HomeMy WebLinkAbout09143 ORD - 11/27/1968BjW�Ii /i; /F8 •
AN ORDINANCE
CLOSING THE HEARING ON STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR OCEAN
DRIVE FROM HEWIT DRIVE TO AIRLINE ROAD, AND FINDING
AND DETERMINING THAT PROPERTY ABUTTING SAID STREET
WILL BE SPECIFICALLY BENEFITTED AND ENHANCED IN VALUE
IN EXCESS OF COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS, AND LEVYING AN
ASSESSMENT; FIXING A CHARGE A14D LIEN, THE MANNER AND
TlhZ OF PAYMENT AND COLLECTION; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
' :lHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, BY DULY ENACTED
ORDINANCE PASSED AND APPROVED ON AUGUST Zi, 1968, DETERMINED THE NECESSITY
FOR, AND ORDERED THE IMPROVEMENT OF OCEAN DRIVE, FROM HEWIT DRIVE TO AIRLINE
ROAD, IN THE MANNER AND ACCORDING TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS HERETOFORE
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BY ORDINANCE DATED AUGUST 21, 1968,
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 114 THE M.AHNER 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 114PROVEMENTS TO SAID CITY, ALL
AS PROVIDED BY THE CORPUS CHRISTI CITY CHARTER AND BY LA'vl, 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 AUGUST 21, 1968, AND THE PERFORMANCE BOND RCQUIRED 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 A14D 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
911113
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
WHEREAS, SAID CITY COUNCIL, BY DULY ENACTED ORDINANCE DATED
AUGUST 21, 19681 DID DETERMINE THE NECESSITY OF LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT FOR
THAT PORTION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING SAID IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ABOVE -NAMED
STREET, WITHIN THE LIMITS HEREIN DEFINED, TO BE PAID BY THE ABUTTING PROPERTY
AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, AND BY ORDINANCE DATED OCTOBER 9, ,11968,
DID ORDER AND SET A HEARING TO BE HELD 4T 2:00 O'CLOCK P.M. ON NOVEM 4
BER ,
19681 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY HALL OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, FOR
THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID STREET, WITHIN
THE LIMITS ABOVE DEFINED, AND FOR ALL OTHERS OWNING OR CLAIMING ANY INTEREST
IN, OR OTHERWISE INTERESTED IN SAID PROPERTY, OR ANY OF SAID MATTERS AS TO
THE ASSESSMENTS AND AMOUNTS TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PARCEL OF ABUTTING
PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, AND AS TO THE SPECIAL
BENEFITS TO ACCRUE TO SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY BY VIRTUE OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS,
IF ANY, OR CONCERNING ANY ERROR, INVALIDITY, IRREGULARITY OR DEFICIENCY IN
ANY PROCEEDINGS, OR CONTRACT, TO APPEAR AND BE HEARD IN PERSON OR BY COUNSEL
AND OFFER EVIDENCE IN REFERENCE TO SAID MATTERS; AND THE CITY COUNCIL DID
BY SAID ORDINANCE ORDER AND DIRECT THE CITY TO GIVE NOTICE OF SAID HEARING
TO THE OWNERS ABUTTING UPON SAID STREET AS SHOWN BY THE CURRENT AD VALOREM
TAX ROLL BY MAILING SUCH NOTICE TO SUCH OWNERS AND PUBLISHING SAID NOTICE
AT LEAST THREE TIMES IN THE CORPUS CHRISTI TIMES BEFORE THE DATE OF THE
HEARING, SUCH NOTICE BY MAIL AND BY PUBLICATION BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1105B OF VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS;
AND
WHEREAS, SUCH NOTICE WAS GIVEN SAID OWNERS OF PROPERTY AS SHOWN
ON THE CURRENT AD VALOREM TAX ROLL WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE STREET BEING
IMPROVED BY MAILING SUCH NOTICE AT LEAST FOURTEEN (14) DAYS PRIOR TO THE
HEARING TO SUCH OWNERS AND BY PUBLISHING THREE TIMES NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING
IN THE CORPUS CHRISTI TIMES, THE FIRST OF WHICH PUBLICATION WAS AT LEAST
I41
TWENTY -ONE (21) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SAID HEARING; BOTH FORMS OF NOTfCE
BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH AND CONTAINING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED BY
ARTICLE 11050, VERNON'S ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES,
WIiEREAS, AFTER DUE, REGULAR AND PROPER NOTICE THEREOF, ALL AS PRO-
VIDED BY LAW AND THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, SAID HEARING OF
WHICH NOTICE WAS GIVEN, WAS OPENED AND HELD ON NOVEMBER 4, 1968, IN THE
COUNCIL CHAMBER AT CITY HALL IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH SAID ORDINANCE AND NOTICE, AT WHICH TIME AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN
TO ALL SAID ABOVE - MENTIONED PERSONS, FIRMS, CORPORATIONS AND ESTATES, THEIR
AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS, TO BE HEARD AND TO OFFER EVIDENCE AS TO ALL MATTERS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SAID ORDINANCE AND NOTICE, AT WHICH TINE THE FOLLOWING
APPEARED AND OFFERED THE FOLLOWING TESTIMONY:
-3-
r
MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1968
2 :00 P.M.
PRESENT:
Mayor Jack R. Blackmon
Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Sizemore
Commissioners:
Dick Bradley, Jr.
Gabe Lozano, Sr.
Ken McTAniel
W. J. Roberts
City Manager R. Marvin Townsend
City Attorney I. M. Singer
Asst' City Attorney Tom McDowell
City Secretary T. Ray Kring
Mayor Jack R. Blackmon celled the meeting to order and directed that it
be noted that a quorum was present, and stated that the purpose of the meeting
was to hold a public hearing on paving assessments for street improvements on
Ocean Drive between Hewit and approximately 595 feet east of Airline Road. He
explained that a public hearing on this project had been held September 9, 1968,
and officially closed September 25, 1968, and the assessment roll approved with
minor corrections; that complaints had been received from some of the property
owners that they had not received sufficient notice of this hearing to prepare a
presentation of evidence in protest of the assessments, and had requested that the
hearing be re- opened; that on October 9, 1968, the date of November 4, was set for
a new public hearing. He explained the procedure to be followed and noted that
each member of the Council had been presented with a copy of the assessment roll,
and that Assistant City Attorney Tom McDowell, would conduct the public hearing.
Mr. McDowell stated that since this is the second hearing, and the Council
is familiar with the general nature of the project, the usual testimony of what
the project encompasses will be brief; that the Staff would offer testimony from
the City Engineer, and evaluation testimony from Mr. Harold Carr, real estate
appraiser to substantiate the assessments which appear on the assessment roll,
and that the hearing was to form a basis on which the Council would determine or
establish the assessments on the abutting properties.
Mr. James K. Lontos, City Engineer, presented the plans for the street
improvements in general terms, and pointed out on a map the proposed improvements,
more specifically where necessary. He described the type of pavement, width of
medians which vary at intersections, driveways, drainage, utility lines, and
location of curb and gutters. He stated that the total contract price was
$1,248,514.40; the property owner's assessment was $259,145.38; and that the City's
portion was $989,369.02; explained the manner in which the pro rate share was
0 .. . . .. .. •
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 2
computed, and that the contract had been awarded to Heldenfels Brothers on the
basis of their low bid meeting specifications; that there will be six moving lanes
and one parking lane, and that 250 working days have been allotted for completion
of the project.
Property owners in the audience were given the opportunity to question
Mr. Lontos for information as to specifications, location and construction of drive-
ways, type of pavement, location of sidewalks, curb and gutters, utility lines and
provision for drainage.
Attorney Edmond Ford, representing six property owners, inquired as to
what basis for determination for width of right of way at each specific point on
Ocean Drive, had been made; at what points parking will be permitted, and if it
will be permitted on both sides of the street, and stated that this information
is pertinent if it is what Mr. Carr is going to base his testimony on. He asked
for information as to what the Master TransportationPlan provides with respect
to traffic on this street; asked if it is going to be parking or travel; inquired
as to the difficulties incurred in the determination of conditions of pavement
at specific locations.
Mr. Lontos explained that the width of the right of way and determination
of property limits had all been made by Staff, reports and recommendations, and
that the plans and specifications had been prepared before the bonds were voted;
stated that parking regulations are a discretionary matter with every City Council;
that the Master Transportation Plan has not been adopted with respect to traffic
regulations; that the bonds voted for this project called for six moving lanes of
traffic; and so far as difficulties with respect to condition of the pavement,
stated that there are no difficulties at this time, but that this statement is
based on a general concept.
Attorney Pat Morris inquired if the stated 250 working days allowed for
completion took into account for bad weather; what items were included in compu-
tation of cost of paving; and if seawall and drainage were included.
Mr. Lontos stated that the 250 working days is an approximate figure,
assuming reasonable weather conditions, and is in the upper limits, but might be
one year by the calendar; that construction of the seawall and drainage is not
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 3
included in the time allotted for completion of the project.
Attorney Jim Ryan, representing L. M. Fisher property, requested figures
on the condition of the pavement in front of the subject property, and as to the
age of the pavement on all of Ocean Drive; asked if the $5.88 p.l.f. for property
zoned and used "R -l" or "R -2" is the same figure used for assessing property all
over the City.
Mr. Lontos explained that the answers to these questions are the same as
given to Mr. Ford, but that the City had made numerous repairs all the way up and
down Ocean Drive; that the overall general condition of existing pavement is
deteriorated; that he was not informed as to the exact age of the present paving;
and explained that if the actual rate exceeds $5.88 p.l.f. then that is the
figure used all over town.
Others appearing and requesting information as to construction specifi-
cations were Oscar Spitz, 3285 Ocean Drive; F. I. Davisson, 4200 Ocean Drive;
Mr. Hudson; Bernie Karchmer; Dr. and Mrs. Boyd H. Hall; and Adrian L. Thomas.
Questions were asked as to type of drainage; as to the portion of right of way
taxable with respect to ad valorem taxes; and basis for assessment rates and
credits allowed.
Mr. McDowell questioned Mr. Lontos as to his qualifications and experience
as a professional engineer, and this being established, Mr. Lontos stated that it
is his testimony that the overall general condition of the existing pavement is in
a deteriorated condition caused by heavy traffic and bad drainage facilities
which has damaged the base of the pavement, and stated that there is no doubt in
his mind that the proposed improvements are indicated.
Mr. Ford sought to establish that, in view of Mr. Lontos' testimony that
the street is in very bad condition caused by heavy traffic, that the 45 mile per
hour speed limit is not a safe speed on a deteriorated street, and asked Mr. Lontos
if he anticipates, or is it deliberately planned, that the volume of traffic will
be increased as a result of the new improvements.
Mr. Lontos stated that this is a traffic engineering problem over which
he has not been charged with the responsibility, but explained that some sections
of the roadway have a 35 m.p.h. speed limit, that the Council has already determined
that the street should be improved, and that was his opinion and has not been
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 4
changed. He further stated that the volume of traffic is enough to classify the
street as a collector street now, and that traffic will be increased, not entirely
as a result of the improved street, but because more homes are being built, and an
increased population naturally increases volume of traffic on all streets.
Mr. McDowell called to the stand Mr. Harold Carr, real estate appraiser
employed as the City's expert witness. Mr. McDowell provided the Council with a
written statement as to Mr. Carr's qualifications as a real estate appraiser. Mr.
Carr testified that he is familiar with the subject section of Ocean Drive; that
he had testified at the first hearing; that he had inspected the area in question,
and understood the extent and specifications of the proposed improvements. He
showed colored slides to more accurately describe the present condition of the
roadway and abutting properties, and also showed slides of the portion of the pro-
ject which has been completed. He pointed out the land uses of the various sections
beginning at Hewit Drive southward, stating that apartment uses begin at Rossiter;
that residental uses predominate as far down as the Riviera Apartments, and that
beyond this there is a cluster of motels. He stated that the utility poles will
be removed and new lines installed underground; pointed out that some of the public
right of way is now being used by abutting property owners for fences, screening
walls, parking areas, hedges, trees, planter boxes and turning driveways; also
pointed out that ditches and privately owned culverts are in the public right of
way. He specifically pointed out that the screening wall on the property
is in the public right of way; that credit has been given for the standard curb
and gutters at the Flato property and the Riviera, and pointed out that some of
these properties are zoned "AT" but are improved with one - family homes.
