Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-10Regular Meeting Euless City Council January 10, 1978 CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Euless City Council was called to order at 8:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers of Euless City Hall, by Mayor Harold Samuels. Other members present were Mrs. Willie Mae McCormick, Messrs. Raymond Ozebek, Charles Hunt, Glenn Walker, and Robert Pippin. Also present were City Manager W.M. Sustaire, City Secretary Della Houy, City Attorney Bob McFarland, City Engineer Greg Dickens, and Assistant City Manager John Lynch, IV. VISITORS Visitors i n attendence were Messrs. Jeff Beitel, Sam Sartor, R. Dale Turns, N. B. Gilbreath, Ray Cronshey, Peter Sowirka, Bob Daniel, George Beitel, Denzil Goode, Hal C. Ferguson, David Austin, Joe F. Moreland, Troy M. Fuller, Bob Holder, Walter A. Elliott, Jr., Pann Sribhen, David Whitaker, B i l l Pasteur, Harold Hall, Harold Copher, and Newman McMurtre; Mesdms. Virginia Copher, Marie Goode, Jo Svochak, Rhonda Chambers, and Myrtle Hall. I NVOCAT I ON The invocation was given by Councilman Charles Hunt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting dated December 13, 1977, were approved with the following clarification: Page Five, Item V., Paragraph Seven- Mr. Hunt stated that noting the specifications and based on the recommendation on Mr. Bullard, the bid by Payton - Wright Ford Sales was not the lowest bid, but because the three 3/4 ton pickups that Mr. Bullard recommends happens to meet all the specifications, and in Mr. Hunt's opinion, a 3/4 ton pickup is a 3/4 ton pickup. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT - LOT 5-D, JASPER ADDITION - REQUEST OF AL'S FORMAL WEAR Mrs. McCormick moved to concur with the (Page Two, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 1978) recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the pre- liminary and final plat of Lot 5 -D, Jasper Addition. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Mrs. McCormick, Messrs. Pippin, Walker, Ozebek, and Hunt Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. CONSIDER FINAL PLAT - LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CENSOR ADDITION NO. 3 Mayor Samuels recognized Mr. Pann Scribhen, who stated they concur with City Engineer's recommendations. Mr. Pippin inquired if Mr. Scribhen is in agreement with the installation of a fire hydrant. Mr. Scribhen stated they are in agreement. Mr. Pippin moved to concur with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approve the final plat of Lot 1, Block 1, Cencor Addition No. 3, fu Ifi I li ng the requirement by the Director of Planning and Bevelopment that a fire hydrant be required. Mr. Hunt seconded the motion and the vote . is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Pippin, Hunt, Walker, Ozebek, and Mrs. McCormick Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF CORRECTIONS TO CITY OF EULESS TAX ROLL Mr. Hunt moved to approve the corrections to the City of Euless tax roll, as submitted by Mr. Richard Park, Tax Assessor /Co1dector. Mr. Walker seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Hunt, Walker, Pippin, Ozebek, and Mrs. McCormick Nays: None (Page Three, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 1978) Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. (copy of corrections in file in Office of City Secretary) V. CONSIDER BIDS ON SEVEN (7) FCLR DOOR SEDANS TO BE USED I N THE POLICE DEPARTMENT Members of the Council had previously received copies of the bids on seven (7) four door sedans to be used in the police department. The bids are as follows: BID PER TOTAL DELIVERY BIDDER UNIT BID. DATE Payton - Wright Ford Sales 5 cars $5,199.99 $25,999.95 60 -90 days 2 cars $5,099.99 $10,199.98 60 -90 days D /FW Chrysler /Plymouth 5 cars $5,414.49 $27,072.45 60 -90 days 2 cars $5,176.99 $10,353.98 60 -90 days Hudiburg Chevy City 5 cars $5,762.38 $28,811.90 84 days 2 cars $5,704.63 $11,409.26 84 days Mrs. McCormick moved to concur with the recommendation of the Police Ch ef and approve the low bid of Payton - Wright Ford Sales in the amount of $5,199.99 per unit, total bid of $25,999.95 on five (5) vehicles and $5,099.99 per unit, total $10,199.98 on two (2) vehicles. Mr. Walker seconded the motion. Mr. Hunt stated that he believes this set of specifications is the finest set ever submitted for vehicles and was pleased to see that the City received three (3) bids and he would like to commend Police Chief John Wilson for the good set of specifications. The