Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1980-07-02 Minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, HELD IN THE CITY HALL, 7301 NORTHEAST LOOP 820, JULY 2, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. 1. Mayor Faram called the special meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. July 2, 1980. 2. Present: Dick Faram Jim Wood J. C. Hubbard ~~i 1 ey Thomas Bob Brady Dave Freeman r·1ayor Councilmen S ta ff : Chuck ~~i 11 i ams Jeanette r~oore r1arylin Roberts Ann Cannon ,)0 Ann vJi 11 i ams Members of the Press CALL TO ORDER ROLL CÞ1L City Manager City Secretary City Manager's Secretary Tax Assessor Board of Adjustment Member were present Absent: Jim Kenna Sharyl Groves Councilman Councilwoman 3. The invocation was given by Rev. Hal Brooks. 4. Mayor Faram advised there was no action needed on this item as it was approved in an emergency meeting July 1, 1980. 5. Mayor Faram read the following resolution: A RESOLUTION Arm ORDER by the City Council of the City of North Richland Ilills, Texas, calling a bond election to be held within said City, making other provision for the conduct of the election and other provisions incident and related to the purpose of this resolution and order. INVOCATION CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO CALL A CHARTER ELECTION CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION CALLING A BOND ELECTION RESOLUTION NO. 80-20 APPROVED HHEREAS, the City Council of North Ri chl and Hi 11 s, Texas, has determined that an election should be held to ascertain whether said governing body shall be authorized to issue bonds of said city in the amounts and for the purposes herein- after mentioned, therefore; BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: July 2, 1980 Page 2 SECTION 1: That an election be held on the 9th day of August, 1980, which date is not less than fifteen (15) days nor more than ninety (90) days from the date of the adoption hereof, at which election the following propositions shall be submitted: PROPOSITION NUMBER ONE "Shall the City Council of the City of North Richland Hills, Texas, be authorized to issue $7,000,000.00 general obligation bonds of said City for permanent public improvements to wit: street improvements including drainage incidental thereto; said bonds to be issued in one or more installments, to mature serially over a period of years not to exceed FORTY (40) years from their date, to be issued and sold at any price or prices and to bear interest at any rate or rates as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance; and shall there be levied, assessed and collected annually ad va 1 oreP.1 taxes on all taxable property in the city suffi ci ent to pay the annual interest and to create a sinking fund sufficient to redeem said bonds as they become due?1I PROPOSITION NUMBER TWO "Sha 11 the City Council of the Ci ty of North Ri chl and Hi 11 s, Texas, be authorized to issue $1,000,000.00 general obligation bonds of said City for public purposes, to wit: acquiring or improving, or both land for park purposes; said bonds to be issued in one or more installments, to mature serially over a period of years not to exceed FORTY (40) years from their date, to be issued and sold at any price or prices and to bear interest at any rate or rates as shall be determined within the discretion of the City Council at the time of issuance; and shall there be levied, assessed and collected annually ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City sufficient to pay the annual interest and to create a sinking fund sufficient to redeem said bonds as they become due?" SECTION 2: That voting machines shall be used at the polling place on the day of the election and paper ballots shall be used for absentee voting. The voting machines shall be arranged and the paper ballots shall be prepared in accordance with V.A.T.S. Election Code so as to permit voters to vote "FOR" or "AGAINSr' the aforesaid propositions which shall appear on the voting machines and paper ballots in substantially and the following manner: PROPOSITION NUMBER ONE liTHE ISSUANCE OF $7,000,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR STREET I r~PROV Er1ENTS II PROPOSITION NUMBER TWO liTHE ISSUANCE OF $1,000,000.00 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR PARK PURPOSES" On the paper ballots, the word II FOR" and beneath it the word "AGAINST" shall be made to appear on the left of each proposition. A square shall be printed on the left of each of the words "FOR" or "AGAINST" and elector shall place an "X" in the square beside the statement indicating the way he wishes to vote. SECTION 3: That the entire City of North Richland Hills, Texas, shall constitute one election precinct for this election and the City Hall in said City is hereby designated as the polling