HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes City Council - 11/04/1968 - Special-..
MINUTES
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
November 4, 1968
2000 P.M.
PRESENT:
Mayor Jack R. Blackmon
Mayor Pro Tem Ronnie Sizemore
Commissioners:
Dick Bradley, Jr.
Gabe Lozano, Sr.
Ken McDaniel
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 called 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 rata share was
•
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-1" 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
Carr
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 #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.
M
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 6
Item #19, Phil Massad - 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. Massad 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 Massad, 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 i Lot 7, all of Lot 8 & Ni of Lot 9, Clark
Peace Bayfront Lots
Item #125, Boyd Hall, Lot 5, Block 3, Seaside Subdivision
Item #129, Flato Brothers, et al
Item #130, Phil Massad
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.
Mr. Ford continued to interrogate Mr. Carr imeanatchamdsatcxprocoaraocthattoriskse regarding
increased traffic and related nuisances would prevent residents from using their
yards or patios; that it would be a difficult situation with 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 k, 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 Flato 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 being 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 plans 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
•
Minutes
Special Council Meeting
November 4, 1968
Page 11
properties. Mr. Fred Flato, Mrs. 0. D. Edwards, Mr. Robert Flato, Mr. Phil
Massad, 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 Blacosor 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. Massad and Mr. Fred Flato 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, Eleanor 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 8G 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 plans 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. Rugine (Jamican Apartments)
Mr. Ford stated that his defense of this property was covered in the cross-examina-
tion of Mr. Carr earlier in the hearing. Mr. David 0. Rugine 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. Seeger - Mr. Seeger 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. Seeger 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, loss 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 will
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 might pay
more for the property now with the knowledge that the street is going to be LA -
proved. In answer to a question by Mr. McDowell, Mr. Carr stated that in con-
demnation proceedings, for the taking 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:
/J DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1968:
7!a iUz
Tom McDowell, Assistant
City Attorney