Mr. Carr testified that he had personally reviewed the plans and speci-
fications for the proposed improvements; had taken into consideration the fact
that some of the abutting properties are zoned for apartment uses but are being
used for single - family dwellings, and that after reviewing the assessment rates
and inspecting the plans, that based on his experience as a real estate appraiser,
stated that it is his opinion that each and every piece of property as they
appear on the assessment roll, will be enhanced in value at least to the amount
of the assessment.
Mayor Blackmon stated he would call the names of the property owners as
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 5
they are listed on the assessment roll, and that each property owner or his
representative, would be given the opportunity to question Mr. Carr and to state
his or her approval or objection to any of the proposed improvements or assess-
ments to his property. He requested that in those cases where one individual is
representing several properties, that they be taken out of their numerical order
and all discussed at the same time. The following persons appeared.
Item y#2, C. L. Van Cura - Mr. Van Cura stated that he is owner of Lots 4,
5 & 6, in Block 5, Alta Vista, and that he owns three driveways, consisting of
three entrances and three exits, and that he understands that two of these entrances
and two exits will be eliminated by the new improvements, and asked Mr. Carr if
he had taken this into consideration, and would this in his estimation, justify
the assessment. He stated he felt the $17.65 p.l.f. to be unjust, and that he
feels the duplex on Lot 4 should be assessed on duplex rates.
Mr. Carr stated that, in view of the fact that portions of these drive-
ways are located in the public right of way, he had given this fact consideration,
and did not attach any value to the fact that he had three driveways, and main-
tains that his property will be enhanced to the full extent of the assessment.
Item #9, L. M. Fisher - Attorney Jim Ryan spoke on behalf of Mr. Fischer,
and inquired if Mr. Carr had actually made an appraisal of this particular piece
of property as a unit, or on the basis of linear front foot. He questioned if
Mr. Carr had the dimensions of the triangular shape of the property at the time
of the appraisal; if the figures with reference to the depth were correct; and
on what he based his figures since it is less than average depth. He stated the
property has more frontage than the average piece of property, and that his point
is that the property is incorrectly assessed because of the shallow depth.
Mr. Carr stated that he had considered the irregular shape of this prop-
erty, and did not make an adjustment because of the depth, but that he feels it is
deeper than the 160 feet as estimated by Mr. Ryan, but possibly it should be
re- examined in this regard; that he had used Bracey's for his source of informa-
tion, and that if he is in error, the engineering department is also in error.
Mayor Blackmon advised Mr. Ryan that whatever mathematical error exists,
it will be corrected by the Staff.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 6
Item #19, Phil Massed - Mr. Massed stated that the proposed parking lane
in front of his home would result in all of the cars from the six unit apartment
adjacent to his property, parking in front of his house and would be like a used
car lot, and that in view of this, he does not feel that his property will be
benefitted.
Mr. Ford spoke on behalf of Mr. Massed, and asked Mr. Carr if, in making
his evaluation of the property, he took into consideration the fact that the out-
side lanes were going to be used for parking purposes; if he could make an estimate
as to the amount of traffic, and as to future regulation of parking on that side
of the street. He further asked if, in the opinion of Mr. Carr, would this
parking affect the value of Mr. Massad's property.
Mr. Carr stated that he did not know how long parking would be allowed
on that side of the street; that there were some conditions on OceanDrive which
are undesirable for residences; that public parking in front of a residence can be
a nuisance which might affect values, especially if the owner is deprived of its
use. He stated that the adjacent apartment only has six units which is not
considered a high density area but pointed out that the parking area presently
being used by the apartment unit, is on City right of way.
Mr. Massed agreed that the area now being used as a parking area is partially
on City right of way; that he is not trying to retard progress, but it is inevitable
that if the parking lane is provided, then the street will be substituted and
cars will be parking there all hours of the day and night, and that he does not
see how such an arrangement could be an enhancement to his property. City Manager
Townsend pointed out that the City Ordinance prohibits parking on City Streets
all night.
Mr. McDowell explained that when consideration is being given to the
effect of parking or use of the proposed parking lane, it is not to be considered
as some vested right of the public to park, but is speculative of appraised
value. He stated that Mr. Ford had not been clear as to whether or not he is
discussing public right of way, which is an entirely different proposition.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 7
Mr. Ford stated that if an assumption is made that the residents of
the adjacent apartments are going to be prohibited from using the City Streets,
they they are going to be seriously hurt, that the point cannot be taken both
ways - if the parking lane is allowed, then Mr. Massed is hurt, and if not, the
apartment owners are hurt.
Item #42, Fred Flato - Mr. Ford stated that in addition to Item #42,
he is appearing as Counsel for the following Items:
Item #43, 0. D. Edwards, Lot 3, Block 2, Cole Place
Item #57-A, Benjamin E. Eshleman, Jr., Lots 1 thru 6 & 57 thru 62,
Tract B, Seaside Camp Meeting Grounds
Item #72, Flato Bros., et al
Item #73, Phil Massed, Lots 1 & 2, Ocean Village Estates, Unit I
Item #74, Benjamin E. Eshleman, Jr., Marsden Place, Tract 1
Item #103, Fred Flato, Lots 5 & 6, Block 4, Cole Place
(tem #105, 0. D. Edwards, Lot 4, Block 4, Cole Place
Item #106, 0. D. Edwards, Lot 2, Block 4, Cole Place
Item #117, Robert H. Flato, S 2 Lot 7, all of Lot 8 & * of Lot 9, Clark
Peace Bayfront Lots
Item #125, Boyd Hall, Lot 5, Block 3, Seaside Subdivision
Item #129, Flato Brothere, et al
Item #130, Phil Massed
Item #131, Benjamin E. Eshleman, Jr.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 8
Mr. Ford cross - examined Mr. Carr as to his qualifications as an expert
real estate appraiser; as to his membership on the Committee for the Master Trans-
portation Plan, and as to his knowledge of the projected estimate of traffic flow
on Ocean Drive up to 1983. He engaged Mr. Carr in a prolonged series of questions
and answers in an effort to establish whether or not the proposed improvements on
Ocean Drive would enhance the value of the properties which he represents; whether
or not the proposed improvements would change the character of the roadway into
a main traffic artery, and if so, at what point would the increased volume of
traffic affect the valuation of existing residences. Mr. Ford sought to establish
that the proposed improvements will eventually make it one of the most heavily
traveled streets in the City, being fed from Ennis Joslin Road, Airline, Everhart
and Doddridge, and will be accompanied by excessive noises and disturbances which
start at 7 a.m. continuing until 8;30 a.m., and asked Mr. Carr if he took that
into consideration when he made his appraisals.
Mr. Carr stated that he had taken these matters into consideration when he
made his appraisals; that he had attempted to analyze what a typical future
buyer would consider, but that it was not humanly possible to estimate how much
traffic could be endured over a period of 10 years and could only interpret what
is happening on Ocean Drive at the present time. He stated that it was his
opinion that Padre Island Drive would be the most heavily traveled thoroughfare
within a period of 10 years, but that the Master Transportation Plan shows
Ocean Drive as a Type "A' Street projected.
reaard�
Mr. Ford continued to interrogate Mr. Carr
increased traffic and related nuisances would prevent residents from using their
yards or patios; that it would be a difficult situation irith respect to freedom
of children, bicycles and pets; that the prohibition of the left hand turns
will effect difficulty of approach to residences, thereby causing them consider-
able inconvenience, and in the case of commercial areas, loss of revenue by
being forced to go around about way to arrive at the Bay side property, parti-
cularly, in the area of Roberts Drive.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
Novemb -r 4, 1968
Page 9
Mr. Carr stated, with regard to the left hand turns, that there will of
necessity be some regulations that may have a detrimental effect which cannot
be avoided in the interest of safety, but pointed out that pets are not allowed
to run loose; that children should not be allowed on any heavily traveled street,
and that wherever there is traffic there is danger.
Mr. Ford asked Mr. Carr if he had checked the deed restrictions on the
Fred Plato Property before he made his determination of value, and his opinion
as to the effect of the restrictions on the value.
Mr. Carr stated that he was aware of the deed restrictions, but that he
did not feel this would decrease values for the reason that most homeowners are
satisfied to build one story houses; that he did not make a specific appraisal
of this aspect of the property in question, but could give abracket figure, and
that he had testified as to this figure at the first hearing.
Mr. Ford introduced the matter of property zoned "AT" which is presently
be used for one - family residences, and asked Mr. Carr if the property could be
used for "AT" without tearing down the existing buildings, and if it would be
equitable economically to tear down a $75,000 building to be used as "AT "; and
if he would dare to say that if there were two identical pieces of property,
one vacant and the other with Mr. Plato's house on it, would they have different
values in a fair trade.
Mr. Carr stated that the value of the land is so much greater than the
house, a buyer might consider it a good investment to tear down the house and
use the land as "AT" use, and further stated that the enhancement of the resi-
dence cannot be considered but the value must be placed on the land.
Mr. Ford asked Mr. Carr to make an assumption on what effect stacking
up of traffic at traffic lights, particularly at Airline, would have on commer-
cial property as to accessibility, and as to valuation in terms of revenue.
Mr. Carr stated that Mr. Ford was asking him to assume too much, but
that it was clear to him that the traffic controls would not be a detriment.
City Manager Townsend pointed out that there would be a traffic light
at this intersection whether or not the street is improved.
Mr. Bob Plato stated that the City of Corpus Christi does not yet offer
a market for highrise apartments, pointing out that one highrise apartment on
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 10
Ocean Drive was not successful, and for that reason and with respect to the
"AT" use, he felt that the estimated value of his property is too high. Mr.
Flato sited a sale of property in this vicinity within the last six months which
he stated was sold for the most that could be had; was not enough to substantiate
the estimated value of the subject property; maintained that his house is worth
more as a residence than it would be as "AT", and that he feels the zoning has
no bearing on the enhancement of his property.
Commissioner McDaniel asked Mr. Flato if he would consent to having his
property rezoned as residential, and Mr. Flato stated he would be willing to pay
the assessment if and when he sold the house.
Attorney McDowell asked Mr. Flato if a down- zoning application were
initiated by the City at no expense to him, would he join in the application, and
Mr. Flato stated he would not. He stated that he is in the process of having his
Property appraised through the M.A.I. which will be submitted in a few days.
Item #125, Dr. & Mrs. Boyd Hall - Mrs. Hall appeared and stated they do
not feel their property is tieing enhanced in value as a result of the proposed
improvements because they will have considerable difficulty with respect to
ingress and egress; will be bothered by noise as a result of heavy traffic, and
that they feel the assessment made on the basis of apartment zoning is excessive
and unfair. She stated that they have placed the property in the hands of a real
estate firm and that it is for sale now.
Mayor Pro Tem Sizemore asked Mrs, Hall if she would be willing to have
her property down -zoned as residential property and Mrs. Hall did not respond
to the question. It was pointed out that the Hall property is proposed to be
sold as "A2 ".
City Manager Townsend advised Mrs. Hall that the plane provide for a
median cut at the location of her property which would alleviate the difficulty
of egress and ingress.
Dr. Hall stated that several years ago he was persuaded to have a culvert
constructed in front of his home, and inquired if he would have to have it
removed and be charged for a new one. Mr. Lontos assured Dr. Hall that he would
not be required to pay for the new culvert.
Mr. Ford asked for individual statements from his clients who were present
in the audience as to their feelings and opinions with respect to their specific
r
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 11
properties. Mr. Fred Plato, Mrs. 0. D. Edwards, Mr. Robert Plato, Mr. Phil
Massed, and Dr. & Mrs. Boyd Hall, expressed objections to the improvements on
the basis of excessive traffic, noise, deprivation of privacy, obstruction from
view of the Bay, change of character of roadway, and general devaluation of prop-
erty values.
Mayor Bla.ckmor interposed the question to the residents who are voicing
opposition, as to whether or not they wanted the street to be improved or left in
its present deteriorated state, and asked for a show of hands in response to this
question. One or two persons raised their hands.
Mr. Massed and Mr. Fred Plato stated that they were aware that the improve-
ments were needed and that the street had to be improved, and were not objecting
in generalities but on specifics.
Item #116, Fleenor Garrett - Mr. L. M. Garrett appeared and stated he had
been assured that he would be heard before a determination was made as to the
width of right of way in front of his property. He inquired as to how the width
of the right of way was increased from 60 feet to } feet; that he had tried to
get an answer to this question from the Staff and had failed. He stated that he
purchased this property 56 years ago; that a plat is on record at the County
Courthouse dated November 29, 1912; stated that of all the mistakes he has made
in his lifetime, the worst one was when he moved onto Ocean Drive; that during
this time he has built three seawalls and three piers; and that he did not feel
the proposed improvements would enhance the value of his property in any way,
but on the contrary, it would be devalued. Mr. Garrett asked that the Council
take into consideration that he did not ask to be zoned for "AT" use, and that
he would be willing to have it rezoned for residential use. He further pointed
out that he has had no offers to purchase his property on the basis of the "AT"
zoning classification. He stated that he plane to pay the assessment, but that
the main reason for his being present at this hearing is to get somebody to
explain about the width of right of way, and that he only wants a fair deal from
the City Council.