vote on Mrs. McCormick's motion is as f o I lows Ayes: Mrs. McCormick, Messrs. Walker, Hunt, Pippin, and Ozebek Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. V. CONSIDER ORDINANCE NO. 536 ABANDONING THE EASEMENT ON TRACT D, ARNETT ADDITION Mr. Ozebek moved to approve Ordinance No. 536, abandoning the easement on Tract D, Arnett Addition, on first and fi n a l reading. (Page Four, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 1978) Mr. Walker seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Ozebek, Walker, Hunt, Pippin, and Mrs. McCormick Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. VI . PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERING LEVYING OF ASSESSMENTS FOR A PORTION OF THE COST OF IMPROVING NORTH MAIN STREET FROM ROYAL OAKS ESTATES TO IRA! LINOCD DRIVE Mayor Samuels opened the public hearing to consider levying of assessments for a portion of the cost for the improvements to North Main Street from Royal Oaks Estates to Trailwood Drive, and asked City Attorney Bob McFarland to explain the legal requirements that must be met in this public hearing. Mr. McFarland stated that Article 11.05 of the Statutes of the State of Texas and the City Charter give the City the authority to assess abutting property owners for the cost of making street improvements. Mr. McFarland explained the statutes and the legal requirements for the Council and the audience. He stated the City has the authority to assess against the abutting property owner a portion of the cost for improving streets, generally i n c l u d i n g a l l the cost of the improvements which are engineering costs, curb, sidewalks, gutters, paving, grading, and sewer. He stated that the statutes authorizes the governing body, the City, to assess against the property owners an amount to include 100% of curb, gutter,and sidewalks, and not more than 90% of a l l the balance of the costs of the improvements, but can not assess more than the benefit derived by the abutting property resulting from those improvements. Mr. McFarland stated that Section 6 provides that the Council must also determine the time and manner of payment of these assessments. He stated that the ultimate purpose of the public hear- ing is to determine i f the Council desires to make an assessment, i f so, the extent of that assessment, and the manner and means that assessment is to be paid. Mayor Samuels stated t h a t the Council w i l l hear testimony from the City staff and City Engineer and then let people from the audience speak, and asked that each person speaking give their name and address so w e w i l l have it for the record. Mr. Dickens, City Engineer, stated that they were authorized by the City Council to prepare plans and specifications for the improvements to North Main Street from Royal Oaks Estates to Trailwood Drive. Mr. Dickens reviewed the street width and the construction of the street, curb, and gutter. Mr. Dickens stated that construction bids were received by the City on December 2, 1977, and the low bidder was Texas Bitu- 1 i t h i c Company i n the amount of $229,842.62. (Page Five, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 1978) Mr. Lynch stated the figures relate to the construction only. He stated a major portion of the property is zoned residential and a small portion i s zoned Planned Development and i s being used for residential development as it fronts on North Main Street. Mr. Lynch reviewed City of Euless Ordinance No. 147, Subdivision Rules and Regulations, in relation to streets in a subdivision. He stated for residential property, this should be the starting point for enhanced value. Mr. Dickens stated the front foot cost is broken down from the total of the construction cost which included the design cost, iJdmini,stration fee, legal, inspection, layout, right -of -way cost and construction bids. He stated that the cost per front foot is $50.66, which is the maximum allowed by law that the City could assess. He stated this is based on a sixty -one (61) foot face to face street. Mr. Lynch stated that they took 100% of the cost of the curb, gutter and sidewalks, 90% of the remainder of the related cost, divided the value, which is $279,935.99, by the total front footage,which is 5,525.52 feet to get a value of $50.66 which would be the maximum assessment allowed by law, Mr. Copher inquired if they took the cost of condemnation and legal fees for acquiring the right -of -way and added them into the cost of the improvements. Mr. Lynch replied affirmatively but he was not talking