HomeMy WebLinkAbout15467 ORD - 04/09/1980 (2)• jkh:4-9-80;1st
AN ORDINANCE
CANVASSING THE RETURNS AND DECLARING THE RESULTS OF
AN ELECTION HELD IN THE CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI IN THE
5TH DAY OF APRIL, 1980, UPON THE QUESTION OF ADOPTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF CORPUS
CHRISTI; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND DECLARING AN
EMERGENCY.
WHEREAS, heretofore on March 5, 1980, the. City Council of the City
of Corpus Christi passed Ordinance No. 15403 calling an election on the
question of adopting amendments to the City Charter of the City of Corpus
Christi, said election to be held in said City of Corpus Christi on the
5th day of April, 1980, the propositions set out therein, numbered 1 through
14, are incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, it appears that all requirements of the law respecting
the submission of amendments of a City Charter to the qualified voters were
in all respects lawfully and properly performed and executed; and
WHEREAS, notice of said election was accordingly given as required
by law, and as directed by the City Council, as is shown by affidavits properly
filed in the office of the City Secretary; and
WHEREAS, said election was duly and legally held on the 5th day of
April, 1980, in conformity with the election ordinances heretofore passed
by this City Council, and the result of said election has been duly certified
and returned to this Council by the special canvassing board, proper judges
and clerks of said election; and
WHEREAS, this Council has canvassed the returns of said election
on the propositions voted upon at the election which was held on the 5th day
of April, 1980; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the Council, and the Council so finds, that
said election was in all respects lawfully held and said returns duly and
legally made, and that there were cast at said election the following votes:
PROPOSITION NUMBER 1: For 8,656
PROPOSITION NUMBER 2:
Against 7,649
For: 8,361
Against: 7,643
CV
15467 4��
PROPOSITION NUMBER 3: For: 9,086
Against: 7,034
PROPOSITION NUMBER 4: For: 9,796
Against: 6,063
PROPOSITION NUMBER 5 For: 10,268
Against: .5,535
PROPOSITION NUMBER 6: , For: 8,515
Against: 7,682
PROPOSITION NUMBER 7 For: 10,757
Against: 4,667
PROPOSITION NUMBER 8 For: 9,546
Against: 6,001
PROPOSITION NUMBER 9 • For: 9,944
Against: 5,823
PROPOSITION. NUMBER 10 For: 10,924
Against:• 4,784
PROPOSITION NUMBER 11 For: 10,999
Against: 4,281
PROPOSITION NUMBER 12 For: 11,036
Against: 4,471
PROPOSITION NUMBER 13 For: 9,161
Against: 6,200
PROPOSITION NUMBER 14 For: 10,049
Against: 7,405
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS:
SECTION 1. That the propositions set forth in Ordinance No. 15403,
adopted March 5, 1980, calling said election on the question of adopting
-2-
•
amendments to the City Charter of the City of Corpus Christi, which Proposi-
tions are incorporated herein by reference, are hereby found to have been
sustained and approved by a majority cfthe qualified voters of the City
Voting at said election on April 5, 1980; in accordance with the said
tabulation of votes hereinabove set forth, the City Council finds that the
Propositions were carried by a majority of the votes.
The tabulation of votes cast at the election on said Propositions
are hereby adopted and are declared adopted and placed in full force and
effect as amendments to and part of the City Charter of the City of Corpus
Christi, in accordance with the Propositions voted on at said election.
SECTION 2. If for any reason any section, paragraph, subdivision,
clause, phrase, word or provision of this ordinance shall be held invalid or
unconstitutional by final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, it
shall not affect any other section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase,
word or provision of this ordinance, for it is the definite intent of this
City Council that every section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, phrase, word
or provision hereof be given full force and effect for its purpose.
SECTION 3. That the necessity for promptly canvassing the results
of said Charter Amendment Election creates a public emergency and an impera-
tive public necessity requiring the suspension of the Charter ru&E that no
ordinance or resolution shall be passed finally on the date of its intro-
duction but that such ordinance or resolution shall be read at three several
Meetings of the City Council, and the Mayor having declared that such emergency
and necessity exist, and having requested the suspension of the Charter rule
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 =J day of April, 1980.
ATTEST:
Cit Secretary
APPROVED:
9th DAY OF APRIL, 1980
AS TO PROPOSITION NOS. 1
THROUGH 13; WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
FILED AS TO PROPOSITION N0. 14:
J. BRUCE AYCOCK, CITY ATTORNEY
ty Attorney.
���/
TH CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
Corpus Christi, Texas
day of APRIL , 19 $O
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Corpus Christi, Texas
For the reasons set forth in the emergency clause of the foregoing ordinance, a
public emergency and imperative necessity exist for the suspension of the Charter
rule or requirement that no ordinance or resolution shall be passed finally on
the date it is introduced, and that such ordinance or resolution shall be read
at three meetings of the City Council; I, therefore, request that you suspend
said Charter rule or requirement and pass this ordinance finally,on the date it
is introduced, or at the present meeting of the City Council.
Respectfully,
,+ 1
THE OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
The Charter rule was suspended by the following vote:
Luther Jones
Edward L. Sample
Dr. Jack Best
David Diaz
Jack K. Dumphy
Betty N. Turner
Cliff Zarsky
The above ordinance was passed by the following vote:
Luther Jones
Edward L. Sample
Dr. Jack Best
David Diaz
Jack K. Dumphy
Betty N. Turner
Cliff Zarsky
15467
U.S. Department of Justice
DSD:JMC:ZIF:gml
DJ 166-012-3
D0474-0482
D1770-1771
D0483-0493
1
Mr. R. Marvin Townsend
City Manager
302 South Shoreline
Post Office Box 9277
Corpus Christi, Texas 78408
Dear Mr. Townsend:
Washington. D_C 20530
16 MAY 1980
This is in reference to four annexations, five polling
place changes and the April 5, 1980, referendum election
for the City of Corpus Christi; the joint election by the
City of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christi Junior College
District; the changes in the absentee voting location and
ten polling places for the Corpus Christi Junior College
District in Nueces County, Texas, submitted to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, as amended. Your submission was received on March 17,
1980. Although we noted your request for expedited con-
sideration, we have been unable to respond until this time.
