HomeMy WebLinkAbout08632 ORD - 10/18/19671o/11/67
AN ORDINANCE
CLOSING THE HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR OCEAN
DRIVE FROM CRAIG TO HEWIT,'DRIVE, AND FINDING AND
DETERMINING THAT PROPERTY ABUTTING SAID STREET WILL BE
SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTEDtAND ENHANCED IN VALUE IN EXCESS
OF COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, AND LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT;
FIXING A CHARGE AND LIEN, PROVIDING FOR ASSIGNABLE CERTIFI-
CATES, THE MANNER AND TIME OF PAYMENT AND COLLECTION; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF- CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, BY DULY ENACTED
ORDINANCE PASSED AND APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1967, DETERMINED THE NECESSITY
FOR, AND ORDERED THE IMPROVEMENT OF OCEAN4DRIVE, FROM CRAIG STREET TO HEWIT
DRIVE, IN THE MANNER AND ACCORDING TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HERETOFORE
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNC1'L BY ORDINANCE DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 1967;
A DULY EXECUTED NOTICE OF SAID ORDINANCE HAVING BEEN FILED IN THE NAME OF SAID
'
CITY WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF NUECES COUNTY, TEXAS; AND
WHEREAS, SAID CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS,
AFTER HAVING ADVERTISED FOR AND RECEIVED BIDS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID
IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE LENGTH OF TIME AND IN THE MANNER AND FORM AS REQUIRED
BY THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND AFTER
HAVING DULY AND REGULARLY MADE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR SUCH
PURPOSE TO COVER THE ESTIMATED COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS TO SAID CITY, ALL
AS PROVIDED BY THE CORPUS CHRISTI CITY CHARTER AND BY LAW, DID AWARD A CON-
TRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS TO HELDENFELS BROTHERS ON
THEIR LOWEST AND MOST ADVANTAGEOUS BID AND SAID CONTRACT HAS BEEN HERETOFORE
DULY EXECUTED BY SAID CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI AND HELDENFELS BROTHERS AND
IS DATED OCTOBER 11, 1967, AND THE PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIRED BY SAID CONTRACT
HAS BEEN PROPERLY FURNISHED BY SAID HELDENFELS BROTHERS AND ACCEPTED BY THE
SAID CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY AS TO FORM AND AMOUNT AS REQUIRED BY THE
CHARTER OF SAID CITY AND THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS; AND
WHEREAS, THE SAID CITY COUNCIL HAS CAUSED THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS TO PREPARE AND FILE ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND
ESTIMATES OF THE AMOUNT PER FRONT FOOT PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE
PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON A PORTION OF OCEAN DRIVE, WITHIN THE LIMITS HEREIN
DEFINED, TO BE IMPROVED, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, AND SAID
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS HERETOFORE FILED SAID ESTIMATES AND A STATEMENT
OF OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO WITH SAID CITY COUNCIL, AND SAME HAS BEEN
RECEIVED, EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL; AND
8632
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 7
ORDINANCE NO. 8624
A HORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE, FOR AND ON /LW
THE ITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, CONSENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE TEXAS - MEXICA
COMP Y AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR CROSSING OVER, UNDER THE GO RNMENT'S EXISTING TRACK AT THE LOCATION KNOWN AS THE TEXAS RAILROAD ENGINEERING STATION 509 +10, BEING AT THE INTERSECTION OF HRAILROAD A THE SOUTH STAPLES STREET INTERSECTION, FOR THE CONSTRUCT
10" SANITARY WER CROSSING, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN COPY OF EAC CONSENT
AGREEMENT ATT HED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF; AND DECLARIN AN EMERGENCY.
The Charter rule as suspended and the foregoing ordinance was passe y the following
vote: Blackmon, Sizemore, radley, Jimenez, Lozano, McDaniel and erts present and voting
Aye.'
Mayor Blackmon called for pe ' ions on matters not sc uled on the agenda. r.
Mr. Don Dent of Houston, represen 'ng Gulf Oil orporation, appeared and asked the Council
to reconsider its two previous decisions which r 'ect tl the requests of Gulf Oil Corporation for credit
against future wells or a refund for permits issu bu not used, and that he had filed a protest by letter
to Petroleum Superintendent Harry Frankli against the unciI's decisions.
Mayor Blackmon stated that less the Council wishe o reverse its previous actions on two
other occasions, the Chair wou rule that the mater has been dis sed of by this Council, and that
he does not feel that reaso s need be discussed at this time.
Mrs. Fred A. iller, Route 1, Robstown, requested the Council to consider the contemplated
zoning for BeacVroperty. Mayor Blackmon advised her to appear at the Specia\Meeting October 23,
1967 and p sent her views.
Mayor Blackmon announced a 5- minute recess before the scheduled public hearing n assessments
Xr improvements of Ocean Drive.
Mayor Blackmon reconvened the meeting, directed that it be noted that all members of the
Council were present, and announced the Council would now hold the public hearing scheduled for
3:00 p.m. on assessments for the proposed street improvements on Ocean Drive from Craig Street to
Hewit Drive, Unit II; explained that each member of the Council had been presented with a
corrected Preliminary Assessment Roll; and that Tom McDowell, Assistant City Attorney, would
conduct the public hearing.
r ?
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 8
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 testimony 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. John J. Pichinson, attorney, and an abutting property owner, stated that, in view of
the fact that the City Council is going to be a fact - finding body to determine whether or not the
proposed improvements are going to enhance properties in value in the amount of the assessments,
and have engaged the services of an expert appraiser, he feels the property owners should have been
notified in more detail as to the type of hearing which is to be held in order for them to make prep-
aration for counter testimony; stated that it is unfair to be forced to accept the opinion of the City's
appraiser's opinion with no other evidence that the City might weigh, and that he is challenging
the legality of the hearing on that basis.
Mr. McDowell read a copy of the notice which the property owners received, and stated
that in his opinion and that of City Attorney Singer, the notices were valid and sufficient in law,
and that the City has complied with Article 1105 -B for Home Rule Cities to levy these assessments.
Mr. Pichinson continued to speak in connection with the proposed enhancement of his
individual property and was ruled out of order, as this protest did not follow the procedure of the
hearing.
Mr. James K. Lantos, City Engineer, presented the plans and specifications for the improve-
ments and the Preliminary Assessment Roll; testified as to his qualifications and duties as City
Engineer; testified as to the nature, extent and specifications of the proposed improvements; stated
that the project consists of excavation to a width and depth to permit the construction of curbs and
gutters; six lanes of pavement to a width of 11 .0 feet each, except from Louisiana Avenue to
Hewit Drive, that within this area the width will be four lanes 12 feet wide, each consisting of
asphaltic concrete and two eight foot wide shoulders of asphalt surface treatment; stated that from
Craig to Hewit there will be a median consisting of a standard curb on each side and of vaired
widths, with normal width of 13 feet from back to back of curb; concrete sidewalk to be con-
structed only on the west side; concrete driveways as shown on plans unless otherwise changed by
e
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 9
the owners; stated that assessment rates have been calculated on the basis of applying the unit prices
obtained by bids and calculating the quantities for the improvements abutting the property, and by
giving credit for adequate existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters and the amount previously spent
for permanent type pavement that property owners have had installed; stated that property zoned or
used other than "R -1" or "R -2 ", curb, gutter, pavement, at the rate of $14.20 per linear foot;
property zoned and used "R -1 ", curb, gutter, and pavement at the rate of $5.88 per linear foot; and
that both shall carry the rate for sidewalks at $0.43 per square foot and driveways at $0.85 per square
foot; pavement only zoned and used "R -1" or "R -2 ", at $4.43 per linear foot (credit given for improve-
ments in place); and that property from Craig to Cole Street is assessed at a rate of $5.61 per foot
for curb, gutter and pavement, a reduction from $14.20, with credit allowed for improvements paid
for in 1927. Mr. Lontos further stated that the total contract price for the improvements from Craig
to Hewit is $479,662.40; total assessments to property owners is $84,095.08, and that the City's
portion is $395,567.32.
Mr. Dave Coover, attorney, representing several property owners questioned Mr. Lantos as
to allowances made property owners who have paid for assessments since 1927; allowances for
permanent improvements; as to the type of pavement required for a busy thoroughfare; as to the
enchancement of residential property if traffic is increased as a result of the improvements; and as
to specifications, rates, and width of a standard residential street.
Mr. Lantos stated that the proposed paving is designed for heavy traffic, similar to that on
South Staples and Alameda, and will vary in different locations, but that the street as a whole has
not been classified as a thoroughfare; that the rates are not out of line; explained that the City
records show that property owners from Craig to Cole paid for permanenfJmprovements in 1927,
and have been given credit on the revised assessment roll, and that credit will be given any other
owner if records can be produced that they were paid for; and stated with regard to increased traffic
that traffic has been increased in all parts of the City.
Others appearing and questioning Mr. Lantos as to type of improvements were Mrs. Frank
Harrison, Mrs. Albert Slovak, Mrs. J. E. Maffi, and Mr. Pichinson.
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 10
Mr. Pichinson inquired as to the uniformity of allowances being made for present improve-
ments, such as sidewalks, setback parking areas and driveways, regardless of type and character,
stating that his off - street parking is being eliminated.
Mr. Lantos stated that credit will be given for standard improvements; that Mr. Pichinson's
off - street parking is on City -owned property, and that allowance cannot be given for this type of
improvement.
Mr. Harold Carr testified as to his background and experience which he felt qualified him as
areal estate appraiser for all types of properties in this City; testified that he had personally viewed
and understood the extent and specifications of the proposed improvements; that he had personally
viewed the preliminary assessment roll and made on the scene inspection of each of the properties
to be assessed; and that in his opinion, where there is good curb and gutters and paving, it is
doubtful whether or not the properties from Craig to Louisiana Street will be enhanced in value by
the proposed improvements in the amount of the assessment, with the exception of the driveways.
Mr. Carr stated that the entrances to the driveways wi II be widened with the new improvements
and that entering into the property will be facilitated and will be of benefit to the owner; stated
that the area between Craig and Louisiana has good curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and that this
project calls for the tearing out of existing paving, curbs and sidewalks; stated that the improve-
ments will help the neighborhood as a whole, help business, and improve the movement of traffic,
but stated that he is not prepared to say that it will enhance the value of each property in the amount
of the assessment.