place. On election day, the polls shall be open from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. SECTION 4: That the following named persons are hereby appointed officers of the election: ANN SMITH WARREN CONNELLY PRESIDING JUDGE ALTERNATE PRESIDING JUDGE The presiding Judge shall appoint not less than two (2) nor more than twelve (12) qualified clerks to serve and assist in holding said election; provided that if the Presiding Judge herein appointed actually serves, the Alternate Presiding Judge shall be one of the clerks. Absentee voting shall be conducted at the City Secretary's office in the City Hall, in accordance with the provisions of V.A.T.S. Election Code, Chapter 5. SECTION 5: That all resident qualified electors of the City shall be permitted to vote at said election. This election shall be held and conducted in accordance with the Texas Election Code except as modified by Chapter 1 of Title 22, V.A.T.S. and as may be required by law, all election materials proceedings shall be printed in both English and Spanish. SECTION 6: That a substantial copy of this resolution and order shall serve as proper notice of said election. Said notice including a Spanish translation thereof, shall be posted at three (3) public places within the City and at the City Hall not less than fourteen (14) full days prior to the date on which said election is to be held, and be published on the same day in each successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in said City, the first of said publications to be made not less than fourteen (14) full days prior to the date set for said election. PASSED AND APPROVED, this 2nd day of July, 1980. July 2, 1980 Page 3 July 2, 1980 Page 4 Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve Resolution No. 80-20. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Mayor Faram advised the Council this was a Mayor's appointment, confirmed by the Council. r1ayor Faram appointed Mr. Jim McCraken to the Civil Service Commission. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to confirm Mr. James McCraken's appointment to the Civil Service Commission. CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF MR. JAMES McCRAKEN TO THE CIVIL SERVICE COMrlISSION APPROVED Motion carried 5-0. 7. Mayor Faram stated the following persons had been appointed to the Cable TV Advisory Panel: Rev. Hal Brooks (Clergy) Billy Smith (Birdville I.S.D.) Dan Echols (TCJC) Marvin Reed (Citizen) Beverly Riley (Citizen) Jim Wood (Councilman) Laura Prewitt (City Staff) CONFIRr,1ATION OF CABLE TV ADVISORY PANEL APPROVED Councilman Freeman moved, seconded by Councilman Hubbard, to approve the appointment of the above named persons. Motion carried 4-0; Councilman Wood abstained. 8. Councilman Brady moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve payment to Richland Hills in~e amount of $3,419.50. Motion carried 5-0. CONSIDERATION OF PAYMENT TO RICHLAND HILLS FOR GLENVIEW RIGHT -OF-vJAY MAP APPROVED 9. Mayor Faram opened the Public Hearing and called for anyone wishing to speak to please come forward. PUBLIC HEARING - STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR DAVIS BLVD. Mr. J. B. Sandlin, 5137 Davis Blvd., appeared before the Council. Mr. Sandlin stated he was here seeking information. Mr. Sandlin stated Mr. Alan Hammm, ~1r. John Parish and himself owned quite a bit of commercial property located on Davis Blvd. Mr. Sandlin asked what the $47.98 a front foot was paying for. Mr. Sandlin stated it was his understanding that this was a State Highway and State money was involved, city money involved. Mr. Sandlin stated $47.98 was a pretty large cost to the commercial property owners along Davis Blvd. Mr. Sandlin asked if they were paying for curb, gutter and drainage or was this $47.98 a number pulled out of the hat. July 2, 1980 Page 5 Mr. Albin stated the city's part. Mr. Albin stated estimate. the total billing amounted to $527,160.00 for The total project cost was $2,127,160.00. this was based on the State Highway Department's Mr. Sandlin asked if the property owners were picking up the total cost of the drainage and the curb. Mr. Albin stated no, the residential property owners were being assessed 60% of the curb and gutter, 40% on storm drain; commercial 100% of the cost of the curb and gutter, 80% of the storm drainage. Mr. Albin stated these numbers were in accordance with Council Resolution No. 79-28. Mr. Albin stated total front feet for this project was 9,542.78 feet. Mr. Sandlin asked what was considered residential property. They had Holiday North apartments, which would cost them over $15,000.00 at commercial rates and that was a government project. There would be no way they could go up on the rent to recoup $15,000.00. Mayor Faram stated Holiday North Apartments would be known as Case #1 , Lot 26, Block 20, Holiday