HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - Regular - 7/8/1982ja 8 198Z
jut V
1137
I
I
82-41A-1137-1780
(1)
82-41A-1137-1781
(2)
82-41A-1137-1782
(3)
82-41A-1137-1783
(4)
CITY OF LUBBOCK
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 8, 1982
At 8:42 a.m., the Mayor announced that an Executive Session would be held to consider
land acquisition. This session will be held in accordance with Section 2-F, Article
6252-17, V.A.T.S.
The City Council of Lubbock, Texas met for its regular meeting Thursday, July 8,
1982, at 9:30 a.m. in the City Council Chambers, Second Floor, City Hall.
Those present:
Mayor Bill McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem. Alan Henry, Councilwoman Joan Baker, Councilman
M. J.: Aderton, City Manager Larry Cunningham, City Attorney John C. Ross, Jr., and
City Secretary -Treasurer Evelyn Gaffga.
Absent: Councilman E. Jack Brown
The invocation was given by Mayor Bill McAlister.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was given in unison by those present in the
Council Chambers.
Approval of Minutes - Regular Meeting, June 24, 1982.
The motion was made by Councilman Aderton, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Henry to approve
the minutes of the above stated meeting. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Council-
man Brown absent.
While the Council was recessed for lunch, Mr. Richard Lopez appeared informally and
asked that the wording of the minutes of June 24, 1982 regarding his purchase of 24
parcels in the urban renewal area be modified. He was apprehensive that the wording
as originally stated would affect his applications for interim financing in the
development of these lots.
At 2:00 p.m., prior to the public hearing regarding the 1982 Assessment Program, the
motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Henry to reconsider
the approval of the minutes. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown
absent.
Agenda Item #19 - 6/24/82
Consider the price and condition of sale of 24 parcels in the NDP Urban Renewal
Area.
The motion was then made by Councilwoman Baker and seconded by Councilman Aderton
for the wording on the above matter to be altered at the request of Mr. Lopez to the
following:'
Mr. Lopez does not have any definite financial commitments at the present
time, and the Council wanted it made clear to him and for the record that they
encourage the redevelopment for private single-family residences and are willing to
authorize the sale for such development, but the approval of sale of this property
does not constitute a financial obligation on, the part of the City of Lubbock and
asked the staff to make this perfectly clear to Mr. Lopez (new wording emphasized at
the request of Mr. Lopez)."
Proclamations
"POW/MIA Recognition Day" - July 9, 1982
82-41A-1137-1784
(5)
Receiving: Col. Monte Montgomery, Commander, Reese AFB
Col. Hearn, Commander, Reese AFB
"Ostomy Awareness Month" —August, 1982
1138
Mr. David Hess appeared before the Council to indicate that pursuant to the contract
entered into between the City and the Lubbock Cultural Affairs Council (Resolution
No. 1057, 3/25/82) which provides funds from the hotel/motel tax to encourage,
promote and improve all forms of art in the community, said funds being 21 of the
41 hotel/motel tax. A review committee has met and submits the following recom-
mendations to receive grants/awards for the first grant period of 1982 totaling
$16,598:
a. West Texas Museum Association: $1,288.00
For the acquisition of a painting of Thomas S. Lubbock; printing
of a brochure on Thomas S. Lubbock as Sesquicentennial projects.
b. International Center for Arid and Semi -Arid Studies: $4,370.00
A symposium on the art, literature, and culture of the Navajo
Indians.
C. Texas Tech University Department of Music: $4,040.00
For the 33rd Symposium of Contemporary Music, combined with
the Region VI Conference of the American Society of University
Composers.
d. Lubbock Garden and Arts Center, Inc.: $500.00
Proper lighting for the Municipal Garden and Arts Center
e. The Episcopal Diocese of Northwest Texas: $1,000.00
Renovation of the original beveled glass front door of the
Bacon home which has been declared an historic landmark and
which the Diocese is using as an office building.
f. Food and Fiber National Institute of Achievement: $2,400.00
Development of an educational program reflecting the various
uses of corn by Mexican and Mexican -American cultures.
g. Ranching Heritage Association: $1,000.00
Development of a national western artists show.
h. Guadalupe -Parkway Neighborhood Centers: $2,000.00
Guadalupe -Parkway Academy of Dance.
Mayor McAlister questioned the request of the Episcopal Diocese to which Mr. Hess
responded that normally the American Heritage Society makes these requests, but
inasmuch as the property has been purchased by the Diocese and has been declared an
historic landmark, the Cultural Affairs Council felt that it was comparable to the
request for the renovation of the Mast -White Home and other properties which have
received the same designation.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Pro Tem. Henry requested to abstain from the
balloting inasmuch as he is a member of the Board of Directors of the Food and Fiber
Institute. The motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Councilman
Aderton to approve the above recommendations of the Cultural Affairs Council.
Motion carried: 3 Yeas; 0 Nays; Mayor Pro Tem. Henry abstained; Councilman Brown
absent.
82-41A-1138-1786 Ramiro Torres will appear on behalf of the Victory Outreach Ministries to request a
(7) loudspeaker permit in conjunction with a religious rally planned for July 9th and
10th.
Mr. Torres appeared to request the use of a loudspeaker for religious concert on the
west side of the Valley Fruit Stand at 2110 4th Street for the evening of July 9 and
10 from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mr. Torres is also pastor of Victory Chapel.
Mr. Torres indicated that there had been no opposition from any residents from the
area.
'. -The motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Councilman Henry to approve
.jth6 loudspeaker permit as requested. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman
Brown absent.
82-41A-1138-1787 Consider passage of an ordinance amending Ordinance 8332 (authorizing issuance of
(15) $10,950,000 in General Obligation Series 1982 Bonds) to establish appropriate
*Amends Ord. 8332 interest rates and declaring an emergency.
5/28/82
Ordinance No. 8340
Mr. Joe Smith of First Southwest Company appeared to indicate that an error had been
made in the printing of the bonds which were previously approved and sold, said
error being that the interest rate was erroneously recorded and printed. The bond
attorneys in Dallas had recommended that an ordinance passed amending Ordinance 8332
would be the most expeditious manner of correcting this error. Mr. Smith clearly
indicated that the error was not through any fault of the City's staff or City
personel.
The motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Councilman Aderton to pass
0
..1139
Fi
ORD. NO. 8340
Amends Ord. 8332
AN ORDINANCE by the City Council of the City of Lubbock,
Texas, amending Ordinance No. 8332 and changing the interest rates on
certain "City of Lubbock, Texas, General Obligation Bonds, Series 1982";
ordaining other matters incident and related thereto; and declaring an
emergency.