Mr. Carr further stated that, in his opinion, the properties from Louisiana south to Hewit
will be enhanced in value in the amount of the assessment with the exception of specific cases
where standard curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and similar improvements exist. Mr. Carr based his
opinion on the fact that, in most cases, there grey deep ditches on both sides of the existing pave-
ment, that the pavement and improvements do not meet City standards; that in specific cases where
the paving and gutters are good, the owners have been given credit on the assessment roll.
Mr. Carr was cross - examined by Mr. Coover, Mrs. Albert Slovak, Mrs. J.E. Maffi, Mr.
Pichinson, Mr. Conrad Blucher, Dr. Walter Lemke, Bill Granbury, and Giles Grady, and raised
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 11
questions as to assessments for sidewalks, the possibility of widening the street:on the Cole Park side;
if the destruction of trees could be considered an enhancement; if the street in its present condition
would be adegiate as a residential street; as to the exceptions in enhancement from Louisiana to
Hewit; off - street parking, number and width of lanes.
Mayor Blackmon called the names from the assessment roll and the following persons appeared:
Item 02, Mary Grant - stated she was opposed to the improvements and assessments for the
reasons already stated;
Item #5, Barbara Arts,.- stated that she is being charged for a driveway but that she is satisfied
with the driveway arrangement presently existing with hers on the north adjoining her neighbors,
providing a satisfactory way of entering.
Mrs. Arts was advised that she is being charged for 3/5 of driveway, and that her present
driveway is on street right of way.
Item 08, Ethel G. McCauley - appeared and stated that she is objecting to the assessments
on the basis that she has good sidewalks and curbs; and does not want to pay for new ones;
Item 014, Junior League of Corpus Christi - a representative stated that he wanted to
cooperate with the City to improve the City, but questioned that the value of this property would be
enhanced in the amount of the assessment;
Item #15, Mrs. Dewey W. Allison - appeared and stated that she was opposed for reasons
previously stated;
Items #18, #21 & #23, Incarnate Word Mother House and Sisters of Charity of Incarnate
Word - Mr. J. F. Wakefield appeared as a member of the Advisory Board of Spohn Hospital and
commended the Council for their constant and earnest efforts in the paving of Ocean Drive; and
stated that he was looking forward to its completion, but on behalf of the Advisory Board of the
Hospital requested that this property be classified as church property, stating that the property is
exempt from taxation;
Item 129, Jessie Be] I Rayburn - Mrs. Rayburn stated that she was opposed to the improve-
ments and the assessment, stating that she did not feel there would be an enhancement of her
property in the amount of the assessment;
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 12
Item 031, F. M. Thomason - Mr. John Thomason stated he favored the improvements; com-
mended the Council for going forward on this project, but explained that he was appearing on behalf
of his father who lives on the corner of OceantDrive and Cole Street, and that he had installed side-
walks on Ocean Drive and curbs and gutters ontthe: C61e Street side of his property in January of this
year according to City Specifications, and stated that he felt consideration should be given for credit
for the sidewalks, and also stated he felt the assessment was too high;
Item 433, Mrs. J. Y. Womack - Dr. Walter Lemke appeared representing Mrs. Womack, and
stated he did not feel the exit from his property onto Ocean Drive would be benefitted by the improve-
ments, and stated the assessments were excessive;
Item 034, Mrs. J. E. Maffi - Mrs. Maffi questioned the need for sidewalks; complained that
she had installed a new driveway between the street and sidewalk five times since 1953 and that it
had been destroyed five times by standing water, and stated that the City should pay for the new drive-
way; stated that she felt the improvements will make Ocean Drive a major thoroughfare and that this
will damage the value of abutting residential property; and pointed out that trees will have to be
destroyed;
Item 035, Mrs. Giles Grady - At this point in the meeting Mr. Coover introduced Mr. Giles
Grady as an expert real estate appraiser, and interrogated him as to his experience; qualifications
and knowledge of Corpus Christi real estate; and his familiarity with the values and conditions of the
subject street. In answer to questions from Mr. Coover, Mr. Grady stated that in his opinion, in
view of the fact that the area from Craig to Louisiana Streets have existing standard paving, curbs
and sidewalks, the value of the properties will not be enhanced by virtue of the proposed improve-
ments, but stated that it would be damaged,
Mr. McDowell cross - examined Mr, Grady, and in answer to questions Mr. Grady stated
that he did not believe the property between Craig and Louisiana could be improved upon; agreed
that the street is already a major thoroughfare, but stated that improvements of a public nature will
influencb the value of improvements of a private nature; and stated that he had not made an on the
scene inspection of other properties than.his own between Craig and Louisiana Street.
Item 036, Mr. Frank W. Crook - Mr. Coover spoke on behalf of Mr. Crook and stated that
his objection would be identical to that of Mr. Grady.
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 13
Item 039, Albert Slovak - Mrs. Slovak stated that she was opposed to the amount of the assessment
for the reason that she felt permanent improvements had already been paid for; feels they are being
re- assessed; that the assessment is excessive; that the improvements would not enhance the value of
the property and are not needed; and other reasons previously stated;
Item 040, W. H. Daimwood - Mrs. Jeff Bell spoke on behalf of her mother, Mrs. Daimwood,
and stated she is opposed to the improvements for the reason that the sidewalks, curbs and gutters
abutting her property are in excellent condition and does not feel she should be assessed;
Item 041, Dan L. Clark - Mr. Clark stated he is opposed to the improvements and the assessment,
and asked the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tern if they would give him a letter guaranteeing that his property
will be enhanced in the amount of the assessment, to which question the Mayor stated that he would
not give him such a letter, as it is the prerogative of the Council as a whole to determine the amount
of the assessment. Mr. Clark further stated that he objects to being assessed for a driveway on the basis
that he does not get the full benefit of the driveway on Ocean Drive, but that he uses the driveway
on the Southern Street side, and further stated that he objects to being assessed for the sidewalk which
he paid for and installed and is in good condition;
Item #44, Ross Garza, M.D. - Dr. Garza stated that he was opposed to the entire project
and did not feel that his property would be enhanced in value; that he felt the property the City has
taken across the street is going to attract the wrong kind of people; that he does not want the side-
l'
walks in front of his house which will encourage the use of bicycles and skate boards; stated that he
has an adequate driveway already and does not want to be charged for another;
Item 052 & 081, Conrad Blucher - Mr. Blucher appeared and inquired as to whether or not
sidewalks will be installed on both sides of the street; the width of same if they will be placed against
the curbs; as to allowances made for existing improvements, and if the seawall will remain.
Item #53 & #82, W. R. Hubler - Dr. Hubler stated he was opposed to the increased traffic
which wi II be inevitable on what is considered a residential street and stated that he favored a two
lane street; stated he felt the proposed curbs and gutters will improve the.area generally; inquired
as to whether or not taxes will be raised and if parking would b8 permitted on the safety shoulder.
Item #54 & #83, Frank Cech - Mr, Coover spoke on behalf of Mr. Cech and stated he felt
i
the assessment of $4.43 against $5.88 was disproportionate, and that the construction of a sidewalk
at this location is a hazard;
A
Minutes
Regular Council Meeting
October 11, 1967
Page 14
Item #55 & #84, John J. Pichinson - Objection voiced earier in this meeting and filed
objection in writing;
Item #63 & #91, First Baptist Church -Mr. John Thomason spoke on behalf of the First Baptist
Church, and commended the Council on the paving project - that it is a democratic process;
Mayor Blackmon stated that he will not participate in the action for the disposition of Items
#63 and #91 since he is a member of the Board of Trustees of the First Baptist Church;
Item #73, Ross Garza - Dr. Garza stated that the City has condemned this property;
Item #89, Dr. Hans E. Heymann - Dr. Heymann stated that he did not object to the paving,
but that he had filed a letter with the Public Works Department in connection with rearranging the
median to provide better access to his property;
Item #92, Dr. B. B. Friedman - Mr. Coover spoke on behalf of Dr. Friedman and stated that
he feels the assessment of $4.43 against $5.88 for existing driveway is disproportionate;
Item #93, B. F. Harrison - Mrs. Harrison stated that her property extends to the center of
the drainage ditch, and that it appears it will not be curbed, and that this should be considered in
her assessment; that she does not think the heavier traffic brought closer to her property will enhance
the value;
Item #96, T. F. Smith - Mr. Townsend stated that Mr. Smith had filed written objections
with the Public Works Department with regard to credit being given for his existing driveway, curbs,
planter box and special drainage system.
No one else appeared to be heard in connection with the proposed street improvements,
Mayor Blackmon pointed out that conflicting opinions had been given by well - qualified
experts; that no decision would be made at this time on the proposed assessments; stated that other
evidence may be submitted to the City Engineering Department that will be helpful; that in view of
the testimony presented'at this hearing, the Council may make further reductions, but that the hearing
could be closed at this time.