North Addition. CASE #1 & 2 Mr. Sandlin stated that as he understood the assessment program, the true value was suppose to be if it improved the property to off-set the cost. Mr. Sandlin stated they felt that where their office building was located was already improved and the curb and gutter would not improve the property. Mr. Sandlin stated he hoped the city went ahead with the project, but they would like to be treated like the commercial property owners on Grapevine Highway and pay what they did. Mr. Sandlin stated the assessment roll showed the full frontage on the office building and the city was using 35 feet of the frontage to the Utility Shop. The city was actually using 35 feet and they were going to have to pay for it. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Sandlin if the part he was referring to was his land and the city was using it. Mr. Sandlin stated it was an easement, so he assumed he owned it. But, it was a road going to the city water shop. Mr. John Michener, Jr., 3820 Diamond Loch, appeared before the Council representing Mr. John Michener, Sr., his father. CASE # 3 - LOT 8, BLOCK 22, CLEARVIEW ADDITION, JOHN ~lICHENER, SR. Mr. Michener stated that his father owned the Shamrock station located at 4940 Davis Blvd. Mr. Michener stated they had received a notice of the assessment for a little over $5,000.00. Mr. Michener stated he understood there would be a credit that he maybe entitled to. July 2, 1980 Page 6 Mr. Michener stated his father had recently remolded the existing driveway. He aligned the curb, gutters and possibly the storm drainage to comply with the State Highway Department in anticipation of Davis being widened. Mr. Michener stated it was his understanding there would only be paving front of the station and not effect the existing curb. Mr. Michener asked if credit would be given for the existing curb and gutter. Mayor Faram stated it was his understanding credit would be given for existing curb and gutter. Mr. Albin stated there was existing curb and gutter but it was in poor condition and did not meet city standards. Mr. Michener asked when the assessment would be due. Mrs. Moore stated the assessment would be due after the project was completed and the city accepted the improvements. Mr. Sam Calloway, Jr., 1302 W. T. Waggoner Building, appeared before the Council representing Mr. Raymond Pankey. CASE # 4 - LOTS 1 & 2, LONGSDALE ADDITION MR. RAYMOND PANKEY Mr. Calloway stated Mr. Pankey was being assessed $4,800.00 on a vacant lot. The other lot had a building on it. Mr. Calloway stated the city was assessing the people to improve a State Highway and it seems to him there was some discrimination between the people along the highway. Mr. Calloway stated it did not seem fair to tax some of them one part and one another. Mr. Calloway stated Mr. Pankey did not feel the improvements would improve his property and would like to go on record as opposing the assessment. Mr. Wes Parna, Agent for Richlieu Apartments, appeared before the Council. CASE # 5 - TRACT 13F2 W. W. WALLACE SURVEY RICHLIEU APARTMENTS Mr. Parna stated he was here mostly for information. Mr. Parna stated the assessment seemed to be excessive that from the standpoint of the property managers they could not realistically raise the assessment with a rental increase. Mr. Parna stated that on his complex alone, which was 100 units, if they projected on a two year basis it would be a 25% rental increase not including interest. Mr. Parna stated he felt some consideration should be made on the assessment. Mr. C. E. Stewart, 1612 Ave K, Plano, Texas, appeared before the Council representing his father, Mr. R. P. Stewart. Mr. Stewart stated Lot 1 was vacant and Lot 2 has a shopping center on it that has been there since 1969. Mr. Stewart stated he was for the improvements but against the assessment. Mr. Stewart stated he was not aware of the difference between residential and commercial property until tonight and felt it was unconstitutional. Mr. Stewart stated the residential land was the same as commercial. Mr. Stewart stated he questioned the property owners on Davis paying all of the city expense. Mr. Stewart stated the total footage of their property was 298, so they were paying $14,300.00 and it was going to be hard to re-coop for a number of years. Mr. Stewart asked the total footage involved in the project. Mr. Albin stated there was a total of 9,542.78 front footage. Total estimated cost of the curb and gutter was $62,181.00; estimated cost of storm drainage $464,979.00; total cost tô the city of $527,160.00. Mr. Stewart asked the Council to look into ad valorem taxes to pay these improvements since the improvements of Davis would allow people for miles around to have easier access. Mr. John Parish, 7616 Butter Drive, appeared before the Council. Mr. Parish