCE TATE
Lot 10, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addison, 100;'j Assessed
1669.
CT =LS G. CT-ARK
Lot 9, Block 13, Gardendale
60.o IF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100j Assessed
170.
M. D. C-01 S--_M
Lot 8, Block 13, Gardendale
6o.o LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, lOYp Assessed
171.
M. D. GOIeLPIYD
Lot 7, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100% Assessed
I
172.
CLRTZS G. CLAnK
Lot 6, 310ck 13, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition., 1001', Assessed
173-!1
T. A. HOV -1ELL
Lot 5, Lot 13, Gardendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 100% Assessed
174.
GR"iDY C. CLARK & IMS. ALVIN
I
FRENZE
Lot 4, Block 13, Cardendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 10Co Assessed
I i
175.
M. D. GCViFs�
Lot 3, Bock 13, Ga ^dendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1,53
Addition, 100% Assessed
I I
176.
Y. D. Gg,.—L.=ITD
Lot 2, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 IF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 1001% Assessed
177•
GRADY C. C --- t=
Lot 1, Block 13, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Sidewalk 1.53
Addition, 104. Assessed
aSheet
No.�
STDL'Gi_1Lit DFI?ROV +- ]ITTS, U -NI T 11 - -- -
Stanlev Orion `, Keisel
Zoned & Used R -1 or F; -2, ...G. & Paaverent Z
Zoned. & Used Other Than -1 or R -2 ,.l.f. 4
Asseosment Kate, idewalk er', _- Y
Asscssmer_t hate, Drivewa:l 7er sq. ft. v
!xtra thickness ids
I ED:
DESCRIPTION
TIj=
N0.
OWNER Sa PROPEa'ZY DESCRIPTION
QUAITITY
OF
c =• ?Cli T
ASSESSED
ASSES,' T
FATE
F "`GU':T
ASSESSED
I
NELSON
178. GRADY C. C1LFiK
I Lot 22, Block 14, Gardendale 6o.o LF
Addition, 100j Assessed
i4. D. C- 9,r-'S;D
Lot 21, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition, _00 Assessed
CUR=S G. CIAFuC
Lot 20, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition , -00�, assessed
CUR=S G. CLU-K
Lot 19, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition, 1008 Assessed
RA`.D•:OTD L. 1'JRITER
Lot. 18, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition, ION% Assessed
M. D. C -9,q
Lot 17, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition, 100% Assessed
CUM:S G. UZI=
Lot 16, Block 1�, Gardendale
Addition, --CO Assessed
M. D. GOTFLAND
Lot 15, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition, 1CYo Assessed
M. D. Gg; --.-_7
Lot _4, Llcck 14, Gardendale
Addition, 1GYp Assessed
C'JRiS G. CLA.R;:
Lot 13, -ock 1L, Gardendale
Addition, 1001p Assessed
M. D. C— =_.J
Lot 12, Llock 117, Gardendale
Addition, -OG Assessed
6G.0 LF
6o.o LF
60.0 LF
6o.o LF
6o.o LF
60.0 LF
6o.o LF
'00.0 LF
6o.0 LF
'00.0 LF
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Sidewalk
Si deva lk
Sidewalk
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
I
1.53
53
1.53
1.53
II,
I
I
1.50
I
1.53
I
i
1.53
91.20
$ 91.80
S 91.80
s ,_.ac
i
i
$ 91.80
I
S 91.80
J g_.a0
i
91.90
Sheet :Io
SII)LXh .K IMPROVr -=TS, UNIT III
Stanley 0-ion C Nei--1 Zoned & Used R -1 or Y, -2, C.G. U Pavement
Zoned w Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 n.i..°.
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per fn-. Y1-51 LF
Assessment Rate, Drive:aay ne'r $
Extra thickness .:idc•,,alk 1 JF
I'IMI
NO. OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY
ASSESSED
189.
M. D. C -0 ?,iLM
1.53
Lot 11, Block 14, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Addition, 100', Assessed
190.
CUTRTIS G. CL-:E
60.0 LF
Lot 10, Black 14, Gardeadal(
i
Addition, 100, Assessed
191.
GRADY C. CL°.RK, JR.