Motion by McDaniel, seconded by Lozano and passed that the hearing be closed,
There being no further business to come before the Coun ci I, the Regular Meeting was adjourned,
THERE BEING NO FURTHER TESTIMONY OFFERED OR ANY FURTHER PARTIES
APPEARING TO BE HEARD, UPON PROPER MOTION, DULY SECONDED AND UNANIMOUSLY
CARRIED, THE SAID HEARING WAS DECLARED CLOSED; AND
WHEREAS, NO FURTHER PARTIES APPEARING AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY
BEING OFFERED AS TO THE SPECIAL BENEFITS IN RELATION TO THE ENHANCED VALUE
OF SAID ABUTTING PROPERTYAS COMPARED TO COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OF SAID
PORTION OF SAID STREET PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST SAID PROPERTY, OR
AS TO ANY ERRORS, INVALIDITES OR IRREGULARITIES, IN THE PROCEEDINGS OR
CONTRACT HERETOFORE HAD IN REFERENCE TO THE PORTIONS OF SAID STREETS TO BE
IMPROVED; AND
WHEREAS, SAID CITY COUNCIL HAS HEARD EVIDENCE AS TO THE SPECIAL
BENEFITS AND ENHANCED VALUE TO ACCRUE TO SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY, AND THE
REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, AS COMPARED WITH THE COST OF MAKING
SAID IMPROVEMENTS ON SAID STREET, WITHIN THE LIMITS ABOVE DEFINED, AND HAS
HEARD ALL PARTIES APPEARING AND OFFERING TESTIMONY, TOGETHER WITH ALL PRO-
TESTS AND OBJECTIONS RELATIVE TO SUCH MATTERS AND AS TO ANY ERRORS, INVALI-
DATIES OR IRREGULARITIES IN ANY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND CONTRACT FOR SAID
IMPROVEMENTS, AND HAS GIVEN A FULL AND FAIR HEARING TO ALL PARTIES MAKING
OR DESIRING TO MAKE SUCH PROTEST, OBJECTION OR OFFER TESTIMONY AND HAS
FULLY EXAMINED AND CONSIDERED ALL EVIDENCE, MATTERS, OBJECTIONS AND
PROTESTS OFFERED AND BASED UPON SAID EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS,
SAID CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT EACH AND EVERY PARCEL OF PROPERTY ABUTTING
UPON THE PORTION OF OCEAN DRIVE, WITHIN THE LIMITS TO BE IMPROVED AS HEREIN
DEFINED, WILL BE ENHANCED IN VALUE AND SPECIALLY BENEFITTED BY THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE SAID STREET UPON WHICH SAID PROPERTY
ABUTS, IN AN AMOUNT IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS
PROPOSED TO BE, AND AS HEREINBELOW ASSESSED AGAINST EACH AND EVERY SAID
PARCEL OF ABUTTING PROPERTY, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, AND SAID
CITY COUNCIL DID CONSIDER AND CORRECT ALL ERRORS, INVALIDITIES OR DEFICIEN-
CIES CALLED TO ITS ATTENTION AND DID FIND THAT ALL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTRACTS
WERE PROPER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY AND THE LAWS OF
THE STATE OF TEXAS, UNDER WHICH THOSE PROCEEDINGS WERE BEING HAD, AND THE
PROCEEDINGS OF SAID CITY COUNCIL HERETOFORE HAD WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH
IMPROVEMENTS, AND IN ALL RESPECTS TO BE VALID AND REGULAR; AND SAID CITY
COUNCIL DID FURTHER FIND UPON SAID EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS HEREIN -
BELOW MADE AND THE CHARGES HEREBY DECLARED AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY
ON SAID PORTION OF SAID OCEAN DRIVE, WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, AND THE
REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, ARE JUST AND EQUITABLE AND DID ADOPT
THE RULE OF APPORTIONMENT SET OUT BELOW AND THE DIVISION OF THE COST OF SAID
IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN SAID ABUTTING PROPERTIES, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS
OR OWNER THEREOF, AS JUST AND EQUITABLE, AND AS PRODUCING SUBSTANTIAL
EQUALITY CONSIDERING THE BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED AND THE BURDENS IMPOSED
THEREBY, AND THAT ALL OBJECTIONS AND PROTESTS SHOULD BE OVERRULED AND DENIED
EXCEPT THE CORRECTIONS AND CHANGES AS APPEAR ON THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
INCLUDED IN THIS ORDINANCE.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. THAT THERE BEING NO FURTHER PROTEST OR TESTIMONY FOR
OR AGAINST SAID IMPROVEMENTS, SAID HEARING GRANTED TO THE REAL AND TRUE
OWNERS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY ON SAID STREET, WITHIN THE LIMITS ABOVE DEFINED
AND TO ALL PERSONS, FIRMS, CORPORATIONS AND ESTATES, OWNING OR CLAIMING
SAME OR ANY INTEREST THEREIN, BE AND THE SAME-IS HEREBY CLOSED AND ALL PRO-
TESTS AND OBJECTIONS, WHETHER SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED OR NOT, SHALL BE, AND
THE SAME ARE HEREBY OVERRULED AND DENIED.
SECTION Z. THAT SAID CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
UPON THE EVIDENCE HEARD IN REFERENCE TO EACH ANDEVERY PARCEL OF PROPERTY
ABUTTING UPON OCEAN DRIVE, WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, THAT THE SPECIAL
BENEFITS IN THE ENHANCED VALUE TO ACCRUE TO SAID PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND
TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, BY VIRTUE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID IMPROVE-
MENTS TO SAID PORTION OF SAID STREET UPON WHICH SAID PROPERTY ABUTS, WILL
BE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS AS PROPOSED TO
BE, AND AS HEREIN ASSESSED AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND
TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, AND FINDS THAT THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE COST OF SAID
-5-
IMPROVEMENTS, AND THAT ALL ASSESSMENTS HEREIN BELOW MADE ARE JUST AND
EQUITABLE AND PRODUCE SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY CONSIDERING THE BENEFITS RE-
CEIVED AND THE BURDENS IMPOSED THEREBY AND ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND THE CHARTER PROVISIONS OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS AND THAT THE PROCEEDINGS AND CONTRACT HERETOFORE
HAD WITH REFERENCE TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN ALL RESPECTS REGULAR, PROPER
AND VALID, AND THAT ALL PREREQUISITES TO THE FIXING OF THE ASSESSMENT LIENS
AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTIES1 AS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED AND THE PERSONAL
LIABILITY OF THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, WHETHER NAMED OR
CORRECTLY NAMED HEREIN OR NOT; HAVE BEEN IN ALL THINGS REGULARLY HAD AND
PERFORMED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, CHARTER PROVISIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SAID CITY COUNCIL.
SECTION 3. THAT IN PURSUANCE OF SAID ORDINANCE] DULY ENACTED BY
SAID CITY COUNCIL, AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED STREET, WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, AND IN PURSUANCE OF SAID PRO-
CEEDINGS 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 STREET IMPROVEMENTS BY THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND
THE CHARTER OF SAID CITY, WITH PARTICULAR
, REFERENCE TO CHAPTER lob OF THE
ACTS OF THE FIRST CALLED SESSION OF THE 40TH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS, KNOWN AND SHOWN AS ARTICLE 11058 OF VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES
OF TEXAS, AS AMENDED, THERE SHALL BE, AND IS HEREBY LEVIED, ASSESSED AND
TAXED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID PORTION
OF SAID STREET, AND AGAINST THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, WHETHER SUCH
REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS BE NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED HEREIN OR NOT,
THE SEVERAL SUMS OF MONEY HEREINBELOW 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 OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, AND NAMES OF THE APPARENT OWNERS THEREOF, ALL
AS CORRECTED AND ADJUSTED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL, BEING AS FOLLOWS, TO -WIT:
-6-
�i
OCEAN DRIVE from CRAIG STREET to EMT DRIVE - UNIT II
This project number 220 -67 -69 includes the improvement to Ocean
Drive within the limits set out on plans prepared for this project.
These improvements shall. consist of excavation to a width and depth'
to permit the construction of curbs and gutters, 9" lime stabilized
base, 9" compacted caliche, prime coat, 200 #/s.y. Type "A" and 125 #ls.y.
Type "D" hot -mixed asphaltic concrete. Six (6) lanes of pavement to a
width of 11.0' each, except from Louisiana Avenue to Hewit Drive within
this area the width will be four (4) lanes 12' wide each consisting of
asphaltic concrete and two 8' wide shoulders of asphalt surface treat-.
ment.
Within the total limits (from Craig to Hewit), there will be a
median consisting of a standard curb on each side and of varied widths,
from 3' to 23', with a normal width of 13' from back to back of curb.
Concrete sidewalk will be constructed only on the west side.
Concrete driveways will be built as shown on plans unless otherwise
changed by the owners.
Assessment rates have been calculated on the basis of applying the
unit prices obtained by bids and calculating the quantities for the
improvements abutting the property, and by giving credit for adequate
existing sidewalks, curbs and gutters and the amount previously spent
for permanent "type pavement that the property owners have had installed
abutting their property; thus the rates are as follows:
1. Property zoned or used other than R -1 or R -2
Curb, gutter, and pavement $14.20 per l.f.
2. Property zoned and used R -1 or R -2
Curb, gutter, and pavement $ 5.88 per l.f.
3. Both properties shall carry the following rate for sidewalks
at $0.43 per square foot and driveways at $0.85 per square
foot.
4.* Pavement only zoned and used R -1 or R -2 - $4.43 per l.f.
*Credit given for improvements in place.
/i
t•oGT
'�`vY CUrl�� 9v� Ter 4 /r -I/a
Cre cy- c7, 11D cc1 —tor %inProuemen4s.�alc�
Shoo', 1.
Ocean Drive, from Cram Street to Hewit Drive - Unit 2 '
S /o�p4id�IC hv,JXlf + ✓T �%d /o �a.q3 .�D. 17'�. S. F -__
C'FAid Z 4ovisA".q .
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $•
Zoned -& Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f.$
Asseosr.,ent Rate, Sidewalk per sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per so. ft. $
'G.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
ARCUIci
ASSES24ENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESS_
B
GINNING AT CP4IG
STREET
WEST SINE
CHARLES J. PRIER
Lots 1 & 2, Blk 6, Bayview Addn
Other than R -1 or R -2 7/12•=
100 % Assessed
107.18 L.F.
•450'.0 S.F.
228.27 S.F.
Curb, Gutter & Pvmt
Sidewalk O
Driveway - 12'
S.6i
- 4:4x28-
/�
0.85
60 /,zg
BS�To<
,3 - 72.96
-60.69
194.03
Y GRANT
Lot 3, Blk. 6, Bayview Addn.
Other than R -1 or R -2 5/12 =
1001% Assessed
51.32 L.F.
195.0 S.F.
163.05 S.F.
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
Driveway - 12'
14-28
q -B,k
0.85
2B7.91
728.74
&3-a5
138.59
33 l r
4s9 G.f
W. ARMSTRONG PRICE
Lot 4, Block 6, Bayview Addn.
51.72 L.F.
165.0 S.F.
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
S.61
±4.2e
0-/7-&
Z90-15-
734.42
7rr;S.j
ZS, og
ther than R -1 or R -2
00% Assessed
391.3 S.F.
Driveway - 12'
0.85
332.61
j
-_
Gsa9
BEATRICE OLIVAREZ
Lot 5, Blk. 6, Bayview Addn.
Other than R -1 or R -2 8/20 =
00% Assessed
51.72 L.F.
150.0 S.F.
223.76 S.F.
Curb,Gutter & Pvur
Pavement
Driveway - z of 20
4 11 PC)
L94 0;#3
0.85
fs��B
190.20
es-S70
cgs
S'o5.8a
_
aARBARA ARTS
is 6 & 7, Block 6
.ayview Addn. 12/20 =
103.46 LF
-x425.0 S.F.
