Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution - 060878H - Site Request For Juvenile Center - LBK County Commissioners Court - Hillside Add - 06_08_1978JWF:yb RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: IT is hereby acknowledged that a letter dated May 3, 1978, addressed to this City Council of the City of Lubbock, from the Lubbock County Juvenile Board and the Lubbock County Commissioners Court, has been received re- questing concurrence in the selection made by said Juvenile Board and the Lubbock County Commissioners Court of a site for the new proposed Juvenile Center in the City of Lubbock, Texas. Said Getter outlines the procedures used in the reasons for this selection of the site that was finally decided upon in the vicinity of Block 1, Hillside Addition, to the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas. It is the sense of this resolution that the City Council of the City of Lubbock concurs in said site selection procedures, .and further concurs with the construction and use of said site as a Juvenile Center without the necessity of applying for a City of Lubbock Zoning Permit for such purposes. Said letter of May 3, 1978, is attached hereto, and shall be spread u on the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Councilris hereby made a part hereof for all purposes. Passed by the City Council this 8th day of June 1978. J WEST, MA OR II ATTEST: Treva Phillips, Ci Secretary -Treasurer BY: Mary Lindsey, Deputy APPROVED AS TO FORM: 4C I Fred O. Senter, Jr., City orney tt (' 1 i-�Car a YL °' ��.r • as I p 3 LV m a 0, C t k " moo' v t q- iTY LUBBOCK, TEXAS May. •3 , 19 7 8 City Council of Lubbock City Hall Lubbock, TX 79401 Re: Selection of Site for Juvenile Center Gentlemen and Madam: The Lubbock County Juvenile Board and the Lubbock County Commissioners Court hereby submit for your consideration this request for concur- rence in the site selection we have made for the Lubbock Juvenile Detention Center and School. We would appreciate your official ap- proval of, our position that the County is not subject to City zoning ordinances in this case. A brief outline and background of this project might be helpful for your consideration.. 1. The South Plains Association of Governments undertook some time ago to study the fifteen --county area under its jurisdiction for review of existing programs and problems of juveniles. A feasibility study was authorized and funded through the Texas Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's office at a cost of $25,000.00. The interim report of the planners, Barnes, Landess, Goodman, Youngblood, in conjunction with Arthur Young and Company, was completed on July 28, 1977. The basic conclusions of the report were that a regional center should be established and was feasible for the fifteen -county area to serve short --term, pre -court detention youths and for long-term training for youths found guilty of juvenile delinquency, as an alternative to the Texas Youth Council facilities. Extreme cases were still to be re- ferred to the Texas Youth Council. The planners suggested a site in the interim report of from seven to ten acres to serve the entire region, preferably on or near Loop 289 for accessibility, that the ITEM 5 4 City Council Page 2 May 3, 1973 Center have offices for the Juvenile Probation Department, and that' Lubbock County should take the lead role. in the planning and execu- tion of the project. 2.. The final report by the planners was presented on October 61 1977, which summarized the project findings and documentation of recom- mendations regarding the regional juvenile detention facilities study. Such included projections on programs, staffing, operating budget, architectural design, construction costs, financing, and an implemen- tation plan. 3. The planning studies done -for SPAG were presented to the Lubbock County Juvenile Board and it was resolved that .an effort would be made to try to implement the plan and establish the regional center. After several meetings over a period of four to five :months, enthusiastic cooperation of most of the -counties was secured. As df this date, twelve of the fifteen counties have indicated their willingness to join in this project by resolutions of the various Commissioners Courts. Two more of the counties are expected to join, and one, King County, which has had no youth offender committed to the Texas Youth Facilities in ten years, will probably not join. The entire SPAG region is enthusiastic about this project and is eager for us to proceed. 