stated he felt the assessment was unequal taxation. Mr. Parish stated the property was being improved by the State Highway Department and it was for the whole city. Mr. Parish stated there were thousands of people living out past the portion that was being improved. Every business in the City would be improved and he thought it would be perfectly fair for the business and resident property owners to pay the same type fee that they would pay on any other residential or thoroughfare in the City. Mr. Parish stated Davis was a State Highway and for the property owners to have to pay this type of amount was very unfair. July 2, 1980 Page 7 CASE #6&7- LOTS 1 & 2 BLOCK 50, NOR'EAST ADDITION, MR. R. P. STEWART CASE #8 - TRACT 13R, H. W. vJALLACE Mr. E. F. Crites, Jr., 6050 Circleview Drive, appeared before the Council. Mr. Crites stated he owned the property at the corner of Davis and Grapevine Highway. Mr. Crites stated he would like to ask a question about the upcoming Bond election and the $7,000,000.00 proposed street imprvements. Mr. Crites asked how Rufe Snow would be financed. Mayor Faram stated Rufe Snow would be consistant with the Resolution that was being operated under tonight. Mr. Crites asked if Rufe Snow would be on an assessment basis. Mayor Faram stated yes, but to keep in mind Davis Blvd., was a State Highway and Rufe Snow was a thoroughfare and there would be a little different ratio. City Attorney r1cEnti re stated he woul d 1 i ke to poi nt out that as it stands now, the assessment would be the same. If the costs go down it could be less, if the costs go up it could be more. Mr. Crites stated he was for the improvement of Davis, but thought the assessment was unfair. Mr. A. W. Sauerwein, 73 Somerset, Bedford, appeared before the Council. Mr. Sauerwein stated he was here as co-owner of the lot at 5141 Davis and also as a co-renter at 5105 Davis. Mr. Sauerwein stated he wanted to know the difference between residential and commercial property rates. Mr. Sauerwein stated that as he understood Davis was mostly zoned commercial. If curb, gutter and storm drainage was put on residential today it could be zoned commercial later. Mr. Sauerwein stated he thought there was a disparity between the figures for residential and commercial. Mr. Sauerwein stated it was his understanding that credit would be given for existing curb and gutter. Mr. Albin stated if credit was due it would be given. July 2, 1980 Page 8 CASE #9 - LOT lA, BLOCK 1, RICHFIELD COMMERCIAL ADDITION MR. E. F. CRITES CASE #10 & l~ LOT lOR, BLOCK 12, LOT LESS S. 18.9 I 1 OR A. H. SAUERvJEIN Mr. John E. Lutz, III, 5425 Davis, appeared before the Council. Mr. Lutz stated he was amazed at the difference in the residential and commercial assessment figures. Mr. Lutz stated he thought the property owners were being asked to pay the whole thing for around 20,000 people who used Davis Blvd. Mr. Lutz stated he did not feel they should be assessed the full amount. Mr. Lutz stated the specific question he had was that his property was on a restricted commercial zoning. The city saw fit to zone his property commercial, but limited his use. Mr. Lutz stated if he was going to be assessed on commercial zoning he thought he should be given consideration for full commercial zoning or else a reduction on the assessment. Mr. Lutz stated he thought the city had unfairly asked everyone up and down Davis to put in something a lot of other people were going to be using. Mr. Lutz stated the assessment would not benefit him or his business. Mr. Alan Hamm, 408 Woodbriar, appeared before the Council. Mr. Hamm stated he had an office building located at 5125 Davis and several other properties. Mr. Hamm asked the City Engineer if the property owners were being assessed for the intersection portions on the storm drainage. Mr. Albin stated the total cost of the drainage project was distributed among the property owners. Mr. Hamm stated the city was the owner of the intersections and should pay for the storm drainage in the intersections. Mr. Hamm asked what the method of payment was for the assessment. Mayor Faram stated a note could be set-up for five years at 6% interest. Mr. Hamm asked if there was any attempt made to determine the amount of water flow that originated on the property that was being assessed, as compared to the total water flow that came down Davis Blvd. Mr. Albin replied he did not have these figures. Mr. Hamm stated that kind of study should be done. Mr. Hamm stated he felt that the people being assessed were being mistreated on the drainage. July 2, 1980 Page 9 CASE #12 - LOT 2, BLOCK 33, NOR I EAST ADDITION MR. JOHN LUTZ, III CASE#13 &14- LOT 10, BLOCK 31, NOR I EAST ADDITION, LOT A, BLOCK 31, NOR'EAST ADDITION HM1M & SANDL IN Mr. Hamm stated Davis Blvd., probably was the busiest thoroughfare in