335.64 S.F.
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
Driveway - of 20'
S. &i
±4.26
0, 17 a14T
0.8
S80.49
7Z.2S
=
285.29 285.29
Other than R -1 or R -2
00% Assessed
9.38.03
-
s6/
29o.zi
WILZIARll HAPhI:ONb
riot ti, Blk. 6, Bayview Addn
51.73 L.F.
(160.00 S.F.
Curb, Gutter & Pvnt.
Sidewalk
14.20
Or /] eAt
734,E
9.52
+,her than R. -lor R -2
100% Assessed
391.3 S.F.
Driveway - 12'
0.85
32.61.
-
'
Shcet 2
Ocean Drive, from Craig Street to Hewit'Drive'- Unit 2
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 p,:-,r sq. ft.
Assessment Raze, Driveway per so. ft. $
'C
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTI0
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
A:•IOU i_
ASSESSI� I dT
RATE
AN101Pi`P
ASSESSE
7•
� GEORGE HAMCIIPON
(Lots 9 & 10, Blk 6, Bayview Addn
Other than R -1 or R -2
100% Assessed
106.56 L.F.
*500.0 S.F.
-O-
r
3idewalk
Driveway
y63
0.85
8
7•96--r,4
-0-
6az go
MO
GAN STREET UTEPSECTION
z80.s0
3.
ETHEL G. McCAULEY
50.0 L.F.
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
14.28
7-19 GQ
i$zz�e
Lot 1, Blk. 1, Ocean View Addn.
250.0 S.F.
3idewalk p17
G-43
4Z.-go
Other than R -1 or R -2
100% Assessed
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
c
-423. 00
S G/
280.So
3.
FLATO CONSTRUCTION CORP.
50.0 L.F.
hu.rb,Gutter & Pvmt
1), 20
"-
Lot 2, Blk. 1, Ocean View Addn.
250.0 S.F.
3idewalk �./7
0-4
D
4e. So
Other than R -1 or R -2
100% Assessed
-0-
riveway
0.85 -
-0-
38
'
S. G/
28o•So
.
).
VELMA ROUNDTREE
50.0 L.F.
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
14.29
74:E).E)&
3, Blk. 1, Ocean View Addn.
250.0 S.F.
idewalk o,r7-s-43
1#77-50
4z•S0
(Lot
Other than R -1 or R -2
100% Assessed
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
A0
323.00
BILLY BELL
50.0 L.F.
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
s6/
- 14.29
280.so
7-10 QQ^-
Lot 4, Blk 1, Ocean View Addn
150.0 S.F.
idewalk x'17
0743
Z5. S0
Other than R -1 or R -2
( 100% Assessed
391.3 S.F.
Driveway - 12'
0.85
332.60
qt:�zc
6
5.6/
2Bo.So
'..
FRANK E. CIHAK
50.0 L.F.
b, Gutter & Pvmt
-x-29-
- 73�99-
Lot 15, Blk. 1, Ocean View Addn.
-Other than R -1 or R -2
100% Assessed
100.0 S.F.
391.3 S.F.
idewalk O
Driveway - 12',
/7e=4t
0.85
p
332.61
/'zoo
•
_gydr 7
G3o. i 1
Sheet 1 3.
Ocean Drivcj frpm_Craig Street to Iiewit Drive - Unit 2
Zoned & Used R -1 cr R-O, C.O. & bave�ri $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f.$
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk i)cr sq. ft. $
Assessnem Rate, Driveway'p_r sq. • ft
- •I-- v4INER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUAiiTITY
'DESCRIPTION
i
'',
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
AMOUINT
ASSrEMVIENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
s.6�
z80.so
3 GEORGE & SAlI TAYLOR
Lot 6, Blk. 1, Ocean View Addn.
50.0 L.F.
115.0' S.F.
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
3idewalk
31+ 29
,17 0.-45
19•SS
- 73.6 -06
Other than R -1 or R-2
391.3 S.F.
Driveway - 12'
0.85
332.61
G
100% Assessed*
'
632.66
',� 42^.^o
2 JUMOR LEAGUE OF CORPUS CHRISTI
100.0 L.F.
arb,Gutter & Pvmt
14.22
yie�
Lots 7Y>3, Blk. 1, Ocean View -
350.0 S.F.
3idewalk
S9s'o
Other than R -1 or R -2 Addn.
391.3 S.F.
Driveway - 12'
0.85
332.61
J
100% Assessed
:59:r
y MRS. DE''.T W. ALLISON
Lot 9, Blk. 1, Ocean View Addn
50.0 L.F.
135.0 S.F.
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
3idewalk
ili.29
.i10--3
z2.9S
- 7-}8:60
%-,�
Other then R -1 or 1-2
391.3 S.F.
riveway - 12'
0.85
332.61
100%, Assessed
�a6.o6
`x•61
280. So
MARIE R. VIESTFKVELT
Lot 10, Blk 1, Ocean View Addn.
50.0 L.F.
215.0 S.F.
rb,Cutter & I' mt
idewalk 611-7
-9:4.' 0-
6 3
�6•SS
moo
5
Other than R -1 or R -2
-0 -- S.F.
'
-iveway
0.85
-0-
100% Assessed
-
'
3/7.OS
iILPi3Y J. CORDON
Lot 11, Blk. 1, Ocean View Addn
56.311 L.F.
281.70 S.F.
b, Gutter & Pvmt
3idewark
56/
- 3-� e9-
/7 $4-3-
3
9.93
¢780
Other than R -1 or R -2
100% Assessed
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
363.87
MIZABMH
STELEEIT
TT FERSEC'PION
B7707
4 111C RIATE 'W'ORD 1,K)TIM HOUSE
Lots 1,2, & 3, Blk. 11
156.34
781.70
- bj Gutter & Pvmt
idewalk m
14-26
.
22220,93
--3
/32 88
Ocean View Addn.
-0-
Eriveway•
0.85
-0-
Other than R -1 or R -2
1001% Assessed
/,po4.gS
awe!xs -
Sheet 4.
Ocean Drive, from Craig Street to Hewit Drive - Unit 2
Zoned & Used R -1 or R-2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -i or R -2 n.l.f.$
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per se. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway pLr s,q ft. $
01•P_2ER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSI:SSM
Or
AMOU::T
ASSES'7MRINT
RATE
AMIOU?NT
P.SSESSF.::
T
5.6 /
06 0. so
1 GEORGE TAYLOR
Lot is, Blk.11, Ocean View Addn
Other than R -1 or R -2
50.0 L.F.
^'250.0 S.F.
-0- S.F.
b, Gutter & Pvmt
idewalk O,
rivewalk
X29
/7 =#3
0.85
_
¢z• yO
- 736:@8
-
-0-
-
3fi3, 00
100p Assessed
•
5.6/
x+.29
280.so
71c) Go
I.q. S. T. Y. MOORE
Lot 5, Blk 11, Ocean View Addn
Other than R -1 or R -2
50.0 L.F.
*140.0 S.F.
391.3 S.F.
b, Gutter & Pvmt
3idewalk C.J7
riveway - 12'
his. 6S'
�3
0.85
2.54
332.61
100% Assessed
S. 6 /
ZEIo. So
16.13.11
I SISTERS Of CHARITY Of
INCARINA^1E WORD.
Lot 6, Blk 11, Ocean View Addn.
100% Assessed, Other than R -1
50.0 L.F.
X'90.0 S.F.
391.3 S.F.
- b,Gatter & Pvmt
3idewalk p
riveway - 12'
2:4.29
17 &F'FB
0.85
- 736:69
-0-
332.61
or R -2
•
S. 6 /
z80. So
2 MIRS. C. A. HEAR-1,7j,
50.0 L.F.
b,Gutter & Pvmt
14.20
7g:G.69
-0- :
Lot 7, Blk. 11, ocean View Addn
;;125.0 S.F.
3idewalk Q
/y 0:;--4
. .
Other than R -1 or R -2
391.3 S.F.
iveway - 12'
O.85
332.61
613.11
100% Assessed
i
$ ST_STr RS OF CHARITY OF T.NCARPIAT
WORD (Spohr, Hospital)
Lots 1,2,3, & 4, Blk "R"
Bay Front Terrace Addn.
150.0 L.F.
45.0 S.F.
X =o S.F.
Pavement Only
�lZrb,Gutter & Pvmt
idetiralk
Z/ ;
7 •A"t3-
ai2,4s-
__,,
-0-
Other than P, -1 or R -2 '
100N Assessed(*Credit for
bxisting Imps.)
-0-
riveoray
o.85
-O-
te
/o93.9s`
YF.RS STRITU I
Pl h RSECTION
�• J. M. DAVIS
.5 /
329.3/
833-54
Pt. Lot 8 & All Lot 7
58.7 L.F.
b,Cutter & Pvmt
�9
-
19.66
-0-
Nay Front Terrace Addn.
Other then R -1 or R -2
X215.0 S.F.
-0-
[idewalk p
ver.�ay
/7 0�3
0.85
34_8.97
Assessed
-K-Credit for Existing Imps.
Sheet- 5.
—Ocean Drive, from Crait. Street to FiLwit Drive - Unit 2
Zoned &- UsLq R-1 c�r R-L
C.G. & Pavement
Zoned &- Used Other Than -R-1 or R-2 p.l.f.s
Asscssment Rate, S-idcwa-',',^ p----r sq. -f'.
Assessment Rate, Driveway par sa. f--.
MP4*ER &-'PP0?LMTY DrISCRIPTIO!j
QTJA.Nc-ll'I•Y
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
ASSESSMEI�T
RATE
A 0 U N T
ASSES::_..,
AL L. cp•am
Lot 6, Blk. 4, P--y Front Terrac
Acidition, Other than R-1 or R-2
100% Assessed
50-7 L.F.
44120.0 S.F.
325.1 S.F.
r-arb,Gutter & Plvnit
idewralk
riveway - 121
�E)
/7 G.-F16
0.85
284.43
--7±9-.
-0-
276-34
S60.77
FTHEL C. HURICK
Lot 5, Blk. 4, Bay Front Terrac
50.7 L.F.
*250.0 S.F.
Curb.Catter & Pvmt
Sidewalk
-67.41
I It po
r�-,4
0• /75
26-9. 43
=
Addition, Other than R-1 or R-2
I.W,jo Assessed
-0- S.F.
iveway
0.85
-0-
---
JL
r
7 sART, B. NTEI•IAN
Lot 4, Bilk. 4, —Pay Front Terrac�*135.0
Other than R-1 or R-2
1OVp Assessed
50.7 L.F.
S.F.