about a proposed assessment, but the maximum legal assessment. Mr. Dickens stated that there i s only one estimated figure in the outline and that is for inspection and layout and they estimated that figure at 6 %. Mr. Lynch stated that with the proposed assessment that was indicated in the letter mailed to all property owners abutting North Main Street, the City would be paying 76.84% and the property owners would be paying 32.16 %. He stated the engineers have taken what it would have cost to build a thirty -one (31) foot residential street on North Main and have pro -rated the various costs based on the reduction in width, and asked Mr. Dickens to review these costs. Mr. Dickens stated that taking the bid p r i c e on a thirty -one (31) foot r e s i d e n t i a l street and a l l the other costs, the cost would be $191,777.84, divided by the front footage, 5,525.52 feet, and the assessment per front foot would be $34.71. Mayor Samuels inquired if there would have been less right -of -way required if a thirty -one (31) foot street had been constructed. Mr. Lynch stated they could have con- structed a thirty -one (31) foot street without the purchase of any right - of -way. r..- (Page Six., Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 1979) Mr. Lynch stated that the assessment cost to build a'thirty -one (31) foot residential street would be $29.37 and this is the enhanced value of the abutting property and this figure is higher by approximately $4.00 than the proposed assessment of $25.33. Mayor Samuels stated that the construction cost the Council has been looking at is $307,521.74 and the City is going to have to write a check for $327,521.74, which included approximately $20,000 for moving utilities. Mr. Copher inquired the amount of the last bond issue for North Main Street. Mayor Samuels stated that there was $300,000 in bonds sold in 1975 for the completion of North Main Street. In summation, Mr. Lynch stated that the estimated total cost of improvements is $307,521.74, with the maximum cost that may be recovered by assessment with 108% of the cost of curb, gutter and sidewalks plus 90% of the remaining cost is $279,935.99, which would equal $40.66 per front foot cost to be assessed. He further stated that a thirty -one (31) foot street, without the purchase of additional right -of -way would cost approximately $162,000, with the assessed cost to lhe property owner being $29.37, and the City is proposing an assessment on residential property at $25.33. He stated that in addition to the proposed assessment the Council needs to consider certain credits - one -third credit where property fronts on another street and North Main Street is a side yard, one -half credit where North Main Street fronts on a rear yard, and credit equal to the fu I I amount of the assessment where there is existing curbs, gutters and prior street irrprovements Mr. Copher inquired if everyone is getting assessed for the sidewalks. Mr. Lynch stated that the sidewalks are included in the total construction figure. Mr. Copher stated - he doesn't' €eel the property owners on the east side of North Main Street or south'of Ash Lane w i 11 benefit from the sidewalks. Mr. Lynch stated the assessed cost on a thirty -one (31) foot street would be $27.50 per front foot without sidewalks. Mr. Copher i n q u i r e d if Phase I I w i l l be completed when Phase II i s complete. Mayor Samuels stated the City did not have right -of -way when they advertised for bids for Phase I 1, but the C ty has advertised for bids for Phase III. 6. 7 (Page Seven, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 15 Mr. Lynch stated if the Council decides to elect the proposed assessment rate, $98,882.00 will be the total amount that will be recovered through assessments, and the remainder of the $307,521.74 will be the City's portion, with a breakdown of 67% for the City and 32% for the property owners. He stated in addition to the City's cost, the City will also have to pay for pavement markings,install traffic control devices, relocate traffic control signs, relocate street signs, and utility relocations. He stated that it is the staff's opinion, that the City could justify an assessment up to $29.37, based on the enhancement to the residential property, as well as the Planned Development that is being developed as residential property, and could justify up to $50.66 as an assessment for the commercial property. Mr. Ozebek inquired the City staff's final recommendation. Mr. Lynch stated all he has done is present