1-55
Lot 9, BIoc', —4, Gardendale
I
60.0 12 !
I
Addition,_OOp Assessed
192.
CURTIS G. CLARK
60.0 LF
Lot 8, Block 14, Gardendale
1.53
Addition, 100% Assessed
193.
JOHN S. LAls'
1.53
Lot 7, Block 14, Gardendale
60.0 LF
Addition, 1001p Assessed
194.
W. W. McDOKr^,LD
116.79 LF
Lot 6, Block 14, Gardendale
1.53
Addition, 10? Assessed
195.
YOUNG -VISE SEED CO.
i
Lot 5, Block 14, Gardendale
EVE_'
Addition,. 1000 Assessed
196.
M. D. GOWLWND
END GZLli
Lot 4, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition, lOC6 Assessed
197.
YOUNG -WISE SEED CO.
- East
Lot 3, Block 14, Gardendale
Addition, 100% Assessed
1 198.
C z?20L LANE fro,
C. B. EUMIESTON
Lot 11, Block 1, South Park
Subdivision, iOO`p� Assessed
DESCRIPTION ��
O N {OU ;T
ASSESSMENT R A
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1-55
j
I
60.0 12 !
I
Sidewalk
1,53
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
60.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
60.0 LF
I
Sidewalk
1.53
116.79 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
I
i
EVE_'
^1 ROAD
END GZLli
';S DRIVE
AliRE ISLAND Dh.IVE
to MCPRDlE ROAD
- East
>!d
55.0 LF Sidewalk 1.53
'I
Sheet Iio .
SIDAidALIC I1QROVn,TVTS,_UNI^11II
�r�nla }� Ors on �- Keisa' Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. 1 Pavement v
Zoned &, Used Other Thar. R -1 or -' -2
Assessment Rate, SidewaL. Der cps ft.
Assessment Rate Driveway .er so. ft. $
Exzra thickness SiBevalk Lr9 rF
STEM
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
Ok"_\MR & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUAN=TY
OF
ASSESSED
ASSESSM,-I T
I
UTE
AMEXT
ASSESSED
199.
H. L. BECK
i
Lot 12, Block 1, South Park
55.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
t 8'.'.15
Subdivision, 104 Assessed
I
200.i
TT•?. H. W.UT %CE
Lot 13, Block 1, South Park
55.0 'LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 84.15
iSubdivision,
loop Assessed
201.
A. G. MOS1 +21ER
Lot 14, Block 1, South Park
55.0 IF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 8.15
Subdivision, 100% Assessed
202.
PETE K. S_Ati —COS
Lot 15, Block 1, South Park
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 84.15
Subdivision, 100% Assessed
i
203.
LEON = =MEZ
Lot 15, Block 1, South Perk
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 84.15
Subdivision, l00% Assessed
2o4.
FIDEL GARZA
i
Lot 17, Block 1, South Park
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
8 84.15
Subdivision, 100% Assessed
I
-205.
G. VIILP,REAL
Lot 18, Block 1, South Park
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1 1.53
S 84.15
Subdivision, 100% Assessed
2o6.
H. H. DU;C ^-.N
j
Lot 19, Block 1, South Park
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
S 8 -.15
Subdivision, 100% Assessed
207.
C. H. SbI H
Lot 20, Block 1, South Par's
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
8 8`,'5
Subdivision, 1000 Assessed
208.
C. E. BUSEY
Lot 21, Block 1,-South Park
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$ 8L.15
Subdivision, 1GOp Assessed
20g.l
I. D.
Lot 22, Block 1, .South Perk
55.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.5j
I
I J 84.15
Subdivision, 104o Assessed
!JcARDLE
ROAD
K�TD CAR;OT_,L
L `AT--
Sheet i�o.
SIDL'[tiMC IMPROVEA4EP1'C
Stanley Orion S ICeisol Zoned c Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. s ?avement S
Zoned 2: Used Other Than R -1 or P -2 p.l.f. $
Assessment Rate, SidewaLI� per %na - y 1.5.3 L_
A
Assessment Rate, Dr-ve�aey per se. ft. v
Extra thickness Sidev%Lk 1.49 LF
Imbi DESCRIPTION 0 -L
N0. OWIfi & ?RC ?ERTY DESCRIPTION �IIADITI Y OF
ASSESSED ASSESS%=T RATE 1--!C -U NT ASSESSED
I
CAIN DRIVE from BURG LAN-E to S UTH STAPLES STRUT - South Eide �
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
I
1.53
1.53
i
i
BURTOI
LANTTE
210.