4. Based uponthe study as to the criteria for site selection, aria using a reasonable approach, various factors were established for consideration in the site selection process, among which were: (1) size, for accommodation of the facility and to allow sufficient area for expansion; (2) purchase price, cost of land preparation, construe tion cost and cost of operation; (3) utility availability; (4) com- patibility with other land and space use plans; (5) proximity to courts, the community served, law enforcement agencies, community sup- port services and -public transit system; (6) suitability --for visual appearance, topography, drainage; (7) accessibility --traffic circulation, parking, etc. Further, a "neutral" area was sought with avoidance of any adverse in- fluences either on the facility or upon the neighborhood. One other factor was that both the County and the Juvenile Board preferred to purchase the property for the site.without the necessity of condemnation. Per. J. Louis Murfee, Jr., a professional real estate broker and ap-- praiser, was sought to assist the County Commissioners Court and the County Juvenile Board in making an analysis of the available sites. After his analysis and study, some ten to twelve out of 62 possible sites were selected as the final and best available sites for the City Council Page 3 May 3, 1978 Center. Mr. Murfee accumulated these and some were suggested to him by members of the Board or others. A survey of the entire city was undertaken and many of the sites were rejected out of hand because of the size, the location, accessibility, cost, or other factors. Finally, after investigation of a particular site on North Loop 289, near the intersection of University Avenue, it was decided to negoti- ate for the site finally selected, being shown on the attached map. In any event, Mr. Murfee was directed to negotiate with the owner of. the property, Mr. Robert Gunn, resulting in.a contract of sale entered into between Lubbock County and him on march 16, 1978. The contract was made subject to the closure of Boston Avenue and an alley bisecting the boundaries of the property which you considered at your last regular meeting. The contract calls for the transaction to be closed within sixty (60) days, thereby making May 16, 1978, the expiration. ..date of the contract. The site, we feel, is the best available site for the Center. It contains 8.07 acres, and the price is well within market values for .the•area. It is very accessible, has available utilities, is very near a bus line, is not within a residential area, and we feel the `Center will not be an adverse influence on the surrounding property - (which consists mostly of vacant land and the Canyon Lakes.Project to the west). All things considered, we.feel the site is an excellent .-location for the facility. 'The structure that is contemplated to be built on the property will be one story, in many ways resembling a school. In fact, it will, to .a great extent, be a "school" because regular classroom, and school programs will be conducted on the premises under contract with the Lubbock Independent School District. Staffing of teachers and admin- *.istrators for the educational programs will be done through the Lubbock Independent School District. The facility will in no way resemble a Jail, as no bars or other detention features will be observable other .than a fence around the property, but no "barbed wire" enclosure is contemplated, only a large chain link fence with close mesh at the top will be used. incidentally, the architects for the project have been selected with funding through an architectural planning grant which was recently ..approved through the Criminal Justice Division of the Governor's of- fice', by letter dated April 18, 1978, in the sum of $40, 000.00. The ..architects will be the planners employed by SPAG in the original study. - All parties are anxious for the project -to be undertaken. .City Council Page 4 May 3, 1978 We ask that you consider this request in order to avoid any further delay in completion of the purchase of the property and the start of. the project, and indicate your concurrence with our position in this matter to the effect that the County is not subject to the.City zoning ordinances in this case. The site selection has been made on a very thorough study and in all respects is reasonable. We..rely..principally upon the case of Austin Independent- School* District _ Vs".' City of Sunset Valley, 502 SIN 2d,670, an opinion by the Texas Supreme Court for our j' position. In summary, we would appreciate your courtesy in -placing this matter on your next available agenda, for May 11, 1978, for your considera- tion. We do not anticipate making any formal appearance and will sub- mit this letter as our request unless.otherwise notified. Ve truly yours.. LUBB CK COUNTY RVENILE BOARD: ge John-R. McFall, Chairman 01 Judge Toip L. C1 nto Judge T lliam R. Shav Judge it B Ju ge Ro ert . .'-j�ri t 4 Judge RocTrick L. Shaw LUBBOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT By Rodrick L. Shaw, .County Judge 2 6' 1 5 N 3 co 4 , •_ — _ — • • � b• 13 aay16 s3- 4 0 3. p 11 _ >" Z 13 • i+ f U) 12 .II Inc I . 6c -•\. f r. � RICE y I..A.9 _ ST a t0—fii i90 l .. a CITY: R�o: ! z I, - .. PROPER N" o; 3 14 15 PROP. 1,0 2 �I -f �8l Itsd�t• "cr 13 a tf1 h � •s,ii• � • IY N i , L �1 LLS 7,; 40 --- 'U— I — I ct - ZGQ�_ ?n1 1W OL +6' S • li Oe � �i o 4 G ` qr I Jos4' ry 206 wF .t I l N IJ�� y P: 7 +50,, 170 FP• ton : <' -' 60 -•71 1� falt "'-I DI r. r•R"14 tNf !T rc-