Mr. McDowell stated he had checked with the Guaranty Title Company about
the plat but that he had not inquired into the width of the right of way, but
stated that it would be investigated.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 12
item #65, Jerry Chalmers, Co -Owner - David 0. Rudi.ne (Jamicen Apartments)
Mr. Ford stated that his defense of this property was covered in the cross- examina-
tion of fir. Carr earlier in the hearing. Mr. David 0. Rudine stated that they
have a specifisiproblem at the Jamican Apartments in that the apartments' bedroom
windows face on Ocean Drive; that there is an average space of 25 feet from the
outside lane of the proposed right of way line; that some sound - proofing and
shuttering of windows would be necessary; stated he felt this would be a detriment
rather than an enhancement to the property, and asked that the assessments be
eliminated.
Mr. Carr stated that the apartment complex was built with the knowledge
that the bedroom windows were facing on Ocean Drive; that the location was chosen
because it seemed to be a good place to locate and with the knowledge that the
traffic would increase. Mr. Carr further stated that by virtue of the new im-
provements, the flow of traffic would be smoother, consequently, less noisy, and
generally more pleasant, which is borne out by the completion of the first section
from Craig to Hewit; and pointed out that heavy traffic on Ocean Drive is not new.
City Manager Townsend stated that due consideration would be given to the
problem.of change in movement of parking places at this location, but that this
does not affect the assessment.
Item #66, Elizabeth Montgomery & Jack McCollum - Attorney Oscar Spitz
appeared on behalf of the owner of this property and inquired if the close prox-
imity to the swimming pool to the street was taken into consideration, stating that
approximately 20 feet of space has been eliminated between the poolside and the
right of way line, and that he considers this a detriment in view of the motel
patronage for use of the pool.
Mr. Carr stated that he was not aware of a title dispute; that he knew
of the swimming pool but was not aware of a problem; that he did try to determine
where the property line was, and that he would advise that building should be done
according to the established right of way lines, and that his opinion is still
that the property value will not be adversely affected but will be enhanced at
least to the amount of the assessment.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 13
Item #123, Marcus Lutz - Mr. Lutz stated that he did not feel he should
be assessed on the basis of "AT" zoning - that he is losing a Twenty Thousand
Dollar building and three rentals.
Item #96, W. F. Seegar - Mr. Seegar stated that his property, which is
unimproved on one lot, has no commercial value at this time on the basis that he
is unable to build on it because of the restrictions; that the only thing the
property has had on it since he purchased it in 1942 has been taxes; inquired
if he would be given credit for the seawall, and stated that he felt the assess-
ment is unfair and will create a real hardship.
Mayor Blackmon advised Mr. Seegar that this property had been appraised
under the City's intention to acquire for the Open Space Program, but advised
that credit had not been allowed for the seawall.
Item #114, F. I. Davisson - Mr. Davisson inquired as to what parking
regulations would be allowed near the curbline, and as to the exact location of
the property line. Mr. Davisson did not state that he objected to the assessment,
but asked that his initials be corrected on the assessment roll.
Item #118, Dr. Antonio Correno, M.D. - Dr, Correno appeared and stated
he was dissatisfied with the assessment on his property, and that he considered
it excessive.
Item #119, J. J. Tromm, and #120, Renton Construction Company - Attorney
Pat Morris spoke on behalf of these two items, and stated, for the sake of
brevity, and so as not to be repetitious, that for the record he was in complete
accord with the general testimony of Attorney Edmond Ford in his defense of the
properties heretofore mentioned, and that the points he sought to establish, also
applied basically to his clients' properties. Mr. Morris stated that he wished
to establish, with reference to the Riviera Apartments, and apartments owned by
Mr. Tromm, that the loss of income brought about by the construction period
should be a major consideration in the appraisal; that values should be calculated
on the basis of the assumed amount allowed for increased rentals to compensate
for the amount of the increase calculated by virtue of the new improvements. Mr.
Morris further pointed out that during the 250 working days allowed for comple-
tion of the project, lose of income should be a factor borne in mind with respect
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 14
to the blocking off of certain areas to the disadvantage of tenants, which vrill
more than off -set the amount of the assessments. He stated that the blanket
assessment of $17.65 is not an equitable figure for the reason that some properties
are going to be interrupted more than others.
Mr. Carr stated that the factors brought out by Mr. Morris could cause tem-
porary loss of income, but that appraisals were made on the property figuring the
enhancement after the improvements are installed; stated that a buyer mi&t pay
more for the property now with the knowledge that the street is going to be im-
proved. In answer to a question by Mr, McDowell, Mr. Carr stated that in con-
demnation proceedings, for the telling of private property, the factor of loss of
income is extremely speculative, and stated that his opinion is still as he stated
before, that the property will be enhanced at least to the amount of the assess-
ment on the assumption that the improvements will be installed.
Mayor Blackmon stated there are numerous factors involved when trying to
figure loss of income, such as a waiting list and number of vacancies, and that
adequate evidence is not available for such determinations.
Item #126, Joy Yates - Mrs. Yates stated that she could produce definite
evidence of loss of revenue during the construction of the first section of Ocean
Drive Project; stated she feels the assessment on her property is excessive; that
she is giving up 21 feet across the front of the property; that she does not feel
her property value is comparable to that of the 4600 Apartment Complex and other
luxury apartments on Ocean Drive; that the property should be assessed on its
merits as to revenue; that apartments are not prospering on Ocean Drive, and that
she does not feel property owners on this street should pay for a thoroughfare
which will be used by the entire City. She stated she is aware that there must
be improvements and assessments, but believes it is being assessed too high.
Mr. Ford stated that all are aware that there is a problem, and know the
street must be improved; that the residents are not just complaining to avoid
paying the assessments; that they honestly feel their property will not be enhanced;
that he feels what is being done to Robert Flato is obviously inequitable, and
suggested that the least that should be done is that "AT" valuations be reduced
to show some recognition of what is a genuine concern, and that in his opinion,
the assessments are extremely difficult to justify.
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 15
Mayor Blackmon stated that assessments hearings have always posed great
problems to the Council, but that the precedent has already been established;
pointed out the difficulty in working objectively with so many property owners
involved. He called attention to a recent assessment hearing wherein property
owners, less able to pay for street improvements, had requested the paving and
are willing to pay.
No one else appeared to be heard in connection with the proposed street
improvements.
Motion by Sizemore, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the hearing
be closed.
Motion by Sizemore, seconded by Roberts and passed, that the assessments
on Ocean Drive Improvements Unit III, be tabled for further consideration.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting
was adjourned.
APPROVED:
&DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1968:
�4 Ufa /e /
Tom McDowell, Assistant
City Attorney
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 PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OF SAID
PORTION OF SAID STREET PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST SAID PROPERTY, OR
AS TO ANY ERRORS, INVALIDITIES OR IRREGULARITIES, IN THE PROCEEDINGS OR
CONTRACT HERETOFORE HAD IN REFERENCE TO THE PORTIONS OF SAID STREET TO
BE IMPROVED; AND
1MEREAS, 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, INVALID-
ITIES-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 ANY SUCH PROTEST, CBJECTION 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 SE IMPROVED AS
HEREIN DEFINED, WILL BE ENHANCED IN VALUE AND SPECIALLY BENEFITTED BY THE
CONSTRUCTION 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 HEREINSELOW 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
DEFICIENCIES 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
HEREINBELOW 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 OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, AS JUST AND EQUITABLE, AND AS PRODUCING SUB-
STANTIAL 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 2. THAT SAID CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
UPON THE EVIDENCE HEARD IN REFERENCE TO EACH AND EVERY PARCEL OR 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
BEIN.EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF THE COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS AS PROPOSED TO
BE, AND AS HEREIN ASS'c SSED AGAINST SAID ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THE REAL AND
TRUE OWNERS THEREOF, AND FINDS THAT THE APPORTIONMENT OF THE COST OF SAID
IMPROVEMENTS, AND THAT ALL ASSESSMENTS HEREIHBELOW 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 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 REGULARS PROPER AND VALID AND
THAT ALL PREREQUISITES TO THE FIXING OF THE ASSESSMENT LIENS AGAINST SAID
ABUTTING PROPERTIES AS HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED AND THE PERSONAL LIABILITY OF
THE .REAL AND TRUE OWNER OR OWNERS THEREOF, WHETHER NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED
HEREIN OR NOTE HAVE BEEN IN ALL THINGS REGULARLY HAD AND PERFORMED IN COM-
PLIANCE WITH THE LAWS CHARTER PROVISIONS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAID CITY
COUNCIL.
SECTION 3. THAT IN PURSUANCE OF SAID ORDINANCES, DULY ENACTED BY
SAID CITY COUNCILS AUTHORIZING AND ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED STREETS WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED, AND IN PURSUANCE OF SAID
PROCEEDINGS HERETOFORE HAD AND ENACTED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL, IN REFERENCE
TO SAID IIPROVEMENTS 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 106 OF THE
ACTS OF THE FIRST CALLED SESSION OF THE 40TH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF
TEXAS, KNOWN AND SHOWN AS ARTICLE 1105B 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 COUNCILS BEING AS FOLLOWS
TO -WIT:
-6-
•
ASSESSNIENNT ROLL
OCEAN DRIVE IMPROV30US UNIT III
Hewit Drive to 595' East of Airline Road
This project number 220 -67 -97 includes the reconstruction of Ocean Drive from
Hewit Drive to approximately 595' East of Airline Road.
The improvements consist of excavation to a width to permit the construction
of curbs and gutters, the placing of 9" lime- stabilized base, 9" compacted
caliche base, the application of a pride coat; and the laying of 2CC # per
s.y. of Type A Asphaltic Concrete, and 125 - per s.,;. of Type D Asphaltic
Concrete
. width of street varies at intersections, but Eenerally it is 73' from face
to face of curbs on ether side of street. iris widt7, provides 'cap moving
lanes i:r eacn direction, one safety shoulder, eaci direction, and 8' aide
media_ in -he center with ;ar -_r.5 ..idths at intersections. Media". consists
of curb and g'atter. filled :ith top soil for fature landscaping.
Concrete sidevmlis are included along all the .:e_t side z_d ad"acent to apart -
ment zoned along t' -e east side from C/L of Robert Drive south ard,
var ing _. .ri dth from 3' 5' wide and tied to the curb. Concrete driveways
are also+included , which are to be bIailt as shc:n in the ^lays unless other-
wise changed by the orrn_�rs.
Assessment rates '^ave been calculated o._ the basis of applying the unit
prices obtained by bids and calculation of the quantities for the improve-
ment abutting the property.
Credits have been given to property o;mers for the existing concrete drive -
ways and sidewal1-:s in public right of *.say. ;vo credits, however, have been
given to property or ors for other improvements such as pavements, curna;
and gutters, since these imrro-;— nts are not of permanent nature.
The assessment rates are as follows:
1. Property zoned and used R -1 or R -2
Curb,gatter, and pavement $5.88 p.1.f-
2. Property zoned or used other than R -1 or R -2
Carb,gutter, and pavement 17.65 p.l.f.
Sidewalk .43 p.s.f-
Driveway .85 p.s.f.
The project also includes the construction of a concrete seaval.l along Ocean
Drive from Poenisch to South Shores Drive for the purpose of controlling ero-
sion of-the road.
• ASSESSMENT ROLL •
1.
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Improvements Unit III
CONTRACTOR;
OW-7E2 & FF,3FEIRTY L'St; IF-jT0 7
C�w_ , Y
, CRIPTI
DESON
TOTAL
NO.
ASSESSED
OF
j
AMOTL7:-
ASSESa'-:E17i
RATE
AY.OU17.r
ASS--,
OCEA:71
DRIVE -
TO 59 _: .!6' A-YO11D
,/L OF AIRI�T 7
_T
Side
58.41" L.F.
Curb, rzutte r,
1.
==ATE PARK
5.88
343.63
Hei,i'L Estates
_C_
.43
0.00
'Side-,,al"-
-0-
Drive-e7ay
.85
0.00
3L3-
*14-70
2,22z-
2.
C. L. YAN CUBA
151.42 L.F.
Ouro,E7atter,pvmt.