J. H. HAT
Lot 1, Block 10, Gardendale
102.0 LF
Sidewalk
Additior, 100% Assessed
211.
ROrp110 ,ZK)Z�A
Lot 2, Block 10, Gardendale
132.0 LF
Sidewalk
Addition, 10Cv Assessed
212.
Ems, wcoD
Lot 3, B -oc_ti 10, Gardendale
132.0 Lt
Sidewalk
I
Addition, iC00 Assessed
213.1
STU=Y SLOWIK
Lot 4, Block 10, Gardendale
132.0 LF
Sidewalk
Addition, 100% Assessed
214.
DCi mooRE
S.E. z of Lot 5, Block 10,
66.o LF
Sidewalk
Cardendale Addition, 100%
assessed
215.
jAiyS BROTrN
1
N.W. 2 of Lot 5, Block 10,
66.o LF
Sidewalk
Gardendale Addition, 100%
Assessed
216.
1 c=LA VISTA CORP.
S.E. z of Lot 6, Block 10,
66.0 LF
Sidewalk
Garaendale Aadition, 1000
Assessed
217.
H. T. L� -2JMT
N.W. z of Lot 6, Block 10,
66.0 LF
Sidewalk
Gardendale Addition, 1000
Assessed
218.
30Y BKo[ _?
S.E. z of =ot 7, Block 10,
99.0 LF
Sidewalk
Gardendale Addition, 100%
Assessed
219.A
,;.Tip. o' Lot 7, Block 10,
99.0 LF
Sidewalk
Gardendale Addition, 100%
Assessed
I
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
1.53
I
1.53
1.53
i
i
Sheet No.
SIDEVALK - �IL'R0M- MdTS UAlT -III
St=1ey Orion S Heisel Zoned & Used R -1 or -2, C.G. 1 Pavement, $
Zoned & Used Other Tram R -1 or ? -2 p.l.f. S
„sse cn. -ent ate, Sidewa -- cer N fZ. $1.53 LF
Assessment Rate,. Driveway per sc, ft. $
Extra thickness S'_dcvalk 1.L9 ?F
TEbl DESCRIPTION
NO. 01T2R & PROP ERiY DESCRIPTION QUATT TTY OF
ASSESSED ASSESSN NT P A �' 1 ACM7.1T ASSESSED
120. TROY LOVEDAY
W - -,.t 100' of Lot 8, Block 10,
100.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
1
$153.OG
Garderdale Addition, 100
assessed
Lot b, Blocic 10, Garderdale
200.12 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
;306.12
Addition, 100'. Assessed
SOUTH S
?=S
'71B CA11
DRIVE
S?I7_S � STFEET
rom AaR\ SCT
STREET to ROSSII�7
S PWT
1r7'SOTA STREF.4IT
- East Side
b
?22.
R. S. COLLEY
Lot 1, 2, & N. 2 of t 3,
167.50 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
8256.28
Gulf Breeze Add'n., 10
Assessed
?23.
H. Du3d00D aicy- Sox
S. 2 of Lot 3, Ail Lot 4, Gulf
82. 0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$126.23
Breeze Addn., 100% Assessed
;LTA _
I
S.TI. 2 of Lots -12.2, Gulf Breez
100.
Sidewalk
1.53
!
5153.00
Addn., 1001 Assessed
225.
G. C. D''.dGEP
S.W. 2 of Lets 3 & 4, Gulf B
ze 100. LF
Sidewalk
� 1.
$153.00
A .nnex, 10O;o Assessed
126.
xORt• x ES as
j
I Lo`, 2, BL.. 5, 'io -e Subdivis'_on
93.52 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
$y4j,oy
&-oar" Lots 5 53 & 54, -Blk.