82-41A-1139-1788 Ordinance No. 8335 - Zone Case 2369
(8)
*Publisher's Affidavit An ordinance changing.Lot 1, Block 2, Robert A. Jones Subdivision from R-3 to C-4,
on page 1156 located at 305 North Avenue U, subject to the following condition:
a. That the parking lot be paved prior to occupancy.
SMH:mck
ORDINANCE NO. 8335
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE
CITY OF LUBBOCK SO AS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2369; CHANGE.
LOT 1, BLOCK 2, ROBERT A. JONES SUBDIVISION TO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK COUNTY,
TEXAS, FROM R-3 TO C-4 ZONING DISTRICT: SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS: PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 1-5 OF THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE
AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
82-41A-1139-1789 Ordinance No. 8336 - Zone Case 2370
(9)
kPublisher's Affidavit An ordinance changing Tract A, Oakwood Addition, from R-1 to A-2 zoning, located at
on page 1156 6002 Avenue U, subject to the following condition:
a. That it be limited to church and church -related uses.
SMH:mck
ORDINANCE NO. 8336
82-41A-1139-1790
(10)
*Publisher's Affidavit
on page 1156
82-41A-1139-1791
(11)
*Amends Ord. 8160
(3/12/81)
*Publisher's Affidavit
on page 1156
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE
CITY OF LUBBOCK SO AS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWWNG CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2370; CHANGE
TRACT A, OAKWOOD ADDITION TO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM R-1
TO A-2 ZONING DISTRICT: SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY AS PROVIDED
FOR IN SECTION 1-5 OF THE CITY CODE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR
PUBLICATION.
Ordinance No. 8337 - Zone Case 2371
An Ordinance changing_a, tract out of Sec. 29, Block A-K, from R-1 to R-2 and A-2,
located at 66th St. and Frankford Avenue, subject to the following condition:
a.
SMH:mck
That it be limited to church and church -related uses on the
A--2tract only.
ORDINANCE NO. 8337
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY
OF LUBBOCK SO AS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2371; CHANGE A TRACT
OF LAND OUT OF SECTION 29, BLOCK A-K, CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM
R-1 TO R-2 AND A-2 ZONING DISTRICT; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY
AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 1-5 OF THE CITY..CODE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND
PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
Ordinance No. 8338
An ordinance amending Ord. 8160 regulating parades, demonstrations and recreational
street uses.
SMH:mck
ORDINANCE NO. 8338
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE
CITY OF LUBBOCK SO AS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE..NO. 2371; CHANGE
A TRACT OF LAND OUT OF SECTION 29, BLOCK A-K, CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS,
FROM R-1 TO R-2 AND A-2 ZONING DISTRICT: SUBJECT TO CONDITION: PROVIDING FOR A
PENALTY AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 1-5 OF THE CITY.CODE; PROVIDING A SAVINGS'
CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION.
The motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Henry to pass
Ordinances 8335, 8336, 8337, and 8338 on the second and final reading. Motion
carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown absent.
1140
82-41A-1140-1792
(14)
82-41A-1140-1793
(16)
*Contract located in
file
H � �
� K �
m Cn
b 0
m
tt 0
WH' LO
rt n m
rt w
co w
Id w 10
0
n 1-n
rr 0
n
rn
0
n
Consider an ordinance calling a Special Election for January 15, 1983.
Ordinance No. 8339
This ordinance calls for a Special Election resulting from the petitions filed by
the Lubbock Property Owners Association which has been in litigation and the City's
appeal has been overruled. For all the documentation to be submitted to the Justice
Department and with the provision in the Election Code that local jurisdictional
issues cannot appear on a state-wide election (which will take place in November),
the January date is the first appropriate time.
The motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Henry, seconded by Councilman Aderton to pass
Ordinance 8339 calling the Special Election for January 15, 1983. Motion carried:
4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown absent.
DGV/mck ORDINANCE NO. 8339
AN ORDINANCE SETTING A SPECIAL ELECTION OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, FOR THE
15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 1983, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK FOR ADOPTION OR REJECTION PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EXISTING
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK; SETTING FORTH THE LANGUAGE OF SUCH PROPOSED CHARTER
AMENDMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF SUCH ELECTION IN A NEWSPAPER
OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ON THE SAME DAY IN EACH OF TWO SUCCES-
SIVE WEEKS WITH FIRST PUBLICATION NOT LESS THAN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS PRIOR TO SAID
ELECTION.
Consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply for a Selective Traffic
Enforcement Grant.
Resolution No. 1141
The City has participated in the STEP (Selective Traffic Enforcement Program) for
several years as a participant in the state-wide program to reduce traffic accidents
resulting in deaths, injuries, and property damage. We have been notified by the
State Highway Department that funds are available to continue the STEP Program and
to include "Driving While Intoxicated" programs as well. The action required would
be to make the official requests for these grant monies. The sum involved was
$245,360 which would provide for nine (9) police officers and one (1) secretary.
The "Driving While Intoxicated" portion of the grant includes overtime for those
officers working in this program and the estimated value is $58,450. This appli-
cation will be submitted by July 15, 1982.
The motion was made by Councilman Aderton, seconded by Councilwoman Baker to pass
Resolution 1141 authorizing the City Manager to make application for this STEP Grant
Fund. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown absent.
DGV :da
RESOLUTION NO. 1141
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the City Manager of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and
directed to apply on behalf of the City of Lubbock to the State Department of
Highways and Public Transportation for a FY82 Selective Traffic Enforcement Grant in
the amount of $245,360 for Lubbock's Selective Traffic Enforcement Program and
$58,450 for Lubbock's Driving While Intoxicated Program.
Passed by the City Council this 8th day of July ,1982.
/S/ Bill McAlister
BILL McALISTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
/S,/ Evelyn Gaffga
Evelyn Gaffga, City Secretary -Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
/S/ Rickey Childers
Rickey Childers, Administrative Assistant
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/S/ Donald G. Vandiver
Donald G. Vandiver, Assistant City Attorney
1141
FJ
82-41A-1141-1794 Consider an ordinance granting a franchise to Southwestern Public Service.
(17) — — —
Ordinance No. 8341
At the 8:30 Work Session, the Council was apprised of the above referenced matter.
Mr. Joe Boerner, attorney, and Mr. Jake Webb, District Manager for Southwestern
Public Service, was present to answer any necessary questions.
The present franchise with SPS would not expire until 1984, said franchise authorizing
them to do business in the City. SPS desires a new franchise for a 20-year period
since the company is contemplating construction of a large coal -generating plant in
Lubbock County which necessitates financing through the issuance of bonds. Since
the present franchise would terminate in the midst of the construction, they thought
it advisable to make application for a new franchise at this time.