2-7'5
2Y67
Lots 4,5,& 6, Blk- 5,
682.10 S.F.
sidewalk
•43
293.30
Alta Vista on the Bay, Used
159-10 S.F.
Drivei-,,ay
•85
135.23
2,67-
other than R-1 or F,2;
3.
EL GROSSFYU11
131-74 L.F.
Curb,e-,utterjpv-.t.
5.88
774.
Lot 2 Estates
467-12 S.F.
Side�,alk
.43
200.86
Zoned R -1,
159.10 S.F.
Driveuay
•85
135.23
4.
OSC�_i SPITZ.
65-33 L.F.
Cur-c. , 9-tter, P-=-t
5.59
334.4
Lot 1, Max4an-,y Estates
*92.0; L.P.
Cur1o,3utter,pvmt
5.88
541-58
Zoned R-1;
*-`235.90 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
'.?P.gL
*65.33; as3eq-ed,,363.35 S.F:
-0-
Drivevay
.85
0.00
*189-52 S.F
Credit for existing Sidewalk
5.
C. E. & I)GR= STARREETT
Property does not abut the im-
provements because of a revocabLe
easement on property between Im-
provements and this lot. Propqty
with easement being assessed as
side lot.
Reduced by Council Action
ii-p-o-6B
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Unit III Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
ITi
05rR & FROFE�IY DESCR PTIC;I
OUA -TIT'
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
^- .SSESSED
OF
AMOU., i
ASSESSS21' - -7
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSES'
6.
JACK R. BLP.M]ON
Lot 1, Blk. 2, Alta Plaza
(13.80)
11L.40 L.F.
lurb,gutter,r-. t.
5.03
551 54
Zoned R -l; 02.i _s d•:375.23)
457 6) S. -.
Side';alr
43
161.34
-0-
Drive': ,---
.85
0.00
7.
JOSE R. D61E011
Lot 20, Blk. 2, Alta Plaza
(101.17)
111.51 L.F.
Curb, gutter, p-•^Rt.
5.88
594.87
00.3 assessed. Zoned R -1
(404.63) S.F
Sidewalk
.43
174.01
_0-
Drivei.T.y
.85
0.00
SE<.
VIE`-1 L. 27- !W76SECTIOF
103.69 --
2t- ''..e9 L.F.
8.
FERL1,-L D. 91-11TH _
Lot 1, Blk. 3, Alta Plaza & a
Curb,Eutter, pmt.
5.8S
1pp7-,O?
60?.6
-
norticn of Denver St. 311.07
=?6,E; S._
Siaewalk
43
26.?,21
43, =8
133.
0•.,,
R.O.-% Closed
50.80 S.F.
Drive;,-ay 12'
.65
53?�u
105.00' Curb gutter, pvm
.),
743,7;
50 or )285.00' Sidewalk
) $414.58 +
}
743.45 = 51,158.0
,15S.
1005o on 50.80 Driveway
)
9.
L. M FISCHER
Lot 1 = 57' +1
0'-167.00- 83.5'x1
5.0' =104.
5.88
8' x 88
2QC31-1,
$613.
23.0-
Lots x,2,3,4, and 5, Blk. 2 225
351.00 L.F.
Curb;gutter,pvmt
Alta Vista on the Say
717.00 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
308.31
43.18
Zoned R -1;._s
50.80 S.F.
Driveway 12'
.85
2 15
2,28E
10.
JERRY E. FISCHER
Lots 6 & 7, Block 2
100.00 L.F.
Curb,gutter, pvmt.
5.88
588.00
Alta Vista on the Bay
300.00 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
129.00
0.00
Zoned R -1; QM
-0-
Driveway
.85
717. �
Reduced by Council Action
3
PROTECT: Ocean Drive - Rewit Drive to Airline Road
CONTRACTOR:
ITE•?
OT1lr� & PROP7-ITY DESCRTFTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
ASSESSED
OF
AMOIT,'
ASSESS-%211T
RATE
AMOUITT
ASSES:
�.
H. G. 1_- .RST•ON
Lots 8 & 9, Block 2
98.52 L.F.
CU- Ib,6-utter,P1Mt.
5.88
579.29
P.lta Vista on t3a
265.56 S.F.
Side�:ralk
.43
114.19
Zoned R--L; E ,_ = _
116.60 S.F.
D iveways 2 -15'
.85
99.11
792.5;
12.
J. K. ERICriSOi'
Lot 10, 310 -1: 2
51.72 L.F.
C Lr.- ,gut.er,P'.'.mt.
5.83
304.11
Alta Vista c, -: - - Be-,-
175.16 S.F.
.43
6671
Zoned R -1;
0.00 S.F.
DriveWays -
.85
0.00
P. R. �1:._F?,LY
50.21
295.23
-
Lot -1, 31c -'_ 2
",31 L.F.
Curb, gutter, O'; t.
5.88
3-- -r3
Alta 'Vista cn t' -e 3�
0.00 S.F.
Sidecar l 7:
43
0.00.
R -_ -oed:
ROE"
-0-
!=- S 7,=T _.�'
Driveway
c aEC'i! 0i:
.85
0.00
-�
'pgi�o�
W. 1IS ^Z4
- 12 31, 3 _ _ .
Lots
51.93 L.F.
Ccrb, t- = ,P-,,..�.
* 14.70
-'•7. Z�
:;1� -='
7c` -
._ _..4
°ort Ac-an--a-7 C1i =
155.94 S.F.
aid =s:c'__c
.43
67.05
A -1 Zoned; �'�° -°
-0-
Driveway
85
0.00
15.
LOW .ELL 0. RYPsT
Lots 29 and 30, Block 14
52.86 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvnt.
* 14.70
=W k5
$32.7
777•' =Y
Port Aransas Cliffs
158.58 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
68.18
A -1 zoned;
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
845.22
*Reduced by Council Action
11 -20 -68
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Street Improvements- He�•rit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
ITEQ
Ot,irct & PROP=TY DESCRI?T101;
aUL',-'1TITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
:'.0.
ASSESSED
OF
ALiOU. i
ASSESS', =7
RATE
AMCTi•T
PSSE3I_
i6.
CLUE E. 3R0L3--7
*14.70
Lots 27 -23, Bloc =: 14
53.22 L.F.
Curb, -ter,p ^etc.
i•r•,3
?2.,
Port Aransas Cliff-
123.66 S.F.
-idewaL't
.43
53.17
A -1 zoned; - -
* 0.00
ive *;ay 12'
.85
0.00
2 -;-
*Credit for ekistiny dri:eray
335•;=
L7
J. A. BLACKiIELL
*} _
Lots 25 and 26, 3loc: _-
53.22 L.F.
rb,gu _r,pvmt.
?
782._:
Port
159.6E S.F.
id =_;;ali:
_�
43
0'8.'05
A -1 -oned;' -
-0-
_ivevay
.85
0.00
_;.
JA:-75 ,Ln. APP
*14.70
Lots -1,22, r s-_d OIL, 1,1o2-
L.F.
C-trb,. atte ^,.o'
14, Pon- ins -. -_-
2%'; S.F.
ide:.__..
.43
136.33
A -1 zoned; _`
97.00 3._.
_ve *,ia;;s 2 -12`
.35
32,49
1753•_
_
PAL .LvS�;D
Lot= !1,, 5, _; .. 20 B -c_ -: 14
106. 3 L.F.
]urb,Z
5.88
025.30
Port -__ saZ - Cli
247.29 S.F.
_de.•_1.
.43
io0'.33
R-1 zoned; - ° -=
- 0.00
riveways 2 -12'
.85
0.00
732• --
Credit for e.-_sti.nZ dr .e'ay-
c
KAX & r- LAR1A?ET LUTIMER
Lots 11, 12, 13, 147 15 and i6
159,65.L.F.
urb,gurter,pvmt.
5.88
938.74
Block 14, Port Aransae Cliffs
478.95 S.F.
3idevalk
.43
205.94
R -1 zoned; r--- --
-0- _
Driveway
.85
0.00
21.
HUGH ALBERT EHRLICK
Lots 8, 9 & 10, Block 14
79.82 L.F.
urb,gutter,p-rmt.
5.88
469.34
Port Aransas Cliffs
182.46 S.F.
3idewalk
.43
78.45 -
R -1 zoned;
63.0 S.F.
Driveway 191
.85
53.55
1.Y
*Reduced by Council Action
U-20-68
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Improvements - Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
ITEM
MFTE2 & PROPERTY DES=' P17-0-1 -
ITY
DESCRIPTTO�'j
TOTAL
ITO•
ASSESSED
OF
A11,1077:
ASSESS2,IEZU
RATE
k"ITOT-7
ASS7S,7
22.
Wm. R. AUDEPSO Jr.
Lots 3, 6 : '(,. Block 14
79-82 L.F.
'ur 'gu er,p.M
5.88
469-34
Port Aransas
158.46 S.F.
-S ii d a w a 1,.
•43
63-13
R-1 zoned;
103-00 S.F.
Dr 41ve,,.-ays 1-12'
.85
87-55
& 15'
o25.C%
23.
I-iARY D,�- :•�%---CD FELL
Lots _,2,3 : 4, Blc--'-- 1'
106.43 L.F.
Cr -,c,
5.88
625-80
Port --ansas Clif's
319.29 S.F.
.43
137.29
R-1 zoned ; ---
-0-
.85
0.00
STTFCL,a_7
S=-71 1'
0-'- r/,
o3.
i-
24.
FA-� �zYTLCR
I
Lots 20,
10-6.'-3 L.F.
5.83
625
Bloc'-. IF, ?o--
29 S:F.
.43
137.28
R-1 zoned;
-0-
.85
o . OO
763•-
-5.
GEORGE '2,�YIIQR
Lots 23, 15
1 4 L.F.
5.33
625-80
Port Aran C--'
`2 73. S.F.
,43
116.26
R-I zoned;
56.00 S.F.
1-12.
.35
47.6o
*Cred-it for e-
70
26•
ITOR110 FOSTER
Lots 21,22,23, and 24
106.43 L.F.
urbjgutter,pvmt.
5.88
625-80
Block 15, Port Aransas.Cliffs
319.29 S.F.
3idewalk
.43
137.29
R-1 zoned;
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
-To 3-0
PROJECT: O� - Drive T nnrover eats - Fe *a t to Arline
CONTRACTOR:
ITE-1
OWi-TER & PROPS TY D?SC= T- ITOF
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
ASSESSED
OF
A10U' 1
ASSESS,%2E'X '
RAT E
A•!OUlT
ASioo_
27-
JAFS D. CP3LE
Lots -7, 18, 19 '- 20
106.43 L.F.
�rb,s ter _zr
5.88
625.80
Block 15, Port Ara_ -_- C1--_s
202.29 S._
84 de *,:al' -.
.43
86.93
R -'- zoned; --
109.00 S.F.
Dr51,_:, _ 1 -21`
.85
92.65
18`
05. 3
23.
CELSC V. a'='
Lot i, Bloc'-. 15
106.36 L.F.
0u' ^t,�at _r,Pr._t
5.38
625.39
Port Irai7saz C11==
319.03 S.F.
Sid=_ = :a_r -
.43
137.20
R -1 zoned; �
-0-
Drive-.;a.y
.85
0.00
I 702.5,
31 rUZG .- °:
Lo, 3, =1o2_. '_;
'_0'.33 L.? .
,_ -.^at.
5.88
610'.40
Port, xanSas Cl-'-----
I 14.49 S.F.
S`de: ,ra -_:
43
135.23
R -- zoned; _ _�,
0.00
D_ive•<sy
.85
0.00
75i.3j
3' •
21:P1 =GE
Lot A. 310 ^_ 15
Port -__.�� C'_if-
104.32 L.F.
314.46 S.F.
-rc,S cter,g, t.
-_de
5.33
43
6].6.34
135.21
R -1 zone--; - --
-0-
Dr:. ..ay
.85
0.00
751•
31.
J. L. =KLER
Lots 1,2,3, 4, Block 15
106.43 L.F.
Curb,Sutter,avmt..
5.88
625.80
Port Aransas Cliffs
X19.29 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
137.29
R -1 zoned; - T-
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
763.(59
RO
ES STREET INTERSECTION
32.
HAROLD KAEF7E
Lots 27,28,29,30,31 & 32
170.29 L.F.
Curb,gutter,gvmt.
5.88
1001.30
and North 10' Lot 26,
510.87 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
219.67
Block 16, Port Aransas Cliffs
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00.
1220.97
i
R -1 zoned; c_ _.
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Hewit Drive to Airline Road
CONTRACTOR:
I0.
0' PROPYRTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
ji0
ASSESSED
OF
AM0 -j T
I
ASSESSh>✓1�
RATE
A :CUy -T
ASSE�-c=
33•
E. B. GROI,ER, :i.D.
S 16' Lot 26, 411 Lacs 23,24,
-06.43 L.F.
Curb, gutter,p-,mt.
5.83
625.80
and 25 and the :orth 10' Lc,
319.29 S.F.
S`_dewal'_-;
43
137.29
'
22, Block l6, Port ?- •snsas
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
Cliffs. R -1 coned; - =
703 ;
34.
12S. J- �_ET -EE ;GA=r'IE
S portion of Lot 22, AL-1 Lots
253.30 L.F.
Curb, gutter vvt
p'
5.88
4
1 89.-0
2l 20.19 IS,-, 1 i4 °.
- _ -'1 13
S.F.
759.90 S_
Side - :a1':
.43
320.75
Block 16, Pore - ----_s Cliffs
-0-
Drivewa;
-85
0.00
R -1 zoned; -
kilo._,
35.
EDS,- SIP:G�R
Lots l2 thru _ 21-02'z: -
30'4._7 L.F.
ICurc_ c . -r p•,_
5.88
182.03
Port 4ra_z,s CLI
024.51 S.F.
d- - -. --
•43
397.53
R -1 zoned; -
-0-
fL Eve's
.85
0.00
IL
-
220;.,:
PRO
TOR STREET II:
,R2EC'07
36.
H. E. BUTT
Lots 9 thru 32, aloe•: l7
601.7.'x- L.F.
Cui-o, -u t- e_-,p, a.
5.88
3538.23
Port Aransas Cliffs
1,751.22 S.F.
S -- de1,ral::
•43
753.02
R -1 zoned;
66.00 S.F.
Drivew-ay 131
.85
56.10
43 7•
37•
ADA R. WILSON
Lots 1 thru 8, Block 17
220.00 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
5.88
1293.60
Port Aransas Cliffs
660.00 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
28.3.80
R -1 zoned; T-
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
1577.4o,
DODIRIDGE
STREET INTERSECTION
38.
RICHARD B. DORN
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1
340.00 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
5.88
1999.20
Hyde Park, R -1 zoned
1,063.50 S.F.
Sidewalk
•43
457.30
110.00 S.F.
Driveway 1 -20.5'
•85
93.50
2550.00
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Rewit Drive to Airline Road
CONTRACTOR:
LTLMI
0:=-i & PRO HR'll DESCRIFilOrl
QUAYTITY
DESCRIPTT -011
TOTAL
JO.
ASSESSED
OF
fiVOUP7I
ASSESSMENT
RATE
APQOUP+T
ASSESS_
39.
I-IRS. s?11- E. ?•1ILSOY
Lot 3, Block 1, Hyde Park
R -1 zoned; - -- ='��
170.00 L.F.
680.00 S.F.
-0-
Curb,gutter,p -:^at.
Sideva "1
Driveway
5.88
.43
.85
999.60
292.40
0.00
12y2.��
JA
{SO" P1--'-CE T_171
^HSZCTIOi
4C.
Wdi Si;SSEP
Lot 10, Bloc,_ 2 Hyde Pa__
R -1 zoned; - - - -' --
16 3.00 L.F.
660.00 S.F.
-0-
Curc,� tter,p,-t.
Side * „5.1''k
Driveway
5.88
.43
.85
970.20
283.90
0.00
22 5 4
41.
J. WT-LSC1:1
Loy f 11, E1oc ; 2. 'Hyde Pa
R -1 zoned; - -- -
*Credit for _asst= A ri. .r
165.30 L.F.
722.0, S.F.
- 10 -.CC S.F.Driv_-ay
Cur'o, �Zttter,pvT•.t
12'
5.88
.43
.35
973.14
310.46
03.40
1372..,
42.
FRED = L;TO•
Lots 1 -' 2, Blcc..
-_ oned
Cole Plac R =
-
342.07 L.F.
' ,026.21 -.F.
-0-
=b,Zi t,.L er,p-,_,
Si . ,al':
Driveway
5.83
43
.85
2C11-37
441.27
0.00
2452. --
FA_
IDE DRIVE Li"
3SEC110.!
43•
0. D. EDSdARDS, et ux
Lot 3, Block 2, Cole Place
R -1 zoned; - ---- -- ---•
166.04 L.F.
432.12 S.F.
76.00 S.F.
C y b,gutter,pvmt.
Sidewalk
Driveway 22'
5.88
.43
.85
976.31
185.81
64.60
1220. `f
44.
MM F. MORGAN, et al
Lot 2, Block 2, Cole Place
R -1 zoned;
166.04 L.F.
498.12 S.F.
-0-
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
Sidewalk
Driveway
5.88
.43
.85
976.31
214.19
0.00
119 ^•5C
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Imrrovements - Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
IMI
1 OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO•
ASSESSED
OF
AMOL^;i
ASSESS`.:ENT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESS--
45.
M;4YDOUl --i=:' C_�,
Lot 1, Block 2, Cole Place
166.04 L.F.
Curb, gutter, p;-mt.
5.88
1 976.31
R -1 zoned;
498.12 S.F.
S4de;;a7lb:
43
214.19
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
119' . y_'
MITCr�LI, S=2
Ii.TEFBEC^IO::
46.
LORI: �. IOCT
Lot B, La_?,- Place, R -- =oned
120.00 L.F.
Ca ,gutzer,& u,.
5.88
705.60
e - = - -_
480.00 S.F.
Sidewal'_
.43
206. 40
-o-
Driveway
.85
0.00
1
912.0-
47.
T. Io D
Lot _ -, eRr� Kara
150.32 L.F.
Curb,: gutter,mr. -t.
5.88
886.82
R-- 'O =ed =' - _
555.28 S.F.
139.60 s..
S i d':.-
-f) i-,._ .y -2'
.43
.35
235.77
1-8.66
12-4. _;
L
H. I E E05: ALL
Unp'___ ed
221. -.F
883'0.00 S.F.
Curb.- ar p _ -..
'de „ - --
5.83
.43
1299. +8
359.18
139.60 S.F.
!:rive-.:ay 1.2'
.85
1.18.66
17 T -1
49.
SAS E. SELTZER
Lots 7 & 8, South Shor-e P.I.
R -1 zoned; ---
231.00 L.F.
844.00 S.F.
211.60 S.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
S ide,"lk
Driveway 20'
5.88 -
•43
.85
1358.28
362.92
179.86
1901.00
W. R. MD
Lots 5 & 6, South Shores P1.
R -1 zoned;"
332.00 L.F.
1256.00 S.F.
387.20 S.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
Sidewalk
Driveway 2 -18'
5.88
•43
.85
1952.16
540.08
329.12
2621-36
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Heuit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
IM4
O['TTER & PROPS TY DESCF=TICIF
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTIO_;
TOTAL
M.
ASSESSED
OF
Ab'_OU?'
ASSESSLi✓TTT
RATE
ALdOUNT
ASSESS=
51.
EISHOP OF CA-L OLIC =IOC=
of C0R2US C'_�TS,=
44o.CO L.F.
Curb,oatter,pti^2t.
5.88
2587.20
Lots 1 thru 4, :.O::-,h S^ore PI.,
R -1 zoned;
1254.00 S.F.
-0-
Side.. -- --
Driveway 2 -16`
.43
85
539.22
0.00
-Credit for existing Driveway
3.126-75-
52.
6ILLILLI D. Z- OHIL�A.
Lot 25, Ocean V_e.. ____
R -1 70n_d; - .
112.00 L.F.
270'.00 S.F.
Cur';,Fu_ter,a.r ^ t
oiae:,_L_:
5.88
.43
653.56
118.68
_
*Credit for exis-1 ng D=i-re_
- -0-
Drive *.;;y 1 -181 &
85
0.00
1 -12'
777.2-
53.
ALLF f I. °c?4
Lot 2 -, Oc - L= =a - - -_
=00.OJ L.F.
C, cc; �� ,te ._
5.98
588.00
246.00 s.z.
_
34 de:.__ --
.43
105.78
65.80 S.F.
Dr_: ,. 1 -18
.85
55.93
74 +.7
54.
WILL -L°_! E..SETLIFF
(78.86)
Lot 27a ocean v`_ -. Es-_a-_e_-
36 L.F.
Carl, g:tter,p =.
5.88
463.70
R -1 zoned; BL-7',l sa _
+(236.53'
2 ^0.C3 S._
side,. -__
.43
101.73
-0-
Dri- :e-,-ay
.85
0.00
So5•��
OCE8117
PL4CE Ld
ECTI0117
55.
LL4G F-IUGE
(90.04)
Lot 28A, Ocean View Estates
10O.G5 L.F.
Curb, tter,pvxt.
5.83
529.44
R -1 zoned; 901,L assessed
(270.L4)
300 -15 S.F.
-0-
Sidewalk
Driveway
.43
.85
116.16
0.00
645 .oO
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Hey' t to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
IM-1
0;2; =R & PROP-"RTY DESCRI=^IOZ!
rQU-L,1I ^1Y
DESCRIPTIO ?T
TOTAL
NO.
ASSESSED
OF
91100 i7
ASSESSKKU
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESS_
56.
F. P. 3eall
93.00 L.F.
Curb, 5 tter,?7:t
5.88
546.84
Lot 28B, Ocean View Esiaces
279.00 S.F.
Sidewalk
-43
L19.97
R -1 Zoned; - ---- ---
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
ooa.6
57.
Chester P:. ;'atthe,:s
Lot 1, Ocean View Es-ctas
R -1 Zoned;_
131.80 L.F.
395.40 S.F.
Curb, gutter,pvmt
Sidecralti
5.88
.43
774.98
170.02
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
-J_
o45.0
57 -A
3enjemin E. Eshleman,
Lots _ th^ 6 W 57 th-'- _
150.00 L.F.
450.00 S.F.
Curb, gutter,pv-t.
SidewaL't
5.38
.43
832.CO
193.50
Tract 3; Seaside ,w =? _ _ _-
-C-
Driveway
.85
Grds.
075•
53.
,,'orris 7 Lic'rteno
Lots ' tr-ru 15, Trac t
Aberdeen Shores; R -1 z _z�d;
%25.20 L.F.
639.60 S.F.
50.80 S.F.
,-so, tter,pv:t
Side::aL'ti
Driveway -2'
5.83
.43
.85
1324.17
275.02
43.18
59•
Robert P. '.iallace
Lots 16 thru 20; XcerdJ.n S s.
20.00 L.F.
30C.oO S.F.
Cu rb, �ltter, pvrc
Sidec.L-
5.83
43
705.60
154.30
R -1 zoned; _
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
-oo�
CIRCLu D,R
E uTt3ECTI01i
60.
S . 0. Riderhower
Lot 1, Lee Place; R -1 zoned;
82.02 L.F.
246.06 S.F.
L'iurb, gutter,pvmt
Sidewalk
5.88
.43
482.27
105.80
-0- _
Driveway
.85
0.00
5d .07
61.
Paul W. Nye
Lots 2 & 3, Lee Place
R -1 zoned;
140.14 L.F.
312.42 S.F.
131.60 S.F.
Curb, gutter,pvmt
Sidewalk
Driveway LdAl/ - -2a'
5.88
.43
.85
824.02
134.34
111.86
070.22
12
FROJECT: Ocean Drive - Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
ITRII
OiliirR 8: PROPERTY DESCRIPTIDI
O,UA-HTY
DESCRIPTIC;;
TOTAL
f'.0.
ASSESSED
OF
AN.O,f -,
ASSEM -711
RATE
AI4i
ASSES =-
62.
J. A. C-PAITES
Lot 4, Lee Place
70.07 L.F.
Curb, gutter,pvet.
5.88 1
L12.01
R -1 zoned; ---- _ - - -_- -
118.21 S.F.
8_ Cie -ral_,
.43
50.33
45.80 S.F.
i.e,;as 1 -10'
.85
33.93
501.7;
63.
T= E. CR3 - :K
Lot 5, Lee P_a�e
75.01 L.F.
C,:.rb,gu.ter,o m:t.
5.88
441.05
R -1 zoned; :� - a
225.03 S.F.
Side-.-
43 43
96.76
_0_
Driveway
.85
0.00
537•c'
-
ROBERT DRI`F
I.J-3ECTIO.'
' _ 'ddn.
31:)c-: _ 1.
9.95 L.F.
Curb
523.9=Lot
R -_ Zoned; - -- -
269.85 S.F.
id .;s' -.