3
Port Arens - Cliffs
i
I
�
I
• Sheet No
saley 0 io: t iC isel Zoned & Used P -1 or K -2, C.G. & raverser_t
Zoned &: Used Other Than _z -1 or P -2 ro.l.f. v
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk, pE1 - Y i.5� L
Assessment Rate, Dr_veway per so. --
Extra. thickncss iae:.•a, k 1 L
IM' DESCP.IPTiON j GTI
NO 01=R & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION QUANTITY OF A'!0'7;T
ASSESSED ASSESSMENT RAE A:COL_dT ASSESSED
27. _.. L. VAUGH=R
is 55 zhru 60, Black 313, 150. LF Sidewalk
Port Ara °fa lOC%
Assessed
22x. R. L TOO=
2, 63, & , ock 100.0 LF Sidewalk
�a5 C11II5,
sed
END SAl M r' STR UT
ECSS S=T, FROM ST GOL 'TO SAN
229. i RUSSELL B. C .SE -QqA
Al! Lo„ 6, Block 1, Beverley 150.57 LF Sidewalk
Heights & all triangle of Bloc
713, Port Aransas Cliffs, 1040
Assessed
i
I
230.! City R.O.W. (Austin Street) 70.0 LF
.231. 1r. T. F-a-q MQ (66.96)
Lot A, Repeat of B'_ock 613, 100.0 LF Sidewalk
Port Aransas Cliffs, 66.96%
Assessed
232. ' M1 = E. LA -TDIRS (44.09)
W. 50' of i41iddle 100' of Bloc 50.0 Sidewalk
613, Por- ' ansas Cliffs,
83.17% Assessed
233. °_,lE J. ELL.R
E. 50' of :addle 100' of Bloc 50.0 LF Sidewalk
613, Port Aransas Cliffs, 100�d
Assessed
!
234.! R. E. n_:G-
E. 50' o Block 613, Pert 50.0 LF Sidewalk
Aransas Cliffs, 100% Assessed
T ? ?rJ VID T STR=E'1'
FOR
1
1.53
1.53
1.53 i
1.53
1.53
.1,.229.5G
153.x0
-_de
2 30.37
I
102.45
64.',6
i
76.;0
I
70.50
Port Aransas Cliffs '
236.: =S= =. V-'VrOY
E. 50' of Lot A, Block 513, .50.0 E
Port, tiranze C_i=fs, 100%
'ssessed
237. C.A. STARES
E. 115' of Block 513, Port 115.0 L
Aransas Cliffs, 100% assessed
238. CF.A3LES R. CERVA:C1T S
Sidewalk ..53
Sidewalk 1 1.53
E. 70' of _ot 3, Block 513, 70.0 LF Sidewalk
jPort Aransas Cliffs, 100% Asse sed
239. P. J. SAFFRON
S.W. 35' of Bock 413, Port 70.0 IF Sidewalk
Aransas Cliffs, 100% Assessed
L S.E. 35' of `_onterrey Street
R.O.W. (closed)
240. TLE30Y J. BOLDREAU
Lot;. C, Block 413, Port Aransas 70.0 LF Sidewalk
Cliffs, 100`% Assessed
241.1 GEORGE H. KRLER, JR.
1.53
1.53
1.53 I
I Lot A, Block 413, Port Aransas 145.0 LF Side%,-alk 1.53
Cliffs, 100% Assessed
Ci
END ROSSI yR SLH'1
I
i
Contract Prige $4, - r�36,17S
rty Owner's Assessment �r r 3eT, 5�3/. 27
2ortion of Cc!t 15,70 .7d��r7p ,78
76.50
175.95
107.'_0
107. -0
1
i
i
107._0
i
221.05
0
� Sheet :,o.
SIDT, A,F !M?7,OVnMliaTS
: &: 1 I —_ —
Stanley OrSo.i L ui:,el Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. Z: Pave -f_ent v
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 r.l.f.
Asse-,sment Rate, - Cewal_'S leZ f S_`. L.
Y1, 5
Assessment Rate Dri yeway _ - -r se. ft
y
Ez ru thickness ]r -, -,'!
l _
ITEM
D SCRI.?=O'
10 r
NO.
OF.-'17--R &- PROPE3'7 DESCRIPTION QUAKITTY
OF
ASSESSED
ASSESSME<T'IT
RAE
F!JOLr!T
ASSESSED
235.