The proposed document stipulates certain changes from the existing franchise: that
SPS is granted permission to pass electricity through its system in the City of
Lubbock to areas outside the city: the City's right to unilaterally amend the
franchise agreement at the end of each 5-year period has been omitted; the provision
regarding the City's rights to require the Company to move its poles at its expense
in the event of maintenance activities on behalf of the citizens; the Company may
make street excavations and requirements stipulated for the restoration of streets,
alleys and sidewalks; SPS will waive all claims for damages against the City for
injuries to their property by City employees save and except LP&L personnel, and
except when damages are the result of willful or active negligence of City employees;
the Company's rights are subject to police powers of the City and should comply with
present and future laws, ordinances and regulations at all times; the SPS policies
shall be included as prerequisites to furnishing services to potential customers;
that this is not an exclusive franchise which the City is precluded from granting;
the SPS shall pay 2% of its annual gross receipts to the City for the rights to use
the public streets, alleys, and rights of way - sales to LP&L in terms of gross
receipts shall be excluded from the 2% limitation; strong indemity and hold harmless
agreement from SPS; and if SPS transfers this franchise to another party, the party
will be required to file a written acceptance of this franchise and all the terms
therein.
The above points were covered in a brief summation and Mr. Boerner indicated that
there were no additional comments to be made unless the Council had any questions.
At the Regular Meeting, there being no further comments, the motion was made by
Mayor Pro Tem Henry, seconded by Councilwoman Baker to pass Ordinance 8341 on first
reading. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 8341
FRANCHISE
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY THE RIGHT, PRIVILEGE
AND FRANCHISE TO CONDUCT WITHIN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, AN ELECTRICAL LIGHTING
AND POWER BUSINESS AND TO ENTER UPON, ERECT, CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN, EXTEND, REPAIR,
REPLACE AND REMOVE IN, UNDER, UPON, WITHIN, OVER, ABOVE, ACROSS AND ALONG ANY AND
ALL OF THE PRESENT AND FUTURE PUBLIC ROADS, HIGHWAYS, STREETS, LANES, AND ALLEYS OF
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, A SYSTEM OF POLES, POLE LINES, TOWERS, DISTRIBUTION LINES,
TRANSMISSION LINES, WIRES, GUYS, CABLES, CONDUITS, TRANSFORMERS, AND OTHER DISTRIBUTION
AND TRANSMISSION INSTRUMENTALITIES, FACILITIES AND APPURTENANCES NECESSARY OR PROPER
FOR THE TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY INTO, IN, WITHIN, FROM, ACROSS,
AND THROUGH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AS NOW EXISTING, OR AS SAID CITY LIMITS MAY HEREAFTER
BE EXTENDED; AND GRANTING SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND
ASSIGNS, THE AUTHORITY TO USE SUCH FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION,
DELIVERY AND SALE OF ELECTRICITY TO THE CITY, AND TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE CITY, OR
ANY OTHER PERSON OR PERSONS, FIRMS OR CORPORATIONS, WHEREVER LOCATED WITHIN OR
WITHOUT THE CITY LIMITS OF LUBBOCK, FOR USE BY SUCH PURCHASER OR PURCHASERS, FOR
LIGHT, POWER, COOLING AND HEAT OR FOR EITHER OR ALL OF SAID PURPOSES, OR FOR ANY
OTHER PURPOSE OR PURPOSES FOR WHICH ELECTRICITY MAY BE USED; PROVIDING THAT THIS
FRANCHISE SHALL BE EFFECTIVE FOR A PERIOD OF TWENTY (20) YEARS COMMENCING UPON AND
EXTENDING FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE AFTER FINAL PASSAGE HEREOF;
PROVIDING FOR THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL, RAISING OR LOWERING BY COMPANY OF ITS WIRES AND
OTHER APPURTENANCES; PROVIDING FOR THE RIGHT TO, AND CONDITION OF, THE OPENING OF
PAVEMENTS AND SIDEWALKS BY COMPANY; RETAINING ALL RIGHTS OF CITY TO REGULATE THE
LOCATION OF COMPANY'S FACILITIES IN, UPON, ALONG, UNDER AND OVER THE STREETS, ALLEYS
AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES OF CITY, AS WELL AS TO REQUIRE THE RELOCATION OF SAME;
PROVIDING FOR EFFICIENT ELECTRICAL SERVICE AND THE MAINTAINING OF COMPANY'S FACILITIES;
PROVIDING FOR THE USE BY CITY FOR THE. PURPOSES SPECIFIED OF POLES AND CONDUITS OF
COMPANY; PROVIDING COMPENSATION, AND METHOD OF PAYMENT OF SUCH, TO THE CITY FOR THE
USE BY COMPANY OF THE STREETS, ALLEYS AND PUBLIC WAYS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE
MAINTAINING OF RECORDS BY COMPANY WITH RIGHT OF INSPECTION BY CITY RESERVING TO CITY
ALL POWERS OF REGULATION; PROHIBITING ASSIGNMENT EXCEPT BY CONSENT BY CITY EXCEPT IN
CERTAIN CASES; GIVING CITY'S CONSENT TO THE CUTTING AND TRIMMING BY COMPANY OF
CONFLICTING TREES; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING THAT THIS FRANCHISE
SHALL NOT BE EXCLUSIVE; MAKING MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THIS GRANT OF
FRANCHISE; REPEALING ALL PREVIOUS ELECTRICAL LIGHTING AND POWER FRANCHISE ORDINANCES;
PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THIS FRANCHISE ORDINANCE AND ITS ACCEPTANCE BY
COMPANY.
82-41A-1141-1795 Consider claims against the City.
(18)
a. Claim No. 82-C-590 Randall Marker $300.00
Ani-mmnhila namage
1142
b. Claim No. 82-C-597 Manuel Lopez, Jr. $169.77
Automobile Damage
The motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Councilman Aderton to DENY
the above referenced claim. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown
absent.
C. Claim No. 82-C-598 Todd Quisenberry $140.49
Damage to lawn mower.
The motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Councilman Aderton to DENY
the above referenced claim. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown
absent.
d. Claim No. 82-C-599 Marsha Ann Lewis $166.09
Automobile Damage.
The motion was made by Councilwoman Baker, seconded by Councilman Aderton to DENY
the above referenced claim. Motion carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown
absent.
82-41A-1142-1796 Consider Bid #6889 for fighting chemicals. (Fire Dept.).
(19)
*Specifications and Items 1, 2 Fire Protection Service
Contract documents Dallas, Texas
located in file
Items 3, 4 Thunderbird Sales, Corp.
Albuquerque, N.M.
82-41A-1142-1797 Consider Bid #6890 for miscellaneous Electric Items. (Warehouse Stock).
(20)
Item I General Electric Supply Co.
Lubbock, Texas
Items 2, 3, 4 Temple, Inc.