.43
L16.03
Dr _-.re-„ -
.85
0.00
b
65.
D_:VID o. s= T77
414-70
5476.04
(Jamican - .}
372.52 L.F.
Curb, ut�sr,o'mt.
�7 �
5.7' :)-7
Lat 3, BLcT -.1, se +3cd'_n
97.56 S.F.
_ _ -,s1k
.43
390.25
F182.
Apt. Use Zone, --
21T.cO S.F.
Dri?_;. ••2 -35'
•85
41
66.
ELIZ.4 =- _•.0ITTG0_."T!ZY Z, JACK I'.^_
OLLUM
14.70
4479.82
Lot 6, Block 1, Seaside Add-n.
304.75 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
Apt. Use Zoned; �
609.25 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
347.97
107.30 S.F.
Driveway 1 -35'
•85
91.20
491�"
67•
M. C. (CRANES, et ux
414.70
2018.89
Lot 9, Block 1, Seaside Subd.
137.34 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
- -7-.•65
24c14 -.
Apt. Zoned; .T _ -_
307.02 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
132.01
107.30 S.F.
Driveway 1 -35'
•85
91.20
2242.1(
*Reduced by Council Action
u -20-68
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Unit III Heiit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
LTEM
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCHIPTIOi'I
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
I
ASSESSED
OF
AQOU[^
-
ASSESSt ?P
RATE
FrdOUNT
ASSESS =J
68.
SEASIDE .•^- 10qU- CE.
137.24 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvm .
1Zr75
--=^
Zoned other than 1 -1;
213.72 S.F.
Sida-ralk
.43
91.39
- -
191.80 S.F.
Driveway 2 -30'
.85
163.03
2272.
Credit for - - - - --
50.00 L.F.
Curb,.gutter,
1.60
09.
Ro=' C.
Lots 1 & 21 3�--.2; S -_,iC_
262.55 L.F.
652.65 S.F.
Cu b,5-urter,pvzt.
Side.mll'c
14.70
] .aj
.43
33;9.43
4' 5� r2a7
230.63
Sind. Apt. use zoned; _
154.10 S._
Driveway 1 -23' &
.35
130.98
1-22'
14.70
1190.23
_
4271•
70.
LIr COLD; PROPS_', !ES
235.05 L.F
C%J^b, ,-ltter,rvm.t.
2' -r65
Lot 3, BL-,. 2, Sa25ida S.ibd.;
540.15 S.F.
Side- „�aL' -:
.43
232.20'
Zoned c *_'r. -- 3 -1;
25x.00 S._
Driv ., 2 -32'
.35
220.91
1 -25'µ& 1 -20'
14.70
3154.50
i ✓_ J.
7 1.
HA - CO "C _. X!-';_ =
F.H.A.
Lot 1, --
Credit for C.-IG` p'_a --
235.2, L.F.
553 .C) S.F.
I 164. .. S.F.
Cufb,- mt+er,_•,_t.
Side-,r_l'.k
Drive-„ „ 1 -24'
s =r'sy
.43
.85
,_''; T-
23-1.94
133.91
3331. -
_
AT Zoned; - - - "`_,"`a
1 -25'
mar -J=
370
414.70
7: 07.',.9
72.
FLATO 3RO3. et al
4'6.70 L.F.
200.6.3'6 S.F.
C_Lb, ltter,pvnt.
Side-walk
1 =r65
.43
4 =3r75-
+338.53
355 =•:
AT Zoned;
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
4 14.70
4615.35
i896.C2
73•
PHIL MASSAD
313.97 L.F.
Curb,:lutter,pvmt.
17:65
5541757
Lots 1 & 2, Ocean Village Ests
1569.85 S.F.
Sidewalk
.43
675.03
Unit I;AT Zoned,
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
2tb: !
288.33
AIRLINE ROAD
INTERSECTION
*Reduced by Council Action
11-2o-68
14
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Hewit Drive to Airline Road
CONTRACTOR: -
ITEM
O'Z.=- 8: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
9UAS;TSTY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
ASSESSED
OF
AMOL?-
ASSESS:,'-E=L
RATE
A'MUNIT
ASSESS!
74.
BT' .JA -' "iTT E. ES.1IT+'_._idT,
Yarsden Place Tract _
502.23 L.F .
5.88
2953.40
-'- zoned; - - --a
2511.40 S.F.
-= w_:.---
.43
1079.90
-C-
Dr_ve',ay
.85
0.00
033•'
523.28' Beyond
C/L of A.IRLT-E R
-'01
:•Test Side
--d ':'_= S d°
East �'de
DRIVE
Lot_ 3, - 5, 9.0 =:_ -
150.30 L.F.
_'o Z __,p
5.83
Alta 'A'_- _. on .._
R -T zoned; - - --
-C-
315.20 S.F.
Side:aai_.
D_'_. e. 2 -12
.43
.85
0.00
267.92
76.
r;PS. Fat -:c SPA3-Z
Lots 6, 7, 3* Z; 9 ? -o:,:_ -
Alt_ 'list- on _
R -1 zoned;
200.0 O L.F.
-c-
-O-
C lrt , _ - _ , O-,-M7.
Side al
Dri._,
5.83
.43
.85
1176.00
0.00
0.00
1170•
7.
1r,S00 V. DOZ?ICAIT, et al
Lots
Alta Vista Hotel T:-act
*481.15 L.F.
-0 -,
iter,pvmt.
Cu c „,
Sidewalk
5.88
.43
2829.16
0.00
R -LB zoned,
544.60 S.F.
Driveway 18'
.85
462.91
3292•
*includes return on Minnesota
Street
78.
LUCY V. wELCH
Lot
124.88 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
5.88
734.29
Alta Vista Hotel Tract-
-0-
Sidewalk
.43
0.00
R -1B zoned; ---- ===r
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
734.29
15
PROTECT: Ocean Drive T:_orovements - Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
I=4
OrriPr,P, & PROP'-'RT= DESCR.PTIC1.
QUANTITY
DESCtRIPTION.
TOTAL
110.
ASSESSED
OF
AMOM27
ASSES•1ENT1
RATE
AMOTLEiT
ASSES'SH
79.
SHELBY .Y DO_ -GAL.
Lot 6, A -t� _ -> Heif .s
111.51 L.F.
C 'c,Eatter,p=t.
5.88
655.67
R -1 zone'; :: _- --__
-0-
Side : ral' -c
•43
0.00
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
055.0 -
OCE1"T ?dAY I'
=, ,SEC11O -1
Lot 1 -1ta Vi =_ -. :e - =_.s
111.L0 L.F.
5.83
655.03
i -'_ zoned; `_�
-C-
S ideor3 -k
43
0.00
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
655--__:
Lc =3 _, -., 3- _ -- _
200.00 L.F.
Oa= = _,p. ^,.
5.83
1176.00
_,1_a ,_s o.. ___ _ -:
-c-
Side-.m.-I",
.43
0.00
R -i zoned; , - - --,
100.16 S.F.
D °i,..,ay 2 -12'
.85
85.13
I
ioo =.
32.
BR'�CE CO-H7_-,,-_S
Lots 5,6,,.7, Bloc -- 3
150.00 L.F.
Curc,�atter,n-✓*at.
5.88
802.00
A is V-43 to on _ Pa-,
_0-
ide ars
.43
0.00
P, -1 zoned: - -
* -0-
_i've•,:ay 1 -12'
.85
0.00
*Credit for exis in D_ire:.ay
002.
83.
W. B. KLI1TE
Lots 8, 9 & 10, Block 3
143.56 L.F.
urb,gutter,pvmt.
5.88
844.13
Alta Vista on the Bay
-0-
Sidewalk
.43
0.00
R -1 zoned;__
* -0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
Credit for existing Driveway
.13
ROSSITER STMET
INTERSECTION
84.
ROBERT G. LIVINGSTON
* 14.70
4036.47
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1
274.59 L.F.
urb,gutter,pvmt.
1*&5-
4 &1•i3-
Alta Vista Cliffs
-0-
Sidewalk
.43
0.00
68.00
Apt. Use & zone; S 5tZG_G. =
80.00 S.F.
Driveway 1-28'
.85
x x
104.47
16
PROTECT: Ocean Drive - Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
ITEM
O,214= 8 ?ROPEIRTY DES�MIHIOT`
QUAINTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTA L
Tr
.0.
ASSESS=
OF
I
ASSESSH:NT
RAPE
A2111MIT
ASSESS�
* 14-70
1345 •49
35.
Baylor Unijars4 V
91-53 L.F.
Curb, 6-utter,-_ave.
Lot 4, Bloc's I, -U'la Vista Cif
-0-
SidewalIk
.43
0.00
Apt. use and zoned;
100.16 S.F.
Driveway 220'
.85
85-13
143'•`2
86.
Eva 3. Guttmn
137.29 L.F.
D;-fb, gutter,_•=
5.88
807.26
Lot 5, o-f L--- 6, 3-1-1-- i,
-0-
Side-.TaLk
.43
0.00
Alta Vista Cliffs, 2e3.
46.00 S.F.
D----*.
.85
39-10
37.
icnnnye L. = 1_7S.L11
209.66 L.F.
Cuzb, 5-utter, znmt.
5.-Q8
1232.80
S; Lot 6, 7, and 17. 23-
_C_
Side-lraLk
.43
.co O
tion Lot 8, L, 7-iSta
53-CO S.F.
Driv_--�y 1-12'
8 5
`5 .05
Cliffs; Res. zo-e:;
Phillip Oe-_=;i -S
119.54 L.F.
�utter, -ovrnt -
5.33
72.39 i
S 18, of Lo,. 3, a--, LDT,
-1-
Side-,--al
.43
0.00
X161 10' of Lot I:', ELI: L, �tc�
o', LO S.F.
.85
51-08
Vista clif-s' E-1 zcn�_ a:
753•-`
83-A
Gene Bros_
31-52 L.F.
'0 'urb, Eltter,p-mt-
5.88
L79-34
S. 81.32' of Lot 3=,. 1;
-0-
Side: :a_k
43
0.00
Alta Vista coned
101.20 S.F.
Drive::ay 2-12'
:85
43-52
522.77-,
89.
Faye Taylor
133-36 L.F.
Curb, gutter, P,,mt
5.88
813-55
Block 15A,PO.-t A--a-sas Cliffs,
_C_
Sidewalk
.43
.0.00
R-1 zoned;
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
613.5-,
go.
George Taylor
106.43
Curb, gutter,pvmt
5.88
625-80
Blk. 15A; Port Aransas Cliffs
, -0-
Sidewalk
.43
0.00
R-1 zoned;
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
25. FU
*Reduced by Council Action
11-2o-68
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Hevit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
O,-,-Ilr-R &- PROPERTY DESCRIPTIOTI
FOSTZR
Block 15A
Port
R- I
Jil-'•:ES D. CAGLu
Bloc 7-- - jJ,, Lot 1)
20---. 1 -a--Za- CLI-:"o
R-1 one(:;
D. S 7:E:-l)i3-, %1Tllz
Lot
Fort :=a� 0--f-
R - I
PAUL ITZAL TJL=.7
R--' zoned:
P,jTLZ HAI,=
Port A--ansa3 Cli-fs
R-1 zoned;
QUAP7HTY DESCRIPTION
ASSESS=- OF
ASSESS,�-717
106.43 L.F. ICurb,�-:tter,p-r^t.
-0- Side-vallc
-0- Drive*ray
106.43 L.F. Curb, "Ier,ppv--".
S -i d e 1 k
10C.36 L.F. Cu- -b z tee?', r-, -m
-0- SidL--,:ak
-0- Drivesay
7 C6. 43 9
Side;._77�
Driv-a-,.ay
106.43 L.F. Curb, --,utter,
-0- Side.walS-
-0- Driveway
RAM
5.33
.43
.85
5.88
.43
.85
5.38
.43
.85
5.88
.43
.85
5.88
.43
.85
0
17
TOTAL
AMOU7.7
AMOILTINT ASSESS--,
625.80
0.00
0.00
io25.�.
625.30
0.00
0.00
625-39
0.00
0.00
b_5.
625-80
0.0c
0.011)
625.E
625-30
0.00.
0.00
-7
-7 77-:a - 7h�
PROTECT: Ocean Drive Unit III Hewit Drive to Airline Road
CONTRACTOR:
IM I I CW2----d -9- ?-?,O?FRTY- D2SCRT-P111O.`-.
71,70.
96.
7.
-?3.
:1?.
100.
101.