J. ROY T FT
W. O' of _ot A, Block 513,
50.0 LF
Sidewalk
1.53
V 76.50
Port Aransas Cliffs '
236.: =S= =. V-'VrOY
E. 50' of Lot A, Block 513, .50.0 E
Port, tiranze C_i=fs, 100%
'ssessed
237. C.A. STARES
E. 115' of Block 513, Port 115.0 L
Aransas Cliffs, 100% assessed
238. CF.A3LES R. CERVA:C1T S
Sidewalk ..53
Sidewalk 1 1.53
E. 70' of _ot 3, Block 513, 70.0 LF Sidewalk
jPort Aransas Cliffs, 100% Asse sed
239. P. J. SAFFRON
S.W. 35' of Bock 413, Port 70.0 IF Sidewalk
Aransas Cliffs, 100% Assessed
L S.E. 35' of `_onterrey Street
R.O.W. (closed)
240. TLE30Y J. BOLDREAU
Lot;. C, Block 413, Port Aransas 70.0 LF Sidewalk
Cliffs, 100`% Assessed
241.1 GEORGE H. KRLER, JR.
1.53
1.53
1.53 I
I Lot A, Block 413, Port Aransas 145.0 LF Side%,-alk 1.53
Cliffs, 100% Assessed
Ci
END ROSSI yR SLH'1
I
i
Contract Prige $4, - r�36,17S
rty Owner's Assessment �r r 3eT, 5�3/. 27
2ortion of Cc!t 15,70 .7d��r7p ,78
76.50
175.95
107.'_0
107. -0
1
i
i
107._0
i
221.05
t
SECTION 5. THE ASSESSMENTS LEVIED IN SECTION 4 ABOVE ARE FOR A
PORTION OF THE COSTS OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STREETS AND UNITS THEREIN
SET OUTS AND THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID UNITS ARE IN
NOWISE RELATED TOE OR CONNECTED WITH, THE IMPROVEMENTS OR ASSESSMENTS IN
ANY OTHER OF THE STREETS OR UNITS DESCRIBED IN SAID ORDINANCE OR EACH OTHER;
AND IN LEVYING SAID ASSESSMENTS THE AMOUNT 50 ASSESSED FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS
IN SAID UNITS HAVE BEEN IN NOWISE AFFECTED BY ANY FACT OR THING IN ANY 14AY
CONNECTED WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS OR THE ASSESSMENTS THEREFOR IN ANY OTHER OF
SAID UNITS. THE OMISSION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN ANY OF SAID STREETS OR
UNITS AS A WHOLE SHALL IN NOWISE AFFECT NOR IMPAIR THE VALIDITY OF THE
ASSESSMENTS IN ANY OTHER OF SAID UNITS AND THE OMISSION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
IN ANY PARTICULAR STREET OR UNIT IN FRONT OF ANY PARCEL OF PROPERTY EXEMPT
FROM THE LIEN OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS OR AGAINST WHICH A VALID PROPERTY ASSESS-
MENT CANNOT BE LEVIED' SHALL IN NOWISE AFFECT NOR IMPAIR THE VALIDITY OF
THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN SUCH UNIT.