The Attorney General does not interpose any objec-
tions to the changes in question. However, we feel a respon-
sibility to point out that Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act expressly provides that the failure of the Attorney
General to object does not bar any subsequent judicial
action to enjoin the enforcement of such changes.
Sincerely,
DREW S. DAYS III
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights. Division
BY:._acs_ on122
GERALD W. JONLrS
Chief, Voting Section
cc: J. W. Gary, Esq.
4 ..,•-•4-8,
c� a A,1 �lrr
CITY OF CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS
MAYOR
L UTHER JONES
CITY COUNCIL
EDWARD L. SAMPLE
.1.0,04 PRO TEM
O R. JAG[ BEST
D AVID 01.
JADI E. DUNPIY
B ETTY N. TURNER
E:LUT BUSBY
6,t,
May 8, 1980
Mr. George W. Strake, Jr.
Secretary of State
State Capitol Building
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Strake:
CITY MANAGER
R. NARVIN t0 300ND
CITY SECRETARY
B14 B. READ
CITY OFFICES
Rm BOMB SHORELINE
mar WEIRS SOX GS77
PRONE [SI21 RS43O)1
ZIP PORE TBS
Enclosed is a copy of amendments to the City Charter of the
City of Corpus Christi which were adopted following a City
Charter Election which was conducted on April 5, 1980.
As soon as the pages are printed reflecting these changes
in the City Charter are available, they will be forwarded
to you to be inserted in your copy of the Charter.
Yours very truly,
BGR/dz
Enclosures
B111 G. Read
City Secretary
TF4ct1 o RJEc-toxf To DRD/1wANC6
INTER -OFFICE COMMUNICATION
Dept. Legal
To R. Marvin Townsend, City Manager,
Mayor, & Members of the City Council
From J: Bruce Aycock, City Attorney
Subjee. Legality of Pro•osition 14
Date
April 8, 1980
The pre en City `h•i ter provis on regarding the maximum tax rate
in Article VII. Taxation and Bonds, Sec. 1, paragraphs (a) and (b.v/
The words "This maximum tax rate" as contained in the present paragraph (b)
refer to the constitutional maximum of $2.50. The present paragraph (b) makes.
"This maximum tax rate available at all times for the purpose of meeting interest
and principal requirements of debt existing as of the date of any tax levy."
However, as used in Proposition 14, "This maximum tax rate" is ambiguous, to
say the least.
Proposition 14 reads:
"This maximum tax rate shall be available at all times for the
purpose of meeting interest and principal requirements of debt
existing, including bonds previously authorized, but not yet
sold as of the date of any tax levy."
Upon first reading, that usage would seem to continue the present wording of
paragraph (b) save for adding a reference to bonds previously authorized but
not yet sold. On a question by the Council during a hearing on proposed Charter
amendments, Tom Hunt, one of the representatives of the Taxpayers Association,
insisted that it was not the intention of the Association that the proposed
reduced -tax rate would in any way affect or apply to prior bonded indebtedness.
Later, however, he returned and said that after meeting with his group and
their attorney that they intended whatever is submitted in Proposition 14.
If "maximum tax rate" refers to paragraph (a), then an irreconcilable conflict
occurs between the first and second sentences. The second sentence reads:
"The maximum tax rate for all purposes, including debt services
existing and proposed, shall not exceed sixty-eight cents ($0.68)
per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed value."
If it is the intention of the petitioners that the 68¢ tax rate applies to prior
bonded indebtedness, then an impairment contrary to law would take place inas-
much as at the time the bonds were sold the City stipulated that the maximum
tax rate available to service the bonds would be up to the constitutional rate
of $2.50 as set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article VII, Section 1. See
City of Austin v. Cahill, 88 S.W. 542 (Tex.Sup.1905); Voorhies v. City of
Houston, 8 S.W. 109 (Tex.Sup.1888).
Next, Proposition 14 attempts to limit the percentage in increase of assessed
value of any taxable property to 6% per annum unless an addition or improvement
To RMT, Mayor & City Council
April 8, 1980 Page 2
is made to the taxable property or if the property is sold. If an improvement
is added, then that increase in value is to be added to the assessed value or
if the property is sold, the property is to be assessed at the sale price and
thereafter subject to the 6% per annum limit.
The 6% per annum limitation, in my opinion, is contrary to the Texas constitu-
tional and statutory requirements that property be assessed at its fair market
value. Article VIII., Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, Article 7149,
V.T.C.S., Whelan v. State, 282 S.W.2d 378 (Tex.Sup.1955).
This memorandum opinion is submitted as required by Article IV., Section 25 of
the City Charter with respect to written objections of the City Attorney to any
ordinance being recorded.
In view of the conflicts in structure and in law set out above, I recommend
that either the District Court of Nueces County be asked to give guidance in
interpreting and trying to reconcile the conflicts to protect the City's bond
rating and contractual integrity or that the Council refuse to declare Propo-
sition 14 adopted and part of the Charter until the Court determines what part
of it, if any, is valid.
!' /u J. B coc
JBA:vp