Lubbock, Texas
82-41A-1142-1798 Consider Bid #6894 for metal building, Sandhills Well Field, and authorize same
(21) (Water Utilities).
Low Bidder Plains Builders, Inc.
Lubbock, Texas ($60,449)
Resolution No. 1142
JWF:mck
RESOLUTION NO. 1142
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK:
THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock is hereby authorized and directed to
execute for and on behalf of said City a contract to be entered into by and between
said City and Plains Builders, Inc. for construction of a warehouse building for
said City in the Sandhills Well Field, attached herewith which shall be spread upon
the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall
constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail.
Passed by the City Council this 8th day of July , 1982.
/S/ Bill McAlister
BILL McALISTER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
/S/ Evelyn Gaffga
Evelyn Gaffga, City Secretary -Treasurer
APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:
ISI Guy Wilson
Guy Wilson, Water Utilities Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/S/ J. Worth Fullingim
J. Worth Fullingim, Assistant City Attorney
Floyd Nesbitt, the Director of Purchasing, indicated that the above referenced bids
were the low bids and met specifications.
JVL 819
1143
I
The Council recessed at 10:00 a.m. for Executive Session, for lunch, and to reconvene
at 2:00 p.m. for the public hearing according to the public notice published.
82-41A-1143-1799 Hold a public hearing on proposed assessments for.paving on various streets and
(12) alleys on the 1982 paving program (GWO 11,593).
In accordance with the Notice published in the Lubbock Avalanche -Journal on June 13,
20 and 27, 1982, a public hearing was held on the above matter.
The assessment rolls consist of streets and alleys in the Piedmont and Avalon Addition.,
Gatewood Addition, North Tech Addition and Smithlawn Addition, as well as a few lots
in Slidell Addition.
Pursuant to Art. 1105b, Sec. 9 of Vernon's Civil Statutes, which states: ". . . no
assessment shall be made against any abutting property of owners thereof in excess
of the special benefits of such property, and its owners in the enhanced value
thereof by means of such improvements as determined at such hearing." This is to
say, based on a registered appraiser's report, the assessed costs cannot exceed the
enhanced value of the respective proerty, as indicated by the appraiser's enhancement
cost projection.
The paving procedures available to citizens are:
Assessment paving, based on the cost of improvements, cannot exceed
enhancement value, and is conducted according to statutory provisions; the
individual items may be placed on the assessment rolls either by citizen
petitions or by staff recommendation.
Resolution paving, a procedure whereby the citizens may request
paving (100% property owner participation), secure approval of Council,
contact and arrange for contractor; the City provides engineering services
and inspection as to compliance according to City's standards. This is a
90% (property owner) - 10% (City) ratio for paving. The property owner
pays 100% for C/G.
Alley Use Paving, is a method which may be requested by the indiv-
idual property owner. The property owner(s) absorb all construction costs
and the paving must tie into a street or side -street. The City furnishes
engineering at no charge.
Another point clarified by Staff prior to testimony being received was that the City
Council cannot increase the assessed rate, as approved at this hearing, but they may
decrease the assessed rate on subsequent readings of the ordinance.
The paving ordinance related to this paving program must be "read" three times
before being fully enacted. Notice to Bidders are submitted between the second and
third readings of the ordinance.
Goddard and Associates did the appraisals.
The above matters were discussed in depth at the 8:30 Work Session. In response to
Council query as to the City's source of funding, City Manager Cunningham reported
that the City's portion would be funded by Revenue Sharing monies in the aggregate
amount of $775,000 ($445,000 - Entitlement Period XII, $3000,000 - Entitlement
Period XIII).
Unit 460-85 E-W alley between 22nd and 22nd Pl. from Louisville
to Memphis.
Assessed costs: 17,315.10 P.O. 1,298.22 City
Rate: paving 14.31
C/G -0-
Proponents: None appearing
Opponents Mrs. C. H. Beck, 3710 - 22nd Pl. (Lot 12,
Block 2, Anderson Subdiv.) stated that she did
not sign the petition as stated, although her
signature was on file. However, she was in
favor of the alley being paved two years ago.
Staff Pursuant to the appraiser's report, the en-
hancement value created an exhorbitant in-
crease in City's costs, and the Staff recom-
mended this unit be deleted from the program.
The Council queried if the citizens could still
secure paving under the "resolution paving"
procedure (90% - 10%) with the citizens
assuming full responsibility of getting the
paving completed in accordance to City stan-
dards, to which the Staff responded affirmatively.
CONSENSUS : Delete from the program.
1
1144
Unit 460-86 E-W alley between 22nd Pl. and 23rd from Louisville
to Knoxville
Assessed costs: 17,315.13 P.O. 2,471.89 City
Rate: paving 14.31
C/G -0-
Proponents: None appearing
Opponents Weldon Garrett, 4709 - 88th (E/45' of Lot 13,
Blk 1, Eubanks -Fort Addn), indicated he had
rental property at this location, and he did
not feel that paving the alley would enhance
his property sufficiently to increase the rent,
and he was opposed to it.
Staff The circumstances are the same as related in
the previous unit relative to the appraiser's
recommendation and the staff recommended it
be deleted from the program.
CONSENSUS : Delete from the program.
Unit 460-87 E-W alley between 68th and 69th Streets, from
Peoria to 68th Dr.
Assessed costs: 22,153.02 P.O. 1,702.92 City
Rate: paving 14.31
C/G
Proponent: Mrs. John D. Jones, 4006 - 69th (Lot 690,
Melonie Park) was in favor of paving.
Opponents:, Mrs. Karen Vardy, 3516 - 22nd Place (Lot 687,
Melonie Park Addn) indicated the assessed
value on this vacant lot was too expensive
for their irregular -size lot and was opposed
to it being included. Query: Is there an
alternate calculation for this lot?
Mr. Ben Malone, Jr., 4016 - 69th (Lot 695,
(Melonie Park) indicated opposition even though
he signed the petition originally; that the
assessed rate was too expensive for a vacant
lot and the enhancement value was out of line;
that paving the alley would create a "racetrack"
inasmuch as the alley feeds into the Elmore
Park facility; he was opposed to including it
in the program.
Staff 83% of the property owners with abutting footage
signed the petition. Admittedly, Mrs. Vardy's
reference to the irregular shaped lots being
assessed on the same basis might bear reconsid-
ering, and her request to consider a square
footage basis rather than a linear footage basis
has merit. The formula in that case would be:
take the square footage of each lot and divide
by the depth of the rest of the lots, reducing
the footage on Lot 687 (Mrs. Vardy's) from 187
to 102 assessed footage; for Lot 696 which is
also irregular, the assessed footage would be
reduced from 143 to 122, and the assessed rate
for these two lots would be $6.25.