377.7 S.F.
-
Curb, Gutter & PYmj
Driveway - 12'
6-.,gl
1),' PA
/7 �
0.85
?941. 43
6019 S-0
7-19-94
• 4.11.
321.05
L. W. ARE ND
Lot 3, Blk- 4, P-- y Front Terrac
50.7 L.P.
220.0 S.F
aarb,Gutter & Illne,
idewaLk
I,, pr,
7 6 3
264. 43
34.83
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
219-26
f JMEME' -73KER RAYMORN
Lot 2, Elk. 4, Bay front Terric
100; Assessed
50-17 L.F.
--*"250-85 S.F.
-0-
Curb, Gattier & P-mit
Sidewalk
r'.1veway
,5 41
-3lF 29
0.85
42-11.
1 --mA�
•
-0-
CIP*M-ES GALIAND
Lot 11 Blk. 4, Bay Front "errac
3.00'tj Assessed
50-03 L.P.
-*250-15 S.F.
-0-
-,arb,GAtcr & pvftjt.
Rdeveialk
Drriveway
14 2A
0.17 0�-
0.85
Jtea�
7-19A3
•
-0-
Sheet 6.
Ocean Drive from Craig Street to Hewit Drive - Unit 2
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 D.l.f.$
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
BEM
•
0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
n,
TOTAL
ASSESSED
GO
AMOUNT
ASSESSIV=
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
COLE STREET
ERSECTION
1.
F. M. THOMASON
81.97 LF
Jurb,Gutter & Pvmt
iP--�
459. SS
All Lot 1, Part Lot 2, Blk.A
409.85 SF
3idewalk
0..4.3
=6=4
69.67
Evans Addition
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
Elm
s��sz
32•
J. W. HORTON
S. 62.53' Lot 2, Blk. A
62.53 IF
225.0 SF
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
idewalk
.r7 �3
9�
8� .Rs9
Evans Addn., Other than R -1 or
R -2 100% Assessed "
X4ac74 e
145.6 sF
lit sred f
riveway- 12'
o% �isfr ¢2.3s
0.85
123.76
<d�2 - /0n
2•
sit So
3.
MRS. J. Y. WOMACK
All Lot 3 & Pt. Lot 4
84.25 IF
260.0 SF
arb,Gutter & Pvmt
3idewalk
X87
ca7 0�"
4
13=k_;ft
197,' 99
44.26
Blk. A, Evans Addn. R -3B
100% Assessed
139.6 SF
riveway
0.85
118.66
5
360 8S
Z.3.i
4.
J. E. MAFFI
S. 60.25', Lot 4, Blk. A
60.25'LF
168.0 sF
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
3idewalk
,
/7 O=#
7
141,57
29•5-6
Evans Addition, Zoned R -1B
100% Assessed
139.6 SF
riveway
0.85
118.66
268.8/
2.35
5.
MRS. GRADY GILES
72.25 LF
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
�
4 3
14- 79
Lot 5, Blk. "A ", Evans Addn.
289.0 SF
3idewalk
0.17&;--4
49713
Zoned R -3$
100%i Assessed
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
DEL MAR INTI
SECTION
2.35
�.
FRANK W. CROOK
286.0 LF
b r,Gutter & Pvmt
Lots 1,2,3,4, & 5, Blk. 4
1,144.0 SF
,idewalk
i/�
9¢.
Del Mar Subdivision, R -1B
3.00% Assessed
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
�1
-1 ..
fir. a_ r. a__. _ _ S'. ...c. ..... ... .l . .mac!
� L'. . _ ••C•w.. ._ __.
. _ .._ .. w .._�.
..., >.l.•...`Jit's..�.n
r r. :4'a::
F. .�'s
Sheet N� , .
Ocean Drive, from Craig Street to Hewit Drive - Unit 2
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or P. -2 p.l.f.$
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per
:H
):
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
A.MOU'IrL
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSE-
37.
N
WAYNE STOCKSETH
All Lot 5, and N. 27' Lot 4
Blk. 3, Del Mar Subd.
LES STREET INTERSECTION
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
0.3S-
58
i98
•4
3t9;:39
/90,'77
SS.II
81.18 IF
324.17 SF
Del Mar Subdivision, R -1B
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-----o-- -
100% Assessed
•
z4S. 8S
z. 35'
38.
MRS. GARNETT TABOR -
81.38 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5 R
-1
19/,24
S. 27.19' Lot 4, All Lot 3
325.52 SF
Sidewalk
110 3
b� -34
Blk. 3, Del Mar Subdivision
-0-
Drivpway
0.85
-0-
246 SB
R -1B, 100% Assessed
39•
ALBERT SLOVAK
Lots 1 & 2, Blk. 3
108.37 IF
433.48 SF
Curb,Gutter & Pvmt
Sidewalk
z.3r
57M
;?fly
63T;:22
1$6-#Q
-$ S4.G 7
93.69
Del Mar Subdivision
R -1B, 100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
•
0.85
-0-
328,36
AT
IC STREET
SECTION
2.3 r
40.
W. H. DAIMWOOD
All Lots 5 & 4, N. 30' Lot 3
138.37 IF
553.48 SF
Curb, Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
$
%@
$k
32S•�7
94.°9
Blk. 2, Del Mar Subdivision
R-1B, 100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
o.85
-0-
2.3s
41.
DAN L. CLARK
S. 24.19' Lot 3 & All Lot 1&2,
132.56 LF
530.24 SF
b, Gutter & Pvmt
Sidewalk
5-ZW
°Ci 3
479-x+5
228- -vW
3lb.,re
q0./1/
Blk. 2, Del Mar Subdivision
R -1B1 100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
S
SOUTHERN
STREET I,
MRSECTION
42.
FLORENCE ROBERTS WINTREE
irb,Gutter & Pvmt.
z.3�
,�
709;*7
•
708.07
120.42 IF
Lots 3 & 4, Blk-'l
-0-
3idewalk
=0-
Del Mar Subdivision
2 .1B, 100% Assessed
=0-
riveway
0.85
-
-0-
708.07
Sheet : B.
Ocean Drive from Craig Street to Hewit Drive - Unit 2
Zoned & Used_g 1_or fi-2,_C.0 -._ &
Zoned & -Used Other - Than- R71_or_R- 2,_p.l_f.$
Assessment -Rate., Sidewalk sg. fi. $
Assessment Rate ,_Drivewmayser sa. ft. $
t , ,.•� A�, ., .K .. :�« �. S.,Y•, �. �. B��i °, r .. -?r -: �"; a .r '.4 ; _.S.- ,..•r�..., ,. ..x, w_. r •ti •.. �.'�"-.`�.t :�. '' W�+ ,'- �.',,•s,.:.��';�;�, ".'�e::' m . •,
0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
y
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
AMOU \T
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
2.35
+3-
THELMA PARR
* 118.0 LF
Curb, Gutter & FVY
1-. 8
Z 773,9
Lots 1&2, Blk. 1, Del Mar Subd
R -1B
481.68 SF
Sidewalk
•17crl
2•
>%8 2
100% Assessed.
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
**Imp. on N.Lane of Louisiana
.335. /;k
LOUISIANA INTERSECTION
216.37 LF
A.
ROSS GARZA, M.D.
Curb,Gutter&Pvmt
5.88
1,272.26
Lot 2, Watson Place, Unrecorde
780.00 SF
Sidewalk
0.43
335.40
R -lA
* 133.6 SF
Driveway
0.85
113.56
100% Assessed
,721.22
45.
W. K. SHEPPERD
102.80 LT
Curb,Gutter &Pvm1
5.88
•604.4
Lot 3, Blk- 7, Port Aransas
320.0 ST
Sidewalk
0.43
137.
Cliffs, R -1A
145.6 ST
Driveway
0.85
123.7
100, Assessed
865.82
46.
C. J. HOLMES .
102.80
Curb, Gutter & Pvm
5.88
604.4
Lot 4, Blk- 7,
411.20 S
idewalk
0.43
176.82
Port Aransas Cliffs, R -1 A
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
100% Assessed
17812 --'
47•
SAM TAYLOR
102.80 Ilaarb,Gutter
& Pvmt
5:88
664.46
Lot 5 -A, Blk 7, Pt. Aransas
* 320.0 SF3idevalk
0.43
126.85,
Cliffs, R -1 A
100% Assessed
133.6
iveway
0.85
113,56
_
;
48.
SYLVAN WEIL
*-.154.19 LF
Beavement only
.4.43
683.06
Lot 5, Blk. 7, Port Aransas
468.0 SF
idewalk-
0:43
20 :24
Cliffs, R -1 A
_ -0- SF
riveway 14'
Assessed - 100%
ac _ -0= SF
riveway - 14'
0.85
= =0=
4.30
49•
RACHAEL VAUGHN, EST.
Lot 6, Blk. 7,
154.18 LF
urb,Gutter & Pvmt
4.43-
,683.4
Port Aransas Cliffs
616.72 SF
idewalk
0.43
265.19
'
R -1 A
-0-
riveway
0,85
--
.948.20
100% Assessed
t , ,.•� A�, ., .K .. :�« �. S.,Y•, �. �. B��i °, r .. -?r -: �"; a .r '.4 ; _.S.- ,..•r�..., ,. ..x, w_. r •ti •.. �.'�"-.`�.t :�. '' W�+ ,'- �.',,•s,.:.��';�;�, ".'�e::' m . •,
Sheet_
Ocean Drive, from Craig Street to Hewit Drive, Unit 2
Zoned & Used R -1 cr F. -2, C.G. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 p.l.f.$
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
c._, v._. c.. tv�+ v.t ne5. fahrSi..^C inF. �. a «"9t ±•i^'- +•'S�S:�:�•r,}... +t.' c'.i•i'i';.'Y a.+?."RK °< - •^•.M-^!'T'T.'4rT xli�y'j.�S. t��:•
i0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
AMOJNT
ASSESSME.'QT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
ING STREET INTERSECTION
50.
GENERAL JOS. PATCH
it 102.79 LF
larb,Gutter & Pvmt
4.43
455.36
Lot 1 -A, Matt Dunn
R -1 A, 100%i Assessed
276.0 SF
it _ -0- SF
idewalk
)riveway - 20'
0.43
0.85
118.68
-0-i
Unrecorded
•57 .
51.
JOHN H. YOCHEM
102.79 LF
larb,Gatter & Pvmt
5.88
604.41
.