SECTION 6. THE SEVERAL SUMS MENTIONED ABOVE IN SECTION 4 HEREOF
ASSESSED AGAINST SAID PARCELS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE
OWNERS OR OWNER THEREOF WHETHER SAID OWNERS BE NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED, OR
SAID PROPERTIES BE CORRECTLY DESCRIBED HEREIN OR NOTE TOGETHER WITH INTEREST
THEREON AT THE RATE OF FIVE PERCENT (5%) PER ANNUM AND WITH REASONABLE ATTOR-
NEY'S FEES AND ALL COSTS AND EXPENSE OF COLLECTIONS IF INCURRED, ARE HEREBY
DECLARED TO BE AND MADE A FIRST AND PRIOR LIEN UPON THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS
OF PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH SAME ARE ASSESSED FROM AND AFTER THE DATE SAID IM-
PROVEMENTS WERE ORDERED BY SAID CITY COUNCILS AND A PERSONAL LIABILITY AND
CHARGE AGAINST THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, WHETHER OR NOT
SUCH OWNER OR OWNERS BE NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED HEREIN, PARAMOUNT AND
SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER LIENS, CLAIMS OR TITLES EXCEPT FOR LAWFUL AD VALOREM
TAXES; AND THAT THE SUMS SO ASSESSED SHALL BE PAYABLE TO THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI, OR ITS ASSIGNS IN MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS OF NOT EXCEEDING TWENTY-
FOUR (24) IN NUMBERS SAID PAYMENTS TO BE MADE AT THE CITY HALL IN THE CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS THE FIRST OF WHICH SHALL BE PAY-
ABLE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE COMPLETION OF SAID
-7-
IMPROVEMENTS AND THEIR ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, AND ONE
INSTALLMENT SHALL BE PAYABLE EACH MONTH THEREAFTER UNTIL SAID ASSESSMENT
HAS BEEN PAID IN FULL, INCLUDING INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE OF FIVE PER-
CENT (5%) PER ANNUM FROM AND AFTER THE DATE OF SAID COMPLETION AND ACCEPT-
ANCE, PAST DUE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST TO BEAR INTEREST AT THE SAME RATE
PER ANNUM UNTIL PAID, SO THAT UPON THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE BY SAID
CITY COUNCIL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN ANY UNIT OR PORTION OF STREET ABOVE
DEFINED, THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SUCH COMPLETED
AND ACCEPTED UNIT SHALL BE AND BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE IN INSTALLMENTS AS
PROVIDED. PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THE OWNER OR OWNERS OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY
SHALL HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF PAYING ALL OR ANY OF SAID INSTALLMENT, TOGETHER
WITH INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON DOWN TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT; AND PROVIDED
FURTHER THAT THE OWNER OR OWNERS OF ANY SUCH PROPERTY MAY PAY THE TOTAL
OF SUCH ASSESSMENT WITHOUT INTEREST WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER THE
COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS. IF DEFAULT SHALL BE MADE
IN THE PAYMENT OF ANY INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST, PROMPTLY WHEN
DUE, THEN, AT THE OPTION OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, OR ITS ASSIGNS,
THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SAID ASSESSMENT UPON WHICH DEFAULT IS MADE, TOGETHER
WITH REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES OF COLLECTION,
IF INCURRED, SHALL BE AND BECOME IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE.
SECTION 7. IF DEFAULT SHALL BE MADE IN THE PAYMENT OF ANY OF
SAID SUMS HEREIN ASSESSED AGAINST THE SAID PARCELS OF PROPERTY, AND THE
REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, COLLECTION THEREOF SHALL BE EN-
FORCED, AT THE OPTION OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, OR ITS ASSIGNS, EITHER
BY SUIT IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION, OR BY SALE OF THE PROPERTY
ASSESSED AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE IN THE MANNER AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW IN
FORCE IN SAID CITY FOR THE COLLECTION OF AD VALOREM TAXES.
SECTION S. FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVIDENCING SAID ASSESSMENTS, THE
LIENS SECURING SAME AND THE SEVERAL SUMS ASSESSED AGAINST THE SAID PARCELS
OF PROPERTY, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, AND THE TIME
AND TERMS OF PAYMENT, AND AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF, ASSIGNABLE
CERTIFICATES SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, TO
10
•
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI UPON THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID SIDE-
WALK IMPROVEMENTS IN ANY UNIT OR PORTION OF STREET ABOVE DEFINED WHICH
CERTIFICATES SHALL BE EXECUTED BY THE Nh YOR IN THE NAME OF THE CITY,
ATTESTED BY THE CITY SECRETARY WITH THE CORPORATE SEAL, AND WHICH SHALL
DECLARE THE AMOUNTS OF SAID ASSESSMENTS AND THE TIMES AND TERMS THEREOF
THE RATE OF INTEREST THEREON THE DATE OF THE COMPLETION AND THE ACCEPTANCE
OF THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR WHICH THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED; AND SHALL CONTAIN
THE NAME OF THE APPARENT OWNER OR OWNERS AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE, AND THE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSED BY LOT AND BLOCK NUMBER OR FRONT FOOT
THEREOF OR SUCH OTHER DESCRIPTIONS AS MAY OTHERWISE IDENTIFY THE SAME,
AND IF THE SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE OWNED BY AN ESTATE OR FIRM, THEN TO 50
STATE THE FACT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT; AND NO ERROR OR MISTAKE IN DESCRIBING
ANY SUCH PROPERTY OR IN GIVING THE NAME OF ANY OWNER OR OWNERS OR OTHER-
WISE, SHALL IN ANYWISE INVALIDATE OR IMPAIR THE ASSESSMENT LEVIED HEREBY
OR THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN EVIDENCE THEREOF.