Northeast Tarrant County. Mr. Hamm stated the last traffic count he saw showed the intersection of Davis and Grapevine Highway to have the largest flow in Tarrant County. Mr. Hamm stated he would like to mention other properties he had an interest in. Lot 10, Block 31, Nor'East Addition, already had curb and gutter. Mr. Albin stated he showed credit for the existing curb and gutter. Mr. Hamm, Lot A, Block 14, Richland Terrace Addition, stated that there were residents with long term leases involved and he could not increase the leases to pay the assessment. Lot B, Block 14, Richland Terrace, was a vacant lot, and he could not recoup the cost of the assessment when the lot sold. Lot F, Block 14, the same comment, he could not re-coop the cost. Lot 18 & 20, Clearview Addition, one lot was vacant and one had an auto supply, Dance Studio and cleaners and were long time leases. Mr. Hamm stated it would be difficult to pass a cost increase on long term leases. Mr. Hamm asked what the finding was: based on the appraisal that was done on Davis. Mayor Faram stated that would be discussed with the Appraiser later. Mr. Jim Ford, P.O. Box 1718, Fort Worth, appeared before the Council representing Leonard Properties. Mr. Ford stated he would like to go on record as saying they thought the assessment was excessive. Mr. Ford stated they had long term leases, several of which went to 1992. Mr. Ford stated there was no way they coul d reOQUp . from the tenants. Mr. Ford stated he felt the city should participate more on the assessment. Mr. C. E. Stewart reappeared before the Council. Mr. Stewart stated he talked to the Highway Department and they said there should be 5195 feet and the City Engineer gave a figure of 9,542.78. Mr. Stewart asked what the correct figure was. Mr. Albin stated the number he gave was the total front footage on both sides of the street. July 2, 1980 Page 10 CASE # 15 CASE # 16 CASE #17 & 18 CASE #19 - LOT 2, RICHFIELD COMMERCIAL ADDITION Mr. C. W. Dowdy, 600 Oak Hollow, Fort Worth, appeared before the Council. Mr. Dowdy stated the assessment was excessive. Mr. Dowdy stated Blcok 18B, Clearview Addition was a lease situation and would be hard to recoup., Mrs. Alene Owen, 5409 Davis, appeared before the Council. Mrs. Owen stated she owned one of four residential houses involved. Mrs. Owen stated she felt the people who had commercial property that think the residential property owners should pay the same, the residential property was not making any money off the property. Mrs. Owen stated she had been told that these improvements would help the property if it was zoned commercial. Mrs. Owen stated that when she bought her property she was told that 4 ~ years ago, the property was zoned commercial and the City Council stepped in and said it could not be commercial. Mrs. Owen stated the people she bought the house from was trying to get it zoned commercial and the surrounding people went to the City Council and objected, therefore the zoning was overruled. Mrs. Owen stated she talked to a man in charge of zoning for the city and he told her the same story. He said the change was overruled. Mayor Faram stated he did not think the information was accurate. There must have been a communication mix-up. The zoning request could have been rejected by the Council, but not changed by the Council. Mayor Faram advised Mrs. Owen the property owner could submit an application for re-zoning. Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Owen if she wanted to go on record as objecting to the assessment. Mrs. Owen stated she was for the improvement but did not think the property owners should have to pay this amount. Mr. Truman Harrell, P. O. Box 1718, Fort Worth, appeared before the Council. Mr. Harrell stated he owned the property located at 5417 Davis. Mr. Harrell stated what Mrs. Owen had told the Council was true. Mr. Harrell stated he bought his property in 1974 and was told at that time that everyone in the block went in for re-zoning to commercial. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved it and the Council turned it down with ~he excepti on of r1r. Lutz I s property. Mayor Faram stated the fact was the property was never zoned commercial because it passed the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission is a recommending body, the City Council has the final authority in whether or not the zoning is changed. July 2, 1980 Page 11 CASE #?O, 21, 22~ 23 24, & 25 LOts 8, 9, 10, & llA, LONGSDALE ADDITION, BLOCK 18B, CLEARVIEW ADDITION CASE #26 CASE #27 - LOT 4, BLOCK 33, July 2, 1980 Page 12 Mayor Faram asked Mr. Harrell if he wanted to go on record as opposing the assessment. Mr. Harrell stated the street was already widened and had curb and gutter and would not improve his property value. Mr. Andy Keeten, 5102 Davis, representing Theodore