Lot 2, Blk 8, Pt. Arthur Cliffs
# 340.0 SF
idewalk
0.43
146.20
R -1 A
115.6 SF
)riveway - 12'
0.85
98.26
100% Assessed
7
52.
CONRAD BLUCHER
205.58 LF
b,Gutter & Pvmt
4.43
.910•.72.
Lot "A" Sunrise Terrace
696.0 SF
idewalk
0.43
299.28
R -1 A
100% Assessed.
. • -0- . SF
riveway - 21'
0.85
"- o- ••0.0>3
53•
W. R. HUBLER
173.66 LF
b,Gutter & Pvmt
5.88
1,021.12
Lot 8, Port Arthur Cliffs
694.64 SF
idewalk
0.43
298.69
R -1 A
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
1,319. 1
54.
FRANK CEOH
Lot 11, Bessar Park
169.86 LF
679.44 SF
' rb,Gutter & Pvmt
idewalk
5.88
0.43
998 -78
292.16
R -1 A
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
100% Assessed
1,290.9
OLi.ANDER
STREET
NTERSECTION
-41 129.58 LF
jy�148 R SF
55•
JOHN J.PICHINSON
Lot 10, Bessar Park
rb,Gutter & Pvmt
idewalk
4.43
5,74. Q4
'22--2--98
/66.98
R -1 A
-0-
riveway
0.85
-0-
100% Assessed
.6'/ F r /3a a5F Sid Coel
7¢1.03
c._, v._. c.. tv�+ v.t ne5. fahrSi..^C inF. �. a «"9t ±•i^'- +•'S�S:�:�•r,}... +t.' c'.i•i'i';.'Y a.+?."RK °< - •^•.M-^!'T'T.'4rT xli�y'j.�S. t��:•
Sheet . " 10.
Ocean Drive. Fran Craig Street to Hewit Drive, Unit 2
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 sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
TEM
i
NO.
I OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
AMOUNT
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSE
56.
J. A. GARCIA
300.0 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
1,764.00
Lot C & D, Sydney P. Chandler
(Unrecorded)
1,000.0 SF
336.4 SF
Sidewalk
Driveway 2 - 12'
0.43
0.85
430.00
286.84
-1 A
00% Assessed
2,474.84-
57•
L. W. 0. JANSSEN
75.0 IF
Curb, Gutter & Pvm
5.88
441.00
300.'0 SF
Sidewalk'
0.43
129.00
-1 A
nrecorded
t -0- SF
Driveway
0.85
-0-
-37
00% Assessed
58.
E. M. LINKENHOGER
124.75 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm1
5.88
733.53.
Lot 1, Los Amigos Subd.
498.96 SF
Sidewalk
o.43
214.55
nrecorded
00% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
9 ,0
AJSTAD
STREET I
ERSECTION
230.16 IF
808.72 SF
-0-
59•
PHOMAS E. PERRY
Lots 28 & 29, Los Amigos Subd.
nrecorded
00% Assessed
Curb,Gutter & Pvm1
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
0.43
0.85
1,353.34
382.14. -
-0 -'
�r735•
S0.
LEO GARCIA, M.D.
' Planting strip out of Lot 14,
5.0 LF
20.0 SF
Curb,Gutter & Pvmi
Sidewalk
5.88
0.43
29.40
8.66
eekman Place
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
nrecorded
00% Assessed
3b.00
SH LANE INTEFSECTION
149.32 IF
il.
LEO GARCIA, M.D.
Curb,Gutter & Pvmt
4.43
5
661.49
t 14, Beekman Place
*: =0 - ". SF
Sidewalk
0.43
-0-
Unrecorded
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
0.85
-0-
661.49
Sheet ho. 11.
Ocean Drive ,from Craig Street to Hewit Drive, Unit 2_
Zoned & Used R -1 or R -2, C.O. & Pavement $
Zoned & Used Other Than R -1 or R -2 u.l.f.$
Assessment Rate, Sidewalk per sq. ft. S
Assessment Hate, Driveway per sq. ft.
i0.
OW\FR & PROPF�TY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
ALMOUKT.
ASSESSMENT
RATE
P-MOUNT
ASSESS=:.
2.
C. RAYMOND
141.20 IY
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.8B
830.26
Lot 19, Beeman Place Annex
468.0 SF
Sidewalk
0.43
201.24
Unrecorded
120.7 SF
Driveway
0.85
102.60
100% Assessed
1,13 .10
3.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
396.0 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvx
4•x+3
1,754.28
First Baptist Church Tract
* -0-
Sidewalk
-0-
Church Use (Zone)
* -0-
Driveway
-0-
100% Assessed
1,754.28 -
*Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk &
Driveway to remain, Assessment
for pavement only.
4.
JOHY1 D. HAWN et al
326.0 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm'
5.88
1,916.88
W. S. HARNEY TRACT - TRACT T
,304.0 SF
-0- SF
Sidewalk
Driveway
0.43
0.85
560.72.
-0-
Unrecorded
_
2,477.60
100% Assessed
-
5
JOHN D: - -HAWN ' et al
320.44 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
1,884.19
,281.76 SF
Sidewalk
0.43
551.16
Unrecorded
-0- SF
Driveway
0.85
-0-
100% Assessed
, 35.37
6.
MRS. MILTON S. LEACH
75.0 LF
Curb, Gutter & Pvmt
5.88
441.00
Tract 6, Pope Tract F
Unrecorded
228.0 SF
143.3 SF_
Sidewalk
Driveway IF - 30'
0.43
0.85
98.04
121.81
100-,' Assessed
_
05
(.
L. A. PROWSE
75.0 IF
Garb, Gtii:ter & Pvm
5.88
441.00
Pope Tract F Lot A -5
Unrecorded
100;6 Assessed
208.0 SIB'
143.3 Sr
Sidewalk
riveway
0.43
0.85
89.44
221.81
tzwrl
Shee-, 12.
Ocean Drive, from Craig Street to Hewit Drive, Unit 2
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 sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft.
Tnf I
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY_DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSID
OF
AtdOUila
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSE
68.
G. L. JACKSON
106.0 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
623.28
Lot A6, Blk.1 /•
200.0 SF
Sidewalk
0.43
86.00
Port Aransas Cliffs
218.6 SF
Driveway - 22'
0.85
185.81
100% Assessed
176.1 SF
Driveway - 17'
0.85
149.67
.
1, OTZ 7
69.
MRS. B. MCGREGOR
130.0 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88.
764.40
Lot A -7, Blk 11
428.0 SF
Sidewalk
0.43
184.04
Port Aransas Cliffs
133.6 SF
Driveway - 12'
0.85
113.56
100% Assessed
1,0 2.00
70.
'PRIVATE PARK
58.44 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
4_43
258.89
HEWIT Estates
it_ -0- SF
-0- SF
Sidewalk
Driveway
0.43
0.85
. -0 -1'
-0-
'
25 9
H�WIT
DRIVE INTERSECTION
d West Side Ocean
Drive
-
OCEAN DRIVEI
FROM CRAIG STREET
TO HEWIT D
Beginning Et
Craig Street
- East Side
1711.85 IF
`71.
SCOTCH INVESTMENT
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
14.20
-0-
Lots 1,2,3, & 4, C. G. Glasscock
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
-0-
Bay Front Addition
-0-
Driveway
-0-
-0-
-0-
Other than R -1 or R -2
*No Assessment by previous Agre
ment
72.
COLE PARK
-0-
City. Property
-0-
73.
ROSS GARZA, 10
205.6 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
1,208.93
East, Lot 2, Watson Place
Sidewalk
-0-
-O-
100% Assessed
Driveway
-0-
-0-
I1,2o 3 .93
. _
_ . :'� ' _ .. _+.�._ .....,, •.Y'ii°s.... e �kl .: t:
:...... .. _ _ :{
. ^ +fv� � . _...,... _
._ e.,:7.'S`- 4 „'m.,
....y _., ° �' ..
n.. y!4
Sheet No. 13,
Ocean Drive from Craig Street to Hewit Drive, Unit 2
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 sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
PENT
h0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
AMOUNT
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSK
74.
W. K. SHEPPERD
102.80 IF
Curb,Gutter &
5.88
604.46
E., Lot 3, Blk. 7, Matt Dunn
Unrecorded Subdivision
Sidewalk
Driveway
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
100%, Assessed
75.
C. J- HOLMES
E., Lot 4, Blk. 7, Matt Dunn
102.80 LF
-0-
Curb,Gatter & PvEt
SidewalkV
5.88
-0-
604.46
-0-
Unrecorded Subdivision
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
-0-
-0-
604.46
76.
SAM TAYLOR
E. Lot 5 -A, Blk 7, Matt Dunn
Unrecorded Subdivision
102.80 IF
-0-
-0-
Curb,Gutter & Pvm;
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
604.46
-0-
-0-
100% Assessed
77.
CITY RIGHT OF 'WAY -.
E. Lot 6-A, Blk 7, Matt Dunn
154.19 IF
-O-
Curb, Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
5.88
-0-
906.64
-0-
Unrecorded Subdivision
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
-0-
-0-
0.00_
78.
CITY RICHT'OF'WAY •
E. Lot 6, Blk. 7, Matt Dunn
215.87 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
5.88
-0-
1,269.32
-0-
Unrecorded Subdivision
100% Assessed
Driveway
-0-
-0-
0.0C
79•
'CITY OF RIGHT OF WAY
E. Lot 1 -A, Matt Dunn Blk. 8
100% Assessed
102.79 IF.
-0-
Curb,Gutter & Pvm-
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
6o4.41
-0-
=0-
O.00
80.
JOHN H. YOCHEM
102.79 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
604.41
E. Lot 2, Blk. 8, Matt Dunn
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
'_O_
Unrecorded Subdivision
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
-0-
-0-
� 1
Sheet 1— 14
Ocean Drive from Craig Street to Hewit Drive, Unit 2
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 sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
.TEM
—
N0.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUPi'IT1TY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ASSESSED
OF
AMOUNT
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESSE.:
81.
CONRAD BLUCHER
E
Matt Dunn
Unrecorded Subd-
205.58 IF
-0-
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
1,208.81
-0-
-0-
1,208.81
100% Assessed
82.
W. R. HURLER-
103' Matt Dunn, Unrecorded
70' Bessar Park
100% Assessed
173.0 IF
-0-
-0-
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
1,017.24
-0-
-0-
1,017.2
83•
FRANK CECH
Lot 12, Bessar Park
Unrecorded
100% Assessed
195.20 LF
-o-
-0-
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-.