THE SAID CERTIFICATE SHALL FURTHER PROVIDE SUBSTANTIALLY THAT IF
DEFAULT SHALL BE MADE IN THE PAYMENT OF ANY INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL OR
INTEREST WHEN DUE, THEN AT THE OPTION OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI OR ITS
ASSIGNS OR THE HOLDER THEREOF, THE WHOLE OF 5AID ASSESSMENT EVIDENCED THERE-
BY SHALL AT ONCE BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE AND SHALL BE COLLECTIBLE WITH
REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND ALL EXPENSES AND COSTS OF COLLECTION] IF
INCURRED; AND SAID CERTIFICATE SHALL SET FORTH AND EVIDENCE THE PERSONAL
LIABILITY OF THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS OF SUCH PROPERTY, WHETHER
NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED THEREIN OR NOT, AND THE LIEN UPON SUCH PROPERTY
AND THAT SAID LIEN IS FIRST AND PARAMOUNT THEREON SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER LIENS,
TITLES AND CHARGES, EXCEPT FOR LAWFUL AD VALOREM TAXES, FROM AND AFTER THE
DATE SAID IMPROVEMENTS WERE ORDERED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL, AND SHALL PROVIDE
IN EFFECT, THAT IF DEFAULT SHALL BE MADE IN THE PAYMENT THEREOF, THE SAME
MAY BE ENFORCED AT THE OPTION OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI OR ITS ASSIGNS
EITHER BY THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY THEREIN DESCRIBED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED
FOR THE COLLECTION OF AD VALOREM TAXES AS ABOVE RECITED OR BY SUIT IN ANY
COURT HAVING JURISDICTION.
-9-
SAID CERTIFICATE SHALL FURTHER RECITE IN EFFECT THAT ALL THE PRO-
CEEDINGS WITH REFERENCE TO MAKING SAID IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN REGULARLY
HAD IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW IN FORCE IN SAID CITY AND PROCEEDINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY, AND THAT ALL PREREQUISITES TO THE FIXING
OF THE ASSESSMENT LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY AND THE PERSONAL LIABILITY
OF THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, EVIDENCED BY SUCH CERTIFI-
CATES, HAVE BEEN REGULARLY DONE AND PERFORMED, WHICH RECITALS SHALL BE
EVIDENCE OF ALL THE MATTERS AND FACTS SO RECITED, AND NO FURTHER PROOF
THEREOF SHALL BE REQUIRED IN ANY COURT.
SAID CERTIFICATES SHALL FURTHER PROVIDE IN EFFECT THAT THE CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, SHALL EXERCISE ALL OF ITS LAWFUL POWERS, WHEN
REQUESTED SO TO DO BY THE HOLDER OF SAID CERTIFICATES, TO AID IN THE EN-
FORCEMENT AND COLLECTION THEREOF, AND SAID CERTIFICATES MAY CONTAIN OTHER
AND FURTHER RECITALS PERTINENT AND APPROPRIATE THERETO. IT SHALL NOT BE
NECESSARY THAT SAID CERTIFICATES SHALL BE IN THE EXACT FORM AS ABOVE SET
FORTH, BUT THE SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT THEREOF SHALL SUFFICE.