what the staff feels is the enhancement to the property, which is $29.37, and $25.33 is the value the Council has indicated they would like to consider for assessment. Mr. Dale Turns, 1607 North Main Street, Flight Officer, stated that he is speaking for the property owners. He stated he has 208 front feet, at an assessed value of approximately $5,200.00, and he does not feel that the assessment will enhance his property that much; acces- sibility - he can get to his property from North Main Street as it is now; Quality - North Main Street does need to be improved, but if a thirty -one (31 foot street were installed it would be cheaper; safety - the street is not that safe now, and with a four (4) lane street it will be less safe, even with sidewalks. He stated the only possible desirable improvements would be drain- age and errosion correction, but it is not enhancing his property by $5,200.00. Mr. Turns inquired if Regional Properties, who is developing the homes and apartments, is going to pay 100% of the cost of a thirty -one (31) foot street. Mayor Samuels stated the developer of Regional Properties would only pay one -half of the street, even if the City were not going to improve North Main Street. Mr. Turns stated the point is does it increase the property or enhance the property by the assessed value. Mr. Peter Sowirka, 1800 Shadow Lane Sales Manager, stated his property backs up to North Main Street and they have a problem with drainage at this time, and if they raise the level of the road, the water will back up farther into his yard. He stated they can't put in a drive from North Main Street and the sidewalks won't do them any good. Mr. Turns stated that the maximum allowed by law of 8% on interest seems too high. 7 0 (Page Eight, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 1978) Mayor Samuels stated that the Council has not set an interest rate, that the City Attorney only gave the maximum that could be charged. Mr. Harold Copher, 1804 North Main Street, Flight Engineer, stated that he is representing C. F. Dearing, 1709 North Main Street, and has vested interest in other property fronting on North Main Street and he would l i k e to ask a r e a l t o r present i f North Main Street w i l l enhance his property $5,000 and his vested property in excess of $7,000 and Mr. Dearing's property in excess of $5,000 when the street is completed or would it decrease it. Mr. Troy Fuller, 1120 Hughes Road, Grapevine, Realtor, stated that anytime a street is improved it enhances the property. M r . B i l l Pasteur, 1900 Trailwood Drive, Real Estate Broker, stated that i f you have your property appraised, they would take into consideration i f there is curb, gutter, and sidewalks, and you could be penalized for not having them. Mr. Walter Elliott, 1004 West Euless Boulevard, Civil Engineer, stated that he was involved in the first Master Plan of Euless in 1960, and North Main Street was proposed for a one hudnred (100) foot right -of -way, but the City elected to trim it down to an eighty (80) foot right -of -way, but North Main Street has always been designated as a major thoroughfare since the first Master Plan was designed. Mr. Copher stated the property owners are all in agreement in paying their pro -rata share of a residential street, but the assessment of $25.33 is excessive and the owners feel $15.00 a front foot with 7% interest would be adequate, and they feel strong enough about it that if it is in excess of $15.00 a front foot they will probably have to go to litigation. Mr. Turns reviewed the assessment rate charged by the various cities surrounding Euless. Mayor Samuels inquired if these cities have the same type street construction that Euless is proposing. Mr. Turns stated they gave him the in- formation on the improvements that Euless is proposing. Mr. Ray Cronshey, 1804 Shadow Lane, Electrical Engineer, inquired if improving the drainage improves the property, would the opposite be true, would making the drainage worse decrease the property value. He stated they have a flooding problem there now, and he was wondering i f the street w i l l be raised or lowered, as the water goes over the present street when it rains. �/ (Page Nine, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10, 1978) Mr. Dickens stated the street will be raised approximately one and one -half (1) feet. Mr. Lynch stated there will be a five foot by ten foot (5' by 10') culvert installed which will have four (4) times the capacity that is there now. Mr. Cronshey stated that a