1,147.78.
-0-
-0-
1,147.7b
84.
JOHN J. PICHINSON
Bessar Park
Unrecorded
100% Assessed
130.53 IF
-0-
-0-
Curb,Gutter Pvmt
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
767 -52
-0-
-0-
7 7'52
85.
V. L. ROSSI, EST.
Lot "B ", Sydney P. Cahndler
Unrecorded
100% Assessed
150.0 IF
-0-
-0-
Curb,Gutter&Pvmt
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
882.00
-0-
-0-
_
882.00
86.
NORMAN FOSTER
Lot "A" Sydney P. Chandler
Unrecorded
100% Assessed
150.0 LF
-o-
-0-
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
882.00
-0-
-0-
2.00
87.
'
L. W. 6. JANSSEN
100p Assessed
75.0 IF
-0-
-0-
Curb,Gutter & Pvmt
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
-0-
-0-
441.00
-0-
-0-
1.00
- Sheet T' 15.
I
Ocean• Drive from CrLe Street to Hewit Drive, Unit 2.
_ 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 sq. ft. $
Assessment Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
NO.
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QL'P16TITY
ASSESSED
DESCRIPTION
OF
ASSESSMENT
RATE
AMOUNT
TOTAL
AMOUP:T
ASSESSEL
38-
PRIVATE PARK (Harvey Weil,
415.18 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
2,441.26
Unrecorded
4,75-10 SF
Sidewalk
-0-
-0-
Unrecorded
Driveway
-0-
-0-
91.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
368.64 LF
100% Assessed
5.88
2,167.60
39•
DR. HANS E. HEYMANN
195.32 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
1,148.83
E. Lots 17 & 18, Beekman Place
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
-0-
100% Assessed
-0-
Driveway
-0-
-0-
2,167.W-
90.
P. J. HENDRICKS
69.20 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm1
5.88
406.90
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
-0-
Unrecorded
4,75-10 SF
Driveway -16.6'
0.85
..62.13'
469. 03- -
100% Assessed
91.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH
368.64 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
2,167.60
Tract
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
-0-
Church Use
-0-
Driveway
-0-
-0-
100% A
2,167.W-
92.
DR. B. B. FRIEDMAN
99.0 IF
Curb,Gutter & Pvmi
5.88
582.12
P.A. Cliffs
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
-0-
100% Assessed
•iE -0- SF
Driveway
0.85
- -0-
582.12•
93•
B. F. HARRISON
324.54 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvm
5.88
1,908.30
Tract 3, Pope Tract "F"
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
-0-
tE. -0 -* SF
Driveway - 15'
0.85
=0-
# -Q- SF
Driveway - 14'
0.85
-O-
,9- 08:3x..
)4.
FRANKLIN FLATO
435.0 LF
Curb,Gutter & Pvmt
5.88
2,557.80
(Unrecorded) P.A. Cliffs
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
-0 -.
100% Assessed
# -0- Sr
- 19'
0.85
-0-
I
-0- SF
Fiveway
iveway - 18'
0.85
0-
1 1-.' . >i M,. r.. f .r. ,Fl�i'♦ :� <':4 ... if$:. F� > .�'t•@, ..�Y�z�':� �`,�.�i,�.:, +- •1': ^�rlcxi.N'; •J,•?.y.:. .'..`. �•
• Shoot 16..
S
Ocean _Drive. I-rc-a tree' wit Drive, Unit 2
- --------------------
&- Used R-1 or R-2, C.G. & Daverent
i Used Other Than 1-1 or !R-f J.f.$
Rate, Sidewalk .)or so. ft.
Rate, Driveway per sq. ft. $
OM NER L% PROP -T?.TY Dl,SCR.Tr-.rlO:i quinfna --ESCRiPTION
AS3ES•ED OF
•951 FPM MORGAIN
(Unrecorded) P.A. Cliffs
T. F. SMITH
Lots 1 & 2, BIA. 4
Alta Vista on the -ray and
25' out of unmunbered lot.
1001% Assessed
M2
Total Contract Price
%,7r-VV-,-UQ-. ;FV 479,662.40
Total Ass•essiaents
City's Portion
TOTAL
iSSESSt;ENT
I'140UNT
302.85
LF
C",rb, Getter & Pvr.
0-
-0-
sidewalk
-0-
-0-
Driveway
125.0
I-F
C.','-'-b, Gutter & Pvn
-0-
-0-
IF3:%
Sidewalk
41133-6
SF
Driveway 121
kf 159.1
SP
Driveway 15'
END EAST
OCRA:,i
1),RrIE
END OF
OCEAN DRIVE
1S�h'e,.unmc
M2
Total Contract Price
%,7r-VV-,-UQ-. ;FV 479,662.40
Total Ass•essiaents
City's Portion
4-70ee,-
7bl, -P.491
X03, 4Z4,
TOTAL
RATE
I'140UNT
1.. 5 8 E S 3'-;'-
5.88
1,780.76
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
i,7 7TO - 7
5.88
735.00
0-
z4 A5
-0-
IF3:%
4-70ee,-
7bl, -P.491
X03, 4Z4,
SECTION 4. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT IN THE EVENT THE ACTUAL
FRONTAGE OF ANY PROPERTY HEREIN ASSESSED SHALL BE FOUND UPON THE COMPLETION
OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS TO BE GREATER OR LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF FEET HEREIN -
ABOVE STATED, THE ASSESSMENTS HEREIN SET AGAINST ANY SUCH PROPERTY AND
AGAINST THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, SHALL BE, AND THE SAME
ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE INCREASED OR DECREASED AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN
THE PROPORTION WHICH SAID EXCESS OR DEFICIENCY OR FRONTAGE SHALL BEAR TO
THE WHOLE NUMBER OF FRONT FEET OF PROPERTY ACTUALLY IMPROVED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE FRONT FOOT RULE OR RATE OF ASSESSMENT HEREIN ADOPTED, IT BEING
THE INTENTION THAT EACH PARCEL OF PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR
OWNERS THEREOF ABUTTING ON THE PORTION OF THE STREETS ABOVE DESCRIBED,
WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, SHALL PAY FOR SAID IMPROVEMENTS UNDER THE "FRONT
FOOT RULE OR PLAN", WHICH RULE OR PLAN IS HEREBY FOUND AND DETERMINED TO
BE JUST AND EQUITABLE AND TO PRODUCE A SUBSTANTIAL EQUALITY, HAVING IN VIEW
THE SPECIAL BENEFITS TO BE RECEIVED AND THE BURDENS IMPOSED THEREBY; AND IT
IS FURTHER ORDAINED THAT UPON FINAL COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF SAID IM-
PROVEMENTS ON SAID PORTION OF OCEAN DRIVE, ALL CERTIFICATES HEREINAFTER
PROVIDED FOR, ISSUED TO EVIDENCE SAID ASSESSMENTS AGAINST SAID PARCELS OF
PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID STREETI AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS
THEREOF SHALL BE ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH] AND SHALL EVIDENCE THE ACTUAL
FRONTAGE OF SAID PROPERTY AND THE ACTUAL COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS, THE
AMOUNT NAMED IN SAID CERTIFICATE IN NO CASE TO EXCEED THE AMOUNT HEREIN
ASSESSED AGAINST SUCH PROPERTY UNLESS SUCH INCREASE BE CAUSED BY AN EXCESS
OF FRONT FOOTAGE OVER THE AMOUNT HEREINABOVE STATED, SUCH ACTUAL COST AND
SUCH ACTUAL NUMBER OF FRONT FEET, IF DIFFERENT FROM THE HEREINABOVE SHOWN
IN SECTION 3 HEREOF, TO BE DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS UPON
COMPLETION OF SAID WORK ON SAID STREET, AND THE FINDINGS OF THE DIRECTOR
OF PUBLIC WORKS SHALL BE FINAL AND BINDING UPON ALL PARTIES CONCERNED.
SECTION 5. THAT THE SEVERAL SUMS MENTIONED ABOVE IN SECTION 3
HEREOF ASSESSED AGAINST SAID PARCELS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING ON THE PORTION
-7-
L
Y
OF OCEAN DRIVE, WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS
THEREOF: WHETHER NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED HEREIN OR NOT, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 HEREOF. TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE
OF FIVE PERCENT (5 %) PER ANNUM WITH REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND ALL COSTS
AND EXPENSES OF COLLECTION, IF INCURRED, ARE HEREBY DECLARED TO BE MADE A
FIRST AND PRIOR LIEN UPON THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF PROPERTY, AGAINST WHICH
SAME ARE ASSESSED FROM AND AFTER THE DATE SAID IMPROVEMENTS WERE ORDERED BY
SAID CITY COUNCIL, TO -WIT: SEPTEMBER 21, 1967, AND A PERSONAL LIABILITY AND
CHARGE AGAINST THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS BE NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED
HEREIN, AND THAT SAID LIEN SHALL BE AND CONSTITUTE THE FIRST AND PRIOR
ENFORCEABLE CLAIM AGAINST THE PROPERTY ASSESSED AND SHALL BE A FIRST AND
PARAMOUNT LIEN SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER LIENS, CLAIMS OR TITLE, EXCEPT FOR
LAWFUL AD VALOREM TAXES; AND THAT THE SAME SO ASSESSED SHALL BE PAYABLE, AS
FOLLOWS, TO -WIT: SIXTY (6O) EQUAL MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS, THE FIRST OF WHICH
WILL BE PAYABLE ON OR BEFORE TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF SAID
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREETS UPON WHICH THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTY ABUTS, AND
ACCEPTANCE THEREOF BY THE SAID CITY COUNCIL, THE REMAINING INSTALLMENTS TO
BE DUE AND PAYABLE, RESPECTIVELY, ONE EACH MONTH BEGINNING SIXTY (60) DAYS
AFTER THE DATE OF ACCEPTANCE, DEFERRED PAYMENTS TO BEAR INTEREST FROM DATE
OF SAID ACCEPTANCE AT THE RATE OF FIVE PERCENT (5 %) PER ANNUM, PAYABLE
MONTHLY CONCURRENTLY WITH EACH OF SAID INSTALLMENTS; PAST DUE INSTALLMENTS
OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST TO BEAR INTEREST AT THE SAME RATE PER ANNUM UNTIL
PAID; HOWEVER, PROVIDED THAT ANY OWNER OF SUCH PROPERTY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT
TO PAY OFF THE ENTIRE SUM OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS OR ANY INSTALLMENT THEREOF;
BEFORE MATURITY, BY PAYING PRINCIPAL AND ACCRUED INTEREST TO DATE OF SAID
PAYMENT; AND PROVIDED, FURTHER, THAT IF DEFAULT SHALL BE MADE IN THE PAY-
MENT OF ANY INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL OR INTEREST WHEN DUE, THEN THE ENTIRE
AMOUNT OF SAID ASSESSMENT UPON WHICH SUCH DEFAULT IS MADE, SHALL AT THE
OPTION OF HELDENFELS BROTHERS, THEIR SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS BED AND BECOME
IMMEDIATELY DUE AND PAYABLE AND SHALL BE COLLECTIBLE TOGETHER WITH REASON-
ABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES AND ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES OF COLLECTION, IF INCURRED.