SECTION 9. ALL SUCH ASSESSMENTS LEVIED ARE, AND SHALL BE A PER-
SONAL LIABILITY AND CHARGE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR
OWNERS OF SAID ABUTTING PROPERTIES, NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH OWNER OR OWNERS
MAY NOT BE NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED, AND ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE NAME OF
THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY PROPERTY OR THE AMOUNT OF ANY
ASSESSMENT, OR IN ANY OTHER MATTER OR THING SHALL NOT IN ANYWISE INVALIDATE
OR IMPAIR ANY ASSESSMENT LEVIED HEREBY OR ANY CERTIFICATE ISSUED, AND ANY
SUCH MISTAKE, OR ERROR, INVALIDITY OR IRREGULARITY, WHETHER IN SUCH ASSESS-
MENT OR IN THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN EVIDENCE THEREOF, MAY BE, BUT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO BE, IN ORDER TO BE ENFORCEABLE, CORRECTED AT ANY TIME BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS.
THE TOTAL AMOUNTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF
PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON THE UNITS OR PORTIONS OF STREETS ABOVE SET OUT, AND
THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, ARE THE SAME, OR LESS THAN,
THE ESTIMATES OF SAID ASSESSMENTS PREPARED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL, AND ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEEDINGS OF SAID CITY RELATIVE TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS
am
THEREFOR, AND WITH THE TERMS, POWERS AND PROVISIONS OF SAID CHAPTER 106
OF THE ACTS OF THE FIRST CALLED SESSION OF THE 40TH LEGISLATURE, KNOWN
AS ARTICLE 11058, VERNON'S TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES, AS AMENDED, AND ARTICLE
IX, SECTION 6 OF THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY, UNDER WHICH TERMS, PROVISIONS
AND POWERS OF SAID ACTS SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS WERE HAD AND
MADE BY SAID CITY COUNCIL.
SECTION 10. THE IMPORTANCE TO THE PUBLIC OF DETERMINING THE
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEREBY ENABLING CONSTRUCTION TO
PROCEED AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE CREATES A PUBLIC EMERGENCY AND AN IMPERATIVE
PUBLIC NECESSITY REQUIRING THE SUSPENSION OF THE CHARTER RULE THAT NO ORDI-
NANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE PASSED FINALLY ON THE DATE OF ITS INTRODUCTION
AND THAT SUCH ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE READ AT THREE SEVERAL MEET-
INGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE MAYOR, HAVING DECLARED THAT SUCH EMERGENCY
AND NECESSITY EXIST, HAVING REQUESTED THAT SUCH CHARTER RULE BE SUSPENDED
AND THAT THIS ORDINANCE BE PASSED FINALLY ON THE DATE OF ITS INTRODUCTION
AND TAKE EFFECT AND BE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE,
IT IS ACCORDINGLY SO ORDAINED, THIS THE r / DAY OF DECEMBER, 1966.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
CITY/SECRET XGAL
APPROVED AS FORM TH
DAY OF DECEMBER, 1966:
CITY ATTORNEY i
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
DAY i 1 lam
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE OF THE FORE-
GOING ORDINANCE, A PUBLIC EMERGENCY AND IMPERATIVE NECESSITY EXIST FOR
THE SUSPENSION OF THE CHARTER RULE OR REQUIREMENT THAT NO ORDINANCE OR
RESOLUTION SHALL BE PASSED FINALLY ON THE DATE IT IS INTRODUCED, AND THAT
SUCH ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE READ AT THREE MEETINGS OF THE CITY
COUNCILS I, THEREFORE, HEREBY REQUEST THAT YOU SUSPEND SAID CHARTER RULE
OR REQUIREMENT AND PASS THIS ORDINANCE FINALLY ON THE DATE IT IS INTRO-
DUCED, OR AT THE PRESENT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
RESPECTFULLY,
MAYOR
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
THE CHARTER RULE WAS SUSPENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE.
DR. MCIVER FURMAN
JACK BLACKMON r PATRICK J. J. DUNNE /
DR. P. JIMENEZ, JR.
EN MCDANIEL
RONNIE SIZEMORE y�fQ
WM. H. WALLACE
THE ABOVE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEo
DR. MCIVER FURMAN
�c—v fJ!'iT� y kC, JACK BLACKMON
PATRICK J. DUNNE
DR. P. JIMENEZ, JR.
KEN MC DAN 1 EL - - -�
RONN I E S I ZEMORE
✓ r � � WM. H. WALLACE