CONSENSUS Because of the increased enhancement costs,
Councilwoman Baker and Mayor McAlister favored
deleting it from the program; Councilmen Aderton
and Henry favored leaving it on.
The item was deleted. The citizens can pursue
paving this alley by the "resolution paving"
method.
Jul- 8 1981
. 1145
E-W alley between 22nd and 22nd Pl. from Indiana
to Joliet
Assessed costs: 15,583.62 P.O. 1,476.02 City
Rate: paving .14.31
C/G -0-
There was no testimony presented by either proponents or
opponents.
S I taff 44% of the property owners with abutting footage
signed the petition; the records reflect some
opposition (by phone), although some had signed
the petition.
CONSENSUS Delete from program.
Unit 2240-1 59th Street from Slide to York Avenue
Assessed costs: 22,248.24 P.O. 1,284.09 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
Proponent: Mrs. Bob Allen, 4903 - 14th (Lot 14, Blk 1,
Piedmont Addition) spoke in favor of the paving.
Opponents: None appearing.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by the
staff because of maintenance, drainage and
traffic circulation problems. There were no
responses by any property owners --pro or con.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program.
Unit 2240-2 60th Street from Wayne Avenue to Vickburg Avenue
Assessed costs: 21,860.64 P.O. 1,165.22 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
Proponent: Leon C. Headlee, 2118 - 49th (Lots 18 & 19, 16,
Blk 6, Piedmont Addn) spoke in favor of the paving.
Opponents: None appearing
Staff 77% of the property owners with abutting footage
signed the petition; there is no recorded
opposition.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program.
Unit 2240-3 60th Street from Slide Road to York Avenue
Assessed costs: 22,248.24 P.O. 1,284.09 city
Rate: paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by staff
because of maintenance and drainage problems.
There was no response from any of the property
owners --pro or con.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program.
Unit 2240-4 61st Street from Wayne to Vicksburg
Assessed costs: 22,558.32 P.O. 4,760.48 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
Proponent: Dr. William Harold.,.Lyness, 4902 - 61st (Lot 11,
Blk 11, Piedmont) expressed approval of the pav-
ing because of the dust and mud that is prevalent
in this area.
Opponents: None appearing
Staff This unit was placed on the program by the staff
because of maintenance/drainage problems in the
area.
e/
1146 3,01-
TT-il- 99An-5 61st Street from York to Wayne Avenue
Assessed costs: 23,256.00 P.O. 2,657.12 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
There was no testimony presented by either proponents or
opponents.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by the staff
• because of maintenance/drainage problems in the
area.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program.
UNIT 2240-6
61st Street from Slide Road to York Avenue
Assessed costs 22,945.92 P.O. 3,765.34 City
Rate:
paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
There was no
testimony from either proponents or opponents.
Staff:
This unit was placed on the program by Staff
because of maintenance and drainage problems.
CONSENSUS:
Leave it on the program.
UNIT 2240-7
62nd Street from York Avenue to 130' W. of
Wayne Avenue
Assessed costs:
19,985.44 P.O. 712.50 City
Rate:.
paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented by proponents or opponents.
Staff: This unit was petitioned by one property owner
whose property constitutes 23% of the abutting
property footage. There was very little response
and no negative responses from the property owners.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program.
UNIT 2240-8
63rd St. from York Dr. to 540' W. of Vicksburg
Assessed costs
18,06372 P.O. 946.13 City
Rate:
paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
Proponents:
None appearing
Opponents:
Mrs. Wilson, an heir of Mrs. Bertha Bryan,
4602 - 35th (LotAvalon Addn)
indicated it was too expensive for folks on
retirement/disability income, which they were;
they simply could not afford it. (A staff
member talked with them following the completed
testimony about the City's "pay -out" plan.)
Staff
This unit was placed on the program by petition --
one property owner, constituting 37% of the
abutting footage. There were no other responses
from property owners except Mrs. Bryan, above.
CONSENSUS:
Leave it on the program.
UNIT 2240-9
64th St. from York Drive to Vicksburg
Assessed costs: 24,883.92 P.O 1,339.73 City
Rate:
paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony from either proponents or opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by petition, --
one property owner, constituting 5% of the
abutting footage; there is a bad maintenance area
as well.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program.
JUL Slop) ..1147
UNIT 2240-10 65th Street from Utica to Toledo
Assessed costs: 22,131.96 P.O. 1,180.93 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
Proponent: Mr. Juan E. Gonzales, 4720 65th St. (Lot 11, Blk 7,
Slidell Annex) who expressed support for the paving
because of the dust or mud, as the case may be.
Opponents: None appearing
Staff This unit was placed on the program by petition-
14% of the abutting footage signed petitions.
There was one response which was a telephone
call expressing opposition.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program.
UNIT 2240-11 Toledo Avenue from 64th St. to 65th St.
Assessed costs 6,071.34 P.O. 3,093.80 City
Rate paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
Proponent:
J. Edwin- Davis 4619 - 64th (Lot 10, Blk 67,
-Slidell
Addn) is in support of the paving.
Opponents:
None appearing
Staff:
This unit was placed on the program by staff because
of maintenance problems in the area.
Pursuant to the appraiser's report, the enhancement
costs reflect that there would be -0- costs to the
property owners and the C&G rate should be reduced
to $3.75.
A second point called to the Council's attention
is that past policy has been that for side streets,
there is a reduced rate to cost of C/G only leaving
the City to bear a large portion of the costs.
CONSENSUS:
Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- for paving (P.O.) and $3.75 C&G (P.O.)
UNIT 2240-12
Vicksburg Avenue from 59th St. to 60th St.
Assessed
costs 6,715.52 P.O.
2,893-96 city
Rate:
paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was
no testimony from proponents and
opponents.
Staff:
This unit was placed on the
program by staff due
to maintenance problems in the area. There was
no response from any of the
property owners.
Pursuant to the appraiser's
report, the enhancement
costs as he recommends are:
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G
for.property owners.
This situation is similar to
the previous Unit, this,
too, being a side street.
CONSENSUS:
Leave it on the program at the reduced rate.
UNIT 2240-13 Vicksburg Avenue from 60th St. to 61st Street
Assessed costs: 6,715.52 P.O. 2,893.96 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
Proponent: Dr. William Harold - Lyness, 4902 - 61st (Lot 11,
Blk 11, Piedmont Addn) spoke in favor of the
paving to alleviate the dust/mud.
Opponents: None appearing
Staff: This, too, is a side street and according to policy
could be approved at the reduced rate. According
to the appraiser's report,, the enhancement value
has accelerated the City's costs.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
R-EM.
UNIT 2240-14
Vicksburg Avenue from the Alley S. of 63rd St. to
64th St.