W. F, . SEEGA-i
Fort Ara,sas Cliffs
R-1 Zoned;
J. B. PEI
L�?SO'7
Lot 1, '311k. 2, ulta VisTa
Cliffs; R-1 Zoned;
C. ULTI,, 17.
Lot 2 and ',T', Lot 3, 'U ta
Vista. Cliffs, R-1 z0n---;.
Credit for
::S= S. =-E
S Pcrtio-L Lot 3, all 7
31k. 2, Alta 74sta Clif-s,
R -1 zoned;
FALL KP_,TMT, Trustee
Lot 5, Bl:,. 2, Alta
Cliffs; "R-1 zoned;
Credit for existif-E Driveway
W.W. WA-LTON, Jr.
Lot 6, and N Portion Lot 7,
Blk. 2, Alta Vista Cliffs, R
zoned,
* Credit for existing Drivev
QU.AJ UITY
DESCRIPTION
ASSESSED
OF
0.00
ASSESS:,:ZNT
0.00
705.c
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
Driveway
120.00 L.7.
Curb, Zutt er,
-0-
Side•,Lmll,
-0-
Drive-wa,.-
131.00 L.7.
Cur1o, gutt er, u,,m'
-n-
sidewal1i
143.,--) S.-n.
Drive---- 1-13' &
2-15'
45.00 L.F
'trb"51-'tter'-
1
114.00 S.F.
Driveway 1-13' &
92.00 L.F.
-0-
-0-
Drive-way 1-35' F-
1-27'
1*36.00 L.F.
Curb, gutter, pvmt.
-0-
Sidewalk
-0-
Driveway
RATE
5.88
.43
.85
5.88
.43
.85
5.38
.43
.85
1.6o
5.88
.43
.85
5.88
.43
.85
5 88
:43
.85
•
18
TOTAL
AMOT-. -T-
A" 'OU -7
"
NT I TO
ASS7�--
00-.0000 1 620.
852.60
0.00
96.90
540-96
0.00
0.00
[7909 .00
603
0
.0
799 - -
70 5. GO
0.00
0.00
705.c
70.25
0.00
225-80
852.60
0.00
96.90
540-96
0.00
0.00
[7909 .00
603
0
.0
799 - -
PROJECT: Ocean Drive
CONTRACTOR:
ITEIn g 04I=I- & PROPERTY DES0RIP=O?:
No. I
gUA`=TIY DESCRIPTION
ASSESSED OF
ASSESS',CI
ia=,b , t _ r, jr=t .
Sidewalk
Drive:.ray-
aurb,- utter,pvmt
Side.:als
Drivauay
200.00 L.F. Curb, 5u-.ter, p,2-.7:t.
-0- Driveway
T� CP�3I_. =- :2L.,_i
3L2.00 L.F. Otu'o, t- _r, -,rmt.
-0- Side.;al-K
-0- Dr---;e-,-,ay
i
60.0 2 L.F. C'ar'::,- tter,,o,i-_t.
-0- Side'ral_:
-0- Driveway
166.04 L.F: Curb, aatter,pvmt
-0- Sidewalk
-0- Driveway
166.04 Curb,gutter,pvmt.
-0- Sidewalk
-0- Driveway
102. Adrain L. Thomas 136.00 L.F.
S Portion Lot 7 and A11 Lot ? -0-
Blk. 2, Alta Vista Cliffs; 100.00 S.F.
R -1 zoned; _ -
102-A H. E. Satt 600.00 S.F.
Private Park,ray; East Side -C-
-0-
102 -8
103.
105.
lo6.
'•'rs. Ada iiilson
Pri••, _ ... ?a -k-Ta- y, East Side
Fred Mato
Lots 5 & 6, Blk L, ^ai= ,1a__;
R -1 zoned; - --
( E. B. Cole. .)
b[r. 2d. B. Reds..-- -
Lot 4, BL's. 4, ?lace;
R -1 zoned; - - -
0. D. Edwards
Lot 4, Block 4, Cole Place
R -1 zoned -
0. D. EDWARDS
Lot 2, Block 4, Cole Place
R -1 zoned;
•
_11_
TOTAL
A:QOu_,-
RATE AIMOiTNT ASSES-
5.88 799.63
.43 0.00
.85 90.10
09.'.
5.88 3,528.0
.43 0.0c
.85 0.
,52d.
5.33 CC)
.43 .43 0.0c
.85 .00
5.82
.43
.85
5.83
•43
.35
5.8,8
.43
.85
5.88
•43
.85
2.011.li--
0.00
o.Oc
� 2,•;11,.
352.91
0.00
0.00
352..
976..32
0.00
0.00
970.32
976.32
0.00
0.00
20
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Unit III Hewit To Airline
CONTRACTOR:
IMM
OWNER & PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
QWITITY
DESCRIPTIO.;
TOTAL
`.0.
ASSESSED
OF
AdOU_:i
ASSESSZMEI -T
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESS -.
107.
MAY DOUGHTY C4RR
Lot 1, B1k. 4, Cole Place
(2 u_nplatted lots)
588.12 L.F.
-0-
139.40 S.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
Side,,-l_k
Driveway 1 -21' &
5.88
.43
.85
3,453.14
1 0.00
118.49
1 -13'
3,570.'
Credit for
392.08 L.F.
Curb, Futter,"-
1.60
- 627.3?
108.
_ h�_S^
J. -. ;,i n
257.11 L.P.
}
Gzro,�,z�,,er,p,.mtr
5.38
1,511.80
2,940. _
Unplatted Lo" and Lc` S_,
-0-
Didewalk
.43
0.00
Soutc Shores Place, R -1 zoned;
101.60 S.F.
Driveway 2 -14'
.85
86.36
109.
R. GALL-'-ID
104.03 L.F.
Oarc, vt er,_ rti.
5.88
611.99
Lot (A and 5A, Sout'._ a.ores
-0-
idewa>h
L3
0.00
R -1 Zoned; °-- - - --`�
111.0'0 S.F.
Driveway
.85
94.8'0
1
110.
LUCILTL Gy435':A C
.,
Lots o and 5A, Soot:_ ---� _0rea
R -1 Zoned; -- - _
193.00 L.F.
-0-
111.60 S.F.
Ctr ,sttter,pvmt.
Side•,ral:�
Driveway
5.88
.43
.85
1134.8:
C.Qp
55.93
1
1,i,•_
-
ll1.
LUCILLE ' /il -?S
Lot 4A South Shores Place,
R -1 Zoned; - -
106.10' L.F,
-0-
53.30 S.F.
Gm -l-,E ;ter,gV--t
Sidewalk
Driveway 15'
5.33
.43
.85
624.22
0.011)
49.55
073.; -
112.
BISHOP of CATHOLIC DIOCESE of
230.92 L.F.
Cu b,g -utter,Pvmt
5.83
1,651.30
Corpus Christi - Lots 1 -A, 2A,
-0-
Sidewalk
.43
0.00
and 3A, South Shores Place;
-0-
Driveway
.85
0.00
R -1 Zoned;
_
, 51.5'.)
113-
DR. T. F. FITZGFRALD
211.43 L.F.
Curb,gutter,pvmt.
5.88
1234.2o
Lot A, South Shores Place
=0-
Sidewalk
-43
0.00
R -1 Zoned, _ -^ -_�
161.60 S.F.
Driveway
.85
137.36
1300.50
113.
117.
118.
PROJECT: ocean Drive - Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
& PROPERTY DESnI-cTIO'
X' F . D JIIS3027
S -89.6 S'Vo'-.gs
Aare.
R. W. De:-IJ-Y
Lots,-2, 3, 4, 9-� 5, Cl
Pease '3?j-frcnt 7,,. 3;
M0,6el use
Cre34-1 for
(.Re,51dential Uze)
Lots 6 and 7' Lo'- i 50.2
Clark Pease Ea,-fr= L:zs
AT zoned
Credit for
(Re3idant*al Usei
RQR=ST H, FLATO
5 Lot 7, All Lot 100-
N a Lot 9, Ciark 1ease
Bayfront Lots; AT zoned
Credit for
(Residential Usb)
DR. ANTONIO CORRENO, M.D.
S -1 Lot 9, All Lot 10, and 102
X i Lot 11, Clark Pease Bay-
frontLots; AT Zoned
Credit for
*Reduced by Council Action
,U-U;TITY DESCRIPTION
ASSESS=- OF
I ASSESM,-q'-.T
39.60 L S-idewai-,: - I ter P't.
0.00 135.22 S.F. Driveway 1-20'
1-18,
O.CO S.F. IS-1. da'Talk
431.22 S. F. Erf,,,eway 4-35'
100.00 L.F. C�a r b , -- At`._.
100.00 7.F. Car'-' , Ea t t e r j 2 imm, t.
' e r,
0.00 S.F. 3 i d , L--
J- 0 6. 6C S..
1-12'
124.00 L._. I Curb, gutter
100-CO L.F.
*14
L, F. Curb, g).tter,p,mt.
0.00 S. F. Sld=%ralk
5580 S.F. Driveway 1-141
135.00 L.F. Curb,gutter,
100.00 L.F.
*14
)O-2CLI-.-Ce L.F. Curb,gutter,pvmt,
0.00 S.F. Sidewalk
i 58.30 S.F. Driveway 1-151
185.00 L.F. Curb, gutter
•
21
AMOU,�-T
AMOUNT RATE I AMO I TOTAL
SS ES S
5.83 I 526.84
.43 0.00
.85 114-93
*14.70 7,614.60
.43 0.00
.85 368.53 7,133-----
1.63
5.33 I 533.1-.0
.3,
.43 G.CO
.35 go. 61
1.60 13
*5-83
70 588. �
1,47
.43 0.00
.85 47-43 2,103.
1.60
1,889.4 *5-88 588-00 1'585.0
70
1,499.4(
43 0.00
:85
1,60
,84o.9 I
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Unit III Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
:T-r�+I I MMTEER & Pr,OP_RTY DESCRIPTION
L19 -
120.
121.
122.
123•
124.
J. J. TR0'13:
S z Lot 11, A11 Lots 12, 13
Clark Pease Ba:,- frort Lots
AT Zoned; =Z-7 �
Credit for - --
C ?`Di COaSIRJCTIOP: CC - -_ -wV
Lot 14, Clar_c Pease_
Lot 1, BE- 3, Seaside S7_bd.
AT Zoned; -
Credit For ----
Saeyl3r ;7nivarSi-�
Lot 2, 2 - --- and 2 -3, Elk.
Seaside S_: d. .T
R. 3. :ECZ __GC: =
Unpla -ted lot out of 3L'-:. 3
Seaside S: d. T G:._
'142CUS LL'_Z
Lot 3, BL'z. 3, Seaside Subd.
AT zoned; 1005, assessed .
ROBERT C. KZM,,ISE
Lot 4, Blk. 2, Seaside Subd
AT zoned;
*Reduced by Council Action
11 -20-68
QU- 421TITY DESCRIPTION
ASSESSED OF
ASSESTC ITT
248.00 L.F. Garb,,Eatter,mt.
-0- Sidewalk
65.80 S.F. Drive-,my 1 -13'
120.00 L.F. Cjrb, gutter,_. -_>
200.00 L.F. Curb,gLitter,2vmt.
396.00 S.F. Sidewalk
211.oO S.F. Drive..
135.00 L.F. Curb, ;after..
272.73 L.F. D.,rb,g,-, '.ter,ovmt.
603.34 S.F. Side'aaLk
211.60 S.F. Dri•re ^:a y 1 -35'
1-33'
23_5.50 L.F. Cirb_tte,gr,pv�t.
750.15 S.F. Sidc-.ralk a
108.30 S.F. Drive-,.-ay
276.99 L.F. Curb, matte r,pvc¢t.
527.97 S.F. Side•.ralk
244.90 S.F. Driveway
337.40 L.F. Curb,gutter,pvmt.
1,012.20 S.F. Sidewalk
-0- Driveway
•
,395.0,il
TOTAL
AMOU, :I r
RATE
AMOU iT
ASSES_ _ .
-k 0
J,04;).03
17 =65
47377 -2V
.43
0.00
.85
55.93
3,701•;_
47433 - -_
1.60
237.
.43
170.23
.85
179.36
1.60
- 21-::.-
x-14.70
4,0 v 09.3
3,:74._
.43
216.58
.35
179.36
3,461.85
+14-70
17:65
4;'_56-51
.43
322.56
.85
92.05
3,3-66._
x-14.70
4,_71.75
x.7.65
.43
227.02
227.02
.85
208.16
4,959-78
4,
* 14 jo
-1-,r-5
5, 955, 1-1
.43
435.24
.85
0.00
,395.0,il
1 �
23
PROJECT: Ocean Drive - Hevit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
Im
OI ?• -? & PRODE TY DESC?2=TIOy
QUANTITY
DESURIPTION
TOTAL
I0.