9.13
SECTION 6. THAT THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, SHALL NOT IN
ANY MANNER BE LIABLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF ANY SUMS HEREBY VALIDLY ASSESSED
AGAINST ANY ABUTTING PROPERTY, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF,
BUT HELDENFELS BROTHERS SHALL LOOK SOLELY TO SUCH PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND
TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE SUMS VALIDLY ASSESSED
AGAINST SAID RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF PROPERTY, BUT SAID CITY SHALL BE OBLIGATED
TO FURNISH HELDENFELS BROTHERS VALID ASSESSMENTS AND ASSESSMENT CERTIFICATES
AND SHALL EXERCISE ALL OF ITS LAWFUL POWERS AND AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT AND
COLLECTION OF SAID LIENS AND ASSESSMENTS; AND 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 ENFORCED AT THE OPTION OF HELDENFELS BROTHERS, THEIR SUCCESSORS
OR 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 PRO-
VIDED BY LAW AND CHARTER IN FORCE IN SAID CITY FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY
FOR THE COLLECTION OF AD VALOREM TAXES.
SECTION 7• THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVIDENCING SAID ASSESSMENTS,
THE LIENS SECURING SAME AND THE SEVERAL SUMS ASSESSED AGAINST THE SAID PAR-
CELS OF PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF AND THE TIME
AND TERMS OF PAYMENTS AND TO AID IN THE ENFORCEMENT THEREOF, ASSIGNABLE
CERTIFICATES SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, TO
HELDENFELS BROTHERS UPON THE COMPLETION OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID
STREET AND ACCEPTANCE THEREOF BY SAID CITY COUNCIL, WHICH CERTIFICATES
SHALL BE EXECUTED BY THE MAYOR IN THE NAME OF THE CITY ATTESTED BY THE
CITY SECRETARY WITH THE CORPORATE SEAL OF SAID CITY, AND WHICH CERTIFICATES
SHALL DECLARE THE AMOUNTS OF SAID ASSESSMENTS AND THE TIMES AND TERMS THERE-
OF, THE RATE OF INTEREST THEREON, THE DATE OF THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE
OF THE IMPROVEMENTS FORWHICH THE CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED, AND SHALL CONTAIN
THE NAMES OF THE APPARENT TRUE 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 DESCRIPTION AS MAY OTHERWISE IDENTIFY
THE SAME, AND IF THE SAID PROPERTY SHALL BE OWNED BY ANESTATE OR FIRM,
-9-
THEN TO SO STATE THE FACT SHALL BE SUFFICIENT AND NO ERROR OR MISTAKE IN
DESCRIBING SUCH PROPERTY OR IN GIVING THE NAME OF ANY OWNER OR OWNERS OR
OTHERWISE, SHALL IN ANYWISE INVALIDATE OR IMPAIR THE ASSESSMENT LEVIED
HEREBY OR THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN EVIDENCE THEREOF.
THAT 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 HELDENFELS BROTHERS THEIR
SUCCESSORS ORASSIGNS, OR THE HOLDER THEREOF, THE WHOLE OF SAID ASSESS-
MENT EVIDENCED THEREBY SHALL AT ONCE BECOME DUE AND PAYABLEI 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 PROP-
ERTY, 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, TO -WIT:
SEPTEMBER 21, 1967, AND SHALL PROVIDE IN EFFECT THAT IF DEFAULT SHALL BE
MADE IN THE PAYMENT THEREOF, THE SAME MAY BE ENFORCED AT THE OPTION OF
HELDENFELS BROTHERS OR THEIR SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, BY THE SALE OR 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.
THAT SAID CERTIFICATES SHALL FURTHER RECITE IN EFFECT THAT ALL THE
PROCEEDINGS WITH REFERENCE TO MAKING SAID IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN REGULARLY
HAD IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND CHARTER IN FORCE IN SAID CITY AND THE
PROCEEDINGS OF SAID CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY, AND THAT ALL PREREQUISITES
TO THE FIXING OF THE ASSESSMENT LIEN AGAINST THE PROPERTY THEREIN DESCRIBED,
OR ATTEMPTED TO BE DESCRIBED AND THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF THE REAL AND
TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, EVIDENCED BY SUCH CERTIFICATES, 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.
ME
THAT ALL SAID CERTIFICATES MAY HAVE COUPONS ATTACHED THERETO IN
EVIDENCE OF EACH OR ANY OF THE SEVERAL INSTALLMENTS THEREOF, WHICH MAY BE
SIGNED WITH THE FACSIMILE SIGNATURES OF THE MAYOR AND CITY SECRETARY.
THAT 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
ENFORCEMENT 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 8. THAT ALL SUCH ASSESSMENTS LEVIED ARE A PERSONAL LIA-
BILITY AND CHARGE AGAINST THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY
DESCRIBED, OR ATTEMPTED TO BE DESCRIBED, NOTWITHSTANDING SUCH OWNER OR
OWNERS MAY NOT BE NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED, AND ANY IRREGULARITY IN THE NAME
OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE DESCRIPTION OF ANY PROPERTY OR THE AMOUNT OF
ANY ASSESSMENT, OR IN ANY OTHER MATTER OR THING SHALL NOT IN ANYWISE IN-
VALIDATE OR IMPAIR ANY ASSESSMENT LEVIED HEREBY OR ANY CERTIFICATE ISSUED
AND SUCH MISTAKE, OR ERROR)INVALIDITY OR IRREGULARITY WHETHER IN SUCH
ASSESSMENT OR IN THE CERTIFICATE IN EVIDENCE THEREOF, MAY BED BUT IS NOT
REQUIRED TO BED TO BE ENFORCEABLE AT ANY TIME CORRECTED BY THE SAID CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI. FURTHER THAT THE OMISSION OF SAID
IMPROVEMENTS IN FRONT OF ANY PART OR PARCEL OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON THE
AFOREMENTIONED STREETS, WHICH IS EXEMPT FROM THE LIEN OF SAID ASSESSMENT,
SHALL IN NO WISE AFFECT OR IMPAIR THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE
OTHER PARCELS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID STREET; AND THAT THE TOTAL
AMOUNTS ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON
SAID STREET WITHIN THE LIMITS HEREIN DEFINED, AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER
OR OWNERS THEREOF ARE THE SAME ASS OR LESS THAN, THE ESTIMATE OF SAID
ASSESSMENT 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 COUNCIL RELATIVE TO SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS THEREOF, AND WITH
6�
THE TERMS POWERS AND PROVISIONS OF SAID CHAPTER 106 OF THE ACTS OF THE
FIRST - CALLED SESSION OF THE 40TH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, KNOWN
AS ARTICLE 11056 OF VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS AND THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, UNDER WHICH TERMS, POWERS
AND PROVISIONS SAID PROCEEDINGS, SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS WERE
HAD AND MADE BY SAID CITY COUNCIL.
SECTION 9. THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STREET IS AN
IMPORTANT THOROUGHFARE AND IS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT, AND THE FACT THAT THE
PRESENT CONDITION OF SAID STREET, WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, IS DANGEROUS
TO THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE INHABITANTS THEREOF CREATES A PUBLIC
EMERGENCY AND AN IMPERATIVE PUBLIC NECESSITY, REQUIRING THE SUSPENSION OF
THE CHARTER RULE THAT NO ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE PASSED FINALLY
ON THE DATE OF ITS INTRODUCTION, AND THAT SAID ORDINANCE SHALL BE READ AT
THREE SEVERAL MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE MAYOR HAVING DECLARED
THAT SUCH EMERGENCY AND NECESSITY EXISTS, AND HAVING REQUESTED THAT SAID
CHARTER RULE BE SUSPENDED, AND THAT THIS ORDINANCE BE PASSED FINALLY ON
THE DATE OF ITS INTRODUCTION AND THAT THIS ORDINANCE TAKE EFFECT AND BE IN
FULL FORCE AND EFFECT FROM AND AFTER ITS PASSAGE, IT IS ACCORDINGLY SO
ORDAINED, THIS TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1967.
ATTEST:
CI SECRETA Y Y
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
APPROVED AS TO E FORM T
_DAY OF OCTCSER, 1967:
CITY 'TT 'NEY`
CORPUS CHRISTI, TE g�
DAY OF 4 , 19
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE OF THE FOREGOING
ORDINANCE, A PUBLIC EMERGENCY AND IMPERATIVE NECESSITY EXIST FOR THE SUSPEN-
SION 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 COUNCIL; I, THEREFORE,
REQUEST THAT YOU SUSPEND SAID CHARTER RULE OR REQUIREMENT AND PASS THIS ORDI-
NANCE FINALLY ON THE DATE IT IS INTRODUCED, OR AT THE PRESENT MEETING OF THE
CITY COUNCIL.
RESPECTFULLY,
Wv�
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
THE CHARTER RULE WAS SUSPE ED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
JACK R. BLACKMON
RONNIE SIZEMORE /
V. A. "DICK" BRADLEY, sJR.✓ /
P. JIMENEZ; JR., M.D. rA
GABE LOZANO; SR. /
KEN MCDANIEL /
W. J. "WRANGLER" ROBERTS \,
THE ABOVE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
JACK R. BLACKMON
RONNIE SIZEMORE ✓
V. A. "DICK" BRADLEY, JR,/"—
P. JIMENEZ, JR., M.D. f
GABE LOZANO, SR. v t=�
KEN MCDANIEL
W. J. "WRANGLER" ROBERTS ��