Mund, appeared before the Council. CASE #28 - LOT 18C, CLEARVIEW ADDITION Mr. Keeten stated they wanted to go on record as opposing the assessment. Mr. L. J. Schad, 611 Kell Terrace, Arlington, appeared before the Council. Mr. Schad asked if provisions were made for sidewalks and walkways. If so who was going to pay for them. CASE #29 Mr. Albin replied no provisions had been made. Mr. Schad stated there was a school crossing at Harwood and Davis. Mayor Faram advised the project was designed by the State Highway Department and the city was accepting their design. Mr. Schad asked if the property owners would have to pay for sidewalks if they were put in. Mayor Faram replied no. Mayor Faram asked Mr. Schad if he wanted to be on record as opposing the assessment. Mr. Schad stated he would like to request that sidewalks be put in. Mr. C. V. Harden, 5324 Davis Blvd., appeared before the Council. CASE #30 - LOT 6R, LONGSDALE Mr. Harden stated he would like to go on record as opposing the assessment. Mayor Faram closed the Public Hearing. 10. Mayor Faram read the following caption: AN ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING AND PROVIDING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING STREET: DAVIS BLVD. FROM GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY TO EMERALD HILLS WAY IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, LETTING CONTRACT TO FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION: MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYING THE INDEBTEDNESS THEREBY INCURRED: MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ABUTTING PROPERTIES AND THE OWNERS THEREFORE FOR A PART OF THE COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS: PROVIDING FOR METHODS OF PAYMENT; PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATE IN EVIDENCE OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS: DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO PREPARE ESTIMATES OF COST: DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO FILE A NOTICE OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, DECLARING THAT THIS ORDINANCE AND ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO SAID STREET IMPROVEMENTS ARE AND SHALL BE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 1105b OF VERNON'S TEXAS CIVIL STATUTES: DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THIS ORDINANCE BY COPYING THE CAPTION OF SAME IN THE MINUTE BOOK OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND BY FILING THE COMPLETE ORDINANCE IN THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE RECORD OF THIS CITY: AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Councilman Brady moved, seconded by Councilman Wood, to approve Ordinance No. 831. Councilman Wood asked the amount of the payment the city would make to the State. Mr. Albin stated the payment would be $527,160.00. Councilman Wood asked what amount the city would recover. Mr. Albin stated 60% of cost of curb and gutter on residential and 100% for curb and gutter for commercial. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Albin if to alleviate the present traffic problems on Davis, was it necessary to include the curb and gutter and storm drainage in this phase. Mr. Albin replied yes. July 2, 1980 Page 13 CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE DETERMINING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING AND PROVIDING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF A PORTION OF DAVIS BLVD. ORDINANCE NO. 831 APPROVED Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Cannon, Appraiser, if she had inspected all properties on Davis. Mrs. Cannon replied yes. Mayor Faram asked Mrs. Cannon if it was or was not her professional judgement that the properties to be assessed,would the assessment be less or greater than what the property would increase in value. Mrs. Cannon replied the property would increase more in value than the assessment. Mayor Faram asked if there were any exceptions. Mrs. Cannon replied no, not to her knowledge. Councilman Wood asked what effect generally the commercial property value would be increased on the market in comparison to other property that had curb and gutter. Mrs. Cannon stated that in her opinion the property on Davis Blvd. was now worth in the neighborhood of $2.00 a square foot to $1.75, depending on the location. Mrs. Cannon stated it was her opinion the property value would increase in land value from $0.50 to $1.50 a square foot. Mrs. Cannon stated this was based on study done on other thoroughfares before and after improvements. Councilman Freeman asked what thoroughfare the study was based on. Mrs. Cannon replied the study was based on Bedford-Euless Road. Councilman Wood asked if this assessment was in line with the cities of Hurst and Bedford's assessment programs. Mrs. Cannon