ASSESSED
OF
A f0 Tii
'
ASSESS.-=T,
RATE
AMOUPIT
ASSES12-
(Residential Use)
4-5.88
125.
3OID H=11
100.0
*14.70
583.00
533.-
Lot 5, 31oc.. ' Se zid- Su- oo25•CQ
=; - - F
C'u'o,� tter,=t.
m? e5
-,_ =% ��`
367.5
A -T zoned: ---
339.00 S.'
-43
l32.87
65.80 S.F.
Drive-.,-a:( 1 -18'
.85
55.93
1,14 -. _
126.
LI ?iCOL'!; P30PERTIES
}14.70
':,190.23
-
Lot 6, 31oc -` , S- _3_.._ �w-.. -.
235.-35 !'�''__�,
L.F.
-
�1 ��_'_^, .'. _ -.,.
�=:o-
J
- 8�c.1C
i ,; -
A -T zon =_d; _ - - --
555.15 J.F.
_d =_.,a"
.43
233.71
Dri're.;e.
.85
0.00
IZ72 --
J.
,
i•�LL_E 7. JO:7
*14.7o
2,57 2.5,
LO: 1
175.70 L.F.
_
-- _�ltt_f,r'•. -.v.
1'T =S
�•i �'� -�J
339 .110 S.F.
•r•_1.:
I 43
145•"
215.60 S.F.
D'_' :z;a;; 1-27'
.85
183.25
135'
*14.70
441.00
Drais_e ase °_'t
'�0.0J L.F.
T
a� n,�_
- -'5
'j° :55
9,).00 s.F
777.7 --=
.43
33-70
.85
0.06
F:-:,T0 TO LRORS, et al
X14.70
7, &15.70
531.00 L.F.
CU_'D,;TL.ltter,pmt
li.
-35-
A-T Zoned;
2,059.0^S.F.
3idowa'k
.43
835.37
83.30 SF.
Driveway 25'
.85
70.80
8,761:
.-3?
*Reduced by Council Action
11 -20 -68
•
PROJECT: Ocean Drive Unit III Hewit to Airline
CONTRACTOR:
24
ITEM
OV=—' R & PROPERTY DFSORIPTIOF
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTION
TOTAL
NO.
ASSESSED
OF
AMOT=-
ASSESS.'jlE.'JT
RATE
AMOUNT
ASSESS_
130.
PI-LIL 7'A3aD
305.00 L.F.
Carb,gztter,pvmt.
X14.70
4,483.50
1,525.00 S.F.
Side�,a -,
.43
i 655.75
A -T Zoned
-0-
Driveway
.85
-o-
5,139.2i
131.
EESYJAi]IY, E. BSIIIc :API, •SR.
594.16 L.F.
Curb,gutter, pvmt.
5.88
3,493.66
2,970.80 S.F.
Side Talk
.43
1,277.44
-0-
Driveway
.85
-0-
',771•`
END EAST SID -7
- EPID O CEA;4 D_RI T
lj�ZT II I
FRO %. PL.,TIT D.rV-
To 594.16' PL
iLTID C/L 0
AIRLI''i ^ ROAD
TOTAL CO L^'L;OT r-R
LL'
$1,243,514f.40
PRELI',¢PiARY ASSES
7-7113
*234,24,..
$1,ol4,27
CITY's ?JR!LOP;
.41
*Reduced by Council Act-=on
11 -20 -68
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 SUCH 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 STREET, 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-
OF OCEAN DRIVE) WITHIN'THE LIMITS DEFINED AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNERS
THEREOF, WHETHER NAMED OR CORRECTLY NAMED HEREIN OR NOT, SUSPECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 THEREOF TOGETHER WITH INTEREST THEREON AT THE RATE
OF SIX AND ONE -HALF (6- 1/2%) PER ANNUM WITH REASONABLE ATTORNEYS FEE AND
ALL COSTS AND EXPENSES OF COLLECTIONS 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 IMPROVEMENT:
WERE ORDERED BY SAID CITY COUNCILi TO -WIT: AUGUST 21, 1968, 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 CCNSTITUTE 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 TITLE2
EXCEPT FOR LAWFUL AD VALOREM TAXES AND THAT THE SAME SO ASSESSED SHALL BE
PAID AND BECOME PAYABLE IN ONE OF THE FOLLOWING METHODS AT THE OPTION OF
THE PROPERTY OWNER:
1. ALL IN CASH WITHIN ZO DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OR ACCEPTANCE
BY THE CITY OR
2. TWENTY PERCENT (20') CASH WITHIN TWENTY DAYS AFTER THE
COMPLETION OF SAID WORK AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY
AND POGO RESPECTIVELY ON OR BEFORE ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS,
THREE YEARS AND FOUR YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF SAID
WORK AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY, WITH INTEREST FROM
DAY OF SUCH COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY UNTIL
PAID AT THE RATE OF 6 -1 /emu PER ANNUM; OR
3. PAYMENTS TO BE MADE IN MAXIMUM OF 60 EQUAL INSTALLMENTS,
THE FIRST OF WHICH SHALL BE PAID WITHIN 20 DAYS AFTER THE
COMPLETION OF SAID IMPROVEMENT, AND THE ACCEPTANCE THERE-
OF BY THE CITY, AND THE BALANCE TO BE PAID IN 59 EQUAL
CONSECUTIVE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS COMMENCING CPI THE 1ST
DAY OF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING MONTH AND CONTINUING THERE-
AFTER ON THE 1 -ST DAY OF EACH SUCCEEDING MONTH UNTIL THE
ENTIRE SUM IS PAID IN FULLS TOGETHER WITH INTEREST
FROM THE DATE OF SAID COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE
CITY UNTIL PAID, AT THE RATE OF SIX AND ONE-HALF PERCENT
(6 -1/2`) PER ANNUM; PROVIDED, HOWEVER THAT THE OWNERS OF
SAID PROPERTY AVAILING THEMSELVES OF OPTION "2" OR "3°
ABOVE SHALL HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF PAYING ONE, OR ALL' OF
SUCH INSTALLMENTS AT ANY TIME BEFORE MATURITY THEREOF BY
PAYING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL DUE, TOGETHER WITH
INTEREST ACCRUEDj TO THE DATE OF PAYMENT.
SECTION 6. THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVIDENL'ING 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 PAYMENT, AND TO AID IN THE ENFORCE14ENT THEREOF, ASSIGNABLE
CERTIFICATES SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, TO ITSELF
UPON THE COMPLETION OF SAID IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID STREET AND ACCEPTANCE THERE-
OF 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 THEREOF THE RATE OF INTEREST THEREON
THE DATE OF THE COMPLETION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR WHICH THE
CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AND SHALL CONTAIN THE NAMES OF THE APPARENT TRUE
OWNER OR OWNERS AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLEp AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRO-
PERTY ASSESSED BY LOT AND BLOCK NUMBERS OR FRONT FOOT THEREOF, OR SUCH
OTHER DESCRIPTION AS MAY OTHERWISE IDENTIFY THE SAME AND IF THE SAID PRO-
PERTY SHALL BE OWNED BY AN ESTATE OR FIRM, 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 OWNERSp OR OTHERWISE SHALL IN ANYWISE
INVALIDATE OR IMPAIR THE ASSESSMENT LEVIED HEREBY OR THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
IN EVIDENCE THEREOF.
-9-
B
THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE SHALL FURTHER PROVIDE SUBSTANTIALLY
THAT IF DEFAULT SHALL BE MADE IN THE PAY14ENT OF ANY INSTALLMENT OF PRINCIPAL
OR INTEREST WHEN DUE, THEN AT THE OPTION OF THE CITY] ITS SUCCESSORS OR
ASSIGNS OR THE HOLDER THEREOF THE WHOLE OF SAID ASSESSMENT EVIDENCED THERE-
BY SHALL AT ONCE BECOME DUE AND PAYABLE AND SHALL BE COLLECTIBLE WITH REASON -
ABLE ATTORNEYS FEES AND ALL EXPENSES AND COSTS OF COLLECTIONS 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 THEPELI 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 /o
SAID IMPROVEMENTS WERE ORDERED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL] TO -WIT; AUGUST 21, 1968,
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 OR THEIR
SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, 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.
THAT SAID CERTIFICATES SHALL FURTHER RECITE IN EFFECT THAT ALL
THE PROCEEDINGS WITH REFERENCE TO NIAK114G SAID IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN REGU-
LARLY 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 O� 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 BEREQUIRED
IN ANY COURT. -
,THAT SAID CERTIFICATES SHALL FURTHER PROVIDE IN EFFECT THAT THE
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS, SHALL EXERCISE ALL OF ITS LAWFUL POWERSS 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.
m
0
ME
•
SECTION 7. 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 OESCRISED9 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 INVALI-
DATE OR IMPAIR A:IY ASSESSMENT LEVIED HEREBY OR ANY CERTIFICATE ISSUED, AND
SUCH M;STAY.E2 OR ERRORS INVALIDITY OR IRREGULARITY WHETHER IN SUCH ASSESSMENT
OR IN THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN EVIDENCE THEREOF MAY DES 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 CMISSICN 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 ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE OTHER PARCELS OF
PROPERTY ABUTTING UPOIJ SAID STREET; AND THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNTS ASSESSED
AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF PROPERTY ABUTTING UPON SAID STREET WITHIN
THE LIM17S HEREIN DEFINED AND THE REAL AND TRUE OWNER OP. OWNERS THEREOF ARE
THE SAME ASS OR LESS THAN, THE ESTIVATE OF SAID ASSESSMENT PREPARED BY THE
DIRECTOR. OF PUBLIC ':.'ORKS AND APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY SAID CITY COUNCIL AND
ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF SAID CITY COUNCIL P.ELATI`:E TO SAID
IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS THEREOF, AND WITH THE TERMS, POvfERS AND PRO-
VISIONS OF SAID CHAPTER !06 OF THE ACTS OF THE F:RST— CALLED SESSION OF THE
40TH LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, KNOWN AS ARTICLE 110 'ZB OF ' /EP.NCN'S
ANNOTATED CIVIL STATUTES OF TEXAS AND THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI, TEXAS, UNDER WHICH TERI-IS, POWERS AND PROVISIONS SAID PROCEEDINGS,
SAID IMPROVEMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS WERE HAD AND MADE BY SAID CITY COUNCIL.
SECTION v. THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE— DESCRIBEC STREET HAS BECOFIE
AN IMPORTANT THOROUGHFARE AND THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT CONDITION OF SAID
STREET, WITHIN THE LIMITS DEFINED3 IS DANGEROUS TO THE HEALTH AND PUBLIC
WELFARE OF THE IIIHA3ITANTS THEREOF CREATES A P'USLIC EMERGENCY iNO Ac: IMPERA-
TIVE PUBLIC NECESSITY, REQUIRING THE SUSPENSION OF THE CHARTER PULE THAT NO
- -ll-
f •
ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE PASSED FINALLY ON THE DATE OF ITS INTRODUC-
TION, AND THAT SAID ORDINANCE SHALL BE READ AT THREE SEVERAL MEETINGS OF
THE CITY COUNCIL, AND THE MAYOR HAVING DECLARED THAT SUCH EMERGENCY AND NECES-
SITY EXISTS, AND HAVING REQUESTED THAT SAID 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 / CTA )DAY of NOVEMBER, 1968.
ATTEST:
(Z4
CI ECRETA Y ✓IAY
APPROVED: THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1968:
CITY ATTORN Y
1 �
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
,J Ri�� ,er--kbAY OF n om'". 19L'f
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CORPUS CHRISTI TEXAS
FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE EMERGENCY CLAUSE OF THE FORGOING
ORDINANCES 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,
MAY PR
THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
THE CHARTER RULE WAS SUSPENDED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
JACK R. BLACKMON
RONNIE SIZEMORE ����qqqq OYLLlct
V. A. "DICK" BRADLEY JR.
P. JIMENEZ; JR., M.D.
GABE LOZANO, SR.
KEN MCDANIEL
W. J. "WRANGLER" ROBERTS
THE ABOVE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
JACK R. BLACKMON Auv
RONNIE SIZEMORE
V. A. "DICK" BRADLEY, JR.
P. JIMENEZ, JR., M.D. 'La/ )/
GABE LOZAN O, SR.
KEN MCDANIEL
W. J. "WRANGLER" ROBERTS