Assessed costs 2,923.06 P.O. /34.4Z UltY
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff because
of maintenance and drainage problems in the area.
There was no response from any of the property owners.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G.
UNIT 2240-15 Vicksburg from 64th St to 65th Street
Assessed costs: 6,265.84 P.O. 2,795.76 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff
because of maintenance and drainage problems in the
area. There was no response from any of the property
owners.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G.
UNIT 2240-16 Wayne Avenue from 60th Street to 61st Street
Assessed costs: 7,255.16 P.O. 2,306.09 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff because
of maintenance and drainage problems in the area.
There was no response from any of the property owners.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G.
UNIT 2240-17 Wayne Avenue from 61st St. to the Alley N. of 62nd St.
Assessed costs: 3,687.54 P.O. 195.58 City
Rate: paving, 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff
CONSENSUS:
UNIT 2240-18
because of maintenance and drainage problems
in the area and consists of two parcels. There
was one opposition by letter from one of the
property owners, constituting 50% opposition.
The appraisers report is the same as reflected in
previous units above.
Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G.
York Avenue from 58th St. to 59th Street
Assessed costs: 0,595.62 P.O. 2,867.78 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
1149
Ns
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff
because of maintenance and drainage problems in
the area. There was no response from any of the
property owners.
The appraiser's report reflects the same as
on the previous units.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G.
UNIT 2240-19 York Avenue from 59th Street to 60th Street
Assessed costs: 6,715-52 P.O. 2,893.96 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was In —A t1,
-
CONSENSUS:
UNIT 2240-20
e - e program by staff because
of maintenance and drainage problems in the area.
There were no responses from property owners.
The appraiser's report reflects the same information
as the above previous units.
Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G
York Avenue from 60th Street to 61st Street
Assessed costs: 7,255.16 P.O. 2,306.09 city
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff
because of maintenance and drainage problems in the
area. There was no response from property owner.
The appraiser's report reflects the same information
as above.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C&G.
UNIT 2240-21 York Avenue from 61st Street to 62nd Street
Assessed costs: 7,794.80 P.O. 1,718.21 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C/G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either
proponents or opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff
because of maintenance and drainage problems
in the area. There were no responses from
property owners.
The appraiser's report reflects the same information
as stated above.
CONSENSUS: Leave it on the program at the reduced rate of
-0- paving, 3.75 C/G.
UNIT 2240-22
80th Street
from Akron Avenue
to Boston Avenue
Assessed costs:
20,659.08 P.O.
5,332.08 City
Rate:
paving
13.18
CIG
6.20
Proponents:
None appearing
Opponents:
Mr. Frank D.
Wilson, P.O. Box
16249, Lubbock
(Lot 97 and
98, Gatewood Addn
and Lots 104 and
105, Gatewood Addn) who spoke
against the paving
because the
assessed rates were too high inasmuch
as the area
is undeveloped.
1150
'Jut 8 798�
Staff:
CONSENSUS:
UNIT 2240-23
This unit was placed on the program by petition
and in addition to Mr. Wilson's comments above,
there was one other property owner who opposed
the paving by phone call.
Delete from program.
Akron Avenue from 78th Street to 79th Street
Assessed costs: 6,215.34 P.O. 3,245.51 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by petition,
and there was no negative responses from any
property owners.
The appraiser's report reflects increased enhancement
costs and recommended the reduced rate as stated
in previous units of similar situation.
CONSENSUS: (3 Yeas/Baker, Nay) Leave on on the program at the
reduced rate of -0- paving, 3.75 C&G.
UNIT 2240-24
S/2 of Grinnell Street from Knoxville to Indiana
P.O.19,077.67 1,569.51 City
Assessed costs:
Rate: paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or opponents.
staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff because
of maintenance and drainage problems. There is a
large apartment complex on the north side and
the north half of this unit was paved at the time
of this construction.
The appraiser's report reflects the above
enhancement costs and recommends paving costs be
adjusted to 0.471 and C&G remain as assessed.
CONSENSUS: Delete from program (2 Yeas; 2 Nays).
UNIT 2240-25
E/2 of Avenue S from S. Loop 289 to Alley N. of 73rd
Street.
Assessed costs: 2,006.80 P.O. 2,173.11 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented by either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff because
of maintenance and drainage problems in the area.
The W/2 of this unit is in escrow (prepaid monies).
CONSENSUS: Leave on program at assessed rate.
UNIT 2240-26 Dover Avenue from Brownfield Hwy to Brownfield Dr.
Assessed costs: 12,070.45 P.O. 3,417.97 City
Rate: paving 13-18
C&G 6.20
There was no testimony presented by either proponents or
opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff
because of maintenance, drainage and traffic
circulation problems in the area.
CONSENSUS: Leave on program at assessed rate.
JUL .1151
FJ
UNIT 2240-27 E/2 of 74th St. from University Avenue to Alley West
of Avenue X.
Assessed Costs: 14,876.28 P.O. 810.38 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
There was no testimony presented by either proponents or opponents.
Staff: This unit was placed on the program by staff
because of maintenance, drainage, and traffic
circulation problems, 74th Street being the primary
access street.
CONSENSUS: Leave on program at assessed rate.
UN-ITI:.22-40-28 77th Street from U.S. 87th to Avenue F
Assessed costs: 13,643.52 P.O. 3,260.62 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C&G 6.20
Proponents: Mr. C. B. Strain, 702 - 77th (Lot 19 and E/2 of Lot
18, Smithlawn Addn) spoke in support of the paving
inasmuch as access to their property in rainy season
is almost impossible; that this is a long established
neighborhood with little turnover in property and
the area takes pride in their respective properties,
and paving would enhance the value of their properties.
Mr. Strain indicated that the appraiser used properties
in an adjacent addition for his appraisal base because
there has been no property transactions in the
immediate area for many years, and he questioned the
authenticity of the appraiser's report for this reason.
In response to Council query whether or not he thought
the enhancement to his property resulting from paving
would warrant his paying the assessed rate as notified,
to which he responded affirmatively, and he would rather
pay the assessed rate than have it deleted from the
program.
In response to the Mayor's query as to whether or not he
would be willing to file with him (the Mayor) a letter
stating his willingness to do this, he responded
affirmatively.
Opponents: None appearing
Staff: This unit was petitioned and 86% of the property owners
are in favor of the paving; there were no negative
responses.
Pursuant to the appraiser's report, there is notable
increase in the enhancement costs, he is recommending
-0- paving, 6.20 C&G.
In response to Council query as to securing a second
opinion, the Staff responded that it was possible,
but a lengthy and laborious process to conform to
statutory requirements, and this was not a practical
method.