replied the assessment was in line. Councilman Brady asked Mr. Albin if he would address the possibility of credit being given, example, Case #3. Mr. Albin stated he looked at the curb and gutter on the property and it did not meet city specifications. r1r. Albin stated there is a possibility some credit is due. Councilman Brady asked Mrs. Cannon how she figured the added value of a vacant lot. Mrs. Cannon stated she makes the appraisal based on vacant lots on Bedford-Euless Road before and after the improvements. It was her opinion the value would increase 30% to 50% with improvements. July 2, 1980 Page 14 July 2, 1980 Page 15 Councilman Hubbard asked if there was a possibility the assessments could be lower. Mr. Albin stated they could be lower. Councilman Thomas stated that since the contract had not been determined, who would pay over and above the estimate. Mr. Albin stated the city would have to pay. Mayor Faram stated it was his understanding there would be credit given where curb and gutter was a 1 ready therf~. Mr. Albin stated that under the old program that was true, but under the new resolution the curb and gutter had to meet city specifications. Councilman Thomas asked if the assessment would be higher on Rufe Snow than Davis. Mr. Albin stated the assessments on Davis would be much lower than the assessment on Rufe Snow. Motion to approve Ordinance 831 carried 5-0. 11. Mayor Faram read the following caption: AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND OF AMOUNTS TO BE ASSESSED FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE FOLLOWING STREET: DAVIS BLVD. FROM GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY TO EMERALD HILLS WAY IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS; FIXING TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING TO THE OWNERS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY AND TO ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES; DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO GIVE NOTICE OF SUCH HEARING; AND DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THIS ORDINANCE BY COPYING THE CAPTION OF SM1E IN THE mNUTE BOOK OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY COUNCIL AND BY FILING THE COMPLETE ORDINANCE IN THE APPROPRIATE ORDINANCE RECORDS OF THIS CITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING ESTIMATES FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON DAVIS BLVO. ORDINANCE NO. 832 APPROVED Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Thomas, to approve Ordinance No. 832. Motion carried 5-0. July 2, 1980 Page 16 12. Mayor Faram read the following caption: ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE CLOSING HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR A PORTION OF THE COST OF IMPROVING A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING STREET; DAVIS BLVD. FROM GRAPEVINE HIGHWAY TO H1ERALD HILLS WAY IN THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS: FIXING CHARGES AND LIENS AGAINST PROPERTY ABUTTING THEREON, AND AGAINST THE OWNERS THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS AND THE ISSUANCE OF ASSIGNABLE CERTIFICATES IN EVIDENCE THEREOF; RESERVING UNTO THE CITY COUNCIL THE RIGHT TO ALLOW CREDITS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ANY CREDIT GRANTED; DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO ENGROSS AND ENROLL THE ORDINANCE BY COPYING THE CAPTION OF SAME IN THE MINUTES OF THE CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS, AND BY FILING THE ORDINANCE IN THE ORDINANCE RECORDS OF SAID CITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE CLOSING HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR A PORTION OF THE COST OF IMPROVING A PORTION OF DAVIS BLVD. ORDINANCE NO. 833 APPROVED Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Freeman, to approve Ordinance No. 833. Motion carried 5-0. 13. Councilman Wood stated this resolution was granting approval to the Tarrant County Housing Finance Corporation for the use of proceeds for the 1980 series single family revenue bonds for acquiring home mortgages relating to homes within the city. Under this proposed plan for County money to be available to anyone in our city the Council would have to approve the use of these funds within the city. This is required of cities with a population in excess of 20,000. Numerous cities, mortgage companies and developers have endorsed this resolution. Councilman Wood stated he recommended the Council approve the resolution. Councilman Wood moved, seconded by Councilman Brady, to approve Resolution No. 80-21. Mr. J. B. Sandlin appeared before the Council. Mr. Sandlin stated he was very much in favor to this resolution. 14. Motion to approve carried 5-0. Mayor Faram adjourned the meeting of July 2, ~ / / 1 980 / / ATTEST: w~-zÆ/ City Secretary !