portion of North Main Street that abuts an his property was improved when Little Bear Creek was improved and he was wondering if he will receive credit for this improvement. Mr. Lynch stated that there is forty (40) feet of curb and gutter on his property and he is only being assessed for one hundred (100) feet, that the total footage of his property is 140 feet. Mr. Hal Ferguson, 101 Walnut Way, Electronic Engineer, stated that some property owners do have a high assessment and he was wondering if the developers of the Planned Develop- ment would be paying the same assessment as the home owners. Mr. Lynch stated that in a residential development the City can only require the developer to install the street width that corresponds with that zoning. Mr. Ferguson stated that there are a lot of utility poles and he would like to see some of these poles consoli- dated so that it would look better. Mr. Bill Pasteur inquired if a public hearing will be required on Phase 111, Mr. McFarland replied affirmatively. Mr. Walker inquired the cost of Phase I, Mr. Sustaire stated $347,000, but was paid from a different bond sale. Mrs. Jo Svochak, 1603 North Main, stated that she lives on a corner lot and she will have improvements to two (2) streets, and if they have to pay a $5,000 assessment on North Main Street and another $5,000 or $10,000, would these improvements enhance their property that much. She further stated that they do not want a sidewalk in front of their house because it will distract from their house. Mr. Hunt stated that there is a factor that hasn't been covered and that is the inflation factor. He stated the project should have been finished when the City could have done the work (Page Ten, Regular Meeti;nq} Euless City Council, January 10, 1978) with the bond money received in 1975. He stated he has some figures that wouldn't be beneficial to any great amount of degree, but he would like to be able to settle any arguments with some other figure than the one that was included in the letter that was mailed out, and not see us wind up in litigation over the improvements to the street. He stated he arrived at this figure of $20.26 and 72% interest by taking one -fifth (1/5) of the costs. Mr. Hunt moved to close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance that would assess residential property at $20.26 per front foot with a percentage credit given as was proposed by Resolution No. 422 and non - residential assessed at $40.52, that the payment would be due as per the resolution on the first day of the month following the expiration of thirty (30) days from date of completion and acceptance of improvements, with a five (5) year payment plat at 71% interest and levy that assessment by lien and allow certificates of assessment, declare an emergency and adopt the ordinance on first and final reading. Mayor Samuels declared the motion died for lack of a second and continued with the public hearing. Mr. Cronshey inquired tha amount assessed against the abutting property owners to the north of him abutting Little Bear Creek. Mrs. McCormick stated that there was not any assessment. Mr. Hunt stated that was a bridge project and there was no assessment based on the cost of the bridge. Mr. Turns stated that the proposal of Mr. Hunt's, $20.26 per f r o n t f o o t , is s t i I I excessive, and a $15.00 assessment with 7% interest would be more in line with other communities. Mr. Copher stated he would agree to $17.50 a front foot and the interest rate be set at what the bonds were sold for. Mr. Sustaire stated the interest rate was set at 8 %on the improvements to Pipeline Road, and if the Council sets a lower rate f o r these improvements, the City w i l l have a problem. ORDINANCE NO. 537: FIRST AND FINAL READING CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING AND LEVYING ASSESSMENT Councilman Walkermoved the adoption of Ordinance No. 537 be place in proper form pursuant to the statutes of the State of Texas and the Charter and Ordinances of the City of Euless and to provide that the public hearing for assessment be closed and that an assess- (Page Eleven, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council. January 10, 1978) ment, with respect to same, be levied afixing a charge and lien against abutting property and its owners in the amount of eighteen dollars and sixty cents ($18.60) per front foot for property zoned "R -1" Residential and "PD" Planned Development with "R-1" usage and in the amount of thirty -seven dollars and twenty cents ($37.20) per front