In response to Council query that if deleted, the
Citizens had the option to secure paving under the
"resolution paving" procedure (90-10), the Staff
concurred.
CONSENSUS: Leave on the program at the assessed rate subject to
further consideration at later date.
"I"
1152
JUIL 8 Mz
Unit 2240-29
76th
Street
from Avenue B to
Avenue D
Assessed costs:
11,628.00 P.O.
32,833.68 city
Rate:
paving
13.18
C/G
6.20
Proponents:
Mrs.
Glenn
T. Shepard, 317 -
76th (W/30' of Lot 8
and
E/45' of Lot 9, Blk 16,
Smithlawn Addn).
Mr.
William C. Dilworth, 319
- 76th St. (:W115' of
Lot
9, and
all of Lot 10, Blk
16, Smithlawn Addn).
Both property owners spoke in favor of the paving
because of the terrible street conditions in incle-
ment weather; that they have been residents in this
area for several years and the paving would certain-
ly improve the area and improve their property
value.
They also agreed to file with the Mayor a letter
stating their willingness to pay the assessed rate
as notified, it being advantageous for the to do SO.
Opponents : None appearing
Staff This unit was petitioned by the property owners;
there were no negative responses.
There is a great deal of fill material needed for
this unit, as it is primarily below the high water
mark. This material would need to come out of a
lake bed nearby, in accordance with existing ordin-
ance, in order to conform with the material in the
area; this would need to be purchased from the pro-
perty owner who owns the playa lake. The staff re-
commended that if approved, a condition be placed
on the action so that the unit may be included in
the program contingent upon availability of the fill
material at a reasonable cost. This agreement needs
to be accomplished before the third reading of the
Ordinance.
CONSENSUS
Leave it on the program at assessed rate subject to
documentation from property owners as to their
willingness to pay the assessed rate as notified;
and subject to the availability of fill material
prior to third reading of the ordinance.
Unit 2240-30
76th Street from Avenue D to U.S. 87 (Tahoka Hwy).
Assessed costs: 25,802.32 P.O. 29,523.23 City
Enhancement
costs: 8,952.80 P.O. 46,372.75 city
Rate:
paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
Proponents:
Elmer East, Attorney for Consolidated Inc (Pepsi Cola)
appeared expressing support of paving subject to
approval of paving to Ash Avenue (Unit 2242-2); that
his client needs this access for the paving costs to
be beneficial to them; that they now have access to
Avenue H which is round -about and the Ash Avenue
access is most beneficial; that in the event that
unit is not approved, his client would not be in
favor of the assessed rate.
Opponents None appearing
Staff This unit was placed on the program by petition of
property owners; there were no negative responses
received.
This area likewise will need considerable fill mat-
erial to bring the street up to highwater mark and the
conditions placed upon this unit, if approved, would
be the same as the previous unit considered.
CONSENSUS Leave on program at the assessed rate, subject to
receiving documentation from property owners as to
their agreement to pay the assessed rate as notified,
and subject to availability of fill material before
third reading of ordinance.
JUL 87
I
Unit 2240-311 77th Street from Avenue D to Avenue F
Assessed costs: 23,256.00 P.O. 2,530.83 City
Rate: paving 13.18
C/G 6.20
There were no testimonies presented from proponents or opponents.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by petition with
80% of property owners of abutting footage in favor;
there were two negative responses after notice was
received.
CONSENSUS: Leave on program at the assessed rate.
Unit 2240-32 Avenue F. From 76th Street to 77th Street
Assessed costs: 7,794.80 P.O. 1,528.48 City
Rate: paving 8.79
C/G 6.20
Proponent: Mr. C. B. Strain, 7.02 - 77th (Lot 19, Blk 14, Smithlawn
Addn) once again spoke in favor of the paving at the
assessed rate and, as previously stated, the appraiser
used properties in an adjacent addition to determine
the enhancement value inasmuch as no properties have
been sold in recent years to ascertain the true mar-
ket value. He felt the report was therefore not
truly accurate.
He is in agreement with the assessed rate as stated
in the previous unit to which he spoke.
Opponent : None appearing
Staff This unit was placed on the program by petition with
100% of the property owners in favor.
In keeping with previous policy for side streets, the
assessed rate could be adjusted if the council so
desired.
CONSENSUS
Leave it on
the program at the
reduced rate for paving
(-0-) and at
the assessed rate
for C/G (6.20).
Unit 2241-1
E/2 of Elgin
Avenue from.79th
Street to 82nd Street
Assessed costs:
13,464.00 P.O.
8,404.18 City
Rate:
Paving
11.76/19.67
C/G
6.20
There was no testimony presented by either proponents or opponents.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by staff because
of maintenance and drainage problems, as well as traf-
fic circulation problems. There were no negative
responses from the property owners. This is the area
of a new school which is to be constructed.
The appraiser's report reflects increased enhancement
costs and recommends -0- paving, $3.75 C/G.
CONSENSUS Leave on the program at reduced rate of -0- paving,
assessed rate for C/G (6.20).
Unit 2241-2 Avenue B from 74th Street to 76th Street
Assessed costs: 7,722.80 P.O. 15,330.31 City
Rate: paving 11.76
C/G 6.20
There was no testimony presented from either proponents or opponents.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by petition.
There is no assessment on the west side because of
the playa lake being located there. Only one parcel
is involved.
The appraiser's report reflects that there are no costs
to the property owner with the City absorbing total
paving costs.
%r
1154
This area, too, will require considerable fill material
to be taken from the lake area if available. If not
available, this would need to be deleted from the
program (if approved on this date) before the third
reading of the ordinance.
CONSENSUS Leave it on the program at the assessed rate. The staff
secured from Mr. Phillips, the sole property owner in
this unit, a letter stating his agreement to pay the
assessed rate rather than delete the unit from the
program; that the enhancement costs to be absorbed
totally by the City were exorbitant and the unit
would be deleted if the documentation from Mr. Phillips
could not be obtained.
Unit 2242-2 74th Street from Ash Avenue to Avenue B
Assessed costs: 27,225.56 P.O. 7,690.99 City
Rate: paving 17.33/13.94
C/G 6.20
Proponent: Mr. Joe S. McIlhaney, Owner, leasing property to
Consolidated, Inc a/k/a Pepsi Cola, Co.
Elmer East, Attorney for Consolidated. This is the
property that Mr. East spoke of previously.
Mr. McIlhaney indicated that his property was leased
to Consolidated, and the property on which the lake
is located is also owned by him; it is this lake
from which the fill material for these various units
is needed.
He is in favor of the paving in support of his lessee's
position and therefore offers the fill material from
the lower end of the lake FREE; he thinks there will
be sufficient material for all of the paving needs.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by petition and
consists of three parcels.
CONSENSUS Leave on the program at the assessed rate, subject to
securing letters of agreement to pay the assessed rate
from Mr. Joe Phillips and Sylvan Sanders at 1919 34th
Apt. I (N/2 of Blks 1 and 2, Smithlawn Addn) and
subject to Mr. McIlhaney's offer to provide fill mat-
erial without charge to the City.
Unit 2243-1 , Ash Avenue from South Loop 289 to 74th Street
Assessed costs: 31,900.75 P.O. 2,666.44 City
Rate: paving 18.82
C/G 6.20
There was no testimony presented by either proponents or opponents.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by petition.
Mr. McIlhaney is the property owner on the west
side and Durwood Jones is the property owner on
on the east side.
CONSENSUS : Leave on the program at the assessed rate.
UNIT 2244-1 E/2 of University Avenue from 62nd to 656.22' South
of 62nd.
Assessed costs: 3,980.40 P.O. 22,830.64 City
Rate: paving -0-
C/G 6.20
There was no testimony presented fom either proponents or opponents.
Staff This unit was placed on the program by the staff
because of maintenance/drainage problems, and the
premises are occupied by the Golden Horseshoe Theater.
There is no assessment for paving due to a previous
assessment; C/G assessment as stated will be in
effect.
CONSENSUS : Leave it on the program.
There being no further testimony or presentations to be received, nor
discussions to be held, the hearing was closed at 4:05 p.m.
JUL S 1982
1155
Fj
I
I
F_�
r
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK
Before me Bonnie McKee a Notary Public in and for Lubbock Coun
personally appeared Twi I a Fo I som9 Account Manager of the S
pers Corporation, publishers of the Lubbock Avalanche -Journal — Morning, Eveni
being by me duly sworn did depose and say that said newspaper has been published c
than fifty-two weeks rior to the first insprfijjjthis Legal Notice-2055
wo rd-$1664.55p No. 441 at Lubbock County, Texas a
ed copy of the Notice is a true copy of the o igin�;gy was p
Avalanche -Journal on the following dates: June 13 20 + 27r 9
Account Manager
LUBBOCK AVALANCHE -JOURNAL
Southwestern Newspapers Corporation
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 28thdav of June 1982
6RNNIE MCKEE, WARY NJSX
IN AND f0A TK STATE OI TVA
MY COMMISSION E r#A NOV. 10.1"4 FORM 58-10 J W-1 2 `i 1982
CITY SE
CRETARY Y
f
1156
JUL 8198Z
The following publisher's affidavit references the following ordinances:
Ordinance
No.
8335 —
Zone Case No. 7084 82-41A-1139-1788
Ordinance
No.
8336 —
amending Ordinance No. 7084 82-41A-1139-1789
Ordinance
No.
8337 —
amending Ordinance No. 7084 82-41A-1139-1790
Ordiaance
No.
8338 —
amending Section 18-3 of the Code of Ordinances 82-41A-1139-8338
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF LUBBOCK
Before me 1 n✓t1it la QC QQ a Notary P blic i and for Lubbock
personally appeared i W s € *m r cco uni # an&We r of 1
pers Corporation, publishers of the Lubbock Avalanche -Journal — Morning, E
being by me duly sworn did depose and say that said news aper has been publish
than fifty-two weeks prior to the first insertion of this Legal Notice-2
word- *150.'2 No. 57327at Lubbock County, Tex
ed copy of the Notice is a true copy of the original and w
Avalanche -Journal on the following dates: Ju t y 10 & .?t 19$2,
K3536
Account eager
LUBBOCK AVALANCHE -JOURNAL
Southwestern Newspapers Corporation
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 39"'I day of Jl�il 19
ilONNle MCKM
W AND FOR THE
MY O0MI141S9f0N
FORM 58-10
�G
y
a-
k
11.57
JUL 8 �8
82-41A-1157-1800 Consider an assessment ordinance for streets and alleys on the 1982
(13) Paving Program (GWO 11,593).
Ordinance No. 8342
Motion was made by Councilman Aderton, seconded by Councilwoman Baker
to pass the above referenced paving ordinance on the first of three
readings, with the assessed rates, unit by unit, as reflected by the
Council's CONSENSUS at the public hearing.
Motion carried: 4 Yeas, 0 Nays, Councilman Aderton absent.
ORDINANCE NO. 8342
G.W.O. 11,593
AN ORDINANCE CLOSING HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PART OF THE COST
OF IMPROVING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING ALLEYS LOCATED IN THE FOLLOWING BLOCKS
AND ADDITIONS: THE EAST -WEST ALLEY ABUTTING LOTS 1 THROUGH 16, BLOCK 2, ANDERSON
SUBDIVISION: THE EAST -WEST ALLEY ABUTTING LOTS 1 THROUGH 18, BLOCK 1, EUBANKS-
FORT ADDITION: THE EAST -WEST ALLEY ABUTTING LOTS 680 THROUGH 696, MELONIE PARK
ADDITION: AND THE EAST -WEST ALLEY ABUTTING LOTS 2 THROUGH 19, BLOCK 2, SQUYRES
PLACE ADDITION: AND INCLUDING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING STREETS: 59TH STREET,
60TH STREET, 61ST STREET, 62ND STREET, 63RD STREET, 64TH STREET, 65TH STREET,
TOLEDO AVENUE, VICKSBURG AVENUE, WAYNE AVENUE, YORK AVENUE, 80TH STREET, AKRON
AVENUE, GRINNELL STREET, AVENUE "S", DOVER AVENUE, 74TH STREET, 77TH STREET,
76TH STREET, AVENUE "F", ELGIN AVENUE, AVENUE "B", ASH AVENUE, AND UNIVERSITY
AVENUE, SUCH PORTIONS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE PAVING ASSESS-
MENTS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF AND PORTIONS
OF OTHER SUNDRY STREETS, HIGHWAYS, AVENUES AND/OR ALLEYS IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK,
TEXAS, AND/OR ALONG THE BOUNDARIES OF SAID CITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION
OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATIONS IN EVI-
DENCE HEREOF, ALLOCATING FUNDS. (SEE SECTION ONE OF THIS ORDINANCE FOR UNITS
DELETED BY CITY COUNCIL.)
Following the 2:00 p.m. hearing, Items 22, 23, 24 and 25 were tabled until
the July 22 Council Meeting.
There being no further business, the motion was then made by Councilwoman
Baker, seconded by Councilman Aderton to adjourn at 4:07 p.m. Motion
carried: 4 Yeas; 0 Nays; Councilman Brown abs
n
BIL cA IS R
ATTEST:
EVELYN GAFFGA, City e ry-Treasurer
DAY OF JULY 1982.
ATTEST:
EVELYN GA GA, City S cr t r -Treasurer