foot for a I I other property ( "C -2" Commercial) abutting such improvement, with credits and to become payable and in the form provided by Euless City Council Resolution No. 422, and further that such Ordinance have a severability clause and that an emergency be declared under Article 2, Section 11, of the Charter of the City of Euless so as to provide an immediate effect for such Ordinance from and after its date of enactment. Councilman Walker further proposed that a form of credit be included within such ordinance against such assessment with the respect to the property and owners thereof, on which there was not to be placed sidewalks. Mrs. McCormick seconded the motion. Mr. Lynch inquired if Mr. Walker was asking him to add an additional cost to the $18.60 to cover the sidewalks where they are installed. Mr. Walker stated the $18.60 covered the sidewalks in the original assessment. Mr. Lynch stated the $18.60 did not include any sidewalks. Mr. Sustaire stated the City has X dollars in the city street fund that will go so far, and we want a street on North Main Street, that is evident by the bond sales and the time spent so far. He further stated that in order to complete the street improve- ments, the minimum dollar that can be .assessed would be $18.60 and this will deplete the street fund. He stated there will be no money available for any emergencies. Mrs. McCormick withdrew her second if sidewalks are not included in the motion because the City requires side- walks in new developments and the City has had numerous complaints about sidewalks and have had to install sidewalks on an emergency basis. A discussion followed in which it was explained that $18.60 was the minimum figure that the street could be constructed for in accordance with the plans, including sidewalks. Mr. Walker moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 537 in identical form with his prior motion with deletion of the provision for credit to property and the owners thereof whereon sidewalks were not to be placed. (Page Twelve, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council, January 10. 1978) Mr. Hunt seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Walker, Hunt, Ozebek, Pippin, and Mrs. McCormick Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. VII. AWARD CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO NORTH MAIN STREET Mrs. McCormick moved to award the contract for the improvements to North Main Street, Phase 1 1 , to Texas B i t h u l i t i c Company in the amount of $229,842.62. Mr. Pippin seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Mrs. McCormick, Messrs. Pippin, Walker, Ozebek, and Hunt Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. VI11. CONSIDER CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FCR A RATE INCREASE AS REQUESTED BY TEXAS POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Mr. Ozebek moved to set the public hearing for a rate increase as requested by Texas Power and Light Company on January 24, 1978. Mr. Walker seconded the motion and the vote is as follows: Ayes: Messrs. Ozebek, Walker, Pippin, Hunt and Mrs. McCormick Nays: None Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. IX. APPOINTMENT TO PARK AND RECREATION BOARD Mr. Walker moved to appoint Charles Wal ler to the Park and Recreation Board to fi I I the unexpired term of Rev. Traster, who moved from the City. (Page Thirteen, Regular Meeting, Euless City Council., January 10, 1978) Mrs. McCormick seconded the motion. Mr. Hunt stated the Council received three (3) applications for appointment to the Park Board and he thinks Mr. Waller is an excellent citizen and would serve very well on the Park Board, but he feels there is a man that is more knowledgeable about the Pakr Board functions and the way the Park and Recreation Department works and has indicated he is interested in serving on the Board, and he is Matt Cushing, so when he abstains it is because he thinks we have someone who is better qualified and not because he doesn't like Mr. Waller. The vote on Mr. Walker's motion i s as fo I lows: Ayes: Mr. Walker, Mrs. McCormick, Messrs. Pippin, and Ozebek Nays: None Abstain: Mr. Hunt Mayor Samuels declared the motion carried. X. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mr. McFarland stated that he reported a I I items that needed legal attention at the pre - council meeting. ADJOURNMENT meeting adjourned at 11 :10 p.m. ATTEST: /s/ Della Houy City Secretary XI. There being nor further business, the APP ROVED /s/ Harold D. Samuels Mayor 7s 7‘